content
stringlengths 1
15.9M
|
|---|
\section*{Introduction}
Nowadays, the theory of differential equations with fractional-order derivatives (see, e.g., \cite{Miller_Ross_1993,Samko_Kilbas_Marichev_1993,Podlubny_1999,Kilbas_Srivastava_Trujillo_2006,Diethelm_2010}) is an actively developing branch of mathematics, which attracts the interest of many researchers.
In particular, attention is paid to optimal control problems for dynamical systems which evolution is described by ordinary differential equations with the Caputo fractional derivatives.
Such problems appear in various fields of knowledge including, e.g., chemistry \cite{Flores-Tlacuahuac_Biegler_2014}, biology \cite{Toledo-Hernandez_et_all_2014}, electrical engineering \cite{Kaczorek_2016}, and medicine \cite{Kheiri_Jafari_2018}.
Main directions of research here are related to necessary optimality conditions (see, e.g., \cite{Bergounioux_Bourdin_2020,Lin_Yong_2020} and the references therein) and numerical methods for constructing optimal controls (see, e.g., \cite{Zeid_Effati_Kamyad_2018,Li_Wang_Rehbock_2019,Salati_Shamsi_Torres_2019} and the references therein).
In addition, note that several problems for linear systems are considered and studied in detail in, e.g., \cite{Kamocki_Majewski_2014,Kubyshkin_Postnov_2014_Eng,Idczak_Walczak_2016,Matychyn_Onyshchenko_2018,Bandaliyev_et_all_2020}.
The reader is also referred to \cite{Butkovskii_Postnov_Postnova_2013_Eng} for an overview of works on various control problems for fractional-order systems.
In \cite{Gomoyunov_2020_SIAM}, the dynamic programming principle was extended to a Bolza-type optimal control problem for a dynamical system described by a fractional differential equation with the Caputo derivative of an order $\alpha \in (0, 1)$.
In particular, it was shown that the value of this problem should be introduced as a functional in a suitable space of paths.
Further, the problem was associated with a Hamilton--Jacobi equation with coinvariant ($ci$-) derivatives of the order $\alpha$.
Note that these derivatives can be considered as a suitable extension of the notion of $ci$-derivatives (of the first order) proposed and developed in, e.g., \cite{Kim_1999,Lukoyanov_2011_Eng}.
It was proved that if the value functional is smooth enough (namely, if it is $ci$-smooth of the order $\alpha$), then it satisfies the Hamilton--Jacobi equation and the natural boundary condition, and, therefore, the value functional can be treated as a solution of this Cauchy problem in the classical sense.
However, as a rule, the value functional does not possess the required smoothness properties, which leads to the need to introduce and study generalized solutions of the obtained Cauchy problem.
In the paper, we consider a Cauchy problem for a Hamilton--Jacobi equation with $ci$-derivatives of an order $\alpha \in (0, 1)$ and propose a notion of a minimax solution of this problem.
The technique of minimax solutions originates in the positional differential games theory (see, e.g., \cite{Krasovskii_Subbotin_1988,Krasovskii_Krasovskii_1995}) and can be seen as the development of the unification constructions of differential games \cite{Krasovskii_1976}.
Minimax solutions of Hamilton--Jacobi equations with first-order partial derivatives were proposed and comprehensively studied in \cite{Subbotin_1995} (see also \cite{Subbotin_1996}).
Further, this technique was extended to Hamilton--Jacobi equations with first-order $ci$-derivatives, which arise in optimization problems for dynamical systems described by functional differential equations of a retarded type \cite{Lukoyanov_2011_Eng} (see also \cite{Lukoyanov_2003_1,Lukoyanov_2003_2,Lukoyanov_2004_PMM_Eng,Lukoyanov_2006_IMM_Eng}, and \cite{Bayraktar_Keller_2018} for an infinite dimensional case) and of a neutral type \cite{Lukoyanov_Gomoyunov_Plaksin_2017_Doklady,Lukoyanov_Plaksin_2019_MIAN_Eng,Plaksin_2019_DE_Eng}.
Note that the minimax approach was also applied to investigate generalized solutions of systems of equations arising in mean field games \cite{Averboukh_2015}.
Following the general methodology, we define a minimax solution of the considered Cauchy problem in terms of a pair of non-local stability properties of this solution with respect to so-called characteristic differential inclusions, which in this case become fractional differential inclusions with the Caputo derivatives of the order $\alpha$.
We prove that a minimax solution exists, is unique, and is consistent with a classical solution of the problem.
In particular, we establish a comparison principle.
In general, the proofs of these results are carried out by the schemes of the proofs of the corresponding statements for Hamilton--Jacobi equations with partial derivatives \cite{Subbotin_1995} and with first-order $ci$-derivatives \cite{Lukoyanov_2011_Eng} (see also \cite{Lukoyanov_2003_1} and \cite{Bayraktar_Keller_2018}).
They are based on properties \cite{Gomoyunov_2020_DE} of the sets of solutions of the characteristic differential inclusions.
However, in order to prove the comparison principle, it is required to construct a suitable Lyapunov--Krasovskii functional with a number of prescribed properties (in this connection, see, e.g., \cite[Sect.~15]{Lukoyanov_2011_Eng} and also \cite[Sect.~5]{Lukoyanov_2004_PMM_Eng}).
Due to features of fractional-order integrals and derivatives, this construction substantially differs from the previous studies and can be considered as the main contribution of the paper.
The paper is organized as follows.
In Sect.~\ref{section_Preliminaries}, we recall definitions of Riemann--Liouville integrals and Caputo derivatives of a fractional order, describe some of their properties, and introduce special functional spaces.
Auxiliary facts from the theory of differential inclusions with the Caputo fractional derivatives are presented in Sect.~\ref{section_Differential_Inclusions}.
In Sect.~\ref{section_HJ}, a Cauchy problem for a Hamilton--Jacobi equation with $ci$-derivatives of a fractional order is considered, and a definition of a minimax solution of this problem is given.
Consistency of minimax and classical solutions of the problem is discussed in Sect.~\ref{section_Consistency}.
A comparison principle is established in Sect.~\ref{section_Comparison}.
Existence and uniqueness of a minimax solution are proved in Sect.~\ref{section_Existence_Uniqueness}.
Concluding remarks are given in Sect.~\ref{section_Conclusion}.
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{section_Preliminaries}
Fix $n \in \xN$ and $T > 0$.
By $\|\cdot\|$ and $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$, we denote the Euclidian norm and the inner product in $\xR^n$.
For a given $t \in [0, T]$, let $\xLinfty([0, t], \xR^n)$ be the set of (Lebesgue) measurable and essentially bounded functions from $[0, t]$ to $\xR^n$.
For a function $\psi(\cdot) \in \xLinfty([0, t], \xR^n)$, the (left-sided) Riemann--Liouville fractional integral of an order $\alpha > 0$ is defined by
\begin{equation} \label{I}
(I^\alpha \psi)(\tau)
= \frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha)} \int_{0}^{\tau} \frac{\psi(\xi)}{(\tau - \xi)^{1 - \alpha}} \xdif \xi,
\quad \tau \in [0, t],
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma$ is the gamma function.
In the case $\alpha = 0$, we formally define $(I^0 \psi)(\tau) = \psi(\tau)$, $\tau \in [0, t]$.
Note that, for every $\alpha \geq 0$, $\beta \geq 0$, and $\psi(\cdot) \in \xLinfty([0, t], \xR^n)$, the following semigroup property holds (see, e.g., \cite[(2.21)]{Samko_Kilbas_Marichev_1993} and also \cite[Theorem~2.2]{Diethelm_2010}):
\begin{equation} \label{I_semigroup_property}
\big(I^\alpha (I^\beta \psi) \big)(\tau)
= (I^{\alpha + \beta} \psi)(\tau),
\quad \tau \in [0, t].
\end{equation}
Further, according to, e.g., \cite[Theorem~3.6 and Remark~3.3]{Samko_Kilbas_Marichev_1993} (see also \cite[Theorem~2.6]{Diethelm_2010}), for any $\alpha \in (0, 1]$ and $\psi(\cdot) \in \xLinfty([0, t], \xR^n)$, the inequalities below are valid:
\begin{equation} \label{I_properties}
\|(I^\alpha \psi)(\tau)\|
\leq \frac{\tau^\alpha}{\Gamma(\alpha + 1)} \ess \sup_{\xi \in [0, \tau]} \|\psi(\xi)\|,
\quad \|(I^\alpha \psi)(\tau) - (I^\alpha \psi)(\tau^\prime)\|
\leq \frac{2 |\tau - \tau^\prime|^\alpha}{\Gamma(\alpha + 1)} \ess \sup_{\xi \in [0, t]} \|\psi(\xi)\|,
\end{equation}
where $\tau$, $\tau^\prime \in [0, t]$.
In particular, we have the inclusion $(I^\alpha \psi)(\cdot) \in \C([0, t], \xR^n)$.
Here and below, by $\C([0, t], \xR^n)$, we denote the space of continuous functions from $[0, t]$ to $\xR^n$ endowed with the norm
\begin{equation*}
\|x(\cdot)\|_{[0, t]}
= \max_{\tau \in [0, t]} \|x(\tau)\|,
\quad x(\cdot) \in \C([0, t], \xR^n).
\end{equation*}
For $\alpha \in (0, 1]$, let $\AC^\alpha([0, t], \xR^n)$ be the set of functions $x: [0, t] \to \xR^n$ that can be represented in the form
\begin{equation} \label{AC^alpha}
x(\tau)
= x(0) + (I^\alpha \psi)(\tau),
\quad \tau \in [0, t],
\end{equation}
for some function $\psi(\cdot) \in \xLinfty([0, t], \xR^n)$.
The set $\AC^\alpha([0, t], \xR^n)$ is considered as a subset of $\C([0, t], \xR^n)$.
Note that, in the case $\alpha = 1$, the set $\AC^1([0, t], \xR^n)$ coincides with the set $\Lip([0, t], \xR^n)$ of Lipschitz continuous functions from $[0, t]$ to $\xR^n$.
Let $\alpha \in (0, 1]$ and $x(\cdot) \in \AC^\alpha([0, t], \xR^n)$.
It follows from \eqref{I_semigroup_property} that, for every $\beta \in [0, 1 - \alpha]$, the inclusion $(I^\beta (x(\cdot) - x(0)))(\cdot) \in \AC^{\alpha + \beta}([0, t], \xR^n)$ holds.
In particular, we obtain $(I^{1 - \alpha} (x(\cdot) - x(0)))(\cdot) \in \Lip([0, t], \xR^n)$.
Hence, the (left-sided) Caputo fractional derivative of $x(\cdot)$ of the order $\alpha$, which is defined by
\begin{equation} \label{Caputo}
(^C D^\alpha x) (\tau)
= \xDrv{\big(I^{1 - \alpha} (x(\cdot) - x(0))\big)(\tau)}{\tau},
\end{equation}
exists for almost every (a.e.) $\tau \in [0, t]$, and, moreover, the equality $(^C D^\alpha x)(\tau) = \psi(\tau)$ is valid for a.e. $\tau \in [0, t]$, where $\psi(\cdot) \in \xLinfty([0, t], \xR^n)$ is the function from \eqref{AC^alpha}.
If $\alpha = 1$, then the Caputo derivative $(^C D^1 x)(\tau)$ is the usual first-order derivative $\dot{x}(\tau) = \xDrv{x(\tau)}{\tau}$.
Now, consider the set $G_n$ of pairs $(t, w(\cdot))$ such that $t \in [0, T]$ and $w(\cdot) \in \C([0, t], \xR^n)$.
For $x(\cdot) \in \C([0, T], \xR^n)$ and $t \in [0, T]$, let $x_t(\cdot) \in \C([0, t], \xR^n)$ denote the restriction of the function $x(\cdot)$ to the interval $[0, t]$:
\begin{equation} \label{x_t}
x_t(\tau)
= x(\tau),
\quad \tau \in [0, t].
\end{equation}
Then, we have $(t, x_t(\cdot)) \in G_n$.
In accordance with \cite[\S~1]{Lukoyanov_2011_Eng} (see also, e.g., \cite{Lukoyanov_2003_1}), the set $G_n$ is endowed with the metric
\begin{equation} \label{dist}
\dist \big((t, w(\cdot)), (t^\prime, w^\prime(\cdot))\big)
= \max \big\{ \dist^\ast\big((t, w(\cdot)), (t^\prime, w^\prime(\cdot))\big),
\dist^\ast\big((t^\prime, w^\prime(\cdot)), (t, w(\cdot))\big) \big\},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation*}
\dist^\ast\big((t, w(\cdot)), (t^\prime, w^\prime(\cdot))\big)
= \max_{\tau \in [0, t]} \min_{\tau^\prime \in [0, t^\prime]}
\sqrt{|\tau - \tau^\prime|^2 + \|w(\tau) - w^\prime(\tau^\prime)\|^2},
\quad (t, w(\cdot)), (t^\prime, w^\prime(\cdot)) \in G_n.
\end{equation*}
Let us describe some properties of this metric.
By \cite[Proposition~8.2]{Gomoyunov_2020_SIAM}, for any $(t, w(\cdot))$, $(t^\prime, w^\prime(\cdot)) \in G_n$, $t^\prime \leq t$, the inequalities
\begin{equation} \label{dist_properties}
\dist
\leq t - t^\prime + \varkappa(t - t^\prime) + \max_{\tau \in [0, t^\prime]} \|w(\tau) - w^\prime(\tau)\|,
\quad t - t^\prime
\leq \dist,
\quad \max_{\tau \in [0, t^\prime]} \|w(\tau) - w^\prime(\tau)\|
\leq \dist + \varkappa(\dist)
\end{equation}
are valid, where $\dist = \dist((t, w(\cdot)), (t^\prime, w^\prime(\cdot)))$ and $\varkappa$ is the modulus of continuity of $w(\cdot)$ on $[0, t]$ given by
\begin{equation*}
\varkappa(\delta)
= \max \big\{ \|w(\tau) - w(\tau^\prime)\|:
\, \tau, \tau^\prime \in [0, t], \, |\tau - \tau^\prime| \leq \delta \big\},
\quad \delta
\geq 0.
\end{equation*}
In particular, if sequences $\{x^{(k)}(\cdot)\}_{k \in \xN} \subset \C([0, T], \xR^n)$ and $\{t_k\}_{k \in \xN} \subset [0, T]$ converge to $x^{(0)}(\cdot) \in \C([0, T], \xR^n)$ and $t_0 \in [0, T]$, respectively, then $(t_k, x^{(k)}_{t_k}(\cdot)) \to (t_0, x^{(0)}_{t_0}(\cdot))$ as $k \to \infty$ with respect to the metric $\dist$.
Moreover, note also that if a sequence $\{(t_k, w_k(\cdot))\}_{k \in \xN} \subset G_n$ is convergent, then the functions $w_k(\cdot)$, $k \in \xN$, are uniformly bounded and equicontinuous (see, e.g., \cite[Assertion~6]{Gomoyunov_2020_DE}).
Namely, there exists $R > 0$ such that $\|w_k(\cdot)\|_{[0, t_k]} \leq R$, $k \in \xN$, and the function $\varkappa_\ast(\delta) = \sup\{ \varkappa_k(\delta): \, k \in \xN\}$, $\delta \geq 0$, satisfies the relation $\varkappa_\ast(\delta) \to 0$ as $\delta \to + 0$, where $\varkappa_k$ is the modulus of continuity of $w_k(\cdot)$ on $[0, t_k]$.
Finally, for every $\alpha \in (0, 1]$, we introduce the following two subsets of $G_n$:
\begin{equation} \label{G^alpha_n}
G^\alpha_n
= \big\{ (t, w(\cdot)) \in G_n:
\, w(\cdot) \in \AC^\alpha([0, t], \xR^n) \big\},
\quad G_n^{\alpha \circ}
= \big\{ (t, w(\cdot)) \in G_n^\alpha:
\, t < T\big\}.
\end{equation}
\section{Differential Inclusions with Fractional Derivatives}
\label{section_Differential_Inclusions}
This section provides auxiliary statements concerning properties of the sets of solutions of differential inclusions with the Caputo fractional derivatives of an order $\alpha \in (0, 1)$, which constitute a basis for the proofs of the main results of the paper.
\subsection{Ordinary Differential Inclusions}
\label{subsection_ODI}
Suppose that a set-valued function $[0, T] \times \xR^n \ni (t, x) \mapsto F(t, x) \subset \xR^n \times \xR$ satisfies the following conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(F.1)$]
For every $t \in [0, T]$ and $x \in \xR^n$, the set $F(t, x)$ is nonempty, convex, and compact in $\xR^n \times \xR$.
\item[$(F.2)$]
The set-valued function $F$ is upper semicontinuous (in the Hausdorff sense).
It means that, for every $(t, x) \in [0, T] \times \xR^n$ and $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists $\delta > 0$ such that, for any $(t^\prime, x^\prime) \in [0, T] \times \xR^n$, the inequality $|t - t^\prime|^2 + \|x - x^\prime\|^2 \leq \delta^2$ implies the inclusion $F(t^\prime, x^\prime) \subset [F(t, x)]^\varepsilon$.
Here and below, for $\varepsilon > 0$ and $F \subset \xR^n \times \xR$, the symbol $[F]^\varepsilon$ stands for the $\varepsilon$-neighbourhood of $F$, given by
\begin{equation*}
[F]^\varepsilon
= \Big\{(f, h) \in \xR^n \times \xR:
\, \inf_{(f^\prime, h^\prime) \in F} \big(\|f - f^\prime\|^2 + |h - h^\prime|^2 \big)^{1 / 2}
\leq \varepsilon \Big\}.
\end{equation*}
\item[$(F.3)$]
There exists $c_F > 0$ such that, for any $(t, x) \in [0, T] \times \xR^n$,
\begin{equation*}
\sup \big\{\|f\|:
\, (f, h) \in F(t, x)\big\}
\leq c_F (1 + \|x\|).
\end{equation*}
\end{itemize}
Given $(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) \in G_n^\alpha$ and $z_0 \in \xR$, consider the Cauchy problem for the differential inclusion
\begin{equation} \label{Differential_Inclusion}
\big( (^C D^\alpha x)(t), \dot{z}(t) \big)
\in F(t, x(t)),
\quad (x(t), z(t)) \in \xR^n \times \xR, \quad t \in [t_0, T],
\end{equation}
and the initial condition
\begin{equation} \label{Differential_Inclusion_Initial_Condition}
x(t)
= w_0(t),
\quad
z(t)
= z_0,
\quad t \in [0, t_0].
\end{equation}
Let $XZ^\alpha(t_0, w_0(\cdot), z_0)$ be the set of pairs of functions $(x(\cdot), z(\cdot)) \in \AC^\alpha([0, T], \xR^n) \times \Lip([0, T], \xR)$ satisfying \eqref{Differential_Inclusion_Initial_Condition}.
Note that it is convenient to identify any such pair $(x(\cdot), z(\cdot))$ with the corresponding function from $[0, T]$ to $\xR^n \times \xR$.
In this sense, taking into account that $\AC^\alpha([0, T], \xR^n) \subset \C([0, T], \xR^n)$ and $\Lip([0, T], \xR) \subset \C([0, T], \xR)$, the set $XZ^\alpha(t_0, w_0(\cdot), z_0)$ can be considered as a subset of $\C([0, T], \xR^n \times \xR)$.
By a solution of problem \eqref{Differential_Inclusion}, \eqref{Differential_Inclusion_Initial_Condition}, we mean a pair of functions $(x(\cdot), z(\cdot)) \in XZ^\alpha(t_0, w_0(\cdot), z_0)$ such that differential inclusion \eqref{Differential_Inclusion} is fulfilled for a.e. $t \in [t_0, T]$.
Let $XZ^\alpha_0(t_0, w_0(\cdot), z_0)$ denote the set of such solutions.
\begin{prpstn} \label{proposition_DI_1}
For any $(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) \in G_n^\alpha$ and $z_0 \in \xR$, the set $XZ^\alpha_0(t_0, w_0(\cdot), z_0)$ is nonempty and compact in $\C([0, T], \xR^n \times \xR)$.
\end{prpstn}
\begin{prpstn} \label{proposition_DI_2}
Let $(t_k, w_k(\cdot)) \in G_n^\alpha$, $z_k \in \xR$, and $(x^{(k)}(\cdot), z^{(k)}(\cdot)) \in XZ^\alpha_0(t_k, w_k(\cdot), z_k)$ for every $k \in \xN$, and let $(t_k, w_k(\cdot)) \to (t_0, w_0(\cdot)) \in G_n^\alpha$ and $z_k \to z_0 \in \xR$ as $k \to \infty$.
Then, the sequence $\{(x^{(k)}(\cdot), z^{(k)}(\cdot))\}_{k \in \xN}$ contains a subsequence that converges to a solution $(x^{(0)}(\cdot), z^{(0)}(\cdot)) \in XZ^\alpha_0(t_0, w_0(\cdot), z_0)$.
\end{prpstn}
\begin{prpstn} \label{proposition_semigroup_property}
Let $(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) \in G_n^\alpha$, $z_0 \in \xR$, and $(x(\cdot), z(\cdot)) \in XZ^\alpha_0(t_0, w_0(\cdot), z_0)$.
Then, for every $t^\prime \in [t_0, T]$ and $(x^\prime(\cdot), z^\prime(\cdot)) \in XZ^\alpha_0(t^\prime, x_{t^\prime}(\cdot), z(t^\prime))$, the inclusion $(x^\prime(\cdot), z^{\prime \prime}(\cdot)) \in XZ^\alpha_0(t_0, w_0(\cdot), z_0)$ holds, where the function $z^{\prime \prime}(\cdot)$ is defined by $z^{\prime \prime}(t) = z(t)$ for $t \in [0, t^\prime]$ and $z^{\prime \prime}(t) = z^\prime(t)$ for $t \in (t^\prime, T]$.
\end{prpstn}
In the case when there is no additional variable $z(t)$, similar statements are proved in \cite{Gomoyunov_2020_DE} by suitably adapting the proofs of the corresponding results for ordinary and functional differential inclusions with first-order derivatives (see, e.g., \cite{Filippov_1988} and also \cite{Kurzhanskii_1970_Eng,Lukoyanov_2011_Eng}).
The proofs of Propositions~\ref{proposition_DI_1},~\ref{proposition_DI_2}, and~\ref{proposition_semigroup_property} can be carried out by the same scheme with only minor technical changes, and, therefore, they are omitted.
Finally, note that, since the right-hand side of differential inclusion \eqref{Differential_Inclusion} does not depend on $z(t)$, then, for any $(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) \in G_n^\alpha$, $z_0 \in \xR$, $(x(\cdot), z(\cdot)) \in XZ^\alpha_0(t_0, w_0(\cdot), z_0)$, and $z^\prime_0 \in \xR$, we have $(x(\cdot), z^\prime(\cdot)) \in XZ^\alpha_0(t_0, w_0(\cdot), z_0^\prime)$ for the function $z^\prime(t) = z^\prime_0 + z(t) - z_0$, $t \in [0, T]$.
\subsection{Functional Differential Inclusions}
Let us also give an analogue of Proposition~\ref{proposition_DI_1} for the case when the right-hand side of differential inclusion \eqref{Differential_Inclusion} depends not only on a single value $x(t)$ of an unknown solution, but also on all values $x(\tau)$, $\tau \in [0, t]$, or, in other words, on the function $x_t(\cdot)$ given by \eqref{x_t}.
Let a set-valued functional $G_n^\alpha \ni (t, w(\cdot)) \mapsto \mathcal{F}(t, w(\cdot)) \subset \xR^n \times \xR$ be such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(\mathcal{F}.1)$]
For every $(t, w(\cdot)) \in G_n^\alpha$, the set $\mathcal{F}(t, w(\cdot))$ is nonempty, convex, and compact in $\xR^n \times \xR$.
\item[$(\mathcal{F}.2)$]
The set-valued functional $\mathcal{F}$ is upper semicontinuous.
Namely, for every $(t, w(\cdot)) \in G_n^\alpha$ and $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists $\delta > 0$ such that, for any $(t^\prime, w^\prime(\cdot)) \in G_n^\alpha$, the inequality $\dist((t, w(\cdot)), (t^\prime, w^\prime(\cdot))) \leq \delta$ implies the inclusion $\mathcal{F}(t^\prime, w^\prime(\cdot)) \subset [\mathcal{F}(t, w(\cdot))]^\varepsilon$.
\item[$(\mathcal{F}.3)$]
There exists $c_{\mathcal{F}} > 0$ such that, for any $(t, w(\cdot)) \in G_n^\alpha$,
\begin{equation*}
\sup \big\{\|f\|:
\, (f, h) \in \mathcal{F}(t, w(\cdot))\big\}
\leq c_F (1 + \|w(\cdot)\|_{[0, t]}).
\end{equation*}
\end{itemize}
Given $(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) \in G_n^\alpha$ and $z_0 \in \xR$, consider a Cauchy problem for the functional differential inclusion
\begin{equation} \label{Functional_Differential_Inclusion}
\big( (^C D^\alpha x)(t), \dot{z}(t) \big)
\in \mathcal{F}(t, x_t(\cdot)),
\quad (x(t), z(t)) \in \xR^n \times \xR, \quad t \in [t_0, T],
\end{equation}
and initial condition \eqref{Differential_Inclusion_Initial_Condition}.
A pair of functions $(x(\cdot), z(\cdot)) \in XZ^\alpha(t_0, w_0(\cdot), z_0)$ is a solution of this problem if functional differential inclusion \eqref{Functional_Differential_Inclusion} holds for a.e. $t \in [t_0, T]$.
Let $\mathcal{XZ}^\alpha_0(t_0, w_0(\cdot), z_0)$ be the set of such solutions.
\begin{prpstn} \label{proposition_FDI}
For any $(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) \in G_n^\alpha$ and $z_0 \in \xR$, the set $\mathcal{XZ}^\alpha_0(t_0, w_0(\cdot), z_0)$ is nonempty and compact in $\C([0, T], \xR^n \times \xR)$.
\end{prpstn}
This proposition can be proved by the scheme from \cite[Theorem~1]{Gomoyunov_2020_DE}.
\section{Hamilton--Jacobi Equation with Fractional Coinvariant Derivatives}
\label{section_HJ}
In this section, we consider a Cauchy problem for a Hamilton--Jacobi equation with fractional coinvariant ($ci$-) derivatives of an order $\alpha \in (0, 1)$ and propose a definition of a minimax solution of this problem.
\subsection{Fractional Coinvariant Derivatives}
\label{subsection_ci-derivatives}
Let us recall the notion of $ci$-differentiability of the order $\alpha$ of a functional $\varphi: G^\alpha_n \to \xR$, which was introduced in \cite{Gomoyunov_2020_SIAM} as a suitable extension of the notion of $ci$-differentiability (of the first order) developed in, e.g., \cite{Kim_1999,Lukoyanov_2011_Eng}.
For a given $(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) \in G_n^{\alpha \circ}$, consider the set of admissible extensions $x(\cdot)$ of $w_0(\cdot)$ defined as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{X^alpha}
X^\alpha(t_0, w_0(\cdot))
= \big\{ x(\cdot) \in \AC^\alpha([0, T], \xR^n):
\, x(t) = w_0(t), \, t \in [0, t_0] \big\}.
\end{equation}
The functional $\varphi$ is called $ci$-differentiable of the order $\alpha$ at $(t_0, w_0(\cdot))$ if there exist $\partial_t^\alpha \varphi(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) \in \xR$ and $\nabla^\alpha \varphi(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) \in \xR^n$ such that, for every extension $x(\cdot) \in X^\alpha(t_0, w_0(\cdot))$, the relation
\begin{equation} \label{ci_differentiability}
\varphi(t, x_t(\cdot)) - \varphi(t_0, w_0(\cdot))
= \partial_t^\alpha \varphi(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) (t - t_0)
+ \int_{t_0}^{t} \langle \nabla^\alpha \varphi(t_0, w_0(\cdot)), (^C D^\alpha x)(\tau) \rangle \xdif \tau
+ o(t - t_0)
\end{equation}
holds for any $t \in (t_0, T)$.
Here, $x_t(\cdot)$ is determined by $x(\cdot)$ and $t$ according to \eqref{x_t}, the function $o$ may depend on $t$ and $x(\cdot)$, and $o(\delta) / \delta \to 0$ as $\delta \to + 0$.
In this case, the quantities $\partial_t^\alpha \varphi(t_0, w_0(\cdot))$ and $\nabla^\alpha \varphi(t_0, w_0(\cdot))$ are called the $ci$-derivatives of the order $\alpha$ of $\varphi$ at $(t_0, w_0(\cdot))$.
The functional $\varphi$ is said to be $ci$-smooth of the order $\alpha$ if it is continuous, $ci$-differentiable of the order $\alpha$ at every $(t, w(\cdot)) \in G_n^{\alpha \circ}$, and the functionals $\partial_t^\alpha \varphi: G_n^{\alpha \circ} \to \xR$ and $\nabla^\alpha \varphi: G_n^{\alpha \circ} \to \xR^n$ are continuous.
Recall that the set $G_n^{\alpha \circ} \subset G_n$ is endowed with the metric $\dist$ from \eqref{dist}.
\subsection{Hamilton--Jacobi Equation}
\label{subsection_HJE}
Consider the Cauchy problem for the Hamilton--Jacobi equation with $ci$-derivatives of the order $\alpha$
\begin{equation} \label{HJ}
\partial^\alpha_t \varphi(t, w(\cdot))
+ H\big( t, w(t), \nabla^\alpha \varphi(t, w(\cdot)) \big)
= 0,
\quad (t, w(\cdot)) \in G_n^{\alpha \circ},
\end{equation}
and the boundary condition
\begin{equation}\label{HJ_boundary_condition}
\varphi(T, w(\cdot))
= \sigma(w(\cdot)),
\quad w(\cdot) \in \AC^\alpha([0, T], \xR^n).
\end{equation}
In this problem, $\varphi: G_n^\alpha \to \xR$ is an unknown functional, and the given mappings $H: [0, T] \times \xR^n \times \xR^n \to \xR$ and $\sigma: \AC^\alpha([0, T], \xR^n) \to \xR$ are assumed to satisfy the following conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(H.1)$]
The function $H$ is continuous.
\item[$(H.2)$]
There exists $c_H > 0$ such that, for any $t \in [0, T]$ and $x$, $s$, $s^\prime \in \xR^n$,
\begin{equation*}
|H(t, x, s) - H(t, x, s^\prime)|
\leq c_H (1 + \|x\|) \|s - s^\prime\|.
\end{equation*}
\item[$(H.3)$]
For every $R \geq 0$, there exists $\lambda_H > 0$ such that, for any $t \in [0, T]$ and $x$, $x^\prime$, $s \in \xR^n$, if $\|x\| \leq R$ and $\|x^\prime\| \leq R$, then
\begin{equation*}
|H(t, x, s) - H(t, x^\prime, s)|
\leq \lambda_H (1 + \|s\|) \|x - x^\prime\|.
\end{equation*}
\item[$(\sigma)$]
The functional $\sigma$ is continuous.
\end{itemize}
Cauchy problem \eqref{HJ}, \eqref{HJ_boundary_condition} arises \cite{Gomoyunov_2020_SIAM} when studying infinitesimal properties of the value functional in Bolza-type optimal control problems for dynamical systems described by fractional differential equations with the Caputo derivatives of the order $\alpha$.
In this connection, assumptions $(H.1)$--$(H.3)$ and $(\sigma)$ seem quite natural since they are fulfilled in a sufficiently wide range of such problems.
If the value functional is $ci$-smooth of the order $\alpha$, then, according to \cite[Theorem~10.1]{Gomoyunov_2020_SIAM}, it satisfies Hamilton--Jacobi equation \eqref{HJ} and boundary condition \eqref{HJ_boundary_condition}, and, therefore, it can be considered as a solution of problem \eqref{HJ}, \eqref{HJ_boundary_condition} in the classical sense.
In particular, this allows us to efficiently construct optimal control strategies \cite[Corollary~11.4]{Gomoyunov_2020_SIAM}.
However, the value functional usually does not possess such smoothness properties, which leads to the need to introduce and study generalized solutions of problem \eqref{HJ}, \eqref{HJ_boundary_condition}.
Below, we give a definition of a minimax solution of problem \eqref{HJ}, \eqref{HJ_boundary_condition}, which is a suitable modification of the corresponding definitions is the case of Hamilton--Jacobi equations with partial derivatives (see, e.g., \cite[Sect.~6.2]{Subbotin_1995}) and with first-order $ci$-derivatives (see, e.g., \cite[Sect.~6]{Lukoyanov_2011_Eng}, \cite{Lukoyanov_2003_1}, and also \cite{Bayraktar_Keller_2018}).
We prove that the minimax solution exists, is unique, and is consistent with a classical solution of problem \eqref{HJ}, \eqref{HJ_boundary_condition}.
In particular, we establish a comparison principle.
\subsection{Minimax Solution}
\label{subsection_minimax_solution}
Consider the set-valued function $[0, T] \times \xR^n \times \xR^n \ni (t, x, s) \mapsto E(t, x, s) \subset \xR^n \times \xR$, where
\begin{equation} \label{E}
E(t, x, s)
= \big\{ (f, h) \in \xR^n \times \xR:
\, \|f\| \leq c_H(1 + \|x\|),
\, h = \langle s, f \rangle - H(t, x, s) \big\},
\quad t \in [0, T], \quad x, s \in \xR^n.
\end{equation}
Note that (see, e.g., \cite[Sect.~6.2]{Subbotin_1995}) the set $E(t, x, s)$ is nonempty, convex, and compact in $\xR^n \times \xR$ for every $t \in [0, T]$ and $x$, $s \in \xR^n$, the set-valued function $E$ is continuous (in the Hausdorff sense) due to assumption $(H.1)$, and the inequality below holds:
\begin{equation*}
\sup \big\{\|f\|:
\, (f, h) \in E(t, x, s)\big\}
\leq c_H (1 + \|x\|),
\quad t \in [0, T], \quad x, s \in \xR^n.
\end{equation*}
In addition, it follows from $(H.2)$ that $E(t, x, s) \cap E(t, x, s^\prime) \neq \emptyset$ for any $t \in [0, T]$ and $x$, $s$, $s^\prime \in \xR^n$.
Given $(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) \in G_n^\alpha$, $z_0 \in \xR$, and $s \in \xR^n$, consider the Cauchy problem for the differential inclusion
\begin{equation} \label{CH_DI}
\big( (^C D^\alpha x)(t), \dot{z}(t) \big)
\in E(t, x(t), s),
\quad (x(t), z(t)) \in \xR^n \times \xR, \quad t \in [t_0, T],
\end{equation}
and the initial condition
\begin{equation} \label{CH_DI_initial_condition}
x(t)
= w_0(t),
\quad z(t)
= z_0,
\quad t \in [0, t_0].
\end{equation}
Here, $s$ is treated as a constant parameter.
Let $CH(t_0, w_0(\cdot), z_0, s)$ be the set of solutions $(x(\cdot), z(\cdot))$ of problem \eqref{CH_DI}, \eqref{CH_DI_initial_condition}.
According to Proposition~\ref{proposition_DI_1} and the described above properties of the function $E$, the set $CH(t_0, w_0(\cdot), z_0, s)$ is nonempty and compact in $\C([0, T], \xR^n \times \xR)$.
Following the conventional terminology, differential inclusion \eqref{CH_DI} is called a characteristic differential inclusion, and any element of the set $CH(t_0, w_0(\cdot), z_0, s)$ is called a (generalized) characteristic of equation \eqref{HJ}.
We say that a functional $\varphi: G_n^\alpha \to \xR$ is an upper solution of problem \eqref{HJ}, \eqref{HJ_boundary_condition} if it is lower semicontinuous, satisfies the boundary condition
\begin{equation} \label{upper_solution_boundary}
\varphi(T, w(\cdot))
\geq \sigma(w(\cdot)),
\quad w(\cdot) \in \AC^\alpha([0, T], \xR^n),
\end{equation}
and possesses the following property:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(\varphi_+)$]
For every $(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) \in G_n^{\alpha \circ}$, $t \in (t_0, T]$, $s \in \xR^n$, and $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists $(x(\cdot), z(\cdot)) \in CH(t_0, w_0(\cdot), 0, s)$ such that $\varphi(t, x_t(\cdot)) - z(t) \leq \varphi(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) + \varepsilon$.
\end{itemize}
Respectively, a lower solution of this problem is an upper semicontinuous functional $\varphi: G_n^\alpha \to \xR$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{lower_solution_boundary}
\varphi(T, w(\cdot))
\leq \sigma(w(\cdot)),
\quad w(\cdot) \in \AC^\alpha([0, T], \xR^n),
\end{equation}
and the statement below holds:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(\varphi_-)$]
For every $(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) \in G_n^{\alpha \circ}$, $t \in (t_0, T]$, $s \in \xR^n$, and $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists $(x(\cdot), z(\cdot)) \in CH(t_0, w_0(\cdot), 0, s)$ such that $\varphi(t, x_t(\cdot)) - z(t) \geq \varphi(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) - \varepsilon$.
\end{itemize}
In $(\varphi_+)$ and $(\varphi_-)$, as usual, the function $x_t(\cdot)$ is the restriction of the function $x(\cdot)$ to the interval $[0, t]$ (see \eqref{x_t}).
A functional $\varphi: G_n^\alpha \to \xR$ is called a minimax solution of problem \eqref{HJ}, \eqref{HJ_boundary_condition} if it is an upper solution as well as a lower solution of this problem.
\begin{rmrk}
Conditions $(\varphi_+)$ and $(\varphi_-)$ can be reformulated in terms of weak invariance of respectively the epigraph and hypograph of the functional $\varphi$ with respect to characteristic differential inclusion \eqref{CH_DI} for every $s \in \xR^n$ (see, e.g., definitions $(U2)$ and $(L2)$ in \cite[Sect~6.3]{Subbotin_1995}).
Note also that, in the terminology of positional differential games theory, statements $(\varphi_+)$ and $(\varphi_-)$ express so-called $u$-stability and $v$-stability properties of the value function (see, e.g., \cite[Sect.~4.2]{Krasovskii_Subbotin_1988} and \cite[Sect.~8]{Krasovskii_Krasovskii_1995}).
\end{rmrk}
\section{Consistency}
\label{section_Consistency}
This section deals with issues of consistency of a minimax solution of problem \eqref{HJ}, \eqref{HJ_boundary_condition} with a solution of this problem in the classical sense.
By a classical solution of problem \eqref{HJ}, \eqref{HJ_boundary_condition}, we mean a $ci$-smooth of the order $\alpha$ functional $\varphi: G_n^\alpha \to \xR$ that satisfies Hamilton--Jacobi equation \eqref{HJ} and boundary condition \eqref{HJ_boundary_condition}.
The schemes of the proof of the statements below go back to the proofs of the corresponding results for Hamilton--Jacobi equations with partial derivatives (see, e.g., \cite[Sect.~2.4]{Subbotin_1995}) and with first-order $ci$-derivatives (see, e.g., \cite[Sect.~4 and~5]{Lukoyanov_2011_Eng}, \cite[Proposition~5.1]{Lukoyanov_2003_1}, and also \cite[Sect.~B.1]{Bayraktar_Keller_2018}).
\begin{thrm} \label{theorem_classical_is_minimax}
A classical solution of problem \eqref{HJ}, \eqref{HJ_boundary_condition} is a minimax solution of this problem.
\end{thrm}
\begin{proof}
Since a classical solution $\varphi: G_n^\alpha \to \xR$ is continuous and satisfies \eqref{HJ_boundary_condition}, in order to prove that $\varphi$ is a minimax solution, it suffices to verify that $\varphi$ possesses properties $(\varphi_+)$ and $(\varphi_-)$.
To this end, let us show that, for a given $(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) \in G_n^{\alpha \circ}$ and $s \in \xR^n$, there exists $(x^\ast(\cdot), z^\ast(\cdot)) \in CH(t_0, w_0(\cdot), 0, s)$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{theorem_classical_is_minimax_main}
\varphi(t, x^\ast_t(\cdot)) - z^\ast(t)
= \varphi(t_0, w_0(\cdot)),
\quad t \in [t_0, T].
\end{equation}
Consider the set-valued functional $G_n^\alpha \ni (t, w(\cdot)) \mapsto \mathcal{E}^\ast(t, w(\cdot)) \subset \xR^n \times \xR$, where, for every $(t, w(\cdot)) \in G_n^\alpha$,
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{E}^\ast(t, w(\cdot))
= \begin{cases}
E(t, w(t), s) \cap E\big(t, w(t), \nabla^\alpha \varphi(t, w(\cdot))\big), & \mbox{if } t < T, \\
E(t, w(t), s), & \mbox{if } t = T.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Due to the given in Sect.~\ref{subsection_minimax_solution} properties of the set-valued function $E$ and continuity of the functionals $\nabla^\alpha \varphi$ and $G_n \ni (t, w(\cdot)) \mapsto w(t) \in \xR^n$, the functional $\mathcal{E}^\ast$ satisfies conditions $(\mathcal{F}.1)$--$(\mathcal{F}.3)$.
Then, owing to Proposition~\ref{proposition_FDI}, the Cauchy problem for the functional differential inclusion
\begin{equation*}
\big( (^C D^\alpha x)(t), \dot{z}(t) \big)
\in \mathcal{E}^\ast(t, x_t(\cdot)),
\quad (x(t), z(t)) \in \xR^n \times \xR, \quad t \in [t_0, T],
\end{equation*}
and the initial condition $x(t) = w_0(t)$, $z(t) = 0$, $t \in [0, t_0]$, admits a solution $(x^\ast(\cdot), z^\ast(\cdot))$.
By construction, we have $(x^\ast(\cdot), z^\ast(\cdot)) \in CH(t_0, w_0(\cdot), 0, s)$ and, in accordance with \eqref{E},
\begin{equation*}
\dot{z}^\ast(t)
= \langle \nabla^\alpha \varphi(t, x^\ast_t(\cdot)), (^C D^\alpha x^\ast)(t) \rangle
- H\big(t, x^\ast(t), \nabla^\alpha \varphi(t, x^\ast_t(\cdot))\big)
\text{ for a.e. } t \in [t_0, T].
\end{equation*}
Hence, taking into account that $\varphi$ satisfies equation \eqref{HJ}, we get
\begin{equation*}
\dot{z}^\ast(t)
= \partial^\alpha_t \varphi(t, x^\ast_t(\cdot)) + \langle \nabla^\alpha \varphi(t, x^\ast_t(\cdot)), (^C D^\alpha x^\ast)(t) \rangle
\text{ for a.e. } t \in [t_0, T].
\end{equation*}
On the other hand, since $\varphi$ is $ci$-smooth of the order $\alpha$, by \cite[Lemma~9.2]{Gomoyunov_2020_SIAM}, for the function $\omega(t) = \varphi(t, x^\ast_t(\cdot))$, $t \in [t_0, T]$, and a fixed $\vartheta \in [t_0, T)$, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\omega(\vartheta)
= \omega(t_0) + \int_{t_0}^{\vartheta} \big( \partial^\alpha_t \varphi(t, x^\ast_t(\cdot))
+ \langle \nabla^\alpha \varphi(t, x^\ast_t(\cdot)), (^C D^\alpha x^\ast)(t) \rangle \big) \xdif t.
\end{equation*}
Thus, recalling that $x^\ast_{t_0}(\cdot) = w_0(\cdot)$, $z^\ast(t_0) = 0$, and $z^\ast(\cdot) \in \Lip([0, T], \xR)$, we derive
\begin{equation*}
\varphi(\vartheta, x^\ast_\vartheta(\cdot))
= \varphi(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) + \int_{t_0}^{\vartheta} \dot{z}^\ast(t) \xdif t
= \varphi(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) + z^\ast(\vartheta).
\end{equation*}
This equality is valid for every $\vartheta \in [t_0, T)$, and, therefore, in view of continuity of $\varphi$, we conclude \eqref{theorem_classical_is_minimax_main}, which completes the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}
We also establish the following result.
\begin{thrm} \label{theorem_minimax_is_differentiable}
If a minimax solution of problem \eqref{HJ}, \eqref{HJ_boundary_condition} is $ci$-differentiable of the order $\alpha$ at some point $(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) \in G_n^{\alpha \circ}$, then it satisfies equation \eqref{HJ} at this point.
\end{thrm}
Before proving the theorem, we present an auxiliary proposition.
\begin{prpstn} \label{proposition_strong_stability}
If a functional $\varphi: G_n^\alpha \to \xR$ is lower semicontinuous, then $\varphi$ satisfies condition $(\varphi_+)$ if and only if the following statement holds:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(\varphi_+^\ast)$]
For any $(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) \in G_n^{\alpha \circ}$ and $s \in \xR^n$, there is a characteristic $(x(\cdot), z(\cdot)) \in CH(t_0, w_0(\cdot), 0, s)$ such that $\varphi(t, x_t(\cdot)) - z(t) \leq \varphi(t_0, w_0(\cdot))$ for every $t \in [t_0, T]$.
\end{itemize}
Respectively, for an upper semicontinuous functional $\varphi: G_n^\alpha \to \xR$, condition $(\varphi_-)$ is equivalent to the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(\varphi_-^\ast)$]
For any $(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) \in G_n^{\alpha \circ}$ and $s \in \xR^n$, there is a characteristic $(x(\cdot), z(\cdot)) \in CH(t_0, w_0(\cdot), 0, s)$ such that $\varphi(t, x_t(\cdot)) - z(t) \geq \varphi(t_0, w_0(\cdot))$ for every $t \in [t_0, T]$.
\end{itemize}
\end{prpstn}
\begin{proof}
We prove only the first part of the proposition since the proof of the second one is essentially the same.
It is clear that $(\varphi_+)$ follows from $(\varphi_+^\ast)$, so it remains to verify the reverse implication.
Let $\varphi: G_n^\alpha \to \xR$ be a lower semicontinuous functional satisfying $(\varphi_+)$, and let $(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) \in G_n^{\alpha \circ}$ and $s \in \xR^n$.
Fix $k \in \xN$.
Denote $t_{k, i} = t_0 + (T - t_0) i / k$, $i \in \overline{0, k}$.
Take arbitrarily $(x^{(k, 0)}(\cdot), z^{(k, 0)}(\cdot)) \in CH(t_0, w_0(\cdot), 0, s)$ and, applying $(\varphi_+)$, choose functions $x^{(k, i)}: [0, T] \to \xR^n$, $z^{(k, i)}: [0, T] \to \xR$, $i \in \overline{1, k}$, such that the following relations hold for every $i \in \overline{1, k}$:
\begin{equation*}
(x^{(k, i)}(\cdot), z^{(k, i)}(\cdot))
\in CH\big(t_{k, i - 1}, x^{(k, i - 1)}_{t_{k, i - 1}}(\cdot), 0, s\big),
\quad \varphi\big(t_{k, i}, x^{(k, i)}_{t_{k, i}}(\cdot)\big) - z^{(k, i)}(t_{k, i})
\leq \varphi\big(t_{k, i - 1}, x^{(k, i - 1)}_{t_{k, i - 1}}(\cdot)\big) + 1 / k^2.
\end{equation*}
Further, consider functions $\bar{z}^{(k, i)}: [0, T] \to \xR$, $i \in \overline{0, k}$, such that $\bar{z}^{(k, 0)}(\cdot) = z^{(k, 0)}(\cdot)$ and, for any $i \in \overline{1, k}$,
\begin{equation*}
\bar{z}^{(k, i)}(t)
= \begin{cases}
\bar{z}^{(k, i - 1)}(t), & \mbox{if } t \in [0, t_{k, i - 1}], \\
z^{(k, i)}(t) + \bar{z}^{(k, i - 1)}(t_{k, i - 1}), & \mbox{if } t \in (t_{k, i - 1}, T].
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Then, by induction, based on Proposition~\ref{proposition_semigroup_property} (see also the remark in the end of Sect.~\ref{subsection_ODI}), we can prove that, for every $i \in \overline{0, k}$,
\begin{equation*}
(x^{(k, i)}(\cdot), \bar{z}^{(k, i)}(\cdot))
\in CH(t_0, w_0(\cdot), 0, s),
\quad \varphi\big(t_{k, j}, x^{(k, i)}_{t_{k, j}}(\cdot)\big) - \bar{z}^{(k, i)}(t_{k, j})
\leq \varphi(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) + j / k^2,
\quad j \in \overline{0, i}.
\end{equation*}
Thus, for the functions $x^{[k]}(\cdot) = x^{(k, k)}(\cdot)$ and $z^{[k]}(\cdot) = \bar{z}^{(k, k)}(\cdot)$, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
(x^{[k]}(\cdot), z^{[k]}(\cdot))
\in CH(t_0, w_0(\cdot), 0, s),
\quad \varphi\big(t_{k, j}, x^{[k]}_{t_{k, j}}(\cdot)\big) - z^{[k]}(t_{k, j})
\leq \varphi(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) + 1 / k,
\quad j \in \overline{0, k}.
\end{equation*}
Due to compactness of $CH(t_0, w_0(\cdot), 0, s)$, we can assume that the sequence $\{(x^{[k]}(\cdot), z^{[k]}(\cdot))\}_{k \in \xN}$ converges to a characteristic $(x^{[0]}(\cdot), z^{[0]}(\cdot)) \in CH(t_0, w_0(\cdot), 0, s)$.
Now, let $t \in [t_0, T]$ be fixed.
For every $k \in \xN$, denoting $t^{[k]} = \max \{ t_{k, i}: \, t_{k, i} \leq t, \, i \in \overline{0, k}\}$, we get
\begin{equation} \label{proposition_strong_stability_proof_main}
\varphi\big(t^{[k]}, x^{[k]}_{t^{[k]}}(\cdot)\big) - z^{[k]}(t^{[k]})
\leq \varphi(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) + 1 / k.
\end{equation}
As $k \to \infty$, we have $t^{[k]} \to t$, $(t^{[k]}, x^{[k]}_{t^{[k]}}(\cdot)) \to (t, x^{[0]}_t(\cdot))$, and $z^{[k]}(t^{[k]}) \to z^{[0]}(t)$.
Hence, passing to the limit as $k \to \infty$ in inequality \eqref{proposition_strong_stability_proof_main}, in view of lower semicontinuity of $\varphi$, we derive
\begin{equation*}
\varphi(t, x^{[0]}_t(\cdot)) - z^{[0]}(t)
\leq \liminf_{k \to \infty} \big( \varphi\big(t^{[k]}, x^{[k]}_{t^{[k]}}(\cdot)\big) - z^{[k]}(t^{[k]}) \big)
\leq \varphi(t_0, w_0(\cdot)).
\end{equation*}
So, the functional $\varphi$ possesses property $(\varphi_+^\ast)$, and the proposition is proved.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem_minimax_is_differentiable}.]
Assume that $(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) \in G_n^{\alpha \circ}$ and a minimax solution $\varphi: G_n^\alpha \to \xR$ of problem \eqref{HJ}, \eqref{HJ_boundary_condition} is $ci$-differentiable of the order $\alpha$ at $(t_0, w_0(\cdot))$.
Denote $s_0 = \nabla^\alpha \varphi(t_0, w_0(\cdot))$.
Since $\varphi$ is an upper solution of problem \eqref{HJ}, \eqref{HJ_boundary_condition}, due to $(\varphi_+^\ast)$, there exists a characteristic $(x(\cdot), z(\cdot)) \in CH(t_0, w_0(\cdot), 0, s_0)$ such that $\varphi (t, x_t(\cdot)) - z(t) \leq \varphi (t_0, w_0(\cdot))$, $t \in [t_0, T]$.
In particular, according to \eqref{E}, we have
\begin{equation*}
z(t)
= \int_{t_0}^{t} \big( \langle s_0, (^C D^\alpha x)(\tau) \rangle - H(\tau, x(\tau), s_0) \big) \xdif \tau,
\quad t \in [t_0, T].
\end{equation*}
Hence, taking into account that $x(\cdot) \in X^\alpha(t_0, w_0(\cdot))$, in view of \eqref{ci_differentiability}, we derive
\begin{equation} \label{theorem_minimax_is_differentiable_proof_main}
0
\geq \varphi (t, x_t(\cdot)) - z(t) - \varphi (t_0, w_0(\cdot))
= \partial^\alpha_t \varphi(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) (t - t_0) + \int_{t_0}^{t} H(\tau, x(\tau), s_0) \xdif \tau
+ o(t - t_0),
\quad t \in (t_0, T),
\end{equation}
Note that $H(t, x(t), s_0) \to H(t_0, w_0(t_0), s_0)$ as $t \to t_0 + 0$ by virtue of assumption $(H.1)$.
Therefore, dividing \eqref{theorem_minimax_is_differentiable_proof_main} by $t - t_0$ and, after that, passing to the limit as $t \to t_0 + 0$, we get
\begin{equation} \label{theorem_minimax_is_differentiable_proof_first}
0
\geq \partial^\alpha_t \varphi(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) + H(t_0, w_0(t_0), s_0).
\end{equation}
On the other hand, based on the fact that $\varphi$ is a lower solution of problem \eqref{HJ}, \eqref{HJ_boundary_condition}, and, consequently, it possesses property $(\varphi_-^\ast)$, we can similarly obtain the inequality
\begin{equation} \label{theorem_minimax_is_differentiable_proof_second}
0
\leq \partial^\alpha_t \varphi(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) + H(t_0, w_0(t_0), s_0).
\end{equation}
It follows from \eqref{theorem_minimax_is_differentiable_proof_first} and \eqref{theorem_minimax_is_differentiable_proof_second} that $\varphi$ satisfies equation \eqref{HJ} at $(t_0, w_0(\cdot))$.
The theorem is proved.
\end{proof}
In particular, from Theorem~\ref{theorem_minimax_is_differentiable}, we derive
\begin{crllr} \label{corollary_minimax_is_classical}
If a minimax solution of problem \eqref{HJ}, \eqref{HJ_boundary_condition} is $ci$-smooth of the order $\alpha$, then it is a classical solution of this problem.
\end{crllr}
Theorems~\ref{theorem_classical_is_minimax} and~\ref{theorem_minimax_is_differentiable} and Corollary~\ref{corollary_minimax_is_classical} allow us to conclude that the introduced notion of a minimax solution of problem \eqref{HJ}, \eqref{HJ_boundary_condition} is consistent with the notion of a solution of this problem in the classical sense.
\section{Comparison Principle}
\label{section_Comparison}
The goal of this section is to prove the result below, which is often called a comparison principle.
In the next section, it is used in the proof of existence and uniqueness of a minimax solution of problem \eqref{HJ}, \eqref{HJ_boundary_condition}.
\begin{thrm} \label{theorem_comparison_priciple}
Let $\varphi_+$ and $\varphi_-$ be respectively an upper and a lower solutions of problem \eqref{HJ}, \eqref{HJ_boundary_condition}.
Then, the inequality below holds:
\begin{equation} \label{theorem_comparison_priciple_main}
\varphi_-(t, w(\cdot))
\leq \varphi_+(t, w(\cdot)),
\quad (t, w(\cdot)) \in G_n^\alpha.
\end{equation}
\end{thrm}
In general, this theorem is proved by the same scheme as the corresponding statements for Hamilton--Jacobi equations with partial derivatives (see, e.g., \cite[Theorem~7.3]{Subbotin_1995}) and with first-order $ci$-derivatives (see, e.g., \cite[Lemma~7.7]{Lukoyanov_2003_1}).
However, the key point of the proof, which concerns construction of a Lyapunov--Krasovskii functional with a number of prescribed properties (in this connection, see, e.g., \cite[Sect.~5]{Lukoyanov_2004_PMM_Eng}), substantially differs from the previous studies owing to features of fractional-order integrals and derivatives.
\subsection{Lyapunov--Krasovskii Functionals}
The construction of the required Lyapunov--Krasovskii functional is carried out in four steps.
\subsubsection{Functional $V_{\gamma, \mu}$}
Given $\gamma \in (0, 1)$ and $\mu > 0$, consider the functional
\begin{equation} \label{V^1_gamma_mu}
G_1 \ni (t, r(\cdot))
\mapsto V_{\gamma, \mu}(t, r(\cdot))
= \frac{1}{\Gamma(1 - \gamma)} \int_{0}^{t} \frac{e^{- \mu (t - \tau)^\gamma} r(\tau)}{(t - \tau)^\gamma} \xdif \tau \in \xR.
\end{equation}
Recall that the set $G_1$ consists of pairs $(t, r(\cdot))$ such that $t \in [0, T]$ and $r(\cdot) \in \C([0, T], \xR)$, and it is endowed with the metric $\dist$ from \eqref{dist}.
\begin{lmm} \label{lemma_V^1_gamma_mu}
For every $\gamma \in (0, 1)$ and $\mu > 0$, the following statements hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(V.1)$]
The functional $V_{\gamma, \mu}$ is continuous.
\item[$(V.2)$]
If $r(\cdot) \in \AC^\gamma([0, T], \xR)$ and $r(0) = 0$, then the function $v(t) = V_{\gamma, \mu}(t, r_t(\cdot))$, $t \in [0, T]$, satisfies the inclusion $v(\cdot) \in \Lip([0, T], \xR)$, and, for a.e. $t \in [0, T]$,
\begin{equation*}
\dot{v}(t)
= (^C D^\gamma r)(t)
- \frac{\mu}{\Gamma(1 - \gamma)} r(t)
+ \frac{\mu^2 \gamma^2}{\Gamma(1 - \gamma)} \int_{0}^{t} \frac{r(\tau)}{(t - \tau)^{\gamma + 1}}
\int_{0}^{t - \tau} \xi^{2 \gamma - 1} e^{- \mu \xi^\gamma} \xdif \xi \xdif \tau.
\end{equation*}
If, in addition, the function $r(\cdot)$ is nonnegative, then
\begin{equation*}
\dot{v}(t)
\leq (^C D^\gamma r)(t)
- \frac{\mu}{\Gamma(1 - \gamma)} r(t)
+ \frac{\mu^2 \Gamma(\gamma + 1)}{2 \Gamma(1 - \gamma)} (I^\gamma r)(t)
\text{ for a.e. } t \in [0, T].
\end{equation*}
\end{itemize}
\end{lmm}
\begin{proof}
In the proof, we denote $V = V_{\gamma, \mu}$ for brevity.
1.
Let us show that, for any $(t, r(\cdot)) \in G_1$, the function $v(\tau) = V(\tau, r_\tau(\cdot))$, $\tau \in [0, t]$, satisfies the estimate
\begin{equation} \label{proposition_aux_continuity_main}
|v(\tau^\prime) - v(\tau)|
\leq \frac{\|r(\cdot)\|_{[0, t]}}{\Gamma(2 - \gamma)} |\tau^\prime - \tau|^{1 - \gamma}
+ \frac{T^{1 - \gamma}}{\Gamma(2 - \gamma)} \varkappa(|\tau^\prime - \tau|),
\quad \tau, \tau^\prime \in [0, t],
\end{equation}
where $\varkappa$ is the modulus of continuity of $r(\cdot)$ on $[0, t]$.
If $t = 0$, inequality \eqref{proposition_aux_continuity_main} holds automatically.
So, let $t > 0$.
Note that
\begin{equation} \label{change_of_variable}
v(\tau)
= \frac{1}{\Gamma(1 - \gamma)} \int_{0}^{\tau} \frac{e^{- \mu \xi^\gamma} r(\tau - \xi)}{\xi^\gamma} \xdif \xi,
\quad \tau \in [0, t].
\end{equation}
Fix $\tau$, $\tau^\prime \in [0, t]$ such that $\tau^\prime > \tau$.
If $\tau = 0$, then, taking into account that $v(0) = 0$, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
|v(\tau^\prime) - v(\tau)|
= |v(\tau^\prime)|
\leq \frac{1}{\Gamma(1 - \gamma)} \int_{0}^{\tau^\prime} \frac{e^{- \mu \xi^\gamma} |r(\tau^\prime - \xi)|}{\xi^\gamma} \xdif \xi
\leq \frac{\|r(\cdot)\|_{[0, t]}}{\Gamma(1 - \gamma)} \int_{0}^{\tau^\prime} \frac{\xdif \xi}{\xi^\gamma}
= \frac{\|r(\cdot)\|_{[0, t]}}{\Gamma(2 - \gamma)} (\tau^\prime - \tau)^{1 - \gamma},
\end{equation*}
and, if $\tau > 0$, we derive
\begin{align*}
|v(\tau^\prime) - v(\tau)|
& \leq \frac{1}{\Gamma(1 - \gamma)} \int_{\tau}^{\tau^\prime} \frac{e^{- \mu \xi^\gamma} |r(\tau^\prime - \xi)|}{\xi^\gamma} \xdif \xi
+ \frac{1}{\Gamma(1 - \gamma)} \int_{0}^{\tau}
\frac{e^{- \mu \xi^\gamma} |r(\tau^\prime - \xi) - r(\tau - \xi)|}{\xi^\gamma} \xdif \xi \\
& \leq \frac{\|r(\cdot)\|_{[0, t]}}{\Gamma(1 - \gamma)} \int_{\tau}^{\tau^\prime} \frac{\xdif \xi}{\xi^\gamma}
+ \frac{\varkappa(\tau^\prime - \tau)}{\Gamma(1 - \gamma)} \int_{0}^{\tau} \frac{\xdif \xi}{\xi^\gamma}
= \frac{\|r(\cdot)\|_{[0, t]}}{\Gamma(2 - \gamma)} \big( (\tau^\prime)^{1 - \gamma} - \tau^{1 - \gamma} \big)
+ \frac{\varkappa(\tau^\prime - \tau)}{\Gamma(2 - \gamma)} \tau^{1 - \gamma} \\
& \leq \frac{\|r(\cdot)\|_{[0, t]}}{\Gamma(2 - \gamma)} (\tau^\prime - \tau)^{1 - \gamma}
+ \frac{T^{1 - \gamma}}{\Gamma(2 - \gamma)} \varkappa(\tau^\prime - \tau).
\end{align*}
Thus, inequality \eqref{proposition_aux_continuity_main} is valid.
2.
Now, let us prove statement $(V.1)$.
Let $(t_0, r^{(0)}(\cdot)) \in G_1$ and $\{(t_k, r^{(k)}(\cdot))\}_{k \in \xN} \subset G_1$ be such that $\dist_k = \dist((t_0, r^{(0)}(\cdot)), (t_k, r^{(k)}(\cdot))) \to 0$ as $k \to \infty$.
For every $k \in \xN \cup \{0\}$, let $\varkappa_k$ be the modulus of continuity of $r^{(k)}(\cdot)$ on $[0, t_k]$.
Since the functions $r^{(k)}(\cdot)$, $k \in \xN \cup \{0\}$, are uniformly bounded and equicontinuous (see Sect.~\ref{section_Preliminaries}), there exists $R > 0$ such that $\|r^{(k)}(\cdot)\|_{[0, t_k]} \leq R$, $k \in \xN \cup \{0\}$, and $\varkappa_\ast(\delta) = \sup\{ \varkappa_k(\delta): \, k \in \xN \cup \{0\} \} \to 0$ as $\delta \to + 0$.
Hence, in order to establish the required convergence $V(t_k, r^{(k)}(\cdot)) \to V(t_0, r^{(0)}(\cdot))$ as $k \to \infty$, it suffices to prove for every $k \in \xN$ the inequality
\begin{equation} \label{proposition_aux_functional_continuity_proof_first}
|V(t_0, r^{(0)}(\cdot)) - V(t_k, r^{(k)}(\cdot))|
\leq \frac{R}{\Gamma(2 - \gamma)} \dist_k^{1 - \gamma}
+ \frac{T^{1 - \gamma}}{\Gamma(2 - \gamma)} (\dist_k + 2 \varkappa_\ast(\dist_k)).
\end{equation}
Fix $k \in \xN$.
Assume that $t_0 \leq t_k$.
Then, we have
\begin{equation*}
|V(t_0, r^{(0)}(\cdot)) - V(t_k, r^{(k)}(\cdot))|
\leq |V(t_0, r^{(0)}(\cdot)) - V(t_0, r^{(k)}_{t_0}(\cdot))|
+ |V(t_0, r^{(k)}_{t_0}(\cdot)) - V(t_k, r^{(k)}(\cdot))|.
\end{equation*}
For the first term, by virtue of \eqref{dist_properties} and \eqref{change_of_variable}, we derive
\begin{align*}
|V(t_0, r^{(0)}(\cdot)) - V(t_0, r^{(k)}_{t_0}(\cdot))|
& \leq \frac{1}{\Gamma(1 - \gamma)} \int_{0}^{t_0} \frac{e^{- \mu \xi^\gamma} |r^{(0)}(t_0 - \xi) - r^{(k)}(t_0 - \xi)|}{\xi^\gamma} \xdif \xi \\
& \leq \frac{T^{1 - \gamma}}{\Gamma(2 - \gamma)} \max_{\xi \in [0, t_0]} |r^{(0)}(\xi) - r^{(k)}(\xi)|
\leq \frac{T^{1 - \gamma}}{\Gamma(2 - \gamma)} (\dist_k + \varkappa_\ast(\dist_k)),
\end{align*}
and for the second term, in view of \eqref{dist_properties} and \eqref{proposition_aux_continuity_main}, we get
\begin{align*}
|V(t_0, r^{(k)}_{t_0}(\cdot)) - V(t_k, r^{(k)}(\cdot))|
& \leq \frac{R}{\Gamma(2 - \gamma)} (t_k - t_0)^{1 - \gamma} + \frac{T^{1 - \gamma}}{\Gamma(2 - \gamma)} \varkappa_\ast(t_k - t_0) \\
& \leq \frac{R}{\Gamma(2 - \gamma)} \dist_k^{1 - \gamma} + \frac{T^{1 - \gamma}}{\Gamma(2 - \gamma)} \varkappa_\ast(\dist_k).
\end{align*}
Thus, we obtain inequality \eqref{proposition_aux_functional_continuity_proof_first}.
In the case $t_k < t_0$, this inequality can be proved in a similar way.
3.
Further, let us prove $(V.2)$.
Fix $r(\cdot) \in \AC^\gamma([0, T], \xR)$ such that $r(0) = 0$ and consider the function $v(t) = V(t, r_t(\cdot))$, $t \in [0, T]$.
For every $\theta \geq 0$, based on the equality
\begin{equation} \label{exp}
e^{- \mu \theta^\gamma}
= 1 - \mu \gamma \int_{0}^{\theta} \frac{e^{- \mu \xi^\gamma}}{\xi^{1 - \gamma}} \xdif \xi,
\end{equation}
which can be verified by direct calculation, we derive
\begin{equation*}
e^{- \mu \theta^\gamma}
= 1 - \mu \gamma \int_{0}^{\theta} \frac{\xdif \xi}{\xi^{1 - \gamma}}
- \mu \gamma \int_{0}^{\theta} \frac{e^{- \mu \xi^\gamma} - 1}{\xi^{1 - \gamma}} \xdif \xi
= 1 - \mu \theta^\gamma + \mu \gamma \int_{0}^{\theta} \frac{1 - e^{- \mu \xi^\gamma}}{\xi^{1 - \gamma}} \xdif \xi,
\end{equation*}
and, consequently, according to \eqref{I} and \eqref{V^1_gamma_mu}, the function $v(\cdot)$ can be represented as follows:
\begin{align*}
v(t)
& = (I^{1 - \gamma} r)(t)
- \frac{\mu}{\Gamma(1 - \gamma)} (I^1 r)(t)
+ \frac{\mu \gamma}{\Gamma(1 - \gamma)} \int_{0}^{t} \frac{r(\tau)}{(t - \tau)^\gamma}
\int_{0}^{t - \tau} \frac{1 - e^{- \mu \xi^\gamma}}{\xi^{1 - \gamma}} \xdif \xi \xdif \tau \\
& = v_1(t)
- \frac{\mu}{\Gamma(1 - \gamma)} v_2(t)
+ \frac{\mu \gamma}{\Gamma(1 - \gamma)} v_3(t),
\quad t \in [0, T].
\end{align*}
Since $r(\cdot) \in \AC^\gamma([0, T], \xR)$ and $r(0) = 0$, for $v_1(t) = (I^{1 - \gamma} r)(t)$, $t \in [0, T]$, we conclude $v_1(\cdot) \in \Lip([0, T], \xR)$ and $\dot{v}_1(t) = (^C D^\gamma r)(t)$ for a.e. $t \in [0, T]$ (see Sect.~\ref{section_Preliminaries}).
For $v_2(t) = (I^1 r)(t)$, $t \in [0, T]$, we have $v_2(\cdot) \in \Lip([0, T], \xR)$, and $\dot{v}_2(t) = r(t)$, $t \in (0, T)$.
Thus, it remains to investigate the properties of the function
\begin{equation*}
v_3(t)
= \int_{0}^{t} \frac{r(\tau)}{(t - \tau)^\gamma}
\int_{0}^{t - \tau} \frac{1 - e^{- \mu \xi^\gamma}}{\xi^{1 - \gamma}} \xdif \xi \xdif \tau,
\quad t \in [0, T].
\end{equation*}
4.
To this end, let us introduce the auxiliary function
\begin{equation*}
M(\theta)
= \frac{1}{\theta^\gamma} \int_{0}^{\theta} \frac{1 - e^{- \mu \xi^\gamma}}{\xi^{1 - \gamma}} \xdif \xi,
\quad \theta > 0,
\end{equation*}
and describe some of its properties.
It follows from \eqref{exp} that
\begin{equation*}
0
\leq
1 - e^{- \mu \xi^\gamma}
\leq \mu \gamma \int_{0}^{\xi} \frac{\xdif \eta}{\eta^{1 - \gamma}}
= \mu \xi^\gamma,
\quad \xi \geq 0,
\end{equation*}
and, hence,
\begin{equation} \label{proposition_second_function_proof_estimate_K_1}
0
\leq M(\theta)
\leq \frac{\mu}{\theta^\gamma} \int_{0}^{\theta} \xi^{2 \gamma - 1} \xdif \xi
= \frac{\mu}{2 \gamma} \theta^{\gamma},
\quad \theta > 0.
\end{equation}
In particular, we obtain $M(\theta) \to 0$ as $\theta \to + 0$.
Further, by virtue of the integration by parts formula, we derive
\begin{equation} \label{proposition_second_function_proof_K_dot}
\dot{M}(\theta)
= - \frac{\gamma}{\theta^{\gamma + 1}} \int_{0}^{\theta} \frac{1 - e^{- \mu \xi^\gamma}}{\xi^{1 - \gamma}} \xdif \xi
+ \frac{1 - e^{- \mu \theta^\gamma}}{\theta}
= \frac{\mu \gamma}{\theta^{\gamma + 1}} \int_{0}^{\theta} \xi^{2 \gamma - 1} e^{- \mu \xi^\gamma} \xdif \xi,
\quad \theta > 0.
\end{equation}
Consequently, we have
\begin{equation} \label{proposition_second_function_proof_estimate_K_2}
0
\leq \dot{M}(\theta)
\leq \frac{\mu \gamma}{\theta^{\gamma + 1}} \int_{0}^{\theta} \xi^{2 \gamma - 1} \xdif \xi
= \frac{\mu}{2 \theta^{1 - \gamma}},
\quad \theta > 0,
\end{equation}
and, therefore, for any $\theta > 0$ and $\theta^\prime > \theta$,
\begin{equation} \label{proposition_second_function_proof_estimate_K_3}
0
\leq M(\theta^\prime) - M(\theta)
= \int_{\theta}^{\theta^\prime} \dot{M}(\xi) \xdif \xi
\leq \int_{\theta}^{\theta^\prime} \frac{\mu}{2 \xi^{1 - \gamma}} \xdif \xi
\leq \frac{\mu}{2 \theta^{1 - \gamma}} (\theta^\prime - \theta).
\end{equation}
5.
Now, based on the representation
\begin{equation*}
v_3(t)
= \int_{0}^{t} M(t - \tau) r(\tau) \xdif \tau,
\quad t \in [0, T],
\end{equation*}
let us prove first that the function $v_3(\cdot)$ satisfies the Lipschitz condition $|v_3(t^\prime) - v_3(t)| \leq L |t^\prime - t|$, $t$, $t^\prime \in [0, T]$, with the constant
\begin{equation*}
L
= \frac{(\gamma + 2) \mu \|r(\cdot)\|_{[0, T]} T^\gamma}{2 (\gamma + 1) \gamma}.
\end{equation*}
Fix $t$, $t^\prime \in [0, T]$ such that $t^\prime > t$.
If $t = 0$, then, taking into account that $v_3(0) = 0$ and using \eqref{proposition_second_function_proof_estimate_K_1}, we derive
\begin{align*}
|v_3(t^\prime) - v_3(t)|
& = |v_3(t^\prime)|
\leq \int_{0}^{t^\prime} M(t^\prime - \tau) |r(\tau)| \xdif \tau
\leq \|r(\cdot)\|_{[0, T]} \int_{0}^{t^\prime} \frac{\mu}{2 \gamma} (t^\prime - \tau)^\gamma \xdif \tau \\
& = \frac{\mu \|r(\cdot)\|_{[0, T]} (t^\prime)^{\gamma + 1}}{2 (\gamma + 1) \gamma}
\leq \frac{\mu \|r(\cdot)\|_{[0, T]} T^\gamma}{2 (\gamma + 1) \gamma} t^\prime
\leq L (t^\prime - t).
\end{align*}
Suppose that $t > 0$.
Then, we have
\begin{equation} \label{psi_3_Lip_1}
v_3(t^\prime) - v_3(t)
= \int_{t}^{t^\prime} M(t^\prime - \tau) r(\tau) \xdif \tau
+ \int_{0}^{t} (M(t^\prime - \tau) - M(t - \tau)) r(\tau) \xdif \tau.
\end{equation}
For the first term, according to \eqref{proposition_second_function_proof_estimate_K_1}, we get
\begin{align}
\Big| \int_{t}^{t^\prime} M(t^\prime - \tau) r(\tau) \xdif \tau \Big|
& \leq \int_{t}^{t^\prime} M(t^\prime - \tau) |r(\tau)| \xdif \tau
\leq \|r(\cdot)\|_{[0, T]} \int_{t}^{t^\prime} \frac{\mu}{2 \gamma} (t^\prime - \tau)^\gamma \xdif \tau \nonumber \\
& = \frac{\mu \|r(\cdot)\|_{[0, T]} (t^\prime - t)^{\gamma + 1}}{2 (\gamma + 1) \gamma}
\leq \frac{\mu \|r(\cdot)\|_{[0, T]} T^\gamma}{2 (\gamma + 1) \gamma} (t^\prime - t), \label{proposition_second_function_proof_estimate_I_1}
\end{align}
and, for the second term, by virtue of \eqref{proposition_second_function_proof_estimate_K_3}, we conclude
\begin{align*}
\Big| \int_{0}^{t} (M(t^\prime - \tau) - M(t - \tau)) r(\tau) \xdif \tau \Big|
& \leq \int_{0}^{t} (M(t^\prime - \tau) - M(t - \tau)) |r(\tau)| \xdif \tau \nonumber \\
& \leq \|r(\cdot)\|_{[0, T]} \int_{0}^{t} \frac{\mu}{2 (t - \tau)^{1 - \gamma}} (t^\prime - t) \xdif \tau
= \frac{\mu \|r(\cdot)\|_{[0, T]} t^\gamma}{2 \gamma} (t^\prime - t) \nonumber \\
& \leq \frac{\mu \|r(\cdot)\|_{[0, T]} T^\gamma}{2 \gamma} (t^\prime - t).
\end{align*}
Thus, we obtain the desired estimate.
6.
Since $v_3(\cdot) \in \Lip([0, T], \xR)$, then the derivative $\dot{v}_3(t)$ exists for a.e. $t \in [0, T]$.
In order to obtain an explicit formula for this derivative, let us calculate the right-hand side derivative $\dot{v}_3^{+}(t)$ of $v_3(\cdot)$ at every $t \in (0, T)$.
For the first term in \eqref{psi_3_Lip_1}, owing to \eqref{proposition_second_function_proof_estimate_I_1}, we have
\begin{equation*}
\Big| \frac{1}{t^\prime - t} \int_{t}^{t^\prime} M(t^\prime - \tau) r(\tau) \xdif \tau \Big|
\leq \frac{\mu \|r(\cdot)\|_{[0, T]} (t^\prime - t)^\gamma}{2 (\gamma + 1) \gamma},
\quad t^\prime \in (t, T],
\end{equation*}
and, therefore,
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{t^\prime \to t + 0} \frac{1}{t^\prime - t} \int_{t}^{t^\prime} M(t^\prime - \tau) r(\tau) \xdif \tau
= 0.
\end{equation*}
Let us consider the second term in \eqref{psi_3_Lip_1}.
For any $\tau \in [0, t)$, we get
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{t^\prime \to t + 0} \frac{(M(t^\prime - \tau) - M(t - \tau)) r(\tau)}{t^\prime - t}
= \dot{M}(t - \tau) r(\tau),
\end{equation*}
and, moreover, due to \eqref{proposition_second_function_proof_estimate_K_3},
\begin{equation*}
\frac{|(M(t^\prime - \tau) - M(t - \tau)) r(\tau)|}{t^\prime - t}
\leq \frac{\mu \|r(\cdot)\|_{[0, T]}}{2 (t - \tau)^{1 - \gamma}},
\quad t^\prime \in (t, T].
\end{equation*}
Then, applying Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem, we conclude
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{t^\prime \to t + 0}
\frac{1}{t^\prime - t} \int_{0}^{t} \big( M(t^\prime - \tau) - M(t - \tau) \big) r(\tau) \xdif \tau
= \int_{0}^{t} \dot{M}(t - \tau) r(\tau) \xdif \tau.
\end{equation*}
Hence, we derive
\begin{equation*}
\dot{v}_3^{+}(t)
= \lim_{t^\prime \to t + 0} \frac{v_3(t^\prime) - v_3(t)}{t^\prime - t}
= \int_{0}^{t} \dot{M}(t - \tau) r(\tau) \xdif \tau.
\end{equation*}
As a result, in view of \eqref{proposition_second_function_proof_K_dot}, we get
\begin{equation} \label{psi_3_dot}
\dot{v}_3(t)
= \int_{0}^{t} \dot{M}(t - \tau) r(\tau) \xdif \tau
= \mu \gamma \int_{0}^{t} \frac{r(\tau)}{(t - \tau)^{\gamma + 1}}
\int_{0}^{t - \tau} \xi^{2 \gamma - 1} e^{- \mu \xi^\gamma} \xdif \xi \xdif \tau
\text{ for a.e. } t \in [0, T].
\end{equation}
7.
Summarizing the above, we obtain that $v(\cdot) \in \Lip([0, T], \xR)$ and
\begin{align*}
\dot{v}(t)
& = \dot{v}_1(t)
- \frac{\mu}{\Gamma(1 - \gamma)} \dot{v}_2(t)
+ \frac{\mu \gamma}{\Gamma(1 - \gamma)} \dot{v}_3(t) \\
& = (^C D^\gamma r)(t)
- \frac{\mu}{\Gamma(1 - \gamma)} r(t)
+ \frac{\mu^2 \gamma^2}{\Gamma(1 - \gamma)} \int_{0}^{t} \frac{r(\tau)}{(t - \tau)^{\gamma + 1}}
\int_{0}^{t - \tau} \xi^{2 \gamma - 1} e^{- \mu \xi^\gamma} \xdif \xi \xdif \tau
\text{ for a.e. } t \in [0, T].
\end{align*}
8.
If the function $r(\cdot)$ is nonnegative, then, for a.e. $t \in [0, T]$, according to \eqref{I}, \eqref{proposition_second_function_proof_estimate_K_2}, and \eqref{psi_3_dot}, we derive
\begin{equation*}
\dot{v}_3(t)
\leq \int_{0}^{t} \frac{\mu r(\tau)}{2 (t - \tau)^{1 - \gamma}} \xdif \tau
= \frac{\mu \Gamma(\gamma)}{2} (I^\gamma r)(t)
\end{equation*}
and, therefore,
\begin{equation*}
\dot{v}(t)
\leq (^C D^\gamma r)(t)
- \frac{\mu}{\Gamma(1 - \gamma)} r(t)
+ \frac{\mu^2 \Gamma(\gamma + 1)}{2 \Gamma(1 - \gamma)} (I^\gamma r)(t).
\end{equation*}
This completes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Functional $V^\ast_{\beta, \mu}$}
Let $\beta \in [0, 1 - \alpha)$ and $\mu > 0$ be fixed.
Note that $\gamma = \alpha + \beta \in (0, 1)$ and take the corresponding functional $V_{\alpha + \beta, \mu}$ from \eqref{V^1_gamma_mu}.
For every $(t, w(\cdot)) \in G_n$, denote
\begin{equation*}
q(\tau \mid t, w(\cdot))
= \|w(\tau) - w(0)\|^2,
\quad
r(\tau \mid t, w(\cdot), \beta)
= \big(I^\beta q(\cdot \mid t, w(\cdot))\big)(\tau),
\quad \tau \in [0, t].
\end{equation*}
Consider the functional
\begin{equation} \label{V^2_beta_mu}
G_n \ni (t, w(\cdot)) \mapsto V^\ast_{\beta, \mu}(t, w(\cdot))
= V_{\alpha + \beta, \mu} \big(t, r(\cdot \mid t, w(\cdot), \beta)\big) \in \xR.
\end{equation}
In accordance with the introduced notations, this functional can be defined explicitly by
\begin{equation*}
V^\ast_{\beta, \mu}(t, w(\cdot))
= \frac{1}{\Gamma(1 - \alpha - \beta) \Gamma(\beta)} \int_{0}^{t}
\frac{e^{- \mu (t - \tau)^{\alpha + \beta}}}{(t - \tau)^{\alpha + \beta}}
\int_{0}^{\tau} \frac{\|w(\xi) - w(0)\|^2}{(\tau - \xi)^{1 - \beta}} \xdif \xi \xdif \tau,
\quad (t, w(\cdot)) \in G_n,
\end{equation*}
if $\beta > 0$, and, if $\beta = 0$, by
\begin{equation} \label{V^2_beta_mu_explicit_beta=0}
V^\ast_{0, \mu}(t, w(\cdot))
= \frac{1}{\Gamma(1 - \alpha)} \int_{0}^{t}
\frac{e^{- \mu (t - \tau)^\alpha} \|w(\tau) - w(0)\|^2}{(t - \tau)^\alpha} \xdif \tau,
\quad (t, w(\cdot)) \in G_n.
\end{equation}
\begin{lmm} \label{lemma_V_beta_mu}
For every $\beta \in [0, 1 - \alpha)$ and $\mu > 0$, the following statements hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(V^\ast.1)$]
The functional $V^\ast_{\beta, \mu}$ is continuous.
\item[$(V^\ast.2)$]
For any $(t, w(\cdot)) \in G_n$, the inequality below is valid:
\begin{equation*}
V^\ast_{\beta, \mu}(t, w(\cdot))
\geq e^{- \mu T^{\alpha + \beta}} \big(I^{1 - \alpha} q(\cdot \mid t, w(\cdot))\big)(t).
\end{equation*}
In particular, the functional $V^\ast_{\beta, \mu}$ is nonnegative.
\item[$(V^\ast.3)$]
If $x(\cdot) \in \AC^\alpha([0, T], \xR^n)$, then the function $v^\ast(t) = V^\ast_{\beta, \mu}(t, x_t(\cdot))$, $t \in [0, T]$, satisfies the inclusion $v^\ast(\cdot) \in \Lip([0, T], \xR)$, and
\begin{equation} \label{lemma_V_beta_mu_main}
\dot{v}^\ast(t)
\leq (^C D^\alpha q)(t)
- \frac{\mu}{\Gamma(1 - \alpha - \beta)} (I^\beta q)(t)
+ \frac{\mu^2 \Gamma(\alpha + \beta + 1)}{2 \Gamma(1 - \alpha - \beta)} (I^{\alpha + 2 \beta} q)(t)
\text{ for a.e. } t \in [0, T],
\end{equation}
where $q(\cdot) = q(\cdot \mid T, x(\cdot))$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lmm}
\begin{proof}
For brevity, denote $V = V_{\alpha + \beta, \mu}$ and $V^\ast = V^\ast_{\beta, \mu}$.
1.
Since the functional $V$ is continuous by $(V.1)$, in order to establish $(V^\ast.1)$, it is sufficient to prove continuity of the mapping
\begin{equation} \label{auxiliary_mapping}
G_n \ni (t, w(\cdot)) \mapsto \big(t, r(\cdot \mid t, w(\cdot), \beta) \big) \in G_1.
\end{equation}
Take $(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) \in G_n$ and $\{(t_k, w_k(\cdot))\}_{k \in \xN} \subset G_n$ such that $\dist_k = \dist((t_0, w_0(\cdot)), (t_k, w_k(\cdot))) \to 0$ as $k \to \infty$.
Then, in accordance with Sect.~\ref{section_Preliminaries}, there exists $R > 0$ such that $\|w_k(\cdot)\|_{[0, t_k]} \leq R$ for every $k \in \xN \cup \{0\}$, and $\varkappa_\ast(\delta) = \sup\{ \varkappa_k(\delta): \, k \in \xN \cup \{0\} \} \to 0$ as $\delta \to + 0$, where $\varkappa_k$ is the modulus of continuity of $w_k(\cdot)$ on $[0, t_k]$.
Denote $q^{(k)}(\cdot) = q(\cdot \mid t_k, w_k(\cdot))$, $k \in \xN \cup \{0\}$.
For any $k \in \xN \cup \{0\}$, we have
\begin{equation*}
|q^{(k)}(\tau) - q^{(k)}(\tau^\prime)|
\leq \|w_k(\tau) - w_k(\tau^\prime)\| (\|w_k(\tau)\| + \|w_k(\tau^\prime) + 2 \|w_k(0)\|)
\leq 4 R \varkappa_\ast(|\tau - \tau^\prime|),
\quad \tau, \tau^\prime \in [0, t_k].
\end{equation*}
Moreover, for every $k \in \xN$, by virtue of \eqref{dist_properties}, we derive
\begin{equation} \label{q^0_q^k}
|q^{(0)}(\tau) - q^{(k)}(\tau)|
\leq 4 R (\|w_0(\tau) - w_k(\tau)\| + \|w_0(0) - w_k(0)\|)
\leq 8 R (\dist_k + \varkappa_\ast(\dist_k)),
\quad \tau \in [0, \min\{t_0, t_k\}],
\end{equation}
and, hence,
\begin{equation*}
\dist\big( (t_0, q^{(0)}(\cdot)), (t_k, q^{(k)}(\cdot)) \big)
\leq \dist_k + 4 R \varkappa_\ast(\dist_k) + 8 R (\dist_k + \varkappa_\ast(\dist_k)).
\end{equation*}
Thus, the sequence $\{(t_k, q^{(k)}(\cdot))\}_{k \in \xN} \subset G_1$ converges to $(t_0, q^{(0)}(\cdot)) \in G_1$.
Further, consider the functions $r^{(k)}(\cdot) = r(\cdot \mid t_k, w_k(\cdot), \beta)$, $k \in \xN \cup \{0\}$.
If $\beta = 0$, then $r^{(k)}(\cdot) = q^{(k)}(\cdot)$, $k \in \xN \cup \{0\}$, and, consequently, we get $(t_k, r^{(k)}(\cdot)) \to (t_0, r^{(0)}(\cdot))$ as $k \to \infty$, which proves continuity of mapping \eqref{auxiliary_mapping}.
Let $\beta > 0$.
Then, for any $k \in \xN \cup \{0\}$, taking into account the estimate
\begin{equation*}
|q^{(k)}(\tau)|
\leq (\|w_k(\tau)\| + \|w_k(0)\|)^2
\leq 4 R^2,
\quad \tau \in [0, t_k],
\end{equation*}
and due to \eqref{I_properties}, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
|r^{(k)}(\tau) - r^{(k)}(\tau^\prime)|
\leq \frac{2 |\tau - \tau^\prime|^\beta}{\Gamma(\beta + 1)} \max_{\xi \in [0, t_k]} |q^{(k)}(\xi)|
\leq \frac{8 R^2}{\Gamma(\beta + 1)} |\tau - \tau^\prime|^\beta,
\quad \tau, \tau^\prime \in [0, t_k].
\end{equation*}
In addition, for any $k \in \xN$, based on \eqref{q^0_q^k}, we derive
\begin{equation*}
|r^{(0)}(\tau) - r^{(k)}(\tau)|
\leq \frac{\tau^\beta}{\Gamma(\beta + 1)} \max_{\xi \in [0, \tau]} |q^{(0)}(\xi) - q^{(k)}(\xi)|
\leq \frac{8 R T^\beta}{\Gamma(\beta + 1)} (\dist_k + \varkappa_\ast(\dist_k)),
\quad \tau \in [0, \min\{t_0, t_k\}],
\end{equation*}
and, therefore, in view of \eqref{dist_properties}, we have
\begin{equation*}
\dist\big( (t_0, r^{(0)}(\cdot)), (t_k, r^{(k)}(\cdot)) \big)
\leq \dist_k + \frac{8 R^2}{\Gamma(\beta + 1)} \dist_k^\beta + \frac{8 R T^\beta}{\Gamma(\beta + 1)} (\dist_k + \varkappa_\ast(\dist_k)).
\end{equation*}
So, the sequence $\{(t_k, r^{(k)}(\cdot))\}_{k \in \xN} \subset G_1$ converges to $(t_0, r^{(0)}(\cdot)) \in G_1$, and, hence, mapping \eqref{auxiliary_mapping} is continuous.
2.
Further, for every $(t, w(\cdot)) \in G_n$, since the functions $q(\cdot) = q(\cdot \mid t, w(\cdot))$ and $r(\cdot \mid t, w(\cdot), \beta) = (I^\beta q)(\cdot)$ are nonnegative, in accordance with \eqref{I} and \eqref{I_semigroup_property}, we obtain
\begin{align*}
V^\ast(t, w(\cdot))
& = \frac{1}{\Gamma(1 - \alpha - \beta)} \int_{0}^{t}
\frac{e^{- \mu (t - \tau)^{\alpha + \beta}} (I^\beta q)(\tau)}{(t - \tau)^{\alpha + \beta}} \xdif \tau
\geq \frac{e^{- \mu T^{\alpha + \beta}}}{\Gamma(1 - \alpha - \beta)} \int_{0}^{t}
\frac{(I^\beta q)(\tau)}{(t - \tau)^{\alpha + \beta}} \xdif \tau \\
& = e^{- \mu T^{\alpha + \beta}} \big(I^{1 - \alpha - \beta} (I^\beta q)\big)(t)
= e^{- \mu T^{\alpha + \beta}} (I^{1 - \alpha} q)(t)
\geq 0,
\end{align*}
which proves $(V^\ast.2)$.
3.
Let us prove statement $(V^\ast.3)$.
Fix $x(\cdot) \in \AC^\alpha([0, T], \xR^n)$.
By virtue of \cite[Corollary~4.2]{Gomoyunov_2018_FCAA}, we have $q(\cdot) = q(\cdot \mid T, x(\cdot)) \in \AC^\alpha([0, T], \xR)$, and, therefore, $r(\cdot) = r(\cdot \mid T, x(\cdot), \beta) = (I^\beta q)(\cdot) \in \AC^{\alpha + \beta}([0, T], \xR)$ in view of the equality $q(0) = 0$.
Since $r(0) = 0$ and the function $r(\cdot)$ is nonnegative, it follows from $(V.2)$ that the function $v^\ast(t) = V^\ast(t, x_t(\cdot)) = V(t, r_t(\cdot))$, $t \in [0, T]$, satisfies the inclusion $v^\ast(\cdot) \in \Lip([0, T], \xR)$, and
\begin{equation} \label{lemma_V_beta_mu_p_2}
\dot{v}^\ast(t)
\leq (^C D^{\alpha + \beta} r)(t)
- \frac{\mu}{\Gamma(1 - \alpha - \beta)} r(t)
+ \frac{\mu^2 \Gamma(\alpha + \beta + 1)}{2 \Gamma(1 - \alpha - \beta)} (I^{\alpha + \beta} r)(t)
\text{ for a.e. } t \in [0, T].
\end{equation}
Note that, due to \eqref{I_semigroup_property}, we derive $(I^{\alpha + \beta} r)(t) = (I^{\alpha + 2 \beta} q)(t)$, $t \in [0, T]$, and, moreover, in accordance with \eqref{Caputo},
\begin{equation*}
(^C D^{\alpha + \beta} r)(t)
= \xDrv{(I^{1 - \alpha - \beta} r)(t)}{t}
= \xDrv{\big( I^{1 - \alpha - \beta} (I^\beta q)\big)(t)}{t}
= \xDrv{(I^{1 - \alpha} q)(t)}{t}
= (^C D^\alpha q)(t)
\text{ for a.e. } t \in [0, T].
\end{equation*}
Thus, inequality \eqref{lemma_V_beta_mu_p_2} implies estimate \eqref{lemma_V_beta_mu_main}.
The lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Functional $V_\ast$}
By suitably combining the functionals $V^\ast_{\beta, \mu}$ from \eqref{V^2_beta_mu} for various values of $\beta \in [0, 1 - \alpha)$ and $\mu > 0$, we obtain the following result.
\begin{lmm} \label{lemma_V}
For any $\lambda > 0$, there exist a number $\lambda_\ast > 0$ and a functional $V_\ast: G_n \to \xR$ such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(V_\ast.1)$]
The functional $V_\ast$ is nonnegative and continuous.
In addition, if $(t, w(\cdot)) \in G_n$ and $w(\tau) = w(0)$, $\tau \in [0, t]$, then $V_\ast(t, w(\cdot)) = 0$.
\item[$(V_\ast.2)$]
For every function $x(\cdot) \in \AC^\alpha([0, T], \xR^n)$, the function $v_\ast(t) = V_\ast(t, x_t(\cdot))$, $t \in [0, T]$, satisfies the inclusion $v_\ast(\cdot) \in \Lip([0, T], \xR)$, and
\begin{equation} \label{lemma_V_main}
\dot{v}_\ast(t)
\leq e^{- \lambda_\ast t}
\big( 2 \langle x(t) - x(0), (^C D^\alpha x)(t) \rangle - \lambda \|x(t) - x(0)\|^2 \big)
\text{ for a.e. } t \in [0, T].
\end{equation}
\item[$(V_\ast.3)$]
For any compact set $X \subset \C([0, T], \xR^n)$ and any number $\rho > 0$, there exists $\delta > 0$ such that, for every $x(\cdot) \in X$, the inequality $V_\ast(T, x(\cdot)) \leq \delta$ implies the estimate $\|x(\cdot) - x(0)\|_{[0, T]} \leq \rho$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lmm}
\begin{rmrk}
In the case $\alpha = 1$, statements $(V_\ast.1)$ and $(V_\ast.2)$ are satisfied for the functional
\begin{equation*}
V_\ast(t, w(\cdot))
= e^{- \lambda t} \|w(t) - w(0)\|^2,
\quad (t, w(\cdot)) \in G_n.
\end{equation*}
Thus, Lemma~\ref{lemma_V} provides a suitable analogue of this functional for the case when $\alpha \in (0, 1)$.
\end{rmrk}
Before proving Lemma~\ref{lemma_V}, we present an auxiliary proposition.
\begin{prpstn} \label{proposition_integrals_alpha_beta}
If $\beta \geq 1 - \alpha$ and a function $\psi(\cdot) \in \xLinfty([0, T], \xR)$ is nonnegative, then
\begin{equation*}
(I^\beta \psi)(t)
\leq \frac{\Gamma(1 - \alpha) T^{\alpha + \beta - 1}}{\Gamma(\beta)} (I^{1 - \alpha} \psi)(t),
\quad t \in [0, T].
\end{equation*}
\end{prpstn}
\begin{proof}
According to \eqref{I}, for every $t \in [0, T]$, we have
\begin{equation*}
(I^\beta \psi)(t)
= \frac{1}{\Gamma(\beta)} \int_{0}^{t} \frac{(t - \tau)^{\alpha + \beta - 1} \psi(\tau)}{(t - \tau)^\alpha} \xdif \tau
\leq \frac{T^{\alpha + \beta - 1}}{\Gamma(\beta)} \int_{0}^{t} \frac{\psi(\tau)}{(t - \tau)^\alpha} \xdif \tau
\leq \frac{\Gamma(1 - \alpha) T^{\alpha + \beta - 1}}{\Gamma(\beta)} (I^{1 - \alpha} \psi)(t),
\end{equation*}
which proves the proposition.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma_V}.]
Fix $\lambda > 0$.
Choice of the number $\lambda_\ast$ and construction of the functional $V_\ast: G_n \to \xR$ depend on the value of $\alpha$.
For the reader's convenience, we first consider in detain the cases when $\alpha \in [1 / 2, 1)$ and $\alpha \in [1 / 4, 1 / 2)$, and, after that, we handle the general case when $\alpha \in [2^{- m}, 2^{- (m - 1)})$ for some $m \in \xN$.
1.
Assume that $\alpha \in [1 / 2, 1)$.
Define
\begin{equation*} \label{case_1_parameters}
\beta_1
= 0,
\quad \mu_1
= \Gamma(1 - \alpha) \lambda,
\quad \lambda_\ast
= \frac{\mu_1^2 \Gamma(\alpha + 1) T^{2 \alpha - 1}}{2 \Gamma(\alpha)} e^{\mu_1 T^\alpha},
\end{equation*}
take the corresponding functional $V^\ast_{\beta_1, \mu_1}$ from \eqref{V^2_beta_mu}, and put
\begin{equation*}
V_\ast(t, w(\cdot))
= e^{- \lambda_\ast t} V^\ast_{\beta_1, \mu_1} (t, w(\cdot)),
\quad (t, w(\cdot)) \in G_n.
\end{equation*}
Let us show that the specified $\lambda_\ast$ and $V_\ast$ possess properties $(V_\ast.1)$--$(V_\ast.3)$.
Since the functional $V^\ast_{\beta_1, \mu_1}$ is nonnegative and continuous by $(V^\ast.1)$ and $(V^\ast.2)$, we obtain that the functional $V_\ast$ is nonnegative and continuous, too.
Now, let $(t, w(\cdot)) \in G_n$ be such that $w(\tau) = w(0)$, $\tau \in [0, t]$.
Then, it follows from \eqref{V^2_beta_mu_explicit_beta=0} that $V^\ast_{\beta_1, \mu_1} (t, w(\cdot)) = 0$, and, consequently, $V_\ast(t, w(\cdot)) = 0$.
Thus, statement $(V_\ast.1)$ is proved.
Further, fix $x(\cdot) \in \AC^\alpha([0, T], \xR^n)$.
Introduce the auxiliary function $v_1^\ast(t) = V^\ast_{\beta_1, \mu_1}(t, x_t(\cdot))$, $t \in [0, T]$.
Due to $(V^\ast.3)$, we derive $v_1^\ast(\cdot) \in \Lip([0, T], \xR)$, and, since $\beta_1 = 0$,
\begin{equation*}
\dot{v}^\ast_1(t)
\leq (^C D^\alpha q)(t)
- \frac{\mu_1}{\Gamma(1 - \alpha)} q(t)
+ \frac{\mu_1^2 \Gamma(\alpha + 1)}{2 \Gamma(1 - \alpha)} (I^\alpha q)(t)
\text{ for a.e. } t \in [0, T],
\end{equation*}
where $q(\cdot) = q(\cdot \mid T, x(\cdot))$.
Note that, in the considered case, we have $\alpha \geq 1 - \alpha$.
Hence, by Proposition~\ref{proposition_integrals_alpha_beta}, taking into account $(V^\ast.2)$, we get
\begin{equation*}
(I^\alpha q)(t)
\leq \frac{\Gamma(1 - \alpha) T^{2 \alpha - 1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)} (I^{1 - \alpha} q)(t)
\leq \frac{\Gamma(1 - \alpha) T^{2 \alpha - 1}}{\Gamma(\alpha)} e^{\mu_1 T^\alpha} v_1^\ast(t),
\quad t \in [0, T].
\end{equation*}
Therefore, by virtue of the choice of $\mu_1$ and $\lambda_\ast$, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\dot{v}_1^\ast(t)
\leq (^C D^\alpha q)(t)
- \lambda q(t)
+ \lambda_\ast v_1^\ast(t)
\text{ for a.e. } t \in [0, T].
\end{equation*}
Thus, for the function $v_\ast(t) = V_\ast(t, x_t(\cdot)) = e^{- \lambda_\ast t} v_1^\ast(t)$, $t \in [0, T]$, we conclude $v_\ast(\cdot) \in \Lip([0, T], \xR)$ and
\begin{equation*}
\dot{v}_\ast(t)
= e^{- \lambda_\ast t} \dot{v}^\ast_1(t) - \lambda_\ast e^{- \lambda_\ast t} v_1^\ast(t)
\leq e^{- \lambda_\ast t} ((^C D^\alpha q)(t) - \lambda q(t))
\text{ for a.e. } t \in [0, T].
\end{equation*}
From this estimate and the inequality
\begin{equation} \label{s_derivarive}
(^C D^\alpha q)(t)
\leq 2 \langle x(t) - x(0), (^C D^\alpha x)(t) \rangle
\text{ for a.e. } t \in [0, T],
\end{equation}
which is valid by \cite[Corollary~4.2]{Gomoyunov_2018_FCAA}, we derive \eqref{lemma_V_main}.
Property $(V_\ast.2)$ is established.
Let us prove $(V_\ast.3)$.
Arguing by contradiction, suppose that there exist a compact set $X \subset \C([0, T], \xR^n)$ and a number $\rho > 0$ such that, for every $k \in \xN$, one can choose $x^{(k)}(\cdot) \in X$ such that $V_\ast(T, x^{(k)}(\cdot)) \leq 1 / k$ and
\begin{equation} \label{case_1_jjj}
\|x^{(k)}(\cdot) - x^{(k)}(0)\|_{[0, T]}
\geq \rho.
\end{equation}
Owing to compactness of $X$, we can assume that the sequence $\{x^{(k)}(\cdot)\}_{k \in \xN}$ converges to a function $x^{(0)}(\cdot) \in X$.
Denote $q^{(k)}(\cdot) = q(\cdot \mid T, x^{(k)}(\cdot))$, $k \in \xN \cup \{0\}$.
Then, the sequence $\{q^{(k)}(\cdot)\}_{k \in \xN} \subset \C([0, T], \xR)$ converges to $q^{(0)}(\cdot)$ (see, e.g., the proof of $(V^\ast.1)$), and, therefore, in view of \eqref{I_properties}, we have $(I^{1 - \alpha} q^{(k)})(T) \to (I^{1 - \alpha} q^{(0)})(T)$ as $k \to \infty$.
On the other hand, for every $k \in \xN$, according to $(V^\ast.2)$, we get
\begin{equation*}
1 / k
\geq V_\ast(T, x^{(k)}(\cdot))
= e^{- \lambda_\ast T} V^\ast_{\beta_1, \mu_1} (T, x^{(k)}(\cdot))
\geq e^{- \lambda_\ast T - \mu_1 T^\alpha} (I^{1 - \alpha} q^{(k)})(T)
\geq 0,
\end{equation*}
wherefrom it follows that $(I^{1 - \alpha} q^{(k)})(T) \to 0$ as $k \to \infty$, and, hence, $(I^{1 - \alpha} q^{(0)})(T) = 0$.
Since the function $q^{(0)}(\cdot)$ is continuous and nonnegative, this equality yields $q^{(0)}(t) = 0$, $t \in [0, T]$.
But, passing to the limit as $k \to \infty$ in inequality \eqref{case_1_jjj}, we derive $\|q^{(0)}(\cdot)\|_{[0, T]} \geq \rho^2 > 0$, and obtain the contradiction, which proves $(V_\ast.3)$.
2.
Consider the next case when $\alpha \in [1 / 4, 1 / 2)$.
Define
\begin{equation*}
\beta_1
= 0,
\quad \beta_2
= \alpha,
\quad \mu_1
= 2 \Gamma(1 - \alpha) \lambda,
\quad \mu_2
= \frac{\mu_1^2 \Gamma(\alpha + 1) \Gamma(1 - 2 \alpha)}{2 \Gamma(1 - \alpha)}
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\lambda_\ast
= \frac{\mu_2^2 \Gamma(2 \alpha + 1) \Gamma(1 - \alpha) T^{4 \alpha - 1}}{2 \Gamma(1 - 2 \alpha) \Gamma(3 \alpha)} e^{\mu_1 T^\alpha}.
\end{equation*}
Note that $\beta_2 < 1 - \alpha$ since $\alpha < 1 / 2$.
Take the functionals $V^\ast_{\beta_1, \mu_1}$ and $V^\ast_{\beta_2, \mu_2}$ from \eqref{V^2_beta_mu} and put
\begin{equation*}
V_\ast(t, w(\cdot))
= e^{- \lambda_\ast t} \big( V^\ast_{\beta_1, \mu_1} (t, w(\cdot)) + V^\ast_{\beta_2, \mu_2} (t, w(\cdot)) \big) / 2,
\quad (t, w(\cdot)) \in G_n.
\end{equation*}
For the specified $\lambda_\ast$ and $V_\ast$, statement $(V_\ast.1)$ is verified in the same way as in the first case.
The proof of $(V_\ast.3)$ also does not differ essentially from the arguments given above, because, due to $(V^\ast.2)$ and the equality $\beta_1 = 0$, for any $x(\cdot) \in \C([0, T], \xR^n)$, the following estimate holds:
\begin{equation*}
V_\ast(T, x(\cdot))
\geq e^{- \lambda_\ast T} V^\ast_{\beta_1, \mu_1} (T, x(\cdot)) / 2
\geq e^{- \lambda_\ast T - \mu_1 T^\alpha} (I^{1 - \alpha} q)(T) / 2,
\end{equation*}
where $q(\cdot) = q(\cdot \mid T, x(\cdot))$.
Thus, it remains to prove $(V_\ast.2)$.
For a given $x(\cdot) \in \AC^\alpha([0, T], \xR^n)$, introduce the functions $v_1^\ast(t) = V^\ast_{\beta_1, \mu_1}(t, x_t(\cdot))$, $v_2^\ast(t) = V^\ast_{\beta_2, \mu_2}(t, x_t(\cdot))$, $t \in [0, T]$.
According to $(V^\ast.3)$, we obtain $v_1^\ast(\cdot)$, $v_2^\ast(\cdot) \in \Lip([0, T], \xR)$, and, taking into account the choice of $\beta_1$, $\beta_2$, $\mu_1$, and $\mu_2$, we derive
\begin{align*}
\dot{v}_1^\ast(t) + \dot{v}_2^\ast(t)
& \leq 2 (^C D^\alpha q)(t)
- \frac{\mu_1}{\Gamma(1 - \alpha)} q(t)
+ \frac{\mu_1^2 \Gamma(\alpha + 1)}{2 \Gamma(1 - \alpha)} (I^{\alpha} q)(t) \\
& + (^C D^\alpha q)(t) - \frac{\mu_2}{\Gamma(1 - 2 \alpha)} (I^\alpha q)(t)
+ \frac{\mu_2^2 \Gamma(2 \alpha + 1)}{2 \Gamma(1 - 2 \alpha)} (I^{3 \alpha} q)(t) \\
& = 2 (^C D^\alpha q)(t) - 2 \lambda q(t)
+ \frac{\mu_2^2 \Gamma(2 \alpha + 1)}{2 \Gamma(1 - 2 \alpha)} (I^{3 \alpha} q)(t)
\text{ for a.e. } t \in [0, T],
\end{align*}
where $q(\cdot) = q(\cdot \mid T, x(\cdot))$.
Since, in the second case, we have $3 \alpha \geq 1 - \alpha$, then Proposition~\ref{proposition_integrals_alpha_beta} and $(V^\ast.2)$ yield
\begin{equation*}
(I^{3 \alpha} q)(t)
\leq \frac{\Gamma(1 - \alpha) T^{4 \alpha - 1}}{\Gamma(3 \alpha)} (I^{1 - \alpha} q)(t)
\leq \frac{\Gamma(1 - \alpha) T^{4 \alpha - 1}}{\Gamma(3 \alpha)} e^{\mu_1 T^\alpha} v_1^\ast(t),
\quad t \in [0, T].
\end{equation*}
Therefore, owing to the choice of $\lambda_\ast$, we conclude
\begin{equation*}
\dot{v}_1^\ast(t) + \dot{v}_2^\ast(t)
\leq 2 (^C D^\alpha q)(t) - 2 \lambda q(t) + \lambda_\ast v_1^\ast(t)
\text{ for a.e. } t \in [0, T].
\end{equation*}
Thus, for the function $v_\ast(t) = V_\ast(t, x_t(\cdot)) = e^{- \lambda_\ast t} (v_1^\ast(t) + v_2^\ast(t)) / 2$, $t \in [0, T]$, we get $v_\ast(\cdot) \in \Lip([0, T], \xR)$ and
\begin{equation*}
\dot{v}_\ast(t)
= e^{- \lambda_\ast t} (\dot{v}_1^\ast(t) + \dot{v}_2^\ast(t)) / 2
- \lambda_\ast e^{- \lambda_\ast t} (v_1^\ast(t) + v_2^\ast(t)) / 2
\leq e^{- \lambda_\ast t} ((^C D^\alpha q)(t) - \lambda q(t))
\text{ for a.e. } t \in [0, T].
\end{equation*}
This estimate and \eqref{s_derivarive} imply \eqref{lemma_V_main}.
The proof of $(V_\ast.3)$ is completed.
3.
In the general case, choose $m \in \xN$ such that $\alpha \in [2^{- m}, 2^{- (m - 1)})$.
The cases $m = 1$ and $m = 2$ were considered above, so we can assume that $m > 2$.
Put
\begin{equation*}
\beta_i
= (2^{i - 1} - 1) \alpha,
\quad i \in \overline{1, m}.
\end{equation*}
Note that $\beta_1 = 0$, and, due to the choice of $m$,
\begin{equation*}
0
\leq
\beta_i
\leq (2^{m - 1} - 1) \alpha
< (2^{m - 1} - 1) 2^{- (m - 1)}
= 1 - 2^{- (m - 1)}
< 1 - \alpha,
\quad i \in \overline{1, m}.
\end{equation*}
Further, define numbers $\mu_i > 0$, $i \in \overline{1, m}$, by the following recurrent relations:
\begin{equation*}
\mu_1
= m \Gamma(1 - \alpha) \lambda,
\quad \mu_{i + 1}
= \frac{\mu_i^2 \Gamma(\alpha + \beta_i + 1) \Gamma(1 - \alpha - \beta_{i + 1})}{2 \Gamma(1 - \alpha - \beta_i)},
\quad i \in \overline{1, m - 1},
\end{equation*}
and set
\begin{equation*}
\lambda_\ast
= \frac{\mu_m^2 \Gamma(\alpha + \beta_m + 1) \Gamma(1 - \alpha) T^{2 \alpha + 2 \beta_m - 1}}
{2 \Gamma(1 - \alpha - \beta_m) \Gamma(\alpha + 2 \beta_m)} e^{\mu_1 T^\alpha}.
\end{equation*}
Finally, take the corresponding functionals $V^\ast_{\beta_i, \mu_i}$, $i \in \overline{1, m}$, from \eqref{V^2_beta_mu} and put
\begin{equation*}
V_\ast(t, w(\cdot))
= \frac{e^{- \lambda_\ast t}}{m} \sum_{i = 1}^{m} V^\ast_{\beta_i, \mu_i} (t, w(\cdot)),
\quad (t, w(\cdot)) \in G_n.
\end{equation*}
The proofs of properties $(V_\ast.1)$ and $(V_\ast.3)$ for the specified $\lambda_\ast$ and $V_\ast$ are carried out by the same scheme as in the two particular cases considered above, and, therefore, they are omitted.
Let us prove $(V_\ast.2)$.
Let $x(\cdot) \in \AC^\alpha([0, T], \xR^n)$ and $q(\cdot) = q(\cdot \mid T, x(\cdot))$.
By virtue of $(V^\ast.3)$, for every $i \in \overline{1, m}$, the function $v_i^\ast(t) = V^\ast_{\beta_i, \mu_i}(t, x_t(\cdot))$, $t \in [0, T]$, satisfies the inclusion $v_i^\ast(\cdot) \in \Lip([0, T], \xR)$, and, taking into account the choice of $\beta_1$ and $\mu_1$, we derive
\begin{align}
\sum_{i = 1}^{m} \dot{v}_i^\ast(t)
& \leq m (^C D^\alpha q)(t) - m \lambda q(t) \nonumber \\
& - \sum_{i = 2}^{m} \frac{\mu_i}{\Gamma(1 - \alpha - \beta_i)} (I^{\beta_i} q)(t)
+ \sum_{i = 1}^{m} \frac{\mu_i^2 \Gamma(\alpha + \beta_i + 1)}{2 \Gamma(1 - \alpha - \beta_i)} (I^{\alpha + 2 \beta_i} q)(t)
\text{ for a.e. } t \in [0, T]. \label{general_case_sum}
\end{align}
Let $t \in [0, T]$ be fixed.
For any $i \in \overline{1, m - 1}$, due to the choice of $\beta_i$, $\beta_{i + 1}$, and $\mu_{i + 1}$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\mu_i^2 \Gamma(\alpha + \beta_i + 1)}{2 \Gamma(1 - \alpha - \beta_i)} (I^{\alpha + 2 \beta_i} q)(t)
= \frac{\mu_i^2 \Gamma(\alpha + \beta_i + 1)}{2 \Gamma(1 - \alpha - \beta_i)} (I^{\beta_{i + 1}} q)(t)
= \frac{\mu_{i + 1}}{\Gamma(1 - \alpha - \beta_{i + 1})} (I^{\beta_{i + 1}} q)(t),
\end{equation*}
and, consequently, for the last two terms in \eqref{general_case_sum}, we get
\begin{equation} \label{general_case_1}
\sum_{i = 1}^{m} \frac{\mu_i^2 \Gamma(\alpha + \beta_i + 1)}{2 \Gamma(1 - \alpha - \beta_i)} (I^{\alpha + 2 \beta_i} q)(t)
- \sum_{i = 2}^{m} \frac{\mu_i}{\Gamma(1 - \alpha - \beta_i)} (I^{\beta_i} q)(t)
= \frac{\mu_m^2 \Gamma(\alpha + \beta_m + 1)}{2 \Gamma(1 - \alpha - \beta_m)} (I^{\alpha + 2 \beta_m} q)(t).
\end{equation}
Further, owing to the choice of $\beta_m$ and the inequality $\alpha \geq 2^{- m}$, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\alpha + 2 \beta_m
= (2^m - 1) \alpha
\geq (2^m - 1) 2^{- m}
= 1 - 2^{- m}
\geq 1 - \alpha.
\end{equation*}
Hence, according to Proposition~\ref{proposition_integrals_alpha_beta} and $(V^\ast.2)$, since $\beta_1 = 0$, we conclude
\begin{equation*}
(I^{\alpha + 2 \beta_m} q)(t)
\leq \frac{\Gamma(1 - \alpha) T^{2 \alpha + 2 \beta_m - 1}}{\Gamma(\alpha + 2 \beta_m)} (I^{1 - \alpha} q)(t)
\leq \frac{\Gamma(1 - \alpha) T^{2 \alpha + 2 \beta_m - 1}}{\Gamma(\alpha + 2 \beta_m)} e^{\mu_1 T^\alpha} v_1^\ast(t),
\end{equation*}
and, then, in view of the choice of $\lambda_\ast$, we derive
\begin{equation} \label{general_case_2}
\frac{\mu_m^2 \Gamma(\alpha + \beta_m + 1)}{2 \Gamma(1 - \alpha - \beta_m)} (I^{\alpha + 2 \beta_m} q)(t)
\leq \lambda_\ast v_1^\ast(t).
\end{equation}
Thus, it follows from \eqref{general_case_sum}, \eqref{general_case_1}, and \eqref{general_case_2} that
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{i = 1}^{m} \dot{v}_i^\ast(t)
\leq m (^C D^\alpha q)(t)
- m \lambda q(t)
+ \lambda_\ast v_1^\ast(t)
\text{ for a.e. } t \in [0, T].
\end{equation*}
Therefore, we get that the function
\begin{equation*}
v_\ast(t)
= V_\ast(t, x_t(\cdot))
= \frac{e^{- \lambda_\ast t}}{m} \sum_{i = 0}^{m} v_i^\ast(t),
\quad t \in [0, T],
\end{equation*}
satisfies the inclusion $v_\ast(\cdot) \in \Lip([0, T], \xR)$, and
\begin{equation*}
\dot{v}_\ast(t)
= \frac{e^{- \lambda_\ast t}}{m} \sum_{i = 0}^{m} \dot{v}_i^\ast(t)
- \frac{\lambda_\ast e^{- \lambda_\ast t}}{m} \sum_{i = 0}^{m} v_i^\ast(t)
\leq e^{- \lambda_\ast t} ((^C D^\alpha q)(t) - \lambda q(t))
\text{ for a.e. } t \in [0, T].
\end{equation*}
This estimate and \eqref{s_derivarive} yield \eqref{lemma_V_main}, which completes the proof of $(V_\ast.3)$.
The lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Functional $\mathcal{V}_\varepsilon$}
\label{subsubsection_Veps}
Below, following the scheme from \cite[Sect.~7.5]{Subbotin_1995} and based on Lemma~\ref{lemma_V}, for every sufficiently small $\varepsilon > 0$, we define a functional $\mathcal{V}_\varepsilon: G_n \to \xR$ with a number of prescribed properties, which are close to those listed in \cite[Sect.~5]{Lukoyanov_2004_PMM_Eng} (in this connection, see assumptions $(H.4)^\prime$ in \cite{Crandall_Lions_Ishii_1987}, $(A.4)$ in \cite[Sect.~9.2]{Subbotin_1995}, and $(F.3)$ in \cite{Lukoyanov_2006_IMM_Eng}).
Let $R > 0$ be fixed, and let $\lambda_H$ be chosen by $R$ according to assumption $(H.3)$.
Set $\lambda = 4 \lambda_H$ and take the corresponding number $\lambda_\ast$ and functional $V_\ast$ from Lemma~\ref{lemma_V}.
Choose $\varepsilon_0 > 0$ such that $\varepsilon_0 \leq 2 e^{- (\lambda_H + \lambda_\ast / 2) T}$.
For any $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_0]$, define
\begin{equation*}
G_n \ni (t, w(\cdot)) \mapsto \mathcal{V}_\varepsilon(t, w(\cdot))
= \frac{e^{- \lambda_H t}}{\varepsilon} \sqrt{\varepsilon^4 + V_\ast(t, w(\cdot))}
\in \xR
\end{equation*}
and consider also the auxiliary functionals $p_\varepsilon: G_n \to \xR$ and $s_\varepsilon: G_n \to \xR^n$ given by
\begin{align*}
p_\varepsilon(t, w(\cdot))
& = - \frac{\lambda_H e^{- \lambda_H t}}{\varepsilon} \sqrt{\varepsilon^4 + V_\ast(t, w(\cdot))}
- \frac{2 \lambda_H e^{- (\lambda_H + \lambda_\ast) t}}{\varepsilon} \frac{\|w(t) - w(0)\|^2}
{\sqrt{\varepsilon^4 + V_\ast(t, w(\cdot))}}, \\
s_\varepsilon(t, w(\cdot))
& = \frac{e^{- (\lambda_H + \lambda_\ast) t}}{\varepsilon} \frac{w(t) - w(0)}{\sqrt{\varepsilon^4 + V_\ast(t, w(\cdot))}},
\quad (t, w(\cdot)) \in G_n.
\end{align*}
\begin{lmm} \label{lemma_nu_varepsilon}
For every $R > 0$ and $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_0]$, the following statements hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(\mathcal{V}.1)$]
The functional $\mathcal{V}_\varepsilon$ is nonnegative and continuous.
In addition, if $(t, w(\cdot)) \in G_n$ and $w(\tau) = w(0)$, $\tau \in [0, t]$, then $\mathcal{V}_\varepsilon(t, w(\cdot)) \leq \varepsilon$.
\item[$(\mathcal{V}.2)$]
The functionals $p_\varepsilon$ and $s_\varepsilon$ are continuous.
Furthermore, for any $(t, w(\cdot))$, $(t, w^\prime(\cdot)) \in G_n$ such that $\|w(\cdot)\|_{[0, t]} \leq R$, $\|w^\prime(\cdot)\|_{[0, t]} \leq R$, and $w(0) = w^\prime(0)$, the inequality below is valid:
\begin{equation} \label{C_2_2_main}
p_\varepsilon(t, \Delta w(\cdot))
+ H\big(t, w^\prime(t), s_\varepsilon(t, \Delta w(\cdot))\big)
- H\big(t, w(t), s_\varepsilon(t, \Delta w(\cdot))\big)
\leq 0,
\end{equation}
where $\Delta w(\cdot) = w^\prime(\cdot) - w(\cdot)$.
\item[$(\mathcal{V}.3)$]
For every function $x(\cdot) \in \AC^\alpha([0, T], \xR^n)$, the function $v(t) = \mathcal{V}_\varepsilon(t, x_t(\cdot))$, $t \in [0, T]$, satisfies the inclusion $v(\cdot) \in \Lip([0, T], \xR)$, and
\begin{equation} \label{C_2_1_main}
\dot{v}(t)
\leq p_\varepsilon(t, x_t(\cdot))
+ \langle s_\varepsilon(t, x_t(\cdot)), (^C D^\alpha x)(t) \rangle
\text{ for a.e. } t \in [0, T].
\end{equation}
\item[$(\mathcal{V}.4)$]
For any compact set $X \subset \AC^\alpha([0, T], \xR^n)$ and any numbers $K > 0$ and $\kappa > 0$, there exists $\varepsilon_\ast \in (0, \varepsilon_0]$ such that, if $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_\ast]$ and $x(\cdot)$, $x^\prime(\cdot) \in X$ satisfy the relations $x(0) = x^\prime(0)$ and $\mathcal{V}_\varepsilon(T, x^\prime(\cdot) - x(\cdot)) \leq K$, then $|\sigma(x^\prime(\cdot)) - \sigma(x(\cdot))| \leq \kappa$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lmm}
\begin{rmrk}
If it were shown that, for some $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_0]$, the functional $\mathcal{V}_\varepsilon$ is $ci$-smooth of the order $\alpha$ (see Sect.~\ref{subsection_ci-derivatives}), then it would follow from \cite[Lemma~9.2]{Gomoyunov_2020_SIAM} that, for every function $x(\cdot) \in \AC^\alpha([0, T], \xR^n)$, the function $v(t) = \mathcal{V}_\varepsilon(t, x_t(\cdot))$, $t \in [0, T]$, would satisfy the equality
\begin{equation*}
\dot{v}(t)
= \partial^\alpha_t \mathcal{V}_\varepsilon(t, x_t(\cdot))
+ \langle \nabla^\alpha \mathcal{V}_\varepsilon(t, x_t(\cdot)), (^C D^\alpha x)(t) \rangle
\text{ for a.e. } t \in [0, T].
\end{equation*}
Comparing this equality with estimate \eqref{C_2_1_main}, we see that, in some sense, the functionals $p_\varepsilon$ and $s_\varepsilon$ correspond to the derivatives $\partial^\alpha_t \mathcal{V}_\varepsilon$ and $\nabla^\alpha \mathcal{V}_\varepsilon$, respectively.
Hence, in this case, statement $(\mathcal{V}.2)$ could be considered as the requirement for the functionals $\partial^\alpha_t \mathcal{V}_\varepsilon$ and $\nabla^\alpha \mathcal{V}_\varepsilon$, which is consistent with the item $(d)$ in \cite[Sect.~5]{Lukoyanov_2004_PMM_Eng}.
However, for the results of the paper to be valid, $ci$-smoothness of the order $\alpha$ of the functional $\mathcal{V}_\varepsilon$ is not necessary, and we only need to establish the properties given in Lemma~\ref{lemma_nu_varepsilon}.
\end{rmrk}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma_nu_varepsilon}.]
1.
Taking into account that the functional $V_\ast$ is nonnegative and continuous by $(V_\ast.1)$, we obtain that the functional $\mathcal{V}_\varepsilon$ is nonnegative and continuous, too.
Now, let $(t, w(\cdot)) \in G_n$ be such that $w(\tau) = w(0)$, $\tau \in [0, t]$.
Then, in view of $(V_\ast.1)$, we derive $\mathcal{V}_\varepsilon(t, w(\cdot)) = e^{- \lambda_H t} \varepsilon \leq \varepsilon$.
Thus, property $(\mathcal{V}.1)$ is established.
2.
Note that continuity of the functionals $V_\ast$ and $G_n \ni (t, w(\cdot)) \mapsto w(t) - w(0) \in \xR^n$ imply also continuity of the functionals $p_\varepsilon$ and $s_\varepsilon$.
Further, fix $(t, w(\cdot))$, $(t, w^\prime(\cdot)) \in G_n$ such that $\|w(\cdot)\|_{[0, t]} \leq R$, $\|w^\prime(\cdot)\|_{[0, t]} \leq R$, and $w(0) = w^\prime(0)$ and denote $\Delta w(\cdot) = w^\prime(\cdot) - w(\cdot)$.
By the choice of $\lambda_H$, we have
\begin{align} \label{C_2_2_main_p1}
& p_\varepsilon(t, \Delta w(\cdot))
+ H\big(t, w^\prime(t), s_\varepsilon(t, \Delta w(\cdot))\big)
- H\big(t, w(t), s_\varepsilon(t, \Delta w(\cdot))\big) \nonumber \\
& \quad \leq p_\varepsilon(t, \Delta w(\cdot)) + \lambda_H \big(1 + \|s_\varepsilon(t, \Delta w(\cdot))\|\big) \|\Delta w(t)\| \nonumber \\
& \quad = - \frac{\lambda_H e^{- \lambda_H t}}{\varepsilon} \sqrt{\varepsilon^4 + V_\ast(t, \Delta w(\cdot))}
\Big( 1 - \varepsilon e^{\lambda_H t} \frac{\|\Delta w(t)\|}{\sqrt{\varepsilon^4 + V_\ast(t, \Delta w(\cdot))}}
+ e^{- \lambda_\ast t} \frac{\|\Delta w(t)\|^2}{\varepsilon^4 + V_\ast(t, \Delta w(\cdot))} \Big).
\end{align}
Due to the choice of $\varepsilon_0$, we get $\varepsilon e^{\lambda_H t} \leq \varepsilon_0 e^{\lambda_H T} \leq 2 e^{- \lambda_\ast t / 2}$, and, therefore,
\begin{equation} \label{C_2_2_main_p2}
1 - \varepsilon e^{\lambda_H t} \frac{\|\Delta w(t)\|}{\sqrt{\varepsilon^4 + V_\ast(t, \Delta w(\cdot))}}
+ e^{- \lambda_\ast t} \frac{\|\Delta w(t)\|^2}{\varepsilon^4 + V_\ast(t, \Delta w(\cdot))}
\geq \Big( 1 - e^{- \lambda_\ast t / 2} \frac{\|\Delta w(t)\|}{\sqrt{\varepsilon^4 + V_\ast(t, \Delta w(\cdot))}} \Big)^2
\geq 0.
\end{equation}
From \eqref{C_2_2_main_p1} and \eqref{C_2_2_main_p2}, we derive \eqref{C_2_2_main}.
3.
Now, let $x(\cdot) \in \AC^\alpha([0, T], \xR^n)$ and $v(t) = \mathcal{V}_\varepsilon(t, x_t(\cdot))$, $t \in [0, T]$.
Then, it follows from $(V_\ast.2)$ that $v(\cdot) \in \Lip([0, T], \xR)$ and, by virtue of the choice of $\lambda$,
\begin{align*}
\dot{v}(t)
& = - \frac{\lambda_H e^{- \lambda_H t}}{\varepsilon} \sqrt{\varepsilon^4 + V_\ast(t, x_t(\cdot))}
+ \frac{e^{- \lambda_H t}}{2 \varepsilon \sqrt{\varepsilon^4 + V_\ast(t, x_t(\cdot))}} \xDrv{V_\ast(t, x_t(\cdot))}{t} \\
& \leq - \frac{\lambda_H e^{- \lambda_H t}}{\varepsilon} \sqrt{\varepsilon^4 + V_\ast(t, x_t(\cdot))}
+ \frac{e^{- (\lambda_H + \lambda_\ast) t}}{\varepsilon \sqrt{\varepsilon^4 + V_\ast(t, x_t(\cdot))}}
\langle x(t) - x(0), (^C D^\alpha x)(t) \rangle \\
& - \frac{2 \lambda_H e^{- (\lambda_H + \lambda_\ast) t}}{\varepsilon \sqrt{\varepsilon^4 + V_\ast(t, x_t(\cdot))}}
\|x(t) - x(0)\|^2
\text{ for a.e. } t \in [0, T].
\end{align*}
This estimate, in accordance with the definitions of the functionals $p_\varepsilon$ and $s_\varepsilon$, yields \eqref{C_2_1_main}.
4.
Finally, let us prove $(\mathcal{V}.4)$.
Let $X \subset \AC^\alpha([0, T], \xR^n)$ be a compact set, and let $K > 0$ and $\kappa > 0$.
Taking into account that the functional $\sigma$ is continuous by assumption $(\sigma)$, choose $\rho > 0$ such that, for any $x(\cdot)$, $x^\prime(\cdot) \in X$, the inequality $\|x^\prime(\cdot) - x(\cdot)\|_{[0, T]} \leq \rho$ implies the estimate $|\sigma(x^\prime(\cdot)) - \sigma(x(\cdot))| \leq \kappa$.
Consider the set
\begin{equation*}
\Delta X
= \big\{ \Delta x(\cdot) = x^\prime(\cdot) - x(\cdot):
\, x(\cdot), x^\prime(\cdot) \in X \big\}
\subset \AC^\alpha([0, T], \xR^n).
\end{equation*}
Since $\Delta X$ is compact, based on $(V_\ast.3)$, take $\delta > 0$ such that, for every $\Delta x(\cdot) \in \Delta X$, it follows from the inequality $V_\ast(T, \Delta x(\cdot)) \leq \delta$ that $\|\Delta x(\cdot) - \Delta x(0)\|_{[0, T]} \leq \rho$.
Now, choose $\varepsilon_\ast \in (0, \varepsilon_0]$ from the condition $K^2 e^{2 \lambda_H T} \varepsilon_\ast^2 \leq \delta$.
Let us show that statement $(\mathcal{V}.4)$ is valid for the specified $\varepsilon_\ast$.
Let $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_\ast]$ and $x(\cdot)$, $x^\prime(\cdot) \in X$ be fixed such that the function $\Delta x(\cdot) = x^\prime(\cdot) - x(\cdot) \in \Delta X$ satisfies the relations $\Delta x(0) = 0$ and $\mathcal{V}_{\varepsilon}(T, \Delta x(\cdot)) \leq K$.
Then, we derive
\begin{equation*}
V_\ast(T, \Delta x(\cdot))
\leq \varepsilon^4 + V_\ast(T, \Delta x(\cdot))
= \varepsilon^2 e^{2 \lambda_H T} \mathcal{V}^2_\varepsilon(T, \Delta x(\cdot))
\leq \delta,
\end{equation*}
and, therefore, we have $\|\Delta x(\cdot)\|_{[0, T]} \leq \rho$, wherefrom we obtain $|\sigma(x^\prime(\cdot)) - \sigma(x(\cdot))| \leq \kappa$.
The lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem_comparison_priciple}}
1.
Fix $(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) \in G_n^\alpha$.
If $t_0 = T$, then inequality \eqref{theorem_comparison_priciple_main} for $(t_0, w_0(\cdot))$ holds due to boundary conditions \eqref{upper_solution_boundary} for $\varphi_+$ and \eqref{lower_solution_boundary} for $\varphi_-$.
So, we further assume that $t_0 < T$.
Put
\begin{equation*}
X_\ast^\alpha(t_0, w_0(\cdot))
= \big\{ x(\cdot) \in X^\alpha(t_0, w_0(\cdot)):
\, \|(^C D^\alpha x)(t)\| \leq c_H (1 + \|x(t)\|)
\text{ for a.e. } t \in [t_0, T] \big\},
\end{equation*}
where the set $X^\alpha(t_0, w_0(\cdot))$ is given by \eqref{X^alpha}, and $c_H$ is the constant from assumption $(H.2)$.
Owing to Proposition~\ref{proposition_DI_1}, the set $X_\ast^\alpha(t_0, w_0(\cdot))$ is compact.
In particular, there exists $R > 0$ such that $\|x(\cdot)\|_{[0, T]} \leq R$ for any $x(\cdot) \in X^\alpha(t_0, w_0(\cdot))$.
By this number $R$, define the number $\varepsilon_0 > 0$ and the functionals $\mathcal{V}_\varepsilon$, $p_\varepsilon$, and $s_\varepsilon$ for every $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_0]$ according to Sect.~\ref{subsubsection_Veps}.
2.
Let $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_0]$.
For any $t \in [0, T]$ and $\bar{w}(\cdot) = (w(\cdot), w^\prime(\cdot)) \in \AC^\alpha([0, t], \xR^n \times \xR^n)$, consider the set
\begin{align}
& \mathcal{F}_\varepsilon(t, w(\cdot), w^\prime(\cdot)) \nonumber \\
& \quad = \Big\{ (f, f^\prime, h) \in \xR^n \times \xR^n \times \xR: \,
\|f\| \leq c_H (1 + \|w(t)\|),
\, \|f^\prime\| \leq c_H (1 + \|w^\prime(t)\|), \nonumber \\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad \big|h - \langle s_\varepsilon (t, \Delta w(\cdot)), f - f^\prime \rangle
- H\big(t, w^\prime(t), s_\varepsilon (t, \Delta w(\cdot))\big)
+ H\big(t, w(t), s_\varepsilon (t, \Delta w(\cdot))\big) \big|
\leq \varepsilon \Big\}, \label{F_varepsilon}
\end{align}
where we denote $\Delta w(\cdot) = w^\prime(\cdot) - w(\cdot)$.
Thus, in accordance with notation \eqref{G^alpha_n}, we obtain the set-valued functional $G_{2 n}^\alpha \ni (t, \bar{w}(\cdot) = (w(\cdot), w^\prime(\cdot))) \mapsto \mathcal{F}_\varepsilon(t, w(\cdot), w^\prime(\cdot)) \subset \xR^{2 n} \times \xR$.
Note that $\mathcal{F}_\varepsilon$ possesses properties $(\mathcal{F}.1)$--$(\mathcal{F}.3)$.
Indeed, $(\mathcal{F}.1)$ and $(\mathcal{F}.3)$ can be verified directly, and $(\mathcal{F}.2)$ follows from continuity of the function $H$ (see $(H.1)$) and the functional $s_\varepsilon$ (see $(\mathcal{V}.2)$).
Further, take $z_0 = \varphi_+(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) - \varphi_-(t_0, w_0(\cdot))$ and consider the Cauchy problem for the functional differential inclusion
\begin{equation} \label{DI_proof}
\big( (^C D^\alpha x)(t), (^C D^\alpha x^\prime)(t), \dot{z}(t) \big)
\in \mathcal{F}_\varepsilon(t, x_t(\cdot), x^\prime_t(\cdot)),
\quad (x(t), x^\prime(t), z(t)) \in \xR^n \times \xR^n \times \xR, \quad t \in [t_0, T],
\end{equation}
and the initial condition
\begin{equation} \label{DI_proof_initial_condition}
x(t)
= x^\prime(t)
= w_0(t),
\quad z(t)
= z_0,
\quad t \in [0, t_0].
\end{equation}
By Proposition~\ref{proposition_FDI}, the set $\mathcal{W}_\varepsilon$ of solutions $(x(\cdot), x^\prime(\cdot), z(\cdot))$ of problem \eqref{DI_proof}, \eqref{DI_proof_initial_condition} is nonempty and compact in $\C([0, T], \xR^n \times \xR^n \times \xR)$.
3.
Let us show that there are functions $(x^{(\varepsilon)}(\cdot), x^{\prime (\varepsilon)}(\cdot), z^{(\varepsilon)}(\cdot)) \in \mathcal{W}_\varepsilon$ satisfying the inequality
\begin{equation} \label{x^varepsilon}
z^{(\varepsilon)}(T)
\geq \varphi_+(T, x^{(\varepsilon)}(\cdot)) - \varphi_-(T, x^{\prime (\varepsilon)}(\cdot)).
\end{equation}
For every $t \in [t_0, T]$, consider the set
\begin{equation} \label{M_varepsilon}
\mathcal{M}_\varepsilon(t)
= \big\{ (x(\cdot), x^\prime(\cdot), z(\cdot)) \in \mathcal{W}_\varepsilon:
\, z(t)
\geq \varphi_+ (t, x_t(\cdot)) - \varphi_- (t, x^\prime_t(\cdot)) \big\}.
\end{equation}
Note that $\mathcal{M}_\varepsilon(t_0) \neq \emptyset$ by virtue of initial condition \eqref{DI_proof_initial_condition} and the choice of $z_0$.
Put
\begin{equation} \label{t_varepsilon}
t_\varepsilon
= \max\big\{t \in [t_0, T]:
\, \mathcal{M}_\varepsilon(t) \neq \emptyset \big\}.
\end{equation}
The maximum is achieved here owing to compactness of $\mathcal{W}_\varepsilon$, lower semicontinuity of $\varphi_+$, and upper semicontinuity of $\varphi_-$.
So, in order to complete the proof, it is sufficient to verify that $t_\varepsilon = T$.
Arguing by contradiction, assume that $t_\varepsilon < T$.
Take
\begin{equation} \label{hat_x_x^prime_z}
(\hat{x}(\cdot), \hat{x}^\prime(\cdot), \hat{z}(\cdot))
\in \mathcal{M}_\varepsilon(t_\varepsilon)
\end{equation}
and denote $\hat{s} = s_\varepsilon (t_\varepsilon, \hat{x}^\prime_{t_\varepsilon}(\cdot) - \hat{x}_{t_\varepsilon}(\cdot))$.
Since $\varphi_+$ and $\varphi_-$ possess respectively properties $(\varphi_+^\ast)$ and $(\varphi_-^\ast)$, choose characteristics $(x^+(\cdot), z^+(\cdot)) \in CH(t_\varepsilon, \hat{x}_{t_\varepsilon}(\cdot), 0, \hat{s})$ and $(x^-(\cdot), z^-(\cdot)) \in CH(t_\varepsilon, \hat{x}^\prime_{t_\varepsilon}(\cdot), 0, \hat{s})$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{x^+_x^-}
\varphi_+(t, x^+_t(\cdot)) - z^+(t)
\leq \varphi_+(t_\varepsilon, \hat{x}_{t_\varepsilon}(\cdot)),
\quad \varphi_-(t, x^-_t(\cdot)) - z^-(t)
\geq \varphi_-(t_\varepsilon, \hat{x}^\prime_{t_\varepsilon}(\cdot)),
\quad t \in [t_\varepsilon, T].
\end{equation}
In accordance with \eqref{E} and \eqref{F_varepsilon}, continuity of $H$ and $s_\varepsilon$ implies that there exists $\delta \in (0, T - t_\varepsilon)$ such that $((^C D^\alpha x^+)(t), (^C D^\alpha x^-)(t), \dot{z}^+(t) - \dot{z}^-(t)) \in \mathcal{F}_\varepsilon(t, x^+_t(\cdot), x^-_t(\cdot))$ for a.e. $t \in [t_\varepsilon, t_\varepsilon + \delta]$.
Then, in view of \eqref{M_varepsilon}, \eqref{hat_x_x^prime_z}, and \eqref{x^+_x^-}, for the function $\bar{z}(t) = \hat{z}(t_\varepsilon) + z^+(t) - z^-(t)$, $t \in [t_\varepsilon, t_\varepsilon + \delta]$, we get
\begin{align*}
\bar{z}(t_\varepsilon + \delta)
& \geq \varphi_+(t_\varepsilon, \hat{x}_{t_\varepsilon}(\cdot)) - \varphi_-(t_\varepsilon, \hat{x}^\prime_{t_\varepsilon}(\cdot))
+ z^+(t_\varepsilon + \delta) - z^-(t_\varepsilon + \delta) \\
& \geq \varphi_+(t_\varepsilon + \delta, x^+_{t_\varepsilon + \delta}(\cdot))
- \varphi_-(t_\varepsilon + \delta, x^-_{t_\varepsilon + \delta}(\cdot)).
\end{align*}
Further, let functions $\tilde{x}^\pm(\cdot) \in X^\alpha(t_\varepsilon + \delta, x^\pm_{t_\varepsilon + \delta}(\cdot))$ be such that $(^C D^\alpha \tilde{x}^\pm)(t) = 0$ for a.e. $t \in [t_\varepsilon + \delta, T]$ (in this connection, see, e.g., \cite[Lemma~3]{Gomoyunov_2020_DE}).
Denote $\tilde{s}(t) = s_\varepsilon(t, \tilde{x}^-_t(\cdot) - \tilde{x}^+_t(\cdot))$, $t \in [t_\varepsilon + \delta, T]$, and consider the function $\tilde{z}: [0, T] \to \xR$ defined by $\tilde{z}(t) = \hat{z}(t)$ for $t \in [0, t_\varepsilon]$, $\tilde{z}(t) = \bar{z}(t)$ for $t \in (t_\varepsilon, t_\varepsilon + \delta]$, and
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{z}(t)
= \bar{z}(t_\varepsilon + \delta) + \int_{t_\varepsilon + \delta}^{t}
\big( H(\tau, \tilde{x}^-(\tau), \tilde{s}(\tau)) - H(\tau, \tilde{x}^+(\tau), \tilde{s}(\tau)) \big) \xdif \tau,
\quad t \in (t_\varepsilon + \delta, T].
\end{equation*}
Hence, by construction, we obtain $(\tilde{x}^+(\cdot), \tilde{x}^-(\cdot), \tilde{z}(\cdot)) \in \mathcal{M}_\varepsilon(t_\varepsilon + \delta)$, which contradicts definition \eqref{t_varepsilon} of $t_\varepsilon$.
4.
Note that, for every $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_0]$, it follows from the inclusion $(x^{(\varepsilon)}(\cdot), x^{\prime (\varepsilon)}(\cdot), z^{(\varepsilon)}(\cdot)) \in \mathcal{W}_\varepsilon$ that $x^{(\varepsilon)}(\cdot)$, $x^{\prime (\varepsilon)}(\cdot) \in X^\alpha_\ast(t_0, w_0(\cdot))$, $z^{(\varepsilon)}(\cdot) \in \Lip([0, T], \xR)$, $z(t_0) = \varphi_+(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) - \varphi_-(t_0, w_0(\cdot))$, and
\begin{align*}
\dot{z}^{(\varepsilon)}(t)
& \leq \langle s_\varepsilon (t, \Delta x^{(\varepsilon)}_t(\cdot)),
(^C D^\alpha x^{(\varepsilon)})(t) - (^C D^\alpha x^{\prime (\varepsilon)})(t) \rangle \\
& + H\big(t, x^{\prime (\varepsilon)}(t), s_\varepsilon (t, \Delta x^{(\varepsilon)}_t(\cdot)\big)
- H\big(t, x^{(\varepsilon)}(t), s_\varepsilon (t, \Delta x^{(\varepsilon)}_t(\cdot))\big)
+ \varepsilon
\text{ for a.e. } t \in [t_0, T],
\end{align*}
where $\Delta x^{(\varepsilon)}(\cdot) = x^{\prime (\varepsilon)}(\cdot) - x^{(\varepsilon)}(\cdot)$.
Hence, for the function $v(t) = \mathcal{V}_\varepsilon(t, \Delta x^{(\varepsilon)}_t(\cdot)) + z^{(\varepsilon)}(t) - \varepsilon (t - t_0)$, $t \in [t_0, T]$, due to $(\mathcal{V}.1)$, we have
\begin{equation*}
v(t_0)
= \mathcal{V}_\varepsilon(t_0, w_0(\cdot) - w_0(\cdot)) + z^{(\varepsilon)}(t_0)
\leq \varepsilon + \varphi_+(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) - \varphi_-(t_0, w_0(\cdot)),
\end{equation*}
and, in accordance with $(\mathcal{V}.3)$, we obtain $v(\cdot) \in \Lip([0, T], \xR)$ and
\begin{align*}
\dot{v}(t)
& = \xDrv{\mathcal{V}_\varepsilon(t, \Delta x^{(\varepsilon)}_t(\cdot))}{t} + \dot{z}^{(\varepsilon)}(t) - \varepsilon \\
& \leq p_\varepsilon(t, \Delta x^{(\varepsilon)}_t(\cdot))
+ H\big(t, x^{\prime (\varepsilon)}(t), s_\varepsilon (t, \Delta x^{(\varepsilon)}_t(\cdot))\big)
- H\big(t, x^{(\varepsilon)}(t), s_\varepsilon (t, \Delta x^{(\varepsilon)}_t(\cdot))\big)
\text{ for a.e. } t \in [t_0, T],
\end{align*}
wherefrom, by virtue of $(\mathcal{V}.2)$ and the choice of $R$, we derive $\dot{v}(t) \leq 0$ for a.e. $t \in [t_0, T]$.
Thus, we conclude
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{V}_\varepsilon(T, \Delta x^{(\varepsilon)}(\cdot)) + z^{(\varepsilon)}(T) - \varepsilon (T - t_0)
= v(T)
\leq v(t_0)
\leq \varepsilon + \varphi_+(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) - \varphi_-(t_0, w_0(\cdot)).
\end{equation*}
Since \eqref{x^varepsilon} and boundary conditions \eqref{upper_solution_boundary} for $\varphi_+$ and \eqref{lower_solution_boundary} for $\varphi_-$ imply that $z^{(\varepsilon)}(T) \geq \sigma(x^{(\varepsilon)}(\cdot)) - \sigma(x^{\prime (\varepsilon)}(\cdot))$, we finally get the estimate
\begin{equation} \label{main_estimate}
\mathcal{V}_\varepsilon(T, \Delta x^{(\varepsilon)}(\cdot)) + \sigma(x^{(\varepsilon)}(\cdot)) - \sigma(x^{\prime (\varepsilon)}(\cdot))
\leq \varepsilon (1 + T - t_0) + \varphi_+(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) - \varphi_-(t_0, w_0(\cdot)),
\end{equation}
which is valid for every $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_0]$.
In view of compactness of $X^\alpha_\ast(t_0, w_0(\cdot))$, take $K > 0$ such that $|\sigma(x^{(\varepsilon)}(\cdot)) - \sigma(x^{\prime (\varepsilon)}(\cdot))| \leq K$ for every $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_0]$.
Then, due to \eqref{main_estimate}, we have
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{V}_\varepsilon(T, \Delta x^{(\varepsilon)}(\cdot))
\leq K + \varepsilon_0 (1 + T - t_0) + \varphi_+(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) - \varphi_-(t_0, w_0(\cdot)),
\quad \varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_0],
\end{equation*}
and, therefore, applying $(\mathcal{V}.4)$, we obtain $\sigma(x^{(\varepsilon)}(\cdot)) - \sigma(x^{\prime (\varepsilon)}(\cdot)) \to 0$ as $\varepsilon \to + 0$.
Further, since the functionals $\mathcal{V}_\varepsilon$, $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_0]$, are nonnegative (see $(\mathcal{V}.1)$), it also follows from \eqref{main_estimate} that
\begin{equation*}
\sigma(x^{(\varepsilon)}(\cdot)) - \sigma(x^{\prime (\varepsilon)}(\cdot))
\leq \varepsilon (1 + T - t_0) + \varphi_+(t_0, w_0(\cdot)) - \varphi_-(t_0, w_0(\cdot)),
\quad \varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_0].
\end{equation*}
Passing to the limit as $\varepsilon \to + 0$ in this estimate, we derive inequality \eqref{theorem_comparison_priciple_main} for $(t_0, w_0(\cdot))$.
The theorem is proved.
\section{Existence and Uniqueness}
\label{section_Existence_Uniqueness}
The main result of the paper is the following theorem, which is valid under assumptions $(H.1)$--$(H.3)$ and $(\sigma)$ from Sect.~\ref{subsection_HJE}.
\begin{thrm}
There exists a unique minimax solution of problem \eqref{HJ}, \eqref{HJ_boundary_condition}.
\end{thrm}
\begin{proof}
Taking into account Theorem~\ref{theorem_comparison_priciple}, in order to prove the statement, it is sufficient to show that there exist an upper solution $\varphi_+^\circ: G_n^\alpha \to \xR$ and a lower solution $\varphi_-^\circ: G_n^\alpha \to \xR$ of problem \eqref{HJ}, \eqref{HJ_boundary_condition} such that $\varphi_+^\circ(t, w(\cdot)) \leq \varphi_-^\circ(t, w(\cdot))$ for every $(t, w(\cdot)) \in G_n^\alpha$.
Construction of such functionals $\varphi_+^\circ$ and $\varphi_-^\circ$ repeats essentially the arguments given in \cite[Sect.~7]{Lukoyanov_2003_1} and follows the scheme from \cite[Theorem~8.2]{Subbotin_1995} (see also \cite[Sect.~5]{Bayraktar_Keller_2018} and \cite[Theorem~1]{Plaksin_2019_DE_Eng}).
The basis of this construction are the properties of the set-valued function $E$ from \eqref{E} and the sets of characteristics, which are provided by Propositions~\ref{proposition_DI_1}, \ref{proposition_DI_2}, and~\ref{proposition_semigroup_property}.
For the reader's convenience, we briefly outline the main steps of the proof below.
Let $\Phi_+$ be the set of functionals $\varphi: G_n^\alpha \to \xR$ that satisfy boundary condition \eqref{upper_solution_boundary} and possess property $(\varphi_+)$.
Respectively, by $\Phi_-$, we denote the set of functionals $\varphi: G_n^\alpha \to \xR$ such that \eqref{lower_solution_boundary} and $(\varphi_-)$ are valid.
1.
For a given $s \in \xR^n$, consider the functionals $\psi_+^{(s)}: G_n^\alpha \to \xR$ and $\psi_-^{(s)}: G_n^\alpha \to \xR$ defined by
\begin{equation*}
\psi_+^{(s)}(t, w(\cdot))
= \max_{(x(\cdot), z(\cdot)) \in CH(t, w(\cdot), 0, s)} \big( \sigma(x(\cdot)) - z(T) \big),
\quad \psi_-^{(s)}(t, w(\cdot))
= \min_{(x(\cdot), z(\cdot)) \in CH(t, w(\cdot), 0, s)} \big( \sigma(x(\cdot)) - z(T) \big),
\end{equation*}
where $(t, w(\cdot)) \in G_n^\alpha$.
The functionals $\psi_+^{(s)}$ and $\psi_-^{(s)}$ are respectively upper and lower semicontinuous, and
\begin{equation*}
\psi_+^{(s)}(T, w(\cdot))
= \psi_-^{(s)}(T, w(\cdot))
= \sigma(w(\cdot)),
\quad w(\cdot) \in \AC^\alpha([0, T], \xR^n).
\end{equation*}
Further, the inclusion $\psi_+^{(s)} \in \Phi_+$ holds, and, in particular, the set $\Phi_+$ is not empty.
In addition, for every functional $\varphi \in \Phi_+$, the inequality below is valid:
\begin{equation*}
\varphi(t, w(\cdot))
\geq \psi_-^{(s)}(t, w(\cdot)),
\quad (t, w(\cdot)) \in G_n^\alpha.
\end{equation*}
2.
Put
\begin{equation*}
\varphi^\circ(t, w(\cdot))
= \inf\big\{ \varphi(t, w(\cdot)):
\, \varphi \in \Phi_+\big\},
\quad (t, w(\cdot)) \in G_n^\alpha.
\end{equation*}
For any $s \in \xR^n$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\psi_-^{(s)}(t, w(\cdot))
\leq \varphi^\circ(t, w(\cdot))
\leq \psi_+^{(s)}(t, w(\cdot)),
\quad (t, w(\cdot)) \in G_n^\alpha,
\end{equation*}
and, hence, $\varphi^\circ(T, w(\cdot)) = \sigma(w(\cdot))$, $w(\cdot) \in \AC^\alpha([0, T], \xR^n)$.
Moreover, the functional $\varphi^\circ: G_n^\alpha \to \xR$ possesses property $(\varphi_+)$, and, consequently, we obtain $\varphi^\circ \in \Phi_+$.
3.
For every $\vartheta \in [0, T]$ and $s \in \xR^n$, the functional $\varphi^{(\vartheta, s)}: G_n^\alpha \to \xR$ given by
\begin{equation*}
\varphi^{(\vartheta, s)}(t, w(\cdot))
= \begin{cases}
\displaystyle
\sup_{(x(\cdot), z(\cdot)) \in CH(t, w(\cdot), 0, s)} \big( \varphi^\circ(\vartheta, x_\vartheta(\cdot)) - z(\vartheta) \big),
& \mbox{if } t \in [0, \vartheta), \\
\varphi^\circ(t, w(\cdot)),
& \mbox{if } t \in [\vartheta, T],
\end{cases}
\quad (t, w(\cdot)) \in G_n^\alpha,
\end{equation*}
satisfies the inclusion $\varphi^{(\vartheta, s)} \in \Phi_+$.
Based on this fact, we derive that $\varphi^\circ \in \Phi_-$.
4.
Finally, we define the required functionals $\varphi_+^\circ$ and $\varphi_-^\circ$ as respectively the lower and upper closures of the functional $\varphi^\circ$:
\begin{equation*}
\varphi_+^\circ(t, w(\cdot))
= \lim_{\delta \to + 0} \inf_{(t^\prime, w^\prime(\cdot)) \in O_\delta(t, w(\cdot))} \varphi^\circ(t^\prime, w^\prime(\cdot)),
\quad \varphi_-^\circ(t, w(\cdot))
= \lim_{\delta \to + 0} \sup_{(t^\prime, w^\prime(\cdot)) \in O_\delta(t, w(\cdot))} \varphi^\circ(t^\prime, w^\prime(\cdot)),
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation*}
O_\delta(t, w(\cdot))
= \big\{ (t^\prime, w^\prime(\cdot)) \in G_n^\alpha:
\, \dist\big( (t, w(\cdot)), (t^\prime, w^\prime(\cdot)) \big) \leq \delta \big\},
\quad (t, w(\cdot)) \in G_n^\alpha.
\end{equation*}
Then, $\varphi_+^\circ$ is an upper solution of problem \eqref{HJ}, \eqref{HJ_boundary_condition}, and $\varphi_-^\circ$ is a lower solution of this problem.
Moreover, by construction, we obtain $\varphi_+^\circ(t, w(\cdot)) \leq \varphi_-^\circ(t, w(\cdot))$, $(t, w(\cdot)) \in G_n^\alpha$.
This completes the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{section_Conclusion}
In the paper, a Cauchy problem for a Hamilton--Jacobi equation with $ci$-derivatives of an order $\alpha \in (0, 1)$ has been considered.
A notion of a generalized in the minimax sense solution of this problem has been proposed.
It has been proved that a minimax solution exists, is unique, and is consistent with the classical solution of the problem.
A special attention has been given to construction of a suitable Lyapunov--Krasovskii functional needed for the proof of a comparison principle.
Possible directions for further research in this area include but are not limited to the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)]
establish a relation between the value functional in an optimal control problems for a dynamical system described by differential equations with the Caputo fractional derivatives and the minimax solution of the corresponding Hamilton--Jacobi--Bellman equation;
obtain such results for differential games;
\item[(ii)]
find an infinitesimal criteria for the minimax solution in terms of suitable directional derivatives
(see, e.g., \cite[Sect.~6.3]{Subbotin_1995} and also \cite{Lukoyanov_2003_1,Lukoyanov_2006_IMM_Eng,Lukoyanov_Plaksin_2019_MIAN_Eng});
\item[(iii)]
develop the theory of generalized in the viscosity sense (see, e.g., \cite{Crandall_Lions_1983} and also \cite{Lukoyanov_2007_IMM_Eng}) solutions of the Cauchy problem considered in the paper.
\end{itemize}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
\IEEEPARstart{I}{n} a communication system, the transmitted information is channel coded and modulated and then propagated through the channel to the receiver. The receiver uses a synchronization mechanism to obtain symbols, and then recovers the original information through demodulation and channel decoding \cite{1}. Demodulation here plays a crucial role in the information recovery process. Demodulation can be categorized into soft demodulation and hard demodulation. Hard demodulation converts the received symbols into bit streams, while the soft demodulation outputs the level of confidence of each bit according to the received symbols, which is usually expressed in terms of log-likelihood ratio (LLR). The output of the demodulation is often provided to the channel decoder for decoding. In general, the bit error rate (BER) performance of decoding using soft demodulation output is better than that of decoding using hard demodulation output.
With the development of deep learning technology, the application of deep learning in physical layer communication is becoming more and more extensive \cite{2}\cite{3}. There are some works which use neural networks to achieve demodulation. For example, in \cite{4} deep belief network and stacked autoencoder were used for signal demodulation on short-distance multipath channels. In \cite{5} a convolutional neural network (CNN) was used to demodulate the bipolar extended binary phase shift keying signal to solve the problem of serious inter-symbol interference. In \cite{6} CNN was used to realize FSK demodulation under Rayleigh fading channels. All of these works considered the problem of hard demodulation. In terms of soft demodulation, in order to reduce the computational complexity of accurate LLRs, in \cite{7} exact LLRs were used as labels and a neural network was used to approximate these LLRs to implement soft demodulation. This method can approximate exact LLRs with lower computational complexity. However, the method relies on exact LLRs to train the network and the calculation of exact LLRs will have certain difficulties in practical situations. In general, the calculation of LLR generally assumes that the channel is an additive Gaussian white noise (AWGN) channel. In practical communications process, the signal arrived at the receiver may be influenced by non-ideal factors such as radio frequency (RF) impairments, multipath fading and interference. For these complex non-ideal AWGN environment, the accurate calculation of LLR may not be available and the real LLRs may be different from the LLRs calculated under the assumption of AWGN channel. If the LLRs calculated under the assumption of AWGN channel are used as the labels for training the LLRnet, the LLRnet will approximate these deviated LLRs. Therefore, LLRnet cannot solve the problem of soft demodulation when exact LLRs are not available in practical system with non-ideal AWGN channel.
To solve this problem, in this letter, we use hard information as labels to train a CNN with multiple binary classifiers to implement hard demodulation. We refer to this network as DemodNet in this letter. Based on the output layer of the trained DemodNet, we use the logarithm of the ratio of the probability of a bit being category 0 and the probability of a bit being category 1 as the soft information, so as to realize soft demodulation. The obtained soft information can be used for channel decoding. Because DemodNet is trained with hard information bits, in various complex channel environments, we can obtain labeled training samples by transmitting specific information bit streams and collecting the corresponding received signals at the receiving end, thereby avoiding the problem that the exact LLR cannot be accurately calculated. We finally verified the effectiveness of this method by simulation.
The rest of the letter is organized as follows. In Section II, traditional soft demodulation and hard demodulation is discussed. In Section III, the proposed DemodNet is given in detail. In Section IV, simulation results are given. In Section V, we conclude the letter.
\section{System Model}
In the traditional wireless communication system, the information to be transmitted is first channel-coded and then mapped into symbols by the modulator. The symbols are filtered and then propagated through the channel to the receiving end. The receiver first obtains the estimated value of each symbol through symbol synchronization, and then uses the demodulator to realize the demapping of the symbol to the information hard bit or soft bit. The channel decoder uses the demodulation output to recovers the original information bit stream. In order to focus on the demodulation module, we assume that shaping and symbol synchronization are ideal, so that the received symbol can be expressed as:
\begin{equation}
r(n) = h(n) * s(n){e^{j2\pi \Delta fn}} + w(n),
\end{equation}
where $r(n)$ is the received symbol, $s(n)$ is the transmitted symbol, $\Delta f$ is the normalized frequency deviation, and $w(n)$ is the noise. The difference of the local oscillators' frequency of the transmitter and receiver and the Doppler effect caused by the relative motion will cause the carrier frequency deviation of the received signal.
In this letter, we consider two distribution of noise $w(n)$: AWGN and additive generalized Gaussian noise (AGGN), the probability distribution function of which is
\begin{equation}
f(w) = \frac{\rho }{{2\gamma \Gamma (1/\rho )}}\exp \left\{ { - {{\left| {\frac{{w - \mu }}{\gamma}} \right|}^\rho }} \right\},
\end{equation}
where $\mu$ is the mean, $\rho$ is the shape parameter and $\Gamma ( \cdot )$ is Gamma function. As for the channel response $h(n)$, we consider two scenarios, ideal channel and multipath fading channel. When ideal channel is considered, $h(n)$ is simply an ideal impulse function $\delta (n)$. As for multipath fading channel, Rayleigh fading is considered where the envelop of $h(n)$ follows Rayleigh distribution.
As pointed out earlier, demodulation can be categorized into soft demodulation and hard demodulation. We give a brief introduction of the two demodulations in the following.
\subsection{Soft Demodulation}
For a symbol with $M$ bits, the LLR is defined as the logarithm of the ratio of the probability that a bit takes the value 0 and the probability that a bit takes the value 1\cite{8}, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
{\zeta _i} \buildrel \Delta \over = \log \left( {\frac{{\Pr \left\{ {{b_i} = 0|r} \right\}}}{{\Pr \left\{ {{b_i} = 1|r} \right\}}}} \right),i = 1,2,...,M.
\end{equation}
With an AWGN channel assumption, the exact computation of LLR expression (which is denoted as ExactLLR hereafter) is
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
{\zeta _i} = \log \left( {\frac{{\sum\nolimits_{s \in {\cal S}_i^0} {\exp \left( { - \frac{{\left\| {r - s} \right\|_2^2}}{{{\sigma ^2}}}} \right)} }}{{\sum\nolimits_{s \in {\cal S}_i^1} {\exp \left( { - \frac{{\left\| {r - s} \right\|_2^2}}{{{\sigma ^2}}}} \right)} }}} \right)\\
= \log \left( {\frac{{\sum\nolimits_{s \in {\cal S}_i^0} {\exp \left( { - \frac{{{{({\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits} \{ r\} - {\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits} \{ s\} )}^2} + {{({\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits} \{ r\} - {\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits} \{ s\} )}^2}}}{{{\sigma ^2}}}} \right)} }}{{\sum\nolimits_{s \in {\cal S}_i^1} {\exp \left( { - \frac{{{{({\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits} \{ r\} - {\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits} \{ s\} )}^2} + {{({\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits} \{ r\} - {\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits} \{ s\} )}^2}}}{{{\sigma ^2}}}} \right)} }}} \right),\\
i = 1,2,...,M,
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where ${\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits} \left\{ \cdot \right\}$ and ${\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits} \left\{ \cdot \right\}$ denote taking the real and imaginary part respectively, ${\sigma ^2}$ is the noise variance, ${\cal S}_i^d$ is the subset of symbols or constellation points for which the $i$-th bit is equal to $d \in \{ 0,1\}$. Because exponential calculation and logarithmic calculation are complicated, log max is usually used in practical systems to obtain an approximate LLR \cite{9}.
It should be pointed out that (4) gives the LLR expression under the assumption of AWGN. For other complex channels that are difficult to model theoretically, it is difficult to obtain the exact LLR expression. In this case, if we still use (4) to calculate the LLR, there may be a large deviation from the unknown true LLR, which may affect the performance of subsequent channel decoding.
\subsection{Hard Demodulation}
Different from the purpose of soft demodulation, hard demodulation wishes to obtain the result of bit decision. Its purpose is to make the recovered bits and the actual transmitted bits as identical as possible, thereby reducing the bit error rate of demodulation. One method is to decide based on LLR as
\begin{equation}
{\widehat b_i} = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{0,}\\
{1,}
\end{array}} \right.\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{if}\\
{if}
\end{array}\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{{\zeta _i} > 0,}\\
{{\zeta _i} \le 0.}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\section{The Proposed DemodNet}
\subsection{The Structure of DemodNet}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=16cm]{fig1.pdf}
\caption{Structure of DemodNet. In this figure, the length of input symbol sequence is $M/k$, the ``Deconvolution'' layer is used to expand the length of input signal by $k$ times, the ``Hidden Layer'' is composed of three convolutional layers and there are Batch Normalization layer (``BN Layer'') and activation layer (``ReLU'') between convolutional layers. The ``Final Convolution'' is a convolution layer with one kernel and the kernel size is $31 \times 1$. The length of the final output is the same as the output of ``Deconvolution'' layer.}
\label{Fig.1}
\end{figure*}
We treat the hard demodulation problem as an $M$ binary classification problem. The label of each classifier is 0 or 1. We design DemodNet as shown in Fig. 1 to solve the classification problem. In practice, the number of the received symbols is not fixed, and the number of bits output by the demodulation is also different. In order to make the trained network adapt to the demodulation tasks with different number of symbols, the output length of the network must change with the number of input symbols, so we design a fully convolutional network with variable input and output length to achieve hard demodulation. For multi-ary modulations, the length of the demodulated output bit stream is generally greater than the number of input symbols, so we first deconvolve the input at the first layer of the network to make the output length equal to the number of demodulated bits. The expanded signal undergoes three-layer convolutions to extract the features. Traditional CNNs \cite{10} usually use a fully connected layer to obtain a fixed-length vector after convolution, but doing so will make the network output fixed and cannot be adjusted according to the network input. Unlike this, we replace the fully connected layer with a convolution layer with only one convolution kernel at the last layer of the network, thereby ensuring that the output length is $M$, which is $k$ times the input length, where $k$ is the number of bits of a symbol. Finally, we use Sigmoid activation function for binary classification. The Sigmoid expression is
\begin{equation}
f\left( {{z_i}} \right) = \frac{1}{{1 + \exp \left( { - {z_i}} \right)}},
\end{equation}
where $z_i$ is the input of Sigmoid which also known as logits. In summary, the DemodNet has the following two characteristics. First, the network can accept input of any length without requiring all data to have the same size. Second, the network uses deconvolution for upsampling, so that the network can be used for demodulation tasks of different modulation types.
DemodNet can be trained based on the training set. The training set contains the received signal samples, i.e., symbol sequence after synchronous, and the corresponding label, i.e., the transmitted bit sequence, which can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
{\cal D} = \left\{ {\left( {{{\left[ {{\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits} \left( \bm r \right),{\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits} \left( \bm r \right)} \right]}^{\left( i \right)}},{\bm b^{\left( i \right)}}} \right)} \right\}_{i = 1}^N,
\end{equation}
where $\bm r=[r(1),r(2),...,r(\frac{M}{k})]^T$, $\bm b=[b_1,b_2,...,b_M ]^T$ is the transmitted bit sequence, $N$ is the number of samples in the training set. The training of DemodNet uses the sum of binary cross entropy as the loss function. For a sample of bit length $M$, the loss can be represented as
\begin{equation}
{\cal L} = - \sum\limits_{i = 1}^M {\left( {{y_i}\log {{\widehat y}_i} + \left( {1 - {y_i}} \right)\log \left( {1 - {{\widehat y}_i}} \right)} \right)} ,
\end{equation}
where $y_i$ is the true label of the $i$-th bit, ${\widehat y}_i$ is Sigmoid output of the corresponding bit. We use Adam optimizer \cite{11} to minimize the loss $\cal L$.
\subsection{Soft Information of DemodNet}
Although the learning of DemodNet is based on hard bit information as a label, it also provides a soft demodulation mechanism. As we know, Sigmoid output ${\widehat y}_i$ can represent the probability that the bit is 1 in a certain sense, therefore, we calculate the following soft information for soft demodulation
\begin{equation}
{\xi _i} = \log \left( {\frac{{1 - {{\widehat y}_i}}}{{{{\widehat y}_i}}}} \right),i = 1,2,...,M,
\end{equation}
In addition, if we have got the value of the logits, then
\begin{equation}
{\xi _i} = - {z_i},i = 1,2,...,M.
\end{equation}
We refer to ${\xi _i}$ as log probability ratio (LPR) in the rest of the letter and the obtained LPR can be used for the subsequent soft decision channel decoding. As a result, DemodNet, which learns based on hard bit information, also has the capability of ``soft demodulation''.
\section{Simulation Results}
\subsection{Performance under AWGN Channel}
We first consider the performance of hard demodulation. Five modulations are considered in the simulation: BPSK, QPSK, 16QAM, 64QAM, and 256QAM, all assuming an ideal AWGN channel. In the training set, the Eb/N0 of the BPSK and QPSK signals range from 0 dB to 8 dB with an interval of 1 dB. The Eb/N0 of 16QAM, 64QAM, and 256QAM ranges from 0 dB to 12 dB, 0 dB to 16 dB, and 0 dB to 20 dB, respectively. For each modulation, the number of samples per Eb/N0 is 100,000. In each test data set, for each modulation, the number of samples per Eb/N0 is 50,000. Each sample contains 100 symbols. DemodNet is trained separately for each modulation. All parameters of the DemodNet are initialized randomly with Gaussian distribution. During training, the mini-batch size is 128 and the maximum number of epochs is 15. The initial learning rate is 0.003, and after every 3 epochs, the learning rate drops to 1/2 of the previous learning rate. Fig. 2 shows the simulation results. It can be seen that the BER performance of DemodNet is very close to the ideal hard demodulation under the five modulations, which shows the effectiveness of DemodNet to implement hard demodulation.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{fig2.pdf}
\caption{Hard demodulation performance of DemodNet. Under the five modulations, the BER performance of DemodNet for hard demodulation almost coincides with the theoretical results.}
\label{Fig.2}
\end{figure}
Next, we analyze the performance of the LPR soft information learned by DemodNet. In the simulation, the channel coding used is a convolutional code with coding rate 1/2, constraint length 7, and code generator polynomials 171 and 133. The soft demodulation output is provided to a Viterbi decoder \cite{12} whose traceback depth is 32 for soft decoding. Fig. 3 shows the simulation results. It can be seen that under BPSK and 16QAM, the BER performance of Viterbi decoding using LPR obtained by DemodNet is very close to that of Viterbi decoding using ExactLLR. In the case of 64QAM, the performance of LPR is slightly worse than that of ExactLLR. These results show that although DemodNet has never seen ExactLLR, from the perspective of supporting Viterbi decoding, it also obtains demodulation performance close to that of ExactLLR, which validates its effectiveness for soft demodulation.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{fig3.pdf}
\caption{BER performance of Viterbi decoding using LPR and LLR in AWGN channel.}
\label{Fig.3}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Effects of Frequency Deviation}
We now consider the performance with frequency deviation in AWGN channel. Fig. 4 shows the simulation results, where the frequency deviation is 0.005 times the symbol rate. The channel coding used is a convolutional code as mentioned before. Similarly, the BER in the figure refers to the BER output by Viterbi soft decision. It can be seen that due to the frequency deviation, the performance of the ExactLLR calculated according to the ideal AWGN channel deteriorates significantly. The performance of the LPR learned by DemodNet is better than the exactLLR, which shows the superiority of DemodNet.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{fig4.pdf}
\caption{Soft demodulation performance under frequency deviation.}
\label{Fig.4}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\subfigure[]
{\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{fig5a.pdf}}
\hfil
\subfigure[]
{\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{fig5b.pdf}}
\caption{ Soft demodulation performance in AGGN channel. Two different channel coding are used: (a) convolutional code and (b) turbo code.}
\label{Fig.5}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Performance under AGGN Channel}
We then give the simulation results under the AGGN channel. The AGGN parameters are set to: $\mu = 0,\gamma = 1,\rho = 1.$ We assume that the demodulation does not know the real distribution of the channel and thus ExactLLRs can only be obtained under the AWGN assumption. Fig. 5 shows the BER results of channel decoding using the soft demodulation information. Two channel coding methods are considered, convolutional code as mentioned before and turbo code with code rate 1/3. It can be seen that with both channel coding methods under AGGN, the performance of the ExactLLR is degraded, which is obvious because the ExactLLR is obtained under the AWGN assumption and they do not necessarily match the AGGN channel. Because DemodNet directly uses the signal data in the case of the AGGN channel for training, the performance of the decoding using DemodNet LPR is better than that of the decoding using ExactLLR.
Furthermore, we compare the performance of DemodNet with that of LLRnet in [7], in which a deep neural network (DNN) was used to approximate LLRs for reducing computational complexity. The LLRnet can only approximate exactLLRs obtained under AWGN. The BER curve of LLRNet is very close to the BER curve of ExactLLR and it performs worse than DemodNet under AGGN noise, just as Fig. 5 (a) and Fig. 5 (b) shows.
\subsection{Performance under Rayleigh Fading Channel}
We perform a simulation to evaluate the performance of DemodNet under frequency flat Rayleigh fading channel. The simulation assumes the symbol rate is 1Msps, and the maximum Doppler shift is set to 30. Adaptive equalization with least mean square (LMS) algorithm is adopted to equalize the signals. The number of taps for LMS is 5 and the step size is 1/10 of the estimated maximum allowable step size. For equalization methods, a known training sequence is needed to adjust tap weights. So, we add a fixed 500-symbol sequence in front of the channel encoded symbol stream. The BER results of decoding under Rayleigh fading channel is shown in Fig. 6. 16QAM and 64QAM are valuated and the previously mentioned convolutional code is used. We can see that the performance of DemodNet is better than that of ExactLLR which further shows the superiority of our method in Rayleigh fading channel.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{fig6.pdf}
\caption{Soft demodulation performance under Rayleigh fading channel.}
\label{Fig.6}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Complexity Analysis}
In DemodNet, we assume the input of each layer is ${h_{in}} \times {w_{in}} \times {c_{in}}$, and the corresponding output is ${h_{out}} \times {w_{out}} \times {c_{out}}$, then the computational complexity of convolutional layer and deconvolution layer is
\begin{equation}
{C_{conv}} \sim O({c_{in}} \times {h_{out}} \times {w_{out}} \times {c_{out}} \times k),
\end{equation}
where $k$ is the size of convolution kernel, ${c_{in}}$ is the channel of input, and ${c_{out}}$ is the channel of output, i.e., the number of convolution kernels. The computational complexity of the batch normalization layer and the ReLU layer are both
\begin{equation}
{C_{bn}} \sim O({h_{in}} \times {w_{in}} \times {c_{in}}).
\end{equation}
For the demodulation of 64QAM, give a $M$-symbol sequence, the total computational complexity of DenodNet include 4636044$M$ multiplication, 4636044$M$ addition and 1920$M$ comparator. The computational complexity of ExactLLR include 198$M$ multiplication, 564$M$ addition and 70$M$ exponential or logarithm calculation. It can be seen that the multiplication, addition and addition computational complexity of DenodNet is larger than that of ExactLLR. However, the DenodNet eliminates exponential or logarithm calculation, which require a lot of computation. Furthermore, the computation of the DemodNet can be parallelized and accelerated to reduce the computational time.
\section{Conclusions}
In this letter, we have proposed DemodNet for hard demodulation and soft demodulation. DemodNet can learn soft information from hard information to support subsequent channel decoding. We have verified the performance of DemodNet through simulation experiments. In the ideal AWGN channel, the hard demodulation BER performance of DemodNet is very close to the theoretical value and the BER performance of soft decoding using DemodNet LPR is close to that of decoding using ExactLLR. In the cases of carrier frequency deviation, AGGN channel and Rayleigh fading channel, the decoding performance using DemodNet LPR is superior to the decoding performance using ExactLLR calculated with the assumption of ideal AWGN. Therefore, DemodNet may provide a new way for soft demodulation under complex channel environments where LLRs are difficult to be accurately estimated via analytical methods.
|
\section{\label{sec:level1} Introduction
}
Motions of a charged particle in a dipole magnetic field were first systematically investigated by \citet{1930ZA......1..237S}. Due to the axis symmetry of the system, it can be reduced to a 2D Hamiltonian system and is later called the St\"{o}rmer problem for its broad implications in mathematics, space science, and physics \citep{1965RvGSP...3..255D,1990ComPh...4..549S, doi:10.1063/1.859308, 2016PhRvE..94d3203S, NaokiKENMOCHI2019}. To better understand the Van Allen radiation belt discovered in the mid-20th century, there have been renewed interests in solving the St\"{o}rmer's problem. In particular, periodic orbits in the equatorial plane have been explored extensively \citep{devogelaere1950}, and there are also a few branches of periodic orbits in the Meridian plane at relatively high energies with distinct orbital shapes \citep{1975Ap&SS..32..115M,1978CeMec..17..215M,1990CeMDA..49..327J}. At low energies, due to the presence of approximate adiabatic invariant, the problem can be further simplified \citep{1963RvGSP...1..283N, doi:10.1029/JA081i013p02327}, and the results, the so-called guiding center approximation, have been applied to studies of pulsars, radiation belts, and dynamics of particles in magnetic confinement devices \citep{2018PhRvL.121w5003H, 2014Natur.515..531B, NaokiKENMOCHI2019}.
It is well-known that particles moving in a dipole magnetic field are either trapped or can escape to infinity \citep{doi:10.1142/S0218127400000177}. For those trapped particles, in which people are mostly interested, their motions can be divided into three categories: quasi-periodic, chaotic, or hyper-chaotic depending on the number of positive Lyapunov exponents they have \citep{doi:10.1142/S0218127400000177}. Stable periodic orbits can be considered as special cases of quasi-periodic orbits. It has been suggested that the type of motion of trapped particles depends primarily on its energy. Particles with low energies will have quasi-periodic orbits, those with intermediate energy will move in a chaotic manner with a positive Lyapunov exponent, while high energy particles will display hyper-chaotic motion with two positive Lyapunov exponents.
The main goal of this paper is to have a quantitative classification of orbits of trapped particles with different initial conditions in the 4D phase space via evaluation of their Lyapunov exponents. This study also clarifies the relations among stable periodic orbits, quasi-periodic orbits, and chaotic orbits, revealing a spectrum of orbits of trapped particles evolving continuously with the initial conditions.
\section{The St\"{o}rmer Problem}
$\phi$
For the sake of completeness, we briefly summarize the St\"{o}rmer problem here.
We will adopt the coordinates as shown in Figure \ref{fig:coordinates} with a magnetic dipole at the origin pointing to the $z$ direction. {\bf The position angles of the vector $\vec{r}$ are given by $\lambda$, and $\phi$. Its projection onto the \{$x, \ y$\} plane has a length of $\rho=r\cos{\lambda}$.}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[->] (-2.5,0) (0,0) -- (4,0) node at (4.3,0,0) {$y$};
\draw[->] (0,0) -- (0,3,0) node at (0.2,3.2,0) {$z$};
\draw[->] (0,0) -- (0,0,5) node at (0.4,0,5.2) {$x$};
\draw[densely dotted, -latex] (0,0,0) -- (2,1.65,0);
\draw [densely dotted] (0,0,0) -- node[above] {$\vec{r}$} (2,1.65,0) -- node[right] {$z$}(3,0,2)--node[right] {$\rho$}cycle ;
\draw [thick](0,0,0)..controls (1,2,0)and(2.5,3,0) ..(4,0,3);
\draw (3,0,2) coordinate (A)
(0,0) coordinate (B) (2,0,0)coordinate (C)
pic [draw,->, "$\phi$", angle eccentricity=1.3,angle radius= 0.8cm] {angle};
\draw (3,0,2) coordinate (A)
(0,0) coordinate (B) (2,1.65,0)coordinate (C)
pic [draw,->, "$\lambda$", angle eccentricity=1.3,angle radius= 0.4cm] {angle};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Coordinates adopted in this paper. The solid line indicates a magnetic field line and the dashed lines indicate the vector ${\bf r}$ and its components.}
\label{fig:coordinates}
\end{figure}
Then the vector magnetic potential $\vec{A}$ can be put as the following:
\begin{align}
\vec{A}(\vec{r})&=\frac{\mu_0}{4\pi} \frac{\vec{\mu} \times \hat{r}}{r^2} \ \ \ \ \ {\rm with} \\[1ex]
\vec{\mu} &= \left(\begin{array}{c}
0,
0,
M
\end{array}\right) \ \ \ \ \ {\rm and} \\[1ex]
\hat{r} &= \left(\begin{array}{c}
\cos \lambda \cdot \sin \phi,
\cos \lambda \cdot \cos \phi,
\sin \lambda
\end{array}\right)
\end{align}
where $\mu_0$ is the magnetic permittivity of the vacuum and $M$ is the magnetic moment of the dipole. Then we have
\begin{equation}
\vec{A} = \frac{\mu_0}{4\pi} M \frac{\rho}{r^3} \hat{\phi}.
\end{equation}
and magnetic field lines are given by $r=r_0 \cos^2 \lambda$, where $r_0$ specifies the lines and $r^2=\rho^2+z^2$
For a particle with a speed of $v$, the Lorentz factor is given by
\begin{equation}
\gamma=\left[ 1-\left(\frac{v^2}{c^2}\right) \right]^{-\frac{1}{2}}
\end{equation}
where $c$ is the speed of light. Then
the relativistic Hamiltonian of a charged particle with a charge $q$ moving in the above dipole magnetic field is given by:
\begin{equation}
H_0=\left\{m_0^2c^4+c^2\left[P_z^2+P_\rho^2+\left(\frac{P_\phi}{\rho}-qA_\phi\right)^2\right] \right\}^{\frac{1}{2}}
\end{equation}
where $m_0$ is the rest mass of the charged particle, and
$P_z =\gamma m_0\dot{z}$, $P_\rho =\gamma m_0 \dot{\rho}$, $P_\phi = \gamma m_0 \rho^2 \dot{\phi}+q\rho A_\phi$, where an upper dot indicates derivative with respect to time $t$.
Since the magnetic force does not change the particle energy, the particle's speed remains constant. The canonical angular momentum along the $z$-axis $P_\phi$ is also a constant for the independence of $H$ on $\phi$.
The problem can be simplified by adopting the following Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
H=\frac{1}{2\gamma m_0}\left[P_z^2+P_\rho^2+\left(\frac{P_\phi}{\rho}-qA_\phi\right)^2\right].
\end{equation}
Considering the energy conservation and independence of $H$ on $\phi$, the Hamiltonian can be reduced to
\begin{equation}
H=\frac{1}{2m}(P_z^2+P_\rho^2) +V
\end{equation}
with the effective potential
\begin{equation}
V=\frac{1}{2m}\left(\frac{P_\phi}{\rho}-qA_\phi\right)^2\,,
\end{equation}
where $m =\gamma m_0$.
A characteristic length scale $L$ can be introduced with $P_\phi$: $L = q\mu_0 M/4\pi P_\phi$.
The corresponding energy scale is given by $P_\phi^2/mL^2\propto L^{-4}$, and the characteristic momentum is given by $P_\phi/L$.
Then we get the following dimensionless Hamiltonian:
\begin{eqnarray}
h&=&\frac{1}{2}\left[{p_z}^2+{p_\rho}^2+\left(\frac{1}{\rho}-\frac{\rho}{r\,^3}\right)^2\right] \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{1}{2}\left({p_z}^2+{p_\rho}^2\right)+ V ~~
\end{eqnarray}
with the effective potential
\begin{equation}
V=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{\rho}-\frac{\rho}{r\,^3}\right)^2.
\end{equation}
And the Hamiltonian's equations are:
\begin{align}
\dot{z}&= \frac{\partial h}{\partial p_z}=p_z\,, \\[1ex]
\dot{\rho}&=\frac{\partial h}{\partial p_\rho}=p_\rho\,, \\[1ex]
\dot{p_z}&= -\frac{\partial h}{\partial z}=-\frac{3z\rho\left[\frac{1}{\rho}-\frac{\rho}{(z^2+\rho^2)^\frac{3}{2}}\right]}{(z^2+\rho^2)^\frac{5}{2}}\,, \\
\dot{p_\rho} &=-\frac{\partial h}{\partial \rho} \\[1ex] \nonumber
&=\left[ \frac{1}{\rho^2}-\frac{3\rho^2}{(z^2+\rho^2)^\frac{3}{2}}
+\frac{1}{(z^2+\rho^2)^\frac{3}{2}}\right]\left[\frac{1}{\rho}-\frac{\rho}{(z^2+\rho^2)^\frac{3}{2}}\right].
\end{align}
For given initial conditions, these equations can be solved numerically to obtain the particle orbit in the phase space.
Orbits of particles with chaotic motions are usually very sensitive to the initial conditions. After a long period of motion starting with the initial conditions, the orbit of motion deviates greatly from the initial path that it began with. Lyapunov exponent, which characterizes the separation rate between infinitely close trajectories, helps us determine to what extent the resulting trajectory depends on changes in the initial conditions. {\bf For an n-D dynamical system with $\dot{x}_i = f_i(x)$, there are n Lyapunov exponents, which are assigned to each of the free variables. The Lyapunov exponents are defined as the eigenvalues of the following matrix $\Lambda$:
\begin{equation}
\Lambda = \lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}{1\over 2t}\ln [Y(t)Y^T(t)]
\end{equation}
where $\dot{Y}(t) = J(t)Y(t)$, $Y(0)$ is the unit matrix, and $J(t)$ is the Jacobian matrix of the system:
\begin{equation}
J_{ij}(t) = {\partial f_i[x(t)]\over \partial x_j}\,.
\end{equation}
}
In our case, with \{$z$, $\rho$, $p_z$, $p_\rho$\}, there are four Lyapunov exponents in total. For a Hamiltonian system, the sum of the Lyapunov exponents of all dimensions in the phase space must be zero and the Lyapunov exponents must be in pairs of opposite sign. Therefore there are at most two positive Lyapunov exponents.
A positive maximum Lyapunov exponent is often considered as a definition of deterministic chaos. If the maximum Lyapunov exponent is not greater than 0, then the particle has a quasi-periodic orbit. If there exists two positive Lyapunov exponents, then the particle's orbit is hyper-chaotic \citep{doi:10.1142/S0218127400000177}. For the time series of coordinates of a Hamiltonian system obtained numerically above, the corresponding Lyapunov exponents can be readily obtained \citep{1980Mecc...15....9B, 1985PhyD...16..285W}. {\bf Computations of the Lyapunov exponents have been performed in Matlab with integrator ode113 using absolute tolerance of
$10^{-10}$ and a relative tolerance of $10^{-6}$. Jacobians needed for Lyapunov exponent calculations are found analytically. The Poincar\'{e} maps are obtained with Mathematica with an absolute tolerance of $10^{-10}$ and a relative tolerance of $10^{-8}$ unless specified otherwise.}
\section{Results}
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\includegraphics[width=1.1\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{2.jpg}\\
\caption{\label{fig1a} Distribution of the number of positive Lyapunov exponents in the phase space of \{0, $\rho$, $p_z$, 0\}. Red, orange, and yellow corresponds to 0, 1, and 2, respectively. Colored curves show the energy (indicated by h) contours as indicated in these figures. The line segments labeled as f0-f5 correspond to stable periodic orbits \citep{1978CeMec..17..215M}. The thick horizontal bars below the $\rho$ axis indicate stable periodic orbits in the equatorial plane \citep{devogelaere1950}. The upper-left and lower-right panels are enlargement of two rectangular regions in the upper-right panel. The lower-left panel is enlargement of a rectangular region in the upper-left panel. The first set of high-energy quasi-periodic orbits locates just above h $=1/36$ (blue line in the upper panels). The second set locates around h $=1/32.2$ (pink lines in the lower panels). See text for details.}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\includegraphics[width=1.05\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{3.jpg}\\
\caption{\label{fig1b} The same as Figure \ref{fig1a} but for the phase space of \{$z$, $\rho$, 0, 0\}. A third set of quasi-periodic orbits can be seen in the lower left panel below h $=1/32$.
}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.858\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{4left.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.82\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{4right.jpg}
\caption{\label{fig1c} Left: the same as Figure \ref{fig1a} but for the phase space of \{$z$, 1.66, 0, $p_\rho$\} through the first high-energy set. The right panel shows the distribution of the maximum Lyapunov exponent of a rectangular region in the left panel. }
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{5.jpg}
\caption{\label{fig01} Correlation between the maximum Lyapunov exponent and energy h in the phase space of \{0, $\rho$, $p_z$, 0\} for the initial conditions. The dotted curves below the main distribution correspond to unstable periodic orbits in the equatorial plane. The red lines show a fit to the correlation with polynomial function of degree 3 and the error bands.}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.43\linewidth, angle=0.0]{6upperleft.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.43\linewidth, angle=0.0]{6upperright.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.43\linewidth, angle=0.0]{6lowerleft.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.43\linewidth,angle=0.0]{6lowerright.pdf}\\
\caption{\label{fig12} Poincar\'{e} maps of particles injected from the $z=0$, and $\rho=1$ phase plane with the energy indicated on the top of each panel (See also Fig. \ref{fig1a}). We show ten particles with different initial pitch angles separated by 0.1 in their sine starting from 0. These particles are indicated with different colors. Orbits in the equatorial plane do not have a Poincar\'{e} map.}
\end{figure*}
{\bf It is well-known that the energy level of h$=1/32$ separates the orbits into trapped and scattering regimes \citep{doi:10.1063/1.859308}. Although there are trapped periodic orbits beyond the $1/32$ energy level \citep{1978CeMec..17..215M}, they have a zero measure. Our numerical results show all other orbits beyond the $1/32$ energy level are scattering orbits that extend to infinity. We therefore focus on studying these trapped orbits with h$\leq1/32$.}
The key results of this paper are shown in Figures \ref{fig1a}-\ref{fig1c}, where we scan planes of initial conditions with $z=0$ and $p_\rho=0$ (Fig. \ref{fig1a}), $p_\rho=0$ and $p_z=0$ (Fig. \ref{fig1b}), and locally with $\rho = 1.66$ and $p_z=0$ (Fig. \ref{fig1c}). Here the red color indicates regions with vanishing Lyapunov exponents, corresponding to quasi-periodic orbits. The orange and yellow colors represent regions with one and two positive Lyapunov exponents, respectively. {\bf Fractal structure can be seen at the boundaries of regions for quasi-periodic orbits, which is typical for dynamical systems.}
We also indicate contours of different energy levels represented by the values of h. It can be seen that in general, orbits with low energies tend to have vanishing Lyapunov exponents corresponding to quasi-periodic orbits. With the increase of energy h, the orbits become more chaotic as pointed out by \citet{doi:10.1142/S0218127400000177}. {\bf However, Figure \ref{fig01} shows that there is no simple correlation between the maximum Lyapunov exponent and the energy, which is compatible with the right panel of Figure \ref{fig1c}, where one can see that between different energy contours, the distribution of the maximum Lyapunov exponent can spread over a broad range.}
Within the 1/32 energy contour, we discovered two sets of high-energy regions with vanishing Lyapunov exponents (Figs. \ref{fig1a}-\ref{fig1c}). These sets are connected via the energy contours indicating that they may represent the same orbits. For the convenience of discussion, we will rank these sets according to the energy with the lower energy one right above h $=1/36$ ranking the first. The structure of these regions in three independent planes of the initial conditions shows that these regions are 4D structures (Figs. \ref{fig1a}-\ref{fig1c}). The largest region of the first set covers more than 4\% in each dimension within the 1/32 energy contour. The second set locates around h $=1/32.2$ near the equatorial plane.
{\bf In Figure \ref{fig1a}, we use thick black line segments to indicate stable periodic orbits in the equatorial plane and solid line segments to indicate stable periodic orbits in the Meridian plane that belong to families of periodic orbits f0-f5 introduced by \citet{1978CeMec..17..215M}. It can be seen that quasi-periodic orbits appear to be always associated with stable periodic orbits.
However, quasi-periodic orbits associated with stable periodic orbits in the Meridian plane have a much smaller volume. For $h>1/32$, we found that only periodic orbits are bounded. Particles in other orbits will escape to infinity no matter what values of the maximum Lyapunov exponent they have.}
Near unstable periodic orbits, there is no quasi-periodic orbit with vanishing Lyapunov exponents. Figure \ref{fig01} shows that the maximum Lyapunov exponents of these unstable periodic orbits actually follow some pattern (dotted curves), rising first then declining with the increase of energy h between regions of stable periodic orbits. {\bf Therefore although periodic orbits are relatively simple, they may have a positive Lyapunov exponent. A positive Lyapunov exponent is a necessary but not sufficient condition for chaotic trajectories.}
The largest zone of quasi-periodic orbits spreads around the minimum of the effective potential $V$, where the guiding center approximation is valid \citep{1963RvGSP...1..283N}. Most studies of trapped particles have been focused on this region with relatively low energies. In Figure \ref{fig1a}, we note that for particles with initial conditions of $z=0$, $p_\rho=0$, and $\rho=1$, that is at the minimum of $V$, most orbits with $p_z>0$ are actually chaotic. Although these orbits have a very low energy, the guiding center approximation is invalid since these particles move initially along the magnetic field line at the equatorial plane \citep{doi:10.1063/1.859308}.
To further demonstrate this feature, in the \{$\rho$, $p_\rho$\} plane we mark the positions of ten orbits of particles with the same energy each time they cross the equatorial plane upward, the so-called Poincar\'{e} map. These particles are injected from the equatorial plane at $\rho=1$ with their initial pitch angle separated by 0.1 in their sine starting from 0. Figure \ref{fig12} shows these maps for the energy levels of 1/1000, 1/250, 1/100, and 1/50. These figures are similar to those in \citet{2016PhRvE..94d3203S}, where the energy levels are given in physical units instead of the dimensionless units here. Particles with larger pitch angles correspond to larger loops in the Poincar\'{e}. It is interesting to note that even in the case of the lowest energy, the Poincar\'{e} map deviates from the simple loop geometry for quasi-periodic orbits for the inner most particle injected along the magnetic field line (top-left panel). Its Poincar\'{e} map has a belt like structure at the beginning indicating a low value of the maximum Lyapunov exponent. It takes the reciprocal of the maximum Lyapunov exponent, the so-called Lyapunov time, for the orbit to become chaotic. The other orbits are obviously quasi-periodic at the lowest energy of 1/1000.
{\bf However, the Poincar\'{e}e maps of these quasi-periodic orbits do not appear to be associated with a stable periodic orbit. The orbit in the equatorial plane is an apparent stable periodic orbit at the same energy. However, it does not have fixed points in the Poincar\'{e} map defined above. If it is plotted in the \{$\rho$, $p_\rho$\} plane, it encloses all points of the Poincar\'{e} map at the same energy. If one makes Poincar\'{e} maps in the plane of \{$z$, $p_z$\} with $\rho=1$ and $p_\rho>0$, orbits in the equatorial plane have a fixed point at the origin. The quasi-periodic orbits discussed above will have a Poincar\'{e} map surrounding this fixed point. One should note that due to the presence of unstable periodic orbits \citep{1990CeMDA..49..327J}, between contours of quasi-periodic orbits at a given energy, there are fixed points of unstable periodic orbits \citep{doi:10.1002/cpa.3160260204}. However, these unstable periodic orbits has zero measure in the phase space and may not be realized in nature.}
In other high-energy levels, we see that orbits become chaotic even for particles with relatively large initial pitch angles, which agrees with Figure \ref{fig1a}. In the top-right panel of Figure \ref{fig12}, there appears to be crescent shape empty regions allowed by energy conservation even for chaotic orbits. {\bf The two lower panels suggest that these empty regions are likely associated with quasi-periodic orbits there. The finite volume of quasi-periodic orbits in the 4D phase space prevents chaotic trajectories from entering zones of quasi-periodic orbits. Therefore chaos does not imply a uniform distribution in the phase space allowed by energy conservation. Actually, one can see that chaotic orbits with relatively small pitch angles will not run into the regime of quasi-periodic orbits with large pitch angles.
The lower panels also suggest a transition from quasi-periodic orbits to chaotic orbits when Poincar\'{e} maps of some orbits show crescent shape, reminiscence of bifurcation in dynamical systems.}
For particles that are static at the beginning with $p_z=p_\rho=0$, they will always be static if they are injected at the minimum of $V$ where $\dot{\phi}=0$. They correspond to static particles in the 3D real space. For $V>0$, these particles actually move in the toroidal direction $ \hat{\phi}$ at the beginning. Figure \ref{fig1b} shows that, near the polar regions, the maximum Lyapunov exponent of static particles can still be positive. This is because that in these regions, the initial points next to these static particles have chaotic orbits. Although the static motion itself is relatively simple, slight changes in the initial conditions will lead to chaos, giving rise to a positive Lyapunov exponent. The same is true for unstable periodic orbits \citep{devogelaere1950}. The static particle at the saddle point of $z=0$ and $\rho=2$ corresponds to circular orbits in the equatorial plane with the centrifugal force balanced by the Lorentz force.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{7top.jpg}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{7bottom.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig2} Typical quasi-periodic orbit (top) and Poincar\'{e} map (bottom) of a low energy (h $=0.0076708$) particle with the initial conditions of \{0, 0.9, 0.01, 0\} indicated above the figure.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{8top.jpg}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{8bottom.jpg}
\caption{\label{fig3} Typical chaotic orbit (top) and Poincar\'{e} map (bottom) of a low energy (h $=0.014645$) particle with the initial condition of \{0, 1.2, 0.1, 0\} indicated above the figure. The solid lines indicate the corresponding energy contours.}
\end{figure}
{\bf Both Figure \ref{fig01} and the right panel of Figure \ref{fig1c} show that the maximum Lyapunov exponent has a continuous distribution, implying gradual transition from quasi-periodic to chaotic motions. Simulations by \citet{2016PhRvE..94d3203S} and Figure \ref{fig12} also shows that the Poincar\'{e} maps can evolve continuously from points distributed along a ring to those in a belt and eventually spreading over the phase space constrained by the energy conservation. Nevertheless, sets of quasi-periodic orbits need to be open due to their vanishing Lyapunov exponents. Moreover, orbits with relatively low Lyapunov exponents can have properties similar to those of the quasi-period orbits \citep{2018PhRvL.121w5003H} within the Lyapunov time and may have significant implications on high energy electron observations in space \citep{2014Natur.515..531B}.}
To further test the robustness of the above results, we plot trajectories of a few orbits in the \{$\rho$, $z$\} plane and their Poincar\'{e} maps. Figure \ref{fig2} corresponds to a typical quasi-periodic orbit with a relatively low energy with $\{z, \rho, p_z, p_\rho\}=\{0, 0.9, 0.01, 0\}$ initially. The trajectory in the \{$\rho$, $z$\} plane follows a very regular pattern and the Poincar\'{e} map is a closed loop, both of which are defining characteristics of quasi-periodic orbits.
Figure \ref{fig3} corresponds to a chaotic orbit with $z=0$, $\rho= 1.2$, $p_z=0.1$, and $p_\rho = 0$ initially. In contrast to the orbit in Figure \ref{fig2}, the trajectory in the \{$\rho$, $z$\} and the Poincar\'{e} map cover almost the whole region allowed by the energy conservation.
Figure \ref{fig7} represents a typical quasi-periodic orbit in the first set with $z=0$, $\rho= 1.616$, $p_z=0.0352$, and $p_\rho = 0$ initially. Figure \ref{fig8} is similar with a different set of initial conditions: $z=0.015$, $\rho= 1.66$, $p_z=0.0$, and $p_\rho = 0$. The Poincar\'{e} maps are expected to be a close loop for long enough period of calculations. The cave-in of these loops at the high value end of $\rho$ appears to be associated with the presence of the first set of quasi-periodic orbits there. Figure \ref{fig9} shows a typical chaotic orbit and its Poincar\'{e} map of a particle with $z=0$, $\rho= 1.652$, $p_z=0.025$, and $p_\rho = 0$ initially, which is surrounded by the first set of quasi-periodic orbits.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.93\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{9top.jpg}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.85\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{9bottom.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig7} Typical quasi-periodic orbit (top) and Poincar\'{e} map (bottom) of a high energy (h $=0.02844$) particle with the initial condition of \{0, 1.616, 0.0352, 0\} indicated above the figure.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.93\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{10top.jpg}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.85\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{10bottom.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig8} Typical quasi-periodic orbit (top) and Poincar\'{e} map (bottom) of a high energy (h $=0.028694$) particle with the initial condition of \{0.015, 1.66, 0, 0\} indicated above the figure.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.93\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{11top.jpg}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.85\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{11bottom.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig9} Typical chaotic orbit (top) and Poincar\'{e} map (bottom) of a high energy (h $=0.028851$) particle with the initial condition of \{0, 1.652, 0.025, 0\} indicated above the figure.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.936\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{12top.jpg}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{12bottom.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig4} Typical quasi-periodic orbit (top) and Poincar\'{e} map (bottom) of a high energy (h $=0.029861$) particle with the initial condition of \{0, 1.676, 0.0425, 0\} indicated above the figure.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.936\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{13top.jpg}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.83\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{13bottom.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig5} Typical quasi-periodic orbit (top) and Poincar\'{e} map (bottom) of a high energy (h $=0.028748$) particle with the initial condition of \{0, 0.834, 0.0232, 0\} indicated above the figure.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.93\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{14top.jpg}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.85\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{14bottom.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig6} Typical quasi-periodic orbit (top) and Poincar\'{e} map (bottom) of a high energy (h $=0.028976$) particle with the initial condition of \{0.03829, 0.8307, 0, 0\} indicated above the figure.}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig4} corresponds to another quasi-periodic orbit in the first set with a relatively high energy with $z=0$, $\rho= 1.676$, $p_z=0.0425$, and $p_\rho = 0$ initially. The Poincar\'{e} map appears to consist of two line segments, which is unusual. According to \citet{1990ComPh...4..549S}, quasi-periodic orbits are confined on a torus in the 4D phase space, and their Poincar\'{e} maps should have infinite points along closed loops while those of periodic orbits only have a few isolated points.
Similarly, Figures \ref{fig5} and \ref{fig6} represent respectively quasi-periodic orbits in the first set with $z=0$, $\rho= 0.834$, $p_z=0.0232$, $p_\rho = 0$, and $z=0.03829$, $\rho= 0.8307$, $p_z=0$, $p_\rho = 0$ initially. These Poincar\'{e} maps have more segments. {\bf As shown in the appendix, these segments actually are closed loops. These quasi-periodic orbits appear to be associated with stable periodic orbits in the Meridian plane that have more than one fixed points. Our numerical calculations therefore can also be used to search for stable periodic orbits in the phase space.}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.93\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{15top.jpg}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.85\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{15bottom.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig10} Typical quasi-periodic orbit (top) and Poincar\'{e} map (bottom) of a very high energy (h $=0.031144$) particle with the initial condition of \{0.04, 1.906, 0, 0\} indicated above the figure.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.93\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{16top.jpg}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.85\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{16bottom.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig11} Typical quasi-periodic orbit (top) and Poincar\'{e} map (bottom) of a very high energy (h $=0.031051$) particle with the initial condition of \{0, 1.893, 0.0012, 0\} indicated above the figure.}
\end{figure}
Figures \ref{fig10} and \ref{fig11} show typical quasi-periodic orbits in the second set with an energy close to 1/32.2. Similar to Figure \ref{fig4}, the orbit in Figure \ref{fig10} is associated with stable periodic orbits in the Meridian plane.
\citet{devogelaere1950} first studied the stability of periodic orbits in the equatorial plane and found that there are infinite segments of stable orbits. The three sets of quasi-periodic orbits discovered here correspond to the three segments of stable orbits with the lowest energies. It can be anticipated that there are also sets of quasi-periodic orbits surrounding other segments of stable periodic orbits in the equatorial plane (See Figure \ref{fig1b}). However the volume of these sets are much smaller than the three sets discussed above so that most of them are not uncovered with our low resolution scans of the phase space.
\section{Conclusions}
The Lyapunov exponents measure the dependence of trajectory of a dynamical system on its initial conditions. Via evaluation of the Lyapunov exponents of charged particles trapped in a dipole magnetic field, we found prominent sets of quasi-periodic orbits with vanishing Lyapunov exponent around stable periodic orbits, in particular those in the equatorial plane \citep{doi:10.1142/S0218127400000177}. The volume of these sets of quasi-periodic orbits in the phase space of initial conditions appear to be significant. Particles in the low energy set have been extensively studied with the guiding center approximation \citep{1963RvGSP...1..283N}. Particles in the high energy sets should also be detectable in physical systems \citep{2014Natur.515..531B, NaokiKENMOCHI2019}.
{\bf With the increase of energy, the particle orbits are more likely chaotic \citep{doi:10.1142/S0218127400000177}. However, the correlation between the maximum Lyapunov exponent and the energy are complicated. Our results also suggest that quasi-periodic orbits are always associated with stable periodic orbits. Both of them have vanishing Lyapunov exponents. Therefore one may use Poincar\'{e} maps of quasi-periodic orbits to search for stable periodic orbits in the phase space systematically. The maximum Lyapunov exponent of unstable periodic orbits, on the other hand, can be positive. Such unstable periodic orbits are usually difficult to identify \citep{1990ComPh...4..549S}. However, our results suggest that the maximum Lyapunov evolves continuously along segments of unstable periodic orbits, which may be used to identify branches of periodic orbits.
Knowing that particles are making circular motion at the saddle point of the dimensionless potential, one can readily obtain the energy and location of particles in the quasi-periodic orbits discovered in this paper. In the case of the earth's magnetosphere, assuming an equatorial magnetic field of 0.25 G at the surface, the Lorentz factor of electrons making circular motion at 6 times the earth radius is $\gamma_{\rm max}\simeq 2.5\times 10^3$, which is much higher than those detected in the magnetosphere \citep{2014Natur.515..531B}. The corresponding electrons in the high-energy sets have an energy of about 1 GeV and should be oscillating around the equatorial plane in the radial range of 2.5 to 6 times the earth radius. Electrons in the low-energy set can have an energy up to 300 MeV and oscillate between 2.7 to 3.6 times the earth radius. The earth rotation and the misalignment of the earth magnetic field with respect to the rotation axis is expected to squeeze the volume of the quasi-periodic orbits. The KAM theorem however indicates that some quasi-periodic orbits should survive \citep{1963RuMaS..18....9A}. It is also possible that these perturbations may reduce the characteristic energy and make quasi-periodic orbits reach a much higher latitude, providing a possible explanation to the sharp cutoff of high energy electron distribution toward low altitude discovered by the Van Allen probes \citep{2014Natur.515..531B}. More realistic modelling of the earth's magnetic field is needed to clarify this issue.
}
\begin{acknowledgments}
We appreciate helpful discussions with Ms. Runna Wang and Mr. Anda Xiong. This work is partially supported by the National Key R\&D Program of China grant No. 2018YFA0404203, NSFC grants U1738122, U1931204, and 11761131007, and by the International Partnership Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, grant No. 114332KYSB20170008.
\end{acknowledgments}
\section*{Data availability}
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\\[2ex]
\section*{Appendix}
{\bf Figure \ref{figa1} shows the 3D Poincar\'{e} map, i.e., the 3D distribution of points when the trajectory cross the equatorial plane, of a transition orbit between quasi-periodic and chaotic. Its 2D Poincar\'{e} map has a crescent shape as shown by the outer particle in the bottom right panel of Figure \ref{fig12}.}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.85\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{17.jpg}\\
\caption{\label{figa1} 3D Poincar\'{e} map of the outer particle shown in the bottom right panel of Figure \ref{fig12}.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.43\linewidth, angle=0.0]{18upperleft.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.43\linewidth, angle=0.0]{18upperright.jpg}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.43\linewidth, angle=0.0]{18lowerleft.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.43\linewidth,angle=0.0]{18lowerright.jpg}
\caption{\label{figa2} Dependence of the 3D Poincar\'{e} maps of the case shown in Figure \ref{fig6} on the absolute tolerance of the numerical calculations. The relative tolerance is $10^{-10}$.}
\end{figure*}
{\bf
To estimate the numerical error of our calculations, we plot the 3D Poincar\'{e} maps. With the initial conditions the same as Figure \ref{fig6}, i.e., $z=0.03829$, $\rho= 0.8307$, $p_z=0$, $p_\rho = 0$, and a relative tolerance of $10^{-10}$, Figure \ref{figa2} shows the dependence of the 3D Poincar\'{e} map on the absolute tolerance. We found that the result converges to 3 pairs of loops when the relative tolerance is less than $10^{-8}$ and the absolute tolerance is less than $10^{-9}$. Then their projection onto the \{$\rho,\ p_\rho$\} plane should also be loops for the energy conservation. By adjusting the initial conditions, we actually found the periodic orbit associated with this quasi-periodic orbit. Therefore segments of the 2D Poincar\'{e} maps presented in the text are just squeezed loops around a fixed point of the associated stable periodic orbit.
}
\section*{references}
\section{\label{sec:level1} Introduction
}
Motions of a charged particle in a dipole magnetic field were first systematically investigated by \citet{1930ZA......1..237S}. Due to the axis symmetry of the system, it can be reduced to a 2D Hamiltonian system and is later called the St\"{o}rmer problem for its broad implications in mathematics, space science, and physics \citep{1965RvGSP...3..255D,1990ComPh...4..549S, doi:10.1063/1.859308, 2016PhRvE..94d3203S, NaokiKENMOCHI2019}. To better understand the Van Allen radiation belt discovered in the mid-20th century, there have been renewed interests in solving the St\"{o}rmer's problem. In particular, periodic orbits in the equatorial plane have been explored extensively \citep{devogelaere1950}, and there are also a few branches of periodic orbits in the Meridian plane at relatively high energies with distinct orbital shapes \citep{1975Ap&SS..32..115M,1978CeMec..17..215M,1990CeMDA..49..327J}. At low energies, due to the presence of approximate adiabatic invariant, the problem can be further simplified \citep{1963RvGSP...1..283N, doi:10.1029/JA081i013p02327}, and the results, the so-called guiding center approximation, have been applied to studies of pulsars, radiation belts, and dynamics of particles in magnetic confinement devices \citep{2018PhRvL.121w5003H, 2014Natur.515..531B, NaokiKENMOCHI2019}.
It is well-known that particles moving in a dipole magnetic field are either trapped or can escape to infinity \citep{doi:10.1142/S0218127400000177}. For those trapped particles, in which people are mostly interested, their motions can be divided into three categories: quasi-periodic, chaotic, or hyper-chaotic depending on the number of positive Lyapunov exponents they have \citep{doi:10.1142/S0218127400000177}. Stable periodic orbits can be considered as special cases of quasi-periodic orbits. It has been suggested that the type of motion of trapped particles depends primarily on its energy. Particles with low energies will have quasi-periodic orbits, those with intermediate energy will move in a chaotic manner with a positive Lyapunov exponent, while high energy particles will display hyper-chaotic motion with two positive Lyapunov exponents.
The main goal of this paper is to have a quantitative classification of orbits of trapped particles with different initial conditions in the 4D phase space via evaluation of their Lyapunov exponents. This study also clarifies the relations among stable periodic orbits, quasi-periodic orbits, and chaotic orbits, revealing a spectrum of orbits of trapped particles evolving continuously with the initial conditions.
\section{The St\"{o}rmer Problem}
$\phi$
For the sake of completeness, we briefly summarize the St\"{o}rmer problem here.
We will adopt the coordinates as shown in Figure \ref{fig:coordinates} with a magnetic dipole at the origin pointing to the $z$ direction. {\bf The position angles of the vector $\vec{r}$ are given by $\lambda$, and $\phi$. Its projection onto the \{$x, \ y$\} plane has a length of $\rho=r\cos{\lambda}$.}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[->] (-2.5,0) (0,0) -- (4,0) node at (4.3,0,0) {$y$};
\draw[->] (0,0) -- (0,3,0) node at (0.2,3.2,0) {$z$};
\draw[->] (0,0) -- (0,0,5) node at (0.4,0,5.2) {$x$};
\draw[densely dotted, -latex] (0,0,0) -- (2,1.65,0);
\draw [densely dotted] (0,0,0) -- node[above] {$\vec{r}$} (2,1.65,0) -- node[right] {$z$}(3,0,2)--node[right] {$\rho$}cycle ;
\draw [thick](0,0,0)..controls (1,2,0)and(2.5,3,0) ..(4,0,3);
\draw (3,0,2) coordinate (A)
(0,0) coordinate (B) (2,0,0)coordinate (C)
pic [draw,->, "$\phi$", angle eccentricity=1.3,angle radius= 0.8cm] {angle};
\draw (3,0,2) coordinate (A)
(0,0) coordinate (B) (2,1.65,0)coordinate (C)
pic [draw,->, "$\lambda$", angle eccentricity=1.3,angle radius= 0.4cm] {angle};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Coordinates adopted in this paper. The solid line indicates a magnetic field line and the dashed lines indicate the vector ${\bf r}$ and its components.}
\label{fig:coordinates}
\end{figure}
Then the vector magnetic potential $\vec{A}$ can be put as the following:
\begin{align}
\vec{A}(\vec{r})&=\frac{\mu_0}{4\pi} \frac{\vec{\mu} \times \hat{r}}{r^2} \ \ \ \ \ {\rm with} \\[1ex]
\vec{\mu} &= \left(\begin{array}{c}
0,
0,
M
\end{array}\right) \ \ \ \ \ {\rm and} \\[1ex]
\hat{r} &= \left(\begin{array}{c}
\cos \lambda \cdot \sin \phi,
\cos \lambda \cdot \cos \phi,
\sin \lambda
\end{array}\right)
\end{align}
where $\mu_0$ is the magnetic permittivity of the vacuum and $M$ is the magnetic moment of the dipole. Then we have
\begin{equation}
\vec{A} = \frac{\mu_0}{4\pi} M \frac{\rho}{r^3} \hat{\phi}.
\end{equation}
and magnetic field lines are given by $r=r_0 \cos^2 \lambda$, where $r_0$ specifies the lines and $r^2=\rho^2+z^2$
For a particle with a speed of $v$, the Lorentz factor is given by
\begin{equation}
\gamma=\left[ 1-\left(\frac{v^2}{c^2}\right) \right]^{-\frac{1}{2}}
\end{equation}
where $c$ is the speed of light. Then
the relativistic Hamiltonian of a charged particle with a charge $q$ moving in the above dipole magnetic field is given by:
\begin{equation}
H_0=\left\{m_0^2c^4+c^2\left[P_z^2+P_\rho^2+\left(\frac{P_\phi}{\rho}-qA_\phi\right)^2\right] \right\}^{\frac{1}{2}}
\end{equation}
where $m_0$ is the rest mass of the charged particle, and
$P_z =\gamma m_0\dot{z}$, $P_\rho =\gamma m_0 \dot{\rho}$, $P_\phi = \gamma m_0 \rho^2 \dot{\phi}+q\rho A_\phi$, where an upper dot indicates derivative with respect to time $t$.
Since the magnetic force does not change the particle energy, the particle's speed remains constant. The canonical angular momentum along the $z$-axis $P_\phi$ is also a constant for the independence of $H$ on $\phi$.
The problem can be simplified by adopting the following Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
H=\frac{1}{2\gamma m_0}\left[P_z^2+P_\rho^2+\left(\frac{P_\phi}{\rho}-qA_\phi\right)^2\right].
\end{equation}
Considering the energy conservation and independence of $H$ on $\phi$, the Hamiltonian can be reduced to
\begin{equation}
H=\frac{1}{2m}(P_z^2+P_\rho^2) +V
\end{equation}
with the effective potential
\begin{equation}
V=\frac{1}{2m}\left(\frac{P_\phi}{\rho}-qA_\phi\right)^2\,,
\end{equation}
where $m =\gamma m_0$.
A characteristic length scale $L$ can be introduced with $P_\phi$: $L = q\mu_0 M/4\pi P_\phi$.
The corresponding energy scale is given by $P_\phi^2/mL^2\propto L^{-4}$, and the characteristic momentum is given by $P_\phi/L$.
Then we get the following dimensionless Hamiltonian:
\begin{eqnarray}
h&=&\frac{1}{2}\left[{p_z}^2+{p_\rho}^2+\left(\frac{1}{\rho}-\frac{\rho}{r\,^3}\right)^2\right] \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{1}{2}\left({p_z}^2+{p_\rho}^2\right)+ V ~~
\end{eqnarray}
with the effective potential
\begin{equation}
V=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{\rho}-\frac{\rho}{r\,^3}\right)^2.
\end{equation}
And the Hamiltonian's equations are:
\begin{align}
\dot{z}&= \frac{\partial h}{\partial p_z}=p_z\,, \\[1ex]
\dot{\rho}&=\frac{\partial h}{\partial p_\rho}=p_\rho\,, \\[1ex]
\dot{p_z}&= -\frac{\partial h}{\partial z}=-\frac{3z\rho\left[\frac{1}{\rho}-\frac{\rho}{(z^2+\rho^2)^\frac{3}{2}}\right]}{(z^2+\rho^2)^\frac{5}{2}}\,, \\
\dot{p_\rho} &=-\frac{\partial h}{\partial \rho} \\[1ex] \nonumber
&=\left[ \frac{1}{\rho^2}-\frac{3\rho^2}{(z^2+\rho^2)^\frac{3}{2}}
+\frac{1}{(z^2+\rho^2)^\frac{3}{2}}\right]\left[\frac{1}{\rho}-\frac{\rho}{(z^2+\rho^2)^\frac{3}{2}}\right].
\end{align}
For given initial conditions, these equations can be solved numerically to obtain the particle orbit in the phase space.
Orbits of particles with chaotic motions are usually very sensitive to the initial conditions. After a long period of motion starting with the initial conditions, the orbit of motion deviates greatly from the initial path that it began with. Lyapunov exponent, which characterizes the separation rate between infinitely close trajectories, helps us determine to what extent the resulting trajectory depends on changes in the initial conditions. {\bf For an n-D dynamical system with $\dot{x}_i = f_i(x)$, there are n Lyapunov exponents, which are assigned to each of the free variables. The Lyapunov exponents are defined as the eigenvalues of the following matrix $\Lambda$:
\begin{equation}
\Lambda = \lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}{1\over 2t}\ln [Y(t)Y^T(t)]
\end{equation}
where $\dot{Y}(t) = J(t)Y(t)$, $Y(0)$ is the unit matrix, and $J(t)$ is the Jacobian matrix of the system:
\begin{equation}
J_{ij}(t) = {\partial f_i[x(t)]\over \partial x_j}\,.
\end{equation}
}
In our case, with \{$z$, $\rho$, $p_z$, $p_\rho$\}, there are four Lyapunov exponents in total. For a Hamiltonian system, the sum of the Lyapunov exponents of all dimensions in the phase space must be zero and the Lyapunov exponents must be in pairs of opposite sign. Therefore there are at most two positive Lyapunov exponents.
A positive maximum Lyapunov exponent is often considered as a definition of deterministic chaos. If the maximum Lyapunov exponent is not greater than 0, then the particle has a quasi-periodic orbit. If there exists two positive Lyapunov exponents, then the particle's orbit is hyper-chaotic \citep{doi:10.1142/S0218127400000177}. For the time series of coordinates of a Hamiltonian system obtained numerically above, the corresponding Lyapunov exponents can be readily obtained \citep{1980Mecc...15....9B, 1985PhyD...16..285W}. {\bf Computations of the Lyapunov exponents have been performed in Matlab with integrator ode113 using absolute tolerance of
$10^{-10}$ and a relative tolerance of $10^{-6}$. Jacobians needed for Lyapunov exponent calculations are found analytically. The Poincar\'{e} maps are obtained with Mathematica with an absolute tolerance of $10^{-10}$ and a relative tolerance of $10^{-8}$ unless specified otherwise.}
\section{Results}
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\includegraphics[width=1.1\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{2.jpg}\\
\caption{\label{fig1a} Distribution of the number of positive Lyapunov exponents in the phase space of \{0, $\rho$, $p_z$, 0\}. Red, orange, and yellow corresponds to 0, 1, and 2, respectively. Colored curves show the energy (indicated by h) contours as indicated in these figures. The line segments labeled as f0-f5 correspond to stable periodic orbits \citep{1978CeMec..17..215M}. The thick horizontal bars below the $\rho$ axis indicate stable periodic orbits in the equatorial plane \citep{devogelaere1950}. The upper-left and lower-right panels are enlargement of two rectangular regions in the upper-right panel. The lower-left panel is enlargement of a rectangular region in the upper-left panel. The first set of high-energy quasi-periodic orbits locates just above h $=1/36$ (blue line in the upper panels). The second set locates around h $=1/32.2$ (pink lines in the lower panels). See text for details.}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\includegraphics[width=1.05\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{3.jpg}\\
\caption{\label{fig1b} The same as Figure \ref{fig1a} but for the phase space of \{$z$, $\rho$, 0, 0\}. A third set of quasi-periodic orbits can be seen in the lower left panel below h $=1/32$.
}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.858\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{4left.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.82\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{4right.jpg}
\caption{\label{fig1c} Left: the same as Figure \ref{fig1a} but for the phase space of \{$z$, 1.66, 0, $p_\rho$\} through the first high-energy set. The right panel shows the distribution of the maximum Lyapunov exponent of a rectangular region in the left panel. }
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{5.jpg}
\caption{\label{fig01} Correlation between the maximum Lyapunov exponent and energy h in the phase space of \{0, $\rho$, $p_z$, 0\} for the initial conditions. The dotted curves below the main distribution correspond to unstable periodic orbits in the equatorial plane. The red lines show a fit to the correlation with polynomial function of degree 3 and the error bands.}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.43\linewidth, angle=0.0]{6upperleft.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.43\linewidth, angle=0.0]{6upperright.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.43\linewidth, angle=0.0]{6lowerleft.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.43\linewidth,angle=0.0]{6lowerright.pdf}\\
\caption{\label{fig12} Poincar\'{e} maps of particles injected from the $z=0$, and $\rho=1$ phase plane with the energy indicated on the top of each panel (See also Fig. \ref{fig1a}). We show ten particles with different initial pitch angles separated by 0.1 in their sine starting from 0. These particles are indicated with different colors. Orbits in the equatorial plane do not have a Poincar\'{e} map.}
\end{figure*}
{\bf It is well-known that the energy level of h$=1/32$ separates the orbits into trapped and scattering regimes \citep{doi:10.1063/1.859308}. Although there are trapped periodic orbits beyond the $1/32$ energy level \citep{1978CeMec..17..215M}, they have a zero measure. Our numerical results show all other orbits beyond the $1/32$ energy level are scattering orbits that extend to infinity. We therefore focus on studying these trapped orbits with h$\leq1/32$.}
The key results of this paper are shown in Figures \ref{fig1a}-\ref{fig1c}, where we scan planes of initial conditions with $z=0$ and $p_\rho=0$ (Fig. \ref{fig1a}), $p_\rho=0$ and $p_z=0$ (Fig. \ref{fig1b}), and locally with $\rho = 1.66$ and $p_z=0$ (Fig. \ref{fig1c}). Here the red color indicates regions with vanishing Lyapunov exponents, corresponding to quasi-periodic orbits. The orange and yellow colors represent regions with one and two positive Lyapunov exponents, respectively. {\bf Fractal structure can be seen at the boundaries of regions for quasi-periodic orbits, which is typical for dynamical systems.}
We also indicate contours of different energy levels represented by the values of h. It can be seen that in general, orbits with low energies tend to have vanishing Lyapunov exponents corresponding to quasi-periodic orbits. With the increase of energy h, the orbits become more chaotic as pointed out by \citet{doi:10.1142/S0218127400000177}. {\bf However, Figure \ref{fig01} shows that there is no simple correlation between the maximum Lyapunov exponent and the energy, which is compatible with the right panel of Figure \ref{fig1c}, where one can see that between different energy contours, the distribution of the maximum Lyapunov exponent can spread over a broad range.}
Within the 1/32 energy contour, we discovered two sets of high-energy regions with vanishing Lyapunov exponents (Figs. \ref{fig1a}-\ref{fig1c}). These sets are connected via the energy contours indicating that they may represent the same orbits. For the convenience of discussion, we will rank these sets according to the energy with the lower energy one right above h $=1/36$ ranking the first. The structure of these regions in three independent planes of the initial conditions shows that these regions are 4D structures (Figs. \ref{fig1a}-\ref{fig1c}). The largest region of the first set covers more than 4\% in each dimension within the 1/32 energy contour. The second set locates around h $=1/32.2$ near the equatorial plane.
{\bf In Figure \ref{fig1a}, we use thick black line segments to indicate stable periodic orbits in the equatorial plane and solid line segments to indicate stable periodic orbits in the Meridian plane that belong to families of periodic orbits f0-f5 introduced by \citet{1978CeMec..17..215M}. It can be seen that quasi-periodic orbits appear to be always associated with stable periodic orbits.
However, quasi-periodic orbits associated with stable periodic orbits in the Meridian plane have a much smaller volume. For $h>1/32$, we found that only periodic orbits are bounded. Particles in other orbits will escape to infinity no matter what values of the maximum Lyapunov exponent they have.}
Near unstable periodic orbits, there is no quasi-periodic orbit with vanishing Lyapunov exponents. Figure \ref{fig01} shows that the maximum Lyapunov exponents of these unstable periodic orbits actually follow some pattern (dotted curves), rising first then declining with the increase of energy h between regions of stable periodic orbits. {\bf Therefore although periodic orbits are relatively simple, they may have a positive Lyapunov exponent. A positive Lyapunov exponent is a necessary but not sufficient condition for chaotic trajectories.}
The largest zone of quasi-periodic orbits spreads around the minimum of the effective potential $V$, where the guiding center approximation is valid \citep{1963RvGSP...1..283N}. Most studies of trapped particles have been focused on this region with relatively low energies. In Figure \ref{fig1a}, we note that for particles with initial conditions of $z=0$, $p_\rho=0$, and $\rho=1$, that is at the minimum of $V$, most orbits with $p_z>0$ are actually chaotic. Although these orbits have a very low energy, the guiding center approximation is invalid since these particles move initially along the magnetic field line at the equatorial plane \citep{doi:10.1063/1.859308}.
To further demonstrate this feature, in the \{$\rho$, $p_\rho$\} plane we mark the positions of ten orbits of particles with the same energy each time they cross the equatorial plane upward, the so-called Poincar\'{e} map. These particles are injected from the equatorial plane at $\rho=1$ with their initial pitch angle separated by 0.1 in their sine starting from 0. Figure \ref{fig12} shows these maps for the energy levels of 1/1000, 1/250, 1/100, and 1/50. These figures are similar to those in \citet{2016PhRvE..94d3203S}, where the energy levels are given in physical units instead of the dimensionless units here. Particles with larger pitch angles correspond to larger loops in the Poincar\'{e}. It is interesting to note that even in the case of the lowest energy, the Poincar\'{e} map deviates from the simple loop geometry for quasi-periodic orbits for the inner most particle injected along the magnetic field line (top-left panel). Its Poincar\'{e} map has a belt like structure at the beginning indicating a low value of the maximum Lyapunov exponent. It takes the reciprocal of the maximum Lyapunov exponent, the so-called Lyapunov time, for the orbit to become chaotic. The other orbits are obviously quasi-periodic at the lowest energy of 1/1000.
{\bf However, the Poincar\'{e}e maps of these quasi-periodic orbits do not appear to be associated with a stable periodic orbit. The orbit in the equatorial plane is an apparent stable periodic orbit at the same energy. However, it does not have fixed points in the Poincar\'{e} map defined above. If it is plotted in the \{$\rho$, $p_\rho$\} plane, it encloses all points of the Poincar\'{e} map at the same energy. If one makes Poincar\'{e} maps in the plane of \{$z$, $p_z$\} with $\rho=1$ and $p_\rho>0$, orbits in the equatorial plane have a fixed point at the origin. The quasi-periodic orbits discussed above will have a Poincar\'{e} map surrounding this fixed point. One should note that due to the presence of unstable periodic orbits \citep{1990CeMDA..49..327J}, between contours of quasi-periodic orbits at a given energy, there are fixed points of unstable periodic orbits \citep{doi:10.1002/cpa.3160260204}. However, these unstable periodic orbits has zero measure in the phase space and may not be realized in nature.}
In other high-energy levels, we see that orbits become chaotic even for particles with relatively large initial pitch angles, which agrees with Figure \ref{fig1a}. In the top-right panel of Figure \ref{fig12}, there appears to be crescent shape empty regions allowed by energy conservation even for chaotic orbits. {\bf The two lower panels suggest that these empty regions are likely associated with quasi-periodic orbits there. The finite volume of quasi-periodic orbits in the 4D phase space prevents chaotic trajectories from entering zones of quasi-periodic orbits. Therefore chaos does not imply a uniform distribution in the phase space allowed by energy conservation. Actually, one can see that chaotic orbits with relatively small pitch angles will not run into the regime of quasi-periodic orbits with large pitch angles.
The lower panels also suggest a transition from quasi-periodic orbits to chaotic orbits when Poincar\'{e} maps of some orbits show crescent shape, reminiscence of bifurcation in dynamical systems.}
For particles that are static at the beginning with $p_z=p_\rho=0$, they will always be static if they are injected at the minimum of $V$ where $\dot{\phi}=0$. They correspond to static particles in the 3D real space. For $V>0$, these particles actually move in the toroidal direction $ \hat{\phi}$ at the beginning. Figure \ref{fig1b} shows that, near the polar regions, the maximum Lyapunov exponent of static particles can still be positive. This is because that in these regions, the initial points next to these static particles have chaotic orbits. Although the static motion itself is relatively simple, slight changes in the initial conditions will lead to chaos, giving rise to a positive Lyapunov exponent. The same is true for unstable periodic orbits \citep{devogelaere1950}. The static particle at the saddle point of $z=0$ and $\rho=2$ corresponds to circular orbits in the equatorial plane with the centrifugal force balanced by the Lorentz force.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{7top.jpg}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{7bottom.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig2} Typical quasi-periodic orbit (top) and Poincar\'{e} map (bottom) of a low energy (h $=0.0076708$) particle with the initial conditions of \{0, 0.9, 0.01, 0\} indicated above the figure.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{8top.jpg}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{8bottom.jpg}
\caption{\label{fig3} Typical chaotic orbit (top) and Poincar\'{e} map (bottom) of a low energy (h $=0.014645$) particle with the initial condition of \{0, 1.2, 0.1, 0\} indicated above the figure. The solid lines indicate the corresponding energy contours.}
\end{figure}
{\bf Both Figure \ref{fig01} and the right panel of Figure \ref{fig1c} show that the maximum Lyapunov exponent has a continuous distribution, implying gradual transition from quasi-periodic to chaotic motions. Simulations by \citet{2016PhRvE..94d3203S} and Figure \ref{fig12} also shows that the Poincar\'{e} maps can evolve continuously from points distributed along a ring to those in a belt and eventually spreading over the phase space constrained by the energy conservation. Nevertheless, sets of quasi-periodic orbits need to be open due to their vanishing Lyapunov exponents. Moreover, orbits with relatively low Lyapunov exponents can have properties similar to those of the quasi-period orbits \citep{2018PhRvL.121w5003H} within the Lyapunov time and may have significant implications on high energy electron observations in space \citep{2014Natur.515..531B}.}
To further test the robustness of the above results, we plot trajectories of a few orbits in the \{$\rho$, $z$\} plane and their Poincar\'{e} maps. Figure \ref{fig2} corresponds to a typical quasi-periodic orbit with a relatively low energy with $\{z, \rho, p_z, p_\rho\}=\{0, 0.9, 0.01, 0\}$ initially. The trajectory in the \{$\rho$, $z$\} plane follows a very regular pattern and the Poincar\'{e} map is a closed loop, both of which are defining characteristics of quasi-periodic orbits.
Figure \ref{fig3} corresponds to a chaotic orbit with $z=0$, $\rho= 1.2$, $p_z=0.1$, and $p_\rho = 0$ initially. In contrast to the orbit in Figure \ref{fig2}, the trajectory in the \{$\rho$, $z$\} and the Poincar\'{e} map cover almost the whole region allowed by the energy conservation.
Figure \ref{fig7} represents a typical quasi-periodic orbit in the first set with $z=0$, $\rho= 1.616$, $p_z=0.0352$, and $p_\rho = 0$ initially. Figure \ref{fig8} is similar with a different set of initial conditions: $z=0.015$, $\rho= 1.66$, $p_z=0.0$, and $p_\rho = 0$. The Poincar\'{e} maps are expected to be a close loop for long enough period of calculations. The cave-in of these loops at the high value end of $\rho$ appears to be associated with the presence of the first set of quasi-periodic orbits there. Figure \ref{fig9} shows a typical chaotic orbit and its Poincar\'{e} map of a particle with $z=0$, $\rho= 1.652$, $p_z=0.025$, and $p_\rho = 0$ initially, which is surrounded by the first set of quasi-periodic orbits.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.93\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{9top.jpg}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.85\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{9bottom.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig7} Typical quasi-periodic orbit (top) and Poincar\'{e} map (bottom) of a high energy (h $=0.02844$) particle with the initial condition of \{0, 1.616, 0.0352, 0\} indicated above the figure.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.93\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{10top.jpg}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.85\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{10bottom.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig8} Typical quasi-periodic orbit (top) and Poincar\'{e} map (bottom) of a high energy (h $=0.028694$) particle with the initial condition of \{0.015, 1.66, 0, 0\} indicated above the figure.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.93\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{11top.jpg}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.85\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{11bottom.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig9} Typical chaotic orbit (top) and Poincar\'{e} map (bottom) of a high energy (h $=0.028851$) particle with the initial condition of \{0, 1.652, 0.025, 0\} indicated above the figure.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.936\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{12top.jpg}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{12bottom.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig4} Typical quasi-periodic orbit (top) and Poincar\'{e} map (bottom) of a high energy (h $=0.029861$) particle with the initial condition of \{0, 1.676, 0.0425, 0\} indicated above the figure.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.936\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{13top.jpg}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.83\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{13bottom.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig5} Typical quasi-periodic orbit (top) and Poincar\'{e} map (bottom) of a high energy (h $=0.028748$) particle with the initial condition of \{0, 0.834, 0.0232, 0\} indicated above the figure.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.93\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{14top.jpg}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.85\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{14bottom.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig6} Typical quasi-periodic orbit (top) and Poincar\'{e} map (bottom) of a high energy (h $=0.028976$) particle with the initial condition of \{0.03829, 0.8307, 0, 0\} indicated above the figure.}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig4} corresponds to another quasi-periodic orbit in the first set with a relatively high energy with $z=0$, $\rho= 1.676$, $p_z=0.0425$, and $p_\rho = 0$ initially. The Poincar\'{e} map appears to consist of two line segments, which is unusual. According to \citet{1990ComPh...4..549S}, quasi-periodic orbits are confined on a torus in the 4D phase space, and their Poincar\'{e} maps should have infinite points along closed loops while those of periodic orbits only have a few isolated points.
Similarly, Figures \ref{fig5} and \ref{fig6} represent respectively quasi-periodic orbits in the first set with $z=0$, $\rho= 0.834$, $p_z=0.0232$, $p_\rho = 0$, and $z=0.03829$, $\rho= 0.8307$, $p_z=0$, $p_\rho = 0$ initially. These Poincar\'{e} maps have more segments. {\bf As shown in the appendix, these segments actually are closed loops. These quasi-periodic orbits appear to be associated with stable periodic orbits in the Meridian plane that have more than one fixed points. Our numerical calculations therefore can also be used to search for stable periodic orbits in the phase space.}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.93\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{15top.jpg}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.85\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{15bottom.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig10} Typical quasi-periodic orbit (top) and Poincar\'{e} map (bottom) of a very high energy (h $=0.031144$) particle with the initial condition of \{0.04, 1.906, 0, 0\} indicated above the figure.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.93\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{16top.jpg}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.85\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{16bottom.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig11} Typical quasi-periodic orbit (top) and Poincar\'{e} map (bottom) of a very high energy (h $=0.031051$) particle with the initial condition of \{0, 1.893, 0.0012, 0\} indicated above the figure.}
\end{figure}
Figures \ref{fig10} and \ref{fig11} show typical quasi-periodic orbits in the second set with an energy close to 1/32.2. Similar to Figure \ref{fig4}, the orbit in Figure \ref{fig10} is associated with stable periodic orbits in the Meridian plane.
\citet{devogelaere1950} first studied the stability of periodic orbits in the equatorial plane and found that there are infinite segments of stable orbits. The three sets of quasi-periodic orbits discovered here correspond to the three segments of stable orbits with the lowest energies. It can be anticipated that there are also sets of quasi-periodic orbits surrounding other segments of stable periodic orbits in the equatorial plane (See Figure \ref{fig1b}). However the volume of these sets are much smaller than the three sets discussed above so that most of them are not uncovered with our low resolution scans of the phase space.
\section{Conclusions}
The Lyapunov exponents measure the dependence of trajectory of a dynamical system on its initial conditions. Via evaluation of the Lyapunov exponents of charged particles trapped in a dipole magnetic field, we found prominent sets of quasi-periodic orbits with vanishing Lyapunov exponent around stable periodic orbits, in particular those in the equatorial plane \citep{doi:10.1142/S0218127400000177}. The volume of these sets of quasi-periodic orbits in the phase space of initial conditions appear to be significant. Particles in the low energy set have been extensively studied with the guiding center approximation \citep{1963RvGSP...1..283N}. Particles in the high energy sets should also be detectable in physical systems \citep{2014Natur.515..531B, NaokiKENMOCHI2019}.
{\bf With the increase of energy, the particle orbits are more likely chaotic \citep{doi:10.1142/S0218127400000177}. However, the correlation between the maximum Lyapunov exponent and the energy are complicated. Our results also suggest that quasi-periodic orbits are always associated with stable periodic orbits. Both of them have vanishing Lyapunov exponents. Therefore one may use Poincar\'{e} maps of quasi-periodic orbits to search for stable periodic orbits in the phase space systematically. The maximum Lyapunov exponent of unstable periodic orbits, on the other hand, can be positive. Such unstable periodic orbits are usually difficult to identify \citep{1990ComPh...4..549S}. However, our results suggest that the maximum Lyapunov evolves continuously along segments of unstable periodic orbits, which may be used to identify branches of periodic orbits.
Knowing that particles are making circular motion at the saddle point of the dimensionless potential, one can readily obtain the energy and location of particles in the quasi-periodic orbits discovered in this paper. In the case of the earth's magnetosphere, assuming an equatorial magnetic field of 0.25 G at the surface, the Lorentz factor of electrons making circular motion at 6 times the earth radius is $\gamma_{\rm max}\simeq 2.5\times 10^3$, which is much higher than those detected in the magnetosphere \citep{2014Natur.515..531B}. The corresponding electrons in the high-energy sets have an energy of about 1 GeV and should be oscillating around the equatorial plane in the radial range of 2.5 to 6 times the earth radius. Electrons in the low-energy set can have an energy up to 300 MeV and oscillate between 2.7 to 3.6 times the earth radius. The earth rotation and the misalignment of the earth magnetic field with respect to the rotation axis is expected to squeeze the volume of the quasi-periodic orbits. The KAM theorem however indicates that some quasi-periodic orbits should survive \citep{1963RuMaS..18....9A}. It is also possible that these perturbations may reduce the characteristic energy and make quasi-periodic orbits reach a much higher latitude, providing a possible explanation to the sharp cutoff of high energy electron distribution toward low altitude discovered by the Van Allen probes \citep{2014Natur.515..531B}. More realistic modelling of the earth's magnetic field is needed to clarify this issue.
}
\begin{acknowledgments}
We appreciate helpful discussions with Ms. Runna Wang and Mr. Anda Xiong. This work is partially supported by the National Key R\&D Program of China grant No. 2018YFA0404203, NSFC grants U1738122, U1931204, and 11761131007, and by the International Partnership Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, grant No. 114332KYSB20170008.
\end{acknowledgments}
\section*{Data availability}
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\\[2ex]
\section*{Appendix}
{\bf Figure \ref{figa1} shows the 3D Poincar\'{e} map, i.e., the 3D distribution of points when the trajectory cross the equatorial plane, of a transition orbit between quasi-periodic and chaotic. Its 2D Poincar\'{e} map has a crescent shape as shown by the outer particle in the bottom right panel of Figure \ref{fig12}.}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.85\columnwidth, angle=0.0]{17.jpg}\\
\caption{\label{figa1} 3D Poincar\'{e} map of the outer particle shown in the bottom right panel of Figure \ref{fig12}.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.43\linewidth, angle=0.0]{18upperleft.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.43\linewidth, angle=0.0]{18upperright.jpg}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.43\linewidth, angle=0.0]{18lowerleft.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.43\linewidth,angle=0.0]{18lowerright.jpg}
\caption{\label{figa2} Dependence of the 3D Poincar\'{e} maps of the case shown in Figure \ref{fig6} on the absolute tolerance of the numerical calculations. The relative tolerance is $10^{-10}$.}
\end{figure*}
{\bf
To estimate the numerical error of our calculations, we plot the 3D Poincar\'{e} maps. With the initial conditions the same as Figure \ref{fig6}, i.e., $z=0.03829$, $\rho= 0.8307$, $p_z=0$, $p_\rho = 0$, and a relative tolerance of $10^{-10}$, Figure \ref{figa2} shows the dependence of the 3D Poincar\'{e} map on the absolute tolerance. We found that the result converges to 3 pairs of loops when the relative tolerance is less than $10^{-8}$ and the absolute tolerance is less than $10^{-9}$. Then their projection onto the \{$\rho,\ p_\rho$\} plane should also be loops for the energy conservation. By adjusting the initial conditions, we actually found the periodic orbit associated with this quasi-periodic orbit. Therefore segments of the 2D Poincar\'{e} maps presented in the text are just squeezed loops around a fixed point of the associated stable periodic orbit.
}
\section*{references}
|
\section{Determination of the edge}
\label{sec:edge}
For all the data reported in the main paper, we have determined the spin-correlation, local magnetization, and entanglement edges by tracking the ensemble of points in the \(R\)--\(t\) plane where the signal reaches a fraction $\epsilon$ of its maximal value.
Since this threshold line depends on the value of $\epsilon$, we have systematically scanned $\epsilon$, e.g.\ from $0.01$ to $0.12$ for \(G_z(R,t)\) and from $0.20$ to $0.80$ for \( \mathcal{S}_n(R,t)\).
In all the cases considered in this work, we find that the edge is well fitted by the algebraic law
\begin{equation}\label{eq:algebraicfit}
t = a \times R^{\beta}.
\end{equation}
While the coefficient $a$ fundamentally depends on $\epsilon$, the scaling law exponent $\beta$ is nearly independent of $\epsilon$.
An example of such an analysis, plotted in log-log scale, is shown in Fig.~\ref{gz_qlr_eps} where the various lines correspond to different values of $\epsilon$. The fact that they are parallel straight lines validates the scaling law $t \sim \times R^{\beta_{\textrm{\tiny CE}}}$ with an exponent $\beta_{\textrm{\tiny CE}}$ nearly independent of $\epsilon$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[scale = 0.4]{./Plots/gz_qlr_z_pol_eps.pdf}
\caption{
Spreading of the $G_z$ spin correlation function in the quasi-local regime ($\alpha = 1.7 < 2$),
for a global quench from $(h/J)_\mathrm{i} = 50$ to $(h/J)_{\mathrm{f}} = 1$, both in the $z$ polarized phase [same data as in the Fig.~\ref{fig:SpinCorr}(a) of the main paper].
The squares, disks, and diamonds indicate points where $G_z(R,t)$ reaches a fraction $\epsilon$ of its maximum value for various values of $\epsilon$.
The corresponding lines are linear fits to these points in log-log scale, consistently with Eq.~(\ref{eq:algebraicfit}).
The brown squares correspond to $\epsilon = 2.6\%$ for which we find $\beta_{\textrm{\tiny CE}} \simeq 1.27$,
the green disks to $\epsilon = 6.5\%$ for which we find $\beta_{\textrm{\tiny CE}} \simeq 1.23$,
and the white diamonds to $\epsilon = 11.2\%$ for which we find $\beta_{\textrm{\tiny CE}} \simeq 1.22$.
\label{gz_qlr_eps}
}
\end{figure}
\section{Spreading of the $\mathbf{G_x}$ spin correlation function}
\label{gx_qlr_lr_regime}
In this section, we discuss analytic and numerical results for the spreading of spin correlations along the $x$ direction,
\begin{equation}
G_x(R,t) = G_{x}^0(R,t) - G_{x}^0(R,0)
\qquad \textrm{with} \qquad
G_{x}^0(R,t) = \langle \hat{S}^x_R(t)\hat{S}^x_0(t)\rangle - \langle \hat{S}^x_R(t) \rangle \langle \hat{S}^x_0(t) \rangle,
\end{equation}
where $\hat{S}^x_R(t)$ is the spin operator along $x$ at position $R$ and time $t$.
\subsection{Linear spin wave theory}\label{LSWT}
In the $z$-polarized phase, the LRTI model can be diagonalized using a Holstein-Primakoff transformation~\cite{holstein1940},
\begin{equation}
\hat{S}^x_R \simeq \frac{1}{2} \left( \hat{a}^{\dag}_R + \hat{a}_R \right)
\qquad , \qquad
\hat{S}^y_R \simeq \frac{-1}{2i} \left( \hat{a}^{\dag}_R - \hat{a}_R \right)
\qquad , \quad \textrm{and} \qquad
\hat{S}^z_R \simeq \frac{1}{2} - \hat{a}^{\dag}_R \hat{a}_R,
\label{HP}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{a}_R(t)$ is the annihilation operator of a boson at site $R$ and time $t$.
Inserting these formulas into the LRTI Hamiltonian [Eq.~(\ref{H}) of the main paper], we find a quadratic Bose Hamiltonian, see for instance Refs.~\cite{hauke2013,cevolani2016} for details.
The latter is readily diagonalized using a standard Bogoliubov transformation~\cite{bogoliubov1947}.
The elementary excitations are magnons (spin-wave excitations), characterized by the gapped spectrum
\begin{equation}
E_k = 2\sqrt{h[h+JP_{\alpha}(k)]} = \sqrt{\mathcal{A}_k^2 - \mathcal{B}_k^2}
\qquad , \quad \mathrm{with} \qquad
\mathcal{A}_k = J P_{\alpha}(k) + 2h
\qquad \mathrm{and} \qquad
\mathcal{B}_k = J P_{\alpha}(k),
\label{exc_spec_z}
\end{equation}
where $P_{\alpha}(k) = \sum_R e^{ikR}/R^\alpha$ denotes the Fourier transform of the long-range term in the Hamiltonian.
For a quench on the exchange amplitude $J$ from $J_{\mathrm{i}}$ to $J_{\mathrm{f}}$,
the $G_x(R,t)$ correlation function can be cast in the form~\cite{cevolani2018}
\begin{equation}
G_x(R,t) \simeq g(R) -\int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \frac{\mathrm{d}k}{2\pi} \mathcal{F}(k)
\left\{ \frac{e^{i(kR+2E_k^{\mathrm{f}}t)} + e^{i(kR-2E_k^{\mathrm{f}}t)}}{2} \right\}
\quad , \quad \mathrm{with} \quad
\mathcal{F}(k) = \frac{h(J_\mathrm{i}-J_\mathrm{f})P_{\alpha}(k)}{8[h+J_\mathrm{f}P_{\alpha}(k)]
\sqrt{h[h + J_{\mathrm{i}}P_{\alpha}(k)]}},
\label{gx_analy}
\end{equation}
where the index "i" refers to the pre-quench (initial) Hamiltonian and the index "f" to the post-quench (final) Hamiltonian.
The function $\mathcal{F}(k)$ gives the weight of each quasi-particle according to their mode $k$.
It depends on the observable and the quench.
To characterize the asymptotic behavior, $R,t \rightarrow +\infty$ along a constant line $R/t$, one can then rely on the stationary-phase approximation, applied to Eq.~\eqref{gx_analy}.
It yields
\begin{equation}
G_x(R,t) \sim \frac{\mathcal{F}(k_{\mathrm{sp}})}{(|\partial^2_k E_{k_{\mathrm{sp}}}|t)^{1/2}} \cos(k_{\mathrm{sp}}R
- 2E_{k_{\mathrm{sp}}}t + \phi),
\label{gx_spa}
\end{equation}
where $\phi$ is a constant phase irrelevant to our study,
$k_{\mathrm{sp}}$ is the stationary-phase quasi-momentum,
given by the solution of the equation $2V_{\mathrm{g}}(k_{\mathrm{sp}}) = 2\partial_{k} E_{k_{\mathrm{sp}}} = R/t > 0$ with $V_{\textrm{g}}$ the group velocity associated to the spin-wave excitations.
\bigskip
\paragraph{Quasi-local regime~--~}
\label{SM:QLregAnalytics}
The quasi-local regime corresponds to the case where the quasi-particle energy $E_k$ is finite over the whole first Brillouin zone, $k \in [-\pi,+\pi]$, but the group velocity $V_{\textrm{g}}(k)$ presents a divergence.
The space-time behavior of $G_x$ in the vicinity of the CE (correlation edge)
is dominated by the quasi-particles propagating with the highest group velocities.
Due to the infrared divergence, only the limit behavior in $k\rightarrow 0$ is relevant.
There the long-range term reads as
$P_{\alpha}(k) \approx P_{\alpha}(0) + P_{\alpha}' |k|^{\alpha-1}$,
with $P_{\alpha}(0)>0$, $P'_{\alpha} <0$,
and the excitation energy is $E_k \simeq \Delta - c |k|^z$,
where $\Delta = 2\sqrt{h[h+J P_{\alpha}(0)]} > 0$ is the gap,
$z = \alpha-1 \geq 0$ is the dynamical exponent,
and $c = \sqrt{h/[h+JP_{\alpha}(0)]}J|P_{\alpha}'|>0$ is a prefactor.
Then, computing $k_{\mathrm{sp}}$ and injecting it into Eq.~\eqref{gx_spa},
we find
\begin{equation}
G_x(R,t) \sim \frac{t^{\gamma}}{R^{\chi}} \cos \Big[ A_z \Big( \frac{t}{R^z} \Big)^{\frac{1}{1-z}} - 2 \Delta t + \phi \Big],
\label{infrared}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
A_z = 2c (2cz)^{z/(1-z)}(1-z)
\qquad \mathrm{,} \qquad\gamma = \frac{\nu +1/2}{1-z}
\qquad \mathrm{,} \quad \mathrm{and} \qquad
\chi = \frac{\nu + (2-z)/2}{1-z},
\end{equation}
where $\nu \geq 0$ is the scaling exponent of the amplitude function in the infrared limit,
$\mathcal{F}(k) \sim |k|^{\nu}$.
It follows from Eq.~\eqref{gx_analy} and the approximation of $P_{\alpha}$ in the infrared limit
that $\nu = 0$ for the $G_x$ spin correlation function.
On the one hand, the CE is found by imposing the condition that the prefactor is constant.
The latter leads to the algebraic form $t \propto R^{\beta_{\mathrm{CE}}}$ with $\beta_{\textrm{\tiny CE}} = \chi/\gamma = 3-\alpha$.
Since $1 \leq \alpha < 2$ in the quasi-local,
the CE is always sub-ballistic, \textit{i.e.}\ $\beta_{\mathrm{CE}} > 1$.
On the other hand, the spreading law of the local extrema is determined by the equation
\begin{equation}
A_z \Big( \frac{t}{R^z}\Big)^{\frac{1}{1-z}} - 2 \Delta t + \phi = \mathrm{cst}
\qquad \mathrm{leading~to} \qquad
A_z \Big( \frac{t}{R} \Big)^{\frac{z}{1-z}} - 2\Delta \rightarrow 0.
\label{cond_maxima}
\end{equation}
The maxima are thus ballistic, \textit{i.e.}\ $t \sim R^\beta_{\textrm{\tiny m}}$ with $\beta_{\textrm{\tiny m}}=1$.
\bigskip
\paragraph{Local regime~--~}
\label{SM:LocRegAnalytics}
In the local regime, corresponding to the case where both the quasi-particle energy $E_k$ and the group velocity $V_{\textrm{g}}(k)$ are finite over the whole first Brillouin zone,
there exists a quasi-momentum $k^*$ such that the group velocity is maximum,
$V_{\textrm{g}}(k^*) = \mathrm{max}_k[V_{\textrm{g}}(k)]$.
Hence, the stationary-phase condition $2V_{\textrm{g}}(k_{\mathrm{sp}}) = R/t$ has a solution only for $R/t \leq 2V_{\textrm{g}}(k^*)$.
The CE is determined by the spreading of the quasi-particles with a quasi-momentum $k_{\mathrm{sp}} \simeq k^*$.
It is thus ballistic, with the CE velocity $V_{\textrm{\tiny CE}} = 2V_{\textrm{g}}(k^*)$.
Moreover, in the vicinity of the CE, the motion of the local maxima is determined by the phase factor in Eq.~\eqref{gx_spa} with $k_{\mathrm{sp}} = k^*$.
It follows that the local extrema propagate ballistically at the velocity $V_{\textrm{m}} = 2V_{\varphi}(k^*)$
where $V_{\varphi}(k) = E_k/k$ is the quasi-particle phase velocity.
Note that here, $k^*<0$ and $V_{\textrm{m}} = 2V_{\varphi}(k^*) = 2E_{k^*}/k^* < 0$.
\subsection{Numerical TDVP results}
\label{SM:Gx.numerics}
We have performed numerical TDVP calculations for the spreading of the spin correlation function along $x$ for the same parameters as for its counterpart in the $z$ direction, discussed in the text.
The left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig_gx} shows a typical result, plotted in log-log scale, in the quasi-local regime. The underlying checkerboard-like structure is characteristic of the $G_x$ function and was similarly found using meanfield calculations in Ref.~\cite{cevolani2018}.
In spite of this complex structure, we can identify a CE, using the same $\epsilon$ method used for the $G_z$ correlation function, as well as propagating local maxima.
The green solid and dashed blue lines correspond to alegbraic fits to the CE and the local extrema, respectively. The associated scaling law exponents $\beta_{\textrm{\tiny CE}}$ and $\beta_{\textrm{\tiny m}}$ are in very good agreement with the theoretical ones discussed in Sec.~\ref{SM:QLregAnalytics}, see filled symbols in Fig.~\ref{fig:SpinCorr}(b) of the main paper.
The right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig_gx} shows a typical result in the local regime, now plotted in linear scale.
The solid green and dashed blue lines are linear fits to the CE and local extrema, respectively.
The corresponding numerical velocities $V_{\textrm{\tiny CE}}$ and $V_{\textrm{m}}$ are in good agreement with the theoretical ones, see filled symbols in Fig.~\ref{fig:SpinCorr}(c) of the main paper.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[scale = 0.35]{./Plots/gx_z_pol_qlr_lr.pdf}
\caption{
Spreading of the $G_x$ spin correlations.
Left panel (log-log scale): Quasi-local regime with $\alpha = 1.7 < 2$ for a global quench from $(h/J)_\mathrm{i} = 50$ to $(h/J)_{\mathrm{f}} = 1$, both in the $z$
polarized phase of the LRTI model.
Right panel (linear scale): Local regime with $\alpha = 3 < 2$
for a global quench starting from $(h/J)_\mathrm{i} = 0.9$ to $(h/J)_{\mathrm{f}} = 1$.
The solid green and dashed blue lines are algebraic (for $\alpha<2$) or linear (for $\alpha>2$) fits to the CE and the extrema, respectively.
\label{fig_gx}
}
\end{figure}
\section{Large quenches}
\label{large_quenches}
In this section, we present numerical results for large quenches using the same TDVP calculations as for the results of the main paper.
Figure~\ref{local_quench_quasi_local_regime} shows results for both the $G_x(R,t)$ (upper row) and the $G_z(R,t)$ (lower panel) correlation functions in the quasi-local regime, $\alpha=1.7$. Form left to right, we quench from decreasing values of the initial parameter $(h/J)_\textrm{i}$, ranging from the $z$-polarized phase to the $x$-N\'eel phase. The post-quench parameter $(h/J)_\textrm{f}$ is fixed to a value corresponding to the $z$-polarized phase.
When changing the initial value $(h/J)_\textrm{i}$ towards the N\'eel phase, we find that an additional staggered structure, reminiscent of the N\'eel ordering, appears. For the $G_x(R,t)$ correlation function, it rapidly dominates the signal and it becomes difficult to identify propagating local maxima and a correlation edge. In contrast, the signal is clearer for the $G_z(R,t)$ correlation function. While a checkerboard-like structure appears, it is still possible to identify the local maxima and the correlation edge. We find that both are algebraic with dynamical exponents $\beta_{\textrm{\tiny m}}$ and $\beta_{\textrm{\tiny CE}}$ that do not significantly change with the strength of the quench.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = \columnwidth]{./Plots/scanning_quasi_local_regime.pdf}
\caption{
Spreading of the $G_x$ (upper row) and $G_z$ (lower row) spin correlations in the quasi-local regime, $\alpha = 1.7$ (log-log scale).
The quench is performed from an increasing value of the initial parameter $(h/J)_{\mathrm{i}}$, ranging from the $z$ polarized phase to the $x$-N\'eel phase,
to the fixed value $(h/J)_{\mathrm{f}} = 1$, corresponding to the $z$ polarized phase.
(a)~$\hat{H}_{\mathrm{i}}$ deep in the $z$ polarized phase, $(h/J)_{\mathrm{i}} = 0.8$;
(b)~$\hat{H}_{\mathrm{i}}$ in the $z$ polarized phase close to the critical point, $(h/J)_{\mathrm{i}} = 0.4$;
(c)~$\hat{H}_{\mathrm{i}}$ in the $x$ N\'eel phase, $(h/J)_{\mathrm{i}} = 0.25$;
(d)~$\hat{H}_{\mathrm{i}}$ deep in the $x$ N\'eel phase, $(h/J)_{\mathrm{i}} = 0.1$.
The dashed blue and solid green lines are algebraic fits to propagating local extrema and to the CE respectively.
}
\label{local_quench_quasi_local_regime}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{local_quench_local_regime} shows the same calculations, now performed in the local regime, $\alpha=3$. Similar conclusions as for the quasi-local regime hold. The $G_x(R,t)$ correlation function is rapidly blurred. In contrast, the $G_z(R,t)$ is more robust and allows us to fit the dynamical exponents $\beta_{\textrm{\tiny m}}$ and $\beta_{\textrm{\tiny CE}}$, yielding values nearly independent of $(h/J)_\textrm{i}$. In fact, for the $G_z(R,t)$ correlation function, we find no significant impact of increasing the strength of the quench.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics[width = \columnwidth]{./Plots/scanning_local_regime.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Spreading of the $G_x$ (upper row) and $G_z$ (lower row) spin correlations in the local regime, $\alpha = 3$ (linear scale).
The quench is performed from an increasing value of the initial parameter $(h/J)_{\mathrm{i}}$, ranging from the $z$ polarized phase to the $x$-N\'eel phase,
to the fixed value $(h/J)_{\mathrm{f}} = 1$, corresponding to the $z$-polarized phase.
(a)~$\hat{H}_{\mathrm{i}}$ deep in the $z$-polarized phase, $(h/J)_{\mathrm{i}} = 0.9$;
(b)~$\hat{H}_{\mathrm{i}}$ in the $z$ polarized phase close to the critical point, $(h/J)_{\mathrm{i}} = 0.59$;
(c)~$\hat{H}_{\mathrm{i}}$ in the $x$ N\'eel phase, $(h/J)_{\mathrm{i}} = 0.25$;
(d)~$\hat{H}_{\mathrm{i}}$ deep in the $x$ N\'eel phase, $(h/J)_{\mathrm{i}} = 0.1$.
The dashed blue and solid green lines are linear fits to propagating local extrema and to the CE respectively.}
\label{local_quench_local_regime}
\end{figure}
\section{Scaling laws for $\mathbf{\langle S^z_R(t)\rangle}$ after a local quench} \label{local_mag}
The local magnetization $\langle \hat{S}^z_R(t) \rangle$ can be computed analytically for a local quench in the $z$-polarized phase where $h \gg J$, using an approach similar to that presented in Sec.~\ref{LSWT}.
Starting from the initial state
$\ket{\Psi_0} \propto \hat{S}^-_{0} \ket{\Psi_\textrm{\tiny GS}}$ obtained by lowering the central ($R=0$) spin of the ground state (which is close to the product state $\ket{\uparrow ... \uparrow \downarrow \uparrow ... \uparrow}$),
and applying both the Holstein-Primakoff transformation and the bosonic Bogoliubov approach,
we find
\begin{align}
& 1/2 - \langle \hat{S}^z_{R}(t) \rangle \simeq \left| \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \frac{\mathrm{d}k}{2\pi} \mathcal{F}_1(k) \frac{e^{i(kR + E_kt)}+ e^{-i(kR - E_kt)}}{2}
\right|^2 + \left| \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \frac{\mathrm{d}k}{2\pi} \mathcal{F}_2(k) \frac{e^{i(kR + E_kt)}+ e^{-i(kR - E_kt)}}{2}
\right|^2.
\label{eq_expec_val}
\end{align}
The quantities $\mathcal{F}_1(k)$ and $\mathcal{F}_2(k)$ are two different quasi-momentum-dependent amplitude functions, which read as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{F}_1(k) = \frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{\mathcal{A}_k}{E_k} +1 \right) = \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{2h + JP_{\alpha}(k)}{2\sqrt{h[h+JP_{\alpha}(k)]}} + 1\right)
\qquad \textrm{and} \qquad
\mathcal{F}_2(k) = -\frac{\mathcal{B}_k}{2E_k} = -\frac{J P_{\alpha}(k)}{4\sqrt{h[h+JP_{\alpha}(k)]}}.
\label{amp_fct_local_spin}
\end{equation}
For large transverse fields, $h \gg J$, we find $\mathcal{F}_1(k) \simeq 1 \gg \mathcal{F}_2(k)
\sim J/h$ and the second term in Eq.~(\ref{eq_expec_val}) may be neglected.
\bigskip
\paragraph{Quasi-local regime~--~}
In the quasi-local regime, owing to the infrared divergence of the quasi-particle velocities, the spreading of the local magnetization (as well as that of correlations) is dominated by the Fourier components with $k \rightarrow 0$, see Eq.~(\ref{eq_expec_val}). There, we may write $E_k \simeq \Delta - c \vert k\vert^z$, where $\Delta = 2\sqrt{h[h+JP_\alpha(0)]}$ is the gap and $z=\alpha-1$ is the dynamical exponent, see also Sec.~\ref{SM:QLregAnalytics}. Inserting this expression into Eq.~(\ref{eq_expec_val}), we find that the gap $\Delta$ may be factorized, taken out of the integrals, and then vanishes owing to the square moduli. It explains the irrelevance of the gap for the spreading of the local magnetization in the quasi-local regime. Applying the stationary phase approximation to evaluate the integrals along the lines of Ref.~\cite{cevolani2018}, we then find that the spreading of $\langle \hat{S}^z_{R}(t) \rangle$ is super-ballistic, with $\beta_{\textrm{\tiny m}} = 1 -z$.
This is consistent with the TDVP results shown in the main paper, see Fig.~\ref{fig:numerics2}(b) of the main paper.
\bigskip
\paragraph{Local regime~--~}
In the local regime, both the quasi-particle energy $E_k$ and group velocity $V_{\textrm{g}}(k)$ are finite over the whole Brillouin zone.
The spin edge is thus determined by the maximum group velocity, $Vg(k^*)$.
The calculation is similar to that outlined for the spreading of the spin correlation in Sec.~\ref{SM:LocRegAnalytics}.
The only relevant difference is that the phase factor for the spreading of the spin correlations has an extra factor of $2$, which is absent for the local magnetization, see Eq.~(\ref{gx_analy}) versus Eq.~(\ref{eq_expec_val}). As a result, the spin edge propagates at the velocity $V_{\textrm{\tiny SE}}=V_{\textrm{g}}(k^*)$, while the correlation edge propagates at the velocity $V_{\textrm{\tiny CE}}=2V_{\textrm{g}}(k^*)$.
This is consistent with the TDVP results, see Fig.~\ref{fig:numerics2}(c) of the main paper~\footnote{Note that a different value of $h/J$ is used in the two figures and the values of $V_{\textrm{\tiny CE}}$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:numerics2}(c) and $V_{\textrm{\tiny SE}}$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:numerics3}(c) in the main paper are not related.}.
More precisely, applying the stationary phase approximation, we find
\begin{align}
& 1/2 - \langle \hat{S}^z_{R}(t) \rangle \sim \left|\frac{\mathcal{F}_1(k^*)}{(|\partial^2_k E_{k^*}|t)^{1/2}} [\cos(k^* R
-E_{k^*} t + \phi) - i \sin(k^* R - E_{k^*} t + \phi) ]\right|^2
\label{expec_spa}
\end{align}
where $\phi = - (\pi/4)\mathrm{sgn}(\partial_k^2 E_{k_\mathrm{sp}}t)$ is a constant phase term.
The local magnetization is thus the sum of two terms, associated to the $\cos$ and $\sin$ terms.
Each has local maxima that propagate at the velocity $V_{\varphi}(k^*)$. The two terms are, however, in phase opposition, which mutually cancel the local maxima. We hence expect a single structure in the vicinity of the spin edge, consistently with the TDVP results.
A similar effect has been found for density correlations deep in the Mott insulator phase of the Bose-Hubbard model~\cite{despres2019}.
This effect is also expected in the quasi-local regime but the extinction of the local maxima happens on very large distances and in the TDVP we still observe them up to the largest accessible times and distances, see Fig.~\ref{fig:SpinCorr} of the main paper.
\section{Density matrix and entanglement entropies after a local quench}
\label{app:density_matrix_local}
In this section we discuss analytic and numerical results for the entanglement entropy following a local quench, using linear spin wave theory (LSWT).
\subsection{Spin wave analysis}
The initial state prepared by the local quench is obtained from the ground state (GS) by an up-down spin flip at the central lattice site. The time dependence of the system's state is given by
\begin{equation}
\ket{\Psi_{0}(t)} = \tilde{\mathcal{N}} \hat{S}^-_0 (t) \ket{\Psi_{\mathrm{GS}}} = \tilde{\mathcal{N}} \hat{a}^\dagger_0(t) \ket{0_b} = \tilde{\mathcal{N}} \sum_{k=-\pi}^{\pi} u_k \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} E_k t}\, \hat{b}_k^\dagger(t=0) \ket{0_b} \,,
\label{eq.initial_state}
\end{equation}
where \(\hat{S}^-_0 = S^x_0 - i S^y_0\) is the spin lowering operator at the central site (labelled by $j=0$), \( \hat{a}_0^{\dagger}\) is the bosonic Holstein-Primakoff creation operator [see Eq.~(\ref{HP})], \(\hat{b}_k(0)\) is the Bogoliubov quasi-particle annihilation operator~\cite{bogoliubov1947}, \(u_k = \mathrm{sign}(\mathcal{A}_k) \sqrt{\frac{1}{2} \left(\frac{\abs{\mathcal{A}_k}}{E_k} + 1 \right)}\),
\(\ket{0_b}\) is the quasi-particle vacuum, and \(\tilde{\mathcal{N}}=\left(\sum_k u_k^2\right)^{-1/2}\) stands for the normalization of the state.
Crucially, for $h/J \gg 1$, the initial state is a superposition of single-particle excitations,
which allows us to proceed analytically.
Defining \(S\) as the entire system and
\(A\) and \(B\) as complementary subsystems, we may decompose the initial state into the cases where the excitation is in either subsystem $A$ or $B$ as \( \sum_{m \in {S}} \ket{1_m} = \sum_{m \in A} \ket{1_m} \otimes \ket{0_{B}} + \sum_{m \in B}\ket{0_{A}} \otimes \ket{1_m}\), where \(\ket{0_{{A},{B}}}\) is the unique vacuum of the subsystems \(A\) and \(B\), respectively. The state of the entire system thus reads as
\begin{align}
\ket{\Psi_0(t)} &= \tilde{\mathcal{N}} \sum_{m \in B} \sum_{k=-\pi}^{\pi} u_k \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \left( E_k t + m k\right) } \ket{0_A} \otimes \ket{1_m} + \tilde{\mathcal{N}}\sum_{m \in A} \sum_{k=-\pi}^{\pi} u_k \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \left( E_k t + m k\right) } \ket{1_m} \otimes \ket{0_B} \\
&\coloneqq \sqrt{\lambda_1} \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \theta_1} \ket{0_A} \otimes \ket{\chi_B} + \sqrt{\lambda_2} \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \theta_2} \ket{\chi_A} \otimes \ket{0_B} \label{eq:lambda2_def} \,,
\end{align}
where $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ are real-valued numbers such that \(\lambda_1 + \lambda_2 = 1\), and $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ are some phases.
The density matrix of the entire system thus contains four terms,
\begin{align}
\rho(t) &= \lambda_1 \ketbra{0_A} \otimes \ketbra{\chi_B}{\chi_B} + \lambda_2 \ketbra{\chi_A}\otimes \ketbra{0_B} \nonumber \\
&\quad + \sqrt{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}\mathrm{e}^{i(\theta_1-\theta_2)} \ketbra{0_A}{\chi_A} \otimes \ketbra{\chi_B}{0_B} + \sqrt{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}\mathrm{e}^{i(\theta_2-\theta_1)} \ketbra{\chi_A}{0_A} \otimes \ketbra{0_B}{\chi_B} \,,
\end{align}
while the reduced density matrix of subsystem \(A\) contains two terms,
\begin{align}\label{eq:reduced_density_matrix}
\rho_A(t) &= \tr_B(\rho(t)) = \lambda_1(t) \ketbra{0_A} + \lambda_2(t) \ketbra{\chi_A} \,.
\end{align}
In the limit of \(h/J\gg1\) the Bogoliubov coefficient approaches unity, \(u_k \simeq 1 \).
Since the two eigenvalues are constrained to add to unity and have the same functional form, we may without loss of generality restrict our analysis to one of them.
The \(t\rightarrow \infty\,, R\rightarrow \infty\) behavior of the second eigenvalue of the reduced density matrix in the infinite volume limit using the stationary phase approximation is given by
\begin{align}
\lambda_2 &\simeq {\tilde{\mathcal{N}}^2} \sum_{m\in A} \abs{\sum_{k=-\pi}^{\pi}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\left(E_{k}t + mk \right)}}^2 \label{eq:lambda_2} \overset{N\rightarrow \infty}{\propto} \tilde{\mathcal{N}}^2 \,
\sum_{m \in A} \frac{1}{t \abs{ \partial^2_{k} E_{k_{\mathrm{sp}} } }} \cos^2\!\big[ E(k_{\mathrm{sp}})t - k_{\mathrm{sp}}m + \phi \big]
\end{align}
where \(k_{sp}\) is defined by the stationary phase condition \(V_{\textrm{g}}(k_{\mathrm{sp}}) = m/t \) with $V_{\textrm{g}}(k) = \partial E_k/\partial k$.
\subsection{Entanglement Entropies}
In order to compute the entanglement entropies from the reduced density matrix,
we now consider the partitions \(A = \left\{ R,R+1,\ldots, N/2 \right\}\) and \(B = \left\{ -N/2,-N/2+1,\ldots, R -1\right\}\) and look for an analytic expression for its eigenvalues.
\bigskip
\paragraph{Quasi-local regime~--~}
The spectrum in the quasi-local regime is bounded but its first derivative \(V_g(k)\) has an infrared divergence (\(k_{sp} \to 0\)), as \(V_g(k) \sim 1/k^{2-\alpha}\), which dominate the eigenvalues of the reduced density matrix.
Inserting this into \cref{eq:lambda_2}, we find that the second eigenvalue can be approximated in the infinite volume limit by,
\begin{align}
\lambda_2 &\propto \tilde{\mathcal{N}}^2 \,
t^{\frac{1}{1-z}} \sum_{m=0}^\infty \frac{1}{(m+R)^{\frac{z-2}{z-1}}} \cos^2\left[\xi_z \left( \frac{t }{(m+R)^z} \right)^{\frac{1}{1-z}} + \phi \right]
\label{eq.lambda2approx}
\end{align}
with \(\xi_z = (cz)^{\frac{1}{1-z}} \left( 1 + c^{z+1}z^z \right)\).
In contrast with the earlier study of spin wave excitations for magnetic properties (see for instance Secs.~\ref{LSWT} and \ref{local_mag}), here the site $R$ is contained in every term of the sum over subsystem $A$, and we cannot extract the entanglement edge without considering every term in the sum. Moreover, this means that we cannot \emph{a priori} simply look at the scaling of the coefficient without taking into account the oscillatory cosine term. However, in both our TDVP and LSWT numerical results, we find no significant internal oscillations of the R\'enyi entanglement entropies, implying that the oscillatory term does not contribute significantly to the observed behavior of the entanglement edge. Additionally, we find the frequency \(\xi_z\) to be very large such that the cosine term varies rapidly compared to the algebraically decaying amplitude.
We can then safely substitute the square cosine function by its average value, $1/2$,
allowing us to analytically perform the sum in Eq.~(\ref{eq.lambda2approx}).
We find
\begin{align}
\lambda_2 & \propto \tilde{\mathcal{N}}^2 \frac{2\pi(cz)^{\kappa}}{\abs{cz(z-1)}} t^{\frac{\kappa}{2-z}} \zeta\left(\kappa, R\right) \,,
\end{align}
where \(\zeta(s,q) = \sum_{m=0}^\infty {(m+q)^{-s}}\) is the Hurwitz zeta function~\cite{Hurwitz1932, Magnus1966} and \(\kappa = \frac{z-2}{z-1} = \frac{\alpha-3}{\alpha-2}\). Using the series representation of the Hurwitz zeta function in the limit of large \(R\) and positive \(\kappa\), this may be written as
\begin{align}
\lambda_2 &= \tilde{\mathcal{N}}^2 \frac{2\pi(cz)^{\kappa}}{\abs{cz(z-1)}} t^{\frac{\kappa}{2-z}} \left[ \frac{R^{1-\kappa}}{\kappa-1} + \frac{R^{-\kappa}}{2} + \sum_{j=1}^\infty \frac{B_{2j}}{(2j)!} \frac{\Gamma(\kappa + 2j -1)}{\Gamma(\kappa)} R^{1-\kappa-2j} \right] \,,
\label{eq.lambda2-series}
\end{align}
where \(B_n\) are the Bernoulli numbers, and \(\Gamma(s) = \int_0^\infty \mathrm{e}^{-u} u^{s-1} \dd{u}\) is the gamma function~\cite{Magnus1966}. In the quasi-local regime, $\kappa > 2$ and so in the limit of large \(R\) we may neglect the second and third term which contain contributions of the order equal to \(R^{-\kappa}\) and higher, and only consider the leading term of order \(R^{1-\kappa}\).
It yields
\begin{align}
\lambda_2 &\approx \tilde{\mathcal{N}}^2 \frac{2\pi(cz)^{\kappa}}{\abs{cz(z-1)}} \frac{1}{\kappa-1} \left(\frac{t}{R}\right)^{\frac{1}{1-z}} \,
\label{eq.approx-lambda2}
\end{align}
which scales in \(R\) and \(t\) with the same power. Note that the stationary phase approximation is not valid when taking the limit \(t\to\infty\) alone, and the above equation does not hold in this limit.
Consequently, any analytic function of \(\lambda_2\), particularly R\'enyi entropies, will scale in \(R\) and \(t\) with the same power, so that
\begin{align}
\mathcal{S}_{n}(R,t) \simeq \frac{1}{1-n} \log\!\big\{\lambda_2\!\left({R}/{t}\right)^n + \big[1-\lambda_2\!\left({R}/{t}\right)\big]^n\big\} \, .
\end{align}
This yields a dynamical exponent of the EE of unity, \(\beta^{n}_{EE} = 1 \ \forall \, n\), in close agreement with our numerical results using both TDVP and LSWT.
The additional finite-size corrections neglected in moving from Eq.~(\ref{eq.lambda2-series}) to Eq.~(\ref{eq.approx-lambda2}) are likely responsible for the deviation from ballistic behavior seen in our simulations on small system sizes.
\bigskip
\paragraph{Local regime~--~}
The calculation in the local regime \(\alpha > 2\) proceeds similarly. However, both the quasi-particle energy $E_k$ and group velocity $V_{\textrm{g}}(k)$ are finite over the whole Brillouin zone such that there exists a quasi-momentum \(k^\star\) where the group velocity is maximum, \(\max_k V_g(k) = V_g(k^\star)\). The stationary phase condition in the local regime thus has only a solution for \(m/t \leq V_g(k^\star)\). The eigenvalues of the reduced density matrix are then dominated by the momenta \(k \sim k_{\mathrm{sp}} = k^\star\), which is independent of $R$ and $t$, and thus scale ballistically. Finally, any analytic function of the eigenvalues will also scale ballistically.
\section{R\'enyi entropies after a local quench}\label{sec:ent_entropies}
In this section we present complementary numerical results for different R\'enyi entropies in the local and quasi-local regimes obtained via TDVP simulations and LSWT calculations.
In \cref{fig:local_quench_entropy-beta}(a) and (b),
the counterparts of Fig.~\ref{fig:numerics3}(b) and (c) in the main text, dynamical exponents \(\beta_{EE}^n\) are shown for the different values of the R\'enyi parameter considered (\(n=1/2\), \(n=1\), \(n=2\)) obtained via TDVP and LSWT with system size $N=96$ and \(N=512\), respectively.
The dynamical exponent of the EE remains close to unity almost independently of the order of the R\'enyi entropy, both in TDVP and LSWT.
Each of the \(\mathcal{S}_n(R,t)\) considered displays a linear causal structure fully characterized by an entanglement edge (EE) and its behavior is very similar to \cref{fig:numerics3}(a).
We have also computed the entanglement entropy on much larger system sizes using LSWT. This allows us to obtain a better estimate of the spreading exponent $\betaEE{n}$ in the thermodynamic limit. The results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:local_quench_entropy-beta}(c)--(h) for three values of the R\'enyi order $n=1/2$, $1$, and $2$ and two values of $\alpha$ for a chain of length $N=512$. The results of the fits to the EE are shown in \cref{fig:local_quench_entropy-beta}(b), where we see that the error bars of the von Neumann entanglement entropy are much smaller and give a more precise indication of ballistic spreading of the EE.
The determination of the EE emerges as a challenge, due to the absence of a sharply defined edge in the quasi-local regime.
In practice we chose a large range and average over it to find a value for \(\beta_{EE,n}\) in Fig.~\ref{fig:numerics3}(b) and (c). The threshold ranges for all R\'enyi entropies \(\mathcal{S}_{n}\) obtained from TDVP and LSWT in all system sizes is \(\epsilon \in [20\%,80\%]\). The associated error is taken to be the difference between the maximal and minimal value for the dynamical exponent within this range of thresholds.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.3\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{{Plots/beta_localquench_TDVP_EE_N96_h50_dt0.1}.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{{Plots/beta_localquench_analytics_Renyi_spin_flip256_N512_h50_tf350_dt0.1}.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.69\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{{Plots/entanglement_entropy_analytics_spin_flip256_n0.5_N512_h50_alpha2.5_tf350_dt0.1}.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{{Plots/entanglement_entropy_analytics_spin_flip256_n1_N512_h50_alpha2.5_tf350_dt0.1}.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{{Plots/entanglement_entropy_analytics_spin_flip256_n2_N512_h50_alpha2.5_tf350_dt0.1}.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{{Plots/entanglement_entropy_analytics_spin_flip256_n0.5_N512_h50_alpha1.5_tf350_dt0.1}.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{{Plots/entanglement_entropy_analytics_spin_flip256_n1_N512_h50_alpha1.5_tf350_dt0.1}.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{{Plots/entanglement_entropy_analytics_spin_flip256_n2_N512_h50_alpha1.5_tf350_dt0.1}.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\caption{
EE after a local quench in the \(z\)-polarized phase (\(h/J = 50\)).
(a) TDVP (\(N=96\)): dynamical exponent \(\beta_{EE}^n\) of the three R\'enyi entropies over different values of \(\alpha\).
(b) LSWT (\(N=512\)): dynamical exponent \(\beta_{EE}^n\) of the three R\'enyi entropies over different values of \(\alpha\).
(c)--(h) LSWT (\(N=512\)): Space-time behavior of the three R\'enyi entropies \(\mathcal{S}_n(R,t)\) considered in the local regime (\(\alpha=2.5\)) with \(n=1/2\) (c), \(n=1\) (d), and \(n=2\) (e) as well as in the quasi-local regime (\(\alpha=1.5\)) with \(n=1/2\) (f), \(n=1\) (g), and \(n=2\) (h). The solid green lines represent power law fits to the entropy edges with dynamical exponents, (c) \( \beta_{EE}^{n=1/2} = 1.006 \pm 0.001\), (d) \(\beta_{EE}^{n=1} = 0.9907 \pm 0.0002\), (e) \(\beta_{EE}^{n=2} = 1.014 \pm 0.002\), and (f) \(\beta_{EE}^{n=1/2} = 1.018 \pm 0.003 \), (g) \(\beta_{EE}^{n=1} = 1.018 \pm 0.001 \), (g) \(\beta_{EE}^{n=2} = 1.031 \pm 0.002 \).
}
\label{fig:local_quench_entropy-beta}
\end{figure}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction and Results}
A twice continuously differentiable function $u$ of four variables is said to be a solution of the ultra-hyperbolic equation if it satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{UHE}
\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x_1^2} + \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x_2^2} -
\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x_3^2} -
\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x_4^2} = 0.
\end{equation}
In 1937 Asgeirsson's proved \cite{LA} that a solution of the ultra-hyperbolic equation satisfies
\begin{equation} \label{asgeirsson}
\int_0^{2\pi} u(a + r\cos\theta, b+ r\sin\theta, c, d) d\theta
=
\int_0^{2\pi} u(a, b,c+r\cos\theta, d+r\sin\theta) d\theta,
\end{equation}
for all $a,b,c,d,r\in{\mathbb R}$ with $r\geq0$. This mean value theorem was subsequently considered by Fritz John \cite{fjohn} and discussed at length by Courant and Hilbert \cite{couranthilbert}. Indeed, John showed that the mean value property is sufficient for a function to satisfy the ultra-hyperbolic equation, thus allowing one to define generalised solutions of a second order partial differential equation that were merely continuous - see the discussion on page 301 of, and Theorem 1.1 of \cite{fjohn}.
Moreover, John states in passing that the integrals can be taken over "conjugate conics" if a "certain variable of integration is used". He notes that the case of conjugate hyperbolae has not been considered, and that it is not directly amenable to the methods of his proof, which utilizes affine maps (p306 of \cite{fjohn}). In this paper we fill this gap by utilizing the conformal geometry of line space and thus extending the method from affine maps to projective maps.
From a geometric perspective, Asgeirsson's result can be viewed in ${\mathbb R}^4$ endowed with the flat indefinite metric of signature (2,2):
\[
g=dx_1^2+dx_2^2-dx_3^2-dx_4^2.
\]
Thus, the second order ultra-hyperbolic operator is the Laplacian of $g$ and solutions of the ultra-hyperbolic equation are the harmonic functions. Moreover, the two curves over which the mean value is computed in (\ref{asgeirsson}) are circles of center $(a,b,c,d)$ and radius $r$, one of them lying in the $x_1x_2-$plane and the other in the $x_3x_4-$plane. We refer to these as conjugate circles and throughout we denote the pair $({\mathbb R}^4,g)$ simply by ${\mathbb R}^{2,2}$.
Note that the induced metric on one plane is positive definite, on the other it is negative definite and that the planes are mutually orthogonal. Moreover, both curves are round circles in the metric induced on the planes by $g$.
In this paper Asgeirsson's theorem is extended to more general pairs of curves, called non-degenerate conjugate conics. Our main result can be stated as follows:
\vspace{0.1in}
\begin{Thm}\label{t:1}
Let $u$ be a solution of the ultra-hyperbolic equation (\ref{UHE}). Let $S,S^\perp$ be a pair of non-degenerate conjugate conics in ${\mathbb R}^{2,2}$.
Then
\[
\int_S u \ dl = \int_{S^\perp} u \ dl,
\]
where $dl$ is the line element induced on the curves $S,S^\perp$ by the flat metric $g$.
\end{Thm}
\vspace{0.1in}
To define the pairs of curves, introduce the following nomenclature. Consider a pair of orthogonal planes $\pi, \pi^\perp$ through a point $O$ in ${\mathbb R}^{2,2}$, where orthogonality is with respect to the neutral metric on $\mathbb{R}^{2,2}$. If either plane is totally null (the induced metric is identically zero on such a plane) then $\pi=\pi^\perp$. The induced metric on $\pi$ can be definite or indefinite but is assumed non-degenerate. Thus we exclude all degenerate cases in what follows - these cases will be dealt with in a separate paper \cite{Cogui2}.
A pair of {\em non-degenerate conjugate conics} consists of a pseudo-circle $S$ of center $O$ and square-radius $c^2$ in $\pi$; and a pseudo-circle $S^\perp$ of center $O$ and square-radius $-c^2$ in $\pi^\perp$, for any pair of non-degenerate orthogonal planes $\pi, \pi^\perp$.
A pair of non-degenerate conjugate conics can be either:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] a pair of {\em circles} with a common center and opposite square-radius in orthogonal definite planes, or
\item[(ii)] a pair of {\em hyperbolae} with a common center and opposite square-radius in orthogonal indefinite planes.
\end {enumerate}
\vspace{0.1in}
Theorem \ref{t:1} yields new mean value theorems for solutions of equation (\ref{UHE}). For example,
\begin{equation}\label{e:hyp}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} u(a + r\cosh\theta, b, c+ r\sinh\theta, d) d\theta
=
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} u(a, b+r\cosh\theta,c, d+r\sinh\theta) d\theta,
\end{equation}
integrating over a pair of {\em conjugate hyperbolae}. As the integrals are now over unbounded domains one also should assume that $u$ is integrable.
This result can be recast in a more geometric way as follows. In \cite{fjohn} the first link was made between the ultra-hyperbolic equation and straight lines in Euclidean 3-space. In particular, ${\mathbb R}^{2,2}$ is identified locally with the space of straight lines and then solutions of the equation (\ref{UHE}) arise from line integrals of functions on ${\mathbb R}^3$.
The space of all oriented lines is diffeomorphic to $TS^2$ and is endowed with a canonical metric ${\mathbb G}$ of signature (2,2) \cite{kahlermetric}. The metric is conformally flat, and so can be conformally mapped to ${\mathbb R}^{2,2}$ locally. Thus solutions of the ultra-hyperbolic equation give rise to solutions of the Laplace equation. Moreover, conjugate conics can be defined in $TS^2$ as discussed in detail in Section \ref{s:2.3}.
This leads to a more geometric statement of our result:
\vspace{0.1in}
\begin{Thm} \label{t:2}
Let $v:TS^2\rightarrow \mathbb R$ be a solution of the Laplace equation of the canonical metric $\Delta_{\mathbb G} v=0$. Let $S,S^\perp$ be a pair of non-degenerate conjugate conics in $TS^2$.
Then the following integral equation holds
$$
\int_{S} v \ d\tau = \int_{S^\perp} v \ d\tau,
$$
where $d\tau$ is the line element induced by ${\mathbb G}$.
\end{Thm}
\vspace{0.1in}
In Section \ref{extended} the background to Asgeirsson's theorem and Fritz John's contributions are discussed. Details are given of the geometric under-pinning of our approach, as well as a proof that Theorems \ref{t:1} and \ref{t:2} are equivalent.
The picture that emerges is that the splitting of ${\mathbb R}^{2,2}$ into conjugate planes in the original formulation with positive and negative definite metrics, extends to the case where the conjugate planes are both hyperbolic. The curves change from circles to pseudo-circles, but the integral identity remains the same.
In ${\mathbb R}^3$ the picture is richer. The image of a plane in ${\mathbb R}^{2,2}$ under the conformal map to $TS^2$, is a 2-parameter family of lines which twist around each other so that there is no orthogonal surface in ${\mathbb R}^3$. This line congruence enjoys the property that the images of (pseudo) circles are special ruled surfaces. John showed that when the two planes are definite, the conics are the two rulings of a 1-sheeted hyperboloid. We show that
\vspace{0.1in}
\begin{Thm}\label{t:3}
A pair of non-degenerate conjugate conics can be identified with a pair of rulings of the same surface in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$.
In the definite case, they are the two rulings of a 1-sheeted hyperboloid, in the hyperbolic case, they are either part of the two rulings of a 1-sheeted hyperboloid, or the two rulings of a hyperbolic paraboloid.
\end{Thm}
\vspace{0.1in}
The uniqueness of this situation is well-expressed by the classical result that states that, other than the plane, the only surfaces in ${\mathbb R}^3$ that have more than one ruling by straight lines are the 1-sheeted hyperboloid and the hyperbolic paraboloid \cite{hcv}.
An outline of the proof of Theorem \ref{t:1} contained in this paper is as follows. For convenience, let $S_0$ and $S_0^\perp$ be the unit circles in the conjugate planes ${\mathbb R}^2\times(0,0)\subset{\mathbb R}^{2,2}$ and $(0,0)\times{\mathbb R}^2\subset{\mathbb R}^{2,2}$ respectively.
In Section \ref{extended} it is shown that a solution of the ultra-hyperbolic equation has the mean value property over any pair of curves $S,S^\perp$ that arise as the image of $S_0, S_0^\perp$ under an arbitrary conformal mapping of ${\mathbb R}^{2,2}$. We refer to this as the conformal extension of Asgeirsson's Theorem which can be expressed in oriented line space as:
\vspace{0.1in}
\begin{Thm} \label{t:4}
Let $v:TS^2\rightarrow \mathbb R$ be a solution of $\Delta_{\mathbb G} v=0$ and $f:TS^2 \rightarrow TS^2$ be a conformal map. Then
\[
\int_{f(S_0)} v \ d\tau = \int_{f(S_0^\perp)} v \ d\tau.
\]
where $d\tau$ is the line element induced by the canonical metric ${\mathbb G}$.
\end{Thm}
\vspace{0.1in}
Section \ref{conformalimage} shows that any pair of non-degenerate conjugate conics comes as $f(S_0), f(S_0^\perp)$ for some conformal map $f$. This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{t:1}.
Finally, there are two appendices, one dedicated to numerical checks of the extended Asgeirsson's theorem for a particular solution of the ultra-hyperbolic equation and for specific choices of conjugate conics, and one giving solutions of the ultra-hyperbolic equation generated by certain 3-dimensional step functions.
\vspace{0.1in}
\section{Conformal Extension of Asgeirsson's Theorem}\label{extended}
\subsection{Background}
The X-ray transform is defined by taking the integral of a scalar function over (affine) lines of ${\mathbb R}^n$. That is, given a real function $f:{\mathbb R}^n\rightarrow{\mathbb R}$ and a line $\gamma$ in ${\mathbb R}^n$, define the map
\[
\chi_f(\gamma) = \int_\gamma fdt,
\]
where $dt$ is the flat line element in ${\mathbb R}^n$.
For functions $f$ with appropriate behaviour at infinity (for example, compactly supported), one obtains the {\em X-ray Transform of f}, namely $\chi_f:{\mathbb L}({\mathbb R}^n)\rightarrow{\mathbb R}:\gamma\mapsto \chi_f(\gamma)$, where ${\mathbb L}({\mathbb R}^n)$ is the space of lines in ${\mathbb R}^n$.
In comparison, the {\em Radon Transform} takes a function and integrates it over hypersurfaces in ${\mathbb R}^n$. By elementary considerations, the space of affine hypersurfaces in ${\mathbb R}^n$ is seen to be $n$-dimensional, the dimension of the underlying space, while the space of affine lines of ${\mathbb R}^n$ has dimension $2n-2$, which is bigger than the dimension of the underlying space for $n>2$.
Thus, by dimension count, if we consider the problem of inverting the two transforms, given a function on hypersurfaces one can reconstruct the original function on ${\mathbb R}^n$, while, for $n>2$, the problem is over-determined for functions on lines.
In particular, for $n=3$, the space of lines is 4-dimensional and the ultra-hyperbolic equation is the condition that must be satisfied for a function on line space to come from an integral of a function on ${\mathbb R}^3$. This was shown in 1938 when Fritz John \cite{fjohn} characterised solutions of equation (\ref{UHE}) with certain smoothness and decay conditions as the range of the X-ray transform.
This impressive result has had a huge impact on fields such as tomography, where information of the interior of a 3D body is deduced from attenuation data of rays traversing the body. The ultra-hyperbolic equation, or an equivalent system of second order partial differential equations known as {\em John's equations}, represent a compatibility condition that tomographic data must satisfy, and so it has been exploited practically to obtain image reconstruction algorithms \cite{conebeam} \cite{fourierrebinning} \cite{defrisetliu} \cite{lichen}.
Asgeirsson's theorem for the ultrahyperbolic equation has also seen applications in imaging and analysis of lightfields. T. Georgiev, H. Qin and H. Li recently used it to derive new kernels for processing lightfields which provide nice features like accurate depth estimation of planar images \cite{johntransform} \cite{lightfieldcoordinates}.
More generally, one can consider geodesics on general Riemannian manifolds \cite{Uhlmann1} \cite{Uhlmann2} and an active line of work has been finding the range of the X-ray transform of rank $m$ symmetric tensor fields \cite{denisiuk} \cite{venkateswaran} \cite{nadirashvili}.
The foundation of John's work lies in Asgeirsson's mean value theorem for solutions of second order linear partial differential equations with constant coefficients (see \cite{LA} and \cite{couranthilbert}). While Asgeirsson's original result holds for solutions of the $(n,n)$-dimensional ultra-hyperbolic equation, John exploited the geometry of the $(2,2)$ case to obtain it in a more general form.
The link between line space and the ultra-hyperbolic equation is made concrete by Pl\"ucker coordinates. That is, to describe a line in ${\mathbb R}^3$ John chooses two distinct points $(s_1,s_2,s_3)$ and $(t_1,t_2,t_3)$ on the line and forms the sextet $(p_1,p_2,p_3,q_1,q_2,q_3)$ by
\[
p_1=s_2t_3-t_2s_3 \qquad p_2=s_3t_1-t_3s_1 \qquad p_3=s_1t_2-t_1s_2
\]
\[
q_1=s_1-t_1 \qquad q_2=s_2-t_2 \qquad q_3=s_3-t_3.
\]
Flat coordinates on ${\mathbb R}^{2,2}$ are related to the Pl\"ucker coordinates away from $q_3=0$ by
\[
x_1=\frac{p_2+q_2}{q_3} \quad x_2=\frac{-p_1-q_1}{q_3} \quad x_3=\frac{p_2-q_2}{q_3} \quad x_4=\frac{-p_1+q_1}{q_3}.
\]
The freedom to choose different representative points on a given line means that the above description has a 2 dimensional redundancy in $(p_1,p_2,p_3,q_1,q_2,q_3)$. One dimension is generated by scaling, the other by the fact that the embedding satisfies the quadric equation
\[
p_1q_1+p_2q_2+p_3q_3=0.
\]
John remarks that the deeper connection between the ultra-hyperbolic equation and line space is given by this embedding of line space in the quadric hypersurface in projective 5-space. In what follows we will explore this further from the point of view of conformal differential geometry.
\vspace{0.1in}
\subsection{Geometrization of line space}
To remove the extra degrees of freedom inherent in Pl\"ucker coordinates, proceed as in \cite{kahlermetric} and identify the space of oriented lines in ${\mathbb R}^3$ with $TS^2$, the total space of the tangent bundle of the 2-sphere. This double covers the space of unoriented lines, but this makes no difference in what follows as all our calculations are local.
Starting with the usual holomorphic coordinate $\xi$ on $S^2$ obtained by stereographic projection, construct complex coordinates $(\xi,\eta)$ on $TS^2$ by identifying
\[
(\xi,\eta)\leftrightarrow \eta\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi}+\bar{\eta}\frac{\partial}{\partial\bar{\xi}}\in T_\xi S^2.
\]
Thus $\xi\in S^2$ is the direction of the oriented line and the complex number $\eta$ measures the displacement of the line from the origin.
\vspace{0.1in}
\begin{Thm}\cite{kahlermetric}\label{t:gk}
The space of oriented lines $TS^2$ admits a canonical metric ${\mathbb G}$ that is invariant under the Euclidean group acting on lines. The metric is of neutral signature (2,2), is conformally flat and scalar flat, but not Einstein. It can be supplemented by a complex structure ${\mathbb J}$ and symplectic structure $\omega$, so that $(TS^2,{\mathbb G},{\mathbb J},\omega)$ is a neutral K\"ahler 4-manifold.
\end{Thm}
\vspace{0.1in}
In terms of the local coordinates $(\xi,\eta)$ the neutral metric is
\begin{equation}\label{e:metric}
ds^2=4(1+\xi\bar{\xi})^{-2}{\mathbb{I}}\mbox{m}\left(d\bar{\eta} d\xi+\frac{2\bar{\xi}\eta}{1+\xi\bar{\xi}}d\xi d\bar{\xi}\right).
\end{equation}
Recall that a (pseudo-) Riemannian manifold $(M,{\mathbb G})$ is {\em conformally flat} if it can be covered by local coordinate systems $\{x_j\}_1^n$ such that the metric is $ds^2=\Omega^2\sum_j \pm dx^2_j$, $\Omega$ being a non-zero function defined on the coordinate neighbourhood.
The following result supplies local conformal coordinates for line space:
\vspace{0.1in}
\begin{Prop}\label{p:conf}
For complex coordinates $(\xi,\eta)$ on $TS^2$, over the upper hemisphere $|\xi|^2<1$ the conformal coordinates $(Z_1=x_1+ix_2,Z_2=x_3+ix_4)$ are
\begin{equation}\label{e:confco1}
Z_1=x_1+ix_2=\frac{2}{1-\xi^2\bar{\xi}^2}\left(\eta+\xi^2\bar{\eta}-i(1+\xi\bar{\xi})\xi\right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{e:confco2}
Z_2=x_3+ix_4=\frac{2}{1-\xi^2\bar{\xi}^2}\left(\eta+\xi^2\bar{\eta}+i(1+\xi\bar{\xi})\xi\right),
\end{equation}
with inverse
\begin{equation}\label{e:confcoinv1}
\xi=\frac{i(Z_1-Z_2)}{2-\sqrt{4+|Z_1-Z_2|^2}},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{e:confcoinv2}
\eta=\frac{Z_1+Z_2}{2-\sqrt{4+|Z_1-Z_2|^2}}+\frac{(Z_1-Z_2)(|Z_1|^2-|Z_2|^2)}{2(2-\sqrt{4+|Z_1-Z_2|^2})^2}.
\end{equation}
\end{Prop}
\begin{proof}
The result follows from pulling back the metric (\ref{e:metric}) by the transformation (\ref{e:confcoinv1}) and (\ref{e:confcoinv2}) and the result is
\[
ds^2=\frac{1}{1+{\textstyle{\frac{1}{4}}}|Z_1-Z_2|^2}\left(dZ_1d\bar{Z}_1-dZ_2d\bar{Z}_2\right).
\]
\end{proof}
\vspace{0.1in}
Note that these coordinates are only local and exclude lines whose direction is parallel to the $xy$-plane in ${\mathbb R}^3$ ($q_3=0$ or $|\xi|=1$). This comes from our original choice of holomorphic coordinate $\xi$ on $S^2$ via stereographic projection from the south pole. The whole of $TS^2$ can be covered by such coordinate patches, each of which is diffeomorphic to the product of an open hemisphere and ${\mathbb R}^2$.
As John never refers to a metric on the space of lines, many of his computations involve the appearance of a mysterious factor - see e.g. equations (6) or (7), or Theorem 2.2 of \cite{fjohn}.
We will now demonstrate that the origin of these factors is precisely the conformal factor in this canonical metric. First recall some elementary facts about conformal maps of scalar flat pseudo-Riemannian manifolds.
Let $(M,g^M)$ and $(N, g^N)$ be pseudo-Riemmanian manifolds of dimension $n$ with vanishing scalar curvatures.
\vspace{0.1in}
\begin{Prop}\label{cfharmonic}
Let $f:(M,g^M)\rightarrow (N,g^N)$ be a conformal map with conformal factor $\Omega:M\rightarrow \mathbb R$, so that $f^*g^N=\Omega^2 g^M$.
Then $\Omega^{\frac{n-2}{2}}$ is a solution of Laplace's equation on $M$, that is
$$
\Delta_{g^M}\Omega^{\frac{n-2}{2}}:= g^{ij}\nabla_i\nabla_j \Omega^{\frac{n-2}{2}} =0,
$$
where $\nabla$ is the Levi-Civita connection associated with $g^M$.
\end{Prop}
\begin{proof}
Denote the pulled back metric by $\tilde g^N=f^*g^N$ so that $\tilde g^N=\Omega^2 g^M$.
The change of the scalar curvature on $M$ under a conformal change of the metric is given by the well-known relation \cite{aubin}
\begin{equation}\label{scalarconformal}
\tilde R = \Omega^{-2} \left(R + \frac{4(n-1)}{n-2}\Omega^{-\frac{n-2}{2}} \Delta_{g^M}\Omega^{\frac{n-2}{2}}\right).
\end{equation}
Since the scalar curvatures of both $g^M$ and $g^N$ are assumed to be zero, $R = \tilde R = 0$, we conclude that $\Delta_{g^M} \Omega^{\frac{n-2}{2}} = 0$.
\end{proof}
\vspace{0.1in}
Conformal maps of scalar flat metrics also preserve solutions of the Laplace equation as follows:
\vspace{0.1in}
\begin{Prop}\label{conformalsolutions}
Let $(M,g^M)$ and $(N, g^N)$ be two scalar flat pseudo-Riemannian manifolds of dimension $n$ and $f:M \rightarrow N$ be a conformal map with conformal factor $\Omega$.
Then, for any $u:N \rightarrow \mathbb R$, u is a solution of $\Delta_{g^N} u=0$ iff $v=\Omega^{\scriptstyle{\frac{n-2}{2}}}u\circ f$ is a solution of $\Delta_{g^M}v=0$.
\end{Prop}
\begin{proof}
As before let $\tilde g^N$ be the pullback metric of $g^N$ under $f$. From the conformallity of $f$ we have $\tilde g^N = \Omega^2 g^M$ and by the standard conformal change of the Laplace operator (see e.g. \cite{aubin})
\[
0 = \Delta_{\tilde{g}^N} u= \Omega^{-\frac{n+2}{2}}\left(
\Delta_{g^M} \Omega^{\frac{n-2}{2}} (u\circ f) - (u\circ f)\Delta_{g^M} \Omega^{\frac{n-2}{2}}
\right).
\]
By Proposition \ref{cfharmonic} the second term vanishes and so we are left with $\Delta_{g^M} \Omega^{\frac{n-2}{2}} (u\circ f) =0$.
\end{proof}
\vspace{0.1in}
Apply this to the neutral 4-manifold $(TS^2,{\mathbb G})$ of oriented lines in ${\mathbb R}^3$.
By Theorem \ref{t:gk} and Proposition \ref{p:conf} the metric is locally conformal to the flat metric with conformal factor
\[
\Omega=\frac{1}{(1+{\textstyle{\frac{1}{4}}}|Z_1-Z_2|^2)^{\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}}}}=\frac{1+\xi\bar{\xi}}{1-\xi\bar{\xi}}.
\]
Denote this local conformal map by $f:{\mathbb R}^{2,2}\rightarrow TS^2$.
Applying the previous Proposition we have
\vspace{0.1in}
\begin{Cor}
Let $u:{\mathbb R}^{2,2}\rightarrow{\mathbb R}$ and $v:TS^2\rightarrow{\mathbb R}$ be related by $v\circ f=\Omega u$.
Then $u$ is a solution of the ultra-hyperbolic equation (\ref{UHE}) iff $\Delta_{\mathbb G} v=0$.
\end{Cor}
\vspace{0.1in}
In fact this can be seen directly by writing the Laplacian acting on functions $v:TS^2\rightarrow{\mathbb R}$ in the two sets of coordinates:
\begin{align}
\Delta_{\mathbb G}v=&g^{jk}\nabla_j\nabla_k v \nonumber\\
&=i(1+\xi\bar{\xi})^2\left(\frac{\partial^2}{\partial\xi\partial\bar{\eta}}-\frac{\partial^2}{\partial\bar{\xi}\partial\eta}-\frac{2(\xi\bar{\eta}-\bar{\xi}\eta)}{1+\xi\bar{\xi}}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial\eta\partial\bar{\eta}}\right)v\nonumber\\
&=(1+{\textstyle{\frac{1}{4}}}|Z_1-Z_2|^2)^{\scriptstyle{\frac{3}{2}}}\left(\frac{\partial^2}{\partial Z_1 \partial\bar{Z}_1}-\frac{\partial^2}{\partial Z_2\partial\bar{Z}_2}\right)\frac{v}{(1+{\textstyle{\frac{1}{4}}}|Z_1-Z_2|^2)^{\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}}}}.\nonumber
\end{align}
\vspace{0.1in}
Note that the conformal factor $\Omega$ is precisely the mysterious factor on the right hand side of equation (6) of John's paper \cite{fjohn}.
We can now see that Theorem \ref{t:2} follows from Theorem \ref{t:1} with $u=\Omega v$ as
\[
\int_Sudl=\int_S\Omega v dl=\int_S vd\tau,
\]
the line elements of ${\mathbb G}$ and $g$ being related by $d\tau=\Omega dl$. The conformal factor in the line element appears in Theorem 2.2 of \cite{fjohn} in an ad hoc manner as the cosine of the angle formed by the ruling of the general 1-sheeted hyperboloid with its axis. Here we gain an insight into its geometric significance as the line element of the neutral metric.
\vspace{0.1in}
\subsection{Conformal planes}\label{s:2.3}
This section explores conjugate planes and their geometry in line space. In particular, we have defined conjugate planes $\pi,\pi^\perp$ in ${\mathbb R}^{2,2}$, and want to consider their image in oriented line space under the conformal maps (\ref{e:confco1}) and (\ref{e:confco2}).
\vspace{0.1in}
\begin{Def}
A {\it conformal plane} is a surface $\pi\subset TS^2$ given by a linear equation in conformal coordinates (\ref{e:confco1}) and (\ref{e:confco2}):
\begin{equation}\label{e:linplane}
\alpha_1Z_1+\beta_1\bar{Z}_1+\alpha_2Z_2+\beta_2\bar{Z}_2=\gamma.
\end{equation}
for $\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\beta_1,\beta_2,\gamma\in{\mathbb C}$.
\end{Def}
\vspace{0.1in}
For brevity we denote both the plane in ${\mathbb R}^{2,2}$ and its image in $TS^2$ by $\pi$. By a translation in ${\mathbb R}^{2,2}$ (which corresponds to a translation and rotation in ${\mathbb R}^3$) set $\gamma$ to zero. Thus $\pi$ contains the vertical line through the origin in ${\mathbb R}^3$ $(\xi,\eta)=(0,0)$.
A conformal plane can be one of two types. Consider the canonical projection $TS^2\rightarrow S^2$ which takes an oriented line to its direction, in coordinates $(\xi,\eta)\mapsto \xi$.
\vspace{0.1in}
\begin{Def}
A conformal plane $\pi\subset TS^2$ is {\em graphical} if its projection onto $S^2$ has maximal rank (real dimension two). A conformal plane is {\em non-graphical} if its projection onto $S^2$ has rank one or zero.
\end{Def}
\vspace{0.1in}
In the case of rank zero, the conformal plane is the whole fibre of the bundle, which is totally null, and since such a plane is self-orthogonal, in what follows we will ignore this case.
\vspace{0.1in}
\begin{Prop}
A conformal plane is graphical iff $|\alpha_1+\alpha_2|^2-|\beta_1+\beta_2|^2\neq0$.
A graphical conformal plane through the origin is given in graphical coordinates $(\xi,\eta=F(\xi,\bar{\xi}))$ for $|\xi|<1$ by
\begin{equation}\label{e:sect}
\eta=\frac{1}{1-\xi\bar{\xi}}\left(\alpha\xi+\beta\bar{\xi}-\bar{\alpha}\xi^2\bar{\xi}-\bar{\beta}\xi^3\right),
\end{equation}
where,
\[
\alpha=\frac{i(-(\alpha_1-\alpha_2)(\bar{\alpha}_1+\bar{\alpha}_2)+(\beta_1+\beta_2)(\bar{\beta}_1-\bar{\beta}_2)}{-|\alpha_1+\alpha_2|^2+|\beta_1+\beta_2|^2},
\]
and
\[
\beta=-\frac{2i(\bar{\alpha}_1\beta_2-\bar{\alpha}_2\beta_1)}{-|\alpha_1+\alpha_2|^2+|\beta_1+\beta_2|^2}.
\]
A non-graphical conformal plane through the origin is given in coordinates $(u,v)$ by
\begin{equation}\label{e:nongcp}
\xi=uie^{{\scriptstyle{\frac{i}{2}}}(\theta+\phi)} \qquad\qquad
\eta=\frac{2Hiv(1-u^2e^{2i\theta})}{1-u^4}e^{-{\scriptstyle{\frac{i}{2}}}(\theta-\phi)}
\end{equation}
where $(u,v)$ are parameters on the conformal plane with $u\in[0,1),v\in{\mathbb R}$ and $\theta,\phi\in [0,\pi]$, $H\in{\mathbb R}_+$ are such that
\[
\alpha_1=1 \qquad \beta_1=0 \qquad \alpha_2=He^{i\theta}-1 \qquad \beta_2=He^{i\phi}.
\]
\end{Prop}
\begin{proof}
Equation (\ref{e:sect}) follows from rearranging the result of substituting equations (\ref{e:confco1}) and (\ref{e:confco2}) in equation (\ref{e:linplane}) with $\gamma=0$. Clearly the plane is graphical iff $|\alpha_1+\alpha_2|^2-|\beta_1+\beta_2|^2\neq0$.
For non-graphical planes, start with $|\alpha_1+\alpha_2|^2-|\beta_1+\beta_2|^2=0$, from which conclude the existence of $(\theta,\phi,H)\in[0,2\pi]\times[0,2\pi]\times{\mathbb R}$ such that
\[
\alpha_2=He^{i\theta}-\alpha_1 \qquad\qquad \beta_2=He^{i\phi}-\beta_1.
\]
In fact, by combining equation (\ref{e:linplane}) and its complex conjugate, we can remove some redundancy in the description by setting $\alpha_1=1$ and $\beta_1=0$. Thus a non-graphical conformal plane is determined by the three real constants $(\theta,\phi,H)$.
Substituting equations (\ref{e:confco1}) and (\ref{e:confco2}) in equation (\ref{e:linplane}) with $\gamma=0$ and these simplifications yields a pair of real equations with solutions (\ref{e:nongcp}).
\end{proof}
\vspace{0.1in}
This means in particular that a conformal plane is a section over a hemisphere and that it goes out to infinity along the fibre above the equator.
\vspace{0.1in}
\begin{Prop}
The metric induced on a conformal plane has fixed signature throughout. For a graphical conformal plane the metric can be definite, indefinite or degenerate, while on a non-graphical plane the induced metric can only be indefinite or degenerate.
\end{Prop}
\begin{proof}
Pulling back the metric (\ref{e:metric}) to the section (\ref{e:sect}) and taking the determinant yields
\[
{{Det}}\;{\mathbb G}|_\pi=\left(-(\alpha-\bar{\alpha})^2-4\beta\bar{\beta}\right)\frac{(1+\xi\bar{\xi})^2}{(1-\xi\bar{\xi})^2}.
\]
Thus the signature is fixed on graphical planes and one can get definite, indefinite or degenerate metrics according to whether $Im(\alpha)^2>|\beta|^2$, $Im(\alpha)^2<|\beta|^2$ or $Im(\alpha)^2=|\beta|^2$, respectively.
A similar calculation for non-graphical planes utilizing equation (\ref{e:nongcp}) leads to
\[
{{Det}}\;{\mathbb G}|_\pi=\frac{16H^2(e^{i\theta}-e^{-i\theta})^2}{(1+u^2)^2(1-u^4)^2}.
\]
The determinant is zero or negative and so the metric is degenerate or indefinite according to whether $\theta\neq0,\pi$ or $\theta=0,\pi$, respectively.
\end{proof}
\vspace{0.1in}
Graphical indefinite conformal planes in $TS^2$ are totally real surfaces, having no complex points. Here, complex is with respect to the canonical complex structure ${\mathbb J}$ on $TS^2$ \cite{kahlermetric}. In fact, as there are no complex points at infinity ($|\xi|=1$) either, these twisting line congruences are examples of complete strictly totally real sections of $TS^2\rightarrow S^2$ that, were they Lagrangian with respect to the canonical symplectic structure $\omega$, could not exist by a conjecture of Toponogov \cite{gak2} \cite{Top}.
Being symplectic, the 2-parameter family of lines in ${\mathbb R}^3$ defined by a graphical definite conformal plane in $TS^2$ twist around each other in such a way as to foliate ${\mathbb R}^3$. Conversely, foliations of ${\mathbb R}^3$ by lines are exactly the definite surfaces over a hemisphere in $TS^2$ \cite{salvai}.
Given a non-degenerate plane $\pi$ in ${\mathbb R}^{2,2}$, we defined its conjugate plane $\pi^\perp$ to be the plane orthogonal to $\pi$ with respect to the flat neutral metric. This definition of orthogonality is conformally invariant and thus, given a conformal plane in $TS^2$ we can define its conjugate conformal plane.
\vspace{0.1in}
\begin{Prop}
Two conformal planes are conjugate iff their tangent planes at the point of intersection are orthogonal with respect to ${\mathbb G}$.
Two graphical conformal planes determined by equation (\ref{e:sect}) with $(\alpha,\beta)$ and $(\tilde{\alpha},\tilde{\beta})$ are conjugate iff $\tilde{\alpha}=\bar{\alpha}$ and $\tilde{\beta}=-\beta$.
Two non-graphical conformal plane determined by equations (\ref{e:nongcp}) with $(\theta,\phi,H)$ and $(\tilde{\theta},\tilde{\phi},\tilde{H})$ are conjugate iff
\[
\tilde{\theta}=-\theta \qquad \tilde{\phi}=\phi \qquad \tilde{H}=-\frac{H}{1-2H\cos\theta}.
\]
\end{Prop}
\begin{proof}
A pair of planes $\pi,\tilde{\pi}$ in ${\mathbb R}^{2,2}$ intersecting at the origin are conjugate iff
\[
Z_{1}\bar{\tilde{Z}}_{1}-Z_{2}\bar{\tilde{Z}}_{2}=0,
\]
for all points with complex coordinates $(Z_{1},Z_{2})$ in $\pi$ and $(\tilde{Z}_{1},\tilde{Z}_{2})$ in $\tilde{\pi}$.
If the plane is graphical, substituting equations (\ref{e:confco1}) and (\ref{e:sect}) in the last equation with the two sets of coefficients $(\alpha,\beta)$ and $(\tilde{\alpha},\tilde{\beta})$, one finds that $\tilde{\alpha}=\bar{\alpha}$ and $\tilde{\beta}=-\beta$. Similarly, substituting equations (\ref{e:confco1}) and (\ref{e:nongcp}), we get he stated relation for non-graphical planes.
Consider the associated conformal planes in $TS^2$. When a conformal plane is graphical it is given by equation (\ref{e:sect}), and the tangent space at the origin is spanned by vectors of the form
\begin{align}
X&=A\left.\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi}+\frac{\partial\eta}{\partial\xi}\frac{\partial}{\partial\eta}+\frac{\partial\bar{\eta}}{\partial\xi}\frac{\partial}{\partial\bar{\eta}}\right)\right|_0
+\bar{A}\left.\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\bar{\xi}}+\frac{\partial{\eta}}{\partial\bar{\xi}}\frac{\partial}{\partial\eta}+\frac{\partial\bar{\eta}}{\partial\bar{\xi}}\frac{\partial}{\partial\bar{\eta}}\right)\right|_0\nonumber\\
\qquad &=A\left.\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi}+\alpha\frac{\partial}{\partial\eta}+\bar{\beta}\frac{\partial}{\partial\bar{\eta}}\right)\right|_0
+\bar{A}\left.\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\bar{\xi}}+\beta\frac{\partial}{\partial\eta}+\bar{\alpha}\frac{\partial}{\partial\bar{\eta}}\right)\right|_0,\nonumber
\end{align}
for $A\in{\mathbb C}$. A short computation shows that the tangent spaces of two graphical planes intersecting at the origin are orthogonal, ${\mathbb G}(X,\tilde{X})|_0=0$ for all $X\in T_0\pi$, $\tilde{X}\in T_0\tilde{\pi}$, iff $\tilde{\alpha}=\bar{\alpha}$ and $\tilde{\beta}=-\beta$.
A similar calculation for non-graphical planes yields the stated result.
\end{proof}
\vspace{0.1in}
\subsection{Doubly ruled surfaces}
In \cite{fjohn} John identified points in ${\mathbb R}^{2,2}$ with lines in ${\mathbb R}^3$ and proved that the conjugate circles in Asgeirsson's theorem are the two rulings of the 1-sheeted hyperboloid of revolution. He then showed that maps in line space which come from affine transformations of $\mathbb R^3$ preserve solutions of the ultra-hyperbolic equation (\ref{UHE}). With this he extended the original Asgeirsson's theorem on the two families of generating lines of a hyperboloid of revolution to a mean value theorem on the rulings of a general $1-$sheeted hyperboloid.
Given this relationship between the original Asgeirsson's Theorem and the 1-sheeted hyperboloid, is there a similar relationship between the extended version and the other doubly ruled surface, the hyperbolic paraboloid?
The answer is yes, as we now prove.
\vspace{0.1in}
\noindent{\bf Theorem \ref{t:3}}
{\it
A pair of non-degenerate conjugate conics can be identified with a pair of rulings of the same surface in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$.
In the definite case, they are the two rulings of a 1-sheeted hyperboloid, in the hyperbolic case, they are either parts of the two rulings of a 1-sheeted hyperboloid or the two rulings of a hyperbolic paraboloid.
}
\begin{proof}
The case of definite (and hence graphical) planes is originally John's result - see Theorem 2.1 of \cite{fjohn}.
The link between $TS^2$ and ${\mathbb R}^3$ is given by the map $\Phi:TS^2\times{\mathbb R}\rightarrow{\mathbb R}^3$ which takes an oriented line and a number, to the point in ${\mathbb R}^3$ on the line that lies the given distance from the point on the line closest to the origin.
In coordinates $(\xi,\eta)$ on $TS^2$ and $(X_1,X_2,X_3)$ on ${\mathbb R}^3$, $\Phi((\xi,\eta),r)$ can be written explicitly
\begin{equation}\label{e:minit}
X_1+iX_2=\frac{2(\eta-\xi^2\bar{\eta})}{(1+\xi\bar{\xi})^2}+r\frac{\xi}{1+\xi\bar{\xi}}
\qquad
X_3=\frac{-2(\bar{\xi}\eta+\xi\bar{\eta})}{(1+\xi\bar{\xi})^2}+r\frac{1-\xi\bar{\xi}}{1+\xi\bar{\xi}}.
\end{equation}
For graphical conformal planes, our starting point is equation $(\ref{e:sect})$ which can be simplified by rotation and translation so that $\alpha=-ai$ and $\beta=b$ for $a,b\in{\mathbb R}$. To compute the unit (pseudo)-circle, note that the distance to the origin in flat coordinates via equation (\ref{e:confco1}) is
\[
Z_1\bar{Z}_1-Z_2\bar{Z}_2=\frac{16R^2(a+b\sin2\theta)}{(1-R^2)^2},
\]
where we have introduced polar coordinates $\xi=Re^{i\theta}$.
Here one sees again that the metric is definite on the plane if $a>b>0$ and so, in that case the unit circle in the conformal plane is given by
\begin{equation}\label{e:pcirc}
R=-\left[4(a+b\sin2\theta)\right]^{\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}}}+\left[4(a+b\sin2\theta)+1\right]^{\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}}}.
\end{equation}
Substituting equation (\ref{e:sect}) in (\ref{e:minit}) and restricting to the curve (\ref{e:pcirc}) one finds after a lengthy calculation that
the ruled surface in ${\mathbb R}^3$ determined by the unit (pseudo)-circle in a graphical conformal plane satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{e:ruling_gr}
X_3^2-4aX_1^2-4aX_2^2-8bX_1X_2+a^2-b^2=0,
\end{equation}
for the given constants $a,b\in{\mathbb R}$. This a one-sheeted hyperboloid, as claimed.
Moreover, the conjugate conic, obtained by switching the signs of $a$ and $b$, and the sign of the unit radius, satisfies exactly the same quadratic, as can be confirmed by the same calculation with these signs flipped. Thus we have reproven John's result that a pair of conjugate circles in definite planes generate a pair of rulings of the hyperboloid.
When $a^2<b^2$, the metric is indefinite and consider the curve defined by equation $(\ref{e:pcirc})$ only for values of $\theta$ for which $R$ is real. These are the pseudo-circles of the Lorentz metric and the two rulings are of the same surface given by equation (\ref{e:ruling_gr}).
For a non-graphical conformal plane with parameters $(\theta,\phi,H)$ as given in equation (\ref{e:nongcp}), the distance to the origin in flat coordinates via equation (\ref{e:confco1}) is
\[
Z_1\bar{Z}_1-Z_2\bar{Z}_2=\frac{32uv\sin\theta}{(1+u^2)(1-u^2)^2}.
\]
Non-degeneracy of the induced metric means that $\theta\neq0,\pi$ and so one restricts to the unit pseudo-circle by setting
\[
v=\pm\frac{(1+u^2)(1-u^2)^2}{32u\sin\theta}.
\]
The resulting 1-parameter family of lines defines a ruled surface in ${\mathbb R}^3$ that, upon substitution in equations (\ref{e:minit}), is found to satisfy
\[
\sin\theta X_3+2(\cos\theta+\cos\phi)X_1^2+4\sin\phi X_1X_2+2(\cos\theta-\cos\phi)X_2^2=0.
\]
This is a hyperbolic paraboloid for $\theta\neq0,\pi$ and flipping to the conjugate pseudo-circle, we find it satisfies the same equation. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\vspace{0.1in}
\subsection{Conformal Asgeirsson's Theorem}
As we have seen, on ${\mathbb R}^{2,2}$ the flat Laplace operator $\Delta$ is the ultra-hyperbolic operator which acts on twice continuously differentiable functions $u:{\mathbb R}^{2,2}\rightarrow \mathbb R$ as
$$
\Delta u :=
\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x_1^2} + \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x_2^2} -
\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x_3^2} -
\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x_4^2}.
$$
Define $S_0,S_0^{\perp}\subset{\mathbb R}^{2,2}$ to be the pair of circles
$$
S_0:=\{(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,0, 0) \in {\mathbb R}^{2,2} \ | \ \alpha_1^2 +\alpha_2^2 = 1\},
$$
and
$$
S_0^\perp:=\{(0,0,\beta_1,\beta_2) \in{\mathbb R}^{2,2} \ |\ \beta_1^2 +\beta_2^2 = 1\}.
$$
In this dimension the original mean value theorem of Asgeirsson can be stated:
\vspace{0.1in}
\begin{Thm} \cite{LA}\label{Asgeirsson}
Let $u:{\mathbb R}^{2,2}\rightarrow \mathbb R$ be a solution of $\Delta u=0$. Then the following integral equation holds
$$
\int_{S_0} u \ dl = \int_{S_0^\perp} u \ dl,
$$
where $dl$ represents the line element induced by the flat metric.
\end{Thm}
\vspace{0.1in}
The following extension of Asgeirsson's Theorem says that the mean value property is invariant under conformal transformations.
\vspace{0.1in}
\begin{Prop}
Let $u:{\mathbb R}^{2,2}\rightarrow \mathbb R$ be a solution of $\Delta u=0$ and $f:{\mathbb R}^{2,2} \rightarrow {\mathbb R}^{2,2}$ be a conformal map. Then
$$
\int_{f(S_0)} u \ dl = \int_{f(S_0^\perp)} u \ dl,
$$
where $dl$ represents the line element induced by the flat metric.
\end{Prop}
\vspace{0.1in}
\begin{proof}
Let $\Omega$ be the conformal factor of $f$.
Let $\alpha: I \rightarrow S_0$ be a parametrization of $S_0$. Then
\begin{align}
\int_{f(S_0)} u \ dl & = \int_I u((f\circ \alpha)(t)) \cdot ||(f\circ\alpha)'(t)|| \ dt \\
& = \int_I (u\circ f)(\alpha(t)) \cdot \Omega ||\alpha'(t)|| \ dt \\
& = \int_{S_0} \Omega(u\circ f) \ dl.
\end{align}
Similarly we would get
$$
\int_{f(S_0^\perp)} u \ dl = \int_{S_0^\perp} \Omega(u\circ f) \ dl.
$$
By Proposition \ref{conformalsolutions} we have that $\Delta \Omega (u\circ f)=0$, so we can apply Asgeirsson's theorem (Theorem \ref{Asgeirsson}) to the integrand $\Omega (u\circ f)$.
\end{proof}
\vspace{0.1in}
This can also be expressed more geometrically as
\vspace{0.1in}
\noindent{\bf Theorem \ref{t:4}}
{\it
Let $v:TS^2\rightarrow \mathbb R$ be a solution of $\Delta_{\mathbb G} v=0$ and $f:TS^2 \rightarrow TS^2$ be a conformal map. Then
\[
\int_{f(S_0)} v \ d\tau = \int_{f(S_0^\perp)} v \ d\tau.
\]
where $d\tau$ is the line element induced by the canonical metric ${\mathbb G}$.
}
\vspace{0.1in}
\section{Conformal Images of Conjugate Circles}\label{conformalimage}
\vspace{0.1in}
\subsection{Pseudo-Euclidean affine space}
Let ${\mathbb R}^{2,2}$ be regarded as an affine space, denoting the underlying vector space by $\overrightarrow{{\mathbb R}^{2,2}}$\footnote{In general, given an affine subspace $\sigma\subseteq {\mathbb R}^{2,2}$ we denote by $\overrightarrow \sigma \subset \overrightarrow{{\mathbb R}^{2,2}}$ its associated linear subspace, or {\em direction}.}.
Let $Q$ be the indefinite distance function associated with the metric, viewed as a quadratic form acting on vectors in $\overrightarrow{{\mathbb R}^{2,2}}$:
$$
Q(x) = x_1^2 + x_2^2 - x_3^2 -x_4^2 \quad x\in\overrightarrow{{\mathbb R}^{2,2}}.
$$
We use $||x||^2$ to mean $Q(x)$ and say that a vector $x\in \overrightarrow{{\mathbb R}^{2,2}}$ is {\em positive} if $||x||^2>0$, {\em negative} if $||x||^2<0$, and {\em null} whenever $||x||^2=0$.
Let
$$\langle x, y \rangle := x_1 y_1 + x_2 y_2 -x_3 y_3 - x_4 y_4,$$ denote the associate symmetric bilinear form to $Q$ for all $x,y\in\overrightarrow{{\mathbb R}^{2,2}}$.
\vspace{0.1in}
\begin{Def}
Two points $p,q\in {\mathbb R}^{2,2}$ are called \emph{skew} if $||\overrightarrow{pq}||^2 \neq 0$ and \emph{null-separated} if $||\overrightarrow{pq}||^2 = 0$. We will say that three points $q,q',q''\in {\mathbb R}^{2,2}$ are skew when they are pairwise skew.
\end{Def}
We use the symbol $\perp$ to denote orthogonality with respect to $\langle, \rangle$. Given a linear subspace $W\subset \overrightarrow{{\mathbb R}^{2,2}}$ we define its orthogonal complement as usual
$$
W ^\perp :=\{v \in \overrightarrow{{\mathbb R}^{2,2}} \ | \ \langle v, w\rangle =0\ \text{ for all } w\in W \}.
$$
Let $P$ be a $2$-subspace of $\mathbb R^{2,2}$ through the origin. Define the {\em degeneracy} of the restriction $\langle, \rangle_P$ to be
$$\ker \langle, \rangle_P:=\{v\in P \subset \overrightarrow{{\mathbb R}^{2,2}} \ | \ \langle v, w\rangle = 0 \text{ for all } w\in P \}.$$
\begin{Def}[Metric types of planes]\label{metrictypes}
A linear plane $P$ is said to be
\begin{enumerate}
\item {\em non-degenerate} whenever $\ker \langle, \rangle_P = \{0\}$. In which case $P$ is called
\begin{enumerate}
\item {\em positive definite} when $Q_P\geq 0$,
\item {\em negative definite} when $Q_P\leq 0$ and
\item {\em hyperbolic} otherwise.
\end{enumerate}
\item {\em degenerate} or {\em parabolic} when $\ker \langle, \rangle_P$ has dimension $1$. We distinguish
\begin{enumerate}
\item {\em positive parabolic} if $Q_P\geq 0$ and
\item {\em negative parabolic} if $Q_P\leq 0$.
\end{enumerate}
\item {\em totally null} when $\ker \langle, \rangle_P = P$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Def}
The same can be defined for an affine plane $\pi$. This way, $\pi$ will be non-degenerate iff its direction $\overrightarrow \pi$ is non-degenerate, $\pi$ will be positive definite iff $\overrightarrow \pi$ is positive definite, etc. Note that $\pi$ is the same as a conformal plane defined in Section \ref{s:2.3}.
\vspace{0.1in}
\subsection{Non-degenerate conjugate conics}
\begin{Def}[Non-degenerate conjugate conics]
\label{conjugateconicsdef}
Let $O$ be a point in $\mathbb R^{2,2}$, $c$ a real number and $\pi$ a non-degenerate affine plane through $O$. The {\em conjugate conics} $S, S^\perp$ are
$$
S:=\{p\in \pi \ | \ ||\overrightarrow{Op}||^2 =c^2\},
$$
\text{and}
$$
S^\perp:=\{p\in \pi^\perp \ | \ ||\overrightarrow{Op}||^2 =-c^2\},
$$
where $\pi^\perp:= O + {\overrightarrow \pi}^\perp$.
\end{Def}
\vspace{0.1in}
\begin{Note} \label{Asgcirclesareconjugate}
The circles $S_0$ and $S_0^\perp$ from Asgeirsson's theorem form a pair of non-degenerate conjugate conics. We can see this by letting $O$ be the origin of $\mathbb R^{2,2}$, $c=1$ and $\pi$ spanned by $(1,0,0,0)$ and $(0,1,0,0)$.
\end{Note}
In this section we want to show that $S^\perp$ can be obtained as the locus of points which lie $0$ distance (measured by $Q$) from any three points in $S$. Similarly, we will see that $S$ can be obtained as the locus of points lying $0-$distance from any three points in $S^\perp$.
\begin{Def}
For $q\in {\mathbb R}^{2,2}$, define the {\em isotropic cone} $C_q$ to be
$$
C_q := \{ p \in {\mathbb R}^{2,2} \ | \ ||\overrightarrow{qp}||^2 = 0\}.
$$
Given 3 points $q,q',q''\in{\mathbb R}^{2,2}$, define
$$
N(q,q',q'') := C_q \cap C_{q'} \cap C_{q''}.
$$
\end{Def}
\vspace{0.1in}
\begin{Prop} \label{confnullity}
Let $f$ be a conformal map, then $f(C_p) = C_{f(p)}$ for all $p\in {\mathbb R}^{2,2}$.
\end{Prop}
\begin{proof} \cite[Theorem~3.32]{rosenfeld}.
\end{proof}
\vspace{0.1in}
\begin{Cor}\label{fN=Nf}
Let $f$ be a conformal map and $q,q',q''$ three points in ${\mathbb R}^{2,2}$. Then
$$
f(N(q,q',q'')) = N(f(q), f(q'), f(q'')).
$$
\end{Cor}
\vspace{0.1in}
\begin{Prop}\label{duality} Let $S,S^\perp$ be a pair of non-degenerate conjugate conics.
For all distinct $q,q',q''\in S$
$$
S^\perp = N(q,q',q''),
$$
and for all distinct $p,p',p''\in S^\perp$
$$
S = N(p,p',p'').
$$
\end{Prop}
\begin{proof}
The proof follows from two Lemmas:
\vspace{0.1in}
\begin{Lem}\label{conicthreepoints}
Let $q,q',q''$ be three skew points on a non-degenerate affine plane $\pi$. Then there exists a unique point $O\in \pi$ and a real number $c^2$ so that $||\overrightarrow{Oq}||^2 = ||\overrightarrow{Oq'}||^2 = ||\overrightarrow{Oq''}||^2 = c^2$.
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof}
The locus of points in $\pi$ which are equidistant to $q$ and $q'$ is
$$m_{qq'}:=q + \frac{\overrightarrow{qq'}}{2} + {\mbox{span }}\{\overrightarrow{qq'}\}^\perp,$$
Similarly, let $m_{qq''}$ be the locus of points equidistant to $q$ and $q''$. Since
$q,q',q''$ are assumed to be in general position we have ${\mbox{span }}\{\overrightarrow{qq'}\}\neq {\mbox{span }}\{\overrightarrow{qq''}\}$. As $Q_{\overrightarrow{\pi}}$ is non-degenerate we will have ${\mbox{span }}\{\overrightarrow{qq'}\}^\perp \neq {\mbox{span }}\{\overrightarrow{qq''}\}^\perp$. Hence the affine lines $m_{qq'}$ and $m_{qq''}$ must intersect on a unique point $O$ in $\pi$. Then $$||\overrightarrow{Oq}||^2 = ||\overrightarrow{Oq'}||^2 = ||\overrightarrow{Oq''}||^2,$$ and we define the radius $c^2$ to be its value.
\end{proof}
\vspace{0.1in}
\begin{Lem} \label{0to3}
Let $q,q',q''$ be three skew points in ${\mathbb R}^{2,2}$ on a non-degenerate plane $\pi$. Let $p\in N(q,q',q'')$, then
$$\langle \overrightarrow{pO}, \overrightarrow{\pi}\rangle=0.$$
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $O\in \pi$ be the center of $q,q',q''$. Expanding $||\overrightarrow{pq}||^2=0$ and $||\overrightarrow{pq'}||^2=0$ we get
\begin{align*}
&||\overrightarrow{pO}||^2 +\langle \overrightarrow{pO}, \overrightarrow{Oq}\rangle + ||\overrightarrow{Oq}||^2 = 0, \\
& ||\overrightarrow{pO}||^2 +\langle \overrightarrow{pO}, \overrightarrow{Oq'}\rangle + ||\overrightarrow{Oq'}||^2 = 0.
\end{align*}
Substracting these equations we get $\langle \overrightarrow{pO}, \overrightarrow{qq'}\rangle = 0$, and similarly for $q''$.
\end{proof}
\vspace{0.1in}
Returning to the proof of the Proposition, let $S,S^\perp$ be a pair of non-degenerate conjugate conics center $O$ and radius $c^2$. For $q,q',q''$ distinct points in $S$, we prove $S^\perp= N(q,q',q'')$. We first see $S^\perp\subseteq N(q,q',q'')$: Let $p\in S^\perp$. Observe
$$||\overrightarrow{pq}||^2 = ||\overrightarrow{pO}||^2 + ||\overrightarrow{Oq}||^2 = -c^2 +c^2 =0,$$
and the same applies to any point in $S$, in particular $q'$ and $q''$.
We now see $S^\perp\supseteq N(q,q',q'')$: Let $p\in N(q,q',q'')$. By Lemma \ref{0to3} $\langle \overrightarrow{pO}, \overrightarrow{Oq}\rangle = 0$, so
$$0 = ||\overrightarrow{pq}||^2 = ||\overrightarrow{pO}||^2 + ||\overrightarrow{Oq}||^2 = ||\overrightarrow{pO}||^2 +c^2 =0.$$
Hence $||\overrightarrow{pO}||^2 = -c^2$ and $p\in S^\perp$. \\
For $p,p',p''$ distinct points in $S^\perp$, we prove $S= N(p,p',p'')$.
$\subseteq$: Let $q\in S$, a similar argumentation as before works.
$\supseteq$: Let $q\in N(p,p',p'')$. By Lemma \ref{0to3} $\langle \overrightarrow{qO}, {\overrightarrow \pi}^\perp \rangle = 0$ so it follows that $q\in O + {{\overrightarrow \pi}^\perp}^\perp = \pi$.
This completes the proof of Proposition \ref{duality}.
\end{proof}
\vspace{0.1in}
\subsection{The conformal image of circles}
\begin{Prop} \label{3trans}
Conformal transformations act transitively on triples of skew points of ${\mathbb R}^{2,2}$.
\end{Prop}
\begin{proof}
For the proof of this Proposition we consider conformal transformations as being bijections of conformal space $C^4_2:={\mathbb R}^{2,2}\cup C_\infty$ (see \cite{russian} \cite{rosenfeld}).
Let $q,q',q''$ be three skew points in $C^4_2$. Let $e_i$ be the canonical basis of ${\mathbb R}^{2,2}$. We show that we can find a conformal mapping sending $q,q',q''$ to $\bf 0, \infty, 1$; where ${\bf 0}=(0,0,0,0)$ and ${\bf 1}=e_1$. \\
One can assume $q=\bf 0$ by use of a translation mapping to the origin. One can also assume $q'=\infty$ since an inversion with respect to the hypersphere centered at $q'$ going through $\bf 0$ maps $q'$ to $\infty$ while fixing $\bf 0$. We show that there is a conformal mapping fixing $\bf 0$ and $\infty$, which sends $q''$ to $\bf 1$. \\
The point $q''$ is non-null as $q$ and $q''$ were assumed to be skew, and conformal transformations preserve skewness of points. Assume $q''$ is positive and let $u_1:=q'', \ldots, u_4$ a basis of ${\mathbb R}^{2,2}$ with Gram matrix $I^{2,2}:={\mbox{diag }}(1,1,-1,-1)$. Let $M$ be the $4\times 4$ real matrix whose columns are the coordinates of the vectors $u_i$ with respect to the canonical basis $e_i$. Then $M^T I^{2,2} M =I^{2,2}$ and $Me_1= q''$, so $M$ is the matrix of an orthogonal transformation mapping $e_1$ to $q''$. Orthogonal transformations are conformal, and so we are done. \\
If $q''$ is negative then we can find a basis $v_1,v_2,v_3:= q'',v_4$ of ${\mathbb R}^{2,2}$ with Gram matrix $I^{2,2}$. By a similar argument as before we can find an orthogonal transformation of sending $e_3$ to $q''$. Precomposing with the {\em anti}-orthogonal (and therefore conformal) transformation $(a,b,c,d)\mapsto (c,d,a,b)$ we get a conformal map sending $q''$ to $e_1$.
\end{proof}
\vspace{0.1in}
\begin{Prop}
Let $S,S^\perp$ be a pair of non-degenerate conjugate conics. There exists a conformal transformation $f: {\mathbb R}^{2,2} \rightarrow {\mathbb R}^{2,2}$ such that $S=f(S_0)$ and $S^\perp = f(S_0^\perp)$.
\end{Prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $p,p',p''\in S^\perp$ and $p_0,p_0',p_0''\in S_0^\perp$. Any three distinct points on a non-degenerate pseudo-circle must be skew, so using the transitivity property we can find an $f$ such that $f(p_0)= p, f(p_0')=p'$ and $f(p_0'')=p''$. Then
$$
f(S_0) = f(N(p_0,p_0',p_0'')) = N(p,p',p'')=S.
$$
Now choose $q_0,q_0',q_0''\in S$, and observe that $q:=f(q_0), q':=f(q_0'), q'':=f(q_0'')\in S$ as we have already seen $f(S_0) = S$.
$$f(S_0^\perp) = f(N(q_0,q_0',q_0'')) = N(q,q',q'') = S^\perp.$$
\end{proof}
\vspace{0.1in}
Thus, every non-degenerate pair of conics can be mapped by a conformal map to the standard conjugate circles. By Theorem \ref{t:4} conformal maps preserve the mean value property and so the mean value property extends to any non-degenerate conics and we have completed the proof of Theorem \ref{t:1}.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
Synchronization of chaotic oscillators has many aspects~\cite{Pikovsky-Rosenblum-Kurths-01},
one generally distinguishes complete, generalized, and phase synchronization.
The latter property is related to chaotic oscillators with well-defined phases.
Many chaotic oscillators, like the R\"ossler system, possess chaotic amplitudes, while
the phase in such systems is not chaotic and corresponds to a zero Lyapunov exponent.
The dynamics of the phase is of diffusion type, and correspondingly the phase synchronization
phenomena for such oscillators are close to those for periodic oscillators with
a certain level of noise in the phase dynamics.
In a seminal paper~\cite{Kuznetsov-05} S. P. Kuznetsov constructed a physical
model of an oscillator with a \textit{chaotic phase}. In this construction,
the process has amplitude modulation, and at each period of
modulation the phase experience a doubling map. The overall attractor is hyperbolic
and
belongs to a Smale-Williams solenoid class. In a series of subsequent publications,
summarized in the book~\cite{Kuznetsov-12}, S. P. Kuznetsov and co-authors provided many
examples of systems with hyperbolic phase chaos.
In this paper we study synchronization properties of the oscillators with
chaotic phases. First, we construct a rather abstract model, where phase chaos and
synchronizing interactions are separated in time (Section \ref{sec:kbm}). Namely, the process
consists of two epochs: in one epoch phase oscillators interact according
to the Kuramoto global coupling scheme, and in another epoch the phases undergo
a chaotic Bernoulli map. This model demonstrates, for certain values of parameters,
a bistability between a desynchronized and a synchronized states. In Section \ref{sec:kpm}
we consider coupled autonomous oscillators with chaotic phases, constructed
by S. P. Kuznetsov and the author in~\cite{Kuznetsov-Pikovsky-07}. This
system demonstrates a rather reach behavior with asynchronous, completely
synchronous, and complex partially synchronous states.
\section{Kuramoto-Bernoulli model}
\label{sec:kbm}
In this section we construct a model of interacting phase oscillators,
which combines features of the Kuramoto model~\cite{Acebron-etal-05}
(global attractive coupling of the phases) with the
hyperbolic chaotic dynamics of the phases described by a Bernoulli map.
\subsection{Kuramoto ensemble and OA evolution}
Consider $N$ phase oscillators $\varphi_k$ interacting via Kuramoto mean-field coupling
\begin{equation}
\dot\varphi_k=\mu R\sin(\Theta-\varphi_k),\quad Z=R e^{i\Theta}=\frac{1}{N}\sum_k e^{i\varphi_k}\;.
\label{eq:km}
\end{equation}
Here $Z$ is the complex mean field, and $\mu$ is the coupling constant.
Quantity $R$ is called Kuramoto order, it characterizes asynchronous ($R=1$)
and synchronous ($R=1$) regimes.
We assume that all the oscillators have the same frequency, and write equations
in the reference frame where this frequency vanishes, so it does not enter
in~\eqref{eq:km}. For $\mu>0$ the coupling is attractive,
and in this situation all the oscillators eventually synchronize: $R\to 1$,
and a state where $\varphi_1=\varphi_2=\ldots \varphi_N$ establishes.
Synchronization transition is monotonous (in fact, there exists
a Lyapunov function that governs it), but it can be generally hardly
expressed analytically.
An analytic solution is, however, possible,
if the Ott-Antonsen (OA) ansatz~\cite{Ott-Antonsen-08}, which
applies to the thermodynamic limit $N\to\infty$, is peformed.
In the OA ansatz it is assumed that
the distribution of the phases is a wrapped Cauchy
distribution, and the complex circular moments
\begin{equation}
Z_k=\langle e^{i k\varphi}\rangle
\label{eq:op}
\end{equation}
can all be expressed via the complex mean field $Z_k=Z^k$.
Then the equation for the order
parameter reads~\cite{Ott-Antonsen-08}
\[
\dot R=\frac{\mu}{2}R(1-R^2)\;.
\]
Evolution of the complex mean field during a time interval $T$ is
\begin{equation}
R(T)=\frac{R(0)}{\sqrt{R^2(0)+(1-R^2(0))\exp[-\mu T]}}
\label{eq:kd}
\end{equation}
One can see that the only parameter in this transformation is $\gamma=\exp(-\mu T)$.
Evidently, $R\to 1$ as $n\to infty$, and the rate of this convergence
is larger for smaller $\gamma$.
\subsection{Bernoulli map of phases}
Consider a Bernoulli map acting on the phases
\begin{equation}
\varphi(n+1)= K \varphi(n)\;,
\label{eq:bm}
\end{equation}
with an integer parameter $K$.
For an ensemble of Bernoulli maps~\eqref{eq:bm}, it is easy to express the evolution
of the probability density of phases through the complex circular moments \eqref{eq:op}:
\[
Z_m(n+1)=Z_{Km}(n)\;.
\]
One can see that the OA ansatz is invariant under Bernoilli maps.
Indeed, if $Z_m(n)=Z^m$, then $Z_m(n+1)=Z^{Km}=(Z^K)^m$. Thus,
the evolution of the complex mean field under the Bernoulli map is
\begin{equation}
Z(n+1)=Z^K (n)\;.
\label{eq:mfbm}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Kuramoto ensemble and Bernoilli map}
We construct a Kuramoto-Bernoulli (KB) model as a sequence of applications
of the Kuramoto dynamics \eqref{eq:kd} and of the Bernoulli dynamics
\eqref{eq:mfbm}. Application of the expressions \eqref{eq:kd}, \eqref{eq:mfbm}
leads to the following map for the order parameter
\[
R(n+1)=\frac{R^K(n)}{(R^2(n)+(1-R^2(n))\gamma)^{K/2}}
\]
This map has always a stable asynchronous
fixed point $R_{as}=0$, and a synchronous fixed point $R_{s}=1$.
The fixed point $R=1$ is stable for
\begin{equation}
\gamma<\frac{1}{K}\;,
\label{eq:st}
\end{equation}
in this case also an unstable partially synchronous fixed point with $0<R_{ps}<1$ exists,
so there is a bistability asynchrony-synchrony.
The threshold for synchrony stability \eqref{eq:st} is valid not only in the OA approximation, but generally.
Indeed, close to the synchronous state the deviations of the phases satisfy, in the Kuramoto stage,
the linear equation
\[
\frac{d}{dt}\delta\varphi=-\mu\delta\varphi
\]
so that combined map for the linear deviations is
\[
\delta\varphi(n+1)=K\gamma\delta\varphi(n)
\]
from which \eqref{eq:st} follows.
We illustrate the dynamics of the KB model in Fig.~\ref{fig:id}. There we show
the evolution of the oder parameter $R$ for different values of parameter $\gamma$ and
different initial states. The fully synchronous state is absorbing
(exactly the same phases remain the same) for all system sizes $N$,
while
there are finite-size fluctuations around the disordered state.
For small $\gamma$,
one observes a finite-size induced transition to the synchronous state.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig1.pdf}
\caption{Illustration of the dynamics in a Kuramoto-Bernoulli model
with $K=2$ and different $\gamma$, ensemble size $N=1000$.
Red curves: disordered initial state; blue curves:
ordered initial state (distribution of phases in an interval $(0,0.1)$).
}
\label{fig:id}
\end{figure}
\section{Globally coupled Kuznetsov-Pikovsky (KP) oscillators}
\label{sec:kpm}
Here we study globally coupled chaotic phase oscillators introduced by S. P. Kuznetsov and the author
in
Ref.~\cite{Kuznetsov-Pikovsky-07}.
\subsection{One KP oscillator}
An individual KP oscillator consists of three modes described by their
complex amplitudes $u,v,w$. The equation of one unit are
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\dot u&=-i u +(1-|u|^2-\frac{1}{2}|v|^2-2|w|^2)u +\varepsilon\text{Im}(v^2)\;,\\
\dot v&=-i v +(1-|v|^2-\frac{1}{2}|w|^2-2|u|^2)v +\varepsilon\text{Im}(w^2)\;,\\
\dot w&=-i w +(1-|w|^2-\frac{1}{2}|u|^2-2|v|^2)u +\varepsilon\text{Im}(u^2)\;.
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:kp}
\end{equation}
Below we fix the internal coupling parameter $\varepsilon=0.075$.
For $\varepsilon=0$, system \eqref{eq:kp} has a stable homoclinic cycle,
where the modes are excited consequentially $w\to v\to u \to w\to\ldots$,
with increasing periods of the cycle. The effect of coupling $\varepsilon>0$ is twofold:
first, the cycle period is limited from above (see Fig.~\ref{fig:oo1}(b)),
and second, at each stage where a mode amplitude passes close to zero,
its phase attains the doubled value of the exciting mode. The latter property
is described in Ref.~\cite{Kuznetsov-Pikovsky-07} in details; here
we illustrate it with figure \ref{fig:oo2}. Thus, the KP oscillator \eqref{eq:kp}
has a chaotic phase obeying a Bernoulli map.
\begin{figure}
\centering
(a)\includegraphics[width=0.45\columnwidth]{fig2a.pdf}\hfill
(b)\includegraphics[width=0.43\columnwidth]{fig2b.pdf}
\caption{Illustration of the dynamics in a KP model.
Panel (a): phase portrait of the observable $z=u+v+w$ (complex amplitude of oscillations).
Panel (b): amplitudes of the modes.}
\label{fig:oo1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.4\columnwidth]{fig3.pdf}
\caption{Illustration of the phase transformation in model ~\eqref{eq:kp}.
The consecutive phases $\text{arg}(u)\to \text{arg}(v)\to\text{arg}(w)$ are depicted.
The transformation $\text{arg}(u)\to\text{arg}(u)$ would be $\varphi\to 2^3\varphi$.}
\label{fig:oo2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Globally coupled KP oscillators}
Here we introduce a global coupling of $N$ oscillators (numbered by index $k$),
such that complete synchrony is possible:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\dot u_k&=-i u_k +(1-|u_k|^2-\frac{1}{2}|v_k|^2-2|w_k|^2)u +\varepsilon\text{Im}(v_k^2)
+\mu|u_k|^2(U-u_k),\\
\dot v_k&=-i v_k +(1-|v_k|^2-\frac{1}{2}|w_k|^2-2|u_k|^2)v +\varepsilon\text{Im}(w_k^2)
+\mu|v_k|^2(V-v_k),\\
\dot w_k&=-i w_k +(1-|w_k|^2-\frac{1}{2}|u_k|^2-2|v_k|^2)u +\varepsilon\text{Im}(u_k^2)
+\mu| w_k|^2(W-w_k),\\
&U=\frac{1}{N}\sum_k u_k,\quad V=\frac{1}{N}\sum_k v_k,\quad
W=\frac{1}{N}\sum_k w_k\;.
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:gckp}
\end{equation}
The coupling term is proportional to the parameter $\mu$,
it contains three complex mean fields $U,V,W$, corresponding to three
modes of each oscillator.
Figure~\ref{fig:ebd} intends to
characterize the dynamical regimes in the system, in dependence on the
coupling parameter $\mu$.
Here two quantities have been calculated. First, I present the dynamics
of the global complex mean field
\[
Z(t)=U(t)+V(t)+W(t)\;.
\]
I calculated the time average $\langle |Z|\rangle_t$ and its
fluctuations $\langle (|Z|-\langle |Z|\rangle_t)^2\rangle_t$, these quantities are shown
in Fig.~\ref{fig:ebd} with red (fluctuations as error bars). Additionally,
for each moment of time,
I calculated the spread in the ensemble
\[
D(t)=\frac{1}{N}\sum_k \left[|u_k(t)-U(t)|^2+|v_k(t)-V(t)|^2+|w_k(t)-W(t)|^2\right]
\]
and then average this quantity over time. This quantity is shown with blue.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig4.pdf}
\caption{Bifurcation diagram of model \eqref{eq:gckp} for $N=10^4$.}
\label{fig:ebd}
\end{figure}
Below I describe different states on the bifurcation diagram.
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Complete synchronization.} This regime is observed for $\mu>0.95$. Here
$u_k=u_j,v_k=v_j,w_k=w_j$ for all $k,j$. In this state $D=0$.
\item \textbf{Asynchronous state.} This regime is observed for $\mu \lesssim 0.22$.
Here the mean field vanishes, and one has effectively a set of non-interacting oscillators.
\item \textbf{Periodic mean field.} This regime is observed in the range
$0.22 \lesssim \mu\lesssim 0.31$. Here the complex mean field $Z(t)$ is nearly periodic.
We illustrate this in Fig.~\ref{fig:f1}(a,b). There are visible fluctuations for $\mu=0.23$,
but
for $\mu=0.3$ periodicity is nearly perfect. The transition to a periodic mean field
at $\mu\approx 0.22$ is very much similar to one described in
Ref.~\cite{Pikovsky-Rosenblum-Kurths-96}.
\item \textbf{Weakly irregular mean field} This state is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:f1}(c).
At $\mu=0.35$ the mean field is close to periodic one, but has a seemingly nearly quasiperiodic modulation.
\item \textbf{Irregular mean field} This state is observed for $0.4\lesssim \mu \lesssim 0.95$,
we illustrate it in Fig.~\ref{fig:f2} (a-c). Fluctuations of the mean field are essential, eventually for large $\mu$
they become close to the fluctuations of the field $z(t)$ in one chaotic oscillator.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure}
\centering
(a)\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth,clip]{fig5a.pdf}
(b)\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth,clip]{fig5b.pdf}
(c)\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth,clip]{fig5c.pdf}
\caption{The dynamics of the global complex order parameter
for $\mu=0.23$ (panel (a)), $\mu=0.3$ (panel (b)), and $\mu=0.35$ (panel (c)).}
\label{fig:f1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
(a)\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth,clip]{fig6a.pdf}
(b)\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth,clip]{fig6b.pdf}
(c)\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth,clip]{fig6c.pdf}
\caption{The dynamics of the global complex order parameter
for $\mu=0.45$ (panel (a)), $\mu=0.6$ (panel (b)), and $\mu=0.8$ (panel (c)).}
\label{fig:f2}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}
In this paper I studied effects of coupling on oscillators with hyperbolic chaotic dynamics
of the phases. In the simplest, rather artificial Kuramoto-Bernoulli model,
an exact mapping for the order parameter has been derived in the Ott-Antonsen
approximation in the thermodynamic limit.
The dynamics here, beyond a certain level of coupling, is bistable:
synchronous and asynchronous states coexist. In relatively small ensembles, for
strong enough coupling, only synchronous states survives
as it is a truly absorbing one. A more realistic model of coupled autonomous continuous-time
oscillators with hyperbolic dynamics of the phases demonstrated much more rich dynamics.
Together with a fully asynchronous state at small coupling strengths, and
a completely synchronous at strong coupling strengths, it demonstrates different states with partial synchrony.
Close to the asynchronous state, the mean field is nearly periodic; and with increase of
coupling strength it becomes irregular through presumably a quasi-periodic state. Detailed study of partially
synchronous states in this model will be a subject of a separate study.
\begin{acknowledgments}
A. P.
acknowledges support by the Russian Science Foundation (studies
of Section~\ref{sec:kpm}, grant Nr. 17-12-01534)
and by DFG (grant PI 220/21-1). Numerical experiments in Sec.~\ref{sec:kbm}
were supported by the Laboratory of Dynamical Systems and Applications NRU HSE,
of the Russian Ministry of Science and Higher Education (Grant No. 075-15-2019-1931).
\end{acknowledgments}
\def$'${$'$}
|
\section{Introduction}
Artificial neural netowrk (ANN) is an important branch of machine learning. The MP neuron~\cite{mcculloch1990logical} as the the basic unit of ANN is the most commonly used neuron stucture. As shown in Figure \ref{fig1}(a), the MP neuron can be formulated as $ y = \mathrm{f}(\sum_{i=1}^{n} \ w_{i}x_{i} + b) $, where a linear transformation and a non-linear activation function are applied to the input successively. This structure enables the netowrk to represent the non-linear distribution of the input signal. Currently, most researchers are concentrating on changing the connections between MP neurons to develop new network structures, of which fully-connected (FC) neural network, convolutional neural network (CNN)~\cite{krizhevsky2017imagenet} and recurrent neural network (RNN)~\cite{graves2013speech} are the most popular ones. However, the developing of new neuron stuctures has not draw much attention.
The MP neurons are proposed by simply imitating the bihavior of biological neurons. Although some work try to introduce more complex biological mechanisms \cite{maass1997networks} \cite{querlioz2013immunity}, the biological neurons are so complicated that we belived the current arificial neuron is far from reaching the full potental of a biological neuron \cite{ostojic2011spiking}. Therefore, exploring other artificial neuron sturctues become an important topic.
In this work, we develop a novel artificial neuron model which inspired by the way a biological neuron transmit information to another neuron. We know that a neuron transmit information to a neighboring neuron through releasing neurotransmitters. The neurotransmitters travel accross the space between the two neurons before caught by the neighboring neuron. We find that this process has many similarites with the elastic collision model in physics. Inspired by this, we use the elastic collision model to simulate the way biological neurons transmit information. Based on this, we developed a new aritficial neuron model, which we name the Inter-layer Collision (IC) neuron.
The IC neuron imitates the mathematical form of the elastic collision model, transforming input signal like the process of changing the state of objects during a collision. In addition to the physical significance, we give our mathematical analysis to show how the IC neuron works. The structure of the IC neuron is depicted in Figure \ref{fig1}(b), where scalar $w'$ is introduced to adjust a new input branch and $\sigma$ denotes a non-linear operation with Rectified Linear Unit (ReLU)~\cite{nair2010rectified}. When an input signal passes through this part, the input space is divided into multiple subspaces which can represent different linear transformations. Moreover, the IC neuron retains the advantages of a linear transformation of MP neurons, mainly in the independence of connection weights. Both the IC neuron and MP neuron can map the input with any dimension to a one-dimensional (1-D) output. We prove that in limited input space, the IC neuron can perfectly represent all the distributions that MP can represent. In this way, the IC neuron can replace MP neuron and learn a more abstract distribution of input signals.
Since the IC neuron has the same format of input and output as the MP neuron, we can easily integrate it into some existing network structures, including the FC, convolutional, and recurrent structures. As shown in Figure \ref{fig1}(c), the framework of the three networks with the IC neurons is similar to traditional networks. The IC neuron can improve the generalization ability of the networks by optimizing the non-linear representation ability of the basic computing unit without changing the network connections. Besides, unlike some methods that use non-linear kernel functions to improve non-linear representation ability~\cite{wang2019kervolutional}, the networks with the IC neurons do not map inputs to a high-dimensionalspace, making it have a small amount of calculation and parameters, which is close to traditional networks. We design experiments for IC networks with the three connection structures. Our experiments show that, in a variety of classification tasks, the IC networks not only exceed the traditional networks with the same hyperparameters in accuracy but also show the advantage of accelerating the training process. Furthermore, the IC networks can achieve better accuracy with a smaller scale, which shows that the IC neuron is an effective basic building unit for neural networks.
\begin{figure*}[]
\centering
\subfigure[]{
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.20]{fig1a.pdf}
}
\subfigure[]{
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.20]{fig1b.pdf}
}
\subfigure[]{
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.20]{fig1c_u.pdf}
}
\caption{(a) The MP neuron, $x_{i}$ denotes the input signal, $w_{i}$ denotes connection weight and $b$ denotes bias; (b) The IC neuron, $\sigma$ denotes a non-linear operation, $w'$ denotes an adjustment weight and $+$ denotes addition; (c) Three network structures with the IC neurons. The red regions represent the computational structure of the IC neurons.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure*}
Our contribution can be summarized as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item Inspired by the physical collision model, we propose the IC neuron as a basic building block for neural networks. We prove that the IC neuron can represent more complex distributions compare to the commonly used MP neuron.
\item The IC neuron we proposed is a basic computational unit that can be integrated into the majority of existing network structures. We propose strategies to combine the IC neuron with FC, convolutional and recurrent structures, which are popular network structures. Our research shows that using the IC neuron and the strategies can build more efficient networks.
\end{itemize}
We will introduce the details of the IC neuron and the networks with IC neurons in section 2. We construct a series of experiments to investigate the effectiveness of the IC neuron in section 3. Finally, we summarize this study in section 4.
\section{The Inter-layer Collision Model}
The IC neuron is inspired by the elastic collision model. In this section, we first describe a physical collision scene that reveals the law of physical quantity changes. We then introduce the IC neuron and its physical significance. Section 2.3 gives a mathematical analysis of why the IC neuron has a stronger representation ability than the MP neuron. Finally, we build the networks with the IC neurons and analyze the time and space complexity of them.
\subsection{The physical elastic collision scene}
Physical models often reveal the update or transfer process of physical quantities, e.g. the elastic collision model can clearly indicate the changes in the momentum and speed of objects. Considering an ideal physical environment with only collision forces. Two objects move in a 1D space where we use the left $(-)$ and the right $(+)$ to indicate the direction. The mass of them are $m_{1}$ and $m_{2}$, respectively. Initially, $m_{1}$ lies to the left of $m_{2}$ and they both have a velocity of zero. When $m_{1}$ is given a positive speed $v_{1}$ toward $m_{2}$, according to the laws of energy conservation and momentum conservation, the velocity of $m_{1}$ and $m_{2}$ after collision are:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq1}
\begin{aligned}
&v_{1}' = \frac{m_{1}-m_{2}}{m_{1}+m_{2}}v_{1}, v_{2}' = \frac{2m_{1}}{m_{1}+m_{2}}v_{1}. \\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
According to the above analysis, the result of this collision process is that the object $m_{2}$ will always move to the right ($+$) while the direction of the object $m_{1}$ depending on the quantitative relationship between $m_{1}$ and $m_{2}$. To effectively observe this result, we can place an observation platform on the far right of the above physical scene to obtain the speed value. Furthermore, we can treat this physical model as an information transmitting system where we only care about the overall information flowing out of the system given the input information. In this case, the input information is $v_{1}$ and the output information is $v'' = v_{1}'' + v_{2}''$. Here $v_{1}''$ and $v_{2}''$ are given by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq2}
\begin{aligned}
v_{1}'' = \sigma \left((w-1)v_{1} \right), v_{2}'' = wv_{1},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $w$ denotes the coefficient $\frac{2m_{1}}{m_{1}+m_{2}}$, $\sigma$ denotes the ReLU function which is used to get the right component $(+)$ of $v_{1}'$ (Capture objects that continue to move to the right). We notice that $w$ acts as a parameter controlling how much information could be transmitted. In the way, if we make $w$ learnable like what we do in machine learning and add this structure into the neural network framework, the system can be tuned to transmit useful information to the subsequent layers. Based on this assumption, we build a learnable model. To standardize the notation, we replace the ${v_{1}, v''}$ with ${x, y}$ to denote the input and output, respectively. The mathematical form is given by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq3}
\begin{aligned}
\centering
y = wx + \sigma\left((w-1)x \right).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Inspired by this propagation model, we build the basic IC computational unit introduced in the next section.
\subsection{The basic IC computational unit}
The process of velocity physical quantity transmission formulated in eq. \ref{eq3} represents a single input and single output model. When the single unit receives multiple inputs, we define the output by adding the results of each input, which can be viewed as the accumulation of multiple collision results on the same object. We combine this process with the activation operation. Considering a n-D input and a bias term, the mathematical form is given by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq4}
\begin{aligned}
\centering
y &= \mathrm{f} \left( \sum_{i=1}^{n} \ w_{i}x_{i} + \sigma \left(\sum_{i=1}^{n} \ (w_{i} - 1)x_{i} + b_{1} \right) + b_{2} \right) \\
&= \mathrm{f} \left( \sum_{i=1}^{n} \ w_{i}x_{i} + \sigma \left(\sum_{i=1}^{n} \ w_{i}x_{i} - x_{sum} + b_{1} \right) + b_{2} \right) ,\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\mathrm{f}$ is used to denote an activation function, such as sigmoid or ReLU function. $b_{1}$ and $b_{2}$ are two independent bias used to adjust the center of the model distribution. $x_{sum}=\sum_{i=1}^{n} \ x_{i}$ represents the sumation of all features of input. Eq. 4 defined the basic version of the IC neuron. In the physical scene constructed in 3.1, we determine whether the object $m_{1}$ passes through the right observation platform by controlling the relationship of mass. This can be regarded as a screening process that observers always hope to retain objects that carry key information instead of being disturbed by irrelevant ones. Corresponding to the IC neuron, the input signal is divided into $\sum_{i=1}^{n} \ w_{ij}x_{i} + b_{2}$ and $\sigma \left(\sum_{i=1}^{n} \ (w_{i} - 1)x_{i} + b_{1} \right)$. The term $\sigma \left(\sum_{i=1}^{n} \ (w_{i} - 1)x_{i} + b_{1} \right)$ can be explained by physical significance of the object $m_{1}$, which enhances the key information and suppress the useless one. In addition to fitting features, IC neurons play a role in controlling the flow of information, capturing the fine-gain features through multilayer framework, which are beneficial for a given task.
In order to further improve the non-linear representation ability of IC neurons, we relax the constant $1$ in $\sigma \left(\sum_{i=1}^{n} \ (w_{i} - 1)x_{i} + b_{1} \right)$ to a learnable value $w'$. The formulation is given by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq5}
\begin{aligned}
\centering
y &= \mathrm{f} \left( \sum_{i=1}^{n} \ w_{i}x_{i} + \sigma \left(\sum_{i=1}^{n} \ (w_{i} - w')x_{i} + b_{1} \right) + b_{2} \right) \\
&= \mathrm{f} \left( \sum_{i=1}^{n} \ w_{i}x_{i} + \sigma \left(\sum_{i=1}^{n} \ w_{i}x_{i} - w'x_{sum} + b_{1} \right) + b_{2} \right) , \\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$w'_{j}$ is named the adjustment weight. It can be regarded as the intrinsic weight of one neuron, which is different from the weight $w_{j}$ connecting two neurons. We term the new structure the standard IC neuron, which not only preserves the physical significance of the elastic collision model but also adds more flexibility in controlling the information transmission. We prove that the introduction of $w'_{j}$ can alleviate the restriction on non-linear representation.
\begin{figure*}[]
\centering
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[height=3.5cm, width=3.5cm]{fig1-crop.pdf}
}
\hspace{1cm}
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[height=3.5cm, width=3.5cm]{fig2-crop.pdf}
}
\hspace{1cm}
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[height=3.5cm, width=3.5cm]{fig3-crop2.pdf}
}
\caption{The value of $f(x_{1},x_{2})$ given $x_{1}, x_{2}$. (a): $f(x_{1},x_{2})=\sigma (x_{1}-x_{2})$. (b): $f(x_{1},x_{2})=\sigma (x_{1}-x_{2}+\sigma(-2x_{2}))$. (c): $f(x_{1},x_{2})=\sigma (w_{1}x_{1}+w_{2}x_{2}+b_{1}+\sigma((w_{1}-1)x_{1}+(w_{2}-1)x_{2}+b_{2}))$. Here $w_{1} = w_{2} = 0.2805$. $b_{1} = -0.3506$ and $b_{2} = 0.6463$ are used to shift the boundary across the whole space. }\label{fig2}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{The mathematical analysis of the IC neuron}
\textbf{Multiple linear transformation.} We first consider the representation ability of the basic IC neuron. Different from traditional neurons $y=f(\sum_{i=1}^{n} \ w_{i}x_{i})$, eq. 4 uses a non-linear representation instead of a linear one inside an activation function. We use a term $H = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \ (w_{i} - w')x_{i}$ represents a hyperplane in a $N$-dimensional Euclidean space, which divides Eq. 4 as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq6}
y =
\begin{cases}
\mathrm{f} \left( 2\sum_{i=1}^{n} \ w_{i}x_{i} - \sum_{i=1}^{n} \ x_{i} \right) & \text{if } H \ge 0\\
\mathrm{f} \left(\sum_{i=1}^{n} \ w_{i}x_{i} \right) & \text{if } H < 0
\end{cases}.
\end{equation}
Intuitively, this IC neuron has a stronger representation ability than the MP neuron, since it can produce two different linear representations instead of one before the activation operation $\mathrm{f}$. To visually distinguish the difference between the two kinds of neurons, we map the 2-D data distribution onto the plane and use ReLU as the activation function to show how the two neurons generate non-linear boundaries. Figure \ref{fig2}(a, b) shows that the single MP neuron and the IC neuron divide the two-dimensional Euclidean space into multiple subspaces, each of which can represent a fixed linear transformation or a zero transformation. We observe that a single IC neuron can divide one more subspace to represent a different linear transformation. Furthermore, we map the XOR problem which is a typical linear inseparable problem into a two-dimensional space to explain the difference. To distinguish between $(1,0),(0,1)$ and $(1,1),(0,0)$, the four points need to be divided into at least three linear subspace. For the ReLU MP neuron, the non-linear boundary is a straight line. At least two neurons are required to solve the XOR problem. However, the non-linear boundary of the IC neuron is a broken line, providing a single neuron possibility to solve the XOR problems. Figure \ref{fig2} gives a solution of single IC neuron, dividing into three-space where $(0,0),(1,1)$ are in the zero space and $(1,0),(0,1)$ is in two spaces with similar representation.
\textbf{Adjustment weight.} Although the basic neuron uses the hyperplane $H=0$ to increase the number of patterns, the calculation of the hyperplane is limited by weights $\mathbf{w_{i}}$, making it not flexibly to divide different subspaces. Figure \ref{fig3}(a) shows the calculation of a hyperplane in three-dimensional space. The main functionality of the weights $\mathbf{w_{i}}$ is to learn the distribution of different input features instead of adjusting $H=0$. When the weights are fixed, the angle between the hyperplane $H=0$ and the coordinate system is also fixed. In this case, the subspace divided by the hyperplane is usually not optimal and the learning of weights easily converges to a local minimum. To add more representation flexibility to the hyperplane $H=0$, the standard IC neuron use adjustment weight $w'$. Then there are two independent parameters in the calculation of the hyperplane: $w'$ is used to change the angle between the hyperplane and the coordinate system, and the bias $b_{2}$ is used to translate the hyperplane in the whole space. Figure \ref{fig3}(b) shows how the angle of the hyperplane changes after adding the adjustment weight. For higher dimensions, we give a theoretical explanation of the adjustable range of $w'$:
Theorem 1. By adjusting $w'$, the hyperplane $\sum_{N}^{i=1} \ (w_{i} - w')x_{i} = 0$ can be rotated $\pi$ around the cross product of vector $\mathbf{W}$ and $\mathbf{I}$ when two vectors are linearity independent. Here $\mathbf{W} = (w_{1},w_{2},\dots,w_{N})^{T}$ and $\mathbf{I} = (\underbrace{1,1,\cdots,1}_{N})^{T}$.
\begin{proof}
The normal vector of $\sum_{i=1}^{n} \ (w_{i} - w')x_{i} = 0$ is given by $\mathbf{H} = (w_{1}-w',w_{2}-w',\dots,w_{n}-w')^{T}$. Consider the angle between $\mathbf{H}$ and $\mathbf{I}$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq7}
\cos(\theta) = \frac{\mathbf{H}^{T} \cdot \mathbf{I}}{|\mathbf{H}| |\mathbf{I}|}
= \frac{\mathbf{W}^{T} \cdot \mathbf{I} - Nw'}{\sqrt{N|\mathbf{W}|^{2} - 2Nw'\mathbf{W}^{T} \cdot \mathbf{I} + N^{2}w'^{2}}}.
\end{equation}
When $\mathbf{W}^{T} \cdot \mathbf{I} \ge Nw'$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq8}
\cos(\theta) = \sqrt{1 + \frac{(\mathbf{W}^{T} \cdot \mathbf{I})^{2} - N|\mathbf{W}|^{2}}{N|\mathbf{W}|^{2} - 2Nw'\mathbf{W}^{T} \cdot \mathbf{I} + N^{2}w'^{2}}}.
\end{equation}
Eq. \ref{eq6} is a continuous subtractive function, and $\cos(\theta) \in [0,1)$ when $w' \in (-\infty,\frac{\mathbf{W}^{T} \cdot \mathbf{I}}{n}]$. Similarly, $\cos(\theta) \in (-1,0]$ when $w' \in [\frac{\mathbf{W}^{T} \cdot \mathbf{I}}{n},\infty)$. Therefore, we get $\theta \in (0,\pi)$ when $w' \in (-\infty,\infty)$. It is clear that the direction of the rotation axis is the same as the cross product of $\mathbf{W}$ and $\mathbf{I}$.
\end{proof}
Theorem 1 implies that $\sum_{i=1}^{n} \ (w_{i} - w')x_{i} = 0$ can almost represent the whole hyperplanes parallel to the cross product of $\mathbf{W}$ and $\mathbf{I}$, providing flexible strategies for dividing spaces. In summary, by adjusting the relationship between $w$ and $w'$, the IC neuron can not only retain the representation ability of the MP neuron but also flexibly segment linear representation spaces for some complex distribution.
\subsection{Building the IC Networks}
\begin{figure*}[]
\centering
\subfigure[]{
\centering
\includegraphics[scale = 0.15, trim={20cm 0 20cm 0},clip]{l-eps-converted-to.pdf}
}
\hspace{3cm}
\subfigure[]{
\centering
\includegraphics[scale = 0.15, trim={20cm 0 20cm 0},clip]{m-eps-converted-to.pdf}
}
\caption{(a): The hyperplane $H=0$ dividing the 3-D input space; (b): The rotation process of the hyperplane according to the adjustment weight $w'$.}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure*}
We further build neural networks by using the standard IC neurons. Due to the characteristic that the IC neuron can transform the input with any size to 1-D output, we integrate the IC neuron into most popular neural network frameworks, such as fully-connected, convolutional, and recurrent structures.
\textbf{Full-connected structure.} First, we consider building a full-connected layer with the IC neuron. The input size is $n$ and the number of neurons is $m$, and the output of the $j$th neuron can be expressed as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq9}
\begin{aligned}
\centering
y_{j} &= \mathrm{f} \left( \sum_{i=1}^{n} \ w_{ij}x_{i} + \sigma \left(\sum_{i=1}^{n} \ w_{ij}x_{i} - w'_{j}x_{sum} \right) \right) , j \in [1, m] . \\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
To simplify the notation, bias terms are omitted here and below. The eq. 9 can be redefined by matrices and vector:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq10}
\begin{aligned}
\centering
\mathbf{y} &= \mathrm{f} \left(\mathbf{W}_{n \times m}\mathbf{x} + \sigma \left(\mathbf{W}_{n \times m}\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{w'}_{m \times 1} \mathbf{I}_{1 \times n}^{T} \mathbf{x} \right) \right) ,\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $I$ is defined as the transpose of a n-D all-one vector calculating the $x_{sum}$. $W$ is connection weights and $w'$ representing adjustment weights is a vector. We use eq. 10 to build the fully-connected IC network, similar to the architecture of multilayer perceptron (MLP). By hierarchically connecting the IC neurons, the IC fully-connected (IC-FC) network can represent more complex non-linear distributions.
\textbf{Recurrent structure.}The classical RNNs use deterministic transitions from previous to current hidden states. Given an input sequence $\mathbf{x}=(\mathbf{x}_{1},\dots,\mathbf{x}_{T})$, a RNN computes the sequence of h-D hidden vectors $\mathbf{h}=(\mathbf{h}_{1},\dots,\mathbf{h}_{T})$ and sequence of output vectors $\mathbf{y}=(\mathbf{y}_{1},\dots,\mathbf{y}_{T})$ by iterating the equations:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq11}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{h}_{t} & = \mathrm{f} (\mathbf{W}_{n \times h}\mathbf{x}_{t} + \mathbf{W}_{h \times h}\mathbf{h}_{t-1}) , \\
\mathbf{y}_{t} & = \mathbf{W}_{h \times m}\mathbf{h}_{t} , \\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{W}$ denotes weight matrices and $\mathrm{f}$ denotes the activation function. We use the IC structure to transform the current input $\mathbf{x}_{t}$ instead of $\mathbf{W}\mathbf{x}_{t}$. When the iteration reaches the $t$th round, the calculation of $\mathbf{h}_{t}$ is defined by:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq12}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{h}_{t} & = & \mathrm{f} \left( \mathbf{W}_{n \times h}\mathbf{x}_{t} + \sigma(\mathbf{W}_{n \times h}\mathbf{x}_{t} -\mathbf{w'}_{h} \mathbf{I}_{n}^{T} \mathbf{x}_{t}) + \mathbf{W}_{h \times h}\mathbf{h}_{t-1} \right) . \\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
We retain the linear transformation of $\mathbf{h}_{t-1}$ and the calculation of $\mathbf{y}_{t}$. Since eq. 12 retains the recurrent structure, it can learn the information of previous in sequence. Besides, the hidden state $\mathbf{h}_{t}$ emphasizing the $t$-th input $\mathbf{x}_{t}$ will make the future context easier to learn. We use eq. 12 to build the IC recurrent neural network (IC-RNN), which can process sequential data.
\textbf{Convolutional structure.} The convolutional structure uses the kernel and sliding window to capture the feature in a local area \cite{krizhevsky2017imagenet} \cite{valueva2020application}, mapping an input feature maps $\mathbf{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{H' \times W' \times C'}$ to a output $\mathbf{U} \in \mathbb{R}^{H \times W \times C}$. To simplify the notation, the activation operator is omitted. We can write the output feature maps as $\mathbf{U}=[\mathbf{U_{1}}, \mathbf{U_{2}},\dots,\mathbf{U_{C}}]$, where
\begin{equation}
\label{eq13}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{U}_{i} = \mathbf{W}_{i}*\mathbf{X}. \\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Here $\mathbf{W}_{i} \in \mathbb{R}^{k \times k \times C'}$ is the set of filter kernels and $*$ is used to denote the convolutional operator. We retain the characteristics of sliding window which takes advantages of shared weight, then using eq. 5 to changing the calculation of the kernel in each window. the new kernel is represented by $[\mathbf{W_{i}}, w'_{i}]$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq14}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{U_{i}} &= [\mathbf{W}_{i}, w'_{i}]*\mathbf{X}\\
&= \mathbf{W}_{i}*\mathbf{X} + \sigma(\mathbf{W}_{i}*\mathbf{X} - w'_{i} \times (\mathbf{I}*\mathbf{X})), \\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{I}$ is an all-one tensor with the same size as $\mathbf{W}_{i}$ used to sum the local area. Since eq. 14 termed the IC convolutional layer takes advantage of the dividing hyperplane, and it can capture more abstract local features without changing the format of input and output feature maps. We stack this structure to build the IC convolutional neural network (IC-CNN). Note that the pooing operation is not changed in our IC-CNNs.
\subsection{Parameters and Complexity Analysis}
\textbf{Parameters.} We compare the standard IC neuron with MP neuron in three network structures. For the IC fully-connected and recurrent structures, the addition of parameters depends completely on the adjustment weight $w'$ and bias $b_{1}$. If there are $m$ hidden neurons and n-D input, the IC networks will add parameters from $(n+1) \times m$ to $(n+3) \times m$. The ratio of addition is $\frac{2}{n}$, which can be regarded as adding $2$ dimensions to the input. The result of the convolutional structure is similar in that the addition depends on the number of kernels. The real-world tasks usually need hundreds of neurons or kernels, making the effect of additional parameters of the IC neuron negligible.
\textbf{Computational complexity.} The computational complexity of neural networks mainly comes from matrix operations. In the IC fully-connected and recurrent structures, $\mathbf{W}\mathbf{x}$ term calculating $(n \times m) \times (m \times 1)$ is only calculated once. $\mathbf{w'} \mathbf{I}^{T} \mathbf{x} = \mathbf{w'} (\mathbf{I}^{T} \mathbf{x})$ needs to calculate $(1 \times n) \times (n \times 1)$ and $(M \times 1) \times (1 \times 1)$. Compared to the hidden layer with MP neurons. The additional complexity is approximately $\frac{1}{n}+\frac{1}{m}$. As for convolutional structure, $\mathbf{W}_{i}*\mathbf{X}$ is also calculated once. Note that we can first generate a tensor to represent $w'_{i} \times \mathbf{I}$. $w'_{i} \times (\mathbf{I}*\mathbf{X}) = (w'_{i} \times \mathbf{I})*\mathbf{X}$ can be regarded as adding a kernel for input features. The additional complexity is approximately $\frac{1}{C}$. We do not change the operations outside the neuron model, include batch normalization, pooling, etc. When $N$, $N$ or $C$ are relatively large, the complexity of IC networks is similar to the networks with MP neurons.
\section{Experiment}
This section evaluate the performance of the IC networks by integrating the IC neurons into three network structures (IC-FC, IC-rnn and IC-CNN).
\subsection{Configurations and Datasets}
Our goal is to compare the IC networks with traditional ones. For fair comparison, we evaluate the traditional networks with the same network hyperparameters as IC networks. Specifically, we use the ReLU as the activation function $\mathrm{f}$, cross entropy for loss function and adadelta for optimizer. The evaluation metrics include top-1 accuracy, FLOPs and parameter amount. The accuracy of each round is recorded to trace the training process. During the training process, the test accuracy fluctuates sharply. We make a simple smoothing of the test curve in order to better show the trend of test accuracy changes. Besides, we evaluate the basic version of the IC neuron (eq~\eqref{eq4}) to investigate the effectiveness of the $\sigma$ operation and the adjustment weight $w'$. These results are represented by $-B$ version in our tables. We repeat each experiment three times and record the best accuracy in order to reduce the influence of random initialization.
We use a variety of classification tasks to evaluate the different models. For each tasks, we individually set the number of layers and hidden neurons. The details are shown below.
\textbf{Sentiment classification} task uses the IMDB dataset that contains $25000$ movie reviews for training and $25000$ for testing. The reviews are preprocessed by extracting $tf-idf$ features and are cropped into $5000$-dimensional features of equal length. We build the IC-FC network with the input-1024-512-256-output structure.
\textbf{Music classification} task uses the GTZAN dataset that contains $1000$ music clips divided into $10$ classes evenly. Each clip is stored in a $30$ seconds long file. We split the dataset into $710$ clips for training and $290$ clips for testing. In addition, we use MFCC, chroma, mel-spectrogram, spectral contrast and tonnetz feature to represent each music clip, which transform the original sound wave into a $253$ feature vector. We build the IC-FC network with the input-256-128-output structure.
\begin{table*}
\caption{The accuracy of three FC models on several classification tasks.}\label{tbl1}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{6mm}{
\begin{tabular}{lccccccc}
\toprule
Model & MNIST & IMDB & GTZAN & sEMG & LETTER & YEAST & ADULT \\
\midrule
FC & 98.02 & 87.59 & 54.14 & 40.00 & 82.53 & 57.62 & 84.99 \\
IC-FC & 98.42 & 88.28 & 56.21 & 41.67 & 85.70 & 61.04 & 85.20 \\
IC-FC-B & 98.37 & 88.13 & 55.17 & 41.11 & 84.13 & 60.10 & 85.14 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\caption{The FLOPs/storages of three FC models on several classification tasks. The FLOPs (KMac) denote the amount of calculation for feedforward propagation. The storages (KB) reflect the amount of learnable parameters.}\label{tbl2}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{2mm}{
\begin{tabular}{lccccccc}
\toprule
Model & MNIST & IMDB & GTZAN & sEMG & LETTER & YEAST & ADULT \\
\midrule
FC & 235.14/235.15 & 5777.66/5777.67 & 99.20/99.21 & 3600.90/3600.92 & 4.00/4.03 & 0.98/0.99 & 1.04/1.04 \\
IC-FC & 236.56/235.91 & 5785.99/5781.25 & 100.09/99.98 & 3606.46/3603.97 & 4.18/4.22 & 1.06/1.08 & 1.13/1.14 \\
IC-FC-B & 236.18/235.53 & 5784.20/5779.46 & 99.71/99.59 & 3604.92/3602.44 & 4.08/4.12 & 1.02/1.03 & 1.09/1.09 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\end{table*}
\textbf{Hand movement recognition} task uses the uci sEMG dataset that contains $1800$ records divided into six kinds of hand movements, i.e., spherical, tip, palmar, lateral, cylindrical and hook. The sEMG dataset is a time-series dataset, where EMG sensors capture $500$ features per second and each record associated with $3000$ features. We build the IC-FC network with input-1024-512-output to process the records. We use the IC-RNN with an $input-80-output$ structure to recurrently process the each EMG features of records.
\textbf{Speech recognition} task uses the Google speech commands dataset (V1) \cite{warden2018speech} that contains $65000$ one-second long utterances of $30$ short words. The researchers often use $20$ common commands dataset to simplify the task, which is named 20-cmd. We use 20-cmd to further evaluate the IC-RNN with an $input-64-output$ structure.
\textbf{Image classification} task uses the MNIST and CIFAR-10 dataset. The MNIST contains $60K$ training images of $28 \times 28$ size and $10K$ test images. We evaluate the IC-FC network with an input-256-128-output structure. The IC-CNN for MNIST is consist of three $3 \times 3$ IC convolutional layer with $32,64,64$ output channels and $1,2,2$ strides, respectively. After the IC convolutional layers capture the features, we use a features-256-output transitional FC structure as classifier. We use CIFAR-10 to further evaluate this IC-CNN. The CIFAR-10 is consists of $60K$ $32 \times 32 \times 3$ RGB images in $10$ classes divided into $50K$ training images and $10K$ testing images.
Besides, we evaluate some simple IC networks on the uci YEAST, ADULT and LETTER datasets, which have only $8/14/16$ dimensional inputs. YEAST has $1038/446$ training/test examples. LETTER has $16000/4000$ training/test examples. ADULT has $32561/16281$ training/test examples. We build the IC-FC networks with the input-32-16-output, input-32-16-output, input-64-32-output for YEAST, ADULT and LETTER datasets, respectively. Note that the variance of ADULT data is relatively big, so we set a BN operation at the beginning of the networks.
\subsection{Comparative Experiment}
\subsubsection{IC-FC Networks}
\begin{figure*}[]
\centering
\subfigure[MNIST]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{mnist.pdf}
}
\subfigure[IMBD]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{imdb.pdf}
}
\subfigure[GTZAN]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{gtzan.pdf}
}
\subfigure[sEMG]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{sEMG.pdf}
}
\subfigure[LETTER]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{letter.pdf}
}
\subfigure[YEAST]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{yeast.pdf}
}
\subfigure[ADULT]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{adult.pdf}
}
\caption{The training curves of the IC-FC networks and the FC networks on several task. }
\label{fig4}
\end{figure*}
Table 1 records the performance of IC-FC networks and corresponding FC networks on the above tasks except the CIFAR-10 and Google speech commands. We have three major observations. First, the IC networks achieve highly competitive performance in all the tasks. Remarkablely, the IC networks have a obvious improvement when the accuracy of original networks is low, such as GTZAN ($2.07\%$), sEMG ($1.67\%$) and YEAST ($3.37\%$). More importantly, we observe that the IC-FC networks add little computational cost from Table 2. The most obvious addition of FLOPs and storages is the results on the YEAST ($8.16\%$/$9.09\%$) and ADULT ($8.65\%$/$9.62\%$) dataset. According to our analysis in section 2.5, the influence of calculation and parameters will decrease as the number of hidden-layer neurons increases. This conclusion is proven by the IC networks on IMDB and sEMG datasets, which bring negligible additional cost compare to FC networks ($0.14\%$/$0.06\%$ and $0.15\%$/$0.08\%$). In summary, the IC-FC networks show the better representation ability with little additional computational burden. Besides, we observe that the standard version of the IC neuron has an improvement compared to the basic one in most tasks. This result shows that the adjustment weight can work well through joint training with the other learnable parameters.
The training processes of several FC models are depicted in Fig. 4. It is clear that the IC networks converge in a short time, indicating that IC neurons are more conducive to fitting features. Specially, although both the IC networks and FC networks use the same initialization and optimizer, the IC networks fit the distributions of training datasets better in the first few rounds. When the training accuracy is overly high, the improvement of the test curves is not obvious in the GTZAN and sEMG datasets. We argue that this is because of overfitting. Although the IC neuron help to find the fine-gain features, the type of these features is similar to ones got from the MP neuron. Besides, two versions of the IC neuron show similar convergence speeds, showing that the strong representation ability comes from the $\sigma$ non-linear operation of the IC neuron. Moreover, the adjustment weight $w'$ can improve the upper bound of representation ability.
\subsubsection{IC-RNN and IC-CNN}
We build the IC-RNNs to process time-series data, including sENG and Google speech commands datasets (20-cmd). Since the dropout does not work well with RNNs and large RNNs tend to overfit~\cite{zaremba2014recurrent}, we build the IC-RNNs and traditional RNNs with the small scale. The results are recorded in Table 3, showing that the IC-RNNs achieve the much higher accuracy. The IC-RNNs use a basic recurrent structure, which shows that the IC neuron can combine with the recurrent structure well. Note that the accuracy of Google speech commands datasets is lower than original work~\cite{de2018neural}, since we use the simplest recurrent models. We believe that the IC neuron can improve the complex recurrent models, including LSTM~\cite{sak2014long}, etc.
\begin{figure*}[]
\centering
\subfigure[sEMG]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{semg_rnn.pdf}
}
\subfigure[20-cmd]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{speech_20cmd.pdf}
}
\caption{The training curves of the IC-RNNs and the RNNs on tmie-series tasks. }
\label{fig5}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[]
\centering
\subfigure[MNIST]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{mnist_cnn.pdf}
}
\subfigure[CIFAR-10]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{cifar10.pdf}
}
\caption{The training curves of the IC-CNNs and the CNNs on image tasks. }
\label{fig6}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table}
\caption{The accuracy/FLOPs/storages of the IC-RNNs and RNNs on tmie-series tasks..}\label{tbl3}
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\toprule
Model & sEMG & 20-cmd \\
\midrule
FC & 28.95/240.48/240.57 & 57.98/662.46/662.56 \\
IC-FC & 31.42/243.64/240.73 & 59.13/672.91/662.69 \\
IC-FC-B & 30.86/243.56/240.65 & 59.10/672.85/662.62 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{The accuracy/FLOPs/storages of the IC-CNNs and CNNs on image tasks.}\label{tbl4}
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\toprule
Model & MNIST & CIFAR-10 \\
\midrule
FC & 98.84/6491.20/861.39 & 81.25/9067.26/1107.72 \\
IC-FC & 99.12/6623.70/861.71 & 82.49/9258.75/1108.05 \\
IC-FC-B & 99.02/6582.93/861.55 & 82.82/9205.50/1107.88 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
We build the IC-CNN to process image data, including the MNIST and CIFAR-10 datasets. To only evaluate the IC neuron in convolutional stucture, the IC-CNNs use the traditional full-connected layers as classifiers instead of the IC-FC. It is well know that kernels can capture the local feature through convolution operation. The results of the IC-CNNs recorded in Table 4 achieve a higher accuracy, implying that the IC neurons learning the more fine-gain local features. The training curves shown in Fig.6 show a faster convergence speed of the IC-CNNs. These comparison results show that the IC neuron work well on basic convolutional structure. Similar to the conclusion of the IC-RNNs, we believe that the IC neuron is useful unit to build bigger convolutional networks.
In summary, our experiments show that the combination of the IC neuron and three computational structures is successful. The IC networks can capture the fine-gain feature, making themselves have a higher accuracy and a faster convergence speed. However, they only increase an small computational cost compare the classical networks. We think that using the IC neuron is more efficient than expanding the scale of networks. To prove our conjecture, we compare the IC networks and bigger classical networks. Besides, we further investigate the factors affecting training process. This series of experiments is recorded in section 3.3.
\subsection{Model capacity and performance}
We construct the experiments to prove the conjecture that using the IC neuron is better than simply increasing the parameters. To consider both high-dimensional and low-dimensional data, we evaluate the IC-FC networks on the IMDB and the YEAST datasets. The bigger full-connected networks are: input-1500-1000-500-input and input-1024-1024-512-256-output for IMDB; input-32-32-16-output and input-100-50-output for YEAST. We named them deeper or wider FC networks. The results and training curve are recorded in Table 5. We observe that expanding the scale of networks is inefficient. Although the deeper and wider FC networks use much more parameters and FLOPs, thier results are still under the IC networks. Remarkablely, the wider FC network for YEAST cost six times the computational source than the IC-FC network (6.45KMacs/6.46KB vs. 1.06KMacs/1.08KB) while its accuracy is still under the IC-FC network (60.76 vs. 61.04). Besides, some work stated that large-scale networks training is slow~\cite{ioffe2015batch}. We also observe that expanding the scale has no effect on training speed. The IC networks have strong advantage in this respect.
\subsection{Activation function}
Another supplementary experiment is to investigate the influence of different activation operation. We have mentioned that the $\mathrm{f}$ of the IC neuron can be most activation functions. However, the neuron model may be hard to train when the non-linear form is complex. We second investigate the effect of the common used function, including Tanh~\cite{nwankpa2018activation} and ELU~\cite{clevert2015fast}. They can represent smooth boundaries and negative values. From Table 6, we observe that the IC networks have an improvement with other activation functions. These experiments show that the IC neuron is flexible and universal to replace the MP neuron in many commonly used networks.
\subsection{Discussion}
In summary, a network composed of IC neurons can achieve a generalization performance better than that of MP neurons in a wide range of tasks. Experiments show that this improvement does not come from the increase in the number of calculations and parameters. On the one hand, compared to traditional networks that use the same hyperparameters, the additional computational burden brought by the IC network is basically negligible. On the other hand, we find it difficult for deeper and wider traditional networks to surpass the accuracy of IC networks. We think this is because IC neurons have more non-linear representation capabilities and can fit more fine-grain features. In the training process, this advantage also speeds up the convergence speed. Besides, the combination of multiple classification tasks and three network structures also confirmed that IC neurons are a universal computing unit. We believe that IC neurons can be combined with many existing networks to achieve good performance.
\begin{table}
\caption{The comparison betwwenn the IC-FC networks and bigger FC networks. The value of each grid represents accuracy/FLOPs/storages.}\label{tbl5}
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\toprule
Model & IMDB & YEAST \\
\midrule
Deeper FC& 87.98/6811.89/6811.91 & 58.74/2.03/2.04 \\
Wider FC & 87.74/9504.01/9504.04 & 60.76/6.45/6.46 \\
IC-FC & 88.28/5785.99/5781.25 & 61.04/1.06/1.08 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}
Inspired by the elastic collision model, we propose the IC neuron model that could be used to fit more complex distributions compared to the MP neuron. We build the IC networks by integrating the IC neurons into the popular network structures, including the FC, convolutional and recurrent structures. Experiments a variety of classification tasks show that the IC networks reaches a higher accuracy and a faster convergence speed compared to the classical networks. Besides, the IC networks bring little additional computational burden, showing the superiority of the IC neuron. Our work provides a basic unit to build effective neural networks.
In this work, we have not fully explored the applicability to other networks that the IC neuron potentially enables. Our future work includes applications to other architectures.
\bibliographystyle{named}
|
\section{Introduction}
Safety is the number one requirement for any system that operates under physical constraints. For decades, this has been a major concern when control systems incorporate forms of adaptation or learning \citep{anderson2005failures,garcia2015comprehensive,hewing2020learning,wabersich2020performance}. A considerable body of literature exists establishing stability and performance guarantees in scenarios of \textit{parametric} plant-model mismatch (see \cite{lorenzen2019robust, tanaskovic2019adaptive,bujarbaruah2020exploiting} for some recent works in this direction). Depending on the final application however, assuming that the exact model structure is available might be unrealistic due to the complex physics behind the system at hand, or to the time-monetary costs associated with the modeling process.
A compelling alternative to the paradigm described above is the use of non-parametric models. These form a flexible class of surrogate functions whose number of parameters grows with the cardinality of the dataset. Relevant examples for the control community include the Nonlinear Set Memebership (NSM) \citep{milanese2004set,maddalena2020nsm} and the Kinky Inference (KI) \citep{calliess2020lazily,manzano2020robust} techniques. Due to the ease of incorporating prior expert knowledge and the inherent uncertainty quantification associated with them, Gaussian processes (GPs) have recently become a popular modeling tool for dynamical systems \cite{capone2020localized,matschek2020learningA,arcari2020meta,umlauft2020learning,shukla2020convergence,yingzhao2020gaussian}. Such function approximators are typically paired with appropriate Model Predictive Control (MPC) schemes that not only take into account the latent function estimate, but also the model variance to act with care in highly uncertain regions of the space (see \cite{koller2018learning,hewing2019cautious} for two examples, and \cite{beckers2019stable} for an exception to this trend).
As opposed to Gaussian processes, kernel ridge regression (KRR) and support vector regression (SVR) are deterministic non-parametric tools. These models have the same form of a GP predictive mean: a weighted sum of kernel basis functions. Moreover, with an appropriate choice of regularization constant, a KRR model matches exactly a GP posterior \citep{kanagawa2018gaussian}. Connections between the stochastic and the deterministic frameworks are profound and have been long known \citep{kimeldorf1970correspondence}. Uncertainty can be quantified in the KRR and SVR cases by considering all maps belonging to their underlying reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS) of functions. The RKHSs associated to various kernels, including the widely used squared-exponential, are dense in the space of continuous functions with compact domains \citep{micchelli2006universal}.
\textbf{Our contribution:} We propose in this paper a predictive control strategy based on non-parametric kernel regression that incorporates deterministic guarantees of safety. Samples from the unknown ground-truth dynamics are used to construct one-step and multi-step ahead models, with an appropriate state-dependent uncertainty quantification obtained from recently derived error-bounds \citep{maddalena2020deterministic}. The available dataset can be contaminated by noise, which is only assumed to be bounded, but otherwise drawn from any distribution. An efficient robust optimization formulation is derived to enforce state-constraint satisfaction. We then present a relaxation strategy that exploits on-line information to alleviate the problem constraints while preserving safety. Two numerical examples are provided and we discuss scalability issues to large datasets.
\section{Problem Definition}
We consider a discrete-time nonlinear system of the form
\begin{equation}
x_{t+1} = f(x_t, u_t)
\label{eq.groundTruth}
\end{equation}
with time $t \in \mathbb{N}$, states $x_t \in \mathbb{R}^{n_x}$, inputs $u_t \in \mathbb{R}^{n_u}$, and \textit{unknown}\footnote{If a partial model for the latent function is available, the learning task is simply performed on the error dynamics.} transition map $f: \mathbb{R}^{n_x} \times \mathbb{R}^{n_u} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n_x}$. Hard constraints $x_t \in \mathbb{X} = \{x \, | \, g_i(x) \leq 0, i=1,\dots,n_{\mathbb{X}}\}$ and $u_t \in \mathbb{U} = \{u \, | \, s_i(u) \leq 0, i=1,\dots,n_{\mathbb{U}}\}$ are imposed for all $t \in \mathbb{N}$, where $\mathbb{X}$ and $\mathbb{U}$ are polyhedra. More general compact sets could also be considered herein, but the geometric assumptions posed on $\mathbb{X}$ and $\mathbb{U}$ will later allow for an efficient robust reformulation as detailed in Section~\ref{sec.KPC}. Given a \textit{safe subset} of the state space
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{X}_{\text{safe}} \subseteq \mathbb{X}
\end{equation}
our goal is to drive the dynamical system \eqref{eq.groundTruth} from a specified initial condition $x_0$ to the set $\mathbb{X}_{\text{safe}}$ while satisfying all constraints. Similarly to \cite{koller2018learning}, we also assume that a local policy $\pi_{\text{safe}}:\mathbb{X}_{\text{safe}} \rightarrow \mathbb{U}$ is available, making $\mathbb{X}_{\text{safe}}$ forward invariant, i.e., $\forall x_t \in \mathbb{X}_{\text{safe}}: \, f(x_t,\pi_{\text{safe}}(x_t)) \in \mathbb{X}_{\text{safe}}, \pi_{\text{safe}}(x_t) \in \mathbb{U}$. A frequent instance of this problem is the regulation to a specific fixed point, in which $\mathbb{X}_{\text{safe}} = \{x_{\text{eq}}\}$ and $\pi(x_{eq}) = u_{eq}$ is the equilibrium control constant. In order to accomplish our task, we make use of noise-corrupted measurements of our unknown ground-truth and the formalism of non-parametric kernel learning are described next.
\section{Non-Parametric Kernel Learning}
In this section only, we consider $n_x = 1$ simply to avoid using a cumbersome notation; for $n_x > 1$, each output component of $f$ has to be considered separately. Moreover, the shorthand notation $f(x,u) = f(z)$ is used. Suppose the map $f$ is unknown, but a collection of $D$ measurement pairs is available to reconstruct it
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{D} = \{(z_d, y_d) \}_{d=1}^{D} \quad \text{where} \quad y_d = f(z_d) + \delta_d
\end{equation}
We make the following two assumptions on our dataset and on the observational model.
\begin{assumption}
\label{as.pairwise}
The data locations $z_1, \dots, z_D$ are pairwise distinct.
\end{assumption}
\begin{assumption}
\label{as.noise}
The noise affecting all data-points $\delta = \left( \delta_1 \, \dots \, \delta_D \right)$ is bounded in module by a known quantity $\bar{\delta } \geq |\delta|$, $\bar{\delta} \in \mathbb{R}^D_{\geq0}$.
\end{assumption}
The approach of kernel machines is employed to learn the unknown dynamics from the available dataset. Next, we recall the basics of such theory, see \cite{schlkopf2018learning} for a more complete coverage of the topic. A kernel is any real-valued symmetric positive-semidefinite function $k: \mathcal{Z} \times \mathcal{Z} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$. Each kernel defines a reproducing kernel Hilbert space $\mathcal{H} \subset \mathbb{R}^{\mathcal{Z}}$, where $\forall z \in \mathcal{Z}$ we have that $k(z,\cdot) \in \mathcal{H}$. Computing the inner-product between a map $h \in \mathcal{H}$ and a partially evaluated kernel $k(z,\cdot)$ is equivalent to assessing the value of $h$ at $z$, i.e., $\langle h,k(z,\cdot) \rangle_\mathcal{H} = h(z)$, which is known as the reproducing property. Members $f$ of $\mathcal{H}$ can be seen as linear combinations of partially evaluated kernel functions since $\mathcal{H}$ is the closure of $\text{span}(k(z,\cdot)), \forall z \in \mathcal{Z}$ with respect to the induced metric. The norm in the $\mathcal{H}$ space is defined as $\hnorm{h} = \sqrt{\hinner{h,h}}$.
For convenience, we define $Z$ as the collection of all dataset inputs $z_d$, and $y$ as the collection of all targets $y_d$. Also, let $K \in \mathbb{R}^{D \times D}$ be the constant matrix of kernel evaluations at $Z$, i.e., $k(z_i,z_j)$ at its i-th row and j-th column, and let $K_{Zz} : \mathcal{Z} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^D$ denote the column vector \textit{function} $z \mapsto \left(k(z_1,z), \dots, k(z_D,z)\right)^\top$ and $K_{zZ}$ simply represents its transpose. Finally, the so-called power function is a non-negative map $P:\mathcal{Z}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ defined as
\begin{equation}
P(z) = \sqrt{k(z,z) - K_{zZ}K^{-1}K_{Zz}}
\end{equation}
and evaluates to zero for all $z_d$ in the dataset \citep[Sec. 11.1]{wendland2004}. Note the similarity between the power function $P(z)$ and the posterior variance of a Gaussian process.
The estimate $\hat f$ is built by minimizing a combination of the mean-squared error and a regularization term to penalize complexity, i.e., the kernel ridge regression (KRR) cost
\begin{equation}
\hat f = \argmin_{h \in \mathcal{H}} \left \{ \frac{1}{D} \sum_{(z,y) \in \, \mathbb{D}} \, (h(z) - y)^2 + \lambda \, \hnorm{h}^2 \right \}.
\end{equation}
According to the well-known representer theorem \citep{schlkopf2018learning}, out of all possible maps $h \in \mathcal{H}$, a minimizer exists and is given by a weighted sum of kernels centered at the input locations $Z$. The problem above is therefore equivalent to a finite-dimensional quadratic program whose closed-form solution, our nominal model, is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.KRR}
\hat f = K_{zZ} \, (K+D\lambda I)^{-1} y
\end{equation}
\begin{myRemark}
\normalfont Note that the map described by \eqref{eq.KRR} has the same form as a Gaussian process posterior distribution conditioned on the data, that is, its predictive mean. Indeed, if $\sigma$ is the noise variance in the GP scenario and $\lambda$ is selected as $\sigma^2 / D$, the two models are exactly the same. The reader is referred to \cite[\textsection~6.1]{williams2006gaussian} for a discussion on the existing connections.
\end{myRemark}
\begin{assumption}
\label{as.kernel}
The chosen kernel $k(\cdot, \cdot)$ is a \textit{strictly} positive-definite function.
\end{assumption}
\begin{assumption}
\label{as.ground}
The unknown dynamics $f$ are contained in the RKHS of the chosen kernel $k(\cdot,\cdot)$, and an upper bound for its norm is available $\Gamma \geq \hnorm{f}$.
\end{assumption}
The two conditions above are central to the development of the control strategy safety guarantees. Assumption~\ref{as.kernel} can be satisfied by selecting an appropriate kernel function such as the squared-exponential or the inverse multiquadrics. Assumption~\ref{as.ground} encapsulates our knowledge about the complexity of the unknown ground-truth: intuitively, the more kernel basis functions are needed to describe it, the larger the associated norm. The same piece of information is required in the works \cite{koller2018learning,hashimoto2020learning} as well as in various other recent papers. In \cite{maddalena2020deterministic}, an example is provided on how $\Gamma$ could be estimated from noiseless samples of the latent function, and how this estimation process is affected by the presence of bounded noise. As shown in the latter work, finite-sample deterministic error bounds exist for KRR models.
\begin{theorem}[{\normalfont \cite{maddalena2020deterministic}}]
Let $K$ be the kernel matrix, $D$ be the number of data-points, $\bar{\delta} \in \mathbb{R}^D_{\geq0}$ the noise bound, and $\lambda > 0$ be the regularization constant. Under Assumptions~\ref{as.pairwise} to \ref{as.ground}, the KRR model $\hat f$ admits the following prediction error bound for any $z \in \mathcal{Z}$
\begin{equation}
\left|\hat{f}(z)-f(z)\right| \leq \, P(z) \sqrt{ \Gamma^2 + \Delta - y^\top K^{-1} y} \, + \bar{\delta}^\top \, \vert K^{-1}K_{Zz} \vert + \left| \, y^\top \left(K + \frac{1}{D \lambda} \, KK \right)^{-1} K_{Zz}\right|
\label{eq.boundKRR}
\end{equation}
where $f$ is the unknown ground-truth and $\Delta = \max \{- \delta^\top K^{-1} \delta$ $+2 y ^\top K^{-1} \delta \}$ subject to $|\delta| \leq \bar{\delta}$.
\label{th.mainOne}
\end{theorem}
Notice that the bound above can be easily evaluated, and the only term that is not given in closed-form is the constant $\Delta$--- which requires solving a box-constrained quadratic program over $D$ variables. This quantity is independent of the query point $z$ and compensates for a possible underestimation of the model complexity caused by the noise \citep[Lemma~1]{maddalena2020deterministic}. If one wishes not to solve such an optimization problem, then the entire square-root term could be replaced by $\Gamma$ at the expense of increasing the bound conservativeness. The term $\bar{\delta}^\top \, \vert K^{-1}K_{Zz} \vert$ accounts for the potentially adversarial nature of $\delta$ and, finally, the last term penalizes the use of high regularization constants $\lambda$. For a stable numerical evaluation of \eqref{eq.boundKRR}, a small diagonal \textit{jitter} has to be added to the Gram matrix as customary in the field of Gaussian processes \citep{bauer2016understanding}.
\begin{myRemark}
\normalfont
When compared to the GP bounds presented in \cite{srinivas2012information}, the result given in Theorem~\ref{th.mainOne} does not involve information-theoretic measures such as the maximal information gain. The need of estimating such constant hampers the applicability of the former bounds in practical scenarios (see the discussion in \cite{lederer2019uniform}). When compared to the results in \cite[Lemma~2]{hashimoto2020learning}, the inequality \eqref{eq.boundKRR} tends to give rise to tighter bounds as shown in \cite{maddalena2020deterministic}; nevertheless, the latter are more unstable at the extremes of the input space. In order to avoid this effect, data have to ideally fill the ground-truth domain while still being well-separated. In the approximation theory community, this interplay between precision and stability is known as the uncertainty principle \citep{wendland2004}.
\end{myRemark}
\section{Kernel Predictive Control}
\label{sec.KPC}
One possible approach to tackling our problem is to build a single-step surrogate model for the latent function and employ uncertainty propagation techniques to perform multi-step ahead predictions. Propagating sets through general non-linear maps is challenging and usually involves several overbouding steps \citep{koller2018learning}. Therefore, we opt for learning various condensed models, one for each of the $N$ prediction steps. Let $F_1: \mathbb{X} \times \mathbb{U} \rightarrow \mathbb{X}$ be the one-step ahead predictor in which each dimension in learned separately by KRR models $\hat f_1, \dots, \hat f_{n_x}$
\begin{equation}
(x_0,u_0) \mapsto F_1(x_0,u_0) = \left( \hat{f}_1(x_0,u_0), \dots, \hat{f}_{n_x}(x_0,u_0)\right)
\end{equation}
Define $F_2$ as $(x_0,u_0,u_1) \mapsto F_2(x_0,u_0,u_1) = \left( \hat{f}_1(x_0,u_0,u_1), \dots, \hat{f}_{n_x}(x_0,u_0,u_1)\right)$, the two-step ahead model, and $F_3,\dots,F_N$ analogously. Robust \textit{confidence sets} are then built around our nominal predictions. Let $\mathcal{X}_1: \mathbb{X} \times \mathbb{U}: \rightarrow 2^{\mathbb{X}}$ be a set-valued function defined as the hyper-rectangle
\begin{equation}
(x_0,u_0) \mapsto \mathcal{X}_1(x_0,u_0) = \left(\hat{f}_{1}(x_0,u_0) \pm \beta_1(x_0,u_0), \, \dots, \, \hat{f}_{n_x}(x_0,u_0) \pm \beta_{n_x}(x_0,u_0) \right)
\label{eq.setValued}
\end{equation}
where $\beta(x,u)$ denotes the right-hand side of the inequality \eqref{eq.boundKRR}, and $a \pm b$ refers to the set $\{c \, | \, a-b \leq c \leq a+b\}$. Similarly, define also the maps $\mathcal{X}_2,\dots\mathcal{X}_N$, which share the same domain respectively with $F_2,\dots,F_N$. As a direct consequence of Theorem~\ref{th.mainOne}, we have that
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{X}_1(x_0,u_0) &\ni f(x_0,u_0) \\
\mathcal{X}_2(x_0,u_0,u_1) &\ni f(f(x_0,u_0),u_1) \\
& \dots \\
\mathcal{X}_N(x_0,u_0,u_1,\dots,u_{N-1}) &\ni f(\dots f(f(x_0,u_0),u_1),\dots,u_{N-1}).
\end{aligned}
\label{eq.setValueds}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[b!
\floatconts
{fig:example
{\vspace{-18pt} \caption{A schematic representation of the outcome of each model. Nominal predictions $F_t$ (\textbf{|}), confidence sets $\mathcal{X}_t$ (\textbf{- -}), and the unknown ground-truth $f$ (\textcolor{kindagray}{\textbf{|}}). All functions also depend on the chosen control sequence, which is omitted for clarity.}
{\includegraphics[width=0.78\textwidth]{pics/maps2}}
\end{figure}
\begin{myRemark}
\normalfont
Training the associated kernel models requires various $N$-step experiments to be performed rather than simply having one-step ones. For instance, the model $F_N$ requires multiple tuples $(x_0,u_0,\dots,u_{N-1})$ as features and (possibly noisy) measurements of the resulting states $x_N$ as targets. We highlight that long sequences of linked states, i.e., long experiments, are preferred over various short ones even in classical parametric system identification \citep{lennart1999system}.
\end{myRemark}
Let $x_0$ be a \textit{given} initial condition for the true dynamical system \eqref{eq.groundTruth}. Our Kernel Predictive Control formulation is expressed as the finite-horizon optimal control problem
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\text{KPC}: \; \min_{X,U} & \quad \sum_{t=0}^{N-1} \ell (x_t,u_t) + \ell_f (x_N) \\
\text{s.t.} & \quad x_{t} = F_{t}(x_0,u_0,\dots,u_{t-1}), \, \forall t \label{eq.KPCnominal} \\
& \quad \mathcal{X}_t(x_0,u_0,\dots,u_{t-1}) \subseteq \mathbb{X}, \; \forall t \hspace{2cm} \label{eq.setContrs1} \\
& \quad \mathcal{X}_N(x_0,u_0,\dots,u_{N-1}) \subseteq \mathbb{X}_{\text{safe}} \label{eq.setContrs2} \\
& \quad u_t \in \mathbb{U}, \, \forall t
\end{align}
\label{eq.optControlProb}%
\end{subequations}
where $X = (x_1,\dots,x_N)$, $U = (u_0,\dots,u_{N-1})$ are the decision variables, and $\ell(x,u)$ and $\ell_f(x)$ are appropriately designed stage and final costs. In a receding-horizon implementation, KPC is solved recursively and only the first optimal control inputs are applied to the system.
\begin{myProposition}
Let the \emph{KPC} problem \eqref{eq.optControlProb} be feasible and $(X^\star,U^\star)$ be any of its feasible solutions. The sequence of inputs $U^\star = (u_0^\star, \dots, u_{N-1}^\star)$ drives the true system \eqref{eq.groundTruth} from $x_0$ to the safe set $\mathbb{X}_{\text{safe}}$ while satisfying the constraints at all times, i.e., $f(x_0,u_0^\star), \, f(f(x_0,u_0^\star),u_1^\star), \dots \, \in \mathbb{X}$, and $f(\dots f(f(x_0,u_0^\star),u_1^\star),\dots,u_{N-1}^\star) \in \mathbb{X}_{\text{safe}}$.
\label{prop1}
\end{myProposition}
\noindent \textbf{Proof:} Follows from the definition of the sets \eqref{eq.setValued}, the validity of the deterministic bounds \eqref{eq.boundKRR}, and the imposed constraints \eqref{eq.setContrs1} and \eqref{eq.setContrs2}.
\bigbreak
The KPC constraints \eqref{eq.setContrs1} and \eqref{eq.setContrs2} are set inclusions that need to be reformulated to allow for numerical computations. In what follows, we employ a coordinate transformation and exploit the closed-form solution of the obtained hyper-cube support function. Let $H_i$ and $h_i$ be the parameters of the $i$th half-space of $\mathbb{X}$ and consider the condition $\mathcal{X}_t \subseteq \mathbb{X}$, where the arguments of $\mathcal{X}_t$ are omitted to ease notation. This constraint is satisfied if for each one of the half-spaces $g_i(x) \leq 0$ that describe the polyhedron $\mathbb{X}$ it holds that
\begin{align}
& \forall x \in \mathcal{X}_t: \, g_i(x) \leq 0 \ \\[3pt]
%
\Leftrightarrow \, & \max \{ g_i(x) \, | \, x \in \mathcal{X}_t \} \, \leq 0 \\[3pt]
%
\Leftrightarrow \, & \max \{ H_i^\top \, x - h_i \, | \, \vert x - F_t \vert \leq \mathcal{B}_t \} \, \leq 0 \label{eq.constr} \\[3pt]
%
%
\Leftrightarrow \, & \max \{ H_i^\top \, (B_t \, x+F_t) - h_i \, | \, \Vert x \Vert_\infty \leq 1 \} \, \leq 0 \label{eq.withInfNorm} \\[3pt]
%
\Leftrightarrow \, & \, \Vert H_i^\top B_t \Vert_1 + H_i^\top F_t - h_i \, \leq 0 \label{eq.withOneNorm}
%
\end{align}
where $F_t$ and $\mathcal{B}_t = (\beta_1,\dots,\beta_{n_x})^\top \in \mathbb{R}^{n_x}$ are the parameters of the confidence set $\mathcal{X}_t$ (see \eqref{eq.setValued}), and $B_t = \text{diag}\left( \beta_1,\dots,\beta_{n_x} \right) \in \mathbb{R}^{n_x \times n_x}$. Lastly, the one-norm can be eliminated from \eqref{eq.withOneNorm} by introducing new auxiliary variables and inequality constraints, a standard linear programming procedure.
\begin{myRemark}
\normalfont
The maximization in \eqref{eq.constr} could also be directly converted into its dual form without the reformulation \eqref{eq.withInfNorm}. Although this would not introduce any conservatism, additional decision variables would be created along with \textit{nonlinear equality constraints}, thus significantly increasing the KPC formulation complexity. The approach adopted above is both economic and exact.
\end{myRemark}
After converting the set constraints \eqref{eq.setContrs1} and \eqref{eq.setContrs2} into the form \eqref{eq.withOneNorm}, one obtains
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\; \min_{X,U} & \quad \sum_{t=0}^{N-1} \ell (x_t,u_t) + \ell_f (x_N) \\[3pt]
\text{s.t.} & \quad x_{t} = F_{t}(x_0,u_0,\dots,u_{t-1}), \, \forall t \\[3pt]
%
& \quad \Vert H_i^\top B_t(x_0,u_0,\dots,u_{t-1}) \Vert_1 \, + H_i^\top F_t(x_0,u_0,\dots,u_{t-1}) - h_i \, \leq 0, \, \forall i, \forall t \label{in.runing} \\[3pt]
& \quad \Vert Q_i^\top B_N(x_0,u_0,\dots,u_{N-1}) \Vert_1 \, + Q_i^\top F_N(x_0,u_0,\dots,u_{N-1}) - q_i \, \leq 0, \, \forall i \label{in.last} \\[3pt]
& \quad S \, u_t \leq s, \, \forall t
\end{align}
\label{eq.KPC2}
\end{subequations}
in which $H_i, Q_i \in \mathbb{R}^{n_x}$, $h_i, q_i \in \mathbb{R}$ for all $i$, $S \in \mathbb{R}^{n_\mathbb{U} \times n_u}$ and $s \in \mathbb{R}^{n_\mathbb{U}}$. Finally, if a solution to \eqref{eq.KPC2} is found, the true system can be steered to $\mathbb{X}_{\text{safe}}$ in open-loop; however, this feasibility does not guarantee that future iterations of the same problem will also be feasible.
\subsection{A Safe Relaxation Strategy}
Next we propose a safe relaxation strategy (SRS) that can be used to weaken the optimization problem constraints \eqref{in.runing}-\eqref{in.last} whenever data from previous KPC iterations are available.
\begin{myProposition}
Assume that the $N-1$ previous consecutive \emph{KPC} iterations were feasible. Denote by $(u_{-N+1}, \dots, u_{-1})$ and $(x_{-N+1}, \dots, x_{-1})$ the closed-loop sequences of past controls and states, and by $x_0$ the current state. Let \emph{KPC}$^+$ be the \emph{KPC} optimization problem \eqref{eq.optControlProb} with set constraints $\mathcal{X}_1(x_0,u_0) \subseteq \mathbb{X}$, $\mathcal{X}_2(x_0,u_0,u_1) \subseteq \mathbb{X}$, $\dots$, $\mathcal{X}_{N-1}(x_0,u_0,\dots,u_{N-2}) \subseteq \mathbb{X}$ relaxed to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.SRS}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{X}_1(x_0,u_0) &\cap \left( \, \bigcap_{i = 2}^{N} \mathcal{X}_{i} \, (x_{-i+1},u_{-i+1},\dots,u_{-1},u_0) \right) \subseteq \mathbb{X}, \\
\mathcal{X}_2(x_0,u_0,u_{1}) &\cap \left( \, \bigcap_{i=3}^N \mathcal{X}_{i} \, (x_{-i+2},u_{-i+2},\dots,u_{-1},u_0,u_1) \right) \subseteq \mathbb{X}, \ \dots
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Let \emph{KPC}$^+$ be feasible and $(X^\star,U^\star)$ be any of its feasible solutions. Then, $U^\star = (u_0^\star, \dots, u_{N-1}^\star)$ drives the true system \eqref{eq.groundTruth} from $x_0$ to the safe set $\mathbb{X}_{\text{safe}}$ while satisfying the constraints at all times, i.e., $f(x_0,u_0^\star), \, f(f(x_0,u_0^\star),u_1^\star), \dots \, \in \mathbb{X}$, and $f(\dots f(f(x_0,u_0^\star),u_1^\star),\dots,u_{N-1}^\star) \in \mathbb{X}_{\text{safe}}$.
\label{prop.SRS}
\end{myProposition}
\noindent \textbf{Proof:}
From construction, we know that $\mathcal{X}_t (x_0,u_0^\star,\dots,u_{t-1}^\star) \ni f(\dots f(f(x_0,u_0^\star),\dots),u_{t-1}^\star)$ for any $t$. If the previous KPC iteration was feasible, then also $\mathcal{X}_{t+1} (x_{-1},u_{-1},u_0^\star,\dots,u_{t-1}^\star)$ contains the same point, where $x_{-1}$ and $u_{-1}$ are past closed-loop data. Considering a total of $N-1$ previous consecutive feasible KPC iterations yields a total of $N$ set conditions for $f(x_0,u_0^\star)$, $N-1$ set conditions for $f(x_0,u_0^\star,u_1^\star)$, $\dots$, and $1$ set condition for $f(\dots f(f(x_0,u_0^\star),u_1^\star),\dots,u_{N-1}^\star)$. At any time $t=1,\dots,N$, the true system state is therefore contained in the intersection of the associated sets and, hence, enforcing the relaxed constraints suffices to enforce constraint satisfaction.
\bigbreak
The KPC formulation \eqref{eq.optControlProb} does not guarantee recursive feasibility due to the use of several distinct models. Nevertheless, previous successful iterations can contribute to the feasibility of future KPC problems through the stated SRS. More specifically, the closed-loop data of up to $N-1$ past steps\footnote{If only $M<N-1$ previous iterations were feasible, \eqref{eq.SRS} can be adapted to have less set intersections.} can be used to reduce the uncertainty regarding the location of true next states \textit{without updating the} KRR \textit{nominal models}. We highlight that the last constraint $x_N \in \mathbb{X}_{\text{safe}}$ is not relaxed by Proposition~\ref{prop.SRS}, but remains unchanged.
\section{Experiments}
We illustrate the use of KPC, implemented in a receding-horizon fashion, in two different scenarios. The optimization problems were formulated with the aid of CasADi \citep{CASADI}, the Multi-Parametric Toolbox \citep{MPT}, and solved with IPOPT \footnote{Additional details about the simulations are available at \texttt{https://github.com/emilioMaddalena/KPC.}}.
\textbf{Example 1:} Consider a continuous stirred-tank reactor (CSTR) whose continuous-time dynamics are given by the differential equations
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\dot c_A(t) &= u(t) (c_{A0}-c_A(t)) - \rho_1 c_A(t) - \rho_3 \, c_A(t)^2 \\
\dot c_B(t) &= -u(t) \, c_B(t) + \rho_1 c_A(t) - \rho_2 \, c_B(t)^2
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $c_A$ and $c_B$ denote respectively the concentrations of cyclopentadiene and cyclopentenol, and $u$ represents the feed inflow of cyclopentadiene. We assume that the reactor temperature is constant and simulate the dynamics with the parameter values: $\rho_1 = \rho_2 = 4.1 \times 10^{-3}\text{ h}^{-1}, \rho_3 = 6.3 \times 10^{-4}\text{ h}^{-1}, c_{A0} = 5.1 \text{ mol/l}$. The constraint sets are $\mathbb{X} = \{x \in \mathbb{R}^2 \, | \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0.5 \end{pmatrix}^\top \leq x \leq \begin{pmatrix} 3 & 2 \end{pmatrix}^\top \}$, $\mathbb{U} = \{u \in \mathbb{R} \, | \, 3 \leq u \leq 35 \}$, and the safe set is the singleton $\mathbb{X}_{\text{safe}} = \{x_{\text{eq}}\}, x_{\text{eq}} = \begin{pmatrix} 2.14 & 1.09 \end{pmatrix}^\top$ with $u_{\text{eq}} = 14.19$. The sampling period is $30$ seconds and the prediction horizon was chosen to be $N=3$. Three distinct random datasets were collected with $300$, $400$ and $500$ points respectively for the one-step, two-step and three-step ahead predictors. The noise affecting our samples was drawn randomly with uniform bound $ 1 \times 10 ^{-3}$. Squared-exponential kernels were chosen and their hyperparameters were adjusted until good fits were obtained; specifically, the lengthscales were set to larger values when dealing with higher-dimensional feature spaces. The exact regressor norms were calculated and an augmentation factor of $150\%$ was used to obtain estimates $\Gamma$. This latter step accounts for the ground-truth complexity in unexplored regions of the space. Finally, standard quadratic stage and terminal costs were employed with positive definite weight matrices.
As is customary in practical non-linear optimal control, the terminal constraint was dropped and only a terminal penalty was employed. The system evolution starting from various initial conditions is shown in Figure~\ref{fig.CSTR}. The closed-loop trajectories (shown on the left) converged to a neighborhood of $x_S$, while all predictions and confidence sets (shown on the right) remained inside the feasible set $\mathbb{X}$ at all time-instants. It is also possible to note how predicting further into the future is more challenging as the lengths of the boxes tended to be larger at the end of the prediction horizon.
\begin{figure}[t]
\floatconts
{fig:example
{\vspace{-20pt} \caption{Left: Closed-loop system trajectories starting from different initial conditions. Right: KPC open-loop nominal predictions and uncertainty sets during all time-instants and starting from different initial conditions.}
{\includegraphics[scale=0.27]{pics/fig1a}
\hspace{1pt} \includegraphics[scale=0.27]{pics/fig1b}}
\label{fig.CSTR}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\floatconts
{fig:example
{\vspace{-20pt} \caption{Left: Nominal kernel-MPC predictions (\textcolor{bordeaux}{\textbf{- -}}) and closed-loop trajectory (\textcolor{bordeaux}{\textbf{|}}). Center: KPC predictions (\textcolor{ripeOrange}{\textbf{- -}}) and closed-loop trajectory (\textcolor{ripeOrange}{\textbf{|}}). Right: KPC full open-loop predictions, confidence intervals (\textcolor{azzurro}{\textbf{|}}) as error bars, and initial points depicted as circular markers. The nominal kernel-MPC predictions satisfy the constraints, but the real system violates them. KPC leads to a safe operation without constraint violations.}
{\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{pics/fig2a}
\hspace{1pt} \includegraphics[scale=0.28]{pics/fig2b}
\hspace{1pt} \includegraphics[scale=0.28]{pics/fig2c}}
\label{fig.PENDULUM}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Example 2:} The continuous-time angular dynamics of a pendulum with a rigid rod can be described by $\dot x_1 = x_2$, $\dot x_2 = (g/l)\sin(x_1) - (\nu/(ml^2)) x_2 + (1/(m l^2)) u$, where $x_1$ is its angular position, $x_2$ its angular velocity, and $u$ the torque applied to it. The parameters are: $m = 0.15$ the mass of the pendulum, $l = 0.5$ the length of the rod, $g = 9.81$ the gravitational constant, and $\nu = 0.1$ a constant for the friction model. Let the constraints be $\vert x_1 \vert \leq 3$, $\vert x_2 \vert \leq 1$, and the input be limited to $\vert u \vert \leq 1$. We selected a prediction horizon of $N=4$ and collected $D=100$ uniformly random data-points for each of the eight regression tasks. The noise was drawn randomly from a uniform distribution with bound $\bar \delta = 0.01 \, \textbf{1}$, where $\textbf{1} \in \mathbb{R}^D$ is a vector of ones. Similarly to the previous example, we used a squared-exponential kernel with increasing lengthscales and employed an augmentation factor of $300\%$ on the nominal predictor norms to estimate the $\Gamma$ constants. The sampling and control period was $0.2$~seconds. We compared KPC against \textit{nominal} kernel-MPC, i.e., a certainty equivalence approach where the state-constraints were imposed directly on the nominal predictions \eqref{eq.KPCnominal}. In the latter case, uncertainty was not quantified and the confidence sets were not present. The cost used in both formulations was a positive definite function of the states and control inputs, and included a terminal penalty term.
Predictions and the system angular velocity evolution from two different initial conditions are shown in Figure~\ref{fig.PENDULUM}. As can be seen from the plots, imposing the state-constraints on the nominal model predictions was not sufficient to guarantee safety as the closed-loop system behavior violated the $x_2 \geq -1$ restriction. On the other hand, since KPC quantified and incorporated the associated uncertainty into the optimization problems, the constraints were satisfied. The error bars on the right plot show the all predictions and uncertainty values at each step in the form of error bars. Note that the safety constraints were active at multiple points in time.
\section{Concluding Remarks}
KPC was proposed as a predictive control methodology based on non-parametric kernel models and their associated uncertainty estimates. Its key feature is deterministic constraint satisfaction when a solution to the optimization problem is found. From an approximation theory perspective, future works could study the advantages of employing SVR surrogate models over KRR ones, as well as refining the existing error-bounds, which we believe to be possible. Establishing conditions under which KPC would enjoy additional closed-loop properties such as convergence is deemed as interesting and could guide practical real-world applications of the proposed control scheme.
\acks{This work received support from the Swiss National Science Foundation under the Risk Aware Data-Driven Demand Response project (grant number 200021 175627) and CSEM's Data Program.}
\section{Introduction}
Safety is the number one requirement for any system that operates under physical constraints. For decades, this has been a major concern when control systems incorporate forms of adaptation or learning \citep{anderson2005failures,garcia2015comprehensive,hewing2020learning,wabersich2020performance}. A considerable body of literature exists establishing stability and performance guarantees in scenarios of \textit{parametric} plant-model mismatch (see \cite{lorenzen2019robust, tanaskovic2019adaptive,bujarbaruah2020exploiting} for some recent works in this direction). Depending on the final application however, assuming that the exact model structure is available might be unrealistic due to the complex physics behind the system at hand, or to the time-monetary costs associated with the modeling process.
A compelling alternative to the paradigm described above is the use of non-parametric models. These form a flexible class of surrogate functions whose number of parameters grows with the cardinality of the dataset. Relevant examples for the control community include the Nonlinear Set Memebership (NSM) \citep{milanese2004set,maddalena2020nsm} and the Kinky Inference (KI) \citep{calliess2020lazily,manzano2020robust} techniques. Due to the ease of incorporating prior expert knowledge and the inherent uncertainty quantification associated with them, Gaussian processes (GPs) have recently become a popular modeling tool for dynamical systems \cite{capone2020localized,matschek2020learningA,arcari2020meta,umlauft2020learning,shukla2020convergence,yingzhao2020gaussian}. Such function approximators are typically paired with appropriate Model Predictive Control (MPC) schemes that not only take into account the latent function estimate, but also the model variance to act with care in highly uncertain regions of the space (see \cite{koller2018learning,hewing2019cautious} for two examples, and \cite{beckers2019stable} for an exception to this trend).
As opposed to Gaussian processes, kernel ridge regression (KRR) and support vector regression (SVR) are deterministic non-parametric tools. These models have the same form of a GP predictive mean: a weighted sum of kernel basis functions. Moreover, with an appropriate choice of regularization constant, a KRR model matches exactly a GP posterior \citep{kanagawa2018gaussian}. Connections between the stochastic and the deterministic frameworks are profound and have been long known \citep{kimeldorf1970correspondence}. Uncertainty can be quantified in the KRR and SVR cases by considering all maps belonging to their underlying reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS) of functions. The RKHSs associated to various kernels, including the widely used squared-exponential, are dense in the space of continuous functions with compact domains \citep{micchelli2006universal}.
\textbf{Our contribution:} We propose in this paper a predictive control strategy based on non-parametric kernel regression that incorporates deterministic guarantees of safety. Samples from the unknown ground-truth dynamics are used to construct one-step and multi-step ahead models, with an appropriate state-dependent uncertainty quantification obtained from recently derived error-bounds \citep{maddalena2020deterministic}. The available dataset can be contaminated by noise, which is only assumed to be bounded, but otherwise drawn from any distribution. An efficient robust optimization formulation is derived to enforce state-constraint satisfaction. We then present a relaxation strategy that exploits on-line information to alleviate the problem constraints while preserving safety. Two numerical examples are provided and we discuss scalability issues to large datasets.
\section{Problem Definition}
We consider a discrete-time nonlinear system of the form
\begin{equation}
x_{t+1} = f(x_t, u_t)
\label{eq.groundTruth}
\end{equation}
with time $t \in \mathbb{N}$, states $x_t \in \mathbb{R}^{n_x}$, inputs $u_t \in \mathbb{R}^{n_u}$, and \textit{unknown}\footnote{If a partial model for the latent function is available, the learning task is simply performed on the error dynamics.} transition map $f: \mathbb{R}^{n_x} \times \mathbb{R}^{n_u} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n_x}$. Hard constraints $x_t \in \mathbb{X} = \{x \, | \, g_i(x) \leq 0, i=1,\dots,n_{\mathbb{X}}\}$ and $u_t \in \mathbb{U} = \{u \, | \, s_i(u) \leq 0, i=1,\dots,n_{\mathbb{U}}\}$ are imposed for all $t \in \mathbb{N}$, where $\mathbb{X}$ and $\mathbb{U}$ are polyhedra. More general compact sets could also be considered herein, but the geometric assumptions posed on $\mathbb{X}$ and $\mathbb{U}$ will later allow for an efficient robust reformulation as detailed in Section~\ref{sec.KPC}. Given a \textit{safe subset} of the state space
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{X}_{\text{safe}} \subseteq \mathbb{X}
\end{equation}
our goal is to drive the dynamical system \eqref{eq.groundTruth} from a specified initial condition $x_0$ to the set $\mathbb{X}_{\text{safe}}$ while satisfying all constraints. Similarly to \cite{koller2018learning}, we also assume that a local policy $\pi_{\text{safe}}:\mathbb{X}_{\text{safe}} \rightarrow \mathbb{U}$ is available, making $\mathbb{X}_{\text{safe}}$ forward invariant, i.e., $\forall x_t \in \mathbb{X}_{\text{safe}}: \, f(x_t,\pi_{\text{safe}}(x_t)) \in \mathbb{X}_{\text{safe}}, \pi_{\text{safe}}(x_t) \in \mathbb{U}$. A frequent instance of this problem is the regulation to a specific fixed point, in which $\mathbb{X}_{\text{safe}} = \{x_{\text{eq}}\}$ and $\pi(x_{eq}) = u_{eq}$ is the equilibrium control constant. In order to accomplish our task, we make use of noise-corrupted measurements of our unknown ground-truth and the formalism of non-parametric kernel learning are described next.
\section{Non-Parametric Kernel Learning}
In this section only, we consider $n_x = 1$ simply to avoid using a cumbersome notation; for $n_x > 1$, each output component of $f$ has to be considered separately. Moreover, the shorthand notation $f(x,u) = f(z)$ is used. Suppose the map $f$ is unknown, but a collection of $D$ measurement pairs is available to reconstruct it
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{D} = \{(z_d, y_d) \}_{d=1}^{D} \quad \text{where} \quad y_d = f(z_d) + \delta_d
\end{equation}
We make the following two assumptions on our dataset and on the observational model.
\begin{assumption}
\label{as.pairwise}
The data locations $z_1, \dots, z_D$ are pairwise distinct.
\end{assumption}
\begin{assumption}
\label{as.noise}
The noise affecting all data-points $\delta = \left( \delta_1 \, \dots \, \delta_D \right)$ is bounded in module by a known quantity $\bar{\delta } \geq |\delta|$, $\bar{\delta} \in \mathbb{R}^D_{\geq0}$.
\end{assumption}
The approach of kernel machines is employed to learn the unknown dynamics from the available dataset. Next, we recall the basics of such theory, see \cite{schlkopf2018learning} for a more complete coverage of the topic. A kernel is any real-valued symmetric positive-semidefinite function $k: \mathcal{Z} \times \mathcal{Z} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$. Each kernel defines a reproducing kernel Hilbert space $\mathcal{H} \subset \mathbb{R}^{\mathcal{Z}}$, where $\forall z \in \mathcal{Z}$ we have that $k(z,\cdot) \in \mathcal{H}$. Computing the inner-product between a map $h \in \mathcal{H}$ and a partially evaluated kernel $k(z,\cdot)$ is equivalent to assessing the value of $h$ at $z$, i.e., $\langle h,k(z,\cdot) \rangle_\mathcal{H} = h(z)$, which is known as the reproducing property. Members $f$ of $\mathcal{H}$ can be seen as linear combinations of partially evaluated kernel functions since $\mathcal{H}$ is the closure of $\text{span}(k(z,\cdot)), \forall z \in \mathcal{Z}$ with respect to the induced metric. The norm in the $\mathcal{H}$ space is defined as $\hnorm{h} = \sqrt{\hinner{h,h}}$.
For convenience, we define $Z$ as the collection of all dataset inputs $z_d$, and $y$ as the collection of all targets $y_d$. Also, let $K \in \mathbb{R}^{D \times D}$ be the constant matrix of kernel evaluations at $Z$, i.e., $k(z_i,z_j)$ at its i-th row and j-th column, and let $K_{Zz} : \mathcal{Z} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^D$ denote the column vector \textit{function} $z \mapsto \left(k(z_1,z), \dots, k(z_D,z)\right)^\top$ and $K_{zZ}$ simply represents its transpose. Finally, the so-called power function is a non-negative map $P:\mathcal{Z}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ defined as
\begin{equation}
P(z) = \sqrt{k(z,z) - K_{zZ}K^{-1}K_{Zz}}
\end{equation}
and evaluates to zero for all $z_d$ in the dataset \citep[Sec. 11.1]{wendland2004}. Note the similarity between the power function $P(z)$ and the posterior variance of a Gaussian process.
The estimate $\hat f$ is built by minimizing a combination of the mean-squared error and a regularization term to penalize complexity, i.e., the kernel ridge regression (KRR) cost
\begin{equation}
\hat f = \argmin_{h \in \mathcal{H}} \left \{ \frac{1}{D} \sum_{(z,y) \in \, \mathbb{D}} \, (h(z) - y)^2 + \lambda \, \hnorm{h}^2 \right \}.
\end{equation}
According to the well-known representer theorem \citep{schlkopf2018learning}, out of all possible maps $h \in \mathcal{H}$, a minimizer exists and is given by a weighted sum of kernels centered at the input locations $Z$. The problem above is therefore equivalent to a finite-dimensional quadratic program whose closed-form solution, our nominal model, is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.KRR}
\hat f = K_{zZ} \, (K+D\lambda I)^{-1} y
\end{equation}
\begin{myRemark}
\normalfont Note that the map described by \eqref{eq.KRR} has the same form as a Gaussian process posterior distribution conditioned on the data, that is, its predictive mean. Indeed, if $\sigma$ is the noise variance in the GP scenario and $\lambda$ is selected as $\sigma^2 / D$, the two models are exactly the same. The reader is referred to \cite[\textsection~6.1]{williams2006gaussian} for a discussion on the existing connections.
\end{myRemark}
\begin{assumption}
\label{as.kernel}
The chosen kernel $k(\cdot, \cdot)$ is a \textit{strictly} positive-definite function.
\end{assumption}
\begin{assumption}
\label{as.ground}
The unknown dynamics $f$ are contained in the RKHS of the chosen kernel $k(\cdot,\cdot)$, and an upper bound for its norm is available $\Gamma \geq \hnorm{f}$.
\end{assumption}
The two conditions above are central to the development of the control strategy safety guarantees. Assumption~\ref{as.kernel} can be satisfied by selecting an appropriate kernel function such as the squared-exponential or the inverse multiquadrics. Assumption~\ref{as.ground} encapsulates our knowledge about the complexity of the unknown ground-truth: intuitively, the more kernel basis functions are needed to describe it, the larger the associated norm. The same piece of information is required in the works \cite{koller2018learning,hashimoto2020learning} as well as in various other recent papers. In \cite{maddalena2020deterministic}, an example is provided on how $\Gamma$ could be estimated from noiseless samples of the latent function, and how this estimation process is affected by the presence of bounded noise. As shown in the latter work, finite-sample deterministic error bounds exist for KRR models.
\begin{theorem}[{\normalfont \cite{maddalena2020deterministic}}]
Let $K$ be the kernel matrix, $D$ be the number of data-points, $\bar{\delta} \in \mathbb{R}^D_{\geq0}$ the noise bound, and $\lambda > 0$ be the regularization constant. Under Assumptions~\ref{as.pairwise} to \ref{as.ground}, the KRR model $\hat f$ admits the following prediction error bound for any $z \in \mathcal{Z}$
\begin{equation}
\left|\hat{f}(z)-f(z)\right| \leq \, P(z) \sqrt{ \Gamma^2 + \Delta - y^\top K^{-1} y} \, + \bar{\delta}^\top \, \vert K^{-1}K_{Zz} \vert + \left| \, y^\top \left(K + \frac{1}{D \lambda} \, KK \right)^{-1} K_{Zz}\right|
\label{eq.boundKRR}
\end{equation}
where $f$ is the unknown ground-truth and $\Delta = \max \{- \delta^\top K^{-1} \delta$ $+2 y ^\top K^{-1} \delta \}$ subject to $|\delta| \leq \bar{\delta}$.
\label{th.mainOne}
\end{theorem}
Notice that the bound above can be easily evaluated, and the only term that is not given in closed-form is the constant $\Delta$--- which requires solving a box-constrained quadratic program over $D$ variables. This quantity is independent of the query point $z$ and compensates for a possible underestimation of the model complexity caused by the noise \citep[Lemma~1]{maddalena2020deterministic}. If one wishes not to solve such an optimization problem, then the entire square-root term could be replaced by $\Gamma$ at the expense of increasing the bound conservativeness. The term $\bar{\delta}^\top \, \vert K^{-1}K_{Zz} \vert$ accounts for the potentially adversarial nature of $\delta$ and, finally, the last term penalizes the use of high regularization constants $\lambda$. For a stable numerical evaluation of \eqref{eq.boundKRR}, a small diagonal \textit{jitter} has to be added to the Gram matrix as customary in the field of Gaussian processes \citep{bauer2016understanding}.
\begin{myRemark}
\normalfont
When compared to the GP bounds presented in \cite{srinivas2012information}, the result given in Theorem~\ref{th.mainOne} does not involve information-theoretic measures such as the maximal information gain. The need of estimating such constant hampers the applicability of the former bounds in practical scenarios (see the discussion in \cite{lederer2019uniform}). When compared to the results in \cite[Lemma~2]{hashimoto2020learning}, the inequality \eqref{eq.boundKRR} tends to give rise to tighter bounds as shown in \cite{maddalena2020deterministic}; nevertheless, the latter are more unstable at the extremes of the input space. In order to avoid this effect, data have to ideally fill the ground-truth domain while still being well-separated. In the approximation theory community, this interplay between precision and stability is known as the uncertainty principle \citep{wendland2004}.
\end{myRemark}
\section{Kernel Predictive Control}
\label{sec.KPC}
One possible approach to tackling our problem is to build a single-step surrogate model for the latent function and employ uncertainty propagation techniques to perform multi-step ahead predictions. Propagating sets through general non-linear maps is challenging and usually involves several overbouding steps \citep{koller2018learning}. Therefore, we opt for learning various condensed models, one for each of the $N$ prediction steps. Let $F_1: \mathbb{X} \times \mathbb{U} \rightarrow \mathbb{X}$ be the one-step ahead predictor in which each dimension in learned separately by KRR models $\hat f_1, \dots, \hat f_{n_x}$
\begin{equation}
(x_0,u_0) \mapsto F_1(x_0,u_0) = \left( \hat{f}_1(x_0,u_0), \dots, \hat{f}_{n_x}(x_0,u_0)\right)
\end{equation}
Define $F_2$ as $(x_0,u_0,u_1) \mapsto F_2(x_0,u_0,u_1) = \left( \hat{f}_1(x_0,u_0,u_1), \dots, \hat{f}_{n_x}(x_0,u_0,u_1)\right)$, the two-step ahead model, and $F_3,\dots,F_N$ analogously. Robust \textit{confidence sets} are then built around our nominal predictions. Let $\mathcal{X}_1: \mathbb{X} \times \mathbb{U}: \rightarrow 2^{\mathbb{X}}$ be a set-valued function defined as the hyper-rectangle
\begin{equation}
(x_0,u_0) \mapsto \mathcal{X}_1(x_0,u_0) = \left(\hat{f}_{1}(x_0,u_0) \pm \beta_1(x_0,u_0), \, \dots, \, \hat{f}_{n_x}(x_0,u_0) \pm \beta_{n_x}(x_0,u_0) \right)
\label{eq.setValued}
\end{equation}
where $\beta(x,u)$ denotes the right-hand side of the inequality \eqref{eq.boundKRR}, and $a \pm b$ refers to the set $\{c \, | \, a-b \leq c \leq a+b\}$. Similarly, define also the maps $\mathcal{X}_2,\dots\mathcal{X}_N$, which share the same domain respectively with $F_2,\dots,F_N$. As a direct consequence of Theorem~\ref{th.mainOne}, we have that
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{X}_1(x_0,u_0) &\ni f(x_0,u_0) \\
\mathcal{X}_2(x_0,u_0,u_1) &\ni f(f(x_0,u_0),u_1) \\
& \dots \\
\mathcal{X}_N(x_0,u_0,u_1,\dots,u_{N-1}) &\ni f(\dots f(f(x_0,u_0),u_1),\dots,u_{N-1}).
\end{aligned}
\label{eq.setValueds}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[b!
\floatconts
{fig:example
{\vspace{-18pt} \caption{A schematic representation of the outcome of each model. Nominal predictions $F_t$ (\textbf{|}), confidence sets $\mathcal{X}_t$ (\textbf{- -}), and the unknown ground-truth $f$ (\textcolor{kindagray}{\textbf{|}}). All functions also depend on the chosen control sequence, which is omitted for clarity.}
{\includegraphics[width=0.78\textwidth]{pics/maps2}}
\end{figure}
\begin{myRemark}
\normalfont
Training the associated kernel models requires various $N$-step experiments to be performed rather than simply having one-step ones. For instance, the model $F_N$ requires multiple tuples $(x_0,u_0,\dots,u_{N-1})$ as features and (possibly noisy) measurements of the resulting states $x_N$ as targets. We highlight that long sequences of linked states, i.e., long experiments, are preferred over various short ones even in classical parametric system identification \citep{lennart1999system}.
\end{myRemark}
Let $x_0$ be a \textit{given} initial condition for the true dynamical system \eqref{eq.groundTruth}. Our Kernel Predictive Control formulation is expressed as the finite-horizon optimal control problem
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\text{KPC}: \; \min_{X,U} & \quad \sum_{t=0}^{N-1} \ell (x_t,u_t) + \ell_f (x_N) \\
\text{s.t.} & \quad x_{t} = F_{t}(x_0,u_0,\dots,u_{t-1}), \, \forall t \label{eq.KPCnominal} \\
& \quad \mathcal{X}_t(x_0,u_0,\dots,u_{t-1}) \subseteq \mathbb{X}, \; \forall t \hspace{2cm} \label{eq.setContrs1} \\
& \quad \mathcal{X}_N(x_0,u_0,\dots,u_{N-1}) \subseteq \mathbb{X}_{\text{safe}} \label{eq.setContrs2} \\
& \quad u_t \in \mathbb{U}, \, \forall t
\end{align}
\label{eq.optControlProb}%
\end{subequations}
where $X = (x_1,\dots,x_N)$, $U = (u_0,\dots,u_{N-1})$ are the decision variables, and $\ell(x,u)$ and $\ell_f(x)$ are appropriately designed stage and final costs. In a receding-horizon implementation, KPC is solved recursively and only the first optimal control inputs are applied to the system.
\begin{myProposition}
Let the \emph{KPC} problem \eqref{eq.optControlProb} be feasible and $(X^\star,U^\star)$ be any of its feasible solutions. The sequence of inputs $U^\star = (u_0^\star, \dots, u_{N-1}^\star)$ drives the true system \eqref{eq.groundTruth} from $x_0$ to the safe set $\mathbb{X}_{\text{safe}}$ while satisfying the constraints at all times, i.e., $f(x_0,u_0^\star), \, f(f(x_0,u_0^\star),u_1^\star), \dots \, \in \mathbb{X}$, and $f(\dots f(f(x_0,u_0^\star),u_1^\star),\dots,u_{N-1}^\star) \in \mathbb{X}_{\text{safe}}$.
\label{prop1}
\end{myProposition}
\noindent \textbf{Proof:} Follows from the definition of the sets \eqref{eq.setValued}, the validity of the deterministic bounds \eqref{eq.boundKRR}, and the imposed constraints \eqref{eq.setContrs1} and \eqref{eq.setContrs2}.
\bigbreak
The KPC constraints \eqref{eq.setContrs1} and \eqref{eq.setContrs2} are set inclusions that need to be reformulated to allow for numerical computations. In what follows, we employ a coordinate transformation and exploit the closed-form solution of the obtained hyper-cube support function. Let $H_i$ and $h_i$ be the parameters of the $i$th half-space of $\mathbb{X}$ and consider the condition $\mathcal{X}_t \subseteq \mathbb{X}$, where the arguments of $\mathcal{X}_t$ are omitted to ease notation. This constraint is satisfied if for each one of the half-spaces $g_i(x) \leq 0$ that describe the polyhedron $\mathbb{X}$ it holds that
\begin{align}
& \forall x \in \mathcal{X}_t: \, g_i(x) \leq 0 \ \\[3pt]
%
\Leftrightarrow \, & \max \{ g_i(x) \, | \, x \in \mathcal{X}_t \} \, \leq 0 \\[3pt]
%
\Leftrightarrow \, & \max \{ H_i^\top \, x - h_i \, | \, \vert x - F_t \vert \leq \mathcal{B}_t \} \, \leq 0 \label{eq.constr} \\[3pt]
%
%
\Leftrightarrow \, & \max \{ H_i^\top \, (B_t \, x+F_t) - h_i \, | \, \Vert x \Vert_\infty \leq 1 \} \, \leq 0 \label{eq.withInfNorm} \\[3pt]
%
\Leftrightarrow \, & \, \Vert H_i^\top B_t \Vert_1 + H_i^\top F_t - h_i \, \leq 0 \label{eq.withOneNorm}
%
\end{align}
where $F_t$ and $\mathcal{B}_t = (\beta_1,\dots,\beta_{n_x})^\top \in \mathbb{R}^{n_x}$ are the parameters of the confidence set $\mathcal{X}_t$ (see \eqref{eq.setValued}), and $B_t = \text{diag}\left( \beta_1,\dots,\beta_{n_x} \right) \in \mathbb{R}^{n_x \times n_x}$. Lastly, the one-norm can be eliminated from \eqref{eq.withOneNorm} by introducing new auxiliary variables and inequality constraints, a standard linear programming procedure.
\begin{myRemark}
\normalfont
The maximization in \eqref{eq.constr} could also be directly converted into its dual form without the reformulation \eqref{eq.withInfNorm}. Although this would not introduce any conservatism, additional decision variables would be created along with \textit{nonlinear equality constraints}, thus significantly increasing the KPC formulation complexity. The approach adopted above is both economic and exact.
\end{myRemark}
After converting the set constraints \eqref{eq.setContrs1} and \eqref{eq.setContrs2} into the form \eqref{eq.withOneNorm}, one obtains
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\; \min_{X,U} & \quad \sum_{t=0}^{N-1} \ell (x_t,u_t) + \ell_f (x_N) \\[3pt]
\text{s.t.} & \quad x_{t} = F_{t}(x_0,u_0,\dots,u_{t-1}), \, \forall t \\[3pt]
%
& \quad \Vert H_i^\top B_t(x_0,u_0,\dots,u_{t-1}) \Vert_1 \, + H_i^\top F_t(x_0,u_0,\dots,u_{t-1}) - h_i \, \leq 0, \, \forall i, \forall t \label{in.runing} \\[3pt]
& \quad \Vert Q_i^\top B_N(x_0,u_0,\dots,u_{N-1}) \Vert_1 \, + Q_i^\top F_N(x_0,u_0,\dots,u_{N-1}) - q_i \, \leq 0, \, \forall i \label{in.last} \\[3pt]
& \quad S \, u_t \leq s, \, \forall t
\end{align}
\label{eq.KPC2}
\end{subequations}
in which $H_i, Q_i \in \mathbb{R}^{n_x}$, $h_i, q_i \in \mathbb{R}$ for all $i$, $S \in \mathbb{R}^{n_\mathbb{U} \times n_u}$ and $s \in \mathbb{R}^{n_\mathbb{U}}$. Finally, if a solution to \eqref{eq.KPC2} is found, the true system can be steered to $\mathbb{X}_{\text{safe}}$ in open-loop; however, this feasibility does not guarantee that future iterations of the same problem will also be feasible.
\subsection{A Safe Relaxation Strategy}
Next we propose a safe relaxation strategy (SRS) that can be used to weaken the optimization problem constraints \eqref{in.runing}-\eqref{in.last} whenever data from previous KPC iterations are available.
\begin{myProposition}
Assume that the $N-1$ previous consecutive \emph{KPC} iterations were feasible. Denote by $(u_{-N+1}, \dots, u_{-1})$ and $(x_{-N+1}, \dots, x_{-1})$ the closed-loop sequences of past controls and states, and by $x_0$ the current state. Let \emph{KPC}$^+$ be the \emph{KPC} optimization problem \eqref{eq.optControlProb} with set constraints $\mathcal{X}_1(x_0,u_0) \subseteq \mathbb{X}$, $\mathcal{X}_2(x_0,u_0,u_1) \subseteq \mathbb{X}$, $\dots$, $\mathcal{X}_{N-1}(x_0,u_0,\dots,u_{N-2}) \subseteq \mathbb{X}$ relaxed to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.SRS}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{X}_1(x_0,u_0) &\cap \left( \, \bigcap_{i = 2}^{N} \mathcal{X}_{i} \, (x_{-i+1},u_{-i+1},\dots,u_{-1},u_0) \right) \subseteq \mathbb{X}, \\
\mathcal{X}_2(x_0,u_0,u_{1}) &\cap \left( \, \bigcap_{i=3}^N \mathcal{X}_{i} \, (x_{-i+2},u_{-i+2},\dots,u_{-1},u_0,u_1) \right) \subseteq \mathbb{X}, \ \dots
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Let \emph{KPC}$^+$ be feasible and $(X^\star,U^\star)$ be any of its feasible solutions. Then, $U^\star = (u_0^\star, \dots, u_{N-1}^\star)$ drives the true system \eqref{eq.groundTruth} from $x_0$ to the safe set $\mathbb{X}_{\text{safe}}$ while satisfying the constraints at all times, i.e., $f(x_0,u_0^\star), \, f(f(x_0,u_0^\star),u_1^\star), \dots \, \in \mathbb{X}$, and $f(\dots f(f(x_0,u_0^\star),u_1^\star),\dots,u_{N-1}^\star) \in \mathbb{X}_{\text{safe}}$.
\label{prop.SRS}
\end{myProposition}
\noindent \textbf{Proof:}
From construction, we know that $\mathcal{X}_t (x_0,u_0^\star,\dots,u_{t-1}^\star) \ni f(\dots f(f(x_0,u_0^\star),\dots),u_{t-1}^\star)$ for any $t$. If the previous KPC iteration was feasible, then also $\mathcal{X}_{t+1} (x_{-1},u_{-1},u_0^\star,\dots,u_{t-1}^\star)$ contains the same point, where $x_{-1}$ and $u_{-1}$ are past closed-loop data. Considering a total of $N-1$ previous consecutive feasible KPC iterations yields a total of $N$ set conditions for $f(x_0,u_0^\star)$, $N-1$ set conditions for $f(x_0,u_0^\star,u_1^\star)$, $\dots$, and $1$ set condition for $f(\dots f(f(x_0,u_0^\star),u_1^\star),\dots,u_{N-1}^\star)$. At any time $t=1,\dots,N$, the true system state is therefore contained in the intersection of the associated sets and, hence, enforcing the relaxed constraints suffices to enforce constraint satisfaction.
\bigbreak
The KPC formulation \eqref{eq.optControlProb} does not guarantee recursive feasibility due to the use of several distinct models. Nevertheless, previous successful iterations can contribute to the feasibility of future KPC problems through the stated SRS. More specifically, the closed-loop data of up to $N-1$ past steps\footnote{If only $M<N-1$ previous iterations were feasible, \eqref{eq.SRS} can be adapted to have less set intersections.} can be used to reduce the uncertainty regarding the location of true next states \textit{without updating the} KRR \textit{nominal models}. We highlight that the last constraint $x_N \in \mathbb{X}_{\text{safe}}$ is not relaxed by Proposition~\ref{prop.SRS}, but remains unchanged.
\section{Experiments}
We illustrate the use of KPC, implemented in a receding-horizon fashion, in two different scenarios. The optimization problems were formulated with the aid of CasADi \citep{CASADI}, the Multi-Parametric Toolbox \citep{MPT}, and solved with IPOPT \footnote{Additional details about the simulations are available at \texttt{https://github.com/emilioMaddalena/KPC.}}.
\textbf{Example 1:} Consider a continuous stirred-tank reactor (CSTR) whose continuous-time dynamics are given by the differential equations
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\dot c_A(t) &= u(t) (c_{A0}-c_A(t)) - \rho_1 c_A(t) - \rho_3 \, c_A(t)^2 \\
\dot c_B(t) &= -u(t) \, c_B(t) + \rho_1 c_A(t) - \rho_2 \, c_B(t)^2
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $c_A$ and $c_B$ denote respectively the concentrations of cyclopentadiene and cyclopentenol, and $u$ represents the feed inflow of cyclopentadiene. We assume that the reactor temperature is constant and simulate the dynamics with the parameter values: $\rho_1 = \rho_2 = 4.1 \times 10^{-3}\text{ h}^{-1}, \rho_3 = 6.3 \times 10^{-4}\text{ h}^{-1}, c_{A0} = 5.1 \text{ mol/l}$. The constraint sets are $\mathbb{X} = \{x \in \mathbb{R}^2 \, | \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0.5 \end{pmatrix}^\top \leq x \leq \begin{pmatrix} 3 & 2 \end{pmatrix}^\top \}$, $\mathbb{U} = \{u \in \mathbb{R} \, | \, 3 \leq u \leq 35 \}$, and the safe set is the singleton $\mathbb{X}_{\text{safe}} = \{x_{\text{eq}}\}, x_{\text{eq}} = \begin{pmatrix} 2.14 & 1.09 \end{pmatrix}^\top$ with $u_{\text{eq}} = 14.19$. The sampling period is $30$ seconds and the prediction horizon was chosen to be $N=3$. Three distinct random datasets were collected with $300$, $400$ and $500$ points respectively for the one-step, two-step and three-step ahead predictors. The noise affecting our samples was drawn randomly with uniform bound $ 1 \times 10 ^{-3}$. Squared-exponential kernels were chosen and their hyperparameters were adjusted until good fits were obtained; specifically, the lengthscales were set to larger values when dealing with higher-dimensional feature spaces. The exact regressor norms were calculated and an augmentation factor of $150\%$ was used to obtain estimates $\Gamma$. This latter step accounts for the ground-truth complexity in unexplored regions of the space. Finally, standard quadratic stage and terminal costs were employed with positive definite weight matrices.
As is customary in practical non-linear optimal control, the terminal constraint was dropped and only a terminal penalty was employed. The system evolution starting from various initial conditions is shown in Figure~\ref{fig.CSTR}. The closed-loop trajectories (shown on the left) converged to a neighborhood of $x_S$, while all predictions and confidence sets (shown on the right) remained inside the feasible set $\mathbb{X}$ at all time-instants. It is also possible to note how predicting further into the future is more challenging as the lengths of the boxes tended to be larger at the end of the prediction horizon.
\begin{figure}[t]
\floatconts
{fig:example
{\vspace{-20pt} \caption{Left: Closed-loop system trajectories starting from different initial conditions. Right: KPC open-loop nominal predictions and uncertainty sets during all time-instants and starting from different initial conditions.}
{\includegraphics[scale=0.27]{pics/fig1a}
\hspace{1pt} \includegraphics[scale=0.27]{pics/fig1b}}
\label{fig.CSTR}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\floatconts
{fig:example
{\vspace{-20pt} \caption{Left: Nominal kernel-MPC predictions (\textcolor{bordeaux}{\textbf{- -}}) and closed-loop trajectory (\textcolor{bordeaux}{\textbf{|}}). Center: KPC predictions (\textcolor{ripeOrange}{\textbf{- -}}) and closed-loop trajectory (\textcolor{ripeOrange}{\textbf{|}}). Right: KPC full open-loop predictions, confidence intervals (\textcolor{azzurro}{\textbf{|}}) as error bars, and initial points depicted as circular markers. The nominal kernel-MPC predictions satisfy the constraints, but the real system violates them. KPC leads to a safe operation without constraint violations.}
{\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{pics/fig2a}
\hspace{1pt} \includegraphics[scale=0.28]{pics/fig2b}
\hspace{1pt} \includegraphics[scale=0.28]{pics/fig2c}}
\label{fig.PENDULUM}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Example 2:} The continuous-time angular dynamics of a pendulum with a rigid rod can be described by $\dot x_1 = x_2$, $\dot x_2 = (g/l)\sin(x_1) - (\nu/(ml^2)) x_2 + (1/(m l^2)) u$, where $x_1$ is its angular position, $x_2$ its angular velocity, and $u$ the torque applied to it. The parameters are: $m = 0.15$ the mass of the pendulum, $l = 0.5$ the length of the rod, $g = 9.81$ the gravitational constant, and $\nu = 0.1$ a constant for the friction model. Let the constraints be $\vert x_1 \vert \leq 3$, $\vert x_2 \vert \leq 1$, and the input be limited to $\vert u \vert \leq 1$. We selected a prediction horizon of $N=4$ and collected $D=100$ uniformly random data-points for each of the eight regression tasks. The noise was drawn randomly from a uniform distribution with bound $\bar \delta = 0.01 \, \textbf{1}$, where $\textbf{1} \in \mathbb{R}^D$ is a vector of ones. Similarly to the previous example, we used a squared-exponential kernel with increasing lengthscales and employed an augmentation factor of $300\%$ on the nominal predictor norms to estimate the $\Gamma$ constants. The sampling and control period was $0.2$~seconds. We compared KPC against \textit{nominal} kernel-MPC, i.e., a certainty equivalence approach where the state-constraints were imposed directly on the nominal predictions \eqref{eq.KPCnominal}. In the latter case, uncertainty was not quantified and the confidence sets were not present. The cost used in both formulations was a positive definite function of the states and control inputs, and included a terminal penalty term.
Predictions and the system angular velocity evolution from two different initial conditions are shown in Figure~\ref{fig.PENDULUM}. As can be seen from the plots, imposing the state-constraints on the nominal model predictions was not sufficient to guarantee safety as the closed-loop system behavior violated the $x_2 \geq -1$ restriction. On the other hand, since KPC quantified and incorporated the associated uncertainty into the optimization problems, the constraints were satisfied. The error bars on the right plot show the all predictions and uncertainty values at each step in the form of error bars. Note that the safety constraints were active at multiple points in time.
\section{Concluding Remarks}
KPC was proposed as a predictive control methodology based on non-parametric kernel models and their associated uncertainty estimates. Its key feature is deterministic constraint satisfaction when a solution to the optimization problem is found. From an approximation theory perspective, future works could study the advantages of employing SVR surrogate models over KRR ones, as well as refining the existing error-bounds, which we believe to be possible. Establishing conditions under which KPC would enjoy additional closed-loop properties such as convergence is deemed as interesting and could guide practical real-world applications of the proposed control scheme.
\acks{This work received support from the Swiss National Science Foundation under the Risk Aware Data-Driven Demand Response project (grant number 200021 175627) and CSEM's Data Program.}
|
\section{Introduction}
Reinforcement learning (RL), inspired by learning behavior in nature, is a goal-oriented learning strategy wherein the agent learns the policy to optimize a pre-defined reward by interacting with the environment \cite{Nef-2019,Lewis-2009}. From a perspective of control theory, RL is strongly connected with traditional optimal control and adaptive control algorithms \cite{Lewis-2018}. The goal of an RL-based controller is to learn the optimal policy and value function by finding the solution to the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman (HJB) equation online. For its uniqueness in data-driven concepts, effectiveness in reaching optimal behavior, and adaptiveness to uncertain environment, RL has undergone rapid progress in control community \cite{Liu-2017,Lewis-2018}.
Early-efforts on RL-based control were mainly devoted to linear systems. For example, a policy iteration technique to solve the continuous time LQR problem without the knowledge of the state matrix was proposed in \cite{Lewis-2009b}. The results in \cite{Lewis-2009b} were generalized to linear systems with completely unknown dynamics in \cite{Jiang-2012}. In the last decade, the extension of RL-based control to nonlinear systems has gained considerable attention as well. Model-free optimal control problems for affine and nonaffine nonlinear systems were addressed based on RL in \cite{Luo-2014} and \cite{Jiang-2014}, respectively. In \cite{Jiang-2015b}, RL-based optimal control for polynomial systems was considered. A new policy iteration scheme was developed in \cite{Jiang-2015b} which attempts to solve a convex optimization problem rather than a partial differential equation as usual. In \cite{Zarg-2015} and \cite{Jiang-2017}, the problem of RL-based optimal tracking control for nonlinear systems in strict-feedback form was investigated. Ref. \cite{Zarg-2015} handled this problem by transforming it into an equivalent optimal regulation problem through a feedforward adaptive input, while \cite{Jiang-2017} addressed this problem by using a novel policy iteration technique to solve semidefinite HJB equations.
In practice, almost all control systems are inherently nonlinear and subject to uncertainties and disturbances \cite{Khalil-2002,Isidori-1989}. Thus it is important to investigate the robustness of RL-based control policies for nonlinear systems. The traditional robust control methods, such as the nonlinear small-gain theorem \cite{Jiang-2014b,Gao-2019}, sliding mode control \cite{Fan-2016}, and $H_{\infty}$ control \cite{Xue-2020,Jiang-2017b} were integrated with the RL designs. In \cite{Wang-2018,Wang-2020}, novel adaptive critic strategies were developed with robustness guarantees for disturbed nonlinear systems. In \cite{Zhang-2018,Yang-2019b}, event-triggered mechanisms were introduced into the design of robust RL controllers to mitigate unnecessary communications. Note that to guarantee parameter convergence, the RL-based control laws generally require persistence of excitation (PE) of the system state. In \cite{Jiang-2014b,Fan-2016,Wang-2020,Wang-2018}, to fulfill the PE condition, probing signals are added into the control inputs, which will inevitably decrease the transient performance. What is more, the approaches in \cite{Jiang-2014b,Gao-2019,Fan-2016,Xue-2020,Jiang-2017b,Wang-2018,Wang-2020,Zhang-2018,Yang-2019b} were developed only for relatively simple uncertainties or disturbances (e.g., independent from the control signal).
On the other hand, the active disturbance rejection control (ADRC), which was proposed by Han \cite{Han-2009}, is an efficient methodology to deal with uncertainties and disturbances. The basic idea of ADRC is to first estimate the total uncertainty online via a device called extended state observer (ESO), and then compensate for it in the control loop in real time. Accordingly, an ADRC law contains two components: a disturbance rejection term compensates for the estimated uncertainty, and a nominal controller guarantees the performance of the compensated system. The existing ADRC literature mainly focus on its engineering applications \cite{Sari-2020} and theoretical verifications for different classes of uncertain systems, such as MIMO systems \cite{Guo-2013}, nonaffine-in-control systems \cite{Ran-2017a}, time-delay systems \cite{Ran-2020}, and so on. On the contrary, there are very few works that concern the design of the nominal controller, since the compensated system is generally simplified into a chain of integrators (see, e.g., \cite{Guo-2013,Ran-2017a,Ran-2020,Gao-2003}).
Motivated by the observations stated above, in this paper, we consider the RL-based disturbance rejection control for uncertain nonlinear systems. The systems are assumed to have non-simple nominal models (i.e., the nominal models maybe also complex and nonlinear) and are subject to multiple uncertainties. In order to relax the requirement of the PE condition and avoid using the probing signal, concurrent learning (CL), also known as experience replay, is employed in this paper. The original idea of concurrent learning is to use the recorded data and current data simultaneously for parameter adaptation in the framework of model reference adaptive control (MRAC) \cite{Chowdhary-2010}. In recent years, this idea was extended to develop RL-based control policies to remove the PE condition \cite{Zhang-2018,Xue-2020,Yang-2019b,Yang-2020a,Vam-2015}. Note that in RL, estimates for the parameters of the value function are updated using the Bellman error (BE) as a performance metric. In this paper, we evaluate the BE along the system trajectory, and simultaneously, extrapolate the BE to any unexplored data points by using the nominal model. This concurrent learning technique is interpreted as simulation of experience \cite{Kama-2016a,Kama-2016b}.
The main contributions of this paper are twofold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item An ESO-based reinforcement learning and disturbance rejection framework for uncertain nonlinear systems having non-simple nominal models is established. The ESO provides estimates of the system state and total uncertainty to the RL-algorithm and disturbance rejection term, respectively.
The disturbance rejection term compensates for the total uncertainty in real time, while the output feedback simulation of experience based RL explores the optimal policy for the compensated system simultaneously. To the best of the authors' knowledge, this work is the first attempt that bridges the gap between RL and the philosophy of ADRC.
\item A rigorous theoretical analysis that establishes online simultaneous disturbance rejection and optimal policy approximation without the PE condition is conducted. Due to the strong coupling between the ESO estimation error and the RL approximation error, the theoretical problem faced in this paper is much more challenging than the previous ADRC \cite{Guo-2013,Ran-2017a,Ran-2020,Gao-2003} and RL results \cite{Kama-2016a,Kama-2016b}. Specifically, in \cite{Guo-2013,Ran-2017a,Ran-2020,Gao-2003} the nominal controller is designed to stabilize a chain of integrators, while here it is a learning controller which is able to online approximate the optimal policy for the non-simple compensated system. Compared with \cite{Kama-2016a,Kama-2016b}, we provide a more practical RL solution for nonlinear systems, since the developed controller is capable of handling multiple uncertainties and it is output feedback based.
\end{enumerate}
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II presents some preliminaries and formulates the problem. Section III states the design and analysis of the developed ESO-based reinforcement learning and disturbance rejection framework. In Section IV, some simulation results are given to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method. Finally, Section V concludes the paper.
\emph{Notations:} Throughout this paper, we use $\mathcal{C}$ to represent the set of all continuously differentiable functions. For any continuously differentiable function $f: \mathbb{R}^{n}\times \mathbb{R}^m\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^l$, $f_x:\mathbb{R}^{n}\times \mathbb{R}^m\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{l\times n} $ represents its gradient with respect to the first vector argument, i.e., $f_x(\nu_1, \nu_2)=\partial f(\nu_1,\nu_2)/\partial \nu_1$. $\lambda_{\max}(P)$ and $\lambda_{\min}(P)$ denote the maximum and minimum eigenvalues of matrix $P$, respectively. Big $O$-notation in terms of $\nu$ is denoted as $O(\nu)$ and it is assumed that this holds for $\nu$ positive and sufficiently small. $\textrm{sat}:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ denotes the standard unity saturation function defined by $\textrm{sat}(\nu)=\textrm{sign}(\nu)\cdot\min\{1, |\nu|\}$. $\textbf{1}_A(\nu)$ is the indictor function defined by $\textbf{1}_A(\nu)=\left\{\begin{matrix} 1 ~~ \textrm{if} ~ \nu\in A, \\ 0 ~~ \textrm{if} ~ \nu \notin A. \end{matrix}\right.$ Throughout this paper, for the sake of brevity, the time variable $t$ of a signal will be omitted except when the dependence of the signal on $t$ is crucial for clear presentation.
\section{Problem Formulation}
A single-input, single-output system with relative degree $n$, under a suitable diffeomorphism, can be written in the following normal form \cite{Isidori-1989}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq1}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\dot{z}=& f_z(x, z, \omega), \\
\dot{x}=& Ax+B[f(x, z, \omega)+g(x,z,\omega)u], \\
y=& Cx,
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation}
where $x=[x_1, \ldots, x_n]^{\rm{T}}\in\mathbb{R}^n$ and $z\in\mathbb{R}^p$ are the states, $\omega\in\mathbb{R}$ is the external disturbance, $u\in\mathbb{R}$ is the control input, $y\in\mathbb{R}$ is the measured output, $f_z: \mathbb{R}^n\times \mathbb{R}^p \times \mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^p$ and $f, g: \mathbb{R}^n\times \mathbb{R}^p \times \mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ are continuously differentiable functions, and matrices $A\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$, $B\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times 1}$, and $C\in\mathbb{R}^{1\times n}$ are given by
\begin{equation*}
A=
\left[
\begin{array}{ccccc}
0 & 1 & \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & \cdots & 1 \\
0 & 0 & \cdots &0 \\
\end{array}
\right], ~B=\left[
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
\vdots \\
0 \\
1 \\
\end{array}
\right],~C=\left[
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
0 \\
\vdots \\
0 \\
\end{array}
\right]^{\rm{T}}.
\end{equation*} For system (\ref{eq1}), the following assumptions are made:
\emph{Assumption A1:} The external disturbance $\omega$ and its time derivative $\dot{\omega}$ are bounded.
\emph{Assumption A2:} The zero-dynamics $\dot{z}=f_z(x, z, \omega)$ with input $(x, \omega)$ is bounded-input-bounded-state stable.
In this paper, the functions $f(\cdot)$ and $g(\cdot)$ are assumed to be uncertain and partially known, that is,
\begin{align}\label{eq2}
f(x,z,\omega)=& f_0(x)+\Delta f(x,z,\omega), \\ ~g(x,z,\omega)=& g_0(x)+\Delta g(x,z,\omega),
\end{align}
where $f_0(\cdot), g_0(\cdot)\in \mathcal{C}(\mathbb{R}^n, \mathbb{R})$ are known and globally bounded, $g_0(\cdot)\neq 0$, and $\Delta f(\cdot), \Delta g(\cdot)\in\mathcal{C}(\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}^p\times\mathbb{R}, \mathbb{R})$ are unknown.
\emph{Remark 1:} Similar to many previous ESO works (see, e.g., \cite{Khalil-2010,Khalil-2008}), we require the global boundedness of $f_0(\cdot)$ and $g_0(\cdot)$. It should be pointed out that this requirement does not exclude linear functions or any unbounded function
because in this paper we achieve semi-global results, and the global boundedness can be always satisfied by smoothly saturating the function outside a compact set of interest. \IEEEQED
\emph{Remark 2:} In system (\ref{eq1}), the uncertainties are located in the same channel as the control signal. For a general nonlinear system with smooth unmatched uncertainties, one can conduct a well-defined state transformation to transform the system into the form of system (\ref{eq1}) \cite{Zhao-2017}. \IEEEQED
Note that system (\ref{eq1}) is subjected to multiple uncertainties, including the uncertainty in zero dynamics $\dot{z}=f_z(x, z, \omega)$, drift dynamics modeling error $\Delta f(\cdot)$, mismatch of control $\Delta g(\cdot)u$, and external disturbance $\omega$. Inherited from the basic philosophy of ADRC \cite{Han-2009}, the total uncertainty is regarded as an extended state of the system, which is denoted by
\begin{equation}\label{eq8}
x_{n+1}\triangleq \Delta f(x,z,\omega)+\Delta g(x,z,\omega)u.
\end{equation}
With assumption A2, we concentrate on the control design for the $x$-subsystem.
Had $x$ and $x_{n+1}$ been available for feedback, we could have the following controller:
\begin{equation}\label{eq9}
u=u_0^*(x)-\frac{x_{n+1}}{g_0(x)}.
\end{equation}
Here the second term $-\frac{x_{n+1}}{g_0(x)}$ is to compensate the total uncertainty, and $u_0^*(x)$ is the optimal policy for the compensated system
\begin{equation}\label{eq23}
\dot{x}=Ax+B[f_0(x)+g_0(x)u_0],
\end{equation}
with the cost functional
\begin{equation}\label{eq3}
J(x,u_0)=\int_{0}^{\infty}r(x(\tau),u_0(\tau))\textrm{d}\tau.
\end{equation}
The function $r: \mathbb{R}^n\times \mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^+$ denotes the instantaneous cost given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq24}
r(x,u_0)=Q(x)+u_0^{\textrm{T}}Ru_0,
\end{equation}
where $Q:\mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^+$ is positive definite, and $R>0$.
Note that in the control (\ref{eq9}), the optimal control $u_0^*(x)$ is generally analytically infeasible, and the state $x$ and total uncertainty $x_{n+1}$ are both unavailable. The objective of this paper is then to develop an ESO-based reinforcement learning and disturbance rejection scheme, which is able to online simultaneously compensate the uncertainty and approximate the optimal policy.
\section{ESO-based Reinforcement Learning and Disturbance Rejection}
\subsection{Control Design}
First of all, an ESO is designed for system (\ref{eq1}) to provide the estimates of the state and total uncertainty:
\begin{equation}\label{eso}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \dot{\widehat{x}}_1=\widehat{x}_2+\frac{l_1}{\varepsilon}(x_1-\widehat{x}_1), \\
& ~\vdots \\
&\dot{\widehat{x}}_{n-1}=\widehat{x}_n+\frac{l_{n-1}}{\varepsilon^{n-1}}(x_1-\widehat{x}_1), \\
&\dot{\widehat{x}}_{n}=\widehat{x}_{n+1}+\frac{l_n}{\varepsilon^n}(x_1-\widehat{x}_1)+f_0(\widehat{x})+g_0(\widehat{x})u, \\
&\dot{\widehat{x}}_{n+1}=\frac{l_{n+1}}{\varepsilon^{n+1}}(x_1-\widehat{x}_1),
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $\widehat{x}=[\widehat{x}_1,\ldots,\widehat{x}_{n}]^{\rm{T}}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$, $\varepsilon<1$ is a small positive constant, $L=[l_1, l_2,\ldots,l_{n+1}]^{\rm{T}}\in\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ is the observer gain selected such that the following matrix is Hurwitz:
\begin{equation*}\label{eq14}
E=\left[
\begin{array}{ccccc}
-l_1 & 1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
-l_2 & 0 & 1 & \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots &\vdots &\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
-l_n & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 1 \\
-l_{n+1} & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right]\in\mathbb{R}^{(n+1)\times(n+1)}.
\end{equation*}
Since $\varepsilon$ is a small positive constant, the observer (\ref{eso}) exhibits peaking phenomenon during the initial fast transient \citep{Guo-2013,Khalil-2008}. To protect the peaking of the observer from propagating into other variables, we employ the well-known saturation technique \cite{Khalil-2008} to saturate the output of the observer as
\begin{equation}\label{eq28}
\overline{x}_i=M_is\left(\frac{\widehat{x}_i}{M_i}\right), ~1\leq i\leq n+1,
\end{equation}
where $M_i$, $1\leq i\leq n+1$, are saturation bounds to be selected such that the saturation will not be invoked in the steady-period of the observer, and $s(\cdot)$ is an odd saturation-like function defined by
\begin{equation*}
s(\nu)= \left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \nu, && 0\leq \nu \leq 1 \\
& \nu+\frac{\nu-1}{\varepsilon}-\frac{\nu^2-1}{2\varepsilon}, && 1\leq \nu \leq 1+\varepsilon \\
& 1+\frac{\varepsilon}{2}, && \nu>1+\varepsilon
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation*}
Note that this function is nondecreasing, continuously differentiable with locally Lipschitz derivative. What is more, $0\leq s'(\nu)\leq 1$ and $\left|s(\nu)-\textrm{sat}(\nu)\right|\leq \frac{\varepsilon}{2}$, $\forall \nu\in\mathbb{R}$, where $s'(\nu)\triangleq \frac{\textrm{d}s(\nu)}{\textrm{d}\nu}$. For subsequent use, denote $\overline{x}=[\overline{x}_1,\ldots, \overline{x}_n]^{\rm{T}}$, and $\dot{\overline{x}}_i=s'(\widehat{x}_i/M_i)\dot{\widehat{x}}_i$, $1\leq i\leq n+1$.
According to the optimal control theory \cite{Kirc-2012}, the optimal control problem of system (\ref{eq23}) with cost functional (\ref{eq3}) can be converted to solve the following HJB equation:
\begin{align}\label{eq5}
{V^*_x}(x)\left[Ax+B(f_0(x)+g_0(x)u_0^*(x))\right] \qquad \nonumber \\
+Q(x)+{u_0^*}^{\textrm{T}}(x)Ru_0^*(x)=0,
\end{align}
where $V^*\in\mathcal{C}(\mathbb{R}^n,\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0})$, $V^*(0)=0$, is the optimal value function. The optimal control policy can be determined from the optimal value function as
\begin{equation}\label{eq6}
u_0^*(x)=-\frac{1}{2}R^{-1}g_0^{\rm{T}}(x)B^{\rm{T}}V^{*}_x{^{\rm{T}}}(x).
\end{equation}
Generally, the analytical solution of the HJB equation is not feasible. However, the optimal value function $V^*(x)$ and the optimal control policy $u_0^*(x)$ can be approximated by an actor-critic neural network (NN) based approach \cite{Jiang-2014,Luo-2014}. For any given compact set $\mathcal{X}\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ and positive constant $\overline{\kappa}$, the optimal value function $V^*(x)$ can be represented by
\begin{equation}\label{eq50}
V^*(x)=\Theta^{\textrm{T}}\phi(x)+\kappa(x),
\end{equation}
where $\phi: \mathcal{X}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{l}$ is a continuously differentiable activation function, $\Theta\in\mathbb{R}^l$ is the ideal weight vector, $l\in\mathbb{N}$ is the number of neurons, and $\kappa:\mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is the approximation error function which satisfies $|\kappa(x)|\leq \overline{\kappa}$ and $|\kappa_x(x)|\leq \overline{\kappa}$, $\forall x\in\mathcal{X}$. It follows from the NN representation of the value function that the optimal control policy can be obtained as
\begin{equation}\label{eq51}
u_0^*(x)=-\frac{1}{2}R^{-1}g_0^{\rm{T}}(x)B^{\rm{T}}\left(\phi_x^{\textrm{T}}(x)\Theta+\kappa^{\rm{T}}_x(x)\right).
\end{equation}
Therefore, bearing in mind that the ESO (\ref{eso}) provides an estimate of the state $x$, the NN-based approximations of $V^*(x)$ and $u_0^*(x)$ are given by
\begin{align}
\label{eq25} \widehat{V}\left(\overline{x},\widehat{\Theta}_v\right)= & \widehat{\Theta}^{\textrm{T}}_v\phi(\overline{x}), \\
\label{eq26} \widehat{u}_0\left(\overline{x},\widehat{\Theta}_c\right)= & -\frac{1}{2}R^{-1}g_0^{\rm{T}}(\overline{x})B^{\rm{T}}\phi^{\rm{T}}_x(\overline{x})\widehat{\Theta}_c,
\end{align}
where $\widehat{\Theta}_v, \widehat{\Theta}_c\in\mathbb{R}^l$ are estimates of $\Theta$, and weights for the critic and actor NNs, respectively. By (\ref{eq25}) and (\ref{eq26}), the approximated instantaneous BE $\delta_t:\mathbb{R}^{n}\times \mathbb{R}^l\times \mathbb{R}^l\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ can be computed as
\begin{align}\label{eq7}
\delta_t \triangleq &
\delta\left(\overline{x},\widehat{\Theta}_v,\widehat{\Theta}_c\right) \nonumber \\
\triangleq &\widehat{V}_x(\overline{x},\widehat{\Theta}_v)\left[A\overline{x}+B\left(f_0(\overline{x})+g_0(\overline{x})\widehat{u}_0(\overline{x},\widehat{\Theta}_c)\right)\right]\nonumber \\
& +Q(\overline{x})+\widehat{u}_0^{\textrm{T}}(\overline{x},\widehat{\Theta}_c)R\widehat{u}_0(\overline{x},\widehat{\Theta}_c).
\end{align}
In this paper, motivated by \cite{Kama-2016a,Kama-2016b}, we implement an ESO based learning strategy via simulation of experience, i.e., use the estimated state $\widehat{x}$ and the knowledge of $f_0(\cdot)$ and $g_0(\cdot)$ to extrapolate the BE to a predefined set of points $\{x^i\in\mathbb{R}^n|i=1,\ldots, N\}$. The approximated BE extrapolated to the point $x^i$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq49}
\delta_i\triangleq\delta\left(x^i,\widehat{\Theta}_v,\widehat{\Theta}_c\right).
\end{equation}
Then the actor-critic NN uses the BEs $\delta_t$ and $\delta_i$ to update the estimates $\widehat{\Theta}_v$ and $\widehat{\Theta}_c$. A least-square update law for the critic NN is given by
\begin{align}
\label{eq15} \dot{\widehat{\Theta}}_v=& -\lambda_{v1}\Gamma\frac{\mu}{\rho}\delta_t-\frac{\lambda_{v2}}{N}\Gamma \sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{\mu_i}{\rho_i}\delta_i, \\
\label{eq16} \dot{\Gamma}= & \left(\beta\Gamma-\lambda_{v1}\frac{\Gamma\mu\mu^{\rm{T}}\Gamma}{\rho^2}\right)\textbf{1}_{\{\|\Gamma\|\leq \varsigma_1\}}, ~\|\Gamma(0)\|\leq \varsigma_1,
\end{align}
where $\Gamma:\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{l\times l}$ is a time-varying least-square gain matrix, $\varsigma_1>0$ is a saturation constant, $\lambda_{v1}, \lambda_{v2}>0$ are constant adaption gains, $\beta>0$ is a constant forgetting factor, and
\begin{align*}
\mu = & \phi_x(\overline{x})\left[A\overline{x}+B\left(f_0(\overline{x})+g_0(\overline{x})\widehat{u}_0(\overline{x},\widehat{\Theta}_c)\right)\right], \\
\mu_i = & \phi_x(x^i)\left[Ax^i+B\left(f_0(x^i)+g_0(x^i)\widehat{u}_0(x^i,\widehat{\Theta}_c)\right)\right],\\
\rho = & 1+\gamma\mu^{\rm{T}}\Gamma\mu, \\
\rho_i = & 1+\gamma\mu_i^{\rm{T}}\Gamma\mu_i,
\end{align*}
with $\gamma>0$ a constant normalization gain. The update law (\ref{eq16}) indicates that the time-varying gain matrix $\Gamma$ is bounded in the sense that \cite{Kama-2016b}
\begin{equation}\label{eq54}
\varsigma_0I \leq \Gamma(t)\leq \varsigma_1 I, ~t\geq 0,
\end{equation}
where $\varsigma_0\in\mathbb{R}^+$ and $I$ is the identity matrix. According to the subsequent stability analysis, the update law for the actor NN is given by
\begin{align}\label{eq17}
\dot{\widehat{\Theta}}_c= & -\lambda_{c1}\left(\widehat{\Theta}_c-\widehat{\Theta}_v\right)-\lambda_{c2}\widehat{\Theta}_c\nonumber \\
& +\frac{\lambda_{v1}G_{t}^{\rm{T}}\widehat{\Theta}_c\mu^{\textrm{T}}}{4\rho}\widehat{\Theta}_v + \sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{\lambda_{v2}G^{\rm{T}}_{i}\widehat{\Theta}_c\mu^{\rm{T}}_i}{4N\rho_i}\widehat{\Theta}_v,
\end{align}
where $\lambda_{c1},\lambda_{c2}>0$ are constant adaption gains, and
\begin{align*}
G_{t}\triangleq & \phi_x(\overline{x})Bg_0(\overline{x})R^{-1}g_0^{\rm{T}}(\overline{x})B^{\rm{T}}\phi^{\rm{T}}_x(\overline{x}),\\
G_{i}\triangleq & \phi_x(x^i)Bg_0(x^i)R^{-1}g^{\rm{T}}_0(x^i)B^{\rm{T}}\phi_x^{\rm{T}}(x^i).
\end{align*}
Finally, based on the output of the ESO (\ref{eso}), and (\ref{eq26}), the control that simultaneously compensates the total uncertainty and approximates the optimal policy is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq27}
u=\widehat{u}_0\left(\overline{x},\widehat{\Theta}_c\right)-\frac{\overline{x}_{n+1}}{g_0(\overline{x})}.
\end{equation}
The block diagram of the developed ESO-based reinforcement learning and disturbance rejection is depicted in Fig. 1.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,bb=10 10 490 220, clip]{Control_diagram.pdf}
\caption{ESO-based reinforcement learning and disturbance rejection architecture.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Stability Analysis}
To establish the stability of the closed-loop system formed by (\ref{eq1}), (\ref{eso}), (\ref{eq15}), (\ref{eq16}), (\ref{eq17}), and (\ref{eq27}), we need two additional assumptions. By Assumption A1, let $\omega(t)\in \mathcal{W}$, $\forall t\in[0,\infty)$, for some compact set $\mathcal{W} \subseteq \mathbb{R}$. Assume that the initial condition of system (\ref{eq1}), $x(0)$, belongs to a compact set $\mathcal{X}_0$ which is slightly smaller than $\mathcal{X}$ (i.e., $\mathcal{X}_0\subseteq \mathcal{X}$ and their boundaries are disjoint). By Assumption A2, there exists a constant $c_z$ such that the compact set $\mathcal{Z}=\{z\in\mathbb{R}^p; \|z\|\leq c_z\}$ is a positive invariant set of $\dot{z}=f_z(x,z,\omega)$, for all $x\in\mathcal{X}$ and $\omega \in \mathcal{W}$. Denote the compact set $\Xi$ by $\Xi=\mathcal{X}\times \mathcal{Z}\times \mathcal{W}$.
\emph{Assumption A3:} The known control coefficient $g_0(x)$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{eq29}
k_g\triangleq \max\limits_{(x,z,\omega)\in \Xi, \overline{x}\in\mathcal{X}}\left|\frac{g(x,z,\omega)-g_0(x)}{g_0(\overline{x})}\right|<1.
\end{equation}
\emph{Assumption A4:} There exists a finite set of fixed points $\{x^i\in\mathbb{R}^n|i=1,\ldots, N\}$ such that,
\begin{equation}\label{eq30}
c \triangleq \frac{1}{N}\inf\limits_{t\geq 0}\left(\lambda_{\min}\left\{\sum_{i=1}^N\frac{\mu_i\mu_i^{\rm{T}}}{\rho_i}\right\}\right)>0.
\end{equation}
\emph{Remark 3:} Assumption A3 is a standard assumption for the ESO-based controller \cite{Khalil-2008,Guo-2013}. The rational behind this assumption is that the total uncertainty $x_{n+1}$ to be compensated in the control law contains the mismatch of control (i.e., $\Delta g(x,z,\omega)u$). To guarantee the ``compensation capability'' of the ESO-based controller, the nominal control coefficient $g_0(x)$ should not be too far away from the actual control coefficient $g(x,z,\omega)$. Condition (\ref{eq29}) is not difficult to be satisfied in practice \cite{Khalil-2008}. Specifically, for any uncertain control gain $g(x,z,\omega)$ satisfying $\underline{g}<g(x,z,\omega)|_{(x,z,\omega)\in \Xi}<\overline{g}$ (or $-\overline{g}<g(x,z,\omega)|_{(x,z,\omega)\in \Xi}<-\underline{g})$, where $\overline{g}$ and $\underline{g}$ are positive constants. By selecting $g_0(\overline{x})|_{\overline{x}\in\mathcal{X}}>\overline{g}/2$ (or $g_0(\overline{x})|_{\overline{x}\in\mathcal{X}}<-\overline{g}/2)$, the condition (\ref{eq29}) is satisfied. \IEEEQED
\emph{Remark 4:} Condition (\ref{eq30}) depends on the estimate $\widehat{\Theta}_c$, and hence it cannot be guaranteed a prior. However, different from the well-known PE condition \cite{Tao-2003}, the condition (\ref{eq30}) can be monitored online \cite{Kama-2016a}. Moreover, this condition can be heuristically met by selecting more points than the number of the neurons, i.e., choosing $N\gg l$ (see the numerical example in Section IV). \IEEEQED
Now, we are in a position to state our main result.
\emph{Theorem 1:} Consider the closed-loop system formed by plant (\ref{eq1}), ESO (\ref{eso}), control (\ref{eq27}), and RL-based update laws (\ref{eq15}), (\ref{eq16}), and (\ref{eq17}). Suppose Assumptions A1 to A4 are satisfied, and the initial condition of the plant $x(0)$ is an interior point of $\mathcal{X}_0$. Then there exists $\varepsilon^*>0$ such that for any $\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon^*)$:
\begin{itemize}
\item for any $T>0$, $\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}|x_i-\widehat{x}_i|\rightarrow 0$, $1\leq i\leq n+1$, uniformly in $t\in[T,\infty)$;
\item the state $x$ and the weight estimation errors $\widetilde{\Theta}_v\triangleq \widehat{\Theta}_v-\Theta$ and $\widetilde{\Theta}_c\triangleq \widehat{\Theta}_c-\Theta$ are uniformly ultimately bounded.
\end{itemize}
\emph{Proof:} First of all, we give some notations and definitions for subsequent use. Let $Z(t)=[x^{\rm{T}}(t), ~\widetilde{\Theta}_v^{\rm{T}}(t),$ $\widetilde{\Theta}_c^{\rm{T}}(t)]^{\rm{T}}$, $V_v=\frac{1}{2}\widetilde{\Theta}_v^{\rm{T}}\Gamma^{-1}\widetilde{\Theta}_v$, and $V_c=\frac{1}{2}\widetilde{\Theta}_c^{\rm{T}}\widetilde{\Theta}_c$. Denote $\tau_v=\frac{1}{2}\varsigma_1\|\widetilde{\Theta}_v(0)\|+1$, $\tau_c=$ $\max\{V_c(\widetilde{\Theta}_c(0)),V_c(\widetilde{\Theta}_c)_{\|\Theta_c\|\geq \iota_7/|\iota_6|}\}+1$, where $\iota_6$ and $\iota_7$ are given by (\ref{eq46}). Define several compact sets:
\begin{align*}
\Omega_{v}^0=&\{\widetilde{\Theta}_v\in\mathbb{R}^l; V_v(\widetilde{\Theta}_v)\leq \tau_v\}, \\
\Omega_{v}^1=&\{\widetilde{\Theta}_v\in\mathbb{R}^l; V_v(\widetilde{\Theta}_v)\leq \tau_v+1\}, \\
\Omega_{c}^0=&\{\widetilde{\Theta}_c\in\mathbb{R}^l; V_c(\widetilde{\Theta}_c)\leq \tau_c\}, \\
\Omega_{c}^1=&\{\widetilde{\Theta}_c\in\mathbb{R}^l; V_c(\widetilde{\Theta}_c)\leq \tau_c+1\}.
\end{align*}
Based on the above definitions, denote $\Omega^0=\mathcal{X}_0\times\Omega^0_v\times \Omega^0_c$ and $\Omega^1=\mathcal{X}\times\Omega^1_v\times \Omega^1_c$. It can be clearly observed that $Z(0)$ is an internal point of $\Omega^0$ and $\Omega^0\subseteq \Omega^1-\partial \Omega^1$.
The following proof will be divided into two steps. In the first step, we show that for sufficiently small $\varepsilon$ and appropriately selected learning gains, $Z(t)\in\Omega^1$, $\forall t\in [0, \infty)$. Then, in the second step, the convergence of the ESO and the uniformly ultimately boundedness of $x$, $\widetilde{\Theta}_v$, and $\widetilde{\Theta}_c$ are proved.
\emph{Step 1): There exists $\varepsilon^{\dag}>0$ such that for any $\varepsilon\in(0, \varepsilon^{\dag})$, $Z(t)\in\Omega^1$, $\forall t\in [0, \infty)$.}
Since $Z(0)$ is an interior point of $\Omega^0$, $\Omega^0\subseteq \Omega^1-\partial \Omega^1$, and the output of the ESO (\ref{eso}) is saturated, there exists an $\varepsilon$-independent $t_0>0$ such that $Z(t)\in\Omega^1$, $\forall t\in[0, t_0]$. We prove the conclusion in this step by contradiction. To this end, assume that there exist $t_2>t_1\geq t_0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq36}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
Z(t_1) \in & ~ \partial \Omega^0, \\
Z(t)\in & ~ \Omega^1, ~t\in[t_1,t_2],\\
Z(t_2)\in & ~ \partial \Omega^1.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
Consider the scaled ESO estimation error $\eta=[\eta_1, \ldots,$ $\eta_{n+1}]^{\rm{T}}$ with
\begin{equation}\label{eq31}
\eta_{i}=\frac{x_i-\widehat{x}_i}{\varepsilon^{n+1-i}}, ~1\leq i\leq n+1.
\end{equation}
By (\ref{eq1}), (\ref{eso}), and (\ref{eq27}), the dynamics of $\eta$ can be formulated as
\begin{equation}\label{eq37}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
\varepsilon\dot{\eta}_i=&-l_i\eta_1+\eta_{i+1}, ~1\leq i\leq n-1, \\
\varepsilon\dot{\eta}_n=&-l_n\eta_{1}+\eta_{n+1}+\vartheta_1(\cdot),\\
\varepsilon\dot{\eta}_{n+1}=&-l_{n+1}\eta_{1}-\vartheta_2(\cdot)\eta_1+\varepsilon\vartheta_3(\cdot),
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align*}
& \vartheta_1(x,\widehat{x},\widehat{x}_{n+1},\widehat{\Theta}_c)= f_0(x)-f_0(\widehat{x})\\
& \qquad +\left(g_0(x)-g_0(\widehat{x})\right) \left[\widehat{u}_0(\overline{x},\widehat{\Theta}_c)-\frac{\overline{x}_{n+1}}{g_0(\overline{x})}\right], \\
& \vartheta_2(x,z,\omega)= \frac{g(x,z,\omega)-g_0(x)}{g_0(\overline{x})}s'(\widehat{x}_{n+1}/M_{n+1}), \\
& \vartheta_3(x,z,\omega,\widehat{x},\widehat{x}_{n+1},\widehat{\Theta}_c)= \dot{f}(x,z,\omega)-\dot{f}_0(x) \\
& \qquad +(\dot{g}(x,z,\omega)-\dot{g}_0(x))\left[\widehat{u}_0(\overline{x},\widehat{\Theta}_c)-\frac{\overline{x}_{n+1}}{g_0(\overline{x})}\right] \\
& \qquad +(g(x,z,\omega)-g_0(x))\dot{\widehat{u}}_0(\overline{x},\widehat{\Theta}_c) \\
& \qquad +(g(x,z,\omega)-g_0(x))\frac{\overline{x}_{n+1}\dot{\overline{x}}}{g_0^2(\overline{x})}. \end{align*}
The equations of $\eta$ can be rewritten into the following compact form:
\begin{equation}\label{eq38}
\dot{\eta}=\frac{1}{\varepsilon}E\eta-F_1\vartheta_2(\cdot)\eta_1+\left[F_2\frac{\vartheta_1(\cdot)}{\varepsilon}+F_1\vartheta_3(\cdot)\right],
\end{equation}
where $F_1=[0 ~B^{\rm{T}}]^{\rm{T}}$, $F_2=[B^{\rm{T}} ~0]^{\rm{T}}$. The matrix $E$ is Hurwitz by design. To show the convergence of $\eta$, we first consider the following system which is simplified from (\ref{eq38}):
\begin{equation}\label{eq39}
\dot{\eta}=\frac{1}{\varepsilon}E\eta-F_1\vartheta_2(\cdot)\eta_1.
\end{equation}
The system above can be regarded as a negative feedback connection of the time-varying gain $\theta_2(\cdot)$ and the transfer function
\begin{equation}\label{eq40}
G(\varepsilon s)=\frac{l_{n+1}}{(\varepsilon s)^{n+1}+l_1(\varepsilon s)^{n}+\cdots+\l_{n+1}}.
\end{equation}
Note that $|\vartheta_2(\cdot)|\leq k_g|s'(\widehat{x}_{n+1}/M_{n+1})|\leq k_g$. By Assumption A3 and (\ref{eq40}), one has $k_g\|G\|_{\infty}<1$. It then follows from the circle criterion \cite{Khalil-2002} that the origin of (\ref{eq39}) is globally exponentially stable. Therefore, applying a loop transformation to (\ref{eq39}) and using the Kalman-Yakubovich-Popov lemma \cite{Khalil-2002}, there exists a quadratic Lyapunov function $W(\eta)=\eta^{\rm{T}}P\eta$ for system (\ref{eq39}) satisfying $\dot{W}(\eta)\leq -\frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon}W(\eta)$, where $P$ is a positive definite matrix and $\alpha$ is an $\varepsilon$-independent positive constant. Utilizing $W(\eta)$ as a Lyapunov function candidate for system (\ref{eq38}), and calculating its derivative yields
\begin{equation}\label{eq41}
\dot{W}(\eta)\leq -\frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon}W(\eta)+2\overline{\lambda}\|\eta\|\left|F_2\frac{\vartheta_1(\cdot)}{\varepsilon}+F_1\vartheta_3(\cdot)\right|,
\end{equation}
where $\overline{\lambda}=\lambda_{\max}(P)$. Note that 1) the functions $f_0(\cdot)$, $g_0(\cdot)$, and $s(\cdot)$ are continuously differentiable with locally Lipschitz derivatives and globally bounded; 2) by (\ref{eq36}), $x$, $\widehat{\Theta}_v$, and $\widehat{\Theta}_c$ are all bounded in the time interval $[0, t_2]$; 3) by (\ref{eq31}), $|\widehat{x}_i|\leq |x_i|+\varepsilon^{n+1-i}|\eta_i|$, $1\leq i\leq n+1$. Based on these observations, we can conclude that $\frac{\vartheta_1(\cdot)}{\varepsilon}$ and $\vartheta_3(\cdot)$ are locally Lipschitz, and bounded from above by affine in $\|\eta\|$ functions, uniformly in $\varepsilon$. Here, we take the term $f_0(x)-f_0(\widehat{x})$ as an example to further clarify this point. According to the Hadamard's lemma \cite{Nest-2006}, one has
\begin{align*}
& \quad \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\left[f_0(x)-f_0(\widehat{x})\right]=\frac{1}{\varepsilon}(x-\widehat{x})\int_0^1\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}(\widehat{x}+\lambda(x-\widehat{x}))\textrm{d}\lambda \\
& =\left[\varepsilon^{n-1}\eta_1,\ldots, \varepsilon\eta_{n-1},\eta_n\right]^{\rm{T}}\int_0^1\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}(\widehat{x}+\lambda(x-\widehat{x}))\textrm{d}\lambda.
\end{align*}
Therefore, from (\ref{eq41}), one has that there exists an $\varepsilon_1>0$ such that for any $\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon_1)$ and $\tilde{t}_1\in(t_0/2,t_0)$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq42}
\|\eta\|=O(\varepsilon), ~\forall t\in [\tilde{t}_1,t_2].
\end{equation}
By the convergence of the ESO, and the definition of $x_{n+1}$, the bounds to saturate the output of the observer are selected to satisfy
\begin{align}
\label{eq52} M_i>&\sup_{x\in\mathcal{X}}|x_i|, ~1\leq i\leq n, \\
M_{n+1}>& \sup_{(x,z,\omega)\in \Xi, \widehat{\Theta}_c\in\Omega_c^1}\left|\frac{\Delta f(x,z,\omega)}{g(x,z,\omega)}\right. \nonumber \\
\label{eq53} & \qquad \qquad\qquad ~ \left.+\frac{\Delta g(x,z,\omega)\widehat{u}_0(x,\widehat{\Theta}_c)}{g(x,z,\omega)}\right|.
\end{align}
It follows that the saturation elements $M_is(\widehat{x}_i/M_i)$, $1\leq i\leq n+1$, all work in the linear zone in the time interval $[\tilde{t}_1,t_2]$, i.e., $\overline{x}_i=\widehat{x}_i$.
In the following, we consider the dynamics of $Z$. To facilitate the subsequent analysis, the NN-based approximations $\widehat{V}_x(\overline{x},\widehat{\Theta}_v)$ and $\widehat{u}_0(\overline{x},\widehat{\Theta}_c)$ are expressed in terms of $\widetilde{\Theta}_v$, $\widetilde{\Theta}_c$, $\kappa(\widehat{x})$, and $\kappa_x(\widehat{x})$ as
\begin{align}
\widehat{V}_x\left(\overline{x},\widehat{\Theta}_v\right)= & \Theta^{\rm{T}} \phi_x(\widehat{x})+\left(\widehat{\Theta}_v-\Theta\right)^{\rm{T}}\phi_x(\widehat{x}) \nonumber \\
\label{eq34} =& V^*_x(\widehat{x})+\widetilde{\Theta}^{\rm{T}}_v\phi_x(\widehat{x})-\kappa_x(\widehat{x}),\\
\widehat{u}_0\left(\overline{x},\widehat{\Theta}_c\right)
=& -\frac{1}{2}R^{-1}g_0^{\rm{T}}(\widehat{x})B^{\rm{T}}\phi^{\rm{T}}_x(\widehat{x})\left(\Theta+\widetilde{\Theta}_c\right) \nonumber\\
=& u_0^*(\widehat{x})-\frac{1}{2}R^{-1}g_0^{\rm{T}}(\widehat{x})B^{T}\phi_x^{\rm{T}}(\widehat{x})\widetilde{\Theta}_c \nonumber\\
\label{eq35} & +\frac{1}{2}R^{-1}g^{\rm{T}}_0(\widehat{x})B^{\rm{T}}\kappa^{\rm{T}}_x(\widehat{x}).
\end{align}
By (\ref{eq5}) and (\ref{eq50}), and inserting (\ref{eq34}) and (\ref{eq35}) into (\ref{eq7}), the instantaneous BE $\delta_t$ can be written as
\begin{align}\label{eq33}
\delta_t= & \mu^{\rm{T}}\widetilde{\Theta}_v-\kappa_x(\widehat{x})\left[A\widehat{x}+B\left(f_0(\widehat{x})+g_0(\widehat{x})\widehat{u}_0(\widehat{x},\widehat{\Theta}_c)\right)\right] \nonumber \\
& +2u_0^*(\widehat{x})R\left[-\frac{1}{2}R^{-1}g_0^{\rm{T}}(\widehat{x})B^{\rm{T}}\phi_x^{\rm{T}}(\widehat{x})\widetilde{\Theta}_c\right. \nonumber \\
& \left .+\frac{1}{2}R^{-1}g^{\rm{T}}_0(\widehat{x})B^{\rm{T}}\kappa^{\rm{T}}_x(\widehat{x})\right]\nonumber \\
& +\frac{R}{4}\left[-R^{-1}g_0^{\rm{T}}(\widehat{x})B^{\rm{T}}\phi_x^{\rm{T}}(\widehat{x})\widetilde{\Theta}_c+R^{-1}g^{\rm{T}}_0(\widehat{x})B^{\rm{T}}\kappa^{\rm{T}}_x(\widehat{x})\right]^2\nonumber \\
= & \mu^{\rm{T}}\widetilde{\Theta}_v+\frac{1}{4}\widetilde{\Theta}^{\rm{T}}_cG_{t}\widetilde{\Theta}_c+\Delta,
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
\Delta \triangleq & -\kappa_x(\widehat{x})[A\widehat{x}+Bf_0(\widehat{x})]\nonumber \\
& +\frac{1}{4}g_0^{\rm{T}}(\widehat{x})B^{\rm{T}}\kappa^{\rm{T}}_x(\widehat{x})R^{-1}\kappa_x(\widehat{x})Bg_0(\widehat{x})\nonumber \\
& +\frac{1}{2}\Theta^{\rm{T}}g_0^{\rm{T}}(\widehat{x})B^{\rm{T}}R^{-1}Bg_0(\widehat{x})\phi_x(\widehat{x})\kappa^{\rm{T}}_x(\widehat{x}).
\end{align*}
Similarly, the extrapolated BE $\delta_i$ can be expressed as
\begin{equation}\label{eq19}
\delta_i=\mu_i^{\rm{T}} \widetilde{\Theta}_v+\frac{1}{4}\widetilde{\Theta}^{\rm{T}}_cG_{i}\widetilde{\Theta}_c+\Delta_i,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align*}
\Delta_i \triangleq & -\kappa_x(x^i)[Ax^i+Bf_0(x^i)] \nonumber \\
& +\frac{1}{4}g_0^{\rm{T}}(x^i)B^{\rm{T}}\kappa^{\rm{T}}_x(x^i)R^{-1}\kappa_x(x^i)Bg_0(x^i) \nonumber \\
& +\frac{1}{2}\Theta^{\rm{T}}g_0^{\rm{T}}(x^i)B^{\rm{T}}R^{-1}Bg_0(x^i)\phi_x(x^i)\kappa^{\rm{T}}_x(x^i). \end{align*}
By (\ref{eq35}), the derivative of $V^*(x)$ under the control (\ref{eq27}) is given by
\begin{align}\label{eq43}
\dot{V}^*(x)= & V_x^*(x)[Ax+B(f(x,z,\omega)+g(x,z,\omega)u)] \nonumber \\
= & V_x^*(x)[Ax+B(f_0(x)+g_0(x)u_0^*(x))] \nonumber \\
& +V_x^*(x)B\left[\left(x_{n+1}-\frac{g_0(x)}{g_0(\widehat{x})}\widehat{x}_{n+1}\right)\right. \nonumber \\
& +g_0(\widehat{x})\left(\widehat{u}_0(\widehat{x},\widehat{\Theta}_c)-u_0^*(\widehat{x})\right)\nonumber \\
& +g_0(\widehat{x})\left(u_0^*(\widehat{x})-u_0^*(x)\right)\Big].
\end{align}
By (\ref{eq5}) and (\ref{eq33}), and the fact that the functions $V_x^*$, $\phi_x$, $g_0$, and $u_0^*$, are locally Lipschitz, one has that for all $x\in \mathcal{X}$, the derivative of $V^*(x)$ is upper bounded by
\begin{equation}\label{eq44}
\dot{V}^*(x)\leq -\iota_1\|x\|^2+\iota_2\|\eta\|+\iota_3\|\widetilde{\Theta}_c\|+\iota_4\overline{\kappa},
\end{equation}
where $\iota_1=\lambda_{\min}(Q)$, and $\iota_2$ to $\iota_4$ are $\varepsilon$-independent positive constants.
Let $\mathcal{V}: \mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}^{L}\times \mathbb{R}^{L}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ be a positive definite continuously differentiable Lyapunov function candidate defined by
\begin{equation}\label{eq32}
\mathcal{V}(Z)=V^*(x)+V_v(\widetilde{\Theta}_v)+V_c(\widetilde{\Theta}_c).
\end{equation}
It follows from (\ref{eq15})-(\ref{eq17}) that the derivative of $\mathcal{V}$ satisfies
\begin{align}\label{eq32}
\dot{\mathcal{V}}= & \dot{V}^*(x)+ \widetilde{\Theta}_v^{\rm{T}}\left(-\lambda_{v1}\frac{\mu}{\rho}\delta_t-\frac{\lambda_{v2}}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{\mu_i}{\rho_i}\delta_i\right)\nonumber \\
& +\widetilde{\Theta}_c^{\rm{T}}\left(-\lambda_{c1}(\widehat{\Theta}_c-\widehat{\Theta}_v)-\lambda_{c2}\widehat{\Theta}_c\right)\nonumber\\
& +\widetilde{\Theta}_c^{\rm{T}}\left(\frac{\lambda_{v1}G_{t}^{\rm{T}}\widehat{\Theta}_c\mu^{\textrm{T}}}{4\rho} + \sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{\lambda_{v2}G^{\rm{T}}_{i}\widehat{\Theta}_c\mu^{\rm{T}}_i}{4N\rho_i}\right)\widehat{\Theta}_v\nonumber \\
& -\frac{1}{2}\widetilde{\Theta}_v^{\rm{T}}\Gamma^{-1}\left(\beta\Gamma-\lambda_{v1}\frac{\Gamma\mu\mu^{\rm{T}}\Gamma}{\rho^2}\right)\Gamma^{-1}\widetilde{\Theta}_v. \end{align}
Using (\ref{eq33}) and (\ref{eq19}), one has
\begin{align}\label{eq45}
\dot{\mathcal{V}}= & \dot{V}^*(x) -\lambda_{v1}\widetilde{\Theta}_v^{\rm{T}}\frac{\mu\mu^{\rm{T}}}{\rho}\widetilde{\Theta}_v-\widetilde{\Theta}_v^{\rm{T}}\lambda_{v1}\frac{\mu}{\rho}\Delta \nonumber \\
& -\frac{\lambda_{v2}}{N}\widetilde{\Theta}_v^{\rm{T}}\sum_{i=1}^N\frac{\mu_i\mu_i^{\rm{T}}}{\rho_i}\widetilde{\Theta}_v -\widetilde{\Theta}_v^{\rm{T}}\frac{\lambda_{v2}}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\frac{\mu_i}{\rho_i}\Delta_i \nonumber \\
& -(\lambda_{c1}+\lambda_{c2})\|\widetilde{\Theta}_c\|^2+\lambda_{c1}\widetilde{\Theta}_c^{\rm{T}}\widetilde{\Theta}_v-\lambda_{c2}\widetilde{\Theta}_c^{\rm{T}}\Theta \nonumber \\
& +\left(\|\Theta\|^2\widetilde{\Theta}_c^{\rm{T}}+\|\widetilde{\Theta}_c\|^2\Theta^{\rm{T}}+\widetilde{\Theta}_c^{\rm{T}}\Theta\widetilde{\Theta}_v\right)\nonumber \\
& \times \left(\frac{\lambda_{v1}G_{t}^{\rm{T}}\mu^{\textrm{T}}}{4\rho} + \sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{\lambda_{v2}G^{\rm{T}}_{i}\mu^{\rm{T}}_i}{4N\rho_i}\right)\nonumber \\
& -\frac{1}{2}\beta\widetilde{\Theta}_v^{\rm{T}}\Gamma^{-1}\widetilde{\Theta}_v+\lambda_{v1}\widetilde{\Theta}_v^{\rm{T}}\frac{\mu\mu^{\rm{T}}}{\rho^2}\widetilde{\Theta}_v.
\end{align}
By some straightforward manipulations using (\ref{eq54}) and the Young's inequality, one can obtain $\|\frac{\mu}{\rho}\|\leq \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\gamma \varsigma_0}}$, $\|\frac{\mu_i}{\rho_i}\|\leq \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\gamma \varsigma_0}}$, $\|\frac{\mu\mu^{\rm{T}}}{\rho}\|\leq \frac{1}{\gamma \varsigma_0}$, $\|\frac{\mu_i\mu_i^{\rm{T}}}{\rho_i}\|\leq \frac{1}{\gamma \varsigma_0}$, $\|\frac{\mu_i\mu_i^{\rm{T}}}{\rho^2}\|\leq \frac{1}{4\gamma \varsigma_0}$. These together with (\ref{eq44}) and Assumption A4 yield
\begin{align}\label{eq46}
\dot{\mathcal{V}} \leq & -\iota_1\|x\|^2+\iota_3\|\widetilde{\Theta}_c\|+\frac{\lambda_{v1}}{\gamma\varsigma_0}\|\widetilde{\Theta}_v\|^2 \nonumber \\
& -\lambda_{v2}c\|\widetilde{\Theta}_v\|^2-(\lambda_{c1}+\lambda_{c2})\|\widetilde{\Theta}_c\|^2\nonumber \\
& +\frac{\lambda_{c1}}{2}(\|\widetilde{\Theta}_c\|^2+\|\widetilde{\Theta}_v\|^2)+\lambda_{c2}\|\Theta\| \|\widetilde{\Theta}_c\| \nonumber \\
& +\chi_1\|\Theta\|^2\|\widetilde{\Theta}_c\|+\chi_1\|\Theta\|\|\widetilde{\Theta}_c\|^2 \nonumber \\
& +\frac{\chi_1\|\Theta\|}{2}(\|\widetilde{\Theta}_c\|^2+\|\widetilde{\Theta}_v\|^2) \nonumber \\
& -\frac{1}{2}\beta\varsigma_1^{-1}\|\widetilde{\Theta}_v\|^2+\frac{\lambda_{v1}}{4\gamma\varsigma_0}\|\widetilde{\Theta}_v\|^2 \nonumber \\
& +\iota_2\|\eta\|+\iota_4\overline{\kappa}+\frac{\lambda_{v1}}{2\sqrt{\gamma\varsigma_0}}|\Delta|\|\widetilde{\Theta}_v\|\nonumber \\
& +\frac{\lambda_{v2}}{2\sqrt{\gamma\varsigma_0}}\|\widetilde{\Theta}_v\| \sum_{i=1}^{N}|\Delta_i| \nonumber \\
= & -\iota_1\|x\|^2+\iota_5\|\widetilde{\Theta}_v\|^2+\iota_6\|\widetilde{\Theta}\|_c^2 +\iota_7\|\widetilde{\Theta}_c\|+\iota_8,
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
\iota_5 \triangleq & -\lambda_{v2}c-\frac{\beta}{2\varsigma_1}+\frac{\lambda_{c1}}{2}+\frac{\chi_1\|\Theta\|}{2}+\frac{5\lambda_{v1}}{4\gamma\varsigma_0}, \\
\iota_6 \triangleq &-\frac{\lambda_{c1}}{2}-\lambda_{c2}+\frac{3}{2}\chi_1\|\Theta\|, \\
\iota_7 \triangleq & \iota_3+\lambda_{c2}\|\Theta\|+\chi_1\|\Theta\|^2, \\
\iota_8 \triangleq & \iota_2\|\eta\|+\iota_4\overline{\kappa}+\frac{\lambda_{v1}}{2\sqrt{\gamma\varsigma_0}}|\Delta|\|\widetilde{\Theta}_v\|\\
& +\frac{\lambda_{v2}}{2\sqrt{\gamma\varsigma_0}}\|\widetilde{\Theta}_v\|\sum_{i=1}^{N}|\Delta_i|,\\
\chi_1 \triangleq & \frac{\lambda_{v1}}{8\sqrt{\gamma \varsigma_0}}\sup_{\overline{x}\in\mathcal{X}}\|G_{t}\|+\frac{\lambda_{v2}}{8\sqrt{\gamma \varsigma_0}}\max_{1\leq i \leq N}\|G_{i}\|.
\end{align*}
Sufficient conditions for the gains $\lambda_{c1}$, $\lambda_{v1}$, $\lambda_{v2}$, and $\beta$ are then given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq47}
\beta >\varsigma_1 \chi_1\|\Theta\|+\varsigma_1 \lambda_{c1}, ~\lambda_{v2} > \frac{5\lambda_{v1}}{4c\gamma\varsigma_0}, ~\lambda_{c1} >3\chi_1\|\Theta\|.
\end{equation}
Provided the gains are selected satisfying (\ref{eq47}), the ESO is convergent in the sense of (\ref{eq42}),
the upper bound of the approximation error $\kappa_x$ can be made sufficiently small by increasing the number of NN neurons, and (\ref{eq36}), the derivative of $\mathcal{V}$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{eq48}
\dot{\mathcal{V}}(Z(t))\leq 0, ~t\in[t_1,t_2].
\end{equation}
This contradicts (\ref{eq36}). Thus the statement in Step 1) holds.
\emph{Step 2): There exists $\varepsilon^*\in(0, \varepsilon^{\dag}]$ such that for any $\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon^*)$, $\|\eta(t)\|=O(\varepsilon)$, $\forall t\in[T,\infty)$, $T>0$, and $Z(t)$ is uniformly ultimately bounded.}
Since $Z(t)\in\Omega^1$, $\forall t\in[0, \infty)$, by (\ref{eq41}), one has that for any $\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon^*)$ and $T>0$, $\|\eta(t)\|=O(\varepsilon)$, $\forall t\in[T,\infty)$. What is more, (\ref{eq46}) holds for $t\in[T,\infty)$. Consequently, selecting the parameters according to (\ref{eq47}), and by(\ref{eq46}), one can conclude the uniformly ultimately boundedness of $Z$. Also note that the system state $x$ converges to the neighbourhood of origin, and the estimate weight $\widehat{\Theta}_c$ approximates the ideal weight $\Theta$ if $\iota_7/|\iota_6|$ (i.e., $\lambda_{c2}/\lambda_{c1}$) is sufficiently small. This completes the proof of Theorem 1. \IEEEQED
\emph{Remark 5:} In this paper, similar to \cite{Luo-2014,Kama-2016a,Jiang-2014}, we use two weights $\widehat{\Theta}_v$ and $\widehat{\Theta}_c$ to estimate the same ideal weight $\Theta$. The use of two weights rather than one weight is mainly motivated by the stability analysis. Note that in (\ref{eq33}) and (\ref{eq19}), benefited from the use of two weights, the BEs are linear with respect to the weight estimation error $\widetilde{\Theta}_v$, which enables us to develop a least-square update law for $\widehat{\Theta}_v$ based on the BEs. The update law for $\widehat{\Theta}_c$ guarantees that $\widehat{\Theta}_c\rightarrow \widehat{\Theta}_v$. $\IEEEQED$
\emph{Remark 6:} We should point out that the update law in this paper is different from the standard CL update law in existing wroks such as \cite{Zhang-2018,Xue-2020,Yang-2019b,Yang-2020a,Vam-2015,Chowdhary-2010}. As depicted in Fig. \ref{data_points}a, for a standard CL update law, the recorded data can be only selected along the system state trajectory. In this case, to guarantee that the system state visits sufficient number of points in the domain of operation, a probing signal is generally required to excite the system \cite{Vam-2015}. In this paper, with the known nominal model of the system, the BE can be extrapolated to any desired data points, and the system trajectory doesn’t need to really reach to these data points (see Fig. \ref{data_points}b). Benefited from this, our developed approach doesn't need a probing signal, and hence it is able to achieve better transient performance. \IEEEQED
\emph{Remark 7:} According to Theorem 1, $\widehat{x}\rightarrow x$ and the actor NN weight $\widehat{\Theta}_c$ approximates the ideal weight $\Theta$. Therefore, the control policy given by $\widehat{u}_0(\overline{x},\widehat{\Theta}_c)$ approximates the ideal optimal control policy $u_0^*(x)$. In this sense and following also \cite{Lewis-2009,Lewis-2018,Liu-2017}, $\widehat{u}_0(\overline{x},\widehat{\Theta}_c)$ is referred to as an \emph{approximate optimal control}. Also note that, similar to \cite{Kama-2016a,Kama-2016b,Kama-2013}, the convergence results in this paper are practical. Thus the cost defined by (\ref{eq3}), when evaluated along the approximate optimal trajectory, will be infinite. This, however, will not cause any theoretical concern.
Note that the partial derivative $\widehat{V}_x$ leveraged in the BEs (\ref{eq7})-(\ref{eq49}) to update the NN weights is bounded for all $t\in[0,\infty)$. Actually, the design and analysis of the RL-based controller doesn't need the infinite horizon cost along the approximate optimal trajectory to be finite, it only needs the cost, when evaluated along the ideal optimal trajectory to be finite. To avoid infinite cost, one could use a discounted cost formulation with some additional conditions to guarantee stability \cite{Gait-2015}. \IEEEQED
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,bb=10 20 480 250, clip]{data_grid2}
\caption{Illustration of the differences between the mechanisms of the standard CL update law and the update law in this paper: (a) standard CL update law; (b) update law in this paper. The green lines represent the system trajectories. The yellow dots represent the data points along the trajectory. The red dots represent the selected data points to extrapolate the BE. }\label{data_points}
\end{figure}
\emph{Remark 8:} There are several groups of parameters that need to be selected for the developed ESO-based reinforcement learning and disturbance rejection scheme.
\begin{itemize}
\item For the ESO, the parameters to be selected include the observer gains $L$ and $\varepsilon$, the saturation bounds for the observer output ($M_i$, $1\leq i\leq n+1$), and the saturation bounds for the functions $f_0(\cdot)$ and $g_0(\cdot)$ (denoted by $M_f$ and $M_g$, respectively). The observer gain $L$ can be selected by a pole placement method such that the matrix $E$ is Hurwitz. Theoretically, $\varepsilon$ can be selected arbitrarily small to achieve more accurate estimation. However, in practice, the lower-bound of $\varepsilon$ is limited due to noise and sampling constraints \cite{Khalil-2008,Ran-2017a}. The bounds $M_i$, $1\leq i\leq n+1$, are selected according to (\ref{eq52})-(\ref{eq53}). Note that the calculation of $M_{n+1}$ is generally not straightforward, and one might end up with a conservative bound. From a practice viewpoint, the values of $\varepsilon$ and $M_{n+1}$ can be decided by a simple trial and error procedure, based on the obtained performance. Our numerical experience and many previous ESO results (see, e.g., \citep{Khalil-2008,Ran-2017a}) indicate that it is generally very easy to select a group of satisfactory $\varepsilon$ and $M_{n+1}$. Finally, the bounds $M_f$ and $M_g$ are selected such that $M_f\geq \sup_{x\in\mathcal{X}}|f_0(x)|$ and $M_g\geq \sup_{x\in\mathcal{X}}|g_0(x)|$, respectively.
\item For the simulation of experience based RL, the parameters to be selected include the positive adaptation gains $\lambda_{c1}$, $\lambda_{c2}$, $\lambda_{v1}$, $\lambda_{v2}$, and $\beta$. The sufficient conditions for the adaptation gains based on the stability analysis are given by (\ref{eq47}). Note that the inequalities in (\ref{eq47}) depend on unknown parameters $\Theta$, $\varsigma_0$, $\varsigma_1$, and $c$. Therefore, the selection of these adaptation gains also needs a simple trial and error procedure. What is more, $\lambda_{c2}/\lambda_{c1}$ is required to be sufficiently small.
\item For the data set $\{x^i\in\mathbb{R}^n| i=1,\ldots, N\}$ to extrapolate the BE, it is required to satisfy Assumption A4. We mention that, similar to the probing signals used in previous RL algorithms \cite{Jiang-2014b,Gao-2019,Fan-2016,Wang-2018,Wang-2020}, the data set is also selected offline and then the RL algorithm is implemented online. It is difficult to provide a theoretical guarantee to make sure that the offline selected data points (and probing signals) achieve satisfactory online performance.
In practice, to fulfill Assumption A4, one can select $x^i$, $1\leq i\leq N$, on an $\underbrace{a\times a \cdots \times a}_{n}$ data grid which covers the interested compact set $\mathcal{X}\subseteq\mathbb{R}^n$, where $a$ is an appropriately large positive integer.
\item For the basis function $\phi(x)$, and the initial NN weights $\widehat{\Theta}_v(0)$ and $\widehat{\Theta}_c(0)$, their selections are important for RL-based controllers \cite{Lewis-2009,Lewis-2018,Liu-2017}. The basic principle of selecting the basis function is to let the real basis be contained in the selected basis to make sure that the NN representation error $\kappa(x)$ is small. In this paper, since the system nominal model (i.e., $f_0(x)$ and $g_0(x)$) is known to the designer, the selection of the basis function will be relatively easier than that for an unknown system. However, the selection of a good basis for very general nonlinear systems is challenging and is still largely open in machine learning \cite{Kama-2013}. On the other hand, similar to \cite{Kama-2016a,Kama-2016b}, benefited from the mechanism that the BE can be extrapolated to any desired data points with a known system nominal model, the initial NN weights are not required to be admissible. However, in practice, better initial NN weights will lead to better closed-loop transient performance.
\IEEEQED
\end{itemize}
\emph{Remark 9:} Compared with the existing RL results for uncertain nonlinear systems \cite{Jiang-2014b,Gao-2019,Fan-2016,Xue-2020,Jiang-2017b,Wang-2018,Wang-2020,Zhang-2018,Yang-2019b}, the advantages of the proposed approach are threefold: 1) The uncertainties considered in this paper are more general and complex, since it involves the system states $x$ and $z$, the control input $u$, and the external disturbance $\omega$, and hence the analysis is much more challenging. 2) This paper inherits the idea of ADRC and handles the uncertainty in an ``observation+compensation'' scheme, which is fundamentally different from the ideas in \cite{Jiang-2014b,Gao-2019,Fan-2016,Xue-2020,Jiang-2017b,Wang-2018,Wang-2020,Zhang-2018,Yang-2019b}. 3) This paper provides a more practical solution to the RL design problem for uncertain nonlinear systems since our developed approach is output feedback based and does not require the probing signal. The approaches in \cite{Jiang-2014b,Gao-2019,Jiang-2017b,Wang-2018,Wang-2020,Zhang-2018,Yang-2019b,Fan-2016,Xue-2020} are full state-feedback based and in \cite{Jiang-2014b,Gao-2019,Fan-2016,Wang-2018,Wang-2020} require the probing signal. \IEEEQED
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.30\textwidth,bb=15 10 435 365, clip]{Data_Grid}
\caption{Illustration of the data points selected on a $5\times 5$ data grid.}\label{fig11}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth,bb=15 10 315 382, clip]{ESO}
\caption{Trajectories of the system state and ESO output.}\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
\section{Examples}
This section presents two simulation examples to illustrate the effectiveness of our developed approach.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth,bb=15 0 315 188, clip]{u}
\caption{Trajectory of the control input $u$.}\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth,bb=5 0 315 240, clip]{Theta_c}
\caption{Trajectories of the actor NN weight.}\label{fig6}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Example 1}
Consider the following uncertain nonlinear system
\begin{equation}\label{eq55}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\dot{z}=& \underbrace{-(x_2^2+\omega^2)z}_{f_z(x,z,\omega)}, \\
\dot{x}_1=& x_2, \\
\dot{x}_2=& \underbrace{-x_1-2.5x_2+\omega+z^2+0.5(x_1+x_2)(\cos(2x_1)+2)^2}_{f(x,z,\omega)} \\
& +\underbrace{(\cos(2x_1)+2+\sin(x_1)\omega)}_{g(x,z,\omega)}u, \\
y=& x_1,
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation}
where the external disturbance is numerically set as $\omega=0.5\sin(t)$. The known nominal models of $f(x,z,\omega)$ and $g(x,z,\omega)$ are taken as
\begin{align*}
f_0(x)= & -x_1-1.5x_2+0.5(x_1+x_2)(\cos(2x_1)+2)^2, \\
g_0(x)= & \cos(2x_1)+2.
\end{align*}
The cost functional for the nominal system is given by (\ref{eq3}) with $Q=x^{\rm{T}}\overline{Q}x$ and $R=1$, where $\overline{Q}=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
2 & 1 \\
1 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right]$
is positive definite. The nominal models are selected above since the corresponding optimal control problem has an analytical solution, which is helpful for the simulation to verify the correctness of the developed approach. Specifically, according to the procedure in \cite{Nev-1996},
the optimal value function is $V^*(x)=1.5x_1^2+2x_1x_2+x_2^2$, and the optimal control policy is $u_0^*(x)=-(\cos(2x_1)+2)(x_1+x_2)$. The total uncertainty for system (\ref{eq55}) is denoted by
\begin{equation}\label{eq56}
x_3=-x_2+\omega+z^2+\sin(x_1)\omega u.
\end{equation}
It can be verified that Assumptions A1 to A3 are satisfied.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth,bb=5 40 315 580, clip]{data_sets}
\caption{Trajectories of the actor NN weight with different data grids: $9\times 9$ data grid (black full line); $5\times 5$ data grid (red dash line); $3\times 3$ data grid (blue dot line); $2\times 2$ data grid (yellow dash-dot line).}\label{fig7}
\end{figure}
Consider the scenario that the compact set of interest is $\mathcal{X}=[-2 ~2]\times [-2 ~2]$. The ESO is designed with $L=[3 ~3 ~1]^{\rm{T}}$ and $\varepsilon=0.02$. The saturation bounds for the nominal functions $f_0(x)$ and $g_0(x)$ are selected as $M_f=6.5>\sup_{x\in\mathcal{X}}|f_0(x)|$ and $M_g=3>\sup_{x\in\mathcal{X}}|g_0(x)|$, respectively. The saturation bounds for the output of the observer $\widehat{x}_1$, $\widehat{x}_2$, and $\widehat{x}_3$, are selected as $M_1=M_2=M_3=2$.
\emph{Simulation with known basis function:}
First, we simulate the simple case, i.e., the basis function is known. In this case, the basis function $\phi:\mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^3$ is selected as $\phi(x)=[x_1^2 ~x_1x_2 ~x_2^2]^{\rm{T}}$. According to the analytical solution of $V^*(x)$, the ideal weight $\Theta=[1.5 ~2 ~1]^{\rm{T}}$. The data points to extrapolate the BE are selected on a $5\times 5$ data grid cover the domain $\mathcal{X}$ (see Fig. \ref{fig11}). The gains for the RL are selected as $\lambda_{v1}=1$, $\lambda_{v2}=5$, $\lambda_{c1}=100$, $\lambda_{c2}=0.1$, $\gamma=0.5$, and $\beta=100$. The upper bound of $\Gamma$ is set as $\varsigma_1=2000$. Simulation is done with initial conditions $z(0)=1$, $x(0)=[1.5 ~1.5]^{\rm{T}}$, $[\widehat{x}_1(0) ~\widehat{x}_2(0) ~\widehat{x}_3(0)]^{\rm{T}}=[0 ~0 ~0]^{\rm{T}}$, $\widehat{\Theta}_v(0)=\widehat{\Theta}_c(0)=[0.5 ~0.5 ~0.5]^{\rm{T}}$, and $\Gamma(0)=\textrm{diag}\{100,100,100\}$. Note that the initial weight $[0.5 ~0.5 ~0.5]^{\rm{T}}$ is not an admissible control policy. Fig. \ref{fig3} shows the trajectories of the system state and ESO output. It can be observed that the system state $x$ is regulated to the origin, and the state $x$ and total uncertainty $x_3$ are well-estimated by the ESO. Fig. \ref{fig4} illustrates the trajectory of the control signal $u$ given by (\ref{eq27}). Fig. \ref{fig6} shows that the actor NN weight $\widehat{\Theta}_{c}$ converges to its real value.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth,bb=25 15 315 325, clip]{c}
\caption{Trajectories of $\frac{1}{N}\left(\lambda_{\min}\left\{\sum_{i=1}^N\frac{\mu_i\mu_i^{\rm{T}}}{\rho_i}\right\}\right)$ with $3\times 3$ data grid (upper figure) and $2\times 2$ data grid (lower figure).}\label{fig8}
\end{figure}
\emph{Simulation with different data grids:} Next, we investigate the performance of the developed controller with different data grids. Note that one needs to select sufficiently more data points such that Assumption A4 is satisfied. However, too more data will increase the online computation burden. We consider the $9\times 9$, $5\times 5$, $3\times 3$, and $2\times 2$ data grids over the compact set $\mathcal{X}$. Fig. \ref{fig7} shows the trajectories of the actor NN weight with different data grids. From this figure, it can be observed that 1) more data points lead to better convergence performance; 2) the performance with $5\times 5$ data grid is comparable to $9\times 9$ data grid; 3) the actor NN weight cannot converge to the ideal value with $2\times 2$ data grid. Therefore, for this numerical example, $3\times 3$ data grid suffices to guarantee the convergence of the NN weights, and $5\times 5$ data grid is enough to obtain satisfactory performance. Fig. \ref{fig8} depicts the trajectories of $\frac{1}{N}\left(\lambda_{\min}\left\{\sum_{i=1}^N\frac{\mu_i\mu_i^{\rm{T}}}{\rho_i}\right\}\right)$ with $3\times 3$ and $2\times 2$ data grids. One can see that Assumption A4 is satisfied with $3\times 3$ data grid, but failed with $2\times 2$ data grid.
\emph{Simulation with unknown basis function:} Finally, we simulate the case that the basis function is unknown. For this example, we select the basis function as $\phi(x)=[x_1^2 ~x_1^3 ~x_2^2 ~x_2^3 ~x_1x_2 ~x_1x_2^2 ~x_1^2x_2]^{\rm{T}}$. With this selection, the ideal value of the critical and actor NN weights is $\Theta=[1.5 ~0 ~1 ~0 ~2 ~0 ~0]^{\rm{T}}$. The initial conditions of $\widehat{\Theta}_v$, $\widehat{\Theta}_c$, and $\Gamma$, are set as $\widehat{\Theta}_v(0)=\widehat{\Theta}_c(0)=[0.5 ~0.5 ~0.5 ~0.5 ~0.5 ~0.5 ~0.5]^{\rm{T}}$, and $\Gamma(0)=\textrm{diag}\{100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100\}$. All other settings are the same with the simulation with known basis function. Trajectories of the system state $x$ and the actor NN weight $\widehat{\Theta}_c$ are illustrated in Figs. \ref{fig9} and \ref{fig10}, respectively. It can be observed that the system state converges to the origin while the actor NN weight converges to the ideal value. However, as expected, the transient period is longer than the known basis function case.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth,bb=5 0 315 240, clip]{state}
\caption{Trajectories of the system state with unknown basis function.}\label{fig9}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth,bb=5 0 315 240, clip]{learn_gains}
\caption{Trajectories of the actor NN weight with unknown basis function.}\label{fig10}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth,bb=10 25 315 475, clip]{ESO2}
\caption{Trajectories of the system state and ESO output (Example 2).}\label{fig12}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Example 2}
In this example, we consider a class of third-order kinematic models described by \cite{Bian-2019}
\begin{equation}\label{eq57}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\dot{p}=& v, \\
m\dot{v}=& f_a-bv, \\
\tau \dot{f}_a=& u-f_a+\omega,
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation}
where $p$, $v$, and $f_a$ denote the position, velocity, and actuator force, respectively; $u$ is the control input; $m$, $b$, and $\tau$ represent the mass, velocity constant, and time constant, respectively; and $\omega$ is the external disturbance. The above system represent a large class of physical systems, including human motor system, autonomous vehicle, power system, etc \cite{Bian-2019}. By letting $x_1=p$, $x_2=v$, and $x_3=\frac{f_a-bv}{m}$, the above system can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{eq58}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\dot{x}_1=& x_2, \\
\dot{x}_2=& x_3,\\
\dot{x}_3=& -\frac{b}{\tau m}x_2-\left(\frac{1}{\tau}+\frac{b}{m}\right)x_3+\frac{1}{\tau m}u+ \frac{1}{\tau m}\omega.
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation}
In the simulation, the values of the model parameters are given by $m=1\textrm{kg}$, $b=1 \textrm{N} \cdot \textrm{s/m}$, and $\tau=0.1\textrm{s}$. Let $f_0(x)=-\frac{b}{\tau m}x_2-\left(\frac{1}{\tau}+\frac{b}{m}\right)x_3$, $g_0(x)=\frac{1}{\tau m}$, and $\omega=0.2\sin(t)$. The cost functional for the nominal system is selected as $r(x,u_0)=\|x\|^2+u_0^2$, and consequently the optimal value function and optimal control policy are given by $V^*(x)=2.2669x_1^2+2.3580x_2^2+0.0470x_3^2+3.1390x_1x_2+0.2x_1x_3+0.2534x_2x_3$ and $u_0^*(x)=x_1+1.2669x_2+0.4695x_3$, respectively. The compact set of interest is set as $\chi=[-1 ~1]\times [-1 ~1]\times [-5 ~5]$, and the data points to extrapolate the BE are selected on a $5\times 5\times 5$ data grid covering the domain $\chi$. The ESO is designed with $L=[4 ~6 ~4 ~1]^{\rm{T}}$ and $\varepsilon=0.01$. The basis function is selected as $\phi(x)=[x_1^2 ~x_2^2 ~x_3^2 ~x_1x_2 ~x_1x_3 ~x_2x_3]^{\rm{T}}$. The adaptation gains of the RL adaptive laws are the same as those in Example 1.
Simulation is done with initial conditions $x(0)=[0.5 ~0.5 ~4]^{\rm{T}}$, $[\widehat{x}_1(0) ~\widehat{x}_2(0)~\widehat{x}_3(0)]^{\rm{T}}=[0 ~0 ~0]^{\rm{T}}$, $\Gamma(0)=\textrm{diag}\{100,100,100,100,100,100\}$, and the elements of $\widehat{\Theta}_v(0)$ and $\widehat{\Theta}_c(0)$ randomly selected on $[0 ~2]$. Figs. \ref{fig12}-\ref{fig14} show the simulation results, from which one can see that the developed approach achieves satisfactory performance for the third-order kinematic model.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth,bb=15 0 320 188, clip]{u2}
\caption{Trajectory of the control input $u$ (Example 2).}\label{fig13}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
An ESO-based reinforcement learning and disturbance rejection framework is established for uncertain nonlinear systems having non-simple nominal models.
The developed approach compensates for the total uncertainty and approximates the optimal policy for the compensated system simultaneously. Simulation of experience based RL is employed to utilize the nominal model and to relax the requirement of the PE condition. The obtained results provide a novel learning-based solution for the disturbance rejection of uncertain nonlinear systems, especially those having non-simple nominal models, which are quite common in practice. Future research works will be directed at the extension of the results to systems with constraints \cite{Yang-2020b,Yang-2020c}, and the application of the developed approach to robotic systems \cite{Li-2019}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth,bb=5 0 320 240, clip]{Theta_c2}
\caption{Trajectories of the actor NN weight (Example 2).}\label{fig14}
\end{figure}
\section{Introduction}
Reinforcement learning (RL), inspired by learning behavior in nature, is a goal-oriented learning strategy wherein the agent learns the policy to optimize a pre-defined reward by interacting with the environment \cite{Nef-2019,Lewis-2009}. From a perspective of control theory, RL is strongly connected with traditional optimal control and adaptive control algorithms \cite{Lewis-2018}. The goal of an RL-based controller is to learn the optimal policy and value function by finding the solution to the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman (HJB) equation online. For its uniqueness in data-driven concepts, effectiveness in reaching optimal behavior, and adaptiveness to uncertain environment, RL has undergone rapid progress in control community \cite{Liu-2017,Lewis-2018}.
Early-efforts on RL-based control were mainly devoted to linear systems. For example, a policy iteration technique to solve the continuous time LQR problem without the knowledge of the state matrix was proposed in \cite{Lewis-2009b}. The results in \cite{Lewis-2009b} were generalized to linear systems with completely unknown dynamics in \cite{Jiang-2012}. In the last decade, the extension of RL-based control to nonlinear systems has gained considerable attention as well. Model-free optimal control problems for affine and nonaffine nonlinear systems were addressed based on RL in \cite{Luo-2014} and \cite{Jiang-2014}, respectively. In \cite{Jiang-2015b}, RL-based optimal control for polynomial systems was considered. A new policy iteration scheme was developed in \cite{Jiang-2015b} which attempts to solve a convex optimization problem rather than a partial differential equation as usual. In \cite{Zarg-2015} and \cite{Jiang-2017}, the problem of RL-based optimal tracking control for nonlinear systems in strict-feedback form was investigated. Ref. \cite{Zarg-2015} handled this problem by transforming it into an equivalent optimal regulation problem through a feedforward adaptive input, while \cite{Jiang-2017} addressed this problem by using a novel policy iteration technique to solve semidefinite HJB equations.
In practice, almost all control systems are inherently nonlinear and subject to uncertainties and disturbances \cite{Khalil-2002,Isidori-1989}. Thus it is important to investigate the robustness of RL-based control policies for nonlinear systems. The traditional robust control methods, such as the nonlinear small-gain theorem \cite{Jiang-2014b,Gao-2019}, sliding mode control \cite{Fan-2016}, and $H_{\infty}$ control \cite{Xue-2020,Jiang-2017b} were integrated with the RL designs. In \cite{Wang-2018,Wang-2020}, novel adaptive critic strategies were developed with robustness guarantees for disturbed nonlinear systems. In \cite{Zhang-2018,Yang-2019b}, event-triggered mechanisms were introduced into the design of robust RL controllers to mitigate unnecessary communications. Note that to guarantee parameter convergence, the RL-based control laws generally require persistence of excitation (PE) of the system state. In \cite{Jiang-2014b,Fan-2016,Wang-2020,Wang-2018}, to fulfill the PE condition, probing signals are added into the control inputs, which will inevitably decrease the transient performance. What is more, the approaches in \cite{Jiang-2014b,Gao-2019,Fan-2016,Xue-2020,Jiang-2017b,Wang-2018,Wang-2020,Zhang-2018,Yang-2019b} were developed only for relatively simple uncertainties or disturbances (e.g., independent from the control signal).
On the other hand, the active disturbance rejection control (ADRC), which was proposed by Han \cite{Han-2009}, is an efficient methodology to deal with uncertainties and disturbances. The basic idea of ADRC is to first estimate the total uncertainty online via a device called extended state observer (ESO), and then compensate for it in the control loop in real time. Accordingly, an ADRC law contains two components: a disturbance rejection term compensates for the estimated uncertainty, and a nominal controller guarantees the performance of the compensated system. The existing ADRC literature mainly focus on its engineering applications \cite{Sari-2020} and theoretical verifications for different classes of uncertain systems, such as MIMO systems \cite{Guo-2013}, nonaffine-in-control systems \cite{Ran-2017a}, time-delay systems \cite{Ran-2020}, and so on. On the contrary, there are very few works that concern the design of the nominal controller, since the compensated system is generally simplified into a chain of integrators (see, e.g., \cite{Guo-2013,Ran-2017a,Ran-2020,Gao-2003}).
Motivated by the observations stated above, in this paper, we consider the RL-based disturbance rejection control for uncertain nonlinear systems. The systems are assumed to have non-simple nominal models (i.e., the nominal models maybe also complex and nonlinear) and are subject to multiple uncertainties. In order to relax the requirement of the PE condition and avoid using the probing signal, concurrent learning (CL), also known as experience replay, is employed in this paper. The original idea of concurrent learning is to use the recorded data and current data simultaneously for parameter adaptation in the framework of model reference adaptive control (MRAC) \cite{Chowdhary-2010}. In recent years, this idea was extended to develop RL-based control policies to remove the PE condition \cite{Zhang-2018,Xue-2020,Yang-2019b,Yang-2020a,Vam-2015}. Note that in RL, estimates for the parameters of the value function are updated using the Bellman error (BE) as a performance metric. In this paper, we evaluate the BE along the system trajectory, and simultaneously, extrapolate the BE to any unexplored data points by using the nominal model. This concurrent learning technique is interpreted as simulation of experience \cite{Kama-2016a,Kama-2016b}.
The main contributions of this paper are twofold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item An ESO-based reinforcement learning and disturbance rejection framework for uncertain nonlinear systems having non-simple nominal models is established. The ESO provides estimates of the system state and total uncertainty to the RL-algorithm and disturbance rejection term, respectively.
The disturbance rejection term compensates for the total uncertainty in real time, while the output feedback simulation of experience based RL explores the optimal policy for the compensated system simultaneously. To the best of the authors' knowledge, this work is the first attempt that bridges the gap between RL and the philosophy of ADRC.
\item A rigorous theoretical analysis that establishes online simultaneous disturbance rejection and optimal policy approximation without the PE condition is conducted. Due to the strong coupling between the ESO estimation error and the RL approximation error, the theoretical problem faced in this paper is much more challenging than the previous ADRC \cite{Guo-2013,Ran-2017a,Ran-2020,Gao-2003} and RL results \cite{Kama-2016a,Kama-2016b}. Specifically, in \cite{Guo-2013,Ran-2017a,Ran-2020,Gao-2003} the nominal controller is designed to stabilize a chain of integrators, while here it is a learning controller which is able to online approximate the optimal policy for the non-simple compensated system. Compared with \cite{Kama-2016a,Kama-2016b}, we provide a more practical RL solution for nonlinear systems, since the developed controller is capable of handling multiple uncertainties and it is output feedback based.
\end{enumerate}
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II presents some preliminaries and formulates the problem. Section III states the design and analysis of the developed ESO-based reinforcement learning and disturbance rejection framework. In Section IV, some simulation results are given to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method. Finally, Section V concludes the paper.
\emph{Notations:} Throughout this paper, we use $\mathcal{C}$ to represent the set of all continuously differentiable functions. For any continuously differentiable function $f: \mathbb{R}^{n}\times \mathbb{R}^m\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^l$, $f_x:\mathbb{R}^{n}\times \mathbb{R}^m\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{l\times n} $ represents its gradient with respect to the first vector argument, i.e., $f_x(\nu_1, \nu_2)=\partial f(\nu_1,\nu_2)/\partial \nu_1$. $\lambda_{\max}(P)$ and $\lambda_{\min}(P)$ denote the maximum and minimum eigenvalues of matrix $P$, respectively. Big $O$-notation in terms of $\nu$ is denoted as $O(\nu)$ and it is assumed that this holds for $\nu$ positive and sufficiently small. $\textrm{sat}:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ denotes the standard unity saturation function defined by $\textrm{sat}(\nu)=\textrm{sign}(\nu)\cdot\min\{1, |\nu|\}$. $\textbf{1}_A(\nu)$ is the indictor function defined by $\textbf{1}_A(\nu)=\left\{\begin{matrix} 1 ~~ \textrm{if} ~ \nu\in A, \\ 0 ~~ \textrm{if} ~ \nu \notin A. \end{matrix}\right.$ Throughout this paper, for the sake of brevity, the time variable $t$ of a signal will be omitted except when the dependence of the signal on $t$ is crucial for clear presentation.
\section{Problem Formulation}
A single-input, single-output system with relative degree $n$, under a suitable diffeomorphism, can be written in the following normal form \cite{Isidori-1989}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq1}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\dot{z}=& f_z(x, z, \omega), \\
\dot{x}=& Ax+B[f(x, z, \omega)+g(x,z,\omega)u], \\
y=& Cx,
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation}
where $x=[x_1, \ldots, x_n]^{\rm{T}}\in\mathbb{R}^n$ and $z\in\mathbb{R}^p$ are the states, $\omega\in\mathbb{R}$ is the external disturbance, $u\in\mathbb{R}$ is the control input, $y\in\mathbb{R}$ is the measured output, $f_z: \mathbb{R}^n\times \mathbb{R}^p \times \mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^p$ and $f, g: \mathbb{R}^n\times \mathbb{R}^p \times \mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ are continuously differentiable functions, and matrices $A\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$, $B\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times 1}$, and $C\in\mathbb{R}^{1\times n}$ are given by
\begin{equation*}
A=
\left[
\begin{array}{ccccc}
0 & 1 & \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & \cdots & 1 \\
0 & 0 & \cdots &0 \\
\end{array}
\right], ~B=\left[
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
\vdots \\
0 \\
1 \\
\end{array}
\right],~C=\left[
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
0 \\
\vdots \\
0 \\
\end{array}
\right]^{\rm{T}}.
\end{equation*} For system (\ref{eq1}), the following assumptions are made:
\emph{Assumption A1:} The external disturbance $\omega$ and its time derivative $\dot{\omega}$ are bounded.
\emph{Assumption A2:} The zero-dynamics $\dot{z}=f_z(x, z, \omega)$ with input $(x, \omega)$ is bounded-input-bounded-state stable.
In this paper, the functions $f(\cdot)$ and $g(\cdot)$ are assumed to be uncertain and partially known, that is,
\begin{align}\label{eq2}
f(x,z,\omega)=& f_0(x)+\Delta f(x,z,\omega), \\ ~g(x,z,\omega)=& g_0(x)+\Delta g(x,z,\omega),
\end{align}
where $f_0(\cdot), g_0(\cdot)\in \mathcal{C}(\mathbb{R}^n, \mathbb{R})$ are known and globally bounded, $g_0(\cdot)\neq 0$, and $\Delta f(\cdot), \Delta g(\cdot)\in\mathcal{C}(\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}^p\times\mathbb{R}, \mathbb{R})$ are unknown.
\emph{Remark 1:} Similar to many previous ESO works (see, e.g., \cite{Khalil-2010,Khalil-2008}), we require the global boundedness of $f_0(\cdot)$ and $g_0(\cdot)$. It should be pointed out that this requirement does not exclude linear functions or any unbounded function
because in this paper we achieve semi-global results, and the global boundedness can be always satisfied by smoothly saturating the function outside a compact set of interest. \IEEEQED
\emph{Remark 2:} In system (\ref{eq1}), the uncertainties are located in the same channel as the control signal. For a general nonlinear system with smooth unmatched uncertainties, one can conduct a well-defined state transformation to transform the system into the form of system (\ref{eq1}) \cite{Zhao-2017}. \IEEEQED
Note that system (\ref{eq1}) is subjected to multiple uncertainties, including the uncertainty in zero dynamics $\dot{z}=f_z(x, z, \omega)$, drift dynamics modeling error $\Delta f(\cdot)$, mismatch of control $\Delta g(\cdot)u$, and external disturbance $\omega$. Inherited from the basic philosophy of ADRC \cite{Han-2009}, the total uncertainty is regarded as an extended state of the system, which is denoted by
\begin{equation}\label{eq8}
x_{n+1}\triangleq \Delta f(x,z,\omega)+\Delta g(x,z,\omega)u.
\end{equation}
With assumption A2, we concentrate on the control design for the $x$-subsystem.
Had $x$ and $x_{n+1}$ been available for feedback, we could have the following controller:
\begin{equation}\label{eq9}
u=u_0^*(x)-\frac{x_{n+1}}{g_0(x)}.
\end{equation}
Here the second term $-\frac{x_{n+1}}{g_0(x)}$ is to compensate the total uncertainty, and $u_0^*(x)$ is the optimal policy for the compensated system
\begin{equation}\label{eq23}
\dot{x}=Ax+B[f_0(x)+g_0(x)u_0],
\end{equation}
with the cost functional
\begin{equation}\label{eq3}
J(x,u_0)=\int_{0}^{\infty}r(x(\tau),u_0(\tau))\textrm{d}\tau.
\end{equation}
The function $r: \mathbb{R}^n\times \mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^+$ denotes the instantaneous cost given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq24}
r(x,u_0)=Q(x)+u_0^{\textrm{T}}Ru_0,
\end{equation}
where $Q:\mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^+$ is positive definite, and $R>0$.
Note that in the control (\ref{eq9}), the optimal control $u_0^*(x)$ is generally analytically infeasible, and the state $x$ and total uncertainty $x_{n+1}$ are both unavailable. The objective of this paper is then to develop an ESO-based reinforcement learning and disturbance rejection scheme, which is able to online simultaneously compensate the uncertainty and approximate the optimal policy.
\section{ESO-based Reinforcement Learning and Disturbance Rejection}
\subsection{Control Design}
First of all, an ESO is designed for system (\ref{eq1}) to provide the estimates of the state and total uncertainty:
\begin{equation}\label{eso}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \dot{\widehat{x}}_1=\widehat{x}_2+\frac{l_1}{\varepsilon}(x_1-\widehat{x}_1), \\
& ~\vdots \\
&\dot{\widehat{x}}_{n-1}=\widehat{x}_n+\frac{l_{n-1}}{\varepsilon^{n-1}}(x_1-\widehat{x}_1), \\
&\dot{\widehat{x}}_{n}=\widehat{x}_{n+1}+\frac{l_n}{\varepsilon^n}(x_1-\widehat{x}_1)+f_0(\widehat{x})+g_0(\widehat{x})u, \\
&\dot{\widehat{x}}_{n+1}=\frac{l_{n+1}}{\varepsilon^{n+1}}(x_1-\widehat{x}_1),
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $\widehat{x}=[\widehat{x}_1,\ldots,\widehat{x}_{n}]^{\rm{T}}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$, $\varepsilon<1$ is a small positive constant, $L=[l_1, l_2,\ldots,l_{n+1}]^{\rm{T}}\in\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ is the observer gain selected such that the following matrix is Hurwitz:
\begin{equation*}\label{eq14}
E=\left[
\begin{array}{ccccc}
-l_1 & 1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
-l_2 & 0 & 1 & \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots &\vdots &\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
-l_n & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 1 \\
-l_{n+1} & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right]\in\mathbb{R}^{(n+1)\times(n+1)}.
\end{equation*}
Since $\varepsilon$ is a small positive constant, the observer (\ref{eso}) exhibits peaking phenomenon during the initial fast transient \citep{Guo-2013,Khalil-2008}. To protect the peaking of the observer from propagating into other variables, we employ the well-known saturation technique \cite{Khalil-2008} to saturate the output of the observer as
\begin{equation}\label{eq28}
\overline{x}_i=M_is\left(\frac{\widehat{x}_i}{M_i}\right), ~1\leq i\leq n+1,
\end{equation}
where $M_i$, $1\leq i\leq n+1$, are saturation bounds to be selected such that the saturation will not be invoked in the steady-period of the observer, and $s(\cdot)$ is an odd saturation-like function defined by
\begin{equation*}
s(\nu)= \left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \nu, && 0\leq \nu \leq 1 \\
& \nu+\frac{\nu-1}{\varepsilon}-\frac{\nu^2-1}{2\varepsilon}, && 1\leq \nu \leq 1+\varepsilon \\
& 1+\frac{\varepsilon}{2}, && \nu>1+\varepsilon
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation*}
Note that this function is nondecreasing, continuously differentiable with locally Lipschitz derivative. What is more, $0\leq s'(\nu)\leq 1$ and $\left|s(\nu)-\textrm{sat}(\nu)\right|\leq \frac{\varepsilon}{2}$, $\forall \nu\in\mathbb{R}$, where $s'(\nu)\triangleq \frac{\textrm{d}s(\nu)}{\textrm{d}\nu}$. For subsequent use, denote $\overline{x}=[\overline{x}_1,\ldots, \overline{x}_n]^{\rm{T}}$, and $\dot{\overline{x}}_i=s'(\widehat{x}_i/M_i)\dot{\widehat{x}}_i$, $1\leq i\leq n+1$.
According to the optimal control theory \cite{Kirc-2012}, the optimal control problem of system (\ref{eq23}) with cost functional (\ref{eq3}) can be converted to solve the following HJB equation:
\begin{align}\label{eq5}
{V^*_x}(x)\left[Ax+B(f_0(x)+g_0(x)u_0^*(x))\right] \qquad \nonumber \\
+Q(x)+{u_0^*}^{\textrm{T}}(x)Ru_0^*(x)=0,
\end{align}
where $V^*\in\mathcal{C}(\mathbb{R}^n,\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0})$, $V^*(0)=0$, is the optimal value function. The optimal control policy can be determined from the optimal value function as
\begin{equation}\label{eq6}
u_0^*(x)=-\frac{1}{2}R^{-1}g_0^{\rm{T}}(x)B^{\rm{T}}V^{*}_x{^{\rm{T}}}(x).
\end{equation}
Generally, the analytical solution of the HJB equation is not feasible. However, the optimal value function $V^*(x)$ and the optimal control policy $u_0^*(x)$ can be approximated by an actor-critic neural network (NN) based approach \cite{Jiang-2014,Luo-2014}. For any given compact set $\mathcal{X}\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ and positive constant $\overline{\kappa}$, the optimal value function $V^*(x)$ can be represented by
\begin{equation}\label{eq50}
V^*(x)=\Theta^{\textrm{T}}\phi(x)+\kappa(x),
\end{equation}
where $\phi: \mathcal{X}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{l}$ is a continuously differentiable activation function, $\Theta\in\mathbb{R}^l$ is the ideal weight vector, $l\in\mathbb{N}$ is the number of neurons, and $\kappa:\mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is the approximation error function which satisfies $|\kappa(x)|\leq \overline{\kappa}$ and $|\kappa_x(x)|\leq \overline{\kappa}$, $\forall x\in\mathcal{X}$. It follows from the NN representation of the value function that the optimal control policy can be obtained as
\begin{equation}\label{eq51}
u_0^*(x)=-\frac{1}{2}R^{-1}g_0^{\rm{T}}(x)B^{\rm{T}}\left(\phi_x^{\textrm{T}}(x)\Theta+\kappa^{\rm{T}}_x(x)\right).
\end{equation}
Therefore, bearing in mind that the ESO (\ref{eso}) provides an estimate of the state $x$, the NN-based approximations of $V^*(x)$ and $u_0^*(x)$ are given by
\begin{align}
\label{eq25} \widehat{V}\left(\overline{x},\widehat{\Theta}_v\right)= & \widehat{\Theta}^{\textrm{T}}_v\phi(\overline{x}), \\
\label{eq26} \widehat{u}_0\left(\overline{x},\widehat{\Theta}_c\right)= & -\frac{1}{2}R^{-1}g_0^{\rm{T}}(\overline{x})B^{\rm{T}}\phi^{\rm{T}}_x(\overline{x})\widehat{\Theta}_c,
\end{align}
where $\widehat{\Theta}_v, \widehat{\Theta}_c\in\mathbb{R}^l$ are estimates of $\Theta$, and weights for the critic and actor NNs, respectively. By (\ref{eq25}) and (\ref{eq26}), the approximated instantaneous BE $\delta_t:\mathbb{R}^{n}\times \mathbb{R}^l\times \mathbb{R}^l\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ can be computed as
\begin{align}\label{eq7}
\delta_t \triangleq &
\delta\left(\overline{x},\widehat{\Theta}_v,\widehat{\Theta}_c\right) \nonumber \\
\triangleq &\widehat{V}_x(\overline{x},\widehat{\Theta}_v)\left[A\overline{x}+B\left(f_0(\overline{x})+g_0(\overline{x})\widehat{u}_0(\overline{x},\widehat{\Theta}_c)\right)\right]\nonumber \\
& +Q(\overline{x})+\widehat{u}_0^{\textrm{T}}(\overline{x},\widehat{\Theta}_c)R\widehat{u}_0(\overline{x},\widehat{\Theta}_c).
\end{align}
In this paper, motivated by \cite{Kama-2016a,Kama-2016b}, we implement an ESO based learning strategy via simulation of experience, i.e., use the estimated state $\widehat{x}$ and the knowledge of $f_0(\cdot)$ and $g_0(\cdot)$ to extrapolate the BE to a predefined set of points $\{x^i\in\mathbb{R}^n|i=1,\ldots, N\}$. The approximated BE extrapolated to the point $x^i$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq49}
\delta_i\triangleq\delta\left(x^i,\widehat{\Theta}_v,\widehat{\Theta}_c\right).
\end{equation}
Then the actor-critic NN uses the BEs $\delta_t$ and $\delta_i$ to update the estimates $\widehat{\Theta}_v$ and $\widehat{\Theta}_c$. A least-square update law for the critic NN is given by
\begin{align}
\label{eq15} \dot{\widehat{\Theta}}_v=& -\lambda_{v1}\Gamma\frac{\mu}{\rho}\delta_t-\frac{\lambda_{v2}}{N}\Gamma \sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{\mu_i}{\rho_i}\delta_i, \\
\label{eq16} \dot{\Gamma}= & \left(\beta\Gamma-\lambda_{v1}\frac{\Gamma\mu\mu^{\rm{T}}\Gamma}{\rho^2}\right)\textbf{1}_{\{\|\Gamma\|\leq \varsigma_1\}}, ~\|\Gamma(0)\|\leq \varsigma_1,
\end{align}
where $\Gamma:\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{l\times l}$ is a time-varying least-square gain matrix, $\varsigma_1>0$ is a saturation constant, $\lambda_{v1}, \lambda_{v2}>0$ are constant adaption gains, $\beta>0$ is a constant forgetting factor, and
\begin{align*}
\mu = & \phi_x(\overline{x})\left[A\overline{x}+B\left(f_0(\overline{x})+g_0(\overline{x})\widehat{u}_0(\overline{x},\widehat{\Theta}_c)\right)\right], \\
\mu_i = & \phi_x(x^i)\left[Ax^i+B\left(f_0(x^i)+g_0(x^i)\widehat{u}_0(x^i,\widehat{\Theta}_c)\right)\right],\\
\rho = & 1+\gamma\mu^{\rm{T}}\Gamma\mu, \\
\rho_i = & 1+\gamma\mu_i^{\rm{T}}\Gamma\mu_i,
\end{align*}
with $\gamma>0$ a constant normalization gain. The update law (\ref{eq16}) indicates that the time-varying gain matrix $\Gamma$ is bounded in the sense that \cite{Kama-2016b}
\begin{equation}\label{eq54}
\varsigma_0I \leq \Gamma(t)\leq \varsigma_1 I, ~t\geq 0,
\end{equation}
where $\varsigma_0\in\mathbb{R}^+$ and $I$ is the identity matrix. According to the subsequent stability analysis, the update law for the actor NN is given by
\begin{align}\label{eq17}
\dot{\widehat{\Theta}}_c= & -\lambda_{c1}\left(\widehat{\Theta}_c-\widehat{\Theta}_v\right)-\lambda_{c2}\widehat{\Theta}_c\nonumber \\
& +\frac{\lambda_{v1}G_{t}^{\rm{T}}\widehat{\Theta}_c\mu^{\textrm{T}}}{4\rho}\widehat{\Theta}_v + \sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{\lambda_{v2}G^{\rm{T}}_{i}\widehat{\Theta}_c\mu^{\rm{T}}_i}{4N\rho_i}\widehat{\Theta}_v,
\end{align}
where $\lambda_{c1},\lambda_{c2}>0$ are constant adaption gains, and
\begin{align*}
G_{t}\triangleq & \phi_x(\overline{x})Bg_0(\overline{x})R^{-1}g_0^{\rm{T}}(\overline{x})B^{\rm{T}}\phi^{\rm{T}}_x(\overline{x}),\\
G_{i}\triangleq & \phi_x(x^i)Bg_0(x^i)R^{-1}g^{\rm{T}}_0(x^i)B^{\rm{T}}\phi_x^{\rm{T}}(x^i).
\end{align*}
Finally, based on the output of the ESO (\ref{eso}), and (\ref{eq26}), the control that simultaneously compensates the total uncertainty and approximates the optimal policy is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq27}
u=\widehat{u}_0\left(\overline{x},\widehat{\Theta}_c\right)-\frac{\overline{x}_{n+1}}{g_0(\overline{x})}.
\end{equation}
The block diagram of the developed ESO-based reinforcement learning and disturbance rejection is depicted in Fig. 1.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,bb=10 10 490 220, clip]{Control_diagram.pdf}
\caption{ESO-based reinforcement learning and disturbance rejection architecture.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Stability Analysis}
To establish the stability of the closed-loop system formed by (\ref{eq1}), (\ref{eso}), (\ref{eq15}), (\ref{eq16}), (\ref{eq17}), and (\ref{eq27}), we need two additional assumptions. By Assumption A1, let $\omega(t)\in \mathcal{W}$, $\forall t\in[0,\infty)$, for some compact set $\mathcal{W} \subseteq \mathbb{R}$. Assume that the initial condition of system (\ref{eq1}), $x(0)$, belongs to a compact set $\mathcal{X}_0$ which is slightly smaller than $\mathcal{X}$ (i.e., $\mathcal{X}_0\subseteq \mathcal{X}$ and their boundaries are disjoint). By Assumption A2, there exists a constant $c_z$ such that the compact set $\mathcal{Z}=\{z\in\mathbb{R}^p; \|z\|\leq c_z\}$ is a positive invariant set of $\dot{z}=f_z(x,z,\omega)$, for all $x\in\mathcal{X}$ and $\omega \in \mathcal{W}$. Denote the compact set $\Xi$ by $\Xi=\mathcal{X}\times \mathcal{Z}\times \mathcal{W}$.
\emph{Assumption A3:} The known control coefficient $g_0(x)$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{eq29}
k_g\triangleq \max\limits_{(x,z,\omega)\in \Xi, \overline{x}\in\mathcal{X}}\left|\frac{g(x,z,\omega)-g_0(x)}{g_0(\overline{x})}\right|<1.
\end{equation}
\emph{Assumption A4:} There exists a finite set of fixed points $\{x^i\in\mathbb{R}^n|i=1,\ldots, N\}$ such that,
\begin{equation}\label{eq30}
c \triangleq \frac{1}{N}\inf\limits_{t\geq 0}\left(\lambda_{\min}\left\{\sum_{i=1}^N\frac{\mu_i\mu_i^{\rm{T}}}{\rho_i}\right\}\right)>0.
\end{equation}
\emph{Remark 3:} Assumption A3 is a standard assumption for the ESO-based controller \cite{Khalil-2008,Guo-2013}. The rational behind this assumption is that the total uncertainty $x_{n+1}$ to be compensated in the control law contains the mismatch of control (i.e., $\Delta g(x,z,\omega)u$). To guarantee the ``compensation capability'' of the ESO-based controller, the nominal control coefficient $g_0(x)$ should not be too far away from the actual control coefficient $g(x,z,\omega)$. Condition (\ref{eq29}) is not difficult to be satisfied in practice \cite{Khalil-2008}. Specifically, for any uncertain control gain $g(x,z,\omega)$ satisfying $\underline{g}<g(x,z,\omega)|_{(x,z,\omega)\in \Xi}<\overline{g}$ (or $-\overline{g}<g(x,z,\omega)|_{(x,z,\omega)\in \Xi}<-\underline{g})$, where $\overline{g}$ and $\underline{g}$ are positive constants. By selecting $g_0(\overline{x})|_{\overline{x}\in\mathcal{X}}>\overline{g}/2$ (or $g_0(\overline{x})|_{\overline{x}\in\mathcal{X}}<-\overline{g}/2)$, the condition (\ref{eq29}) is satisfied. \IEEEQED
\emph{Remark 4:} Condition (\ref{eq30}) depends on the estimate $\widehat{\Theta}_c$, and hence it cannot be guaranteed a prior. However, different from the well-known PE condition \cite{Tao-2003}, the condition (\ref{eq30}) can be monitored online \cite{Kama-2016a}. Moreover, this condition can be heuristically met by selecting more points than the number of the neurons, i.e., choosing $N\gg l$ (see the numerical example in Section IV). \IEEEQED
Now, we are in a position to state our main result.
\emph{Theorem 1:} Consider the closed-loop system formed by plant (\ref{eq1}), ESO (\ref{eso}), control (\ref{eq27}), and RL-based update laws (\ref{eq15}), (\ref{eq16}), and (\ref{eq17}). Suppose Assumptions A1 to A4 are satisfied, and the initial condition of the plant $x(0)$ is an interior point of $\mathcal{X}_0$. Then there exists $\varepsilon^*>0$ such that for any $\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon^*)$:
\begin{itemize}
\item for any $T>0$, $\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}|x_i-\widehat{x}_i|\rightarrow 0$, $1\leq i\leq n+1$, uniformly in $t\in[T,\infty)$;
\item the state $x$ and the weight estimation errors $\widetilde{\Theta}_v\triangleq \widehat{\Theta}_v-\Theta$ and $\widetilde{\Theta}_c\triangleq \widehat{\Theta}_c-\Theta$ are uniformly ultimately bounded.
\end{itemize}
\emph{Proof:} First of all, we give some notations and definitions for subsequent use. Let $Z(t)=[x^{\rm{T}}(t), ~\widetilde{\Theta}_v^{\rm{T}}(t),$ $\widetilde{\Theta}_c^{\rm{T}}(t)]^{\rm{T}}$, $V_v=\frac{1}{2}\widetilde{\Theta}_v^{\rm{T}}\Gamma^{-1}\widetilde{\Theta}_v$, and $V_c=\frac{1}{2}\widetilde{\Theta}_c^{\rm{T}}\widetilde{\Theta}_c$. Denote $\tau_v=\frac{1}{2}\varsigma_1\|\widetilde{\Theta}_v(0)\|+1$, $\tau_c=$ $\max\{V_c(\widetilde{\Theta}_c(0)),V_c(\widetilde{\Theta}_c)_{\|\Theta_c\|\geq \iota_7/|\iota_6|}\}+1$, where $\iota_6$ and $\iota_7$ are given by (\ref{eq46}). Define several compact sets:
\begin{align*}
\Omega_{v}^0=&\{\widetilde{\Theta}_v\in\mathbb{R}^l; V_v(\widetilde{\Theta}_v)\leq \tau_v\}, \\
\Omega_{v}^1=&\{\widetilde{\Theta}_v\in\mathbb{R}^l; V_v(\widetilde{\Theta}_v)\leq \tau_v+1\}, \\
\Omega_{c}^0=&\{\widetilde{\Theta}_c\in\mathbb{R}^l; V_c(\widetilde{\Theta}_c)\leq \tau_c\}, \\
\Omega_{c}^1=&\{\widetilde{\Theta}_c\in\mathbb{R}^l; V_c(\widetilde{\Theta}_c)\leq \tau_c+1\}.
\end{align*}
Based on the above definitions, denote $\Omega^0=\mathcal{X}_0\times\Omega^0_v\times \Omega^0_c$ and $\Omega^1=\mathcal{X}\times\Omega^1_v\times \Omega^1_c$. It can be clearly observed that $Z(0)$ is an internal point of $\Omega^0$ and $\Omega^0\subseteq \Omega^1-\partial \Omega^1$.
The following proof will be divided into two steps. In the first step, we show that for sufficiently small $\varepsilon$ and appropriately selected learning gains, $Z(t)\in\Omega^1$, $\forall t\in [0, \infty)$. Then, in the second step, the convergence of the ESO and the uniformly ultimately boundedness of $x$, $\widetilde{\Theta}_v$, and $\widetilde{\Theta}_c$ are proved.
\emph{Step 1): There exists $\varepsilon^{\dag}>0$ such that for any $\varepsilon\in(0, \varepsilon^{\dag})$, $Z(t)\in\Omega^1$, $\forall t\in [0, \infty)$.}
Since $Z(0)$ is an interior point of $\Omega^0$, $\Omega^0\subseteq \Omega^1-\partial \Omega^1$, and the output of the ESO (\ref{eso}) is saturated, there exists an $\varepsilon$-independent $t_0>0$ such that $Z(t)\in\Omega^1$, $\forall t\in[0, t_0]$. We prove the conclusion in this step by contradiction. To this end, assume that there exist $t_2>t_1\geq t_0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq36}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
Z(t_1) \in & ~ \partial \Omega^0, \\
Z(t)\in & ~ \Omega^1, ~t\in[t_1,t_2],\\
Z(t_2)\in & ~ \partial \Omega^1.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
Consider the scaled ESO estimation error $\eta=[\eta_1, \ldots,$ $\eta_{n+1}]^{\rm{T}}$ with
\begin{equation}\label{eq31}
\eta_{i}=\frac{x_i-\widehat{x}_i}{\varepsilon^{n+1-i}}, ~1\leq i\leq n+1.
\end{equation}
By (\ref{eq1}), (\ref{eso}), and (\ref{eq27}), the dynamics of $\eta$ can be formulated as
\begin{equation}\label{eq37}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
\varepsilon\dot{\eta}_i=&-l_i\eta_1+\eta_{i+1}, ~1\leq i\leq n-1, \\
\varepsilon\dot{\eta}_n=&-l_n\eta_{1}+\eta_{n+1}+\vartheta_1(\cdot),\\
\varepsilon\dot{\eta}_{n+1}=&-l_{n+1}\eta_{1}-\vartheta_2(\cdot)\eta_1+\varepsilon\vartheta_3(\cdot),
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align*}
& \vartheta_1(x,\widehat{x},\widehat{x}_{n+1},\widehat{\Theta}_c)= f_0(x)-f_0(\widehat{x})\\
& \qquad +\left(g_0(x)-g_0(\widehat{x})\right) \left[\widehat{u}_0(\overline{x},\widehat{\Theta}_c)-\frac{\overline{x}_{n+1}}{g_0(\overline{x})}\right], \\
& \vartheta_2(x,z,\omega)= \frac{g(x,z,\omega)-g_0(x)}{g_0(\overline{x})}s'(\widehat{x}_{n+1}/M_{n+1}), \\
& \vartheta_3(x,z,\omega,\widehat{x},\widehat{x}_{n+1},\widehat{\Theta}_c)= \dot{f}(x,z,\omega)-\dot{f}_0(x) \\
& \qquad +(\dot{g}(x,z,\omega)-\dot{g}_0(x))\left[\widehat{u}_0(\overline{x},\widehat{\Theta}_c)-\frac{\overline{x}_{n+1}}{g_0(\overline{x})}\right] \\
& \qquad +(g(x,z,\omega)-g_0(x))\dot{\widehat{u}}_0(\overline{x},\widehat{\Theta}_c) \\
& \qquad +(g(x,z,\omega)-g_0(x))\frac{\overline{x}_{n+1}\dot{\overline{x}}}{g_0^2(\overline{x})}. \end{align*}
The equations of $\eta$ can be rewritten into the following compact form:
\begin{equation}\label{eq38}
\dot{\eta}=\frac{1}{\varepsilon}E\eta-F_1\vartheta_2(\cdot)\eta_1+\left[F_2\frac{\vartheta_1(\cdot)}{\varepsilon}+F_1\vartheta_3(\cdot)\right],
\end{equation}
where $F_1=[0 ~B^{\rm{T}}]^{\rm{T}}$, $F_2=[B^{\rm{T}} ~0]^{\rm{T}}$. The matrix $E$ is Hurwitz by design. To show the convergence of $\eta$, we first consider the following system which is simplified from (\ref{eq38}):
\begin{equation}\label{eq39}
\dot{\eta}=\frac{1}{\varepsilon}E\eta-F_1\vartheta_2(\cdot)\eta_1.
\end{equation}
The system above can be regarded as a negative feedback connection of the time-varying gain $\theta_2(\cdot)$ and the transfer function
\begin{equation}\label{eq40}
G(\varepsilon s)=\frac{l_{n+1}}{(\varepsilon s)^{n+1}+l_1(\varepsilon s)^{n}+\cdots+\l_{n+1}}.
\end{equation}
Note that $|\vartheta_2(\cdot)|\leq k_g|s'(\widehat{x}_{n+1}/M_{n+1})|\leq k_g$. By Assumption A3 and (\ref{eq40}), one has $k_g\|G\|_{\infty}<1$. It then follows from the circle criterion \cite{Khalil-2002} that the origin of (\ref{eq39}) is globally exponentially stable. Therefore, applying a loop transformation to (\ref{eq39}) and using the Kalman-Yakubovich-Popov lemma \cite{Khalil-2002}, there exists a quadratic Lyapunov function $W(\eta)=\eta^{\rm{T}}P\eta$ for system (\ref{eq39}) satisfying $\dot{W}(\eta)\leq -\frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon}W(\eta)$, where $P$ is a positive definite matrix and $\alpha$ is an $\varepsilon$-independent positive constant. Utilizing $W(\eta)$ as a Lyapunov function candidate for system (\ref{eq38}), and calculating its derivative yields
\begin{equation}\label{eq41}
\dot{W}(\eta)\leq -\frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon}W(\eta)+2\overline{\lambda}\|\eta\|\left|F_2\frac{\vartheta_1(\cdot)}{\varepsilon}+F_1\vartheta_3(\cdot)\right|,
\end{equation}
where $\overline{\lambda}=\lambda_{\max}(P)$. Note that 1) the functions $f_0(\cdot)$, $g_0(\cdot)$, and $s(\cdot)$ are continuously differentiable with locally Lipschitz derivatives and globally bounded; 2) by (\ref{eq36}), $x$, $\widehat{\Theta}_v$, and $\widehat{\Theta}_c$ are all bounded in the time interval $[0, t_2]$; 3) by (\ref{eq31}), $|\widehat{x}_i|\leq |x_i|+\varepsilon^{n+1-i}|\eta_i|$, $1\leq i\leq n+1$. Based on these observations, we can conclude that $\frac{\vartheta_1(\cdot)}{\varepsilon}$ and $\vartheta_3(\cdot)$ are locally Lipschitz, and bounded from above by affine in $\|\eta\|$ functions, uniformly in $\varepsilon$. Here, we take the term $f_0(x)-f_0(\widehat{x})$ as an example to further clarify this point. According to the Hadamard's lemma \cite{Nest-2006}, one has
\begin{align*}
& \quad \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\left[f_0(x)-f_0(\widehat{x})\right]=\frac{1}{\varepsilon}(x-\widehat{x})\int_0^1\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}(\widehat{x}+\lambda(x-\widehat{x}))\textrm{d}\lambda \\
& =\left[\varepsilon^{n-1}\eta_1,\ldots, \varepsilon\eta_{n-1},\eta_n\right]^{\rm{T}}\int_0^1\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}(\widehat{x}+\lambda(x-\widehat{x}))\textrm{d}\lambda.
\end{align*}
Therefore, from (\ref{eq41}), one has that there exists an $\varepsilon_1>0$ such that for any $\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon_1)$ and $\tilde{t}_1\in(t_0/2,t_0)$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq42}
\|\eta\|=O(\varepsilon), ~\forall t\in [\tilde{t}_1,t_2].
\end{equation}
By the convergence of the ESO, and the definition of $x_{n+1}$, the bounds to saturate the output of the observer are selected to satisfy
\begin{align}
\label{eq52} M_i>&\sup_{x\in\mathcal{X}}|x_i|, ~1\leq i\leq n, \\
M_{n+1}>& \sup_{(x,z,\omega)\in \Xi, \widehat{\Theta}_c\in\Omega_c^1}\left|\frac{\Delta f(x,z,\omega)}{g(x,z,\omega)}\right. \nonumber \\
\label{eq53} & \qquad \qquad\qquad ~ \left.+\frac{\Delta g(x,z,\omega)\widehat{u}_0(x,\widehat{\Theta}_c)}{g(x,z,\omega)}\right|.
\end{align}
It follows that the saturation elements $M_is(\widehat{x}_i/M_i)$, $1\leq i\leq n+1$, all work in the linear zone in the time interval $[\tilde{t}_1,t_2]$, i.e., $\overline{x}_i=\widehat{x}_i$.
In the following, we consider the dynamics of $Z$. To facilitate the subsequent analysis, the NN-based approximations $\widehat{V}_x(\overline{x},\widehat{\Theta}_v)$ and $\widehat{u}_0(\overline{x},\widehat{\Theta}_c)$ are expressed in terms of $\widetilde{\Theta}_v$, $\widetilde{\Theta}_c$, $\kappa(\widehat{x})$, and $\kappa_x(\widehat{x})$ as
\begin{align}
\widehat{V}_x\left(\overline{x},\widehat{\Theta}_v\right)= & \Theta^{\rm{T}} \phi_x(\widehat{x})+\left(\widehat{\Theta}_v-\Theta\right)^{\rm{T}}\phi_x(\widehat{x}) \nonumber \\
\label{eq34} =& V^*_x(\widehat{x})+\widetilde{\Theta}^{\rm{T}}_v\phi_x(\widehat{x})-\kappa_x(\widehat{x}),\\
\widehat{u}_0\left(\overline{x},\widehat{\Theta}_c\right)
=& -\frac{1}{2}R^{-1}g_0^{\rm{T}}(\widehat{x})B^{\rm{T}}\phi^{\rm{T}}_x(\widehat{x})\left(\Theta+\widetilde{\Theta}_c\right) \nonumber\\
=& u_0^*(\widehat{x})-\frac{1}{2}R^{-1}g_0^{\rm{T}}(\widehat{x})B^{T}\phi_x^{\rm{T}}(\widehat{x})\widetilde{\Theta}_c \nonumber\\
\label{eq35} & +\frac{1}{2}R^{-1}g^{\rm{T}}_0(\widehat{x})B^{\rm{T}}\kappa^{\rm{T}}_x(\widehat{x}).
\end{align}
By (\ref{eq5}) and (\ref{eq50}), and inserting (\ref{eq34}) and (\ref{eq35}) into (\ref{eq7}), the instantaneous BE $\delta_t$ can be written as
\begin{align}\label{eq33}
\delta_t= & \mu^{\rm{T}}\widetilde{\Theta}_v-\kappa_x(\widehat{x})\left[A\widehat{x}+B\left(f_0(\widehat{x})+g_0(\widehat{x})\widehat{u}_0(\widehat{x},\widehat{\Theta}_c)\right)\right] \nonumber \\
& +2u_0^*(\widehat{x})R\left[-\frac{1}{2}R^{-1}g_0^{\rm{T}}(\widehat{x})B^{\rm{T}}\phi_x^{\rm{T}}(\widehat{x})\widetilde{\Theta}_c\right. \nonumber \\
& \left .+\frac{1}{2}R^{-1}g^{\rm{T}}_0(\widehat{x})B^{\rm{T}}\kappa^{\rm{T}}_x(\widehat{x})\right]\nonumber \\
& +\frac{R}{4}\left[-R^{-1}g_0^{\rm{T}}(\widehat{x})B^{\rm{T}}\phi_x^{\rm{T}}(\widehat{x})\widetilde{\Theta}_c+R^{-1}g^{\rm{T}}_0(\widehat{x})B^{\rm{T}}\kappa^{\rm{T}}_x(\widehat{x})\right]^2\nonumber \\
= & \mu^{\rm{T}}\widetilde{\Theta}_v+\frac{1}{4}\widetilde{\Theta}^{\rm{T}}_cG_{t}\widetilde{\Theta}_c+\Delta,
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
\Delta \triangleq & -\kappa_x(\widehat{x})[A\widehat{x}+Bf_0(\widehat{x})]\nonumber \\
& +\frac{1}{4}g_0^{\rm{T}}(\widehat{x})B^{\rm{T}}\kappa^{\rm{T}}_x(\widehat{x})R^{-1}\kappa_x(\widehat{x})Bg_0(\widehat{x})\nonumber \\
& +\frac{1}{2}\Theta^{\rm{T}}g_0^{\rm{T}}(\widehat{x})B^{\rm{T}}R^{-1}Bg_0(\widehat{x})\phi_x(\widehat{x})\kappa^{\rm{T}}_x(\widehat{x}).
\end{align*}
Similarly, the extrapolated BE $\delta_i$ can be expressed as
\begin{equation}\label{eq19}
\delta_i=\mu_i^{\rm{T}} \widetilde{\Theta}_v+\frac{1}{4}\widetilde{\Theta}^{\rm{T}}_cG_{i}\widetilde{\Theta}_c+\Delta_i,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align*}
\Delta_i \triangleq & -\kappa_x(x^i)[Ax^i+Bf_0(x^i)] \nonumber \\
& +\frac{1}{4}g_0^{\rm{T}}(x^i)B^{\rm{T}}\kappa^{\rm{T}}_x(x^i)R^{-1}\kappa_x(x^i)Bg_0(x^i) \nonumber \\
& +\frac{1}{2}\Theta^{\rm{T}}g_0^{\rm{T}}(x^i)B^{\rm{T}}R^{-1}Bg_0(x^i)\phi_x(x^i)\kappa^{\rm{T}}_x(x^i). \end{align*}
By (\ref{eq35}), the derivative of $V^*(x)$ under the control (\ref{eq27}) is given by
\begin{align}\label{eq43}
\dot{V}^*(x)= & V_x^*(x)[Ax+B(f(x,z,\omega)+g(x,z,\omega)u)] \nonumber \\
= & V_x^*(x)[Ax+B(f_0(x)+g_0(x)u_0^*(x))] \nonumber \\
& +V_x^*(x)B\left[\left(x_{n+1}-\frac{g_0(x)}{g_0(\widehat{x})}\widehat{x}_{n+1}\right)\right. \nonumber \\
& +g_0(\widehat{x})\left(\widehat{u}_0(\widehat{x},\widehat{\Theta}_c)-u_0^*(\widehat{x})\right)\nonumber \\
& +g_0(\widehat{x})\left(u_0^*(\widehat{x})-u_0^*(x)\right)\Big].
\end{align}
By (\ref{eq5}) and (\ref{eq33}), and the fact that the functions $V_x^*$, $\phi_x$, $g_0$, and $u_0^*$, are locally Lipschitz, one has that for all $x\in \mathcal{X}$, the derivative of $V^*(x)$ is upper bounded by
\begin{equation}\label{eq44}
\dot{V}^*(x)\leq -\iota_1\|x\|^2+\iota_2\|\eta\|+\iota_3\|\widetilde{\Theta}_c\|+\iota_4\overline{\kappa},
\end{equation}
where $\iota_1=\lambda_{\min}(Q)$, and $\iota_2$ to $\iota_4$ are $\varepsilon$-independent positive constants.
Let $\mathcal{V}: \mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}^{L}\times \mathbb{R}^{L}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ be a positive definite continuously differentiable Lyapunov function candidate defined by
\begin{equation}\label{eq32}
\mathcal{V}(Z)=V^*(x)+V_v(\widetilde{\Theta}_v)+V_c(\widetilde{\Theta}_c).
\end{equation}
It follows from (\ref{eq15})-(\ref{eq17}) that the derivative of $\mathcal{V}$ satisfies
\begin{align}\label{eq32}
\dot{\mathcal{V}}= & \dot{V}^*(x)+ \widetilde{\Theta}_v^{\rm{T}}\left(-\lambda_{v1}\frac{\mu}{\rho}\delta_t-\frac{\lambda_{v2}}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{\mu_i}{\rho_i}\delta_i\right)\nonumber \\
& +\widetilde{\Theta}_c^{\rm{T}}\left(-\lambda_{c1}(\widehat{\Theta}_c-\widehat{\Theta}_v)-\lambda_{c2}\widehat{\Theta}_c\right)\nonumber\\
& +\widetilde{\Theta}_c^{\rm{T}}\left(\frac{\lambda_{v1}G_{t}^{\rm{T}}\widehat{\Theta}_c\mu^{\textrm{T}}}{4\rho} + \sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{\lambda_{v2}G^{\rm{T}}_{i}\widehat{\Theta}_c\mu^{\rm{T}}_i}{4N\rho_i}\right)\widehat{\Theta}_v\nonumber \\
& -\frac{1}{2}\widetilde{\Theta}_v^{\rm{T}}\Gamma^{-1}\left(\beta\Gamma-\lambda_{v1}\frac{\Gamma\mu\mu^{\rm{T}}\Gamma}{\rho^2}\right)\Gamma^{-1}\widetilde{\Theta}_v. \end{align}
Using (\ref{eq33}) and (\ref{eq19}), one has
\begin{align}\label{eq45}
\dot{\mathcal{V}}= & \dot{V}^*(x) -\lambda_{v1}\widetilde{\Theta}_v^{\rm{T}}\frac{\mu\mu^{\rm{T}}}{\rho}\widetilde{\Theta}_v-\widetilde{\Theta}_v^{\rm{T}}\lambda_{v1}\frac{\mu}{\rho}\Delta \nonumber \\
& -\frac{\lambda_{v2}}{N}\widetilde{\Theta}_v^{\rm{T}}\sum_{i=1}^N\frac{\mu_i\mu_i^{\rm{T}}}{\rho_i}\widetilde{\Theta}_v -\widetilde{\Theta}_v^{\rm{T}}\frac{\lambda_{v2}}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\frac{\mu_i}{\rho_i}\Delta_i \nonumber \\
& -(\lambda_{c1}+\lambda_{c2})\|\widetilde{\Theta}_c\|^2+\lambda_{c1}\widetilde{\Theta}_c^{\rm{T}}\widetilde{\Theta}_v-\lambda_{c2}\widetilde{\Theta}_c^{\rm{T}}\Theta \nonumber \\
& +\left(\|\Theta\|^2\widetilde{\Theta}_c^{\rm{T}}+\|\widetilde{\Theta}_c\|^2\Theta^{\rm{T}}+\widetilde{\Theta}_c^{\rm{T}}\Theta\widetilde{\Theta}_v\right)\nonumber \\
& \times \left(\frac{\lambda_{v1}G_{t}^{\rm{T}}\mu^{\textrm{T}}}{4\rho} + \sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{\lambda_{v2}G^{\rm{T}}_{i}\mu^{\rm{T}}_i}{4N\rho_i}\right)\nonumber \\
& -\frac{1}{2}\beta\widetilde{\Theta}_v^{\rm{T}}\Gamma^{-1}\widetilde{\Theta}_v+\lambda_{v1}\widetilde{\Theta}_v^{\rm{T}}\frac{\mu\mu^{\rm{T}}}{\rho^2}\widetilde{\Theta}_v.
\end{align}
By some straightforward manipulations using (\ref{eq54}) and the Young's inequality, one can obtain $\|\frac{\mu}{\rho}\|\leq \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\gamma \varsigma_0}}$, $\|\frac{\mu_i}{\rho_i}\|\leq \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\gamma \varsigma_0}}$, $\|\frac{\mu\mu^{\rm{T}}}{\rho}\|\leq \frac{1}{\gamma \varsigma_0}$, $\|\frac{\mu_i\mu_i^{\rm{T}}}{\rho_i}\|\leq \frac{1}{\gamma \varsigma_0}$, $\|\frac{\mu_i\mu_i^{\rm{T}}}{\rho^2}\|\leq \frac{1}{4\gamma \varsigma_0}$. These together with (\ref{eq44}) and Assumption A4 yield
\begin{align}\label{eq46}
\dot{\mathcal{V}} \leq & -\iota_1\|x\|^2+\iota_3\|\widetilde{\Theta}_c\|+\frac{\lambda_{v1}}{\gamma\varsigma_0}\|\widetilde{\Theta}_v\|^2 \nonumber \\
& -\lambda_{v2}c\|\widetilde{\Theta}_v\|^2-(\lambda_{c1}+\lambda_{c2})\|\widetilde{\Theta}_c\|^2\nonumber \\
& +\frac{\lambda_{c1}}{2}(\|\widetilde{\Theta}_c\|^2+\|\widetilde{\Theta}_v\|^2)+\lambda_{c2}\|\Theta\| \|\widetilde{\Theta}_c\| \nonumber \\
& +\chi_1\|\Theta\|^2\|\widetilde{\Theta}_c\|+\chi_1\|\Theta\|\|\widetilde{\Theta}_c\|^2 \nonumber \\
& +\frac{\chi_1\|\Theta\|}{2}(\|\widetilde{\Theta}_c\|^2+\|\widetilde{\Theta}_v\|^2) \nonumber \\
& -\frac{1}{2}\beta\varsigma_1^{-1}\|\widetilde{\Theta}_v\|^2+\frac{\lambda_{v1}}{4\gamma\varsigma_0}\|\widetilde{\Theta}_v\|^2 \nonumber \\
& +\iota_2\|\eta\|+\iota_4\overline{\kappa}+\frac{\lambda_{v1}}{2\sqrt{\gamma\varsigma_0}}|\Delta|\|\widetilde{\Theta}_v\|\nonumber \\
& +\frac{\lambda_{v2}}{2\sqrt{\gamma\varsigma_0}}\|\widetilde{\Theta}_v\| \sum_{i=1}^{N}|\Delta_i| \nonumber \\
= & -\iota_1\|x\|^2+\iota_5\|\widetilde{\Theta}_v\|^2+\iota_6\|\widetilde{\Theta}\|_c^2 +\iota_7\|\widetilde{\Theta}_c\|+\iota_8,
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
\iota_5 \triangleq & -\lambda_{v2}c-\frac{\beta}{2\varsigma_1}+\frac{\lambda_{c1}}{2}+\frac{\chi_1\|\Theta\|}{2}+\frac{5\lambda_{v1}}{4\gamma\varsigma_0}, \\
\iota_6 \triangleq &-\frac{\lambda_{c1}}{2}-\lambda_{c2}+\frac{3}{2}\chi_1\|\Theta\|, \\
\iota_7 \triangleq & \iota_3+\lambda_{c2}\|\Theta\|+\chi_1\|\Theta\|^2, \\
\iota_8 \triangleq & \iota_2\|\eta\|+\iota_4\overline{\kappa}+\frac{\lambda_{v1}}{2\sqrt{\gamma\varsigma_0}}|\Delta|\|\widetilde{\Theta}_v\|\\
& +\frac{\lambda_{v2}}{2\sqrt{\gamma\varsigma_0}}\|\widetilde{\Theta}_v\|\sum_{i=1}^{N}|\Delta_i|,\\
\chi_1 \triangleq & \frac{\lambda_{v1}}{8\sqrt{\gamma \varsigma_0}}\sup_{\overline{x}\in\mathcal{X}}\|G_{t}\|+\frac{\lambda_{v2}}{8\sqrt{\gamma \varsigma_0}}\max_{1\leq i \leq N}\|G_{i}\|.
\end{align*}
Sufficient conditions for the gains $\lambda_{c1}$, $\lambda_{v1}$, $\lambda_{v2}$, and $\beta$ are then given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq47}
\beta >\varsigma_1 \chi_1\|\Theta\|+\varsigma_1 \lambda_{c1}, ~\lambda_{v2} > \frac{5\lambda_{v1}}{4c\gamma\varsigma_0}, ~\lambda_{c1} >3\chi_1\|\Theta\|.
\end{equation}
Provided the gains are selected satisfying (\ref{eq47}), the ESO is convergent in the sense of (\ref{eq42}),
the upper bound of the approximation error $\kappa_x$ can be made sufficiently small by increasing the number of NN neurons, and (\ref{eq36}), the derivative of $\mathcal{V}$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{eq48}
\dot{\mathcal{V}}(Z(t))\leq 0, ~t\in[t_1,t_2].
\end{equation}
This contradicts (\ref{eq36}). Thus the statement in Step 1) holds.
\emph{Step 2): There exists $\varepsilon^*\in(0, \varepsilon^{\dag}]$ such that for any $\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon^*)$, $\|\eta(t)\|=O(\varepsilon)$, $\forall t\in[T,\infty)$, $T>0$, and $Z(t)$ is uniformly ultimately bounded.}
Since $Z(t)\in\Omega^1$, $\forall t\in[0, \infty)$, by (\ref{eq41}), one has that for any $\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon^*)$ and $T>0$, $\|\eta(t)\|=O(\varepsilon)$, $\forall t\in[T,\infty)$. What is more, (\ref{eq46}) holds for $t\in[T,\infty)$. Consequently, selecting the parameters according to (\ref{eq47}), and by(\ref{eq46}), one can conclude the uniformly ultimately boundedness of $Z$. Also note that the system state $x$ converges to the neighbourhood of origin, and the estimate weight $\widehat{\Theta}_c$ approximates the ideal weight $\Theta$ if $\iota_7/|\iota_6|$ (i.e., $\lambda_{c2}/\lambda_{c1}$) is sufficiently small. This completes the proof of Theorem 1. \IEEEQED
\emph{Remark 5:} In this paper, similar to \cite{Luo-2014,Kama-2016a,Jiang-2014}, we use two weights $\widehat{\Theta}_v$ and $\widehat{\Theta}_c$ to estimate the same ideal weight $\Theta$. The use of two weights rather than one weight is mainly motivated by the stability analysis. Note that in (\ref{eq33}) and (\ref{eq19}), benefited from the use of two weights, the BEs are linear with respect to the weight estimation error $\widetilde{\Theta}_v$, which enables us to develop a least-square update law for $\widehat{\Theta}_v$ based on the BEs. The update law for $\widehat{\Theta}_c$ guarantees that $\widehat{\Theta}_c\rightarrow \widehat{\Theta}_v$. $\IEEEQED$
\emph{Remark 6:} We should point out that the update law in this paper is different from the standard CL update law in existing wroks such as \cite{Zhang-2018,Xue-2020,Yang-2019b,Yang-2020a,Vam-2015,Chowdhary-2010}. As depicted in Fig. \ref{data_points}a, for a standard CL update law, the recorded data can be only selected along the system state trajectory. In this case, to guarantee that the system state visits sufficient number of points in the domain of operation, a probing signal is generally required to excite the system \cite{Vam-2015}. In this paper, with the known nominal model of the system, the BE can be extrapolated to any desired data points, and the system trajectory doesn’t need to really reach to these data points (see Fig. \ref{data_points}b). Benefited from this, our developed approach doesn't need a probing signal, and hence it is able to achieve better transient performance. \IEEEQED
\emph{Remark 7:} According to Theorem 1, $\widehat{x}\rightarrow x$ and the actor NN weight $\widehat{\Theta}_c$ approximates the ideal weight $\Theta$. Therefore, the control policy given by $\widehat{u}_0(\overline{x},\widehat{\Theta}_c)$ approximates the ideal optimal control policy $u_0^*(x)$. In this sense and following also \cite{Lewis-2009,Lewis-2018,Liu-2017}, $\widehat{u}_0(\overline{x},\widehat{\Theta}_c)$ is referred to as an \emph{approximate optimal control}. Also note that, similar to \cite{Kama-2016a,Kama-2016b,Kama-2013}, the convergence results in this paper are practical. Thus the cost defined by (\ref{eq3}), when evaluated along the approximate optimal trajectory, will be infinite. This, however, will not cause any theoretical concern.
Note that the partial derivative $\widehat{V}_x$ leveraged in the BEs (\ref{eq7})-(\ref{eq49}) to update the NN weights is bounded for all $t\in[0,\infty)$. Actually, the design and analysis of the RL-based controller doesn't need the infinite horizon cost along the approximate optimal trajectory to be finite, it only needs the cost, when evaluated along the ideal optimal trajectory to be finite. To avoid infinite cost, one could use a discounted cost formulation with some additional conditions to guarantee stability \cite{Gait-2015}. \IEEEQED
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,bb=10 20 480 250, clip]{data_grid2}
\caption{Illustration of the differences between the mechanisms of the standard CL update law and the update law in this paper: (a) standard CL update law; (b) update law in this paper. The green lines represent the system trajectories. The yellow dots represent the data points along the trajectory. The red dots represent the selected data points to extrapolate the BE. }\label{data_points}
\end{figure}
\emph{Remark 8:} There are several groups of parameters that need to be selected for the developed ESO-based reinforcement learning and disturbance rejection scheme.
\begin{itemize}
\item For the ESO, the parameters to be selected include the observer gains $L$ and $\varepsilon$, the saturation bounds for the observer output ($M_i$, $1\leq i\leq n+1$), and the saturation bounds for the functions $f_0(\cdot)$ and $g_0(\cdot)$ (denoted by $M_f$ and $M_g$, respectively). The observer gain $L$ can be selected by a pole placement method such that the matrix $E$ is Hurwitz. Theoretically, $\varepsilon$ can be selected arbitrarily small to achieve more accurate estimation. However, in practice, the lower-bound of $\varepsilon$ is limited due to noise and sampling constraints \cite{Khalil-2008,Ran-2017a}. The bounds $M_i$, $1\leq i\leq n+1$, are selected according to (\ref{eq52})-(\ref{eq53}). Note that the calculation of $M_{n+1}$ is generally not straightforward, and one might end up with a conservative bound. From a practice viewpoint, the values of $\varepsilon$ and $M_{n+1}$ can be decided by a simple trial and error procedure, based on the obtained performance. Our numerical experience and many previous ESO results (see, e.g., \citep{Khalil-2008,Ran-2017a}) indicate that it is generally very easy to select a group of satisfactory $\varepsilon$ and $M_{n+1}$. Finally, the bounds $M_f$ and $M_g$ are selected such that $M_f\geq \sup_{x\in\mathcal{X}}|f_0(x)|$ and $M_g\geq \sup_{x\in\mathcal{X}}|g_0(x)|$, respectively.
\item For the simulation of experience based RL, the parameters to be selected include the positive adaptation gains $\lambda_{c1}$, $\lambda_{c2}$, $\lambda_{v1}$, $\lambda_{v2}$, and $\beta$. The sufficient conditions for the adaptation gains based on the stability analysis are given by (\ref{eq47}). Note that the inequalities in (\ref{eq47}) depend on unknown parameters $\Theta$, $\varsigma_0$, $\varsigma_1$, and $c$. Therefore, the selection of these adaptation gains also needs a simple trial and error procedure. What is more, $\lambda_{c2}/\lambda_{c1}$ is required to be sufficiently small.
\item For the data set $\{x^i\in\mathbb{R}^n| i=1,\ldots, N\}$ to extrapolate the BE, it is required to satisfy Assumption A4. We mention that, similar to the probing signals used in previous RL algorithms \cite{Jiang-2014b,Gao-2019,Fan-2016,Wang-2018,Wang-2020}, the data set is also selected offline and then the RL algorithm is implemented online. It is difficult to provide a theoretical guarantee to make sure that the offline selected data points (and probing signals) achieve satisfactory online performance.
In practice, to fulfill Assumption A4, one can select $x^i$, $1\leq i\leq N$, on an $\underbrace{a\times a \cdots \times a}_{n}$ data grid which covers the interested compact set $\mathcal{X}\subseteq\mathbb{R}^n$, where $a$ is an appropriately large positive integer.
\item For the basis function $\phi(x)$, and the initial NN weights $\widehat{\Theta}_v(0)$ and $\widehat{\Theta}_c(0)$, their selections are important for RL-based controllers \cite{Lewis-2009,Lewis-2018,Liu-2017}. The basic principle of selecting the basis function is to let the real basis be contained in the selected basis to make sure that the NN representation error $\kappa(x)$ is small. In this paper, since the system nominal model (i.e., $f_0(x)$ and $g_0(x)$) is known to the designer, the selection of the basis function will be relatively easier than that for an unknown system. However, the selection of a good basis for very general nonlinear systems is challenging and is still largely open in machine learning \cite{Kama-2013}. On the other hand, similar to \cite{Kama-2016a,Kama-2016b}, benefited from the mechanism that the BE can be extrapolated to any desired data points with a known system nominal model, the initial NN weights are not required to be admissible. However, in practice, better initial NN weights will lead to better closed-loop transient performance.
\IEEEQED
\end{itemize}
\emph{Remark 9:} Compared with the existing RL results for uncertain nonlinear systems \cite{Jiang-2014b,Gao-2019,Fan-2016,Xue-2020,Jiang-2017b,Wang-2018,Wang-2020,Zhang-2018,Yang-2019b}, the advantages of the proposed approach are threefold: 1) The uncertainties considered in this paper are more general and complex, since it involves the system states $x$ and $z$, the control input $u$, and the external disturbance $\omega$, and hence the analysis is much more challenging. 2) This paper inherits the idea of ADRC and handles the uncertainty in an ``observation+compensation'' scheme, which is fundamentally different from the ideas in \cite{Jiang-2014b,Gao-2019,Fan-2016,Xue-2020,Jiang-2017b,Wang-2018,Wang-2020,Zhang-2018,Yang-2019b}. 3) This paper provides a more practical solution to the RL design problem for uncertain nonlinear systems since our developed approach is output feedback based and does not require the probing signal. The approaches in \cite{Jiang-2014b,Gao-2019,Jiang-2017b,Wang-2018,Wang-2020,Zhang-2018,Yang-2019b,Fan-2016,Xue-2020} are full state-feedback based and in \cite{Jiang-2014b,Gao-2019,Fan-2016,Wang-2018,Wang-2020} require the probing signal. \IEEEQED
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.30\textwidth,bb=15 10 435 365, clip]{Data_Grid}
\caption{Illustration of the data points selected on a $5\times 5$ data grid.}\label{fig11}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth,bb=15 10 315 382, clip]{ESO}
\caption{Trajectories of the system state and ESO output.}\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
\section{Examples}
This section presents two simulation examples to illustrate the effectiveness of our developed approach.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth,bb=15 0 315 188, clip]{u}
\caption{Trajectory of the control input $u$.}\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth,bb=5 0 315 240, clip]{Theta_c}
\caption{Trajectories of the actor NN weight.}\label{fig6}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Example 1}
Consider the following uncertain nonlinear system
\begin{equation}\label{eq55}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\dot{z}=& \underbrace{-(x_2^2+\omega^2)z}_{f_z(x,z,\omega)}, \\
\dot{x}_1=& x_2, \\
\dot{x}_2=& \underbrace{-x_1-2.5x_2+\omega+z^2+0.5(x_1+x_2)(\cos(2x_1)+2)^2}_{f(x,z,\omega)} \\
& +\underbrace{(\cos(2x_1)+2+\sin(x_1)\omega)}_{g(x,z,\omega)}u, \\
y=& x_1,
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation}
where the external disturbance is numerically set as $\omega=0.5\sin(t)$. The known nominal models of $f(x,z,\omega)$ and $g(x,z,\omega)$ are taken as
\begin{align*}
f_0(x)= & -x_1-1.5x_2+0.5(x_1+x_2)(\cos(2x_1)+2)^2, \\
g_0(x)= & \cos(2x_1)+2.
\end{align*}
The cost functional for the nominal system is given by (\ref{eq3}) with $Q=x^{\rm{T}}\overline{Q}x$ and $R=1$, where $\overline{Q}=\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
2 & 1 \\
1 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right]$
is positive definite. The nominal models are selected above since the corresponding optimal control problem has an analytical solution, which is helpful for the simulation to verify the correctness of the developed approach. Specifically, according to the procedure in \cite{Nev-1996},
the optimal value function is $V^*(x)=1.5x_1^2+2x_1x_2+x_2^2$, and the optimal control policy is $u_0^*(x)=-(\cos(2x_1)+2)(x_1+x_2)$. The total uncertainty for system (\ref{eq55}) is denoted by
\begin{equation}\label{eq56}
x_3=-x_2+\omega+z^2+\sin(x_1)\omega u.
\end{equation}
It can be verified that Assumptions A1 to A3 are satisfied.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth,bb=5 40 315 580, clip]{data_sets}
\caption{Trajectories of the actor NN weight with different data grids: $9\times 9$ data grid (black full line); $5\times 5$ data grid (red dash line); $3\times 3$ data grid (blue dot line); $2\times 2$ data grid (yellow dash-dot line).}\label{fig7}
\end{figure}
Consider the scenario that the compact set of interest is $\mathcal{X}=[-2 ~2]\times [-2 ~2]$. The ESO is designed with $L=[3 ~3 ~1]^{\rm{T}}$ and $\varepsilon=0.02$. The saturation bounds for the nominal functions $f_0(x)$ and $g_0(x)$ are selected as $M_f=6.5>\sup_{x\in\mathcal{X}}|f_0(x)|$ and $M_g=3>\sup_{x\in\mathcal{X}}|g_0(x)|$, respectively. The saturation bounds for the output of the observer $\widehat{x}_1$, $\widehat{x}_2$, and $\widehat{x}_3$, are selected as $M_1=M_2=M_3=2$.
\emph{Simulation with known basis function:}
First, we simulate the simple case, i.e., the basis function is known. In this case, the basis function $\phi:\mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^3$ is selected as $\phi(x)=[x_1^2 ~x_1x_2 ~x_2^2]^{\rm{T}}$. According to the analytical solution of $V^*(x)$, the ideal weight $\Theta=[1.5 ~2 ~1]^{\rm{T}}$. The data points to extrapolate the BE are selected on a $5\times 5$ data grid cover the domain $\mathcal{X}$ (see Fig. \ref{fig11}). The gains for the RL are selected as $\lambda_{v1}=1$, $\lambda_{v2}=5$, $\lambda_{c1}=100$, $\lambda_{c2}=0.1$, $\gamma=0.5$, and $\beta=100$. The upper bound of $\Gamma$ is set as $\varsigma_1=2000$. Simulation is done with initial conditions $z(0)=1$, $x(0)=[1.5 ~1.5]^{\rm{T}}$, $[\widehat{x}_1(0) ~\widehat{x}_2(0) ~\widehat{x}_3(0)]^{\rm{T}}=[0 ~0 ~0]^{\rm{T}}$, $\widehat{\Theta}_v(0)=\widehat{\Theta}_c(0)=[0.5 ~0.5 ~0.5]^{\rm{T}}$, and $\Gamma(0)=\textrm{diag}\{100,100,100\}$. Note that the initial weight $[0.5 ~0.5 ~0.5]^{\rm{T}}$ is not an admissible control policy. Fig. \ref{fig3} shows the trajectories of the system state and ESO output. It can be observed that the system state $x$ is regulated to the origin, and the state $x$ and total uncertainty $x_3$ are well-estimated by the ESO. Fig. \ref{fig4} illustrates the trajectory of the control signal $u$ given by (\ref{eq27}). Fig. \ref{fig6} shows that the actor NN weight $\widehat{\Theta}_{c}$ converges to its real value.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth,bb=25 15 315 325, clip]{c}
\caption{Trajectories of $\frac{1}{N}\left(\lambda_{\min}\left\{\sum_{i=1}^N\frac{\mu_i\mu_i^{\rm{T}}}{\rho_i}\right\}\right)$ with $3\times 3$ data grid (upper figure) and $2\times 2$ data grid (lower figure).}\label{fig8}
\end{figure}
\emph{Simulation with different data grids:} Next, we investigate the performance of the developed controller with different data grids. Note that one needs to select sufficiently more data points such that Assumption A4 is satisfied. However, too more data will increase the online computation burden. We consider the $9\times 9$, $5\times 5$, $3\times 3$, and $2\times 2$ data grids over the compact set $\mathcal{X}$. Fig. \ref{fig7} shows the trajectories of the actor NN weight with different data grids. From this figure, it can be observed that 1) more data points lead to better convergence performance; 2) the performance with $5\times 5$ data grid is comparable to $9\times 9$ data grid; 3) the actor NN weight cannot converge to the ideal value with $2\times 2$ data grid. Therefore, for this numerical example, $3\times 3$ data grid suffices to guarantee the convergence of the NN weights, and $5\times 5$ data grid is enough to obtain satisfactory performance. Fig. \ref{fig8} depicts the trajectories of $\frac{1}{N}\left(\lambda_{\min}\left\{\sum_{i=1}^N\frac{\mu_i\mu_i^{\rm{T}}}{\rho_i}\right\}\right)$ with $3\times 3$ and $2\times 2$ data grids. One can see that Assumption A4 is satisfied with $3\times 3$ data grid, but failed with $2\times 2$ data grid.
\emph{Simulation with unknown basis function:} Finally, we simulate the case that the basis function is unknown. For this example, we select the basis function as $\phi(x)=[x_1^2 ~x_1^3 ~x_2^2 ~x_2^3 ~x_1x_2 ~x_1x_2^2 ~x_1^2x_2]^{\rm{T}}$. With this selection, the ideal value of the critical and actor NN weights is $\Theta=[1.5 ~0 ~1 ~0 ~2 ~0 ~0]^{\rm{T}}$. The initial conditions of $\widehat{\Theta}_v$, $\widehat{\Theta}_c$, and $\Gamma$, are set as $\widehat{\Theta}_v(0)=\widehat{\Theta}_c(0)=[0.5 ~0.5 ~0.5 ~0.5 ~0.5 ~0.5 ~0.5]^{\rm{T}}$, and $\Gamma(0)=\textrm{diag}\{100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100\}$. All other settings are the same with the simulation with known basis function. Trajectories of the system state $x$ and the actor NN weight $\widehat{\Theta}_c$ are illustrated in Figs. \ref{fig9} and \ref{fig10}, respectively. It can be observed that the system state converges to the origin while the actor NN weight converges to the ideal value. However, as expected, the transient period is longer than the known basis function case.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth,bb=5 0 315 240, clip]{state}
\caption{Trajectories of the system state with unknown basis function.}\label{fig9}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth,bb=5 0 315 240, clip]{learn_gains}
\caption{Trajectories of the actor NN weight with unknown basis function.}\label{fig10}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth,bb=10 25 315 475, clip]{ESO2}
\caption{Trajectories of the system state and ESO output (Example 2).}\label{fig12}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Example 2}
In this example, we consider a class of third-order kinematic models described by \cite{Bian-2019}
\begin{equation}\label{eq57}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\dot{p}=& v, \\
m\dot{v}=& f_a-bv, \\
\tau \dot{f}_a=& u-f_a+\omega,
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation}
where $p$, $v$, and $f_a$ denote the position, velocity, and actuator force, respectively; $u$ is the control input; $m$, $b$, and $\tau$ represent the mass, velocity constant, and time constant, respectively; and $\omega$ is the external disturbance. The above system represent a large class of physical systems, including human motor system, autonomous vehicle, power system, etc \cite{Bian-2019}. By letting $x_1=p$, $x_2=v$, and $x_3=\frac{f_a-bv}{m}$, the above system can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{eq58}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\dot{x}_1=& x_2, \\
\dot{x}_2=& x_3,\\
\dot{x}_3=& -\frac{b}{\tau m}x_2-\left(\frac{1}{\tau}+\frac{b}{m}\right)x_3+\frac{1}{\tau m}u+ \frac{1}{\tau m}\omega.
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation}
In the simulation, the values of the model parameters are given by $m=1\textrm{kg}$, $b=1 \textrm{N} \cdot \textrm{s/m}$, and $\tau=0.1\textrm{s}$. Let $f_0(x)=-\frac{b}{\tau m}x_2-\left(\frac{1}{\tau}+\frac{b}{m}\right)x_3$, $g_0(x)=\frac{1}{\tau m}$, and $\omega=0.2\sin(t)$. The cost functional for the nominal system is selected as $r(x,u_0)=\|x\|^2+u_0^2$, and consequently the optimal value function and optimal control policy are given by $V^*(x)=2.2669x_1^2+2.3580x_2^2+0.0470x_3^2+3.1390x_1x_2+0.2x_1x_3+0.2534x_2x_3$ and $u_0^*(x)=x_1+1.2669x_2+0.4695x_3$, respectively. The compact set of interest is set as $\chi=[-1 ~1]\times [-1 ~1]\times [-5 ~5]$, and the data points to extrapolate the BE are selected on a $5\times 5\times 5$ data grid covering the domain $\chi$. The ESO is designed with $L=[4 ~6 ~4 ~1]^{\rm{T}}$ and $\varepsilon=0.01$. The basis function is selected as $\phi(x)=[x_1^2 ~x_2^2 ~x_3^2 ~x_1x_2 ~x_1x_3 ~x_2x_3]^{\rm{T}}$. The adaptation gains of the RL adaptive laws are the same as those in Example 1.
Simulation is done with initial conditions $x(0)=[0.5 ~0.5 ~4]^{\rm{T}}$, $[\widehat{x}_1(0) ~\widehat{x}_2(0)~\widehat{x}_3(0)]^{\rm{T}}=[0 ~0 ~0]^{\rm{T}}$, $\Gamma(0)=\textrm{diag}\{100,100,100,100,100,100\}$, and the elements of $\widehat{\Theta}_v(0)$ and $\widehat{\Theta}_c(0)$ randomly selected on $[0 ~2]$. Figs. \ref{fig12}-\ref{fig14} show the simulation results, from which one can see that the developed approach achieves satisfactory performance for the third-order kinematic model.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth,bb=15 0 320 188, clip]{u2}
\caption{Trajectory of the control input $u$ (Example 2).}\label{fig13}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
An ESO-based reinforcement learning and disturbance rejection framework is established for uncertain nonlinear systems having non-simple nominal models.
The developed approach compensates for the total uncertainty and approximates the optimal policy for the compensated system simultaneously. Simulation of experience based RL is employed to utilize the nominal model and to relax the requirement of the PE condition. The obtained results provide a novel learning-based solution for the disturbance rejection of uncertain nonlinear systems, especially those having non-simple nominal models, which are quite common in practice. Future research works will be directed at the extension of the results to systems with constraints \cite{Yang-2020b,Yang-2020c}, and the application of the developed approach to robotic systems \cite{Li-2019}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth,bb=5 0 320 240, clip]{Theta_c2}
\caption{Trajectories of the actor NN weight (Example 2).}\label{fig14}
\end{figure}
|
\section{Introduction}
Image inpainting aims at restoring partially damaged image or missing
parts of an image in a
visually appealing manner \cite{BS00}. It has a wide
number of practical applications such as
art restoration \cite{KM13,BF08,CA18,RC11},
object removal \cite{CP04},
medical imaging \cite{TB19},
inpainting of optical flow fields \cite{RO20},
video inpainting \cite{NA14},
inpainting reflectance/height values in LiDAR images \cite{BA19,CL18},
image compression \cite{GW08,SP14}, and even image
denoising \cite{AP17}. The term ``inpainting'' itself was introduced for
digital images by Bertalm{\'{\i}}o et al.~in \cite{BS00}, but similar
concepts were already explored in earlier work under different names
such as image restoration, interpolation, disocclusion,
or amodal completion
\cite{Hu73,OABB85,Fe94,CM98,MM98}.
Any inpainting model needs to assume some kind of relation between known
and unknown data. As there is a variety of plausible assumptions for such
relations, many solutions to an inpainting problem exist.
Based on the underlying assumptions, the inpainting methods from the
literature can be grouped into certain main categories \cite{BC14,GL14}.
One class is based on variational models and partial differential equations
(PDEs) \cite{Sc15},
comprising e.g.~Euler's elastica \cite{NMS93,MM98,CK02,BC10,CP19},
transport-like equations \cite{BS00,BM07}, anisotropic diffusion processes
\cite{WW06,GW08,BU13}, harmonic and biharmonic inpainting \cite{CS02,GW08},
total variation restoration \cite{CS02},
the Mumford-Shah functional \cite{CS02,ES02},
and the Cahn--Hilliard equation \cite{BEG07,BHS09}.
Exemplar-based approaches emerged from texture synthesis and
exploit the notion of patch similarity \cite{EL99,CP04,FA09,AF11}.
Other techniques
rely on overcomplete dictionaries and the concept of sparsity
\cite{ES05,ME08,El10}, and more recently also deep learning
concepts have been proposed \cite{PKDD16,ISI17,UVL18}.
Each of these strategies has its advantages and disadvantages depending on the
type of image it is applied to. For example, exemplar-based techniques perform
fairly well on highly textured images, PDE-based methods are more
suited for geometrical structures, and deep learning approaches can capture
high-level semantics from images. This has led to the development of hybrid
approaches which combine the strengths of different methods
\cite{BV03,SE05,AL10,PW15}.
A subclass of inpainting problems deals with the recovery of a whole image from
a small amount of sparsely distributed data \cite{AA17,BU13,FA09,HM17}. These
kind of problems are encountered particularly in the context of compression
\cite{GW08,CR14,SP14,Pe19}. The sparsity of available data makes it
feasibly to consider scattered data interpolation,
e.g.~by radial basis functions
\cite{MD05,We05,US06,Fa07,LZ12,CL18} or by Shepard interpolation
\cite{Sh68,KW93,AA17,Pe19} as inpainting technique.
A key observation for applications in compression is that the data can be
chosen freely from the image. Thus, a careful selection of the sparse set
of pixels to store such that it fits a chosen inpainting method is
essential for a good performance \cite{GW08,MH11,CR14,SP14,HM17,KB18}.
Astonishingly, simple linear methods such as homogeneous diffusion
inpainting show remarkable quality if combined with optimally chosen data
\cite{BB09,GW08,HS13,CR14,PH16,BLPP17} and can even compete with the widely
used JPEG \cite{PM92} and JPEG2000 \cite{TM02} standards \cite{MB11,HM13,PH16}.
Anisotropic diffusion approaches perform even better \cite{GW08,SP14,HM17}
and can outperform JPEG and JPEG2000 for high compression ratios.
\subsection{Goals and Contributions}
The goal of our paper is to show that a hitherto hardly explored class
of scattered data interpolation methods based on Smoothed Particle
Hydrodynamics (SPH) can provide excellent results on sparse inpainting
problems, if one improves them with a number of refined concepts.
SPH was originally introduced to solve astrophysical problems \cite{Lu77},
but has also been applied to problems that deal with large deformations
\cite{BS08}, computational fluid mechanics \cite{Mo94}, and soil mechanics
\cite{MH05}. In SPH, the solution to a given problem is represented by a
set of particles and functions. Derivatives and integrals are approximated
using those particles.
Di Blasi et al.~\cite{DF11} have introduced the SPH method for sparse
image interpolation problems, and applications to non-sparse inpainting
are studied in \cite{AP16}. We have not found more work on SPH-based
image inpainting. One reason for this lack of popularity might lie in the
fact that in the naive formulation,
not even constant functions are interpolated correctly
\cite{Fa07}.
However, in our paper we show that
one can come up with highly competitive approaches by integrating more
sophisticated concepts.
The modifications that we apply are mostly tailored to the
particular situation encountered when inpainting is used as a strategy for
compression. Compared to other, more classical applications of inpainting, the
key difference when using inpainting for compression is that a ground truth
image is known, such that the data used for inpainting can be adapted and
optimized with regard to this ground truth. Moreover, compression applications
are particularly challenging, since they keep only a very sparse subset of the
original data.
Our key contributions are the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item To define a measure for the area of influence of a given
particle (mask point), we combine a Voronoi tessellation with the Euclidean
distance transform.
\item We restore particle consistency.
\item We perform inpainting with a new method that adapts its
consistency order to the local approximation error.
\item We use the Voronoi tessellation to propose a novel
strategy for spatial data optimization.
\item We optimize not only the data locations, but also their
values (tonal optimization).
\item To incorporate anisotropy in the process, we use anisotropic kernels.
\item We assess the performance of different smoothing kernels and compare to
some of the best sparse inpainting methods for optimized data.
\end{enumerate}
In the context of image processing and reconstruction,
related concepts have been used in combination with kernel regression methods,
e.g., by Takeda et al.\ in \cite{TF07}.
\subsection{Paper Structure}
This paper is organized as follows: In \cref{sec:SPH_basics}, we give a brief
summary of the ideas behind Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics. This includes its
origin from an integral approximation, techniques to restore consistency in a
discrete setting, and a brief overview on common smoothing kernels used for our
experiments. \Cref{sec:inpainting} explains how SPH can be used for inpainting.
Here we introduce Voronoi tessellation to determine parameters of the method.
Further, we compare performance of SPH inpainting with
diffusion- and exemplar-based methods for examples of sparse inpainting and
classical inpainting tasks.
For problems in which the ground truth is known, we
show how performance can be enhanced by combining results from methods of
different consistency order
in \cref{sec:mask_optimization}. Here, we also
explain our data optimization strategies both with respect to data locations
(spatial optimization) as well as data values (tonal optimization). We proceed
by comparing results from our method to results from other techniques in
\cref{sec:comparisons} and draw conclusions in \cref{sec:conclusions}.
\section{SPH in a Nutshell}
\label{sec:SPH_basics}
\subsection{Essential Ideas}
\label{sec:formulation}
We are interested in approximating a function $f$ on the domain $\Omega$ in
$\mathbb{R}^{2}$. The point of departure for SPH is the idea to replace the
value of $f$ at a point $\bm{q}$ by a weighted average of the function, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:4}
f\!\left(\bm{q}\right) \approx
\left\langle f\!\left(\bm{q}\right) \right\rangle
\coloneqq
\int_{\Omega} f\!\left(\bm{p}\right) \,
W\!\left(\bm{q}-\bm{p},h\right)\, \mathrm{d}\bm{p}.
\end{equation}
\Cref{eq:4} is also known as the \emph{kernel approximation} of the function
with the smoothing kernel $W(\cdot,h)$ and its smoothing length $h$, which
represents the effective width of $W$. The kernel should be a monotonically
decreasing positive mollifier, i.e.\ it should have the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item compactness:
$W(\bm{q}-\bm{p},h) = 0$ outside
a compact domain
$K \subseteq \Omega$,
\item unity:
$\int_{\Omega} W(\bm{q}-\bm{p},h)\, \mathrm{d}\bm{p} = 1$,
\item limit behavior:
$W(\bm{q}-\bm{p},h) \xrightarrow{h \rightarrow 0} \delta(\bm{q}-\bm{p})$,
where $\delta(\bm{q}-\bm{p})$ is Dirac's delta distribution,
\item positivity:
$W(\bm{q}-\bm{p},h) > 0$ over $K \subseteq \Omega$,
\item monotonicity:
$W$ is monotonically decreasing function w.r.t.\
$\left\lVert \bm{q} - \bm{p}\right\rVert$.
\end{itemize}
Here, $\lVert \cdot \rVert$ denotes the Euclidean distance. Positivity is not
strictly necessary, but desired in order for the approximated function values to
have physical meaning. Allowing the kernel to take negative values in parts of
the domain can lead to unnatural approximated values and corrupt the entire
computation \cite{LL03}. The same holds for monotonicity, which is connected
with the usual behavior of physical forces to decrease with increasing distance.
Discretizing the integral of \cref{eq:4} yields the \emph{particle
approximation} of $f$ given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:particle_approx}
f\!\left(\bm{q}\right) \approx u\!\left(\bm{q}\right) \coloneqq
\sum\limits_{j \in \mathcal{N}(\bm{q})} f\!\left(\bm{p}_{j}\right)\,
W\!\left(\bm{q}-\bm{p}_{j},h\right)\, V_{j}.
\end{equation}
Here, in order to approximate the function value at point $\bm{q}$ we sum over
its nearest neighbors $\bm{p}_{j}$, where $\mathcal{N}(\bm{q})$ denotes the
index set of the nearest neighbors and we assume that $1 \leq j \leq M$ with $M$
the total number of particles under consideration. Each of these particles is
related to a specific area of influence (or weight) $V_{j}$ in this quadrature
rule. The particle approximation is interpolating at the particles $\bm{p}_{j}$
if the kernel $W$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
W\!\left(\bm{p}_{k}-\bm{p}_{j},h\right)\, V_{j} = \delta_{k,j} \quad
\text{for any} \quad
j, k = 1,\ldots, M
\end{equation}
with the Kronecker delta $\delta_{k,j}$. This requirement is separate from
the desired properties in the continuous setting and, in general, not satisfied
by kernels with said properties. Some modifications which achieve interpolation
at the particles are discussed in \cref{sec:consistency}.
In order to determine the nearest neighbors, we use the so-called scatter
approach. Here, the neighbors of a point $\bm{q}$, are the particles
$\bm{p}_{j}$ that include $\bm{q}$ in the support domain of the kernels
centered at these particles $\bm{p}_{j}$, cf.\ \cref{fig:Scatter}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (2,2) circle (2cm);
\filldraw (2,2) circle (1pt) node[align=left, below] {$\bm{p}_{1}$};
\draw (3,4) circle (1.5cm);
\draw (3.5,2.5) circle (1.5cm);
\filldraw (3.5,2.5) circle (1pt) node[align=left, below] {$\bm{p}_{2}$};
\filldraw (3,4) circle (1pt) node[align=left, above] {$\bm{p}_{3}$};
\draw (1,3.5) circle (1.1cm);
\filldraw (1,3.5) circle (1pt) node[align=left, below] {$\bm{p}_{4}$};
\filldraw (2.5,3) circle (1pt) node[align=left, above] {$\bm{q}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption[Scatter Approach]{Particles $\bm{p}_{1}$, $\bm{p}_{2}$, and
$\bm{p}_{3}$ are considered neighbors of point $\bm{q}$, while $\bm{p}_{4}$
is not.}
\label{fig:Scatter}
\end{figure}
An alternative to the scatter approach is the gather approach \cite{Li09} in
which a disk of a predetermined radius around $\bm{q}$ is considered and
neighbors are determined by checking which particles $\bm{p}_{j}$ are located
within the disk. The scatter approach is preferable for our purpose as it is
less dependent on the particle distribution and allows to consider different
smoothing lengths $h_{j}$ for each particle.
\subsection{Restoring Consistency}
\label{sec:consistency}
Consistency in SPH is defined in the sense of (local) polynomial reproduction
\cite{We05}. While the restriction of kernels to positive mollifiers guarantees
that linear polynomials are reconstructed in the continuous formulation
\cref{eq:4}, this is no longer the case in the discrete formulation
\cref{eq:particle_approx}; a phenomenon known as particle inconsistency
\cite{Mo96}. Thus, \cref{eq:particle_approx} needs to be modified in order to
restore consistency in the discrete setting.
For the particle approximation to satisfy zero order consistency, it needs to
be able to reproduce constants. This requirement is satisfied by the well known
Shepard interpolation formula \cite{Sh68,CB99,We05}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:new_discrete_shepard}
u\!\left(\bm{q}\right) =
\frac{\sum\limits_{j \in \mathcal{N}(\bm{q})}
f\!\left(\bm{p}_{j}\right) \,
W\!\left(\bm{q}-\bm{p}_{j},h\right) \,V_{j}}{
\sum\limits_{j \in \mathcal{N}(\bm{q})} W\!\left(\bm{q}-\bm{p}_{j},h\right)\,
V_{j}}.
\end{equation}
The fact that zero order consistency already requires to modify
\cref{eq:particle_approx} shows that, in general, using the particle
approximation directly cannot even reproduce constant functions, i.e.\
\cref{eq:particle_approx} has no consistency.
One way to interpret Shepard interpolation is that the kernel $W$ is replaced by
a modified kernel $\widetilde{W}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:mod_kernel_zero01}
\widetilde{W}\!\left(\bm{q}-\bm{p}_{j},h\right) =
b_{0}\!\left(\bm{q}\right)\, W\!\left(\bm{q}-\bm{p}_{j},h\right),
\end{equation}
and the original interpolation formula is used with the modified kernel, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:SPH_mod_kernel}
u\!\left(\bm{q}\right) =
\sum\limits_{j \in \mathcal{N}(\bm{q})} f\!\left(\bm{p}_{j}\right)\,
\widetilde{W}\!\left(\bm{q}-\bm{p}_{j},h\right)\, V_{j}.
\end{equation}
By comparison with \cref{eq:new_discrete_shepard}, we see that
$b_{0}\!\left(\bm{q}\right)$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:mod_kernel_zero02}
b_{0}\!\left(\bm{q}\right) = \frac{1}{
\sum\limits_{j \in \mathcal{N}(\bm{q})} W\!\left(\bm{q}-\bm{p}_{j},h\right)\,
V_{j}}.
\end{equation}
Thus, $b_{0}\!\left(\bm{q}\right)$ is a function of $\bm{q}$, but is constant
with respect to the particle $\bm{p}_{j}$ for a fixed $\bm{q}$. In other words,
zero order consistency can be restored by multiplying the kernel by a constant.
This motivates the attempt to restore first order consistency by multiplying
the kernel with a function which is linear in the difference
$\bm{q}-\bm{p}_{j}$, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:mod_kernel_first01}
\widetilde{W}\!\left(\bm{q}-\bm{p}_{j},h\right) =
\left(b_{0}\!\left(\bm{q}\right)
+ b_{1}\!\left(\bm{q}\right) \left(x_{\bm{q}} - x_{\bm{p}_{j}}\right)
+ b_{2}\!\left(\bm{q}\right) \left(y_{\bm{q}} - y_{\bm{p}_{j}}\right) \right)
\, W\!\left(\bm{q}-\bm{p}_{j},h\right),
\end{equation}
where
$\bm{q} = (x_{\bm{q}}, y_{\bm{q}})^{T}$ and
$\bm{p}_{j} = (x_{\bm{p}_{j}}, y_{\bm{p}_{j}})^{T}$.
For a fixed $\bm{q}$, this
means that we have to determine three coefficients such that we can reproduce
linear polynomials in $\mathbb{R}^{2}$. This yields the system of equations
\begin{align}
\sum\limits_{j \in \mathcal{N}(\bm{q})}
\widetilde{W}\!\left(\bm{q}-\bm{p}_{j},h\right)\, V_{j}
=&\ 1,
\label{eq:first_order01}\\
\sum\limits_{j \in \mathcal{N}(\bm{q})} x_{\bm{p}_{j}} \,
\widetilde{W}\!\left(\bm{q}-\bm{p}_{j},h\right)\, V_{j}
=&\ x_{\bm{q}},
\label{eq:first_order02}\\
\sum\limits_{j \in \mathcal{N}(\bm{q})} y_{\bm{p}_{j}} \,
\widetilde{W}\!\left(\bm{q}-\bm{p}_{j},h\right)\, V_{j}
=&\ y_{\bm{q}}.
\label{eq:first_order03}
\end{align}
\Cref{eq:first_order01} allows to multiply the right-hand sides of
\cref{eq:first_order02,eq:first_order03} by the left-hand side of
\cref{eq:first_order01} without changing the equations, such that this linear
system can be recast as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:first_order_comp}
\bm{D}\!\left(\bm{q}\right)\, \bm{b}\!\left(\bm{q}\right) = \bm{e}
\end{equation}
if we define
\begin{equation}
\bm{b}\!\left(\bm{q}\right) =
\begin{pmatrix}
b_{0}\!\left(\bm{q}\right) \\
b_{1}\!\left(\bm{q}\right) \\
b_{2}\!\left(\bm{q}\right)
\end{pmatrix},
\qquad
\bm{e} =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\
0 \\
0
\end{pmatrix},
\qquad
\bm{v}_{j}\!\left(\bm{q}\right) =
\begin{pmatrix}
1\\
x_{\bm{p}_j}-x_{\bm{q}}\\
y_{\bm{p}_j}-y_{\bm{q}}
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
The matrix $\bm{D}\!\left(\bm{q}\right)$ can be expressed as a sum of matrices
of rank $1$ in the form
\begin{equation}
\bm{D}\!\left(\bm{q}\right) =
\sum\limits_{j \in \mathcal{N}(\bm{q})} W\!\left(\bm{p}_{j}-\bm{q},h\right) \,
V_{j}
\,
\bm{v}_{j}\!\left(\bm{q}\right) \, \bm{v}_{j}^{T}\!\left(\bm{q}\right).
\end{equation}
It is positive semidefinite as for any $\bm{z} \in \mathbb{R}^{3}$ holds
\begin{equation}
\bm{z}^T \bm{D} \bm{z} =
\bm{z}^T \left(
\sum\limits_{j \in \mathcal{N}(\bm{q})} W\!\left(\bm{p}_{j}-\bm{q},h\right) \,
V_{j}
\,
\bm{v}_{j} \bm{v}_{j}^{T} \right)
\bm{z} =
\sum\limits_{j \in \mathcal{N}(\bm{q})} W\!\left(\bm{p}_{j}-\bm{q},h\right) \,
V_{j}
\,
\left(\bm{v}_{j}^{T}\, \bm{z} \right)^{2} \geq 0,
\end{equation}
since the smoothing kernel $W(\cdot)$ is nonnegative and $V_{j} > 0$. However,
$\bm{D}\!\left(\bm{q}\right)$ is singular unless $\bm{q}$ has at least three
nearest neighbors which are not collinear.
In order to achieve an SPH interpolation with first order consistency at a pixel
$\bm{q}$, it is necessary to solve the $3 \times 3$ linear system
\cref{eq:first_order_comp}. To inpaint a whole image from first order SPH
interpolation, \cref{eq:first_order_comp} needs to be solved for each unknown
pixel. With the solution $\bm{b}\!\left(\bm{q}\right)$ of
\cref{eq:first_order_comp}, a first order consistent SPH approximation can be
written as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:28}
u\!\left(\bm{q}\right) =
\sum\limits_{j \in \mathcal{N}(\bm{q})} f\!\left(\bm{p}_{j}\right) \,
\widetilde{W}\!\left(\bm{q}-\bm{p}_{j},h\right) \,V_{j} =
\sum\limits_{j \in \mathcal{N}(\bm{q})} f\!\left(\bm{p}_{j}\right) \,
\bm{v}_{j}^{T}\!\left(\bm{q}\right)\, \bm{b}\!\left(\bm{q}\right) \,
W\!\left(\bm{q}-\bm{p}_{j},h\right) \,V_{j}.
\end{equation}
The particular method used here to restore first order consistency was derived
in a longer way in \cite{ZB09}, whereas other methods that modify the kernel to
restore first order consistency can be found in \cite{LJ95,Li09}. The method
described here has the advantage that it does not involve derivatives of $f$ to
restore first order consistency.
For image processing, similar techniques were derived from
kernel regression in \cite{TF07}.
The benefit of a higher order consistency does not come without a
price.
The zero order consistent Shepard interpolation \cref{eq:new_discrete_shepard}
only modifies the kernel such that it satisfies a discrete partition of unity
property. With this modified kernel, Shepard interpolation produces the value
of $u$ at $\bm{q}$ as a convex combination of the values of $f$ at the
neighboring particles $\bm{p}_{j}$. Thus, it prevents over- and undershoots. If
we want the first order consistent method \cref{eq:28} to prevent over- and
undershoots, we have to put a restriction on the positions of particles, since
we have to satisfy \cref{eq:first_order02,eq:first_order03}. These equations can
be written in a compact way as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pos_require_first_order}
\bm{q} =
\sum\limits_{j \in \mathcal{N}(\bm{q})} \bm{p}_{j} \,
\widetilde{W}\!\left(\bm{q}-\bm{p}_{j},h\right)\, V_{j} .
\end{equation}
In an ideal situation, $u$ at $\bm{q}$ would be a convex combination of the
values of $f$ at the neighboring particles $\bm{p}_{j}$ with weights given by
$\widetilde{W}\!\left(\bm{q}-\bm{p}_{j},h\right)\, V_{j}$. However,
\cref{eq:pos_require_first_order} along with \cref{eq:first_order01} implies
that this can only be the case if the position $\bm{q}$ is also a convex
combination of the particle positions $\bm{p}_{j}$ with the same weights. In
most cases, this condition on the positions of particles is violated. In order
to achieve first order consistency regardless of the spatial distribution of
particles, the modified kernel $\widetilde{W}$ violates some of the properties
defined in \cref{sec:formulation}. In particular violation of
the positivity requirement results in visible artifacts as can be seen in the
bottom left block of images in \cref{fig:random_5}.
This phenomenon is also mentioned as violation of a
maximum-minimum principle in the context of inpainting in \cite{HH20}.
\subsection{Common Smoothing Kernels}
\label{sec:kernels}
In SPH, most smoothing kernels $W$ incorporate the smoothing length as a scaling
parameter, such that they can be expressed in the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:eta}
W\!\left(\bm{q}-\bm{p},h\right) = W\!\left(\frac{\bm{q}-\bm{p}}{h}\right) =
W\!\left(\bm{\eta}\right)
\qquad \text{with} \qquad
\bm{\eta} \coloneqq \frac{\bm{q}-\bm{p}}{h}.
\end{equation}
Further, it is common to choose radial kernels such that they can be written in
the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:kernel_rbf}
W\!\left(\bm{q}-\bm{p},h\right) = W\!\left(\bm{\eta}\right) =
\frac{\rho}{h^{2}} \, \Phi\!\left(\left\lVert \bm{\eta} \right\rVert\right).
\end{equation}
Here, $\rho$ is a normalization factor to satisfy the continuous unity property.
Probably the most common kernel is of Gaussian type:
\begin{equation}
\Phi\!\left(\left\lVert \bm{\eta} \right\rVert\right) =
\exp\!\left(-\epsilon\, \left\lVert \bm{\eta} \right\rVert^{2}\right).
\end{equation}
However, as the Gaussian does not have a compact support, it is truncated at
$\left\lVert \bm{\eta} \right\rVert=1$. Thus, the parameter $\epsilon$ should be
chosen in a way that values of the resulting kernel $W\!\left(\bm{\eta}\right)$
for $\left\lVert \bm{\eta} \right\rVert > 1$ can be safely neglected. For the
value of the Gaussian at $\left\lVert \bm{\eta} \right\rVert=1$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
W\!\left(\bm{\eta}\right) = \frac{\rho}{h^{2}}
\qquad \text{if} \qquad
\left\lVert \bm{\eta} \right\rVert = 1,
\end{equation}
which inspires the condition
\begin{equation}
W\!\left(\bm{\eta}\right)
\leq
\frac{0.01}{h^{2}}
\qquad \text{if} \qquad
\left\lVert \bm{\eta} \right\rVert = 1.
\end{equation}
Together with the continuous unity property, this allows us to determine both
parameters $\rho$ and $\epsilon$, such that we use the Gaussian in the form
\begin{equation}
W\!\left(\bm{\eta}\right) =
\frac{\epsilon}{\pi\, h^{2}} \,
\exp\!\left(-\epsilon\, \left\lVert \bm{\eta}\right\rVert^{2}\right)
\end{equation}
with $\epsilon = 5.09$. Here, we have expressed $\rho$ as a function of
$\epsilon$.
An alternative to the Gaussian are Mat\'{e}rn kernels \cite{Fa07}. Contrary to
the Gaussian which is arbitrarily often continuously differentiable, Mat\'{e}rn
kernels differ in smoothness. The $C^{0}$-Mat\'{e}rn kernel, which is not
differentiable but just continuous at $\bm{\eta} = \bm{0}$, is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:matern_1}
W\!\left(\bm{\eta}\right) = \frac{\epsilon^{2}}{2 \pi\, h^{2}}\,
\exp\!\left(-\epsilon \left\lVert \bm{\eta} \right\rVert\right),
\end{equation}
for which we chose $\epsilon = 6.52$. A higher regularity at
$\bm{\eta} = \bm{0}$ can be achieved with the $C^{2}$-Mat\'{e}rn kernel
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:matern_2}
W\!\left(\bm{\eta}\right) =
\frac{\epsilon^{2}}{6 \pi\, h^{2}}\,
\left(1 + \epsilon \left\lVert \bm{\eta} \right\rVert\right)
\exp\!\left(-\epsilon \left\lVert \bm{\eta} \right\rVert\right),
\end{equation}
which we use in our experiments with $\epsilon = 8.04$.
Although the truncated Gaussian is a common choice, the original SPH paper
\cite{Lu77} already introduced a kernel with a compact support,
namely
\begin{equation}
W\!\left(\bm{\eta}\right) = \frac{5}{\pi\, h^{2}}
\begin{cases}
\left(1 + 3 \left\lVert \bm{\eta} \right\rVert\right)
\left(1 - \left\lVert \bm{\eta} \right\rVert\right)^{3},
&\ \left\lVert \bm{\eta} \right\rVert \leq 1, \\
0, &\ \left\lVert \bm{\eta} \right\rVert > 1,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
which we will call Lucy kernel. Other commonly used kernels with compact support
are the cubic spline \cite{LL03}
\begin{equation}
W\!\left(\bm{\eta}\right) = \frac{120}{14 \pi\, h^{2}}
\begin{cases}
\frac{2}{3} - 4 \left\lVert \bm{\eta} \right\rVert^{2} +
4 \left\lVert \bm{\eta} \right\rVert^{3},
&\ \left\lVert \bm{\eta} \right\rVert \leq \frac{1}{2}, \\
\frac{1}{6} \left(2 - 2 \left\lVert \bm{\eta} \right\rVert\right)^{3},
&\ \frac{1}{2} < \left\lVert \bm{\eta} \right\rVert \leq 1, \\
0, &\ \left\lVert \bm{\eta} \right\rVert > 1,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
and the Wendland $C^{4}$ kernel \cite{We05}
\begin{equation}
W\!\left(\bm{\eta}\right) = \frac{3}{\pi\, h^{2}}
\begin{cases}
\left(35 \left\lVert \bm{\eta} \right\rVert^{2} +
18 \left\lVert \bm{\eta} \right\rVert + 3\right)
\left(1 - \left\lVert \bm{\eta} \right\rVert\right)^{6},
&\ \left\lVert \bm{\eta} \right\rVert \leq 1, \\
0, &\ \left\lVert \bm{\eta} \right\rVert > 1.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\section{SPH Inpainting}
\label{sec:inpainting}
For the majority of inpainting problems discussed in this
paper,
we consider the reconstruction of an image $f$ from a sparse set of values at
scattered pixel locations. These locations, called mask points, take the role
of particles $\bm{p}_{j}$ for our SPH-inspired inpainting procedure. The set of
all mask points is the inpainting mask $\bm{c}$.
Exceptions from this setting are the examples of scratch and
text removal in \cref{sec:scratch}, which we include to investigate
how SPH inpainting performs for some classical inpainting problems.
\subsection{Choosing Influence Areas and Smoothing Lengths}
In order to use \cref{eq:SPH_mod_kernel} for inpainting, whether with the
original particle approximation, Shepard interpolation, or the first order
consistent method, we still have to determine an area of influence $V_{j}$ for
each given mask point $\bm{p}_{j}$. Further, we want to enhance the adaptivity
of the method by allowing for different smoothing lengths $h_{j}$ of the kernels
centered at the individual particles. This adaptivity is motivated by the
results in \cite{DF11}.
A reasonable idea is to assume that the area of influence of a given mask point
$\bm{p}_{j}$ is the set of all points which are closer to $\bm{p}_{j}$ than to
any other mask point in $\bm{c}$. This idea leads to a Voronoi tessellation of
the domain $\Omega$ with seeds given by the mask points. Voronoi cells have
been used before in the context of SPH
\cite{GX16,SA17} with promising
results.
As we are working in a discrete setting where the smallest unit of area is a
pixel, a method which determines approximate Voronoi diagrams based on the
squared Euclidean distance transform is our tool of choice for this task. This
is a rather natural approach since the Voronoi cell $\Omega_{j}$ associated to
the mask point $\bm{p}_{j}$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
\Omega_{j} = \left\{ \bm{q} \in \Omega\, \vert \,
\left\lVert \bm{q}-\bm{p}_{j} \right\rVert \leq
\left\lVert \bm{q}-\bm{p}_{k} \right\rVert \text{ for all }
1 \leq k \leq M,\, k \neq j \right\}.
\end{equation}
Given a binary image $g$ which only takes the values $0$ and $\infty$
throughout a domain $\Omega$, the distance
transform
assigns to each pixel
$\bm{q}$ in $\Omega$ its squared distance to the nearest pixel $\bm{p}$ with
$g(\bm{p})=0$. In our case, $g$ takes the value $0$ at the mask points and
$\infty$ everywhere else. For practical applications, $\infty$ can be replaced
by a sufficiently large number. In a two-dimensional domain, the squared
distance transform is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:dist}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{D}(x,y) =&\
\min_{x',y'}\left\{(x-x')^2 + (y-y')^2 + g(x',y')\right\} \\
=&\
\min_{x'}\left\{(x-x')^2 + \min_{y'}\left\{(y-y')^2+g(x',y')\right\}\right\}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
such that it can be computed by two consecutive squared distance transforms in
one dimension. We used the algorithm from \cite{Bo92,FH12} to compute the
distance transform, which is shown to have a complexity of $\mathcal{O}(n_{x}\,
n_{y})$, where $n_{x}$ and $n_{y}$ are the number of pixels in the image domain
$\Omega$ in $x$- and $y$-direction, respectively. For visualization purposes
each and every Voronoi cell is depicted with a different color per Voronoi cell
in \cref{fig:color}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/mask}
\caption[Voronoi Seeds]{Image with seeds marked in white.}
\label{fig:mask}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/dt}
\caption[Distance transform in $2D$]{Distance transform.}
\label{fig:dt_new}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/color}
\caption[Voronoi Diagram]{Resulting Voronoi diagram with seeds marked in
black.}
\label{fig:color}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Voronoi Tessellation]{Voronoi tessellation using distance transform
for a given set of mask points $\bm{p}_{j}$ depicted as white seeds in
\cref{fig:mask}. The resulting distance transform is depicted in
\cref{fig:dt_new}. Corresponding Voronoi cells can be seen in
\cref{fig:color}, each depicted in a different color with seeds in black
now.}
\label{fig:tessellation}
\end{figure}
After the Voronoi tessellation, each mask point $\bm{p}_{j}$ is assigned as
area of influence the area of its corresponding Voronoi cell. In our discrete
setting, this area is defined as the sum of pixels that belong to that cell,
i.e., pixels are assumed to have area equal to $1$.
It seems natural to determine the smoothing length $h_{j}$ in relation to the
volume $V_{j}$, e.g.\ half the diameter of the Voronoi cell associated to
$\bm{p}_{j}$. However, this particular choice is prone to result in pixels for
which the requirements of the minimal necessary number of nearest neighbors
are not satisfiable. If a pixel does not lie within the support of any kernel,
it cannot be inpainted.
A straightforward remedy would be to multiply the diameter of each Voronoi cell
with a constant factor chosen such that each pixel has at least the desired
minimum number of nearest neighbors. Unfortunately, this would result in
oversmoothing and blurring as the resulting kernel supports would be rather
large. Instead, we follow the adaptive, iterative approach of \cite{DF11} for
the choice of smoothing lengths, which also enforces that any pixel is inpainted
with at least a specified minimum number of neighbors. The scheme starts by
assigning each mask point $\bm{p}_{j}$ an initial smoothing length
$h_{j,\textrm{init}}$. Using the corresponding kernels, unknown pixels are
inpainted, but only if they lie within the support of a least a fixed number of
kernels. All pixels which do not satisfy this requirement are not inpainted.
Afterwards we check whether there are still pixels with no assigned value left.
If so, we increase all smoothing lengths according to a certain rule and try
again to inpaint those pixels which are not yet assigned a value. This procedure
is repeated iteratively until each pixel is inpainted. As growing strategy for
the smoothing lengths, we increase them linearly with the number of iterations.
The original method in \cite{DF11} assigned initial smoothing lengths which are
connected to the choice of $V_{j}$ as made there. However, our experiments
showed that it is beneficial if each kernel starts with a minimal smoothing
length of $h_{j,\textrm{init}} = 1$. Thus, mask points can initially only be
recognized as neighbors within a $3\times 3$-patch around them such that the
process starts with the smallest sensible isotropic support for each kernel. The
smoothing length $h_{j}$ is in each step equal to the number of iterations.
The last parameter that we have to set is the required minimal number of nearest
neighbors. For Shepard interpolation, we need at least one neighbor to perform
an inpainting, whereas for the method with first order consistency, any pixel
must be contained in the support of at least three kernels. For all methods, it
is reasonable to choose a slightly larger necessary minimal number of nearest
neighbors as this improves results. In particular for the method of first order
consistency that reduces the chance to encounter cases in which all mask points
closest to an unknown pixel are collinear. For our experiments we require a
minimal number of five nearest neighbors.
\subsection{Sparse Inpainting on Regular and Random Masks}
\label{sec:improvement}
We follow here a didactic approach and consider the test image ``trui'' of
size $256 \times 256$ pixels as an example. Results and comparisons for further
images can be found in \cref{sec:comparisons} and in the supplementary material.
All experiments in this paper were performed on an Intel Core
i7-9700K CPU @ 3.6GHz.
To get a first impression, we equip the test image with
two different types of sparse masks
$\bm{c}$.
In one case, we choose for $\bm{c}$ a regular mask with a
density of $6.25 \%$, i.e., pixels on a square grid with a grid width of $4$
pixels are taken as mask points. In the other case, we randomly selected $5 \%$
of all image pixels as mask points. Test image ``trui'' and both masks are
shown in \cref{fig:trui_mask}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui}
\caption{Original image}
\label{fig:trui}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/mask_reg_256_256_D00625}
\caption{6.25 \% regular mask}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/mask_ran_D005_trui}
\caption{5 \% random mask}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Test image, regular mask ($6.25 \%$ density) and random mask
($5 \%$ density)]{The $256 \times 256$ test image ``trui'',
a regular grid of mask points, and a random selection of
$5 \%$ of image pixels.}
\label{fig:trui_mask}
\end{figure}
In this setting, we perform SPH inpainting with a required minimal number of
five neighbors, starting with the kernels given in \cref{sec:kernels} and
modifying them either according to Shepard interpolation
\cref{eq:new_discrete_shepard} or the first order consistent method given by
\cref{eq:first_order_comp,eq:28}.
Corresponding results for the case of having a regular mask are
depicted in \cref{fig:regular_6_25}, whereas the results based
on the randomly chosen mask points are given in \cref{fig:random_5}.
In order to compare results, all figures give the corresponding mean square
errors (MSEs) between the inpainting result and the original image.
Further, we have included the runtimes of each set of
experiments, averaged across the six different kernels under consideration.
\begin{figure}[p]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{m{0.7\textwidth}m{0.2\textwidth}}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.20\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_reg_D00625_gauss_zero}
\caption{Gaussian\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 83.28$}
\label{fig:zero_reco_6_25_gaussian}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.20\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_reg_D00625_matern0_zero}
\caption{$C^{0}$-Mat\'{e}rn\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 83.22$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.20\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_reg_D00625_matern2_zero}
\caption{$C^{2}$-Mat\'{e}rn\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 82.03$}
\label{fig:zero_reco_6_25_matern_2}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.20\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_reg_D00625_lucy_zero}
\caption{Lucy\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 81.15$}
\label{fig:zero_reco_6_25_lucy}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.20\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_reg_D00625_cubic_zero}
\caption{cubic spline\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 78.64$}
\label{fig:zero_reco_6_25_cubic}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.20\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_reg_D00625_wend_zero}
\caption{$C^{4}$-Wendland\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 81.94$}
\label{fig:zero_reco_6_25_wendland}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{5ex}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.20\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_reg_D00625_gauss_first}
\caption{Gaussian\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 85.01$}
\label{fig:first_reco_6_25_gaussian}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.20\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_reg_D00625_matern0_first}
\caption{$C^{0}$-Mat\'{e}rn\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 80.57$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.20\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_reg_D00625_matern2_first}
\caption{$C^{2}$-Mat\'{e}rn\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 80.99$}
\label{fig:first_reco_6_25_matern_2}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.20\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_reg_D00625_lucy_first}
\caption{Lucy\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 82.71$}
\label{fig:first_reco_6_25_lucy}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.20\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_reg_D00625_cubic_first}
\caption{cubic spline\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 80.94$}
\label{fig:first_reco_6_25_cubic}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.20\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_reg_D00625_wend_first}
\caption{$C^{4}$-Wendland\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 79.53$}
\label{fig:first_reco_6_25_wendland}
\end{subfigure}
&
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.20\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_reg_D00625_harm}
\caption{Harmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 121.96$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.20\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_reg_D00625_biharm}
\caption{Biharmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 67.95$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.20\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_reg_D00625_eed_lambda_0_2_sigma_0_8}
\caption{EED\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 60.68$}
\end{subfigure}
\end{tabular}
\caption[Inpainting of ``trui'' with a 6.25\% regular mask ]{Inpainting of
``trui'' with the 6.25\% regular mask from \cref{fig:trui_mask} with a zero
order consistency method (top left, (\textbf{a})-(\textbf{f})), first order
consistency method (bottom left, (\textbf{g})-(\textbf{l})), and
diffusion-based inpainting (right, (\textbf{m})-(\textbf{o})).
Inpainting runtime for zero order consistency method was 16.35 s;
for first order consistency method 18.26 s (each averaged across all kernels).
Parameters for EED are $\lambda=0.2$ and $\sigma=0.8$.}
\label{fig:regular_6_25}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[p]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{m{0.7\textwidth}m{0.2\textwidth}}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.20\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_ran_D005_gauss_zero}
\caption{Gaussian\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 208.48$}
\label{fig:zero_reco_5_gaussian}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.20\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_ran_D005_matern0_zero}
\caption{$C^{0}$-Mat\'{e}rn\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 206.82$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.20\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_ran_D005_matern2_zero}
\caption{$C^{2}$-Mat\'{e}rn\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 207.85$}
\label{fig:zero_reco_5_matern_2}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.20\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_ran_D005_lucy_zero}
\caption{Lucy\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 219.29$}
\label{fig:zero_reco_5_lucy}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.20\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_ran_D005_cubic_zero}
\caption{cubic spline\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 223.02$}
\label{fig:zero_reco_5_cubic}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.20\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_ran_D005_wend_zero}
\caption{$C^{4}$-Wendland\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 244.35$}
\label{fig:zero_reco_5_wendland}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{5ex}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.20\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_ran_D005_gauss_first}
\caption{Gaussian\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 197.58$}
\label{fig:first_reco_5_gaussian}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.20\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_ran_D005_matern0_first}
\caption{$C^{0}$-Mat\'{e}rn\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 194.80$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.20\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_ran_D005_matern2_first}
\caption{$C^{2}$-Mat\'{e}rn\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 195.21$}
\label{fig:first_reco_5_matern_2}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.20\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_ran_D005_lucy_first}
\caption{Lucy\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 220.55$}
\label{fig:first_reco_5_lucy}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.20\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_ran_D005_cubic_first}
\caption{cubic spline\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 223.26$}
\label{fig:first_reco_5_cubic}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.20\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_ran_D005_wend_first}
\caption{$C^{4}$-Wendland\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 287.41$}
\label{fig:first_reco_5_wendland}
\end{subfigure}
&
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.20\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_ran_D005_harm}
\caption{Harmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 226.06$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.20\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_ran_D005_biharm}
\caption{Biharmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 146.46$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.20\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_ran_D005_eed_lambda_0_2_sigma_0_8}
\caption{EED\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 134.92$}
\end{subfigure}
\end{tabular}
\caption[Inpainting of ``trui'' with a 5 \% random mask]
{Inpainting of ``trui''
with the 5 \% random mask from \cref{fig:trui_mask} with a zero order
consistency method (top left, (\textbf{a})-(\textbf{f})), first order
consistency method (bottom left, (\textbf{g})-(\textbf{l})), and
diffusion-based inpainting (right, (\textbf{m})-(\textbf{o})).
Inpainting runtime for zero order consistency method was 3.95 s; for first
order consistency method 5.15 s (each averaged across all kernels).
Parameters for EED are $\lambda=0.2$ and $\sigma=0.8$.}
\label{fig:random_5}
\end{figure}
First of all, comparing the results on the regular mask, we note
that the differences are not significant. Further, the higher order of
consistency in the bottom left block of images in \cref{fig:regular_6_25}
is not always beneficial. Indeed,
the Gaussian, Lucy kernel, and cubic spline achieve lower MSEs if used in the
zero order consistent Shepard interpolation method. Hence, improving consistency
in the sense of polynomial reproduction does not automatically yield overall
better results. If we only regard the MSE, this stays true for the setting of a
random inpainting mask. Here,
the performance gains with first order consistency compared to zero order
consistency are also not significant whereas for kernels with compact support
(Lucy, cubic spline, and $C^{4}$-Wendland) the results are even worse with the
first order consistency method.
Comparing the results in
\cref{fig:regular_6_25,fig:random_5}, we observe that further
problems arise in the case of a random mask. While for a regular mask,
\cref{eq:pos_require_first_order} is satisfied in a way that gives a convex
combination on the right-hand side for every unknown pixel $\bm{q}$, this is
no longer the case for our random mask.
In other words, the modified kernels for a higher order
consistency, at pixels whose position cannot be expressed as a convex
combination of mask point positions
do no longer obey the positivity requirements, resulting in over- and
undershoots which can become quite severe. Moreover, the $3 \times 3$-system
that needs to be solved at each pixel for each modified kernel may become
almost singular, leading to further instabilities.
For the zero order consistency method, i.e., Shepard
interpolation, the $C^{0}$-Mat\'{e}rn kernel yields the best result. This is
in line with recent findings by Dell'Accio et~al.\ in \cite{DD20}.
\subsection{Classical Inpainting Applications: Scratch and
Text Removal}
\label{sec:scratch}
Among the classical applications for inpainting \cite{BS00} are
the removal of scratches or text from an image. Alves Mazzini and Petronetto do
Carmo already used SPH inpainting for such tasks in \cite{AP16}. Thus, we also
briefly address such problems here.
As a first example, we consider a damaged version of the image
``trui'' with scratches, see \cref{fig:trui_scratch}. To repair those scratches,
we consider SPH inpainting of zero and first order consistency for the
commonly used Gaussian kernel.
\begin{figure}[p]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_scratch}
\caption{``trui'' with scratches}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_scratch_gauss_zero}
\caption{Zero order\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 28.93$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_scratch_gauss_first}
\caption{First order\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 23.97$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_scratch_harm}
\caption{Harmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 23.32$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_scratch_biharm}
\caption{Biharmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 12.86$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_scratch_eed_lambda_0_2_sigma_0_6}
\caption{EED\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 12.28$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_scratch_crim_pr9}
\caption{Exemplar-based\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 49.58$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Inpainting of ``trui'' for scratch removal ]{Image ``trui'' damaged
by scratches (\textbf{a}) and corresponding SPH inpaintings of zero order
consistency (\textbf{b}) as well as first order consistency (\textbf{c})
using a Gaussian kernel. Diffusion- and exemplar-based inpainting results
are shown in (\textbf{d}-\textbf{g}).
Parameters for EED are $\lambda=0.2$ and $\sigma=0.6$.}
\label{fig:trui_scratch}
\end{figure}
Regarding MSEs, both methods yield similar results. The
differences become clearer when we look at particular areas of the image. For
the horizontal scratch below the eyes, we observe visible artifacts in the
zero order method while the first order method produces a more pleasing, though
not perfect visual impression. On the other hand, for scratches crossing the
scarf, the zero order inpainting shows fewer artifacts than the first order
inpainting.
As a second example, we consider ``trui'' overlaid with some
text which we attempt to remove in \cref{fig:trui_text}. As before, we use a
Gaussian and compare SPH inpainting of zero and first order consistency.
For this example, both zero and first order consistency method
yield good results, though the first order method is overall slightly better,
for example at the boundary between hair and hat on the left-hand side.
Overall, both results looks visually pleasant.
\begin{figure}[p]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_text}
\caption{``trui'' with text}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_text_gauss_zero}
\caption{Zero order\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 18.58$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_text_gauss_first}
\caption{First order\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 14.27$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_text_harm}
\caption{Harmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 16.29$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_text_biharm}
\caption{Biharmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 8.72$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_text_eed_lambda_0_5_sigma_0_6}
\caption{EED\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 7.80$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_text_crim_pr7}
\caption{Exemplar-based\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 27.76$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Inpainting of ``trui'' with overlaid text]{Image ``trui'' with
overlaid text (\textbf{a}) and corresponding SPH inpaintings with zero order
consistency (\textbf{b}) as well as first order consistency (\textbf{c})
using a Gaussian kernel. Diffusion- and exemplar-based inpainting results are
shown in (\textbf{d}-\textbf{g}).
Parameters for EED are $\lambda=0.5$ and $\sigma=0.6$.}
\label{fig:trui_text}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Comparisons with Diffusion-Based and Non-Local
Inpainting Methods}
To put the results that we have seen so far in perspective, we
compare them with the performance of other inpainting methods. As simple
representatives of diffusion-based methods, we consider harmonic and biharmonic
inpainting \cite{CS02,GW08}. A more sophisticated method is
edge-enhancing diffusion (EED). Although introduced as a denoising technique
\cite{We98}, it turned out to be also a powerful inpainting method
\cite{GW08,PH16}. For all results shown here and in the
supplement, we have used a discretisation of EED which corresponds to the one
given in \cite{WW13} for $\alpha=0$ and $\beta=0$. Contrast parameter $\lambda$
and noise scale $\sigma$ were adapted to the image at hand.
Let us first consider how these methods perform in the case of sparse
inpainting masks. The results for the different diffusion based
inpainting methods when using the regular inpainting mask from
\cref{fig:trui_mask} are included in \cref{fig:regular_6_25} on the right.
Comparing all results in \cref{fig:regular_6_25}, we see that, with regard
to MSEs, SPH inpainting performs better than harmonic, but worse than
biharmonic inpainting. As can be expected, EED shows the best results, both
visually and in terms of MSE.
When it comes to inpainting on random masks, the situation is
slightly different as \cref{fig:random_5} illustrates. Again, the results of
the three diffusion-based inpainting methods for the random inpainting mask
from \cref{fig:trui_mask} are included on the right. Comparing all results in
\cref{fig:random_5} shows that the performance of SPH inpainting is similar to
harmonic inpainting in terms of MSE, but closer to biharmonic inpainting in
terms of visual impression. Again, EED achieves the best MSE and visually
smoothest inpainting.
We also compare the results achieved by diffsion-based methods
in case of the image damaged by scratches in \cref{fig:trui_scratch}.
Furthermore, we considered the exemplar-based inpainting approach by Criminisi
et al.~\cite{CP04} as an example of a non-local inpainting method. For this
method, we have considered disc-shaped patches and adapted the patch radius to
the image. As is evident from \cref{fig:trui_scratch}, the first order
consistency SPH inpainting can achieve an MSE similar to harmonic inpainting,
but shows more artifacts. The exemplar-based method on the other hand is
worse with regard to both MSE and creation of artifacts.
Results of the diffusion- and exemplar-based methods in case of
the text removal task are included in \cref{fig:trui_text}. The results of SPH
inpainting are, once more, similar to the results obtained by harmonic
inpainting. The exemplar-based method again produces artifacts, in particular
around the eyes.
As a second example, we consider the ``parrots'' image from the
Kodak database, downscaled to size $384 \times 256$. As inpainting tasks, we
consider the removal of scratches or overlaid texts as well as inpainting
based on a sparse regular and a sparse random mask, respectively (see
\cref{fig:parrots}).
\begin{figure}[t]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots}
\caption{Ground truth}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_scratch}
\caption{Damaged by scratches}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_text}
\caption{Overlaid with text}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/mask_reg_384_256_D00416}
\caption{4.16 \% regular mask}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/mask_ran_D005_parrots}
\caption{5 \% random mask}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Image ``parrots'' with various damages and sparse inpainting masks]{
Image ``parrots'' with various inpainting tasks.}
\label{fig:parrots}
\end{figure}
\Cref{fig:parrots_reg} shows the results for the inpainting of
``parrots'' with the regular inpainting masks for SPH inpainting with an
isotropic Gaussian and diffusion-based inpainting, whereas results for the
random inpainting mask are given in \cref{fig:parrots_ran}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_reg_D00416_gauss_zero}
\caption{Zero order consistency\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 132.79$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_reg_D00416_gauss_first}
\caption{First order consistency\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 124.81$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_reg_D00416_harm}
\caption{Harmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 139.10$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_reg_D00416_biharm}
\caption{Biharmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 128.18$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_reg_D00416_eed_lambda_1_5_sigma_2}
\caption{EED\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 118.79$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Inpainting of ``parrots'' on regular mask]{Inpainting
of ``parrots'' for the regular inpainting mask given in \cref{fig:parrots} for
various inpainting methods. The SPH inpainting uses a Gaussian kernel.
Parameters for EED are $\lambda=1.5$ and $\sigma=2.0$.}
\label{fig:parrots_reg}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_ran_D005_gauss_zero}
\caption{Zero order consistency\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 169.62$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_ran_D005_gauss_first}
\caption{First order consistency\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 173.71$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_ran_D005_harm}
\caption{Harmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 162.53$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_ran_D005_biharm}
\caption{Biharmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 147.75$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_ran_D005_eed_lambda_1_2_sigma_2}
\caption{EED\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 137.04$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Inpainting of ``parrots'' on regular mask]{Inpainting
of ``parrots'' for the random inpainting mask given in \cref{fig:parrots} for
various inpainting methods. The SPH inpainting uses a Gaussian kernel.
Parameters for EED are $\lambda=1.2$ and $\sigma=2.0$.}
\label{fig:parrots_ran}
\end{figure}
For the regular mask, the best MSE is achieved by EED,
followed by the first order consistency SPH inpainting. For the random
mask, diffusion-based methods show a better performance with EED inpainting
taking the lead both with respect to MSE and visual impression. The first order
consistency SPH inpainting suffers from the aforementioned artifacts.
Results for the inpainting of image ``parrots'' damaged by
scratches can be found in \cref{fig:parrots_scratches} whereas
\cref{fig:parrots_text} shows the results for text removal.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_scratch_gauss_zero}
\caption{Zero order consistency\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 37.55$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_scratch_gauss_first}
\caption{First order consistency\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 44.92$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_scratch_crim_pr9}
\caption{Exemplar-based\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 76.95$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_scratch_harm}
\caption{Harmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 32.94$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_scratch_biharm}
\caption{Biharmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 28.42$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_scratch_eed_lambda_0_8_sigma_1_8}
\caption{EED\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 25.70$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Inpainting of ``parrots'' for scratch removal]{
Inpainting of ``parrots'' damaged by scratches
(cf.~\cref{fig:parrots}). The SPH inpainting uses a Gaussian kernel.
Parameters for EED are $\lambda=0.8$ and $\sigma=1.8$.}
\label{fig:parrots_scratches}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_text_gauss_zero}
\caption{Zero order consistency\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 24.00$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_text_gauss_first}
\caption{First order consistency\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 26.41$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_text_crim_pr7}
\caption{Exemplar-based\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 35.90$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_text_harm}
\caption{Harmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 21.20$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_text_biharm}
\caption{Biharmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 20.26$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_text_eed_lambda_1_2_sigma_2}
\caption{EED\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 17.76$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Inpainting of ``parrots'' for text removal]{
Inpainting of ``parrots'' overlaid by text
(cf.~\cref{fig:parrots}). The SPH inpainting uses a Gaussian kernel.
Parameters for EED are $\lambda=1.2$ and $\sigma=2.0$.}
\label{fig:parrots_text}
\end{figure}
In both tasks, zero order consistency SPH inpainting performs
better than the first order consistency method. Both are preferable to the
exemplar-based inpainting, but cannot quite achieve the same quality as the
diffusion-based approaches. Further results and comparisons are included in the
supplementary material.
Overall, we see that SPH inpainting is better suited for
inpainting problems with sparse masks, which are closer in nature to the
original applications of SPH. Some further remarks on how SPH inpainting may
be adapted to non-sparse inpainting tasks, which are out of the scope of this
paper, can be found in \cref{sec:conclusions}. Instead, we focus on how the
performance of SPH inpainting can be enhanced in settings which allow data
optimization, as they are encountered, e.g., in compression.
\section{Optimized Inpainting for Known Ground Truths}
\label{sec:mask_optimization}
\subsection{A Mixed Order Consistency Method}
The goal of mixed order consistency is to combine zero order and first order
consistency to get the best possible result. For this purpose, two inpaintings
are done, one with zero order consistency and one with first order consistency.
Both results are compared, and the one with the better reconstruction error is
kept. The new method is described in \cref{alg:new_inpainting}.
\begin{center}
\begin{algorithm}[htb]
\DontPrintSemicolon
\SetKwInOut{Input}{Input}
\SetKwInOut{Output}{Output}
\SetKwInOut{Initialize}{Initialize}
\Input{Original image $\bm{f}$, mask $\bm{c}$}
\Output{Reconstruction $\bm{u}$}
\Initialize{Perform Voronoi tessellation. Assign areas of influence $V_{j}$
to mask points. Assign initial smoothing lengths
$h_{j} = h_{j,\textrm{init}} = 1$ to mask points. Set $k = 1$.}
\While{\normalfont{not all pixels $\bm{q}$ have been inpainted}}{
\For{\normalfont{each pixel} $\bm{q}$} {
Detect neighboring mask points $\bm{p}_{j}$, $j\in \mathcal{N}(\bm{q})$ of
$\bm{q}$.\;
\eIf{\normalfont{number of neighbors is larger than or equal to required
minimum and neighbors are not collinear}}{
Inpaint $\bm{q}$ with zero order consistency
according to
\cref{eq:SPH_mod_kernel,eq:mod_kernel_zero01,eq:mod_kernel_zero02}.\;
Inpaint $\bm{q}$ with first order consistency
according to
\cref{eq:mod_kernel_first01,eq:first_order_comp,eq:28}.\;
\eIf{\normalfont{error of zero order consistency} is less than
\normalfont{error of first order consistency}}
{
keep inpainting of $\bm{q}$ with zero order consistency,\;
}
{
keep inpainting of $\bm{q}$ with first order consistency.\;
}
}{continue\;}
}
$k = k+1$\;
$h_{j} = k \cdot h_{j,\textrm{init}}$\;
}
\caption[Mixed Consistency Algorithm]{Mixed Consistency Algorithm}
\label{alg:new_inpainting}
\end{algorithm}
\end{center}
Based on the 6.25 \% regular mask from \cref{fig:trui_mask},
we get the results depicted in \cref{fig:mixed_regular_6_25}, whereas the
results for the 5 \% random mask are depicted in \cref{fig:mixed_random_5}. For
both masks, we have used a minimum of five neighbors. The obtained results
are clearly superior to the results achievable with either the zero or first
order consistent method, especially for the sparser random mask, showing better
MSEs and no visible over- or undershoots.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_reg_D00625_gauss_mix}
\caption{Gaussian\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 78.37$}
\label{fig:mixed_reco_6_25_gaussian}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_reg_D00625_matern0_mix}
\caption{$C^{0}$-Mat\'{e}rn\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 67.03$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_reg_D00625_matern2_mix}
\caption{$C^{2}$-Mat\'{e}rn\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 68.12$}
\label{fig:mixed_reco_6_25_matern_2}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_reg_D00625_lucy_mix}
\caption{Lucy\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 78.86$}
\label{fig:mixed_reco_6_25_lucy}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_reg_D00625_cubic_mix}
\caption{cubic spline\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 72.78$}
\label{fig:mixed_reco_6_25_cubic}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_reg_D00625_wend_mix}
\caption{$C^{4}$-Wendland\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 62.08$}
\label{fig:mixed_reco_6_25_wendland}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Inpainting of ``trui'' with a 6.25 \% regular mask with a mixed order
consistency method]{Inpainting of ``trui'' with the 6.25 \%
regular mask from \cref{fig:trui_mask} with a mixed order consistency method.
Inpainting runtime 19.18 s (averaged across all kernels).}
\label{fig:mixed_regular_6_25}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_ran_D005_gauss_mix}
\caption{Gaussian\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 128.37$}
\label{fig:zero_reco_mixed_5_gaussian}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_ran_D005_matern0_mix}
\caption{$C^{0}$-Mat\'{e}rn\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 126.43$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_ran_D005_matern2_mix}
\caption{$C^{2}$-Mat\'{e}rn\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 126.36$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_ran_D005_lucy_mix}
\caption{Lucy\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 127.07$}
\label{fig:zero_reco_mixed_5_lucy}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_ran_D005_cubic_mix}
\caption{cubic spline\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 125.51$}
\label{fig:zero_reco_mixed_5_cubic}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_ran_D005_wend_mix}
\caption{$C^{4}$-Wendland\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 125.02$}
\label{fig:zero_reco_mixed_5_wendland}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Inpainting of ``trui'' with a 5 \% random mask with a mixed
consistency method]{Inpainting of ``trui'' with 5 \% random mask from
\cref{fig:trui_mask} with a mixed consistency method.
Inpainting runtime 5.13 s (averaged across all kernels).}
\label{fig:mixed_random_5}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Spatial Optimization}
Our spatial optimization relies on a novel densification strategy. Instead of a
probabilistic approach as in \cite{HM13}, we base our method on Voronoi
tessellation. The algorithm starts with an empty mask and, as an initial step,
inserts the minimum number of neighbors required at random positions. After this
step, an initial inpainting takes place and a Voronoi tessellation is performed
with the initial mask points as ``seeds''. Once this is done, we detect the
Voronoi cell with the highest error and insert a new mask point at the pixel
with the highest error within the cell. The error of the reconstruction at a
pixel $\bm{q}_{j,k}$ in the Voronoi cell $\Omega_{j}$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
E_{\bm{q}_{j,k}} =
\left\lvert f\!\left(\bm{q}_{j,k}\right) - u\!\left(\bm{q}_{j,k}\right)
\right\rvert^{2},
\end{equation}
with $f$ being the original image and $u$ the reconstruction, whereas the error
for the Voronoi cell $\Omega_{j}$ is given by the sum of the reconstruction
errors at all pixels in the cell,
i.e.,
\begin{equation}
E_{\Omega_{j}} = \sum\limits_{\bm{q}_{j,k} \in \Omega_{j}} E_{\bm{q}_{j,k}} =
\sum\limits_{\bm{q}_{j,k} \in \Omega_{j}}
\left\lvert f\!\left(\bm{q}_{j,k}\right) - u\!\left(\bm{q}_{j,k}\right)
\right\rvert^{2}.
\end{equation}
A new inpainting as well as a new Voronoi tessellation are then computed with
the new mask and the process continues in the same manner until the required
mask density is achieved. The densification algorithm is described in
\cref{alg:densification}. We remark that it is possible to insert more than one
new mask point in each step to speed up the procedure. However, inserting too
many mask points at once deteriorates the quality of the final mask. For the
sake of completeness, we also mention that a densification approach using the
$\mathrm{L}^{1}$-error within Voronoi cells has been used in \cite{SB00} for
nearest-neighbor and piecewise constant interpolation. In our experiments,
using the $\mathrm{L}^{1}$-error always yielded inferior results.
\begin{center}
\begin{algorithm}
\DontPrintSemicolon
\SetKwInOut{Input}{Input}
\SetKwInOut{Output}{Output}
\SetKwInOut{Initialize}{Initialize}
\Input{Original image $\bm{f}$, minimum number of neighbors, number of mask
points to add per iteration, required density}
\Output{Mask $\bm{c}$, reconstruction $\bm{u}$}
\Initialize{Insert minimum number of neighbors at random positions. Perform
Voronoi tessellation and initial inpainting.}
\While{\normalfont{mask density $<$ required mask density}}{
Find Voronoi cell(s) $\Omega_{j}$ with highest error $E_{\Omega_{j}}$.\;
Find pixel(s) $\bm{q}_{j,k}$ in cell(s) $\Omega_{j}$ with highest error(s)
$E_{\bm{q}_{j,k}}$.\;
Add mask point(s) at position(s) $\bm{q}_{j,k}$.\;
Perform Voronoi tessellation.\;
Perform inpainting.\;
}
\caption{Densification Algorithm}
\label{alg:densification}
\end{algorithm}
\end{center}
\subsection{Tonal Optimization}
\label{sec:tonal_opt}
Apart from spatial optimization, we also incorporate a gray value optimization
of the mask points for a fixed mask $\bm{c}$. The goal of this process is to
find the optimal gray values $\bm{g}$ such that the mean square error of the
reconstructed image is minimal. Indeed, for a fixed mask $\bm{c}$, the
inpainting is given by \cref{eq:SPH_mod_kernel}. However, due to the adaptive
nature of the smoothing length $h_{j}$ which is not only determined in
dependence of the mask point $\bm{p}_{j}$, but also in dependence of the pixel
$\bm{q}$ currently under consideration for inpainting, we have to perform one
inpainting for our final mask first to determine all necessary smoothing
lengths. Once this is done, \cref{eq:SPH_mod_kernel} can be written as a matrix
vector multiplication of the form $\bm{u} = \bm{A} \widetilde{\bm{f}}$ where
$\bm{u}$ is a vector containing the values of the reconstruction at every
pixel, $\bm{A}$ is a matrix containing the values of all modified kernels at
all pixels multiplied with their area of influence $V_{j}$, and
$\widetilde{\bm{f}}$ is a vector containing the values of the original image at
all mask points $\bm{p}_{j}$. Thus, as $\bm{A}$ is fixed now, $\bm{u}$ can be
interpreted as the solution to an interpolation problem at the mask points.
With this interpretation, it is straightforward to consider the corresponding
least-squares problem. With the above form for $\bm{u}$, it can be written as
\begin{equation}
\min\limits_{\bm{g}} \left\lVert \bm{A}\bm{g} - \bm{f} \right\rVert^{2},
\end{equation}
where $\bm{f}$ denotes the vector with the original image values at all pixels
and $\bm{g}$ is a vector with gray values at the mask points, which can be
determined by solving the normal equations
\begin{equation}
\bm{A}^{T} \bm{A} \bm{g} = \bm{A}^{T} \bm{f}.
\end{equation}
Although the least squares problem can be solved directly, we prefer an
iterative solver instead, specifically the conjugate gradient on the normal
residual (CGNR) method \cite{Sa03}. This variant of conjugate gradients avoids
the explicit computation of $\bm{A}^{T} \bm{A}$ to reduce runtime and
circumvent the larger condition number of $\bm{A}^{T} \bm{A}$ compared to
$\bm{A}$. We
always initialize by choosing for $\bm{g}_{0}$ the zero vector. As stopping
criterion we use a threshold on the relative residual defined such that
\begin{equation}
\frac{\left\lVert \bm{A}^{T} \bm{f} - \bm{A}^{T} \bm{A} \bm{g}_{k}
\right\rVert}{\left\lVert \bm{A}^{T} \bm{f}\right\rVert} \leq 10^{-8}.
\end{equation}
The above procedure is clear for the zero and first order consistency method as
they use the same kind of modified kernel in every pixel. It stays valid for
the mixed order consistency method as in this approach, the kernel that is used
at each pixel $\bm{q}$ is of the same type for all mask points $\bm{p}_{j}$
contributing to the inpainting at $\bm{q}$. Thus, for the mixed consistency
method, the type of the modified kernel changes with the rows in $\bm{A}$, but
stays the same within each row over all columns. We can still write the whole
inpainting process as a matrix-vector-multiplication and solve the associated
least-square problem to perform tonal optimization.
\subsection{Inpainting on Spatially and Tonally Optimized Data with Isotropic
Kernels}
\label{sec:inp_isotropic}
As an example for inpainting on an optimized mask with zero order consistency,
we present the results produced with a Gaussian kernel in
\cref{fig:zero_dense_5}. Even without tonal optimization, the MSE improves by
roughly a factor $6.5$. With tonal optimization, the MSE improves by a factor
$10$ with respect to the random mask and by almost $35 \%$ with respect to the
result on the spatially optimized mask without tonal optimization. As far as
spatial optimization is concerned, the densification process prefers to capture
the geometry of the image, by adding more mask points near edges compared to
rather homogeneous regions of the image.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_mask_dens_D005_gauss_zero}
\caption{Optimized 5 \% mask}
\label{fig:5_mask}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_dens_D005_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 30.65$}
\label{fig:zero_reco_5}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_dens_D005_gauss_zero_to}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 19.62$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Inpainting of ``trui'' with spatially and tonally
optimized mask with a zero order consistency method with an isotropic
Gaussian kernel.
We show the 5 \% optimized zero order consistency mask (\textbf{a}), zero
order consistency inpainting result with this mask without tonal optimization
(\textbf{b}), and zero order consistency inpainting result on this mask with
tonal optimization (\textbf{c}).
Runtimes were 89.09 min for densification and 2.59 min for
tonal optimization.}
\label{fig:zero_dense_5}
\end{figure}
Changing the SPH inpainting method from zero order consistency to the mixed
order consistency method improves the result even further as can be seen in
\cref{fig:mixed_dense_5}. Using the same isotropic Gaussian kernel as before,
spatial optimization improves the MSE by almost a factor $8$ compared to the the
random mask result in \cref{fig:zero_reco_mixed_5_gaussian}. A comparison with
respect to the inpainting method instead of with respect to the mask shows
improvement of almost a factor $2$ with respect to the MSE compared to the
results in \cref{fig:zero_dense_5}. Unfortunately, there seems to be no
structure in the distribution of pixels for which a first order consistency and
for which a zero order consistency method performs better, respectively, as can
be seen in \cref{fig:consistency_map}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_mask_dens_D005_gauss_mix}
\caption{Optimized 5 \% mask}
\label{fig:5_mixed_isotropic_mask}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_consmap_dens_D005_gauss_mix}
\caption{Mixed order consistency map}
\label{fig:consistency_map}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_dens_D005_gauss_mix}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 16.30$}
\label{fig:mixed_isotropic_reco_5}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_dens_D005_gauss_mix_to}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 11.68$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Inpainting of ``trui'' with spatially and tonally
optimized mask with a mixed order consistency method with an isotropic
Gaussian kernel. (\textbf{a}) shows an optimized 5 \% mask for mixed order
consistency SPH inpainting. (\textbf{b}) shows a mixed order consistency map
with white areas denoting first order consistency reconstruction and black
areas denoting zero order consistency reconstruction. (\textbf{c}) shows a
mixed order consistency inpainting result on the mask from (\textbf{a})
without tonal optimization. (\textbf{d}) shows a mixed order consistency
inpainting on the same mask with tonal optimization.
Runtimes were 111.28 min for densification and 2.66 min for tonal
optimization.}
\label{fig:mixed_dense_5}
\end{figure}
\Cref{table:2} summarizes MSEs of inpainting results for
``trui'' with the other isotropic kernels used in \cref{fig:random_5} if
these kernels are equipped with optimized masks containing $5 \%$ of all pixels
and tonal optimization is performed.
\begin{table}[htb]
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
Kernel & Zero order consistency & mixed order consistency \\
\midrule
Gaussian & 19.62 & 11.68 \\
$C^{0}$-Mat\'{e}rn & 18.57 & \textbf{9}.\textbf{95} \\
$C^{2}$-Mat\'{e}rn & \textbf{17}.\textbf{93} & 9.99 \\
Lucy & 21.83 & 12.15 \\
cubic spline & 21.19 & 11.71 \\
$C^{4}$- Wendland & 23.33 & 11.83
\end{tabular}
\caption[MSE comparison between zero and mixed order consistency optimized
data inpainting with isotropic kernels of ``trui'']{MSE
comparison between zero and mixed order consistency optimized inpainting
with isotropic kernels on ``trui'' for 5 \% masks.}
\label{table:2}
\end{table}
Once again, the benefits of mixed order consistency are quite substantial
since a significant decrease of the MSE has been achieved in all cases compared
to zero order consistency. Even the best performing kernel for the zero order
consistency method, the $C^{2}$-Mat\'{e}rn kernel, has an MSE which is
approximately 50 \% larger than the MSE of the worst performing kernel in the
mixed consistency setting and almost double of the MSE of the best performing
kernel in the mixed consistency setting
which is the $C^{0}$-Mat\'{e}rn kernel.
Further, it appears that compactly supported kernels perform worse in
this setting for the zero order consistency SPH inpainting than truncated
kernels, but are competitive in the mixed order consistency method.
\subsection{Optimized Inpainting with Anisotropic Kernels}
\label{sec:opt_inp_aniso_kernel}
The observation that optimized mask points tend to cluster around edges and the
fact that edges are clearly oriented structures suggest to adapt the support of
kernels to account for this by incorporating anisotropy. This is further
supported by results which show that incorporating anisotropy in other
inpainting strategies can improve reconstruction quality compared to the
related isotropic method \cite{SP14}.
For SPH, anisotropic kernels have been used in the so-called Adaptive Smoothed
Particle Hydrodynamics (ASPH) formulation \cite{SM96} to better account for the
actual distribution of particles. Here, we replace the smoothing length $h$ by
a symmetric positive definite tensor $\bm{G} \in \mathbb{R}^{2 \times 2}$ for a
two-dimensional problem and redefine $\bm{\eta}$ as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:after_new}
\bm{\eta} = \bm{G} \left(\bm{q}-\bm{p}\right).
\end{equation}
$\bm{G}$ has units of inverse length and in the isotropic case it is given by a
diagonal matrix with each diagonal element equal to $\frac{1}{h}$. This
observation makes it clear that we also have to adapt the normalization of our
kernels from a factor $\frac{\rho}{h^{2}}$ in \cref{eq:kernel_rbf} to a factor
$\rho\, \det(\bm{G})$.
For SPH inpainting, we determine the anisotropy from the distribution of mask
points. For this purpose, we follow the approach of \cite{YT13} by constructing
a weighted local covariance matrix $\bm{C}$ within a fixed predetermined window
around each mask point. For a known mask point $\bm{p}_{j}$, the covariance
matrix is given by
\begin{equation}
\bm{C}_{j} =
\frac{\sum\limits_{\ell}
w_{j,\ell} \left(\bm{p}_{\ell}-\widetilde{\bm{p}}_{j}\right)
\left(\bm{p}_{\ell} - \widetilde{\bm{p}}_{j} \right)^{T}}{
\sum\limits_{\ell} w_{j,\ell}},
\qquad \text{ with } \qquad
\widetilde{\bm{p}}_{j} =
\frac{\sum\limits_{\ell} w_{j,\ell}\, \bm{p}_{\ell}}{\sum\limits_{\ell}
w_{j,\ell}}.
\end{equation}
Here, $\ell$ numbers the mask points within a neighborhood of $\bm{p}_{j}$. It
is necessary to restrict the set of mask points under consideration to such a
neighborhood to catch the locally prevalent direction of structures in the
image. Next, we perform a singular value decomposition (SVD). As $\bm{C}_{j}$ is
symmetric and positive semidefinite by construction, this is the same as the
eigenvalue decomposition
\begin{equation}
\bm{C}_{j} = \bm{Q} \bm{D} \bm{Q}^{T},
\end{equation}
with a rotation matrix $\bm{Q}$ and a matrix $\bm{D}$ with nonnegative
eigenvalues along the diagonal in decreasing order. As $\bm{C}_{j}$ is
constructed from the positions of mask points, its eigenvalues can be assigned a
unit of length. The eigenvectors in $\bm{Q}$ correspond to the directions of
major and minor axis of an ellipse whose orientation is in line with the locally
prevalent orientation in the distribution of mask points. Hence, the tensor
$\bm{G}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\bm{G} = \bm{Q} \bm{D}^{-1} \bm{Q}^{T},
\end{equation}
such that it has units of inverse length as desired.
In the context of kernel regression, the matrix $\bm{C}$ that
we have introduced above is related to the so-called ``steering matrix'' of an
anisotropic regression kernel \cite{TF07}.
In our experiments, we incorporate anisotropy after spatially optimizing mask
points for isotropic kernels. We fix the window size for construction of
covariance matrices to $25 \times 25$ pixels and demand a minimum number of
15 mask points within that window. If this minimum number of mask points is
not satisfied, the corresponding kernel stays isotropic. This behavior is
desirable since the densification process results in masks where the majority
of mask points are placed near discontinuities rather than in homogeneous areas
of the image. Thus, a low local density of mask points implies homogeneous
areas of the image. The results achieved with mixed order consistency and an
anisotropic Gaussian kernel are depicted in
\cref{fig:mixed_anisotropic_dense_5}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_mask_dens_D005_an_gauss_mix}
\caption{Optimized 5 \% mask}
\label{fig:5_mixed_anisotropic_mask}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_mask_dens_D005_only_an_gauss_mix}
\caption{Anisotropic mask points of the 5 \% mask}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_dens_D005_an_gauss_mix_to}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 10.49$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Inpainting of ``trui'' with spatially and tonally
optimized mask with a mixed order consistency method with an anisotropic
Gaussian kernel.
From left to right: Optimized 5 \% mask for mixed order consistency method
(\textbf{a}), mask points which incorporate anisotropic kernels in white
(\textbf{b}), and mixed order consistency inpainting result with given mask
with tonal optimization (\textbf{c}).
Runtimes were 129.44 min for densification and 2.51 min for
tonal optimization.}
\label{fig:mixed_anisotropic_dense_5}
\end{figure}
Compared to the result in \cref{fig:mixed_dense_5},
we observe an improvement in MSE of only 1.19, which is
roughly 11 \%, whereas a large amount of mask
points is now equipped with anisotropic kernels. This relatively moderate
improvement may be explained by the fact that our method of determining
anisotropy relies on the local spatial distribution of mask points whereas many
important structures in the given image live on a mesoscale. This behavior
cannot be captured by increasing the size of the search window as the covariance
matrix becomes prone to incorporating the orientations of neighboring
structures, resulting in a more isotropic behavior instead of a better
orientation along the mesoscale structures. \Cref{table:anisotropy} summarizes
MSEs of inpainting results for ``trui'' with the other anisotropic kernels used
if these kernels are equipped with optimized masks containing $5 \%$ of all
pixels and tonal optimization is performed.
\begin{table}[htb]
\begin{tabular}{lr}
Kernel & MSE \\
\midrule
Gaussian & 10.49 \\
$C^{0}$-Mat\'{e}rn & \textbf{9}.\textbf{51} \\
$C^{2}$-Mat\'{e}rn & 9.81 \\
Lucy & 11.57 \\
cubic spline & 11.26 \\
$C^{4}$- Wendland & 11.95
\end{tabular}
\caption[MSE with mixed order consistency optimized data inpainting with
anisotropic kernels of ``trui'']{MSE with mixed order
consistency optimized inpainting with anisotropic kernels on ``trui''
for 5 \% masks.}
\label{table:anisotropy}
\end{table}
\subsection{Performance Compared to Diffusion-based and Exemplar-based
Inpainting Methods}
\label{sec:comparisons}
To assess the performance of SPH inpainting, we combine our
implementations of harmonic and biharmonic inpainting with our Voronoi-based
densification strategy and a tonal optimization approach similar in spirit to
\cref{sec:tonal_opt}. The results achieved by these two inpainting methods
are depicted in \cref{fig:trui_diff_opt} together with the corresponding
MSEs.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_dens_D005_harm_to}
\caption{Harmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 20.18$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_dens_D005_biharm_to}
\caption{Biharmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 15.00$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Inpainting of ``trui'' with spatially and tonally
optimized 5 \% mask for harmonic and biharmonic inpainting.}
\label{fig:trui_diff_opt}
\end{figure}
As we can see from \cref{table:2}, SPH inpainting with mixed
order consistency performs better than these two diffusion-based methods even
if we consider only isotropic kernels. \Cref{table:3} shows that we can obtain
an MSE which is less than half that of harmonic inpainting if we incorporate
anisotropy.
As another example, consider the ``parrots'' image from
\cref{fig:parrots}. \Cref{fig:parrots_SPH_opt} shows the results obtained by
Voronoi densification for a 5 \% mask for mixed order consistency SPH
inpainting
with isotropic and anisotropic Gaussian kernels, including tonal optimization.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_mask_dens_D005_gauss_mix}
\caption{Isotropic mask}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_dens_D005_gauss_mix_to}
\caption{Isotropic, mixed order\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 10.07$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_mask_dens_D005_an_gauss_mix}
\caption{Anisotropic mask}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_dens_D005_an_gauss_mix_to}
\caption{Anisotropic, mixed order\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 8.51$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[SPH inpainting of ``parrots'' with spatially and tonally optimized
mask]{Inpainting of ``parrots'' with a 5 \% spatially and
tonally optimized mask with a mixed order consistency method and Gaussian
kernels. Left column shows the masks. Right column shows the inpaintings.
Top row is the isotropic case. Bottom row is the anisotropic case.}
\label{fig:parrots_SPH_opt}
\end{figure}
The corresponding results achieved by harmonic and biharmonic
inpainting are shown in \cref{fig:parrots_diff_opt}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_dens_D005_harm_to}
\caption{Harmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 16.44$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_dens_D005_biharm_to}
\caption{Biharmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 15.32$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Inpainting of ``parrots'' with spatially and tonally optimized
mask]{Inpainting of ``parrots'' with a 5 \% spatially and
tonally optimized mask with harmonic (\textbf{a}) and biharmonic
(\textbf{b}) inpainting.}
\label{fig:parrots_diff_opt}
\end{figure}
Already the isotropic variant of SPH inpainting reduces the MSE of the
diffusion-based methods by at least 34 \%, whereas the anisotropic version
achieves a reduction by 44 \%. Further comparisons between SPH inpainting and
diffusion-based strategies when equipped with Voronoi-based densification are
included in the supplement.
In order to assess the performance of our inpainting method
further,
we compare it with other existing methods in the literature. As a first example,
we consider results for harmonic inpainting on ``trui'' for an optimized 5 \%
mask from \cite{MH11}. There, spatial optimization was done with a probabilistic
sparsification and further improved with a Nonlocal Pixel Exchange (NLPE). With
optimally chosen mask points and gray values, harmonic inpainting
shows an impressive quality in reconstructing the original image.
We compare these results with the ones we got for a mixed order
consistency SPH inpainting with $C^{0}$-Mat\'{e}rn kernels.
To be fair, we only consider isotropic kernels since harmonic inpainting has
no way to incorporate anisotropy. The results are summarized in \cref{table:4}.
\begin{table}[htb]
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
Method & Spatially Optimized & Spatially \& Tonally Optimized \\ \midrule
Harmonic Inpainting & 23.21 (with NLPE) & 17.17 (with NLPE) \\
Mixed SPH (Isotropic) & \textbf{13.88} & \textbf{9.95}
\end{tabular}
\caption[MSE of 5 \% ``trui'']{MSE for inpaintings of ``trui'' on optimized
5 \% masks. Compared are results achieved with harmonic inpainting
in \cite{MH11} and results from our method with an
isotropic $C^{0}$-Mat\'{e}rn kernel with mixed order consistency.}
\label{table:4}
\end{table}
Evidently, we can outperform harmonic inpainting, both without and with tonal
optimization.
Further results in \cite{MH11} report MSEs for spatially and
tonally optimized harmonic inpainting on the images ``peppers'' and ``walter''.
We include these images together with results obtained with mixed order
consistency SPH inpainting with isotropic Gaussians in
\cref{fig:peppers_walter_opt_mixed_iso_gauss}. The MSEs are reported together
with those from \cite{MH11} in \cref{table:MSE_peppers_walter_mainb}. Again,
the results obtained with our method are 16 \% and 37 \% better, respectively.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/peppers}
\caption{Original image ``peppers''}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/peppers_dens_D005_gauss_mix_to}
\caption{Inpainted ``peppers''}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/walter}
\caption{Original image ``walter''}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/walter_dens_D005_gauss_mix_to}
\caption{Inpainted ``walter''}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Images ``peppers'' and ``walter'' (left column) and
mixed order consistency SPH inpaintings with isotropic Gaussian kernels
on spatially and tonally optimized 5 \% masks (right column).}
\label{fig:peppers_walter_opt_mixed_iso_gauss}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[htb]
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
Image & Harmonic Inpainting & Mixed SPH (Isotropic) \\ \midrule
``peppers'' & 19.38 & \textbf{16.29} \\
``walter'' & 8.14 & \textbf{5.15}
\end{tabular}
\caption[MSE of 5 \% ``peppers'' and ``walter'']{MSE for
inpaintings on optimized 5 \% masks including tonal optimization for images
``peppers'' and ``walter''. Compared are results achieved with harmonic
inpainting including NLPE from \cite{MH11} and results from our method with
an isotropic Gaussian kernel with mixed order consistency.}
\label{table:MSE_peppers_walter_mainb}
\end{table}
To evaluate SPH inpainting with anisotropic kernels, we consider the results
from \cite{HM17} achieved with edge-enhancing diffusion (EED) inpainting for
``trui'' with a mask of density 4 \% that is constructed by probabilistic
sparsification. The authors report the MSE of inpainting on this mask without
tonal optimization and improve the location of mask points further with NLPE
before considering tonal optimization. As competitor, we used a mixed order
consistency SPH inpainting with anisotropic $C^{0}$-Mat\'{e}rn kernels on an
optimized 4 \% mask. We also tried to improve our inpaintings with NLPE. However,
the reduction on MSE was negligible. Results for both inpainting methods are
summarized in \cref{table:3}.
\begin{table}[htb]
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
Method & Spatially Optimized & Spatially + Tonally Optimized \\ \midrule
Edge-Enhancing Diffusion (EED) & 24.20 & \textbf{10.79} (with NLPE) \\
Mixed SPH (Anisotropic) & \textbf{17.10} & 12.28
\end{tabular}
\caption[MSE of 4 \% ``trui'']{MSE for inpaintings of ``trui'' on optimized
4 \% masks. Compared are results from EED inpainting \cite{HM17}
and our method with an anisotropic $C^{0}$-Mat\'{e}rn kernel with mixed
order consistency.}
\label{table:3}
\end{table}
As can be seen, we outperform EED if we only incorporate spatial optimization,
but no tonal optimization. By construction, EED should perform better in
preserving edges \cite{We98}. Thus, we conjecture that probabilistic
sparsification, which only relies on pointwise errors, is inferior to our
Voronoi-based densification method as long as the former is not improved by a
consecutive NLPE.
To evaluate the performance of our method for images rich in texture, we
consider the exemplar-based inpainting technique from \cite{KB18} and the
results given there for an inpainting of a gray value version of the ``baboon''
image. In this setting, the authors report an MSE of 518.52 on a mask
constructed with ``densification by dithering'' and a consecutive NLPE. As tonal
optimization is not considered in \cite{KB18}, we compare to the result our
method could achieve for mixed order consistency inpainting with isotropic
Gaussians on an optimized 10 \% mask in \cref{fig:baboon}.
Already without tonal optimization, the MSE is 290.64, which
means we outperform the exemplar-based inpainting method by almost 44 \%.
Including tonal optimization improves the result further to an MSE of 223.37,
less than half of the MSE the exemplar-based method could achieve.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/baboon}
\caption{Image ``baboon''}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/baboon_mask_dens_D010_gauss_mix}
\caption{Optimized 10 \% mask}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/baboon_dens_D010_gauss_mix}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 290.64$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/baboon_dens_D010_gauss_mix_to}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 223.37$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Inpainting of ``baboon'' (rescaled to $256 \times 256$ pixels as in
\cite{KB18}) with a spatially optimized mask for a mixed order consistency
method with an isotropic Gaussian kernel.
We show the original image (\textbf{a}), an optimized
10 \% mask for mixed order consistency method (\textbf{b}), a mixed order
consistency inpainting result with given mask without tonal optimization
(\textbf{c}), and a mixed order consistency inpainting result with given mask
with tonal optimization.
Runtimes were 244.18 min for densification and 5.40 min for tonal
optimization.}
\label{fig:baboon}
\end{figure}
For the sake of completeness, we also consider the results on
``trui'' reported for a 10 \% masked in \cite{KB18}. Here, the exemplar-based
approach could achieve an MSE of 12.99 with spatial optimization including NLPE.
Our mixed consistency SPH inpainting equipped with isotropic Gaussian kernels
and a spatially optimized 10 \% mask can inpaint ``trui'' with an MSE of 6.65
which translates to an improvement of 49 \%. Tonal optimization decreases the
MSE further to 4.68 or an improvement of 64 \% compared to the exemplar-based
method.
\section{Conclusions and Outlook}
\label{sec:conclusions}
We have shown that smoothed particle hydrodynamics is a highly
competitive method for the challenging problem of sparse data inpainting. It
can produce results on par or even better than other, better explored PDE- or
exemplar-based inpainting strategies.
The success of SPH for sparse inpainting relies on several novel modifications.
With regard to the interpolation procedure, we presented a way to combine the
strength of first and zero order methods into a mixed order method. Moreover,
we presented a better approach to choose method parameters based on Voronoi
tesselations.
The main ingredient to reveal the potential of SPH is the use of optimally
chosen data. We proposed a new densification process based on Voronoi
tesselations, which lead naturally to a strategy based on a regional error
instead of a completely local pointwise error. Thus, a larger amount of data is
considered in the optimization procedure, yielding better suitable inpainting
masks. Furthermore, we introduced a so far unexplored formulation that allows
to use SPH for least-square approximation, i.e., the optimization of data
not only in the spatial, but also in the tonal domain.
What remains an ongoing topic of research is the question how
to choose anisotropies. Taking into account the superior performance of EED, it
seems natural to determine anisotropies based on gradient data or the structure
tensor. While this is straightforward for regular masks, it becomes more of
a challenge for randomly distributed or optimized mask points. In the context
of data optimization, one could think about computing anisotropies from the
original image. However, for compression purposes, storing this additional data
would reduce the rate of compression or necessitate to consider sparser mask,
such that there is overall less data to store. On the other hand, when it comes
to non-sparse inpainting tasks as briefly touched on in \cref{sec:scratch},
anisotropies could be determined from the known parts of the image, e.g. by
considering gradients similar to \cite{TF07}. An alternative used for object
removal in \cite{HH20} is to detect edges and their orientation to determine
anisotropies from these structures. Both strategies look promising to us when
it comes to improving the performance of SPH regarding classical inpainting
problems in future research.
We hope that our work will help to give SPH-based inpainting the attention
that it deserves. Moreover, we believe that some of our novel concepts,
e.g.~the Voronoi-based densification for data optimization, will also
be useful in applications beyond SPH-based inpainting.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
While working on this article, Matthias Augustin and Joachim Wei\-ckert
have received funding from the European Research Council (ERC)
under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme
(grant agreement no. 741215, ERC Advanced Grant INCOVID).
We thank Vassillen Chizhov for his support regarding programs
with spatial and tonal optimization for harmonic and biharmonic inpainting.
\bibliographystyle{siamplain}
\section{Inpainting on Regular and Random Masks}
In our first batch of examples, we compare the performance of
SPH inpainting to that of diffusion- and exemplar-based inpainting for a couple
of regular masks. For the test images of size $256 \times 256$, we consider the
6.25 \% mask (grid size 4 pixels) from the main article, but also a mask of
density 1.5625 \% (grid size of 8 pixels) and of density 25 \% (grid size of
2 pixels).
For the images from the Kodak database, the same grid sizes results in
densities of 1.04 \%, 4.16 \%, and 16.66 \%, respectively. For convenience, we
include all six masks in \cref{fig:reg_masks} as well as some of the results
already presented for ``trui'' and ``parrots''.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/mask_reg_256_256_D0015625}
\caption{1.5625 \% mask}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/mask_reg_256_256_D00625}
\caption{6.25 \% mask}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/mask_reg_256_256_D025}
\caption{25 \% mask}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/mask_reg_384_256_D00104}
\caption{1.04 \% mask}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/mask_reg_384_256_D00416}
\caption{4.16 \% mask}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/mask_reg_384_256_D01616}
\caption{16.66 \% mask}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Regular masks]{Regular masks of different densities
for images of size $256 \times 256$ (top row) and size $384 \times 256$
(bottom row).}
\label{fig:reg_masks}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/trui_reg_D0015625_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 282.58$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_reg_D00625_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 83.28$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/trui_reg_D025_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 18.61$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/trui_reg_D0015625_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 288.33$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_reg_D00625_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 85.01$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/trui_reg_D025_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 18.47$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[SPH inpainting of ``trui'' with regular masks]{
Inpainting of
``trui'' for regular masks with isotropic Gaussian kernels.
Densities from left to right are 1.5625 \%, 6.25 \%, and 25 \%.
Top row: Zero order consistency SPH inpainting.
Bottom row: First order consistency SPH inpainting.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/trui_reg_D0015625_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 400.14$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_reg_D00625_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 121.96$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/trui_reg_D025_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 23.29$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/trui_reg_D0015625_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 270.70$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_reg_D00625_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 67.95$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/trui_reg_D025_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 11.10$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/trui_reg_D0015625_eed_lambda_0_3_sigma_1_3}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 265.70$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_reg_D00625_eed_lambda_0_2_sigma_0_8}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 60.68$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/trui_reg_D025_eed_lambda_0_3_sigma_0_6}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 10.56$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Diffusion inpainting of ``trui'' with regular masks]{
Inpainting of
``trui'' for regular masks. Densities from left to right are
1.5625 \%, 6.25 \%, and 25 \%.
Top row: Harmonic inpainting.
Middle row: Biharmonic inpainting.
Bottom row: Inpainting with EED.
Parameters are from left to right
$\lambda=0.3$ and $\sigma=1.3$, $\lambda=0.2$ and $\sigma=0.8$, and
$\lambda=0.3$ and $\sigma=0.6$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_reg_D0015625_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 261.05$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_reg_D00625_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 95.31$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_reg_D025_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 33.81$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_reg_D0015625_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 264.02$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_reg_D00625_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 95.39$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_reg_D025_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 34.19$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[SPH inpainting of ``peppers'' with regular masks]{
Inpainting of
``peppers'' for regular masks with isotropic Gaussian kernels.
Densities from left to right are 1.5625 \%, 6.25 \%, and 25 \%.
Top row: Zero order consistency SPH inpainting.
Bottom row: First order consistency SPH inpainting.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_reg_D0015625_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 381.26$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_reg_D00625_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 127.12$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_reg_D025_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 37.00$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_reg_D0015625_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 244.80$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_reg_D00625_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 86.40$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_reg_D025_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 30.01$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_reg_D0015625_eed_lambda_0_3_sigma_1_9}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 216.62$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_reg_D00625_eed_lambda_0_3_sigma_1_8}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 72.63$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_reg_D025_eed_lambda_0_6_sigma_1_3}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 25.94$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Diffusion inpainting of ``peppers'' with regular masks]{
Inpainting of
``peppers'' for regular masks. Densities from left to right are
1.5625 \%, 6.25 \%, and 25 \%.
Top row: Harmonic inpainting.
Middle row: Biharmonic inpainting.
Bottom row: Inpainting with EED.
Parameters are from left to right
$\lambda=0.3$ and $\sigma=1.9$, $\lambda=0.3$ and $\sigma=1.8$, and
$\lambda=0.6$ and $\sigma=1.3$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_reg_D0015625_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 252.35$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_reg_D00625_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 69.13$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_reg_D025_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 12.47$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_reg_D0015625_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 254.53$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_reg_D00625_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 69.28$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_reg_D025_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 11.66$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[SPH inpainting of ``walter'' with regular masks]{
Inpainting of
``walter'' for regular masks with isotropic Gaussian kernels.
Densities from left to right are 1.5625~\%, 6.25~\%, and 25~\%.
Top row: Zero order consistency SPH inpainting.
Bottom row: First order consistency SPH inpainting.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_reg_D0015625_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 423.03$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_reg_D00625_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 115.18$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_reg_D025_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 17.02$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_reg_D0015625_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 229.23$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_reg_D00625_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 48.54$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_reg_D025_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 4.73$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_reg_D0015625_eed_lambda_0_2_sigma_1_2}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 221.08$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_reg_D00625_eed_lambda_0_1_sigma_1_1}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 38.20$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_reg_D025_eed_lambda_0_1_sigma_0_7}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 4.25$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Diffusion inpainting of ``walter'' with regular masks]{
Inpainting of
``walter'' for regular masks. Densities from left to right are
1.5625 \%, 6.25 \%, and 25 \%.
Top row: Harmonic inpainting.
Middle row: Biharmonic inpainting.
Bottom row: Inpainting with EED.
Parameters are from left to right
$\lambda=0.2$ and $\sigma=1.2$, $\lambda=0.1$ and $\sigma=1.1$, and
$\lambda=0.1$ and $\sigma=0.7$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_reg_D0015625_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 1082.97$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_reg_D00625_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 786.14$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_reg_D025_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 484.12$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_reg_D0015625_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 1069.05$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_reg_D00625_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 787.46$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_reg_D025_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 488.93$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[SPH inpainting of ``baboon'' with regular masks]{
Inpainting of
``baboon'' for regular masks with isotropic Gaussian kernels.
Densities from left to right are 1.5625 \%, 6.25 \%, and 25 \%.
Top row: Zero order consistency SPH inpainting.
Bottom row: First order consistency SPH inpainting.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_reg_D0015625_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 943.91$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_reg_D00625_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 738.12$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_reg_D025_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 473.74$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_reg_D0015625_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 1203.91$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_reg_D00625_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 890.13$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_reg_D025_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 540.67$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_reg_D0015625_eed_lambda_5_2_sigma_0_6}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 940.73$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_reg_D00625_eed_lambda_11_4_sigma_0_1}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 733.31$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_reg_D025_eed_lambda_9_6_sigma_3}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 473.66$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Diffusion inpainting of ``baboon'' with regular masks]{
Inpainting of
``baboon'' for regular masks. Densities from left to right are
1.5625 \%, 6.25 \%, and 25 \%.
Top row: Harmonic inpainting.
Middle row: Biharmonic inpainting.
Bottom row: Inpainting with EED.
Parameters are from left to right
$\lambda=5.2$ and $\sigma=0.6$, $\lambda=11.4$ and $\sigma=0.1$, and
$\lambda=9.6$ and $\sigma=3.0$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/parrots_reg_D00104_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 277.88$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_reg_D00416_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 132.79$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/parrots_reg_D01616_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 57.52$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/parrots_reg_D00104_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 261.11$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_reg_D00416_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 124.81$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/parrots_reg_D01616_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 55.87$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[SPH inpainting of ``parrots'' with regular masks]{
Inpainting of
``parrots'' for regular masks with isotropic Gaussian kernels.
Densities from left to right are 1.04 \%, 4.16 \%, and 16.66 \%.
Top row: Zero order consistency SPH inpainting.
Bottom row: First order consistency SPH inpainting.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/parrots_reg_D00104_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 313.94$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_reg_D00416_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 139.10$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/parrots_reg_D01616_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 60.39$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/parrots_reg_D00104_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 266.33$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_reg_D00416_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 128.18$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/parrots_reg_D01616_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 54.70$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/parrots_reg_D00104_eed_lambda_0_7_sigma_2}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 258.32$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_reg_D00416_eed_lambda_1_5_sigma_2}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 118.79$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/parrots_reg_D01616_eed_lambda_1_6_sigma_1_5}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 52.08$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Diffusion inpainting of ``parrots'' with regular masks]{
Inpainting of
``parrots'' for regular masks. Densities from left to right are
1.04 \%, 4.16 \%, and 16.66 \%.
Top row: Harmonic inpainting.
Middle row: Biharmonic inpainting.
Bottom row: Inpainting with EED.
Parameters are from left to right
$\lambda=0.7$ and $\sigma=2.0$, $\lambda=1.5$ and $\sigma=2.0$, and
$\lambda=1.6$ and $\sigma=1.5$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_reg_D00104_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 502.30$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_reg_D00416_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 225.16$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_reg_D01616_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 104.52$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_reg_D00104_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 501.80$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_reg_D00416_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 218.19$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_reg_D01616_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 99.95$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[SPH inpainting of ``girl'' with regular masks]{
Inpainting of
``girl'' for regular masks with isotropic Gaussian kernels.
Densities from left to right are 1.04 \%, 4.16 \%, and 16.66 \%.
Top row: Zero order consistency SPH inpainting.
Bottom row: First order consistency SPH inpainting.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_reg_D00104_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 593.92$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_reg_D00416_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 247.97$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_reg_D01616_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 104.55$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_reg_D00104_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 469.80$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_reg_D00416_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 215.31$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_reg_D01616_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 99.54$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_reg_D00104_eed_lambda_0_3_sigma_2}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 371.32$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_reg_D00416_eed_lambda_0_6_sigma_2}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 166.89$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_reg_D01616_eed_lambda_0_7_sigma_2}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 78.41$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Diffusion inpainting of ``girl'' with regular masks]{
Inpainting of
``girl'' for regular masks. Densities from left to right are
1.04 \%, 4.16 \%, and 16.66 \%.
Top row: Harmonic inpainting.
Middle row: Biharmonic inpainting.
Bottom row: Inpainting with EED.
Parameters are from left to right
$\lambda=0.3$ and $\sigma=2.0$, $\lambda=0.6$ and $\sigma=2.0$, and
$\lambda=0.7$ and $\sigma=2.0$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_reg_D00104_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 489.67$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_reg_D00416_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 247.10$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_reg_D01616_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 108.35$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_reg_D00104_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 477.34$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_reg_D00416_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 244.17$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_reg_D01616_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 105.77$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[SPH inpainting of ``plane'' with regular masks]{
Inpainting of
``plane'' for regular masks with isotropic Gaussian kernels.
Densities from left to right are 1.04 \%, 4.16 \%, and 16.66 \%.
Top row: Zero order consistency SPH inpainting.
Bottom row: First order consistency SPH inpainting.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_reg_D00104_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 551.02$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_reg_D00416_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 277.22$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_reg_D01616_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 116.11$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_reg_D00104_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 497.11$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_reg_D00416_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 250.55$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_reg_D01616_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 103.77$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_reg_D00104_eed_lambda_0_8_sigma_2}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 426.88$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_reg_D00416_eed_lambda_1_8_sigma_0_9}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 225.21$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_reg_D01616_eed_lambda_1_4_sigma_1_6}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 92.32$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Diffusion inpainting of ``plane'' with regular masks]{
Inpainting of
``plane'' for regular masks. Densities from left to right are
1.04 \%, 4.16 \%, and 16.66 \%.
Top row: Harmonic inpainting.
Middle row: Biharmonic inpainting.
Bottom row: Inpainting with EED.
Parameters are from left to right
$\lambda=0.8$ and $\sigma=2.0$, $\lambda=1.8$ and $\sigma=0.9$, and
$\lambda=1.4$ and $\sigma=1.6$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_reg_D00104_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 284.43$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_reg_D00416_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 143.04$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_reg_D01616_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 67.49$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_reg_D00104_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 274.08$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_reg_D00416_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 140.25$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_reg_D01616_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 65.32$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Inpainting of ``hats'' with regular masks]{
Inpainting of
``hats'' for regular masks with isotropic Gaussian kernels.
Densities from left to right are 1.04 \%, 4.16 \%, and 16.66 \%.
Top row: Zero order consistency SPH inpainting.
Bottom row: First order consistency SPH inpainting.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_reg_D00104_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 305.05$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_reg_D00416_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 155.78$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_reg_D01616_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 69.45$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_reg_D00104_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 283.68$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_reg_D00416_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 140.67$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_reg_D01616_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 65.96$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_reg_D00104_eed_lambda_0_6_sigma_2}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 254.01$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_reg_D00416_eed_lambda_0_5_sigma_2}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 119.05$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_reg_D01616_eed_lambda_0_6_sigma_2}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 55.24$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Diffusion inpainting of ``hats'' with regular masks]{
Inpainting of
``hats'' for regular masks. Densities from left to right are
1.04 \%, 4.16 \%, and 16.66 \%.
Top row: Harmonic inpainting.
Middle row: Biharmonic inpainting.
Bottom row: Inpainting with EED.
Parameters are from left to right
$\lambda=0.6$ and $\sigma=2.0$, $\lambda=0.5$ and $\sigma=2.0$, and
$\lambda=0.6$ and $\sigma=2.0$.}
\end{figure}
Over all images and densities, the results of SPH inpainting
are somewhere between the results achieved by harmonic and biharmonic
diffusion, respectively. However, SPH can, in general, not achieve the same
quality as EED inpainting.
To investigate further, we consider the same images, but now
equipped with masks of randomly chosen mask pixels instead of regular masks.
For each image, we have created random masks of densities 1 \%, 5 \%, and
10 \%.
For each of these masks, we perform SPH inpainting with an isotropic Gaussian
kernel either for zero or first order consistency, harmonic inpainting,
biharmonic inpainting, and inpainting with EED.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/mask_ran_D001_trui}
\caption{1 \% mask}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/mask_ran_D005_trui}
\caption{5 \% mask}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/mask_ran_D010_trui}
\caption{10 \% mask}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/trui_ran_D001_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 649.00$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_ran_D005_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 208.48$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/trui_ran_D010_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 110.48$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/trui_ran_D001_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 693.58$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_ran_D005_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 197.58$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/trui_ran_D010_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 99.23$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[SPH inpainting of ``trui'' with random masks]{
Inpainting of ``trui''
for random masks of different densities.
Top row: Masks with densities of 1 \%, 5 \%, and 10 \%.
Middle row: Zero order consistency SPH inpainting with isotropic
Gaussian kernel.
Bottom row: First order consistency SPH inpainting with isotropic
Gaussian kernel.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/trui_ran_D001_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 655.65$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_ran_D005_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 226.06$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/trui_ran_D010_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 121.66$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/trui_ran_D001_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 579.71$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_ran_D005_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 146.46$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/trui_ran_D010_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 70.99$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/trui_ran_D001_eed_lambda_1_sigma_2}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 554.98$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/trui_ran_D005_eed_lambda_0_2_sigma_0_8}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 134.92$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/trui_ran_D010_eed_lambda_0_4_sigma_0_8}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 62.51$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Diffusion inpainting of ``trui'' with random masks]{
Inpainting of
``trui'' for random masks of densities 1 \%, 5 \%, and 10 \% (left to right).
Top row: Harmonic inpainting.
Middle row: Biharmonic inpainting.
Bottom row: Inpainting with EED.
Parameters are from left to right
$\lambda=1.0$ and $\sigma=2.0$, $\lambda=0.2$ and $\sigma=0.8$, and
$\lambda=0.4$ and $\sigma=0.8$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/mask_ran_D001_peppers}
\caption{1 \% mask}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/mask_ran_D005_peppers}
\caption{5 \% mask}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/mask_ran_D010_peppers}
\caption{10 \% mask}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_ran_D001_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 643.74$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_ran_D005_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 196.64$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_ran_D010_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 115.62$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_ran_D001_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 807.45$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_ran_D005_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 201.50$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_ran_D010_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 109.25$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[SPH inpainting of ``peppers'' with random masks]{
Inpainting of
``peppers'' for random masks of different densities.
Top row: Masks with densities of 1 \%, 5 \%, and 10 \%.
Middle row: Zero order consistency SPH inpainting with isotropic
Gaussian kernel.
Bottom row: First order consistency SPH inpainting with isotropic
Gaussian kernel.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_ran_D001_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 712.59$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_ran_D005_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 217.79$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_ran_D010_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 119.63$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_ran_D001_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 553.56$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_ran_D005_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 151.51$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_ran_D010_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 88.45$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_ran_D001_eed_lambda_0_1_sigma_0_9}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 542.87$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_ran_D005_eed_lambda_0_5_sigma_1_5}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 135.32$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_ran_D010_eed_lambda_0_4_sigma_1_8}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 68.56$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Diffusion inpainting of ``peppers'' with random masks]{
Inpainting of
``peppers'' for random masks of densities 1 \%, 5 \%, and 10
\% (left to right).
Top row: Harmonic inpainting.
Middle row: Biharmonic inpainting.
Bottom row: Inpainting with EED.
Parameters are from left to right
$\lambda=0.1$ and $\sigma=0.9$, $\lambda=0.5$ and $\sigma=1.5$, and
$\lambda=0.4$ and $\sigma=1.8$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/mask_ran_D001_walter}
\caption{1 \% mask}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/mask_ran_D005_walter}
\caption{5 \% mask}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/mask_ran_D010_walter}
\caption{10 \% mask}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_ran_D001_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 600.02$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_ran_D005_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 180.58$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_ran_D010_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 93.79$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_ran_D001_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 745.89$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_ran_D005_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 167.00$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_ran_D010_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 80.22$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[SPH inpainting of ``walter'' with random masks]{
Inpainting of
``walter'' for random masks of different densities.
Top row: Masks with densities of 1 \%, 5 \%, and 10 \%.
Middle row: Zero order consistency SPH inpainting with isotropic
Gaussian kernel.
Bottom row: First order consistency SPH inpainting with isotropic
Gaussian kernel.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_ran_D001_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 672.50$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_ran_D005_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 212.61$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_ran_D010_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 113.88$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_ran_D001_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 526.65$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_ran_D005_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 115.72$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_ran_D010_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 50.82$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_ran_D001_eed_lambda_0_1_sigma_0_6}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 466.66$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_ran_D005_eed_lambda_0_2_sigma_0_9}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 91.90$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_ran_D010_eed_lambda_0_2_sigma_0_8}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 37.92$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Diffusion inpainting of ``walter'' with random masks]{
Inpainting of
``walter'' for random masks of densities 1 \%, 5 \%, and 10 \%
(left to right).
Top row: Harmonic inpainting.
Middle row: Biharmonic inpainting.
Bottom row: Inpainting with EED.
Parameters are from left to right
$\lambda=0.1$ and $\sigma=0.6$, $\lambda=0.2$ and $\sigma=0.9$, and
$\lambda=0.2$ and $\sigma=0.8$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/mask_ran_D001_baboon}
\caption{1 \% mask}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/mask_ran_D005_baboon}
\caption{5 \% mask}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/mask_ran_D010_baboon}
\caption{10 \% mask}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_ran_D001_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 1253.29$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_ran_D005_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 939.62$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_ran_D010_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 778.42$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_ran_D001_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 1481.98$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_ran_D005_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 1124.76$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_ran_D010_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 873.64$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[SPH inpainting of ``baboon'' with random masks]{
Inpainting of
``baboon'' for random masks of different densities.
Top row: Masks with densities of 1 \%, 5 \%, and 10 \%.
Middle row: Zero order consistency SPH inpainting with isotropic
Gaussian kernel.
Bottom row: First order consistency SPH inpainting with isotropic
Gaussian kernel.}
\label{fig:baboon_ran_sph}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_ran_D001_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 1038.79$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_ran_D005_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 794.68$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_ran_D010_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 688.23$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_ran_D001_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 1441.11$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_ran_D005_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 1049.28$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_ran_D010_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 864.59$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_ran_D001_eed_lambda_5_sigma_0_7}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 1028.85$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_ran_D005_eed_lambda_6_7_sigma_3}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 789.49$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_ran_D010_eed_lambda_5_8_sigma_3}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 686.94$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Diffusion inpainting of ``baboon'' with random masks]{
Inpainting of
``baboon'' for random masks of densities 1 \%, 5 \%, and 10 \%
(left to right).
Top row: Harmonic inpainting.
Middle row: Biharmonic inpainting.
Bottom row: Inpainting with EED.
Parameters are from left to right
$\lambda=5.0$ and $\sigma=0.7$, $\lambda=6.7$ and $\sigma=0.3$, and
$\lambda=5.8$ and $\sigma=3.0$.}
\label{fig:baboon_ran_diff}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/mask_ran_D001_parrots}
\caption{1 \% mask}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/mask_ran_D005_parrots}
\caption{5 \% mask}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/mask_ran_D010_parrots}
\caption{10 \% mask}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/parrots_ran_D001_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 354.73$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_ran_D005_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 169.62$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/parrots_ran_D010_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 111.69$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/parrots_ran_D001_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 394.41$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_ran_D005_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 173.71$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/parrots_ran_D010_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 115.51$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[SPH inpainting of ``parrots'' with random masks]{
Inpainting of
``parrots'' for random masks of different densities.
Top row: Masks with densities of 1 \%, 5 \%, and 10 \%.
Middle row: Zero order consistency SPH inpainting with isotropic
Gaussian kernel.
Bottom row: First order consistency SPH inpainting with isotropic
Gaussian kernel.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/parrots_ran_D001_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 387.24$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_ran_D005_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 162.53$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/parrots_ran_D010_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 106.41$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/parrots_ran_D001_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 304.72$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_ran_D005_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 147.75$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/parrots_ran_D010_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 102.72$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/parrots_ran_D001_eed_lambda_0_2_sigma_1_8}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 294.05$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/parrots_ran_D005_eed_lambda_1_2_sigma_2}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 137.04$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/parrots_ran_D010_eed_lambda_1_7_sigma_2}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 92.75$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Diffusion inpainting of ``parrots'' with random masks]{
Inpainting of
``parrots'' for random masks of densities 1 \%, 5 \%, and 10 \%
(left to right).
Top row: Harmonic inpainting.
Middle row: Biharmonic inpainting.
Bottom row: Inpainting with EED.
Parameters are from left to right
$\lambda=0.2$ and $\sigma=1.8$, $\lambda=1.2$ and $\sigma=2.0$, and
$\lambda=1.7$ and $\sigma=2.0$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/mask_ran_D001_girl}
\caption{1 \% mask}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/mask_ran_D005_girl}
\caption{5 \% mask}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/mask_ran_D010_girl}
\caption{10 \% mask}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_ran_D001_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 662.11$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_ran_D005_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 271.68$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_ran_D010_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 175.94$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_ran_D001_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 735.35$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_ran_D005_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 273.61$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_ran_D010_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 184.10$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[SPH inpainting of ``girl'' with random masks]{
Inpainting of
``girl'' for random masks of different densities.
Top row: Masks with densities of 1 \%, 5 \%, and 10 \%.
Middle row: Zero order consistency SPH inpainting with isotropic
Gaussian kernel.
Bottom row: First order consistency SPH inpainting with isotropic
Gaussian kernel.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_ran_D001_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 710.72$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_ran_D005_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 265.84$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_ran_D010_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 177.32$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_ran_D001_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 612.65$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_ran_D005_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 233.97$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_ran_D010_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 159.95$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_ran_D001_eed_lambda_0_8_sigma_2}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 492.03$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_ran_D005_eed_lambda_1_4_sigma_2}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 182.14$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_ran_D010_eed_lambda_1_sigma_2}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 126.27$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Diffusion inpainting of ``girl'' with random masks]{
Inpainting of
``girl'' for random masks of densities 1 \%, 5 \%, and 10 \% (left to right).
Top row: Harmonic inpainting.
Middle row: Biharmonic inpainting.
Bottom row: Inpainting with EED.
Parameters are from left to right
$\lambda=0.8$ and $\sigma=2.0$, $\lambda=1.4$ and $\sigma=2.0$, and
$\lambda=1.0$ and $\sigma=2.0$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/mask_ran_D001_plane}
\caption{1 \% mask}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/mask_ran_D005_plane}
\caption{5 \% mask}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/mask_ran_D010_plane}
\caption{10 \% mask}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_ran_D001_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 717.64$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_ran_D005_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 313.08$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_ran_D010_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 209.96$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_ran_D001_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 845.86$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_ran_D005_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 341.57$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_ran_D010_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 213.02$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[SPH inpainting of ``plane'' with random masks]{
Inpainting of
``plane'' for random masks of different densities.
Top row: Masks with densities of 1 \%, 5 \%, and 10 \%.
Middle row: Zero order consistency SPH inpainting with isotropic
Gaussian kernel.
Bottom row: First order consistency SPH inpainting with isotropic
Gaussian kernel.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_ran_D001_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 705.55$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_ran_D005_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 309.14$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_ran_D010_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 209.28$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_ran_D001_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 718.31$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_ran_D005_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 315.87$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_ran_D010_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 182.87$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_ran_D001_eed_lambda_0_1_sigma_0_4}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 640.09$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_ran_D005_eed_lambda_1_9_sigma_0_6}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 255.48$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_ran_D010_eed_lambda_1_2_sigma_2}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 162.08$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Diffusion inpainting of ``plane'' with random masks]{
Inpainting of
``plane'' for random masks of densities 1 \%, 5 \%, and 10 \%
(left to right).
Top row: Harmonic inpainting.
Middle row: Biharmonic inpainting.
Bottom row: Inpainting with EED.
Parameters are from left to right
$\lambda=0.1$ and $\sigma=0.4$, $\lambda=1.9$ and $\sigma=0.6$, and
$\lambda=1.2$ and $\sigma=2.0$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/mask_ran_D001_hats}
\caption{1 \% mask}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/mask_ran_D005_hats}
\caption{5 \% mask}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/mask_ran_D010_hats}
\caption{10 \% mask}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_ran_D001_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 353.40$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_ran_D005_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 171.43$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_ran_D010_gauss_zero}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 123.37$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_ran_D001_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 470.24$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_ran_D005_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 191.77$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_ran_D010_gauss_first}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 128.98$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[SPH inpainting of ``hats'' with random masks]{
Inpainting of
``hats'' for random masks of different densities.
Top row: Masks with densities of 1 \%, 5 \%, and 10 \%.
Middle row: Zero order consistency SPH inpainting with isotropic
Gaussian kernel.
Bottom row: First order consistency SPH inpainting with isotropic
Gaussian kernel.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_ran_D001_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 349.80$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_ran_D005_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 175.68$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_ran_D010_harm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 119.83$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_ran_D001_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 344.37$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_ran_D005_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 165.10$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_ran_D010_biharm}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 112.54$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_ran_D001_eed_lambda_0_6_sigma_2}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 289.27$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_ran_D005_eed_lambda_0_7_sigma_2}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 142.61$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_ran_D010_eed_lambda_0_6_sigma_2}
\caption{$\textrm{MSE} = 91.07$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Diffusion inpainting of ``hats'' with random masks]{
Inpainting of
``hats'' for random masks of densities 1 \%, 5 \%, and 10 \% (left to right).
Top row: Harmonic inpainting.
Middle row: Biharmonic inpainting.
Bottom row: Inpainting with EED.
Parameters are from left to right
$\lambda=0.6$ and $\sigma=2.0$, $\lambda=0.7$ and $\sigma=2.0$, and
$\lambda=0.6$ and $\sigma=2.0$.}
\end{figure}
Once again, we observe that first order consistency SPH
inpainting is prone to producing artifacts in the form of under- and overshoots.
These are in particular visible for lower densities. Zero order consistency
SPH inpainting is more stable and achieves better MSEs than harmonic inpainting.
Biharmonic inpainting is more suited to the distribution of mask points in most
cases and EED can once more benefit from its nonlinear and anisotropic nature.
\section{Scratch and Text Removal}
As classical applications of inpainting, we consider the
repair of scratches and removal of overlaid text. Images with scratches are
presented in \cref{fig:images_scratch} whereas \cref{fig:images_text} shows
the images overlaid with text. As competitors, we consider once more harmonic
inpainting, biharmonic inpainting, inpainting with EED, and the exemplar-based
inpainting approach by Criminisi et al. with disc-shaped patches.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_scratch}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_scratch}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_scratch}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace*{3ex}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_scratch}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_scratch}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_scratch}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Images damaged by scratches.}
\label{fig:images_scratch}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_scratch_gauss_zero}
\caption{Zero order SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 30.84$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_scratch_gauss_first}
\caption{First order SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 36.90$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_scratch_crim_pr9}
\caption{Exemplar-based\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 59.86$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_scratch_harm}
\caption{Harmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 27.76$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_scratch_biharm}
\caption{Biharmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 21.12$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_scratch_eed_lambda_1_1_sigma_1_1}
\caption{EED\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 16.90$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Inpainting of ``peppers'' for scratch removal]{
Inpainting of
damaged image ``peppers'' with different inpainting methods. For SPH
inpainting, we used an isotropic Gaussian kernel.
Parameters for EED are
$\lambda=1.1$ and $\sigma=1.1$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_scratch_gauss_zero}
\caption{Zero order SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 83.01$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_scratch_gauss_first}
\caption{First order SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 60.14$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_scratch_crim_pr5}
\caption{Exemplar-based\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 132.18$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_scratch_harm}
\caption{Harmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 66.73$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_scratch_biharm}
\caption{Biharmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 27.55$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_scratch_eed_lambda_0_1_sigma_0_9}
\caption{EED\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 15.63$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Inpainting of ``walter'' for scratch removal]{
Inpainting of
damaged image ``walter'' with different inpainting methods. For SPH
inpainting, we used an isotropic Gaussian kernel.
Parameters for EED are
$\lambda=0.1$ and $\sigma=0.9$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_scratch_gauss_zero}
\caption{Zero order SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 283.53$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_scratch_gauss_first}
\caption{First order SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 765.51$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_scratch_crim_pr11}
\caption{Exemplar-based\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 363.47$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_scratch_harm}
\caption{Harmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 232.43$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_scratch_biharm}
\caption{Biharmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 335.96$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_scratch_eed_lambda_6_sigma_3}
\caption{EED\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 231.40$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Inpainting of ``baboon'' for scratch removal]{
Inpainting of
damaged image ``baboon'' with different inpainting methods. For SPH
inpainting, we used an isotropic Gaussian kernel.
Parameters for EED are
$\lambda=6.0$ and $\sigma=3.0$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_scratch_gauss_zero}
\caption{Zero order SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 40.61$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_scratch_gauss_first}
\caption{First order SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 51.99$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_scratch_crim_pr11}
\caption{Exemplar-based\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 86.43$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_scratch_harm}
\caption{Harmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 34.97$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_scratch_biharm}
\caption{Biharmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 31.41$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_scratch_eed_lambda_2_7_sigma_1_2}
\caption{EED\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 24.81$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Inpainting of ``girl'' for scratch removal]{
Inpainting of
damaged image ``girl'' with different inpainting methods. For SPH
inpainting, we used an isotropic Gaussian kernel.
Parameters for EED are
$\lambda=2.7$ and $\sigma=1.2$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_scratch_gauss_zero}
\caption{Zero order SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 92.47$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_scratch_gauss_first}
\caption{First order SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 121.49$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_scratch_crim_pr9}
\caption{Exemplar-based\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 190.01$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_scratch_harm}
\caption{Harmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 78.81$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_scratch_biharm}
\caption{Biharmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 71.88$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_scratch_eed_lambda_2_sigma_0_5}
\caption{EED\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 62.87$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Inpainting of ``plane'' for scratch removal]{
Inpainting of
damaged image ``plane'' with different inpainting methods. For SPH
inpainting, we used an isotropic Gaussian kernel.
Parameters for EED are
$\lambda=2.0$ and $\sigma=0.5$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_scratch_gauss_zero}
\caption{Zero order SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 47.63$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_scratch_gauss_first}
\caption{First order SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 56.53$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_scratch_crim_pr9}
\caption{Exemplar-based\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 66.15$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_scratch_harm}
\caption{Harmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 36.97$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_scratch_biharm}
\caption{Biharmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 35.01$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_scratch_eed_lambda_0_4_sigma_2}
\caption{EED\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 23.99$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Inpainting of ``hats'' for scratch removal]{
Inpainting of
damaged image ``hats'' with different inpainting methods. For SPH
inpainting, we used an isotropic Gaussian kernel.
Parameters for EED are
$\lambda=0.4$ and $\sigma=2.0$.}
\end{figure}
We observe mainly the same results as for the examples ``trui''
and ``parrots'' in the main article: Zero order consistency SPH inpainting
performs better than first order consistency. Both perform better than the
exemplar-based approach, but cannot reach the same quality as the
diffusion-based methods. Even when the MSE of the SPH inpainting comes close to
the MSE of diffusion-based methods, the former often produces some unpleasant
artifacts. However, we remind the reader that the task of repairing such
damages comes not naturally for SPH inpainting.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_text}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_text}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_text}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace*{3ex}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_text}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_text}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_text}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Images overlaid with text.}
\label{fig:images_text}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_text_gauss_zero}
\caption{Zero order SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 24.56$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_text_gauss_first}
\caption{First order SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 23.76$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_text_crim_pr7}
\caption{Exemplar-based\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 39.34$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_text_harm}
\caption{Harmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 21.12$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_text_biharm}
\caption{Biharmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 17.18$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_text_eed_lambda_0_4_sigma_1_7}
\caption{EED\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 12.44$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Inpainting of ``peppers'' for text removal]{
Inpainting of
image ``peppers'' overlaid with text for different inpainting methods. For
SPH inpainting, we used an isotropic Gaussian kernel.
Parameters for EED are
$\lambda=0.4$ and $\sigma=1.7$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_text_gauss_zero}
\caption{Zero order SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 20.42$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_text_gauss_first}
\caption{First order SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 11.82$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_text_crim_pr7}
\caption{Exemplar-based\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 24.24$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_text_harm}
\caption{Harmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 16.35$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_text_biharm}
\caption{Biharmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 6.08$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_text_eed_lambda_0_1_sigma_0_9}
\caption{EED\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 4.37$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Inpainting of ``walter'' for text removal]{
Inpainting of
image ``walter'' overlaid with text for different inpainting methods. For
SPH inpainting, we used an isotropic Gaussian kernel.
Parameters for EED are
$\lambda=0.1$ and $\sigma=0.9$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_text_gauss_zero}
\caption{Zero order SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 183.52$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_text_gauss_first}
\caption{First order SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 193.30$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_text_crim_pr9}
\caption{Exemplar-based\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 273.64$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_text_harm}
\caption{Harmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 170.17$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_text_biharm}
\caption{Biharmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 202.89$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_text_eed_lambda_8_6_sigma_1_9}
\caption{EED\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 170.69$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Inpainting of ``baboon'' for text removal]{
Inpainting of
image ``baboon'' overlaid with text for different inpainting methods. For
SPH inpainting, we used an isotropic Gaussian kernel.
Parameters for EED are
$\lambda=8.6$ and $\sigma=1.9$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_text_gauss_zero}
\caption{Zero order SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 31.60$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_text_gauss_first}
\caption{First order SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 29.88$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_text_crim_pr7}
\caption{Exemplar-based\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 45.88$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_text_harm}
\caption{Harmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 29.08$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_text_biharm}
\caption{Biharmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 27.28$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_text_eed_lambda_1_1_sigma_1_9}
\caption{EED\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 21.10$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Inpainting of ``girl'' for text removal]{
Inpainting of
image ``girl'' overlaid with text for different inpainting methods. For
SPH inpainting, we used an isotropic Gaussian kernel.
Parameters for EED are
$\lambda=1.1$ and $\sigma=1.9$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_text_gauss_zero}
\caption{Zero order SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 36.76$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_text_gauss_first}
\caption{First order SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 36.71$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_text_crim_pr7}
\caption{Exemplar-based\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 54.67$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_text_harm}
\caption{Harmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 33.18$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_text_biharm}
\caption{Biharmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 28.64$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_text_eed_lambda_2_6_sigma_0_7}
\caption{EED\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 25.94$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Inpainting of ``plane'' for text removal]{
Inpainting of
image ``plane'' overlaid with text for different inpainting methods. For
SPH inpainting, we used an isotropic Gaussian kernel.
Parameters for EED are
$\lambda=2.6$ and $\sigma=0.7$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_text_gauss_zero}
\caption{Zero order SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 31.05$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_text_gauss_first}
\caption{First order SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 34.67$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_text_crim_pr7}
\caption{Exemplar-based\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 42.41$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_text_harm}
\caption{Harmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 26.53$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_text_biharm}
\caption{Biharmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 27.28$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_text_eed_lambda_0_5_sigma_2}
\caption{EED\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 19.41$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Inpainting of ``hats'' for text removal]{
Inpainting of
image ``hats'' overlaid with text for different inpainting methods. For
SPH inpainting, we used an isotropic Gaussian kernel.
Parameters for EED are
$\lambda=0.5$ and $\sigma=2.0$.}
\end{figure}
When it comes to text removal, SPH inpainting again performs
better than the exemplar-based approach, but not as good as the
diffusion-based methods. Whether the zero or the first order consistency
method performs depends on the image under consideration.
\section{Inpainting with Optimized Data}
In this section, we include some more results and comparisons
for spatially and tonally optimized inpaintings. As kernel for SPH, we mostly
consider the common choice of Gaussian kernels. Only for the images of size
$256 \times 256$ do we also include results for other kernels as differences
are not very large. For comparison, we also consider the results achieved by
harmonic and biharmonic inpainting, equipped with our Voronoi-based
densification and tonally optimized gray values.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/peppers_dens_D005_gauss_mix_to}
\caption{Mixed order SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 16.29$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_dens_D005_harm_to}
\caption{Harmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 22.66$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_dens_D005_biharm_to}
\caption{Biharmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 24.63$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Inpainting of ``peppers'' with spatially and tonally optimized
mask]{Inpainting of ``peppers'' with 5 \% spatially and
tonally optimized masks for different inpainting techniques. For SPH
inpainting, we used an isotropic Gaussian kernel.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_dens_D005_an_gauss_zero_to}
\caption{Gaussian\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 22.46$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_dens_D005_an_matern0_zero_to}
\caption{$C^{0}$-Mat\'{e}rn\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 23.19$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_dens_D005_an_matern2_zero_to}
\caption{$C^{2}$-Mat\'{e}rn\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 23.00$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_dens_D005_an_lucy_zero_to}
\caption{Lucy\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 23.75$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_dens_D005_an_cubic_zero_to}
\caption{cubic spline\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 24.17$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_dens_D005_an_wend_zero_to}
\caption{$C^{4}$-Wendland\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 27.62$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Inpainting of ``peppers'' with spatially and
tonally optimized mask]{Inpainting of ``peppers'' with a 5 \%
spatially and tonally optimized mask with a zero order consistency method and
anisotropic kernels.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_dens_D005_an_gauss_mix_to}
\caption{Gaussian\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 13.69$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_dens_D005_an_matern0_mix_to}
\caption{$C^{0}$-Mat\'{e}rn\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 13.97$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_dens_D005_an_matern2_mix_to}
\caption{$C^{2}$-Mat\'{e}rn\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 14.12$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_dens_D005_an_lucy_mix_to}
\caption{Lucy\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 14.72$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_dens_D005_an_cubic_mix_to}
\caption{cubic spline\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 14.75$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/peppers_dens_D005_an_wend_mix_to}
\caption{$C^{4}$-Wendland\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 15.99$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Inpainting of ``peppers'' with spatially and
tonally optimized mask]{Inpainting of ``peppers'' with a 5 \%
spatially and tonally optimized mask with a mixed order consistency method and
anisotropic kernels.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/walter_dens_D005_gauss_mix_to}
\caption{Mixed order SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 5.15$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_dens_D005_harm_to}
\caption{Harmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 9.20$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_dens_D005_biharm_to}
\caption{Biharmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 6.31$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Inpainting of ``walter'' with spatially and tonally optimized
mask]{Inpainting of ``walter'' with 5 \% spatially and
tonally optimized masks for different inpainting techniques. For SPH
inpainting, we used an isotropic Gaussian kernel.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_dens_D005_an_gauss_zero_to}
\caption{Gaussian\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 9.10$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_dens_D005_an_matern0_zero_to}
\caption{$C^{0}$-Mat\'{e}rn\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 9.40$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_dens_D005_an_matern2_zero_to}
\caption{$C^{2}$-Mat\'{e}rn\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 9.25$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_dens_D005_an_lucy_zero_to}
\caption{Lucy\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 10.09$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_dens_D005_an_cubic_zero_to}
\caption{cubic spline\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 10.60$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_dens_D005_an_wend_zero_to}
\caption{$C^{4}$-Wendland\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 12.67$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Inpainting of ``walter'' with spatially and
tonally optimized mask]{Inpainting of ``walter'' with a 5 \%
spatially and tonally optimized mask with a zero order consistency method and
anisotropic kernels.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_dens_D005_an_gauss_mix_to}
\caption{Gaussian\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 4.38$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_dens_D005_an_matern0_mix_to}
\caption{$C^{0}$-Mat\'{e}rn\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 4.21$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_dens_D005_an_matern2_mix_to}
\caption{$C^{2}$-Mat\'{e}rn\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 4.27$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_dens_D005_an_lucy_mix_to}
\caption{Lucy\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 4.91$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_dens_D005_an_cubic_mix_to}
\caption{cubic spline\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 4.94$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/walter_dens_D005_an_wend_mix_to}
\caption{$C^{4}$-Wendland\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 5.32$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Inpainting of ``walter'' with spatially and
tonally optimized mask]{Inpainting of ``walter'' with a 5 \%
spatially and tonally optimized mask with a mixed order consistency method and
anisotropic kernels.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_art/baboon_dens_D010_gauss_mix_to}
\caption{Mixed order SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 223.37$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_dens_D010_harm_to}
\caption{Harmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 283.96$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_dens_D010_biharm_to}
\caption{Biharmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 326.00$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Inpainting of ``baboon'' with spatially and tonally optimized
mask]{Inpainting of ``baboon'' with 10 \% spatially and
tonally optimized masks for different inpainting techniques. For SPH
inpainting, we used an isotropic Gaussian kernel.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_dens_D010_an_gauss_zero_to}
\caption{Gaussian\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 294.17$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_dens_D010_an_matern0_zero_to}
\caption{$C^{0}$-Mat\'{e}rn\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 289.53$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_dens_D010_an_matern2_zero_to}
\caption{$C^{2}$-Mat\'{e}rn\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 290.03$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_dens_D010_an_lucy_zero_to}
\caption{Lucy\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 305.76$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_dens_D010_an_cubic_zero_to}
\caption{cubic spline\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 306.82$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_dens_D010_an_wend_zero_to}
\caption{$C^{4}$-Wendland\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 313.08$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Inpainting of ``baboon'' with spatially and
tonally optimized mask]{Inpainting of ``baboon'' with a 10 \%
spatially and tonally optimized mask with a zero order consistency method and
anisotropic kernels.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_dens_D010_an_gauss_mix_to}
\caption{Gaussian\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 220.82$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_dens_D010_an_matern0_mix_to}
\caption{$C^{0}$-Mat\'{e}rn\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 222.31$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_dens_D010_an_matern2_mix_to}
\caption{$C^{2}$-Mat\'{e}rn\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 220.19$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_dens_D010_an_lucy_mix_to}
\caption{Lucy\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 226.21$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_dens_D010_an_cubic_mix_to}
\caption{cubic spline\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 226.60$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/baboon_dens_D010_an_wend_mix_to}
\caption{$C^{4}$-Wendland\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 227.16$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption[Inpainting of ``baboon'' with spatially and
tonally optimized mask]{Inpainting of ``baboon'' with a 10 \%
spatially and tonally optimized mask with a mixed order consistency method and
anisotropic kernels.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_dens_D005_gauss_zero_to}
\caption{Zero order isotrop.~SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 36.74$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_dens_D005_an_gauss_zero_to}
\caption{Zero order aniso.~SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 32.59$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_dens_D005_gauss_mix_to}
\caption{Mixed order isotrop.~SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 24.49$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_dens_D005_an_gauss_mix_to}
\caption{Mixed order aniso.~SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 21.86$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_dens_D005_harm_to}
\caption{Harmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 32.77$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/girl_dens_D005_biharm_to}
\caption{Biharmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 38.88$}
\end{subfigure}
%
\caption[Inpainting of ``girl'' with spatially and tonally optimized
mask]{Inpainting of ``girl'' with 5 \% spatially and tonally
optimized masks for different inpainting methods. For SPH inpainting, we used
a Gaussian kernel.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_dens_D005_gauss_zero_to}
\caption{Zero order isotrop.~SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 33.74$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_dens_D005_an_gauss_zero_to}
\caption{Zero order aniso.~SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 27.92$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_dens_D005_gauss_mix_to}
\caption{Mixed order isotrop.~SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 19.60$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_dens_D005_an_gauss_mix_to}
\caption{Mixed order aniso.~SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 16.20$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_dens_D005_harm_to}
\caption{Harmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 30.28$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/plane_dens_D005_biharm_to}
\caption{Biharmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 33.20$}
\end{subfigure}
%
\caption[Inpainting of ``plane'' with spatially and tonally optimized
mask]{Inpainting of ``plane'' with 5 \% spatially and tonally
optimized masks for different inpainting methods. For SPH inpainting, we used
a Gaussian kernel.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{justification=centering}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_dens_D005_gauss_zero_to}
\caption{Zero order isotrop.~SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 30.42$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_dens_D005_an_gauss_zero_to}
\caption{Zero order aniso.~SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 25.31$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_dens_D005_gauss_mix_to}
\caption{Mixed order isotrop.~SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 20.42$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_dens_D005_an_gauss_mix_to}
\caption{Mixed order aniso.~SPH\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 17.18$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_dens_D005_harm_to}
\caption{Harmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 27.19$}
\end{subfigure}
%
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.29\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[
width=\textwidth]{Figures_sup/hats_dens_D005_biharm_to}
\caption{Biharmonic\\
$\textrm{MSE} = 32.53$}
\end{subfigure}
%
\caption[Inpainting of ``hats'' with spatially and tonally optimized
mask]{Inpainting of ``hats'' with 5 \% spatially and tonally
optimized masks for different inpainting methods. For SPH inpainting, we used
a Gaussian kernel.}
\end{figure}
As expected, the mixed order anisotropic SPH inpainting
performs best in all cases with improvements over harmonic or biharmonic
inpaintings between 22 \% for ``baboon'' and 55 \% for ``walter''.
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
Multi-scalar models with quartic interactions are a broad class of field theories including some extensively studied models, such as the $O(\mathcal{N})$ model.
The latter describes some of the most important universality classes, such as the Ising and Heisenberg models, but other multi-scalar models, with smaller symmetry groups, are also of general interest (see for example \cite{Pelissetto:2000ek,Kleinert:2001ax} and references therein). In fact, being able to classify or better understand all the possible universality classes appearing in such models would be of great theoretical appeal. Efforts in this direction have been made for example in \cite{Brezin:1973jt,Michel:1983in,Michel:1985,Toledano:1985,Hatch:1985,Vicari:2006xr,Osborn:2017ucf,Rychkov:2018vya,Codello:2018nbe,Codello:2020lta,Hogervorst:2020gtc,Osborn:2020cnf}, but clearly a full classification becomes daunting as the number $\mathcal{N}$ of fields increases.
It is then natural to try to broaden our understanding by gradually breaking the maximal symmetry group, i.e.\ the $O(\mathcal{N})$ group, to smaller ones, which of course can be done in many ways.
One much studied case is the model with symmetry $O(N_1)\times O(N_2)$, with $N_1 N_2 =\mathcal{N}$, which was named \emph{bi-fundamental model} recently in \cite{Rychkov:2018vya}, but which has a long history (e.g.\ \cite{Kawamura:1988,Kawamura:1990,Pelissetto:2001fi,Gracey:2002pm,Delamotte:2003dw,Kompaniets:2020,Henriksson:2020fqi}).
In this paper we go one step further in the same direction, and consider a \emph{tri-fundamental model}, with symmetry group $O(N_1)\times O(N_2) \times O(N_3)$, and $N_1 N_2 N_3=\mathcal{N}$.
Whereas the $O(\mathcal{N})$ model has a single coupling, and the bi-fundamental model has two, the tri-fundamental model has five independent couplings (with the corresponding interactions being known as tetrahedron, double trace, and pillows, the latter being of three different types), making its system of beta functions more involved. For this reason, we study its fixed points either numerically, for specific values of the $N_i$'s, or in some large-$N$ scaling limits, with either one, two, or all three of the $N_i$'s being taken to infinity.
In the homogeneous case $N_i = N$, for $i=1,2,3$, the model reduces to the $O(N)^3$ \emph{tensor model}, which has already been studied in the strict large-$N$ limit \cite{Giombi:2017dtl,Benedetti:2019eyl}.
Tensor models are particularly interesting because at large $N$ they are dominated by melonic diagrams \cite{Bonzom:2011zz,RTM,Carrozza:2015adg}. The melonic limit is different from both the vector and matrix large $N$ limits \cite{Brezin:1994eb}: it is richer than the large $N$ limit of vectors but is more manageable than the planar limit of matrices.
Consequently, at large $N$, renormalization group fixed points of tensor models in $d$ dimensions give rise to a new family of conformal field theories (CFTs) which are analytically accessible \cite{Klebanov:2016xxf,Giombi:2017dtl,Prakash:2017hwq,Benedetti:2017fmp,Gubser:2018yec,Giombi:2018qgp,Benedetti:2018ghn,Popov:2019nja,Benedetti:2019rja} (see also \cite{Delporte:2018iyf,Klebanov:2018fzb,Gurau:2019qag,Benedetti:2020seh} for reviews and more references). We call this new family of CFTs melonic.
The $O(N)^3$ bosonic tensor model with quartic interactions is one of the simplest tensor models we can study. This model is also known as the CTKT model as it was introduced in zero dimension by Carozza and Tanasa in \cite{Carrozza:2015adg} and generalized to $d$ dimensions by Klebanov and Tarnopolski in \cite{Klebanov:2016xxf}. It was studied further in \cite{Giombi:2017dtl}, where in $d=4-\epsilon$ dimensions and in the melonic limit it was found to have non-trivial fixed points, which however correspond to complex CFTs. Moreover, the critical exponents determining the approach to the fixed points are purely imaginary, and the trajectories around the fixed points form concentric cycles, never really reaching them; in the language of dynamical systems, the fixed point is a center equilibrium. A similar model was then studied in \cite{Benedetti:2019eyl}, with the same symmetry and interactions, but with a long-range kinetic term. A line of infrared stable fixed points was found, parametrized by a purely imaginary and exactly marginal tetrahedron coupling. Surprisingly, the resulting large-$N$ CFT, which was studied in \cite{Benedetti:2019ikb,Benedetti:2020yvb}, appears to be unitarity, despite the fact that the tetrahedral coupling is imaginary.
These results are valid in the large $N$ limit, thus they leave open several questions. How do the subleading corrections in $1/N$ change them? In particular, generalizing to a $O(N_1)\times O(N_2)\times O(N_3)$ symmetry in the short-range case, can we find at small $N_i$ or in some scaling limit real stable fixed points with non-zero tetrahedral coupling?
For the long-range case, what becomes of the line of fixed points at next-to-leading order? Do we have a breaking of unitarity at subleading orders, for example signaled by the critical exponents having complex $1/N$ corrections?
The study of the $1/N$ corrections to the melonic limit turns out to be surprisingly involved. This is due to the fact that the
tetrahedron coupling receives no radiative corrections at large $N$, and therefore its beta function is either trivial (long-range case) or determined solely by the wave-function renormalization (short-range case), the latter only starting with a (two-loop) cubic term.
At order $1/N$, the beta function of the tetrahedral coupling acquires a (one-loop) quadratic term, destroying its exact marginality in the long-range model, and creating in the short-range model a delicate competition with the cubic term, the latter being leading in $1/N$ but subleading in the coupling.
In order to disentangle the effects of this quadratic term one needs to analyze scaling regimes defining a hierarchy between $1/N$ and $\epsilon$, where $\epsilon$ is either defined as the deviation from the critical dimension in the short-range case, i.e.\ $\epsilon=4-d$, or as the deviation from the critical scaling of the propagator in the long-range case, i.e.\ $C(p)=1/p^{(d+\epsilon)/2}$. We carry out this analysis below.
\paragraph{Plan of the paper and summary of results.}
In this paper we study the tri-fundamental model $O(N_1)\times O(N_2)\times O(N_3)$ with quartic interactions, both in the short-range and long-range versions. Their finite-$N$ beta functions can be obtained as particular cases of general multi-scalar models, for which we use standard results such as \cite{ZinnJustin:2002ru} for the short-range case, and the three-loop results recently obtained in \cite{Benedetti:2020rrq} for the long-range case.
We are interested in fixed points with no enhanced symmetry such as $O(N_1 N_2 N_3)$ or $O(N_1)\times O(N_2 N_3)$, and therefore we are in particular interested in fixed points with non-vanishing tetrahedral coupling. In fact, the latter is the single coupling which is most characteristic of the full symmetry group, being capable alone to generate all the others by RG flow. Moreover, it is the coupling that in the $O(N)^3$ model leads to a melonic dominance at large $N$.
In section \ref{sec:short-range}, after a quick review of the short-range multi-scalar model, we compute the beta functions and fixed points of the short-range $O(N_1)\times O(N_2)\times O(N_3)$ model at two loops. First, in section \ref{sec:short-range_num}, we look for numerical solutions of the fixed point equations at finite $N_i$, and we find that there is \emph{no} real fixed point with non-vanishing tetrahedral coupling that is stable in all five directions in the range $2 \le N_i \le 50$. Then, in sections \ref{sec:short-range_vector} and \ref{sec:short-range_matrix}, we compute the fixed points respectively in the vector-like ($N_1 \rightarrow \infty$; $N_2$ and $N_3$ fixed) and in the matrix-like ($N_2= cN_1= N \rightarrow \infty$; $c$ and $N_3$ fixed) limits. Like at finite $N_i$, in both cases we conclude that there is no real stable fixed point with non-vanishing tetrahedral coupling; however, in the matrix-like case we find a complex stable fixed point. Finally, in section \ref{sec:short-range_triple}, we study the large $N$ limit and its first subleading corrections in the case $N_1=N_2=N_3=N$, and with a single coupling for the three pillow interactions, corresponding to the $O(N)^3$ tensor model. At leading order our results agree with those of \cite{Giombi:2017dtl}. It turns out that, due to the quadratic term at order $1/N$ in the beta function of the tetrahedral coupling, to which we alluded before, in order to study the $1/N$ corrections to the leading-order fixed point we must consider $\epsilon N^2 \gg 1$. In this regime we find a fixed point for which all three critical exponents have positive real parts. The real part is $\mathcal{O}(1)$ for the tetrahedral coupling and $\mathcal{O}(1/N)$ for the other two.
Next, in section \ref{sec:long-range}, we study the long-range case. After a quick review of the long-range multi-scalar model, in section \ref{sec:long-range_equalN} we directly set $N_1=N_2=N_3=N$ to study the bosonic $O(N)^3$ tensor model, with a single coupling for the three pillow interactions. We study the fixed points and critical exponents at two loops, up to and including order $1/N$.
At leading order, we reproduce the results of \cite{Benedetti:2019eyl}, that is, at $\epsilon=0$, i.e.\ for a propagator such that the quartic interactions have dimension $d$, we find a line of stable real fixed points for the pillow and double-trace couplings parametrized by an exactly marginal tetrahedral coupling; we stress that the latter needs to be taken purely imaginary for the other fixed points and their critical exponents to be real.
At order $1/N$, due to the occurrence of non-vanishing quadratic terms in its beta function, the tetrahedral coupling is no longer exactly marginal, and in order to find non-trivial but perturbatively accessible fixed points, it turns out that we must turn on $\epsilon$ and we must consider the regime $ \epsilon N \ll 1$.\footnote{This is somewhat similar to what has been observed by Fleming et al.\ in \cite{Fleming:2020qqx} for the $O(N)$ model with $(\phi^2)^3$ interaction in $d=3-\epsilon$ dimensions. At $\epsilon=0$, the coupling of $(\phi^2)^3$ has a vanishing beta function at large-$N$, thus leading to a line of fixed points; Fleming et al.\ pointed out that in order to find a precursor of such line of fixed points at subleading orders in $1/N$, one needs to turn on $\epsilon$ and look in the $(d,N)$-plane for lines of fixed points parametrized by $\a=\epsilon N$. Of course, at fixed $\a$ we do not have a line anymore, but isolated fixed points. We moreover take $ \epsilon N \ll 1$ as we wish to rely on perturbation theory, rather than on functional renormalization group methods, as done instead in \cite{Fleming:2020qqx}.}
In this regime, we find a purely imaginary fixed point for the tetrahedral coupling; its value being imaginary, the reality of the leading critical exponents is not spoiled. However, at order $1/N$ we find purely imaginary corrections for the pillow and double-trace critical exponents; at the same order, the tetrahedron critical exponent is real, but it also acquires an imaginary part at order $1/N^{3/2}$.
We thus see two similar situations. In the short-range model, the leading-order fixed point is real for the tetrahedral coupling and purely imaginary for the pillow and double-trace couplings. The critical exponent of the tetrahedral coupling is real while the others are purely imaginary. The $1/N$ corrections bring real parts to the
pillow and double-trace critical exponents (and a small imaginary part to the tetrahedral critical exponent). These real parts lead to a stable fixed point.
In the long-range model, we have the reverse: at leading order the stable line of fixed points corresponds to purely imaginary tetrahedral coupling and real pillow and the double-trace couplings. The critical exponents of the pillow and double trace are real (the one of the tetrahedral coupling is of course zero). At higher orders in $1/N$ the fixed line collapses to isolated fixed points. The pillow and double-trace critical exponents acquire small imaginary parts, and the tetrahedron critical exponent is real at the first non-trivial order, and complex beyond that. The fixed point is stable in all three directions, but the critical exponents have non zero imaginary parts. The unitarity of the large-$N$ melonic CFT is broken by the $1/N$ corrections.
\bigskip
\bigskip
\section{The short-range tri-fundamental model}
\label{sec:short-range}
\subsection{The short-range multi-scalar model}
\label{sec:short-range_ms}
The short-range multi-scalar model with quartic interactions in dimension $d$ is defined by the action:
\begin{align}
S[\phi] \, &= \, \int d^dx \, \bigg[ \frac{1}{2} \partial_{\mu} \phi_\mathbf{a}(x) \partial_{\mu} \phi_{\mathbf{a}}(x)
\, + \, \frac{1}{4!} \, \lambda_{\mathbf{a} \mathbf{b} \mathbf{c} \mathbf{d}} \phi_{\mathbf{a}}(x) \phi_{\mathbf{b}}(x) \phi_{\mathbf{c}}(x) \phi_{\mathbf{d}}(x) \bigg] \, ,
\end{align}
where the indices take values from 1 to $\mathcal{N}$, and a summation over repeated indices is implicit.
For the Euclidean theory in $d=4-\epsilon$ dimension the beta function up to two loops in the minimal subtraction scheme \cite{ZinnJustin:2002ru} is:
\begin{align} \label{eq:beta-general}
\beta_{\mathbf{a} \mathbf{b} \mathbf{c} \mathbf{d}} \, &= \, - \, \epsilon \tilde{g}_{\mathbf{a} \mathbf{b} \mathbf{c} \mathbf{d}}
\, + \, \left(\tilde{g}_{\mathbf{a} \mathbf{b} \mathbf{e} \mathbf{f}}\tilde{g}_{\mathbf{e} \mathbf{f} \mathbf{c} \mathbf{d}} + 2 \textrm{ terms} \right)
\, - \, \left(\tilde{g}_{\mathbf{a} \mathbf{b} \mathbf{e} \mathbf{f}}\tilde{g}_{\mathbf{e} \mathbf{g} \mathbf{h} \mathbf{c}}\tilde{g}_{\mathbf{f} \mathbf{g} \mathbf{h} \mathbf{d}}+ 5 \textrm{ terms} \right) \nonumber\\
&\quad + \, \frac{1}{12} \left(\tilde{g}_{\mathbf{a} \mathbf{b} \mathbf{c} \mathbf{e}}\tilde{g}_{\mathbf{e} \mathbf{f} \mathbf{g} \mathbf{h}}\tilde{g}_{\mathbf{f} \mathbf{g} \mathbf{h} \mathbf{d}} + 3 \textrm{ terms} \right) +\mathcal{O}(\tilde{g}^4) \,,
\end{align}
where we rescaled the renormalized coupling to $\tilde{g}_{\mathbf{a} \mathbf{b} \mathbf{c} \mathbf{d}} = g_{\mathbf{a} \mathbf{b} \mathbf{c} \mathbf{d}} (4\pi)^{-d/2}/\Gamma(d/2)$.
By imposing various symmetry restrictions on the interaction one obtains different models which have been extensively studied (see for example \cite{Pelissetto:2000ek,Kleinert:2001ax,Vicari:2006xr,Osborn:2017ucf,Rychkov:2018vya} and references therein). We study here the case with $O(N_1)\times O(N_2) \times O(N_3)$ invariance, which is relatively new.
\subsection{The short-range tri-fundamental model}
The fields in the tri-fundamental model are rank-3 tensor fields transforming in the tri-fundamental representation of $O(N_1)\times O(N_2) \times O(N_3)$. This is made manifest by writing the index $\mathbf{a}$ as a triplet $\mathbf{a}=(a_1,a_2,a_3)$, where the first, second and third index correspond to the $O(N_1)$, $O(N_2)$ and $O(N_3)$ group respectively:
\begin{equation}
\phi_{a_1 a_2 a_3} \to \sum_{b_1 b_2 b_3}^{1\ldots N} R^{(1)}_{a_1 b_1}R^{(2)}_{a_2 b_2}R^{(3)}_{a_3 b_3}\phi_{b_1 b_2 b_3}\,, \;\;\;\; R^{(i)}\in O(N_i)\,.
\ee
Notice that since each orthogonal group contains a $\mathbb{Z}_2$ subgroup, in order to have a faithful action of the symmetry group, we should quotient $O(N_1)\times O(N_2) \times O(N_3)$ by a $\mathbb{Z}_2^3$, which acts trivially. As this is irrelevant to our study, we will stick to the unquotiented version of the symmetry group.
Under such symmetry transformation, the most general invariant tensor structure for the coupling is\footnote{The normalization has be chosen so that the couplings are normalized by $1/4$ and not $1/4!$, as usually done in tensor models.}:
\begin{align} \label{eq:coupling-trifund}
\tilde{g}_{\mathbf{a} \mathbf{b} \mathbf{c} \mathbf{d}} \, &= \, \tilde{g} \left(\delta^t_{\mathbf{a} \mathbf{b} \mathbf{c} \mathbf{d}} + 5 \textrm{ terms} \right)
\, + \, \sum_{i=1,2,3} \tilde{g}_{p,i} \left(\delta^{p,i}_{\mathbf{a} \mathbf{b} ;\mathbf{c} \mathbf{d}} + 5 \textrm{ terms} \right)
\, + \, 2\tilde{g}_d\left(\delta^d_{\mathbf{a} \mathbf{b} \mathbf{c} \mathbf{d}} + 2 \textrm{terms} \right) \, ,
\end{align}
where:
\begin{gather}
\delta_{\mathbf{a} \mathbf{b}} =\prod_{i=1}^3\delta_{a_i b_i}\, , \qquad \delta^t_{\mathbf{a} \mathbf{b}\mathbf{c}\mathbf{d}} \, = \, \delta_{a_1 b_1} \delta_{c_1 d_1} \delta_{a_2 c_2} \delta_{b_2 d_2 } \delta_{a_3 d_3} \delta_{b_3 c_3} \, , \nonumber\\[4pt]
\delta^{p, i}_{\mathbf{a}\mathbf{b}; \mathbf{c}\mathbf{d} } \, = \, \delta_{a_ic_i} \delta_{b_id_i} \prod_{j\neq i} \delta_{a_jb_j} \delta_{c_jd_j} \, ,
\qquad \delta^d_{\mathbf{a}\mathbf{b}; \mathbf{c}\mathbf{d} } = \delta_{\mathbf{a} \mathbf{b}} \delta_{\mathbf{c} \mathbf{d}} \, .
\label{eq:deltas-nohat}
\end{gather}
The labels $t$, $p$, and $d$ stand for tetrahedron, pillow, and double-trace, respectively. The first two names describe the graphical representation of the corresponding invariants \cite{Carrozza:2015adg} (see Fig.~\ref{fig:interactions}), while the third one, which is the square of the unique quadratic invariant, is named in analogy to matrix models \cite{Giombi:2017dtl}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{ColorVertex.pdf}
\caption{Graphical representation of the quartic $O(N_1)\times O(N_2) \times O(N_3)$ invariants: each vertex represents a tensor field, and each edge represents a Kronecker delta contracting two indices, appropriately color-coded to distinguish the three indices of a tensor. From left to right: the tetrahedron, the pillow, and the double-trace (there are three pillow contractions, distinguished by the color of the vertical edge).} \label{fig:interactions}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Substituting \eqref{eq:coupling-trifund} in equation \eqref{eq:beta-general} and truncating at one loop, we obtain the beta functions:
\begin{align}
\beta_t=&-\epsilon\tilde{g}+4\Big[6\tilde{g}\tilde{g}_d+2(\tilde{g}_{p,1}\tilde{g}_{p,2}+\tilde{g}_{p,1}\tilde{g}_{p,3}+\tilde{g}_{p,2}\tilde{g}_{p,3})
+\tilde{g}((1+N_1)\tilde{g}_{p,1}+(1+N_2)\tilde{g}_{p,2}+(1+N_3)\tilde{g}_{p,3})\Big] \, , \nonumber\\
\beta_{p,i}=&-\epsilon\tilde{g}_{p,i}+2\Big[12\tilde{g}_d\tilde{g}_{p,i}+4\tilde{g}(\tilde{g}_{p,i+1}+\tilde{g}_{p,i+2})
+4\tilde{g}_{p,i+1}\tilde{g}_{p,i+2}+(2+N_i)\tilde{g}^2 \crcr
& +2\tilde{g}_{p,i}((1+N_{i+1})\tilde{g}_{p,i+1}+(1+N_{i+2})\tilde{g}_{p,i+2}+(N_{i+1}+N_{i+2})\tilde{g})+\tilde{g}_{p,i}^2(4+N_i+N_{i+1}N_{i+2})\Big] \nonumber\\
\beta_d=&-\epsilon\tilde{g}_d+2\Big[\tilde{g}_d^2(8+N_1N_2N_3)+3(\tilde{g}_{p,1}^2+\tilde{g}_{p,2}^2+\tilde{g}_{p,3}^2)
+2\tilde{g}(\tilde{g}_{p,1}+\tilde{g}_{p,2}+\tilde{g}_{p,3})\crcr
& +2 (N_1\tilde{g}_{p,2}\tilde{g}_{p,3}+N_2\tilde{g}_{p,1}\tilde{g}_{p,3}+N_3\tilde{g}_{p,1}\tilde{g}_{p,2}) +2\tilde{g}_d\tilde{g}(N_1+N_2+N_3) \nonumber\\
&+2\tilde{g}_d((1+N_1+N_2N_3)\tilde{g}_{p,1}+(1+N_2+N_1N_3)\tilde{g}_{p,2}+(1+N_3+N_1N_2)\tilde{g}_{p,3}) \Big] \, ,
\label{eq:beta^(4)}
\end{align}
where $i\in\{1,2,3\}\,\text{mod}\, 3$, i.e.\ $g_{p,4}=g_{p,1}$ and $g_{p,5}=g_{p,2}$.
The two-loop terms can be obtained by computer algebra but they are too long to write here and we will only use them in section~\ref{sec:short-range_triple}.
In Appendix~\ref{app:grad_flow} we write the system \eqref{eq:beta^(4)} as a gradient flow.
Notice that the model with only double-trace interaction has an enhanced symmetry, being invariant under field transformations in the fundamental representation of $O(N_1 N_2 N_3)$; that is, it is the usual $O(\mathcal{N})$ model in disguise.
Similarly, if all the couplings except the double-trace and one pillow, e.g.\ $\tilde{g}_{p,1}$, are zero, then the model has the symmetry group $O(N_1)\times O(N_2 N_3)$, and it is a bi-fundamental model in disguise.
Such symmetry enhancements are reflected in the fact that the couplings set to zero are not turned on by the renormalization group flow.
Keeping instead at least two pillows, or just the tetrahedron, will break the symmetry back to $O(N_1)\times O(N_2) \times O(N_3)$, and the flow will generate the remaining couplings.
The tetrahedron is in fact the single coupling which is most characteristic of the full symmetry group, being capable alone to generate all the others by RG flow. Moreover, it is the coupling that in the $O(N)^3$ model leads to a melonic dominance at large $N$.
Therefore, in most of the following we will only be interested in fixed points with non-vanishing tetrahedron coupling, $\tilde{g}\ne 0$.
\paragraph{Remark.}
Let us consider the case of real coupling constants.
The tetrahedron interaction is not positive definite, thus the most general potential can be unstable. However, for particular choices of (real) couplings, the pillow and double-trace can dominate over the negative direction of the tetrahedron, thus making the whole interaction positive. In particular, as shown in \cite{Michel:1983in} (see also \cite{ZinnJustin:2007zz}), based on the gradient flow representation \cite{Wallace:1974dy}, at order $\epsilon$ any non-trivial fixed point corresponds to a positive interaction. Moreover, we also know that an unstable interaction cannot flow to a stable one \cite{Rychkov:2018vya}.
As a consequence, any non-trivial fixed point with $\tilde{g}\neq 0$ must also have at least some of the other couplings non-zero, and so must also any initial condition that flows to such a fixed point.
\subsection{Numerical solutions for small $N_i$}
\label{sec:short-range_num}
Even at the one-loop level it is hard to solve the beta functions (\ref{eq:beta^(4)}) for generic values of $N_i$.
In this subsection we solve numerically for fixed points at low $N_i$.
In the following, we only search for fixed points at one-loop with $\tilde{g}\ne 0$ and real critical couplings.
We define the critical coupling vector by
\begin{align}
\vec{g}_\star \, \equiv \, \big( \tilde{g}^\star, \, \tilde{g}_{p,1}^\star, \, \tilde{g}_{p,2}^\star, \, \tilde{g}_{p,3}^\star, \, \tilde{g}_d^\star \big) \, .
\end{align}
The stability matrix of the fixed point is given by
\begin{align}
M_{ab} \, = \, \frac{\partial \beta_a(\vec{g})}{\partial g_b} \bigg|_{\vec{g}_\star} \, ,
\end{align}
where $a, b=\{t, p1, p2, p3, d\}$.
We arrange the eigenvalues of this matrix in a vector denoted by $\vec{\omega}$.
If the eigenvalue $\omega_a$ is positive, then the fixed point is stable in the corresponding eigendirection.
\medskip
We have numerically checked that there is \emph{no} real fixed point with $\tilde{g}\ne 0$ that is stable in all five directions in the range $2 \le N_i \le 50$.
We explicitly show some examples below.
\subsubsection{$N_1=2$, $N_2=2$}
By fixing $N_1=N_2=2$, there is no fixed point in the range of $2 \le N_3 \le21$.
At $N_3 = 22$, we find four fixed points:
\begin{align}
\vec{g}_\star \, &= \, \left( \frac{\epsilon}{1200}, \, -\frac{\epsilon}{600}, \, -\frac{\epsilon}{600}, \, \frac{\epsilon}{400}, \, \frac{\epsilon}{800} \right) \, , \qquad
\vec{\omega} \, = \, \big( -6.72\epsilon, \, 6\epsilon, \, -4.8\epsilon, \, 0.48\epsilon, \, -0.48\epsilon \big) \, , \\
\vec{g}_\star \, &= \, \left( \frac{7\epsilon}{8304}, \, -\frac{7\epsilon}{4152}, \, -\frac{7\epsilon}{4152}, \, \frac{7\epsilon}{2768}, \, \frac{59\epsilon}{49824} \right) \, ,\qquad
\vec{\omega} \, = \, \big( -6.79\epsilon, \, 6\epsilon, \, -4.85\epsilon, \, 0.485\epsilon, \, -0.485\epsilon \big) \, , \\
\vec{g}_\star \, &= \, \left( \frac{7\epsilon}{6912}, \, -\frac{35\epsilon}{20736}, \, -\frac{35\epsilon}{20736}, \, \frac{49\epsilon}{20736}, \, \frac{157\epsilon}{124416} \right) \, ,\qquad
\vec{\omega} \, = \, \big( -6.70\epsilon, \, 6\epsilon, \, -4.76\epsilon, \, 0.486\epsilon, \, -0.486\epsilon \big) \, , \\
\vec{g}_\star \, &= \, \left( \frac{\epsilon}{976}, \, -\frac{5\epsilon}{2928}, \, -\frac{5\epsilon}{2928}, \, \frac{7\epsilon}{2928}, \, \frac{7\epsilon}{5856} \right) \, , \qquad
\vec{\omega} \, = \, \big( -6.78\epsilon, \, 6\epsilon, \, -4.82\epsilon, \, -0.491\epsilon, \, -0.491\epsilon \big) \, .
\end{align}
There is no fixed point which is stable in all five directions.
In the range of $23 \le N_3 \le33$, we find similar four types of fixed points.
At $N_3 = 34$, we find six fixed points:
\begin{align}
\vec{g}_\star \, &= \, \left( \frac{\epsilon}{1008}, \, -\frac{\epsilon}{1008}, \, 0, \, \frac{\epsilon}{756}, \, \frac{\epsilon}{6048} \right) \, , \qquad
\vec{\omega} \, = \, \big( 6\epsilon, \, 5.58\epsilon, \, -4\epsilon, \, -3.86\epsilon, \, 0 \big) \, , \\
\vec{g}_\star \, &= \, \left( \frac{11(3445\mp203\sqrt{97})\epsilon}{62966016}, \, -\frac{11(-6479\pm\sqrt{97})\epsilon}{62966016}, \, -\frac{11(-6479\pm\sqrt{97})\epsilon}{62966016}, \,
\frac{11(3171\pm67\sqrt{97})\epsilon}{20988672}, \right. \nonumber\\
& \left. \qquad \, \frac{(314123\mp6325\sqrt{97})\epsilon}{377796096} \right) \, ,\nonumber\\
&\quad \vec{\omega} \, = \, \big( -6.69\epsilon, \, 6\epsilon, \, -5.39\epsilon, \, 3.21\epsilon, \, -3.21\epsilon \big) \qquad ({\rm for\ upper}) \, , \\
&\quad \vec{\omega} \, = \, \big( -6.30\epsilon, \, 6\epsilon, \, -5.00\epsilon, \, 3.21\epsilon, \, -3.21\epsilon \big) \qquad ({\rm for\ lower}) \, , \\
\vec{g}_\star \, &= \, \left( \frac{(161-10\sqrt{97})\epsilon}{259536}, \, \frac{(-589+3\sqrt{97})\epsilon}{519072}, \, \frac{(-589+3\sqrt{97})\epsilon}{519072}, \,
\frac{(428+7\sqrt{97})\epsilon}{259536}, \, \frac{(428+7\sqrt{97})\epsilon}{519072} \right) \, ,\nonumber\\
&\quad \vec{\omega} \, = \, \big( -6.37\epsilon, \, 6\epsilon, \, -5.13\epsilon, \, 3.06\epsilon, \, -3.06\epsilon \big) \qquad ({\rm for\ upper}) \, , \\
&\quad \vec{\omega} \, = \, \big( -6.63\epsilon, \, 6\epsilon, \, -5.25\epsilon, \, 3.38\epsilon, \, -3.38\epsilon \big) \qquad ({\rm for\ lower}) \, .
\end{align}
The other solution is given by the first solution with exchanging $\bar{g}_{p,1}^\star$ and $\bar{g}_{p,2}^\star$ with the same eigenvalue vector.
There is no fixed point which is stable in all five directions.
\subsubsection{$N_1=2$, $N_2=3$}
By fixing $N_1=2$ and $N_2=3$, there is no fixed point in the range of $2 \le N_3 \le45$.
At $N_3 = 46$, we find two fixed points:
\begin{align}
\vec{g}_\star \, &= \, \left( \frac{17(126955\pm3\sqrt{1345})\epsilon}{2844275280}, \, 0, \, - \frac{17(126955\pm3\sqrt{1345})\epsilon}{2844275280}, \,
\frac{(126955\pm3\sqrt{1345})\epsilon}{129285240}, \right. \nonumber\\
& \left. \qquad \, \frac{(243160\mp461\sqrt{1345})\epsilon}{2844275280} \right) \, ,\nonumber\\
&\quad \vec{\omega} \, = \, \big( 6\epsilon, \, 5.67\epsilon, \, -4.27\epsilon, \, -4.17\epsilon, \, -0.24\epsilon \big) \qquad ({\rm for\ upper}) \, , \\
&\quad \vec{\omega} \, = \, \big( 6\epsilon, \, 5.66\epsilon, \, -4.26\epsilon, \, -4.16\epsilon, \, 0.24\epsilon \big) \qquad ({\rm for\ lower}) \, .
\end{align}
There is no fixed point which is stable in all five directions.
At least up to $N_3=1000$, we find the same type of two fixed points, and they are unstable in some of the directions.
\subsection{Vector-like limit}
\label{sec:short-range_vector}
We now consider the limit $N_1 \rightarrow \infty$ while keeping $N_2$ and $N_3$ fixed.
We define the new couplings:
\begin{align}
\tilde{g}_S=\tilde{g}+\tilde{g}_{p,1} \,, \;\;\; \tilde{g}_D=\tilde{g}-\tilde{g}_{p,1} \,, \;\;\; \tilde{g}_2=\tilde{g}_d+\frac{\tilde{g}_{p,2}}{N_2}+\frac{\tilde{g}_{p,3}}{N_3} \,,
\end{align}
which correspond to orthogonal operators at large $N_1$, and thus their beta functions will decouple. We furthermore rescale the couplings in order to obtain a large-$N_1$ expansion:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{g}_S=\frac{\bar{g}_S}{N_1} \,, \;\;\; \tilde{g}_D=\frac{\bar{g}_D}{N_1} \,, \;\;\;\tilde{g}_{p,i}=\frac{\bar{g}_{p,i}}{N_1} \,, \;\;\; \tilde{g}_2=\frac{\bar{g}_2}{N_1} \,.
\end{equation}
The three loop terms are suppressed in $1/N_1$ and at leading order we obtain the following beta functions:
\begin{align}
\beta_S&=-\epsilon\bar{g}_S+2\bar{g}_S^2\crcr
\beta_{D}&=-\epsilon\bar{g}_D-2\bar{g}_D^2\crcr\crcr
\beta_{p,2}&=-\epsilon\bar{g}_{p,2}+4\bar{g}_S\bar{g}_{p,2}+2N_3\bar{g}_{p,2}^2\crcr
\beta_{p,3}&=-\epsilon\bar{g}_{p,3}+4\bar{g}_S\bar{g}_{p,3}+2N_2\bar{g}_{p,3}^2\crcr
\beta_2&=-\epsilon\bar{g}_2 +4\bar{g}_S\bar{g}_2+2N_2N_3\bar{g}_2^2\, .
\label{eq:beta_largeN1}
\end{align}
We can then solve for fixed points. We obtain the following 32 fixed points:
\begin{align}
\bar{g}_S^{\star}&=\{0,\frac{\epsilon}{2}\} \, , \;\; \bar{g}_D^{\star}=\{0,-\frac{\epsilon}{2}\}\, , \crcr
\bar{g}_{p,2}&=\{0,\pm \frac{\epsilon}{2N_3}\} \, , \;\; \bar{g}_{p,3}=\{0,\pm \frac{\epsilon}{2N_2}\} \, , \;\; \bar{g}_{2}=\{0,\pm \frac{\epsilon}{2N_2N_3}\} \, ,
\end{align}
where the sign in $(\bar{g}_{p,2}^{\star},\bar{g}_{p,3}^{\star},\bar{g}_{2}^{\star})$ is the upper one when $\bar{g}_S^{\star}=0$ and the lower one when $\bar{g}_S^{\star}=\epsilon/2$.
The stability matrix is triangular at large $N_1$ and the critical exponents are given by the diagonal elements:
\begin{align}
\partial \beta_{S,D}(\bar{g}^{\star})&=\left\{\begin{array}{l}
-\epsilon \quad \text{ if } \bar{g}_{S,D}^{\star}=0 \\
\epsilon \quad \text{ else}
\end{array}\right. \crcr
\partial \beta_{p,i}=&\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
-\epsilon \quad \text{ if } (\bar{g}_S^{\star},\bar{g}_{p,i}^{\star})=(0,0) \text{ or } (\frac{\epsilon}{2},-\frac{\epsilon}{2N_j}) \text{ with } (i,j)=\{(2,3),(3,2)\} \\
\epsilon \quad \text{ else}
\end{array} \right. \crcr
\partial \beta_{2}=&\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
-\epsilon \quad \text{ if } (\bar{g}_S^{\star},\bar{g}_{2}^{\star})=(0,0) \text{ or } (\frac{\epsilon}{2},-\frac{\epsilon}{2N_2N_3}) \\
\epsilon \quad \text{ else}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align}
The only stable fixed point in all five directions is:
$(\bar{g}_S^{\star},\bar{g}_D^{\star},\bar{g}_{p,2}^{\star},\bar{g}_{p,3}^{\star},\bar{g}_2^{\star})=(\frac{\epsilon}{2},-\frac{\epsilon}{2},0,0,0).$
This corresponds to $\bar{g}_{p,1}=\frac{\epsilon}{2}$ and $\bar{g}^{\star}=\bar{g}_{p,2}^{\star}=\bar{g}_{p,3}^{\star}=\bar{g}_2^{\star}=0$. It is a chiral fixed point with symmetry $O(N_1)\times O(N_2N_3)$, similar to those found in bi-fundamental models $O(N)\times O(M)$.
\medskip
In summary, we find \emph{no} real stable fixed point with non-zero tetrahedral coupling in the vector like limit.
\subsection{Matrix-like limit}
\label{sec:short-range_matrix}
We now consider the matrix-like double-scaling large-$N$ limit:
\begin{equation}
N_1=c N \,, \; N_2= N \,, \; N \rightarrow \infty \,,
\end{equation}
with $N_3$ fixed and $c\ge 1$ fixed and of order one. We redefine the double-trace coupling, combining it with the third pillow coupling:
\begin{align}
\tilde{g}_{dp}=\tilde{g}_d+\frac{\tilde{g}_{p,3}}{N_3} \,,
\end{align}
and we scale all the couplings with $N$ as:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{g}=\frac{\bar{g}}{N} \,, \; \tilde{g}_{p,1}=\frac{\bar{g}_{p,1}}{N} \,, \; \tilde{g}_{p,2}=\frac{\bar{g}_{p,2}}{N} \,, \; \tilde{g}_{p,3}=\frac{\bar{g}_{p,3}}{N^2} \,, \; \tilde{g}_{dp}=\frac{\bar{g}_{dp}}{N^2} \,.
\end{equation}
The barred couplings are 't Hooft couplings, fixed in the large-$N$ limit, and we recognize the standard scaling of quartic matrix invariants with a single trace (the tetrahedron and first two pillows) or a double trace (the third pillow and the double-trace). The third pillow behaves effectively as a double-trace because the vertical line in Fig.~\ref{fig:interactions} corresponds in this case to the index whose range remains finite (i.e.\ $N_3$).
The one-loop beta functions at leading order in $1/N$ are:
\begin{align}
\beta_t&= -\epsilon \bar{g} +4\bar{g}\left(c\bar{g}_{p,1}+\bar{g}_{p,2}\right) \,,\crcr
\beta_{p,1}&= -\epsilon \bar{g}_{p,1}+2c\left(\bar{g}_{p,1}^2+\bar{g}^2\right)+4\bar{g}_{p,1}\left(\bar{g}+\bar{g}_{p,2}\right)+2N_3\bar{g}_{p,1}^2 \,, \crcr
\beta_{p,2}&= -\epsilon \bar{g}_{p,2}+2\left(\bar{g}_{p,2}^2+\bar{g}^2\right)+4c\bar{g}_{p,2}\left(\bar{g}+\bar{g}_{p,1}\right)+2cN_3\bar{g}_{p,2}^2 \,, \crcr
\beta_{p,3}&= -\epsilon \bar{g}_{p,3} +8\bar{g}_{p,1}\bar{g}_{p,2}+4
\bar{g}_{p,3}\left(c\bar{g}_{p,1}+\bar{g}_{p,2}+(1+c)\bar{g}\right)+2c\bar{g}_{p,3}^2+8\bar{g}\left(\bar{g}_{p,1}+\bar{g}_{p,2}\right)+2(N_3+2)\bar{g}^2 \,,\crcr
\beta_{dp}&=-\epsilon \bar{g}_{dp}+4\bar{g}_{dp}(1+c)\bar{g}+2cN_3\bar{g}_{dp}^2+\frac{2(N_3+2)}{N_3}\bar{g}^2+6\left(\bar{g}_{p,1}^2+\bar{g}_{p,2}^2\right)+\frac{4(2+N_3^2)}{N_3}\bar{g}_{p,1}\bar{g}_{p,2}\crcr
& +4\bar{g}_{dp}\left((c+N_3)\bar{g}_{p,1}+(1+N_3c)\bar{g}_{p,2}\right)+\frac{4(2+N_3)}{N_3}\bar{g}\left(\bar{g}_{p,1}+\bar{g}_{p,2}\right)\,.
\end{align}
We find 32 fixed points. For $\bar{g}^{\star},\bar{g}_{p,1}^{\star},\bar{g}_{p,2}^{\star}$, we find either:
\begin{align}
\bar{g}^{\star}&=0 \,,\crcr
(\bar{g}_{p,1}^{\star},\bar{g}_{p,2}^{\star})&= \{ (0,0),(0,\frac{\epsilon}{2(1+cN_3)}),(\frac{\epsilon}{2(c+N_3)},0) \,,\crcr
&(-\frac{\epsilon(1-cN_3)}{2\left(c^2N_3+c(N_3^2-3)+N_3\right)},-\frac{\epsilon(c-N_3)}{2\left(c^2N_3+c(N_3^2-3)+N_3\right)}) \} \,,
\label{eq:fpmatrix0}
\end{align}
or
\begin{align}
\bar{g}^{\star}&=\frac{\epsilon\left(c(1-N_3)\pm(1-c)N_3\sqrt{c^2+1-cN_3}\right)}{4(1+c)(c+N_3(c-1)^2)} \,,\crcr
\bar{g}_{p,1}^{\star}&=\frac{\epsilon\left(cN_3(c-1)+1 \mp \sqrt{c^2+1-cN_3}\right)}{4(1+c)(c+N_3(c-1)^2)} \,,\crcr
\bar{g}_{p,2}^{\star}&=\frac{\epsilon\left(N_3(1-c)+c^2 \pm c\sqrt{c^2+1-cN_3}\right)}{4(1+c)(c+N_3(c-1)^2)} \,,
\label{eq:fpmatrix1}
\end{align}
or
\begin{align}
\bar{g}^{\star}&=\frac{\epsilon\left(c(1+c)(1-N_3)\pm (N_3(c^2+1)-2c)\sqrt{c^2+1-cN_3}\right)}{4N_3(c^2+1)^2-4c(3c^2-2c+3)} \,,\crcr
\bar{g}_{p,1}^{\star}&=\frac{\epsilon\left(c^3N_3-2c^2+c(N_3+1)-1 \pm (c-1)\sqrt{c^2+1-cN_3}\right)}{4N_3(c^2+1)^2-4c(3c^2-2c+3)} \,, \crcr
\bar{g}_{p,2}^{\star}&=\frac{\epsilon\left(N_3-2c+c^2(N_3+1)-c^3 \mp c(c-1)\sqrt{c^2+1-cN_3}\right)}{4N_3(c^2+1)^2-4c(3c^2-2c+3)} \,,
\label{eq:fpmatrix2}
\end{align}
where the signs are taken to be simultaneously either the upper or the lower ones.
For the last two couplings, we find the following fixed points in terms of $\bar{g}^{\star},\bar{g}_{p,1}^{\star},\bar{g}_{p,2}^{\star}$:
\begin{align}
\bar{g}_{p,3}^{\star}&=\frac{1}{4c}\Bigg[ \epsilon-4c\bar{g}_{p,1}^{\star}-4\bar{g}_{p,2}^{\star}-4(1+c)\bar{g}^{\star} \crcr
& \pm \sqrt{\left(4c(\bar{g}_{p,1}^{\star}+\bar{g}^{\star})+4(\bar{g}_{p,2}^{\star}+\bar{g}^{\star})-\epsilon\right)^2-16c\left(4(\bar{g}^{\star}+\bar{g}_{p,1}^{\star})(\bar{g}^{\star}+\bar{g}_{p,2}^{\star})+\bar{g}^{\star}{}^2(N_3-2)\right)}\Bigg] \crcr
\bar{g}_{dp}^{\star}&=\frac{1}{4cN_3}\Bigg[\epsilon-4c(\bar{g}_{p,1}^{\star}+\bar{g}^{\star}+N_3\bar{g}_{p,2}^{\star})-4(\bar{g}_{p,2}^{\star}+\bar{g}^{\star}+N_3\bar{g}_{p,1}^{\star}) \,,\crcr
& \pm \Big(16c^2(\bar{g}_{p,1}^{\star}+\bar{g}^{\star}+N_3\bar{g}_{p,2}^{\star})^2+(4(\bar{g}_{p,2}^{\star}+\bar{g}^{\star}+N_3\bar{g}_{p,1}^{\star})-\epsilon)^2-32c\left(\bar{g}_{p,1}^{\star}\bar{g}_{p,2}^{\star}+\bar{g}^{\star}(\bar{g}_{p,1}^{\star}+\bar{g}_{p,2}^{\star})\right)\crcr
& \qquad -16cN_3(\bar{g}_{p,1}^{\star}{}^2+\bar{g}_{p,2}^{\star}{}^2+\bar{g}^{\star}{}^2)-8\epsilon c(\bar{g}_{p,1}^{\star}+\bar{g}^{\star}+N_3\bar{g}_{p,2}^{\star})\Big)^{1/2}\Bigg] \,,
\label{eq:fpmatrixp3d}
\end{align}
where the signs are chosen independently. Notice that since $\bar{g}^{\star},\bar{g}_{p,1}^{\star},\bar{g}_{p,2}^{\star}$ are of order $\epsilon$, so are also $\bar{g}_{p,3}^{\star},\bar{g}_{dp}^{\star}$.
We can now compute the critical exponents. The stability matrix is a block triangular matrix with a first block corresponding to the couplings $\bar{g}^{\star},\bar{g}_{p,1}^{\star},\bar{g}_{p,2}^{\star}$ and a second diagonal block for the couplings $\bar{g}_{p,3}^{\star},\bar{g}_{dp}^{\star}$.
We first compute the critical exponents for the couplings $\bar{g}^{\star},\bar{g}_{p,1}^{\star},\bar{g}_{p,2}^{\star}$. For the fixed points of equation \ref{eq:fpmatrix0}, we find the following critical exponents:
\begin{align}
(\omega_t,\omega_1,\omega_2)&=\{ (-\epsilon,-\epsilon,-\epsilon),(\epsilon,\frac{(1-cN_3)\epsilon}{1+cN_3},\frac{(1-cN_3)\epsilon}{1+cN_3}),(\epsilon,\frac{(c-N_3)\epsilon}{c+N_3},\frac{(c-N_3)\epsilon}{c+N_3}),\crcr
&(\epsilon,-\frac{(1-cN_3)(c-N_3)\epsilon}{c^2N_3+N_3+c(N_3^2-3)},\frac{(1-cN_3)(c-N_3)\epsilon}{c^2N_3+N_3+c(N_3^2-3)}) \} \,.
\end{align}
For the fixed points of equation \ref{eq:fpmatrix1} we find:
\begin{align}
\omega_t&=\epsilon\crcr
\omega_1&=-\omega_2=\frac{\epsilon\sqrt{c^2+1-cN_3}}{(1+c)(c+(c-1)^2N_3)}\Bigg(c^2(1-2N_3)-c(c-1)^2N_3^3+N_3^2(c^2-c+1)^2\crcr
&\pm 2N_3(N_3-1)c(c-1)\sqrt{c^2+1-cN_3}\Bigg)^{1/2}\,.
\end{align}
For the fixed points of equation \ref{eq:fpmatrix2}, we find:
\begin{align}
\omega_t&=\epsilon \crcr
\omega_1&=\omega_2=\epsilon\frac{c(N_3^2+2)(c^2+1)-N_3(c^4+4c^2+1) \pm c(N_3-1)(1+c)\sqrt{c^2+1-cN_3} }{(c^2+1)^2N_3-c(3c^2-2c+3)}\,.
\label{eq:critmatrix3}
\end{align}
We are interested in finding stable fixed points with non zero tetrahedron coupling.
The fixed points in \eqref{eq:fpmatrix0} have zero tetrahedral coupling and the ones in equation \eqref{eq:fpmatrix1} have $\omega_1=-\omega_2$ hence cannot be stable in all five directions.
We are left with the fixed points of equation \eqref{eq:fpmatrix2}. Because of the square root, for these fixed points $\omega_{1,2}$ are real only for $N_3\leq \frac{c^2+1}{c}$. For these values of $N_3$, the branch with a minus sign always has negative or zero critical exponents. The solutions with a plus sign is positive for $c\le N_3\leq \frac{c^2+1}{c}$. If $N_3 > \frac{c^2+1}{c}$, both solutions are complex with a positive real part.
We thus have to look at the critical exponents for the last two couplings in order to conclude. As the second block of the stability matrix is diagonal, the critical exponents for the last two couplings are just the diagonal elements:
\begin{equation}
\partial \beta_{p,3}(\bar{g}^{\star})=\pm \frac{\epsilon \sqrt{R_1\pm R_2\sqrt{c^2+1-cN_3}}}{|(c^2+1)^2N_3-c(3c^2-2c+3)|} \,, \qquad
\partial \beta_{dp}(\bar{g}^{\star})=\pm \frac{\epsilon \sqrt{R_3 \pm R_4\sqrt{c^2+1-cN_3}}}{|(c^2+1)^2N_3-c(3c^2-2c+3)|} \,,
\ee
with:
\begin{align}
R_1=& c^2(c^2+1)^2N_3^4-c\left(2c^6+11c^4+2c^3+11c^2+2\right)N_3^3\crcr
& +\left(c^8+9c^6+20c^5+24c^4+20c^3+9c^2+1\right)N_3^2\crcr
& +c\left(4c^6-22c^5-5c^4-54c^3-5c^2-22c+4\right)N_3\crcr
& -c^2\left(3c^4-30c^3+14c^2-30c+3\right) \,, \crcr
R_2=& 2c\left(c+1\right)\Big(c(c^2+1)N_3^3-\left(3c^4+c^3+8c^2+c+3\right)N_3^2\crcr
& \qquad +\left(5c^4+16c^2+5\right)N_3-6c(c^2+1)\Big) \,, \crcr
R_3=&3c^2(c^2+1)^2N_3^4-3c\left(2c^6+11c^4+2c^3+11c^2+2\right)N_3^3\crcr
& +\left(c^8+31c^6+12c^5+84c^4+12c^3+31c^2+1\right)N_3^2\crcr
& -c^2\left(14c^4+39c^3+34c^2+39c+14\right)N_3\crcr
& -c^2\left(3c^4-30c^3+14c^2-30c+3\right) \,,\crcr
R_4=& 6c^2\left(c^2+1\right)\left(c+1\right)\left(N_3-1\right)\left(N_3-\frac{2c}{c^2+1}\right)\left(N_3-\frac{c^2+1}{c}\right) \,.
\end{align}
and the signs in front of $\partial \beta_{p,3}(\bar{g}^{\star})$ and $\partial \beta_{dp}(\bar{g}^{\star})$ are the same as in $\bar{g}_{p,3}^{\star}$ and $\bar{g}_{dp}^{\star}$ while the signs inside the square roots are taken to be simultaneously the same as in \ref{eq:fpmatrix2}.
For $c \le N_3\leq \frac{c^2+1}{c}$, $\partial \beta_{p,3}(\bar{g}^{\star})$ can be real and positive, but in this case $\partial \beta_{dp}(\bar{g}^{\star})$ is purely imaginary.
However, for $N_3 > \frac{c^2+1}{c}$, $\partial \beta_{p,3}(\bar{g}^{\star})$ and $\partial \beta_{dp}(\bar{g}^{\star})$ are both complex and we can choose the sign in front so that the real part is positive.
\medskip
Summarizing the findings of this subsection: we find \emph{no} real stable fixed point in the matrix-like large-$N$ limit; however, for $N_3>\frac{c^2+1}{c}$ we do find a complex infrared fixed point stable in all the five directions.
\subsection{Tensor-like limit}
\label{sec:short-range_triple}
We finally consider the large-$N$ limit with:
\begin{align}
N_1 \, = \, N_2 = \, N_3 = \, N \, , \quad {\rm and} \quad N \, \to \, \infty \, .
\end{align}
While we could, like in the previous sections, consider an inhomogeneous scaling with ratios different from one (e.g.\ $N_1/N_2=c$) this leads to very bulky formulas, with no much qualitative gain. We will thus stick to the homogeneous case.
The resulting $O(N)^3$ model has been studied at leading order in $1/N$ \cite{Giombi:2017dtl}. Here we analyze the fate of its fixed points at subleading orders in $1/N$. We combine the three pillow couplings into one coupling $\tilde{g}_p/3=\tilde{g}_{p,1}=\tilde{g}_{p,2}=\tilde{g}_{p,1}$, thus endowing the model with a discrete color permutation symmetry.
After scaling the couplings as:
\begin{align} \label{eq:bar_g}
\tilde{g} \, = \, \frac{\bar{g}}{N^{3/2}} \, , \qquad \tilde{g}_p \, = \, \frac{\bar{g}_p}{N^2} \, , \qquad \tilde{g}_d \, = \, \frac{\bar{g}_d}{N^3} \, ,
\end{align}
the two-loop beta functions up to order $\mathcal{O}(N^{-3/2})$ are:
\begin{align} \label{eq:beta_t-SR}
\bar{\beta}_t \, &= \, - \, \epsilon\bar{g} \, + \, 2\bar{g}^3 \, +\frac{2\bar{g}\bar{g}_p}{3N}\Big[6-\bar{g}_p\Big] \, + \, \mathcal{O}(N^{-3/2}) \, , \\
\bar{\beta}_{p} \, &= \, - \, \epsilon\bar{g}_{p} \, + \, 6\bar{g}^2 + \, \frac{2\bar{g}_{p}^2}{3}
\, - \, 2\bar{g}^2 \bar{g}_{p} + \, \frac{8\bar{g}}{N^{1/2}} \Big[ \bar{g}_{p} - 3\bar{g}^2 \Big] \nonumber \\
& \quad + \frac{2}{9N} \Big[5\bar{g}_p^2\left(3-\bar{g}_p\right)+54\bar{g}^2\left(1-2\bar{g}_p\right)\Big]\, + \, \mathcal{O}(N^{-3/2}) \, , \nonumber\\
\bar{\beta}_d \, &= \, - \, \epsilon\bar{g}_d \, + \,\frac{2}{3} \left( 3\bar{g}_d^2 + 6 \, \bar{g}_{p} \bar{g}_d + 2 \bar{g}_{p}^2 \right) - 2\bar{g}^2 \left( 5\bar{g}_d + 4 \bar{g}_{p} \right) \\
& \quad \, + \frac{4\bar{g}}{N^{1/2}} \Big[ \bar{g}_{p} + 3\bar{g}_d -3\bar{g}^2 \Big] \, \nonumber \\
& \quad +\frac{2\bar{g}_p}{9N}\Big[18\bar{g}_d+9\bar{g}_p-15\bar{g}_d\bar{g}_p-14\bar{g}_p^2-36\bar{g}^2 \Big] \, + \, \mathcal{O}(N^{-3/2}) \, . \nonumber
\end{align}
At leading order we reproduce the results obtained in \cite{Giombi:2017dtl}.
We remark that, while at leading order the tetrahedral beta function has no quadratic term, such a term appears at the first non-zero subleading order, $N^{-1}$. In order to better understand the implications of this, consider the fictitious single-coupling beta function $-\epsilon g + g^3 +\frac{2 a}{N} g^2$, with $a$ some real constant; its fixed points are:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ex-FP}
g_{\star,\pm} = -\frac{a}{N} \pm \sqrt{\epsilon+\frac{a^2}{N^2}} \,.
\end{equation}
If we expand at large $N$, we find:
\begin{equation}
g_{\star,\pm} = \pm \sqrt{\epsilon} -\frac{a}{N} \pm \frac{a^2}{2\sqrt{\epsilon} N^2} + \mathcal{O}(N^{-3})\,,
\ee
and naively we seem to have a problem: the subleading orders are non-perturbative and even blow up for $\epsilon\to 0$. We would thus conclude that the $\sqrt{\epsilon}$ fixed point is spurious.
However, a more careful look reveals that the behavior of the fixed points \eqref{eq:ex-FP} is actually governed by the combination $\epsilon N^2$.
For $\epsilon N^2 \ll 1$ (towards the finite $N$ range), the usual one-loop-driven Wilson-Fisher fixed point is obtained, $g_{\star,+}\sim N\epsilon/2a$. For $\epsilon N^2 \gg 1$, one gets instead the two-loop-driven fixed points typical of the $O(N)^3$ model in the melonic limit \cite{Giombi:2017dtl}, $\bar{g}_{\star,\pm}\sim \pm \sqrt{\epsilon}$. As we wish to study the $1/N$ corrections to the melonic leading order, we need to assume $\epsilon N^2 \gg 1$. To this end, we set:
\begin{equation}
N=\tilde{N}/\sqrt{\epsilon}\,,
\ee
and we expand beta functions, fixed points and critical exponents in $1/\tilde{N}$ first, and only afterwards in $\epsilon$.
The beta functions become:
\begin{align}
\bar{\beta}_t \, &= \, - \, \epsilon\bar{g} \, + \, 2\bar{g}^3 \, +\frac{2\sqrt{\epsilon}\bar{g}\bar{g}_p}{3\tilde{N}}\Big[6-\bar{g}_p\Big] \, + \, \mathcal{O}(\tilde{N}^{-3/2}) \, , \\
\bar{\beta}_{p} \, &= \, - \, \epsilon\bar{g}_{p} \, + \, 6\bar{g}^2 + \, \frac{2\bar{g}_{p}^2}{3}
\, - \, 2\bar{g}^2 \bar{g}_{p} + \, \frac{8\epsilon^{1/4}\bar{g}}{\tilde{N}^{1/2}} \Big[ \bar{g}_{p} - 3\bar{g}^2 \Big] \nonumber \\
& \quad + \frac{2\sqrt{\epsilon}}{9\tilde{N}} \Big[5\bar{g}_p^2\left(3-\bar{g}_p\right)+54\bar{g}^2\left(1-2\bar{g}_p\right)\Big]\, + \, \mathcal{O}(\tilde{N}^{-3/2}) \, , \nonumber\\
\bar{\beta}_d \, &= \, - \, \epsilon\bar{g}_d \, + \,\frac{2}{3} \left( 3\bar{g}_d^2 + 6 \, \bar{g}_{p} \bar{g}_d + 2 \bar{g}_{p}^2 \right) - 2\bar{g}^2 \left( 5\bar{g}_d + 4 \bar{g}_{p} \right) \\
& \quad \, + \frac{4\epsilon^{1/4}\bar{g}}{\tilde{N}^{1/2}} \Big[ \bar{g}_{p} + 3\bar{g}_d -3\bar{g}^2 \Big] \, \nonumber \\
& \quad +\frac{2\sqrt{\epsilon}\bar{g}_p}{9\tilde{N}}\Big[18\bar{g}_d+9\bar{g}_p-15\bar{g}_d\bar{g}_p-14\bar{g}_p^2+36\bar{g}^2 \Big] \, + \, \mathcal{O}(\tilde{N}^{-3/2}) \, . \nonumber
\end{align}
We parametrize the critical couplings as:
\begin{align}
\bar{g}^\star \,& = \, \bar{g}^\star_{(0)} \, + \, \tilde{N}^{-\frac{1}{2}} \, \bar{g}^\star_{(1)} \, +\tilde{N}^{-1}\bar{g}^{\star}_{(2)}\, + \, \mathcal{O}(\tilde{N}^{-3/2}) \, , \crcr
\bar{g}^\star_p \, &= \, \bar{g}^\star_{p,(0)} \, + \, \tilde{N}^{-\frac{1}{2}} \, \bar{g}^\star_{p,(1)} \, +\tilde{N}^{-1}\bar{g}^{\star}_{p,(2)}\, + \, \mathcal{O}(\tilde{N}^{-3/2}) \, , \crcr
\bar{g}^\star_d \, &= \, \bar{g}^\star_{d,(0)} \, + \, \tilde{N}^{-\frac{1}{2}} \, \bar{g}^\star_{d,(1)} \, +\tilde{N}^{-1}\bar{g}^{\star}_{d,(2)}\, + \, \mathcal{O}(\tilde{N}^{-3/2}) \, .
\label{eq:param_couplings}
\end{align}
Solving for the zeros of the beta functions at leading order we find the following complex solutions\footnote{There are also an additional four solutions with zero tetrahedral coupling:
\[
(\bar{g}_{p,(0)}^{\star},\bar{g}_{d,(0)})=\{(0,0),(0,\frac{\epsilon}{2}),(\frac{3\epsilon}{2},-\frac{3\epsilon}{2}),(\frac{3\epsilon}{2},-\epsilon)\} \,.
\]
We do not study them further as we are interested in fixed points with non-zero tetrahedral coupling.}:
\begin{align} \label{eq:LO-FP-SR}
\bar{g}^\star_{(0)} \, = \, \pm \, \sqrt{ \frac{\epsilon}{2}} \, , \qquad
\bar{g}_{p,(0)}^\star \, = \, \pm \, 3 i \sqrt{ \frac{\epsilon}{2}} \, +\frac{3\epsilon}{2} +\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{3/2})\, , \qquad
\bar{g}_{d,(0)}^\star \, = \, \mp \, i \sqrt{ \frac{\epsilon}{2}}(3\pm \sqrt{3}) +\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{3/2})\, .
\end{align}
There are eight solutions by the combination of the signs in $\bar{g}^\star_{(0)}$, $\bar{g}_{p,(0)}^\star$ and the relative sign of $3$ and $\sqrt{3}$ in $\bar{g}_{d,(0)}^\star$.
The overall sign of $\bar{g}_{d,(0)}^\star$ is associated with the sign of $\bar{g}_{p,(0)}^\star$.
Next we compute the subleading $\mathcal{O}(\tilde{N}^{-1/2})$ corrections to the fixed points by substituting \eqref{eq:param_couplings}, with the leading order given by \eqref{eq:LO-FP-SR}, into the beta functions and solving for the $\mathcal{O}(\tilde{N}^{-1/2})$ order. Since $\bar{\beta}_t$ does not have a $\mathcal{O}(\tilde{N}^{-1/2})$ contribution, the equation for $\bar{g}^\star_{(1)}$ comes only from the leading order part, evaluated at linear order in the coupling correction, leading to:
\begin{align}
\bar{g}^\star_{(1)} \, = \, 0 \, , \qquad ({\rm for} \ \epsilon \, \ne \, 0) \,.
\end{align}
For the pillow and double-trace we find instead non-trivial corrections:
\begin{align}
\bar{g}^\star_{p,(1)} \, = \, \mp \, 3 \sqrt{2}\epsilon^{3/4} \, , \qquad
\bar{g}^\star_{d,(1)} \, = \, \pm \, 3 \frac{\epsilon^{3/4}}{\sqrt{2}} \, .
\end{align}
The choice of upper or lower sign for $\bar{g}^\star_{p,(1)}$ and $\bar{g}^\star_{d,(1)}$ is synchronized with that for $\bar{g}_{(0)}^\star$.
At next order, $\tilde{N}^{-1}$, we find:\footnote{We checked the next two orders, and we have found that the order $\tilde{N}^{-3/2}$ starts again at order $\epsilon^{3/4}$, and order $\tilde{N}^{-2}$ at order $\sqrt{\epsilon}$. We do not know whether this pattern repeats to all orders.}
\begin{align}
\bar{g}^{\star}_{(2)} \, &= \, \pm 3i\sqrt{\epsilon} \mp \frac{9\epsilon}{2\sqrt{2}}+ \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{3/2})\, , \crcr
\bar{g}^\star_{p,(2)} \, &= \, 9\sqrt{\epsilon} \mp \frac{33i \epsilon}{\sqrt{2}}+ \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{3/2}) \, , \crcr
\bar{g}^\star_{d,(2)} \, &= \, - \, 3 \sqrt{3\epsilon}\left(\sqrt{3}\pm 1\right) \pm \frac{3\sqrt{2}i\epsilon}{2}\left(5\pm 2\sqrt{3}\right)+ \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{3/2}) \, .
\end{align}
where the first sign in $\bar{g}^{\star}_{(2)}$ is the upper one when the choice of sign was the same for $\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}$ and $\bar{g}^{\star}_{p,(0)}$, the second sign in $\bar{g}^{\star}_{(2)}$ is synchronized with the sign of $\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}$, the signs in $\bar{g}^{\star}_{p,(2)}$ and in front of the $\epsilon$ term in $\bar{g}^{\star}_{d,(2)}$ are synchronized with the sign of $\bar{g}^{\star}_{p,(0)}$ and the signs in the parenthesis in $\bar{g}^\star_{d,(2)}$ are synchronized with the sign in $\bar{g}^\star_{d,(0)}$.
We then compute the critical exponents up to order $\tilde{N}^{-1}$ to find:
\begin{align}
\omega_t&=2\epsilon \mp \frac{6 i \sqrt{2}\epsilon}{\tilde{N}}+\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{3/2},\tilde{N}^{-3/2}) \,,\crcr
\omega_p&=\pm 2 i \sqrt{2\epsilon} + 12\frac{\sqrt{\epsilon}\mp i \sqrt{2}\epsilon}{\tilde{N}} +\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{3/2},\tilde{N}^{-3/2}) \,, \crcr
\omega_d&= \pm 2i \sqrt{6\epsilon} \mp 12\sqrt{3} \frac{\sqrt{\epsilon}\mp i \sqrt{2}\epsilon}{\tilde{N}} +\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{3/2},\tilde{N}^{-3/2}) \,.
\end{align}
The sign of the leading order in $\omega_p$ is the same one as in $\bar{g}_{p,(0)}^{\star}$. The sign of the leading order in $\omega_d$ is the upper one if the choices of signs in $\bar{g}_{p,(0)}^{\star}$ and $\bar{g}_{d,(0)}^{\star}$ are different and the lower one if they are the same. The sign in front of the $\tilde{N}^{-1}$ term of $\omega_d$ is synchronized with $\bar{g}_{d,(0)}^{\star}$. The other signs for the orders $\tilde N^{-1}$ are synchronized with $\bar{g}_{p,(0)}^{\star}$. In particular, for the fixed points with the lower choice of sign in $\bar{g}_{d,(0)}^{\star}$, the real parts of all three critical exponents are positive.
\medskip
In conclusion, the complex fixed point of the short range $O(N)^3$ model found in \cite{Giombi:2017dtl} persists at subleading orders in $1/N$. Importantly, the order $\tilde{N}^{-1/2}$ corrections to the critical exponents are zero, but the order $\tilde{N}^{-1}$ endow them with a real part, meaning that the fixed point is infrared stable.
\section{The long-range tri-fundamental model}
\label{sec:long-range}
\subsection{The long-range multi-scalar model}
\label{sec:long-range_ms}
The long-range multi-scalar model with quartic interactions in dimension $d$ is defined by the action:
\begin{align}
S[\phi] \, &= \, \int d^dx \, \bigg[ \frac{1}{2} \phi_\mathbf{a}(x) ( - \partial^2)^{\zeta}\phi_{\mathbf{a}}(x) +\frac{1}{2}\, \kappa_{\mathbf{a} \mathbf{b}}\phi_{\mathbf{a}}(x) \phi_{\mathbf{b}}(x) +
\frac{1}{4!} \, \lambda_{\mathbf{a} \mathbf{b} \mathbf{c} \mathbf{d}}
\phi_{\mathbf{a}}(x) \phi_{\mathbf{b}}(x) \phi_{\mathbf{c}}(x) \phi_{\mathbf{d}}(x) \bigg] \, ,
\end{align}
where the coupling $\lambda_{\mathbf{a}\mathbf{b}\mathbf{c}\mathbf{d}}$ and the mass parameter $\kappa_{\mathbf{a}\mathbf{b}}$ are symmetric tensors.
The indices take values from 1 to $\mathcal{N}$.
The model is ``long range'' due to the non trivial power of the Laplacian
$0< \zeta < 1$. We will use the renormalization scheme and notations of \cite{Benedetti:2020rrq}.
We treat the mass parameter $\kappa$ as a perturbation, hence the covariance (propagator) of the free theory is
$ C_{\mathbf{a} \mathbf{b}}(x,y) = \delta_{\mathbf{a} \mathbf{b}} \; C(x-y) $, with:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cov}
\begin{split}
& C(x-y) = \int\frac{d^dp}{(2\pi)^d}\; e^{ - \im p (x-y) } C(p) = \frac{\G\left(\frac{d-2\z}{2}\right)}{2^{2\z}\pi^{d/2}\G(\z)} \; \frac{1}{|x-y|^{d-2\z}}\,, \\
& C(p) = \frac{1}{p^{2\zeta}} = \frac{1}{\Gamma(\zeta)} \int_0^{\infty} d\alpha \;\alpha^{\zeta -1 } e^{- \alpha p^2} \,.
\end{split}
\ee
The canonical dimension of the field is:
\begin{equation}
\Delta_{\phi} = \frac{d-2\zeta}{2} \,,
\ee
therefore, the quartic interaction is irrelevant for $\z<d/4$ leading to mean-field behavior (as rigorously proved in \cite{Aizenman:1988}), while for $\z>d/4$ it is relevant and a non-trivial IR behavior is expected. The marginal case is $\z=d/4$. We will be interested in the weakly relevant case:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:zeta-eps}
\zeta = \frac{d+\epsilon}{4} \,,
\ee
with small $\epsilon$. The ultraviolet dimension of the field is thus fixed to $\Delta_{\phi}=\frac{d-\epsilon}{4}$.
In order to renormalize the UV divergences we use the zero momentum BPHZ subtraction scheme.
However, since we are working with a massless propagator, an infrared regulator is required. We introduce that by modifying the propagator as:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:param}
C_{\mu}(p) = \frac{1}{(p^2 + \mu^2)^{\zeta}} = \frac{1}{\Gamma(\zeta)} \int_0^{\infty} d\alpha \;\alpha^{\zeta -1 } e^{- \alpha p^2 -\alpha \mu^2} \,,
\ee
for some mass parameter $\mu>0$.
Using the results of \cite{Benedetti:2020rrq}, we have up to two-loop order:
\begin{align}
\beta_{\mathbf{a} \mathbf{b} \mathbf{c} \mathbf{d}} &= -\epsilon \tilde{g}_{\mathbf{a} \mathbf{b} \mathbf{c} \mathbf{d}} + \alpha_{D}\left(\tilde{g}_{\mathbf{a} \mathbf{b} \mathbf{e} \mathbf{f}}\tilde{g}_{\mathbf{e} \mathbf{f} \mathbf{c} \mathbf{d}} + 2 \textrm{ terms} \right) + \alpha_{S}\left(\tilde{g}_{\mathbf{a} \mathbf{b} \mathbf{e} \mathbf{f}}\tilde{g}_{\mathbf{e} \mathbf{g} \mathbf{h} \mathbf{c}}\tilde{g}_{\mathbf{f} \mathbf{g} \mathbf{h} \mathbf{d}}+ 5 \textrm{ terms}\right)
\label{eq:beta_abcd_alpha}\,,
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\beta^{(2)}_{\mathbf{c}\mathbf{d}}
&= - (d-2\Delta_{\phi} ) \tilde{\rho}_{\mathbf{c} \mathbf{d}} +\alpha_{D} \big( \tilde{\rho}_{ \mathbf{e} \mathbf{f}}\tilde{g}_{\mathbf{e} \mathbf{f} \mathbf{c} \mathbf{d}} \big) + \alpha_{S} \big(\tilde{\rho}_{\mathbf{e} \mathbf{f}} \tilde{g}_{\mathbf{e} \mathbf{g} \mathbf{h} \mathbf{c}}\tilde{g}_{\mathbf{f} \mathbf{g} \mathbf{h} \mathbf{d}} \big) \,.
\label{eq:beta2_abcd_alpha}
\end{align}
The running couplings have been rescaled as
$g_{\mathbf{a} \mathbf{b} \mathbf{c} \mathbf{d}}= \left(4\pi\right)^{d/2}\Gamma(d/2) \, \tilde{g}_{\mathbf{a} \mathbf{b} \mathbf{c} \mathbf{d}} $ and
$r_{\mathbf{a} \mathbf{b} }= \left(4\pi\right)^{d/2}\Gamma(d/2) \,
\tilde{\rho} _{\mathbf{a} \mathbf{b}} $,
and the alpha's are defined by
\begin{align}
& \alpha_{D} \, = \, 1 +\frac{\epsilon}{2}\big[\psi(1)-\psi(\tfrac{d}{2}) \big]+\frac{\epsilon^2}{8}\left[\left(\psi(1)-\psi(\tfrac{d}{2})\right)^2+ \psi_1(1)-\psi_1(\tfrac{d}{2})\right] \,, \crcr
&\alpha_{S} \, = \, 2\psi( \tfrac{d}{4} ) - \psi( \tfrac{d}{2})-\psi(1) +\frac{\epsilon}{4}\Big[\left[2\psi(\tfrac{d}{4})-\psi(\tfrac{d}{2})-\psi(1)\right]
\left[3\psi(1)-5\psi(\tfrac{d}{2})+2\psi(\tfrac{d}{4})\right] \crcr
& \qquad \; + 3\psi_1(1) + 4\psi_1(\tfrac{d}{4})-7\psi_1(\tfrac{d}{2}) -4 J_0(\tfrac{d}{4}) \Big] \, \,,
\label{eq:alphas}
\end{align}
with $\psi_i$ the polygamma functions of order $i$ and $J_0$ the sum
\begin{equation}
J_0(\tfrac{d}{4})=\frac{1}{\Gamma(\tfrac{d}{4})^2}\sum_{n \geq 1}\frac{\Gamma(n+\tfrac{d}{2})\Gamma(n+ \tfrac{d}{4})^2}{n(n!)\Gamma(\tfrac{d}{2}+2n)}\Big[2\psi(n+1)-\psi(n)-2\psi(n+\tfrac{d}{4})-\psi(n+\tfrac{d}{2})+2\psi(\tfrac{d}{2}+2n)\Big] \,.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Large-$N$ expansion of the long-range $O(N)^3$ tensor model}
\label{sec:long-range_equalN}
We now set $N_1=N_2=N_3=N$ and study the fixed points of the long-range $O(N)^3$ model at next-to-leading order in $1/N$. We use:
\begin{align}
\tilde{g}_{\mathbf{a} \mathbf{b} \mathbf{c} \mathbf{d}} \, &= \, \tilde{g} \left(\delta^t_{\mathbf{a} \mathbf{b} \mathbf{c} \mathbf{d}} + 5 \textrm{ terms} \right)
\, + \, \tilde{g}_{p} \left(\delta^{p}_{\mathbf{a} \mathbf{b}; \mathbf{c} \mathbf{d}} + 5 \textrm{ terms} \right)
\, + \, 2\tilde{g}_d \left(\delta^d_{\mathbf{a} \mathbf{b} \mathbf{c} \mathbf{d}} + 2 \textrm{ terms} \right) \, ,
\label{eq:couplingtot}
\end{align}
where like before each $\mathbf{a}$ is a triplet of indices $\mathbf{a}=(a_1,a_2,a_3)$.
$\delta^t_{\mathbf{a} \mathbf{b} \mathbf{c} \mathbf{d}}$ and $\delta^d_{\mathbf{a} \mathbf{b} \mathbf{c} \mathbf{d}}$ are defined as in \ref{eq:deltas-nohat}, and
\begin{equation}
\delta^p_{\mathbf{a} \mathbf{b} ;\mathbf{c} \mathbf{d}}=\frac{1}{3}\sum_{i=1}^3 \delta^{p,i}_{\mathbf{a} \mathbf{b} ; \mathbf{c} \mathbf{d}} \, .
\end{equation}
The beta functions up to two-loops are then:
\begin{align}
\beta_t=&-\epsilon \tilde{g}+\frac{4\alpha_D}{3}\Big[2\tilde{g}_p^2+18\tilde{g}\tilde{g}_d+3(N+1)\tilde{g}\tilde{g}_p\Big]\crcr
& +\frac{4\alpha_S}{9}\Big[27(3N+2)\tilde{g}^3 + 54 \left(N^3+14\right) \tilde{g}_d^2 \tilde{g} +3\left(N^3+9 N^2+51 N+53\right) \tilde{g}_p^2 \tilde{g} + 2\left(2 N^2+13 N+24\right)\tilde{g}_p^3 \crcr
& \qquad \qquad +18\left(2 N^2+5 N+14\right) \tilde{g}_p \tilde{g}^2 +36\tilde{g}_d\left(4\tilde{g}_p^2+9N\tilde{g}^2+3(N^2+3N+3)\tilde{g}\tilde{g}_p\right)\Big] \, , \crcr
\beta_p=& -\epsilon \tilde{g}_p + \frac{2\alpha_D}{3}\Big[36\tilde{g}_p\tilde{g}_d+3(N+2)\left(3\tilde{g}+4\tilde{g}_p \right)\tilde{g}+(N^2+5N+12)\tilde{g}_p^2\Big] \crcr
& +\frac{4\alpha_S}{9}\Big[54(N^2+N+4)\tilde{g}^3 +54 \left(N^3+14\right) \tilde{g}_d^2 \tilde{g}_p +18\left(5 N^2+19 N+30\right) \tilde{g}_p^2 \tilde{g} \crcr
& \qquad \qquad + \left(4 N^3+27 N^2+135 N+179\right)\tilde{g}_p^3 +9 \left(N^3+6 N^2+51 N+50\right)\tilde{g}_p \tilde{g}^2 \crcr
& \qquad \qquad +36 \tilde{g}_d \left( \left(4 N^2+8 N+15\right)\tilde{g}_p^2+3 (7 N+8) \tilde{g}_p \tilde{g} +9(N+2) \tilde{g}^2 \right) \Big] \, , \crcr
\beta_d=& -\epsilon \tilde{g}_d+\frac{2\alpha_D}{3}\Big[ 3\left(N^3+8\right) \tilde{g}_d^2 +6\left(N^2+N+1\right) \tilde{g}_d \tilde{g}_p +18N \tilde{g}_d \tilde{g} + (2N+3)\tilde{g}_p^2+ 6 \tilde{g}\tilde{g}_p \Big] \crcr
& +\frac{4\alpha_S}{9}\Big[ 27N \tilde{g}^3+ 216 \tilde{g}_d^2 \left( \left(N^2+N+1\right)\tilde{g}_p+3N \tilde{g} \right)+18 \left(5 N^3+22\right)\tilde{g}_d^3 \crcr
& \qquad \qquad +9 \tilde{g}_d \left(\left(N^3+3 N^2+17 N+17\right)\tilde{g}_p^2 +12 \left(N^2+N+3\right)\tilde{g}_p \tilde{g}+3 \left(N^3+3 N+2\right)\tilde{g}^2\right)\crcr
& \qquad \qquad +72(N+1) \tilde{g}_p^2 \tilde{g}+7 \left(N^2+3 N+5\right)\tilde{g}_p^3+18 \left(N^2+N+4\right) \tilde{g}_p \tilde{g}^2\Big] \, , \crcr
\beta^{(2)}=& -(d-2\Delta_{\phi})\tilde{r}+2\alpha_D\tilde{r}\Big[3N\tilde{g}+(N^2+N+1)\tilde{g}_p+(N^3+2)\tilde{g}_d\Big] \crcr
& +2\alpha_S\tilde{r}\Big[36N\tilde{g}\tilde{g}_d+12(N^2+N+1)\tilde{g}_p\left(\tilde{g}_d+\tilde{g}\right)+6(N^3+2)\tilde{g}_d^2+3(N^3+3N+2)\tilde{g}^2\crcr
& \qquad \qquad +(N^3+3N^2+9N+5)\tilde{g}_p^2\Big] \, .
\end{align}
\subsubsection{Fixed points}
We rescale the couplings as:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{g}=\frac{\bar{g}}{N^{3/2}} \,, \; \tilde{g_{p}}=\frac{\bar{g_{p}}}{N^2} \,, \; \tilde{g_d}=\frac{\bar{g}}{N^3} \,,
\end{equation}
and first consider the large $N$ limit.
In \cite{Benedetti:2019eyl} it was found that at $\epsilon=0$ the tetrahedron coupling $\bar{g}$ is exactly marginal in the large-$N$ limit,
and it parametrizes a line of fixed points for the remaining two couplings. The exact marginality is due to the fact that at large $N$ the tetrahedron receives no radiative corrections, and moreover in the long-range case there is no wave-function renormalization. The latter is responsible for the $2\bar{g}^3$ term in \eqref{eq:beta_t-SR}, which is absent in the long-range case.
However, at order $N^{-1}$ the tetrahedron beta function is non-zero also in the long-range model, and excluding uncontrolled non-perturbative fixed points, the line of fixed points collapses to the trivial fixed point at vanishing couplings.
Turning on $\epsilon$ does not help, as it contributes a term $-\epsilon \bar{g}$, that being the only term of order $N^0$, leads to $\bar{g}^\star=0$ already at leading order. As we did before, it is instructive to consider again a fictitious single-coupling beta function to guide our understanding; the situation we have in the long range model, at $\epsilon\neq 0$ and at next-to-leading order in $1/N$, is captured by a beta function of the form $-\epsilon g + g^2/N$. Its fixed points are the trivial one, and $g^\star= N\epsilon$, which goes to infinity if we take $N\to\infty$ at fixed $\epsilon$.
Similarly to what we have seen in the short-range case, the problem is resolved by specifying how small should $\epsilon$ be in comparison to $1/N$. In particular, it is clear that we now need $ N \epsilon \ll 1$. In other words, we should move the $-\epsilon \bar{g}$ term to the first non-trivial order in $1/N$, by setting
\begin{equation}
\epsilon=\frac{\tilde{\epsilon}}{N}\,,
\ee
and expanding as before in $1/N$ first, and then in $\tilde{\epsilon}$.
Notice that the condition $ N \epsilon \ll 1$ is compatible with the $N \sqrt{\epsilon}\gg 1$ condition which we had in the short-range case. Of course the meaning of $\epsilon$ is different in the two cases, but in practice their role is similar.
We also note that a similar tuning of $\epsilon$ and $N$ was considered in \cite{Fleming:2020qqx} in order to find a finite-$N$ precursor of the large-$N$ line of fixed points in the $O(N)$ model with $(\phi^2)^3$ interaction.
To simplify the computations we define two new independent couplings as in \cite{Benedetti:2019eyl}:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:g_1,2}
\bar{g}_1=\frac{\bar{g}_p}{3} \,, \; \bar{g}_2=\bar{g}_d+\bar{g}_p\,.
\end{equation}
Parametrizing the coefficients of the $\epsilon$ expansion of the one- and two-loop constants $\alpha$ as:
\begin{align}
\alpha_D \, &= \, 1\, + \, \alpha_{D,1} \, \epsilon \, + \, \alpha_{D,2} \, \epsilon^2 \, + \, \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^3) \, ,\crcr
\alpha_S \, &= \, \alpha_{S,0} \, + \, \alpha_{S,1} \, \epsilon \, + \, \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2) \, ,
\label{eq:alpha param}
\end{align}
the beta functions at two loops up to order $N^{-1}$ are:
\begin{align}
\beta_t \, = & \, \frac{\bar{g}}{N}\Big[12\bar{g_1}\left(1+\alpha_{S,0} \bar{g_1} \right) -\tilde{\epsilon}\Big] +\mathcal{O}(N^{-3/2})\,, \crcr
\beta_1=& 2\left(\bar{g}_1^2+\bar{g}^2\right)+4\alpha_{S,0}\bar{g}_1\bar{g}^2 +\frac{8\bar{g}}{N^{1/2}} \Big[ \bar{g}_1 + \alpha_{S,0} \bar{g}^2 \Big] \crcr
&+\frac{1}{N}\bigg[ 10\bar{g}_1^2+4\bar{g}^2+8\alpha_{S,0}\bar{g}_1\left(2\bar{g}_1^2+3\bar{g}^2\right) +\tilde{\epsilon}\left(2\alpha_{D,1}(\bar{g}_1^2+\bar{g}^2)+\bar{g}_1(4\alpha_{S,1}\bar{g}^2-1)\right)\bigg] +\mathcal{O}(N^{-3/2})\,, \crcr
\beta_2=& 2\left(\bar{g_2}^2+3\bar{g}^2\right)+12\alpha_{S,0}\bar{g_2}\bar{g}^2 +\frac{12\bar{g}}{N^{1/2}} \Big[ \bar{g_2} + 3\alpha_{S,0} \bar{g}^2 \Big] \crcr
&+\frac{1}{N} \bigg[ 12\left(\bar{g_1}^2+\bar{g}^2+\bar{g_1}\bar{g_2}\right)+12\alpha_{S,0}\bar{g_1}\left(2\bar{g_1}^2+3\bar{g_2}\bar{g_1}+8\bar{g}^2\right)\crcr
& +\tilde{\epsilon}\left(2\alpha_{D,1}(\bar{g}_2^2+3\bar{g}^2)+\bar{g}_2(12\alpha_{S,1}\bar{g}^2-1)\right)
\bigg] +\mathcal{O}(N^{-3/2})\,, \crcr
\beta^{(2)}=&-\frac{d}{2}\tilde{r}+2\left(2\bar{g}_2+3\alpha_{S,0}\bar{g}^2\right)\tilde{r} +\frac{6\bar{g}\tilde{r}}{N^{1/2}}\crcr
& + \frac{\tilde{r}}{N}\bigg[6\bar{g}_1\left(1+3\alpha_{S,0}\bar{g}_1\right)+\frac{\tilde{\epsilon}}{2}\left(4\alpha_{D,1}\bar{g}_2+12\alpha_{S,1}\bar{g}^2-1\right)\bigg]+\mathcal{O}(N^{-3/2})\,.
\label{eq:beta-LR}
\end{align}
We then parametrize the critical couplings as:
\begin{align}
\bar{g}^{\star} \, &= \, \, \bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)} \, + \, \bar{g}^{\star}_{(1)} N^{-1/2} + \, \mathcal{O}(N^{-1}) \, ,
\crcr
\bar{g}_{1}^{\star} \, &= \, \bar{g}^{\star}_{1,(0)} \, + \, \, \bar{g}^{\star}_{1,(1)} N^{-1/2} + \, \mathcal{O}(N^{-1}) \, , \crcr
\bar{g}_2^{\star} \, &= \, \bar{g}^{\star}_{2,(0)} \, + \, \, \bar{g}^{\star}_{2,(1)} N^{-1/2} \, + \, \mathcal{O}(N^{-1}) \, . \label{eq:g-parametrization}
\end{align}
\paragraph{Leading-order.}
As we already discussed, at leading order (i.e.\ $N^0$), the tetrahedron beta function is identically zero, hence $\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}$ is a free parameter.
For the other two couplings, the leading order fixed points, expanded to second order in $\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}$, are:
\begin{align}
\bar{g}^{\star}_{1,(0)}&=\pm \sqrt{-\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}{}^2}-\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}{}^2\alpha_{S,0}+ \mathcal{O}(\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}{}^3)\,, \crcr
\bar{g}^{\star}_{2,(0)}&=\pm \sqrt{3}\sqrt{-\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}{}^2} -3\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}{}^2\alpha_{S,0}+ \mathcal{O}(\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}{}^3)\,.
\label{eq:LO_pillow_dt}
\end{align}
They correspond to the lines of fixed points found at large $N$ in \cite{Benedetti:2019eyl}. For small coupling $|\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}|$, $\bar{g}^{\star}_{1,(0)}$ and $\bar{g}^{\star}_{2,(0)}$ are complex for real $\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}$ and real for purely imaginary $\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}$.
\paragraph{Next-to-leading order.}
Substituting \eqref{eq:g-parametrization} and \eqref{eq:LO_pillow_dt} into the beta functions \eqref{eq:beta-LR} and solving for fixed points at order $N^{-1/2}$ we find $\bar{g}^{\star}_{1,(1)}$ and $\bar{g}^{\star}_{2,(1)}$ in terms of $\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}$ and $\bar{g}^{\star}_{(1)}$:
\begin{align}
\bar{g}^{\star}_{1,(1)}&=-2\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}-2\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}\bar{g}^{\star}_{(1)}\alpha_{S,0}\mp \frac{\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}\bar{g}^{\star}_{(1)}}{\sqrt{-\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}{}^2}} + \mathcal{O}(\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}{}^3)\,, \crcr
\bar{g}^{\star}_{2,(1)}&=-3\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}-6\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}\bar{g}^{\star}_{(1)}\alpha_{S,0}\mp\frac{\sqrt{3}\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}\bar{g}^{\star}_{(1)}}{\sqrt{-\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}{}^2}} + \mathcal{O}(\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}{}^3) \,.
\end{align}
The signs in the two sets $\{\bar{g}^{\star}_{1,(0)},\bar{g}^{\star}_{1,(1)}\}$ and $\{\bar{g}^{\star}_{2,(0)},\bar{g}^{\star}_{2,(1)}\}$ are taken to be simultaneously either the upper or lower ones so that we still have four choices of sign.
\paragraph{Fixing the tetrahedron coupling.}
Since the beta function of the tetrahedron is still zero at order $N^{-1/2}$, it would seem that our lines of fixed points have become surfaces (that is parametrized by two free parameters $\bar{g}^{\star}_{ (0)},\bar{g}^{\star}_{ (1)}$). On the other hand, if we homogeneously truncate all the beta functions at this order, there is no real justification for the expansion of $\bar{g}^{\star} $ in \eqref{eq:g-parametrization}; this is only justified at higher orders, as all the orders $N^{-n/2}$ with $n\geq 2$ in the tetrahedron beta function are non-trivial.
In the spirit of a $1/N$ expansion, as opposed to a strict $N\to\infty$ limit, it is more consistent to keep the same number of non-trivial orders for each beta function regardless of their different scaling in $N$. By doing so, we will be able to fix $\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}$ and $\bar{g}^{\star}_{(1)}$.
Substituting \eqref{eq:LO_pillow_dt} into the order $N^{-1}$ of the tetrahedron beta function, we fix $\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}$. Besides the trivial solution, we find:
\begin{align}
\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}=\pm\frac{1}{2\alpha_{S,0}}\sqrt{2 \pm \frac{ 6+\tilde{\epsilon}\alpha_{S,0}}{\sqrt{3(3+\tilde{\epsilon}\alpha_{S,0})}}}\,.
\label{eq:solg0s}
\end{align}
The choice of signs is independent of the choices for the previous solutions.
We are interested in purely imaginary solutions, as at leading order this gives real critical exponents \cite{Benedetti:2019eyl}, and a real spectrum of bilinear operators, with real OPE coefficients \cite{Benedetti:2019ikb}. The solutions with a plus sign inside the square root have a non-zero real part for all values of $\tilde{\epsilon}$, in particular remain finite for $\tilde{\epsilon}\to 0$, and thus they are not to be trusted in our perturbative expansion. The solutions with a minus sign instead are purely imaginary for $\tilde{\epsilon}<-3/\alpha_{S,0}$ (notice this bound is positive as $\alpha_{S,0}$ is negative), and they vanish for $\tilde{\epsilon}\to 0$.
In this case, we can expand $\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)} $ for small $\tilde{\epsilon}$, finding:
\begin{equation}
\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}=\pm \frac{i }{12}\left(\tilde{\epsilon}-\frac{\alpha_{S,0}}{6}\tilde{\epsilon}^2\right) +\mathcal{O}(\tilde{\epsilon}^3) \,.
\label{eq:gt0_epsilon}
\end{equation}
We can also expand $\bar{g}_{1,(0)}$ and $\bar{g}_{2,(0)}$ in $\tilde{\epsilon}$:
\begin{align}
\bar{g}_{1,(0)}&= \pm \frac{1}{12}\left(\tilde{\epsilon}-\frac{\alpha_{S,0}}{12}(2\mp1)\tilde{\epsilon}^2\right) +\mathcal{O}(\tilde{\epsilon}^3)\,, \crcr
\bar{g}_{2,(0)}&=\pm \frac{1}{4\sqrt{3}}\left(\tilde{\epsilon}-\frac{\alpha_{S,0}}{12}(2\mp\sqrt{3})\tilde{\epsilon}^2\right) +\mathcal{O}(\tilde{\epsilon}^3) \,,
\label{eq:g1-g2_epsilon}
\end{align}
where the global sign and the one inside the brackets are taken to be simultaneously either the upper or lower ones.
The $N^{-1/2}$ correction $\bar{g}^{\star}_{(1)}$ is still a free parameter at this order. In order to fix it we need to consider the $N^{-3/2}$ contribution to $\beta_t$, which we have not displayed in \eqref{eq:beta-LR}.
This is easily obtained from the general multi-scalar results of \cite{Benedetti:2020rrq}, from which we find:
\begin{align}
\beta_t \, = & \, \frac{\bar{g}}{N}\Big[12\bar{g_1}\left(1+\alpha_{S,0} \bar{g_1} \right) -\tilde{\epsilon}\Big]+\frac{48}{N^{3/2}}\alpha_{S,0}\bar{g}_1\bar{g}^2 +\mathcal{O}(N^{-2}) \,.
\end{align}
Substituting the coupling $1/N$ expansions from \ref{eq:g-parametrization}, the order $N^{-3/2}$ of $\beta_t $ is:
\begin{equation}
-6\tilde{\epsilon}\bar{g}_{(1)}+72\bar{g}_{1,(1)}\left(\bar{g}_{(0)}+2\bar{g}_{1,(0)}\bar{g}_{(0)}\alpha_{S,0}\right)+72\bar{g}_{1,(0)}\left(\bar{g}_{(1)}+4\bar{g}_{(0)}^2\alpha_{S,0}+\bar{g}_{(1)}\bar{g}_{1,(1)}\alpha_{S,0}\right) \, ,
\end{equation}
and substituting the values of $\bar{g}_{1,(0)}^{\star}$ and $\bar{g}_{1,(1)}^{\star}$, solving for $\bar{g}_{(1)}^{\star}$ in terms of $\bar{g}_{(0)}^{\star}$ we obtain:
\begin{equation}
\bar{g}_{(1)}^{\star}=-\frac{24\bar{g}_{(0)}^{\star}{}^2}{\tilde{\epsilon}\pm\frac{24\bar{g}_{(0)}^{\star}{}^2}{\sqrt{-\bar{g}_{(0)}^{\star}{}^2}}+72\bar{g}_{(0)}^{\star}{}^2\alpha_{S,0}} \,,
\label{eq:gt1_comp}
\end{equation}
where the choice of sign is the same as in $\bar{g}_{1,(0)}^{\star}$.
This expression is real for purely imaginary $\bar{g}_{(0)}^{\star}$.
The expression \eqref{eq:gt1_comp} comes from a two-loop truncation and thus it should be trusted only up to order $\tilde{\epsilon}^2$.
Therefore, we first substitute \ref{eq:gt0_epsilon} in \ref{eq:gt1_comp} and then expand at order two in $\tilde{\epsilon}$:
\begin{align}
\bar{g}_{(1)}^{\star}= \begin{cases} \frac{1}{6}\left(-\tilde{\epsilon}+\frac{\alpha_{S,0}}{2}\tilde{\epsilon}^2\right) + \mathcal{O}(\tilde{\epsilon}^3) \;\;\; \text{ for the upper choice of sign,} \\
\frac{1}{18}\left(\tilde{\epsilon}-\frac{\alpha_{S,0}}{18}\tilde{\epsilon}^2\right) + \mathcal{O}(\tilde{\epsilon}^3) \;\;\; \text{ for the lower choice of sign.}
\end{cases}
\end{align}
We can now also give the $\tilde{\epsilon}$ expansion of $\bar{g}_{1,(1)}^{\star}$ and $\bar{g}_{2,(1)}^{\star}$.
\begin{align}
\bar{g}_{1,(1)}^{\star} &= \begin{cases} \mp \frac{i\alpha_{S,0}}{36}\tilde{\epsilon^2} +\mathcal{O}(\tilde{\epsilon}^3) \;\;\; \text{ for the upper choice of sign in } \bar{g}_{1,(0)}^{\star}\,, \\
\mp \frac{i}{9}\left(\tilde{\epsilon}-\frac{5\alpha_{S,0}}{36}\tilde{\epsilon}^2\right)+\mathcal{O}(\tilde{\epsilon}^3)\;\;\; \text{ for the lower choice of sign in } \bar{g}_{1,(0)}^{\star}\,, \end{cases} \crcr
\bar{g}_{2,(1)}^{\star}&= \begin{cases} \pm \frac{i}{12}\left((-3\pm 2\sqrt{3})\tilde{\epsilon}+\frac{\alpha_{S,0}}{2}(3\mp 2\sqrt{3})\tilde{\epsilon}^2\right)+\mathcal{O}(\tilde{\epsilon}^3) \;\;\; \text{ for the upper choice of sign in } \bar{g}_{1,(0)}^{\star}\,, \\
\pm \frac{i}{36}\left((-9 \mp 2\sqrt{3})\tilde{\epsilon}+\frac{\alpha_{S,0}}{18}(9\pm 2\sqrt{3})\tilde{\epsilon}^2\right)+\mathcal{O}(\tilde{\epsilon}^3) \;\;\; \text{ for the lower choice of sign in } \bar{g}_{1,(0)}^{\star}\,, \end{cases}
\nonumber
\end{align}
where the choice of sign in front is the same as for $\bar{g}_{(0)}^{\star}$ and the choice of sign in the parenthesis for $\bar{g}_{2,(1)}^{\star}$ is the same as for $\bar{g}_{2,(0)}^{\star}$.
\subsubsection{Critical exponents}
We will now compute the critical exponents. For the quadratic coupling we obtain:
\begin{align}
\partial \beta^{(2)}(\bar{g}^{\star})&=-\nu^{-1}=-\frac{d}{2} \pm 2\sqrt{-3\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}{}^2} \mp \frac{1}{N^{1/2}}\frac{6\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}\bar{g}^{\star}_{(1)}}{\sqrt{-3\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}{}^2}} +\mathcal{O}(N^{-1},\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}{}^3) \,,
\end{align}
where the signs are taken to be simultaneously either the upper or lower ones and are the same as for $\bar{g}_{2,(0)}$.
The critical exponents for the quartic couplings are given by:\footnote{They correspond to the diagonal elements as the stability matrix is triangular at order $\mathcal{O}(N^{-1/2})$.}
\begin{align}
\partial \beta_{1}(\bar{g}^{\star})&=\pm \Bigg[ 4\sqrt{-\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}{}^2}-\frac{1}{N^{1/2}}\frac{4\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}\bar{g}^{\star}_{(1)}}{\sqrt{-\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}{}^2}}\Bigg] +\mathcal{O}(N^{-1},\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}{}^3)\,, \crcr
\partial \beta_{2}(\bar{g}^{\star})&=\pm \Bigg[ 4\sqrt{-3\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}{}^2}-\frac{1}{N^{1/2}}\frac{12\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}\bar{g}^{\star}_{(1)}}{\sqrt{-3\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}{}^2}}\Bigg] +\mathcal{O}(N^{-1},\bar{g}^{\star}_{(0)}{}^3) \,,
\end{align}
where the signs are taken to be simultaneously either the upper or lower ones in the two sets $\{\bar{g}_{1,(0)},\partial \beta_{1}\}$ and $\{\bar{g}_{2,(0)},\partial \beta_{2}\}$.
At leading order, the stable fixed points are those with the choice of the upper sign in $\bar{g}_{1,(0)}$ and $\bar{g}_{2,(0)}$. There are two such fixed points depending on the choice of sign in $\bar{g}_{(0)}^{\star}$:
\begin{align}
\bar{g}^{\star}&=\pm \frac{i}{12}\left(\tilde{\epsilon}-\frac{\alpha_{S,0}}{6}\tilde{\epsilon}^2\right)+\frac{1}{6N^{1/2}}\left(\tilde{\epsilon}-\frac{\alpha_{S,0}}{3}\tilde{\epsilon}^2\right)+\mathcal{O}(\tilde{\epsilon}^3,N^{-1}) \,, \crcr
\bar{g}_{1}^{\star}&=\frac{1}{12}\left(\tilde{\epsilon}-\frac{\alpha_{S,0}}{12}\tilde{\epsilon}^2\right)\mp \frac{i\alpha_{S,0}}{36N^{1/2}}\tilde{\epsilon}^2 +\mathcal{O}(\tilde{\epsilon}^3,N^{-1}) \,, \crcr
\bar{g}_{2}^{\star}&=\frac{1}{4\sqrt{3}}\left(\tilde{\epsilon}-\frac{\alpha_{S,0}}{12}(2-\sqrt{3})\tilde{\epsilon}^2\right)\pm \frac{i(-3+2\sqrt{3})}{12N^{1/2}}\left(\tilde{\epsilon}-\frac{\alpha_{S,0}}{2}\tilde{\epsilon}^2\right)+\mathcal{O}(\tilde{\epsilon}^3,N^{-1}) \,,
\label{eq:stablefpLO}
\end{align}
where the signs in all three couplings are taken to be simultaneously either the upper or lower ones.
For these two fixed points, the $\tilde{\epsilon}$ expansions of the critical couplings are then:
\begin{align}
\partial \beta^{(2)}(\bar{g}^{\star})&=-\nu^{-1}=-\frac{d}{2}+\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}\left(\tilde{\epsilon}-\frac{\alpha_{S,0}}{6}\tilde{\epsilon}^2\right)\pm \frac{i}{\sqrt{3}N^{1/2}}\left(\tilde{\epsilon}-\frac{\alpha_{S,0}}{2}\tilde{\epsilon}^2\right)+\mathcal{O}(\tilde{\epsilon}^3,N^{-1}) \,, \crcr
\partial \beta_{1}(\bar{g}^{\star})&=\frac{1}{3}\left(\tilde{\epsilon}-\frac{\alpha_{S,0}}{6}\tilde{\epsilon}^2\right) \pm \frac{2 i }{3N^{1/2}}\left(\tilde{\epsilon}-\frac{\alpha_{S,0}}{2}\tilde{\epsilon}^2\right) +\mathcal{O}(\tilde{\epsilon}^3,N^{-1}) \,, \crcr
\partial \beta_{2}(\bar{g}^{\star})&= \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(\tilde{\epsilon}-\frac{\alpha_{S,0}}{6}\tilde{\epsilon}^2\right) \pm \frac{2 i }{\sqrt{3} N^{1/2}}\left(\tilde{\epsilon}-\frac{\alpha_{S,0}}{2}\tilde{\epsilon}^2\right) +\mathcal{O}(\tilde{\epsilon}^3,N^{-1}) \,,
\end{align}
where the choice of sign is the same as in $\bar{g}_{(0)}^{\star}$.
In order to compute the critical exponent of the tetrahedron coupling, we need to compute the eigenvalues of the stability matrix as it is not triangular beyond order
$N^{-1/2}$. However, up to order $N^{-3/2}$, it depends only on the values of the critical couplings at leading and next-to-leading order. For the fixed point in \eqref{eq:stablefpLO}, we have at second order in $\tilde{\epsilon}$:
\begin{equation}
\omega_{t}=\frac{\tilde{\epsilon}}{N}\left(1+\frac{\alpha_{S,0}}{6}\tilde{\epsilon}\right)+\frac{2 i \alpha_{S,0}\tilde{\epsilon}^2}{3N^{3/2}}+\mathcal{O}(\tilde{\epsilon}^3, N^{-2}) \,.
\end{equation}
\medskip
In summary, while at leading order an imaginary tetrahedron coupling leads to four stable fixed lines of real pillow and double-trace couplings, going up to next-to-leading non-trivial order for all the beta functions fixes all the couplings to eight isolated fixed points, having the same reality properties as before at leading order, but the opposite one at subleading order (i.e.\ real tetrahedron and purely imaginary pillow and double-trace corrections). As with the fixed point values, we have for the critical exponents that what was real at leading order gets an imaginary part at subleading order.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:concl}
We have studied a tri-fundamental model, that is, a multi-scalar model invariant under $O(N_1)\times O(N_2) \times O(N_3)$ transformations, of which the scalar fields form a tri-fundamental representation. We have considered versions of the model with either short or long-range Gaussian part, and we have studied the renormalization group beta functions at finite or large $N_i$, in various scaling limits.
Our main conclusion is that in general we find \emph{no} stable real fixed points with non-zero tetrahedral coupling.
In order to find genuine infrared-stable fixed points with non-zero tetrahedral coupling we have to consider complex fixed points. This immediately raises the prospect that the fixed point theories are not unitary; however, complex CFTs have been considered in statistical physics and in the description of walking behavior in high-energy physics (see for example \cite{Gorbenko:2018ncu,Gorbenko:2018dtm} and references therein). Complex, stable (in all directions) infrared fixed points are obtained in the homogeneous (i.e.\ $N_i=N$ for $i=1,2,3$) large-$N$ limit
of the long-range model. In this case the tetrahedral coupling is exactly marginal, and when taken to be purely imaginary all the CFT data available to us indicates that the leading large-$N$ CFT is real and within unitarity bounds \cite{Benedetti:2019eyl,Benedetti:2019ikb,Benedetti:2020yvb}. In this paper we have shown that this does not survive at subleading order in $1/N$: the line of fixed point reduces to an isolated point, and unitarity is broken by the $1/N$ corrections which bring imaginary parts to the critical exponents.
A similar complex CFT, providing subleading corrections to that of \cite{Giombi:2017dtl}, is found also for the short-range model, but in that case it is the real part of the critical exponents which is suppressed in $1/N$, rather than the imaginary part; therefore, while the two models have probably qualitatively similar behavior at finite $N$, it is only in the long-range case that a real and unitary CFT arises in the strict large-$N$ limit.
A subtle aspect of our analysis of subleading corrections in $1/N$ to the fixed points of the $O(N)^3$ model is the identification of an appropriate hierarchy between the two small parameters at play, i.e.\ $1/N$ and $\epsilon$, the latter being defined as the deviation from the critical dimension in the short-range case, i.e.\ $\epsilon=4-d$, or as the deviation from the critical scaling of the propagator in the long-range case, i.e.\ $C(p)=1/p^{(d+\epsilon)/2}$.
In the former case it turns out that we need $\epsilon N^2 \gg 1$, while in the latter we need $\epsilon N \ll 1$.
The reason for that is the form of the tetrahedron beta functions, which we can roughly understand in the following way. Slightly simplifying things (in reality we have a coupled system of equations), at two-loop order the tetrahedron beta function has the form $\b_{SR}(g)=-\epsilon g + b g^3 +\frac{a}{N} g^2 +\mathcal{O}(N^{-3/2})$ in the short-range case, and $\b_{LR}(g)= -\epsilon g + \frac{a}{N} g^2 +\mathcal{O}(N^{-3/2})$ in the long-range case, for some constants $a$ and $b$ of order one.
The conditions on $\epsilon$ and $N$ then arise from demanding that the fixed point from the leading order in $1/N$ remains dominant in the beta function. As a perturbative solution of $\b_{SR}(g^\star)=0$ at leading order implies $g^\star\sim \sqrt{\epsilon}$, we see that the first two terms in $\b_{SR}(g)$ are of order $\epsilon^{3/2}$, while the third is of order $\epsilon/N$, hence we must have $\sqrt{\epsilon}\gg 1/N$.
For the long-range case, a non-trivial perturbative solution of $\b_{LR}(g^\star)=0$ at leading order is instead not possible for $\epsilon>0$, and we must require $\epsilon\ll 1/N$, so that the first two terms in $\b_{LR}(g)$ lead to a Wilson-Fisher type solution, with $\epsilon N$ being the effective small parameter.
A similar tuning of $\epsilon$ and $N$ as in our long-range model was also considered in \cite{Fleming:2020qqx} in order to find a finite-$N$ precursor of the line of fixed points that appear in the short-range $O(N)$ model with $(\phi^2)^3$ interaction at large-$N$, for $\epsilon=0$.
It would be interesting to understand if the non-existence of stable real fixed points with non-vanishing tetrahedral coupling could be proved in general terms, for example by using group-theoretical arguments, as in \cite{Michel:1985,Toledano:1985}, or by exploiting the gradient flow representation of the renormalization group equations, along the lines of other proofs, for example as in \cite{Michel:1983in,ZinnJustin:2007zz,Rychkov:2018vya}. We have tried the second route, but failed so far in this task; nonetheless, we report in appendix \ref{app:grad_flow} some relevant formulas for the gradient flow of the tri-fundamental model, hoping that they could serve as reference or inspiration for a future proof.
More generally, it would also be interesting to understand whether any stable real fixed points exist with rank-$p$ tensor symmetry, such as $O(N)^p$, for higher $p$.
We notice also that real fixed points have been found in short-range models with $p=3$, but with sextic interaction, for small $\epsilon=3-d$\cite{Giombi:2018qgp,Benedetti:2019rja}; it would be interesting to understand if they also become complex at subleading orders, or whether sextic interactions have some fundamental difference with respect to quartic ones.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank Kenta Suzuki for collaboration at the early stages of this work, and for useful comments at a later stage.
This work is supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement No818066). The work of RG is also supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany's Excellence Strategy EXC-2181/1 - 390900948 (the Heidelberg STRUCTURES Cluster of Excellence) and
partly supported by Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics.
\clearpage
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}}
\input{Sections/Intro}
\input{Sections/motivation}
\input{Sections/Background}
\input{Sections/Approach}
\input{Sections/Experiments}
\input{Sections/Results}
\input{Sections/Discussion}
\input{Sections/threatstovalidity}
\input{Sections/RelatedWork}
\input{Sections/Conclusion}
\ifCLASSOPTIONcompsoc
\section*{Acknowledgments}
\else
\section*{Acknowledgment}
\fi
This work is supported in part by the Department of Science and Technology (DST) (India), Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB), the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), Infosys Center for Artificial Intelligence at IIIT-Delhi, and Nucleus Software Exports Ltd.
\ifCLASSOPTIONcaptionsoff
\newpage
\fi
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
\section{Our Approach}
\label{sec:approach}
This section discusses the details of our graph neural network architecture that is used to learn high level program features from program dependency graphs.
Figure \ref{fig:Approach} shows an overview of one branch of the Siamese neural network shown in Figure \ref{fig:approach overview} . The following subsections give details of the main steps of the proposed approach.
\subsection{Attention Based Global Context Learning}
\label{subsec:gat}
Our work builds on Graph Attention Networks (GAT) \cite{GAT}, and we summarize them here. Given a program dependence graph $G = (V,E,A,X)$, we have a set of $V$ vertices representing program statements, and a list of directed control and data-dependent edges $E = (E_{1},E_{2})$. $A$ denotes the adjacency matrix of $G$, where $ A \in \mathbb{R} ^{|V| \times |V|}$ with $A_{ij}$ = 1 if $e_{ij} \in E$, and $A_{ij}$ = 0 if $e_{ij} \notin E$. The node feature matrix is represented by $ X\in \mathbb{R}^{|V| \times d} $ with $ x_{v} \in \mathbb{R} ^{d} $ denoting the feature vector of vertex $v$.
\par For every node $v \in V$, we associate a feature vector $x_{v}$, representing the type of statement it belongs to. We considered the following $18$ types: \texttt{Identity, Assignment, Abstract, Abstract Definition, Breakpoint, Enter Monitor, Exit Monitor, Goto, If, Invoke, LookupSwitch, Nop, Return, Return void, Throw, JTableSwitch} corresponding to the types of the statements used by Soot's internal representation. We encode this statement type information into an $18$-dimensional one-hot encoded feature vector. For example, the statement $x = y + z$ is of type \texttt{Assignment statement} and will be represented as \textbf{[0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0]}. In the first place, to obtain initial node vectors, we pass node features through a linear transformation layer:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:mlp}
H^{0} = X \times W + b
\end{equation}
Where $W$ and $b$ are the learnable weights and bias of the linear layer. $H^{0} \in \mathbb{R}^{|V| \times d^{'}}$ denotes the initial node embeddings matrix with $h^{0}_{i}$ representing embedding vector for a single node $i \in V$. Line \ref{algo:linlayer} in Algorithm \ref{algo} inside function $ComputeGFeatures$ denotes the above action.
\begin{algorithm}[th]
\caption{Code Similarity Detection}
\label{algo}
\SetKwInput{KwInput}{Input}
\SetKwInput{KwOutput}{Output}
\DontPrintSemicolon
\KwInput{$T$ rounds of propagation, $train\_Data$}
\KwOutput{$code\_similarity$}
\SetKwProg{Fn}{Define}{:}{\KwRet}
\Fn{ComputeNodeFeatures($H^{0}$, $A$, $T$)}{
$H_{F} = [H^{0}]$\;
\tcp{$C^{0}$ is the initial cell state of $LSTM$ }
\textbf{Initialize} \textbf{Array } $C^{0}$\;
\For{$t\gets1$ \KwTo $T$ }{
\tcp{Attention block 1 (Eqn. (\ref{eq:a1}))}
$H^{'}$ = $Attn_{1}\left(A,H^{(t-1)};\phi_1\right)$ \label{A1:CNF:a1}\;
\tcp{Attention block 2 (Eqn. (\ref{eq:a2}))}
$H^{''(t-1)} = Attn_2\left(A,H^{'};\phi_2\right)$\label{A1:CNF:a2}\;
\tcp{$t^{th}$ propagation round (Eqn. (\ref{eq:GPdepth}))}
$H^{(t)}, C^{(t)}$ = $LSTM(H^{''(t-1)},C^{(t-1)})$\label{A1:CNF:lstm}\;
\tcp{Final node features (Eqn. (\ref{eq:cat_node_reps}))}
$H_{F} = CONCAT(H^{(t)})$\label{A1:CNF:cat_features}\;
}
\KwRet $H_{F}$\;
}
\;
\SetKwProg{Fn}{Define}{:}{\KwRet}
\Fn{GraphPooling($H_{node}$)}{
$H_{G} = a(MLP(H_{node})) \odot MLP(H_{node})$\;
\KwRet $H_{G}$\;
}
\;
\SetKwProg{Fn}{Define}{:}{\KwRet}
\Fn{ComputeGFeatures($X$, $A_{c}$, $A_{d}$, $T$)}{
$H^{0} = X \times W + b$\; \label{algo:linlayer}
$H_{d} = $ComputeNodeFeatures$(H^{0}, A_{d}, T)$\;
$H_{c} = $ComputeNodeFeatures$(H^{0}, A_{c}, T)$\;
$H_{final} = H_{d} + H_{c}$\;
$G_{final} = $GraphPooling$(H_{final})$\;
\KwRet $G_{final}$\;
}
\;
\SetKwProg{Fn}{Define}{:}{\KwRet}
\Fn{Train($train\_data$, $T$)}{
\While {$not\_converged$} {
\While {$data$ in $train\_data$} {
$X_{1} = data.X_{1}$\;
$X_{2} = data.X_{2}$\;
$A_{c1} = data.A_{control1}$\;
$A_{d1} = data.A_{data1}$\;
$A_{c2} = data.A_{control2}$\;
$A_{d2} = data.A_{data2}$\;
$Y = data.Y$\;
$G_{1} = $ComputeGFeatures$(X_{1}, A_{c1}, A_{d1},T)$\;
$G_{2} = $ComputeGFeatures$(X_{2}, A_{c2}, A_{d2},T)$\;
$featureRep = CONCAT(G_{1},G_{2})$\;
$featureRep = a(MLP(featureRep))$\;
$similarity = a(MLP(featureRep))$\;
$loss = LOSS(similarity,Y)$\;
$Update\_Optimizer(loss)$\;
}
}
}
\end{algorithm}
Next, to obtain node features for a given graph, we learn an adaptive function $\varphi (A, H; \phi) $ parametrized by $\phi$ similar to GAT \cite{GAT}.
The input to the function is the set of node features $\{h^{0}_{1},h^{0}_{2}, \cdots ,h^{0}_{|V|}\}$ obtained from Equation \eqref{eq:mlp}. The function $\varphi$
then outputs the set of new node features $\{h^{'}_{1},h^{'}_{2} ,\cdots ,h^{'}_{|V|}\}$ as the output of the first attention block. It computes the self-attention on nodes based on the graph structural information where a node $v_{j}$ attends to its one-hop neighboring node $v_{i}$, i.e., if $(v_{i},v_{j}) \in E$. The attention mechanism $a : \mathbb{R}^{d^{'}} \times \mathbb{R}^{d^{'}} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ computes attention coefficients
\begin{equation}\label{eq:node_imp}
e_{ij} = a(Wh_{i},Wh_{j})
\end{equation}
Equation \eqref{eq:node_imp} denotes the importance of node $j's$ features for node $i$. {\color{blue}The scores are then normalized using the softmax function}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:scores}
\alpha_{ij} = \frac{exp(e_{ij})}{\sum_{j \in N(i)} exp(e_{ij})}
\end{equation}
The attention scores computed in Equation \eqref{eq:scores} are then used to output a linear combination of features of node $v_{j}, ~\forall j \in N(i)$ that will be used as the final output features of node $v_{i}$.
\par We have used two attention modules to learn node representation. The output of attention module $1$ with eight different attention heads is shown by Equation \ref{eq:a1}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:a1}
h_{i}^{'} = \|_{k = 1}^{8} \sigma \left( \sum_{j \in N(i)} \alpha_{ij}^{k}W^{'k}h_{j}^{0} \right)
\end{equation}
Where $h_{i}^{'}$ denotes the intermediate representation after the first attention block, $\alpha$ denotes the corresponding attention scores, $\sigma$ is the sigmoid activation function, $W'$ are the weight parameters in the first attention block, and $\|$ represents the concatenation of the attention coefficients from eight different heads. Equation \ref{eq:a2} represents the output of attention module $2$. Here, we have aggregated the output from different attention nodes.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:a2}
h_{i}^{''} = \sigma \left( \sum _{k=1}^{6} \sum_{j \in N(i)} \beta_{ij}^{k}W^{''k}h_{j}^{'} \right)
\end{equation}
Here, $\beta$ represents the attention scores computed for attention module $2$, $W''$ are the weight parameters in the second attention block, and $h_{i}^{''}$ represents the learned node features at the output of the second attention block. This node representation $h_{i}^{''}$ is input to the LSTM module as $h_{i}^{''(0)}$ in the first propagation round. As shown in Figure \ref{fig:approach overview}, the LSTM module's output, $h_{i}^{(1)}$, is fed back to the first attention block as an input. The process described above is repeated to update the node representations, with the output of the second attention block $h_{i}^{''(t-1)}$ as input to the LSTM at the $t^{th}$ propagation round. The $T$ propagation rounds result in learned representations of the individual nodes that capture the semantic context through the graph's structural information and the learnable attention-based weights. Lines \ref{A1:CNF:a1}-\ref{A1:CNF:lstm} of Function $ComputeNodeFeatures$ defined in Algorithm \ref{algo} presents the above exposition. The parameter sets $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ comprise all the first and second attention blocks' parameters, respectively.
\subsection{LSTM Based Local context Learning}
\label{subsec:lstm}
The multi-head attention mechanism enables node representations to capture the context from their one-hop neighbors. However, the semantic context within a code fragment typically requires a broader context provided by a node's $t$-hop neighbors. Inspired by the architecture of the adaptive path layer in GeniePath \cite{GeniePath}, we use an LSTM layer, which when combined with the multi-head attention previously described, helps learn node representations that are better equipped to capture the semantic information of the code fragment.
The input to the LSTM model at the $(t+1)^{th}$ propagation round is $h_i^{''(t)}$, the representation of the $i^{th}$ node. This strategy allows the node representations to capture the context from its $t$-hop neighbors \cite{GeniePath}.\\
We initialize the LSTM cell with random values. The cell state $C^{(t)}_j$ corresponding to the $j^{th}$ node ($j\in V$) is updated in the $t^{th}$ propagation round, effectively aggregating information from $t$-hop neighbors of node $j$. The node representation is then accordingly updated as a function of the cell state. The update Equations are presented below.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:GPdepth}
\left.\begin{aligned}
& i_{j} = \sigma(W_{i}h^{''(t-1)}_{j}), &f_{j} = \sigma(W_{f}h^{''(t-1)}_{j}),\\
& o_{j} = \sigma(W_{o}h^{''(t-1)}_{j}), &\widetilde{C}_j\! =\! tanh(W_{c} h_{j}^{''(t-1)}),\\
& C_{j}^{(t)}\! =\! f_{j}\! \odot\! C_{j}^{(t-1)}\! +\! i_{j}\!\odot\! \widetilde{C}_j,& h_{j}^{(t)} = o_{j} \odot tanh(C_{j}^{(t)})
\end{aligned}
\right\}
\end{equation}
Where $\odot$ denotes element-wise multiplication. The input gate of LSTM $i_{j}$ is being used to extract new messages from the input $h_{j}^{''(t-1)}$ and are added to memory $C_{j}^{(t)}$. The gated unit $f_{j}$ is the forget gate used to filter out unwanted messages from the old memory $C_{j}^{(t-1)}$. Lastly, the output gate $o_{j}$ and the updated memory $C_{j}^{(t)}$ are used for constructing the final node representation $h_{j}^{(t)}$ at $(t)^{th}$ propagation round for node $j$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=3.5cm,width=3.5cm]{Images/LSTM.png}
\caption{A synthetic example showing explored receptive path (area covered by the dotted red line) for the target node. The edge thickness denotes the received attention scores while learning features for the target node. Control and data-dependent edges are shown through solid and dotted edges, respectively.}
\label{fig:lstm}
\end{figure}
\par Figure \ref{fig:lstm} conveys the above exposition through a synthetic example. \textsc{Holmes}\xspace tries to filter and aggregate meaningful features from different two-hop neighbors while learning representation for the target node. The multi-head attention module in each propagation round attends to different neighbors (edge width in Figure \ref{fig:lstm} denotes the importance of different hop neighbors at each propagation step). The LSTM module filters and aggregates the messages received from different hop neighbors over multiple propagation rounds. The area covered by the red dotted line denotes the relevant neighboring nodes (receptive path) for learning the feature representation of the target node.
\subsection{Graph Representation Learning with Jumping Knowledge Networks}
\label{subsec:gp}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Images/jknets.png}
\caption{Illustration of the $4$-layer architecture of \textsc{Holmes}\xspace using Jumping Knowledge Networks (JK nets) defined by Xu et al. \cite{JK}. At every propagation round t, the feature vector of node $v$ is aggregated with its $t^{th}$ order neighbors. At the last layer ($4^{th}$ propagation round), all the hidden feature vectors from all the propagation rounds are concatenated to constitute the final hidden representation for node $v$. The concatenation of hidden features from all the propagation rounds ensures that the features learned from $n^{th}$ hop neighbors during different propagation rounds are retained till last and also reflected in the final hidden representation of node $v$.}
\label{fig:JK}
\end{figure}
To learn the high-level program features from the program dependence graphs, our graph neural network (GNN) model iteratively aggregates the node features from different $n^{th}$ hop neighbors via message passing scheme, described in Sections \ref{subsec:gat} and \ref{subsec:lstm}.
\par To learn the diverse and locally varying graph structure and the relations between program statements effectively, a broader context is needed, i.e., the GNN model should explore the deeper neighborhood. We observed that, while aggregating features from the different $n^{th}$ hop neighbors (going till depth $4$ -- i.e. $n \in {1,2,3,4}$), our GNN model's performance degrades (also shown in Figure \ref{fig:jkgapexpt}).
\par Thus, to stabilize the training and learn the diverse local neighborhood for each node, we employed Jumping Knowledge Networks (JK) \cite{JK}, shown in Figure \ref{fig:JK}. JK combines (concatenates; denoted by $\|$ operator below) the hidden features ($H^{(t)}$ defined on Line \ref{A1:CNF:lstm}, Algorithm \ref{algo}) learned at each GNN iteration independently:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cat_node_reps}
H_F = \left[ H^{0} \| H^{(1)} \| \cdots \| H^{(T)} \right]
\end{equation}
Line \ref{A1:CNF:cat_features} of Function $ComputeNodeFeatures$ defined in Algorithm \ref{algo} conveys the above description.
\par For obtaining graph level representation from the learned node feature vectors, we have employed a soft attention mechanism proposed by Li et al. \cite{ggnn}:
\begin{equation}
H_{G} = \left(\sum_{i \in V}\sigma \big(MLP(h_{i}^{(T)})\big) \odot MLP(h_{i}^{(T)}) \right)
\end{equation}
where $T$ denotes the $T$ rounds of propagation and $\sigma \left(MLP(h_{i}^{(T)})\right)$ computes the attention scores. The attention scores act as a filtering mechanism that helps to pull out irrelevant information. The Function $GraphPooling$ defined in Algorithm \ref{algo} shows the above exposition.
\subsection{Edge-attributed PDGs}
PDGs use data dependence and control dependence edges to capture the syntactic and semantic relationships between different program statements. Control dependence edges encode program structure while data dependence edges encode the semantics.
\par Hence, to leverage the available syntactic and semantic information more effectively, we propose to learn program representations corresponding to each edge type. Therefore, given a program dependence graph $G$, we will learn two separate node feature matrix $H_{data}$ and $H_{control}$. $H_{data}$ represents the learned node feature matrix corresponding to the subgraph of $G$ induced by data dependence edges, and $H_{control}$ represents the learned node feature matrix corresponding to the subgraph induced by control dependence edges in $G$. Next, to obtain the final representation for the nodes in $G$, we do the vertex wise addition of $H_{data}$ and $H_{control}$. \newline
\begin{equation}\label{EdgeD}
\left.\begin{aligned}
H_{data} = ComputeNodeFeatures (H_{0},A_{d},T)\\
H_{control} = ComputeNodeFeatures (H_{0},A_{c},T)\\
H_{final} = H_{data} + H_{control}
\end{aligned}
\right\}
\end{equation}
Thereafter, to obtain the final graph representation $G_{final}$ we applied graph pooling defined in Section \ref{subsec:gp} on the learned node feature matrix $H_{final}$.
\begin{equation}\label{finalG}
G_{final} = GraphPooling(H_{final})
\end{equation}
\subsection{Implementation and Comparative Evaluation}
\label{subsec:parmeter}
We have used the Soot optimization framework \cite{inproceedings} to build program dependence graphs. To compute the control dependence graph, we first build a control flow graph. Then Cytron's method \cite{cdg} is used to compute control dependence. For computing data dependence graph, reaching definition \cite{RDAnalysis} and upward exposed analysis \cite{Upwardexpose} is used.
\par We have used the PyTorch geometric \cite{torchgeometric} deep learning library to implement \textsc{Holmes}\xspace. All LSTMs have a single LSTM layer with $100$ hidden units. We have used the LeakyReLU \cite{LReLU} as the non-linear activation function with a negative slope of $0.02$ and a sigmoid layer at the output for classification.
The network is initialized using the Kaiming Uniform method \cite{kaiming}. The Siamese network is trained to minimize binary cross-entropy loss given in Equation \ref{bce} using Adam \cite{kingma2014adam} optimizer with a learning rate set to $0.0002$ and batch size to $50$.
\footnote{Our implementation of \textsc{Holmes}\xspace may be found at: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1x6ePcgJVtFVOycENEi-YBpz5FYzsx2D-?usp=sharing}.
\begin{equation}\label{bce}
BCELoss = -\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}y_{i}\times log(p(y_{i})) + (1-y_{i})\times log(1-p(y_{i}))
\end{equation}
Where $y_{i}$ denotes the true binary label, and $p(y_{i})$ denotes predicted probability (similarity score). $N$ is the number of samples in the dataset. The output of Algorithm \ref{algo} is the similarity score. To determine the decision threshold ($\epsilon$), we employed a threshold moving approach. We first predicted the probability for each sample on the validation set and then converted the probabilities into the class label by varying $\epsilon$ from $[0.2-0.8]$ with the step size of $0.1$. We evaluated the class labels on each threshold value in the range and selected $\epsilon$ on which we got the maximum F1-score on the validation set. This threshold was then used to evaluate the samples in the test set and is also used in the experiments defined in \ref{rq:rq2}
\par For the BigCloneBench (BCB) dataset since it does not provide the input files' dependency information, we used JCoffee \cite{Jcoffee} to infer missing dependencies to generate PDGs. JCoffee infers missing dependencies based on the compiler's feedback in an iterative process. With JCoffee, we successfully compiled $90\%$ of the snippets from the BCB dataset.
We compared \textsc{Holmes}\xspace with the state-of-the-art code clone detection tool TBCCD \cite{10.1109/ICPC.2019.00021}. Other recent machine-learning-based code clone detection tools namely, CDLH \cite{10.5555/3172077.3172312} and CDPU \cite{ijcai2018-394} do not have their implementation available open-source.
DeepSim \cite{10.1145/3236024.3236068} does not provide implementation details of the semantic feature matrix construction. Thus, we could not replicate their experimental settings and hence do not perform a comparative evaluation with these approaches. Moreover, we did not compare Holmes with Deckard\cite{4222572}, RtvNN \cite{10.1145/3236024.3236068} and Sourcerer \cite{7886988} as TBCCD significantly outperformed these approaches. Therefore, TBCCD became our natural choice for comparative evaluation.
\section{Background}
\label{sec:background}
This section gives a brief overview of the basic concepts and defines the terminology used in the paper.
\subsection{Program Dependence Graphs}
Program Dependence Graph (PDG) is a directed attributed graph that explicitly encodes a program's control, and data dependence information \cite{PDG}. PDGs approximate program semantics. A node in a PDG represents a program statement such as an assignment statement, a declaration statement, or a method invocation statement, and the edges denote control or data dependence between program statements.
\par A control dependence edge from statement $s_1$ to statement $s_2$ represents that $s_2$'s execution depends upon $s_1$. While data dependence edge between two statements $s_1$ and $s_2$ denotes that some component which is assigned at $s_1$ will be used in the execution of $s_2$. Control and data dependence relations in program dependence graphs are computed using control flow and data flow analysis. Formally control dependence can be stated as:
\par Given a control flow graph G for a program $P$, statements $s_1 \in G$ and $s_2 \in G$ are control dependent iff
\begin{itemize}
\item there exists a directed path $\rho$ from $s_1$ to $s_2$ with any node $S$ in $P$ post-dominated ($S$ $\neq$ [$s_1$,$s_2$]) by $s_2$ and
\item $s_1$ is not post-dominated by $s_2$
\end{itemize}
Data dependence can be formally defined as:
\par Two statements $s_1$ and $s_2$ are data dependent in a control flow graph if there exists a variable $v$ such that,
\begin{itemize}
\item $v$ is assigned at statement $s_1$.
\item $s_2$ uses the value of $v$.
\item There exists a path between $s_1$ and $s_2$ along which there is no assignment made to variable $v$.
\end{itemize}
\par Program dependence graphs connect the computationally related parts of the program statements without enforcing the control sequence present in the control flow graphs \cite{PDG}. Hence, they are not affected by syntactical changes like statement reordering, variable renaming, etc. \cite{PDG}. These properties make program dependence graphs to be better representation to detect semantic clones. Horwitz \cite{Horwitz1990} and Podgurski and Clarke \cite{Podgurski1989} also showed that program dependence graphs provide a good representation to measure code semantic similarity.
\subsection{Concepts in Deep Learning}
\subsubsection{Artificial neural networks} ANNs \cite{10.1016/0004-3702(89)90049-0} or \textit{connectionist systems} are machine learning models that are inspired by the human brain. ANNs consist of several artificial neurons stacked together across several layers trained to discover patterns present in the input data.
\begin{figure*}[!tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Images/gnnexplain.png}
\caption{Visual illustration of the graph neural network framework. (a) Illustration of the $t^{th}$ layer of the graph neural network. The feature vectors $h_b^{t-1}, h_d^{t-1}$ from the neighbouring nodes of $A$ are \textit{aggregated} and \textit{combined} with $h_a^{t-1} $, the features of node $A$ from the $t-1^{th}$ layer. This constitutes the representation of node $A$ at the $t^{th}$ layer. (b) Illustration showing multiple rounds of propagation in a graph neural network. At the $n^{th}$ propagation round, a node receives information from each of its neighbors that are $n$ hops away. For example, node A at propagation round 1 receives messages from its one-hop neighbors D and B. At propagation round two, it receives information from its two-hop neighbor, i.e., node C, and so on.}
\label{fig:gnnframework}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Deep Learning} Deep Learning covers a set of algorithms that extracts high-level representations from the input data. Deep learning models use artificial neural networks with several layers of neurons stacked together. Each layer learns to transform the previous layer's output into a slightly more abstract representation of the input data. Deep neural networks can readily model the linear and complex, non-linear relationships between input data and the desired output prediction. Many variants of Deep Neural Networks (DNN) exist, such as, recurrent neural networks \cite{lstm}, convolutional networks \cite{article}, graph-based neural networks \cite{bronstein2016geometric} etc. In this work, we make use of graph-based neural networks.
\subsubsection{Graph Neural Networks}
\par DNNs have shown unprecedented performance in many complex tasks such as image processing \cite{hu2018squeeze} and neural machine translation \cite{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1804-07755}. DNN architectures like transformers \cite{vaswani2017attention} and convolutional networks \cite{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1709-01507} have often demonstrated performance at par with humans. The key reason behind the success of DNNs is the model's ability to take input data directly and learn to extract feature representations relevant to a complex downstream task like classification or retrieval.
\par Despite state-of-the-art results, the above models do not perform well in non-Euclidean domains such as graphs and manifolds. The inherent complexity of the data, variegated structural and topological information hampers the ability to gain true insights about the underlying graphical data \cite{bronstein2016geometric,Zhangsi,zonghan}. Nevertheless, one may have to deal with graph-structured data in various fields.
For example, in software engineering, programs are modeled as graphs (ASTs, PDGs, etc.) for automatic code summariation \cite{leclair2020improved}, identifying vulnerabilities \cite{DBLP:conf/icait/WangZWXH18}, and bug-fixing activities \cite{8811910}.
\par Dealing with non-Euclidean structured data implies that there are no such properties as the shift-invariance and the vector space structures \cite{bronsteinBLSV16}. Hence, convolutions and filterings are not well defined here. Therefore, spectral-domain \cite{bruna2013spectral} and spatial domain \cite{4773279} techniques have been adopted to learn representation of the graph-structured data.
\par Our work makes use of the technique from the spatial (vertex) domain. Spatial graph convolutions define convolution operations based on the node's spatial connections and are built on the idea of message passing. The graph convolutional operator learns a function $f$ to generate node $v_{i}$'s representation by aggregating its own features $h_{i}$ and neighbor's features $h_{j}$. Multiple iterations of graph convolution are performed to explore the depth and breadth of the node's influence. Each iteration uses node representation learned from the previous iteration to get the representation for the current one. For instance, in the first iteration of graph convolution, information flow will be between first-order neighbors; in the second iteration, nodes will receive information from second-order neighbors, i.e., neighbor's neighbor. Thus traversing this way, after multiple iterations, each node's final hidden representation will have information from a further neighborhood. Figure \ref{fig:gnnframework} depicts the general framework for spatial graph convolutions.
\subsubsection{Siamese Neural Networks}
Siamese neural network or twin network \cite{siamese, siamese2} is an artificial neural network for similarity learning that contains two or more identical sub-networks sharing the same set of weights and parameters. The Siamese neural networks are trained to learn the similarity between the input data. They try to learn a mapping function such that the distance measure between the learned latent features in the target space represents the semantic similarity in the input space.
\subsection{Representation learning in software engineering}
Treating program as data objects and learning syntactically and semantically meaningful representations have drawn a great deal of interest \cite{aloncode2seq,aloncode2vec,allamanisprogramgraphs}.
\begin{lstlisting}[float=t,caption=Different clone types of gcd,captionpos=b,label=exampleclones,firstnumber=1,frame=tlrb]
//orginal code snippet
static int gcd(int a, int b)
{
if (b == 0)
return a;
return gcd(b, a
}
//type 1 clone
static int gcd1(int a, int b) {
if (b == 0){
return a;
}
return gcd1(b, a
}
//type 2 clone
public static int gcd2(int no1, int no2) {
if (no2 == 0) {
return 1;
}
return gcd2(no2, no1
}
//type 3 clone
public static int gcd3(int m, int n) {
if (0 == n) {
return m;
} else {
return gcd3(n, m
}
}
//type 4 clone
static int gcd4(int a, int b) {
while (b != 0) {
int t = b;
b = a
a = t;
}
return a;
}
\end{lstlisting}
Following the success of deep neural networks in natural language processing, computer vision, etc., learning tasks on source code data have been considered recently. Program synthesis \cite{Chen2020Neuralprogramsynthesis, Programsynthesis2018shinrichard}, program repair \cite{wangneuralprogramembedding}, bug localization \cite{LiYiWangOOPSLA,allamanisprogramgraphs}, and source code summarization \cite{MiltiadisAllamaniscodesummarisation} are some of the well-explored areas. The idea is to use the knowledge from the existing code repositories to enable a wide array of program analysis and maintenance tasks. The key step is to design a precise and semantically meaningful program representation that neural networks will use in the array of downstream tasks.
\par Most existing approaches use two kinds of program representations extracted from static and dynamic program analysis techniques. These representations can further be categorized into syntactic and semantic program representations. Abstract Syntax Trees (ASTs), Control Flow Graphs (CFGs), Call Graphs, etc., represent the program's syntactic structure while Program Dependence Graphs(PDGs), execution traces, etc., capture program semantics. These representations help to transform programs in an appropriate form to deep learning models.
\subsection{Deep learning for code clone detection}
\par Learning-based techniques automatically (using neural networks) learn a continuous-valued feature vector representing program semantics and syntax to learn similarities between code snippets. This feature vector is then compared directly (using a distance-based classifier) or is passed to a neural network classifier to predict similarity.
\par For instance, White et al. \cite{10.1145/2970276.2970326} used a recursive neural network to learn program representation. They represented source code as a stream of identifiers and literals and used it as an input to their deep learning model. Tufano et al. \cite{8595238} used a similar encoding approach as \cite{10.1145/2970276.2970326} and encoded four different program representations- identifiers, Abstract Syntax Trees, Control Flow Graphs, and Bytecode. They then used a deep learning model to measure code similarity based on their multiple learned representations. Zhao and Huang \cite{10.1145/3236024.3236068} used a feed-forward neural network to learn a semantic feature matrix constructed from a program's control flow and data flow graphs. Yu et al. \cite{10.1109/ICPC.2019.00021} used a tree-based convolutional neural network to detect code clones.
\par These code clone detection approaches have used syntactic and lexical features to measure code similarity. They do not exploit the source code's available structured semantics, even though this information might be useful to measure code functional similarity. Hence to overcome the limitations of existing approaches, we have proposed a novel code clone detection tool \textsc{Holmes}\xspace. \textsc{Holmes}\xspace uses PDGs and graph-based neural networks to learn structured semantics of the source code. Section \ref{sec:approach} explains the code clone detection process of \textsc{Holmes}\xspace.
\subsection{Terminologies}
This paper follows the well-accepted definition and terminologies from \cite{Roy07asurvey}:\newline
\textbf{Code Fragment}: A continuous segment of a code fragment is denoted by a triplet $\langle c,s,e \rangle$, where $s$ and $e$ are start and end lines respectively, and $c$ is the code fragment. \newline
\textbf{Code clones} are pairs of similar code snippets existing in a source file or a software system. Researchers have broadly classified clones into four categories stretching from syntactic to semantic similarity \cite{Roy07asurvey}:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Type-1 clones (textual similarity)}: Duplicate code snippets, except for variations in white space, comments, and layout.
\item \textbf{Type-2 clones (lexical similarity)}: Syntactically identical code snippets, except for variations in the variable name, literal values, white space, formatting, and comments.
\item \textbf{Type-3 clones (syntactic similarity)}: Syntactically similar code snippets that differ at the statement level. Code snippets have statements added, modified, or deleted w.r.t. to each other.
\item \textbf{Type-4 clones (semantic similarity)}: Syntactically different code snippets implementing the same functionality.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Images/approachmodified.png}
\caption{The architecture of one branch of the Siamese neural network is shown in Figure \ref{fig:approach overview}. (a) Our model first parses the given Java methods in the datasets to build PDGs. Node feature matrix and graph adjacency matrix are extracted from the source code. \textsc{Holmes}\xspace then passes this as input to a multi-head masked linear attention module, which learns the importance of different sized neighborhood for a node. (b)The attention module outputs the set of learned node features that are then passed through an LSTM, which extracts and filters the features aggregated from different hop neighbors. (c)The learned node features are then passed to a graph pooling module. Graph pooling employs a soft attention mechanism to downsample the nodes and to generate a coarsened graph representation.}
\label{fig:Approach}
\end{figure*}
Listing \ref{exampleclones} enumerates different clone types from the BigCloneBench dataset. The original code snippet (starting from line 2) computes the greatest common divisor (gcd) of two numbers. The Type-1 clone (starting from line $10$) of the original code snippet is identical except for the formatting variation. The Type-2 clone (starting from line $18$) have different identifier names (no1 and no2). Type-3 clone (starting from line $26$) of the original code snippet is syntactically similar but differs at the statement level. Finally, the Type-4 clone of the original code snippet computes gcd using a completely different algorithm. There exists no
syntactical similarity between the original snippet and its Type-4 clone.
\section{Conclusion and Future Work}
\label{sec:conclusion}
There has been a significant interest in detecting duplicated code fragments due to its pertinent role in software maintenance and evolution. Multitudinous approaches have been proposed to detect code clones. However, only a few of them can detect semantic clones. The proposed approaches use syntactic and lexical features to measure code functional similarity. They do not fully capitalize on the available structured semantics of the source code to measure code similarity. In this paper, we have proposed a new tool \textsc{Holmes}\xspace for detecting semantic clones by leveraging the semantic and syntactic information available with the program dependence graphs (PDGs). Our approach uses a graph-based neural network to learn program structure and semantics. We have proposed to learn different representations corresponding to each edge-type in PDGs.
\par We have evaluated both variants of \textsc{Holmes}\xspace on two large datasets of functionally similar code snippets and with recent state-of-the-art clone detection tool TBCCD \cite{10.1109/ICPC.2019.00021}. Our comprehensive evaluation shows that \textsc{Holmes}\xspace can accurately detect semantic clones, and it significantly outperforms TBCCD, a state-of-the-art code clone detection tool.
Our results show that \textsc{Holmes}\xspace significantly outperforms TBCCD showing its effectiveness and generalizing capabilities on unseen datasets.
In the future, we would like to explore the combination of PDG with other program structures like token sequences for learning program representation. We would also like to explore the feasibility of the proposed approach in cross-language clone detection.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 7.5cm, height=5.6cm]{Images/tsne_finallayerembedding.png}
\caption{t-SNE plot of graph embeddings of clone and non-clone pairs of GCJ dataset generated by EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace.}
\label{final hidden layer embedding}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.4\textwidth}p{0.5\textwidth}}
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,height=6cm]{Images/pdgfeature.png}
\caption{PDG for a java source code. Solid line edges denote control dependence. Dashed line edges denote data dependence.}
\label{fig:pdgfeatures}
\end{subfigure}
&
\begin{subfigure}{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Images/download.png}
\caption{t-SNE plot of input feature vectors generated by EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace.}
\label{fig:input feature vectors}
\end{subfigure}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Qualitative analysis of the features learned by EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace.}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[h]
\begin{subfigure}{.4\textwidth}
\begin{lstlisting}[firstnumber=1]
package test;
import java.util.*;
public class Test{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
Scanner input = new Scanner(System.in);
int T = input.nextInt();
int[] a = new int[T];
for (int j = 0; j < T; j ++)
a[j] = input.nextInt();
int c = 0;
for (int j = 0; j < T; j ++)
if (a[j] == j+1)
c ++;
}
}
\end{lstlisting}
\caption{Java Source Code.}
\label{javasourcecode}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.6
\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=5.6cm,width=8cm]{Images/attnpaths.png}
\caption{Attention Encoded Program Dependence Graph. Control dependence edges are colored red, whereas data dependent edges are colored black.}
\label{attention encoded pdg}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Qualitative assessment of the learned PDG paths. }
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Images/finalcorr1.png}
\caption{Cluster map of the attention scores received by code snippets similar to Listing \ref{javasourcecode}. The annotations in Figure denote the corresponding edges of Figure \ref{attention encoded pdg}. [Best viewed in color.]}
\label{fig:attentionclustermap}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Images/UntitledDiagram.png}
\caption{The effect on the performance of \textsc{Holmes}\xspace after varying the number of attention heads in both the attention blocks and after removing the LSTM layer. AB in the legend stands for Attention Block, for instance, “AB1, 1 Head” corresponds to “Attention Block 1 and 1 attention head”.
\label{fig:attnlstmexpt}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Images/meta-chart.png}
\caption{The effect on the performance of \textsc{Holmes}\xspace after removing Jumping Knowledge (JK) nets and soft attention mechanism from the graph readout layer.}
\label{fig:jkgapexpt}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Why \textsc{Holmes}\xspace outperforms other state-of-the-art clone detectors}
Our approach uses Program Dependence Graphs (PDGs) for representation learning. PDGs represent the program's semantics through data dependence and control dependence edges. Our approach models the relations between the program statements in PDGs using Graph Neural Networks (GNNs). We have used attention-based GNNs and LSTMs to filter and aggregate relevant paths in PDGs that enable us to learn semantically meaningful program representations. Attention-based GNNs draw importance to different direct (one-hop) neighbors, while LSTMs are used to capture wider context and long-range dependencies between nodes of the PDG.
\par Thus representing source code as graphs and modeling them through GNNs and LSTMs helps us to leverage the program's structured semantics, contrary to using ASTs and token sequences for learning program features. Additionally, to give respective importance to control and data dependence relations between different statements, we learned two different representations corresponding to each edge type. This information helps us to differentiate and prioritize between the available semantic and syntactic relations between different program statements.
\subsection{Representation learning using Graph Attention networks (GATs).}
Though there are many graph feature learning layers in the literature, such as Graph Convolutional Networks (GCN), Gated Graph Neural Network (GGNN), our work uses the GAT layer to learn program dependency graph nodes' features. This is because the GAT layer can learn an adaptive receptive path for a node in a graph, i.e., assigning different importance to different nodes in the same neighborhood. On the other hand, the GCN layer has fixed receptive paths, which might not work well in our case as all paths in the PDG are not equally important. The importance of attention has also been demonstrated in Figures \ref{attention encoded pdg} and \ref{fig:attentionclustermap}. Using GGNN, another recurrent graph feature learning layer, can also be problematic as it uses Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) and Backpropagation Through Time (BPTT), which can be problematic for large graphs and may require large memory.
\subsection{Qualitative analysis of the features learned by \textsc{Holmes}\xspace}
\label{subsec:qualitativeanalysisofthefeatureslearnedbyholmes}
Figure \ref{final hidden layer embedding} shows the t-SNE \cite{Maaten08visualizingdata} plot of the final hidden layer of \textsc{Holmes}\xspace trained on the GCJ dataset. The figure shows that the learned features can effectively differentiate between the clone and non-clone classes. Since we have only achieved the F1-Score of $92\%$ on GCJ dataset, we can see some overlap between the clone and non-clone classes in the figure.
\par To get more insights into the learned feature space of \textsc{Holmes}\xspace, we processed and extracted the node features and adjacency matrix from the PDG shown in Figure \ref{fig:pdgfeatures}. We then passed this to the first hidden layer of \textsc{Holmes}\xspace. Figure \ref{fig:input feature vectors} shows the t-SNE visualization of the generated vector embedding.
\par It can be seen from the figure that the statements that share similar semantics are plotted very closely. In contrast, the statements that are not similar are not close in the embedding space. For instance, the statements $int \; r = T * v[n]$ and $int\; loc = r +x[n]$ are plotted nearby, as the latter uses the former's result, and both are performing some numerical computation. Similarly, statements $1$,$2$,$3$,$4$ and $8$ are similar, thus plotted nearby in embedding space. These insights suggest that our approach models graph topology and node distribution simultaneously for learning the graph representation.
\subsection{Qualitative assessment of the learned PDG paths}
To gain further insights into our model's working, we plotted the aggregate of multi-head self-attention scores on the PDG paths. Figure \ref{attention encoded pdg} shows the plot of attention scores received by the PDG of Listing \ref{javasourcecode}. Here in Figure \ref{attention encoded pdg}, the edge thickness denotes the attention score received by each path. From the Figure, it can be seen that the model assigns higher weights to the semantic paths.
\par For instance, in Listing \ref{javasourcecode}, statement $6$ initializes the \texttt{Scanner} class's object from the \texttt{java.util} package. The Scanner class is used to read input in a java program. The attention scores received by statement $6$ are shown by edges $0-2$ in Figure \ref{attention encoded pdg}. In the same code, the attention scores received by statement $9-10$ and $12-14$ are shown through edges $3-8$ and $9-15$, respectively. Statement $9-10$ from Listing \ref{javasourcecode} initializes an array of size T with random integers, and statement $12-14$ increments variable c based on some condition. From Figure \ref{attention encoded pdg}, it can also be seen that statement $6$, being the general object creation statement of \texttt{java.util.Scanner} class, receives less attention as compared to statements $9-10$ and $12-14$. Even the statement 10 that fills the array with some random runtime integers received less attention, as shown through edge $8$. This suggests that \textsc{Holmes}\xspace learns to attend important semantically meaningful paths that contain the actual application logic.
\par Further, to strengthen the above claims, we randomly selected five Java programs similar to Listing \ref{javasourcecode} and computed attention scores received by each PDGs of these programs. We then aggregated the attention scores received by these snippets across similar paths. Figure \ref{fig:attentionclustermap} shows the cluster map \cite{seaborn} of the attention scores received by these Java programs.
\par A cluster map is a clustered version of a heatmap that uses hierarchical clustering to order data by similarity. In Figure \ref{fig:attentionclustermap}, we have used cosine similarity across the rows to group similar statements together. The brighter color in the Figure represents higher attention and vice versa. From Figure \ref{fig:attentionclustermap}, we can see that the attention received across all five snippets is consistent with the attention scores received in Figure \ref{attention encoded pdg}. For instance, the attention scores received on edges $0-2$ (statement initializing \texttt{Scanner} class object) is less than the attention scores received on edges $3-8$ (array initialization statement) as shown in Figure \ref{attention encoded pdg} and this can also be verified in Figure \ref{fig:attentionclustermap} (the edges are annotated in the Figure). Similarly, the attention scores received on edges $9-13$ in Figure \ref{attention encoded pdg} are similar to the attention score received by the five random java snippets' attention score, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:attentionclustermap}.
\par Besides this, the cluster map in Figure \ref{fig:attentionclustermap} also justifies our claims made in Section \ref{subsec:qualitativeanalysisofthefeatureslearnedbyholmes}. As we can see, relational operators such as $>$, $>=$, !=, and == are clubbed together across rows of Figure \ref{fig:attentionclustermap}. File handling methods like the buffered reader, file reader, are also clubbed together. FileWriter is clubbed with PrintWriter and new File statements. Thus we can say that \textsc{Holmes}\xspace learns to attend semantically meaningful paths along with modeling graph topology and node distributions.
\subsection{Ablation Study}
To understand the contribution of each component of our model, we conducted an ablation study, and the results are shown in Figures \ref{fig:attnlstmexpt} and \ref{fig:jkgapexpt}. In the first set of experiments, we varied the number of attention heads of both the attention blocks while keeping the rest of the architecture the same. The left part of Figure \ref{fig:attnlstmexpt} shows the results of varying attention heads. From Figure \ref{fig:attnlstmexpt}, we can see that the \textsc{Holmes}\xspace performance degrades on removing the second attention block. The F1-score also degrades further when we reduce the number of attention heads.
\par Next, to examine the influence of LSTMS on the model’s performance, we removed the LSTM layer from the \textsc{Holmes}\xspace architecture and varied the attention heads of both the attention blocks. The results are shown in the right part of Figure \ref{fig:attnlstmexpt}. We can see that after removing the LSTM layer from the \textsc{Holmes}\xspace architecture, the performance degrades. This shows the importance of using LSTMS in aggregating the local neighborhood for learning node representation.
\par We removed the Jumping Knowledge (JK) networks from the \textsc{Holmes}\xspace architecture in the next set of experiments. The results in Figure \ref{fig:jkgapexpt} show that the F1-score reduces drastically after removing JK nets. Thus, it can be said that the JK nets help in the model’s stability and improve performance. In the end, we replaced the soft attention mechanism with the Global Average Pooling (GAP) layer to learn graph representation. GAP layer simply averages all the learned node representations to make up the final hidden graph representation. From Figure \ref{fig:jkgapexpt}, we can observe that \textsc{Holmes}\xspace performance degrades when a GAP layer is employed in place of the soft attention mechanism. This shows the importance of the soft attention mechanism at the graph readout layer.
\subsection{Limitations of \textsc{Holmes}\xspace
We have used PDG representation to learn the program features. Static analysis is required to generate PDGs, and it only works for compilable code snippets. Therefore, we cannot directly apply our technique to incomplete programs. For this reason, we have used JCoffee \cite{Jcoffee} to infer the missing dependencies in the BCB dataset. In addition, we have used a supervised learning approach to learn code similarity, which is expensive in terms of labeled dataset procurement. However, as shown in the results, our model can learn a generalized representation and perform satisfactorily on unseen datasets. In our future work, we plan to extend our model with techniques such as domain adaptation and transfer learning so that it can be applied to other unseen and unlabeled datasets.
\section{Experimental Design}
\label{sec:expts}
This section details the comprehensive evaluation of \textsc{Holmes}\xspace.
Specifically, we aim to answer the following research questions (RQs):\newline
\textbf{RQ1}: How effective is \textsc{Holmes}\xspace as compared to other state-of-the-art approaches? \newline
\textbf{RQ2}: How well \textsc{Holmes}\xspace generalizes on unseen projects and data sets?
\subsection{Dataset Collection}
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Dataset Statistics.}
\label{tab:statistics}
\def1.2{1.5}
\begin{tabular}{|M{0.05\textwidth}|M{0.08\textwidth}|M{0.11\textwidth}|M{0.05\textwidth}|M{0.08\textwidth}|}
\hline
\textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{ Language} & \textbf{Project Files} & \textbf{ Clone Pairs} & \textbf{Non-clone Pairs}\\
\hline
GCJ & Java & $9,436$ & $4,40,897$ & $5,00,000$\\
\hline
SeSaMe & Java & $11$ Java projects & $93$ & n.a.\\
\hline
BCB & Java & $9134$ & $6,50,000$ & $6,50,000$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Percentage of clone-types in BigCloneBench.}
\label{tab:Percentage of clone-types in BigCloneBench}
\def1.2{1.5}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{Clone Type }& T1 & T2 & ST3 & MT3 & WT3/T4\\
\hline
\textbf{Percentage($\%$)} & $0.005$ & $0.001$ & $0.002$ & $0.010$ & $0.982$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Our experiments make use of the following datasets to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed approach:
\\\\
$\textbf{1)}$ \textbf{Programming Competition Dataset}: We followed the recent work \cite{10.1145/3236024.3236068} and used code submissions from GoogleCodeJam\footnote{https://code.google.com/codejam/past-contests} (GCJ). GCJ is an annual programming competition hosted by Google. GCJ provides several programming problems that participants solve. The participants then submit their solutions to Google for testing. The solutions that pass all the test cases are published online. Each competition consists of several rounds.
\par However, unlike the recent work \cite{10.1145/3236024.3236068} that used $12$ different functionalities in their experiments, we collected $9436$ solutions from $100$ different functionalities from GCJ. Thus, building a large and representative dataset for evaluation. Detailed statistics are reported in Table \ref{tab:statistics}. Programmers implement solutions to each problem, and Google verifies the correctness of each submitted solution. All $100$ problems are different, and solutions for the same problems are functionally similar (i.e., belonging to Type 3 and Type 4 clone category) while for different problems, they are dissimilar.
\\\\
$\textbf{2)}$ \textbf{Open Source Projects}: We experimented with several open-source real-world projects to show the effectiveness of \textsc{Holmes}\xspace's learned representations.
$\textbf{a)}$ \textbf{SeSaMe dataset}. SeSaMe \cite{10.1109/MSR.2019.00079} dataset consists of semantically similar method pairs mined from $11$ open-source Java repositories. The authors applied text similarity measures on Javadoc comments mined from these open source projects. The results were then manually inspected and evaluated. This dataset reports $857$ manually classified pairs validated by eight judges. The pairs were distributed in a way that three judges evaluated each pair. The authors have reported semantic similarity between pairs on three scales: \texttt{goals, operations,} and \texttt{effects}. The judges had the option to choose whether they \texttt{agree, conditionally agree,} or \texttt{disagree} with confidence levels \texttt{high, medium}, and \texttt{low}.
$\textbf{b)}$ \textbf{BigCloneBench dataset}. BigCloneBench (BCB) \cite{6976121} dataset, released by Svajlenko et al., was developed from IJAdataset-2.0\footnote{https://sites.google.com/site/asegsecold/projects/seclone}. IJAdataset contains $25K$ open-source Java projects and $365M$ lines of code. The authors have built the BCB dataset from IJaDataset by mining frequently used functionalities, such as bubble sort. The initial release of a BCB covers ten functionalities, including $6M$ clone pairs and $260K$ non-clone pairs. The current release of the BCB dataset has about $8M$ tagged clones pair covering $43$ functionalities. Some recent code clone detection tools TBCCD \cite{10.1109/ICPC.2019.00021}, CDLH \cite{10.5555/3172077.3172312} has used the initial version of the BCB covering ten functionalities for their experiments.
Hence, to present a fair comparison with TBCCD, we have also used the same version.
\par BCB dataset has categorized clone types into five categories: Type-1, Type-2, Strongly Type-3, Moderately Type-3, and Weakly Type-3+4 (Type-4) clones. Since there was no consensus on minimum similarity for Type-3 clones and it was difficult to separate Type-3 and Type-4 clones, the BCB creators categorized Type-3 and Type-4 clones based on their syntactic similarity. Thus, Strongly Type-3 clones have at least $70\%$ similarity at the statement level. These clone pairs are very similar and contain some statement-level differences. The clone pairs in the Moderately Type-3 category share at least half of their syntax but contain a significant amount of statement-level differences. The Weakly Type-3+4 code clone category contains pairs that share less than $50\%$ of their syntax. Tables \ref{tab:statistics} and \ref{tab:Percentage of clone-types in BigCloneBench} summarises the data distribution of the BCB dataset.
\subsection{Experimental Procedure and Analysis}
\subsubsection{RQ1: How effective is \textsc{Holmes}\xspace as compared to other state-of-the-art approaches?}
To answer this RQ, we compared two variants of \textsc{Holmes}\xspace with TBCCD \cite{10.1109/ICPC.2019.00021}, a state-of-the-art clone detector that uses AST and tree-based convolutions to measure code similarity. We followed similar experimental settings as used by Yu et al. in TBCCD \cite{10.1109/ICPC.2019.00021}.
To address this RQ, we used datasets from GCJ and BCB. We reserved $30\%$ of the dataset for testing, and the rest we used for training and validation. For the BCB dataset, we use the same code fragments from the related work \cite{10.1109/ICPC.2019.00021, 10.5555/3172077.3172312}. We had used around $700K$ code pairs for training. For validation and testing, we used $300K$ code clone pairs each.
For the GCJ dataset, we had $440K$ clone pairs and $44M$ non-clone pairs. Due to the combinative nature of clones and non-clones, non-clone pairs rapidly outnumber the clone pairs. To deal with this imbalance in clone classes, we did downsampling for non-clone pairs using a reservoir sampling approach. This gives us $500K$ non-clone pairs and $440K$ clone pairs. We evaluated the following variants of \textsc{Holmes}\xspace against TBCCD:
\\\\
$\textbf{1)}$ \textbf{Edge-Unified \textsc{Holmes}\xspace (EU-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace):} In this variant, we did not differentiate between the control and data-dependent edges to learn the program features.
\\\\
$\textbf{2)}$ \textbf{Edge-Attributed \textsc{Holmes}\xspace (EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace)}: Program dependence graphs model control and data flow explicitly. Hence, it is logical to leverage this information as well while learning node representations. To model edge attributes, we have learned different program representations for data-dependent edges ($G_{data}$) and control-dependent edges ($G_{control}$) and aggregated them to obtain the final graph representation ($G_{final}$).
\subsubsection{RQ2: How well \textsc{Holmes}\xspace generalizes on unseen projects and data sets?}
\label{rq:rq2}
To evaluate the robustness and generalizability of EU-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace and EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace, we evaluated the proposed approaches on unseen projects.
In particular, we took EU-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace, EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace, and TBCCD trained on the GCJ dataset. We then tested the stability of the above tools on the following datasets:
\\\\
$\textbf{1)}$ \textbf{GoogleCodeJam (GCJ$^{*}$):}
We used the dataset of functionally similar code snippets (FSCs) proposed by Wagner et al. \cite{Wagner2016HowAF}. This dataset comprises of $32$ clone pairs from $\mathit{GCJ 2014}$. The authors classified the pairs into full syntactic similarity and partial syntactic similarity. The clone pairs are further classified into five categories $-$ \textit{Algorithms, Data Structures, Input/Output, Libraries, and Object-Oriented Design}. Each category has three different clone pairs classified based on the degree of similarity $-$ \textit{low, medium, and high}.
\\\\
$\textbf{2)}$ \textbf{SeSaMe Dataset:}
This dataset \cite{10.1109/MSR.2019.00079} has reported $857$ semantically similar clone pairs from $11$ open-source Java projects. However, of the $11$ projects, we were able to compile only eight projects, which gave us $93$ clone pairs for evaluation.
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:related work}
This section describes the related work on code clone detection techniques and learning program representations using learning-based techniques.
\subsection{Code Clone Detection}
\subsubsection{Traditional code clone detection approaches.}
\par Most traditional code clone detection techniques target Type 1-3 code clones. These techniques measures code similarity by using program representation such as abstract syntax trees \cite{deckard}, lexical tokens \cite{ccfinder,cpminer}, program text\cite{dup,nicad}. Deckard \cite{deckard}, a popular tree-based code clone detection technique, computes characteristic vector for AST nodes of the given program. It then applies Locality Sensitive Hashing (LSH) to find similar code pairs. SourcererCC \cite{7886988} is a token-based code clone detection technique that compares token subsequences to identify program similarity.
\par There are also some graph-based techniques \cite{pdgdup,duplix} that use program dependence graphs to identify Type-4 clones. PDG-DUP \cite{pdgdup} first converts the given program to PDGs and then uses program slicing and subgraph isomorphism to identify clone pairs. DUPLIX \cite{duplix} also uses program slicing and graph isomorphism to identify similar code pairs. However, these approaches do not scale to large codebases and are very time-consuming, limiting their applications in practical software systems. In addition to these, some techniques also exist that compare program runtime behavior \cite{coderelatives} or program memory states \cite{6032469} to identify code clones.
\subsubsection{Learning based code clone detection approaches.}
Learning from data to identify code clones has been a great deal of interest from the past. There have been techniques using data mining approaches to learn code similarity \cite{Marcus, SK}. For example, Marcus and Maletic \cite{Marcus} has proposed to use latent semantic indexing to detect semantic clones. The proposed approach examines the source code text (comments and identifiers) and identifies the implementation of similar high-level concepts such as abstract data types. Much recent work uses learning-based techniques to learn code similarity. These approaches try to learn continuous vector-based representations of code fragments. These vectors are then compared using some distance metric (e.g., Euclidean distance) or using neural networks to measure code functional similarity.
White et al. \cite{10.1145/2970276.2970326} used a recursive neural network to learn program representation. They represented source code as a stream of identifier and literals and used it as an input to their deep learning model. Tufano et al. \cite{8595238} using a similar encoding approach as \cite{10.1145/2970276.2970326} encoded four different program representations- identifiers, Abstract Syntax Trees, Control Flow Graphs, and Bytecode. They then used a deep learning model to measure code similarity based on their multiple learned representations. Wei et al. \cite{ijcai2018-394} uses AST and tree-based LSTM to learn program representation. To incorporate structural information available with the source code Yu et al. \cite{10.1109/ICPC.2019.00021} uses tree-based convolutions over ASTs to learn program representation. Saini et al. \cite{Saini2018OreoDO} proposes using software metrics and machine learning to detect clones in the twilight zone. Zhao et al. \cite{10.1145/3236024.3236068} used feature vectors extracted from the data flow graph of a program to learn program representation using deep neural networks. Mathew et al. \cite{Mathew2020SLACCSL} proposed a cross-language clone detection by comparing the input and output of the potential clone candidates.Additionally, there also exists techniques to detect clones in binaries \cite{Gemini,GMN,DBLP:conf/iwpc/HuZLG17,DBLP:conf/icsm/HuZLWLG18}. Li et al. \cite{GMN} proposed a Graph Matching Network(GMN) to address the problem of matching and retrieval of graph structured data. They have proposed a new cross-graph attention-based matching mechanism to compute similarity score for a given pair of graph. The proposed graph matching network model is shown to outperform the graph embedding models on binary function similarity search. Xu et al. \cite{Gemini} proposed a technique to detect cross-platform clones in binaries. The proposed tool Gemini uses Structure2vec \cite{struct2vec} neural network model to learn the hidden binary function features from control flow graphs. The learned features are then compared using cosine distance to measure code similarity.
\subsection{Representation Learning for Source Code}
There has been a significant interest in utilizing deep learning models to learn program embeddings. The goal is to learn precise representations of source code for solving various software engineering tasks. Gupta et al. \cite{deepfix} propose to fix common programming errors using a multilayered sequence to sequence neural networks with attention. The deep learning model is trained to predict the erroneous program locations in a C program and the required correct statements. Allamanis et al. \cite{allamanis2017learning} use graph-based neural networks over AST based program representation to learn program embeddings. The learned embeddings are then used to predict the names of variables and varmisue bugs. Wang et al. \cite{wang2019learning} use program execution traces to learn program embeddings to predict method names. Ben-Nun et al. \cite{bennun2018neural} use Intermediate Representation (IR) of source code with recurrent neural networks to learn program embeddings. Hoang et al. \cite{hoang2020cc2vec} propose a neural network model CC2Vec to learn a representation of source code changes. CC2Vec uses attention to model the hierarchical structure of source code. The learned vectors represent the semantic intent of code change. The authors have evaluated the proposed approach on three downstream tasks: log message generation, bug fixing patch identification, and just-in-time defect prediction. There has also been some work on assessing the quality of learned representations. Kang et al. \cite{8952475} present an empirical study to assess the generalizability of Code2vec token embeddings. The authors have evaluated the Code2vec token embeddings on three downstream tasks: code comments generation, code authorship identification, and code clone detection. Their results show that the learned representation by the Code2vec model is not generalized and cannot be used readily for the downstream tasks.
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Comparative evaluation with TBCCD variants.}
\label{tab:Comparative evaluation with other state of the art approaches}\centering
\def1.2{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{|M{0.12\textwidth}|M{0.06\textwidth}
|M{0.025\textwidth}|M{0.025\textwidth}|M{0.025\textwidth}
|M{0.025\textwidth}|M{0.025\textwidth}|M{0.025\textwidth}|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{Tool}}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{$\#$Params}}}&
\multicolumn{3}{c|}{\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{BCB}}}&
\multicolumn{3}{c|}{\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{GCJ}}}\\
\cline{3-5} \cline{6-8}
&& \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{P}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{R}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{F1}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{P}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{R}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{F1}} \\
\hline
TBCCD(-token) & $2.1\times10^{5}$ & $0.77$ & $0.73$ & $0.74$ & $0.77$ & $0.80$ & $0.80$\\
\hline
TBCCD & $1.7\times10^{5}$ & $0.96$ & $.96$ & $0.96$ & $0.79$ & $0.85$ & $0.82$\\
\hline
EU-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace & $1.7\times10^{6}$ & $0.72$ & $0.97$ & $0.83$ & $0.84$ & $0.92$ & $0.88$\\
\hline
\textbf{ EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace } & $6.6\times10^{6}$ & $\textbf{0.97}$ & $\textbf{0.98}$ & $\textbf{0.98}$ & $\textbf{0.91}$ & $\textbf{0.93}$ & $\textbf{0.92}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[t]
\def1.2{1.2}
\centering \caption{F1 value comparison w.r.t various clones types in BigCloneBench dataset.}
\label{tab: F1 value comparison w.r.t various clones types in BigCloneBench dataset}\small
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{Tools} & \textbf{T1} & \textbf{T2} & \textbf{ST3} & \textbf{MT3} & \textbf{WT3/T4}\\
\hline
TBCCD(-token) & $\textbf{1.0}$ & $0.90$ & $0.80 $& $0.65$ & $0.60$\\
\hline
TBCCD & $\textbf{1.0}$ &$\textbf{ 1.0}$ & $0.98$ & $0.96$ & $0.96$\\
\hline
EU-HOLMES & $\textbf{1.0}$ & $\textbf{1.0}$ & $0.86$ & $0.80$ & $0.80$\\
\hline
EA-HOLMES & $\textbf{1.0}$ & $\textbf{1.0}$ & $\textbf{0.99}$ & $\textbf{0.99}$ & $\textbf{0.99}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{lstlisting}[float=t,caption= A WT3/T4 clone example from BCB dataset. The code snippets are implementing the functionality for copying the directory and its content. Although the snippets are reported under Wt3/T4 clone category they are syntactically similar with some differences in the sequence of invoked methods and API calls. ,captionpos=b,label=t4clone,firstnumber=1,frame=tlrb]
public void copyDirectory(File srcDir, File dstDir){
if (srcDir.isDirectory()){
if (!dstDir.exists())
dstDir.mkdir();
String[] children = srcDir.list();
for (int i = 0; i < children.length; i++) {
copyDirectory(new File(srcDir, children[i]),
new File(dstDir, children[i]));
}
}
else{
copyFile(srcDir, dstDir);
}
}
//clone pair
public static void copy(File src, File dst){
if (src.isDirectory()) {
String[] srcChildren = src.list();
for (int i = 0; i < srcChildren.length; ++i) {
File srcChild = new File(src, srcChildren[i]);
File dstChild = new File(dst, srcChildren[i]);
copy(srcChild, dstChild);
}
}
else
transferData(src, dst);
}
\end{lstlisting}
\begin{table}[t]
\def1.2{1.2}
\centering
\caption{Performance on unseen dataset.}
\label{tab:Performance on unseen dataset}\centering\small
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{Tool}}}&
\multicolumn{3}{c|}{\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{GCJ$^{*}$}}}&
\multicolumn{3}{c|}{\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{SeSaMe}}}
\\
\cline{2-4} \cline{5-7}
&\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{P}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{R}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{F1}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{P}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{R}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{F1}} \\
\hline
TBCCD & $1.0$ &$0.63 $ & $0.77$ & $1.0$ & $0.48$ & $0.64$ \\
\hline
EU-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace & $1.0 $& $0.65$ & $0.78$ & $1.0$ & $0.52$ & $0.68$ \\
\hline
\textbf{ EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace } & \textbf{$1.0$} & \textbf{$0.87$} & \textbf{$0.93$} & \textbf{$1.0$} & \textbf{$0.85$} & \textbf{$0.92$}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}%
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\begin{tabular}{p{0.5\textwidth}p{0.5\textwidth}}
\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Images/roc_test.png}
\caption{ROC curve of TBCCD, EU-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace, EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace on GCJ dataset. (AUC values are rounded up to $2$ decimal places)}
\label{gcjval}
\end{minipage}
&
\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Images/roc_bcb.png}
\caption{ROC curve of TBCCD, EU-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace, EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace on BCB dataset.(AUC values are rounded up to $2$ decimal places)}
\label{bcbtest}
\end{minipage}
\end{tabular}
\end{figure*}
The results of our comprehensive evaluation are summarized in this section.
\begin{table*}[!tbp]
\def1.2{1.2}
\caption{Detailed analysis of results on unseen GCJ$^{*}$ submissions.}
\label{tab:Detailed analysis of results on unseen google code jam submissions}\centering\small
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{Category}}}&
\multicolumn{6}{c||}{\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{ EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace }}}&
\multicolumn{6}{c|}{\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{TBCCD}}}
\\
\cline{2-7} \cline{8-13}
&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{Low}}}&
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{Medium}}}&
\multicolumn{2}{c||}{\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{High}}}&
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{Low}}}&
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{Medium}}}&
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{High}}}
\\
\cline{2-3} \cline{4-5} \cline{6-7} \cline{8-9}
\cline{10-11} \cline{12-13}
&\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Full}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Part}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Full}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Part}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Full}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c||}{\textbf{Part}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Full}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Part}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Full}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Part}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Full}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Part}}
\\
\cline{2-2}
\cline{3-3} \cline{4-4} \cline{5-5} \cline{6-6} \cline{7-7}
\cline{8-8} \cline{9-9} \cline{10-10} \cline{11-11} \cline{12-12} \cline{13-13}
Data Structure & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \ding{53} & \ding{53} & \checkmark &
\ding{53} & \ding{53} & \checkmark & \checkmark & \ding{53} & \ding{53}
\\
\hline
OO Design & \checkmark & \ding{53} & \checkmark& \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark &
\checkmark & \ding{53} & \checkmark & \checkmark& \checkmark & \checkmark
\\
\hline
Algorithm & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark& \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \ding{53} & \checkmark & \checkmark & \ding{53} & \ding{53} & \checkmark\\
\hline
Library & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark& \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \ding{53} & \checkmark& \checkmark& \checkmark& \ding{53}& \ding{53}\\
\hline
Input/Output & \checkmark & \checkmark & \ding{53}& \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \ding{53} & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \ding{53}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\subsection{RQ1: How effective is \textsc{Holmes}\xspace as compared to other state-of-the-art approaches?}
To answer this RQ, we compared our proposed approach variants EU-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace and EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace with two variants of TBCCD - $(1)$ TBCCD(-token), and $(2)$ TBCCD. These variants of TBCCD are reported in the paper \cite{10.1109/ICPC.2019.00021}. The variant TBCCD(-token) uses randomly initialized AST node embeddings in place of source code tokens, which are fine-tuned during training. The second variant, TBCCD, uses the token-enhanced AST and PACE embedding technique. The token-enhanced AST contains source code tokens such as constants, identifiers, strings, special symbols, etc. Table \ref{tab:Comparative evaluation with other state of the art approaches} shows the comparative evaluation of EU-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace and EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace with TBCCD(-token) and TBCCD on the BCB and GCJ datasets.
\par On the BCB dataset from Table \ref{tab:Comparative evaluation with other state of the art approaches}, we can see both TBCCD and EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace perform equally well, while the performance of TBCCD(-token) drops significantly. The BCB dataset categorizes clones into five categories: Type-1 clones, Type-2 clones, Strongly Type-3 clones, Moderately Type-3 clones, and Weakly Type-3+4 (Type-4) clones. Since there was no consensus on minimum similarity for Type-3 clones, and it was difficult to separate Type-3 and Type-4 clones, the BCB creators categorized Type-3 and Type-4 clones based on their syntactic similarity. Thus, Strongly Type-3 clones have at least $70\%$ similarity at the statement level. These clone pairs are very similar and contain some statement-level differences. The clone pairs in the Moderately Type-3 category share at least half of their syntax but contain a significant amount of statement-level differences. The Weakly Type-3+4 code clone category contains pairs that share less than $50\%$ of their syntax. Table \ref{tab: F1 value comparison w.r.t various clones types in BigCloneBench dataset} further shows the performance of TBCCD(-token), TBCCD, EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace, and EU-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace on different code clone types in the BCB dataset. All the approaches achieve good performance on Type-1 and Type-
2 code clone categories, as these code clone types are easier to detect. While on the hard-to-detect code clone categories such as Moderately Type-3, Weakly Type-3+4, TBCCD(-token) performs poorly compared to the TBCCD variant, we also see an improvement of {\raise.17ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\mathtt{\sim}$}}$3\%$ in EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace as compared to TBCCD. The reason for the improved performance of TBCCD is attributed to the use of syntactic similarity existing between the code snippets in the BCB dataset, as shown in Listing \ref{t4clone}. This syntactic similarity existing in the form of identifiers, tokens, etc., is exploited by TBCCD while learning for code similarity.
\par On the other hand, on the GCJ dataset, the performance of both TBCCD's variants, i.e., TBCCD(-token) and TBCCD, drops significantly. We can see an improvement of {\raise.17ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\mathtt{\sim}$}}$10\%$ in the F1-score on the GCJ dataset in EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace compared to TBCCD. The performance drop in TBCCD(-token) and TBCCD on the GCJ dataset is attributable to two factors: $(1)$ Both TBCCD's variants use ASTs to learn program features. ASTs represent program syntactic structure, and as shown in Listings \ref{code1} and \ref{code2}, the code clone pairs in GCJ have a significant structural difference. Thus, the ASTs of these code pairs are very different, making it hard for the model to infer similarity; and $(2)$ As opposed to the BCB dataset, where there was some syntactic similarity between the code pairs, the GCJ code clone pairs have substantial differences in structure and algorithm. These differences are not unexpected because the submissions are made by independent programmers implementing the solutions from scratch. Consequently, without modeling semantics, the GCJ dataset's clones are harder to detect compared to BCB.
\par Also, from Tables \ref{tab:Comparative evaluation with other state of the art approaches} and \ref{tab: F1 value comparison w.r.t various clones types in BigCloneBench dataset}, we observe that EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace performs better than EU-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace on GCJ and BCB datasets in every evaluation metric. This performance difference demonstrates the importance of structured semantics of source code while learning code functional similarity.
\par Additionally, to analyze the diagnostic ability of TBCCD, EU-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace, and EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace, we plotted the Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curve by varying the classification threshold. Figures \ref{gcjval} and \ref{bcbtest} show the ROC curve and corresponding Area Under Curve (AUC) values for the GCJ and BCB dataset. We have plotted the ROC curve of the TBCCD variant only, as it has outperformed the TBCCD(-token) variant on the GCJ and BCB datasets. For all other experiments also, we have considered the TBCCD variant only.
\par ROC curve is a graphical plot, visualizing trade-off between True Positive Rate (TPR) plotted on the y-axis and False Positive Rate (FPR) plotted on the x-axis. AUC metric measures the degree of separability. Generally, an excellent classifier has a high AUC, denoting the model is better at predicting clone pairs as clones and non-clone pairs as non-clones. We can see from Figures \ref{gcjval} and \ref{bcbtest} that EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace has the best AUC value on both the datasets.
\par \textbf{Time Performance}. We also evaluated the time performance of TBCCD, EU-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace, and EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace on two parameters $- (1)$ time taken to build ASTs vs. time taken to build PDGs, and $(2)$ total training and evaluation time. We run each of these tools with the same parameter settings reported in Section \ref{subsec:parmeter} on the full GCJ dataset on a Workstation with an Intel Xeon(R) processor having $24$ CPU cores. We have used a GeForce RTX $2080$Ti GPU with $11 GB$ of GPU memory.
\par The total time taken to build AST for $9436$ project files was $30$ minutes, while PDG took $60$ minutes. Figure \ref{Time performance analysis on GCJ dataset} shows the training and evaluation time analysis of TBCCD, EU-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace, and EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace. EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace learns separate representation for the control and data dependence graphs. Thus, it takes more training time than EU-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace and TBCCD. Even though the total time taken to build PDGs is greater than building ASTs and EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace takes longer training time, these are one-time offline processes. Once a model is trained, it can be reused to detect code clones.
\subsection{RQ2: How well \textsc{Holmes}\xspace generalizes on unseen projects and data sets?}
Table \ref{tab:Performance on unseen dataset} shows performance of EU-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace, EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace, and TBCCD on unseen datasets. We can see that EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace performs considerably better on both datasets as compared to TBCCD.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Images/meta-chart13.png}
\caption{Time performance analysis on the GCJ dataset.}
\label{Time performance analysis on GCJ dataset}
\end{figure}
\par Table \ref{tab:Detailed analysis of results on unseen google code jam submissions} shows the detailed classification result of TBCCD and EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace on the GCJ$^{*}$ dataset. In the table, $\checkmark$ indicates that the code clone detector detects the pair, while \ding{53} indicates that the pair goes undetected. From table \ref{tab:Detailed analysis of results on unseen google code jam submissions}, we can infer that our proposed approach can detect the majority of the pairs correctly, even the pairs with partial syntactic similarity. These results affirm that EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace generalizes well on unseen datasets also.
\section{Motivation}
\label{sec:motivation}
\subsection{Motivating Example}
In this section, we present an example and our observations to motivate our approach.\newline
Listings \ref{code1} and \ref{code2} show two solutions submitted for the \textit{GoogleCodeJam} problem \textit{Goro Sort}. The problem involves an interesting method of sorting an array of natural numbers in which the array is shuffled $n$ times randomly to get it sorted. The users have to report the minimum number of times shuffling is required to sort the array.
\par Listing \ref{code1} implements the above functionality by first initializing an array of size $T$ with random numbers. It then checks if the current index element is equal to the index of the next element. The average number of hits required to sort the array was given by the size of the array ($T$) minus the number of times the element at the current index is equal to the next index.
\par Listing \ref{code2} implements the same functionality while taking input from the user at run time. It keeps the counter; if the current value is equal to counter$+1$, it reduces the average hits required by $-1$. Syntactically, Listings \ref{code1} and \ref{code2} are quite different. However, semantically, they are similar and will be classified as type 4 clones according to the taxonomy proposed in \cite{Roy07asurvey}.
\par The existing ML-based code clone detection approaches \cite{ijcai2018-394, 10.5555/3172077.3172312, 10.1109/ICPC.2019.00021} used syntactic and(or) lexical information to learn program features. For instance, TBCCD \cite{10.1109/ICPC.2019.00021} used tree-based convolution over abstract syntax trees (ASTs) to learn program representation. If we look at the ASTs of Listings \ref{code1} (for line $8-11$) and \ref{code2} (for line $5-8$) shown in Figures \ref{AST1} and \ref{AST2},
it's hard to infer that the two ASTs correspond to similar programs. We executed TBCCD, trained on \textit{GoogleCodeJam} problems($2010-2017$), on this example and TBCCD caused a false negative by reporting Listings \ref{code1} and \ref{code2} as a non-clone pair. This led us to our first \textbf{Observation (O1):} \textit{To achieve accurate detection of semantic clones, we need to incorporate more semantic information while learning program representation.}
\par We then computed program dependency graphs (PDGs) for Listings \ref{code1} and \ref{code2}. The PDGs are shown in Figures \ref{PDG1} and \ref{PDG2}. If we look at the Figures \ref{PDG1} and \ref{PDG2}, we will observe that the flow of data and control between the two PDGs are similar, as PDGs approximate the semantic dependencies between the statements. However, PDGs suffer from scalability problems. The size of the PDGs can be considerably large. For a program with 40-50 lines of code, we can have around $100$ vertices and $100$ edges. This led us to our second \textbf{Observation (O2):} \textit{To learn important semantic features from the source code, a model should not weigh all paths equally. It should learn to give higher weights to semantically relevant paths.}
\par Source code is a complex web of interacting components such as classes, routines, program statements, etc. Understanding source code amounts to understanding the interactions between different components. Previous studies such as \cite{Binkley07sourcecode} have shown that graphical representation of source code is better suited to study and analyze these complex relationships between different components. Yet, the recent code clone detection approaches \cite{10.5555/3172077.3172312, 10.1145/3236024.3236068, 10.1145/2970276.2970326} do not make use of these well defined graphical structures while learning program representation. These approaches use deep learning models that do not take advantage of the available structured input, for example, capturing induced long range variable dependency between program statements.
This led us to our third \textbf{ Observation (O3):} \textit{To capitalize on the source code's structured semantic features, one might have to expose these semantics explicitly as a structured input to the neural network model.}
\subsection{Key Ideas}
Based on the above observations, we have created our approach with the following key ideas:
\\
$a)$ From observation 1, we learned program features from the PDG representation of source code to capture the program semantics. Such graphs enable us to capture the data and control dependence between the program statements.
\\
$b)$ From observation 2, we designed an attention-based deep neural network to model the relationship between the important nodes in the PDG. The attention-based model emphasizes learning the semantically relevant paths in the PDG necessary to measure code similarity.
\\
$c)$ From observation 3, we used a graph-based neural network model to learn the structured semantic features of the source code. We have encoded the source code's semantics and syntax into a graph-based structure and used a graph-based deep learning model to learn latent program features.
\section{Threats To Validity}
\label{threats to validity}
\subsection{Implementing baselines on our datasets.}
We have used the available implementation of TBCCD \cite{10.1109/ICPC.2019.00021}.
There are various options available to tune the hyper-parameters of TBCCD, such as varying batch size, learning rate, etc. Each possible option tuning of TBCCD might have produced different results. To mitigate this, we have selected the default settings (the best parameters for TBCCD) reported by Yu et al. in \cite{10.1109/ICPC.2019.00021}.
\subsection{Generalizing results in other programming languages.}
In this paper, we have implemented the proposed approach for the Java language. While the PDG generation part is implemented in Java, all other subsequent steps are language agnostic. Attention, graph-based neural networks have been used in different contexts and for other languages as well. Also, the PDG can be generated for code written in other languages; for instance, LLVMs can generate PDGs for C/C++ code snippets. Therefore, \textsc{Holmes}\xspace can potentially be adapted to work for code written in other programming languages. However, since we have not tested this, we can not make a sound claim regarding its efficacy.
\subsection{Evaluating \textsc{Holmes}\xspace on open source projects and programming competition datasets.}
We conducted experiments on two widely used datasets for code clone detection in this work - GoogleCodeJam and BigCloneBench. We have also tried to use a large and representative dataset for our experiments. Unlike the past work \cite{10.1145/3236024.3236068}, which has used $12$ different functionality in their evaluation, we have used $100$ different functionalities from GoogleCodeJam. However, \textsc{Holmes}\xspace performance might vary across other projects, as these benchmarks are not representative of all software systems. To mitigate this threat and assess \textsc{Holmes}\xspace generalizability, we have also performed some cross dataset experiments on SeSaMe and a GoogleCodeJam dataset variant.
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}}
\input{Sections/Intro}
\input{Sections/motivation}
\input{Sections/Background}
\input{Sections/Approach}
\input{Sections/Experiments}
\input{Sections/Results}
\input{Sections/Discussion}
\input{Sections/threatstovalidity}
\input{Sections/RelatedWork}
\input{Sections/Conclusion}
\ifCLASSOPTIONcompsoc
\section*{Acknowledgments}
\else
\section*{Acknowledgment}
\fi
This work is supported in part by the Department of Science and Technology (DST) (India), Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB), the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), Infosys Center for Artificial Intelligence at IIIT-Delhi, and Nucleus Software Exports Ltd.
\ifCLASSOPTIONcaptionsoff
\newpage
\fi
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
\section{Our Approach}
\label{sec:approach}
This section discusses the details of our graph neural network architecture that is used to learn high level program features from program dependency graphs.
Figure \ref{fig:Approach} shows an overview of one branch of the Siamese neural network shown in Figure \ref{fig:approach overview} . The following subsections give details of the main steps of the proposed approach.
\subsection{Attention Based Global Context Learning}
\label{subsec:gat}
Our work builds on Graph Attention Networks (GAT) \cite{GAT}, and we summarize them here. Given a program dependence graph $G = (V,E,A,X)$, we have a set of $V$ vertices representing program statements, and a list of directed control and data-dependent edges $E = (E_{1},E_{2})$. $A$ denotes the adjacency matrix of $G$, where $ A \in \mathbb{R} ^{|V| \times |V|}$ with $A_{ij}$ = 1 if $e_{ij} \in E$, and $A_{ij}$ = 0 if $e_{ij} \notin E$. The node feature matrix is represented by $ X\in \mathbb{R}^{|V| \times d} $ with $ x_{v} \in \mathbb{R} ^{d} $ denoting the feature vector of vertex $v$.
\par For every node $v \in V$, we associate a feature vector $x_{v}$, representing the type of statement it belongs to. We considered the following $18$ types: \texttt{Identity, Assignment, Abstract, Abstract Definition, Breakpoint, Enter Monitor, Exit Monitor, Goto, If, Invoke, LookupSwitch, Nop, Return, Return void, Throw, JTableSwitch} corresponding to the types of the statements used by Soot's internal representation. We encode this statement type information into an $18$-dimensional one-hot encoded feature vector. For example, the statement $x = y + z$ is of type \texttt{Assignment statement} and will be represented as \textbf{[0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0]}. In the first place, to obtain initial node vectors, we pass node features through a linear transformation layer:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:mlp}
H^{0} = X \times W + b
\end{equation}
Where $W$ and $b$ are the learnable weights and bias of the linear layer. $H^{0} \in \mathbb{R}^{|V| \times d^{'}}$ denotes the initial node embeddings matrix with $h^{0}_{i}$ representing embedding vector for a single node $i \in V$. Line \ref{algo:linlayer} in Algorithm \ref{algo} inside function $ComputeGFeatures$ denotes the above action.
\begin{algorithm}[th]
\caption{Code Similarity Detection}
\label{algo}
\SetKwInput{KwInput}{Input}
\SetKwInput{KwOutput}{Output}
\DontPrintSemicolon
\KwInput{$T$ rounds of propagation, $train\_Data$}
\KwOutput{$code\_similarity$}
\SetKwProg{Fn}{Define}{:}{\KwRet}
\Fn{ComputeNodeFeatures($H^{0}$, $A$, $T$)}{
$H_{F} = [H^{0}]$\;
\tcp{$C^{0}$ is the initial cell state of $LSTM$ }
\textbf{Initialize} \textbf{Array } $C^{0}$\;
\For{$t\gets1$ \KwTo $T$ }{
\tcp{Attention block 1 (Eqn. (\ref{eq:a1}))}
$H^{'}$ = $Attn_{1}\left(A,H^{(t-1)};\phi_1\right)$ \label{A1:CNF:a1}\;
\tcp{Attention block 2 (Eqn. (\ref{eq:a2}))}
$H^{''(t-1)} = Attn_2\left(A,H^{'};\phi_2\right)$\label{A1:CNF:a2}\;
\tcp{$t^{th}$ propagation round (Eqn. (\ref{eq:GPdepth}))}
$H^{(t)}, C^{(t)}$ = $LSTM(H^{''(t-1)},C^{(t-1)})$\label{A1:CNF:lstm}\;
\tcp{Final node features (Eqn. (\ref{eq:cat_node_reps}))}
$H_{F} = CONCAT(H^{(t)})$\label{A1:CNF:cat_features}\;
}
\KwRet $H_{F}$\;
}
\;
\SetKwProg{Fn}{Define}{:}{\KwRet}
\Fn{GraphPooling($H_{node}$)}{
$H_{G} = a(MLP(H_{node})) \odot MLP(H_{node})$\;
\KwRet $H_{G}$\;
}
\;
\SetKwProg{Fn}{Define}{:}{\KwRet}
\Fn{ComputeGFeatures($X$, $A_{c}$, $A_{d}$, $T$)}{
$H^{0} = X \times W + b$\; \label{algo:linlayer}
$H_{d} = $ComputeNodeFeatures$(H^{0}, A_{d}, T)$\;
$H_{c} = $ComputeNodeFeatures$(H^{0}, A_{c}, T)$\;
$H_{final} = H_{d} + H_{c}$\;
$G_{final} = $GraphPooling$(H_{final})$\;
\KwRet $G_{final}$\;
}
\;
\SetKwProg{Fn}{Define}{:}{\KwRet}
\Fn{Train($train\_data$, $T$)}{
\While {$not\_converged$} {
\While {$data$ in $train\_data$} {
$X_{1} = data.X_{1}$\;
$X_{2} = data.X_{2}$\;
$A_{c1} = data.A_{control1}$\;
$A_{d1} = data.A_{data1}$\;
$A_{c2} = data.A_{control2}$\;
$A_{d2} = data.A_{data2}$\;
$Y = data.Y$\;
$G_{1} = $ComputeGFeatures$(X_{1}, A_{c1}, A_{d1},T)$\;
$G_{2} = $ComputeGFeatures$(X_{2}, A_{c2}, A_{d2},T)$\;
$featureRep = CONCAT(G_{1},G_{2})$\;
$featureRep = a(MLP(featureRep))$\;
$similarity = a(MLP(featureRep))$\;
$loss = LOSS(similarity,Y)$\;
$Update\_Optimizer(loss)$\;
}
}
}
\end{algorithm}
Next, to obtain node features for a given graph, we learn an adaptive function $\varphi (A, H; \phi) $ parametrized by $\phi$ similar to GAT \cite{GAT}.
The input to the function is the set of node features $\{h^{0}_{1},h^{0}_{2}, \cdots ,h^{0}_{|V|}\}$ obtained from Equation \eqref{eq:mlp}. The function $\varphi$
then outputs the set of new node features $\{h^{'}_{1},h^{'}_{2} ,\cdots ,h^{'}_{|V|}\}$ as the output of the first attention block. It computes the self-attention on nodes based on the graph structural information where a node $v_{j}$ attends to its one-hop neighboring node $v_{i}$, i.e., if $(v_{i},v_{j}) \in E$. The attention mechanism $a : \mathbb{R}^{d^{'}} \times \mathbb{R}^{d^{'}} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ computes attention coefficients
\begin{equation}\label{eq:node_imp}
e_{ij} = a(Wh_{i},Wh_{j})
\end{equation}
Equation \eqref{eq:node_imp} denotes the importance of node $j's$ features for node $i$. {\color{blue}The scores are then normalized using the softmax function}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:scores}
\alpha_{ij} = \frac{exp(e_{ij})}{\sum_{j \in N(i)} exp(e_{ij})}
\end{equation}
The attention scores computed in Equation \eqref{eq:scores} are then used to output a linear combination of features of node $v_{j}, ~\forall j \in N(i)$ that will be used as the final output features of node $v_{i}$.
\par We have used two attention modules to learn node representation. The output of attention module $1$ with eight different attention heads is shown by Equation \ref{eq:a1}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:a1}
h_{i}^{'} = \|_{k = 1}^{8} \sigma \left( \sum_{j \in N(i)} \alpha_{ij}^{k}W^{'k}h_{j}^{0} \right)
\end{equation}
Where $h_{i}^{'}$ denotes the intermediate representation after the first attention block, $\alpha$ denotes the corresponding attention scores, $\sigma$ is the sigmoid activation function, $W'$ are the weight parameters in the first attention block, and $\|$ represents the concatenation of the attention coefficients from eight different heads. Equation \ref{eq:a2} represents the output of attention module $2$. Here, we have aggregated the output from different attention nodes.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:a2}
h_{i}^{''} = \sigma \left( \sum _{k=1}^{6} \sum_{j \in N(i)} \beta_{ij}^{k}W^{''k}h_{j}^{'} \right)
\end{equation}
Here, $\beta$ represents the attention scores computed for attention module $2$, $W''$ are the weight parameters in the second attention block, and $h_{i}^{''}$ represents the learned node features at the output of the second attention block. This node representation $h_{i}^{''}$ is input to the LSTM module as $h_{i}^{''(0)}$ in the first propagation round. As shown in Figure \ref{fig:approach overview}, the LSTM module's output, $h_{i}^{(1)}$, is fed back to the first attention block as an input. The process described above is repeated to update the node representations, with the output of the second attention block $h_{i}^{''(t-1)}$ as input to the LSTM at the $t^{th}$ propagation round. The $T$ propagation rounds result in learned representations of the individual nodes that capture the semantic context through the graph's structural information and the learnable attention-based weights. Lines \ref{A1:CNF:a1}-\ref{A1:CNF:lstm} of Function $ComputeNodeFeatures$ defined in Algorithm \ref{algo} presents the above exposition. The parameter sets $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ comprise all the first and second attention blocks' parameters, respectively.
\subsection{LSTM Based Local context Learning}
\label{subsec:lstm}
The multi-head attention mechanism enables node representations to capture the context from their one-hop neighbors. However, the semantic context within a code fragment typically requires a broader context provided by a node's $t$-hop neighbors. Inspired by the architecture of the adaptive path layer in GeniePath \cite{GeniePath}, we use an LSTM layer, which when combined with the multi-head attention previously described, helps learn node representations that are better equipped to capture the semantic information of the code fragment.
The input to the LSTM model at the $(t+1)^{th}$ propagation round is $h_i^{''(t)}$, the representation of the $i^{th}$ node. This strategy allows the node representations to capture the context from its $t$-hop neighbors \cite{GeniePath}.\\
We initialize the LSTM cell with random values. The cell state $C^{(t)}_j$ corresponding to the $j^{th}$ node ($j\in V$) is updated in the $t^{th}$ propagation round, effectively aggregating information from $t$-hop neighbors of node $j$. The node representation is then accordingly updated as a function of the cell state. The update Equations are presented below.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:GPdepth}
\left.\begin{aligned}
& i_{j} = \sigma(W_{i}h^{''(t-1)}_{j}), &f_{j} = \sigma(W_{f}h^{''(t-1)}_{j}),\\
& o_{j} = \sigma(W_{o}h^{''(t-1)}_{j}), &\widetilde{C}_j\! =\! tanh(W_{c} h_{j}^{''(t-1)}),\\
& C_{j}^{(t)}\! =\! f_{j}\! \odot\! C_{j}^{(t-1)}\! +\! i_{j}\!\odot\! \widetilde{C}_j,& h_{j}^{(t)} = o_{j} \odot tanh(C_{j}^{(t)})
\end{aligned}
\right\}
\end{equation}
Where $\odot$ denotes element-wise multiplication. The input gate of LSTM $i_{j}$ is being used to extract new messages from the input $h_{j}^{''(t-1)}$ and are added to memory $C_{j}^{(t)}$. The gated unit $f_{j}$ is the forget gate used to filter out unwanted messages from the old memory $C_{j}^{(t-1)}$. Lastly, the output gate $o_{j}$ and the updated memory $C_{j}^{(t)}$ are used for constructing the final node representation $h_{j}^{(t)}$ at $(t)^{th}$ propagation round for node $j$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=3.5cm,width=3.5cm]{Images/LSTM.png}
\caption{A synthetic example showing explored receptive path (area covered by the dotted red line) for the target node. The edge thickness denotes the received attention scores while learning features for the target node. Control and data-dependent edges are shown through solid and dotted edges, respectively.}
\label{fig:lstm}
\end{figure}
\par Figure \ref{fig:lstm} conveys the above exposition through a synthetic example. \textsc{Holmes}\xspace tries to filter and aggregate meaningful features from different two-hop neighbors while learning representation for the target node. The multi-head attention module in each propagation round attends to different neighbors (edge width in Figure \ref{fig:lstm} denotes the importance of different hop neighbors at each propagation step). The LSTM module filters and aggregates the messages received from different hop neighbors over multiple propagation rounds. The area covered by the red dotted line denotes the relevant neighboring nodes (receptive path) for learning the feature representation of the target node.
\subsection{Graph Representation Learning with Jumping Knowledge Networks}
\label{subsec:gp}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Images/jknets.png}
\caption{Illustration of the $4$-layer architecture of \textsc{Holmes}\xspace using Jumping Knowledge Networks (JK nets) defined by Xu et al. \cite{JK}. At every propagation round t, the feature vector of node $v$ is aggregated with its $t^{th}$ order neighbors. At the last layer ($4^{th}$ propagation round), all the hidden feature vectors from all the propagation rounds are concatenated to constitute the final hidden representation for node $v$. The concatenation of hidden features from all the propagation rounds ensures that the features learned from $n^{th}$ hop neighbors during different propagation rounds are retained till last and also reflected in the final hidden representation of node $v$.}
\label{fig:JK}
\end{figure}
To learn the high-level program features from the program dependence graphs, our graph neural network (GNN) model iteratively aggregates the node features from different $n^{th}$ hop neighbors via message passing scheme, described in Sections \ref{subsec:gat} and \ref{subsec:lstm}.
\par To learn the diverse and locally varying graph structure and the relations between program statements effectively, a broader context is needed, i.e., the GNN model should explore the deeper neighborhood. We observed that, while aggregating features from the different $n^{th}$ hop neighbors (going till depth $4$ -- i.e. $n \in {1,2,3,4}$), our GNN model's performance degrades (also shown in Figure \ref{fig:jkgapexpt}).
\par Thus, to stabilize the training and learn the diverse local neighborhood for each node, we employed Jumping Knowledge Networks (JK) \cite{JK}, shown in Figure \ref{fig:JK}. JK combines (concatenates; denoted by $\|$ operator below) the hidden features ($H^{(t)}$ defined on Line \ref{A1:CNF:lstm}, Algorithm \ref{algo}) learned at each GNN iteration independently:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cat_node_reps}
H_F = \left[ H^{0} \| H^{(1)} \| \cdots \| H^{(T)} \right]
\end{equation}
Line \ref{A1:CNF:cat_features} of Function $ComputeNodeFeatures$ defined in Algorithm \ref{algo} conveys the above description.
\par For obtaining graph level representation from the learned node feature vectors, we have employed a soft attention mechanism proposed by Li et al. \cite{ggnn}:
\begin{equation}
H_{G} = \left(\sum_{i \in V}\sigma \big(MLP(h_{i}^{(T)})\big) \odot MLP(h_{i}^{(T)}) \right)
\end{equation}
where $T$ denotes the $T$ rounds of propagation and $\sigma \left(MLP(h_{i}^{(T)})\right)$ computes the attention scores. The attention scores act as a filtering mechanism that helps to pull out irrelevant information. The Function $GraphPooling$ defined in Algorithm \ref{algo} shows the above exposition.
\subsection{Edge-attributed PDGs}
PDGs use data dependence and control dependence edges to capture the syntactic and semantic relationships between different program statements. Control dependence edges encode program structure while data dependence edges encode the semantics.
\par Hence, to leverage the available syntactic and semantic information more effectively, we propose to learn program representations corresponding to each edge type. Therefore, given a program dependence graph $G$, we will learn two separate node feature matrix $H_{data}$ and $H_{control}$. $H_{data}$ represents the learned node feature matrix corresponding to the subgraph of $G$ induced by data dependence edges, and $H_{control}$ represents the learned node feature matrix corresponding to the subgraph induced by control dependence edges in $G$. Next, to obtain the final representation for the nodes in $G$, we do the vertex wise addition of $H_{data}$ and $H_{control}$. \newline
\begin{equation}\label{EdgeD}
\left.\begin{aligned}
H_{data} = ComputeNodeFeatures (H_{0},A_{d},T)\\
H_{control} = ComputeNodeFeatures (H_{0},A_{c},T)\\
H_{final} = H_{data} + H_{control}
\end{aligned}
\right\}
\end{equation}
Thereafter, to obtain the final graph representation $G_{final}$ we applied graph pooling defined in Section \ref{subsec:gp} on the learned node feature matrix $H_{final}$.
\begin{equation}\label{finalG}
G_{final} = GraphPooling(H_{final})
\end{equation}
\subsection{Implementation and Comparative Evaluation}
\label{subsec:parmeter}
We have used the Soot optimization framework \cite{inproceedings} to build program dependence graphs. To compute the control dependence graph, we first build a control flow graph. Then Cytron's method \cite{cdg} is used to compute control dependence. For computing data dependence graph, reaching definition \cite{RDAnalysis} and upward exposed analysis \cite{Upwardexpose} is used.
\par We have used the PyTorch geometric \cite{torchgeometric} deep learning library to implement \textsc{Holmes}\xspace. All LSTMs have a single LSTM layer with $100$ hidden units. We have used the LeakyReLU \cite{LReLU} as the non-linear activation function with a negative slope of $0.02$ and a sigmoid layer at the output for classification.
The network is initialized using the Kaiming Uniform method \cite{kaiming}. The Siamese network is trained to minimize binary cross-entropy loss given in Equation \ref{bce} using Adam \cite{kingma2014adam} optimizer with a learning rate set to $0.0002$ and batch size to $50$.
\begin{equation}\label{bce}
BCELoss = -\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}y_{i}\times log(p(y_{i})) + (1-y_{i})\times log(1-p(y_{i}))
\end{equation}
Where $y_{i}$ denotes the true binary label, and $p(y_{i})$ denotes predicted probability (similarity score). $N$ is the number of samples in the dataset. The output of Algorithm \ref{algo} is the similarity score. To determine the decision threshold ($\epsilon$), we employed a threshold moving approach. We first predicted the probability for each sample on the validation set and then converted the probabilities into the class label by varying $\epsilon$ from $[0.2-0.8]$ with the step size of $0.1$. We evaluated the class labels on each threshold value in the range and selected $\epsilon$ on which we got the maximum F1-score on the validation set. This threshold was then used to evaluate the samples in the test set and is also used in the experiments defined in \ref{rq:rq2}
\par For the BigCloneBench (BCB) dataset since it does not provide the input files' dependency information, we used JCoffee \cite{Jcoffee} to infer missing dependencies to generate PDGs. JCoffee infers missing dependencies based on the compiler's feedback in an iterative process. With JCoffee, we successfully compiled $90\%$ of the snippets from the BCB dataset.
We compared \textsc{Holmes}\xspace with the state-of-the-art code clone detection tool TBCCD \cite{10.1109/ICPC.2019.00021}. Other recent machine-learning-based code clone detection tools namely, CDLH \cite{10.5555/3172077.3172312} and CDPU \cite{ijcai2018-394} do not have their implementation available open-source.
DeepSim \cite{10.1145/3236024.3236068} does not provide implementation details of the semantic feature matrix construction. Thus, we could not replicate their experimental settings and hence do not perform a comparative evaluation with these approaches. Moreover, we did not compare Holmes with Deckard\cite{4222572}, RtvNN \cite{10.1145/3236024.3236068} and Sourcerer \cite{7886988} as TBCCD significantly outperformed these approaches. Therefore, TBCCD became our natural choice for comparative evaluation.
\section{Background}
\label{sec:background}
This section gives a brief overview of the basic concepts and defines the terminology used in the paper.
\subsection{Program Dependence Graphs}
Program Dependence Graph (PDG) is a directed attributed graph that explicitly encodes a program's control, and data dependence information \cite{PDG}. PDGs approximate program semantics. A node in a PDG represents a program statement such as an assignment statement, a declaration statement, or a method invocation statement, and the edges denote control or data dependence between program statements.
\par A control dependence edge from statement $s_1$ to statement $s_2$ represents that $s_2$'s execution depends upon $s_1$. While data dependence edge between two statements $s_1$ and $s_2$ denotes that some component which is assigned at $s_1$ will be used in the execution of $s_2$. Control and data dependence relations in program dependence graphs are computed using control flow and data flow analysis. Formally control dependence can be stated as:
\par Given a control flow graph G for a program $P$, statements $s_1 \in G$ and $s_2 \in G$ are control dependent iff
\begin{itemize}
\item there exists a directed path $\rho$ from $s_1$ to $s_2$ with any node $S$ in $P$ post-dominated ($S$ $\neq$ [$s_1$,$s_2$]) by $s_2$ and
\item $s_1$ is not post-dominated by $s_2$
\end{itemize}
Data dependence can be formally defined as:
\par Two statements $s_1$ and $s_2$ are data dependent in a control flow graph if there exists a variable $v$ such that,
\begin{itemize}
\item $v$ is assigned at statement $s_1$.
\item $s_2$ uses the value of $v$.
\item There exists a path between $s_1$ and $s_2$ along which there is no assignment made to variable $v$.
\end{itemize}
\par Program dependence graphs connect the computationally related parts of the program statements without enforcing the control sequence present in the control flow graphs \cite{PDG}. Hence, they are not affected by syntactical changes like statement reordering, variable renaming, etc. \cite{PDG}. These properties make program dependence graphs to be better representation to detect semantic clones. Horwitz \cite{Horwitz1990} and Podgurski and Clarke \cite{Podgurski1989} also showed that program dependence graphs provide a good representation to measure code semantic similarity.
\subsection{Concepts in Deep Learning}
\subsubsection{Artificial neural networks} ANNs \cite{10.1016/0004-3702(89)90049-0} or \textit{connectionist systems} are machine learning models that are inspired by the human brain. ANNs consist of several artificial neurons stacked together across several layers trained to discover patterns present in the input data.
\begin{figure*}[!tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Images/gnnexplain.png}
\caption{Visual illustration of the graph neural network framework. (a) Illustration of the $t^{th}$ layer of the graph neural network. The feature vectors $h_b^{t-1}, h_d^{t-1}$ from the neighbouring nodes of $A$ are \textit{aggregated} and \textit{combined} with $h_a^{t-1} $, the features of node $A$ from the $t-1^{th}$ layer. This constitutes the representation of node $A$ at the $t^{th}$ layer. (b) Illustration showing multiple rounds of propagation in a graph neural network. At the $n^{th}$ propagation round, a node receives information from each of its neighbors that are $n$ hops away. For example, node A at propagation round 1 receives messages from its one-hop neighbors D and B. At propagation round two, it receives information from its two-hop neighbor, i.e., node C, and so on.}
\label{fig:gnnframework}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Deep Learning} Deep Learning covers a set of algorithms that extracts high-level representations from the input data. Deep learning models use artificial neural networks with several layers of neurons stacked together. Each layer learns to transform the previous layer's output into a slightly more abstract representation of the input data. Deep neural networks can readily model the linear and complex, non-linear relationships between input data and the desired output prediction. Many variants of Deep Neural Networks (DNN) exist, such as, recurrent neural networks \cite{lstm}, convolutional networks \cite{article}, graph-based neural networks \cite{bronstein2016geometric} etc. In this work, we make use of graph-based neural networks.
\subsubsection{Graph Neural Networks}
\par DNNs have shown unprecedented performance in many complex tasks such as image processing \cite{hu2018squeeze} and neural machine translation \cite{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1804-07755}. DNN architectures like transformers \cite{vaswani2017attention} and convolutional networks \cite{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1709-01507} have often demonstrated performance at par with humans. The key reason behind the success of DNNs is the model's ability to take input data directly and learn to extract feature representations relevant to a complex downstream task like classification or retrieval.
\par Despite state-of-the-art results, the above models do not perform well in non-Euclidean domains such as graphs and manifolds. The inherent complexity of the data, variegated structural and topological information hampers the ability to gain true insights about the underlying graphical data \cite{bronstein2016geometric,Zhangsi,zonghan}. Nevertheless, one may have to deal with graph-structured data in various fields.
For example, in software engineering, programs are modeled as graphs (ASTs, PDGs, etc.) for automatic code summariation \cite{leclair2020improved}, identifying vulnerabilities \cite{DBLP:conf/icait/WangZWXH18}, and bug-fixing activities \cite{8811910}.
\par Dealing with non-Euclidean structured data implies that there are no such properties as the shift-invariance and the vector space structures \cite{bronsteinBLSV16}. Hence, convolutions and filterings are not well defined here. Therefore, spectral-domain \cite{bruna2013spectral} and spatial domain \cite{4773279} techniques have been adopted to learn representation of the graph-structured data.
\par Our work makes use of the technique from the spatial (vertex) domain. Spatial graph convolutions define convolution operations based on the node's spatial connections and are built on the idea of message passing. The graph convolutional operator learns a function $f$ to generate node $v_{i}$'s representation by aggregating its own features $h_{i}$ and neighbor's features $h_{j}$. Multiple iterations of graph convolution are performed to explore the depth and breadth of the node's influence. Each iteration uses node representation learned from the previous iteration to get the representation for the current one. For instance, in the first iteration of graph convolution, information flow will be between first-order neighbors; in the second iteration, nodes will receive information from second-order neighbors, i.e., neighbor's neighbor. Thus traversing this way, after multiple iterations, each node's final hidden representation will have information from a further neighborhood. Figure \ref{fig:gnnframework} depicts the general framework for spatial graph convolutions.
\subsubsection{Siamese Neural Networks}
Siamese neural network or twin network \cite{siamese, siamese2} is an artificial neural network for similarity learning that contains two or more identical sub-networks sharing the same set of weights and parameters. The Siamese neural networks are trained to learn the similarity between the input data. They try to learn a mapping function such that the distance measure between the learned latent features in the target space represents the semantic similarity in the input space.
\subsection{Representation learning in software engineering}
Treating program as data objects and learning syntactically and semantically meaningful representations have drawn a great deal of interest \cite{aloncode2seq,aloncode2vec,allamanisprogramgraphs}.
\begin{lstlisting}[float=t,caption=Different clone types of gcd,captionpos=b,label=exampleclones,firstnumber=1,frame=tlrb]
//orginal code snippet
static int gcd(int a, int b)
{
if (b == 0)
return a;
return gcd(b, a
}
//type 1 clone
static int gcd1(int a, int b) {
if (b == 0){
return a;
}
return gcd1(b, a
}
//type 2 clone
public static int gcd2(int no1, int no2) {
if (no2 == 0) {
return 1;
}
return gcd2(no2, no1
}
//type 3 clone
public static int gcd3(int m, int n) {
if (0 == n) {
return m;
} else {
return gcd3(n, m
}
}
//type 4 clone
static int gcd4(int a, int b) {
while (b != 0) {
int t = b;
b = a
a = t;
}
return a;
}
\end{lstlisting}
Following the success of deep neural networks in natural language processing, computer vision, etc., learning tasks on source code data have been considered recently. Program synthesis \cite{Chen2020Neuralprogramsynthesis, Programsynthesis2018shinrichard}, program repair \cite{wangneuralprogramembedding}, bug localization \cite{LiYiWangOOPSLA,allamanisprogramgraphs}, and source code summarization \cite{MiltiadisAllamaniscodesummarisation} are some of the well-explored areas. The idea is to use the knowledge from the existing code repositories to enable a wide array of program analysis and maintenance tasks. The key step is to design a precise and semantically meaningful program representation that neural networks will use in the array of downstream tasks.
\par Most existing approaches use two kinds of program representations extracted from static and dynamic program analysis techniques. These representations can further be categorized into syntactic and semantic program representations. Abstract Syntax Trees (ASTs), Control Flow Graphs (CFGs), Call Graphs, etc., represent the program's syntactic structure while Program Dependence Graphs(PDGs), execution traces, etc., capture program semantics. These representations help to transform programs in an appropriate form to deep learning models.
\subsection{Deep learning for code clone detection}
\par Learning-based techniques automatically (using neural networks) learn a continuous-valued feature vector representing program semantics and syntax to learn similarities between code snippets. This feature vector is then compared directly (using a distance-based classifier) or is passed to a neural network classifier to predict similarity.
\par For instance, White et al. \cite{10.1145/2970276.2970326} used a recursive neural network to learn program representation. They represented source code as a stream of identifiers and literals and used it as an input to their deep learning model. Tufano et al. \cite{8595238} used a similar encoding approach as \cite{10.1145/2970276.2970326} and encoded four different program representations- identifiers, Abstract Syntax Trees, Control Flow Graphs, and Bytecode. They then used a deep learning model to measure code similarity based on their multiple learned representations. Zhao and Huang \cite{10.1145/3236024.3236068} used a feed-forward neural network to learn a semantic feature matrix constructed from a program's control flow and data flow graphs. Yu et al. \cite{10.1109/ICPC.2019.00021} used a tree-based convolutional neural network to detect code clones.
\par These code clone detection approaches have used syntactic and lexical features to measure code similarity. They do not exploit the source code's available structured semantics, even though this information might be useful to measure code functional similarity. Hence to overcome the limitations of existing approaches, we have proposed a novel code clone detection tool \textsc{Holmes}\xspace. \textsc{Holmes}\xspace uses PDGs and graph-based neural networks to learn structured semantics of the source code. Section \ref{sec:approach} explains the code clone detection process of \textsc{Holmes}\xspace.
\subsection{Terminologies}
This paper follows the well-accepted definition and terminologies from \cite{Roy07asurvey}:\newline
\textbf{Code Fragment}: A continuous segment of a code fragment is denoted by a triplet $\langle c,s,e \rangle$, where $s$ and $e$ are start and end lines respectively, and $c$ is the code fragment. \newline
\textbf{Code clones} are pairs of similar code snippets existing in a source file or a software system. Researchers have broadly classified clones into four categories stretching from syntactic to semantic similarity \cite{Roy07asurvey}:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Type-1 clones (textual similarity)}: Duplicate code snippets, except for variations in white space, comments, and layout.
\item \textbf{Type-2 clones (lexical similarity)}: Syntactically identical code snippets, except for variations in the variable name, literal values, white space, formatting, and comments.
\item \textbf{Type-3 clones (syntactic similarity)}: Syntactically similar code snippets that differ at the statement level. Code snippets have statements added, modified, or deleted w.r.t. to each other.
\item \textbf{Type-4 clones (semantic similarity)}: Syntactically different code snippets implementing the same functionality.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Images/approachmodified.png}
\caption{The architecture of one branch of the Siamese neural network is shown in Figure \ref{fig:approach overview}. (a) Our model first parses the given Java methods in the datasets to build PDGs. Node feature matrix and graph adjacency matrix are extracted from the source code. \textsc{Holmes}\xspace then passes this as input to a multi-head masked linear attention module, which learns the importance of different sized neighborhood for a node. (b)The attention module outputs the set of learned node features that are then passed through an LSTM, which extracts and filters the features aggregated from different hop neighbors. (c)The learned node features are then passed to a graph pooling module. Graph pooling employs a soft attention mechanism to downsample the nodes and to generate a coarsened graph representation.}
\label{fig:Approach}
\end{figure*}
Listing \ref{exampleclones} enumerates different clone types from the BigCloneBench dataset. The original code snippet (starting from line 2) computes the greatest common divisor (gcd) of two numbers. The Type-1 clone (starting from line $10$) of the original code snippet is identical except for the formatting variation. The Type-2 clone (starting from line $18$) have different identifier names (no1 and no2). Type-3 clone (starting from line $26$) of the original code snippet is syntactically similar but differs at the statement level. Finally, the Type-4 clone of the original code snippet computes gcd using a completely different algorithm. There exists no
syntactical similarity between the original snippet and its Type-4 clone.
\section{Conclusion and Future Work}
\label{sec:conclusion}
There has been a significant interest in detecting duplicated code fragments due to its pertinent role in software maintenance and evolution. Multitudinous approaches have been proposed to detect code clones. However, only a few of them can detect semantic clones. The proposed approaches use syntactic and lexical features to measure code functional similarity. They do not fully capitalize on the available structured semantics of the source code to measure code similarity. In this paper, we have proposed a new tool \textsc{Holmes}\xspace for detecting semantic clones by leveraging the semantic and syntactic information available with the program dependence graphs (PDGs). Our approach uses a graph-based neural network to learn program structure and semantics. We have proposed to learn different representations corresponding to each edge-type in PDGs.
\par We have evaluated both variants of \textsc{Holmes}\xspace on two large datasets of functionally similar code snippets and with recent state-of-the-art clone detection tool TBCCD \cite{10.1109/ICPC.2019.00021}. Our comprehensive evaluation shows that \textsc{Holmes}\xspace can accurately detect semantic clones, and it significantly outperforms TBCCD, a state-of-the-art code clone detection tool.
Our results show that \textsc{Holmes}\xspace significantly outperforms TBCCD showing its effectiveness and generalizing capabilities on unseen datasets.
In the future, we would like to explore the combination of PDG with other program structures like token sequences for learning program representation. We would also like to explore the feasibility of the proposed approach in cross-language clone detection.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 7.5cm, height=5.6cm]{Images/tsne_finallayerembedding.png}
\caption{t-SNE plot of graph embeddings of clone and non-clone pairs of GCJ dataset generated by EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace.}
\label{final hidden layer embedding}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.4\textwidth}p{0.5\textwidth}}
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,height=6cm]{Images/pdgfeature.png}
\caption{PDG for a java source code. Solid line edges denote control dependence. Dashed line edges denote data dependence.}
\label{fig:pdgfeatures}
\end{subfigure}
&
\begin{subfigure}{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Images/download.png}
\caption{t-SNE plot of input feature vectors generated by EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace.}
\label{fig:input feature vectors}
\end{subfigure}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Qualitative analysis of the features learned by EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace.}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[h]
\begin{subfigure}{.4\textwidth}
\begin{lstlisting}[firstnumber=1]
package test;
import java.util.*;
public class Test{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
Scanner input = new Scanner(System.in);
int T = input.nextInt();
int[] a = new int[T];
for (int j = 0; j < T; j ++)
a[j] = input.nextInt();
int c = 0;
for (int j = 0; j < T; j ++)
if (a[j] == j+1)
c ++;
}
}
\end{lstlisting}
\caption{Java Source Code.}
\label{javasourcecode}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.6
\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=5.6cm,width=8cm]{Images/attnpaths.png}
\caption{Attention Encoded Program Dependence Graph. Control dependence edges are colored red, whereas data dependent edges are colored black.}
\label{attention encoded pdg}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Qualitative assessment of the learned PDG paths. }
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Images/finalcorr1.png}
\caption{Cluster map of the attention scores received by code snippets similar to Listing \ref{javasourcecode}. The annotations in Figure denote the corresponding edges of Figure \ref{attention encoded pdg}. [Best viewed in color.]}
\label{fig:attentionclustermap}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Images/UntitledDiagram.png}
\caption{The effect on the performance of \textsc{Holmes}\xspace after varying the number of attention heads in both the attention blocks and after removing the LSTM layer. AB in the legend stands for Attention Block, for instance, “AB1, 1 Head” corresponds to “Attention Block 1 and 1 attention head”.
\label{fig:attnlstmexpt}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Images/meta-chart.png}
\caption{The effect on the performance of \textsc{Holmes}\xspace after removing Jumping Knowledge (JK) nets and soft attention mechanism from the graph readout layer.}
\label{fig:jkgapexpt}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Why \textsc{Holmes}\xspace outperforms other state-of-the-art clone detectors}
Our approach uses Program Dependence Graphs (PDGs) for representation learning. PDGs represent the program's semantics through data dependence and control dependence edges. Our approach models the relations between the program statements in PDGs using Graph Neural Networks (GNNs). We have used attention-based GNNs and LSTMs to filter and aggregate relevant paths in PDGs that enable us to learn semantically meaningful program representations. Attention-based GNNs draw importance to different direct (one-hop) neighbors, while LSTMs are used to capture wider context and long-range dependencies between nodes of the PDG.
\par Thus representing source code as graphs and modeling them through GNNs and LSTMs helps us to leverage the program's structured semantics, contrary to using ASTs and token sequences for learning program features. Additionally, to give respective importance to control and data dependence relations between different statements, we learned two different representations corresponding to each edge type. This information helps us to differentiate and prioritize between the available semantic and syntactic relations between different program statements.
\subsection{Representation learning using Graph Attention networks (GATs).}
Though there are many graph feature learning layers in the literature, such as Graph Convolutional Networks (GCN), Gated Graph Neural Network (GGNN), our work uses the GAT layer to learn program dependency graph nodes' features. This is because the GAT layer can learn an adaptive receptive path for a node in a graph, i.e., assigning different importance to different nodes in the same neighborhood. On the other hand, the GCN layer has fixed receptive paths, which might not work well in our case as all paths in the PDG are not equally important. The importance of attention has also been demonstrated in Figures \ref{attention encoded pdg} and \ref{fig:attentionclustermap}. Using GGNN, another recurrent graph feature learning layer, can also be problematic as it uses Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) and Backpropagation Through Time (BPTT), which can be problematic for large graphs and may require large memory.
\subsection{Qualitative analysis of the features learned by \textsc{Holmes}\xspace}
\label{subsec:qualitativeanalysisofthefeatureslearnedbyholmes}
Figure \ref{final hidden layer embedding} shows the t-SNE \cite{Maaten08visualizingdata} plot of the final hidden layer of \textsc{Holmes}\xspace trained on the GCJ dataset. The figure shows that the learned features can effectively differentiate between the clone and non-clone classes. Since we have only achieved the F1-Score of $92\%$ on GCJ dataset, we can see some overlap between the clone and non-clone classes in the figure.
\par To get more insights into the learned feature space of \textsc{Holmes}\xspace, we processed and extracted the node features and adjacency matrix from the PDG shown in Figure \ref{fig:pdgfeatures}. We then passed this to the first hidden layer of \textsc{Holmes}\xspace. Figure \ref{fig:input feature vectors} shows the t-SNE visualization of the generated vector embedding.
\par It can be seen from the figure that the statements that share similar semantics are plotted very closely. In contrast, the statements that are not similar are not close in the embedding space. For instance, the statements $int \; r = T * v[n]$ and $int\; loc = r +x[n]$ are plotted nearby, as the latter uses the former's result, and both are performing some numerical computation. Similarly, statements $1$,$2$,$3$,$4$ and $8$ are similar, thus plotted nearby in embedding space. These insights suggest that our approach models graph topology and node distribution simultaneously for learning the graph representation.
\subsection{Qualitative assessment of the learned PDG paths}
To gain further insights into our model's working, we plotted the aggregate of multi-head self-attention scores on the PDG paths. Figure \ref{attention encoded pdg} shows the plot of attention scores received by the PDG of Listing \ref{javasourcecode}. Here in Figure \ref{attention encoded pdg}, the edge thickness denotes the attention score received by each path. From the Figure, it can be seen that the model assigns higher weights to the semantic paths.
\par For instance, in Listing \ref{javasourcecode}, statement $6$ initializes the \texttt{Scanner} class's object from the \texttt{java.util} package. The Scanner class is used to read input in a java program. The attention scores received by statement $6$ are shown by edges $0-2$ in Figure \ref{attention encoded pdg}. In the same code, the attention scores received by statement $9-10$ and $12-14$ are shown through edges $3-8$ and $9-15$, respectively. Statement $9-10$ from Listing \ref{javasourcecode} initializes an array of size T with random integers, and statement $12-14$ increments variable c based on some condition. From Figure \ref{attention encoded pdg}, it can also be seen that statement $6$, being the general object creation statement of \texttt{java.util.Scanner} class, receives less attention as compared to statements $9-10$ and $12-14$. Even the statement 10 that fills the array with some random runtime integers received less attention, as shown through edge $8$. This suggests that \textsc{Holmes}\xspace learns to attend important semantically meaningful paths that contain the actual application logic.
\par Further, to strengthen the above claims, we randomly selected five Java programs similar to Listing \ref{javasourcecode} and computed attention scores received by each PDGs of these programs. We then aggregated the attention scores received by these snippets across similar paths. Figure \ref{fig:attentionclustermap} shows the cluster map \cite{seaborn} of the attention scores received by these Java programs.
\par A cluster map is a clustered version of a heatmap that uses hierarchical clustering to order data by similarity. In Figure \ref{fig:attentionclustermap}, we have used cosine similarity across the rows to group similar statements together. The brighter color in the Figure represents higher attention and vice versa. From Figure \ref{fig:attentionclustermap}, we can see that the attention received across all five snippets is consistent with the attention scores received in Figure \ref{attention encoded pdg}. For instance, the attention scores received on edges $0-2$ (statement initializing \texttt{Scanner} class object) is less than the attention scores received on edges $3-8$ (array initialization statement) as shown in Figure \ref{attention encoded pdg} and this can also be verified in Figure \ref{fig:attentionclustermap} (the edges are annotated in the Figure). Similarly, the attention scores received on edges $9-13$ in Figure \ref{attention encoded pdg} are similar to the attention score received by the five random java snippets' attention score, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:attentionclustermap}.
\par Besides this, the cluster map in Figure \ref{fig:attentionclustermap} also justifies our claims made in Section \ref{subsec:qualitativeanalysisofthefeatureslearnedbyholmes}. As we can see, relational operators such as $>$, $>=$, !=, and == are clubbed together across rows of Figure \ref{fig:attentionclustermap}. File handling methods like the buffered reader, file reader, are also clubbed together. FileWriter is clubbed with PrintWriter and new File statements. Thus we can say that \textsc{Holmes}\xspace learns to attend semantically meaningful paths along with modeling graph topology and node distributions.
\subsection{Ablation Study}
To understand the contribution of each component of our model, we conducted an ablation study, and the results are shown in Figures \ref{fig:attnlstmexpt} and \ref{fig:jkgapexpt}. In the first set of experiments, we varied the number of attention heads of both the attention blocks while keeping the rest of the architecture the same. The left part of Figure \ref{fig:attnlstmexpt} shows the results of varying attention heads. From Figure \ref{fig:attnlstmexpt}, we can see that the \textsc{Holmes}\xspace performance degrades on removing the second attention block. The F1-score also degrades further when we reduce the number of attention heads.
\par Next, to examine the influence of LSTMS on the model’s performance, we removed the LSTM layer from the \textsc{Holmes}\xspace architecture and varied the attention heads of both the attention blocks. The results are shown in the right part of Figure \ref{fig:attnlstmexpt}. We can see that after removing the LSTM layer from the \textsc{Holmes}\xspace architecture, the performance degrades. This shows the importance of using LSTMS in aggregating the local neighborhood for learning node representation.
\par We removed the Jumping Knowledge (JK) networks from the \textsc{Holmes}\xspace architecture in the next set of experiments. The results in Figure \ref{fig:jkgapexpt} show that the F1-score reduces drastically after removing JK nets. Thus, it can be said that the JK nets help in the model’s stability and improve performance. In the end, we replaced the soft attention mechanism with the Global Average Pooling (GAP) layer to learn graph representation. GAP layer simply averages all the learned node representations to make up the final hidden graph representation. From Figure \ref{fig:jkgapexpt}, we can observe that \textsc{Holmes}\xspace performance degrades when a GAP layer is employed in place of the soft attention mechanism. This shows the importance of the soft attention mechanism at the graph readout layer.
\subsection{Limitations of \textsc{Holmes}\xspace
We have used PDG representation to learn the program features. Static analysis is required to generate PDGs, and it only works for compilable code snippets. Therefore, we cannot directly apply our technique to incomplete programs. For this reason, we have used JCoffee \cite{Jcoffee} to infer the missing dependencies in the BCB dataset. In addition, we have used a supervised learning approach to learn code similarity, which is expensive in terms of labeled dataset procurement. However, as shown in the results, our model can learn a generalized representation and perform satisfactorily on unseen datasets. In our future work, we plan to extend our model with techniques such as domain adaptation and transfer learning so that it can be applied to other unseen and unlabeled datasets.
\section{Experimental Design}
\label{sec:expts}
This section details the comprehensive evaluation of \textsc{Holmes}\xspace.
Specifically, we aim to answer the following research questions (RQs):\newline
\textbf{RQ1}: How effective is \textsc{Holmes}\xspace as compared to other state-of-the-art approaches? \newline
\textbf{RQ2}: How well \textsc{Holmes}\xspace generalizes on unseen projects and data sets?
\subsection{Dataset Collection}
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Dataset Statistics.}
\label{tab:statistics}
\def1.2{1.5}
\begin{tabular}{|M{0.05\textwidth}|M{0.08\textwidth}|M{0.11\textwidth}|M{0.05\textwidth}|M{0.08\textwidth}|}
\hline
\textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{ Language} & \textbf{Project Files} & \textbf{ Clone Pairs} & \textbf{Non-clone Pairs}\\
\hline
GCJ & Java & $9,436$ & $4,40,897$ & $5,00,000$\\
\hline
SeSaMe & Java & $11$ Java projects & $93$ & n.a.\\
\hline
BCB & Java & $9134$ & $6,50,000$ & $6,50,000$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Percentage of clone-types in BigCloneBench.}
\label{tab:Percentage of clone-types in BigCloneBench}
\def1.2{1.5}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{Clone Type }& T1 & T2 & ST3 & MT3 & WT3/T4\\
\hline
\textbf{Percentage($\%$)} & $0.005$ & $0.001$ & $0.002$ & $0.010$ & $0.982$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Our experiments make use of the following datasets to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed approach:
\\\\
$\textbf{1)}$ \textbf{Programming Competition Dataset}: We followed the recent work \cite{10.1145/3236024.3236068} and used code submissions from GoogleCodeJam\footnote{https://code.google.com/codejam/past-contests} (GCJ). GCJ is an annual programming competition hosted by Google. GCJ provides several programming problems that participants solve. The participants then submit their solutions to Google for testing. The solutions that pass all the test cases are published online. Each competition consists of several rounds.
\par However, unlike the recent work \cite{10.1145/3236024.3236068} that used $12$ different functionalities in their experiments, we collected $9436$ solutions from $100$ different functionalities from GCJ. Thus, building a large and representative dataset for evaluation. Detailed statistics are reported in Table \ref{tab:statistics}. Programmers implement solutions to each problem, and Google verifies the correctness of each submitted solution. All $100$ problems are different, and solutions for the same problems are functionally similar (i.e., belonging to Type 3 and Type 4 clone category) while for different problems, they are dissimilar.
\\\\
$\textbf{2)}$ \textbf{Open Source Projects}: We experimented with several open-source real-world projects to show the effectiveness of \textsc{Holmes}\xspace's learned representations.
$\textbf{a)}$ \textbf{SeSaMe dataset}. SeSaMe \cite{10.1109/MSR.2019.00079} dataset consists of semantically similar method pairs mined from $11$ open-source Java repositories. The authors applied text similarity measures on Javadoc comments mined from these open source projects. The results were then manually inspected and evaluated. This dataset reports $857$ manually classified pairs validated by eight judges. The pairs were distributed in a way that three judges evaluated each pair. The authors have reported semantic similarity between pairs on three scales: \texttt{goals, operations,} and \texttt{effects}. The judges had the option to choose whether they \texttt{agree, conditionally agree,} or \texttt{disagree} with confidence levels \texttt{high, medium}, and \texttt{low}.
$\textbf{b)}$ \textbf{BigCloneBench dataset}. BigCloneBench (BCB) \cite{6976121} dataset, released by Svajlenko et al., was developed from IJAdataset-2.0\footnote{https://sites.google.com/site/asegsecold/projects/seclone}. IJAdataset contains $25K$ open-source Java projects and $365M$ lines of code. The authors have built the BCB dataset from IJaDataset by mining frequently used functionalities, such as bubble sort. The initial release of a BCB covers ten functionalities, including $6M$ clone pairs and $260K$ non-clone pairs. The current release of the BCB dataset has about $8M$ tagged clones pair covering $43$ functionalities. Some recent code clone detection tools TBCCD \cite{10.1109/ICPC.2019.00021}, CDLH \cite{10.5555/3172077.3172312} has used the initial version of the BCB covering ten functionalities for their experiments.
Hence, to present a fair comparison with TBCCD, we have also used the same version.
\par BCB dataset has categorized clone types into five categories: Type-1, Type-2, Strongly Type-3, Moderately Type-3, and Weakly Type-3+4 (Type-4) clones. Since there was no consensus on minimum similarity for Type-3 clones and it was difficult to separate Type-3 and Type-4 clones, the BCB creators categorized Type-3 and Type-4 clones based on their syntactic similarity. Thus, Strongly Type-3 clones have at least $70\%$ similarity at the statement level. These clone pairs are very similar and contain some statement-level differences. The clone pairs in the Moderately Type-3 category share at least half of their syntax but contain a significant amount of statement-level differences. The Weakly Type-3+4 code clone category contains pairs that share less than $50\%$ of their syntax. Tables \ref{tab:statistics} and \ref{tab:Percentage of clone-types in BigCloneBench} summarises the data distribution of the BCB dataset.
\subsection{Experimental Procedure and Analysis}
\subsubsection{RQ1: How effective is \textsc{Holmes}\xspace as compared to other state-of-the-art approaches?}
To answer this RQ, we compared two variants of \textsc{Holmes}\xspace with TBCCD \cite{10.1109/ICPC.2019.00021}, a state-of-the-art clone detector that uses AST and tree-based convolutions to measure code similarity. We followed similar experimental settings as used by Yu et al. in TBCCD \cite{10.1109/ICPC.2019.00021}.
To address this RQ, we used datasets from GCJ and BCB. We reserved $30\%$ of the dataset for testing, and the rest we used for training and validation. For the BCB dataset, we use the same code fragments from the related work \cite{10.1109/ICPC.2019.00021, 10.5555/3172077.3172312}. We had used around $700K$ code pairs for training. For validation and testing, we used $300K$ code clone pairs each.
For the GCJ dataset, we had $440K$ clone pairs and $44M$ non-clone pairs. Due to the combinative nature of clones and non-clones, non-clone pairs rapidly outnumber the clone pairs. To deal with this imbalance in clone classes, we did downsampling for non-clone pairs using a reservoir sampling approach. This gives us $500K$ non-clone pairs and $440K$ clone pairs. We evaluated the following variants of \textsc{Holmes}\xspace against TBCCD:
\\\\
$\textbf{1)}$ \textbf{Edge-Unified \textsc{Holmes}\xspace (EU-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace):} In this variant, we did not differentiate between the control and data-dependent edges to learn the program features.
\\\\
$\textbf{2)}$ \textbf{Edge-Attributed \textsc{Holmes}\xspace (EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace)}: Program dependence graphs model control and data flow explicitly. Hence, it is logical to leverage this information as well while learning node representations. To model edge attributes, we have learned different program representations for data-dependent edges ($G_{data}$) and control-dependent edges ($G_{control}$) and aggregated them to obtain the final graph representation ($G_{final}$).
\subsubsection{RQ2: How well \textsc{Holmes}\xspace generalizes on unseen projects and data sets?}
\label{rq:rq2}
To evaluate the robustness and generalizability of EU-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace and EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace, we evaluated the proposed approaches on unseen projects.
In particular, we took EU-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace, EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace, and TBCCD trained on the GCJ dataset. We then tested the stability of the above tools on the following datasets:
\\\\
$\textbf{1)}$ \textbf{GoogleCodeJam (GCJ$^{*}$):}
We used the dataset of functionally similar code snippets (FSCs) proposed by Wagner et al. \cite{Wagner2016HowAF}. This dataset comprises of $32$ clone pairs from $\mathit{GCJ 2014}$. The authors classified the pairs into full syntactic similarity and partial syntactic similarity. The clone pairs are further classified into five categories $-$ \textit{Algorithms, Data Structures, Input/Output, Libraries, and Object-Oriented Design}. Each category has three different clone pairs classified based on the degree of similarity $-$ \textit{low, medium, and high}.
\\\\
$\textbf{2)}$ \textbf{SeSaMe Dataset:}
This dataset \cite{10.1109/MSR.2019.00079} has reported $857$ semantically similar clone pairs from $11$ open-source Java projects. However, of the $11$ projects, we were able to compile only eight projects, which gave us $93$ clone pairs for evaluation.
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:related work}
This section describes the related work on code clone detection techniques and learning program representations using learning-based techniques.
\subsection{Code Clone Detection}
\subsubsection{Traditional code clone detection approaches.}
\par Most traditional code clone detection techniques target Type 1-3 code clones. These techniques measures code similarity by using program representation such as abstract syntax trees \cite{deckard}, lexical tokens \cite{ccfinder,cpminer}, program text\cite{dup,nicad}. Deckard \cite{deckard}, a popular tree-based code clone detection technique, computes characteristic vector for AST nodes of the given program. It then applies Locality Sensitive Hashing (LSH) to find similar code pairs. SourcererCC \cite{7886988} is a token-based code clone detection technique that compares token subsequences to identify program similarity.
\par There are also some graph-based techniques \cite{pdgdup,duplix} that use program dependence graphs to identify Type-4 clones. PDG-DUP \cite{pdgdup} first converts the given program to PDGs and then uses program slicing and subgraph isomorphism to identify clone pairs. DUPLIX \cite{duplix} also uses program slicing and graph isomorphism to identify similar code pairs. However, these approaches do not scale to large codebases and are very time-consuming, limiting their applications in practical software systems. In addition to these, some techniques also exist that compare program runtime behavior \cite{coderelatives} or program memory states \cite{6032469} to identify code clones.
\subsubsection{Learning based code clone detection approaches.}
Learning from data to identify code clones has been a great deal of interest from the past. There have been techniques using data mining approaches to learn code similarity \cite{Marcus, SK}. For example, Marcus and Maletic \cite{Marcus} has proposed to use latent semantic indexing to detect semantic clones. The proposed approach examines the source code text (comments and identifiers) and identifies the implementation of similar high-level concepts such as abstract data types. Much recent work uses learning-based techniques to learn code similarity. These approaches try to learn continuous vector-based representations of code fragments. These vectors are then compared using some distance metric (e.g., Euclidean distance) or using neural networks to measure code functional similarity.
White et al. \cite{10.1145/2970276.2970326} used a recursive neural network to learn program representation. They represented source code as a stream of identifier and literals and used it as an input to their deep learning model. Tufano et al. \cite{8595238} using a similar encoding approach as \cite{10.1145/2970276.2970326} encoded four different program representations- identifiers, Abstract Syntax Trees, Control Flow Graphs, and Bytecode. They then used a deep learning model to measure code similarity based on their multiple learned representations. Wei et al. \cite{ijcai2018-394} uses AST and tree-based LSTM to learn program representation. To incorporate structural information available with the source code Yu et al. \cite{10.1109/ICPC.2019.00021} uses tree-based convolutions over ASTs to learn program representation. Saini et al. \cite{Saini2018OreoDO} proposes using software metrics and machine learning to detect clones in the twilight zone. Zhao et al. \cite{10.1145/3236024.3236068} used feature vectors extracted from the data flow graph of a program to learn program representation using deep neural networks. Mathew et al. \cite{Mathew2020SLACCSL} proposed a cross-language clone detection by comparing the input and output of the potential clone candidates.Additionally, there also exists techniques to detect clones in binaries \cite{Gemini,GMN,DBLP:conf/iwpc/HuZLG17,DBLP:conf/icsm/HuZLWLG18}. Li et al. \cite{GMN} proposed a Graph Matching Network(GMN) to address the problem of matching and retrieval of graph structured data. They have proposed a new cross-graph attention-based matching mechanism to compute similarity score for a given pair of graph. The proposed graph matching network model is shown to outperform the graph embedding models on binary function similarity search. Xu et al. \cite{Gemini} proposed a technique to detect cross-platform clones in binaries. The proposed tool Gemini uses Structure2vec \cite{struct2vec} neural network model to learn the hidden binary function features from control flow graphs. The learned features are then compared using cosine distance to measure code similarity.
\subsection{Representation Learning for Source Code}
There has been a significant interest in utilizing deep learning models to learn program embeddings. The goal is to learn precise representations of source code for solving various software engineering tasks. Gupta et al. \cite{deepfix} propose to fix common programming errors using a multilayered sequence to sequence neural networks with attention. The deep learning model is trained to predict the erroneous program locations in a C program and the required correct statements. Allamanis et al. \cite{allamanis2017learning} use graph-based neural networks over AST based program representation to learn program embeddings. The learned embeddings are then used to predict the names of variables and varmisue bugs. Wang et al. \cite{wang2019learning} use program execution traces to learn program embeddings to predict method names. Ben-Nun et al. \cite{bennun2018neural} use Intermediate Representation (IR) of source code with recurrent neural networks to learn program embeddings. Hoang et al. \cite{hoang2020cc2vec} propose a neural network model CC2Vec to learn a representation of source code changes. CC2Vec uses attention to model the hierarchical structure of source code. The learned vectors represent the semantic intent of code change. The authors have evaluated the proposed approach on three downstream tasks: log message generation, bug fixing patch identification, and just-in-time defect prediction. There has also been some work on assessing the quality of learned representations. Kang et al. \cite{8952475} present an empirical study to assess the generalizability of Code2vec token embeddings. The authors have evaluated the Code2vec token embeddings on three downstream tasks: code comments generation, code authorship identification, and code clone detection. Their results show that the learned representation by the Code2vec model is not generalized and cannot be used readily for the downstream tasks.
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Comparative evaluation with TBCCD variants.}
\label{tab:Comparative evaluation with other state of the art approaches}\centering
\def1.2{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{|M{0.12\textwidth}|M{0.06\textwidth}
|M{0.025\textwidth}|M{0.025\textwidth}|M{0.025\textwidth}
|M{0.025\textwidth}|M{0.025\textwidth}|M{0.025\textwidth}|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{Tool}}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{$\#$Params}}}&
\multicolumn{3}{c|}{\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{BCB}}}&
\multicolumn{3}{c|}{\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{GCJ}}}\\
\cline{3-5} \cline{6-8}
&& \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{P}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{R}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{F1}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{P}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{R}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{F1}} \\
\hline
TBCCD(-token) & $2.1\times10^{5}$ & $0.77$ & $0.73$ & $0.74$ & $0.77$ & $0.80$ & $0.80$\\
\hline
TBCCD & $1.7\times10^{5}$ & $0.96$ & $.96$ & $0.96$ & $0.79$ & $0.85$ & $0.82$\\
\hline
EU-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace & $1.7\times10^{6}$ & $0.72$ & $0.97$ & $0.83$ & $0.84$ & $0.92$ & $0.88$\\
\hline
\textbf{ EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace } & $6.6\times10^{6}$ & $\textbf{0.97}$ & $\textbf{0.98}$ & $\textbf{0.98}$ & $\textbf{0.91}$ & $\textbf{0.93}$ & $\textbf{0.92}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[t]
\def1.2{1.2}
\centering \caption{F1 value comparison w.r.t various clones types in BigCloneBench dataset.}
\label{tab: F1 value comparison w.r.t various clones types in BigCloneBench dataset}\small
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{Tools} & \textbf{T1} & \textbf{T2} & \textbf{ST3} & \textbf{MT3} & \textbf{WT3/T4}\\
\hline
TBCCD(-token) & $\textbf{1.0}$ & $0.90$ & $0.80 $& $0.65$ & $0.60$\\
\hline
TBCCD & $\textbf{1.0}$ &$\textbf{ 1.0}$ & $0.98$ & $0.96$ & $0.96$\\
\hline
EU-HOLMES & $\textbf{1.0}$ & $\textbf{1.0}$ & $0.86$ & $0.80$ & $0.80$\\
\hline
EA-HOLMES & $\textbf{1.0}$ & $\textbf{1.0}$ & $\textbf{0.99}$ & $\textbf{0.99}$ & $\textbf{0.99}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{lstlisting}[float=t,caption= A WT3/T4 clone example from BCB dataset. The code snippets are implementing the functionality for copying the directory and its content. Although the snippets are reported under Wt3/T4 clone category they are syntactically similar with some differences in the sequence of invoked methods and API calls. ,captionpos=b,label=t4clone,firstnumber=1,frame=tlrb]
public void copyDirectory(File srcDir, File dstDir){
if (srcDir.isDirectory()){
if (!dstDir.exists())
dstDir.mkdir();
String[] children = srcDir.list();
for (int i = 0; i < children.length; i++) {
copyDirectory(new File(srcDir, children[i]),
new File(dstDir, children[i]));
}
}
else{
copyFile(srcDir, dstDir);
}
}
//clone pair
public static void copy(File src, File dst){
if (src.isDirectory()) {
String[] srcChildren = src.list();
for (int i = 0; i < srcChildren.length; ++i) {
File srcChild = new File(src, srcChildren[i]);
File dstChild = new File(dst, srcChildren[i]);
copy(srcChild, dstChild);
}
}
else
transferData(src, dst);
}
\end{lstlisting}
\begin{table}[t]
\def1.2{1.2}
\centering
\caption{Performance on unseen dataset.}
\label{tab:Performance on unseen dataset}\centering\small
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{Tool}}}&
\multicolumn{3}{c|}{\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{GCJ$^{*}$}}}&
\multicolumn{3}{c|}{\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{SeSaMe}}}
\\
\cline{2-4} \cline{5-7}
&\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{P}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{R}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{F1}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{P}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{R}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{F1}} \\
\hline
TBCCD & $1.0$ &$0.63 $ & $0.77$ & $1.0$ & $0.48$ & $0.64$ \\
\hline
EU-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace & $1.0 $& $0.65$ & $0.78$ & $1.0$ & $0.52$ & $0.68$ \\
\hline
\textbf{ EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace } & \textbf{$1.0$} & \textbf{$0.87$} & \textbf{$0.93$} & \textbf{$1.0$} & \textbf{$0.85$} & \textbf{$0.92$}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}%
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\begin{tabular}{p{0.5\textwidth}p{0.5\textwidth}}
\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Images/roc_test.png}
\caption{ROC curve of TBCCD, EU-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace, EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace on GCJ dataset. (AUC values are rounded up to $2$ decimal places)}
\label{gcjval}
\end{minipage}
&
\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Images/roc_bcb.png}
\caption{ROC curve of TBCCD, EU-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace, EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace on BCB dataset.(AUC values are rounded up to $2$ decimal places)}
\label{bcbtest}
\end{minipage}
\end{tabular}
\end{figure*}
The results of our comprehensive evaluation are summarized in this section.
\begin{table*}[!tbp]
\def1.2{1.2}
\caption{Detailed analysis of results on unseen GCJ$^{*}$ submissions.}
\label{tab:Detailed analysis of results on unseen google code jam submissions}\centering\small
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{Category}}}&
\multicolumn{6}{c||}{\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{ EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace }}}&
\multicolumn{6}{c|}{\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{TBCCD}}}
\\
\cline{2-7} \cline{8-13}
&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{Low}}}&
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{Medium}}}&
\multicolumn{2}{c||}{\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{High}}}&
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{Low}}}&
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{Medium}}}&
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\multirow{1}{*}{\textbf{High}}}
\\
\cline{2-3} \cline{4-5} \cline{6-7} \cline{8-9}
\cline{10-11} \cline{12-13}
&\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Full}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Part}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Full}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Part}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Full}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c||}{\textbf{Part}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Full}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Part}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Full}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Part}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Full}}&
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{Part}}
\\
\cline{2-2}
\cline{3-3} \cline{4-4} \cline{5-5} \cline{6-6} \cline{7-7}
\cline{8-8} \cline{9-9} \cline{10-10} \cline{11-11} \cline{12-12} \cline{13-13}
Data Structure & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \ding{53} & \ding{53} & \checkmark &
\ding{53} & \ding{53} & \checkmark & \checkmark & \ding{53} & \ding{53}
\\
\hline
OO Design & \checkmark & \ding{53} & \checkmark& \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark &
\checkmark & \ding{53} & \checkmark & \checkmark& \checkmark & \checkmark
\\
\hline
Algorithm & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark& \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \ding{53} & \checkmark & \checkmark & \ding{53} & \ding{53} & \checkmark\\
\hline
Library & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark& \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \ding{53} & \checkmark& \checkmark& \checkmark& \ding{53}& \ding{53}\\
\hline
Input/Output & \checkmark & \checkmark & \ding{53}& \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \ding{53} & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & \ding{53}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\subsection{RQ1: How effective is \textsc{Holmes}\xspace as compared to other state-of-the-art approaches?}
To answer this RQ, we compared our proposed approach variants EU-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace and EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace with two variants of TBCCD - $(1)$ TBCCD(-token), and $(2)$ TBCCD. These variants of TBCCD are reported in the paper \cite{10.1109/ICPC.2019.00021}. The variant TBCCD(-token) uses randomly initialized AST node embeddings in place of source code tokens, which are fine-tuned during training. The second variant, TBCCD, uses the token-enhanced AST and PACE embedding technique. The token-enhanced AST contains source code tokens such as constants, identifiers, strings, special symbols, etc. Table \ref{tab:Comparative evaluation with other state of the art approaches} shows the comparative evaluation of EU-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace and EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace with TBCCD(-token) and TBCCD on the BCB and GCJ datasets.
\par On the BCB dataset from Table \ref{tab:Comparative evaluation with other state of the art approaches}, we can see both TBCCD and EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace perform equally well, while the performance of TBCCD(-token) drops significantly. The BCB dataset categorizes clones into five categories: Type-1 clones, Type-2 clones, Strongly Type-3 clones, Moderately Type-3 clones, and Weakly Type-3+4 (Type-4) clones. Since there was no consensus on minimum similarity for Type-3 clones, and it was difficult to separate Type-3 and Type-4 clones, the BCB creators categorized Type-3 and Type-4 clones based on their syntactic similarity. Thus, Strongly Type-3 clones have at least $70\%$ similarity at the statement level. These clone pairs are very similar and contain some statement-level differences. The clone pairs in the Moderately Type-3 category share at least half of their syntax but contain a significant amount of statement-level differences. The Weakly Type-3+4 code clone category contains pairs that share less than $50\%$ of their syntax. Table \ref{tab: F1 value comparison w.r.t various clones types in BigCloneBench dataset} further shows the performance of TBCCD(-token), TBCCD, EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace, and EU-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace on different code clone types in the BCB dataset. All the approaches achieve good performance on Type-1 and Type-
2 code clone categories, as these code clone types are easier to detect. While on the hard-to-detect code clone categories such as Moderately Type-3, Weakly Type-3+4, TBCCD(-token) performs poorly compared to the TBCCD variant, we also see an improvement of {\raise.17ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\mathtt{\sim}$}}$3\%$ in EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace as compared to TBCCD. The reason for the improved performance of TBCCD is attributed to the use of syntactic similarity existing between the code snippets in the BCB dataset, as shown in Listing \ref{t4clone}. This syntactic similarity existing in the form of identifiers, tokens, etc., is exploited by TBCCD while learning for code similarity.
\par On the other hand, on the GCJ dataset, the performance of both TBCCD's variants, i.e., TBCCD(-token) and TBCCD, drops significantly. We can see an improvement of {\raise.17ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle\mathtt{\sim}$}}$10\%$ in the F1-score on the GCJ dataset in EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace compared to TBCCD. The performance drop in TBCCD(-token) and TBCCD on the GCJ dataset is attributable to two factors: $(1)$ Both TBCCD's variants use ASTs to learn program features. ASTs represent program syntactic structure, and as shown in Listings \ref{code1} and \ref{code2}, the code clone pairs in GCJ have a significant structural difference. Thus, the ASTs of these code pairs are very different, making it hard for the model to infer similarity; and $(2)$ As opposed to the BCB dataset, where there was some syntactic similarity between the code pairs, the GCJ code clone pairs have substantial differences in structure and algorithm. These differences are not unexpected because the submissions are made by independent programmers implementing the solutions from scratch. Consequently, without modeling semantics, the GCJ dataset's clones are harder to detect compared to BCB.
\par Also, from Tables \ref{tab:Comparative evaluation with other state of the art approaches} and \ref{tab: F1 value comparison w.r.t various clones types in BigCloneBench dataset}, we observe that EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace performs better than EU-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace on GCJ and BCB datasets in every evaluation metric. This performance difference demonstrates the importance of structured semantics of source code while learning code functional similarity.
\par Additionally, to analyze the diagnostic ability of TBCCD, EU-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace, and EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace, we plotted the Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curve by varying the classification threshold. Figures \ref{gcjval} and \ref{bcbtest} show the ROC curve and corresponding Area Under Curve (AUC) values for the GCJ and BCB dataset. We have plotted the ROC curve of the TBCCD variant only, as it has outperformed the TBCCD(-token) variant on the GCJ and BCB datasets. For all other experiments also, we have considered the TBCCD variant only.
\par ROC curve is a graphical plot, visualizing trade-off between True Positive Rate (TPR) plotted on the y-axis and False Positive Rate (FPR) plotted on the x-axis. AUC metric measures the degree of separability. Generally, an excellent classifier has a high AUC, denoting the model is better at predicting clone pairs as clones and non-clone pairs as non-clones. We can see from Figures \ref{gcjval} and \ref{bcbtest} that EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace has the best AUC value on both the datasets.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Images/meta-chart13.png}
\caption{Time performance analysis on the GCJ dataset.}
\label{Time performance analysis on GCJ dataset}
\end{figure}
\par \textbf{Time Performance}. We also evaluated the time performance of TBCCD, EU-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace, and EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace on two parameters $- (1)$ time taken to build ASTs vs. time taken to build PDGs, and $(2)$ total training and evaluation time. We run each of these tools with the same parameter settings reported in Section \ref{subsec:parmeter} on the full GCJ dataset on a Workstation with an Intel Xeon(R) processor having $24$ CPU cores. We have used a GeForce RTX $2080$Ti GPU with $11 GB$ of GPU memory.
\par The total time taken to build AST for $9436$ project files was $30$ minutes, while PDG took $60$ minutes. Figure \ref{Time performance analysis on GCJ dataset} shows the training and evaluation time analysis of TBCCD, EU-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace, and EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace. EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace learns separate representation for the control and data dependence graphs. Thus, it takes more training time than EU-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace and TBCCD. Even though the total time taken to build PDGs is greater than building ASTs and EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace takes longer training time, these are one-time offline processes. Once a model is trained, it can be reused to detect code clones.
\subsection{RQ2: How well \textsc{Holmes}\xspace generalizes on unseen projects and data sets?}
Table \ref{tab:Performance on unseen dataset} shows performance of EU-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace, EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace, and TBCCD on unseen datasets. We can see that EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace performs considerably better on both datasets as compared to TBCCD.
\par Table \ref{tab:Detailed analysis of results on unseen google code jam submissions} shows the detailed classification result of TBCCD and EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace on the GCJ$^{*}$ dataset. In the table, $\checkmark$ indicates that the code clone detector detects the pair, while \ding{53} indicates that the pair goes undetected. From table \ref{tab:Detailed analysis of results on unseen google code jam submissions}, we can infer that our proposed approach can detect the majority of the pairs correctly, even the pairs with partial syntactic similarity. These results affirm that EA-\textsc{Holmes}\xspace generalizes well on unseen datasets also.
\section{Motivation}
\label{sec:motivation}
\subsection{Motivating Example}
In this section, we present an example and our observations to motivate our approach.\newline
Listings \ref{code1} and \ref{code2} show two solutions submitted for the \textit{GoogleCodeJam} problem \textit{Goro Sort}. The problem involves an interesting method of sorting an array of natural numbers in which the array is shuffled $n$ times randomly to get it sorted. The users have to report the minimum number of times shuffling is required to sort the array.
\par Listing \ref{code1} implements the above functionality by first initializing an array of size $T$ with random numbers. It then checks if the current index element is equal to the index of the next element. The average number of hits required to sort the array was given by the size of the array ($T$) minus the number of times the element at the current index is equal to the next index.
\par Listing \ref{code2} implements the same functionality while taking input from the user at run time. It keeps the counter; if the current value is equal to counter$+1$, it reduces the average hits required by $-1$. Syntactically, Listings \ref{code1} and \ref{code2} are quite different. However, semantically, they are similar and will be classified as type 4 clones according to the taxonomy proposed in \cite{Roy07asurvey}.
\par The existing ML-based code clone detection approaches \cite{ijcai2018-394, 10.5555/3172077.3172312, 10.1109/ICPC.2019.00021} used syntactic and(or) lexical information to learn program features. For instance, TBCCD \cite{10.1109/ICPC.2019.00021} used tree-based convolution over abstract syntax trees (ASTs) to learn program representation. If we look at the ASTs of Listings \ref{code1} (for line $8-11$) and \ref{code2} (for line $5-8$) shown in Figures \ref{AST1} and \ref{AST2},
it's hard to infer that the two ASTs correspond to similar programs. We executed TBCCD, trained on \textit{GoogleCodeJam} problems($2010-2017$), on this example and TBCCD caused a false negative by reporting Listings \ref{code1} and \ref{code2} as a non-clone pair. This led us to our first \textbf{Observation (O1):} \textit{To achieve accurate detection of semantic clones, we need to incorporate more semantic information while learning program representation.}
\par We then computed program dependency graphs (PDGs) for Listings \ref{code1} and \ref{code2}. The PDGs are shown in Figures \ref{PDG1} and \ref{PDG2}. If we look at the Figures \ref{PDG1} and \ref{PDG2}, we will observe that the flow of data and control between the two PDGs are similar, as PDGs approximate the semantic dependencies between the statements. However, PDGs suffer from scalability problems. The size of the PDGs can be considerably large. For a program with 40-50 lines of code, we can have around $100$ vertices and $100$ edges. This led us to our second \textbf{Observation (O2):} \textit{To learn important semantic features from the source code, a model should not weigh all paths equally. It should learn to give higher weights to semantically relevant paths.}
\par Source code is a complex web of interacting components such as classes, routines, program statements, etc. Understanding source code amounts to understanding the interactions between different components. Previous studies such as \cite{Binkley07sourcecode} have shown that graphical representation of source code is better suited to study and analyze these complex relationships between different components. Yet, the recent code clone detection approaches \cite{10.5555/3172077.3172312, 10.1145/3236024.3236068, 10.1145/2970276.2970326} do not make use of these well defined graphical structures while learning program representation. These approaches use deep learning models that do not take advantage of the available structured input, for example, capturing induced long range variable dependency between program statements.
This led us to our third \textbf{ Observation (O3):} \textit{To capitalize on the source code's structured semantic features, one might have to expose these semantics explicitly as a structured input to the neural network model.}
\subsection{Key Ideas}
Based on the above observations, we have created our approach with the following key ideas:
\\
$a)$ From observation 1, we learned program features from the PDG representation of source code to capture the program semantics. Such graphs enable us to capture the data and control dependence between the program statements.
\\
$b)$ From observation 2, we designed an attention-based deep neural network to model the relationship between the important nodes in the PDG. The attention-based model emphasizes learning the semantically relevant paths in the PDG necessary to measure code similarity.
\\
$c)$ From observation 3, we used a graph-based neural network model to learn the structured semantic features of the source code. We have encoded the source code's semantics and syntax into a graph-based structure and used a graph-based deep learning model to learn latent program features.
\section{Threats To Validity}
\label{threats to validity}
\subsection{Implementing baselines on our datasets.}
We have used the available implementation of TBCCD \cite{10.1109/ICPC.2019.00021}.
There are various options available to tune the hyper-parameters of TBCCD, such as varying batch size, learning rate, etc. Each possible option tuning of TBCCD might have produced different results. To mitigate this, we have selected the default settings (the best parameters for TBCCD) reported by Yu et al. in \cite{10.1109/ICPC.2019.00021}.
\subsection{Generalizing results in other programming languages.}
In this paper, we have implemented the proposed approach for the Java language. While the PDG generation part is implemented in Java, all other subsequent steps are language agnostic. Attention, graph-based neural networks have been used in different contexts and for other languages as well. Also, the PDG can be generated for code written in other languages; for instance, LLVMs can generate PDGs for C/C++ code snippets. Therefore, \textsc{Holmes}\xspace can potentially be adapted to work for code written in other programming languages. However, since we have not tested this, we can not make a sound claim regarding its efficacy.
\subsection{Evaluating \textsc{Holmes}\xspace on open source projects and programming competition datasets.}
We conducted experiments on two widely used datasets for code clone detection in this work - GoogleCodeJam and BigCloneBench. We have also tried to use a large and representative dataset for our experiments. Unlike the past work \cite{10.1145/3236024.3236068}, which has used $12$ different functionality in their evaluation, we have used $100$ different functionalities from GoogleCodeJam. However, \textsc{Holmes}\xspace performance might vary across other projects, as these benchmarks are not representative of all software systems. To mitigate this threat and assess \textsc{Holmes}\xspace generalizability, we have also performed some cross dataset experiments on SeSaMe and a GoogleCodeJam dataset variant.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
The {\it dually flat structure} is highlighted in information geometry
-- it brings a united geometric insight on various fields such as statistical science, convex optimizations, (quantum) information theory, and so on (Amari-Nagaoka \cite{AmariNagaoka00}, Amari \cite{Amari16}, Chentsov \cite{Chentsov}).
This is also essentially the same as the {\em Hessian structure} in affine differential geometry (Shima \cite{Shima}).
On a $C^\infty$-manifold $M$,
a dually flat structure is a triplet $(h, \nabla, \nabla^*)$
where $h$ is a pseudo-Riemannian metric (i.e., non-degenerate symmetric $(0,2)$-tensor)
and $\nabla$ and $\nabla^*$ are flat affine connections on $M$ satisfying certain properties; the most particular feature is that the metric is locally given by the Hessian matrix of some potential function in $\nabla$-affine coordinates. In practical applications, however, the Hessian matrix may often be degenerate along some locus $\Sigma$ of points in $M$, and then, strictly speaking, the differential geometric method can not be directly applied.
We call such a space a {\em singular model}, roughly.
In the present paper, we propose a novel generalization of the dually flat structure for a certain class of singular models from the viewpoint of contact geometry and singularity theory.
This provides a new framework for general hierarchical structures -- we introduce a {\em quasi-Hessian manifold} $M$ endowed with a possibly degenerate quadratic tensor $h$ and a particular symmetric cubic tensor $C$, that exceeds the concept of statistical manifolds and very fits with the theory of contrast functions due to Eguchi \cite{Eguchi}.
In fact, such $M$ naturally possesses a {\em canonical divergence} $\mathcal{D}: M\times M \to \mathbb{R}$,
which is a {\em weak} contrast function compatible with $h$ and $C$ (Theorem \ref{contrast}).
The key is the {\em Legendre duality}, which {\em does} exist even under the presence of the degeneracy locus $\Sigma$ of $h$. In spite of no metric $h$ and no connection $\nabla$ available (!), we generalize in a natural way the Amari-Chentsov cubic tensor $\nabla h$ to a symmetric tensor $C$ defined on the entire space $M$ (that is possible even in case that $M=\Sigma$), and especially we establish Amari-Nagaoka's {\em extended Pythagorean theorem} and {\em projection theorem} in this setup (Theorems \ref{pytha_thm}, \ref{proj_thm}). Consequently, in principle, most of applications of these theorems are suitably justified even for such degenerate cases.
As the first observation, we see that if the Hessian of a potential is degenerate, the graph of the dual potential (i.e., the Legendre transform of the potential) is no longer a submanifold but a {\em wavefront} having singularities branched along its {\em caustics}.
More generally, our quasi-Hessian manifold $M$ is locally accompanied with two kinds of wavefronts, later called the {\em $e/m$-wavefronts}, as an alternate to the pair of a convex potential and its dual.
To grasp the point, it would be helpful to refer to Fig.1 and Fig.2 in \S \ref{sec:3-1} in advance.
Those two wavefronts are mutually tied by the Legendre duality in a strict sense, and also they have `height functions' (i.e., projections to the $z$ and $z'$-axes, respectively) by using which we generalize the Bregman divergence to our divergence $\mathcal{D}$.
Further, we associate the pair of {\it coherent tangent bundles}
$$(E, \nabla^E, \Phi: TM \to E) \;\; \mbox{and}\;\; (E', \nabla^{E'}, \Phi': TM \to E'),$$
where each of $E$ and $E'$ is a vector bundle on $M$ that is an alternative to the tangent bundle $TM$ and equipped with a flat connection and a bundle map from $TM$ measuring the degeneration of $h$, and $E$ and $E'$ are dual to each other.
Intuitively, the coherent tangent bundles come from the splitting of the standard contact structure into the directions of the $e/m$-wavefront projections (see \S \ref{sec:2-1}, \S \ref{sec:3-1} and \S \ref{sec:3-2}).
The role of $\nabla$ and $\nabla^*$ on a dually flat space is undertaken by $\nabla^E$ and $\nabla^{E'}$ of those vector bundles on our singular model $M$, and then the new cubic tensor $C$ of $TM$ is defined by using these connections through $\Phi$ and $\Phi'$ (\S \ref{sec:3-4}).
Originally, the notion of coherent tangent bundles has been introduced for studying Riemannian geometry of singular wavefronts by Saji-Umehara-Yamada \cite{SUY}, and here we borrow an affine geometry version.
In the case that $h$ is non-degenerate ($E=TM$, $E'=T^*M$), the dually flat structure in the original form is naturally recovered.
Singularities of caustics and wavefronts have thoroughly been investigated in {\it Lagrange and Legendre singularity theory} (initiated by Arnol'd, Zakalyukin and H\"ormander) in relation with a broad range of subjects such as classical mechanics, thermodynamics, geometric optics, Fourier integral operators, control theory, catastrophe theory and so on \cite{Arnold89, AGV, Arnold90, Arnold92, Izumiya_Ishikawa, ICRT, PS}. We bring several techniques or concepts in this theory into information geometry, that may suggest new directions in both theory and application.
In fact, the present paper is motivated by various interests from different backgrounds:
\begin{itemize}
\item[-]
A typical example of quasi-Hessian manifolds is a general affine hypersurface $M$ in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$.
It possesses {\it mixed geometry} with changing metric-type -- that goes back to Darboux and others
dealing with a rich geometry of {\em parabolic curve $\Sigma$} (the curve of inflection points) separating elliptic and hyperbolic domains on a surface in $\mathbb{R}^3$ \cite{Arnold92, Arnold90, SKDO}.
That is also related to {\em nonconvex} optimization and variational problems \cite{Ekeland}.
\item[-]
Any Lagrange submanifold of $\mathbb{R}^{2n}$ is a quasi-Hessian manifold.
If it is flat, then the cubic tensor $C$ satisfies the so-called WDVV equation, which mainly appears in topological field theory, that yields a version of Frobenius manifold-like structure \cite{Kito, Totaro, Hertling}.
That is also related to geometry of Poisson manifolds and paraK\"ahler structure \cite{Boucetta19, Combe}.
\item[-]
In statistical inference,
any curved exponential family produces a quasi-Hessian manifold, which represents the $\nabla^*$-extrinsic geometry in the ambient family. For instance, it is useful for studying catastrophe phenomena in root selections of the maximum likelihood equation \cite{Small}. Almost all statistical learning machines including deep neural networks allow degeneration of Fisher-Rao matrices \cite{Amari16, FK, Watanabe}, to which we are seeking for a new approach.
\end{itemize}
In the present paper, we will focus only on basic ideas and write them plainly in a self-contained manner as much as possible -- most arguments are elementary and checked by direct computations, and we will NOT enter into any detail of singularity theory here. Therefore, perhaps, this paper would be readable enough for anyone with various background.
Nevertheless, we believe that this paper contains some new observations in this field.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows.
In \S 2 we give a brief summary on some basics in contact geometry and the dually flat structure.
In \S 3, after reviewing the definition of Lagrange and Legendre singularities, we introduce quasi-Hessian manifolds.
In \S 4, the associated canonical divergence will be discussed;
the extended Pythagorean theorem and projection theorem are presented in our setting
and also we give a relation with contrast functions.
In \S 5, we pick up some possible applications and open questions.
Throughout, bold letters denote column vectors, e.g., $\mbox{\boldmath $x$}=(x_1, \cdots, x_n)^T$,
and the notation with prime $\mbox{\boldmath $x$}'$ simply means to distinguish from $\mbox{\boldmath $x$}$
(not mean any operation like differential or transpose).
Also we let $\frac{\partial f}{\partial \mbox{\boldmath $x$}}$ denote $(\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_1}, \cdots, \frac{\partial f}{\partial x_n})^T$ for short as usual.
We assume that manifolds and maps are of class $C^\infty$, for the simplicity.
The authors are partly supported by GiCORE-GSB, Hokkaido University,
and JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP17H06128 and JP18K18714.
\
\section{Dually Flat Structure}\label{sec:2}
\subsection{Contact geometry and Legendre duality}\label{sec:2-1}
To begin with, we summarize a minimal set of basic knowledge in contact geometry which will be used throughout this paper.
As best references, we recommend Chap.18-22 of Arnol'd et al \cite{AGV}, Appendix of Arnol'd \cite{Arnold89} and Izumiya-Ishikawa \cite{Izumiya_Ishikawa}.
A {\it contact manifold} is a $(2n+1)$-dimensional manifold $N$ endowed with
a maximally non-integrable hyperplane field $\xi_p \subset T_pN\; (p \in N)$,
i.e., $\xi$ is locally expressed by the kernel of a $1$-form $\theta$ satisfying the non-degeneracy condition $\theta\wedge (d\theta)^n \not=0$. This field $\xi$ is called a {\em contact structure} on $N$.
The most important example is the {\it standard contact space} $\mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$;
it is the {\em $1$-jet space} of functions on the affine $n$-space
$$\mathbb{R}^{2n+1}=J^1(\mathbb{R}^n, \mathbb{R})=T^*\mathbb{R}^n\times \mathbb{R},$$
where the $1$-jet of a function $f$ at a point $\mbox{\boldmath $a$}$ means the Taylor coefficients at $\mbox{\boldmath $a$}$ of order $\le 1$, i.e., $(df(\mbox{\boldmath $a$}), f(\mbox{\boldmath $a$})) \in T_{\mbox{\tiny$\ba$}}^*\mathbb{R}^n\times \mathbb{R}$.
The contact structure is given by the $1$-form
$$\theta=dz-\mbox{\boldmath $p$} ^Td\mbox{\boldmath $x$}=dz - \sum_{i=1}^n p_idx_i,$$
called the {\em standard contact form}, where
$z$ is the last coordinate, and $\mbox{\boldmath $x$}$ and $\mbox{\boldmath $p$}$ denote, respectively,
the base and the fiber coordinates of the cotangent bundle $T^*\mathbb{R}^n$ (we always write coordinates in this order).
We often write $\mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}}$ and $\mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bp$}}$ in order to distinguish them.
Note that the standard contact structure relies on the affine structure of the base space,
not on the choice of coordinates $\mbox{\boldmath $x$}$.
The famous {\em Darboux theorem} tells that {\em the contact structure is locally unique}; namely, for any contact manifold $N$, we can always find a system of local coordinates around any point $p \in N$, in which the contact structure is presented by the standard one.
A {\it Legendre submanifold} $L$ of a $(2n+1)$-dimensional contact manifold $(N, \xi)$ is
an $n$-dimensional integral manifold of the field $\xi$, i.e.,
$T_pL \subset \xi_p$ for every $p \in L$.
It is easy to see that in the standard $\mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$,
the graph of $(df, f)$ of a function $z=f(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})$
$$L=\left\{\,(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}, z) \in \mathbb{R}^{2n+1}\, \bigg|\, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}= \frac{\partial f}{\partial \mbox{\boldmath $x$}}, \; z=f(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})\, \right\}
\eqno{(1)}$$
is a Legendre submanifold,
and conversely, every Legendre submanifold
which is diffeomorphically projected to $\mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}}$ is expressed in this form (1).
The {\em standard symplectic structure} of $T^*\mathbb{R}^n$ is defined by the non-degenerate closed $2$-form
$$\omega=\sum_{i=1}^n dx_i\wedge dp_i.$$
A {\em Lagrange submanifold} is an $n$-dimensional submanifold over which $\omega$ vanishes.
A typical example is the graph of $df$,
i.e., the image of $L$ of the form (1) via projection along the $z$-axis.
Any Lagrange submanifold of $T^*\mathbb{R}^n$ is always {\em locally} liftable to a Legendre submanifold of $T^*\mathbb{R}^n\times \mathbb{R}$ uniquely up to a transition parallel to the $z$-axis. If it is entirely liftable,
then we call it an {\em exact} Lagrange submanifold.
A {\it Legendre fibration} $\pi: N \to B$ is a fiber bundle whose total space is a $(2n+1)$-dimensional contact manifold $N$,
the base is an $(n+1)$-dimensional manifold $B$ and every fiber $\pi^{-1}(x)$ is Legendrian.
The most typical example is the projection from the standard space
$$\pi: \mathbb{R}^{2n+1} \to \mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}}\times \mathbb{R}, \;\; (\mbox{\boldmath $x$}, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}, z) \mapsto (\mbox{\boldmath $x$}, z).$$
Every Legendre fibration is locally described in this typical form with suitable local coordinates.
The {\em Legendre duality} is described as follows.
Consider the transformation $\mathcal{L}: \mathbb{R}^{2n+1} \to \mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$ given by
$$(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}', \mbox{\boldmath $p$}', z')=\mathcal{L}(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}, z) := (\mbox{\boldmath $p$}, \mbox{\boldmath $x$}, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}^T\mbox{\boldmath $x$}-z).$$
It is a {\it contactomorphism}, i.e.,
$\mathcal{L}$ preserves the contact hyperplane fields $\xi$;
indeed, $\mathcal{L}^*\theta=\mathcal{L}^*(dz'-\mbox{\boldmath $p$}'^Td\mbox{\boldmath $x$}')=- \theta$.
Put
$$\pi':=\pi\circ \mathcal{L}: \mathbb{R}^{2n+1} \to \mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bp$}}\times \mathbb{R}, \; (\mbox{\boldmath $x$}, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}, z) \mapsto (\mbox{\boldmath $p$}, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}^T\mbox{\boldmath $x$}-z),$$
which is also a Legendre fibration.
Then, the {\it double fibration structure} of the standard contact space is defined as the following diagram:
$$\xymatrix{\mathbb{R}^{n}_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}}\times \mathbb{R} & \mathbb{R}^{2n+1} \ar[l]_{\;\;\pi} \ar[r]^{\pi'\;\;} & \mathbb{R}^{n}_{\mbox{\tiny$\bp$}}\times \mathbb{R}} \eqno{(dL)}$$
Let $\Pi: \mathbb{R}^n\times \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}^n$ be the projection to the first factor
and put
$$\pi_1=\Pi\circ \pi: \mathbb{R}^{2n+1} \to \mathbb{R}^{n}_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}}, \quad \pi'_1=\Pi\circ \pi': \mathbb{R}^{2n+1} \to \mathbb{R}^{n}_{\mbox{\tiny$\bp$}}.$$
Let $L$ be a Legendre submanifold of $\mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$.
In this paper, we call $L$ a {\em regular model} if $L$ is diffeomorphic to
some open subsets $U\subset \mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}}$ and $V\subset \mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bp$}}$ via projections $\pi_1$ and $\pi'_1$, respectively.
Equivalently,
there exsit functions $z=f(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})$ on $U$ and $z'=\varphi(\mbox{\boldmath $p$})$ on $V$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[-\;\;] $L \subset \mathbb{R}^{2n+1}=J^1(\mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}},\mathbb{R})$ is the graph of $(df, f)$;
\item[-\;\;] $\mathcal{L}(L)\subset \mathbb{R}^{2n+1}=J^1(\mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bp$}},\mathbb{R})$ is the graph of $(d\varphi, \varphi)$.
\end{itemize}
Then we have
$$\mbox{\boldmath $p$}=\frac{\partial f}{\partial \mbox{\boldmath $x$}}, \;\; \mbox{\boldmath $x$}=\frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial \mbox{\boldmath $p$}}, \quad f(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})+\varphi(\mbox{\boldmath $p$}) - \mbox{\boldmath $p$}^T\mbox{\boldmath $x$}=0.$$
The coordinate change is the gradient map $U \to V$, $\mbox{\boldmath $x$} \mapsto \mbox{\boldmath $p$}=\frac{\partial f}{\partial \mbox{\tiny$\bx$}}$.
It is diffeomorphic, thus the Hessian matrix of $f(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})$ is non-degenerate at every $\mbox{\boldmath $x$} \in U$.
Here, the inverse map $V \to U$ is given by $\mbox{\boldmath $p$} \mapsto \mbox{\boldmath $x$}=\frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial \mbox{\tiny$\bp$}}$,
and its Hessian matrix is the inverse of that of $f(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})$.
We say that $z'=\varphi(\mbox{\boldmath $p$})$ is the {\em Legendre transform} of $z=f(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})$ and vice-versa.
We call $f$ a {\em potential function} and $\varphi$ its {\em dual potential}.
This correspondence is the Legendre duality. It is very common in, e.g., convex analysis:
if $z=f(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})$ is strictly convex, then $z'=\varphi(\mbox{\boldmath $p$})$ is also (see Remark \ref{proj}).
An {\em affine Legendre equivalence}, a new terminology introduced in this paper,
is defined by an affine transformation
$\mathcal{L}_{F}: \mathbb{R}^{2n+1} \to \mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$ of the form
$$\mathcal{L}_{F} (\mbox{\boldmath $x$}, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}, z) = (A\mbox{\boldmath $x$}+ \mbox{\boldmath $b$}, \; A'\mbox{\boldmath $p$}+ \mbox{\boldmath $b$}', \; z+\mbox{\boldmath $c$}^T\mbox{\boldmath $x$}+ d)$$
together with affine transformations
$$F(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}, z)=(A\mbox{\boldmath $x$}+ \mbox{\boldmath $b$}, z+\mbox{\boldmath $c$}^T\mbox{\boldmath $x$}+ d),$$
$$F^*(\mbox{\boldmath $p$}, z')= (A'\mbox{\boldmath $p$}+ \mbox{\boldmath $b$}', z'+\mbox{\boldmath $c$}'^{T}\mbox{\boldmath $p$}+ d'),$$
where $A$ is invertible and
$$A'=(A^T)^{-1}, \;\; \mbox{\boldmath $b$}'=A'\mbox{\boldmath $c$}, \;\; \mbox{\boldmath $b$}=A\mbox{\boldmath $c$}', \;\; d'=\mbox{\boldmath $b$}'^T\mbox{\boldmath $b$}-d.$$
Note that $F$ (or $F^*$) determines $\mathcal{L}_F$.
It is easy to see that $\mathcal{L}_{F}$ preserves the contact form and the double fibrations $(dL)$, i.e.,
$\mathcal{L}_{F}^*\theta=\theta$ and the following diagram commutes:
$$
\xymatrix{
\mathbb{R}^{n}_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}}\times \mathbb{R}_z \ar[d]_F^{\simeq}& \mathbb{R}^{2n+1} \ar[l]_{\;\;\pi} \ar[r]^{\pi'\;\;}\ar[d]^{\mathcal{L}_F}_{\simeq} & \mathbb{R}^{n}_{\mbox{\tiny$\bp$}}\times \mathbb{R}_{z'} \ar[d]^{F^*}_{\simeq}\\
\mathbb{R}^{n}_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}}\times \mathbb{R}_z & \mathbb{R}^{2n+1} \ar[l]_{\;\;\pi} \ar[r]^{\pi'\;\;} & \mathbb{R}^{n}_{\mbox{\tiny$\bp$}}\times \mathbb{R}_{z'}
}
$$
\begin{dfn}\upshape
We say that two Legendre submanifolds $L_1, L_2$ of $\mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$ are {\em affine Legendre equivalent} if
there exists some $\mathcal{L}_{F}$ which identifies $L_1$ with $L_2$.
\end{dfn}
\begin{rem}\label{proj}
\upshape
{\bf (Projective duality)}
The Legendre duality is an {\em affine expression} of the projective duality.
We denote by $\mathbb{P}^{n+1}\, (:=\mathbb{R} P^{n+1})$ the real projective space of dimension $n+1$
and by $\mathbb{P}^{n+1*}\, (:=\mathbb{R} P^{n+1*})$ the dual projective space.
Let $N$ denote the incidence submanifold of $\mathbb{P}^{n+1}\times \mathbb{P}^{n+1*}$ which consists of pairs $(p, \lambda)$ with $p \in \lambda$, i.e., $N$ is a codimension one submanifold ($\dim N=2n+1$) defined by
$$p_0x_0+p_1x_1+\cdots +p_{n+1}x_{n+1}=0$$
for $p=[x_0:\cdots: x_{n+1}] \in \mathbb{P}^{n+1}$ and $\lambda =[p_0:\cdots: p_{n+1}]\in \mathbb{P}^{n+1*}$.
Note that $N$ is naturally identified with the projective cotangent bundle $PT^*\mathbb{P}^{n+1}\, (=PT^*\mathbb{P}^{n+1*})$, and thus $N$ becomes a contact manifold \cite[\S 20.1]{AGV}.
Consider the open subset $O_N$ of $N$ defined by $x_{n+1}\not=0$ and $p_{0}\not=0$.
We may set $x_{n+1}=p_{0}=-1$, and put $z=x_0$ and $z'=p_{n+1}$, then the above equation is rewritten as
$$z+z'-\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^T\mbox{\boldmath $x$}=0.$$
Clearly, $O_N$ has two systems of coordinates, $(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}, z)$ and $(\mbox{\boldmath $p$}, \mbox{\boldmath $x$}, z')$,
and the coordinate change between them is just the above $\mathcal{L}: \mathbb{R}^{2n+1} \to \mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$
preserving the contact structure of $N$.
In projective geometry,
the double Legendre fibration
$$\xymatrix{
\mathbb{P}^{n+1} & N \ar[l]_{\;\;\;\pi} \ar[r]^{\pi'\;\;\;} & \mathbb{P}^{n+1*}
} $$
expresses the {\em duality principle on points and hyperplanes},
where $\pi$ and $\pi'$ are projections of the projective cotangent bundles.
Restrict this diagram to $O_N$
and identify $O_N$ with $\mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$ using coordinates $(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}, z)$,
we get the diagram $(dL)$.
For instance, in case of $n=1$, consider a parameterized plane curve
$$C: (x, z):=(x, f(x))\in \mathbb{R}^2 \subset \mathbb{P}^2.$$
Then its projective dual is the following curve consisting of the tangent lines:
$$\textstyle C^*: (p, z')=(\frac{df}{dx}(x), x\frac{df}{dx}(x)-f(x)) \in \mathbb{R}^{2*} \subset \mathbb{P}^{2*}.$$
If $C$ is convex, then $C^*$ is also.
If $C$ has an inflection point, e.g., $f(x)=\frac{1}{3}x^3+\cdots$,
then $C^*$ has a cusp at the corresponding point, $(p, z')=(x^2+\cdots, \frac{2}{3}x^3+\cdots)$,
and therefore,
$C^*$ is locally the graph of a bi-valued function, $z'=\pm \frac{2}{3}p^{3/2}+\cdots\, (p\ge 0)$.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Dually flat structure}\label{sec:2-2}
Let $L$ be a Legendre submanifold of a regular model with potential function $z=f(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})$.
The Hessian matrix
$$H(p)=\left[\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x_i\partial x_j}(\pi_1(p))\right] \quad (p \in L)$$
is invertible, thus it defines a pseudo-Riemannian metric $h$ on $L$, called the {\em Hessian metric associated to $f$}.
Additionally, through the projections $\pi_1$ and $\pi'_1$,
the fixed affine structures of $\mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}}$ and $\mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bp$}}$ induce two different flat affine connections $\nabla, \nabla^*$ on $L$, respectively.
\begin{dfn}\label{duallyflat}
\upshape
{(\cite{AmariNagaoka00})}
The triplet $(h, \nabla, \nabla^*)$ is called the {\em dually flat structure} on a regular model $L$.
\end{dfn}
Note that $(h, \nabla, \nabla^*)$ is preserved under affine Legendre equivalence; indeed, $\mathcal{L}_F$ induces affine transformations of $\mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}}$ and $\mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bp$}}$ and simply adds a linear function $\mbox{\boldmath $c$}^T\mbox{\boldmath $x$}+d$ to the potential $z=f(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})$.
The dually flat structure is traditionally introduced in terms of differential geometry in an intrinsic way.
We briefly summarize it below, see \cite{AmariNagaoka00, Amari16, Matsuzoe, Shima} for the detail.
A {\it statistical manifold} is a pseudo-Riemannian manifold $(M, h)$ equipped with
a torsion-free affine connection $\nabla$ being compatible with $h$, i.e.,
the cubic tensor $T:=\nabla h$ is totally symmetric:
$$(\nabla_Xh)(Y, Z)=(\nabla_Yh)(X, Z)$$
for vector fields $X, Y$ and $Z$.
Equivalently \cite[p.306]{Matsuzoe},
a stastistical manifold may also be defined as a manifold endowed
with a pseudo-Riemannian metric $h$ and a totally symmetric $(0,3)$-tensor $T$ (due to Lauritzen), that is also described within the theory of contrast functions in \cite{Eguchi}.
The {\it dual connection $\nabla^*$} (with respect to $h$) is defined by
$$Xh(Y, Z)=h(\nabla_XY, Z)+h(Y, \nabla_X^*Z),$$
and then $\nabla^*$ is torsion-free and $\nabla^*h$ is also symmetric.
Furthermore, if $\nabla$ is flat (i.e., torsion-free and curvature-free), then $\nabla^*$ is also.
Such a statistical manifold with flat connections is called a {\it dually flat manifold} \cite{AmariNagaoka00, Amari16} or
a {\em Hessian manifold} \cite{Shima, Matsuzoe}.
The most notable characteristic of a dually flat manifold is that locally it holds that
$$h=\nabla df$$
for some local potential $f$.
In other words, the metric $h$ is expressed by
the non-degenerate Hessian matrix of $z=f(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})$ in $\nabla$-affine local coordinates $\mbox{\boldmath $x$}$.
Moreover, the $\nabla^*$-affine coordinates $\mbox{\boldmath $p$}$ are then given by $\mbox{\boldmath $p$}=\frac{\partial f}{\partial \mbox{\tiny$\bx$}}(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})$.
This local expression of a dually flat manifold $M$ exactly provides a regular model $L$ in $\mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$,
the graph of $1$-jet of a local potential,
equipped with the dually flat structure in the sense of Definition \ref{duallyflat}.
Such a regular model $L$ is {\em uniquely determined up to affine Legendre equivalence}.
To see this precisely, suppose that the metric $h$ is locally expressed by the Hessian matrices $H_\alpha$ and $H_\beta$ of two potential functions $f_\alpha(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}^\alpha)$ and $f_\beta(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}^\beta)$
in different $\nabla$-affine local coordinates, respectively.
Here, let $(U_\alpha, \mbox{\boldmath $x$}^\alpha=(x^\alpha_1, \cdots, x^\alpha_n)^T)$ and
$(U_\beta, \mbox{\boldmath $x$}^\beta=(x^\beta_1, \cdots, x^\beta_n)^T)$
denote the charts with $U_\alpha, U_\beta \subset M$, $U_\alpha \cap U_\beta\not=\emptyset$.
By definition, there is an affine transformation
$$\mbox{\boldmath $x$}^\beta=\psi(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}^\alpha)=A\mbox{\boldmath $x$}^\alpha + \mbox{\boldmath $b$}.$$
By the assumption, it holds that
$A^T H_\beta(p) A=H_\alpha(p)$ for every $p \in U_\alpha \cap U_\beta$,
thus any second partial derivatives of the composite function $f_\beta\circ \psi(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}^\alpha)$ coincide with those of $f_\alpha(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}^\alpha)$.
Namely, these two functions are the same up to some linear term:
$$f_\beta\circ \psi(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}^\alpha)=f_\alpha(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}^\alpha)+\mbox{\boldmath $c$}^T\mbox{\boldmath $x$}^\alpha+d.$$
Then the affine transformation
$$F(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}^\alpha, z):=(A\mbox{\boldmath $x$}^\alpha+ \mbox{\boldmath $b$}, z+\mbox{\boldmath $c$}^T\mbox{\boldmath $x$}^\alpha+ d)$$
sends the graph of $z=f_\alpha(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}^\alpha)$ to the graph of $z=f_\beta(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}^\beta)$.
Hence, the corresponding affine Legendre equivalence $\mathcal{L}_F$ identifies
two regular models, $L_\alpha \subset \mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$ defined by $(df_\alpha, f_\alpha)$
and $L_\beta \subset \mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$ defined by $(df_\beta, f_\beta)$,
on the overlap.
Actually, less noticed, though, this simple observation says that any dually flat manifold is an affine manifold having
an atlas $\{(U_\alpha, \mbox{\boldmath $x$}^\alpha)\}_{\alpha \in \Lambda}$ with affine coordinate changes $\psi_{\alpha}^\beta\, (\alpha, \beta \in \Lambda)$ so that it is additionally equipped with local potentials $\{f_\alpha\}_{\alpha \in \Lambda}$ whose graphs are glued by affine transformations $F_\alpha^\beta$ of the above form.
The affine structure gives the flat connection $\nabla$, and local potentials restore the Hessian metric $h$ by gluing $\{H_\alpha\}_{\alpha \in \Lambda}$. At the level of Legendre submanifolds given by $1$-jets of local potentials, notice again that $\mathcal{L}_F$ preserves $(h, \nabla, \nabla^*)$.
Therefore, we may rephrase the above statement in the following way:
\begin{prop}\label{Hessian_manifold}
Any dually flat or Hessian manifold is an affine manifold made up by gluing several regular models $L_\alpha$ in $\mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$ via affine Legendre equivalence.
The metric $h$ and the pair of affine connections $\nabla$ and $\nabla^*$ are reconstructed by the dually flat structures of $L_\alpha$ in the sense of Definition \ref{duallyflat}.
\end{prop}
This gluing construction will be generalized later to introduce our quasi-Hessian manifolds (Definition \ref{quasi-Hessian_manifold} in \S \ref{sec:3-3}).
\begin{rem}
\upshape
Since each gluing map acts also on a neighborhood of a regular model in $\mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$,
the gluing construction yields a dually flat manifold as a Legendre submanifold of some ambient contact manifold (also it produces a Lagrange submanifold of some symplectic manifold).
Let $(M, h, \nabla, \nabla^*)$ be a dually flat manifold, and
suppose that there exists a global potential $f: M \to \mathbb{R}$ with $h=\nabla df$.
Take local charts $U_\alpha$ of $\nabla$-flat coordinates, then local potentials $f|_{U_\alpha}$ define regular models $L_\alpha$
in $J^1(U_\alpha, \mathbb{R})=T^*U_\alpha \times \mathbb{R}$, and they are glued together by affine Legendre equivalence of the form $\mathcal{L}_F$ with $\mbox{\boldmath $c$}=0$ and $d=0$.
Conversely, gluing local models by this special kind of affine Legendre equivalences yields
a dually flat manifold with a global potential.
As a weaker situation, suppose that there exists a closed $1$-form $\sigma$ with $h=\nabla \sigma$;
then $M$ is said to be of {\em Koszul type} \cite{Shima}.
This case corresponds to gluing regular models by affine Legendre equivalence of the form $\mathcal{L}_F$ with $\mbox{\boldmath $c$}=0$ but possibly $d\not=0$.
\end{rem}
\begin{exam}\upshape \label{exponential_family}
(Amari \cite{AmariNagaoka00, Amari16}).
An {\em exponential family} $M$ is a family of probability density functions of the form
$$p(\mbox{\boldmath $u$}|\theta)=\exp(\mbox{\boldmath $u$}^T\theta - \psi(\theta))$$
where $\mbox{\boldmath $u$}=(u_1, \cdots, u_n) \in \mathbb{R}^n$ is a random valuable (with its measure $d\mu$)
and $\theta=(\theta_1, \cdots, \theta_n)^T \in U\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ are parameters ($U$ is an open set).
The normalization factor $\psi(\theta)=\log \int \exp(\mbox{\boldmath $u$}^T\theta)\, d\mu$ is called the potential of this family. Fix the affine structure of $U$, and
put $\partial_i=\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta_i}$. We see that the expectation is the corresponding dual coordinate
$$\eta_i:={\bf E}[u_i| \theta]=\partial_i\psi(\theta)$$
and the (co)variance are written by
$$ h_{ij}:={\bf V}[\mbox{\boldmath $u$}| \theta]_{ij}=\partial_i\partial_j \psi(\theta)={\bf E}\left[(\partial_i\log p)(\partial_j\log p)\right],$$
where the last one means the {\em Fisher-Rao information}.
If $h=[h_{ij}]$ is positive and one regards $\theta, \eta$ as the $\nabla, \nabla^*$-affine coordinates, respectively,
then $(M, h, \nabla, \nabla^*)$ becomes a dually flat manifold.
Normal distributions and finite discrete distributions are typical examples.
\end{exam}
\section{Quasi-Hessian structure}\label{sec:3}
Our main idea is to consider not only regular models but also general Legendre submanifolds of $\mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$.
Then the Lagrange-Legendre singularity theory naturally comes up into the picture (Arnol'd el al \cite{AGV}, Izumiya-Ishikawa \cite{Izumiya_Ishikawa}). Nevertheless, in this paper, we only use very basic notions/properties in the theory, which are prepared in \S \ref{sec:3-1}. As another new ingredient, we introduce in \S \ref{sec:3-2} an affine geometric version of the coherent tangent bundle in Saji-Umehara-Yamada \cite{SUY}. In \S \ref{sec:3-3} and \S \ref{sec:3-4} we define a quasi-Hessian manifold endowed with a particular cubic tensor.
\subsection{$e/m$-wavefronts and $e/m$-caustics}\label{sec:3-1}
A {\it Legendre map} is the composition
$$\pi\circ \iota: L \to N \to B$$
of the inclusion $\iota$ of a Legendre submanifold $L$ and the projection of a Legendre fibration $\pi: N \to B$.
The image is usually called a {\it wavefront}; we denote it by $W(L)$ in this paper.
The Legendre map $\pi\circ \iota: L \to B$ may have singular points,
i.e., points $p$ on $L$ at which the rank of the differential is not maximum (equivalently, $T_pL$ is tangent to the fiber of $\pi$), called {\em Legendre singularities} \cite{AGV, Izumiya_Ishikawa}.
Then the wavefront is no longer a submanifold.
From now on, we consider the diagram $(dL)$ of double Legendre fibrations on $\mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$ and an {\em arbitrary} Legendre submanifold $L \subset \mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$.
So we have two Legendre maps
$$\pi^e:=\pi\circ \iota: L \to \mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}}\times \mathbb{R}_z, \quad \pi^m:=\pi'\circ \iota: L \to \mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bp$}}\times \mathbb{R}_{z'}$$
and call them the {\em $e$- and $m$-Legendre maps}, respectively,
following a traditional notation in information geometry
(``$e$-" and ``$m$-" come from words in statisitcs, i.e., exponential and mixture) \cite{AmariNagaoka00}.
\begin{dfn}\upshape
{\bf ($e/m$-wavefronts)}
We set
$$W_e(L):=\pi^e(L)\subset \mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}}\times \mathbb{R}_z, \;\;\;
W_m(L):=\pi^m(L)\subset \mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bp$}}\times \mathbb{R}_{z'}, $$
and call them the {\em $e/m$-wavefronts associated to $L$}, respectively.
\end{dfn}
The $e/m$-wavefronts are {\em Legendre dual} to each other in point-hyperplane duality principle (Remark \ref{proj}).
Usually, the projection of a Lagrange submanifold of $T^*\mathbb{R}^n$ to the base is called a {\em Lagrange map} \cite{AGV, Izumiya_Ishikawa}.
So we have the {\em $e/m$-Lagrange maps}
$$\pi^e_1=\Pi\circ \pi^e: L \to \mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}}, \quad \pi^m_1=\Pi\circ \pi^m: L \to \mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bp$}}.$$
It is easy to see that the following two conditions on points $p\in L$ are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item $p$ is a singular point of the Legendre map $\pi^e: L \to \mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}}\times \mathbb{R}_z$;
\item $p$ is a singular point of the Lagrange map $\pi^e_1: L \to \mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}}$.
\end{itemize}
Indeed, any $v \in T_pL$ enjoys $dz_p(v)-\mbox{\boldmath $p$}(p)^T d\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_p(v)=0$, thus,
if $d\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_p(v)=0$, then $dz_p(v)=0$.
\begin{dfn}\upshape
{\bf ($e/m$-caustics)}
The {\em $e$-critical set} $C(\pi^e_1)\subset L$ consists of all singular points of the $e$-Lagrange map $\pi^e_1: L \to \mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}}$,
and we call its image $\pi^e_1C(\pi^e_1)\subset \mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}}$ the {\em $e$-caustics associated to $L$}.
The $m$-version is defined in entirely the same way.
\end{dfn}
\begin{dfn}\upshape
We say that $L$ is {\em locally a regular model around $p \in L$} if there is an open neighborhood of $p$ in $L$ which is a regular model of $\mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$, i.e., $p$ is neither {\em $e$-critical} nor {\em $m$-critical}.
\end{dfn}
Consider the case that $p \in L$ is not $e$-critical but $m$-critical (see toy examples in Examples \ref{A2}, \ref{A3} below).
Then $W_e(L)$ is the graph of some local potential function $z=f(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})$ defined near $\pi^e_1(p)$.
Take $\mbox{\boldmath $x$}$ as local coordinates of $L$ around $p$. Then the $e$-Lagrange map is written as the identity map of $\mbox{\boldmath $x$}$ and the $e$-caustics is empty, while the $m$-Lagrange map $\pi^m: L \to \mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bp$}}$ is written
as the gradient map $\mbox{\boldmath $p$}=\nabla f(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})$. Now it is critical at $p$, so $W_m(L)$ is singular.
In this case we call $L$ a {\em model with degenerate potential}.
In particular, if $f$ admits inflection points in strict sense, $W_m(L)$ is the graph of a {\em multi-valued function} $z'=\varphi(\mbox{\boldmath $p$})$ branched along the $m$-caustics in $\mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bp$}}$.
\begin{exam}\label{A2}\upshape
{\bf ($A_2$-singularity).} Let
$$f(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}) = \frac{x_1^3}{3} + \frac{x_2^2}{2}.$$
Then $\mbox{\boldmath $p$}=(p_1, p_2)=(x_1^2, x_2)$ and the degeneracy locus $\Sigma$ of the Hessian $h=\nabla^2f$ is defined by $x_1=0$. See the pictures on the left in Fig.\,\ref{fig1}.
\begin{itemize}
\item[-] The {\bf $e$-wavefront} $W_e(L)$ is smooth and has parabolic points along $\Sigma$. There is no {\bf $e$-caustic}.
\item[-] The {\bf $m$-wavefront} $W_m(L)$ is a singular surface with {\em cuspidal edge}; it is the graph of the bi-valued dual potential
$$z'=\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^T\mbox{\boldmath $x$}-z=\frac{2}{3}x_1^3+\frac{1}{2}x_2^2=\pm\frac{2}{3}p_1^{3/2}+\frac{1}{2}p_2^2$$
defined on $p_1\ge 0$ and branched along the {\bf $m$-caustics} $p_1=0$.
\end{itemize}
This singularity does not appear, if the Hessian is be non-negative. Note that for every statistical model, the Fisher-Rao metric is non-negative.
\end{exam}
\begin{exam}\label{A3}\upshape
{\bf ($A_3$-singularity).} Let
$$f(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}) = \frac{x_1^4}{4} + \frac{x_2^2}{2}.$$
Then $\mbox{\boldmath $p$}=(p_1, p_2)=(x_1^3, x_2)$ and the degeneracy locus $\Sigma$ of the Hessian $h=\nabla^2f$ is defined by $x_1=0$. See the pictures on the right in Fig.\,\ref{fig1}.
\begin{itemize}
\item[-] The {\bf $e$-wavefront} $W_e(L)$ is smooth and convex. There is no {\bf $e$-caustic}.
\item[-] The {\bf $m$-wavefront} $W_m(L)$ is a singular surface; it is the graph of the dual potential
$$z'=\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^T\mbox{\boldmath $x$}-z=\frac{3}{4}x_1^4+\frac{1}{2}x_2^2=\frac{3}{4}p_1^{4/3}+\frac{1}{2}p_2^2,$$
which is defined on the entire space but singular along the {\bf $m$-caustics} $p_1=0$.
\end{itemize}
This is a typically degenerate minimum of functions
and also a typical type of singularities with $\mathbb{Z}_2$-symmetry (cf. \cite{AGV}).
\end{exam}
\begin{figure
\includegraphics[width=10.5cm, pagebox=cropbox]{pict/pict0.png}\\
\caption{\small
The $e/m$-wavefronts and the $e/m$-caustics (Examples \ref{A2} and \ref{A3}).
}\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
Furthermore, it can happen that $p \in L$ is $e$-critical and $m$-critical simultaneously.
Then both wavefronts $W_e(L)$ and $W_m(L)$ become singular at $\pi^e(p)$ and $\pi^m(p)$, respectively.
In general, by Implicit Function Theorem, there is a partition $I \sqcup J=\{1, \cdots, n\}$ ($I\cap J=\emptyset$) such that $L$ is locally parametrized around $p$ by coordinates $\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I=(x_i)^T$ and $\mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J=(p_j)^T$ ($i \in I$, $j \in J$).
In fact, we can find a function $g(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J)$ such that $L$ near $p$ is expressed by
$$\mbox{\boldmath $p$}_I= \frac{\partial g}{\partial \mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I}, \;\; \mbox{\boldmath $x$}_J=- \frac{\partial g}{\partial \mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J}, \;\;
z=\mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J^T\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_J+g(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J),$$
where we write $\frac{\partial g}{\partial \mbox{\tiny$\bx$}_I}=(\frac{\partial g}{\partial x_{i_1}}, \cdots)^T \; (I=(i_1, i_2, \cdots))$.
This follows from the form (1) in \S \ref{sec:2-1} and
the {\em canonical transformation}
$$\mathbb{R}^{2n+1} \to \mathbb{R}^{2n+1} \;\;
(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}, z) \mapsto (\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}_I, -\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_J, -\mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J^T\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_J+z)$$
which preserves the contact structure.
Usually, $g(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J)$ is called
a {\em generating function of $L$ around $p$} \cite[\S 20]{AGV}.
In particular, in case that
$J=\emptyset$ (resp. $I=\emptyset$),
a generating function is a {\em potential} $z=f(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})$ (resp. {\em dual potential} $z'=\varphi(\mbox{\boldmath $p$})$).
The $e/m$-Legendre maps are locally expressed as follows.
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\pi^e: (L, p) \to \mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}}\times \mathbb{R}_z, &
\displaystyle
(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J) \mapsto
\left(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I, \; - \frac{\partial g}{\partial \mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J}, \; - \mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J^T\frac{\partial g}{\partial \mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J}+g(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J)\right), \\
\pi^m: (L, p) \to \mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bp$}}\times \mathbb{R}_{z'}, &
\displaystyle
(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J) \mapsto
\left(\frac{\partial g}{\partial \mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I},\; \mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J, \; \mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I^T\frac{\partial g}{\partial \mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I}-g(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J)\right).
\end{array}$$
Also the $e/m$-Lagrange maps $\pi^e_1, \pi^m_1$ are obtained by ignoring the last $z$ and $z'$-coordinate, respectively.
\begin{exam}\label{AA}\upshape
Let
$$g(x_1, p_2) = \frac{x_1^3}{3} + \frac{p_2^4}{4}$$
be a generating function.
The $e/m$-Legendre maps $\pi^e$ and $\pi^m$ send $(x_1, p_2)$ to
$$(x_1, x_2, z)=\left(x_1, -p_2^3, \frac{x_1^3}{3}-\frac{3p_2^4}{4}\right),
\quad (p_1, p_2, z')=\left(x_1^2, p_2, \frac{2x_1^3}{3}-\frac{p_2^4}{4}\right),$$
respectively, so those images $W_e(L)$ and $W_m(L)$ are singular surfaces having some own geometric nature, and the $e/m$-caustics are defined by $x_2=0$ on $\mathbb{R}^2_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}}$ and $p_1=0$ on $\mathbb{R}^2_{\mbox{\tiny$\bp$}}$, see Fig.\,\ref{fig11}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=7cm, pagebox=cropbox]{pict/11.png}\\
\caption{\small
Both $e/m$-wavefronts are singular (Example \ref{AA}).
}\label{fig11}
\end{figure}
\end{exam}
\begin{rem}\upshape
\label{hierarchy}
{\bf (Hierarchical structure)}
For a dually flat manifold $L$ with a potential $z=f(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})$ (i.e., a regular model),
there are two systems of coordinates, $\mbox{\boldmath $x$}$ and $\mbox{\boldmath $p$}\, (=\frac{\partial f}{\partial \mbox{\tiny$\bx$}})$,
which are $\nabla$-flat and $\nabla^*$-flat, respectively.
That produces a {\em hierarchical structure} -- we may take a new system of coordinates $(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J)$, called {\em mixed coordinates} in Amari \cite{Amari16}, which yields two foliations of complementary dimensions on $L$ defined by $\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I=const.$ and $\mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J=const.$; their leaves are $\nabla^*$-flat and $\nabla$-flat, respectively, and mutually orthogonal with respect to the Hessian metric associated to $f$.
This structure is useful for application, see \cite{Amari16}.
For an arbitrary Legendre submanifold $L$, a potential may not exist globally, but as seen above, for any $p \in L$,
we can always find a generating function $g(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J)$ on a neighborhood $U$ of $p$ (possible choices of the partition $I \sqcup J$ depends on $p$). That {\em locally} defines mixed coordinates $(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J)$ and two orthogonal foliations on $U$ (see Remark \ref{h2} below).
Usually these coordinates can not be extended to the entire space $L$, because of the presence of $e/m$-caustics (i.e., $h$ is degenerate). Nevertheless, this new structure is well organized globally, that we will formulate properly in the following subsections.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Coherent tangent bundles}\label{sec:3-2}
Let $L$ be a Legendre submanifold of $\mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$.
As seen above, the $e$-wavefront $W_e(L)$ is not a manifold in general, but there is an alternate to its `tangent bundle'.
Every point $p \in L$ defines a hyperplane $E_p$ in $T_{\pi^e(p)}(\mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}}\times \mathbb{R}_z)=\mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}}\times \mathbb{R}_z$, and the family of such hyperplanes form a vector bundle on $L$ of rank $n$:
$$
E (=E_L) := \{\;(p, w) \in L\times (\mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}} \times \mathbb{R}_z)\; \mid \;dz_p(w)-\mbox{\boldmath $p$}(p)^T d\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_p(w)=0\; \}.
$$
Since $L$ is Legendrian, we see
$$T_pL \subset \xi_p=\ker \theta_p=(d\pi_p)^{-1}(E_p),$$
thus
$d\pi^e(T_pL) \subset E_p$.
We then associate a vector bundle map (a smooth fiber-preserving map which is linear on each fiber)
$$\Phi : TL \to E, \quad v_p \mapsto d\pi^e_p(v_p).$$
Note that $\Phi$ is isomorphic if and only if $\pi^e: L \to \mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}}\times \mathbb{R}$ is an immersion.
\begin{rem}\upshape
\label{E}
We remark that $E$ is the ``limiting" tangent bundle of the $e$-wavefront $W_e(L)$.
Note that the kernel of $d\pi_p: T_p\mathbb{R}^{2n+1} \to T_{\pi(p)}(\mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}}\times \mathbb{R})$ is spanned by $\frac{\partial}{\partial p_i}$'s.
If $p \in L$ is a regular point of the $e$-Legendre map $\pi^e: L \to \mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}}\times \mathbb{R}$, then
$T_pL \cap \ker d\pi_p=\{0\}$ and
$$E_p={\rm Im}\, d\pi^e_p(T_pL) =T_{\pi^e(p)}W_e(L).$$
In fact, in this case, $\pi^e$ is an immersion around $p$, so $W(L)$ is a submanifold around $\pi^e(p)$.
If a sequence of regular points $p_n \in L$ of $\pi^e$ converges to a critical point $p$, then the image of $T_{p_n}L$ converges to $E_p$ (in the Grassmannian of $n$-planes in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}=\mathbb{R}_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}}^n\times \mathbb{R}$) because of the continuity of the bundle $E$.
In this case, $W(L)$ is singular at $\pi^e(p)$, thus the tangent space at that point is not defined,
but it has the limiting tangent space $E_p$ as an alternate.
Another characterization of $E_p$ is
$$E_p=\ker\left[d\pi'_p: T_p\mathbb{R}^{2n+1} \to T_{\pi^m(p)}(\mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bp$}}\times \mathbb{R}_{z'})\, \right]$$
through the inclusion $E_p \subset \mathbb{R}_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}}^n \oplus \{0\} \oplus \mathbb{R}_z \subset \mathbb{R}^{2n+1}=T_p\mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$.
In fact, the Jacobian matrix of $\pi'$ at $p$ is
$$\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
O&E&0\\
\mbox{\boldmath $p$}(p)^T&\mbox{\boldmath $x$}(p)^T&-1
\end{array}
\right]$$
so its kernel is given by $dz_p-\mbox{\boldmath $p$}(p)^T d\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_p=0$ and $d\mbox{\boldmath $p$}_p=0$.
Note that the contact hyperplane splits as
$$\xi_p=\ker d\pi'_p\oplus \ker d\pi_p.$$
\end{rem}
Let $\widetilde{\nabla}$ be the flat connection on the affine space $\mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}}\times \mathbb{R}$, and
for any $p \in L$,
let $\psi_{p} : \mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}} \times \mathbb{R}
\to E_{p}$ denote
the linear projection along the $z$-axis.
Then a connection $\nabla^E$ of the vector bundle $E$ over $L$ is naturally defined by
$$\nabla^E_X\xi (p) := \psi_{p} \circ \widetilde{\nabla}_X\xi(p)$$
where $\xi$ is any section of $E$ and $X$ is any vector field on $L$ around $p$.
\begin{lem}\label{nabla}
The resulting connection $\nabla^E$ is flat and `relatively torsion-free', i.e.,
for any vector fields $X, Y$ on $L$, it holds that
$$\nabla^E_X(\Phi(Y))-\nabla^E_Y(\Phi(X))=\Phi([X, Y]).$$
\end{lem}
\noindent {\sl Proof} :\;
Put $s_i(p):=\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}+p_i\frac{\partial}{\partial z} \in E_p$ ($1\le i \le n$),
then they form a frame of flat global sections of $E$:
$$\nabla^E_Xs_i=\psi_p(\tilde{\nabla}_X s_i)= \psi_p(X(p_i)\frac{\partial}{\partial z})=0.$$
Thus $\nabla^E$ is flat.
Next, a key point is that
$\Phi$ is represented by the Jacobi matrix of the $e$-Lagrange map $\pi^e_1=(f_1, \cdots, f_n): L \to \mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}}$,
i.e.,
$\Phi(\partial_j)=\sum_{i=1}^n (\partial_jf_i) s_i$
in local coordinates $(t_1, \cdots, t_n)$ of $L$ with $\partial_j=\frac{\partial}{\partial t_j}$.
Let $X=\sum_{k=1}^n a_k \partial_k$ and $Y=\sum_{j=1}^n b_j \partial_j$,
then
$$\nabla^E_X \Phi(Y)=\sum_{i,j,k} ((\partial_k\partial_j f_i)a_kb_j+(\partial_jf_i)a_k(\partial_kb_j))s_i.$$
The rest is shown by a direct computation.
\hfill $\Box$
\
\begin{dfn}\upshape
\label{coherent}
We call $(E, \Phi, \nabla^E)$ the {\em coherent tangent bundle associated to the $e$-wavefront $W_e(L)$}.
\end{dfn}
\begin{rem}\upshape
The definition of coherent tangent bundles is originally due to Saji-Umehara-Yamada \cite[\S 6]{SUY} from the viewpoint of Riemannian geometry. They have studied several kinds of curvatures associated to wavefronts. In our case, we use the fixed affine structure of the ambient space of the wavefront, instead of metric. Also affine differential geometry of wavefronts should be rich.
\end{rem}
In entirely the same way,
for the $m$-wavefront $W_m(L)$,
the coherent tangent bundle $E'$ with $\Phi':=d\pi^m : TL \to E'$ and $\nabla^{E'}$ is defined:
$$
E' (=E'_L) := \{\;(p,w) \in L\times (\mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bp$}} \times \mathbb{R}_{z'})\; \mid \;dz'(w)-\mbox{\boldmath $x$}(p)^T d\mbox{\boldmath $p$}(w)=0\; \}.
$$
In fact, the double Legendre fibration $(dL)$ can be viewed as the pair of maps $(\pi\circ \mathcal{L}^{-1}, \pi)$
using different coordinates $(\mbox{\boldmath $p$}, \mbox{\boldmath $x$}, z')$ of $\mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$, and then the above construction yields $(E', \Phi', \nabla^{E'})$
in this dual side.
In particular, $E'_p$ is identified with $\ker d\pi^e_p$ (see Remark \ref{E}).
We have defined $E$ and $E'$ as vector bundles on $L$, although they are actually defined on the ambient space $\mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$.
The contact hyperplane $\xi$ has the direct sum decomposition:
$$\xi_p=\ker d\pi'_p\oplus \ker d\pi_p \simeq E_p \oplus E'_p \simeq \mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}}\oplus \mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bp$}}.$$
Here we have canonical frames of flat sections for both $E$ and $E'$,
$$s_i(p) = \frac{\partial}{\partial x_i} + p_i\frac{\partial}{\partial z} \in E_p,\quad s_i^*(p)= \frac{\partial}{\partial p_i}+x_i\frac{\partial}{\partial z'} \in E'_p,$$
by which $E'$ is identified with the dual to $E$ and vice-vasa, and
there are natural correspondence
$s_l \leftrightarrow \frac{\partial}{\partial x_l}$ and $s_l^* \leftrightarrow \frac{\partial}{\partial p_l}$ via projections along the $z$ and $z'$-axes.
The vector bundle $\xi$ carries not only the symplectic form
$\omega=\sum_{i=1}^n dx_i\wedge dp_i$
but also a pseudo-Riemannian metric of type $(n,n)$
induced from
$$\tau:=\sum_{i=1}^n dx_idp_i=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^n (dx_i \otimes dp_i+dp_i \otimes dx_i).$$
Using frames $s_i$ and $s_j^*$,
we may write vectors of $E_p$ and $E'_p$ as column vectors $\mbox{\boldmath $u$}$ and $\mbox{\boldmath $u$}'$, respectively, and then
$$\tau(\mbox{\boldmath $u$}\oplus \mbox{\boldmath $u$}', \mbox{\boldmath $v$}\oplus \mbox{\boldmath $v$}')=
\frac{1}{2}
\left[\, \mbox{\boldmath $u$}^T \; \mbox{\boldmath $u$}'^T \right]
\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
O&E\\
E&O
\end{array}
\right]
\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\mbox{\boldmath $v$}\\
\mbox{\boldmath $v$}'
\end{array}
\right]
=\frac{1}{2}(\mbox{\boldmath $u$}^T\mbox{\boldmath $v$}'+\mbox{\boldmath $u$}'^T\mbox{\boldmath $v$})
$$
and also $\omega(\mbox{\boldmath $u$}\oplus \mbox{\boldmath $u$}', \mbox{\boldmath $v$}\oplus \mbox{\boldmath $v$}')=\frac{1}{2}(\mbox{\boldmath $u$}^T\mbox{\boldmath $v$}'- \mbox{\boldmath $u$}'^T\mbox{\boldmath $v$})$.
Any affine Legendre equivalence $\mathcal{L}_F$ preserves $\omega$ and $\tau$ on $\xi$,
because it sends $\mbox{\boldmath $u$}\oplus \mbox{\boldmath $u$}'$ to $A\mbox{\boldmath $u$}\oplus A'\mbox{\boldmath $u$}'$ with $A'=(A^T)^{-1}$.
\begin{dfn}\upshape
We define the {\em quasi-Hessian metric} of $L$ by the pullback of $\tau$:
$$h(Y, Z):=\tau(\iota_*Y, \iota_*Z)\;\;\; \mbox{for $Y, Z \in TL$} $$
where $\iota_*=\Phi\oplus \Phi': TL \hookrightarrow \xi=E\oplus E'$ is the inclusion (it is a Lagrange subbundle).
\end{dfn}
Note that $h$ is a possibly degenerate symmetric $(0,2)$-tensor, although we abuse the word `metric'.
If $\Phi$ is isomorphic, then $h$ exactly coincides with the Hessian metric associated to a potential $z=f(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})$;
any vector of $T_pL$ is written by $\mbox{\boldmath $u$}\oplus H\mbox{\boldmath $u$} \in \xi_p$ where $H=[h_{ij}]$ is the Hessian matrix, thus
$$h(\mbox{\boldmath $u$}, \mbox{\boldmath $v$})=\tau(\mbox{\boldmath $u$}\oplus H\mbox{\boldmath $u$}, \mbox{\boldmath $v$}\oplus H\mbox{\boldmath $v$})=\mbox{\boldmath $u$}^TH\mbox{\boldmath $v$}.$$
In general, a local expression of $h$ is given as follows.
\begin{lem}\label{h}
Let $g(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J)$ be a generating function. Then,
$$h=\sum_{i, k\in I}\frac{\partial^2 g}{\partial x_i\partial x_{k}}\,dx_idx_{k} - \sum_{j, l\in J}\frac{\partial^2 g}{\partial p_j\partial p_{l}}\,dp_jdp_{l}.$$
\end{lem}
\noindent {\sl Proof} :\;
A direct computation shows
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tau &=& d\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I^Td\mbox{\boldmath $p$}_I+d\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_J^Td\mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J\\
&=&d\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I^Td(\partial_Ig)-d(\partial_J g)^Td\mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J\\
&=&d\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I^Tg_{II}d\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I+d\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I^Tg_{IJ}d\mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J
-(g_{JI}d\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I)^Td\mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J-(g_{JJ}d\mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J)^Td\mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J\\
&=&d\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I^Tg_{II}d\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I-d\mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J^Tg_{JJ}d\mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J.
\end{eqnarray*}
Here we use the notation of symmetric products of $1$-forms and $(g_{JI})^T=g_{IJ}$.
\hfill $\Box$
\
\begin{lem}\label{g}
Let $p \in L$. The following properties are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(1)] $h$ is non-degenerate at $p$ ;
\item[(2)] $p$ is neither of $e$-critical nor $m$-critical;
\item[(3)] $L$ is locally a regular model around $p$;
\item[(4)] $h$ is the Hessian metric associated to a local potential $z=f(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})$ near $p$;
\item[(5)] both $\Phi$ and $\Phi'$ are isomorphisms at $p$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\noindent {\sl Proof} :\; By Lemma \ref{h}, (1) means that both $g_{II}$ and $g_{JJ}$ are non-degenerate. Then,
using normal forms of the $e/m$-Lagrange maps $\pi^e_1$ and $\pi^m_1$ written in the end of \S 2.3,
those maps are locally diffeomorphic by Inverse Mapping Theorem, so it is just (2) and (3).
That means that we can take a local potential $z=f(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})$ as generating function, that is equivalent to (4).
Since $\Phi$ and $\Phi'$ are expressed by the Jacobi matrices of the $e/m$-Lagrange maps,
(2) and (5) are the same.
\hfill $\Box$
\begin{rem}\upshape
\label{h2}
As noted in Remark \ref{hierarchy}, locally we always find mixed coordinates $(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J)$.
By Lemma \ref{h}, even if $h$ is degenerate,
leaves $\mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J=const.$ and $\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I=const.$ are orthogonal: $h(\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}, \frac{\partial}{\partial p_j})=0$
($i \in I$, $j\in J$).
\end{rem}
\begin{dfn}\upshape
Let $\Sigma\, (=\Sigma_{L, h})$ denote the set of $p \in L$ at which $h$ is degenerate, equivalently,
the locus where either $\Phi$ or $\Phi'$ is not isomorphic:
$$\Sigma=C(\pi^e) \cup C(\pi^m).$$
We call $\Sigma$ the {\em degeneracy locus} of the quasi-Hessian metric $h$.
\end{dfn}
Since $L$ is Legendrian, $T_pL$ is a Lagrange subspace of the symplectic vector space $\xi_p= E_p \oplus E'_p$.
Note that $\Phi$ (resp. $\Phi'$) is the linear projection of $T_pL$ to the factor $E_p$ (resp. $E_p'$),
and especially, $\dim T_pL\cap E_p\ge 1$ (resp. $\dim T_pL\cap E'_p\ge 1$) if and only if
$p$ is $m$-critical (resp. $e$-critical). In particular, the null space of $h$ splits:
$${\rm null}\, h_p=\ker \Phi'_p \oplus \ker \Phi_p=(T_pL\cap E_p) \oplus (T_pL\cap E'_p).$$
\begin{dfn}\upshape \label{duallyflat2}
For an {\em arbitrary} Legendre submanifold $L \subset \mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$,
we call the triplet $(h, (E, \nabla^E, \Phi), (E', \nabla^{E'}, \Phi'))$ the {\em dually flat structure} of $L$.
$$
\xymatrix{
&TL \ar[dl]_{\Phi} \ar[dr]^{\Phi'} &\\
E_L&&E_L'
}
$$
\end{dfn}
\begin{rem}\upshape
\label{dually_flat_rem}
Given a regular model $L$, we have the triple $(h, E, E')$, where
both $\Phi$ and $\Phi'$ are isomorphic.
That restores the dually flat structure in the original form (Definition \ref{duallyflat});
Indeed, $\nabla$ and $\nabla^*$ on $TL$ are uniquely determined by
$$\Phi(\nabla_X Y)=\nabla^E_X \Phi(Y), \quad
\Phi'(\nabla^*_X Y)=\nabla^{E'}_X \Phi'(Y) $$
where $X, Y$ are arbitrary vector fields on $L$.
On the other hand, a singular model $L$ with degenerate potential $z=f(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})$ is
the case that $\Phi$ is isomorphic and $\Phi'$ is not.
Then the connection $\nabla$ of $TL$ is obtained from $\nabla^E$ via $\Phi$ in the same way as above,
while $\nabla^*$ does not exist.
If both $\Phi$ and $\Phi'$ are not isomorphic, there is no connection on $TL$.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Quasi-Hessian manifolds}\label{sec:3-3}
Our generalized dually flat structure presented in Definition \ref{duallyflat2} is compatible with affine Legendre equivalence.
That means that if an affine Legendre equivalence $\mathcal{L}_F$ identifies Legendre submanifolds $L_1$ and $L_2$, then the quasi-Hessian metrics are preserved, $\mathcal{L}_F^*h_2=h_1$, and $\mathcal{L}_F$ naturally induces vector bundle isomorphisms between coherent tangent bundles, $E_{L_1} \simeq E_{L_2}$ and $E'_{L_1} \simeq E'_{L_2}$, such that the isomorphisms identify equipped affine flat connections and we have the following commutative diagram
$$
\xymatrix{
E_{L_1} \ar[d]_{\simeq}&TL_1 \ar[d]^{\simeq}_{\mathcal{L_F}} \ar[l]_{\Phi_1}\ar[r]^{\Phi'_1} & E'_{L_1} \ar[d]^{\simeq} \\
E_{L_2} &TL_2 \ar[l]_{\Phi_2}\ar[r]^{\Phi'_2} & E'_{L_2}
}
$$
Thus the ordinary gluing construction works.
To be precise, suppose that we are given a collection $\{L_\alpha\}_{\alpha\in \Lambda}$,
where $\Lambda$ is a countable set, such that it satisfies the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] for every $\alpha \in \Lambda$, $L_\alpha$ itself is an open manifold and it is embedded in $\mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$ as a Legendre submanifold, called a {\em local model};
\item[(ii)] for every $\alpha, \beta \in \Lambda$, there is an open subset $L_{\alpha\beta} \subset L_\alpha$ (also $L_{\beta\alpha} \subset L_\beta$) and a diffeomorphism $\mathcal{L}_\alpha^\beta: L_{\alpha\beta} \to L_{\beta\alpha}$ such that
over each connected component of $L_{\alpha\beta}$, $\mathcal{L}_\alpha^\beta$ is given by an affine Legendre equivalence of the ambient space $\mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$;
\item[(iii)] for $\alpha, \beta, \gamma \in \Lambda$, it holds that $\mathcal{L}_\alpha^\gamma=\mathcal{L}_\beta^\gamma\circ \mathcal{L}_\alpha^\beta$ on $L_{\alpha\beta} \cap L_{\alpha\gamma}$.
\end{enumerate}
Let $M$ be the resulting topological space from these gluing data $\mathcal{U}=\{L_\alpha, \mathcal{L}_\alpha^\beta\}$. Assume that $M$ is Hausdorff, then $M$ itself becomes an $n$-dimensional manifold in the ordinary sense.
One can naturally associate a possibly degenerate $(0,2)$-tensor $h$ on $M$ and a pair of globally defined dual coherent tangent bundles $E$ and $E'$ on $M$ with bundle maps $\Phi: TM \to E$ and $\Phi: TM \to E'$ equipped with affine flat connections. The bundles $E$ and $E'$ are dual to each other.
\begin{dfn}\upshape\label{quasi-Hessian_manifold}
We call $(M, \mathcal{U})$ equipped with $(h, (E, \nabla^{E}, \Phi), (E', \nabla^{E'}, \Phi'))$ a {\em quasi-Hessian manifold}.
We define the {\em degeneracy locus} $\Sigma$ to be the locus of points of $M$ at which $h$ is degenerate.
\end{dfn}
Since the gluing maps $\mathcal{L}_\alpha^\beta$ also act on a neighborhood of $L_{\alpha\beta}$ in $\mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$ and preserve the contact structure,
$M$ is realized as a Legendre submanifold in some ambient contact manifold.
By the above construction, it is obvious to see
\begin{prop}\upshape
Let $M$ be a quasi-Hessian manifold. Then $h$ is non-degenerate everywhere
if and only if $M$ is a Hessian manifold.
\end{prop}
\noindent {\sl Proof} :\;
From the equivalence of (1) and (3) in Lemma \ref{g}, we see that
$h$ is non-degenerate everywhere if and only if any local models $L_\alpha$ are regular models,
that means $M$ is a Hessian manifold (Proposition \ref{Hessian_manifold}). \hfill $\Box$
\begin{rem}\label{singular_L}
\upshape
More generally, we may allow a local model $L_\alpha$ not to be a manifold but a {\em singular Legendre variety}; it is a closed subset with a partition (stratification) into integral submanifolds of the contact structure (the projection to the cotangent bundle is called a {\em singular Lagrange variety}), see, e.g., Ishikawa \cite{Ishikawa92}. That results a quasi-Hessian manifold with singularities.
\end{rem}
An intrinsic definition of quasi-Hessian manifolds is also available. Roughly speaking, it is an $n$-dimensional manifold $M$ equipped with a pair of flat coherent tangent bundles $(E, \nabla^E, \Phi)$ and $(E', \nabla^{E'}, \Phi')$ of rank $n$; we impose two conditions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)]
the vector bundle $E\oplus E'$ of rank $2n$ is endowed with a symplectic structure $\omega$ and a pseudo-Riemannian metric $\tau$ of type $(n,n)$ satisfying $\omega(u,v)=\tau(u,v)=0$ ($u, v\in E_p$ or $E'_p$) and
$\omega(u,v)=\tau(u,v)$ ($u\in E_p$, $v \in E'_p$); this condtion defines the dualily between $E$ and $E'$;
\item[(b)] the bundle map
$$\Phi\oplus \Phi': TM \to E \oplus E'$$
is injective and the image is a Lagrange subbundle which is certainly {\em integrable} in order to ensure to find a local model around each point of $M$ as in Definition \ref{quasi-Hessian_manifold}. We omit the detail here.
\end{enumerate}
This also suggests a degenerate version of the so-called Codazzi structure (cf. \cite{Shima}).
\subsection{Cubic tensor and $\alpha$-family}\label{sec:3-4}
In the theory of dually flat manifolds \cite{AmariNagaoka00},
not only the Hessian metric $h$ but also the Amari-Chentsov tensor $T:=\nabla h$ takes an essential role; it satisfies
$$T(X, Y, Z)=h(\nabla^*_XY, Z)-h(\nabla_XY, Z)=h(Y, \nabla^*_XZ)-h(Y, \nabla_XZ)$$
for vector fields $X, Y, Z$.
Note that whenever $\nabla$ exists,
the tensor $T$ is defined everywhere, independently whether or not $h$ is non-degenerate.
This is an easy case. We generalize the Amari-Chentsov tensor for an arbitrary quasi-Hessian manifold
$$(M, h, (E, \nabla^E, \Phi), (E', \nabla^{E'}, \Phi'))$$
but the way is not obvious at all, because there is no connection of $TM$.
Finally we will see that the obtained tensor is a very natural one (Proposition \ref{C_local} below).
\begin{lem}\label{tau}
For any vector field $X$ on $M$, and for any sections $\eta$ of $E$ and $\zeta'$ of $E'$,
it holds that
$$X\tau(\eta, \zeta')=\tau(\nabla^E_X\eta, \zeta')+ \tau(\eta, \nabla^{E'}_X\zeta')$$
where we put $\tau(\eta, \zeta'):=\tau(\eta\oplus 0, 0\oplus \zeta')$ for short.
\end{lem}
\noindent {\sl Proof} :\; Take local frames of flat sections $s_i$ of $E$ and $s_j^*$ of $E'$ with $\tau(s_i, s_j^*)=\frac{1}{2}\delta_{ij}$ ($1\le i, j \le n$) on an open set $U \subset M$.
Put $\eta=\sum a_is_i$ and $\zeta'=\sum b_js_j^*$ where $a_i, b_j$ are functions on $U$,
then
$$\nabla^E_X\eta=\sum X(a_i)s_i, \;\; \nabla^{E'}_X\zeta'=\sum X(b_j)s_j^*, \;\; \tau(\eta, \zeta')=\frac{1}{2}\sum a_ib_i.$$
This leads to the equality.
\hfill $\Box$
\
For $Y, Z \in TM$, put
$$\eta=\Phi(Y), \;\; \zeta=\Phi(Z) \; \in E, \;\; \eta'=\Phi'(Y), \;\; \zeta'=\Phi'(Z)\; \in E'.$$
Then
$$
h(Y, Z)=\tau(\eta\oplus \eta', \zeta\oplus \zeta')=\tau(\eta, \zeta')+\tau(\zeta, \eta').
$$
Using Lemma \ref{tau}, for vector fields $X, Y, Z$ on $M$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
Xh(Y, Z)&=&X(\tau(\eta, \zeta'))+X(\tau(\zeta, \eta'))\\
&=&\tau(\nabla^E_X\eta, \zeta') + \tau(\eta, \nabla^{E'}_X\zeta')+ \tau(\nabla^E_X\zeta, \eta') + \tau(\zeta, \nabla^{E'}_X\eta').
\end{eqnarray*}
We call the sum of first and third terms the $\nabla^E$-part, the rest the $\nabla^{E'}$-part, tentatively.
We are concerned with their difference.
\begin{dfn}\upshape
\label{C}
For a quasi-Hessian manifold $M$,
we define the {\em canonical cubic tensor} $C$ by the following $(0,3)$-tensor on $M$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&C(X, Y, Z):=\tau(\eta, \nabla^{E'}_X\zeta')+\tau(\zeta, \nabla^{E'}_X\eta')
-\tau(\nabla^E_X\eta, \zeta')-\tau(\nabla^E_X\zeta, \eta').
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{dfn}
In particular, if $h$ is non-degenerate, then $\Phi(\nabla_X Y)=\nabla^E_X \Phi(Y)$ (Remark \ref{dually_flat_rem})
and we have
$$
\tau(\nabla^E_X\eta, \zeta')=\tau(\Phi(\nabla_X Y), \Phi'(Z))=\frac{1}{2}h(\nabla_X Y, Z)
$$
and so on, thus it follows that the $\nabla^E$-part and the $\nabla^{E'}$-part
are equal to, respectively,
$$\frac{1}{2}(h(\nabla_XY, Z)+h(Y, \nabla_XZ)), \quad \frac{1}{2}(h(\nabla^*_XY, Z)+h(Y, \nabla^*_XZ)).$$
Hence, we see that $C$ coincides with the Amari-Chentsov tensor $T$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
C(X, Y, Z)&=&\textstyle
\frac{1}{2}(h(\nabla^*_XY, Z)-h(\nabla_XY, Z))+\frac{1}{2}(h(Y, \nabla^*_XZ)-h(Y, \nabla_XZ))\\
&=&T(X, Y, Z).
\end{eqnarray*}
Using local coordinates, we write down the tensor $C$ explicitly as follows.
Take a local model $L \subset \mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$ and $p \in L$. As mentioned before,
locally around $p$, $L$ is parameterized by some local coordinates $\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J$ with a generating function $g(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J)$.
For the simplicity, for each $1\le k \le n$, we set
$$\partial_k:=\frac{\partial}{\partial x_k}\; (k\in I) \;\;\;\mbox{or}\;\;\; \frac{\partial}{\partial p_k}\; (k \in J).$$
\begin{prop} \label{C_local}
The canonical cubic tensor $C$ is locally the third partial derivative of a generating function: for any $k, l, m$,
$$C(\partial_k, \partial_l, \partial_m)=\partial_k\partial_l\partial_m g.$$
In particular, $C$ is symmetric.
\end{prop}
\noindent {\sl Proof} :\;
This is shown by direct computation.
The generating function yields
a Lagrange embedding $L \to T^*\mathbb{R}^n$ given by
$$\iota: (\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J)\mapsto (\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I, \mbox{\boldmath $x$}_J, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}_I, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J):=(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I, -\partial_J g, \partial_I g, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J),$$
thus the differential $\iota_*: T_pL \to T_p(T^*\mathbb{R}^n)=\mathbb{R}^{n}_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}}\oplus \mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bp$}}$ is written as
$$\iota_*(\partial_k)=\partial_k-\sum_{j\in J} (\partial_k\partial_j g)\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j} + \sum_{i\in I} (\partial_k\partial_i g) \frac{\partial}{\partial p_i}.$$
Let $s_i, s_i^*\; (1\le i \le n)$ be flat sections of $E$ and $E'$ as before; $\tau(s_i, s_j^*)=\frac{1}{2}\delta_{ij}$.
Then for $k \in I$,
$$ \Phi(\iota_*\partial_k)=s_k-\sum_{j\in J} (\partial_k\partial_j g)s_j, \quad
\Phi'(\iota_*\partial_k)=\sum_{i \in I} (\partial_k\partial_i g) s_i^*,$$
and for $k\in J$,
$$ \Phi(\iota_*\partial_k)=- \sum_{j\in J} (\partial_k\partial_j g) s_j, \quad
\Phi'(\iota_*\partial_k)=s_k^*+\sum_{i\in I} (\partial_k\partial_i g)s_i^*.$$
Put $\eta=\Phi(\iota_*\partial_l)$, $\eta'=\Phi'(\iota_*\partial_l)$, $\zeta=\Phi(\iota_*\partial_m)$, $\zeta'=\Phi'(\iota_*\partial_m)$, and $X=\partial_k$.
For $l \in I$, $m \in J$ and any $k$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\textstyle \tau(\eta, \nabla^{E'}_X\zeta')
=\tau(s_l-\sum_J (\partial_l\partial_jg) s_j, \sum_I (\partial_k\partial_m\partial_i g) s_i^*)=\frac{1}{2}\partial_k\partial_l\partial_m g,\\
&&\textstyle \tau(\zeta, \nabla^{E'}_X\eta')
=\tau(-\sum_J (\partial_m\partial_j g)s_j, \sum_I (\partial_k\partial_l\partial_i g) s_i^*)=0,\\
&&\textstyle \tau(\nabla^E_X\eta, \zeta')
=\tau(-\sum_J (\partial_k\partial_l\partial_j g)s_j, s_m^*+\sum_I (\partial_m\partial_i g) s_i^*)
=-\frac{1}{2}\partial_k\partial_l\partial_m g, \\
&&\textstyle \tau(\nabla^E_X\zeta, \eta')
=\tau(-\sum_J (\partial_k\partial_m\partial_j g)s_j, \sum_I (\partial_l\partial_i g) s_i^*)=0.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus, the $\nabla^{E'}$-part minus the $\nabla^E$-part gives $C(\partial_k, \partial_l, \partial_m)=\partial_k\partial_l\partial_m g$.
For $l, m \in I$ and any $k$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\textstyle \tau(\eta, \nabla^{E'}_X\zeta')
=\tau(s_l-\sum_J (\partial_l\partial_jg) s_j, \sum_I (\partial_k\partial_m\partial_i g) s_i^*)=\frac{1}{2}\partial_k\partial_l\partial_m g,\\
&&\textstyle \tau(\zeta, \nabla^{E'}_X\eta')
=\tau(s_m-\sum_J (\partial_m\partial_j g)s_j, \sum_I (\partial_k\partial_l\partial_i g) s_i^*)=\frac{1}{2}\partial_k\partial_l\partial_m g,\\
&&\textstyle \tau(\nabla^E_X\eta, \zeta')
=\tau(-\sum_J (\partial_k\partial_l\partial_j g)s_j, \sum_I (\partial_m\partial_i g) s_i^*)
=0, \\
&&\textstyle \tau(\nabla^E_X\zeta, \eta')
=\tau(-\sum_J (\partial_k\partial_m\partial_j g)s_j, \sum_I (\partial_l\partial_i g) s_i^*)=0.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus, $C(\partial_k, \partial_l, \partial_m)=\partial_k\partial_l\partial_m g$.
The same is true for the case of $l, m \in J$.
\hfill $\Box$
\begin{rem}\upshape
For a dually flat manifold with potential function $f$,
the above proposition corresponds to a well known property
$$T(\partial_i, \partial_j, \partial_k)=\partial_i\partial_j\partial_k f,$$
with respect to $\nabla$-affine coordinates.
In fact, a quasi-Hessian manifold is well characterized by using $h$ and $C$, that will be discussed within the theory of (weak) contrast functions (see \S \ref{sec:3-4}).
\end{rem}
As well known,
for a dually flat manifold $M$,
the family of {\em $\alpha$-connections} is defined by
$$\nabla^{(\alpha)}=\frac{1+\alpha}{2}\nabla+\frac{1-\alpha}{2}\nabla^*$$
$(\alpha \in \mathbb{R}$).
Namely, it deforms the Levi-Civita connection using $T$ linearly.
When $\alpha=\pm 1$, $\nabla, \nabla^*$ are recovered.
Both $\nabla^{(\alpha)}$ and $\nabla^{(-\alpha)}$ are mutually dual and they form the so-called {\em $\alpha$-geometry} \cite{AmariNagaoka00, Matsuzoe}.
For a quasi-Hessian manifold $M$, we have connections of $E$ and $E'$, but none of $TM$,
thus there is no direct analogy to $\alpha$-geometry.
Nevertheless, as an attempt, we define a new $(0,3)$-tensor
\begin{eqnarray*}
N^{(\alpha)}(X, Y, Z)&:=&
\frac{1+\alpha}{2} \left[\mbox{$\nabla^E$-part}\right] + \frac{1-\alpha}{2} \left[\mbox{$\nabla^{E'}$-part}\right] \\
&=& \frac{1}{2}Xh(Y,Z)- \frac{\alpha}{2} C(X,Y,Z).
\end{eqnarray*}
Obviously, $N^{(-1)}(X, Y, Z)$ is the $\nabla^{E'}$-part, $N^{(1)}(X, Y, Z)$ is the $\nabla^E$-part multiplied by $(-1)$,
and a sort of duality holds:
$$Xh(Y,Z)=N^{(\alpha)}(X, Y, Z)+N^{(-\alpha)}(X, Y, Z).$$
In general, $N^{(\alpha)}$ is not totally symmetric, for $Xh(Y, Z)$ is not so.
If either $\Phi_p$ or $\Phi'_p$ is isomorphic, then we may take a possibly degenerate local (dual) potential around $p$ (i.e., $I$ or $J=\emptyset$)
as generating function $g$; thus $h$ is written by the Hessian of the potential,
and hence $Xh(Y, Z)$ is symmetric, and $N^{(\alpha)}$ is also.
Furthermore, if $h$ is non-degenerate, i.e., $M$ is a dually flat manifold,
we completely restore $\alpha$-geoemtry.
\section{Divergence}\label{sec:4}
Let $(M, h, (E, \nabla^E), (E', \nabla^{E'}))$ be a quasi-Hessian manifold throughout this section.
\subsection{Geodesic-like curves}\label{sec:4-1}
Let $c: I \to M$ be a curve, where $I \; (\not=\emptyset) \subset \mathbb{R}$ is an open interval,
and set $\dot{c}(t):=\frac{d}{dt}c(t) \in T_{c(t)}M$, the velocity vector ($t\in I$).
\begin{dfn}
\label{em-curve}
\upshape
A curve $c: I \to M$ is called an {\em $m$-curve} if it is an immersion ($\dot{c}(t)\not=0$) and satisfies that at every $t \in I$, vectors of $E'_{c(t)}$
$$\Phi' \circ \dot{c}(t), \;\; \nabla^{E'}_{\dot{c}}(\Phi' \circ \dot{c})(t), \;\; (\nabla^{E'}_{\dot{c}})^2(\Phi' \circ \dot{c})(t), \; \cdots $$
are not simultaneously zero and any two are linearly dependent. Also an {\em $e$-curve} is defined in the same way by replacing $\Phi'$ and $E'$ by $\Phi$ and $E$, respectively.
\end{dfn}
Suppose that the curve is given in a local model, $c: I \to L_\alpha$.
We denote by
$$\mbox{\boldmath $p$}(t):=\pi^m_1\circ c(t) \in \mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bp$}}$$
the image via the $m$-Lagrange map $\pi^m_1: L_\alpha \to \mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bp$}}$.
Note that $E'_p$ is canonically isomorphic to $\mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bp$}}$ by linear projection along the $z'$-axis.
Unless $\Phi'\circ \dot{c}(t)$ becomes to be zero, the velocity vector $\dot{\mbox{\boldmath $p$}}(t)$ does not vanish and its acceleration vector $\ddot{\mbox{\boldmath $p$}}(t)$ is parallel to the velocity (it can be $0$) by the condition in Definition \ref{em-curve}. Hence $\mbox{\boldmath $p$}(t)$ moves on a straight line in $\mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bp$}}$, i.e., $c(t)$ is a {\em re-parametrization} of an $m$-geodesic (geodesic with respect to $\nabla^* = \nabla^{E'}$).
A trouble occurs when $\Phi'\circ \dot{c}(t_0)=0$ at some $t_0$.
Then, $\dot{\mbox{\boldmath $p$}}(t_0)=0$, but by the condition for $m$-curve, some higher derivative is non-zero, say $\frac{d^k}{d t^k}\mbox{\boldmath $p$}(t_0)\not=0$, and then the vector $\frac{d^{k+1}}{d t^{k+1}}\mbox{\boldmath $p$}(t)$ is parallel to $\frac{d^k}{d t^k}\mbox{\boldmath $p$}(t)$, so we see again that $\mbox{\boldmath $p$}(t)$ moves on a straight line, but it meets the $m$-caustics at $t=t_0$; it stops once and then turns back or goes forward along the same line, according to $k$ even or odd, see Fig.\,\ref{fig3} (cf. Examples \ref{A2} and \ref{A3}).
We choose a direction vector $\mbox{\boldmath $m$}_c$ of the straight line. For an $e$-curve $c(t)$, everything is the same, and we denote by $\mbox{\boldmath $e$}_c$ a direction of the corresponding line on $\mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}}$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=8cm, pagebox=cropbox]{pict/curve.png}\;\;
\caption{\small
The image of $m$-curves via the $m$-Lagrange map.
}\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
\begin{rem}\upshape
(1) Not arbitrary two points on $M$ are connected by an $m$-curve but by a {\em piecewise} $m$-curve.
In fact, in Example \ref{A2}, you can easily find such two points on the $m$-wavefront, the left in Fig.\,\ref{fig3}.
That is also for $e$-curves.
(2) Take coordinates $(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J)$ for a local model $L_\alpha$. It is easy to see that
any $e/m$-curves satisfy a certain partial differential equation (like the geodesic equation)
using $h=(h_{ij})$ and $C=(C_{ijk})$.
In \S \ref{sec:3-4}, we have introduced the $\alpha$-family of cubic tensors $N^{(\alpha)}$.
Thus we may consider an $\alpha$-analogy to $e/m$-curves; indeed, over $M-\Sigma$, it is the same as geodesics with respect to
$\nabla^{(\alpha)}$ and $\nabla^{(-\alpha)}$.
\end{rem}
The following definition does not depend on the choices of $L_\alpha$ and direction vectors.
\begin{dfn} \upshape
Let $c_e$, $c_m$ and $\mbox{\boldmath $e$}$, $\mbox{\boldmath $m$}$ as above.
Let $S$ be a submanifold of $M$ and $c_m$ meets $S$ at $q \in S$.
We say that $c_m$ and $S$ are {\em orthogonal} at $q$ if it holds that
\begin{align*}
\mbox{\boldmath $m$}^T d\mbox{\boldmath $x$}(u) = 0 \;\;\; \mbox{\rm for any $u \in T_qS$}
\end{align*}
where $(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}, z)$ is the coordinates of $\mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$ for a local model $L_\alpha$ containing $q$.
Similarly, $c_e$ and $S$ are orthogonal at $q$ if $\mbox{\boldmath $e$}^T d\mbox{\boldmath $p$}(u) = 0$ for any $u$.
Furthermore, we say that $c_e$ and $c_m$ are {\em strictly orthogonal} at $q$ if $\mbox{\boldmath $e$}^T \mbox{\boldmath $m$} = 0$.
\end{dfn}
If $q \not\in \Sigma$, the above definition of the orthogonality of $c_m$ and $S$ is the same as the orthogonality with respect to the metric $h$. In fact, taking a regular model around $q$, the Hessian $H(q)$ is non-degenerate, and thus
$$h(\dot{c}(t), u)=\dot{\mbox{\boldmath $x$}}(t)^THd\mbox{\boldmath $x$}(u)=(H\dot{\mbox{\boldmath $x$}}(t))^Td\mbox{\boldmath $x$}(u)=\dot{\mbox{\boldmath $p$}}(t)^Td\mbox{\boldmath $x$}(u)=k\mbox{\boldmath $m$}^Td\mbox{\boldmath $x$}(u)$$
for some $k\not=0$.
However, if $q\in \Sigma$, the meaning is different in general, for it can happen that $\dot{\mbox{\boldmath $p$}}(t_0)=0$ but $\mbox{\boldmath $m$}\not=0$ (in this case, $\mbox{\boldmath $m$}$ is determined by some higher derivative of $\mbox{\boldmath $p$}(t)$).
The reason why we define the strictly orthogonality is the same; $\mbox{\boldmath $e$}$ and $\mbox{\boldmath $m$}$ may not be determined by velocity vectors.
\subsection{Canonical divergence}\label{sec:4-2}
Let $L$ be a Legendre submanifold of $\mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$.
We denote coordinates by
$$p=(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}(p), \mbox{\boldmath $p$}(p), z(p)) \in \mathbb{R}^{2n+1}, \quad z'(p)=\mbox{\boldmath $p$}(p)^T\mbox{\boldmath $x$}(p)-z(p) \in \mathbb{R}.$$
\begin{dfn}\upshape
The {\it canonical divergence} $\mathcal{D}=\mathcal{D}_L : L \times L \to \mathbb{R}$ is defined by
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{D}(p, q) = z(p)+z'(q) - \mbox{\boldmath $x$}(p)^T \mbox{\boldmath $p$}(q).
\end{align*}
\end{dfn}
Note that $\mathcal{D}(p, p)=0$ and it is asymmetric, $\mathcal{D}(p, q)\not=\mathcal{D}(q, p)$, in general.
In particular, if $L$ is a regular model with positve definite Hessian metric,
this is nothing but the {\em Bregman divergence} for some convex potential $z=f(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})$,
$$\mathcal{D}(p, q)=f(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}(p))+\varphi(\mbox{\boldmath $p$}(q)) - \mbox{\boldmath $x$}(p)^T \mbox{\boldmath $p$}(q),$$
where $z'=\varphi(\mbox{\boldmath $p$})$ is the Legendre transform of the potential \cite{AmariNagaoka00}.
\begin{lem}\label{invariance}
The canonical divergence $\mathcal{D}_L$ is invariant under affine Legendre equivalence, i.e.,
if Legendre submanifolds $L_1$ and $L_2$ of $\mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$
are affine Legendre equivalenct via $\mathcal{L}_F$,
then it holds that
$$\mathcal{D}_{L_1}=\mathcal{D}_{L_2}\circ (\mathcal{L}_F\times \mathcal{L}_F) \quad
\mbox{on $L_1\times L_1$.} $$
\end{lem}
\noindent {\sl Proof} :\;
Suppose that $\mathcal{L}_F: \mathbb{R}^{2n+1} \to \mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$ is given by
$$(\mbox{\boldmath $u$}, \mbox{\boldmath $v$}, w)=\mathcal{L}_F(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}, z)=(A\mbox{\boldmath $x$}+\mbox{\boldmath $b$}, A'\mbox{\boldmath $p$}+\mbox{\boldmath $b$}', z+\mbox{\boldmath $c$}^T\mbox{\boldmath $x$}+d)$$
with $A'=(A^T)^{-1}$, $\mbox{\boldmath $b$}'=A'\mbox{\boldmath $c$}$ and $w'=\mbox{\boldmath $v$}^T\mbox{\boldmath $u$}-w$, and $\mathcal{L}_F(L_1)=L_2$.
Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\mathcal{D}_{L_2} (\mathcal{L}_F(p), \mathcal{L}_F(q))\\
&&\quad =w(p)+w'(q)-\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(p)^T\mbox{\boldmath $v$}(q)\\
&&\quad =w(p)-w(q)+\mbox{\boldmath $v$}(q)^T(\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(q)-\mbox{\boldmath $u$}(p))\\
&&\quad =z(p)-z(q)+\mbox{\boldmath $c$}^T(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}(p)-\mbox{\boldmath $x$}(q))+(A'(\mbox{\boldmath $p$}(q)+\mbox{\boldmath $c$}))^T(A(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}(q)-\mbox{\boldmath $x$}(p)) \qquad \quad\\
&&\quad =z(p)-z(q)+\mbox{\boldmath $p$}(q)^T(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}(q)-\mbox{\boldmath $x$}(p))\\
&&\quad =z(p)+z'(q)-\mbox{\boldmath $x$}(p)^T\mbox{\boldmath $p$}(q). \\
&&\quad =\mathcal{D}_{L_1}(p,q).
\end{eqnarray*}
This completes the proof.
\hfill $\Box$
\
Let $(M, \mathcal{U}=\{L_\alpha\})$ be a quasi-Hessian manifold obtained by gluing local models and
put $\varDelta_M =\{(p, p) \in M \times M\}$.
Let $U(\varDelta_M)$ denote the subset of $M\times M$ consisting of points $(p, q)$ such that
there is some local model $L_\alpha$ containing $p, q$. Since $M$ is endowed with the quotient topology, $U(\varDelta_M)$ is an open neighborhood of the diagonal $\varDelta_M$.
\begin{dfn}\upshape
\label{canonical_divergence}
We set $\mathcal{D}_M(p,q):=\mathcal{D}_{L_\alpha}(p,q)$ at $p, q \in L_\alpha$ for some $\alpha$, then
$\mathcal{D}_M: U(\varDelta_M) \to \mathbb{R}$ is well-defined by Lemma \ref{invariance}. We call it the {\em canonical divergence} of $M$.
\end{dfn}
If $M$ is connected and simply connected, then the canonical divergence of $M$ can be extended to the entire space, so we obtain $\mathcal{D}_M: M\times M \to \mathbb{R}$.
In Amari-Nagaoka's theory of dually flat structure \cite{AmariNagaoka00, Amari16},
there are two important theorems named by
{\em extended Pythagorean Theorem} and {\em projection theorem}.
They take a central role in application to statistical inference, em-algorithm, machine learning and so on.
These are immediately generalized to our singular setup.
In the following two theorems, assume that $M$ is a local model (i.e. $M=L \subset \mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$)
or a connected and simply-connected quasi-Hessian manifold.
Anyway, the canonical divergence $\mathcal{D}\, (=\mathcal{D}_M)$ is defined on $M \times M$.
We say that two points $p, q$ are jointed by a curve $c: I \to M$ if there are $t_0, t_1 \in I$ with $c(t_0)=p$ and $c(t_1)=q$.
\begin{thm} {\bf (Extended Pythagorean Theorem)} \label{pytha_thm}
\label{pythagorean theorem}
Let $p, q, r \in M$ be three distinct points such that $p$ and $q$ are joined by an $e$-curve $c_e$, and $q$ and $r$ are jointed by an $m$-curve $c_m$,
and furthermore, $c_e$ and $c_m$ are strictly orthogonal at $q$. Then it holds that
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{D}(p, r) = \mathcal{D}(p, q) + \mathcal{D}(q, r).
\end{align*}
\end{thm}
\noindent {\sl Proof} :\;
Since
$\mathcal{D}(q,q)=z(q)+z'(q)-\mbox{\boldmath $x$}(q)^T\mbox{\boldmath $p$}(q)=0$, we see that
$$
\mathcal{D}(p, r) - \mathcal{D}(p, q) - \mathcal{D}(q, r)
= -(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}(p)-\mbox{\boldmath $x$}(q))^T(\mbox{\boldmath $p$}(r)-\mbox{\boldmath $p$}(q)).
$$
The images of the maps $\pi^e_1 \circ c_e$ and $\pi^m_1 \circ c_m$ lie on lines with
direction vectors, say $\mbox{\boldmath $e$}, \mbox{\boldmath $m$}$, respectively.
Then
$$\mbox{\boldmath $x$}(p)-\mbox{\boldmath $x$}(q)=k_0\mbox{\boldmath $e$}, \quad \mbox{\boldmath $p$}(r)-\mbox{\boldmath $p$}(q)=k_1\mbox{\boldmath $m$}$$
for some $k_0, k_1 \in \mathbb{R}$.
The assumption is $\mbox{\boldmath $e$}^T\mbox{\boldmath $m$}=0$, thus the equality follows.
\hfill $\Box$
\begin{thm}{\bf (Projection Theorem)} \label{proj_thm}
Let $S$ be a submanifold of $M$ and $c_m : [0, 1] \to L$ an $m$-curve with $q=c_m(1) \in S$.
Put $p=c_m(0) \in L$.
Then, $c_m$ and $S$ are orthogonal at $q$ if and only if
$q$ is a critical point of the function
$F=\mathcal{D}(-, p): S \to \mathbb{R}$.
The same holds for an $e$-curve $c_e$ and $F=\mathcal{D}(p, -)$.
\end{thm}
\noindent {\sl Proof} :\;
Take a generating function $g(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J)$ around $q$. Recall
$\mbox{\boldmath $p$}_I= \frac{\partial g}{\partial \mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I}$, $\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_J=- \frac{\partial g}{\partial \mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J}$ and $z=\mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J^T\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_J+g(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J)$.
Let $\gamma=\gamma(s)$ be an immersed curve on $S$ with $\gamma(0)=q$.
On this curve,
we have $\frac{d}{ds} g(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J)=\mbox{\boldmath $p$}_I^T(\frac{d}{ds} \mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I)-\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_J^T(\frac{d}{ds} \mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J)$ and
$\frac{dz}{ds}=(\frac{d}{ds}\mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J)^T\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_J+\mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J^T(\frac{d}{ds}\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_J)+\frac{d}{ds}g=\mbox{\boldmath $p$}^T\frac{d}{ds}\mbox{\boldmath $x$}$.
Therefore, we see
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{d(F\circ \gamma)}{ds}(s)
&=&\frac{d}{ds} (z(\gamma(s))+z'(p)-\mbox{\boldmath $p$}(p)^T\mbox{\boldmath $x$}(\gamma(s))) \\
&=& (\mbox{\boldmath $p$}(\gamma(s))-\mbox{\boldmath $p$}(p))^T\frac{d(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}\circ \gamma)}{ds}(s).
\end{eqnarray*}
At $s=0$, the vector $\mbox{\boldmath $p$}(q)-\mbox{\boldmath $p$}(p)$ is a scalar multiple of the direction vector $\mbox{\boldmath $v$}$ of the line in $\mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bp$}}$ to which the $m$-curve $c_m$ is projected, and $\frac{d}{ds} \mbox{\boldmath $x$} = d\pi^e_1(\frac{d\gamma}{ds}(0)) \in \mathbb{R}^n_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}}$. Hence, the orthogonality of $S$ and $c_m$ at $q$ is equivalent to that $\frac{d}{ds}F\circ \gamma(0)=0$ for arbitrary $\gamma$, that means that $F$ is critical at $q$. \hfill $\Box$
\begin{exam}\label{Pytha}\upshape
We check the Pythagorean theorem for a toy example in Example \ref{A2}.
Let
$$f(\mbox{\boldmath $x$})= \frac{x_1^3}{3} + \frac{x_2^2}{2}$$
and use affine local coordinates $\mbox{\boldmath $x$}=(x_1, x_2)$ for $L$.
The $m$-Lagrange map is $(x_1, x_2)\mapsto (p_1, p_2)=(x_1^2, x_2)$, and $\Sigma$ is the $x_2$-axis.
We have already computed the dual potential $z'$, thus for
$P:=\mbox{\boldmath $x$}(p)=(a_1, a_2)$ and $Q:=\mbox{\boldmath $x$}(q)=(b_1, b_2)$, we have
$$\mathcal{D}(P,Q)=\frac{a_1^3}{3} + \frac{a_2^2}{2}+\frac{2b_1^3}{3}+\frac{b_2^2}{2}-a_1b_1^2-a_2b_2.$$
A straight line $p_2=ap_1+b$ on $\mathbb{R}^2_{\mbox{\tiny$\bp$}}$ corresponds to a parabola $x_2=ax_1^2+b$ on $\mathbb{R}^2_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}}$ (i.e. an $m$-curve).
Now, for example, take an $m$-curve $c_m$: $x_2=\frac{1}{2}x_1^2$ ($\mbox{\boldmath $m$}=(2,1)^T$), and two points
$Q:=(u, \frac{u^2}{2})$ and $R:=(t, \frac{t^2}{2})$ lying on it.
Take a point $P:=(s, -2(s-u)+\frac{u^2}{2})$ on the straight line on $\mathbb{R}^2_{\mbox{\tiny$\bx$}}$ (i.e. an $e$-curve) passing through $Q$ directed by $\mbox{\boldmath $e$}=(1,-2)^T$ with $\mbox{\boldmath $e$}^T\mbox{\boldmath $m$}=0$.
Then $\triangle PQR$ satisfies the condition, and we see
$\mathcal{D}(P,Q)+\mathcal{D}(Q, R)=\mathcal{D}(P,R)$.
It does not matter whether the point $Q$ lies on $\Sigma$ or not.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=9cm, pagebox=cropbox]{pict/pict1.png}\\
\caption{\small
Two projections of the triangle $\triangle pqr$ lying on $L$ of Example \ref{A2}.
We see a folded triangle on $\mathbb{R}^2_{\mbox{\tiny$\bp$}}$.
}\label{fig4}.
\end{figure}
\end{exam}
\subsection{Weak contrast functions}\label{sec:4-3}
First we recall the definition of {\em contrast functions} (Eguchi \cite{Eguchi}).
Let $M$ be a manifold and $\rho: U \to \mathbb{R}$ a function defined on
an open neighborhood $U$ of the diagonal $\mathit\Delta_M \subset M\times M$.
Given vector fields $X_i\, (1\le i \le k)$, $Y_j \, (1\le j \le l)$ on $M$,
we set a function
$$\rho[X_1\cdots X_k|Y_1\cdots Y_l]: M \to \mathbb{R}$$
by assigning to $p \in M$ the value
$$(X_1)_p\cdots (X_k)_p(Y_1)_q\cdots (Y_l)_q\left(\rho(p, q)\right)|_{p=q}.$$
We also write $\rho[X| - ](r)=X_p\rho(p, q)|_{p=q=r}$ and so on.
We call $\rho: U \to \mathbb{R}$ a {\em contrast function} of $M$ if it satisfies that
$$(i)\;\; \rho[-|-]=\rho(p, p)=0 \qquad
(ii)\;\; \rho[X|-]=\rho[-|X]=0,$$
\begin{center}
(iii) $h(X, Y):=-\rho[X|Y]$ is a pseudo-Riemannian metric on $M$.
\end{center}
We call $\rho$ a {\em weak contrast function}
if it satisfies only (i) and (ii).
Given a contrast function $\rho$, affine connections are defined by
$$h(\nabla_XY, Z):=-\rho[XY|Z], \quad h(Y, \nabla^*_XZ):=-\rho[Y|XZ].$$
Those connections are torsion-free, mutually dual with respect to $h$, and $\nabla h$ is symmetric,
and therefore, $(M, h, \nabla)$ becomes a statistical manifold \cite{Eguchi, Matsuzoe}.
Conversely, given a statistical manifold $M$, one can find a contrast function which reproduces the metric and connections \cite{Matsumoto} -- it is actually shown in \cite{Matsumoto}
that for a symmetric $(0,2)$-tensor $h$ (i.e., a possibly degenerate metric) and a symmetric $(0,3)$-tensor $c$, one can find a weak contrast function $\rho: U \to \mathbb{R}$ which satisfies that
\begin{eqnarray*}
h(X, Y)&=&-\rho[X|Y] \; (=\rho[XY|-]=\rho[-|XY]), \\
c(X, Y, Z)&=&-\rho[Z|XY]+\rho[XY|Z].
\end{eqnarray*}
Among statistical manifolds, Hessian manifolds admit a notable property: the Bregman divergence is a contrast function,
and it reproduces the dually flat structure.
That is extended to our quasi-Hessian manifold and its canonical divergence.
\begin{thm}\label{contrast}
For a quasi-Hessian manifold $M$, the canonical divergence $\mathcal{D}_M$ is a weak contrast function, and reproduces the quasi-Hessian metric and the canonical cubic tensor by
\begin{eqnarray*}
h(X, Y)&=&-\mathcal{D}_M[X|Y], \\
C(X, Y, Z)&=&-\mathcal{D}_M[XY|Z]+\mathcal{D}_M[Z|XY].
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{thm}
\noindent {\sl Proof} :\;
Since this is a local property,
take a local model $L_\alpha \subset \mathbb{R}^{2n+1}$.
Suppose that $g(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J)$ is a generating function
for $L_\alpha$ around $p \in L_\alpha$. Then $(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I, \mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J)$ is
a system of local coordinates for $L_\alpha$ around $p$, and
it holds that
$x_j(q)= - \frac{\partial g}{\partial p_j}(q)$, $p_i(q)=\frac{\partial g}{\partial x_i}(q)$,
$z(q)=\mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J(q)^T\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_J(q)+g(q)$ for
$q \in L_\alpha$ close to $p$. Hence,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{D}_M(p,q)&=&z(p)-z(q)+\mbox{\boldmath $p$}(q)^T(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}(q)-\mbox{\boldmath $x$}(p))\\
&=&g(p)-g(q)+\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_J(p)^T(\mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J(p)-\mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J(q))+\mbox{\boldmath $p$}_I(q)^T(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I(q)-\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I(p)).
\end{eqnarray*}
Let $\partial_k$ denote $\frac{\partial}{\partial x_k}$ if $k \in I$ and $\frac{\partial}{\partial p_k}$ if $k \in J$, for short.
Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
(\partial_k)_p\mathcal{D}_M(p,q)&=&
\epsilon(k)(\partial_kg(p) -\partial_kg(q))+\partial_k\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_J(p)^T(\mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J(p)-\mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J(q)),\\
(\partial_k)_q\mathcal{D}_M(p,q)&=&
(1-\epsilon(k))(\partial_kg(p) -\partial_kg(q))+\partial_k\mbox{\boldmath $p$}_I(q)^T(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I(q)-\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I(p)),
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\epsilon(k)=1$ if $k \in I$ and $0$ if $k \in J$.
It immediately follows that
$$\mathcal{D}_M[-|-]=0, \quad
\mathcal{D}_M[\partial_k|-]=\mathcal{D}_M[-|\partial_k]=0,$$
so the divergence is a weak contrast function.
Put
$$
\epsilon(k, l)=\left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
1& (k, l \in I)\\
-1& (k, l \in J)\\
0&\mbox{(otherwise)}.
\end{array}\right.
$$
Then a simple computation shows that
\begin{eqnarray*}
(\partial_l)_p(\partial_k)_p\mathcal{D}_M(p,q)&=&
\epsilon(k, l)\partial_l\partial_kg(p)+\partial_l\partial_k\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_J(p)^T(\mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J(p)-\mbox{\boldmath $p$}_J(q)),\\
(\partial_l)_q(\partial_k)_q\mathcal{D}_M(p,q)&=&
\epsilon(k, l)\partial_l\partial_kg(q)+\partial_l\partial_k\mbox{\boldmath $p$}_I(q)^T(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I(q)-\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_I(p)). \qquad\quad
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence
$\mathcal{D}_M[\partial_k\partial_l|-]= h(\partial_k, \partial_l)$
and
$$\mathcal{D}_M[\partial_k\partial_l|\partial_m]-\mathcal{D}_M[\partial_m|\partial_k\partial_l]=- \partial_k\partial_l\partial_mg$$
for any $k, l, m$. This coincides with the cubic tenser $C$ by Proposition \ref{C_local} up to the sign.
\hfill $\Box$
\section{Discussions}\label{sec:5}
We shortly discuss possible directions or proposals for further researches.
\subsection{Pre-Frobenius structure}\label{sec:5-1}
In mathematical physics such as string theory, there often arise manifolds endowed with commutative and associative multiplication on tangent spaces satisfying certain properties, called (several variations of) {\em Frobenius manifolds} \cite{Dubrovin}.
Now, let $(M, h, C)$ be a {\em flat} Hessian manifold, i.e., the metric connection with respect to $h$ is flat.
Then $M$ naturally carries a (weak) version of Frobenius structure \cite[\S 2]{Totaro}.
Put $C_{ijk}=C(\partial_i, \partial_j, \partial_k)$ using $\nabla$-affine coordinates,
and we may take them as structure constants
to define a multiplication on $T_pM$:
$$\partial_i \circ \partial_j := \sum_{k,l} C_{ijk}h^{kl} \partial_l.$$
Since $C$ is symmetric, it is commutative.
The associativity, $(\partial_i \circ \partial_j)\circ \partial_k=\partial_i \circ (\partial_j\circ \partial_k)$,
is written down to
$$\sum_{a,b}(C_{ijb}C_{kla}-C_{ila}C_{jkb})=0 \qquad (\forall\, i, j, k, l),$$
and a bit surprisingly, the left hand side coincides with the curvature tensor for the Levi-Civita connection of $h$ \cite{Duistermaat, Kito};
the equation is actually known as the WDVV equation in string theory.
Moreover, it is easy to see that
the multiplication is compatible with the metric: $h(\partial_i \circ \partial_j, \partial_k)=h(\partial_i, \partial_j \circ \partial_k)$.
Then the tuple $(M, h, \circ)$ becomes a weak pre-Frobenius manifold (cf. \cite{Dubrovin, Hertling}).
For a quasi-Hessian manifold $M$, the symmetric cubic tensor $C=(C_{ijk})$ is defined everywhere, but $h^{kl}$ is not;
even though, the WDVV equation makes sense. Then, at least for every $p \in \Sigma$ (pointwise),
the quotient $T_pM/{\rm null}(h_p)$ carries a Frobenius algebra structure.
A new pre-Frobenius structure on a certain space of probability distributions has recently been found using the Hessian geometry on convex cones and paracomplex structure in \cite{Combe}.
Also from the context of Poisson and paraK\"ahler geometry, the notion of contravariant pseudo-Hessian manifolds has been introduced in \cite{Boucetta19}, which is actually very close to our quasi-Hessian manifolds
with degenerate potentials. Those should be mutually related.
As a different question from the above,
more interesting is local geometry of quasi-Hessian $M$ in relation with the Saito-Givental theory -- under a certain condition, the germ of $M$ at a point should be a real geometry counterpart to analytic spectrum of a massive F-manifold
(cf. \cite[\S 3]{Hertling}; the analytic spectrum is a certain holomorphic Legendre submanifold of $\mathbb{C}^{2n+1}$ defined by a versal deformation of a complex isolated hypersurface singularity as its a generating family). Perhaps, this was essentially posed by Arnol'd \cite[\S4]{Arnold90}.
\subsection{Statistical inference and machine learning}\label{sec:5-2}
Suppose that our statistical model $S$ is a curved exponential family, i.e., a submanifold of an exponential family $M$ (see Example \ref{exponential_family}).
Let $\mathcal{D}: M\times M \to \mathbb{R}$ be the associated Bregman divergence, which is known to coincide
with the Kullback-Leibler divergence $$\mathcal{D}_{KL}(q, p)=\int q(u)\log\frac{q(u)}{p(u)} du$$
measuring an `asymmetrical distance' from a distribution (density function) $q=q(u)$ to another $p=p(u)$. A given data set $\{{\bf u}_i\}$ yields an observed point $\hat{p} \in M$, then the task of statistical inference is to find $q_0 \in S$ which best approximates the point $\hat{p}$.
Information geometry \cite{AmariNagaoka00, Amari16} provides a clear geometric understanding on the maximum likelihood estimate (MLE),
that is, the MLE assigns to $\hat{p}$ the point $q_0\in S$ which attains the minimum of $\mathcal{D}(\cdot, \hat{p}): S \to \mathbb{R}$, and especially, $\hat{p}$ is projected to $q_0$ along an $m$-geodesic ($m$-curve) being orthogonal to $S$ at $q_0$.
We have shown that this assertion is valid even in case that $M$ admits the locus $\Sigma$ where the Fisher-Rao metric is degenerate (Theorem \ref{proj_thm}), see Fig.\,\ref{fig5}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=3cm, pagebox=cropbox]{pict/3.png}\\
\caption{\small A conceptual figure for statistical inference.}\label{fig5}
\end{figure}
If $\hat{p}$ is sufficiently close to $S$ and far from $\Sigma$, then the asymptotic theory of estimation is discussed. However, in practice, we may not be able to know if $\hat{p}$ is the case.
For instance, it often happens that the MLE has multiple local minimums, i.e., the maximum likelihood equation may have multiple roots. Then, as $\hat{p}$ varies by renewing the data, {\em catastrophe phenomena} -- the birth and death of min/max. points -- can happen. Actually, the ambiguity of root selection in MLE has been studied in practical and numerical approach (cf. \cite[\S 4]{Small}), while there seems to be less theoretical approach so far.
Our framework provides a right way from information geometry. Define
$$F: S \times M \to \mathbb{R}\qquad F(q, p):=\mathcal{D}(\iota(q), p)$$
and we may consider $F$ as a global generating family \cite[p.323]{AGV}, i.e., it defines a Legendre submanifold of $T^*M\times \mathbb{R}$ by
$$L_S:=\left\{\; (p, \eta, z) \; \middle| \; \exists\, q \in S, \; \frac{\partial F}{\partial q}(q, p)=0, \; \eta=\frac{\partial F}{\partial p}(q, p), \; z=F(p, \eta) \right\}$$
where we roughly denote by $\frac{\partial F}{\partial q}$ the differential with respect to $S$ and so on.
This gives a typical example of a quasi-Hessian manifold.
The critical value set of the Lagrange map $\pi: L_S \to M$ ($\pi(p,\eta, z) \mapsto p$) is nothing but the envelope of the family of all $m$-curves on $M$ which are orthogonal to $S$; we call it the {\em $m$-caustics determined by $S$}.
If $S$ is not $\nabla$-flat, the $m$-caustics usually appear (that reflects the $\nabla^*$-extrinsic geometry of $S$ in $M$).
It turns out that the catastrophe phenomenon mentioned above arises when the data manifold $D$ intersects with the $m$-caustics determined by $S$. Conversely, for a given data manifold $D$, we may consider the restriction of $\mathcal{D}$ to $M\times D$ and define the {\em $e$-caustics determined by $D$} similarly. Interaction between these two $e/m$-caustics can be involved and affect the performance of EM-algorithm (cf. Amari \cite[Chap. 8]{Amari16}).
Note that in principle, the above strategy may be adapted to any divergence and any statistical model.
The detail will be discussed somewhere else.
As described in Amari \cite[Chap.11]{Amari16}, a class of learning machines is also based on the Bregman divergence $\mathcal{D}_\phi$ of convex functions $\phi$. Now, as an attempt, suppose that $\phi$ is a nonconvex function (possibly with inflection points). Read $\mathcal{D}_\phi$ to be the corresponding canonical divergence in our sense (see \S \ref{sec:4-2}).
Here we would like to notice that the same proofs in convex case do often work to obtain slightly weaker results for such general $\phi$ -- an easy example is Theorem 11.1 of \cite{Amari16}, which is read off as ``{\em the $k$-mean $\eta_C:=\frac{1}{k}\sum x_i$ of a cluster $C=\{x_i\}_{i=1}^k$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$ is always a critical point of $\mathcal{D}_\phi(C, -):=\frac{1}{k}\sum\mathcal{D}_\phi(x_i, -)$, and all other critical points are obtained from $\eta_C$ and $\ker \nabla^2\phi$}".
We expect a similar result for some other optimization algorithm.
On the other hand, almost all statistical learning machines allow Fisher-Rao matrices to be degenerate \cite{FK, Watanabe}. In particular, as in \cite[Chap.12]{Amari16}, most of deep learning machines use the Gaussian noise with a fixed (co)variance for regression; then the parameter space $M$ becomes a self-dual Riemannian manifold $(h, \nabla=\nabla^*)$ off the degeneracy locus $\Sigma$ of $h$ having many components.
We seek another scheme for measuring errors which is compatible with our singular model.
\subsection{Conclusion}\label{sec:5-3}
In the present paper, we have proposed an information geometry for singular models
from the viewpoint of contact geometry and singularity theory.
We have introduced quasi-Hessian manifolds,
which extend the notion of dually flat manifolds of Amari-Nagaoka so that the Hessian metric can be degenerate, but the canonical cubic tensor is consistently defined on the entire space.
Most notable is that the extended Pythagorean theorem and projection theorem are valid even in this singular setup.
There are several further directions as mentioned above.
We end by adding a few more comments.
There is an on-going project of the first author on local classification of singularities of $em$-wavefronts in flat affine coordinates, which extends an old work of Ekeland \cite{Ekeland} in nonconvex optimization and leads to affine differential geometry of wavefronts (cf. \cite{SUY}).
Secondly, since a quasi-Hessian manifold is embedded in some contact manifold,
we may think of the Hamiltonian-Jacobi method for time evolution of quasi-Hessian manifolds (wavefront propagation) and semi-classical quantization (WKB analysis) in our framework (cf. \cite{Arnold89}).
Finally, it would be valuable to find some connections with preceding excellent works on singular statistical models \cite{Amari16, FK, Watanabe} -- especially, we hope that the theory of singular Legendre varieties and Legendre currents would make a bridge between the differential geometric method \cite{AmariNagaoka00, Amari16} and the algebro-geometric method \cite{Watanabe}.
|
\chapter{Introduction}\label{Intro_chap}
\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Approximation via Interpolation}
One method of approximating a function when a finite number of its samples are given is by interpolating the sample data points. If the interpolation method is that the interpolant converges to the function as the data points become dense in the domain, then approximation via interpolation is assumed to be achieved, and the interpolation method is assumed to have the approximation property. Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{T}^m$ be a bounded Lipschitz domain, and let $\psi:\Omega\to\mathbb{R}$ be a function from a specified function space. $\psi$ is the function to be approximated. Let $D$ be a countable dense subset of $\Omega$. The scattered data constitute a set of $n$ distinct points $\{\boldsymbol{p}_i/\boldsymbol{p}_i\in D, i=1,2,\ldots n\}$ chosen from $D$ without assumptions on their geometry and the corresponding values of $\psi$ evaluated at these points $\psi(\boldsymbol{p}_i)$. The set of data points is denoted as $E_n = \{\boldsymbol{p}_i/\boldsymbol{p}_i\in D, i = 1,2,3,..n\}$. Scattered data interpolation aims to obtain a function $f^n$ that interpolates the data in $E_n$; in other words, $f^n(\boldsymbol{p}_i) = \psi(\boldsymbol{p}_i)\mbox{ }i=1,2,\ldots n$. The interpolation method is assumed to have an approximation property if the interpolation method is such that as $n\to\infty$, $f^n\to \psi$ under some suitable norm.
\subsection{Scattered Data Interpolation}
Given a set of data points in a domain and the corresponding values to be attained at those points, a method of selecting a function from a known class of functions that attains those values at the corresponding data points is referred to as interpolation. Interpolation is a very old topic in mathematics with wide practical applications in many fields. It has been widely studied, and there is an enormous corpus of literature on this topic. This paper undertakes a brief exposure, focusing only on the methods that are relevant and comparing them with methods proposed in this study. We mainly concentrate on multivariate scattered data interpolation methods and their ability to approximate functions over a bounded domain. Scattered data interpolation methods can be broadly classified into two categories: (a) polynomial interpolation methods \cite{gasca2000polynomial, de1990multivariate} (b) non-polynomial interpolation methods. The easiest of the polynomial interpolation methods are tensor product methods, but they require a prescribed geometry on the given data points, rendering them not very useful in the context of this study. Piece-wise polynomial approaches, such as multivariate spline interpolation \cite{de1983approximation}, exist, but they require the triangulation of data points, which is non-trivial and the methods are too specific to the dimension of the Euclidean space in which interpolation is being performed. Consequently, they are not very useful when seamless mobility across dimensions is required. For example, if one designs a method in two-dimensional space, it will not be readily useful for a seven-dimensional space without a substantial amount of work. In addition, the accuracy of the approximation substantially depends on the triangulation method used. General, non-polynomial methods date back to Shepard's method \cite{10.1145/800186.810616, gordon1978shepard} that provides easy methods to generate interpolants in any dimensional space. However, this method generally does not provide good interpolation accuracy, suffers from the interpolant having stationary points or vanishing gradients (flat regions) near all the data points, and is unduly influenced by distant points. There are recently developed, mathematically well-studied methods that are widely used in both higher and lower dimensions, which are referred to as radial basis function interpolation (RBF) methods. They have the advantage of being generic for any dimension and are the closest to the method presented in this paper. We provide a brief exposition to the RBF interpolation methods and discuss their advantages, the functions they can approximate, and their disadvantages. For a brief overview of the scattered data interpolation methods, one can refer to the review paper by Franke et al. \cite{franke1991scattered}.
\subsection{Approximation Using Radial Basis Function Interpolation Methods}
Let $\psi$ be the function to be approximated. When the data are scattered, the common choice for such an approximation is the radial basis-function interpolation method. We provide a brief exposition of the radial basis-function interpolation methods. The standard radial basis function interpolant is generally of the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq1}
f^n(\boldsymbol{x}) = \sum_{i=1}^n c_i\phi(\|\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{p}_i\|), x\in\mathbb{R}^m.
\end{equation}
The function $\phi:\mathbb{R}_+\to\mathbb{R}$ is called the radial basis function. The coefficients $c_i$ can be determined uniquely from the interpolation requirements $f^n(\boldsymbol{p}_i) = \psi(\boldsymbol{p}_i)$, which involves solving a set of linear equations, by inverting a matrix $A = [a_{i,j}]_{n\times n}$, where $a_{i,j} = \phi(\|\boldsymbol{p}_i-\boldsymbol{p}_j\|)$. We refer to this matrix $A$ as the interpolation matrix. The radial basis function $\phi$ is sometimes strictly positive definite; for example, the Gaussian radial basis function $\phi(r) = e^{-\sigma^2 r^2}$ and inverse multiquadric function $\phi(r) = 1/\sqrt{r^2+\sigma^2}$ render the interpolation matrix $A$ positive definite, thereby rendering the coefficients $c_i$ uniquely solvable. Sometimes, $\phi(r)$ is only conditionally positive definite of some order $k$ on $\mathbb{R}^m$. Examples of such radial basis functions are the so-called thin plate splines. For these types of radial basis functions, polynomials $p(\boldsymbol{x}) \in \mathbb{P}^{k-1}_m(\boldsymbol{x})$ of degree $k-1$ in $m$ unknowns are augmented to equation \ref{eq1} to render the interpolation problem uniquely solvable. Thus, we obtain the interpolant as
\begin{equation}\label{eq2}
f^n(\boldsymbol{x}) = \sum_{i=1}^n c_i\phi(\|\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{p}_i\|) + p(\boldsymbol{x}), \boldsymbol{x}\in \mathbb{R}^m.
\end{equation}
The extra degrees of freedom are obtained by requiring that the coefficient vector $\boldsymbol{c} = [c_1,c_2,...c_n]^T \in \mathbb{R}^n$ satisfy
\begin{equation}\label{eq3}
\sum_{i=1}^nc_iq(\boldsymbol{p}_i) = 0, \forall q\in\mathbb{P}^{k-1}_m.
\end{equation}
To ensure that the problem is solvable, the set of data points $E$ should contain a $\mathbb{P}^{k-1}_m$-unisolvent subset. This is the only mild assumption about the data that are required by the radial basis function interpolation methods using radial basis functions that are conditionally positive definite of the order $k$. For the special case of the linear radial basis functions $\phi(r) = r$, the interpolation matrix is non-singular even without augmentation of the polynomials to the interpolant. Does the radial basis-function interpolation method have the approximation property as the data points become dense in the domain? The answer to this question is ``yes'' when the function $\psi$ (the one to be approximated) is in the reproducing kernel Hilbert space(RKHS space)(also known as the native space) corresponding to the radial basis function $\phi(r)$ used. The question of convergence was first answered by Powell \cite{powell1994uniform} in two dimensions and general dimensions by Duchon for the special case of the RBF being a thin plate spline or any of its siblings, under the unisolvency assumption on the scattered data and the domain of the function $\psi$. The use of native space methods was pioneered by Duchon \cite{duchon1976interpolation, duchon1977splines, duchon1978erreur}, where he derived thin plate spline-type RBF's using the variational principle. They are of the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq4}\begin{aligned}
\phi(r) &= r^{2k-m}\log{r},&\mbox{ if } 2k-m \mbox{ is an even integer,}\\
&= r^{2k-m},&\mbox{ if } 2k-m \mbox{ is not an even integer.}
\end{aligned}.
\end{equation}
By defining the fill distance(or mesh norm) $h_n := \sup_{x\in\Omega}\inf_{p\in E_n}\|x-p\|$, one can state the approximation property of the thin plate spline-type radial basis function interpolation in the following theorem due to Bejancu \cite{bejancu1997uniform}.
\begin{theorem}
Let $\phi$ be from class (\ref{eq4}) and $\Omega$ be bounded and contains a $\mathbb{P}^k_m$-unisolvent subset. Let $f^n$ be the RBF interpolant as in equation (\ref{eq2}); then, there is a constant $C$ that is independent of $h$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq5}
\begin{aligned}
\|f^n - \psi\| &\le C h_n\sqrt{\log{1/h_n}}, \mbox{ if } 2k-m=2,\\% \mbox{ is an even integer,}\\
&\le C\sqrt{h_n}, \mbox{ if } 2k-m=1 \mbox{ and } 0<h<1.\\
&\le C h_n \mbox{ in all other cases.}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
It should be noted that $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}h_n = 0$, so the above theorem ensures convergence and approximates the function $\psi$ when the points become dense in $\Omega$.
A few years after Duchon's paper was published, Madych and Nelson \cite{madych1990multivariate} developed an approach dealing with general RBF interpolation and provided related error estimates using a variational principle. Wu and Schaback \cite{wu1993local}, using Kriging methods, obtained many explicit, useful error estimates for interpolation via RBFs. More improvements in error estimates were achieved by Schaback \cite{schaback1999improved}. Some of these results were improved in terms of convergence rates, for which one can refer to the review paper by Buhmann \cite{buhmann_2000}.
In many applications, for example, in mesh-less methods for solving PDEs or in the field of statistical learning theory, the function $\psi$ generating the data may not be sufficiently smooth or have the right properties to be in the native space of the RBF. In summary, there is not enough space in the native space. For approximating a function that is outside the native space of the RBF, or, for example, any continuous function $\psi$, to date, the convergence results are unknown, and efforts are being made in this direction, for example Narcowich et al, \cite{narcowich2004scattered, narcowich2005sobolev} and Brownlee et al, \cite{brownlee2004approximation} with some partial progress in the form of obtaining some bounds on the error, which are not strong enough to establish convergence. Motivated by the problem of escaping the native space, Yoon \cite{yoon2001spectral} used thin plate splines that depend on a parameter $\lambda$ that is scaled with the spacing of the data and investigated interpolation errors associated with data-dependent RBFs. Again the bounds obtained were not strong enough to prove convergence. Some of these efforts to approximate functions outside the native space are summarized in the review paper by Narcowich \cite{narcowich2005recent}. For a detailed overview of the RBF methods, one can refer to Buhmann's book on radial basis functions \cite{buhmann_2003}.
One major disadvantage of the RBF methods is that there is no known upper bound on the condition number of the interpolation matrix, which is independent of the data. The only known bounds depend directly on the number of data points $n$ or implicitly on the minimum separation distance of the data. Both these bounds become unbounded as the data points increase in density, as given in \cite{narcowich1991norms}. There has been an experimental study \cite{boyd2011numerical} demonstrating that the condition number becomes unbounded as the data points become dense.
In this paper we introduce a scattered data interpolation method using trigonometric polynomials. It is shown that this interpolation method can be used for approximation of functions of bounded variation defined on a torus $\mathbb{T}^m$, from their scattered data. We began with an introduction and a brief overview of radial basis functions (RBF) interpolation methods in Chapter \ref{Intro_chap}. In Chapter \ref{chap_2} we describe a scattered data interpolation method for approximating continuous Sobolev functions from their scattered data. In Chapter \ref{chap_3} we adopt this method for scattered data interpolation using trigonometric polynomials. In Chapter \ref{chap_4} we show that this method can be used to approximate functions of bounded variation from their scattered data. (It has to be noted that, in this paper, by functions of bounded variation we mean that these functions have a finite but non zero total variation(in the Vitali sense) and also they do not contain removable discontinuities).
\chapter{Interpolation using Sobolev Functions}\label{chap_2}
\section{Minimization Problem}
\label{mnmz}
\subsection{Definitions}
Let $H^k(\Omega)$ denote the Sobolev Hilbert space of the functions defined on the set $\Omega$, $\mathbb{T}^m$ denote the $m $ - dimensional Torus. Defining a function on a torus $\mathbb{T}^m$ means the function is defined over $(0,1)^m$ and it is periodic with a period $T = (1,1\ldots 1) \in \{1\}^m$. Let $\mathbb{Z}^m$ denote the set containing all the $m$-tuples of integers.
\begin{definition}
\label{kgradient}
We define the $k$-gradient as
\begin{equation}
\nabla^kf = (\frac{\partial^{k}f}{\partial x_1^{k}},\frac{\partial^{k}f}{\partial x_2^{k}},...\frac{\partial^{k}f}{\partial x_m^{k}} ).
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
We define the functional $C_{\lambda}$ as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq7}
C_{\lambda}(f) = \frac{\lambda^2}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}(f(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-q_i)^2 + \lambda\|\nabla^kf\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \|f\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2, \end{equation}
where $k,m \in \mathbb{N}, k>\frac{m}{2},
\lambda \in \mathbb{R}^+ \mbox{ and } f \in C^0(\mathbb{T}^m)\cap H^k(\mathbb{T}^m)$.
The minimization problem is minimizing the functional defined in Equation \ref{eq7} over the space $ C^0(\mathbb{T}^m)\cap H^k(\mathbb{T}^m)$ .
In \cite{Afunctionfittingmethod}(in a sequence of theorems (Theorems 1-4)), a similar functional \begin{equation}\label{sim_func}
B_{\lambda}(f) = \sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}(f(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-q_i)^2 + \lambda\|\nabla^kf\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \|f\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2
\end{equation}defined on the same space $C^0(\mathbb{T}^m)\cap H^k(\mathbb{T}^m)$ has been considered, and it has been shown that this functional $B_{\lambda}$ has a unique minimizer in $C^0(\mathbb{T}^m)\cap H^k(\mathbb{T}^m)$. Using similar technique it can be shown that the present functional in Equation \ref{eq7} also has a unique minimizer in the space $C^0(\mathbb{T}^m)\cap H^k(\mathbb{T}^m) $, the proof of which is given in Appendix \ref{unique_minimizer} .
\subsection{Euler--Lagrange (E--L) Equation }
We now derive the Euler--Lagrange (E--L) equation of the minimization problem posed in the previous section and show that it is a linear weak PDE with some global terms.
We minimize in $C^0(\mathbb{T}^m)\cap H^k(\mathbb{T}^m)$, \begin{equation}\label{eq8}C_{\lambda}(f) = \frac{\lambda^2}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}(f(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-q_i)^2 + \lambda\|\nabla^kf\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \|f\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2. \end{equation}
We derive the Euler--Lagrange equation for the above problem by steps for each term separately.
For any $\phi \in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^m)\cap H^k(\mathbb{T}^m)$.
\begin{equation}\label{eq9}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{ds}|_{s=0} \|f(\boldsymbol{x})+s\phi(\boldsymbol{x})\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 &= \frac{d}{ds}|_{s=0} \int_{\mathbb{T}^m} \left|f(\boldsymbol{x})+s\phi(\boldsymbol{x})\right|^{2} \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{x}\\
&\stackrel{*}{=} 2\int_{\mathbb{T}^m} \phi(\boldsymbol{x}) f(\boldsymbol{x})\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{x},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation} where $*$ can be justified by using the dominated convergence theorem
\begin{equation}\label{eq10}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{ds}|_{s=0} \lambda\| \nabla^k(f(\boldsymbol{x})+s\phi(\boldsymbol{x}))\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)} &= \frac{d}{ds}|_{s=0} \int_{\mathbb{T}^m} \lambda\left|\nabla^k f(\boldsymbol{x})+s \nabla^k \phi(\boldsymbol{x})\right|^2\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{x}\\
&= 2\lambda\int_{\mathbb{T}^m} \nabla^k \phi(\boldsymbol{x}) \cdot \nabla^k f(\boldsymbol{x})\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{x}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq11}\frac{d}{ds}|_{s=0} \frac{\lambda^2}{n}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^n|f(\boldsymbol{p}_i)+s\phi(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-q_i|^2 = -\frac{2\lambda^2}{n}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^n (q_i-f(\boldsymbol{p}_i))\phi(\boldsymbol{p}_i)
\end{equation}
and by combining all terms, we obtain the following PDE as the Euler-Lagrange equation for the minimization problem.
\begin{equation}\label{eq12}
\begin{aligned}
-\frac{\lambda^2}{n}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}(q_i-f(\boldsymbol{p}_i))\phi(\boldsymbol{p}_i) + \lambda\int_{\mathbb{T}^m}\nabla^k\phi(\boldsymbol{x})\cdot \nabla^k f(\boldsymbol{x}) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{x}+ \int_{\mathbb{T}^m} \phi(\boldsymbol{x}) f(\boldsymbol{x})\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{x} = 0 \\
\forall \phi \in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^m)\cap H^k(\mathbb{T}^m)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The equation is not a PDE in the strict sense owing to the appearance of global terms, such as $f(\boldsymbol{p}_i) = \int_{\Omega} f(\boldsymbol{x})\delta(\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{p}_i)\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{x}$.
\section{Solution to the E--L Equations}
In this section, we solve the E--L equation of the minimization problem. The existence and uniqueness of the minimizer have already been established, and since the functional is convex, it has only one stationary point. Hence, the existence and uniqueness of the solution to this E--L equation hold. We now derive the solution of the E--L equation.
\begin{theorem}\label{E-L_solution}
The solution to the PDE in Equation \ref{eq12} is $f_{\lambda}$, which is given as
\begin{equation}
\label{exp_th}
f_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) = \sum\limits_{i=1}^n \frac{c_i}{n}g_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{p}_i),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{eq22_th}
g_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) = \sum_{\boldsymbol{l}\in\mathbb{Z}^m} \frac{1}{1+\lambda\|\boldsymbol{l}\|_{2k}^{2k}} \cos{\left(2\pi\boldsymbol{l}\cdot\boldsymbol{x}\right)}.
\end{equation}
$\pmb{c} = [c_1,c_2,...c_n]^T$ is given as \begin{equation}\label{eq28_th}
\pmb{c} = (\frac{1}{n}G_{\lambda}+\frac{1}{\lambda^2}I)^{-1}L,\end{equation} where the matrix $G_{\lambda}$ is given as
\begin{equation}\label{eq29_th}
G_{\lambda} = [\gamma_{ij}(\lambda)]_{n\times n},\gamma_{ij}(\lambda) = g_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{p}_i-\boldsymbol{p}_j)\end{equation} and $$L = [q_1,q_2,\ldots q_n]^T.$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Consider the following PDE equation:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\label{sub_EL}
-\int_{\mathbb{T}^m} \phi(\boldsymbol{x})\delta(\boldsymbol{x})\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{x} + \lambda\int_{\mathbb{T}^m} \nabla^k\phi(\boldsymbol{x})\cdot\nabla^k f(\boldsymbol{x})\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d^m}x &+ \int_{\mathbb{T}^m} \phi(\boldsymbol{x})f(\boldsymbol{x})\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{x}\\ &= 0 \forall \phi\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^m)\cap H^k(\mathbb{T}^m).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Let $g$ be its solution. Now, consider the equation
\begin{equation}
\label{sub_EL_2}
\begin{aligned}
-\frac{c_i}{n}\int_{\mathbb{T}^m} \phi(\boldsymbol{x})\delta(\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{p}_i)\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{x} + \lambda\int_{\mathbb{T}^m} \nabla^k\phi(\boldsymbol{x})\cdot\nabla^k f(\boldsymbol{x})\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{x} &+ \int_{\mathbb{T}^m} \phi(\boldsymbol{x})f(\boldsymbol{x})\mathrm{d^m}x\\ &= 0 \forall \phi\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^m)\cap H^k(\mathbb{T}^m).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Substituting $f = c_ig(\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{p}_i)$ in the LHS of the equation \ref{sub_EL_2} and denoting it as $J$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{der_sub_EL_1}
\begin{aligned}
J(\phi) = -\frac{c_i}{n}\int_{\mathbb{T}^m} \phi(\boldsymbol{x})\delta(\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{p}_i)\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{x} &+ \lambda\int_{\mathbb{T}^m} \nabla^k\phi(\boldsymbol{x})\cdot\nabla^k c_ig(\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{p}_i)\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{x}\\
&+ \int_{\mathbb{T}^m} \phi(\boldsymbol{x})c_ig(\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{p}_i)\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{x}.\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Substituting $\boldsymbol{t} = \boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{p}_i$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{der_sub_EL_2}
\begin{aligned}
J(\phi) = -\frac{c_i}{n}\int_{\mathbb{T}^m} \phi(\boldsymbol{t}+\boldsymbol{p}_i)\delta(\boldsymbol{t})\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{t} &+ \frac{c_i}{n}\lambda\int_{\mathbb{T}^m} \nabla^k\phi(\boldsymbol{t}+\boldsymbol{p}_i)\cdot\nabla^k g(\boldsymbol{t})\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{t}\\
&+ \frac{c_i}{n}\int_{\mathbb{T}^m} \phi(\boldsymbol{t}+\boldsymbol{p}_i)g(\boldsymbol{t})\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{t}.\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Let $\theta(\boldsymbol{t}) = \phi(\boldsymbol{t}+\boldsymbol{p}_i)$, so we have
\begin{equation}
\label{der_sub_EL_3}
J(\phi) = \frac{c_i}{n}\left\{-\int_{\mathbb{T}^m} \theta(\boldsymbol{t})\delta(t)\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{t} + \lambda\int_{\mathbb{T}^m} \nabla^k\theta(\boldsymbol{t})\cdot\nabla^k g(\boldsymbol{t})\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{t} + \int_{\mathbb{T}^m} \theta(\boldsymbol{t})g(\boldsymbol{t})\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{t}\right\}.\\
\end{equation}
For every $\phi \in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^m)\cap H^k(\mathbb{T}^m)$, we have $\theta \in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^m)\cap H^k(\mathbb{T}^m)$, and using the fact that $g(t)$ is the solution of the Equation \ref{sub_EL}, we have
\begin{equation}
J(\phi) = 0 \forall \phi\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^m)\cap H^k(\mathbb{T}^m).
\end{equation}
Hence, $\frac{c_i}{n}g(\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{p}_i)$ is a solution to Equation \ref{sub_EL_2}. Writing Equation \ref{sub_EL_2} with different $c_i$, $i = 1,2,3...n$ and substituting $f=\frac{c_i}{n}g(\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{p}_i)$ in the $i^{th}$ equation (as it the solution of that equation), and adding up all the $n$ equations, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{der2_sub_EL}
\begin{aligned}
\sum\limits_{i=1}^n\left\{-\frac{c_i}{n}\int_{\mathbb{T}^m} \phi(\boldsymbol{x})\delta(\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{p}_i)\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{x}\right\} &+\\ \lambda\int_{\mathbb{T}^m} \nabla^k\phi(\boldsymbol{x})\cdot\nabla^k\left( \sum\limits_{i=1}^n \frac{c_i}{n}g(\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{p}_i)\right)\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{x} &+ \int_{\mathbb{T}^m} \phi(\boldsymbol{x})\sum\limits_{i=1}^n \frac{c_i}{n}g(\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{p}_i)\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{x} = 0\\ \forall \phi\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^m)\cap H^k(\mathbb{T}^m).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Denoting $f_{\lambda} = \sum\limits_{i=1}^n \frac{c_i}{n}g(\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{p}_i)$ and assuming $c_i = \lambda^2(q_i-f(\boldsymbol{p}_i))$ and noting that $\int_{\mathbb{T}^m}\phi(\boldsymbol{x})\delta(\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{p}_i)\mathrm{d}x = \phi(\boldsymbol{p}_i)$, we can rewrite Equation \ref{der2_sub_EL} as
\begin{equation}
\label{der3_sub_EL}
\begin{aligned}
-\frac{\lambda^2}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^n (q_i-f_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{p}_i))\phi(\boldsymbol{p}_i) + \lambda\int_{\mathbb{T}^m} \nabla^k\phi(\boldsymbol{x})\cdot\nabla^k f_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x})\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{x} &+ \int_{\mathbb{T}^m} \phi(\boldsymbol{x})f_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x})\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{x}\\
&= 0 \forall \phi\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^m)\cap H^k(\mathbb{T}^m),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
which is same as the E--L equation, as in Equation \ref{eq12}. Hence, $$f_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) = \sum\limits_{i=1}^n \frac{c_i}{n}g(\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{p}_i)$$ is the solution of the E-L equation. However, we still have no expression for $c_i$ and $g(\boldsymbol{x})$. To determine $g$, we need to solve Equation \ref{sub_EL} as $g$ is its solution. Let $\boldsymbol{l} = (l_1,l_2,l_3,..l_m)\in \mathbb{Z}^m$. Let $\hat{g}_{\boldsymbol{l}}$ and $\hat{\phi}_{\boldsymbol{l}}$ be the Fourier series coefficients of $g$ and $\phi$. Using Parseval's theorem, we have the following equations
\begin{equation}\label{eq14}
\int_{\mathbb{T}^m}\nabla^k\phi(\boldsymbol{x})\cdot \nabla^k g(\boldsymbol{x}) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{x} = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^m( \sum\limits_{\boldsymbol{l} \in \mathbb{Z}^k}(2\pi l_i)^{2k}\hat{g}_{\boldsymbol{l}} \hat{\phi}_{\boldsymbol{l}}).
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq15}
\int_{\mathbb{T}^m}\phi(\boldsymbol{x})g(\boldsymbol{x}) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{x} = \sum\limits_{\boldsymbol{l} \in \mathbb{Z}^k}\hat{g}_{\boldsymbol{l}} \hat{\phi}_{\boldsymbol{l}}.
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq16}
\int_{\mathbb{T}^m}\phi(\boldsymbol{x})\delta(\boldsymbol{x})\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{x} = \frac{1}{N} \sum\limits_{\boldsymbol{l} \in \mathbb{Z}^k} \hat{\phi}_{\boldsymbol{l}}.
\end{equation}
Combining these equations in Equation \ref{sub_EL}, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq17}
-\sum\limits_{\boldsymbol{l} \in \mathbb{Z}^k} \hat{\phi}_{\boldsymbol{l}} + \lambda\sum\limits_{i = 1}^m( \sum\limits_{\boldsymbol{l} \in \mathbb{Z}^k}(2\pi l_i)^{2k}\hat{g}_{\boldsymbol{l}} \hat{\phi}_{\boldsymbol{l}}) + \sum\limits_{\boldsymbol{l} \in \mathbb{Z}^k}\hat{g}_{\boldsymbol{l}} \hat{\phi}_{\boldsymbol{l}} = 0 .
\end{equation}
Now consider the function $\theta$ such that \begin{align}\label{eq18}
\hat{\theta}_{\boldsymbol{l}} &= 1 \mbox{ if } \boldsymbol{l} = \boldsymbol{\eta}, \\
&= 0\mbox{ Otherwise.}
\end{align}
Then, by substituting this $\hat{\theta}$ for $\hat{\phi}$ in Equation \ref{eq17}, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq19}
-1 + \lambda\sum\limits_{i = 1}^m (2\pi \eta{_i})^{2k}\hat{g}_{\boldsymbol{\eta}} + \hat{g}_{\boldsymbol{\eta}} = 0,
\end{equation}
which implies
\begin{equation}\label{eq20}
\hat{g}_{\boldsymbol{\eta}} = \frac{1}{1+\lambda\|\boldsymbol{\eta}\|_{2k}^{2k}}.
\end{equation}
Applying this for each of $\boldsymbol{\eta} \in \mathbb{Z}^m$, we obtain the solution for Equation \ref{sub_EL} as $g$ whose Fourier series coefficients $\hat{g}_{\boldsymbol{l}}$ are given as \begin{equation}\label{eq21}
\hat{g}_{\boldsymbol{l}} = \frac{1}{1+\lambda\|\boldsymbol{l}\|_{2k}^{2k}},
\end{equation}
Let us denote this solution as $g_{\lambda}$. Thus, by Fourier series expansion, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq22}
g_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) = \sum_{\boldsymbol{l}\in\mathbb{Z}^m} \frac{1}{1+\lambda\|\boldsymbol{l}\|_{2k}^{2k}} \cos{(2\pi\boldsymbol{l}\cdot\boldsymbol{x})}.
\end{equation}
Using $c_i = \lambda^2(q_i-f(\boldsymbol{p}_i))$ and that $f_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) = \frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^n c_i g_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{p}_i)$ substituting the values of $f_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{p}_i)$ from the later expression in the former equation, we obtain $n$ equations in $n$ unknowns $c_i$. Thus, we can solve for the $c_i$. Further, we obtain a matrix expression for $\pmb{c} = [c_1,c_2,...c_{n}]^T$ and is given as \begin{equation}\label{eq28}
\pmb{c} = (\frac{1}{n}G_{\lambda}+\frac{1}{\lambda^2}I)^{-1}L,\end{equation} where the matrix $G_{\lambda}$ is given as
\begin{equation}\label{eq29}
G_{\lambda} = [\gamma_{ij}(\lambda)]_{n\times n},\gamma_{ij}(\lambda) = g_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{p}_i-\boldsymbol{p}_j)\end{equation} and $L = [q_1,q_2,\ldots q_n]^T$. The solution exists and unique if and only if, in the Equation \ref{eq28}, the matrix $\frac{1}{n}G_{\lambda}+\frac{1}{\lambda^2}I$ is invertible.As we are solving the E-L equation of the minimization problem where the functional is convex, the minimizer if exists, needs to be solution of the E-L equation and as we have already established the existence and uniqueness of the minimizer to the minimization problem (stated in Section \ref{mnmz} and proof given in Appendix \ref{unique_minimizer}), the existence of a solution to the E-L equation follows. So it is already justified to assume that the matrix $\frac{1}{n}G_{\lambda}+\frac{1}{\lambda^2}I$ in Equation \ref{eq28} is indeed invertible(Otherwise there will not be any solution of the E-L equation, which contradicts and existence and uniqueness of the minimizer of the convex functional). Hence, the matrix $\frac{1}{n}G_{\lambda}+\frac{1}{\lambda^2}I$ is invertible, allowing us to determine the unique minimizer of the functional $C_{\lambda}(f)$ given in Equation \ref{eq7} over the set $ C^0(\mathbb{T}^m)\cap H^k(\mathbb{T}^m)$ as \begin{equation}
\label{exp}
f_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) = \sum\limits_{i=1}^n \frac{c_i}{n}g_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{p}_i).
\end{equation}\end{proof}
The matrix $G_{\lambda}$ is infact positive definite, which will be evident in the following section in the proof of Theorem \ref{eig_theorem}.
\section{Asymptotics of the Interpolation Matrix}\label{sec_asymp_exp_interp_matrix}
In this section we derive some asymptotics which we use in the proof of Theorem \ref{interpolation theorem}.
\subsection{Laurent Series of $\frac{1}{1+ay}$}\label{ls_sec}
Here, we state a Laurent series expansion of a function that we repeatedly use in the following sections. Consider the function $u(y) = \frac{1}{1+ay}$, where $a\in \mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\}$,$y\in\mathbb{R}^+$. We can expand this function using the Laurent series about $y=\infty$ as
\begin{equation}\label{ls}
\mbox{for } y > \frac{1}{|a|},\mbox{ } u(y) = \sum\limits_{r=1}^{\infty}(-1)^{r+1}(ay)^{-r}\mbox{ }.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Asymptotic Expansion of the Function $g_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x})$}
Here, we derive an asymptotic expansion for the function $g_{\lambda}$ as $\lambda\to\infty$.
The expression for $g_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x})$ is given in Equation \ref{eq22}. We restate it here
\begin{equation}\label{eq22r}
g_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) = \sum_{\boldsymbol{l}\in\mathbb{Z}^m} \frac{1}{1+\lambda\|\boldsymbol{l}\|_{2k}^{2k}} \cos{2\pi\boldsymbol{l}\boldsymbol{x}},
\end{equation}
dividing the summation into two parts
\begin{equation}\label{eq22rs}
\begin{aligned}
g_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) &= \sum_{\boldsymbol{l}\in\{0\}^m} \frac{1}{1+\lambda\|\boldsymbol{l}\|_{2k}^{2k}} \cos{2\pi\boldsymbol{l}\boldsymbol{x}} + \sum_{\boldsymbol{l}\in\mathbb{Z}^m\setminus\{0\}} \frac{1}{1+\lambda\|\boldsymbol{l}\|_{2k}^{2k}} \cos{2\pi\boldsymbol{l}\boldsymbol{x}}\\
&= 1 + \sum_{\boldsymbol{l}\in\mathbb{Z}^m\setminus\{0\}} \frac{1}{1+\lambda\|\boldsymbol{l}\|_{2k}^{2k}} \cos{2\pi\boldsymbol{l}\boldsymbol{x}}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Using the series expansion as stated in Section \ref{ls_sec}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq22rs2}
\begin{aligned}
g_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) &= 1 + \sum_{\boldsymbol{l}\in\mathbb{Z}^m\setminus\{0\}}\left( \cos{2\pi\boldsymbol{l}\boldsymbol{x}}\sum\limits_{r=1}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{r+1}}{(\lambda\|\boldsymbol{l}\|_{2k}^{2k})^r}\right) \\
&= 1 + \sum\limits_{r=1}^{\infty}\left(\frac{(-1)^{r+1}}{\lambda^{r}}\sum_{\boldsymbol{l}\in\mathbb{Z}^m\setminus\{0\}}\frac{1}{(\|\boldsymbol{l}\|_{2k}^{2k})^r}\cos{2\pi\boldsymbol{l}\boldsymbol{x}}\right).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Denoting \begin{equation}\label{eq22rs3}
s_r(\boldsymbol{x}) = \sum_{\boldsymbol{l}\in\mathbb{Z}^m\setminus\{0\}}\frac{1}{(\|\boldsymbol{l}\|_{2k}^{2k})^r}\cos{2\pi\boldsymbol{l}\boldsymbol{x}},
\end{equation}
we obtain \begin{equation}\label{gasymp}
g_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) = 1 + \sum\limits_{r=1}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{r+1}}{\lambda^r}s_r(\boldsymbol{x}).
\end{equation}
Using Equation \ref{eq22rs3} and Parseval's theorem,
\begin{equation}\label{prs_sr}
\begin{aligned}
\|\nabla^k s_r\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)} &= \sum\limits_{\boldsymbol{l}\in\mathbb{Z}^m\setminus\{0\}^m}\frac{\|\boldsymbol{l}\|^{2k}_{2k}}{\|\boldsymbol{l}\|^{4kr}_{2k}}\\
&= \sum\limits_{\boldsymbol{l}\in\mathbb{Z}^m\setminus\{0\}^m}\frac{1}{\|\boldsymbol{l}\|^{2k(2r-1)}_{2k}}\\
&= P_r,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $P_r$ a finite positive constant for all $r\ge 1$. Hence, $$s_r\in C^0(\mathbb{T}^m)\cap H^k(\mathbb{T}^m),\mbox{ }r=1,2,3\ldots$$
Define matrices $$T_r = [s_r(\boldsymbol{p}_i-\boldsymbol{p}_j)]_{1\le i,j\le n}\mbox{ r=1,2,3\ldots}.$$ then, using Equation \ref{gasymp}, we obtain the following asymptote \begin{equation}\label{Gasymp}
G_{\lambda} = T_0 + \sum\limits_{r=1}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{r+1}}{\lambda^r}T_r,
\end{equation}
where $T_0 = 1_{n\times n}$, an all-ones $n \times n$ matrix.
\subsection{Power Series for the eigenvalues} In this section, we estimate the asymptotes of the eigenvalues of all the matrices involved.
Let $\rho_l(G_{\lambda})$ be the $l^{th}$ eigenvalue of the matrix $G_{\lambda}$. From Equation \ref{Gasymp}, it is evident that $G_{\lambda}$ is an analytic perturbation of the all-ones matrix $T_0$ with the perturbation parameter $\epsilon = \frac{1}{\lambda}$. From \cite{kato2013perturbation}, we are aware that the eigenvalues of an analytically perturbed real symmetric matrix are also analytic perturbations of the eigenvalues of the original unperturbed real symmetric matrix. Thus, the eigenvalue $\rho_l(G_{\lambda})$ is an analytic function, and let it be of the form
\begin{equation}\label{eig_G}
\rho_l(G_{\lambda}) = a_{l0} + \frac{a_{l1}}{\lambda} +\frac{a_{l2}}{\lambda^2}+\ldots.
\end{equation}
In addition, owing to Weyl's inequality, as the perturbation parameter declines to zero, that is, as $\lambda\to\infty$, each eigenvalue of the perturbed matrix $G_{\lambda}$ converges to an eigenvalue of the unperturbed matrix $T_0$. The eigenvalues of the all-ones matrix $T_0$ are $n$ with multiplicity $1$ and $0$ with multiplicity $n-1$. Let the eigenvalue $\rho_1(G_{\lambda})$ converge to $n$, and the remaining eigenvalues($\rho_l(G_{\lambda})$,$l>1$) converge to zero. Therefore, in equation \ref{eig_G} assuming eigenvalues in descending order\begin{equation}\label{eig_ones}\begin{aligned}
a_{l0} &= n,\mbox{ } l = 1,\\
&= 0, \mbox{ } l = 2,3,\ldots n.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{theorem}\label{eig_theorem}
$$\mbox{for }\lambda>1\mbox{, } a_{l1} > 0 \mbox{, } l= 2,3\ldots n.$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\boldsymbol{v}_l(\lambda) = [v_{l1}(\lambda),v_{l2}(\lambda),v_{l3}(\lambda),\ldots v_{ln}(\lambda)]^T$ be a normalized eigenvector of the matrix $G_{\lambda}$ corresponding to the eigenvalue $\rho_l(G_{\lambda})$ (normalized meaning $\|\boldsymbol{v}_l(\lambda)\|_2=1$). Now, we estimate the eigenvalue $\rho_l(G_{\lambda})$. Thus, by definition of eigenvalue
\begin{equation}\label{eigest}
\begin{aligned}
\rho_l(G_{\lambda}) &= \boldsymbol{v}_l^T(\lambda)G_{\lambda}\boldsymbol{v}_l(\lambda)\\
&= \sum\limits_{i=1}^n\sum\limits_{j=1}^nv_{li}(\lambda)v_{lj}(\lambda)g_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{p}_i-\boldsymbol{p}_j)\\
&= \sum\limits_{i=1}^n\sum\limits_{j=1}^n\left\{v_{li}(\lambda)v_{lj}(\lambda)\sum_{\boldsymbol{\eta}\in\mathbb{Z}^m} \frac{1}{1+\lambda\|\boldsymbol{\eta}\|_{2k}^{2k}} \cos{(2\pi\boldsymbol{\eta}\cdot(\boldsymbol{p}_i-\boldsymbol{p}_j))}\right\}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
we know \begin{equation}\label{dmoiver}
\cos{(2\pi\boldsymbol{\eta}\cdot(\boldsymbol{p}_i-\boldsymbol{p}_j))} = \frac{1}{2}\left(e^{2\pi i \boldsymbol{\eta}\cdot\boldsymbol{p}_i } e^{-2\pi i \boldsymbol{\eta}\cdot\boldsymbol{p}_j} + e^{-2\pi i \boldsymbol{\eta}\cdot\boldsymbol{p}_i } e^{2\pi i \boldsymbol{\eta}\cdot\boldsymbol{p}_j}\right).
\end{equation}
Substituting Equation \ref{dmoiver} into Equation \ref{eigest},
\begin{equation}\label{eigenest_cont}
\begin{aligned}
\rho_l(G_{\lambda}) &= \boldsymbol{v}_l^T(\lambda)G_{\lambda}\boldsymbol{v}_l(\lambda)\\
&= \sum\limits_{i=1}^n\sum\limits_{j=1}^n\left\{v_{li}(\lambda)v_{lj}(\lambda)\sum_{\boldsymbol{\eta}\in\mathbb{Z}^m} \frac{1}{1+\lambda\|\boldsymbol{\eta}\|_{2k}^{2k}} \frac{1}{2}\left(e^{2\pi i \boldsymbol{\eta}\cdot\boldsymbol{p}_i } e^{-2\pi i \boldsymbol{\eta}\cdot\boldsymbol{p}_j} + e^{-2\pi i \boldsymbol{\eta}\cdot\boldsymbol{p}_i } e^{2\pi i \boldsymbol{\eta}\cdot\boldsymbol{p}_j}\right)\right\}\\
&= \frac{1}{2}\sum_{\boldsymbol{\eta}\in\mathbb{Z}^m}\left\{ \frac{1}{1+\lambda\|\boldsymbol{\eta}\|_{2k}^{2k}}\sum\limits_{i=1}^n\sum\limits_{j=1}^n v_{li}(\lambda)v_{lj}(\lambda)\left\{e^{2\pi i \boldsymbol{\eta}\cdot\boldsymbol{p}_i } e^{-2\pi i \boldsymbol{\eta}\cdot\boldsymbol{p}_j} + e^{-2\pi i \boldsymbol{\eta}\cdot\boldsymbol{p}_i } e^{2\pi i \boldsymbol{\eta}\cdot\boldsymbol{p}_j}
\right\} \right\}\\
&= \sum_{\boldsymbol{\eta}\in\mathbb{Z}^m}\left\{ \frac{1}{1+\lambda\|\boldsymbol{\eta}\|_{2k}^{2k}}\left\{\left( \sum\limits_{i=1}^n v_{li}(\lambda)e^{2\pi i \boldsymbol{\eta}\cdot\boldsymbol{p}_i } \right) \left( \sum\limits_{j=1}^n v_{lj}(\lambda)e^{-2\pi i \boldsymbol{\eta}\cdot\boldsymbol{p}_j } \right) \right\} \right\}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Denoting $z_l(\lambda,\boldsymbol{\eta}) = \sum\limits_{i=1}^n v_{li}(\lambda) e^{2\pi i \boldsymbol{\eta}\cdot\boldsymbol{p}_i }$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eigenest_cont2}
\begin{aligned}
\rho_l(G_{\lambda}) &= \boldsymbol{v}_l^T(\lambda)G_{\lambda}\boldsymbol{v}_l(\lambda)\\
&= \sum_{\boldsymbol{\eta}\in\mathbb{Z}^m}\left\{ \frac{z_l(\lambda,\boldsymbol{\eta})\bar{z_l}(\lambda,\boldsymbol{\eta})}{1+\lambda\|\boldsymbol{\eta}\|_{2k}^{2k}}\right\}\\
&= \sum_{\boldsymbol{\eta}\in\mathbb{Z}^m}\left\{ \frac{1}{1+\lambda\|\boldsymbol{\eta}\|_{2k}^{2k}}\left|z_l(\lambda,\boldsymbol{\eta})\right|^2 \right\}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$\left|z_l(\lambda,\boldsymbol{\eta})\right|^2 \ge 0$ and $z_l(\lambda,\boldsymbol{\eta})$ cannot vanish for all $\eta\in\mathbb{Z}^m$. Hence, we conclude that
\begin{equation}\label{psd}
\begin{aligned}
\rho_l(G_{\lambda}) &= \boldsymbol{v}_l^T(\lambda)G_{\lambda}\boldsymbol{v}_l(\lambda)\\
&= \sum_{\boldsymbol{\eta}\in\mathbb{Z}^m}\left\{ \frac{1}{1+\lambda\|\boldsymbol{\eta}\|_{2k}^{2k}}\left|z_l(\lambda,\boldsymbol{\eta})\right|^2 \right\}\\
&> 0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
This proves that all eigenvalues of the matrix $G_{\lambda}$ are positive; hence, $G_{\lambda}$ is a positive definite matrix. Now, we need to estimate the eigenvalues asymptotically as $\lambda\to\infty$. Let us consider Equation \ref{psd} and split the sum to obtain
\begin{equation}\label{psd2}
\begin{aligned}
\rho_l(G_{\lambda}) &= \boldsymbol{v}_l^T(\lambda)G_{\lambda}\boldsymbol{v}_l(\lambda)\\
&= \sum_{\boldsymbol{\eta}\in\mathbb{Z}^m}\left\{ \frac{1}{1+\lambda\|\boldsymbol{\eta}\|_{2k}^{2k}}\left|z_l(\lambda,\boldsymbol{\eta})\right|^2 \right\}\\
&= \sum_{\boldsymbol{\eta}\in\{0\}^m}\left\{ \frac{1}{1+\lambda\|\boldsymbol{\eta}\|_{2k}^{2k}}\left|z_l(\lambda,\boldsymbol{\eta})\right|^2 \right\} + \sum_{\boldsymbol{\eta}\in\mathbb{Z}^m\setminus\{0\}^m}\left\{ \frac{1}{1+\lambda\|\boldsymbol{\eta}\|_{2k}^{2k}}\left|z_l(\lambda,\boldsymbol{\eta})\right|^2 \right\}\\
&= \left|z_l(\lambda,\boldsymbol{0})\right|^2 + \sum_{\boldsymbol{\eta}\in\mathbb{Z}^m\setminus\{0\}^m}\left\{ \frac{1}{1+\lambda\|\boldsymbol{\eta}\|_{2k}^{2k}}\left|z_l(\lambda,\boldsymbol{\eta})\right|^2 \right\}\\
&= \left|\sum\limits_{i=1}^nv_{li}(\lambda)\right| ^2 + \sum_{\boldsymbol{\eta}\in\mathbb{Z}^m\setminus\{0\}^m}\left\{ \frac{1}{1+\lambda\|\boldsymbol{\eta}\|_{2k}^{2k}}\left|z_l(\lambda,\boldsymbol{\eta})\right|^2 \right\}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{seq_1}
\left|z_l(\lambda,\boldsymbol{\eta})\right|^2 \ge 0
\end{equation}\begin{equation}\label{proof_lambda}
\begin{aligned}
z_l(\lambda,\boldsymbol{\eta}) &= \sum\limits_{i=1}^n v_{li}(\lambda) e^{2\pi i \boldsymbol{\eta}\cdot\boldsymbol{p}_i }\\
\implies \left|z_l(\lambda,\boldsymbol{\eta})\right|^2 &= \left|\sum\limits_{i=1}^n v_{li}(\lambda) e^{2\pi i \boldsymbol{\eta}\cdot\boldsymbol{p}_i } \right|^2\\
&\le\sum\limits_{i=1}^n \left| v_{li}(\lambda)\right|^2 \sum\limits_{i=1}^n \left|e^{2\pi i \boldsymbol{\eta}\cdot\boldsymbol{p}_i } \right|^2\\
&\le n\|\boldsymbol{v}_l\|_2^2\\
&=n.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{seq_3}
\forall \lambda>0, \sup\limits_{\eta\in\mathbb{Z}^m\setminus\{0\}} \left| z_l(\lambda,\boldsymbol{\eta}) \right|^2 > 0.
\end{equation}
Thus, using Equations \ref{seq_1}, \ref{proof_lambda}, \ref{seq_3} \begin{equation}\label{eq_label}
\mbox{as } \lambda\to\infty, \sup\limits_{\eta\in\mathbb{Z}^m\setminus\{0\}} \left| z_l(\lambda,\boldsymbol{\eta}) \right|^2 = \Theta(1)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq_proof_eig}
\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\boldsymbol{\eta}\in\mathbb{Z}^m\setminus\{0\}^m}\left\{ \frac{\lambda}{1+\lambda\|\boldsymbol{\eta}\|_{2k}^{2k}}\left|z_l(\lambda,\boldsymbol{\eta})\right|^2 \right\} &\le \lambda \left(\sup\limits_{\eta\in\mathbb{Z}^m\setminus\{0\}} \left| z_l(\lambda,\boldsymbol{\eta}) \right|^2\right) \sum_{\boldsymbol{\eta}\in\mathbb{Z}^m\setminus\{0\}^m}\frac{1}{1+\lambda\|\boldsymbol{\eta}\|_{2k}^{2k}} \\
&\le \left(\sup\limits_{\eta\in\mathbb{Z}^m\setminus\{0\}} \left| z_l(\lambda,\boldsymbol{\eta}) \right|^2\right) \sum_{\boldsymbol{\eta}\in\mathbb{Z}^m\setminus\{0\}^m}\frac{1}{\|\boldsymbol{\eta}\|_{2k}^{2k}}, \\
&\le K \sup\limits_{\eta\in\mathbb{Z}^m\setminus\{0\}} \left| z_l(\lambda,\boldsymbol{\eta}) \right|^2,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation} where $K = \sum\limits_{\boldsymbol{\eta}\in\mathbb{Z}^m\setminus\{0\}^m}\frac{1}{\|\boldsymbol{\eta}\|_{2k}^{2k}} \mbox{ }$ is a finite positive constant as $2k>1$ as it was already assumed in the beginning that $k>\frac{m}{2}$.
Using Equations \ref{eq_label} and \ref{eq_proof_eig},
\begin{equation}\label{forward_eq}
\lambda\sum_{\boldsymbol{\eta}\in\mathbb{Z}^m\setminus\{0\}^m}\left\{ \frac{1}{1+\lambda\|\boldsymbol{\eta}\|_{2k}^{2k}}\left|z_l(\lambda,\boldsymbol{\eta})\right|^2 \right\} < K_1 \mbox{ (a positive constant)}.
\end{equation}
As $\left|z_l(\lambda,\boldsymbol{\eta})\right|^2$ is always positive as long as $\lambda>0$ and does not vanish for all $\boldsymbol{\eta}\in\mathbb{Z}^m\setminus\{0\}$, there exists an $\boldsymbol{\eta}_0$, for which it is positive. Let \begin{equation}\label{delta}
\left|z_l(\lambda,\boldsymbol{\eta}_0)\right|^2 = \delta_0 > 0.
\end{equation}
Hence, \begin{equation}\label{reverse}
\begin{aligned}
\lambda\sum_{\boldsymbol{\eta}\in\mathbb{Z}^m\setminus\{0\}^m}\left\{ \frac{1}{1+\lambda\|\boldsymbol{\eta}\|_{2k}^{2k}}\left|z_l(\lambda,\boldsymbol{\eta})\right|^2 \right\} &\ge \frac{\lambda\delta_0}{1+\lambda\|\boldsymbol{\eta}_0\|_{2k}^{2k}}\\
&> \frac{\delta_0}{1+\|\boldsymbol{\eta}_0\|_{2k}^{2k}}\mbox{ ( as }\lambda >1 \mbox{ as stated in the theorem) }, \\
&= K_0 > 0
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Combining Equations \ref{forward_eq} and \ref{reverse},
\begin{equation}
\label{pp}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{K_0}{\lambda} < \sum_{\boldsymbol{\eta}\in\mathbb{Z}^m\setminus\{0\}^m}\left\{ \frac{1}{1+\lambda\|\boldsymbol{\eta}\|_{2k}^{2k}}\left|z_l(\lambda,\boldsymbol{\eta})\right|^2 \right\} &< \frac{K_1}{\lambda}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Thus, $$\rho_l(G_{\lambda}) = \left|\sum\limits_{i=1}^nv_{li}(\lambda)\right|^2 +\sum_{\boldsymbol{\eta}\in\mathbb{Z}^m\setminus\{0\}^m}\left\{ \frac{1}{1+\lambda\|\boldsymbol{\eta}\|_{2k}^{2k}}\left|z_l(\lambda,\boldsymbol{\eta})\right|^2 \right\} = \left|\sum\limits_{i=1}^nv_{li}(\lambda)\right|^2 +\Theta(\frac{1}{\lambda}).$$
Let \begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
h(\lambda) &= \left|\sum\limits_{i=1}^nv_{li}(\lambda)\right|^2\\\mbox{ and }\\
u(\lambda) &= \sum_{\boldsymbol{\eta}\in\mathbb{Z}^m\setminus\{0\}^m}\left\{ \frac{1}{1+\lambda\|\boldsymbol{\eta}\|_{2k}^{2k}}\left|z_l(\lambda,\boldsymbol{\eta})\right|^2 \right\}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Hence, \begin{equation}\label{sum}
\rho_l(G_{\lambda}) = h(\lambda) + u(\lambda).
\end{equation}
As both $u(\lambda)$ and $h(\lambda)$ are positive and that for $l>1$ $\rho_l(G_{\lambda}) \to 0$ as $1/\lambda\to 0$, we have \begin{equation}\label{gotozero}
\begin{aligned}
\lim\limits_{\frac{1}{\lambda}\to0}h(\lambda) &= 0\\ \mbox{ and }\\
\lim\limits_{\frac{1}{\lambda}\to0}u(\lambda) &= 0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Let $h(\lambda) = h_a(\lambda) + h_n(\lambda)$, where $h_a(\lambda)$ is an analytic function of $\frac{1}{\lambda}$ in any neighborhood of $1/\lambda =\epsilon = 0$ and $h_n(\lambda)$ is not an analytic function of $\frac{1}{\lambda}$ in any neighborhood of $1/\lambda =\epsilon = 0$. Similarly, let $u(\lambda) = u_a(\lambda) + u_n(\lambda)$. From Equation \ref{pp}, $u(\lambda) = \Theta(1/\lambda)$. Hence, $u_a(\lambda)$ is of the form $u_a(\lambda) = \frac{w_1}{\lambda}+\frac{w_2}{\lambda^2}+\cdots$, where $w_1>0$ and $u_n(\lambda) = o(1/\lambda)$. As $\rho_l(G_{\lambda})$ is an analytic function of $1/\lambda$, by using Equation \ref{sum}, we have $h_n(\lambda) = - u_n(\lambda)$, and there is $\left|h_n(\lambda)\right| = o(1/\lambda)$. Using this and Equation \ref{gotozero}, we can say that $h_a(\lambda)$ is of the form $\frac{x_1}{\lambda}+\frac{x_2}{\lambda^2}+\cdots$. Thus, as $h(\lambda)$ is always positive and $|h_n(\lambda)| = o(1/\lambda)$, we have that $\lambda h_a(\lambda)$ is positive for sufficiently large $\lambda$. Thus, $\lambda(\frac{x_1}{\lambda}+\frac{x_2}{\lambda^2}+\ldots)$ is positive for sufficiently large $\lambda$, meaning $x_1\ge 0$. Thus, using Equation \ref{sum} and that $h_n(\lambda) = -u_n(\lambda)$, we have \begin{equation}\label{new_sum}
\rho_l(G_{\lambda}) = \left(\frac{x_1}{\lambda}+\frac{x_2}{\lambda^2}+\cdots\right) + \left(\frac{w_1}{\lambda}+\frac{w_2}{\lambda^2}+\cdots\right).
\end{equation} As we have already shown that $w_1>0$ and $x_1\ge 0$, comparing Equations \ref{new_sum} and \ref{eig_G}, for $l>1$, as $a_{l0} = 0$, we have $a_{l1} = w_1+x_1 > 0$. Hence, it is proved.
\end{proof}
From linear algebra, we have the following results
\begin{equation}
\rho_l(\frac{G_{\lambda}}{n}) = \frac{1}{n}\rho_l(G_{\lambda})
\end{equation}
Let $M_{\lambda} = \frac{G_{\lambda}}{n} + \frac{I_n}{\lambda^2}$.
Hence,
\begin{equation}\label{eig_rel0}
\rho_l(M_{\lambda}) = \frac{1}{n}\rho_l(G_{\lambda}) + \frac{1}{\lambda^2}\\
\end{equation}
Due to Equations \ref{eig_G} and \ref{eig_rel0} we have
\begin{equation}\label{eig_rel}
\rho_l(M_{\lambda}) = b_{l0} + \sum\limits_{r=1}^{\infty}\frac{b_{lr}}{\lambda^r}.
\end{equation}
where,
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
b_{l0} &= \frac{a_{l0}}{n}\\
b_{l1} &= \frac{a_{l1}}{n}\\
b_{l2} &= \frac{a_{l2}}{n} + 1\\
b_{lr} &= \frac{a_{lr}}{n},\mbox{ } r=3,4,5\ldots.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
We now derive a power series expansion for the eigenvalues of matrix $M_{\lambda}^{-1}$. Let $\epsilon = \frac{1}{\lambda}$. As the matrix $G_{\lambda}$ is an analytic perturbation of the all ones matrix $S_0$ with the perturbation parameter $\epsilon$, we have \begin{equation}\label{egg1}
\begin{aligned}
\lim\limits_{\epsilon = \frac{1}{\lambda}\to 0}\rho_1(G_{\lambda}) &= a_{10} = 1\\
\lim\limits_{\epsilon = \frac{1}{\lambda}\to 0}\rho_l(G_{\lambda}) &= a_{l0} = 0 \mbox{, } l = 2,3,4\ldots.\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
From linear algebra, we know that \begin{equation}\label{eiginv}
\rho_l(M_{\lambda}^{-1}) = \frac{1}{\rho_l(M_{\lambda})}
\end{equation}
Case 1: The first eigenvalue is $l=1$. In this case, $b_{10} = \frac{a_{10}}{n} = 1\ne 0$,
which implies that the first eigenvalue of the inverse matrix $M_{\lambda}^{-1}$ is also analytic. Let it be of the form \begin{equation}\label{eigf}
\rho_1(M_{\lambda}^{-1}) = d_{10} + \sum\limits_{r=1}^{\infty}\frac{d_{1r}}{\lambda^r}.
\end{equation}
From equations \ref{eig_rel}, \ref{eiginv}, and \ref{eigf}, we can compute the coefficients $d_{1r}$ in terms of $b_{1r}$. We compute only the first two coefficients, as they are the only ones that are of interest to us.
Applying both the series in Equations \ref{eig_rel} and \ref{eigf} are the Taylor series of $\rho_1(M_{\lambda})$ and its reciprocal $\rho_1(M_{\lambda}^{-1}) = \frac{1}{\rho_1(M_{\lambda})}$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{first_eig}
\begin{aligned}
d_{10} &= \frac{1}{b_{10}} = \frac{n}{a_{10}} = 1\\
d_{11} &= \frac{b{11}}{b_{10}^2} = n^2\frac{a_{11}}{na_{10}^2} = \frac{na_{11}}{a_{10}^2} = \frac{a_{11}}{n}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Case 2: $l>1$, that is, eigenvalues other than the first. In this case, $b_{l0} = \frac{a_{l0}}{n} = 0$,
\begin{equation}\label{eigf2}
\begin{aligned}
\rho_1(M_{\lambda}^{-1}) = d_{l,-1}\lambda + d_{10} + \sum\limits_{r=1}^{\infty}\frac{d_{1r}}{\lambda^r}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Computing the first two coefficients, we obtain \begin{equation}\label{eig_second}
\begin{aligned}
d_{l,-1} &= \frac{1}{b_{l1}} = \frac{n}{a_{l1}}\\
d_{l0} &= \frac{b_{l2}}{b_{l1}^2} = \frac{\frac{a_{l2}}{n}+1}{(\frac{a_{l1}}{n})^2} = \frac{n(a_{l2}+n)}{a_{l1}^2}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Note that $d_{l0}$ and $d_{l1}$ are finite, as $a_{l1}>0$ because of Theorem \ref{eig_theorem}. Let $D(\lambda)$ be the diagonal matrix with diagonal entries being the eigenvalues of matrix $M_{\lambda}^{-1}$. Therefore, \begin{equation}\label{diag_eig}
D(\lambda) = \mathop{\rm diag}(\rho_1(M_{\lambda}^{-1}),\rho_2(M_{\lambda}^{-1}),\rho_3(M_{\lambda}^{-1})\cdots,\rho_n(M_{\lambda}^{-1})).
\end{equation}
Let \begin{equation}\label{d_entries}
\begin{aligned}
D_{-1} &= \mathop{\rm diag}(0,d_{2,-1},d_{3,-1},d_{4,-1},\cdots d_{n,-1}) = \mathop{\rm diag}(0,\frac{n}{a_{2,1}},\frac{n}{a_{3,1}},\cdots \frac{n}{a_{n,1}})\\
D_{0} &= \mathop{\rm diag}(d_{10},d_{20},d_{30},\cdots d_{n0}) = \mathop{\rm diag}(1,\frac{n(a_{22}+n)}{a_{21}^2},\frac{n(a_{32}+n)}{a_{31}^2}\cdots \frac{n(a_{n2}+n)}{a_{n1}^2})\\
D_{1} &= \mathop{\rm diag}(d_{11},d_{21},d_{31},\cdots,d_{n1}) = \mathop{\rm diag}(\frac{a_{11}}{n},d_{21},d_{31},\cdots,d_{n1})\\
\vdots\\
D_{r} & = \mathop{\rm diag}(d_{1r},d_{2r},d_{3r},\cdots,d_{nr})\\
\vdots
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Hence, from Equation \ref{eigf2}, we have \begin{equation}\label{deq_ex}
D(\lambda) = \lambda D_{-1} + D_{0} + \frac{D_{1}}{\lambda} + \frac{D_2}{\lambda^2}+\ldots + \frac{D_r}{\lambda^r}+\ldots.
\end{equation}
\section{Interpolation}
\label{proof_inter_sec}
In this section, we prove the interpolation property of the minimizer of the functional as the parameter $\lambda\to\infty$.
\begin{theorem}\label{interpolation theorem}Denoting the minimizer of the functional $C_{\lambda}(f)$ over $f \in C^0(\mathbb{T}^m)\cap H^k(\mathbb{T}^m)$ as $f_{\lambda}$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq35}\lim\limits_{\lambda \to \infty} f_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{p}_i) = q_i\end{equation} and \begin{equation}\label{eq36}\mbox{There exists a function denoted as }f_{\infty} \in C^0(\mathbb{T}^m)\cap H^k(\mathbb{T}^m) \mbox{ such that as }\lambda\to\infty, f_{\lambda} \to f_{\infty}\end{equation} pointwise.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $B^r_i$ be a ball of radius $r$ around points $\boldsymbol{p}_i$, and let $B^r = \bigcup\limits_{i = 1}^nB^r_i$. Assume that $r$ is sufficiently small such that $\bigcap\limits_{i = 1}^nB^r_i$ is a null set.
Let $\mu_i$ be a bump function with support in ball $B_i^r$ and $\mu(\boldsymbol{p}_i) = q_i$. The function $\theta_n(\boldsymbol{x})$ is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{eq37}
\theta_n(\boldsymbol{x}) = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} \mu_i(\boldsymbol{x})
\end{equation}
Recall that
\begin{equation}\label{eq38}
C_{\lambda}(f) = \lambda^2\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}(f(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-q_i)^2 + \lambda\|\nabla^kf\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \|f\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2
\end{equation}
Let $f_{\lambda}$ be the minimizer the of $C_{\lambda}(f)$. Then, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq40}
C_{\lambda}(f_{\lambda}) \le C_{\lambda}(\theta_n).
\end{equation}
However, owing to Equation \ref{eq38},
\begin{equation}\label{eq42}
\begin{aligned}
C_{\lambda}(\theta_n) &= \lambda^2\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}(\theta_n(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-q_i)^2+ \lambda\|\nabla^k \theta_n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \|\theta_n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2\\\\
&= \lambda\|\nabla^k \theta_n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \|\theta_n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 \mbox{ as }( \theta_n(\boldsymbol{p}_i) = q_i )\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Hence, using Equations \ref{eq40} and \ref{eq42}
\begin{equation}\label{deq}
\begin{aligned}
\lambda^2\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}(f_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-q_i)^2 + \lambda\|\nabla^kf_{\lambda}\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \|f_{\lambda}\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 &\le \lambda\|\nabla^k \theta_n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \|\theta_n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}As all the three terms on LHS are positive and the RHS also being positive, we have the following three equations
\begin{equation}\label{eq_sqr_err}\begin{aligned}
\lambda^2\sum\limits_{i=1}^{h}(f_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-q_i)^2 &\le \lambda\|\nabla^k \theta_n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \|\theta_n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2\\
\implies \sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}(f_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-q_i)^2 &\le \frac{1}{\lambda}\|\nabla^k \theta_n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \frac{1}{\lambda^2}\|\theta_n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2\\
\implies (f_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-q_i)^2 &\le \frac{1}{\lambda}\|\nabla^k \theta_n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \frac{1}{\lambda^2}\|\theta_n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 \mbox{ }i = 1,2\ldots n . \\
\implies \left|f_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-q_i\right| &\le \sqrt{\frac{1}{\lambda}\|\nabla^k \theta_n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \frac{1}{\lambda^2}\|\theta_n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2} \mbox{ }i = 1,2\ldots n \\
&= O(1/\sqrt{\lambda}) \mbox{ as $\theta_n$ and $n$ are fixed and $\lambda\to\infty$}\\
\implies \lim\limits_{\lambda\to\infty}f_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{p}_i) &= q_i \mbox{, }i = 1,2\ldots n .\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq44}\begin{aligned}
\lambda\|\nabla^k f_{\lambda}\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)} &\le \lambda\|\nabla^k \theta_n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \|\theta_n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2\\
\implies \|\nabla^k f_{\lambda}\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)} &\le |\nabla^k \theta_n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \frac{1}{\lambda}\|\theta_n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2\\
&= O(1) \mbox{ as $\theta_n$ and $n$ are fixed and $\lambda\to\infty$ }.\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq45}\begin{aligned}
\| f_{\lambda}\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)} &\le \lambda\|\nabla^k \theta_n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \|\theta_n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2\\
\implies \lim\limits_{\lambda\to\infty}\frac{1}{\lambda^2}\|f_{\lambda}\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)} &= 0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Let $v_1(\lambda),v_2(\lambda),v_3(\lambda),...v_n(\lambda)$ be the normalized eigenvectors of the matrix $G_{\lambda}$ corresponding to the eigenvalues $\rho_1(G_{\lambda}),\rho_2(G_{\lambda}),\rho_3(G_{\lambda}),\ldots\rho_n(G_{\lambda})$. From linear algebra, we know that they are also the eigenvectors of the matrix $M_{\lambda}^{-1}$. Let us form an $n\times n$ matrix, the columns of which are these eigenvectors denoted by $E(\lambda) = [v_1(\lambda),v_2(\lambda),v_3(\lambda),...v_n(\lambda)].$
Using Equation \ref{diag_eig}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq50}
M_{\lambda}^{-1} = E(\lambda)D(\lambda)E(\lambda)^{-1}.
\end{equation}
Therefore, by substituting this in the expression for $\boldsymbol{c}$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq51}
\boldsymbol{c} = E(\lambda)D(\lambda)E(\lambda)^{-1}L.
\end{equation}
Let \begin{equation}\label{rx}
R_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) = [g_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}-p_1),g_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}-p_2),g_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}-p_3),...g_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}-p_N)]^T,
\end{equation}
and \begin{equation}\label{srx}
\begin{aligned}
S_0 &= 1_{n\times 1}\\
S_r(\boldsymbol{x}) &= [s_r(\boldsymbol{x}-p_1),s_r(\boldsymbol{x}-p_2),s_r(\boldsymbol{x}-p_3),\ldots s_r(\boldsymbol{x}-p_n)]^T, \mbox{ } r = 1,2,3,\ldots.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
From Equations \ref{gasymp} and \ref{srx}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{equ}
\begin{aligned}
R_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) & = S_0 + \sum\limits_{r=1}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{r+1}}{\lambda^r}S_r(\boldsymbol{x})\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Thus, \begin{equation}\label{eq52}f_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) = c(\lambda)^TR_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x})\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq55}f_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) = \left\{E(\lambda)D(\lambda)E(\lambda)^{-1}L \right\}^T R_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) \end{equation}
Assuming $\lambda>1$(as required by Theorem \ref{eig_theorem}) and using Equations \ref{deq_ex} and \ref{equ},
\begin{equation}\label{eq55_ex}f_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) = \left\{E(\lambda)\left(\sum_{i=-1}^{\infty}D_{i}\lambda^{-i}\right)E(\lambda)^{-1}L \right\}^T \left( S_0 + \sum\limits_{r=1}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{r+1}}{\lambda^r}S_r(\boldsymbol{x}) \right). \end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq56}f_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) = \left\{L^T (E(\lambda)^{-1})^T\left(\sum_{i=-1}^{\infty}D_{i}^T\lambda^{-i}\right)E(\lambda)^{T} \right\} \left( S_0 + \sum\limits_{r=1}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{r+1}}{\lambda^r}S_r(\boldsymbol{x}) \right). \end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq57}f_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) = \left\{L^T E(\lambda)\left(\sum_{i=-1}^{\infty}D_{i}^T\lambda^{-i}\right)E(\lambda)^{T} \right\} \left( S_0 + \sum\limits_{r=1}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{r+1}}{\lambda^r}S_r(\boldsymbol{x}) \right). \end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq58}f_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) = \left\{ \sum_{i=-1}^{\infty}\left(\lambda^{-i}L^TE(\lambda)D_{i}^TE(\lambda)^{T}\right) \right\} \left(S_0 + \sum\limits_{r=1}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{r+1}}{\lambda^r}S_r(\boldsymbol{x}) \right). \end{equation}
Let $J_i(\lambda) = E(\lambda)D_{i}^TE(\lambda)^{T}.$
Thus,
\begin{equation}\label{eq59}f_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) = \left\{ \sum_{i=-1}^{\infty}\left(\lambda^{-i}L^TJ_i(\lambda)\right) \right\} \left( S_0 + \sum\limits_{r=1}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{r+1}}{\lambda^r}S_r(\boldsymbol{x}) \right). \end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq60}
\begin{aligned}
f_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) &= \lambda\left( L^TJ_{-1}(\lambda)S_0\right) + \left(L^TJ_{-1}(\lambda)S_1(\boldsymbol{x})\right)\\
&+ \sum_{j=2}^{\infty}\left(L^TJ_{-1}(\lambda)S_{j}(\boldsymbol{x})\lambda^{1-j} \right) \\
&+ \left(L^TJ_{0}(\lambda)S_0\right)\\
&+ \sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\left(L^TJ_0(\lambda) S_{j}(\boldsymbol{x})\lambda^{-j} \right) \\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Thus, for $\lambda>1
\begin{align}
\label{eq61}
f_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) = \lambda\left( L^TJ_{-1}(\lambda)S_0\right) + \left(L^TJ_{-1}(\lambda)S_1(\boldsymbol{x})\right)
+ \left(L^TJ_{0}(\lambda)S_0\right) + O(\frac{1}{\lambda}).
\end{align}
As observed in Equation \ref{gasymp}, the matrix $G_{\lambda}$ is an analytic perturbation of the matrix $S_0 = 1_{n\times n}$ with the perturbation parameter $\epsilon = \frac{1}{\lambda}$. Hence, using Theorem 2.1 in \cite{JMLR:v18:16-140}, there exists a rotational orthogonal matrix $R$ such that
\begin{equation}
\lim\limits_{\epsilon\to 0}E(\epsilon) = RE_{0} \mbox{ under the norm } \|.\|_{max}.
\end{equation}
Here, $E_0$ is the eigenvector matrix of the matrix $S_0$
as $\epsilon = \frac{1}{\lambda}$; we have
\begin{equation}
\lim\limits_{\lambda\to \infty}E(\lambda) = RE_{0} \mbox{ under the norm } \|.\|_{max}.
\end{equation}
Let $\Sigma$ be any diagonal matrix. We have \begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\lim\limits_{\lambda\to\infty}E(\lambda)\Sigma E(\lambda)^{-1} &= RE_0\Sigma (RE_0)^{-1}\\
&= RE_0\Sigma E_0^{-1}R^{-1}\\
&= E_0\Sigma E_0^{-1}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Therefore, \begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\lim\limits_{\lambda\to\infty}J_i(\lambda) &= \lim\limits_{\lambda\to\infty}E(\lambda)D_i^TE(\lambda) \\
&= E_0D_i^TE_0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Hence, \begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\lim\limits_{\lambda\to\infty}f_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) &= \lim\limits_{\lambda\to\infty}\left\{ \lambda\left( L^TJ_{-1}(\lambda)S_0\right) + \left(L^TJ_{-1}(\lambda)S_1(\boldsymbol{x})\right)
+ \left(L^TJ_{0}(\lambda)S_0\right) + O(\frac{1}{\lambda}) \right\} \\
&= \lambda L^T\lim\limits_{\lambda\to\infty}J_{-1}(\lambda) S_0 + L^T\lim\limits_{\lambda\to\infty}J_{-1}(\lambda) S_1(\boldsymbol{x}) + L^T\lim\limits_{\lambda\to\infty}J_{0}(\lambda) S_0 + \lim\limits_{\lambda\to\infty}, O(\frac{1}{\lambda}), \\
&= \lambda L^TE_0D_{-1}^TE_0S_0 + L^TE_0D_{-1}^TE_0S_1(\boldsymbol{x}) + L^TE_0D_0^TE_0S_0 \\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Denoting $K_i = E_0D_i^TE_0 $, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq64}\lim\limits_{\lambda\to\infty}f_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) = \lambda L^TK_{-1}S_0 + L^TK_{-1}S_1(\boldsymbol{x}) + L^TK_0S_0\end{equation} The first term is independent of $x$ and grows linearly with $\lambda$. It is already known that $\lim\limits_{\lambda\to\infty}f_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{p}_i) = q_i$; we should have \begin{equation}\label{eq65} L^TK_{-1}S_0 = 0.\end{equation}
As $ s_i \in H^k(\mathbb{T}^m)\bigcap C^0(\mathbb{T}^m)), i = 1,2,3\ldots $, we have $
L^TK_{-1}S_1(\boldsymbol{x}) \in H^k(\mathbb{T}^m)\bigcap C^0(\mathbb{T}^m))$. The third term, $L^TK_0S_0$, is constant.
Hence, \begin{equation}\label{eq66} \lim\limits_{\lambda\to\infty}f_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) = L^TK_{-1}S_1(\boldsymbol{x}) + L^TK_0S_0\end{equation}
Denoting \begin{equation}
\label{inter}
f_{\infty}(\boldsymbol{x}) = L^TK_{-1}S_1(\boldsymbol{x}) + L^TK_0S_0
\end{equation}
Hence, as the parameter $\lambda\to \infty$, the minimizer $f_{\lambda}$ converges pointwise to the function $f_{\infty} \in H^k(\mathbb{T}^m)\bigcap C^0(\mathbb{T}^m)$ and $f_{\infty}$ interpolates the data $(\boldsymbol{p}_i,q_i)$
\end{proof}
\section{Approximate Interpolation}
\label{approx_inter_sec}
If we observe the final expression for $f_{\infty}$ as in Equation \ref{inter}, we note that there is no closed-form expression or any directly evident methods to compute the coefficient matrices, and it does not have a closed-form expression either. Therefore, this final expression is not useful for computation, and it only serves as proof that there exists an interpolant $f_{\infty} \in S$. However, if $\lambda$ is finite, then we have an expression for $f_{\lambda}$ given in Equation \ref{exp}. All we need to compute the coefficients vector $c$, which is given in Equation \ref{eq28}. However, perfect interpolation of data is not achieved when $\lambda$ is finite. Equation \ref{eq_sqr_err} gives an estimate on the interpolation error at the data points in terms of the interpolation parameter $\lambda$. Stating this again
\begin{equation}
\label{int_error_est}
\begin{aligned}
\left|f_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-q_i\right| &\le \sqrt{\frac{1}{\lambda}\|\nabla^k \theta_n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \frac{1}{\lambda^2}\|\theta_n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2} \mbox{ }i = 1,2\ldots n \\
&= O(1/\sqrt{\lambda}) \mbox{ as we keep the data and $n$ fixed and vary $\lambda\to\infty$}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
If we keep the data fixed and there by the number of data points also fixed, and vary $\lambda$, the interpolation error on the data points stays within $O(1/\sqrt{\lambda})$. Therefore as $\lambda$ increases, the interpolation error on the data points goes to zero. But there is a practical computational problem that comes into play when $\lambda$ is increased beyond a certain point and it is described in Section \ref{condition_number_sec}. The only step in computing $f_{\lambda}$ is computing $c$ using Equation \ref{eq28}, which involves inverting the matrix $M = \frac{G_{\lambda}}{n} + \frac{I}{\lambda^2}$, which we call the interpolation matrix. In the next section, we analyze the difficulty of inverting the interpolation matrix $M$.
\section{Approximating a Sobolev Function}
\label{approx_proof_sec}
In Section \ref{proof_inter_sec}, we have proven that, as $\lambda\to\infty$, the minimizer $f_{\lambda}$ converges point-wise to a function $f_{\infty}\in C^0(\mathbb{T}^m)\cap H^k(\mathbb{T}^m)$ and that the function $f_{\infty}$ interpolates the data points perfectly. In Section \ref{approx_inter_sec}, we mentioned that we do not have any direct methods to compute $f_{\infty}$. Therefore, we proposed an approximate interpolation method where we choose $f_{\lambda}$, the minimizer corresponding to a finite $\lambda$, as the interpolant and shown that it approximately interpolates the data; in other words, the interpolation error on the data points is within $O(1/\sqrt{\lambda})$. This implies the following: $$|f_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-\psi(\boldsymbol{p}_i)| = \epsilon(\lambda) = O(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda}})\mbox{ i = 1,2,3,\ldots n}.$$
In this section, we prove that this type of approximate scattered data interpolation method has the approximation property for Sobolev functions of the type $C^0(\Omega )\cap H^k(\Omega)$, where $\Omega$ is a bounded Lipschitz domain. \\
\begin{definition}\label{theorem_defs}
Let $\Omega \subset (0,1)^m$ be a bounded Lipschitz domain and $\psi:\Omega\to\mathbb{R}$ be a function in $C^0(\Omega)\cap H^k(\Omega) $. $\psi$ is a function that requires approximation. Let $D$ be a countable dense subset of $\Omega$. The scattered data constitute a set of $n$ distinct points $\{\boldsymbol{p}_i/\boldsymbol{p}_i\in D, i=1,2,\ldots n\}$ chosen from $D$ with no assumptions on their geometry and the corresponding values of $\psi$ evaluated at those points $\psi(\boldsymbol{p}_i)$. Lets define a sequence of sets $E_1,E_2,E_3\ldots$ where $E_n = \{\boldsymbol{p}_i/\boldsymbol{p}_i\in D, i = 1,2,3,..n\}.$ We define the functional in Equation \ref{eq7} of Section \ref{mnmz} using data points in the set $E_n$ and add the tag $n$ to all the notations associated with this functional, as we vary the number of data points $n$ in our analysis in this section. Therefore, the functional in Section \ref{proof_inter_sec} is denoted as $C^n_{\lambda}(f)$, the minimizer $f_{\lambda}$ in Section \ref{proof_inter_sec} is denoted as $f^n_{\lambda}$ and the matrix $G_{\lambda}$ as $G^n_{\lambda}$ and the coefficients vector $\boldsymbol{c}=[c_1,c_2,\ldots c_n]^T$ as $\boldsymbol{c}^n=[c^n_1,c^n_2,\ldots c^n_n]^T$. Note that the suffix $n$ is not a power, but only a notation that the parameter is associated with the functional defined over the set of data points $E_n$.\\
Define the mesh norm of the data points set $E_n$ over the domain $\Omega$ as \begin{equation}\label{mesh_norm}
\zeta_n = \sup\limits_{\boldsymbol{x}\in\Omega}\inf\limits_{\boldsymbol{p}\in E_n}\|\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{p}\|_2
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}\label{Sobolev_approximation_estimate}
With definitions and notations as described in \ref{theorem_defs}, there exist constants $K_0$ and $K_1$ which are independent of the function $\psi$, such that for sufficiently large $n$
\begin{equation}\label{final_theorem_Sobolev}
\| f^n_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) - \psi(\boldsymbol{x})\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)} \le K_0\zeta_n^{\alpha}\lambda\epsilon(\lambda) + K_1\sqrt{\epsilon(\lambda)} + \epsilon(\lambda).\\
\end{equation}
Where $$\epsilon(\lambda) = \frac{1}{\lambda}\|\nabla^k\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \frac{1}{\lambda^2}\|\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
As $f^n_{\lambda}$ is the minimizer of the functional $C^n_{\lambda}(f)$ in $C^0(\mathbb{T}^m)\cap H^k((\mathbb{T}^m))$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eqap2}
\begin{aligned}
C^n_{\lambda}(f^n_{\lambda}) &\le C^n_{\lambda}(\psi) \\
\implies \frac{\lambda^2}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}(f^n_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-\psi(\boldsymbol{p}_i))^2 + \lambda\|\nabla^kf^n_{\lambda}\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \|f^n_{\lambda}\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 &\le \\ \frac{\lambda^2}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}(\psi(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-\psi(\boldsymbol{p}_i))^2 + \lambda\|\nabla^k\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \|\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2
\\
\implies \frac{\lambda^2}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}(f^n_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-\psi(\boldsymbol{p}_i))^2 + \lambda\|\nabla^kf^n_{\lambda}\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \|f^n_{\lambda}\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 &\le \lambda\|\nabla^k\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \|\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Since all terms in the LHS of the above inequality are positive we have \begin{equation}
\label{eq_rate_inter}
\begin{aligned}
\left( \frac{\lambda^2}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}(f^n_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-\psi(\boldsymbol{p}_i))^2 \right) &\le \lambda\|\nabla^k\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \|\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2\\
\left( \lambda\|\nabla^kf^n_{\lambda}\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 \right) &\le \lambda\|\nabla^k\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \|\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2\\
\left( \|f^n_{\lambda}\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 \right) &\le \lambda\|\nabla^k\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \|\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2.\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
which implies \begin{equation}\label{eq_rate}
\begin{aligned}
\left( \frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}(f^n_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-\psi(\boldsymbol{p}_i))^2 \right) &\le \frac{1}{\lambda}\|\nabla^k\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \frac{1}{\lambda^2}\|\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 \\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}and
\begin{equation}\label{eq_rate2}
\begin{aligned}
\left( \|\nabla^kf^n_{\lambda}\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 \right) &\le \|\nabla^k\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 +\frac{1}{\lambda} \|\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2\\
\left( \|f^n_{\lambda}\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 \right) &\le \lambda\|\nabla^k\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \|\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2.\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Using Morrey's inequality and Equation \ref{eq_rate2} , there exists a $Z\in\mathbb{R}^+$ such that, for all $n\in\mathbb{N},x\in\Omega \mbox{ and }\lambda\in\mathbb{R}^+$ we have \begin{equation}\label{eq_rate3}\begin{aligned}
\|f^n_{\lambda}\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)} &\le K_2\|\nabla^kf^n_{\lambda}\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 \\
\implies \|f^n_{\lambda}\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)} &\le Z\left(\|\nabla^k\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 +\frac{1}{\lambda} \|\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2\right)\\
\implies f^n_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) &\le Z\left(\|\nabla^k\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 +\frac{1}{\lambda} \|\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2\right) \forall i\in\{1,2,\ldots n\}\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Using Equations \ref{eq_rate}, \ref{eq_rate3} and the fact that $\psi$ is a bounded function, there exists a $K_1\in\mathbb{R}^+$ such that for all sufficiently large $n$
\begin{equation}\label{eq_rate4}\begin{aligned}
\left(f^n_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{p}_i) -\psi(\boldsymbol{p}_i) \right) ^2 &\le K_1\left(\frac{1}{\lambda}\|\nabla^k\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 +\frac{1}{\lambda^2} \|\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2\right) \mbox{ for } i = \{1,2,\ldots n\} \\
\implies \left|f^n_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{p}_i) -\psi(\boldsymbol{p}_i) \right| &\le K_1\sqrt{\frac{1}{\lambda}\|\nabla^k\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 +\frac{1}{\lambda^2} \|\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2} \mbox{ for } i = \{1,2,\ldots n\} .\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
We now prove the approximating property for the bounded continuous functions of this approximate interpolation method.
First, from Theorem \ref{interpolation theorem} and specifically Equation \ref{eq_sqr_err}, we know that, for any $\lambda > 1$, there exists an $\epsilon(\lambda)\in\mathbb{R}^+$ such that \begin{equation}\label{first_condition}
|f^n_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x})-\psi(\boldsymbol{x})|\le \epsilon(\lambda)\mbox{ } \forall \mbox{ }x\in E_n
\end{equation} and $$\epsilon(\lambda) = O(1/\sqrt{\lambda}).$$
For any $\boldsymbol{x}\in\Omega$, denote $h_n(\boldsymbol{x})$ as the closest point in the set $E_n$.
\begin{equation}\label{eq_denote}
\epsilon(\lambda) = \frac{1}{\lambda}\|\nabla^k\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \frac{1}{\lambda^2}\|\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2
\end{equation}
For any $\lambda>0$, there exists a an $N$ such that for, all $n>N$, the following statements hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item {\begin{equation}\label{dense}
\|\boldsymbol{x}-h_n(\boldsymbol{x})\|_2\le \zeta_n \mbox{ }\forall \boldsymbol{x}\in\Omega.
\end{equation} (follows from $D$ being a countable dense subset of $\Omega$)}\\
\item{\begin{equation}\label{cond_1}\begin{aligned}
\left|f^n_{\lambda}(h_n(\boldsymbol{x}))-\psi(h_n(\boldsymbol{x})) \right|&\le K_1\sqrt{\epsilon(\lambda)} \mbox{ }\forall \boldsymbol{x}\in\Omega.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation} (follows from Equation \ref{eq_rate4})}\\
\item{\begin{equation}\label{psi_contn}
\left|\psi(h_n(\boldsymbol{x})) - \psi(\boldsymbol{x})\right| \le \epsilon(\lambda) \mbox{ }\forall \boldsymbol{x}\in\Omega.
\end{equation} (follows from continuity of $\psi$)}\\
\end{enumerate}
Using Morrey's inequality \cite{evans1998partial}, we can deduce that there exists an $\alpha \in (0,1)$ and $K_0\in\mathbb{R}^+$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{holder}
\| f^n_{\lambda} \|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\Omega)} \le K_0\| \nabla^k f^n_{\lambda}\|_{L^2(\Omega)}
\end{equation}
Using Equations\ref{eq_rate} and \ref{eq_denote} we have \begin{equation}\label{eq_grad_denote}
\| \nabla^k f^n_{\lambda}\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \le \lambda\epsilon(\lambda)
\end{equation}
and hence
\begin{equation}\label{hcond}
\| f^n_{\lambda} \|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\Omega)} \le K_0\lambda\epsilon(\lambda).
\end{equation}
Using the definition of Holder continuity, for any $\boldsymbol{x}\in\Omega$,
\begin{equation}\label{hdef}
\frac{\left| f^n_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) - f^n_{\lambda}(h_n(\boldsymbol{x})) \right|}{\|\boldsymbol{x}-h_n(\boldsymbol{x})\|^{\alpha}_2} \le \| f^n_{\lambda} \|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\Omega)}.
\end{equation}
Using Equations \ref{dense}, \ref{hcond} and \ref{hdef}, we have $ \mbox{ }\forall \boldsymbol{x}\in\Omega$,
\begin{equation}\label{stat3}\begin{aligned}
\left| f^n_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) - f^n_{\lambda}(h_n(\boldsymbol{x})) \right| &\le K_0\lambda\epsilon(\lambda)\|\boldsymbol{x}-h_n(\boldsymbol{x})\|^{\alpha}_2 \\
\implies \left| f^n_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) - f^n_{\lambda}(h_n(\boldsymbol{x})) \right| &\le \zeta_n^{\alpha} K_0\lambda\epsilon(\lambda) \\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Adding Equations \ref{stat3} and \ref{cond_1}, we obtain, $ \mbox{ }\forall \boldsymbol{x}\in\Omega$ and for all sufficiently large $n$
\begin{equation}\label{inter_2}
\begin{aligned}
\left|f^n_{\lambda}(h_n(\boldsymbol{x}))-\psi(h_n(\boldsymbol{x})) \right| + \left| f^n_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) - f^n_{\lambda}(h_n(\boldsymbol{x})) \right| &\le K_1\sqrt{\epsilon(\lambda)} + \zeta_n^{\alpha}K_0\lambda\epsilon(\lambda)\\
\implies \left|f^n_{\lambda}(h_n(\boldsymbol{x}))-\psi(h_n(\boldsymbol{x})) + f^n_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) - f^n_{\lambda}(h_n(\boldsymbol{x})) \right| &\le K_1\sqrt{\epsilon(\lambda)} +\zeta_n^{\alpha}K_0\lambda\epsilon(\lambda)\\
\implies \left| f^n_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) -\psi(h_n(\boldsymbol{x})) \right| &\le K_1\sqrt{\epsilon(\lambda)} + \zeta_n^{\alpha}K_0\lambda\epsilon(\lambda).\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Again, adding Equations \ref{inter_2} and \ref{psi_contn}, we have $ \mbox{ }\forall \boldsymbol{x}\in\Omega$ and for all sufficiently large $n$
\begin{equation}\label{final_cont}
\begin{aligned}
\left| f^n_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) -\psi(h_n(\boldsymbol{x})) \right| + \left|\psi(h_n(\boldsymbol{x})) - \psi(\boldsymbol{x})\right| &\le K_1\sqrt{\epsilon(\lambda)} + \zeta_n^{\alpha}K_0\lambda\epsilon(\lambda) + \epsilon(\lambda) \\
\implies \left| f^n_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) -\psi(h_n(\boldsymbol{x})) + \psi(h_n(\boldsymbol{x})) - \psi(\boldsymbol{x})\right| &\le K_1\sqrt{\epsilon(\lambda)} + \epsilon(\lambda) + \zeta_n^{\alpha}K_0\lambda\epsilon(\lambda)\\
\implies \left| f^n_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) - \psi(\boldsymbol{x})\right| &\le K_1\sqrt{\epsilon(\lambda)} + \epsilon(\lambda) + \zeta_n^{\alpha}K_0\lambda\epsilon(\lambda) .
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
As Equation \ref{final_cont} holds for all $x\in\Omega$, we and for all sufficiently large $n$ can say that
\begin{equation}\label{conclude}
\| f^n_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) - \psi(\boldsymbol{x})\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)} \le K_0\zeta_n^{\alpha}\lambda\epsilon(\lambda) + K_1\sqrt{\epsilon(\lambda)} + \epsilon(\lambda).
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
The approximation property of the approximate interpolation method can be expressed as follows:
\begin{remark}
\begin{equation}
\limsup\limits_{n\to\infty}\|f^n_{\lambda}-\psi\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)} = O(1/\sqrt{\lambda}).
\end{equation}
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}
As the Equation \ref{conclude} holds for all sufficiently large $n$, we can say
\begin{equation}\label{eq_limsup}\begin{aligned}
\limsup\limits_{n\to\infty}\| f^n_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) - \psi(\boldsymbol{x})\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)} = \lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\left(K_1\sqrt{\epsilon(\lambda)} + \epsilon(\lambda) + \zeta_n^{\alpha}K_0\lambda\epsilon(\lambda)\right)\\
\implies \limsup\limits_{n\to\infty}\| f^n_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) - \psi(\boldsymbol{x})\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)} = K_1\sqrt{\epsilon(\lambda)} + \epsilon(\lambda) + K_0\lambda\epsilon(\lambda)\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\zeta_n^{\alpha}\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}As the set $D$ is dense in $\Omega$ , $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\zeta_n^{\alpha} = 0$. So we have \begin{equation}\label{eq_final_limsup}\begin{aligned}
\limsup\limits_{n\to\infty}\| f^n_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) - \psi(\boldsymbol{x})\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)} &= K_1\sqrt{\epsilon(\lambda)} + \epsilon(\lambda)\\
&= O(1/\sqrt{\lambda}).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
Note that the RHS of Equation \ref{eq_final_limsup} is independent of the number of data points $n$. Thus, by choosing $\lambda$ small enough, it is possible to recover $\psi$ to any desired accuracy, as the data points become dense($n\to\infty$). As the value of $\lambda$ increases the approximation error goes to zero. The reader may note that there is a practical difficulty of computing the approximant $f^n_{\lambda}$ as $\lambda$ increases, which is discussed in Section \ref{condition_number_sec}.
\section{Condition Number of the Interpolation Matrix}
\label{condition_number_sec}
Let $M = (\frac{G_{\lambda}}{n}+\frac{I_n}{\lambda^2})$ be called the interpolation matrix; we must invert this matrix in order to compute $c$ and there by compute the approximate interpolating function $f_{\lambda}$. First, the interpolation matrix $M$ is positive definite, as we have shown in Theorem \ref{eig_theorem}, and the matrix $G_{\lambda}$ is positive definite. Let us derive a bound on the condition number of matrix $M$. First, let the maximum and minimum eigenvalues of the matrix $\frac{G_{\lambda}}{n}$ be $\rho_{max}$ and $\rho_{min}$. Let $\kappa(M)$ denote the condition number of matrix $M$. Thus, the condition number of the matrix $M$ is given as
\begin{equation}
\kappa(M) = \frac{\rho_{max}+\frac{1}{\lambda^2}}{\rho_{min}+\frac{1}{\lambda^2}}.
\end{equation}
As the matrix $G_{\lambda}$ is positive definite $\rho_{min} > 0$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\kappa(M) \le \frac{\rho_{max}+\frac{1}{\lambda^2}}{0+\frac{1}{\lambda^2}},
\end{equation};thus,
\begin{equation}
\kappa(A) \le \lambda^2\rho_{max}+1.
\end{equation}
However, $\rho_{max} \le \Tr[\frac{G_{\lambda}}{n}]$; thus, $\rho_{max} \le \frac{1}{n}\Tr[G_{\lambda}]$.
\begin{equation}
\label{cmd}
\kappa(M) \le \frac{\lambda^2}{n}\Tr[G_{\lambda}]+1.
\end{equation}
We know that $\Tr[G_{\lambda}] = ng_{\lambda}(0)$. Further, \begin{equation}
g_{\lambda}(0) = \sum_{\boldsymbol{l}\in\mathbb{Z}^m} \frac{1}{1+\lambda\|\boldsymbol{l}\|_{2k}^{2k}}.
\end{equation}
Hence, $$\Tr[G_{\lambda}] = \sum_{\boldsymbol{l}\in\mathbb{Z}^m} \frac{n}{1+\lambda\|\boldsymbol{l}\|_{2k}^{2k}}.$$
Substituting this in Equation \ref{cmd}, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{fcmd}
\kappa(M) \le 1 + \sum_{\boldsymbol{l}\in\mathbb{Z}^m} \frac{\lambda^2}{1+\lambda\|\boldsymbol{l}\|_{2k}^{2k}}.
\end{equation}
The bound on the condition number depends on the parameter $\lambda$ as $O(\lambda)$. Therefore, if we want a higher accuracy of interpolation, we need a higher $\lambda$ that consequently increases the bound on the condition number of the interpolation matrix, making the computations more difficult. Thus, $\lambda$ is a trade-off between the accuracy of interpolation and the ease of computation.
However, the upper bound on the condition number of the interpolation matrix is completely independent of the position of the data points or the number of data points. Therefore, when $\lambda$ is fixed, although the data points become dense in the domain $\Omega$, the condition number of the interpolation matrix remains bounded, which is in stark contrast with the radial basis function interpolation using this plate spline-type functions.
\chapter{Interpolation using Trigonometric Polynomials}\label{chap_3}
\section{Functions of Bounded Variation}
\begin{definition}
Total Variation: Given a function $f$ of the form $f:\Omega\to\mathbb{R}$, $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^m$, the total variation is of the function $f$ is denoted as $V_{\Omega}(f)$ and is defined as \begin{equation}
V_{\Omega}(f) = \int_{\Omega}|Df|
\end{equation} where $Df$ is the distributional/weak derivative of the function $f$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
For the context of this paper, a class of functions called functions of bounded variation, denoted as $BV(\mathbb{T}^m)$, is defined as the set of all functions of the form $f:\mathbb{T}^m\to\mathbb{R}$ which has the following properties.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The total variation $V_{\mathbb{T}^m}(f) = \int_{\mathbb{T}^m}|Df|$ is finite.
\item The function $f$ does not have removable discontinuities(Note that this condition is not imposed in most of the books, but we do this specifically for the context of this paper).
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\section{Fourier projection operator}
\begin{definition}
Given any two vectors $\boldsymbol{a} = (a_1,a_2\ldots a_m)\in\mathbb{R}^m$ and $\boldsymbol{b} = (b_1,b_2\ldots b_m)\in\mathbb{R}^m$, the relation $\boldsymbol{a}\le \boldsymbol{b}\implies a_i\le b_i,\mbox{ for }i = 1,2\ldots m$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
Given a $\boldsymbol{\omega}\in\mathbb{W}^m$, the space of trigonometric polynomials $TP_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}$ is defined as the set of all trigonometric polynomials with degree $\boldsymbol{r}\in\mathbb{W}^m$ such that $\boldsymbol{r}\le\boldsymbol{\omega}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
Given any $\boldsymbol{\omega}\in\mathbb{W}^m$ The Fourier projection operator of the form $P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}:BV(\mathbb{T}^m)\to TP_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}$ is defined as, for any given $f\in BV(\mathbb{T}^m)$, \begin{equation}\label{P_def}
P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}f(\boldsymbol{x}) = \sum_{\boldsymbol{l}\in\mathbb{Z}^m \land -\boldsymbol{\omega}\le\boldsymbol{l}\le \boldsymbol{\omega} } \hat{f}_{\boldsymbol{l}} e^{2\pi i\boldsymbol{l}\cdot\boldsymbol{x}}.
\end{equation} where $\hat{f}_{\boldsymbol{l}}$, $\boldsymbol{l}\in\mathbb{Z}^m$ are the Fourier series coefficients of the function $f$.
The opertaor $\bar{P}_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}$ is defined as $\bar{P}_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}f = f-P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}f$
\end{definition}
\subsection{Some properties of the projection operator}
We state some properties of the operator $P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}$ which can be easily derived from the properties of the Fourier Series. For any $u\in BV(\mathbb{T}^m)$
\begin{enumerate}
\item $ \|u\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)} = \|P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}u\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)} + \|\bar{P}_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}u\|_{L^2{\mathbb{T}^m}}$.
\item $P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}(u_1+u_2) = P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}u_1 + P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}u_2$.
\item If $u\in TP_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}$, then $P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}u = u$.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Minimization problem}
\label{mnmz2}
We take the functional in Equation \ref{eq7} but define it over the space of trigonometric polynomials of degree less than or equal to $\boldsymbol{\omega}$ denoted as $TP_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}$. It is given below as
\begin{equation}\label{eq8t}D_{\lambda}(u) = \frac{\lambda^2}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}(u(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-q_i)^2 + \lambda\|\nabla^ku\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \|u\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2. \end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol{p}_i\in(0,1)^m$,$k,m \in \mathbb{N}, k>\frac{m}{2},
\lambda \in \mathbb{R}^+ \mbox{ and } f \in TP_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}$.
The minimization problem is the functional $D_{\lambda}^n(u)$ is to be minimized in the space of trigonometric polynomials $u\in TP_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}$.
\begin{theorem}
The functional $D_{\lambda}^n(u)$ has a unique minimizer in the space of trigonometric polynomials $TP_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
In Appendix \ref{unique_minimizer} the functional $D_{\lambda}^n(u)$ is shown to have a unique minimizer in the space $C^0(\mathbb{T}^m)\cap H^k(\mathbb{T}^m)$. As the space $TP_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}$ is a linear open subspace of $C^0(\mathbb{T}^m)\cap H^k(\mathbb{T}^m)$, and the functional $D_{\lambda}^n(u)$ being convex, it follows that $D_{\lambda}^n(u)$ has a unique minimizer in the space $TP_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Euler--Lagrange (E--L) Equation }
We now derive the Euler--Lagrange (E--L) equation of the minimization problem posed in the previous section and show that it is a linear weak PDE with some global terms.
We minimize in $TP_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}$, the functional \begin{equation}\label{eq8t2}D_{\lambda}(u) = \frac{\lambda^2}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}(u(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-q_i)^2 + \lambda\|\nabla^ku\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \|u\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2. \end{equation}
We derive the Euler--Lagrange equation for the above problem by steps for each term separately.
For any $\phi \in TP_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}$.
\begin{equation}\label{eq9b}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{ds}|_{s=0} \|u(\boldsymbol{x})+s\phi(\boldsymbol{x})\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 &= \frac{d}{ds}|_{s=0} \int_{\mathbb{T}^m} \left|u(\boldsymbol{x})+s\phi(\boldsymbol{x})\right|^{2} \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{x}\\
&\stackrel{*}{=} 2\int_{\mathbb{T}^m} \phi(\boldsymbol{x}) u(\boldsymbol{x})\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{x},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation} where $*$ can be justified by using the dominated convergence theorem
\begin{equation}\label{eq10b}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{ds}|_{s=0} \lambda\| \nabla^k(u(\boldsymbol{x})+s\phi(\boldsymbol{x}))\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)} &= \frac{d}{ds}|_{s=0} \int_{\mathbb{T}^m} \lambda\left|\nabla^k u(\boldsymbol{x})+s \nabla^k \phi(\boldsymbol{x})\right|^2\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{x}\\
&= 2\lambda\int_{\mathbb{T}^m} \nabla^k \phi(\boldsymbol{x}) \cdot \nabla^k u(\boldsymbol{x})\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{x}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq11b}\frac{d}{ds}|_{s=0} \frac{\lambda^2}{n}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^n|u(\boldsymbol{p}_i)+s\phi(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-q_i|^2 = -\frac{2\lambda^2}{n}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^n (q_i-u(\boldsymbol{p}_i))\phi(\boldsymbol{p}_i)
\end{equation}
and by combining all terms, we obtain the following PDE as the Euler-Lagrange equation for the minimization problem.
\begin{equation}\label{eq12b}
\begin{aligned}
-\frac{\lambda^2}{n}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}(q_i-u(\boldsymbol{p}_i))\phi(\boldsymbol{p}_i) + \lambda\int_{\mathbb{T}^m}\nabla^k\phi(\boldsymbol{x})\cdot \nabla^k u(\boldsymbol{x}) \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{x}+ \int_{\mathbb{T}^m} \phi(\boldsymbol{x}) u(\boldsymbol{x})\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{x} = 0 \\
\forall \phi \in TP_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{theorem}\label{exp_min_TP}
The solution to the PDE in Equation \ref{eq12b} is $u_{\lambda}$, which is given as
\begin{equation}
\label{exp_th2}
u_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) = \sum\limits_{i=1}^n \frac{c_i}{n}w_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{p}_i),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{eq22_th2}
w_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{x}) = P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}g_{\lambda}(x) = \sum_{\boldsymbol{l}\in\mathbb{Z}^m \land -\boldsymbol{\omega} \le \boldsymbol{l}\le \boldsymbol{\omega} } \frac{1}{1+\lambda\|\boldsymbol{l}\|_{2k}^{2k}} \cos{(2\pi\boldsymbol{l}\cdot\boldsymbol{x})}.
\end{equation}
$\pmb{c} = [c_1,c_2,...c_{N}]^T$ is given as \begin{equation}\label{eq28_th2}
\pmb{c} = (\frac{1}{n}W_{\lambda}+\frac{1}{\lambda^2}I)^{-1}L,\end{equation} where the matrix $W_{\lambda}$ is given as
\begin{equation}\label{eq29_th2}
W_{\lambda} = [\gamma_{ij}(\lambda)]_{n\times n},\gamma_{ij}(\lambda) = w_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{p}_i-\boldsymbol{p}_j)\end{equation} and $$L = [q_1,q_2,\ldots q_n]^T.$$
\end{theorem}
The above theorem can be proved on similar lines of the proof of Theorem \ref{E-L_solution}. However the proof of this theorem is given in Appendix \ref{A2}.
\begin{theorem}
\label{interpolation theorem 2}
Assuming the data and the number of data points $n$ are fixed, and $u_{\lambda}$ denoting the minimizer of the functional $D_{\lambda}(u)$ over the set $TP_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}$, \begin{equation}\label{eq35p}\lim\limits_{\lambda \to \infty} u_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{p}_i) = q_i + O(\frac{1}{\|\boldsymbol{\omega}\|_2})\end{equation} and \begin{equation}\label{eq36p}\mbox{There exists a function denoted as }u_{\infty} \in TP_{\boldsymbol{\omega}} \mbox{ such that as }\lambda\to\infty, u_{\lambda} \to u_{\infty}\end{equation} pointwise.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Consider the Dirichlet function \begin{equation}
D_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}(\boldsymbol{x}) = \frac{1}{\omega_1\omega_2\ldots\omega_m}\sum\limits_{\boldsymbol{r}\in \mathbb{Z}^m\land 0\le \boldsymbol{r}\le \boldsymbol{\omega}} \cos{(2\pi \boldsymbol{r}\cdot \boldsymbol{x})}
\end{equation} where $\boldsymbol{\omega} = (\omega_1,\omega_2\ldots \omega_m)$.
It has the following properties. \begin{equation}\label{Dir_1}
D_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}(0) = 1
\end{equation} and \begin{equation}\label{Dir_2}
D_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}(\boldsymbol{x}) = O(\frac{1}{\|\boldsymbol{\omega}\|_2}),\mbox{ }\boldsymbol{x}\ne 0
\end{equation}
Consider the function \begin{equation}\label{Dir_3}
\Gamma_n(\boldsymbol{x}) = \sum\limits_{i=1}^n q_i D_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}(\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{p}_i)
\end{equation}
As $u_{\lambda}$ is the minimizer of the functional, we have \begin{equation}\label{Dir_4}\begin{aligned}
A_{\lambda}(u_{\lambda}) &\le A_{\lambda}(\Gamma_n)\\
\implies \lambda^2\sum_{i=1}^n(u_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-q_i)^2 &\le A_{\lambda}(\Gamma_n)\\
\implies \lambda^2(u_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-q_i)^2 &\le A_{\lambda}(\Gamma_n),\mbox{ }i=1,2\ldots n\\
\implies (u_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-q_i)^2 &\le \sum_{i=1}^n(\Gamma_n(x)-q_i)^2 + \frac{1}{\lambda}\|\nabla^k\Gamma_n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)} + \frac{1}{\lambda^2}\|\Gamma_n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)},\\ &\mbox{ }i=1,2\ldots n\\
\implies \lim\limits_{\lambda\to\infty}(u_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-q_i)^2 &\le \sum_{i=1}^n(\Gamma_n(x)-q_i)^2,\mbox{ }i=1,2\ldots n\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Using Equations \ref{Dir_1}, \ref{Dir_2}, \ref{Dir_3} and \ref{Dir_4}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\lim\limits_{\lambda\to\infty}(u_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-q_i)^2 &\le \sum\limits_{i=1}^n(q_i-q_i+(n-1)O(\frac{1}{\|\boldsymbol{\omega}\|_2}))^2,\mbox{ }i=1,2\ldots n\\
\implies \lim\limits_{\lambda\to\infty}(u_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-q_i)^2 &\le \sum\limits_{i=1}^n((n-1)O(\frac{1}{\|\boldsymbol{\omega}\|_2}))^2,\mbox{ }i=1,2\ldots n
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
As the data and number of data points $n$ is constant, we have from above Equation
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\lim\limits_{\lambda\to\infty}(u_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-q_i)^2 &= O(\frac{1}{\|\boldsymbol{\omega}\|_2^2})),\mbox{ }i=1,2\ldots n\\
\implies \lim\limits_{\lambda\to\infty}u_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-q_i &= O(\frac{1}{\|\boldsymbol{\omega}\|_2})),\mbox{ }i=1,2\ldots n\\
\implies \lim\limits_{\lambda\to\infty}u_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{p}_i) &= q_i + O(\frac{1}{\|\boldsymbol{\omega}\|_2})),\mbox{ }i=1,2\ldots n\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
This completes the proof of the first statement of the Theorem.
\end{proof}
The second statement can easily be proved on similar lines as the proof of the second statement of Theorem \ref{interpolation theorem} using same asymptotic expansions as in Section \ref{sec_asymp_exp_interp_matrix} which can easily shown to be valid in case of expressions for interpolation matrix derived in Theorem \ref{exp_min_TP} .
\begin{remark}
If each of data points $\boldsymbol{p}_i$ coincide with a point on a uniform rectangular grid of spacing $\frac{1}{\omega_j}$ in the $j^{th}$ coordinate axis, i.e $\boldsymbol{p_i} = (\frac{n_i^1}{\omega_i},\frac{n_i^2}{\omega_2}\ldots \frac{n_i^m}{\omega_m}),\mbox{ }n_i^r\in\{0,1,2\ldots\omega_r\}, r= 1,2\ldots m \mbox{ and } i = 1,2\ldots n$, then $u_{\infty}$ interpolates the data perfectly.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}
If each of the data points coincides with a point on a uni-from rectangular grid, then \begin{equation}\label{grid_null}
D_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}(\boldsymbol{p}_i) = 0, \mbox{ }i = 1,2\ldots n
\end{equation}
Using Equations \ref{Dir_3} and \ref{grid_null} we have
\begin{equation}\label{coincide_grid}
\Gamma_n(\boldsymbol{p}_i) = q_i,\mbox{ } i = 1,2\ldots n.
\end{equation}
There by Using Equation \ref{Dir_4} and \ref{coincide_grid} we have
\begin{equation}\label{interp_grid}\begin{aligned}
\lim\limits_{\lambda\to\infty}(u_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-q_i)^2 &\le \sum_{i=1}^n(\Gamma_n(x)-q_i)^2,\mbox{ }i=1,2\ldots n\\
&= 0,\mbox{ }i=1,2\ldots n\\
\implies u_{\infty}(\boldsymbol{p}_i) &= q_i,\mbox{ }i=1,2\ldots n\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
\chapter{Approximation of a Multivariate BV Function from its Scattered Data}\label{chap_4}
\section{Approximation of a BV Function}
In this section we show that given any function of bounded variation of the form $\psi:\mathbb{T}^m\to\mathbb{R}$, we can approximate it in the $L^2$-norm from its scattered data.
\begin{definition}\label{theorem_defs2}
Let $\psi : \mathbb{T}^m\to\mathbb{R}$ be a BV function that requires approximation. It is assumed that the total variation (in the Vitali sense) $V_{\mathbb{T}^m}(\psi)$ is finite but non zero. Let $D$ be a countable dense subset of $(0,1)^m$ excluding points of discontinuity of $\psi$. The scattered data constitute a set of $n$ distinct points $\{\boldsymbol{p}_i/\boldsymbol{p}_i\in D, i=1,2,\ldots n\}$ chosen from $D$ with no assumptions on their geometry and the corresponding values of $\psi$ evaluated at those points $\psi(\boldsymbol{p}_i)$. Lets define a sequence of sets $E_1,E_2,E_3\ldots$ where $E_n = \{\boldsymbol{p}_i/\boldsymbol{p}_i\in D, i = 1,2,3,..n\}$.We define the functional in Equation \ref{eq8t} of Section \ref{mnmz2} using data points in the set $E_n$ as which is given as
\begin{equation}\label{functional_redef}
D_{\lambda}^n(u) = \frac{\lambda^2}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}(u(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-\psi(\boldsymbol{p}_i))^2 + \lambda\|\nabla^k u\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \|u\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2, \end{equation}
where $k,m \in \mathbb{N}, k>\frac{m}{2},
\lambda \in \mathbb{R}^+ \mbox{ and } u \in TP_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}$.\\
As we vary the number of data points $n$ and also $\boldsymbol{\omega}$ in our analysis in this section, we therefore, the functional $D_{\lambda}(u)$ is denoted as $D^n_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}(u)$ and the minimizer $u_{\lambda}$ is denoted as $u^n_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}$. Note that the suffix $n$ is not a power, but only a notation that the parameter is associated with the functional defined over the set of data points $E_n$.\\
Define denote discrepancy measure $\zeta_n$ of the point set $E_n=\{\boldsymbol{p}_1,\boldsymbol{p}_2...\boldsymbol{p}_n\}$ in the domain $(0,1)^m$ as \begin{equation}\label{Disc}\zeta_n = D_n^*(\{\boldsymbol{p}_1,\boldsymbol{p}_2...\boldsymbol{p}_n\})
\end{equation} The definition of star discrepancy $D_n^*$ is assumed to be as defined in the book \cite{kuipers2012uniform}.
\end{definition}
As the points are taken from the set $D$ which is a countable dense subset of $(0,1)^m$, as $n\to\infty$, from \cite{kuipers2012uniform}, we have the asymptotic $$\zeta_n = O(\frac{(\ln {n})^m}{n}) $$
\begin{theorem}
Considering the definitions in \ref{theorem_defs2}, If we vary the parameter $\lambda$ with the number of data points $n$ as $\lambda = \zeta^{-\beta}_n,\mbox{ where }\beta>0$ and vary $\boldsymbol{\omega} = (\omega_1,\omega_2\ldots\omega_m)$ as $\omega_i = \kappa_i\zeta_n^{-\alpha},i = 1,2\ldots m$, where $\kappa_i$ are a positive constants, and additionally if the following conditions are assumed
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\alpha &> 0\\
\beta &> 0\\
k&>\frac{m}{2}\\%&< k\\
r &= \min(1+2\alpha-\beta,2-(\alpha+\beta),1-\alpha(2k-1), 1+\beta,1-\alpha,\beta-\alpha(2k-1),2\beta)> 0 \\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
then
\begin{equation}
\label{th_bv}
\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\|u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n - \psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)} = 0
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
As $u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n$ is the minimizer of the functional $D^n_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}(f)$ in $TP_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eqap3}
\begin{aligned}
D^n_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}(u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n) &\le D^n_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}(P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi) \\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Then using the expression for the functional as in Equation \ref{functional_redef}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eqap}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\lambda^2}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}(u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-\psi(\boldsymbol{p}_i))^2 + \lambda\|\nabla^ku_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \|u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 &\le \\ \frac{\lambda^2}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}(P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-\psi(\boldsymbol{p}_i))^2 + \lambda\|\nabla^kP_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \|P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2
\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
As all terms in the LHS of the above inequality are positive we have
\begin{equation}\label{EQ_4_6}
\begin{aligned}
\left( \lambda\|\nabla^ku_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 \right) &\le \frac{\lambda^2}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}(P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-\psi(\boldsymbol{p}_i))^2 + \lambda\|\nabla^kP_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \|P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 \\
\implies \left( \|\nabla^ku_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 \right) &\le \frac{\lambda}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}(P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-\psi(\boldsymbol{p}_i))^2 + \|\nabla^kP_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \frac{1}{\lambda}\|P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Using the Koksma-Hlawka inequality \cite{kuipers2012uniform} for the convergence of the Riemann integral, as $n$ grows, we have the asymptotic
\begin{equation}\label{IQ_1}\begin{aligned}
\left|\frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}(P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-\psi(\boldsymbol{p}_i))^2 - \|P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi-\psi\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)} \right| &\le \zeta_n V_{\mathbb{T}^m}((P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi-\psi)^2)
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
Which implies the following equations
\begin{equation}\label{EQ_4_7}\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}(P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-\psi(\boldsymbol{p}_i))^2 &\le \|P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi-\psi\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)} + \zeta_n V_{\mathbb{T}^m}((P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi-\psi)^2)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation} and
\begin{equation}\label{IQ_2}\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}(P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-\psi(\boldsymbol{p}_i))^2 &\ge \|P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi-\psi\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)} - \zeta_n V_{\mathbb{T}^m}((P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi-\psi)^2) \end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Using Equations \ref{EQ_4_6} and \ref{EQ_4_7} \begin{equation}\label{grad_growth}
\begin{aligned}
\|\nabla^ku_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 &\le \lambda\|P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi-\psi\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)} + \lambda\zeta_n V_{\mathbb{T}^m}((P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi-\psi)^2)\\
&+ \|\nabla^kP_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \frac{1}{\lambda}\|P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Again as all the terms in the Equation \ref{eqap} are positive, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq_sun}
\frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}(u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-\psi(\boldsymbol{p}_i))^2 \le \\ \frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}(P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-\psi(\boldsymbol{p}_i))^2 + \frac{1}{\lambda}\|\nabla^kP_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \frac{1}{\lambda^2}\|P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2
\end{equation}
Again using the Koksma-Hlawka inequality \cite{kuipers2012uniform} for the convergence of the Riemann integral, as $n$ grows, we have
\begin{equation}\label{IQ_3}
\left|\frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}(u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-\psi(\boldsymbol{p}_i))^2 - \|u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n - \psi\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)} \right| \le \zeta_n V_{\mathbb{T}^m}((u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n - \psi)^2) \end{equation}
which implies the following equations
\begin{equation}\label{eq_sun2}
\frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}(u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-\psi(\boldsymbol{p}_i))^2 \le \|u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n - \psi\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)} + \zeta_n V_{\mathbb{T}^m}((u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n - \psi)^2) \end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{IQ_4}
\frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}(u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n(\boldsymbol{p}_i)-\psi(\boldsymbol{p}_i))^2 \ge \|u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n - \psi\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)} - \zeta_n V_{\mathbb{T}^m}((u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n - \psi)^2) \end{equation}
Using Equations \ref{IQ_2}, \ref{eq_sun2} and \ref{eq_sun},
\begin{equation}\label{eq_error}
\begin{aligned}
\|u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n - \psi\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)} - \|P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi - \psi\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)} &\le \zeta_n V_{\mathbb{T}^m}((u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n - \psi)^2) + \zeta_n V_{\mathbb{T}^m}((P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi-\psi)^2)\\
&+ \frac{1}{\lambda}\|\nabla^kP_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \frac{1}{\lambda^2}\|P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Now consider $V_{\mathbb{T}^m}((u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n - \psi)^2)$ and writing the expression for the total variation as an intergral of the absolute of the distributional derivative, we have
\begin{equation}\label{moon_mars}
\begin{aligned}
V_{\mathbb{T}^m}((u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n - \psi)^2) &= \int_{\mathbb{T}^m}\left\|D\left( (u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n(\boldsymbol{x}) - \psi(\boldsymbol{x}))^2 \right)\right\|_2\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{x}\\
&= \int_{\mathbb{T}^m}\left|u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n(\boldsymbol{x}) - \psi(\boldsymbol{x})\right|\left\|(\nabla u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n(\boldsymbol{x}) - D\psi(\boldsymbol{x})\right\|_2 \mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{x}\\
&\le \int_{\mathbb{T}^m}\left|u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n(\boldsymbol{x}) - \psi(\boldsymbol{x})\right|\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{x}\int_{\mathbb{T}^m}\left\|(\nabla u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n(\boldsymbol{x}) - D\psi(\boldsymbol{x})\right\|_2 \mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{x}\\
&\le \int_{\mathbb{T}^m}\left(\left|u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n(\boldsymbol{x})\right| + \left|\psi(\boldsymbol{x})\right|\right)\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{x}\int_{\mathbb{T}^m}\left(\left\|(\nabla u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n(\boldsymbol{x})\right\|_2 + \left\| D\psi(\boldsymbol{x})\right\|_2\right) \mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{x}\\
&= \left(\|u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n\|_{L^1(\mathbb{T}^m)} + \|\psi\|_{L^1(\mathbb{T}^m)} \right) \left(\|\nabla u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n\|_{L^1(\mathbb{T}^m)} + \|D \psi\|_{L^1(\mathbb{T}^m)} \right)\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
(Note that, as $u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n\in TP_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}$, it is smooth making both the distributional derivative and the gradient being the same and hence we have written $Du_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n$ as $\nabla u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n$. For the function $\psi\in BV(\mathbb{T}^m)$, $D\psi$ is the distributional/weak derivative).
As $u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n$ is smooth, there exists a positive constant $K_4$ independent of $u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n$ such that \begin{equation}\begin{aligned}\label{moon_1}
\|u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n\|_{L^1(\mathbb{T}^m)} &\le K_4\|u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^m)}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Similarly as $\nabla u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n$ is smooth, there exists a positive constant $K_5$ independent of $u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n$ such that \begin{equation}\begin{aligned}\label{moon_2}
\|\nabla u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n\|_{L^1(\mathbb{T}^m)} &\le K_5\|\nabla u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n\|_{L^{2}(\mathbb{T}^m)}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Using Morrey's inequality \cite{evans1998partial}, there exists a positive constant $K_6$ independent of $u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n$ such that \begin{equation}\label{mars_1}\begin{aligned}
\|u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^m)} &\le K_6 \|\nabla^k u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Using Friedrich's inequality \cite{zheng2005friedrichs} (a generalization of Poincar{\'e}-Wirtinger inequality \cite{evans1998partial}), there exists a positive constant $K_7$ independent of $u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n$ such that \begin{equation}\label{mars_2}\begin{aligned}
\|\nabla u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n\|_{L^{2}(\mathbb{T}^m)} &\le K_7 \|\nabla^k u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Combining Equations \ref{moon_1}, \ref{mars_1} we obtain
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}\label{moon_mars_1}
\|u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n\|_{L^1(\mathbb{T}^m)} &\le K_4K_6 \|\nabla^k u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
and Combining Equations \ref{moon_2}, \ref{mars_2} we obtain
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}\label{moon_mars_2}
\|\nabla u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n\|_{L^1(\mathbb{T}^m)} &\le K_5K_7 \|\nabla^k u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Using Equations \ref{moon_mars}, \ref{moon_mars_2} and \ref{moon_mars_1} we get
\begin{equation}\label{final_moon_mars}
\begin{aligned}
V_{\mathbb{T}^m}((u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n - \psi)^2) &\le \left(K_4K_6 \|\nabla^k u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)} + \|\psi\|_{L^1(\mathbb{T}^m)} \right) \left(K_5K_7 \|\nabla^k u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)} + \|D \psi\|_{L^1(\mathbb{T}^m)} \right)\\
&= K_8 \|\nabla^k u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)} +\left(K_9\|\psi\|_{L^1(\mathbb{T}^m)} + K_{10}\|\nabla \psi\|_{L^1(\mathbb{T}^m)} \right)\|\nabla^k u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}\\ &+ \|\psi\|_{L^1(\mathbb{T}^m)} \|D \psi\|_{L^1(\mathbb{T}^m)}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $K_8 = K_4K_5K_6K_7$, $K_9 = K_5K_7$ and $K_{10} = K_4 K_5$.
Substituting $\lambda = \zeta^{-\beta}_n$ in Equation \ref{eq_error} we get
\begin{equation}\label{eq_error_2}
\begin{aligned}
\|u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n - \psi\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)} - \|P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi - \psi\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)} &\le \zeta_n V_{\mathbb{T}^m}((u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n - \psi)^2) + \zeta_n V_{\mathbb{T}^m}((P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi-\psi)^2)\\ &+ \zeta^{\beta}_n\|\nabla^kP_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \zeta^{2\beta}_n\|P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
As $\boldsymbol{\omega}$ grows, as $\psi$ is a function of bounded variation, we have the asymptotic \begin{equation}\label{f_convergence}
\|P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi-\psi\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)} = O(1/\|\omega\|_2^2)
\end{equation}
Substituting $\|\boldsymbol{\omega}\|_2 = \zeta_n^{-\alpha}$ we get \begin{equation}
\|P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi-\psi\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)} = O(\zeta_n^{2\alpha})
\end{equation}
From the definition of total variation, we have the asymptotic
\begin{equation}\label{tvar_error_asymp}
\begin{aligned}
V_{\mathbb{T}^m}((P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi-\psi)^2) &\le 2\int_{\Omega}|P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi-\psi|\mathrm{d}^m\boldsymbol{x} V_{\mathbb{T}^m}(P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi-\psi)\\
&= O(1/\|\boldsymbol{\omega}\|_2) O(\|\boldsymbol{\omega}\|_2^2)\\
&= O(\|\boldsymbol{\omega}\|_2)\\
&= O(\zeta_n^{-\alpha})( \mbox{ after substituting }\|\boldsymbol{\omega}\|_2 = \zeta_n^{-\alpha})
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Using derivative as a Fourier multiplier operator and using Plancheral theorem , we have the asymptotic
\begin{equation}\label{kgrad_asymp}
\begin{aligned}
\|\nabla^kP_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 &= O(\|\boldsymbol{\omega}\|_2^{2k-1})\\
&= O(\zeta_n^{-\alpha(2k-1)})( \mbox{ after substituting }\|\boldsymbol{\omega}\|_2 = \zeta_n^{-\alpha})
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
As $\psi$ is a BV function, we have the asymptotic
\begin{equation}\label{norm_psum_asymp}
\|P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 = O(1)
\end{equation}
Therefore using Equations \ref{grad_growth}, \ref{f_convergence}, \ref{tvar_error_asymp}, \ref{kgrad_asymp} and \ref{norm_psum_asymp}, \begin{equation}\label{kgrad_norm_asymp}
\begin{aligned}
\|\nabla^ku_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 &\le \lambda\|P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi-\psi\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)} + \lambda\zeta_n V_{\mathbb{T}^m}((P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi-\psi)^2)\\
&+ \|\nabla^kP_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 + \frac{1}{\lambda}\|P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2\\
&= \lambda O(\zeta_n^{2\alpha}) + \lambda O(\zeta_n^{1-\alpha}) + O(\zeta_n^{-\alpha(2k-1)}) + \frac{1}{\lambda}O(1)\\
&= O(\zeta_n^{2\alpha-\beta}) + O(\zeta_n^{1-\alpha-\beta}) + O(\zeta_n^{-\alpha(2k-1)}) + O(\zeta_n^{\beta})\mbox{ after substituting }\lambda = \zeta_n^{-\beta}\\
&= O(\zeta_n^{\gamma}) \mbox{ where } \gamma = \min(2\alpha-\beta,1-(\alpha+\beta),-\alpha(2k-1)), \beta)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Using Equations \ref{final_moon_mars} and \ref{kgrad_norm_asymp},
\begin{equation}\label{func_error_var_asymp}
\begin{aligned}
V_{\mathbb{T}^m}((u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n - \psi)^2) &= O(\|\nabla^ku_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2)\\
& = O(\zeta_n^{\gamma}) \mbox{ where } \gamma = \min(2\alpha-\beta,1-(\alpha+\beta),-\alpha(2k-1)), \beta)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Equation \ref{func_error_var_asymp} implies the asymptotic
\begin{equation}\label{func_error_var_asymp_2}
\begin{aligned}
\zeta_n V_{\mathbb{T}^m}((u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n - \psi)^2) = O(\zeta_n^{\gamma+1}) \mbox{ where } \gamma = \min(2\alpha-\beta,1-(\alpha+\beta),-\alpha(2k-1)), \beta)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Equation \ref{tvar_error_asymp} implies the asymptotic
\begin{equation}\label{tvar_error_asymp_2}
\begin{aligned}
\zeta_n V_{\mathbb{T}^m}((P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi-\psi)^2) &= \zeta_n O(\zeta_n^{-\alpha})\\
&= O(\zeta_n^{1-\alpha})
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Equation \ref{kgrad_asymp} implies the asymptotic
\begin{equation}\label{kgrad_asymp_2}
\begin{aligned}
\zeta^{\beta}_n\|\nabla^kP_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 &= \zeta_n^{\beta} O(\zeta_n^{-\alpha(2k-1)})\\
&= O(\zeta_n^{\beta-\alpha(2k-1)})
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Equation \ref{norm_psum_asymp} implies the asymptotic
\begin{equation}\label{norm_psum_asymp_2}
\zeta^{2\beta}_n\|P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi\|_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)}^2 = O(\zeta_n^{2\beta})
\end{equation}
Using Equations \ref{eq_error_2}, \ref{func_error_var_asymp_2}, \ref{tvar_error_asymp_2}, \ref{kgrad_asymp_2} and \ref{norm_psum_asymp_2} we get
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\|u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n - \psi\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)} - \|P_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\psi - \psi\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)} &= O(\zeta_n^r)\\
\implies \|u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n - \psi\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)} &= O(\zeta_n^r) + O(\zeta_n^{2\alpha})\\
&= O(\zeta_n^r) \mbox{ as }\alpha > 0
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $$r = \gamma+1 = \min(\min(1+2\alpha-\beta,2-(\alpha+\beta),1-\alpha(2k-1), 1+\beta),1-\alpha,\beta-\alpha(2k-1),2\beta) $$
Making $r>0$ and also noting the previous assumptions, $\alpha>0$, $\beta>0$ and $k>\frac{m}{2}$, we get the final conditions on $\alpha,\beta,k$ that are required for convergence as below
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\alpha&>0\\
\beta&>0\\
r &= \min(1+2\alpha-\beta,2-(\alpha+\beta),1-\alpha(2k-1), 1+\beta,1-\alpha,\beta-\alpha(2k-1),2\beta)> 0 \\
k&>\frac{m}{2}, k\in \mathbb{N
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Under these conditions, $$\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\|u_{\lambda,\boldsymbol{\omega}}^n - \psi\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{T}^m)} = \lim_{n\to\infty}O(\zeta_n^r) = 0$$
\end{proof}
Thus the BV function $\psi$ is approximated from its scattered data.
\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
|
\section{Introduction}
Ultra-high energy cosmic rays with energies above $10^{17}$ to $10^{18}$\,eV are observed through the extensive air showers they induce in the atmosphere.
To collect a statistically significant number of events, very-widely-spaced particle detectors at the ground level have been used to maximize the aperture of the observatories.
Typical detection methods, such as scintillator panels or water-Cherenkov tanks, observe an integrated charge that results from a convolution of the detector response with the local particle density, energy distribution, and arrival direction.
The spacing of the particle detectors turns out to be five to ten times larger than the Moli\`ere radius, which delineates the distance in which more than 90\% of the ionizing particles are contained.
Consequently, it has been an increasingly difficult task to determine the lateral distribution of particles on an event-by-event basis, and thus to use the associated total number of particles
for estimating the energy.
As an alternative energy estimator, the signal at a distance appropriate to the spacing of the shower array is used as a surrogate measurement of the shower size.
First proposed by Hillas~\cite{Hillas:1970,Hillas:1971}, the technique, successfully exploited by the Haverah Park Collaboration~\cite{Lawrence:1991cc}, was reviewed in details~\cite{Newton:2006wy} and adopted by the Pierre Auger Collaboration, the Telescope Array Collaboration, and others.
The conversion from shower size into primary energy may subsequently include several correction factors, calibrations, and/or comparisons with simulations.
The key point of the technique is to infer the shower size from the amount of signal that is expected to be measured by a detector at a reference distance, $\ensuremath{r_{\rm ref}}\xspace$, by fitting a lateral distribution function, \ensuremath{{\rm LDF}}\xspace, to the observed data.
At that specific distance, which depends on the topology of the surface array, the fluctuations in the age of the showers when reaching the ground, inherited from the stochastic variations in the location and character of the leading interactions, reflected in the fluctuations of the \ensuremath{{\rm LDF}}\xspace, are minimised.
In this way, the shower size is determined with adequate accuracy ($<10\%$).
While a further description of this technique is beyond the scope of this paper, it is important to note that if using a shower-size technique, the resolution with which the size can be determined ultimately sets the minimum resolution on the energy.
This estimation is done in practice by fitting the observed signal amplitudes, $S(r_i)$, at a distance, $r_i$, using an \ensuremath{{\rm LDF}}\xspace.
A common convention is to normalize the \ensuremath{{\rm LDF}}\xspace using the reference distance, \ensuremath{r_{\rm ref}}\xspace, such that $\ensuremath{{\rm LDF}}\xspace(\ensuremath{r_{\rm ref}}\xspace) \equiv 1$ and thus the shower size at the reference distance can be directly extracted from $S(r) = \ensuremath{S_{\rm ref}}\xspace\,\,\ensuremath{{\rm LDF}}\xspace(r)$.
The fit of such a model to determine the size of the air shower involves the determination of \emph{at least} five parameters, two which describe the orientation of the shower axis, two which define the intersection of the axis with a plane\footnote{Typically this plane is taken to be the ground in the local coordinate system.}, and \ensuremath{S_{\rm ref}}\xspace.
Additional parameters which describe the exact nature of the exponential decrease in signal size with distance from the shower axis may also be fit, but near the triggering threshold, there may not be enough degrees-of-freedom and an average \ensuremath{{\rm LDF}}\xspace is typically used, which is based on observed or simulated air showers.
The combination of the nearly power-law shape of the \ensuremath{{\rm LDF}}\xspace and the first-order cylindrical symmetry of the signals about the shower axis results in a non-trivial phase space for the log-likelihood function (LLH) that can hamper an accurate determination of the optimal parameters as well as their uncertainties.
The aim of this work is to explore carefully the LLH phase space for typical event topologies encountered in practice with contemporary observatories, i.e. the Pierre Auger Observatory and the Telescope Array.
We note that while the arrival direction of the air shower is important for e.g., anisotropy studies, the two parameters that define the intersection point, the \emph{impact point}, are generally nuisance parameters.
This allows for some freedom regarding the choice of parameters to describe the location of the impact point.
In this work, we show how the estimation of the uncertainties, particularly that of the logarithm of \ensuremath{S_{\rm ref}}\xspace, can be determined in a much more stable way when employing a ``log-polar'' coordinate system, rather than a Cartesian one.
In~\cref{sec:simulations}, we set the stage of the generic framework allowing us to develop an efficient tool to simulate and reconstruct events recorded by surface detectors.
Using this tool, we are able to extract event topologies leading to LLHs that cannot be approximated by quadratic dependencies in the reconstructed parameters.
To correct this issue, we propose in~\cref{sec:polar_coords} to change the coordinate system for the fit, switching to a log-polar one, and show that quadratic dependencies of the LLHs in the reconstructed parameters more accurately describe the true uncertainties.
Among a variety of possible high-level analyses, we show in~\cref{sec:application} how the energy calibration performed in a manner similar to that used at the Auger Observatory~\cite{Dembinski:2015wqa,PierreAuger:2020qqz} may benefit from accurate event-by-event uncertainties.
Finally, conclusions are given in~\cref{sec:conclusion}.
\section{Simulation and reconstruction of air showers}
\label{sec:simulations}
We employ a toy model for the simulation of signals in an air-shower array.
Rather than running e.g., full simulations of the particle cascades, we take the ideal case where the \ensuremath{{\rm LDF}}\xspace is known.
Shower-to-shower fluctuations are ignored, as they are nonessential for the purpose of this study.
In this way, the \ensuremath{{\rm LDF}}\xspace accurately describes the distribution of signals around the shower axis.
Showers are randomly sampled on a triangular array with 1.5\,km spacing, based on the layout of the Pierre Auger Observatory~\cite{PierreAuger:2015eyc}, see the left panel of \cref{fig:array}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.47\textwidth]{figures/HexagonalArray.pdf}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=.47\textwidth]{figures/SquareArray.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:array}
The layout of the triangular and square arrays (black circles) are shown in the left and right panels, respectively. The region over which the impact points are sampled for each layout is outlined in red.
}
\end{figure}
However, we will also show that the effect is the same for a square array with 1200\,m spacing, based on the arrangement of the surface array of Telescope Array~\cite{TelescopeArray:2012uws}.
Without loss of generality, all signals in this work are expressed in Vertical Equivalent Muon (VEM) units, regardless of the detector or of the particle species crossing the detector.
A VEM is defined as the sum of the charge collected for a single muon traversing vertically a detector (see e.g. ref.~\cite{PierreAuger:2005znw}).
The value of \ensuremath{S_{\rm ref}}\xspace is sampled randomly from a $\mathrm{d} N/\mathrm{d} \ensuremath{S_{\rm ref}}\xspace \propto \ensuremath{S_{\rm ref}}\xspace^{-1}$ spectrum and over a range that is commensurate with energies that correspond to $E > 3$~EeV for the 1500\,m surface detector of the Pierre Auger Observatory.
In this work, we will focus on air showers with a zenith angle of $40^\circ$.
A study on the zenith dependence is shown in the appendix and while a bias on the shower-size estimation is shown to exist at all angles, there is some dependence on the arrival direction in the exact characteristics.
A signal is assigned to each detector on the array using the \ensuremath{{\rm LDF}}\xspace,
\begin{equation}
S(r) = \ensuremath{S_{\rm ref}}\xspace \left( \frac{r}{\ensuremath{r_{\rm ref}}\xspace} \right)^\beta \left( \frac{r + r_0}{\ensuremath{r_{\rm ref}}\xspace + r_0} \right)^{\beta + \gamma},
\label{eq:ldf}
\end{equation}
with $\beta = -2.5$, $\gamma = 0.1$, $\ensuremath{r_{\rm ref}}\xspace = 1000$\,m, and $r_0 = 700$\,m.
The falloff of the signal from the shower axis is thus described by a logarithmic slope denoted as $\beta$, and by a small departure from a power-law at large distances governed by $\gamma$.
The signal assigned to each detector is additionally smeared using Gaussian fluctuations of width
\begin{equation}
\sigma(S) = A_S \sqrt{S}.
\end{equation}
The scaling in $\sqrt{S}$ has been shown to describe the Pierre Auger Observatory data~\cite{Ave:2007zz}.
The factor $A_S$, chosen to be 1 in this work, is not considering any dependence in zenith angle in this study\footnote{While a given detector may have a zenith-dependent $\sigma(S)$, here we only study a single zenith angle.}.
Finally, an ideal trigger is implemented which keeps only detectors with a signal above $S_{\rm T} = 3$.
While the values and formulas used above are based on those used for water-Cherenkov tanks at the Pierre Auger Observatory~\cite{PierreAuger:2020yab}, they are similar in nature to those used by other current air-shower experiments~\cite{Newton:2006wy,Yoshida:1994jf,TelescopeArray:2014nxa,IceCube:2012nn,Apel:2010zz} and the issue being discussed here is ultimately a geometric one and is not sensitive to these choices.
Also note that in this work, reconstructions will be performed with a fixed \ensuremath{{\rm LDF}}\xspace shape (i.e. $\beta$ and $\gamma$) and thus the choice of \ensuremath{r_{\rm ref}}\xspace is arbitrary and has no influence on the outcome of this study.
\subsection{Reconstructing the air-shower parameters}
\label{sec:reco}
In this study, we mostly study the shower-size estimation.
Since air-shower arrays can typically be used to reconstruct air showers to an accuracy of better than a few degrees~\cite{PierreAuger:2020yab,TelescopeArray:2014nxa,IceCube:2012nn,Apel:2010zz}, we will neglect the reconstruction of the shower arrival direction since it is a sub-dominant effect when reconstructing the shower size and is determined from arrival times rather than signal amplitudes.
Thus in this work, MINUIT is given only three parameters, \ensuremath{\lg S_{\rm ref}}\xspace and two parameters that determine the impact point.
In the beginning of this work, the impact point will be defined by the $(x,y)$ position in the ground plane, but we will define a better set of coordinates in \cref{sec:polar_coords}.
The model of an air shower, with the \ensuremath{{\rm LDF}}\xspace shape, is applied to the simulated data and the air shower parameters are fit by minimizing a negative log-likelihood that describes the probability to observe the set of signals, $\{S_i\}$, in each detector.
The likelihood is made of two main terms, one that describes the detectors which triggered, and one for those that did not\footnote{Throughout the paper, the notation $\lg$ stands for the decimal logarithm, while $\ln$ stands for the natural logarithm.},
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:llh}
-2\, {\rm LLH} = \sum_{i}^{\rm Triggered} \left[ \left( \frac{S_i - S(r_i)}{\sigma(S(r_i))} \right)^2 + \ln(2 \pi\,\sigma^2(S(r_i))) \right] - 2 \sum_{j}^{S_j = 0} \ln \left( P(S(r_j)) \right).
\end{equation}
The second sum describes the probability, $P(S)$, that no signal was observed when a signal, $S(r_j)$, is expected.
For Gaussian fluctuations, this probability is given by,
\begin{equation}
P(S) = 1 - \frac{1}{2} \left[ 1 + {\rm erf} \left( \frac{S - S_{\rm T}}{\sqrt{2}\,\, \sigma(S)} \right) \right].
\end{equation}
\subsection{Minimization and error estimation}
\label{sec:minimization}
The reconstruction of an air shower consists of two tasks, traversing through the LLH-space to find the (global, in the ideal case) minimum of \cref{eq:llh} and to characterize the curvature near this minimum to estimate the uncertainty.
Ideally, the whole LLH-space could be scanned and the global minimum can be directly identified.
However, this is typically impractical for a large data set and instead most algorithms require a well-estimated starting point and numerically calculate and follow the gradient of the LLH-space until a minimum is found.
This so-called \emph{gradient-descent} method does not ensure a global minimum is ultimately found and there are various other pitfalls, but a discussion of these issues is beyond the scope of this paper.
Many implementations of this algorithm exist and extensions on this basic concept have been developed, but in this work, we focus on MINUIT~\cite{James:1975dr}, the standard minimizer that is packaged with ROOT~\cite{Brun:1997pa}, which is commonly used in particle and air-shower physics.
To do the second task, MINUIT provides an estimate of the curvature in the neighborhood of the identified minimum in LLH-space.
The Hessian matrix of second-derivatives with respect to all of the free-parameters (impact point, \ensuremath{S_{\rm ref}}\xspace, etc.) is numerically calculated and then inverted to produce the covariance matrix.
This matrix is an estimate of the local curvature assuming that the LLH-space is quadratic near minimum and also provides the correlations between parameters.
This simplistic definition will be shown to be problematic for the reconstruction of a specific class of air showers where the LLH-space does not fulfill the quadratic assumption.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{figures/Reg_LLHSpaceCartesian.png}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{figures/Reg_LLHSpaceCartesian_MINUIT.png}\\
\vspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{figures/Bad_LLHSpaceCartesian.png}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{figures/Bad_LLHSpaceCartesian_MINUIT.png}
\caption{\label{fig:llhspacecart} The LLH-space for an event with a zenith angle of $40^\circ$ is shown. The color scale indicates the confidence interval of a given impact point being correct. The location with the largest LLH value is indicated with a black cross and the location of the detector with the largest signal is indicated by the black circle. The red lines are the contours of reconstructed \ensuremath{\lg S_{\rm ref}}\xspace values with respect to that of the largest LLH value, $\ensuremath{\lg S_{\rm ref}}\xspace / \lg S_{\rm best} = \{0.8, 1, 1.2\}$. The black lines show the 1$\sigma$, 2$\sigma$, and 3$\sigma$ contours. In the left panels, these contours represent the true ones while those in the right panel correspond to the ellipses given by the covariance matrix from MINUIT. The top and bottom panels show events where the shower axis is 227\,m and 84\,m from the shown detector location, respectively. In the panels on the right, the estimated uncertainty of the shower size, $\sigma_{\ensuremath{\lg S_{\rm ref}}\xspace}$, is shown in the lower left corner.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{LLH-space for air-shower events}
Using the LLH defined above, the difficulty for a numerical minimization routine to estimate the uncertainties for an air-shower reconstruction can be made evident.
Two example events of air showers with zenith angles of $40^\circ$ are shown in \cref{fig:llhspacecart}.
Each panel shows the results of a scan of the potential impact point locations in $(x, y)$ i.e., along the ground.
At each location, the impact point and arrival direction were held fixed and only the value of \ensuremath{\lg S_{\rm ref}}\xspace was left free.
The LLH space is seen to wrap around the detector with the largest signal, indicated by the black dot.
Exemplified by the 1$\sigma$, 2$\sigma$, and 3$\sigma$ contours, the LLH-space is stretched along the red lines of constant reconstructed \ensuremath{\lg S_{\rm ref}}\xspace, which also encircle the detector with the largest signal.
This curvature is expected, both for the LLH and the \ensuremath{\lg S_{\rm ref}}\xspace contours since the \ensuremath{{\rm LDF}}\xspace is dependent solely on $r$.
For an impact point location sufficiently far from a detector (e.g., top panels of \cref{fig:llhspacecart}), the 1$\sigma$ LLH-contour in Cartesian coordinates can be approximately described by an ellipse.
In this case, the second-derivative matrix calculated by MINUIT is sufficient to estimate the uncertainty.
Both the 1$\sigma$ LLH-contour and estimated ellipse reside inside the $\lg\ensuremath{S_{\rm ref}}\xspace / \lg S_{\rm best} = \{0.8, 1.2\}$ lines and are in agreement with the estimated uncertainty from MINUIT of $\sigma_{\ensuremath{\lg S_{\rm ref}}\xspace} \simeq 0.16$.
The bottom panels highlight the problem of estimating the uncertainty in \ensuremath{\lg S_{\rm ref}}\xspace.
In this case, the impact point is close enough to a detector that the highly-wrapped LLH-space is not sufficiently parabolic in Cartesian coordinates for the second-derivative calculation to provide a stable estimate of the uncertainty in \ensuremath{\lg S_{\rm ref}}\xspace.
The curvature about the detector is degenerate with a gradient of the LLH-space and the relative uncertainty of the shower size is estimated to be $\sigma_{\ensuremath{\lg S_{\rm ref}}\xspace} \simeq 0.07$ (bottom-right panel) even though the true 1$\sigma$ contour (bottom-left panel) shows that the uncertainty is at least 20\%.
For an air-shower experiment, this creates a erroneous result in the estimated uncertainties on \ensuremath{\lg S_{\rm ref}}\xspace depending on the impact point.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=7.1cm]{figures/DCore_Cartesian.png}
\hfill
\includegraphics[height=7.1cm]{figures/DSref_Cartesian.png}\\
\caption{\label{fig:sref_err_cart_hex} Left: Estimated relative uncertainty of the shower-size, as calculated using MINUIT, for 50\,000 simulated air showers. This distribution is shown as a function of the distance of the detector with the largest signal from the shower axis. The values in red are those with $\ensuremath{R_{\rm hot}}\xspace < 200$\,m. Right: Histogram of the uncertainty for simulations with $\ensuremath{R_{\rm hot}}\xspace \geq 200$\,m as a function of the true shower size \ensuremath{\lg S_{\rm ref}}\xspace. The red points are the same events that are shown in red in the left panel.}
\end{figure}
To study the phase space of impact points where this effect is most prominent, 50\,000 events were simulated and reconstructed. Random uniform azimuth angles were chosen and the impact points were uniformly picked within the boundaries highlighted in~\cref{fig:array}. The impact point $(x,y)$ and \ensuremath{\lg S_{\rm ref}}\xspace were left as free parameters during the minimization.
The errors on \ensuremath{\lg S_{\rm ref}}\xspace, as estimated by the MINUIT algorithm, are shown in \cref{fig:sref_err_cart_hex}.
As seen in the left panel, the relative uncertainty decreases with increasing the distance from the shower axis, \ensuremath{R_{\rm hot}}\xspace, to the detector with the largest signal.
However, for small values of \ensuremath{R_{\rm hot}}\xspace, shown in red, there is an opposite trend and the uncertainties are up to an order of magnitude too small.
In the right panel, the distribution of events is shown versus shower size, again with small values of \ensuremath{R_{\rm hot}}\xspace shown in red.
The underestimated shower uncertainties are seen to occur at all shower-size values meaning that this effect is independent of the number of triggered detectors.
\section{Fitting in log-polar coordinates}
\label{sec:polar_coords}
\subsection{Log-polar coordinates}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.6\textwidth]{figures/shower_frame-1.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:showerfront}Diagram of the shower frame coordinate system: the $Z$ axis is along the shower axis $\mathbf{n}_{\rm s}$, the $X$ axis is along $\mathbf{n}_{\rm v}$ in the vertical plane going through the shower axis, and the $Y$ axis is along $\mathbf{n}_{\rm h}$ in the horizontal plane. In this coordinate system, $\psi$ is used to describe the polar angle about the shower axis, see~\cref{eq:coordsys}.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{figures/Reg_LLHSpacePolar.png}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{figures/Reg_LLHSpacePolar_MINUIT.png}\\
\vspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{figures/Bad_LLHSpacePolar.png}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{figures/Bad_LLHSpacePolar_MINUIT.png}
\caption{\label{fig:llhspacepolar} The top and bottom panels show the LLH-space for the same two events as those in \cref{fig:llhspacecart}, this time calculated in the log-polar coordinate system. The true 1$\sigma$, 2$\sigma$, and 3$\sigma$ LLH contours are given in the left panels while the right panels are the respective ellipses from the covariance matrix from MINUIT.}
\end{figure}
The issue described above is ultimately related to the non-parabolic nature of the LLH-space in terms of the parameters that are given to the minimizer, namely the Cartesian location of the impact point.
Instead we propose a more natural coordinate system for the task of reconstructing the impact point and size.
To develop the new parameters, we first define the Cartesian \emph{ground coordinate system} wherein an air shower has zenith and azimuth angles of $\theta$ and $\phi$, respectively, and the impact point is described by the $(x,y)$ intersection of the shower axis with the ground.
This system is depicted in~\cref{fig:showerfront} wherein a sampling area, such as that around the black point, is the projection onto the ground, along the $Z$ axis, of a region in the shower plane $(X,Y)$.
The shower frame is thus defined by $\mathbf{n}_{\rm s}$ and two perpendicular axes, for example an horizontal one, $\mathbf{n}_{\rm h}$, and the other one, $\mathbf{n}_{\rm v}$, into the vertical plane containing $\mathbf{n}_{\rm s}$.
We consider in the following the shower-front coordinates obtained from the ground ones as,
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:coordsys0}
\begin{align}
X_{\rm sc} &= (\Delta x_{\rm hot} \cos \phi + \Delta y_{\rm hot} \sin\phi) \cos \theta \label{eq:x_sc},\\
Y_{\rm sc} &= -\Delta x_{\rm hot} \sin \phi + \Delta y_{\rm hot} \cos \phi \label{eq:y_sc}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Here, $\Delta x_{\rm hot}$ and $\Delta y_{\rm hot}$ define a Cartesian location in the ground coordinate system with respect to the detector with the largest signal.
The values of $X_{\rm sc}$ and $Y_{\rm sc}$ are the 2D Cartesian locations in the shower coordinate system.
To reconstruct the air-shower size, we then propose the ``log-polar'' coordinate system defined by the transformation into the shower plane,
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:coordsys}
\begin{align}
R &= \sqrt{X_{\rm sc}^2 + Y_{\rm sc}^2} \label{eq:lg_r},\\
\Psi &= \arctan2(Y_{\rm sc}, X_{\rm sc}) \label{eq:phi}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The new variables for reconstructing air showers are given by $\lg R$ and $\Psi$, the log-radius and polar angle about a line that is parallel to the shower axis and passes through the detector with largest signal.
In addition, \ensuremath{\lg S_{\rm ref}}\xspace, the (decimal) logarithm of \ensuremath{S_{\rm ref}}\xspace, is considered as the third free parameter.
The choice of anchoring this coordinate system to the detector with the largest signal is motivated by the curvature of the LLH-space, as previously seen in \cref{fig:llhspacecart}.
\subsection{Results}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=7.1cm]{figures/DCore_Polar.png}
\hfill
\includegraphics[height=7.1cm]{figures/DSref_Polar.png}\\
\caption{\label{fig:sref_err_polar_hex} The same distributions as shown in \cref{fig:sref_err_cart_hex}, using the same 50\,000 Monte Carlo trials, but calculating the shower-size uncertainty using the log-polar coordinates defined in \cref{eq:coordsys}.}
\end{figure}
In \cref{fig:llhspacepolar}, the same two example events are shown in the log-polar coordinate system defined above.
For both sample events, several nice properties of the LLH space are seen.
Firstly, in this space, the lines of constant reconstructed \ensuremath{\lg S_{\rm ref}}\xspace are almost independent of the $\Psi$ coorduncinate.
This is beneficial as this means that the correlation between $\Psi$ and \ensuremath{\lg S_{\rm ref}}\xspace is small, regardless of the direction of the shower propagation, which is helpful for attaining a more robust estimate of the shower-size uncertainty.
Secondly, the $1\sigma$ contours are more elliptical meaning that the assumption when using the Hessian matrix method is more valid and will typically return a better error estimate.
We repeated the study shown in \cref{fig:sref_err_cart_hex} on the same 50\,000 simulated events but using the log-polar coordinate system described above.
The results are shown in \cref{fig:sref_err_polar_hex}.
In this case, the uncertainty estimation is much more well behaved with most of the events with $\ensuremath{R_{\rm hot}}\xspace < 200~$m appearing now in a narrow band as a function of \ensuremath{S_{\rm ref}}\xspace.
This band occurs because shower axes that pass very near to a detector are necessarily maximally far from all other detectors.
On one hand, this will produce less triggered detectors per event.
On the other hand, for the detectors with signal, the uncertainties, which scale like $\sqrt{S(r)} / S(r) = 1/\sqrt{\ensuremath{{\rm LDF}}\xspace(r)} \propto r^{-\beta / 2}$, will be larger than average for a given shower size.
Although the ``hottest'' detector has the smallest relative uncertainty, its weight in the fit is mitigated compared to that of other detectors.
This is because a small shift $\delta r$ in the impact point results in a relative change $\beta\,\delta r/r$ for $S$ and is proportional to $r^{-\beta/2-1}$ in units of $\sigma(S)$.
The fitting procedure can thus change the expected signal of the hottest detector at a low cost through a change of the impact point, without affecting the expectation for the other detectors.
All in all, these effects produce a less constrained LLH space and results in a larger uncertainty in the shower size.
While there are a few outliers, these make up only $\sim$\,0.1\% of all events.
\subsection{Dependence on array geometry}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=7.1cm]{figures/DCore_TA_Cart.png}
\hfill
\includegraphics[height=7.1cm]{figures/DSref_TA_Cart.png}\\
\vspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[height=7.1cm]{figures/DCore_TA_Polar.png}
\hfill
\includegraphics[height=7.1cm]{figures/DSref_TA_Polar.png}
\caption{\label{fig:ta_spacing} The distributions of the relative estimated shower-size uncertainty are shown for the Telescope Array detector layout. In this case, the red points are defined by events with $\ensuremath{R_{\rm hot}}\xspace < 100$\,m. The top panels correspond to reconstructions using Cartesian coordinates (as in \cref{fig:sref_err_cart_hex}) while the bottom panels correspond to reconstructions using the log-polar coordinates (as in \cref{fig:sref_err_polar_hex}).}
\end{figure}
Given that this work is focused on a geometric issue, it is important to understand how the layout of the array ultimately impacts the shower-size estimation.
We contrast the main results shown above after changing to the surface detector layout of Telescope Array, a square grid with 1200\,m spacing between detectors, as shown in the right panel of \cref{fig:array}.
The results are shown in \cref{fig:ta_spacing}.
For the more dense detector arrangement, more detectors are triggered for a given shower size and the precision on \ensuremath{\lg S_{\rm ref}}\xspace is better.
However, it is clear that the same issue is present for this array configuration, as seen in the top panels.
The radius at which the shower size uncertainty undergoes an inflection is even in a similar location given the length scales involved, occurring at $\ensuremath{R_{\rm hot}}\xspace / d_{\rm spacing} \simeq 0.125$ where $d_{\rm spacing}$ is either 1500\,m or 1200\,m for the respective array layouts.
Ultimately, a significant improvement is still observed by using the log-polar coordinates in the air shower reconstruction, as seen in the bottom panels.
\subsection{Effects of saturation}
In measured air-shower data, detectors near the shower axis can saturate, providing an unreliable estimate of the signal content at that point.
Since it is exactly these types of showers that result in non-quadratic LLH contours, it is worthwhile to consider the way that saturated stations may impact the results presented above.
While the non-linear effects that occur near the upper end of the dynamic range of a detector will be hardware-dependent, we show a few limiting cases for handling saturated detectors during reconstruction.
In the first case, the underlying signal that would have been measured in the absence of saturation is recovered post-hoc.
Whether by analytical methods or using machine learning, various techniques have been employed to estimate the would-be signal in saturated detectors, e.g.~\cite{Yue:2003fh, Veberic:2013suc, Liu:2019dvt}.
In the best case, the signal that would have been measured is precisely estimated with the result that effectively nothing has changed with respect to the results shown above.
In the less ideal case, the recovery introduces an additional uncertainty, i.e. $\sigma(S) \longrightarrow \sigma(S) + \Delta(S)$, which can simply be taken into account in the reconstruction (\cref{eq:llh}).
This would widen the LLH contours, depending on the relative size of $\Delta(S)$, but would not remove the non-quadratic behavior close to the saturated detector.
Alternatively, a corresponding term can be included in the likelihood function to describe the probability that a detector observes saturation given an expected signal.
In the case of ideal saturation, where signals only up to \ensuremath{S_{\rm sat.}}\xspace can be observed, the corresponding term to include in~\cref{eq:llh} is,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:LLH_sat_term}
- 2 \sum_k^{\rm saturated} \ln\left(1 - {\rm erf}\left(\frac{\ensuremath{S_{\rm sat.}}\xspace - S_{k}}{\sqrt{2}\,\,\sigma(S_k)} \right) \right).
\end{equation}
This was tested within the framework of this toy model using $\ensuremath{S_{\rm sat.}}\xspace = 1000$ and the results are shown in the left panel of~\cref{fig:saturation}.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{figures/DSref_SatLLH.png}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{figures/DSref_SatRemoved.png}
\caption{\label{fig:saturation} Left: The uncertainty in the shower size, when using an additional term in the LLH to account for saturated stations (\cref{eq:LLH_sat_term}) when performing a reconstruction using Cartesian coordinates. Right: The same figure when ignoring saturated stations in during the reconstruction of the air-shower size. Both panels in this figure are directly comparable to~\cref{fig:sref_err_cart_hex}.}
\end{figure}
In this case, the Cartesian coordinates already present a good estimation of the shower size uncertainty.
This is a result of the rather non-restrictive nature of the additional term in~\cref{eq:LLH_sat_term} for which expected signals of 1500 and 15\,000 (i.e. larger and smaller \ensuremath{R_{\rm hot}}\xspace values) give a probabilities that are indistinguishable from each other within typical numerical precision.
This term does not have the ``repulsive" effect that is observed in~\cref{fig:llhspacecart} and thus the LLH-space is already fairly quadratic.
However, this comes at the cost of roughly half an order of magnitude in statistical precision which can be important for performing a physics analysis on the highest-energy cosmic rays.
In the final case, the saturated detector is completely ignored during the reconstruction of the air-shower size and effectively treated as a hole in the array.
This was studied using a saturation threshold of 1000 and is shown in the right panel of~\cref{fig:saturation}.
Similar to the previous case, the lack of repulsion from the hottest detector does not warp the LLH space in Cartesian coordinates.
The estimations are again robust but at the cost of numerical precision on \ensuremath{S_{\rm ref}}\xspace.
Note that the exact details of the gap in precision between the events with and without saturation and where these distributions begin as a function of air-shower size depend on the \ensuremath{{\rm LDF}}\xspace shape, the true air-shower size, and the details of detector system.
Shower-to-shower fluctuations, ignored in this study, should also have impact.
However, it can be concluded that in the second and third cases, when the saturated detectors do not have any effective influence on the preferred core location, the use of Cartesian coordinates does not exhibit the biases in the uncertainty of \ensuremath{S_{\rm ref}}\xspace.
Finally, note that using the log-polar coordinate system produces equivalent uncertainty values for the second and third cases and is thus still a more robust system that can account for any of the methods described above.
\section{Application example}
\label{sec:application}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{figures/lgEcalib-1real.pdf}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{figures/lgEcalib-covpb.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:lgEcalib} Left: Example of correlation between fluorescence-based energy estimate and shower size estimate, in terms of (decimal) logarithms. Right: Distribution of reconstructed parameters (blue) that establish the linear relationship between $\lg E$ and \ensuremath{\lg S_{\rm ref}}\xspace. The red star indicates the average reconstructed value and the black lines are the $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ contours.}
\end{figure}
The change of parameters proposed in this study allows for keeping a correct meaning of the covariance matrix for any event topology.
The use of \ensuremath{\lg S_{\rm ref}}\xspace instead of $\ensuremath{S_{\rm ref}}\xspace$ may thus be advantageous for several high-level analyses requiring an accurate event-by-event uncertainty.
The price to pay is to redesign the analyses in terms of the variable \ensuremath{\lg S_{\rm ref}}\xspace.
Among other emblematic analyses, we choose to exemplify below such a redesign for the conversion of $\ensuremath{S_{\rm ref}}\xspace$ into energy.
The general strategy currently employed at both the Pierre Auger Observatory and the Telescope Array to carry out this conversion consists in using a set of data with which there are reconstructed shower sizes and an energy assignment by another means.
For the Pierre Auger Observatory, this is done using a special set of air showers that can be reconstructed independently by the fluorescence technique and by the surface detector array~\cite{PierreAuger:2020qqz} while for the Telescope Array, Monte Carlo simulations are used instead.
As an example of how the energy conversion can be derived using the estimated uncertainties, we use the former procedure.
An empirical relationship between the energy measurements from the fluorescence technique and shower size measurements then allows for setting a nearly-calorimetric energy scale.
To derive this relationship, we adapt below the likelihood-based strategy from~\cite{Dembinski:2015wqa,PierreAuger:2020qqz} to a setup that, although simplified, mimics the main features of the Pierre Auger Observatory.
$E$ and $\ensuremath{S_{\rm ref}}\xspace$ are generally related through a power-low relationship, $E=A\ensuremath{S_{\rm ref}}\xspace^B$.
The aim of the procedure is to infer the $a=\lg{A}$ and $b=B$ parameters governing the linear relationship between $\lg E$ and \ensuremath{\lg S_{\rm ref}}\xspace:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:lgElgS}
\lg (E/{\rm eV})=a+b\lg\ensuremath{S_{\rm ref}}\xspace.
\end{equation}
The choices $a=-0.7$ and $b=1$ are fairly representative of those found in the Auger data~\cite{PierreAuger:2020qqz}.
To build the relevant likelihood function, we model the distribution of
$\lg\hat{E}$ and $\lg\hat{S}$ values for events detected simultaneously by both techniques as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:raw_event_rate}
\frac{\mathrm{d}^2 N}{\mathrm{d}\lg\hat{E}~\mathrm{d}\lg\hat{S}}=\iint\mathrm{d}\lg E~\mathrm{d}\lg S~R_{\mathrm{FD}}(\lg\hat{E};E)~R_{\mathrm{SD}}(\lg\hat{S};\lg S)~\delta(\lg S,\lg S(\lg E))~\frac{\mathrm{d}^2 N}{\mathrm{d}\lg E~\mathrm{d}\lg S},
\end{equation}
where quantities with a hat denote estimators and, to render the notations more compact, \ensuremath{S_{\rm ref}}\xspace is denoted as $S$.
In this expression, the underlying event rate, $\mathrm{d}^2N/\mathrm{d}\lg E\,\mathrm{d}\lg S$, is folded into the resolution function of the fluorescence detector, $R_{\mathrm{FD}}$, and that of the surface-array detectors, $R_{\mathrm{SD}}$, both expressed in terms of $\lg E$ and $\lg S$, respectively.
In addition, the Dirac delta function guarantees that the underlying relationship given by~\cref{eqn:lgElgS} is satisfied.
The energy resolution of the fluorescence technique is well described as a Gaussian curve with parameters $\mu_E=E$ and $\sigma_E=0.08E$~\cite{PierreAuger:2020qqz}.
To express the function $R_{\mathrm{FD}}$ in terms of $\lg\hat{E}$ as the primary variable, we thus proceed with the associated Jacobian transformation.\footnote{That is, $R_{\mathrm{FD}}(\lg\hat{E};E)=10^{\lg\hat{E}}\exp(-(10^{\lg\hat{E}}-\mu_E)^2/2\sigma_E^2)\ln 10/\sqrt{2\pi\sigma_E^2}$.}
On the other hand, $R_{\mathrm{SD}}$ can be considered as Gaussian in terms of $\lg\hat{S}$ (log-normal law in $S$ with parameters $\mu_{\lg S}=\lg S$ and $\sigma_{\lg S}$ extracted from~\cref{sec:polar_coords}/~\cref{fig:sref_err_polar_hex}).
Note that to simplify the example application of non-essential ingredients for demonstrating the robustness of the method, only the contribution to $R_{\mathrm{SD}}$ stemming from the detector sampling fluctuations are considered; that is, shower-to-shower fluctuations of $\ensuremath{S_{\rm ref}}\xspace$ are here ignored.
Carrying out the integration in $\lg S$, the probability density function to observe an event with $\lg\hat{E}$ and $\lg\hat{S}$ values is then described as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:p}
p(\lg\hat{E},\lg\hat{S})=\frac{1}{N}\int\mathrm{d}\lg E~R_{\mathrm{FD}}(\lg\hat{E};E)~R_{\mathrm{SD}}(\lg\hat{S};\lg S(\lg E))~\frac{\mathrm{d} N}{\mathrm{d}\lg E},
\end{equation}
where the normalisation factor $N$ is the total number of events detected by the fluorescence technique.
The likelihood function is finally the product of this expression over the observed $N_{\mathrm{hyb}}$ values of $\lg\hat{E}$ and $\lg\hat{S}$.
To proceed with the likelihood-based strategy, we make use of the bootstrapping technique to substitute the underlying event rate for the observed energies, $\mathrm{d} N/\mathrm{d}\lg E \rightarrow E\sum_i\delta(E,\hat{E}_i)$.
In this way, the final expression of the LLH to maximize reads as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:llhcalib}
\ln \mathcal{L}=\sum_{k=1}^{N_{\mathrm{hyb}}}\ln \left(\frac{1}{2\pi N}\sum_{i=1}^N \frac{1}{\sigma_{E_i}\sigma_{\lg S_i}}\frac{10^{\lg\hat{E}_k}}{10^{\lg\hat{S}_k}}
\exp{\left[-\frac{\left(10^{\lg\hat{E}_k}-\mu_{E_i}\right)^2}{2\sigma_{E_i}^2}\right]}
\exp{\left[-\frac{\left(10^{\lg\hat{S}_k}-\mu_{\lg S_i}\right)^2}{2\sigma_{\lg S_i}^2}\right]}
\right),
\end{equation}
using the notation $\mu_{E_i}=\lg \hat{E}_i$, $\mu_{\lg S_i}=(\lg\hat{E}_i-\hat{a})/\hat{b}$, and where both uncertainty-related terms $\sigma_{E_i}$ and $\sigma_{\lg S_i}$ are estimated by the event-by-event uncertainties.
We illustrate in~\cref{fig:lgEcalib} the statistical performances of the minimisation of $-2\ln\mathcal{L}$ to recover $a$ and $b$ by generating 1,000 mock samples of events above 1\,EeV until $N_\mathrm{hyb}=3\,000$ events -- typical of the number of hybrid events recorded at the Pierre Auger Observatory -- are drawn above 3\,EeV.
We use the energy spectrum that is reported in ref.~\cite{PierreAuger:2020qqz}.
The correlation recovered between $\lg S$ and $\lg E$ is shown as the red line in the left panel for one of the mock samples, while the couple of $\hat{a}$ and $\hat{b}$ values recovered for the 1,000 realisations are shown as the blue points in the right panel.
The red star is observed to be consistent with the injected $a$ and $b$ values while the expected 68\% and 95\% elliptic contours are obtained from the average covariance matrix returned by MINUIT.
The coverage probabilities from the 1,000 samples are 68.5\% and 97.0\%, consistent with the expectations. The uncertainties in $10^{\hat{a}}$ and $\hat{b}$ are of the same magnitude to those in $\hat{A}$ and $\hat{B}$.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
In this paper, we investigated the accuracy of the uncertainty in air-shower size estimation.
While the uncertainty may be interpreted in the usual way when the errors in the impact point are small compared to the distances from the shower axis to the detectors, this is no longer the case for event topologies where the shower axis is close to a detector.
We showed that in such cases, the LLH-space is highly curved in the ground coordinate system.
For any algorithm that estimates uncertainties using the Hessian matrix formalism i.e., assumes a parabolic shape in the LLH-space, this presents a challenge.
Using a set of toy Monte Carlo air-shower simulations, we showed that this effect is present for both triangular and square array layouts.
However, this effect can be mitigated by choosing a better set of coordinates to describe the shower impact point.
We propose the log-polar coordinate system which is centered on the detector with the largest signal and thus the one around which the LLH-space would be wrapped.
In this coordinate system, the covariance between the shower size and the polar angle coordinate, $\Psi$, is almost decoupled and the LLH-space is better approximated by parabolic curvature near the minimum.
We note that while this will not result in a systematically better estimation of the impact point (nor a worse one), it does produce a better estimation of the shower-size uncertainty.
As this bias is an effect that occurs when the shower axis close to one particular station, we also studied the effects of saturation.
The Cartesian coordinate system produces acceptable estimations of the uncertainty of the air-shower size when the saturated detectors are either ignored or simply accounted for in the LLH calculation.
This comes at the cost of a degraded statistical precision on the air-shower energy and affects the highest-energy events more readily.
When performing a signal recovery on the saturated detectors, the log-polar system is again required and the statistical estimation of the air-shower size (as well as the cosmic ray energy) is improved.
With more modern methods, such as machine learning, or when simply using better hardware with a larger dynamic range, saturation effects can be mitigated or removed entirely.
In any of the cases above, reconstructing using the log-polar coordinate system will produce robust results.
An accurate event-by-event uncertainty of the shower-size estimator may be beneficial for a large variety of high-level analyses.
As an application example, we have shown for instance that the event-by-event uncertainty can be used for the energy calibration of the shower size.
While this application is emblematic for the use of the shower size, any high-level analysis making use of
event-by-event estimations of uncertainty will benefit from the technique described here.
This includes those which make an event selection based on identifying high-quality events via their estimated uncertainty.
All that is required is to design the analyses in terms of $\lg S$ as the primary variable.
|
\section{Introduction}
In 1966, a famous paper ``Can one hear the shape of a drum?" by Mark Kac investigates the possibility of inferring the shape of a domain from the spectral property of the Laplace operator defined on this domain \cite{kac1966}. Although it is eventually proved that the shape of a domain cannot be uniquely determined except a certain class of planar domain with analytic boundary \cite{zelditch2000spectral}, some information about the domain can still be inferred from the eigenvalue set of the Laplace operator; please refer to \cite{weyl1911asymptotische, ivrii1980second} for further details. Motivated by this spirit, the present paper investigates the approach of inferring the property of a multi-dimensional landscape by ``knocking" it and ``listening" the sound, where by ``knocking" a multi-dimensional landscape, we mean to simulate a overdamped Langevin dynamics along the potential landscape. More specifically, we run a large number of samples of two coupled trajectories of the overdamped Langevin dynamics to infer the landscape properties from the statistics of the coupling times. By the coupling lemma, the tail distribution of the coupling times provides a lower bound of the spectral gap of the Fokker-Planck operator of the overdamped Langevin dynamics. In this way, our approach, similar to that in Kac's paper, makes an attempt to establish a connection between the characteristics of the potential landscape and the spectral property of the corresponding operator.
We are interested in the multi-dimensional potential functions that have finitely many local minima. Potential landscapes arise naturally in various areas \cite{kauffman1987, krugman1994, wales_book2003}
which can be of simple type that has only one equilibrium, or be of more complex types that support multiple basins of attractions
with the emergence of many local minima.
To put in the mathematical way,
let
$U$ be a smooth function on a regular domain $D\subseteq\mathbb{R}^k (k\ge1)$ with the local minima $x_1,...,x_L.$
Generically, under the deterministic
negative gradient flow $(\varphi^t)_{t\ge0}$ of $U$, $x_i$'s are the stable equilibria of $\varphi^t.$ For each $i\in\{1,...,L\},$ call
$B_i=\{x\in D:\varphi^t(x)\to x_i\ \mbox{as} \ t\to\infty\}$
the basin (of attraction) of $x_i.$
A smooth function $U$ is called a single-well potential if it has only one local minimum $x_1$ such that $D=B_1$; $U$ is called a multi-well potential if
$2\le L<\infty$ and $D=\left (\bigcup_{1\le i\le L}B_i \right ) \bigcup N$, where $N$ is a measure-zero set. A multi-well potential is
in particular called a double-well potential if $L=2.$
This paper proposes a probabilistic approach to classify between the landscapes of single- and multi-well potential functions. Our approach makes strong use of the coupling idea in probability. Given two stochastic processes $\boldsymbol X=\{X_t;t\ge0\}$ and $\boldsymbol Y=\{Y_t;t\ge0\}$, a coupling of $\boldsymbol X$ and $\boldsymbol Y$ is a stochastic process $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t); t\ge0\}$ such that (i)
for any $t>0,$
${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ are respectively identically distributed with $X_t$ and $Y_t$; (ii)
if ${\mathcal X}_s ={\mathcal Y}_s$ for certain $s>0,$ then ${\mathcal X}_t ={\mathcal Y}_t$ for all $t\ge s.$
The first meeting time of ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$, called the {\it coupling time}, is denoted by a random variable
\begin{eqnarray}\label{coupling_time1}
\tau_c=\inf\nolimits_{t\ge0} \{{\mathcal X}_t={\mathcal Y}_t\}.
\end{eqnarray}
A coupling $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t);t\ge0\}$ is said to be successful if $\tau_c<\infty$ almost surely.
In our setting, the two stochastic processes to be coupled, i.e., $\boldsymbol X$ and $\boldsymbol Y$ as above, will be the overdamped Langevin dynamics of $U$ given by the following stochastic differential equation(SDE)
\begin{eqnarray}\label{SDE1}
dZ_t=-\nabla U(Z_t)dt+\varepsilon dB_t,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\{B_t;t\ge0\}$ is the Brownian motion, and $\varepsilon>0$ scales the noise magnitude. Throughout the paper, the following is always assumed\footnote{In the single-well setting, {\bf (U1)} ensures the existence of a global strong solution of \eqref{SDE1}; in the multi-well setting, further assumptions on the finiteness and non-degeneracy on the saddle points and local minima, as stated in {\bf (U2)} or {\bf (U3)}(iii), guarantees this \cite{Baur}.} for the potential function $U$.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf (U1)}
The potential function $U\in C^3(D),$ where $D$ is open, convex and connected, such that
$\lim\nolimits_{x\to\partial D}U(x)=\infty$, and if $D$ is unbounded, it further holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lim\nolimits_{x\to\partial D}|\nabla U|=\infty,\ \lim\nolimits_{x\to\partial D}|\nabla U(x)|-2\Delta U(x)=\infty,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $|\cdot|$ denotes the Euclidean norm.
\medskip
To couple two stochastic processes, various coupling methods can be used in the different contexts \cite{lindvall2002}. In this paper, to achieve {numerical efficiency}, a {\it mixture} use of the reflection and maximal coupling methods is applied. More specifically, with certain threshold distance $d>0,$ the coupling $({\mathcal X}_t, {\mathcal Y}_t)$ is switched between the reflection and maximal couplings according to whether the distance $|{\mathcal X}_t-{\mathcal Y}_t|$ is greater than $d$ or not. To be more precise, let $({\mathcal X}_t, {\mathcal Y}_t)$ evolve according to the reflection coupling if $|{\mathcal X}_t-{\mathcal Y}_t|>d$ and be switched to the maximal coupling whenever $|{\mathcal X}_t-{\mathcal Y}_t|\le d$; see Section 2 for more details.
We call such mixed use of the reflection and maximal coupling methods the {\it reflection-maximal coupling} scheme.
How can the threshold $d$ be chosen? In our numerical scheme based on the reflection-maximal coupling, $d$ will be closely related to the time step size $h>0.$ More precisely, denote $\hat{\boldsymbol X}^h=\{\hat{X}_n^h;n\ge0\}$ ({\it resp.} $\hat{\boldsymbol Y}^h=\{\hat{Y}_n^h;n\ge0\}$) the Euler–Maruyama scheme of $\boldsymbol X$ ({\it resp.} $\boldsymbol Y$) with the time step size $h$, i.e., $\hat X^h_n=\hat X^h_{n-1}-\nabla U(\hat X^h_{n-1})h+\varepsilon\sqrt{h}N_n$ ({\it resp.} $\hat Y^h_n=\hat Y^h_{n-1}-\nabla U(\hat Y^h_{n-1})h+\varepsilon\sqrt{h}N_n)$, where $\{N_n\}$ are i.i.d standard normal random variables.
The threshold distance $d$ is chosen to be proportional to the (directional) standard deviations of the distribution of the random variable $\varepsilon\sqrt{h}N_n$,
i.e., $d=\mathcal O(\varepsilon\sqrt{h}).$
This guarantees a sufficient overlap between the distributions of $\hat X^h_{n}$ and $\hat Y^h_{n}$ if, assume at the previous step,
$|\hat X^h_{n-1}-\hat Y^h_{n-1}|<d.$ Then under the reflection-maximal coupling scheme, $(\hat X^h_{n},\hat Y^h_{n})$ is a maximal coupling and the probability $\mathbb{P}[\hat X^h_{n}=\hat Y^h_{n}]$ is in order $\mathcal{O}(1);$ see Lemma \ref{lem:max_coupling} for more details. Henceforth, by an $h$-reflection-maximal coupling we put particular emphasis on the choice of the time step size $h$, and by a reflection-maximal coupling (without $h$) we mean that
the coupling is implemented under the reflection-maximal coupling scheme
with a generally small $h$ and no further emphasis on its value.
We investigate how the exponential tail of the coupling time distributions of the overdamped Langevin dynamics depends on the noise magnitudes. Our main message is, this dependency will be both quantitatively and qualitatively different between potential functions with only a single well and those with double or multiple wells. More specifically, we prove that under the reflection-maximal coupling scheme,
for a {strongly convex} single-well potential (see \eqref{def:unif_convex} below),
the exponential tail of $\mathbb{P}[\tau_c>t]$ is uniformly bounded away from zero independent of $\varepsilon$; see Theorem \ref{thm:1}. For double- or multi-well potential functions, the exponential tail, however, is exponentially small with respect to the noise magnitude; see Theorem \ref{thm:2} and Theorem \ref{thm:5}.
\medskip
A single-well potential function $U$ is said to be {\it strongly convex} with constant $m_0>0$ if
\begin{eqnarray}\label{def:unif_convex}
\langle\nabla U(x)-\nabla U(y), x-y\rangle\ge m_0|x-y|^2,\quad \forall x,y\in D,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ denotes the standard inner product in $\mathbb{R}^k$.
The supremum of all positive $m_0$ satisfying \eqref{def:unif_convex} is called the convexity parameter. Throughout this paper, $m_0$ always denotes the convexity parameter.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:1}
Let $U$ be a single-well potential
satisfying {\bf (U1)}. Assume that $U$ is
strongly convex with constant $m_0>0.$ Then, given any $\delta>0$ there exists $h_0>0$ such that for any $h\in(0,h_0)$,
if $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t);t\ge0\}$ is an $h$-reflection-maximal coupling of two solutions of \eqref{SDE1} satisfying $\mathbb{E}[|{\mathcal X}_0-{\mathcal Y}_0|]<\infty,$ for all $\varepsilon > 0$, it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\limsup_{t\to\infty}\dfrac{1}{t}
\log\mathbb{P}[\tau_c>t]\le-m_0+\delta. \end{eqnarray*}
\end{theorem}
\medskip
In the situation that the potential function $U$ is double-well with only two local minima, a crucial quantity is the {\it least} barrier height to be passed by any continuous path connecting the two local minima. Given any two subsets $A,B\subseteq D,$ define the communication height between $A$ and $B$ as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{tilde U}
\Phi(A,B)=\inf_{\substack{\phi(t)\in C([0,1],D),\\ \phi(0)\in A,\ \phi(1)\in B}}\sup\nolimits_{t\in[0,1]}U(\phi(t)),
\end{eqnarray}
where the infimum runs over all the continuous paths in $D.$
For a double-well potential $U$ with two local minima $x_1,x_2$, define the {\it essential barrier height}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{barrier_height}
H_U=\min\big\{\Phi(x_1,x_2)-U(x_1), \Phi(x_1,x_2)-U(x_2)\big\},
\end{eqnarray}
the {\it lower} height of the two barriers that has to be crossed from one local minimum to the other.
\medskip
In the double-well setting, the following potential functions, which are generic in certain sense, are to be considered.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf (U2)}
Let $U:D\to\mathbb{R}$
be a double-well potential function satisfying {\bf (U1)} with two local minima $x_1, x_2$ such that
\medskip
\noindent{(i)} The communication height between $x_1$ and $x_2$ is reached at a unique saddle point $z^*(x_1,x_2),$ i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray*}
U(z^*(x_1,x_2))=\Phi(x_1,x_2);
\end{eqnarray*}
\medskip
\noindent{(ii)} $U$ is non-degenerate (i.e., the Hessian of $U$ has only non-zero eigenvalues) at the two local minima $x_1,x_2,$ and the saddle point $z^*(x_1,x_2).$
\medskip
\medskip
Besides assumptions for potential functions, in the double-well, and more generally, the multi-well settings, the coupling scheme is also required to satisfy certain intuitive conditions which, in particular for the reflection-maximal coupling scheme, can be numerically verified. In the double-well setting, certain``local" coupling properties are assumed when the two processes are lying in the same basin; see {\bf (H1)}-{\bf (H2)} in Section 4.
To include all possible initial conditions, in Theorem \ref{thm:2} and Theorem \ref{thm:5}, the coupling process is assumed to be initially related with all local minima.
A probability measure $\mu$ on $D\times D$ is said to be {\it fully supported} {(w.r.t all the local minima)} if for any $\delta>0$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mu(B_\delta(x_i)\times B_\delta(x_j))>0,\quad\forall i,j\in\{1,...,L\},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $B_\delta(x)$ denotes the ball centered at $x$ with radius $\delta.$
Note that any probability measure equivalent with the Lebesgue measure is fully supported.
A coupling $(X,Y)$ is said to be {fully supported} if the distribution of $(X,Y)$ is fully supported. Similarly in the same way, a probability measure $\mu$ on $D$ is said to be fully supported if for any $\delta>0,$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mu(B_\delta(x_i))>0,\quad\forall i\in\{1,...,L\},
\end{eqnarray*}
and a random variable $X$ is said to be fully supported if the distribution of $X$ is fully supported.
\medskip
Throughout this paper, by $a \lesssim b$ ({\it resp.} $a \gtrsim b$) we mean $a\le \mbox{\it const}\cdot b$ ({\it resp.} $a\ge \mbox{\it const}\cdot b$), where the {\it const} is independent of any parameter of the process. By $a\simeq b$ we mean both $a \lesssim b$ and $a \gtrsim b$ hold.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:2}
Let $U$ be a double-well potential satisfying {\bf (U2)}, and $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t);t\ge0\}$ be a
coupling of two solutions of \eqref{SDE1} such that $({\mathcal X}_0,{\mathcal Y}_0)$ is fully supported. Then, if $({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)$ is a reflection-maximal coupling satisfying {\bf (H1)}-{\bf (H2)},
for any $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small, it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lim_{t\to\infty}\dfrac{1}{t}
\log\mathbb{P}[\tau_c>t]\simeq -C_0e^{-2H_U/{\varepsilon^2}},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $H_U$ is defined in \eqref{barrier_height}, and the constant $C_0>0$ is independent of $\varepsilon$ and $h.$
\end{theorem}
\medskip
The result in Theorem \ref{thm:2} can be generalized to potential functions that have any finitely many local minima. In this case, besides the uniqueness of saddle points and the degeneracy conditions in {\bf (U2)}, the potential function $U$ is also assumed to satisfy a generic condition that $U$ has different potential values and depths corresponding to the different local minima.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf (U3)} Let $U:D\to\mathbb{R}$ be a multi-well potential function satisfying {\bf (U1)} with the local minima $x_1,...,x_L$ such that
\medskip
\noindent{(i)} $U$ has different potential values at the different local minima. In particular, $U$ admits the unique global minimum;
\medskip
\noindent{(ii)} The different basins of potential $U$ admit different depths. More precisely, there exists some $\delta>0$ such that the $L$ local minima of $U,$ $x_1,...,x_L,$ can be labeled in such way that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{label}
\Phi(x_i,\mathcal N_{i-1})-U(x_i)\le \min\nolimits_{1\le\ell<i}\{\Phi(x_\ell,\mathcal N_{i}\backslash x_\ell)-U(x_\ell)\}-\delta,\quad i=1,...,L,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathcal N_0=D^c, \mathcal N_i=\{x_1,...,x_{i}\}, i=1,...,L;$
\medskip
\noindent{(iii)} Let $\mathcal N_{i}$ be as in (ii). Then for each $i\in\{1,...,L\},$
the communication height between $x_i$ and $\mathcal N_{i-1}$ is reached at the unique saddle point $z^*(x_i,\mathcal N_{i-1}),$ i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray*}
U(z^*(x_i,\mathcal N_{i-1}))=\Phi(x_i,\mathcal N_{i-1});
\end{eqnarray*}
Moreover, $U$ is non-degenerate at all the local minima $x_1,...,x_L,$ and the associated saddle points $z^*(x_i,\mathcal N_{i-1}), 1\le i\le L.$
\medskip
Note that {\bf (U3)}(iii) is reduced to {\bf (U2)} for the double-well situation. The condition
{\bf (U3)} is from a nice work on metastability \cite{metastability2004,metastability2005} in which a sharp estimate of the first hitting time from a local minima to an {\it appropriate set} is rigorously proved. We will apply this result in an extensive way (see Lemma \ref{lem:expon_tail_multi_well}) to obtain an estimate of the first hitting time to the basin of the global minimum from which the notion of essential barrier height naturally arises (see \eqref{barrier_height_multi-well} below). This finally yields the coupling time estimate for the multi-well situation.
\medskip
We now define the essential barrier height in the general context.
Let $U$ be a multi-well potential function and without loss of generality, let $x_1$ be the (unique) global minimum of $U.$
The essential barrier height of $U$ is defined as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{barrier_height_multi-well}
H_U=\max\nolimits_{2\le i\le L}\big\{\Phi(x_i,x_1)-U(x_i)\big\}.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that \eqref{barrier_height_multi-well} is reduced to \eqref{barrier_height} when $L=2.$ In other words, the definitions of essential barrier height in the contexts of double- and multi-well potentials actually coincide.
We remark that the essential barrier height defined in this paper is different from the usual notion of barrier height in literature. The latter is a rather local characterization of the potential landscape by only focusing on the relevant barrier to be passed from certain local minimum to another. The essential barrier height, on the other hand, is a global quantity as it captures the greatest value of the heights of the barriers that have to be passed by any continuous path going towards the global minimum from any of the local ones. In Section 2.3, equivalent characterizations of $H_U$ are given (see Proposition \ref{prop:H_U} and Remark \ref{rem:1}).
As has been mentioned, certain conditions on the coupling scheme are required in the multi-well setting. Besides the local conditions {\bf (H1)}-{\bf (H2)} as for the double-well situation, for multi-well potentials, a ``global" condition on the coupling behavior {\bf (H3)} is also assumed (see Section 4.4).
\medskip
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:5}
Let $U$ be a multi-well potential
satisfying {\bf (U3)}, and $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t);t\ge0\}$ be a coupling of two solutions of \eqref{SDE1} such that $({\mathcal X}_0,{\mathcal Y}_0)$ is fully supported. Then, if $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)\}$ is a reflection-maximal coupling satisfying {\bf (H1)}-{\bf (H3)}, for any $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small, it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lim_{t\to\infty}\dfrac{1}{t}
\log\mathbb{P}[\tau_c>t]\simeq -C_0e^{-2H_U/{\varepsilon^2}},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $H_U$ is defined in \eqref{barrier_height_multi-well}, and the constant $C_0>0$ is independent of $\varepsilon$ and $h.$
\end{theorem}
As an application of Theorem \ref{thm:2} and Theorem \ref{thm:5}, the essential barrier height of a potential function can be computed by empirically estimating the coupling time distributions. The essential barrier height captures the global nature of the non-convexity of a potential function which, in an intuitive sense, would be of essential importance in the non-convex optimization problems arising in the various areas. Based on the linear extrapolation of the exponential tails, a numerical algorithm for the estimate of the essential barrier height is developed. This algorithm is then validated in Section 5 for both 1D double-well potential and multi-dimensional interacting particle systems, and the numerical results of the essential barrier heights are shown to be very close to the theoretical ones. The algorithm is also applied to detect the loss landscapes of artificial neural networks. The conclusion is that the loss landscapes of large artificial neural networks generally have lower essential barrier heights than the small artificial neural networks, which is largely consistent with the previously known results.
\medskip
This paper is organized as follows.
Section 2 prepares basic facts and results that will be used in the subsequent sections including estimations related to the reflection and maximal coupling methods, multi-well potentials and first hitting times, as well as the probability generating functions. Section 3 studies the case of single-well potential and proves Theorem \ref{thm:1}. Section 4 investigates the double- and multi-well situations and proves Theorem \ref{thm:2} and Theorem \ref{thm:5}. Section 5 explores various examples of single and multi-well potentials for which the theoretical results and assumptions in the previous sections are numerically verified.
\bigskip
\section{Preliminary}
%
%
%
This section prepares some instrumental facts that shall be used in the rest of the paper.
\subsection{Reflection coupling and single-well potential}
Let $\boldsymbol X,\boldsymbol Y$ be two solutions of
\begin{eqnarray}\label{SDE2}
dZ_t=g(Z_t)dt+\varepsilon dB_t, \quad Z_t\in\mathbb{R}^k,
\end{eqnarray}
where $g:\mathbb{R}^k\to\mathbb{R}^k$ is Lipschitz continuous. A {\it reflection coupling} of $\boldsymbol X$ and $\boldsymbol Y$ is a stochastic process $\{(X_t,Y_t); t\ge0\}$ taking values in $\mathbb{R}^k\times\mathbb{R}^k$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{reflection_coupling}
&&dX_t=g(X_t)dt+\varepsilon dB_t,\nonumber\\
\quad
&&dY_t=g(Y_t)dt+\varepsilon P_tdB_t,\quad 0<t<\tau_c; \quad
Y_t=X_t,\quad t\ge \tau_c,
\end{eqnarray}
where $P_t=I_k-2e_te^\top_t$ is the orthogonal matrix in which $e_t=(X_t-Y_t)/|X_t-Y_t|$, and $\tau_c$ is the coupling time defined in \eqref{coupling_time1}.
The reflection coupling, as its name suggests, is to make the noise terms in $X_t$ and $Y_t$ the mirror reflection
of each other \cite{reflection1986}. It is particularly efficient in high-dimension by only keeping the noise projections on the vertical direction of the hyperplane between $X_t$ and $Y_t$ while projections in other directions are cancelled so that the coupling effect in making $X_t$ and $Y_t$ towards each other are maximized.
\medskip
Under the reflection coupling, the exponential tail of coupling time distributions of the over-damped Langevin dynamics along a uniformly convex single-well potential is bounded away from zero.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:sup_mart}
Let $U$ be a single-well potential satisfying {\bf (U1)}. Assume that $U$ is strongly convex with constant $m_0>0$. Then there exists a constant $c_0>0$ such that, if $\{(X_t,Y_t); t\ge0\}$ is a reflection coupling of two solutions of \eqref{SDE1} with $X_0=x_0, Y_0=y_0,$ for any $\varepsilon>0$ and any $t>0,$ it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_c>t]\le \frac{c_0|x_0-y_0|}{2\varepsilon} e^{-m_0t}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Denote $R_t=|X_t-Y_t|/2\varepsilon.$
It is not hard to see that $\{R_t;t\ge0\}$ is a one-dimensional stochastic process satisfying
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:2}
dR_t=-R_t^{-1}\langle\nabla U(X_t)-\nabla U(Y_t),X_t-Y_t\rangle dt+2\varepsilon d\bar B_t,\ 0\le t<\tau_c
\end{eqnarray}
where $\{\bar B_t;t\ge0\}$ is a one-dimensional Brownian motion.
By the strong convexity of $U$, the drift term in \eqref{eq:2} is upper bounded by $-m_0R_t.$ Then there exists a one-dimensional Ornstein-Uhlenbeck(O-U) process $\{S_t;t\ge0\}$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{SDE:compare}
dS_t=-m_0S_tdt+ d\bar B_t,\quad S_0=|x_0-y_0|/2\varepsilon,
\end{eqnarray}
such that $R_t$ is always bounded by $S_t$ for $t\in[0,\tau_c).$
Let
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tau_0=\inf\{t\ge0:S_t=0\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then it is sufficient to estimate
$\mathbb{P}[\tau_0>t].$
Under the change of variables
that $t$ replaced by $m_0 t$ and $S$ replaced by $\sqrt{m_0}S,$
\eqref{SDE:compare} becomes a
standard O-U process
\begin{eqnarray}\label{SDE:compare1} dS_{t}=-S_{t}dt+d\bar B_{t},\quad S_0=\sqrt{m_0}|x_0-y_0|/2\varepsilon.
\end{eqnarray}
By Proposition 1 in \cite{correction2000},
the density function of
$\tau_0$ of \eqref{SDE:compare1} has an analytic expression
\begin{eqnarray*}
p(t)= S_0\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\sinh(t)^3}}e^{\frac{t}{2}-\frac{e^{-t}S_0^2}{2\sinh(t)}},\quad t\ge0.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_0\ge t]
&=&\int_{m_0t}^\infty p(s)ds\\
&\le&\sqrt{\dfrac{m_0}{2\pi}}|x_0-y_0|(2\varepsilon)^{-1}\int_{m_0t}^\infty\dfrac{e^{\frac{s}{2}}}{\sinh(s)^{\frac{3}{2}}}ds\\
&\le& c_0|x_0-y_0|(2\varepsilon)^{-1}\int_{m_0t}^\infty e^{-s}ds
=\dfrac{c_0|x_0-y_0|}{2\varepsilon}e^{-m_0t}
\end{eqnarray*}
where the constant $c_0>0$ is independent of $x_0,y_0$ and $\varepsilon$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Maximal coupling and estimations}
Let $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ be two probability distributions on $\mathbb{R}^k.$ Call
$(X,Y)$ a coupling of $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ if $X\sim\mu_1, Y\sim\mu_2.$
By the well-known coupling inequality (see, for instance, Lemma 3.6 in \cite{aldous1983random}),
\begin{eqnarray}\label{coupling_ineq}
\text{TV}(\mu_1,\mu_2)\le2\mathbb{P}[X\neq Y],
\end{eqnarray}
where $\text{TV}(\mu_1,\mu_2):=2\sup_{A\subseteq\mathbb{R}^k}|\mu_1(A)-\mu_2(A)|$ denotes the total variation distance between probability measures on $\mathbb{R}^k.$
A coupling $(X,Y)$ is said to be a {\it maximal coupling} if the equality in \eqref{coupling_ineq} is attained, i.e., the probability $\mathbb{P}[X=Y]$ is maximized.
A particular way to obtain a maximal coupling is as follows. Denote the ``minimum" distribution of $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ by $\nu(\cdot)=\alpha^{-1}\min\{\mu_1(\cdot),\mu_2(\cdot)\},$ where
$\alpha$ is the normalizer. With probability $(1-\alpha),$ let $X$ and $Y$ be independently sampled such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{max_coupling}
X\sim(1-\alpha)^{-1}(\mu_1-\alpha\nu),\quad Y\sim(1-\alpha)^{-1}(\mu_2-\alpha\nu),
\end{eqnarray}
and with probability $\alpha,$ let $X=Y\sim\nu.$
It is not hard to see that $\mathbb{P}[X\neq Y]=\text{TV}(\mu_1,\mu_2)/2.$ Hence, $(X,Y)$ is a maximal coupling.
\medskip
The following proposition is about the maximal coupling of normal distributions.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:norm_distribition}
Let $X\sim\mathcal{N}(\bar x,\sigma^2\text{Id}),Y\sim\mathcal{N}(\bar y,\sigma^2\text{Id})$ be normal random variables taking values in $\mathbb{R}^k$, where $\bar x,\bar y\in\mathbb{R}^k,$ $\sigma>0.$ Assume that $(X,Y)$ is a maximal coupling. Then there exist a universal constant $c_0>0$ and a constant $c_k>0$ only depending on $k$ such that
(i) $\mathbb{P}[|X-Y|>0]\le c_0\sigma^{-1}|\bar x-\bar y|;$
(ii)
$\mathbb{E}[|X-Y|]\le c_k\sigma+2|\bar x-\bar y|$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
(i) By the definition of maximal coupling,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[|X-Y|>0]=\dfrac{1}{2}\text{TV}(X,Y)\le
c_0\sigma^{-1}|\bar x-\bar y|,
\end{eqnarray*}
where by \text{TV}$(X,Y)$ we mean \text{TV}$(\mu,\nu)$ if $X\sim \mu, Y\sim\nu.$ The last inequality follows from the standard calculation on Gaussian distributions \cite{gassian2018}.
\medskip
(ii)
Let $p_{\bar x,\sigma}$ and $p_{\bar y,\sigma}$ be the
probability density functions of $X$ and $Y$, respectively.
By the definition of maximal coupling,
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbb{E}[|X-Y|]&=&\int_{\mathbb{R}^k\times\mathbb{R}^k}|x-y|\cdot\big(p_{\bar x,\sigma}(x)-\min\{p_{\bar x,\sigma}(x),p_{\bar y,\sigma}(x)\}\big)\cdot\big(p_{\bar y,\sigma}(y)-\min\{p_{\bar x,\sigma}(y),p_{\bar y,\sigma}(y)\}\big)dxdy\nonumber\\
&\le&2\int_{x\in A_1, y\in A_2}p_{\bar x,\sigma}(x)p_{\bar y,\sigma}(y)|x-y|dxdy,\label{ineq:gaussian}
\end{eqnarray}
where $A_1=\{z\in\mathbb{R}^k: p_{\bar x,\sigma}(z)\ge p_{\bar y,\sigma}(z)\}, A_2=\{z\in\mathbb{R}^k: p_{\bar x,\sigma}(z)< p_{\bar y,\sigma}(z)\}.$
Further split the upper bound in \eqref{ineq:gaussian} into three terms
\begin{eqnarray}
\eqref{ineq:gaussian}&\le&2\int_{x\in A_1, y\in A_2}p_{\bar x,\sigma}(x)p_{\bar y,\sigma}(y)|x-\bar x|dxdy+2\int_{x\in A_1, y\in A_2}p_{\bar x,\sigma}(x)p_{\bar y,\sigma}(y)|\bar x-\bar y|dxdy\nonumber\\
&+&2\int_{x\in A_1, y\in A_2}p_{\bar x,\sigma}(x)p_{\bar y,\sigma}(y)|y-\bar y|dxdy:=\psi_1+\psi_2+\psi_3\label{psi}.
\end{eqnarray}
Plainly, $\psi_2\le2|\bar x-\bar y|.$ For the estimate of $\psi_1,$
note that $p_{\bar x,\sigma}(x)=\dfrac{1}{(2\pi)^{k/2}\sigma^k}e^{-\frac{1}{2\sigma^2}|x-\bar x|^2}.$ Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\psi_1\le2\int_{\mathbb{R}^k}p_{\bar x,\sigma}(x)|x-\bar x|dx
=2(2\pi)^{k/2}\sigma^{-k}\int_{\mathbb{R}^k}e^{-\frac{1}{2\sigma^2}|x-\bar x|^2}|x-\bar x|dx,
\end{eqnarray*}
which, under the spherical coordinate, yields
\begin{eqnarray*}
\psi_1\le 2S_k(2\pi)^{k/2}\sigma^{-k}\int_0^\infty e^{-\frac{r^k}{2\sigma^2}r^2}dr:=\frac{1}{2}c_k\sigma,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $S_k$ denotes the unit sphere volume, and the constant $c_k$ only depends on $k.$
Similarly, $\psi_3\le\frac{1}{2}c_k\sigma.$
Hence
\[\mathbb{E}[|X-Y|]\le c_k\sigma+2|\bar x-\bar y|.\]
\end{proof}
\medskip
In the context of stochastic process, the maximal coupling is defined in terms of the conditional distributions of the associated discrete-time chains.
Let $\boldsymbol X^h=\{X^h_n\}, \boldsymbol Y^h=\{Y^h_n\}$ be the time-$h$ sample chains of two solutions of \eqref{SDE2}, and $\{({\mathcal X}^h_n,{\mathcal Y}^h_n)\}$ be a coupling of
$\boldsymbol X^h$ and $\boldsymbol Y^h.$ Assume at step $(n-1),$ $({\mathcal X}^h_{n-1},{\mathcal Y}^h_{n-1})$ takes the value $(x,y)\in\mathbb{R}^k\times\mathbb{R}^k,$ and let $\mu_x$ ({\it resp.} $\mu_y$) be the probability distribution of ${\mathcal X}^h_n$ ({\it resp.} ${\mathcal Y}^h_n$) conditioning on ${\mathcal X}^h_{n-1}=x$ ({\it resp.} ${\mathcal Y}^h_{n-1}=y$).
Then $({\mathcal X}^h,{\mathcal Y}^h)$ is a {\it maximal coupling} at step $n$ if
\begin{eqnarray}\label{coupling_ineq1}
\text{TV}(\mu_x,\mu_y)=2\mathbb{P}[{\mathcal X}^h_{n}\neq {\mathcal Y}^h_{n}|{\mathcal X}^h_{n-1}=x,{\mathcal Y}^h_{n-1}=y].
\end{eqnarray}
In the reflection-maximal coupling scheme, the maximal coupling is implemented if and only if it is triggered at the previous step, i.e., $({\mathcal X}^h_n,{\mathcal Y}^h_n)$ is a maximal coupling if and only if $|{\mathcal X}^h_{n-1}-{\mathcal Y}^h_{n-1}|\le d,$ where $d=\mathcal O(\varepsilon\sqrt{h})$ is the threshold distance.
In the numerical implementations, at each step, the distance between ${\mathcal X}^h$ and ${\mathcal Y}^h$ is checked to determine whether the maximal coupling is triggered for the next step. If at certain step, the distance between ${\mathcal X}^h$ and ${\mathcal Y}^h$ is greater than $d$, then the maximal coupling is {\it not} triggered and the reflection coupling is implemented instead at the next step.
The trigger of maximal coupling is the key mechanism, especially under the numerical scheme, to achieving a successful coupling. This is because under the maximal coupling, a positive success rate, which is robust against small perturbations, is guaranteed. Without the maximal coupling, numerical errors may cause the numerical trajectories of ${\mathcal X}_n^h$ and ${\mathcal Y}_n^h$ ``miss" each other even if theoretically, they should have been coupled successfully. In addition, with an appropriate choice of the threshold distance $d$, the coupling probability of ${\mathcal X}_n^h$ and ${\mathcal Y}_n^h$ has a lower bound independent of $h$; see Lemma \ref{lem:max_coupling} below.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:max_coupling}
Let $\{({\mathcal X}^h_n,{\mathcal Y}^h_n);n\ge0\}$ be a coupling of the time-$h$ sample chain of two solutions of \eqref{SDE2}.
Assume for $n\ge1$, $({\mathcal X}^h_n,{\mathcal Y}^h_n)$ is a maximal coupling conditional on ${\mathcal X}^h_{n-1}=x_0, {\mathcal Y}^h_{n-1}=y_0,$ where $x_0,y_0\in\mathbb{R}^k$ satisfying $|x_0-y_0|\le d:=\mathcal O(\varepsilon\sqrt{h}).$ Then there exist a universal constant $\gamma\in (0, 1)$ and a constant $C_k>0$ only depending on $k$ such that for any $\varepsilon>0,$ any $h>0$ sufficiently small, the followings hold.
(i) $\mathbb{P}[|{\mathcal X}^h_{n}-{\mathcal Y}^h_{n}|>0|{\mathcal X}^h_{n-1}=x_0, {\mathcal Y}^h_{n-1}=y_0
\le\gamma,\quad \forall n\ge1;$
(ii) $ \mathbb{E}[|{\mathcal X}^h_{n}-{\mathcal Y}^h_{n}|\big|{\mathcal X}^h_{n-1}=x_0,{\mathcal Y}^h_{n-1}=y_0]\le C_k\varepsilon\sqrt{h},\quad\forall n\ge1.
$
\end{lemma}
We note that Lemma \ref{lem:max_coupling} is a {\it conditional} version of Proposition \ref{prop:norm_distribition} in the setting of stochastic processes. For its proof, we need the following estimations \eqref{limit:1} - \eqref{limit:2}.
\medskip
Intuitively, the time-$h$ sample chain $\{X^h_n;n\ge0\}$ of solution of \eqref{SDE2} should be ``close to" the time-$h$ sample chain of its numerical integrator which, recall in the Introduction section, is denote by $\{\hat X^h_n;n\ge0\}$. In fact, by combining Girsanov Theorem and Pinsker's inequality, it is a standard result (see, for instance, Proposition 4.2 in \cite{total_bound2020}) that the total variation distance between $X^h_n$ and $\hat X^h_n$ conditional on $X^h_{n-1}=x_0, \hat X^h_{n-1}=x_0$ is of order $\mathcal O(h)$. If denote the probability density function of the distribution of $\{X^h_n;n\ge0\}$ ({\it resp.} $\{\hat X^h_n;n\ge0\}$) conditional on $X^h_{n-1}=x_0$ ({\it resp.} $\hat X^h_{n-1}=x_0$) as $\rho^h_{x_0}$ ({\it resp.} $\hat \rho^h_{x_0}$), then
\begin{eqnarray}\label{limit:1}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^k}|\rho^h_{x_0}(x)-\hat\rho^h_{x_0}(x)|dx\to0, \quad\text{as}\ h\to0.
\end{eqnarray}
Under the approximation in \eqref{limit:1}, the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:max_coupling} follows the same line of the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:norm_distribition} by the following approximations
\begin{eqnarray}\label{limit:2}
\lim_{h \rightarrow 0} \int_{\mathbb{R}^k} |x - x_0| \rho^h_{x_0}(x) \mathrm{d}x = 0\quad (\text{\it resp.}\quad \lim_{h \rightarrow 0} \int_{\mathbb{R}^k} |x - x_0| \hat \rho^h_{x_0}(x) \mathrm{d}x = 0).
\end{eqnarray}
To see \eqref{limit:2}, let $Z_t^{x_0}$ be the solution of SDE \eqref{SDE2} with initial condition $Z_0 = x_0$. By the Gronwall's Lemma and standard computations,
\[\mathbb{E}|Z^{x_0}_t - x_0|\le(|g(x_0)|t + \varepsilon H_k \sqrt{t}) e^{ |g|_{\text{Lip}} t},\quad\forall t>0,
\]
where $|g|_{\text{Lip}}$ denotes the Lipschitz constant of $g,$ and $H_k$ denotes the expectation of the standard normal random variable in $\mathbb{R}_k$. Thus
\[\mathbb{E}|Z^{x_0}_t - x_0|\to0,\quad\text{as}\ h\to0.
\]
Then \eqref{limit:2} is yielded by taking $Z_t^{x_0}$ as $X^h_n$ and $\hat X^h_n,$ respectively.
\medskip
Now, we are prepared to prove Lemma \ref{lem:max_coupling}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:max_coupling}]
(i) Since $\hat{\mathcal X}_n^h,\hat{\mathcal Y}_n^h$ are normal random variables when conditioning on $\hat{\mathcal X}_{n-1}^h=x_0, \hat{\mathcal Y}_{n-1}^h=y_0$, respectively. Applying Proposition \ref{prop:norm_distribition} (i) with $\sigma=\varepsilon\sqrt{h},$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[|\hat{\mathcal X}^h_{n}-\hat{\mathcal Y}^h_{n}|>0|\hat{\mathcal X}^h_{n-1}=x_0, \hat{\mathcal Y}^h_{n-1}=y_0]\le c_0(\varepsilon\sqrt{h})^{-1}|\bar x-\bar y|,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\bar x=x_0+g(x_0)h,\bar y=y_0+g(y_0)h.$
Since $g$ is Lipschitz continuous with the Lipschitz constant $|g|_{\text{Lip}}.$ Then for any $h>0$ sufficiently small, it holds that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{x-y}
|\bar x-\bar y|\le |x_0-y_0|+|g|_{\text{Lip}}|x_0-y_0|h\le\mathcal O(\varepsilon\sqrt{h}).
\end{eqnarray}
By making the coefficient in the term $\mathcal O(\varepsilon\sqrt{h})$ small enough,
there exists a universal constant $\gamma\in(0, 1)$ such that
\[\mathbb{P}[|\hat{\mathcal X}^h_{n}-\hat{\mathcal Y}^h_{n}|>0|\hat{\mathcal X}^h_{n-1}=x_0, \hat{\mathcal Y}^h_{n-1}=y_0]<\gamma.\]
By the definition of maximal coupling,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[|{\mathcal X}^h_{n}-{\mathcal Y}^h_{n}|>0|{\mathcal X}^h_{n-1}=x_0, {\mathcal Y}^h_{n-1}=y_0]=\text{TV}({\mathcal X}^h_{n},{\mathcal Y}^h_{n})/2\\
(\text{\it resp.}\quad \mathbb{P}[|\hat{\mathcal X}^h_{n}-\hat{\mathcal Y}^h_{n}|>0|\hat{\mathcal X}^h_{n-1}=x_0, \hat{\mathcal Y}^h_{n-1}=y_0]=\text{TV}(\hat{\mathcal X}^h_{n},\hat{\mathcal Y}^h_{n}))/2\ ).
\end{eqnarray*}
Then combined with \eqref{limit:1} that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\text{TV}({\mathcal X}^h_{n},\hat{\mathcal X}^h_{n})\to0, \quad\text{TV}({\mathcal Y}^h_{n},\hat{\mathcal Y}^h_{n})\to0,\quad\text{as $h\to0$},
\end{eqnarray*}
it holds that for any $h>0$ sufficiently small,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[|{\mathcal X}^h_{n}-{\mathcal Y}^h_{n}|>0|{\mathcal X}^h_{n-1}=x_0, {\mathcal Y}^h_{n-1}=y_0]\le\gamma.
\end{eqnarray*}
(ii)
As in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:norm_distribition} (ii), by splitting $ \mathbb{E}[|{\mathcal X}_n^h-{\mathcal Y}_n^h||{\mathcal X}^h_{n-1}=x_0,{\mathcal Y}^h_{n-1}=y_0]$ into three terms, it similarly holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[|{\mathcal X}_n^h-{\mathcal Y}_n^h||{\mathcal X}^h_{n-1}=x_0,{\mathcal Y}^h_{n-1}=y_0]\le\psi_1+\psi_2+\psi_3,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\psi_i$'s are the same as in \eqref{psi} with $p_{\bar x,\sigma}$ ({\it resp.} $p_{\bar y,\sigma}$) being replaced by $\rho^h_{x_0}$ ({\it resp.} $\rho^h_{y_0}$).
Note that $|\bar x-x_0|=|g(x_0)|h\to0$ ({\it resp.} $|\bar y-y_0|=|g(y_0)|h\to0$) as $h\to0.$ Then it follows from \eqref{limit:2} that for any $\delta>0$ and any $h>0$ sufficiently small,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\psi_1\le\hat\psi_1+2\int_{\mathbb{R}^k}(\hat\rho_{\bar x}^h(x)-\rho_{\bar x}^h(x))|x-\bar x|dx\le\hat\psi_1+\delta\\
(\text{\it resp.}\ \psi_3\le\hat\psi_3+2\int_{\mathbb{R}^k}(\hat\rho_{\bar x}^h(x)-\rho_{\bar x}^h(x))|x-\bar x|dx\le\hat\psi_3+\delta)
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\hat\psi_1$ ({\it resp.} $\hat\psi_3$) is as in Proposition \ref{prop:norm_distribition} with
$p_{\bar x,\sigma}$ ({\it resp.} $p_{\bar y,\sigma}$) being $\hat\rho^h_{x_0}$ ({\it resp.} $\hat\rho^h_{y_0}$).
Applying Proposition \ref{prop:norm_distribition}(ii) with
$\sigma$ being $\hat\sigma=\varepsilon\sqrt{h},$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\hat\psi_1\le c_k\varepsilon\sqrt{h},\ \hat\psi_3\le c_k\varepsilon\sqrt{h},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $c_k>0$ is as in Proposition \ref{prop:norm_distribition} only depending on $k.$
Still, $\hat \psi_2\le2|\bar x-\bar y|,$ which, by \eqref{x-y}, yields
$\hat\psi_2\le\mathcal O(\varepsilon\sqrt{h}).$
Thus, with certain constant $C_k>0$ only depending on
$k$, it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[|{\mathcal X}_n^h-{\mathcal Y}_n^h||{\mathcal X}^h_{n-1}=x_0,{\mathcal Y}^h_{n-1}=y_0]\le C_k\varepsilon\sqrt{h}.
\end{eqnarray*}
This completes the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:max_coupling}.
\end{proof}
In concluding this subsection, we remark that as proposed for the numerical efficiency, the maximal coupling is of discrete essentials. However, the theoretical results of the reflection-maximal coupling stated in this paper is for the continuous-time setting. To ensure a consistency between the discrete-time numerical scheme and its theoretical continuous-time counterpart, it is assumed that all the values of the processes between the discrete steps are ignored when the maximal coupling is implemented. In other words, as long as $({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)$ is a maximal coupling, for all the time that follows before ${\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t$ are successfully coupled or $({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)$ is switched to the reflection coupling, only the values of $({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)$ at $t=nh$ matters and
it does not make any difference which value $({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)$ take for all the $t$'s between the $h$-discrete steps.
\subsection{Multi-well potentials and first hitting time}
Let $U:D\to\mathbb{R}$ be a multi-well potential satisfying {\bf (U3)}.
Henceforth and throughout this paper, all the $L$ local minima of $U$ are labeled in such a way that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{monotone}
U(x_1)<\cdots<U(x_L).
\end{eqnarray}
In particular, $x_1$ always denotes the unique global minimum of $U$.
Denote
\begin{eqnarray}\label{M}
\mathcal M_i=\{x_1,...,x_i\}, \quad 1\le i\le L.
\end{eqnarray}
\medskip
The following proposition gives an equivalent characterization of the essential barrier height $H_U$.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:H_U}
Let $U$ be a multi-well potential on $D$ with $L$ local minima $x_i(1\le i\le L).$ Then
\begin{eqnarray}\label{equivalent_characterize_H_U}
H_U=\max\nolimits_{2\le i\le L}\big\{\Phi(x_i,\mathcal M_{i-1})- U(x_{i})\big\}.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Since for each $i\in\{2,...,L\},$ $x_1\in\mathcal M_{i-1}$. Then
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:3}
H_U\ge\Phi(x_i,x_1)-U(x_i)\ge \Phi(x_i,\mathcal M_{i-1})-U(x_{i}),
\end{eqnarray}
and hence
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:1}
H_U\ge \max\nolimits_{2\le i\le L}\big\{\Phi(x_i,\mathcal M_{i-1})- U(x_{i})\big\}.
\end{eqnarray}
It remains to show that ``$\ge$" in \eqref{eq:1} can only be ``$=$". This can be shown by contradiction. Suppose that ``$=$" does not hold, i.e.,
for each $i\in\{2,...,L\},$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:4}
\Phi(x_i,\mathcal M_{i-1})-U(x_i)<H_U.
\end{eqnarray}
Then we {\it claim} that for each $i_0\in\{2,...,L\}$, there exists a continuous path $\psi:[0,1]\to D$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{bar_phi}
\sup\nolimits_{t\in[0,1]}U(\psi(t))- U(x_{i_0})< H_U,\quad \psi(0)=x_{i_0},\ \psi(1)=x_{1}.
\end{eqnarray}
This would yield a contradiction that \[H_U=\max\nolimits_{2\le i_0\le L}\{\Phi(x_{i_0},x_1)-U(x_{i_0})\}<H_U.\]
Hence, ``$=$" in \eqref{eq:1} must be attained.
To prove the claim, we construct such a continuous path $\psi$. By \eqref{eq:4}, for each $i\in\{2,...,L\},$ there exists a continuous path $\phi_i:[0,1]\to D$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{contradiction}
\sup\nolimits_{t\in[0,1]} U(\phi_i(t))-U(x_i)< H_U,\quad\phi_i(0)=x_i,\ \phi_i(1)\in\mathcal M_{i-1}.
\end{eqnarray}
First take the path $\phi_{i_0}$ and denote $x_{i_1}=\phi_{i_0}(1)\in\mathcal M_{{i_0}-1}.$
By the definition of $\mathcal M_i,$ it must be that $1\le i_1<i_0.$ If $i_1=1,$ then \eqref{bar_phi} is proved by letting $\psi=\phi_{i_0}$; for otherwise, turn to the path $\phi_{i_1}$ and obtain a new index $1\le i_2<i_1$ with $\phi_{i_1}(1)=x_{i_2}.$
The procedure is repeated until $i_k=1$ for some finite $k.$
Then by gluing all the continuous paths $\phi_{i_0},...,\phi_{i_k}$ one by one and up to
a rescaling of $t$, we end up with a new continuous path $\psi:[0,1]\to D$ satisfying $\psi(0)=x_{i_0},\psi(1)=x_1.$
It remains to verify \eqref{bar_phi}.
Since $U(x_{i_0})\ge U(x_{i_j}), 0\le j\le k.$ Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sup\nolimits_{t\in[0,1]}U(\psi(t))-U(x_{i_0})&=&\max\nolimits_{0\le j\le k}\sup\nolimits_{t\in[0,1]}U(\phi_{i_j}(t))-U(x_{i_0})\\&\le&\max\nolimits_{0\le j\le k}\sup\nolimits_{t\in[0,1]}\big\{U(\phi_{i_j}(t))-U(x_{i_j})\big\}<H_U,
\end{eqnarray*}
where the last inequality follows from \eqref{contradiction}.
\end{proof}
\medskip
\begin{remark}\label{rem:1}
{\rm
In fact, \eqref{equivalent_characterize_H_U} still holds if the maximum is taken on certain {\it subset} of $\{2,...,L\}.$ Let $\mathcal I$ collect all the indexes at which the maximum in \eqref{barrier_height_multi-well} is attained, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{I}
\mathcal I=\{2\le i\le L:\Phi(x_i,x_1)-U(x_1)=H_U\}.
\end{eqnarray}
Then we have the following {\it stronger version of Proposition \ref{prop:H_U}} that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:9}
H_U
=\max\nolimits_{i\in\mathcal I}\{\Phi(x_i,\mathcal M_{i-1})-U(x_i)\}.
\end{eqnarray}
The proof of \eqref{eq:9} follows the same line of the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:H_U}.
The ``$\ge$" directly follows from \eqref{eq:3} and we only need to show that ``$\ge$" must be an equality. Still, this can be proved by contradiction. Suppose for each $i\in\mathcal I,$ $\Phi(x_i,\mathcal M_{i-1})-U(x_i)<H_U.$ Then corresponding to each $i\in\mathcal I,$ there exists a
continuous path $\phi_i(t)$ connecting $x_{i}$ with certain $x_{j_i}\in\mathcal M_{i-1}$ such that $\sup_t U(\phi_i(t))-U(x_i)<H_U.$ Following the constructing procedure in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:H_U}, starting from any $x_{i_0}$ with $i_0\in\mathcal I,$
we can construct a continuous path $\psi$ by gluing certain $\phi_{i}$'s piece by piece, passing a sequence of local minima $x_{i_1}, ...,x_{i_{k-1}}$ with ${i_j}\in\mathcal I$ and ending with a local minimum $x_{i_k}$ with $i_k\notin\mathcal I.$
If $i_k=1,$ then $\psi(t)$ is a continuous path connecting $x_{i_0}$ and $x_1$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{psi1}
\sup\nolimits_t U(\psi(t))-U(x_{i_k})<H_U.
\end{eqnarray}
This contradicts with $i_0\in\mathcal I.$
If $i_k\neq 1,$ we can construct a new path $\tilde\psi$ satisfying \eqref{psi1} by choosing a continuous path $\tilde\phi(t)$ connecting $x_{i_k}$ with $x_1$ satisfying
$\sup_t U(\tilde\phi(t))-U(x_{i_0})<H_U$ (such a path $\tilde\phi$ exists because $i_k\notin\mathcal I$) and then glue $\psi$ and $\tilde\phi$ together. Still, the contradiction is yielded.
}
\end{remark}
\medskip
Let $\{Z_t;t\ge0\}$ be a solution of \eqref{SDE1}, and $A\subseteq D$ be a subset. Denote the {\it first hitting time} of $Z_t$ to the set $A$ as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{kappa}
\kappa_{\{Z_t\}}(A)=\inf\{t>0:Z_t\in A\}.
\end{eqnarray}
The large deviation theory tells us that the first hitting time from a local minimum to an appropriate subset $A$ can be characterized by the related barrier height.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:large_deviation}
\noindent{\bf(Exponential law of first hitting time \cite{metastability2004,metastability2005}\footnote{It is well-known that the first hitting time is asymptotically exponentially distributed according to the large deviation theory \cite{day1983,freidlin1998random}.
It is relatively recent that the exponential tail is precisely estimated up to a multiplicative error
by techniques from the potential theory in \cite{metastability2004, metastability2005}.})}
Let $\boldsymbol Z=\{Z_t;t\ge0\}$ be a solution of \eqref{SDE1} with initial condition $Z_0=x_i,$ where $2\le i\le L.$ Let $A\subseteq D$ be a closed subset such that $\cup_{\ell=1}^{i-1}B_{\varepsilon}(x_\ell)\subset A$ and dist$(z^*(x_i,\mathcal M_{i-1}),A)>\delta$ for certain $\delta>0$ independent of $\varepsilon.$
Then there exists $\varepsilon_0>0$ such that for any $\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon_0)$ and any $t>0$,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{equal}
\mathbb{P}[\kappa_{\{Z_t\}}(A)>t]\simeq
\exp\Big\{-C_0e^{-{2(\Phi(x_{i},\mathcal M_{i-1})-U(x_{i}))}/{\varepsilon^2}}t\Big\},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathcal M_i$'s are defined in \eqref{M} and $C_0>0$ is a constant independent of $t$ and $\varepsilon.$
\end{prop}
In the multi-well setting, the essential barrier height $H_U$ plays a similar role {\it in the global sense} that it characterizes the first hitting time to the basin of the global minimum from any of the local ones.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:expon_tail_multi_well}
Let $\{Z_t;t\ge0\}$ be a solution of \eqref{SDE2}.
Then for any $t>0$ and any $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:7}
\mathbb{P}[\kappa_{\{Z_t\}}(B_1)>t]\lesssim \exp\{-C_0e^{-2H_U/\varepsilon^2}t\},
\end{eqnarray}
where $C_0$ is independent of $\varepsilon$ and $t.$
Moreover, if $Z_0$ is fully supported,
then ``$\lesssim$" in \eqref{eq:7} becomes ``$\simeq$".
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that when $Z_0\in B_1,$ \eqref{eq:7} automatically holds. In the following, we only consider the case $Z_0\in B_i$ for $2\le i\le L.$
For each $1\le i\le L,$ let $\tilde B_i\subseteq B_i$ be an open neighborhood of $x_i$ such that $B_\varepsilon(x_i)\subset\tilde B_i$ and dist$(\tilde B_{i},\partial B_{i})>\delta$ holds for certain $\delta>0$ and any $i\in\{1,...,L\}.$
Denote $D_i=\bigcup_{\ell=1}^{i}\tilde B_\ell,$ and define the stopping times
\begin{eqnarray}\label{T_i}
T_i=\inf\{t>0:Z_t\in D_i\},\quad 1\le i\le L,
\end{eqnarray}
and set $T_{L+1}=0,D_{L+1}=D.$ Note that each $T_i$ is the infimum time at which $Z_t$ enters the neighborhood of a {\it new lower} local minimum, where by ``new lower" we mean that
the local minimum has a potential value that is lower than all the local minima the neighborhoods of which have been passed by $Z_t.$
Plainly, $0=T_{L+1}\le T_L\le\cdots\le T_1<\infty,$ and \[\kappa_{\{Z_t\}}(B_1)\le\kappa_{\{Z_t\}}(\tilde B_1)=T_1.\]
Denote $\Delta T_i=T_{i}-T_{i+1}, 1\le i\le L.$ Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
T_1=\sum_{i=1}^{L}\Delta T_i.
\end{eqnarray*}
We {\it claim} that for each $i\in\{1,...,L\}$ satisfying $\Delta T_{i}>0$, it must be that $Z_{T_{i+1}}\in\tilde B_{i+1},$
In fact, suppose $\Delta T_i>0$ and $Z_{T_{i+1}}\notin \tilde B_{i+1}.$ Then $Z_{T_{i+1}}\in D_{i+1}\backslash\tilde B_{i+1}= D_{i}$ which, by \eqref{T_i}, yields $T_{i}\le T_{i+1}.$ Since it generally holds that $T_{i+1}\le T_{i}$. This yields a contradiction that $\Delta T_i=T_{i}-T_{i+1}=0.$
%
By Proposition \ref{prop:large_deviation}, for any $1\le i\le L-1,$
\begin{eqnarray*}\label{ineq:metastable}
\sup\nolimits_{x\in \tilde B_{i+1}}\mathbb{P}_{x}[\kappa_{\{Z_t\}}(D_i)>t]
\simeq \exp\{-C_0e^{-{2(\Phi(x_{i+1},\mathcal M_{i})-U(x_{i+1}))}/{\varepsilon^2}}t\},
\end{eqnarray*}
which, by \eqref{equivalent_characterize_H_U}, yields
\begin{eqnarray*}\label{ineq:metastable1}
\sup\nolimits_{x\in \tilde B_{i+1}}\mathbb{P}_{x}[\kappa_{\{Z_t\}}(D_i)>t]\lesssim\exp\{-C_0e^{-2H_U/\varepsilon^2}t\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Note that \[\kappa_{\{Z_t\}}(D_{i})\circ \theta^{T_{i+1}}=\Delta T_{i},\quad1\le i\le L-1.\]
By the Markov property,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[\Delta T_{i}>t|Z_{T_{i+1}}\in \tilde B_{i+1}]\lesssim\mathbb{P}_{Z_{T_{i+1}}}[\kappa_{\{Z_t\}}(D_{i})>t]\lesssim \exp\{-C_0e^{-{2H_U}/{\varepsilon^2}}t\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[T_1>t
&\le&
\sum\nolimits_{1\le i\le L,\Delta T_i>0}\mathbb{P}[\Delta T_{i}>t/L
\\
&=&\sum\nolimits_{1\le i\le L}\mathbb{P}[\Delta T_i>t/L|Z_{T_{i+1}}\in\tilde B_{i+1}] \lesssim\exp\{-C_0e^{-2H_U/\varepsilon^2}t\},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $C_0$ denotes a constant independent of $\varepsilon$ and $t.$
\medskip
For the other side of \eqref{eq:7}, by Proposition \ref{prop:H_U}, there exists $i_0\in\{2,...,L\}$ such that
\begin{eqnarray*}
H_U=\Phi(x_{i_0},\mathcal M_{i_0-1})-U(x_{i_0}).
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $Z_0$ is fully supported, we have for any $\delta>0,$ $\mathbb{P}[Z_{0}\in B_{\delta}(x_{i_0})]>0.$
Note that if $Z_0\in B_{\delta}(x_{i_0}),$
$0=T_{L}=\cdots=T_{i_0+1}<T_{i_0}\le T_1.$
Hence, by Proposition \ref{prop:large_deviation},
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[T_1>t]\ge\mathbb{P}[\Delta T_{i_0}>t, Z_0\in B_{\delta}(x_{i_0})]\simeq\exp\{-C_0e^{-2H_U/\varepsilon^2}t\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
The result in Lemma \ref{lem:expon_tail_multi_well} can be {\it strengthened} to certain set containing $B_1.$
More specifically, let
\begin{eqnarray}\label{J}
\mathcal
=\{1\le j\le L: U(x_j)<U(x_i)\ \text{$\forall$ $i\in\mathcal I$}\},
\end{eqnarray}
where the index set $\mathcal I$ is defined in \eqref{I}.
Note that $\mathcal J$ collects the indexes of all the local minima whose potential values are smaller than $U(x_i)$ for any $i\in\mathcal I.$ Plainly, $1\in\mathcal J.$
We {\it claim} that \eqref{eq:7} holds for $\mathbf B_1=\cup_{j\in\mathcal J}B_j,$ i.e., for any $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small and any $t>0,$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:10}
\mathbb{P}[\kappa_{\{Z_t\}}(\mathbf B_1)>t]\simeq \exp\{-C_0e^{-2H_U/\varepsilon^2}t\}.
\end{eqnarray}
The estimation \eqref{eq:10} can be proved following the same line of that of Lemma \ref{lem:expon_tail_multi_well}. The only modification is in obtaining ``$\gtrsim$", we apply \eqref{eq:9} (i.e., the stronger version of Proposition \ref{prop:H_U}) instead of \eqref{equivalent_characterize_H_U}.
\subsection{An upper bound of probability generating function}
In this subsection, we introduce a function that plays a key role in the estimation of exponential tails of the coupling time distributions.
Given $C_0>0,\lambda_0>1,$ define
\begin{eqnarray}\label{g}
g(\lambda; C_0,\lambda_0)=\lambda+ C_0\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}(\lambda^{n+1}-\lambda^{n})\lambda_0^{-n},\quad \lambda\in\mathbb{R}.
\end{eqnarray}
Then
$g(\lambda; C_0,\lambda_0)<\infty$ holds for any $\lambda\in(1,\lambda_0).$
Plainly,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{g_limit}
g(\lambda;C_0,\lambda_0)\to1,\quad \text{as}\ \lambda\to1.
\end{eqnarray}
In Section 3, a quantitative
characterization of the limit in \eqref{g_limit} will be needed.
For $\rho>1,\lambda_0>1, C_0>0,$ define
\begin{eqnarray}\label{beta}
\beta(\rho;C_0,\lambda_0)=\min\big\{\frac{\sqrt{\rho}-1}{\lambda_0-1}, \frac{\sqrt{\rho}-1}{C_0+\sqrt{\rho}-1}\big\}.
\end{eqnarray}
Obviously, $\beta\in(0,1).$
\begin{prop}\label{prop:prob_generate_fun1}
Given $\rho>1, \lambda_0>1$ and $C_0>0.$ Then for any $\lambda\in(1,1+\beta(\lambda_0-1))$ where $\beta=\beta(\rho;C_0,\lambda_0)$ is defined in \eqref{beta},
\begin{eqnarray*}
g(\lambda;C_0,\lambda_0)<\rho.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Write $\lambda=1+\tilde\beta(\lambda_0-1)$ with $\tilde\beta\in(0,1),$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
g(\lambda;C_0,\lambda_0)&=&\lambda+C_0(\lambda-1)\sum_{n=1}^\infty(\lambda/\lambda_0)^n\\%=\lambda+C_0\lambda(\lambda-1)/(\lambda_0-\lambda)
&=&\lambda(1+C_0 \tilde\beta/(1-\tilde\beta))
\le(1+\tilde\beta)(1+C_0{\tilde\beta}/{(1-\tilde\beta)}).
\end{eqnarray*}
To obtain $g(\lambda;C_0,\lambda_0)<\rho,$ we only need
\begin{eqnarray*}
(1+\tilde\beta)<\sqrt{\rho},\quad 1+C_0\dfrac{\tilde\beta}{1-\tilde\beta}<\sqrt{\rho}.
\end{eqnarray*}
This tells how \eqref{beta} is defined.
\end{proof}
The function $g$ in \eqref{g} is motivated by the probability generating function in probability. Actually, if a random variable $T$ admits an exponentially decaying tail, then $\mathbb{E}[\lambda^T]$, i.e., the generating function of $T$ is non-negative integer valued, is upper bounded by $g.$
This elementary fact is often used throughout the paper for estimating the exponential tails of coupling time distributions.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:prob_generate_fun2} Let $T$ be a random variable taking values in $\mathbb{R}_{>0}.$ Assume that for any $t>0,$
$\mathbb{P}[T>t]\le C_0\lambda_0^{-t}.$
Then for any $\lambda\in(1,\lambda_0),$ it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[\lambda^T]\le g(\lambda; C_0,\lambda_0)<\infty.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Note that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[\lambda^T
=\lambda\mathbb{P}[T>0]+\sum_{n=1}^\infty(\lambda^{n+1}-\lambda^n)\mathbb{P}[T>n]
\le\lambda+\sum_{n=1}^\infty(\lambda^{n+1}-\lambda^n)\mathbb{P}[\tau>n].
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
\section{Single-well potential and proof of Theorem \ref{thm:1}}
Throughout this section, $U$ is assumed to be a strongly convex single-well potential satisfying {\bf (U1)}. Let $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t); t\ge 0\}$ be an $h$-reflection-maximal coupling of two solutions of \eqref{SDE1}.
Recall that there is a threshold $d=\mathcal O(\varepsilon\sqrt{h})$ at which $({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)$ is switched between the reflection and maximal couplings.
Throughout this paper, the threshold $d$ is set as $2\varepsilon\sqrt{h}$.
Define
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tau_h^{(1)}=\inf\Big\{t\ge0:|{\mathcal X}_t-{\mathcal Y}_t|\in(0,2\varepsilon\sqrt{h}],\ {\text{and for certain $s\in(0,t),$}}\
|{\mathcal X}_s-{\mathcal Y}_s|>2\varepsilon\sqrt{h}\Big\},
\end{eqnarray*}
and let $\tau_h^{(1)}=\infty$ if the set is empty. We see that $\tau_h^{(1)}$ captures the infimum time when $|{\mathcal X}_t-{\mathcal Y}_t|$ attains the threshold $d$ (from far away) at which $({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)$ is switched from the reflection coupling to the maximal coupling.
It may happen that the distance $|{\mathcal X}_t-{\mathcal Y}_t|$ has always been not exceeding the threshold $d$ before being successfully coupled, and hence $\tau_h^{(1)}=\infty.$
Let
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tau_h=\tau_h^{(1)}\wedge\tau_c.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then $\tau_h<\infty$ holds almost surely.
As will be seen later, the coupling time $\tau_c$ is of a finite iterations of $\tau_h$.
\subsection{Estimation of $\tau_h$.}
In this subsection, $\tau_h$ is estimated under different initial conditions
of $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)\}$ in terms of $|{\mathcal X}_0-{\mathcal Y}_0|>2\varepsilon\sqrt{h}$ and $|{\mathcal X}_0-{\mathcal Y}_0|\le2\varepsilon\sqrt{h},$ respectively.
Note that when $|{\mathcal X}_0-{\mathcal Y}_0|>2\varepsilon\sqrt{h},$ $({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)$ has always been a reflection coupling until $\tau_h$ at which $({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)$ is switched to the maximal coupling. Then Proposition \ref{prop:sup_mart} immediately yields the following.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:1}
Assume $|{\mathcal X}_0-{\mathcal Y}_0|=r_0>2\varepsilon\sqrt{h}.$
Then $\tau_h=\tau_h^{(1)}$ holds $\mathbb{P}{\text{-a.s.}}$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:4}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_h>t]\le \frac{c_0r_0}{2\varepsilon}e^{-m_0t},\quad \forall t>0,
\end{eqnarray}
where $c_0>0$ is as in Proposition \ref{prop:sup_mart}.
Consequently, by Proposition \ref{prop:prob_generate_fun2}, for any $\lambda\in(1,e^{m_0}),$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:5}
\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h}]\le g(\lambda; c_0r_0/2\varepsilon, e^{m_0})
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\medskip
\begin{remark}\label{rem:approximate}
{\rm Note that the estimation in \eqref{ineq:4} is for the continuous-time process instead of its time-$h$ sample chain which the numerical scheme truly approximates.
Let
$\tau_h^0$ ({\it resp.} $\tau_h^h$) be the first passage time of the coupling process $({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)$ ({\it resp.} its time-$h$ sample chain $({\mathcal X}_n^h,{\mathcal Y}_n^h)$) to the set $\{(x,y)\in\mathbb{R}^k\times\mathbb{R}^k:|x-y|<2\varepsilon\sqrt{h}\}.$
It is easy to see that $\tau_h^h\ge\tau_h^0,$
and it is intuitive that their difference, which is usually difficult to be theoretically estimated,
should approach to zero
as $h$ vanishes, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{approximate}
\lim\nolimits_{h\to0}(\tau_h^h-\tau^0_h )=0,\quad\text{$\mathbb{P}$-a.s.}
\end{eqnarray}
Throughout this section, \eqref{approximate} is always assumed and will be numerically verified in Section 5 for the example of symmetric quadratic potential functions. Hence, the estimation \eqref{ineq:4} applies to the time-$h$ sample chain $({\mathcal X}^h_n,{\mathcal Y}^h_n)$ (slightly enlarge $c_0$ if necessary) whenever $h$ is sufficiently small.
}
\end{remark}
\medskip
\medskip
It becomes more complicated when $|{\mathcal X}_0-{\mathcal Y}_0|<2\varepsilon\sqrt{h}$ since the coupling method between ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ may change during $(0,\tau_h).$ More precisely, there exists $n>0$ such that $({\mathcal X}_{ih},{\mathcal Y}_{ih})$ is a maximal coupling for any integer $0\le i<n,$ and for $i=n,$ it holds either that ${\mathcal X}_{nh}={\mathcal Y}_{nh},$ i.e., ${\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t$ are coupled successfully, or $|{\mathcal X}_{nh}-{\mathcal Y}_{nh}|>2\varepsilon\sqrt{h}.$
In the former case, $\tau_c=\tau_h$, while for the latter one, $({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)$ is a reflection coupling ever since until it again holds that $|{\mathcal X}_t-{\mathcal Y}_t|<2\varepsilon\sqrt{h}$.
\medskip
The following proposition provides
the estimation of $\tau_h$ under the initial condition $|{\mathcal X}_0-{\mathcal Y}_0|<2\varepsilon\sqrt{h}.$
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:2}
Assume $|{\mathcal X}_0-{\mathcal Y}_0|\le2\varepsilon\sqrt{h}.$
Then there exists constants $h_0>0,$ $C_0>0$ such that for any $h\in(0,h_0),$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_h>t]\le C_0\sqrt{h} \lambda_h^{-n},\quad \forall t>0,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $n=\lfloor t/h\rfloor.$
Consequently, by Proposition \ref{prop:prob_generate_fun2}, for any $\lambda\in(1,e^{m_0}),$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:10}
\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h}]&\le&g(\lambda; C_0\sqrt{h}, e^{m_0})
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Recall in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:sup_mart}, we denote $R_t=|{\mathcal X}_t-{\mathcal Y}_t|/2\varepsilon.$ Then $\{R_t;t\ge0\}$ is a one-dimensional stochastic process on $\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}$ induced by the coupling $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t);t\ge0\}$.
By the above analysis on the coupling behavior between ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ on $(0,\tau_h),$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_h>t]&\le&\mathbb{P}[\tau_h>nh]\\&=&\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}\mathbb{P}[R_{ih}\in(0,\sqrt{h}], 0\le i\le j-1]\\
&&\cdot\big(\mathbb{P}[R_{jh}>\sqrt{h}|R_{(j-1)h}\in(0, \sqrt{h}]]
\cdot\mathbb{P}[\tau_h^{(1)}\circ\theta^{jh}> t-jh|R_{jh}> \sqrt{h}]\big)\\
&+&\mathbb{P}[R_{ih}\in(0,\sqrt{h}], 0\le i\le n-1]\cdot\mathbb{P}[R_{nh}>0|R_{(n-1)h}\in(0,\sqrt{h}]],
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\theta$ is the usual shift operator.
Note that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[R_{ih}\in(0,\sqrt{h}], 0\le i\le j-1]=
\begin{cases}
1 & j=1 \\
\prod_{i=1}^{j-1}\mathbb{P}[R_{ih}\in(0,\sqrt{h}]|R_{(i-1)h}\in(0,\sqrt{h}]], &j>1.
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $({\mathcal X}_{ih},{\mathcal Y}_{ih})$ is a maximal coupling whenever $|{\mathcal X}_{(i-1)h}-{\mathcal Y}_{(i-1)h}|\le2\varepsilon\sqrt{h}.$
It follows from Lemma \ref{lem:max_coupling} (i) that for certain $\gamma\in(0,1),$
$\mathbb{P}[R_{ih}>0|R_{(i-1)h}\in(0,\sqrt{h}]]<\gamma.$
Hence,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[R_{ih}\in(0,\sqrt{h}], 0\le i\le j-1]\le \gamma^{j-1},
\end{eqnarray*}
and \[\mathbb{P}[R_{ih}\in(0,\sqrt{h}], 0\le i\le n-1]\cdot\mathbb{P}[R_{nh}>0|R_{(n-1)h}\in(0,\sqrt{h}]]\le \gamma^n.\]
Therefore,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:1}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_h>nh]\le\gamma^n+\sum_{j=1} ^{n-1}\gamma^{j-1}\big(\mathbb{P}[R_{jh}>\sqrt{h}|R_{(j-1)h}\in(0, \sqrt{h}]]
\cdot\mathbb{P}[\tau_h\circ\theta^{jh}> t-jh|R_{jh}> \sqrt{h}]\big)\nonumber.
\end{eqnarray}
Now, it only remains to estimate
\begin{eqnarray}\label{expression:1}
\mathbb{P}[R_{jh}> \sqrt{h}|R_{(j-1)h}\in(0, \sqrt{h}]]
\cdot\mathbb{P}[\tau_h\circ\theta^{jh}>t-jh|R_{jh}> \sqrt{h}]
\end{eqnarray}
for $1\le j\le n-1.$
By the Markov property,
\begin{eqnarray}
\eqref{expression:1}&=&\int_{\sqrt{h}}^{\infty}\mathbb{P}[\tau_h\circ\theta^{jh}>t-jh|R_{jh}= s]\mathbb{P}[R_{jh}=ds|R_{(j-1)h}\in(0, \sqrt{h}]]\nonumber\\
&=&\int_{\sqrt{h}}^{\infty}\mathbb{P}[\tau_h>t-jh|R_0=s]\mathbb{P}[R_{jh}=ds|R_{(j-1)h}\in(0, \sqrt{h}]]\nonumber.
\end{eqnarray}
Then it follows from
Lemma \ref{lem:1} that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\eqref{expression:1}&\le& c_0e^{-m_0(t-jh)}
\int_{\sqrt{h}}^\infty r\mathbb{P}[R_{jh}=dr|R_{(j-1)h}\in(0, \sqrt{h}]]\\
&\le&c_0e^{-m_0h(n-j)}\mathbb{E}[R_{jh}|R_{(j-1)h}\in(0,\sqrt{h}]].
\end{eqnarray*}
By Lemma \ref{lem:max_coupling} (ii),
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[R_{jh}|R_{(j-1)h}\in(0,\sqrt{h}]]
\le \frac{1}{2}c_2\sqrt{h}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus, for certain constant $C_0>0$ independent of $h$ and $\varepsilon,$
\[\eqref{expression:1}\le C_0\sqrt{h}e^{-m_0h(n-j)}.\]
Therefore,
\begin{eqnarray*}\label{ineq:7}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_h>t]\le\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}
C_0\sqrt{h}\gamma^{j-1}e^{-m_0h(n-j)}+\gamma^n=C_0\sqrt{h}e^{-m_0h(n-1)}\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}(\gamma e^{m_0h})^{j-1}+\gamma^{n
\end{eqnarray*}
which, by letting $h>0$ sufficiently small and enlarging $C_0$ if necessary, yields
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_h>t]\le C_0\sqrt{h}e^{-m_0t}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
Combining Lemma \ref{lem:1} and Lemma \ref{lem:2}, we have the following.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:3}
Assume $\mathbb{E}[|{\mathcal X}_0-{\mathcal Y}_0|]<\infty.$ Then for any $h\in(0,h_0)$ where $h_0>0$ is as in Lemma \ref{lem:2}, for any $\lambda\in(1,\lambda_h),$ it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h}]<\infty.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Recall the one-dimensional stochastic process $R_t=|{\mathcal X}_t-{\mathcal Y}_t|/(2\varepsilon), t\ge0.$
Then, if denote $\mu$ as the initial distribution of $\{R_t;t\ge0\}$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h}]&=&\int_0^ {\sqrt{h}}\mathbb{E}_r[\lambda^{\tau_h}]\mu(dr)+\int_{\sqrt{h}}^\infty\mathbb{E}_r[\lambda^{\tau_h}]\mu(dr)\\
&\le& g(\lambda; C_0\sqrt{h},\lambda_h)\sqrt{h}+
g(\lambda; c_0\int_{\sqrt{h}}^\infty r\mu(dr),\lambda_h)\\
&\le& g(\lambda; C_0\sqrt{h},\lambda_h)\sqrt{h}+g(\lambda; c_0\mathbb{E}[R_0],\lambda_h),
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\mathbb{E}_r[\cdot]$ denotes the expectation with respect to the initial condition $R_0=r.$
Since $\mathbb{E}[R_0]=\mathbb{E}[|{\mathcal X}_0-{\mathcal Y}_0|]/2\varepsilon<\infty,$ the lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Iteration of $\tau_h$ and coupling times}
The coupling time $\tau_c$ is in fact certain iteration of $\tau_h.$ To see this, define
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tau_h^0=0,\quad \tau_h^k=\tau_h^{k-1}+\tau_h\circ\theta^{\tau_h^{k-1}},\ k\ge1,
\end{eqnarray*}
and let
\begin{eqnarray*}
\eta=\inf\big\{k\ge1: {\mathcal X}_{\tau_h^k}={\mathcal Y}_{\tau_h^k}\big\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
By the definition of $\tau_h,$
the following proposition immediately follows.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:1}
Given any $h>0,$ any $k\ge1.$ The followings hold.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $|{\mathcal X}_{\tau_h^k}-{\mathcal Y}_{\tau_h^k}|=2\varepsilon\sqrt{h}\ \text{or}\ 0,$ where ${\mathcal X}_{\tau_h^k}={\mathcal Y}_{\tau_h^k}$ if and only if $k\ge\eta.$
\item[(ii)] If $k>1,$ then \[\mathbb{P}[|{\mathcal X}_{\tau_h^k}-{\mathcal Y}_{\tau_h^k}|>0|{\mathcal F}_{\tau_h^{k-1}}]<\gamma.\]
where $\gamma$ is as in Lemma \ref{lem:max_coupling}.
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
By Proposition \ref{prop:1} (i),
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tau_c=\tau_h^\eta,\quad \mathbb{P}\mbox{-a.s.}
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus, the estimation of
$\tau_c$ is reduced to the estimation of $\tau^\eta_h.$
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:3}
Assume
$\mathbb{E}[|{\mathcal X}_0-{\mathcal Y}_0|]<\infty.$
Then for any $\delta>0,$ there exists $ h_0>0$ such that for any $h\in(0,h_0)$ and any $\lambda\in(1,e^{m_0-\delta}),$ it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h^\eta}]<\infty.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The idea of the proof follows Lemma 2.9 in \cite{nummelin1982}. Note that
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h^\eta}
&\le&\sum_{k=1}^\infty\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h^k}\mathbb{I}_{\eta\ge k}]\\
&=&\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{
\tau_h}\mathbb{I}_{\eta\ge1}]+\sum_{k=2}^\infty\mathbb{E}[\mathbb{I}_{\eta\ge k}\lambda^{\tau_h^{k-1}}\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h\circ\theta^{\tau_h^{k-1}}}|{\mathcal F}_{\tau_h^{k-1}}]],\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where the last equality is by the observation that $\lambda^{\tau_h^{k-1}}\in{\mathcal F}_{\tau_h^{k-1}}, \{\eta\ge k\}\in{\mathcal F}_{\tau_h^{k-1}}.$
Still, we use the notation $R_t=|{\mathcal X}_t-{\mathcal Y}_t|/2\varepsilon,$ and $\mathbb{E}_{r}$ denotes the expectation with initial condition $R_0=r.$
By Proposition \ref {prop:1} (i), $R_{\tau_h^{k-1}}=\sqrt{h}$ whenever $2\le k<\eta.$ By \eqref{ineq:10} and strong Markov property,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h\circ\theta^{\tau_h^{k-1}}}|{\mathcal F}_{\tau_h^{k-1}}]\le\mathbb{E}_{
\sqrt{h}}[\lambda^{\tau_h}]\le g(\lambda;C_0\sqrt{h},e^{m_0}),\quad \forall k\ge1,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $C_0>0$ is as in Lemma \ref{lem:2}.
Thus,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:9}
\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h^\eta}]&\le&\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{
\tau_h}\mathbb{I}_{\eta\ge1}]+ g(\lambda;C_0\sqrt{h},e^{m_0})\sum_{k=2}^\infty\mathbb{E}[\mathbb{I}_{\eta\ge k}\lambda^{\tau_h^{k-1}}].
\end{eqnarray}
Now we estimate $\mathbb{E}[\mathbb{I}_{\eta\ge k}\lambda^{\tau_h^{k-1}}]$ for $k\ge2.$
First, by writing
$\mathbb{I}_{\{\eta\ge k\}}=\mathbb{I}_{\{\eta\ge k-1\}}\mathbb{I}_{\{R_{\tau_h^{k-1}}>0\}},$
we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}\label{ineq:2}
\mathbb{E}[\mathbb{I}_{\{\eta\ge k\}}\lambda^{\tau_h^{k-1}}]
&=&\mathbb{E}[\mathbb{I}_{\{\eta\ge k-1\}}\lambda^{\tau_h^{k-2}}\mathbb{E}[\mathbb{I}_{\{R_{\tau_h^{k-1}}>0\}}\lambda^{\tau_h\circ\theta^{\tau_h^{k-2}}}|{\mathcal F}_{\tau_h^{k-2}}]]\\
&=&\mathbb{E}[\mathbb{I}_{\{\eta\ge k-1\}}\lambda^{\tau_h^{k-2}}\mathbb{E}_{R_{\tau_h^{k-2}}}[\mathbb{I}_{\{R_{\tau_h}>0\}}\lambda^{\tau_h}]].
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $R_{\tau_h^{k-2}}\in[0,\sqrt{h}]$ for $k>2,$ by the strong Markov property,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}_{R_{\tau_h^{k-2}}}[\mathbb{I}_{\{R_{\tau_h}>0\}}\lambda^{\tau_h}]&\le&
\begin{cases}
\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h}], &k=2,\\
\mathbb{E}_{\sqrt{h}}[\mathbb{I}_{\{R_{\tau_h}>0\}}\lambda^{\tau_h}], &k>2.
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray*}
Note that by H\"older inequality, for any $p\in(0,1),$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[\mathbb{I}_{\{R_{\tau_h}>0\}}\lambda^{\tau_h}]\le (\mathbb{E}[\mathbb{I}_{\{R_{\tau_h}>0\}}])^{1-p}\cdot(\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h/p}])^{p}=(\mathbb{P}[{R_{\tau_h}>0}])^{1-p}\cdot(\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h/p}])^{p}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then it follows from Proposition \ref{prop:1} (ii) and Lemma \ref{lem:2} that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}_{\sqrt{h}}[\mathbb{I}_{\{R_{\tau_h}>0\}}\lambda^{\tau_h/p}]&\le&\gamma^{1-p}g(\lambda^{1/p}; C_0\sqrt{h},e^{m_0})^{p}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[\mathbb{I}_{\{\eta\ge k\}}\lambda^{\tau_h^{k-1}}]&\le
&\begin{cases}
\mathbb{E}[\mathbb{I}_{\eta\ge 1}\lambda^{\tau_h}], & k=2\\
\gamma^{1-p}g(\lambda^{1/p}; C_0\sqrt{h},e^{m_0})^p\mathbb{E}[\mathbb{I}_{\{\eta\ge k-1\}}\lambda^{\tau_h^{k-2}}], & k>2.
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray*}
By induction, we have for $k\ge2,$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[\mathbb{I}_{\{\eta\ge k\}}\lambda^{\tau_h^{k-1}}]&\le& \gamma^{(1-p)(k-2)}g(\lambda^{1/p}; C_0\sqrt{h},e^{m_0})^{p(k-2)}\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h}].
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence, \eqref{ineq:9} yields
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h^\eta}]&\le& \mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h}]\Big(1+ g(\lambda;C_0\sqrt{h},e^{m_0})\sum_{k=0}^\infty \Big(\gamma^{1-p}g(\lambda^{1/p}; C_0\sqrt{h},e^{m_0})^{p}\Big)^k\Big)
\end{eqnarray*}
By Lemma \ref{lem:3}, $\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h}]<\infty.$ Thus, to guarantee $\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h^\eta}]<\infty$, it only requires
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:6}
g(\lambda^{1/p};C_0\sqrt{h},e^{m_0})<\gamma^{-(1-p)/p}
\end{eqnarray}
By Proposition \ref{prop:prob_generate_fun1}, \eqref{ineq:6} holds for any $\lambda>1$ such that $\lambda^{1/p}\in(1,1+\beta_h(e^{m_0}-1))$,
where by choosing $h>0$ sufficiently small, \[\beta_h=\min\Big\{\dfrac{\gamma^{-(1-p)/p}-1}{e^{m_0}-1}, \dfrac{\gamma^{-(1-p)/p}-1}{C_0\sqrt{h}+\gamma^{-(1-p)/p}-1}\Big\}=\dfrac{\gamma^{-(1-p)/p}-1}{C_0\sqrt{h}+\gamma^{-(1-p)/p}-1}.\]
Note that $\beta_h\to1$ as $h\to0.$ Since $p$ can be arbitrarily close to $1$. Then by choosing $h$ sufficiently small, we have
\[\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h^\eta}]<\infty\]
holds for any $\lambda\in(1,e^{m_0-\delta})$ with $\delta>0$ being arbitrarily small.
%
\end{proof}
\medskip
Now, the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:1} is straightforward.
\noindent{\it Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:1}}:
Note that for any $\lambda\in(1,\infty)$ satisfying $\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h^\eta}]<\infty,$ we have for any $t>0,$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_h^\eta>t]\le \mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h^\eta}]\lambda^{-t}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence, by Theorem \ref{thm:3}, for any $\lambda\in(1,e^{m_0-\delta})$ and any $\delta>0,$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\limsup_{t\to\infty}\dfrac{1}{t}\log\mathbb{P}[\tau_h^\eta>t]\le
-m_0+m_0\delta
\end{eqnarray*}
Theorem \ref{thm:1} is proved by taking $\delta$ as $m_0\delta.$
%
%
%
\section{Multi-well potentials and proof of Theorem \ref{thm:2} and Theorem \ref{thm:5}}\label{sec:double-multiple well}
In this section, potential functions with multiple wells are considered.
The case of double-well potential is first studied in Section 4.1-4.3, and following the same idea, potential functions with more wells are investigated in Section 4.4.
\subsection{Key stopping times for double-well potentials}\label{subsec:stopping_time}
In this subsection, several key stopping times for the estimate of $\tau_c$ are introduced for the double-well situation.
Let $U$ be a double-well potential satisfying {\bf (U2)} with two basins $B_1$ and $B_2$, and $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t);t\ge0\}$ be a coupling of two solutions
of \eqref{SDE1}. Denote
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tau^{(1)}_\varepsilon=\inf\Big\{t>h:({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)\in B_1\times B_1\ \text{or}\ B_2\times B_2
\Big\}
\end{eqnarray*}
the infimum time when ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ lie in the {\it same} basin\footnote{The subscript ``$\varepsilon$" is used for the emphasis that in the multi-well setting, the coupling time is essentially determined by the ``basin-switching" behavior of the processes in which the noise magnitude $\varepsilon$ plays the fundamental role.} of $U$.
To avoid the possible repeated boundary-crossing in an initial infinitesimal time interval when ${\mathcal X}_t$ (or ${\mathcal Y}_t$) starts from the basin boundaries, let $\tau^{(1)}_\varepsilon$ be measured after some small positive time which we choose to be the step size $h$ to make it compatible with the numerical simulations.
Plainly, $\tau^{(1)}_\varepsilon<\infty$ for $\mathbb{P}\mbox{-a.s.}$ If initially ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ already belong to the same basin, then $\tau_{\epsilon}^{(1)} = h$ with probability close to
$1$. Now, let ${\mathcal X}_t$ and $ {\mathcal Y}_t$ be initially lie in the different basins, and assume, without loss of generality, that ${\mathcal Y}_t$ starts from $B_1$.
Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tau_\varepsilon^{(1)}=\kappa_{\{{\mathcal X}_t\}}(B_1)\wedge\kappa_{\{{\mathcal Y}_t\}}(B_2),
\end{eqnarray*}
where recall that
$\kappa_{\{{\mathcal X}_t\}}(\cdot)$ and $\kappa_{\{{\mathcal Y}_t\}}(\cdot)$ are the first hitting times defined in \eqref{kappa}.
Denote \begin{eqnarray}\label{la_var}
\lambda_\varepsilon=\exp\{C_0e^{{-2H_U}/{\varepsilon^2}}\}, \end{eqnarray}
where $C_0>0$ is certain constant independent of $\varepsilon.$ By Lemma \ref{lem:expon_tail_multi_well},
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:11}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon^{(1)}>t]\leq\mathbb{P}[\kappa_{\{{\mathcal X}_t\}}(B_1)>t]\lesssim\lambda_\varepsilon^{-t},\quad\forall t>0.
\end{eqnarray}
\bigskip
The reverse of \eqref{ineq:11} also holds under appropriate conditions. For a multi-well potential $U$, recall the index sets $\mathcal I$ and $\mathcal J$ defined in \eqref{I} and \eqref{J}, respectively. It is easy to see that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:11}
\Phi(x_j,x_i)-U(x_j)>\Phi(x_i,x_j)-U(x_i)=H_U,\ \text{$\forall$}\ i\in\mathcal I, j\in\mathcal J.
\end{eqnarray}
Denote
\[\mathbf{B}_1 =\bigcup\nolimits_{j \in\mathcal J} B_j, \quad{\mathbf{B}_2 =\bigcup\nolimits_{i \in\mathcal I} B_i},\]
where $\mathbf B_1$ has been defined at the end of Section 2.3. Plainly, $B_1 \subseteq \mathbf{B}_1.$ We note that $\mathbf B_2$ collects all the ``far-away" basins from $B_1,$ where by ``far-away" we mean that any path starting from such a basin has to overcome the {\it largest} barrier height (i.e., the essential barrier height $H_U$) to enter $B_1$.
\medskip
In this paper, for the multi-well situation (which, of course, includes the double-well case), the following {\bf (H1)} is always assumed and will be numerically verified in Section 5.
\medskip
\medskip
\noindent{\bf (H1)} There exist $\delta_0>0,\gamma_0>0$ such that, if
$\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)\}$ is a reflection-maximal coupling of two solutions of \eqref{SDE1} satisfying {${\mathcal X}_0\in\cup_{i\in\mathcal I} B_{\delta_0}(x_i), {\mathcal Y}_0\in \cup_{j\in\mathcal J} B_{\delta_0}(x_j),$} then for any $t>0$ and any $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:14}
\mathbb{P}\big[{\mathcal Y}_s\in \mathbf{B}_1\ \text{for all}\ s\in[0,t]\big| \kappa_{\{{\mathcal X}_t\}}(\mathbf{B}_1)>t\big]>\gamma_0.
\end{eqnarray}
\medskip
{\bf (H1)} states that when ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ start from the ``bottom" of the basins from $\mathbf{B}_2$ and $\mathbf{B}_1$ respectively, the probability of ${\mathcal Y}_t$ not leaving $\mathbf{B}_1$ conditioning that ${\mathcal X}_t$ has not entered $\mathbf{B}_1$ yet is uniformly positive and independent of $\varepsilon$ and $t$. This is intuitive because by \eqref{eq:11}, processes starting from the local minima with indexes from
$\mathcal I$ have to overcome a higher barrier to exist $\mathbf{B}_1$ than the vice versa.
\medskip
In the double-well setting, $\mathbf{B}_i$ is simply $B_i$ for $i=1,2,$ and \eqref{ineq:14} is reduced to
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:19}
\mathbb{P}[\kappa_{\{{\mathcal Y}_t\}}(B_2)>t|\kappa_{\{{\mathcal X}_t\}}(B_1)>t]>\gamma_0.
\end{eqnarray}
Then under condition {\bf (H1)}, if ${\mathcal X}_0\in B_{\delta_0}(x_1)$ and ${\mathcal Y}_0\in B_{\delta_0}(x_2)$,
the reverse of \eqref{ineq:11} holds
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:15}
\mathbb{P}[\tau^{(1)}_\varepsilon>t]&\ge&\mathbb{P}[\kappa_{\{{\mathcal X}_t\}}(B_1)>t,\kappa_{\{{\mathcal Y}_t\}}(B_2)>t]\nonumber\\
&=&\mathbb{P}[\kappa_{\{{\mathcal Y}_t\}}(B_2)>t|\kappa_{\{{\mathcal X}_t\}}(B_1)>t]\cdot\mathbb{P}[\kappa_{\{{\mathcal X}_t\}}(B_1)>t]\nonumber\\
&\ge&\gamma_0\cdot\mathbb{P}[\kappa_{\{{\mathcal X}_t\}}(B_1)>t]\simeq\lambda_\varepsilon^{-t},
\end{eqnarray}
where the last ``$\simeq$" holds by letting $\delta_0>0$ be sufficiently small.
\bigskip
In a rather contrary sense to $\tau^{(1)}_\varepsilon,$ define another stopping time
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tau^{(2)}_\varepsilon=&\inf&\Big\{t>h:({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)\in B_1\times B_2\ \text{or}\ B_2\times B_1, \ \text{and for certain}\ s\in(0,t),\\ &&({\mathcal X}_s,{\mathcal Y}_s)\in B_1\times B_1 \ \text{or}\ B_2\times B_2\Big\},
\end{eqnarray*}
and let $\tau^{(2)}_\varepsilon=\infty$ if the set is empty.
Then $\tau^{(2)}_\varepsilon$ captures the infimum time when
${\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t$ are separated (again) by the two {\it different} basins, where ``again" applies when ${\mathcal X}_0,{\mathcal Y}_0$ are already belong to the different basins.
Denote
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tau_\varepsilon=\tau^{(2)}_\varepsilon\wedge\tau_c.
\end{eqnarray*}
It is not hard to see that
$\tau_\varepsilon=\tau^{(2)}_\varepsilon<\tau_c$ when ${\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t$ are {\it not} coupled when staying within the same basin, and $\tau_\varepsilon=\tau_c<\tau_\varepsilon^{(2)}=\infty$ for otherwise. As will be seen in Section 4.3, the coupling time $\tau_c$ is a finite iteration of $\tau_\varepsilon$ for $\mathbb{P}$-a.s.
\subsection{Estimation of $\tau_\varepsilon$.}\label{subsec:4.2}
In the multi-well situation, the following {\bf (H2)} characterizes
the {\it local} coupling behaviors when both ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ are lying in the same basin.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf (H2)}
Let $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)\}$ be a reflection-maximal coupling of two solutions of \eqref{SDE1} such that $({\mathcal X}_0,{\mathcal Y}_0)\in\bigcup_{1\le i\le L}\overline{ B_i\times B_i}$. The followings hold.
\medskip
(i) There exists $\gamma_1 < 1$ such that \[\mathbb{P}[{\mathcal X}_{\tau_\varepsilon}\neq{\mathcal Y}_{\tau_\varepsilon}]<\gamma_1.\]
(ii) There exist $r_1, r_2>0$ such that for any $t>0$ and any $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon>t|{\mathcal X}_{\tau_\varepsilon}={\mathcal Y}_{\tau_\varepsilon}]\lesssim e^{-r_1t},\quad \mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon>t|{\mathcal X}_{\tau_\varepsilon}\neq{\mathcal Y}_{\tau_\varepsilon}]\lesssim e^{-r_2t}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\medskip
We note that {\bf (H2)} is intuitive that {\bf (H2)}(i) suggests a positive probability for a successful coupling when ${\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t$ belong to the same basin. The first inequality in {\bf (H2)}(ii) is a ``conditional" version of Theorem \ref{thm:1} conditioning that ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ are being successfully coupled within the same basin, and the second inequality states that for otherwise, the exponential tail of $\tau_\varepsilon$ remains largely unchanged (although the probability $\mathbb{P}[{\mathcal X}_{\tau_\varepsilon}\neq{\mathcal Y}_{\tau_\varepsilon}]$ drops dramatically as $\varepsilon$ decreases).
\medskip
In this paper, for the multi-well situation, {\bf (H2)} is always assumed and will be numerically verified in Section 5. We see that when ${\mathcal X}_0$ and ${\mathcal Y}_0$ belong to the same basin, the two inequalities in {\bf (H2)}(ii) together yield the following estimate of $\tau_\varepsilon.$
\begin{prop}\label{prop:2}
Let $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t);t\ge0\}$ be a reflection-maximal coupling of two solutions of \eqref{SDE1} such that $({\mathcal X}_0,{\mathcal Y}_0)\in \overline{ B_1\times B_1}$ or $\overline{ B_2\times B_2.}$
Then there exists $r_0>0$ such that for any $t>0$ and any $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small, it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*
\mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon>t]\lesssim e^{-r_0 t}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{prop}
\medskip
In the estimate of $\tau_\varepsilon,$ it becomes more complicated when ${\mathcal X}_0$ and ${\mathcal Y}_0$ belong to the different basins. Typically in this case, the coupling process $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)\}$ should experience two stages during $(0,\tau_\varepsilon)$. In Stage I, ${\mathcal X}_t, {\mathcal Y}_t$ are lying in the different basins until one of them,
${\mathcal X}_t$ or ${\mathcal Y}_t,$ jumps out of the basin it initially belongs to and enters the other basin so that ${\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t$ are staying in the same basin; then it comes to the Stage II that ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ are lying in the same basin for
another period of time until they are either successfully coupled, or not coupled and one of them, ${\mathcal X}_t$ or ${\mathcal Y}_t,$
jumps out of the same basin again.
Hence, we write \begin{eqnarray}\label{tau_equation}
\tau_\varepsilon=\tau_\varepsilon\circ\theta^{\tau_\varepsilon^{(1)}}+\tau^{(1)}_\varepsilon,\quad\mathbb{P}\text{- a.s.},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\theta$ is the usual shift operator.
We note that Stage I and Stage II illustrate different time scales: Stage I has the slow time-scale which typically lasts for an exponentially long period of time with the tail exponent being exponentially small; while Stage II has the fast time-scale for which, according to Proposition \ref{prop:2}, the tail exponent of the distribution is uniformly bounded away from zero.
\medskip
According to above analysis, we have the following estimate of $\tau_\varepsilon$ when ${\mathcal X}_t, {\mathcal Y}_t$ initially belong to the different basins.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:4}
Let $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t);t\ge0\}$ be a reflection-maximal coupling of two solutions of \eqref{SDE1} such that $({\mathcal X}_0,{\mathcal Y}_0)\in \overline{B_1\times B_2}$ or $\overline{B_2\times B_1}.$
Then there exists $C_1>0$ such that for any $t>0$ and any $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon>t]\le C_1\lambda_\varepsilon^{-t}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Consequently, by Proposition \ref{prop:prob_generate_fun2}, for any $\lambda\in(1,\lambda_\varepsilon),$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:13}
\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_\varepsilon}]\le g(\lambda; C_1, \lambda_\varepsilon)<\infty.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
According to \eqref{tau_equation}, \begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:8}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon>t]=\int_0^t\mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon^{(1)}=s]\mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon>t|\tau_\varepsilon^{(1)}=s]ds.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that for any given $\delta>0,$ $\mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon^{(1)}<\delta]\to0$ as $\varepsilon\to0.$ Hence, for any $\delta',\delta>0$ sufficiently small,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\eqref{ineq:8}&\le& \int_\delta^t\mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon^{(1)}>{s-\delta}]\mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon>t|\tau_\varepsilon^{(1)}=s]ds+\delta'\\
&\le&\int_\delta^t\mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon^{(1)}>{s-\delta}]\mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon\circ\theta^s>t-s|\tau_\varepsilon^{(1)}=s]ds+\delta'\nonumber
\end{eqnarray*}
By equation \eqref{ineq:11}, there exists $C_2>0$ such that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon^{(1)}>s-\delta]\le C_2\lambda_\varepsilon^{-(s-\delta)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Since ${\mathcal X}_t, {\mathcal Y}_t$ belong to the same basin for $t=\tau_\varepsilon^{(1)}.$ By Proposition \ref{prop:2}, there exists $C_3>0$ such that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon\circ\theta^s>t-s|\tau_\varepsilon^{(1)}=s
\le C_3e^{-r_0(t-s)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\eqref{ineq:8}\le C_2C_3\lambda_\varepsilon^\delta\int_0^t\lambda_\varepsilon ^{-s}e^{-r_0(t-s)}ds+\delta'
\le2C_2C_3\lambda_\varepsilon^{-t}\int_0^t(\lambda_\varepsilon e^{-r_0})^{t-s}ds+\delta',
\end{eqnarray*}
where the last inequality is by the arbitrarily small of $\delta.$
Since $\lambda_\varepsilon e^{-r_0}<1$ for $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small, we have, with certain constant $C_1>0$ independent of $\varepsilon$ and $t,$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\eqref{ineq:8}\le C_1\lambda_\varepsilon^{-t}
+\delta'\end{eqnarray*}
The lemma is proved since $\delta'$ can be arbitrarily small.
\end{proof}
%
By noting that $1<\lambda_\varepsilon<e^{r_0}$ whenever $\varepsilon$ sufficiently small, Proposition \ref{prop:2} and Lemma \ref{lem:4} directly yield the following.
\begin{prop}\label{lem:5}
Let $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)\}$ be a reflection-maximal coupling of two solutions of \eqref{SDE1} such that $({\mathcal X}_0,{\mathcal Y}_0)$ is fully supported.
Then for any $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small, any $\lambda\in(1,\lambda_\varepsilon),$ it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_\varepsilon}]<\infty.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{prop}
%
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:2}}
This subsection proves Theorem \ref{thm:2}. Similar to the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:1}, a sequence of random times are inductively defined \begin{eqnarray}\label{iteration}
\tau_\varepsilon^{0}=0,\ \tau_\varepsilon^{k}=\tau_\varepsilon^{k-1}+\tau_\varepsilon\circ\theta^{\tau_\varepsilon^{k-1}},\quad k\ge1.
\end{eqnarray}
where $\theta$ is the usual shift operator. Note that by definition of $\tau_\varepsilon,$ for each $k\ge1,$ either ${\mathcal X}_{\tau_\varepsilon^k}={\mathcal Y}_{\tau_\varepsilon^k},$ or ${\mathcal X}_{\tau_\varepsilon^k}$ and ${\mathcal Y}_{\tau_\varepsilon^k}$ belong to the different basins. Let
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eta}
\eta=\inf\{k\ge1:{\mathcal X}_{\tau_\varepsilon^k}={\mathcal Y}_{\tau_\varepsilon^k}\}.
\end{eqnarray}
\medskip
The following Proposition \ref{prop:5} and Theorem \ref{thm:4} are respectively the analogues of Proposition \ref{prop:1} and Theorem \ref{thm:3} in the double-well setting.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:5}
For any $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small, the followings hold.
\quad
(i) ${\mathcal X}_{\tau_\varepsilon^k}={\mathcal Y}_{\tau_\varepsilon^k}$ if and only if $k\ge\eta;$
\quad (ii) For any $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small, it holds that
\[\mathbb{P}[{\mathcal X}_{\tau_\varepsilon^k}\neq{\mathcal Y}_{\tau_\varepsilon^k}|{\mathcal F}_{\tau_\varepsilon^{k-1}}]<\gamma_1,\quad\forall k\ge1,\]
where $\gamma_1< 1$ is as in {\bf (H2)}{\rm(i)}.
\end{prop}
Plainly, Proposition \ref{prop:5} (i) holds and further yields
\[\tau_c=\tau_\varepsilon^\eta,\quad\text{$\mathbb{P}$-a.s.}\]
By the strong Markov property, Proposition \ref{prop:5} (ii) directly follows from {\bf (H2)}(i).
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:4}
Let $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t);t\ge0\}$ be a reflection-maximal coupling of two solutions of \eqref{SDE1} such that $({\mathcal X}_0,{\mathcal Y}_0)$ is fully supported.
Then for any $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small and any $\lambda\in(1,\lambda_\varepsilon),$ it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_\varepsilon^\eta}]<\infty. \end{eqnarray*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The proof follows the same line of the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:3}.
With $\mathbb{I}_{\{R_{\tau_\varepsilon^k>0}\}}$ in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:3} replaced by $\mathbb{I}_{\{{\mathcal X}_{\tau_\varepsilon^k}\neq{\mathcal Y}_{\tau_\varepsilon^k}\}},$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_\varepsilon^\eta}]\le\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_\varepsilon}]\Big(1+ g(\lambda;C_1,\lambda_\varepsilon)\sum_{k=0}^\infty \Big(\gamma^{1-p}g(\lambda^{1/p}; C_1,\lambda_\varepsilon)^{p}\Big)^k\Big),
\end{eqnarray*}
where $C_1$ is as in Lemma \ref{lem:4}, and $p$ can be any number in $(0,1).$
Thus, $\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_\varepsilon^\eta}]<\infty$ if \begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:3}
g(\lambda^{1/p};C_1,\lambda_\varepsilon)<\gamma^{-(1-p)/p}.
\end{eqnarray}
By Proposition \ref{prop:prob_generate_fun2},
\eqref{ineq:3} holds for any $\lambda^{1/p}\in(1,(1+\beta(\lambda_\varepsilon-1))$
where \[\beta=\dfrac{\gamma^{-(1-p)/2p}-1}{C_4+\gamma^{-(1-p)/2p}-1}\in(0,1).\]
Since $\ln\lambda_\varepsilon\simeq C_0e^{-2H_U/\varepsilon^2}$, it is not hard to see that $\ln\lambda$ is in the same order, i.e., there exists constant $\tilde C_0>0$ independent of $\varepsilon$ such that
\[\lim_{\varepsilon\to0}\ln\lambda \cdot e^{2H/\varepsilon^2}=\tilde C_0.\]
Then with $\lambda_\varepsilon=\exp\{\tilde C_0e^{-2H_U/\varepsilon^2}\},$ the lemma is proved by letting $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small.
\end{proof}
\bigskip
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:2}:]
Note that for any $\lambda>1$ satisfying $\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{ \tau_\varepsilon^\eta}]<\infty,$
it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon^\eta>t]\lambda^t\le\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_\varepsilon^\eta}].
\end{eqnarray*}
It then follows from Proposition \ref{prop:5} (ii) and Theorem \ref{thm:4}
that for any $t>0,$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_c>t]\lesssim \lambda_\varepsilon^{-t}.
\end{eqnarray*}
For the other side of the inequality,
since $({\mathcal X}_0,{\mathcal Y}_0)$ is fully supported, for any $\delta>0$ sufficiently small,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_c>t]\ge\mathbb{P}[\tau_c>t, ({\mathcal X}_0,{\mathcal Y}_0)\in B_\delta(x_1)\times B_\delta(x_2)\ \mbox{or}\ B_\delta(x_2)\times B_\delta(x_1)].
\end{eqnarray*}
Note that when ${\mathcal X}_0$ and ${\mathcal Y}_0$ belong to the different basins, $\tau_c\ge\tau^{(1)}_\varepsilon.$ Thus, by \eqref{ineq:15}
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\mathbb{P}[\tau_c>t, ({\mathcal X}_0,{\mathcal Y}_0)\in B_\delta(x_1)\times B_\delta(x_2)\ \mbox{or}\ B_\delta(x_2)\times B_\delta(x_1)]\\
&\ge&\mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon^{(1)}>t, ({\mathcal X}_0,{\mathcal Y}_0)\in B_\delta(x_1)\times B_\delta(x_2)\ \mbox{or}\ B_\delta(x_2)\times B_\delta(x_1)]
\gtrsim\lambda_\varepsilon^{-t}.
\end{eqnarray*}
This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:2}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Multi-well potentials and proof of Theorem \ref{thm:5}}
In this subsection, we study the general case of multi-well potentials. Let $U$ be a potential function satisfying {\bf (U3)}
with $L(L\ge3)$ local minima $x_1,\cdots,x_L$ and the corresponding basins $B_1,\cdots,B_L$.
Let $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t);t\ge0\}$ be a coupling of two solutions of \eqref{SDE1}.
In the multi-well setting, the estimate of coupling time follows the same idea in the double-well case and some key stopping times have to be defined. Without any confusion, the notation $\tau_\varepsilon^{(1)}$ is continued to denote the infimum time when ${\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t$ lie in the same basin, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tau^{(1)}_\varepsilon=\inf\Big\{t>h:({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)\in\cup_{1\le i\le L} B_i\times B_i\Big\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Define
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tau_\varepsilon^{(3)}=&\inf&\Big\{t>h:({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t) \in\bigcup\nolimits_{\substack{1\le i,j\le L,i\neq j}}B_i\times B_j,\mbox{and for certain}\ s\in(0,t),\\
&&({\mathcal X}_s,{\mathcal Y}_s)\in
\bigcup\nolimits_{1\le i\le L}B_i\times B_i \Big\},
\end{eqnarray*}
and let $\tau_\varepsilon^{(3)}=\infty$ if the set is empty.
We see that $\tau_\varepsilon^{(3)}$ is a generalization of $\tau_\varepsilon^{(2)}$ in the multi-well setting and coincides with $\tau_\varepsilon^{(2)}$ when $L=2.$
\medskip
In the multi-well setting, of particular interest is the time when both ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ are lying around the (unique) global minimum $x_1.$ Denote $\xi_1$ the infimum time when both ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ lie in the basin $B_1$.
Recall that $\kappa_{\{{\mathcal X}_t\}}(B_1)$ ({\it resp.} $\kappa_{\{{\mathcal Y}_t\}}(B_1)$), as defined in \eqref{kappa}, denotes the infimum time when ${\mathcal X}_t$ ({\it resp.} ${\mathcal Y}_t$) lies in $B_1$. Then it must be that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:17}
\xi_1\ge \max\big\{\kappa_{\{{\mathcal X}_t\}}(B_1), \kappa_{\{{\mathcal Y}_t\}}(B_1)\big\}.
\end{eqnarray}
We note that both ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ may go into and out of the basin $B_1$ many times before $\xi_1.$ However, as long as $\varepsilon$ is sufficiently small, the typical scenario is that one of the two processes, say ${\mathcal X}_t,$ first enters $B_1$ and ``waits" the other process ${\mathcal Y}_t$ to come. Although ${\mathcal X}_t$ may leave $B_1$ before ${\mathcal Y}_t$ arrives, it should be very likely that ${\mathcal X}_t$ stays in the nearby basins and goes back to $B_1$ quickly before ${\mathcal Y}_t$ jumps out of $B_1$.
The following {\bf (H3)} is assumed which states that $\xi_1$ is no greater than $\kappa_{\{{\mathcal X}_t\}}(B_1)$ (or $\kappa_{\{{\mathcal Y}_t\}}(B_1)$) by an infinitesimal the same order with $\kappa_{\{{\mathcal X}_t\}}(B_1)$ and $\kappa_{\{{\mathcal Y}_t\}}(B_1)$.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf (H3)} Let $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t);t\ge0\}$ be a reflection-maximal coupling of two solutions of \eqref{SDE1} such that $({\mathcal X}_0, {\mathcal Y}_0)\in\bigcup\nolimits_{1\le i,j\le L, i\neq j} \overline{B_i\times B_j}.$ Then for any $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:18}
\limsup_{t\to\infty}\dfrac{1}{t}\log\mathbb{P}\big[\big(\xi_1-\max\big\{\kappa_{\{{\mathcal X}_t\}}(B_1),\kappa_{\{{\mathcal Y}_t\}}(B_1)\big\}\big)>t\big]\lesssim e^{-2H_U/\varepsilon^2}.
\end{eqnarray}
\medskip
Note that unlike {\bf (H2)} which is the local characterization of the coupling behavior between ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$, {\bf(H3)} is a {\it global} condition on the coupling behavior when ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ run around the entire potential landscape. In Section 5.4, {\bf (H3)} is numerically verified.
Still, as in \eqref{la_var}, denote
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lambda_\varepsilon=\exp\{C_0 e^{-2H_U/\varepsilon^2}\},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $H_U$ is defined in \eqref{barrier_height_multi-well}.
Under Assumption {\bf (H3)}, by Lemma \ref{lem:expon_tail_multi_well}, for the initial condition $({\mathcal X}_0,{\mathcal Y}_0)\in\bigcup\nolimits_{1\le i,j\le L, i\neq j}\overline{B_i\times B_j},$
we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:23}
\mathbb{P}[\xi_1>t]\lesssim \lambda_\varepsilon^{-t}. \end{eqnarray}
Since $\tau^{(1)}_\varepsilon\le\xi_1$,
\eqref{ineq:23} further yields
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:22} \mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon^{(1)}>t]\lesssim\lambda_\varepsilon^{-t}. \end{eqnarray}
\medskip
Let
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tau_\varepsilon=\tau_\varepsilon^{(3)}\wedge\tau_c.
\end{eqnarray*}
The subsequent analysis follows the same line as in the double-well case: if ${\mathcal X}_t, {\mathcal Y}_t$ initially belong to the same basin, then under condition {\bf (H2)}, Proposition \ref{prop:2} holds without any change. If ${\mathcal X}_t, {\mathcal Y}_t$ initially belong to the different basins, then during the time interval $(0,\tau_\varepsilon),$ the coupling behavior between $({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)$ is further ``decomposed" into two stages. Stage I: ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ are lying in the same basin before $\tau_\varepsilon^{(1)}$, and then Stage II: ${\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t$ are either successfully coupled within the same basin, or not coupled before any one of them exists the basin.
\medskip
In the multi-well setting when more than two wells are present, {\bf (H1)}-{\bf (H3)} are always assumed. The following Lemma \ref{lem:multi_well} is a ``multi-well version" of Lemma \ref{lem:4} for which the proof is omitted.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:multi_well}
Let $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t);t\ge0\}$ be a reflection-maximal coupling of two solutions of \eqref{SDE1} such that $({\mathcal X}_0,{\mathcal Y}_0)\in\bigcup_{1\le i,j\le L, i\neq j} \overline{B_i\times B_j}.$
Then
for any $t>0,$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon>t]\lesssim\lambda_\varepsilon^{-t}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{lemma}
%
%
\bigskip
Now, the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:5} follows the same line of Theorem \ref{thm:2}.
\medskip
\noindent{\it Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:5}:}
As to the single and double-well cases, the coupling time $\tau_c$ is a finite iteration of $\tau_\varepsilon$ with $\tau_c=\tau_\varepsilon^\eta,$ where $\eta$ is as in \eqref{eta}. Applying the same arguments in Theorem \ref{thm:3}, for any $\lambda\in(1,\lambda_\varepsilon),$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_\varepsilon}]<\infty,
\end{eqnarray*}
and hence
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_c>t]\lesssim \lambda_\varepsilon^{-t}.
\end{eqnarray*}
For the other side of the inequality, since $({\mathcal X}_0,{\mathcal Y}_0)$ is fully supported, we only consider the initial condition that ${\mathcal X}_t$ starts from certain basin ``far-away" from $B_1$ (i.e., any basin with the index from $\mathcal I$) and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ starts from any of the basins with ``low" values (i.e., any basin with
the index from $\mathcal J$). By {\bf (H1)}, under such initial condition, the event that ${\mathcal X}_t$ enters $\mathbf B_1$ before ${\mathcal Y}_t$ has ever existed $\mathbf B_1$
occurs with a positive probability and independent of $\varepsilon$ and $t.$ Thus
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:21} \mathbb{P}[\tau_c>t
&\ge&\mathbb{P}\big[{\mathcal Y}_s\in\mathbf B_1\ \text{for all}\ s\in[0,t]\big|\kappa_{\{{\mathcal X}_t\}}>t\big]\cdot\mathbb{P}[\kappa_{\{{\mathcal X}_t\}}>t]\nonumber\\ &\ge&\gamma_0\cdot\mathbb{P}[\kappa_{\{{\mathcal X}_t\}}>t]\simeq\lambda_\varepsilon^{-t}
\end{eqnarray}
where ``$\simeq$" comes from \eqref{eq:10}, the strengthened version of Lemma \ref{lem:expon_tail_multi_well}.
This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:5}.
\section{Numerical Examples}
In this section, various numerical examples are presented to verify the theoretical results as well as assumptions that have been assumed in the previous sections.
Please refer to \cite{li-wang2020} for a detailed description on the coupling algorithm that will be used.
We first propose an algorithm for a precise numerical estimate of the exponential tail of coupling times.
\subsection{An algorithm for exponential tail estimation}\label{exptail}
Let $\tau_{c}$ be the coupling time. The first task is to estimate the exponential tail of $\mathbb{P}[\tau_{c} > t]$ with respect to $t$, or more precisely,
\[-\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{t}\log \mathbb{P}[ \tau_{c} > t] \,.
\]
Since only finitely many coupling events are to be sampled, an efficient algorithm is needed to both statistically confirm the existence of such exponential tail and to estimate it.
The main difficulty is that $\mathbb{P}[\tau_{c} > t]$ usually does not behave like an exponential distribution until $t$ is sufficiently large. A suitable $t^{*}$ then needs to be determined such that on one hand, $\mathbf{1}_{\{\tau_{c} > t^{*} \}}(\tau_{c} -t^{*})$ truly behaves like an exponential distribution, and on the other hand, such $t^{*}$ needs to be as small as possible so that enough samples with $\tau_{c} >t^{*}$ are collected. However, most exponentiality tests we have tried tend to provide a too small $t^{*}$ for which in the log-linear plot, $\mathbf{1}_{\{\tau_{c} > t^{*} \}}(\tau_{c} -t^{*})$ has not ``stabilized'' to a good exponential distribution probably due to the sensitivity of log-linear plot in terms of small changes of the tail distribution.
The purpose of our algorithm is to capture a suitable $t^{*}$ such that in the log-linear plot, $\mathbb{P}[\tau_{c} > t]$ v.s. $t$ statistically forms a straight line. In other words, the confidence interval of $\mathbb{P}[\tau_{c} > t]$ should cover the straight line in the log-linear plot for all $t > t^*$. Choose a sequence of times $t_{0}, t_{1}, \cdots t_{N}$, where $t_{N}$ is usually set to be the maximum of all the coupling times obtained in the simulation. Denote the total sample size as $M$, and for each $i$, let $n_{i}$ be the number of samples with $\tau_{c} >t_{i}$. Then the Agresti-Coull method \cite{Agresti-Coull1998} provides a confidence interval
\[[ \tilde{p}_{i}^{-}, \tilde{p}_{i}^{+}]:= [ \tilde{p}_{i} - z \sqrt{\frac{\tilde{p}_{i}}{\tilde{M}}(1 - \tilde{p}_{i}) } \,,
\tilde{p}_{i} + z \sqrt{\frac{\tilde{p}_{i}}{\tilde{M}}(1 -
\tilde{p}_{i} )} ]\,,
\]
where $\tilde{M} = M + z^{2},$ $ \tilde{p}_{i} = {(n_{i} + \frac{z^{2}}{2})}/{\tilde{M}},$ and $z = \Phi^{-1}( 1 - \alpha/2)$ is the $\alpha$-quantile of the standard normal distribution. In the simulations, we
usually choose $z = 1.96, \alpha = 0.05$
A weighted linear regression is used to fit the points $(t_{i}, \log\tilde{p}_{i})$ for $i = N_{0}, N_{0} + 1, \cdots, N$, where the weight of $(t_{i}, \log\tilde{p}_{i})$ equals $n_i/M$. The number $N_0$ is chosen in the following way. Suppose that the weighted linear regression provides a linear function $y = a t + b$. A number $N_{0}$ is accepted if it satisfies $$
| \{ i \,|\, a t_{i} + b \notin [ \tilde{p}_{i}^{-},
\tilde{p}_{i}^{+}] | < \alpha (N - N_{0} + 1) \,.
$$
In other words, statistically, $\mathbf{1}_{\{\tau_{c} > t_{N_0}\} }(\tau_{c} -t_{N_0})$ is indistinguishable from an exponential distribution. The smallest possible value of such $N_0$ is the $N_0$ we finally choose which can be found through the binary search method. Then $t^{*}$ is given by $t_{N_{0}}$, and the exponential tail is given by the index $a$ in the weighted linear regression corresponding to $N_0.$
\subsection{Quadratic potential function}
The first example is the quadratic potential function.
The main purpose of this example is to numerically verify the theoretical result of Theorem \ref{thm:1}. Another purpose is to verify \eqref{approximate} which assumes that the first passage time of the discrete-time trajectory approaches to that of the continuous-time trajectory as the time step size vanishes.
Consider the quadratic potential function
\[U(x) = \frac{1}{2} {x}^{T} \boldsymbol{A} {x},\quad x\in\mathbb{R}^k,\]
where $\boldsymbol{A}$ is a $k\times k$ Lehmer matrix, i.e., the entries $\boldsymbol{A}_{ij} =
\min(i,j)/\max(i,j),$ which is
symmetric and positive definite \cite{lehmer1958}.
The corresponding SDE is
\begin{equation}\label{Lehmer}
\mathrm{d}Z_{t} = - \boldsymbol{A} Z_tdt + \varepsilon \mathrm{d}W_{t} \,,
\end{equation}
where $W_{t}$ is a
$k$-dimensional Wiener process, and $\varepsilon > 0$ is the strength of noise.
In the numerical simulations, the time step size $h$ is always set to be $0.001$ unless otherwise specified.
In Figure \ref{fig1},
the probability distribution of $\tau_{c}$ is demonstrated. The four panels are $\mathbb{P}[\tau_{c}
> t]$ v.s. $t$ in log-linear plot with respect to the $2\times 2$, $4\times 4$, $6\times 6$, and $8 \times 8$ Lehmer matrices, respectively. In all the four cases, the strength of noise takes the value $0.02$, $0.1$, $0.5$, and $1.5$. The slope of each curve of $\mathbb{P}[\tau_{c}> t]$ v.s. $t$ in the log-linear plot is measured by the algorithm introduced in subsection \ref{exptail}.
In all the four cases, although as noise changes the probability distribution of $\tau_{c}$ is very different, the slope of the exponential tail remains unchanged. In addition, the least eigenvalue of $\boldsymbol{A}$, which can be explicitly computed, is very close to the slope of the corresponding exponential tails with an error less than $0.01$. This numerically verifies the result of Theorem \ref{thm:1} that the slope of the exponential tail is only determined by the convexity of the potential function and independent of the noise magnitudes.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width = \linewidth]{Fig1_Lehmer.png}}
\caption{$\mathbb{P}[\tau_{c} > t]$ v.s. $t$ in log-linear plots and
their exponential tails. Four panels are for Lehmer matrices with size
$2$, $4$, $6$, and $8$. The least eigenvalue of each matrix is
demonstrated in the title of each subplot. }
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
Now, we use this example to verify \eqref{approximate} in Remark \ref{rem:approximate} that \[\lim\nolimits_{h \rightarrow 0} | \tau_{h}^{0} - \tau_{h}^{h} | = 0,\] where
$\tau_{h}^{0} = \inf\nolimits_{t > 0} \{ |X_{t} - Y_{t}| = 2 \sqrt{h}\}$ is the continuous-time first passage time, and
$\tau_{h}^{h} = h \cdot \inf\nolimits_{n > 0} \{ |X_{nh} - Y_{nh}| = 2 \sqrt{h}\}$ is the first passage time of the time-$h$ sample chain.
This can be done by the extrapolation argument. Let $h_{1} =h/n$ for some integer $n$, and define the first passage time of the time-$h_1$ sample chain
\[\tau_{h}^{h_{1}} = h_{1} \cdot \inf_{n > 0} \{ |X_{nh_{1}} - Y_{nh_{1}}| = 2 \sqrt{h} \} \,.
\]
By the strong approximation of the Euler-Maruyama scheme of the SDE, i.e., \[\lim\nolimits_{h_{1}\rightarrow 0} \tau_{h}^{h_{1}} = \tau_{h}^{0},\quad\mathbb{P}\text{-a.s.},\]
we only need to compare $\tau_{h}^{h}$ and $\tau_{h}^{h_{1}},$ where the latter is an approximation of $\tau_h^0$, concerning the same trajectory.
In Figure \ref{fig2} Left, $(\tau_{h}^{h}-\tau_{h}^{h_{1}})$ demonstrates a linear growth with respect to a decreasing
$\sqrt{h_{1}}$, and an extrapolation at $h_{1} = 0$ provides an estimate of $(\tau_{h}^{h}-\tau_{h}^{0})$. In Figure \ref{fig2} Right, $(\tau_{h}^{h} - \tau_{h}^{0})$ is estimated for $h = 0.0002, 0.0005, 0.001, 0.005$, and $0.01$, respectively. We see that the error $(\tau_{h}^{h}-\tau_{h}^{0})$ decreases with respect to a decreasing $h$. A linear fit shows that $(\tau_{h}^{h} -\tau_{h}^{0})$ is approximately proportional to $\sqrt{h}$, which is consistent with the results in \cite{Gobet2004exact, Gobet2010stopped}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width = \linewidth]{Fig2_Lehmer.png}}
\caption{Left: $(\tau_{h}^{h} - \tau_{h}^{h_{1}})$ v.s. $\sqrt{h_{1}}$
for five different values of $h$. Right: $(\tau_{h}^{h} - \tau_{h}^{0})$ v.s. $\sqrt{h}$ and a linear fitting.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{1D double-well potential}
In this subsection we consider an asymmetric one-dimensional double-well potential
\[
U(x) = x^{4} - 2 x^{2} + 0.2x,\quad x\in\mathbb{R}.
\]
It is easy to see that $U$ has two local minima, $0.9740$ and $-1.0241,$ respectively. The barrier heigh for any trajectory to overcome when moving between the two local minima is $1.2074$ if from left to right, and $0.8076$ if vice-versa; see Figure \ref{fig3} Top.
The first goal of this example is to verify the theoretical result of Theorem \ref{thm:2} that the tail of the coupling time distribution is determined by the {\it lower} barrier height. The time step size and the coupling method are the same as before. The coupling time distribution of $\tau_{c}$ is estimated under the different noise magnitudes $\varepsilon = 0.32, 0.36, 0.4, 0.45, 0.5, 0.6$, and $0.7$.
In Figure \ref{fig3} Top, the exponential tail corresponding to each noise is estimated by the weighted linear regression described in Section 5.1. We see that the exponential tail $r(\varepsilon)$ changes dramatically as $\varepsilon$ decreases.
In Figure \ref{fig3} Bottom right,a linear relationship of $-\varepsilon^2\log r(\varepsilon)$ v.s. $\varepsilon^2$ is clearly presented. A linear extrapolation of $\varepsilon^2,$ as $\varepsilon \rightarrow0$, further shows that $r(0) = 1.617$. This matches well with the theoretical value of $r(0)=2H_U$ which, in this example, equals $1.615$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width = \linewidth]{Fig3_dbwell.png}}
\caption{Top: Coupling
time distributions for different noise magnitudes. Bottom left: Asymmetric double well potential. Bottom right: linear extrapolation for barrier
height. }
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
The second goal of this example is to numerically verify {\bf (H2)}
in Section 4.2.
Let $dZ_t= -\nabla U(Z_t)dt$ be the deterministic gradient flow of $U$, and
$x_u = 0.05129$ be the
unstable equilibrium $Z_t$ for which the basins of the two local minima are $B_1 = (-\infty, x_u )$ and $ B_2 = (x_u, \infty).$
Let both ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ start from $B_2$. Recall that, as defined in Section 4.1, $\tau_{c}$, $\tau_\varepsilon^{(2)}$ and $\tau_\varepsilon$ denote the coupling time, first passage time to $B_1$, and the minimum of the former two,
respectively. To numerically verify {\bf (H2)}(ii), we examine the distributions of $\tau_\varepsilon$ conditioning on $\tau_\varepsilon = \tau_c$ and $\tau_\varepsilon = \tau_\varepsilon^{(2)},$ respectively. If under different noise magnitudes $\varepsilon$, the exponential tails of both two conditional distributions have a lower bound independent of $\varepsilon$, then {\bf (H2)}(ii) is verified.
In Figure \ref{fig5}, $\mathcal{X}_0$ and $\mathcal{Y}_0$ are independently and uniformly sampled from $(0.1, 1.5)$. Let the magnitude of noise change from $0.1$ to $0.6$, and under each noise magnitude, $1\times10^{8}$ samples of the coupling processes are run until $\tau_{\varepsilon}$. Then the distribution of $\tau_\varepsilon$ is further conditioned on
each of the two cases that (i) $\mathcal{X}_{t},\mathcal{Y}_{t}$ are couple before exiting to $B_1$, and (ii) any one of them, ${\mathcal X}^t$ or ${\mathcal Y}^t$, exits to $B_1$ before they are being coupled, respectively. As shown in Figure \ref{fig5} Left and Middle, both the conditional exit time and the conditional coupling time remain largely unchanged with respect to the decreasing $\varepsilon$.
Finally, we verify {\bf (H2)(i)} that the coupling probability is uniformly away from zero at $\tau_\varepsilon$, i.e., $\mathbb{P}[\tau_c = \tau_\varepsilon] > \gamma$ for some $\gamma > 0,$ regardless of the initial conditions. The result is shown in Figure \ref{fig5} Right. Let $\mathcal{X}_0$ be a fixed value $X_0$ and $\mathcal{Y}_0$ be uniformly distributed in $(0.1, 1.5)$. Under three different values of $X_0,$ the probability $\mathbb{P}[\tau_c = \tau_\varepsilon]$ is estimated with $\varepsilon$ ranged from $0.005$ to $0.6$. We see that $\mathbb{P}[\tau_c = \tau_\varepsilon]$ is uniformly away from zero regardless of $X_0$ and $\varepsilon$. Note that while the first initial value (the blue plot) is at the boundary of $B_1$, the coupling probability $\mathbb{P}[\tau_c =\tau_\varepsilon]$ is still uniformly positive.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width = \linewidth]{Fig8_dbwell_assumptions.png}}
\caption{Left: Conditional exit time distribution. Middle: Conditional coupling time distribution. Right: Probability of couple at $\tau_\varepsilon$}
\label{fig5}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Interacting particle system in the double-well potential}
In this section, we study a variance of the double well potential of the previous section. Denote
\[V(x) = x^{4} - 2 x^{2} + 0.2x,\quad x\in\mathbb{R}\]
be the double-well potential as in the previous section, and let three particles move along $V$ under the over-damped Langevin dynamics. Assume, besides the potential $V$, there is also a pairwise interaction potential between the three
particles. The energy potential for the interacting particle system is
\[U(x_{1}, x_{2}, x_{3}) = \sum\nolimits_{i = 1}^{3} V(x_{i}) + \sigma\sum\nolimits_{i,j =
1,2,3, \, i \neq j} (x_{i} - x_{j})^{2} \,.\]
where $\sigma>0$ is the interaction strength.
It is not hard to see that $U$ has two trivial local minima $x_{1} = x_{2} = x_{3} =0.9740$ and $x_{1} = x_{2} = x_{3} = -1.0241,$ respectively,
corresponding to which all the three particles are lying at the same local minimum of $V(x)$. When $\sigma>0$ is sufficiently small, there are another six local minima under which the three particles are staying in the different basins of $V(x)$; see
Figure \ref{fig4} Top for a sample trajectory of the solution of \eqref{SDE1}.
We see that there are two extreme cases in terms of the interactions of the interacting particle system. One extreme case is when there are no interactions between the three particles, i.e., $\sigma=0.$ In this case, the three particles are independent and passing between the two wells one by one, resulting the same barrier heights with that of the double-well potential $V$. The other extreme case corresponds to $\sigma = \infty$, which means that the interactions between the three particles are so strong that they always have to move together. In this case, the energy potential $U$ has the same local minima as that of $V$
and the essential barrier height is the triple of that of $V$. Hence, the essential barrier height $H_U$ of the interacting particle system
should lie between that of the two extreme cases, i.e.,
$0.8076$ and $3 \times 0.8076 = 2.4228$, respectively, and $H_U$
increases as $\sigma$ increases.
The distribution of the coupling time $\tau_{c}$ is computed for $\varepsilon = 0.4,$ $0.41,$ $0.42,$ $0.43,$ $0.45,$ $0.47,$ $0.5,$ $0.55,$ $0.6,$ and $0.7$ when $\sigma =
0.05$, and $\varepsilon = 0.41,$ $0.42,$ $0.43,$ $0.44,$ $0.45,$ $0.47,$ $0.5,$ $0.55,$
$0.6$ and $0.7$ when
$\sigma = 0.1$, and the
negative slopes $r(\varepsilon)$ are estimated for both cases.
A similar relation of $r(\varepsilon)$ v.s. $\varepsilon$ is observed with the double-well potential,
and a linear extrapolation of $-\varepsilon^{2} \log r(\varepsilon)$ provides an estimation of the the essential barrier height.
In Figure \ref{fig4} Middle right, the linear extrapolation yields $r(0) = 1.7374$ for $\sigma = 0.05$ and
$r(0) = 1.9598$ for $\sigma = 0.1$, both of which are approximately equal to the double of the barrier height $2H_U$. As expected, the barrier
height increases as the interaction between particles becomes stronger.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width = 1.2\linewidth]{Fig4_IPS.png}}
\caption{Top: Sample trajectory of a 3-particle interacting particle
system in a double well potential. Middle: coupling time
distribution and $\varepsilon$ v.s. $-\varepsilon^{2} \log r(\varepsilon)$
with $\sigma = 0.05$. Bottom: coupling time
distribution and $\varepsilon^2$ v.s. $-\varepsilon^{2} \log r(\varepsilon)$
with $\sigma = 0.1$. Theoretical values of $r(0)$ are given by the
minimum energy path. }
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
The next task is to numerically verify {\bf (H1)}-{\bf (H3)} in Section \ref{sec:double-multiple well} for the setting of multi-well potentials. In the following, the interaction strength is always set as $\sigma = 0.05$.
\medskip
{\it Numerical verification of {\bf (H1}}). Let ${\mathcal X}_0 = (1,1,1),$ and ${\mathcal Y}_0 = (-1,-1, -1)$ so that ${\mathcal Y}_t$ starts near the global minimum. According to the definition of $\mathcal I$ and $\mathcal J$, it is easy to see from height of barriers in Figure \ref{fig:MEPbyString} that $\mathbf{B}_1$ is in fact the complement of the basin of attraction that contains $(1,1,1)$. Our simulation uses four noise magnitudes $\varepsilon= 0.6, 0.65, 0.7, $ and $0.75$. After each step of the Euler-Maruyama scheme, it will be numerically checked to determine whether ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ are in $\mathbf{B}_1$.\footnote{The criterion is as follows. If for $i = 1, 2, 3$, it holds that either $x_i > 0.11,$ or that $0 \leq x_i < 0.11$ whenever $-\partial U / \partial x_i > 0$, then $(x_1, x_2, x_3)$ is not in $\mathbf{B}_1$. We note that this is sufficient for all the samples in our simulation.} Interestingly, we have {\it never} seen ${\mathcal Y}_t$ leaves $\mathbf{B}_1$ before ${\mathcal X}_t$ enters $\mathbf{B}_1$ after tens of millions of samples collected. The same thing happens for the 1D double well potential: numerically ${\mathcal Y}_t$ never leaves $\mathbf{B}_1$ before ${\mathcal X}_t$ enters $\mathbf{B}_1$. Hence, {\bf (H1)} is numerically concluded with a even stronger result that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}\big[{\mathcal Y}_s\in \mathbf{B}_1\ \text{for all}\ s\in[0,t]\big| \kappa_{\{{\mathcal X}_t\}}(\mathbf{B}_1)>t\big] \approx 1.
\end{eqnarray*}
{\it Numerical verification of {\bf (H2)}}. Let ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ both start from $B_1$. We simulate the coupling process until either that ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ are coupled successfully before any one of them exists $B_1,$ or one of them, ${\mathcal X}_t$ or ${\mathcal Y}_t,$ exits $B_1$ before they are coupled within $B_1$, respectively. In Figure \ref{figIPSH2} Left and Middle panel, the conditional exit time distribution and conditional coupling time distribution are demonstrated, respectively. We see that the slopes of both the two tail distributions are largely unchanged as the noise magnitude decrease from $0.5$ to $0.1$. This is consistent with the result for the double-well potential.
In Figure \ref{figIPSH2} Right, the coupling probability is demonstrated in term of noise magnitude. Again, similar to the case of double-well potential, when starting within the same basin, the probability $\mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon=\tau_c]$ significantly increases with respect to a decreasing $\varepsilon$ as the chance of ${\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t$ to escape from the basin becomes lower. However, for those successfully leave $B_1$ before being coupled, the exit time distribution does not change much with respect to the noise magnitudes.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width = \linewidth]{Fig_H2_IPS.png}
\caption{Left: Conditional exit time distribution. Middle: Conditional coupling time distribution. Right: Probability of coupling at $\tau_\varepsilon$}
\label{figIPSH2}
\end{figure}
\medskip
{\it Numerical verification of {\bf (H3)}}. The {\bf (H3)} is numerically verified by computing the overshoot time. The criterion of deciding whether a trajectory hits the basin $B_1$ is the same as above. The probability distribution of the overshoot time $\xi_1 - \max \{\kappa_{\mathcal{X}_t}, \kappa_{\mathcal{Y}_t}\}$, i.e., the infimum time when both ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ are staying in $B_1$ after each of them has visited $B_1$ is computed. The magnitudes of noise are chosen as $0.5, 0.55,$ and $0.6$, and for each case, the probability distribution of $\xi_1 - \max \{ \kappa_{\mathcal{X}_t}, \kappa_{\mathcal{Y}_t}\}$ is computed by running $1 \times 10^7$ samples. As shown in Figure \ref{figH3}, the tail of $\xi_1 - \max \{ \kappa_{\mathcal{X}_t}, \kappa_{\mathcal{Y}_t}\}$ has two phases. The second phase has a slower decrease of the exponential tail but is still faster than that of the coupling time. The second phase comes from the event that one of the two trajectories, $\mathcal{X}_t$ or $\mathcal{Y}_t$, takes an excursion to other basins after visiting $B_1$ and then returns back, while the other trajectory has always been staying in $B_1$. Note that the probability of such event is low and a large number of samples are required to capture the exponential tail. In Figure \ref{figH3}, the distributions of the overshoot time and coupling time are compared. We see that the slope of tail distribution of the overshoot time decays quickly as noise vanishes, but still remains steeper than that of the coupling time in the log-linear plot. Since it has been numerically verified that the coupling time distribution is consistent with the theoretical barrier height $H_U$, {\bf (H3)} is verified
automatically.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width = \linewidth]{IPS_overshoot.png}
\caption{Comparison of probability distributions of the ``overshoot time" $\xi_1 - \max \{ \kappa_{\mathcal{X}_t}, \kappa_{\mathcal{Y}_t}\}$ and the coupling time. Left, middle, and right panels are for $\varepsilon = 0.6, 0.55$, and $0.5$ respectively.}
\label{figH3}
\end{figure}
\medskip
Finally, the String method \cite{e2007simplified} is used to compute the heights of various barriers between the local minima $(0.9740, 0.9740, 0.9740)$
and $( -1.0241, -1.0241, -1.0241)$ in the energy landscape to validate the essential barrier height inferred from our coupling approach.
As shown in Figure \ref{fig:MEPbyString}, the essential barrier, which is the highest barrier that a trajectory needs to overcome to enter the basin of the global minimum, is leftmost barrier in the lower left panel of Figure \ref{fig:MEPbyString} (A)(B). In this example, since the three particles are indistinct, the energy potential is rather symmetric for which the eight local minima are of only two types consists of four particular cases that all the three particles are lying in the same well (global or local), or two of the three particles are lying in one well (global or local) with the other particle lying in the other well. We see in Figure \ref{fig:MEPbyString} that the minimal energy path(MEP) connecting the two minima $(0.9740, 0.9740, 0.9740)$
and $( -1.0241, -1.0241, -1.0241)$ has actually passed all the four cases. Hence, the essential barrier height $H_U$ can be attained by such an MEP although
in principle, it has to be taken over all the paths connecting any of the local minima to the global one. In Figure \ref{fig:MEPbyString}, it shows that $H_U=0.8961$ for $\sigma = 0.05$ and $H_U=0.9916$ for $\sigma = 0.1$, corresponding to the theoretical value $r(0) = 1.7922$ for
$\sigma = 0.05$ and $r(0) =1.9832$ for $\sigma = 0.1,$ respectively.
The result from the String method is further confirmed through the equivalent characterization \eqref{equivalent_characterize_H_U} by numerically solving all the $27$ critical points (including all the local minima and saddle points) of $U$. The essential barrier height obtained in this way is $H_U=0.8962$ for $\sigma = 0.05$ and $H_U=0.9916$ for $\sigma = 0.1$, which are almost the same with the essential barrier heights given by the String method. As shown in Figure \ref{fig4}, both values are very close to $r(0)/2$ in the linear extrapolation.
\begin{figure}
\begin{subfigure}{\textwidth}
\hspace{-50pt}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{sigma0p05.png}
\caption{$\sigma=0.05$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{\textwidth}
\hspace{-50pt}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{sigma0p1.png}
\caption{$\sigma=0.1$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Minimum Energy Path (MEP) computed by String method \cite{e2007simplified} at high numerical resolution. MEP is the mostly likely path for transition from one metastable state to another in the zero-temperature limit of overdamped Langevin, and it is known (e.g., \cite{e2002string}) to reveal barrier heights and descent depths along the transition path, which are labeled by dV values in the bottom left panel. Top panel visualizes the MEP in 3D (i.e., $x_1,x_2,x_3$) where legend lists the potential $U$'s value at each local minimum. Bottom right panel is the integrand of the Freidlin-Wentzell action functional plotted as a function of arc-length parameterization of the path, which serves as a sanity check to ensure the MEP is computed correctly.}
\label{fig:MEPbyString}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Rosenbrock function}
In this example, we test on the famous non-convex landscape of the Rosenbrock function in 2D and 4D, respectively. For $N\in\mathbb{N}_+$, the Rosenbrock
function is defined as
\[
R_{N}( \boldsymbol{x}) = \sum_{i = 1}^{N-1} [b (x_{i+1} - x_{i}^{2})^{2}
+ (a - x_{i})^{2}],\quad\boldsymbol{x} \in \mathbb{R}^{N},
\]
where $a, b$ are two constants. In this example, we choose $a = 1,b = 20$. When $N = 2$, $R_{N}$ has a unique
minimum at $(1,1)$, and when $N = 4$, $R_{N}$ admits a global minimum
$(1,1,1,1)$ and a local minimum $(-1,1,1,1)$. In Figure
\ref{fig6}, the landscape of $\log R_{2}( \boldsymbol{x})$ is demonstrated in the Top Left
panel and a slice of $\log R_{4}( \boldsymbol{x}) $ at $x_{3} = x_{4} = 1$ is demonstrated in
the Bottom Left panel. We note that the logarithm scale is used to visualize the detailed landscape near each minimum. We see that near each minimum, the landscape looks like a valley which is only convex on a very small area around the minimum. The landscape of $R_{4}$ cannot be completely visualized by the heat map at a slice. However, it is not hard to check that for $a = 1,b = 20$, the region on which $R_{4}$ being convex is very small.
In the test of the landscape of $R_{2},$ the noise magnitude is set to be $\varepsilon = 0.001,$ $0.01,$ $0.1,$ $1.0,$ $1.5,$ and $2.0$, and
$\varepsilon = 0.001,$ $0.003,$ $0.01,$ $0.03,$ $0.1,$ $0.3,$ and $1.0$ for $R_{4}$. The coupling time distributions are given in the two right panels of Figure \ref{fig6}. We see that when the noise is sufficiently small, the tail distributions of coupling times are parallel in the log-linear plot since the coupling time is almost determined by the convexity of the convex area near the global minimum. This is consistent with the result of Theorem \ref{thm:1}. However, as noise magnitude increases, the
probability of the coupling process to couple in the entire valley instead of just the vicinity of the global minimum becomes larger, and this changes the tail of the coupling time distributions.
Another interesting phenomenon is that unlike the case of double-well potential, for the potential function $R_{4}$, exponentially small tails of the coupling time distribution with respect to the noise magnitude is not observed
even when the noise is as small as $0.001$. Even if one of the coupled processes start at the local minimum $(-1, 1,1,1)$, the tail of the coupling time distribution has very little change; see the plot with
legend ``noise $= 0.001$ fixed''. This is because the basin of the local minimum is so shallow with such a low barrier that the stochastic trajectories can easily pass the barrier and enter the valley of the global
minimum.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width = \linewidth]{Fig6_RB.png}}
\caption{Top Left: landscape of $R_{2}( \boldsymbol{x})$. Top Right:
Coupling time distribution for $R_{2}( \boldsymbol{x})$. Bottom Left: landscape of $R_{4}( \boldsymbol{x})$. Bottom Right:
Coupling time distribution for $R_{4}( \boldsymbol{x})$. }
\label{fig6}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Loss functions of artificial neural networks}
In the last example, the performance of the coupling method in
high dimension is examined. We consider the training process of an artificial neural network(ANN) including two hidden layers with $N_{1}, N_{2}$ neurons, respectively,
which has the following form
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\mathbf{h}_{1} = \mbox{ReLU}(W_{1} \boldsymbol{x} + \mathbf{b}_{1})\label{NN1} \\
&& \mathbf{h}_{2} = \mbox{ReLU}(W_{2} \mathbf{h}_{1} + \mathbf{b}_{2})\label{NN2}\\
&&y = W_{3} \mathbf{h}_2 + b_{3}\label{NN3} \,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\boldsymbol{x} \in \mathbb{R}^{2}, y \in \mathbb{R}, \mathbf{b}_{1} \in \mathbb{R}^{N_{1}}, \mathbf{b}_{2} \in \mathbb{R}^{N_{2}}, b_{3} \in
\mathbb{R}$, and
$W_{1}$, $W_{2}$, $W_{3}$ are $N_{1} \times 2$, $N_{2}
\times N_{1}$, $1 \times N_{2}$ matrices, respectively.
Let $\bm{\theta}$ collect the entries of $W_{1}, W_{2}, W_{3}, \mathbf{b}_{1},
\mathbf{b}_{2}$, and $b_{3}$ which are the unknown parameters to be determined in the training. Note that the dimension of $\bm{\theta}$
is $(N_{1}N_{2} +
3 N_{1} + 2 N_{2} + 1)$. For simplicity, \eqref{NN1} - \eqref{NN3} are collectively written as $y =
\mbox{NN}( \bm{\theta}, \boldsymbol{x}).$
For a given training set $\{\boldsymbol{x}_{1}, \cdots, \boldsymbol{x}_{M}; y_{1}, \cdots y_{M}\}$, let the loss function
\[
L( \bm{\theta}) = \sum\nolimits_{i = 1}^{M} \left (y_{i} - \mbox{NN}(
\bm{\theta}, \boldsymbol{x}_i) \right )^{2},
\]
where the size of the training set $M = 100$. The collocation points
$\boldsymbol{x}_{1}, \cdots, \boldsymbol{x}_{100}$ are uniformed sampled from
$[-1\, , 1]^{2}$, $y_{i} = | \boldsymbol{x}_{i} |^{2}$; see the
first column of Figure \ref{fig8} for the distribution of collocation
points and the target function $y =| \boldsymbol{x}|^{2}$. What we are interested in is the landscape of the loss surface $L(
\bm{\theta})$.
Our coupling algorithm is tested on three ANNs for which the size of hidden layers are
$N_{1} = 4,N_{2} = 3$, $N_{1} = N_{2} = 10$, and $N_{1} = N_{2} =
20$, which are called the ``small network'', ``medium network'', and ``big network'', respectively. Note that in this example, the small network is under-parameterized and the big network is over-parameterized. It is believed that over-parametrization lowers the barrier heights of ANNs (e.g., \cite{jacot2018neural, song2018mean, chizat2019lazy, mei2019mean, rotskoff2018trainability, sirignano2020mean, draxler2018essentially}) which, however, is not easy to justify because the loss landscape is usually in high-dimension and very complicated. Our coupling approach provides a feasible way to explore this by computing the essential barrier height of the {\it entire} landscape.
In Figure \ref{fig7}, the coupling time distribution of each
ANN is computed under $10$ different magnitudes
of noise (while only $5$ of them are demonstrated in the figure to avoid a too crowded legend though). Similar to the previous examples, all slopes are estimated through the weighted linear
fitting. The six smallest values of $\varepsilon^{2}$ are used in the linear extrapolation of $-\varepsilon^2\log r(\varepsilon)$ v.s. $\varepsilon^{2}$ which are
demonstrated in the three lower panels. We see that the larger neural network has a lower essential barrier height. This is consistent with the study in \cite{draxler2018essentially} in which MEPs are computed between the local minima of loss functions of ANNs.
The small neural network in this example is under-parametrized because the number of unknown parameters to be determined is 31 while the size of the training set is $100$. As shown in Figure \ref{fig7}, the loss function of the small neural network has a much larger essential barrier height than that of both the medium and big neural networks.
In the training process, when start from random initial conditions, the small neural network may converge to a ``bad" local minimum which does not fit the target function very well (see the middle panels of Figure \ref{fig8}). In contrast, for all the initial values that have been tested, both the medium and big neural networks
converge to a ``good" local minimum that approximates the target function reasonably well (see the right panels of Figure \ref{fig8}). This is consistent with some known results on the loss surface of artificial neural networks in the literature \cite{choromanska2015loss, kawaguchi2019every, soltanolkotabi2018theoretical}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width = \linewidth]{Fig_7_NN.png}}
\caption{Coupling time distribution and linear extrapolation of
$-\varepsilon^2\log r(\varepsilon)$ v.s. $\varepsilon^{2}$. Left: small network. Middle: medium
network, Right: large network.}
\label{fig7}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width = \linewidth]{Fig_8_NN.png}}
\caption{Left column: training set and target function. Middle column:
$y =\mbox{NN}( \bm{\theta}, \boldsymbol{x})$ for $\bm{\theta}$ at bad and good
local minima of the small network. Right column: $y =
\mbox{NN}( \bm{\theta}, \boldsymbol{x})$ from medium and big neural
network.
}
\label{fig8}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion and further discussions}
This paper investigates the relations between the landscape of a multi-dimensional potential function and the coupling time distributions of the overdamped Langevin system with respect to the given potential. This is motivated by the fact that the exponential tail of the coupling time distribution gives a lower bound of the spectral gap of the Fokker-Planck operator of the overdamped Langevin dynamics. It has been known for a long time that some global information can be inferred from the spectrum of a differential operator, such as detailed by the famous problem ``Can one hear the shape of a drum?" in \cite{kac1966}. As expected, certain connections between the shape of the landscape and the coupling time distributions are established.
This paper shows that as the magnitude of the noise vanishes, the variation of the exponential tails of the distribution of the overdamped Langevin dynamics of a single-well potential {\it differs} from that of a multi-well potential in a qualitative way. More specifically, for single-well potential functions that are strongly convex,
the exponential tails is bounded from above by a constant depending on the convexity of the potential function; for a multi-well potential function, however, the exponential tail decreases exponentially fast as the noise magnitude goes to zero.
A linear extrapolation can then be used to infer the slope of the exponential tail in the vanishing limit of the noise, which is defined and called the essential barrier height, characterizing the barrier height of the potential landscape in the global way.
All these claims are justified both theoretically and numerically. In particular, the numerical results for the loss surface of artificial neural networks are corroborated by other studies in certain different ways.
The coupling scheme used in this paper is
a combination of two coupling methods, the reflection coupling and maximal coupling, for the purpose of coupling efficiency.
We find that the bound provided by the reflection-maximal coupling scheme is reasonably close to the optimal one (i.e., the one that makes the coupling inequality becomes an equality). Although in this paper only the coupling time is examined, more information are expected to be inferred from the coupling result in future work, e.g., the coupling {\it location} may provide us additional information about the landscape. In addition, this paper only considers the tail of the coupling time distribution that is related to the principal eigenvalue of the Fokker-Planck operator. The entire coupling time distribution, however, may provide additional information on the {\it non-principal} eigenvalue of the Fokker-Planck operator. For example, for a multi-well potential, the {\it conditional} coupling time distribution conditioning on {not} being coupled in the deepest ``well" may be related to the heights of lower barriers. These could be potentially interesting future directions.
\section{Introduction}
In 1966, a famous paper ``Can one hear the shape of a drum?" by Mark Kac investigates the possibility of inferring the shape of a domain from the spectral property of the Laplace operator defined on this domain \cite{kac1966}. Although it is eventually proved that the shape of a domain cannot be uniquely determined except a certain class of planar domain with analytic boundary \cite{zelditch2000spectral}, some information about the domain can still be inferred from the eigenvalue set of the Laplace operator; please refer to \cite{weyl1911asymptotische, ivrii1980second} for further details. Motivated by this spirit, the present paper investigates the approach of inferring the property of a multi-dimensional landscape by ``knocking" it and ``listening" the sound, where by ``knocking" a multi-dimensional landscape, we mean to simulate a overdamped Langevin dynamics along the potential landscape. More specifically, we run a large number of samples of two coupled trajectories of the overdamped Langevin dynamics to infer the landscape properties from the statistics of the coupling times. By the coupling lemma, the tail distribution of the coupling times provides a lower bound of the spectral gap of the Fokker-Planck operator of the overdamped Langevin dynamics. In this way, our approach, similar to that in Kac's paper, makes an attempt to establish a connection between the characteristics of the potential landscape and the spectral property of the corresponding operator.
We are interested in the multi-dimensional potential functions that have finitely many local minima. Potential landscapes arise naturally in various areas \cite{kauffman1987, krugman1994, wales_book2003}
which can be of simple type that has only one equilibrium, or be of more complex types that support multiple basins of attractions
with the emergence of many local minima.
To put in the mathematical way,
let
$U$ be a smooth function on a regular domain $D\subseteq\mathbb{R}^k (k\ge1)$ with the local minima $x_1,...,x_L.$
Generically, under the deterministic
negative gradient flow $(\varphi^t)_{t\ge0}$ of $U$, $x_i$'s are the stable equilibria of $\varphi^t.$ For each $i\in\{1,...,L\},$ call
$B_i=\{x\in D:\varphi^t(x)\to x_i\ \mbox{as} \ t\to\infty\}$
the basin (of attraction) of $x_i.$
A smooth function $U$ is called a single-well potential if it has only one local minimum $x_1$ such that $D=B_1$; $U$ is called a multi-well potential if
$2\le L<\infty$ and $D=\left (\bigcup_{1\le i\le L}B_i \right ) \bigcup N$, where $N$ is a measure-zero set. A multi-well potential is
in particular called a double-well potential if $L=2.$
This paper proposes a probabilistic approach to classify between the landscapes of single- and multi-well potential functions. Our approach makes strong use of the coupling idea in probability. Given two stochastic processes $\boldsymbol X=\{X_t;t\ge0\}$ and $\boldsymbol Y=\{Y_t;t\ge0\}$, a coupling of $\boldsymbol X$ and $\boldsymbol Y$ is a stochastic process $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t); t\ge0\}$ such that (i)
for any $t>0,$
${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ are respectively identically distributed with $X_t$ and $Y_t$; (ii)
if ${\mathcal X}_s ={\mathcal Y}_s$ for certain $s>0,$ then ${\mathcal X}_t ={\mathcal Y}_t$ for all $t\ge s.$
The first meeting time of ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$, called the {\it coupling time}, is denoted by a random variable
\begin{eqnarray}\label{coupling_time1}
\tau_c=\inf\nolimits_{t\ge0} \{{\mathcal X}_t={\mathcal Y}_t\}.
\end{eqnarray}
A coupling $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t);t\ge0\}$ is said to be successful if $\tau_c<\infty$ almost surely.
In our setting, the two stochastic processes to be coupled, i.e., $\boldsymbol X$ and $\boldsymbol Y$ as above, will be the overdamped Langevin dynamics of $U$ given by the following stochastic differential equation(SDE)
\begin{eqnarray}\label{SDE1}
dZ_t=-\nabla U(Z_t)dt+\varepsilon dB_t,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\{B_t;t\ge0\}$ is the Brownian motion, and $\varepsilon>0$ scales the noise magnitude. Throughout the paper, the following is always assumed\footnote{In the single-well setting, {\bf (U1)} ensures the existence of a global strong solution of \eqref{SDE1}; in the multi-well setting, further assumptions on the finiteness and non-degeneracy on the saddle points and local minima, as stated in {\bf (U2)} or {\bf (U3)}(iii), guarantees this \cite{Baur}.} for the potential function $U$.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf (U1)}
The potential function $U\in C^3(D),$ where $D$ is open, convex and connected, such that
$\lim\nolimits_{x\to\partial D}U(x)=\infty$, and if $D$ is unbounded, it further holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lim\nolimits_{x\to\partial D}|\nabla U|=\infty,\ \lim\nolimits_{x\to\partial D}|\nabla U(x)|-2\Delta U(x)=\infty,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $|\cdot|$ denotes the Euclidean norm.
\medskip
To couple two stochastic processes, various coupling methods can be used in the different contexts \cite{lindvall2002}. In this paper, to achieve {numerical efficiency}, a {\it mixture} use of the reflection and maximal coupling methods is applied. More specifically, with certain threshold distance $d>0,$ the coupling $({\mathcal X}_t, {\mathcal Y}_t)$ is switched between the reflection and maximal couplings according to whether the distance $|{\mathcal X}_t-{\mathcal Y}_t|$ is greater than $d$ or not. To be more precise, let $({\mathcal X}_t, {\mathcal Y}_t)$ evolve according to the reflection coupling if $|{\mathcal X}_t-{\mathcal Y}_t|>d$ and be switched to the maximal coupling whenever $|{\mathcal X}_t-{\mathcal Y}_t|\le d$; see Section 2 for more details.
We call such mixed use of the reflection and maximal coupling methods the {\it reflection-maximal coupling} scheme.
How can the threshold $d$ be chosen? In our numerical scheme based on the reflection-maximal coupling, $d$ will be closely related to the time step size $h>0.$ More precisely, denote $\hat{\boldsymbol X}^h=\{\hat{X}_n^h;n\ge0\}$ ({\it resp.} $\hat{\boldsymbol Y}^h=\{\hat{Y}_n^h;n\ge0\}$) the Euler–Maruyama scheme of $\boldsymbol X$ ({\it resp.} $\boldsymbol Y$) with the time step size $h$, i.e., $\hat X^h_n=\hat X^h_{n-1}-\nabla U(\hat X^h_{n-1})h+\varepsilon\sqrt{h}N_n$ ({\it resp.} $\hat Y^h_n=\hat Y^h_{n-1}-\nabla U(\hat Y^h_{n-1})h+\varepsilon\sqrt{h}N_n)$, where $\{N_n\}$ are i.i.d standard normal random variables.
The threshold distance $d$ is chosen to be proportional to the (directional) standard deviations of the distribution of the random variable $\varepsilon\sqrt{h}N_n$,
i.e., $d=\mathcal O(\varepsilon\sqrt{h}).$
This guarantees a sufficient overlap between the distributions of $\hat X^h_{n}$ and $\hat Y^h_{n}$ if, assume at the previous step,
$|\hat X^h_{n-1}-\hat Y^h_{n-1}|<d.$ Then under the reflection-maximal coupling scheme, $(\hat X^h_{n},\hat Y^h_{n})$ is a maximal coupling and the probability $\mathbb{P}[\hat X^h_{n}=\hat Y^h_{n}]$ is in order $\mathcal{O}(1);$ see Lemma \ref{lem:max_coupling} for more details. Henceforth, by an $h$-reflection-maximal coupling we put particular emphasis on the choice of the time step size $h$, and by a reflection-maximal coupling (without $h$) we mean that
the coupling is implemented under the reflection-maximal coupling scheme
with a generally small $h$ and no further emphasis on its value.
We investigate how the exponential tail of the coupling time distributions of the overdamped Langevin dynamics depends on the noise magnitudes. Our main message is, this dependency will be both quantitatively and qualitatively different between potential functions with only a single well and those with double or multiple wells. More specifically, we prove that under the reflection-maximal coupling scheme,
for a {strongly convex} single-well potential (see \eqref{def:unif_convex} below),
the exponential tail of $\mathbb{P}[\tau_c>t]$ is uniformly bounded away from zero independent of $\varepsilon$; see Theorem \ref{thm:1}. For double- or multi-well potential functions, the exponential tail, however, is exponentially small with respect to the noise magnitude; see Theorem \ref{thm:2} and Theorem \ref{thm:5}.
\medskip
A single-well potential function $U$ is said to be {\it strongly convex} with constant $m_0>0$ if
\begin{eqnarray}\label{def:unif_convex}
\langle\nabla U(x)-\nabla U(y), x-y\rangle\ge m_0|x-y|^2,\quad \forall x,y\in D,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ denotes the standard inner product in $\mathbb{R}^k$.
The supremum of all positive $m_0$ satisfying \eqref{def:unif_convex} is called the convexity parameter. Throughout this paper, $m_0$ always denotes the convexity parameter.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:1}
Let $U$ be a single-well potential
satisfying {\bf (U1)}. Assume that $U$ is
strongly convex with constant $m_0>0.$ Then, given any $\delta>0$ there exists $h_0>0$ such that for any $h\in(0,h_0)$,
if $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t);t\ge0\}$ is an $h$-reflection-maximal coupling of two solutions of \eqref{SDE1} satisfying $\mathbb{E}[|{\mathcal X}_0-{\mathcal Y}_0|]<\infty,$ for all $\varepsilon > 0$, it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\limsup_{t\to\infty}\dfrac{1}{t}
\log\mathbb{P}[\tau_c>t]\le-m_0+\delta. \end{eqnarray*}
\end{theorem}
\medskip
In the situation that the potential function $U$ is double-well with only two local minima, a crucial quantity is the {\it least} barrier height to be passed by any continuous path connecting the two local minima. Given any two subsets $A,B\subseteq D,$ define the communication height between $A$ and $B$ as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{tilde U}
\Phi(A,B)=\inf_{\substack{\phi(t)\in C([0,1],D),\\ \phi(0)\in A,\ \phi(1)\in B}}\sup\nolimits_{t\in[0,1]}U(\phi(t)),
\end{eqnarray}
where the infimum runs over all the continuous paths in $D.$
For a double-well potential $U$ with two local minima $x_1,x_2$, define the {\it essential barrier height}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{barrier_height}
H_U=\min\big\{\Phi(x_1,x_2)-U(x_1), \Phi(x_1,x_2)-U(x_2)\big\},
\end{eqnarray}
the {\it lower} height of the two barriers that has to be crossed from one local minimum to the other.
\medskip
In the double-well setting, the following potential functions, which are generic in certain sense, are to be considered.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf (U2)}
Let $U:D\to\mathbb{R}$
be a double-well potential function satisfying {\bf (U1)} with two local minima $x_1, x_2$ such that
\medskip
\noindent{(i)} The communication height between $x_1$ and $x_2$ is reached at a unique saddle point $z^*(x_1,x_2),$ i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray*}
U(z^*(x_1,x_2))=\Phi(x_1,x_2);
\end{eqnarray*}
\medskip
\noindent{(ii)} $U$ is non-degenerate (i.e., the Hessian of $U$ has only non-zero eigenvalues) at the two local minima $x_1,x_2,$ and the saddle point $z^*(x_1,x_2).$
\medskip
\medskip
Besides assumptions for potential functions, in the double-well, and more generally, the multi-well settings, the coupling scheme is also required to satisfy certain intuitive conditions which, in particular for the reflection-maximal coupling scheme, can be numerically verified. In the double-well setting, certain``local" coupling properties are assumed when the two processes are lying in the same basin; see {\bf (H1)}-{\bf (H2)} in Section 4.
To include all possible initial conditions, in Theorem \ref{thm:2} and Theorem \ref{thm:5}, the coupling process is assumed to be initially related with all local minima.
A probability measure $\mu$ on $D\times D$ is said to be {\it fully supported} {(w.r.t all the local minima)} if for any $\delta>0$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mu(B_\delta(x_i)\times B_\delta(x_j))>0,\quad\forall i,j\in\{1,...,L\},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $B_\delta(x)$ denotes the ball centered at $x$ with radius $\delta.$
Note that any probability measure equivalent with the Lebesgue measure is fully supported.
A coupling $(X,Y)$ is said to be {fully supported} if the distribution of $(X,Y)$ is fully supported. Similarly in the same way, a probability measure $\mu$ on $D$ is said to be fully supported if for any $\delta>0,$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mu(B_\delta(x_i))>0,\quad\forall i\in\{1,...,L\},
\end{eqnarray*}
and a random variable $X$ is said to be fully supported if the distribution of $X$ is fully supported.
\medskip
Throughout this paper, by $a \lesssim b$ ({\it resp.} $a \gtrsim b$) we mean $a\le \mbox{\it const}\cdot b$ ({\it resp.} $a\ge \mbox{\it const}\cdot b$), where the {\it const} is independent of any parameter of the process. By $a\simeq b$ we mean both $a \lesssim b$ and $a \gtrsim b$ hold.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:2}
Let $U$ be a double-well potential satisfying {\bf (U2)}, and $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t);t\ge0\}$ be a
coupling of two solutions of \eqref{SDE1} such that $({\mathcal X}_0,{\mathcal Y}_0)$ is fully supported. Then, if $({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)$ is a reflection-maximal coupling satisfying {\bf (H1)}-{\bf (H2)},
for any $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small, it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lim_{t\to\infty}\dfrac{1}{t}
\log\mathbb{P}[\tau_c>t]\simeq -C_0e^{-2H_U/{\varepsilon^2}},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $H_U$ is defined in \eqref{barrier_height}, and the constant $C_0>0$ is independent of $\varepsilon$ and $h.$
\end{theorem}
\medskip
The result in Theorem \ref{thm:2} can be generalized to potential functions that have any finitely many local minima. In this case, besides the uniqueness of saddle points and the degeneracy conditions in {\bf (U2)}, the potential function $U$ is also assumed to satisfy a generic condition that $U$ has different potential values and depths corresponding to the different local minima.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf (U3)} Let $U:D\to\mathbb{R}$ be a multi-well potential function satisfying {\bf (U1)} with the local minima $x_1,...,x_L$ such that
\medskip
\noindent{(i)} $U$ has different potential values at the different local minima. In particular, $U$ admits the unique global minimum;
\medskip
\noindent{(ii)} The different basins of potential $U$ admit different depths. More precisely, there exists some $\delta>0$ such that the $L$ local minima of $U,$ $x_1,...,x_L,$ can be labeled in such way that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{label}
\Phi(x_i,\mathcal N_{i-1})-U(x_i)\le \min\nolimits_{1\le\ell<i}\{\Phi(x_\ell,\mathcal N_{i}\backslash x_\ell)-U(x_\ell)\}-\delta,\quad i=1,...,L,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathcal N_0=D^c, \mathcal N_i=\{x_1,...,x_{i}\}, i=1,...,L;$
\medskip
\noindent{(iii)} Let $\mathcal N_{i}$ be as in (ii). Then for each $i\in\{1,...,L\},$
the communication height between $x_i$ and $\mathcal N_{i-1}$ is reached at the unique saddle point $z^*(x_i,\mathcal N_{i-1}),$ i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray*}
U(z^*(x_i,\mathcal N_{i-1}))=\Phi(x_i,\mathcal N_{i-1});
\end{eqnarray*}
Moreover, $U$ is non-degenerate at all the local minima $x_1,...,x_L,$ and the associated saddle points $z^*(x_i,\mathcal N_{i-1}), 1\le i\le L.$
\medskip
Note that {\bf (U3)}(iii) is reduced to {\bf (U2)} for the double-well situation. The condition
{\bf (U3)} is from a nice work on metastability \cite{metastability2004,metastability2005} in which a sharp estimate of the first hitting time from a local minima to an {\it appropriate set} is rigorously proved. We will apply this result in an extensive way (see Lemma \ref{lem:expon_tail_multi_well}) to obtain an estimate of the first hitting time to the basin of the global minimum from which the notion of essential barrier height naturally arises (see \eqref{barrier_height_multi-well} below). This finally yields the coupling time estimate for the multi-well situation.
\medskip
We now define the essential barrier height in the general context.
Let $U$ be a multi-well potential function and without loss of generality, let $x_1$ be the (unique) global minimum of $U.$
The essential barrier height of $U$ is defined as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{barrier_height_multi-well}
H_U=\max\nolimits_{2\le i\le L}\big\{\Phi(x_i,x_1)-U(x_i)\big\}.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that \eqref{barrier_height_multi-well} is reduced to \eqref{barrier_height} when $L=2.$ In other words, the definitions of essential barrier height in the contexts of double- and multi-well potentials actually coincide.
We remark that the essential barrier height defined in this paper is different from the usual notion of barrier height in literature. The latter is a rather local characterization of the potential landscape by only focusing on the relevant barrier to be passed from certain local minimum to another. The essential barrier height, on the other hand, is a global quantity as it captures the greatest value of the heights of the barriers that have to be passed by any continuous path going towards the global minimum from any of the local ones. In Section 2.3, equivalent characterizations of $H_U$ are given (see Proposition \ref{prop:H_U} and Remark \ref{rem:1}).
As has been mentioned, certain conditions on the coupling scheme are required in the multi-well setting. Besides the local conditions {\bf (H1)}-{\bf (H2)} as for the double-well situation, for multi-well potentials, a ``global" condition on the coupling behavior {\bf (H3)} is also assumed (see Section 4.4).
\medskip
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:5}
Let $U$ be a multi-well potential
satisfying {\bf (U3)}, and $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t);t\ge0\}$ be a coupling of two solutions of \eqref{SDE1} such that $({\mathcal X}_0,{\mathcal Y}_0)$ is fully supported. Then, if $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)\}$ is a reflection-maximal coupling satisfying {\bf (H1)}-{\bf (H3)}, for any $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small, it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lim_{t\to\infty}\dfrac{1}{t}
\log\mathbb{P}[\tau_c>t]\simeq -C_0e^{-2H_U/{\varepsilon^2}},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $H_U$ is defined in \eqref{barrier_height_multi-well}, and the constant $C_0>0$ is independent of $\varepsilon$ and $h.$
\end{theorem}
As an application of Theorem \ref{thm:2} and Theorem \ref{thm:5}, the essential barrier height of a potential function can be computed by empirically estimating the coupling time distributions. The essential barrier height captures the global nature of the non-convexity of a potential function which, in an intuitive sense, would be of essential importance in the non-convex optimization problems arising in the various areas. Based on the linear extrapolation of the exponential tails, a numerical algorithm for the estimate of the essential barrier height is developed. This algorithm is then validated in Section 5 for both 1D double-well potential and multi-dimensional interacting particle systems, and the numerical results of the essential barrier heights are shown to be very close to the theoretical ones. The algorithm is also applied to detect the loss landscapes of artificial neural networks. The conclusion is that the loss landscapes of large artificial neural networks generally have lower essential barrier heights than the small artificial neural networks, which is largely consistent with the previously known results.
\medskip
This paper is organized as follows.
Section 2 prepares basic facts and results that will be used in the subsequent sections including estimations related to the reflection and maximal coupling methods, multi-well potentials and first hitting times, as well as the probability generating functions. Section 3 studies the case of single-well potential and proves Theorem \ref{thm:1}. Section 4 investigates the double- and multi-well situations and proves Theorem \ref{thm:2} and Theorem \ref{thm:5}. Section 5 explores various examples of single and multi-well potentials for which the theoretical results and assumptions in the previous sections are numerically verified.
\bigskip
\section{Preliminary}
%
%
%
This section prepares some instrumental facts that shall be used in the rest of the paper.
\subsection{Reflection coupling and single-well potential}
Let $\boldsymbol X,\boldsymbol Y$ be two solutions of
\begin{eqnarray}\label{SDE2}
dZ_t=g(Z_t)dt+\varepsilon dB_t, \quad Z_t\in\mathbb{R}^k,
\end{eqnarray}
where $g:\mathbb{R}^k\to\mathbb{R}^k$ is Lipschitz continuous. A {\it reflection coupling} of $\boldsymbol X$ and $\boldsymbol Y$ is a stochastic process $\{(X_t,Y_t); t\ge0\}$ taking values in $\mathbb{R}^k\times\mathbb{R}^k$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{reflection_coupling}
&&dX_t=g(X_t)dt+\varepsilon dB_t,\nonumber\\
\quad
&&dY_t=g(Y_t)dt+\varepsilon P_tdB_t,\quad 0<t<\tau_c; \quad
Y_t=X_t,\quad t\ge \tau_c,
\end{eqnarray}
where $P_t=I_k-2e_te^\top_t$ is the orthogonal matrix in which $e_t=(X_t-Y_t)/|X_t-Y_t|$, and $\tau_c$ is the coupling time defined in \eqref{coupling_time1}.
The reflection coupling, as its name suggests, is to make the noise terms in $X_t$ and $Y_t$ the mirror reflection
of each other \cite{reflection1986}. It is particularly efficient in high-dimension by only keeping the noise projections on the vertical direction of the hyperplane between $X_t$ and $Y_t$ while projections in other directions are cancelled so that the coupling effect in making $X_t$ and $Y_t$ towards each other are maximized.
\medskip
Under the reflection coupling, the exponential tail of coupling time distributions of the over-damped Langevin dynamics along a uniformly convex single-well potential is bounded away from zero.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:sup_mart}
Let $U$ be a single-well potential satisfying {\bf (U1)}. Assume that $U$ is strongly convex with constant $m_0>0$. Then there exists a constant $c_0>0$ such that, if $\{(X_t,Y_t); t\ge0\}$ is a reflection coupling of two solutions of \eqref{SDE1} with $X_0=x_0, Y_0=y_0,$ for any $\varepsilon>0$ and any $t>0,$ it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_c>t]\le \frac{c_0|x_0-y_0|}{2\varepsilon} e^{-m_0t}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Denote $R_t=|X_t-Y_t|/2\varepsilon.$
It is not hard to see that $\{R_t;t\ge0\}$ is a one-dimensional stochastic process satisfying
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:2}
dR_t=-R_t^{-1}\langle\nabla U(X_t)-\nabla U(Y_t),X_t-Y_t\rangle dt+2\varepsilon d\bar B_t,\ 0\le t<\tau_c
\end{eqnarray}
where $\{\bar B_t;t\ge0\}$ is a one-dimensional Brownian motion.
By the strong convexity of $U$, the drift term in \eqref{eq:2} is upper bounded by $-m_0R_t.$ Then there exists a one-dimensional Ornstein-Uhlenbeck(O-U) process $\{S_t;t\ge0\}$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{SDE:compare}
dS_t=-m_0S_tdt+ d\bar B_t,\quad S_0=|x_0-y_0|/2\varepsilon,
\end{eqnarray}
such that $R_t$ is always bounded by $S_t$ for $t\in[0,\tau_c).$
Let
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tau_0=\inf\{t\ge0:S_t=0\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then it is sufficient to estimate
$\mathbb{P}[\tau_0>t].$
Under the change of variables
that $t$ replaced by $m_0 t$ and $S$ replaced by $\sqrt{m_0}S,$
\eqref{SDE:compare} becomes a
standard O-U process
\begin{eqnarray}\label{SDE:compare1} dS_{t}=-S_{t}dt+d\bar B_{t},\quad S_0=\sqrt{m_0}|x_0-y_0|/2\varepsilon.
\end{eqnarray}
By Proposition 1 in \cite{correction2000},
the density function of
$\tau_0$ of \eqref{SDE:compare1} has an analytic expression
\begin{eqnarray*}
p(t)= S_0\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\sinh(t)^3}}e^{\frac{t}{2}-\frac{e^{-t}S_0^2}{2\sinh(t)}},\quad t\ge0.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_0\ge t]
&=&\int_{m_0t}^\infty p(s)ds\\
&\le&\sqrt{\dfrac{m_0}{2\pi}}|x_0-y_0|(2\varepsilon)^{-1}\int_{m_0t}^\infty\dfrac{e^{\frac{s}{2}}}{\sinh(s)^{\frac{3}{2}}}ds\\
&\le& c_0|x_0-y_0|(2\varepsilon)^{-1}\int_{m_0t}^\infty e^{-s}ds
=\dfrac{c_0|x_0-y_0|}{2\varepsilon}e^{-m_0t}
\end{eqnarray*}
where the constant $c_0>0$ is independent of $x_0,y_0$ and $\varepsilon$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Maximal coupling and estimations}
Let $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ be two probability distributions on $\mathbb{R}^k.$ Call
$(X,Y)$ a coupling of $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ if $X\sim\mu_1, Y\sim\mu_2.$
By the well-known coupling inequality (see, for instance, Lemma 3.6 in \cite{aldous1983random}),
\begin{eqnarray}\label{coupling_ineq}
\text{TV}(\mu_1,\mu_2)\le2\mathbb{P}[X\neq Y],
\end{eqnarray}
where $\text{TV}(\mu_1,\mu_2):=2\sup_{A\subseteq\mathbb{R}^k}|\mu_1(A)-\mu_2(A)|$ denotes the total variation distance between probability measures on $\mathbb{R}^k.$
A coupling $(X,Y)$ is said to be a {\it maximal coupling} if the equality in \eqref{coupling_ineq} is attained, i.e., the probability $\mathbb{P}[X=Y]$ is maximized.
A particular way to obtain a maximal coupling is as follows. Denote the ``minimum" distribution of $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ by $\nu(\cdot)=\alpha^{-1}\min\{\mu_1(\cdot),\mu_2(\cdot)\},$ where
$\alpha$ is the normalizer. With probability $(1-\alpha),$ let $X$ and $Y$ be independently sampled such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{max_coupling}
X\sim(1-\alpha)^{-1}(\mu_1-\alpha\nu),\quad Y\sim(1-\alpha)^{-1}(\mu_2-\alpha\nu),
\end{eqnarray}
and with probability $\alpha,$ let $X=Y\sim\nu.$
It is not hard to see that $\mathbb{P}[X\neq Y]=\text{TV}(\mu_1,\mu_2)/2.$ Hence, $(X,Y)$ is a maximal coupling.
\medskip
The following proposition is about the maximal coupling of normal distributions.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:norm_distribition}
Let $X\sim\mathcal{N}(\bar x,\sigma^2\text{Id}),Y\sim\mathcal{N}(\bar y,\sigma^2\text{Id})$ be normal random variables taking values in $\mathbb{R}^k$, where $\bar x,\bar y\in\mathbb{R}^k,$ $\sigma>0.$ Assume that $(X,Y)$ is a maximal coupling. Then there exist a universal constant $c_0>0$ and a constant $c_k>0$ only depending on $k$ such that
(i) $\mathbb{P}[|X-Y|>0]\le c_0\sigma^{-1}|\bar x-\bar y|;$
(ii)
$\mathbb{E}[|X-Y|]\le c_k\sigma+2|\bar x-\bar y|$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
(i) By the definition of maximal coupling,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[|X-Y|>0]=\dfrac{1}{2}\text{TV}(X,Y)\le
c_0\sigma^{-1}|\bar x-\bar y|,
\end{eqnarray*}
where by \text{TV}$(X,Y)$ we mean \text{TV}$(\mu,\nu)$ if $X\sim \mu, Y\sim\nu.$ The last inequality follows from the standard calculation on Gaussian distributions \cite{gassian2018}.
\medskip
(ii)
Let $p_{\bar x,\sigma}$ and $p_{\bar y,\sigma}$ be the
probability density functions of $X$ and $Y$, respectively.
By the definition of maximal coupling,
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbb{E}[|X-Y|]&=&\int_{\mathbb{R}^k\times\mathbb{R}^k}|x-y|\cdot\big(p_{\bar x,\sigma}(x)-\min\{p_{\bar x,\sigma}(x),p_{\bar y,\sigma}(x)\}\big)\cdot\big(p_{\bar y,\sigma}(y)-\min\{p_{\bar x,\sigma}(y),p_{\bar y,\sigma}(y)\}\big)dxdy\nonumber\\
&\le&2\int_{x\in A_1, y\in A_2}p_{\bar x,\sigma}(x)p_{\bar y,\sigma}(y)|x-y|dxdy,\label{ineq:gaussian}
\end{eqnarray}
where $A_1=\{z\in\mathbb{R}^k: p_{\bar x,\sigma}(z)\ge p_{\bar y,\sigma}(z)\}, A_2=\{z\in\mathbb{R}^k: p_{\bar x,\sigma}(z)< p_{\bar y,\sigma}(z)\}.$
Further split the upper bound in \eqref{ineq:gaussian} into three terms
\begin{eqnarray}
\eqref{ineq:gaussian}&\le&2\int_{x\in A_1, y\in A_2}p_{\bar x,\sigma}(x)p_{\bar y,\sigma}(y)|x-\bar x|dxdy+2\int_{x\in A_1, y\in A_2}p_{\bar x,\sigma}(x)p_{\bar y,\sigma}(y)|\bar x-\bar y|dxdy\nonumber\\
&+&2\int_{x\in A_1, y\in A_2}p_{\bar x,\sigma}(x)p_{\bar y,\sigma}(y)|y-\bar y|dxdy:=\psi_1+\psi_2+\psi_3\label{psi}.
\end{eqnarray}
Plainly, $\psi_2\le2|\bar x-\bar y|.$ For the estimate of $\psi_1,$
note that $p_{\bar x,\sigma}(x)=\dfrac{1}{(2\pi)^{k/2}\sigma^k}e^{-\frac{1}{2\sigma^2}|x-\bar x|^2}.$ Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\psi_1\le2\int_{\mathbb{R}^k}p_{\bar x,\sigma}(x)|x-\bar x|dx
=2(2\pi)^{k/2}\sigma^{-k}\int_{\mathbb{R}^k}e^{-\frac{1}{2\sigma^2}|x-\bar x|^2}|x-\bar x|dx,
\end{eqnarray*}
which, under the spherical coordinate, yields
\begin{eqnarray*}
\psi_1\le 2S_k(2\pi)^{k/2}\sigma^{-k}\int_0^\infty e^{-\frac{r^k}{2\sigma^2}r^2}dr:=\frac{1}{2}c_k\sigma,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $S_k$ denotes the unit sphere volume, and the constant $c_k$ only depends on $k.$
Similarly, $\psi_3\le\frac{1}{2}c_k\sigma.$
Hence
\[\mathbb{E}[|X-Y|]\le c_k\sigma+2|\bar x-\bar y|.\]
\end{proof}
\medskip
In the context of stochastic process, the maximal coupling is defined in terms of the conditional distributions of the associated discrete-time chains.
Let $\boldsymbol X^h=\{X^h_n\}, \boldsymbol Y^h=\{Y^h_n\}$ be the time-$h$ sample chains of two solutions of \eqref{SDE2}, and $\{({\mathcal X}^h_n,{\mathcal Y}^h_n)\}$ be a coupling of
$\boldsymbol X^h$ and $\boldsymbol Y^h.$ Assume at step $(n-1),$ $({\mathcal X}^h_{n-1},{\mathcal Y}^h_{n-1})$ takes the value $(x,y)\in\mathbb{R}^k\times\mathbb{R}^k,$ and let $\mu_x$ ({\it resp.} $\mu_y$) be the probability distribution of ${\mathcal X}^h_n$ ({\it resp.} ${\mathcal Y}^h_n$) conditioning on ${\mathcal X}^h_{n-1}=x$ ({\it resp.} ${\mathcal Y}^h_{n-1}=y$).
Then $({\mathcal X}^h,{\mathcal Y}^h)$ is a {\it maximal coupling} at step $n$ if
\begin{eqnarray}\label{coupling_ineq1}
\text{TV}(\mu_x,\mu_y)=2\mathbb{P}[{\mathcal X}^h_{n}\neq {\mathcal Y}^h_{n}|{\mathcal X}^h_{n-1}=x,{\mathcal Y}^h_{n-1}=y].
\end{eqnarray}
In the reflection-maximal coupling scheme, the maximal coupling is implemented if and only if it is triggered at the previous step, i.e., $({\mathcal X}^h_n,{\mathcal Y}^h_n)$ is a maximal coupling if and only if $|{\mathcal X}^h_{n-1}-{\mathcal Y}^h_{n-1}|\le d,$ where $d=\mathcal O(\varepsilon\sqrt{h})$ is the threshold distance.
In the numerical implementations, at each step, the distance between ${\mathcal X}^h$ and ${\mathcal Y}^h$ is checked to determine whether the maximal coupling is triggered for the next step. If at certain step, the distance between ${\mathcal X}^h$ and ${\mathcal Y}^h$ is greater than $d$, then the maximal coupling is {\it not} triggered and the reflection coupling is implemented instead at the next step.
The trigger of maximal coupling is the key mechanism, especially under the numerical scheme, to achieving a successful coupling. This is because under the maximal coupling, a positive success rate, which is robust against small perturbations, is guaranteed. Without the maximal coupling, numerical errors may cause the numerical trajectories of ${\mathcal X}_n^h$ and ${\mathcal Y}_n^h$ ``miss" each other even if theoretically, they should have been coupled successfully. In addition, with an appropriate choice of the threshold distance $d$, the coupling probability of ${\mathcal X}_n^h$ and ${\mathcal Y}_n^h$ has a lower bound independent of $h$; see Lemma \ref{lem:max_coupling} below.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:max_coupling}
Let $\{({\mathcal X}^h_n,{\mathcal Y}^h_n);n\ge0\}$ be a coupling of the time-$h$ sample chain of two solutions of \eqref{SDE2}.
Assume for $n\ge1$, $({\mathcal X}^h_n,{\mathcal Y}^h_n)$ is a maximal coupling conditional on ${\mathcal X}^h_{n-1}=x_0, {\mathcal Y}^h_{n-1}=y_0,$ where $x_0,y_0\in\mathbb{R}^k$ satisfying $|x_0-y_0|\le d:=\mathcal O(\varepsilon\sqrt{h}).$ Then there exist a universal constant $\gamma\in (0, 1)$ and a constant $C_k>0$ only depending on $k$ such that for any $\varepsilon>0,$ any $h>0$ sufficiently small, the followings hold.
(i) $\mathbb{P}[|{\mathcal X}^h_{n}-{\mathcal Y}^h_{n}|>0|{\mathcal X}^h_{n-1}=x_0, {\mathcal Y}^h_{n-1}=y_0
\le\gamma,\quad \forall n\ge1;$
(ii) $ \mathbb{E}[|{\mathcal X}^h_{n}-{\mathcal Y}^h_{n}|\big|{\mathcal X}^h_{n-1}=x_0,{\mathcal Y}^h_{n-1}=y_0]\le C_k\varepsilon\sqrt{h},\quad\forall n\ge1.
$
\end{lemma}
We note that Lemma \ref{lem:max_coupling} is a {\it conditional} version of Proposition \ref{prop:norm_distribition} in the setting of stochastic processes. For its proof, we need the following estimations \eqref{limit:1} - \eqref{limit:2}.
\medskip
Intuitively, the time-$h$ sample chain $\{X^h_n;n\ge0\}$ of solution of \eqref{SDE2} should be ``close to" the time-$h$ sample chain of its numerical integrator which, recall in the Introduction section, is denote by $\{\hat X^h_n;n\ge0\}$. In fact, by combining Girsanov Theorem and Pinsker's inequality, it is a standard result (see, for instance, Proposition 4.2 in \cite{total_bound2020}) that the total variation distance between $X^h_n$ and $\hat X^h_n$ conditional on $X^h_{n-1}=x_0, \hat X^h_{n-1}=x_0$ is of order $\mathcal O(h)$. If denote the probability density function of the distribution of $\{X^h_n;n\ge0\}$ ({\it resp.} $\{\hat X^h_n;n\ge0\}$) conditional on $X^h_{n-1}=x_0$ ({\it resp.} $\hat X^h_{n-1}=x_0$) as $\rho^h_{x_0}$ ({\it resp.} $\hat \rho^h_{x_0}$), then
\begin{eqnarray}\label{limit:1}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^k}|\rho^h_{x_0}(x)-\hat\rho^h_{x_0}(x)|dx\to0, \quad\text{as}\ h\to0.
\end{eqnarray}
Under the approximation in \eqref{limit:1}, the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:max_coupling} follows the same line of the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:norm_distribition} by the following approximations
\begin{eqnarray}\label{limit:2}
\lim_{h \rightarrow 0} \int_{\mathbb{R}^k} |x - x_0| \rho^h_{x_0}(x) \mathrm{d}x = 0\quad (\text{\it resp.}\quad \lim_{h \rightarrow 0} \int_{\mathbb{R}^k} |x - x_0| \hat \rho^h_{x_0}(x) \mathrm{d}x = 0).
\end{eqnarray}
To see \eqref{limit:2}, let $Z_t^{x_0}$ be the solution of SDE \eqref{SDE2} with initial condition $Z_0 = x_0$. By the Gronwall's Lemma and standard computations,
\[\mathbb{E}|Z^{x_0}_t - x_0|\le(|g(x_0)|t + \varepsilon H_k \sqrt{t}) e^{ |g|_{\text{Lip}} t},\quad\forall t>0,
\]
where $|g|_{\text{Lip}}$ denotes the Lipschitz constant of $g,$ and $H_k$ denotes the expectation of the standard normal random variable in $\mathbb{R}_k$. Thus
\[\mathbb{E}|Z^{x_0}_t - x_0|\to0,\quad\text{as}\ h\to0.
\]
Then \eqref{limit:2} is yielded by taking $Z_t^{x_0}$ as $X^h_n$ and $\hat X^h_n,$ respectively.
\medskip
Now, we are prepared to prove Lemma \ref{lem:max_coupling}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:max_coupling}]
(i) Since $\hat{\mathcal X}_n^h,\hat{\mathcal Y}_n^h$ are normal random variables when conditioning on $\hat{\mathcal X}_{n-1}^h=x_0, \hat{\mathcal Y}_{n-1}^h=y_0$, respectively. Applying Proposition \ref{prop:norm_distribition} (i) with $\sigma=\varepsilon\sqrt{h},$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[|\hat{\mathcal X}^h_{n}-\hat{\mathcal Y}^h_{n}|>0|\hat{\mathcal X}^h_{n-1}=x_0, \hat{\mathcal Y}^h_{n-1}=y_0]\le c_0(\varepsilon\sqrt{h})^{-1}|\bar x-\bar y|,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\bar x=x_0+g(x_0)h,\bar y=y_0+g(y_0)h.$
Since $g$ is Lipschitz continuous with the Lipschitz constant $|g|_{\text{Lip}}.$ Then for any $h>0$ sufficiently small, it holds that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{x-y}
|\bar x-\bar y|\le |x_0-y_0|+|g|_{\text{Lip}}|x_0-y_0|h\le\mathcal O(\varepsilon\sqrt{h}).
\end{eqnarray}
By making the coefficient in the term $\mathcal O(\varepsilon\sqrt{h})$ small enough,
there exists a universal constant $\gamma\in(0, 1)$ such that
\[\mathbb{P}[|\hat{\mathcal X}^h_{n}-\hat{\mathcal Y}^h_{n}|>0|\hat{\mathcal X}^h_{n-1}=x_0, \hat{\mathcal Y}^h_{n-1}=y_0]<\gamma.\]
By the definition of maximal coupling,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[|{\mathcal X}^h_{n}-{\mathcal Y}^h_{n}|>0|{\mathcal X}^h_{n-1}=x_0, {\mathcal Y}^h_{n-1}=y_0]=\text{TV}({\mathcal X}^h_{n},{\mathcal Y}^h_{n})/2\\
(\text{\it resp.}\quad \mathbb{P}[|\hat{\mathcal X}^h_{n}-\hat{\mathcal Y}^h_{n}|>0|\hat{\mathcal X}^h_{n-1}=x_0, \hat{\mathcal Y}^h_{n-1}=y_0]=\text{TV}(\hat{\mathcal X}^h_{n},\hat{\mathcal Y}^h_{n}))/2\ ).
\end{eqnarray*}
Then combined with \eqref{limit:1} that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\text{TV}({\mathcal X}^h_{n},\hat{\mathcal X}^h_{n})\to0, \quad\text{TV}({\mathcal Y}^h_{n},\hat{\mathcal Y}^h_{n})\to0,\quad\text{as $h\to0$},
\end{eqnarray*}
it holds that for any $h>0$ sufficiently small,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[|{\mathcal X}^h_{n}-{\mathcal Y}^h_{n}|>0|{\mathcal X}^h_{n-1}=x_0, {\mathcal Y}^h_{n-1}=y_0]\le\gamma.
\end{eqnarray*}
(ii)
As in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:norm_distribition} (ii), by splitting $ \mathbb{E}[|{\mathcal X}_n^h-{\mathcal Y}_n^h||{\mathcal X}^h_{n-1}=x_0,{\mathcal Y}^h_{n-1}=y_0]$ into three terms, it similarly holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[|{\mathcal X}_n^h-{\mathcal Y}_n^h||{\mathcal X}^h_{n-1}=x_0,{\mathcal Y}^h_{n-1}=y_0]\le\psi_1+\psi_2+\psi_3,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\psi_i$'s are the same as in \eqref{psi} with $p_{\bar x,\sigma}$ ({\it resp.} $p_{\bar y,\sigma}$) being replaced by $\rho^h_{x_0}$ ({\it resp.} $\rho^h_{y_0}$).
Note that $|\bar x-x_0|=|g(x_0)|h\to0$ ({\it resp.} $|\bar y-y_0|=|g(y_0)|h\to0$) as $h\to0.$ Then it follows from \eqref{limit:2} that for any $\delta>0$ and any $h>0$ sufficiently small,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\psi_1\le\hat\psi_1+2\int_{\mathbb{R}^k}(\hat\rho_{\bar x}^h(x)-\rho_{\bar x}^h(x))|x-\bar x|dx\le\hat\psi_1+\delta\\
(\text{\it resp.}\ \psi_3\le\hat\psi_3+2\int_{\mathbb{R}^k}(\hat\rho_{\bar x}^h(x)-\rho_{\bar x}^h(x))|x-\bar x|dx\le\hat\psi_3+\delta)
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\hat\psi_1$ ({\it resp.} $\hat\psi_3$) is as in Proposition \ref{prop:norm_distribition} with
$p_{\bar x,\sigma}$ ({\it resp.} $p_{\bar y,\sigma}$) being $\hat\rho^h_{x_0}$ ({\it resp.} $\hat\rho^h_{y_0}$).
Applying Proposition \ref{prop:norm_distribition}(ii) with
$\sigma$ being $\hat\sigma=\varepsilon\sqrt{h},$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\hat\psi_1\le c_k\varepsilon\sqrt{h},\ \hat\psi_3\le c_k\varepsilon\sqrt{h},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $c_k>0$ is as in Proposition \ref{prop:norm_distribition} only depending on $k.$
Still, $\hat \psi_2\le2|\bar x-\bar y|,$ which, by \eqref{x-y}, yields
$\hat\psi_2\le\mathcal O(\varepsilon\sqrt{h}).$
Thus, with certain constant $C_k>0$ only depending on
$k$, it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[|{\mathcal X}_n^h-{\mathcal Y}_n^h||{\mathcal X}^h_{n-1}=x_0,{\mathcal Y}^h_{n-1}=y_0]\le C_k\varepsilon\sqrt{h}.
\end{eqnarray*}
This completes the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:max_coupling}.
\end{proof}
In concluding this subsection, we remark that as proposed for the numerical efficiency, the maximal coupling is of discrete essentials. However, the theoretical results of the reflection-maximal coupling stated in this paper is for the continuous-time setting. To ensure a consistency between the discrete-time numerical scheme and its theoretical continuous-time counterpart, it is assumed that all the values of the processes between the discrete steps are ignored when the maximal coupling is implemented. In other words, as long as $({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)$ is a maximal coupling, for all the time that follows before ${\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t$ are successfully coupled or $({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)$ is switched to the reflection coupling, only the values of $({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)$ at $t=nh$ matters and
it does not make any difference which value $({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)$ take for all the $t$'s between the $h$-discrete steps.
\subsection{Multi-well potentials and first hitting time}
Let $U:D\to\mathbb{R}$ be a multi-well potential satisfying {\bf (U3)}.
Henceforth and throughout this paper, all the $L$ local minima of $U$ are labeled in such a way that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{monotone}
U(x_1)<\cdots<U(x_L).
\end{eqnarray}
In particular, $x_1$ always denotes the unique global minimum of $U$.
Denote
\begin{eqnarray}\label{M}
\mathcal M_i=\{x_1,...,x_i\}, \quad 1\le i\le L.
\end{eqnarray}
\medskip
The following proposition gives an equivalent characterization of the essential barrier height $H_U$.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:H_U}
Let $U$ be a multi-well potential on $D$ with $L$ local minima $x_i(1\le i\le L).$ Then
\begin{eqnarray}\label{equivalent_characterize_H_U}
H_U=\max\nolimits_{2\le i\le L}\big\{\Phi(x_i,\mathcal M_{i-1})- U(x_{i})\big\}.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Since for each $i\in\{2,...,L\},$ $x_1\in\mathcal M_{i-1}$. Then
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:3}
H_U\ge\Phi(x_i,x_1)-U(x_i)\ge \Phi(x_i,\mathcal M_{i-1})-U(x_{i}),
\end{eqnarray}
and hence
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:1}
H_U\ge \max\nolimits_{2\le i\le L}\big\{\Phi(x_i,\mathcal M_{i-1})- U(x_{i})\big\}.
\end{eqnarray}
It remains to show that ``$\ge$" in \eqref{eq:1} can only be ``$=$". This can be shown by contradiction. Suppose that ``$=$" does not hold, i.e.,
for each $i\in\{2,...,L\},$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:4}
\Phi(x_i,\mathcal M_{i-1})-U(x_i)<H_U.
\end{eqnarray}
Then we {\it claim} that for each $i_0\in\{2,...,L\}$, there exists a continuous path $\psi:[0,1]\to D$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{bar_phi}
\sup\nolimits_{t\in[0,1]}U(\psi(t))- U(x_{i_0})< H_U,\quad \psi(0)=x_{i_0},\ \psi(1)=x_{1}.
\end{eqnarray}
This would yield a contradiction that \[H_U=\max\nolimits_{2\le i_0\le L}\{\Phi(x_{i_0},x_1)-U(x_{i_0})\}<H_U.\]
Hence, ``$=$" in \eqref{eq:1} must be attained.
To prove the claim, we construct such a continuous path $\psi$. By \eqref{eq:4}, for each $i\in\{2,...,L\},$ there exists a continuous path $\phi_i:[0,1]\to D$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{contradiction}
\sup\nolimits_{t\in[0,1]} U(\phi_i(t))-U(x_i)< H_U,\quad\phi_i(0)=x_i,\ \phi_i(1)\in\mathcal M_{i-1}.
\end{eqnarray}
First take the path $\phi_{i_0}$ and denote $x_{i_1}=\phi_{i_0}(1)\in\mathcal M_{{i_0}-1}.$
By the definition of $\mathcal M_i,$ it must be that $1\le i_1<i_0.$ If $i_1=1,$ then \eqref{bar_phi} is proved by letting $\psi=\phi_{i_0}$; for otherwise, turn to the path $\phi_{i_1}$ and obtain a new index $1\le i_2<i_1$ with $\phi_{i_1}(1)=x_{i_2}.$
The procedure is repeated until $i_k=1$ for some finite $k.$
Then by gluing all the continuous paths $\phi_{i_0},...,\phi_{i_k}$ one by one and up to
a rescaling of $t$, we end up with a new continuous path $\psi:[0,1]\to D$ satisfying $\psi(0)=x_{i_0},\psi(1)=x_1.$
It remains to verify \eqref{bar_phi}.
Since $U(x_{i_0})\ge U(x_{i_j}), 0\le j\le k.$ Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sup\nolimits_{t\in[0,1]}U(\psi(t))-U(x_{i_0})&=&\max\nolimits_{0\le j\le k}\sup\nolimits_{t\in[0,1]}U(\phi_{i_j}(t))-U(x_{i_0})\\&\le&\max\nolimits_{0\le j\le k}\sup\nolimits_{t\in[0,1]}\big\{U(\phi_{i_j}(t))-U(x_{i_j})\big\}<H_U,
\end{eqnarray*}
where the last inequality follows from \eqref{contradiction}.
\end{proof}
\medskip
\begin{remark}\label{rem:1}
{\rm
In fact, \eqref{equivalent_characterize_H_U} still holds if the maximum is taken on certain {\it subset} of $\{2,...,L\}.$ Let $\mathcal I$ collect all the indexes at which the maximum in \eqref{barrier_height_multi-well} is attained, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{I}
\mathcal I=\{2\le i\le L:\Phi(x_i,x_1)-U(x_1)=H_U\}.
\end{eqnarray}
Then we have the following {\it stronger version of Proposition \ref{prop:H_U}} that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:9}
H_U
=\max\nolimits_{i\in\mathcal I}\{\Phi(x_i,\mathcal M_{i-1})-U(x_i)\}.
\end{eqnarray}
The proof of \eqref{eq:9} follows the same line of the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:H_U}.
The ``$\ge$" directly follows from \eqref{eq:3} and we only need to show that ``$\ge$" must be an equality. Still, this can be proved by contradiction. Suppose for each $i\in\mathcal I,$ $\Phi(x_i,\mathcal M_{i-1})-U(x_i)<H_U.$ Then corresponding to each $i\in\mathcal I,$ there exists a
continuous path $\phi_i(t)$ connecting $x_{i}$ with certain $x_{j_i}\in\mathcal M_{i-1}$ such that $\sup_t U(\phi_i(t))-U(x_i)<H_U.$ Following the constructing procedure in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:H_U}, starting from any $x_{i_0}$ with $i_0\in\mathcal I,$
we can construct a continuous path $\psi$ by gluing certain $\phi_{i}$'s piece by piece, passing a sequence of local minima $x_{i_1}, ...,x_{i_{k-1}}$ with ${i_j}\in\mathcal I$ and ending with a local minimum $x_{i_k}$ with $i_k\notin\mathcal I.$
If $i_k=1,$ then $\psi(t)$ is a continuous path connecting $x_{i_0}$ and $x_1$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{psi1}
\sup\nolimits_t U(\psi(t))-U(x_{i_k})<H_U.
\end{eqnarray}
This contradicts with $i_0\in\mathcal I.$
If $i_k\neq 1,$ we can construct a new path $\tilde\psi$ satisfying \eqref{psi1} by choosing a continuous path $\tilde\phi(t)$ connecting $x_{i_k}$ with $x_1$ satisfying
$\sup_t U(\tilde\phi(t))-U(x_{i_0})<H_U$ (such a path $\tilde\phi$ exists because $i_k\notin\mathcal I$) and then glue $\psi$ and $\tilde\phi$ together. Still, the contradiction is yielded.
}
\end{remark}
\medskip
Let $\{Z_t;t\ge0\}$ be a solution of \eqref{SDE1}, and $A\subseteq D$ be a subset. Denote the {\it first hitting time} of $Z_t$ to the set $A$ as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{kappa}
\kappa_{\{Z_t\}}(A)=\inf\{t>0:Z_t\in A\}.
\end{eqnarray}
The large deviation theory tells us that the first hitting time from a local minimum to an appropriate subset $A$ can be characterized by the related barrier height.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:large_deviation}
\noindent{\bf(Exponential law of first hitting time \cite{metastability2004,metastability2005}\footnote{It is well-known that the first hitting time is asymptotically exponentially distributed according to the large deviation theory \cite{day1983,freidlin1998random}.
It is relatively recent that the exponential tail is precisely estimated up to a multiplicative error
by techniques from the potential theory in \cite{metastability2004, metastability2005}.})}
Let $\boldsymbol Z=\{Z_t;t\ge0\}$ be a solution of \eqref{SDE1} with initial condition $Z_0=x_i,$ where $2\le i\le L.$ Let $A\subseteq D$ be a closed subset such that $\cup_{\ell=1}^{i-1}B_{\varepsilon}(x_\ell)\subset A$ and dist$(z^*(x_i,\mathcal M_{i-1}),A)>\delta$ for certain $\delta>0$ independent of $\varepsilon.$
Then there exists $\varepsilon_0>0$ such that for any $\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon_0)$ and any $t>0$,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{equal}
\mathbb{P}[\kappa_{\{Z_t\}}(A)>t]\simeq
\exp\Big\{-C_0e^{-{2(\Phi(x_{i},\mathcal M_{i-1})-U(x_{i}))}/{\varepsilon^2}}t\Big\},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathcal M_i$'s are defined in \eqref{M} and $C_0>0$ is a constant independent of $t$ and $\varepsilon.$
\end{prop}
In the multi-well setting, the essential barrier height $H_U$ plays a similar role {\it in the global sense} that it characterizes the first hitting time to the basin of the global minimum from any of the local ones.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:expon_tail_multi_well}
Let $\{Z_t;t\ge0\}$ be a solution of \eqref{SDE2}.
Then for any $t>0$ and any $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:7}
\mathbb{P}[\kappa_{\{Z_t\}}(B_1)>t]\lesssim \exp\{-C_0e^{-2H_U/\varepsilon^2}t\},
\end{eqnarray}
where $C_0$ is independent of $\varepsilon$ and $t.$
Moreover, if $Z_0$ is fully supported,
then ``$\lesssim$" in \eqref{eq:7} becomes ``$\simeq$".
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that when $Z_0\in B_1,$ \eqref{eq:7} automatically holds. In the following, we only consider the case $Z_0\in B_i$ for $2\le i\le L.$
For each $1\le i\le L,$ let $\tilde B_i\subseteq B_i$ be an open neighborhood of $x_i$ such that $B_\varepsilon(x_i)\subset\tilde B_i$ and dist$(\tilde B_{i},\partial B_{i})>\delta$ holds for certain $\delta>0$ and any $i\in\{1,...,L\}.$
Denote $D_i=\bigcup_{\ell=1}^{i}\tilde B_\ell,$ and define the stopping times
\begin{eqnarray}\label{T_i}
T_i=\inf\{t>0:Z_t\in D_i\},\quad 1\le i\le L,
\end{eqnarray}
and set $T_{L+1}=0,D_{L+1}=D.$ Note that each $T_i$ is the infimum time at which $Z_t$ enters the neighborhood of a {\it new lower} local minimum, where by ``new lower" we mean that
the local minimum has a potential value that is lower than all the local minima the neighborhoods of which have been passed by $Z_t.$
Plainly, $0=T_{L+1}\le T_L\le\cdots\le T_1<\infty,$ and \[\kappa_{\{Z_t\}}(B_1)\le\kappa_{\{Z_t\}}(\tilde B_1)=T_1.\]
Denote $\Delta T_i=T_{i}-T_{i+1}, 1\le i\le L.$ Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
T_1=\sum_{i=1}^{L}\Delta T_i.
\end{eqnarray*}
We {\it claim} that for each $i\in\{1,...,L\}$ satisfying $\Delta T_{i}>0$, it must be that $Z_{T_{i+1}}\in\tilde B_{i+1},$
In fact, suppose $\Delta T_i>0$ and $Z_{T_{i+1}}\notin \tilde B_{i+1}.$ Then $Z_{T_{i+1}}\in D_{i+1}\backslash\tilde B_{i+1}= D_{i}$ which, by \eqref{T_i}, yields $T_{i}\le T_{i+1}.$ Since it generally holds that $T_{i+1}\le T_{i}$. This yields a contradiction that $\Delta T_i=T_{i}-T_{i+1}=0.$
%
By Proposition \ref{prop:large_deviation}, for any $1\le i\le L-1,$
\begin{eqnarray*}\label{ineq:metastable}
\sup\nolimits_{x\in \tilde B_{i+1}}\mathbb{P}_{x}[\kappa_{\{Z_t\}}(D_i)>t]
\simeq \exp\{-C_0e^{-{2(\Phi(x_{i+1},\mathcal M_{i})-U(x_{i+1}))}/{\varepsilon^2}}t\},
\end{eqnarray*}
which, by \eqref{equivalent_characterize_H_U}, yields
\begin{eqnarray*}\label{ineq:metastable1}
\sup\nolimits_{x\in \tilde B_{i+1}}\mathbb{P}_{x}[\kappa_{\{Z_t\}}(D_i)>t]\lesssim\exp\{-C_0e^{-2H_U/\varepsilon^2}t\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Note that \[\kappa_{\{Z_t\}}(D_{i})\circ \theta^{T_{i+1}}=\Delta T_{i},\quad1\le i\le L-1.\]
By the Markov property,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[\Delta T_{i}>t|Z_{T_{i+1}}\in \tilde B_{i+1}]\lesssim\mathbb{P}_{Z_{T_{i+1}}}[\kappa_{\{Z_t\}}(D_{i})>t]\lesssim \exp\{-C_0e^{-{2H_U}/{\varepsilon^2}}t\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[T_1>t
&\le&
\sum\nolimits_{1\le i\le L,\Delta T_i>0}\mathbb{P}[\Delta T_{i}>t/L
\\
&=&\sum\nolimits_{1\le i\le L}\mathbb{P}[\Delta T_i>t/L|Z_{T_{i+1}}\in\tilde B_{i+1}] \lesssim\exp\{-C_0e^{-2H_U/\varepsilon^2}t\},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $C_0$ denotes a constant independent of $\varepsilon$ and $t.$
\medskip
For the other side of \eqref{eq:7}, by Proposition \ref{prop:H_U}, there exists $i_0\in\{2,...,L\}$ such that
\begin{eqnarray*}
H_U=\Phi(x_{i_0},\mathcal M_{i_0-1})-U(x_{i_0}).
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $Z_0$ is fully supported, we have for any $\delta>0,$ $\mathbb{P}[Z_{0}\in B_{\delta}(x_{i_0})]>0.$
Note that if $Z_0\in B_{\delta}(x_{i_0}),$
$0=T_{L}=\cdots=T_{i_0+1}<T_{i_0}\le T_1.$
Hence, by Proposition \ref{prop:large_deviation},
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[T_1>t]\ge\mathbb{P}[\Delta T_{i_0}>t, Z_0\in B_{\delta}(x_{i_0})]\simeq\exp\{-C_0e^{-2H_U/\varepsilon^2}t\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
The result in Lemma \ref{lem:expon_tail_multi_well} can be {\it strengthened} to certain set containing $B_1.$
More specifically, let
\begin{eqnarray}\label{J}
\mathcal
=\{1\le j\le L: U(x_j)<U(x_i)\ \text{$\forall$ $i\in\mathcal I$}\},
\end{eqnarray}
where the index set $\mathcal I$ is defined in \eqref{I}.
Note that $\mathcal J$ collects the indexes of all the local minima whose potential values are smaller than $U(x_i)$ for any $i\in\mathcal I.$ Plainly, $1\in\mathcal J.$
We {\it claim} that \eqref{eq:7} holds for $\mathbf B_1=\cup_{j\in\mathcal J}B_j,$ i.e., for any $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small and any $t>0,$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:10}
\mathbb{P}[\kappa_{\{Z_t\}}(\mathbf B_1)>t]\simeq \exp\{-C_0e^{-2H_U/\varepsilon^2}t\}.
\end{eqnarray}
The estimation \eqref{eq:10} can be proved following the same line of that of Lemma \ref{lem:expon_tail_multi_well}. The only modification is in obtaining ``$\gtrsim$", we apply \eqref{eq:9} (i.e., the stronger version of Proposition \ref{prop:H_U}) instead of \eqref{equivalent_characterize_H_U}.
\subsection{An upper bound of probability generating function}
In this subsection, we introduce a function that plays a key role in the estimation of exponential tails of the coupling time distributions.
Given $C_0>0,\lambda_0>1,$ define
\begin{eqnarray}\label{g}
g(\lambda; C_0,\lambda_0)=\lambda+ C_0\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}(\lambda^{n+1}-\lambda^{n})\lambda_0^{-n},\quad \lambda\in\mathbb{R}.
\end{eqnarray}
Then
$g(\lambda; C_0,\lambda_0)<\infty$ holds for any $\lambda\in(1,\lambda_0).$
Plainly,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{g_limit}
g(\lambda;C_0,\lambda_0)\to1,\quad \text{as}\ \lambda\to1.
\end{eqnarray}
In Section 3, a quantitative
characterization of the limit in \eqref{g_limit} will be needed.
For $\rho>1,\lambda_0>1, C_0>0,$ define
\begin{eqnarray}\label{beta}
\beta(\rho;C_0,\lambda_0)=\min\big\{\frac{\sqrt{\rho}-1}{\lambda_0-1}, \frac{\sqrt{\rho}-1}{C_0+\sqrt{\rho}-1}\big\}.
\end{eqnarray}
Obviously, $\beta\in(0,1).$
\begin{prop}\label{prop:prob_generate_fun1}
Given $\rho>1, \lambda_0>1$ and $C_0>0.$ Then for any $\lambda\in(1,1+\beta(\lambda_0-1))$ where $\beta=\beta(\rho;C_0,\lambda_0)$ is defined in \eqref{beta},
\begin{eqnarray*}
g(\lambda;C_0,\lambda_0)<\rho.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Write $\lambda=1+\tilde\beta(\lambda_0-1)$ with $\tilde\beta\in(0,1),$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
g(\lambda;C_0,\lambda_0)&=&\lambda+C_0(\lambda-1)\sum_{n=1}^\infty(\lambda/\lambda_0)^n\\%=\lambda+C_0\lambda(\lambda-1)/(\lambda_0-\lambda)
&=&\lambda(1+C_0 \tilde\beta/(1-\tilde\beta))
\le(1+\tilde\beta)(1+C_0{\tilde\beta}/{(1-\tilde\beta)}).
\end{eqnarray*}
To obtain $g(\lambda;C_0,\lambda_0)<\rho,$ we only need
\begin{eqnarray*}
(1+\tilde\beta)<\sqrt{\rho},\quad 1+C_0\dfrac{\tilde\beta}{1-\tilde\beta}<\sqrt{\rho}.
\end{eqnarray*}
This tells how \eqref{beta} is defined.
\end{proof}
The function $g$ in \eqref{g} is motivated by the probability generating function in probability. Actually, if a random variable $T$ admits an exponentially decaying tail, then $\mathbb{E}[\lambda^T]$, i.e., the generating function of $T$ is non-negative integer valued, is upper bounded by $g.$
This elementary fact is often used throughout the paper for estimating the exponential tails of coupling time distributions.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:prob_generate_fun2} Let $T$ be a random variable taking values in $\mathbb{R}_{>0}.$ Assume that for any $t>0,$
$\mathbb{P}[T>t]\le C_0\lambda_0^{-t}.$
Then for any $\lambda\in(1,\lambda_0),$ it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[\lambda^T]\le g(\lambda; C_0,\lambda_0)<\infty.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Note that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[\lambda^T
=\lambda\mathbb{P}[T>0]+\sum_{n=1}^\infty(\lambda^{n+1}-\lambda^n)\mathbb{P}[T>n]
\le\lambda+\sum_{n=1}^\infty(\lambda^{n+1}-\lambda^n)\mathbb{P}[\tau>n].
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
\section{Single-well potential and proof of Theorem \ref{thm:1}}
Throughout this section, $U$ is assumed to be a strongly convex single-well potential satisfying {\bf (U1)}. Let $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t); t\ge 0\}$ be an $h$-reflection-maximal coupling of two solutions of \eqref{SDE1}.
Recall that there is a threshold $d=\mathcal O(\varepsilon\sqrt{h})$ at which $({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)$ is switched between the reflection and maximal couplings.
Throughout this paper, the threshold $d$ is set as $2\varepsilon\sqrt{h}$.
Define
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tau_h^{(1)}=\inf\Big\{t\ge0:|{\mathcal X}_t-{\mathcal Y}_t|\in(0,2\varepsilon\sqrt{h}],\ {\text{and for certain $s\in(0,t),$}}\
|{\mathcal X}_s-{\mathcal Y}_s|>2\varepsilon\sqrt{h}\Big\},
\end{eqnarray*}
and let $\tau_h^{(1)}=\infty$ if the set is empty. We see that $\tau_h^{(1)}$ captures the infimum time when $|{\mathcal X}_t-{\mathcal Y}_t|$ attains the threshold $d$ (from far away) at which $({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)$ is switched from the reflection coupling to the maximal coupling.
It may happen that the distance $|{\mathcal X}_t-{\mathcal Y}_t|$ has always been not exceeding the threshold $d$ before being successfully coupled, and hence $\tau_h^{(1)}=\infty.$
Let
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tau_h=\tau_h^{(1)}\wedge\tau_c.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then $\tau_h<\infty$ holds almost surely.
As will be seen later, the coupling time $\tau_c$ is of a finite iterations of $\tau_h$.
\subsection{Estimation of $\tau_h$.}
In this subsection, $\tau_h$ is estimated under different initial conditions
of $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)\}$ in terms of $|{\mathcal X}_0-{\mathcal Y}_0|>2\varepsilon\sqrt{h}$ and $|{\mathcal X}_0-{\mathcal Y}_0|\le2\varepsilon\sqrt{h},$ respectively.
Note that when $|{\mathcal X}_0-{\mathcal Y}_0|>2\varepsilon\sqrt{h},$ $({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)$ has always been a reflection coupling until $\tau_h$ at which $({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)$ is switched to the maximal coupling. Then Proposition \ref{prop:sup_mart} immediately yields the following.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:1}
Assume $|{\mathcal X}_0-{\mathcal Y}_0|=r_0>2\varepsilon\sqrt{h}.$
Then $\tau_h=\tau_h^{(1)}$ holds $\mathbb{P}{\text{-a.s.}}$
such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:4}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_h>t]\le \frac{c_0r_0}{2\varepsilon}e^{-m_0t},\quad \forall t>0,
\end{eqnarray}
where $c_0>0$ is as in Proposition \ref{prop:sup_mart}.
Consequently, by Proposition \ref{prop:prob_generate_fun2}, for any $\lambda\in(1,e^{m_0}),$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:5}
\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h}]\le g(\lambda; c_0r_0/2\varepsilon, e^{m_0})
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\medskip
\begin{remark}\label{rem:approximate}
{\rm Note that the estimation in \eqref{ineq:4} is for the continuous-time process instead of its time-$h$ sample chain which the numerical scheme truly approximates.
Let
$\tau_h^0$ ({\it resp.} $\tau_h^h$) be the first passage time of the coupling process $({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)$ ({\it resp.} its time-$h$ sample chain $({\mathcal X}_n^h,{\mathcal Y}_n^h)$) to the set $\{(x,y)\in\mathbb{R}^k\times\mathbb{R}^k:|x-y|<2\varepsilon\sqrt{h}\}.$
It is easy to see that $\tau_h^h\ge\tau_h^0,$
and it is intuitive that their difference, which is usually difficult to be theoretically estimated,
should approach to zero
as $h$ vanishes, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{approximate}
\lim\nolimits_{h\to0}(\tau_h^h-\tau^0_h )=0,\quad\text{$\mathbb{P}$-a.s.}
\end{eqnarray}
Throughout this section, \eqref{approximate} is always assumed and will be numerically verified in Section 5 for the example of symmetric quadratic potential functions. Hence, the estimation \eqref{ineq:4} applies to the time-$h$ sample chain $({\mathcal X}^h_n,{\mathcal Y}^h_n)$ (slightly enlarge $c_0$ if necessary) whenever $h$ is sufficiently small.
}
\end{remark}
\medskip
\medskip
It becomes more complicated when $|{\mathcal X}_0-{\mathcal Y}_0|<2\varepsilon\sqrt{h}$ since the coupling method between ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ may change during $(0,\tau_h).$ More precisely, there exists $n>0$ such that $({\mathcal X}_{ih},{\mathcal Y}_{ih})$ is a maximal coupling for any integer $0\le i<n,$ and for $i=n,$ it holds either that ${\mathcal X}_{nh}={\mathcal Y}_{nh},$ i.e., ${\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t$ are coupled successfully, or $|{\mathcal X}_{nh}-{\mathcal Y}_{nh}|>2\varepsilon\sqrt{h}.$
In the former case, $\tau_c=\tau_h$, while for the latter one, $({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)$ is a reflection coupling ever since until it again holds that $|{\mathcal X}_t-{\mathcal Y}_t|<2\varepsilon\sqrt{h}$.
\medskip
The following proposition provides
the estimation of $\tau_h$ under the initial condition $|{\mathcal X}_0-{\mathcal Y}_0|<2\varepsilon\sqrt{h}.$
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:2}
Assume $|{\mathcal X}_0-{\mathcal Y}_0|\le2\varepsilon\sqrt{h}.$
Then there exists constants $h_0>0,$ $C_0>0$ such that for any $h\in(0,h_0),$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_h>t]\le C_0\sqrt{h} \lambda_h^{-n},\quad \forall t>0,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $n=\lfloor t/h\rfloor.$
Consequently, by Proposition \ref{prop:prob_generate_fun2}, for any $\lambda\in(1,e^{m_0}),$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:10}
\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h}]&\le&g(\lambda; C_0\sqrt{h}, e^{m_0})
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Recall in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:sup_mart}, we denote $R_t=|{\mathcal X}_t-{\mathcal Y}_t|/2\varepsilon.$ Then $\{R_t;t\ge0\}$ is a one-dimensional stochastic process on $\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}$ induced by the coupling $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t);t\ge0\}$.
By the above analysis on the coupling behavior between ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ on $(0,\tau_h),$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_h>t]&\le&\mathbb{P}[\tau_h>nh]\\&=&\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}\mathbb{P}[R_{ih}\in(0,\sqrt{h}], 0\le i\le j-1]\\
&&\cdot\big(\mathbb{P}[R_{jh}>\sqrt{h}|R_{(j-1)h}\in(0, \sqrt{h}]]
\cdot\mathbb{P}[\tau_h^{(1)}\circ\theta^{jh}> t-jh|R_{jh}> \sqrt{h}]\big)\\
&+&\mathbb{P}[R_{ih}\in(0,\sqrt{h}], 0\le i\le n-1]\cdot\mathbb{P}[R_{nh}>0|R_{(n-1)h}\in(0,\sqrt{h}]],
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\theta$ is the usual shift operator.
Note that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[R_{ih}\in(0,\sqrt{h}], 0\le i\le j-1]=
\begin{cases}
1 & j=1 \\
\prod_{i=1}^{j-1}\mathbb{P}[R_{ih}\in(0,\sqrt{h}]|R_{(i-1)h}\in(0,\sqrt{h}]], &j>1.
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $({\mathcal X}_{ih},{\mathcal Y}_{ih})$ is a maximal coupling whenever $|{\mathcal X}_{(i-1)h}-{\mathcal Y}_{(i-1)h}|\le2\varepsilon\sqrt{h}.$
It follows from Lemma \ref{lem:max_coupling} (i) that for certain $\gamma\in(0,1),$
$\mathbb{P}[R_{ih}>0|R_{(i-1)h}\in(0,\sqrt{h}]]<\gamma.$
Hence,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[R_{ih}\in(0,\sqrt{h}], 0\le i\le j-1]\le \gamma^{j-1},
\end{eqnarray*}
and \[\mathbb{P}[R_{ih}\in(0,\sqrt{h}], 0\le i\le n-1]\cdot\mathbb{P}[R_{nh}>0|R_{(n-1)h}\in(0,\sqrt{h}]]\le \gamma^n.\]
Therefore,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:1}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_h>nh]\le\gamma^n+\sum_{j=1} ^{n-1}\gamma^{j-1}\big(\mathbb{P}[R_{jh}>\sqrt{h}|R_{(j-1)h}\in(0, \sqrt{h}]]
\cdot\mathbb{P}[\tau_h\circ\theta^{jh}> t-jh|R_{jh}> \sqrt{h}]\big)\nonumber.
\end{eqnarray}
Now, it only remains to estimate
\begin{eqnarray}\label{expression:1}
\mathbb{P}[R_{jh}> \sqrt{h}|R_{(j-1)h}\in(0, \sqrt{h}]]
\cdot\mathbb{P}[\tau_h\circ\theta^{jh}>t-jh|R_{jh}> \sqrt{h}]
\end{eqnarray}
for $1\le j\le n-1.$
By the Markov property,
\begin{eqnarray}
\eqref{expression:1}&=&\int_{\sqrt{h}}^{\infty}\mathbb{P}[\tau_h\circ\theta^{jh}>t-jh|R_{jh}= s]\mathbb{P}[R_{jh}=ds|R_{(j-1)h}\in(0, \sqrt{h}]]\nonumber\\
&=&\int_{\sqrt{h}}^{\infty}\mathbb{P}[\tau_h>t-jh|R_0=s]\mathbb{P}[R_{jh}=ds|R_{(j-1)h}\in(0, \sqrt{h}]]\nonumber.
\end{eqnarray}
Then it follows from
Lemma \ref{lem:1} that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\eqref{expression:1}&\le& c_0e^{-m_0(t-jh)}
\int_{\sqrt{h}}^\infty r\mathbb{P}[R_{jh}=dr|R_{(j-1)h}\in(0, \sqrt{h}]]\\
&\le&c_0e^{-m_0h(n-j)}\mathbb{E}[R_{jh}|R_{(j-1)h}\in(0,\sqrt{h}]].
\end{eqnarray*}
By Lemma \ref{lem:max_coupling} (ii),
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[R_{jh}|R_{(j-1)h}\in(0,\sqrt{h}]]
\le \frac{1}{2}c_2\sqrt{h}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus, for certain constant $C_0>0$ independent of $h$ and $\varepsilon,$
\[\eqref{expression:1}\le C_0\sqrt{h}e^{-m_0h(n-j)}.\]
Therefore,
\begin{eqnarray*}\label{ineq:7}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_h>t]\le\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}
C_0\sqrt{h}\gamma^{j-1}e^{-m_0h(n-j)}+\gamma^n=C_0\sqrt{h}e^{-m_0h(n-1)}\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}(\gamma e^{m_0h})^{j-1}+\gamma^{n
\end{eqnarray*}
which, by letting $h>0$ sufficiently small and enlarging $C_0$ if necessary, yields
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_h>t]\le C_0\sqrt{h}e^{-m_0t}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
Combining Lemma \ref{lem:1} and Lemma \ref{lem:2}, we have the following.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:3}
Assume $\mathbb{E}[|{\mathcal X}_0-{\mathcal Y}_0|]<\infty.$ Then for any $h\in(0,h_0)$ where $h_0>0$ is as in Lemma \ref{lem:2}, for any $\lambda\in(1,\lambda_h),$ it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h}]<\infty.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Recall the one-dimensional stochastic process $R_t=|{\mathcal X}_t-{\mathcal Y}_t|/(2\varepsilon), t\ge0.$
Then, if denote $\mu$ as the initial distribution of $\{R_t;t\ge0\}$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h}]&=&\int_0^ {\sqrt{h}}\mathbb{E}_r[\lambda^{\tau_h}]\mu(dr)+\int_{\sqrt{h}}^\infty\mathbb{E}_r[\lambda^{\tau_h}]\mu(dr)\\
&\le& g(\lambda; C_0\sqrt{h},\lambda_h)\sqrt{h}+
g(\lambda; c_0\int_{\sqrt{h}}^\infty r\mu(dr),\lambda_h)\\
&\le& g(\lambda; C_0\sqrt{h},\lambda_h)\sqrt{h}+g(\lambda; c_0\mathbb{E}[R_0],\lambda_h),
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\mathbb{E}_r[\cdot]$ denotes the expectation with respect to the initial condition $R_0=r.$
Since $\mathbb{E}[R_0]=\mathbb{E}[|{\mathcal X}_0-{\mathcal Y}_0|]/2\varepsilon<\infty,$ the lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Iteration of $\tau_h$ and coupling times}
The coupling time $\tau_c$ is in fact certain iteration of $\tau_h.$ To see this, define
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tau_h^0=0,\quad \tau_h^k=\tau_h^{k-1}+\tau_h\circ\theta^{\tau_h^{k-1}},\ k\ge1,
\end{eqnarray*}
and let
\begin{eqnarray*}
\eta=\inf\big\{k\ge1: {\mathcal X}_{\tau_h^k}={\mathcal Y}_{\tau_h^k}\big\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
By the definition of $\tau_h,$
the following proposition immediately follows.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:1}
Given any $h>0,$ any $k\ge1.$ The followings hold.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $|{\mathcal X}_{\tau_h^k}-{\mathcal Y}_{\tau_h^k}|=2\varepsilon\sqrt{h}\ \text{or}\ 0,$ where ${\mathcal X}_{\tau_h^k}={\mathcal Y}_{\tau_h^k}$ if and only if $k\ge\eta.$
\item[(ii)] If $k>1,$ then \[\mathbb{P}[|{\mathcal X}_{\tau_h^k}-{\mathcal Y}_{\tau_h^k}|>0|{\mathcal F}_{\tau_h^{k-1}}]<\gamma.\]
where $\gamma$ is as in Lemma \ref{lem:max_coupling}.
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
By Proposition \ref{prop:1} (i),
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tau_c=\tau_h^\eta,\quad \mathbb{P}\mbox{-a.s.}
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus, the estimation of
$\tau_c$ is reduced to the estimation of $\tau^\eta_h.$
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:3}
Assume
$\mathbb{E}[|{\mathcal X}_0-{\mathcal Y}_0|]<\infty.$
Then for any $\delta>0,$ there exists $ h_0>0$ such that for any $h\in(0,h_0)$ and any $\lambda\in(1,e^{m_0-\delta}),$ it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h^\eta}]<\infty.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The idea of the proof follows Lemma 2.9 in \cite{nummelin1982}. Note that
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h^\eta}
&\le&\sum_{k=1}^\infty\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h^k}\mathbb{I}_{\eta\ge k}]\\
&=&\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{
\tau_h}\mathbb{I}_{\eta\ge1}]+\sum_{k=2}^\infty\mathbb{E}[\mathbb{I}_{\eta\ge k}\lambda^{\tau_h^{k-1}}\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h\circ\theta^{\tau_h^{k-1}}}|{\mathcal F}_{\tau_h^{k-1}}]],\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where the last equality is by the observation that $\lambda^{\tau_h^{k-1}}\in{\mathcal F}_{\tau_h^{k-1}}, \{\eta\ge k\}\in{\mathcal F}_{\tau_h^{k-1}}.$
Still, we use the notation $R_t=|{\mathcal X}_t-{\mathcal Y}_t|/2\varepsilon,$ and $\mathbb{E}_{r}$ denotes the expectation with initial condition $R_0=r.$
By Proposition \ref {prop:1} (i), $R_{\tau_h^{k-1}}=\sqrt{h}$ whenever $2\le k<\eta.$ By \eqref{ineq:10} and strong Markov property,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h\circ\theta^{\tau_h^{k-1}}}|{\mathcal F}_{\tau_h^{k-1}}]\le\mathbb{E}_{
\sqrt{h}}[\lambda^{\tau_h}]\le g(\lambda;C_0\sqrt{h},e^{m_0}),\quad \forall k\ge1,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $C_0>0$ is as in Lemma \ref{lem:2}.
Thus,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:9}
\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h^\eta}]&\le&\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{
\tau_h}\mathbb{I}_{\eta\ge1}]+ g(\lambda;C_0\sqrt{h},e^{m_0})\sum_{k=2}^\infty\mathbb{E}[\mathbb{I}_{\eta\ge k}\lambda^{\tau_h^{k-1}}].
\end{eqnarray}
Now we estimate $\mathbb{E}[\mathbb{I}_{\eta\ge k}\lambda^{\tau_h^{k-1}}]$ for $k\ge2.$
First, by writing
$\mathbb{I}_{\{\eta\ge k\}}=\mathbb{I}_{\{\eta\ge k-1\}}\mathbb{I}_{\{R_{\tau_h^{k-1}}>0\}},$
we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}\label{ineq:2}
\mathbb{E}[\mathbb{I}_{\{\eta\ge k\}}\lambda^{\tau_h^{k-1}}]
&=&\mathbb{E}[\mathbb{I}_{\{\eta\ge k-1\}}\lambda^{\tau_h^{k-2}}\mathbb{E}[\mathbb{I}_{\{R_{\tau_h^{k-1}}>0\}}\lambda^{\tau_h\circ\theta^{\tau_h^{k-2}}}|{\mathcal F}_{\tau_h^{k-2}}]]\\
&=&\mathbb{E}[\mathbb{I}_{\{\eta\ge k-1\}}\lambda^{\tau_h^{k-2}}\mathbb{E}_{R_{\tau_h^{k-2}}}[\mathbb{I}_{\{R_{\tau_h}>0\}}\lambda^{\tau_h}]].
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $R_{\tau_h^{k-2}}\in[0,\sqrt{h}]$ for $k>2,$ by the strong Markov property,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}_{R_{\tau_h^{k-2}}}[\mathbb{I}_{\{R_{\tau_h}>0\}}\lambda^{\tau_h}]&\le&
\begin{cases}
\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h}], &k=2,\\
\mathbb{E}_{\sqrt{h}}[\mathbb{I}_{\{R_{\tau_h}>0\}}\lambda^{\tau_h}], &k>2.
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray*}
Note that by H\"older inequality, for any $p\in(0,1),$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[\mathbb{I}_{\{R_{\tau_h}>0\}}\lambda^{\tau_h}]\le (\mathbb{E}[\mathbb{I}_{\{R_{\tau_h}>0\}}])^{1-p}\cdot(\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h/p}])^{p}=(\mathbb{P}[{R_{\tau_h}>0}])^{1-p}\cdot(\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h/p}])^{p}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then it follows from Proposition \ref{prop:1} (ii) and Lemma \ref{lem:2} that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}_{\sqrt{h}}[\mathbb{I}_{\{R_{\tau_h}>0\}}\lambda^{\tau_h/p}]&\le&\gamma^{1-p}g(\lambda^{1/p}; C_0\sqrt{h},e^{m_0})^{p}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[\mathbb{I}_{\{\eta\ge k\}}\lambda^{\tau_h^{k-1}}]&\le
&\begin{cases}
\mathbb{E}[\mathbb{I}_{\eta\ge 1}\lambda^{\tau_h}], & k=2\\
\gamma^{1-p}g(\lambda^{1/p}; C_0\sqrt{h},e^{m_0})^p\mathbb{E}[\mathbb{I}_{\{\eta\ge k-1\}}\lambda^{\tau_h^{k-2}}], & k>2.
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray*}
By induction, we have for $k\ge2,$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[\mathbb{I}_{\{\eta\ge k\}}\lambda^{\tau_h^{k-1}}]&\le& \gamma^{(1-p)(k-2)}g(\lambda^{1/p}; C_0\sqrt{h},e^{m_0})^{p(k-2)}\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h}].
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence, \eqref{ineq:9} yields
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h^\eta}]&\le& \mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h}]\Big(1+ g(\lambda;C_0\sqrt{h},e^{m_0})\sum_{k=0}^\infty \Big(\gamma^{1-p}g(\lambda^{1/p}; C_0\sqrt{h},e^{m_0})^{p}\Big)^k\Big)
\end{eqnarray*}
By Lemma \ref{lem:3}, $\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h}]<\infty.$ Thus, to guarantee $\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h^\eta}]<\infty$, it only requires
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:6}
g(\lambda^{1/p};C_0\sqrt{h},e^{m_0})<\gamma^{-(1-p)/p}
\end{eqnarray}
By Proposition \ref{prop:prob_generate_fun1}, \eqref{ineq:6} holds for any $\lambda>1$ such that $\lambda^{1/p}\in(1,1+\beta_h(e^{m_0}-1))$,
where by choosing $h>0$ sufficiently small, \[\beta_h=\min\Big\{\dfrac{\gamma^{-(1-p)/p}-1}{e^{m_0}-1}, \dfrac{\gamma^{-(1-p)/p}-1}{C_0\sqrt{h}+\gamma^{-(1-p)/p}-1}\Big\}=\dfrac{\gamma^{-(1-p)/p}-1}{C_0\sqrt{h}+\gamma^{-(1-p)/p}-1}.\]
Note that $\beta_h\to1$ as $h\to0.$ Since $p$ can be arbitrarily close to $1$. Then by choosing $h$ sufficiently small, we have
\[\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h^\eta}]<\infty\]
holds for any $\lambda\in(1,e^{m_0-\delta})$ with $\delta>0$ being arbitrarily small.
%
\end{proof}
\medskip
Now, the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:1} is straightforward.
\noindent{\it Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:1}}:
Note that for any $\lambda\in(1,\infty)$ satisfying $\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h^\eta}]<\infty,$ we have for any $t>0,$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_h^\eta>t]\le \mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_h^\eta}]\lambda^{-t}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence, by Theorem \ref{thm:3}, for any $\lambda\in(1,e^{m_0-\delta})$ and any $\delta>0,$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\limsup_{t\to\infty}\dfrac{1}{t}\log\mathbb{P}[\tau_h^\eta>t]\le
-m_0+m_0\delta
\end{eqnarray*}
Theorem \ref{thm:1} is proved by taking $\delta$ as $m_0\delta.$
%
%
%
\section{Multi-well potentials and proof of Theorem \ref{thm:2} and Theorem \ref{thm:5}}\label{sec:double-multiple well}
In this section, potential functions with multiple wells are considered.
The case of double-well potential is first studied in Section 4.1-4.3, and following the same idea, potential functions with more wells are investigated in Section 4.4.
\subsection{Key stopping times for double-well potentials}\label{subsec:stopping_time}
In this subsection, several key stopping times for the estimate of $\tau_c$ are introduced for the double-well situation.
Let $U$ be a double-well potential satisfying {\bf (U2)} with two basins $B_1$ and $B_2$, and $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t);t\ge0\}$ be a coupling of two solutions
of \eqref{SDE1}. Denote
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tau^{(1)}_\varepsilon=\inf\Big\{t>h:({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)\in B_1\times B_1\ \text{or}\ B_2\times B_2
\Big\}
\end{eqnarray*}
the infimum time when ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ lie in the {\it same} basin\footnote{The subscript ``$\varepsilon$" is used for the emphasis that in the multi-well setting, the coupling time is essentially determined by the ``basin-switching" behavior of the processes in which the noise magnitude $\varepsilon$ plays the fundamental role.} of $U$.
To avoid the possible repeated boundary-crossing in an initial infinitesimal time interval when ${\mathcal X}_t$ (or ${\mathcal Y}_t$) starts from the basin boundaries, let $\tau^{(1)}_\varepsilon$ be measured after some small positive time which we choose to be the step size $h$ to make it compatible with the numerical simulations.
Plainly, $\tau^{(1)}_\varepsilon<\infty$ for $\mathbb{P}\mbox{-a.s.}$ If initially ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ already belong to the same basin, then $\tau_{\epsilon}^{(1)} = h$ with probability close to
$1$. Now, let ${\mathcal X}_t$ and $ {\mathcal Y}_t$ be initially lie in the different basins, and assume, without loss of generality, that ${\mathcal Y}_t$ starts from $B_1$.
Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tau_\varepsilon^{(1)}=\kappa_{\{{\mathcal X}_t\}}(B_1)\wedge\kappa_{\{{\mathcal Y}_t\}}(B_2),
\end{eqnarray*}
where recall that
$\kappa_{\{{\mathcal X}_t\}}(\cdot)$ and $\kappa_{\{{\mathcal Y}_t\}}(\cdot)$ are the first hitting times defined in \eqref{kappa}.
Denote \begin{eqnarray}\label{la_var}
\lambda_\varepsilon=\exp\{C_0e^{{-2H_U}/{\varepsilon^2}}\}, \end{eqnarray}
where $C_0>0$ is certain constant independent of $\varepsilon.$ By Lemma \ref{lem:expon_tail_multi_well},
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:11}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon^{(1)}>t]\leq\mathbb{P}[\kappa_{\{{\mathcal X}_t\}}(B_1)>t]\lesssim\lambda_\varepsilon^{-t},\quad\forall t>0.
\end{eqnarray}
\bigskip
The reverse of \eqref{ineq:11} also holds under appropriate conditions. For a multi-well potential $U$, recall the index sets $\mathcal I$ and $\mathcal J$ defined in \eqref{I} and \eqref{J}, respectively. It is easy to see that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:11}
\Phi(x_j,x_i)-U(x_j)>\Phi(x_i,x_j)-U(x_i)=H_U,\ \text{$\forall$}\ i\in\mathcal I, j\in\mathcal J.
\end{eqnarray}
Denote
\[\mathbf{B}_1 =\bigcup\nolimits_{j \in\mathcal J} B_j, \quad{\mathbf{B}_2 =\bigcup\nolimits_{i \in\mathcal I} B_i},\]
where $\mathbf B_1$ has been defined at the end of Section 2.3. Plainly, $B_1 \subseteq \mathbf{B}_1.$ We note that $\mathbf B_2$ collects all the ``far-away" basins from $B_1,$ where by ``far-away" we mean that any path starting from such a basin has to overcome the {\it largest} barrier height (i.e., the essential barrier height $H_U$) to enter $B_1$.
\medskip
In this paper, for the multi-well situation (which, of course, includes the double-well case), the following {\bf (H1)} is always assumed and will be numerically verified in Section 5.
\medskip
\medskip
\noindent{\bf (H1)} There exist $\delta_0>0,\gamma_0>0$ such that, if
$\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)\}$ is a reflection-maximal coupling of two solutions of \eqref{SDE1} satisfying {${\mathcal X}_0\in\cup_{i\in\mathcal I} B_{\delta_0}(x_i), {\mathcal Y}_0\in \cup_{j\in\mathcal J} B_{\delta_0}(x_j),$} then for any $t>0$ and any $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:14}
\mathbb{P}\big[{\mathcal Y}_s\in \mathbf{B}_1\ \text{for all}\ s\in[0,t]\big| \kappa_{\{{\mathcal X}_t\}}(\mathbf{B}_1)>t\big]>\gamma_0.
\end{eqnarray}
\medskip
{\bf (H1)} states that when ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ start from the ``bottom" of the basins from $\mathbf{B}_2$ and $\mathbf{B}_1$ respectively, the probability of ${\mathcal Y}_t$ not leaving $\mathbf{B}_1$ conditioning that ${\mathcal X}_t$ has not entered $\mathbf{B}_1$ yet is uniformly positive and independent of $\varepsilon$ and $t$. This is intuitive because by \eqref{eq:11}, processes starting from the local minima with indexes from
$\mathcal I$ have to overcome a higher barrier to exist $\mathbf{B}_1$ than the vice versa.
\medskip
In the double-well setting, $\mathbf{B}_i$ is simply $B_i$ for $i=1,2,$ and \eqref{ineq:14} is reduced to
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:19}
\mathbb{P}[\kappa_{\{{\mathcal Y}_t\}}(B_2)>t|\kappa_{\{{\mathcal X}_t\}}(B_1)>t]>\gamma_0.
\end{eqnarray}
Then under condition {\bf (H1)}, if ${\mathcal X}_0\in B_{\delta_0}(x_1)$ and ${\mathcal Y}_0\in B_{\delta_0}(x_2)$,
the reverse of \eqref{ineq:11} holds
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:15}
\mathbb{P}[\tau^{(1)}_\varepsilon>t]&\ge&\mathbb{P}[\kappa_{\{{\mathcal X}_t\}}(B_1)>t,\kappa_{\{{\mathcal Y}_t\}}(B_2)>t]\nonumber\\
&=&\mathbb{P}[\kappa_{\{{\mathcal Y}_t\}}(B_2)>t|\kappa_{\{{\mathcal X}_t\}}(B_1)>t]\cdot\mathbb{P}[\kappa_{\{{\mathcal X}_t\}}(B_1)>t]\nonumber\\
&\ge&\gamma_0\cdot\mathbb{P}[\kappa_{\{{\mathcal X}_t\}}(B_1)>t]\simeq\lambda_\varepsilon^{-t},
\end{eqnarray}
where the last ``$\simeq$" holds by letting $\delta_0>0$ be sufficiently small.
\bigskip
In a rather contrary sense to $\tau^{(1)}_\varepsilon,$ define another stopping time
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tau^{(2)}_\varepsilon=&\inf&\Big\{t>h:({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)\in B_1\times B_2\ \text{or}\ B_2\times B_1, \ \text{and for certain}\ s\in(0,t),\\ &&({\mathcal X}_s,{\mathcal Y}_s)\in B_1\times B_1 \ \text{or}\ B_2\times B_2\Big\},
\end{eqnarray*}
and let $\tau^{(2)}_\varepsilon=\infty$ if the set is empty.
Then $\tau^{(2)}_\varepsilon$ captures the infimum time when
${\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t$ are separated (again) by the two {\it different} basins, where ``again" applies when ${\mathcal X}_0,{\mathcal Y}_0$ are already belong to the different basins.
Denote
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tau_\varepsilon=\tau^{(2)}_\varepsilon\wedge\tau_c.
\end{eqnarray*}
It is not hard to see that
$\tau_\varepsilon=\tau^{(2)}_\varepsilon<\tau_c$ when ${\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t$ are {\it not} coupled when staying within the same basin, and $\tau_\varepsilon=\tau_c<\tau_\varepsilon^{(2)}=\infty$ for otherwise. As will be seen in Section 4.3, the coupling time $\tau_c$ is a finite iteration of $\tau_\varepsilon$ for $\mathbb{P}$-a.s.
\subsection{Estimation of $\tau_\varepsilon$.}\label{subsec:4.2}
In the multi-well situation, the following {\bf (H2)} characterizes
the {\it local} coupling behaviors when both ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ are lying in the same basin.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf (H2)}
Let $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)\}$ be a reflection-maximal coupling of two solutions of \eqref{SDE1} such that $({\mathcal X}_0,{\mathcal Y}_0)\in\bigcup_{1\le i\le L}\overline{ B_i\times B_i}$. The followings hold.
\medskip
(i) There exists $\gamma_1 < 1$ such that \[\mathbb{P}[{\mathcal X}_{\tau_\varepsilon}\neq{\mathcal Y}_{\tau_\varepsilon}]<\gamma_1.\]
(ii) There exist $r_1, r_2>0$ such that for any $t>0$ and any $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon>t|{\mathcal X}_{\tau_\varepsilon}={\mathcal Y}_{\tau_\varepsilon}]\lesssim e^{-r_1t},\quad \mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon>t|{\mathcal X}_{\tau_\varepsilon}\neq{\mathcal Y}_{\tau_\varepsilon}]\lesssim e^{-r_2t}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\medskip
We note that {\bf (H2)} is intuitive that {\bf (H2)}(i) suggests a positive probability for a successful coupling when ${\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t$ belong to the same basin. The first inequality in {\bf (H2)}(ii) is a ``conditional" version of Theorem \ref{thm:1} conditioning that ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ are being successfully coupled within the same basin, and the second inequality states that for otherwise, the exponential tail of $\tau_\varepsilon$ remains largely unchanged (although the probability $\mathbb{P}[{\mathcal X}_{\tau_\varepsilon}\neq{\mathcal Y}_{\tau_\varepsilon}]$ drops dramatically as $\varepsilon$ decreases).
\medskip
In this paper, for the multi-well situation, {\bf (H2)} is always assumed and will be numerically verified in Section 5. We see that when ${\mathcal X}_0$ and ${\mathcal Y}_0$ belong to the same basin, the two inequalities in {\bf (H2)}(ii) together yield the following estimate of $\tau_\varepsilon.$
\begin{prop}\label{prop:2}
Let $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t);t\ge0\}$ be a reflection-maximal coupling of two solutions of \eqref{SDE1} such that $({\mathcal X}_0,{\mathcal Y}_0)\in \overline{ B_1\times B_1}$ or $\overline{ B_2\times B_2.}$
Then there exists $r_0>0$ such that for any $t>0$ and any $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small, it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*
\mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon>t]\lesssim e^{-r_0 t}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{prop}
\medskip
In the estimate of $\tau_\varepsilon,$ it becomes more complicated when ${\mathcal X}_0$ and ${\mathcal Y}_0$ belong to the different basins. Typically in this case, the coupling process $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)\}$ should experience two stages during $(0,\tau_\varepsilon)$. In Stage I, ${\mathcal X}_t, {\mathcal Y}_t$ are lying in the different basins until one of them,
${\mathcal X}_t$ or ${\mathcal Y}_t,$ jumps out of the basin it initially belongs to and enters the other basin so that ${\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t$ are staying in the same basin; then it comes to the Stage II that ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ are lying in the same basin for
another period of time until they are either successfully coupled, or not coupled and one of them, ${\mathcal X}_t$ or ${\mathcal Y}_t,$
jumps out of the same basin again.
Hence, we write \begin{eqnarray}\label{tau_equation}
\tau_\varepsilon=\tau_\varepsilon\circ\theta^{\tau_\varepsilon^{(1)}}+\tau^{(1)}_\varepsilon,\quad\mathbb{P}\text{- a.s.},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\theta$ is the usual shift operator.
We note that Stage I and Stage II illustrate different time scales: Stage I has the slow time-scale which typically lasts for an exponentially long period of time with the tail exponent being exponentially small; while Stage II has the fast time-scale for which, according to Proposition \ref{prop:2}, the tail exponent of the distribution is uniformly bounded away from zero.
\medskip
According to above analysis, we have the following estimate of $\tau_\varepsilon$ when ${\mathcal X}_t, {\mathcal Y}_t$ initially belong to the different basins.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:4}
Let $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t);t\ge0\}$ be a reflection-maximal coupling of two solutions of \eqref{SDE1} such that $({\mathcal X}_0,{\mathcal Y}_0)\in \overline{B_1\times B_2}$ or $\overline{B_2\times B_1}.$
Then there exists $C_1>0$ such that for any $t>0$ and any $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon>t]\le C_1\lambda_\varepsilon^{-t}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Consequently, by Proposition \ref{prop:prob_generate_fun2}, for any $\lambda\in(1,\lambda_\varepsilon),$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:13}
\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_\varepsilon}]\le g(\lambda; C_1, \lambda_\varepsilon)<\infty.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
According to \eqref{tau_equation}, \begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:8}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon>t]=\int_0^t\mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon^{(1)}=s]\mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon>t|\tau_\varepsilon^{(1)}=s]ds.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that for any given $\delta>0,$ $\mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon^{(1)}<\delta]\to0$ as $\varepsilon\to0.$ Hence, for any $\delta',\delta>0$ sufficiently small,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\eqref{ineq:8}&\le& \int_\delta^t\mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon^{(1)}>{s-\delta}]\mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon>t|\tau_\varepsilon^{(1)}=s]ds+\delta'\\
&\le&\int_\delta^t\mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon^{(1)}>{s-\delta}]\mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon\circ\theta^s>t-s|\tau_\varepsilon^{(1)}=s]ds+\delta'\nonumber
\end{eqnarray*}
By equation \eqref{ineq:11}, there exists $C_2>0$ such that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon^{(1)}>s-\delta]\le C_2\lambda_\varepsilon^{-(s-\delta)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Since ${\mathcal X}_t, {\mathcal Y}_t$ belong to the same basin for $t=\tau_\varepsilon^{(1)}.$ By Proposition \ref{prop:2}, there exists $C_3>0$ such that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon\circ\theta^s>t-s|\tau_\varepsilon^{(1)}=s
\le C_3e^{-r_0(t-s)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\eqref{ineq:8}\le C_2C_3\lambda_\varepsilon^\delta\int_0^t\lambda_\varepsilon ^{-s}e^{-r_0(t-s)}ds+\delta'
\le2C_2C_3\lambda_\varepsilon^{-t}\int_0^t(\lambda_\varepsilon e^{-r_0})^{t-s}ds+\delta',
\end{eqnarray*}
where the last inequality is by the arbitrarily small of $\delta.$
Since $\lambda_\varepsilon e^{-r_0}<1$ for $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small, we have, with certain constant $C_1>0$ independent of $\varepsilon$ and $t,$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\eqref{ineq:8}\le C_1\lambda_\varepsilon^{-t}
+\delta'\end{eqnarray*}
The lemma is proved since $\delta'$ can be arbitrarily small.
\end{proof}
%
By noting that $1<\lambda_\varepsilon<e^{r_0}$ whenever $\varepsilon$ sufficiently small, Proposition \ref{prop:2} and Lemma \ref{lem:4} directly yield the following.
\begin{prop}\label{lem:5}
Let $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)\}$ be a reflection-maximal coupling of two solutions of \eqref{SDE1} such that $({\mathcal X}_0,{\mathcal Y}_0)$ is fully supported.
Then for any $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small, any $\lambda\in(1,\lambda_\varepsilon),$ it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_\varepsilon}]<\infty.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{prop}
%
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:2}}
This subsection proves Theorem \ref{thm:2}. Similar to the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:1}, a sequence of random times are inductively defined \begin{eqnarray}\label{iteration}
\tau_\varepsilon^{0}=0,\ \tau_\varepsilon^{k}=\tau_\varepsilon^{k-1}+\tau_\varepsilon\circ\theta^{\tau_\varepsilon^{k-1}},\quad k\ge1.
\end{eqnarray}
where $\theta$ is the usual shift operator. Note that by definition of $\tau_\varepsilon,$ for each $k\ge1,$ either ${\mathcal X}_{\tau_\varepsilon^k}={\mathcal Y}_{\tau_\varepsilon^k},$ or ${\mathcal X}_{\tau_\varepsilon^k}$ and ${\mathcal Y}_{\tau_\varepsilon^k}$ belong to the different basins. Let
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eta}
\eta=\inf\{k\ge1:{\mathcal X}_{\tau_\varepsilon^k}={\mathcal Y}_{\tau_\varepsilon^k}\}.
\end{eqnarray}
\medskip
The following Proposition \ref{prop:5} and Theorem \ref{thm:4} are respectively the analogues of Proposition \ref{prop:1} and Theorem \ref{thm:3} in the double-well setting.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:5}
For any $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small, the followings hold.
\quad
(i) ${\mathcal X}_{\tau_\varepsilon^k}={\mathcal Y}_{\tau_\varepsilon^k}$ if and only if $k\ge\eta;$
\quad (ii) For any $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small, it holds that
\[\mathbb{P}[{\mathcal X}_{\tau_\varepsilon^k}\neq{\mathcal Y}_{\tau_\varepsilon^k}|{\mathcal F}_{\tau_\varepsilon^{k-1}}]<\gamma_1,\quad\forall k\ge1,\]
where $\gamma_1< 1$ is as in {\bf (H2)}{\rm(i)}.
\end{prop}
Plainly, Proposition \ref{prop:5} (i) holds and further yields
\[\tau_c=\tau_\varepsilon^\eta,\quad\text{$\mathbb{P}$-a.s.}\]
By the strong Markov property, Proposition \ref{prop:5} (ii) directly follows from {\bf (H2)}(i).
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:4}
Let $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t);t\ge0\}$ be a reflection-maximal coupling of two solutions of \eqref{SDE1} such that $({\mathcal X}_0,{\mathcal Y}_0)$ is fully supported.
Then for any $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small and any $\lambda\in(1,\lambda_\varepsilon),$ it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_\varepsilon^\eta}]<\infty. \end{eqnarray*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The proof follows the same line of the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:3}.
With $\mathbb{I}_{\{R_{\tau_\varepsilon^k>0}\}}$ in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:3} replaced by $\mathbb{I}_{\{{\mathcal X}_{\tau_\varepsilon^k}\neq{\mathcal Y}_{\tau_\varepsilon^k}\}},$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_\varepsilon^\eta}]\le\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_\varepsilon}]\Big(1+ g(\lambda;C_1,\lambda_\varepsilon)\sum_{k=0}^\infty \Big(\gamma^{1-p}g(\lambda^{1/p}; C_1,\lambda_\varepsilon)^{p}\Big)^k\Big),
\end{eqnarray*}
where $C_1$ is as in Lemma \ref{lem:4}, and $p$ can be any number in $(0,1).$
Thus, $\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_\varepsilon^\eta}]<\infty$ if \begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:3}
g(\lambda^{1/p};C_1,\lambda_\varepsilon)<\gamma^{-(1-p)/p}.
\end{eqnarray}
By Proposition \ref{prop:prob_generate_fun2},
\eqref{ineq:3} holds for any $\lambda^{1/p}\in(1,(1+\beta(\lambda_\varepsilon-1))$
where \[\beta=\dfrac{\gamma^{-(1-p)/2p}-1}{C_4+\gamma^{-(1-p)/2p}-1}\in(0,1).\]
Since $\ln\lambda_\varepsilon\simeq C_0e^{-2H_U/\varepsilon^2}$, it is not hard to see that $\ln\lambda$ is in the same order, i.e., there exists constant $\tilde C_0>0$ independent of $\varepsilon$ such that
\[\lim_{\varepsilon\to0}\ln\lambda \cdot e^{2H/\varepsilon^2}=\tilde C_0.\]
Then with $\lambda_\varepsilon=\exp\{\tilde C_0e^{-2H_U/\varepsilon^2}\},$ the lemma is proved by letting $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small.
\end{proof}
\bigskip
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:2}:]
Note that for any $\lambda>1$ satisfying $\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{ \tau_\varepsilon^\eta}]<\infty,$
it holds that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon^\eta>t]\lambda^t\le\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_\varepsilon^\eta}].
\end{eqnarray*}
It then follows from Proposition \ref{prop:5} (ii) and Theorem \ref{thm:4}
that for any $t>0,$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_c>t]\lesssim \lambda_\varepsilon^{-t}.
\end{eqnarray*}
For the other side of the inequality,
since $({\mathcal X}_0,{\mathcal Y}_0)$ is fully supported, for any $\delta>0$ sufficiently small,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_c>t]\ge\mathbb{P}[\tau_c>t, ({\mathcal X}_0,{\mathcal Y}_0)\in B_\delta(x_1)\times B_\delta(x_2)\ \mbox{or}\ B_\delta(x_2)\times B_\delta(x_1)].
\end{eqnarray*}
Note that when ${\mathcal X}_0$ and ${\mathcal Y}_0$ belong to the different basins, $\tau_c\ge\tau^{(1)}_\varepsilon.$ Thus, by \eqref{ineq:15}
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\mathbb{P}[\tau_c>t, ({\mathcal X}_0,{\mathcal Y}_0)\in B_\delta(x_1)\times B_\delta(x_2)\ \mbox{or}\ B_\delta(x_2)\times B_\delta(x_1)]\\
&\ge&\mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon^{(1)}>t, ({\mathcal X}_0,{\mathcal Y}_0)\in B_\delta(x_1)\times B_\delta(x_2)\ \mbox{or}\ B_\delta(x_2)\times B_\delta(x_1)]
\gtrsim\lambda_\varepsilon^{-t}.
\end{eqnarray*}
This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:2}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Multi-well potentials and proof of Theorem \ref{thm:5}}
In this subsection, we study the general case of multi-well potentials. Let $U$ be a potential function satisfying {\bf (U3)}
with $L(L\ge3)$ local minima $x_1,\cdots,x_L$ and the corresponding basins $B_1,\cdots,B_L$.
Let $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t);t\ge0\}$ be a coupling of two solutions of \eqref{SDE1}.
In the multi-well setting, the estimate of coupling time follows the same idea in the double-well case and some key stopping times have to be defined. Without any confusion, the notation $\tau_\varepsilon^{(1)}$ is continued to denote the infimum time when ${\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t$ lie in the same basin, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tau^{(1)}_\varepsilon=\inf\Big\{t>h:({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)\in\cup_{1\le i\le L} B_i\times B_i\Big\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Define
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tau_\varepsilon^{(3)}=&\inf&\Big\{t>h:({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t) \in\bigcup\nolimits_{\substack{1\le i,j\le L,i\neq j}}B_i\times B_j,\mbox{and for certain}\ s\in(0,t),\\
&&({\mathcal X}_s,{\mathcal Y}_s)\in
\bigcup\nolimits_{1\le i\le L}B_i\times B_i \Big\},
\end{eqnarray*}
and let $\tau_\varepsilon^{(3)}=\infty$ if the set is empty.
We see that $\tau_\varepsilon^{(3)}$ is a generalization of $\tau_\varepsilon^{(2)}$ in the multi-well setting and coincides with $\tau_\varepsilon^{(2)}$ when $L=2.$
\medskip
In the multi-well setting, of particular interest is the time when both ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ are lying around the (unique) global minimum $x_1.$ Denote $\xi_1$ the infimum time when both ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ lie in the basin $B_1$.
Recall that $\kappa_{\{{\mathcal X}_t\}}(B_1)$ ({\it resp.} $\kappa_{\{{\mathcal Y}_t\}}(B_1)$), as defined in \eqref{kappa}, denotes the infimum time when ${\mathcal X}_t$ ({\it resp.} ${\mathcal Y}_t$) lies in $B_1$. Then it must be that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:17}
\xi_1\ge \max\big\{\kappa_{\{{\mathcal X}_t\}}(B_1), \kappa_{\{{\mathcal Y}_t\}}(B_1)\big\}.
\end{eqnarray}
We note that both ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ may go into and out of the basin $B_1$ many times before $\xi_1.$ However, as long as $\varepsilon$ is sufficiently small, the typical scenario is that one of the two processes, say ${\mathcal X}_t,$ first enters $B_1$ and ``waits" the other process ${\mathcal Y}_t$ to come. Although ${\mathcal X}_t$ may leave $B_1$ before ${\mathcal Y}_t$ arrives, it should be very likely that ${\mathcal X}_t$ stays in the nearby basins and goes back to $B_1$ quickly before ${\mathcal Y}_t$ jumps out of $B_1$.
The following {\bf (H3)} is assumed which states that $\xi_1$ is no greater than $\kappa_{\{{\mathcal X}_t\}}(B_1)$ (or $\kappa_{\{{\mathcal Y}_t\}}(B_1)$) by an infinitesimal the same order with $\kappa_{\{{\mathcal X}_t\}}(B_1)$ and $\kappa_{\{{\mathcal Y}_t\}}(B_1)$.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf (H3)} Let $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t);t\ge0\}$ be a reflection-maximal coupling of two solutions of \eqref{SDE1} such that $({\mathcal X}_0, {\mathcal Y}_0)\in\bigcup\nolimits_{1\le i,j\le L, i\neq j} \overline{B_i\times B_j}.$ Then for any $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:18}
\limsup_{t\to\infty}\dfrac{1}{t}\log\mathbb{P}\big[\big(\xi_1-\max\big\{\kappa_{\{{\mathcal X}_t\}}(B_1),\kappa_{\{{\mathcal Y}_t\}}(B_1)\big\}\big)>t\big]\lesssim e^{-2H_U/\varepsilon^2}.
\end{eqnarray}
\medskip
Note that unlike {\bf (H2)} which is the local characterization of the coupling behavior between ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$, {\bf(H3)} is a {\it global} condition on the coupling behavior when ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ run around the entire potential landscape. In Section 5.4, {\bf (H3)} is numerically verified.
Still, as in \eqref{la_var}, denote
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lambda_\varepsilon=\exp\{C_0 e^{-2H_U/\varepsilon^2}\},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $H_U$ is defined in \eqref{barrier_height_multi-well}.
Under Assumption {\bf (H3)}, by Lemma \ref{lem:expon_tail_multi_well}, for the initial condition $({\mathcal X}_0,{\mathcal Y}_0)\in\bigcup\nolimits_{1\le i,j\le L, i\neq j}\overline{B_i\times B_j},$
we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:23}
\mathbb{P}[\xi_1>t]\lesssim \lambda_\varepsilon^{-t}. \end{eqnarray}
Since $\tau^{(1)}_\varepsilon\le\xi_1$,
\eqref{ineq:23} further yields
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:22} \mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon^{(1)}>t]\lesssim\lambda_\varepsilon^{-t}. \end{eqnarray}
\medskip
Let
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tau_\varepsilon=\tau_\varepsilon^{(3)}\wedge\tau_c.
\end{eqnarray*}
The subsequent analysis follows the same line as in the double-well case: if ${\mathcal X}_t, {\mathcal Y}_t$ initially belong to the same basin, then under condition {\bf (H2)}, Proposition \ref{prop:2} holds without any change. If ${\mathcal X}_t, {\mathcal Y}_t$ initially belong to the different basins, then during the time interval $(0,\tau_\varepsilon),$ the coupling behavior between $({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t)$ is further ``decomposed" into two stages. Stage I: ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ are lying in the same basin before $\tau_\varepsilon^{(1)}$, and then Stage II: ${\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t$ are either successfully coupled within the same basin, or not coupled before any one of them exists the basin.
\medskip
In the multi-well setting when more than two wells are present, {\bf (H1)}-{\bf (H3)} are always assumed. The following Lemma \ref{lem:multi_well} is a ``multi-well version" of Lemma \ref{lem:4} for which the proof is omitted.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:multi_well}
Let $\{({\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t);t\ge0\}$ be a reflection-maximal coupling of two solutions of \eqref{SDE1} such that $({\mathcal X}_0,{\mathcal Y}_0)\in\bigcup_{1\le i,j\le L, i\neq j} \overline{B_i\times B_j}.$
Then
for any $t>0,$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon>t]\lesssim\lambda_\varepsilon^{-t}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{lemma}
%
%
\bigskip
Now, the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:5} follows the same line of Theorem \ref{thm:2}.
\medskip
\noindent{\it Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:5}:}
As to the single and double-well cases, the coupling time $\tau_c$ is a finite iteration of $\tau_\varepsilon$ with $\tau_c=\tau_\varepsilon^\eta,$ where $\eta$ is as in \eqref{eta}. Applying the same arguments in Theorem \ref{thm:3}, for any $\lambda\in(1,\lambda_\varepsilon),$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}[\lambda^{\tau_\varepsilon}]<\infty,
\end{eqnarray*}
and hence
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}[\tau_c>t]\lesssim \lambda_\varepsilon^{-t}.
\end{eqnarray*}
For the other side of the inequality, since $({\mathcal X}_0,{\mathcal Y}_0)$ is fully supported, we only consider the initial condition that ${\mathcal X}_t$ starts from certain basin ``far-away" from $B_1$ (i.e., any basin with the index from $\mathcal I$) and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ starts from any of the basins with ``low" values (i.e., any basin with
the index from $\mathcal J$). By {\bf (H1)}, under such initial condition, the event that ${\mathcal X}_t$ enters $\mathbf B_1$ before ${\mathcal Y}_t$ has ever existed $\mathbf B_1$
occurs with a positive probability and independent of $\varepsilon$ and $t.$ Thus
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ineq:21} \mathbb{P}[\tau_c>t
&\ge&\mathbb{P}\big[{\mathcal Y}_s\in\mathbf B_1\ \text{for all}\ s\in[0,t]\big|\kappa_{\{{\mathcal X}_t\}}>t\big]\cdot\mathbb{P}[\kappa_{\{{\mathcal X}_t\}}>t]\nonumber\\ &\ge&\gamma_0\cdot\mathbb{P}[\kappa_{\{{\mathcal X}_t\}}>t]\simeq\lambda_\varepsilon^{-t}
\end{eqnarray}
where ``$\simeq$" comes from \eqref{eq:10}, the strengthened version of Lemma \ref{lem:expon_tail_multi_well}.
This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:5}.
\section{Numerical Examples}
In this section, various numerical examples are presented to verify the theoretical results as well as assumptions that have been assumed in the previous sections.
Please refer to \cite{li-wang2020} for a detailed description on the coupling algorithm that will be used.
We first propose an algorithm for a precise numerical estimate of the exponential tail of coupling times.
\subsection{An algorithm for exponential tail estimation}\label{exptail}
Let $\tau_{c}$ be the coupling time. The first task is to estimate the exponential tail of $\mathbb{P}[\tau_{c} > t]$ with respect to $t$, or more precisely,
\[-\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{t}\log \mathbb{P}[ \tau_{c} > t] \,.
\]
Since only finitely many coupling events are to be sampled, an efficient algorithm is needed to both statistically confirm the existence of such exponential tail and to estimate it.
The main difficulty is that $\mathbb{P}[\tau_{c} > t]$ usually does not behave like an exponential distribution until $t$ is sufficiently large. A suitable $t^{*}$ then needs to be determined such that on one hand, $\mathbf{1}_{\{\tau_{c} > t^{*} \}}(\tau_{c} -t^{*})$ truly behaves like an exponential distribution, and on the other hand, such $t^{*}$ needs to be as small as possible so that enough samples with $\tau_{c} >t^{*}$ are collected. However, most exponentiality tests we have tried tend to provide a too small $t^{*}$ for which in the log-linear plot, $\mathbf{1}_{\{\tau_{c} > t^{*} \}}(\tau_{c} -t^{*})$ has not ``stabilized'' to a good exponential distribution probably due to the sensitivity of log-linear plot in terms of small changes of the tail distribution.
The purpose of our algorithm is to capture a suitable $t^{*}$ such that in the log-linear plot, $\mathbb{P}[\tau_{c} > t]$ v.s. $t$ statistically forms a straight line. In other words, the confidence interval of $\mathbb{P}[\tau_{c} > t]$ should cover the straight line in the log-linear plot for all $t > t^*$. Choose a sequence of times $t_{0}, t_{1}, \cdots t_{N}$, where $t_{N}$ is usually set to be the maximum of all the coupling times obtained in the simulation. Denote the total sample size as $M$, and for each $i$, let $n_{i}$ be the number of samples with $\tau_{c} >t_{i}$. Then the Agresti-Coull method \cite{Agresti-Coull1998} provides a confidence interval
\[[ \tilde{p}_{i}^{-}, \tilde{p}_{i}^{+}]:= [ \tilde{p}_{i} - z \sqrt{\frac{\tilde{p}_{i}}{\tilde{M}}(1 - \tilde{p}_{i}) } \,,
\tilde{p}_{i} + z \sqrt{\frac{\tilde{p}_{i}}{\tilde{M}}(1 -
\tilde{p}_{i} )} ]\,,
\]
where $\tilde{M} = M + z^{2},$ $ \tilde{p}_{i} = {(n_{i} + \frac{z^{2}}{2})}/{\tilde{M}},$ and $z = \Phi^{-1}( 1 - \alpha/2)$ is the $\alpha$-quantile of the standard normal distribution. In the simulations, we
usually choose $z = 1.96, \alpha = 0.05$
A weighted linear regression is used to fit the points $(t_{i}, \log\tilde{p}_{i})$ for $i = N_{0}, N_{0} + 1, \cdots, N$, where the weight of $(t_{i}, \log\tilde{p}_{i})$ equals $n_i/M$. The number $N_0$ is chosen in the following way. Suppose that the weighted linear regression provides a linear function $y = a t + b$. A number $N_{0}$ is accepted if it satisfies $$
| \{ i \,|\, a t_{i} + b \notin [ \tilde{p}_{i}^{-},
\tilde{p}_{i}^{+}] | < \alpha (N - N_{0} + 1) \,.
$$
In other words, statistically, $\mathbf{1}_{\{\tau_{c} > t_{N_0}\} }(\tau_{c} -t_{N_0})$ is indistinguishable from an exponential distribution. The smallest possible value of such $N_0$ is the $N_0$ we finally choose which can be found through the binary search method. Then $t^{*}$ is given by $t_{N_{0}}$, and the exponential tail is given by the index $a$ in the weighted linear regression corresponding to $N_0.$
\subsection{Quadratic potential function}
The first example is the quadratic potential function.
The main purpose of this example is to numerically verify the theoretical result of Theorem \ref{thm:1}. Another purpose is to verify \eqref{approximate} which assumes that the first passage time of the discrete-time trajectory approaches to that of the continuous-time trajectory as the time step size vanishes.
Consider the quadratic potential function
\[U(x) = \frac{1}{2} {x}^{T} \boldsymbol{A} {x},\quad x\in\mathbb{R}^k,\]
where $\boldsymbol{A}$ is a $k\times k$ Lehmer matrix, i.e., the entries $\boldsymbol{A}_{ij} =
\min(i,j)/\max(i,j),$ which is
symmetric and positive definite \cite{lehmer1958}.
The corresponding SDE is
\begin{equation}\label{Lehmer}
\mathrm{d}Z_{t} = - \boldsymbol{A} Z_tdt + \varepsilon \mathrm{d}W_{t} \,,
\end{equation}
where $W_{t}$ is a
$k$-dimensional Wiener process, and $\varepsilon > 0$ is the strength of noise.
In the numerical simulations, the time step size $h$ is always set to be $0.001$ unless otherwise specified.
In Figure \ref{fig1},
the probability distribution of $\tau_{c}$ is demonstrated. The four panels are $\mathbb{P}[\tau_{c}
> t]$ v.s. $t$ in log-linear plot with respect to the $2\times 2$, $4\times 4$, $6\times 6$, and $8 \times 8$ Lehmer matrices, respectively. In all the four cases, the strength of noise takes the value $0.02$, $0.1$, $0.5$, and $1.5$. The slope of each curve of $\mathbb{P}[\tau_{c}> t]$ v.s. $t$ in the log-linear plot is measured by the algorithm introduced in subsection \ref{exptail}.
In all the four cases, although as noise changes the probability distribution of $\tau_{c}$ is very different, the slope of the exponential tail remains unchanged. In addition, the least eigenvalue of $\boldsymbol{A}$, which can be explicitly computed, is very close to the slope of the corresponding exponential tails with an error less than $0.01$. This numerically verifies the result of Theorem \ref{thm:1} that the slope of the exponential tail is only determined by the convexity of the potential function and independent of the noise magnitudes.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width = \linewidth]{Fig1_Lehmer.png}}
\caption{$\mathbb{P}[\tau_{c} > t]$ v.s. $t$ in log-linear plots and
their exponential tails. Four panels are for Lehmer matrices with size
$2$, $4$, $6$, and $8$. The least eigenvalue of each matrix is
demonstrated in the title of each subplot. }
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
Now, we use this example to verify \eqref{approximate} in Remark \ref{rem:approximate} that \[\lim\nolimits_{h \rightarrow 0} | \tau_{h}^{0} - \tau_{h}^{h} | = 0,\] where
$\tau_{h}^{0} = \inf\nolimits_{t > 0} \{ |X_{t} - Y_{t}| = 2 \sqrt{h}\}$ is the continuous-time first passage time, and
$\tau_{h}^{h} = h \cdot \inf\nolimits_{n > 0} \{ |X_{nh} - Y_{nh}| = 2 \sqrt{h}\}$ is the first passage time of the time-$h$ sample chain.
This can be done by the extrapolation argument. Let $h_{1} =h/n$ for some integer $n$, and define the first passage time of the time-$h_1$ sample chain
\[\tau_{h}^{h_{1}} = h_{1} \cdot \inf_{n > 0} \{ |X_{nh_{1}} - Y_{nh_{1}}| = 2 \sqrt{h} \} \,.
\]
By the strong approximation of the Euler-Maruyama scheme of the SDE, i.e., \[\lim\nolimits_{h_{1}\rightarrow 0} \tau_{h}^{h_{1}} = \tau_{h}^{0},\quad\mathbb{P}\text{-a.s.},\]
we only need to compare $\tau_{h}^{h}$ and $\tau_{h}^{h_{1}},$ where the latter is an approximation of $\tau_h^0$, concerning the same trajectory.
In Figure \ref{fig2} Left, $(\tau_{h}^{h}-\tau_{h}^{h_{1}})$ demonstrates a linear growth with respect to a decreasing
$\sqrt{h_{1}}$, and an extrapolation at $h_{1} = 0$ provides an estimate of $(\tau_{h}^{h}-\tau_{h}^{0})$. In Figure \ref{fig2} Right, $(\tau_{h}^{h} - \tau_{h}^{0})$ is estimated for $h = 0.0002, 0.0005, 0.001, 0.005$, and $0.01$, respectively. We see that the error $(\tau_{h}^{h}-\tau_{h}^{0})$ decreases with respect to a decreasing $h$. A linear fit shows that $(\tau_{h}^{h} -\tau_{h}^{0})$ is approximately proportional to $\sqrt{h}$, which is consistent with the results in \cite{Gobet2004exact, Gobet2010stopped}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width = \linewidth]{Fig2_Lehmer.png}}
\caption{Left: $(\tau_{h}^{h} - \tau_{h}^{h_{1}})$ v.s. $\sqrt{h_{1}}$
for five different values of $h$. Right: $(\tau_{h}^{h} - \tau_{h}^{0})$ v.s. $\sqrt{h}$ and a linear fitting.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{1D double-well potential}
In this subsection we consider an asymmetric one-dimensional double-well potential
\[
U(x) = x^{4} - 2 x^{2} + 0.2x,\quad x\in\mathbb{R}.
\]
It is easy to see that $U$ has two local minima, $0.9740$ and $-1.0241,$ respectively. The barrier heigh for any trajectory to overcome when moving between the two local minima is $1.2074$ if from left to right, and $0.8076$ if vice-versa; see Figure \ref{fig3} Top.
The first goal of this example is to verify the theoretical result of Theorem \ref{thm:2} that the tail of the coupling time distribution is determined by the {\it lower} barrier height. The time step size and the coupling method are the same as before. The coupling time distribution of $\tau_{c}$ is estimated under the different noise magnitudes $\varepsilon = 0.32, 0.36, 0.4, 0.45, 0.5, 0.6$, and $0.7$.
In Figure \ref{fig3} Top, the exponential tail corresponding to each noise is estimated by the weighted linear regression described in Section 5.1. We see that the exponential tail $r(\varepsilon)$ changes dramatically as $\varepsilon$ decreases.
In Figure \ref{fig3} Bottom right,a linear relationship of $-\varepsilon^2\log r(\varepsilon)$ v.s. $\varepsilon^2$ is clearly presented. A linear extrapolation of $\varepsilon^2,$ as $\varepsilon \rightarrow0$, further shows that $r(0) = 1.617$. This matches well with the theoretical value of $r(0)=2H_U$ which, in this example, equals $1.615$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width = \linewidth]{Fig3_dbwell.png}}
\caption{Top: Coupling
time distributions for different noise magnitudes. Bottom left: Asymmetric double well potential. Bottom right: linear extrapolation for barrier
height. }
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
The second goal of this example is to numerically verify {\bf (H2)}
in Section 4.2.
Let $dZ_t= -\nabla U(Z_t)dt$ be the deterministic gradient flow of $U$, and
$x_u = 0.05129$ be the
unstable equilibrium $Z_t$ for which the basins of the two local minima are $B_1 = (-\infty, x_u )$ and $ B_2 = (x_u, \infty).$
Let both ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ start from $B_2$. Recall that, as defined in Section 4.1, $\tau_{c}$, $\tau_\varepsilon^{(2)}$ and $\tau_\varepsilon$ denote the coupling time, first passage time to $B_1$, and the minimum of the former two,
respectively. To numerically verify {\bf (H2)}(ii), we examine the distributions of $\tau_\varepsilon$ conditioning on $\tau_\varepsilon = \tau_c$ and $\tau_\varepsilon = \tau_\varepsilon^{(2)},$ respectively. If under different noise magnitudes $\varepsilon$, the exponential tails of both two conditional distributions have a lower bound independent of $\varepsilon$, then {\bf (H2)}(ii) is verified.
In Figure \ref{fig5}, $\mathcal{X}_0$ and $\mathcal{Y}_0$ are independently and uniformly sampled from $(0.1, 1.5)$. Let the magnitude of noise change from $0.1$ to $0.6$, and under each noise magnitude, $1\times10^{8}$ samples of the coupling processes are run until $\tau_{\varepsilon}$. Then the distribution of $\tau_\varepsilon$ is further conditioned on
each of the two cases that (i) $\mathcal{X}_{t},\mathcal{Y}_{t}$ are couple before exiting to $B_1$, and (ii) any one of them, ${\mathcal X}^t$ or ${\mathcal Y}^t$, exits to $B_1$ before they are being coupled, respectively. As shown in Figure \ref{fig5} Left and Middle, both the conditional exit time and the conditional coupling time remain largely unchanged with respect to the decreasing $\varepsilon$.
Finally, we verify {\bf (H2)(i)} that the coupling probability is uniformly away from zero at $\tau_\varepsilon$, i.e., $\mathbb{P}[\tau_c = \tau_\varepsilon] > \gamma$ for some $\gamma > 0,$ regardless of the initial conditions. The result is shown in Figure \ref{fig5} Right. Let $\mathcal{X}_0$ be a fixed value $X_0$ and $\mathcal{Y}_0$ be uniformly distributed in $(0.1, 1.5)$. Under three different values of $X_0,$ the probability $\mathbb{P}[\tau_c = \tau_\varepsilon]$ is estimated with $\varepsilon$ ranged from $0.005$ to $0.6$. We see that $\mathbb{P}[\tau_c = \tau_\varepsilon]$ is uniformly away from zero regardless of $X_0$ and $\varepsilon$. Note that while the first initial value (the blue plot) is at the boundary of $B_1$, the coupling probability $\mathbb{P}[\tau_c =\tau_\varepsilon]$ is still uniformly positive.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width = \linewidth]{Fig8_dbwell_assumptions.png}}
\caption{Left: Conditional exit time distribution. Middle: Conditional coupling time distribution. Right: Probability of couple at $\tau_\varepsilon$}
\label{fig5}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Interacting particle system in the double-well potential}
In this section, we study a variance of the double well potential of the previous section. Denote
\[V(x) = x^{4} - 2 x^{2} + 0.2x,\quad x\in\mathbb{R}\]
be the double-well potential as in the previous section, and let three particles move along $V$ under the over-damped Langevin dynamics. Assume, besides the potential $V$, there is also a pairwise interaction potential between the three
particles. The energy potential for the interacting particle system is
\[U(x_{1}, x_{2}, x_{3}) = \sum\nolimits_{i = 1}^{3} V(x_{i}) + \sigma\sum\nolimits_{i,j =
1,2,3, \, i \neq j} (x_{i} - x_{j})^{2} \,.\]
where $\sigma>0$ is the interaction strength.
It is not hard to see that $U$ has two trivial local minima $x_{1} = x_{2} = x_{3} =0.9740$ and $x_{1} = x_{2} = x_{3} = -1.0241,$ respectively,
corresponding to which all the three particles are lying at the same local minimum of $V(x)$. When $\sigma>0$ is sufficiently small, there are another six local minima under which the three particles are staying in the different basins of $V(x)$; see
Figure \ref{fig4} Top for a sample trajectory of the solution of \eqref{SDE1}.
We see that there are two extreme cases in terms of the interactions of the interacting particle system. One extreme case is when there are no interactions between the three particles, i.e., $\sigma=0.$ In this case, the three particles are independent and passing between the two wells one by one, resulting the same barrier heights with that of the double-well potential $V$. The other extreme case corresponds to $\sigma = \infty$, which means that the interactions between the three particles are so strong that they always have to move together. In this case, the energy potential $U$ has the same local minima as that of $V$
and the essential barrier height is the triple of that of $V$. Hence, the essential barrier height $H_U$ of the interacting particle system
should lie between that of the two extreme cases, i.e.,
$0.8076$ and $3 \times 0.8076 = 2.4228$, respectively, and $H_U$
increases as $\sigma$ increases.
The distribution of the coupling time $\tau_{c}$ is computed for $\varepsilon = 0.4,$ $0.41,$ $0.42,$ $0.43,$ $0.45,$ $0.47,$ $0.5,$ $0.55,$ $0.6,$ and $0.7$ when $\sigma =
0.05$, and $\varepsilon = 0.41,$ $0.42,$ $0.43,$ $0.44,$ $0.45,$ $0.47,$ $0.5,$ $0.55,$
$0.6$ and $0.7$ when
$\sigma = 0.1$, and the
negative slopes $r(\varepsilon)$ are estimated for both cases.
A similar relation of $r(\varepsilon)$ v.s. $\varepsilon$ is observed with the double-well potential,
and a linear extrapolation of $-\varepsilon^{2} \log r(\varepsilon)$ provides an estimation of the the essential barrier height.
In Figure \ref{fig4} Middle right, the linear extrapolation yields $r(0) = 1.7374$ for $\sigma = 0.05$ and
$r(0) = 1.9598$ for $\sigma = 0.1$, both of which are approximately equal to the double of the barrier height $2H_U$. As expected, the barrier
height increases as the interaction between particles becomes stronger.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width = 1.2\linewidth]{Fig4_IPS.png}}
\caption{Top: Sample trajectory of a 3-particle interacting particle
system in a double well potential. Middle: coupling time
distribution and $\varepsilon$ v.s. $-\varepsilon^{2} \log r(\varepsilon)$
with $\sigma = 0.05$. Bottom: coupling time
distribution and $\varepsilon^2$ v.s. $-\varepsilon^{2} \log r(\varepsilon)$
with $\sigma = 0.1$. Theoretical values of $r(0)$ are given by the
minimum energy path. }
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
The next task is to numerically verify {\bf (H1)}-{\bf (H3)} in Section \ref{sec:double-multiple well} for the setting of multi-well potentials. In the following, the interaction strength is always set as $\sigma = 0.05$.
\medskip
{\it Numerical verification of {\bf (H1}}). Let ${\mathcal X}_0 = (1,1,1),$ and ${\mathcal Y}_0 = (-1,-1, -1)$ so that ${\mathcal Y}_t$ starts near the global minimum. According to the definition of $\mathcal I$ and $\mathcal J$, it is easy to see from height of barriers in Figure \ref{fig:MEPbyString} that $\mathbf{B}_1$ is in fact the complement of the basin of attraction that contains $(1,1,1)$. Our simulation uses four noise magnitudes $\varepsilon= 0.6, 0.65, 0.7, $ and $0.75$. After each step of the Euler-Maruyama scheme, it will be numerically checked to determine whether ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ are in $\mathbf{B}_1$.\footnote{The criterion is as follows. If for $i = 1, 2, 3$, it holds that either $x_i > 0.11,$ or that $0 \leq x_i < 0.11$ whenever $-\partial U / \partial x_i > 0$, then $(x_1, x_2, x_3)$ is not in $\mathbf{B}_1$. We note that this is sufficient for all the samples in our simulation.} Interestingly, we have {\it never} seen ${\mathcal Y}_t$ leaves $\mathbf{B}_1$ before ${\mathcal X}_t$ enters $\mathbf{B}_1$ after tens of millions of samples collected. The same thing happens for the 1D double well potential: numerically ${\mathcal Y}_t$ never leaves $\mathbf{B}_1$ before ${\mathcal X}_t$ enters $\mathbf{B}_1$. Hence, {\bf (H1)} is numerically concluded with a even stronger result that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}\big[{\mathcal Y}_s\in \mathbf{B}_1\ \text{for all}\ s\in[0,t]\big| \kappa_{\{{\mathcal X}_t\}}(\mathbf{B}_1)>t\big] \approx 1.
\end{eqnarray*}
{\it Numerical verification of {\bf (H2)}}. Let ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ both start from $B_1$. We simulate the coupling process until either that ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ are coupled successfully before any one of them exists $B_1,$ or one of them, ${\mathcal X}_t$ or ${\mathcal Y}_t,$ exits $B_1$ before they are coupled within $B_1$, respectively. In Figure \ref{figIPSH2} Left and Middle panel, the conditional exit time distribution and conditional coupling time distribution are demonstrated, respectively. We see that the slopes of both the two tail distributions are largely unchanged as the noise magnitude decrease from $0.5$ to $0.1$. This is consistent with the result for the double-well potential.
In Figure \ref{figIPSH2} Right, the coupling probability is demonstrated in term of noise magnitude. Again, similar to the case of double-well potential, when starting within the same basin, the probability $\mathbb{P}[\tau_\varepsilon=\tau_c]$ significantly increases with respect to a decreasing $\varepsilon$ as the chance of ${\mathcal X}_t,{\mathcal Y}_t$ to escape from the basin becomes lower. However, for those successfully leave $B_1$ before being coupled, the exit time distribution does not change much with respect to the noise magnitudes.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width = \linewidth]{Fig_H2_IPS.png}
\caption{Left: Conditional exit time distribution. Middle: Conditional coupling time distribution. Right: Probability of coupling at $\tau_\varepsilon$}
\label{figIPSH2}
\end{figure}
\medskip
{\it Numerical verification of {\bf (H3)}}. The {\bf (H3)} is numerically verified by computing the overshoot time. The criterion of deciding whether a trajectory hits the basin $B_1$ is the same as above. The probability distribution of the overshoot time $\xi_1 - \max \{\kappa_{\mathcal{X}_t}, \kappa_{\mathcal{Y}_t}\}$, i.e., the infimum time when both ${\mathcal X}_t$ and ${\mathcal Y}_t$ are staying in $B_1$ after each of them has visited $B_1$ is computed. The magnitudes of noise are chosen as $0.5, 0.55,$ and $0.6$, and for each case, the probability distribution of $\xi_1 - \max \{ \kappa_{\mathcal{X}_t}, \kappa_{\mathcal{Y}_t}\}$ is computed by running $1 \times 10^7$ samples. As shown in Figure \ref{figH3}, the tail of $\xi_1 - \max \{ \kappa_{\mathcal{X}_t}, \kappa_{\mathcal{Y}_t}\}$ has two phases. The second phase has a slower decrease of the exponential tail but is still faster than that of the coupling time. The second phase comes from the event that one of the two trajectories, $\mathcal{X}_t$ or $\mathcal{Y}_t$, takes an excursion to other basins after visiting $B_1$ and then returns back, while the other trajectory has always been staying in $B_1$. Note that the probability of such event is low and a large number of samples are required to capture the exponential tail. In Figure \ref{figH3}, the distributions of the overshoot time and coupling time are compared. We see that the slope of tail distribution of the overshoot time decays quickly as noise vanishes, but still remains steeper than that of the coupling time in the log-linear plot. Since it has been numerically verified that the coupling time distribution is consistent with the theoretical barrier height $H_U$, {\bf (H3)} is verified
automatically.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width = \linewidth]{IPS_overshoot.png}
\caption{Comparison of probability distributions of the ``overshoot time" $\xi_1 - \max \{ \kappa_{\mathcal{X}_t}, \kappa_{\mathcal{Y}_t}\}$ and the coupling time. Left, middle, and right panels are for $\varepsilon = 0.6, 0.55$, and $0.5$ respectively.}
\label{figH3}
\end{figure}
\medskip
Finally, the String method \cite{e2007simplified} is used to compute the heights of various barriers between the local minima $(0.9740, 0.9740, 0.9740)$
and $( -1.0241, -1.0241, -1.0241)$ in the energy landscape to validate the essential barrier height inferred from our coupling approach.
As shown in Figure \ref{fig:MEPbyString}, the essential barrier, which is the highest barrier that a trajectory needs to overcome to enter the basin of the global minimum, is leftmost barrier in the lower left panel of Figure \ref{fig:MEPbyString} (A)(B). In this example, since the three particles are indistinct, the energy potential is rather symmetric for which the eight local minima are of only two types consists of four particular cases that all the three particles are lying in the same well (global or local), or two of the three particles are lying in one well (global or local) with the other particle lying in the other well. We see in Figure \ref{fig:MEPbyString} that the minimal energy path(MEP) connecting the two minima $(0.9740, 0.9740, 0.9740)$
and $( -1.0241, -1.0241, -1.0241)$ has actually passed all the four cases. Hence, the essential barrier height $H_U$ can be attained by such an MEP although
in principle, it has to be taken over all the paths connecting any of the local minima to the global one. In Figure \ref{fig:MEPbyString}, it shows that $H_U=0.8961$ for $\sigma = 0.05$ and $H_U=0.9916$ for $\sigma = 0.1$, corresponding to the theoretical value $r(0) = 1.7922$ for
$\sigma = 0.05$ and $r(0) =1.9832$ for $\sigma = 0.1,$ respectively.
The result from the String method is further confirmed through the equivalent characterization \eqref{equivalent_characterize_H_U} by numerically solving all the $27$ critical points (including all the local minima and saddle points) of $U$. The essential barrier height obtained in this way is $H_U=0.8962$ for $\sigma = 0.05$ and $H_U=0.9916$ for $\sigma = 0.1$, which are almost the same with the essential barrier heights given by the String method. As shown in Figure \ref{fig4}, both values are very close to $r(0)/2$ in the linear extrapolation.
\begin{figure}
\begin{subfigure}{\textwidth}
\hspace{-50pt}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{sigma0p05.png}
\caption{$\sigma=0.05$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{\textwidth}
\hspace{-50pt}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{sigma0p1.png}
\caption{$\sigma=0.1$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Minimum Energy Path (MEP) computed by String method \cite{e2007simplified} at high numerical resolution. MEP is the mostly likely path for transition from one metastable state to another in the zero-temperature limit of overdamped Langevin, and it is known (e.g., \cite{e2002string}) to reveal barrier heights and descent depths along the transition path, which are labeled by dV values in the bottom left panel. Top panel visualizes the MEP in 3D (i.e., $x_1,x_2,x_3$) where legend lists the potential $U$'s value at each local minimum. Bottom right panel is the integrand of the Freidlin-Wentzell action functional plotted as a function of arc-length parameterization of the path, which serves as a sanity check to ensure the MEP is computed correctly.}
\label{fig:MEPbyString}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Rosenbrock function}
In this example, we test on the famous non-convex landscape of the Rosenbrock function in 2D and 4D, respectively. For $N\in\mathbb{N}_+$, the Rosenbrock
function is defined as
\[
R_{N}( \boldsymbol{x}) = \sum_{i = 1}^{N-1} [b (x_{i+1} - x_{i}^{2})^{2}
+ (a - x_{i})^{2}],\quad\boldsymbol{x} \in \mathbb{R}^{N},
\]
where $a, b$ are two constants. In this example, we choose $a = 1,b = 20$. When $N = 2$, $R_{N}$ has a unique
minimum at $(1,1)$, and when $N = 4$, $R_{N}$ admits a global minimum
$(1,1,1,1)$ and a local minimum $(-1,1,1,1)$. In Figure
\ref{fig6}, the landscape of $\log R_{2}( \boldsymbol{x})$ is demonstrated in the Top Left
panel and a slice of $\log R_{4}( \boldsymbol{x}) $ at $x_{3} = x_{4} = 1$ is demonstrated in
the Bottom Left panel. We note that the logarithm scale is used to visualize the detailed landscape near each minimum. We see that near each minimum, the landscape looks like a valley which is only convex on a very small area around the minimum. The landscape of $R_{4}$ cannot be completely visualized by the heat map at a slice. However, it is not hard to check that for $a = 1,b = 20$, the region on which $R_{4}$ being convex is very small.
In the test of the landscape of $R_{2},$ the noise magnitude is set to be $\varepsilon = 0.001,$ $0.01,$ $0.1,$ $1.0,$ $1.5,$ and $2.0$, and
$\varepsilon = 0.001,$ $0.003,$ $0.01,$ $0.03,$ $0.1,$ $0.3,$ and $1.0$ for $R_{4}$. The coupling time distributions are given in the two right panels of Figure \ref{fig6}. We see that when the noise is sufficiently small, the tail distributions of coupling times are parallel in the log-linear plot since the coupling time is almost determined by the convexity of the convex area near the global minimum. This is consistent with the result of Theorem \ref{thm:1}. However, as noise magnitude increases, the
probability of the coupling process to couple in the entire valley instead of just the vicinity of the global minimum becomes larger, and this changes the tail of the coupling time distributions.
Another interesting phenomenon is that unlike the case of double-well potential, for the potential function $R_{4}$, exponentially small tails of the coupling time distribution with respect to the noise magnitude is not observed
even when the noise is as small as $0.001$. Even if one of the coupled processes start at the local minimum $(-1, 1,1,1)$, the tail of the coupling time distribution has very little change; see the plot with
legend ``noise $= 0.001$ fixed''. This is because the basin of the local minimum is so shallow with such a low barrier that the stochastic trajectories can easily pass the barrier and enter the valley of the global
minimum.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width = \linewidth]{Fig6_RB.png}}
\caption{Top Left: landscape of $R_{2}( \boldsymbol{x})$. Top Right:
Coupling time distribution for $R_{2}( \boldsymbol{x})$. Bottom Left: landscape of $R_{4}( \boldsymbol{x})$. Bottom Right:
Coupling time distribution for $R_{4}( \boldsymbol{x})$. }
\label{fig6}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Loss functions of artificial neural networks}
In the last example, the performance of the coupling method in
high dimension is examined. We consider the training process of an artificial neural network(ANN) including two hidden layers with $N_{1}, N_{2}$ neurons, respectively,
which has the following form
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\mathbf{h}_{1} = \mbox{ReLU}(W_{1} \boldsymbol{x} + \mathbf{b}_{1})\label{NN1} \\
&& \mathbf{h}_{2} = \mbox{ReLU}(W_{2} \mathbf{h}_{1} + \mathbf{b}_{2})\label{NN2}\\
&&y = W_{3} \mathbf{h}_2 + b_{3}\label{NN3} \,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\boldsymbol{x} \in \mathbb{R}^{2}, y \in \mathbb{R}, \mathbf{b}_{1} \in \mathbb{R}^{N_{1}}, \mathbf{b}_{2} \in \mathbb{R}^{N_{2}}, b_{3} \in
\mathbb{R}$, and
$W_{1}$, $W_{2}$, $W_{3}$ are $N_{1} \times 2$, $N_{2}
\times N_{1}$, $1 \times N_{2}$ matrices, respectively.
Let $\bm{\theta}$ collect the entries of $W_{1}, W_{2}, W_{3}, \mathbf{b}_{1},
\mathbf{b}_{2}$, and $b_{3}$ which are the unknown parameters to be determined in the training. Note that the dimension of $\bm{\theta}$
is $(N_{1}N_{2} +
3 N_{1} + 2 N_{2} + 1)$. For simplicity, \eqref{NN1} - \eqref{NN3} are collectively written as $y =
\mbox{NN}( \bm{\theta}, \boldsymbol{x}).$
For a given training set $\{\boldsymbol{x}_{1}, \cdots, \boldsymbol{x}_{M}; y_{1}, \cdots y_{M}\}$, let the loss function
\[
L( \bm{\theta}) = \sum\nolimits_{i = 1}^{M} \left (y_{i} - \mbox{NN}(
\bm{\theta}, \boldsymbol{x}_i) \right )^{2},
\]
where the size of the training set $M = 100$. The collocation points
$\boldsymbol{x}_{1}, \cdots, \boldsymbol{x}_{100}$ are uniformed sampled from
$[-1\, , 1]^{2}$, $y_{i} = | \boldsymbol{x}_{i} |^{2}$; see the
first column of Figure \ref{fig8} for the distribution of collocation
points and the target function $y =| \boldsymbol{x}|^{2}$. What we are interested in is the landscape of the loss surface $L(
\bm{\theta})$.
Our coupling algorithm is tested on three ANNs for which the size of hidden layers are
$N_{1} = 4,N_{2} = 3$, $N_{1} = N_{2} = 10$, and $N_{1} = N_{2} =
20$, which are called the ``small network'', ``medium network'', and ``big network'', respectively. Note that in this example, the small network is under-parameterized and the big network is over-parameterized. It is believed that over-parametrization lowers the barrier heights of ANNs (e.g., \cite{jacot2018neural, song2018mean, chizat2019lazy, mei2019mean, rotskoff2018trainability, sirignano2020mean, draxler2018essentially}) which, however, is not easy to justify because the loss landscape is usually in high-dimension and very complicated. Our coupling approach provides a feasible way to explore this by computing the essential barrier height of the {\it entire} landscape.
In Figure \ref{fig7}, the coupling time distribution of each
ANN is computed under $10$ different magnitudes
of noise (while only $5$ of them are demonstrated in the figure to avoid a too crowded legend though). Similar to the previous examples, all slopes are estimated through the weighted linear
fitting. The six smallest values of $\varepsilon^{2}$ are used in the linear extrapolation of $-\varepsilon^2\log r(\varepsilon)$ v.s. $\varepsilon^{2}$ which are
demonstrated in the three lower panels. We see that the larger neural network has a lower essential barrier height. This is consistent with the study in \cite{draxler2018essentially} in which MEPs are computed between the local minima of loss functions of ANNs.
The small neural network in this example is under-parametrized because the number of unknown parameters to be determined is 31 while the size of the training set is $100$. As shown in Figure \ref{fig7}, the loss function of the small neural network has a much larger essential barrier height than that of both the medium and big neural networks.
In the training process, when start from random initial conditions, the small neural network may converge to a ``bad" local minimum which does not fit the target function very well (see the middle panels of Figure \ref{fig8}). In contrast, for all the initial values that have been tested, both the medium and big neural networks
converge to a ``good" local minimum that approximates the target function reasonably well (see the right panels of Figure \ref{fig8}). This is consistent with some known results on the loss surface of artificial neural networks in the literature \cite{choromanska2015loss, kawaguchi2019every, soltanolkotabi2018theoretical}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width = \linewidth]{Fig_7_NN.png}}
\caption{Coupling time distribution and linear extrapolation of
$-\varepsilon^2\log r(\varepsilon)$ v.s. $\varepsilon^{2}$. Left: small network. Middle: medium
network, Right: large network.}
\label{fig7}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width = \linewidth]{Fig_8_NN.png}}
\caption{Left column: training set and target function. Middle column:
$y =\mbox{NN}( \bm{\theta}, \boldsymbol{x})$ for $\bm{\theta}$ at bad and good
local minima of the small network. Right column: $y =
\mbox{NN}( \bm{\theta}, \boldsymbol{x})$ from medium and big neural
network.
}
\label{fig8}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion and further discussions}
This paper investigates the relations between the landscape of a multi-dimensional potential function and the coupling time distributions of the overdamped Langevin system with respect to the given potential. This is motivated by the fact that the exponential tail of the coupling time distribution gives a lower bound of the spectral gap of the Fokker-Planck operator of the overdamped Langevin dynamics. It has been known for a long time that some global information can be inferred from the spectrum of a differential operator, such as detailed by the famous problem ``Can one hear the shape of a drum?" in \cite{kac1966}. As expected, certain connections between the shape of the landscape and the coupling time distributions are established.
This paper shows that as the magnitude of the noise vanishes, the variation of the exponential tails of the distribution of the overdamped Langevin dynamics of a single-well potential {\it differs} from that of a multi-well potential in a qualitative way. More specifically, for single-well potential functions that are strongly convex,
the exponential tails is bounded from above by a constant depending on the convexity of the potential function; for a multi-well potential function, however, the exponential tail decreases exponentially fast as the noise magnitude goes to zero.
A linear extrapolation can then be used to infer the slope of the exponential tail in the vanishing limit of the noise, which is defined and called the essential barrier height, characterizing the barrier height of the potential landscape in the global way.
All these claims are justified both theoretically and numerically. In particular, the numerical results for the loss surface of artificial neural networks are corroborated by other studies in certain different ways.
The coupling scheme used in this paper is
a combination of two coupling methods, the reflection coupling and maximal coupling, for the purpose of coupling efficiency.
We find that the bound provided by the reflection-maximal coupling scheme is reasonably close to the optimal one (i.e., the one that makes the coupling inequality becomes an equality). Although in this paper only the coupling time is examined, more information are expected to be inferred from the coupling result in future work, e.g., the coupling {\it location} may provide us additional information about the landscape. In addition, this paper only considers the tail of the coupling time distribution that is related to the principal eigenvalue of the Fokker-Planck operator. The entire coupling time distribution, however, may provide additional information on the {\it non-principal} eigenvalue of the Fokker-Planck operator. For example, for a multi-well potential, the {\it conditional} coupling time distribution conditioning on {not} being coupled in the deepest ``well" may be related to the heights of lower barriers. These could be potentially interesting future directions.
|
\section{Introduction}
The proposal of Metaverse has been promoted by the implementation of 5G communication technology and maturing AR/VR devices in recent years \cite{wang2022mobile, AllYouNeedToKnow, GlobeCom2022, Terence2022resource}. Metaverse aims to create a virtual world for all kinds of activities, including education, trading and gaming, and is considered the next generation of the Internet \cite{MetaEdu2020, MetaEdu2022, MetaTrad_1, MetaGame}. With the support of AR/VR applications, online users are provided with immersive services that are similar to in-person activities, and the trading of virtual items brings job opportunities.
To support the Metaverse applications, data synchronization and wide wireless network coverage are two practical problems to be solved as the Metaverse services usually involve wearable wireless devices. For the first problem, 5G communication technology is able to provide high-speed and low-latency data transmission, but it is not necessary to update all the collected data immediately, e.g., environment information to build the background of Metaverse and offline trading records \cite{5GSurvey, NFC, OfflineTrade}. For the second problem, 5G network suffers higher costs for the same coverage area due to severe signal attenuation. Thus, it is not economically efficient to deploy base stations in suburban with low population density, and in wild areas it is not even applicable to traditional base stations \cite{sensorWild}.
Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is a cheaper substitution solution to set up network coverage for Metaverse data synchronization in the suburban area due to its ability to carry communication devices. The UAV technique has been fully studied and commercialized, and there are numerous works on UAV-based communication scenarios for traditional applications, e.g., research on communication resource allocation, UAV trajectory control and the internet of vehicles \cite{RuiZhangUAV, SiIoTJ, UAVIoV}.
The UAV-based optimization problems which take the trajectory of UAV into consideration usually segment the flight time of UAV into discrete time slots for the convenience of computation. The resource allocation variables need to be optimized in each time slot to obtain the global or local optimal. Although these methods ensure the convergence of the solution, the increasing number of time slots results to the increment of algorithm complexity. Besides, the integer characteristic of channel allocation variables results to mixed integer programming problems, which can be hard to solve if the variables are inseparable.
\textbf{Related Work.}
In some cases, reinforcement learning (RL) is more suitable for UAV-based optimization problems than convex methods because it gives a feasible solution with relatively good performance even if the global optimal is extremely hard to find, and it can handle time-sequential problems without increasing the number of variables.
Cui et al. \cite{Cui_MultiUAV} proposed multi-agent reinforcement learning resource allocation algorithm for multi-UAV networks, and showed fast convergence with the basic Q-learning algorithm.
Luong et al. \cite{luong2021deep} utilized the deep Q-learning algorithm to learn the network state for the decision of the movement of UAV, and improved the network performance by up to 70\%.
Rodriguez-Ramos et al. \cite{UAVland} implemented a versatile Gazebo-based reinforcement learning framework for UAV landing on a moving platform, which is a novel experiment of DDPG on UAV controlling research.
For communication optimization problems with discrete channels and continuous resource allocation, both discrete and continuous action spaces need to be considered. To solve discrete-continuous hybrid action space reinforcement learning problems, multi-agent architecture is commonly adopted. Fu et al. \cite{Hybrid_MultiAgent_1} proposed two multi-agent reinforcement learning architectures for hybrid action spaces based on deep Q-learning (DQN), where agents work in a parallel manner to generate joint actions. Jiang et al. \cite{Hybrid_multiAgent_2} designed a hybrid action algorithm for massive access control, which optimized the discrete action selection for back-off and distributed queuing problems and generate continuous action for access class barring.
The agents of most existing hybrid action space reinforcement learning algorithms work in a parallel manner, which does not build the inter-agent relationship. In this paper, we propose a hybrid reinforcement learning architecture to optimize the discrete channel allocation variable and the continuous trajectory controlling variable. Two agents work in a sequential manner motivated by the alternative optimization algorithms, i.e., the output of an agent is the input of another agent. Compared to the existing works, our paper considers the inter-agent relationship for better convergence performance. The advantage of our scenario over traditional convex optimization is that the number of variables does not increase when the number of time slots increases, which is more friendly to time-sequential problems.
\textbf{Contribution.} The contributions of this paper are as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item A PPO-based double-agent cooperative hybrid action reinforcement learning architecture (PPO-PPO) for UAV-enabled Metaverse data synchronization is proposed.
\item Proximal policy optimization (PPO) algorithm is implemented in both discrete action agents and continuous action agents, and two agents work in a sequential manner.
\item The simulation shows the comparison between the proposed algorithm and two baselines (DQN and duelling DQN), which verifies the advantage of our proposed PPO-PPO algorithm.
\end{itemize}
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II introduces the proposed system model. The double-agent policy generation model and its implementation are presented in Section III and Section IV, respectively. Section V shows the simulation results and the corresponding explanation. The conclusion of this paper is discussed in Section VI.
\section{System Model}
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{figure/SystemModel.eps}
\caption{System model.}
\label{fig:System_Model}
\end{figure*}
As shown in Fig. \ref{fig:System_Model}, we consider a UAV-based uplink data collection system for Metaverse service. In a given $L\times L$ area which is beyond the coverage of 5G base station, $N$ Metaverse data collectors (MDCs) are deployed to collect delay-insensitive local data, such as offline digital currency trading and weather information, which are generated by Metaverse users or the sensors \cite{DigitalCurrency2022review}, \cite{DigitalCurrency2020towards}. The location of MDC $n$ is denoted by $(x_n,y_n,0)$. MDCs are assumed to have enough energy but limited transmission power.
To synchronize the local data with the Metaverse server, one mobile base station (MBS) carried by UAV is deployed to collect the local data saved at MDCs through $M$ channels. Each MDC can occupy only one channel, but multiple MDCs are able to share one channel. The set of MDCs in channel $m$ is denoted by $\mathcal{N}_m$, and the number of MDCs in the set is denoted as $N_m$. We assume that the UAV flies at a fixed height $H$, and the location of UAV is denoted by $(x_{\text{uav}}[t], y_{\text{uav}}[t], H)$. Once the data is received by the MBS, MDCs clear the historical data and get ready for the future data collection. In this paper, we assume that the local data size of each receiver is $U$.
\subsection{Channel Settings}
According to the experimental characterization of the vehicle-to-infrastructure radio channels in suburban environments implemented by M. Yusuf et al, the small-scale fading of the strongest path is found to be Rician distributed \cite{channel}.
The channel gain between UAV and MDC $n$ in channel $m$ and time slot $t$ is given by \cite{3DTraj}
\begin{align}
{{h}_{n,m}}[t]=\sqrt{{{\beta }_{n}}[t]}{{g}_{n,m}}[t],
\label{h}
\end{align}
where ${{\beta }_{n}}[t]$ denotes the large-scale average channel gain at time slot $t$, and ${{g}_{n,m}}[t]$ denotes the small-scale fading coefficient, which is modelled as Rician fading. ${{\beta }_{n}}[t]$ and ${{g}_{n,m}}[t]$ are given by
\begin{align}
{{\beta }_{n}}[t]={{\beta }_{0}}d_{n}^{-\alpha }[t],
\label{beta}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
{{g}_{n,m}}[t]=\sqrt{\frac{K}{K+1}}g+\sqrt{\frac{1}{K+1}}\tilde{g},
\label{g}
\end{align}
where $\beta_0$ denotes the channel gain at the reference distance ${{d}_{0}}=1$m, $\alpha$ denotes the path loss exponent, which varies from 2 to 6 (in this paper we assume that $\alpha=2$). $g$ denotes the deterministic LoS channel component with $|g|=1$, which denotes the randomly scattered component. The Rician factor is denoted by $K$. $d_{n}[t]$ denotes the distance from UAV to MDC $n$ in time slot $t$, which is given by
\begin{align}
d_{n}^{{}}[t]=\sqrt{{{({{x}_{n}}-{{x}_{\text{uav}}}[t])}^{2}}+{{({{y}_{n}}-{{y}_{\text{uav}}}[t])}^{2}}+{{H}^{2}}}.
\label{d}
\end{align}
The channel-to-noise-ratio (CNR) is given by
\begin{align}
{{\Gamma }_{n,m}}[t]=\frac{{{h}_{n,m}}[t]}{{{B\sigma }^{2}}}
\end{align}
where $\sigma^2$ denotes the power of additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) at the receiver.
The signal to interference plus noise ratio (SINR) of MDC $n$ in channel $m$ in time slot $t$ is given by
\begin{align}
{{\gamma }_{n,m}}[t]=\frac{{{p}_{n,m}}[t]{{\Gamma }_{n,m}}[t]}{1+\sum\limits_{i=1}^{\left| {{N}_{m}} \right|-1}{{{p}_{i,m}}[t]{{\Gamma }_{i,m}}[t]}},
\end{align}
where $p_{n,m}$ denotes the transmission power of MDCs.
Thus, the transmission rate of MDC $n$ in channel $m$ and time slot $t$ is given by
\begin{align}
{{R}_{n,m}}[t]=B{{\log }_{2}}(1+\gamma).
\end{align}
\section{Double-agent Policy Generation Model }
In this section, we introduce the double-agent policy generation model based on PPO (PPO-PPO) for channel allocation and UAV trajectory control, which is shown in Fig. \ref{solution}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{figure/Solution.eps}
\caption{Double-agent policy generation model.}
\label{solution}
\end{figure}
The objective is to minimize the total required time for UAV to finish collecting the data saved at MDCs with the constraint of maximum UAV speed by optimizing channel allocation indicator matrix ${\textbf{I}}[t]$, and UAV trajectory ${\{{x}_\text{uav}}[t],{{y}_\text{uav}}[t]\}$.
Each agent only focuses on a specific type of variable, and the values of other variables are loaded from the results of another agent in the previous step. In each step, the discrete proximal policy optimization (PPO) agent generates the channel allocation according to its policy, and forwards the result to the continuous PPO agent for trajectory generation. The combined action is generated by concatenating the output of two RL agents which interact with the environment to get reward for both RL agents.
\subsection{Discrete Agent for Channel Allocation}
In this subsection, we will introduce the action space, state space and reward settings of the discrete agent for channel allocation.
\subsubsection{Action of the Discrete Agent}
Intuitively, the channel allocation indicator $\textbf{I}[t]$ can be defined as an one-hot matrix, i.e., ${{I}_{n,m}}[t]\in \{0,1\}$ denotes if channel $m$ is selected by MDC $n$. An example with the number of users $N=4$ and number of channels $M=3$ is given by
\begin{align}
\textbf{I}[t]=\left[ \begin{matrix}
{{I}_{1,1}}[t] & {{I}_{1,2}}[t] & {{I}_{1,3}}[t] \\
{{I}_{2,1}}[t] & {{I}_{2,2}}[t] & {{I}_{2,3}}[t] \\
{{I}_{3,1}}[t] & {{I}_{3,2}}[t] & {{I}_{3,3}}[t] \\
{{I}_{4,1}}[t] & {{I}_{4,2}}[t] & {{I}_{4,3}}[t]\\
\end{matrix} \right],
\end{align}
whose dimension is $N\times M$.
The one-hot definition of $\textbf{I}[t]$ is intuitive but increases the dimension of action space. To reduce the dimension, we re-define the channel allocation indicator matrix as
$\hat{\textbf{I}}[t]$, whose elements are ${{\hat{I}}_{n}}[t]\in \{0,1,..,M\}$. Under this definition, ${{\hat{I}}_{n}}[t]=m$ indicates that MDC $n$ is assigned with channel $m$, and ${{\hat{I}}_{n}}[t]=0$ indicates that it is not assigned with any channel.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{figure/Action_Encode.eps}
\caption{Action encoding.}
\label{Encode_Action}
\end{figure}
As shown in Fig. \ref{Encode_Action}, the action of the agent is encoded according to the channel allocation indicator matrix. The encoded action is given by
\begin{align}
a_{t}^{\text{ch}}=\sum\limits_{n=1}^{N}{{{{\hat{I}}}_{n}}[t]{{(M+1)}^{n-1}}}
\end{align}
\subsubsection{State of the Discrete Agent}
The decisions of RL agents are generated based on the current state. In this paper, the state of the discrete agent includes the channel gain and the remaining data at MDCs in the current step. The state of the discrete agent is concatenated by two parts, which is given by
\begin{align}
S_{t}^{\text{ch}}=\{{{U}_{\text{res}}}[t],h[t]\},
\end{align}
where ${U}_{\text{res}}$ denotes the matrix of remaining data in MDCs, and $h[t]$ denotes the matrix of channel gain at $t^{th}$ step.
\subsubsection{Reward of the Discrete Agent}
The optimization objective in this paper is the required time for UAV to finish the data collection mission, i.e., to minimize the number of steps in each episode. Intuitively, the more steps the agent takes, the less reward it should receive.
Thus, we set a time-based penalty $r_{t}^{\text{time}}$ with negative value in each step to build the connection between reward and our objective.
If the agent fails to finish the mission in given time limit $T_{\text{max}}$, it will receive a failure penalty $r_{t}^{\text{fail}}$.
The time-based penalty $r_{t}^{\text{time}}$ is further modified according to the data size collected by UAV in the current step to give higher reward to the actions which result to larger transmission rate. The reward of the discrete agent is given by
\begin{equation}
r_{t}^{\text{ch}}=\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& \frac{r_{t}^{\text{time}}}{U}\sum\limits_{n=1}^{N}{\sum\limits_{m=1}^{M}{{{t}_{\text{slot}}}{{R}_{n,m}}[t],\text{ }if\text{ }t\le {{T}_{\max }}}} \\
& r_{t}^{\text{fail}},\text{ }if\text{ }t>{{T}_{\max }}
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Continuous Agent for Trajectory Optimization}
The trajectory of UAV is optimized by a continuous RL agent, whose action, state and reward are defined as follows.
\subsubsection{Action of the continuous agent}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{figure/Traj_space.eps}
\caption{Action space of the continuous agent.}
\label{Traj_space}
\end{figure}
As shown in Fig. \ref{Traj_space}, the action of the continuous agent $a_t^{\text{traj}}$ determines the location of UAV in the next step. $a_{t}^{\text{traj}}$ is defined as
\begin{align}
a_{t}^{\text{traj}}=\{a_{t}^{x},a_{t}^{y}\},a_{t}^{x},a_{t}^{y}\in \left[ -{{t}_{\text{slot}}}{{V}_{\max }},{{t}_{\text{slot}}}{{V}_{\max }} \right],
\end{align}
where $a_{t}^{x},a_{t}^{y}$ denote the movement of UAV on the x-axis and y-axis respectively.
\subsubsection{State of the Continuous Agent}
The state of the continuous agent is similar to the discrete agent, which includes the current channel gain $h[t]$ and remaining data at MDCs ${{U}_{\text{res}}}[t]$. In addition, the current horizontal location of UAV $\left( {{x}_{\text{uav}}}[t],{{y}_{\text{uav}}}[t] \right)$ is also included in the state $S_{t}^{\text{traj}}$, which is given by
\begin{align}
S_{t}^{\text{traj}}=\left\{ {{U}_{\text{res}}}[t],h[t],\left( {{x}_{\text{uav}}}[t],{{y}_{\text{uav}}}[t] \right) \right\}
\end{align}
\subsubsection{Reward of the Continuous Agent}
The reward of the continuous agent is modified based on $r_{t}^{\text{ch}}$. We give additional penalty to the agent if the location of UAV exceeds reasonable region to regularize the trajectory decision. The reward of the continuous agent is given by
\begin{equation}
r_{t}^{\text{traj}}=\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& r_{t}^{\text{ch}},\text{ }if\text{ }{{x}_{\text{uav}}}[t]\in [{{x}_{\min }},{{x}_{\max }}],{{y}_{\text{uav}}}[t]\in [{{y}_{\min }},{{y}_{\max }}] \\
& r_{t}^{\text{ch}} + r_{t}^{\text{penalty}},\text{ } otherwise
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation}
\section{Implementation of Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO)}
PPO is a state-of-art on policy reinforcement learning algorithm which supports both discrete and continuous actions spaces. In this section, we introduce the preliminary and implementation of PPO algorithm for discrete agent (channel allocation) and continuous agent (UAV trajectory optimization).
\subsection{Implementation of Continuous and Discrete PPO}
\subsubsection{Critic Network}
The critic network is responsible to give scores to the actor according to the current state. The architectures of both discrete and continuous critic networks are the same, which consists of multiple fully connected layers.
\textbf{Loss function of continuous and discrete critic networks} are given by
\begin{align}
J^{\text{traj}}(\phi )={{\left[ V_{\phi }^{\text{traj}}(s_{t}^{\text{traj}})-\left( r_{t}^{\text{traj}}+\gamma V_{{{\phi }'}}^{\text{traj}}(s_{t+1}^{\text{traj}}) \right) \right]}^{2}},
\label{a_loss_con}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
J^{\text{ch}}(\phi )={{\left[ V_{\phi }^{\text{ch}}(s_{t}^{\text{ch}})-\left( r_{t}^{\text{ch}}+\gamma V_{{{\phi }'}}^{\text{ch}}(s_{t+1}^{\text{ch}}) \right) \right]}^{2}},
\label{a_loss_dis}
\end{align}
where $L_{t}^{\text{traj}}(\phi )$ and $L_{t}^{\text{ch}}(\phi )$ denote the loss function for the critic network of continuous and discrete agent respectively. $V_{{{\phi }'}}^{\text{traj}}(s_{t+1}^{\text{traj}})$ and $V_{{{\phi }'}}^{\text{ch}}(s_{t+1}^{\text{ch}})$ are the state value estimations generated by the old critic networks $\phi _{\text{traj}}^{'}$ and $\phi_{\text{ch}}^{'}$ respectively, which are saved in during the interaction with environment. $V_{\phi }^{\text{traj}}(s_{t}^{\text{traj}})$ and $V_{\phi }^{\text{ch}}(s_{t}^{\text{ch}})$ are the state value estimations generated by the current critic networks $\phi _{\text{traj}}^{{}}$ and $\phi _{\text{ch}}^{{}}$ , which are updated in each training iteration.
\subsubsection{Actor Network}
As shown in Fig. \ref{Actor}, the architecture of discrete and continuous actor network are different due to the difference in action space.
\textbf{The continuous actor network} for trajectory control is a network for value approximation, which outputs a $\mu$ head and a $\sigma$ head which denotes the mean and variance of Gaussian distributions respectively. Each head includes two variables, i.e., $\{{{\mu }_{x}},{{\mu }_{y}}\}$ and $\{{{\sigma }_{x}},{{\sigma }_{y}}\}$, which denotes the $x$-axis and $y$-axis respectively. The action $\{{{a}_{x}}[t],{{a}_{y}}[t]\}$ is generated by sampling from the obtained distribution $\mathcal {N} ({{\mu }_{x}},\sigma _{x}^{2})$ and $\mathcal{N}({{\mu }_{y}},\sigma _{y}^{2})$.
\textbf{The discrete actor network} for channel allocation is a network for classification, which outputs the probabilities $\text{Pr}(a)$ of each action. The agent sample its action from the obtained action probabilities with $\varepsilon$-greedy, i.e., the output action is generated by sampling from $\text{Pr}(a)$ with probability $1-\epsilon$, and selected randomly with probability $\epsilon$ for exploration. The output action of the discrete actor network is encoded, which will be decoded into one-hot indicators before being utilized for further calculation.
\textbf{Loss functions of actor networks} in our implementation adopt the trick of clipping to simplify the calculation, which is proposed by J. Schulman et al \cite{PPO_origin}.
The PPO-PPO algorithm is summarized in \textbf{Algorithm 1}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{figure/PPO_Actor.eps}
\caption{Actor Network Architecture.}
\label{Actor}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\renewcommand{\algorithmicrequire}{\textbf{Initiate:}}
\renewcommand{\algorithmicensure}{\textbf{Output:}}
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{\label{alg:HCORL} PPO-PPO}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE Remaining data at MDCs, UAV location, network parameters of discrete and continuous agent
\FOR{iteration $t$ = $1,2,..$}
\STATE Discrete agent execute action according to the current state and policy $\pi _{{{\theta }'}}^{\text{ch}}\left( a_{t}^{\text{ch}}|s_{t}^{\text{ch}} \right)$ to obtain the channel allocation indicator matrix $\hat{\textbf{I}}[t]$
\STATE With given $\hat{\textbf{I}}[t]$, the continuous agent for trajectory control execute action according to the current state and policy $\pi _{\theta' }^{\text{traj}}\left( a_{t}^{\text{traj}}|s_{t}^{\text{traj}} \right)$ $\hat{I}[t]$
\STATE Agent interact with environment to get reward $r_{t}^{\text{ch}}$ and $r_{t}^{\text{traj}}$ for discrete agent and continuous agent respectively
\STATE Update state $s_{t}^{\text{traj}}\leftarrow s_{t+1}^{\text{traj}}$, $s_{t}^{\text{ch}}\leftarrow s_{t+1}^{\text{ch}}$
\STATE Save trajectory $\left( s_{t}^{\text{ch}},a_{t}^{\text{ch}},r_{t}^{\text{ch}},s_{t+1}^{\text{ch}},V_{{{\phi }'}}^{\text{ch}}(s_{t}^{\text{ch}}) \right)$ and
$\left( s_{t}^{\text{traj}},a_{t}^{\text{traj}},r_{t}^{\text{traj}},s_{t}^{\text{traj}},V_{{{\phi }'}}^{\text{traj}}(s_{t}^{\text{traj}}) \right)$
\FOR{every $i$ iterations}
\STATE Shuffle data order and make batch with size $bs$.
\FOR{$j$=$0,1,...,\frac{T}{bs}-1$}
\STATE Calculate loss functions of critic and actor networks and update network parameters by gradient ascent
\ENDFOR
\ENDFOR
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\label{alg_HCORL}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}
\section{Simulation Results}
The performance of our proposed double-agent reinforcement learning approach for Metaverse data collecting is tested and compared with two benchmark scenarios (DQN-PPO and duelling DQN-PPO), whose discrete agents are replaced with DQN or duelling DQN algorithm respectively. The simulation settings are given in Table \ref{table:parameter}.
\begin{table}[tbp]
\caption{Constant Parameter Setting} \label{table:parameter}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c}
\toprule[1pt]
Parameter and Physical Meaning & Value \\ \hline
Number of channels($M$) & $3$ \\
Default number of users ($N$) & $5$ \\
Bandwidth ($B$) & $5$MHz \\
Transmission power of MDCs & $5$W \\
Frequency ($f$) & $28$GHz (5G spectrum) \\
Power of Gaussian noise ($\sigma^2$) & $5\times {{10}^{-8}}$W \\
Maximum speed of UAV & $10$m/s \\
Mission area size ($L$) & $200$m \\
\bottomrule[1pt]
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Fig. \ref{fig:MissionTime_50M} presents the required time to complete data collecting mission of our proposed algorithm and two benchmark algorithms with given data size $U=50$Mb. At the beginning of the training process (0-1000 episodes), all three algorithms are unstable because the reasonable policy has not been established, and the agents are exploring the environment frequently. From 1000 episodes to 2000 episodes, our proposed PPO-PPO algorithm shows the tendency of convergence while the benchmark DQN-PPO algorithm is still very unstable. The duelling DQN-PPO algorithm also starts to finish the mission within a shorter time period, but is less stable than the PPO-PPO algorithm. DQN-PPO algorithm shows poor convergence performance in this task, but both PPO-PPO and duelling DQN-PPO algorithms are able to converge within 5000 episodes with similar performance due to their common implementation of the advantage function.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{figure/MissionTime_50M.eps}
\caption{Comparison of required time to finish mission with data size $U=50$Mb.}
\label{fig:MissionTime_50M}
\end{figure}
Fig. \ref{fig:MissionTime_100M} presents the mission completing time experiment with a similar parameter setting as in Fig. \ref{fig:MissionTime_50M}, but the data size is increased to $U=100$Mb. All three algorithms need more time to finish the data collecting mission due to larger data size, and the PPO-PPO algorithm shows similar convergence performance as in Fig. \ref{fig:MissionTime_50M}. However, the dueling DQN-PPO algorithm becomes unstable in the training process, i.e., some sudden increase in the required time. The superior stability of PPO over dueling DQN can be attributed to its policy update constraint by equipping it with a KL-divergence penalty between the old policy (the policy for sampling data) and the updated policy (the policy used for training and evaluating).
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{figure/MissionTime_100M.eps}
\caption{Comparison of required time to finish mission with data size $U=100$Mb.}
\label{fig:MissionTime_100M}
\end{figure}
Fig. \ref{fig:Reward_50M} and Fig. \ref{fig:Reward_100M} are the corresponding rewards in the training processes of Fig. \ref{fig:MissionTime_50M} and Fig. \ref{fig:MissionTime_100M} respectively. We consider the reward given to the agent as guidance but not the exact objective function in the implementation of reinforcement learning algorithm. The tendencies of the reward and the required time are highly similar although they are generated from different formulas, which indicates that our reward design successfully leads the agent to learn a better policy.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{figure/Reward_50M.eps}
\caption{Comparison of reward with data size $U=50$Mb.}
\label{fig:Reward_50M}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{figure/Reward_100M.eps}
\caption{Comparison of reward with data size $U=100$Mb.}
\label{fig:Reward_100M}
\end{figure}
The mission completing time comparison for the case with eight users is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:MissionTime_50M_8user}. The duelling DQN-PPO algorithm shows similar average performance as the PPO-PPO algorithm but less stability, i.e., the required time sometimes jumps to extremely large values. Taking the stability into consideration, the PPO-PPO algorithm is better than duelling DQN-PPO algorithm in general. The DQN-PPO algorithm is obviously not able to converge in this experiment, so we do not consider it a candidate for our double-agent reinforcement learning algorithm.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{figure/MissionTime_50M_8user.eps}
\caption{Comparison of reward with data size $U=50$Mb and $8$ users.}
\label{fig:MissionTime_50M_8user}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we propose a double-agent reinforcement architecture for data collecting and synchronization in Metavese, and adopt PPO algorithm for both discrete and continuous agents. Two agents with different action space and state space work in a cascade manner for channel allocation and UAV trajectory control to form a combined action in each iteration. Our experiments indicate the advantage of the PPO-PPO in both the required time for the mission and the stability. In future work, we will consider transmission power allocation and test the performance of other state-of-art reinforcement learning algorithms in our proposed architecture.
|
\section{Introduction}
With the progress of computing power in the last years, the large-eddy simulation (LES) formulation appears as an alternative to Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) methods due to its reasonable cost when compared to the direct numerical simulation (DNS) of the Navier-Stokes equations or even physical experiments. LES can provide valuable information on complex configurations such as shear layers \cite{Bres2019,Kumar2017} and detached flows \cite{Ghate2021,Masoudi2021} due to its capability to generate unsteady data for flow and temperature fields with high-frequency fluctuations, which are necessary for aerodynamics, acoustics, loads, and heat transfer analyses.
The authors are interested in the LES of jet flows from aircraft and rockets engines \cite{Junior2018,Junior2020,BogeyMarsden2016,Bres2017,Debonis2017}. More specifically, on the perfectly expanded configuration, when the jet exit pressure matches the ambient pressure, at 1.4 Mach number.
Recent work highlights \cite{Abreu2021} the effects of structured second-order finite-difference and unstructured nodal discontinuous-Galerkin spatial discretizations \cite{Kopriva2010,Hindenlang2012} on the flow of interest at a fixed number of degrees of freedom (DOF). The results indicate good agreement with experimental and numerical data, where the spatial resolution is sufficient and with the same order of error in the coarser mesh regions. Therefore, the current study addresses the effects of refinement on the LES of a supersonic jet flow configuration using the FLEXI framework \cite{Krais2021}. The solver applies an unstructured nodal discontinuous Galerkin spatial discretization that allows evaluating the influence of mesh and polynomial ({\em hp}) refinement.
The literature \cite{BogeyBailly2010,Mendezetal2012,Bresetal2018,ShenMiller2019,Corriganetal2018} does not agree on the mesh requirements for adequately solving the LES formulation due to employing different numerical methods for solving jet flows. The present paper studies the effects of mesh and polynomial refinement along with mesh topology to identify the minimum mesh requirements for adequately solving the problem of interest. The research group improved the baseline grid from Ref.\@ \cite{Abreu2021} with local mesh refinement in the vicinity of the lipline and with an increase in the number of elements, ranging from $6.2 \times 10^6$ to $15.4 \times 10^6$ elements. The jet flow calculations use second-order and third-order polynomials. The simulations present 50 to 410 million DOFs when combining grid and polynomial refinement.
The generated data for mean velocity and RMS of velocity fluctuations are investigated and compared with experimental data \cite{BridgesWernet2008} at different regions of the domain where the jet is developing.
The paper is organized to introduce the reader to the description of physical and numerical formulation in the second section. Then, one can find details of the experimental configuration and the numerical setup in sections three and four. Finally, the results and the concluding remarks close the work in sections five and six, respectively.
\section{Numerical Formulation}
\subsection{Governing Equations}
The work has the interest in the solution of the filtered Navier-Stokes equations. The filtering strategy is based on a spatial filtering process that separates the flow into a resolved part and a non resolved part. Usually the filter size is obtained from the mesh size. The filtered Navier-Stokes equations in conservative form can be written by
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \mathbf{\bar{Q}}}{\partial t} + \nabla \cdot \mathbf{F} ( \mathbf{\bar{Q}}, \nabla \mathbf{\bar{Q}})=0,
\label{eq.1}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{\bar{Q}}=[\bar{\rho}, \bar{\rho} \tilde{u}, \bar{\rho} \tilde{v}, \bar{\rho} \tilde{w}, \bar{\rho} \check{E}]^{T}$ is the vector of filtered conserved variables and $\mathbf{F}$ is the flux vector. The flux vector can be divided into the Euler fluxes and the viscous flux, $\mathbf{F}=\mathbf{F}^e-\mathbf{F}^v$. The fluxes with the filtered variables may be written as
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{F}_i^e= \left[ \begin{array}{c}
\bar{\rho} \tilde{u}_i \\ \bar{\rho} \tilde{u} \tilde{u}_i + \delta_{1i} \bar{p}\\ \bar{\rho} \tilde{v} \tilde{u}_i + \delta_{2i}\bar{p} \\ \bar{\rho} \tilde{w} \tilde{u}_i + \delta_{3i}\bar{p} \\ (\bar{\rho} \check{E} + \bar{p}) \tilde{u}_i
\end{array} \right] \hspace*{1.5 cm}
\mathbf{F}_i^v= \left[ \begin{array}{c}
0 \\ \tau_{1i}^{mod} \\ \tau_{2i}^{mod} \\ \tau_{3i}^{mod} \\ \tilde{u}_j \tau_{ij}^{mod} - q_i^{mod}
\end{array} \right] \hspace*{1.5 cm} \mbox{ , for } i = 1,2,3 ,
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{u}_i$ or $(\tilde{u}, \tilde{v}, \tilde{w})$ are the Favre averaged velocity components, $\bar{\rho}$ is the filtered density, $\bar{p}$ is the filtered pressure and $\bar{\rho} \check{E}$ is the filtered total energy per unit volume. The terms $\tau_{ij}^{mod}$ and $q_{i}^{mod}$ are the modified viscous stress tensor and heat flux vector, respectively, and $\delta_{ij}$ is the Kronecker delta. The filtered total energy per unit volume, according to the definition proposed by \citet{Vreman1995} in its "system I", is given by
\begin{equation}
\bar{\rho} \check{E} = \frac{\bar{p}}{\gamma - 1} + \frac{1}{2}\bar{\rho}\tilde{u}_i\tilde{u}_i.
\end{equation}
The filtered pressure, Favre averaged temperature and filtered density are correlated using the ideal gas equation of state $\bar{p}= \bar{\rho} R \tilde{T}$, and $R$ is the gas constant, written as $R = c_p - c_v$. The properties $c_p$ and $c_v$ are the specific heat at constant pressure and volume, respectively. The modified viscous stress tensor may be written as
\begin{equation}
\tau_{ij}^{mod}=(\mu + \mu_{SGS}) \left(\frac{\partial \tilde{u}_i}{\partial x_j} + \frac{\partial \tilde{u}_j}{\partial x_i} \right) - \frac{2}{3} (\mu + \mu_{SGS}) \left(\frac{\partial \tilde{u}_k}{\partial x_k} \right) \delta_{ij}
\end{equation}
where $\mu$ is the dynamic viscosity coefficient, calculated by Sutherland's Law, and $\mu_{SGS}$ is the SGS dynamic viscosity coefficient, which is provided by the subgrid-scale model. The strategy of modeling the subgrid-scale contribution as an additional dynamic viscosity coefficient is based on the Boussinesq hyphotesis. The modified heat flux vector, using the same modeling strategy, is given by
\begin{equation}
q_i^{mod}=-(k+k_{SGS})\frac{\partial \tilde{T}}{\partial x_i}
\end{equation}
where $k$ is the thermal conductivity coefficient of the fluid and $k_{SGS}$ is the SGS thermal conductivity coefficient given by
\begin{equation}
k_{SGS}=\frac{\mu_{SGS} c_p}{Pr_{SGS}}
\end{equation}
and $Pr_{SGS}$ is the SGS Prandtl number.
The present work employs only the static Smagorinsky model \cite{Smagorinsky1963} to calculate the subgrid-scale contribution.
\subsection{Nodal Discontinuous Galerkin Method}
The nodal discontinuous Galerkin method used in this work is based on the modeling proposed by \citet{Kopriva2010}, and \citet{Hindenlang2012}. In this discretization, the domain is divided into multiples hexahedral elements. This choice of elements permits that the interpolating polynomial be defined as a tensor product basis with degree $N$ in each space direction. The implementation is simpler and improve the computational efficiency of the code.
In this method, the elements from the physical domain are mapped onto a reference unit cube elements $E=[-1,1]^3$. The equations, presented in Eq.\@ (\ref{eq.1}) need also to be mapped to this new reference domain, leading to
\begin{equation}
J \frac{\partial \mathbf{\bar{Q}}}{\partial t} + \nabla_{\xi} \cdot \bar{\mathcal{F}} = 0,
\label{eq.2}
\end{equation}
where $\nabla_{\xi}$ is the divergence operator with respect to the reference element coordinates, $\mathbf{\xi}=(\xi^1,\xi^2,\xi^3)^T$, $J= \arrowvert \partial \mathbf{x} / \partial \mathbf{\xi} \arrowvert$ is the Jacobian of the coordinate transformation and $\bar{\mathcal{F}}$ is the contravariant flux vector.
The discontinuous Galerkin formulation is obtained multiplying Eq.\@ (\ref{eq.2}) by the test function $\psi=\psi(\xi)$ and integrating over the reference element $E$
\begin{equation}
\int_E J \frac{\partial \mathbf{\bar{Q}}}{\partial t} \psi d \xi + \int_E \nabla_{\xi} \cdot \bar{\mathcal{F}} \psi d \xi = 0.
\label{eq.3}
\end{equation}
It is possible to obtain the weak form of the scheme by integrating by parts the second term in Eq.\@ (\ref{eq.3})
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \int_E J \mathbf{\bar{Q}} \psi d \xi + \int_{\partial E} (\bar{\mathcal{F}} \cdot \vec{N})^* \psi dS - \int_E \bar{\mathcal{F}} \cdot (\nabla_{\xi} \psi ) d \xi = 0,
\label{eq.4}
\end{equation}
where $\vec{N}$ is the unit normal vector of the reference element faces. Because the discontinuous Galerkin scheme allows discontinuities in the interfaces, the surface integral above is ill-defined. In this case, a numerical flux, $\bar{\mathcal{F}}^*$, is defined, and a Riemann solver is used to compute the value of this flux based on the discontinuous solutions given by the elements sharing the interface.
For the nodal form of the discontinuous Galerkin formulation, the solution in each element is approximated by a polynomial interpolation of the form
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\bar{Q}}(\xi) \approx \sum_{p,q,r=0}^N \mathbf{\bar{Q}}_h(\xi_p^1,\xi_q^2,\xi_r^3,t)\phi_{pqr}(\xi),
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{\bar{Q}}_h(\xi_p^1,\xi_q^2,\xi_r^3,t)$ is the value of the vector of conserved variables at each interpolation node in the reference element and $\phi_{pqr}(\xi)$ is the interpolating polynomial. For hexahedral elements, the interpolating polynomial is a tensor product basis with degree N in each space direction
\begin{equation}
\phi_{pqr}(\xi)=l_p(\xi^1)l_q(\xi^2)l_r(\xi^3), \hspace{10pt} l_p(\xi^1)= \prod_{\substack{i=0 \\ i \ne p}}^{N_p} \frac{\xi^1-\xi_i^1}{\xi_p^1-\xi_i^1}.
\end{equation}
The definitions presented are applicable to other two directions.
The numerical scheme used in the simulation additionally presents the split formulation presented by \citet{Pirozzoli2011}, with the discrete form given by \citet{Gassner2016}, to enhance the stability of the simulation. The split formulation is employed to Euler fluxes only. The solution and the fluxes are interpolated and integrated at the nodes of a Gauss-Lobatto Legende quadrature, which presents the summation-by parts property, that is necessary to employ the split formulation.
The Riemann solver used in the simulations is a Roe scheme with entropy fix \cite{Harten1983} to ensure that second law of thermodynamics is respected, even with the split formulation. To be able to adequately handle the viscous flux in the boundaries of the elements, the lifting scheme of \citet{BassiRebay1997} is used, which is also known as BR2. The time marching method chosen is the five-stage, fourth-order explicit Runge-Kutta scheme of \citet{CarpenterKennedy1994}.
The shock waves that appear in the simulation are stabilized using the finite-volume sub-cell shock capturing method of \citet{Sonntag2017}. Even though the methodology used in the simulation solves the discontinuous Galerkin approach, it only handle discontinuities in the interface of the elements. The shock capturing method permits to stabilize the simulation with shock waves inside the elements.
\section{Experimental Configuration}
The focus of this work is to investigate the influence of mesh and polynomial refinement on the perfectly
expanded jet flow, which is present in many applications, such as supersonic military aircraft and large
launch vehicles. The experimental work of \citet{BridgesWernet2008} provides data flow properties for
different jet flow configurations
In this work, the interest is to simulate the fully expanded free jet flow configuration with a Mach number
of $1.4$. In this configuration the jet flow has a static pressure in the nozzle exit plane that equals the
ambient static pressure with a supersonic velocity. For such a flow configuration, the shock waves are
weaker when compared to other operating conditions, which reduces the constraints of mesh refinement and,
consequently, the computational cost of the simulation.
The experimental apparatus for the analysed configuration is composed of a convergent-divergent nozzle
designed based on the method of characteristics \cite{BridgesWernet2008}. The nozzle exit diameter is
$50.8$ mm. The Reynolds number based on nozzle exit diameter is
$1.58 \times 10^6$.
The experimental data acquisition applies the Time-Resolved Particle Image Velocimetry (TRPIV) at a $10$ kHZ sample rate. The investigation uses two sets of cameras, one captures the flow along the nozzle centerline, and the other captures the flow of the mixing layer along the nozzle lipline.
\section{Numerical Setup}
\subsection{Geometry and Mesh Configuration}
The geometry used for the calculations in this work presents a divergent shape and axis
length of $40D$, where $D$ is the jet inlet diameter and has external diameters of $16D$ and
$25D$. Figure \ref{fig.geo} illustrates a 2-D representation of the computational domain,
indicating the inlet surface in red, the farfield region in blue, the lipline in grey, and
the centerline in black.
Two different computational grids are used in the present work. The coarser mesh used here, named
M-1 mesh, is the same grid developed in Ref.\ \cite{Abreu2021}. The other computational grid, which
is termed M-2 mesh here, was developed specifically for the present effort and it represents a
considerable improvement over the M-1 mesh. The modifications in the M-2 mesh are both topological
and the result of an increase in the number of grid cells. These modifications result in a much
higher refinement level around the jet inlet, encompassing both the original jet as well as the
strong mixing region around the jet. Afterwards, this mesh transitions to a uniform grid point
distribution as one moves downstream in the longitudinal direction. The mesh generation uses a
multiblock strategy in order to handle hexahedral cells.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.65\linewidth]{figs/sketch_geo.png}
\caption{2-D schematic representation of the computational domain used on the
jet flow simulations.}
\label{fig.geo}
\end{figure}
The grid design attempts to capture the jet flow until a distance of $x/D=15$ from the
inlet surface, indicated in red in Fig.\ \ref{fig.geo}. Then, the size of elements
increases as an attempt to dissipate frequencies that could destabilize the simulation.
Previous results \cite{Junior2020} support the creation of mesh topology, indicating
that a surface with one degree of opening angle would better represent the middle
surface of the jet mixing layer. From this surface, two regions rise to increase
the resolution of the domain. They have a geometrical stretching in the section $x/D=0$
to enable local refinement in the shear region of the flow and a uniform distribution
in $x/D = 15$. The internal section of the mixing layer connects to one hexahedral block
that forms the core of the mesh. That hexahedral block has its dimensions defined to keep
the size of the elements equal to the size of the last cells in the region of the mixing
layer.
The grid refinement in the mixing layer is defined based on the literature
\cite{BogeyBailly2010, BogeyMarsden2016, Bres2017, Debonis2017, Junior2018}. The grid
spacing in the radial and axial directions along the mixing layer is $\Delta y_0/D=0.001$
and $\Delta x_0/D=0.005$, respectively. The centerline presents 651 elements set in
geometrical stretching distribution between $x/D=0$ and $x/D=15$. Each region of the mixing layer
contains 50 cells, and the Azimuthal direction accommodates 180 elements evenly
distributed. Figure \ref{fig.elem1} presents the radial mesh
refinement in two different longitudinal positions, $x/D=0$ and $x/D=15$. Figure
\ref{fig.elem2} illustrates the axial mesh refinement along the jet centerline and
Fig.\ \ref{fig.mesh} exhibits a cutplane of the mesh generated for the current paper and the baseline line mesh used in previous work.
The M-1 and M-2 grids have a total of 6.2 and 15.4 million cells, respectively,
and they are created with the GMSH \cite{Geuzaine2009} mesh generator.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\subfloat[Radial mesh refinement ($\Delta y/D$) in the longitudinal sections $x/D=0$ and $x/D=15$.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.47\linewidth]{figs/fig1_jetmesh_15M.png}
\label{fig.elem1}
}
\subfloat[Longitudinal mesh refinement ($\Delta x/D$) along the jet centerline.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.47\linewidth]{figs/fig2_jetmesh_15M.png}
\label{fig.elem2}
}
\caption{Distribution of grid spacing indicating radial and longitudinal refinement for the M-2 mesh.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\subfloat[M-1 mesh.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.47\linewidth]{figs/mesh_cutplane.png}
\label{fig.mes1}
}
\subfloat[M-2 mesh.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.47\linewidth]{figs/mesh_4_cutplane_2.png}
\label{fig.mesh2}
}
\caption{Visualization of the half-plane longitudinal cutplanes for the meshes used in the present work.}
\label{fig.mesh}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Boundary Conditions}
Properties on the jet inflow, $(\cdot)_{jet}$, and farfield, $(\cdot)_{ff}$, surfaces are
indicated in Fig.\ \ref{fig.geo} in red and blue, respectively.
A weakly enforced solution of a Riemann problem with a Dirichlet condition is
enforced at the boundaries. The flow is characterized as perfectly expanded and
isothermal, {\em i.e.} $p_{jet}/p_{ff}=T_{jet}/T_{ff}=1$, where $p$ stands for pressure and $T$
for temperature. The Mach number of the jet at the inlet is $M_{jet}=1.4$ and the Reynolds number
based on the diameter of the nozzle is $Re_{jet} = 1.58 \times 10^6$. A small velocity component with
$M_{ff}=0.01$ in the streamwise direction is imposed at the farfield to avoid numerical issues. A
sponge zone \cite{Flad2014} is employed around the farfield boundaries, the gray area presented in
Fig.\ \ref{fig.geo}, to damp any oscillations that could be reflected back to the jet.
\subsection{Simulation Settings and DOFs}
The current work compares the effects of {\it hp} refinement using three different calculations:
S1, S2, and S3. The first simulation uses the M-1 computational grid, while the other two
computations apply the M-2 mesh. Both studies, S1 and S2, employ first-order polynomial reconstructions
in order to achieve second-order accuracy in spatial discretization. Calculation S3 uses second-order
polynomial reconstructions in order to achieve a third-order accurate spatial discretization. The
simulations, therefore, consider from 50 to 410 million DOFs. Table \ref{tab.mesh} indicates the
settings used the three numerical studies performed in the present effort.
\begin{table}[htb!]
\centering
\caption{Summary of simulations settings.}
\begin{tabular}{ c c c c c c } \hline \hline
Simulation & Meshes & Order of & DOF/cell & Cells & Total \# of DOF \\
& & Accuracy & & ($10^{6}$) & ($10^{6}$) \\\hline
S1 & M-1 & 2nd order & 8 & $6.2$ & $\approx 50$ \\
S2 & M-2 & 2nd order & 8 & $15.4$ & $\approx 120$ \\
S3 & M-2 & 3rd order & 27 & $15.4$ & $\approx 410$ \\ \hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab.mesh}
\end{table}
\subsection{Calculation of Statistical Properties}
\label{chap.stats}
The simulation procedure involves three steps. The first one is to clean off the domain since
the computation starts with a static flow initial condition. The simulations run three
flow-through times (FTT) to develop the jet flow. One FTT is the time required for one
particle with the jet velocity to cross the computational domain. In the sequence, the
simulations run an additional three FTT to produce a statistically steady condition. Then,
in the last step, data are collected for another three FTT to obtain the statistical
properties of the flow.
The procedure for developing S3 simulation is slightly different. The simulation is a
restart from the finished S2 calculation. The numerical framework FLEXI allows using
one solution with different order of accuracy as initialization. Once the second-order
solution was already available, its usage was a short come to initialize the S3
simulation. Hence, the S3 numerical study runs 0.5 FFT to allow the solution to adapt from
second-order accuracy to third-order accuracy. Then it runs an additional 2 FTT to collect
data. Different frequencies of data acquisition were employed in each simulation. The S1
case applies $160$ kHz, while S2 and S3 cases use $205$ and $225$ kHz, respectively.
The mean and the root mean square (RMS) fluctuations of properties of the flow are
calculated along the centerline, lipline, and different domain surfaces in the
streamwise direction. The centerline is defined as the line in the center of the
geometry $y/D=0$, whereas the lipline is a surface parallel to the centerline and
located at the nozzle diameter, $y/D=0.5$. The results from the lipline are an
azimuthal mean from six equally spaced positions. The four surfaces in the streamwise
positions are $x/D=2.5$, $x/D=5.0$, $x/D=10.0$, and $x/D=15.0$. Surface properties are
averaged using six equally spaced positions in the azimuthal direction. Figure
\ref{fig.jet_data_extract} illustrates a Mach number contours snapshot of the jet flow
with the lines and surfaces of data extraction.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{figs/data_extract.png}
\caption{Snapshot of the jet simulation with the two longitudinal lines and three crossflow lines
along which data is extracted. Mach number contours are shown.}
\label{fig.jet_data_extract}
\end{figure}
\section{Results}
The results from S1, S2, and S3 simulations are presented in this section and compared
to experimental data \cite{BridgesWernet2008}. The focus of this work is to assess the
resolution requirements for the correct prediction of supersonic jet flows. S1 and S2
calculations are performed with the same polynomial order of accuracy, while S3 simulation
uses third-order accuracy polynomials. The S1 Numerical study is performed with mesh M-1,
with $6.2 \times 10^6$ elements, and S2 and S3 calculations are performed with mesh M-2,
with $15.4 \times 10^6$ elements. The simulations have approximately $50$, $120$, and
$410$ million DOFs.
\subsection{Velocity and Density Contours}
Initially, the contours of the mean longitudinal velocity component, RMS of longitudinal
velocity fluctuation, and mean density are presented for the three simulations. Figure
\ref{fig.res_velx} presents the contours of the mean longitudinal velocity component on
a cut plane at $z/D=0$. The contours indicate qualitatively improvement in results when
increasing the number of DOFs. One can notice the size of the jet core is bigger in
Fig.\ \ref{fig.res_velxc} than in Figs.\ \ref{fig.res_velxb} and \ref{fig.res_velxa}.
Moreover, the development of the mixing layer start closer to the jet inlet in S3
simulation than in S2 and S1 calculations. Furthermore, it is difficult to notice the
existence of shock waves in Fig.\ \ref{fig.res_velxa}, which are more clearly visible
in Figs.\ \ref{fig.res_velxb} and \ref{fig.res_velxc}.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\subfloat[S1 simulation.]{
\includegraphics[trim = 0mm 30mm 0mm 50mm, clip, width=0.80\linewidth]{figs/vel_mean_s1_v2.png}
\label{fig.res_velxa}
}
\newline
\subfloat[S2 simulation.]{
\includegraphics[trim = 0mm 30mm 0mm 50mm, clip, width=0.80\linewidth]{figs/vel_mean_s2_v2.png}
\label{fig.res_velxb}
}
\newline
\subfloat[S3 simulation.]{
\includegraphics[trim = 0mm 30mm 0mm 50mm, clip, width=0.80\linewidth]{figs/vel_mean_s3_v2.png}
\label{fig.res_velxc}
}
\newline
\caption{Contours of mean longitudinal velocity component along cutplanes in $z/D=0$ for the three simulations performed.}
\label{fig.res_velx}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig.res_velxrms} presents the contours of RMS of longitudinal velocity
fluctuations on a cut plane at $z/D=0$. One can notice the early development of the
mixing layer when increasing the number of DOFs in the calculations. In Fig.\
\ref{fig.res_velxrmsc} the increase in the RMS values for longitudinal velocity
fluctuation occurs right after the boundary condition. The same physical phenomenon
occurs farther when decreasing the simulation resolution, which is noticeable when
comparing Fig.s\ \ref{fig.res_velxrmsb} and \ref{fig.res_velxrmsa}. The contours of
RMS of longitudinal velocity fluctuation also show that the fluctuation levels get
smaller with earlier development of the mixing layer. In Fig.\ \ref{fig.res_velxrmsc}
the region of high velocity fluctuation is thinner and presents smaller values than in
Fig.\ \ref{fig.res_velxrmsb}. In Fig.\ \ref{fig.res_velxrmsa}, the region with a high
level of velocity fluctuation is the largest, and it presents the highest values when
compared to the other two results.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\subfloat[S1 simulation.]{
\includegraphics[trim = 0mm 30mm 0mm 50mm, clip, width=0.8\linewidth]{figs/vel_rms_s1_v2.png}
\label{fig.res_velxrmsa}
}
\newline
\subfloat[S2 simulation.]{
\includegraphics[trim = 0mm 30mm 0mm 50mm, clip, width=0.8\linewidth]{figs/vel_rms_s2_v2.png}
\label{fig.res_velxrmsb}
}
\newline
\subfloat[S3 simulation.]{
\includegraphics[trim = 0mm 30mm 0mm 50mm, clip, width=0.8\linewidth]{figs/vel_rms_s3_v2.png}
\label{fig.res_velxrmsc}
}
\newline
\caption{Contours of RMS values of longitudinal velocity component fluctuations along cutplanes in $z/D=0$ for the three simulations performed.}
\label{fig.res_velxrms}
\end{figure}
The last contours presented in this section, Fig.\ \ref{fig.res_dens}, compare the mean
density results from the three simulations on a cut plane at $z/D=0$. It is possible
to observe that each simulation presents different characteristics. In Fig.\
\ref{fig.res_densa} the shock waves are weak, being hardly visible with adequate range
scales for all simulations. Moreover, one can notice a few shock waves and expansion
waves reflections. The appearance of the first shock waves occurs far from the jet inlet
boundary condition. Figure \ref{fig.res_densb} presents a different behavior of the flow
with shock waves and expansion waves significantly different from those observed in Fig.\
\ref{fig.res_densa}. The first shock waves appear closer to the jet inlet boundary
conditions, and they are visible, which indicates that they are significantly stronger
than those from the S1 simulation. Another interesting observation is the number of
shock waves and expansion waves reflection, which is much larger than the presented in
Fig.\ \ref{fig.res_densa}. The final density results are presented in Fig.\
\ref{fig.res_densc}, which is the result from S3 simulation. It is possible to observe
that the shock and expansion waves are better defined, presenting smaller thickness,
which is also evidence of the improvements when increasing the number of DOFs in the
simulation. When comparing the results from Fig.\ \ref{fig.res_densc} with Fig.\
\ref{fig.res_densb}, it is possible to observe that the intensity of the shock waves
is stronger in S2 simulation than in S3, even with the larger thickness. This is in
agreement with results presented in Figs.\ \ref{fig.res_velxb} and \ref{fig.res_velxc},
in which the shock waves from S2 calculation where more visible. The quantity of shock
waves reflections in the S2 and S3 test cases are similar.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\subfloat[S1 simulation.]{
\includegraphics[trim = 0mm 30mm 0mm 50mm, clip, width=0.80\linewidth]{figs/rho_mean_s1_v2.png}
\label{fig.res_densa}
}
\newline
\subfloat[S2 simulation.]{
\includegraphics[trim = 0mm 30mm 0mm 50mm, clip, width=0.80\linewidth]{figs/rho_mean_s2_v2.png}
\label{fig.res_densb}
}
\newline
\subfloat[S3 simulation.]{
\includegraphics[trim = 0mm 30mm 0mm 50mm, clip, width=0.80\linewidth]{figs/rho_mean_s3_v2.png}
\label{fig.res_densc}
}
\newline
\caption{Contours of mean density along cutplanes in $z/D=0$ for all three simulations.}
\label{fig.res_dens}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Velocity Profiles}
One can better understand the effects of the {\it hp} refinement on the numerical solution when
comparing the results to the experimental data. Figure \ref{fig.res1_4} presents the mean
longitudinal velocity component and the RMS values of the velocity fluctuation distributions
along the jet centerline ($y/D=0$) and the jet lipline ($y/D=0.5$). Analyzing the results
presented in Fig.\ \ref{fig.res1}, the improvement in the capacity to capture flow features
when increasing the numerical resolution of the calculations is prominent. One can notice
the numerical solution progression of the mean longitudinal velocity component towards the
experimental data in Fig.\ \ref{fig.res1}. The potential core is longer in S3 than in the
other cases, which is presented in detail in Tab.\ \ref{tab.potcore}. Moreover, the most refined numerical study presents the intensity of the shock
waves and the slope of the decay of velocity comparable to the ones of the reference data.
One can observe that the profiles calculated in S2 and S3 simulation are closer than the
ones computed in S1 and S2, even with a higher ratio of degrees of freedom,
$DOF_{S3}/DOF_{S2} \approx 3.42$ and $DOF_{S2}/DOF_{S1} \approx 2.4$. The slight improvement,
even with a higher DOF ratio, can also indicate that the simulation S3 is very close to provide
the converged solution for the chosen modeling approach.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\subfloat[Centerline, mean.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.47\linewidth]{figs/fig1_t28_36_av22.png}
\label{fig.res1}
}%
\subfloat[Centerline, RMS values.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.47\linewidth]{figs/fig2_t28_36_av22.png}
\label{fig.res2}
}
\newline
\subfloat[Lipline, mean.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.47\linewidth]{figs/fig3_t28_36_av22.png}
\label{fig.res3}
}%
\subfloat[Lipline, RMS values.]{
\includegraphics[width=0.47\linewidth]{figs/fig4_t28_36_av22.png}
\label{fig.res4}
}
\caption{Results for the mean streamwise velocity component distributions (left) and RMS values of
streamwise velocity component fluctuations (right) in the jet centerline, $y/D=0$ (top), and lipline,
$y/D=0.5$ (bottom).}
\label{fig.res1_4}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\caption{Summary of potential core length for all simulations.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
Simulation & Potential core & Error to \\
& length ($x/D$) & experimental data ($\%$) \\ \hline
S1 & 6.3 & 30.0 \\
S2 & 7.8 & 13.3\\
S3 & 8.5 & 5.5\\ \hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab.potcore}
\end{table}
The results presented in Fig.\ \ref{fig.res2} agree well with the results of Fig.\ \ref{fig.res1}. The increase in the simulation resolution improves the calculation of RMS velocity fluctuation towards the experimental data.
Analyzing the results close to the jet inlet, the increase in the velocity fluctuation
occurs further upstream in S3 simulation, which is in agreement with the contours in
Figs.\ \ref{fig.res_velx} where the shock waves of S3 numerical study appear closer to jet
inlet when compared to the S2 and S1 calculations. However, even with an early increase
in the fluctuation levels in S3 computations, the slope of its profile in Fig.\
\ref{fig.res2} is smoother and closer to the reference than the one calculated in
S2 and S1 numerical studies. In the same image, S3 simulation presents two peaks of velocity
fluctuation, with the second one close to the peak indicated in the experiment. However,
its RMS fluctuations are higher than experimental data and S2 simulation solution.
The presence of small values of velocity fluctuation close to
the jet inlet could be related to imposed jet entrance boundary conditions.
Figures \ref{fig.res3} and \ref{fig.res4} illustrate the profiles of mean and RMS fluctuations of the
longitudinal velocity component along the lipline, respectively. One can notice the improvements in the
simulation resolution with S3 and S2 simulations providing mean profiles closer to the experimental one than
the results from the S1 calculation.
The mean velocity oscillations in the vicinity of the inlet jet may be correlated with
shock waves. They are also present in the experimental profile along the lipline. The S1 and
S2 simulations present an early reduction of mean velocity when comparing to the reference
profile. The most refined calculation has a mean velocity profile in good agreement with the
experimental data along the lipline. Such behavior is also noticeable along the centerline.
The calculations performed in the present paper have generated fluctuation profiles of the longitudinal
velocity fluctuation along the lipline, Fig.\ \ref{fig.res4}, that indicate a different trend from what
is stated in Figs.\ \ref{fig.res1} to \ref{fig.res3}. One can notice that, when increasing the simulation
resolution, the peak of velocity fluctuation moves towards the jet inlet, at $x/D=2.5$ for S1 simulation
and $\approx x/D=1$ for S2 and S3 calculations. This outcome is present in the contours indicated in
Fig.\ \ref{fig.res_velx}, where the initial spreading of the mixing layer in S2 and S3 simulations starts
earlier than in the S1 calculation. Such behavior is different from the experimental RMS profiles along
the lipline in which the increase in the velocity fluctuation occurs slowly before reaching a plateau
between $x/D=5$ to $x/D=15$. Using a flat hat velocity profile at the jet entrance for the numerical
calculations can explain the divergence between the fluctuations obtained from the numerical approach and
the experiments near the inlet domain. Such boundary condition neglects the turbulent boundary layer
effects carried from the nozzle to the jet flow.
\FloatBarrier
Figure \ref{fig.res5} displays different statistical properties of the flow in four streamwise positions,
$x/D = 2.5$, $x/D=5$, $x/D=10$ and $x/D=15$. Figures \ref{fig.res5a} to \ref{fig.res5d} present the mean
longitudinal velocity component, Figs.\ \ref{fig.res5e} to \ref{fig.res5h} illustrate the RMS of the
longitudinal velocity fluctuation, Figs.\ \ref{fig.res5i} to \ref{fig.res5l} introduces the RMS of the
radial velocity fluctuation, and Figs.\ \ref{fig.res5m} to \ref{fig.res5p} indicate the mean shear stress
tensor.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\subfloat[$x/D=2.5$]{
\includegraphics[trim = 30mm 0mm 30mm 0mm, clip, width=0.2\linewidth]{figs/mfig1_t28_36_av22.png}
\label{fig.res5a}
}
\subfloat[$x/D=5$]{
\includegraphics[trim = 30mm 0mm 30mm 0mm, clip, width=0.2\linewidth]{figs/mfig2_t28_36_av22.png}
\label{fig.res5b}
}
\subfloat[$x/D=10$]{
\includegraphics[trim = 30mm 0mm 30mm 0mm, clip, width=0.2\linewidth]{figs/mfig3_t28_36_av22.png}
\label{fig.res5c}
}
\subfloat[$x/D=15$]{
\includegraphics[trim = 30mm 0mm 30mm 0mm, clip, width=0.2\linewidth]{figs/mfig4_t28_36_av22.png}
\label{fig.res5d}
}
\newline
\subfloat[$x/D=2.5$]{
\includegraphics[trim = 30mm 0mm 30mm 0mm, clip, width=0.2\linewidth]{figs/mfig5_t28_36_av22.png}
\label{fig.res5e}
}
\subfloat[$x/D=5$]{
\includegraphics[trim = 30mm 0mm 30mm 0mm, clip, width=0.2\linewidth]{figs/mfig6_t28_36_av22.png}
\label{fig.res5f}
}
\subfloat[$x/D=10$]{
\includegraphics[trim = 30mm 0mm 30mm 0mm, clip, width=0.2\linewidth]{figs/mfig7_t28_36_av22.png}
\label{fig.res5g}
}
\subfloat[$x/D=15$]{
\includegraphics[trim = 30mm 0mm 30mm 0mm, clip, width=0.2\linewidth]{figs/mfig8_t28_36_av22.png}
\label{fig.res5h}
}
\newline
\subfloat[$x/D=2.5$]{
\includegraphics[trim = 30mm 0mm 30mm 0mm, clip, width=0.2\linewidth]{figs/mfig9_t28_36_av22.png}
\label{fig.res5i}
}
\subfloat[$x/D=5$]{
\includegraphics[trim = 30mm 0mm 30mm 0mm, clip, width=0.2\linewidth]{figs/mfig10_t28_36_av22.png}
\label{fig.res5j}
}
\subfloat[$x/D=10$]{
\includegraphics[trim = 30mm 0mm 30mm 0mm, clip, width=0.2\linewidth]{figs/mfig11_t28_36_av22.png}
\label{fig.res5k}
}
\subfloat[$x/D=15$]{
\includegraphics[trim = 30mm 0mm 30mm 0mm, clip, width=0.2\linewidth]{figs/mfig12_t28_36_av22.png}
\label{fig.res5l}
}
\newline
\subfloat[$x/D=2.5$]{
\includegraphics[trim = 30mm 0mm 30mm 0mm, clip, width=0.2\linewidth]{figs/mfig13_t28_36_av22.png}
\label{fig.res5m}
}
\subfloat[$x/D=5$]{
\includegraphics[trim = 30mm 0mm 30mm 0mm, clip, width=0.2\linewidth]{figs/mfig14_t28_36_av22.png}
\label{fig.res5n}
}
\subfloat[$x/D=10$]{
\includegraphics[trim = 30mm 0mm 30mm 0mm, clip, width=0.2\linewidth]{figs/mfig15_t28_36_av22.png}
\label{fig.res5o}
}
\subfloat[$x/D=15$]{
\includegraphics[trim = 30mm 0mm 30mm 0mm, clip, width=0.2\linewidth]{figs/mfig16_t28_36_av22.png}
\label{fig.res5p}
}
\newline
\caption{Profiles of mean streamwise velocity component, RMS of streamwise velocity
fluctuation, RMS of radial velocity fluctuation, and mean shear-stress tensor
component (from top to bottom) at four streamwise positions $x/D=2.5$, $x/D=5$, $x/D=10$ and
$x/D=15$ (from left to right).}
\label{fig.res5}
\end{figure}
The first set of results, in Figs.\ \ref{fig.res5a} to \ref{fig.res5d}, explicit some aspects of the
numerical results not investigated by the comparison of 2-D field of properties. In the first
longitudinal position, Fig.\ \ref{fig.res5a}, S1 calculations generated mean profiles that are in
better agreement with the experimental data than the ones from S2 and S3 numerical studies, which
indicate a larger spreading of velocity at this position. The early development of the mixing layer
from S2 and S3 simulations reinforces the influence of the choice of boundary conditions imposed.
Analyzing the profiles from downstream positions, Figs.\ \ref{fig.res5b} to \ref{fig.res5d}, it is
possible to verify the large spreading of velocity from the S1 simulation, with a reduction of
longitudinal velocity in the jet centerline when compared to the other numerical solutions.
Calculations with higher resolution can better capture the experimental trends, with the simulation
S3 getting closer to experimental data.
The profiles of RMS values of streamwise velocity fluctuation are indicated in Figs.\ \ref{fig.res5e} to
\ref{fig.res5h}. The numerical results at $x/D=2.5$ present a similar profile to the one from the
reference. However, the peaks generated by the calculations are higher than the experimental ones,
with the results from the S3 simulation being the closest to experimental data. The same conclusion
can be drawn for $x/D=5.0$, Fig.\ \ref{fig.res5f}. In Figs.\ \ref{fig.res5g} and \ref{fig.res5h},
the all numerical results present a shape similar to experimental data, with a nearly constant value
of velocity fluctuation. In Fig.\ \ref{fig.res5g} the experimental data still present a small level
of fluctuation close to the centerline, which is not seen in the numerical profiles.
Profiles of RMS values of radial velocity component fluctuation are presented in Figs.\ \ref{fig.res5i}
to \ref{fig.res5l}. In the first two longitudinal positions, Figs.\ \ref{fig.res5i} and \ref{fig.res5j},
the numerical results present a larger peak of fluctuation than the one from the experimental data, with
the profiles from the S3 simulation getting closer to reference. In Figs.\ \ref{fig.res5k} and
\ref{fig.res5l} the RMS profiles from the calculations are very similar, with the centerline of the
experimental data presenting small values of fluctuation in Fig.\ \ref{fig.res5k}.
Mean shear-stress tensor component profiles are presented in Figs.\ \ref{fig.res5m} to \ref{fig.res5p}.
In the first two positions, $x/D=0.5$ and $x/D=2.5$, the peak of the shear-stress tensor from numerical
calculations is larger than the experimental one. Moreover, the peak region is wider than the one
observed in the experiments. In Fig.\ \ref{fig.res5n} the peaks are still larger than those observed
in the reference. The differences between the simulations are smaller and closer to experimental data.
However, the region of the peaks is still wider than the one visualized in the experimental data. In
Figs.\ \ref{fig.res5o} and \ref{fig.res5p}, the differences between numerical results and the
experimental data are reduced, and once more, all profiles are nearly matching.
\subsection{Summary of Discussions}
Results from the S2 simulation present significant improvements when compared to the solution from
the S1 calculation. The increase in polynomial order of accuracy in the S3 study brings the results to
a good agreement with the reference experimental data.
The most significant point that does not present improvements when increasing the discretization resolution is related to the mean and fluctuating longitudinal velocity close to jet lipline, Figs.\ \ref{fig.res3} and\ref{fig.res4}. Grid refinement yields a velocity fluctuation peak that occurs closer to the jet inlet when compared to the experimental data. This behavior may be related to the hypothesis used to impose the inlet boundary condition, which neglects the effects of the jet boundary layer and leads to a not realistic turbulence transition in the vicinity of the nozzle.
The current work provides intel on the resolution requirements to perform large-eddy simulations of
supersonic jet flows. The next step concerns the exploration of alternatives to improve the jet
simulation in the lipline close to the jet inlet condition. A solution to improve the simulation
in this region is a better characterization of the flow leaving the nozzle. The choice of a uniform
velocity profile is preliminary, and it does not represent the physics of the flow. The continuity of
the work will focus on options to produce an experiment-like condition in the jet inlet condition.
\FloatBarrier
\section{Concluding Remarks}
The current work assesses the effects of mesh and polynomial ({\em hp}) refinement using a nodal
discontinuous Galerkin methodology to evaluate the resolution requirements for large eddy simulations
of compressible jet flows. The problem of interest is a perfectly expanded supersonic jet flow with
a Mach number of $1.4$ and Reynolds number based on the jet exit diameter of $1.58 \times 10^6$.
Initially, a mesh with $6.2 \times 10^6$ elements is used with interpolation polynomials that yield
second-order spatial accuracy, in order to produce a starting point for the comparisons. Such
calculations use, therefore, the equivalent to approximately $50 \times 10^6$ degrees of freedom
(DOFs)\@. Afterwards, a new mesh is developed with some topological improvements and additional
refinement, leading to $15.4 \times 10^6$ elements. The new mesh is applied in simulations using
second-order and third-order spatial accuracy, resulting in $120 \times 10^6$ and
$410 \times 10^6$ DOFs, respectively. The results for the simulations are compared to experimental data.
The paper initially investigates the contours of mean velocity, mean pressure, and velocity
fluctuations. The comparison indicates that the mesh/polynomial refinement improves the jet
calculations by enhancing the prediction of the mixing layer and of the series of shock and
expansion waves in the jet core. Therefore, as one should expect, more refined computations
lead to an improved ability to predict flow features, as one can see in the present paper by
the comparison of the numerical solutions and the experimental data.
Therefore, it is correct to state that the present paper indicates mesh and discretization
parameters for LES-based calculations, using a nodal discontinuous Galerkin formulation, that
provide supersonic jet flow results in good agreement with experiments.
One important aspect that becomes clear in the present calculation results is that the jet inlet
boundary condition, used in the current work, has a significant impact on the ability of representing
the very early stages of jet mixing. In particular, this observation becomes evident by looking at
the behavior of RMS values of fluctuating properties near the jet exit, along the jet lipline.
All three simulations have failed to capture the correct mixing behavior, as evidenced by the
comparison with the experimental data. Moreover, the increased numerical resolution, although providing
much better comparisons for the overall solution, does not improve the behavior of fluctuating
properties near the jet exit. Hence, the continuation of the present effort will address possible
improvements in the jet inlet boundary conditions.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The authors acknowledge the support for the present research provided by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient\'{\i}fico e Tecnol\'{o}gico, CNPq, under the Research Grant No.\ 309985/2013-7\@. The work is also supported by the computational resources from the Center for Mathematical Sciences Applied to Industry, CeMEAI, funded by Funda\c{c}\~{a}o de Amparo \`{a} Pesquisa do Estado de S\~{a}o Paulo, FAPESP, under the Research Grant No.\ 2013/07375-0\@. The authors further acknowledge the National Laboratory for Scientific Computing (LNCC/MCTI, Brazil) for providing HPC resources of the SDumont supercomputer. This work was also granted access to the HPC resources of IDRIS under the allocation 2021-A0112A12067 made by GENCI. The first author acknowledges authorization by his employer, Embraer S.A., which has allowed his participation in the present research effort. The doctoral scholarship provide by FAPESP to the third author, under the Research Grant No.\ 2018/05524-1, is thankfully acknowledged. Additional support to the fourth author under the FAPESP Research Grant No.\ 2013/07375-0 is also gratefully acknowledged.
|
\section{Supplementary Materials}
\subsection{Samples}
The sample we studied is made from a GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructure wafer
grown by molecular beam epitaxy. A 70 nm-wide GaAs quantum well is
bound by AlGaAs spacer-layers and $\delta$-doped layers on each side,
and locates $h \simeq$ 960 nm below the sample surface. The as-grown
density of the 2DES is $n\simeq4.4\times10^{10}$ cm$^{-2}$, and its
mobility at 300 mK is $\mu\simeq $ 17 $\times10^6$
cm$^2$/(V$\cdot$s). Our sample is a 2 mm $\times$ 2 mm square piece
with four In/Sn contacts at each corner. The contacts are grounded through a resistor to avoid signal leaking. We evaporate concentric,
Au/Ti front gate pair G1 and G2 using standard lift-off process, whose
outer and inner radius is $r_1$ and $r_2$, respectively. We deposit a
20 nm thick Al$_2$O$_3$ layer between the two gates to prevent them
from shorting with each other. The four outer-gates are merged into one piece so that
the area of the outer gate G2 is much larger than the inner gate G1.
\subsection{Capacitance Measurement Setup}
\begin{figure*}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{fig_s1v5}
\caption{(color online)
(a) Circuit diagram of measurement bridge with 50
$\Omega$ impedance match networks.
(b) The $V_{\text{X}}$ and $V_{\text{Y}}$ from a typical ``V-curve'' procedure. $C$ is about 0.25 pF from the balance condition Eq. (5).
(c) The calibration results, by measuring
commercial capacitors with different frequencies.
}
\end{figure*}
The capacitance and conductance response is measured with a cryogenic
bridge similar to refs. \cite{Zhao.RSI.2022, Zhao.CPL.2022}.
The kernel of the bridge consists four devices, $R_{\text{h}}$,
$R_{\text{r}}$, $C_{\text{r}}$ and $C$, as shown in Fig. S1(a). $C$ is
the capacitance of sample. We change the value of $R_{\text{h}}$ to
reach the balance condition
\begin{equation}
\frac{C}{C_{\text{r}}}=\frac{R_{\text{h}}}{R_{\text{r}}}.
\end{equation}
The bridge output $V_{\text{out}}$ is minimum at the balance
condition, from which we calculate the $C$. This is the so-call
``V-curve'' procedure, see refs. \cite{Zhao.RSI.2022, Zhao.CPL.2022}
for more information.
In order to expand the allowed bandwidth of the excitation frequency,
we add an impedance match network to the input of the bridge, shown as
the Fig. S1(a). $V_{\text{ext}}$ is the signal source with 50 $\Omega$
output impedance. $V_{\text{ext}}$ drives a signal splitter box (the
red dashed box) located at the top of the dilution refrigerator
through a $\sim$2 m-long semi-rigid coaxial cable. The box input is a
1:5 transformer in series with a 50 $\Omega$ resistor. The transformer
output drives two serial connected 50 $\Omega$ resistors
differentially. The differential signals are transmitted to the
cryogenic sample holder (the blue dotted box) by two rigid coaxial
cables of $\sim$2 m length. Another pair of impedance matching 50
$\Omega$ resistors are added at the input of the cryogenic bridge, and
the 360 $\Omega$ resistors are chosen by balancing the competition
between the performance and heating. The characteristic impedance of all coaxial cables in the work is 50 $\Omega$.
The low-frequency signals $V_{\text{quasi-DC1}}$ and
$V_{\text{quasi-DC2}}$ used to measure the value of $R_{\text{h}}$ and
$R_{\text{r}}$, respectively. The 0.1 $\mu$F capacitors are used to
separate the high-frequency excitation signals and the quasi-DC
signal.
The output $V_{\text{out}}$ is approximately
\begin{equation}
V_{\text{out}} \propto S \cdot (\frac{R_{\text{h}}}{360+R_{\text{h}}}-\frac{C}{C_{\text{r}}} \cdot \frac{R_{\text{r}}}{360+R_{\text{r}}}) \cdot V_{\text{ext}}.
\end{equation}
$S$ can be obtain from the ``V-curve'' procedure by linear fitting the $V_{\text{X}}$ vs. $R_{\text{h}}/(360+R_{\text{h}})$, as shown in Fig. S1(b). $V_{\text{X}}$ and $V_{\text{Y}}$ are the orthogonal component of $V_{\text{out}}$,
\begin{numcases}{}
V_{\text{X}}=|V_{\text{out}}|\cdot \cos(\theta),\\
V_{\text{Y}}=|V_{\text{out}}|\cdot \sin(\theta),
\end{numcases}
where $\theta$ is the phase of $V_{\text{out}}$. We can derive the
value of $C$ using Eq. (2) and (3). The new balance condition of the
revised bridge is
\begin{equation}
\frac{C}{C_{\text{r}}}=\frac{R_{\text{h}}}{R_{\text{r}}} \cdot\frac{360+R_{\text{r}}}{360+R_{\text{h}}},
\end{equation}
where the $V_{\text{X}}=0$.
Note that the capacitance $C$ and the conductance $G$ of sample lead to the orthogonal component $V_{\text{X}}$ and $V_{\text{Y}}$, respectively. Therefore, the $G$ can be obtained from Eq. (2) and (4) by replacing $C/{C_{\text{r}}}$ with $G/2\pi f {C_{\text{r}}}$, where $f$ is the excitation frequency.
Fig. S1(c) shows our calibration measurement using
different excitation frequencies. The data is almost flat from 7 to
$\sim$100 MHz. The measured capacitance begins to
decline slowly above $\sim$100 MHz, possibly due to the parasitic inductance of bonding wires.
\end{document}
|
\section{Plasma properties and correlation functions}\label{sec0}
Plasmas consist of charged particles, number $N_i$ of species $i$ in the volume $\Omega$, which interact via the Coulomb law. If we denote the charge of the component $i$ by $Z_ie$, we obtain ($\epsilon_0$ is the permittivity of the vacuum)
\begin{equation}
V^{\rm Coul}_{ij}(r) = \frac{Z_iZ_j e^2}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 r}.
\end{equation}
In general, an additional short-range interaction may occur. Examples are the homogeneous electron gas (uniform electron gas UEG), where the electrons move over a positively charged background to realize charge neutrality, or the two-component Hydrogen plasma, consisting of electrons and protons, where the particle density is $n_e=n_p$ to maintain charge neutrality. In thermodynamic equilibrium, the state of the plasma is determined by the temperature $T$ in addition to the densities $n_i=N_i/\Omega$ of the components or the corresponding chemical potentials $\mu_i$. The relationships between the various state variables such as internal energy $U$, free energy $F$, entropy $S$, pressure $P$, etc. are called equations of state (EoS). All thermodynamic properties can be derived from a thermodynamic potential, for example is $F(\Omega, N_i,T)$ as function of $\Omega, N_i,T$ a thermodynamic potential.
Statistical physics allows to calculate the thermodynamic properties from the microscopic properties, i.e. from the Hamiltonian $H=H_{\rm kin} + V$, with kinetic energy $H_{\rm kin}=\sum_i \sum_k^{N_i} p_{i,k}^2/2 m_i$ and potential energy $V=(1/2) \sum_{i,k \neq j,l} V({\bf r}_{i,k}-{\bf r}_{j,l})$.
To calculate physical quantities, various expressions can be used. For example, for classical systems we can start from the well-known partition function $Z_{\rm can}(\Omega, N_i,T)$ with $F(\Omega, N_i,T)=-k_BT \ln Z_{\rm can}(\Omega, N_i,T)$.
For quantum systems, it is convenient to work with the grand canonical ensemble defined by $\beta=1/k_BT$ and the chemical potentials $\mu_i$.
Then the single-particle distribution functions for the ideal quantum system ($V=0$) have a simple form, the Fermi or Bose distribution.
In second quantization, we introduce $a^+_{i,k},a_{i,k}$ as a creation or annihilation operator for particles of species $i$ in the quantum state $k=\{\hbar {\bf k}, \sigma\}$, which denotes momentum vector and spin.
The occupation number of this quantum state is given as
\begin{equation}
\label{fik}
f_{i,k} = \langle a^+_{i,k}a_{i,k} \rangle = \frac{1}{Z_{\rm gr.can}}
{\rm Tr} \left\{e^{-\beta (H-\sum_i \mu_i N_i)}a^+_{i,k}a_{i,k}\right\},\qquad Z_{\rm gr.can}= {\rm Tr} e^{-\beta (H-\sum_i \mu_i N_i)}
\end{equation}
with $H$ as the Hamiltonian in second quantization and $N_i=\sum_k a^+_{i,k}a_{i,k}$. The relation between the densities and the chemical potentials is given as follows.
\begin{equation}
\label{simpleEOS}
n_i(T,\{\mu_j\})=\frac{1}{\Omega}\langle N_i \rangle =\frac{1}{\Omega}\sum_k f_{i,k}.
\end{equation}
It is convenient to introduce a $\tau$-dependent correlation function as a generalization of (\ref{fik}) that contains dynamic information,
\begin{equation}
\label{specdens}
\langle a^+_{j,l}e^{\tau (H-\sum_i \mu_i N_i)} a_{i,k}e^{-\tau (H-\sum_i \mu_i N_i)} \rangle =\int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{d \omega}{2 \pi}e^{-\omega \tau}I_{ik,jl}(\omega).
\end{equation}
The spectral density $I_{ik,jl}(\omega)$ is related to the spectral function $A_{ik,jl}(\omega)=(1 + e^{\beta \omega})I_{ik,jl}(\omega)$ (Fermi statistics).
An exact expression for the EoS is found if the spectral function is known,
\begin{equation}
\label{EOS}
n_i(T,\{\mu_j\})=\frac{1}{\Omega}\sum_k \int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{d \omega}{2 \pi}\frac{1}{e^{\beta \omega}+1} A_{ik,ik}(\omega).
\end{equation}
The spectral function which is diagonal with respect to $\{i,k\}$ for a homogeneous system,
is related to the self-energy $\Sigma_{i,k}(z)$ for which a systematic evaluation applying diagram techniques is possible, see \cite{FW,GRBuch}:
\begin{equation}
\label{spectral}
A_{ik}(\omega) = \frac{2 {\rm Im}\Sigma_{i,k}(\omega-i0)}{[\omega - \epsilon_{i,k}- {\rm Re} \Sigma_{i,k}(\omega)]^2 +
[{\rm Im}\Sigma_{i,k}(\omega-i0)]^2 }\,,
\end{equation}
$ \epsilon_{i,k}=\hbar^2k^2/2m_i-\mu_i$ is the kinetic energy shifted by the chemical potential.
The electrical conductivity $\sigma(T,n)$ of low-density plasmas was first calculated in the framework of kinetic theory.
In a seminal work~\cite{Spitzer53}, Spitzer and H{\"a}rm determined $\sigma$ of the fully ionized Hydrogen plasma by solving a Fokker-Planck equation.
To calculate $\sigma (T,n)$ in a wide range of temperature $T$ and particle density $n$, a quantum statistical many-particle theory is needed that describes screening, correlations, and degeneracy effects in a systematic way.
A generalized linear response theory~\cite{Roep88,RR89,Redmer97} has been elaborated that expresses transport coefficients in terms of equilibrium correlation functions (fluctuation-dissipation theorems).
An example is the Kubo formula~\cite{Kubo66} which relates the transport coefficient $\sigma$ to the electron current-current correlation function,
\begin{equation}
\sigma(T,n)=\frac{e^2}{m^2_e k_BT \Omega}\langle P;P \rangle_{i \epsilon}
\label{Kubo}
\end{equation}
with the total momentum of the electrons $P=\sum_k \hbar k_x a^+_{e,k} a_{e,k}$ in $x$ direction (the small ion contribution to the electrical current may be added).
The thermodynamic correlation function is the Laplace transform of the Kubo scalar product (the particle number is assumed to commute with the observables),
\begin{equation}
\label{Laplace}
\langle A;B \rangle_z=
\int\limits_0^{\infty}d t\, e^{i zt}\frac{1}{\beta}\int\limits_0^\beta d \tau \langle e^{(i/\hbar)(t-i\hbar \tau)H} A e^{-(i/\hbar)(t-i\hbar \tau)H} B\rangle\,.
\end{equation}
For more details on generalized linear response theory and the evaluation of correlation functions using the method of thermodynamic Green's functions, see \cite{GRBuch}.
For the relationship between generalized linear response theory and kinetic theory, see~\cite{Reinholz12} and references therein.
\section{Evaluation of correlation functions}\label{sec1}
The properties of plasmas are expressed in terms of correlation functions in thermodynamic equilibrium. Examples are thermodynamic properties (\ref{fik}) and transport properties (\ref{Kubo}).
There are several methods to calculate these correlation functions.
Exact solutions are known only for ideal quantum gases where there is no interaction potential $V$. The equations of state are known, e.g., the pressure $P$ is expressed by Fermi integrals.
At fixed temperature, the equation of state for ideal classical gases $P=n k_BT$ is approximated by considering the limiting case of low density.
For electrical conductivity, $\sigma=\infty$ is obtained because of conservation of total momentum. The resistivity follows as $\rho=1/\sigma=0$ for charged ideal Fermi gases.
Correlations appear for the plasma Hamiltonian with complete interaction $V$. No closed-form solutions are known, and we must perform approximations to solve this many-body problem.
Here we discuss three possibilities:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Perturbation expansion with respect to $V$. We obtain analytic expressions for arbitrary orders of $V$ in terms of noninteracting equilibrium correlation functions,
which can be easily evaluated using Wick's theorem. However, we have no proof of the convergence of this series expansion and no error estimate.
In order to make this analytical approach more efficient, the method of thermodynamic Green's functions and Feynman diagram technique
were elaborated \cite{FW,GRBuch,KKER}.
Convergence is improved by performing partial summations corresponding to special concepts such as the introduction of the quasiparticle picture (self-energy $\Sigma$),
screening of the potential (polarization function $\Pi$), or formation of bound states (Bethe-Salpeter equation).
This leads to useful results for the properties of the plasma in a wide range of $T$ and $n$.
However, as characteristic for perturbative approaches, exact results can be found only in some limiting cases.
\item
This drawback is eliminated by numerical simulations of the correlation functions that apply to arbitrary interaction strength.
In Born-Oppenheimer approximation, density functional theory (DFT) for the electron system with given ion configuration and molecular dynamics (MD) for the ion system are applied to evaluate the correlation functions.
Single-electron states are calculated by solving the Kohn-Sham equations. The total energy is obtained from the kinetic energy of a non-interacting reference system, the classical electron-electron interaction, and an exchange-correlation energy that includes, to a certain approximation, all unknown contributions.
The DFT-MD approach has been successfully applied to calculate the thermodynamic properties of complex materials in a wide range of $T$ and $n$, which will not be reported here, see, e.g., \cite{Lorenzen10,Wang13,Bonitz20,Tirelli22} and the references given there.
For electrical conductivity (\ref{Kubo}), the Kubo-Greenwood formula \cite{Kubo66,Greenwood}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:KG}
\operatorname{Re} \left[\sigma (\omega)\right] = \frac{2 \pi e^2}{3 m_e^2 \omega \Omega} \sum_k w_k \sum_{j=1}^N \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{\alpha=1}^3
\big[ f(\epsilon_{j,k})- f(\epsilon_{i,k}) \big] |\langle{\Psi_{j,k}| \hat{p}_\alpha | \Psi_{i, k}}\rangle|^2 \delta(\epsilon_{i,k} -\epsilon_{j,k} - \hbar\omega )
\end{equation}
was used to calculate the frequency-dependent dynamic electrical conductivity $\sigma(\omega)$ in the long-wavelength limit~\cite{Desjarlais02,Mazevet05,Holst11,French2017,Gajdos2006,RSRB21}. Kohn-Sham wave functions $\Psi_{i,k}$ from density functional theory calculations are used to calculate the transition matrix elements of the momentum operator $\hat{p}_\alpha$. The Fermi-Dirac distribution $f(\epsilon)$ accounts for the average occupation at energy $\epsilon$, and the summation over momentum space $k$ contains the $k$-point weights $w_k$.
Due to the finite size of the simulation box, the delta function in equation~\eqref{eq:KG} must be approximated by a finite-width Gaussian, which also prevents the direct calculation of the dc conductivity at $\omega = 0$. Therefore, the dynamic conductivity is extrapolated to the limit $\omega \rightarrow 0$ by a Drude fit,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Drude}
\operatorname{Re} \left[\sigma (\omega)\right] = \frac{ne^2 \nu}{\nu^2 + \omega^2},
\end{equation}
where $\nu$ is the collision frequency. Thus, the calculated direct current conductivity depends on choosing the appropriate width for the Gaussian and finding a suitable range for the Drude-fitting to $\sigma(\omega)$ calculated from equation~(\ref{eq:KG}). The last point can be improved by using a frequency-dependent collision frequency \cite{Heidi}.
One of the main shortcomings of the DFT-MD approach is that the many-particle interaction is replaced by a mean-field potential. When using product wave functions for the many-electron system, correlations are excluded. The exchange-correlation energy density functional reflects the Coulomb interaction to some approximation, e.g., as it exists in the homogeneous electron gas,
but becomes problematic in the low-density limit where correlations are important.
\item
In principle, an accurate evaluation of equilibrium correlation functions is possible using path-integral Monte Carlo (PIMC) simulations, see~\cite{Dornheim2018,PIMC1,PIMC2} and references therein.
The shortcomings of this approach at present are the relatively small number of particles (a few dozen), the sign problem for fermions, and the computational challenges in accurately computing path integrals.
Instead of using an exchange-correlation energy density functional, $e-e$ collisions are treated accurately. However, at present accurate calculations have only been performed for the uniform electron gas model in which the charge-compensating ion subsystem is replaced by a homogeneously charged jellium. The results presented in \cite{TD} are shown below in sec. \ref{sec:4}.
High-precision calculations for the two-component Hydrogen plasma would be of interest for both thermodynamics and transport properties.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Green's functions and Feynman diagrams}\label{sec2}
In quantum statistics, the method of thermodynamic Green's functions has been worked out to evaluate correlation functions in thermodynamic equilibrium.
For the ideal quantum gas, in which there is no interaction, all equilibrium correlation functions can be calculated using Wick's theorem.
For plasmas, we can perform a power series expansion with respect to the interaction strength according to the Dyson series.
The terms of this perturbation expansion are represented by Feynman diagrams.
The problem of the perturbation expansion is that the convergence property remains open, and we cannot anticipate that for the correlation functions a power series expansion with respect to the interaction strength is possible.
A predetermined wrong analytical behavior near the singular case of ideal gases leads to divergencies which are avoided performing partial summations that can modify the analytic behavior.
The most important partial summations are the quasiparticle concept associated with the introduction of the self-energy, the screening associated with the introduction of the polarization function, and the introduction of bound states
performing partial summation of ladder diagrams. For instance, the Bethe-Salpeter equation for the two-particle Green function in ladder approximation corresponds to the solution of the two-body problem.
From classical statistics, the Mayer cluster expansion is well known for short-range potentials is well known for the partition function, and the virial expansion in powers in $n$ is obtained.
Because of the long-range nature of the Coulomb potential, this expansion in powers in $n$ is not possible for plasmas, the virial coefficients are divergent.
Screening, i.e. partial summation of the so-called ring diagrams in quantum statistics, solves this convergence problem, and the expansion in powers of $n^{1/2}$ is possible.
When considering the spectral function, the contribution of the free particles is replaced by the contribution of the quasiparticles, with the energies containing the Debye shift.
To obtain the thermodynamic potentials $F$ or $P\Omega$ from the equation of state (\ref{EOS}) we must perform integration over $\mu$ or $n$, respectively,
and logarithmic terms may appear. In particular, for the free energy of the Hydrogen plasma, the virial expansion reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Fvir}
&&F(T,\Omega,N)=\Omega k_BT \left\{n \ln n + [3/2\ln(2 \pi \hbar^2/(m k_BT))-1] n
\right.
\nonumber \\ &&\left.-F_0(T)n^{3/2}-F_1(T)n^2 \ln n-F_2(T) n^2
-F_3(T)n^{5/2} \ln n-F_4(T) n^{5/2}+{\cal O}(n^3\ln n)\right\}.
\end{eqnarray}
see \cite{KKER,TD} where expressions for the lowest virial coefficients $F_i$ are also given. Details on the calculation of the EoS for Coulomb systems can be found in Ref. \cite{KKER} and will not be repeated here.
The virial expansion for the uniform electron gas is discussed below in Sec. \ref{sec:4}.
Perturbation expansion and partial summations also apply to the evaluation of the correlation function (\ref{Kubo}) which is related to the electrical conductivity.
In the lowest order of perturbation theory, where interactions are neglected, the total momentum of the electrons is conserved.
As a consequence, the expression (\ref{Kubo}) becomes divergent, the ideal plasma shows no finite value for the conductivity.
Partial summations, in particular the self-energy and vertex corrections, lead to finite values for the conductivity, see \cite{Rcond2018}.
Analytical evaluation of the Kubo formula remains difficult and cumbersome.
In contrast, it is possible to perform a virial expansion for the inverse conductivity $R=1/\sigma$, expressed as a correlation function of the stochastic forces \cite{Rcond2018}.
A generalized linear response theory was worked out that takes into account correlation functions of higher moments of the occupation number distribution \cite{Roep88}.
In this way the relation to the kinetic theory was shown \cite{Heidi}.
These correlation functions are also treated by the methods of Green functions, Feynman diagram techniques and partial summations, so that virial expansions can be carried out.
The dc conductivity $\sigma(n,T)$ is usually associated with a dimensionless function $\sigma^*(n,T)$ according to
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma(n,T) &=& \frac{(k_BT)^{3/2} (4\pi\epsilon_0)^2}{m_e^{1/2} e^2}\;\sigma^*(n,T).
\label{eq:1}
\end{eqnarray}
We consider both $\sigma$ and $\sigma^*$ as a function of density $n$ at {\it fixed} temperature $T$. In the limiting case of low density, the following virial expansion for the inverse conductivity $\rho^*(n,T)=1/\sigma^*(n,T)$ was obtained from kinetic theory and generalized linear response theory~\cite{Roep88,RR89,Redmer97}:
\begin{equation}
\rho^*(n,T) = \rho_1(T) \ln\frac{1}{n} + \rho_2(T) + \rho_3(T)\,n^{1/2}\,\ln\frac{1}{n} + {\cal O}(n^{1/2}),
\label{eq:5}
\end{equation}
which begins with a logarithmic term. Values for the virial coefficients $\rho_i(T)$ are given below in Sec. \ref{sec:5}.
\section{Virial plots}\label{sec3}
Equilibrium properties, such as the correlation functions considered here, depend on a limited number of state variables.
For the Hydrogen plasma, this are the temperature $T$ and the electron number density $n$
(for charge neutral plasmas, the ion (proton) number density is also $n$).
For the uniform electron gas, we have the same variables. Instead of the ion subsystem a homogeneously charged background (jellium model)
is considered
to establish charge neutrality.
In the case of a many-component plasma, the independent partial densities $n_i$ (not connected by chemical reactions and charge neutrality) of the components are the state variables in addition to $T$.
We focus here on the two simple cases where the state variables are $T,n$, and we study the correlation energy $\bar V(T,n)$ of the uniform electron gas
and the electrical conductivity $\sigma(T,n)$ of the Hydrogen plasma, in particular the resistivity $R(T,n)=1/\sigma(T,n)$.
It is convenient to introduce dimensionless variables instead of $T,n$.
We use atomic units with the Hartree energy
\begin{equation}
E_{\rm Ha}=\left(\frac{e^2}{4 \pi \epsilon_0}\right)^2 \frac{m}{\hbar^2}=27,21137\,{\rm eV} =2\, {\rm Ry}
\end{equation}
and the Bohr radius
\begin{equation}
a_B=\frac{4 \pi \epsilon_0}{e^2} \frac{\hbar^2}{m}=5.2918 \times 10^{-11}\,{\rm m}.
\end{equation}
The density in atomic units is usually represented by the radius of a sphere containing an electron,
\begin{equation}
r_s= \left(\frac{3}{4 \pi n}\right)^{1/3}\frac{1}{a_B}.
\end{equation}
The temperature is related to the energy $k_BT$, so that 1~eV corresponds to 11604.6~K.
We denote $T_{\rm eV}$ as $k_BT$ measured in units of eV, $T_{\rm Ha}$ in units of $E_{\rm Ha}$, and $T_{\rm Ry}$ in units of Ry so that
\begin{equation}
T_{\rm Ha}=\frac{k_BT}{E_{\rm Ha}}= 2 T_{\rm Ry}=27,21137\, T_{\rm eV}.
\end{equation}
Another well-known choice of dimensionless parameters is
\begin{equation}
\Gamma = \frac{e^2}{4\pi\epsilon_0 k_BT} \left(\frac{4\pi}{3} n \right)^{1/3},\qquad \Theta=\frac{2mk_BT}{\hbar^2}(3 \pi^2 n)^{-2/3}.
\end{equation}
The plasma parameter $\Gamma$ characterises the ratio of potential to kinetic energy in the non-degenerate case,
and the electron degeneracy parameter $\Theta$ characterises the range in which the electrons are degenerate.
Different sets of dimensionless parameters are related.
Thus, PIMC calculations for specific parameter values of $r_s, \Theta$ are discussed in the following section,
the corresponding plasma parameters $n,T$ are determined as follows,
\begin{equation}
n= \frac{3}{4 \pi}\frac{1}{(r_sa_B)^3},\qquad k_BT=E_{\rm Ha}\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{9 \pi}{4}\right)^{2/3} \frac{\Theta}{r_s^2}
\end{equation}
with $E_{\rm Ha}/k_B= 315777.1$ K.
The dc conductivity $\sigma(n,T)$ is also associated with a dimensionless function
$\sigma^*(n,T)$ according to
\begin{equation}
\sigma(n,T) = \frac{(k_BT)^{3/2} (4 \pi \epsilon_0 )^2}{m_e^{1/2} e^2}\;\sigma^* =
0.0258883\,\, T^{3/2}\;\sigma^* (\Omega {\rm m\,\,K}^{3/2})^{-1} =
32405.4\,\, T_{\rm eV}^{3/2}\;\sigma^* (\Omega {\rm m})^{-1}\,.
\end{equation}
As with thermodynamic relations, the dimensionless conductivity $\sigma^*$ can be expressed as a function of dimensionless
variables $r_s, T_{\rm Ha}$ or $\Gamma,\Theta$. These functions are now to be specified.
Exact results are currently known only for limiting cases, in particular virial expansions.
The analysis of a virial expansion is sometimes not easy because trivial terms dominate in limiting cases so that interesting terms remain hidden.
In the example of the thermodynamic EoS considered in Sec. \ref{sec:4}, one dominant term is the Debye shift, which covers the contribution of higher virial coefficients.
We introduce reduced virial expansions where these exactly known contributions are suppressed,
and quantities are introduced that anticipate a linear relationship in special cases.
The virial plot is the representation of this asymptotic linear relationship and allows us to extrapolate virial coefficients from simulations.
We demonstrate this procedure for two cases, the mean potential energy of the uniform electron gas in Sec. \ref{sec:4} and the electrical conductivity
of the Hydrogen plasma in Sec. \ref{sec:5}.
If we express $\sigma^*(n,T)$ in terms of dimensionless parameters $\Gamma,\Theta$ and
use the Born parameter $\Gamma/\Theta$, which is of interest in the range $k_BT \gg 1$ Ry,
from Eq. (\ref{eq:5}) we obtain a modified virial expansion where the argument of the logarithm is dimensionless,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\frac{1}{\sigma^*(\Gamma,\Theta)} = \rho^*(\Gamma, \Theta)= \tilde \rho_1(\Gamma^2 \Theta)\ln\left(\frac{\Theta}{\Gamma}\right) +
\tilde \rho_2(\Gamma^2 \Theta)+\dots\,,\nonumber \\
&&\Gamma^2 \Theta=\frac{2^{7/3}}{3^{4/3}\pi^{3/3}} \frac{1}{T_{\rm Ha}},\qquad
\frac{\Theta}{\Gamma}=\frac{2^{1/3}}{3^{1/3}\pi^{5/3}} \frac{T^2_{\rm Ha}}{n a_B^3}
\label{eq:5a}
\end{eqnarray}
We define the reduced effective virial coefficient $\tilde\rho^{\rm eff}_2(T)$ according to
\begin{equation}
\tilde\rho^{\rm eff}_2(n,T) = \frac{32405.4}{\sigma (n,T) [\Omega {\rm m}]} T_{\rm eV}^{3/2}
- \tilde \rho_1(T) \,\, \ln\left(\frac{\Theta}{\Gamma}\right),
\label{rho2eff1}
\end{equation}
with $\lim_{n \to 0}\tilde\rho^{\rm eff}_2(n,T)=\tilde\rho_2(T)$, see also Eq.~(\ref{rho2eff}) below. The plot of $ \rho^*/\ln(\Theta/\Gamma)$ as a function of $x=1/\ln(\Theta/\Gamma)$ at given $T$ is called a virial plot. It directly allows the determination the virial coefficients $\rho_1(T), \rho_2(T)$, as it is shown in Sec. \ref{sec:5}.
As will be demonstrated in this work, virial plots are very sensitive to diverse approaches, including the results of numerical simulations,
in the low density domain. Since trivial dominant terms, which are known exactly, are suppressed, they have no effects due to possible approximations,
and the extrapolation of numerical simulations into the low-density domain becomes immediately possible.
\section{Virial expansion of the EoS of the UEG, comparison with PIMC simulations}\label{sec:4}
The problem of the second virial coefficient for the mean correlation energy $\bar V$ was considered in a recent work \cite{TD}.
There was a controversy about the high-temperature limit of the second virial coefficient, i.e. the term $\propto 1/\sqrt{T}$ \cite{KKR15}.
This controversy disappears in charge-neutral two-component plasmas, but not in the uniform electron gas (UEG), where interacting electrons
are moving in front of a positively charged jellium-like background to neutralize the Coulomb field at large distances. Accurate PIMC simulations have been available
at low densities and high temperatures \cite{TD}, so that it was possible to confirm the correct limiting behavior.
In this section, we not only show the virial plot method to confirm the correct limiting law, but consider the full second virial coefficient and discuss deviations
from this expansion.
The virial expansion of the free energy $F(T,\Omega,N) $ of the UEG is obtained from the general formula for a multi-component plasma given in \cite{KKER,TD}.
The mean potential energy $V$ is determined by
\begin{equation}
V(T,\Omega,N)=e^2 \frac{\partial}{\partial (e^2)} F(T,\Omega,N)
\end{equation}
(for the relation to the internal energy see \cite{Kraeft02}).
From the virial expansion of $F(T,\Omega,N) $, we get the following virial expansion of $V$
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\frac{V}{Nk_BT}=-\frac{\kappa^3}{8 \pi n}- \pi n\lambda^3 \tau^3 \ln(\kappa\lambda)\nonumber \\
&&-\pi n \lambda^3\left[\frac{\tau}{2}-\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2} (1+\ln(2))\tau^2+\left(\frac{C}{2}+\ln(3)-\frac{1}{3}+\frac{\pi^2}{24}\right)\tau^3\right. \nonumber \\
&&\left. +\sqrt{\pi}\sum_{m=4}^\infty\frac{(-1)^mm}{2^m \Gamma(m/2+1)}\left[2 \zeta(m-2)-(1-4/2^m)\zeta(m-1)\right]\tau^m \right] \nonumber \\
&&- \pi n\lambda^4 \tau^4 \kappa \ln(\kappa\lambda)+\frac{V_4(T)}{Nk_BT}n^{3/2} +{\cal O}(n^2 \ln(n))
\label{virV}
\end{eqnarray}
with the variables
\begin{equation}
\kappa^2 = \frac{ne^2}{\epsilon_0k_BT},\qquad \lambda^2=\frac{\hbar^2}{m k_BT}, \qquad \tau = \frac{e^2 \sqrt{m}}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 \sqrt{k_BT}\hbar}.
\end{equation}
$\zeta(x)$ denotes the Riemann zeta function, and $C=0.57721\dots$ is Euler's constant. We express this expansion in terms of $T, n$ and introduce atomic units $\hbar=m=e^2/4 \pi \epsilon _0=1$
so that $k_BT$ is measured in Hartree (Ha) and $n$ in electrons per $a_B^3$.
The virial expansion of the specific mean potential energy $v=V/N$ is as follows
\begin{equation}
v(T,n)=v_0(T) n^{1/2}+v_1(T) n \ln\left(\kappa^2 \lambda^2\right)+v_2(T) n+v_3(T)n^{3/2} \ln\left(\kappa^2 \lambda^2\right)+v_4(T) n^{3/2}+{\cal O}(n^2 \ln(n)).
\end{equation}
If atomic units are used, this results in ($\kappa^2 \lambda^2=4 \pi n/T^2$)
\begin{eqnarray}
v_0(T)&=&-\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{T^{1/2}}, \qquad v_1(T)=-\frac{\pi}{2 T^2},\nonumber\\
v_2(T)&=&-\frac{\pi}{T}\left[\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2}(1+\ln(2))\frac{1}{T^{1/2}}+\left(\frac{C}{2}+\ln(3)-\frac{1}{3}+\frac{\pi^2}{24} \right) \frac{1}{T}\right.\nonumber \\
&&\left. - \sqrt{\pi}\sum_{m=4}^\infty\frac{m}{2^m \Gamma(m/2+1)}\left(\frac{-1}{T^{1/2}}\right)^{m-1} [2 \zeta(m-2)-(1-4/2^m)\zeta(m-1)]\right],\nonumber \\
v_3(T)&=&-\frac{3 \pi^{3/2}}{2 T^{7/2}}.
\label{v0123}
\end{eqnarray}
In ref. \cite{TD}, a virial plot was presented to study the behavior of the second virial coefficient.
We consider the lowest orders of the virial expansion,
\begin{equation}
v^{(1)}(T,n)=-\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{T^{1/2}} n^{1/2}-\frac{\pi}{2 T^2} n \ln\left(\frac{4 \pi n}{T^2}\right),
\end{equation}
as exactly known and subtract them from the data obtained from the PIMC simulations, $v^{\rm PIMC}=V^{\rm PIMC}/N$.
These exactly known terms may become very large, hiding the higher virial coefficients. (Note that the logarithmic term contains a factor to become dimensionless.
This factor can be moved to the next virial coefficient.)
In \cite{TD} we introduced the reduced potential energy ($\tau =T^{-1/2}$, atomic units)
\begin{eqnarray}
&&v_2^{\rm red}(T,n)=\left[v^{\rm PIMC}-v^{(1)}(T,n)\right] \frac{-T}{\pi n}=\frac{-T}{\pi}v_2(T)+{\cal O}(n^{1/2}\ln(n))\nonumber\\
&&=\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2} (1+\ln(2))\tau+\left(\frac{C}{2}+\ln(3)-\frac{1}{3}
+\frac{\pi^2}{24}\right)\tau^2+{\cal O}(\tau^3)+{\cal O}(n^{1/2}\ln(n)).
\label{v2vir}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\caption{PIMC calculations for the uniform electron gas: $v^{\rm PIMC}$ and $v_2^{\rm red}$, eq. (\ref{v2vir}), for special parameter values $r_s, \Theta$ and the corresponding values of $T, \tau, n$.\label{tab:1}}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\toprule
$r_s$& $\Theta$ & $v^{\rm PIMC}$ [Ha] & $T_{\rm Ha}$ & $\tau$& $v_2^{\rm red}$ & $T$ [K] & $n$ [cm$^{-3}$] \\
\hline
0.5&128 &-0.0826214 &942.891 & 0.0325664 & 0.453524 &2.97742e8 & 1.28882e25 \\
&64 &-0.1180456 &471.446 &0.0460558 & 0.420822 &1.48871e8 &1.28882e25 \\
&32 &-0.169272 &235.723 &0.0651327 & 0.398701 &7.44354e7 & 1.28882e25 \\
&16 &-0.2423993 &117.861 &0.0921116 & 0.356465 &3.72177e7 & 1.28882e25 \\
&8 &-0.3447641 &58.9307 &0.130265 & 0.294433 &1.86089e7 & 1.28882e25 \\
\hline
2 & 128 & -0.0402248 &58.9307 &0.130265 &0.290766 &1.8609e7 &2.01378e23 \\
& 64 & -0.0568062 &29.4653 &0.184223 &0.257047 &9.30448e6 &2.01378e23 \\
& 32 & -0.0797147 &14.7327 &0.260531 &0.207038 &4.65224e6 &2.01378e23\\
& 16 & -0.1101257 &7.36634 &0.368446 &0.126496 &2.32612e6 &2.01378e23\\
& 8 & -0.1486611 &3.68317 &0.521062 &0.0596564 &1.16306e6 &2.01378e23\\
\hline
20& 128 & -0.0119299 &0.589307 &1.30265 &1.50247 &186090. &2.01378e20\\
& 64 & -0.0160051 &0.294653 &1.84223 &3.48031 &93044.8 &2.01378e20\\
& 32 & -0.0207112 &0.147327 &2.60531 &6.67878 &46522.4 &2.01378e20\\
& 16 & -0.0256337 &0.0736634 &3.68446 &10.2475 &23261.2 &2.01378e20\\
& 8 & -0.0302098 &0.0368317 &5.21062 &9.50255 &11630.6 &2.01378e20\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.7 \textwidth]{vred1.pdf}}
\caption{Reduced potential energy $v_2^{\rm red}(T,n)$, Eq. (\ref{v2vir}), as function of $\tau = 1/\sqrt{T}$ for different densities, $r_s=0,5; 2; 20$.
For comparison, the reduced second virial coefficient $v_2^{\rm red}(T)=-(T/\pi) v_2(T)$ [2$^{\rm nd}$ virial, according Eq. (\ref{v0123})] as well as the lowest orders
in $1/T$ are shown. In addition, the curve 3$^{\rm rd}$ virial given by Eq. (\ref{v2vi3}) is also shown. (Atomic units are used.)\label{fig:1}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.7 \textwidth]{vred2.pdf}}
\caption{Detail of Fig. \ref{fig:1}.\label{fig:2}}
\end{figure}
In Tab. \ref{tab:1}, the parameter values of the uniform electron gas are given for which PIMC calculations were presented in Ref. \cite{TD},
together with the values for $v_2^{\rm red}$ (\ref{v2vir}). The results for $v_2^{\rm red}$ are also shown in Figs. \ref{fig:1}, \ref{fig:2}.
In Fig. \ref{fig:1} all calculated PIMC data of \cite{TD} are considered and the corresponding value of $v_2^{\rm red}$ is shown as function of $\tau$, see Tab. \ref{tab:1}.
In addition, three expressions for (\ref{v2vir}) are shown: up to order $\tau$, i.e., $1/2-\sqrt{\pi} (1+\ln(2))\tau/2$, up to order $\tau^2$, and the full $\tau$ dependence.
This Fig. \ref{fig:1} shows in which interval of $\tau$ the linear or quadratic approximation is applicable.
The PIMC data are very different. The lowest density, $r_s=20$, should be most relevant to the low-density limit, where higher virial coefficients are less important.
However, the inverse temperature $\tau=T_{\rm Ha}^{-1/2}$ is too large to reach the limit $\tau \to 0$.
Close to this limit are PIMC simulation data for $r_s=0.5$. The relatively large density is compensated by the very high temperature, see Tab. \ref{tab:1}.
A part of Fig. \ref{fig:1} is shown enlarged in Fig. \ref{fig:2}. It was a main result of Ref. \cite{TD} to show that the PIMC simulation data confirm the limit $v_2^{\rm red}(\tau=0)=1/2$.
Linear fit to the data for $r_s=0.5$ is possible, and extrapolation to $v_2^{\rm red}(\tau=0)$ gives 1/2.
At the same time, one gets an idea of the accuracy of the simulation, which shows up as scatter around the analytical behavior.
The PIMC data for $r_s=2$ are not described by the linear approximation but almost well by the quadratic approximation.
Finally, we have to make a comparison with the full second virial coefficient and will find that good agreement is obtained in all three density cases, given by the parameter $r_s$,
only for the lowest values of $\tau$ (an exception is the lowest $\tau$ parameter calculation for $r_s=2$, which needs to be checked).
As $\tau$ increases, the PIMC data are systematically below the second virial curve.
We assume that the PIMC simulations are very accurate, so this deviation indicates the contribution of higher virial coefficients.
Deviations from the second virial coefficient $-(T/\pi) v_2(T)$ indicate the contribution of higher orders to the virial expansion.
We expect a significant next order contribution from the low-density calculations, i.e., $r_s=20$. We consider the expression
\begin{equation}
v_{2+3}^{\rm red}(T,n) =-\frac{T}{\pi}\left[v_2(T)+v_3(T)n^{1/2}\ln\left(\frac{4 \pi n}{T^2}\right)\right],
\label{v2vi3}
\end{equation}
which accounts for the contribution of the third virial coefficient. For $r_s=20$, the data are well reproduced for the lowest values of $\tau$, see also Fig. \ref{fig:1}.
Deviations for larger $\tau$ indicate the contributions of higher virial coefficients.
The deviation
\begin{equation}
\Delta v^{\rm red}_2(T,n)=\left[v^{\rm PIMC}-v^{(1)}(T,n)-v_2(T)n\right]\,\frac{T}{\pi n}
\end{equation}
is shown in Tab. \ref{tab:2}, together with the deviation
\begin{equation}
\Delta v^{\rm red}_3(T,n)=\left[v^{\rm PIMC}-v^{(1)}(T,n)-v_2(T)n-v_3(T)n^{3/2} \ln\left(\frac{4 \pi n}{T^2}\right)\right]\,\frac{T}{\pi n}.
\end{equation}
As mentioned before,
the inclusion of the third virial coefficient $v_3(T)$ improves the agreement of the PIMC simulations with the virial expansion, as also shown in Fig. \ref{fig:1}.
The remaining difference $\Delta v^{\rm red}_3(T,n)$ is related to the fourth-order and higher-order virial coefficient,
\begin{equation}
v_4^{\rm eff}(T,n)=\Delta v^{\rm red}_3(T,n)\,\frac{\pi}{T n^{1/2}}=v_4(T)+{\cal O}(n^{1/2} \ln(n)).
\label{eq:v4}
\end{equation}
The fourth virial coefficient results when higher-order virial coefficients are neglected, $\lim_{n \to 0}v_4^{\rm eff}(T,n)=v_4(T)$.
This should be possible in the low-density limit, where the contributions of higher orders of the density expansion become small.
However, high-precision calculations are required to extract the higher-order coefficients,
and the accuracy of the present calculations \cite{TD} is not sufficient to determine precisely the fourth- and higher-order virial coefficients.
We give here only a discussion of the present data.
From the virial expansion of the free energy \cite{KKER}, the fourth virial coefficient $v_4(T)$ contains contributions
with temperature dependence $\propto T^{-2}=\tau^4$ and higher orders in $\tau$, as well as contributions $\propto T^{-7/2}$.
The coefficient of the $\tau^4$ term follows as $3 \pi \sqrt{4 \pi}$.
We expect a high-temperature limit behavior $\propto T^{-2}$, and we
show in Fig. \ref{fig:2a} the quantity $v_4^{\rm eff}(T,n) \times T^2$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.7 \textwidth]{v4neu.pdf}}
\caption{Effective reduced fourth virial coefficient $v_4^{\rm eff}(T,n) \times T^2$, Eq. (\ref{eq:v4}),
plotted as function of $\tau = 1/\sqrt{T_{\rm Ha}}$ for different densities, $r_s=0,5; 2; 20$.
For comparison, a curve
$3 \pi \sqrt{4 \pi} - 6 \tau^3$
is seen. (Atomic units used.) \label{fig:2a}}
\end{figure}
We see that the lowest value of density, $r_s=20$, exhibits behavior at small $\tau$ values that can be compared to a curve $3 \pi \sqrt{4 \pi} - 6 \times \tau^3$. However, the exact determination of the fourth virial coefficient $v_4(T)$ is not possible from the available data.
At the higher densities corresponding to smaller $r_s$, the accuracy of the numerical PIMC simulations may not be sufficient to extract higher-order virial coefficients.
In the context of our analysis, in addition to the dependence on $T$, the dependence on $n$ would be of interest to perform the virial plot as a function of $n$. Further calculations
for density parameter values in the range of $r_s=20$ would be required. Since we are investigating the differences between large numbers, high accuracy is necessary.
The study of the uniform electron gas is not only of interest for the discussion of the exchange-correlation term of the energy-density functional in DFT calculations, for which Dornheim, Groth, and Bonitz derived analytical formulas \cite{DGB2018,GDB2017}.
It is also a prerequisite to treat the more interesting case of a two-component plasma, e.g., the Hydrogen plasma.
The equation of state at low densities is of interest, for example, in helioseismology \cite{Daeppen1988}, where the fourth virial coefficient $v_4(T)$ is important \cite{DeWitt1998}.
In this context, the high-temperature limit of $v_2^{\rm red}(\tau=0)$ was discussed in \cite{KKR15,TD}.
For a discussion of the fourth virial coefficient $v_4(T)$ of Hydrogen plasma, see also Alastuey and
Ballenegger \cite{AB10,AB12}.
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\caption{PIMC calculations for the UEG: $v$ and $v^{\rm red}$. The calculation with the second virial coefficient, Eq. (32), is denoted by $v_{\rm vir}$ and $v^{\rm red}_{\rm vir}$.\label{tab:2}}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\toprule
$r_s$& $\Theta$ & $v$ [Ha] & $T_{\rm Ha}$& $n \,a_B^{3}$ & $\tau$& $ v^{\rm red}_2$ & $\Delta v^{\rm red}_2$ &$\Delta v^{\rm red}_3$ \\
\hline
0.5&128 &-0.082621 &942.891 & 1.90986 & 0.0325664 & 0.453524 &-0.000818266 &-0.000819682 \\
&64 &-0.118045 &471.446 & 1.90986 &0.0460558 & 0.420822 &0.0132298 &0.0132228 \\
&32 &-0.169272 &235.723 & 1.90986 &0.0651327 & 0.398701 &0.00992642 &0.00989306\\
&16 &-0.242399 &117.861 & 1.90986 &0.0921116 & 0.356465 &0.0181564 &0.0180015\\
&8 &-0.344764 &58.9307 & 1.90986 &0.130265 & 0.294433 &0.0360992 &0.0354136\\
\hline
2 & 128 & -0.040224 &58.9307 & 0.0298416 &0.130265 &0.290766 &0.039767 &0.0396097 \\
& 64 & -0.056806 &29.4653 & 0.0298416 &0.184223 &0.257047 &0.0194226 &0.0186676 \\
& 32 & -0.079714 &14.7327 & 0.0298416 &0.260531 &0.207038 &0.0103138 &0.00680714\\
& 16 & -0.110125 &7.36634 & 0.0298416 &0.368446 &0.126496 &0.043972 &0.0284584 \\
& 8 & -0.148661 &3.68317 & 0.0298416 &0.521062 &0.0596564 &0.12329 &0.0599871 \\
\hline
20 & 128 & -0.011929 &0.589307 & 0.0000298416 &1.30265 &1.50247 &0.440148 &0.0680086 \\
& 64 & -0.016005 &0.294653 & 0.0000298416 &1.84223 &3.48031 &1.60138 & -0.0765312 \\
& 32 & -0.020711 &0.147327 & 0.0000298416 &2.60531 &6.67878 &5.91999 &-1.155 \\
& 16 & -0.025633 &0.0736634 & 0.0000298416 &3.68446 &10.2475 &19.7824 &-6.56867 \\
& 8 & -0.030209 &0.0368317 & 0.0000298416 &5.21062 &9.50255 &60.1201 &-11.6087 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Virial expansion of the inverse conductivity of H plasmas, comparison to DFT-MD simulations}\label{sec:5}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.7 \textwidth]{fig3.pdf}}
\caption{Reduced resistivity $\tilde\rho(x,T)$ (\ref{virrho}) for hydrogen plasma as a function of $x=1/\ln (\Theta/\Gamma)$:
DFT-MD simulations from Ref. \cite{RSRB21},
and Lenard-Balescu results (QLB, Ronald) of Desjarlais {\it et al.} \cite{Desjarlais} and Karakhtanov~\cite{Karachtanov16}.
$\rho^{\rm Spitzer}_1=0.846$ and $\rho^{\rm Lorentz}_1=0.492$ are defined in the text.
The green line represents a linear extrapolation of the converged DFT-MD results.
Data are given in the Supplemental material of \cite{RSRB21}.\label{fig:3}}
\end{figure}
Numerous studies have been performed to calculate the electrical conductivity $\sigma(n,T)$ of Hydrogen plasma in a wide range of parameters, a recent review can be found in Ref. \cite{Starrett20}. A comparative study~\cite{Grabowski} was also recently published that considered different approaches and showed large differences in the calculated conductivities.
Analytical calculations in the framework of generalized linear response theory were performed for simple systems such as the Hydrogen plasma.
For more complex plasmas, the DFT-MD approach \cite{Desjarlais02,Desjarlais,Redmer,French2017} was elaborated to evaluate the Kubo-Greenwood formula.
However, as discussed in \cite{Heidi}, electron-electron collisions are not correctly described in this approach.
In a recent study \cite{RSRB21}, the low-density limit of the electrical conductivity $\sigma (n,T)$ of Hydrogen as the simplest ionic plasma is presented as a function of temperature $T$ and particle density $n$ in terms of a virial expansion of resistivity. The non-consideration of the contribution of electron-electron collisions in other transport coefficients such as thermopower and thermal conductivity has also been discussed recently \cite{Desjarlais,French22}.
The virial expansion of the dimensionless resistivity $\rho^*$, Eq. (\ref{eq:5}), contains the logarithmic term $\ln(1/n)$.
To make its argument dimensionless we use the Born parameter, see Ref. \cite{RSRB21},
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Theta}{\Gamma}=\frac{T_{\rm Ry}^2}{n_{\rm Bohr}} (96 \pi^5)^{-1/3}\,,
\label{GamT}
\end{equation}
where the temperature is measured in Rydberg units, $T_{\rm Ry}=2 T_{\rm Ha}=k_BT/13.6~\textrm{eV}$.
As discussed in Sec. \ref{sec3} in connection with the logarithmic term, we use a modified virial expansion
and rewrite (\ref{eq:5})
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho^*(n,T)= \tilde\rho_1 (T) \ln \left(\frac{\Theta}{\Gamma}\right) + \tilde\rho_2 (T) + \dots \,.
\label{eq:vir}
\end{eqnarray}
The modified virial coefficients $\tilde\rho_i$ are related to $\rho_i$ replacing in Eq.~(\ref{eq:vir}) the variables $\Theta,\Gamma$ by $n,T$ according to
Eq.~(\ref{GamT}).
Comparing with Eq.~(\ref{eq:5}), $\tilde\rho_1=\rho_1$ is obtained and
\begin{equation}
\tilde\rho_2=\rho_2 + \rho_1 \ln[ (96 \pi^5)^{1/3} /T_\textrm{Ry}^2] \,.
\end{equation}
A highlight of plasma transport theory is that the exact value of the first virial coefficient for Coulomb systems is known from the seminal paper of Spitzer and H{\"a}rm~\cite{Spitzer53},
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Spitzer}
\rho_1 = \tilde\rho_1 =\rho^{\rm Spitzer}_1 = 0.846024,
\end{equation}
which does not depend on $T$.
Note that Eq.~(\ref{eq:Spitzer}) accounts for the contribution of the electron-electron ($e-e$) interaction. In contrast, for the Lorentz plasma model where the $e-e$ collisions are neglected so that only the electron-ion interaction is considered, the first virial coefficient is \cite{Roep88}
\begin{equation}
\rho_1^{\rm Lorentz} =\frac{1}{16} (2\pi^3)^{1/2}=0.492126\,.
\label{Lorentz}
\end{equation}
Although $e-e$ collisions do not contribute to a change of the total momentum of the electrons due to conservation of momentum, the distribution in momentum space is changed by $e - e$ collisions ("reshaping"), and higher moments of the electron distribution are not conserved by $e - e$ collisions. The indirect influence of $e-e$ collisions on the dc conductivity becomes clear in generalized linear response theory where these higher moments are considered, see~\cite{Roep88,Redmer97}.
No exact value is known for the second virial coefficient $\rho_2(T)$ or $\tilde\rho_2(T)$.
It depends on the treatment of the many-body effects, in particular on the screening of the Coulomb potential.
In a quantum statistical approach, the static (Debye) screening by electrons and ions
should be replaced by dynamical screening.
For the Hydrogen plasma considered here, the Born approximation for the collision integral at high temperatures $T_\textrm{Ry}\gg 1$ is justified. Consideration of screening in the random phase approximation (RPA),
leads to the quantum Lenard-Balescu (QLB) expression.
Thus, at very high temperatures, where the dynamically screened Born approximation becomes valid, we obtain the QLB result,
see~\cite{Desjarlais,Karachtanov16},
\begin{equation}
\lim_{T \to \infty}\tilde\rho_2(T) = \tilde \rho_2^{\rm QLB} = 0.4917~.
\label{virLB}
\end{equation}
As $T$ decreases, strong binary collisions (represented by ladder diagrams) become important and must be treated in the calculation of the second virial coefficient $\tilde \rho_2(T)$ beyond the Born approximation. According to Spitzer and H{\"a}rm~\cite{Spitzer53},
the classical treatment of strong collisions with a statically screened potential gives for $\rho^*=1/\sigma^*$ the result
\begin{equation}
\rho_{\rm Sp}^*=0.846 \ln \left[\frac{3}{2} \Gamma^{-3} \right]\,.
\end{equation}
Interpolation formulas have been proposed that link the high-temperature limit $\tilde\rho_2^{\rm QLB}$ with the low-temperature
Spitzer limit \cite{Esser03,GDW,WDW,RR89,RRMK89,Redmer97,Roep88,EssRoep98}.
Based on a T-matrix calculation in quasiclassical (Wentzel-Kramers-Brillouin, WKB) approximation~\cite{Esser03,RRT89},
the expression ($T_{\rm eV}=k_BT/$eV)
\begin{equation}
\tilde\rho_2(T_{\rm eV}) \approx 0.4917 + 0.846 \ln\left[
\frac{1 + 8.492/T_{\rm eV}}{1 + 25.83/T_{\rm eV} + 167.2/T_{\rm eV}^2} \right]
\label{WKB}
\end{equation}
is a simple interpolation that combines the QLB result with the Spitzer limit in WKB approximation.
However, the exact analytical form of the temperature dependence of the second virial coefficient $\tilde\rho_2(T)$ remains an open problem.
Thus, the available exact results for the virial expansion (\ref{eq:vir})
of the inverse conductivity of fully ionized
Hydrogen plasma are:\\
(i) the value of the first virial coefficient is $\tilde\rho_1 = 0.846$; \\
(ii) the second virial coefficient has the high-temperature limit $\lim_{T \to \infty}\tilde\rho_2(T) = 0.4917$; \\
(iii) the second virial coefficient is temperature dependent, an approximation is given by Eq.~(\ref{WKB}).
To extract the first and second virial coefficient from calculated or measured dc conductivities, we plot the expression
\begin{equation}
\tilde \rho(x,T) = \frac{\rho^*}{\ln (\Theta/\Gamma)}=\frac{32405.4}{\sigma (n,T) (\Omega {\rm m})} T_{\rm eV}^{3/2}
\frac{1}{\ln (\Theta/\Gamma)}
\label{virrho}
\end{equation}
as a function of $x=1/\ln(\Theta/\Gamma)$ and $T$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:3} which is called \textit{virial plot}.
According to Eqs.~(\ref{eq:5}), (\ref{eq:vir}), the behavior of any isotherm (fixed $T$) is linear near $n \to 0$,
\begin{equation}
\tilde \rho(x,T) = \tilde \rho_1(T) + \tilde \rho_2(T) x + \dots\,,
\label{virrho1}
\end{equation}
with $\tilde\rho_1(T)$
as the value at $x=0$ and $\tilde\rho_2(T)$ as the slope of the isotherm. In this way, the extraction of virial coefficients becomes immediately possible.
For $x > 1/\ln(100)=0.217$, the contributions of higher order virial coefficients
have to be taken into account \cite{RSRB21}. For fixed $T$ and low density, where $\theta \gg 1$, a classical plasma is present and the effects of degeneracy contribute to the higher order virial coefficients.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:3} two cases for the first virial coefficient $\rho_1$ on the ordinate axis are shown, see also~\cite{Roep88,RR89,Redmer97}:\\
(i) $\rho^{\rm Spitzer}_1$ from kinetic theory when $e-e$ collisions are taken into account,\\
(ii) when $e-e$-collisions are neglected, $\rho_1^{\rm Lorentz}$ is obtained
for the Lorentz plasma model.\\
Moreover, the second virial coefficient $\tilde\rho_2^{\rm QLB}$ of the Lenard-Balescu approximation.
(\ref{virLB}) is shown, which is correct in the high temperature limit.
The QLB calculations of Desjarlais {\it et al.} \cite{Desjarlais} are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:3}.
The $e-e$ collisions are taken into account, yielding the same asymptote ($x \to 0$) as in Karakhtanov~\cite{Karachtanov16}. With increasing
$x=1/\ln(\Theta/\Gamma)$ small deviations from linear behavior are observed. When isotherms are presented, this deviation indicates the contribution of higher virial coefficients.
Virial plots are presented in \cite{RSRB21} to investigate two problems: Which of the various approaches that give us analytical expressions for the electrical conductivity of Hydrogen plasmas are accurate in the low density limit?
The virial expansion of the inverse conductivity serves as an exact benchmark for theoretical approaches, so that the accuracy and consistency of semi-empirical results for conductivity, such as those collected in Ref.~\cite{Grabowski}, can be checked.
A more fundamental problem is whether numerical results from molecular dynamics simulations based on density functional theory (DFT-MD) correctly contain the contribution of electron-electron collisions.
The virial plot confirms the position that DFT-MD simulations in the low-density limit describe a Lorentz plasma with only electron-ion collisions, the contribution of electron-electron collisions to $\rho_1$ is missing \cite{RSRB21}.
Here we discuss some details of the virial expansion for the inverse conductivity and the corresponding virial plots, see Fig. \ref{fig:3}.
DFT-MD simulations are given in Ref. \cite{RSRB21}, see the tables of data in the supplementary material.
These data have sufficiently high accuracy, as can be seen from the small deviations from the fit line in Fig. \ref{fig:3}.
In addition to the precise solution of the Kubo-Greenwood formula, this is achieved by good control of convergence with increasing particle number, as shown by comparison of calculations with different numbers of particles.
The number of particles must be sufficiently large to ensure convergence. In the parameter range considered in the figure, about 100 particles in the box are necessary to achieve convergence.
Further calculations with 216 electrons
were not possible due to limited computer capacity. For $T=150$~eV, even 125 electrons exceed the currently available
computer capacity.
This point was also discussed in a recent work \cite{French22}, where earlier calculations \cite{Desjarlais} were improved to achieve convergence.
Another problem is the determination of the value of the dc conductivity $\sigma(0)$ from the calculation of the optical conductivity $\sigma(\omega)$ at finite frequencies.
Because of the discretisation in a finite box, the energy eigenvalues have a minimum spacing and the energy-conserving $\delta$ function must be smeared by a parameter $\epsilon$ to allow for transitions, see also section \ref{sec2} above.
To reach the limit $\omega \to 0$, an extrapolation is performed according to the Drude formula (\ref{eq:Drude}). This was discussed also in Ref. \cite{French22}. Instead, one can use the dynamic collision frequency to perform this extrapolation.
The results shown in Fig. \ref{fig:3} allow the extraction of virial coefficients $\rho_1(T), \tilde{\rho}_2(T)$. Compared to other approaches, including interpolation formulas, see \cite{RSRB21}, as well as the QLB calculation, we assume that we are in the linear region of the virial curve. Deviations from linearity can be observed for QLB already at $x=0.2$, since the density is high (40~g/cm$^3$). For DFT-MD simulations with density about 2 g/cm$^3$, the deviation from linearity for the last point is observed at $x\approx 1$.
As pointed out in \cite{RSRB21}, the extrapolated value of $\rho_1$ in the virial plot at $x=0$ points to the Lorentz value (\ref{Lorentz}) but misses the Spitzer value (\ref{eq:Spitzer}). This means that electron-electron collisions are not considered in the DFT-MD calculations for the electrical conductivity. Also of interest is the value of $\tilde{\rho}_2(T)$ given by the slope in the virial plot near $x=0$.
Fitting it to the data gives a slope of 0.9886 for the DFT-MD calculations. This is about twice the slope $\tilde \rho_2^{\rm QLB}$ given above. From analytical approaches, it appears that the slope is determined by various effects such as dynamical screening and strong collisions. In the limiting case of high temperatures, the Born approximation should be possible, but the Coulomb potential must be replaced by a screened potential. Static screening of the proton scatterer with both electrons and protons would lead to the following result ($C=0.57721\dots$ is Euler's constant).
\begin{equation}
\lim_{T \to \infty} \tilde{\rho}_2(T)=\frac{\pi^{3/2}}{24 \sqrt{2}}\left[\frac{11}{2}-3 C+\ln\left(\frac{3}{2} \pi^2\right)\right] =1.06036
\end{equation}
which is close to the observed slope of the DFT-MD simulations. However, it remains unclear to what extent the screening is included in the simulations. We assume that the ionic structure factor, which is the ionic contribution to the screening, is well described, and that the electron screening is also captured by the exchange-correlation functional. However, we need to consider dynamical screening, a problem that has been discussed in previous work \cite{RR89}
on virial expansion.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.7 \textwidth]{fig4.pdf}}
\caption{Second virial coefficients $\tilde\rho_2(T)$ and $\tilde\rho_2^{\rm eff}(n,T)$ for the dc conductivity of Hydrogen plasmas. Analytical interpolation formulas (\ref{WKB}) and Ref. \cite{Esser03} are compared with experiments of G{\"u}nther and Radtke~\cite{Guenther} for H plasmas as well as of Ivanov {\it et al.}~\cite{Ivanov} and Popovic {\it et al.}~\cite{Popovic} for rare gas plasmas. The black dashed line corresponds to the high temperature limit that is given by the quantum Lenard-Balescu value. The broken blue line is the interpolation formula of Ref. \cite{Esser03}, the red full line represents the interpolation formula (\ref{WKB}) for the second virial coefficient.
\label{fig:4}}
\end{figure}
We return to the long-debated question of whether or not $e-e$ collisions are accounted for in the DFT-MD formalism. For example, it was pointed out in Ref.~\cite{Heidi} that a mean-field approach is not able to describe two-particle correlations, in particular $e-e$ collisions.
However, to some approximation, the $e-e$ interaction is accounted for by the exchange-correlation energy.
DFT-MD simulations, which are mean-field theories that account for the $e-e$ interaction only through the exchange-correlation part of the energy density,
cannot account for the effect of $e-e$ collisions on the conductivity, so that $\rho_1(T)$ corresponds to the Lorentz plasma, but $\tilde\rho_2(T)$ is determined by screening.
The question arises to what extent dynamical screening, as implemented in the QLB calculations, is also described by the exchange-correlation part of the energy density functional.
We would like to mention that in the case of thermal conductivity it has been shown that
the contribution of $e-e$ collisions is not taken into account in DFT-MD simulations \cite{Desjarlais,Starrett20,French22}
and yields an additional term. Other approaches such as generalized linear response theory may be considered to indicate appropriate approaches.
Our analysis has shown that the simulation results with virial evolution
are extrapolated to the low-density region, where DFT-MD simulations are no longer feasible. The current simulations, while computationally expensive, are still not very close to $x=0$, so extrapolation to the $x=0$ limit is not very accurate. Better data for DFT-MD simulations would be of interest to confirm our results. Conversely, the benchmark capability of virial expansion discussed in this work can also serve as a criterion to verify the accuracy of numerical approaches such as DFT-MD simulations to evaluate conductivity.
\begin{table}[htp]
\caption{Experimental data for the electrical conductivity.
G{\"u}nther and Radtke: H~\cite{Guenther};
Ivanov {\it et al.}: Ar, Xe, Ne~\cite{Ivanov};
Popovic {\it et al.}: Ar, Xe~\cite{Popovic}.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Plasma &$\hat n_e \times 10^{25}$& $n\times 10^{-6}$ & $T \times 10^{4}$& $T$& $\Gamma$ & $\Theta$ & $1/\ln(\Theta/\Gamma)$ & $\sigma \times 10^3 $ &$\tilde \rho (x,T)$ & $\tilde \rho_2^{\rm eff}$\\
&$[{\rm m}^{3}]$& [g/cm$^3$] & [K]& [eV] & & & &$[(\Omega {\rm m})^{-1}]$ & & \\
\hline
H&$0.1 $ & $1.67262$ & $1.54$ & 1.32706 & 0.174914 & 363.932 & 0.130883& 6.2 & 1.04579 & 1.52647 \\
H&$0.15$ & $2.50893 $ & $1.87 $ & 1.61143 & 0.164892 &337.249 & 0.131177& 9.1& 0.955544 & 0.835097\\
H&$0.25$ & $4.18155 $ & $2.15$ & 1.85271 &0.170041 & 275.832 & 0.13529& 11.4 & 0.969821 & 0.915228\\
Ar&$2.8$ & $46.8334 $ & $2.22 $ &1.91303 &0.36845 & 56.8959 & 0.198426& 19.0 &0.895459 & 0.249255 \\
Ar&$5.5$ & $91.9942 $ & $2.03$ & 1.74931 &0.504626 &33.1707 & 0.238914& 15.5 & 1.15565 & 1.29607 \\
Ar&$8.1$ & $135.482$ & $1.93 $ & 1.66313 &0.603878 & 24.3632 & 0.270456& 17.0 & 1.10575 & 0.960407 \\
Ar&$14$ & $234.167 $ & $1.9 $ & 1.63728 &0.736152 & 16.6533 & 0.320623& 25.5 & 0.853604 & 0.0237179 \\
Ar&$17$ & $284.346 $ & $1.78$ & 1.53387 &0.838316 & 13.7074 &0.357872& 24.5 & 0.899216 & 0.148701 \\
Xe&$25$ & $418.155 $ & $3.01 $ & 2.5938 &0.563757 & 17.9242 & 0.289077& 45 & 0.869607 & 0.081664\\
Ne&$1.1$ & $18.3988 $ & $1.98 $ & 1.70622 &0.302559 & 94.6027 & 0.174059& 13 & 0.966995 & 0.695135\\
Ne&$1.9$ & $31.7798$ & $1.96 $ & 1.68899 &0.366725 & 65.0509 & 0.193113& 16.5 & 0.832499 & -0.0699113 \\
air&$0.13$ & $2.17441 $ & $1.1 $ & 0.9479 &0.26726 & 218.238 & 0.14914& 6& 0.743367 & -0.688167 \\
Ar&$0.06$ & $1.00357 $ & $1.64$ & 1.41323 &0.138532 & 544.807 &0.120816 &8.3 & 0.792469 & -0.443077 \\
Ar&$0.1$ & $1.67262$ & $1.64 $ & 1.41323 &0.164248 & 387.564 & 0.128762& 7.9 & 0.887358 & 0.321199 \\
Ar&$0.13$ & $2.17441 $ & $1.64 $ & 1.41323 &0.17926 & 325.373 & 0.133264& 7.6 & 0.954636 & 0.815191 \\
Ar&$0.15$ & $2.50893 $ & $1.64 $ & 1.41323 &0.188017& 295.767& 0.135855& 6.4 & 1.15567 & 2.27941\\
Xe&$0.06$ & $1.00357$ & $1.24 $ & 1.06854 &0.18322 & 411.928 & 0.129569& 4.6\ & 1.0082 & 1.25185 \\
Xe&$0.12$ & $2.00715 $ & $1.24$ & 1.06854 &0.18322 & 411.928& 0.13529& 4.1 & 1.0082 &2.20078 \\
Xe&$0.07$ & $1.17083$ & $1.26$ & 1.08578&0.189819&377.693&0.131652& 4.8 & 1.00558 & 1.21211\\
Xe&$0.14$ & $2.34167$ & $1.26$ & 1.08578 &0.239157 &237.931 & 0.144873& 4.4 & 1.20715 & 2.49289 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\label{tab:7}
\end{table}%
Another application of the virial plot is experiments to measure electrical conductivity.
Assuming that the value $0.846024$, Eq. (\ref{eq:Spitzer}), for $\rho_1$ is exact, an effective second virial coefficient
\begin{equation}
\tilde\rho^{\rm eff}_2(n,T) = \frac{32405.4}{\sigma (n,T) [\Omega {\rm m}]} \left(\frac{T}{{\rm eV}}\right)^{3/2}
- 0.846024 \,\, \ln\left(\frac{\Theta}{\Gamma}\right)
\label{rho2eff}
\end{equation}
has been introduced which gives the second virial coefficient in the low-density limit,
$\lim_{n \to 0} \tilde\rho^{\rm eff}_2(n,T)= \tilde\rho_2(T)$.
A dependence of $\tilde\rho_2^{\rm eff}(x,T)$ on density shows that higher orders of the virial expansion are relevant.
We anticipate that at very high $T$, i.e., $1/T\to 0$, the Lenard-Balescu value is approximated.
The deviations at increasing $1/T$, shown in the interpolation formula and the DFT-MD simulations, indicate
that already below temperatures of the order of 100~eV, the effect of strong collisions beyond the Born
approximation should be taken into account.
Ultimately, the virial expansion (\ref{eq:vir}) must be verified experimentally, but
accurate data for the conductivity of Hydrogen plasma in the low-density limit and/or
at high temperatures are scarce. Accurate conductivity data for dense Hydrogen plasma
were derived by G{\"u}nther and Radtke~\cite{Guenther}.
They are close to the benchmark data of the virial expansion.
It should be noted that there are systematic errors associated with the analysis of such experiments.
For example, the appearance of bound states requires a realistic treatment of the plasma
composition and the influence of neutrals on electron mobility. Alternatively,
conductivity measurements in highly compressed noble gas plasmas were carried out by
Ivanov {\it et al.}~\cite{Ivanov} and Popovic {\it et al.}~\cite{Popovic,Esser03},
but the interaction of the electrons with the ions deviates from the pure Coulomb
potential due to the core of bound electrons. The corresponding virial plot is close
to the data of Hydrogen plasma, see \cite{RSRB21}, but requires a more detailed
discussion on the role of bound electrons.
It should also be mentioned that the densities are quite high,
and extrapolation to zero density must be performed to obtain the second virial coefficient.
This tendency can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:4}, especially for the experiments with Ar, Xe~\cite{Popovic},
where low-density data point to $\tilde\rho_2(T)$.
Quantum statistical methods provide accurate values for the lowest virial coefficients, which serve as benchmarks for analytical approaches to electrical conductivity as well as for numerical results from molecular dynamics simulations based on density functional theory (DFT-MD) or path integral Monte Carlo (PIMC) simulations.
While these simulations are well suited to compute $\sigma (n,T)$ in a wide range of densities and temperatures, especially for the warm dense matter region, they become computationally expensive in the low density limit, and virial expansions can be used to compensate for this drawback. Interpolation formulas that take both approaches into account would be very useful for calculating the conductivity of plasmas.
To obtain the correct values for the thermoelectric transport coefficients of Hydrogen plasma in the low-density limit, where the inclusion of $e-e$ collisions is essential,
different solutions can be considered.
PIMC simulations, as successfully performed for the uniform electron gas \cite{TD}, should also be performed for the two-component plasmas.
First steps of this ambitious project are recently in progress \cite{Bonitz20,Boehme22}.
The study of such PIMC calculations with the virial plot would be of great interest.
From generalized linear response theory, we also learn that higher order correlation functions, such as force-force correlation functions associated with the dynamic collision frequency,
may be a suitable approach to include the contribution of $e-e$ collisions in the transport coefficients \cite{Roep88,RR89,Redmer97}.
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec7}
We have from quantum statistics exact expressions for thermodynamic and transport properties of plasmas by equilibrium correlation functions,
but the evaluation is a complex problem in many-particle physics.
Numerical simulations are becoming more accurate as computer capacity increases.
However, they need to be controlled with respect to their limits such as size effects, but also fundamental problems such as the correct description of electron-electron collisions in the context of DFT or the sign problem in PIMC.
It is expected that PIMC simulations will provide an adequate description of electron-electron interactions, but they are currently unable to solve complex plasmas such as multiply charged ions in the low-temperature range.
The comparison of analytical results for the virial expansion of thermodynamic properties with PIMC calculations for the uniform electron gas has been performed.
In particular, we show that high-precission PIMC simulations confirm the correct form of the virial expansion, which has been debated recently.
It seems to be possible to give also numerical values for higher virial coefficients, in particular the interesting $n^{5/2}$ coefficient.
These values can be considered as exact results in plasma physics. Numerical values for higher virial coefficients would also be of great interest for transport properties.
Analytical theory gives us exact results in limiting cases. This can be used to obtain results for parameter ranges where numerical simulations are not efficient, e.g. in the low density range. Virial expansions are used to control theories and numerical simulations. They are of interest to construct interpolation formulas.
It was indicated that the evaluation of the Kubo-Greenwood formula using DFT-MS simulations does not take into account the effects of electron-electron scattering and cannot reproduce the low-density limit of the electrical conductivity of Hydrogen plasmas.
Similar results were recently reported by French {\it et al.} \cite{French22} for other thermoelectric transport coefficients. It would be of interest to perform PIMC simulations that can accurately describe electron-electron collisions.
The theory of virial expansion must be extended if the formation of bound states is of importance, i.e. for $T/T_{\rm Ha} \le 1$, see appendix. New approaches are needed.
The approach described here is also applicable to other correlation functions such as the dynamic structure factor or to other transport properties such as thermal conductivity, thermopower, viscosity, and diffusion coefficients.
Also of interest is the extension of virial expansion to elements other than Hydrogen, where different ions can be formed and the electron-ion interaction is no longer purely Coulombic.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
Thanks to M. Sch\"orner, R. Redmer, M. Bethkenhagen, M. French, H. Reinholz, T. Dornheim, J. Vorberger, Z. Moldabekov, and W.-D. Kraeft for collaboration and discussions.
This work was supported by the German Research Foundation
(DFG), Grant \# RO 905/37-1 AOBJ 655625.
\subsection*{Author contributions}
This is an author contribution text. It is based on a contribution to the SCCS22 conference.
\subsection*{Financial disclosure}
None reported.
\subsection*{Conflict of interest}
The author declares no potential conflict of interests.
|
\section{Introduction}
The genes, proteins, and RNA molecules that comprise living cells interact in
complex, varied ways to sustain the cell throughout its lifecycle and respond to
changes in its environment. Intensive experimental study of these interactions
is distilled in an idealized form as \emph{regulatory networks}, a kind of
directed graph in which vertices represent molecules and edges represent
interactions between molecules (\cref{fig:first-regnet}). The edges are labeled
with a positive or negative sign according to whether the interaction is
activating or inhibiting. Regulatory networks are the subject of a large body of
experimental and theoretical work, notably reviewed by Alon
\cite{alon2007,alon2019} and Tyson et al \cite{tyson2010,tyson2019} among
others. Particular attention has been paid to \emph{network motifs}
\cite{alon2007,tyson2010}, the simple but functionally meaningful patterns that
recur frequently in regulatory networks, and to various quantitative
\emph{dynamics} \cite{tyson2019} that can be assigned to the networks.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{equation*}
%
\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=small]
{} & {\mathrm{Ash1}} & {}\\
{\mathrm{Cdk1/ClbS}} & {} & {\mathrm{Sld2}}
\arrow[from=1-2, to=2-3]
\arrow[maps to, no head, from=1-2, to=2-1]
\arrow[curve={height=10pt}, from=2-1, to=2-3]
\arrow[curve={height=10pt}, maps to, no head, from=2-3, to=2-1]
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
\caption{A small biochemical regulatory network: regulation of Sld2 by Cdk1 or
ClbS with Ash1 as a predicted transcription factor. Adapted from
Csik{\'a}sz-Nagy et al \cite[Figure 3C]{csikasz-nagy2009}.}
\label{fig:first-regnet}
\end{figure}
Although regulatory networks are simple enough to define mathematically---we
shall define them to be directed graphs, possibly with multiple edges and loops,
whose edges are assigned a positive or negative sign---important scientific
concepts involving them, such as occurrences of motifs in networks and
biochemical mechanisms generating networks, are often treated imprecisely.
Likewise for relationships between regulatory networks and other mathematical
models in biochemistry, particularly dynamical models based on ordinary or
stochastic differential equations. Hence a first aim of this paper is to put
certain concepts and relations concerning regulatory networks on a firm
mathematical footing. To do so, we will use methods from category theory.
Category theory, in both the small and the large, is a natural tool for this
study. In saying that a motif \emph{occurs} in a network, one should allow for
the possibility that the occurrence is indirect, involving a sequence of
appropriately signed interactions. For example, positive autoregulation can
occur directly but also indirectly through a double-negative feedback loop.
Since a small category is exactly a graph in which consecutive edges can be
composed, subject to certain laws, regulatory networks should be viewed not only
as signed graphs (\cref{sec:sgn-graph}) but also as signed categories freely
generated by those (\cref{sec:sgn-cat}). Sign-preserving functors, unlike
sign-preserving graph homomorphisms, can express indirect occurrences and are in
this sense a better notion of morphism for regulatory networks. Here we are
doing category theory \emph{in the small}, using categories as algebraic
structures comparable to familiar ones like graphs, groups, and monoids.
Having laid these foundations for regulatory networks, we turn to category
theory \emph{in the large}, a mathematical theory of structure well suited to
describe the passages between regulatory networks and other mathematical models
of biochemical systems. Formally speaking, these passages are functors into or
out of the category of regulatory networks. Making a functor is significantly
stronger than making an objects-only mapping, as is typically done in the
literature, since if morphisms of signed graphs formalize relationships between
different regulatory networks, then functorality requires that these
relationships be transported to or from other models of interest. By contrast,
an objects-only mapping is, abstractly speaking, entirely unconstrained and so
is capable of acting highly irregularly across different models of a given
class. Functorality thus serves as a kind of safeguard for model transformation:
it does not, on its own, ensure that a transformation makes good scientific
sense but it does impose nontrivial logical constraints and coherences.
A first illustration of this principle is the connection between regulatory
networks and biochemical reaction networks (\cref{sec:sgn-petri}). When modeling
the complex biochemical systems that constitute a living cell, it is often
practically necessary to abstract away certain details of the underlying
chemical processes. Regulatory networks generally do not capture all the species
or reactions involved in a given system; nor can they capture multispecies
reactions faithfully because they describe only pairwise interactions. Given
that regulatory networks are, to some degree, phenomenological models, it is
natural to ask whether a given network could arise as a summary of a specific
chemical process. The latter are described by \emph{biochemical reaction
networks}, graph-like structures allowing reactions or transitions with
multiple inputs and outputs. Inspired by graphical syntax from systems biology
\cite{voit2000,voit2013}, we formalize reaction networks as ``Petri nets with
links,'' and we construct a functor from the category of Petri nets with signed
links to the category of signed graphs. This functor enables us to propose a
formal definition for when a reaction network could be a \emph{mechanism} for a
regulatory network, a concept that is rarely if ever treated in a precise way.
This concludes the content of \cref{sec:qualitative}. In
\cref{sec:quantitative}, we turn from qualitative to quantitative analysis,
seeking a functorial assignment of continuous dynamics to regulatory networks.
Although rarely made explicitly functorial, systematic ways to formulate a model
belonging to a mathematically homogeneous class of models are ubiquitous in
science. Voit calls these ``canonical representations'' or ``canonical
models,''\footnote{This usage of ``canonical'' should not be confused with the
unrelated, in fact incompatible, meaning of ``canonical'' in pure mathematics,
especially category theory.} and identifies Lotka-Volterra models and BST
models/S-systems as two prominent examples in biology \cite[\S 3]{voit2013}.
Reflecting their phenomenological status, regulatory networks do not admit a
single, obvious dynamical interpretation, and so a wide variety of dynamical
models have been considered, spanning the discrete and continuous, deterministic
and stochastic \cite{tyson2019}. We consider the Lotka-Volterra systems of
ordinary differential equations. While not necessarily the most biologically
plausible, it is among the simplest continuous models and hence a natural place
to begin a functorial study.
A \emph{Lotka-Volterra system} of equations has the form
\begin{equation*}
\dot x_i = \rho_i\, x_i + \sum_{j=1}^n \beta_{i,j}\, x_i\, x_j,
\qquad i = 1,\dots,n.
\end{equation*}
or equivalently, has logarithmic derivatives that are affine functions of the
state variables:
\begin{equation*}
\frac{d}{dt}[\log x_i(t)] = \rho_i + \sum_{j=1}^n \beta_{i,j}\, x_j(t),
\qquad i = 1,\dots,n.
\end{equation*}
The coefficients $\rho_i$ specify baseline rates of growth or decay, according
to their sign, and the coefficients $\beta_{i,j}$ rates of activation or
inhibition, according to their sign. We construct a functor that sends a signed
graph (regulatory network) to a Lotka-Volterra model suitably constraining the
signs of the rate coefficients (\cref{sec:lv}). As a prerequisite, we define a
category of parameterized dynamical systems (\cref{sec:para-dynam}), a
construction of intrinsic interest that is by no means confined to
Lotka-Volterra dynamics.
In order to comprehend complex biological systems, we must decompose them into
small, readily understandable pieces and then compose them back together to
reproduce the behavior of the original system. This is the mantra of systems
biology, which stresses that compositionality is no less important than
reductionism in biology. With this motivation, a secondary aim of this paper is
to extend the above constructions from closed systems to open ones, which can be
composed together by gluing them along their interfaces. Mathematically, we pass
from categories to \emph{double categories} \cite{grandis2019}, two-dimensional
categorical structures in which the usual morphisms of systems compose along one
direction (by convention, the ``vertical'' one) and open systems compose along
the other direction (the ``horizontal'' one). Among other results, we show that
the Lotka-Volterra dynamics functor extends to a lax double functor from the
double category of open signed graphs to a double category of open parameterized
dynamical systems (\cref{sec:open-lv}).
The mathematics developed here is motivated by biochemistry but need not be
restricted to it. Famously, Lotka-Volterra systems originated in ecology to
model predator-prey dynamics \cite{lotka1925}. Regulatory networks and
Lotka-Volterra systems can be used as generic models of entities that
``regulate'' each other in some manner, be it at the scale of individual cells
or animal ecosystems. Regulatory networks are highly reminiscent of the
\emph{causal loop diagrams} in system dynamics \cite[Chapter 5]{sterman2000},
where the latter explicitly label feedback loops and their polarities.
The language of category theory is indispensable to this work but the level of
knowledge assumed by the reader is not constant. We assume throughout that the
reader is familiar with the basic notions of category theory, such as
categories, functors, and natural transformations. Our main reference for facts
about category theory is Riehl's text \cite{riehl2016}, although there are many
others. In the definitions and theorems, we have tried to minimize the technical
level and explicate the statements in concrete terms. In the proofs, we have
aimed for efficiency and freely use concepts and results from the literature
that do not appear in the main text. The reader can omit the proofs without
disrupting the continuity of the paper.
\section{Qualitative analysis: motifs and mechanisms}
\label{sec:qualitative}
\subsection{Regulatory networks as signed graphs}
\label{sec:sgn-graph}
To begin, we clarify the notion of graph to be used throughout in this paper.
The following definition is standard among category theorists. In other fields,
it might be called a ``directed multigraph,'' but we will call it simply a
``graph.''
\begin{definition}[Graphs] \label{def:graph}
The \define{schema for graphs} is the category $\Sch{\CAT{Graph}}$ freely generated
by two parallel morphisms:
\begin{equation*}
%
\begin{tikzcd}
V & E
\arrow["{\mathrm{src}}"', shift right=1, from=1-2, to=1-1]
\arrow["{\mathrm{tgt}}", shift left=1, from=1-2, to=1-1]
\end{tikzcd}.
\end{equation*}
A \define{graph} is a functor $X: \Sch{\CAT{Graph}} \to \CAT{Set}$. A \define{graph
homomorphism} from a graph $X$ to another graph $Y$ is a natural
transformation $\phi: X \to Y$. Graphs and graph homomorphisms form the
category $\CAT{Graph}$.
\end{definition}
To restate the definition in explicit terms, a graph $X$ consists of
\begin{itemize}[noitemsep]
\item a set $X(V)$ of \define{vertices};
\item a set $X(E)$ of \define{edges}; and
\item functions $X(\src), X(\tgt): X(E) \to X(V)$, assigning to each edge its
\define{source} and \define{target}.
\end{itemize}
A graph homomorphism $\phi: X \to Y$ consists of a function
$\phi_V: X(V) \to Y(V)$, the \define{vertex map}, and another function
$\phi_E: X(E) \to Y(E)$, the \define{edge map}. These maps must preserve sources
and targets, meaning that the following squares commute:
\begin{equation*}
%
\begin{tikzcd}
{X(E)} & {X(V)} \\
{Y(E)} & {Y(V)}
\arrow["{X(\mathrm{src})}", from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow["{\phi_E}"', from=1-1, to=2-1]
\arrow["{Y(\mathrm{src})}"', from=2-1, to=2-2]
\arrow["{\phi_V}", from=1-2, to=2-2]
\end{tikzcd}
\qquad\qquad
%
\begin{tikzcd}
{X(E)} & {X(V)} \\
{Y(E)} & {Y(V)}
\arrow["{X(\mathrm{tgt})}", from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow["{\phi_E}"', from=1-1, to=2-1]
\arrow["{Y(\mathrm{tgt})}"', from=2-1, to=2-2]
\arrow["{\phi_V}", from=1-2, to=2-2]
\end{tikzcd}.
\end{equation*}
We now turn to the main notion of this section, signed graph. Write $\mathsf{Sgn}$ for
the set of (nonzero) signs, whose two elements may be denoted $\{1,-1\}$ or
$\{+,-\}$. The set of signs is an abelian group, isomorphic to the cyclic group
$\mathbb{Z}_2$, under the usual multiplication.
\begin{definition}[Signed graphs] \label{def:sgn-graph}
The \define{category of signed graphs} is the slice category
\begin{equation*}
\CAT{SgnGraph} \coloneqq \CAT{Graph}/\mathsf{Sgn},
\end{equation*}
where, by abuse of notation, $\mathsf{Sgn}$ is regarded as a graph with one vertex and
two loops.
\end{definition}
Unpacking the definition, a \define{signed graph} is seen to be a graph $X$
equipped with a function $X(\sgn): X(E) \to \mathsf{Sgn}$ that assigns a sign to each
edge. Given signed graphs $X$ and $Y$, a \define{morphism of signed graphs} from
$X$ to $Y$ is a graph homomorphism $\phi$ that preserves signs, meaning that the
following triangle commutes:
\begin{equation*}
%
\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=small]
{X(E)} && {Y(E)} \\
& {\mathsf{Sgn}}
\arrow["{X(\mathrm{sgn})}"', from=1-1, to=2-2]
\arrow["{Y(\mathrm{sgn})}", from=1-3, to=2-2]
\arrow["{\phi_E}", from=1-1, to=1-3]
\end{tikzcd}.
\end{equation*}
Signed graphs are a mathematical description of the regulatory networks studied
in systems biology \cite{alon2007,tyson2010}. For the purposes of this paper, we
will simply define a \define{regulatory network} to be a signed graph. The
vertices of the graph represent the components of the network, which could be
proteins, genes, or RNA molecules. Signed edges represent interactions between
components, where the source has the effect of either
\emph{activating}/\emph{promoting} the target (positive sign) or
\emph{inhibiting}/\emph{repressing} it (negative sign). As is customary, we
denote activation interactions by arrows with pointed heads ($\longrightarrow$)
and inhibition interactions by arrows with flat heads ($\mathrel{\relbar\mkern-4mu\relbar\mkern-9mu\vcenter{\hbox{$\dashv$}}}$). For
instance, the two drawings
\begin{equation*}
%
\begin{tikzcd}
x & y
\arrow["{+}", curve={height=-12pt}, from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow["{-}", curve={height=-12pt}, from=1-2, to=1-1]
\end{tikzcd}
\qquad\leftrightsquigarrow\qquad
%
\begin{tikzcd}
x & y
\arrow[curve={height=-12pt}, from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow[curve={height=12pt}, maps to, no head, from=1-1, to=1-2]
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
represent the same network, a negative feedback loop in which $x$ activates $y$,
which in turn inhibits $x$ \cite[Scheme 1, Motif B]{tyson2010}.
In the literature \cite{tyson2010}, regulatory networks are often modeled as
sign-valued matrices. This approach is a special case of ours in that an
$n$-by-$n$ matrix valued in $\{+1,-1,0\}$ can be interpreted as a simple signed
graph on $n$ vertices, with signed edges defined by the nonzero matrix elements.
Unlike the matricial formalism, our formalism allows multiple edges between the
same pair of edges, which can model multiple interactions based on different
mechanisms. Allowing multiple edges and self-loops also ensures that graphs and
signed graphs form well behaved categories, as the following proposition shows.
\begin{proposition}
The category of signed graphs is complete (has all limits) and cocomplete (has
all colimits).
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Because $\CAT{Graph}$ is a copresheaf category, it is complete and cocomplete
\cite[Proposition 3.3.9]{riehl2016}. The slice category
$\CAT{SgnGraph} = \CAT{Graph}/\mathsf{Sgn}$ is hence also complete and cocomplete
\cite[Proposition 3.5.5]{riehl2016}; alternatively, this follows because
slices of copresheaf categories are again (equivalent to) copresheaf
categories \cite[Remark p.\ 303]{street2000}.
\end{proof}
Colimits of signed graphs can be used to construct a category, or rather a
double category, of \emph{open} signed graphs. Composition of open signed graphs
formalizes the process of building large regulatory networks from smaller
pieces, including network motifs.
\begin{proposition}[Open signed graphs] \label{prop:open-sgn-graphs}
There is a symmetric monoidal double category of open signed graphs,
$\Open{\CAT{SgnGraph}}$, having
\begin{itemize}[noitemsep]
\item as objects, sets $A, B, C, \dots$;
\item as vertical arrows, functions $f: A \to B$;
\item as horizontal arrows, \define{open signed graphs}, which consist of a
signed graph $X$ together with a cospan of sets
$A_0 \xrightarrow{\ell_0} X(V) \xleftarrow{\ell_1} A_1$;
\item as cells, \define{morphisms of open signed graphs}
$(X,\ell_0,\ell_1) \to (Y,m_0,m_1)$, which consist of a map of signed
graphs $\phi: X \to Y$ along with functions $f_i: A_i \to B_i$, $i=0,1$,
making the following diagram commute:
\begin{equation*}
%
\begin{tikzcd}
{A_0} & {X(V)} & {A_1} \\
{B_0} & {Y(V)} & {B_1}
\arrow["{\ell_0}", from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow["{f_0}"', from=1-1, to=2-1]
\arrow["{\ell_1}"', from=1-3, to=1-2]
\arrow["{\phi_V}"', from=1-2, to=2-2]
\arrow["{m_0}"', from=2-1, to=2-2]
\arrow["{f_1}", from=1-3, to=2-3]
\arrow["{m_1}", from=2-3, to=2-2]
\end{tikzcd}.
\end{equation*}
\end{itemize}
Vertical composition is by composition in $\CAT{Set}$ and in $\CAT{SgnGraph}$.
Horizontal composition and monoidal products are by pushouts and coproducts in
$\CAT{SgnGraph}$, respectively, viewing the sets in the feet of the cospans as
discrete signed graphs.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
To construct this symmetric monoidal double category, we use the method of
structured cospans \cite{fiadeiro2007} in its double-categorical form
\cite{baez2020}. The categories of sets and of signed graphs are related by an
adjoint pair of functors
\begin{equation*}
%
\begin{tikzcd}
{\mathsf{Set}} & {\mathsf{SgnGraph}}
\arrow[""{name=0, anchor=center, inner sep=0}, "{\mathrm{Disc}}", curve={height=-12pt}, from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow[""{name=1, anchor=center, inner sep=0}, "{\mathrm{ev}_V}", curve={height=-12pt}, from=1-2, to=1-1]
\arrow["\dashv"{anchor=center, rotate=-90}, draw=none, from=0, to=1]
\end{tikzcd}.
\end{equation*}
Here $\ev_V: \CAT{SgnGraph} \to \CAT{Set}$ is the \define{evaluation at $V$} functor,
sending a signed graph $X$ to its set of vertices $X(V)$ and a morphism of
signed graphs $\phi$ to its vertex map $\phi_V$, and
$\Disc: \CAT{Set} \to \CAT{SgnGraph}$ is the \define{discrete signed graph} functor,
sending a set $A$ to the signed graph with vertex set $A$ and no edges. We
obtain a symmetric monoidal double category of open signed graphs as the
$L$-structured cospans for the functor $L \coloneqq \Disc: \CAT{Set} \to \CAT{SgnGraph}$
\cite[Theorems 2.3 and 3.9]{baez2020}.
To show that this symmetric monoidal double category is the same one in the
proposition statement, suppose that $L \dashv R: \cat{A} \to \cat{X}$ is an
adjoint pair of functors, where in our application $L = \Disc$ and
$R = \ev_V$. By the defining bijection of an adjunction, $L$-structured
cospans, i.e., objects $A_0$ and $A_1$ in $\cat{A}$ together with a cospan
$L(A_0) \rightarrow X \leftarrow L(A_1)$ in $\cat{X}$, correspond exactly to
``$R$-decorated cospans,'' i.e., an object $X$ in $\cat{X}$ together with a
cospan $A_0 \rightarrow R(X) \leftarrow A_1$ in $\cat{A}$. Furthermore, by the
naturality of this bijection \cite[Lemma 4.1.3]{riehl2016}, morphisms of
$L$-structured and $R$-decorated cospans
\begin{equation*}
%
\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=small]
{L(A_0)} & X & {L(A_1)} \\
{L(B_0)} & Y & {L(B_1)}
\arrow[from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow["{L(f_0)}"', from=1-1, to=2-1]
\arrow[from=1-3, to=1-2]
\arrow["\phi"', from=1-2, to=2-2]
\arrow[from=2-1, to=2-2]
\arrow["{L(f_1)}", from=1-3, to=2-3]
\arrow[from=2-3, to=2-2]
\end{tikzcd}
\qquad\leftrightsquigarrow\qquad
%
\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=small]
{A_0} & {R(X)} & {A_1} \\
{B_0} & {R(Y)} & {B_1}
\arrow[from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow["{f_0}"', from=1-1, to=2-1]
\arrow[from=1-3, to=1-2]
\arrow["{R(\phi)}"', from=1-2, to=2-2]
\arrow[from=2-1, to=2-2]
\arrow["{f_1}", from=1-3, to=2-3]
\arrow[from=2-3, to=2-2]
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
related by the adjunction are equivalent in that one diagram commutes if and
only if the other does. We will tacitly reuse this reasoning in future
constructions, such as \cref{prop:open-sgn-cats} below.
\end{proof}
A morphism of signed graphs can do two things. Most obviously, it can pick out a
signed graph as a subobject of another one, via a sign-preserving subgraph
embedding. A signed graph morphism can also collapse multiple vertices onto a
single vertex, and multiple edges onto a single edge with the same sign, in the
fairly restrictive sense permitted by a graph homomorphism. To illustrate,
consider the following morphism inspired by Alon's review \cite[Figure
5]{alon2007}.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:arginine-morphism}
%
\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=small]
&& {\mathrm{argR}} \arrow[loop above, maps to, no head] \\
{\mathrm{argCBH}} & {\mathrm{argD}} & {\mathrm{argE}} & {\mathrm{argF}} & {\mathrm{argI}}
\arrow[maps to, no head, from=2-1, to=1-3]
\arrow[maps to, no head, from=2-2, to=1-3]
\arrow[maps to, no head, from=2-3, to=1-3]
\arrow[maps to, no head, from=2-4, to=1-3]
\arrow[maps to, no head, from=2-5, to=1-3]
\end{tikzcd}
\qquad\longrightarrow\qquad
%
\begin{tikzcd}
{\mathrm{argR}} \arrow[loop above, maps to, no head] \\
{\mathrm{arg*}}
\arrow[maps to, no head, from=2-1, to=1-1]
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
The network in the domain is a ``single-input module'' in the arginine
biosynthesis system, in which the regulator argR represses five different
enzymes (argCHB, argD, etc.)\ involved in producing arginine. The morphism above
forgets the distinction between these enzymes, collapsing them into a catch-all
entity labeled ``$\mathrm{arg*}$''. These two functions---embedding and
collapsing---are \emph{all} that a signed graph morphism can do, because any
such morphism factors essentially uniquely as an epimorphism (morphism with
surjective vertex and edge maps) followed by a monomorphism (morphism with
injective vertex and edge maps), using the epi-mono factorization available in
any copresheaf category, or more generally in any topos \cite[\S
IV.6]{maclane1994}.
\subsection{Refining regulatory networks using signed categories and functors}
\label{sec:sgn-cat}
While morphisms of signed graph have their uses, they do not capture the
important idea of \emph{refining} regulatory networks, in which an interaction
in one network is realized as a composite of several interactions in another. To
express refinement, we must generalize our notion of morphism from graph
homomorphisms to functors. This, in turn, requires the concept of a \emph{signed
category}.
\begin{definition}[Signed categories] \label{def:sgn-category}
The \define{category of signed categories} is the slice category
\begin{equation*}
\CAT{SgnCat} \coloneqq \CAT{Cat}/\mathsf{Sgn},
\end{equation*}
where $\CAT{Cat}$ is the category of small categories and the group of signs,
$\mathsf{Sgn}$, is regarded as a category with one object and two morphisms.
\end{definition}
Unpacking the definition, a \define{signed category} is a category $\cat{C}$ in
which every morphism $f$ is assigned a sign $\sgn(f) \in \{1,-1\}$ in a
functorial way, meaning that
\begin{equation*}
\sgn(x_0 \xrightarrow{f_1} x_1 \xrightarrow{f_2} \cdots \xrightarrow{f_n} x_n)
= \prod_{i=1}^n \sgn(f_i)
\end{equation*}
for every $n \geq 0$ and every sequence of composable morphisms
$f_1, \dots, f_n$. In particular ($n=0$), the identity morphisms have positive
sign. A \define{morphism of signed categories}, or \define{signed functor}, is a
functor $F: \cat{C} \to \cat{D}$ between signed categories that preserves the
signs, meaning that
\begin{equation*}
\sgn_{\cat{D}}(F(f)) = \sgn_{\cat{C}}(f)
\end{equation*}
for every morphism $f$ in $\cat{C}$.
Since our aim is to have a more flexible notion of morphism between signed
graphs, we will mostly restrict ourselves to those signed categories that are
freely generated by a signed graph. The \define{free signed category} or
\define{signed path category} functor
\begin{equation*}
\Path: \CAT{SgnGraph} \to \CAT{SgnCat}
\end{equation*}
sends a signed graph $X$ to the signed category $\Path(X)$ having
\begin{itemize}[noitemsep]
\item as objects, the vertices of $X$;
\item as morphisms from $x$ to $y$, the paths in $X$ from $x$ to $y$, whose
sign is defined to be the product of the signs of the edges comprising the
path.
\end{itemize}
Composition of paths is by concatenation, which clearly preserves the sign. The
identity morphism at $x$ is the empty path at $x$, which has positive sign. By
convention, if $X$ and $Y$ are signed graphs, we say that a \define{signed
functor} from $X$ to $Y$ is a signed functor $F: \Path(X) \to \Path(Y)$ between
the corresponding signed path categories. Since the morphisms of $\Path(X)$ are
freely generated by the edges in $X$, a signed functor from $X$ to $Y$ is
uniquely determined by a morphism of signed graphs from $X$ to the underlying
signed graph of $\Path(Y)$. This means that each edge in $X$ is sent to an
appropriately signed \emph{path} of edges in $Y$, which can be regarded as a
refinement of the relationship that the edge represents.
We now have a precise language with which to classify network motifs and their
occurrences. As a first example, Alon identifies four types of \emph{incoherent
feedforward loop (FFL)} involving three components,
\begin{equation*}
%
\begin{tikzcd}[row sep=small]
x && x && x && x \\
y && y && y && y \\
z && z && z && z
\arrow[from=1-1, to=2-1]
\arrow[maps to, no head, from=3-1, to=2-1]
\arrow[curve={height=18pt}, from=1-1, to=3-1]
\arrow[maps to, no head, from=2-3, to=1-3]
\arrow[curve={height=-18pt}, maps to, no head, from=3-3, to=1-3]
\arrow[maps to, no head, from=3-3, to=2-3]
\arrow[from=1-5, to=2-5]
\arrow[from=2-5, to=3-5]
\arrow[curve={height=-18pt}, maps to, no head, from=3-5, to=1-5]
\arrow[curve={height=18pt}, from=1-7, to=3-7]
\arrow[maps to, no head, from=2-7, to=1-7]
\arrow[from=2-7, to=3-7]
\end{tikzcd},
\end{equation*}
those of \emph{type 1, 2, 3, and 4}, respectively \cite[Figure 2a]{alon2007}.
Besides having three components, what these motifs have in common is that there
exists a signed functor into each of them from the signed graph
$I_{\pm} \coloneqq \left\{
%
\begin{tikzcd}[cramped, sep=small]
\bullet & \bullet
\arrow[curve={height=-6pt}, from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow[curve={height=-6pt}, maps to, no head, from=1-2, to=1-1]
\end{tikzcd}
\right\}$ having two parallel arrows of opposite sign. The network $I_{\pm}$ is
thus the ``generic'' incoherent feedforward loop, in the sense that signed
functors out of it refine the pattern in specific ways. A similar situation
holds for other common network motifs (\cref{tab:motifs}), which motivates the
following definition.
\begin{definition}[Motif instance]
Given a signed graph $A$, regarded as a motif, an \define{instance} or
\define{occurrence} of the motif $A$ in a network $X$ is a monic signed
functor $A \rightarrowtail X$.
\end{definition}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lc}
\toprule
Motif & Generic instance \\
\midrule \addlinespace[0.5em]
Positive autoregulation &
$L_+ \coloneqq \left\{
\begin{tikzcd}[cramped]
\bullet \arrow[loop, out=30, in=330, looseness=5]
\end{tikzcd}
\right\}$ \\ \addlinespace[0.5em]
Negative autoregulation &
$L_- \coloneqq \left\{
\begin{tikzcd}[cramped]
\bullet \arrow[loop, in=30, out=330, maps to, no head, looseness=5]
\end{tikzcd}
\right\}$ \\ \addlinespace[0.5em]
Coherent feedforward loop &
$I_{++} \coloneqq \left\{
%
\begin{tikzcd}[cramped, sep=small]
\bullet & \bullet
\arrow[curve={height=-6pt}, from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow[curve={height=6pt}, from=1-1, to=1-2]
\end{tikzcd}
\right\}$ \\ \addlinespace[0.5em]
Incoherent feedforward loop &
$I_{\pm} \coloneqq \left\{
%
\begin{tikzcd}[cramped, sep=small]
\bullet & \bullet
\arrow[curve={height=-6pt}, from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow[curve={height=-6pt}, maps to, no head, from=1-2, to=1-1]
\end{tikzcd}
\right\}$ \\ \addlinespace[0.5em]
Positive feedback loop &
$L_{++} \coloneqq \left\{
%
\begin{tikzcd}[cramped, sep=small]
\bullet & \bullet
\arrow[curve={height=-6pt}, from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow[curve={height=-6pt}, from=1-2, to=1-1]
\end{tikzcd}
\right\}$ \\ \addlinespace[0.5em]
Negative feedback loop &
$L_{\pm} \coloneqq \left\{
%
\begin{tikzcd}[cramped, sep=small]
\bullet & \bullet
\arrow[curve={height=-6pt}, from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow[curve={height=6pt}, maps to, no head, from=1-1, to=1-2]
\end{tikzcd}
\right\}$ \\ \addlinespace[0.5em]
Double-negative feedback loop &
$L_{--} \coloneqq \left\{
%
\begin{tikzcd}[cramped, sep=small]
\bullet & \bullet
\arrow[curve={height=6pt}, maps to, no head, from=1-2, to=1-1]
\arrow[curve={height=6pt}, maps to, no head, from=1-1, to=1-2]
\end{tikzcd}
\right\}$ \\ \addlinespace[0.5em]
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Common motifs in biochemical regulation networks
\cite{alon2007,tyson2010}}
\label{tab:motifs}
\end{table}
Note that a signed functor is a monomorphism exactly when the functor is an
embedding of categories, i.e., an injective-on-objects, faithful functor.
Requiring the functor in the definition to be monic excludes ``degenerate
instances'' of motifs where vertices or edges are identified.
Now, should the incoherent FFL be regarded as a network motif, or is it the more
specific types, such as the incoherent FFL of type 1, that are motifs? From our
point of view, they are all equally motifs but they have different degrees of
specificity, and the functorial language clarifies how motifs are iteratively
refined. Specifically, an instance of an incoherent FFL of type 1 in a network
$X$ also gives an instance of an incoherent FFL in $X$ (of unspecified type),
simply by composing the monomorphisms involved:
\begin{equation*}
I_{\pm} \cong
\left\{
%
\begin{tikzcd}[cramped, sep=small]
x & z
\arrow[curve={height=-6pt}, from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow[curve={height=-6pt}, maps to, no head, from=1-2, to=1-1]
\end{tikzcd}
\right\}
\quad\rightarrowtail\quad
\left\{
%
\begin{tikzcd}[cramped, sep=small]
x & y & z
\arrow[curve={height=-12pt}, from=1-1, to=1-3]
\arrow[from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow[maps to, no head, from=1-3, to=1-2]
\end{tikzcd}
\right\}
\quad\rightarrowtail\quad X.
\end{equation*}
Similarly, in the notation of \cref{tab:motifs}, any instance of double-negative
feedback ($L_{--}$) also gives an instance of positive autoregulation ($L_+$)
\cite{crews2009}, via the monomorphism $L_+ \rightarrowtail L_{--}$ that sends the
positive loop to the double-negative 2-cycle.
For any choice of motif $A$, the mapping that sends a regulatory network $X$ to
the set of occurrences of $A$ in $X$ is a functor
\begin{equation*}
\Hom_{\CAT{SgnCat}_m}(\Path(A), \Path(-)): \CAT{SgnGraph}_m \to \CAT{Set},
\end{equation*}
where $\CAT{SgnGraph}_m$ and $\CAT{SgnCat}_m$ denote the wide subcategories of
monomorphisms in $\CAT{SgnGraph}$ and $\CAT{SgnCat}$, respectively. This functor is
almost, but not quite, representable, due to the distinction between signed
graphs and signed categories. More importantly, the existence of this functor
means that a monomorphism between regulatory networks induces a map between
instances of $A$, for any motif $A$.
We now extend the construction of open signed graphs to open signed categories.
\begin{proposition}
The category of signed categories is complete and cocomplete.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Because the category $\CAT{Cat}$ is complete and cocomplete \cite[Proposition
3.5.6]{riehl2016}, its slice $\CAT{SgnCat} = \CAT{Cat}/\mathsf{Sgn}$ is also \cite[Proposition
3.5.5]{riehl2016}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}[Open signed categories] \label{prop:open-sgn-cats}
There is a symmetric monoidal double category of open signed categories,
$\Open{\CAT{SgnCat}}$, having
\begin{itemize}[noitemsep]
\item as objects, sets $A, B, C, \dots$;
\item as vertical arrows, functions $f: A \to B$;
\item as horizontal arrows, \define{open signed categories}, which consist of a
signed category $\cat{C}$ together with a cospan of sets
$A_0 \xrightarrow{\ell_0} \Ob(\cat{C}) \xleftarrow{\ell_1} A_1$;
\item as cells, \define{morphisms of open signed categories}
$(\cat{C},\ell_0,\ell_1) \to (\cat{D},m_0,m_1)$, which consist of a signed
functor $F: \cat{C} \to \cat{D}$ along with functions $f_i: A_i \to B_i$,
$i=0,1$, making the diagram commute:
\begin{equation*}
%
\begin{tikzcd}
{A_0} & {\mathrm{Ob}(\mathsf{C})} & {A_1} \\
{B_0} & {\mathrm{Ob}(\mathsf{D})} & {B_1}
\arrow["{\ell_0}", from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow["{f_0}"', from=1-1, to=2-1]
\arrow["{\ell_1}"', from=1-3, to=1-2]
\arrow["{\mathrm{Ob}(F)}"', from=1-2, to=2-2]
\arrow["{m_0}"', from=2-1, to=2-2]
\arrow["{f_1}", from=1-3, to=2-3]
\arrow["{m_1}", from=2-3, to=2-2]
\end{tikzcd}.
\end{equation*}
\end{itemize}
Vertical composition is by composition in $\CAT{Set}$ and in $\CAT{SgnCat}$. Horizontal
composition and monoidal products are by pushouts and coproducts in $\CAT{SgnCat}$,
respectively, viewing the sets in the feet of cospans as discrete signed
categories.
Moreover, the signed path category functor extends to a symmetric monoidal
double functor
\begin{equation*}
\Path: \Open{\CAT{SgnGraph}} \to \Open{\CAT{SgnCat}}.
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We take $\Open{\CAT{SgnCat}}$ to be the symmetric monoidal double category of
$L'$-structured cospans for the functor $L' \coloneqq \Disc: \CAT{Set} \to \CAT{SgnCat}$
involved the composite adjunction
\begin{equation*}
%
\begin{tikzcd}
{\mathsf{Set}} & {\mathsf{SgnCat}} & {=} & {\mathsf{Set}} & {\mathsf{SgnGraph}} & {\mathsf{SgnCat}}
\arrow[""{name=0, anchor=center, inner sep=0}, "{\mathrm{Disc}}", curve={height=-12pt}, from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow[""{name=1, anchor=center, inner sep=0}, "{\mathrm{Ob}}", curve={height=-12pt}, from=1-2, to=1-1]
\arrow[""{name=2, anchor=center, inner sep=0}, "{\mathrm{Disc}}", curve={height=-12pt}, from=1-4, to=1-5]
\arrow[""{name=3, anchor=center, inner sep=0}, "{\mathrm{ev}_V}", curve={height=-12pt}, from=1-5, to=1-4]
\arrow[""{name=4, anchor=center, inner sep=0}, "U", curve={height=-12pt}, from=1-6, to=1-5]
\arrow[""{name=5, anchor=center, inner sep=0}, "{\mathrm{Path}}", curve={height=-12pt}, from=1-5, to=1-6]
\arrow["\dashv"{anchor=center, rotate=-90}, draw=none, from=0, to=1]
\arrow["\dashv"{anchor=center, rotate=-90}, draw=none, from=2, to=3]
\arrow["\dashv"{anchor=center, rotate=-90}, draw=none, from=5, to=4]
\end{tikzcd}.
\end{equation*}
On the right hand side, the first adjunction was already used in the proof of
\cref{prop:open-sgn-graphs}, and the second adjunction is the free-forgetful
adjunction between signed graphs and signed categories.
To prove the last statement, we notice that all functors involved in the
commutative square
\begin{equation*}
%
\begin{tikzcd}
\CAT{Set} && \CAT{SgnGraph} \\
\CAT{Set} && \CAT{SgnCat}
\arrow[Rightarrow, no head, from=1-1, to=2-1]
\arrow["{L = \Disc}", from=1-1, to=1-3]
\arrow["{L' = \Disc}"', from=2-1, to=2-3]
\arrow["\Path", from=1-3, to=2-3]
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
are left adjoints, hence preserve colimits. We can therefore appeal to
\cite[Theorem 4.3]{baez2020} to obtain a symmetric monoidal double functor
\begin{equation*}
\Open{\CAT{SgnGraph}} \cong {}_{L}\mathbb{C}\mathsf{sp}(\CAT{SgnGraph}) \to
{}_{L'}\mathbb{C}\mathsf{sp}(\CAT{SgnCat}) \cong \Open{\CAT{SgnCat}}. \qedhere
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Mechanistic models as Petri nets with links}
\label{sec:sgn-petri}
However challenging they may be to identify through experiments and data
analysis, regulatory networks still only summarize how the components of a
complex biochemical system interact. Regulatory networks typically include only
a subset of the system's components, and they do not model individual reactions
and processes, only pairwise promoting or inhibiting interactions between
components. In this sense, regulatory networks are not fully mechanistic models,
even if they have a stronger causal interpretation than, say, a correlation
matrix.
By contrast, mechanistic models in biochemistry model individual reactions,
which requires a different formalism. Pictures like the following, adapted from
Voit's review \cite[Figure 4]{voit2013}, are common in systems biology.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:voit-ex}
%
%
\begin{tikzcd}
{} & A & B & D & {} \\
& {} & C
\arrow[curve={height=-14pt}, no head, from=2-3, to=1-4]
\arrow[""{name=0, anchor=center, inner sep=0}, from=1-2, to=1-3]
\arrow[from=1-3, to=1-4]
\arrow[from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow[from=2-2, to=2-3]
\arrow[from=1-4, to=1-5]
\arrow["{-}"', curve={height=24pt}, shorten >=6pt, dashed, from=1-4, to=0]
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
This diagram possesses two distinctive features. First, directed hyperedges
represent reactions having a number of inputs or outputs different than one.
There are, for example, hyperedges from $B$ \emph{and} $C$ to $D$, from nothing
to $A$ (an inflow), and from $D$ to nothing (an outflow). If, in lieu of
hyperedges, we introduce a second type of vertex, we obtain a structure similar
to a Petri net
\begin{equation} \label{eq:voit-ex-sgn-petri}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline={(current bounding box.center)}]
\node[transition] (in1) at (-3,0) {};
\node[species] (A) at (-2,0) {$A$};
\node[transition] (AB) at (-1,0) {};
\node[transition] (in2) at (-1,-1) {};
\node[species] (B) at (0,0) {$B$};
\node[species] (C) at (0,-1) {$C$};
\node[transition] (BCD) at (1,-0.5) {};
\node[species] (D) at (2,-0.5) {$D$};
\node[transition] (out1) at (3,-0.5) {};
\draw[arc] (in1) to (A);
\draw[arc] (in2) to (C);
\draw[arc] (A) to (AB);
\draw[arc] (AB) to (B);
\draw[arc] (B) to (BCD);
\draw[arc] (C) to (BCD);
\draw[arc] (BCD) to (D);
\draw[arc] (D) to (out1);
\draw[link, bend right=45] (D.north) to node[midway,above] {$-$} (AB.north);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
but with the second distinctive feature of having \emph{signed links} from the
first type of vertices (\emph{species}) to the second type (\emph{transitions}),
whose signs indicate promotion or inhibition.
In this section, we explain how a Petri net with signed links can provide a
\emph{mechanism} for a regulatory network. This involves constructing a functor
from Petri nets with signed links to signed graphs, approximating the former as
the latter. As a prerequisite, we need a rigorous definition of a Petri net with
links, which seems to be absent from the literature.
\begin{definition}[Petri net with links]
The \define{schema for Petri nets with links} is the category
$\Sch{\CAT{LPetri}}$ freely generated by these objects and morphisms:
\begin{equation*}
%
\begin{tikzcd}
& I \\
S & O & T \\
& L
\arrow["{\mathrm{src}_L}", from=3-2, to=2-1]
\arrow["{\mathrm{tgt}_L}"', from=3-2, to=2-3]
\arrow["{\mathrm{src}_I}"', from=1-2, to=2-1]
\arrow["{\mathrm{tgt}_I}", from=1-2, to=2-3]
\arrow["{\mathrm{tgt}_O}"'{pos=0.4}, from=2-2, to=2-1]
\arrow["{\mathrm{src}_O}"{pos=0.4}, from=2-2, to=2-3]
\end{tikzcd}.
\end{equation*}
A \define{Petri nets with links} is a functor $P: \Sch{\CAT{LPetri}} \to \CAT{Set}$,
and a \define{morphism} of these is a natural transformation. A morphism
$\phi: P \to Q$ \define{preserves arities} if the naturality squares
associated with the morphisms $I \to T$ and $O \to T$ are also pullback
squares:
\begin{equation*}
%
\begin{tikzcd}
{P(I)} & {P(T)} \\
{Q(I)} & {Q(T)}
\arrow["{P(\mathrm{tgt}_I)}", from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow["{\phi_I}"', from=1-1, to=2-1]
\arrow["{\phi_T}", from=1-2, to=2-2]
\arrow["{P(\mathrm{tgt}_I)}"', from=2-1, to=2-2]
\arrow["\lrcorner"{anchor=center, pos=0.125}, draw=none, from=1-1, to=2-2]
\end{tikzcd}
\qquad\qquad
%
\begin{tikzcd}
{P(O)} & {P(T)} \\
{Q(O)} & {Q(T)}
\arrow["{P(\mathrm{src}_O)}", from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow["{\phi_O}"', from=1-1, to=2-1]
\arrow["{\phi_T}", from=1-2, to=2-2]
\arrow["{P(\mathrm{src}_O)}"', from=2-1, to=2-2]
\arrow["\lrcorner"{anchor=center, pos=0.125}, draw=none, from=1-1, to=2-2]
\end{tikzcd}.
\end{equation*}
Petri nets with links and their morphisms form the category $\CAT{LPetri}$.
\end{definition}
To explicate the definition, a Petri net with links $P$ consists of
\begin{itemize}[noitemsep]
\item a set $P(S)$ of \define{species};
\item a set $P(T)$ of \define{transitions};
\item a set $P(I)$ of \define{input arcs} going from species to transitions,
via maps \mbox{$P(\src_I): P(I) \to P(S)$} and $P(\tgt_I): P(I) \to P(T)$;
\item a set $P(O)$ of \define{output arcs} going from transitions to species,
via maps \mbox{$P(\src_O): P(O) \to P(T)$} and $P(\tgt_O): P(O) \to P(S)$;
and finally
\item a set $P(L)$ of \define{links} going from species to transitions, via
maps \mbox{$P(\src_L): P(L) \to P(S)$} and $P(\tgt_L): P(L) \to P(T)$.
\end{itemize}
The property of preserving arities, called ``etale'' by Kock \cite[\S
3.4]{kock2022}, means that a morphism $\phi: P \to Q$ of Petri nets with links
preserves the input and output arities of all transitions. Namely, for each
transition $t$ in the net $P$ the map $\phi_I: P(I) \to Q(I)$ restricts to a
bijection between the input arcs to $t$ and to $\phi_T(t)$, and similarly the
map $\phi_O: P(O) \to Q(O)$ restricts to a bijection between the output arcs
from $t$ and from $\phi_T(t)$. This property seems appropriate for many
purposes, including in biochemistry, but for mathematical convenience we will
not always assume it.
\begin{remark}[Related literature]
Our definition of a Petri net with links, while apparently novel, is the
obvious joint generalization of two existing concepts. Kock has described
Petri nets as copresheaves on a category with objects $S,T,I,O$
\cite{kock2022}, calling them \emph{whole-grain Petri nets} to distinguish
them from classical Petri nets, whose semantics are subtly different
\cite{baez2021}. Meanwhile, the concept of a link is essential to \emph{stock
and flow diagrams}, originating in the field of system dynamics
\cite{forrester1961,sterman2000} and recently given a rigorous categorical
account \cite{baez2022}. We also note that the \emph{Petri nets with
catalysts} proposed by Baez, Foley, and Moeller \cite{baez2019} differ
significantly from Petri nets with links: the former fix a subset of the
species to be catalysts throughout the net, whereas the latter uses links to
make catalyzation specific to individual reactions.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}[Petri nets as typed graphs]
Like bare Petri nets, Petri nets with links can be described as graphs with
two types of vertices. To see this, take the graph
\begin{equation*}
%
T_{\CAT{LPetri}} \coloneqq \left\{
%
\begin{tikzcd}
S && T
\arrow["I", curve={height=-18pt}, from=1-1, to=1-3]
\arrow["L"', curve={height=18pt}, from=1-1, to=1-3]
\arrow["O"{description}, from=1-3, to=1-1]
\end{tikzcd}
\right\}
\end{equation*}
with vertices $S$ and $T$ and edges $I$, $O$, and $L$. The category of Petri
nets with links and natural transformations is isomorphic to the slice
category $\CAT{Graph}/T_{\CAT{LPetri}}$. Moreover, the schema category
$\Sch{\CAT{LPetri}}$ is isomorphic to the category of elements of the functor
$T_{\CAT{LPetri}}: \Sch{\CAT{Graph}} \to \CAT{Set}$, exemplifying a general fact about
slices of copresheaf categories \cite[Remark p.\ 303]{street2000}.
\end{remark}
Petri nets with \emph{signed} links are defined analogously to signed graphs
(\cref{def:sgn-graph}).
\begin{definition}[Petri nets with signed links] \label{def:sgn-petri}
The \define{category of Petri nets with signed links} is the slice category
\begin{equation*}
\CAT{SgnPetri} \coloneqq \CAT{LPetri}/P_\mathsf{Sgn},
\end{equation*}
where $P_\mathsf{Sgn}$ is the Petri net with links having one species, one transition,
one input arc, one output arc, and two links, namely the elements of $\mathsf{Sgn}$.
\end{definition}
Incidentally, the morphism $P \to P_\mathsf{Sgn}$ defining a Petri net with signed links
does \emph{not} preserve arities unless every transition in $P$ has exactly one
input and one output.
We now turn to the main construction of this section, a functor that
``approximates'' a Petri net with signed links as a signed graph. On the example
in \cref{eq:voit-ex,eq:voit-ex-sgn-petri}, this functor gives the signed graph
\begin{equation} \label{eq:voit-ex-sgn-graph}
%
\begin{tikzcd}
A \arrow[loop below, maps to, no head, looseness=7]
& B \arrow[loop below, maps to, no head, looseness=7]
& D \arrow[loop below, maps to, no head, looseness=7] \\
& C \arrow[loop below, maps to, no head, looseness=7]
\arrow[from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow[from=1-2, to=1-3]
\arrow[from=2-2, to=1-3]
\arrow[curve={height=-6pt}, maps to, no head, from=1-2, to=1-3]
\arrow[curve={height=18pt}, from=1-3, to=1-1]
\end{tikzcd}.
\end{equation}
In general, the resulting signed graph has, as vertices, the Petri net's species
and has signed edges for each of the four cases:
\begin{enumerate}[(a),noitemsep]
\item for every input-output pair to a transition, a positive edge from input
to output;
\item for every input to a transition, a negative self loop, representing
consumption by the reaction;
\item for every signed link, an edge of \emph{opposite} sign going from the
linked species to each input to the linked transition;
\item for every signed link, an edge of \emph{equal} sign going from the
linked species to each output from the linked transition.
\end{enumerate}
All four cases are visible in the example of \cref{eq:voit-ex-sgn-graph}.
Set-theoretically, each of these cases is the result of a \emph{conjunctive
query}, or equivalently of a representable functor
\begin{equation*}
\Hom_{\CAT{LPetri}}(P, -): \CAT{LPetri} \to \CAT{Set}
\end{equation*}
associated with a particular Petri net with links $P$, the generic instance for
that query. The four generic instances we need are shown in
\cref{fig:petri-queries}. Their sum is a \emph{disjoint union of conjunctive
queries}, or \emph{duc-query} for short.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.24\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[species] (in) at (-1,0) {};
\node[transition] (t) at (0,0) {};
\node[species] (out) at (1,0) {};
\draw[arc] (in) to (t);
\draw[arc] (t) to (out);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Input-output pair to transition}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.24\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[species] (in) at (-1,0) {};
\node[transition] (t) at (0,0) {};
\draw[arc] (in) to (t);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Input to transition}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.24\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[species] (in) at (-1,0) {};
\node[transition] (t) at (0,0) {};
\node[species] (s) at (1,0) {};
\draw[arc] (in) to (t);
\draw[link, bend right] (s.north) to (t.north);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Input to transition with incident link}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.24\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[transition] (t) at (0,0) {};
\node[species] (out) at (1,0) {};
\node[species] (s) at (2,0) {};
\draw[arc] (t) to (out);
\draw[link, bend right] (s.north) to (t.north);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Output from transition with incident link}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Four different Petri nets with links. For each of these instances
$P$, evaluating the representable functor
$\Hom_{\CAT{LPetri}}(P,-): \CAT{LPetri} \to \CAT{Set}$ gives the edges for one case
in the case analysis that defines the functor from Petri nets with signed
links to signed graphs (\cref{prop:sgn-petri-to-sgn-graph}).}
\label{fig:petri-queries}
\end{figure}
To make the construction just sketched on objects fully precise and functorial,
we use Spivak's theory of functorial data migration based on duc-queries
\cite{spivak2021}. In order to apply it, we fully schematize the definitions of
signed graphs and Petri nets with signed links.
The \define{schema for signed graphs} is the category $\Sch{\CAT{SgnGraph}}$ freely
generated by these objects and morphisms:
\begin{equation*}
%
\begin{tikzcd}
V & E & A \arrow[loop right, "\mathrm{neg}", looseness=7]
\arrow["{\mathrm{src}}"', shift right=1, from=1-2, to=1-1]
\arrow["{\mathrm{tgt}}", shift left=1, from=1-2, to=1-1]
\arrow["{\mathrm{sgn}}", from=1-2, to=1-3]
\end{tikzcd}.
\end{equation*}
A signed graph as in \cref{def:sgn-graph} is equivalent to a functor
$X: \Sch{\CAT{SgnGraph}} \to \CAT{Set}$ such that $X(A) = \mathsf{Sgn}$, the set of signs, and
$X(\negate): \mathsf{Sgn} \to \mathsf{Sgn}$ is negation (i.e., multiplication by $-1$). Note
that negation is not needed to define the data of a signed graph but is relevant
to the data migration. A morphism of signed graphs $X \to Y$ is a natural
transformation $\phi: X \to Y$ whose component at $A$ is the identity function,
$\phi_A = 1_\mathsf{Sgn}$. We thus obtain a category isomorphic to $\CAT{SgnGraph}$.
Similarly, the \define{schema for Petri nets with signed links} is the category
$\Sch{\CAT{SgnPetri}}$ freely generated by:
\begin{equation*}
%
\begin{tikzcd}
& S \\
I & O & L & A \arrow[loop right, "\mathrm{neg}", looseness=7] \\
& T
\arrow["{\mathrm{src}_L}"', from=2-3, to=1-2]
\arrow["{\mathrm{tgt}_L}", from=2-3, to=3-2]
\arrow["{\mathrm{src}_I}", from=2-1, to=1-2]
\arrow["{\mathrm{tgt}_I}"', from=2-1, to=3-2]
\arrow["{\mathrm{tgt}_O}"{pos=0.3}, from=2-2, to=1-2]
\arrow["{\mathrm{src}_O}"'{pos=0.3}, from=2-2, to=3-2]
\arrow["{\mathrm{sgn}}", from=2-3, to=2-4]
\arrow["{\mathrm{one}}"', curve={height=18pt}, from=3-2, to=2-4]
\end{tikzcd}.
\end{equation*}
A Petri net with signed links, as in \cref{def:sgn-petri}, is equivalent to a
functor $P: \Sch{\CAT{SgnPetri}} \to \CAT{Set}$ such that $P(A) = \mathsf{Sgn}$, the map
$P(\negate): \mathsf{Sgn} \to \mathsf{Sgn}$ is negation, and $P(\one): P(T) \to \mathsf{Sgn}$ is the
constant map at $+1$. Again, these maps are needed for data migration, not for
the data itself. A morphism of Petri nets with signed links is a natural
transformation $\phi: P \to Q$ such $\phi_A = 1_\mathsf{Sgn}$, yielding a category
isomorphic to $\CAT{SgnPetri}$.
\begin{proposition}[Regulatory net induced by Petri net]
\label{prop:sgn-petri-to-sgn-graph}
A functor
\begin{equation*}
\Net: \CAT{SgnPetri} \to \CAT{SgnGraph}
\end{equation*}
is specified by the following functor from $\Sch{\CAT{SgnGraph}}$ to the category
of duc-queries on $\Sch{\CAT{SgnPetri}}$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:sgn-petri-to-sgn-graph}
\begin{aligned}
\Sch{\CAT{SgnGraph}} &\to \amalg\left(\left(\CAT{Set}^{\Sch{\CAT{SgnPetri}}}\right)^{\mathrm{op}}\right)\\
V &\mapsto S \\
E &\mapsto I \times_T O + I + I \times_T L + O \times_T L \\
A &\mapsto A \\
\src &\mapsto \left[
\src_I \circ \pi_I,\ \src_I,\ \src_L \circ \pi_L,\ \src_L \circ \pi_L
\right] \\
\tgt &\mapsto \left[
\tgt_O \circ \pi_O,\ \src_I,\ \src_I \circ \pi_I,\ \tgt_O \circ \pi_O
\right] \\
\sgn &\mapsto \left[
\one \circ \pi_T,\ \negate \circ \one \circ \tgt_I,\
\negate \circ \sgn \circ \pi_L,\ \sgn \circ \pi_L
\right] \\
\negate &\mapsto \negate.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We will define the functor $\Net: \CAT{SgnPetri} \to \CAT{SgnGraph}$ as the restriction
of a functor $\CAT{Set}^{\cat{D}} \to \CAT{Set}^{\cat{C}}$ between the categories of
copresheaves on $\cat{D} \coloneqq \Sch{\CAT{SgnPetri}}$ and
$\cat{C} \coloneqq \Sch{\CAT{SgnGraph}}$. In fact, the functor
$\CAT{Set}^{\cat{D}} \to \CAT{Set}^{\cat{C}}$ will be of the special kind known as a
\emph{parametric right adjoint} \cite[Definition p.\ 311]{street2000}.
According to the theory of data migration \cite[Corollary 2.3.6]{spivak2021},
giving a parametric right adjoint $\CAT{Set}^{\cat{D}} \to \CAT{Set}^{\cat{C}}$ is
equivalent to giving a functor from $\cat{C}$ to
$\amalg((\CAT{Set}^{\cat{D}})^\mathrm{op})$, the free coproduct completion of the free
limit completion of $\cat{D}$. Our functor
$\cat{C} \to \amalg((\CAT{Set}^{\cat{D}})^\mathrm{op})$ is defined by
\cref{eq:sgn-petri-to-sgn-graph}. The assignment of $E \in \cat{C}$ can also
be described as the sum of the four representables associated with the Petri
nets with links in \cref{fig:petri-queries}.
Finally, the assignments $A \mapsto A$ and $\negate \mapsto \negate$ ensure
that if $P$ is a copresheaf on $\cat{D}$ with $P(A) = \mathsf{Sgn}$ and $P(\negate)$
is negation, then applying this parametric right adjoint functor to $P$ yields
a copresheaf $X$ on $\cat{C}$ where again $X(A) = \mathsf{Sgn}$ and $X(\negate)$ is
negation. Thus, this functor between copresheaf categories restricts to a
functor $\CAT{SgnPetri} \to \CAT{SgnGraph}$ as claimed.
\end{proof}
With this construction, we can give a formal account of what it means to have a
mechanistic model for a regulatory network.
\begin{definition}[Mechanism]
A \define{mechanistic model} for a regulatory network $X$ is a Petri net with
signed links $P$ together with an occurrence of $X$ in $\Net(P)$, i.e., a
monic signed functor $X \rightarrowtail \Net(P)$.
\end{definition}
For example, the Petri net with signed links in \cref{eq:voit-ex-sgn-petri} is a
mechanistic model for a regulatory network in which $A$ and $D$ participate in a
positive feedback loop:
\begin{equation*}
%
\begin{tikzcd}
A & D
\arrow[curve={height=6pt}, from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow[curve={height=6pt}, from=1-2, to=1-1]
\end{tikzcd}.
\end{equation*}
\section{Quantitative analysis: parameters and dynamics}
\label{sec:quantitative}
\subsection{Parameterized dynamical systems}
\label{sec:para-dynam}
Pioneering the idea of functorial semantics for scientific models, Baez and
Pollard extended the mass-action model of reaction networks to a functor from
the category of Petri nets with rates into a category of dynamical systems
\cite{baez2017}. In this picture, the reaction rate coefficients are known
constants associated with the reaction network. In practice, however, rate
coefficients are often unknown and must be extracted from existing literature or
estimated from experimental data. We therefore change our perspective slightly
and consider dynamical systems not in isolation but as \emph{parameterized
families}. This shift also turns out to have formal advantages: the category
of parameterized dynamical systems is better behaved than the category of
dynamical systems, which has too few morphisms.
To begin, we recall the dynamics functor, nearly identical to Baez-Pollard's
\cite[Lemma 15]{baez2017}:
\begin{lemma}[Dynamics] \label{lem:dynamics}
There is a functor $\Dynam: \CAT{FinSet} \to \CAT{Vect}_{\R}$ that sends
\begin{itemize}
\item a finite set $S$ to the vector space of algebraic vector fields
$v: \mathbb{R}^S \to \mathbb{R}^S$, where \define{algebraic} means that the components of
the vector field are polynomials in the state variables;
\item a function $f: S \to S'$ between finite sets to the linear
transformation
\begin{equation*}
(v: \mathbb{R}^S \to \mathbb{R}^S) \quad\mapsto\quad
(f_* \circ v \circ f^*: \mathbb{R}^{S'} \to \mathbb{R}^{S'}),
\end{equation*}
where the linear map $f^*: \mathbb{R}^{S'} \to \mathbb{R}^S$ is the \define{pullback}
along $f$
\begin{equation*}
f^*(x')(i) \coloneqq x'(f(i)),
\qquad x' \in \mathbb{R}^{S'},\ i \in S,
\end{equation*}
and the linear map $f_*: \mathbb{R}^S \to \mathbb{R}^{S'}$ is the \define{pushforward} along $f$
\begin{equation*}
f_*(x)(i') \coloneqq \sum_{i \in f^{-1}(i')} x(i),
\qquad x \in \mathbb{R}^S,\ i' \in S'.
\end{equation*}
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The functor $\Dynam: \CAT{FinSet} \to \CAT{Vect}_{\R}$ can be constructed as the composite
\begin{equation*}
\CAT{FinSet} \xrightarrow{\langle D, F \rangle}
\CAT{Vect}_{\R}^\mathrm{op} \times \CAT{Vect}_{\R} \xrightarrow{\CAT{Poly}(-,-)}
\CAT{Vect}_{\R},
\end{equation*}
where $F: \CAT{FinSet} \to \CAT{Vect}_{\R}$ is the free vector space functor (restricted to
finite sets); $D: \CAT{FinSet}^\mathrm{op} \to \CAT{Vect}_{\R}$ is the dual vector space functor
(restricted to $F$), whose underlying set-valued functor is
\begin{equation*}
\CAT{Vect}_{\R}(F(-), \mathbb{R}) \cong \CAT{Set}(-, \mathbb{R}): \CAT{FinSet}^\mathrm{op} \to \CAT{Set};
\end{equation*}
and $\CAT{Poly}(-,-)$ is the $\CAT{Vect}_{\R}$-enriched hom-functor that sends a pair of
vector spaces to the vector space of polynomial maps between
them.\footnote{For a coordinate-free description of polynomial maps between
vector spaces, see \cite[\S 1.6]{cartan1971}.}
\end{proof}
The dynamics functor is the same one studied by Baez and Pollard except that we
take the vector space, rather than merely the set, of vector fields. That is
because we are interested in \emph{linearly} parameterized dynamical systems. In
calling the functor ``dynamics,'' we implictly identify a vector field with the
differentiable dynamical system that it generates. This common practice is not
entirely innocent since even when a system of differential equations depends
linearly on parameters, its solutions rarely do. We also note that the
restriction to \emph{algebraic} vector fields, as opposed to smooth or even just
continuous ones, is inessential but suffices for us and agrees with
Baez-Pollard.
The dynamics functor is the main building block in constructing a category of
parameterized dynamical systems.
\begin{definition}[Linear parameterizations] \label{def:para-dynam}
The \define{category of linearly parameterized dynamical systems} is the comma
category
\begin{equation*}
\CAT{Para}(\Dynam) \coloneqq F/\Dynam,
\end{equation*}
where $F: \CAT{FinSet} \to \CAT{Vect}_{\R},\ X \mapsto \mathbb{R}^X$ is the free vector space functor
restricted to finite sets.
\end{definition}
So, by definition, a linearly parameterized dynamical system consists of a
finite set $P$, the \define{parameter variables}, and a finite set $S$, the
\define{state variables}, together with a linear map
\begin{equation*}
v: \mathbb{R}^P \to \Dynam(S)
\end{equation*}
sending each choice of parameters $\theta \in \mathbb{R}^P$ to an algebraic vector field
$v(\theta)$. In more conventional notation, we can write
$v(x; \theta) \coloneqq v(\theta)(x)$ for $x \in \mathbb{R}^S$ and $\theta \in \mathbb{R}^P$. A
morphism $(P,S,v) \to (P',S',v')$ of linearly parameterized dynamical systems is
a pair of functions $q: P \to P'$ and $f: S \to S'$ making the square
\begin{equation} \label{eq:para-dynam-hom}
%
\begin{tikzcd}
{\mathbb{R}^P} & {\Dynam(S)} \\
{\mathbb{R}^{P'}} & {\Dynam(S')}
\arrow["v", from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow["{f_* \circ (-) \circ f^*}", from=1-2, to=2-2]
\arrow["{v'}"', from=2-1, to=2-2]
\arrow["{q_*}"', from=1-1, to=2-1]
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation}
commute, or equivalently making the equation
\begin{equation*}
f_*(v(f^*(x'); \theta)) = v'(x'; q_*(\theta))
\end{equation*}
hold for all $x' \in \mathbb{R}^{S'}$ and $\theta \in \mathbb{R}^P$.
While certainly not all dynamical models depend linearly on their parameters, a
great many of them do, including several important canonical models in biology
and chemistry. The law of mass action defines dynamical systems that depend
linearly on the rate coefficients. The generalized Lotka-Volterra equations,
studied in the next section, are linear in the rate and affinity parameters. Of
course, the mass-action and Lotka-Volterra equations are nonlinear ODEs;
linearity of a vector field in state or in parameters are separate matters.
Nevertheless, even for nonlinear models such as Lotka-Volterra, linearity in
parameters is a useful assumption that aides in the identifiability analysis of
the model \cite[\S 5]{stanhope2014}.
To express important physical constraints and to define a semantics for signed
graphs, we will restrict the dynamical system and its parameters to be
nonnegative. This is straightforward enough but requires a bit of additional
formalism.
Write $\mathbb{R}_+ \coloneqq \{x \in \mathbb{R}: x \geq 0\}$ for the semiring of nonnegative
real numbers. A module over $\mathbb{R}_+$ is called a \define{conical space}, and the
category of conical spaces and conic-linear ($\mathbb{R}_+$-linear) maps is denoted
$\CAT{Con} \coloneqq \Mod{\mathbb{R}_+}$. A conical space is a structure in which one can
take linear combinations with nonnegative real coefficients, just as a real
vector space ($\mathbb{R}$-module) is a structure in which one can take linear
combinations with arbitrary real coefficients. Any convex cone in a real vector
space is a conical space. Our main example is the \define{nonnegative orthant}
of $\mathbb{R}^S$ for some set $S$: the function space
$\mathbb{R}_+^S \coloneqq \{x: S \to \mathbb{R}_+\}$, with conical combinations taken pointwise.
A real vector space can itself be regarded as a conical space; more precisely,
the inclusion of semirings $\mathbb{R}_+ \hookrightarrow \mathbb{R}$ induces a forgetful functor
$\CAT{Vect}_{\R} \to \CAT{Con}$ by restriction of scalars.
Recall that a dynamical system is \define{nonnegative} if whenever the initial
condition is in the nonnegative orthant, its trajectory always remains in the
nonnegative orthant. A dynamical system of form $\dot x = v(x)$ is nonnegative
if and only if $v_i(x) \geq 0$ whenever $x \geq 0$ componentwise and $x_i = 0$
\cite[Proposition 2.1]{haddad2010}, in which case the vector field $v$ is called
\define{essentially nonnegative} \cite[Definition 2.1]{haddad2010}. Using this
criterion, it is easy to see that a reaction network with mass-action kinetics
is nonnegative assuming the rate constants are nonnegative, as is a
Lotka-Volterra system for any choice of parameters. Hence both systems satisfy
the obvious physical constraint that no species should have negative
concentration or population.
\begin{lemma}[Nonnegative dynamics] \label{lem:nonneg-dynam}
There is a functor $\Dynam_+: \CAT{FinSet} \to \CAT{Con}$ that sends a finite set $S$ to
the conical space of essentially nonnegative, algebraic vector fields
$v: \mathbb{R}^S \to \mathbb{R}^S$ and sends a function $f: S \to S'$ to the transformation
$v \mapsto f_* \circ v \circ f^*$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof is similar to that of \cref{lem:dynamics}. It is clear that the
essentially nonnegative functions are stable under pointwise conical
combinations, hence form a conical space. (They are, of course, \emph{not}
stable under arbitrary linear combinations.) We just need to check that if
$v: \mathbb{R}^S \to \mathbb{R}^S$ is essentially nonnegative, then so is the transformed
vector field $f_* \circ v \circ f^*: \mathbb{R}^{S'} \to \mathbb{R}^{S'}$. Fix
$x' \in \mathbb{R}_+^{S'}$ and $i' \in S'$, and suppose that $x'(i') = 0$. For every
$i \in f^{-1}(i')$, we have $f^*(x')(i) = x'(f(i)) = x'(i') = 0$ and so
$v(f^*(x'))(i) \geq 0$, whence the inequality of essential nonnegativity
follows:
\begin{equation*}
(f_* \circ v \circ f^*)(x')(i')
= \sum_{i \in f^{-1}(i')} v(f^*(x'))(i)
\geq 0. \qedhere
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
We now define the conical analogue of linearly parameterized dynamical systems.
\begin{definition}[Conical parameterizations] \label{def:para-nonneg-dynam}
The \define{category of conically parameterized nonnegative dynamical systems}
is the comma category
\begin{equation*}
\CAT{Para}(\Dynam_+) \coloneqq F_+ / \Dynam_+.
\end{equation*}
where $F_+: \CAT{FinSet} \to \CAT{Con}$, $X \mapsto \mathbb{R}_+^X$ is the free conical space
functor restricted to finite sets.
\end{definition}
So, a conically parameterized nonnegative dynamical system consists of finite
sets $P$ and $S$ together with a conic-linear map
\begin{equation*}
v: \mathbb{R}_+^P \to \Dynam_+(S).
\end{equation*}
\begin{proposition}[Colimits of parameterized dynamical systems]
\label{prop:colim-para-dynam}
The categories of linearly and conically parameterized dynamical systems are
finitely cocomplete. Moreover, these finite colimits are computed by colimits
in $\CAT{FinSet}$ of the parameter variables and of the state variables.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The category $\CAT{FinSet}$ has finite colimits and the functors
$F: \CAT{FinSet} \to \CAT{Vect}_{\R}$ and $F_+: \CAT{FinSet} \to \CAT{Con}$ preserve finite colimits,
since they are composites of the inclusion $\CAT{FinSet} \hookrightarrow \CAT{Set}$ with
the left adjoints
\begin{equation*}
%
\begin{tikzcd}
\CAT{Set} & \CAT{Vect}_{\R}
\arrow[""{name=0, anchor=center, inner sep=0}, "F", curve={height=-12pt}, from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow[""{name=1, anchor=center, inner sep=0}, "U", curve={height=-12pt}, from=1-2, to=1-1]
\arrow["\dashv"{anchor=center, rotate=-90}, draw=none, from=0, to=1]
\end{tikzcd}
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
%
\begin{tikzcd}
\CAT{Set} & \CAT{Con}
\arrow[""{name=0, anchor=center, inner sep=0}, "{F_+}", curve={height=-12pt}, from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow[""{name=1, anchor=center, inner sep=0}, "{U_+}", curve={height=-12pt}, from=1-2, to=1-1]
\arrow["\dashv"{anchor=center, rotate=-90}, draw=none, from=0, to=1]
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
to the underlying set functors on vector spaces and conical spaces. By
\cref{lem:colim-comma-cat} below, the comma categories
$\CAT{Para}(\Dynam) = F/\Dynam$ and $\CAT{Para}(\Dynam_+) = F_+/\Dynam_+$ have finite
colimits, which are preserved by the projection functors onto $\CAT{FinSet}$.
\end{proof}
To illustrate, we describe the initial object and binary coproducts in
$\CAT{Para}(\Dynam)$. The initial linearly parameterized dynamical system has no
parameter variables, no state variables, and the unique (trivial) vector field
on the zero vector space. The coproduct of two linearly parameterized dynamical
systems $(P_1,S_1,v_1)$ and $(P_2,S_2,v_2)$ has parameter variables $P_1 + P_2$,
state variables $S_1 + S_2$, and parameterized vector field
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{R}^{P_1+P_2} \cong \mathbb{R}^{P_1} \oplus \mathbb{R}^{P_2}
\xrightarrow{v_1 \oplus v_2}
\Dynam(S_1) \oplus \Dynam(S_2)
\xrightarrow{[\Dynam(\iota_1), \Dynam(\iota_2))]}
\Dynam(S_1 + S_2),
\end{equation*}
where $\iota_1: S_1 \to S_1 + S_2$ and $\iota_2: S_2 \to S_1 + S_2$ are the
canonical inclusions. In conventional notation, the coproduct system has
parameterized vector field
\begin{equation*}
v\left(\begin{bmatrix} x_1 \\ x_2 \end{bmatrix};
\begin{bmatrix} \theta_1 \\ \theta_2 \end{bmatrix}\right) =
\begin{bmatrix}
v_1(x_1; \theta_1) \\
v_2(x_2; \theta_2)
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation*}
The proof of \cref{prop:colim-para-dynam}, as well as of
\cref{thm:lv-graph,thm:lv-sgn-graph} below, depends on the following technical
lemma about comma categories, which the reader can omit without loss of
continuity.
\begin{lemma}[Colimits in comma categories] \label{lem:colim-comma-cat}
Let $\cat{C}_0 \xrightarrow{F_0} \cat{C} \xleftarrow{F_1} \cat{C}_1$ be a
cospan of categories such that $\cat{C}_0$ and $\cat{C}_1$ have colimits of
shape $\cat{J}$ and $F_0$ preserves $\cat{J}$-shaped colimits. Then the comma
category $F_0/F_1$ also has $\cat{J}$-shaped colimits, and the projection
functors $\pi_i: F_0/F_1 \to \cat{C}_i$, $i=0,1$, preserve those colimits.
Furthermore, a functor $G: \cat{X} \to F_0/F_1$ into the comma category
preserves $\cat{J}$-shaped colimits whenever the associated functors
$G_i \coloneqq \pi_i \circ G: \cat{X} \to \cat{C}_i$, $i = 0,1$, do so.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Colimits in the comma category $F_0/F_1$ are constructed in \cite[\S
5.2]{rydeheard1988}. To make the rest of the proof self-contained, we recall
the construction here.
By the universal property of the comma category, a diagram
$D: \cat{J} \to F_0/F_1$ is equivalent to diagrams
$D_i \coloneqq \pi_i \circ D: \cat{J} \to \cat{C}_i$, $i=0,1$, along with a
natural transformation $\vec D: F_0 \circ D_0 \Rightarrow F_1 \circ D_1$. Let
$(c_i, \lambda^i)$ be a colimit cocone for the diagram $D_i$ in $\cat{C}_i$,
having legs $D_i(j) \xrightarrow{\lambda^i_j} c_i$ for each $j \in \cat{J}$.
The family of morphisms
\begin{equation*}
F_0(D_0(j)) \xrightarrow{\vec D_j} F_1(D_1(j))
\xrightarrow{F_1 (\lambda^1_j)} F_1(c_1),
\qquad j \in \cat{J},
\end{equation*}
is then a cocone under $F_0 \circ D_0$. Since $F_0$ preserves $\cat{J}$-shaped
limits, $(F_0(c_0), F_0 * \lambda^0)$ is a colimit cocone for $F_0 \circ D_0$,
so by its universal property, there exists a unique morphism
$f: F_0(c_0) \to F_1(c_1)$ making the squares commute:
\begin{equation*}
%
\begin{tikzcd}
{F_0(D_0(j))} & {F_1(D_1(j))} \\
{F_0(c_0)} & {F_1(c_1)}
\arrow["{\vec D_j}", from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow["f"', from=2-1, to=2-2]
\arrow["{F_0(\lambda^0_j)}"', from=1-1, to=2-1]
\arrow["{F_1(\lambda^1_j)}", from=1-2, to=2-2]
\end{tikzcd},
\qquad j \in \cat{J}.
\end{equation*}
Setting $\lambda \coloneqq (\lambda_j^0, \lambda_j^1)_{j \in \cat{J}}$, the
cocone $((c_0, c_1, f), \lambda)$ can be shown to be a colimit of the diagram
$D$.
To prove the last statement about colimit preservation, let
$D: \cat{J} \to \cat{X}$ be a diagram with colimit cocone $(x, \lambda)$,
having legs $Dj \xrightarrow{\lambda_j} y$ for $j \in \cat{J}$. We must show
that its image cocone $(G(x), G*\lambda)$ is a colimit of the diagram
$G \circ D$ in $F_0/F_1$. By the universal property of the comma category, the
functor $G: \cat{X} \to F_0/F_1$ is equivalent to the functors
$G_i: \cat{X} \to \cat{C}_i$, $i=0,1$, along with a natural transformation
$\vec G: F_0 \circ G_0 \Rightarrow F_1 \circ G_1$. The image cocone
$(G(x), G*\lambda)$ then amounts to cocones $(G_0(x), G_0 * \lambda)$ and
$(G_1(x), G_1 * \lambda)$, which by hypothesis are colimits of the diagrams
$G_0 \circ D$ and $G_1 \circ D$ in $\cat{C}_0$ and $\cat{C}_1$, together with
a family of commutative squares in $\cat{C}$:
\begin{equation*}
%
\begin{tikzcd}
{F_0(G_0(Dj))} & {F_1(G_1(Dj))} \\
{F_0(G_0(x))} & {F_1(G_1(x))}
\arrow["{\vec G_{Dj}}", from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow["{F_0(G_0(\lambda_j))}"', from=1-1, to=2-1]
\arrow["{\vec G_x}"', from=2-1, to=2-2]
\arrow["{F_1(G_1(\lambda_j))}", from=1-2, to=2-2]
\end{tikzcd},
\qquad j \in \cat{J}.
\end{equation*}
But a morphism $\vec G_x$ making all these squares commute is already uniquely
determined by the universal property of the colimit cocone
$(F_0(G_0(x)), F_0 * G_0 * \lambda)$ for the diagram $F_0 \circ G_0 \circ D$,
using the hypothesis that $F_0$ preserves $\cat{J}$-shaped colimits. Indeed,
this is precisely how one constructs the colimit of the diagram $G \circ D$ in
$F_0/F_1$, as shown above. It follows that $(G(x), G*\lambda)$ is a colimit
cocone for $G \circ D$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The Lotka-Volterra dynamical model}
\label{sec:lv}
A \define{Lotka-Volterra system} with $n$ species has, using matrix notation,
the vector field
\begin{equation*}
v(x; \rho, \beta) \coloneqq x \odot (\rho + \beta x) = \diag(x) (\rho + \beta x)
\end{equation*}
with state vector $x \in \mathbb{R}^n$ and arbitrary real-valued parameters
$\rho \in \mathbb{R}^n$ and $\beta \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ \cite[\S 2.2]{szederkenyi2018}.
In coordinates, the vector field is
\begin{equation*}
v_i(x; \rho, \beta)
= x_i \left(\rho_i + \sum_{j=1}^n \beta_{i,j} x_j \right)
= \rho_i x_i + \sum_{j=1}^n \beta_{i,j} x_i x_j,
\qquad i = 1,\dots,n.
\end{equation*}
The parameter $\rho_i$ sets the baseline rate of growth (when positive) or decay
(when negative) for species $i$, whereas $\beta_{i,j}$ defines a promoting (when
positive) or inhibiting (when negative) effect of species $j$ on species $i$. In
typical applications the signs of the parameters are fixed and known in advance
of any data. For example, in the famous \define{predator-prey Lotka-Volterra
system}
\begin{align*}
\dot x &= ax - bxy \\
\dot y &= dxy - cy,
\end{align*}
with prey $x$ and predators $y$, the parameters
$\rho = \begin{bmatrix} a \\ -c \end{bmatrix}$ and
$\beta = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & -b \\ d & 0 \end{bmatrix}$ are specified by
nonnegative real numbers $a, b, c, d \geq 0$.
In this section, we define quantitative semantics for graphs and signed graphs
using the Lotka-Volterra dynamical model. To illustrate the main ideas, we first
construct a functor from finite graphs (\cref{def:graph}) to linearly
parameterized dynamical systems (\cref{def:para-dynam}), giving a semantics for
unlabeled graphs. It is more useful to have a semantics for regulatory networks,
which we have defined to be signed graphs. We therefore construct a second
functor from finite signed graphs (\cref{def:sgn-graph}) to conically
parameterized nonnegative dynamical systems (\cref{def:para-nonneg-dynam}).
Recall that a graph is \define{finite} if its vertex and edge sets are both
finite. Let $\CAT{FinGraph}$ denote the full subcategory of $\CAT{Graph}$ spanned by
finite graphs.
\begin{theorem}[Lotka-Volterra model for finite graphs] \label{thm:lv-graph}
There is a functor
\begin{equation*}
\LV: \CAT{FinGraph} \to \CAT{Para}(\Dynam)
\end{equation*}
that sends
\begin{itemize}[noitemsep]
\item a finite graph $X$ to the linearly parameterized dynamical system with
parameter variables $P \coloneqq X(V) + X(E)$, state variables
$S \coloneqq X(V)$, and algebraic vector field\footnote{For a fixed graph
$X$ and vertex $i \in X(V)$, the notation $(e: i' \to i) \in X$ means any
edge $e \in X(\tgt)^{-1}(i)$ incoming to $i$, whose source
$i' = X(\src)(e)$ varies with $e$.}
\begin{equation*}
v(x; \rho, \beta)(i) \coloneqq \rho(i)\, x(i) +
\sum_{(e: i' \to i) \in X} \beta(e)\, x(i')\, x(i),
\qquad x \in \mathbb{R}^{X(V)},\ i \in X(V),
\end{equation*}
parameterized by vectors $\rho \in \mathbb{R}^{X(V)}$ and
$\beta \in \mathbb{R}^{X(E)}$;
\item a graph homomorphism $\phi: X \to Y$ to a morphism of systems with
parameter variable map $\phi_V + \phi_E: X(V) + X(E) \to Y(V) + Y(E)$ and
state variable map $\phi_V: X(V) \to Y(V)$.
\end{itemize}
Moreover, the functor $\LV$ preserves finite colimits.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By the universal property of the comma category $\CAT{Para}(\Dynam) = F/\Dynam$, to
give a functor $\LV: \CAT{FinGraph} \to \CAT{Para}(\Dynam)$ is to give a pair of
functors $\LV_0, \LV_1: \CAT{FinGraph} \to \CAT{FinSet}$ along with a natural
transformation
\begin{equation*}
\vec\LV: (F \circ \LV_0) \Rightarrow (\Dynam \circ \LV_1): \CAT{FinGraph} \to \CAT{Vect}_{\R}.
\end{equation*}
We set $\LV_0(X) \coloneqq X(V) + X(E)$ and $\LV_1(X) \coloneqq X(V)$. Using
the universal property of the coproduct in $\CAT{Vect}_{\R}$, the components
\begin{equation*}
\vec\LV_X: \mathbb{R}^{X(V)} \oplus \mathbb{R}^{X(E)} \cong \mathbb{R}^{X(V) + X(E)} \to \Dynam(X(V)).
\end{equation*}
of the transformation $\vec\LV$ themselves decompose into two parts, call them
\begin{equation*}
v_X^0 \coloneqq \vec\LV_X^0: \mathbb{R}^{X(V)} \to \Dynam(X(V))
\quad\text{and}\quad
v_X^1 \coloneqq \vec\LV_X^1: \mathbb{R}^{X(E)} \to \Dynam(X(V)).
\end{equation*}
We define these to be
\begin{equation*}
v_X^0(x; \rho)(i) \coloneqq \rho(i)\, x(i)
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
v_X^1(x; \beta)(i) \coloneqq \sum_{e \in X(\tgt)^{-1}(i)} \beta(e)\, x(X(\src)(e))\, x(i).
\end{equation*}
Putting the pieces back together reproduces the first statement of the
theorem. We just need to check that the transformation $\vec\LV$ is, in fact,
natural.
Given a graph homomorphism $\phi: X \to Y$, the naturality square for the
transformation $\vec\LV$ is
\begin{equation} \label{eq:lv-naturality}
%
\begin{tikzcd}
{\mathbb{R}^{X(V)+X(E)}} & {\Dynam(X(V))} \\
{\mathbb{R}^{Y(V)+Y(E)}} & {\Dynam(Y(V))}
\arrow["{\vec\LV_X}", from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow["{(\phi_V + \phi_E)_*}"', from=1-1, to=2-1]
\arrow["{(\phi_V)_* \circ (-) \circ (\phi_V)^*}", from=1-2, to=2-2]
\arrow["{\vec\LV_Y}"', from=2-1, to=2-2]
\end{tikzcd},
\end{equation}
which decomposes into two squares,
\begin{equation*}
%
\begin{tikzcd}
{\mathbb{R}^{X(V)}} & {\Dynam(X(V))} \\
{\mathbb{R}^{Y(V)}} & {\Dynam(Y(V))}
\arrow["{v_X^0}", from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow["{(\phi_V)_*}"', from=1-1, to=2-1]
\arrow["{(\phi_V)_* \circ (-) \circ (\phi_V)^*}", from=1-2, to=2-2]
\arrow["{v_Y^0}"', from=2-1, to=2-2]
\end{tikzcd}
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
%
\begin{tikzcd}
{\mathbb{R}^{X(E)}} & {\Dynam(X(V))} \\
{\mathbb{R}^{Y(E)}} & {\Dynam(Y(V))}
\arrow["{v_X^1}", from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow["{(\phi_E)_*}"', from=1-1, to=2-1]
\arrow["{(\phi_V)_* \circ (-) \circ (\phi_V)^*}", from=1-2, to=2-2]
\arrow["{v_Y^1}"', from=2-1, to=2-2]
\end{tikzcd}.
\end{equation*}
Let us check that both squares commute. For the first, we have
\begin{align*}
(\phi_V)_*(v_X^0(\phi_V^*(y); \rho))(j)
&= \sum_{i \in \phi_V^{-1}(j)} v_X^0(y \circ \phi_V; \rho)(i)
= \sum_{i \in \phi_V^{-1}(j)} \rho(i)\, y(\phi_V(i)) \\
&= \left(\sum_{i \in \phi_V^{-1}(j)} \rho(i) \right) y(j)
= v_Y^0(y; (\phi_V)_*(\rho))(j)
\end{align*}
for all $y \in \mathbb{R}^{Y(V)}$, $\rho \in \mathbb{R}^{X(V)}$, and $j \in Y(V)$. For the
second, we have
\begin{align*}
(\phi_V)_*(v_X^1(\phi_V^*(y); \beta))(j)
&= \sum_{i \in \phi_V^{-1}(j)} v_X^1(y \circ \phi_V; \beta)(i) \\
&= \sum_{i \in \phi_V^{-1}(j)} \sum_{e \in X(\tgt)^{-1}(i)}
\beta(e)\, y(\phi_V(X(\src)(e)))\, y(j) \\
&= \sum_{f \in Y(\tgt)^{-1}(j)} \sum_{e \in \phi_E^{-1}(f)}
\beta(e)\, y(Y(\src)(\phi_E(e)))\, y(j) \\
&= \sum_{f \in Y(\tgt)^{-1}(j)}
\left(\sum_{e \in \phi_E^{-1}(f)} \beta(e)\right)
y(Y(\src)(f)) y(j) \\
&= v_Y^1(y; (\phi_E)_*(\beta))(j),
\end{align*}
for all $y \in \mathbb{R}^{Y(V)}$, $\beta \in \mathbb{R}^{X(E)}$, and $j \in Y(V)$. When
exchanging the order of the summations we have used the facts that the graph
homomorphism $\phi: X \to Y$ preserves sources and targets, the latter in its
contravariant form
\begin{equation*}
%
\begin{tikzcd}
{X(E)} & {X(V)} \\
{Y(E)} & {Y(V)}
\arrow["{X(\mathrm{tgt})}", from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow["{\phi_E}"', from=1-1, to=2-1]
\arrow["{Y(\mathrm{tgt})}"', from=2-1, to=2-2]
\arrow["{\phi_V}", from=1-2, to=2-2]
\end{tikzcd}
\qquad\leadsto\qquad
%
\begin{tikzcd}
{\mathcal{P}(Y(V))} & {\mathcal{P}(X(V))} \\
{\mathcal{P}(Y(E))} & {\mathcal{P}(X(E))}
\arrow["{X(\mathrm{tgt})^{-1}}", from=1-2, to=2-2]
\arrow["{\phi_E^{-1}}"', from=2-1, to=2-2]
\arrow["{Y(\mathrm{tgt})^{-1}}"', from=1-1, to=2-1]
\arrow["{\phi_V^{-1}}", from=1-1, to=1-2]
\end{tikzcd},
\end{equation*}
where $\mathcal{P}(S)$ denotes the power set of a set $S$.
Finally, we must verify that the functor $\LV$ preserves finite colimits. By
\cref{lem:colim-comma-cat}, that happens provided both functors
$\LV_0, \LV_1: \CAT{FinGraph} \to \CAT{FinSet}$ preserve finite colimits. The functor
$\LV_1 = \ev_V$ is an evaluation functor on a copresheaf category, hence
preserves colimits \cite[Proposition 3.3.9]{riehl2016}. Since coproducts
commute with colimits, the pointwise coproduct of two evaluation functors
\begin{equation*}
\LV_0 = \big(\CAT{FinGraph}
\xrightarrow{\langle \ev_V, \ev_E \rangle} \CAT{FinSet} \times \CAT{FinSet}
\xrightarrow{+} \CAT{FinSet}\big)
\end{equation*}
also preserves colimits. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
A quantitative semantics for signed graphs can be defined similarly, subject to
a caveat about the vertex parameters. Our notion of signed graph, designed to
capture regulatory networks as studied in the biochemistry literature, attaches
signs only to edges. We are thus led to assume that, in the Lotka-Volterra
dynamical model, all species have baseline rates of \emph{decay} rather than
growth. This assumption is generally valid for protein regulatory networks, but
not for gene regulatory networks in which mediating proteins are ignored
\cite{tyson2010}, nor for predator-prey models in ecology.
More flexible approaches are certainly possible. It would be straightforward to
attach signs to vertices as well as edges and use them in the quantitative
semantics. Alternatively, at the expense of a more cumbersome formalism, one
could define dynamical systems with mixed linear-conical parameterizations,
allowing the vertex parameters to be arbitrary reals while the edge parameters
are constrained to be nonnegative.\footnote{Similar mixed parameterizations are
a practical necessity for parametric \emph{statistical} models, studied in
detail in one author's PhD thesis \cite{patterson2020}.} For simplicity and
uniformity of presentation, we do not describe these extensions further.
Let $\CAT{FinSgnGraph}$ denote the full subcategory of $\CAT{SgnGraph}$ spanned by finite
signed graphs.
\begin{theorem}[Lotka-Volterra model for finite signed graphs] \label{thm:lv-sgn-graph}
There is a functor
\begin{equation*}
\LV: \CAT{FinSgnGraph} \to \CAT{Para}(\Dynam_+)
\end{equation*}
that sends a finite signed graph $X$ to the conically parameterized
nonnegative dynamical system with parameter variables
$P \coloneqq X(V) + X(E)$, state variables $S \coloneqq X(V)$, and essentially
nonnegative, algebraic vector field
\begin{equation*}
v(x; \rho, \beta)(i) \coloneqq -\rho(i)\, x(i) +
\sum_{(e: i' \to i) \in X} X(\sgn)(e)\, \beta(e)\, x(i')\, x(i),
\qquad x \in \mathbb{R}^{X(V)},\ i \in X(V),
\end{equation*}
parameterized by $\rho \in \mathbb{R}_+^{X(V)}$ and $\beta \in \mathbb{R}_+^{X(E)}$. Moreover,
the functor $\LV$ preserves finite colimits.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Similarly to the previous proof, the functor
$\LV: \CAT{FinSgnGraph} \to \CAT{Para}(\Dynam_+)$ is defined by functors
$\LV_0, \LV_1: \CAT{FinSgnGraph} \to \CAT{FinSet}$ along with a natural transformation
\begin{equation*}
\vec\LV: F_+ \circ \LV_0 \Rightarrow \Dynam_+ \circ \LV_1: \CAT{FinSgnGraph} \to \CAT{Con},
\end{equation*}
now having components $\vec\LV_X$ given by the copairing of
\begin{equation*}
v_X^0 \coloneqq \vec\LV_X^0: \mathbb{R}_+^{X(V)} \to \Dynam_+(X(V))
\quad\text{and}\quad
v_X^1 \coloneqq \vec\LV_X^1: \mathbb{R}_+^{X(E)} \to \Dynam_+(X(V)),
\end{equation*}
where we define
\begin{equation*}
v_X^0(x; \rho)(i) \coloneqq -\rho(i)\, x(i)
\quad\text{and}\quad
v_X^1(x; \beta)(i) \coloneqq \sum_{e \in X(\tgt)^{-1}(i)}
X(\sgn)(e)\, \beta(e)\, x(X(\src)(e))\, x(i).
\end{equation*}
The proof of naturality is essentially the same as before, using the crucial
additional fact that morphisms of signed graphs preserve signs. The proof that
the functor $\LV$ preserves finite colimits is unchanged.
\end{proof}
To exemplify the theorem, let us see how the Lotka-Volterra dynamics functor
acts on a monomorphism and on an epimorphism of signed graphs.
In order to compare the dynamics of two species $A$ and $B$ involved in a
negative feedback loop versus $A$ and $B$ in isolation, we take the inclusion of
signed graphs
\begin{equation*}
%
\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=small]
A & B & {} & {} & A & B
\arrow[curve={height=-12pt}, from=1-5, to=1-6]
\arrow[curve={height=12pt}, maps to, no head, from=1-5, to=1-6]
\arrow["\iota", hook, from=1-3, to=1-4]
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
Labeling the edges in the feedback loop as $AB$ and $BA$, the morphism
$\LV(\iota)$ sends the conically parameterized dynamical system
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
v_A(x; \rho) &= -\rho_A\, x_A \\
v_B(x; \rho) &= -\rho_B\, x_B
\end{aligned}
\right.,
\qquad
\rho \in \mathbb{R}_+^{\{A,B\}},
\end{equation*}
to the parameterized dynamical system
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
v_A(x; \rho, \beta) &= -\rho_A\, x_A - \beta_{BA}\, x_B\, x_A \\
v_B(x; \rho, \beta) &= -\rho_B\, x_B + \beta_{AB}\, x_A\, x_B
\end{aligned}
\right.,
\qquad
\rho \in \mathbb{R}_+^{\{A,B\}},\ \beta \in \mathbb{R}_+^{\{AB,BA\}},
\end{equation*}
by setting the latter's interaction coefficients to zero:
$\beta_{AB} = \beta_{BA} = 0$. This formalizes the commonsense fact that the
first system is a degenerate case of the second.
For a more interesting example, we return to the projection map between
regulatory networks given by \cref{eq:arginine-morphism} of
\cref{sec:sgn-graph}, inspired by the arginine biosynthesis system. Call this
projection map $p$, and abbreviate the regulator molecule as $R$ and the enzymes
as $S \coloneqq \{C,D,E,F,I\}$. The morphism $\LV(p)$ sends the parameterized
dynamical system
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
v_R(x; \rho, \beta) &= -\rho_R\, x_R - \beta_R\, x_R^2 \\
v_C(x; \rho, \beta) &= -\rho_C\, x_C - \beta_C\, x_R\, x_C \\
v_D(x; \rho, \beta) &= -\rho_D\, x_D - \beta_D\, x_R\, x_D
\end{aligned}
\qquad\qquad
\begin{aligned}
v_E(x; \rho, \beta) &= -\rho_E\, x_E - \beta_E\, x_R\, x_E \\
v_F(x; \rho, \beta) &= -\rho_F\, x_F - \beta_F\, x_R\, x_F \\
v_I(x; \rho, \beta) &= -\rho_I\, x_I - \beta_I\, x_R\, x_I
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation*}
with state variables $\{R\} + S$ and parameters $\rho, \beta \in \mathbb{R}_+^{\{R\}+S}$
to the parameterized dynamical system
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
v_R(x; \rho, \beta) &= -\rho_R\, x_R - \beta_R\, x_R^2 \\
v_*(x; \rho, \beta) &= -\rho_*\, x_* - \beta_*\, x_R\, x_*
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation*}
with state variables $\{R,*\}$ and parameters $\rho, \beta \in \mathbb{R}_+^{\{R,*\}}$,
in two different but equivalent ways. The first way sets the latter system's
coefficients equal to sums of the former's coefficients, namely
\begin{equation*}
\rho_* = \sum_{i \in S} \rho_i
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\beta_* = \sum_{i \in S} \beta_i.
\end{equation*}
The second way substitutes $x_*$ for each $x_i$, $i \in S$, in the first system
and then takes the vector field $v_*$ to be the sum of the $v_i$'s, $i \in S$,
with these substitutions. The equivalence of these operations is precisely the
condition for $\LV(p)$ to be a morphism of parameterized dynamical systems, cf.\
\cref{eq:para-dynam-hom,eq:lv-naturality}.
\subsection{Composing Lotka-Volterra models}
\label{sec:open-lv}
To complete this part of the story, we extend the Lotka-Volterra dynamics
functors between graphs and parameterized dynamical systems, constructed in
\cref{thm:lv-graph,thm:lv-sgn-graph}, to \emph{double} functors between open
graphs and open parameterized dynamical systems. We begin by making
parameterized dynamical systems into open systems.
\begin{proposition}[Open parameterized dynamical systems]
There is a symmetric monoidal double category of \emph{open} linearly
parameterized dynamical systems, $\Open{\CAT{Para}(\Dynam)}$, having
\begin{itemize}[noitemsep]
\item as objects, finite sets $A, A', \dots$;
\item as vertical arrows, functions $f: A \to A'$;
\item as horizontal arrows, \define{open linearly parameterized dynamical
systems}, which consist of a linearly parameterized dynamical system
$(P, S, v: \mathbb{R}^P \to \Dynam(S))$ along with a cospan
$A_0 \xrightarrow{\ell_0} S \xleftarrow{\ell_1} A_1$ whose apex is the set
$S$ of state variables;
\item as cells, \define{morphisms of such open systems}
$(P, S, v, \ell_0, \ell_1) \to (P', S', v', \ell_0', \ell_1')$, which
consist of a morphism $(q,f): (P,S,v) \to (P',S',v')$ between linearly
parameterized dynamical systems along with functions $f_0: A_0 \to A_0'$
and $f_1: A_1 \to A_1'$ making the diagram commute:
\begin{equation*}
%
\begin{tikzcd}
{A_0} & S & {A_1} \\
{A_0'} & {S'} & {A_1'}
\arrow["{\ell_0}", from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow["{\ell_1}"', from=1-3, to=1-2]
\arrow["{f_0}"', from=1-1, to=2-1]
\arrow["f"', from=1-2, to=2-2]
\arrow["{\ell_0'}"', from=2-1, to=2-2]
\arrow["{f_1}", from=1-3, to=2-3]
\arrow["{\ell_1'}", from=2-3, to=2-2]
\end{tikzcd}.
\end{equation*}
\end{itemize}
Vertical composition is by composition in $\CAT{FinSet}$ and in $\CAT{Para}(\Dynam)$.
Horizontal composition and monoidal products are by pushouts and coproducts in
$\CAT{Para}(\Dynam)$, respectively, interpreting the finite sets in the feet of the
cospans as linearly parameterized dynamical systems with no parameter
variables and identically zero vector fields.
Similarly, there is a symmetric monoidal double category
$\Open{\CAT{Para}(\Dynam_+)}$ of \emph{open} conically parameterized nonnegative
dynamical systems.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We perform the construction for linearly parameterized dynamical systems. The
construction for conically parameterized nonnegative dynamical systems is
perfectly analogous, replacing $\mathbb{R}$ with $\mathbb{R}_+$ and vector spaces with conical
spaces.
The projection functor $\pi_S: \CAT{Para}(\Dynam) \to \CAT{FinSet}$, $(P,S,v) \mapsto S$
that sends a linearly parameterized dynamical systems to its set of state
variables has a left adjoint $Z: \CAT{FinSet} \to \CAT{Para}(\Dynam)$ that sends a
finite set $S$ to the system $(\emptyset, S, 0)$ with empty set of parameter
variables. By linearity, its parameterized vector field
$0 \cong \mathbb{R}^\emptyset \to \Dynam(S)$ is necessarily the zero vector field.
This indeed gives an adjunction $Z \dashv \pi_S$, because to any function
$f: S \to S'$ and linearly parameterized dynamical system $(P',S',v')$ there
corresponds a unique morphism $(0_{P'}, f): Z(S) \to (P',S',v')$, where the
required square
\begin{equation*}
%
\begin{tikzcd}
0 & {\Dynam(S)} \\
{\mathbb{R}^{P'}} & {\Dynam(S')}
\arrow[from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow["{f_* \circ (-) \circ f^*}", from=1-2, to=2-2]
\arrow["{v'}"', from=2-1, to=2-2]
\arrow[from=1-1, to=2-1]
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
commutes trivially, since the zero vector space is initial in $\CAT{Vect}_{\R}$.
Since $\CAT{Para}(\Dynam)$ has finite colimits (\cref{prop:colim-para-dynam}), we
can construct a symmetric monoidal double category of $Z$-structured cospans
\cite[Theorem 3.9]{baez2020}. As we have argued before, it will be isomorphic
to $\Open{\CAT{Para}(\Dynam)}$.
\end{proof}
With this definition, we can construct double functors between open graphs and
open parameterized dynamical systems, but the vertex parameters under
Lotka-Volterra dynamics cause a twist in the story compared to Baez and
Pollard's compositionality result for mass-action kinetics \cite[Theorem
18]{baez2017}. When composing open dynamical systems in the image of the
Lotka-Volterra functor, one takes a coproduct of the parameter variables, i.e.,
a direct sum of the parameter spaces, belonging to identified vertices. However,
if one composes the open graphs first, then the identified vertices receive a
single copy of the parameters from the Lotka-Volterra functor. Thus this functor
does not preserve composition of open systems, not even up to isomorphism.
Nevertheless, there is a natural (noninvertible) comparison between them: given
a pair of parameters in the direct sum, we can reduce them to a single parameter
simply by summing them. In mathematical terms, we get a \emph{lax} double
functor: a double functor that strictly preserves vertical composition, as
usual, but preserves horizontal composition only up to specified comparison
maps.\footnote{The precise definition of a lax double functor can be found in
the textbook \cite[\S 3.5]{grandis2019}, among other sources.}
\begin{theorem}[Open Lotka-Volterra models] \label{thm:open-lv}
There is a symmetric monoidal \emph{lax} double functor
\begin{equation*}
\LV: \Open{\CAT{FinGraph}} \to \Open{\CAT{Para}(\Dynam)}
\end{equation*}
that acts
\begin{itemize}[noitemsep]
\item on objects and vertical arrows, as the identity;
\item on horizontal arrows and cells, by the functor
$\LV: \CAT{FinGraph} \to \CAT{Para}(\Dynam)$ on graphs and graph homomorphisms and
as the identity on the associated cospans and cospan morphisms:
\begin{equation*}
\Big(X,\, A_0 \xrightarrow{\ell_0} X(V) \xleftarrow{\ell_1} A_1\Big) \mapsto
\Big(\LV(X),\, A_0 \xrightarrow{\ell_0} X(V) \xleftarrow{\ell_1} A_1\Big).
\end{equation*}
\end{itemize}
The comparison cells are defined using the morphisms of linearly parameterized
dynamical systems $\alpha_S: Z(S) \to \LV(\Disc S)$, where
\begin{equation*}
\alpha_S \coloneqq (0_S, 1_S): (\emptyset, S, 0) \to (S, S, \vec\LV(\Disc S)),
\qquad S \in \CAT{FinSet}.
\end{equation*}
\begin{itemize}[noitemsep]
\item Given composable open graphs $(X,\, A \rightarrow X(V) \leftarrow B)$
and $(Y,\, B \rightarrow Y(V) \leftarrow C)$, the comparison cell for
horizontal composition is given by the morphism of systems
\begin{equation*}
\LV(X) +_{Z(B)} \LV(Y)
\xrightarrow{\id +_{\alpha_B} \id} \LV(X) +_{\LV(\Disc B)} \LV(Y)
\xrightarrow{\cong} \LV(X +_{\Disc B} Y).
\end{equation*}
\item Given a finite set $A$, the comparison cell for the horizontal unit is
given by the morphism of systems $\alpha_A: Z(A) \to \LV(\Disc A)$.
\end{itemize}
Similarly, there is a symmetric monoidal \emph{lax} double functor
\begin{equation*}
\LV: \Open{\CAT{FinSgnGraph}} \to \Open{\CAT{Para}(\Dynam_+)}.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
To construct the lax double functor, we use a lax version of \cite[Theorem
4.3]{baez2020}. The family of morphisms $\alpha_S: Z(S) \to \LV(\Disc S)$,
$S \in \CAT{FinSet}$, in the theorem statement assemble into a natural
transformation
\begin{equation*}
%
\begin{tikzcd}
\CAT{FinSet} & \CAT{FinGraph} \\
\CAT{FinSet} & \CAT{Para}(\Dynam)
\arrow["{L = \Disc}", from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow["\LV", from=1-2, to=2-2]
\arrow[Rightarrow, no head, from=1-1, to=2-1]
\arrow["{L' = Z}"', from=2-1, to=2-2]
\arrow["\alpha", shorten <=9pt, shorten >=9pt, Rightarrow, from=2-1, to=1-2]
\end{tikzcd}.
\end{equation*}
The functors involved in this cell all preserve finite colimits: the top and
bottom ones because they are left adjoints and the right one by
\cref{thm:lv-graph}. The hypotheses of \cite[Theorem 4.3]{baez2020} are
therefore satisfied, except that $\alpha$ is not a natural isomorphism but
merely a natural transformation. By inspection of the proof, the result still
holds except that the resulting double functor is lax rather than pseudo. We
obtain a lax double functor
\begin{equation*}
\Open{\CAT{FinGraph}} \cong {}_{L}\mathbb{C}\mathsf{sp}(\CAT{FinGraph}) \to
{}_{L'}\mathbb{C}\mathsf{sp}(\CAT{Para}(\Dynam)) \cong \Open{\CAT{Para}(\Dynam)}.
\end{equation*}
To show that this double functor is the same one in the theorem statement, we
once again use the adjunctions to pass between $L$-structured and
$R$-decorated cospans (recalling terminology introduced in the proof of
\cref{prop:open-sgn-graphs}). Notice that the natural transformation $\alpha$
has as its mate \cite[\S 1]{cheng2014} the identity transformation
$\bar\alpha = 1_{\ev_V}$:
\begin{equation*}
%
\begin{tikzcd}
\CAT{FinSet} & \CAT{FinGraph} \\
\CAT{FinSet} & \CAT{Para}(\Dynam)
\arrow["{R = \ev_V}"', from=1-2, to=1-1]
\arrow[Rightarrow, no head, from=1-1, to=2-1]
\arrow["\LV", from=1-2, to=2-2]
\arrow["{R' = \pi_S}", from=2-2, to=2-1]
\arrow["\bar\alpha", shorten <=9pt, shorten >=9pt, Rightarrow, from=1-1, to=2-2]
\end{tikzcd}.
\end{equation*}
Thus the action of the double functor $F \coloneqq \LV$ on $L$-structured
cospans simplifies to the identity when translated to $R$-decorated cospans.
\begin{equation*}
%
\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=small]
& {L(A_0)} & X & {L(A_1)} & \\
{L'(A_0)} & {F(L(A_0))} & {F(X)} & {F(L(A_1))} & {L'(A_1)}\\
& & \rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\leftrightsquigarrow$} & & \\
& {A_0} & {R(X)} & {A_1} & \\
{A_0} & {R(X)} & {R'(F(X))} & {R(X)} & {A_1}
\arrow["{\ell_0}", from=1-2, to=1-3]
\arrow["{\ell_1}"', from=1-4, to=1-3]
\arrow["{\alpha_{A_0}}", from=2-1, to=2-2]
\arrow["{F(\ell_0)}", from=2-2, to=2-3]
\arrow[shorten <=3pt, shorten >=3pt, maps to, from=1-3, to=2-3]
\arrow["{F(\ell_1)}"', from=2-4, to=2-3]
\arrow["{\alpha_{A_1}}"', from=2-5, to=2-4]
\arrow["{\bar\ell_0}", from=4-2, to=4-3]
\arrow["{\bar\ell_1}"', from=4-4, to=4-3]
\arrow["{\bar\ell_0}", from=5-1, to=5-2]
\arrow["{\bar\alpha_X}", from=5-2, to=5-3]
\arrow[shorten <=3pt, shorten >=3pt, Rightarrow, no head, from=4-3, to=5-3]
\arrow["{\bar\alpha_X}"', from=5-4, to=5-3]
\arrow["{\bar\ell_1}"', from=5-5, to=5-4]
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
A similar statement holds for the action of the double functor on morphisms of
$L$-structured and $R$-decorated cospans.
\end{proof}
\section{Conclusion}
\paragraph{Summary.}
Regulatory networks are a minimalistic but widely used tool to describe the
interactions between molecules in biochemical systems. We have made the first
functorial study of regulatory networks, formalized as signed graphs, and their
connections with other mathematical models in biochemistry. Among the latter, we
have studied reaction networks, formalized as Petri nets with signed links, and
parameterized dynamical systems, focusing on Lotka-Volterra dynamics. This
project fits into a broader program by applied category theorists and other
scientists aiming to systematize, in a completely precise way, the language and
methods of describing, composing, and transforming scientific models.
The major categories of this paper, and the functors between them, are
summarized in the following diagram, where ``LV'' is the Lotka-Volterra dynamics
functor (\S\ref{sec:lv}).
\begin{equation*}
%
\begin{tikzcd}
\CAT{SgnCat}\ (\S\ref{sec:sgn-cat}) & \CAT{SgnGraph}\ (\S\ref{sec:sgn-graph}) & \CAT{SgnPetri}\ (\S\ref{sec:sgn-petri}) \\
& \CAT{FinSgnGraph} & \CAT{Para}(\Dynam_+)\ (\S\ref{sec:para-dynam})
\arrow[hook', from=2-2, to=1-2]
\arrow[""{name=0, anchor=center, inner sep=0}, "\Path"', curve={height=18pt}, from=1-2, to=1-1]
\arrow[""{name=1, anchor=center, inner sep=0}, "U"', curve={height=18pt}, from=1-1, to=1-2]
\arrow["\LV", from=2-2, to=2-3]
\arrow["\Net"', from=1-3, to=1-2]
\arrow["\dashv"{anchor=center, rotate=-90}, draw=none, from=0, to=1]
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
Most of the main results extend from closed systems to open systems, which
compose by gluing along their boundaries. Of the diagram above, we have extended
the following parts to double categories of open systems and double functors
between them.
\begin{equation*}
%
\begin{tikzcd}
{\Open{\CAT{SgnCat}}} & {\Open{\CAT{SgnGraph}}} \\
& {\Open{\CAT{FinSgnGraph}}} & {\Open{\CAT{Para}(\Dynam_+)}\ (\S\ref{sec:open-lv})}
\arrow[hook', from=2-2, to=1-2]
\arrow["\LV", from=2-2, to=2-3]
\arrow["\Path"', from=1-2, to=1-1]
\end{tikzcd}
\end{equation*}
\paragraph{Future work.}
Of many possible directions for future work, we mention a few. As noted in the
introduction, Lotka-Volterra dynamics are only one of numerous dynamics that
could be considered as a canonical model for regulatory networks, and they are
not even among the most commonly studied in the biochemistry literature
\cite{tyson2019}. It would be desirable to have dynamics functors for regulatory
networks that draw on more flexible or more biologically plausible classes of
dynamical systems. In another direction, the two halves of this
paper---qualitative and quantitative---are not as tightly as integrated as one
might hope. How does the presence of a motif in a regulatory network, such as an
incoherent feedforward loop perhaps even of a specific type, manifest in the
continuous dynamics of that network? Put in category-theoretic terms, the
Lotka-Volterra dynamics functor is defined on signed graphs, so how does it
relate to the freely generated signed categories in which motifs are expressed?
These intriguing questions are suggestive of ``feedback loop analysis'' in the
field of system dynamics \cite{richardson1995}, to which stronger connections
should be made.
\paragraph{Acknowledgments.}
The authors thank the American Mathematical Society (AMS) for hosting the 2022
Mathematical Research Community (MRC) on Applied Category Theory, where this
research project began. The AMS MRC was supported by NSF grant 1916439. We thank
John Baez, our group's mentor at the MRC, for suggesting this project and for
much helpful advice along the way. Authors Fairbanks, Patterson, and Shapiro
acknowledge subsequent support from the DARPA ASKEM and Young Faculty Award
programs through grants HR00112220038 and W911NF2110323. Author Ocal
acknowledges subsequent support from an AMS-Simons Travel Grant and from the
Hausdorff Research Institute for Mathematics funded by the German Research
Foundation (DFG) under Germany's Excellence Strategy - EXC-2047/1 - 390685813.
\printbibliography[heading=bibintoc]
\end{document}
|
\section{\sc Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
\subsection{\sc Background}
Dynamic models are suitable for reliability systems where failure or degradation of one or
more components affects the performance of the surviving or operating components. Load-sharing systems are appropriate examples where such models can be used. The total load on a load-sharing system is shared between its components; when a component fails within the system, the total load gets redistributed over the remaining operating components. As a result of a higher stress due to this extra load, the failure rates of the operating components increase.
Common examples of load-sharing systems are those where components are connected in
parallel, such as central processing units (CPUs) of multi-processor computers, cables of
a suspension bridge, valves or pumps in hydraulic systems, electrical generator systems
etc. Load-sharing systems are found in other spheres as well, such as the kidney system in
humans. When one of the kidneys fails or deteriorates, the other kidney experiences
elevated stress and has an increased chance of failure.
The load-share rule among the operating components depends on the physical characteristics
of the system involved. In an equal load-share rule, the extra load caused by the failed
components is shared equally by the operating components. On the other hand, a local
load-share rule implies that the extra load is shared by the neighboring components of the
failed ones. A monotone load-sharing rule more generally assumes that the load on the
operating components is non-decreasing with respect to the failure of other components in
the system \cite{Kvam2008}.
\subsection{\sc Literature review}
One of the early major contributions to the literature on load-sharing systems was by
Daniels~\cite{Daniels1945}, describing the increasing stress on yarn fibres with
successive breakings of individual fibres within a bundle. In the same context of the
textile industry, the early-period literature saw developments by
Coleman~\cite{coleman1957a, coleman1957b}, Rosen~\cite{Rosen1964}, and Harlow and
Phoenix~\cite{Harlow1978, Harlow1982}, among others. In general, the topic attracted the
attentions of several researchers, and significant theoretical contributions were made, for example, by Birnbaum and Saunders~\cite{Birnbaum1958}, Freund~\cite{F1961}, Ross~\cite{Ross1984}, Schechner~\cite{Schechner1984}, Lee et al.~\cite{LeeDurham1995}, Hollander and Pena~\cite{Hollander1995}, and Lynch~\cite{Lynch1999}.
While most studies on load-sharing systems in the early-period were based on a known
load-share rule, Kim and Kvam~\cite{KimKvam2004} presented a statistical methodology for
multicomponent load-sharing systems with an unknown load-share rule. In fact, the work of
Kim and Kvam~\cite{KimKvam2004} was also important for another reason: they used the
hypothetical latent variable approach for modelling the component lifetimes. The latent
variable approach was later adapted by Park~\cite{Park2010, Park2013} for developing an
inferential framework for load-sharing systems assuming the component lifetimes to be
exponential, Weibull, and lognormally distributed random variables.
The use of parametric models has a long history in the literature on load-sharing models.
Exponential distribution has been extensively used for modelling lifetimes of components
of load-sharing systems \cite{SL1991, LCW1993, MKA2012}. However, the property of a
constant hazard rate of the exponential distribution is not practical for most
applications. The tampered failure rate model for load-sharing systems, proposed by
Suprasad et al.~\cite{SKH2008}, was thus developed to accommodate a wide range of
failure-time distributions for the components. In this connection, the use of accelerated
life testing models for load-sharing systems may be mentioned; see Mettas and
Vassiliou~\cite{Mettas2004}, Amari and Bergman~\cite{Bergman2008}, and Kong and
Ye~\cite{Kong2016}. A family of parametric distributions was used for modelling the lives of
two-component load-sharing systems by Deshpande et al.~\cite{DDN2010}. Asha et
al.~\cite{ARR2018} used a frailty-based model to this effect. A recent contribution in
this direction is by Franco et al.~\cite{FVK2020} who used generalized Freund's bivariate
exponential model for two-component load-sharing systems. See also the references cited in
these articles.
Recently, several authors have explored diverse areas concerning load-sharing systems. The damage accumulation of load-sharing systems was modelled by M\"{u}ller and Meyer~\cite{MM2022}. Luo et al.\cite{LSX2022} developed a model for correlated lifetimes in dynamic environments incorporating the load-sharing criterion.
Brown et al.~\cite{BLMR2022} explored a spatial model for load-sharing where the extra
load due to failure of a component is shared more by the operating components that are in
close proximity of the failed component than those that are distant. Nezakati and
Ramzakh~\cite{NR2020}, and Zhao et al.~\cite{ZLL2018} connected degradation of components
to load-sharing phenomena. In an interesting development, Che et al.~\cite{CZLG2022}
considered man-machine units (MMUs) as units of analysis where load-sharing was possible
due to machine issues as well as human issues. They studied the load-sharing of the MMUs, attempting to capture the complex dependence between machines and their operators. A general model, called the load-strength model, was studied by Zhang et al.~\cite{ZZM2020}. It is to be noted that most of the studies on load-sharing systems have used parametric models for analysis so far, thus heavily relying on the modelling assumptions for suitability of their analyses.
\subsection{\sc Aim and Motivation}
Our aim in this paper is to develop an appropriate estimate for the system reliability or
reliability at mission time (RMT) of load-sharing systems. The aim, also, is to accurately
estimate quantile function of the underlying system lifetime distribution, mean time to
failure (MTTF), and mean residual time (MRT) of load-sharing systems. These quantities are
important to fully understand the characteristics of a load-sharing system; also, they are
of practical importance for making various strategies and plans.
Naturally, the quality of estimation of RMT, quantile function, MTTF, and MRT of a
load-sharing system depends on the suitability of the model that is fitted to the
lifetimes of its components capturing the load-share rule. To this effect, we develop a
model for the component lifetimes involving piecewise linear approximations (PLAs) of the
cumulative hazard functions, capturing the unknown load-share rule at each of the
successive stages of component failures. The model is data-driven, and does not require
prohibitive parametric assumptions for component lifetime distributions. Due to this
flexibility, the PLA-based model is capable of providing a good fit to load-sharing data.
An example, elaborated in a later section, is as follows.
Data pertaining to a load-sharing system where each system was a parallel combination of
two motors were analysed by Asha et al.~\cite{ARR2018} and Franco et al.~\cite{FVK2020}.
Asha et al.~\cite{ARR2018} assumed Weibull distributions for the component lifetimes,
although data for one of the two component motors showed clear empirical evidence that the
assumption was not satisfied. A generalized bivariate Freund distribution was assumed for
the component lifetimes by Franco et al.~\cite{FVK2020}. To this data, we have fitted our
proposed PLA-based model, and have observed according to the Akaike's information
criterion (AIC) for model selection, the PLA-based model is a much better fit compared to
the Weibull model of Asha et al.~\cite{ARR2018} and generalized bivariate Freund model of
Franco et al.~\cite{FVK2020}. The immediate and obvious result of this is a much more
accurate estimation of the RMT, quantile function, MTTF, and MRT of the system lifetimes.
The details of this analysis are given in a later section.
The main contributions of this paper are as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item We develop a flexible, data-driven model based on PLA for modelling component lifetimes of a load-sharing system. The model does not require prohibitive parametric assumptions on the underlying component lifetimes.
\item We develop inference for the proposed PLA-based model based on data from multi-component load-sharing systems.
\item Under the proposed PLA-based model, we develop methods to accurately estimate
important reliability characteristics such as system reliability or RMT, quantile function, MTTF, and MRT of load-sharing systems.
\end{itemize}
The rest of this article is structured as follows. In Section \ref{sec:Model}, the proposed PLA-based model for load-sharing systems is presented. Section \ref{sec:Inf} contains likelihood inference for the model based on data from multi-component load-sharing systems, including relevant details of derivation of MLEs, construction of confidence intervals, and a general guidance on selection of cut-points for the piecewise linear functions. Estimation of system reliability, quantile function, MTTF, and MRT of load-sharing systems in this setting are given in Section \ref{sec:RC}. Based on component lifetime data from a two-component load-sharing system, an illustrative example of application of the PLA-based model and estimation of various important reliability characteristics are presented in Section~\ref{sec:dataana}. In Section \ref{sec:sim}, results of a detailed Monte Carlo simulation experiment investigating the efficacy and robustness of the PLA-based model are presented. Finally, the paper is concluded with some remarks in Section \ref{sec:con}.
\section{\sc The Piecewise Linear Approximation Model for Cumulative Hazard}\label{sec:Model}
In general, a PLA is a helpful tool for modelling data, avoiding strong parametric assumptions. In survival analysis, piecewise linear functions are used
extensively.
Recently, Balakrishnan et al.~\cite{Balaetal2016} proposed a PLA-based model for the
hazard rate of a population with a cured proportion; see also the references therein. In
this article, we develop a PLA-based model for load-sharing systems with unknown
load-share rules. Specifically, we model the cumulative hazard functions of the component
lifetime distributions using PLAs. At each of the successive stages of component failures,
as the lifetime distributions of the remaining operating components change, a new PLA for
the cumulative hazard is used. The model can be suitably tuned by choosing the number of
linear pieces for the PLA at each stage of failure. The principal advantage of the
proposed PLA-based modelling approach is that it uses minimal model assumptions.
Consider a $J$-component load-sharing system. Here, a $J$-component load-sharing system means a load-sharing system with $J$ components that are connected in parallel. Assume that the failed components of the system are not replaced or repaired. When the components fail one by one, after each failure the total load on the system gets redistributed over the remaining operational components. As a result the operational components experience a higher load than before. At the beginning when all components are operational, let $U_1^{(0)},\, U_2^{(0)},\, \ldots,\, U_J^{(0)}$ denote the latent lifetimes of the components, and $Y^{(0)}$ denote the system lifetime till the first component failure. Obviously,
\begin{align*}
Y^{(0)} = \min \left\{ U_1^{(0)},\, U_2^{(0)},\, \ldots,\, U_J^{(0)} \right\}.
\end{align*}
Similarly, for $j=1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,J-1$, let $Y^{(j)}$ denote the system lifetime between $j$-th and $(j+1)$-st component failures. Then,
\begin{align*}
Y^{(j)} = \min \left\{ U_1^{(j)},\, U_2^{(j)},\, \ldots,\, U_{J-j}^{(j)} \right\},
\end{align*}
where $U_{1}^{(j)},\, U_2^{(j)},\,\ldots\, U_{J-j}^{(j)}$ denote the latent lifetimes of
the operational components after the $j$-th component failure,
$j=1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,J-1$. For all values of $j$, $U_1^{(j)},\, \ldots,\,
U_{J-j}^{(j)}$ are assumed to be independent and identically distributed random variables.
It is further assumed that $\left\{U_\ell^{(j)}, \ell=1,\,2,\, \ldots,\, J-j;\, j=0,\,1,\, \ldots,\, J-1\right\}$ are independent random variables.
Let $h^{(j)}(\cdot)$ and $H^{(j)}(\cdot)$ denote the hazard rate (HR) and cumulative hazard
function (CHF), respectively, of the distribution of $U_{1}^{(j)},$ $j=0,\,1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,J-1$. Here, we assume that the HR $h^{(j)}\left( \cdot \right)$ is a non-decreasing function for all $j$. For $y>0$, the survival function (SF) of $Y^{(j)}$ is given by
\begin{align*}
P\left( Y^{(j)}>y \right)
&= P\left[\text{min}\left\{ U_{1}^{(j)},\, U_{2}^{(j)},\, \ldots, U_{J-j}^{(j)}
\right\} >y \right] = e^{-(J-j)H^{(j)}(y)}.
\end{align*}
Hence, for $y>0$, the cumulative distribution function (CDF) and probability density
function (PDF) of $Y^{(j)}$ are given by
\begin{align*}
F^{(j)}(y) = 1-e^{-(J-j)H^{(j)}(y)} && \text{and} && f^{(j)}(y) = (J-j)h^{(j)}(y)\,
e^{-(J-j)H^{(j)}(y)},
\end{align*}
respectively.
Now, suppose there are $n$ $J$-component load-sharing systems, and let $Y_{i}^{(j)}$ denote the system lifetime between $j$-th and $(j+1)$-st component failures for the $i$-th system, $i=1,\,2,\, \ldots,\, n$, $j=0,\,1,\, \ldots,\, J-1$. Suppose the observed values of $Y_1^{(j)},\, Y_{2}^{(j)},\, \ldots,\, Y_{n}^{(j)}$ are $y_{1}^{(j)},\, y_2^{(j)},\, \ldots,\, y_{n}^{(j)}$, respectively. Let, for $j=0,\,1,\, \ldots,\, J-1$, $\xi^{(j)} = \left\{
\tau_0^{(j)},\, \tau_1^{(j)},\, \ldots,\, \tau_N^{(j)} \right\}$ denote a set of $N+1$
cut-points over the time scale $y_1^{(j)},\, \ldots,\, y_n^{(j)}$, with the restrictions that
\begin{equation}
\tau_0^{(j)} < \tau_1^{(j)} < \tau_2^{(j)} < \ldots < \tau_{N}^{(j)}, \quad \tau_0
^{(j)} \le \min \left\{ y_1^{(j)},\, \ldots,\, y_n^{(j)} \right\} \textrm{ and } \tau_N
^{(j)} \ge \max \left\{ y_1^{(j)},\, \ldots,\, y_n^{(j)} \right\}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
Initially, $\xi^{(j)}$ is taken to be fixed and known. We discuss how to choose $\xi^{(j)}$ in a later section.
The proposed model approximates the CHF $H^{(j)}(\cdot)$ by a piecewise linear function
defined over intervals $[\tau_{k-1}^{(j)},\, \tau_{k}^{(j)})$, $k=1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,N$,
constructed by the consecutive cut points in $\xi^{(j)}$. Therefore, over the range $[\tau_0^{(0)},\,\tau_{N}^{(0)})$, the CHF $H^{(0)}(\cdot)$ is approximated by $\Lambda^{(0)}(\cdot)$, where
\begin{align}
\Lambda^{(0)}(t) = \sum_{k=1}^{N} \left( a_k+b_kt \right)
\boldsymbol{1}_{[\tau_{k-1}^{(0)}, \, \tau_k^{(0)})}(t), \label{eq:model0}
\end{align}
with $a_k$'s and $b_k$'s as real constants and
\begin{align*}
\boldsymbol{1}_{A}(t) = \begin{cases}
1 & \text{if } t\in A\\
0 & \text{if } t\not\in A.
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
One of the possible ways to extend the PLA beyond $\tau_{N}^{(0)}$ would be to extend the last line segment $a_N+b_Nt$ to $[\tau_N^{(0)},\,\infty)$. Therefore, the CHF corresponding to PLA over the range $[\tau_0^{(0)},\,\infty)$ is
\begin{align*}
\Lambda^{(0)}(t) = \sum_{k=1}^{N} \left( a_k+b_kt \right)
\boldsymbol{1}_{[\tau_{k-1}^{(0)}, \, \tau_k^{(0)})}(t)+(a_N+b_N t) \boldsymbol{1}_{[\tau_{N}^{(0)}, \, \infty)}(t),
\end{align*} with $\Lambda^{(0)}(\tau_0^{(0)})=0$.
We also assume that $\Lambda^{(0)}(\cdot)$ is a continuous function. As $\Lambda^{(0)}(\tau_0^{(0)})=0$, using the assumption of continuity, $a_i$'s can be expressed in terms of $b_i$'s as
follows:
\begin{align*}
a_1=-b_1\tau_0^{(0)} && \text{and} && a_{k} = \sum_{\ell=1}^{k-1} \left( b_\ell - b_{\ell+1} \right)
\tau_\ell^{(0)} +a_1 = \sum_{\ell=1}^{k-1} b_\ell \left( \tau_\ell^{(0)} -
\tau_{\ell-1}^{(0)} \right) - b_k\tau_{k-1}^{(0)},
\end{align*} for $k = 1,\, 2,\,3,\,\ldots,\,N.$
Note that the above model can be equivalently described in terms of HRs. In this approach, $h^{(0)}(\cdot)$ over the range $[\tau_0^{(0)},\,\tau_{N}^{(0)})$ is approximated by a piecewise constant function $\lambda^{(0)}(\cdot)$, where
\begin{align}
\lambda^{(0)}(t) = \sum_{i=1}^{N} b_k \boldsymbol{1}_{[\tau^{(0)}_{k-1},\,
\tau^{(0)}_{k})} \left( t \right). \label{eq:model1}
\end{align}
After failure of one or more components within the system, the direct impact of the increased load will be an increased HR for the operational components. To incorporate this information, after the failure of $j$ components of the system, we approximate $h^{(j)}(\cdot)$ over $[\tau_0^{(j)},\,\tau_{N}^{(j)})$, $j=1,\,2,\, \ldots,\, J-1$, using the piecewise constant function $\lambda^{(j)}(\cdot)$, where
\begin{align}
\lambda^{(j)}(t) = \gamma_j \sum_{k=1}^{N} b_k \boldsymbol{1}_{[\tau^{(j)}_{k-1},\,
\tau^{(j)}_{k})} \left( t \right), \label{eq:model2}
\end{align}
with
$$1<\gamma_1<\gamma_2<\ldots< \gamma_{J-1}.$$
The PLAs to the CHFs, corresponding to the PLAs of the HRs given in Eq.\eqref{eq:model2} are given by
\begin{align}
\Lambda^{(j)}(t) = \gamma_j \sum_{k=1}^{N}\left[ \sum_{\ell=1}^{k-1} b_\ell \left(
\tau_\ell^{(j)}-\tau_{\ell-1}^{(j)} \right) + b_k \left( t-\tau_{k-1}^{(j)} \right)
\right] \boldsymbol{1}_{[\tau_{k-1}^{(j)},\, \tau_k^{(j)})} \left( t \right). \label{eq:model3}
\end{align}
To meet the non-decreasing nature of the HR, we assume that $0<b_1<b_2<\ldots<b_N$. Note that the parameters $\gamma_1, \gamma_2, \ldots, \gamma_{J-1}$ reflect the load-share rule of increased HRs. We treat $\gamma_1, \gamma_2, \ldots, \gamma_{J-1}$ as unknown parameters, and estimate them from component failure data. It may be mentioned here that the PLA model can be interpreted as an approximation of the underlying lifetime distribution by several exponential models (with different rate parameters) over the ranges specified by the cut-points.
\section{\sc Likelihood Inference} \label{sec:Inf}
The parameters involved in the PLA-based model are estimated from the component failure data obtained from a set of load-sharing systems. The available data on component failures from $n$ $J$-component load-sharing systems is of the form
$$
Data = \left\{ y_i^{(j)}\,:\, i=1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,n;\, j=0,\,1,\, \ldots,\, J-1 \right\},
$$
where $y_{i}^{(j)}$ is the observed system lifetime between $j$-th and $(j+1)$-st component failures for the $i$-th system. For $j=0,\,1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,J-1$, and $k=1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,N$, define
\begin{align*}
I_k^{(j)} = \left\{i:y_i^{(j)} \in \left[\tau_{k-1}^{(j)},\,\tau_k^{(j)}\right)
\right\} \quad \textrm{and} \quad n_k^{(j)} = \vert I_k^{(j)} \vert.
\end{align*}
Obviously, $\sum_{k=1}^{N}n_k^{(j)}=n$. The likelihood function for the PLA model is then given by
\begin{align}
L\left( \boldsymbol{\theta} \right)
&= \prod_{i=1}^{n}\prod_{j=0}^{J-1} \left[ (J-j)\gamma_j\sum_{k=1}^{N}b_k \boldsymbol{1}_{[\tau^{(j)}_{k-1},\,
\tau^{(j)}_{k})} \left( y_i^{(j)} \right)
e^ {-(J-j)\gamma_j \left[\sum_{\ell=1}^{k-1} b_\ell \left(
\tau_\ell^{(j)}-\tau_{\ell-1}^{(j)} \right) + b_k \left( y_i^{(j)}-\tau_{k-1}^{(j)} \right)
\right] } \right] , \label{eq:lik}
\end{align}
where $\gamma_0=1$ and $\boldsymbol{\theta}
= \left(\gamma_1,\, \gamma_2,\, \ldots,\, \gamma_{J-1}, b_1,\, b_2,\, \ldots,\, b_N \right)^\prime$ is the vector of parameters. The corresponding log-likelihood function, ignoring additive constant, can be expressed as
\begin{align}
l\left( \boldsymbol{\theta} \right)
&= \sum_{k=1}^{N} \left[ \left( \sum_{j=0}^{J-1} n_k^{(j)} \right) \ln b_k -
\left( \sum_{j=0}^{J-1} (J-j)\gamma_j T_k^{(j)} \right) b_k \right] + n \sum_{j=0}^{J-1}
\ln\gamma_j, \label{eq:loglik}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
T_k^{(j)} &= \sum_{i\in I_k^{(j)}}\left( y_i^{(j)}-\tau_{k-1}^{(j)}\right) + \left( n-\sum_{\ell=1}^{k} n_\ell^{(j)} \right) \left(
\tau_k^{(j)}-\tau_{k-1}^{(j)} \right),
\end{align*}
for $k=1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,N;\, j=0,\,1,\, \ldots,\, J-1$. Equating partial derivative of the
log-likelihood function in Eq.\eqref{eq:loglik} with respect to $b_k$ to zero, we can
express $b_k$ in terms of the load-share parameters $\boldsymbol{\gamma}= \left(
\gamma_1,\, \gamma_2,\, \ldots,\, \gamma_{J-1} \right)$ as
\begin{align}
b_k = b_{k}\left( \boldsymbol{\gamma} \right) =
\frac{\displaystyle \sum_{j=0}^{J-1} n_k^{(j)}}{\displaystyle \sum_{j=0}^{J-1}
(J-j)\gamma_j T_k^{(j)}}, \quad k = 1,...,N. \label{eq:slope-mles}
\end{align}
Substituting $b_k(\boldsymbol{\gamma})$ from Eq.\eqref{eq:slope-mles} in Eq.\eqref{eq:loglik}, the profile log-likelihood in $\boldsymbol{\gamma}$, ignoring
additive constant, is obtained as
\begin{align}
\tilde l\left( \boldsymbol{\gamma} \right)
&= \sum_{k=1}^{N} \left[ \left( \sum_{j=0}^{J-1} n_k^{(j)} \right) \left\{\ln \left( \sum_{j=0}^{J-1} n_k^{(j)} \right)-\ln \left( \sum_{j=0}^{J-1} (J-j)\gamma_j T_k^{(j)} \right)\right\} \right] + n \sum_{j=0}^{J-1}
\ln\gamma_j. \label{eq:prof_loglik}
\end{align}
For optimizing the profile log-likelihood $\tilde l\left( \boldsymbol{\gamma} \right)$ in $\boldsymbol{\gamma}$, any routine maximizer of a standard statistical software may be used. Once the MLEs $\widehat{\gamma}_1,\, \widehat{\gamma}_2,\,\ldots,\, \widehat{\gamma}_{J-1}$ of $\gamma_1,\,\gamma_2,\, \ldots,\, \gamma_{J-1}$ are
obtained by numerical optimization of $\tilde l\left( \boldsymbol{\gamma} \right)$,
they can be plugged into Eq.\eqref{eq:slope-mles} to get MLEs of $b_k$ as
$$
\widehat{b}_k = b_k\left( \widehat{\gamma}_1,\, \ldots,\,
\widehat{\gamma}_{J-1} \right), \quad k=1,\,2,\, \ldots,\, N.
$$
\subsection{\sc A special case: two-component load-sharing systems} \label{subsec:2-comp-mle}
For analysing data from two-component load-sharing systems, if two linear pieces are used in the PLA-based model, MLEs can be derived analytically and explicitly. Consider the case when $J=2$ and $N=2$. In this case, the log-likelihood function simplifies to
\begin{align}
l\left( \boldsymbol{\theta} \right)
&= \sum_{k=1}^{2} \left[ \left( \sum_{j=0}^{1} n_k^{(j)} \right) \ln b_k -
\left( \sum_{j=0}^{1} (2-j)\gamma_j T_k^{(j)} \right) b_k \right] + n \sum_{j=0}^{1}
\ln\gamma_j, \label{eq:loglik2}
\end{align}
with
\begin{align*}
T_k^{(j)} &= \sum_{i\in I_k^{(j)}}\left( y_i^{(j)}-\tau_{k-1}^{(j)}\right) + \left( n-\sum_{\ell=1}^{k} n_\ell^{(j)} \right) \left(
\tau_k^{(j)}-\tau_{k-1}^{(j)} \right),
\end{align*}
for $k=1, 2$, $j=0, 1$ and $\gamma_0=1$. Here, $\boldsymbol{\theta} = (\gamma_1,b_1, b_2)$.
Equating $\frac{\partial l\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}\right)}{\partial b_1}$ and $\frac{\partial l(\boldsymbol{\theta})}{\partial b_2}$ to zero, we get
\begin{align}
b_1= \frac{n_1^{(0)}+n_1^{(1)}}{2T_1^{(0)}+\gamma_1 T_1^{(1)}}\label{eq:b1-sc}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
b_2=\frac{n_2^{(0)}+n_2^{(1)}}{2T_2^{(0)}+\gamma_1 T_2^{(1)}}.\label{eq:b2-sc}
\end{align}
Equating $\frac{\partial l\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}\right)}{\partial \gamma_1}$ to zero gives
\begin{align}
\gamma_1=T_1^{(1)}b_1+T_2^{(1)}b_2, \label{eq:gamma-sc}
\end{align}
in which, substituting $b_1$ and $b_2$ from Eqs.\eqref{eq:b1-sc} and \eqref{eq:b2-sc}, a quadratic equation in $\gamma_1$ is obtained as follows
\begin{align}
Q(\gamma_1) = n\gamma_1^2B_{0,12}+2\gamma_1 \left\{\left(n_1^{(0)}+n_1^{(1)}-n\right)B_{2,1}+\left(n_2^{(0)}+n_2^{(1)}-n\right)B_{1,2}\right\}-4nB_{12,0}=0, \label{eq:gamma1-Q}
\end{align}
with $B_{0,12}=T_1^{(1)}T_2^{(1)}$, $B_{1,2}=T_1^{(0)}T_2^{(1)}$, $B_{2,1}=T_2^{(0)}T_1^{(1)}$ and $B_{12,0}=T_1^{(0)}T_2^{(0)}.$
Solving $Q(\gamma_1) = 0$, we have two values of $\gamma_1$ from which we choose the suitable one, and then from equations \eqref{eq:b1-sc} and \eqref{eq:b2-sc} we get the MLEs of $b_1$ and $b_2$, respectively.
\subsection{\sc Confidence Intervals} \label{subsec:CI}
As discussed above, the MLEs for the parameters of the PLA-based model are not available in explicit form in general, except for the special case of two-component load-sharing systems considered in Section \ref{subsec:2-comp-mle}. As a result, exact confidence
intervals for the model parameters cannot be obtained. Asymptotic confidence intervals may be constructed in two possible ways: by using the Fisher information matrix, and by applying a bootstrap-based technique.
\subsubsection{\sc CIs using Fisher information matrix}
Using the asymptotic properties of the MLEs, it can be shown that for large sample size $n$, the distribution of $\sqrt{n}(\widehat{\boldsymbol \theta} - \boldsymbol \theta)$ is approximated by a multi-variate normal distribution $\boldsymbol N(\boldsymbol 0, \mathbb{
I}^{-1}(\widehat{\boldsymbol \theta}))$, where the dimension of the multi-variate normal
distribution is same as that of the parameter vector $\boldsymbol \theta$, and the asymptotic variance-covariance matrix $\mathbb{I}^{-1}(\boldsymbol \theta)$ is the inverse of the Fisher information matrix $\mathbb{I}(\boldsymbol \theta)$, evaluated at the MLE $\widehat{\boldsymbol \theta}$. The Fisher information matrix $\mathbb{I}(\boldsymbol \theta)$ is defined as the expected value of the observed information matrix $\mathbb{J}(\boldsymbol \theta)$ which is calculated from the negative of the second-order derivatives of the log-likelihood function. That is, $\mathbb{I}(\boldsymbol{\theta})=\text{E}(\mathbb{J}(\boldsymbol{\theta}))$, where $\mathbb{ J}(\boldsymbol \theta) = -\nabla^2(\log L(\boldsymbol \theta))$. In situations where analytical calculation of the Fisher information is difficult or intractable, it may be either replaced by the observed information matrix, or may be calculated by simulations.
From the asymptotic variance-covariance matrix $\mathbb{I}^{-1}(\boldsymbol \theta)$, individual asymptotic variances of the MLEs can be pulled out, and asymptotic confidence intervals can be constructed. For example, corresponding to the MLE $\widehat{\gamma}_1$ using the asymptotic variance $\widehat{Var(\hat{\gamma}_1)}$ obtained from $\mathbb{I}^{-1}(\boldsymbol \theta)$, asymptotic confidence intervals for $\gamma_1$ can be constructed as: $$\left(\widehat{\gamma}_1 - z_{\alpha/2} \sqrt{\widehat{Var(\hat{\gamma}_1)}}, \widehat{\gamma}_1 + z_{\alpha/2} \sqrt{\widehat{Var(\hat{\gamma}_1)}}\right),$$
where $z_{\alpha}$ is the $100(1-\alpha)$\% point of the standard normal distribution.
\subsubsection*{\sc Special case: two-component load-sharing systems}
For the special case of two-component load-sharing systems considered in Section \ref{subsec:2-comp-mle}, the Fisher information matrix can be worked out explicitly. In this case,
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{J}(\boldsymbol{\theta})=-\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\partial^2 l(\boldsymbol{\theta})}{\partial \gamma_1^2} & \frac{\partial^2 l(\boldsymbol{\theta})}{\partial \gamma_1 \partial b_1} & \frac{\partial^2 l(\boldsymbol{\theta})}{\partial \gamma_1 \partial b_2}\\\\
\frac{\partial^2 l(\boldsymbol{\theta})}{\partial b_1 \partial \gamma_1} & \frac{\partial^2 l(\boldsymbol{\theta})}{\partial b_1^2} & \frac{\partial^2 l(\boldsymbol{\theta})}{\partial b_1 \partial b_2}\\\\
\frac{\partial^2 l(\boldsymbol{\theta})}{\partial b_2 \partial \gamma_1} & \frac{\partial^2 l(\boldsymbol{\theta})}{\partial b_2 \partial b_1} & \frac{\partial^2 l(\boldsymbol{\theta})}{\partial b_2^2}
\end{pmatrix} = -\begin{pmatrix}
-\frac{n}{\gamma_1^2} & -T_1^{(1)} & -T_2^{(1)}\\
-T_1^{(1)} & -\frac{n_1^{(0)}+n_1^{(1)}}{{b_1}^2} & 0\\
-T_2^{(1)} & 0 & -\frac{n_2^{(0)}+n_2^{(1)}}{{b_2}^2}
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{align*}
Hence, the Fisher information matrix is
\scriptsize
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{I}(\boldsymbol{\theta})=\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{n}{\gamma_1^2} & E\left(\displaystyle\sum_{i \in I_1^{(1)}}Y_i^{(1)}\right)+E\left(N_2^{(1)}\right)\tau_1^{(1)} & E\left(\displaystyle\sum_{i \in I_1^{(1)}}Y_i^{(1)}\right)-E\left(N_2^{(1)}\right)\tau_1^{(1)}\\\\
E\left(\displaystyle\sum_{i \in I_1^{(1)}}Y_i^{(1)}\right)+E\left(N_2^{(1)}\right)\tau_1^{(1)} & \frac{E\left(N_1^{(0)}\right)+E\left(N_1^{(1)}\right)}{b_1^2} & 0\\\\
E\left(\displaystyle\sum_{i \in I_1^{(1)}}Y_i^{(1)}\right)-E\left(N_2^{(1)}\right)\tau_1^{(1)} & 0 & \frac{E\left(N_2^{(0)}\right)+E\left(N_2^{(1)}\right)}{b_2^2}
\end{pmatrix},
\end{align*}
\normalsize
where $N_k^{(j)}$ is the number of $Y_i^{(j)}$ in $[\tau_{k-1}^{(j)}, \tau_k^{(j)})$, $k=1,2$, $j=0,1$, $i=1,...,n$. An outline of calculations of the relevant expectations for the Fisher information matrix is given in Appendix A. The inverse of the Fisher information matrix is obtained as
\begin{align*}
\left\{\mathbb{I}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\theta})\right\}=\frac{1}{|\mathbb{I}(\boldsymbol{\theta})|}\begin{pmatrix}
A_{11}(\boldsymbol{\theta}) & -A_{12}(\boldsymbol{\theta}) & A_{13}(\boldsymbol{\theta})\\
-A_{21}(\boldsymbol{\theta}) & A_{22}(\boldsymbol{\theta}) & -A_{23}(\boldsymbol{\theta})\\
A_{31}(\boldsymbol{\theta}) & -A_{32}(\boldsymbol{\theta}) & A_{33}(\boldsymbol{\theta})
\end{pmatrix},
\end{align*}
where the determinant of $\mathbb{I}(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
&|\mathbb{I}(\boldsymbol{\theta})| &= \frac{n\left\{2-\left(e^{-2b_1\tau_1^{(0)}}+e^{-\gamma_1 b_1\tau_1^{(1)}}\right)\right\}\left(e^{-2b_1\tau_1^{(0)}}+e^{-\gamma_1 b_1\tau_1^{(1)}}\right)}{\gamma_1^2b_1^2b_2^2} \nonumber \\
&&-\frac{e^{-2\gamma_1 b_1\tau_1^{(1)}}\left(\frac{1}{\gamma_1 b_2}\right)^2\left\{2-\left(e^{-2b_1\tau_1^{(0)}}+e^{-\gamma_1 b_1\tau_1^{(1)}}\right)\right\}}{b_1^2} \nonumber \\
&&-\frac{\left\{\frac{1}{\gamma_1 b_1}\left[1-(1+\gamma_1 b_1 \tau_1^{(1)})e^{-\gamma_1 b_1\tau_1^{(1)}}\right]+\tau_1^{(1)}e^{-\gamma_1 b_1\tau_1^{(1)}}\right\}^2\left(e^{-2b_1\tau_1^{(0)}}+e^{-\gamma_1 b_1\tau_1^{(1)}}\right)}{b_2^2}, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{align*}
A_{11}(\boldsymbol{\theta})=\frac{\left\{2-\left(e^{-2b_1\tau_1^{(0)}}+e^{-\gamma_1 b_1\tau_1^{(1)}}\right)\right\}\left(e^{-2b_1\tau_1^{(0)}}+e^{-\gamma_1 b_1\tau_1^{(1)}}\right)}{b_1^2b_2^2},
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
A_{22}(\boldsymbol{\theta})=
&\frac{n\left(e^{-2b_1\tau_1^{(0)}}+e^{-\gamma_1
b_1\tau_1^{(1)}}\right)}{\gamma_1^2b_2^2}-e^{-2\gamma_1
b_1\tau_1^{(1)}}\left(\frac{1}{\gamma_1 b_2}\right)^2,\\
A_{33}(\boldsymbol{\theta})=
&\frac{n\left\{2-\left(e^{-2b_1\tau_1^{(0)}}+e^{-\gamma_1
b_1\tau_1^{(1)}}\right)\right\}}{\gamma_1^2b_1^2}\\
& -\left\{\frac{1}{\gamma_1 b_1}\left[1-(1+\gamma_1 b_1 \tau_1^{(1)})e^{-\gamma_1 b_1\tau_1^{(1)}}\right]+\tau_1^{(1)}e^{-\gamma_1 b_1\tau_1^{(1)}}\right\}^2,
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
A_{12}(\boldsymbol{\theta})=A_{21}(\boldsymbol{\theta})=
& \frac{\left\{\frac{1}{\gamma_1
b_1}\left[1-(1+\gamma_1 b_1 \tau_1^{(1)})e^{-\gamma_1
b_1\tau_1^{(1)}}\right]+\tau_1^{(1)}e^{-\gamma_1
b_1\tau_1^{(1)}}\right\}\left(e^{-2b_1\tau_1^{(0)}}+e^{-\gamma_1
b_1\tau_1^{(1)}}\right)}{b_2^2},\\
A_{13}(\boldsymbol{\theta})=A_{31}(\boldsymbol{\theta})=
&-\frac{e^{-\gamma_1 b_1\tau_1^{(1)}}\left(\frac{1}{\gamma_1
b_2}\right)\left\{2-\left(e^{-2b_1\tau_1^{(0)}}+e^{-\gamma_1
b_1\tau_1^{(1)}}\right)\right\}}{b_1^2},\\
A_{23}(\boldsymbol{\theta})=A_{32}(\boldsymbol{\theta})=
&-\frac{\left\{\left[1-(1+\gamma_1 b_1 \tau_1^{(1)})e^{-\gamma_1
b_1\tau_1^{(1)}}\right]+\gamma_1 b_1\tau_1^{(1)}e^{-\gamma_1
b_1\tau_1^{(1)}}\right\}e^{-\gamma_1 b_1\tau_1^{(1)}}}{\gamma_1^2b_1b_2}.
\end{align*}
Evaluating $\mathbb{I}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ at the MLE $\widehat{\boldsymbol \theta}$, the asymptotic variance-covariance matrix of the MLEs is obtained. Hence, $100(1-\alpha)$\% asymptotic confidence intervals for $\gamma_1$, $b_1$, and $b_2$ are obtained as
\bigg($\widehat{\gamma}_1-z_{\alpha/2} \sqrt{\frac{A_{11}(\boldsymbol{\hat{\theta}})}{|\mathbb{I}(\boldsymbol{\hat{\theta}})|}}, \widehat{\gamma}_1+z_{\alpha/2} \sqrt{\frac{A_{11}(\boldsymbol{\hat{\theta}})}{|\mathbb{I}(\boldsymbol{\hat{\theta}})|}}$\bigg), \bigg($\widehat{b_1}-z_{\alpha/2} \sqrt{\frac{A_{22}(\boldsymbol{\hat{\theta}})}{|\mathbb{I}(\boldsymbol{\hat{\theta}})|}}, \widehat{b_1}+z_{\alpha/2} \sqrt{\frac{A_{22}(\boldsymbol{\hat{\theta}})}{|\mathbb{I}(\boldsymbol{\hat{\theta}})|}}$\bigg), and \bigg($\widehat{b_2}-z_{\alpha/2} \sqrt{\frac{A_{33}(\boldsymbol{\hat{\theta}})}{|\mathbb{I}(\boldsymbol{\hat{\theta}})|}}, \widehat{b_2}+z_{\alpha/2} \sqrt{\frac{A_{33}(\boldsymbol{\hat{\theta}})}{|\mathbb{I}(\boldsymbol{\hat{\theta}})|}}$\bigg), respectively.
\subsubsection{\sc Bootstrap confidence intervals}
Using the MLE $\widehat{\boldsymbol \theta}$, $B$ bootstrap samples can be obtained in the
same sampling framework; let $\widehat{\boldsymbol
\theta}_s^*=\left(\widehat{\gamma}_{1s}^*, \widehat{b}_{1s}^*, \widehat{b}_{2s}^*\right)$
denote the bootstrap estimates, $s=1,...,B$. Bootstrap bias and standard error are defined as
$$
bias_{b}(\widehat{\gamma}_1) = \overline{\widehat{\gamma_1^*}} - \widehat{\gamma}_1, \quad bias_{b}(\widehat{b}_1) = \overline{\widehat{b_1^*}} - \widehat{b}_1, \quad bias_{b}(\widehat{b}_2) = \overline{\widehat{b_2^*}} - \widehat{b}_2
$$
and
\scriptsize
$$
SE_{b}(\widehat{\gamma}_1)=\sqrt{\frac{1}{B-1}\sum_{s=1}^{B}\left(\widehat{\gamma}_{1s}^*-\overline{\widehat{\gamma_1^*}}\right)^2}, SE_{b}(\widehat{b}_1)=\sqrt{\frac{1}{B-1}\sum_{s=1}^{B}\left(\widehat{b}_{1s}^*-\overline{\widehat{b_1^*}}\right)^2}, SE_{b}(\widehat{b}_2)=\sqrt{\frac{1}{B-1}\sum_{s=1}^{B}\left(\widehat{b}_{2s}^*-\overline{\widehat{b_2^*}}\right)^2},
$$
\normalsize
where
$$
\overline{\widehat{\gamma_1^*}} = \frac{1}{B}\sum_{s=1}^{B}\widehat{\gamma}_{1s}^*, \quad \overline{\widehat{b_1^*}} = \frac{1}{B}\sum_{s=1}^{B}\widehat{b}_{1s}^*, \quad \overline{\widehat{b_2^*}} = \frac{1}{B}\sum_{s=1}^{B}\widehat{b}_{2s}^*.
$$
Finally, a $100(1-\alpha)$\% bootstrap confidence interval for $\gamma_1$ can be calculated as
\begin{align*}
\left(\widehat{\gamma}_1 - bias_b(\widehat{\gamma}_1) - z_{\alpha/2}SE_{b}(\widehat{\gamma}_1), \widehat{\gamma}_1 - bias_b(\widehat{\gamma}_1) + z_{\alpha/2}SE_{b}(\widehat{\gamma}_1)\right).
\end{align*}
Bootstrap confidence intervals for $b_1$ and $b_2$ can be calculated similarly.
For percentile bootstrap confidence intervals for, say $\gamma_1$, the bootstrap estimates of $\widehat{\gamma}_1$ are first ordered in terms of magnitude:
$$
\widehat{\gamma}_{1(1)}^* < \widehat{\gamma}_{1(2)}^* < ... < \widehat{\gamma}_{1(B)}^*.
$$
Then, a $100(1-\alpha)$\% percentile bootstrap confidence interval for $\gamma_1$ is $\left( \widehat{\gamma}_{1([\frac{\alpha B}{2}])}^*,\,
\widehat{\gamma}_{1([(1-\frac{\alpha}{2})B])}^* \right)$. Similarly, percentile bootstrap
confidence intervals can be calculated for $b_1$ and $b_2$.
\subsection{\sc Choice of Cut Points}
The number and position of the cut-points for constructing the PLA-based model need to be
suitably chosen, so that the model can closely approximate the underlying CHF, but avoid
overfitting. A large number of cut points would provide a close local approximation to the
underlying CHF. However, apart from being computationally expensive, a close local
approximation may also lead to overfitting in which case it would be difficult to use the
PLA-based model to predict future failures of components or systems.
One of the possible ways to choose the number and position of the cut-points is by looking
at the plot of the nonparametric estimator of CHF. From such a plot, observing the areas where the nonparametric estimate changes significantly, one can determine the positions and number of cut-points.
More objectively, one can choose the positions of a given number of cut-points by maximizing the log-likelihood function. For example, for three cut-points ($N=2$), the natural choice for $\tau_0^{(j)}$ is $\min\left\{ y_1^{(j)},\,
\ldots,\, y_n^{(j)} \right\}$ and $\tau_2^{(j)}$ is $\max\left\{ y_1^{(j)},\,
\ldots,\, y_n^{(j)} \right\}$. Now to choose the position of $\tau_1^{(j)}$, one may take $\tau_1^{(j)}$ equal to different sample quantiles of $\left\{ y_1^{(j)},\,
\ldots,\, y_n^{(j)} \right\}$ and choose one that provides the maximum value of log-likelihood function evaluated at MLE. This process can be expressed as an algorithm as follows.\\
\textbf{Algorithm:}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Step 1:} Fix $0<p_1<p_2<1$.
\item \textbf{Step 2:} Find the number of $y_1^{(j)},\,
\ldots,\, y_n^{(j)}$ that are between $p_1$-th and $p_2$-th sample quantiles of $\left\{ y_1^{(j)},\,
\ldots,\, y_n^{(j)} \right\}$. Denote this number by $l$. Note that $l$ does not depend on $j=0,1,\ldots, J-1$.
\item \textbf{Step 3:} Set $a_{j1}=p_1$-th quantile of $\left\{ y_1^{(j)},\,
\ldots,\, y_n^{(j)} \right\}, ~j=0,1,\ldots, J-1$.
\item \textbf{Step 4:} Set $LL_1$= the value of log-likelihood function evaluated at MLE taking $\tau_1^{(j)}=a_{j1}, ~j=0,1,\ldots, J-1$.
\item \textbf{Step 5:} Set $a_{j2}=\min \left\{y_i^{(j)}>a_{j1}; i=1, 2, \ldots, n\right\}, ~j=0,1,\ldots, J-1$.
\item \textbf{Step 6:} Set $LL_2$= the value of log-likelihood function evaluated at MLE taking $\tau_1^{(j)}=a_{j2}, ~j=0,1,\ldots, J-1$.
\item \textbf{Step 7:} Repeat the steps 5 and 6 to obtain $LL_1, LL_2, \ldots, LL_l$.
\item \textbf{Step 8:} Set $k^*=\underset{1\le k \le l}{\arg \max}~ LL_k$.
\item \textbf{Step 9:} The final cut points are $\tau_1^{(j)}=a_{jk^*}, ~j=0,1,\ldots, J-1$.
\end{itemize}
\section{\sc Estimation of various reliability characteristics}\label{sec:RC}
The final goal of fitting a model to load-sharing data, naturally, is accurate estimation
of reliability characteristics of load-sharing systems. As the PLA-based model provides a
good fit to load-sharing data due to the model's flexible nature, it is natural that the
important reliability characteristics of load-sharing systems can also be estimated quite
accurately under this model. In this section, we develop estimates of reliability
characteristics such as the quantile function, MTTF, RMT, and MRT of load-sharing systems
under the PLA-based model. Details of these derivations are given in Appendix~B for
interested readers.
Under the PLA-based model, the quantile function of $Y^{(j)}$ which is the system lifetime between the $j$-th and $(j+1)$-st component failures, $j=0,...,J-1$, is given by
\begin{align*}
\eta(p)=\inf \left\{y\in \mathbb{R}: G^{(j)}(y)\ge p \right\}, \quad 0 < p < 1,
\end{align*} where $G^{(j)}(y)=1-e^{-(J-j)\Lambda^{(j)}(y)}.$
Using the expression of $\Lambda^{(j)}(y)$ given in Section \ref{sec:Model}, it is possible to work out an explicit formula for the quantile function $\eta(p)$, as follows:
\begin{align*}
\eta(p)=
\begin{cases}
\tau_{k-1}^{(j)}-\frac{\log(1-p)}{(J-j)\gamma_jb_k}-\frac{1}{b_k}\cdot \displaystyle\sum_{\ell=1}^{k-1}b_\ell(\tau_\ell^{(j)}-\tau_{\ell-1}^{(j)}), \text{ if } p\in \left[G^{(j)}(\tau_{k-1}^{(j)}), G^{(j)}(\tau_{k}^{(j)})\right),\\ \hspace{7.5cm}\text{ for } k=1, 2, \ldots, N.\\
\tau_{N-1}^{(j)}-\frac{\log(1-p)}{(J-j)\gamma_jb_N}-\frac{1}{b_N}\cdot \displaystyle\sum_{\ell=1}^{N-1}b_\ell(\tau_\ell^{(j)}-\tau_{\ell-1}^{(j)}), \text{ if } p\in \left[G^{(j)}(\tau_{N}^{(j)}), 1\right).
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
The mean time to failure or MTTF of a load-sharing system is the expected time the system operates till its failure. Let $T$ denote the system failure time; then, $T=\sum_{j=0}^{J-1}Y^{(j)}$.
The MTTF of a load-sharing system under the PLA-based model
is given by
\begin{align*}
E(T)=\sum_{j=0}^{J-1} \sum_{s=1}^{N} \left\{\frac{e^{-\kappa_{j,s-1}}-e^{-\kappa_{j,s}}}{(J-j)\gamma_j b_\ell}\right\},
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
\kappa_{j,s} = (J-j)\gamma_j \sum_{\ell=1}^{s} b_\ell
\left(\tau_\ell^{(j)}-\tau_{\ell-1}^{(j)}\right).
\end{align*}
Reliability at a mission time or RMT of a system is the probability that the system will
operate till a desired time $t_0$; it is calculated as the survival probability of the
system at time $t_0$, i.e.,
$S(t_0)=P(T>t_0)=P\left(\displaystyle\sum_{j=0}^{J-1}Y^{(j)}>t_0\right)$. An explicit
expression for RMT may be derived by using the distribution of the system lifetime $T$.
However, as $Y^{(j)}$s, $j=0,...,J-1$ are independent but not identically distributed, it is difficult to obtain an explicit expression for the distribution of the system lifetime $T$, where $T=\sum_{j=0}^{J-1}Y^{(j)}$. It is evident from the moment generating function $\phi_T(t)$ of $T$, which, under the PLA-based model, is given by
\begin{align*}
\phi_T(t) = \prod_{j=0}^{J-1}\sum_{s=1}^{N}\frac{(J-j)b_s\gamma_j}{(J-j) b_s\gamma_j-t}
\left( e^{t\tau_{s-1}^{(j)}-\kappa_{j,s-1}} - e^{t\tau_s^{(j)}-\kappa_{j,s}}\right)
\qquad \text{if } t<\gamma_1b_N,
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
\kappa_{j,s} = (J-j)\gamma_j \sum_{\ell=1}^{s} b_\ell
\left(\tau_\ell^{(j)}-\tau_{\ell-1}^{(j)}\right).
\end{align*}
From here, it is clear that it is difficult to find the RMT analytically under this model.
However, for this model, RMT can be estimated using Monte Carlo simulations.
For a Monte Carlo estimate of the RMT at a pre-specified time $t_0$, one needs to generate
$R$ data points $t_i$, $i=1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,R$, as realisations of the system lifetime $T$,
and find $\frac{R(t_0)}{R}$, where $R(t_0)$ is the number of realisations of the system
lifetime that exceed $t_0$. For a reasonably good estimate of RMT, a large value of $R$
should be used.
The mean residual time or MRT of a system is the expected additional time the system will
survive if it has already survived a given time $t$. That is,
$$
\textrm{MRT}(t) = E(T-t|T>t) = \int_{t}^{\infty}sf_{T|T>t}(s)ds-t.
$$
Therefore, analytical derivation of MRT requires the truncated distribution of the system
lifetime $T$, and it is difficult to obtain the truncated distribution of $T$ in this
case. Instead, an estimate of the MRT can be given using Monte Carlo simulations. We
generate $R$ data points $t_i^*$, $i=1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,R$, as realisations of the truncated
lifetime $T|T>t$, and a Monte Carlo estimate of the MRT for load-sharing systems under the
PLA-based model is then given by
$$
\widehat{\textrm{MRT}}(t) = \frac{\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{R}t_i^*}{R} - t.
$$
\section{\sc Data Analysis} \label{sec:dataana}
In this section, we present an illustrative example using data from load-sharing systems comprising of two components. Very recently, this data have been analysed by Sutar and Naik-Nimbalkar~\cite{SN2014}, Asha et~al.~\cite{ARR2018} and Franco et~al.~\cite{FVK2020}. The data consist of information on component lifetimes of 18 two-component load-sharing systems. Each system is a parallel combination of two motors - ``A'' and ``B''. When both motors A and B are in working condition, the total load on the system is shared between them. When one of the motors fails, the entire load goes to the operational motor.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./plots/QQ_Y0.eps}
\caption{Q-Q plot for $Y^{(0)}$}
\label{fig:sub-qq0}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./plots/QQ_Y1.eps}
\caption{Q-Q plot for $Y^{(1)}$}
\label{fig:sub-qq1}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Q-Q plots}
\label{fig:qq}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./plots/SF_before.eps}
\caption{Plot of SF for $Y^{(0)}$}
\label{fig:sub-first2}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./plots/SF_after.eps}
\caption{Plot of SF for $Y^{(1)}$}
\label{fig:sub-second2}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Plots of SFs}
\label{fig:fig2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./plots/CHF_before.eps}
\caption{Plot of CHF for $Y^{(0)}$}
\label{fig:sub-first3}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./plots/CHF_after.eps}
\caption{Plot of CHF for $Y^{(1)}$}
\label{fig:sub-second3}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Plots of CHFs}
\label{fig:fig3}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[h!]
\caption{Time to failure (in days) data set for two motors in a load-sharing configuration}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\label{tab:realdata}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\hline
System & Time to failure of motor A & Time to failure of motor B & Event description\\
\hline
1 & 102 & 65 & B failed first\\
2 & 84 & 148 & A failed first\\
3 & 88 & 202 & A failed first\\
4 & 156 & 121 & B failed first\\
5 & 148 & 123 & B failed first\\
6 & 139 & 150 & A failed first\\
7 & 245 & 156 & B failed first\\
8 & 235 & 172 & B failed first\\
9 & 220 & 192 & B failed first\\
10 & 207 & 214 & A failed first\\
11 & 250 & 212 & B failed first\\
12 & 212 & 220 & A failed first\\
13 & 213 & 265 & A failed first\\
14 & 220 & 275 & A failed first\\
15 & 243 & 300 & A failed first\\
16 & 300 & 248 & B failed first\\
17 & 257 & 330 & A failed first\\
18 & 263 & 350 & A failed first\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\footnotesize
\centering
\caption{Point and interval estimates of parameters of the PLA-based model when applied to the two-motor load-sharing data}
\label{tab:dataresult}
\begin{tabular}{*{6}{c}}
\toprule
Parameter & MLE & Std.~Error & Asymptotic & Percentile bootstrap & Bootstrap \\
\midrule
$\gamma_1$ & 4.2712 & 1.1901 & (1.9386, 6.6038) & (3.0754, 8.0279) & (0.8456, 5.8172)\\
$b_1$ & 0.0034 & 0.0008 & (0.0019, 0.0048) & (0.0021, 0.0062) & (0.0008, 0.0052) \\
$b_2$ & 0.0134 & 0.0039 & (0.0056, 0.0212) & (0.0061, 0.0209) & (0.0083, 0.0232)\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h!]
\caption{Mean residual time and reliability in mission time}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\label{tab:RMT_MRT}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline
$t_0$ & MRT$_{t_0}$ & RMT$_{t_0}$\\
\hline
102.00 & 124.223 & 0.963\\
167.50 & 88.678 & 0.706\\
227.50 & 60.646 & 0.466\\
272.50 & 42.794 & 0.271\\
350.00 & 36.919 & 0.044\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Sutar and Naik-Nimbalkar~\cite{SN2014} observed that the load-sharing phenomenon existed for the systems considered in this dataset. Asha et al.~\cite{ARR2018} assumed Weibull lifetimes for the components. From the Weibull Q-Q plots for the lifetimes of motor A and B reported in Asha et al.~\cite{ARR2018}, it was observed that although the Weibull model assumption for the lifetimes of motor B was reasonable, the lifetimes of motor A did not follow a Weibull distribution. This motivated us to consider the PLA-based modelling approach for the lifetimes of the load-sharing systems in this case.
The dataset is reproduced in Table~\ref{tab:realdata} for ready reference of the readers.
The average and standard deviation of first component failure times are 178.61 and 62.75,
respectively, while those of the lifetime between first and second component failures are
49.72 and 29.45, respectively. We consider three cut points for the PLA-based model (i.e.,
$N=2$). The estimates of the model parameters are reported in Table~\ref{tab:dataresult}.
The Q-Q plots for $Y^{(0)}$ and $Y^{(1)}$ are given in Figures~\ref{fig:sub-qq0} and \ref{fig:sub-qq1}, respectively. The plots of the estimated SF and CHF are given in Figures~\ref{fig:fig2} and \ref{fig:fig3}, respectively. These figures indicate that the PLA-based model fits the data quite adequately.
A Kolmogorov-Smirnov type test has been performed to test the following hypotheses:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{c}
H_0:\text{ True model is specified by Eqs.~\eqref{eq:model1} and \eqref{eq:model2}}\\
\text{against}\\
H_1: \text{ True model is not specified by Eqs.~\eqref{eq:model1} and \eqref{eq:model2}}
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
based on the test statistics
\begin{align*}
T_n= \max_{1\le i\le n} \left\vert \widehat{G}^{(0)}\left( Y^{(0)}_{i:n} \right) -
\frac{i}{n} \right\vert + \max_{1\le i\le n} \left\vert \widehat{G}^{(1)}\left(
Y^{(1)}_{i:n} \right) - \frac{i}{n} \right\vert,
\end{align*}
where $\widehat{G}^{(j)}(\cdot)$ is the estimated cumulative distribution function
corresponding to PLA-based model, and $Y^{(j)}_{i:n}$ is the $i$-th order statistics
corresponding to $Y^{(j)}_i$, $j=0,\,1$, $i=1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,n$. The observed value of the test statistics $T_n$ is found to be 0.414 based on this data. The Monte Carlo estimate of the corresponding $p$-value is 0.71. Therefore, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected at significance level 0.05, and we conclude that it is quite reasonable to use the PLA-based model for this data.
It may also be noted here that for this data, the value of the Akaike's information criterion (AIC) for the model considered by Asha et al.~\cite{ARR2018} is 480.50, and that for the best model considered by Franco et~al.~\cite{FVK2020} is 409.65. In contrast, the AIC value for the PLA-based model turns out to be 369.34, implying that the PLA-based model is more suitable for the two-motor load-sharing systems data considered here.
For the PLA-based model, the estimated value of $\gamma_1$ is 4.2712, which empirically implies that the load-sharing model is quite appropriate in this case. The same comment can also be made from the plots, by noting that the plot of the SF of the distribution of time between first and second failure component times diminishes to zero more quickly compared to that of first component failure times in Figure~\ref{fig:fig2}.
The reliability characteristics of the two-motor load-sharing systems are also estimated by using the expressions and techniques described in Section \ref{sec:RC}. The MTTF is calculated to be 221.36 days. Monte Carlo estimates of the MRT and RMT are calculated at different sample percentile points of the system failure times and are presented in Table \ref{tab:RMT_MRT}.
\section{\sc Simulation Study} \label{sec:sim}
The accuracy of the proposed PLA-based model in fitting data from load-sharing systems is
of utmost importance as the subsequent estimation of reliability characteristics depends
on the PLA-based model. In this section, we present results of a Monte Carlo simulation
study that examines the performance of the proposed PLA-based model in two directions.
First, based on samples generated from a parent process with piecewise linear CHF, we
assess the performance of the proposed estimation method that is presented in Section
\ref{sec:Inf}. Then, the efficacy of the PLA-based model in fitting data generated from a
parent process represented by some parametric models is also assessed. The simulations are
carried out by using \texttt{R} software. For the simulations, we consider two-component
load-sharing systems.
\subsection{\sc Assessing performance of the estimation method}
To assess the performance of the estimation methods, we consider an underlying cumulative
hazard that is made up of two linear pieces. To this effect, we generate samples from the
model specified by Eqs.\eqref{eq:model1} and \eqref{eq:model2} with $J=2$ and $N=2$. The
true parameter values are taken to be $b_1=0.01,\, 0.05$; $b_2 = 0.1,\,0.5$; $\gamma_1=5$;
$\tau_1^{(0)}=\frac{\ln 2}{2b_1}$; $\tau_1^{(1)}=\frac{\ln 2}{\gamma_1 b_1}$. The
estimation is performed based on samples of size $n= 100$ and 200. The average estimates
(AE), mean square errors (MSE), variance (VAR) of the MLEs based on 5000 Monte Carlo
replications are reported in Tables~\ref{tab:sim1}, \ref{tab:sim2}, and \ref{tab:sim3}.
The coverage percentage (CP) and average lengths (AL) of 95\% confidence intervals are
also reported in the same tables.
From the Tables \ref{tab:sim1}, \ref{tab:sim2} and \ref{tab:sim3}, we observe that the
average estimates of $\gamma_1,~ b_1$ and $b_2$ are very close to the true values, and the
MSEs as well as VARs are quite small as desired. It is also noticed that the performance
of all the constructed confidence intervals is satisfactory. These results demonstrate
that the proposed inferential techniques can accurately estimate the parameters of the
PLA-based model.
\begin{table}[h]
\footnotesize
\centering
\caption{Performance measures for estimates of $\gamma_1$}
\begin{tabular}{c|ccccccccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{1em}{$n$}&\multirow{2}{1em}{$b_1$}&\multirow{2}{1em}{$b_2$}&\multirow{2}{2em}{AE}&\multirow{2}{2.5em}{MSE}&\multirow{2}{2.5em}{VAR}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{Asymptotic}& \multicolumn{2}{c}{Percentile bootstrap}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{Bootstrap}\\
\cmidrule(lr){7-8} \cmidrule(lr){9-10} \cmidrule(lr){11-12}
&&&&&&CP & AL & CP & AL & CP & AL\\
\midrule
&\multirow{2}{1em}{0.01}& 0.1 & 5.0231 & 0.3388811 & 0.3384155 & 94.38 & 2.2566 & 99.94 & 2.2012 & 83.58 & 2.2156 \\
& & 0.5 & 5.0178 & 0.2880872 & 0.2878297 & 95.84 & 2.2509 & 99.94 & 2.1278 & 86.68 & 2.1993 \\
\cmidrule(lr){2-12}
100 & \multirow{2}{1em}{0.05}& 0.1 & 5.0209 & 0.3556721 & 0.3553026 & 93.98 & 2.2711 & 98.52 & 2.3093 & 88.60 & 2.3226 \\
& & 0.5 & 5.0231 & 0.3388811 & 0.3384155 & 94.38 & 2.2566 & 99.94 & 2.2012 & 83.58 & 2.2156 \\
\midrule
&\multirow{2}{1em}{0.01}& 0.1 & 5.0144 & 0.1472563 & 0.1470773 & 96.20 & 1.5963 & 99.90 & 1.5000 & 85.06 & 1.5093 \\
& & 0.5 & 5.0127 & 0.1373738 & 0.1372388 & 96.64 & 1.5949 & 99.86 & 1.4395 & 84.42 & 1.4476 \\
\cmidrule(lr){2-12}
200 & \multirow{2}{1em}{0.05}& 0.1 & 5.0145 & 0.1698002 & 0.1696241 & 94.84 & 1.6037 & 98.56 & 1.6165 & 89.56 & 1.6246 \\
& & 0.5 & 5.0144 & 0.1472563 & 0.1470773 & 96.20 & 1.5963 & 99.90 & 1.5000 & 85.06 & 1.5093 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:sim1}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\footnotesize
\centering
\caption{Performance measures for estimates of $b_1$}
\begin{tabular}{c|ccccccccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{1em}{$n$}&\multirow{2}{1em}{$b_1$}&\multirow{2}{1em}{$b_2$}&\multirow{2}{2em}{AE}&\multirow{2}{2.5em}{MSE}&\multirow{2}{2.5em}{VAR}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{Asymptotic}& \multicolumn{2}{c}{Percentile bootstrap}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{Bootstrap}\\
\cmidrule(lr){7-8} \cmidrule(lr){9-10} \cmidrule(lr){11-12}
&&&&&&CP & AL & CP & AL & CP & AL\\
\midrule
&\multirow{2}{1em}{0.01}& 0.1 & 0.0108 & 0.0000022 & 0.0000016 & 87.24 & 0.0041 & 81.66 & 0.0052 & 92.88 & 0.0052 \\
& & 0.5 & 0.0110 & 0.0000025 & 0.0000016 & 84.56 & 0.0042 & 68.70 & 0.0053 & 93.96 & 0.0054 \\
\cmidrule(lr){2-12}
100 & \multirow{2}{1em}{0.05}& 0.1 & 0.0513 & 0.0000389 & 0.0000371 & 90.10 & 0.0201 & 95.96 & 0.0245 & 93.70 & 0.0246 \\
& & 0.5 & 0.0528 & 0.0000457 & 0.0000376 & 89.18 & 0.0203 & 89.88 & 0.0252 & 92.70 & 0.0253 \\
\midrule
&\multirow{2}{1em}{0.01}& 0.1 & 0.0105 & 0.0000010 & 0.0000008 & 86.42 & 0.0029 & 81.74 & 0.0035 & 93.48 & 0.0036 \\
& & 0.5 & 0.0106 & 0.0000011 & 0.0000008 & 84.74 & 0.0029 & 74.08 & 0.0036 & 94.56 & 0.0036 \\
\cmidrule(lr){2-12}
200 & \multirow{2}{1em}{0.05}& 0.1 & 0.0508 & 0.0000186 & 0.0000180 & 90.06 & 0.0140 & 95.14 & 0.0169 & 93.08 & 0.0169 \\
& & 0.5 & 0.0525 & 0.0000255 & 0.0000193 & 86.42 & 0.0143 & 81.74 & 0.0177 & 93.48 & 0.0178 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:sim2}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\footnotesize
\centering
\caption{Performance measures for estimates of $b_2$}
\begin{tabular}{c|ccccccccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{1em}{$n$}&\multirow{2}{1em}{$b_1$}&\multirow{2}{1em}{$b_2$}&\multirow{2}{2em}{AE}&\multirow{2}{2.5em}{MSE}&\multirow{2}{2.5em}{VAR}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{Asymptotic}& \multicolumn{2}{c}{Percentile bootstrap}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{Bootstrap}\\
\cmidrule(lr){7-8} \cmidrule(lr){9-10} \cmidrule(lr){11-12}
&&&&&&CP & AL & CP & AL & CP & AL\\
\midrule
&\multirow{2}{1em}{0.01}& 0.1 & 0.1006 & 0.0001691 & 0.0001688 & 92.70 & 0.0464 & 96.60 & 0.0534 & 94.00 & 0.0530 \\
& & 0.5 & 0.5067 & 0.0038339 & 0.0037895 & 94.52 & 0.2344 & 97.12 & 0.2675 & 95.12 & 0.2676 \\
\cmidrule(lr){2-12}
100& \multirow{2}{1em}{0.05}& 0.1 & 0.1030 & 0.0001794 & 0.0001705 & 93.76 & 0.0472 & 95.46 & 0.0529 & 94.70 & 0.0532 \\
& & 0.5 & 0.5028 & 0.0042337 & 0.0042268 & 92.68 & 0.2315 & 96.34 & 0.2650 & 94.00 & 0.2633 \\
\midrule
&\multirow{2}{1em}{0.01}& 0.1 & 0.1002 & 0.0000725 & 0.0000725 & 94.22 & 0.0325 & 96.72 & 0.0343 & 93.76 & 0.0345 \\
& & 0.5 & 0.5030 & 0.0017348 & 0.0017261 & 95.06 & 0.1632 & 96.52 & 0.1665 & 93.60 & 0.1674\\
\cmidrule(lr){2-12}
200 & \multirow{2}{1em}{0.05}& 0.1 & 0.1011 & 0.0000780 & 0.0000768 & 93.84 & 0.0326 & 96.10 & 0.0351 & 94.08 & 0.0352 \\
& & 0.5 & 0.5010 & 0.0018134 & 0.0018128 & 94.22 & 0.1623 & 96.72 & 0.1717 & 93.76 & 0.1725 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:sim3}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{AIE based on SF and CHF for Weibull distribution with $k=3$, $\beta=1$.}
\begin{tabular}{c|ccccc}
\toprule
$n$ & $\alpha$ & $AIE^{(0)}_{SF}$ & $AIE^{(1)}_{SF}$ & $AIE^{(0)}_{CHF}$ & $AIE^{(1)}_{CHF}$\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{1em}{50}& 1.0 & 0.0379 & 0.0291 & 0.1503 & 0.2981 \\
& 1.5 & 0.0436 & 0.0434 & 0.1329 & 0.2633 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{1.5em}{100}& 1.0 & 0.0266 & 0.0183 & 0.1282 & 0.2541 \\
& 1.5 & 0.0326 & 0.0301 & 0.1231 & 0.2440 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:rise_weibull}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{AIE of the survival and cumulative hazard function of quadratic distribution for $\kappa_1=0.5,~\tilde\kappa_1=2\kappa_1=1,~ \tilde\kappa_2>2\kappa_2$.}
\begin{tabular}{c|c@{\hspace{7mm}}ccccc}
\toprule
$n$ & $\kappa_2$ & $\tilde\kappa_2$ & $AIE_{SF}^{(0)}$ & $AIE_{SF}^{(1)}$ & $AIE_{CHF}^{(0)}$ & $AIE_{CHF}^{(1)}$\\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{1em}{50}& \multirow{2}{1em}{0.50} & 1.50 & 0.0380 & 0.0368 & 0.1262 & 0.2536 \\
& & 2.00 & 0.0380 & 0.0389 & 0.1261 & 0.2555\\
\cmidrule(lr){2-7}
& \multirow{2}{1em}{0.70} & 1.50 & 0.0389 & 0.0363 & 0.1261 & 0.2524 \\
& & 2.00 & 0.0388 & 0.0383 & 0.1258 & 0.2539\\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{1.5em}{100}& \multirow{2}{1em}{0.50} & 1.50 & 0.0289 & 0.0262 & 0.1185 & 0.2506 \\
& & 2.00 & 0.0289 & 0.0281 & 0.1178 & 0.2575\\
\cmidrule(lr){2-7}
& \multirow{2}{1em}{0.70} & 1.50 & 0.0301 & 0.0257 & 0.1217 & 0.2465 \\
& & 2.00 & 0.0299 & 0.0274 & 0.1206 & 0.2528 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:rise_quad_beta}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{AIE of the survival and cumulative hazard function of quadratic distribution for $\tilde\kappa_1>2\kappa_1,~ \kappa_2=0.5,~\tilde\kappa_2=2\kappa_2=1$.}
\begin{tabular}{c|c@{\hspace{7mm}}ccccc}
\toprule
$n$ & $\kappa_1$ & $\tilde\kappa_1$ & $AIE_{SF}^{(0)}$ & $AIE_{SF}^{(1)}$ & $AIE_{CHF}^{(0)}$ & $AIE_{CHF}^{(1)}$\\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{1em}{50}& \multirow{2}{1em}{0.50} & 1.50 & 0.0388 & 0.0313 & 0.1283 & 0.2570 \\
& & 2.00 & 0.0397 & 0.0307 & 0.1309 & 0.2672 \\
\cmidrule(lr){2-7}
& \multirow{2}{1em}{0.70} & 1.50 & 0.0372 & 0.0314 & 0.1284 & 0.2567 \\
& & 2.00 & 0.0377 & 0.0304 & 0.1301 & 0.2644 \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{1.5em}{100}& \multirow{2}{1em}{0.50} & 1.50 & 0.0306 & 0.0210 & 0.1265 & 0.2290 \\
& & 2.00 & 0.0319 & 0.0206 & 0.1325 & 0.2285 \\
\cmidrule(lr){2-7}
& \multirow{2}{1em}{0.70} & 1.50 & 0.0278 & 0.0210 & 0.1184 & 0.2331 \\
& & 2.00 & 0.0285 & 0.0198 & 0.1227 & 0.2271 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:rise_quad_alpha}
\end{table}
\subsection{\sc Assessing efficacy of the PLA-based model in fitting data from other models}
Now, we examine the robustness of the PLA-based model in the following manner. We generate
load-sharing data from parametric models, and then fit the PLA-based model to the data.
The model fit is then assessed with respect to an integrated measure that is suitably
defined to reflect the quality of approximation provided by the PLA-based model. The
measure, which we call the Absolute Integrated Error (AIE), is as follows. For $j=0,\,1$,
let $S^{(j)}_{TGP}(\cdot)$ and $H^{(j)}_{TGP}(\cdot)$ denote the SF and CHF of the
lifetimes between $j$-th and $(j+1)$-st failures. Also, assume that the estimated SF and
CHF based on PLA-based model are denoted by $\widehat{S}^{(j)}_{PLA}(\cdot)$ and
$\widehat{H}^{(j)}_{PLA}(\cdot)$, respectively. Then the AIE, based on the SF and CHF,
respectively, are defined as
\begin{align*}
AIE_{SF}^{(j)} &= \frac{1}{R}\sum_{k=1}^{R}
\frac{1}{y^{(j)}_{\max} - y^{(j)}_{\min}} \int_{y^{(j)}_{\min}}^{y^{(j)}_{\max}}
\left\vert S_{TGP}^{(j)}(t)-\widehat{S}_{PCA}^{(j)}(t)\right\vert dt, \\[2mm]
AIE_{CHF}^{(j)} &= \frac{1}{R}\sum_{k=1}^{R}
\frac{1}{y^{(j)}_{\max} - y^{(j)}_{\min}} \int_{y^{(j)}_{\min}}^{y^{(j)}_{\max}}
\left\vert H_{TGP}^{(j)}(t)-\widehat{H}_{PCA}^{(j)}(t)\right\vert dt,
\end{align*}
where $y^{(j)}_{\min} = \min\left\{ y^{(j)}_1,\, y^{(j)}_2,\, \ldots,\,
y^{(j)}_n \right\}$, $y^{(j)}_{\max} = \max\left\{ y^{(j)}_1,\, y^{(j)}_2,\, \ldots,\,
y^{(j)}_n \right\}$, $j=0,\,1$.
For generating load-sharing data from parametric models, two scenarios are considered: \newline
(a) Case - 1: It is assumed that the lifetimes of each components of a two-component
load-sharing system are independent and identically distributed as Weibull distribution
with shape parameter $\alpha$ and scale parameter $\beta$ when both the components are
working. After the first failure, the lifetime of the surviving component is assumed to
follow a Weibull distribution with same shape parameter $\alpha$, but a different scale
parameter $k\beta$, where $k>2$ is to ensure the increase of load on the surviving
component. For $\beta=1$, $k=3$, we take $\alpha=1$ and 1.5.\\[-2mm]
\noindent (b) Case - 2: In the second scenario, the component lifetimes are assumed to be
independent and identically distributed according to a distribution with quadratic CHF
$\kappa_1 t+\kappa_2 t^2$ when both components are working. After the first failure, the
lifetime of the surviving component is assumed to follow a quadratic CHF with different
parameters $\tilde\kappa_1$ and $\tilde\kappa_2$. We take several values of the parameters
$\kappa_1,\,\kappa_2,\,\tilde\kappa_1,$ and $\tilde\kappa_2$ ensuring the fact that the
CHF increases after one component fails in the system.
The numerical results are reported in Tables~\ref{tab:rise_weibull},
\ref{tab:rise_quad_beta}, and \ref{tab:rise_quad_alpha}. For all cases, it is observed
that the values of AIE based on SF and CHF are reasonably small, indicating that the
PLA-based model provides quite a satisfactory approximation to the data generated from
different parent populations.
\section{\sc Concluding Remarks} \label{sec:con}
In this article, a PLA-based model for the CHF is proposed for data from load-sharing systems and then important reliability characteristics such as quantile function, RMT, MTTF, and MRT of load-sharing systems are estimated under the proposed model. The principal advantages of the model are that it is data-driven, and does not use strong parametric assumptions for the underlying lifetime variable. Likelihood inference for the proposed model is discussed in detail. It is observed that for two-component load-sharing systems, it is possible to obtain explicit expressions for the MLEs of parameters of the PLA-based model. Construction of confidence intervals using the Fisher information matrix and bootstrap approaches are also discussed. Derivations of the important reliability characteristics are provided in this setting.
A Monte Carlo simulation study is performed to examine (a) the performance of the methods of inference, and (b) the efficacy of the PLA-based model to fit load-sharing data in general. It is shown that the PLA-based model performs quite satisfactorily in both cases. Analysis of data pertaining to components lifetimes of a two-motor load-sharing system is provided as an illustration. It is illustrated that the PLA-based model is superior to the models that have been considered for this data in the literature of load-sharing systems. In summary, in this paper, an efficient PLA-based modelling framework using minimal assumptions for load-sharing systems is discussed, and estimates of important reliability characteristics for load-sharing systems in this setting are developed.
\section*{\sc Funding information}
\begin{itemize}
\item The research of Ayon Ganguly is supported by the Mathematical Research Impact
Centric Support (File no.~MTR/2017/000700) from the Science and
Engineering Research Board, Department of Science and Technology, Government of
India.
\item The research of Debanjan Mitra is supported by the Mathematical Research Impact
Centric Support (File no.~MTR/2021/000533) from the Science and
Engineering Research Board, Department of Science and Technology, Government of
India.
\end{itemize}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
\IEEEPARstart{U}{}nderstanding the system model is essential for robotic applications, especially safety-critical autonomous systems. In particular, at high-speed driving, various dynamics elements such as chassis, tires, or engines become crucial to implement high-speed autonomy.
Model-based optimal control\cite{lewis2012optimal,jung2021game} is well-suited for handling those factors and is widely used to design dynamics system control.
By leveraging physics-based parametric dynamic models, it optimizes driving behavior with respect to a designed objective function and enables safe and reliable control system design.
Despite the success of the model-based approach in robotics, the model-based algorithm has two fundamental challenges: model fidelity and tractability.
The performance of model-based approaches relies heavily on the accuracy of the model. However, identifying accurate models is often laborious or intractable because of their large search space and nonlinearity. Other than the model accuracy, models also need to be computationally feasible for the real-time control applications. High-fidelity but highly complex models are often difficult to integrate into real-time safety-critical driving systems.
To tackle these challenges, conventional approaches, including the Prediction Error Method, are used to identify model parameters\cite{tangirala2018principles}.
However, those methods often require the model structure to be linear or in specific mathematical forms, which might not be feasible to describe the nonlinear high-speed autonomous driving system.
On the other hand, in several recent works, data-driven approaches using neural networks, Gaussian processes, or Bayesian methods have been actively employed for nonlinear system dynamics modeling and have shown promising results\cite{brunton2022data}. In \cite{spielberg2019neural}, they proposed a simple neural network to replace a single-track vehicle model and used it to generate feedforward control signals. Similarly, in \cite{hermansdorfer2021end}, they designed Deep Neural Networks (DNN) as a model approximator to identify the vehicle dynamics model in an end-to-end learning fashion.
However, while DNN is an efficient way to approximate nonlinear systems, it is difficult to integrate with non-learning model-based methods, which are reliable in real-world applications. Furthermore, it is challenging to ensure the validity of the DNN model in unseen driving scenarios without large-scale field tests.
In this letter, we propose a data-driven model identification method via hyperparameter optimization (MIHO) for high-speed autonomous racing systems. Our key idea is to leverage a parameter optimization approach from machine learning to identify physics-based parametric models in a data-driven manner without any limitation on the form of the model equation.
To this end, we adopt a novel hyperparameter optimization (HPO) method that has an efficient exploration and exploitation strategy.
Using the proposed method, we estimate the parameters of the integrable parametric dynamics models for a full-scaled autonomous racecar platform, Dallara AV-21 (Fig. \ref{fig:method_overview}), at the Indy Autonomous Challenge (IAC) \cite{IAC}.
We validate our proposed approach by integrating identified models into the high-speed autonomous system and conducting extensive field experiments, including over $200 km/h$ autonomous driving and obstacle avoidance scenarios in the Indianapolis Motor Speedway (IMS) and Las Vegas Motor Speedway (LVMS).
In summary, our technical contributions are as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item We propose a data-driven model identification method via hyperparameter optimization.
\item We design model-based planning and control systems incorporating the learned vehicle dynamics models.
\item We integrate the systems with learned model parameters into the full-scaled autonomous race vehicle and extensively validate them during the IAC.
\end{itemize}
\section{Model Identification via Hyperparameter Optimization}
\label{sec:model_identification}
Vehicle dynamic models allow us to describe the race vehicle's motion accurately. However, dynamics models with high fidelity are often challenging to identify due to their high nonlinearity and a large number of model parameters. Therefore, an efficient parameter estimation approach is necessary to find the parameter configuration of such complex models.
In this letter, we propose a model identification method via hyperparameter optimization (MIHO) to learn the optimal model parameter configuration by a data-driven approach.
Hyperparameter optimization (HPO) is the problem of selecting an optimal hyperparameter configuration required for neural network training in the machine learning field \cite{feurer2019hyperparameter}.
A hyperparameter is a parameter that controls the training process.
HPO optimizes the hyperparameter configuration by evaluating the performance of the configuration during the model training process.
Since one course of neural network training requires a substantial time, HPO focuses on the balanced exploration and exploitation strategy for the efficient optimal hyperparameter selection.\cite{feurer2019hyperparameter}.
Motivated by the balanced strategy, we design MIHO by adopting the HPO to the model identification problem. First, we regard a parameter configuration $p \in \mathbb{R}^{n_p}$ with $n_p$ model parameters as a set of hyperparameters of a nonlinear dynamics model $f$. Then, we identify the parameter configuration by evaluating the following objective function inspired by the standard supervised learning problem:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:objective}
\mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{\lvert D \rvert} \sum_{(x,y) \in D} \lVert y - {f}(x; p) \rVert^2,
\end{equation}
where $x, y$ denote the sampled input and output data of the model $f$ from a given dataset $D$. By minimizing this learning objective, we find an optimized model parameter configuration $p^*$ that has the minimum model error with the observed model output $y$.
\begin{algorithm}[b]
\caption{MIHO Algorithm based on Hyperband}
\textbf{Input: } $R, \eta, D$
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State $ s_{max} \leftarrow \lfloor \text{log}_{\eta}(R) \rfloor, B = (s_{max} + 1)R $
\For{$s \in \{s_{max},s_{max}-1, ..., 0 \}$}
\State $n = \lceil \frac{B}{R} \frac{\eta^{s}}{(s+1)} \rceil, r = R\eta^{-s}$
\State $P = \text{get\_model\_param\_config}(n)$
\For{$j \in \{ 0, ..., s \}$}
\State $ n_j = \lfloor n\eta^{-j} \rfloor, r_j = r\eta^j $
\State $ L = \{ \text{eval\_with\_mutation}(p,r_j,D) : p \in P \} $
\State $ P = \text{select\_top\_k\_config}(P, L, \lfloor n_j/\eta \rfloor) $
\EndFor
\EndFor
\end{algorithmic}
\textbf{Output: } \text{Optimized parameters $p^*$ with the smallest loss.}
\label{algo:MIHO}
\end{algorithm}
The model $f$ has no limitation on its form of the equation. Thus, our method can be used for arbitrary parametric models, such as a combination of polynomial or mathematical terms, as well as analytic physics-based models.
We implement MIHO incorporating a bandit-based HPO algorithm, Hyperband\cite{li2017hyperband}, as summarized in Algorithm \ref{algo:MIHO}.
It is a variation of a random search algorithm with explore-exploit theory to find the optimal hyperparameter configuration based on an evaluation loss.
The algorithm needs two arguments: $R$, the maximum amount of resource (e.g., the number of evaluation iterations) that can be allocated to a single configuration, and $\eta$, a value that determines the proportion of the discarded configurations.
The two arguments derive $s_{max}+1$ combinations (called "brackets" in \cite{li2017hyperband}) of the values $n$ and $r$, which enables various ratios of exploration and exploitation for finding the optimal parameter configuration.
Hyperband compares the evaluation loss of each sampled configuration and allocates more resources to the configurations with lower evaluation losses, excluding the configurations with higher losses. It repeats the sampling and exclusion processes until the last configuration remains to obtain the optimal set of hyperparameters.
To adjust the HPO algorithm to the model parameter optimization, we add the Gaussian mutation \cite{mutation2019genetic} during the evaluation to explore the new neighbor parameters that might have less model loss. Unlike the original HPO, which only allocates more resources $r_i$, our approach, MIHO, adds noise perturbation with a noise random variable $\epsilon \in \mathbb{R}^{n_p}$ at the selected configuration $p$ after the resource allocation as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:gaussian_mutation}
p_{mut} = p + \sigma \odot \epsilon, \quad \epsilon \sim N(0, I),
\end{equation}
where $\odot$ is the element-wise product and $\sigma \in \mathbb{R}^{n_p}$ is the standard deviation of the exploration noise that is annealed over the course of the evaluation \cite{kirkpatrick1983optimization}.
We define the following three functions for the HPO process in MIHO:
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.44\textwidth]{figures/method_overview.png}
\caption{
Overview of our autonomous driving system in the AV-21. Our learned model parameters are embedded in the planning and control modules that are covered in this letter (highlighted in blue).
Several input variables are omitted for clarity.
}
\label{fig:method_overview}
\vspace{-1.5em}
\end{figure}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{$\text{get\_model\_param\_config}(n)$}\text{:} a function that returns a set of $n$ random parameter configurations from the normal distribution pre-defined over the configuration space.
\item \textit{$\text{eval\_with\_mutation}(p,r_j,D)$}\text{:} a function that receives a parameter configuration $p$, an allocated resource $r_j$, and a dataset $D$ as arguments. Using the dataset, this function evaluates an initial configuration and mutates it for the allocated $r_j$ iterations by Eq. \ref{eq:gaussian_mutation}.
If a mutated configuration $p_{mut} \in \mathbb{R}^{n_p}$ has a less loss than the initial one, the function replaces $p$ with $p_{mut}$. It returns the final loss after spending the allocated resources.
\item \textit{$\text{select\_top\_k\_config}(P, L, k)$}\text{:} a function that receives a set of hyperparameter configurations $P$ with their corresponding evaluation losses $L$ and returns the top $k$ high-performing configurations (here, $k = \lfloor n_j/\eta \rfloor$).
\end{itemize}
\section{Vehicle Dynamics Model}
\label{sec:vehicle_dynamics_model}
\subsection{Tire Dynamics Model}
Tire dynamics is one of the factors that significantly affect the nonlinearity of driving dynamics. Especially the lateral tire model is crucial to design stable path-tracking control in high-speed driving.
The tire model\cite{bakker1987tyre} can be described as a function of the slip angle $\alpha_i$, slip ratio $\rho_{x,i}$, inclination angle $\theta_i$, tire load $F_{z,i}$, and current velocity $v_{x,i}$, which has a lateral tire force $F^{*}_{y,i}$ of each tire ($i \in \{LF, LR, RF, RR\}$) as,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pacejka_tire_function}
\begin{aligned}
F^{*}_{y,i} = f_{tire}(\alpha_i, \rho_{x,i}, \theta_i, F_{z,i}, v_{x,i}).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Although the model has high fidelity with various dynamics perspectives, it has low suitability for designing the controller of high-speed driving, which requires real-time performance.
Therefore, we first define a tire model with dimension-reductio
that can be applied to model-based control design within an acceptable complexity. We then optimize the model's parameter configuration to represent the overall tire characteristic of a given dataset using our MIHO algorithm.
We follow the Pacejka tire model\cite{kabzan2020amz} to define the tire dynamics.
While the prior work neglect vertical and horizontal offsets of the model, we formulate a tire model $F_{y,i} = f_{t,i}(\alpha_i; {p}_{t,i})$ containing the offset parameters $S_{x,i}, S_{y,i}$ to describe the asymmetric tire characteristic determined to maximize cornering performance on an oval track:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:tire_model}
\begin{aligned}
F_{y,i} &= D_i \sin(C_i \arctan(B_i (\alpha_i + S_{x,i}))) + S_{y,i},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where the tire model parameter configuration ${p}_{t,i} = \{B_i, C_i, D_i, S_{x,i}, S_{y,i}\}$ is identified by minimizing the following tire model objective with a given dataset $D_{t,i}$ as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:objective_tire}
\mathcal{L}_{t,i} = \frac{1}{\lvert D_{t,i} \rvert} \sum_{(\alpha_i, F^{*}_{y,i}) \in D_{t,i}} \lVert F^{*}_{y,i} - f_{t,i}(\alpha; {p}_{t,i}) \rVert^2.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Engine Torque Model}
The powertrain system of our racecar consists of an internal combustion engine, transmission, and wheels. The AV-21 is a rear-wheel-drive vehicle whose traction force $F_{x,r}$ is generated by engine-based driveline dynamics. We model the equation of the longitudinal dynamics\cite{rajamani2011vehicle} as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:longi_model}
\begin{aligned}
m a_{x} = F_{x,r} - C_d v^{2}_{x} - C_r,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $m$ is the vehicle mass, $v_x$ is the longitudinal velocity, $C_d$ denotes the drag coefficient, and $C_r$ denotes the rolling resistance.
Following a prior work \cite{engineSAGE16}, the traction force can be expressed as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:traction_force}
\begin{aligned}
F_{x,r} = m a_{x,r} = \frac{T_{e} \eta_{t} i_{g} i_{0}}{R_w},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $a_{x,r}$ denotes the traction acceleration, $\eta_{t}$ denotes the efficiency of the transmission, $i_{g}, i_{0}$ denote the transmission ratio of the current gear and final reducer, and $R_w$ denotes the wheel radius. $T_{e} = f_e (w_e, \tau_t)$ is the engine torque map in terms of the engine speed $w_e$ and throttle command $\tau_t$. Due to the high complexity of the engine characteristic, the torque map is expressed as an experimental lookup table based on engine torque curves of specific throttle opening commands.
Although the engine torque model can be obtained by the engine dynamometer testing\cite{killedar2012dynamometer}, it could suffer from modeling errors because the dynamometer testing is done in a static environment. Therefore, we build the engine torque map that integrates the dyno data with learned torque curves based on our data-driven model identification approach. We express an engine torque curve $T_{e,\tau_{t}} = f_{\tau_{t}}(w_e; {p}_{\tau_{t}})$ of a throttle command $\tau_t$ as a third order polynomial function of the engine speed $w_e$ as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:engine_map}
\begin{aligned}
T_{e,\tau_{t}} = p_{\tau_{t},0} + p_{\tau_{t},1} w_e + p_{\tau_{t},2} w^{2}_e + p_{\tau_{t},3} w^{3}_e,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $p_{\tau_{t}} = \{p_{\tau_{t},0}, p_{\tau_{t},1}, p_{\tau_{t},2}, p_{\tau_{t},3}\}$ is the torque model parameter configuration. Using the resultant traction accelerations $a_{x,r}$ while driving, the engine torque output $T^{*}_{e,\tau_{t}}$ is obtained by Eq. \ref{eq:traction_force}.
Then, $p_{\tau_{t}}$ is learned by minimizing the following engine model objective with a given dataset $D_{\tau_{t}}$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:objective_engine}
\mathcal{L}_{\tau_{t}} = \frac{1}{\lvert D_{\tau_{t}} \rvert} \sum_{(w_{e}, T^{*}_{e,\tau_{t}}) \in D_{\tau_{t}}} \lVert T^{*}_{e,\tau_{t}} - f_{\tau_{t}}(w_e; {p}_{\tau_{t}}) \rVert^2.
\end{equation}
To stabilize the learning process, we normalize the engine speed in the range [0,1] with the maximum engine speed.
\section{Model-based Planning and Control}
\label{sec:model_based_vehicle_control}
In this session, we introduce a model-based planning and control algorithm that uses the learned model parameters. We exploit the learned tire parameters to design a dynamics-aware velocity planning and model-based lateral controller (Fig. \ref{fig:method_overview}). We also integrate the engine dyno data with the learned engine torque model to construct an engine lookup table.
\subsection{Dynamics-aware Velocity Planning}
High-speed cornering during racing causes significant tire load transfer on each wheel due to a lateral acceleration at the roll axis.
Since the tire load governs the maximum performance of the tire, a model-based velocity strategy accounting for the real-time wheel load is necessary to maximize the tire performance without losing tire grip.
We introduce a dynamics-aware velocity planning algorithm that derives the velocity plans with maximum tire performance based on the learned tire dynamics. We first compute the real-time vertical tire load $F_{z,i}$ affected by the lateral load transfer $\Delta W_f$\cite{seward2017race}. The diagram of the load transfer at the roll axis is illustrated in the left of Fig. \ref{fig:method_vehicle_dynamics_control}. The load transfer is computed by the roll couple $C_{roll} = m_s \dot{v}_y h_a$, where $m_s$ is the sprung mass, $\dot{v}_y$ is the lateral acceleration, and $h_a$ is the roll height. As the learned tire model describes the characteristic for the nominal tire load $\bar{F}_{z,i}$, we compute the maximum lateral force of each tire $F^{max}_{y,i}$ in terms of the tire load ratio with peak value of the tire model as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:max_lat_tire}
\begin{aligned}
F^{max}_{y,i} &= \mu \frac{F_{z,i}}{\bar{F}_{z,i}} F^{peak}_{y,i},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\mu$ is a tire performance factor to control the confidence and maximum performance of the tire model, $\frac{{F}_{z,i}}{\bar{F}_{z,i}}$ is the tire load ratio.
The maximum lateral acceleration is determined by the following lateral motion dynamics \cite{kabzan2020amz}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:lat_accel_limit}
\begin{aligned}
a_{y,max} = \frac{1}{m} (F^{max}_{y,r} + F^{max}_{y,f} cos(\delta) - m v_x \dot{\psi}),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\delta$ is the steering angle and $\dot{\psi}$ is the yaw rate.
Then a desired maximum velocity $v_{x,des}$ is planned according to the curvature $\kappa$ of a reference path from a planning module \cite{lee2022resilient}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:velocity_limit}
\begin{aligned}
v_{x,des} = \sqrt{a_{y,max} / \kappa}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Throttle and Brake Control}
The planned desired velocity is fed to a feedback control module \cite{doyle2013feedback} to compute the traction force. However, as shown in Fig \ref{fig:method_overview}, another low-level controller to transform the traction force to the throttle command is required to control the racecar with nonlinear driveline dynamics. We design the throttle and brake control system following \cite{hedrick1997brake}.
Fig. \ref{fig:method_throttle_brake_control} shows the details of the low-level control system.
We exploit the integrated engine torque map to convert the desired engine torque $T_{e,des}$ to the desired throttle command $\tau_{t,des}$.
As the torque map is built as a lookup table, we search the desired throttle with respect to a given engine speed and desired torque.
The inverse brake model is a module to convert the braking force to the brake pedal command, which is activated if $F_{x,r}$ is negative. The brake model is also attained by our proposed MIHO, but details are omitted to conserve space.
\subsection{Model-based Path Tracking Control}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{figures/method_vehicle_dynamics_for_control.png}
\caption{
\textbf{Left: } Lateral load transfer generation by the lateral acceleration at the roll axis.
\textbf{Right: } Overall diagram of the vehicle model.
}
\label{fig:method_vehicle_dynamics_control}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
We follow the lateral vehicle dynamics of \cite{rajamani2011vehicle} illustrated in the right of Fig \ref{fig:method_vehicle_dynamics_control}. The lateral model is derived from the objective of tracking a reference trajectory. We implement path tracking control by stabilizing a velocity-dependent chassis model in terms of the error state variables $\xi$ and control $u$.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:state_control}
\begin{aligned}
\xi = [e_y, \dot{e}_y, e_{\psi}, \dot{e}_{\psi}]^T, \quad u = \delta,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $e_y, e_{\psi}$ denote the position and orientation error with respect to a given trajectory. The lateral model contains tire-related model parameters such as the cornering stiffnesses of the front and rear tires $C_{\alpha,f}, C_{\alpha,r}$. Since the lateral dynamics is obtained from the bicycle model, the front and rear tire models are optimized according to Eq \ref{eq:tire_model}, but the sum of the left and right tire forces is used as the model output. The cornering stiffnesses then can be approximated as follows \cite{rajamani2011vehicle}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:cornering_stiffness}
\begin{aligned}
C_{\alpha f} &\approx B_{f} \times C_{f} \times D_{f}, \quad C_{\alpha r} \approx B_{r} \times C_{r} \times D_{r}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Based on the lateral vehicle model, we design the Linear Quadratic Regulator with the following optimization problem:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:LQR}
\begin{aligned}
\underset{u}{\text{min }} \int_{0}^{\infty} (\xi^T Q \xi + u^T R u ) dt,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $Q, R$ denote gain matrices for LQR.
For the real-time control performance, we compute the state feedback optimal LQR gains over piecewise velocity intervals offline\cite{spisak2022robust}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{figures/method_throttle_brake_control.png}
\caption{
Throttle and brake control system.
}
\label{fig:method_throttle_brake_control}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
\section{Evaluation}
\label{sec:evaluation}
\subsection{Analysis for Model Identification}
\subsubsection{Tire Dynamics Model}
Fig. \ref{fig:result_tire_model} illustrates the learned tire models with datasets provided as the tire property files (*.tir).
The files contain tire force and moment characteristics with high fidelity\cite{schmeitz2013mf}.
For model identification, we sampled 3000 data for each tire using the property files in various tire state conditions such as tire load, camber angle, slip angle, and slip ratio.
As illustrated in the left and middle of Fig. \ref{fig:result_tire_model}, the learned models show good fitness to the tire characteristic distribution.
We further investigated the tire model with the test drive data collected during track racing.
The right of Fig. \ref{fig:result_tire_model} illustrates the front tire model of the single-track bicycle dynamics learned by the provided tire property data comparing it with the driving data that is not used for learning.
The learned model shows the generalization ability for the overall data distribution represented by blue dots.
However, since we obtained the model by offline optimization and focused on the representativeness of data, the model needs higher accuracy in some edge cases near the peaks of the lateral force.
To handle these cases, an online parameter optimization can be used by parallelizing the HPO process in MIHO, and we will implement it in future work.
\subsubsection{Engine Torque Model}
Fig. \ref{fig:result_engine_brake} illustrates the learned engine torque curves and integrated engine map. The data for the engine map was provided by engine dynamometer testing.
For higher reliability, we incorporated our data-driven engine torque models with the dyno data, especially for the throttle pedals 5, 15, and 20\%, where the dynamometer showed insufficient accuracy in torque measurements.
The result shows that the learned torque curves are able to represent the change of the maximum torque according to the throttle commands. Moreover, the learned models also fit the torque curves that change nonlinearly as a function of engine speed.
We integrated the learned torque models with the provided dyno data and interpolated the torque data to construct an engine lookup table. The blue area on the right of Fig \ref{fig:result_engine_brake} shows the interpolated region by the learned torque curves.
Our vehicle utilized the learned region in racing scenarios such as pit-in/out, obstacle avoidance, and driving within $100 km/h$ (Fig. \ref{fig:result_IMS_obstacle_only}).
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.86\textwidth]{figures/learned_tire_model.png}
\caption{
Learned tire models with the provided tire data (\textbf{Left:} left-front and right-front, \textbf{Middle:} left-rear and right-rear). \textbf{Right:}
Learned front tire dynamics of the single-track bicycle model and the distribution of the collected data on the track.
}
\label{fig:result_tire_model}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figures/learned_engine_only.png}
\caption{
Learned engine torque curves and the integrated engine map.
}
\label{fig:result_engine_brake}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Control Performance in Indy Autonomous Challenge}
Our model-based planning and control algorithms were deployed in the full-scale racecar platform. Moreover, we extensively validated our learned model parameter-based algorithms in the real-world race tracks, IMS and LVMS.
The algorithms successfully performed various race scenarios, such as obstacle avoidance and high-speed autonomous driving over $200 km/h$ on the race tracks (Fig. \ref{fig:result_IMS_velocity_perform}).
\subsubsection{Obstacle Avoidance at the IMS}
Fig. \ref{fig:result_IMS_obstacle_only} shows the quantitative results of the obstacle avoidance mission.
In this mission, obstacles are located before the first-corner section, where the velocity plan is critical for avoiding collision while keeping close to the racing line. For the sake of safety, we set the tire performance factor $\mu$ as 0.7.
Our dynamics-aware velocity planner was able to allow the racecar to maximize the velocity while regulating the lateral acceleration within the learned maximum tire performance during the rapid avoidance maneuvers.
The obstacle avoidance was initiated in high-speed driving at $100 km/h$, and steering commands were computed up to -10 degrees to follow the generated collision-free reference trajectory.
The sharp steering command could cause significant lateral acceleration higher than $9.0 m/s^2$, which might cause critical tire grip loss.
However, our tire model-based velocity planner inferred the allowable maximum lateral acceleration based on the real-time tire load. As a result, it was possible to plan for safe desired velocity within lateral acceleration limit capable of preserving the tire grip performance.
\subsubsection{High-Speed Autonomous Driving in LVMS}
Furthermore, we extensively validated the control performance based on the optimized model parameters at LVMS.
Fig. \ref{fig:result_LVMS_tracking_perform_only} illustrates the quantitative results of the lateral and longitudinal control while our vehicle raced more than nine laps ($23 km$). Our path-tracking algorithm shows robust control performance leveraging the learned tire parameters. The largest position and orientation errors were $0.6 m$ and $-2.2$ degrees, respectively.
In addition, the AV-21 succeeded high-speed autonomous driving at above $144 km/h$ (with a top speed of $217.4 km/h$), where the dynamic scenario had yet to be visited and adjusted before this track experiment.
These results demonstrate that MIHO can optimize and provide appropriate prior dynamics models offline for the design of model-based control before deployment.
However, the characteristic of vehicle dynamics changed and affected the control performance over high-speed driving. As shown in the bottom of Fig. \ref{fig:result_LVMS_tracking_perform_only}, the tire temperatures were increased after reaching the unseen velocity range. In addition, after visiting the range of over $144 km/h$, our low-level controller computed throttle command of over 50\% with the engine range consisting only of the provided dyno data. Those factors might have an effect on the velocity error in the velocity range $[42, 52] m/s$ of Fig \ref{fig:result_LVMS_tracking_perform_only}.
Nevertheless, the control system can be improved with an extended data-driven engine map for throttle control at high-speed.
We also point out that our method has the potential to be processed online by parallelizing the HPO process\cite{li2017hyperband}, which enables the method to identify the model in real-time during deployment. The online MIHO could be incorporated with the offline model optimization introduced in this work, and we leave it as an important future work.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.80\textwidth]{figures/result_scenario.png}
\caption{
\textbf{Left: } Team KAIST's successful obstacle avoidance at IMS. The bottom illustrates the point cloud data and traveled trajectory during avoidance.
\textbf{Right: } Our AV-21 drove more than nine laps ($23 km$) at the Tri-Oval Superspeedway of LVMS.
}
\label{fig:result_IMS_velocity_perform}
\vspace{-1.5em}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{figures/result_IMS_obstacle_only.png}
\caption{
Results of the velocity control, lateral accelerations, and steering angles during the obstacle avoidance mission at the IMS.
}
\label{fig:result_IMS_obstacle_only}
\vspace{-1.5em}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{figures/result_LVMS_tracking_perform_only.png}
\caption{
Results of the errors, velocity control, throttle/brake controls, and temperature of the right-rear and right-front tires in LVMS.
}
\label{fig:result_LVMS_tracking_perform_only}
\vspace{-1.5em}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
We present MIHO, a data-driven model identification method via hyperparameter optimization. Our approach showed the ability to optimize the parameters of the dynamics models, such as the tire models and engine torque curves. Furthermore, the model-based planning and control system with the learned model parameters demonstrated stable performance in the real-world track environments, IMS and LVMS. In future works, we will implement the online HPO method and integrate it with the offline method of this work to iteratively infer the changing parameters of the vehicle dynamics while on track.
|
\section{Introduction}
A natural combinatorial question is to ask how much partial information on an object is needed to reconstruct this object (see below and in our references for examples).
For example,
in \cite{Fleischmann_et_al2020DLT,Fleischmann_et_al2021IJFCS},
P.~Fleischmann, M.~Lejeune, F.~Manea, D.~Nowotka and M.~Rigo
consider the problem of reconstructing a word $w$ from information on the number of occurrences as subwords of $w$ of some words.
Let us recall that a word $u$ is a \textit{subword} of a word $w$ (or a \textit{scattered subword} of $w$) if
$u$ and $w$ can be decomposed in the form $u = u_1 \cdots u_\ell$ and $w = v_0 u_1 v_1 \cdots u_\ell v_\ell$
for some words $u_1, \ldots, u_\ell, v_0, \ldots, v_\ell$.
Such a double decomposition marks an occurrence of $u$ as a subword of $w$.
The number of occurrences of $u$ as a subword of $w$ is sometimes denoted as the binomial coefficient
$\binom{w}{u}$ since this number coincides with the traditional coefficient
$\binom{|w|}{|u|}$ when the words $u$ and $w$ are written on a single letter
(here, as usual in combinatorics on words, $|w|$ denotes the length of $w$), see for instance \cite[chap. 6]{Lothaire1983book}.
The problem addressed by Fleischmann \textit{et al.} is presented as a game in which the player has to guess an unknown word.
In his task the player asks questions in a certain form until he has enough information to uniquely determine the word.
More precisely, at each round, the player chooses a word $u$ based on the previous answers that he obtained and asks for the value of $\binom{w}{u}$. The goal of the player is to minimize the number of questions.
Fleischmann \textit{et al.} proved that there is a strategy to ensure that at most $\min(|w|_a, |w|_b)+1\le \lfloor\frac{|w|}{2}\rfloor+1$ questions are needed when $w$ is defined on the binary alphabet $\{a, b\}$ (for a letter $\alpha$, $|w|_\alpha = \binom{w}{\alpha}$ denotes the number of occurrences of $\alpha$ in $w$).
For any word $w$ over the alphabet $\{1, \ldots, k\}$
they proved that the number of questions needed is bounded by $\sum_{i \in \{1, \ldots, k\}} |w|_i (k+1-i)$.
Our main results (Theorem~\ref{T_binarycountsubword} and Corollary~\ref{C_sharp_arbitrary_alphabet}) prove that this number of questions is at most $\binom{k}{2}\left(7\left\lceil \sqrt{|w| \log_2 (|w|)}\right\rceil+4\right)$. For any fixed $k$, our upper bound is asymptotically much stronger as the length of the word goes to infinity. For binary words in particular, their upper bound is $\frac{|w|}{2}+1$ and ours is $7\left\lceil \sqrt{|w| \log_2 (|w|)}\right\rceil+4\,.$ We also adapt this strategy (Theorem \ref{expectrunningtime}) to provide an algorithm whose expected running time over a uniform random binary word of length $n$ is $\mathcal{O}(\log_2 n)$.
Let us recall that the previous game is related to another problem that seems to have been first introduced by L.~O.~Kalashnik \cite{Kalashnik1973}:
What is the smallest $\ell$ such that we can reconstruct $w$ from the values $\binom{w}{u}$ for all words $u$ of length $\ell$?
As far as we know, the best upper bound, $\lfloor \frac{16}{7}\sqrt{|w|}\rfloor +5$, for this problem was obtained by I.~Krasikov and Y.~Roditty in 1997 \cite{KrasikovRoditty1997JCTA} using a link with the Prouhet-Tarry-Escott problem about Diophantine analysis.
Also the best known lower bound, $3^{(\sqrt{2/3}-o(1))\log^{1/2}_3(|w|))}$, is due to \cite{Dudik_Schulman2003JCTA}.
Our result does not improve this upper bound since, in the binary case,
at least one query concerns a word $u$ of length at least $\min(|w|_0, |w|_1)$ which is around $|w|/2$ for many words $w$.
In a variant of the previous problem queries in the form {\oq}what is the value of $\binom{w}{u}$?{\cq}
is replaced with queries in the form {\oq}Is $\binom{w}{u} \geq 1$?{\cq}
or equivalently {\oq}Is $u$ a subword of $w$?{\cq}.
More precisely the problem is to determine the least value $\ell$
such that the set of subwords of length $\ell$ determines uniquely a word $w$.
This problem arose in various areas.
In \cite[Chap 6]{Lothaire1983book}, it is proved
that any word $w$ of length $n$ over an alphabet ${\cal A}$
is uniquely determined by its set of
subwords in the form $a^*b^*$ of length at most $\lceil |w|_a + |w|_b+1/2 \rceil$ with
$a$ and $b$ distinct letters of ${\cal A}$.
The problem is also studied in \cite{Levenshtein2001JCTA}.
In \cite{Skiena_Sundaram1993LNCS,Skiena_Sundaram1995JCB},
in the context of DNA sequencing of hybridization,
S.~S.~Skiena and G.~Sundaram consider the problem
of minimizing the number of queries in the form {\oq}Is $u$ a subword of $w$?{\cq}.
They prove that a word $w$ of length $n$ over an alphabet ${\cal A}$
of cardinality $k$ can be reconstructed
using $O(n \log_2(k) +k \log_2(n))$ such queries.
More precisely Theorem~15 in \cite{Skiena_Sundaram1995JCB}
states that $ 1.59 n \log_2(k) + 2k \log_2(n) + 5k$ queries are sufficient to reconstruct $w$.
Using a basic information theory approach
S.~S.~Skiena and G.~Sundaram also provide the lower bound $n \log_2 k$ for the number of queries.
In Section~\ref{Sec:exist_queries},
we slightly improve S.~S.~Skiena and G.~Sundaram's strategy
and we provide a new upper bound, reducing the gap with the lower bound.
More precisely,
we state that at most $n \log_2(k) + k (2 + \lfloor \log_2(n+1)\rfloor)$
queries are sufficient to reconstruct $w$, reducing the gap between the bounds from $0.59n \log_2(k) +O(k \log_2(n))$ down to $O(k \log_2(n))$.
In Section~\ref{Sec:exists-factor_bis}, we consider factors instead of subwords (a word $u$ is a \textit{factor} of a word $w$ if there exist words $p$ and $s$ such that $w = pus$) and the corresponding problem of minimizing the number of queries in the form {\oq}Is $u$ a factor of $w$?{\cq} needed to reconstruct an unknown word $w$.
In \cite{Skiena_Sundaram1993LNCS,Skiena_Sundaram1995JCB},
S.~S.~Skiena and G.~Sundaram prove that, for an unknown word $w$ over an alphabet ${\cal A}$
of cardinality $k$,
if the length $n$ of $w$ is known then $w$ can be reconstructed using a number of queries which is in
$(k-1)n+ 2\log_2(n)+O(k)$.
Actually their proof leads to the upper bound $(k-1)n+\log_2(n)+O(k)$, which is $n+\log_2(n)+O(1)$ in the binary case. This more accurate upper bound was already mentioned in the binary case in \cite{Skiena_Sundaram1995JCB}.
A simple double counting argument (there are $k^n$ words of length $n$ and each question has two possible outcomes) leads to the lower bound $n\log_2 k$.
We improve their strategy and reduce the upper bound to $(k-1)(n+2) + \left\lceil \frac{\log_2(n)}{2}\right\rceil+3$. In the binary case, this reduces the gap between the lower and the upper bound from $\log_2(n)+O(1)$ down to $\left\lceil\frac{\log_2(n)}{2}\right\rceil+5$.
Queries in the form {\oq}What is the number of occurrences of a word $u$ as a factor of $w${\cq} have also been considered by S.S. Skiena et G. Subraman \cite{Skiena_Sundaram1995JCB}. Their lower bound $nk/4- o(n)$ on the number of queries needed is, up to our knowledge, the best known. One can deduce whether a word $u$ occurs as a factor in a word $w$ from the number of occurrences of $u$ in $w$. This observation allows them to obtain the same upper bounds for this fourth problem than for the previous problem. Similarly, our bound applies. Hence, we also slightly improve the upper bound in this case, but this improvement is negligible compared to the size of the gap between the lower bound and the upper bound.
Basic definitions and notations have already been recalled (following \cite{Lothaire1983book}).
Let us observe that $\#S$ denotes the cardinality of a set $S$.
Moreover, given a word $w$ over an alphabet ${\cal A}$,
we will simply use $n$ to denote the length $|w|$ of $w$ and
$k$ to denote the cardinality $\#{\cal A}$ of ${\cal A}$.
\section{How-many-subwords queries\label{Sec:How many}}
In this section, we focus on queries in the form
{\oq}How many occurrences of $u$ as a subword does $w$ contains?{\cq}
or equivalently
{\oq}What is the value of $\binom{w}{u}$?{\cq}.
We call such a query a $\#$-subword query.
Our main result regarding this kind of query is the following. Of course, as it will be the case for other queries in the next sections, we assume that such a query can be answered without knowing $w$.
\begin{theorem}\label{T_binarycountsubword}
The number of $\#$-subword queries needed to reconstruct a word of length $n$ over $\{0,1\}$ is at most $7\left\lceil \sqrt{n \log n}\right\rceil+4$ whether $n$ is known or not.
\end{theorem}
A word $w$ that contains $m$ occurrences of $1$, can always be written as
$w=0^{s_0}10^{s_1}1\ldots 10^{s_{m}}$ where the $s_i$ are nonnegative integers.
Since $m = \binom{w}{1}$, it only requires one query to find $m$.
Our goal is to find the values of all the $s_i$.
Our strategy relies on the fact that if we know which of the $s_i$ are {\oq}large{\cq} and if we know their values then we can determine multiple others $s_i$ with a single query (this is shown in Lemma \ref{coeffromeq}). On the other hand since we cannot have too many {\oq}large{\cq} $s_i$ we have an efficient strategy to find all these $s_i$ (see Lemma \ref{locatelargblocks}).
Using these two facts together and optimizing the meaning of {\oq}large{\cq} we get the desired result.
Actually, in a uniform random word we do not expect to have any $s_i$ larger than $\mathcal{O}(\log n)$ and this leads to a more efficient average case algorithm.
\begin{theorem}\label{expectrunningtime}
There is a deterministic strategy that, given any integer $n$, reconstructs in average in $\mathcal{O}(\log_2(n))$ queries any word $w$ taken uniformly at random among all binary words of length $n$.
\end{theorem}
The next lemma allows to prove Lemma~\ref{coeffromeq}.
\begin{lemma}\label{coeffromeqanoying}
Let $r$, $\ell$, $s_1,\ldots,s_r$ be non-negative integers such that $1 \leq r \leq \ell +1$ and
for all $j \in \{1, \ldots, r\}$, $s_j < \frac{\ell+1}{r}$.
The values of $s_1,\ldots,s_r$ are uniquely determined by the values of
$\binom{0^{s_r}10^{s_{r-1}}1\cdots 0^{s_2}10^{s_1}1^\ell}{01^\ell}$, $r$ and $\ell$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let us first express the number of occurrences of $01^\ell$ as subword in $0^{s_r}10^{s_{r-1}}1\cdots 0^{s_1}1^\ell$. By considering separately the different possible positions of the $0$ in the occurrence we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq_initial_observation}
\binom{0^{s_r}10^{s_{r-1}}1\cdots 0^{s_2}10^{s_1}1^\ell}{01^\ell}= \sum_{j=1}^r s_j\binom{\ell+j-1}{\ell}=\sum_{j=1}^r s_j\binom{\ell+j-1}{j-1}\,.
\end{equation}
Let $\beta=\max_{j}s_j$.
We first show that for all $t\in\{1,\ldots, r\}$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqindbinomcoef}
\sum_{j=1}^t s_j\binom{\ell+j-1}{j-1}\le \beta \binom{\ell+t}{t-1}\,.
\end{equation}
We proceed by induction on $t$. It is easily verified for $t=1$. Now if \eqref{eqindbinomcoef} holds for $t$, then
\begin{align*}
\sum_{j=1}^{t+1} s_j\binom{\ell+j-1}{j-1}&=\sum_{j=1}^{t} s_j\binom{\ell+j-1}{j-1}+s_{t+1}\binom{\ell+t}{t}\le \beta \binom{\ell+t}{t-1}+s_{t+1}\binom{\ell+t}{t}\\
&\le \beta \left(\binom{\ell+t}{t-1}+\binom{\ell+t}{t}\right) =\beta \binom{\ell+t+1}{t}
\end{align*}
which concludes the inductive proof of \eqref{eqindbinomcoef}.
Moreover, for all $t\in\{1,\ldots, r\}$,
$\beta \binom{\ell+t}{t-1}< \frac{\ell+1}{r}\binom{\ell+t}{t-1}\le \frac{\ell+1}{t}\binom{\ell+t}{t-1}= \binom{\ell+t}{t}$. Together with \eqref{eqindbinomcoef}, it implies that for all $t\in\{1,\ldots, r\}$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqnegligible}
0\le\sum_{j=1}^t s_j\binom{\ell+j-1}{j-1}< \binom{\ell+t}{t}\,.
\end{equation}
Observe that, for all $t\in\{1,\ldots, r-1\}$,
\begin{equation*}
s_{t+1}=\frac{\sum_{j=1}^{t+1} s_j\binom{\ell+j-1}{j-1}-\sum_{j=1}^t s_j\binom{\ell+j-1}{j-1}}{\binom{\ell+t}{t}}\,.
\end{equation*}
But $s_{t+1}$ is an integer and by equation\eqref{eqnegligible} the right part of the fraction in the left-hand-side is in $[0,1[$ we deduce
\begin{equation}\label{eq_deduced_value}
s_{t+1}= \left\lfloor\frac{\sum_{j=1}^{t+1} s_j\binom{\ell+j-1}{j-1}}{\binom{\ell+t}{t}} \right\rfloor\,.
\end{equation}
By~Equations~\eqref{eq_initial_observation} and \eqref{eq_deduced_value}, we can deduce the value of $s_r$ from $r$, $l$ and
$\sum_{j=1}^{r} s_j\binom{\ell+j-1}{j-1}$ which is itself deduced from $\binom{0^{s_r}10^{s_{r-1}}1\cdots 0^{s_2}10^{s_1}1^\ell}{01^\ell}$.
From the value of $s_r$, we can now deduce $\sum_{j=1}^{r-1} s_j\binom{\ell+j-1}{j-1}$ and thus $s_{r-1}$ by \eqref{eq_deduced_value}.
Thus, by an {\oq}inverse induction{\cq} from $r-1$ to $1$, we deduce the values of all the $s_j$.
\end{proof}
Lemma \ref{coeffromeqanoying} allows us to determine the length of multiple consecutive $0$-blocks with only one query under some strong hypothesis, but we can relax these hypotheses as follows. The idea is that if we have some large $s_i$ and a prefix, it is enough to know the value of these $s_i$ and of the prefix in order to remove their contribution before applying the previous lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{coeffromeq}
Let $p$ and $v$ be words, $r$ and $s_1,\ldots, s_r$ be nonnegative integers such that $1\le r\le|v|_1 + 2$ and let $w=p0^{s_r}10^{s_{r-1}}\ldots 10^{s_1}1v$.
Suppose that $p$, $|v|_1$ and $r$ are known and that for all $j$, either $s_j$ is known or $s_j<\frac{|v|_1+2}{r}$, then the value of $\binom{w}{01^{1+|v|_1}}$ uniquely determines the values of all the unknown $s_j$ for $j\in\{1,\ldots,r\}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For all $j\in\{1,\ldots,r\}$, let $s'_j$ be such that if $s_j<\frac{|v|_1+2}{r}$, then $s'_j=s_j$ and $s'_j=0$ otherwise. Then $s_j-s'_j$ is known for all $j$ (it is $s_j$ if $s_j$ is known and $0$ otherwise) and for all $j$, $s'_j<\frac{|v|_1+2}{r}$.
Now, by considering the possible positions of the $0$ in the occurrences of $01^{1+|v|_1}$, we get
\begin{align*}
\binom{w}{01^{1+|v|_1}}
&= \binom{p1^{r+|v|_1}}{01^{1+|v|_1}}+\binom{0^{s_r}10^{s_{r-1}}\ldots 10^{s_1}1^{1+|v|_1}}{01^{1+|v|_1}}\\
&=\binom{p1^{r+|v|_1}}{01^{1+|v|_1}}+ \sum_{j=1}^r s_j \binom{j+|v|_1}{1+|v|_1}\\
&=\binom{p1^{r+|v|_1}}{01^{1+|v|_1}}+ \sum_{j=1}^r (s_j-s'_j) \binom{j+|v|_1}{1+|v|_1}+\sum_{j=1}^r s'_j\binom{j+|v|_1}{1+|v|_1}\\
&=\binom{p1^{r+|v|_1}}{01^{1+|v|_1}}+ \sum_{j=1}^r (s_j-s'_j) \binom{j+|v|_1}{1+|v|_1}+\binom{0^{s'_r}10^{s'_{r-1}}\ldots 10^{s'_1}1^{1+|v|_1}}{01^{1+|v|_1}}\,.
\end{align*}
It implies that,
$$\binom{0^{s'_r}10^{s'_{r-1}}\ldots 10^{s'_1}1^{1+|v|_1}}{01^{1+|v|_1}}=\binom{w}{01^{1+|v|_1}}-\binom{p1^{r+|v|_1}}{01^{1+|v|_1}}- \sum_{j=1}^r (s_j-s'_j) \binom{j+|v|_1}{1+|v|_1}\,.$$
By assumption, $\binom{w}{01^{1+|v|_1}}$, $p$, $r$, $|v|_1$ and for all $j$, $(s_j-s'_j)$ are known. Hence, the quantity $\binom{0^{s'_r}10^{s'_{r-1}}\ldots 10^{s'_1}1^{1+|v|_1}}{01^{1+|v|_1}}$ is uniquely determined. For all $j$, $s'_j<\frac{|v|_1+2}{r}$ and we deduce from Lemma \ref{coeffromeqanoying} that the values of all the $s'_j$ are uniquely determined which concludes our proof.
\end{proof}
For any word $w$ over $\{0, 1\}$ decomposed as $w=0^{s_0}10^{s_1}1\cdots0^{s_{t-1}}10^{s_{t}}$, we call $i$ the \emph{index} of the $0$-block $0^{s_{i}}$.
If we want to use the previous lemma to reconstruct a word, we first need to determine the indices of all the $0$-blocks that are longer than some predetermined length.
\begin{lemma}\label{locatelargblocks}
Let $w\in\{0,1\}^*$ and $m$ be an integer.
Let $I$ be the set of indices of $0$-blocks of $w$ of length at least $m$. Suppose that we know $|w|$ and $|w|_0$ (and so also $|w|_1 = |w|-|w|_0$), then the number of \#-subword queries needed to determine $I$ is at most
$$\frac{2 |w|_0\lceil\log_2 (|w|_1+1)\rceil}{m}\,.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We use Algorithm \ref{alglongblocks} to determine $I$ calling it with $\ell = 0$ and $u = |w|_1$.
Note that $|w|_1 = |w| - |w|_0$ is known.
\begin{algorithm}[ht]
\caption{An algorithm that prints the indices $i\in\{\ell,\ldots,u\}$ of the $0$-blocks\label{alglongblocks} of length at least $m$ that occur in $w$}
\begin{algorithmic}
\Procedure{Recblocks}{$w$, $m$, $\ell$, $u$}
\If{$\binom{w}{1^\ell0^m 1^{|w|_1-u}}\ge1$}
\If{$u=\ell$}
\State \textbf{Print} $\ell$
\Else
\State\Call{Recblocks}{$w$, $m$, $\ell$, $\lfloor\frac{\ell+u}{2}\rfloor$}
\State\Call{Recblocks}{$w$, $m$, $\lfloor\frac{\ell+u}{2}\rfloor+1$, $u$}
\EndIf
\EndIf
\EndProcedure
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
The condition of the main {\oq}if{\cq} verifies that the lengths of the $0$-blocks whose indices are in $\{\ell,\ldots,u\}$ sum to at least $m$. If it doesn't then we know that none of these blocks can have length at least $m$ so we do not need to call the function recursively on any of them. From this, verifying the correctness of the algorithm is rather straightforward.
Let us now bound the total number of queries.
For this, we consider the \emph{tree of recursive calls to Recblocks} defined as follows: the root of the tree is the initial call with $\ell = 0$ and $u = |w|_1$; a call $a$ is the child of another call $b$ if the call $a$ was made in $b$. The \emph{depth} of a call is its distance to the root. The \emph{weight} of a call is the quantity $u+1-\ell$. For any call of weight $x$,
the weights of its children are $\lceil x/2\rceil$ or $\lfloor x/2\rfloor$ (and the sum of the weights of the two children is $x$).
Let $f$ be the function such that $f:x\rightarrow\lceil\frac{x}{2}\rceil$.
The root has weight $|w|_1+1$ and $f$ is a non-decreasing function, so any call of depth $d$ has weight at most $f^d(|w|_1+1)$.
For any integer $x$, $f(x) \le \frac{x+1}{2}$, and, in particular, for all $d\ge1$,
$f^{d}(|w|_1+1)\le \frac{f^{d-1}(|w|_1+1)+1}{2}$.
By induction on $d$, $f^d(|w|_1+1)< \frac{|w|_1+1}{2^d}+1$.
Any call of depth $\lceil\log_2 (|w|_1+1)\rceil$ has weight at most $1$ (the weight is an integer smaller than $2$) and is a leaf of the tree. Hence, the depth of any call is at most $\lceil\log_2 (|w|_1+1)\rceil$.
Moreover, one easily verifies by induction on the depth that for any two different calls $c$ and $c'$ at the same depth the corresponding intervals $[\ell,u]$ and $[\ell',u']$ are disjoint. We say that a call with the values $\ell$ and $u$ \emph{owns} the occurrences of $0$ that belongs to all the blocks of indices between $\ell$ and $u$. Then by the previous remark, the set of occurrences of $0$ owned by two calls at the same depth are disjoint.
Since the condition of the first {\oq}if{\cq} is true if the call owns at least $m$ occurrences of $0$, we deduce that there are at most $\frac{|w|_0}{m}$ such calls on any given depth.
Since each such call has two children, we deduce that the number of calls at any depth is at most $2\frac{|w|_0}{m}$. Hence the total number of calls, is at most $\frac{2 |w|_0\lceil\log_2 (|w|_1+1)\rceil}{m}$. Since we ask one query by call this concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
We are now ready to show our main result.
We will first use the algorithm from Lemma \ref{locatelargblocks} to find all the blocks
that are of length $\left\lceil \sqrt{n \log n}\right\rceil$
and then we use Lemma \ref{coeffromeq} to determine all the other blocks.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{T_binarycountsubword}]~
\textbf{Phase 1}.
Let $w$ be the unknown word.
It costs two queries to get $|w|_0=\binom{w}{0}$ and $|w|_1=\binom{w}{1}$.
Then $n = |w| = |w|_0+|w|_1$ is known.
Suppose without loss of generality that $\binom{w}{0}\ge n/2 \ge\binom{w}{1}$ (otherwise simply exchange the role of $0$ and $1$ in the following).
\textbf{Phase 2}.
Let $m=\left\lceil \sqrt{n \log n}\right\rceil$.
We use the algorithm from Lemma \ref{locatelargblocks} to locate all the $0$-blocks of length at least $m$. There are at most $\frac{n}{m}$ such blocks and we can use one query for each of them to determine their respective length:
Indeed if the block is at index $i$ with $i \in \{0, \ldots, |w|_1\}$,
its length is $\binom{w}{1^i01^{|w|_1-i}}$.
Thus locating $0$-blocks of length at least $m$ together with their lengths
require at most $\frac{2 |w|_0\lceil\log (|w|_1+1)\rceil}{m} + \frac{n}{m} $ queries.
This number of queries is less than $3\frac{n \log n}{m}\le3 \sqrt{n \log n}$.
\textbf{Phase 3}.
We now need to determine the lengths of $0$-blocks of length at most $m$.
We first determine the $0$-blocks occurring before the $\left\lceil \frac{|w|_1}{2} \right\rceil$ last occurrences of $1$.
Secondly, we determine the $0$-blocks occurring after the $\left\lceil \frac{|w|_1}{2} \right\rceil$ first occurrences of $1$.
After this, the lengths of all the $0$-blocks are known and we know $w$.
We describe only how to determine the first half of the blocks, since reconstructing the second half of the blocks can be done symmetrically.
There are $\left\lceil \frac{|w|_1}{2} \right\rceil+1$ $0$-blocks before the $\left\lceil \frac{|w|_1}{2} \right\rceil$ last occurrences of $1$.
We determine the unknown blocks among them in at most $m$
steps from left to right considering, at each step, at most $r = \left\lfloor\frac{|w|_1}{2m}\right\rfloor$ blocks. Since $mr\ge\frac{|w|_1}{2}-m$, we might miss up to $m+1$ blocks after this, that we can recover one by one for up to $m+1$ extra queries.
At one step $w = p0^{s_r}10^{s_{r-1}}\cdots 10^{s_1}1v$
with $p$ an already known prefix of $w$ (initially $p$ is the empty word) and $|v|_1 \geq \left\lceil \frac{|w|_1}{2} \right\rceil$.
For each $i \in \{1, \ldots, r\}$,
if $s_i$ is unknown then $s_i < m = \frac{|w|_1/2}{|w|_1/(2m)} < \frac{|v|_1+2}{r}$.
By Lemma~\ref{coeffromeq},
only one query is needed to know the $r$ blocks.
Hence, we determine the $0$-blocks occurring before the $\left\lceil \frac{|w|_1}{2} \right\rceil$ last occurrences of $1$
in at most $2m+1 = 1 + 2\left\lceil \sqrt{n \log n} \right\rceil$ queries (and similarly to know the $0$-blocks
occurring after the $\left\lceil \frac{|w|_1}{2} \right\rceil$ last occurrences of $1$).
In total, our strategy uses
$2+3\left\lceil \sqrt{n \log n}\right\rceil+2(1 + 2\left\lceil \sqrt{n \log n} \right\rceil) = 7 \left\lceil \sqrt{n \log n} \right\rceil+4$.
\end{proof}
For any alphabets $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B} \subseteq \mathcal{A}$ and any word $u$ over $\mathcal{A}$,
the \textit{projection} of $u$ onto $\mathcal{B}$
is the word obtained by removing from $u$ any letter that does not belong to $\mathcal{B}$.
We denote it $\pi_{\mathcal{B}}(u)$. For instance, $\pi_{\{0,1\}}(0120201)=01001$.
Over an alphabet of cardinality $k$ if we know the projections over all the binary sub-alphabets, we can uniquely determine the whole word \cite[Lemma 6.2.19]{Lothaire1983book}. So Theorem \ref{T_binarycountsubword} has the following corollary.
\begin{corollary}\label{C_sharp_arbitrary_alphabet}
The number of $\#$-subword queries needed to reconstruct a word of length $n$ over an alphabet of cardinality $k$ is at most $\binom{k}{2}(7\left\lceil \sqrt{n \log n}\right\rceil+4)\,.$
\end{corollary}
In Theorem \ref{T_binarycountsubword} and Corollary \ref{C_sharp_arbitrary_alphabet}, we did not try to optimize the multiplicative constant, because we believe that the $\sqrt{n \log n}$ bound is not {\oq}sharp up to a multiplicative constant{\cq}. As suggested by Theorem \ref{expectrunningtime}, the number of required queries in Theorem 1 and Corollary 6 might be in $O(\log n)$.
As we will see in Lemma~\ref{expectnolongbloc}, the probability that there is a $0$-block of length more than $\lceil2\log_2(n)\rceil$ is small.
\begin{lemma}\label{expectnolongbloc}
Let $w$ be a word taken uniformly at random among all binary words of length $n$. The probability that
$w$ contains the factor $0^{\lceil2\log_2(n)\rceil}$ is at most $1/n$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $m=\lceil2\log_2(n)\rceil$. Let $w_1,\ldots, w_n\in\{0,1\}$ be such that $w=w_1\cdots w_n$.
For all $i\in\{1,\ldots, n-m+1\}$, let $E_i$ be the event that $w_iw_{i+1}\ldots w_{i+m-1}=0^m$. Then for all $i$, $\mathbb{P}(E_i)=2^{-m}\le 1/n^2$. By union bound,
$$\mathbb{P}(0^m \text{ is a factor of } w)= \mathbb{P}(\cup_{i=1}^{n-m+1} E_i)\le\sum_{i=1}^{n-m+1}\mathbb{P}(E_i)\le \frac{1}{n}$$ as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{expectrunningtime}]
First, we determine the number of $0$ and $1$ in $w$ in 2 queries.
Let $m=\lceil2\log_2(n)\rceil$.
We first assume that there is no factor $0^m$ in $w$.
We can now apply Lemma~\ref{coeffromeq} as in Phase 3 of the proof of Theorem \ref{T_binarycountsubword}, but with $m=\lceil2\log_2(n)\rceil$. We now have a candidate word $w'$ and we can ask one more question, $\binom{w}{w'}$, to verify if $w = w'$ (this might not be the case, if our starting assumption was false). All of this take $\mathcal{O}(\log_2(n))$ queries.
If we did not obtain the correct word, we know that our assumption was false and we use Theorem \ref{T_binarycountsubword} to find $w$ in $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{n\log_2(n)})$ extra queries. By Lemma \ref{expectnolongbloc}, this happens with probability at most $1/n$, so the expected number of queries of this procedure is at most $\mathcal{O}(\log_2(n))+\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{n\log_2(n)}/n)=\mathcal{O}(\log_2(n))$.
\end{proof}
\section{Exists-subword queries\label{Sec:exist_queries}}
In this section, we focus on queries in the form {\oq}Is $u$ a subword of $w$?{\cq}
or equivalently
{\oq}Is $\binom{w}{u} \geq 1$?{\cq}.
We call such a query an $\exists$-subword query.
The reconstruction problem using $\exists$-subword queries of a word $w$ of unknown length $n$
over an alphabet $\mathcal{A}$ of cardinality $k$ was solved by S.~S.~Skiena and G.~Sundaram \cite{Skiena_Sundaram1993LNCS,Skiena_Sundaram1995JCB} using
$1.59 n \log_2(k) + 2k \log_2(n) + 5k$ queries.
We improve the main coefficient of the bound, replacing $1.59$ by $1$ which is optimal (any such algorithm requires at least $n\log_2(k)$ queries in the worst case \cite{Skiena_Sundaram1993LNCS,Skiena_Sundaram1995JCB}).
\begin{theorem}\label{T_existssubwordkletters}
The number of $\exists$-subword queries needed to reconstruct an unknown word $w$ of unknown length $n$ over an alphabet $\mathcal{A}$ of cardinality $k$
is at most
$$n \lceil \log_2(k) \rceil +k \left(2+ \lfloor\log_2(n+1) \rfloor\right)\,.$$
\end{theorem}
Actually, our approach is similar to the method used in \cite{Skiena_Sundaram1993LNCS,Skiena_Sundaram1995JCB}.
We act essentially by dichotomy on the alphabet but when reconstructing words from their projections on a smaller alphabet we improve the bound on the number of queries. Also on small alphabets we use a linear decomposition instead of a binary decomposition in order to reduce the number of queries needed to deduce the number of occurrences of some letters.
To prove Theorem~\ref{T_existssubwordkletters} we use the next two lemmas.
The first one considers the reconstruction problem in the one letter alphabet case.
The second one describes upper bounds on the number of queries needed to reconstruct a word from projections on disjoint alphabets.
\begin{lemma}
\label{L_exists_one_letter}
Given an unknown nonempty word $w$ of length $n$ over an alphabet $\mathcal{A}$ and a letter $\alpha \in \mathcal{A}$,
the value $|w|_\alpha$ can be determined using
\begin{itemize}
\item at most $2\lfloor1 +\log_2(|w|_\alpha + 1)\rfloor$
$\exists$-subword queries if $n$ is unknown and
\item at most $\lceil \log_2(n+1) \rceil$
$\exists$-subword queries if $n$ is known.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
The proof of this Lemma is a simple binary search. The details can be found in Appendix \ref{appproof}.
In the next Lemma we explain how to reconstruct a word $w$ from its projections on two disjoint
complementary alphabets. Note that \cite[Lemma 14]{Skiena_Sundaram1995JCB}, is almost the same result with a number of queries $2.18|\pi_{\mathcal{B}}(w)|+|\pi_{\mathcal{C}}(w)|+5$ instead of $|\pi_{\mathcal{B}}(w)|+|\pi_{\mathcal{C}}(w)|+1$. The main difference is that instead of using a binary search we simply go greedily from left to right when combining the two words. This lemma almost exclusively explains the improvement we obtain over \cite[Theorem 2]{Skiena_Sundaram1995JCB}.
\begin{lemma}\label{L_merge}
Let $w$ be an unknown word of length $n$ over an alphabet $\mathcal{A}$.
Let $\mathcal{B}$ and $\mathcal{C}$ be two disjoint alphabets such that $\mathcal{A}=\mathcal{B}\cup\mathcal{C}$, then
\begin{enumerate}
\item if we know both projections $\pi_{\mathcal{B}}(w)$ and $\pi_{\mathcal{C}}(w)$, then the word $w$ can be reconstructed using at most $n-1$ $\exists$-subword queries,
\item if we know the word $\pi_{\mathcal{B}}(w)$ and $\#\mathcal{C}=1$,
then the word $w$ can be reconstructed using at most $n+1$ $\exists$-subword queries.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
It may be observed that in item 1 of Lemma~\ref{L_merge},
the length of $w$ can be determined without asking any query since it is equal to
$|\pi_{\mathcal{B}}(w)|+|\pi_{\mathcal{C}}(w)|$.
This is not the case in item 2. In both cases, the length is not directly used in the proof.
For any word $x=x_1\cdots x_\ell\in \{0,1\}^\ell$ and integers $i,j\in\{1,\ldots, \ell\}$, let $x[i\ldots j]=x_ix_{i+1}\cdots x_j$ when $i\le j$. By extension, if $i> j$ (and possibly $i=|x|+1$ or $j=0$), then $x[i\ldots j]$ is the empty word.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{L_merge}]
Assume first that $u=\pi_{\mathcal{B}}(w)$ and $v=\pi_{\mathcal{C}}(w)$ are known.
The first letter of $w$ is either $u_1$ or $v_1$. More precisely, $u_1v$ is a subword of $w$ if and only if $u_1$ is the first letter of $w$, otherwise $v_1$ is the first letter of $w$. Thus in one question we can determine the first letter of $w$, and the projections $\pi_{\mathcal{B}}(w[2\ldots n])$ and $\pi_{\mathcal{C}}(w[2\ldots n])$. We can repeat this process and after each new query we obtain the next letter of $w$ and the two projections of the rest of $w$ over $\mathcal{B}$ and $\mathcal{C}$.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{An algorithm that returns an unknown word $w$ over $\mathcal{B}\cup\mathcal{C}$ with $\mathcal{B} \cap \mathcal{C}=\emptyset$ from
$u = \pi_{\mathcal{B}}(w)$ and
$v= \pi_{\mathcal{C}}(w)$\label{A_merge}}
\begin{algorithmic}
\State $p \gets \varepsilon$ ; $i \gets 0$ ; $j \gets 0$
\While{$i < |u|$ \textbf{and} $j < |v|$}
\If{$p u_{i+1} v[j+1..|v|]$ is a subword of $w$}
\State $p \gets pu_{i+1}$ ; $i \gets i+1$
\Else
\State $p \gets pv_{j+1}$ ; $j \gets j+1$
\EndIf
\EndWhile
\State $p \gets p u[i+1..|u|] v[j+1..|v|]$
\State \Return $p$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
Hence Algorithm~\ref{A_merge} allows to reconstruct $w$ from
$u$ and $v$. In this algorithm $i$ and $j$ store respectively the successive length of $\pi_{\mathcal{B}}(w[1\ldots i+j])$ and $\pi_{\mathcal{C}}(w[1\ldots i+j])$: at the beginning of each while loop, we know $p= w[1\ldots i+j]$.
From the preliminary comments, it is straightforward that at the end of the algorithm $p = w$ and that the number of $\exists$-subword queries asked is at most $n-1$.
From now on assume that we only know the word $\pi_{\mathcal{B}}(w)$ and the fact that $\mathcal{C}=\{a\}$ for some letter $a$.
We use a strategy similar to the previous case, that is,
we try to insert occurrences of the letter $a$ between the letters of $\pi_{\mathcal{B}}(w)$ in a greedy way.
Once the places of all letters of $\pi_{\mathcal{B}}(w)$ are known,
one has to determine the remaining occurrences of $a$ at the end of $w$.
This leads to the variant Algorithm~\ref{A_merge2}
for which the number of $\exists$-subword queries asked is exactly $n+1$: there is one query by letter of $\pi_{\mathcal{B}}(w)$ and $\pi_{\mathcal{C}}(w)$ and one additional query needed to determine when there is no more letter in $\pi_{\mathcal{C}}(w)$.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{An algorithm that returns an unknown word $w$ over $\mathcal{B} \cup \{a\}$ with $a \not\in \mathcal{B}$ from $u = \pi_{\mathcal{B}}(w)$\label{A_merge2}}
\begin{algorithmic}
\State $p \gets \varepsilon$ ; $i \gets 0$
\While{$i < |u|$}
\If{$p a u[i+1..|u|]$ is a subword of $w$}
\State $p \gets pa$
\Else
\State $p \gets pu_{i+1}$ ; $i \gets i+1$
\EndIf
\EndWhile
\While{$pa$ is a subword of $w$}
\State $p \gets pa$
\EndWhile
\State \Return $p$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\end{proof}
The proof of the next result explains the strategy to solve the reconstruction problem
using $\exists$-subword queries.
The length of $w$ may be unknown.
\begin{proposition}
\label{P_technical_exists_subwords}
Let $w$ be an unknown word over an alphabet of cardinality $k$.
For any $\mathcal{B}\subseteq\mathcal{A}$ with $\#\mathcal{B} \ge2$, the number of $\exists$-subword queries needed to reconstruct the word $\pi_{\mathcal{B}}(w)$ is at most
$$\lceil \log_2(\#\mathcal{B}) \rceil |\pi_{\mathcal{B}}(w)|+\#\mathcal{B} \left(2+\max\limits_{\alpha \in \mathcal{B}} \lfloor\log_2(|w|_{\alpha}+1) \rfloor\right)\,.$$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We proceed by induction on the cardinality of $\mathcal{B}$ with the two base cases being $\#\mathcal{B}=2$ and $\#\mathcal{B}=3$.
If $\mathcal{B}=\{x,y\}\subseteq\mathcal{A}$ with $x\not=y$, we can apply Lemma \ref{L_exists_one_letter} to determine $\pi_{\{x\}}(w)= x^{|w|_x}$ in at most
$2 \lfloor 1+\log_2(|w|_x+1) \rfloor$ queries.
Case 2 of Lemma \ref{L_merge} implies that we can then determine $\pi_{\{x,y\}}(w)$ in at most $|\pi_{\{x,y\}}(w)|+1$ extra queries. The total number of queries is at most
$$|\pi_{\{x,y\}}(w)|+1+2 \lfloor 1+\log_2(|w|_x+1) \rfloor
\le\lceil \log_2(\#\mathcal{B}) \rceil |\pi_{\mathcal{B}}(w)|+\#\mathcal{B} \left(2+\max\limits_{\alpha \in \mathcal{B}} \lfloor\log_2(|w|_{\alpha}+1) \rfloor\right)$$
as desired.
If $\mathcal{B}=\{x,y,z\}$ for some distinct letters $x,y,z\in\mathcal{A}$, we use the strategy of the previous paragraph to determine $\pi_{\{x,y\}}(w)$ and we use case 2 of Lemma \ref{L_merge} once again to obtain $\pi_{\{x,y,z\}}(w)$ in at most $|\pi_{\{x,y,z\}}(w)|+1$ extra queries. The total number of queries is then at most
$$|\pi_{\{x,y\}}(w)|+|\pi_{\mathcal{B}}(w)|+2+2 \lfloor 1+\log_2(|w|_x+1) \rfloor
\le \lceil \log_2(\#\mathcal{B}) \rceil |\pi_{\mathcal{B}}(w)|+\#\mathcal{B} \left(2+\max\limits_{\alpha \in \mathcal{B}} \lfloor\log_2(|w|_{\alpha}+1) \rfloor\right)$$
as desired.
We now have to deal with the induction. Assume $\#\mathcal{B}\ge4$. Let $\mathcal{C},\mathcal{C}'\subseteq\mathcal{B}$ be two disjoint alphabets such that $\mathcal{B}=\mathcal{C}\cup\mathcal{C}'$, $\#\mathcal{C}= \lfloor\frac{\#\mathcal{B}}{2}\rfloor$ and $\#\mathcal{C}'= \lceil\frac{\#\mathcal{B}}{2}\rceil$. The two last conditions imply
$$\lceil\log_2\#\mathcal{C}\rceil \leq \lceil\log_2\#\mathcal{C}'\rceil=\lceil\log_2\#\mathcal{B}\rceil-1\,.$$
By induction hypothesis, the number of queries to determine $\pi_{\mathcal{C}}(w)$ and $\pi_{\mathcal{C}'}(w)$ is at most
\begin{align*}
&\lceil \log_2(\#\mathcal{C}) \rceil |\pi_{\mathcal{C}}(w)|+\#\mathcal{C} \left(2+\max\limits_{\alpha \in \mathcal{C}} \lfloor\log_2(|w|_{\alpha}+1) \rfloor\right)\\
+&
\lceil \log_2(\#\mathcal{C}') \rceil |\pi_{\mathcal{C}'}(w)|+\#\mathcal{C}' \left(2+\max\limits_{\alpha \in \mathcal{C}'} \lfloor\log_2(|w|_{\alpha}+1) \rfloor\right)\\
&\le(\lceil \log_2(\#\mathcal{B}) \rceil-1)(|\pi_{\mathcal{C}}(w)|+|\pi_{\mathcal{C}'}(w)|)+(\#\mathcal{C}' +\#\mathcal{C})\left(2+\max\limits_{\alpha \in \mathcal{C}'\cup\mathcal{C} } \lfloor\log_2(|w|_{\alpha}+1) \rfloor\right)\\
&\le(\lceil \log_2(\#\mathcal{B}) \rceil-1)(|\pi_{\mathcal{B}}(w)|)+\#\mathcal{B}\left(2+\max\limits_{\alpha \in \mathcal{B} } \lfloor\log_2(|w|_{\alpha}+1) \rfloor\right)\,.
\end{align*}
By case 1 of Lemma \ref{L_merge}, we only need $|\pi_{\mathcal{B}}(w)|$ extra queries to determine $\pi_{\mathcal{B}}(w)$. In total, we used at most
$\lceil \log_2(\#\mathcal{B}) \rceil(|\pi_{\mathcal{B}}(w)|)+\#\mathcal{B}\left(2+\max\limits_{\alpha \in \mathcal{B} } \lfloor\log_2(|w|_{\alpha}+1) \rfloor\right)$ queries as required.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{T_existssubwordkletters}]
Theorem~\ref{T_existssubwordkletters} is an immediate consequence of Proposition~\ref{P_technical_exists_subwords} taking $\mathcal{B}=\mathcal{A}$ and using $\max\limits_{\alpha \in \mathcal{B}} \lfloor\log_2(|w|_{\alpha}+1) \rfloor\le \lfloor\log_2(|w|+1)\rfloor$
\end{proof}
\section{Exists-factor queries\label{Sec:exists-factor_bis}}
In this section, we focus on queries in the form {\oq}Is $u$ a factor of $w$?{\cq}. Our aim is to prove Theorem 16. As for the result from [10] that we improve here, we assume in this section that the length of the word to determine is known.
A factor $u$ is said \textit{right-extendable} in a word $w$
if there exists a letter $a$ such that $ua$ is also a factor of $w$.
The word $ua$ is a \textit{right extension} of $u$.
A non-right-extendable factor $u$ of $w$ is a suffix of $w$
but the converse does not hold.
For instance the word $u = a$ is a suffix of the word $w =aa$
but it is right-extendable.
Actually it can be straightforwardly checked that
a factor $u$ is not right-extendable in $w$
if and only if $u$ is a suffix of $w$
which has only one occurrence as a factor of $w$.
The notions of left-extendability and left extensions are defined similarly.
The global strategy to reconstruct an unknown word $w$
using queries on factors is to apply the following three steps.
First we find a long block of a fixed letter $\alpha$ (proof of Lemma~\ref{L_search_a^t_bis}).
Second we determine a non-right-extendable factor of $w$ having this long block of $\alpha$ as a prefix.
Two different approaches are developed in the proof of Lemmas~\ref{L_right_extendability_binary_bis} and \ref{L_right_extendability_binary_sqrt_bis}.
Depending on the length of the previously found long block of $\alpha$, one or the other of the two approaches reveals to be more efficient.
Finally we determine $w$ from the previous non-right-extendable factor (Lemma~\ref{L_left_extendability_binary_bis}).
Let us first explain this last step.
\begin{lemma}
\label{L_left_extendability_binary_bis}
Let $w$ be an unknown word
of known length $n$ over an alphabet of cardinality $k$.
If we know a non-right-extendable factor $s$ of $w$
then we can reconstruct $w$ with at most $(k-1)(n-|s|)$ $\exists$-factor queries.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $|s|<n$. Then $s$ is a proper suffix of $w$.
Fix a letter $\alpha$.
We can ask {\oq}is $\beta s$ a factor of $w$?{\cq} for each letter $\beta$ different from $\alpha$.
If the answer is positive for some $\beta$ then we know that $\beta s$ is a non-right-extendable factor of $w$
and if the answer is negative for all $\beta$ then we know that $\alpha s$ is a non-right-extendable factor of $w$.
We then repeat the same process until
we reach a word of length $n$ (this word necessarily is $w$).
It costs us at most $k-1$ queries by letter that we have to determine, that is, $(k-1)(n-|s|)$ queries.
\end{proof}
We now explain how to efficiently find a non-right-extendable factor of $w$.
For this a letter $\alpha$ is fixed and
we assume that we know the greatest $t$ such that $\alpha^t$ occurs as a factor in $w$.
And we will present two different strategies that we will use for different values of $t$ in the proof of Theorem \ref{T_exfac2_bis}.
The first strategy will be used when $t$ is not too large.
It is described in the proof of the following result.
\begin{lemma}
\label{L_right_extendability_binary_bis}
Let $w$ be an unknown word of known length $n$ over an alphabet ${\cal A}$ of cardinality $k$. Let $\alpha \in {\cal A}$.
If we know the largest integer $t$ such that $\alpha^t$ is a factor of $w$, then
a non-right-extendable factor $s$ of $w$ can be determined with at most $(k-1)(|s|+2)$ $\exists$-factor queries.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\sigma$ be a variable that aims to contain the searched non-right-extendable factor of $w$.
We initialize $\sigma$ with the word $\alpha^t$.
We search for successive right extensions of $\sigma$
asking the query {\oq}is $\sigma\beta$ a factor of $w$?{\cq} for each letter $\beta\not=\alpha$.
If the answer is {\oq}yes{\cq} for some $\beta\not=\alpha$ then we know that $\sigma\beta$ is a factor of $w$
and we set $\sigma\beta$ to be the new value of $\sigma$.
If the answer is {\oq}no{\cq} for all $\beta\not=\alpha$, then either $\sigma\alpha$ is a factor of $w$ or $\sigma$ is non-right-extendable.
If $\sigma$ does not end with the suffix $\alpha^t$, we set $\sigma\alpha$ to be the new value of $\sigma$.
It is possible that $\sigma$ is no longer a factor of $w$ (and so $\sigma$ is not a non-right-extendable factor of $w$), in particular, when the previous value of $\sigma$ already was the searched non-right-extendable factor of $w$.
But if later, while trying to add a letter $\beta \neq \alpha$, we get {\oq}yes{\cq} as an answer
we deduce that we were right for every previous assumption.
If we obtain the answer {\oq}no{\cq} $t+1$ consecutive times
then we have added $t+1$ occurrences of $\alpha$ at the end of $\sigma$.
This implies that we were wrong since by definition of $t$,
$\alpha^{t+1}$ is not a factor of $w$.
At this point $\sigma=v\alpha^{t+1}$ for some word $v$ that ends with a letter different from $\alpha$
and there exists $r\le t$
such that $v\alpha^{r}$ is a suffix of $w$
and both $v\alpha^{r+1}$ and all words $v\alpha^r\beta$ with $\beta \neq \alpha$ are not factors of $w$:
$v\alpha^r$ is the searched non-right-extendable factor of $w$.
We can determine $r$ by asking {\oq}is $v\alpha^{r+1}$ a factor of $w$?{\cq} from $r = 0$ and until a negative answer.
Let us now provide an upper-bound for the number of queries.
Let $v\alpha^{t+1}$ be the value of $\sigma$ obtained after $t+1$ consecutive negative queries
and let $r+1$ be the number of additional queries asked to determine the final value $s$ of $\sigma$.
Observe that $v$ was determined using $(k-1)(|v|-t)$ queries.
Then we use $(k-1)(t+1)$ queries to get $v\alpha^{t+1}$
and finally we use $r+1$ queries to determine the final value.
The total amount of queries is thus bounded by
$(k-1)((|v|-t)+(t+1)+(r+1))$.
Since $|s| = |v|+r$, this number of queries is bounded by $(k-1)(|s|+2)$.
\end{proof}
Let us illustrate in an example the strategy used in the proof of Lemma~\ref{L_right_extendability_binary_bis}.
Assume that the word to reconstruct is $w = 00011100111011$ and that we use $\alpha =1$.
We have $t = 3$ and initially $\sigma = 111$.
The answer to the two first queries are positive and we get $\sigma = 11100$.
Then the answers to the next three queries are negative and we assume that $\sigma = 11100111$ is a prefix of the expected result.
This is confirmed by the next query that sets $v = 111001110$. The next four negative queries on $v0$, $v10$, $v110$ and $v1110$ imply that
the non-right-extendable factor is $v$, $v1$, $v11$, or $v111$.
After three additional queries, we know that $11100111011$ is a non-right-extendable factor (hence a suffix) of $w$.
If $t$ is large (essentially if $t \geq \lceil4 \sqrt{n}\,\rceil$; see the proof of Theorem~\ref{T_exfac2_bis}),
then a better strategy is to verify slightly more often that our assumptions are correct
when building the non-right-extendable factor. Doing so leads to the alternative strategy provided in the proof of the next result.
\begin{lemma}
\label{L_right_extendability_binary_sqrt_bis}
Let $w$ be an unknown word of known length $n$ over an alphabet ${\cal A}$ of cardinality $k$. Let $\alpha \in {\cal A}$ be a letter with at least one occurrence in $w$.
Assume that we know $n$ and the largest positive integer $t$ such that $\alpha^t$ is a factor of $w$.
A non-right-extendable factor $s$ of $w$ can be determined using
at most $(k-1)(|s|-t)+k\left\lceil\sqrt{n}\,\right\rceil+1$ $\exists$-factor queries.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The strategy is almost identical to the previous one.
We initialize $\sigma$ with the word $\alpha^t$ and we try to extend it by asking whether $\sigma \beta$ for some $\beta \neq \alpha$ is a factor of $w$
and we proceed as previously.
If we obtain the answer {\oq}no{\cq} $r$ consecutive times
then we added $r$ occurrences of $\alpha$ at the end of $s$.
In this case, every $\left\lceil\sqrt{n}\,\right\rceil$ new consecutive occurrences of $\alpha$,
we verify if our current value of $\sigma$ is a factor of $w$.
If this holds we keep going.
Otherwise letting $v$ be the word such that
$\sigma = v\alpha^{\left\lceil\sqrt{n}\,\right\rceil}$,
$v\alpha^{\left\lceil\sqrt{n}\,\right\rceil}$ is not a factor of $w$.
We need to find the largest $r$ such that $v \alpha^r$ is a factor of $w$.
This can be done by setting $\sigma=v$ and asking the query {\oq}is $\sigma \alpha^i$ a factor of $w$ ?{\cq}, where $i$ starts at $1$ and increases until we receive the answer {\oq}no{\cq}.
Let us now count the number of queries.
In the first phase, until reaching $v\alpha^{\left\lceil\sqrt{n}\,\right\rceil}$, the length of $\sigma$ increases from $t$ to $|v\alpha^{\left\lceil\sqrt{n}\,\right\rceil}|$. Each new letter requires at most $k-1$ queries, but each $\left\lceil\sqrt{n}\,\right\rceil$ query a verification query is done.
So the number of queries
in this first phase is at most (remember $t \geq 1$)
$$(k-1)(|v\alpha^{\left\lceil\sqrt{n}\,\right\rceil}|-t)+ \left\lfloor\frac{|v\alpha^{\left\lceil\sqrt{n}\,\right\rceil}| -t}{\lceil\sqrt{n}\rceil}\right\rfloor\le
(k-1)(|v\alpha^{\left\lceil\sqrt{n}\,\right\rceil}|-t)+ 1+\left\lfloor\frac{|w|-1}{\lceil\sqrt{n}\rceil}\right\rfloor$$
which is upper-bounded by $(k-1)(|v|-t)+k\lceil\sqrt{n}\rceil\,$.
In the second phase there is one verification query and every other query increases the value of $i$ from $1$ to $r+1$. So there are at most $1+r=1+|s|-|v| \leq 1 + (k-1)(|s|-|v|)$ other queries in this second phase.
Summing the queries of the first and second phase, we deduce that at most $(k-1)(|s|-t)+k\left\lceil\sqrt{n}\,\right\rceil+1$ queries are used.
\end{proof}
Before using Lemma~\ref{L_right_extendability_binary_bis} or Lemma~\ref{L_right_extendability_binary_sqrt_bis}
we need to determine the greatest power of a letter in a word $w$.
This can be done using a binary search with queries in the form {\oq}Is $a^t$ a factor of $w$?{\cq} for $1 \leq t \leq n$.
A negative answer to the query {\oq}Is $a^1$ a factor of $w$?{\cq} shows that the letter $a$ does not occur in $w$. The next result holds for arbitrary alphabets.
Its proof specifies how the binary search is done.
\begin{lemma}
\label{L_search_a^t_bis}
Let $w$ be an unknown word.
Let $a$ be a letter, $x, y$ be two known integers and $t$ be the largest integer such that $a^t$ is a factor of $w$.
If we know that $x\le t\le y$ then at most $\lceil\log_2(y+1-x)\rceil$ $\exists$-factor queries are needed to determine the value of $t$.
\end{lemma}
Once again the idea of this Lemma is to use a binary search and the details of the proof can be found in Appendix~\ref{annexproof2}.
Applying successively Lemma~\ref{L_search_a^t_bis}, then Lemma~\ref{L_right_extendability_binary_bis} or Lemma~\ref{L_right_extendability_binary_sqrt_bis} and finally Lemma~\ref{L_left_extendability_binary_bis}, we get the next result.
\begin{theorem}\label{T_exfac2_bis}
An unknown nonempty word $w$ of known length $n$ over an alphabet of cardinality $k \geq 2$ can be reconstructed in at most $(k-1)(n+2) + \lceil\frac{\log_2n}{2}\rceil+3$ $\exists$-factor queries.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We start with the query {\oq}is $\alpha^{\lceil4\sqrt{n}\,\rceil}$ a factor of $w$?{\cq}.
If we obtain a positive answer, we use Lemma~\ref{L_search_a^t_bis} (with $x=\lceil4\sqrt{n}\,\rceil$ and $y=n$ ($n \geq 1$))
to compute the largest $t$ such that $\alpha^t$ is a factor of $w$ in at most $\lceil\log_2 n\rceil$ queries. Then we apply Lemma~\ref{L_right_extendability_binary_sqrt_bis} to find a non-right-extendable factor $s$
in at most $(k-1)(|s|-t) + k\lceil\sqrt{n}\,\rceil+1$ queries.
Since $t \geq \lceil4\sqrt{n}\,\rceil \geq 4\lceil\sqrt{n}\,\rceil-3$,
$$(k-1)(|s|-t) + k\lceil\sqrt{n}\,\rceil+1 \le (k-1)(|s|+3)-(3k-4)\lceil\sqrt{n}\rceil+1\,.$$
We finally apply Lemma~\ref{L_left_extendability_binary_bis} to find $w$ in $(k-1)(n-|s|)$ queries. In this case, including the initial query, we need a total of at most $(k-1)(n+3) + \lceil\log_2n\rceil - (3k-4) \lceil\sqrt{n}\,\rceil+2\le (k-1)(n+2)$ queries (we use $k \geq 2$ and $n\ge1$ for this inequality).
If we obtain a negative answer, we use Lemma~\ref{L_search_a^t_bis} (with $x=0$ and $y=\lceil4\sqrt{n}\,\rceil-1$)
to compute the largest $t$ such that $\alpha^t$ is a factor of $w$ in at most $\lceil\log_2(4\sqrt{n})\rceil=
\lceil\frac{\log_2n}{2}\rceil+2$ queries.
Then we apply Lemma~\ref{L_right_extendability_binary_bis} to find a non-right-extendable factor $s$ in $(k-1)(|s|+2)$ queries and we finally apply Lemma~\ref{L_left_extendability_binary_bis} to find $w$ in $(k-1)(n-|s|)$ queries. In this case we need a total of $(k-1)(n+2) + \lceil\frac{\log_2n}{2}\rceil+3$ queries including the initial query.
\end{proof}
\section{Conclusion}
We have studied three reconstruction problems and, for each of them, we have improved upper bounds on the number of necessary queries.
For reconstruction of a word $w$ of length $n$ over an alphabet of cardinality $k$ using $\exists$-subword queries, we have a lower bound $n \log_2(k)$ and in Section~\ref{Sec:exist_queries}, we reduce the gap between the lower and the upper bound to an $O(k \log_2(n))$. An open question is whether this gap can be further reduced to an $O(k)$ number of queries or even lower.
For the reconstruction using $\#$-subword queries as considered in Section~\ref{Sec:How many}, up to our knowledge, no lower bound is known. Our upper bound is much lower than the previous one, but it could still be far from the truth. In particular, we showed that there exists a deterministic algorithm that requires in average $O(\log n)$ queries to reconstruct a uniform random binary word of length $n$, but this algorithm requires $\Theta(\sqrt{n\log n})$ queries in the worst case. This might be possible to find a deterministic algorithm that requires $O(\log n)$ queries in the worst case. We were not able to find a simple proof that this cannot be done in constant time only depending on the size of the alphabet.
For the reconstruction using $\exists$-factor queries as considered in Section~\ref{Sec:exists-factor_bis}, a simple counting argument yields the lower bound $n\log_2(k)$ on the number of queries. S.~S.~Skiena and G.~Sundaram provide in \cite{Skiena_Sundaram1995JCB} a lower bound in $kn/4 - o(n)$ queries which is better for large alphabets.
In the binary case, we were able to improve the gap between the lower and the upper bound, reducing it to $\left\lceil\frac{\log_2(n)}{2}\right\rceil+5$.
In the general case, even if our result improves the gap between the lower and upper bounds, this gap is still important.
As already mentioned in the introduction, the lower bound $kn/4 - o(n)$ given by S.~S.~Skiena and G.~Sundaram
is also valid if one considers queries in the form {\oq}What is the number of occurrences of $u$ as a factor of $w$?{\cq}. In some sense, considering the numbers of occurrences of factors does not bring a significant amount of extra-information for reconstruction comparatively to information on the existence of factors.
This contrasts with the subword case where the number of occurrences gives much more information than the existence of occurrences.
To end, let us mention the existence, in the binary case, of a deterministic algorithm that requires, in average, $n+\mathcal{O}(1)$ $\exists$-factor queries over a uniform random word \cite{kzauo_et_al}
which is optimal up to an additive constant. The main idea of this algorithm is similar to the approach used in Section~\ref{Sec:exists-factor_bis}, but
the length $t$ of the longest block of $0$ is determined faster. Indeed, for a binary word of length $n$ taken uniformly at random, the average value of $|t-\log_2(n)|$ is in $\mathcal{O}(1)$.
The existence of a deterministic algorithm using an $n+\mathcal{O}(1)$ number of $\exists$-factor queries in the worst case is open.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
Authors thank Victor Poupet for useful discussions. Many thanks also for the referees for their accurate reading and their valuable suggestions.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
Herbig Ae/Be stars \citep{Herbig1960} are pre-main sequence stars with intermediate mass covering the range between low-mass T Tauri stars (TTSs) and the embedded massive young stellar objects. The formation of stars in the low and intermediate-mass regimes involves accreting disks formed during the collapse of the protostar, and fast collimated outflows and jets. The circumstellar environment of these objects is highly dynamic and multi-wavelengths observations show large photometric and spectroscopic variability (e.g., \citealt{Pikhartova2021, Mendigutia2011}) that can be used as a tool to understand the physics of accretion and ejection related to the interaction between the star and its circumstellar environment.
T CrA (RA=19:01:58.79 DEC=-36:57:50.33) is an Herbig Ae/Be star member of the Coronet Cluster, belonging to the Corona Australis star-forming region, which is one of the nearest (149.4$\pm$0.4~pc, \citealt{Galli20}) and most active regions of ongoing star formation. The Coronet Cluster is centered on the Herbig Ae/Be stars R~CrA and T~CrA.
It is very active in star formation (e.g. \citealt{Lindberg2012}), harboring many Herbig-Haro (HHs) objects and Molecular Hydrogen emission-line Objects (MHOs). It has been target of many surveys, and all studies agree in assigning the Coronet an age $<$3~Myr (e.g. \citealt{Meyer2009, Sicilia-Aguilar2011}).
In this paper we investigate the variable star T~CrA.
T~CrA is classified as F0 by \cite{Joy1945} with effective temperature T$_{\rm{eff}}$=7200~K, and according to \citet{Cazzoletti2019} and \citet{Herczeg2014} this corresponds to L$_*\sim$29~L$_{\odot}$, and stellar mass $\sim$2.25~M$_{\odot}$ using the evolutionary tracks by \citealt{Siess2000}, and adopting the average distance of 154 pc calculated by \citet{Dzib2018}.
The Gaia-DR2 and DR3 catalogs \citep{Gaia2016, Gaia2020} do not provide proper motion or parallax for T~CrA. This star was not observed by the Hipparcos satellite and it is also not listed in the UCAC5 catalog. The former UCAC4 catalog \citep{Zacharias2012} provides a proper motion result ($\mu_{\alpha}\cos{\delta}=2.0\pm3.8$~mas~yr$^{-1}$, $\mu_{\delta}$=-22.6$\pm$3.8~mas~yr$^{-1}$), which is consistent with membership in Corona-Australis (within the large uncertainties of that solution). \citet{Galli20} provided an updated census of the stellar population in the Corona Australis deriving an average distance of 149.4$\pm$0.4~pc. This is the distance we will use throughout the paper.
A deep H$_2$ v=1–0 S(1) 2.12 $\mu$m narrow-band imaging survey of the northern part of the Corona Australis cloud conducted by \citet{Kumar2011} identified many new MHOs \citep{Davis2010}. Among these objects, two are considered unambiguously associated to T~CrA: MHO2013 and MHO2015, see Figure 3 in \citet{Kumar2011}.
MHO 2015 is a clear bow-shock feature, lying to the south of T~CrA, and it marks the southern lobe of the bipolar outflow originating from T~CrA. MHO 2013 marks the northern lobe. The hypothetical line connecting the two MHOs crosses the position of T~CrA. This is the only unambiguously detected bipolar outflow traced by two complementing bow-shock features in the entire Coronet region \citep{Kumar2011}. We reproduce the image shown in \citet{Kumar2011} in the left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:sphere_images}.
T~CrA was suggested to be a binary system by \cite{Bailey1998} and \cite{Takami2003} who adopted spectro-astrometry in the H$\alpha$ line suggesting that the system is a binary with a companion at $>$0.14$^{\prime\prime}$. However, no companion has been detected using spectro-astrometry in the fundamental rovibrational band of CO at 4.6$\mu$m \citep{Pontoppidan2011} nor with K-band speckle imaging \citep{Ghez1997, Kohler2008}.
In the same years, infrared speckle observations performed by \cite{Ghez1997} did not show the presence of a stellar companion. The non-detection of the companion by \cite{Ghez1997} implies that the possible companion has a contrast in the K-band larger than 3 mag (that is a K-magnitude fainter than 10.5) or a separation smaller than 0.1 arcsec at the epoch of the observation (April 26, 1994; see also \citealp{Takami2003}).
Recently, the circumstellar environment of T~CrA has been investigated. SOFIA/FORCAST (Faint Object infraRed CAmera for the SOFIA Telescope, \citealt{Herter2018}) observations show very strong excess in the far-IR. T~CrA was also detected in all Herschel/PACS (Photodetector Array Camera and Spectrometer) bands \citep{Sandell2021}, highlighting the presence of warm or hot dust.
Mid-infrared interferometric data obtained with VLT/MIDI (MID-infrared Interferometric instrument) show the presence of disk emission from the inner regions, where the temperature is sufficiently high \citep{Varga2018}.
The presence of the inner disk is also given by the spectral energy distribution (SED) which shows near-IR excess emission \citep{Sicilia-Aguilar2013}. Optical and IR spectra covering the [O{\sc{I}}] $\lambda$6300 and [Ne{\sc II}] 12.81~$\mu$m lines \citep{Pascucci2020} show emission attributed to a jet nearly in the plane of the sky.
Moreover, continuum ALMA observations of T~CrA at 1.3~mm (230~GHz) were conducted as part of the survey of protoplanetary disks in Corona Australis \citep{Cazzoletti2019} and the data show a $\sim$22$\sigma$ detection at 1.34$^{\prime\prime}$ from the nominal Spitzer position that is considered as detection. The 1.3~mm continuum flux is then converted into a dust mass (M$_{dust}$) under the assumption of optically thin and isothermal sub-millimeter emission, yielding M$_{dust}$=3.64$\pm$0.27~M$_{\oplus}$. No information on the $^{12}$CO(2-1) gas content in the disk are provided. The average disk mass in CrA is 6$\pm$3~M$_{\oplus}$, and it is significantly lower than that of disks in other young (1–3 Myr) star forming regions (Lupus, Taurus, Chamaeleon I, and Ophiuchus) and appears to be consistent with the average disk mass of the 5–10 Myr-old Upper Sco \citep{Cazzoletti2019}.
In this paper we analyze images of T~CrA acquired with the Very Large Telescope at ESO’s Paranal Observatory in Chile. We employ polarimetric differential imaging (PDI) observations obtained with SPHERE (Spectro-Polarimetric High-contrast Exoplanet REsearch, \citealt{Beuzit2019}) in the H band to explore the circumstellar environment by tracing light scattered by the small ($\mu$m-sized) dust grains. Moreover, we use archival photometric and imaging data to investigate the multiplicity of the system.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sect.~2 we describe the data collected from the archive and newly acquired. In Sect.~3 we describe the data analysis. First we discuss the multiplicity of the system as suggested by the photometric data, the analysis of the proper motion and the analysis of the PSF subtracted images. Second we analyze the geometry of the system with the analysis of the disk and the extended emission seen in scattered light. In Sect.~4 we propose a scenario that reconciles all the findings, showing a model of the system, and discussing a modeling of the spectral energy distribution and hydrodynamical simulation. In Sect.~5 we summarize and conclude.
\section{Observations}
\subsection{SPHERE data}
T~CrA was observed on 2021 June 6th with SPHERE/IRDIS (InfraRed Dual-band Imager and Spectrograph (IRDIS; \citealt{Dohlen2008}) in dual-beam polarimetric imaging mode (DPI; \citealt{deBoer2020, vanHolstein2020}) in the broadband H filter with pupil tracking setting, as part of the DESTINYS program (Disk Evolution Study Through Imaging of Nearby Young Stars, \citet{Ginski2020, Ginski2021}).
An apodized Lyot coronagraph with an inner working angle of 92.5 mas was used to mask the central star. The individual frame exposure time was set to 32~s, and a total of 136 frames were taken separately in 34 polarimetric cycles of the half-wave plate. The total integration time was 72.5 minutes.
Observing conditions were excellent with an average seeing of 0.8$^{\prime\prime}$ and an atmosphere coherence time of 6.4~ms.
In addition to the science images, flux calibration images were obtained by offsetting the star position by about 0.5 arcsec with respect to the coronagraph using the SPHERE tip/tilt mirror, and inserting a suitable neutral density filter to avoid image saturation. Two flux calibration sequences were acquired, before and after the science observation.
We used the public IRDAP pipeline (IRDIS Data reduction for Accurate Polarimetry; \citealt{vanHolstein2020}) to reduce the data. The images were astrometrically calibrated using the pixel scale and true north offset given in \citet{Maire2016}.
Because the data were taken in pupil tracking mode, we were able to perform an angular differential imaging (ADI; \citealt{Marois2006}) reduction in addition to the polarimetric reduction, resulting in a total intensity image and a polarized intensity image. We show the initial combined and flux calibrated Stokes Q and U images as well as the Q$_{\Phi}$ and U$_{\Phi}$ images in Appendix~\ref{sect:AppA}.
\begin{figure*}[h]
\center
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=1.0\textwidth]{im_all_zoom_2}
\caption{SPHERE/IRDIS polarized light image in H-band of T~CrA.
{\textit{Left panel:}} H$_2$ image of the Coronet sub-region. The image is adapted from \citealt{Kumar2011}. The red line shows the line connecting the two MHOs associated to T~CrA. The orange box shows the IRDIS field of view. {\it Middle panel}: Field of view ($\sim$12.5$^{\prime\prime}$) of the SPHERE/IRDIS polarized light image in H-band of T~CrA. The extended emission features analyzed in the manuscript are labeled. The orange box shows the innermost region of the system. {\textit{Right panel:}} Zoom-in of the innermost 2$^{\prime\prime}$ around the central system. The disk and the shielded disk mid-plane seen as dark lane are labeled.
}
\label{fig:sphere_images}
\end{figure*}
Additional SPHERE observations of T~CrA were acquired in 2016 and 2018 with the ESO programs 097.C-0591(A) and 0101.C-0686(A) (P.I. Schmidt) in classical imaging mode, using a classical Lyot coronagraph and the broadband H filter (BB$\_$H). The data were reduced through the SPHERE Data Center \citep{Delorme2017}. The 2016 data have very low S/N ratio and they are not usable for this work. The 2018 IRDIS data are instead of good quality and are used to confirm the features detected in the 2021 images.
\subsection{NACO data}
To perform our analysis we also employed archival NACO data. Adaptive optics corrected near-infrared imaging of T~CrA was obtained with NAOS-CONICA (NACO; \citealt{Lenzen2003, Rousset2003}) at the VLT in July 12th 2007 (program ID 079.C-0103(A)), March 29th 2016 (program ID 097.C-0085(A)) and May 21st 2017 (program ID 099.C-0563(A)).
In all cases images were obtained in Ks band ($\lambda_c$=2.18~$\mu$m) using the S13 camera, with a 13.72 mas/pixel scale. In 2007, 3000 frames of 0.6 seconds were taken with an average seeing of 0.8. In 2016, 540 frames of 0.5 seconds each were taken with average seeing of 1.5. In 2017, 756 frames of 0.35 seconds each were taken with average seeing of 1.4. The final images are obtained as the median of all the exposures for each year, after re-centering and rotating the single-exposure images.
\subsection{Photometric data}
\label{sect:photom_data}
We collected long-term optical photometry of T~CrA from the AAVSO Database\footnote{\url{https://www.aavso.org/data-access}} (American Association of Variable Star Observers: \citealt{Kafka2020}) in order to investigate its secular evolution.
We also considered data acquired within the ASAS \citep{Pojmanski1997}\footnote{\url{http://www.astrouw.edu.pl/asas/?page=aasc&catsrc=asas3}} and ASAS-SN surveys \citep{Shappee2014}\footnote{\url{https://asas-sn.osu.edu/variables}}. While more accurate than the AAVSO data, they have a much more limited temporal coverage. Results are fully consistent with the long-term light curve obtained from the AAVSO data, but no further insight could be obtained. So we will not discuss the ASAS data further.
\subsection{ALMA data}
T CrA was observed by ALMA on 2016 August 1--2 (project 2015.1.01058.S). Details of the observations and calibration are described in \citet{Cazzoletti2019}. These authors also present an analysis of the continuum emission. For the current paper, the continuum emission was imaged using Hogb\"om CLEANing with Brigss weighting, a robust parameter of 0.5, and a manually drawn CLEAN mask. The resulting beam size is $0.36\times 0.27$ arcsec (PA +78$^\circ$). The noise level is 0.12 mJy, and a continuum flux of 3.1 mJy is detected. These values are not corrected for the primary beam response, which can be expected to affect the results since the observations was not centered on the target. A 2D Gaussian fit to the continuum emission shows that the continuum emission is slightly resolved, with a size of $0.54\times 0.37$ and a PA of +23$^\circ$.
The $^{12}$CO line emission was imaged using natural weighting and 0.5 km~s$^{-1}$ channels, from $V_{\rm LSR}=-5$ to +15 km~s$^{-1}$; no emission was detected outside this range. We used hand drawn masks for each individual channel and applied multi-scale CLEAN with scales of 0,5,15,25 pixels. A pixel scale of 12.251 mas was used, coincident with the SPHERE pixel scale. Because the CrA region contains extended CO emission around the systemic velocity of T CrA (e.g., \citealt{Cazzoletti2019}), we removed all baselines shorter than 55 k$\lambda$. This removed most, but not all, of the extended line flux but also limits the recovered spatial scales to $\sim 3.75$ arcsec.
\section{Data Analysis}
The new and archival data described in the previous section allow us to investigate the nature of T~CrA as young stellar object. In this section we will analyze the observational evidences we have for the stellar system, its environment, and the geometry of the extended structures visible in scattered light.
In Sect.~\ref{sect:binarity} we analyze the clues related to the binarity of the system. In Sect.~\ref{sect:sys_geom} we show the newly acquired polarized light image in H-band of T~CrA, describing all the features that we see in the image.
\subsection{T~CrA as binary system}
\label{sect:binarity}
\begin{figure}
\center
\includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.5\textwidth]{light_curve_TCrA.pdf}
\caption{Secular light curve of T~CrA with the photometry collected from the AAVSO archive. Each point is the mean value for each year; error bar is the standard deviation of the mean.The horizontal dashed lines show the $\Delta$V-mag variation. The period of the light curve, measured as the mean between the difference of the first and third maxima and minima, is labeled.
}
\label{fig:light_curve}
\end{figure}
The light curve (Fig.~\ref{fig:light_curve}) shows alternate and periodic maxima and minima.
The photometric time series analyzed in this study consists of more than 5100 V-band data points collected from the AAVSO Database and taken in a period of over 100 years, between 1910 and 2010. Each point in Figure~\ref{fig:light_curve} is the mean value over each year. The secular evolution of the light curve is well reproduced by a sinusoidal function with a period of 29.6 years.
Sinusoidal light curves, like the one observed in T~CrA, can be due to different reasons such as rotation, pulsation, the presence of eclipsing binaries, or occulting binaries.
In the case of occulting binaries, the period is generally longer than in the other cases, and the occultation is not only due to the stars, but also to the circumstellar disks surrounding one or both the stars.
The light curve of T~CrA is suggestive of the motion of an occulting binary star. The variation ($\Delta$V) in V-magnitude is of the order of $\sim$1.4$\pm$0.2 mag (see Fig.~\ref{fig:light_curve}).
Evidence of the presence of a binary star is also provided by the peculiar proper motion of T~CrA. Indeed T~CrA shows a relative average motion of $7.5\pm 3.8$~mas~yr$^{-1}$ with respect to the cluster in the direction (PA$_{PM}$)=156$\pm$30$^{\circ}$ over the period 1998 (mean epoch of UCAC4 and PPMXL observation) and 2016 (epoch of Gaia DR3). These values are given by the difference between the proper motion of T~CrA, $\mu_{\alpha}\cos{\delta}=4.2\pm 2.5$~mas~yr$^{-1}$ in RA and $\mu_{\delta}$=-6.2$\pm$2.9~mas~yr$^{-1}$ in DEC (see Appendix~\ref{sect:AppB}), and the average proper motion of the on-cloud Coronet cluster members ($\mu_{\alpha}\cos{\delta}=4.3$~mas~yr$^{-1}$ and $\mu_{\delta}$=-27.3~mas~yr$^{-1}$, \citealt{Galli20}).
This result might indicate a peculiar (large) motion of T~CrA with respect to the Coronet cluster. However the position of T~CrA is also constrained and defined by the position of the two associated MHOs \citep{Kumar2011}. We measured the position angle of the straight line connecting MHO~2013 and 2015, that are thought to be connected to the star \citep{Kumar2011}, and crossing T~CrA, finding the position angle of the bipolar outflow (PA$_{\rm MHO}$) to be PA$_{\rm MHO}\simeq$33$^{\circ}$. This represents the direction of the large scale bipolar outflows.
We notice that the minimum distance between T~CrA and the line connecting the two MHOs is only 0.44$^{\prime\prime}$. While this small offset is within the errors in the MHO positions, it can be used to set an upper limit to the relative proper motion of T~CrA with the Coronet cloud in the direction perpendicular to this straight line, that is roughly along the direction where we found an offset between the proper motion of T~CrA measured above and that of the Coronet cluster. The exact value depends on the time elapsed between the expulsion of the material responsible for the MHO and the observation by \citet{Kumar2011}. Given the projected distances from the star of the MHO's are 217$^{\prime\prime}$ (MHO 2013) and 64$^{\prime\prime}$ (MHO 2015), considering the distance of the Coronet cluster and assuming the collimated fast outflowing gas has a speed of approximately 200~km/s as typical for jets from young stars (e.g., \citealt{Frank2014}), we obtain that the material was expelled 765 year ago (for MHO2013) and 224 years ago (for MHO 2015). The upper limit on the proper motion of T~CrA with respect to the cloud is then obtained by dividing the measured offset between the barycenter of the system that includes T Cra and the line connecting the two MHOs: the result is about 1 mas/yr, an order of magnitude less than the offset in proper motions considered above and consistent with the typical scatter of stars in the Coronet cluster.
We conclude that this offset is not due to a real peculiar motion of T~CrA, that moves as the Coronet cluster, and should then be an apparent or transient effect, that might be due to the orbital motion of the central binary star.
Additional evidence of T~CrA as a binary system can also be found in the images acquired with IRDIS in 2018 and 2021 and NACO in 2007, 2016 and 2017.
We subtracted a median PSF, obtained by rotating and averaging the PSF image in steps of 1 degree, to the raw NACO images taken in 2007 and 2016, 2017. For IRDIS, we used the flux calibration images that are acquired before and after the science sequence. The technique, described by \citet{Bonavita2021}, allows to make a differential image that cancels static aberrations. The output of the procedure is a contrast map that allows to spot stellar companions.
Due to the contrast limit and to the limits imposed by the diffraction patterns, none of the images obtained allows us to clearly and uniquely detect the presence of a companion star. However, The PSF of the NACO 2016 and 2017 data set clearly show an extension in the same direction (see Fig.~\ref{fig:TCrA_binary}), namely NW--SE, but in the NACO 2007 data set we do not see this extension. A slight extension can be seen in the SPHERE 2018 data set, while no extension in the SPHERE 2021 data set. The observed extensions, all in the same direction, are very unlikely to be caused by adaptive optic effect, but might indicate a distortion of the PSF due to an unresolved companion.
\begin{figure*}[h]
\center
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=1.0\textwidth]{TCrA-binary_v2.pdf}
\caption{PSF for all the epochs T~CrA was observed. The size of the PSF for every single epochs is shown in the bottom-right corner. For NACO 2016, 2017 data sets we can notice an elongation of the PSF in the NW--SW direction.
}
\label{fig:TCrA_binary}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{The geometry of the system}
\label{sect:sys_geom}
Figure~\ref{fig:sphere_images} shows the polarized light image in H-band of T~CrA.
The image shows several structures, as annotated. In the right panel the brightly illuminated top-side of the outer disk is clearly visible, as well as the shielded disk mid-plane, seen as a stark dark lane in approximately the N-S direction.
On larger scale, in the middle panel, we can identify two different extended emissions. The extended emission labeled as "feature 1" is two-lobed and extends in the NE--SW direction, up to 2$^{\prime\prime}$ from the central source. The extended emission labeled as "feature 2" appears two lobed as well, it is approximately oriented along the N-S direction. The South lobe extends out to the edge of SPHERE/IRDIS field of view, while the North lobe extends up to $\sim$5$^{\prime\prime}$ from the central source.
In the following section we will analyze these different structures.
\subsubsection{Outer Disk}
\label{disk_material}
Figure~\ref{fig:sphere_images} in the right panel shows a very prominent morphological feature composed by a dark lane and a bright region that represents the disk surface. This outer disk appears highly inclined, and oriented almost edge-on with respect to the observer, and extends almost to the edge of the coronagraph.
The dark lane has a maximum width of $\sim$0.2$^{\prime\prime}$ along the E--W direction, corresponding to $\sim$30~au if it were seen exactly edge-on. Moreover, the disk seen as a dark lane shows an offset with respect to the center of the image that corresponds to $\sim$10 pixels in the West direction ($\sim$122~mas) that is about four times the FWHM of the point spread function.
The disk surface is instead shown by the bright regions that extend further out.
The PA of the disk measures PA$_{disk}$=7$\pm$2$^{\circ}$, shown as green line in Fig.~\ref{fig:sphere_images}.
The disk appears highly inclined and seen as a dark lane, as in the case for DoAr25 \citep{Garufi2020}, MY~Lup and IM~Lup \citep{Avenhaus2018}.
From the images we cannot provide a precise estimate of the disk inclination, but we can make a few considerations. The brightness asymmetry between the bright disk top-side, and the diffuse disk bottom-side, indicates that the disk is not exactly seen edge-on, indeed in that case we should expect top- and bottom-side of the disk to be equally bright. Moreover, the offset between the dark-lane and the center of the image provides another hint of a non-exactly edge-on disk. From simple trigonometric consideration, we can measure the inclination of the disk from the angle between the center of the image and the center of the dark lane and dividing for half the lengths of the dark lane, finding an inclination of $\sim$87$^{\circ}$. We can conservatively assume that the T~CrA disk, identified as a dark lane in the SPHERE image has an inclination between 85-90$^{\circ}$.
Another possible interpretation for the dark lane could be that it is due to a shadow cast by a highly inclined inner disk close to the center, as in the case of SU~Aur \citep{Ginski2021}. However, in this scenario, we can not reconcile the brightness asymmetry between the bright top-side and the diffuse bottom-side of the disk. Moreover, we should expect the shadow to cross the center of the image, while it appears shifted to the west by $\sim$10~pixels.
In order to investigate the innermost region of the outer disk, we have plotted the radial profile of the flux seen in Q$_{\Phi}$ scattered light along a slice oriented as the disk, seven pixels wide and 2.5$^{\prime\prime}$ long. The radial profile, normalized to the brightness peak of the disk, is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:combo_rad_prof_TCrA} as a black line. The grey area shows the coronagraph. The disk has a gap that extends up to $\sim$25~au and is quite symmetric in the innermost region. As far as 60~au the disk start to look asymmetric, and extends up to $\sim$100~au. The observed asymmetry might be due to the outflowing material that overlaps with the disk itself in the north side (as discussed in the next section). From this analysis we consider for the outer disk an inner rim with radius $r_{in}$=0.17$^{\prime\prime}$ ($\sim$25~au) and an outer rim $r_{\rm out}$=0.67$^{\prime\prime}$ ($\sim$100~au).
We performed the same analysis of the radial profile in the direction orthogonal to the disk, and shown as blue-dotted line in Fig.~\ref{fig:combo_rad_prof_TCrA}. In the East side there is emission from the scattered light down to the border of the coronagraph (r$_{\rm in-east}\lesssim$14~au), and inside the disk rim measured along the disk direction. As expected, in the West-side the emission starts further out, due to the presence of the disk's dark silhouette (r$_{\rm in-west}\sim$30~au). We notice that in the West direction at radial distances $>$50~au there is contamination with the outflowing material.
We will discuss the presence of scattered light emission inside the outer disk gap in the following section, showing that it may suggest the presence of an intermediate circumbinary disk surrounding the central binary system.
\begin{figure}
\center
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.5\textwidth]{rad_profile_from_ppt_new.png
\caption{Radial profile of the Q$_\phi$ image. The black profile shows the radial profile obtained along a 2.5$^{\prime\prime}$ long slice centered on the star in the N-S direction, with PA=7$^{\circ}$ and extending along the disk (black-dashed box in the insert). The blue-dotted profile shows the radial profile obtained in the orthogonal direction (E-W, blue-dashed box in the insert). All profiles are normalized to the brightness peak of the disk. The gray area shows the radius of the coronagraph. }
\label{fig:combo_rad_prof_TCrA}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Extended emission}
The structure seen in scattered light in the NE--SW direction, identified as feature 1, is consistent with an outflow in the direction of the line connecting the two MHOs (MHO2013 and MHO2015) that are unambiguously associated to T~CrA (show in the left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:sphere_images}), which are however at a projected separation of $\sim$35,000~au and $\sim$10,000~au, respectively. The presence of the MHOs is a clear sign that the source has in the past already experienced outflowing phenomena, hence it is consistent to consider the emission seen in scattered light in the same directions as associated to outflowing material close to the star.
From a geometrical point of view, the dust seen in scattered light in the direction of the outflow has a position angle PA$_{\rm outflow}\sim$35$^{\circ}$ with semi-aperture of $\sim$25$^{\circ}$, consistent with the PA$_{\rm MHO}$ previously discussed.
The extended emission that elongates approximately in the N-S direction, and identified as feature 2, is two lobed as well. In the North it extends up to 4.5$^{\prime\prime}$ from the center, and appears bent toward the West direction. The Southern feature 2 extends up to the edge of the field of view and appears brighter than the North feature.
We can also detect a faint dust tail extending from the main disk toward SE.
As it happens in the case of SU~Aur, where several tails are detected \citep{Ginski2021}, we can trace the tail structure until it merges with the disk. Feature 2 is most likely showing the presence of accretion streamers that bring material from the forming cloud filament to the outer disk.
From the polarized (Fig.~\ref{fig:sphere_images}) and total intensity images of T~CrA
we can see that in both cases the northern streamer is fainter than the southern streamer, indicating that we overall receive more photons from the South than from the North side of the extended structure. Moreover, the ratio between the polarized and total intensity image shows that the overall degree of polarization is similar on both sides. This indicates that light from the South streamer is scattered with angles smaller than 90$^{\circ}$, favoring the forward scattering. Because the Northern streamer shows a similar degree of polarization, but overall fainter signal, we conclude that the light is scattered with angles larger than 90$^{\circ}$. Hence, the South streamer is angled toward the observed and the North streamer is angled away from the observer.
\section{Discussion}
The environment around T~CrA is very complex and the analysis of new and archival data shows several features. In the following we will discuss each of the evidences presented in the previous sections, and we will provide a global picture of its circumstellar environment.
A cartoon of the proposed model, showing all the observational evidences analyzed in the previous section, is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cartoon}.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\center
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\textwidth]{cartoon_2}
\caption{Not-to-scale cartoon of the proposed model for the T~CrA system. All the features seen in the scattered light images are labeled. Moreover, the central binary system, and the size of the coronagraph is shown. }
\label{fig:cartoon}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Modeling of the light curve}
\label{sect:mod_lc}
Motivated by the light curve, the peculiar proper motion and the PSF distortion, we conducted a detailed analysis of the photometric and proper motion data, to be compared to the new information on the system's geometry gathered thanks to the SPHERE's images.
In the attempt to reproduce the observed light curve and the H-band magnitude collected from 2MASS, we develop a Monte Carlo (MC) model that accounts for the light emitted from a binary system and partially absorbed by a disk seen edge-on, modeled as a slab with an exponential profile, and inclined with respect to the binary's orbit by 35$^{\circ}$, corresponding to an orbit perpendicular to the outflow's direction. For this simplified model we assume for the binary system a circular orbit seen itself edge-on. While the circular orbit is an assumption made to reduce the number of free parameters, and hence avoid degeneracy in the models, the high-inclination of the binary orbit is supported by the observation. Indeed, as discussed in \citet{Pascucci2020}, evidence from the small blueshift of the [O{\sc{I}}] and [Ne{\sc II}] forbidden lines of T~CrA suggests that the inner disk is itself close to edge-on, with the microjets close to the plane of the sky.
We assume for the F0 star a mass of 1.7M$_{\odot}$ for the primary star, corresponding to 2~Myrs from the BHAC evolutionary tracks \citep{Baraffe2015}, circular orbit, and a period of 29.6 years as found from the light curve. The model provides the mass ratio ($q$) between the primary and secondary component of the binary system, the epoch of the minimum distance between the two components ($T_0$, in years), the offset of the center of mass with respect to the absorbing slab (disk offset, in mas), the disk thickness (in mas) and the maximum absorption at the disk center (AV$_0$, in mag). The proper motion between the 1998 and 2016 is also measured to be compared to the apparent proper motion of T~CrA
A corner plot of the derived quantities is shown in Appendix~\ref{sect:AppD}. The MC model computes one million random sampling of the priors, and provides solutions with reduced $\chi^2<$2.3. Figure~\ref{fig:light_curve_model} shows the comparison between the observed secular evolution of T~CrA and the light curve obtained from the model. There is a very good agreement between the observed and modeled light curve. The best fit parameters for each of the computed values, obtained as the median value of all the solutions with $\chi^2<$2.3, are reported in Table~\ref{tab:model_parameters}.
According to this model T~CrA is a binary system, whose primary star is a 1.7M$_{\odot}$ star, and the secondary is a $\sim$0.9M$_{\odot}$, and it is orbiting with a 29.6~years period. The corresponding semi-major axis of the orbit is $\sim$12~au, seen edge-on, and with the line of nodes of the orbit almost perpendicular to the position angle determined for the outflow.
Moreover, we check the consistency between the apparent motion as measured from Gaia and ground-based facilities, and the one measured by assuming the motion of the modeled binary system. We find that the offset between the two epochs (1998 and 2016) corresponds to 72$\pm$26~mas, which is consistent with the value of 130$\pm$66~mas measured via Gaia and UCAC4/PPMXL observations, hence justifying the large proper motion of T~CrA with respect to the Coronet motion as due to the motion of the binary system. We will further discuss the results from the model in the next Section.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\center
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\textwidth]{light_curve_fit.png}
\caption{Light curve of T~CrA (red points) compared to the light curves computed with the MC model (black lines) assuming a period of 29.6~years. }
\label{fig:light_curve_model}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\small
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|c}
\hline
Parameters & Value \\
\hline
log(q) & -0.27$\pm$0.17~M$_{\odot}$ \\
T0 & 2006.06$\pm$0.4~years \\
AV$_0$ & 6.7$\pm$1.1~mag \\
Disk Thickness & 54.7$\pm$20.2~mas \\
Disk Offset & 90.7$\pm$19.2~mas \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab:model_parameters} Stellar parameters obtained from the modeling of T~CrA as a binary star. The primary mass star is assumed to be 1.7M$_{\odot}$, the orbit to be circular, and period 29.6 years.}
\end{table}
\subsection{Disk and extended emission}
\label{sect:disk_structure}
Thanks to the new images acquired with SPHERE/IRDIS, and to the wealth of literature data on this target, we have now a better knowledge of the disk and extended structure around T~CrA, and it appears very composite.
The disk itself is composed by inner (circumstellar) disk(s) surrounding the primary (secondary) star of the binary system, an intermediate (circumbinary) disk, slightly visible in scattered light, and an outer (circumbinary) disk that is the most prominent in scattered light.
Together with the extended emission features, we will discuss all these features in the following subsections.
{\bf Disks.}
The {\it outer} disk around T~CrA is not continuous. The scattered light images and the radial profile analysis of the Q$_{\Phi}$ image show that the bright top-side of the outer disk extends up to $\sim$100~au in the N-S direction, and show a gap in the same direction that extends down to $\sim$25~au.
Evidence of an inner (circumstellar) disk(s) surrounding the primary (secondary) star of the binary system comes from the several tracers of gas and dust well beyond the dust gap. \citet{Pascucci2020} analyze the [O{\sc{I}}] $\lambda$6300 and [Ne{\sc II}] 12.81~$\mu$m emission lines observed in high-resolution optical and infrared spectra, and conclude that they are associated to fast and collimated microjets. In addition, the presence of gas can also be inferred from the non-negligible level of mass accretion rate ($\dot{M}_{acc}\sim$8.1$\times$10$^{-9}$~M$_{\odot}$/yr, \citealt{Dong2018, Takami2003}). This gas is most likely distributed into an {\it inner} circumstellar disk, that allows accretion onto the system.
The presence of the inner disk is also highlighted by mid-infrared interferometric data of the thermal emission of disk \citep{Varga2018}, and by the SED \citep{Sicilia-Aguilar2013,Sandell2021}.
The images acquired with SPHERE show the presence of scattered light down to the edge of the coronagraph in the E-W direction. The origin of such emission, highly inclined with respect to the outer disk, is not clear. However, as we will see in section~\ref{sect:SPM_model}, it might be due to an {\it intermediate} circumbinary disk, that is a natural transient consequence of the breaking of the innermost circumstellar disks due to the different inclination of inner and outer disks. Evidence of emission very close to the coronagraph edges are also found by \citealt{Cugno2022} using the NaCo imager with the L$^{\prime}$ filter ($\lambda$=3.6~$\mu$m) within the NaCo-ISPY large program.
{\bf Feature 1.}
The PA of the extended emission identified as feature 1 is consistent with the large scale MHOs and coincident with the small scale microjets detected through forbidden lines \citep{Pascucci2020}. Hence, we reasonably assume that it is representing outflows detected in scattered light, and that this feature is orthogonal to the inner and intermediate disk.
The innermost disks (inner and intermediate) are misaligned with respect to the outer disk, with a PA for the inner disk of $\sim$125$^{\circ}$, measured as PA$_{\rm {outflow}}$+90$^{\circ}$. Considering the outer disk is seen with PA$_{\rm {disk}}$=7$^{\circ}$, the resulting misalignment between innermost and outer disk is of the order of 62$^{\circ}$ with an uncertainty of $\pm$10$^{\circ}$.
This feature is illuminated by the central system. The shape of the outflow is due to higher density regions of dust, generated by instabilities created by two or more layers of material with different densities and velocities resulting in a wind-blown cavity \citep{Liang2020}. The regions with different physical properties are the highly collimated microjet (as seen from the detection of forbidden lines, e.g., \citealt{Pascucci2020}), and the surrounding wider-angle disk wind, or parent cloud. The impact between these two regions, besides carving out a large and slow massive outflow cavity into the parent cloud \citep{Frank2014}, creates regions of high density where dust grains accumulate, becoming brighter in scattered light.
We also notice that there is a good agreement between the small scale outflow seen in the polarimetric images, and the large scale outflows determined by the MHOs, supporting the scenario of highly collimated jets carving a cavity and creating high density regions.
We have also tested the emission seen in scattered light versus the continuum thermal emission at 1.3~mm, and the $^{12}$CO emission seen with ALMA.
In Figure~\ref{fig:ALMA_SPHERE_comparison}, we show the continuum emission and the red- and blue-shifted line emission overlayed on the SPHERE scattered light image.
The continuum emission, shown as white contours, is slightly resolved, compact, and it is distinctly different from the orientation of the beam.
The comparison with the SPHERE image is not quite conclusive in the direction of the emission, if along the disk or the extended emission identified as feature 1.
$^{12}$CO line emission was clearly detected in the channels, consistent with a structure of $\sim 2.5$ arcsec in diameter.
The emission is most likely due to the combination from emission aligned with the disk orientation inferred from SPHERE, and emission from the outflowing material in the same direction as the MHOs.
The gas emission close to the N-S direction might trace the gas in the outer disk, and the velocity structure of the line emission is consistent with Keplerian rotation.
The emission from the outflowing material is in the same direction as the MHOs. The velocities of the extended emission span from -3~km~s$^{-1}$ to 11~km~s$^{-1}$. The low velocities for the outflowing material confirm that the emission must happen close to the plane of the sky, as also found by \citet{Pascucci2020}.
In both cases, either when tracing the outer disk or the outflowing material, the N-E side is receding and the S-W side is approaching the observer.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.5\textwidth]{ALMA_pic_2}
\caption{Overlay of SPHERE (color scale) and ALMA (contours) data. On the left all the extended structure as seen with SPHERE, on the right a zoom-in of the innermost 2$^{\prime\prime}$. White contours are ALMA 1.3 mm continuum, plotted at contours starting at, and increasing with, 3$\sigma$=0.37 mJy~beam$^{-1}$. Red and blue contours are integrated $^{12}$CO 2--1 emission over 10 km~s$^{-1}$ blue- and red-shifted relative to the source velocity, taken as V$_{\rm LSR}$=4.5 km~s$^{-1}$. Red and blue contours are also drawn starting at, and increasing with, 3$\sigma=0.12$ Jy~beam$^{-1}$~km~s$^{-1}$. The ALMA data are aligned with the SPHERE data to have the stellar position at the center of the image; the continuum emission peaks $\sim$ 0.06$^{\prime\prime}$ North of that position.}
\label{fig:ALMA_SPHERE_comparison}
\end{figure}
Misalignment between the inner and the outer disks are not rare. As an example, \citet{Bohn2021} have recently investigated misalignment between inner and outer disks in transitional disks, finding that out of a sample of 20 objects analyzed, six clearly show evidence of misalignment, five do not show evidence of misalignment and the others can not be evaluated with the current data.
Misaligned disks, and disks whose orientations vary with time can be due to their formation in a turbulent, chaotic environment \citep{Bate2018}. Moreover, the evolution of the stellar and disk spin axes during the formation of a star which is accreting in a variable fashion from an inherently chaotic environment might affect the disk orientation as well \citep{Bate2010}. Also late infalling events, which carry along a specific angular momentum with respect to the star, may tilt the pre-existing disk to another rotation axis depending on the mass ratio of the mass accreted and the disk \citep{Dullemond2019, Kuffmeier2021}. This was indeed recently observed within the DESTINYS program for the SU Aur system \citep{Ginski2021}, which shows large scale streamers in scattered light, similar to those observed in our new observations of T~CrA and which were shown to trace infalling material. Stellar properties, such as strong stellar magnetic dipole, can cause a warp or misalignment in the innermost region of the disk (e.g., \citealt{Matsumoto2004, Machida2006, Matsumoto2006, Hennebelle2009, Joos2012, Krumholz2013, Li2013, Lewis2015, Lewis2017, Wurster2018}). Additionally, the presence of a companion, either stellar or substellar, can also cause inner and outer disks misalignment (e.g., \citealt{Facchini2013, Facchini2018, Zhu2019, Nealon2020}), as in the case of HD142527 \citep{Owen2017, Price2018}.
Indeed, T~CrA and HD142527 show several similarities even if the inclinations at which the outer disks are seen are very different (almost edge-on in the case of T~CrA and almost face-on for HD142527). HD142527 is a binary system characterized by a primary 2.0~M$_{\odot}$ star surrounded by an inner disk significantly misaligned (59$^{\circ}$) with respect to the outer disk \citep{Balmer2022}. For T~CrA the outer disk is seen almost edge-on and the misalignment between outer and inner disk is coincident with the inclination of the inner disk orbit, namely $\sim$55$^{\circ}$.
The primary star in both cases is an F-type Herbig.
In the case of HD142527 all the main observational features (spirals, shadows seen in scattered light, horseshoe dust structure, radial flows and streamers) can be explained by the interaction between the disk and the observed binary companion \citep{Price2018}. The analysis done on HD142527 led the authors \citep{Price2018} to conclude that the disk around this Herbig star is a circumbinary rather than transitional disk, with an inclined inner disk, and with streamers of material connecting the inner and outer disk.
In the case of T~CrA, if we assume that the inner disk is aligned perpendicular to the outflowing material, and hence misaligned with respect to the outer disk, the configuration is similar.
Hints of dusty material inside and misaligned with respect to the outer disk come from the radial profile of the scattered light signal seen from SPHERE/IRDIS and shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:combo_rad_prof_TCrA}, where in the East-side of the disk in the direction orthogonal to the disk there is material down to the coronagraph edge. However, we cannot say from these images if this material is organized into a disk-structure itself, or if it represents a streamer of material accreting from the outer disk onto the inner regions of the system. However, as opposite to HD142527, we must mention the absence of obvious shadowing features in scattered light in T~CrA, that can nevertheless be due to the different viewing geometry.
In the following section we will present a 3D hydrodynamical model as the one developed for HD142527 to explain the observed features as disk--binary interaction.
{\bf Feature 2.}
The extended emission identified as feature 2 appears very extended and resemble material falling onto the disk as in the case of SU~Aur \citep{Ginski2021}.
Unfortunately, the strong foreground contamination due to the overall cloud does not allow to clearly detect the $^{12}$CO~(2–1), $^{13}$CO~(2–1), and C$^{18}$O~(2–1) transitions at distances larger than $\sim$2.5$^{\prime\prime}$, thus we cannot perform a detailed analysis of the kinematics of the material, as it was done, for example, in the case of SU~Aur \citep{Ginski2021}. Indeed, some parts of the CO disk may be missing from from Fig.~\ref{fig:ALMA_SPHERE_comparison} because the cloud contaminates the signal. Moreover, the large scale streamers do not show any emission due to the removing of any sensitivity to large scale emission in the data reduction process. They may exist, but they are very hard to image. The disk may also be more extended than seen here. Hence we cannot be conclusive on the nature of the extended emission in feature 2. It is highly unlikely that this emission is itself indicating outflowing material, as feature 1, but it can be most likely due to streamers of material that is falling onto the disk connecting the disk itself to the surrounding cloud material, as for SU~Aur. To some extent we might consider the scattered light morphology of T~CrA as an edge-on view of SU~Aur, where we can see the streamers of infalling material and at least one tail of accretion.
The same streamers of accretion were already seen, but not interpreted as such, by \citet{Ward-Thompson1985, Clark2000}. \citet{Ward-Thompson1985} used linear polarization mapping of the region in R-band and identified a jet-like structure with a projected lengths of 20$^{\prime\prime}$ emerging from T~CrA, in the direction of, but pointing away from R~CrA. \citet{Clark2000} performed near-infrared linear imaging polarimetry in J, H and Kn bands, and circular imaging polarimetry in the H band and interpreted the images as bipolar cavities, where the SE emission is visible as far as $\sim$15$^{\prime\prime}$ from T~CrA. They stress the presence of a pronounced asymmetry in the polarized intensity images, suggestive of fairly sudden depolarization of the dust grains caused by foreground material in the reflection nebula. The identification of the MHOs, and the analysis of the images acquired with NACO and SPHERE is now showing that the features observed in the past were not associated with jets but more likely the same streamer of accretion seen in scattered light.
A possible test to ascertain the origin of feature 2 can be done using the SO$_2$ transition from ALMA. \citet{Garufi2022} have indeed shown that for the source IRAS~04302+2247, the SO$_2$ emission does not probe the disk region, but rather originates at the intersection between extended streamers and disks.
We notice that the presence of streamers of material feeding the disk of T~CrA would also go in the direction of mitigating the issue of the low disk masses found in CrA. Indeed, it was found that the average disk mass in CrA is significantly lower than that of disks in other young (1-3 Myr) star forming regions (Lupus, Taurus, Chamaeleon I, and Ophiuchus, \citealt{Cazzoletti2019}). If there is accretion of fresh material onto the disk, one could have lower measured disk masses at the beginning, and mitigate the issue \citep{Manara2018}. The observed increase in disk masses with time (e.g., \citealt{Testi2022, Cazzoletti2019}) should otherwise be explained with other mechanisms such as planetesimal collisions \citep{Bernabo2022}.
Moreover, the presence of streamers of accretion is also in agreement with the orientation of T~CrA with respect to R~CrA, both belonging to the Coronet Cluster. These two stars formed within the same filament, which is oriented at PA=124$^{\circ}$ projected on sky (this is also the PA of T~CrA relative to R~CrA). This orientation is indeed similar to that of the orbit proposed for the central binary of T~CrA and very close to perpendicular to the PA of the MHO objects (PA=33$^{\circ}$); these values are well consistent with the direction of the same structures seen in the neighbor star R~CrA \citep{Rigliaco2019, Mesa2019}). This suggests that the bulk of the inflow of material that formed the T~CrA system was coplanar with this filament and that the original disk of T~CrA was likely oriented at the PA of the filament; this is actually the case also for the disk around R~CrA. However, the current outer disk of T~CrA has a very different orientation (PA=7 degree), though it seems to be still fed by the same filament. This is because T~CrA appears to be presently offset by a few hundreds au (a few arcsec on sky) with respect to the filament. Considering the age of T~CrA (likely 1-3 Myr), this offset is indeed very small, corresponding to a minuscule velocity of only $\sim 1$m/s. This suggests that the generation of misaligned structure is very likely whenever accretion on the disk is prolonged over such long intervals of time.
\subsection{Spectral Energy Distribution}
\begin{table}
\small
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c}
\hline
$\lambda_c$ & Flux & Facility & Reference \\
($\mu$m) & (Jy) & & \\\hline
0.349 & 0.00531 & SkyMapper & \citet{Wolf2018} \\
0.444 & 0.00792 & CTIO & \citet{Henden2016} \\
0.444 & 0.00988 & UCAC4-RPM & \citet{Nascimbeni2016} \\
0.482 & 0.0138 & CTIO & \citet{Henden2016} \\
0.497 & 0.0126 & SkyMapper & \citet{Wolf2018} \\
0.504 & 0.0142 & GAIA & \citet{GaiaEDR3} \\
0.554 & 0.0163 & Hamilton & \citet{Herbig1988} \\
0.554 & 0.0171 & CTIO & \citet{Henden2016} \\
0.554 & 0.0204 & UCAC4-RPM & \citet{Nascimbeni2016} \\
0.604 & 0.0181 & SkyMapper & \citet{Wolf2018} \\
0.762 & 0.045 & GAIA & \citet{GaiaEDR3} \\
0.763 & 0.0539 & CTIO & \citet{Henden2016} \\
1.24 & 0.425 & 2MASS-J & \citet{Cutri2003} \\
1.65 & 0.871 & 2MASS-H & \citet{Cutri2003} \\
2.16 & 1.55 & 2MASS-K & \citet{Cutri2003} \\
3.55 & 1.93 & Spitzer/IRAC & \citet{Gutermuth2009} \\
4.49 & 2.07 & Spitzer/IRAC & \citet{Gutermuth2009} \\
5.73 & 2.38 & Spitzer/IRAC & \citet{Gutermuth2009} \\
11.6 & 3.48 & WISE/W3 & \citet{Cutri2012} \\
19.7 & 23.4 & SOFIA & \citet{Sandell2021} \\
22.1 & 23.8 & WISE/W4 & \citet{Cutri2012} \\
25.3 & 30.7 & SOFIA & \citet{Sandell2021} \\
31.5 & 29.0 & SOFIA & \citet{Sandell2021} \\
37.1 & 29.3 & SOFIA & \citet{Sandell2021} \\
70.0 & 19.3 & Herschel & \citet{HerschelCatalogue} \\
100.0 & 14.2 & Herschel & \citet{HerschelCatalogue} \\
160.0 & 5.0 & Herschel & \citet{HerschelCatalogue} \\
1300 & 0.00499 & ALMA & \citet{Cazzoletti2019} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab:table_sed_tcra} List of the fluxes at different wavelengths collected from the literature used for the SED. }
\end{table}
We model the SED of T~CrA using the dust radiative transfer model developed by \citet{Whitney2003a, Whitney2003b}. The code uses a Monte Carlo radiative transfer scheme that follows photon packets emitted by the central star as they are scattered, absorbed, and re-emitted throughout the disk.
For the modeling we have assumed that the geometry of the star+disk system is comprised by a central 2.0~M$_{\odot}$ source emitting photons and a gapped and misaligned circumstellar disk as described above.
The total mass of the disk M$_{disk}$=10$^{-3}$M$_{\odot}$, which is in agreement with M$_{dust}$ retrieved by \cite{Cazzoletti2019} using the 1.3~mm continuum flux, assuming an ISM gas-to-dust ratio of 100.
The outcome of the model, shown in orange in Fig.~\ref{fig:sed_TCrA}, well reproduces the observed photometric points collected in Table~\ref{tab:table_sed_tcra}, suggesting that the interpretation of inner and outer disks misaligned with respect to each other is in very good agreement with the collected photometry \footnote{The apparent oscillations of the model at wavelengths longer than 300~$\mu$m is due to low number statistics and has no physical meaning.}.
For comparison, we also show the SED obtained with the same parameters, in the case where no misalignment between inner and outer disk is assumed (red profile). In this case the curve does not well reproduce the observed photometry at wavelengths longer than $\sim$10--15~$\mu$m.
We must notice that the radiative transfer model does not account for the binary star, hence it may cause deviation in the illumination of the disk. In particular, in their orbit the two stars spend time above the disk midplane, hence illuminating the circumbinary disk from above. In the two SEDs shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:sed_TCrA} we do not account for this effect.
\begin{figure}
\center
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.5\textwidth]{SED_TCrA_3d.png}
\caption{SED of TCrA. The black asterisks show the published photometry as reported in Table~\ref{tab:table_sed_tcra}. The orange curve shows the total emission. The magenta line shows the SED component due to stellar origin, in blue the component due to the disk, and in green the component due to the envelope. The red curve shows the emission if no misalignment between the intermediate and outer disk is assumed. The oscillations in the model curves at the longest wavelengths are artifacts related to the finite number of photon packets considered in the Monte Carlo scheme. }
\label{fig:sed_TCrA}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Hydrodynamical Simulation}
\label{sect:SPM_model}
We perform a 3D hydrodynamical simulation of the T~CrA configuration considered in this work using the Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) code {\sc Phantom} \citep{price+18, Monaghan2005, Price2012}.
The initial conditions of the system are set following the observational constraints acquired so far. T~CrA is modeled as a binary system with masses 1.7~M$_{\odot}$, and 1.0~M$_{\odot}$ for the primary and secondary component, respectively. Each star is simulated as a sink particle \citep{price+18, bate+95} with an accretion radius of $0.5$ au. The orbit is eccentric, and the period of the binary star is 29.6~years, corresponding to a semi-major axis of 13.3~au. The orbit is seen edge-on with an inclination of 90$^{\circ}$, and PA$_{orbit}$ is perpendicular to the outflowing material (PA$_{orbit}$=145$^{\circ}$).
The outer disk, extending from $R_{\rm in}=25$ au to $R_{\rm out}=100$ au is simulated with $8\times10^5$ SPH particles, resulting in a smoothing length $\approx0.2$ times the disk scale height.
The inner disk, extending from $r_{\rm in}=1$~au to $r_{\rm out}=5$~au, and co-planar to the orbit of the binary star, is simulated with $2\times10^5$ SPH particles, resulting in a smoothing length of about the disk scale height. Outflows and inflows are not considered in this model.
Viscosity is implemented with the artificial viscosity method \citep{Lucy77, Gingold&Monaghan77} that results in an \citet{Shakura&Sunyaev73} $\alpha$-viscosity as shown by \citet{Lodato&Price10}. We use $\alpha\approx5\times10^{-3}$.
We run the full hydrodynamical model (with both the outer and the inner disk) for 100 binary orbits in order to relax the initial condition and to produce a synthetic image of the system to compare with the observation.
To perform a direct comparison with observations of T~CrA we post-processed our simulation using the Monte Carlo radiative transfer code MCFOST \citep{Pinte2016} in order to produce synthetic images of the hydrodynamical model. MCFOST maps the physical quantities in the SPH simulation (e.g. dust and gas density, temperature) onto a Voronoi mesh directly built around the SPH particles, without interpolation.
We adopt a gas-to-dust mass ratio equals to 100 and we assume micrometer grains to be well coupled with the gas. These grains scatter the stellar light collected by SPHERE and are assumed to be spherical and homogeneous (as in the Mie theory). Their chemical composition is 60\% astronomical silicates and 15\% amorphous carbons (as DIANA standard dust composition, \citealt{Woitke2016}) and they have a porosity of 10\%. The gas mass is directly taken from the SPH simulation. We use the same distance from the source used in this paper (149.4 pc) and $\approx 10^6$ photon packets to compute the temperature profile of the model and $\approx 10^{10}$ photon packets to compute the source function of the model in order to produce the scattered light image at 2 $\mu$m wavelength.
The total intensity polarized light image obtained with the hydrodynamical simulation is show in the left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:SPH_model}. The middle panel is the synthetic image convolved to the SPHERE/IRDIS resolution and in the right panel we show the observed image.
There are a few features that are clearly reproduced in the simulation: the dark lane, the offset of the dark lane with respect to the center of the image, the top-surface of the disk brighter than the bottom-side of the disk.
There are two bright spots in the East-West direction on the convolved synthetic image, that are also observed in the real image. These points are due to the intermediate circumbinary disk that breaks from the outer regions, precessing as a rigid body, and leading to its evolution.
The breaking of the inner disk generates an intermediate disk, that is visible as bright spots at the East and West side of the coronagraph.
We must notice that the simulation does not take into consideration the outflowing material, and does not account for the replenishment of the outer disk due to the accretion streamers (hence slowing down its expansion). A more detailed simulation is needed for T~CrA, but it is beyond the scope of this observational paper and will be discussed in a separate publication.
\begin{figure*}[h]
\center
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=1.0\textwidth]{SPH_output_2}
\caption{Snapshot of the SPH simulation compared to the observed image. The left panel shows the result in total intensity of the SPH simulation, with a resolution of 4.0 mas/pixel. In the middle panel the same image convolved to the SPHERE/IRDIS resolution (12.25 mas/pixel). On the right the observed total intensity image. All images have a 2$^{\prime\prime}$ field of view. }
\label{fig:SPH_model}
\end{figure*}
In order to measure how the circumbinary disk mass distributes among the binary stars, we run a second hydrodynamical model as the one described above but without the circumprimary disk. Indeed, accretion into a binary system happens via the formation of up to three disks (two circumstellar disks, one around each component, and a circumbinary disk, \citet{Monin2007}). The two circumstellar disks are periodically replenished by accretion streamers pulled from the inner edge of the circumbinary disks by the stars \citep{Artymowicz1994, Tofflemire2017}. In a quasi-steady state regime, the mass flux entering the Roche lobe of a star via the gas streamers equals the star accretion rate. Thus, we can reliably measure the fraction of mass accreted onto a star by simulating only the circumbinary disk, provided that the stellar Roche lobes are resolved by the simulation and the central part of the disk has relaxed (as done with SPH simulations e.g. in \citealt{Young&Clarke15} and recently tested in \citealt{Ceppi+22}).
In general, simulations of accretion into binary systems find that the primordial mass ratio is pushed towards unity (that is, closer to equal masses in the binary components) by accretion from a circumbinary disk \citep{Clarke2012}. This is due to the ease with which the secondary component accretes the infalling gas, as it lies farther from the binary barycenter and closer to the disk edge. Its differential velocity with respect to the gas is also low, allowing it to accrete efficiently.
In the case of T~CrA the primary star is still accreting more than the secondary (see Fig.~\ref{fig:mass_ratio_SPH_model}). This is due to the misalignment between inner and outer disk that makes the secondary to be at considerable height over/below the disk for a large fraction of its orbit.
\begin{figure}
\center
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\textwidth]{mdots_new.png}
\caption{Mass accretion rate ratio of secondary and primary star as a function of the number of orbits. }
\label{fig:mass_ratio_SPH_model}
\end{figure}
\section{Summary and Conclusions}
We investigate new and archival data of the Herbig Ae/Be star T~CrA collected with different instruments. The analysis of the data shows that T~CrA is a very interesting and complex system, belonging to one of the nearest and most active region of star formation.
Combining archival NACO imaging data with photometric data, and new and archival SPHERE adaptive optics images we study the complex stellar environment around T~CrA and the stellar properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item{} the outer disk is seen edge-on as a dark lane elongated approximately in the N-S. The dark lane is shifted by 122~mas with respect to the center of the image, and it is seen with a PA of 7$^{\circ}$. This value is in very good agreement with the value recently found by \citealt{Cugno2022} using a different instrument and set of data;
\item{} the bright illuminated top-side of the disk surface is clearly visible in scattered light;
\item{} extended emission in the NE--SW direction, identified as feature 1, is consistent in direction with the line connecting the two-lobed MHOs seen on larger scale. It is most likely outflowing material, with PA=33$^\circ$, consistent with the PA of the two MHOs.
\item{} extended emission in the N-S direction, identified as feature 2, is interpreted as large scale streamers of material likely infalling onto the disk. In the North the streamer extends up to $\sim$4.5$^{\prime\prime}$ from the central system, while in the South it extends up to the edge of the field of view, and probably beyond, as suggested by previous stellar polarization images in the optical and near-IR;
\item{} the periodic behavior of the light curve suggests a central binary with a period of 29.6~years. Even if the non-coronagraphic images acquired with NACO and SPHERE do not show direct evidence of the presence of a stellar companion, a detailed comparison of the position of the secondary along the proposed orbit at the epochs of the observations acquired so far with NACO and SPHERE shows that in all of them it was too close to the primary star for detection as a separate object. According to our modeling results the two components will be at their maximum separation in 2027: appropriate high-contrast images at that epoch should provide direct evidence of the binary system.
\end{itemize}
Overall, we find that the binary system and intermediate circumbinary disk lay on different geometrical planes, placing T~CrA among the objects with a misaligned inner disk.
Inner and outer disk misalignment is not rare, and in very recent years, thanks to high-contrast imaging, it is becoming clear that the misalignment can also be due to the accretion history of the star-forming cloud onto the disk. Indeed in the case of T~CrA (as well as SU~Aur) we found evidences of the presence of streamers of accreting material that connect the filament along which the star has formed with the outer part of the disk. These streamers have an angular momentum with respect to the star whose direction is very different from that of the system (in the case of T CrA, this is dominated by the binary) causing a misalignment between an inner and outer disk.
Besides characterizing the disk/outflow structures around T~CrA, we have also modeled its spectral energy distribution, showing that the disk geometry obtained is well consistent with the observed SED, and such consistency is not reached if we do not consider the misalignment between inner and outer disk. Moreover, we have performed hydrodynamical simulation of the configuration for 100 orbits of the binary star. The model is consistent with the observations and the analysis of the accretion rates of the individual stars shows that the accretion happens mainly onto the primary star, rather than on the secondary, as a consequence of the inclination between inner/intermediate and outer disk. Also the light curve is easily explained assuming the configuration of two misaligned disks.
Comparison of the ALMA continuum and $^{12}$CO emission have also been performed. While for the continuum emission we cannot clearly point out the region where the dust is located, if along the disk or the outflowing material, the gas emission is most likely due to the combination from emission aligned with the disk orientation inferred from SPHERE, and emission from the outflowing material in the same direction as the MHOs.
The analysis conducted on T~CrA has confirmed its extremely interesting and complex nature. As in the case of HD142527, the misalignment between inner and outer disk can be due to the interaction between the disk and the central binary system. On the other hand, the large scale streamers observed in the N--S direction are very similar to the disk-cloud interaction observed for SU~Aur, that represents material infalling onto the disk, and inner and outer disk misalignment might be caused by this interaction. It comes clear the need for high resolution observations to disentangle the different effects that shape early planetary system formation. T CrA is an excellent target/laboratory to better understand the impact of binarity and the environment in the evolution of protoplanetary disks.
\begin{acknowledgements}
We would like to thank the referee Roubing Dong, whose careful and constructive comments improved the quality of this manuscript.
E.R. was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 664931. This work has been supported by the project PRIN INAF 2016 The Cradle of Life - GENESIS-SKA (General Conditions in Early Planetary Systems for the rise of life with SKA) and by the "Progetti Premiali" funding scheme of the Italian Ministry of Education, University, and Research.
C.F.M acknowledges funding from the European Union under the European Union’s Horizon Europe Research \& Innovation Programme 101039452 (WANDA). Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Council. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.
T.B. acknowledges funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 714769 and funding by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under grants 361140270, 325594231, and Germany's Excellence Strategy - EXC-2094 - 390783311.
A.R. has been supported by the UK Science and Technology research Council (STFC) via the consolidated grant ST/S000623/1 and by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 823823 (RISE DUSTBUSTERS project).
This paper makes use of the following ALMA data: ADS/JAO.ALMA\#2016.0.01058.S. ALMA is a partnership of ESO (representing its member states), NSF (USA) and NINS (Japan), together with NRC (Canada), MOST and ASIAA (Taiwan), and KASI (Republic of Korea), in cooperation with the Republic of Chile. The Joint ALMA Observatory is operated by ESO, AUI/NRAO and NAOJ. MRH acknowledges the assistance of Allegro, the ARC node in the Netherlands, who assisted with the calibration of this data set.
This work is partly based on data products produced at the SPHERE Data Centre hosted at OSUG/IPAG, Grenoble. We thank P. Delorme and E. Lagadec (SPHERE Data Centre) for their efficient help during the data reduction process. SPHERE is an instrument designed and built by a consortium consisting of IPAG (Grenoble, France), MPIA (Heidelberg, Germany), LAM (Marseille, France), LESIA (Paris, France), Laboratoire Lagrange (Nice, France), INAF Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova (Italy), Observatoire de Genève (Switzerland), ETH Zurich (Switzerland), NOVA (Netherlands), ONERA (France) and ASTRON (Netherlands) in collaboration with ESO. SPHERE was funded by ESO, with additional contributions from CNRS (France), MPIA (Germany), INAF (Italy), FINES (Switzerland) and NOVA (Netherlands). SPHERE also received funding from the European Commission Sixth and Seventh Framework Programmes as part of the Optical Infrared Coordination Network for Astronomy (OPTICON) under grant number RII3-Ct-2004-001566 for FP6 (2004-2008), grant number 226604 for FP7 (2009-2012), and grant number 312430 for FP7 (2013-2016).
This work has made use of data from the European Space Agency (ESA) mission
{\it Gaia} (\url{https://www.cosmos.esa.int/gaia}), processed by the {\it Gaia}
Data Processing and Analysis Consortium (DPAC,
\url{https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/gaia/dpac/consortium}).
Funding for the DPAC has been provided by national institutions, in particular the institutions participating in the {\it Gaia} Multilateral Agreement.
We acknowledge with thanks the variable star observations from the AAVSO International Database contributed by observers worldwide and used in this research.
\end{acknowledgements}
\bibliographystyle{aa}
|
\section{Introduction}
\input{introduction}
\section{Related Work}\label{sec:related_work}
\input{related_work}
\section{The Capsule Neural Network}
\label{sec:capsule_neural_network}
\input{capsnet_section_notation.tex}
\section{Challenging the Parse-Tree Assumption}
\input{investigations.tex}
\section{Comparing RBA with Self-Attention}
\input{conceptual_investigations.tex}
\section{Broader Impact and Limitations}
\input{discussion}
\section{Conclusion}
\input{conclusion}
\section{Acknowledgments}
\input{acknowledgments}
\section{Model Architectures and Training Procedures}\label{app:model_architectures}
\input{architectures.tex}
\clearpage
\section{Viewpoint Invariance: Additional Results}\label{app:viewpoint_invariance}
\input{crosscorrelation.tex}
\clearpage
\section{AffNIST: Additional Results for the Model from the Main Paper}\label{app:affnist_single}
\input{affnist_single_run}
\clearpage
\section{AffNIST: Exhaustive Experiments on Model Architectures}\label{app:affnist_grid}
\input{affnist_grid_runs}
\clearpage
\section{CIFAR10: Complete Results for a Single Model}\label{app:cifar10_single}
\input{cifar10_single_run}
\clearpage
\section{CIFAR10: Exhaustive Experiments on Model Architectures}\label{app:cifar10_grid}
\input{cifar10_grid_runs}
\subsection{CapsNets for AffNIST}
\label{app:capsnet_for_affnist}
The AffNIST dataset~\citep{nips/SabourFH17} is derived from the classic MNIST data set~\cite{dataset/lecun10} as follows:
First, all MNIST images are zero-padded to dimensions 40$\times$40 and affinely transformed by random rotations up to $20$ degrees, random shearings up to $40$ degrees, random scaling from $0.8$ to $1.2$, and random translations up to eight pixels in each direction.
We use this dataset to assess a model's robustness to affine transformations of the input data.
For this, we train the model on the original MNIST train set, where the images are randomly placed on a 40$\times$40 empty background.
For a fair comparison of different models, training is stopped once a model reaches a target accuracy of $99.20\%$ on the original MNIST validation set.
The trained models are then evaluated on the AffNIST validation set.
The difference between the MNIST validation set accuracy and the AffNIST validation set accuracy measures the model's robustness to affine transformations.
The general model architecture for all models trained on AffNIST largely follows the description in Section~\ref{sec:capsule_neural_network} of the main paper.
We borrow the backbone proposed by~\citet{nature/Mazzia21}, which utilizes four standard convolutional layers Conv(32,7,1), Conv(64,3,1), Conv(64,3,2), and Conv($n^{1} \cdot d^{1}$,3,2), followed by a fifth depthwise convolutional layer Conv($n^{1} \cdot d^{1}$,7,1,$n^{1} \cdot d^{1}$). The reconstruction network consists of three fully connected layers FC(512), FC(1024), and FC(40$\cdot$40), all using the ReLU activation function.
The hyper-parameters for the loss all are set to $m^+ = 0.9$, $m^- = 1 - m^+ =0.1$, $\lambda = 0.5$ and $\alpha = 0.392$.
We found the best number of iterations for the routing algorithm to be ten.
We used the Adam optimizer with an initial learning rate of $10^{-3}$, an exponential learning rate decay of $0.97$, and a weight decay regularizer with a value of $10^{-6}$.
We used a batch size of $512$.
\subsection{CapsNets for CIFAR10}
The CapsNet architecture for the CIFAR10 classification task largely follows the architecture used for the AffNIST benchmark with slight modifications in the backbone to adjust for the smaller input image size.
The backbone utilizes four standard convolutional layers Conv(32,7,1), Conv(64,3,1), Conv(128,3,2), and Conv($n^{1} \cdot d^{1}$,3,2), followed by a fifth deepthwise convolutional layer Conv($n^{1} \cdot d^{1}$,5,1,$n^{1} \cdot d^{1}$).
We trained all CIFAR10 models for 100 epochs similarly to the AffNIST models, but with an initial learning rate of $10^{-4}$. For computing the performance metrics, we selected the best model regarding validation set accuracy.
\subsection{The Original CapsNet for MNIST Digit Classification}
\label{app:capsnet_for_mnist}
Here we describe the original CapsNet architecture for the MNIST classification task by~\citet{nips/SabourFH17}.
The backbone function consists of two consecutive convolutional layers, Conv(256,9,1) and Conv(256,9,2), followed by a single routing layer as generally described in Section~\ref{sec:capsule_neural_network} of the main paper.
There are 1152 PrimeCaps of dimension eight and ten output capsules of dimension 16.
The reconstruction network consists of three fully connected layers, namely FC(512), FC(1024), and FC(28$\cdot$28), all using the ReLU activation function.
The hyper-parameters for the loss are set to $m^+ = 0.9$, $m^- = 1 - m^+ =0.1$, $\lambda = 0.5$ and $\alpha = 0.0005$. The number of iterations for the routing algorithm is set to $3$.
\subsection{Notes on Backbone Architectures and PrimeCaps}
The role of the backbone is to extract meaningful features from the input images. The features constitute the PrimeCaps.
Therefore, the backbone also controls the number and dimension of the PrimeCaps.
The concept of capsules requires that a capsule is activated if its related conceptual entity is present within the input image~\cite{nips/SabourFH17}.
For this reason, each capsule must have a full receptive field over the input image.
The original CapsNet backbone, used on the MNIST classification task, consists of two consecutive convolutional layers.
However, for larger input dimensions, e.g., AffNIST (40$\times$40) or ImageNet (224$\times$224), using only two convolutional layers is not practical since this would either result in a vast number of PrimeCaps or large capsule dimensions that make the models computationally infeasible.
Table~\ref{tab:rba:primecaps_dimensions} lists the number of parameters in the routing layer for the original CapsNet model for different input image dimensions, depending on the dimension of the output capsules. As can be seen, the number of parameters increases quickly with the input dimension, and as a result, computational and space requirements also rise quickly; see Table~\ref{tab:rba_mha_complexity} in the main paper.
Therefore, we borrow the backbone proposed by~\citet{nature/Mazzia21} because it allows us to control both the number and dimension of the PrimeCaps, and thus scales well to larger input dimensions since the number of parameters only grows moderately with the input dimension.
However, we also evaluated the original CapsNet backbone in our investigations of viewpoint invariance. See Appendix~\ref{app:viewpoint_invariance} for more details.
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccc|cccc}
\toprule
\multicolumn{3}{c}{Dataset} &
\multicolumn{4}{c}{Dimension of a DigitCaps} \\
Name & Classes & Input Dimensions & 16 & 32 & 64 & 128 \\
\midrule
MNIST & 10 & (28x28x1) & 1.5 & 3.0 & 5.9 & 11.8 \\
AFFNIST & 10 & (40x40x1) & 5.9 & 11.8 & 23.6 & 47.2 \\
CIFAR10 & 10 & (32x32x3) & 2.6 & 5.3 & 10.5 & 21.0 \\
TinyImageNet & 200 & (64x64x3) & 472.3 & 944.2 & 1887.9 & 3775.3 \\
ImageNet 224 & 1000 & (224x224x3) & 44324.0 & 88626.3 & 177231.0 & 354440.3 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{The number of parameters in the routing layer for the original CapsNet architecture for different input image sizes and output capsule dimensions. The number of output capsules is set to match the number of data set classes. The number of parameters is given in \textbf{millions}.}
\label{tab:rba:primecaps_dimensions}
\end{table}
\subsubsection*{How the CapsNet defines a parse-tree}
In general, a tree is a discrete data structure and might be generated by dynamically allocating memory, depending on the number and types of nodes and edges required ~\cite{icann/HintonKW11}~\cite{nips/SabourFH17}.
However, this is not effectively realizable with current deep learning approaches that operate in the continuous space and rely on fixed-sized parameter and input dimensions.
Instead, the CapsNet implements a fuzzy tree with capsules representing fuzzy nodes and coupling coefficients representing fuzzy edges.
The CapsNet calculates a fixed number of hierarchically ordered capsules, where each capsule $U_{(i,:)}^l$ in layer $l$ is connected to each capsule $U_{(j,:)}^{l+1}$ in layer $l+1$ via a coupling coefficient $C^l_{(ij)}$.
The squashing function~\eqref{eq:sqash} ensures that each capsule has its length in $[0, 1)$, which is interpreted as the capsule's probability of being present in the parse-tree.
The routing algorithm Alg.~\ref{alg:capsnet_routing} calculates the coupling coefficient matrix $C^l$.
The row-wise softmax ensures that the votes $\hat{U}^l_{(i,:,:)}$ of a lower layer capsule $U^l_{(i,:)}$ are multiplied with weights $C^l_{(i,:)}$ that sum up to one.
We can view the coupling coefficients as fuzzy edges with $U^l_{(i,:)}$ being connected to $U^{l+1}_{(j,:)}$ with probability $C^l_{(i,j)}$.
The multi-layer hierarchy of squashed capsule nodes, connected by its coupling coefficient edges, defines a fuzzy tree.
\subsubsection*{CapsNet connection to the capsules idea}
In~\cite{nips/SabourFH17}, it is hypothesized that the network learns to associate a capsule with a dedicated visual entity within the input images and represents the entity's probability of presence with the capsule's magnitude and the entity's instantiation parameters with the capsules direction.
Slightly changing the viewpoint on an entity does not affect its presence within the scene but only its instantiation parameters. The respective capsule's magnitude should be unaffected, whereas the capsule direction changes.
This behavior makes the parse-tree viewpoint invariant and the capsules direction viewpoint equivariant.
Subsequently, the CapsNet, at least in theory, should exhibit outstanding robustness to affine transformations of the input data and generalize well to novel viewpoints.
Furthermore, as the votes of capsules in lower layers collectively determine the activation of a higher layer capsule, depending on the similarity of their votes, it was hoped that the hierarchically connected capsules represent visual entities that stand in part-whole relationship to each other.
\ignore{
\begin{figure*}[th]%
\centering
\subfloat[
A tree (left) can be represented by multiple layers of capsules (right).
Active capsules ($\norm{u_i^l} \approx 1$) in consecutive layers are connected by strong coupling coefficients $c_{ij} = 1$.
The coupling coefficients from and to inactive capsules ($\norm{u_i^l} \approx 0$) is not shown.
]
{\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{figs/imgs/parse_tree_capsules.png}
\label{fig:misc:capsnet:fuzzy_parse_tree}}%
\qquad
\subfloat[
Creating a two-level tree from capsules. The nodes a re capsules with their length representing their probability of being persent in the parse-tree. The coupling coefficient denote the probability of an edge being present.
]
{\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{figs/imgs/capsules_parse_tree.png}
\label{fig:misc:capsnet:fuzzy_parse_tree_values}}%
\caption{The CapsNet fuzzy parse-tree}
\label{fig:misc:capsnet:parse_tree}
\end{figure*}
}
\subsubsection*{Architecture}
An illustration of the CapsNet model is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cn:architectures}.
A capsule is a vector $u \in \mathbb{R}^d$ with $\norm{u}_2 \in [0, 1)$.
The CapsNet calculates a multi-layer hierarchy of capsules with $U^l \in \mathbb{R}^{(n^l \times d^l)}$ holding $n^l$ capsules of dimension $d^l$ in layer $l$.
First a backbone function $\phi(\cdot)$ extracts feature maps $F\in \mathbb{R}^{(h\times w\times c)}$ from an input image $X^{(h_x\times w_x\times c_x)}$.
Those feature maps are reshaped into the form $S^0 \in \mathbb{R}^{(n^0 \times d^0)}$, holding a number of $n^0$ vectors of dimension $d^0$.
The first layer of capsules $U^{0} \in \mathbb{R}^{(n^0\times d^{0})}$, also called PrimeCaps, is obtained by a non linear transformation $U_{(i,:)}^0 = g(S_{(i,:)}^0)$ with the squashing function $g:\mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$, that "squashes" the length of a capsule in the range $[0, 1)$. In this work, we use a slightly modified squash operation, that behaves similarly but is more sensitive to small changes near zero ~\cite{DBLP:corr/Xi2017}, which is required to stack multiple routing layers:
\begin{flalign}
g(s) = \left(1 -\frac{1}{\exp(\norm{s}_2)} \right) \frac{s}{\norm{s}_2} \label{eq:sqash}
\end{flalign}
From there, each consecutive layer of capsules $U^{l+1} \in \mathbb{R}^{(n^{l+1} \times d^{l+1})}$ is calculated from the previous layer of capsules $U^{l} \in \mathbb{R}^{n^l \times d^l}$.
For each lower layer capsule $U_{(i,:)}^l$ and for each upper layer capsule $U_{(j,:)}^{l+1}$, there is a linear transformation:.
\begin{flalign}
\hat{U}_{(i,j,:)}^l = U_{(i,:)}^l W_{(i,j,:,:)}^l
\end{flalign}
With parameter tensor $W^l \in \mathbb{R}^{(n^l\times n^{l+1}\times d^l\times d^{l+1})}$ and $\hat{U}^l \in \mathbb{R}^{(n^l\times n^{l+1}\times d^{l+1})}$ being called votes.
An upper layer capsule $U_{(j,:)}^{l+1}$ is then the squashed, weighted sum over all votes of the lower layer capsules $\hat{U}^l_{(:,j,:)}$:
\begin{flalign}
U_{(j,:)}^{l+1} = g\left(\sum_{i}C_{(i,j)}^l \hat{U}_{(i,j,:)}^l\right)
\end{flalign}
The weights $C_{(ij)}^l$ are called coupling coefficient with $\sum_{j} C^l_{(ij)} = 1$ for $i$ being fixed.
They are determined by an iterative routing algorithm, see Alg.~\ref{alg:capsnet_routing}.
\subsubsection{Training}
The CapsNet uses the Adam optimizer to learn the parameters within the backbone function $\phi(\cdot)$ as well as the weight Tensors $W^{l}$ in each layer by minimizing the $\alpha$-weighted sum of a supervised classification loss $L_m$ and an unsupervised reconstruction loss $L_r$:
\begin{flalign}
L = L_m + \alpha \cdot L_r
\end{flalign}
The number of output capsules in the last layers $U^{-1}$ is set to match the number of $k$ classes in the respective dataset and the length of the $j$-th capsule $u_j^{-1}$ is interpreted as the probability of the $j$-th class being present in the input.
The margin function is applied to the last layer of capsules to compute a classification loss $L_m$:
\begin{flalign}
L_m =\sum_{k} T_k \max(0, m^+ - \norm{u_k^{-1}})^2 + \\ \lambda(1 - T_k)\max(0, \norm{u_k^{-1}} - m^-)^2
\end{flalign}
where $T_k$ is 1 if the object of the $k-th$ class is present in the input and $0$ otherwise.
Output capsules $U^{-1}$ that correspond to classes $k^{-1}$ that are not present in the input image $X$ are masked out by zeros. All the capsules are then concatenated and fed into a generator network $\psi(\cdot)$, that is tasked to reconstructs the input and the loss is the sum of squared distances between the reconstruction and the pixel intensities:
\begin{flalign}
L_r = \sum_{h,w,c}(X_{h,w,c} - \psi(mask(k^{-1}, U^{-1}))_{h,w,c})^2
\end{flalign}
During inference, the procedure changes slightly. There we mask out all but the capsule with the largest norm.
\begin{figure}
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{routing-by-agreement}\label{alg:capsnet_routing}
\textbf{Input}: $\hat{U}$, $r$ \\
\textbf{Returns}: $C$
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State $B_{(i,j)} \gets 0$
\For{$r$ iterations}
\State $C_{(i,j)} \gets \frac{\exp(B_{(i,j)})}{\sum_{k}\exp(B_{(i,k)})}$
\State $S_{(j,:)} \gets \sum_{i}C_{(i,j)} \hat{U}_{(i,j,:)}$
\State $V_{(j,:)} \gets g(S_{(j,:)})$
\State $B_{(i,j)} \gets B_{(i,j)} + \sprod{\hat{U}_{(i,j,:)}}{V_{(j,:)}}$
\EndFor
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\caption{The routing algorithm calculates the coupling coefficients $C \in \mathbb{R}^{(n^l\times n^{l+1})}$ from the lower layer capsule votes $\hat{U} \in \mathbb{R}^{(n^l\times n^{l+1}\times d^{l+1})}$}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\centering
\subfloat[
CapsNet for the MNIST classification tasks, consisting of two convolutional layers that output the PrimeCaps. A single routing layer yields the DigitCaps. After masking the digit caps are fed into a reconstruction network.
]
{\includegraphics[height=0.172\textheight]{figs/imgs/capsnet_original.pdf}
\label{fig:cn:architecture_original}}%
\qquad
\subfloat[
General Capsnet consisting of a backbone function yielding a first layer of capsules. Each consecutive layer of capsules is calculated via a routing algorithm.
]
{\includegraphics[height=0.172\textheight]{figs/imgs/capsnet_general.pdf} \label{fig:cn:architecture}}%
\caption{The original MNIST CapsNet on the left and the general CapsNet model on the right.}
\label{fig:cn:architectures}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Notation}
\textbf{Capsules.}\quad The matrix $U^l\in \mathbb{R}^{n^l\times d^l}$ holds $n^l$ normalized capsules of dimension $d^l$ for layer $l\in \{1, 2, \ldots, \ell\}$. The $i$-th capsule in $U^l$ is the vector $u^l_{(i,:)}\in\mathbb{R}^{d^l}$, and $u^l_{(i,j)}\in\mathbb{R}$ is the $j$-th entry of capsule $i$ on layer $l$.\\
\textbf{Transformation matrices.}\quad The tensor $W^l\in\mathbb{R}^{n^{l+1}\times n^l\times d^{l+1}\times d^l}$ holds transformation matrices $W^l_{(j,i,:,:)}\in\mathbb{R}^{d^{l+1}\times d^l}$. The transformation matrix $W^l_{(j,i,:,:)}$ maps the $i$-th capsule of layer $l$ to its unnormalized contribution to the $j$-the capsule of layer $l+1$.\\
\textbf{Coupling coefficients.\quad }The matrix $C^l\in \mathbb{R}^{n^l\times n^{l+1}}$ holds coupling coefficients for the connections of capsules from layer $l$ to layer $l+1$. The entry $c^l_{(i,j)}\in [0,1]$ specifies the coupling strength between capsule $i$ on layer $l$ and capsule $j$ on layer $l+1$. The coupling coefficients satisfy $\sum_{j=1}^{n^{l+1}} c^l_{(i,j)} =1$ for all $i\in\{1, 2, \ldots ,n^l\}$.\\
\textbf{Squashing function.}\quad The squashing function normalizes the length of a capsule vector $u\in\mathbb{R}^d$ into the range $[0,1)$. Here, we use a slightly modified squashing function~\citep{nature/Mazzia21},
\begin{equation}
g(u) = \left( 1 - \frac{1}{\exp (\| u\|_2)}\right) \frac{u}{\| u\|_2}
\label{eq:squash}
\end{equation}
that behaves similarly to the original squashing function proposed by~\citet{nips/SabourFH17}, but is more sensitive to small changes near zero \cite{corr/XiBingJin17}, which is required to stack multiple layers of capsules.
\subsection{Architecture}
First, the backbone network extracts features from an input image into a feature matrix in $\mathbb{R}^{n^1\times d^1}$. The feature matrix is then normalized by applying the squashing function to each row, which constitutes the first capsule layer in $U^1\in \mathbb{R}^{n^1\times d^1}$. The capsules in $U^1$ are also called PrimeCaps. Starting from the PrimeCaps, consecutive layers of capsules are computed as follows: First, the linear contribution of capsule $i$ on layer $l$ to capsule $j$ on layer $l+1$ is computed as
\begin{equation}
\hat u^{l+1}_{(i,j,:)} = W^l_{(j,i,:,:)} u^l_{(i,:)},
\label{eq:votes}
\end{equation}
where the entries in the matrix $\hat U^{l+1}_{(i)}$, which holds the vectors $\hat u^{l+1}_{(i,j,:)}$, are called \textbf{votes} from the $i$-th capsule on layer $l$. An upper layer capsule $u^{l+1}_{(j,:)}$ is the squashed, weighted sum over all votes from lower layer capsules $u^l_{(i,:)}$, that is,
\[
u^{l+1}_{(j,:)} = g\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n^l} c^l_{(i,j)} \cdot \hat{u}^{l+1}_{(i,j,:)}\right),
\]
where the the coupling coefficients $c^l_{(i,j)}$ are dynamically computed, that is, individually for every input image, by the Routing-by-agreement Algorithm (RBA), see Algorithm~\ref{alg:capsnet_routing}.
\begin{algorithm}[!ht]
\caption{Routing-by-agreement (RBA)}\label{alg:capsnet_routing}
\textbf{Input}: votes $\hat{u}$, number of iterations $r$, routing priors $b$ \\
\textbf{Output}: coupling coefficients $c$
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\For{$r$ iterations}
\State $c_{(i,j)} \gets \frac{\exp(b_{(i,j)})}{\sum_{k}\exp(b_{(i,k)})}$
\State $v_{(j,:)} \gets g\left(\sum_{i} c_{(i,j)} \hat{u}_{(i,j,:)}\right)$
\State $b_{(i,j)} \gets b_{(i,j)} + \sprod{\hat{u}_{(i,j,:)}}{v_{(j,:)}}$
\EndFor
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\includegraphics[width=0.29\linewidth]{figs/affnist/single_run/samples/8_sample_470_couplings.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=0.29\linewidth]{figs/affnist/single_run/samples/8_sample_470_capsules.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=0.29\linewidth]{figs/affnist/single_run/samples/8_sample_470_img.pdf} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.29\linewidth]{figs/affnist/single_run/samples/4_sample_432_couplings.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=0.29\linewidth]{figs/affnist/single_run/samples/4_sample_432_capsules.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=0.29\linewidth]{figs/affnist/single_run/samples/4_sample_432_img.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Fuzzy parse-trees for images from the AffNIST dataset for a model with five capsule layers, 16 capsules on each intermediate layer, and ten on the last layer.
The figure shows the coupling coefficients as connections between capsules (left), the capsule norms/activations (middle), and the input image (right). The blue tone of the edges is darker for greater coupling coefficients. }
\label{fig:affnist:main_model:class_samples}
\end{figure}
The number of output capsules on the last layer $\ell$ is set to match the number of classes in the respective dataset.
Finally, the fully-connected decoder network reconstructs the input image from the capsules on layer $\ell$.
\subsection{Training}
The parameters in the backbone network, in the reconstruction network, as well as the transformation tensors $W^l$ and the RBA routing priors $b_{(i,j)}^ l$ are all learned by minimizing a weighted sum of a supervised classification loss $L_m$ and an unsupervised reconstruction loss $L_r$, that is, $L = L_m + \alpha\cdot L_r$, with $\alpha > 0$. The classification loss function
\begin{align}
L_m = \sum_{j=1}^{n^\ell} &t_j \cdot \max \{ 0, m^+ - \|u^\ell_{(j,:)}\|_2 \}^2 \nonumber \\ &+\lambda\cdot (1-t_j)\cdot \max\{0, \|u^\ell_{(j,:)}\|_2 - m^-\}^2 \label{eq:margin_loss}
\end{align}
is only applied to the output capsules. Here $m^+, m^- > 0$ and $\lambda > 0$ are regularization parameters, and $t_j$ is $1$ if an object of the $j$-th class is present in the input image, and~$0$ otherwise.
Output capsules that correspond to classes not present in the input image are masked by zeros.
The reconstruction loss function is applied to the output of the reconstruction network and sums the
distances between the reconstruction and the pixel intensities in the input image.
\begin{figure*}[!ht]%
\centering
\subfloat[mean couplings]
{\includegraphics[width=0.19\linewidth]{figs/affnist/single_run/couplings_mean.pdf}\label{fig:affnist:main_model:parse_tree_stats:mean_coupling}}
\subfloat[std.\ couplings]
{\includegraphics[width=0.19\linewidth]{figs/affnist/single_run/couplings_std.pdf}\label{fig:affnist:main_model:parse_tree_stats:std_coupling}}
\subfloat[mean activations]
{\includegraphics[width=0.19\linewidth]{figs/affnist/single_run/capsules_mean.pdf}\label{fig:affnist:main_model:parse_tree_stats:mean_capsule}}
\subfloat[std.\ activations]
{\includegraphics[width=0.19\linewidth]{figs/affnist/single_run/capsules_std.pdf}\label{fig:affnist:main_model:parse_tree_stats:std_capsule}}
\subfloat[dead capsules]
{\includegraphics[width=0.19\linewidth]{figs/affnist/single_run/capsules_dead.pdf}\label{fig:affnist:main_model:parse_tree_stats:dead_capsule}}
\caption{
Parse-tree statistics for the complete AffNIST validation dataset for a five-layer CapsNet model with 16/10 capsules. The mean~(a)
and the standard deviation~(b)
of the coupling coefficient matrices for each layer are visualized as connections between capsules. Higher coupling coefficients have a darker blue tone. The capsule norms' mean~(c)
and standard deviation~(d)
are visualized by bars. Dead capsules~(e)
are highlighted with a red bar.
}%
\label{fig:affnist:main_model:parse_tree_stats}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Parse-Trees}
The parse-tree is the most important concept that allows us to understand and interpret capsules and their connections. The CapsNet defines a parse-tree, where capsules represent nodes, and coupling coefficients represent fuzzy edges.
The capsules magnitude, that is, the norm of the parameter vector, which is always in $[0,1)$ after applying the squashing function, represents the probability that the corresponding entity is present in an input image. The capsules direction represents instantiation parameters of the entity like its position, size, or orientation. Changing the viewpoint on an entity does not affect its presence, but only its instantiation parameters. Therefore, the respective capsule's magnitude should be unaffected, whereas its direction can change.
In the CapsNet, the dynamic part-whole relationships are implemented by coupling coefficients between capsules on consecutive layers. The coupling coefficients in the routing layers are computed dynamically by the RBA Algorithm~\ref{alg:capsnet_routing}. Taking the row-wise \emph{softmax} ensures that the coupling coefficients in $c^l_{(i,:)}$ are positive and sum up to one. Therefore, we can view the coupling coefficients as fuzzy edges that connect capsules $u^l_{(i,:)}$ and $u^{l+1}_{(j,:)}$ with probability $c^l_{(i,j)}$. The multi-layer hierarchy of capsule nodes, connected by fuzzy edges, defines the parse-tree analogously to a probabilistic context-free grammar. Examples are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:affnist:main_model:class_samples}.
\section{Complexity Analysis} \label{app:complexity_routing}
Understanding as a mapping from vectors to vectors, we can compare it to Transformers.
$U^{l} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d} \rightarrow U^{l+1} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d} $
\textbf{Visual Transformer - Encoder Layer}
Multi-Head Self Attention~\cite{iclr/DosovitskiyB0WZ21}.
\begin{flalign}
[Q, K, V] = U^l W_{QKV} \\
A = \sigma (QK^T / \sqrt{D_h}) \\
SA = AV \\
MSA(U^l) = [SA_1, ..., SA_k] W_{msa}
\end{flalign}
Parameters
\begin{flalign}
W_{QKV} (k \times 3 \times d \times d_h) \\
W_{msa} (k \times d_h \times d)
\end{flalign}
with $d_h = d /k$
\begin{flalign}
W_{QKV} (3 \times d \times d) \\
W_{msa} (d \times d)
\end{flalign}
Memory: $4 \times (d \times d)$, $O(d^2)$ and controll its nu.\\
Time: $O(n^2 d + n d^2)$
\textbf{CapsNet - Routing Layer} \\
Calculation from mapping vectors in CapsNet routing layers $U^{\ell} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d} \rightarrow U^{l+1} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d} $. The routing algorithm considers learned parameters and also different intermediate results for each routing layer $\ell$ in the capsule model $L$. \\
Parameters:
\begin{itemize}
\item $W (n^l \times n^{\ell+1} \times d^{\ell} \times d^{\ell+1}), O(n^\ell \times n^{\ell+1} \times d^{\ell} \times d^{\ell+1})$
\item $B (n^\ell \times n^{\ell+1}), O(n^\ell \times n^{\ell+1})$
\end{itemize}
Intermediate results:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\hat{U}^\ell (n^\ell \times n^{\ell+1} \times d^{\ell+1}), O(n^\ell \times n^{\ell+1} \times d^{\ell+1})$
\item $S (n^{\ell+1} \times d^{\ell+1}), O(n^{\ell+1} \times d^{\ell+1})$
\item $V (n^{\ell+1} \times d^{\ell+1}), O(n^{\ell+1} \times d^{\ell+1})$
\item $C (n^\ell \times n^{\ell+1}), O(n^\ell \times n^{\ell+1})$
\item $U (n^\ell \times d^{\ell}), O(n^\ell \times d^{\ell})$
\end{itemize}
The sum of parameters $n_p$ and intermediate results $n_i$ can be calculated with respect to the number of layers.
\begin{flalign}
n_p =\sum_{\ell=0}^{L} (n^\ell \times n^{\ell+1} \times d^{\ell} \times d^{\ell+1}) + (n^\ell \times n^{\ell+1})
\end{flalign}
\begin{flalign}
n_i =\sum_{\ell=0}^{L} (n^\ell \times n^{\ell+1} \times d^{\ell+1}) + 2 \cdot (n^{\ell+1} \times d^{\ell+1}) + (n^\ell \times n^{\ell+1}) + (n^\ell \times d^{\ell})
\end{flalign}
with $ (n^\ell = n^{\ell+1}, d^{\ell} = d^{\ell+1})$ \\
Memory: $O(\ell \times n^2 \times d^2)$ \\
Time: $O(\ell \times n^2 \times d^2)$ \\
\subsubsection{Contributions.}
Here, our aim is a thorough investigation of the question, whether the CapsNets implementation as proposed by~\citet{nips/SabourFH17} realizes all the conceptual ideas that make capsule networks so appealing. We summarize this in two key assumptions. The \textbf{first key assumption} is that the CapsNet learns to associate a capsule with a dedicated visual entity within an input image~\citep{nips/SabourFH17}. The \textbf{second key assumption} is that the CapsNet's capsules can be organized hierarchically in a parse-tree that encodes part-whole relationships. We test both assumptions experimentally and have to reject them. We show that the \mbox{CapsNet} does not exhibit any sign of an emerging parse-tree. Thus, the \mbox{CapsNet} implementation cannot provide the theoretical benefits of capsule networks like invariance under affine transformations and change of viewpoint. Furthermore, we provide a theoretical analysis, exposing a vanishing gradient problem, that supports our experimental findings.
\subsubsection{Results}
Table~\ref{tab:affnist:main_model:activation} summarizes the capsule activation statistics for the AffNIST experiment.
As expected, the agreement of lower layer capsules, enforced by the RBA algorithm, results in a declining number of active capsules in the upper layers, as is witnessed by decreasing $\cas$ values.
As a result, the overall sum of norms per layer drops, as can be seen in the $\cns$ values.
Surprisingly, there is no sign of sparse activation within the PrimeCaps.
All PrimeCaps are consistently active, as seen from the $\car$ values.
This implies that PrimeCaps do not represent parts that are present in one image and not present in another, questioning the underlying assumption of distributed representation learning.
It is another indication that the backbone does not deliver the representations required for PrimeCaps.
Furthermore, we observe that the number of dead capsules $\cdr$ increases with the depth of the model. For instance, $63\%$ of the capsules on Layer 4 in the AffNIST experiment are dead.
Figure~\ref{fig:affnist:main_model:parse_tree_stats:dead_capsule} highlights the dead capsules.
In other experiments, this value increases up to $84\%$, see Table~\ref{tab:cifar10:model_d5:best} in the appendix.
This has the following implications:
First, the depth of a CapsNet is limited as the number of dead capsules rises with the number of layers.
Second, the parse-tree cannot carry separate semantic information for each class if the number of active capsules is less than the number of classes.
Third, dead capsules limit the capacity of a CapsNet as their respective parameters are not in use.
This explains why baseline models trained with \textbf{uniform routing} perform better than models trained with RBA. Uniform routing, which uses all parameters, achieves better classification accuracies; see Tables~\ref{tab:affnist:grid_run:best_overall_models} and~\ref{tab:cifar10:grid_run:best_overall_models} in the appendix.
In uniform routing, all entries in the coupling coefficient matrix are set to the same fixed value. Our results stand in line with prior work~\citep{acml/PaikKK19,cvpr/GuT20,cvpr/GuT021} that also observed a negative impact of routing on model performance.
\subsubsection{Results}
In the following, we report the routing statistics for a CapsNet architecture with four routing layers, 16 capsules per layer in the first four layers, and ten capsules in the last layer. We set the capsule dimension to eight and train multiple models on the AffNIST dataset until a target accuracy of $99.2\%$ is reached.
The routing statistics for the models are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:affnist:main_model:dynamics} and the corresponding coupling coefficients of a single model are visualized in Figure~\ref{fig:affnist:main_model:parse_tree_stats}.
The $\dys$ values below two for Layers~2 and~3 indicate low routing dynamics.
A route is mostly predetermined once a capsule is activated; hence, the routing is almost static.
Only the last layer exhibits higher routing dynamics, which can be attributed to the supervisory effect of the classification loss $L_m$.
Since the routing is almost static, we conclude that the parse-trees do not encode the information necessary for a distributed representation of diverse image scenes, violating Assumption~(2).
As can be seen from Tables~\ref{tab:affnist:model_d1:best} to~\ref{tab:affnist:model_d6:best} in the supplement, the results look similar for all models trained on AffNIST. The more complex data set CIFAR10 exhibits even worse routing dynamics; see Table~\ref{tab:cifar:main_model:activation_dynamics} and Figure~\ref{fig:cifar:main_model:training:parse_tree} in the appendix.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccc|cc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{Layer} &
\multirow{2}{*}{Capsules Alive} &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Routing Dynamics} \\
& & Rate ($\dyr$) & Mean ($\dys$) \\
\midrule
1 & 16.00 $\pm$ 0.00 & 0.30 $\pm$ 0.00 & 4.50 $\pm$ 0.17 \\
2 & 14.90 $\pm$ 0.70 & 0.25 $\pm$ 0.01 & 1.72 $\pm$ 0.11 \\
3 & 7.00 $\pm$ 0.63 & 0.30 $\pm$ 0.02 & 1.79 $\pm$ 0.16 \\
4 & 5.90 $\pm$ 0.70 & 0.38 $\pm$ 0.04 & 3.78 $\pm$ 0.38 \\
output & 10.00 $\pm$ 0.00\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{The routing statistics for a CapsNet with four routing layers, 16/10 capsules per layer, and a capsule dimension of eight. We separately train and evaluate ten models on AffNIST the same way and report the mean and standard deviation.}
\label{tab:affnist:main_model:dynamics}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Results}
We observe that the capsule activation correlation decreases for increasingly stronger affine transformations, see Figure~\ref{fig:affnist:main_model:view_point_invariance}.
This observation holds for all intermediate capsule layers, and all tested affine transformations. See also Figure~\ref{fig:affnist:main_model:sim_image_diff_parse_tree} for a qualitative example showing two different parse-trees that are expected to be identical.
We conclude that the parse-tree is not invariant under affine transformations of the input image, violating Assumption~(1).
Furthermore, since already the activations of the PrimeCaps do not exhibit viewpoint-invariance, we believe that capsules need a different backbone that gives rise to better PrimeCaps.
\subsubsection{Experimental Setup}
We use the AffNIST benchmark~\cite{nips/SabourFH17} to assess a model's robustness to affine transformations, and we use the \mbox{CIFAR10} dataset~\cite{report/Krizhevsky09} to test a model's performance on complex image scenes.
We conduct extensive experiments using a total of 121 different model architectures of various scales, featuring different numbers of routing layers and different numbers and capsule dimensions. Shallow models resemble the original CapsNet implementation while deeper models allow for a more semantically expressive parse-tree.
We refer to the appendix for detailed architecture and dataset descriptions, training procedures, and full results for all models used in our experiments.
\subsection{Routing Dynamics}
\input{investigation_routing_dynamics}
\subsection{Viewpoint Invariance}
\input{investigation_viewpoint_invariance}
\subsection{Capsule Activation}
\input{investigation_capsule_activation}
\subsubsection{Theoretical Analysis}
\input{theory.tex}
\subsubsection*{Negative results}
Depth:
~\cite{corr/XiBingJin17} First report that depth does not improve performance.
~\cite{acml/PaikKK19} The influence of depth for multiple routing algorithms. worse than simple baseline algorithms that assign the connection strengths uniformly showed that
~\cite{prl/PeerSR21} not universal appropriators, limited in depth. No Activation, So what about the parse-tree? Layer-Norm will prevent sparsity
~\cite{corr/Rawlinson2018} Losing supervision capsules don't specialize.
Work questioning benefits:
~\cite{corr/Michels19} showed that CapsNet can be as easily fooled as ConvNets.
~\cite{cvpr/GuT20} revealed, that removing dynamic routing improves affine robustness.
~\cite{iclr/Gu2021} designed a first specific attack on CapsNets and.
~\cite{cvpr/GuT021} showed that the individual parts of the CapsNets have contradictory effects on the performance in different tasks and conclude, that with the right choice of baseline CapsNet are not more robust.
|
\section{Introduction}
Recent astrophysical and cosmological surveys, both from ground-based and space experiments, have provided extremely high-quality data. The observations point towards a Universe in which the cosmological principle holds on large scales, namely the Universe appears homogeneous and isotropic if averaged over scales of $\sim$100 h$^{-1}${Mpc
~or more \cite{Hogg:2004vw,SylosLabini_2009}. Moreover, the Universe is undergoing an accelerated expansion phase \cite{Riess_1998,Perlmutter_1999}, subsequent to a decelerated era in which the structure formation occurred. All these features, together with the nuclei abundances produced in the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), the Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO) and many others, are well predicted by the Lambda Cold Dark Matter ($\Lambda$CDM) model, which has been adopted as the standard cosmological model accordingly. Such a model provides an effective description of the Universe, which relies on the assumption that General Relativity (GR) is the final theory of gravitation that governs the cosmic dynamics. As a consequence, two more fluids other than baryonic matter and radiation must be inserted in the matter--energy content of the Universe in order to adjust GR predictions to data: the Dark Energy (DE), responsible for the late time cosmic acceleration, and the Dark Matter (DM), which accounts for the structure formation. Together, they should represent $\sim$95\% of the matter--energy budget of the Universe \cite{Planck:2018vyg,Alam_2021,Abbott_2022}, thus dominating the cosmic dynamics at all scales.
Building on its capability to fit the whole cosmological and astrophysical dataset with a relatively small number of parameters, the $\Lambda$CDM model stands as the pillar of our comprehension of the Universe. However, several shortcomings \cite{Bull_2016} and recently risen tensions \cite{Perivolaropoulos_2022,Cosmology_intertwined_II,Cosmology_intertwined_III} affect its reliability. On the one hand, we have a huge assortment of candidates but no final solution for DM \cite{Bertone_2005,https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2110.10074} and DE \cite{Copeland2006wr,Padmanabhan2002ji,Nojiri_2006ri}. On the other hand, the presence of singularities, as well as the inconsistency at quantum level, undermine the credibility of GR as the final theory of gravity. Even more puzzling are the cosmological tensions, which have emerged in recent years as the result of the growing availability of a wide range of extremely precise data. A multitude of independent observations appears indeed to be in a $\gtrsim$2$\sigma$ tension with the reference $\Lambda$CDM estimates by the Planck collaboration \cite{Planck:2018vyg}. Even though systematic experimental errors may account for part of these tensions, their statistical significance and their persistence after several check analyses have thrown up some serious red flags. Since the Planck constraints for the cosmological parameters relies on a strongly $\Lambda$CDM-model-dependent analysis of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), such tensions may be the signature of the brakedown of the concordance model, hence of new physics. In this paper, we pay particular attention to the two most well-known tensions: the $H_0$ tension \cite{Cosmology_intertwined_II}, which emerges from the comparison between early-time \cite{Planck:2018vyg} and late-time measurements \cite{Riess_2022} of the Hubble constant, and the growth tension \cite{Cosmology_intertwined_III} between the CMB value \cite{Planck:2018vyg} of the cosmological parameters $\Omega_{M}$ and $\sigma_{8}$ and those from lower redshift probes, such as Weak Lensing (WL) \cite{Asgari_2021}, Cluster Counts (CC) \cite{Lesci_2022} and Redshift Space Distortion (RSD) \cite{Chen_2022}.
In order to meet the challenges posed by $\Lambda$CDM theoretical shortcomings, as well as by its observational tensions, a zoo of alternative cosmological models has been formulated in recent years. The common feature of any proposed model is the introduction of additional degrees of freedom, whether in the gravitational or the matter--energy Lagrangian. Several approaches have been adopted: from the simple generalization of the Hilbert--Einstein action to functions of the curvature scalar, namely $f(R)$ theories \cite{CAPOZZIELLO_2002,Nojiri_2006,Starobinsky_2007,Fay_2007uy,Lazkoz_2018,Bajardi_2022,D_Agostino_2020_H0}, to the addition of further geometric invariants such as the torsion scalar $T$ \cite{Nesseris_2013jea,Cai_2016,Golovnev_2018wbh,Wang_Mota_2020,D_Agostino_2020_H0,Bahamonde_2021gfp} or the Gauss--Bonnet scalar $\mathcal{G}$ \cite{Nojiri_2005jg,Li_2007jm,Myrzakulov_2010gt,Bajardi_2020}. The introduction of scalar/vector fields minimally or non-minimally coupled to gravity \cite{Capozziello_2007iu,Heisenberg_2018vsk,Langlois_2018dxi,D_Agostino_2018,Bajardi_2020_aaa}, as well as the emergence of non-trivial dynamics in the dark sector \cite{Amendola_2007_DE,Wang_2016_DE,Di_Valentino_2017,Asghari_2019_DE,Yang_2019_DE}, also represent intriguing possibilities in the extremely wide framework of the alternatives to GR/$\Lambda$CDM (see \cite{CANTATA_2021ktz,DiValentino_2021izs} for the state of the art). In this paper, we want to inquire into a specific class of alternative cosmological models ruled by non-local gravitational interactions \cite{Capozziello_Review}. Among others, we investigate the cosmological implications of two non-locally {extended} theories of gravity: the Deser--Woodard (DW) model \cite{Deser_2007} and the Ricci-Transverse (RT) model \cite{Maggiore_2014_RT}. These theories have drawn increasing attention in recent years due to their capability to account for late-time cosmic acceleration, thus avoiding the introduction of any form of unknown dark energy.
Moreover, the non-local corrections may provide a viable mechanism to alleviate some of the main cosmological tensions.
The paper is organized as follow: in Section~\ref{NonLocal}, we outline the main motives for formulating non-local theories of gravity, and we present the two ways in which dynamical non-locality can be implemented. Then, we introduce the two chosen models and their theoretical features. In Section~\ref{DE}, we investigate the mechanisms through which the DW and the RT model account for the accelerated expansion of the Universe. In Section~\ref{S8}, we present the non-locally driven evolution of cosmological perturbations for the two models and the resulting impact on the $\sigma_{8}$ tension. Moreover, in Section~\ref{H0}, we assess the $H_{0}$ tension in light of the {non-local theories}. Finally, in Section~\ref{AstroTest}, we present the main astrophysical tests of {the non-local gravity models}. The conclusions are drawn in Section~\ref{Conclusions}.
\section{Non-Local Gravity}\label{NonLocal}
Non-locality naturally emerges in Quantum Physics, both as a kinematical and a dynamical feature. On the other hand, locality is a key property of classical field theories, and thus represents one of the main obstacles to overcome in order to merge gravitational interaction formalism with that of Quantum Field Theory (QFT). As a consequence, the introduction of non-locality in our theory of gravitation seems to be an unavoidable step towards the unification of the fundamental interactions. There exist at least two ways to achieve non-locality: at fundamental level, in which kinematical non-locality can be implemented by discretizing spacetime and introducing a minimal length scale (usually the Planck length); as an effective approach, in which non-local geometrical operators can be added to the gravitational Lagrangian to obtain a non-local dynamics in a continuum background spacetime \cite{Buoninf_thesis}. Here, we want to focus on the latter scenario, which is of great interest for cosmological applications.
Two main classes of non-locally {extended} theories of gravity have been developed in recent years \cite{Capozziello_Review}: Infinite Derivative theories of Gravity (IDGs), involving entire analytic transcendental functions of a differential operator, and Integral Kernel theories of Gravity (IKGs) based on integral kernels of differential operators, such as
\begin{equation}\label{InverseBox}
\Box^{-1}R(x) = \int d^{4}x' G(x,x') R(x') \, ,
\end{equation}
where $G(x'x')$ is the Green function associated to the inverse d’Alembertian.
IDGs usually address the ultraviolet (UV) problems of the $\Lambda$CDM model by ensuring classical asymptotic freedom. The gravitational interaction is weakened on small scales and the singularities disappear accordingly. Non-singular black holes \cite{Biswas_2012}, as well as inflationary \cite{Briscese_2013} and bouncing cosmologies \cite{Biswas_2006}, are indeed forecast in the IDG framework. On the other hand, IKGs are introduced to account for the infrared (IR) shortcomings of the concordance model of cosmology. The phenomenology of both dark fluids can be actually reproduced by non-local corrections that switch on at large scales \cite{Deser_2007,Belgacem_2020,BORKA2022}.
In this paper, we focus on two specific curvature-based IKGs \cite{Deser_2007,Maggiore_2014_RT} and their cosmological features. IKGs indeed have special relevance due to the fact that they combine suitable cosmological behavior with well-justified Lagrangians at the fundamental level.
GR is actually plagued by {quantum} IR divergences that already appear for pure gravity in flat space \cite{https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1703.05448}. This pathological behavior implies that the long-range dynamics of the gravitational interaction may be non-trivial, and non-perturbative techniques are thus required. Applying such non-perturbative methods to the renormalization of the quantum effective action of the gravity theory, non-local terms emerge both associated \cite{Reuter_2002,Wetterich_2018} or not associated \cite{Barvinsky_2003rx,Barvinsky_2015} to a dynamical mass scale. Analogous results can be recovered through the trace anomaly \cite{https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1606.08784}.
\subsection{The Deser--Woodard Model}
The first model that we want to highlight is an IKG initially proposed in \cite{Deser_2007}. The non-locally {extended} gravitational action of the Deser--Woodard model reads
\begin{equation}\label{DWaction}
S = \frac{1}{16 \pi G} \int d^{4}x \sqrt{-g} \Big\{ R \big[ 1 + f(\Box^{-1}R) \big] \Big\} \, ,
\end{equation}
where the non-local correction is given by the so-called distortion function, namely a general function of the inverse box of the Ricci scalar, as in Equation~(\ref{InverseBox})
It is worth noticing that the non-local theory reduces to GR as soon as $f(\Box^{-1}R)$ vanishes. The modified field equations descending from Equation~(\ref{DWaction}) are
\begin{equation}
G_{\mu\nu} + \Delta G_{\mu\nu} = \kappa T_{\mu\nu}^{(m)} \, ,
\end{equation}
where the non-local correction reads
\begin{equation}\label{DWequationExplicit}
\begin{aligned}
\Delta G_{\mu\nu} =& \bigg( G_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \square - \nabla_{\mu}\nabla_{\nu} \bigg) \bigg\lbrace f \big( \square^{-1}R \big) + \square^{-1} \big[ R f'\big( \square^{-1}R \big)\big] \bigg\rbrace \\
&+ \Bigg[ \frac{1}{2} \bigg( \delta_{\mu}^{\alpha} \delta_{\nu}^{\beta} + \delta_{\mu}^{\beta} \delta_{\nu}^{\alpha} \bigg) - \frac{1}{2} g_{\mu\nu} g^{\alpha\beta} \Bigg] \partial_{\alpha} \big( \square^{-1}R \big) \partial_{\beta} \bigg\lbrace \square^{-1} \big[ R f'\big( \square^{-1}R \big)\big] \bigg\rbrace \, .
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Furthermore, the non-local gravitational action in Equation~(\ref{DWaction}) can be easily rewritten under the standard of local scalar--tensor theories by introducing an auxiliary scalar field
\begin{equation}
R(x) = \Box \eta(x) \, ,
\end{equation}
which does not carry any independent degree of freedom. The local canonical form of the scalar--tensor action, equivalent to the non-local theory, thus reads \cite{Nojiri_2008}
\begin{equation}\label{NojiriAction}
S = \frac{1}{2\kappa} \int d^{4}x \sqrt{-g} \Big\{ R \big[ 1 + f\big( \eta \big) \big] - \partial_{\mu}\xi \partial^{\mu}\eta - \xi R \Big\} \, ,
\end{equation}
where $\xi(x)$ is a Lagrangian multiplier which has been promoted to a position- and time-dependent scalar field. In this formulation, the gravitational field equation is
\begin{equation}\label{NLfieldeq}
\begin{aligned}
G_{\mu\nu} =& \frac{1}{1+f(\eta)-\xi} \Bigg[ \kappa T_{\mu\nu}^{(m)} - \frac{1}{2} g_{\mu\nu} \partial^{\alpha}\xi \partial_{\alpha}\eta + \frac{1}{2} \big( \partial_{\mu}\xi \partial_{\nu}\eta + \partial_{\mu}\eta \partial_{\nu}\xi \big) - \big( g_{\mu\nu} \square - \nabla_{\mu} \nabla_{\nu} \big) \big( f(\eta) - \xi \big) \Bigg] \, ,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
while the Klein--Gordon equations for the two auxiliary scalar fields are
\begin{equation}\label{KGeqeta}
\Box \eta = R \, ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{KGeqxi}
\Box \xi = -R \frac{\partial f(\eta)}{\partial \eta} \, .
\end{equation}
\subsection{The Ricci-Transverse Model}
The second non-local model that we investigate through this paper is a metric IKG proposed in \cite{Maggiore_2014_RT}. This is a quantum-inspired model, whose quantum effective action is
\begin{equation}\label{RTaction}
\Gamma = \frac{1}{64 \pi G} \int d^{4}x \bigg[ h_{\mu\nu} \mathcal{E}^{\mu\nu,\alpha\beta} h_{\alpha\beta} - \frac{2}{3} m^2 \big( P^{\mu\nu} h_{\mu\nu} \big)^2 \bigg] \, ,
\end{equation}
where $g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+\kappa h_{\mu\nu}$ {is the linearized metric tensor}, $\mathcal{E}^{\mu\nu,\alpha\beta}$ is the Lichnerowicz operator\footnote{$\mathcal{E}^{\mu\nu,\alpha\beta} = \frac{1}{2} (\eta^{\mu\rho}\eta^{\nu\sigma} + \eta^{\mu\sigma}\eta^{\nu\rho} - 2 \eta^{\mu\nu}\eta^{\rho\sigma}) \Box + (\eta^{\rho\sigma}\partial^{\mu}\partial^{\nu} + \eta^{\mu\nu}\partial^{\rho}\partial^{\sigma}) - \frac{1}{2} (\eta^{\mu\rho}\partial^{\sigma}\partial^{\nu} + \eta^{\nu\rho}\partial^{\sigma}\partial^{\mu} + \eta^{\mu\sigma}\partial^{\rho}\partial^{\nu} + \eta^{\mu\sigma}\partial^{\rho}\partial^{\mu})$}, $P^{\mu\nu} = \eta^{\mu\nu} - (\partial^{\mu}\partial^{\nu}/\Box)$ is a projector operator and $m$ is the mass of the conformal mode of the gravitational field. Performing the covariantization of Equation~(\ref{RTaction}), the modified gravitational field equation reads
\begin{equation}\label{RTequation}
G_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{3} m^2 (g_{\mu\nu} \Box^{-1}R)^{T} = \kappa T_{\mu\nu} \, ,
\end{equation}
where we take the transverse part of the symmetric non-local tensor $S_{\mu\nu} = g_{\mu\nu} \Box^{-1}R$
\begin{equation}\label{Transverse}
S_{\mu\nu} = S_{\mu\nu}^{T} + \frac{1}{2} (\nabla_{\mu} S_{\nu} + \nabla_{\nu} S_{\mu}) \, ,
\end{equation}
and $S_{\mu}$ is an associated four-vector. The Bianchi identities are guaranteed accordingly, i.e., $\nabla^{\mu}S_{\mu\nu}^{T}=0$.
In the same way as the DW model, the Ricci-Transverse model can be localized through a scalar--tensor--vector formulation \cite{Maggiore_2014_RT,Kehagias_2014}.
Here, we introduce two auxiliary objects, namely
\begin{equation}
U(x)=-\Box^{-1}R(x) \, , \qquad \mathcal{S}_{\mu\nu}(x) = -U(x) g_{\mu\nu}(x) = g_{\mu\nu}(x) \Box^{-1}R(x) \, .
\end{equation}
An auxiliary four-vector field $\mathcal{S}_{\mu}(x)$ therefore enters the localized equations because of Equation~(\ref{Transverse}). The gravitational field equation, Equation~(\ref{RTequation}), turns into
\begin{equation}\label{GFeqRT}
G_{\mu\nu} + \frac{m^2}{6} \big( 2Ug_{\mu\nu} + \nabla_{\mu} \mathcal{S}_{\nu} + \nabla_{\nu} \mathcal{S}_{\mu} \big) = \kappa T_{\mu\nu}
\end{equation}
plus the two equations of motions of the two auxiliary fields
\begin{equation}\label{KGeqRT}
\Box U = - R \, ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{4VeqRT}
\big( \delta_{\nu}^{\mu}\Box + \nabla^{\mu}\nabla_{\nu} \big) \mathcal{S}_{\mu} = -2 \partial_{\nu}U \, .
\end{equation}
\section{The Late-Time Cosmic Acceleration}\label{DE}
The Universe is currently undergoing an accelerated expansion. The first evidence of this peculiar behavior dates back to the end of the twentieth century, when the observation of several Type Ia Supernovae (SNIa) \cite{Riess_1998,Perlmutter_1999} pointed out the unavoidable necessity of a cosmological constant to fit the cosmic expansion history. On the one hand, these results have been corroborated by the observations of all the recent surveys \cite{Planck:2018vyg,Aiola_2020,Tr_ster_2021_DE,Pandey_2022_DE}. On the other hand, the theoretical explanation of this issue has two main drawbacks: the fine tuning problem \cite{RevModPhys_61_1} and the coincidence problem \cite{Velten_2014}. The former is related to the huge discrepancy ($\sim$120 orders of magnitude) between the observed value of the cosmological constant and the vacuum energy density calculated via QFT. The latter is linked with the similar current values of $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ and $\Omega_{M}$, despite their radically different evolution laws.
The next generation of cosmological surveys should boost the investigation of the nature of the so-called cosmological constant, providing powerful data to discriminate between DE solutions and extended theories of gravity. Within this framework, non-local gravity provides viable mechanisms that could account for the observed accelerated expansion of the Universe.
\subsection{The DW Case: Delayed Response to Cosmic Events}
The main reason why the DW model has been in the spotlight since its formulation is its effective way to explain late-time cosmic acceleration without the introduction of any form of dark energy. Computing the non-local correction of Equation~(\ref{DWaction}) in the Friedmann--Lemaitre--Robertson--Walker (FLRW) metric,
\begin{equation}\label{FLRW}
ds^2 = - dt^2 + a^2(t) d\Vec{x}\cdot d\Vec{x} \, ,
\end{equation}
one obtains a non-negligible geometrical contribution,
\begin{equation}\label{InverseBoxCosmology}
\begin{aligned}
\big[ \square^{-1} R \big](t) &= \int_{0}^{t} dt' \frac{1}{a^{3}(t')} \int_{0}^{t'} dt'' a^{3}(t'') R(t'') = - \frac{6s (2s-1)}{3s-1} \left[ \mathrm{ln}\Bigg(\frac{t}{t_{eq}} \Bigg) - \frac{1}{3s-1} + \frac{1}{3s-1} \Bigg( \frac{t_{eq}}{t} \Bigg)^{3s-1} \right] \, ,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $a(t) \sim t^{\,s}$, and the integration constant is set to make the non-local correction vanish before the radiation--matter equivalence time, $t_{eq}$.
Then, for $t>t_{eq}$ the non-local correction starts to grow, becoming non-negligible at late time and driving the accelerated cosmic expansion. Non-locality thus emerges in the cosmological framework as a delayed response to the radiation-to-matter dominance transition, i.e., as a time-like non-local effect.
The introduction of non-locality may therefore have beneficial effects on cosmological scales, both at background level and perturbations level. Two different approaches can be adopted for the DW model: on the one hand, one can exploit the freedom guaranteed by the undetermined form of the distortion function to fit the observed expansion history of the universe. In such a scenario, the DW cosmology is made equivalent to $\Lambda$CDM at the background level. However, different features emerge when perturbations are taken into account, and the physics of structure formation is affected accordingly. On the other hand, one can select the form of the distortion function building on some fundamental principles, such as the Noether symmetries of the system. In this case, the non-local cosmology is also modified at background level and stronger deviations from the concordance model should rise.
In \cite{Deffayet_2009}, the first method has been applied, and the $\Lambda$CDM expansion history of the Universe has been accurately reproduced by matching the data through a non-trivial form of the distortion function
\begin{equation}\label{DistFun}
f(\Box^{-1}R) = 0.245 \big[ tanh \big( 0.350 X + 0.032 X^{2} + 0.003 X^{3} \big) -1 \big] \, ,
\end{equation}
where $X = \Box^{-1}R + 16.5$.
\subsection{The RT Case: Dynamical Dark Energy}
Considering a spatially flat FLRW metric, Equation~(\ref{FLRW}), the equations of motion of the RT model, Equations~(\ref{GFeqRT})--(\ref{4VeqRT}), become \cite{Foffa_2014}
\begin{equation}\label{RTcosm1}
{H^2 - \frac{m^2}{9} (U - \Dot{\mathcal{S}}_{0}) = \frac{8\pi G}{3} \rho \, ,}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{RTcosm2}
\Ddot{U} + 3H\Dot{U} = 6 \Dot{H} + 12 H^2 \, ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{RTcosm3}
\Ddot{\mathcal{S}}_{0} + 3H\Dot{\mathcal{S}}_{0} - 3 H^2 \mathcal{S}_{0} = \Dot{U} \, ,
\end{equation}
where the spatial components of the vector field $\mathcal{S}_{\mu}$ vanish to preserve the rotational invariance of the FLRW metric, and the stress--energy tensor is taken to be $T^{\mu}_{\nu} =$diag$(-\rho, p, p, p)$.
Defining $Y=U-\Dot{\mathcal{S}}_{0}$, $\Tilde{h} = H/H_0$ and the dimensionless variable $x \equiv \ln{a(t)}$, then the modified Friedmann equation, Equation~(\ref{RTcosm1}), reads
\begin{equation}
\Tilde{h}^{2}(x) = \Omega_{M} e^{-3x} + \gamma Y(x) \, ,
\end{equation}
with $\gamma \equiv m^2 / (9 H_{0}^{2})$. An effective dark energy thus appears
\begin{equation}
\rho_{DE}(t) = \rho_{0} \gamma Y(t) \, ,
\end{equation}
where $\rho_{0} = 3 H_{0}^{2} / (8\pi G)$. Once the initial conditions for the auxiliary fields are set (see \cite{Belgacem_2020} for details), the evolution of $\rho_{DE}(t)/\rho_{TOT}(t)$ can be studied: the non-local effective dark energy is actually negligible until recent time and then starts to dominate the cosmic expansion.
Moreover, it is possible to study the DE equation of state
\begin{equation}
\Dot{\rho}_{DE} + 3H (1 + \omega_{DE})\rho_{DE} = 0 \, ,
\end{equation}
and different evolutions for $\rho_{DE}(z)$ follow from different choices for the initial conditions of the auxiliary fields. For small values of the initial conditions, one obtains a fully phantom DE, namely $\omega_{DE}(z)$ is always less than $-1$. For large values of the initial conditions, $\rho_{DE}(z)$ has a "phantom crossing" behavior, i.e., there is a transition from the phantom regime to $-1<\omega_{DE}<0$ of about $z \simeq 0.3$.
Regardless of the initial conditions, therefore, the non-local model provides a dynamical DE density which drives the accelerated expansion of the Universe.
\section{The Growth of Perturbations and the \texorpdfstring{\boldmath{$\sigma_{8}$}}{S8} Tension}\label{S8}
Building on the primordial density fluctuations emerged from the inflation, cosmic structures have formed due to gravitational instability.
Studying the large-scale structure of the Universe and its evolution through the cosmic epochs, it is possible to trace the growth of the so-called cosmological perturbations.
Associated to this observable, one of the main cosmological tensions has risen: the growth tension. It has come about as the result of the discrepancy between the Planck value of the cosmological parameters $\Omega_{M}$ and $\sigma_{8}$ and those from WL measurements, CC and RSD data. The former dynamical probes point towards lower values of the amplitude ($\sigma_{8}$) or the rate ($f\sigma_{8} = [\Omega_{M}(z=0)]^{0.55}\sigma_{8}$) of growth of structures with respect to the CMB experiments, giving rise to a $2-3 \sigma$ tension \cite{Perivolaropoulos_2022,Cosmology_intertwined_III}. Moreover, the Planck 2018 value of the joint parameter $S_{8} = \sigma_{8}\sqrt{\Omega_{M}/0.3}\,$ ($S_{8} = 0.834 \pm 0.016$ \cite{Planck:2018vyg}) is confirmed by another recent CMB analysis by the ACT + WMAP collaboration ($S_{8} = 0.840 \pm 0.030$ \cite{Aiola_2020}), thus erasing the possibility of a systematic error related to the excess of lensing amplitude measured by Planck \cite{Calabrese_2008}. A $2.3\sigma$ tension emerges accordingly with both the original WL analysis of KiDS-450 \cite{Hildebrandt_2016} and KiDS-450 + VIKING data \cite{Hildebrandt_2020}, while updated constraints from the same datasets \cite{K_hlinger_2017,Wright_2020} show greater discrepancies.
The same $2.3\sigma$ tension also occurs with the data from DES's first year release (DESY1) \cite{Troxel_2018}, while the combination of KiDS-450 + VIKING + DESY1 weak lensing datasets results in a $2.5\sigma$ \cite{Joudaki_2020} or $3.2\sigma$ \cite{Asgari_2020} tension depending on the analysis. The most recent cosmic
shear data release from both KiDS-1000 and DESY3 confirms the previous estimates \cite{Asgari_2021,Loureiro_2022,https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2203.12440,Amon_2022,Secco_2022} ($S_{8} = 0.759^{+0.024}_{-0.021}$ from KiDS-1000 \cite{Asgari_2021}). Analogous results have been obtained with the $3 \times 2$ {pt
~correlation function analysis (cosmic shear correlation function, galaxy clustering angular auto-correlation function and galaxy--galaxy lensing cross-correlation function) of KiDS-1000 + BOSS + 2dFLenS datset \cite{Heymans_2021}. Additional results, in agreement with those from WL surveys, have been achieved by number counting of galaxy clusters, using multiwavelength datasets \cite{Mantz_2014,Salvati_2018,Costanzi_2019,Bocquet_2019,Abbott_2020_CC,Abdullah_2020,Lesci_2022}.
Supplementary observational evidence for the weaker growth of structures is also given by the exploitation of RSD data \cite{Kazantzidis_2018,Benisty_2021,Nunes_2021,Philcox_2022,Chen_2022}.
\subsection{The Deser--Woodard Evolution of Scalar Perturbations}
To investigate the growth of structures in the non-local DW model, we select the phenomenological form of the distortion function given by Equation~(\ref{DistFun}). As a consequence, the non-local background evolution is made equivalent to that of $\Lambda$CDM, and any deviation is enclosed in the cosmological perturbations.
Consider the field equations of the scalar--tensor equivalent of the DW model, Equations~(\ref{NLfieldeq})--(\ref{KGeqxi}). Specializing to the cosmological case by assuming the FLRW metric, Equation~(\ref{FLRW}), the field equations now read
\begin{equation}
{H^2 \big[ 1 + f - \xi \big] + H \big[ f' \Dot{\eta} - \Dot{\xi} \big] - \frac{1}{6} \Dot{\eta} \Dot{\xi} =\frac{8 \pi G}{3} \rho \, ,}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{\Dot{H} \big[ 1 + f - \xi \big] - \frac{H}{2} \big[ f' \Dot{\eta} - \Dot{\xi} \big] + \frac{1}{2} \Dot{\eta} \Dot{\xi} + \frac{1}{2} \big[ f'' \Dot{\eta}^2 + f' \Ddot{\eta} - \Ddot{\xi} \big] = - 4 \pi G (p + \rho) \, ,}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{\Ddot{\eta} + 3H\Dot{\eta} = -6 \big( \Dot{H} + 2 H^2 \big) \, ,}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{\Ddot{\xi} + 3H\Dot{\xi} = 6 f' \big( \Dot{H} + 2 H^2 \big) \, ,}
\end{equation}
where the former two are the (0,0) and the (1,1) component of Equation~(\ref{NLfieldeq}), while the latter two are the cosmological formulation of Equations~(\ref{KGeqeta}) and~(\ref{KGeqxi}).
The linear perturbation equations have been derived in \cite{Nersisyan_2017} for the scalar--tensor equivalent of the non-local theory, and then analogous results have been found in \cite{Park_2018} for the original formulation. Using the perturbed FLRW metric in the Newtonian gauge,
\begin{equation}\label{NewtGauge}
ds^2 = - (1+2\Psi)dt^2 + a^2(t) (1+2\Phi)\delta_{ij}dx^i dx^j \, ,
\end{equation}
the growth equation reads
\begin{equation}
{\Ddot{\delta}_{M} + (2-\xi) \Dot{\delta}_{M} = \frac{3 H_{0}^{2} \big[ 1-\xi - 8 f'(\eta) + f(\eta) \big] \Omega_{M}^{0}}{2 a^3 H^2 \big[ 1-\xi - 6 f'(\eta) + f(\eta) \big] \big[ 1 + f(\eta) - \xi \big]} \, \delta_{M} \, ,}
\end{equation}
where $\delta_{M} = \delta \rho_{M}/\rho_{M}$ is the matter density perturbation in the sub-horizon limit.
Numerical results for the growth rate $f \sigma_{8} \equiv \sigma_{8} \delta_{M}'/\delta_{M}$ have been obtained in \cite{Nersisyan_2017} and \cite{Park_2018} for both the formulations of the Deser--Woodard model, and good agreement with the Redshift Space Distortion (RSD) data has emerged ($\sigma_{8}^{NL}=0.78$). Moreover, when the DW cosmological parameters are inferred by matching the CMB data \cite{Amendola_2019}, a lower growth amplitude with respect to that of $\Lambda$CDM turns out. The non-local model thus alleviates the growth tension, predicting compatible values of $\sigma_{8}$ both from Planck--CMB and the other dynamical probes, as shown in Figure~\ref{FigureBars1}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9.35cm]{ErrorBarsS8.pdf}\includegraphics[width=4.5cm,trim=0cm -1.16cm 0cm 0cm]{nomi1_cropped.pdf}
\caption{{Estimates of} $S_{8}$ provided by the two non-local cosmological analyses \cite{Amendola_2019,Belgacem_2020}, and the $\Lambda$CDM fit of the CMB \cite{Planck:2018vyg,Aiola_2020}, the WL data \cite{Asgari_2021,Amon_2022,Secco_2022,Joudaki_2017,Asgari_2020,Chen_2022}, the combination of WL and galaxy clustering observations \cite{Ivanov_2021,Ivanov_2020,White_2022}, cluster counting \cite{Lesci_2022,Costanzi_2019,Salvati_2018} and RSD surveys \cite{Nunes_2021,Kazantzidis_2018}. The colored band corresponds to the $S_8$ value derived by the analysis of the Planck--CMB data in the $\Lambda$CDM framework \cite{Planck:2018vyg}.}\label{FigureBars1}
\end{figure}
However, even though the non-local clustering of linear structures is weakened with respect to $\Lambda$CDM, and the DW prediction for the matter power spectrum is about $10\%$ lower \cite{Amendola_2019}, the non-local lensing response is counterintuitively enhanced due to a severe increase in the lensing potential. This peculiar behavior results in a slight tension between CMB and RSD \cite{Amendola_2019}: performing the joint fit, the RSD dataset tends to push the DW predictions for the CMB lensing potential $C^{\phi\phi}_{\ell}$ out of the $1\sigma$ error bars at low-$\ell$. Applying the Bayesian tools for the model selection, a ``weak evidence'' \cite{JeffreysScale} for the $\Lambda$CDM model consequently emerges.
\subsection{The Ricci-Transverse Evolution of Scalar Perturbations}
The scalar perturbations of the RT model have been investigated in \cite{Nesseris_2014_pert,Belgacem_2020}, using the FLRW metric in the Newtonian gauge, Equation~(\ref{NewtGauge}), and perturbing the auxiliary fields as
\begin{equation}
U(t,\mathbf{x}) = \Bar{U}(t) + \delta U(t,\mathbf{x}) \, ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{S}_{\mu}(t,\mathbf{x}) = \Bar{\mathcal{S}}_{0}(t) + \delta \mathcal{S}_{\mu}(t,\mathbf{x}) = \Bar{\mathcal{S}}_{0}(t) + \delta \mathcal{S}_{0}(t,\mathbf{x}) + \partial_{i} \big[ \delta \mathcal{S}(t,\mathbf{x}) \big] \, ,
\end{equation}
where the spatial part of the vector perturbation does not vanish and, for scalar perturbations, only depends on $\delta \mathcal{S}$. Building on the RT cosmological equations Equations~(\ref{RTcosm1})--(\ref{RTcosm3}), the growth equation for the matter density perturbation in the sub-horizon limit reads \cite{Nesseris_2014_pert}
\begin{equation}
{\Ddot{\delta}_{M} + 2H \Dot{\delta}_{M} = \frac{3}{2} \frac{G_{eff}}{G} H_{0}^{2} \Omega_{M} \delta_{M} \, ,}
\end{equation}
where in $G_{eff} \big( \Psi, \Phi, \delta U, \delta \mathcal{S}_0 , \mathcal{S} \big)$ is encoded the deviation of the non-local theory from GR. In the sub-horizon modes, namely $\hat{k} \gg 1$, such deviation is
\begin{equation}\label{Geff}
1- \frac{G_{eff}}{G} = \mathcal{O}\bigg( \frac{1}{\hat{k}^2} \bigg) \, ,
\end{equation}
and the RT model is thus safe regarding the time variation of the effective Newton's constant. $G_{eff}$ indeed reduces to $G$ at the Solar System scale, while a deviation of $\sim$1\% rises at cosmological scales.
In \cite{Belgacem_2020}, the growth rate $f(z, k) \equiv d \ln{\delta_{M}}/d\ln{a}$ is also derived. The results do not differ from those of $\Lambda$CDM cosmology: $f(z, k)$ can be fitted with a $k$-independent function $f(z) = [\Omega_{M}(z)]^{\gamma}$, where $\gamma \simeq 0.55$ is roughly constant.
Accordingly, any possible deviation in the growth of perturbations should be due to the amplitude $\sigma_{8}$. In order to find any signature of the non-local model at perturbation level, which could account for the growth tension, the theory was compared with cosmological observations: Planck--CMB, Pantheon SNIa and SDSS-BAO. The Bayesian parameter estimation shows a full equivalence between the RT non-local cosmology and the $\Lambda$CDM one. No statistically significant deviation in the $\sigma_{8}$ parameter emerges for any of the tested versions of the Ricci-Transverse model. Eventually, this theory cannot alleviate the growth tension, as shown in Figure~\ref{FigureBars1}.
\section{Hubble Tension in Light of the Non-Local Models}\label{H0}
Hubble tension is certainly the most renowned and significant tension of the $\Lambda$CDM model. It emerges from the comparison between early-time and late-time measurements of the Hubble constant. From one side, CMB analysis \cite{Planck:2018vyg,Dutcher_2021,Aiola_2020,Wang_2020,Balkenhol_2021,Addison_2021}, BAO surveys \cite{Ivanov_2020,d_Amico_2020,Colas_2020,Alam_2021} with standard BBN constraints \cite{Cooke_2018} and combinations of CMB, BAO, SNIa \cite{Scolnic_2018}, RSD and cosmic shear data \cite{Abbott_2018,Troxel_2018,https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1706.09359} point towards lower values of $H_0$ ($H_0 = 67.4 \pm 0.5$ {km s}$^{-1}$Mpc$^{-1}
~from Planck 2018 \cite{Planck:2018vyg}). On the other side, the local measurements based on standard candles prefer higher values for the Hubble constant \cite{Riess_2019_review} ($H_0 = 73.04 \pm 1.04$ {km s}$^{-1}$Mpc$^{-1}$ from SH0ES 2022 \cite{Riess_2022}). The main results are achieved by the SH0ES collaboration using Hubble Space Telescope observations: on the one hand, they analyzed SNIa data with distance calibration by Cepheid variables in the host galaxies \cite{Riess_2011,Riess_2016}; on the other hand, they targeted long-period pulsating Cepheid variables \cite{Riess_2021,Riess_2022}, calibrating the geometric distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud, both from eclipsing {binaries}
and parallaxes from the Gaia satellite \cite{GAIA,refId0}. Moreover, other independent local measurement of $H_0$ have been performed by using time delays between multiple images of strong lensed quasars \cite{Wong_2019aa,Shajib_2020}, the tip of the Red Giant Branch \cite{Yuan_2019} and Miras (variable red giant stars) \cite{Huang_2020_miras} with water megamaser as distance indicator \cite{Reid_2019}. All these measurements agree on higher values of the Hubble constant, thus generating a $4-5 \sigma$ tension with early-time model-dependent estimates.
\subsection{The Deser--Woodard Expansion History}
The stat-of-the-art investigation of the DW non-local model does not allow any attempt to address $H_0$ tension.
To make the model predictive, the form of the distortion function needs to be specified, and most of the analyses have been focused on the phenomenological $\Lambda$CDM form of Equation~(\ref{DistFun}), until now (see \cite{Amendola_2019} for the latest results). This choice implies that the DW cosmology is made equivalent to that of the concordance model at background level, and the same expansion history, as well as the same $H_0$, are thus predicted (see Figure~\ref{FigureBarsH0}).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9.35cm]{ErrorBarsH0_1.pdf}\includegraphics[width=4.37cm,trim=0cm -1.21cm 0cm 0cm]{nomiH0_cropped.pdf}
\caption{Estimates of $H_0$ provided by the two non-local cosmological analyses \cite{Amendola_2019,Belgacem_2020}, and the $\Lambda$CDM fit of the CMB \cite{Planck:2018vyg,Dutcher_2021,Aiola_2020,Balkenhol_2021}, the matter power spectrum combined with BAO \cite{Zhang_2022,Chen_2022,Colas_2020} and RSD \cite{Wang_2017}, the Large Scale Structure $t_{eq}$ standard ruler \cite{Farren_2022,Philcox_2021}, the supernovae \cite{Riess_2022,Anand_2022,Huang_2020_miras,de_Jaeger_2022,Wong_2019aa}, the time-delay lensing \cite{Denzel_2020,Wong_2019aa,Chen_2019}, the gravitational waves \cite{Muk_2022,Abb_2021_b,Gayat_GW}, the water megamasers \cite{Pesce_2020,Reid_2019}, the Tully--Fisher relation \cite{Kourkchi_2020} and the SBF \cite{Blakeslee_2021}. The colored bands correspond to the $H_0$ estimates derived by the Planck--CMB analysis in the $\Lambda$CDM framework (purple) \cite{Planck:2018vyg} and the SNIa--Cepheids analysis by SH0ES (orange) \cite{Riess_2022}.}\label{FigureBarsH0}
\end{figure}
However, another option is also available for the selection of the distortion function. In \cite{Dialektopoulos_2018iph,Bouche:2022jts,BORKA2022}, a specific form of $f(\eta)$ has been derived by exploiting the Noether symmetries \cite{Capozziello:1996bi} of a spherically symmetric background spacetime
\begin{equation}\label{ExpDistFun}
f(\eta) = 1 + e^{\,\eta} \, .
\end{equation}
The accurate cosmological analysis of this form of the DW model has yet to be carried out, but some results have already been achieved, such as exact solutions \cite{Capozziello_Review} and a phase-space view of solutions \cite {Capozziello:2022rac}. {Furthermore}, several astrophysical tests have been performed on very different scales, and viable results turned out. In \cite{Bouche:2022jts}, the lensing properties of the galaxy clusters have been investigated in light of the exponential DW model, and a fully non-local regime with enhanced lensing strength has been highlighted. This feature clearly resembles the improved lensing response of the phenomenological form of the DW model, which is co-responsible for the lowered estimate of the $\sigma_{8}$ parameter. A promising insight upon the cosmological behavior of the non-local theory based on Equation~(\ref{ExpDistFun}) thus emerges. Therefore, this model may alleviate not only the growth tension but also the Hubble tension, since it also deviates from GR at the background level {\cite{NLicecube}}.
Further analysis of the exponential DW model should be carried out accordingly.
\subsection{The Ricci-Transverse Expansion History}
For what concerns the RT model, the most updated cosmological analysis is due to Belgacem {et al.} \cite{Belgacem_2020}. As we saw in Section~\ref{S8}, different versions of the non-local model, relying on different choices for initial conditions of the auxiliary fields, have been compared against Planck--CMB, Pantheon SNIa and SDSS-BAO data. Since the RT model has no freedom with regard to the functional form of the action, the theory cannot be adjusted to data, and no background equivalence to the $\Lambda$CDM cosmology can be established a priori.
In such a scenario, the solution to the Hubble tension may thus be possible. However, the estimator tool defined in Equation~(\ref{Geff}), which accounts for the deviation from GR of the non-local theory, only shows little discrepancies. This manifests in the values of the cosmological parameters inferred via Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC), which are almost equivalent to those of the concordance model. The only model that exhibits some slight discrepancies is the so-called "RT-minimal", which relies on the assumption that the auxiliary scalar field $U(x)$ starts its evolution during the radiation dominance era. On the one hand, this model predict a non-vanishing value for the sum of neutrino masses, while the $\Lambda$CDM model and the other versions of the RT model show a marginalized posterior which is peaked in zero. On the other hand, the RT-minimal model provides a barely higher estimate of the Hubble constant, i.e., $H_0 = 68.74^{+0.59}_{-0.51}$ {km s}$^{-1}$Mpc$^{-1}$. Accordingly, the Hubble tension is just reduced to $\sim$4$\sigma$, as shown in Figure~\ref{FigureBarsH0}.
The RT model in its minimal setup thus provides a viable mechanism to account for the late-time cosmic acceleration, as well as for the inclusion of non-zero neutrino masses. However, the predictions for both the background evolution and the linear perturbations are too similar to that of the $\Lambda$CDM model, hence the cosmological tensions cannot be alleviated.
\section{Astrophysical Tests of Non-Local Gravity}\label{AstroTest}
As we saw, good cosmological behavior emerges for both of the non-local models, thus enabling the possibility to avoid the introduction of any form of unknown dark energy. In order to further investigate the viability of such models as alternatives to GR, it is then necessary to test the non-local predictions down to astrophysical scales. Moreover, an accurate investigation of the possible screening mechanisms should be performed, if necessary.
\subsection{Testing the Deser--Woodard Model by Galaxy Clusters, Elliptical Galaxies and the S2 Star}
The DW model has been tested on a wide range of astrophysical scales, from the galaxy clusters \cite{Bouche:2022jts} to the stellar orbits around Sagittarius A* \cite{Dialektopoulos_2018iph}. Most of the tests have been carried out for the exponential form of the non-local model, namely
\begin{equation}
S = \frac{1}{2\kappa} \int d^{4}x \sqrt{-g} \Big[ R \big( 2 + e^{\,\eta} \big) - \partial_{\mu}\xi \partial^{\mu}\eta - \xi R \Big] \, ,
\end{equation}
where the distortion function has been picked out by exploiting the Noether Symmetry Approach \cite{Dialektopoulos_2018_NS}. The analyses presented are all performed in the post-Newtonian limit, hence the non-local gravitational and metric potential are
\begin{equation}\label{PhiNL}
\begin{aligned}
\phi(r) =& - \frac{GM\eta_{c}}{r} + \frac{G^{2}M^{2}}{2c^{2}r^{2}} \Bigg[ \frac{14}{9}\eta_{c}^{2} + \frac{18 r_{\xi} - 11 r_{\eta}}{6 r_{\eta} r_{\xi}} \, r \Bigg] - \frac{G^{3}M^{3}}{2c^{4}r^{3}} \Bigg[ \frac{50 r_{\xi} - 7 r_{\eta}}{12 r_{\eta} r_{\xi}} \, \eta_{c} r + \frac{16}{27} \eta_{c}^{3} - \frac{2 r_{\xi}^{2} - r_{\eta}^{2}}{r_{\eta}^{2} r_{\xi}^{2}} \, r^{2} \Bigg] \, ,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{PsiNL}
\psi(r) = - \frac{GM\eta_{c}}{3r} - \frac{G^{2}M^{2}}{2c^{2}r^{2}} \Bigg[ \frac{2}{9}\eta_{c}^{2} + \frac{3 r_{\eta} - 2 r_{\xi}}{2 r_{\eta} r_{\xi}} \, r \Bigg] \, ,
\end{equation}
where $\eta_{c}$ is set to 1 so as to recover GR in the limit of $\phi(r)$. The two length scales $r_{\eta}$ and $r_{\xi}$ are the characteristic non-local parameters that define the scale at which the non-local gravity corrections become effective.
The first test of this form of the DW model has been carried out in \cite{Dialektopoulos_2018iph}, where the weak field non-local predictions have been compared against the NTT/VLT observations of S2 star orbit \cite{Gillessen_2009}. Exploiting a modified Marquardt--Levenberg algorithm, the fit between the simulated orbit and the observed one has shown a slightly better agreement for the non-local model with respect to the Keplerian orbit. Moreover, some constraints have been set on the non-local length scales.
A further test has been subsequently performed in \cite{Bouche:2022jts}, exploiting the CLASH lensing data from 19 massive clusters \cite{Postman_2012,Umetsu_2016}. The point-mass potentials of Equations~(\ref{PhiNL}) and (\ref{PsiNL}) were extended to a spherically symmetric mass distribution, i.e., the Navarro--Frenk--White density profile, and the non-local predictions for the lensing convergence were achieved. Therefore, the MCMC analysis has highlighted two effective regimes in which the non-local model is able to match the observations at the same level of statistical significance as GR. In the high-value limit of the non-local parameters, the non-local model reduces to a GR-like theory, whose lensing strength is $2/3$ of the standard one. In this scenario, the DW theory is thus able to fit the data at the cost of increased cluster mass estimates. On the other hand, approaching the low-value limit of the non-local length scales, the non-local corrections to the lensing potential become larger and comparable to the zeroth-order terms. In this regime, the non-local model is able to reproduce GR phenomenology, neither affecting the mass estimates nor the statistical viability of the model. Furthermore, when the non-local contributions becomes completely dominant, the non-local theory seems to be able to fit the lensing observations with extremely low cluster masses. Accordingly, an intriguing possibility to fit data with no dark matter emerges. Additional constraints on the non-local parameters were also derived.
The most recent astrophysical test of the exponential-DW model was carried out in \cite{BORKA2022}, using the velocity distribution of elliptical galaxies \cite{Burstein_1997}. Computing the non-local velocity dispersion as a function of the galaxy effective radius, the empirical relation of the so-called Fundamental Plane has been recovered so as to constrain the non-local gravity parameters. The results of the fit highlight the possibility to recover the fundamental plane without the dark matter hypothesis, setting new constraints for $r_{\eta}$ and $r_{\xi}$.
It is worth noticing, however, that the non-local Deser--Woodard model exhibits worrisome features at the scale of the Solar System. Indeed, in \cite{Belgacem_2019_LLR}, it was demonstrated that the screening mechanism proposed by the same authors of the non-local model does not work. As a consequence, the DW model would show a time dependence of the effective Newton constant in the small-scale limit, and it would be ruled out by Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR) observations. This conclusion, however, seems to be too strong, since it is still not clear how an FLRW background quantity behaves when evaluated from cosmological scales down to Solar System ones, where the system decouples from the Hubble flow. In fact, a full non-linear time- and scale-dependent solution around a non-linear structure would be necessary. A number of proposals go in this direction, and the so-called Vainshtein mechanism \cite{VAINSHTEIN1972393} can be regarded as the paradigm to realize the screening. Basically, any screening mechanism requires a scalar field coupled to matter and mediating a fifth force which might span from Solar System up to cosmological scales. Since non-local terms can be “localized”, thus resulting in effective scalar fields depending on the scale, some screening mechanism could naturally emerge so as to solve the above reported problems.
\subsection{Testing the Ricci-Transverse Model by Solar System Observations and Gravitational Waves Detection}
The main astrophysical tests of the RT model are related to Solar System observations. As we saw in the previous sub-section, any theory that extends GR has to reduce to Einstein's theory at small scales. However, this is highly non-trivial when additional degrees of freedom are included, and screening mechanisms involving non-linear features are required. The RT model, instead, smoothly reduces to GR already at linear level, and no vDVZ discontinuity arises when $m \rightarrow 0$ \cite{Belgacem_2020}. Note that such results are valid both in the flat and the Schwarzschild spacetime. Moreover, the non-local model passes the LLR test about the time variation of the effective Newton constant \cite{Belgacem_2019_LLR}. As stated in Equation~(\ref{Geff}), indeed, the deviation parameter $G_{eff}$ reduces to $G_{N}$ as soon as the system's characteristic scale decreases.
Another non-local feature of the RT model that has been investigated is the deviation from GR of the predicted gravitational radiation \cite{Belgacem_2018_DW1,Belgacem_2018_DW2}. The RT model, similarly to some other {extended theories of gravity} such as $f(R)$ gravity and DHOST theories, has survived the GW170817 event, which set a stringent constraint on the Gravitational Waves (GW) speed \cite{Abbott_2017_GW}.
Indeed, this non-local model only modifies the friction term in the GW propagation equation, thus predicting a massless graviton. Moreover, neither the coupling with matter nor the gravitational interaction between the coalescing binaries are affected (the RT model reduces to GR at short distances), and the only difference will therefore be due to the free propagation of the GW from the source to the observer. The GW amplitude indeed undergoes a modified dampening in the non-local model
\begin{equation}\label{GWnonlocal}
\Tilde{h}_{A}(\eta , \mathbf{k}) \sim \frac{1}{d_{L}^{gw}(z)} = \Bigg[ d_{L}^{em}(z) \exp{\bigg\{ -\int_{0}^{z} \frac{dz'}{1+z'} \delta(z') \bigg\}} \Bigg]^{-1} \, ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\delta(\eta) = \frac{m^2 \bar{\mathcal{S}_0}(\eta)}{6H(\eta)} \, ,
\end{equation}
and $\Tilde{h}_{A}(\eta , \mathbf{k})$ are the Fourier modes of the GW amplitude, with $A=\times,+$ labeling the polarization. Computing the ratio between the non-local behavior given by Equation~(\ref{GWnonlocal}) and the GR behavior, $\Tilde{h}_{A}(\eta , \mathbf{k}) \sim 1/d_{L}^{em}(z)$, little deviation emerges for the RT-minimal model, while a $20-80\%$ deviation manifests at large $z$ for the RT formulations in which the auxiliary fields start their evolution during the de Sitter inflation. The more e-folds we consider between the onset of the auxiliary fields and the end of the inflation, the greater the deviation from GR. We can use a simple parametrization for the considered ratio
\begin{equation}
\frac{d_{L}^{gw}(z)}{d_{L}^{em}(z)} = \Xi_0 + \frac{1 - \Xi_0}{(1+z)^n} \, ,
\end{equation}
where $\Xi_0$ is the asymptotic value reached by the ratio and $n$ is the rate at which $\Xi_0$ is approached. Then,
\begin{equation}
\delta(z) = \frac{\delta(0)}{1 - \Xi_0 + \Xi_0 (1+z)^n} \, ,
\end{equation}
with $\delta(0) = n(1- \Xi_0)$, and the event GW170817 provided the following constraint for such a parameter \cite{Belgacem_2018_DW2}: $\delta(0) = -7.8^{+9.7}_{-18.4}$. More stringent constraints will certainly be set with the next generation of GW detectors by exploiting the observations of GW events with electromagnetic counterparts.
\section{Conclusions and Perspectives}\label{Conclusions}
In this paper, we reviewed the cosmological properties of two of the main proposals in the framework of the non-locally {extended} theories of gravity. In particular, we considered two metric IKGs that are inspired by quantum corrections and manifest a suitable cosmological behavior as well. Both the DW and RT models are able to reproduce the expansion history of the Universe, exhibiting a late-time accelerated expansion driven by the onset of the non-local corrections. The non-local extensions of the Hilbert--Einstein Lagrangian thus provide a viable mechanism to avoid the introduction of any form of unknown dark energy. Building on these appealing properties, we inquired into the chance of addressing the two main cosmological tensions, namely the $\sigma_8$ and $H_0$ tensions.
On the one hand, the non-local DW model has shown suitable features towards this aim. The phenomenological formulation of the model indeed predicts a lowered amplitude of growth of perturbations, therefore solving the $\sigma_8$ tension. However, this model is made equivalent to the $\Lambda$CDM cosmology at the background level, hence no chance to account for the Hubble tension arises. Another formulation of the DW theory, based on the Noether symmetries of the system, may address both the tensions. This model lacks a proper cosmological analysis, but the investigation of its lensing properties at the galaxy clusters scale has shown the same features that, in the phenomenological DW model, allow the weakening of the growth of structures. Moreover, this formulation of the non-local theory deviates from GR also at background level, thus enabling the possibility to alleviate the Hubble tension as well. The model has been also tested on astrophysical scales, and substantial statistical equivalence to GR has emerged in very different systems, such as the S2 star, the elliptical galaxies and the galaxy clusters. The main drawback of the DW model, however, is the absence of an effective screening mechanism on small scales, which has to be further investigated.
On the other hand, the non-local RT model perfectly reduces to GR at the Solar System scale, thus avoiding the necessity of non-trivial screening mechanisms. Accordingly, the model is not ruled out by the LLR test. Moreover, the non-minimal formulations of the RT model show a strong deviation from GR for what concerns the GW propagation at large redshift. A powerful tool to test the model with the next generation of GW detectors thus emerges. However, this non-local model is not able to address any of the cosmological tensions, as it mimics the $\Lambda$CDM evolution both at the background and linear perturbations level.
In view of the fact that the next generation of cosmological surveys are expected to provide sufficiently accurate data to reach a turning point in our comprehension of the Universe, it is of great interest to further investigate the main alternatives to GR. A complete cosmological analysis should especially be carried out for the non-local DW model in its formulation based on the Noether Symmetry Approach. This model indeed provides one of the most promising windows towards the solution of both the cosmological tensions and the dark energy problem. The large-scale structure especially appears as a privileged environment for testing the non-local models, since one of their main features is the emergence of characteristic length scales. However, it must be stressed that as long as no screening mechanism will be found for the DW model, its reliability will be compromised.
\acknowledgments{
This article is based upon work from COST Action CA21136 Addressing
observational tensions in cosmology with systematic and fundamental
physics (CosmoVerse) supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and
Technology). FB and SC acknowledge the support of {\it Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare} (INFN), {\it iniziative specifiche} QGSKY and MOONLIGHT2.}
|
\section{ Introduction}
Let $M$ be a complex manifold of dimension $n$ and $g$ a Hermitian metric with the associated K\"ahler form $\omega$. The Hermitian metric $g$ is called Gauduchon if
\begin{equation*}
\partial\bar{\partial}\omega^{n-1}=0.
\end{equation*}
It has been proved by Gauduchon (\cite{Gau84}) that every Hermitian metric is conformal to a Gauduchon metric (uniquely up to scaling when $n\geq 2$). The Hermitian metric $\omega$ is said to be Astheno-K\"ahler if $\partial\bar{\partial}\omega^{n-2}=0$. The concept of Astheno-K\"ahler was introduced by Jost and Yau in \cite{JY93}. In this case, the second Chern number of a twisted vector bundle can be well defined. Throughout the paper, we will assume $\omega$ is Gauduchon if there is no additional emphasis.
Twisted sheaves were introduced by Giraud in \cite{Gi71}, and can be defined in several equivalent ways. It can be regarded as family of sheaves on an open covering of $M$ together with a twisted gluing, as sheaves of modules over an Azumaya algebra on $M$ (\cite{C00}), as sheaves over a gerb on $M$ (\cite{Cha98,Gi71,Wang12}), etc. These objects have found many applications in physics for the description of the so-called $B$-fields and the $K$-theory. We should mention that the twisted $K$-theory has appeared earlier in the mathematical physics literature, in the study of the quantum Hall effect (\cite{CHMM98,CHM99}).
In recent years, the existence of Hermitian--Einstein has been extensively studied. The classical Donaldson--Uhlenbeck--Yau theorem says that a holomorphic vector bundle over compact K\"ahler manifolds admit Hermitian--Einstein metrics if it is stable. This result was first proved by Narasimhan and Seshadri (\cite{NS65}) for compact Riemannian surface by using the methods of algebraic geometry. Subsequently, Donaldson (\cite{Don83,Don85,Don87}) gave a new proof of the Narasimhan-Seshadri theorem, and generalized to algebraic surfaces and algebraic manifolds by using Hermitian--Yang--Mills flow. Uhlenbeck and Yau (\cite{UY86, UY89}) proved it for general compact K\"ahler manifold by using continuity method.
The inverse of the problem which states that a holomorphic bundle carrying a Hermitian--Einstein metric must be polystable is also valid. It was proved by Kobayashi (\cite{Ko87}) and L\"ubke (\cite{Lu83}) independently. So there is a one-to-one correspondence bewteen the algebraic notion of stability and the existence of Hermitian--Einstein on holomorphic vector bundle. This is usually referred as to Hitchin--Kobayashi correspondence (see \cite{AG,BJS14,iR,LT06,SZZ} and references therein). There are several interesting generalizations for this coorespondence. For example, Li--Yau (\cite{LY87}) studied the coorespondence for Hermitian manifolds with Gauduchon metric; Hitchin (\cite{Hit87}) and Simpson (\cite{Sim88}) studied the Higgs bundle case which plays an important role in non-abelian Hodge theory; Mochizuki (\cite{Mo20}) studied such correspondence on the non-compact K\"ahler manifolds; Biswas--Loftin--Stemmler (\cite{BLS13}) studied for affine manifolds; Biswas--Kasuya (\cite{BK21,BK21arx}) studied for Sasakian manifolds; Zhang--Zhang--Zhang (\cite{ZZZ21}) studied for some non-compact non-K\"ahler manifolds.
If one considers the weaker stability condition, there is an analog of such correspondence between the semi-stability and the approximate Hermitian-Einstein metric. Kobayashi (\cite{Ko87}) introduced the notion of approximate Hermitian--Einstein metric for holomorphic vector bundles. He proved a holomorphic vector bundle admitting an approximate Hermitian--Einstein metric must be semi-stable over a compact K\"ahler manifold. In
\cite{BG07}, Bruzzo and Gra\~na Otero generalized above result to the Higgs bundle case. When the base manifold is projective, Kobayashi proved the inverse part and conjectured that it should be true for general K\"ahler manifolds. It was solved by Li--Zhang (\cite{LZ15}) and Jacob (\cite{Jac14}) independently for the general K\"ahler manifold case. In the principal bundle case, it was studied by Biswas--Jacob--Stemmler (\cite{BBJS13,BJS12}). Recently, Nie--Zhang (\cite{NZ18}) proved the existence of approximate Hermitian--Einstein structures is equivalent to the semi-stability on Higgs bundles over compact Gauduchon manifolds. Subsequently, Zhang--Zhang--Zhang (\cite{ZZZ21}) also studied the semi-stable Higgs bundles on some non-compact Gauducon manifolds.
In the present paper, our considerations focus on the twisted vector bundles over compact Gauduchon manifolds. The twisted vector bundles are local vector bundles on a open covering with a twisted gluing, which is the point of view of C\u{a}ld\u{a}raru (\cite{C00, CKS03}). Let $\mathscr{U}:=\{U_i\}_{i\in I}$ be a fixed open covering of $M$. A $B$-field on $M$ with respect to $\mathscr{U}$ is a family $B=\{B_{i}\}_{i\in I}$, where each $B_i$ is a $2$-form on $U_i$ such that
\begin{equation}
B_i-B_j=d\beta_{ij},
\end{equation}
for some $1$-forms $\beta_{ij}$ on $U_{ij}:=U_i\cap U_j$. Notice that $d(\beta_{ij}+\beta_{jk}+\beta_{ki})=0$, we may find $U(1)$-valued functions $\alpha_{ijk}$ on $U_{ijk}:=U_i\cap U_j \cap U_k$ such that
\begin{equation}
\beta_{ij}+\beta_{jk}+\beta_{ki}=-\alpha_{ijk}^{-1}d\alpha_{ijk},
\end{equation}
when the open covering $\mathscr{U}$ is sufficiently fine. Then $\alpha_B:=\{\alpha_{ijk}\}$ is a $2$-cocycle whose cohomology class lies in $H^2(M,\mathscr{O}_M^*)$, which is called the twist induced by $B$. We will omit the subscript $B$ when there is no confusion. An $\alpha$-twisted holomorphic vector bundle is a pair $E:=(\{E_i\}_{i\in I},\{\varphi_{ij}\}_{i,j\in I})$, where $E_i$ is a holomorphic vector bundle on $U_i$ and
\begin{equation*}
\varphi_{ij}:E_j|_{U_{ij}}\to E_i|_{U_{ij}}
\end{equation*}
is an isomorphism of holomorphic vector bundles on $U_{ij}$, such that $\varphi_{ii}={\rm Id}_{E_i},\varphi_{ij}^{-1}=\varphi_{ji}$ and $\varphi_{ki}\circ \varphi_{jk}\circ \varphi_{ij}=\alpha_{ijk}\cdot {\rm Id}_{E|_{U_{ijk}}}$ for each $i,j,k\in I$. Here we usually omit the holomporphic structure $\bar{\partial}_{E_i}$ on $E_i$ when there is no confusion. It can be easily see that $1$-twisted holomorphic vector bundle is the usual holomorphic vector bundle.
In \cite{Wang12}, S. Wang proved the Hitchin--Kobayashi coorespondence for twisted holomorphic vector bundles over a gerbe on compact K\"ahler manifolds. All the definitions in \cite{Wang12} are in the category of twisted holomorphic vector bundles as holomorphic vector bundles over a gerb. Recently, A. Perego (\cite{Perego21}) generalized Wang's result to complex manifolds with a Gauduchon metric. And he also proved the twisted version of approximate Hitchin--Kobayashi coorespondence on compact K\"ahler manifolds. Inspired by Perego's work, we consider the case that the approximate Hermitian--Einstein metric for twisted holomorphic vector bundle over compact Gauduchon manifolds. In fact, we prove the following theorem.
\begin{thm}\label{maintheorem}
Let $E=\{E_i,\varphi_{ij}\}_{i,j\in I}$ be an $\alpha$-twisted holomorphic vector bundle of rank $r$ over a compact Gauduchon manifold $(M,\omega)$. Then $E$ is $\omega$-semi-stable if and only if it admits an approximate Hermitian--Einstein structure.
\end{thm}
We should remark that Perego (\cite{Perego21}) only proved the above theorem when the base manifold is a K\"ahler manifold. He mainly follow the methods of Jacob (\cite{Jac14}) and Kobayashi (\cite{Ko87}) by using Donaldson's heat flow. The proof relies on the properties of the Donaldson's Lagrangian. However, the Donaldson's Lagrangian is not well-defined when the base manifold is only Gauduchon. So his argument can not be generalized to Gauduchon case directly. In this paper, we will adapt Nie--Zhang's arguments (\cite{NZ18}) to our case, but there are some differences in the treatment of certain details.
As an application, we obtain the following Bogomolov type inequality.
\begin{thm}\label{thm2}
Let $(M,\tilde{\omega})$ be a compact Astheno-K\"ahler manifold of dimension $n$, and $\omega$ a Gauduchon metric which is conformal to $\tilde{\omega}$. Let $E=\{E_i,\varphi_{ij}\}_{i,j\in I}$ be an $\alpha$-twisted holomorohic vector bundle of rank $r$ over $M$. If $E$ is $\omega$-semi-stable, then we have the following Bogomolov type inequality
\begin{equation}
\int_{M}\bigg(2c_2(E)-\frac{r-1}{r}c_1(E)\wedge c_1(E)\bigg)\wedge \frac{\tilde{\omega}^{n-2}}{(n-2)!}\geq 0.
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
The Bogomolov type inequality was first proved by Bogomolov (\cite{Bo79}) for semi-stable holomorphic vector bundles over complex algrebraic surfaces. Subsequently, it was generalized to Hermitian--Einstein vector bundles over compact K\"ahler manifolds by L\"ubke ( \cite{Lu82}). Recently, Li--Nie--Zhang (\cite{LNZ22}) proved the Bogomolov type inequality over Gauduchon Astheno-K\"ahler manifolds. In twisted case, Perego (\cite{Perego21}) obtained the Bogomolov type inequality for semi-stable $\alpha$-twisted holomorphic vector bundle over compact K\"ahler manifolds. In our paper, we will proved the Bogomolov type inequality by following Li--Nie--Zhang's arguments.
This article is organized as follows. In Section \ref{sec:Pre}, we briefly present some notations for $\alpha$-twisted holomorphic vector bundle, such as connection, curvature and semi-stability. In Section \ref{sec:Pro}, we give the detailed proof of Theorem \ref{maintheorem}. In Section
\ref{sec:Bo}, we prove the Bogomolov type inequality for semi-stable $\alpha$-twisted holomorphic vector bundles over Gauduchon Astheno-K\"ahler manifolds.
\section{Preliminary}\label{sec:Pre}
In this section, we will introduce the basic notations of $\alpha$-twisted vector bundles that will be used throughout the paper. We will follow the notations of \cite{Perego21}.
\subsection{Hermitian metrics, connections and curvatures}
Let $E=\{E_i,\varphi_{ij}\}_{i,j\in I}$ be an $\alpha$-twisted holomorphic vector bundle over compact Gauduchon manifold $(M,\omega)$. A Hermitian metric on $E$ is a connection $H=\{H_i\}_{i\in I}$, where $H_i$ is a Hermitian metric on $E_i$ and $H_i=\varphi_{ij}^TH_j\bar{\varphi}_{ij}$ for each $i,j\in I$, i.e., for any $\xi,\eta\in \Gamma(E_i)$,
\begin{equation*}
H_i(\xi,\eta)=H_j(\varphi_{ij}(\xi),\varphi_{ij}(\eta)).
\end{equation*}
Since $\alpha_{ijk}$ is $U(1)$-valued, it can be easily seen that the definition is well-defined. And there always exists a Hermitian metric $H=\{H_i\}_{i\in I}$ on an $\alpha$-twisted vector bundle (see \cite{Perego21} for details).
We should remark that $H_i$ also denotes the matrix of smooth functions with respect to a given local frame and $\varphi_{ij}$ denotes the matrix of smooth functions with respect to the chosen local frames of $E_i$ and $E_j$ when there is no confusion.
A connection on $\alpha$-twisted vector bundle is a family $D=\{D_i\}_{i\in I}$, where $D_i$ is a connection on $E_i$ and locally the connection $1$-form $A_i$ satisfies
\begin{equation*}
A_i=\varphi_{ij}^{-1}A_j\varphi_{ij}+\varphi_{ij}^{-1}d\varphi_{ij}+\beta_{ij}\cdot {\rm Id}_E.
\end{equation*}
The notion of connection on a twisted bundle can be found in \cite{Ka12}. We say that a connection $D=\{D_i\}_{i\in I}$ is compatible with the Hermitian metric $H=\{H_i\}_{i\in I}$, if each $D_i$ is compatible with $H_i$, i.e., for any $\xi,\eta\in \Gamma(E_i)$,
\begin{equation*}
d(H_i(\xi,\eta))=H_i(D_i(\xi),\eta)+H_i(\xi,D_i(\eta)).
\end{equation*}
In a local given frame of $E_i$, it usually represents as
\begin{equation*}
dH_i=A_i^TH_i+H_i\bar{A}_i.
\end{equation*}
Let $F_D\in \Omega^2(\mbox{End}(E))$ be curvature form of the connection $D=\{D_i\}_{i\in I}$. According to \cite{Perego21}, we have
\begin{equation*}
F_D|_{U_i}=F_{D_i}-B_i\cdot {\rm Id}_{E_i},
\end{equation*}
where $F_{D_i}$ is the curvature of $D_i$ for every $i\in I$. Thoughtout the paper, we assume that each $B_i$ of the $B$-filed $B$ is a $(1,1)$-form on $U_i$ and $\beta_{ij}$ is a $(1,0)$-form on $U_{ij}$. Then given a Hermitian metric $H$ on the $\alpha$-twisted holomorphic vector bundle $E$, there is a unique Chern connection $D_H$ which is compatible with the Hermitian metric $H$ and the holomorphic structure of $E$. In fact, we have the following lemma.
\begin{lem}[Lemma 2.25 in \cite{Perego21}]
Let $E$ be an $\alpha$-twisted holomorphic vector bundle and $H$ be a Hermitian metric on $E$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item [(1)] There is a unique connection $D_H$ which is compatible both with the holomorphic structure of $E$ and the Hermitian metric $H$.
\item [(2)] If each $B_i$ of the $B$-field is a $(1,1)$-form for every $i\in I$, then $F_D\in \Omega^{1,1}({\mbox{End}(E)})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
Let $F_H\in \Omega^{1,1}(\mbox{End}(E))$ be the curvature form of the Chern connection $D_H$, then we have
\begin{equation*}
F_H|_{U_i}=F_{H_i}-B_i\cdot {\rm Id}_{E_i},
\end{equation*}
where $F_{H_i}$ is the curvature form of the Chern connection $D_{H_i}$ on $E_i$. A Hermitian metric $H=\{H_i\}_{i\in I}$ in $E=\{E_i,\varphi_{ij}\}_{i,j\in I}$ is called a Hermitian--Einstein metric if the curvature $F_H$ of the Chern connection $D_H$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}F_H=\lambda\cdot {\rm Id}_E,
\end{equation}
where $\Lambda_{\omega}$ denotes the contraction of differential forms by $\omega$, and $\lambda$ is a real constant.
An $\alpha$-twisted holomorphic vector bundle $E=\{E_i,\varphi_{ij}\}_{i,j\in I}$ is said to be admitting an approximate Hermitian--Einstein structure if for every $\varepsilon>0$, there is a Hermitian metric $H_{\varepsilon}=\{H_{i,\varepsilon}\}_{i\in I}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\max_{X}|\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}F_{H_{\varepsilon}}-\lambda\cdot {\rm Id}_{E}|_{H_{\varepsilon}}<\varepsilon.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Stability}
Let $E=\{E_i,\varphi_{ij}\}_{i,j\in I}$ be an $\alpha$-twisted holomorphic vector bundle of rank $r$ and $H=\{H_i\}_{i\in I}$ be a Hermitian metric on $E$. Then the first Chern form of $(E,H)$ is
\begin{equation}
c_1(E,H)=\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2\pi}{\rm tr}(F_H)\in \Omega^{1,1}(M).
\end{equation}
The second Chern form of $(E,H)$ is
\begin{equation}
c_2(E,H)=-\frac{1}{8\pi^2}\Big(({\rm tr}F_{H})^2-{\rm tr}(F_H\wedge F_H)\Big).
\end{equation}
The degree of $(E,H)$ with respect to the Gauduchon metric $\omega$ on $M$ is defined to be
\begin{equation}
\deg_{\omega}(E):=\int_{M}c_1(E,H)\wedge \frac{\omega^{n-1}}{(n-1)!}.
\end{equation}
Since $\omega$ is a Gauduchon metric, the definition of the degree is well-defined and independent of the choice of the Hermitian metric $H$.
Let $\mathscr{F}=\{\mathscr{F}_i,\varphi_{ij}\}_{i,j\in I}$ be an $\alpha$-twisted coherent sheaf of rank $s$ on $M$. The definition of stability for twisted coherent sheaves was first introduced by Lieblich (\cite{Lieb07}) and A. Perego (\cite{Perego19,Perego21}) studied the stability of twisted coherent sheaves in the language of twisted gluing of coherent sheaves. Given a rank $s$ $\alpha$-twisted coherent sheaves, the determinant of $\mathscr{F}=\{\det(\mathscr{F}_{i}),\det(\varphi_{ij})\}_{i,j\in I}$ is a locally free $\alpha^s$-twisted sheaf of rank $1$. The $\omega$-degree of $\mathscr{F}$ is defined by
\begin{equation}
\deg_{\omega}(\mathscr{F}):=\deg_{\omega}(\det(\mathscr{F})).
\end{equation}
If $\mathscr{F}$ is non-trivial, the slope of $\mathscr{F}$ with respect to $\omega$ is defined by
\begin{equation}
\mu_{\omega}(\mathscr{F})=\frac{\deg_{\omega}(\mathscr{F})}{{\rm rank}(\mathscr{F})}.
\end{equation}
Let $E=\{E_i,\varphi_{ij}\}_{i,j\in I}$ be an $\alpha$-twisted holomorphic vector bundle on $M$. We say an $\alpha$-twisted holomorphic vector bundle $E$ is $\omega$-stable (resp. $\omega$-semi-stable) if for every proper $\alpha$-twisted coherent subsheaf $\mathscr{F}$ of $E$, it holds that
\begin{equation}
\mu_{\omega}(\mathscr{F})<\mu_{\omega}(E) \quad (\text{resp.}\quad \mu_{\omega}(\mathscr{F})\leq \mu_{\omega}(E)).
\end{equation}
\subsection{Endomorphisms of twisted vector bundles}
In the rest of this section, we will introduce the endomorphisms of twisted vector bundles. Let $E=\{E_i,\varphi_{ij}\}_{i,j\in I}$ be an $\alpha$-twisted vector bundle on $M$. An endomorphism $f:E\to E$ is a family $f=\{f_i\}_{i\in I}$, where $f_i:E_i\to E_i$ is an endomorphism of $E_i$ on $U_i$ and for every $i,j\in I$,
\begin{equation}
\varphi_{ij}\circ f_i=f_j\circ \varphi_{ij}.
\end{equation}
It is easy to check that the eigenvalues of $f$ are smooth functions on the whole $M$. In fact, if $\lambda_i$ is a smooth function on $U_i$ and $\xi\in \Gamma(E_i)$ is a nowhere vanishing smooth section such that $f_i(\xi)=\lambda_i\xi$, then
\begin{equation*}
f_j(\varphi_{ij}(\xi))=\varphi_{ij}(f_j(\xi))=\varphi_{ij}(\lambda_i\xi)=\lambda_i\varphi_{ij}(\xi).
\end{equation*}
So $\lambda_i$ is an eigenvalue for $f_j$ with a nowhere vanishing smooth section $\varphi_{ij}(\xi)$. Hence the eigenvalues of $f_i$ glue together to give global functions on $M$.
Given a Hermitian metric $H=\{H_i\}_{i\in I}$ on $E=\{E_i,\varphi_{ij}\}_{i,j\in I}$, we say that an endomorphism $f$ is self-adjoint with respect to $H$, if for every $i\in I$ and $\xi,\eta\in \Gamma(E_i)$, it holds
\begin{equation}\label{selfadj}
H_i(f_i(\xi),\eta)=H_i(\xi,f_i(\eta)).
\end{equation}
We denote
\begin{equation*}
\text{Herm}(E,H)=\{f\in \mbox{End}(E)| f^{*H}=f\},
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\text{Herm}^+(E,H)=\{f\in \text{Herm}(E,H)| f>0\},
\end{equation*}
where $f>0$ means that all the eigenvalues of $f$ are positive. If $H=\{H_i\}_{i\in I}$ and $K=\{K_i\}_{i\in I}$ are two Hermitian metrics on $\alpha$-twisted vector bundles, then for every $i\in I$ and $\xi,\eta\in \Gamma(E_i)$, the endomorphism $h=\{h_i\}_{i\in I}$ is defined by
\begin{equation*}
H_i(\xi,\eta)=K_i(h_i\xi,\eta).
\end{equation*}
It is easy to see that $h=K^{-1}H$ is self-adjoint with respect to $H$ and $K$.
For any $h\in\text{Herm}^{+}(E,K)$, we can choose an open dense subset $W\subset M$ satisfying that, at each $x_0\in W$ there exists an open neighborhood $U_i$ of $x_0$, a local unitary basis $\{e_j\}_{j=1}^r$ with respect to $K_i$ and functions $\{\lambda_j\in C^{\infty}(U_i,\mathbb{R})\}_{i=1}^r$ such that
\begin{equation*}
h(x)=\sum_{j=1}^re^{\lambda_j(x)}e_j(x)\otimes e^j(x)
\end{equation*}
for all $x\in U_i$, where $\{e^j\}_{j=1}^r$ is the dual basis corresponding to $\{e_j\}_{j=1}^r$. Then according to \cite[Lemma 2.56]{Perego21}, we have
\begin{equation*}
\log h(x)=\sum_{j=1}^r\lambda_j(x)e_j(x)\otimes e^j(x).
\end{equation*}
Suppose $\Psi:\mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}$ is a smooth function, $A=\sum_{i,j=1}^rA_{ij}e^i\otimes e_j\in \mbox{End}(E)$, and $s\in \text{Herm}(E,K)$. Then we define $\Psi(s)(A)$ by
\begin{equation*}
\Psi(s)(A)=\sum_{i,j=1}^n\Psi(\lambda_i,\lambda_j)A_{ij}e_i\otimes e^j.
\end{equation*}
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{maintheorem}}\label{sec:Pro}
Let $E=\{E_i,\varphi_{ij}\}_{i,j\in I}$ be an $\alpha$-twisted holomorphic vector bundle of rank $r$ over a compact Gauduchon manifold $(M,\omega)$. Suppose $H=\{H_i\}_{i\in I}$ and $K=\{K_i\}_{i\in I}$ are two Hermitian metrics on $E$. Let $D_H=\{D_{H_i}\}_{i\in I}$ (resp. $D_K=\{D_{K_i}\}_{i\in I}$) be the Chern connection of $(E,H)$ (resp. $(E,K)$). Then for every $i\in I$, we have
\begin{equation}
\partial_{H_i}=\partial_{K_i}+h_i^{-1}\partial_{K_i}h_i,
\end{equation}
where $\partial_{K_i}$ denotes the $(1,0)$-part of the connection induced by $D_{K_i}$ on $\mbox{End}(E_i)$. The relation between $F_{H_i}$ and $F_{K_i}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
F_{H_i}&=F_{K_i}+\bar{\partial}_i(h_i^{-1}\partial_{K_i}h_i).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Then we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
F_H|_{U_i}=&F_{H_i}-B_i\cdot {\rm Id}_{E_i}=F_{K_i}+\bar{\partial}_i(h_i^{-1}\partial_{K_i}h_i)-B_i\cdot {\rm Id}_{E_i}\\
=&F_{K}|_{U_i}+\bar{\partial}_i(h_i^{-1}\partial_{K_i}h_i).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
So if we glue together, it follows that
\begin{equation}
F_H=F_K+\bar{\partial}(h^{-1}\partial_K h).
\end{equation}
Therefore $H$ solves the Hermitian--Einstein equation on $\alpha$-twisted holomorphic bundle $E$ if and only if there exist Hermitian metric $K$ and $h\in \text{Herm}^+(E,K)$ such that
\begin{equation}
\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}F_K-\lambda \cdot {\rm Id}_E+\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}\bar{\partial}(h^{-1}\partial_Kh)=0.
\end{equation}
Now, fixing a proper background Hermitian metric $K=\{K_i\}_{i\in I}$ on $\alpha$-twisted holomorphic vector bundle $E=\{E_i,\varphi_{ij}\}_{i,j\in I}$, we consider the following perturbed equation
\begin{equation}\label{pereq}
\begin{split}
L_{\varepsilon}(h_{\varepsilon}):&=\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}F_{H_{\varepsilon}}-\lambda \cdot {\rm Id}_{E}+\varepsilon \log(h_{\varepsilon})\\
&=\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}F_K-\lambda\cdot {\rm Id}_E+\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}\bar{\partial}(h_{\varepsilon}^{-1}\partial_Kh_{\varepsilon})+\varepsilon\log(h_{\varepsilon}),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $h_{\varepsilon}=K^{-1}H_{\varepsilon}\in \text{Herm}^+(E,K)$ and $\varepsilon\in (0,1]$. It is obvious that $h_{\varepsilon}$ and $\log h_{\varepsilon}$ are self-adjoint with respect to $K$ and $H_{\varepsilon}$ in the sense of (\ref{selfadj}). In \cite{Perego21}, Perego proved that the equation (\ref{pereq}) is solvable for all $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$ by using the continuity method. If the $\alpha$-twisted holomorphic vector bundle $E$ is semi-stbale, we can show that
\begin{equation}\label{claim}
\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0}\varepsilon \max_{M}|\log h_{\varepsilon}|_{K}=0.
\end{equation}
This implies that $\max_{M}|\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}F_{H_{\varepsilon}}-\lambda \cdot {\rm Id}_{E}|\to 0$ as $\varepsilon\to 0$. So we obtain the existence of approximate Hermitian--Einstein structure on $E$.
Before giving the detailed proof of (\ref{claim}), we need the following two lemmas.
\begin{lem}[Lemma 5.7 in \cite{Perego21}]\label{lem3:1}
Let $E=\{E_i,\varphi_{ij}\}_{i,j\in I}$ be an $\alpha$-twisted holomorphic vector bundle on $M$, and $K$ be a Hermitian metric on $E$. If $h\in \text{Herm}^{+}(E,K)$ satisfies $L_{\varepsilon}(h)=0$ for some $\varepsilon>0$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item [(1)] We have
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}\bar{\partial}\partial(|\log(h)|^2)+\varepsilon|\log(h)|_{K}^2\leq |\Phi(K)|_{K}\cdot |\log(h)|_{K},
\end{equation}
where $\Phi(K):=\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}F_K-\lambda\cdot {\rm Id}_E$.
\item[(2)] If $m:=\max_{M}|\log(h)|_{K}(x)$, then we have
\begin{equation}
m\leq \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\max_{x\in M}|\Phi(K)|_{K}(x).
\end{equation}
\item[(3)] There is a real number $C$ (depending only on $\omega$ and $K$) such that
\begin{equation}
m\leq C(||\log h||_{L^2}+\max_{M}|\Phi(K)|_{K}).
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{lem}\label{keyid}
Let $E=\{E_i,\varphi_{ij}\}_{i,j\in I}$ be an $\alpha$-twisted holomorphic vector bundle on $M$, and $K=\{K_i\}_{i\in I}$ be a Hermitian metric on $E$. If $h_{\varepsilon}=\{h_{i,\varepsilon}\}_{i\in I}\in \text{Herm}^+(E,K)$ solves (\ref{pereq}) for some $\varepsilon$, then it holds that
\begin{equation}\label{keyid}
\int_{M}{\rm tr}(\Phi(K)s_{\varepsilon})\frac{\omega^{n}}{n!}+\int_{M}\langle\Psi(s_{\varepsilon}(\bar{\partial}s_{\varepsilon}),\bar{\partial}s_{\varepsilon})\rangle_{K}\frac{\omega^n}{n!}=-\varepsilon ||s_{\varepsilon}||_{L^2}^2,
\end{equation}
where $s_{\varepsilon}=\{s_{i,\varepsilon}\}_{i\in I}=\log h_{\varepsilon}$, $\Phi(K)=\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}F_K-\lambda\cdot {\rm Id}_E$ and
\begin{equation*}
\Psi(x,y)=\begin{cases}
\frac{e^{y-x}-1}{y-x},&x\neq y;\\
1,&x=y.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Since $h_{\varepsilon}$ solves (\ref{pereq}), then we have
\begin{equation}
\langle \Phi(K),s_{\varepsilon}\rangle_{K}+\langle \sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}\bar{\partial}(h_{\varepsilon}^{-1}\partial_Kh_{\varepsilon}),s_{\varepsilon}\rangle_K=-\langle s_{\varepsilon},s_\varepsilon\rangle.
\end{equation}
Integrating over $M$ gives
\begin{equation}\label{l3eq2}
\int_{M}{\rm tr}(\Phi(K)s_{\varepsilon})\frac{\omega^n}{n!}+\int_{M}\langle \sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}\bar{\partial}(h_{\varepsilon}^{-1}\partial_Kh_{\varepsilon}),s_{\varepsilon}\rangle_K\frac{\omega^n}{n!}=-||s_{\varepsilon}||_{L^2}.
\end{equation}
Then comparing (\ref{l3eq2}) with (\ref{keyid}), it suffices to prove
\begin{equation}
\int_{M}\langle \sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}\bar{\partial}(h_{\varepsilon}^{-1}\partial_Kh_{\varepsilon}),s_{\varepsilon}\rangle_K\frac{\omega^n}{n!}=\int_{M}\langle\Psi(s_{\varepsilon}(\bar{\partial}s_{\varepsilon}),\bar{\partial}s_{\varepsilon})\rangle_{K}\frac{\omega^n}{n!}.
\end{equation}
An easy calculation (see Proposition 3.1 in \cite{NZ18} for details) shows that
\begin{equation}\label{l3eq3}
\int_{M}\langle \sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}\bar{\partial}(h_{\varepsilon}^{-1}\partial_Kh_{\varepsilon}),s_{\varepsilon}\rangle_K\frac{\omega^n}{n!}=\int_{M}\sqrt{-1}{\rm tr}(h_{\varepsilon}^{-1}\partial_Kh_{\varepsilon}\wedge \bar{\partial}s_{\varepsilon})\frac{\omega^{n-1}}{(n-1)!}.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, following the methods in \cite{LT06}, we can choose an open dense subset $W\subset M$ satisfying that at each $x\in W$ there exists an open neighborhood $U_i\in\mathscr{U}$ of $x$, a local unitary basis $\{e_j\}_{j=1}^r$ of $E_i$ with respect to $K_i$ and eigenvalues $\{\lambda_j\in C^{\infty}(U_i,\mathbb{R})\}_{j=1}^r$ such that
\begin{equation*}
s_{i,\varepsilon}(y)=\sum_{j=1}^r\lambda_j(y)e_j(y)\otimes e^j(y),
\end{equation*}
for all $y\in U_i$, where $\{e^j\}_{j=1}^r$ is the dual basis of $E_i^*$. Here $\lambda_1,\cdots, \lambda_r$ are eigenvalues of $s_{\varepsilon}$ (and hence of $s_{i,\varepsilon}$). Therefore, we have
\begin{equation*}
\partial_{K_i}h_{i,\varepsilon}(x)=e^{\lambda_j}\partial \lambda_je_j\otimes e^j+(e^{\lambda_k}-e^{\lambda_j})A^j_ke_j\otimes e^k,
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\bar{\partial}s_{i,\varepsilon}(x)=\bar{\partial}\lambda_je_j\otimes e^j+(\lambda_k-\lambda_j)(-\overline{A_j^k})e_j\otimes e^k,
\end{equation*}
where $\{A_j^k\}_{j,k=1}^r$ are the $(1,0)$-forms defined defined by $\partial_{K_i}e_j=A_j^ke_k$. Then on each $U_i$, it follows that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&{\rm tr}\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}(h_{i,\varepsilon}^{-1}\partial_{K_i}h_{i,\varepsilon}\wedge \bar{\partial}s_{i,\varepsilon})\\
&=\sum_{j=1}^r|\bar{\partial}\lambda_j|^2+\sum_{j\neq k}(e^{\lambda_k}-e^{\lambda_j})(\lambda_j-\lambda_k)\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}A^j_k \wedge (-\overline{A_j^k}) \\
&=\sum_{j=1}^r|\bar{\partial}\lambda_j|^2+\sum_{j\neq k}\frac{e^{\lambda_k-\lambda_j}-1}{\lambda_k-\lambda_j}(\lambda_k-\lambda_j)^2|-\overline{A^j_k}|^2\\
&=\sum_{j,k=1}^r\Psi(\lambda_j,\lambda_k)|(\bar{\partial}s_{i,\varepsilon})_j^k|^2.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
As both sides glue together, we have
\begin{equation*}
{\rm tr}\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}(h_{\varepsilon}^{-1}\partial_Kh_{\varepsilon}\wedge \bar{\partial}s_{\varepsilon})=\sum_{j,k=1}^r\Psi(\lambda_j,\lambda_k)|(\bar{\partial}s)_j^k|^2.
\end{equation*}
Using the similar argument, we can also prove
\begin{equation*}
\langle\Psi(s)(\bar{\partial}s),\bar{\partial}s\rangle_K=\sum_{j,k=1}^r\Psi(\lambda_j,\lambda_k)|(\bar{\partial}s)_j^k|^2.
\end{equation*}
Therefore, we have
\begin{equation}\label{l3eq4}
\langle\Psi(s)(\bar{\partial}s),\bar{\partial}s\rangle_K= {\rm tr}\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}(h_{\varepsilon}^{-1}\partial_Kh_{\varepsilon}\wedge \bar{\partial}s_{\varepsilon}).
\end{equation}
Combining (\ref{l3eq3}) and (\ref{l3eq4}), we complete the proof.
\end{proof}
In the following, we are ready to prove Theorem \ref{maintheorem}. First, we show that the semi-stability implies the existence of approximate Hermitian--Einstein structure on $\alpha$-twisted holomorphic vector bundles. In fact, we have the following theorem.
\begin{thm}
Let $E=\{E_i,\varphi_{ij}\}_{i,j\in I}$ be an $\alpha$-twisted holomorphic vector bundle over $(M,\omega)$. If $E$ is $\omega$-semi-stable, then there is an approximate Hermitian--Einstein structure on $E$. i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\max_{M}|\Phi(H_{\varepsilon})|_{H_{\varepsilon}}\to 0, \quad \text{as} \quad \varepsilon \to 0.
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let $K$ be a background Hermitian metric on $E$. Without loss of generality, we can assume that the Hermitian $K$ satisfies
\begin{equation*}
{\rm tr}(\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}F_K-\lambda\cdot {\rm Id}_E)=0.
\end{equation*}
In fact, by an approximate conformal change $K=e^{\phi}\tilde{K}$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{t3eq1}
\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}\bar{\partial}\partial\phi=-\frac{1}{r}{\rm tr}(\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}F_{\tilde{K}}-\lambda\cdot {\rm Id}_E),
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{K}$ is an arbitrary Hermitian metric on $E$. Since $\int_M{\rm tr}(\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}F_{\tilde{K}}-\lambda\cdot {\rm Id}_E)\frac{\omega^n}{n!}=0$, then there is a smooth function $\phi$ satisfying (\ref{t3eq1}).
Let $\{h_{\varepsilon}\}_{0<\varepsilon\leq 1}$ be the solutions of the perturbed equation (\ref{pereq}) with the background Hermitian metric $K$. Then we have
\begin{equation*}
||\log h_{\varepsilon}||_{L^2}^2=-\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\int_{M}\langle \Phi(H_{\varepsilon}), \log h_{\varepsilon}\rangle_{H_{\varepsilon}}\frac{\omega^n}{n!},
\end{equation*}
where $\Phi(H_{\varepsilon})=\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}F_{H_{\varepsilon}}-\lambda\cdot {\rm Id}_E$.
By \cite[Lemma 5.2]{Perego21}, we also have
\begin{equation}\label{t3eq2}
\det(h_{\varepsilon})=1.
\end{equation}
We will consider the limit behavior of $||\log h_{\varepsilon}||_{L^2}$ in two cases.
{\bf Case 1}: $||\log h_{\varepsilon}||_{L^2}$ is bounded. i.e., there exists a constant $C_1$ such that
\begin{equation*}
||\log h_{\varepsilon}||_{L^2}<C_1<+\infty.
\end{equation*}
In this case, from Lemma \ref{lem3:1}, we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\max_{M}|\Phi(H_{\varepsilon})|_{H_{\varepsilon}}&=\varepsilon\cdot \max_{M}|\log h_{\varepsilon}|_{H_{\varepsilon}}<\varepsilon C\cdot(||\log h_{\varepsilon}||_{L^2}+\max_{M}|\Phi(K)|_{K})\\
&\leq \varepsilon C(C_1+\max_M|\Phi(K)|_{K}) \to 0
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
as $\varepsilon \to 0$.
{\bf Case 2}: $\limsup_{\varepsilon\to 0}||\log h_{\varepsilon}||_{L^2}=+\infty$. In this case, if $E=\{E_i,\varphi_{ij}\}_{i,j\in I}$ is $\omega$-semi-stable, then we also have
\begin{equation}\label{t3eq3}
\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0}\max_{M}|\Phi(H_{\varepsilon})|_{H_{\varepsilon}}=0.
\end{equation}
We will follow Simpson's argument (\cite{Sim88}) to show that if (\ref{t3eq2}) is not valid, there exists a coherent $\alpha$-twisted subsheaf contradicting the $\omega$-semi-stability of $E$.
We will prove (\ref{t3eq3}) by contradiction. If (\ref{t3eq3}) does not hold, then there exist $\delta>0$ and a subsequence $\varepsilon_i\to 0$, as $i\to +\infty$, such that
\begin{equation*}
||\log h_{\varepsilon_i}||_{L^2}\to +\infty
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation}\label{t3eq4}
\max_{M}|\Phi(H_{\varepsilon_i})|_{H_{\varepsilon_i}}=\varepsilon_i\max_{M}|\log h_{\varepsilon_i}|_{H_{\varepsilon_i}}\geq \delta.
\end{equation}
Set
\begin{equation*}
s_{\varepsilon_{i}}=\log h_{\varepsilon_{i}}, l_i=||s_{\varepsilon_{i}}||_{L^2}, u_{\varepsilon_{i}}=\frac{s_{\varepsilon_i}}{l_i}.
\end{equation*}
Then we have $||u_{\varepsilon_i}||_{L^2}=1$. From (\ref{t3eq2}), it follows that ${\rm tr}(u_{\varepsilon_i})=0$. Then combining (\ref{t3eq4}) with Lemma \ref{lem3:1}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{t3eq5}
l_i\geq \frac{\delta}{C\varepsilon_i}-\max_{M}|\Phi(K)|_{K}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{t3eq6}
\max_{M}|u_{\varepsilon_{i}}|<\frac{C}{l_i}\bigg(l_i+\max_{M}|\Phi(K)|_{K}\bigg)<C_2<+\infty.
\end{equation}
In the following, we divide our proof into two steps.
{\bf Step 1} We will show that $u_{\varepsilon_i}$ converge to $u_{\infty}$ weakly as $i\to +\infty$. We need to show that $||u_{\varepsilon_i}||_{L_1^2}$ are uniformly bounded. Since $||u_{\varepsilon_{i}}||_{L^2}=1$, it enough to prove $||\bar{\partial} u_{\varepsilon_i}||_{L^2}$ are uniformly bounded.
By Lemma \ref{keyid}, for each $h_{\varepsilon_i}$, it holds
\begin{equation}\label{t3eq7}
\int_{M}{\rm tr}(\Phi(K)u_{\varepsilon_i})\frac{\omega^n}{n!}+l_i\int_{M}\langle\Psi(l_iu_{\varepsilon_i})(\bar{\partial}u_{\varepsilon_i},\bar{\partial}u_{\varepsilon_i})\rangle_{K}\frac{\omega^n}{n!}=-\varepsilon_il_i.
\end{equation}
Combining (\ref{t3eq5}) and (\ref{t3eq7}), we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{t3eq8}
\frac{\delta}{C}+\int_{M}{\rm tr}(\Phi(K)u_{\varepsilon_i})\frac{\omega^n}{n!}+l_i\int_{M}\langle\Psi(l_iu_{\varepsilon_i})(\bar{\partial}u_{\varepsilon_i},\bar{\partial}u_{\varepsilon_i})\rangle_{K}\frac{\omega^n}{n!}\leq \varepsilon_i\max_{M}|\Phi(K)|_{K}.
\end{equation}
Next, we consider the function
\begin{equation}\label{t3eq9}
l\Psi(lx,ly)=\begin{cases}
l,&x=y;\\
\frac{e^{l(y-x)}-1}{y-x},&x\neq y.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Because of (\ref{t3eq6}), we may assume that $(x,y)\in [-C_2,C_2]\times [-C_2,C_2]$.
It is easy to check that
\begin{equation}\label{t3eq10}
l\Psi(lx,ly)\to \begin{cases}
(x-y)^{-1},&x>y;\\
+\infty,&x\leq y,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
increases monotonically as $l\to +\infty$. Let $\zeta\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}^+)$ satisfying $\zeta(x,y)<(x-y)^{-1}$ whenever $x>y$. From (\ref{t3eq8}), (\ref{t3eq10}) and the same arguments in \cite[Lemma 5.4]{Sim88}, for $i$ large enough, we have
\begin{equation}\label{t3eq11}
\frac{\delta}{C}+\int_{M}{\rm tr}(\Phi(K)u_{\varepsilon_i})\frac{\omega^n}{n!}+\int_{M}\langle\zeta(u_{\varepsilon_i})(\bar{\partial}u_{\varepsilon_i},\bar{\partial}u_{\varepsilon_i})\rangle_{K}\frac{\omega^n}{n!}\leq \varepsilon_i\max_{M}|\Phi(K)|_{K}.
\end{equation}
In particular, we take $\zeta=\frac{1}{3C_2}$. It can be easy check that $\frac{1}{3C_2}<\frac{1}{x-y}$ when $(x,y)\in [-C_2,C_2]\times [-C_2,C_2]$ and $x>y$. This implies that
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\delta}{C}+\int_{M}{\rm tr}(\Phi(K)u_{\varepsilon_i})\frac{\omega^n}{n!}+\int_{M}\frac{1}{3C_2}|\bar{\partial}u_{\varepsilon_{i}}|_{K}^2\frac{\omega^n}{n!}\leq \varepsilon_i\max_{M}|\Phi(K)|_{K},
\end{equation*}
for $i>>0$. Then we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\int_{M}|\bar{\partial}u_{\varepsilon_{i}}|_{K}^2\leq 3C_2^2\max_{M}|\Phi(K)|_{K}{\rm Vol}(M).
\end{equation*}
Therefore, $u_{\varepsilon_{i}}$ are bounded in $L_1^2$. Then we can choose a subsequence $\{u_{\varepsilon_{i_{j}}}\}$ (still denoted by $u_{\varepsilon_i}$ for simplicity) such that $u_{\varepsilon_i}\rightharpoonup u_{\infty}$ weakly in $L_1^2$. Since $L_1^2\hookrightarrow L^2$. it follows that
\begin{equation*}
1=\int_{M}|u_{\varepsilon_i}|_{H_0}^2\to \int_{M}|u_{\infty}|_K^2.
\end{equation*}
This indicates that $||u_{\infty}||_{L^2}=1$ and $u_{\infty}$ is non-trivial. Then using (\ref{t3eq11}) and following a similar argument as in \cite[Lemma 5.4]{Sim88}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{t3eq12}
\frac{\delta}{C}+\int_{M}{\rm tr}(\Phi(K)u_{\infty})\frac{\omega^n}{n!}+\int_{M}\langle\zeta(u_{\infty})(\bar{\partial}u_{\infty},\bar{\partial}u_{\infty})\rangle_{K}\frac{\omega^n}{n!}\leq 0.
\end{equation}
{\bf Step 2} We will use Uhlenbeck and Yau's trick from \cite{UY86} to construct an $\alpha$-twisted coherent subsheaf which contradicts the $\omega$-semi-stability of $E$. Before going on, we need the following lemma.
\begin{lem}[Lemma 5.12 in \cite{Perego21}]\label{lem3:4}
Let $E=\{E_{i},\varphi_{ij}\}$ be an $\alpha$-twisted holomorphic vector bundle on $M$ whose associated locally free $\alpha$-twisted sheaf is $\mathscr{E}$. If $\pi\in L_{1}^2(\mbox{End}(E))$ is a weakly holomorphic $\alpha$-twisted subbundle of $E$, there is a coherent $\alpha$-twisted subsheaf $\mathscr{F}$ of $\mathscr{E}$ and an analytic subset $S$ of $M$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item [(1)] $S$ has codimension at least $2$ in $M$,
\item [(2)] $\pi_{|M\setminus S}\in A^0(E_{|_{M\setminus S}})$ and have $\pi_{|{M\setminus S}}^*=\pi_{|M\setminus S}=\pi_{|M\setminus S}^2$ and $({\rm Id}_{E|M\setminus S}-\pi_{|M\setminus S})\circ \bar{\partial}(\pi_{|_{M\setminus S}})$,
\item [(3)] $\mathscr{F}_{|_{M\setminus S}}$ is the image of $\pi_{|M\setminus S}$ and an $\alpha$-twisted holomorphic subbundle of $E$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
From (\ref{t3eq12}) and the technique in \cite[Lemma 5.5]{Sim88}, we conclude that the eigenvalues of $u_{\infty}$ are constant almost everywhere. Let $\lambda_1<\lambda_2<\cdots <\lambda_l$ be the distinct eigenvalues of $u_{\infty}$. Since ${\rm tr}(u_{\infty})={\rm tr}(u_{\varepsilon_i})=0$ and $||u_{\infty}||_{L^{2}}=1$, we conclude that $2\leq l\leq r$ be the distinct eigenvalues of $u_{\infty}$. Then for each eigenvalue $\lambda_j$ ($1\leq l-1$), which is a global function on $M$, we can construct a function
\begin{equation*}
P_j:\mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}
\end{equation*}
such that
\begin{equation*}
P_j=\begin{cases}
1,&x\leq \lambda_j,\\
0,&x\geq \lambda_j.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
We denote $\pi_j=\{\pi_{i,j}\}_{i\in I}= P_j(u_{\infty})$. Following the same arguments as in \cite{Sim88}, we have
\begin{enumerate}
\item [(i)] $\pi_j\in L_1^2(\mbox{End}(E))$;
\item [(ii)] $\pi_j^2=\pi_j=\pi_j^{*K}$;
\item [(iii)] $(Id_{E}-\pi_j)\circ \bar{\partial}\pi_j=0$.
\end{enumerate}
By Lemma \ref{lem3:4}, we know that the weakly holomorphic $\alpha$-twisted vector bundles $\{\pi_j\}_{j=1}^{l-1}$ determine $l-1$ coherent $\alpha$-twisted subsheaves of $E$. Denote $E_j=\{E_{i,j}\}_{i\in I}=\pi_j(E)$. Since ${\rm tr}(u_{\infty})=0$ and $u_{\infty}=\lambda_l\cdot {\rm Id}_E-\sum_{j=1}^{l-1}(\lambda_{j+1}-\lambda_j)\pi_j$, it holds that
\begin{equation}\label{t3eq13}
\lambda_l{\rm rank}(E)=\sum_{j=1}^{l-1}(\lambda_{j+1}-\lambda_j){\rm rank}(E_j).
\end{equation}
Set
\begin{equation}\label{t3eq14}
\nu=\lambda_l\deg(E)-\sum_{j=1}^{l-1}(\lambda_{j+1}-\lambda_j)\deg(E_j).
\end{equation}
On the one hand, substituting (\ref{t3eq13}) into (\ref{t3eq14}) directly, we have
\begin{equation}\label{t3eq15}
\nu=\sum_{j=1}^{l-1}(\lambda_{j+1}-\lambda_j){\rm rank}(E_j)\bigg(\frac{\deg(E)}{{\rm rank}(E)}-\frac{\deg(E_j)}{{\rm rank}(E_j)}\bigg).
\end{equation}
On the other hand, from the twisted Gauss--Codazzi equation (\cite{Perego21}), we have
\begin{equation}\label{t3eq16}
\deg(E_j)=\int_{M}{\rm tr}(\pi_j\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}F_K)-|\bar{\partial}\pi_j|^2_K\frac{\omega^n}{n!}
\end{equation}
Then substituting (\ref{t3eq16}) into (\ref{t3eq14}), we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
2\pi\nu&=\lambda_{l}\int_{M}{\rm tr}(\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}F_K)\frac{\omega^n}{n!}\\
& \quad -\sum_{j=1}^{l-1}(\lambda_{j+1}-\lambda_j)\int_{M}{\rm tr}(\pi_j\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}F_K)-|\bar{\partial} \pi_j|_K^2\frac{\omega^n}{n!}\\
&=\int_{M}{\rm tr}\bigg(\Big(\lambda_l\cdot{\rm Id}_E-\sum_{j=1}^{l-1}(\lambda_{j+1}-\lambda_j)\pi_{j}\Big)\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}F_K\bigg)\frac{\omega^n}{n!}\\
&\quad +\sum_{j=1}^{l-1}(\lambda_{j+1}-\lambda_j)\int_{M}|\bar{\partial}\pi_j|_K^2\frac{\omega^n}{n!}\\
&=\int_{M}{\rm tr}(u_{\infty}\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}F_K)\frac{\omega^n}{n!}+\int_{M}\bigg\langle \sum_{j=1}^{l-1}(\lambda_{j+1}-\lambda_j)(dP_{\alpha})^2(u_{\infty})(\bar{\partial}u_{\infty}),\bar{\partial}u_{\infty}\bigg\rangle_{K}\frac{\omega^n}{n!},
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where the functions $dP_{j}:\mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}$ are defined by
\begin{equation*}
dP_{j}(x,y)=\begin{cases}
\frac{P_j(x)-P_{j}(y)}{x-y}, &x\neq y;\\
P'_j(x), &x=y.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
By simple calculation, if $\lambda_a\neq \lambda_b$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{j=1}^{l-1}(\lambda_{j+1}-\lambda_{j})(dP_j)^2(\lambda_{a},\lambda_{b})=|\lambda_a-\lambda_b|^{-1}.
\end{equation*}
Since ${\rm tr}(u_{\infty})=0$, according to (\ref{t3eq12}) and the same arguments in \cite{LZ15}, it follows that
\begin{equation}\label{t3eq17}
\begin{split}
2\pi v&=\int_{M}{\rm tr}(u_{\infty}\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}F_K)\frac{\omega^n}{n!}+\int_{M}\bigg\langle \sum_{j=1}^{l-1}(\lambda_{j+1}-\lambda_j)(dP_{\alpha})^2(u_{\infty})(\bar{\partial}u_{\infty}),\bar{\partial}u_{\infty}\bigg\rangle_{K}\frac{\omega^n}{n!}\\
&<-\frac{\delta}{C}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Combining (\ref{t3eq15}) with (\ref{t3eq17}), we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{j=1}^{l-1}(\lambda_{j+1}-\lambda_j){\rm rank}(E_j)\bigg(\frac{\deg(E)}{{\rm rank}(E)}-\frac{\deg(E_j)}{{\rm rank}(E_j)}\bigg)<0.
\end{equation*}
This indicates that there must exist a term $\mu(E)-\mu(E_{j_0})<0$, which contradicts the $\omega$-semi-stability of $E$.
\end{proof}
Finally, we prove the other direction of the theorem \ref{maintheorem}. In fact, we get the following theorem. The proof of the following theorem is standard and we present the proof for the readers' convenience.
\begin{thm}\label{thm3:5}
Let $(M,\omega)$ be a compact Gauduchon manifold and $E=\{E_i,\varphi_{ij}\}_{i,j\in I}$ be an $\alpha$-twisted holomorphic vector bundle of rank $r$ over $M$. If $E$ admits an approximate Hermitian--Einstein structure, then $E$ is $\omega$-semi-stable.
\end{thm}
Before we giving the detailed proof, we need the following vanishing theorem.
\begin{prop}[Proposition 3.31 in \cite{Perego21}]\label{prop3:6}
Let $E_1$ and $E_2$ be two $\alpha$-twisted holomorphic vector bundles on $M$ of respective ranks $r_1$ and $r_2$, and suppose that
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\deg_{\omega}(E_1)}{r_1}>\frac{\deg_{\omega}(E_2)}{r_2}.
\end{equation*}
If $E_1$ and $E_2$ admit approximate Hermitian--Einstein structure, then every morphism $f\in \text{Hom}(E_1,E_2)$ is zero.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}[Proof of theorem \ref{thm3:5}]
Let $\mathscr{E}$ be the locally free $\alpha$-twisted coherent sheaf associated to $E$ and $\mathscr{F}$ be any $\alpha$-twisted coherent subsheaf of $\mathscr{E}$ with rank $0<p<r$. Let $L$ be the $\alpha^p$-twisted holomorphic line bundle corresponding to $\det(\mathscr{F})$. We consider the following untwisted holomorphic vector bundle
\begin{equation*}
G= \wedge^pE\otimes L^{-1},
\end{equation*}
where $L^{-1}$ is the dual $\alpha^{-p}$-twisted line bundle of $L$. Following the same arguments as in \cite{Perego21}, we know that $G$ admits an approximate Hermitian--Einstein structure. Since there is a nontrivial holomorphic section of $G$, then by Proposition \ref{prop3:6}, we have
\begin{equation*}
\deg_{\omega}(G)\geq 0.
\end{equation*}
Then
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
0\leq \deg_{\omega}(G)&=\deg_{\omega}(\wedge^p E)-{\rm rank}(\wedge^pE)\deg_{\omega}(L)\\
&=\deg_{\omega}(\wedge^p E)-{\rm rank}(\wedge^pE)\deg_{\omega}(\mathscr{F}).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
So we have
\begin{equation*}
0\leq \mu_{\omega}(G)=\mu_{\omega}(\wedge^pE)-p\mu_{\omega}(\mathscr{F})=p(\mu_{\omega}(E)-\mu_{\omega}(\mathscr{F})).
\end{equation*}
This implies that $\mu_{\omega}(\mathscr{F})\leq \mu_{\omega}(E)$, i.e., $E$ is $\omega$-semi-stable.
\end{proof}
\section{Bogomolov type inequality for semi-stable $\alpha$-twisted holomorphic vector bundles}\label{sec:Bo}
In this section, we will prove the Bogomolov type inequality for semi-stable $\alpha$-twisted holomorphic vector bundles over compact Gauduchon Astheno-K\"ahler manifolds. Before giving the detailed proof of Theorem \ref{thm2}, we need the following lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{lem4:1}
Let $(M,\tilde{\omega})$ be a compact Hermitian manifold of dimension $n$, and $\omega$ a Gauduchon metric which is conformal to $\tilde{\omega}$. Let $E=\{E_{i},\varphi_{ij}\}_{i,j\in I}$ be an $\alpha$-twisted holomorphic vector bundle of rank $r$ over $M$. If $E$ is $\omega$-semi-stable, then for any $\varepsilon>0$, there exists a Hermitian metric $H_{\varepsilon}=\{H_{i,\varepsilon}\}_{i\in I}$ on $E$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{sec:4eq1}
\sup_{M}|\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}F_{H_{\varepsilon}}^{\perp}|_{H_{\varepsilon}}<\varepsilon,
\end{equation}
where $F_{H_{\varepsilon}}^{\perp}=F_{H_{\varepsilon}}-\frac{1}{r}{\rm tr}F_{H_{\varepsilon}}\otimes {\rm Id}_{E}$ is the trace free part of $F_{H_{\varepsilon}}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Since $\omega$ is conformal to $\tilde{\omega}$, then there exists a smooth function $\phi$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\omega=e^{\phi}\tilde{\omega}.
\end{equation*}
Then by direct calculation, for any Hermitian metric $H$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{sec:4eq2}
\begin{split}
\sup_{M}|\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\tilde{\omega}}F_H^{\perp}|_{H}&=\sup_{M}\bigg|\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\tilde{\omega}}F_H-\bigg(\frac{1}{r}\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\tilde{\omega}}{\rm tr}F_{H}\bigg)\otimes {\rm Id}_{E}\bigg|\\
&=\sup_{M}e^{\phi}\bigg|\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}F_H-\bigg(\frac{1}{r}\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_\omega{\rm tr}F_{H}\bigg)\otimes {\rm Id}_{E}\bigg|
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Due to the fact that $\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}F_H$ is self-adjoint with respect to $H$, we know that the eigenvalues of $\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}F_H$ are real values. Then for any $\lambda_1,\cdots,\lambda_r\in \mathbb{R}, C\in \mathbb{R}$, we have the inequality
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{j=1}^r(\lambda_j-\bar{\lambda})\leq \sum_{j=1}^r(\lambda_j-C)^2,
\end{equation*}
where $\bar{\lambda}=\frac{1}{r}\sum_{j=1}^r\lambda_j$. So we have
\begin{equation}\label{sec:4eq3}
\bigg|\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}F_H-\bigg(\frac{1}{r}\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_\omega{\rm tr}F_{H}\bigg)\otimes {\rm Id}_{E}\bigg|\leq |\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}F_H-\lambda\cdot {\rm Id}_E|_H,
\end{equation}
where $\lambda=\frac{2\pi\deg_{\omega}(E)}{r{\rm Vol}(M,\omega)}$. Combining (\ref{sec:4eq2}) and (\ref{sec:4eq3}) yields that
\begin{equation}\label{sec:4eq4}
\sup_{M}|\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\tilde{\omega}}F_H^{\perp}|_{H}\leq e^{\sup_{M}\phi}\sup_M|\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}F_H-\lambda\cdot {\rm Id}_E|_H.
\end{equation}
Since $E$ is $\omega$-semi-stable, by Theorem \ref{maintheorem}, it admits an approximate Hermitian--Einstein structure on $E$. So for any $\varepsilon>0$, there exists a Hermitian metric $H_{\varepsilon}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{sec4:eq5}
\sup_{M}|\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}F_{H_{\varepsilon}}-\lambda\cdot {\rm Id}_E|_{H_{\varepsilon}}<\varepsilon e^{-\sup_{M}\phi}.
\end{equation}
Combining (\ref{sec4:eq5}) with (\ref{sec:4eq4}) gives (\ref{sec:4eq1}).
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[ Proof of theorem \ref{thm2}]Let $(M,\tilde{\omega})$ be a compact Astheno-K\"ahler manifold of dimension $n$, and $\omega$ a Gauduchon metric which is conformal to $\tilde{\omega}$. Let $E=\{E_i,\varphi_{ij}\}_{i,j\in I}$ be an $\alpha$-twisted holomorohic vector bundle of rank $r$ over $M$. Given any Hermitian metric $H=\{H_i\}_{i\in I}$, recall that
\begin{equation*}
c_1(E,H)=\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2\pi}{\rm tr}F_H, c_{2}(E,H)=-\frac{1}{8\pi^2}\Big(({\rm tr}F_H)^2-{\rm tr}(F_H^2)\big).
\end{equation*}
Since $F_H^{\perp}=F_H-\frac{1}{r}{\rm tr}F_H\otimes {\rm Id}_E$, one can easily get
\begin{equation*}
{\rm tr}(F_H^2)=\frac{1}{r}({\rm tr}F_H)^2+{\rm tr}(F_{H}^{\perp}\wedge F_H^{\perp}).
\end{equation*}
Then we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&\quad 4\pi^2\bigg(2c_{2}(E,H)-\frac{r-1}{r}c_1(E,H)\wedge c_1(E,H)\bigg)\\
&=-\big(({\rm tr}F_H)^2-{\rm tr}(F_H^2)\big)+\frac{r-1}{r}({\rm tr}F_H)^2={\rm tr}(F_H^2)-\frac{1}{r}({\rm tr}F_H)^2\\
&={\rm tr}(F_H^{\perp}\wedge F_H^{\perp}).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
By the Riemann bilinear relations, we have
\begin{equation}\label{sec4:eq6}
\begin{split}
&\quad \int_{M}\bigg(2c_2(E)-\frac{r-1}{r}c_1(E)\wedge c_1(E)\bigg)\wedge \frac{\tilde{\omega}^{n-2}}{(n-2)!}\\
&= \int_{M}\bigg(2c_2(E,H)-\frac{r-1}{r}c_1(E,H)\wedge c_1(E,H)\bigg)\wedge \frac{\tilde{\omega}^{n-2}}{(n-2)!}\\
&=\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\int_{M}{\rm tr}(F_H^{\perp}\wedge F_H^{\perp})\wedge \frac{\tilde{\omega}^{n-2}}{(n-2)!}\\
&=\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\int_{M}|F_H^{\perp}|_{H,\tilde{\omega}}-|\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\tilde{\omega}}F_{H}^{\perp}|_{H}^2\frac{\tilde{\omega^n}}{n!}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Since $E$ is $\omega$-semi-stable, by Lemma \ref{lem4:1}, for every $\varepsilon>0$, there exists a Hermitian metric $H_{\varepsilon}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{sec4:eq7}
\sup_{M}|\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\tilde{\omega}}F_H^{\perp}|_{H_{\varepsilon}}\leq \varepsilon.
\end{equation}
Combining (\ref{sec4:eq6}) and (\ref{sec4:eq7}), and letting $\varepsilon \to 0$, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\int_{M}\bigg(2c_2(E)-\frac{r-1}{r}c_1(E)\wedge c_1(E)\bigg)\wedge \frac{\tilde{\omega}^{n-2}}{(n-2)!}\geq 0.
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Data Availability Statement:} Not applicable.
\medskip
\noindent {\bf Acknowledgements:} The author would like to thank Prof. Xi Zhang and Dr. Pan Zhang for their useful discussions and helpful comments.
The research was supported by the National Key R and D Program of China 2020YFA0713100.
The author is partially supported by NSF in China No.12141104 and 11721101.
\medskip
\noindent {\bf Conflicts of Interest:} The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
\medskip
|
\section{{\textbf{INTRODUCTION}}}
Small scale low microturbines are crucial since there is a growing need for them in numerous applications. Examples of notable applications include waste heat recovery, pico-hydro power, organic Rankine cycle technologies, biomass, waste heat recovery, micro GT, and many more. The increasing need for energy harvesting at these scales poses a variety of challenges to the performance and manufacturability of the turbine due to their compact sizes, high rotational speeds, and increased viscous losses. An alternative expansion device addressing these challenges can be highly beneficial regarding its techno-economic feasibility. The tesla turbine is one of its kind, which has a uniquely simple design and a unique mechanism of momentum transfer. The turbine rotor consists of several co-axial discs closely packed with each other. Each of the rotor discs has outlet ports near the center. A casing covering the rotors helps guide the flow from the inlet. The turbine shaft is attached to the rotor-casing configuration with the help of two bearings. Figure \ref{conference_schematic} shows the different components of the turbine. After being injected through the inlet system of the turbine, the fluid flows spirally inward and exits through the ports located near the shaft in the axial direction. The momentum transfer from the fluid to the rotor takes place using the adhesion and viscosity of the fluid. This mechanism makes the turbine attractive at small scales where the dominance of the viscous force becomes significant.
This turbine was conceptualized by Nicola Tesla \cite{tesla1913} in the year 1907. Initially, the device was unable to attract market attention because of the no potential requirement of low-power harvesting technologies. After that, till the twentieth century, a considerable amount of thrust was given to the possible design modifications \cite{oklejas1975gas, oklejas1976tesla, harold2002tesla}, improved seal designs \cite{caldwell1973efficiency} and loss analysis \cite{crawford1974,rice2003tesla} of the turbine and its ancillary components for enhancing performance. In addition, a few simplified theoretical models were developed \cite{armstrong1952,lawn1972investigation} to get an insight into the influence of the parameters associated to the turbine.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\fbox{\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{Figure/conference_schematic.png}}
\caption{Schematic of the exploded view of the turbine. a: Casing, b: Rotors, c: Inlet configurations (i,ii and iii), d: Shaft, e. Bearing. (f) shows the fluid flow between two consecutive corotating discs}
\label{conference_schematic}
\end{figure}
More recently, there has been a surge in interest in exploring this technology due to its several advantages over conventional energy harvesting technologies. Due to its simple design and flow mechanics, the turbine can handle particle-laden fluids and two-phase expansion with minimal damage. Numerical simulations of the gas flow and mass transfer between two coaxially co-rotating discs were performed by Sandilya et al. \cite{sandilya2001numerical} where they found a satisfactory match between the numerical and experimental value of mass transfer coefficient. Using numerical simulations, Ladino \cite{ladino2004numerical} presented the load coefficient curve, efficiency, and degree of reaction variation after maintaining a constant rotational speed. Upon developing an analytical model, Deam et al. \cite{deam2008} scaled down the turbine in millimeter size to achieve better efficiency. Lemma et al. \cite{lemma2008} investigated the Parasitic, viscous, and other dissipative losses in the bearings and end walls to mitigate their effect on decaying the performance. \\
An explicit description of a flexible test rig was developed by Hoya et al. \cite{hoya2009} where they calculated the low torque at high RPM using the angular acceleration method. A comparative study in the efficiency offered by Tesla and small bladed microturbine in a micro power plant was addressed by Lampart et al. \cite{lampart2009design,lampart2011investigations} to establish the competitiveness of a Tesla turbine. To understand the transport phenomena inside the turbine rotor, a number of numerical and analytical models solving the Navier-Stokes equations using different approaches are present in the literature repository \cite{kavenuke2009modeling,guha2013,sengupta2012theory,guha2014similitude,romanin2012,schosser2015,schosser2017analytical,ciappi2019computational}. Aside from that, flow diagnostics using particle tracking velocimetry by Schosser et al. \cite{schosser2016three} provides an insight into the component-wise velocity profiles inside the rotor gaps at different radial locations. In recent years, A wide range of application based studies of Tesla turbine related to Micro-air vehicles \cite{mandal2017performance}, Organic Rankine cycle \cite{talluri2018design,talluri2020experimental,dumont2019comparison,manfrida2017revised,manfrida2018upgraded}, Combined heat plant \cite{carey2010}, Pico-hydro applications \cite{ho2011, choon2011optimization, krishnan2011micro, krishnan2015}, Ammonia synthesys \cite{han2021self} have been investigated or under investigation \cite{niknam2021numerical,pacini2020computational}.
The recent resurgence in interest indicates the importance of investigating the turbine further to mitigate the losses due to the nonuniformity and disturbances associated with the inflow to rotor and rotor to outflow interaction. This article presents the experimental investigation of a centimeter-scaled Tesla turbine in uni and bi-directional outlet configuration with compressed air. We compare the performance in terms of Mechanical power output for the two configurations. Furthermore, we investigate the losses in the inlet due to the sharp divergent and the slit configuration at the inlet rotor junction. Finally, we compare the nozzles' performance by looking at the peak discharge Mach number and channel-wise disparity in flow injection to the rotor. Our numerical results can be beneficial in coming up with better inlet configurations for extracting maximum energy from the fluid, which leaves a further scope for further investigation.
\section{\textbf{METHODOLOGY AND EXPERIMENT}}\label{sec2}
A lab scale turbine prototype (in fig. \ref{fabricated_turbine}a) is fabricated for experimentation in the Aerospace Engineering department, IIT Kharagpur. The turbine consists of 10 consecutive corotating discs having an outer diameter of 10 cm and a thickness of 2 mm. The gap between the consecutive rotating discs is 2 mm, and the distance between two extreme discs to the adjacent casing wall is 1 mm. The turbine has four outlet holes near the shaft, having a center distance of 2 cm from the shaft center. The shaft and the exhaust ports' diameters are 1.5 cm and 1 cm, respectively. The distance between the shroud and the disc's edge is 1 mm.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{Figure/IMG20200120150612.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.43\textwidth]{Figure/IMG-20200123-WA0002.jpeg}\\
(a) \hspace{2 in} (b)\\
\caption{(a) Fabricated turbine and (b) the inlet system}
\label{fabricated_turbine}
\end{figure}
The inlet system of the turbine is designed to connect the compressor outlet port of 6mm dia to the turbine having an inlet of 4 cm thickness. The area of the inlet is 0.4 $cm^2$, which is segregated using slit configurations to guide air to each gap with minimum interaction with the peripheral walls of the rotor.
The turbine inlet is connected to the compressor by Polyeurathane pneumatic pipes with an installed pressure gauge. The RPM of the turbine is measured using an Arduino-based tachometer. The angular acceleration-deceleration approach computes the net accelerating and decelerating torque.The experiment also uses a digital tachometer to validate the turbine's RPM. We conduct our experiment at 6 bar of inlet pressure for uni-and bi-directional outlet configuration. The detail of the experimental setup can be seen in the figure \ref{experimental_setup}.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Figure/experimental_setup.png}\\
(a) \hspace{1 in} (b)
\caption{Details of the experimental set up. 1- Compressor discharge, 2- Tachometer, 3- Turbine, 4- Arduino based Tachometer, 5- Pressure gauge, 6- PC for data acquisition, 7- Camera, 8- Generator, 9- Multimeters, 10- Rheostat, 11- Electrical circuit}
\label{experimental_setup}
\end{figure}
\section{\textbf{RESULTS AND DISCUSSION}}\label{sec3}
\subsection{\textbf{Performance characteristics}}\label{sec3p1}
We tabulate the RPM with time with the help of a serial monitor and calculate the angular acceleration as a function of RPM. Once the turbine reaches its stable RPM, we shut off the compressed air sypply and continue to perform data acquisition until the turbine becomes stationary. We continue the similar process for a uni-directional outlet case. We observe from figure \ref{Bi_directional_Power_vs_RPM} that the turbine with a uni-directional outlet accelerates faster than the turbine with a bi-directional outlet configuration. In addition, for a supply pressure of 6 bar, we achieve a maximum RPM of 13019 and 11124 for uni and bi-directional outlet configurations, respectively. Figure \ref{Bi_directional_Power_vs_RPM} shows the power variation due to accelerating and braking torque. There is an increment of $\approx$ 38\% in power due to accelerating torque for a uni-directional outlet configuration.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.44\textwidth]{Figure/comparison_rpm.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure/Comparison_Power_vs_RPM.eps}\\
(a) \hspace{ 1.25 in} (b)
\caption{Distribution of (a) RPM with t; (b) Power due to accelerating torque with RPM for bi-directional (dashed line) and uni-directional (solid line) outlet. Dotted line represents the power due to braking torque.}
\label{Bi_directional_Power_vs_RPM}
\end{figure}
We integrate the turbine with a 100 W class Fedus RS-775 DC electric motor to measure the electrical power output. However, the motor is used as a generator to measure the output voltage and current. The electrical circuit is attached to a rheostat, and the experiment is performed with the 5-ohm load resistance. The figure \ref{experimental_result} illustrates the motor's voltage and power variation at various RPM. The turbine-generator can produce a maximum of 78 watts of electrical power at 7800 RPM for bi-directional outlet configuration.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth]{Figure/electrical_power_birectional.eps}
\caption{Experimental results of voltage (dashed line) and electrical power (solid line) at different RPM}
\label{experimental_result}
\end{figure}
\subsection{\textbf{Inlet design}}\label{sec3p2}
Designing the inlet is the most crucial part of the turbine where the maximum loss occurs. Notably, the compressor and back pressure at the inlet rotor connection point regulates the flow across the nozzle. In the present article, we only consider the inlet section for analysis. The details of the nozzle dimensions are in figure \ref{nozzle_schematic}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\fbox{\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Figure/nozzle_schematic.png}}
\caption{Schematic diagram of the nozzles. The dotted, dashed and solid lines represent nozzle 1, nozzle 2 and nozzle 3, respectively.}
\label{nozzle_schematic}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Numerical methodology and grid Grid sensitivity}
The Inlet section of the nozzle is a pressure inlet boundary where the total pressure is at 6 bar. We consider the outlet of the nozzle is at 4 bar. The temperature at the compressor discharge and the inlet-rotor junction are 450K and 400K, respectively. The surface of the nozzle is a no-slip type boundary. Considering these boundary conditions, we solve governing compressible Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations using the $K-\omega$ SST turbulence model in the commercial CFD package Fluent 2021 R2. The numerical domain is discretized using the body-fitted tetrahedral grids, maintaining a wall $y^+\approx O(1)$. The table \ref{grid_sensitivity} below presents the grid sensitivity study. As the desired output shows a variation $\leq 2\%$, We conduct the subsequent numerical simulations using grids with $\approx$ 1M elements.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c}
\hline
Grid type & Elements & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Outlet area averaged Mach no}\\
\hline
& & Nozzle 1 & Nozzle 2 & Nozzle 3 \\
\hline
Coarse & $\approx$ 0.5 M & .5093 & .4993 & .5296 \\
Medium & $\approx$ 1 M & .5089 & .4979 & .5289\\
Fine & $\approx$ 2 M & .5080 & .4971 & .5284\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Grid sensitivity of the three inlet configurations}
\label{grid_sensitivity}
\end{table}
The inlet design presented in this article is based on a two-pronged objective. (a) To Maximize the Mach number peak (b) To minimize the disparity in the Mach number peaks through every slit. To understand the loss mechanism and the flow behavior, we conduct a series of numerical simulations Where Nozzle 1 is the replica of the inlet nozzle considered for the experiment. Due to the abrupt divergent section and the presence of a large recirculation zone enclosed by a strong shear layer, we detect significant losses in Mach no. The dividing streamlines seen in figure \ref{Mach_streamline} (a) are considered when designing the following two inlet systems. The second nozzle we design is to eliminate the effect of recirculation. We gradually increase the inlet nozzle area until we reach the section where the flow bends in the previous observation. Despite the improvement in the average peak Mach number observed from figure \ref{Mach_streamline} (b), the disparity in the discharge Mach number through the slits increased. We consider designing the third nozzle as a converging-diverging type nozzle where we place the throat section at $x/L\approx 0.6$ to provide sufficient scope for flow to bend. Figure \ref{Mach_deviation} represents the peak discharge Mach number through the nozzles and the associated \% disparity from the mean peak Mach no through each slit. The comparison shows that the third nozzle offers maximum peak Mach number along with minimum \% deviation from the mean peak Mach no. It is necessary to note that the differential pressure between the upstream and downstream sections, the fluid, and the fluid's thermo-physical characteristics significantly influence the nozzle design. The nozzle's optimal size and shape might differ depending on these conditions.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\begin{turn}{-90}\fbox{\includegraphics[width=0.43\textwidth]{Figure/Mach_streamline_design1.eps}}\end{turn}\\
\vspace{2 mm}
(a)\\
\begin{turn}{-90}\fbox{\includegraphics[width=0.43\textwidth]{Figure/Mach_streamline_design2.eps}}\end{turn}\\
\vspace{2 mm}
(b)\\
\begin{turn}{-90}\fbox{\includegraphics[width=0.43\textwidth]{Figure/Mach_streamline_design3.eps}}\end{turn}\\
\vspace{2 mm}
(c)\\
\vspace{2 mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Figure/Mach_streamline.png}\\
\caption{ Distribution of the Mach number for (a) nozzle 1 (b) nozzle 2 (c) nozzle 3.}
\label{Mach_streamline}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth]{Figure/Mach_comparison_v0p1.eps}\\
(a)\\
\vspace{0.1 in}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Figure/Design_1_mach_deviation_v0p1.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Figure/Design_2_mach_deviation_v01p1.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Figure/Design_3_mach_deviation_v01p1.eps}\\
(b) \hspace{0.8 in} (c)\hspace{0.8 in} (d)
\caption{ (a) Comparison of peak Mach number across the slits. The dotted, dashed and solid lines represent First, second and third nozzle, respectively. (b, c, d) The \% disparity in peak Mach no at discharge for three nozzles.}
\label{Mach_deviation}
\end{figure}
\section{\textbf{CONCLUSIONS}}\label{sec4}
The article presents a preliminary experimental investigation of a centimeter scaled Tesla turbine using compressed air as a working medium and suggests an improved inlet design that could deliver higher achievable power compared to the inlet nozzle considered for this experiment. The key findings of the article are as follows;
\begin{enumerate}
\item Experimental investigation of the turbine conducted for uni and bi-directional outlet configuration at 6 bar inlet pressure.
\item uni-directional outlet configuration offered a peak power output of $\approx$ 110 watts at $\approx$ 7000 RPM. Whereas, bi-directional outlet configuration a peak output of 80 watts at 6500 RPM.
\item The turbine-generator configuration produced a peak electrical power output of 78 watts at 7800 RPM.
\item While assessing the inlet, we observe that nozzle 2 offers better peak Mach number than nozzle 1, but due to the losses accounted by the sharp bend, the disparity in \% deviation of the peak mach numbers from mean peak Mach no is nearly 30\%.
\item Nozzle 3 performs the best among all three nozzles. It offers a maximum peak Mach no with minimum \% deviation from mean peak Mach no is reduced to 12\%.
\end{enumerate}
The turbine's efficiency depends on several factors, e.g., RPM, disc gap, rotor radius, rotor to casing clearance, outlet configurations, fluid properties, and many more. Designing an efficient Tesla turbine could bring down the cost of a turbine substantially as compared to the other existing technologies because of its simplistic design. The above findings presented in this article could be helpful in the design improvement, thus leaving a plausible scope for further investigation.\\
\noindent
\textbf{NOMENCLATURE}\\
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
$t$ & time & [sec]\\
$x/L$ & Non-dimensional-axial location & [--]\\
$k$ & Turbulent kinetic energy & [J/kg] \\
$\omega$ & Specific dissipation rate & [1/sec]\\
$M$ & Mach no & --\\
$M'$ & \% Deviation from peak mean Mach no & --\\
\end{tabular}
\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
\section{{\textbf{INTRODUCTION}}}
Small scale low microturbines are crucial since there is a growing need for them in numerous applications. Examples of notable applications include waste heat recovery, pico-hydro power, organic Rankine cycle technologies, biomass, waste heat recovery, micro GT, and many more. The increasing need for energy harvesting at these scales poses a variety of challenges to the performance and manufacturability of the turbine due to their compact sizes, high rotational speeds, and increased viscous losses. An alternative expansion device addressing these challenges can be highly beneficial regarding its techno-economic feasibility. The tesla turbine is one of its kind, which has a uniquely simple design and a unique mechanism of momentum transfer. The turbine rotor consists of several co-axial discs closely packed with each other. Each of the rotor discs has outlet ports near the center. A casing covering the rotors helps guide the flow from the inlet. The turbine shaft is attached to the rotor-casing configuration with the help of two bearings. Figure \ref{conference_schematic} shows the different components of the turbine. After being injected through the inlet system of the turbine, the fluid flows spirally inward and exits through the ports located near the shaft in the axial direction. The momentum transfer from the fluid to the rotor takes place using the adhesion and viscosity of the fluid. This mechanism makes the turbine attractive at small scales where the dominance of the viscous force becomes significant.
This turbine was conceptualized by Nicola Tesla \cite{tesla1913} in the year 1907. Initially, the device was unable to attract market attention because of the no potential requirement of low-power harvesting technologies. After that, till the twentieth century, a considerable amount of thrust was given to the possible design modifications \cite{oklejas1975gas, oklejas1976tesla, harold2002tesla}, improved seal designs \cite{caldwell1973efficiency} and loss analysis \cite{crawford1974,rice2003tesla} of the turbine and its ancillary components for enhancing performance. In addition, a few simplified theoretical models were developed \cite{armstrong1952,lawn1972investigation} to get an insight into the influence of the parameters associated to the turbine.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\fbox{\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{Figure/conference_schematic.png}}
\caption{Schematic of the exploded view of the turbine. a: Casing, b: Rotors, c: Inlet configurations (i,ii and iii), d: Shaft, e. Bearing. (f) shows the fluid flow between two consecutive corotating discs}
\label{conference_schematic}
\end{figure}
More recently, there has been a surge in interest in exploring this technology due to its several advantages over conventional energy harvesting technologies. Due to its simple design and flow mechanics, the turbine can handle particle-laden fluids and two-phase expansion with minimal damage. Numerical simulations of the gas flow and mass transfer between two coaxially co-rotating discs were performed by Sandilya et al. \cite{sandilya2001numerical} where they found a satisfactory match between the numerical and experimental value of mass transfer coefficient. Using numerical simulations, Ladino \cite{ladino2004numerical} presented the load coefficient curve, efficiency, and degree of reaction variation after maintaining a constant rotational speed. Upon developing an analytical model, Deam et al. \cite{deam2008} scaled down the turbine in millimeter size to achieve better efficiency. Lemma et al. \cite{lemma2008} investigated the Parasitic, viscous, and other dissipative losses in the bearings and end walls to mitigate their effect on decaying the performance. \\
An explicit description of a flexible test rig was developed by Hoya et al. \cite{hoya2009} where they calculated the low torque at high RPM using the angular acceleration method. A comparative study in the efficiency offered by Tesla and small bladed microturbine in a micro power plant was addressed by Lampart et al. \cite{lampart2009design,lampart2011investigations} to establish the competitiveness of a Tesla turbine. To understand the transport phenomena inside the turbine rotor, a number of numerical and analytical models solving the Navier-Stokes equations using different approaches are present in the literature repository \cite{kavenuke2009modeling,guha2013,sengupta2012theory,guha2014similitude,romanin2012,schosser2015,schosser2017analytical,ciappi2019computational}. Aside from that, flow diagnostics using particle tracking velocimetry by Schosser et al. \cite{schosser2016three} provides an insight into the component-wise velocity profiles inside the rotor gaps at different radial locations. In recent years, A wide range of application based studies of Tesla turbine related to Micro-air vehicles \cite{mandal2017performance}, Organic Rankine cycle \cite{talluri2018design,talluri2020experimental,dumont2019comparison,manfrida2017revised,manfrida2018upgraded}, Combined heat plant \cite{carey2010}, Pico-hydro applications \cite{ho2011, choon2011optimization, krishnan2011micro, krishnan2015}, Ammonia synthesys \cite{han2021self} have been investigated or under investigation \cite{niknam2021numerical,pacini2020computational}.
The recent resurgence in interest indicates the importance of investigating the turbine further to mitigate the losses due to the nonuniformity and disturbances associated with the inflow to rotor and rotor to outflow interaction. This article presents the experimental investigation of a centimeter-scaled Tesla turbine in uni and bi-directional outlet configuration with compressed air. We compare the performance in terms of Mechanical power output for the two configurations. Furthermore, we investigate the losses in the inlet due to the sharp divergent and the slit configuration at the inlet rotor junction. Finally, we compare the nozzles' performance by looking at the peak discharge Mach number and channel-wise disparity in flow injection to the rotor. Our numerical results can be beneficial in coming up with better inlet configurations for extracting maximum energy from the fluid, which leaves a further scope for further investigation.
\section{\textbf{METHODOLOGY AND EXPERIMENT}}\label{sec2}
A lab scale turbine prototype (in fig. \ref{fabricated_turbine}a) is fabricated for experimentation in the Aerospace Engineering department, IIT Kharagpur. The turbine consists of 10 consecutive corotating discs having an outer diameter of 10 cm and a thickness of 2 mm. The gap between the consecutive rotating discs is 2 mm, and the distance between two extreme discs to the adjacent casing wall is 1 mm. The turbine has four outlet holes near the shaft, having a center distance of 2 cm from the shaft center. The shaft and the exhaust ports' diameters are 1.5 cm and 1 cm, respectively. The distance between the shroud and the disc's edge is 1 mm.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{Figure/IMG20200120150612.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.43\textwidth]{Figure/IMG-20200123-WA0002.jpeg}\\
(a) \hspace{2 in} (b)\\
\caption{(a) Fabricated turbine and (b) the inlet system}
\label{fabricated_turbine}
\end{figure}
The inlet system of the turbine is designed to connect the compressor outlet port of 6mm dia to the turbine having an inlet of 4 cm thickness. The area of the inlet is 0.4 $cm^2$, which is segregated using slit configurations to guide air to each gap with minimum interaction with the peripheral walls of the rotor.
The turbine inlet is connected to the compressor by Polyeurathane pneumatic pipes with an installed pressure gauge. The RPM of the turbine is measured using an Arduino-based tachometer. The angular acceleration-deceleration approach computes the net accelerating and decelerating torque.The experiment also uses a digital tachometer to validate the turbine's RPM. We conduct our experiment at 6 bar of inlet pressure for uni-and bi-directional outlet configuration. The detail of the experimental setup can be seen in the figure \ref{experimental_setup}.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Figure/experimental_setup.png}\\
(a) \hspace{1 in} (b)
\caption{Details of the experimental set up. 1- Compressor discharge, 2- Tachometer, 3- Turbine, 4- Arduino based Tachometer, 5- Pressure gauge, 6- PC for data acquisition, 7- Camera, 8- Generator, 9- Multimeters, 10- Rheostat, 11- Electrical circuit}
\label{experimental_setup}
\end{figure}
\section{\textbf{RESULTS AND DISCUSSION}}\label{sec3}
\subsection{\textbf{Performance characteristics}}\label{sec3p1}
We tabulate the RPM with time with the help of a serial monitor and calculate the angular acceleration as a function of RPM. Once the turbine reaches its stable RPM, we shut off the compressed air sypply and continue to perform data acquisition until the turbine becomes stationary. We continue the similar process for a uni-directional outlet case. We observe from figure \ref{Bi_directional_Power_vs_RPM} that the turbine with a uni-directional outlet accelerates faster than the turbine with a bi-directional outlet configuration. In addition, for a supply pressure of 6 bar, we achieve a maximum RPM of 13019 and 11124 for uni and bi-directional outlet configurations, respectively. Figure \ref{Bi_directional_Power_vs_RPM} shows the power variation due to accelerating and braking torque. There is an increment of $\approx$ 38\% in power due to accelerating torque for a uni-directional outlet configuration.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.44\textwidth]{Figure/comparison_rpm.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure/Comparison_Power_vs_RPM.eps}\\
(a) \hspace{ 1.25 in} (b)
\caption{Distribution of (a) RPM with t; (b) Power due to accelerating torque with RPM for bi-directional (dashed line) and uni-directional (solid line) outlet. Dotted line represents the power due to braking torque.}
\label{Bi_directional_Power_vs_RPM}
\end{figure}
We integrate the turbine with a 100 W class Fedus RS-775 DC electric motor to measure the electrical power output. However, the motor is used as a generator to measure the output voltage and current. The electrical circuit is attached to a rheostat, and the experiment is performed with the 5-ohm load resistance. The figure \ref{experimental_result} illustrates the motor's voltage and power variation at various RPM. The turbine-generator can produce a maximum of 78 watts of electrical power at 7800 RPM for bi-directional outlet configuration.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth]{Figure/electrical_power_birectional.eps}
\caption{Experimental results of voltage (dashed line) and electrical power (solid line) at different RPM}
\label{experimental_result}
\end{figure}
\subsection{\textbf{Inlet design}}\label{sec3p2}
Designing the inlet is the most crucial part of the turbine where the maximum loss occurs. Notably, the compressor and back pressure at the inlet rotor connection point regulates the flow across the nozzle. In the present article, we only consider the inlet section for analysis. The details of the nozzle dimensions are in figure \ref{nozzle_schematic}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\fbox{\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Figure/nozzle_schematic.png}}
\caption{Schematic diagram of the nozzles. The dotted, dashed and solid lines represent nozzle 1, nozzle 2 and nozzle 3, respectively.}
\label{nozzle_schematic}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Numerical methodology and grid Grid sensitivity}
The Inlet section of the nozzle is a pressure inlet boundary where the total pressure is at 6 bar. We consider the outlet of the nozzle is at 4 bar. The temperature at the compressor discharge and the inlet-rotor junction are 450K and 400K, respectively. The surface of the nozzle is a no-slip type boundary. Considering these boundary conditions, we solve governing compressible Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations using the $K-\omega$ SST turbulence model in the commercial CFD package Fluent 2021 R2. The numerical domain is discretized using the body-fitted tetrahedral grids, maintaining a wall $y^+\approx O(1)$. The table \ref{grid_sensitivity} below presents the grid sensitivity study. As the desired output shows a variation $\leq 2\%$, We conduct the subsequent numerical simulations using grids with $\approx$ 1M elements.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c}
\hline
Grid type & Elements & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Outlet area averaged Mach no}\\
\hline
& & Nozzle 1 & Nozzle 2 & Nozzle 3 \\
\hline
Coarse & $\approx$ 0.5 M & .5093 & .4993 & .5296 \\
Medium & $\approx$ 1 M & .5089 & .4979 & .5289\\
Fine & $\approx$ 2 M & .5080 & .4971 & .5284\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Grid sensitivity of the three inlet configurations}
\label{grid_sensitivity}
\end{table}
The inlet design presented in this article is based on a two-pronged objective. (a) To Maximize the Mach number peak (b) To minimize the disparity in the Mach number peaks through every slit. To understand the loss mechanism and the flow behavior, we conduct a series of numerical simulations Where Nozzle 1 is the replica of the inlet nozzle considered for the experiment. Due to the abrupt divergent section and the presence of a large recirculation zone enclosed by a strong shear layer, we detect significant losses in Mach no. The dividing streamlines seen in figure \ref{Mach_streamline} (a) are considered when designing the following two inlet systems. The second nozzle we design is to eliminate the effect of recirculation. We gradually increase the inlet nozzle area until we reach the section where the flow bends in the previous observation. Despite the improvement in the average peak Mach number observed from figure \ref{Mach_streamline} (b), the disparity in the discharge Mach number through the slits increased. We consider designing the third nozzle as a converging-diverging type nozzle where we place the throat section at $x/L\approx 0.6$ to provide sufficient scope for flow to bend. Figure \ref{Mach_deviation} represents the peak discharge Mach number through the nozzles and the associated \% disparity from the mean peak Mach no through each slit. The comparison shows that the third nozzle offers maximum peak Mach number along with minimum \% deviation from the mean peak Mach no. It is necessary to note that the differential pressure between the upstream and downstream sections, the fluid, and the fluid's thermo-physical characteristics significantly influence the nozzle design. The nozzle's optimal size and shape might differ depending on these conditions.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\begin{turn}{-90}\fbox{\includegraphics[width=0.43\textwidth]{Figure/Mach_streamline_design1.eps}}\end{turn}\\
\vspace{2 mm}
(a)\\
\begin{turn}{-90}\fbox{\includegraphics[width=0.43\textwidth]{Figure/Mach_streamline_design2.eps}}\end{turn}\\
\vspace{2 mm}
(b)\\
\begin{turn}{-90}\fbox{\includegraphics[width=0.43\textwidth]{Figure/Mach_streamline_design3.eps}}\end{turn}\\
\vspace{2 mm}
(c)\\
\vspace{2 mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Figure/Mach_streamline.png}\\
\caption{ Distribution of the Mach number for (a) nozzle 1 (b) nozzle 2 (c) nozzle 3.}
\label{Mach_streamline}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth]{Figure/Mach_comparison_v0p1.eps}\\
(a)\\
\vspace{0.1 in}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Figure/Design_1_mach_deviation_v0p1.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Figure/Design_2_mach_deviation_v01p1.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{Figure/Design_3_mach_deviation_v01p1.eps}\\
(b) \hspace{0.8 in} (c)\hspace{0.8 in} (d)
\caption{ (a) Comparison of peak Mach number across the slits. The dotted, dashed and solid lines represent First, second and third nozzle, respectively. (b, c, d) The \% disparity in peak Mach no at discharge for three nozzles.}
\label{Mach_deviation}
\end{figure}
\section{\textbf{CONCLUSIONS}}\label{sec4}
The article presents a preliminary experimental investigation of a centimeter scaled Tesla turbine using compressed air as a working medium and suggests an improved inlet design that could deliver higher achievable power compared to the inlet nozzle considered for this experiment. The key findings of the article are as follows;
\begin{enumerate}
\item Experimental investigation of the turbine conducted for uni and bi-directional outlet configuration at 6 bar inlet pressure.
\item uni-directional outlet configuration offered a peak power output of $\approx$ 110 watts at $\approx$ 7000 RPM. Whereas, bi-directional outlet configuration a peak output of 80 watts at 6500 RPM.
\item The turbine-generator configuration produced a peak electrical power output of 78 watts at 7800 RPM.
\item While assessing the inlet, we observe that nozzle 2 offers better peak Mach number than nozzle 1, but due to the losses accounted by the sharp bend, the disparity in \% deviation of the peak mach numbers from mean peak Mach no is nearly 30\%.
\item Nozzle 3 performs the best among all three nozzles. It offers a maximum peak Mach no with minimum \% deviation from mean peak Mach no is reduced to 12\%.
\end{enumerate}
The turbine's efficiency depends on several factors, e.g., RPM, disc gap, rotor radius, rotor to casing clearance, outlet configurations, fluid properties, and many more. Designing an efficient Tesla turbine could bring down the cost of a turbine substantially as compared to the other existing technologies because of its simplistic design. The above findings presented in this article could be helpful in the design improvement, thus leaving a plausible scope for further investigation.\\
\noindent
\textbf{NOMENCLATURE}\\
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
$t$ & time & [sec]\\
$x/L$ & Non-dimensional-axial location & [--]\\
$k$ & Turbulent kinetic energy & [J/kg] \\
$\omega$ & Specific dissipation rate & [1/sec]\\
$M$ & Mach no & --\\
$M'$ & \% Deviation from peak mean Mach no & --\\
\end{tabular}
\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
|
\section{Introduction}
We describe the nuclear fission process by the four-dimensional set of the Langevin equations for the shape degrees of freedom with the shape given by the two-center shell model (TCSM) shape parametrization.
The potential energy is calculated within the macroscopic-microscopic method.
The collective mass, $M$, and friction, $\gamma$, tensors are defined in macroscopic (Werner-Wheller and wall-and-window formula) or microscopic (linear response theory) approaches.
We start calculations from the ground state shape with zero collective velocities and solve equations until the neck radius of the nucleus turns zero (scission point). At the scission point, the solutions of Langevin equations supply complete information about the system, its shape, excitation energy, and collective velocities.
This information makes it possible to calculate the mass distributions, the total kinetic energy, and the excitation energies of fission fragments.
The results of numerous previous calculations are in reasonable agreement with the available experimental data.
Below in this contribution, we present the calculated results for the mass distributions of super-heavy nuclei and clarify the impact of memory effects on the fission width of heavy nuclei.
The physics of super-heavy elements (SHE) has a long history. The existence
of the ``island of stability'' was predicted at the end of the 1960s \cite{1}. Nevertheless, it took almost 30
years until the alpha-decay of the element with Z=114 was observed
experimentally at Flerov Nuclear Reactions Laboratory in Dubna \cite{5}.
With the development of experimental facility, it became possible not only to fix the fact of formation of SHE, but examine their properties. One of the first property of interest -- the process of fission of SHEs. For the successful planning and carrying out of experiments, it is crucial to understand what kind of fission fragments mass distribution (FFMD) one should expect in the result of the fission of SHEs. The two double magic nuclei $^{132}$Sn and $^{208}$Pb may contribute.
Both have the shell correction in the ground state of the same magnitude.
In order to clarify what kind of FFMD one could expect in the fission of SHEs,
we have carried out the calculations of FFMD for a number of SHEs. The results are given in Section 3.
Another problem we address in this contribution is the influence of memory effects on the probability of the fission process.
Commonly one uses the Markovian approximation to Langevin approach in which all quantities are defined at the same moment. This approximation provides reasonable results, but its accuracy is not well established. In publications, one can find statements that the memory effects have a significant influence on the fusion or fission
processes and the statements that memory effects are very small.
To clarify this uncertainty, we have calculated the fission width using the Langevin approach with memory effects included in a wide range of important parameters: the excitation energy $E^*$ of the system, the damping parameter $\eta$, the relaxation time $\tau$.
The details and results of the calculations are given in Section 4.
\section{The Langevin approach for the fission process}
Within the Langevin approach, the fission process is
described by solving the equations for the time evolution of
the shape of nuclear surface of the fissioning system. For the shape
parametrization, we use that of the two-center shell model (TCSM)
\cite{16}
with 4 deformation parameters $q_{\mu} =z_0/R_0, \delta_1, \delta_2, \alpha$.
Here z$_0/R_0$ refers to the distance
between the centers of left and right oscillator potentials, $R_{0}$ being the radius of spherical nucleus with the mass
number A. The parameters $\delta _i$ describe the
deformation of the right and left fragment tips. The fourth parameter
$\alpha $ is the mass asymmetry and the fifth parameter of the TCSM shape
parametrization $\epsilon $ was kept constant, $\epsilon $=0.35, in
all our calculations.
The first-order differential equations (Langevin equations) for the time
dependence of collective variables $q_{\mu }$ and the conjugated momenta
$p_{\mu }$ are:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{lange}
\frac{dq_\mu}{dt}&=&\left(m^{-1} \right)_{\mu \nu} p_\nu , \\
\frac{dp_\mu}{dt}&=&-\frac{\partial F(q,T)}{\partial q_\mu} - \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial m^{-1} _{\nu \sigma} }{\partial q_\mu} p_\nu p_\sigma
-\gamma_{\mu \nu} m^{-1}_{\nu \sigma} p_\sigma + R_\mu (t). \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
In Eqs. (\ref{lange}) the $F(q, T)$ is the
temperature-dependent free energy of the system, and $\gamma _{\mu \nu }$
and (m$^{-1})_{\mu \nu }$ are the friction and inverse of mass tensors.
The free energy $F(q, T)$ is calculated within the shell correction method.
The single particle energies are calculated with the deformed Woods-Saxon potential fitted to the mentioned above TCSM shapes.
The collective inertia tensor $m_{\mu \nu }$ is calculated by the Werner-Wheeler approximation
and for the friction tensor $\gamma _{\mu \nu }$ we used the wall-and-window formula.
The random force $R_{\mu}(t)$ is the product of the temperature-depen\-dent strength factors
g$_{\mu \nu }$ and the white noise $\xi_{\nu}$(t), $R_{\mu}(t)=g_{\mu \nu }\xi_{\nu }$(t).
The factors g$_{\mu \nu }$ are related to the temperature
and friction tensor via the Einstein relation,
\begin{equation}\label{Einstein}
g_{\mu \sigma } g_{\sigma \nu } =T\gamma _{\mu \nu}
\end{equation}
The temperature T is kept constant, $aT^2=E^*$, or adjusted to the local excitation energy on each step of integration by the relation,
\begin{equation}\label{temper}
aT^2=E^*-p^2(t)/2M-[E_{pot}(q)-E_{pot}(q_{gs})].
\end{equation}
Here $q_{gs}$ is the ground state deformation.
More details are given in our earlier publications \cite{24,25,26,14}.
Initially, the momenta $p_{\mu }$ are set to zero, and calculations are
started from the ground state deformation. Such calculations are continued
until the trajectories reach the "scission point", defined as the
point in deformation space where the neck radius turns zero.
\section{Fission fragments mass distributions of super-heavy nuclei}
In order to understand what kind of mass distributions one can expect from the solution of Langevin equations for super-heavy nuclei, we looked first at the potential energy of fissioning nuclei.
Fig. \ref{fig1} shows the potential energy E$_{def}$ of nuclei $^{296}$Lv and $^{302}$120
at zero temperature as a function of elongation (the distance R$_{12 }$ between
the centers of mass of left and right parts of a nucleus) and the mass asymmetry (fragment mass number). In the top part of
Fig. \ref{fig1} the energy was minimized with respect to the deformation parameters
$\delta _{1}$ and $\delta _{2}$. One sees the bottom of
potential energy leading to almost symmetric mass splitting. There is also a
hint on the mass asymmetric valley at $A_F$ close to $A_F$=208.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centerline
\includegraphics[width=12.5cm]{Layout4}}
\caption{(top) The potential energy of $^{296}Lv$ and $^{302}120$ at $T=0$ minimized with respect to deformation parameters $\delta_1$ and $\delta_2$ (bottom), and at fixed values $\delta_1=-0.2$ and $\delta_2=0.2$.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
If the trajectories followed the bottom of potential energy, the mass distributions
would be symmetric. However, it is well known that the trajectories may deviate substantially from the bottom
of the potential valley due to dynamic effects. We calculate the trajectories in four-dimensional
deformation space. In this space, the local minima could lead
away from the bottom of the potential valley. An example is shown in the bottom
part of Fig. \ref{fig1}. Here we show the potential energy for fixed $\delta _1$=
- 0.2 and $\delta _2$=0.2. One clearly sees another valley, leading to strongly mass asymmetric splitting.
In Fig. \ref{fig2}, we show the fission fragment mass distributions of super-heavy
nuclei from $^{276}$Hs to $^{308}$122 as a function of fragment mass number
$A_F$. The FFMDs of nuclei from $^{276}$Cn to $^{308}$122 have three or
four peak structures.
The main component is the symmetric peak, split
into two components in some isotopes. The peaks of lighter fragments are located around
$A_F$=140.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centerline
\includegraphics[width=12.5cm]{Graph5}}
\caption{The fission fragment mass distributions of super-heavy nuclei from $^{276}$Hs to $^{308}$122 calculated for the excitation energies $E^*$=10, 20 and 30 MeV as a function of the fragment mass number}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
One can also see the strongly asymmetric peak at the mass number close to
$A_F$=208. The strength of the (almost) symmetric and asymmetric
components in FFMD of SHEs depends on the proton and neutron numbers of the
compound nucleus. For $^{276}$Cn, the contribution of a strongly asymmetric
peak is tiny. This contribution becomes larger for more heavy SHE. In
some elements of SHEs with $Z=$116-122, the symmetric and mass-asymmetric peaks are of the
same magnitude. More details can be found in \cite{SHEs}.
The similar strongly mass-asymmetric peaks in FFMD of SHEs were also found recently in \cite{pasha} within the Langevin approach with the so call Fourier shape parametrization.
\section{The memory effects in nuclear fission}
In order to investigate the role of memory effects in nuclear fission, we exploit a simple one-dimensional model with the potential energy given by the two-parabolic potential (Kramers potential), see Fig. \ref{fig3}.
\begin{equation}\label{poten}
{\rm E}_{pot}(q)=2V_bq(q-q_0)/q_0^2,\, 0<q<q_0; 2V_b(q-q_0)(2q_0-q)q_0^2,\,q_0<q<2q_0.
\end{equation}
The potential (\ref{poten}) depends on two parameters, the barrier height $V_b$ and the barrier width $q_0$. We have fixed the barrier height $V_b$ = 6 MeV, which is close to the value of the fission barrier of actinide nuclei. The width of the barrier is somewhat uncertain. It depends on the definition of the collective coordinate $q$ and the model for the potential energy. For simplicity, we have put here $q_0=1.0$.
For the potential (\ref{poten}) one can define the stiffness $C=d^2E_{pot}/dq^2$ and the frequency of harmonic vibrations $\omega_0=\sqrt{C/M}$. In the present work, we fix $\hbar\omega_0$ =1.0 MeV, which is close to the frequency of collective vibrations calculated for $^{224}$Th in \cite{hiry} within the microscopic linear response theory. Then, for the mass parameter we will have the deformation and temperature-independent value,
\begin{equation}\label{mass}
M=C / \omega_0^2 = 4 V_b / (\omega_0^2q_0^2).
\end{equation}
For the friction coefficient $\bar\gamma$ we use a slightly modified approximation of \cite{hiry},
\begin{equation}\label{beta}
\bar\gamma/M=0.6(T^2+\hbar^2\omega_0^2/\pi^2))/(1+T^2/40).
\end{equation}
For the temperature, we consider here two options: constant temperature regime and constant energy regime.
In a constant temperature regime, the temperature is time-independent, related to the initial excitation energy $E^*$ by the Fermi-gas relation, $a T^2=E^*$,
where $a$ is the level density parameter of T\"oke and Swiatecki \cite{toke}.
The fission width calculated in a constant temperature regime will be denoted as $\Gamma_f(T)$.
At small excitations, the temperature varies with deformation and time, and there is no reason to consider it constant. So, it should be adjusted to the local excitation energy on each integration step by the relation (\ref{temper}).
Correspondingly, fission width calculated in a constant energy regime is denoted as $\Gamma_f(E)$.
The fission width, $\Gamma_f$, is defined assuming the exponential decay of the number of "particles" in the potential well,
\begin{equation}\label{decay}
P(t)=e^{-\Gamma_f t/\hbar} \to \Gamma_f=-\hbar \ln[P(t)]/t.
\end{equation}
By solving the Langevin equations one will get the set of time moments
$t_b$, at which some trajectories would cross the barrier. From this information, one can find the probability $P(t)$ and the fission width $\Gamma_f$, see \cite{memory}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centerline
\includegraphics[width=6.0cm,height=4.2cm]{potential}
\includegraphics[width=6.0cm]{scheutera}}
\caption{(left) The two-parabolic potential (\ref{poten}) and few examples of the dynamical trajectories.
(right) The fission width as the solution of Eqs.~(\ref{lange}, \ref{poten}, \ref{decay}) calculated at constant temperature (open dots), and the Kramers approximations (\ref{GammaK}) for high and low damping limits. }
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
The Markovian fission width $\Gamma_f(T)$ calculated by Eqs. (\ref{lange}, \ref{poten}, \ref{decay}) is plotted as function of the damping parameter $\eta$ in the right part of Fig.~\ref{fig3}.
To present the results in a broader range of parameters, the damping parameter $\eta\equiv\bar\gamma/2M\omega_0$ in these calculations was considered as a free parameter.
For the comparison, in Fig.3 we also show the Kramers decay width $\Gamma_{HV}, \Gamma_{LV} $ in limits of high and low viscosity (friction) \cite{kramers},
\begin{equation}\label{GammaK}
\Gamma_{HV}=\frac{\hbar\omega_0}{2\pi}e^{-V_b/T}(\sqrt{1+\eta^2}-\eta)\,,\quad
\Gamma_{LV}=\frac{\hbar\bar\gamma}{M}\frac{V_b}{T}e^{-V_b/T}.
\end{equation}
As one can see, the dependence of $\Gamma_f(T)$ on $\eta$ is rather complicated. The fission width $\Gamma_f(T)$ {\it grows} as function of $\eta$ in low damping region ($\eta < 0.1$). For $\eta > 0.2$, the fission width $\Gamma_f(T)$ {\it decreases} as function of $\eta$.
In nuclear systems, the Markovian assumption is often too restrictive. We thus have to generalize the above Langevin equations to allow for finite memory effects. They read as
\cite{abe-san},
\begin{eqnarray}\label{lange2}
dq/dt&=&p(t)/M ,\\
\frac{dp}{dt}&=&-\frac{\partial E_{pot}}{\partial q} - \int_0^t dt^{\prime}\gamma(t-t^{\prime}) p(t^{\prime}) /M + \zeta\,,\,
\quad\gamma(t-t^{\prime})\equiv\bar\gamma e^{-\frac{t-t^{\prime}}{\tau}}\slash\tau\,,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\tau$ is the memory (or relaxation) time. The extension consists in allowing the friction to have a memory time, i.e., the friction reacts on past stages of the system, what is called a retarded friction.
The random numbers $\zeta$ in (\ref{lange2}) are the normally distributed random numbers with the properties $<\zeta(t)>=0$, $<\zeta(t)\zeta(t^{\prime})>=T\gamma (t-t^{\prime})$. In the limit $\omega_0\tau <<1$, one recovers the Markovian limit of nuclear fission dynamics, i.e., when the friction force is simply given by $\gamma \dot q(t)$.
The random numbers $\zeta(t)$ in (\ref{lange2}) satisfy the equation
\begin{equation}\label{zetat}
d\zeta(t)/dt=- \zeta(t) / \tau +R(t)/\tau\,,
\end{equation}
and are used in the description of the so-called Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes.
In the top part of Fig.~4 the calculated fission width $\Gamma_f(E)$ is shown as a function of the damping parameter $\eta$ both for small and large excitation energies, $E^*$=10, 25 and 60 MeV, for few values of the relaxation time.
Besides $\tau=0$, we choose in calculations below the two values of $\tau$, $\tau=5\cdot 10^{-22}$ sec and $\tau=10^{-21}$ sec.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centerline
\includegraphics[width=12.5cm]{Graph6}}
\caption{(top) The dependence of the fission width $\Gamma_f(E)$ (solid) and the approximation (\ref{gammaeff}) (dashed) on the damping parameter $\eta$ for few values of the relaxation time $\tau$, $\tau$=0, $\tau=5\cdot 10^{-22}$ sec, $\tau=10^{-21}$ sec and the initial excitation energies $E_{in}^*$=10, 25 and 60 MeV.
(bottom) The dependence of the fission width $\Gamma_f(E)$ (solid) and the approximation (\ref{gammaeff}) (dashed) on the relaxation time $\tau$ for a few values of the damping parameter $\eta$, $\eta$=0.1, 0.5 and 1.0.}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
The results of Langevin calculations satisfying the energy conservation condition are shown in Fig.~4 by solid lines. The fission width $\Gamma_f(E)$ {\it grows} as a function of $\eta$ and {\it decreases} as a function of $\tau$ in low damping region. The tendency is the opposite in the high damping region; the fission width $\Gamma_f$ {\it falls} as a function of $\eta$ and {\it increases} as a function of $\tau$. Such dependence is common both for small and large excitation energies.
In the bottom part of Fig.~4, the fission width $\Gamma_f(E)$ (solid lines) is shown as a function of the relaxation time $\tau$ for a few fixed values of the damping parameter $\eta$. The bottom part of Fig.~4 confirms the above conclusion: the dependence of fission width $\Gamma_f$ on $\eta$ and $\tau$ is opposite in low and high damping regions.
For the comparison, we show by dashed lines in Fig.~4 the available analytical approximation for $\Gamma_f(T, \tau)$ \cite{abe-san,grote,lallouet},
\begin{equation}\label{gammaeff}
\frac{1}{\Gamma_{eff}}=\frac{1}{\Gamma_{LV}}+\frac{1}{\Gamma_{HV}}\,,\quad
\Gamma_{LV}(\tau)=\frac{\Gamma_{LV}(0)}{1+\omega_0^2\tau^2},\quad \Gamma_{HV}(\tau)=\frac{\hbar\lambda}{2\pi}e^{-V_b/T}\,,
\end{equation}
where $\lambda$ is the largest positive solution of the secular equation,
\begin{equation}\label{laluet}
\lambda^3+\lambda^2/\tau+(\bar\gamma/M\tau-\omega_0^2)\lambda-\omega_0^2/\tau=0\,.
\end{equation}
As can be seen, the results of Langevin calculations for $\Gamma_f(E)$ are smaller than the analytical estimate (\ref{gammaeff}) both in low and high damping limits. The ratio $\Gamma_f(E)/\Gamma_{eff}$ is close to 1 at $E^*$=60 MeV and close to 0.1 at $E^*$=10 MeV.
\section{Summary}
The calculated mass distributions of fission fragments of super-heavy nuclei from $^{268}$Hs to $^{308}$122 demonstrate
a three-four peaks structure of mass distributions.
In light super-heavies, we see the dominant mass symmetric peak at $A_F\approx$ 140.
With increasing mass and charge numbers of fissioning nuclei, the highly asymmetric peaks at
$A_H\approx$ 208 appears.
In $^{290-296}$Lv and $^{290-296}$Og, the three peaks in FFMD are approximately of the same magnitude at E*=10 MeV.
The investigation of memory effects in nuclear fission is carried out. The calculations presented here offer complete information on the dependence of fission probability on all essential parameters, the relaxation time $\tau$, the damping parameter $\eta$, and the excitation energy E*.
It turned out that the fission width $\Gamma_f(E)$ calculated under the constant energy requirement is generally smaller than that calculated in the constant temperature regime, $\Gamma_f(T)$, or the Bohr-Wheeler approximation.
The dependence of the fission width $\Gamma_f(E)$ on the relaxation time $\tau$ is very sensitive to the damping parameter $\eta$. In the low viscosity region, the fission width $\Gamma_f(E)$ grows as a function of $\eta$ and decreases as a function of $\tau$. In the high-viscosity region, the tendency is the opposite. Such dependence is common both for small and large excitation energies.
{\bf Acknowledgements.} The authors are grateful to Prof. K.Pomorski for the valuable discussions and presentation of our results at the Zakopane Conference
|
\section{Introduction and preliminaries}\label{presection}
Let $\Omega$ be a set. Denote by $\PT(\Omega)$ the monoid (under composition) of all
partial transformations on $\Omega$, by $\T(\Omega)$ the submonoid of $\PT(\Omega)$ of all
full transformations on $\Omega$, by $\I(\Omega)$
the \textit{symmetric inverse monoid} on $\Omega$, i.e.
the inverse submonoid of $\PT(\Omega)$ of all
partial permutations on $\Omega$,
and by $\Sym(\Omega)$ the \textit{symmetric group} on $\Omega$,
i.e. the subgroup of $\PT(\Omega)$ of all
permutations on $\Omega$.
If $\Omega$ is a finite set with $n$ elements ($n\in\N$),
say $\Omega=\Omega_n=\{1,\ldots,n\}$, as usual, we denote
$\PT(\Omega)$, $\T(\Omega)$, $\I(\Omega)$ and $\Sym(\Omega)$ simply by $\PT_n$, $\T_n$, $\I_n$ and $\Sym_n$, respectively.
\smallskip
Recall that the \textit{rank} of a monoid $M$ is the minimum size of a generating set of $M$, i.e.
the minimum of the set $\{|X|\mid \mbox{$X\subseteq M$ and $X$ generates $M$}\}$.
For $n\geqslant3$,
it is well-known that $\Sym_n$
has rank $2$ (as a semigroup, a monoid or a group) and
$\T_n$, $\I_n$ and $\PT_n$ have
ranks $3$, $3$ and $4$, respectively.
The survey \cite{Fernandes:2002survey} presents
these results and similar ones for other classes of transformation monoids,
in particular, for monoids of order-preserving transformations and
for some of their extensions.
For example, the rank of the extensively studied monoid of all order-preserving transformations of a chain with $n$ elements is $n$,
a result proved by Gomes and Howie \cite{Gomes&Howie:1992} in 1992.
More recently, for instance, the papers
\cite{
Araujo&al:2015,
Dimitrova&al:2020,
Dimitrova&al:2021,
Dimitrova&Koppitz:2017,
Dimitrova&al:2017,
Fernandes&al:2014,
Fernandes&al:2019,
Fernandes&Quinteiro:2014,
Fernandes&Sanwong:2014}
are dedicated to the computation of the ranks of certain classes of transformation semigroups or monoids.
\smallskip
Now, let $G=(V,E)$ be a finite simple connected graph.
The (\textit{geodesic}) \textit{distance} between two vertices $x$ and $y$ of $G$, denoted by $\d_G(x,y)$, is the length of a shortest path between $x$ and $y$, i.e. the number of edges in a shortest path between $x$ and $y$.
Let $\alpha\in\PT(V)$. We say that $\alpha$ is a \textit{partial isometry} or \textit{distance preserving partial transformation} of $G$ if
$$
\d_G(x\alpha,y\alpha) = \d_G(x,y) ,
$$
for all $x,y\in\dom(\alpha)$. Denote by $\DP(G)$ the subset of $\PT(V)$ of all partial isometries of $G$.
Clearly, $\DP(G)$ is a submonoid of $\PT(V)$.
As a consequence of the property
$\d_G(x,y)=0$ if and only if $x=y$,
for all $x,y\in V$, it immediately follows that $\DP(G)\subseteq\I(V)$.
Moreover, $\DP(G)$ is an inverse submonoid of $\I(V)$
(see \cite{Fernandes&Paulista:2022arxiv}).
\smallskip
Observe that, if $G=(V,E)$ is a complete graph, i.e. $E=\{\{x,y\}\mid x,y\in V, x\neq y\}$, then $\DP(G)=\I(V)$.
\smallskip
For $n\in\N$, consider the undirected path $P_n$ with $n$ vertices, i.e.
$$
P_n=\left(\{1,2,\ldots,n\},\{\{i,i+1\}\mid i=1,2,\ldots,n-1\}\right).
$$
Then, obviously, $\DP(P_n)$ coincides with the monoid
$$
\DP_n=\{\alpha\in\I_n \mid |i\alpha-j\alpha|=|i-j|, \mbox{for all $i,j\in\dom(\alpha)$}\}
$$
of all partial isometries on $\Omega_n$.
The study of partial isometries on $\Omega_n$ was initiated
by Al-Kharousi et al.~\cite{AlKharousi&Kehinde&Umar:2014,AlKharousi&Kehinde&Umar:2016}.
The first of these two papers is dedicated to investigating some combinatorial properties of
the monoid $\DP_n$ and of its submonoid $\ODP_n$ of all order-preserving (considering the usual order of $\N$) partial isometries, in particular, their cardinalities. The second paper presents the study of some of their algebraic properties, namely Green's structure and ranks.
Presentations for both the monoids $\DP_n$ and $\ODP_n$ were given by Fernandes and Quinteiro in \cite{Fernandes&Quinteiro:2016}
and the maximal subsemigroups of $\ODP_n$ were characterized by Dimitrova in \cite{Dimitrova:2013}.
The monoid $\DP(S_n)$ of all partial isometries of a star graph $S_n$ with $n$ vertices ($n\geqslant1$)
was considered by Fernandes and Paulista in \cite{Fernandes&Paulista:2022arxiv}.
They determined the rank and size of $\DP(S_n)$ as well as described its Green's relations.
A presentation for $\DP(S_n)$ was also exhibited in \cite{Fernandes&Paulista:2022arxiv}.
Next, for $n\geqslant3$, consider the \textit{cycle graph}
$$
C_n=(\{1,2,\ldots, n\}, \{\{i,i+1\}\mid i=1,2,\ldots,n-1\}\cup\{\{1,n\}\})
$$
with $n$ vertices. Notice that, cycle graphs and cycle subgraphs play a fundamental role in Graph Theory.
The monoid $\DP(C_n)$ of all partial isometries of the cycle graph $C_n$ was studied by Fernandes and Paulista in \cite{Fernandes&Paulista:2022sub}.
They showed that $\DP(C_n)$ is an inverse submonoid of the monoid of all oriented partial
permutations on a chain with $n$ elements and, moreover, that it coincides with the inverse submonoid of $\I_n$
formed by all restrictions of a dihedral subgroup of $\Sym_n$ of order $2n$.
Therefore, in \cite{Fernandes&Paulista:2022sub}, $\DP(C_n)$ was called the \textit{dihedral inverse monoid on $\Omega_n$} and, in this paper, from now on,
we denote $\DP(C_n)$ by the most appropriate notation $\DI_n$.
Recall also that in \cite{Fernandes&Paulista:2022sub} it was determined the cardinal and rank of $\DI_n$ as well as descriptions of its Green's relations and, furthermore,
presentations for $\DI_n$ were also given in that paper.
\smallskip
Next, suppose that $\Omega_n$ is a chain, e.g. $\Omega_n=\{1<2<\cdots<n\}$.
A partial transformation $\alpha\in\PT_n$ is called \textit{order-preserving}
[\textit{order-reversing}] if, $x\leqslant y$ implies $x\alpha\leqslant y\alpha$
[$x\alpha\geqslant y\alpha$], for all $x,y \in \dom(\alpha)$.
A partial transformation is said to be \textit{monotone} if it is order-preserving or order-reversing.
It is clear that the product of two order-preserving or of two
order-reversing transformations is order-preserving and
the product of an order-preserving transformation by an
order-reversing transformation, or vice-versa, is
order-reversing.
We denote by $\PO_n$
the submonoid of $\PT_n$ of all order-preserving
transformations and by $\POD_n$ the submonoid of $\PT_n$
of all monotone transformations.
Let also $\POI_n=\PO_n\cap\I_n$,
the monoid of all order-preserving partial permutations of $\Omega_n$,
and $\PODI_n=\POD_n\cap\I_n$,
the monoid of all monotone partial permutations of $\Omega_n$,
which are inverse submonoids of $\PT_n$.
Let $s=(a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_t)$
be a sequence of $t$ ($t\geqslant0$) elements
from the chain $\Omega_n$.
We say that $s$ is \textit{cyclic}
[\textit{anti-cyclic}] if there
exists no more than one index $i\in\{1,\ldots,t\}$ such that
$a_i>a_{i+1}$ [$a_i<a_{i+1}$],
where $a_{t+1}$ denotes $a_1$.
We also say that $s$ is \textit{oriented} if $s$ is cyclic or $s$ is anti-cyclic.
See \cite{Catarino&Higgins:1999,Higgins&Vernitski:2022,McAlister:1998}.
Given a partial transformation $\alpha\in\PT_n$ such that
$\dom(\alpha)=\{a_1<\cdots<a_t\}$, with $t\geqslant0$, we
say that $\alpha$ is \textit{orientation-preserving}
[\textit{orientation-reversing}, \textit{oriented}] if the sequence of its images
$(a_1\alpha,\ldots,a_t\alpha)$ is cyclic [anti-cyclic, oriented].
It is easy to show
that the product of two orientation-preserving or of two
orientation-reversing transformations is orientation-preserving and
the product of an orientation-preserving transformation by an
orientation-reversing transformation, or vice-versa, is
orientation-reversing.
We denote by $\POP_n$ the submonoid of $\PT_n$
of all orientation-preserving
transformations and by $\POR_n$ the
submonoid of $\PT_n$ of all
oriented transformations.
Consider also the inverse submonoids $\POPI_n=\POP_n\cap\I_n$,
of all orientation-preserving partial permutations,
and $\PORI_n=\POR_n\cap\I_n$,
of all oriented partial permutations, of $\PT_n$.
Notice that, $\POI_n\subseteq\PODI_n\subseteq\PORI_n$
and $\POI_n\subseteq\POPI_n\subseteq\PORI_n$, by definition.
\smallskip
Now, let us consider the following permutations of $\Omega_n$ of order $n$ and $2$, respectively:
$$
g=\begin{pmatrix}
1&2&\cdots&n-1&n\\
2&3&\cdots&n&1
\end{pmatrix}
\quad\text{and}\quad
h=\begin{pmatrix}
1&2&\cdots&n-1&n\\
n&n-1&\cdots&2&1
\end{pmatrix}.
$$
It is clear that $g,h\in\DI_n$.
Moreover, for $n\geqslant3$, $g$ together with $h$ generate the well-known \textit{dihedral group} $\D_{2n}$ of order $2n$
(considered as a subgroup of $\Sym_n$). In fact, for $n\geqslant3$,
$$
\D_{2n}=\langle g,h\mid g^n=1,h^2=1, hg=g^{n-1}h\rangle=\{1,g,g^2,\ldots,g^{n-1}, h,hg,hg^2,\ldots,hg^{n-1}\}
$$
and we have
$$
g^k=\begin{pmatrix}
1&2&\cdots&n-k&n-k+1&\cdots&n\\
1+k&2+k&\cdots&n&1&\cdots&k
\end{pmatrix},
\quad\text{i.e.}\quad
ig^k=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
i+k & \mbox{if $1\leqslant i\leqslant n-k$}\\
i+k-n & \mbox{if $n-k+1\leqslant i\leqslant n$,}
\end{array}\right.
$$
and
$$
hg^k=\begin{pmatrix}
1&\cdots&k&k+1&\cdots&n\\
k&\cdots&1&n&\cdots&k+1
\end{pmatrix},
\quad\text{i.e.}\quad
ihg^k=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
k-i+1 & \mbox{if $1\leqslant i\leqslant k$}\\
n+k-i+1 & \mbox{if $k+1\leqslant i\leqslant n$,}
\end{array}\right.
$$
for $0\leqslant k\leqslant n-1$.
Denote also by $\C_n$ the \textit{cyclic group} of order $n$ generated by $g$, i.e.
$$
\C_n=\langle g\mid g^n=1\rangle=\{1,g,g^2,\ldots,g^{n-1}\}.
$$
\smallskip
Until the end of this paper, we will consider $n\geqslant3$.
\smallskip
For any two vertices $x$ and $y$ of $C_n$, we now denote the distance $\d_{C_n}(x,y)$ simply by $\d(x,y)$.
Notice that, we have
$$
\d(x,y)=\min \{|x-y|,n-|x-y|\}
= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
|x-y| &\mbox{if $|x-y|\leqslant\frac{n}{2}$}\\
n-|x-y| &\mbox{if $|x-y|>\frac{n}{2}$}
\end{array} \right.
$$
and so $0\leqslant\d(x,y)\leqslant\frac{n}{2}$,
for all $x,y \in \{1,2,\ldots,n\}$.
Observe also that
$$
\d(x,y)=\frac{n}{2}
\quad\Leftrightarrow\quad
|x-y|=\frac{n}{2}
\quad\Leftrightarrow\quad
n-|x-y|=\displaystyle\frac{n}{2}
\quad\Leftrightarrow\quad
|x-y|=n-|x-y|,
$$
in which case $n$ is even.
\smallskip
Recall that $\DI_n$ is the submonoid of the monoid $\PORI_n$ whose elements are precisely all restrictions of the dihedral group $\D_{2n}$ of order $2n$.
Moreover, it is also known exactly how many extensions in $\D_{2n}$ each element of $\DI_n$ has:
\begin{lemma}[{\cite[Lemma 1.1]{Fernandes&Paulista:2022sub}}] \label{fundlemma}
Let $\alpha \in \PT_n$. Then $\alpha \in\DI_n$ if and only if there exists $\sigma \in \D_{2n}$
such that $\alpha=\sigma|_{\dom(\alpha)}$.
Furthermore, for $\alpha \in \DI_n$, one has:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If either $|\dom(\alpha)|= 1$ or $|\dom(\alpha)|= 2$ and $\d(\min \dom(\alpha),\max \dom(\alpha))=\frac{n}{2}$
(in which case $n$ is even),
then there exist exactly two (distinct) permutations $\sigma,\sigma' \in\D_{2n}$ such that $\alpha= \sigma|_{\dom(\alpha)} = \sigma'|_{\dom(\alpha)}$;
\item If either $|\dom(\alpha)|= 2$ and $\d(\min \dom(\alpha),\max \dom(\alpha)) \neq \frac{n}{2}$ or $|\dom(\alpha)|\geqslant 3$,
then there exists exactly one permutation $\sigma \in\mathcal{D}_{2n}$ such that $\alpha= \sigma|_{\dom(\alpha)}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
Notice that, for an even $n$, we have
$$
\begin{array}{rcl}
\B_2 & = & \{\alpha\in\DI_n\mid |\mbox{$\dom(\alpha)|=2$ and $\d(\min \dom(\alpha),\max \dom(\alpha))=\frac{n}{2}$}\} \\
& = &
\left\{
\begin{pmatrix}
i&i+\frac{n}{2}\\
j&j+\frac{n}{2}
\end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix}
i&i+\frac{n}{2}\\
j+\frac{n}{2}&j
\end{pmatrix}
\mid
1\leqslant i,j\leqslant \frac{n}{2}
\right\}
\end{array}
$$
and so $|\B_2|=2(\frac{n}{2})^2=\frac{1}{2}n^2$.
\medskip
In this paper, we study three remarkable submonoids of $\DI_n$, namely
$\OPDI_n=\DI_n\cap\POPI_n$, the monoid of all orientation-preserving partial isometries of $C_n$,
$\MDI_n=\DI_n\cap\PODI_n$, the monoid of all monotone partial isometries of $C_n$,
and $\ODI_n=\DI_n\cap\POI_n$, the monoid of all order-preserving partial isometries of $C_n$.
Observe that $\DI_n$, $\OPDI_n$, $\MDI_n$ and $\ODI_n$ are all inverse submonoids of the symmetric inverse monoid $\I_n$,
$\ODI_n\subseteq\MDI_n$ and $\ODI_n\subseteq\OPDI_n$.
Also, notice that $\OPDI_3=\POPI_3$, $\MDI_3=\PODI_3$ and $\ODI_3=\POI_3$.
In Section \ref{cards}, we compute the cardinals of $\ODI_n$, $\MDI_n$ and $\OPDI_n$ and,
in Section \ref{greens}, we describe their Green's relations.
Finally, Section \ref{ranks} is dedicated to establish generating sets and to determine the ranks of these three monoids.
\medskip
For general background on Semigroup Theory and standard notations, we refer to Howie's book \cite{Howie:1995}.
\smallskip
We would like to point out that we made considerable use of computational tools, namely GAP \cite{GAP4}.
\section{Cardinals}\label{cards}
In this section, we determine the number of elements of each of the monoids $\ODI_n$, $\MDI_n$ and $\OPDI_n$.
\smallskip
Let $\alpha\in\PT_n$. Recall that the
\textit{rank} of $\alpha$, denoted by $\rank(\alpha)$,
is the size of $\im(\alpha)$.
\smallskip
By applying Lemma \ref{fundlemma} and counting all possible distinct orientation-preserving and order-preserving restrictions of permutations from $\D_{2n}$, we have:
\begin{theorem}\label{sizeopcoc}
One has
$$
|\ODI_n|= 3\cdot2^n+\frac{(n+1)n(n-1)}{6}-\frac{1+(-1)^n}{8}n^2-2n-2
$$
and
$$
|\OPDI_n|=
n2^n + \frac{n^2(n-1)}{2} -\frac{1+(-1)^n}{4}n^2-n+1.
$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\A=\{\alpha\in\DI_n\mid |\dom(\alpha)|\leqslant1\}$, $\B=\{\alpha\in\ODI_n\mid |\dom(\alpha)|\geqslant2\}$ and
$\C=\{\alpha\in\OPDI_n\mid |\dom(\alpha)|\geqslant2\}$. Clearly,
$\A=\{\alpha\in\OPDI_n\mid |\dom(\alpha)|\leqslant1\}=\{\alpha\in\ODI_n\mid |\dom(\alpha)|\leqslant1\}$ and so
$|\ODI_n|=|\A|+|\B|$ and $|\OPDI_n|=|\A|+|\C|$. It is also clear that $|\A|=1+n^2$. Therefore,
in view of Lemma \ref{fundlemma}, to determine the sizes of $\ODI_n$ and $\OPDI_n$, it suffices to count how many distinct restrictions of permutations of $\D_{2n}$ with rank greater than or equal to $2$ are order-preserving and orientation-preserving, respectively.
\smallskip
First, we determine $\B$. Let $k\in\{0,1,\ldots,n-1\}$.
Clearly, the only order-preserving restrictions of $hg^k$, with rank greater than or equal to $2$,
are of the form $hg^k|_{\{i<j\}}$, with $1\leqslant i\leqslant k$ and $k+1\leqslant j\leqslant n$.
Hence, we have $k\times(n-k)$ order-preserving restrictions of $hg^k$ with rank greater than or equal to $2$.
On the other hand, any order-preserving restrictions of $g^k$ has its domain contained in $\{1,\ldots,n-k\}$ or in $\{n-k+1,\ldots,n\}$,
whence $g^k$ has $\sum_{i=2}^{n-k}\binom{n-k}{i}+\sum_{i=2}^{k}\binom{k}{i}$ order-preserving restrictions with rank greater than or equal to $2$.
Observe that, if $n$ is even then
$$
\B_2\cap\B=\left\{
\begin{pmatrix}
i&i+\frac{n}{2}\\
j&j+\frac{n}{2}
\end{pmatrix}
\mid
1\leqslant i,j\leqslant \frac{n}{2}
\right\},
$$
whence we have $|\B_2\cap\B|=(\frac{n}{2})^2=\frac{1}{4}n^2$ elements in $\B$ with exactly two extensions in $\D_{2n}$,
while the remaining elements only have one. Conversely, for an odd $n$, all elements of $\B$ have exactly one extension in $\D_{2n}$.
Thus
$$
|\B|= \left\{\begin{array}{ll} \displaystyle
\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\left(k\times(n-k)\right) + \sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\left(\sum_{i=2}^{n-k}\binom{n-k}{i}+\sum_{i=2}^{k}\binom{k}{i}\right)
& \mbox{if $n$ is odd}
\\\\ \displaystyle
\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\left(k\times(n-k)\right) + \sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\left(\sum_{i=2}^{n-k}\binom{n-k}{i}+\sum_{i=2}^{k}\binom{k}{i}\right) - \frac{1}{4}n^2
& \mbox{if $n$ is even.}
\end{array}\right.
$$
Now, since
\begin{align*}
\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\left(k\times(n-k)\right) = \sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\left(k\times(n-k)\right) =
n\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}k - \sum_{k=1}^{n-1}k^2 = \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\\
n\frac{1+(n-1)}{2}(n-1) - \frac{(n-1)n(2(n-1)+1)}{6} = \frac{(n+1)n(n-1)}{6}
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\left(\sum_{i=2}^{n-k}\binom{n-k}{i}+\sum_{i=2}^{k}\binom{k}{i}\right) =
\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\left( (2^{n-k}-n+k-1)+(2^k-k-1) \right) =
\sum_{k=1}^{n}2^k + \sum_{k=0}^{n-1}2^k -\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}(n+2) =\\
(2^{n+1}-1-1)+(2^n-1)-n(n+2) =
3\cdot2^n-n^2-2n-3,
\end{align*}
the result about $|\ODI_n|$ immediately follows.
\smallskip
Next, we determine $\C$. Let $k\in\{0,1,\ldots,n-1\}$.
The orientation-preserving restrictions of $hg^k$, with rank greater than or equal to $2$, are all its order-preserving restrictions (which as seen above must have rank $2$) together with all its order-reversing restrictions of rank $2$. Hence,
we have $k\times(n-k) + \binom{k}{2} + \binom{n-k}{2}$
orientation-preserving restrictions of $hg^k$ with rank greater than or equal to $2$. Since all restrictions of $g^k$ are orientation-preserving
and, for an even $n$, $\B_2\subseteq\C$ with $|\B_2|=\frac{1}{2}n^2$, we have
$$
|\C|= \left\{\begin{array}{ll} \displaystyle
\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\left(k\times(n-k)+ \binom{k}{2} + \binom{n-k}{2}\right) + \sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\sum_{i=2}^{n}\binom{n}{i} & \mbox{if $n$ is odd}
\\\\ \displaystyle
\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\left(k\times(n-k)+ \binom{k}{2} + \binom{n-k}{2}\right) + \sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\sum_{i=2}^{n}\binom{n}{i} - \frac{1}{2}n^2
& \mbox{if $n$ is even.}
\end{array}\right.
$$
Now, from
\begin{align*}
\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\left(k\times(n-k)+ \binom{k}{2} + \binom{n-k}{2}\right) =
\frac{(n+1)n(n-1)}{6} + 2\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\binom{k}{2} + \binom{n}{2} = \qquad\qquad\quad\\
\frac{(n+1)n(n-1)}{6} + 2\binom{n}{3} + \binom{n}{2} = \frac{n^2(n-1)}{2}
\end{align*}
and
$$
\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\sum_{i=2}^{n}\binom{n}{i} = \sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\left(2^n-n-1\right)=n(2^n-n-1) = n2^n-n^2-n,
$$
the result about $|\OPDI_n|$ also follows.
\end{proof}
The previous approach could also be applied to count the elements of $\MDI_n$.
However, since all elements of $\MDI_n$ with rank less than or equal to $1$ are order-preserving and the mapping
$$
\begin{array}{ccc}
\{\alpha\in\ODI_n\mid |\im(\alpha)|\geqslant2\}&\longrightarrow&\{\alpha\in\MDI_n\setminus\ODI_n\mid |\im(\alpha)|\geqslant2\}\\
\alpha & \longmapsto & \alpha h
\end{array}
$$
is a bijection (notice $\alpha=\alpha h^2$, for all $\alpha\in\PT_n$), then
$|\MDI_n|=2|\ODI_n|-n^2-1$. Hence, we have:
\begin{theorem}\label{sizemc}
One has
$$
|\MDI_n|=
3\cdot2^{n+1}+\frac{(n+1)n(n-1)}{3} -\frac{5+(-1)^n}{4}n^2 -4n-5.
$$
\end{theorem}
\section{Green's relations}\label{greens}
Our main objective in this section is to give a description of the Green's relation $\mathscr{J}$ in $\ODI_n$, $\MDI_n$ and $\OPDI_n$.
To this end, the following characterization of $\DI_n$, presented in \cite[Proposition 4.1.12, pages 67-81]{Paulista:2022}, will be very useful.
Since the original proof is quite involved and very long, we give here a simpler and much shorter proof.
\begin{lemma}\label{Grpr0}
Let $\alpha \in \PORI_n$ be such that $\dom(\alpha) = \{i_1<i_2<\cdots<i_k\}$ with $k \in \{2,3,\ldots,n\}$.
Then $\alpha \in \DI_n$ if and only if $\d(i_1,i_k) = \d(i_1\alpha,i_k\alpha)$
and $\d(i_p,i_{p+1}) = \d(i_p\alpha,i_{p+1}\alpha)$ for $p=1,2,\ldots,k-1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If $\alpha \in \DI_n$ then, by definition, we have $\d(i_1,i_k) = \d(i_1\alpha,i_k\alpha)$
and $\d(i_p,i_{p+1}) = \d(i_p\alpha,i_{p+1}\alpha)$ for $p=1,2,\ldots,k-1$.
\smallskip
Conversely, suppose that $\d(i_1,i_k) = \d(i_1\alpha,i_k\alpha)$
and $\d(i_p,i_{p+1}) = \d(i_p\alpha,i_{p+1}\alpha)$ for $p=1,2,\ldots,k-1$. Clearly, if $k=2$ (and, in fact, also if $k=3$) the result is trivial. So, we admit that $k\geqslant3$.
If $\alpha\in\POPI_n$ then, by \cite[Proposition 3.1]{Fernandes:2000},
there exist $i\in\{0,1,\ldots,n-1\}$ and $\beta\in\POI_n$ such that $\alpha=g^i\beta$.
On the other hand, if $\alpha\not\in\POPI_n$ then $h\alpha\in\POPI_n$, whence
there exist also $i\in\{0,1,\ldots,n-1\}$ and $\beta\in\POI_n$ such that $h\alpha=g^i\beta$ and so $\alpha=hg^i\beta$.
Thus, in either case, there exist $i\in\{0,1,\ldots,n-1\}$, $j\in\{0,1\}$ and $\beta\in\POI_n$ such that $\alpha=h^jg^i\beta$.
Observe that, we also have $\beta=g^{n-i}h^j\alpha$.
Suppose that $\dom(\beta) = \{i'_1<i'_2<\cdots<i'_k\}$ and let $t\in\{0,1,\ldots,k\}$ be such that $i'_t\leqslant i$ and $i'_{t+1}\geqslant i+1$
(with the obvious meaning for $t=0$ and $t=k$). Then
$$
(i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_k)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(i'_{t+1}g^{n-i},\ldots,i'_kg^{n-i},i'_1g^{n-i},\ldots,i'_tg^{n-i}) & \mbox{if $j=0$}\\ \\
(i'_tg^{n-i}h,\ldots,i'_1g^{n-i}h,i'_kg^{n-i}h,\ldots,i'_{t+1}g^{n-i}h) & \mbox{if $j=1$},
\end{array}
\right.
$$
from which is a routine matter to show that $\d(i'_1,i'_k) = \d(i'_1\beta,i'_k\beta)$
and $\d(i'_p,i'_{p+1}) = \d(i'_p\beta,i'_{p+1}\beta)$ for $p=1,2,\ldots,k-1$, since $g,h\in\DI_n$.
Therefore, we may reduce our proof to order-preserving transformations and admit that $\alpha\in\POI_n$.
Let $j_p=i_p\alpha$ for $p=1,2,\ldots,k$. Then $j_1<j_2<\cdots<j_k$.
\smallskip
First, we show that $i_{p+1}-i_p=j_{p+1}-j_p$ for $p=1,2,\ldots,k-1$.
Observe that $\sum_{p=1}^{k-1}(i_{p+1}-i_p)=i_k-i_1<n$ and so there exists at most one index
$r\in\{1,2,\ldots,k-1\}$ such that $i_{r+1}-i_r\geqslant\frac{n}{2}$. Similarly, there exists at most one index
$s\in\{1,2,\ldots,k-1\}$ such that $j_{s+1}-j_s\geqslant\frac{n}{2}$.
Notice also that, for all $p\in\{1,2,\ldots,k-1\}$,
$i_{p+1}-i_p=\frac{n}{2}$ or $j_{p+1}-j_p=\frac{n}{2}$ implies that $i_{p+1}-i_p=\frac{n}{2}=j_{p+1}-j_p$.
In order to obtain a contradiction, suppose there exists $\ell\in\{1,2,\ldots,k-1\}$ such that $i_{\ell+1}-i_\ell\neq j_{\ell+1}-j_\ell$.
Let $r$ be the smallest of such indices. Since $\d(i_r,i_{r+1})=\d(j_r,j_{r+1})$, we get
$$
\d(i_r,i_{r+1})=i_{r+1}-i_r=n-j_{r+1}+j_r\quad\text{or}\quad \d(i_r,i_{r+1})=j_{r+1}-j_r=n-i_{r+1}+i_r.
$$
By considering $\alpha^{-1}$ instead of $\alpha$, we may admit without loss of generality that $\d(i_r,i_{r+1})=j_{r+1}-j_r$.
Hence $i_{r+1}-i_r>\frac{n}{2}$ and $j_{r+1}-j_r<\frac{n}{2}$.
Moreover, $r$ is the only index in $\{1,2,\ldots,k-1\}$ such that $i_{r+1}-i_r\geqslant\frac{n}{2}$.
\smallskip
We begin by admiting that $j_{p+1}-j_p<\frac{n}{2}$ for all $p=1,2,\ldots,k-1$.
Since $i_{p+1}-i_p<\frac{n}{2}$ for all $p\in\{1,2,\ldots,k-1\}\setminus\{r\}$, then
\begin{align*}
& \d(i_p,i_{p+1})=\d(j_p,j_{p+1}),~\mbox{for $p=1,2,\ldots,k-1$}
\quad \Longrightarrow \quad \sum_{p=1}^{k-1}\d(i_p,i_{p+1})=\sum_{p=1}^{k-1}\d(j_p,j_{p+1}) \\
\Longrightarrow\quad &
\sum_{p=1}^{r-1}(i_{p+1}-i_p) + (n-i_{r+1}+i_r) + \sum_{p=r+1}^{k-1}(i_{p+1}-i_p) = \sum_{p=1}^{k-1}(j_{p+1}-j_p) \\
\Longrightarrow\quad &
(i_r-i_1) + (n-i_{r+1}+i_r) + (i_k-i_{r+1}) = j_k-j_1 \\
\Longrightarrow\quad &
(i_k-i_1) + (n-i_{r+1}+i_r) + (i_r-i_{r+1}) = j_k-j_1.
\end{align*}
On the other hand, as $\d(j_1,j_k)=\d(i_1,i_k)$ then $j_k-j_1=i_k-i_1$ or $j_k-j_1=n-i_k+i_1$.
If $j_k-j_1=i_k-i_1$ then $n-i_{r+1}+i_r=i_{r+1}-i_r>\frac{n}{2}$, which is a contradiction.
Thus $j_k-j_1=n-i_k+i_1$, whence $2(i_k-i_1+i_r-i_{r+1})=0$ and so $i_k-i_1=i_{r+1}-i_r$, which is again a contradiction (since $k\geqslant3$).
\smallskip
Therefore, there exists $s\in\{1,2,\ldots,k-1\}$ such that $j_{s+1}-j_s\geqslant\frac{n}{2}$, which is the only index under these conditions.
Moreover, $j_{s+1}-j_s>\frac{n}{2}$ and $s>r$.
Then, we have
\begin{align*}
& \d(i_p,i_{p+1})=\d(j_p,j_{p+1}),~\mbox{for $p=1,2,\ldots,k-1$}
\quad \Longrightarrow \quad \sum_{p=1}^{k-1}\d(i_p,i_{p+1})=\sum_{p=1}^{k-1}\d(j_p,j_{p+1}) \\
\Longrightarrow\quad &
\sum_{p=1}^{r-1}(i_{p+1}-i_p) + (n-i_{r+1}+i_r) + \sum_{p=r+1}^{k-1}(i_{p+1}-i_p) =
\sum_{p=1}^{s-1}(j_{p+1}-j_p) + (n-j_{s+1}+j_s) + \sum_{p=s+1}^{k-1}(j_{p+1}-j_p) \\
\Longrightarrow\quad &
(i_r-i_1) + (n-i_{r+1}+i_r) + (i_k-i_{r+1}) = (j_s-j_1) + (n-j_{s+1}+j_s) + (j_k-j_{s+1}) \\
\Longrightarrow\quad &
(n+i_k-i_1) + 2(i_r-i_{r+1}) = (n+j_k-j_1) + 2(j_s-j_{s+1}) .
\end{align*}
Next, as $i_k-i_1\geqslant i_{r+1}-i_r>\frac{n}{2}$ and $j_k-j_1\geqslant j_{s+1}-j_s>\frac{n}{2}$, we have
$$
n-i_k+i_1=\d(i_1,i_k)=\d(j_1,j_k)=n-j_k+j_1
$$
and so $i_{r+1}-i_r=j_{s+1}-j_s$.
On the other hand, since $i_{s+1}-i_s<\frac{n}{2}$ and $j_{s+1}-j_s>\frac{n}{2}$, we have
$$
i_{s+1}-i_s=\d(i_s,i_{s+1})=\d(j_s,j_{s+1})=n-j_{s+1}+j_s,
$$
whence $i_{r+1}-i_r=n-i_{s+1}+i_s$ and so
$
n-1\geqslant i_{s+1}-i_r=n+i_s-i_{r+1}\geqslant n,
$
which is once again a contradiction.
\smallskip
Thus, we proved that $i_{p+1}-i_p=j_{p+1}-j_p$, for all $p\in\{1,2,\ldots,k-1\}$.
\smallskip
Now, let $1\leqslant p<q\leqslant k$. Then, we have
$
i_q-i_p=\sum_{t=p}^{q-1}(i_{t+1}-i_t)=\sum_{t=p}^{q-1}(j_{t+1}-j_t)=j_q-j_p,
$
from which follows also that $n-i_q+i_p=n-j_q+j_p$. Hence
$$
\d(i_p,i_q)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
i_q-i_p &\mbox{if $i_q-i_p\leqslant\frac{n}{2}$}\\
n-i_q+i_p &\mbox{if $i_q-i_p>\frac{n}{2}$}
\end{array}
\right.
=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
j_q-j_p &\mbox{if $j_q-j_p\leqslant\frac{n}{2}$}\\
n-j_q+j_p &\mbox{if $j_q-j_p>\frac{n}{2}$}
\end{array}
\right.
=\d(j_p,j_q).
$$
Thus $\alpha\in\DI_n$, as required.
\end{proof}
Let us denote by $\id$ the identity transformation on $\Omega_n$ and, for $X\subseteq\Omega_n$, by $\id_X$ the partial identity with domain $X$, i.e. $\id_X=\id|_X$.
Now, for $A = \{i_1< i_2< \cdots< i_k\}\subseteq\Omega_n$ with $2\leqslant k \leqslant n$, define
$$
\d(A) = (d_1, d_2, \ldots, d_k),
$$
with $d_p = \d(i_p,i_{p+1})$, for $p = 1,\ldots,k-1$,
and $d_k = \d(i_1,i_k)$.
Take also $B = \{j_1< j_2< \cdots< j_k\}\subseteq\Omega_n$
and define $\delta_{A,B}$ as the only order-preserving transformation from $A$ onto $B$,
i.e.
$$
\delta_{A,B} = \left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
i_1 & i_2 & \cdots & i_k \\
j_1 & j_2 & \cdots & j_k \\
\end{array}
\right).
$$
Then, we have:
\begin{lemma}\label{relJ}
Let $A = \{i_1< i_2< \cdots< i_k\}\subseteq\Omega_n$ and $B = \{j_1< j_2< \cdots< j_k\}\subseteq\Omega_n$ with $2\leqslant k \leqslant n$. Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\d(A)=\d(B)$ if and only if there exists an order-preserving partial isometry from $A$ onto $B$ (i.e. if and only if $\delta_{A,B}\in\ODI_n$);
\item $\d(A)=\d(Bh)$ if and only if there exists an order-reversing partial isometry from $A$ onto $B$;
\item $\d(A)=\d(Bg^{-s})$ for some $0\leqslant s\leqslant n-1$ if and only if there exists an orientation-preserving partial isometry from $A$ onto $B$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
In order to prove Property 1, first suppose that $\d(A)=\d(B)$. Then, we have, for $1\leqslant p\leqslant k-1$,
$\d(i_p,i_{p+1}) = \d(j_p,j_{p+1})=\d(i_p\delta_{A,B},i_{p+1}\delta_{A,B})$ and
$\d(i_1,i_k)=\d(j_1,j_k)=\d(i_1\delta_{A,B},i_k\delta_{A,B})$, whence $\delta_{A,B}\in\DI_n$,
by Lemma \ref{Grpr0}, and so $\delta_{A,B}\in\ODI_n$.
Conversely, suppose that $\delta_{A,B}\in\ODI_n$. Then, in particular,
$\d(i_p,i_{p+1}) =\d(i_p\delta_{A,B},i_{p+1}\delta_{A,B})=\d(j_p,j_{p+1})$, for $1\leqslant p\leqslant k-1$, and
$\d(i_1,i_k)=\d(i_1\delta_{A,B},i_k\delta_{A,B})=\d(j_1,j_k)$, whence $\d(A)=\d(B)$.
\smallskip
Next, we prove Property 2. If $\d(A)=\d(Bh)$ then, by Property 1, $\delta_{A,Bh}\in\ODI_n$ and so,
as $k\geqslant2$ and $h|_{Bh}$ is an order-reversing partial isometry from $Bh$ onto $B$, it follows that
$\delta_{A,Bh}h|_{Bh}$ is an order-reversing partial isometry from $A$ onto $B$.
Conversely, suppose there exists an order-reversing partial isometry $\xi$ from $A$ onto $B$. Then
$$
\xi= \left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
i_1 & i_2 & \cdots & i_k \\
j_k & j_{k-1} & \cdots & j_1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
$$
and $Bh=\{n-j_k+1<n-j_{k-1}+1<\cdots<n-j_1+1\}$, whence
$$
\delta_{A,Bh}= \left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
i_1 & i_2 & \cdots & i_k \\
n-j_k+1 & n-j_{k-1}+1 & \cdots & n-j_1+1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
=\xi h|_B \in\ODI_n
$$
and so, by Property 1, $\d(A)=\d(Bh)$.
\smallskip
Finally, we prove Property 3. First, suppose that $\d(A)=\d(Bg^{-s})$ for some $0\leqslant s\leqslant n-1$.
Then, we have $\delta_{A,Bg^{-s}}\in\ODI_n$, by Property 1.
Since $g^s|_{Bg^{-s}}$ is an orientation-preserving partial isometry from $Bg^{-s}$ onto $B$,
then $\delta_{A,Bg^{-s}}g^s|_{Bg^{-s}}$ is an orientation-preserving partial isometry from $A$ onto $B$.
Conversely, suppose there exists an orientation-preserving partial isometry $\xi$ from $A$ onto $B$.
If $k=2$ then
$$
\xi= \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
i_1 & i_2 \\
j_1 & j_2 \\
\end{array}
\right)=\delta_{A,B}
\quad\text{or}\quad
\xi= \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
i_1 & i_2 \\
j_2 & j_1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
$$
and so, in both cases, we get $\delta_{A,B}\in\ODI_n$, whence $\d(A)=\d(B)(=\d(Bg^{-s})$, with $s=0$), by Property 1.
Thus, suppose that $k>2$. Then, since an orientation-preserving restriction of an orientation-reversing permutation
must have rank less than or equal to two (cf. proof of Theorem \ref{sizeopcoc}),
there exists $0\leqslant s\leqslant n-1$ such that $\xi=g^s|_A$.
Therefore, $A=Bg^{-s}$ and so $\delta_{A,Bg^{-s}}=\delta_{A,A}=\id_A\in\ODI_n$, since any partial identity is an order-preserving partial isometry.
Hence, by Property 1, it follows that $\d(A)=\d(Bg^{-s})$, as required.
\end{proof}
Next, recall that, given an inverse submonoid $M$ of $\I_n$,
it is well known that Green's relations $\mathscr{L}$, $\mathscr{R}$ and $\mathscr{H}$ of $M$ can be described as following:
for $\alpha, \beta \in M$,
\begin{itemize}
\item $\alpha \mathscr{L} \beta$ if and only if $\im(\alpha) = \im(\beta)$;
\item $\alpha \mathscr{R} \beta$ if and only if $\dom(\alpha) = \dom(\beta)$;
\item $\alpha \mathscr{H} \beta$ if and only if $\im(\alpha) = \im(\beta)$ and $\dom(\alpha) = \dom(\beta)$.
\end{itemize}
In $\I_n$ we also have
\begin{itemize}
\item $\alpha \mathscr{J} \beta$ if and only if $|\dom(\alpha)| = |\dom(\beta)|$ (if and only if $|\im(\alpha)| = |\im(\beta)|$).
\end{itemize}
Observe that, for a finite monoid, we always have $\mathscr{J} = \mathscr{D} (= \mathscr{L}\circ\mathscr{R} = \mathscr{R}\circ\mathscr{L})$.
Since the monoids $\ODI_n$, $\MDI_n$, and $\OPDI_n$ are inverse submonoids of $\I_n$,
it remains to give a description of Green's relation $\mathscr{J}$:
\begin{theorem}
Let $M \in \{\ODI_n, \MDI_n, \OPDI_n\}$ and let $\alpha, \beta \in M$. Then,
$\alpha \mathscr{J} \beta$ if and only if one of the following properties is satisfied:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $|\dom(\alpha)| = |\dom(\beta)| \leqslant 1$;
\item $|\dom(\alpha)| = |\dom(\beta)| \geqslant 2$ and
$$
\d(\dom(\alpha)) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\d(\dom(\beta)) & \mbox{if $M = \ODI_n$} \\
\mbox{$\d(\dom(\beta))$ or $\d(\dom(h\beta))$} & \mbox{if $M = \MDI_n$} \\
\mbox{$\d(\dom(g^s\beta))$ for some $0\leqslant s\leqslant n-1$} & \mbox{if $M = \OPDI_n$}.
\end{array}\right.
$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
First, suppose that $\alpha\mathscr{J} \beta$ (in $M$). Then $\alpha \mathscr{J} \beta$ in $\I_n$ and so $|\dom(\alpha)| = |\dom(\beta)|$.
If $|\dom(\alpha)| = |\dom(\beta)| \leqslant 1$ there is nothing more to prove.
Thus, suppose that $|\dom(\alpha)| = |\dom(\beta)| \geqslant 2$ and let $\gamma, \lambda \in M$ be such that $\alpha = \gamma\beta\lambda$.
We can assume, without loss of generality (by considering $\gamma|_{\dom(\alpha)}$ instead of $\gamma$, if necessary),
that $\dom(\gamma) = \dom(\alpha)$.
Hence $\im(\gamma)=\dom(\beta)$.
Then, $\gamma$ is an order-preserving partial isometry from $\dom(\alpha)$ onto $\dom(\beta)$, if $M=\ODI_n$,
$\gamma$ is an order-preserving or order-reversing partial isometry from $\dom(\alpha)$ onto $\dom(\beta)$, if $M=\MDI_n$, and
$\gamma$ is an orientation-preserving partial isometry from $\dom(\alpha)$ onto $\dom(\beta)$, if $M=\OPDI_n$.
Therefore, by Lemma \ref{relJ}, we have
$$
\mbox{$\d(\dom(\alpha))=\d(\dom(\beta))$, if $M=\ODI_n$,}
$$
$$
\mbox{$\d(\dom(\alpha))=\d(\dom(\beta))$ or $\d(\dom(\alpha))=\d(\dom(\beta)h)=d(\dom(\beta)h^{-1})=\d(\dom(h\beta))$, if $M=\MDI_n$,}
$$
and
$$
\mbox{$\d(\dom(\alpha))=\d(\dom(\beta)g^{-s})=\d(\dom(g^s\beta))$, for some $0\leqslant s\leqslant n-1$, if $M=\OPDI_n$.}
$$
\smallskip
Conversely, suppose that Property 1 or 2 is satisfied. If $|\dom(\alpha)| = |\dom(\beta)| \leqslant 1$ then, as $M$ contains all partial permutations of rank
less than or equal to one, it is clear that $\alpha \mathscr{J} \beta$. So, suppose that Property 2 holds.
Since $\dom(h\beta)=\dom(\beta)h$ and $\dom(g^s\beta)=\dom(\beta)g^{-s}$ for all $0\leqslant s\leqslant n-1$, by Lemma \ref{relJ},
we can conclude that $M$ possesses a partial transformation $\gamma$ from $\dom(\alpha)$ onto $\dom(\beta)$.
Take also $\lambda = \beta^{-1}\gamma^{-1}\alpha\in M$.
Hence, since $\gamma\beta\beta^{-1}\gamma^{-1}$ and $\gamma^{-1}\alpha\alpha^{-1}\gamma$ are idempotents, we have
$$
\gamma\beta\lambda = \gamma\beta\beta^{-1}\gamma^{-1}\alpha = \id_{\dom(\alpha)}\alpha=\alpha
\quad\text{and}\quad
\gamma^{-1}\alpha\lambda^{-1} = \gamma^{-1}\alpha\alpha^{-1}\gamma\beta = \id_{\dom(\beta)}\beta=\beta
$$
and so $\alpha \mathscr{J} \beta$, as required.
\end{proof}
\section{Generators and ranks} \label{ranks}
Let
$$
e_i=\id_{\Omega_n\setminus\{i\}}=
\begin{pmatrix} 1&\cdots&i-1&i+1&\cdots&n\\
1&\cdots&i-1&i+1&\cdots&n
\end{pmatrix}\in\DI_n,
$$
for $1\leqslant i\leqslant n$. Clearly, for $1\leqslant i,j\leqslant n$, we have $e_i^2=e_i$ and $e_ie_j=\id_{\Omega_n\setminus\{i,j\}}=e_je_i$.
More generally, for any $X\subseteq\Omega_n$, we get $\Pi_{i\in X}e_i=\id_{\Omega_n\setminus X}$.
Now, take $\alpha\in\DI_n$. Then, since the elements of $\DI_n$ are precisely the restrictions of $\D_{2n}$,
we have $\alpha=h^jg^i|_{\dom(\alpha)}$,
for some $j\in\{0,1\}$ and $i\in\{0,1,\ldots,n-1\}$.
Hence $\alpha=h^jg^i\id_{\dom(\alpha)}=h^jg^i\Pi_{k\in\Omega_n\setminus\dom(\alpha)}e_k$.
Therefore
$
\{g,h,e_1,e_2,\ldots,e_n\}
$
is a generating set of $\DI_n$. Moreover, since $e_i=g^{n-i}e_ng^i$ for all $i\in\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$,
it follows that $\{g,h,e_n\}$ is also a generating set of $\DI_n$ (in fact, as $g^n=1$, we also have $e_n=g^ie_ig^{n-i}$ and so
each set $\{g,h,e_i\}$, with $1\leqslant i\leqslant n$, generates $\DI_n$).
See \cite{Fernandes&Paulista:2022sub}.
\smallskip
Notice that $e_1,e_2,\ldots,e_n$ are elements of $\ODI_n$, $\MDI_n$ and $\OPDI_n$.
Consider the elements
$$
x=\begin{pmatrix}
1&2&\cdots&n-1\\
2&3&\cdots&n
\end{pmatrix}
\quad\text{and}\quad
y=x^{-1}=\begin{pmatrix}
2&3&\cdots&n\\
1&2&\cdots&n-1
\end{pmatrix}
$$
of $\ODI_n$ with rank $n-1$ and the elements
$$
x_i=\begin{pmatrix}
1&1+i\\
1&n-i+1
\end{pmatrix}
\quad\text{and}\quad
y_i=x_i^{-1}=\begin{pmatrix}
1&n-i+1\\
1&1+i
\end{pmatrix},
$$
for $1\leqslant i\leqslant\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor$, of $\ODI_n$ with rank $2$.
Observe that $\d(1,1+i)=i$, for $1\leqslant i\leqslant\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor$, and $\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor<\frac{n}{2}$.
\begin{proposition}\label{gensets}
The monoids $\ODI_n$, $\MDI_n$ and $\OPDI_n$ are generated by
$$
\{x,y,e_2,\ldots,e_{n-1},x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_{\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor},y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_{\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor}\},
$$
$$
\{h,x,e_2,\ldots,e_{\lfloor\frac{n+1}{2}\rfloor},x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_{\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor},y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_{\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor}\}
$$
and
$$
\{g,e_i,x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_{\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor}\},
\quad \mbox{with $1\leqslant i\leqslant n$,}
$$
respectively.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
First, we show that $\{x,y,e_2,\ldots,e_{n-1},x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_{\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor},y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_{\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor}\}$ generates $\ODI_n$.
Let $M$ be the monoid generated by
$\{x,y,e_2,\ldots,e_{n-1},x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_{\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor},y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_{\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor}\}\subseteq\ODI_n$.
Then $M$ is contained in $\ODI_n$. In order to show the converse inclusion,
notice first that $e_1=yx$ and $e_n=xy$, whence $e_1,e_2,\ldots,e_n\in M$ and so $M$ contains all restrictions of each of its elements.
Next, since the elements of $\DI_n$ are the restrictions of $\D_{2n}$, then the elements of $\ODI_n$
are the order-preserving restrictions of $g^k$ and $hg^k$ for $0\leqslant k\leqslant n-1$, which are, in turn, the restrictions of
$$
g^k|_{\{1,2,\ldots,n-k\}},\quad g^k|_{\{n-k+1,\ldots,n\}}\quad\text{and}\quad hg^k|_{\{i,j\}},
$$
with $1\leqslant i\leqslant k$ and $k+1\leqslant j\leqslant n$. Therefore, it suffices to show that these elements belong to $M$.
Notice that, if $k=0$ then $g^k|_{\{1,2,\ldots,n-k\}}$ and $g^k|_{\{n-k+1,\ldots,n\}}$ are the identity transformation and the empty transformation, respectively,
and so both belong to $M$.
So, let $1 \leqslant k \leqslant n-1$. Then, we have $g^k|_{\{1,2,\ldots,n-k\}} = x^k \in M$ and $g^k|_{\{n-k+1,\ldots,n\}} = y^{n-k} \in M$.
On the other hand, for $1\leqslant i\leqslant k$ and $k+1\leqslant j\leqslant n$, we get
$$
hg^k|_{\{i,j\}} = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\prod_{\ell \in \Omega_n\setminus\{i,j\}}e_\ell & \mbox{if $i=\frac{k+1}{2}$} \\
\prod_{\ell \in \Omega_n\setminus\{i,j\}}e_\ell x^{k-2i+1} & \mbox{if $i<\frac{k+1}{2}$} \\
\prod_{\ell \in \Omega_n\setminus\{i,j\}}e_\ell y^{2i-k-1} & \mbox{if $i>\frac{k+1}{2}$},
\end{array}\right.
$$
if $j-i = \frac{n}{2}$, and
$$
hg^k|_{\{i,j\}} = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
y^{i-1} x_{j-i} x^{k-i} & \mbox{if $j-i \leqslant \lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor$} \\
y^{i-1} y_{n-j+i} x^{k-i} & \mbox{if $j-i > \lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor$},
\end{array}\right.
$$
if $j-i \neq \frac{n}{2}$ (as usual, putting $x^0 = y^0 = 1$), and so $hg^k|_{\{i,j\}}\in M$.
Thus, we proved that $M=\ODI_n$.
\smallskip
Next, regarding the monoid $\MDI_n$, we have $\alpha=(\alpha h)h$ and $\alpha h\in \ODI_n$ for all $\alpha\in\MDI_n\setminus\ODI_n$,
which allows us to deduce that $\MDI_n$ is generated by $\ODI_n\cup\{h\}$. On the other hand,
we have $y=hxh$ and $he_ih=e_{n-i+1}$ for all $1\leqslant i\leqslant n$. Thus, we conclude that
$\{h,x,e_2,\ldots,e_{\lfloor\frac{n+1}{2}\rfloor},x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_{\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor},y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_{\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor}\}$
generates $\MDI_n$.
\smallskip
Finally, we turn our attention to the monoid $\OPDI_n$.
Let $\alpha\in\OPDI_n$. Then $\alpha\in\POPI_n$ and so, by \cite[Proposition 3.1]{Fernandes:2000},
there exist $0\leqslant k\leqslant n-1$ and $\beta\in\POI_n$ such that $\alpha=g^k\beta$.
Since $\beta=g^{n-k}\alpha\in\DI_n$, we get $\beta\in\ODI_n$.
So $\alpha=g^k\beta$, with $\beta\in\ODI_n$. Therefore, $\OPDI_n$ is generated by $\ODI_n\cup\{g\}$.
On the other hand, we have $e_j=g^{n-j}e_ng^{j}$ for all $1\leqslant j\leqslant n$,
$g^\ell x_\ell g^\ell =y_\ell$ for all $1\leqslant \ell\leqslant \lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor$, $x=e_ng$ and $y=g^{n-1}e_n$.
Hence, $\OPDI_n$ is generated by $\{g,e_n,x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_{\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor}\}$.
Let $1\leqslant i\leqslant n$. Since $e_n=g^ie_ig^{n-i}$, then $\{g,e_i,x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_{\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor}\}$
also generates $\OPDI_n$, as required.
\end{proof}
In order to determine the ranks of these monoids, we first prove the following lemma:
\begin{lemma}\label{ranklem}
Let $1\leqslant i\leqslant\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor$ and
let $\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\ldots,\gamma_k,\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\ldots,\lambda_\ell$ be $k+\ell$ ($k,\ell\geqslant1$) elements of $\DI_n$
such that $x_i=\gamma_1\gamma_2\cdots\gamma_k$ and $y_i=\lambda_1\lambda_2\cdots\lambda_\ell$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\ldots,\gamma_k,\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\ldots,\lambda_\ell\in\MDI_n$
then there exist $1\leqslant p\leqslant k$, $1\leqslant q\leqslant \ell$, $1\leqslant a<b\leqslant n$ and $1\leqslant c<d\leqslant n$
such that $\dom(\gamma_p)=\{a,b\}$, $\dom(\lambda_q)=\{c,d\}$, $b-a=i$ and $d-c=n-i$.
\item If $\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\ldots,\gamma_k\in\OPDI_n$
then there exist $1\leqslant p\leqslant k$ and $1\leqslant a<b\leqslant n$
such that $\dom(\gamma_p)=\{a,b\}$ and $b-a\in\{i,n-i\}$.
\end{enumerate}
Consequently, any generating set of $\ODI_n$, $\MDI_n$ and $\OPDI_n$ has at least $2\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor$, $2\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor$ and $\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor$ transformations of rank two, respectively.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First, observe that the last statement of this lemma follows immediately from Properties 1 (notice that $\ODI_n\subseteq\MDI_n$) and 2 and from the fact that
$\{1,2,\ldots, \lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor\}\cap\{n-i\mid 1\leqslant i\leqslant\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor\}=\emptyset$ .
\smallskip
We begin by making some considerations about the elements of $\MDI_n$.
Let $\xi$ be an element of $\MDI_n$ with rank greater than or equal to $2$ and take $0\leqslant t\leqslant n-1$ such that $\xi=g^t|_{\dom(\xi)}$ or $\xi=hg^t|_{\dom(\xi)}$.
If either $\xi$ is order-reversing and $\xi=g^t|_{\dom(\xi)}$ or $\xi$ is order-preserving and $\xi=hg^t|_{\dom(\xi)}$
then $\xi$ must have rank $2$: $\dom(\xi)=\{a<b\}$,
with $1\leqslant a\leqslant n-t<b\leqslant n$, in the first case, and $1\leqslant a\leqslant t<b\leqslant n$, in the last one.
We say that such an element $\xi$ of $\MDI_n$ is \textit{inverted}.
On the other hand, if either $\xi$ is order-preserving and $\xi=g^t|_{\dom(\xi)}$ or $\xi$ is order-reversing and $\xi=hg^t|_{\dom(\xi)}$
then, for all $a,b\in\dom(\xi)$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{case2}
\mbox{$|a\xi-b\xi|=|a-b|$.}
\end{equation}
Notice that if $a,b\in\dom(\xi)$ are such that $a<b$ then, in the first case, $1\leqslant a<b\leqslant n-t$ or $n+t+1\leqslant a<b\leqslant n$ and, in the second case,
$1\leqslant a<b\leqslant t$ or $t+1\leqslant a<b\leqslant n$. We say that such an element $\xi$ of $\MDI_n$ is \textit{non-inverted}.
Next, let $\xi_1,\xi_2,\ldots,\xi_r$ be $r$ ( $r\geqslant1$) non-inverted elements of $\MDI_n$ such that $\rank(\xi_1\xi_2\cdots\xi_r)\geqslant2$.
Then, for all $a,b\in\dom(\xi_1\xi_2\cdots\xi_r)$, by applying consecutively (\ref{case2}) to $\xi_r,\xi_{r-1},\ldots,\xi_1$, clearly, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{morecase2}
\mbox{$|a\xi_1\xi_2\cdots\xi_r-b\xi_1\xi_2\cdots\xi_r|=|a-b|$.}
\end{equation}
Now, in order to prove Property 1, suppose that $\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\ldots,\gamma_k,\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\ldots,\lambda_\ell\in\MDI_n$
(keep in mind that $\gamma_1\gamma_2\cdots\gamma_k=x_i$ and $\lambda_1\lambda_2\cdots\lambda_\ell=y_i$).
If $\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\ldots,\gamma_k$ are all non-inverted elements of $\MDI_n$ then, by (\ref{morecase2}), we have
$$
n-i=|1-(n-1+i)|= |1x_i-(1+i)x_i|= |1\gamma_1\gamma_2\cdots\gamma_k-(1+i)\gamma_1\gamma_2\cdots\gamma_k| = |1-(1+i)|=i,
$$
which is a contradiction. Thus, at least one of the elements $\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\ldots,\gamma_k$ is inverted.
Let $1\leqslant p\leqslant k$ be the smallest index such that $\gamma_p$ is inverted.
Then, $\gamma_p$ has rank $2$ and, since $1\gamma_1\cdots\gamma_{p-1}, (1+i)\gamma_1\cdots\gamma_{p-1}\in\dom(\gamma_p)$,
we have $\dom(\gamma_p)=\{1\gamma_1\cdots\gamma_{p-1}, (1+i)\gamma_1\cdots\gamma_{p-1}\}$ and, by (\ref{morecase2}),
$$
|1\gamma_1\cdots\gamma_{p-1} - (1+i)\gamma_1\cdots\gamma_{p-1}|=|1-(1+i)|=i.
$$
Similarly, if $\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\ldots,\lambda_\ell$ are all non-inverted elements of $\MDI_n$ then, by (\ref{morecase2}), we have
$$
i=|1-(1+i)|= |1y_i-(n-1+i)y_i|= |1\lambda_1\lambda_2\cdots\lambda_\ell-(n-1+i)\lambda_1\lambda_2\cdots\lambda_\ell| = |1-(n-i+1)|=n-i,
$$
which is also a contradiction. Thus, at least one of the elements $\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\ldots,\lambda_\ell$ is inverted and we may take
the smallest index $1\leqslant q\leqslant \ell$ such that $\lambda_{q}$ is inverted.
Since $1\lambda_1\cdots\lambda_{q-1}, (n+i-1)\lambda_1\cdots\lambda_{q-1}\in\dom(\lambda_{q})$ and $\lambda_{q}$ has rank $2$,
we have $\dom(\lambda_{q})=\{1\lambda_1\cdots\lambda_{q-1}, (n-i+1)\lambda_1\cdots\lambda_{q-1}\}$ and, by (\ref{morecase2}),
$$
|1\lambda_1\cdots\lambda_{q-1} - (n-i+1)\lambda_1\cdots\lambda_{q-1}|=|1-(n-i+1)|=n-i.
$$
Therefore, we proved Property 1.
\smallskip
Next, with the purpose of proving Property 2, suppose that $\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\ldots,\gamma_k\in\OPDI_n$
(remember we have $\gamma_1\gamma_2\cdots\gamma_k=x_i$).
We begin by observing that $x_i=hg|_{\{1,1+i\}}$. Since $\d(1,1+i)=i<\frac{n}{2}$,
then $hg$ is the only extension in $\D_{2n}$ of $x_i$, by Lemma \ref{fundlemma}.
If for all $1\leqslant j\leqslant k$ there exists $0\leqslant t_j\leqslant n-1$ such that $\gamma_j=g^{t_j}|_{\dom{\gamma_j}}$, then
$x_i=g^{\sum_{j=1}^{k}t_j}|_{\{1,1+i\}}$, which contradicts the previous conclusion.
Hence, there exists $1\leqslant p\leqslant k$ such that $\gamma_p=hg^t|_{\dom(\gamma_p)}$, for some $0\leqslant t\leqslant n-1$.
Let us assume that the index $p$ is the smallest under these conditions.
Since $\gamma_p$ preserves the orientation, then $\dom(\gamma_p)=\{a,b\}$, for some $1\leqslant a\leqslant t<b\leqslant n$.
As $1\gamma_1\cdots\gamma_{p-1}, (1+i)\gamma_1\cdots\gamma_{p-1}\in\dom(\gamma_p)$,
it follows that $\dom(\gamma_p)=\{1\gamma_1\cdots\gamma_{p-1}, (1+i)\gamma_1\cdots\gamma_{p-1}\}$.
On the other hand, by the minimality of $p$,
we have $\gamma_1\cdots\gamma_{p-1}=g^s|_{\dom(\gamma_1\cdots\gamma_{p-1})}$, for some $0\leqslant s\leqslant n-1$.
Hence
$$
|1\gamma_1\cdots\gamma_{p-1} - (1+i)\gamma_1\cdots\gamma_{p-1}|=|1g^s-(1+i)g^s| \in \{i,n-i\},
$$
as required.
\end{proof}
Recall that $\ODI_3=\POI_3$, $\MDI_3=\PODI_3$ and $\OPDI_3=\POPI_3$.
Then, the monoids $\ODI_3$, $\MDI_3$ and $\OPDI_3$ have ranks $3$, $3$ and $2$
(see \cite{Fernandes:2000,Fernandes:2001,Fernandes&Gomes&Jesus:2004}), respectively.
For $n$ greater than $3$, we have:
\begin{theorem}\label{rankth}
For $n\geqslant4$, the monoids $\ODI_n$, $\MDI_n$ and $\OPDI_n$ have ranks
$n+2\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor$, $2+3\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor$ and $2+\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor$,
respectively.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Let $M\in \{\ODI_n, \MDI_n,\OPDI_n\}$ and let $G$ be a generating set of the monoid $M$.
Notice that the partial identities $e_1,\ldots, e_n$ belong to $M$.
\smallskip
Suppose that $M=\ODI_n$. Then, the only permutation of $M$ is the identity and so, for $1\leqslant i\leqslant n$,
we have $e_i=\gamma_1\gamma_2\cdots\gamma_k$, for some $\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\ldots,\gamma_k\in G\setminus\{1\}$ ($k\geqslant1$),
and so $\im(\gamma_k)=\im(e_i)=\Omega_n\setminus\{i\}$. Hence, $G$ possesses at least $n$ elements with rank $n-1$.
Thus, taking into account Lemma \ref{ranklem}, we get $|G|\geqslant n+2\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor$.
\smallskip
Next, suppose that $M=\MDI_n$.
Recall that, in addition to the identity, $M$ has only $h$ as a permutation and so, in particular, we must have $h\in G$.
Let $1\leqslant i\leqslant n$. Then, there exist
$\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\ldots,\gamma_k\in G\setminus\{1\}$ ($k\geqslant1$) such that $e_i=\gamma_1\gamma_2\cdots\gamma_k$ and:
$\gamma_k\neq h$; or $k\geqslant2$, $\gamma_k=h$ and $\gamma_{k-1}\neq h$.
Hence, $\im(\gamma_k)=\im(e_i)=\Omega_n\setminus\{i\}$ or $\im(\gamma_{k-1})=\im(e_i)h=\Omega_n\setminus\{n-i+1\}$.
Therefore, we can conclude that $G$ possesses at least $\lfloor\frac{n+1}{2}\rfloor$ elements with rank $n-1$.
Thus, in view of Lemma \ref{ranklem},
we obtain $|G|\geqslant 1+ \lfloor\frac{n+1}{2}\rfloor+ 2\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor=2+3\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor$.
\smallskip
Finally, suppose that $M=\OPDI_n$. Since $\OPDI_{n}$ contains the permutation $g$ and a partial identity of rank $n-1$, we
can conclude that $G$ has at least one permutation and one transformation with rank $n-1$. Thus, combining with Lemma \ref{ranklem},
we get $|G|\geqslant 2+\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor$.
\smallskip
Since Proposition \ref{gensets} gives us generating sets of $\ODI_n$, $\MDI_n$ and $\OPDI_n$ with
$n+2\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor$, $2+3\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor$ and $2+\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor$ elements, respectively,
the theorem follows.
\end{proof}
|
\subsubsection{Acknowledgements} \YZ{To professors: what shall we claim in this part?}
\bibliographystyle{splncs04}
\section{Introduction}
With the increasing application of artificial intelligence systems for medical image diagnosis, it is notably important to ensure fairness of image classification models and investigate concealed model biases that are to-be-encountered in complex real-world situations.
Unfortunately, sensitive attributes (e.g., race and gender) accompanied by medical images are prone to be inherently encoded by machine learning models \cite{glocker2021algorithmic}, and affect the model's discrimination property~\cite{zhang2022improving}.
Recently, fair representation learning has shown great potential as it acts as a group parity bottleneck that mitigates discrimination when generalized to downstream tasks. Existing methods \cite{adeli2021representation,dullerud2022fairness,sarhan2020fairness,shui2022learning,zhu2021learning} have studied the parity between privileged and unprivileged groups upon just a single sensitive attribute, but neglecting the flexibility with respect to multiple sensitive attributes, in which the conjunctions of unprivileged attributes might also deteriorate discrimination. This is a crucial yet challenging problem hindering the applicability of machine learning models, especially for medical image classification where patients always have many demographic attributes.
\begin{figure}[!tp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.92\linewidth]{figures/tsne.pdf}
\caption{A t-SNE \cite{van2008visualizing} visualization of (a) sensitive attribute and (b) target representations learned from our proposed methods \textbf{\texttt{FCRO}}{} on the CheXpert dataset \cite{irvin2019chexpert}. Sensitive embeddings capture subgroups' variance. We claim \textbf{\texttt{FCRO}}{} enforces fair classification on the target task by learning orthogonal target representations that are invariant over different attributes.
}
\label{fig:tsne}
\end{figure}
To date, it is still challenging to effectively learn target-related representations which are both fair and flexible to multiple sensitive attributes, regardless of some promising investigations recently. For instance, adversarial methods \cite{adeli2021representation,madras2018learning} produce robust representations by formulating a min-max game between an encoder that learns class-related representation and an adversary that removes sensitive information from it.
Disentanglement-based methods \cite{dullerud2022fairness,zhu2021learning} achieve separation by minimizing the mutual information between target and sensitive attribute representations. These methods typically gain efficacy by means of carefully designing objectives. To extend them to the multi-attribute setting, additional loss functions have to be explored, which should handle gradient conflict or interference.
Methods using variational autoencoder~\cite{creager2019flexibly} decompose the latent distributions of target and sensitive and penalize their correlation for disentanglement. However, aligning the distribution of the sensitive attributes is difficult or even intractable given the complex combination of multiple factors.
Besides, there are some fairness methods based on causal inference \cite{madras2019fairness} or bi-level optimization \cite{shui2022learning}, which also learn debiased while multi-attributes inflexible representations. Recently, disentanglement is vigorously interpreted as the orthogonality of a decomposed target-sensitive latent representation pair by \cite{sarhan2020fairness}, where they predefine a pair of orthogonal subspaces for target and sensitive attribute representations.
In a multi-sensitive attributes setting, the dimension of the target space would be continuously compressed and how to solve it is still an open problem.
In this paper, we propose a new method to achieve \underline{F}airness via \underline{C}olumn-\underline{R}ow space \underline{O}rthogonality (called \textbf{\texttt{FCRO}}{}) by learning fair representations for medical image classification with multiple sensitive attributes.
\textbf{\texttt{FCRO}}{} considers multi-sensitive attributes by encoding them into a unified attribute representation. It achieves a best trade-off for fairness and data utility (see illustrations in Fig.~\ref{fig:tsne}) via orthogonality in both column and row spaces. Our contributions are summarized as follows: (1) We tackle the practical and challenging problem of fairness given multiple sensitive attributes for medical image classification. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work to study fairness with respect to multi-sensitive attributes in the field of medical imaging. (2) We relax the independence of target and sensitive attribute representations by orthogonality which can be achieved by our proposed novel column and row losses.
(3) We conduct extensive experiments on the CheXpert \cite{irvin2019chexpert} dataset with over 80,000 chest X-rays. \textbf{\texttt{FCRO}}{} achieves a superior fairness-utility trade-off over state-of-the-art methods regarding multiple sensitive attributes race, sex, and age.
\section{Analysis}
\section{Methodology}
\input{sections/main_fig.tex}
\subsection{Problem Formulation}
\textbf{Notations.}
We consider group fairness in this work, group fairness articulates the equality of some statistics like predictive rate between certain groups. Considering a binary classification problem with column vector inputs $x \in \mathcal{X}$, labels $y \in \mathcal{Y} = \{0,1\}$. Multi-sensitive attributes $a \in \mathcal{A}$ is vector of $m$ attributes sampled from the conjunction, \ie Cartesian product, of sensitive attributes $\mathcal{A} = \prod_{i\in[m]}A_i$ \footnote{$[m]=\{0, 1, .. , m\}$} where the $i$-th sensitive attribute $A_i\in\{0,1\}$. Our training data consist of tuples $\mathcal{D}=\{(x,y,a)\}$. We denote the classification model $\hat{y} = f(x)=h_T(\phi_T(x))$ that predicts a class label given an input $x$, where $\phi_T:\mathcal{X} \mapsto \R^d$ is a feature encoder for target embeddings, and $h_T:\R^d \mapsto \R$ is a scoring function. Similarly, we consider a sensitive attribute model $g(x)=\{h_{A_1}(\phi_A(x)),...,h_{A_m}(\phi_A(x))\}$ that predicts sensitive attributes associated with input $x$. Given the number of samples $n$, the input data representation is $X=[x_1, \dots, x_n]$ and we denote the feature representation $Z_T=\phi_T(X)$, $Z_A=\phi_A(X)$ $\in \R^{d \times n}$.
\noindent\textbf{Fair classifier on multiple sensitive attributes.}
A classifier predicts $y$ given an input $x$ by estimating the posterior probability $p(y|x)$. When inputs that are affected by their associated attributes (\ie $\{A_1,\dots,A_m\} \rightarrow X$) are fed into the network, the posterior probability is written as $p(y|x,a)$. Since biased information from $\A$ is encoded, this can lead to an unfair prediction by the classifier. For example, in the diagnosis of a disease with sensitive attributes age, sex, and race, a biased classifier will result in $p(\hat{y} | A = {\rm male},{\rm old},{\rm black}) \neq p(\hat{y}|A = \rm{female}, \rm{young}, \rm{white})$. In this work, we focus on equalized odds (ED), which is a commonly used and crucial criterion of fair classification in the medical domain \cite{xu2022survey}. In our case, ED regarding multiple sensitive attributes can be formulated as follows:
\begin{align} \label{eq:cjme}
P(\hat{Y}=y|A=\pi_1,Y=y) = P(\hat{Y}=y|A=\pi_2,Y=y), \quad \forall \pi_1,\pi_2 \in \mathcal{A}.
\end{align}
Recent methods~\cite{shui2022learning} suggest achieving ED for a classifier by enforcing $\hat{Y} \perp A | Y$.
In other words, a fair classifier is expected to be independent of multi-sensitive information: $p(y|x) = p(y|x, a)$.
\noindent\textbf{Fair representation.}
To enforce our aforementioned conditions, we follow \cite{sarhan2020fairness} and introduce target embedding $z_T$ and multi-attribute embedding $z_{A_i}$ that is generated from $x$. As in the causal structure graph for the classifier depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:method}~(a), if $z_{T}$ and $z_{A_i}$ are independent, the probability of a fair classifier $p(y|x,a)$ is written as:
\begin{align}
p(y,a|x) = \frac{p(y|x,a)p(x|a)p(a)}{p(x)} & = p(y|x)p(a|x) \label{eq:loglike}\\
& = p(y|z_T)p(z_T|x)\prod_{i\in[m]}p(a_i|z_{A_i})p(z_{A_i}|x), \label{eq:minde}
\end{align}
and we call $z_T$ \textit{fair representation} for the target task (\eg disease diagnosis). To this end, we aim to maximize Eq.~\eqref{eq:minde} with the conditional independence constraint to train a fair classifier.
It is noteworthy that in the multisensitive attributes setting, forcing $z_T$ to be independent on all $z_{A_i}, \forall i\in[m]$ is challenging and even intractable when $m$ is large.
Therefore, we propose to encode multi-sensitive attributes into a \textit{single} compact encoding $z_A$ that is still predictive for classifying attributes (\ie $z_A \rightarrow \{a_1, \dots, a_m\}$). Then we can rewrite Eq.~\eqref{eq:minde} as maximizing the likelihood with the independence constraint on $z_T$ and $z_A$:
\begin{align}\label{eq:inde}
p(y,a|x) = p(y|z_T)p(z_T|x)p(a|z_A)p(z_A|x).
\end{align}
However, optimizing Eq.~\eqref{eq:inde} brings two technical questions:\\
\textbf{Q1:} How to satisfy the independence constraint for $z_T$ and $z_A$?\\
\textbf{A1:}
We relax the independence by enforcing orthogonality. Different from predefined orthogonal space in \cite{sarhan2020fairness}, we enforce orthogonality in both column spaces (Sec.~\ref{sec:space}) and row spaces (Sec.~\ref{sec:row}) of $Z_T$ and $Z_A$. \\
\textbf{Q2:} How to estimate $p(y|z_T)$, $p(z_T|x)$, $p(a|z_A)$, $p(z_A|x)$?\\
\textbf{A2:} We train two convolutional neural nets encoders $z_T = \phi_T(x)$ and $z_A = \phi_A(x)$ to approximate $p(z_T|x)$ and $p(z_A|x)$ respectively; we train two multi-layer perception classifier $ y=h_T(z_T)$ and $a = h_A(z_A) $ to approximate $p(y|z_T)$ and $p(a|z_A)$ respectively (Sec.~\ref{sec:overall}).
\iffalse
In this way, we can directly maximize log-likelihood in Eq.~\eqref{eq:inde}.} by achieving the independence between $p(z_A|x)$ and $p(z_T|x)$. As shown in Fig. \ref{fig:method}(a), we assume training distribution $P$ follows an anti-casual structure, the dashed arrow means $X$ is caused by multi-sensitive attributes $\mathcal{A}$ and targets $Y$. We break the correlations between $Z_T$ and $Z_A$ for independence and thus leading to a fair prediction. In this work, we relax independence by enforcing orthogonality in both column space and row space.
\fi
\subsection{Column Space Orthogonality}\label{sec:space}
First, we focus on the column space of the target and the sensitive attribute representations. Column space orthogonality aims to learn target representations $Z_T$
that fulfill the following \textbf{two aims}: 1) have the least projection onto the sensitive space $\mathcal{S}_A$ and 2) preserve the representation power to predict $Y$.
Denote the target representation $Z_T=[\widetilde{z}_{T}^1, \widetilde{z}_{T}^2,\dots, \widetilde{z}_{T}^n]$ and the sensitive attribute representation $Z_A=[\widetilde{z}_{A}^1, \widetilde{z}_{A}^2,\dots, \widetilde{z}_{A}^n]$, where $\widehat{z}^i \in \R^{d\times 1}$ is a column vector for $i \in [n]$, we represent the column space for $Z_T$ and $Z_A$ as $\cS_T = {\rm span}(Z_T)$ and $\cS_A= {\rm span} (Z_A)$ respectively.
\textbf{Aim 1} can be achieved by forcing $\cS_T = \cS_A^{\perp}$. Although both $\widetilde{z}_{T},\widetilde{z}_{A}\in \R^d$, their coordinates may not be aligned as they are generated from two separate encoders.
As a result, if $d \ll \infty$, then there is no straightforward way to achieve $\cS_T \perp \cS_A$ by directly constraining $\widetilde{z}^i_{T},\widetilde{z}^j_{A}$ (\eg forcing $(\widetilde{z}^i_{T})^\top \widetilde{z}^j_{A}=0$). \textbf{Aim 2} can be achieved by seeking a low-rank representation $\widetilde{\cS}_A$ for $\cS_A$, whose rank is $k$ such that $k \ll d$, because we have ${\rm rank}(\cS_T)+{\rm rank}(\cS_A) = d$ if $\cS_T = \cS_A^{\perp}$ holds. Then $\cS_A^\perp$ would be a high-dimensional space with sufficient representation power for target embeddings. This is especially important when we face multiple sensitive attributes, as the total size of the space is $d$, and increasing the number of sensitive attributes would limit the capacity of $\cS_T$ to learn predictive $\widetilde{z}_{T}$.
To this end, we first propose to find the low rank sensitive attribute representation space $\widetilde{\cS}_A$, and then encourage $Z_T$ to be in $\widetilde{\cS}_A$'s complement $\widetilde{\cS}_A^\perp$.
\iffalse
Column space orthogonality aims at finding a transformation of target representation $Z_T$ that is least explainable \textcolor{blue}{what do you mean by `explainable'} by the sensitive space $\mathcal{S}_A$. Denote the target representation $Z_T=[\widetilde{z}_{T}^1, \widetilde{z}_{T}^2,\dots, \widetilde{z}_{T}^n]$ and the sensitive attribute representation $Z_A=[\widetilde{z}_{A}^1, \widetilde{z}_{A}^2,\dots, \widetilde{z}_{A}^n]$, where $\widehat{z}^i \in \R^{d\times 1}$ is a column vector for $i \in [n]$, we represent the column space for target representations and sensitive attribute representations as $\cS_T = {\rm span}(\widetilde{z}_{T}^1, \widetilde{z}_{T}^2,\dots, \widetilde{z}_{T}^n)$ and $\cS_A= {\rm span} ([\widetilde{z}_{A}^1, \widetilde{z}_{A}^2,\dots, \widetilde{z}_{A}^n])$ correspondingly. Directly calculating the column space orthogonality $\{(Z_T^{\top}Z_A)_{i,j} = (\widetilde{z}_{T}^i)^{\top} \widetilde{z}_{A}^j,i,j \in n\}$ could be problematic, since it may be from different samples. As a result, we construct a multi-sensitive space $\mathcal{S}_A$ that can well represent the sensitive information. Here, we aim at finding a space that can achieve a low-rank representation of $Z_A$ in $\R^k$ where $k\ll d$ to avoid complex space introduced by multi-sensitive attributes. This is because low-rank space provides more capacity to capture the variance of $Z_T$ and protects the utility. To achieve the goal and resolve the above challenges, we first build the multi-sensitive space $\mathcal{S}_A$, then project $Z_T$ onto $\mathcal{S}_A$ and reduce the projected information by calculating the orthogonal loss.
where $k$ is determined by the following condition is satisfied for a threshold $\gamma \in (0,1)$:
\begin{align}
||(Z_A)_{k}||_F^2 \geq \gamma||(Z_A)||_F^2
\end{align}
where $(Z_A)_{k} = \sum^k_1 \delta^i_A u^i_A (v^i_A)'$ is a k-rank $(k \leq \Gamma)$ approximation of the representation matrix $Z_S$ with $\Gamma = min(n,d)$ and $||\cdot||_F$ is the Frobenius norm.
\fi
\noindent\textbf{Construct low-rank multi-sensitive space.}\label{sec:space_acc} We apply Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) on $Z_A = U_A \Sigma_A V_A$ to construct the low-rank space $\widetilde{\mathcal{S}}_A$, where $U_A,V_A\in \R^{d\times d}$ are orthogonal matrices with left and right singular vectors $u_i \in \R^{d}$ and $v^i_A \in \R^{n}$ respectively. And $\Sigma_A \in \R^{d\times n}$ is a diagonal matrix with descending non-negative singular values $\{\delta^i_A\}_{i=1}^{min\{n,d\}}$. Then we extract the most important $k$ left singular vectors to construct $\widetilde{\mathcal{S}}_A = [u^1_A, ... , u^k_A]$, where $k$ controls how much sensitive information to be captured in $\widetilde{\cS}_A$. It is notable that $\widetilde{\mathcal{S}}_A$ is agnostic to the number of sensitive attributes because they share the same $Z_A$. For situations that can not get the whole dataset at once, we follow~\cite{lin2022trgp} to select most important bases from both bases of old iterations and newly constructed ones. Thus providing an accumulative low-rank space construction variant to update $\widetilde{\cS}_A$ iteratively. As we do not observe significant performance differences between these two variants (see Fig.~\ref{fig:curve}~(a)), we use and refer to the first one in this paper if there is no special clarification.
\noindent\textbf{Column orthogonal loss.} With the low-rank space $\widetilde{\mathcal{S}}_A$ for multiple sensitive attributes, we encourage $\phi_T$ to learn representations in its complement $\widetilde{\mathcal{S}}_A^\perp$. Notice that $\widetilde{\mathcal{S}}_A^\perp$ can also be interpreted as the kernel of the projection onto $\widetilde{\mathcal{S}}_A$, \ie $\widetilde{\mathcal{S}}_A^\perp=\text{Ker}(\text{proj}_{\widetilde{\mathcal{S}}_A}\widetilde{z}_T)$.
Therefore, we achieve column orthogonal loss by minimizing the projection of $Z_T$ to $\widetilde{\mathcal{S}}_A$, which can be defined as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
L_{corth} &= c(Z_T,\widetilde{\mathcal{S}}_A) = \sum^n_{i=1}\frac{\left\|\widetilde{\mathcal{S}}_A^\top \widetilde{z}_{T}^i\right\|_2^2}{\left\|\widetilde{z}_T^i\right\|_2^2}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
As $\widetilde{\mathcal{S}}_A$ is a low-rank space, $\widetilde{\mathcal{S}}_A^\perp$ will have abundant freedom for $\phi_T$ to extract target information, thus reserving predictive ability.
\subsection{Row Space Orthogonality}\label{sec:row}
Then, we study the row space of target and sensitive attribute representations. Row space orthogonality aims to learn target representations $Z_T$ that have the least projection onto the sensitive row space $\hat{\cS}_A$. In other words, we want to ensure orthogonality on each feature dimension between $Z_T$ and $Z_A$. Denote target representation $Z_T=[\hat{z}_{T}^1; \hat{z}_{T}^2;\dots; \hat{z}_{T}^d]$ and sensitive attribute representation $Z_A=[\hat{z}_{A}^1; \hat{z}_{A}^2;\dots; \hat{z}_{A}^d]$, where $\hat{z}^i \in \R^{1\times n}$ is a row vector for $i \in [d]$.
We represent row space for target representations and sensitive attribute representations as $\hat{\cS}_T = {\rm span}(Z_T^{\top})$ and $\hat{\cS}_A= {\rm span} (Z_A^{\top})$ correspondingly.
Different from column space orthogonality, as the coordinates (\ie the index of samples) of $\hat{z}_{A}$ and $\hat{z}_{T}$ are aligned, forcing $\hat{\cS}_T = \hat{\cS}_A^{\perp}$ can be directly applied by achieving $Z_TZ_A^{\top}$:
\begin{align}\label{eq:rproj}
\{(Z_TZ_A^{\top})_{i,j} = \hat{z}_{T}^i(\hat{z}_{A}^j)^\top,i,j \in d\} = \sum^n_{t=1}(\hat{z}_{T}^i)_t(\hat{z}_{A}^j)_t.
\end{align}
Unlike column space, the orthogonality here won't affect the utility, as the row vector $\hat{z}_{T}$ is not directly correlated to the target $y$. To be specific, we let pair-wise row vectors $Z_T=[\hat{z}_{T}^1, \hat{z}_{T}^2,\dots, \hat{z}_{T}^d]$ and $Z_A=[\hat{z}_{A}^1, \hat{z}_{A}^2,\dots, \hat{z}_{A}^d]$ have a small inner product. Then for any $i,j \in [d]$, we try to minimize $<\widehat{z}_{T}^i, \widehat{z}_{A}^j >$. Here we slightly modify the orthogonality by extra subtracting the mean vector $\mu_A$ and $\mu_T$ from $Z_A$ and $Z_T$ respectively, where $\mu = \mathbb{E}_{i\in[d]}\hat{z}^i \in \mathbb{R}^{1\times n}$. Then orthogonality loss will naturally be integrated into a covariance loss:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
L_{rorth}=r(Z_T,Z_A)= \frac{1}{d^2}\sum^d_{i=1}\sum^d_{j=1} \left[(\hat{z}^i_{T}-\mu_{T})(\hat{z}^j_{A}-\mu_{A})^{\top}\right]^2.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
In this way, the resulting loss encourages each feature of $Z_T$ to be independent of features in $Z_A$ thus suppressing the sensitive-encoded covariances that cause the unfairness.
\subsection{Overall Training} \label{sec:overall}
In this section, we introduce the overall training schema as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:method}~(c). For the sensitive branch, since we observe that using a shared encoder may threaten sensitive information leakage to classification \cite{dullerud2022fairness} or obtain unsatisfied sensitive attribute representations \cite{sarhan2020fairness}, we pretrain $\left\{\phi_A,h_{A_1},...,h_{A_m}\right\}$ for multiple sensitive attributes using the sensitive objective as $L_{sens}=\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i\in[m]}L_{A_i}$.
Here we use cross-entropy loss as $L_{A_i}$ for the $i$-th sensitive attribute. Hence $p(z_A|x)$ and $p(a|z_A)$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:inde} can be obtained. Then, the multi-sensitive space $\cS_A$ is constructed as in Section~\ref{sec:space} over the training data.
For the target branch, we use cross-entropy loss as our classification objective $L_T$ to supervise the training of $\phi_T$ and $h_T$ and estimate $p(z_T|x)$ and $p(y|z_T)$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:inde} respectively. Here we do not make additional constraints to $L_T$, which means it can be replaced by any other task-specific losses. At last, we apply our column and row orthogonality losses $L_{corth}$ and $L_{rorth}$ to representations as introduced in Section~\ref{sec:space} and Section~\ref{sec:row} along with detached $\cS_A$ and $Z_A$ to approximate independence between $p(z_A|x)$ and $p(z_T|x)$. The overall target objective is given as:
\begin{align}\label{eq:targ_loss}
L_{targ} &= L_T + \lambda_{c}L_{corth} + \lambda_{r} L_{rorth},
\end{align}
where $\lambda_{c}$ and $\lambda_{r}$ are hyper-parameters to weigh orthogonality and balance fairness and utility.
\section{Experiments}
\begin{table}[!tp]
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
\newcommand\Tstrut{\rule{0pt}{2.4ex}}
\caption{CheXpert dataset statistics and group positive rate $p(y=1|a)$ regarding \textit{pleural effusion} with three sensitive attributes race, sex, and age.}
\label{tab:data}
\begin{tabular}{p{42pt} >{\centering\arraybackslash}p{40pt} >{\centering\arraybackslash}p{100pt} >{\centering\arraybackslash}p{74pt} >{\centering\arraybackslash}p{74pt}}
\hline\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\rule{0pt}{3ex} Dataset} & \multirow{3}{*}{\rule{0pt}{3ex}\#Sample} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Group Positive Rate } \Tstrut\\
\cline{3-5}
& & Race & Sex &\ Age\Tstrut\\ [-1pt]
&&(White/Non-white/gap) & (Male/Female/gap) & (>60/$\leq$ 60/gap)\\ [1pt]
\hline
Original & 127130 & .410/.393/.017 & .405/.408/.003 & .440/.359/.081 \\
Augmented & 88215 & .264/.386/.122 & .254/.379/.125 & \ .264/.386/.122 \Tstrut\\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Setup}\label{sec:setup}
\textbf{Dataset.} We adopt CheXpert dataset \cite{irvin2019chexpert} to predict \textit{Pleural Effusion} in chest X-rays, as it's crucial for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease diagnosis with high incidence.
Subgroups are defined based on the following binarized sensitive attributes: \textit{self-reported race} and \textit{ethnicity}, \textit{sex}, and \textit{age}. Note that data bias (positive rate gap) is insignificant in the original dataset (see Table~\ref{tab:data}, row 'original'). To demonstrate the effectiveness of bias mitigation methods, we amplify the data bias by (1) firstly dividing the data into different groups according to the conjunction of multi-sensitive labels; (2) secondly calculating the positive rate of each subgroup; (3) sampling out patients and increase each subgroup's positive rate gap to 0.12 (see Table~\ref{tab:data}, row `augmented').
We resize all images to $224\times224$ and split the dataset into a 15\% test set, and an 85\% 5-fold cross-validation set.
\noindent\textbf{Evaluation metrics.} We use the area under the ROC curve (AUC) to evaluate the utility of classifiers. To measure fairness, we follow \cite{roh2020fairbatch} and compute subgroup disparity with respect to ED (denoted as $\disp_\mathrm{ED}$, which is based on true positive rate (TPR) and true negative rate (TNR)) in \eqref{eq:cjme}. We quantify ED disparity as:
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{\Delta}_\mathrm{ED}=\max_{y\in\mathcal{Y},\pi_1,\pi_2 \in \mathcal{A}}\left|P(\hat{Y}=y|A=\pi_1,Y=y)-P(\hat{Y}=y|A=\pi_2,Y=y)\right|.
\end{equation}
We also follow \cite{zhang2022improving} and compare subgroup disparity regarding AUC (denoted as $\disp_\mathrm{AUC}$), which gives a threshold-free fairness metric. Note that we evaluate disparities both \textit{jointly} and \textit{individually}. The \textit{joint} disparities are calculated with respect to the conjunction of multiple sensitive attributes $\mathcal{A}$, and the \textit{individual} disparities are calculated with respect to a specific sensitive attribute $\mathcal{A}_i$.
\input{sections/main_table.tex}
\noindent\textbf{Implementation details.} In our implementation, all methods use the same training protocol. We choose DenseNet-121 \cite{huang2017densely} as the backbone, but replace the final layer with a linear layer to extract 128-dimensional representations. The optimizer is Adam with learning rate of $1e^{-4}$, and weight decay of $4e^{-4}$. We train for 40 epochs with a batch size of 128. We sweep a range of hyper-parameters for each method and empirically set $\lambda_c=80$, $\lambda_r=500$, and $k=3$ for \textbf{\texttt{FCRO}}{}. We train models in 5-fold with different random seeds. In each fold, we sort all the validations according to AUC and select the best model with the lowest average $\disp_\mathrm{ED}$ regarding each sensitive attribute among the top 5 utilities.
\noindent\textbf{Baselines.} We compare our method with (\romannumeral1) G-DRO \cite{sagawa2019distributionally} and (\romannumeral2) JTT \cite{liu2021just} -- seeking low worst-group error by minimax optimization on group fairness and target task error, which can be naturally regarded as multi-sensitive fairness methods by defining subgroups with multi-sensitive attributes conjunctions. We also
extend recent state-of-the-art fair representation learning methods on single sensitive attributes to multiple ones and compare our method with them, including (\romannumeral3) Adv \cite{wadsworth2018achieving} and (\romannumeral4) BR-Net \cite{adeli2021representation} -- achieve fair representation via disentanglement using adversarial training, (\romannumeral5) PARADE \cite{dullerud2022fairness} -- a state-of-the-art method that adversarially eliminates mutual information between target and sensitive attribute representations
and (\romannumeral6) Orth~\cite{sarhan2020fairness} hard codes the means of both sensitive and target prior distributions to orthogonal means and re-parameterize the encoder output on the orthogonal priors.
Besides, we give the result of (\romannumeral7) ERM \cite{ERM} -- vanilla classifier trained without any bias mitigation technique.
\begin{figure}[!tp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{figures/cam_cal.pdf}
\caption{(a) Subgroup calibration curves. We report quantile calibration curves of the mean (the line) and standard deviation (the shadow around it) of different subgroups defined by the conjunction of race, sex, and age. Larger shadow areas correspond to more severe unfairness. (b) Class activation map \cite{chattopadhay2018grad} generated from vanilla ERM \cite{ERM} and \textbf{\texttt{FCRO}}{} (ours).}
\label{fig:activation}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Comparsion with Baselines}
\textbf{Quantitative results.}
We summarize quantitative comparisons in Table~\ref{tab:comparison}. It can be observed that all the bias mitigation methods can improve fairness compared to ERM~\cite{ERM} at the cost of utility. While ensuring considerable classification accuracy, \textbf{\texttt{FCRO}}{} achieves significant fairness improvement both \textit{jointly} and \textit{individually}, demonstrating the effectiveness of our representation orthogonality motivation. To summarize, compared with the best performance in each metric, \textbf{\texttt{FCRO}}{} reduced classification disparity on subgroups with \textit{joint} $\disp_\mathrm{AUC}$ by 2.7\% and \textit{joint} $\disp_\mathrm{ED}$ by 2.3\% respectively, and experienced 0.5\% $\disp_\mathrm{AUC}$ and 0.4\% $\disp_\mathrm{ED}$ boosts regarding the average of three sensitive attributes.
As medical applications are sensitive to classification thresholds, we further give calibration curves with the mean and standard deviation of subgroups defined on the conjunction of multiple sensitive attributes in Fig.~\ref{fig:activation}~(a). It can be observed that the vanilla ERM \cite{ERM} suffers from biased calibration among subgroups. Fairness algorithms can help mitigate this, while \textbf{\texttt{FCRO}}{} shows the most harmonious deviation and the most trustworthy classification.
\noindent\textbf{Qualitative results.}
We present the class activation map~\cite{chattopadhay2018grad} in Fig.~\ref{fig:activation}~(b). We observe that the vanilla ERM \cite{ERM} model tends to look for sensitive evidence outside the lung regions, \eg breast, which threatens unfairness. \textbf{\texttt{FCRO}}{} focuses on the pathology-related part only for fair \textit{Pleural Effusion} classification, which visually confirms the validity of our method.
\subsection{Ablation Studies}
\begin{figure}[!tp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figures/curve.pdf}
\caption{(a) Fairness-accuracy trade-off. The perfect point lies in the top left corner. We report ablations and Pareto fronts of the sweep of hyperparameters. (b) Fairness of models \textbf{trained with various numbers and permutations} of three sensitive attributes: race (R), sex (S), and age (A). (c) AUC convergence with different rank $k$ of $\cS_A$. (d) Fairness and total variance (the percentage of sensitive information captured by $\cS_A$) under different $k$.}
\label{fig:curve}
\end{figure}
\noindent\textbf{Loss modules and hyperparameters.}
\label{module_ablation}
We further investigate the key components of \textbf{\texttt{FCRO}}{} with reference to the fairness-utility trade-off. As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:curve}~(a), we present the ablation of key components and the Pareto fronts (\ie the set of optimal points) curve of the sweep of a range of hyperparameters $\lambda_c$ and $\lambda_r$. We observe that removing either column or row space orthogonality shows a decrease in \textit{joint} $\disp_\mathrm{ED}$ of 2.4\% and 1.8\% respectively, but still being competitive. Besides, model utility is not sensitive to weights, which fulfills our motivation of handling a large number of sensitive attributes. We also observe that applying accumulative space introduced in Section \ref{sec:space} achieves a comparable performance.
\noindent\textbf{Training with different sensitive attributes.} We present an in-depth ablation study on multiple sensitive attributes in Fig.~\ref{fig:curve}~(b), where models are trained with various numbers and permutations of attributes. We show all methods perform reasonably better than ERM when trained with a single sensitive attribute but \textbf{\texttt{FCRO}}{} brought significantly more benefits when trained with the union of discriminated attributes (e.g., Sex $\times$ Age), which consolidate \textbf{\texttt{FCRO}}{}'s ability for multi-sensitive attributes fairness. \textbf{\texttt{FCRO}}{} stand out among all methods.
\noindent\textbf{Different rank $k$ for $\widetilde{\cS}_A$.}
We show the effect of choosing different $k$ for column space orthogonality. As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:curve}~(c), a lower rank $k$ benefits convergence of the model thus improving accuracy, which validates our insights in Section.~\ref{sec:space} that lower sensitive space rank will improve the utility of target representations. In Fig.~\ref{fig:curve} (d), we show that $k=3$ is enough to capture over $95\%$ sensitive information and keep increasing it does not bring too much benefit for fairness, thus we choose $k=3$ to achieve the best utility-fairness trade off.
\section{Discussion}
\section{Conclusion and Future Work}
This work studies an essential yet under-explored fairness problem in medical image classification where samples are with sets of sensitive attributes. We formulate this problem mathematically and propose a novel fair representation learning algorithm named \textbf{\texttt{FCRO}}{}, which pursues orthogonality between sensitive and target representations. Extensive experiments on a large public chest X-rays demonstrate that \textbf{\texttt{FCRO}}{} significantly boosts the fairness-utility trade-off both \textit{jointly} and \textit{individually}. Moreover, we show that \textbf{\texttt{FCRO}}{} performs stably under different situations with in-depth ablation studies. For future work, we plan to test the scalability of \textbf{\texttt{FCRO}}{} on an extremely large number of sensitive attributes.
\section*{Appendix}
\subsection*{Low-Rank Space Accumulation}\label{app:accu}
Here we describe how to construct $\widetilde{\mathcal{S}}_A$ iteratively with mini-batch data. At the first iteration, we initialize $\widetilde{\mathcal{S}}_A^{0}$ using SVD as introduced in Section~\ref{sec:space}. For the following $t$-th iteration, we first evaluate the importance of the $i$-th base $u_{A,i}^{t-1}$ in old space $\widetilde{\mathcal{S}}_A^{t-1}$ on the new representation matrix $Z_A^t$ with its corresponding eigenvalues $\delta_i^t=(u_{A,i}^{t-1})^\top Z_A^t(Z_A^t)^\top u_{A,i}^{t-1}$. Then we apply SVD to $\disp Z_A^t=Z_A^t-\widetilde{\mathcal{S}}_A^{t-1}(\widetilde{\mathcal{S}}_A^{t-1})^\top Z_A^t$ and get a set of new bases with singular values $\{\sigma^t_j\}$. Finally, we concatenate $\{\delta_i^t\}$ and $\{(\sigma^t_j)^2\}$ and sort them in a descending order. We take the top-half concatenated bases as $\widetilde{\mathcal{S}}_A^t$. This accumulation process lasts for 3 epochs, and we pick the top-$k$ bases as our final $\widetilde{\mathcal{S}}_A$.
\section{Old Method}
Considering a fair classification setup where the inputs $x \in \mathcal{X} \subset \R^d$ , labels $y \in \mathcal{Y} = \{0, 1, ... , c\}$, where $c$ is the number of classes, The conjunction, i.e., Cartesian product, of $m$ binary sensitive attributes $A\in\prod_{i}A_i$ where the $i$-th sensitive attribute $A_i=\{0,1\}$, and prediction score $R=f(x)$ of the classification model $f$ that predicts a label $y$ given an input $x$.
\textcolor{blue}{from here to the end of the paragraph, I don't think it is preliminary} We first defined two separated encoders $\phi_T$ and $\phi_S$ to avoid the introducing of sensitive label information into target encoder during training. The two encoders then map input $x$ to two orthogonal low-dimensional representations and normalied into $Z_T \in \R^{B\times D}$ , $Z_S \in \R^{B\times D}$ respectively, where $B$ is the batch size, $D$ are dimensions of the representation.
\subsubsection{Group Fairness} \textcolor{blue}{Again, here I dont think $y \in \{0,1\}$ is necessary}
The concept of fairness has been studied in many fields but no general definition of fairness exists~\cite{saxena2019per}. This work, we mainly focus on group fairness which considers within or between group fairness ({\it e.g.}, young vs. old and young women vs. old men, respectively). We aims at achieving equalized odds disparity(ED) $P(R|A=1,Y=y) = P(R|A=0,Y=y)$ for $y \in \{0,1\}$. Given the difficulty of optimizing the independency constraints, we use the relaxed metric:
$$max_{y\in\{0,1\}} |P(R|A=1,Y=y) - P(R|A=0,Y=y)|$$
\textcolor{blue}{Check your $A$ here, misalignment!}
Recent studies~\cite{dullerud2022fairness,sarhan2020fairness,park2021learning} also used this metric, however, they decorrelate the whole feature pair and achieving the orthogonality $R\perp A$ \textcolor{blue}{After noting $R=f(x)$, I think this is correct. You need to add problem formulation and show the linkage to orthogonality}which ignored the possible correlations between $A$ and $Y$. \textcolor{blue}{who did this poor writing??? why starting with \ie and pls see how I used \ie} \textcolor{green}{me...}\ie, when sensitive groups have various distributions for $Y$. Ignoring these dependencies could harm the learning of predictor\cite{chuang2021fair}. Hence, we consider the orthogonality with each class $R \perp A | Y$.
\textcolor{blue}{You may want a paragraph for problem formulation}
\subsubsection{Sensitive Representation Space}\label{sep}
\textcolor{blue}{I did not get he purpose of this paragraph, especially you put it under preliminary}
Shared encoder may meets the leakage of sensitive information during training, so Sarhan \textcolor{blue}{and please note how I used {\em et al.~}} \textit{et.al}~\cite{sarhan2020fairness} freezed the the backpropogation when training with sensitive label, however, it cannot well train the sensitive task. Recently, Dullerud \textit{et.al}~\cite{dullerud2022fairness} reduced the learning rate when train sensitive task, however, it will still introduce sensitive label information. To overcome the problem, we used a seperated network $\phi_S$ to produced $Z_S$. In this way, we can pre-train the $\phi_S$ to produce high quality multi-sensitive representations. In our case, we select the pretrained model that can achieve good and balanced performance on every sensitive class to produce representations. We plot the resulting Representation with t-SNE in Figure \ref{fig:tsne}.
\subsection{Sample Space Orthogonality}\label{sta}
\textcolor{blue}{Move this section after feature orthogonality}
\textcolor{blue}{Here is a gap...how sample space orthogonality is related to your problem formulation.}
In this section, we propose the Sample Space Orthogonality, which not only enhanced the multi-sensitive fairness but also improve the efficiency in finite samples.
\subsubsection{Sample Space Fairness} Current methods~\cite{dullerud2022fairness,park2021learning,zhu2021learning} reduce mutual information between sensitive and target representations, \textcolor{blue}{One?} a shortcome is they are only sample-wise methods, which is not sufficient for the complex multi-sensitive fairness \textcolor{blue}{I did not get this sentence}. As a result \textcolor{blue}{wrong phrase used here}, we proposed to achieve sample space fairness to encourage every sample space bases being orthogonal to each other. Taking the normalized intermediate feature $Z_T, Z_S$, we say $Z_T^i \in R^{B\times1}$ is the $i$th target sample bases, we wish it to be orthogonal to the sample bases from sensitive representation $Z_S$. As a result, our stronger sample space orthogonal loss will be:
\textcolor{blue}{Please avoid double sub and super-scripts}
\begin{align}
L_{sorth} &= \mathbb{E}[||Z_{T}- \mu_{T})^{\top} (Z_{S}- \mu_{S})||_2]\\
& = \frac{1}{D^2}\sum^D_{i=1}\sum^D_{j=1} ||\hat{Z}^i_{T}^{\top} \hat{Z}^j_{S}||
\end{align}
Where $\mu = \frac{1}{D} 1\cdot Z \in R^{1\times D}$. It is notable that our loss will naturally become the covariance loss that computed on feature space. With this loss, we can achieve a better and more stable multi-sensitive fairness.
\subsubsection{Learning Efficiency} Here we compare the rademacher complexity between $\mathcal{F}_{L_2}$ and $\mathcal{F}_{L_2,sorth}$. Considering sample space orthogonal constraint restricts the projection of the weights $w$ onto $\Delta := sorth(X,Z_S) = Cov(X,Z_S) = \sum^{D}_{i=1}Cov(X,Z_S^{i})$ and $w_{\perp}:= \Pi w$ as the projection, which can be regarded as irrelevant space of $X$. Assume, $x_{\perp} := \Pi x$, $x_{||} := (\mathcal{I} - \Pi) x$ and $sup_{x_{||}}||x_{||}||_2 \leq B_{||}$,$sup_{x_{\perp}}||x_{\perp}||_2 \leq B_{\perp}$. We can directly compare our results with \cite{makar2022causally}, since $Z_S^{i}$ is one dimensional and $\Delta$ is a vector. Due to the limited space,
we only present an informal statement here. The formal
statement can be found in Appendix \ref{effi}.\\
\textcolor{blue}{Notations here are poorly defined}
\textbf{Proposition 1} Let $f(x) = \delta(\phi(x)) = \delta(w^{\top}x)$ be a function contained in $FL_{2,cov}$ Then, $||w_{\perp}|| \leq \frac{\gamma}{\Delta}$. and
\begin{align}
\mathcal{R}(F_{L_2}) \leq \frac{C\sqrt{B^2_{||}+B^2_{\perp}}}{\sqrt{n}}, \mathcal{R}(F_{L_2,cov}) \leq \frac{C\cdot B_{||}+\gamma \frac{B_{\perp}}{||\Delta||}}{\sqrt{n}}
\end{align}
Where n is the number of data. As we can see, our regularization suppressed the rachemacher complexity on the sensitive related parameters, which helps the learning efficiency.
\subsection{Feature Space Orthogonality}\label{ortho}\todo{Re-wright feature space orthogonality here.}
In this section, we wish to extract multi-sensitive feature bases $\mathcal{B}$ and achieve feature space orthogonality by reducing projected target information on sensitive bases. Challenge are 1) Obtain a low rank matrix that could well capture the major information. 2) Efficiently extract sensitive feature bases. To achieve first goal, we proposes to encode multi-sensitive information into a single representation and construct feature basis by decomposing the sensitive representation with singular value decomposition (SVD). To achieve the second goal, we proposed two bases extraction schema based on SVD: Direct Extraction and Basis Accumulation.
\textcolor{blue}{Connection between this two paragraph can be enhanced}
\subsubsection{Direct Extraction} aims at obtaining subspaces that could well represent the batch statistical information, Specifically, the SVD is applied to the centered sensitive representations $Z_S ^{\top} = U \Sigma V$, \textcolor{blue}{since we use $Z \in \R^{d\times n}$ now, you don't need transpose here anymore} where $U = [u_1, ... , u_D] \in
R^{D\times D}$ is an orthogonal matrix with left singular vector $u_i \in R^{D}$, $V = [v_1, ... , v_B] \in \R^{B\times B}$ is an orthogonal matrix with left singular vector $v_i \in R^{B}$, and $\Sigma \in R^{D\times B}$ is a rectangular diagonal matrix with descending non-negative singular values $\{\delta_i\}_{i=1}^{min\{B,D\}}$. In this paper, we call $U \in R^{B\times B}$ as space basis which reduces the data dimension.
\subsubsection{Basis Accumulation} aspires to aggregate important representative bases into a global statistics to remove the influence from multi-sensitive attributes. For clearly, we define training iteration as $t \in [1,,2,...,T]$, then the $\mathcal{C}_s^t$ as the cache set at iteration t whose maximum size is $s$, the multi-sensitive representation matrix at iteration $t$ as $R^t$, the decomposed orthogonal matrix at iteration $t$ as $\mathcal{B}^t$ and singular vector as $b^t_i$, where $i \in B$ for data basis and $i \in D$ for space basis. We then designed following procedures to achieve the ultimate goal:
\begin{itemize}
\item For $t = 1$, all the bases $\mathcal{B}^1$ will be directly applied to remove multi-sensitive attributes with orthogonal loss $L_{gorth}$, then inserted into $\mathcal{C}_s^1$ for future calculation.
\item For $t \in [2,T]$, Since the previous information set $\mathcal{C}_s^{t-1}$ could include important bases for current batch. Therefore, for each basis in $\mathcal{C}_s^{t-1}$, we compute its corresponding eigenvalue on $R^t(R^t)'$ as $\delta^t_i=(b^t_i)'R^t(R^t)'b^t_i$ and obtained singular values $\Delta^t_c$. Then we use SVD to decompose $R^t$ to obtain bases $\mathcal{B}^t$ and their corresponding singular values $\Delta^t$. After that, we select top bases $B^t_{best}$ according to their singular values by concatenating $\Delta^t$ and $\Delta^t_c$ and sort in descending order. Finally, $B^t_{best}$ is added into $\mathcal{C}_s^{t-1}$ and pop the oldest one if exceed the maximum size.
\item At each iteration $t \in [2,T]$, we calculate the orthogonal loss $L_{orth}$ with the $B^t_{best}$. In this way, our loss removed multi-sensitive attributes influence from a global aspective.
\end{itemize}
where the the global orthogonal loss $L_{gcorr}$ is defined as:
\begin{align}
L_{orth} &= \mathbb{E}[\phi^{targ}(X) \times B_{best}]
\end{align}
By reducing the target information that projected on multi-sensitive bases, we achieved the orthogonal between target representation and multi-sensitive attribubtes representation.
\section{First Section}
\subsection{A Subsection Sample}
Please note that the first paragraph of a section or subsection is
not indented. The first paragraph that follows a table, figure,
equation etc. does not need an indent, either.
Subsequent paragraphs, however, are indented.
\subsubsection{Sample Heading (Third Level)} Only two levels of
headings should be numbered. Lower level headings remain unnumbered;
they are formatted as run-in headings.
\paragraph{Sample Heading (Fourth Level)}
The contribution should contain no more than four levels of
headings. Table~\ref{tab1} gives a summary of all heading levels.
\begin{table}
\caption{Table captions should be placed above the
tables.}\label{tab1}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|}
\hline
Heading level & Example & Font size and style\\
\hline
Title (centered) & {\Large\bfseries Lecture Notes} & 14 point, bold\\
1st-level heading & {\large\bfseries 1 Introduction} & 12 point, bold\\
2nd-level heading & {\bfseries 2.1 Printing Area} & 10 point, bold\\
3rd-level heading & {\bfseries Run-in Heading in Bold.} Text follows & 10 point, bold\\
4th-level heading & {\itshape Lowest Level Heading.} Text follows & 10 point, italic\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\noindent Displayed equations are centered and set on a separate
line.
\begin{equation}
x + y = z
\end{equation}
Please try to avoid rasterized images for line-art diagrams and
schemas. Whenever possible, use vector graphics instead (see
Fig.~\ref{fig1}).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig1.eps}
\caption{A figure caption is always placed below the illustration.
Please note that short captions are centered, while long ones are
justified by the macro package automatically.} \label{fig1}
\end{figure}
\begin{theorem}
This is a sample theorem. The run-in heading is set in bold, while
the following text appears in italics. Definitions, lemmas,
propositions, and corollaries are styled the same way.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Proofs, examples, and remarks have the initial word in italics,
while the following text appears in normal font.
\end{proof}
For citations of references, we prefer the use of square brackets
and consecutive numbers. Citations using labels or the author/year
convention are also acceptable. The following bibliography provides
a sample reference list with entries for journal
articles~\cite{ref_article1}, an LNCS chapter~\cite{ref_lncs1}, a
book~\cite{ref_book1}, proceedings without editors~\cite{ref_proc1},
and a homepage~\cite{ref_url1}. Multiple citations are grouped
\cite{ref_article1,ref_lncs1,ref_book1},
\cite{ref_article1,ref_book1,ref_proc1,ref_url1}.
\subsubsection{Acknowledgements} Please place your acknowledgments at
the end of the paper, preceded by an unnumbered run-in heading (i.e.
3rd-level heading).
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
X-ray Thomson scattering (XRTS) has been one of the premier diagnostic tools for warm dense matter (WDM) experiments, enabling measurements of the electron density, temperature and ionization state~\cite{Glenzer2009,Fletcher2015,Faeustlin2010}. The states reached in these experiments are characterized by temperatures of a few electronvolts (eV) and around solid densities, which constitutes strongly correlated plasmas with non-negligible degeneracy. This prevents the application of ideal plasma theory for the analysis of these experiments, and rather requires a quantum mechanical treatment in a many-body framework.
Knowledge of equation of state data as well as thermal and electrical transport properties for warm dense hydrogen and beryllium is essential for modelling astrophysical objects~\cite{Guillot2005,Helled2011} and inertial confinement fusion~\cite{Lindl2004}, where hydrogen is used as fuel while beryllium often serves as ablator material~\cite{Xu2007,Simakov2014}. Furthermore, hydrogen and beryllium are excellent test cases for new theoretical approaches. The analytical behavior in many limiting cases for fully ionized hydrogen plasmas are known and beryllium can be used to test the treatment of bound states in a simple low-$Z$ material.
WDM is typically opaque in the optical regime, as the light frequency is smaller than the plasma frequency $\omega_\mathrm{pl}$ of these plasmas. Therefore, it is indispensable to have diagnostic tools at experiments that are well understood, both experimentally and theoretically. XRTS has proven to overcome many of the experimental challenges of probing WDM. The high energy x-ray photons can penetrate dense plasmas and since the advent of free electron lasers (FEL), rep-rated x-ray sources with sufficient brilliance for probing short-lived transient states are available in addition to laser-plasma sources which only allow a limited number of experiments and require complex sample assemblies. New FEL techniques like self-seeding~\cite{Seeding2012, McBride2018} have also resulted in much narrower bandwidths of the x-ray source, enabling the measurement of phonons and ion acoustic modes~\cite{Descamps2020,Wollenweber2021} and a better resolution of density and temperature-sensitive regions in the XRTS spectrum.
Due to the steadily improving quality of collected spectra, it is vital to have accurate theoretical modeling of the scattering. While in the past, the resolution of XRTS spectra often did not allow for discrimination between different theoretical approaches, now, fitting experimental spectra to theoretical models has allowed predictions of electron temperature and density to within a few percent uncertainties~\cite{Frydrych2020,MacDonald2021,Fletcher2022}. As a result, the fidelity of the theoretical model used is now the limiting factor in determining the correct plasma parameters in experiments that employ XRTS as a diagnostic tool. Most approaches rely on the semi-classical Chihara decomposition~\cite{Chihara1987, Chihara2000} of the spectrum into three distinct contributions which originates from distinguishing between free and bound electrons in a chemical picture. An analogous fully quantum mechanical description has also been proposed~\cite{Crowley2014}.
The standard approach for modeling XRTS spectra in the Chihara description is a combination of theories to describe each component individually~\cite{Chapman2014}. The ion dynamics are usually described by the hypernetted-chain approximation with different expressions for the interaction potential while the form factors are described by a screened hydrogenic approximation to the wave functions~\cite{Pauling1932} and the Debye-Hückel approximation for the screening cloud. The plasmon can be described by the random phase approximation (RPA) or the Mermin dielectric function in order to also include electron-ion collisions which can also be approximated to different degrees~\cite{Reinholz2000}. Further electron correlations can be accounted for by local field corrections~\cite{Fortmann2010}. Contributions that are related to bound-free transitions are treated within the impulse approximation~\cite{Eisenberger1970} which is sometimes modified by the ionization potential depression and normalized according to different sum rules. Each of these theories entails various approximations and achieves different degrees of fidelity in a wide range of temperatures and densities which severely complicates gauging sources of errors.
Furthermore, the ionization degree is often left as an unconstrained parameter in the fitting procedure which risks overfitting and neglects its dependence on temperature and density.
In recent years, this approach has been partially replaced by \textit{ab~initio} descriptions like density functional theory molecular dynamics (DFT-MD) simulations and real time or linear response time dependent DFT (RT/LR-TDDFT) computations. Witte~\textit{et~al.} successfully used electron-ion collision frequencies determined by DFT to accurately model the plasmon of an aluminum plasma~\cite{Witte2017}. This approach was subsequently compared to LR-TDDFT by Ramakrishna~\textit{et~al.} for ambient and extreme conditions in aluminum~\cite{Ramakrishna2021} and carbon~\cite{Ramakrishna2019}, which was then used to discern miscibility in an XRTS experiment~\cite{Frydrych2020}. Baczewski~\textit{et~al.} went beyond the Chihara decomposition by simulating the real time propagation of the electronic density using RT-TDDFT~\cite{Baczewski2016}. Path integral Monte Carlo simulations have delivered approximation-free results for the uniform electron gas~\cite{Dornheim2018} and hydrogen plasmas~\cite{Boehme2022}, but are currently unable to describe heavier elements.
In this work, we describe the calculation of XRTS spectra in an \textit{ab initio} framework where each contribution to the Chihara decomposition is extracted from a DFT-MD simulation that is based on well defined approximations and limits the free parameters to the mass density and temperature by constraining the number of free electrons per atom according to a new technique recently proposed by Bethkenhagen \textit{et al.}~\citep{Bethkenhagen2020}. The capability of DFT-MD to compute ion dynamics and the form factors was already demonstrated and tested in previous publications~\cite{Rueter2014, Plagemann2015, Witte2017_ion}. Therefore, we focus on the inelastic contribution that can be computed from a self-consistent DFT cycle using the Kubo-Greenwood formula or LR-TDDFT.
We give an overview of the theoretical foundation for computing the electronic dynamic structure factor from the Mermin dielectric function with a dynamic complex collision frequency and apply this framework to extract a DFT-based collision frequency in Secs.~\ref{sec:structurefactor} and \ref{sec:diel}. In Sec.~\ref{sec:DFTMD} we give the details of the simulation method. We compute DFT-based collision frequencies for a hydrogen plasma and compare them to several analytic approaches in Sec.~\ref{sec:dynColl} and we study the impact of these collision frequencies on DSFs for hydrogen and beryllium plasmas in Secs.~\ref{sec:electronDSF-H}, \ref{sec:electronDSF-isoBe}, and \ref{sec:electronDSF-compBe}.
In Sec.~\ref{sec:experiments}, we apply LR-TDDFT to XRTS experiments on beryllium to evaluate their impact on the inferred plasma parameters.
\section{Theoretical background}
\label{sec:theory}
\subsection{Dynamic structure factor}
\label{sec:structurefactor}
The electronic dynamic structure factor (DSF)~\cite{Glenzer2009}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq_seetot}
S_{ee}^{\mathrm{tot}}(\vec{k}, \omega) = \frac{1}{2 \pi N_e} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \mathrm{d}t \langle n_{\vec{k}}^e (\tau) n_{-\vec{k}}^e (\tau + t) \rangle_\tau \, e^{i \omega t}
\end{equation}
is the central quantity representing the spatially resolved power spectrum of an electronic system, describing its dynamics at given temporal and spatial periodicities given by the frequency $\omega$ and the wave vector $\vec{k}$, respectively. The number of considered electrons is $N_e$ and the spatial Fourier components of the electron density are given by $n_{\vec{k}}^e$. The time is described by $t$ and $\tau$, where $\langle ... \rangle_\tau$ describes a time average over $\tau$. Experimentally, $S_{ee}^{\mathrm{tot}}(\vec{k}, \omega)$ can be used to identify how strong a photon will couple to density fluctuations at a given energy transfer and scattering angle~\cite{Glenzer2009}. In this work we will use a slight modification of the common decomposition of Eq.~\eqref{eq_seetot} introduced by Chihara~\cite{Chihara1987, Chihara2000}:
\begin{multline}
\label{eq_chihara}
S_{ee}^{\mathrm{tot}}(\vec{k}, \omega) = \vert f_\mathrm{i}(\vec{k}) + q(\vec{k}) \vert^2 S_\mathrm{ii}(\vec{k},\omega) + \\ + \underbrace{Z_\mathrm{f} S_{ee}^0(\vec{k},\omega) + Z_\mathrm{b} S_\mathrm{bf}(\vec{k}, \omega)}_{Z \, S_\mathrm{et} (\vec{k}, \omega)} .
\end{multline}
The first term refers to the elastic response of the electrons which follow the ion motion described by the ion-ion structure factor $S_\mathrm{ii}(\vec{k},\omega)$. Here, $f_\mathrm{i}(\vec{k})$ describes the contribution of tightly bound electrons and $q(\vec{k})$ represents the loosely bound screening cloud around the ions. The second term, called the electron feature, arises from the collective behavior of the free electrons in the system undergoing transitions to different free-electron states. The number of free electrons per atom is labeled $Z_\mathrm{f}$ and their DSF is denoted by $S_{ee}^0(\vec{k},\omega)$. The last term in Eq.~\eqref{eq_chihara} is the bound-free contribution. In the original work, Chihara clearly separates free and bound electrons and describes this term as a convolution of the DSF of the core electrons with the self-part of the ionic DSF~\cite{Chihara2000}. We treat the bound-free contribution on the same footing as the free electron contibution and introduce the bound-free DSF $S_\mathrm{bf}(\vec{k}, \omega)$ and the number of bound electrons per atom $Z_\mathrm{b}$. Both the free electron and bound-free contributions arise due to inelastic transitions of the electrons and can, therefore, be combined into one DSF $S_\mathrm{et}(\vec{k}, \omega)$ that accounts for all electronic transitions. This avoids the artificial separation into bound and free electrons for both the charge state $Z$ and the DSF. According to the fluctuation-dissipation theorem~\cite{Kubo1966}, this combined DSF can be related the dielectric response described by the dielectric function $\epsilon (\vec{k}, \omega)$ via
\begin{equation}
\label{eq_FDT}
S_\mathrm{et}(\vec{k},\omega) = - \frac{\epsilon_0 \hbar \vec{k}^2}{\pi e^2 n_e} \frac{\operatorname{Im}\left[ \epsilon^{-1}(\vec{k}, \omega) \right]}{1-\exp \left(\frac{-\hbar \omega}{k_\mathrm{B} T_e}\right)}.
\end{equation}
The vacuum permittivity is denoted by $\epsilon_0$, the reduced Planck constant is $\hbar$ and $e$ is the elementary charge. The electron density is given by $n_e$, the electron temperature is $T_e$ and the Boltzmann constant is $k_\mathrm{B}$.
At which conditions the separation into free and bound-free part in Eq.~\eqref{eq_chihara} is justified and yields the same results as the combined approach is discussed in Secs.~\ref{sec:electronDSF-isoBe} and \ref{sec:electronDSF-compBe}.
\subsection{Dielectric Function with electron-ion collisions}
\label{sec:diel}
The dielectric function $\epsilon(\vec{k},\omega)$ is a central material property that is connected to other material properties, like the electrical conductivity $\sigma(\omega)$ in the long wavelength limit or the DSF via the fluctuation dissipation theorem from Eq.~\eqref{eq_FDT}. One of the first approaches that produced collective features of the electron system, like plasmons, is the Lindhard dielectric function~\cite{Lindhard1954}
\begin{multline}
\label{eq_eps_rpa}
\epsilon^\mathrm{RPA} (\vec{k}, \omega ) = \lim_{\eta \to 0} \bigg[ 1 - \\ - \frac{2e^2}{\epsilon_0 k^2} \, \int \frac{\mathrm{d}^3q}{\left(2\pi\right)^3} \, \frac{f_{\vec{q} - \frac{\vec{k}}{2}} - f_{\vec{q} + \frac{\vec{k}}{2}}}{\hbar \left( \omega + i \eta \right) + E_{\vec{q} - \frac{\vec{k}}{2}} - E_{\vec{q} + \frac{\vec{k}}{2}} } \bigg].
\end{multline}
which accounts for electric field screening in the Random Phase Approximation (RPA). The arguments $\vec{k}$ and $\omega$ are the wave vector and the angular frequency, respectively while the electron charge is denoted by $e$. $E_{\vec{q}}$ and $f_{\vec{q}}$ are the kinetic energy and the Fermi occupation of an electron with wave vector $\vec{q}$ in the unperturbed free electron gas. The small imaginary contribution to the frequency $\eta$ is introduced to avoid the pole in the integration and approaches zero thereafter. However, for degenerate, strongly correlated systems electron-ion interactions, which are neglected in Eq.~\eqref{eq_eps_rpa}, have to be accounted for in order to accurately describe the dielectric function.
It was shown that electron-ion collisions can be included via a dynamic collision frequency $\nu(\omega)$ in the framework of the Mermin dielectric function~\cite{Mermin1970,Selchow1999,Roepke1999,Millat2003}
\begin{multline}
\label{eq_mermin}
\epsilon^\mathrm{Mermin}(\vec{k}, \omega; \nu(\omega)) = 1+ \\ + \frac{\left(1 + i \frac{\nu(\omega)}{\omega} \right) \left( \epsilon^\mathrm{RPA}(\vec{k}, \omega + i \nu(\omega)) - 1 \right)}{1 + i \frac{\nu(\omega)}{\omega} \frac{\epsilon^\mathrm{RPA}(\vec{k}, \omega + i \nu(\omega)) - 1}{\epsilon^\mathrm{RPA}(\vec{k}, 0) -1}}.
\end{multline}
Extensive work has been performed on the evaluation of different analytic collision frequencies and local field corrections~\cite{Reinholz2000,Thiele2008,Fortmann2010}, as well as first attempts to incorporate \textit{ab initio} results to determine collision frequencies~\cite{Plagemann2012}.
We present the derivation of the RPA dielectric function in the presence of a dynamic complex collision frequency in Appendix~\ref{sec:app-rpa}.
Equations~\eqref{eq_mermin}, \eqref{eq_eps_rpa_re3} and \eqref{eq_eps_rpa_im3} are the basis for calculating the Mermin dielectric function for a given dynamic collision frequency $\nu(\omega)$. In the following, because we are dealing with isotropic systems, we will only consider the magnitude of wave vector $\vec{k}$ and drop the vector notation.
One of the most prominent approximations for the collision frequency is the Born collision frequency~\cite{Reinholz2000}, the combination of which with the Mermin dielectric function in Eq.~\eqref{eq_mermin} is called the Born-Mermin approximation~(BMA). It is widely used in the analysis of XRTS spectra in the WDM field. We give the exact equations used in this work in Appendix~\ref{sec:app-born}.
However, complex many-particle effects, as they are considered in \textit{ab~initio} simulations, cannot be accounted for by this approach.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\center{\includegraphics[angle=0,width=1.0\linewidth]{flowchart.png}}
\caption{Schematic work flow for determining the dynamic collision frequency and $k$-dependent dielectric function via DFT.}
\label{fig:flowchart}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:flowchart}, we show the schematic procedure to compute a DFT-based collision frequency from an electrical conductivity in the optical limit. In essence, we construct a complex collision frequency for which the Mermin dielectric function coincides with the \textit{ab~initio} dielectric function in the optical limit. As input, the temperature and electron density of the plasma are needed for the Mermin dielectric function and the real part of the electrical conductivity is needed from the simulation.
According to the Kubo-Greenwood formula~\cite{French2017, Gajdos2006} the conductivity is
\begin{multline}
\label{eq_KG}
\operatorname{Re} \left[\sigma (k=0, \omega)\right] = \frac{2 \pi e^2}{3 \omega \Omega} \sum_{\vec{g}} w_{\vec{g}} \sum_{j=1}^N \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{\alpha=1}^3 \times \\ \times \big[ f(\epsilon_{j,\vec{g}})- f(\epsilon_{i,\vec{g}}) \big] |\braket{\psi_{j,\vec{g}}| \hat{v}_\alpha | \psi_{i, \vec{g}}}|^2 \delta(\epsilon_{i,\vec{g}} -\epsilon_{j,\vec{g}} - \hbar \omega ).
\end{multline}
The indices $i$ and $j$ run over the eigenstates, $\alpha$ runs over the spatial orientations and $\vec{g}$ denotes the reciprocal vectors in the Brillouin zone where the wave functions $\psi_{i, \vec{g}}$ are evaluated. The Fermi-Dirac occupation at a given eigenenergy $\epsilon_{j,\vec{g}}$ is described by $f(\epsilon_{j,\vec{g}})$ and $\hat{v}_\alpha$ is the velocity operator in the direction $\alpha$. The normalization volume is denoted by $\Omega$ and $w_{\vec{g}}$ is the weigthing of each $k$-point.
We translate the electrical conductivity to the imaginary dielectric function via
\begin{figure}[b]
\center{\includegraphics[angle=0,width=1.0\linewidth]{full_k_dependence.pdf}}
\caption{The top panel shows the free-electron part of the dielectric function $\epsilon(k, \omega)$ in a beryllium plasma at $\rho =$~5~g/cm$^3$ and $T=$~100~eV. The DFT results are given at $k=0$, where the solid lines are the real part and the dash-dotted lines are the imaginary part. The Mermin dielectric function from Eq.~\eqref{eq_mermin} is calculated with the DFT collision frequency $\nu^{\mathrm{DFT}}$. The colors represent different values for $k$, while the real and imaginary parts are given by the circles and crosses, respectively. The bottom panel shows the free-electron DSF $S_\mathrm{ee}^0(k,\omega)$ computed from DFT (solid lines) at $k=0$ and from the Mermin dielectric function (circles) at various $k$. The DSFs are scaled to the same magnitude and the dielectric function and DSFs are shifted by 75 and 0.5 a.u., respectively, with respect to the next lowest wave number for readability.}
\label{fig:epslimit}
\end{figure}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq_sigmatoeps}
\operatorname{Im} \left[ \epsilon (k=0, \omega ) \right] = \frac{1}{\epsilon_0 \omega} \operatorname{Re} \left[ \sigma(k=0, \omega) \right]
\end{equation}
and use the Kramers-Kronig transformation to compute the corresponding real part, leading to a complex dielectric function $\epsilon^{\mathrm{DFT}}(k=0, \omega)$.
If we require an equivalence between the DFT result and the Mermin dielectric function in the optical limit
\begin{equation}
\label{eq_limitfit}
\epsilon^{\mathrm{DFT}} \left(k=0, \, \omega \right) \overset{!}{=} \lim_{k \rightarrow 0} \epsilon^{\mathrm{Mermin}} \left(k, \, \omega; \, \nu \left(\omega \right) \right),
\end{equation}
the real and imaginary parts must be equal simultaneously. This can be achieved by adjusting the real and imaginary part of the dynamic collision frequency which feeds into the Mermin dielectric function, leading to a two dimensional optimization problem. The result of this optimization is a collision frequency $\nu^{\mathrm{DFT}}$ for which the analytic Mermin dielectric function yields the same results as DFT in the macroscopic limit.
Because there is no notion of bound states in the theoretical framework of the Mermin dielectric function, the electrical conductivity must only originate from free or quasi-free states. For this purpose, the conductivity in Eq.~\eqref{eq_KG} can be split into different contibutions, see Ref.~\onlinecite{Bethkenhagen2020} for details.
Figure~\ref{fig:epslimit} shows the convergence of the Mermin dielectric function and DSF to the DFT result in the optical limit for a beryllium plasma at $\rho =$~5~g/cm$^3$ and $T=$~100~eV. Due to the presence of bound states in beryllium at these conditions, only the electrical conductivity due to free electrons can be used as an input to the workflow depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:flowchart} and all quantities in Fig.~\ref{fig:epslimit} are free-electron contibutions.
The DFT result for the DSF $S^{\mathrm{DFT}}$ and the dielectric function $\epsilon^{\mathrm{DFT}}$ are only available at $k=0$ and are shown as a constant reference for the various $k$ depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:epslimit}.
In both panels, it is apparent that, with the correct collision frequency $\nu^{\mathrm{DFT}}$, the Mermin result converges to the optical limit described by DFT.
In practice, the limit $k \rightarrow 0$ is reached at wave numbers that correspond to length scales that are significantly larger than any characteristic length scales of the studied system. For beryllium at these conditions, the convergence is reached for wave numbers smaller or equal to $10^{-4}$~\AA$^{-1}$ as depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:epslimit}. The dielectric functions in the upper panel are connected to the DSF in the lower panel by Eq.~\eqref{eq_FDT}.
However, it is apparent that the dynamic dielectric function in the upper panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:epslimit} is more sensitive to changes in the wave number than the DSF shown in the bottom panel, which is dominated by the pole in $\epsilon^{-1}(k, \omega)$.
\subsection{Linear response time dependent density functional theory}
\label{sec:lrtddft}
In the framework of LR-TDDFT the density response of the non-interacting Kohn-Sham system can be evaluated at a finite momentum transfer as~\cite{Engel2011,Yan2011}:
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:LRTDDFT-chiKS}
\chi_\mathrm{KS} (\vec{k}, \omega) = \frac{1}{\Omega} \sum_{\vec{g}, i, j} \frac{f(\epsilon_{i,\vec{g}}) - f(\epsilon_{j,\vec{g} + \vec{k}})}{\omega + \epsilon_{i,\vec{g}} - \epsilon_{j,\vec{g} + \vec{k}} + i \eta } \times \\ \times \braket{\psi_{i,\vec{g}}| e^{-i \vec{k} \vec{r}} | \psi_{j, \vec{g} + \vec{k}}} \braket{\psi_{i,\vec{g}}| e^{i \vec{k} \vec{r}} | \psi_{j, \vec{g} + \vec{k}}}.
\end{multline}
The quantities in this equation are defined analogously to the Kubo-Greenwood formula in Eq.~\eqref{eq_KG}.
This response function can be related to the full density response $\chi$ via a Dyson equation~\cite{Engel2011}, with different levels of approximation for the exchange-correlation kernel $f_\mathrm{XC}$.
A closed expression can be written as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:LRTDDFT-chi}
\chi (\vec{k}, \omega) = \frac{\chi_\mathrm{KS} (\vec{k}, \omega)}{1 - \left[ v(\vec{k}) + f_\mathrm{XC} (\vec{k}, \omega) \right] \chi_\mathrm{KS} (\vec{k}, \omega)},
\end{equation}
where $v(\vec{k})$ is the Fourier transform of the Coulomb potential. The level of the RPA is achieved for $f_\mathrm{XC} = 0$, for which the dielectric function can be computed as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:LRTDDFT-epsRPA}
\epsilon^\mathrm{RPA}_\mathrm{KS} (\vec{k}, \omega) = 1 - \frac{4 \pi}{\vert \vec{k} \vert^2} \chi_\mathrm{KS} (\vec{k}, \omega).
\end{equation}
Because the Mermin dielectric function accounts for electron interactions on the level of the RPA, we set $f_\mathrm{XC} = 0$ and use Eq.~\eqref{eq:LRTDDFT-epsRPA} in Secs.~\ref{sec:electronDSF-H}, \ref{sec:electronDSF-isoBe} and \ref{sec:electronDSF-compBe} to facilitate comparisons. In Sec.~\ref{sec:experiments}, we use the adiabatic local density approximation~\cite{Zangwill1980,Engel2011}.
\subsection{Computational details}
\label{sec:DFTMD}
All DFT-MD simulations for this work were performed with the Vienna \textit{ab initio} simulation package (VASP)~\cite{Kresse1993, Kresse1994, Kresse1996}. The electronic and ionic parts are decoupled by the Born-Oppenheimer approximation and, for fixed ion positions, the electronic problem is solved in the finite temperature DFT approach~\cite{Mermin1965}. In VASP, the electronic wave functions are expanded in a plane wave basis set up to a energy cutoff $E_\mathrm{cut}$. After the electronic ground state density is determined self-consistently at every time step, the forces on the ions via Coulomb interactions with other ions and the electron cloud are computed and the ions are moved according to Newton's second law. The temperature control in the MD simulation is performed via the Nos\'e{}-Hoover algorithm~\cite{Nose1984, Hoover1985} with a mass parameter corresponding to a temperature oscillation period of 40 time steps. All simulations are performed using the exchange-correlation functional of Perdew, Burke, and Ernzerhof (PBE)~\cite{Perdew1996}.
For beryllium, we use the \verb|PAW_PBE Be_sv_GW 31Mar2010| potential with an energy cutoff of 800~eV for all simulations apart from the compressed case in Sec.~\ref{sec:electronDSF-compBe} for which we use a Coulomb potential with a cutoff of 10~000~eV. For further details on the hydrogen simulation parameters, see Ref.~\onlinecite{Roepke2021}.
The dynamic electrical conductivity, that is the input for the scheme presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:flowchart}, was computed from the eigenfunctions and eigenenergies of separate DFT cycles with a more precise energy convergence criterion via the Kubo-Greenwood formula~\eqref{eq_KG}. These simulations were performed on at least five snapshots taken at equidistant time steps from the DFT-MD simulation. The scheme described in Sec.~\ref{sec:diel} was implemented using the NumPy software package~\cite{numpy2020} for arrays to store the dynamic properties and for the evaluation of simple numerical integration. More elaborate integrals, such as in Eqs.~\eqref{eq_eps_rpa_re3} and \eqref{eq_eps_rpa_im3}, were evaluated using Gaussian quadrature from the SciPy software package~\cite{scipy2020}. The Kramers-Kronig transformation between the real and imaginary part of the dynamic dielectric function and the electrical conductivity was performed according to Maclaurin's formula from Ref.~\onlinecite{Ohta1988}.
The linear response time dependent DFT (LR-TDDFT) calculations were performed in the GPAW code~\cite{Mortensen2005,Enkovaara2010,Larsen2017,Yan2011}. The same snapshots as for the Kubo-Greenwood calculations were used and a 2x2x2 or 4x4x4 Monkhorst-Pack grid~\cite{Monkhorst1976} was employed for calculations of $k$-dependent dielectric functions. For the considered conditions, already the Baldereschi mean value point~\cite{Baldereschi1973} yields converged optical conductivities for the Kubo-Greenwood calculations. For hydrogen, the dielectric function was computed with a plane-wave energy cutoff of at least 50~eV, while for beryllium at least 250~eV were used.
\section{Dynamic collision frequency}
\label{sec:dynColl}
\begin{figure}[t]
\center{\includegraphics[angle=0,width=1.0\linewidth]{full_coll_DFT_GDW_comparison.pdf}}
\caption{The real part of the dynamic collision frequency of hydrogen plasmas at $\rho = 2$~g/cm$^3$ for temperatures ranging from $5$ to $100$~eV. The DFT and LR-TDDFT collision frequencies determined via Eq.~\eqref{eq_limitfit} from their respective electrical conductivities are shown in black and pink, respectively. The LB collision frequency is shown in blue with crosses and the $T$-Matrix approach is shown in yellow with plus symbols. The GDW collision frequencies with and without electron-electron collisions are depicted in red as a dotted line and as a solid line with filled circles, respectively.}
\label{fig:CollCompFull}
\end{figure}
The work flow presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:flowchart} results in a complex dynamic collision frequency $\nu^\mathrm{DFT} (\omega)$. To study how this collision frequency compares to different levels of analytic approximations, we determine the real part of $\nu^\mathrm{DFT}$ for a hydrogen isochore at $\rho=2$~g/cm$^3$ from 5 to 100~eV (see Ref.~\onlinecite{Roepke2021} for numerical details). This temperature range was chosen to illustrate the transition from the WDM regime to the ideal plasma regime.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:CollCompFull} we compare these collision frequencies to the Lenard-Balescu (LB) collision frequency, the $T$-Matrix (TM) approach and the Gould-DeWitt (GDW) approach. The LB approach goes beyond the Born collision frequency by including dynamic screening, while the TM approach accounts for strong binary collisions by summing up ladder diagrams in the perturbation expansion~\cite{Reinholz2005}. The GDW scheme combines the dynamic screening of the LB approach with the strong collisions of the TM treatment and should, in principle, give the most accurate results. For further details on the analytic approaches see Refs.~\onlinecite{Reinholz2005,Thiele2006,Reinholz2000,Gould1967,Roepke1989}. The aforementioned approaches solely describe electron-ion collisions, but electron-electron (e-e) collisions can be included by modulating the collision frequency with a renormalization factor~\cite{Reinholz2000}. The GDW collision frequency including e-e collisions is also indicated in Fig.~\ref{fig:CollCompFull} by the red dotted lines. It is apparent that although the DFT predictions agree well with the TM and GDW approach at high temperatures, it deviates significantly at lower temperatures where complex many-body and quantum effects contribute strongly. At $T=100$~eV, the collision frequency is dominated by strong collisions between ions and electrons. However, the inclusion of e-e collisions via the renormalization factor leads to worse agreement with the DFT results, which is in agreement with recent observations that the Kubo-Greenwood formula applied to DFT lacks e-e collisions~\cite{Roepke2021,French2022}. Furthermore, we apply the work flow presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:flowchart} to the electrical conductivity in the optical limit computed by LR-TDDFT to extract a collision frequency which we show as the pink dashed lines in Fig.~\ref{fig:CollCompFull}.
At all temperatures, its behavior is very similar to the Kubo-Greenwood results which indicates that electron-electron collisions are also not included in this description of transport properties. It is remarkable that at high frequencies the LR-TDDFT collision frequency lies significantly below the Kubo-Greenwood results for all considered temperatures. In our tests, this could not be attributed to a lack of convergence in number of bands or cutoff energy.
\section{Dynamic structure factor}
\label{sec:electronDSF}
\subsection{Hydrogen}
\label{sec:electronDSF-H}
\begin{figure}[b]
\center{\includegraphics[angle=0,width=1.0\linewidth]{H_full_comparison.pdf}}
\caption{The inelastic electronic DSF $S_{\mathrm{et}} (k, \, \omega)$ of a hydrogen plasma at $\rho = 2$~g/cm$^3$ and $T=5$~eV (upper panel) and $T=50$~eV (lower panel) from $k=0.67$~\AA$^{-1}$ to $k=2.40$~\AA$^{-1}$. The solid line denotes the direct computation from LR-TDDFT at the respective wave numbers, while the other lines denote DSFs computed from the Mermin dielectric function with the DFT collision frequency (dashed lines), the GDW collision frequency including electron-electron collisions (dash-dotted lines) and the Born collision frequency (dotted lines). The DSFs are shifted by 0.5 with respect to the next lowest wave number for readability.}
\label{fig:H50eVDSF}
\end{figure}
Given a dynamic collision frequency $\nu (\omega)$, Eqs.~\eqref{eq_FDT} and \eqref{eq_mermin} can be used to compute the electronic DSF $S_{ee} (k, \, \omega)$ where the $k$ dependence only enters through the Mermin dielectric function. The LR-TDDFT approach allows direct access to the dielectric function at finite $k$ by computing transitions matrix elements between Kohn-Sham states at different $k$ points~\cite{Yan2011}.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:H50eVDSF}, we show the electronic DSF of a hydrogen plasma at $\rho = 2$~g/cm$^3$ and $T=50$~eV (lower panel) and $T=5$~eV (upper panel). The direct computations through LR-TDDFT are shown as solid lines, while we also present DSFs computed via the Mermin dielectric function in conjunction with the DFT and GDW collision frequencies shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:CollCompFull} as dashed and dash-dotted lines, respectively. Additionally, we show the results from the Mermin dielectric function with the Born collision frequency (see Eq.~\eqref{eq_born_coll}), which constitutes the often used Born-Mermin approach, as dotted lines. At the lowest wave number shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:H50eVDSF}, $k=0.67$~\AA$^{-1}$, we are considering the collective behavior where collision are important, as can be seen from the dimensionless scattering parameter $\alpha$ (see Ref.~\onlinecite{Glenzer2009} for definition) which is 4.17 and 2.84 for $T=5$ and $T=50$~eV, respectively.
As expected for a fully ionized hydrogen plasma, the $k$ dependence encoded by the Mermin dielectric function agrees well with the direct computation via LR-TDDFT for all considered collision frequencies at both conditions. However, at $T=5$~eV, the damping of the plasmon predicted by LR-TDDFT can only be captured with the DFT collision frequency, especially at small $k$. The Born collision frequency leads to a vast overestimation of the plasmon magnitude for $k$ below $2.4$~\AA$^{-1}$ and also the GDW approach with renormalization overestimates the magnitude by a factor of 2 for $k$ below $1.15$~\AA$^{-1}$. With increasing wave numbers, the collisions become less significant, and the DSFs for all collision frequencies start to converge to the same result.
At $T=50$~eV, the collisions play a smaller role, which is demonstrated by the largely identical predictions from all collision frequencies for $k$ above $1.15$~\AA$^{-1}$. It is notable that although the inclusion of electron-electron collisions leads to significant discrepancies between the dynamic collision frequencies in Fig.~\ref{fig:CollCompFull}, these differences cannot be observed in the DSF, given the numerical noise.
In the LR-TDDFT data, a small additional contribution at $\hbar \omega = 0$~eV appears, which has also recently been seen in path integral Monte Carlo simulations~\cite{Dornheim2022}. This bump is not included in the Mermin formalism and appears more pronounced at higher temperatures and lower densities (also see Sec.~\ref{sec:electronDSF-isoBe} and \ref{sec:electronDSF-compBe}), leading us to propose that it is connected to bound-bound transitions without energy transfer.
\subsection{Isochorically heated beryllium}
\label{sec:electronDSF-isoBe}
To investigate the impact of tightly bound states on the presented procedure, we study a beryllium plasma at $\rho = 1.8$~g/cm$^3$ and $T=12$~eV, for which the approach of Ref.~\onlinecite{Bethkenhagen2020} predicts a charge state $Z=2.1$. The bound 1s states are energetically clearly separated from the free electrons. The collision frequency can either be determined from the full dynamic electrical conductivity that includes the transitions from the bound 1s states to the conduction band, or from the free-free electrical conductivity by restricting the transition matrix elements in Eq.~\eqref{eq_KG} to transitions orginating and ending in the conduction band (for details on this decomposition, see Ref.~\onlinecite{Bethkenhagen2020}). In the latter case, only the free-free contribution to the DSF is considered within the Mermin dielectric function, while the bound-free contribution must be approximated by its behavior at $k \rightarrow 0$.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:Be12eVDecomp}, we show the comparison of these two approaches to the direct computation of the electronic DSF using LR-TDDFT. At the lowest wave number $k = 0.49$~\AA$^{-1}$, shown in the upper panel, all approaches agree well, as expected due to the construction of the collision frequency which requires equivalence in the limit of small $k$ (see Eq.~\eqref{eq_limitfit}). The separation of the conductivity into a free-free and a bound-free contribution allows us to clearly identify the different terms of the Chihara formula~\eqref{eq_chihara} in the DSF. The dotted line represents the bound-free contribution, which agress exactly with the LR-TDDFT data above $\sim 90$~eV, and the dashed line represents the free-free contribution (plasmon), which matches the LR-TDDFT results below $\sim 90$~eV. Remarkably, the prefactors $Z_\mathrm{f}$ and $Z_\mathrm{b}$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq_chihara} which give the respective weighting of these two features come out of the definition of the charge state described in Ref.~\onlinecite{Bethkenhagen2020} and agree virtually exactly with the direct computation including all transitions in LR-TDDFT.
\begin{figure}[b]
\center{\includegraphics[angle=0,width=1.0\linewidth]{DSF_decomposition_Be_12eV_1.8g.pdf}}
\caption{The inelastic electronic DSF $S_{\mathrm{et}} (k, \, \omega)$ of a beryllium plasma at $\rho = 1.8$ ~g/cm$^3$ and $T=12$~eV for various $k$ values on a logarithmic scale. The solid lines are direct computations at the given $k$ using LR-TDDFT. The dash-dotted and the dashed lines denote DSFs computed from the Mermin dielectric function with the full DFT collision frequency, determined from the electrical conductivity including bound-free transitions, and the free-free collision frequency, determined from the electrical conductivity including only free-free transitions, respectively. The dotted lines denote the DSF computed directly from the bound-free conductivity at $k=0$~\AA$^{-1}$.}
\label{fig:Be12eVDecomp}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\center{\includegraphics[angle=0,width=1.0\linewidth]{DSF_Be_12eV_1.8g.pdf}}
\caption{The inelastic electronic DSF $S_{\mathrm{et}} (k, \, \omega)$ of a beryllium plasma at $\rho = 1.8$ ~g/cm$^3$ and $T=12$~eV for various $k$ values. The solid lines are direct computations at the given $k$ using LR-TDDFT, while the dotted and dash-dotted lines denote DSFs computed from the Mermin dielectric function with the Born collision frequency for a plasma with a charge state of $Z=2$ and $Z=4$, respectively. The dashed lines represent the sum of the DSF computed through the Mermin dielectric function using the free-free collision frequency and the bound-free DSF at $k=0$~\AA$^{-1}$. The DSFs are shifted by 0.5 with respect to the next lowest wave number for readability. In the inset, the solid line shows the density of states, while the shaded area denotes the occupied density of states.}
\label{fig:Be12eVDSF}
\end{figure}
At $k = 1.47$~\AA$^{-1}$ in the middle panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:Be12eVDecomp}, the deviation of the approach using the full collision frequency to the other approaches becomes apparent. The bound-free dominated DSF above $\sim 90$~eV is still well approximated by both the full collision frequency and the bound-free feature at $k \rightarrow 0$. Below $\sim 90$~eV, however, the approach using the full collision frequency, denoted by the dash-dotted line, deviates strongly (note the logarithmic scale) from the LR-TDDFT result. The free-free feature computed solely from the collision frequency based on free-free transitions, denoted by the dashed line, still agrees very well with the LR-TDDFT calculation in this energy regime.
The bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:Be12eVDecomp}, showing the DSF at $k = 3.42$~\AA$^{-1}$, highlights the complete breakdown of the approach using the full collision frequency. While the DSF is still described adequately above $\sim 90$~eV, its shape is very different from the LR-TDDFT result below that energy. On the other hand, the separate description of free-free and bound-free contributions again describes the DSF accurately compared to the LR-TDDFT data. However, the approximation of the bound-free feature by its $k \rightarrow 0$ limit starts to deteriorate at this wave number. At the highest energy shift shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Be12eVDecomp}, this approximation underestimates the LR-TDDFT value by a factor of almost 2. Additionally, at the onset of the bound-free feature around $100$~eV, it overestimates the DSF compared to the LR-TDDFT as can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:Be12eVDSF} which shows the DSF on a linear scale. The fast deterioration beyond the $k \rightarrow 0$ limit of the approach using the full collision frequency is expected because the framework of the Mermin dielectric function, which encodes the $k$ dependence, does not include the existence of bound states. Therefore, any such states that are artificially introduced via the collision frequency cannot be handled correctly in the $k$ dependence.
Furthermore, in Fig.~\ref{fig:Be12eVDSF}, we show the DSFs computed from the Mermin dielectric function with Born collision frequencies for a plasma with a charge state $Z=2$ and $Z=4$. The position of the plasmon peak for $Z=2$ agrees well with the DFT spectra, while the position of the $Z=4$ plasma is consistently at too high energies, as expected due to the higher free-electron density. However, at low $k$, the dampening of the plasmon peak due to the Born collision frequency is too low compared to the DFT data, similar as observed for hydrogen in Fig.~\ref{fig:H50eVDSF}. At the higher wave numbers, the plasmon-peak position of the DFT results agrees well with Mermin function using the Born collision frequency at $Z=2$, clearly indicating that the bound 1s states do not contribute to this feature. The inset in Fig.~\ref{fig:Be12eVDSF} shows the density of states (DOS) of the beryllium plasma which shows a clear separation between the narrow 1s band, which is fully occupied, and the conduction band. This clear distinction is the reason why the separate treatment of free-free and bound-free contibutions is successful. The bound-free feature does not exhibit a strong $k$ dependence up to high $k$ values~\cite{Mattern2013,Eisenberger1970}, and the plasmon occurs energetically separated in the DSF.
\subsection{Compressed beryllium}
\label{sec:electronDSF-compBe}
With increasing density and temperature the notion of bound states becomes ill-defined in WDM. The inset in Fig.~\ref{fig:Be50eVDSF} shows the DOS of a beryllium plasma at $T=50$~eV and $\rho=40$~g/cm$^3$ which demonstrates the closing of the band gap compared to the inset in Fig.~\ref{fig:Be12eVDSF}. Furthermore, the former 1s states broaden significantly into a band and the DOS converges towards the $\sqrt{E}$ behavior of a free electron gas.
Because the band gap is still clearly identifiable the separate treatment of bound-free and free-free contributions to the DSF presented in the previous section can also be applied to these conditions. Figure~\ref{fig:Be50eVDSF} shows the results of this separate treatment, as well as the direct computation using LR-TDDFT and the DSF from the Mermin dielectric function using the full collision frequency.
\begin{figure}[t]
\center{\includegraphics[angle=0,width=1.0\linewidth]{DSF_Be_50eV_40g.pdf}}
\caption{The inelastic electronic DSF $S_{\mathrm{et}} (k, \, \omega)$ of a beryllium plasma at $\rho = 40$ ~g/cm$^3$ and $T=50$~eV for various $k$ values. The solid lines are direct computations at the given $k$ using LR-TDDFT, while the dashed lines represent the sum of the DSF computed through the Mermin dielectric function using the free-free collision frequency and the bound-free DSF at $k=0$~\AA$^{-1}$. The dotted lines denote the DSF computed through the Mermin dielectric function with the full collision frequency. The DSFs are shifted by 0.5 with respect to the next lowest wave number for readability. In the inset, the solid line shows the density of states, while the shaded area denotes the occupied density of states.}
\label{fig:Be50eVDSF}
\end{figure}
While the separate treatment of bound-free and free-free contributions yields excellent results for the near-ambient density case in Fig.~\ref{fig:Be12eVDecomp}, it poorly approximates the LR-TDDFT results in strongly compressed beryllium shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Be50eVDSF}. The plasmon peak at $k=1.37$~\AA$^{-1}$ is severly underdamped due to the missing bound-free transitions in the collision frequency, which occur in the same energy range as the free-free transitions at these conditions. The use of the Born collision frequency in lieu of the free-free DFT collision frequency leads to an increase of the plasmon peak magnitude by a factor of 2 (not shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Be50eVDSF}). The broader peak arising around $\sim 130$~eV for $k=4.12$ and $k=6.87$~\AA$^{-1}$ is due to the insufficient approximation of the bound-free feature by its value at $k=0$~\AA$^{-1}$. As can be seen from the LR-TDDFT data, the bound-free features merges with the free-free feature to form one homogeneous feature.
At these conditions, using the full collision frequency in the Mermin dielectric function gives better results, which is expected as the former 1s states lose their bound character due to the higher compression and higher temperature. For all considered wave numbers, this approach yields good agreement with the LR-TDDFT data above $\sim 200$~eV, and approximates the trends below that energy fairly well. Solely at $\sim 100$~eV this approach predicts a feature that is not visible in the LR-TDDFT results across the considered $k$ range.
\section{Application to experiments}
\label{sec:experiments}
\begin{figure}[b]
\center{\includegraphics[angle=0,width=1.0\linewidth]{DoeppnerHEDP.pdf}}
\caption{The lower panel shows the scattering intensity of an isochorically heated beryllium target at $T=18$~eV from Ref.~\onlinecite{Doeppner2009}. The colors of the solid lines encode different densities used in the LR-TDDFT simulations. The dotted lines denote the inelastic contributions. The upper panel shows the $\chi^2$ deviation depending on the density used in the simulation where the colored dots correspond to the spectra shown in the lower panel and the black curve is achieved by interpolating to 40 evenly spaced densities between these spectra.}
\label{fig:DoeppnerHEDP}
\end{figure}
We reanalyze previous XRTS experiments by Döppner~\textit{et~al.}~\cite{Doeppner2009} and Kritcher~\textit{et~al.}~\cite{Kritcher2011} using LR-TDDFT to evaluate the influence of advanced methods on the initially inferred plasma parameters. In general, temperature and density of the target must be considered simultaneously. However, since Döppner~\textit{et~al.} used detailed balance in their forward scattering experiment to determine the temperature as $T=18$~eV, we use this value and vary the density to find the best agreement with the experimental data. To justify this approach we show the results of a recently suggested model-free temperature diagnostic~\cite{Dornheim2022_natcom} in Appendix~\ref{sec:app-laplace}. For the other experiment, we include the temperature in the analysis.
Firstly, in Fig.~\ref{fig:DoeppnerHEDP}, we show simulated XRTS spectra with densities ranging from $1.0$ to $2.2$~g/cm$^3$ at $T=18$~eV together with the forward XRTS spectrum recorded by Döppner~\textit{et~al.}~\cite{Doeppner2009}, which was collected at the Omega laser facility at the Laboratory for Laser Energetics at the University of Rochester. The experiment probed a scattering vector of approximately $k=1$~\AA$^{-1}$, enabling access to collective behavior of the plasma. In the original analysis of the experiment a density of $1.17$~g/cm$^3$ was determined by Döppner~\textit{et~al.}~\cite{Doeppner2009}. The electron feature was treated on the level of the RPA wihtout including electron-ion collisions and the ionization was assumed to be $Z_\mathrm{f}=2.3$.
We compute the electron feature for various densities from LR-TDDFT while including local field corrections via the adiabatic local density approximation~\cite{Zangwill1980,Engel2011}. The magnitude of the ion feature is left as a free parameter in the $\chi^2$ minimization. Although none of the computed spectra capture the plasmon at $2930$~eV perfectly, the spectrum at $\rho = 1.8$~g/cm$^3$ yields a 5\% lower $\chi^2$ deviation than any of the other considered densities.
The ionization state at this density is $Z=2.14$, determined via the Thomas-Reiche-Kuhn sum rule~\cite{Bethkenhagen2020}, which is approximately 7\% lower than the value used by Döppner~\textit{et~al.}~\cite{Doeppner2009}. Furthermore, the here computed density of the sample is more than 50\% higher than the originally determined value, indicating the need to use sophisticated methods to achieve reliable results in forward scattering experiments.
For the experiment by Kritcher~\textit{et~al.}~\cite{Kritcher2011}, the temperature cannot reliably be inferred from the detailed balance relation and the temperature must, therefore, be included in the analysis. Furthermore, the instrument and source functions were not available and must be modeled explicitly in the analysis. To analyze the experiments, we simulate spectra on a sufficiently large temperature and density grid and interpolate between them~\cite{Weissker2009} to model arbitrary $\rho-T$ combinations in this range. Due to the high number of parameters involved in this sort of analysis, we employ Bayesian inference~\cite{Kasim2019} implemented in the PyMC3 software package~\cite{Salvatier2016} and use the sequential Monte Carlo algorithm~\cite{DelMoral2006,Sisson2007} for sampling the parameter space. In Fig.~\ref{fig:KritcherPRL}, we consider the backward XRTS experiment at $k = 8.42$~\AA$^{-1}$ on imploding beryllium shells by Kritcher~\textit{et~al.}~\cite{Kritcher2011}, which was also performed at the Omega laser facility.
To analyze the experiment, we simulate spectra on a grid ranging from $2$ to $32$~g/cm$^3$ and from $0.1$ to $25$~eV. No instrument or source function was supplied in Ref.~\onlinecite{Kritcher2011}. We, therefore, use the parametrization of a zinc source given in Ref.~\onlinecite{MacDonald2021} and include all the parameters of the instrument response function in the Bayesian analysis. We also replace the Gaussian describing the source broadening by a skewed Gaussian to account for the asymmetry observed in the ion feature. Thus, ten parameters determine the shape of the spectrum, including the physical parameters describing the density and temperature of the sample and the magnitude of the ion feature, and 7 parameters describing the experimental setup. The upper panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:KritcherPRL} shows an XRTS spectrum collected from an imploding beryllium shell at a delay of $t=3.1 \pm 0.1$~ns and the posterior prediction for the elastic and inelastic contribution to the simulated scattering spectrum. The posterior predictions are obtained by sampling parameters according to the posterior probability distribution and using these parameters to simulate the spectrum.
\begin{figure}[t]
\center{\includegraphics[angle=0,width=1.0\linewidth]{KritcherPRL_3.1ns.pdf}}
\caption{Scattering intensity of imploding beryllium shells from Ref.~\onlinecite{Kritcher2011}. The upper panel shows the experimental data at a delay $t=3.1 \pm 0.1$~ns and the posterior prediction for the elastic and inelastic contributions based on LR-TDDFT simulations. The thin lines are 100 spectra computed from parameters randomly sampled from the posterior probility distribution. The shaded areas show the region below the average posterior predictions. The lower panel shows the reduced posterior probability distribution in the density parameter $\rho$ where the dark shaded area under the curve indicates the 80\% highest posterior density interval.}
\label{fig:KritcherPRL}
\end{figure}
The agreement between the simulated spectrum and the experimental data is excellent. The bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:KritcherPRL} shows the reduced posterior probability distribution in the density parameter $\rho$, which is the full probability distribution integrated over all other parameters. The inferred density $\rho=7.9^{+ 1.0}_{- 0.8}$~g/cm$^3$ corresponds to the maximum aposteriori probability and the uncertainties are determined from the 80\% highest posterior density interval. With an assumed ionization state $Z=2$, the original analysis by Kritcher~\textit{et~al.}~\cite{Kritcher2011} resulted in estimates of $\rho = 8.23 \pm 2.24$~g/cm$^3$ and $T=14 \pm 3$~eV. The density, which is the most sensitive plasma parameter with respect to the Compton feature at these conditions, agrees very well with our current study. However, Kritcher~\textit{et~al.} also used a temperature-dependent model for the ion feature, while we keep the ion feature as a free parameter. Therefore, the inferred temperature is mainly determined from the relative magnitude of the ion feature and Compton feature. Because the shape of the Compton feature is not very sensitive to the temperature at these conditions, we cannot reliably determine the electron temperature.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:concl}
In this work, we presented the theoretical basis for computation of DSFs using the Mermin dielectric function with a dynamic complex collision frequency and showed how this framework can be used to extract collision frequencies from DFT simulations. We compared these collision frequencies to several analytic approaches for hydrogen plasmas at $\rho=2$~g/cm$^3$ and, for temperatures approaching the ideal plasma limit, found good agreement with models that incorporate strong collisions. Furthermore, we studied how different collision frequencies impact the DSF calculated from the Mermin dielectric function and compared these results to the direct computation of the DSF at the given wave numbers using LR-TDDFT. For hydrogen, we find good agreement for all collision frequencies at high $k$, while at small $k$, especially the frequently used Born approximation leads to underdamped plasmon peaks. For beryllium, we showed that a separate treatment of free-free and bound-free contributions to the DSF yields excellent agreement with the LR-TDDFT for near-ambient densities up to moderate wave numbers ($k=3.42$~\AA$^{-1}$), while it disagrees significantly for highly compressed beryllium because bound-free transition interact with the free-free transitions to dampen the plasmon. Therefore, in order to get accurate DSFs over a wide range of wave numbers in extreme conditions, it is imperative to employ \textit{ab~initio} approaches like LR-TDDFT or path integral Monte Carlo simulations.
We applied LR-TDDFT to XRTS experiments on beryllium and found significant deviations of more than 50\% in inferred density for small $k$ for Döppner~\textit{et~al.}~\cite{Doeppner2009} and found good agreement with analytical approaches for backscattering with large $k$ for Kritcher~\textit{et~al.}~\cite{Kritcher2011}.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We want to thank P. Sperling, B. Witte, M. French, G. Röpke, H.~J. Lee and A. Cangi for many helpful discussions. M.~S. and R.~R. acknowledge support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) within the Research Unit FOR 2440. All simulations and analyses were performed at the North-German Supercomputing Alliance (HLRN) and the ITMZ of the University of Rostock. M.~B. gratefully acknowledges support by the European Horizon 2020 programme within the Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (xICE grant 894725) and the NOMIS foundation. The work of T.~D. was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract No. DE-AC52-07NA27344.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The Standard model (SM) of electroweak theory with $SU(2)\otimes U(1)$ gauge symmetry is highly successful in explaining most of the observations in particle physics experiments. With the recent finding of the Higgs like boson with mass 125 GeV at the LHC~\cite{ATLAS:2012yve,CMS:2012qbp}, seems to complete the SM. Despite its ability to explain most observable phenomena, the SM cannot be considered the final theory of particle physics. There is an ever-increasing number of observations such as the discovery of neutrino oscillations~\cite{Super-Kamiokande:1998kpq} and
the existence of dark matter~(DM) at cosmic scales~\cite{Planck:2018vyg} that put serious questions on the SM predictions. In addition to this, the CDF-II collaboration recently published their high precision measurement of the $W$ boson mass $M_W^{\rm CDF} = 80.4335 \pm 0.0094$ GeV~\cite{CDF:2022hxs}, which reveals a $7$-$\sigma$ difference from the SM expectation $M_W^{\rm SM} = 80.354 \pm 0.007$ GeV~\cite{ParticleDataGroup:2020ssz}. This leads us to investigate the extension of SM, which can account for the aforementioned problems with SM.
\par In the absence of right-handed neutrino~(RHN), the neutrinos are massless in the SM. RHNs have been a prevalent feature of many extensions of SM such as various seesaw mechanisms~\cite{Schechter:1980gr,Schechter:1981cv,Mohapatra:1986bd,Malinsky:2005bi} to generate neutrino masses. In recent years, a number of models have been proposed that combine neutrino mass generations and the existence of DM into a single framework. Motivated by this, people have studied extensively beyond standard model~(BSM) framework based on the gauged $U(1)_{B-L}$ model~\cite{Okada:2016tci,Das:2022oyx,Das:2017deo,Basso:2011hn,Emam:2007dy,Basso:2010jt,Rodejohann:2015lca}. The most intriguing aspect of this model is that it includes three RHNs to cancel gauge and mixed
gauge-gravity anomalies and generate tiny neutrino masses through the seesaw mechanism. This type of model predicts the existence of a new neutral gauge boson $Z'$ that can mix with the SM neutral gauge boson $Z$~\cite{Langacker:2008yv}. One also has the possibility of explaining the DM in these type of model with an additional scalar field, $\chi_d$, that is a SM singlet but charged under $U(1)_{B-L}$. An advantage of this scenario is that one does not need to impose any ad hoc $\mathcal{Z}_2$ symmetry to stabilise the DM. Instead, stability of $\chi_d$ can be guaranteed by appropriately choosing its $B-L$ charge.
\par In this work we show that, despite its simplicity, in addition to neutrino mass generation and DM, $B-L$ model can also explain the recent CDF-II $W$ boson mass measurements. The new boson associated with $U(1)_{B-L}$ symmetry mixes with the SM neural $Z$ boson to provide $S$, $T$, $U$ corrections that are compatible with current $W$ boson mass measurements. Specifically we investigate two distinct scenarios: one with no mass mixing between two neutral bosons and one with mass mixing. We study the difference in parameter space in both cases. We show that the parameter space consistent with the best fit $S$, $T$, $U$ values following the CDF II results is also consistent with the DM physics constraints in the model we proposed.
\par The paper is organised as follows: in Sec.~\ref{sec:KM}, we briefly discuss the possibility of having kinetic mixing between two field strength tensors corresponding to $U(1)_Y$ and $U(1)_{B-L}$. We investigate in detail whether or not addressing simply the impacts of kinetic mixing at the tree level may resolve the $W$ mass anomaly. In Sec.~\ref{sec:model}, we study two $B-L$ gauged models without taking into account the effects of kinetic mixing. The first model is a minimal $B-L$ extension of the SM with no mass mixing between the SM neutral gauge boson $Z$ and $U(1)_{B-L}$ neutral gauge boson $Z'$. In the second model, we introduce mass mixing between these neutral gauge bosons and also introduce a scalar DM candidate. In Sec.~\ref{sec:wstu}, we discuss how one can parametrise the new physics contributions to $W$ mass in terms of oblique parameters $S$, $T$ and $U$. In Sec.~\ref{sec:STUspace}, we described the effective lagrangian approach to parameterise this novel physics, as well as the parameter space that is compatible with the $S$, $T$, and $U$ parameters following the CDF-II data. We focused our attention on the chiral $B-L$ model. Following that, we reviewed the DM constraints derived from Planck's measurement of the relic density, as well as the constraints derived from the direct detection experiments. Finally, we demonstrated that, in the chiral $B-L$ model, the parameter space we found agrees with the current measurements of the $W$ boson mass, relic abundance, and direct detection experiments.
\section{Kinetic-Mixing and $W$ mass}
\label{sec:KM}
We note that a kinetic mixing can occur provided there are two or more field strength tensors $B^{\mu\nu}$ and $X^{\mu\nu}$
which are neutral under some gauge symmetry. Thus in our case with the gauge group $SU(3)_c \otimes SU(2)_L \otimes U (1)_Y \otimes U (1)_{B-L}$ , the kinetic terms can be expressed as follows
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}_{\rm Kinetic} = -\frac{1}{4}B^{\mu\nu}B_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{4}X^{\mu\nu}X_{\mu\nu} - \frac{\kappa}{2} B^{\mu\nu}X_{\mu\nu},
\label{eq:kinetic-mixing}
\end{align}
where $B_{\mu\nu}$ and $X_{\mu\nu}$ are the filed strength tensors of the gauge groups $U(1)_Y$ and $U(1)_X$, respectively. The requirement of positive kinetic energy implies that kinetic coefficient $|\kappa|<1$. One can diagonalize the kinetic mixing term as follow
\begin{align}
\begin{pmatrix}
\tilde{B} \\
\tilde{X} \\
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & \kappa \\
0 & \sqrt{1-\kappa^2} \\
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
B \\
X \\
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{align}
Let's first determine the gauge boson mass spectrum setting the kinetic mixing $\kappa=0$ to fix our notation. With the kinetic mixing $\kappa=0$, the covariant derivative can be defined as
\begin{align}
D_{\mu}=\partial_{\mu}-ig_{s}T^{a}G^{a}_{\mu}-igT^{a}W^{a}_{\mu}-ig'Y B_{\mu}-ig_{X}Y_{X}X_{\mu},
\label{eq:covariant}
\end{align}
where gauge coupling $g_{X}$ is a free parameter. In addition to SM Higgs doublet $\Phi$, one adds a scalar, $\chi$, singlet of the SM but charged under $U(1)_{B-L}$, that spontaneously breaks
the $B-L$ symmetry. In minimal case, the $U(1)_{B-L}$ charge of $\chi$ is $q_\chi=2$. To determine the gauge boson mass spectrum, we have to expand the following scalar kinetic terms
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}_{s}=(D^{\mu}\Phi)^{\dagger}(D_{\mu}\Phi)+(D^{\mu}\chi)^{\dagger}(D_{\mu}\chi),
\end{align}
and have to replace the fields $\Phi$ and $\chi$ by the following expressions such as
\begin{align}
\Phi=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\begin{pmatrix}
0\\
v_\Phi+R_1\end{pmatrix},\,\, \braket{\chi}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (v_\chi+R_2).
\end{align}
With this above replacement we can expand the scalar kinetic terms $(D^\mu \Phi)^\dagger (D_\mu \Phi)$ and $(D^\mu\chi)^\dagger (D_\mu\chi)$ as follows
\begin{align}
& (D^{\mu}\Phi)^{\dagger}(D_{\mu}\Phi)\equiv\frac{1}{2}\partial^{\mu}R_1\partial_{\mu}R_1+\frac{1}{8}(R_1+v_\Phi)^{2}\Big(g^{2}|W_{1}^{\mu}-iW_{2}^{\mu}|^{2}+(gW_{3}^{\mu}-g'B^{\mu})^{2}\Big),\\
& (D^{\mu}\chi)^{\dagger}(D_{\mu}\chi)\equiv\frac{1}{2}\partial^{\mu}R_2\partial_{\mu}R_2+\frac{1}{2}(R_2+v_\chi)^{2}(g_{1}^{'} X^{\mu})^{2},
\end{align}
where we have defined $g_{1}^{'}=g_{X} q_\chi$.
With this, the mass matrix of the neutral gauge bosons is given by
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}_M=\frac{1}{2} V_0^T M_G^2 V_0 ,
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
V_0^T= \begin{pmatrix}B_\mu & W_{3\mu} & X_\mu \end{pmatrix} \text{ and }
M_G^2=
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{1}{4}g'^{2} v_\Phi^2 & -\frac{1}{4} g g' v_\Phi^2 & 0 \\
-\frac{1}{4} g g' v_\Phi^2 & \frac{1}{4} g^2 v_\Phi^2 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & g_1^{'2} v_\chi^2
\end{pmatrix} .
\end{align}
In the kinetic term diagonalized basis $\tilde{V}_0^T=(\tilde{B}_\mu\,\,W_{3\mu}\,\,\tilde{X}_\mu)$, the mass matrix of the neutral gauge boson can be written as
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}_M=\frac{1}{2} \tilde{V}_0^T S^T M_G^2 S \tilde{V}_0 = \frac{1}{2} \tilde{V}_0^T \tilde{M}_G^2 \tilde{V}_0 ,
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
S=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & -\frac{\kappa}{\sqrt{1-\kappa^2}} \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\kappa^2}}
\end{pmatrix},
\tilde{M}_G^2=S^T M_G^2 S = \begin{pmatrix}
\frac{1}{4}g'^{2} v_\Phi^2 & -\frac{1}{4} g g' v_\Phi^2 & \frac{1}{4} g' \tilde{g}_t v_\Phi^2 \\
-\frac{1}{4} g g' v_\Phi^2 & \frac{1}{4} g^2 v_\Phi^2 & -\frac{1}{4} g \tilde{g}_t v_\Phi^2 \\
\frac{1}{4} g' \tilde{g}_t v_\Phi^2 & -\frac{1}{4} g \tilde{g}_t v_\Phi^2 & \frac{1}{4} \tilde{g}_t^2 v_\Phi^2+ g_1^{''2} v_\chi^2
\end{pmatrix},
\end{align}
with $\tilde{g}_t=-\frac{g'\kappa}{\sqrt{1-\kappa^2}}$. Following linear combination of $\tilde{B}^{\mu}$, $W_{3}^{\mu}$ and $\tilde{X}^{\mu}$ gives definite mass eigenstates $A^{\mu}$, $Z^{\mu}$ and $Z^{'\mu}$,
\begin{align}
\begin{pmatrix}
\tilde{B}^{\mu}\\
W_{3}^{\mu}\\
\tilde{X}^{\mu}
\end{pmatrix}
= \begin{pmatrix}
\cos\theta_{w} & -\sin\theta_{w}~\cos\theta & \sin\theta_{w}~\sin\theta \\
\sin\theta_{w} & \cos\theta_{w} \cos\theta & -\cos\theta_{w} ~\sin\theta \\
0 & \sin\theta & \cos\theta \\
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
A^{\mu}\\
Z^{\mu} \\
Z^{'\mu} \\
\end{pmatrix},
\label{eq:final-gauge-tranformation}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
\text{tan} 2\theta=\frac{2\tilde{g}_t\sqrt{g^{2}+g'^{2}}}{\tilde{g}_t^{2}+16\left(\frac{v_\chi}{2v_\Phi}\right)^{2}g_{1}^{''2}-g^{2}-g'^{2}} \text{ with } \tilde{g}_t=-\frac{g'\kappa}{\sqrt{1-\kappa^2}} \text{ and } g_1^{''}=\frac{g_1'}{\sqrt{1-\kappa^2}}.
\end{align}
Masses of physical gauge bosons $A$, $Z$ and $Z^{'}$ are given by,
\begin{align}\label{KMZ}
M_A=0,\,\,M_{Z,Z^{'}}^{2}=\frac{1}{8}\left(Cv_\Phi^{2}\mp\sqrt{-D+v_\Phi^{4}C^{2}}\right),
\end{align}
where,
\begin{align}
C=g^{2}+g'^{2}+\tilde{g}_t^{2}+16\left(\frac{v_\chi}{2v_\Phi}\right)^{2}g_{1}^{''2},
\hspace{0.5cm}
D=16 v_\Phi^{2}v_\chi^{2}(g^{2}+g'^{2})g_{1}^{''2}.
\end{align}
The covariant derivative with the kinetic mixing can be expressed in terms of the orthogonal fields $\tilde{B}$ and $\tilde{X}$ as
\begin{align}
D_{\mu}=\partial_{\mu}-ig_{s}T^{a}G^{a}_{\mu}-igT^{a}W^{a}_{\mu}-ig'Y \tilde{B}_{\mu}-i\left(g_{X}Y_{X}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\kappa^2}}-g' Y \frac{\kappa}{\sqrt{1-\kappa^2}}\right)\tilde{X}_{\mu}.
\end{align}\\
\underline{\bf $W$ mass:} Now let's try to see whether one can explain the CDF-II anomaly considering only kinetic mixing and ignoring any other loop corrections due to new neutral gauge boson $Z'$. Specifically, we consider that the shift in $W$ boson mass measured by CDF-II also modifies the $Z$ boson mass at the tree level as the $\rho$ parameter should be equal to one at tree-level. Further, we investigate whether new physics contribution through kinetic mixing is sufficient to reduce this change in $Z$ mass to the experimental value of $M_Z=91.1876$ GeV~\cite{ParticleDataGroup:2020ssz}.
The tree-level formula for the $W$ and $Z$ mass is given as follows
\begin{equation}
M_{W}^2 =\frac{v_{\Phi}^{2}g^{2}}{4},~~~~~M_{Z}^2|_{\kappa=0}=\frac{v_{\Phi}^{2}}{4}\left[g^2+g'^2\right] .
\label{eq:ZWmass}
\end{equation}
Taking the CDF II measured $W$ mass, $M_{W}=80.4335 \pm 0.0094$~GeV~\cite{CDF:2022hxs} and using the PDG values for other input parameters, $\sin^{2}\theta_{w} = 0.23121 \pm 0.00004,~ G_{f}=1.1663787(6)\times 10^{-5}$ (GeV)$^{-2}$~\cite{ParticleDataGroup:2020ssz}, we calculated weak couplings that is consistent with CDF-II measured $W$ mass and then calculated the $Z$ mass. With this, the central value of the theoretically computed $Z$ mass is given as
\begin{equation}
M_{Z}|_{\kappa=0}= 91.7345~ \text{GeV},
\label{eq:Mztheoretical}
\end{equation}
which is of course larger than the experimental value of $M_Z=91.1876$ GeV~\cite{ParticleDataGroup:2020ssz}.
Note that in $B-L$ model, $Z$ mass is affected by the presence of the kinetic mixing parameter $\kappa$, see Eq.~\eqref{KMZ}:
\begin{equation}
M_{Z}=f\left(g_x,M_{Z'},\kappa \right).
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\captionsetup{justification=raggedright}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{6000.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{8000.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{10000.pdf}
\caption{$Z$ mass versus kinetic mixing $\kappa$. The coloured lines in each panel correspond to different $g_{x}$ and $M_{Z}$ values while keeping the ratio $\frac{M_{Z'}}{g_x}$ constant.}
\label{fig:treelevel}
\end{figure}
As a result, the new physics contribution from kinetic mixing $\kappa$ can reduce the $Z$ mass to the experimental value. In Fig.~\ref{fig:treelevel}, we show how $Z$ mass depends on the kinetic mixing $\kappa$, $g_x$ and $M_{Z'}$. The various lines in each panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:treelevel} correspond to different values of $g_{x}$ and $M_{Z'}$ while the ratio $\frac{M_{Z'}}{g_x}$ remains constant. The ratio is kept at 6 TeV, 8 TeV and 10 TeV in the top left, top right and bottom panel, respectively. It is clear from Fig.~\ref{fig:treelevel} that when only the central values are considered, the change in $Z$ mass that touches the experimental value occurs only at low $Z'$ mass. Also comparing top left, top right and bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:treelevel}, we see that at high $\frac{M_{Z'}}{g_{x}}$ ratio, the kinetic mixing is not sufficient to reduce $Z$ mass to the experimental value.\\
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=0.59\textwidth]{B-LConstraint.pdf}
\caption{Constraint on $g_x$ as a function of $M_{Z'}$. The shaded regions are ruled out from LEP-II~\cite{Carena:2004xs,Cacciapaglia:2006pk}, ATLAS and CMS dilepton searches~\cite{ATLAS:2019erb,CMS:2019tbu}.}
\label{fig:B-LConstraint}
\end{figure}
The mass of $Z'$ and the gauge coupling $g_x$ can be constrained with collider data. From LEP II data the bound
\begin{align}
\frac{M_{Z'}}{g_x}\gtrsim 6-7\,\text{TeV},
\end{align}
was derived in Refs.~\cite{Carena:2004xs,Cacciapaglia:2006pk,Das:2021esm}. Current ATLAS and CMS searches for dilepton resonances at the LHC can also be used to constrain $M_{Z'}$ via the Drell-Yan process, $pp\to Z'\to \ell\bar{\ell},\,\text{with}\,\ell=e,\mu$~\cite{ATLAS:2019erb,CMS:2019tbu,Das:2021esm}. From Fig.~\ref{fig:B-LConstraint}, we see that the LHC dilepton constraints are the most stringent up to $M_Z = 6$~TeV, beyond which the resonant $Z'$ production is kinematically limited at $\sqrt{s} = 13$~TeV. Hence comparing Fig.~\ref{fig:treelevel} and Fig.~\ref{fig:B-LConstraint}, we can conclude that in view of current experimental constraints on $g_x-M_{Z'}$, it is not possible to explain CDF-II $W$ anomaly at tree-level with help of kinetic mixing $\kappa$.
\section{Minimal and chiral $B-L$ model}
\label{sec:model}
We saw in the previous section that kinetic mixing alone is insufficient to explain the $W$ mass anomaly. From this point forward, we will ignore kinetic mixing and concentrate on the loop contribution from the $U(1)_{B-L}$ $Z'$ gauge sector in order to explain the $W$ mass anomaly. In this section, we study two $U(1)_{B-L}$ gauged SM extensions: minimal and chiral extensions. Under $U(1)_{B-L}$ the SM quarks and leptons have charge $1/3$ and $-1$ respectively. As a result, $B-L$ is an anomalous symmetry that requires the inclusion of additional fermions to gauge it consistently. The gauge group $U(1)_{B-L}$ has the potential to cause the following triangle gauge anomalies:
\begin{subequations}
\label{U1x anomaly cancellation}
\begin{align}
&[SU(3)_{c}]^2[U(1)_{B-L}]= \sum\limits_{q} X_{q L} - \sum\limits_{q} X_{q R} ,
\\& [SU(2)_{L}]^2[U(1)_{B-L}]= \sum\limits_{l} X_{l L} + 3\sum\limits_{q} X_{q L} ,
\\& [U(1)_{Y}]^2 [U(1)_{B-L}] = \sum\limits_{l q} ( Y_{l L}^2 X_{l L} + 3 Y_{q L}^2 X_{q L} ) - \sum\limits_{l q} ( Y_{l R}^2 X_{l R} + 3 Y_{q R}^2 X_{q R} ),
\\& [U(1)_{Y}] [U(1)_{B-L}]^2 = \sum\limits_{l q} ( Y_{l L} X_{l L}^2 + 3 Y_{q L} X_{q L}^2 ) - \sum\limits_{l q} ( Y_{l R} X_{l R}^2 + 3 Y_{q R} X_{q R}^2 ) .
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
In addition to this we have two more equations
\begin{subequations}
\label{U1x anomaly cancellation1}
\begin{align}
& [U(1)_{B-L}]^3= \sum\limits_{l q} ( X_{l L}^{3} + 3 X_{q L}^{3} ) - \sum\limits_{l q} ( X_{l R}^{3} + 3 X_{q R}^{3} ),
\\& [G]^2[U(1)_{B-L}]= \sum\limits_{l q} ( X_{l L} + 3 X_{q L} ) - \sum\limits_{l q} ( X_{l R} + 3 X_{q R} ),
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where, $X$ is the $U(1)_{B-L}$ charge and $Y$ is the hyper charge. Anomalies from the first four equations of Eq.~\eqref{U1x anomaly cancellation}, cancel within the SM particle content. To cancel anomalies arising from Eq.~\eqref{U1x anomaly cancellation1}, we add three generations of RHNs$(\nu_R^i, i = 1, 2, 3)$ with $U(1)_{B-L}$ charges $(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3})$. This gives us the following two conditions:
\begin{subequations}
\label{neutrino anomaly cancellation2}
\begin{align}
& x_{1} + x_{2} + x_{3} = -3,\\
& x_{1}^{3}+ x_{2}^{3} + x_{3}^{3} = -3 .
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
We will discuss two charge assignment for the $\nu_R^i$ that cancel anomalies. The first is the vector solution~(also sometime called minimal $B-L$ extension), in which the RHNs has the same charge as the left-handed neutrino: $(-1,-1,-1)$. Second assignment makes neutrinos chiral under $U(1)_{B-L}$ with RHNs charges: $(5,-4,-4)$.
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\captionsetup{justification=raggedright}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline \centering
~~~Fields~~~ & ( $SU(3)_{c} \otimes SU(2)_{L} \otimes U(1)_{Y} \otimes U(1)_{B-L}$ ) \\
\hline
$L_{L}$ & ($1,2,-\frac{1}{2},-1$) \\
\hline
$Q_{L}$ & ($3,2,\frac{1}{6},\frac{1}{3}$) \\
\hline
$e_{R}$ & ($1, 1, -1, -1$) \\
\hline
\hline
$\nu_{R}$ & ($1,1,0,-1$) \\
\hline
\hline
$u_{R}$ & ($3,1,\frac{2}{3},\frac{1}{3}$) \\
\hline
$d_{R}$ & ($3,1,-\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{3}$) \\
\hline
\hline
$\Phi$ & ($1,2,\frac{1}{2}, 0$) \\
\hline
$\chi$ & ($1,1,0,2$) \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Matter content and charge assignment of the vector $B-L$ model. For brevity, the generation index is suppressed.}
\label{tab:B-L}
\end{table}
\subsection{Vector $B-L$ Model}
This model is a simple extension of the SM. The particle contents and their charges under the gauge group $SU(3)_{c} \otimes SU(2)_{L} \otimes U(1)_{Y} \otimes U(1)_{B-L}$ are given in Table.~\ref{tab:B-L}. The new particles are three RHNs with $B-L$ charge $-1$ to cancel the gauge anomalies and a new scalar filed $\chi$, singlet of the SM but charged under $U(1)_{B-L}$, that spontaneously breaks the $B-L$ symmetry. We assign $B-L$ charge $+2$ for scalar field $\chi$ so that $\nu_R^i$ gets Majorana mass after $B-L$ breaking which further gives rise to light neutrino mass through seesaw mechanism. We begin by writing down the Lagrangian of the scalar sector. The most general renormalizable and $SU(3)_{c} \otimes SU(2)_{L} \otimes U(1)_{Y} \otimes U(1)_{B-L}$ gauge invariant scalar sector is given by
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}_s=(D^\mu\Phi)^{\dagger} (D_\mu\Phi) + (D^\mu\chi)^{\dagger} (D_\mu\chi) - \mathcal{V}(\Phi,\chi),
\end{align}
where the covariant derivative is defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:covariant}. The scalar potential $\mathcal{V}(\Phi,\chi)$ is given by
\begin{align}
\mathcal{V}(\Phi,\chi) = m_{\chi}^2(\chi^{*}\chi) +\frac{1}{2}\lambda_{\chi}(\chi^{*}\chi)^2 + m_{\Phi}^{2}(\Phi^{\dagger}\Phi) +\frac{1}{2}\lambda_{\Phi}(\Phi^{\dagger}\Phi)^2 + \lambda_{\Phi\chi}(\chi^{*}\chi)(\Phi^{\dagger}\Phi).
\label{eq:B-Lpotential}
\end{align}
The breaking of the electroweak and the $U(1)_{B-L}$ gauge symmetries are driven by the vacuum expectation values(vev) of the scalar fields $\Phi$ and $\chi$. Denoting the vevs of field $\Phi$ and $\chi$ as $v_\Phi$ and $v_\chi$, the fields $\Phi$ and $\chi$ after symmetry breaking can be written in the following form:
\begin{equation}
\Phi=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{bmatrix}
\sqrt{2}G^{+} \\ v_{\Phi} + R_{1} + i I_{1}
\end{bmatrix}, \quad \quad \chi = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(v_{\chi} + R_{2} +i I_{2}) .
\label{eq:vev-expansion}
\end{equation}
$G^{\pm}$ are the Goldstone boson corresponding to $W^{\pm}$. $I_1$ and $I_2$ will mix and give rise to the Goldstone bosons corresponding to the neutral gauge bosons $Z$ and $Z'$. The mass matrix of CP-even Higgs scalars in the basis $(R_1, R_2)$ reads as
\begin{align}
\mathcal{M}_R^2= \begin{pmatrix}
A & C \\
C & B
\end{pmatrix} =
\begin{pmatrix}
v_{\Phi}^{2}\lambda_{\Phi} & v_{\Phi} v_{\chi} \lambda_{\Phi \chi} \\
v_{\Phi} v_{\chi} \lambda_{\Phi \chi} & v^{2}_{\chi} \lambda_{\chi}
\end{pmatrix}.
\label{eq:mass-matrix}
\end{align}
The mass eigenvalues of light and heavy mass eigenstates as
\begin{align}
m_h^2 & =\frac{1}{2}\left[A+B-\sqrt{(A-B)^2+4C^2}\right], \\
m_H^2 & =\frac{1}{2}\left[A+B+\sqrt{(A-B)^2+4C^2}\right].
\end{align}
We follow the convention $m_h^2 \leq m_H^2$ and have identified $h$ as the SM Higgs discovered at LHC, with mass $m_h=125$~GeV.
The two mass eigenstates $h, H$ are related with the $(R_1, R_2)$ fields through the following rotation matrix as
\begin{equation}
\begin{bmatrix}
h \\
H \end{bmatrix} = U \begin{bmatrix}
R_1 \\
R_2 \end{bmatrix}
= \begin{bmatrix}
\cos\theta & -\sin\theta \\
\sin\theta & \cos\theta
\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}
R_1 \\
R_2
\end{bmatrix}, \,\, \text{with}\,\, \tan 2\theta=\frac{2C}{B-A}.
\end{equation}
\par In the absence of kinetic mixing, neutral bosons cannot have mass mixing because the scalar doublet $\Phi$ does not carry any $B-L$ charge. The gauge boson masses are given as
\begin{equation}
M_{Z}^2=\frac{v_{\Phi}^{2}}{4}\left[g^2+g'^2\right],~~~~~M_{W}^2 =\frac{v_{\Phi}^{2}g^{2}}{4},~~~~~ M_{Z'} =2v_{\chi}g_{x},
\end{equation}
where $g$ and $g'$ are $SU(2)$ and hypercharge coupling respectively.\\
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fdiaseesaw.pdf}
\caption{Neutrino mass generation in $B-L$ model through type-I seesaw mechanism.}
\label{Feynman view}
\end{figure}
In $B-L$ model neutrino masses are generated by seesaw mechanism. Apart from the SM part, the Yukawa sector of the model can be written in a gauge-invariant way as
\begin{align}
-\mathcal{L}_{Y}& \supset Y_{\nu}^{ij} \overline{L}^{i}\tilde{\Phi} \nu^{j}_{R} + \frac{y_M^{ij}}{2}\overline{\nu^{c}_{R_{i}}}\nu_{R_{j}}\chi + \text{H.c.} ,
\label{eq:B-Lyukawa}
\end{align}
The first and second terms will give the Dirac and Majorana contributions to the neutrino mass generation. We assume without loss of any generality a basis in which $y_M^{ij}$ is diagonal. After the breaking of electroweak and $U(1)_{B-L}$ symmetry, we can write the mass term as
\begin{align}
-\mathcal{L}_{M} \supset \overline{\nu_{L}}m_{D}\nu_{R} + \frac{1}{2}\overline{\nu^{c}_{R}}M_R\nu_{R} + \text{H.c.},
\end{align}
where $m_D=\frac{y_\nu v_\Phi}{\sqrt{2}}$ and $M_R=\frac{y_M v_\chi}{\sqrt{2}}$. Now using the fact that Majorana mass terms are symmetric and $\overline{\nu^{c}_{R}}m^{T}_{\nu}\nu^{c}_{L}=\overline{\nu_{L}}m_{\nu}\nu_{R}$, we can write the $\mathcal{L}_{M}$ in the following matrix form
\begin{align}
-\mathcal{L}_{M}\supset\quad \frac{1}{2}
\begin{pmatrix}
\overline{\nu_L} & \overline{(\nu_R)^c}
\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
0 & m_D \\
m_D^T & M_R
\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}
(\nu_L)^c \\
\nu_R
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{align}
From the above mass matrix, one can easily recover the seesaw formula for light Majorana neutrinos as, $\mathcal{M}_\nu\approx m_D M_R^{-1} m_D^T$ and the heavy neutrino mass as $M_N\approx M_R$ with the assumption $m_D\ll M_R$.
\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline \centering
~~~Fields~~~ & ( $SU(3)_{C} \otimes SU(2)_{L} \otimes U(1)_{Y} \otimes U(1)_{B-L}$ ) \\
\hline
$L_{L}$ & ($1,2,-1/2,-1$) \\
\hline
$Q_{L}$ & ($3,2,1/6,1/3$) \\
\hline
$e_{R}$ & ($1,1,-1,-1$) \\
\hline
$u_{R}$ & ($3,1,2/3,1/3$) \\
\hline
$d_{R}$ & ($3,1,-1/3,1/3$) \\
\hline
\hline
$\nu_{R}^1$ & ($1,1,0,5$) \\
\hline
$\nu_{R}^{2,3}$ & ($1,1,0,-4$) \\
\hline
\hline
$\Phi$ & ($1,2,1/2,0$) \\
\hline
$\varphi$ & ($1,2,1/2,-3$) \\
\hline
$\sigma$ & ($1,1,0,3$) \\
\hline
$\chi_{d}$ & ($1,1,0,1/2$) \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Matter content and charge assignment of the chiral $B-L$ model. For brevity, the generation index is suppressed.}
\label{tab:B-Lchiral}
\end{table}
\subsection{Chiral $B-L$ Model}
Another $U(1)_{B-L}$ gauged model will be discussed in this section. For RHNs, we use a chiral anomaly cancellation solution $(5,-4,-4)$. Apart from the SM particle content and RHNs, in scalar sector we add one more $SU(2)_L$ doublet $\varphi$ and a scalar singlet $\sigma$. $\varphi$ is with hypercharge $+1/2$ and $U(1)_{B-L}$ charge $-3$, whereas scalar $\sigma$ has $U(1)_{B-L}$ charge $+3$. We also include a scalar DM $\chi_d$ with a charge of $U(1)_{B-L}$ of $+1/2$. The advantage is that one does not need to impose any ad hoc $\mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetry
to stabilise the DM. Instead, the stability of $\chi_d$ can be guaranteed by this nontrivial $B-L$ charge. The most general renormalizable and $SU(3)_c\otimes SU(2)_L\otimes U(1)_Y\otimes U(1)_{B-L}$ gauge invariant scalar sector is given by
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}_s=(D_\mu\Phi)^{\dagger} D_\mu\Phi + (D_\mu\varphi)^{\dagger} D_\mu\varphi + (D_\mu\sigma)^{\dagger} D_\mu\sigma + (D_\mu\chi_d)^{\dagger} D_\mu\chi_d - \mathcal{V}(\Phi,\varphi,\sigma,\chi_d),
\end{align}
where again the covariant derivative is defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:covariant}. The scalar potential $\mathcal{V}(\Phi,\varphi,\sigma,\chi_d)$ is given by
\begin{align}
\label{eq:chiral-potential}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{V}(\Phi,\varphi,\sigma,\chi_d)& = m_{\sigma}^2(\sigma^{*}\sigma) +\frac{1}{2}\lambda_{\sigma}(\sigma^{*}\sigma)^2 + m_{\Phi}^{2}(\Phi^{\dagger}\Phi) +\frac{1}{2}\lambda_{\Phi}(\Phi^{\dagger}\Phi)^2
+ m_{\varphi}^{2}(\varphi^{\dagger}\varphi) +\frac{1}{2}\lambda_{\varphi}(\varphi^{\dagger}\varphi)^2 \\&
~~ + m_{\chi_{d}}^2(\chi_{d}^{*}\chi_{d}) +\frac{1}{2}\lambda_{\chi_{d}}(\chi_{d}^{*}\chi_{d})^2 - \mu (\Phi^{\dagger} \varphi) \sigma - \mu (\varphi^{\dagger}\Phi)\sigma^{*} + \lambda_{\Phi\sigma} (\Phi^{\dagger}\Phi)(\sigma \sigma^{*}) \\&~~+ \lambda_{\varphi\sigma} (\varphi^{\dagger}\varphi)(\sigma \sigma^{*})+\lambda_{\Phi \varphi_{1}} (\Phi^{\dagger}\Phi)(\varphi^{\dagger}\varphi) + \lambda_{\Phi \varphi_{2}} (\Phi^{\dagger}\varphi)(\varphi^{\dagger}\Phi) + \lambda_{\Phi \chi_{d}} (\Phi^{\dagger}\Phi)(\chi_{d}^{*}\chi_{d}) \\&~~+ \lambda_{\varphi \chi_{d}}(\varphi^{\dagger}\varphi)(\chi_{d}^{*}\chi_{d}) + \lambda_{\sigma \chi_{d}} (\sigma \sigma^{*})(\chi_{d}^{*} \chi_{d}) .
\end{split}
\end{align}
Neutral components of $\Phi$ and $\varphi$ spontaneously break electroweak symmetry. A singlet scalar $\sigma$, along with $\varphi$, breaks the $U(1)_{B-L}$ spontaneously.
First we solve the minimization equations for the mass parameters $m_{\Phi}, m_{\varphi}, m_\sigma$ in the potential. We get
\begin{subequations}
\label{tedpole 2}
\begin{align}
& 2m_{\Phi}^{2}+ v_{\Phi}^{2}\lambda_{\Phi} - \frac{\sqrt{2}\mu}{v_{\Phi}}v_{\varphi} v_{\sigma} + v_{\chi}^{2}\lambda_{\Phi\sigma} + v_{\varphi}^{2}(\lambda_{\Phi \varphi_{1}} + \lambda_{\Phi \varphi_{2}} ) = 0,\\&
2m_{\sigma}^{2} - \frac{\sqrt{2}\mu}{v_{\sigma}}v_{\Phi}v_{\varphi} + v_{\sigma}^{2}\lambda_{\sigma} + v_{\Phi}^{2}\lambda_{\Phi \sigma}+v_{\varphi}^{2}\lambda_{\varphi \sigma} =0 ,\\&
2m_{\varphi}^{2} -\frac{\sqrt{2} \mu}{v_{\varphi}}v_{\Phi}v_{\sigma} + v_{\sigma}^{2}\lambda_{\varphi \sigma} + v_{\varphi}^{2}\lambda_{\varphi} + v_{\Phi}^{2}(\lambda_{\Phi \varphi_{1}} + \lambda_{\Phi \varphi_{2}})=0.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The fields $\Phi$, $\varphi$ and $\sigma$ can be written in unitary gauge after symmetry breaking in the following form:
\begin{equation}
\label{kin field expansion around minima2}
\Phi=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{bmatrix}
\sqrt{2}G^{+}_{1} \\ v_{\Phi} + R_{1} + i I_{1}
\end{bmatrix} ,~~\varphi=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{bmatrix}
\sqrt{2}G^{+}_{2} \\ v_{\varphi} + R_{2} + i I_{2}
\end{bmatrix},~ \sigma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(v_{\sigma} + R_{3} +i I_{3}) .
\end{equation}
$G_{1}^{\pm}$ and $G_{2}^{\pm}$ will mix and give rises to the Goldstone bosons $G^{\pm}$ corresponding to the $W^{\pm}$ boson. One electrically charged field remains as the physical field. The mass matrix of these electrically charged fields in the basis $(G_{1}^{+}, G_{2}^{+})$ reads as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}_{\pm}^2 = \frac{1}{2}
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\sqrt{2}\mu v_{\sigma}v_{\varphi}}{v_{\Phi}}-v_{\varphi}^{2}\lambda_{\Phi \varphi_{2}} ~&~ v_{\Phi}v_{\varphi}\lambda_{\Phi \varphi_{2}} - \sqrt{2}\mu v_{\sigma}\\\\
v_{\Phi}v_{\varphi}\lambda_{\Phi \varphi_{2}} - \sqrt{2}\mu v_{\sigma} ~&~ \frac{\sqrt{2}\mu v_{\sigma}v_{\Phi}}{v_{\varphi}}-v_{\Phi}^{2}\lambda_{\Phi \varphi_{2}}
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
Mass eigen states are given as
\begin{equation}
M_{H^{\pm}}^{2} = \frac{v^{2}}{2v_{\Phi}v_{\varphi}} \left( \sqrt{2}\mu v_{\sigma} -v_{\Phi}v_{\varphi}\lambda_{\Phi\varphi_{2}} \right),
\end{equation}
where, $v = \sqrt{v_{\Phi}^{2} + v_{\varphi}^{2}} $.
\par The two mass eigenstates $G^{\pm}, H^{\pm}$ are related with the $(G_{1}^{\pm}, G_{2}^{\pm})$ fields through the following rotation matrix as
\begin{equation}
\begin{bmatrix}
G^{\pm} \\
H^{\pm} \end{bmatrix} = U \begin{bmatrix}
G_{1}^{\pm} \\
G_{2}^{\pm} \end{bmatrix}
= \begin{bmatrix}
\cos\alpha & \sin\alpha \\
-\sin\alpha & \cos\alpha
\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}
G_{1}^{\pm} \\
G_{2}^{\pm}
\end{bmatrix}, \,\, \text{with}\,\, \tan \alpha=\frac{v_{\varphi}}{v_{\Phi}}.
\end{equation}
In pseudo-scalar sector $I_{1}$, $I_{2}$ and $I_{3}$ mix together and gives two Goldstone boson $G_{1}^{0}$, $G_{2}^{0}$ corresponding to the neutral gauge bosons $Z$ and $Z'$ and one pseudo scalar field remains as a physical massive field $H^{0}$. The mass matrix in the basis $(I_{1},I_{2},I_{3})$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}_{I}^2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\mu v_{\varphi} v_{\sigma}}{v_{\Phi}}~&~ -\mu v_{\sigma} ~&~ -\mu v_{\varphi}\\
-\mu v_{\sigma} ~&~ \frac{\mu v_{\Phi} v_{\sigma}}{v_{\varphi}} ~&~ \mu v_{\Phi}\\
-\mu v_{\varphi} ~&~ \mu v_{\Phi} ~&~ \frac{\mu v_{\Phi} v_{\varphi}}{v_{\sigma}}
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
Mass of the physical eigenstate is given as
\begin{equation}
M_{H^{0}}^{2} = \frac{\mu}{\sqrt{2}v_{\Phi}v_{\varphi}v_{\sigma}}\left( v_{\Phi}^{2}v_{\varphi}^{2} + v_{\sigma}^{2}v^{2} \right).
\label{eq:mh0}
\end{equation}
\par Mass eigenstates $G_{1}^{0},G_{2}^{0},H^{0}$ are related with the $(I_{1},I_{2},I_{3})$ fields through the following rotation matrix as
\begin{equation}
\begin{bmatrix}
G_{1}^{0} \\
G_{2}^{0}\\
H^{0} \end{bmatrix} = U \begin{bmatrix}
I_{1} \\
I_{2} \\
I_{3} \end{bmatrix}
= \begin{bmatrix}
\cos\alpha & \sin\alpha & 0 \\
-\sin\alpha \cos\beta & \cos\alpha \cos\beta & -\sin\alpha \\
-\sin\alpha \sin\beta & \cos\alpha \sin\beta & \cos\beta
\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}
I_{1} \\
I_{2} \\
I_{3}
\end{bmatrix},
\end{equation}
Where,
\begin{equation}
\tan\alpha = \frac{v_{\varphi}}{v_{\Phi}},~ \tan\beta = \frac{v_{\sigma}v}{v_{\Phi}v_{\varphi}}.
\end{equation}
Three CP-even neutral scalars are mixed together. The mass matrix in the basis $(R_{1},R_{2},R_{3})$ can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}_{S}^2=
\frac{1}{2}
\begin{bmatrix}
2v_{\Phi}^{2}\lambda_{\Phi}+\frac{\sqrt{2}\mu}{v_{\Phi}}v_{\varphi}v_{\sigma} &~~ 2v_{\Phi}v_{\varphi}\lambda_{12} - \sqrt{2}\mu v_{\sigma} &~~ 2v_{\Phi}v_{\sigma}\lambda_{\Phi \sigma} -\sqrt{2}v_{\varphi}\mu \\\\
2v_{\Phi}v_{\varphi}\lambda_{12} -\sqrt{2}\mu v_{\sigma} &~~ 2v_{\varphi}^{2}\lambda_{\varphi}+ \frac{\sqrt{2} \mu}{v_{\varphi}}v_{\Phi}v_{\sigma} &~~ 2 v_{\varphi}v_{\sigma}\lambda_{\varphi \sigma}- \sqrt{2}v_{\Phi}\mu\\\\
2 v_{\Phi}v_{\sigma}\lambda_{\Phi\sigma}-\sqrt{2}v_{\varphi}\mu &~~ 2v_{\varphi}v_{\sigma}\lambda_{\varphi \sigma} - \sqrt{2}v_{\Phi}\mu &~~ 2v_{\sigma}^{2}\lambda_{\sigma} +\frac{\sqrt{2}\mu}{v_{\sigma}}v_{\Phi}v_{\varphi}, \\
\end{bmatrix},
\end{equation}
where, $\lambda_{12}=\lambda_{\Phi \varphi_{1}} + \lambda_{\Phi \varphi_{2}}~.$
The matrix $\mathcal{M}^2_{S}$ can be diagonalized by an orthogonal matrix : $\mathcal{O}_{R}^T M_{R}^2 \mathcal{O}_R = \text{diag}(m_{H_1}^2,m_{H_2}^2,m_{H_3}^2)$ with
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{rot1}
\left( \begin{array}{c} H_1\\ H_2\\ H_3\\ \end{array} \right) =
\mathcal{O}_{R} \left( \begin{array}{c} R_1\\ R_2\\ R_3\\
\end{array} \right).
\end{eqnarray}
We assume the mass eigenstates to be ordered by their masses $m_{H_1}\leq m_{H_2}\leq m_{H_3}$. $H_{1}=h$ is identified with the SM Higgs of $125$ GeV. We will use the standard parameterization $\mathcal{O}_{R} = R_{23} R_{13} R_{12}$ where
\begin{equation}
R_{12} = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
c_{12} & -s_{12} & 0\\
s_{12} & c_{12} & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{array} \right),
\quad R_{13} = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
c_{13} & 0 & -s_{13}\\
0 & 1 & 0\\
s_{13} & 0 & c_{13}
\end{array} \right),
\quad R_{23} = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & c_{23} & -s_{23}\\
0 & s_{23} & c_{23}
\end{array} \right)
\end{equation}
$c_{ij} = \cos \theta_{ij}, s_{ij} = \sin \theta_{ij}$, where the angles $\theta_{ij}$ can be chosen to lie in the range $-\frac{\pi}{2}\leq\theta_{ij}\leq \frac{\pi}{2}$. Finally the mass of dark matter $\chi_d$ will be given as
\begin{equation}\label{DMmass}
M_{\rm DM}^{2} = \frac{2m_{\chi_{d}}^{2}+v_{\Phi}^{2} \lambda_{\Phi \chi_{d}} + v_{\sigma}^{2} \lambda_{\sigma \chi_{d}} + v_{\varphi}^{2} \lambda_{\varphi \chi_{d}}}{2}.
\end{equation}
\underline{\bf Neutrino mass:} The Yukawa sector of the model can be written in a gauge-invariant way as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
-\mathcal{L}_{Y}& = Y_{e}^{ij}\overline{L}^{i} \Phi e_{R}^{j} +Y_{u}^{ij} \overline{Q}^{i} \tilde{\Phi} u_{R}^{j} + Y_{d}^{ij}\overline{Q}^{i} \Phi d_{R}^{j} + Y_{\nu}^{ij}\overline{L}^{i}\tilde{\varphi}\nu_{R}^{j} + \text{H.c.}
\end{split}
\label{eq:Yukawa}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\captionsetup{justification=centering}
\includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{fdiatype2.pdf}
\caption{Neutrino mass generation in Chiral $B-L$ model through Dirac type II seesaw}\label{Feynman view 2}
\end{figure}
We see from the last term of Eq.~\eqref{eq:Yukawa} that the three RHNs pair up with the three left-handed neutrinos of the SM to form Dirac particles. Note the importance of unconventional $B-L$ charges of $\varphi$ and $\nu_R^i$ to generate the Dirac neutrino mass. This $B-L$ charge assignment is needed to forbid Majorana mass terms for the $\nu_R^i$ while simultaneously enforcing a Yukawa coupling structure in which only $\varphi$ couples to RHNs. After the spontaneous breaking of electroweak and $U(1)_{B-L}$ symmetry, we can write the neutrino mass term as
\begin{equation}
-\mathcal{L}_{M} = \overline{\nu_{L}} m_{\nu} \nu_{R}+\text{H.c.}
\end{equation}
where $m_{\nu}=\frac{Y_{\nu}^{ij} v_\varphi}{\sqrt{2}}$. The smallness of the neutrino masses relative to those of the quarks and charged leptons is explained by smallness of the second Higgs doublet vev $v_{\varphi}\sim \text{eV}$ for large Yukawa coupling $Y_\nu\sim\mathcal{O}(1)$. In this model, smallness of $v_{\varphi}$ arises very naturally and this can be understood from Eq.~\eqref{eq:mh0} with the approximation $v_\sigma\gg v_{\Phi,\varphi}$:
\begin{align}
v_{\varphi}\approx \frac{\mu v_\sigma v^2}{\sqrt{2} M_{H^0}^2 v_\Phi}.
\end{align}
Hence, the vev of the neutral component of the field $\varphi$ is inversely proportional to the mass of the heavy scalar. This provided a natural explanation for the low vev and thus low neutrino masses. Note that in our analysis for simplicity, we assumed one neutrino to be massless.\\
\underline{\bf Gauge sector:} As field $\varphi$ is charged under both SM and $U(1)_{B-L}$ gauge group, even in the absence of kinetic mixing this will introduce mixing between SM neutral boson $Z$ with the new neutral gauge boson $Z'$ corresponding to $U(1)_{B-L}$. Again to determine the gauge boson mass spectrum we have to expand the following kinetic terms:
\begin{align}
(D_\mu\Phi)^{\dagger} D_\mu\Phi + (D_\mu\varphi)^{\dagger} D_\mu\varphi + (D_\mu\sigma)^{\dagger} D_\mu\sigma ,
\end{align}
and have to replace the fields $\Phi$, $\varphi$ and $\sigma$ by the expressions given in Eq.~\eqref{kin field expansion around minima2}. The gauge bosons mass matrix in the basis $(B^{\mu},W_{3}^{\mu},X^{\mu})$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:gauge-boson-mass} \mathcal{M}_V^2 =
\frac{v^{2}}{4} \begin{bmatrix}
g'^{2} &~~ -gg'&~~ -6u^{2}g'g_{x} \\
-gg'&~~ g^{2} &~~ 6u^{2}gg_{x}\\
-6u^{2}g'g_{x} &~~ 6u^{2}gg_{x} &~~ 36b^{2}g_{x}^{2}
\end{bmatrix},\,\, \text{where}\,\, u=\frac{v_{\varphi}}{v},\text{ and } b^{2}= u^{2} + \frac{v_{\sigma}^{2}}{v^{2}}.
\end{equation}
Mass matrix in Eq.~\eqref{eq:gauge-boson-mass} can be diagonalized by the following unitary matrix
\begin{equation}
\label{unitary matrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
A^{\mu} \\
Z^{\mu} \\
Z^{\prime\mu}
\end{bmatrix} =
\begin{bmatrix}
\cos\theta_{w} &~ \sin\theta_{w} &~0\\
-\cos\alpha' \cos\theta_{w} & \cos\alpha' \cos\theta_{w}
&~ -\sin \alpha'\\
-\sin\alpha' \sin\theta_{w} &~ \sin\alpha'\cos\theta_{w} &~ \cos\alpha'
\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}
B^{\mu} \\
W_{3}^{\mu}\\
X^{\mu}
\end{bmatrix},
\end{equation}
where, $\tan\theta_{w} = \frac{g'}{g}$, and $\tan2\alpha' = \frac{C'}{B'}$.
After rotation we get a massless photon and two heavy bosons:
\begin{equation}
M_{A}=0,\,\, M_{Z}^{2} = \frac{v^{2}}{8}\left( A' -\sqrt{B'^{2} + C'^{2}}\right) \,\,\text{and}\,\, M_{Z'}^{2} = \frac{v^{2}}{8}\left( A' +\sqrt{B'^{2} + C'^{2}}\right),
\end{equation}
where, $A'=36b^{2}g_{x}^{2} + (g^{2} + g'^{2}),~~B'=36b^{2}g_{x}^{2} -(g^{2} + g'^{2})$ and $C'=12g_{x}u^{2}\sqrt{g^{2} + g'^{2}}$.
\section{$W$ mass and the $S$, $T$, $U$ Parameters}
\label{sec:wstu}
In the SM, the $W$ boson mass can be calculated very precisely in terms of the precisely measured input parameters $\{G_F, \alpha_{\text{em}}, M_Z\}$. The $W$ boson mass is related with these parameters in the following way~\cite{Lopez-Val:2014jva,Hollik:2006hd,Amrith:2018yfb}:
\begin{equation}
M_{W}^{2} =\frac{M_{Z}^{2}}{2} \left[1+ \sqrt{1-\frac{4\pi \alpha_{\rm em}}{\sqrt{2} G_{F} M_{Z}^{2}\left( 1+ \Delta_{r} \right) }} ~ \right],
\label{eq:MW}
\end{equation}
where $\Delta_r$ represents the quantum corrections. Taking the central values of the input parameters, $M_Z = 91.1876$ GeV, $\alpha_{\rm em}^{-1} = 137.036$, $G_F = 1.1663787 \times 10^{-5}$ GeV$^{-2}$ and considering the SM value of $\Delta_{r} \approx 0.038$, Eq. (\ref{eq:MW}) gives us the theoretical prediction of $W$ boson mass $80.360$ GeV, with the theoretical uncertainty of near about $4$ MeV. This theoretical prediction is $7 \sigma$ away from the recently announced CDF-II results. Note that the new physics contribution to the parameter $\Delta_{r}$ can be reparametrised in terms of the self energy corrections to the gauge bosons. Specifically, dominant BSM effects can be written in terms of the three gauge boson self-energy parameters known as the oblique parameters $S$, $T$ and $U$ provided that the new physics mass scale is greater than the electroweak scale and that it contributes only through virtual loops to the electroweak precision observables. The $W$ boson mass in terms of these parameters can be written as \cite{Cai:2016sjz}:
\begin{equation}
M_{W}=M_{W}^{\rm SM} \left[ 1- \frac{\alpha}{4(\cos^{2}\theta_{w} - \sin^{2}\theta_{w})}\left( S-1.55T-1.24U \right) \right].
\end{equation}
Recently, Ref.~\cite{Lu:2022bgw} gave the values of these parameters from an analysis of precision electroweak data including the CDF-II new result of the $W$-mass:
\begin{equation}
\label{STUdata}
S=0.06 \pm 0.1,~ T=0.11 \pm 0.12,~ U= 0.13 \pm 0.09.
\end{equation}
with the correlation
\begin{equation}
\rho_{ST} = 0.90,~ \rho_{SU}= -0.59~ \text{and} ~\rho_{TU} = -0.85.
\end{equation}
\section{New Physics Contribution To ~$S$, $T$, $U$}
\label{sec:STUspace}
Using six dimensional $SU(2)_{L}$ invariant effective operator we can parametrise new physics that only couples to SM vector bosons and Higgs. Effects related with dimension 6 operators can be expressed in the following way~\cite{Barbieri:2004qk,Cacciapaglia:2006pk}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}_{SM} +\frac{2}{v^{2}} \left( c_{WB}O_{WB} + c_{H}O_{H} + c_{WW}O_{WW} + c_{BB}O_{BB} \right).
\end{equation}
We presented two generic models with heavy new neutral vector bosons in section.~\eqref{sec:model}. In the first model the doublet scalar is not charged under the new symmetry and hence there is no mass mixing between SM neutral bosons and the new $Z'$ boson. In the second model we introduced a doublet which is charged under new symmetry and hence it can mix $Z'$ boson with SM neutral bosons. This novel physics is characterized by oblique parameters in an effective lagrangian approach, as \cite{Strumia:2022qkt}
\begin{subequations}
\label{tedpole 2}
\begin{align}
& S= \frac{4\sin^{2}\theta_{w}}{\alpha_{Z}}\frac{2M_{W}^{2}g_{x}^{2}}{g^{2}g'^{2}M_{Z'}^{2}} \left[ Z_{e} -Z_{\phi} +Z_{L} \right] \left[ g^{2}Z_{e}+g'^{2}(Z_{e}+2Z_{L}) \right],\\
& T=\frac{1}{\alpha_{Z}}\frac{4M_{W}^{2}g_{x}^{2}}{g^{2}M_{Z'}^{2}}\left[ Z_{e} - Z_{\phi} + Z_{L} \right]^{2},\\
& U = \frac{4\sin^{2}\theta_{w}}{\alpha_{Z}} \frac{4M_{W}^{2}g_{x}^{2}}{g^{2}M_{Z'}^{2}}\left[ Z_{e} -Z_{\phi} +Z_{L} \right]\left[ Z_{e}+2Z_{L} \right].
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The $U(1)_{B-L}$ charges of the Lepton singlet, Lepton doublet are $Z_{e}$, $Z_{L}$ respectively and $Z_{\phi}$ is the total $B-L$ charge of both the scalar doublets. $M_{Z'}$ is the mass of the new heavy boson, and $g_{x}$ is the new gauge coupling.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\captionsetup{justification=raggedright}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{S.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{T.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{U.pdf}
\caption{The $S$, $T$, $U$ parameters versus ratio of the mass of new boson and its gauge coupling. The red line represents vector $B-L$ model, whereas the blue line represents chiral $B-L$ model.}\label{STU}
\end{figure}\\
Taking the central values of the input parameters, $M_{W}^{CDF}=80.4335$~\cite{CDF:2022hxs}, $\sin^{2}\theta_{w}=0.23121,~ \alpha_{Z}=1/127.935$~\cite{ParticleDataGroup:2020ssz, Babu:2022pdn}. In Fig.~\ref{STU}, we plotted The $S,T,U$ parameters versus ratio of the mass of new boson and its gauge coupling for two different scenarios. The red line depicts the vector $B-L$ model, whereas the blue line depicts the chiral $B-L$ model.
The dotted lines correspond to the updated best fit values of the $S,T,U$ parameters after the CDF results \cite{Lu:2022bgw}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\captionsetup{justification=raggedright}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{Zh0.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{Zhm3.pdf}
\caption{The new boson's gauge coupling versus mass. The space permitted by the new $S,T,U$ ($3\sigma$) is shown by a different coloured band. The graph on the left is for vector $B-L$, while the graph on the right is for chiral $B-L$ model.}\label{STU2}
\end{figure}\\
In Fig.~\ref{STU2} the parameter space that permits us to solve the $W$ anomaly is shown. The blue line represents the maximum permissible value for $T$, and the region between the blue line and the $M_{Z'}$ axis represents the allowable parameter space fulfilled by the best fit $T$ value in 3$\sigma$ range. The allowed region for $S$ and $U$ is shown by the colours red and cyan.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\captionsetup{justification=raggedright}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{pr1.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{pr2.pdf}
\caption{The green band represents the permitted parameter space that is consistent with CDF II, $W$ mass measurement. The graph on the left is for $Z_{\phi}=0$, while the graph on the right is for $Z_{\phi}=-3$. }\label{STU3}
\end{figure}
The allowed parameter space in Fig.~\ref{STU3} to satisfy CDF-II measurements is the overlap zone between the $S, \, T$ and $U$ bands. As previously stated, the left panel depicts the case with no mass mixing between SM neutral gauge bosons and the new $U(1)_{ B-L}$ neutral gauge boson, whereas the right panel shows the case with mass mixing, as $\varphi$ has a charge of $-3$ under $B-L$ symmetry. Notice that the parameter space is improved when scalar doublet mixes the new heavy boson with SM neutral bosons. As a result, we will now concentrate our efforts on the chiral B-L model.
Taking the scenario where $\varphi$ has a charge of $-3$ under $B-L$ symmetry, we showed the points~(dark cyan) that satisfy $W$ mass in Fig.~\ref{STUW}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\captionsetup{justification=raggedright}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{Zm3_Parameterspace_with_MWSP_Superdata.pdf}
\caption{For chiral $B-L$ model, we showed the space permitted by the new oblique parameters ($S, T, U$) after CDF-II results (3$\sigma$) in green colour. Dark Cyan points are consistent with CDF-II, $W$ mass measurement.}\label{STUW}
\end{figure}
\section{Dark Matter Constraints}
\label{sec:dark-matter}
In this section we collect the results of our analysis of DM phenomenology. As previously stated, in the second model outlined in the Sec.~\ref{sec:model}, $\chi_d$ is the scalar DM. It carries the $U(1)_{B-L}$ charge $1/2$, which forbids any term in the potential that results in the decay of $\chi_d$. We study the $\chi_d$ relic density and its direct detection prospects. Specifically, we determine the regions in the parameter space of the model where the DM constraints and $S$, $T$, $U$ consistent with CDF-II $W$ mass measurements can be satisfied. The SARAH-4.14.5 \cite{Staub:2015kfa,Goodsell:2017pdq} package is used to calculate all of the vertices and mass matrices, among other things. All the expressions are verified analytically and numerical calculation are performed by package SPheno-4.0.2 \cite{Porod:2003um,Porod:2011nf}. The relic abundance, on the other hand, is determined using micrOMEGAS-5.2.13~\cite{Belanger:2018ccd}.
There are several DM annihilation channels present in this model which is shown in Appendix.~\ref{appn}. They involve annilation to quarks, leptons, neutrinos, gauge bosons~($Z$, $Z'$), neutral scalars~($H_{i}, H^0$) and charged scalar~($H^{\pm}$). Altogether, they determine the relic abundance of $\chi_d$. Note that as $\chi_d$ is charged under $B-L$, the DM $\chi_d$ has both the gauge and scalar interactions. The gauge interactions allow the annihilation of the dark matter particle into fermions mediated by the gauge boson, $\chi_d\chi_d^{*}\to Z'^{*}\to f\bar{f}$. One should also consider the direct annihilation into two gauge bosons, $\chi_d \chi_d^{*}\to Z' Z'$, when kinematically accessible. Hence in pure gauge interaction case there are very few parameters~($M_{\rm DM}, g_x, M_{Z'}$) which plays the role in determining DM phenomenology. Due to the strong experimental constraints on $M_{Z'}/g_x$, the annihilation into $Z' Z'$ is suppressed, hence only annihilation to fermions turns out to be relevant. Due to the structure of the gauge coupling, the annihilation channel $\chi_d\chi_d^{*}\to Z'^{*}\to f\bar{f}$ is velocity suppressed~($\propto v^2$). This is why the relic density tends to be much higher than the observed value except in a narrow region close to the resonance~($M_{\rm DM}\sim M_{Z'}/2$). And even at the resonance, the relic density can be too large to be in agreement with the data, as illustrated in Ref.~\cite{Rodejohann:2015lca}. Specifically the requirements to have correct relic is to be near resonance and relatively large coupling $g_x$ and low $M_{Z'}$, which in view of Fig.~\ref{fig:B-LConstraint} is ruled out. \\
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\captionsetup{justification=centering}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline \hline \centering
~~~~~~~~Parameter~~~~~~~ & ~~~~~~~Range~~~~~~~~ \\
\hline
\hline
$m_{\chi_{d}}$ & ~~~~~$[~0,~10^{4}~]$~GeV \\
\hline
$\lambda_{\Phi\chi_{d}}$ & $[~10^{-6},~1 ~]$ \\
\hline
$\lambda_{\varphi \chi_{d}}$ & $[~10^{-6},~1~ ]$ \\
\hline
$\lambda_{\sigma \chi_{d}}$ & $[~10^{-6},~1~ ]$ \\
\hline
$\mu$ & $[~10^{-6},~1~ ]$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Ranges of variation of the input parameters used in our numerical scan.}
\label{parametertable}
\end{table}
Besides the gauge interactions, the DM $\chi_d$, also has scalar interactions, see Eq.~\ref{eq:chiral-potential}. Scalar interactions between the DM and the SM scalar give rise
to the well-known Higgs-portal scenario. But there are some differences between this simplistic Higgs-portal scenario and our $B-L$ case. First of all, the DM field is necessarily complex as it is charged under $U(1)_{B-L}$ – rather than real. In addition to this there will be many additional annihilation channels due to the presence of additional scalars, both neutral and charged, such as $H_{2,3}$, $H^{0}$ and $H^{\pm}$.
\par In the following, instead of separately studying gauge interaction and scalar interaction, we will focus on the general case. To do this we first need to identify the parameters which are relevant for DM analysis. Even though the model introduces new free parameters, not all of them are important to DM analysis. For example, the self quartic couplings and some mixed quartic couplings such as $\lambda_{\Phi\sigma},\lambda_{\varphi\sigma}, \lambda_{\Phi\varphi_{1,2}}$ does not play any role in DM phenomenology. Hence, we choose to fix these parameters. The remaining free parameters relevant for DM analysis can be chosen as:
\begin{align}
m_{\chi_d}, \lambda_{\Phi \chi_d}, \lambda_{\varphi\chi_d}, \lambda_{\sigma\chi_d}, g_x\,\, \text{and} \,\, M_{Z'}.
\end{align}
We will look at how the DM phenomenology of this model is affected by the above-mentioned parameter. To carry out the numerical scan, we varied these parameters as listed in the Table.~\ref{parametertable}. We varied them on the logarithmic scale. The gauge coupling $g_{x}$ and mass $M_{Z'}$ are varied according to the allowable parameter space coming from $S$, $T$, $U$ restriction consistent with CDF-II $W$ mass measurements (Dark cyan points ), as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{STUW}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Relic.png}
\caption{Relic density vs the mass of the Dark matter. The blue and grey dots show over and under abundance relic density points, respectively, whilst the magenta points reflect the 3 $\sigma$ range for cold dark matter obtained from Planck satellite data.}
\label{fig:Relic}
\end{figure}
\par In Fig.~\ref{fig:Relic}, we show the relic density as a function of the mass of the scalar DM $\chi_d$. The blue and grey points represent the over and under-abundance relic density regions, respectively, whereas the magenta points in the narrow band fall in the $3\sigma$ range for cold dark matter derived from the Planck satellite data~\cite{Planck:2018vyg}:
\begin{equation}
0.1126 \leq \Omega h^2 \leq 0.1246.
\end{equation}
Various features of the Fig.~\ref{fig:Relic} can be understood from different DM annihilation channels shown in Appendix.~\ref{appn}. Annihilation in the low mass region of DM is dominated via exchange of SM Higgs~($H_{1}=h$) to SM fermionic final states. As DM approaches half of the Higgs mass ($~M_{\rm DM}\approx m_h/2$), $h$ becomes on-shell and these annihilation channels become very efficient. Notice that there is no dip at $M_{\rm DM} \approx M_{Z}/2$ because the mixing between $Z$ and $Z'$ is not strong enough for annihilation through $Z$ exchange to be effective. For $M_{\rm DM} \geq 80 ~\text{GeV}$, annihilation of DM to $Z$ and $W$ final states comes into picture ($\chi_{d} \chi_{d}^{*} \rightarrow Z Z,~ W^{+} W^{-} $) and hence we get another dip in that region. We see a dip in relic density in the DM mass range 2.5 TeV-4 TeV. This is due to the fact that the combination of $g_{x}$ and $M_{Z'}$ required to get correct oblique parameters forces the vev of singlet scalar ($v_{\sigma}$) to be around 8 TeV-10 TeV. This high vev pushes the mass of CP-even scalars $H_{2}$ and $H_{3}$ to be in the range of 5-8 TeV and we get a dip when DM mass is roughly half of this range due to the the $H_{2,3}$ mediated s-channel annihilation to SM final states. A sub-dominant role is played by annihilation into $H_i H_j$, $H^0H^0$ and $ZZ$, $Z' Z'$ via the direct 4-point vertices $H_{i}H_{j}\chi_d\chi_d^*$, $H^0H^0\chi_d\chi_d^*$ and $ZZ\chi_d\chi_d^*$ or $ZZ'\chi_d\chi_d^*$, respectively. Also there could be additional contribution from $\chi_d$ exchange in the
t-channel. As the annihilation cross section is inversely proportional to the mass of dark matter, at very high value of DM mass the relic density increases.
\par \underline{\bf Direct Detection:}~ Let us now study the direct detection prospects of our DM candidates $\chi_d$. A large number of experiments are being conducted to demonstrate the particle nature of dark matter through direct detection. Various direct detection experiments, XENON1T \cite{XENON:2018voc}, LZ\cite{LUX-ZEPLIN:2022qhg}, XENONnT\cite{Aprile:2022vux}, LUX\cite{LUX:2013afz,LUX:2016ggv}, PandaX-II\cite{PandaX-II:2020oim}, impose constraints. These experiments are designed to measure the tiny recoil in the detector target nuclei produced by the elastic collisions between DM and target nuclei.\\
The effective lagrangian for nucleon-DM interactions is expressed as
\begin{equation}
\label{efflag}
\mathcal{L}_{eff}= a_{N}\overline{N}N \chi_{d}^{2},
\end{equation}
Where $a_{N}$ is the effective nucleon-DM coupling. The spin independent scattering cross section via the Higgs$(H_{1,2,3})$ interaction is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{Higgscrossscetion}
\sigma_{N-\chi_{d}}^{SI} = \frac{\mu^{2}M_{N}^{2}f_{N}^{2}}{4 \pi M_{DM}^{2} v^{2}} \left[ \frac{\lambda_{H_{1} \chi_{d}^{2}}}{M_{H_{1}}^{2}}(\mathcal{O}_{R})_{11} + \frac{\lambda_{H_{2} \chi_{d}^{2}}}{M_{H_{2}}^{2}}(\mathcal{O}_{R})_{21}+ \frac{\lambda_{H_{3} \chi_{d}^{2}}}{M_{H_{3}}^{2}}(\mathcal{O}_{R})_{31} \right],
\end{equation}
Where $(\mathcal{O}_{R})_{ij}$ is the elements of the mass matrix defined in Eq.~\eqref{rot1}, $f_{N}$ is the form factor, which depends on the hadronic matrix elements and $\mu=\frac{M_{N}M_{DM}}{M_{N}+M_{DM}}$ is the reduced mass for nucleon-DM system. The trilinear couplings are given as
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{H_{i} \chi_{d}^{2}} = 2 \left[v_{\Phi} \lambda_{\Phi \chi_{d}} (\mathcal{O}_{R})_{i1} + v_{\varphi} \lambda_{\varphi \chi_{d}} (\mathcal{O}_{R})_{i2}+ v_{\sigma} \lambda_{\sigma \chi_{d}} (\mathcal{O}_{R})_{i3} \right] .
\end{equation}
Eq.~\eqref{Higgscrossscetion} is an extension of the expression corresponding to the scalar DM case \cite{Cline:2013gha}. The cross section per nucleon for Dark matter-nuclei interaction through $Z'$ is given as \cite{Ma:2015mjd}
\begin{equation}
\label{crosssection}
\sigma_{0} = \frac{1}{\pi} \left( \frac{M_{DM} M_{n}}{M_{DM}+AM_{n}} \right)^{2} \left( \frac{g_{x}^{2}}{2M_{Z'}^{2}} \right)^{2},
\end{equation}
Where $A$ is the number of nucleons in the target, we have set it to $131$ for Xenon. The nucleon mass is $M_{n}=0.938919$~GeV.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\captionsetup{justification=raggedright}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{DD_LZ.png}
\caption{WIMP-nucleon spin-independent cross section for the scalar dark matter $\chi_{d}$. The colour code has the same meaning as in Fig.~\ref{fig:Relic}. The solid red line denotes the latest upper bound from the LZ \cite{LUX-ZEPLIN:2022qhg} collaboration, the dashed red line corresponds to XENON1T \cite{XENON:2018voc} limit and the dashed brown line corresponds to the “neutrino floor” lower limit \cite{Billard:2013qya, Billard:2021uyg}. }\label{DD}
\end{figure}
\par In Fig.~\eqref{DD} we imposed the direct detection constraints on our scalar dark matter $\chi_{d}$. We performed the numerical scan with the micrOMEGAS-5.2.13 and varied the parameters as shown in the table~\eqref{parametertable}. The colour code has the same meaning as in Fig.~\ref{fig:Relic}. The LZ and XENON1T experiment imposes the most stringent constraints. As a result, we plotted the most recent upper bound from the both LZ and XENON1T collaboration~\cite{XENON:2018voc}, as shown by the solid and dashed red line respectively. The brown line represents the lower limit, which corresponds to the ``neutrino floor" from the coherent elastic neutrino scattering~\cite{Billard:2013qya, Billard:2021uyg}.
\par In Fig.~\ref{ALLLZ}, we demonstrated the parameter space that is compatible with all of the aforementioned requirements. The green bands show the permitted values for oblique parameters $S, T$ and $U$. The region with the grey shading is the ATLAS's most stringent collider constraint. The magenta points fulfill $M_{W}^{CDF}$, relic density and limitations from direct detection experiments all at the same time.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\captionsetup{justification=raggedright}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{All_LZ.pdf}
\caption{We showed the space permitted by the new oblique parameters ($S, T, U$) after CDF-II results in green colour. The grey region is ruled out by most stringent collider constraints from ATLAS. The magenta points satisfy $M_{W}^{CDF}$, relic density and limits from direct detection experiments simultaneously.}\label{ALLLZ}
\end{figure}
\par It is worth noting that there is a significant parameter space in the DM high mass region, which is consistent with recent measurements of W boson mass, relic abundance, collider constraints, and the direct detection experiments.
\section{Conclusion}
The $U(1)_{B-L}$ gauged extension of the SM is very simple in its nature. It's minimal version just needs three right-handed neutrinos to cancel gauge anomalies. It naturally explains the small neutrino masses through a seesaw mechanism. Despite their simplicity, these type of models can explain the recent CDF-II measurement of the $W$ boson mass, which reveals considerable disagreement with the SM predictions.
The new neutral boson associated with the new $U(1)_{B-L}$ symmetry can provide the loop corrections to gauge boson two-point functions that are compatible with the most recently revised oblique parameter values as a consequence of the CDF-II results.
\par We investigated and find that kinetic mixing alone can not explain the $W$ anomaly at the tree level. In addition, we investigated the two models with and without mass mixing between neutral bosons. We focused our attention on chiral $B-L$ model. We imposed constraints derived from direct detection of dark matter and relic abundance and demonstrated that the chiral $U(1)_{B-L}$ model can explain the W anomaly.
\begin{acknowledgments}
Work of S.M. has been supported by KIAS Individual Grants (PG086001) at Korea Institute for Advanced Study. The work of R.S. is supported by the Government of India,SERB Startup Grant SRG/2020/002303. The work of H.P. is supported by the Prime Minister Research Fellowship (ID: 0401969).
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\chapter{Some properties of H\"older spaces}
\label{app.A}
In this appendix, we prove the properties \ref{it.H1}-\ref{it.H8} stated in Chapter~\ref{ch.0}.
Recall that, given $\alpha\in(0,1]$, the H\"older space $C^{0,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)$ is the set of functions $u\in C(\overline\Omega)$ such that
\[ [u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{\Omega})} := \sup_{\substack{x,y\in\overline\Omega\\x\neq y}}\frac{\bigl|u(x)-u(y)\bigr|}{|x-y|^\alpha}<\infty.\]
The H\"older norm is
\[\|u\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)}:=\|u\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}+[u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{\Omega})}.\]
When $\alpha=1$, this is the usual space of Lipschitz functions.
More generally, given $k\in\mathbb N$ and $\alpha\in(0,1]$, the space $C^{k,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)$ is the set of functions $u\in C^k(\overline\Omega)$ such that the following norm is finite
\begin{align*}
\|u\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)}& :=\sum_{j=1}^k\|D^ju\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}+\sup_{\substack{x,y\in\overline\Omega\\x\neq y}}\frac{\bigl|D^ku(x)-D^ku(y)\bigr|}{|x-y|^\alpha}\\
& = \|u\|_{C^k(\Omega)} + [D^k u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{\Omega})}.
\end{align*}
Finally, when $\beta>0$ is \emph{not} an integer, we denote $C^\beta(\overline\Omega):=C^{k,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)$, where $\beta=k+\alpha$, with $k\in\mathbb N$, $\alpha\in(0,1)$.
Next, we give the proofs of the properties of H\"older spaces that we have used throughout the book.
Unless stated otherwise, in the following statements we assume $\alpha\in (0, 1)$.
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=0pt,align=left,label={\bf (H\arabic*)}]
\setcounter{enumi}{0}
\labelwidth=0pt
\itemindent=0pt
\setlength\itemsep{2mm}\setlength{\leftmargin}{0pt}
\item \label{it.HH1}{\it Assume
\[{\rm osc}_{B_r(x)}u\leq C_{\circ}r^\alpha\qquad \textrm{for all }\, B_r(x)\subset\overline{B_1},\]
where ${\rm osc}_A u:=\sup_A u - \inf_A u$.
Then, $u\in C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})$ and $[u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha$.}
\item[~$\bullet$ \textbf{Proof of \ref{it.HH1}}] We want to prove that $|u(z)-u(x)|\leq CC_{\circ}|z-x|^\alpha$ for all $z,x\in B_1$.
Given $z,x\in B_1$, let $r=|z-x|$.
For this, we may assume $r<1/10$ and distinguish two cases:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item If $B_r(x)\subset B_1$, then we simply use the assumption to get
\[|u(z)-u(x)|\leq {\rm osc}_{B_r(x)}u\leq C_{\circ}r^\alpha=C_{\circ}|z-x|^\alpha.\]
\item Otherwise, we take $\bar x$ and $\bar z$ on the segments $\overline{0x}$ and $\overline{0z}$, respectively, such that $|x-\bar x|=r$ and $|z-\bar z|=r$. Then, by assumption we have $|u(x)-u(\bar x)|\leq C_{\circ}r^\alpha$, $|u(z)-u(\bar z)|\leq C_{\circ}r^\alpha$, and $|u(\bar x)-u(\bar z)|\leq C_{\circ}r^\alpha$.
The last inequality holds because $|\bar x-\bar z|< r$, which can be easily checked by construction of $\bar x$ and $\bar z$.
Combining the last three inequalities, we deduce that $|u(x)-u(z)|\leq 3C_{\circ}r^\alpha$, as wanted.
\end{enumerate}
\qed
\end{enumerate}
We also state and prove the following slight modification of \ref{it.HH1}, which will be useful in later proofs.
Notice that the difference with respect to the previous statement is that now, given any ball in $B_1$, we control the oscillation in the ball with half the radius.
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=0pt,align=left,label={\bf (H\arabic*{'})}]
\setcounter{enumi}{0}
\labelwidth=0pt
\itemindent=0pt
\setlength\itemsep{2mm}\setlength{\leftmargin}{0pt}
\item \label{it.HH1p}
{\it Assume
\[{\rm osc}_{B_r(x)}u\leq C_{\circ}r^\alpha\qquad \textrm{for all }\, B_{2r}(x)\subset\overline{B_1},\]
where ${\rm osc}_A u:=\sup_A u - \inf_A u$.
Then, $u\in C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})$ and $[u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha$.}
\item[~$\bullet$ \textbf{Proof of \ref{it.HH1p}}.] We proceed analogously to the proof of \ref{it.HH1}. Let $z,x\in B_1$, and let $r=|z-x|$. We may assume that $r< 1/10$. If $B_{2r}(x)\subset B_1$, the result follows by assumption.
Otherwise, let us take $\bar x$ and $\bar z$ on the segments $\overline{0x}$ and $\overline{0z}$, respectively, such that $|x-\bar x|=2r$ and $|z-\bar z|=2r$. Let us define $x_k = (1-2^{-k})x+2^{-k} \bar x$ and $z_k = (1-2^{-k})z+2^{-k} \bar z$. Notice that $|x_{k+1}-x_k|=|z_{k+1}-z_k|= 2^{-k}r$.
Also, $|x_k| = |x|-2^{-k+1}r$, so that $B_{2|x_{k+1}-x_k|}(x_k)\subset B_1$. That is, we can use our assumption on $x_k$ and $x_{k+1}$ to get that
\[
|u(x_k)-u(x_{k+1})| \le C_{\circ}|x_k-x_{k+1}|^\alpha = C_{\circ}2^{-k\alpha} r^\alpha.
\]
(An analogous result holds for $z_k$.) On the other hand, by choice of $\bar x$ and~$\bar z$, they can also be compared in the oscillation of $u$ as
\[
|u(\bar x)-u(\bar z)|\le C_{\circ}|\bar x-\bar z|^\alpha \le C_{\circ}r^\alpha.
\]
Putting everything together, we reach that
\begin{align*}
|u(x)-u(z)|& \le \sum_{k \ge 0} |u(x_{k+1})-u(x_k)|+|u(\bar x)-u(\bar z)| + \sum_{k \ge 0} |u(z_{k+1})-u(z_k)|\\
& \le 2\sum_{k \ge 0} C_{\circ} 2^{-k\alpha} r^\alpha + C_{\circ}r^\alpha \le C C_{\circ} r^\alpha,
\end{align*}
for some constant $C$ depending only on $\alpha$.
\qed
\end{enumerate}
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=0pt,align=left,label={\bf (H\arabic*)}]
\setcounter{enumi}{1}
\labelwidth=0pt
\itemindent=0pt
\setlength\itemsep{2mm}\setlength{\leftmargin}{0pt}
\item \label{it.HH2}{\it Let $u_{x,r}:=\strokedint_{B_r(x)}u$.
Assume
\[\|u-u_{x,r}\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x))}\leq C_{\circ}r^\alpha\qquad \textrm{for all }\, B_r(x)\subset\overline{B_1}.\]
Then, $u\in C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})$ and $[u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha$.}
\item[~$\bullet$ \textbf{Proof of \ref{it.HH2}}.] By the triangle inequality we have
\[{\rm osc}_{B_r(x)}u\leq 2\|u-u_{x,r}\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x))} \leq 2C_{\circ}r^\alpha,\]
and thus the result follows from \ref{it.HH1}.
\qed
\item \label{it.HH3} {\it Let $u_{x,r}:=\strokedint_{B_r(x)}u$. Assume
\[\left(\strokedint_{B_r(x)}|u-u_{x,r}|^2\right)^{1/2}\leq C_{\circ}r^\alpha\qquad \textrm{for all }\, B_r(x)\subset\overline{B_1}.\]
Then, $u\in C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})$ and $[u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha$.}
\item[~$\bullet$ \textbf{Proof of \ref{it.HH3}}.] Notice that, for every $z\in B_1$,
\[\bigl|u_{x,r}-u_{x,\frac{r}{2}}\bigr|^2 \leq 2|u(z)-u_{x,r}|^2+2\bigl|u(z)-u_{x,\frac{r}{2}}\bigr|^2.\]
Thus, integrating in $B_{r/2}(x)$ and using the assumption we deduce
\[\begin{split} |u_{x,r}-u_{x,\frac{r}{2}}|^2 &
\leq 2\strokedint_{B_{r/2}(x)}|u-u_{x,r}|^2+2\strokedint_{B_{r/2}(x)}\bigl|u-u_{x,\frac{r}{2}}\bigr|^2 \\
& \leq
2^{n+1}\strokedint_{B_r(x)}|u-u_{x,r}|^2+2\strokedint_{B_{r/2}(x)}\bigl|u-u_{x,\frac{r}{2}}\bigr|^2 \leq CC_{\circ}^2r^{2\alpha}.
\end{split}\]
This means that
\[\bigl|u_{x,r}-u_{x,\frac{r}{2}}\bigr| \leq CC_{\circ}r^\alpha,\]
and summing a geometric series we get
\[|u_{x,r}-u(x)| \leq \sum_{k\geq0} \bigl|u_{x,\frac{r}{2^k}}-u_{x,\frac{r}{2^{k+1}}}\bigr| \leq \sum_{k\geq0} CC_{\circ}\left(\frac{r}{2^k}\right)^\alpha = 2C C_{\circ}r^\alpha.\]
Here we used that, up to redefining $u$ on a set of measure zero, by Lebesgue differentiation theorem (Theorem~\ref{Lebesgue}) we have that $u_{x,r}\to u(x)$ as $r\to0$.
Let now $x,y\in B_1$, $r=2|x-y|$, and assume that $B_r(x)\subset B_1$.
Then, we have
\[\begin{split} |u_{x,r}-u_{y,r}|^2 &
\leq \strokedint_{B_{r/2}(x)}|u-u_{x,r}|^2+\strokedint_{B_{r/2}(x)}\bigl|u-u_{y,r}\bigr|^2 \\
& \leq
2^n\strokedint_{B_r(x)}|u-u_{x,r}|^2+2^n\strokedint_{B_{r}(y)}\bigl|u-u_{y,r}\bigr|^2 \leq CC_{\circ}^2r^{2\alpha},
\end{split}\]
and thus
\[\bigl|u_{x,r}-u_{y,r}\bigr| \leq CC_{\circ}r^\alpha.\]
Combining the previous estimates, we deduce that for every $x,y\in B_1$ such that $B_{2|x-y|}(x)\subset B_1$, we have
\[|u(x)-u(y)| \leq |u(x)-u_{x,r}|+|u_{x,r}-u_{y,r}|+|u_{y,r}-u(y)| \leq 3CC_{\circ}r^\alpha.\]
Once we have this, by \ref{it.HH1p} we are done.
\qed
\item \label{it.HH4} {\it Assume that for every $x$ there is a constant $C_x$ such that
\[\|u-C_x\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x))}\leq C_{\circ}r^\alpha\qquad \textrm{for all }\, B_r(x)\subset\overline{B_1}.\]
Then, $u\in C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})$ and $[u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha$.
Assume that for every $x$ there is a linear function $\ell_x(y)=a_x+b_x\cdot(y-x)$ such that
\[\|u-\ell_x\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x))}\leq C_{\circ}r^{1+\alpha}\qquad \textrm{for all }\, B_r(x)\subset\overline{B_1}.\]
Then, $u\in C^{1,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})$ and $[Du]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha$.
Assume that for every $x$ there is a quadratic polynomial $P_x(y)$ such that
\[\|u-P_x\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x))}\leq C_{\circ}r^{2+\alpha}\qquad \textrm{for all }\, B_r(x)\subset\overline{B_1}.\]
Then, $u\in C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})$ and $[D^2u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha$.}
\item[~$\bullet$ \textbf{Proof of \ref{it.HH4}}.] (i) The first statement --- with the $C^{0,\alpha}$ norm --- follows from \ref{it.HH1}.
(ii)
Let us sketch the proof of the second statement --- with the $C^{1,\alpha}$ norm.
Let $x,y\in B_1$ with $y\in B_r(x)\subset B_1$.
Notice that, dividing by $r$ and taking $r\to0$ in the assumption, it follows that $u$ is differentiable at $x$ and that $\ell_x$ must be given by $\ell_x(y)=u(x)+\nabla u(x)\cdot(y-x)$.
Thus, by assumption, we have
\[u(y)=u(x)+\nabla u(x)\cdot (y-x)+O(r^{1+\alpha})\]
and, for every $z\in B_r(x)$ such that $|z-y|\approx |z-x|\approx |y-x|\approx r$,
\[\begin{split}
u(z) & =u(x)+\nabla u(x)\cdot (z-x)+O(r^{1+\alpha})\\
&=u(y)+\nabla u(y)\cdot (z-y)+O(r^{1+\alpha})\\
&=u(x)+\nabla u(x)\cdot (y-x)+\nabla u(y)\cdot (z-y)+O(r^{1+\alpha}).\end{split}\]
From this, we deduce that
\[\nabla u(x)\cdot (z-y) = \nabla u(y)\cdot (z-y)+O(r^{1+\alpha}).\]
Taking $z$ such that $z-y$ is parallel to $\nabla u(y)-\nabla u(x)$, we get
\[\nabla u(x)=\nabla u(y)+O(r^{\alpha}),\]
as wanted.
(iii) Let us prove the third statement concerning the $C^{2,\alpha}$ norm --- the following proof is more general and works also in case (ii).
Let $x,y\in B_r(x_{\circ})$ with $|x-y|=r$ and suppose $B_{2r}(x_{\circ})\subset B_1$.
Let us rescale $u$ around $x_{\circ}$, i.e., $u_r(z):=u(x_{\circ}+rz)$, so that $|\bar x-\bar y|=1$, where $x_{\circ}+r \bar x=x$ and $x_{\circ}+r \bar y=y$.
Let us define also
\[P_{x,r}(z):= P_x(x_{\circ}+rz)\qquad \textrm{and} \qquad P_{y,r}:= P_y(x_{\circ}+rz).\]
Then,
\[\|u_r-P_{x,r}\|_{L^\infty(B_1(\bar x))} = \|u-P_{x}\|_{L^\infty(B_{r}(x))} \leq C_{\circ}r^{2+\alpha},\]
\[\|u_r-P_{y,r}\|_{L^\infty(B_1(\bar y))} = \|u-P_{y}\|_{L^\infty(B_{ r}(y))} \leq C_{\circ} r^{2+\alpha}.\]
Hence, if we denote $\bar w = \frac{\bar x + \bar y}{2}$ then $B_{1/2}(\bar w)\subset B_1(\bar x)\cap B_1(\bar y)$ and
\[\begin{split}
\|P_{x,r}-P_{y,r}\|_{L^\infty(B_{1/2}(\bar w))} &\leq \|u_r-P_{x,r}\|_{L^\infty(B_1(\bar x))} + \|u_r-P_{y,r}\|_{L^\infty(B_1(\bar y))}\\
& \leq CC_{\circ}r^{2+\alpha}.\end{split}\]
This means that all the coefficients of the polynomial $P_{x,r}-P_{y,r}$ are controlled by $\tilde CC_{\circ} r^{2+\alpha}$.
Now, notice that if we denote $P_x(z)=a_x+b_x\cdot (z-x)+(z-x)^TM_x(z-x)$ then $P_{x,r}(z)=a_x+rb_x\cdot (z-\bar x)+r^2(z-\bar x)^TM_x(z-\bar x)$, and an analogous expression holds for $P_{y,r}$.
Hence, we can write
\[\begin{split}
P_{x,r}(z)-P_{y,r}(z) = &\bigl(a_x-a_y+rb_x\cdot(\bar y-\bar x)+r^2(\bar y-\bar x)^TM_x(\bar y-\bar x)\bigr) \\
& + r\bigl(b_x-b_y+2r(\bar y-\bar x)^TM_x\bigr)\cdot (z-\bar y) \\
&+r^2(z-\bar y)^T(M_x-M_y)(z-\bar y).\end{split}\]
In particular, by looking at the quadratic and linear coefficients of such polynomial, we have proved that
\[|M_x-M_y|\leq \tilde CC_{\circ} r^{\alpha}\]
and
\[\bigl|b_x-b_y+2r(\bar y-\bar x)^TM_x\bigr|\leq CC_{\circ} r^{1+\alpha}.\]
Since $r(\bar y-\bar x)=y-x$, this is equivalent to
\[\bigl|b_y-b_x-2(y-x)^TM_x\bigr|\leq CC_{\circ} r^{1+\alpha}.\]
Notice, also, that
\[\|u-a_x-b_x\cdot (\cdot-x)\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x))}\leq C_{\circ}r^{2+\alpha} + C_xr^2\le 2C_x r^{2}\]
if $r$ small enough, so that, in particular, arguing as in (i), $u$ is differentiable at $x$ and $a_x = u(x)$, $b_x = \nabla u(x)$.
Thus, using that $r=2|x-y|$, we have
\[\bigl|\nabla u(y)-\nabla u(x)-2(y-x)^TM_x\bigr|\leq CC_{\circ} |y-x|^{1+\alpha},\]
and letting $y\to x$ we deduce that $\nabla u$ is differentiable at $x$, with $D^2u(x) = 2M_x$.
An analogous result holds for $M_y$, so that we have shown that, for any $x,y\in B_r(x_{\circ})$ with $|x-y|=r$ and $B_{2r}(x_{\circ})\subset B_1$,
\[
\bigl|D^2 u(x)-D^2 u(y)\bigr|\leq \tilde CC_{\circ} r^{\alpha}.
\]
The result now follows by \ref{it.HH1p}.
\qed
\end{enumerate}
\begin{rem*}
Notice that the converse statement to \ref{it.HH4} also holds. For example, when $k = 1$, if $u\in C^{1,\alpha}(B_1)$ then we have
\[\|u-\ell_x\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x))}\leq C_{\circ}r^{1+\alpha}\qquad \textrm{for all }\, B_r(x)\subset\overline{B_1},\]
where $\ell_x(y)=u(x)+\nabla u(x)\cdot (y-x)$.
Indeed, to show this, we use that
\[u(y)=u(x)+\int_0^1 \nabla u(ty+(1-t)x)\cdot (y-x)dt,\]
combined with
\[\bigl|\nabla u\big( ty+(1-t)x\big)-\nabla u(x)\bigr|\leq C_{\circ}| ty+(1-t)x-x|^\alpha
\leq C_{\circ}|y-x|^\alpha,\]
to get
\[
\bigl|u(y)-u(x)-\nabla u(x)\cdot(y-x)\bigr|\leq \int_0^1 C_{\circ}|y-x|^\alpha |y-x|dt= C_{\circ}|y-x|^{1+\alpha},
\]
as wanted.
\end{rem*}
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=0pt,align=left,label={\bf (H\arabic*)}]
\setcounter{enumi}{4}
\labelwidth=0pt
\itemindent=0pt
\setlength\itemsep{2mm}\setlength{\leftmargin}{0pt}
\item \label{it.HH5} {\it Let $\rho_\circ \in (0,1)$. Assume that, for every $x\in B_{1/2}$, there exists a sequence of quadratic polynomials, $(P_k)_{k\in \mathbb{N}}$ such that
\[
\|u-P_k\|_{L^\infty(B_{\rho_\circ^k}(x))}\leq C_{\circ}\rho_\circ^{k(2+\alpha)}\qquad\textrm{for all }\, k\in \mathbb{N}.
\]
Then, $u\in C^{2,\alpha}(B_{1/2})$ and $[D^2u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le C C_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n$, $\alpha$, and $\rho_\circ$. }
\item[~$\bullet$ \textbf{Proof of \ref{it.HH5}}.] Let us take $x=0$.
By hypothesis, we have
\[\begin{split}
\|P_{k-1}-P_k\|_{L^\infty(B_{\rho_\circ^{k}})} &\leq
\|u-P_{k-1}\|_{L^\infty(B_{\rho_\circ^{k}})} + \|u-P_{k}\|_{L^\infty(B_{\rho_\circ^{k}})} \\
& \leq CC_{\circ}\rho_\circ^{k(2+\alpha)}.
\end{split}\]
Then, we use the following:
\vspace{2mm}
\noindent \textbf{Claim}. {\it Assume that $P$ is a quadratic polynomial satisfying $\|P\|_{L^\infty(B_r)}\leq \gamma$.
If we denote $P(z)=a+b\cdot z+z^TM z$, then we have that
\[|a|\leq C\gamma,\qquad |b|\leq \frac{C\gamma}{r},\qquad |M|\leq \frac{C\gamma}{r^2},\]
where $C$ is a constant depending only on $n$.}
\vspace{2mm}
To prove the claim, notice that, by rescaling, we have $P_r(z):=P(rz)=a_r+b_r\cdot z+z^TM_r z$, where $a_r=a$, $b_r=rb$, $M_r=r^2M$.
By assumption, we have that $\|P_r\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\leq \gamma$.
Since the coefficients of polynomials on $B_1$ are controlled by the $L^\infty$ norm, we get that $|a_r|\leq C\gamma$, $|b_r|\leq C\gamma$, and $|M_r|\leq C\gamma$.
This proves the claim.
\vspace{2mm}
Using the previous claim and the bound on $P_{k-1}-P_k$, we deduce that
\[|a_{k-1}-a_k|\leq CC_{\circ}\rho_\circ^{k(2+\alpha)},\qquad |b_{k-1}-b_k|\leq CC_{\circ}\rho_\circ^{k(1+\alpha)},\]
and
\[|M_{k-1}-M_k|\leq CC_{\circ}\rho_\circ^{k\alpha},\]
where $P_k(z)=a_k+b_k\cdot z+z^TM_k z$.
It follows that $P_k$ converge uniformly to a polynomial $P(z)=a+b\cdot z+z^TM z$, and that
\[\begin{split}
\|u-P\|_{L^\infty(B_{\rho_\circ^{k}})} &\leq
\|u-P_k\|_{L^\infty(B_{\rho_\circ^{k}})} + |a_k-a|+\rho_\circ^k|b_k-b|+\rho_\circ^{2k}|M_k-M| \\
& \leq CC_{\circ}\rho_\circ^{k(2+\alpha)}
\end{split}\]
for all $k\geq1$. From this, it follows that for every $r\in(0,1)$ we have
\[ \|u-P\|_{L^\infty(B_r)} \leq CC_{\circ}r^{2+\alpha}\]
(simply use that for any $r$ we have $\rho_\circ^{k+1} \leq r\leq \rho_\circ^k$ for some $k$).
Thus, since we can do this for every $x\in B_{1/2}$, it follows from \ref{it.HH4} that $[D^2u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}\leq CC_{\circ}$.
\qed
We refer to Remark~\ref{rem.zygmund} below for a generalization of property \ref{it.HH5}.
\item \label{it.HH6} {\it Assume that $\alpha\in(0,1)$, $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\leq C_{\circ}$, and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.H6.1.A}\sup_{\substack{h\in B_1\\ x\in\overline{B_{1-|h|}}}}\frac{\bigl|u(x+h)+u(x-h)-2u(x)\bigr|}{|h|^\alpha}\leq C_{\circ}.
\end{equation}
Then, $u\in C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})$ and $\|u\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha$.
Assume that $\alpha\in(0,1)$, $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\leq C_{\circ}$, and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.H6.2.A}\sup_{\substack{h\in B_1\\ x\in\overline{B_{1-|h|}}}}\frac{\bigl|u(x+h)+u(x-h)-2u(x)\bigr|}{|h|^{1+\alpha}}\leq C_{\circ}.
\end{equation}
Then, $u\in C^{1,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})$ and $\|u\|_{C^{1,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha$. However, such property fails when $\alpha=0$.}
\item[~$\bullet$ \textbf{Proof of \ref{it.HH6}}.]
\noindent (i) Let us do the case \eqref{eq.H6.2.A} first.
Given $h\in B_1$ and $x\in B_{1-|h|}$, let
\[w(h):= \frac{u(x+h)-u(x)}{|h|}.\]
Then, by assumption we have
\[\bigl|w(h)-w(h/2)\bigr| = \frac{|u(x+h)+u(x)-2u(x+h/2)|}{|h|} \leq C_{\circ}|h|^{\alpha}.\]
Thus, for every $k\geq0$,
\[\bigl|w(h/2^k)-w(h/2^{k+1})\bigr| \leq C_{\circ}|h|^{\alpha}2^{-k\alpha}.\]
This implies the existence of the limit $\lim_{t\to0}w(th)$, and by summing a geometric series we get
\[\bigl|w(h)-\lim_{t\to 0}w(th)\bigr|\leq CC_{\circ}|h|^\alpha.\]
Since
\[\lim_{t\to0}w(th) = \lim_{t\to0} \frac{u(x+th)-u(x)}{t|h|} = \frac{h}{|h|}\cdot\nabla u(x),\]
this leads to
\[\bigl|u(x+h)-u(x)-h\cdot \nabla u(x)\bigr|\leq CC_{\circ}|h|^{1+\alpha}.\]
Using \ref{it.HH4}, we see that the last inequality implies that $[Du]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}\leq CC_{\circ}$.
Finally, using that $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\leq C_{\circ}$, the result follows.
\vspace{1mm}
\noindent (ii) Let us do now the case \eqref{eq.H6.1.A}.
As before, let us define $w(h):= \frac{u(x+h)-u(x)}{|h|}$ and notice that
\[\bigl|w(h)-w(h/2)\bigr| = \frac{|u(x+h)+u(x)-2u(x+h/2)|}{|h|} \leq C_{\circ}|h|^{\alpha-1}.\]
Then, for every $k\geq0$ we have
\[\bigl|w(2^k h)-w(2^{k+1}h)\bigr| \leq C_{\circ}|h|^{\alpha-1}2^{-k(1-\alpha)}.\]
Take $k_{\circ}\geq0$ such that $2^{k_{\circ}}|h|\approx 1$ (and so that\footnote{Note that this is always possible if $x,y\in B_{9/10}$, for example.
If $x,y$ are close to the boundary $\partial B_1$, then this is possible for example when $(x-y)\cdot \frac{x}{|x|}>\frac12 |y-x|$.
It is easy to see that we can always reduce to this case.}
still $x+2^{k_{\circ}}h\in B_1$), and add the previous inequality for all $0\leq k< k_{\circ}$.
Then, by summing a geometric series, we deduce that
\[\bigl|w(2^{k_{\circ}} h)-w(h)\bigr| \leq CC_{\circ}|h|^{\alpha-1}.\]
Since
\[\bigl|w(2^{k_{\circ}}h)\bigr| \leq C\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\leq CC_{\circ} \leq CC_{\circ}|h|^{\alpha-1},\]
we finally get
\[\bigl|w(h)\bigr| \leq \bigl|w(2^{k_{\circ}}h)\bigr| + CC_{\circ}|h|^{\alpha-1}\leq CC_{\circ}|h|^{\alpha-1}.\]
Translating back to $u$, this gives the desired result.
\vspace{1mm}
\noindent (iii) Finally, let us prove that the function
\[u(x)=x\log|x|,\qquad x\in(-1,1),\]
satisfies \eqref{eq.H6.2.A} with $\alpha=0$, but it is not in $C^{0,1}$.
Indeed, let us show that
\[\frac{\bigl|(x+h)\log|x+h|+(x-h)\log|x-h|-2x\log|x|\bigr|}{|h|}\leq C_{\circ}\]
for all $x,h\in (-1,1)$ and for some $C_{\circ}>0$.
For this, notice that
\[\begin{split}
&\frac{(x+h)\log|x+h|+(x-h)\log|x-h|-2x\log|x|}{h}=
\\&\hspace{4cm}=
\frac{\left(1+\frac{h}{x}\right)\log\left|1+\frac{h}{x}\right|+\left(1-\frac{h}{x}\right)\log\left|1-\frac{h}{x}\right|}{\frac{h}{x}}\\
&\hspace{4cm}=
\frac{(1+t)\log|1+t|+(1-t)\log|1-t|}{t},\end{split}\]
with $t=h/x$.
Such function of $t$ is smooth in $\mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\}$ and has finite limits at $t=0$ and at $t=\infty$.
Therefore, it is globally bounded in $\mathbb{R}$ by some constant $C_{\circ}$ (actually, $C_{\circ}<2$).
\qed
\end{enumerate}
\begin{rem*}
We refer to \cite[Section 2]{And97} for higher order versions of the characterization \ref{it.HH6}.
\end{rem*}
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=0pt,align=left,label={\bf (H\arabic*)}]
\setcounter{enumi}{6}
\labelwidth=0pt
\itemindent=0pt
\setlength\itemsep{2mm}\setlength{\leftmargin}{0pt}
\item \label{it.HH7}{\it Assume that $\alpha\in (0,1]$, $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\leq C_{\circ}$, and that for every $h\in B_1$ we have
\[
\left\|\frac{u(x+h)-u(x)}{|h|^\alpha}\right\|_{C^\beta(B_{1-|h|})}\leq C_{\circ},
\]
with $C_{\circ}$ independent of $h$.
Assume in addition that $\alpha+\beta$ is not an integer.
Then, $u\in C^{\alpha+\beta}(\overline{B_1})$ and $\|u\|_{C^{\alpha+\beta}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha,\beta$.
However, such property fails when $\alpha+\beta$ is an integer.}
\item[~$\bullet$ \textbf{Proof of \ref{it.HH7}}.] We prove it in case $\beta\in(0,1]$, the proof for $\beta>1$ is analogous.
Let us define
\[v_h(x)=\frac{u(x+h)-u(x)}{|h|^\alpha}.\]
Then, by assumption we have
\[\sup_{x,y\in B_{1-|h|}} \frac{|v_h(x)-v_h(y)|}{|x-y|^{\beta}}\leq C_{\circ}.\]
This is equivalent to
\[\sup_{x,y\in B_{1-|h|}}\frac{|u(x+h)-u(x)-u(y+h)+u(y)|}{|h|^{\alpha+\beta}}\leq C_{\circ}.\]
Taking $y=x-h$, this yields
\[\sup_{x\in B_{1-2|h|}}\frac{|u(x+h)+u(x+h)-2u(x)|}{|h|^{\alpha+\beta}}\leq C_{\circ}.\]
By \ref{it.HH6}, we deduce that $\|u\|_{C^{\alpha+\beta}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$ --- as long as $\alpha+\beta\neq1$.
\qed
\item \label{it.HH8} {\it Assume that $u_i\to u$ uniformly in $\overline\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$, and that $\|u_i\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)}\leq C_{\circ}$, with $\alpha\in (0, 1]$ and for some $C_{\circ}$ independent of $i$.
Then, $u\in C^{k,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)$, and
\[\|u\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)}\leq C_{\circ}.\]}
\item[~$\bullet$ \textbf{Proof of \ref{it.HH8}}.] Assume first $k=0$.
Then, we have that for every $x,y\in \overline\Omega$, $x\neq y$,
\[\|u_i\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}+\frac{|u_i(x)-u_i(y)|}{|x-y|^\alpha} \leq C_{\circ}.\]
Taking limits $u_i\to u$, we deduce that the same inequality holds for $u$, and thus $\|u\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)}\leq C_{\circ}$, as wanted.
Assume now that $k\geq1$.
Then, it follows from Arzel\`a--Ascoli that $D^m u_i\to D^m u$ uniformly in $\overline\Omega$ for $m \le k$ and thus, as before, taking limits in the inequality
\[\|u_i\|_{C^k(\overline\Omega)}+\frac{|D^ku_i(x)-D^ku_i(y)|}{|x-y|^\alpha} \leq C_{\circ},\]
the result follows.
\qed
\end{enumerate}
\begin{rem}
\label{rem.zygmund}
In relation with property \ref{it.HH5}, one can define $\mathscr{L}^{\infty,\beta}$ as the set of functions $u:B_1\to \mathbb{R}$ satisfying that, for each $x\in \mathbb{R}$ and each $r \in (0, 1-|x|)$, there exists some polynomial $P_{x, r}$ of degree $\lfloor\beta\rfloor$ such that
\[
\|u - P_{x, r}\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x))}\le C r^\beta
\]
for some $C$ universal, and where $\lfloor\beta\rfloor$ denotes the integer part of $\beta$. More generally, one can define\footnote{These spaces are called \emph{Morrey-Campanato spaces} when $p < \infty $ and $\beta < 1$.} $\mathscr{L}^{p,\beta}$ for $p \in [1, \infty]$ as the set of functions $u$ satisfying
\[
r^{-\frac{n}{p}} \|u - P_{x, r}\|_{L^p(B_r)}\le C r^\beta.
\]
Then, it turns out that, for any $\beta> 0$ and $p\ge 1$, $\mathscr{L}^{p,\beta}= \mathscr{L}^{\infty,\beta}$; see \cite[Theorem 2]{JTW83}. Moreover, similarly to what we did in \ref{it.HH5}, one can prove that if $\beta = k+\alpha$, then
\[
\mathscr{L}^{p,k+\alpha} = \mathscr{L}^{\infty,k+\alpha} = C^{k,\alpha},\qquad\text{if}\quad \text{$\alpha\in (0,1)$ and $k\in \mathbb{N}$.}
\]
On the other hand, when $\beta$ is an integer these spaces do not coincide with H\"older spaces. Indeed, for $\beta=1$ we have
\[
\mathscr{L}^{p,1} = \mathscr{L}^{\infty,1} = \Lambda^{1},
\]
(see \cite[Section 1.6]{JW84}), and for $\beta > 1$,
\[
u\in \mathscr{L}^{p,\beta}\quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad \nabla u\in \mathscr{L}^{p, \beta-1},
\]
(see \cite[Theorem 3]{JTW83}.) Here, $\Lambda^1$ denotes the \emph{Zygmund space}, i.e. the set of functions $u:B_1 \to \mathbb{R}$ such that
\[
\sup_{\substack{h\in B_1\\ x\in\overline{B_{1-|h|}}}}\frac{\bigl|u(x+h)+u(x-h)-2u(x)\bigr|}{|h|}\leq C,
\]
for some universal $C$. Finally, when $\beta = 0$ we have
\[
\mathscr{L}^{p, 0} = \mathscr{L}^{1, 0} = {\rm BMO},\qquad\text{if}\quad p \in [1, \infty),
\]
where ${\rm BMO}$ denotes the space of \emph{bounded mean oscillation} functions, see \cite{JN61, JW84}. Notice also that $\nabla u \in {\rm BMO}$ implies $u \in \Lambda^1$, but the opposite implication does not hold, see \cite[Theorem 3.4]{Str80}.
\end{rem}
\endinput
\chapter{Probabilistic interpretation of fully nonlinear equations}
\label{app.B}
In this appendix, we heuristically describe the probabilistic interpretation of fully nonlinear elliptic PDEs. This extends the discussion from Section~\ref{sec.prob_interp} in the context of the Laplace operator.
We start by recalling the following probabilistic interpretation of harmonic functions from Chapter 1:
We have a Brownian motion $X_t^x$, starting at $x\in \Omega$, and a payoff function $g: \partial\Omega\to \mathbb{R}$. When we hit the boundary $\partial\Omega$ (for the first time) at a point $z\in \partial\Omega$, we get a paid $g(z)$.
The question is then:
\[\textrm{What is the expected payoff?}\]
It turns out that
\[
u(x) :=
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\textrm{expected}\\
\textrm{payoff}
\end{array}
\right\} = \mathbb{E}\big[g\left(X_\tau^x\right)\big]
\quad\textrm{satisfies}\quad
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta u & = & 0 & \textrm{ in }~\Omega\\
u & = & g & \textrm{ on }~\partial\Omega,
\end{array}
\right.
\]
where $\tau$ is the first time at which $X_t^x$ hits $\partial\Omega$.
We already saw this in Chapter~\ref{ch.0}. Now, we will see more general ``probabilistic games'' that lead to more general elliptic PDEs.
\subsection*{Stochastic processes}
A stochastic process $X_t$ is a collection of random variables indexed by a parameter, that for us is going to be $t \ge 0$, taking values in a state space, that for us is going to be $\mathbb{R}^n$.
One can think of them as simply a ``particle'' moving randomly in $\mathbb{R}^n$, with $t \ge 0$ being the time.
The most famous and important stochastic process is the \emph{Brownian motion}, that we already introduced in Section~\ref{sec.prob_interp}. We recall that it is characterized by the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}[(1)]
\item \label{it2.1} $X_0 = 0$ almost surely.
\item \label{it2.2} $X_t$ has \emph{no memory} (is independent of the past, or it has independent increments).
\item \label{it2.3} $X_t$ has \emph{stationary increments}: $X_{t+s}-X_s$ is equal in distribution to $X_{t}$.
\item \label{it2.4} $X_t$ has \emph{continuous paths} ($t\mapsto X_t$ is continuous) almost surely.
\item \label{it2.5} $X_t$ is \emph{isotropic}, i.e., it is rotationally symmetric in distribution.
\end{enumerate}
A more general class of stochastic processes is obtained by removing the assumption (5).
\subsection*{Infinitesimal generator}
\index{Infinitesimal generator}
The infinitesimal generator of a stochastic process $X_t$ is an operator $L$ defined to act on functions $u: \mathbb{R}^n\to \mathbb{R}$ by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.infgen}
L u(x) := \lim_{t\downarrow 0} \frac{\mathbb{E}\left[u\left(x+X_t\right)\right] - u(x)}{t}.
\end{equation}
It takes $C^2$ functions $u$, and gives $Lu$.
For the Brownian motion, we have that $L$ is the Laplacian $\Delta$.
More generally, under the assumptions \ref{it2.1}-\ref{it2.2}-\ref{it2.3}-\ref{it2.4}, the infinitesimal generator $L$ will be a second order elliptic operator of the form
\[
Lu = \sum_{i,j = 1}^n a_{ij}\partial_{ij} u + \sum_{i = 1}^n b_i\partial_i u + cu.
\]
Why is this infinitesimal generator useful?
The infinitesimal generator of a stochastic process encodes all the information of such process. Indeed, it is a classical fact that the definition of $L$ leads to the formula
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.classL}
\mathbb{E}\left[u(x+X_t)\right] = u(x) +\mathbb{E}\left[\int_0^t L u(x+X_s)\, ds\right].
\end{equation}
(This is analogous to the fundamental theorem of Calculus!)
We can come back to the ``expected payoff'' problem:
\begin{center}
\fbox{
\begin{minipage}{0.95\textwidth}
\vspace{1.5mm}
\noindent \index{Expected payoff} Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be a fixed domain, and consider a stochastic process $(x+X_t)$ starting at $x\in \Omega$, satisfying \ref{it2.2}-\ref{it2.3}-\ref{it2.4} above. Given a payoff function $g: \partial\Omega \to \mathbb{R}$, we have the following: when $X_t^x$ hits the boundary $\partial\Omega$ for the first time at $z\in \partial\Omega$, we get a payoff $g(z)$. (See Figure~\ref{fig.3.2}.)
\[
\textrm{\it What is the expected payoff? }
\]
\vspace{2mm}
\end{minipage}
}
\end{center}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 1.4]{./Figures/fig3.pdf}
\caption{A stochastic process $X_t^x$ defined in $\Omega$ starting at $x$ until it hits the first point on the boundary $z\in \partial\Omega$.}
\label{fig.3.2}
\end{figure}
Of course, the expected payoff will depend on $x\in \Omega$. For the Brownian motion, we defined $u(x)$ to be the expected payoff when starting at~$x$, $\mathbb{E}\left[g(X_\tau^x)\right]$, where $\tau$ is the first time we hit $\partial\Omega$.
Then, we observed that, since the Brownian motion is isotropic, $u$ must satisfy the mean value property, and thus $u$ is harmonic: $\Delta u = 0$ in $\Omega$.
Now, for more general stochastic processes, we must use \eqref{eq.classL}. Indeed, we define $u$ as before (expected payoff), and notice that if $t > 0$ is small enough, then $x+X_t$ will still be inside $\Omega$, and therefore, the expected payoff is simply equal to $\mathbb{E}\left[ u(x+X_t)\right]$ (up to a small error), i.e,
\[
u(x) = \mathbb{E}\left[ u(x+X_t)\right] + o(t)\qquad \textrm{ (for $t >0$ small enough)}.
\]
where the term $o(t)$ is due to the fact that $x+X_t$ could potentially lie outside of $\Omega$, even for arbitrarily small times $t>0$.
Now, using the definition of infinitesimal generator, \eqref{eq.infgen}, we obtain that
\[
Lu(x) = \lim_{t\downarrow 0} \frac{\mathbb{E}\left[u(x+X_t)\right]-u(x)}{t}
= \lim_{t\downarrow 0} \frac{o(t)}{t} = 0.
\]
Therefore, for every $x\in \Omega$, we get $Lu(x) = 0$.
We clearly have $u= g$ on $\partial\Omega$, thus, $u$ must be the solution of
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
Lu & = & 0 & \textrm{ in }~\Omega\\
u & = & g & \textrm{ on }~\partial\Omega.
\end{array}
\right.
\]
Summarizing:
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\textrm{Expected}\\
\textrm{payoff for $X_t$}
\end{array}
\right\}
\quad
\longleftrightarrow
\quad
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\textrm{Dirichlet problem for $L$}\\
\textrm{(infinitesimal generator)}
\end{array}
\right\}.
\]
Something similar can be done to solve other probabilistic problems related to $X_t$:
\begin{itemize}\index{Expected exit time}
\item[--] What is the expected time it will take to exit $\Omega$ if we start at $x$?
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
-Lu & = & 1 & \textrm{ in }~\Omega\\
u & = & 0 & \textrm{ on }~\partial\Omega.
\end{array}
\right.
\]
\item[--] What is the probability density $p(x, t)$ of $X_t$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$?
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\partial_t p - L p & = & 0 & \textrm{ in }~\mathbb{R}^n\times (0,\infty)\\
p(\cdot, 0) & = & \delta_{\{ x = 0\}} & \textrm{ on }~\partial\Omega.
\end{array}
\right.
\]
\end{itemize}
We next see what happens when we have a control, or a two-player game. In that case, we get nonlinear PDEs.
\subsection*{Optimal stopping}\index{Optimal stopping}
We start with the optimal stopping problem. This kind of problem appears very often in Mathematical Finance, for example.
Given a process $X_t$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$, we can decide at each instant of time whether to stop it or not. When we stop, we get a payoff $\varphi$ (which depends on the point we stopped at). The goal is to discover what is the optimal strategy so that we maximize the payoff.
Let us consider the process $x+X_t$ (starting at $x\in \mathbb{R}^n$), and a payoff $\varphi\in C^\infty_c(\mathbb{R}^n)$. For any stopping time $\theta$, we get a payoff $\mathbb{E}\left[\varphi(x+X_\theta)\right]$, and therefore we want to maximize
\[
u(x) := \max_\theta\mathbb{E}\left[\varphi(x+X_\theta)\right]
\]
among all possible stopping times $\theta$ (notice that a stopping time $\theta$ is actually a random variable; see \cite{EvaS} for more details).
Can we find a PDE for $u(x)$?
Roughly speaking, the only important thing to decide here is:
If we are at $x$, is it better to stop and get $\varphi(x)$, or to continue and hope for a better payoff later?
Let us find the PDE for $u$:
\begin{itemize}
\item[--] First, since we can always stop (take $\theta = 0$), we have $u(x) \ge \varphi(x)$ for every $x\in \mathbb{R}^n$.
\item[--] Second, since we can always continue for some time (take $\theta\ge t_\circ > 0)$, we have that $u(x) \ge \mathbb{E}\left[u(x+X_t)\right]$ for $t \le t_\circ$. This, combined with \eqref{eq.classL} (or with the definition \eqref{eq.infgen}), gives
\[
Lu(x) \le 0\quad\textrm{ for every $x\in \mathbb{R}^n$}.
\]
\item[--] Third, at those points where we have $u(x) > \varphi(x)$, we are clearly not stopping there, so we have $u(x) = \mathbb{E}\left[u(x+X_t)\right]+o(t)$ for $t$ very small, and thus $Lu(x) = 0$ whenever $u(x) > \varphi(x)$.
\end{itemize}
The PDE for $u$ is
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
u & \ge & \varphi & \textrm{ in }~\mathbb{R}^n,\\
-Lu & \ge& 0 & \textrm{ in }~\mathbb{R}^n,\\
Lu & = & 0& \textrm{ in }~\{ u > \varphi\},
\end{array}
\right.
~~
\longleftrightarrow
~~
\min\{-Lu, u-\varphi\} = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad \mathbb{R}^n.
\]
This is the \emph{obstacle problem} in $\mathbb{R}^n$ from Chapter~\ref{ch.4}. (See Figure~\ref{fig.11}.)
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{./Figures/fig11.pdf}
\caption{The obstacle problem.}
\label{fig.11}
\end{figure}
Notice that once we know $u$, we know the sets $\{u = \varphi\}$ and $\{u > \varphi\}$, so we have the optimal strategy!
\subsection*{Controlled diffusion}
\index{Controlled diffusion}
Let us now take a different problem, that nonetheless is quite similar to the optimal stopping.
Consider two stochastic processes, $X_t^{(1)}$ and $X_t^{(2)}$, with infinitesimal generators $L_1$ and $L_2$ respectively. Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be a domain, and let $g:\partial\Omega\to \mathbb{R}$ be a payoff. We have the same ``game'' as before (we get a payoff when we hit the boundary), but now we have a \emph{control}: for every $x\in \Omega$, we can choose to move according to $X_t^{(1)}$ or $X_t^{(2)}$.
The question is then:
\[
\textrm{What is the optimal strategy if we want to maximize the payoff?}
\]
Notice that now the strategy consists of choosing between $X_t^{(1)}$ and $X_t^{(2)}$ for every $x\in \Omega$. As before, we define
\[
u(x) := \max_{\substack{\textrm{ all possible choices } \\ \textrm{of $a: \Omega\to \{1, 2\}$}}} \mathbb{E}\left[ g(X_\tau^a)\right]
\]
(where $\tau$ is the time we hit the boundary $\partial\Omega$). Notice that for every $a: \Omega\to \{1, 2\}$ we have $X_t^a$, a process which could change from point to point.
Is there any PDE for $u$?
The optimality conditions are:
\begin{itemize}
\item[--] First, when we are at $x$ we can simply decide to continue with $X_t^{(1)}$, and therefore, $u(x) \ge \mathbb{E}\left[u(x+X_t^{(1)})\right]$ for every $x\in \Omega$. This yields $L_1 u(x) \le 0$ for every $x\in \Omega$.
\item[--] Similarly, we can do the same for $X_t^{(2)}$, and get $L_2 u(x) \le 0$ for every $x\in\Omega$.
\item[--] Finally, it turns out that either
\[
u(x) = \lim_{t\downarrow 0}\mathbb{E}\left[u(x+X_t^{(1)})\right]\quad \text{or}\quad u(x) = \lim_{t\downarrow 0}\mathbb{E}\left[u(x+X_t^{(2)})\right],\]
since close to $x$ we are taking either $X_t^{(1)}$ or $X_t^{(2)}$.
This means that either $L_1 u(x) = 0$ or $L_2 u(x) = 0$, for every $x\in \Omega$.
\end{itemize}
Therefore, $u$ satisfies
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{array}{rcll}
-L_1 u & \ge & 0& \textrm{ in }~\Omega,\\
-L_2 u & \ge& 0& \textrm{ in }~\Omega,
\end{array}
\\
\textrm{either $L_1 u = 0$ or $L_2 u =0$ in $\Omega$}
\end{array}
\right.
\quad
\longleftrightarrow
\quad
\max\{L_1 u, L_2 u\} = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega.
\]
More generally, if we have a family of processes $X_t^\alpha$, with $\alpha\in \mathcal{A}$, then the PDE for $u$ becomes \index{Bellman equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.maxPDE}
\max_{\alpha\in \mathcal{A}}\left\{L_\alpha u\right\} = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega.
\end{equation}
\index{Two-players game}Even more generally, we could have two players, one that wants to maximize the payoff and the other one that wants to minimize the payoff.
They have two parameters, $X_t^{\alpha \beta}$, $\alpha\in \mathcal{A}$, $\beta\in \mathcal{B}$, and each player controls one parameter. Then, the optimal payoff solves the PDE \index{Isaacs equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.minmaxPDE}
\min_{\beta\in \mathcal{B}}\max_{\alpha\in \mathcal{A}}\left\{L_{\alpha\beta}u\right\} = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega.
\end{equation}
Equation~\eqref{eq.maxPDE} above is called the \underline{\smash{Bellman equation}} (stochastic control).
Equation~\eqref{eq.minmaxPDE} above is called the \underline{\smash{Isaacs equation}} (differential games).
These two equations are \emph{fully nonlinear elliptic equations}!
Indeed, assume that we have \eqref{eq.maxPDE}, and that the infinitesimal generators $L_\alpha u$ are of the form
\[
L_\alpha u = \sum_{i,j =1}^n a_{ij}^{(\alpha)} \partial_{ij} u,\qquad (\alpha\in \mathcal{A})
\]
with $a_{ij}^{(\alpha)}$ uniformly elliptic: $0 < \lambda{\rm Id}\le (a_{ij}^{(\alpha)})_{ij}\le \Lambda{\rm Id}$. Then, the equation \eqref{eq.maxPDE} is
\[
\max_{\alpha\in \mathcal{A}}\left\{\sum_{i,j = 1}^n a_{ij}^{(\alpha)} \partial_{ij} u\right\} = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega.
\]
This is a nonlinear function of the Hessian $D^2 u$:
\[
F(D^2 u) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad\Omega,\qquad\textrm{with}\qquad F(M) := \max_{\alpha\in \mathcal{A}}\left\{\sum_{i,j = 1}^n a_{ij}^{(\alpha)} M_{ij} \right\}.
\]
The function $F:\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\to \mathbb{R}$ is the maximum of linear functions. In particular, $F$ is \emph{convex}.
Moreover, $F$ is uniformly elliptic:
\begin{align*}
0< \lambda\|N\| \le \min_{\alpha\in \mathcal{A}}\left\{\sum_{i,j = 1}^n a_{ij}^{(\alpha)} N_{ij} \right\} &\le F(M+N)-F(M) \leq \\
& \le \max_{\alpha\in \mathcal{A}}\left\{\sum_{i,j = 1}^n a_{ij}^{(\alpha)} N_{ij} \right\}\le \Lambda\|N\|
\end{align*}
for any symmetric matrix $N\ge 0$ (we are using here that $\max f + \min g\le \max(f+g) \le \max f + \max g$).
Furthermore, any convex function can be written as the maximum of linear functions (see Figure~\ref{fig.12}), and thus:
\begin{rem}
Any $F:\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\to \mathbb{R}$ which is uniformly elliptic and convex can be written as
\[
F(M) = \max_{\alpha\in \mathcal{A}}\left\{{\rm tr}\, (A^{(\alpha)} M) + c_\alpha\right\}\qquad\textrm{(where $c_\alpha$ are constants)}.
\]
(If $F$ is homogeneous of degree 1, then we do not need the $c_\alpha$.)
In particular, every fully nonlinear uniformly elliptic equation
\[
F(D^2 u) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad\Omega,
\]
with $F$ being convex, can be written as a Bellman equation
\[
\max_{\alpha\in \mathcal{A}}\left\{L_\alpha u \right\} = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega\quad\text{with}\quad \scalebox{1}{$ L_\alpha u = \sum_{i,j= 1}^n a_{ij}^{(\alpha)}\partial_{ij} u+c_\alpha $}.
\]
\end{rem}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 1.5]{./Figures/fig12.pdf}
\caption{Convex function as the maximum of linear functions.}
\label{fig.12}
\end{figure}
Finally, for non-convex $F$ it turns out that:
\begin{obs}
Any $F: \mathbb{R}^{n\times n }\to \mathbb{R}$ which is uniformly elliptic (not necessarily convex), can be written as
\[
F(M) = \min_{\beta\in \mathcal{B}}\max_{\alpha\in \mathcal{A}}\left\{
\sum_{i,j= 1}^n a_{ij}^{(\alpha\beta)}M_{ij}+c_{\alpha\beta}
\right\} = \min_{\beta\in \mathcal{B}}\max_{\alpha\in \mathcal{A}}\left\{
{\rm tr}\left(A^{(\alpha,\beta)}M\right) + c_{\alpha\beta}\right\}.
\]
This is because any Lipschitz function $F$ can be written as the minimum of convex functions, and convex functions can be written as the maximum of linear functions.
In particular, every fully nonlinear uniformly elliptic equation
\[
F(D^2 u) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega
\]
can be written as an Isaacs equation
\[
\min_{\beta\in \mathcal{B}}\max_{\alpha\in \mathcal{A}}\left\{
L_{\alpha\beta} u\right\} = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega
\quad\text{with}\quad \scalebox{1}{$ L_{\alpha\beta} u = \sum_{i,j= 1}^n a_{ij}^{(\alpha,\beta)}\partial_{ij} u+c_{\alpha\beta} $}.
\]
\end{obs}
\underline{\smash{Summary}}: Every fully nonlinear elliptic PDE has an interpretation in terms of a probabilistic game!
\newpage
\subsection*{Probabilistic interpretation of PDEs}
\ \index{Probabilistic interpretation of PDEs}
\vspace{3mm}
\begin{center}
\fbox{
\begin{minipage}{0.93\textwidth}
\vspace{1mm}
\[
\begin{array}{ccl}
\textrm{Expected payoff}
&
~~\longleftrightarrow~~
&
\begin{array}{l}
\textrm{\underline{\smash{Dirichlet problem}}}
\\[0.1cm]
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
Lu & = & 0 & \textrm{ in }~\Omega\\
u & = & g & \textrm{ on }~\partial\Omega.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{array}
\\[1cm]
\begin{array}{c}
\textrm{Expected exit time}\\
\textrm{\tiny (or running costs/ }\\
\textrm{\tiny non-homogeneous environments)}
\end{array}
&
~~\longleftrightarrow~~
&
\begin{array}{l}
\textrm{\underline{\smash{Dirichlet problem}}}
\\[0.1cm]
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
-Lu & = & f & \textrm{ in }~\Omega\\
u & = & 0 & \textrm{ on }~\partial\Omega.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{array}
\\[1cm]
\textrm{Distribution of the process}
&
~~\longleftrightarrow~~
&
\begin{array}{l}
\textrm{\underline{\smash{Heat equation}}}
\\[0.1cm]
\quad\partial_t u - Lu~~=~~0.
\end{array}
\\[1cm]
\textrm{Optimal stopping}
&
~~\longleftrightarrow~~
&
\begin{array}{l}
\textrm{\underline{\smash{Obstacle problem}}}
\\[0.1cm]
\quad\min\{-L u, u-\varphi\}~~=~~0.
\end{array}
\\[1cm]
\textrm{Controlled diffusion}
&
~~\longleftrightarrow~~
&
\begin{array}{l}
\hspace*{-0.2cm}
\begin{array}{l}
\textrm{\underline{\smash{Fully nonlinear equation}}}
\end{array}
\\[0.1cm]
\hspace*{-0.2cm}
\begin{array}{l}
\quad F(D^2 u)~~=~~0,\quad\textrm{$F$ convex.}
\end{array}
\end{array}
\\[1cm]
\textrm{Two-player games}
&
~~\longleftrightarrow~~
&
\begin{array}{l}
\textrm{\underline{\smash{Fully nonlinear equation}}}
\\[0.1cm]
\quad F(D^2 u)~~=~~0.
\end{array}
\end{array}
\]
\vspace{1mm}
\end{minipage}
}
\end{center}
\vspace{2mm}
One could even consider the equations with $x$-dependence, or with lower order terms. All equations studied in Chapters~\ref{ch.3} and \ref{ch.4} have a probabilistic interpretation.
\endinput
\chapter{Motivations and applications for the obstacle problem}
\label{app.C}
Here, we give a brief overview of the motivations and applications for the obstacle problem listed in Chapter~\ref{ch.4}.
We refer to the books \cite{DL,KS, Rod87,Fri,PSU} for more details, as well as for further applications of obstacle-type problems.
\subsection*{Fluid filtration}
\index{Fluid filtration}
Consider two reservoirs of water at different heights separated by a porous dam.
For simplicity, we will assume a flat dam, with rectangular cross section, which yields a problem in $\mathbb{R}^2$.
Alternatively, one could consider variable cross sections, which would yield an analogous obstacle problem in $\mathbb{R}^3$ instead.
The dam is permeable to the water, except in the base.
Thus, there is some flow of fluid between the two reservoirs across the dam, and some wet part of the cross section depending only on the relative distance to each of the two water sources.
Let us assume one reservoir has water at height 1, and the other has water at height $0 <h < 1$.
Let us denote by $\varphi(x)$ the profile of the water through the dam cross section.
See Figure~\ref{fig.dam} for a representation of the situation.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{./Figures/dam.pdf}
\caption{Graphic representation of the cross section of a porous dam.}
\label{fig.dam}
\end{figure}
Let us denote by $u = u(x, y):[0,1]\times[0,1]\to \mathbb{R}_+$ the hydraulic piezometric head of the fluid, given by the sum between the pressure $p(x, y) $ and the elevation head (i.e., the potential energy of the fluid):
\[
u(x, y) = y +\frac{1}{\gamma} p(x, y),
\]
where $\gamma$ is a constant depending on the fluid.
The hydraulic head is defined where there is fluid, namely, in
\[
D := \big\{(x, y) \in (0, 1)\times(0, 1) : y < \vartheta(x) \big\},
\]
and is such that $u(0, y) = 1$ for $0 \le y \le 1$, and $u(1, y) = h$ for $0\le y \le h$ and $u(1, y) = y$ for $h \le y \le \vartheta(1)$.
Here, $u$ itself is an unknown, but $D$ is also to be determined (and therefore, $\vartheta$).
In these circumstances we have that $u (x, y) \ge y$ in $D$, and if we define
\[
w(x, y) := \int_y^{\varphi(x)} \big(u(x, \zeta)-\zeta\big)\,d\zeta\quad\textrm{for}\quad (x, y) \in D,
\]
and $w(x, y) \equiv 0$ for $(x, y) \in [0,1]\times[0,1]\setminus D$, then $w$ fulfils the equation
\[
\Delta w = \chi_{\{w > 0\}} = \chi_D \quad\textrm{in}\quad [0,1]\times[0,1].
\]
That is, $w$ is a solution to the obstacle problem (see \eqref{eq.ELOP}) with $f \equiv 1$.
We refer to \cite{Baiocchi} and the references therein for more details about the Dam problem.
\subsection*{Phase transitions}
\index{Phase transitions}
The Stefan problem, dating back to the 19th century, is the most classical and important free boundary problem.
It aims to describe the temperature distribution in a homogeneous medium undergoing a phase change, such as ice melting to water.
We denote by $\theta(x,t)$ the temperature (at position $x$ and time $t$), and assume $\theta\geq0$.
The function $\theta$ satisfies the heat equation $\partial_t\theta-\Delta \theta=0$ in the region $\{\theta>0\}$, while the evolution of the free boundary $\partial\{\theta>0\}$ is dictated by the Stefan condition $\partial_t\theta=|\nabla_x\theta|^2$ on $\partial\{\theta>0\}$ --- where the gradient is computed from inside $\{\theta>0\}$.
After the transformation $u(x,t):=\int_0^t\theta(x,\tau)d\tau$ (see \cite{Duv,Fig18}), the problem is locally equivalent to
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\partial_t u-\Delta u &=& -\chi_{\{u>0\}}&\quad \textrm{in}\quad B_1\times (0,T)\subset\mathbb{R}^3\times \mathbb{R} \\
u & \geq &0& \\
\partial_t u & \geq& 0.&
\end{array}
\right.\]
This is the parabolic version of the obstacle problem $\Delta u = \chi_{\{u>0\}}$ in $B_1$.
\subsection*{Hele-Shaw flow}
\index{Hele-Shaw flow}
This model, dating back to 1898, describes a fluid flow between two flat parallel plates separated by a very thin gap.
Various problems in fluid mechanics can be approximated to Hele-Shaw flows, and that is why understanding these flows is important.
A Hele-Shaw cell is an experimental device in which a viscous fluid
is sandwiched in a narrow gap between two parallel plates.
In certain regions, the gap is filled with fluid while in others the gap is
filled with air.
When liquid is injected inside the device through some sinks (e.g. through a
small hole on the top plate) the region filled with liquid grows.
We denote by $p(x,t)$ the pressure of the fluid (at position $x$ and time $t$).
By definition, $\{p>0\}$ is the region filled with liquid, while in $\{p=0\}$ there is just air.
The pressure $p$ is harmonic in $\{p>0\}$, and the evolution of the free boundary $\partial\{p>0\}$ is dictated by $\partial_tp=|\nabla_xp|^2$ on $\partial\{p>0\}$ --- where the gradient is computed from inside $\{p>0\}$.
Notice the striking similarity to the Stefan problem --- the only important difference here is that $p$ is harmonic (and not caloric) in the region where it is positive.
After the transformation $u(x,t)=\int_0^tp(x,\tau)d\tau$, it turns out that $u$ solves locally (i.e., outside the region where liquid is injected)
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta u &=&\chi_{\{u>0\}}&\quad \textrm{in}\quad B_1\times (0,T)\subset\mathbb{R}^2\times \mathbb{R} \\
u & \geq&0 &\\
\partial_t u & \geq &0.&
\end{array}
\right.\]
This means that, for each fixed time $t$, $u(\cdot,t)$ is a solution to the (stationary) obstacle problem.
\subsection*{Optimal stopping, finance}
\index{Optimal stopping}
As explained in Appendix~\ref{app.B}, the obstacle problem appears when considering optimal stopping problems for stochastic processes.
A typical example is the Black--Scholes model for pricing of American options.
An American option is a contract that entitles its owner to buy some financial asset (typically a share of some company) at some specified price (the ``strike price'') at any time --- often before some specified date.
This option has some value, since in case that the always fluctuating market
price of the asset goes higher than the strike price then the option can be ``exercised'' to buy the asset at the lower price.
The Black-Sholes model aims to calculate the rational price $u = u(x, t)$ of an option at
any time~$t$ prior to the maturity date and depending on the current price $x$ of the financial asset.
Since the option can be exercised at any time, determining the ``exercise region'' (i.e. the region in which it is better to exercise the option) is a part of the problem.
Interestingly, this problem leads to an obstacle problem (often parabolic) posed in $\mathbb{R}^n$, where the dimension $n$ is the number of assets.
We refer to \cite{LS} and the references therein for more details about such kind of models.
\subsection*{Interacting particle systems}
\index{Interacting particle systems}
Large systems of interacting particles arise in several models in the natural sciences (one can think of physical particles in Physics or Biology, for example).
In such systems the discrete energy can be well approximated by the continuum interacting energy.
We denote $\mu$ the (probability) measure representing the particle density.
In several models the particles attract
each other when they are far, but experience a repulsive force when they are close \cite{CDM16}.
Then, the interaction energy $E$ associated to the interaction potential $W\in L^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^3)$, is given by
\[
E [\mu ] := \frac12 \int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} W(x-y) d\mu(x) \, d\mu(y).
\]
In general, the interaction potential can have very different structures.
It is common to assume a repulsive behaviour for particles that are very close (blowing up at zero distance), and attractive behaviour when they are far.
A typical assumption is to have $W(z)\sim |z|^{-1}$ near the origin.
In other models in statistical mechanics, the particles (e.g. electrons) repel with a
Coulomb force and one wants to understand their behaviour in presence of some external
field that confines them \cite{Serfaty}.
In that case, the interaction energy associated with the system is given by
\[
E [\mu] := \frac12 \int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \frac{d\mu(x) \, d\mu(y)}{|x-y|} + \int_{\mathbb{R}^3}Vd\mu.
\]
One of the main questions when dealing with these systems is to understand the ``equilibrium configurations'', that is, minimizers of the energy~$E$.
It turns out that, in both cases, any minimizer $\mu_\circ$ is given by $\mu_\circ = -\Delta u$, with $u$ satisfying (locally) the obstacle problem
\[
\min\{-\Delta u,\ u -\varphi\} = 0,
\]
for some obstacle $\varphi$ that depends on $W$ (or on $V$).
The free boundary corresponds to the boundary of the region in which the particles concentrate.
We refer to \cite{CDM16, Serfaty} and the references therein for a thorough study of these problems.
\subsection*{Quasi-Steady Electrochemical Shaping} \index{Quasi-Steady Electrochemical Shaping}
Electrochemical Machining (ECM) is an electrochemical method to remove metals (electroconductive) by placing the material inside an electrolytic call as an anode, surrounded by a fixed cathode. Then an electric potential is applied between a cathode and an anode, which is submerged in an appropriate electrolyte, thus producing a chemical reaction that removes the metal from the anode and gives rise to a \emph{moving boundary}. This method is used to shape extremely hard materials, to produce complicated shapes which are otherwise very difficult to obtain.
Let us suppose we have cylindrical symmetry (that is, both anode and cathode are long cylindrical materials), so that we can work with the cross section and thus in two dimensions. A similar approach works in the three-dimensional case.
Let $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^2$ denote the domain enclosed by the cathode, and $\Lambda(0)\subset \Omega$ denote the anode at time $t = 0$ (an electric potential is applied between $\partial\Omega$ and $\partial\Lambda(0)$, where the region $\Omega\setminus \Lambda(0)$ contains the electrolyte). Then, the metal starts to be removed, so that after a time $t \ge 0$, we denote by $\Lambda(t)$ the set defining the anode. By this process we have that $\Lambda(t) \subset \Lambda(t')$ if $t \ge t'$. The boundary $\Gamma(t) = \partial\Lambda(t)$ is unknown, it is a free boundary, which we assume is represented by a function $\gamma:\Omega\to \mathbb{R}$ as
\[
\Gamma(t) = \{(x, y) \in \Omega : \gamma(x, y) = t\},
\]
for some function $\gamma$ to be determined. We assume that $\gamma(x, y) = 0$ in $\Omega\setminus \Lambda(0)$. If we denote by $\pi = \pi(t)> 0$ the potential difference at time $t > 0$ between anode and cathode, then the ECM problem is concerned with finding a function $\eta(t, x, y)$ that solves
\[
\begin{split}
&\Delta \eta(t, x, y) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega\setminus\Gamma(t),\qquad \eta(t, x, y) = 0\quad\textrm{on}\quad \{t > 0 \}\times \partial\Omega,\\
&\eta(t, x, y) = \pi(t),\quad \nabla \eta(t, x, y) \cdot\nabla \gamma(x, y) = \lambda\quad \textrm{on}\quad \{t > 0\}\times \Gamma(t)
\end{split}
\]
(with the convention that the gradient and the Laplacian are only taken in the spatial variables), for some constant $\lambda > 0$ (the ECM constant). Notice that $0\le \eta(t, x, y) \le \pi(t)$ in $\Lambda(t)$ by the maximum principle, and let us extend $\eta$ to $\Omega$ as $\eta(t, x, y) = \pi(t)$ in $\Lambda(t)$. Now, if we define
\[
u(t, x, y) = \int_0^t \left(\pi(s) -\eta(s, x, y) \right)\, ds,
\]
then $u \ge 0$ and in $\Lambda(0)$, $u$ fulfils
\[
\Delta u(t, \cdot, \cdot) = \lambda\chi_{\{u(t, \cdot, \cdot) > 0\}}\quad\textrm{for any}\quad t > 0.
\]
That is, $u$ fulfils an obstacle problem (compare with \eqref{eq.ELOP}) with $f \equiv \lambda$, for each time $t > 0$.
We refer to \cite{Rod87} for more details.
\subsection*{Heat control}\index{Heat control}
Given a domain $\Omega$ and a temperature $T_\circ$, we have heating devices evenly distributed on $\Omega$ that need to ensure that the temperature $u(x)$, $x\in \Omega$, is as close as possible to $T_\circ$, by injecting flux proportional to the distance between $u(x)$ and $T_\circ$. Due to the limited power of the devices, the heat flux generated by them needs to remain in the interval $(-q, 0]$ for $q \ge 0$.
Thus, the heat flux injected is
\[
\Phi(u) = \max\{C(u-T_\circ)_-, -q\}
\]
for some constant $C>0$. In equilibrium, the temperature satisfies
\[
\Delta u = \Phi(u)\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega,
\]
In particular, letting $C \to \infty$, the previous equation becomes
\[
\Delta u = - q \chi_{\{u < T_\circ\}}\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega.
\]
Notice that this structure is almost the same as for the obstacle problem (upside down). That is, if we define $w = T_\circ - u$ then the previous equation becomes
\[
\Delta w = q \chi_{\{w >0\}}\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega,
\]
(see the parallelism to \eqref{eq.ELOP} with $f \equiv q>0$). If $w \ge 0$ (that is, $u \le T_\circ$) then this is exactly the obstacle problem. This can be obtained by putting Dirichlet boundary conditions on $\partial\Omega$ that are $u|_{\partial\Omega}\le T_\circ$ (for example, in a room with lateral walls without thermal insulation).
We refer to \cite{DL} for more details.
\subsection*{Elasticity}\index{Elasticity}
We finish with probably the most intuitive physical interpretation of the obstacle problem: the deformation of a thin membrane in elasticity theory.
Let us consider an elastic membrane represented by a function in $\mathbb{R}^2$, $u:\mathbb{R}^2\to \mathbb{R}$, so that $u(x, y)$ represents the vertical displacement with respect to the $xy$-plane. Given a domain $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^2$, we suppose that the membrane has a fixed boundary, that is, we prescribe the value of $u$ on $\partial\Omega$, by some (say continuous) function $g:\partial\Omega\to \mathbb{R}$. We assume an homogeneous membrane equally stretched in all directions, whose shape is determined by the surface tension. For simplicity we also assume lack of external forces.
In this setting, the shape of the membrane will be such that the total area is minimized, among all possible configurations with the same boundary values. Namely, the following functional
\[
\int_\Omega \sqrt{1+|\nabla w|^2}\, dx\, dy
\]
is minimized among functions $w\in H^1(\Omega)$ such that $w|_{\partial\Omega} = g$. This yields the classical Plateau's problem. The Dirichlet energy appears as a lower order approximation of the previous functional. Namely, if we assume that the vertical displacements are not \emph{large} (say, the membrane is \emph{rather} flat), then a Taylor expansion of the functional yields
\[
\int_\Omega \sqrt{1+|\nabla w|^2}\, dx\, dy \sim \int_\Omega \left(1+\frac12 |\nabla w|^2\right)\, dx\, dy,
\]
so that the minimization of the area is \emph{roughly} a minimization of the Dirichlet energy.
The obstacle problem is concerned with finding the membrane that minimizes the Dirichlet energy (thus, approximately the area) among those with prescribed boundary, that lie above a given obstacle $\varphi:\mathbb{R}^2\to \mathbb{R}$.
\endinput
\chapter{Proof of the boundary Harnack inequality}
\label{app.D}
The goal of this appendix is to prove the boundary Harnack inequality for Lipschitz domains, Theorem~\ref{boundary-Harnack}.
The proof we present here is due to De Silva and Savin \cite{DS-bdryH}, and is different to the one given in the book \cite{CS}.
For simplicity, we consider domains $\Omega$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.g1}
\begin{array}{c}
\Omega\cap B_1\ \mbox{is given by a Lipschitz graph in the $e_n$ direction,} \vspace{1mm} \\ \mbox{with Lipschitz norm $\leq 1$, and with $0\in \partial\Omega$.}\end{array}
\end{equation}
In other words, we consider $(x', x_n)\in \mathbb{R}^{n-1}\times \mathbb{R}$, and let
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.g2}
\begin{array}{c}
g:\mathbb{R}^{n-1}\to \mathbb{R},\qquad [g]_{C^{0,1}(\mathbb{R}^{n-1})}\le 1,\qquad g(0) = 0, \vspace{3mm} \\
\Omega := \{x\in \mathbb{R}^n : x_n > g(x')\}. \end{array}
\end{equation}
The boundary Harnack inequality in Lipschitz domains is the following. (See Figure~\ref{fig.B_1} for a depiction of the setting in the theorem.)
\begin{thm}[Boundary Harnack] \label{boundary-Harnack_App}\index{Boundary Harnack}
Let $w_1$ and $w_2$ be \emph{positive harmonic} functions in $B_1\cap \Omega$, where $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is a \emph{Lipschitz domain} as in \eqref{eq.g1}-\eqref{eq.g2}.
Assume that $w_1$ and $w_2$ vanish continuously on $\partial\Omega\cap B_1$, and $C_\circ ^{-1}\leq \|w_i\|_{L^\infty(B_{1/2})}\leq C_\circ $ for $i = 1,2$.
Then,
\[
C^{-1} w_2 \leq w_1 \leq Cw_2\qquad \textrm{in}\quad \overline\Omega\cap B_{1/2}.
\]
The constant $C$ depends only on $n$ and $C_\circ$.
\end{thm}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 1]{./Figures/figB_1.pdf}
\caption{Depiction of the setting in Theorem~\ref{boundary-Harnack_App} and Corollary~\ref{boundary-Harnack_App2}.}
\label{fig.B_1}
\end{figure}
Moreover, an appropriate iteration of the previous result gives the following.
\begin{cor} \label{boundary-Harnack_App2}
Let $w_1$ and $w_2$ be as in Theorem \ref{boundary-Harnack_App}.
Then,
\[
\left\|\frac{w_1}{w_2}\right\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline\Omega\cap B_{1/2})} \leq C
\]
for some small $\alpha>0$.
The constants $\alpha$ and $C$ depend only on $n$ and $C_\circ$.
\end{cor}
\begin{rem}
Notice that, for simplicity, we deal with Lipschitz domains with Lipschitz constant bounded by 1 and, as a consequence, none of the constants appearing in Theorem~\ref{boundary-Harnack_App} depend on the domain $\Omega$.
The same proof presented here can be adapted to the case of general Lipschitz domains.
The reasons we consider domains with Lipschitz constant bounded by~1 are to avoid introducing more notation and so that the domain $\Omega$ in $B_1$ has a single connected component.
Note, moreover, that when we apply the boundary Harnack in Proposition~\ref{ch4-FB-C1alpha}, we are doing so to a Lipschitz domain with Lipschitz constant smaller than 1 (therefore, we can directly apply Corollary~\ref{boundary-Harnack_App2}).
\end{rem}
The following two (well-known) lemmas for sub- and superharmonic functions will be used.
Notice that these are interior regularity properties.
\begin{lem}[Weak Harnack Inequality for supersolutions]
\label{lem.prop1}
Let $u\in C(B_1)$.
Then,
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
-\Delta u & \ge & 0 &\text{in } B_1\\
u &\geq& 0 &\text{in } B_1
\end{array}\right. \quad \Longrightarrow\quad
\inf_{B_{1/2}} u \ge c\,\|u\|_{L^1(B_{1/2})},
\]
for some $c>0$ depending only on $n$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By the mean value property of the Laplace equation, for any $x_\circ\in B_{1/3}$ we have
\[
u(x_\circ) \ge \frac{1}{|B_{2/3}|}\int_{B_{2/3}(x_\circ)} u = c \|u\|_{L^1(B_{2/3})(x_\circ)}\ge c\|u\|_{L^1(B_{1/3})},
\]
with $c$ a dimensional constant, so that we have proved the property in a ball of radius $1/3$. Take now any $\bar x_\circ\in \partial B_{1/3}$ and consider the ball $B_{1/6}(\bar x_\circ)$. Notice that we can repeat the previous steps to derive
\[
\inf_{B_{1/6}(\bar x_\circ)} u \ge c \|u\|_{L^1(B_{1/6})(\bar x_\circ)}.
\]
Moreover, if we denote $\mathcal{B} := B_{1/3}\cap B_{1/6}(\bar x_\circ)$, then
\[
\|u\|_{L^1(B_{1/6})(\bar x_\circ)} \ge \int_{\mathcal{B}} u\ge |\mathcal{B}| \inf_{\mathcal{B}} u \ge c\inf_{B_{1/3}} u.
\]
From the first result in this proof, we can conclude
\[
\inf_{B_{1/2}} u \ge c_1 \inf_{B_{1/3}} u \ge c_2 \|u\|_{L^1(B_{1/3})} \ge c_3\|u\|_{L^1(B_{1/2})}
\]
for some dimensional constant $c_3$.
In the last step we have used the monotonicity of averages with respect to the radius for superharmonic functions; see for example \eqref{Laplacian-radially_2}.
\end{proof}
The second lemma reads as follows.
\begin{lem}
[$L^\infty$ bound for subsolutions]
\label{lem.prop2}
Let $u\in C(B_1)$.
Then,
\[
-\Delta u \le 0 \quad \text{in} \quad B_1
\quad \Rightarrow\quad
\sup_{B_{1/2}} u \le C_\varepsilon \|u\|_{L^\varepsilon(B_{1})},
\]
for any $\varepsilon > 0$, and for some $C_\varepsilon$ depending only on $n$ and $\varepsilon$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Again, by the mean value property we have that, for any $r > 0$,
\[
\|u \|_{L^\infty(B_{r/2})} \le C \strokedint_{B_r}u \le C \|u \|_{L^\infty(B_{r})}^{1-\varepsilon}\strokedint_{B_r} |u|^{\varepsilon}.
\]
We now want to use an interpolation inequality. Notice that, for any $\delta > 0$, there exists some $C_\delta$ (depending only on $\delta$ and $\varepsilon$) such that $\xi^{1-\varepsilon} \le \delta\xi + C_\delta$ for all $\xi \ge 0$. Taking $\xi = \frac{A}{B}$ with
\[
A = \|u \|_{L^\infty(B_{r})} ,\qquad B = \left(C \strokedint_{B_r} |u|^{\varepsilon}\right)^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon}}
\]
we deduce that, for any $\delta > 0$, there exists some $C_\delta$ such that
\[
\|u \|_{L^\infty(B_{r/2})} \le C \|u \|_{L^\infty(B_{r})}^{1-\varepsilon}\strokedint_{B_r} |u|^{\varepsilon}\le \delta\, \|u\|_{L^\infty(B_r)} + C_\delta \left(C \strokedint_{B_r} |u|^{\varepsilon}\right)^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon}}.
\]
In particular,
\[
\|u \|_{L^\infty(B_{r/2})} \le \delta \|u\|_{L^\infty(B_r)} + C_\delta r^{-\frac{n}{\varepsilon}} \|u\|_{L^\varepsilon(B_1)}.
\]
We are now in position to apply Lemma~\ref{lem.SAL} with $S(A) = \|u\|_{L^\infty(A)}$, $k = \frac{n}{\varepsilon}$ and $\gamma = C_\delta \|u\|_{L^\varepsilon(B_1)}$, to deduce that
\[
\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_{1/2})}\le C \|u\|_{L^\varepsilon(B_1)},
\]
for some constant $C$ depending only on $n$ and $\varepsilon$, as wanted.
\end{proof}
As a consequence of the previous lemmas we obtain the following two useful results, which are partial steps towards the proof of Theorem \ref{boundary-Harnack_App}.
The first one gives an $L^\infty$ bound for $u$ in terms of the value of the function at an interior point in $\Omega$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem.bhbounded}
Let $u\in C(B_1)$ be a positive harmonic function in $B_1\cap \Omega$ with $u = 0$ on $B_1\setminus \Omega$, where $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is a Lipschitz domain as in \eqref{eq.g1}-\eqref{eq.g2}. Assume, moreover, that $u(\frac12 e_n) = 1$. Then,
\[
\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_{1/2})}\le C,
\]
for some constant $C$ depending only on $n$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Notice that since $u \ge 0$ is harmonic whenever $u > 0$, and it is continuous, we have $\Delta u \ge 0$ in $B_1$ in the viscosity sense.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 1]{./Figures/figB_3_2.pdf}
\caption{A chain of balls to apply the Harnack inequality sequentially.}
\label{fig.B_2}
\end{figure}
On the other hand, since $g$ in \eqref{eq.g1} has Lipschitz constant bounded by 1, we have $B_{\varrho}(\frac12 e_n)\subset \{\Delta u = 0\}$, with $\varrho = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}$. In particular, by Harnack's inequality (see \eqref{eq.Harnack_rho}) we have that $u \le C_n$ in $B_{1/4}(\frac12 e_n)$. That is, $u(0, x_n) \le C_n$ for $x_n\in \left(\frac14, \frac12\right)$. Repeating iteratively, we get $u(0, x_n) \le C_n^k$ for $x_n\in \left(2^{-k-1}, 2^{-k}\right)$ (see~Figure~\ref{fig.B_2} for a sketch of this chain of inequalities), so that $u(0, t) \le t^{-K}$ for $t\in \left(0, \frac12\right)$, for some large dimensional constant $K$. We can repeat the same procedure at all points in $B_{1/2}$ by iterating successive Harnack inequalities, to deduce that
\[
u\le d^{-K}\qquad\text{in}\quad B_{1/2},\qquad\mbox{where}\quad d(x):={\rm dist}(x,\Omega^c).
\]
In particular, for $\varepsilon>0$ small enough we have
\[
\int_{B_{1/2}} |u|^{\varepsilon} \le C.
\]
By Lemma~\ref{lem.prop2}, we deduce that $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_{1/4})}\leq C$, and the result in $B_{1/2}$ follows from a simple covering argument.
\end{proof}
The second lemma reads as follows.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem.kdelta}
Let $\delta > 0$ be small, let $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ be a Lipschitz domain as in \eqref{eq.g1}-\eqref{eq.g2}, and let $\Omega_\delta:=\{x\in \Omega : {\rm dist}(x,\Omega^c)\geq \delta\}$.
Let $u\in C(B_1)$ satisfy
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta u & = & 0 &\text{in } \Omega\cap B_1\\
u &= & 0 &\text{on } \partial \Omega\cap B_1
\end{array}\right.
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
u & \ge & 1 &\text{in } B_1\cap \Omega_\delta\\
u &\ge & -\delta &\text{in } B_1.
\end{array}\right.
\]
Then, for all $k\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $k\delta \le \frac34$, we have
\[
u \ge -\delta (1-c_\circ)^k \quad\text{in}\quad B_{1-k\delta}
\]
for some constant $c_\circ$ depending only on $n$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $u^- = \min\{u, 0\}$.
Notice that $u^-$ is superharmonic (in the viscosity sense) since $\Delta u^- = 0$ when $u^- < 0$, and $u^- \le 0$, so we have $\Delta u^-\le 0$. Let $w = u^- + \delta$.
By assumption, $w \ge 0$ and $\Delta w \le 0$.
Let $x_\circ\in \partial \Omega\cap B_{1-2\delta}$.
Let us apply Lemma~\ref{lem.prop1} to a ball of radius $2\delta$ around $x_\circ$, so that (after scaling) we deduce
\[
\inf_{B_{\delta}(x_\circ)} w \ge c \delta^{-n} \|w \|_{L^1(B_{\delta}(x_\circ) )}.
\]
Notice, now, that since the domain is Lipschitz and $w\ge \delta$ in $\Omega^c$, we can bound $\|w\|_{L^1(B_{\delta}(x_\circ))} \ge \delta |\{w \ge \delta\}\cap B_{\delta}(x_\circ)|\ge c \delta^{n+1}$ for some $c$ (see~Figure~\ref{fig.B_3}) depending only on~$n$. Thus,
\[
\inf_{B_{\delta}(x_\circ)} w \ge c_\circ\delta.
\]
In particular, since $w \ge \delta$ in $B_1\cap \Omega_\delta$ we have $w \ge c_\circ\delta$ in $B_{1-\delta}$ and therefore $u \ge -\delta(1-c_\circ)$ in $B_{1-\delta}$. Applying iteratively this inequality for balls of radius $1-2\delta$, $1-3\delta$, ..., we obtain the desired result.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 1.3]{./Figures/figB_2.pdf}
\caption{The fact that the domain is Lipschitz allows us to bound the $L^1$ norm of $w$ in $B_\delta(x_\circ)$ from below.}
\label{fig.B_3}
\end{figure}
We can now show the following result, which is a key step in the proof of Theorem~\ref{boundary-Harnack_App}.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop.bh}
There exists $\delta>0$, depending only on $n$, such that the following holds.
Let $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ be a Lipschitz domain as in \eqref{eq.g1}-\eqref{eq.g2}, and let $\Omega_\delta:=\{x\in \Omega : {\rm dist}(x,\Omega^c)\geq \delta\}$.
Assume that $u\in C(B_1)$ satisfies
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta u & = & 0 &\text{in } \Omega\cap B_1\\
u &= & 0 &\text{on } \partial \Omega\cap B_1
\end{array}\right.
\quad\,\text{and}\quad \,
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
u & \ge & 1 &\text{in } B_1\cap \Omega_\delta \\
u &\ge & -\delta &\text{in } B_1.
\end{array}\right.
\]
Then, $u \ge 0$ in $B_{1/2}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
It is enough to show that, for some $a > 0$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.ua}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
u & \ge & a &\text{in } B_{1/2}\cap \Omega_{\delta/2}\\
u &\ge & -\delta a &\text{in } B_{1/2}.
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
Indeed, iterating \eqref{eq.ua} at all scales, and at all points $z\in \partial \Omega\cap B_{1/2}$, we obtain
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
u & \ge & a^k &\text{in } B_{2^{-k}}(z)\cap \Omega_{2^{-k}\delta}\\
u &\ge & -\delta a^k &\text{in } B_{2^{-k}}(z)
\end{array}\right.
\]
for all $k\in \mathbb{N}$.
In particular, the first inequality yields that $u(z+t e_n)\ge 0$ for $z\in \partial \Omega\cap B_{1/2}$ and $t > 0$, and therefore $u \ge 0$ in $B_{1/2}$.
Let us show \eqref{eq.ua}.
We start with the first inequality.
Let $x_\circ\in B_{1/2}\cap \Omega_{\delta / 2}$, and let us suppose that $\frac{\delta}{2}\le {\rm dist}(x_\circ,\Omega^c) < \delta$ (otherwise, we are done by assumption).
Consider the function $w = u + \delta$, which satisfies $w\ge 0 $ in $\Omega$ by assumption.
Notice that we can connect the points $x_\circ$ and $x_\circ+\frac{1}{2}\delta e_n$ with a sequence of (three) overlapping balls in $\Omega$, so that we can apply Harnack's inequality to $w$ to deduce
\[
w(x_\circ) \ge \frac{1}{C}\,w\big(x_\circ+{\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta e_n\big) \ge \frac{1}{C},
\]
for some dimensional constant $C$, where in the last step we are using that $w\left(x_\circ+\frac{1}{2}\delta e_n\right)\ge 1+\delta$ by assumption.
In particular, by taking $\delta > 0$ smaller than $\frac{1}{2C}$, we get
\[
u(x_\circ) \ge \frac{1}{C} - \delta \ge \frac{1}{2C}\qquad \mbox{for all}\quad x_\circ\in B_{1/2}\cap \Omega_{\delta / 2}.
\]
On the other hand, by Lemma~\ref{lem.kdelta} we know that $u \ge - \delta(1-c_\circ)^k$ in $B_{1-k\delta}$ as long as $k\delta \le \frac34$. If we take $k= \frac{1}{2\delta}$, we deduce
\[
u \ge - \delta(1-c_\circ)^{\frac{1}{2\delta}}\quad \text{in}\quad B_{1/2},
\]
and taking $\delta$ small enough such that $(1-c_\circ)^{\frac{1}{2\delta}}\le \frac{1}{2C}$ we are done.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}[Proposition~\ref{prop.bh} for small Lipschitz constants]
The proofs of Lemma~\ref{lem.kdelta} and
Proposition~\ref{prop.bh} can be simplified a lot in the case of a domain with small Lipschitz constant.
Indeed, let us assume that the hypotheses of Proposition~\ref{prop.bh} hold, where the domain $\Omega$ satisfies \eqref{eq.g1}-\eqref{eq.g2} but with Lipschitz constant $L < \frac{1}{n-1}$, and let us consider the harmonic function
\[
\varphi(x) = x_n^2 - \frac{1}{n-1}\left(x_1^2+x_2^2+\dots+x_{n-1}^2\right).
\]
Then, for $\delta$ small enough, $\varphi \le u$ on $\partial B_{1/2}\cap \Omega$, and by assumption on the Lipschitz constant of the domain we have that $\varphi\le 0$ on $\partial\Omega\cap B_1$. In all, the maximum principle gives $\varphi \le u$ in $B_{1/2}\cap \Omega$, which implies that $u(t e_n) \ge 0$ for $t\in\left[0, \frac12\right]$. By repeating the same argument at all boundary points in $\partial\Omega\cap B_{1/2}$ we reach that $u \ge 0$ in $B_{1/2}$.
\end{rem}
We can now give the proof of Theorem~\ref{boundary-Harnack_App}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{boundary-Harnack_App}]
Thanks to Lemma \ref{lem.bhbounded}, up to a constant depending on $C_\circ$, we may assume $w_1(\frac12 e_n) = w_2(\frac12 e_n) = 1$. Then, let us define
\[
v = M w_1 - \varepsilon w_2
\]
for some constants $M$ (large) and $\varepsilon$ (small) to be chosen.
Let $\delta >0$ be given by Proposition~\ref{prop.bh}.
Then, since $w_2$ is bounded,
\[
v \ge -\varepsilon w_2 \ge -\delta \quad \text{in } \quad B_{1/2}
\]
for $\varepsilon>0$ small enough.
On the other hand, by the interior Harnack inequality, we can take $M$ large enough so that $M w_1 \ge 1+\delta$ in $B_{1/2}\cap \Omega_\delta$, where we recall that $\Omega_\delta = \{x \in \Omega : {\rm dist}(x,\Omega^c) \ge \delta\}$.
That is,
\[
v = Mw_1 - \varepsilon w_2 \ge 1\quad \text{in } \quad B_{1/2}\cap \Omega_\delta,
\]
for $M$ large enough depending only on $n$.
Thus, the hypotheses of Proposition~\ref{prop.bh} are satisfied, and therefore we deduce that $v \ge 0$ in $B_{1/2}$.
This means that, $w_2 \le C w_1$ in $B_{1/4}$ for some constant $C$ depending only on $n$. The inequality in $B_{1/2}$ follows by a covering argument.
Finally, reversing the roles of $w_1$ and $w_2$, we obtain the desired result.
\end{proof}
Finally, we give the:
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary~\ref{boundary-Harnack_App2}]
Let us denote
\[W := \frac{w_1}{w_2},\]
so that we have to prove H\"older regularity for $W$ in $\overline{\Omega}\cap B_{1/2}$.
Notice that, by Theorem \ref{boundary-Harnack_App}, we know that
\[
\frac{1}{C}\le W \le C\quad\text{in}\quad B_{1/2}\cap \Omega,
\]
for some $C$ depending only on $n$.
We start by claiming that, for some $\theta > 0$ and all $k\in \mathbb N$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.claimbh}
\osc_{B_{2^{-k-1}}} W \le (1-\theta) \osc_{B_{2^{-k}}} W.
\end{equation}
Indeed, let
\[
a_k := \sup_{B_{2^{-k}}} W \qquad\text{and}\qquad b_k := \inf_{B_{2^{-k}}}W.
\]
If we denote $p_k = \frac{1}{2^{k+1}} e_n$, then either $W(p_k) \ge \frac{1}{2}(a_k +b_k)$ or $W(p_k) \le \frac{1}{2}(a_k +b_k)$.
Suppose first that $W(p_k) \ge \frac{1}{2}(a_k +b_k)$, and let us define
\[
v:= \frac{w_1 - b_k w_2}{a_k - b_k}.
\]
Notice that, by assumption,
\[
\frac12 w_2(p_k) \le v(p_k) \le w_2(p_k).
\]
In particular, we can apply Theorem \ref{boundary-Harnack_App} to the pair of functions $v$ and $w_2$ in the ball $B_{2^{-k}}$, to deduce that $v \ge \frac{1}{C} w_2$ in $B_{2^{-k-1}}$, that is,
\[
\frac{w_1 - b_k w_2}{a_k - b_k}\ge \frac{1}{C} w_2 \quad\text{in}\quad B_{2^{-k-1}}\quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad \inf_{B_{2^{-k-1}}} W \ge \frac{1}{C} (a_k - b_k) + b_k.
\]
Since $\sup_{B_{2^{-k-1}}} W \le \sup_{B_{2^{-k}}} W \le a_k$, we deduce that
\[
\osc_{B_{2^{-k-1}}} W \le a_k - \frac{1}{C}(a_k - b_k) - b_k = \left(1-\frac{1}{C}\right) (a_k - b_k) = (1-\theta) \osc_{B_{2^{-k}}} W,
\]
with $ \theta = \frac{1}{C}$, as wanted.
If we assume instead that $W(p_k) \le \frac{1}{2}(a_k +b_k)$, then the argument is similar taking $v := (a_k w_2 - w_1)/(a_k - b_k)$ instead. In all, \eqref{eq.claimbh} holds.
In particular, we have shown that, for some small $\alpha$ depending only on $n$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.oscbh}
\osc_{B_r(x_\circ)}W \le C r^\alpha\quad\text{for all}\quad r\in (0,{\textstyle \frac14}) \quad\text{and}\quad x_\circ\in \partial \Omega\cap B_{1/2},
\end{equation}
(compare with the proof of Corollary~\ref{cor.Holder_regularity_1}).
We now need to combine \eqref{eq.oscbh} with interior estimates for harmonic functions to deduce our desired result.
Indeed, letting $x, y\in \overline{\Omega}\cap B_{1/2}$, we want to show that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.toshowbh}
\left|W (x) - W(y)\right| \le C |x-y|^\alpha,
\end{equation}
for some constant $C$ depending only on $n$.
Let $2r = {\rm dist}(x, \partial \Omega) = |x-x_*|$, with $x_*\in \partial \Omega$. We consider two cases:
\vspace{2mm}
\noindent $\bullet$ If $|x - y |\ge \frac{r}{2}$, then we apply \eqref{eq.oscbh} in a ball $B_\rho(x_*)$ with radius $\rho = 2r + |x-y|$ to deduce that
\[
|W(x) - W(y) |\le \osc_{B_{\rho}(x_*)}W \le C (2r+|x-y|)^\alpha\le C |x-y|^{\alpha}.
\]
\vspace{2mm}
\noindent $\bullet$ If $|x - y |\le \frac{r}{2}$, then by \eqref{eq.oscbh} we know that $\osc_{B_r(x)}W \le C r^\alpha$. In particular, if we denote $c_* := W(x)$, then
\[
\|w_1 - c_* w_2\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x))} = \|w_2\left(W - c_*\right)\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x))}\le C r^\alpha \|w_2\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x))}.
\]
On the other hand, since $w_1 - c_* w_2$ is harmonic in $B_r(x)$, by Corollary~\ref{cor.Holder_regularity_1} (rescaled) we know that
\[
[w_1 - c_* w_2]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{r/2}(x))} \le \frac{C}{r^\alpha} \|w_1 - c_* w_2\|_{L^\infty(B_{r}(x))} \le C \|w_2\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x))}.
\]
Hence,
\[
|W (y) - W(x) | = \left|\frac{w_1(y)- c_*w_2(y)}{w_2(y)}\right|\le C|x-y|^\alpha\frac{\|w_2\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x))}}{w_2(y)}.
\]
We finish by noticing that, by Harnack's inequality applied to $w_2$ in $B_{2r}(x)$, we have $\|w_2\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x))} \le Cw_2(y)$ for some $C$ depending only on $n$.
\vspace{2mm}
With these two cases, we have shown \eqref{eq.toshowbh}. This proves the result.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
\label{rem.general}
As said above, the proofs in this Appendix have been carried out in case that $\Omega$ is a Lipschitz domain as in \eqref{eq.g1}, with Lipschitz constant bounded by 1.
This slightly simplifies the notation, and we have that $\Omega\cap B_1$ has only one connected component.
In case of general Lipschitz domains (with Lipschitz constant bounded by $L$), the same proofs can be carried out, provided that one is slightly more careful with the underlying geometry.
A simple way to do this is to prove all the results with $B_{1/2}$ replaced by $B_\rho$, with $\rho>0$ small depending on $L$.
An alternative way to do this is to work with cylinders, rather than balls, as in \cite{DS-bdryH}.
\end{rem}
\endinput
\chapter{Some properties of H\"older spaces}
\label{app.A}
In this appendix, we prove the properties \ref{it.H1}-\ref{it.H8} stated in Chapter~\ref{ch.0}.
Recall that, given $\alpha\in(0,1]$, the H\"older space $C^{0,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)$ is the set of functions $u\in C(\overline\Omega)$ such that
\[ [u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{\Omega})} := \sup_{\substack{x,y\in\overline\Omega\\x\neq y}}\frac{\bigl|u(x)-u(y)\bigr|}{|x-y|^\alpha}<\infty.\]
The H\"older norm is
\[\|u\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)}:=\|u\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}+[u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{\Omega})}.\]
When $\alpha=1$, this is the usual space of Lipschitz functions.
More generally, given $k\in\mathbb N$ and $\alpha\in(0,1]$, the space $C^{k,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)$ is the set of functions $u\in C^k(\overline\Omega)$ such that the following norm is finite
\begin{align*}
\|u\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)}& :=\sum_{j=1}^k\|D^ju\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}+\sup_{\substack{x,y\in\overline\Omega\\x\neq y}}\frac{\bigl|D^ku(x)-D^ku(y)\bigr|}{|x-y|^\alpha}\\
& = \|u\|_{C^k(\Omega)} + [D^k u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{\Omega})}.
\end{align*}
Finally, when $\beta>0$ is \emph{not} an integer, we denote $C^\beta(\overline\Omega):=C^{k,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)$, where $\beta=k+\alpha$, with $k\in\mathbb N$, $\alpha\in(0,1)$.
Next, we give the proofs of the properties of H\"older spaces that we have used throughout the book.
Unless stated otherwise, in the following statements we assume $\alpha\in (0, 1)$.
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=0pt,align=left,label={\bf (H\arabic*)}]
\setcounter{enumi}{0}
\labelwidth=0pt
\itemindent=0pt
\setlength\itemsep{2mm}\setlength{\leftmargin}{0pt}
\item \label{it.HH1}{\it Assume
\[{\rm osc}_{B_r(x)}u\leq C_{\circ}r^\alpha\qquad \textrm{for all }\, B_r(x)\subset\overline{B_1},\]
where ${\rm osc}_A u:=\sup_A u - \inf_A u$.
Then, $u\in C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})$ and $[u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha$.}
\item[~$\bullet$ \textbf{Proof of \ref{it.HH1}}] We want to prove that $|u(z)-u(x)|\leq CC_{\circ}|z-x|^\alpha$ for all $z,x\in B_1$.
Given $z,x\in B_1$, let $r=|z-x|$.
For this, we may assume $r<1/10$ and distinguish two cases:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item If $B_r(x)\subset B_1$, then we simply use the assumption to get
\[|u(z)-u(x)|\leq {\rm osc}_{B_r(x)}u\leq C_{\circ}r^\alpha=C_{\circ}|z-x|^\alpha.\]
\item Otherwise, we take $\bar x$ and $\bar z$ on the segments $\overline{0x}$ and $\overline{0z}$, respectively, such that $|x-\bar x|=r$ and $|z-\bar z|=r$. Then, by assumption we have $|u(x)-u(\bar x)|\leq C_{\circ}r^\alpha$, $|u(z)-u(\bar z)|\leq C_{\circ}r^\alpha$, and $|u(\bar x)-u(\bar z)|\leq C_{\circ}r^\alpha$.
The last inequality holds because $|\bar x-\bar z|< r$, which can be easily checked by construction of $\bar x$ and $\bar z$.
Combining the last three inequalities, we deduce that $|u(x)-u(z)|\leq 3C_{\circ}r^\alpha$, as wanted.
\end{enumerate}
\qed
\end{enumerate}
We also state and prove the following slight modification of \ref{it.HH1}, which will be useful in later proofs.
Notice that the difference with respect to the previous statement is that now, given any ball in $B_1$, we control the oscillation in the ball with half the radius.
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=0pt,align=left,label={\bf (H\arabic*{'})}]
\setcounter{enumi}{0}
\labelwidth=0pt
\itemindent=0pt
\setlength\itemsep{2mm}\setlength{\leftmargin}{0pt}
\item \label{it.HH1p}
{\it Assume
\[{\rm osc}_{B_r(x)}u\leq C_{\circ}r^\alpha\qquad \textrm{for all }\, B_{2r}(x)\subset\overline{B_1},\]
where ${\rm osc}_A u:=\sup_A u - \inf_A u$.
Then, $u\in C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})$ and $[u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha$.}
\item[~$\bullet$ \textbf{Proof of \ref{it.HH1p}}.] We proceed analogously to the proof of \ref{it.HH1}. Let $z,x\in B_1$, and let $r=|z-x|$. We may assume that $r< 1/10$. If $B_{2r}(x)\subset B_1$, the result follows by assumption.
Otherwise, let us take $\bar x$ and $\bar z$ on the segments $\overline{0x}$ and $\overline{0z}$, respectively, such that $|x-\bar x|=2r$ and $|z-\bar z|=2r$. Let us define $x_k = (1-2^{-k})x+2^{-k} \bar x$ and $z_k = (1-2^{-k})z+2^{-k} \bar z$. Notice that $|x_{k+1}-x_k|=|z_{k+1}-z_k|= 2^{-k}r$.
Also, $|x_k| = |x|-2^{-k+1}r$, so that $B_{2|x_{k+1}-x_k|}(x_k)\subset B_1$. That is, we can use our assumption on $x_k$ and $x_{k+1}$ to get that
\[
|u(x_k)-u(x_{k+1})| \le C_{\circ}|x_k-x_{k+1}|^\alpha = C_{\circ}2^{-k\alpha} r^\alpha.
\]
(An analogous result holds for $z_k$.) On the other hand, by choice of $\bar x$ and~$\bar z$, they can also be compared in the oscillation of $u$ as
\[
|u(\bar x)-u(\bar z)|\le C_{\circ}|\bar x-\bar z|^\alpha \le C_{\circ}r^\alpha.
\]
Putting everything together, we reach that
\begin{align*}
|u(x)-u(z)|& \le \sum_{k \ge 0} |u(x_{k+1})-u(x_k)|+|u(\bar x)-u(\bar z)| + \sum_{k \ge 0} |u(z_{k+1})-u(z_k)|\\
& \le 2\sum_{k \ge 0} C_{\circ} 2^{-k\alpha} r^\alpha + C_{\circ}r^\alpha \le C C_{\circ} r^\alpha,
\end{align*}
for some constant $C$ depending only on $\alpha$.
\qed
\end{enumerate}
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=0pt,align=left,label={\bf (H\arabic*)}]
\setcounter{enumi}{1}
\labelwidth=0pt
\itemindent=0pt
\setlength\itemsep{2mm}\setlength{\leftmargin}{0pt}
\item \label{it.HH2}{\it Let $u_{x,r}:=\strokedint_{B_r(x)}u$.
Assume
\[\|u-u_{x,r}\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x))}\leq C_{\circ}r^\alpha\qquad \textrm{for all }\, B_r(x)\subset\overline{B_1}.\]
Then, $u\in C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})$ and $[u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha$.}
\item[~$\bullet$ \textbf{Proof of \ref{it.HH2}}.] By the triangle inequality we have
\[{\rm osc}_{B_r(x)}u\leq 2\|u-u_{x,r}\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x))} \leq 2C_{\circ}r^\alpha,\]
and thus the result follows from \ref{it.HH1}.
\qed
\item \label{it.HH3} {\it Let $u_{x,r}:=\strokedint_{B_r(x)}u$. Assume
\[\left(\strokedint_{B_r(x)}|u-u_{x,r}|^2\right)^{1/2}\leq C_{\circ}r^\alpha\qquad \textrm{for all }\, B_r(x)\subset\overline{B_1}.\]
Then, $u\in C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})$ and $[u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha$.}
\item[~$\bullet$ \textbf{Proof of \ref{it.HH3}}.] Notice that, for every $z\in B_1$,
\[\bigl|u_{x,r}-u_{x,\frac{r}{2}}\bigr|^2 \leq 2|u(z)-u_{x,r}|^2+2\bigl|u(z)-u_{x,\frac{r}{2}}\bigr|^2.\]
Thus, integrating in $B_{r/2}(x)$ and using the assumption we deduce
\[\begin{split} |u_{x,r}-u_{x,\frac{r}{2}}|^2 &
\leq 2\strokedint_{B_{r/2}(x)}|u-u_{x,r}|^2+2\strokedint_{B_{r/2}(x)}\bigl|u-u_{x,\frac{r}{2}}\bigr|^2 \\
& \leq
2^{n+1}\strokedint_{B_r(x)}|u-u_{x,r}|^2+2\strokedint_{B_{r/2}(x)}\bigl|u-u_{x,\frac{r}{2}}\bigr|^2 \leq CC_{\circ}^2r^{2\alpha}.
\end{split}\]
This means that
\[\bigl|u_{x,r}-u_{x,\frac{r}{2}}\bigr| \leq CC_{\circ}r^\alpha,\]
and summing a geometric series we get
\[|u_{x,r}-u(x)| \leq \sum_{k\geq0} \bigl|u_{x,\frac{r}{2^k}}-u_{x,\frac{r}{2^{k+1}}}\bigr| \leq \sum_{k\geq0} CC_{\circ}\left(\frac{r}{2^k}\right)^\alpha = 2C C_{\circ}r^\alpha.\]
Here we used that, up to redefining $u$ on a set of measure zero, by Lebesgue differentiation theorem (Theorem~\ref{Lebesgue}) we have that $u_{x,r}\to u(x)$ as $r\to0$.
Let now $x,y\in B_1$, $r=2|x-y|$, and assume that $B_r(x)\subset B_1$.
Then, we have
\[\begin{split} |u_{x,r}-u_{y,r}|^2 &
\leq \strokedint_{B_{r/2}(x)}|u-u_{x,r}|^2+\strokedint_{B_{r/2}(x)}\bigl|u-u_{y,r}\bigr|^2 \\
& \leq
2^n\strokedint_{B_r(x)}|u-u_{x,r}|^2+2^n\strokedint_{B_{r}(y)}\bigl|u-u_{y,r}\bigr|^2 \leq CC_{\circ}^2r^{2\alpha},
\end{split}\]
and thus
\[\bigl|u_{x,r}-u_{y,r}\bigr| \leq CC_{\circ}r^\alpha.\]
Combining the previous estimates, we deduce that for every $x,y\in B_1$ such that $B_{2|x-y|}(x)\subset B_1$, we have
\[|u(x)-u(y)| \leq |u(x)-u_{x,r}|+|u_{x,r}-u_{y,r}|+|u_{y,r}-u(y)| \leq 3CC_{\circ}r^\alpha.\]
Once we have this, by \ref{it.HH1p} we are done.
\qed
\item \label{it.HH4} {\it Assume that for every $x$ there is a constant $C_x$ such that
\[\|u-C_x\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x))}\leq C_{\circ}r^\alpha\qquad \textrm{for all }\, B_r(x)\subset\overline{B_1}.\]
Then, $u\in C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})$ and $[u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha$.
Assume that for every $x$ there is a linear function $\ell_x(y)=a_x+b_x\cdot(y-x)$ such that
\[\|u-\ell_x\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x))}\leq C_{\circ}r^{1+\alpha}\qquad \textrm{for all }\, B_r(x)\subset\overline{B_1}.\]
Then, $u\in C^{1,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})$ and $[Du]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha$.
Assume that for every $x$ there is a quadratic polynomial $P_x(y)$ such that
\[\|u-P_x\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x))}\leq C_{\circ}r^{2+\alpha}\qquad \textrm{for all }\, B_r(x)\subset\overline{B_1}.\]
Then, $u\in C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})$ and $[D^2u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha$.}
\item[~$\bullet$ \textbf{Proof of \ref{it.HH4}}.] (i) The first statement --- with the $C^{0,\alpha}$ norm --- follows from \ref{it.HH1}.
(ii)
Let us sketch the proof of the second statement --- with the $C^{1,\alpha}$ norm.
Let $x,y\in B_1$ with $y\in B_r(x)\subset B_1$.
Notice that, dividing by $r$ and taking $r\to0$ in the assumption, it follows that $u$ is differentiable at $x$ and that $\ell_x$ must be given by $\ell_x(y)=u(x)+\nabla u(x)\cdot(y-x)$.
Thus, by assumption, we have
\[u(y)=u(x)+\nabla u(x)\cdot (y-x)+O(r^{1+\alpha})\]
and, for every $z\in B_r(x)$ such that $|z-y|\approx |z-x|\approx |y-x|\approx r$,
\[\begin{split}
u(z) & =u(x)+\nabla u(x)\cdot (z-x)+O(r^{1+\alpha})\\
&=u(y)+\nabla u(y)\cdot (z-y)+O(r^{1+\alpha})\\
&=u(x)+\nabla u(x)\cdot (y-x)+\nabla u(y)\cdot (z-y)+O(r^{1+\alpha}).\end{split}\]
From this, we deduce that
\[\nabla u(x)\cdot (z-y) = \nabla u(y)\cdot (z-y)+O(r^{1+\alpha}).\]
Taking $z$ such that $z-y$ is parallel to $\nabla u(y)-\nabla u(x)$, we get
\[\nabla u(x)=\nabla u(y)+O(r^{\alpha}),\]
as wanted.
(iii) Let us prove the third statement concerning the $C^{2,\alpha}$ norm --- the following proof is more general and works also in case (ii).
Let $x,y\in B_r(x_{\circ})$ with $|x-y|=r$ and suppose $B_{2r}(x_{\circ})\subset B_1$.
Let us rescale $u$ around $x_{\circ}$, i.e., $u_r(z):=u(x_{\circ}+rz)$, so that $|\bar x-\bar y|=1$, where $x_{\circ}+r \bar x=x$ and $x_{\circ}+r \bar y=y$.
Let us define also
\[P_{x,r}(z):= P_x(x_{\circ}+rz)\qquad \textrm{and} \qquad P_{y,r}:= P_y(x_{\circ}+rz).\]
Then,
\[\|u_r-P_{x,r}\|_{L^\infty(B_1(\bar x))} = \|u-P_{x}\|_{L^\infty(B_{r}(x))} \leq C_{\circ}r^{2+\alpha},\]
\[\|u_r-P_{y,r}\|_{L^\infty(B_1(\bar y))} = \|u-P_{y}\|_{L^\infty(B_{ r}(y))} \leq C_{\circ} r^{2+\alpha}.\]
Hence, if we denote $\bar w = \frac{\bar x + \bar y}{2}$ then $B_{1/2}(\bar w)\subset B_1(\bar x)\cap B_1(\bar y)$ and
\[\begin{split}
\|P_{x,r}-P_{y,r}\|_{L^\infty(B_{1/2}(\bar w))} &\leq \|u_r-P_{x,r}\|_{L^\infty(B_1(\bar x))} + \|u_r-P_{y,r}\|_{L^\infty(B_1(\bar y))}\\
& \leq CC_{\circ}r^{2+\alpha}.\end{split}\]
This means that all the coefficients of the polynomial $P_{x,r}-P_{y,r}$ are controlled by $\tilde CC_{\circ} r^{2+\alpha}$.
Now, notice that if we denote $P_x(z)=a_x+b_x\cdot (z-x)+(z-x)^TM_x(z-x)$ then $P_{x,r}(z)=a_x+rb_x\cdot (z-\bar x)+r^2(z-\bar x)^TM_x(z-\bar x)$, and an analogous expression holds for $P_{y,r}$.
Hence, we can write
\[\begin{split}
P_{x,r}(z)-P_{y,r}(z) = &\bigl(a_x-a_y+rb_x\cdot(\bar y-\bar x)+r^2(\bar y-\bar x)^TM_x(\bar y-\bar x)\bigr) \\
& + r\bigl(b_x-b_y+2r(\bar y-\bar x)^TM_x\bigr)\cdot (z-\bar y) \\
&+r^2(z-\bar y)^T(M_x-M_y)(z-\bar y).\end{split}\]
In particular, by looking at the quadratic and linear coefficients of such polynomial, we have proved that
\[|M_x-M_y|\leq \tilde CC_{\circ} r^{\alpha}\]
and
\[\bigl|b_x-b_y+2r(\bar y-\bar x)^TM_x\bigr|\leq CC_{\circ} r^{1+\alpha}.\]
Since $r(\bar y-\bar x)=y-x$, this is equivalent to
\[\bigl|b_y-b_x-2(y-x)^TM_x\bigr|\leq CC_{\circ} r^{1+\alpha}.\]
Notice, also, that
\[\|u-a_x-b_x\cdot (\cdot-x)\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x))}\leq C_{\circ}r^{2+\alpha} + C_xr^2\le 2C_x r^{2}\]
if $r$ small enough, so that, in particular, arguing as in (i), $u$ is differentiable at $x$ and $a_x = u(x)$, $b_x = \nabla u(x)$.
Thus, using that $r=2|x-y|$, we have
\[\bigl|\nabla u(y)-\nabla u(x)-2(y-x)^TM_x\bigr|\leq CC_{\circ} |y-x|^{1+\alpha},\]
and letting $y\to x$ we deduce that $\nabla u$ is differentiable at $x$, with $D^2u(x) = 2M_x$.
An analogous result holds for $M_y$, so that we have shown that, for any $x,y\in B_r(x_{\circ})$ with $|x-y|=r$ and $B_{2r}(x_{\circ})\subset B_1$,
\[
\bigl|D^2 u(x)-D^2 u(y)\bigr|\leq \tilde CC_{\circ} r^{\alpha}.
\]
The result now follows by \ref{it.HH1p}.
\qed
\end{enumerate}
\begin{rem*}
Notice that the converse statement to \ref{it.HH4} also holds. For example, when $k = 1$, if $u\in C^{1,\alpha}(B_1)$ then we have
\[\|u-\ell_x\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x))}\leq C_{\circ}r^{1+\alpha}\qquad \textrm{for all }\, B_r(x)\subset\overline{B_1},\]
where $\ell_x(y)=u(x)+\nabla u(x)\cdot (y-x)$.
Indeed, to show this, we use that
\[u(y)=u(x)+\int_0^1 \nabla u(ty+(1-t)x)\cdot (y-x)dt,\]
combined with
\[\bigl|\nabla u\big( ty+(1-t)x\big)-\nabla u(x)\bigr|\leq C_{\circ}| ty+(1-t)x-x|^\alpha
\leq C_{\circ}|y-x|^\alpha,\]
to get
\[
\bigl|u(y)-u(x)-\nabla u(x)\cdot(y-x)\bigr|\leq \int_0^1 C_{\circ}|y-x|^\alpha |y-x|dt= C_{\circ}|y-x|^{1+\alpha},
\]
as wanted.
\end{rem*}
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=0pt,align=left,label={\bf (H\arabic*)}]
\setcounter{enumi}{4}
\labelwidth=0pt
\itemindent=0pt
\setlength\itemsep{2mm}\setlength{\leftmargin}{0pt}
\item \label{it.HH5} {\it Let $\rho_\circ \in (0,1)$. Assume that, for every $x\in B_{1/2}$, there exists a sequence of quadratic polynomials, $(P_k)_{k\in \mathbb{N}}$ such that
\[
\|u-P_k\|_{L^\infty(B_{\rho_\circ^k}(x))}\leq C_{\circ}\rho_\circ^{k(2+\alpha)}\qquad\textrm{for all }\, k\in \mathbb{N}.
\]
Then, $u\in C^{2,\alpha}(B_{1/2})$ and $[D^2u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le C C_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n$, $\alpha$, and $\rho_\circ$. }
\item[~$\bullet$ \textbf{Proof of \ref{it.HH5}}.] Let us take $x=0$.
By hypothesis, we have
\[\begin{split}
\|P_{k-1}-P_k\|_{L^\infty(B_{\rho_\circ^{k}})} &\leq
\|u-P_{k-1}\|_{L^\infty(B_{\rho_\circ^{k}})} + \|u-P_{k}\|_{L^\infty(B_{\rho_\circ^{k}})} \\
& \leq CC_{\circ}\rho_\circ^{k(2+\alpha)}.
\end{split}\]
Then, we use the following:
\vspace{2mm}
\noindent \textbf{Claim}. {\it Assume that $P$ is a quadratic polynomial satisfying $\|P\|_{L^\infty(B_r)}\leq \gamma$.
If we denote $P(z)=a+b\cdot z+z^TM z$, then we have that
\[|a|\leq C\gamma,\qquad |b|\leq \frac{C\gamma}{r},\qquad |M|\leq \frac{C\gamma}{r^2},\]
where $C$ is a constant depending only on $n$.}
\vspace{2mm}
To prove the claim, notice that, by rescaling, we have $P_r(z):=P(rz)=a_r+b_r\cdot z+z^TM_r z$, where $a_r=a$, $b_r=rb$, $M_r=r^2M$.
By assumption, we have that $\|P_r\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\leq \gamma$.
Since the coefficients of polynomials on $B_1$ are controlled by the $L^\infty$ norm, we get that $|a_r|\leq C\gamma$, $|b_r|\leq C\gamma$, and $|M_r|\leq C\gamma$.
This proves the claim.
\vspace{2mm}
Using the previous claim and the bound on $P_{k-1}-P_k$, we deduce that
\[|a_{k-1}-a_k|\leq CC_{\circ}\rho_\circ^{k(2+\alpha)},\qquad |b_{k-1}-b_k|\leq CC_{\circ}\rho_\circ^{k(1+\alpha)},\]
and
\[|M_{k-1}-M_k|\leq CC_{\circ}\rho_\circ^{k\alpha},\]
where $P_k(z)=a_k+b_k\cdot z+z^TM_k z$.
It follows that $P_k$ converge uniformly to a polynomial $P(z)=a+b\cdot z+z^TM z$, and that
\[\begin{split}
\|u-P\|_{L^\infty(B_{\rho_\circ^{k}})} &\leq
\|u-P_k\|_{L^\infty(B_{\rho_\circ^{k}})} + |a_k-a|+\rho_\circ^k|b_k-b|+\rho_\circ^{2k}|M_k-M| \\
& \leq CC_{\circ}\rho_\circ^{k(2+\alpha)}
\end{split}\]
for all $k\geq1$. From this, it follows that for every $r\in(0,1)$ we have
\[ \|u-P\|_{L^\infty(B_r)} \leq CC_{\circ}r^{2+\alpha}\]
(simply use that for any $r$ we have $\rho_\circ^{k+1} \leq r\leq \rho_\circ^k$ for some $k$).
Thus, since we can do this for every $x\in B_{1/2}$, it follows from \ref{it.HH4} that $[D^2u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}\leq CC_{\circ}$.
\qed
We refer to Remark~\ref{rem.zygmund} below for a generalization of property \ref{it.HH5}.
\item \label{it.HH6} {\it Assume that $\alpha\in(0,1)$, $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\leq C_{\circ}$, and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.H6.1.A}\sup_{\substack{h\in B_1\\ x\in\overline{B_{1-|h|}}}}\frac{\bigl|u(x+h)+u(x-h)-2u(x)\bigr|}{|h|^\alpha}\leq C_{\circ}.
\end{equation}
Then, $u\in C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})$ and $\|u\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha$.
Assume that $\alpha\in(0,1)$, $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\leq C_{\circ}$, and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.H6.2.A}\sup_{\substack{h\in B_1\\ x\in\overline{B_{1-|h|}}}}\frac{\bigl|u(x+h)+u(x-h)-2u(x)\bigr|}{|h|^{1+\alpha}}\leq C_{\circ}.
\end{equation}
Then, $u\in C^{1,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})$ and $\|u\|_{C^{1,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha$. However, such property fails when $\alpha=0$.}
\item[~$\bullet$ \textbf{Proof of \ref{it.HH6}}.]
\noindent (i) Let us do the case \eqref{eq.H6.2.A} first.
Given $h\in B_1$ and $x\in B_{1-|h|}$, let
\[w(h):= \frac{u(x+h)-u(x)}{|h|}.\]
Then, by assumption we have
\[\bigl|w(h)-w(h/2)\bigr| = \frac{|u(x+h)+u(x)-2u(x+h/2)|}{|h|} \leq C_{\circ}|h|^{\alpha}.\]
Thus, for every $k\geq0$,
\[\bigl|w(h/2^k)-w(h/2^{k+1})\bigr| \leq C_{\circ}|h|^{\alpha}2^{-k\alpha}.\]
This implies the existence of the limit $\lim_{t\to0}w(th)$, and by summing a geometric series we get
\[\bigl|w(h)-\lim_{t\to 0}w(th)\bigr|\leq CC_{\circ}|h|^\alpha.\]
Since
\[\lim_{t\to0}w(th) = \lim_{t\to0} \frac{u(x+th)-u(x)}{t|h|} = \frac{h}{|h|}\cdot\nabla u(x),\]
this leads to
\[\bigl|u(x+h)-u(x)-h\cdot \nabla u(x)\bigr|\leq CC_{\circ}|h|^{1+\alpha}.\]
Using \ref{it.HH4}, we see that the last inequality implies that $[Du]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}\leq CC_{\circ}$.
Finally, using that $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\leq C_{\circ}$, the result follows.
\vspace{1mm}
\noindent (ii) Let us do now the case \eqref{eq.H6.1.A}.
As before, let us define $w(h):= \frac{u(x+h)-u(x)}{|h|}$ and notice that
\[\bigl|w(h)-w(h/2)\bigr| = \frac{|u(x+h)+u(x)-2u(x+h/2)|}{|h|} \leq C_{\circ}|h|^{\alpha-1}.\]
Then, for every $k\geq0$ we have
\[\bigl|w(2^k h)-w(2^{k+1}h)\bigr| \leq C_{\circ}|h|^{\alpha-1}2^{-k(1-\alpha)}.\]
Take $k_{\circ}\geq0$ such that $2^{k_{\circ}}|h|\approx 1$ (and so that\footnote{Note that this is always possible if $x,y\in B_{9/10}$, for example.
If $x,y$ are close to the boundary $\partial B_1$, then this is possible for example when $(x-y)\cdot \frac{x}{|x|}>\frac12 |y-x|$.
It is easy to see that we can always reduce to this case.}
still $x+2^{k_{\circ}}h\in B_1$), and add the previous inequality for all $0\leq k< k_{\circ}$.
Then, by summing a geometric series, we deduce that
\[\bigl|w(2^{k_{\circ}} h)-w(h)\bigr| \leq CC_{\circ}|h|^{\alpha-1}.\]
Since
\[\bigl|w(2^{k_{\circ}}h)\bigr| \leq C\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\leq CC_{\circ} \leq CC_{\circ}|h|^{\alpha-1},\]
we finally get
\[\bigl|w(h)\bigr| \leq \bigl|w(2^{k_{\circ}}h)\bigr| + CC_{\circ}|h|^{\alpha-1}\leq CC_{\circ}|h|^{\alpha-1}.\]
Translating back to $u$, this gives the desired result.
\vspace{1mm}
\noindent (iii) Finally, let us prove that the function
\[u(x)=x\log|x|,\qquad x\in(-1,1),\]
satisfies \eqref{eq.H6.2.A} with $\alpha=0$, but it is not in $C^{0,1}$.
Indeed, let us show that
\[\frac{\bigl|(x+h)\log|x+h|+(x-h)\log|x-h|-2x\log|x|\bigr|}{|h|}\leq C_{\circ}\]
for all $x,h\in (-1,1)$ and for some $C_{\circ}>0$.
For this, notice that
\[\begin{split}
&\frac{(x+h)\log|x+h|+(x-h)\log|x-h|-2x\log|x|}{h}=
\\&\hspace{4cm}=
\frac{\left(1+\frac{h}{x}\right)\log\left|1+\frac{h}{x}\right|+\left(1-\frac{h}{x}\right)\log\left|1-\frac{h}{x}\right|}{\frac{h}{x}}\\
&\hspace{4cm}=
\frac{(1+t)\log|1+t|+(1-t)\log|1-t|}{t},\end{split}\]
with $t=h/x$.
Such function of $t$ is smooth in $\mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\}$ and has finite limits at $t=0$ and at $t=\infty$.
Therefore, it is globally bounded in $\mathbb{R}$ by some constant $C_{\circ}$ (actually, $C_{\circ}<2$).
\qed
\end{enumerate}
\begin{rem*}
We refer to \cite[Section 2]{And97} for higher order versions of the characterization \ref{it.HH6}.
\end{rem*}
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=0pt,align=left,label={\bf (H\arabic*)}]
\setcounter{enumi}{6}
\labelwidth=0pt
\itemindent=0pt
\setlength\itemsep{2mm}\setlength{\leftmargin}{0pt}
\item \label{it.HH7}{\it Assume that $\alpha\in (0,1]$, $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\leq C_{\circ}$, and that for every $h\in B_1$ we have
\[
\left\|\frac{u(x+h)-u(x)}{|h|^\alpha}\right\|_{C^\beta(B_{1-|h|})}\leq C_{\circ},
\]
with $C_{\circ}$ independent of $h$.
Assume in addition that $\alpha+\beta$ is not an integer.
Then, $u\in C^{\alpha+\beta}(\overline{B_1})$ and $\|u\|_{C^{\alpha+\beta}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha,\beta$.
However, such property fails when $\alpha+\beta$ is an integer.}
\item[~$\bullet$ \textbf{Proof of \ref{it.HH7}}.] We prove it in case $\beta\in(0,1]$, the proof for $\beta>1$ is analogous.
Let us define
\[v_h(x)=\frac{u(x+h)-u(x)}{|h|^\alpha}.\]
Then, by assumption we have
\[\sup_{x,y\in B_{1-|h|}} \frac{|v_h(x)-v_h(y)|}{|x-y|^{\beta}}\leq C_{\circ}.\]
This is equivalent to
\[\sup_{x,y\in B_{1-|h|}}\frac{|u(x+h)-u(x)-u(y+h)+u(y)|}{|h|^{\alpha+\beta}}\leq C_{\circ}.\]
Taking $y=x-h$, this yields
\[\sup_{x\in B_{1-2|h|}}\frac{|u(x+h)+u(x+h)-2u(x)|}{|h|^{\alpha+\beta}}\leq C_{\circ}.\]
By \ref{it.HH6}, we deduce that $\|u\|_{C^{\alpha+\beta}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$ --- as long as $\alpha+\beta\neq1$.
\qed
\item \label{it.HH8} {\it Assume that $u_i\to u$ uniformly in $\overline\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$, and that $\|u_i\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)}\leq C_{\circ}$, with $\alpha\in (0, 1]$ and for some $C_{\circ}$ independent of $i$.
Then, $u\in C^{k,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)$, and
\[\|u\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)}\leq C_{\circ}.\]}
\item[~$\bullet$ \textbf{Proof of \ref{it.HH8}}.] Assume first $k=0$.
Then, we have that for every $x,y\in \overline\Omega$, $x\neq y$,
\[\|u_i\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}+\frac{|u_i(x)-u_i(y)|}{|x-y|^\alpha} \leq C_{\circ}.\]
Taking limits $u_i\to u$, we deduce that the same inequality holds for $u$, and thus $\|u\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)}\leq C_{\circ}$, as wanted.
Assume now that $k\geq1$.
Then, it follows from Arzel\`a--Ascoli that $D^m u_i\to D^m u$ uniformly in $\overline\Omega$ for $m \le k$ and thus, as before, taking limits in the inequality
\[\|u_i\|_{C^k(\overline\Omega)}+\frac{|D^ku_i(x)-D^ku_i(y)|}{|x-y|^\alpha} \leq C_{\circ},\]
the result follows.
\qed
\end{enumerate}
\begin{rem}
\label{rem.zygmund}
In relation with property \ref{it.HH5}, one can define $\mathscr{L}^{\infty,\beta}$ as the set of functions $u:B_1\to \mathbb{R}$ satisfying that, for each $x\in \mathbb{R}$ and each $r \in (0, 1-|x|)$, there exists some polynomial $P_{x, r}$ of degree $\lfloor\beta\rfloor$ such that
\[
\|u - P_{x, r}\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x))}\le C r^\beta
\]
for some $C$ universal, and where $\lfloor\beta\rfloor$ denotes the integer part of $\beta$. More generally, one can define\footnote{These spaces are called \emph{Morrey-Campanato spaces} when $p < \infty $ and $\beta < 1$.} $\mathscr{L}^{p,\beta}$ for $p \in [1, \infty]$ as the set of functions $u$ satisfying
\[
r^{-\frac{n}{p}} \|u - P_{x, r}\|_{L^p(B_r)}\le C r^\beta.
\]
Then, it turns out that, for any $\beta> 0$ and $p\ge 1$, $\mathscr{L}^{p,\beta}= \mathscr{L}^{\infty,\beta}$; see \cite[Theorem 2]{JTW83}. Moreover, similarly to what we did in \ref{it.HH5}, one can prove that if $\beta = k+\alpha$, then
\[
\mathscr{L}^{p,k+\alpha} = \mathscr{L}^{\infty,k+\alpha} = C^{k,\alpha},\qquad\text{if}\quad \text{$\alpha\in (0,1)$ and $k\in \mathbb{N}$.}
\]
On the other hand, when $\beta$ is an integer these spaces do not coincide with H\"older spaces. Indeed, for $\beta=1$ we have
\[
\mathscr{L}^{p,1} = \mathscr{L}^{\infty,1} = \Lambda^{1},
\]
(see \cite[Section 1.6]{JW84}), and for $\beta > 1$,
\[
u\in \mathscr{L}^{p,\beta}\quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad \nabla u\in \mathscr{L}^{p, \beta-1},
\]
(see \cite[Theorem 3]{JTW83}.) Here, $\Lambda^1$ denotes the \emph{Zygmund space}, i.e. the set of functions $u:B_1 \to \mathbb{R}$ such that
\[
\sup_{\substack{h\in B_1\\ x\in\overline{B_{1-|h|}}}}\frac{\bigl|u(x+h)+u(x-h)-2u(x)\bigr|}{|h|}\leq C,
\]
for some universal $C$. Finally, when $\beta = 0$ we have
\[
\mathscr{L}^{p, 0} = \mathscr{L}^{1, 0} = {\rm BMO},\qquad\text{if}\quad p \in [1, \infty),
\]
where ${\rm BMO}$ denotes the space of \emph{bounded mean oscillation} functions, see \cite{JN61, JW84}. Notice also that $\nabla u \in {\rm BMO}$ implies $u \in \Lambda^1$, but the opposite implication does not hold, see \cite[Theorem 3.4]{Str80}.
\end{rem}
\endinput
\chapter{Probabilistic interpretation of fully nonlinear equations}
\label{app.B}
In this appendix, we heuristically describe the probabilistic interpretation of fully nonlinear elliptic PDEs. This extends the discussion from Section~\ref{sec.prob_interp} in the context of the Laplace operator.
We start by recalling the following probabilistic interpretation of harmonic functions from Chapter 1:
We have a Brownian motion $X_t^x$, starting at $x\in \Omega$, and a payoff function $g: \partial\Omega\to \mathbb{R}$. When we hit the boundary $\partial\Omega$ (for the first time) at a point $z\in \partial\Omega$, we get a paid $g(z)$.
The question is then:
\[\textrm{What is the expected payoff?}\]
It turns out that
\[
u(x) :=
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\textrm{expected}\\
\textrm{payoff}
\end{array}
\right\} = \mathbb{E}\big[g\left(X_\tau^x\right)\big]
\quad\textrm{satisfies}\quad
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta u & = & 0 & \textrm{ in }~\Omega\\
u & = & g & \textrm{ on }~\partial\Omega,
\end{array}
\right.
\]
where $\tau$ is the first time at which $X_t^x$ hits $\partial\Omega$.
We already saw this in Chapter~\ref{ch.0}. Now, we will see more general ``probabilistic games'' that lead to more general elliptic PDEs.
\subsection*{Stochastic processes}
A stochastic process $X_t$ is a collection of random variables indexed by a parameter, that for us is going to be $t \ge 0$, taking values in a state space, that for us is going to be $\mathbb{R}^n$.
One can think of them as simply a ``particle'' moving randomly in $\mathbb{R}^n$, with $t \ge 0$ being the time.
The most famous and important stochastic process is the \emph{Brownian motion}, that we already introduced in Section~\ref{sec.prob_interp}. We recall that it is characterized by the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}[(1)]
\item \label{it2.1} $X_0 = 0$ almost surely.
\item \label{it2.2} $X_t$ has \emph{no memory} (is independent of the past, or it has independent increments).
\item \label{it2.3} $X_t$ has \emph{stationary increments}: $X_{t+s}-X_s$ is equal in distribution to $X_{t}$.
\item \label{it2.4} $X_t$ has \emph{continuous paths} ($t\mapsto X_t$ is continuous) almost surely.
\item \label{it2.5} $X_t$ is \emph{isotropic}, i.e., it is rotationally symmetric in distribution.
\end{enumerate}
A more general class of stochastic processes is obtained by removing the assumption (5).
\subsection*{Infinitesimal generator}
\index{Infinitesimal generator}
The infinitesimal generator of a stochastic process $X_t$ is an operator $L$ defined to act on functions $u: \mathbb{R}^n\to \mathbb{R}$ by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.infgen}
L u(x) := \lim_{t\downarrow 0} \frac{\mathbb{E}\left[u\left(x+X_t\right)\right] - u(x)}{t}.
\end{equation}
It takes $C^2$ functions $u$, and gives $Lu$.
For the Brownian motion, we have that $L$ is the Laplacian $\Delta$.
More generally, under the assumptions \ref{it2.1}-\ref{it2.2}-\ref{it2.3}-\ref{it2.4}, the infinitesimal generator $L$ will be a second order elliptic operator of the form
\[
Lu = \sum_{i,j = 1}^n a_{ij}\partial_{ij} u + \sum_{i = 1}^n b_i\partial_i u + cu.
\]
Why is this infinitesimal generator useful?
The infinitesimal generator of a stochastic process encodes all the information of such process. Indeed, it is a classical fact that the definition of $L$ leads to the formula
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.classL}
\mathbb{E}\left[u(x+X_t)\right] = u(x) +\mathbb{E}\left[\int_0^t L u(x+X_s)\, ds\right].
\end{equation}
(This is analogous to the fundamental theorem of Calculus!)
We can come back to the ``expected payoff'' problem:
\begin{center}
\fbox{
\begin{minipage}{0.95\textwidth}
\vspace{1.5mm}
\noindent \index{Expected payoff} Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be a fixed domain, and consider a stochastic process $(x+X_t)$ starting at $x\in \Omega$, satisfying \ref{it2.2}-\ref{it2.3}-\ref{it2.4} above. Given a payoff function $g: \partial\Omega \to \mathbb{R}$, we have the following: when $X_t^x$ hits the boundary $\partial\Omega$ for the first time at $z\in \partial\Omega$, we get a payoff $g(z)$. (See Figure~\ref{fig.3.2}.)
\[
\textrm{\it What is the expected payoff? }
\]
\vspace{2mm}
\end{minipage}
}
\end{center}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 1.4]{./Figures/fig3.pdf}
\caption{A stochastic process $X_t^x$ defined in $\Omega$ starting at $x$ until it hits the first point on the boundary $z\in \partial\Omega$.}
\label{fig.3.2}
\end{figure}
Of course, the expected payoff will depend on $x\in \Omega$. For the Brownian motion, we defined $u(x)$ to be the expected payoff when starting at~$x$, $\mathbb{E}\left[g(X_\tau^x)\right]$, where $\tau$ is the first time we hit $\partial\Omega$.
Then, we observed that, since the Brownian motion is isotropic, $u$ must satisfy the mean value property, and thus $u$ is harmonic: $\Delta u = 0$ in $\Omega$.
Now, for more general stochastic processes, we must use \eqref{eq.classL}. Indeed, we define $u$ as before (expected payoff), and notice that if $t > 0$ is small enough, then $x+X_t$ will still be inside $\Omega$, and therefore, the expected payoff is simply equal to $\mathbb{E}\left[ u(x+X_t)\right]$ (up to a small error), i.e,
\[
u(x) = \mathbb{E}\left[ u(x+X_t)\right] + o(t)\qquad \textrm{ (for $t >0$ small enough)}.
\]
where the term $o(t)$ is due to the fact that $x+X_t$ could potentially lie outside of $\Omega$, even for arbitrarily small times $t>0$.
Now, using the definition of infinitesimal generator, \eqref{eq.infgen}, we obtain that
\[
Lu(x) = \lim_{t\downarrow 0} \frac{\mathbb{E}\left[u(x+X_t)\right]-u(x)}{t}
= \lim_{t\downarrow 0} \frac{o(t)}{t} = 0.
\]
Therefore, for every $x\in \Omega$, we get $Lu(x) = 0$.
We clearly have $u= g$ on $\partial\Omega$, thus, $u$ must be the solution of
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
Lu & = & 0 & \textrm{ in }~\Omega\\
u & = & g & \textrm{ on }~\partial\Omega.
\end{array}
\right.
\]
Summarizing:
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\textrm{Expected}\\
\textrm{payoff for $X_t$}
\end{array}
\right\}
\quad
\longleftrightarrow
\quad
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\textrm{Dirichlet problem for $L$}\\
\textrm{(infinitesimal generator)}
\end{array}
\right\}.
\]
Something similar can be done to solve other probabilistic problems related to $X_t$:
\begin{itemize}\index{Expected exit time}
\item[--] What is the expected time it will take to exit $\Omega$ if we start at $x$?
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
-Lu & = & 1 & \textrm{ in }~\Omega\\
u & = & 0 & \textrm{ on }~\partial\Omega.
\end{array}
\right.
\]
\item[--] What is the probability density $p(x, t)$ of $X_t$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$?
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\partial_t p - L p & = & 0 & \textrm{ in }~\mathbb{R}^n\times (0,\infty)\\
p(\cdot, 0) & = & \delta_{\{ x = 0\}} & \textrm{ on }~\partial\Omega.
\end{array}
\right.
\]
\end{itemize}
We next see what happens when we have a control, or a two-player game. In that case, we get nonlinear PDEs.
\subsection*{Optimal stopping}\index{Optimal stopping}
We start with the optimal stopping problem. This kind of problem appears very often in Mathematical Finance, for example.
Given a process $X_t$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$, we can decide at each instant of time whether to stop it or not. When we stop, we get a payoff $\varphi$ (which depends on the point we stopped at). The goal is to discover what is the optimal strategy so that we maximize the payoff.
Let us consider the process $x+X_t$ (starting at $x\in \mathbb{R}^n$), and a payoff $\varphi\in C^\infty_c(\mathbb{R}^n)$. For any stopping time $\theta$, we get a payoff $\mathbb{E}\left[\varphi(x+X_\theta)\right]$, and therefore we want to maximize
\[
u(x) := \max_\theta\mathbb{E}\left[\varphi(x+X_\theta)\right]
\]
among all possible stopping times $\theta$ (notice that a stopping time $\theta$ is actually a random variable; see \cite{EvaS} for more details).
Can we find a PDE for $u(x)$?
Roughly speaking, the only important thing to decide here is:
If we are at $x$, is it better to stop and get $\varphi(x)$, or to continue and hope for a better payoff later?
Let us find the PDE for $u$:
\begin{itemize}
\item[--] First, since we can always stop (take $\theta = 0$), we have $u(x) \ge \varphi(x)$ for every $x\in \mathbb{R}^n$.
\item[--] Second, since we can always continue for some time (take $\theta\ge t_\circ > 0)$, we have that $u(x) \ge \mathbb{E}\left[u(x+X_t)\right]$ for $t \le t_\circ$. This, combined with \eqref{eq.classL} (or with the definition \eqref{eq.infgen}), gives
\[
Lu(x) \le 0\quad\textrm{ for every $x\in \mathbb{R}^n$}.
\]
\item[--] Third, at those points where we have $u(x) > \varphi(x)$, we are clearly not stopping there, so we have $u(x) = \mathbb{E}\left[u(x+X_t)\right]+o(t)$ for $t$ very small, and thus $Lu(x) = 0$ whenever $u(x) > \varphi(x)$.
\end{itemize}
The PDE for $u$ is
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
u & \ge & \varphi & \textrm{ in }~\mathbb{R}^n,\\
-Lu & \ge& 0 & \textrm{ in }~\mathbb{R}^n,\\
Lu & = & 0& \textrm{ in }~\{ u > \varphi\},
\end{array}
\right.
~~
\longleftrightarrow
~~
\min\{-Lu, u-\varphi\} = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad \mathbb{R}^n.
\]
This is the \emph{obstacle problem} in $\mathbb{R}^n$ from Chapter~\ref{ch.4}. (See Figure~\ref{fig.11}.)
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{./Figures/fig11.pdf}
\caption{The obstacle problem.}
\label{fig.11}
\end{figure}
Notice that once we know $u$, we know the sets $\{u = \varphi\}$ and $\{u > \varphi\}$, so we have the optimal strategy!
\subsection*{Controlled diffusion}
\index{Controlled diffusion}
Let us now take a different problem, that nonetheless is quite similar to the optimal stopping.
Consider two stochastic processes, $X_t^{(1)}$ and $X_t^{(2)}$, with infinitesimal generators $L_1$ and $L_2$ respectively. Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be a domain, and let $g:\partial\Omega\to \mathbb{R}$ be a payoff. We have the same ``game'' as before (we get a payoff when we hit the boundary), but now we have a \emph{control}: for every $x\in \Omega$, we can choose to move according to $X_t^{(1)}$ or $X_t^{(2)}$.
The question is then:
\[
\textrm{What is the optimal strategy if we want to maximize the payoff?}
\]
Notice that now the strategy consists of choosing between $X_t^{(1)}$ and $X_t^{(2)}$ for every $x\in \Omega$. As before, we define
\[
u(x) := \max_{\substack{\textrm{ all possible choices } \\ \textrm{of $a: \Omega\to \{1, 2\}$}}} \mathbb{E}\left[ g(X_\tau^a)\right]
\]
(where $\tau$ is the time we hit the boundary $\partial\Omega$). Notice that for every $a: \Omega\to \{1, 2\}$ we have $X_t^a$, a process which could change from point to point.
Is there any PDE for $u$?
The optimality conditions are:
\begin{itemize}
\item[--] First, when we are at $x$ we can simply decide to continue with $X_t^{(1)}$, and therefore, $u(x) \ge \mathbb{E}\left[u(x+X_t^{(1)})\right]$ for every $x\in \Omega$. This yields $L_1 u(x) \le 0$ for every $x\in \Omega$.
\item[--] Similarly, we can do the same for $X_t^{(2)}$, and get $L_2 u(x) \le 0$ for every $x\in\Omega$.
\item[--] Finally, it turns out that either
\[
u(x) = \lim_{t\downarrow 0}\mathbb{E}\left[u(x+X_t^{(1)})\right]\quad \text{or}\quad u(x) = \lim_{t\downarrow 0}\mathbb{E}\left[u(x+X_t^{(2)})\right],\]
since close to $x$ we are taking either $X_t^{(1)}$ or $X_t^{(2)}$.
This means that either $L_1 u(x) = 0$ or $L_2 u(x) = 0$, for every $x\in \Omega$.
\end{itemize}
Therefore, $u$ satisfies
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\begin{array}{rcll}
-L_1 u & \ge & 0& \textrm{ in }~\Omega,\\
-L_2 u & \ge& 0& \textrm{ in }~\Omega,
\end{array}
\\
\textrm{either $L_1 u = 0$ or $L_2 u =0$ in $\Omega$}
\end{array}
\right.
\quad
\longleftrightarrow
\quad
\max\{L_1 u, L_2 u\} = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega.
\]
More generally, if we have a family of processes $X_t^\alpha$, with $\alpha\in \mathcal{A}$, then the PDE for $u$ becomes \index{Bellman equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.maxPDE}
\max_{\alpha\in \mathcal{A}}\left\{L_\alpha u\right\} = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega.
\end{equation}
\index{Two-players game}Even more generally, we could have two players, one that wants to maximize the payoff and the other one that wants to minimize the payoff.
They have two parameters, $X_t^{\alpha \beta}$, $\alpha\in \mathcal{A}$, $\beta\in \mathcal{B}$, and each player controls one parameter. Then, the optimal payoff solves the PDE \index{Isaacs equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.minmaxPDE}
\min_{\beta\in \mathcal{B}}\max_{\alpha\in \mathcal{A}}\left\{L_{\alpha\beta}u\right\} = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega.
\end{equation}
Equation~\eqref{eq.maxPDE} above is called the \underline{\smash{Bellman equation}} (stochastic control).
Equation~\eqref{eq.minmaxPDE} above is called the \underline{\smash{Isaacs equation}} (differential games).
These two equations are \emph{fully nonlinear elliptic equations}!
Indeed, assume that we have \eqref{eq.maxPDE}, and that the infinitesimal generators $L_\alpha u$ are of the form
\[
L_\alpha u = \sum_{i,j =1}^n a_{ij}^{(\alpha)} \partial_{ij} u,\qquad (\alpha\in \mathcal{A})
\]
with $a_{ij}^{(\alpha)}$ uniformly elliptic: $0 < \lambda{\rm Id}\le (a_{ij}^{(\alpha)})_{ij}\le \Lambda{\rm Id}$. Then, the equation \eqref{eq.maxPDE} is
\[
\max_{\alpha\in \mathcal{A}}\left\{\sum_{i,j = 1}^n a_{ij}^{(\alpha)} \partial_{ij} u\right\} = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega.
\]
This is a nonlinear function of the Hessian $D^2 u$:
\[
F(D^2 u) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad\Omega,\qquad\textrm{with}\qquad F(M) := \max_{\alpha\in \mathcal{A}}\left\{\sum_{i,j = 1}^n a_{ij}^{(\alpha)} M_{ij} \right\}.
\]
The function $F:\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\to \mathbb{R}$ is the maximum of linear functions. In particular, $F$ is \emph{convex}.
Moreover, $F$ is uniformly elliptic:
\begin{align*}
0< \lambda\|N\| \le \min_{\alpha\in \mathcal{A}}\left\{\sum_{i,j = 1}^n a_{ij}^{(\alpha)} N_{ij} \right\} &\le F(M+N)-F(M) \leq \\
& \le \max_{\alpha\in \mathcal{A}}\left\{\sum_{i,j = 1}^n a_{ij}^{(\alpha)} N_{ij} \right\}\le \Lambda\|N\|
\end{align*}
for any symmetric matrix $N\ge 0$ (we are using here that $\max f + \min g\le \max(f+g) \le \max f + \max g$).
Furthermore, any convex function can be written as the maximum of linear functions (see Figure~\ref{fig.12}), and thus:
\begin{rem}
Any $F:\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\to \mathbb{R}$ which is uniformly elliptic and convex can be written as
\[
F(M) = \max_{\alpha\in \mathcal{A}}\left\{{\rm tr}\, (A^{(\alpha)} M) + c_\alpha\right\}\qquad\textrm{(where $c_\alpha$ are constants)}.
\]
(If $F$ is homogeneous of degree 1, then we do not need the $c_\alpha$.)
In particular, every fully nonlinear uniformly elliptic equation
\[
F(D^2 u) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad\Omega,
\]
with $F$ being convex, can be written as a Bellman equation
\[
\max_{\alpha\in \mathcal{A}}\left\{L_\alpha u \right\} = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega\quad\text{with}\quad \scalebox{1}{$ L_\alpha u = \sum_{i,j= 1}^n a_{ij}^{(\alpha)}\partial_{ij} u+c_\alpha $}.
\]
\end{rem}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 1.5]{./Figures/fig12.pdf}
\caption{Convex function as the maximum of linear functions.}
\label{fig.12}
\end{figure}
Finally, for non-convex $F$ it turns out that:
\begin{obs}
Any $F: \mathbb{R}^{n\times n }\to \mathbb{R}$ which is uniformly elliptic (not necessarily convex), can be written as
\[
F(M) = \min_{\beta\in \mathcal{B}}\max_{\alpha\in \mathcal{A}}\left\{
\sum_{i,j= 1}^n a_{ij}^{(\alpha\beta)}M_{ij}+c_{\alpha\beta}
\right\} = \min_{\beta\in \mathcal{B}}\max_{\alpha\in \mathcal{A}}\left\{
{\rm tr}\left(A^{(\alpha,\beta)}M\right) + c_{\alpha\beta}\right\}.
\]
This is because any Lipschitz function $F$ can be written as the minimum of convex functions, and convex functions can be written as the maximum of linear functions.
In particular, every fully nonlinear uniformly elliptic equation
\[
F(D^2 u) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega
\]
can be written as an Isaacs equation
\[
\min_{\beta\in \mathcal{B}}\max_{\alpha\in \mathcal{A}}\left\{
L_{\alpha\beta} u\right\} = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega
\quad\text{with}\quad \scalebox{1}{$ L_{\alpha\beta} u = \sum_{i,j= 1}^n a_{ij}^{(\alpha,\beta)}\partial_{ij} u+c_{\alpha\beta} $}.
\]
\end{obs}
\underline{\smash{Summary}}: Every fully nonlinear elliptic PDE has an interpretation in terms of a probabilistic game!
\newpage
\subsection*{Probabilistic interpretation of PDEs}
\ \index{Probabilistic interpretation of PDEs}
\vspace{3mm}
\begin{center}
\fbox{
\begin{minipage}{0.93\textwidth}
\vspace{1mm}
\[
\begin{array}{ccl}
\textrm{Expected payoff}
&
~~\longleftrightarrow~~
&
\begin{array}{l}
\textrm{\underline{\smash{Dirichlet problem}}}
\\[0.1cm]
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
Lu & = & 0 & \textrm{ in }~\Omega\\
u & = & g & \textrm{ on }~\partial\Omega.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{array}
\\[1cm]
\begin{array}{c}
\textrm{Expected exit time}\\
\textrm{\tiny (or running costs/ }\\
\textrm{\tiny non-homogeneous environments)}
\end{array}
&
~~\longleftrightarrow~~
&
\begin{array}{l}
\textrm{\underline{\smash{Dirichlet problem}}}
\\[0.1cm]
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
-Lu & = & f & \textrm{ in }~\Omega\\
u & = & 0 & \textrm{ on }~\partial\Omega.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{array}
\\[1cm]
\textrm{Distribution of the process}
&
~~\longleftrightarrow~~
&
\begin{array}{l}
\textrm{\underline{\smash{Heat equation}}}
\\[0.1cm]
\quad\partial_t u - Lu~~=~~0.
\end{array}
\\[1cm]
\textrm{Optimal stopping}
&
~~\longleftrightarrow~~
&
\begin{array}{l}
\textrm{\underline{\smash{Obstacle problem}}}
\\[0.1cm]
\quad\min\{-L u, u-\varphi\}~~=~~0.
\end{array}
\\[1cm]
\textrm{Controlled diffusion}
&
~~\longleftrightarrow~~
&
\begin{array}{l}
\hspace*{-0.2cm}
\begin{array}{l}
\textrm{\underline{\smash{Fully nonlinear equation}}}
\end{array}
\\[0.1cm]
\hspace*{-0.2cm}
\begin{array}{l}
\quad F(D^2 u)~~=~~0,\quad\textrm{$F$ convex.}
\end{array}
\end{array}
\\[1cm]
\textrm{Two-player games}
&
~~\longleftrightarrow~~
&
\begin{array}{l}
\textrm{\underline{\smash{Fully nonlinear equation}}}
\\[0.1cm]
\quad F(D^2 u)~~=~~0.
\end{array}
\end{array}
\]
\vspace{1mm}
\end{minipage}
}
\end{center}
\vspace{2mm}
One could even consider the equations with $x$-dependence, or with lower order terms. All equations studied in Chapters~\ref{ch.3} and \ref{ch.4} have a probabilistic interpretation.
\endinput
\chapter{Motivations and applications for the obstacle problem}
\label{app.C}
Here, we give a brief overview of the motivations and applications for the obstacle problem listed in Chapter~\ref{ch.4}.
We refer to the books \cite{DL,KS, Rod87,Fri,PSU} for more details, as well as for further applications of obstacle-type problems.
\subsection*{Fluid filtration}
\index{Fluid filtration}
Consider two reservoirs of water at different heights separated by a porous dam.
For simplicity, we will assume a flat dam, with rectangular cross section, which yields a problem in $\mathbb{R}^2$.
Alternatively, one could consider variable cross sections, which would yield an analogous obstacle problem in $\mathbb{R}^3$ instead.
The dam is permeable to the water, except in the base.
Thus, there is some flow of fluid between the two reservoirs across the dam, and some wet part of the cross section depending only on the relative distance to each of the two water sources.
Let us assume one reservoir has water at height 1, and the other has water at height $0 <h < 1$.
Let us denote by $\varphi(x)$ the profile of the water through the dam cross section.
See Figure~\ref{fig.dam} for a representation of the situation.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{./Figures/dam.pdf}
\caption{Graphic representation of the cross section of a porous dam.}
\label{fig.dam}
\end{figure}
Let us denote by $u = u(x, y):[0,1]\times[0,1]\to \mathbb{R}_+$ the hydraulic piezometric head of the fluid, given by the sum between the pressure $p(x, y) $ and the elevation head (i.e., the potential energy of the fluid):
\[
u(x, y) = y +\frac{1}{\gamma} p(x, y),
\]
where $\gamma$ is a constant depending on the fluid.
The hydraulic head is defined where there is fluid, namely, in
\[
D := \big\{(x, y) \in (0, 1)\times(0, 1) : y < \vartheta(x) \big\},
\]
and is such that $u(0, y) = 1$ for $0 \le y \le 1$, and $u(1, y) = h$ for $0\le y \le h$ and $u(1, y) = y$ for $h \le y \le \vartheta(1)$.
Here, $u$ itself is an unknown, but $D$ is also to be determined (and therefore, $\vartheta$).
In these circumstances we have that $u (x, y) \ge y$ in $D$, and if we define
\[
w(x, y) := \int_y^{\varphi(x)} \big(u(x, \zeta)-\zeta\big)\,d\zeta\quad\textrm{for}\quad (x, y) \in D,
\]
and $w(x, y) \equiv 0$ for $(x, y) \in [0,1]\times[0,1]\setminus D$, then $w$ fulfils the equation
\[
\Delta w = \chi_{\{w > 0\}} = \chi_D \quad\textrm{in}\quad [0,1]\times[0,1].
\]
That is, $w$ is a solution to the obstacle problem (see \eqref{eq.ELOP}) with $f \equiv 1$.
We refer to \cite{Baiocchi} and the references therein for more details about the Dam problem.
\subsection*{Phase transitions}
\index{Phase transitions}
The Stefan problem, dating back to the 19th century, is the most classical and important free boundary problem.
It aims to describe the temperature distribution in a homogeneous medium undergoing a phase change, such as ice melting to water.
We denote by $\theta(x,t)$ the temperature (at position $x$ and time $t$), and assume $\theta\geq0$.
The function $\theta$ satisfies the heat equation $\partial_t\theta-\Delta \theta=0$ in the region $\{\theta>0\}$, while the evolution of the free boundary $\partial\{\theta>0\}$ is dictated by the Stefan condition $\partial_t\theta=|\nabla_x\theta|^2$ on $\partial\{\theta>0\}$ --- where the gradient is computed from inside $\{\theta>0\}$.
After the transformation $u(x,t):=\int_0^t\theta(x,\tau)d\tau$ (see \cite{Duv,Fig18}), the problem is locally equivalent to
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\partial_t u-\Delta u &=& -\chi_{\{u>0\}}&\quad \textrm{in}\quad B_1\times (0,T)\subset\mathbb{R}^3\times \mathbb{R} \\
u & \geq &0& \\
\partial_t u & \geq& 0.&
\end{array}
\right.\]
This is the parabolic version of the obstacle problem $\Delta u = \chi_{\{u>0\}}$ in $B_1$.
\subsection*{Hele-Shaw flow}
\index{Hele-Shaw flow}
This model, dating back to 1898, describes a fluid flow between two flat parallel plates separated by a very thin gap.
Various problems in fluid mechanics can be approximated to Hele-Shaw flows, and that is why understanding these flows is important.
A Hele-Shaw cell is an experimental device in which a viscous fluid
is sandwiched in a narrow gap between two parallel plates.
In certain regions, the gap is filled with fluid while in others the gap is
filled with air.
When liquid is injected inside the device through some sinks (e.g. through a
small hole on the top plate) the region filled with liquid grows.
We denote by $p(x,t)$ the pressure of the fluid (at position $x$ and time $t$).
By definition, $\{p>0\}$ is the region filled with liquid, while in $\{p=0\}$ there is just air.
The pressure $p$ is harmonic in $\{p>0\}$, and the evolution of the free boundary $\partial\{p>0\}$ is dictated by $\partial_tp=|\nabla_xp|^2$ on $\partial\{p>0\}$ --- where the gradient is computed from inside $\{p>0\}$.
Notice the striking similarity to the Stefan problem --- the only important difference here is that $p$ is harmonic (and not caloric) in the region where it is positive.
After the transformation $u(x,t)=\int_0^tp(x,\tau)d\tau$, it turns out that $u$ solves locally (i.e., outside the region where liquid is injected)
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta u &=&\chi_{\{u>0\}}&\quad \textrm{in}\quad B_1\times (0,T)\subset\mathbb{R}^2\times \mathbb{R} \\
u & \geq&0 &\\
\partial_t u & \geq &0.&
\end{array}
\right.\]
This means that, for each fixed time $t$, $u(\cdot,t)$ is a solution to the (stationary) obstacle problem.
\subsection*{Optimal stopping, finance}
\index{Optimal stopping}
As explained in Appendix~\ref{app.B}, the obstacle problem appears when considering optimal stopping problems for stochastic processes.
A typical example is the Black--Scholes model for pricing of American options.
An American option is a contract that entitles its owner to buy some financial asset (typically a share of some company) at some specified price (the ``strike price'') at any time --- often before some specified date.
This option has some value, since in case that the always fluctuating market
price of the asset goes higher than the strike price then the option can be ``exercised'' to buy the asset at the lower price.
The Black-Sholes model aims to calculate the rational price $u = u(x, t)$ of an option at
any time~$t$ prior to the maturity date and depending on the current price $x$ of the financial asset.
Since the option can be exercised at any time, determining the ``exercise region'' (i.e. the region in which it is better to exercise the option) is a part of the problem.
Interestingly, this problem leads to an obstacle problem (often parabolic) posed in $\mathbb{R}^n$, where the dimension $n$ is the number of assets.
We refer to \cite{LS} and the references therein for more details about such kind of models.
\subsection*{Interacting particle systems}
\index{Interacting particle systems}
Large systems of interacting particles arise in several models in the natural sciences (one can think of physical particles in Physics or Biology, for example).
In such systems the discrete energy can be well approximated by the continuum interacting energy.
We denote $\mu$ the (probability) measure representing the particle density.
In several models the particles attract
each other when they are far, but experience a repulsive force when they are close \cite{CDM16}.
Then, the interaction energy $E$ associated to the interaction potential $W\in L^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^3)$, is given by
\[
E [\mu ] := \frac12 \int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} W(x-y) d\mu(x) \, d\mu(y).
\]
In general, the interaction potential can have very different structures.
It is common to assume a repulsive behaviour for particles that are very close (blowing up at zero distance), and attractive behaviour when they are far.
A typical assumption is to have $W(z)\sim |z|^{-1}$ near the origin.
In other models in statistical mechanics, the particles (e.g. electrons) repel with a
Coulomb force and one wants to understand their behaviour in presence of some external
field that confines them \cite{Serfaty}.
In that case, the interaction energy associated with the system is given by
\[
E [\mu] := \frac12 \int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \frac{d\mu(x) \, d\mu(y)}{|x-y|} + \int_{\mathbb{R}^3}Vd\mu.
\]
One of the main questions when dealing with these systems is to understand the ``equilibrium configurations'', that is, minimizers of the energy~$E$.
It turns out that, in both cases, any minimizer $\mu_\circ$ is given by $\mu_\circ = -\Delta u$, with $u$ satisfying (locally) the obstacle problem
\[
\min\{-\Delta u,\ u -\varphi\} = 0,
\]
for some obstacle $\varphi$ that depends on $W$ (or on $V$).
The free boundary corresponds to the boundary of the region in which the particles concentrate.
We refer to \cite{CDM16, Serfaty} and the references therein for a thorough study of these problems.
\subsection*{Quasi-Steady Electrochemical Shaping} \index{Quasi-Steady Electrochemical Shaping}
Electrochemical Machining (ECM) is an electrochemical method to remove metals (electroconductive) by placing the material inside an electrolytic call as an anode, surrounded by a fixed cathode. Then an electric potential is applied between a cathode and an anode, which is submerged in an appropriate electrolyte, thus producing a chemical reaction that removes the metal from the anode and gives rise to a \emph{moving boundary}. This method is used to shape extremely hard materials, to produce complicated shapes which are otherwise very difficult to obtain.
Let us suppose we have cylindrical symmetry (that is, both anode and cathode are long cylindrical materials), so that we can work with the cross section and thus in two dimensions. A similar approach works in the three-dimensional case.
Let $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^2$ denote the domain enclosed by the cathode, and $\Lambda(0)\subset \Omega$ denote the anode at time $t = 0$ (an electric potential is applied between $\partial\Omega$ and $\partial\Lambda(0)$, where the region $\Omega\setminus \Lambda(0)$ contains the electrolyte). Then, the metal starts to be removed, so that after a time $t \ge 0$, we denote by $\Lambda(t)$ the set defining the anode. By this process we have that $\Lambda(t) \subset \Lambda(t')$ if $t \ge t'$. The boundary $\Gamma(t) = \partial\Lambda(t)$ is unknown, it is a free boundary, which we assume is represented by a function $\gamma:\Omega\to \mathbb{R}$ as
\[
\Gamma(t) = \{(x, y) \in \Omega : \gamma(x, y) = t\},
\]
for some function $\gamma$ to be determined. We assume that $\gamma(x, y) = 0$ in $\Omega\setminus \Lambda(0)$. If we denote by $\pi = \pi(t)> 0$ the potential difference at time $t > 0$ between anode and cathode, then the ECM problem is concerned with finding a function $\eta(t, x, y)$ that solves
\[
\begin{split}
&\Delta \eta(t, x, y) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega\setminus\Gamma(t),\qquad \eta(t, x, y) = 0\quad\textrm{on}\quad \{t > 0 \}\times \partial\Omega,\\
&\eta(t, x, y) = \pi(t),\quad \nabla \eta(t, x, y) \cdot\nabla \gamma(x, y) = \lambda\quad \textrm{on}\quad \{t > 0\}\times \Gamma(t)
\end{split}
\]
(with the convention that the gradient and the Laplacian are only taken in the spatial variables), for some constant $\lambda > 0$ (the ECM constant). Notice that $0\le \eta(t, x, y) \le \pi(t)$ in $\Lambda(t)$ by the maximum principle, and let us extend $\eta$ to $\Omega$ as $\eta(t, x, y) = \pi(t)$ in $\Lambda(t)$. Now, if we define
\[
u(t, x, y) = \int_0^t \left(\pi(s) -\eta(s, x, y) \right)\, ds,
\]
then $u \ge 0$ and in $\Lambda(0)$, $u$ fulfils
\[
\Delta u(t, \cdot, \cdot) = \lambda\chi_{\{u(t, \cdot, \cdot) > 0\}}\quad\textrm{for any}\quad t > 0.
\]
That is, $u$ fulfils an obstacle problem (compare with \eqref{eq.ELOP}) with $f \equiv \lambda$, for each time $t > 0$.
We refer to \cite{Rod87} for more details.
\subsection*{Heat control}\index{Heat control}
Given a domain $\Omega$ and a temperature $T_\circ$, we have heating devices evenly distributed on $\Omega$ that need to ensure that the temperature $u(x)$, $x\in \Omega$, is as close as possible to $T_\circ$, by injecting flux proportional to the distance between $u(x)$ and $T_\circ$. Due to the limited power of the devices, the heat flux generated by them needs to remain in the interval $(-q, 0]$ for $q \ge 0$.
Thus, the heat flux injected is
\[
\Phi(u) = \max\{C(u-T_\circ)_-, -q\}
\]
for some constant $C>0$. In equilibrium, the temperature satisfies
\[
\Delta u = \Phi(u)\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega,
\]
In particular, letting $C \to \infty$, the previous equation becomes
\[
\Delta u = - q \chi_{\{u < T_\circ\}}\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega.
\]
Notice that this structure is almost the same as for the obstacle problem (upside down). That is, if we define $w = T_\circ - u$ then the previous equation becomes
\[
\Delta w = q \chi_{\{w >0\}}\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega,
\]
(see the parallelism to \eqref{eq.ELOP} with $f \equiv q>0$). If $w \ge 0$ (that is, $u \le T_\circ$) then this is exactly the obstacle problem. This can be obtained by putting Dirichlet boundary conditions on $\partial\Omega$ that are $u|_{\partial\Omega}\le T_\circ$ (for example, in a room with lateral walls without thermal insulation).
We refer to \cite{DL} for more details.
\subsection*{Elasticity}\index{Elasticity}
We finish with probably the most intuitive physical interpretation of the obstacle problem: the deformation of a thin membrane in elasticity theory.
Let us consider an elastic membrane represented by a function in $\mathbb{R}^2$, $u:\mathbb{R}^2\to \mathbb{R}$, so that $u(x, y)$ represents the vertical displacement with respect to the $xy$-plane. Given a domain $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^2$, we suppose that the membrane has a fixed boundary, that is, we prescribe the value of $u$ on $\partial\Omega$, by some (say continuous) function $g:\partial\Omega\to \mathbb{R}$. We assume an homogeneous membrane equally stretched in all directions, whose shape is determined by the surface tension. For simplicity we also assume lack of external forces.
In this setting, the shape of the membrane will be such that the total area is minimized, among all possible configurations with the same boundary values. Namely, the following functional
\[
\int_\Omega \sqrt{1+|\nabla w|^2}\, dx\, dy
\]
is minimized among functions $w\in H^1(\Omega)$ such that $w|_{\partial\Omega} = g$. This yields the classical Plateau's problem. The Dirichlet energy appears as a lower order approximation of the previous functional. Namely, if we assume that the vertical displacements are not \emph{large} (say, the membrane is \emph{rather} flat), then a Taylor expansion of the functional yields
\[
\int_\Omega \sqrt{1+|\nabla w|^2}\, dx\, dy \sim \int_\Omega \left(1+\frac12 |\nabla w|^2\right)\, dx\, dy,
\]
so that the minimization of the area is \emph{roughly} a minimization of the Dirichlet energy.
The obstacle problem is concerned with finding the membrane that minimizes the Dirichlet energy (thus, approximately the area) among those with prescribed boundary, that lie above a given obstacle $\varphi:\mathbb{R}^2\to \mathbb{R}$.
\endinput
\chapter{Proof of the boundary Harnack inequality}
\label{app.D}
The goal of this appendix is to prove the boundary Harnack inequality for Lipschitz domains, Theorem~\ref{boundary-Harnack}.
The proof we present here is due to De Silva and Savin \cite{DS-bdryH}, and is different to the one given in the book \cite{CS}.
For simplicity, we consider domains $\Omega$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.g1}
\begin{array}{c}
\Omega\cap B_1\ \mbox{is given by a Lipschitz graph in the $e_n$ direction,} \vspace{1mm} \\ \mbox{with Lipschitz norm $\leq 1$, and with $0\in \partial\Omega$.}\end{array}
\end{equation}
In other words, we consider $(x', x_n)\in \mathbb{R}^{n-1}\times \mathbb{R}$, and let
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.g2}
\begin{array}{c}
g:\mathbb{R}^{n-1}\to \mathbb{R},\qquad [g]_{C^{0,1}(\mathbb{R}^{n-1})}\le 1,\qquad g(0) = 0, \vspace{3mm} \\
\Omega := \{x\in \mathbb{R}^n : x_n > g(x')\}. \end{array}
\end{equation}
The boundary Harnack inequality in Lipschitz domains is the following. (See Figure~\ref{fig.B_1} for a depiction of the setting in the theorem.)
\begin{thm}[Boundary Harnack] \label{boundary-Harnack_App}\index{Boundary Harnack}
Let $w_1$ and $w_2$ be \emph{positive harmonic} functions in $B_1\cap \Omega$, where $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is a \emph{Lipschitz domain} as in \eqref{eq.g1}-\eqref{eq.g2}.
Assume that $w_1$ and $w_2$ vanish continuously on $\partial\Omega\cap B_1$, and $C_\circ ^{-1}\leq \|w_i\|_{L^\infty(B_{1/2})}\leq C_\circ $ for $i = 1,2$.
Then,
\[
C^{-1} w_2 \leq w_1 \leq Cw_2\qquad \textrm{in}\quad \overline\Omega\cap B_{1/2}.
\]
The constant $C$ depends only on $n$ and $C_\circ$.
\end{thm}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 1]{./Figures/figB_1.pdf}
\caption{Depiction of the setting in Theorem~\ref{boundary-Harnack_App} and Corollary~\ref{boundary-Harnack_App2}.}
\label{fig.B_1}
\end{figure}
Moreover, an appropriate iteration of the previous result gives the following.
\begin{cor} \label{boundary-Harnack_App2}
Let $w_1$ and $w_2$ be as in Theorem \ref{boundary-Harnack_App}.
Then,
\[
\left\|\frac{w_1}{w_2}\right\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline\Omega\cap B_{1/2})} \leq C
\]
for some small $\alpha>0$.
The constants $\alpha$ and $C$ depend only on $n$ and $C_\circ$.
\end{cor}
\begin{rem}
Notice that, for simplicity, we deal with Lipschitz domains with Lipschitz constant bounded by 1 and, as a consequence, none of the constants appearing in Theorem~\ref{boundary-Harnack_App} depend on the domain $\Omega$.
The same proof presented here can be adapted to the case of general Lipschitz domains.
The reasons we consider domains with Lipschitz constant bounded by~1 are to avoid introducing more notation and so that the domain $\Omega$ in $B_1$ has a single connected component.
Note, moreover, that when we apply the boundary Harnack in Proposition~\ref{ch4-FB-C1alpha}, we are doing so to a Lipschitz domain with Lipschitz constant smaller than 1 (therefore, we can directly apply Corollary~\ref{boundary-Harnack_App2}).
\end{rem}
The following two (well-known) lemmas for sub- and superharmonic functions will be used.
Notice that these are interior regularity properties.
\begin{lem}[Weak Harnack Inequality for supersolutions]
\label{lem.prop1}
Let $u\in C(B_1)$.
Then,
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
-\Delta u & \ge & 0 &\text{in } B_1\\
u &\geq& 0 &\text{in } B_1
\end{array}\right. \quad \Longrightarrow\quad
\inf_{B_{1/2}} u \ge c\,\|u\|_{L^1(B_{1/2})},
\]
for some $c>0$ depending only on $n$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By the mean value property of the Laplace equation, for any $x_\circ\in B_{1/3}$ we have
\[
u(x_\circ) \ge \frac{1}{|B_{2/3}|}\int_{B_{2/3}(x_\circ)} u = c \|u\|_{L^1(B_{2/3})(x_\circ)}\ge c\|u\|_{L^1(B_{1/3})},
\]
with $c$ a dimensional constant, so that we have proved the property in a ball of radius $1/3$. Take now any $\bar x_\circ\in \partial B_{1/3}$ and consider the ball $B_{1/6}(\bar x_\circ)$. Notice that we can repeat the previous steps to derive
\[
\inf_{B_{1/6}(\bar x_\circ)} u \ge c \|u\|_{L^1(B_{1/6})(\bar x_\circ)}.
\]
Moreover, if we denote $\mathcal{B} := B_{1/3}\cap B_{1/6}(\bar x_\circ)$, then
\[
\|u\|_{L^1(B_{1/6})(\bar x_\circ)} \ge \int_{\mathcal{B}} u\ge |\mathcal{B}| \inf_{\mathcal{B}} u \ge c\inf_{B_{1/3}} u.
\]
From the first result in this proof, we can conclude
\[
\inf_{B_{1/2}} u \ge c_1 \inf_{B_{1/3}} u \ge c_2 \|u\|_{L^1(B_{1/3})} \ge c_3\|u\|_{L^1(B_{1/2})}
\]
for some dimensional constant $c_3$.
In the last step we have used the monotonicity of averages with respect to the radius for superharmonic functions; see for example \eqref{Laplacian-radially_2}.
\end{proof}
The second lemma reads as follows.
\begin{lem}
[$L^\infty$ bound for subsolutions]
\label{lem.prop2}
Let $u\in C(B_1)$.
Then,
\[
-\Delta u \le 0 \quad \text{in} \quad B_1
\quad \Rightarrow\quad
\sup_{B_{1/2}} u \le C_\varepsilon \|u\|_{L^\varepsilon(B_{1})},
\]
for any $\varepsilon > 0$, and for some $C_\varepsilon$ depending only on $n$ and $\varepsilon$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Again, by the mean value property we have that, for any $r > 0$,
\[
\|u \|_{L^\infty(B_{r/2})} \le C \strokedint_{B_r}u \le C \|u \|_{L^\infty(B_{r})}^{1-\varepsilon}\strokedint_{B_r} |u|^{\varepsilon}.
\]
We now want to use an interpolation inequality. Notice that, for any $\delta > 0$, there exists some $C_\delta$ (depending only on $\delta$ and $\varepsilon$) such that $\xi^{1-\varepsilon} \le \delta\xi + C_\delta$ for all $\xi \ge 0$. Taking $\xi = \frac{A}{B}$ with
\[
A = \|u \|_{L^\infty(B_{r})} ,\qquad B = \left(C \strokedint_{B_r} |u|^{\varepsilon}\right)^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon}}
\]
we deduce that, for any $\delta > 0$, there exists some $C_\delta$ such that
\[
\|u \|_{L^\infty(B_{r/2})} \le C \|u \|_{L^\infty(B_{r})}^{1-\varepsilon}\strokedint_{B_r} |u|^{\varepsilon}\le \delta\, \|u\|_{L^\infty(B_r)} + C_\delta \left(C \strokedint_{B_r} |u|^{\varepsilon}\right)^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon}}.
\]
In particular,
\[
\|u \|_{L^\infty(B_{r/2})} \le \delta \|u\|_{L^\infty(B_r)} + C_\delta r^{-\frac{n}{\varepsilon}} \|u\|_{L^\varepsilon(B_1)}.
\]
We are now in position to apply Lemma~\ref{lem.SAL} with $S(A) = \|u\|_{L^\infty(A)}$, $k = \frac{n}{\varepsilon}$ and $\gamma = C_\delta \|u\|_{L^\varepsilon(B_1)}$, to deduce that
\[
\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_{1/2})}\le C \|u\|_{L^\varepsilon(B_1)},
\]
for some constant $C$ depending only on $n$ and $\varepsilon$, as wanted.
\end{proof}
As a consequence of the previous lemmas we obtain the following two useful results, which are partial steps towards the proof of Theorem \ref{boundary-Harnack_App}.
The first one gives an $L^\infty$ bound for $u$ in terms of the value of the function at an interior point in $\Omega$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem.bhbounded}
Let $u\in C(B_1)$ be a positive harmonic function in $B_1\cap \Omega$ with $u = 0$ on $B_1\setminus \Omega$, where $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is a Lipschitz domain as in \eqref{eq.g1}-\eqref{eq.g2}. Assume, moreover, that $u(\frac12 e_n) = 1$. Then,
\[
\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_{1/2})}\le C,
\]
for some constant $C$ depending only on $n$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Notice that since $u \ge 0$ is harmonic whenever $u > 0$, and it is continuous, we have $\Delta u \ge 0$ in $B_1$ in the viscosity sense.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 1]{./Figures/figB_3_2.pdf}
\caption{A chain of balls to apply the Harnack inequality sequentially.}
\label{fig.B_2}
\end{figure}
On the other hand, since $g$ in \eqref{eq.g1} has Lipschitz constant bounded by 1, we have $B_{\varrho}(\frac12 e_n)\subset \{\Delta u = 0\}$, with $\varrho = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}$. In particular, by Harnack's inequality (see \eqref{eq.Harnack_rho}) we have that $u \le C_n$ in $B_{1/4}(\frac12 e_n)$. That is, $u(0, x_n) \le C_n$ for $x_n\in \left(\frac14, \frac12\right)$. Repeating iteratively, we get $u(0, x_n) \le C_n^k$ for $x_n\in \left(2^{-k-1}, 2^{-k}\right)$ (see~Figure~\ref{fig.B_2} for a sketch of this chain of inequalities), so that $u(0, t) \le t^{-K}$ for $t\in \left(0, \frac12\right)$, for some large dimensional constant $K$. We can repeat the same procedure at all points in $B_{1/2}$ by iterating successive Harnack inequalities, to deduce that
\[
u\le d^{-K}\qquad\text{in}\quad B_{1/2},\qquad\mbox{where}\quad d(x):={\rm dist}(x,\Omega^c).
\]
In particular, for $\varepsilon>0$ small enough we have
\[
\int_{B_{1/2}} |u|^{\varepsilon} \le C.
\]
By Lemma~\ref{lem.prop2}, we deduce that $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_{1/4})}\leq C$, and the result in $B_{1/2}$ follows from a simple covering argument.
\end{proof}
The second lemma reads as follows.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem.kdelta}
Let $\delta > 0$ be small, let $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ be a Lipschitz domain as in \eqref{eq.g1}-\eqref{eq.g2}, and let $\Omega_\delta:=\{x\in \Omega : {\rm dist}(x,\Omega^c)\geq \delta\}$.
Let $u\in C(B_1)$ satisfy
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta u & = & 0 &\text{in } \Omega\cap B_1\\
u &= & 0 &\text{on } \partial \Omega\cap B_1
\end{array}\right.
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
u & \ge & 1 &\text{in } B_1\cap \Omega_\delta\\
u &\ge & -\delta &\text{in } B_1.
\end{array}\right.
\]
Then, for all $k\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $k\delta \le \frac34$, we have
\[
u \ge -\delta (1-c_\circ)^k \quad\text{in}\quad B_{1-k\delta}
\]
for some constant $c_\circ$ depending only on $n$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $u^- = \min\{u, 0\}$.
Notice that $u^-$ is superharmonic (in the viscosity sense) since $\Delta u^- = 0$ when $u^- < 0$, and $u^- \le 0$, so we have $\Delta u^-\le 0$. Let $w = u^- + \delta$.
By assumption, $w \ge 0$ and $\Delta w \le 0$.
Let $x_\circ\in \partial \Omega\cap B_{1-2\delta}$.
Let us apply Lemma~\ref{lem.prop1} to a ball of radius $2\delta$ around $x_\circ$, so that (after scaling) we deduce
\[
\inf_{B_{\delta}(x_\circ)} w \ge c \delta^{-n} \|w \|_{L^1(B_{\delta}(x_\circ) )}.
\]
Notice, now, that since the domain is Lipschitz and $w\ge \delta$ in $\Omega^c$, we can bound $\|w\|_{L^1(B_{\delta}(x_\circ))} \ge \delta |\{w \ge \delta\}\cap B_{\delta}(x_\circ)|\ge c \delta^{n+1}$ for some $c$ (see~Figure~\ref{fig.B_3}) depending only on~$n$. Thus,
\[
\inf_{B_{\delta}(x_\circ)} w \ge c_\circ\delta.
\]
In particular, since $w \ge \delta$ in $B_1\cap \Omega_\delta$ we have $w \ge c_\circ\delta$ in $B_{1-\delta}$ and therefore $u \ge -\delta(1-c_\circ)$ in $B_{1-\delta}$. Applying iteratively this inequality for balls of radius $1-2\delta$, $1-3\delta$, ..., we obtain the desired result.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 1.3]{./Figures/figB_2.pdf}
\caption{The fact that the domain is Lipschitz allows us to bound the $L^1$ norm of $w$ in $B_\delta(x_\circ)$ from below.}
\label{fig.B_3}
\end{figure}
We can now show the following result, which is a key step in the proof of Theorem~\ref{boundary-Harnack_App}.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop.bh}
There exists $\delta>0$, depending only on $n$, such that the following holds.
Let $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ be a Lipschitz domain as in \eqref{eq.g1}-\eqref{eq.g2}, and let $\Omega_\delta:=\{x\in \Omega : {\rm dist}(x,\Omega^c)\geq \delta\}$.
Assume that $u\in C(B_1)$ satisfies
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta u & = & 0 &\text{in } \Omega\cap B_1\\
u &= & 0 &\text{on } \partial \Omega\cap B_1
\end{array}\right.
\quad\,\text{and}\quad \,
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
u & \ge & 1 &\text{in } B_1\cap \Omega_\delta \\
u &\ge & -\delta &\text{in } B_1.
\end{array}\right.
\]
Then, $u \ge 0$ in $B_{1/2}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
It is enough to show that, for some $a > 0$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.ua}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
u & \ge & a &\text{in } B_{1/2}\cap \Omega_{\delta/2}\\
u &\ge & -\delta a &\text{in } B_{1/2}.
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
Indeed, iterating \eqref{eq.ua} at all scales, and at all points $z\in \partial \Omega\cap B_{1/2}$, we obtain
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
u & \ge & a^k &\text{in } B_{2^{-k}}(z)\cap \Omega_{2^{-k}\delta}\\
u &\ge & -\delta a^k &\text{in } B_{2^{-k}}(z)
\end{array}\right.
\]
for all $k\in \mathbb{N}$.
In particular, the first inequality yields that $u(z+t e_n)\ge 0$ for $z\in \partial \Omega\cap B_{1/2}$ and $t > 0$, and therefore $u \ge 0$ in $B_{1/2}$.
Let us show \eqref{eq.ua}.
We start with the first inequality.
Let $x_\circ\in B_{1/2}\cap \Omega_{\delta / 2}$, and let us suppose that $\frac{\delta}{2}\le {\rm dist}(x_\circ,\Omega^c) < \delta$ (otherwise, we are done by assumption).
Consider the function $w = u + \delta$, which satisfies $w\ge 0 $ in $\Omega$ by assumption.
Notice that we can connect the points $x_\circ$ and $x_\circ+\frac{1}{2}\delta e_n$ with a sequence of (three) overlapping balls in $\Omega$, so that we can apply Harnack's inequality to $w$ to deduce
\[
w(x_\circ) \ge \frac{1}{C}\,w\big(x_\circ+{\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta e_n\big) \ge \frac{1}{C},
\]
for some dimensional constant $C$, where in the last step we are using that $w\left(x_\circ+\frac{1}{2}\delta e_n\right)\ge 1+\delta$ by assumption.
In particular, by taking $\delta > 0$ smaller than $\frac{1}{2C}$, we get
\[
u(x_\circ) \ge \frac{1}{C} - \delta \ge \frac{1}{2C}\qquad \mbox{for all}\quad x_\circ\in B_{1/2}\cap \Omega_{\delta / 2}.
\]
On the other hand, by Lemma~\ref{lem.kdelta} we know that $u \ge - \delta(1-c_\circ)^k$ in $B_{1-k\delta}$ as long as $k\delta \le \frac34$. If we take $k= \frac{1}{2\delta}$, we deduce
\[
u \ge - \delta(1-c_\circ)^{\frac{1}{2\delta}}\quad \text{in}\quad B_{1/2},
\]
and taking $\delta$ small enough such that $(1-c_\circ)^{\frac{1}{2\delta}}\le \frac{1}{2C}$ we are done.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}[Proposition~\ref{prop.bh} for small Lipschitz constants]
The proofs of Lemma~\ref{lem.kdelta} and
Proposition~\ref{prop.bh} can be simplified a lot in the case of a domain with small Lipschitz constant.
Indeed, let us assume that the hypotheses of Proposition~\ref{prop.bh} hold, where the domain $\Omega$ satisfies \eqref{eq.g1}-\eqref{eq.g2} but with Lipschitz constant $L < \frac{1}{n-1}$, and let us consider the harmonic function
\[
\varphi(x) = x_n^2 - \frac{1}{n-1}\left(x_1^2+x_2^2+\dots+x_{n-1}^2\right).
\]
Then, for $\delta$ small enough, $\varphi \le u$ on $\partial B_{1/2}\cap \Omega$, and by assumption on the Lipschitz constant of the domain we have that $\varphi\le 0$ on $\partial\Omega\cap B_1$. In all, the maximum principle gives $\varphi \le u$ in $B_{1/2}\cap \Omega$, which implies that $u(t e_n) \ge 0$ for $t\in\left[0, \frac12\right]$. By repeating the same argument at all boundary points in $\partial\Omega\cap B_{1/2}$ we reach that $u \ge 0$ in $B_{1/2}$.
\end{rem}
We can now give the proof of Theorem~\ref{boundary-Harnack_App}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{boundary-Harnack_App}]
Thanks to Lemma \ref{lem.bhbounded}, up to a constant depending on $C_\circ$, we may assume $w_1(\frac12 e_n) = w_2(\frac12 e_n) = 1$. Then, let us define
\[
v = M w_1 - \varepsilon w_2
\]
for some constants $M$ (large) and $\varepsilon$ (small) to be chosen.
Let $\delta >0$ be given by Proposition~\ref{prop.bh}.
Then, since $w_2$ is bounded,
\[
v \ge -\varepsilon w_2 \ge -\delta \quad \text{in } \quad B_{1/2}
\]
for $\varepsilon>0$ small enough.
On the other hand, by the interior Harnack inequality, we can take $M$ large enough so that $M w_1 \ge 1+\delta$ in $B_{1/2}\cap \Omega_\delta$, where we recall that $\Omega_\delta = \{x \in \Omega : {\rm dist}(x,\Omega^c) \ge \delta\}$.
That is,
\[
v = Mw_1 - \varepsilon w_2 \ge 1\quad \text{in } \quad B_{1/2}\cap \Omega_\delta,
\]
for $M$ large enough depending only on $n$.
Thus, the hypotheses of Proposition~\ref{prop.bh} are satisfied, and therefore we deduce that $v \ge 0$ in $B_{1/2}$.
This means that, $w_2 \le C w_1$ in $B_{1/4}$ for some constant $C$ depending only on $n$. The inequality in $B_{1/2}$ follows by a covering argument.
Finally, reversing the roles of $w_1$ and $w_2$, we obtain the desired result.
\end{proof}
Finally, we give the:
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary~\ref{boundary-Harnack_App2}]
Let us denote
\[W := \frac{w_1}{w_2},\]
so that we have to prove H\"older regularity for $W$ in $\overline{\Omega}\cap B_{1/2}$.
Notice that, by Theorem \ref{boundary-Harnack_App}, we know that
\[
\frac{1}{C}\le W \le C\quad\text{in}\quad B_{1/2}\cap \Omega,
\]
for some $C$ depending only on $n$.
We start by claiming that, for some $\theta > 0$ and all $k\in \mathbb N$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.claimbh}
\osc_{B_{2^{-k-1}}} W \le (1-\theta) \osc_{B_{2^{-k}}} W.
\end{equation}
Indeed, let
\[
a_k := \sup_{B_{2^{-k}}} W \qquad\text{and}\qquad b_k := \inf_{B_{2^{-k}}}W.
\]
If we denote $p_k = \frac{1}{2^{k+1}} e_n$, then either $W(p_k) \ge \frac{1}{2}(a_k +b_k)$ or $W(p_k) \le \frac{1}{2}(a_k +b_k)$.
Suppose first that $W(p_k) \ge \frac{1}{2}(a_k +b_k)$, and let us define
\[
v:= \frac{w_1 - b_k w_2}{a_k - b_k}.
\]
Notice that, by assumption,
\[
\frac12 w_2(p_k) \le v(p_k) \le w_2(p_k).
\]
In particular, we can apply Theorem \ref{boundary-Harnack_App} to the pair of functions $v$ and $w_2$ in the ball $B_{2^{-k}}$, to deduce that $v \ge \frac{1}{C} w_2$ in $B_{2^{-k-1}}$, that is,
\[
\frac{w_1 - b_k w_2}{a_k - b_k}\ge \frac{1}{C} w_2 \quad\text{in}\quad B_{2^{-k-1}}\quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad \inf_{B_{2^{-k-1}}} W \ge \frac{1}{C} (a_k - b_k) + b_k.
\]
Since $\sup_{B_{2^{-k-1}}} W \le \sup_{B_{2^{-k}}} W \le a_k$, we deduce that
\[
\osc_{B_{2^{-k-1}}} W \le a_k - \frac{1}{C}(a_k - b_k) - b_k = \left(1-\frac{1}{C}\right) (a_k - b_k) = (1-\theta) \osc_{B_{2^{-k}}} W,
\]
with $ \theta = \frac{1}{C}$, as wanted.
If we assume instead that $W(p_k) \le \frac{1}{2}(a_k +b_k)$, then the argument is similar taking $v := (a_k w_2 - w_1)/(a_k - b_k)$ instead. In all, \eqref{eq.claimbh} holds.
In particular, we have shown that, for some small $\alpha$ depending only on $n$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.oscbh}
\osc_{B_r(x_\circ)}W \le C r^\alpha\quad\text{for all}\quad r\in (0,{\textstyle \frac14}) \quad\text{and}\quad x_\circ\in \partial \Omega\cap B_{1/2},
\end{equation}
(compare with the proof of Corollary~\ref{cor.Holder_regularity_1}).
We now need to combine \eqref{eq.oscbh} with interior estimates for harmonic functions to deduce our desired result.
Indeed, letting $x, y\in \overline{\Omega}\cap B_{1/2}$, we want to show that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.toshowbh}
\left|W (x) - W(y)\right| \le C |x-y|^\alpha,
\end{equation}
for some constant $C$ depending only on $n$.
Let $2r = {\rm dist}(x, \partial \Omega) = |x-x_*|$, with $x_*\in \partial \Omega$. We consider two cases:
\vspace{2mm}
\noindent $\bullet$ If $|x - y |\ge \frac{r}{2}$, then we apply \eqref{eq.oscbh} in a ball $B_\rho(x_*)$ with radius $\rho = 2r + |x-y|$ to deduce that
\[
|W(x) - W(y) |\le \osc_{B_{\rho}(x_*)}W \le C (2r+|x-y|)^\alpha\le C |x-y|^{\alpha}.
\]
\vspace{2mm}
\noindent $\bullet$ If $|x - y |\le \frac{r}{2}$, then by \eqref{eq.oscbh} we know that $\osc_{B_r(x)}W \le C r^\alpha$. In particular, if we denote $c_* := W(x)$, then
\[
\|w_1 - c_* w_2\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x))} = \|w_2\left(W - c_*\right)\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x))}\le C r^\alpha \|w_2\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x))}.
\]
On the other hand, since $w_1 - c_* w_2$ is harmonic in $B_r(x)$, by Corollary~\ref{cor.Holder_regularity_1} (rescaled) we know that
\[
[w_1 - c_* w_2]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{r/2}(x))} \le \frac{C}{r^\alpha} \|w_1 - c_* w_2\|_{L^\infty(B_{r}(x))} \le C \|w_2\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x))}.
\]
Hence,
\[
|W (y) - W(x) | = \left|\frac{w_1(y)- c_*w_2(y)}{w_2(y)}\right|\le C|x-y|^\alpha\frac{\|w_2\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x))}}{w_2(y)}.
\]
We finish by noticing that, by Harnack's inequality applied to $w_2$ in $B_{2r}(x)$, we have $\|w_2\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x))} \le Cw_2(y)$ for some $C$ depending only on $n$.
\vspace{2mm}
With these two cases, we have shown \eqref{eq.toshowbh}. This proves the result.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
\label{rem.general}
As said above, the proofs in this Appendix have been carried out in case that $\Omega$ is a Lipschitz domain as in \eqref{eq.g1}, with Lipschitz constant bounded by 1.
This slightly simplifies the notation, and we have that $\Omega\cap B_1$ has only one connected component.
In case of general Lipschitz domains (with Lipschitz constant bounded by $L$), the same proofs can be carried out, provided that one is slightly more careful with the underlying geometry.
A simple way to do this is to prove all the results with $B_{1/2}$ replaced by $B_\rho$, with $\rho>0$ small depending on $L$.
An alternative way to do this is to work with cylinders, rather than balls, as in \cite{DS-bdryH}.
\end{rem}
\endinput
\chapter{Overview and Preliminaries}
\label{ch.0}
A beautiful result in Complex Analysis states that because the real part $u(x, y)$ of any holomorphic function satisfies
\[u_{xx}+u_{yy}=0,\]
it must be real analytic.
Moreover, the oscillation of $u$ in any given domain controls \emph{all} the derivatives in any (compactly contained) subdomain.
In higher dimensions, the same phenomenon occurs for solutions to
\begin{equation} \label{eq.LapD}
\Delta u =0\quad \textrm{in}\quad \Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n.
\end{equation}
These are \emph{harmonic functions}, and \eqref{eq.LapD} is the simplest elliptic partial differential equation (PDE).
Any solution to this equation is smooth (real analytic), and satisfies
\[\|u\|_{C^k(Q)}\leq C_{k,Q}\|u\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}\qquad \textrm{for all}\quad k=1,2,3,...\]
for any compact subdomain $Q\subset\subset \Omega$.
That is, all derivatives are controlled by the supremum of $u$.
Here, and throughout the book, $\Omega$ is any bounded domain of $\mathbb{R}^n$.
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{center}
\fbox{
\begin{minipage}{0.85\textwidth}
\vspace{1.5mm}
\noindent \ $\bullet$\ \emph{Regularity for Laplace's equation}:
\vspace{2mm}
\[\qquad\Delta u=0\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n\qquad \Longrightarrow\qquad u\ \textrm{is}\ C^\infty\ \textrm{inside}\ \Omega.\quad\]
\vspace{2mm}
\end{minipage}
}
\end{center}
\vspace{2mm}
This kind of regularization property is common in elliptic PDEs and is the topic of the present book.
\vspace{3mm}
One can give three different kinds of explanations for this phenomenon:
\vspace{1mm}
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] \underline{\smash{Integral representation of solutions}}: Poisson kernels, fundamental solutions, etc.
\vspace{2mm}
\item[(b)] \underline{\smash{Energy considerations}}: Harmonic functions are local minimizers of the Dirichlet energy
\[\mathcal E(u):=\int_\Omega |\nabla u|^2\,dx\]
(i.e., if we change $u$ to $w$ in $\tilde\Omega\subset\Omega$, then $\mathcal E(w)\geq\mathcal E(u)$).
\vspace{2mm}
\item[(c)] \underline{\smash{Comparison principle}}: A harmonic function cannot have any interior maximum point (maximum principle).
\end{itemize}
\vspace{2mm}
These three approaches are extremely useful in different contexts, as well as in the development of the regularity theory for \emph{nonlinear} elliptic PDEs.
\vspace{3mm}
The structure of the book is as follows:
\vspace{2mm}
$\star$ First, in {\bf Chapter \ref{ch.1}} we will study \emph{linear} elliptic PDEs
\[\sum_{i,j=1}^n a_{ij}(x)\partial_{ij}u= f(x)\quad \textrm{in}\quad \Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n\]
and
\[\sum_{i,j=1}^n \partial_i\bigl(a_{ij}(x)\partial_{j}u\bigr)= f(x)\quad \textrm{in}\quad \Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n,\]
where the coefficients $a_{ij}(x)$ and the right-hand side $f(x)$ satisfy appropriate regularity assumptions.
In the simplest case, $(a_{ij})_{i,j}\equiv \textrm{Id}$, we have
\[\Delta u=f(x)\quad \textrm{in}\quad \Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n.\]
The type of result we want to prove is: ``$u$ \emph{is two derivatives more regular than} $f$''.
\vspace{2mm}
$\star$ Then, in {\bf Chapter \ref{ch.2}} we will turn our attention to \emph{nonlinear variational PDEs}:
\[\textrm{minimizers of}\quad \mathcal E(u):=\int_\Omega L(\nabla u)dx,\quad L\ \textrm{smooth and uniformly convex}.\]
The regularity for such kind of nonlinear PDEs was Hilbert's XIXth problem (1900).
\vspace{2mm}
$\star$ In {\bf Chapter \ref{ch.3}} we will study nonlinear elliptic PDEs in their most general form
\[F(D^2u,\nabla u,u,x)=0 \quad \textrm{in}\quad \Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n,\]
or simply
\[F(D^2u)=0 \quad \textrm{in}\quad \Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n.\]
These are called \emph{fully nonlinear elliptic equations}, and in general they do \emph{not} have a variational formulation in terms of an energy functional.
\vspace{2mm}
$\star$ In {\bf Chapter \ref{ch.4}} we will study the \emph{obstacle problem}, a constrained minimization problem:
\[\textrm{minimize}\qquad \int_\Omega |\nabla u|^2dx,\qquad \textrm{among functions}\ u\geq\varphi\ \textrm{in}\ \Omega,\]
where $\varphi$ is a given smooth ``obstacle''.
This is the simplest and most important elliptic \emph{free boundary problem}.
Moreover, it can be seen as a nonlinear PDE of the type \ $\min\{-\Delta u,\,u-\varphi\}=0$ in $\Omega$.
\vspace{3mm}
As we will see, in each of these contexts we will use mainly: (b) energy considerations, or (c) maximum principle.
At the end of the book, we have also included four appendices to complement the theory from the main chapters.
\section{Preliminaries: Sobolev and H\"older spaces}
\label{sec.hs}
We next give a quick review on $L^p$, Sobolev, and H\"older spaces, stating the results that will be used later in the book.
\subsection*{$L^p$ spaces}
Given $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ and $1\leq p<\infty$, the space $L^p(\Omega)$ is the set
\[L^p(\Omega):=\left\{u\textrm{ measurable in }\Omega\,:\, \int_\Omega |u|^pdx<\infty\right\}.\]
It is a Banach space, with the norm $\|u\|_{L^p(\Omega)}:=(\int_\Omega |u|^p)^{1/p}$.
When $p=\infty$, the space $L^\infty(\Omega)$ is the set of bounded functions (up to sets of measure zero), with the norm $\|u\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}:=\textrm{esssup}_\Omega|u|$.
A well-known result in this setting is the Lebesgue differentiation theorem (see, for example, \cite{EG92}).
\begin{thm}\label{Lebesgue}\index{Lebesgue differentiation theorem}
If $u\in L^1(\Omega)$, then for almost every $x\in \Omega$ we have
\[\lim_{r\to0}\strokedint_{B_r(x)}\bigl|u(x)-u(y)\bigr|dy=0.\]
When this holds at a point $x\in \Omega$, we say that $x$ is a Lebesgue point of $u$.
\end{thm}
Here, and throughout the book, $\strokedint_A$ denotes the average $\frac{1}{|A|}\int_A$, where $A\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ is any set of finite and positive measure.\index{Average integral}
A useful consequence of this result is the following.
\begin{cor}\label{ch0-ae}
Assume $u\in L^1(\Omega)$, and
\[\int_\Omega uv\,dx=0\qquad \textrm{for all }\, v\in C^\infty_c(\Omega).\]
Then, $u=0$ a.e. in $\Omega$.
\end{cor}
\subsection*{Integration by parts}
A fundamental identity in the study of PDEs is the following.
\begin{thm}[Integration by parts]\label{ch0-int-parts}\index{Integration by parts}
Assume $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ is any bounded $C^1$ domain\footnote{We refer to the Notation section (page \pageref{domainnotation}) for the definition of $C^1$ domains.}.
Then, for any $u, v\in C^1(\overline\Omega)$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{int-parts}
\int_\Omega \partial_iu\,v\,dx= -\int_\Omega u\,\partial_iv\,dx+\int_{\partial\Omega} uv\,\nu_i\,dS,
\end{equation}
where $\nu$ is the unit (outward) normal vector to $\partial\Omega$, and $i=1,2,...,n$.
\end{thm}
Notice that, as an immediate consequence, we find the divergence theorem, as well as Green's first identity
\[\int_\Omega \nabla u\cdot\nabla v\,dx= -\int_\Omega u\,\Delta v\,dx+\int_{\partial\Omega} u\,\frac{\partial v}{\partial \nu}\,dS.\]
The regularity requirements of Theorem \ref{ch0-int-parts} can be relaxed.
For instance, the domain $\Omega$ need only be Lipschitz, while only $u,v\in H^1(\Omega)$ is necessary in \eqref{int-parts} --- where $H^1$ is a Sobolev space, defined below.
\subsection*{Sobolev spaces}
\index{Sobolev space}
Given any domain $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ and $1\leq p\leq\infty$, the Sobolev spaces $W^{1,p}(\Omega)$ consist of all functions whose (weak) derivatives are in $L^p(\Omega)$, namely
\[W^{1,p}(\Omega):=\left\{u\in L^p(\Omega)\,:\, \partial_i u\in L^p(\Omega)\,\textrm{ for }\,i=1,...,n\right\}.\]
We refer to the excellent books \cite{Evans,Brezis} for the definition of weak derivatives and a detailed exposition on Sobolev spaces.
A few useful properties of Sobolev spaces are the following (see \cite{Evans}):
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=*,label={\bf (S\arabic*)}]
\setlength\itemsep{2mm}
\item \label{it.S1} The spaces $W^{1,p}(\Omega)$ are complete.
\item \label{it.S2} The inclusion $W^{1,p}(\Omega)\subset L^p(\Omega)$ is compact.
\item \label{it.S3} The space $H^1(\Omega):=W^{1,2}(\Omega)$ is a Hilbert space with the scalar product
\[(u,v)_{H^1(\Omega)}=\int_\Omega uv+\int_\Omega \nabla u\cdot\nabla v.\]
\item \label{it.S4} Any bounded sequence $\{u_k\}$ in the Hilbert space $H^1(\Omega)$ contains a weakly convergent subsequence $\{u_{k_j}\}$, that is, there exists $u\in H^1(\Omega)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{ch0-weak-conv}
\qquad\qquad(u_{k_j},v)_{H^1(\Omega)}\to (u,v)_{H^1(\Omega)} \quad \textrm{for all}\ v\in H^1(\Omega).
\end{equation}
In addition, such $u$ will satisfy
\begin{equation}\label{ch0-weak-conv2}
\|u\|_{H^1(\Omega)}\leq \liminf_{j\to\infty}\|u_{k_j}\|_{H^1(\Omega)},
\end{equation}
and since $H^1(\Omega)$ is compactly embedded in $L^2(\Omega)$ one has
\begin{equation}\label{ch0-weak-conv3}
\|u\|_{L^2(\Omega)}= \lim_{j\to\infty}\|u_{k_j}\|_{L^2(\Omega)}.
\end{equation}
\item \label{it.S5} Let $\Omega$ be any bounded Lipschitz domain, and $1\leq p\le\infty$.
Then, there is a continuous (and compact for $p>1$) trace operator from $W^{1,p}(\Omega)$ to $L^p(\partial\Omega)$.
For $C^0$ functions, such trace operator is simply $u\mapsto u|_{\partial\Omega}$.
Because of this, for any function $u \in H^1(\Omega)$ we will still denote by $u|_{\partial\Omega}$ its trace on $\partial\Omega$.
\item \label{it.S7} For $1\le p < \infty$, $C^\infty(\Omega)$ functions are dense in $W^{1,p}(\Omega)$. Moreover, if $\Omega$ is bounded and Lipschitz, $C^\infty(\overline{\Omega})$ functions are dense in $W^{1,p}(\Omega)$.
\item \label{it.S6} For $1\le p < \infty$, we define the space $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$ as the closure of $C^\infty_c(\Omega)$ in $W^{1,p}(\Omega)$. Similarly, we denote $H_0^1(\Omega) := W^{1,2}_0(\Omega)$. When $\Omega$ is bounded and Lipschitz, it is the space of functions $u\in W^{1,p}(\Omega)$ such that $u|_{\partial\Omega}=0$.
\item \label{it.S9} If $u\in W^{1,p}(\Omega)$, $1\leq p\leq \infty$, then for any subdomain $K\subset\subset \Omega$ we have
\[\left\|\frac{u(x+h)-u(x)}{|h|}\right\|_{L^p(K)}\leq C\left\|\nabla u\right\|_{L^p(\Omega)}\]
for all $h\in B_\delta$, with $\delta>0$ small enough.
Conversely, if $u\in L^p(\Omega)$, $1<p\leq \infty$, and
\[\left\|\frac{u(x+h)-u(x)}{|h|}\right\|_{L^p(K)}\leq C\]
for every $h\in B_\delta$, then $u\in W^{1,p}(K)$ and $\left\|\nabla u\right\|_{L^p(\Omega)}\leq C$.
(However, this property fails when $p=1$.)
\item \label{it.S10} Given any function $u$, define $u^+=\max\{u,0\}$ and $u^-=\max\{-u,0\}$, so that $u=u^+-u^-$.
Then, for any $u\in W^{1,p}(\Omega)$ we have $u^+,u^-\in W^{1,p}(\Omega)$, and $\nabla u=\nabla u^+-\nabla u^-$ a.e. in $\Omega$.
In particular, the gradient of Sobolev functions vanishes almost everywhere on level sets, $\nabla u(x) = 0$ for a.e. $x\in \{u = 0\}$.
\end{enumerate}
An important inequality in this context is the following.
\begin{thm}[Sobolev inequality]\label{ch0-Sob}\index{Sobolev inequality}
If $p<n$, then
\[
\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} |u|^{p_*}dx\right)^{1/p_*} \leq C \left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|\nabla u|^pdx \right)^{1/p}, \qquad \frac{1}{p_*}=\frac1p-\frac1n,
\]
for some constant $C$ depending only on $n$ and $p$.
In particular, we have a continuous inclusion $W^{1,p}(\mathbb{R}^n)\subset L^{p_*}(\mathbb{R}^n)$.
\end{thm}
Notice that, as $p\uparrow n$ we have $p_*\to\infty$.
In the limiting case $p=n$, however, it is \emph{not} true that $W^{1,n}$ functions are bounded.
This can be seen by taking, for example, $u(x)=\log \log \left(1+\frac{1}{|x|}\right)\in W^{1,n}(B_1)$.
Still, in case $p>n$, the following occurs.
\begin{thm}[Morrey inequality]\index{Morrey inequality}
If $p>n$, then
\[
\sup_{x\neq y}\frac{\bigl|u(x)-u(y)\bigr|}{|x-y|^\alpha} \leq C \left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|\nabla u|^pdx \right)^{1/p}, \qquad \alpha=1-\frac{n}{p},
\]
for some constant $C$ depending only on $n$ and $p$.
\end{thm}
In particular, when $p>n$ any function in $W^{1,p}$ is continuous (after possibly being redefined on a set of measure 0).
Finally, we will also use the following inequalities in bounded domains.
\begin{thm}[Poincar\'e inequality]\label{ch0-Poinc}\index{Poincar\'e inequality}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be any bounded Lipschitz domain, and let $p\in [1, \infty)$.
Then, for any $u\in W^{1, p}(\Omega)$ we have
\[
\int_{\Omega} |u-u_\Omega|^pdx \leq C_{\Omega, p} \int_\Omega|\nabla u|^pdx,
\]
where $u_\Omega:=\strokedint_\Omega u$, and
\[
\int_{\Omega} |u|^pdx \leq C_{\Omega,p}' \left(\int_\Omega|\nabla u|^pdx +\int_{\partial\Omega}\bigl|u|_{\partial\Omega}\bigr|^pd\sigma\right).
\]
The constants $C_{\Omega,p}$ and $C_{\Omega,p}'$ depend only on $n$, $p$, and $\Omega$.
\end{thm}
\subsection*{H\"older spaces}
\label{ssec.HolderSpaces}
\index{H\"older space}
Given $\alpha\in(0,1)$, the H\"older space $C^{0,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)$ is the set of continuous functions $u\in C(\overline\Omega)$ such that the H\"older semi-norm is finite,
\[ [u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{\Omega})} := \sup_{\substack{x,y\in\overline\Omega\\x\neq y}}\frac{\bigl|u(x)-u(y)\bigr|}{|x-y|^\alpha}<\infty.\]\index{H\"older semi-norm}
The H\"older norm is
\[\|u\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)}:=\|u\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}+[u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{\Omega})}.\]\index{H\"older norm}
When $\alpha=1$, this is the usual space of Lipschitz continuous functions.
More generally, given $k\in\mathbb N$ and $\alpha\in(0,1)$, the space $C^{k,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)$ is the set of functions $u\in C^k(\overline\Omega)$ such that the following norm is finite
\[
\|u\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)} = \|u\|_{C^k(\overline\Omega)} + [D^k u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{\Omega})},
\]
where
\[
\|u\|_{C^k(\overline\Omega)} := \sum_{j=1}^k\|D^ju\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}.
\]
Notice that this yields the inclusions
\[C^0\supset C^{0,\alpha} \supset \textrm{Lip} \supset C^1 \supset C^{1,\alpha}\supset ...\supset C^\infty.\]
We will often write $\|u\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(\Omega)}$ instead of $\|u\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)}$.
Finally, it is sometimes convenient to use the following notation.
When $\beta>0$ is \emph{not} an integer, we define $C^\beta(\overline\Omega):=C^{k,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)$, where $\beta=k+\alpha$, $k\in\mathbb N$, $\alpha\in(0,1)$.
\vspace{2mm}
There are many properties or alternative definitions of H\"older spaces that will be used throughout the book.
They are valid for all $\alpha\in(0,1)$, and are proved in Appendix~\ref{app.A}.
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=*,label={\bf (H\arabic*)}]
\setlength\itemsep{2mm}
\item \label{it.H1} Assume
\[{\rm osc}_{B_r(x)}u\leq C_{\circ}r^\alpha\qquad \textrm{for all }\, B_r(x)\subset\overline{B_1},\]
where ${\rm osc}_A u:=\sup_A u - \inf_A u$.
Then, $u\in C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})$ and $[u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha$.
\item \label{it.H2} Let $u_{x,r}:=\strokedint_{B_r(x)}u$. Assume
\[\|u-u_{x,r}\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x))}\leq C_{\circ}r^\alpha\qquad \textrm{for all }\, B_r(x)\subset\overline{B_1}.\]
Then, $u\in C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})$ and $[u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha$.
\item \label{it.H3} Let $u_{x,r}:=\strokedint_{B_r(x)}u$. Assume
\[\left(\strokedint_{B_r(x)}|u-u_{x,r}|^2\right)^{1/2}\leq C_{\circ}r^\alpha\qquad \textrm{for all }\, B_r(x)\subset\overline{B_1}.\]
Then, $u\in C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})$ and $[u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha$.
\item \label{it.H4} Assume that for every $x$ there is a constant $C_x$ such that
\[\|u-C_x\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x))}\leq C_{\circ}r^\alpha\qquad \textrm{for all }\, B_r(x)\subset\overline{B_1}.\]
Then, $u\in C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})$ and $[u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha$.
Assume that for every $x$ there is a linear function $\ell_x(y)=a_x+b_x\cdot(y-x)$ such that
\[\|u-\ell_x\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x))}\leq C_{\circ}r^{1+\alpha}\qquad \textrm{for all }\, B_r(x)\subset\overline{B_1}.\]
Then, $u\in C^{1,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})$ and $[Du]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha$.
Assume that for every $x$ there is a quadratic polynomial $P_x(y)$ such that
\[\|u-P_x\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x))}\leq C_{\circ}r^{2+\alpha}\qquad \textrm{for all }\, B_r(x)\subset\overline{B_1}.\]
Then, $u\in C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})$ and $[D^2u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha$.
\item \label{it.H5} Let $\rho_\circ\in (0,1)$.
Assume that, for every $x\in B_{1/2}$, there exists a sequence of quadratic polynomials, $(P_k)_{k\in \mathbb{N}}$, such that
\begin{equation}
\label{ch0-H_QP}
\|u-P_k\|_{L^\infty(B_{\rho_\circ^k}(x))}\leq C_{\circ}\rho_\circ^{k(2+\alpha)}\qquad\textrm{for all }\, k\in \mathbb{N}.
\end{equation}
Then, $u\in C^{2,\alpha}(B_{1/2})$ and $[D^2u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le C C_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n$, $\alpha$, and $\rho_\circ$.
\item \label{it.H6} Assume that $\alpha\in(0,1)$, $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le C_{\circ}$, and
\[
\sup_{\substack{x\in B_1\\ x\pm h\in\overline{B_1}}}\frac{\bigl|u(x+h)+u(x-h)-2u(x)\bigr|}{|h|^\alpha}\leq C_{\circ}.
\]
Then, $u\in C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})$ and $\|u\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha$.
Assume that $\alpha\in (0, 1)$, $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le C_{\circ}$, and
\[\sup_{\substack{x\in B_1\\ x\pm h\in\overline{B_1}}}\frac{\bigl|u(x+h)+u(x-h)-2u(x)\bigr|}{|h|^{1+\alpha}}\leq C_{\circ}.
\]
Then, $u\in C^{1,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})$ and $\|u\|_{C^{1,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha$.
However, such property fails when $\alpha=0$.
\item \label{it.H7} Assume that $\alpha\in (0,1]$, $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le C_{\circ}$, and that for every $h\in B_1$ we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.H7}
\left\|\frac{u(x+h)-u(x)}{|h|^\alpha}\right\|_{C^\beta(B_{1-|h|})}\leq C_{\circ},
\end{equation}
with $C_{\circ}$ independent of $h$.
Assume in addition that $\alpha+\beta$ is not an integer.
Then, $u\in C^{\alpha+\beta}(\overline{B_1})$ and $\|u\|_{C^{\alpha+\beta}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha,\beta$.
However, such property fails when $\alpha+\beta$ is an integer.
\item \label{it.H8} Assume that $u_i\to u_0$ uniformly in $\overline\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$, and that $\|u_i\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)}\leq C_{\circ}$, with $\alpha\in (0, 1]$ and for some $C_{\circ}$ independent of $i$.
Then, we have that $u_0\in C^{k,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)$, and
\[\|u_0\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)}\leq C_{\circ}.\]
\end{enumerate}
\vspace{2mm}
Finally, an important result in this context is the following particular case of the Arzel\`a--Ascoli theorem.
\begin{thm}[Arzel\`a--Ascoli]\label{ch0-AA}\index{Arzel\`a-Ascoli Theorem}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$, $\alpha\in (0,1)$, and let $\{f_i\}_{i\in \mathbb N}$ be any sequence of functions $f_i$ satisfying
\[\|f_i\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)}\leq C_{\circ}.\]
Then, there exists a subsequence $f_{i_j}$ which converges uniformly to a function $f\in C^{0,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)$.
\end{thm}
More generally, this result --- combined with \ref{it.H8} --- implies that if
\[\|u_i\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)}\leq C_{\circ},\]
with $\alpha\in(0,1)$, then a subsequence $u_{i_j}$ will converge in the $C^k(\overline\Omega)$ norm to a function $u\in C^{k,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)$.
\subsection*{Interpolation inequalities in H\"older spaces}
\index{Interpolation inequalities}
A useful tool that will be used throughout the book is the following.
For each $0\leq \gamma<\alpha<\beta\leq1$ and every $\varepsilon>0$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{ch0-interp}
\|u\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)} \leq C_{\varepsilon}\|u\|_{C^{0,\gamma}(\overline\Omega)} + \varepsilon \|u\|_{C^{0,\beta}(\overline\Omega)},
\end{equation}
where $C$ is a constant depending only on $n$ and $\varepsilon$. (When $\gamma=0$, $C^{0,\gamma}$ should be replaced by $L^\infty$.)
This follows from the interpolation inequality
\[\|u\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)} \leq \|u\|_{C^{0,\gamma}(\overline\Omega)}^t \|u\|_{C^{0,\beta}(\overline\Omega)}^{1-t} \qquad t=\frac{\beta-\alpha}{\beta-\gamma}.\]
More generally, \eqref{ch0-interp} holds for higher-order H\"older norms too.
In particular, we will use that for any $\varepsilon>0$ and $\alpha\in(0,1)$
\[
\|\nabla u\|_{L^\infty(\overline\Omega)} \leq C_{\varepsilon}\|u\|_{L^\infty(\overline\Omega)} + \varepsilon [\nabla u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)},
\]
and
\begin{equation}\label{ch0-interp2}
\|u\|_{C^{2}(\overline\Omega)} = \|u\|_{C^{1,1}(\overline\Omega)} \leq C_{\varepsilon}\|u\|_{L^\infty(\overline\Omega)} + \varepsilon [D^2 u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)}.
\end{equation}
We refer to \cite[Lemma 6.35]{GT} for a proof of such inequalities.
\section{A review on the Laplace equation}
Elliptic equations are those that share some common properties with the Laplace equation. (We will be more rigorous about this in the subsequent chapters.)
Thus, we start with a quick review about the Laplace equation and harmonic functions.
The \emph{Dirichlet problem} for this equation is the following:\index{Dirichlet problem!Laplace equation}
\begin{equation}\label{DirP}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta u & = & 0 &\text{in } \Omega\\
u &=& g &\text{on } \partial\Omega,
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
where the boundary condition $g$ is given.
The domain $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ is bounded and smooth (or at least Lipschitz).
The Dirichlet problem is solvable, and it has a unique solution.
A useful way to think of the Laplacian $\Delta$ is to notice that, up to a multiplicative constant, it is the only linear operator of second order which is translation invariant \emph{and} rotation invariant.
Indeed, it can be seen as an operator which measures (infinitesimally) the difference between $u$ at $x$ and the average of $u$ around $x$, in the following sense: for any $C^2$ function $w$ we have
\begin{equation} \label{Laplacian-radially}
\begin{split}
\Delta w(x)&=\lim_{r\to0}\frac{c_n}{r^2}\left\{\strokedint_{B_r(x)}w(y)dy-w(x)\right\}\\
&=\lim_{r\to0}\frac{c_n}{r^2}\strokedint_{B_r(x)}\bigl(w(y)-w(x)\bigr)dy,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
for some positive constant $c_n$.
This can be shown, for example, by using the Taylor expansion of $w(y)$ around $x$.
Moreover, a similar formula holds with integrals in $\partial B_r(x)$ instead of $B_r(x)$. See, for example, \cite{DV21}.
Actually, one can show by using the divergence theorem that
\begin{equation}
\label{Laplacian-radially_2}
\frac{n}{r} \frac{d}{dr}\strokedint_{\partial B_r(x)} w \, d\sigma = \strokedint_{B_r(x)}\Delta w,
\end{equation}
from which \eqref{Laplacian-radially} also follows.
\subsection*{Existence of solutions: energy methods}
\index{Energy method}
The most classical way to construct solutions of \eqref{DirP} is by ``energy methods''.
Namely, we consider the convex functional
\[\qquad\qquad\mathcal E(u):= \frac12\int_\Omega |\nabla u|^2dx\qquad \textrm{among functions satisfying}\quad u|_{\partial\Omega}=g,\]
and then look for the function $u$ that minimizes the functional --- see Theorem~\ref{ch0-existence} below for more details about the existence of a minimizer.
Notice that such minimizer $u$ will clearly satisfy the boundary condition $u=g$ on $\partial\Omega$, so we only have to check that it will satisfy in addition $\Delta u=0$ in $\Omega$.
If $u$ is the minimizer, then $\mathcal E(u)\leq \mathcal E(u+\varepsilon v)$ for every $v\in C^\infty_c(\Omega)$.
Since, for every fixed $v$, such function in $\varepsilon$ has a minimum at $\varepsilon=0$, we have
\[\left.\frac{d}{d\varepsilon}\right|_{\varepsilon=0}\mathcal E(u+\varepsilon v) =0.\]
Thus,
\begin{eqnarray*}
0 & = & \left.\frac{d}{d\varepsilon}\right|_{\varepsilon=0} \mathcal E(u+\varepsilon v)
= \left.\frac{d}{d\varepsilon}\right|_{\varepsilon=0} \frac12\int_\Omega |\nabla u+\varepsilon v|^2 dx\\
&=& \left.\frac{d}{d\varepsilon}\right|_{\varepsilon=0} \frac12\int_\Omega \bigl(|\nabla u|^2+2\varepsilon\nabla u\cdot\nabla v+\varepsilon^2|\nabla v|^2\bigr)dx\\
&=& \int_\Omega \nabla u\cdot\nabla v\,dx.
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence, if $u$ is the minimizer of the functional, then
\begin{equation}\label{weaksol-0}
\int_\Omega \nabla u\cdot\nabla v\,dx=0\qquad \textrm{for all}\quad v\in C^\infty_c(\Omega).
\end{equation}
\emph{If $u$ is regular enough} (say, $u\in C^2$), then we can integrate by parts (Theorem~\ref{ch0-int-parts}) to find that
\[\int_\Omega \Delta u\, v\,dx=0\qquad \textrm{for all}\quad v\in C^\infty_c(\Omega).\]
Thus, using Corollary \ref{ch0-ae} we deduce that $\Delta u=0$ in $\Omega$, as wanted.
\vspace{3mm}
\begin{rem}
As mentioned above, one should prove \emph{regularity} of $u$ before integrating by parts --- a priori the minimizer $u$ will only satisfy $u\in H^1(\Omega)$.
We will prove this in Corollary \ref{ch0-smooth} below.
If no extra regularity of $u$ is available, then the above argument shows that any minimizer $u$ of $\mathcal E$ is a \emph{weak solution}, in the following sense.
\end{rem}
\begin{defi}\label{defi-weak}\index{Weak solution}
We say that $u$ is a \emph{weak solution} of the Dirichlet problem \eqref{DirP} whenever $u\in H^1(\Omega)$, $u|_{\partial\Omega}=g$, and
\[ \int_\Omega \nabla u\cdot\nabla v\,dx=0\qquad \textrm{for all}\quad v\in H^1_0(\Omega).\]
Here, $u|_{\partial\Omega}$ is the trace of $u$ on $\partial\Omega$; recall \ref{it.S5} above.
More generally, given $f\in L^2(\Omega)$, we say that $u$ satisfies $-\Delta u=f$ in~$\Omega$ in the weak sense whenever $u\in H^1(\Omega)$ and
\[ \int_\Omega \nabla u\cdot\nabla v\,dx=\int_\Omega fv\qquad \textrm{for all}\quad v\in H^1_0(\Omega).\]
Finally, we say that $u$ is \emph{weakly superharmonic} (resp. \emph{weakly subharmonic}) in $\Omega$, or satisfies $\Delta u \le 0$ in $\Omega$ in the weak sense (resp. $\Delta u \ge 0$ in the weak sense) if
\[ \int_\Omega \nabla u\cdot\nabla v\,dx \ge 0 \quad \left(\text{resp. } \int_\Omega \nabla u\cdot\nabla v\,dx \le 0 \right)\quad \textrm{for all}\quad v\in H^1_0(\Omega), v\ge 0.\]
\end{defi}
Notice that, if $H^1(\Omega)\ni u_k \rightharpoonup u\in H^1(\Omega)$ weakly in $H^1$, and $L^2(\Omega)\ni f_k \rightharpoonup f\in L^2(\Omega)$ weakly in $L^2$ are such that $\Delta u_k = f_k$ in $\Omega$ in the weak sense, then $\Delta u = f$ in the weak sense as well (by taking the limits in the previous definitions). Similarly, the weak limit of weakly (sub-)superharmonic functions is (sub-)superharmonic.
We next show the following:
\begin{thm}[Existence and uniqueness of weak solutions]\label{ch0-existence} \index{Existence and uniqueness!Laplace equation}
Assume that $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ is any bounded Lipschitz domain, and that
\begin{equation} \label{ch0-nonempty-g}
\left\{w\in H^1(\Omega)\,:\, w|_{\partial\Omega}=g\right\}\neq \varnothing.
\end{equation}
Then, there exists a unique weak solution to the Dirichlet problem \eqref{DirP}.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
\textsc{Existence.}
Let
\[\theta_{\circ}:=\inf\left\{\frac12\int_\Omega |\nabla w|^2dx\,:\, w\in H^1(\Omega),\ w|_{\partial\Omega}=g\right\},\]
that is, the infimum value of $\mathcal E(w)$ among all admissible functions $w$.
Let us take a sequence of functions $\{u_k\}$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $u_k\in H^1(\Omega)$
\item $u_k|_{\partial\Omega}=g$
\item $\mathcal E(u_k)\to \theta_{\circ}$ as $k\to\infty$.
\end{itemize}
By the Poincar\'e inequality (Theorem \ref{ch0-Poinc} with $p = 2$), the sequence $\{u_k\}$ is uniformly bounded in $H^1(\Omega)$, and therefore a subsequence $\{u_{k_j}\}$ will converge to a certain function $u$ strongly in $L^2(\Omega)$ and weakly in $H^1(\Omega)$ (recall \eqref{ch0-weak-conv}-\eqref{ch0-weak-conv3} in \ref{it.S4}).
Moreover, by compactness of the trace operator, we will have $u_{k_j}|_{\partial\Omega}\to u|_{\partial\Omega}$ in $L^2(\partial\Omega)$, so that $u|_{\partial\Omega}=g$.
Furthermore, such function $u$ will satisfy $\mathcal E(u)\leq \liminf_{j\to\infty}\mathcal E(u_{k_j})$ (by \eqref{ch0-weak-conv2} and \eqref{ch0-weak-conv3}), and therefore it will be a minimizer of the energy functional.
Thus, we have constructed a minimizer $u$ of the energy functional $\mathcal E(u)$ satisfying the boundary condition $u|_{\partial\Omega}=g$.
By the argument above, for any minimizer $u$ we have that \eqref{weaksol-0} holds.
Since $C^\infty_c(\Omega)$ is dense in $H^1_0(\Omega)$, it follows that \eqref{weaksol-0} holds for all $v\in H^1_0(\Omega)$, and thus it is a weak solution of \eqref{DirP}.
\vspace{2mm}
\textsc{Uniqueness.}
If $u$ is any weak solution to \eqref{DirP}, then for every $v\in H^1_0(\Omega)$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal E(u+v)&=&\frac12\int_\Omega|\nabla u+\nabla v|^2dx\\ &=&\frac12\int_\Omega |\nabla u|^2dx+\int_\Omega\nabla u\cdot \nabla v\,dx+\frac12\int_\Omega|\nabla v|^2dx\\
&=&\mathcal E(u)+0+\frac12\int_\Omega|\nabla v|^2dx\geq \mathcal E(u),
\end{eqnarray*}
with strict inequality if $v\not\equiv0$.
Thus, if $u$ solves \eqref{DirP}, then it is unique.
\end{proof}
In other words, we have shown that $u$ is a weak solution of \eqref{DirP} if and only if it minimizes the functional $\mathcal E(u)$ and, moreover, the minimizer of such energy functional exists and it is unique.
\begin{rem}
An interesting question is to determine the set of possible boundary data $g:\partial\Omega\to\mathbb{R}$ such that \eqref{ch0-nonempty-g} holds.
Of course, when $\Omega$ is any bounded Lipschitz domain, and $g$ is Lipschitz, then it is easy to show that $g$ has a Lipschitz extension inside $\Omega$, and in particular \eqref{ch0-nonempty-g} holds.
However, if $g$ is very irregular then it might happen that it is \emph{not} the trace of any $H^1(\Omega)$ function, so that \eqref{ch0-nonempty-g} fails in this case.
It turns out that the right condition on $g$ is the following: Given any bounded Lipschitz domain $\Omega$, \eqref{ch0-nonempty-g} holds if and only if
\[\int_{\partial\Omega}\int_{\partial\Omega}\frac{|g(x)-g(y)|^2}{|x-y|^{n+1}}\,dx\,dy<\infty.\]
We refer to \cite{Evans} for more details.
\end{rem}
\subsection*{Poisson kernel and fundamental solution}
\index{Poisson kernel}\index{Fundamental solution}
The unique weak solution to the Dirichlet problem in a ball is explicit:
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta u & = & 0 &\text{in } B_1\\
u &=& g &\text{on } \partial B_1,
\end{array}\right.\qquad \Longrightarrow\qquad u(x)=c_n\int_{\partial B_1}\frac{(1-|x|^2)g(\sigma)}{|x-\sigma|^n}\,d\sigma,
\end{equation*}
where $c_n$ is a positive dimensional constant.
By an easy rescaling argument, a similar formula holds in any ball $B_r(x_{\circ})\subset\mathbb{R}^n$.
Thus, we deduce that for any harmonic function $\Delta u=0$ in $\Omega$, with $B_r\subset\Omega$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{ch0-Poisson}
u(x)=\frac{c_n}{r}\int_{\partial B_r}\frac{(r^2-|x|^2)u(y)}{|x-y|^n}\,dy.
\end{equation}
By taking $x=0$, this yields the \emph{mean value property} $u(0)=\strokedint_{\partial B_r}u$.
Moreover, an immediate consequence of the Poisson kernel representation is the following.
\begin{cor}\label{ch0-smooth}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be any open set, and $u\in H^1(\Omega)$ be any function satisfying $\Delta u=0$ in $\Omega$ in the weak sense.
Then, $u$ is $C^\infty$ inside~$\Omega$.
Moreover, if $u$ is bounded and $\Delta u = 0$ in $B_1$ in the weak sense, then we have the estimates
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.estimatesuk}
\|u\|_{C^k(B_{1/2})} \le C_k \|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)},
\end{equation}
for all $k\in \mathbb{N}$, and for some constant $C_k$ depending only on $k$ and $n$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
For any ball $B_r(x_{\circ})\subset \Omega$, we will have \eqref{ch0-Poisson}.
Thanks to such representation, it is immediate to see then that $u\in C^\infty(B_{r/2}(x_{\circ}))$ and the estimates \eqref{eq.estimatesuk} hold.
Since this can be done for any ball $B_r(x_{\circ})\subset \Omega$, we deduce that $u$ is $C^\infty$ inside~$\Omega$.
\end{proof}
\vspace{2mm}
On the other hand, we recall that the \emph{fundamental solution} for the Laplacian is given by
\begin{equation}\label{fundamental-sol}
\Phi(x):=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} \displaystyle
\frac{\kappa_n}{|x|^{n-2}} & \quad\textrm{if}\ n\ge3 \\
\displaystyle \kappa_2\log\frac{1}{|x|} & \quad\textrm{if}\ n=2,
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
for some explicit positive dimensional constant $\kappa_n$.
Such function satisfies $\Delta \Phi=0$ in $\mathbb{R}^n\setminus\{0\}$, but it is singular at $x=0$.
In fact, it satisfies
\[-\Delta\Phi=\delta_{0}\quad \textrm{in}\quad \mathbb{R}^n,\]
where $\delta_{0}$ is the Dirac delta function.
In particular, we have that $w:=\Phi * f$ solves $-\Delta w=f$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$, for any given $f$ with appropriate decay at infinity.
\subsection*{Maximum principle}
\index{Maximum principle!Laplace equation}
The maximum principle states the following: If $\Delta u\geq0$ in $\Omega$, and $u\in C(\overline\Omega)$, then
\[\max_{\overline\Omega}u=\max_{\partial\Omega}u.\]
In particular, we also deduce the \emph{comparison principle}: if $\Delta u\geq \Delta v$ in $\Omega$, and $u\leq v$ on $\partial\Omega$, then $u\leq v$ in the whole domain $\Omega$.\index{Comparison principle!Laplace equation}
Recall that a function is said to be \emph{subharmonic} if $-\Delta u\leq0$, and \emph{superharmonic} if $-\Delta u\geq0$.\index{Subharmonic function}\index{Superharmonic function}
As shown next, the maximum principle actually holds for any weak solution $u$.
\begin{prop}\label{max-princ-weak}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be any bounded open set.
Assume that $u\in H^1(\Omega)$ satisfies, in the weak sense,
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
-\Delta u & \geq & 0 &\text{in } \Omega\\
u &\geq& 0 &\text{on } \partial \Omega.
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation*}
Then, $u\geq0$ in $\Omega$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Notice that $-\Delta u \geq 0$ in $\Omega$ if and only if
\begin{equation}\label{ch0-max-princ1}
\int_\Omega \nabla u\cdot\nabla v\,dx\geq0\qquad \textrm{for all}\quad v\geq 0,\ v\in H^1_0(\Omega).
\end{equation}
Let us consider $u^-:=\max\{-u,0\}$ and $u^+:=\max\{u,0\}$, so that $u=u^+-u^-$.
By \ref{it.S10} we have that $u^\pm\in H^1(\Omega)$ whenever $u\in H^1(\Omega)$, and thus we can choose $v=u^-\geq0$ in \eqref{ch0-max-princ1}.
Namely, using that $u^+u^-=0$ and $\nabla u=\nabla u^+-\nabla u^-$, we get
\[0\leq \int_\Omega \nabla u\cdot\nabla u^-\,dx=-\int_\Omega |\nabla u^-|^2\,dx.\]
Since $u^-|_{\partial\Omega} \equiv 0$ this implies $u^-\equiv0$ in $\Omega$, that is, $u\geq0$ in $\Omega$.
\end{proof}
A useful consequence of the maximum principle is the following.
\begin{lem} \label{lem.maxPrinciple}
Let $u$ be any weak solution of
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta u & = & f &\text{in } \Omega\\
u &=& g &\text{on } \partial \Omega.
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation*}
Then,
\[\|u\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}\leq C\bigl(\|f\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}+\|g\|_{L^\infty(\partial\Omega)}\bigr),\]
for a constant $C$ depending only on the diameter of $\Omega$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let us consider the function
\[\tilde u(x):=u(x)/\left(\|f\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}+\|g\|_{L^\infty(\partial\Omega)}\right).\]
We want to prove that $|\tilde u|\leq C$ in $\Omega$, for some constant $C$ depending only on the diameter of $\Omega$.
Notice that such function $\tilde u$ solves
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta \tilde u & = & \tilde f &\text{in } \Omega\\
u &=& \tilde g &\text{on } \partial \Omega,
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation*}
with $|\tilde g|\leq 1$ and $|\tilde f|\leq 1$.
Let us choose $R$ large enough so that $B_R\supset \Omega$; after a translation, we can take $R=\frac12\textrm{diam}(\Omega)$.
In $B_R$, let us consider the function
\[w(x)=\frac{R^2-x_1^2}{2}+1.\]
Such function $w$ satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta w & = & -1 &\text{in } \Omega\\
w &\geq& 1 &\text{on } \partial \Omega,
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation*}
Therefore, by the comparison principle, we deduce that
\[\tilde u\leq w\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega.\]
Since $w\leq C$ (with $C$ depending only on $R$), we deduce that $\tilde u\leq C$ in $\Omega$.
Finally, repeating the same argument with $-\tilde u$ instead of $\tilde u$, we find that $|\tilde u|\leq C$ in $\Omega$, and thus we are done.
\end{proof}
Finally, another important result which follows from the maximum principle is the following.
Here, we say that $\Omega$ satisfies the interior ball condition whenever there exists $\rho_{\circ}>0$ such that every point on $\partial\Omega$ can be touched from inside with a ball of radius $\rho_{\circ}$ contained in $\overline\Omega$.
That is, for any $x_\circ\in \partial\Omega$ there exists $B_{\rho_\circ}(y_\circ)\subset \Omega$ with $x_\circ\in \partial B_{\rho_\circ}(y_\circ)$.
It is not difficult to see that any $C^2$ domain satisfies such condition, and also any domain which is the complement of a convex set.
\begin{lem}[Hopf Lemma]\label{Hopf}\index{Hopf Lemma}
Let $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ be any domain satisfying the interior ball condition.
Let $u\in C(\overline\Omega)$ be any positive harmonic function in $\Omega\cap B_2$, with $u\geq0$ on $\partial\Omega \cap B_2$.
Then, $u\geq c_{\circ}d$ in $\Omega\cap B_1$ for some $c_{\circ}>0$, where $d(x):={\rm dist}(x,\Omega^c)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Since $u$ is positive and continuous in $\Omega\cap B_2$, we have that $u\geq c_1>0$ in $\{d\geq \rho_{\circ}/2\}\cap B_{3/2}$ for some $c_1>0$.
Let us consider the solution of $\Delta w=0$ in $B_{\rho_{\circ}}\setminus B_{\rho_{\circ}/2}$, with $w=0$ on $\partial B_{\rho_{\circ}}$ and $w=1$ on $\partial B_{\rho_{\circ}/2}$.
Such function $w$ is explicit --- it is simply a truncated and rescaled version of the fundamental solution $\Phi$ in \eqref{fundamental-sol}.
In particular, it is immediate to check that $w\geq c_2(\rho_{\circ}-|x|)$ in $B_{\rho_{\circ}}$ for some $c_2>0$.
By using the function $c_1w(x_{\circ}+x)$ as a subsolution in any ball $B_{\rho_{\circ}}(x_{\circ})\subset \Omega\cap B_{3/2}$, we deduce that $u(x)\geq c_1w(x_{\circ}+x)\geq c_1c_2(\rho_{\circ}-|x-x_{\circ}|)\geq c_1c_2d$ in $B_{\rho_{\circ}}(x_\circ)$.
Setting $c_{\circ}=c_1c_2$ and using the previous inequality for every ball $B_{\rho_{\circ}}(x_{\circ})\subset \Omega\cap B_{3/2}$, the result follows.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Mean value property and Liouville theorem}
If $u$ is harmonic in $\Omega$ (i.e., $\Delta u=0$ in $\Omega$), then
\index{Mean value property}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.mean_value_property}
u(x)=\strokedint_{B_r(x)} u(y)dy\qquad \textrm{for any ball}\quad B_r(x)\subset\Omega.
\end{equation}
This is called the mean value property.
Conversely, if $u\in C^2(\Omega)$ satisfies the mean value property, then $\Delta u=0$ in $\Omega$.
This can be seen for example by using \eqref{Laplacian-radially} above.
In fact, the mean value property \eqref{eq.mean_value_property} can be used to give yet another (weak) definition of harmonic functions that only requires $u$ to be locally integrable. Similarly, it is not difficult to deduce the corresponding pro\-per\-ty arising from the definitions of weak super- and subharmonicity (see Definition~\ref{defi-weak}):
From \eqref{Laplacian-radially_2}, if $u$ is weakly superharmonic in $\Omega$ ($\Delta u \le 0$ in $\Omega$ in the weak sense) then for all $x\in \Omega$
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.superharmonic_integral}
r\mapsto \strokedint_{B_r(x)} u(y)\, dy\quad\text{is monotone non-increasing for $r\in (0, {\rm dist}(x, \partial\Omega))$.}
\end{equation}
(And it is monotone non-decreasing for weakly subharmonic functions.)
Thus, we can define (weak) super- and subharmonicity for $L^1_{\rm loc}$ functions: we say that $u\in L^1_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ is superharmonic in $\Omega$ if \eqref{eq.superharmonic_integral} holds for all $x\in\Omega$. Similarly, we say that $u\in L^1_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ is subharmonic in $\Omega$ if the map in \eqref{eq.superharmonic_integral} is monotone non-decreasing for all $x\in\Omega$ and $r\in (0, {\rm dist}(x, \partial\Omega))$.
We now give two lemmas that will be used in Chapter~\ref{ch.4}. The first lemma says that the pointwise limit of a sequence of superharmonic uniformly bounded functions is superharmonic.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem.convergence_pointwise}
Let $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$, and let $\{w_n\}_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ be a sequence of uniformly bounded functions $w_n: \Omega\to \mathbb{R}$ satisfying \eqref{eq.superharmonic_integral}, converging pointwise to some $w:\Omega \to \mathbb{R}$. Then $w$ satisfies \eqref{eq.superharmonic_integral}.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $w_\infty := w$ and let us define for $n\in \mathbb{N}\cup\{\infty\}$, $\varphi_{x,n}(r) := \strokedint_{B_r(x)} w_n$. Notice that $\varphi_{x,n}(r)$ is non-increasing in $r$ for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$. In particular, given $0< r_1 < r_2 < R_x$, we have that $\varphi_{x, n}(r_1) \ge \varphi_{x, n}(r_2)$ for $n\in \mathbb{N}$. Now we let $n\to \infty$ and use that $w_n\to w$ pointwise to deduce, by the dominated convergence theorem (notice that $w_n$ are uniformly bounded), that $\varphi_{x, \infty}(r_1) \ge \varphi_{x, \infty}(r_2)$. That is, $w_\infty = w$ satisfies \eqref{eq.superharmonic_integral}.
\end{proof}
The second lemma shows that superharmonic functions are lower semi-continuous.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem.lower_semi}
Let us assume that $w$ is bounded and satisfies \eqref{eq.superharmonic_integral} in $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$. Then, up to changing $w$ in a set of measure 0, $w$ is lower semi-continuous.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The proof is standard. If we define $w_0(x) := \lim_{r\downarrow 0}\strokedint_{B_r(x)} w$ (which is well defined, since the average is monotone non-increasing), then $w_0 (x) = w(x) $ if $x$ is a Lebesgue point, and thus $w_0 = w$ almost everywhere in $\Omega$. Let us now consider $x_\circ\in \Omega$, and let $x_k \to x_\circ$ as $k\to \infty$. Then, by the dominated convergence theorem we have that
\[
\strokedint_{B_r(x_\circ)} w = \lim_{k\to \infty} \strokedint_{B_r(x_k)} w \le \liminf_{k\to \infty} w_0(x_k)
\]
for $0 < r < \frac12 {\rm dist}(x_\circ, \partial\Omega)$. Now, by letting $r\downarrow 0$ on the left-hand side, we reach that
\[
w_0(x_\circ) \le \liminf_{k\to \infty} w_0(x_k),
\]
that is, $w_0$ is lower semi-continuous.
\end{proof}
On the other hand, a well-known theorem that can be deduced from the mean value property is the classification of global bounded harmonic functions.
\index{Liouville Theorem}\begin{thm}[Liouville's theorem]
\label{thm.Liouville}
Any bounded solution of $\Delta u=0$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$ is constant.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let $u$ be any global bounded solution of $\Delta u=0$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$.
Since $u$ is smooth (by Corollary \ref{ch0-smooth}), each derivative $\partial_i u$ is well-defined and is harmonic too.
Thus, thanks to the mean-value property and the divergence theorem, for any $x \in \mathbb{R}^n$ and $R \ge 1$ we have
\[
|\partial_i u(x)| = \left|\frac{c_n}{R^n}\int_{B_R(x)} \partial_i u \right| =
\left|\frac{c_n}{R^n}\int_{\partial B_R(x)} u(y) \frac{y_i}{|y|} \,dy\right|\le \frac{C}{R^{n}}\int_{\partial B_R(x)} |u| .
\]
Thus, using that $|u|\leq M$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$, we find
\begin{align*}
|\partial_i u(x)| & \le \frac{c_n}{R^n} |\partial B_R(x)| M \\
& = \frac{c_n}{R^n} |\partial B_1|R^{n-1} M= \frac{c_nM}{R} \to 0,\quad\textrm{ as }\quad R\to \infty.
\end{align*}
Therefore, $\partial_i u(x) = 0$ for all $x\in \mathbb{R}^n$, and $u$ is constant.
\end{proof}
More generally, one can even prove a classification result for functions with polynomial growth.
Here, for $\gamma\in\mathbb{R}$, $\lfloor \gamma\rfloor$ denotes the floor function, that is, the largest integer less or equal to $\gamma$.
\begin{prop}[Liouville's theorem with growth]
\label{cor.Liouville}
Assume that $u$ is a solution of $\Delta u=0$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$ satisfying $|u(x)|\leq C(1+|x|^\gamma)$ for all $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$, with $\gamma>0$.
Then, $u$ is a polynomial of degree at most $\lfloor \gamma\rfloor$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let us define $u_R(x) := u(Rx)$, and notice that $\Delta u_R = 0$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$. From Corollary~\ref{ch0-smooth} and the growth assumption
\begin{align*}
R^k \|D^{k} u\|_{L^\infty(B_{R/2})} & = \|D^{k} u_R\|_{L^\infty(B_{1/2})} \\
& \le C_k \|u_R\|_{L^\infty(B_1)} = C_k \|u\|_{L^\infty(B_R)} \le C_k R^\gamma.
\end{align*}
In particular, if $k = \lfloor \gamma \rfloor+1$,
\[
\|D^{k} u\|_{L^\infty(B_{R/2})} \le C_k R^{\gamma-k} \to 0\quad\textrm{as}\quad R\to \infty.
\]
That is, $D^k u \equiv 0$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$, and $u$ is a polynomial of degree $k-1 = \lfloor\gamma\rfloor$.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Existence of solutions: comparison principle}
We saw that one way to prove existence of solutions to the Dirichlet problem for the Laplacian is by using \emph{energy methods}.
With such approach, one proves in fact the existence of a \emph{weak solution} $u\in H^1(\Omega)$.
Now, we will see an alternative way to construct solutions: via the \emph{comparison principle}.
With this method, one can show the existence of a \emph{viscosity solution} $u\in C(\overline\Omega)$.
For the Laplace equation, these solutions (weak or viscosity) can then be proved to be $C^\infty(\Omega)$, and thus they coincide.
We start by giving the definition of sub- and superharmonicity \emph{in the viscosity sense}.
It is important to remark that in such definition the function $u$ is only required to be \emph{continuous}.
\begin{defi}\label{ch0-viscosity}\index{Viscosity solution}
A function $u\in C(\overline\Omega)$ is \emph{subharmonic} (in the viscosity sense) if for every function $v\in C^2$ such that $v$ touches $u$ from above at $x_{\circ}\in \Omega$ (that is, $v\geq u$ in $\Omega$ and $v(x_{\circ})=u(x_{\circ})$), we have $\Delta v(x_{\circ})\geq0$. See Figure~\ref{fig.1}.
The definition of \emph{superharmonicity} for $u\in C(\Omega)$ is analogous (touching from below and with $\Delta v(x_\circ) \le 0$).
A function $u\in C(\Omega)$ is \emph{harmonic} if it is both sub- and superharmonic in the above viscosity sense.
\end{defi}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./Figures/fig1_2.pdf}
\caption{$v$ touches $u$ from above at $x_\circ$, $w$ touches $u$ from above at $y_\circ$.}
\label{fig.1}
\end{figure}
\vspace{2mm}
This definition obviously coincides with the one we know in case $u\in C^2$.
However, it allows non-$C^2$ functions $u$, for example $u(x)=|x|$ is subharmonic and $-|x|$ is superharmonic.
A useful property of viscosity sub-/supersolutions is the following.
\begin{prop}
The maximum of two subharmonic functions is also subharmonic.
That is, if $u_1,u_2\in C(\Omega)$ are subharmonic, then the function $v:=\max\{u_1,u_2\}$ is subharmonic as well. See Figure~\ref{fig.2}.
Similarly, the minimum of two superharmonic functions is superharmonic.
\end{prop}
The proof follows easily from Definition \ref{ch0-viscosity} above, and it is left as an exercise to the reader.
Moreover, we also have the following:
\begin{prop}\label{max-princ-viscosity}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be a bounded domain, and assume that $u\in C(\overline\Omega)$ satisfies, in the viscosity sense,
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
-\Delta u & \geq & 0 &\text{in } \Omega\\
u &\geq& 0 &\text{on } \partial \Omega.
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation*}
Then, $u\geq0$ in $\Omega$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
After a rescaling, we may assume $\Omega\subset B_1$.
Assume by contradiction that $u$ has a negative minimum in $\Omega$.
Then, since $u\geq0$ on $\partial \Omega$, we have $\min_{\overline \Omega} u=-\delta$, with $\delta>0$, and the minimum is achieved in $\Omega$.
Let us now consider $0<\varepsilon<\delta$, and $v(x):= -\kappa+\varepsilon(|x|^2-1)$, with $\kappa>0$ (that is, a sufficiently flat paraboloid).
Now, notice that $u-v>0$ on $\partial\Omega$, and that we can choose $\kappa>0$ so that $\min_{\overline \Omega} (u-v)=0$. That is, we can slide the paraboloid from below the solution $u$ until we touch it, by assumption, at an interior point.
Thus, there exists $x_\circ\in \Omega$ such that $u(x_\circ)-v(x_\circ)=\min_{\overline \Omega} (u-v)=0$.
Therefore, with such choice of $\kappa$, the function $v$ touches $u$ from below at $x_\circ\in\Omega$, and hence, by definition of viscosity solution, we must have
\[\Delta v(x_\circ)\leq0.\]
However, a direct computation gives $\Delta v\equiv 2n\varepsilon>0$ in $\Omega$, a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./Figures/fig2_2.pdf}
\caption{The maximum of two functions $u_1$ and $u_2$.}
\label{fig.2}
\end{figure}
Thanks to these two propositions, the existence of a (viscosity) solution to the Dirichlet problem can be shown as follows.
Let
\[S_g:=\left\{v\in C(\overline\Omega)\,:\,v\ \textrm{is subharmonic, and}\ v\leq g\ \textrm{on}\ \partial\Omega\right\},\]
and define the pointwise supremum
\[u(x):=\sup_{v\in S_g} v(x).\]
Then, it can be shown that, if $\Omega$ is regular and $g$ is continuous, then $u\in C(\overline\Omega)$, and $\Delta u=0$ in $\Omega$, with $u=g$ on $\partial \Omega$.
This is the so-called \emph{Perron method}.
We refer to \cite{HL} for a complete description of the method in case of the Laplace operator.
In Chapter~\ref{ch.2} we will study the existence of viscosity solutions in the more general setting of fully nonlinear elliptic equations.
\subsection*{Short summary on existence of solutions}
We have \emph{two completely different ways} to construct solutions: by energy methods; or by the maximum (or comparison) principle.
In the first case, the constructed solution belongs to $H^1(\Omega)$, in the second case to $C(\overline\Omega)$.
In any case, one can then prove that $u\in C^\infty(\Omega)\cap C(\overline\Omega)$ --- as long as $\Omega$ and $g$ are regular enough --- and therefore $u$ solves the Dirichlet problem in the usual sense.
\section{Probabilistic interpretation of harmonic functions}
\label{sec.prob_interp}
To end this introductory chapter, we give a well-known probabilistic interpretation of harmonic functions.
The discussion will be mostly heuristic, just to give an intuition on the Laplace equation in terms of stochastic processes. We refer to Appendix~\ref{app.B} for further probabilistic interpretations for fully nonlinear equations and for the obstacle problem.
\vspace{2mm}
\index{Brownian motion}Recall that the \emph{Brownian motion} is a stochastic process $X_t$, $t\geq0$, satisfying the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}[(1)]
\item \label{it.1} $X_0 = 0$ almost surely.
\item \label{it.2} $X_t$ has \emph{no memory} (is independent of the past, or it has independent increments).
\item \label{it.3} $X_t$ has \emph{stationary increments}: $X_{t+s}-X_s$ is equal in distribution to $X_{t}$.
\item \label{it.4} $X_t$ has \emph{continuous paths} ($t\mapsto X_t$ is continuous) almost surely.
\item \label{it.5} $X_t$ is \emph{isotropic}, i.e., it is rotationally symmetric in distribution.
\end{enumerate}
The previous properties actually determine the stochastic process $X_t$ up to a multiplicative constant.
Another important property of Brownian motion is that it is scale invariant, i.e.,
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(6)] \label{it.6} $r^{-1}X_{r^2t}$ equals $X_t$ in distribution, for any $r>0$.
\end{enumerate}
As we will see next, there is a strong connection between the Brownian motion and the Laplace operator.
\subsection*{Expected payoff}
\index{Expected payoff}
Given a regular domain $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$, and a Brownian motion $X_t^x$ starting at $x$ (i.e., $X_t^x:=x+X_t$), we play the following stochastic game:
When the process $X_t^x$ hits the boundary $\partial\Omega$ for the first time we get a \emph{payoff} $g(z)$, depending on the hitting point $z\in \partial\Omega$. (See Figure~\ref{fig.3}.)
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 1.4]{./Figures/fig3.pdf}
\caption{A stochastic process $X_t^x$ defined in $\Omega$ starting at $x$ until it hits the first point on the boundary $z\in \partial\Omega$.}
\label{fig.3}
\end{figure}
We then ask ourselves:
\[\textit{What is the expected payoff?}\]
To answer this question, we define
\[
\begin{split}
&\tau:=\textrm{first hitting time of }X_t^x,\\
&u(x):=\mathbb E\left[g(X_\tau^x)\right]\qquad \textrm{(value function)}.
\end{split}
\]
The value of $u(x)$ is, by definition, the answer to the question above.
Namely, it is the expected value of $g$ at the first point where $X_t^x$ hits the boundary $\partial \Omega$.
To find $u(x)$, we try to relate it with values of $u(y)$ for $y\neq x$.
Then, we will see that this yields a \emph{PDE for} $u$, and by solving it we can find $u(x)$.
Indeed, let us consider a ball $B_r(x)\subset\Omega$, with $r>0$.
For any such ball, we know that the process $X_t^x$ will hit (before reaching $\partial\Omega$, by property \ref{it.4}) some point on $\partial B_r(x)$, and moreover any point on $\partial B_r(x)$ will be hit with the \emph{same probability}.
This is because the process is \emph{rotationally symmetric in distribution}, \ref{it.5}.
Since the process has \emph{no memory}, \ref{it.2}, and \emph{stationary increments}, \ref{it.3}, this means that
\begin{equation}\label{ch0-brownian-mean}
u(x)=\strokedint_{\partial B_r(x)}u(y)dy.
\end{equation}
Heuristically, this is because when the process hits the boundary $\partial B_r(x)$ at a point $y$, it simply starts again the game from such point $y$.
But because all points $y\in \partial B_r(x)$ are reached for the first time with the same probability, then \eqref{ch0-brownian-mean} holds.
Now, since this can be done for every $x\in \Omega$ and $r>0$, we deduce that $u(x)$ satisfies the mean value property, and therefore it is harmonic, $\Delta u=0$ in $\Omega$, \eqref{Laplacian-radially}.
Moreover, since we also know that $u=g$ on $\partial \Omega$ (since when we hit the boundary we get the payoff $g$ surely), then $u$ must be the unique solution of
\[\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta u & = & 0 &\text{in } \Omega\\
u &=& g &\text{on } \partial\Omega.
\end{array}\right.\]
We refer to \cite{Law} for a nice introduction to this topic.
\subsection*{Expected hitting time}
A similar stochastic problem is the following.
Given a smooth domain $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$, and a Brownian motion $X_t^x$, we ask:
\index{Expected hitting time}\[\textit{What is the expected first time at which}\ X_t^x\ \textit{will hit}\ \partial\Omega\, \textrm{?}\]
To answer this question, we argue as before, using that the process must first hit the boundary of balls $B_r(x)\subset\Omega$.
Indeed, we first denote by $u(x)$ the expected hitting time that we are looking for.
Then, for any such ball we have that the process $X_t^x$ will hit (before reaching $\partial\Omega$) some point on $\partial B_r(x)$, and moreover any point $y\in\partial B_r(x)$ will be hit with the same probability.
Thus, the total expected time $u(x)$ will be the expected time it takes to hit $\partial B_r(x)$ for the first time, \emph{plus} the expected time when we start from the corresponding point $y\in \partial B_r(x)$, which is $u(y)$.
In other words, we have
\[u(x)=T(r)+\strokedint_{\partial B_r(x)}u(y)dy.\]
Here, $T(r)$ is the expected first time at which $X_t^x$ hits $\partial B_r(x)$ --- which clearly depends only on $r$ and $n$.
Now, using the scale-invariance property of the Brownian motion, i.e. $r^{-1}X_{r^2t}\sim X_t$, we see that $T(r)=T(1)r^2=c_1r^2$ for some constant $c_1>0$.
Thus, we have
\[u(x)=c_1r^2+\strokedint_{\partial B_r(x)}u(y)dy,\]
and by rearranging terms we find
\[-\frac{1}{r^2}\left\{\strokedint_{B_r(x)}u(y)dy-u(x)\right\}=c_1.\]
Finally, taking $r\to0$ and using \eqref{Laplacian-radially}, we deduce that $-\Delta u=c_2$, for some constant $c_2>0$.
Since we clearly have $u=0$ on $\partial\Omega$, the expected hitting time $u(x)$ is the unique solution of the problem
\[\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
-\Delta u & = & c_2 &\text{in } \Omega\\
u &=& 0 &\text{on } \partial\Omega.
\end{array}\right.\]
By considering a \emph{non-homogeneous} medium (in which it takes more time to move in some regions than others), the same argument leads to the problem with a right-hand side
\[\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
-\Delta u & = & f(x) &\text{in } \Omega\\
u &=& 0 &\text{on } \partial\Omega,
\end{array}\right.\]
with $f\geq0$.
\part{This is a Part Title Sample}
\chapter{Linear elliptic PDE}
\label{ch.1}
In this chapter we will study linear elliptic PDEs of the type\index{Non-divergence-form PDE}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.mainEPDE}
\boxed{{\rm tr} \big(A(x) D^2 u(x)\big) = \sum_{i,j=1}^n a_{ij}(x)\partial_{ij}u= f(x)\quad \textrm{in}\quad \Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n,}
\end{equation}
as well as\index{Divergence-form PDE}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.mainEPDE_div}
\boxed{{\rm div}\big(A(x) \nabla u(x) \big) = \sum_{i,j=1}^n \partial_i \big(a_{ij}(x)\partial_{j}u(x) \big)= f(x)\quad \textrm{in}\quad \Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n.}
\end{equation}
These are elliptic PDEs in non-divergence and divergence form, respectively.
The coefficients $(a_{ij}(x))_{ij}$ and the right-hand side $f(x)$ satisfy appropriate regularity assumptions. In addition, we will assume that the coefficient matrix $A(x) = (a_{ij}(x))_{ij}$ satisfies the {\em uniform ellipticity} condition\index{Uniform ellipticity condition}
\[
0< \lambda\,{\rm Id}\le (a_{ij}(x))_{ij} \le\Lambda\,{\rm Id},
\]
for some ellipticity constants\index{Ellipticity constants!Linear equations} $0<\lambda \le \Lambda<\infty$. (For two matrices $A, B\in \mathcal{M}_n$, we say $A \ge B$ if the matrix $A-B$ is positive semi-definite.)
We will show that, under appropriate regularity assumptions on $A(x)$, solutions $u$ to \eqref{eq.mainEPDE} ``gain two derivatives'' with respect to $f$ and the coefficients $A(x)$. On the other hand, for the divergence-form equation, \eqref{eq.mainEPDE_div}, we expect solutions to ``gain one derivative'' with respect to the coefficients $A(x)$.
In order to do that, we will use perturbative methods, by ``freezing'' the coefficients around a certain point and studying the constant coefficient equation first. After a change of variables, one can transform the constant coefficient equation into the most ubiquitous and simple elliptic equation: Laplace's equation, where $(a_{ij}(x))_{ij}$ is the identity. Thus, we will begin the chapter by studying properties of Laplace's equation such as Harnack's inequality and the H\"older regularity with bounded right-hand side. After that, we proceed by showing Schauder estimates for the Laplacian to continue with the main theorems of the current chapter: Schauder estimates for \eqref{eq.mainEPDE} and \eqref{eq.mainEPDE_div}.
We finish the chapter by studying equations of the type \eqref{eq.mainEPDE} and \eqref{eq.mainEPDE_div} with continuous coefficients. In this case we do not gain two (resp. one) derivatives, and instead we lose an arbitrarily small H\"older exponent of regularity.
Equations in non-divergence and divergence form will become particularly useful in Chapters~\ref{ch.2} and \ref{ch.3} in the context of nonlinear variational PDEs and fully nonlinear elliptic PDEs.
For both equations in non-divergence and divergence form, we establish {\it a priori} estimates. That is, rather than proving that the solution is regular, we show that if the solution is regular, then one can actually estimate the norm of respectively two and one derivative higher in terms of the H\"older norms of the coefficients $(a_{ij}(x))_{ij}$ and the right-hand side $f$. This is enough for the application to nonlinear equations in Chapters~\ref{ch.2} and~\ref{ch.3}.
When the operator is the Laplacian, thanks to the a priori estimates, and by means of an approximation argument, we show that weak solutions are in fact smooth. For more general elliptic operators, a priori estimates together with the continuity method yield the existence of regular solutions.
We refer the reader to \cite{GT} for such an approach.
\section{Harnack's inequality}
We start this chapter with one of the most basic estimates for harmonic functions. It essentially gives a kind of ``maximum principle in quantitative form''.
We will usually write that $u\in H^1$ is harmonic, meaning in the weak sense. Recall from the introduction, however, that as soon as a function is harmonic, it is immediately $C^\infty$.
\begin{thm}[Harnack's inequality]\index{Harnack inequality}
\label{thm.Harnack}
Assume $u\in H^1(B_1)$ is a non-negative, harmonic function in $B_1$. Then the infimum and the supremum of $u$ are comparable in $B_{1/2}$. That is,
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta u & = & 0 &\text{in } B_1\\
u &\geq& 0 &\text{in } B_1
\end{array}\right. \quad \Rightarrow\quad
\sup_{B_{1/2}} u \le C\inf_{B_{1/2}} u,
\]
for some constant $C$ depending only on $n$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
This can be proved by the mean value property. Alternatively, we can also use the Poisson kernel representation,
\[
u(x) = c_n\int_{\partial B_1} \frac{(1-|x|^2)u(z)}{|x-z|^n} \, dz.
\]
Notice that, for any $x\in B_{1/2}$ and $z\in \partial B_1$, we have $2^{-n} \le |x-z|^n \le (3/2)^{n}$ and $3/4\le 1-|x|^2\le 1$. Thus, since $u\ge 0$ in $B_1$,
\[
C^{-1} \int_{\partial B_1} u(z)\, dz \le u(x) \le C\int_{\partial B_1} u(z) \, dz,\quad\textrm{for all}\quad x\in B_{1/2},
\]
for some dimensional constant $C$. In particular, for any $x_1, x_2\in B_{1/2}$ we have that $u(x_1) \le C^2 u(x_2)$. Taking the infimum for $x_2\in B_{1/2}$ and the supremum for $x_1\in B_{1/2}$, we reach that $\sup_{B_{1/2}} u \le \tilde C\inf_{B_{1/2}} u$, for some dimensional constant $\tilde C$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
\label{rem.harnack_rho}
This inequality says that, if $u\ge 0$ in $B_1$, then not only $u > 0$ in $B_{1/2}$ (strong maximum principle), but also we get quantitative information: $u \ge C^{-1}\sup_{B_{1/2}} u$ in $B_{1/2}$, for some constant $C$ depending only on $n$. See Figure~\ref{fig.4}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 1.3]{./Figures/fig4.pdf}
\caption{Graphic representation of Harnack's inequality for a harmonic function $u > 0$ such that $\sup_{B_1} u = 1$. }
\label{fig.4}
\end{figure}
Notice that there is nothing special about $B_{1/2}$. We can obtain a similar inequality in $B_\rho$ with $\rho< 1$, but the constant $C$ would depend on $\rho$ as well. Indeed, repeating the previous argument, one gets that if $\Delta u = 0$ and $u\ge 0$ in $B_1$, then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.Harnack_rho}
\sup_{B_\rho} u\le \frac{C}{(1-\rho)^n}\inf_{B_\rho} u,
\end{equation}
for some $C$ depending only on $n$, and where $\rho\in (0, 1)$.
\end{rem}
From Harnack's inequality, we deduce the oscillation decay for harmonic functions. That is, the oscillation of a harmonic function is reduced (quantitatively) in smaller domains. The oscillation in a domain $\Omega$ is defined as
\[
\osc_{\Omega} u := \sup_{\Omega} u - \inf_{\Omega} u.
\]
We remark that the following lemma is valid for all harmonic functions, not necessarily positive.
\begin{cor}[Oscillation decay]\index{Oscillation decay}
\label{cor.osc_decay}
Let $u\in H^1(B_1)$ be a harmonic function in $B_1$, i.e. $\Delta u = 0$ in $B_1$. Then
\[
\osc_{B_{1/2}} u \le (1-\theta)\osc_{B_1} u
\]
for some small $\theta > 0$ depending only on $n$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Let
\[
w(x) := u(x)- \inf_{B_1} u,
\]
which satisfies $w\ge 0$ in $B_1$ and $\osc_{B_{1/2}} w = \osc_{B_{1/2}} u$. Since $\Delta w = 0$ in $B_1$, we get by Harnack's inequality
\[
\sup_{B_{1/2}} w \le C\inf_{B_{1/2}} w,
\]
so that
\[
\osc_{B_{1/2}} u =\osc_{B_{1/2}} w = \sup_{B_{1/2}} w - \inf_{B_{1/2}} w \le \left(1 - \frac{1}{C}\right) \sup_{B_{1/2}} w \le \left(1 - \frac{1}{C}\right) \sup_{B_{1}} w.
\]
Now notice that $\sup_{B_1} w = \osc_{B_1} u$, and we are done.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}[Alternative proof of Corollary~\ref{cor.osc_decay}]
Alternatively, we can rewrite the previous proof of Corollary~\ref{cor.osc_decay} by taking advantage of the invariance of the estimate.
Indeed, the function $u-\inf_{B_1} u$ is non-negative and harmonic. Since the estimate we want to prove is invariant under addition and multiplication by constants, we may assume that $\inf_{B_1} u = 0$ and $\sup_{B_1} u = 1$. Let $\theta := \frac{1}{C+1}$, where $C$ is the constant in Harnack's inequality, Theorem~\ref{thm.Harnack}. Now we have two options:
\begin{itemize}
\item If $\sup_{B_{1/2}} u \le 1-\theta$, we are done,
\item If $\sup_{B_{1/2}} u \ge 1-\theta$ we use Harnack's inequality to get
\[
\inf_{B_{1/2}} u \ge \frac{1}{C} (1-\theta)\ge\theta.
\]
\end{itemize}
In any case, we get $\osc_{B_{1/2}} u \le 1-\theta$, so we are done.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
We have proved that Harnack's inequality implies the oscillation decay. This is {\em always} true, we did not use the fact that we are dealing with harmonic functions. In general, we have
\[
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\text{Harnack's}\\
\text{inequality}
\end{array}
\right)\Longrightarrow
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\text{Oscillation}\\
\text{decay}
\end{array}
\right)\Longrightarrow
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\text{H\"older}\\
\text{regularity}
\end{array}
\right)
\]
\end{rem}
Harnack's inequality and the oscillation decay are scale invariant. That is, the following corollary holds:
\begin{cor}[Rescaled versions]
\label{cor.independent_radius_Harnack}
Let $u\in H^1(B_r)$ be such that $\Delta u = 0$ in $B_r$. Then
\begin{itemize}
\item {\rm (Harnack's inequality)} If $u \ge 0$ in $B_r$, then
\[
\sup_{B_{r/2}} u \le C\inf_{B_{r/2}} u,
\]
for some $C$ depending only on $n$.
\item {\rm (Oscillation decay)} One has
\[
\osc_{B_{r/2}} u \le (1-\theta)\osc_{B_r} u,
\]
for some small $\theta> 0$ depending only on $n$.
\end{itemize}
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Define $\tilde u(x) := u(r x)$, which fulfills $\Delta \tilde u = 0$ in $B_1$ and therefore
\[
\sup_{B_{r/2}} u = \sup_{B_{1/2}} \tilde u \le C\inf_{B_{1/2}} \tilde u = C\inf_{B_{r/2}} u,
\]
by Theorem~\ref{thm.Harnack}. Similarly,
\[
\osc_{B_{r/2}} u = \osc_{B_{1/2}} \tilde u \le (1-\theta)\osc_{B_{1}} \tilde u = (1-\theta)\osc_{B_r} u
\]
by Corollary~\ref{cor.osc_decay}.
\end{proof}
A standard consequence of the quantitative oscillation decay proved above is the H\"older regularity of solutions.
\begin{cor}[H\"older regularity]
\label{cor.Holder_regularity_1}
Let $u\in H^1(B_1)\cap L^\infty(B_1)$ be such that $\Delta u = 0$ in $B_1$. Then
\[
\|u\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}
\]
for some constants $\alpha > 0$ and $C$ depending only on $n$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
If we denote $\tilde u := (2\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)})^{-1} u$, then $\tilde u \in H^1\cap L^\infty(B_1)$ fulfills $\Delta \tilde u = 0$ in $B_1$ and $\|\tilde u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le \frac12$. If we show $\|\tilde u\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le C$, then the result will follow.
Thus, dividing $u$ by a constant if necessary, we may assume that $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le \frac12$. We need to prove that
\[
|u(x) - u(y)|\le C |x-y|^\alpha\quad\textrm{for all}\quad x, y \in B_{1/2},
\]
for some small $\alpha > 0$. We do it at $y = 0$ for simplicity.
Let $x\in B_{1/2}$ and let $k\in \mathbb{N}$ be such that $x\in B_{2^{-k}}\setminus B_{2^{-k-1}}$. Then,
\[
|u(x) - u(0)|\le \osc_{B_{2^{-k}}} u \le (1-\theta)^k \osc_{B_1} u \le (1-\theta)^k = 2^{-\alpha k},
\]
with $\alpha = -\log_2 (1-\theta)$. (Notice that we are using Corollary~\ref{cor.independent_radius_Harnack} $k$-times, where the constant $\theta$ is independent from the radius of the oscillation decay.)
Now, since $2^{-k}\le 2|x|$, we find
\[
|u(x)-u(0)|\le (2|x|)^\alpha \le C|x|^\alpha,
\]
as desired. See Figure~\ref{fig.5} for a graphical representation of this proof.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./Figures/fig5.pdf}
\caption{Graphical representation of the fact that oscillation decay-type lemmas imply H\"older regularity.}
\label{fig.5}
\end{figure}
\end{proof}
Finally, another important consequence of Harnack's inequality is the Liouville theorem for non-negative harmonic functions.
\begin{cor}
\label{cor.Liouv_pos}\index{Liouville Theorem}
Let $u$ be a non-negative harmonic function, that is, $u\ge 0$ and $\Delta u = 0$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$. Then, $u$ is constant.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Let
\[
v = u - \inf_{\mathbb{R}^n} u,
\]
where $\inf_{\mathbb{R}^n} u$ is well-defined and finite since $u \ge 0$. Then, thanks to Harnack's inequality in arbitrary balls from Corollary~\ref{cor.independent_radius_Harnack}, we get that for any $R > 0$,
\[
\sup_{B_{R}} v \le C\inf_{B_R} v = C\left( \inf_{B_{R}} u - \inf_{\mathbb{R}^n} u\right) \to 0,
\]
as $R\to \infty$. That is, $\sup_{\mathbb{R}^n} u = \inf_{\mathbb{R}^n} u$ and therefore $u$ is constant in $\mathbb{R}^n$.
\end{proof}
Of course, the previous result also holds if $u \ge -M$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$, for some constant $M$, since then $u + M$ is non-negative and harmonic.
\subsection*{Harnack's inequality with a right-hand side}
We can prove a Harnack inequality for equations with a right-hand side, that is, when the Laplacian is not necessarily zero, $\Delta u = f$. Again, we will be dealing with functions $u\in H^1$, so that we have to understand the equation $\Delta u = f $ in the weak sense.
\begin{thm}\label{thm.Harnack.f}\index{Harnack's inequality}
Let $f\in L^\infty(B_1)$, and $u\in H^1(B_1)$. Then,
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta u & = & f &\text{in } B_1\\
u &\geq& 0 &\text{in } B_1
\end{array}\right. \quad \Rightarrow\quad
\sup_{B_{1/2}} u \le C\left(\inf_{B_{1/2}} u+\|f\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\right),
\]
for some $C$ depending only on $n$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We express $u$ as $u = v+w$ with
\[
\left\{\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta v & = & 0 &\text{in } B_1\\
v &=& u &\text{on } \partial B_1
\end{array}
\right.
\qquad\qquad
\left\{\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta w & = & f &\text{in } B_1\\
w &=& 0 &\text{on } \partial B_1.
\end{array}
\right.
\]
Then, we have
\[
\sup_{B_{1/2}} v \le C\inf_{B_{1/2}} v\qquad\textrm{and}\qquad \sup_{B_1} w \le C\|f\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}
\]
by Theorem~\ref{thm.Harnack} and Lemma~\ref{lem.maxPrinciple}. Thus,
\begin{align*}
\sup_{B_{1/2}} u & \le \sup_{B_{1/2}} v + C\|f\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\\
& \le C\inf_{B_{1/2}} v +C\|f\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le C\left(\inf_{B_{1/2}} u +\|f\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\right),
\end{align*}
where we are taking a larger constant if necessary.
Notice that we have also used here that $v \le u + C\|f\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}$.
\end{proof}
Thus, as before, we also get an oscillation decay, but now involving an error term of size $\|f\|_{L^\infty}$.
\begin{cor}
\label{cor.osc_decay_2}\index{Oscillation decay}
Let $f\in L^\infty(B_1)$ and $u\in H^1(B_1)$. If $\Delta u = f$ in $B_1$ and $f\in L^\infty(B_1)$, then
\[
\osc_{B_{1/2}} u \le (1-\theta)\osc_{B_1} u + {2}\|f\|_{L^\infty(B_1)},
\]
for some $\theta > 0$ depending only on $n$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
The proof is the same as in the case $f \equiv 0$, see the proof of Corollary~\ref{cor.osc_decay}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
Now, with the right-hand side $f = f(x)$, the equation $\Delta u =f$ and Harnack's inequality are {\em not} invariant under rescalings in $x$. In fact, as we zoom-in, the right-hand side gets smaller!
Namely, if $\Delta u = f$ in $B_r$, then $\tilde u(x) := u(rx)$ satisfies $\Delta \tilde u(x) = r^2 f(rx)$ in $B_1$ so that
\[
\sup_{B_{1/2}} \tilde u \le C \left(\inf_{B_{1/2}} \tilde u + 2 r^2 \|f\|_{L^\infty(B_r)}\right),
\]
and therefore
\[
\sup_{B_{r/2}} u \le C \left(\inf_{B_{r/2}} u + 2 r^2 \|f\|_{L^\infty(B_r)}\right)
\]
for some constant $C$ depending only on $n$.
\end{rem}
Even if the previous oscillation decay contains an error depending on $f$, it is enough to show H\"older regularity of the solution.
\begin{cor}[H\"older regularity]
\label{cor.Hold_cont_f}
Let $f\in L^\infty(B_1)$ and $u\in H^1\cap L^\infty(B_1)$. If $\Delta u = f$ in $B_1$, then
\[
\|u\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le C \left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+\|f\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\right),
\]
for some constants $\alpha > 0$ and $C$ depending only on $n$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
If we denote $\tilde u := (2\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+2\|f\|_{L^\infty(B_1)})^{-1} u$, then $\tilde u \in H^1(B_1)\cap L^\infty(B_1)$ fulfills $\Delta \tilde u = \tilde f$ in $B_1$ with $\|\tilde u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le \frac12$ and $\|\tilde f \|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le \frac12$. If we show that $\|\tilde u\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le C$, then the result will follow.
Thus, after dividing $u$ by a constant if necessary, we may assume that $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le \frac12$ and $\|f\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le \frac12$.
As in Corollary~\ref{cor.Holder_regularity_1} we want to prove that $|u(x_\circ)-u(0)|\le C|x_\circ|^\alpha$ for all $x_\circ\in B_{1/2}$ and for some constant $C$ depending only on $n$.
Let us show that it is enough to prove that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.osc_it}
\osc_{B_{2^{-k}}} u \le C2^{-\alpha k}\quad\textrm{for all }k\in \mathbb{N},\,k\ge k_\circ,
\end{equation}
for some $\alpha > 0$, $C$, and for some fixed $k_\circ$, all three depending only on $n$. Indeed, let $k\in \mathbb{N}$ be such that $x\in B_{2^{-k}}\setminus B_{2^{-k-1}}$. If $k < k_\circ$, then $|x|\ge 2^{-k_\circ-1}$ and
\[
|u(x)- u(0)|\le \osc_{B_1} u \le 1 \le 2^{\alpha(k_\circ+1)} |x|^\alpha.
\]
On the other hand, if $k \ge k_\circ$, by \eqref{eq.osc_it}
\[
|u(x)-u(0)|\le \osc_{B_{2^{-k}}} u \le C2^{-\alpha k} \le C (2|x|)^\alpha,
\]
where in the last inequality we used that $|x| \ge 2^{-k-1}$. Thus, it will be enough to show \eqref{eq.osc_it}.
Let $k\in \mathbb{N}$ and $k \ge k_\circ$ for some $k_\circ$ to be chosen, and define
\[
\tilde u (x) := u(rx),\quad r = 2^{-k+1}.
\]
Then $\tilde u$ satisfies $\Delta \tilde u = r^2 f(rx)$ in $B_1$ (in fact, in $B_{2^{k-1}}$), and thus, by Corollary~\ref{cor.osc_decay_2}
\[
\osc_{B_{1/2}} \tilde u \le (1-\theta)\osc_{B_1} \tilde u + 2 r^2\|f\|_{L^\infty(B_r)}.
\]
Since $\osc_{B_1} \tilde u = \osc_{B_{2^{-k+1}}} u $ and $\|f\|_{L^\infty(B_r)}\le \frac12$, we find
\[
\osc_{B_{2^{-k}}} u \le (1-\theta)\osc_{B_{2^{-k+1}}} u + 4^{-k+2}.
\]
Now, take $k_\circ\in \mathbb{N}$ large enough so that $4^{-k_\circ+1}\le\frac{\theta}{2}$. Then,
\[
\osc_{B_{2^{-k}}} u \le (1-\theta)\osc_{B_{2^{-k+1}}} u + \frac{\theta}{2} 4^{k_\circ-k}.
\]
It is immediate to check by induction that this yields
\[
\osc_{B_{2^{-k+1}}} u \le 2^{\alpha(k_\circ-k)},\quad\textrm{for all }k \in \mathbb{N}.
\]
Indeed, the induction step follows as
\begin{align*}
\osc_{B_{2^{-k}}} u& \le (1-\theta)2^{\alpha(k_\circ-k)}+ \frac{\theta}{2}4^{k_\circ-k} \le (1-\theta)2^{\alpha(k_\circ-k)}+ \frac{\theta}{2}2^{\alpha(k_\circ-k)} \\
& = \left(1-\frac{\theta}{2}\right)2^{\alpha(k_\circ-k)} = 2^{\alpha(k_\circ-k-1)} \qquad\textrm{if}\quad1-\frac{\theta}{2} = 2^{-\alpha}.
\end{align*}
Thus, \eqref{eq.osc_it} holds with $C = 2^{\alpha k_\circ}$.
\end{proof}
Summarizing, we have checked that \underline{\smash{Harnack's inequality}} for harmonic functions yields the \underline{\smash{H\"older regularity}} of solutions, even with a right-hand side $f \in L^\infty$.
This is a general fact, and holds for other types of elliptic equations, too.
\section{Schauder estimates for the Laplacian}
\label{sec.Sch_Lap}
We now want to establish sharp results for the equation
\[
\boxed{\Delta u = f(x) \quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1}\qquad \left(\textrm{or in } \Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n\right).
\]
This will serve as an introduction for the more general case of equations in non-divergence and divergence form.
The philosophy is that the sharp results should state that ``$u$ is two derivatives more regular than $f(x)$''.
The main known results in that directions are the following:
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item \underline{\smash{Schauder estimates.}} If $f\in C^{0, \alpha}$ then $u\in C^{2, \alpha}$, for $\alpha \in (0, 1)$.
\item \underline{\smash{Calder\'on--Zygmund estimates.}} If $f\in L^p$ then $u\in W^{2, p}$, for $p\in (1, \infty)$.
\item When $\alpha $ is an integer, or when $p \in \{1, \infty\}$, the above results do {\em not} hold. For example, if $f\in C^0$, it is not true in general that $u \in C^2$, not even $C^{1, 1}$. (In that case, $u\in C^{1, 1-\varepsilon}$ for all $\varepsilon > 0$, and $u \in W^{2, p}$ for all $p < \infty$.)
\end{enumerate}
\subsection*{Two counterexamples}
Let us provide two counterexamples to show that Schauder and Calder\'on--Zygmund estimates in general do not hold for the limiting values, $\alpha = 0$ and $p = 1$ or $p = \infty$.
We start with an example of a function $u$ whose Laplacian is bounded ($\Delta u \in L^\infty$), but whose second derivatives are {\em not} bounded ($u\notin W^{2,\infty}$). Thus, we give a counterexample to Calder\'on--Zygmund estimates for $p = \infty$.
Let
\[
u(x, y) = (x^2-y^2) \log(x^2+y^2) \quad\textrm{in}\quad \mathbb{R}^2.
\]
Then,
\begin{align*}
\partial_{xx} u& = 2\log(x^2+y^2) + \frac{8x^2}{x^2+y^2} - 2\left(\frac{x^2-y^2}{x^2+y^2}\right)^2,\\
\partial_{yy} u& = -2\log(x^2+y^2) - \frac{8y^2}{x^2+y^2} + 2\left(\frac{x^2-y^2}{x^2+y^2}\right)^2,
\end{align*}
that is, both $\partial_{xx} u$ and $\partial_{yy} u$ are unbounded, and $u\notin W^{2, \infty}$. However,
\[
\Delta u = \partial_{xx} u +\partial_{yy} u = 8\frac{x^2-y^2}{x^2+y^2} \in L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^2).
\]
One can modify such construction in order to make $\Delta u $ continuous and $u\notin C^{1, 1}$, thus giving a counterexample to Schauder estimates for $\alpha = 0$, by taking $u(x, y) = (x^2-y^2) \log |\log (x^2+y^2)|$. (However, recall that Schauder estimates tell us that this is \emph{not} possible if $\Delta u$ is H\"older continuous ($C^{0, \alpha}$).)
Let us now provide a counterexample for Calder\'on--Zygmund estimates when $p = 1$. The fact that the estimate does not hold can be seen by taking smooth approximations of the Dirac delta (with constant integral) as right-hand side, so that the solution converges to the fundamental solution, which is not in $W^{2,1}$.
Let us, however, give a specific example of a function $u$ whose Laplacian is integrable ($\Delta u \in L^1$) but whose second derivatives are not ($u\notin W^{2,1}$).
Let
\[
u(x, y) = \log \log \frac{1}{x^2 +y^2} = \log \log r^{-2}\quad\textrm{in}\quad \mathbb{R}^2,
\]
where we are using polar coordinates and denote $r^2 := x^2+y^2$. Since $u= u(r)$ and $u_r = \frac{1}{r\log r}$ we have that
\[
\Delta u = u_{rr} + \frac{1}{r} u_r = -\frac{\log r + 1}{r^2 (\log r)^2} + \frac{1}{r^2\log r} = -\frac{1}{r^2(\log r)^2} \in L^1(B_{1/2}),
\]
since $\int_{B_{1/2}} \Delta u = -2\pi \int_0^{1/2} \frac{dr}{r(\log r)^2} <\infty$. On the other hand, a direct computation gives that $\partial_{xx} u$ (and $\partial_{yy} u$) are not absolutely integrable around the origin, and thus $u\notin W^{2,1}$. (Alternatively, since one has the embedding $W^{2,1}(\mathbb{R}^2)\subset L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^2)$ \cite[Corollary 9.13]{Brezis} and $u\notin L^\infty$, we deduce $u\notin W^{2,1}$).
A similar counterexample can be built in any dimension $n\ge 2$, by taking as function $u$ an appropriate primitive of $\frac{r^{1-n}}{\log r}$.
In this book we focus our attention on proving (a) Schauder estimates, but not (b) Calder\'on--Zygmund estimates. Later in the book we will see applications of Schauder-type estimates to nonlinear equations.
\begin{rem}[Calder\'on-Zygmund estimates for $p = 2$]
\label{rem.CZ2}
In the case $p = 2$, one can prove a priori Calder\'on-Zygmund estimates with a simple computation.
That is, let $u, f\in C^\infty(B_1)$, be such that
\[
\Delta u = f\quad\text{in}\quad B_1.
\]
Then,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.calderon2}
\|u\|_{W^{2,2}(B_{1/2})} \le C \left(\|u\|_{L^{2}(B_1)} + \|f\|_{L^2(B_1)}\right)
\end{equation}
for some constant $C$ depending only on $n$. Indeed, let $w := \eta u$ for some fixed test function $\eta\in C^\infty_c(B_1)$ such that $\eta \equiv 1$ in $B_{1/2}$, $\eta \equiv 0$ in $B_1\setminus B_{3/4}$ and $\eta \ge 0$. Then, integrating by parts gives
\begin{align*}
\|D^2 u\|_{L^2(B_{1/2})} & = \sum_{i,j=1}^n \int_{B_{1/2}} |D_{ij}^2 u|^2 \le \sum_{i,j=1}^n \int_{B_{1}} |D_{ij}^2 w|^2 \\
& = - \sum_{i,j=1}^n \int_{B_{1}} (D_{iij} w) (D_j w) = \sum_{i,j=1}^n \int_{B_{1/2}} (D_{ii} w) (D_{jj} w)\\
& = \int_{B_1} (\Delta w)^2 \le C\int_{B_1} \left(u^2 + (\Delta u)^2 + |\nabla \eta|^2|\nabla u|^2\right),
\end{align*}
where in the last equality we can take $ C = C'\sup_{B_1} \left(\eta^2 + |\Delta \eta|^2\right)$ for some dimensional constant $C'$. Then, again integrating by parts twice and using $2ab \le a^2+b^2$, we get
\begin{align*}
\int_{B_1} |\nabla \eta|^2|\nabla u|^2 & = - \int_{B_1} |\nabla \eta|^2 u \Delta u + \int_{B_1} \frac12 u^2 \Delta |\nabla \eta|^2 \le \tilde C \int_{B_1} \big(u^2 + (\Delta u)^2\big),
\end{align*}
where $\tilde C = \sup_{B_1} \big(|\nabla \eta|^2 + \Delta |\nabla\eta|^2\big)$.
This directly yields the result \eqref{eq.calderon2} for smooth functions $u$ and $f$ such that $\Delta u = f$. Arguing as in the proof of Corollary~\ref{cor.Schauder_estimates_L} below, the same result also holds as long as $u\in H^1(B_1)$ is a weak solution to $\Delta u = f$ in $B_1$ for $f\in L^2(B_1)$ .
\end{rem}
\subsection*{Proofs of Schauder estimates: some comments}
There are various proofs of Schauder estimates, mainly using:
\begin{enumerate}
\item integral representation of solutions (fundamental solutions);
\item energy considerations;
\item comparison principle.
\end{enumerate}
The most flexible approaches are (2) and (3). Here, we will see different proofs of type (3).
The {\em common traits} in proofs of type (2)-(3) are their ``perturbative character'', that is, that by zooming in around any point the equation gets closer and closer to $\Delta u = {\rm constant}$, and thus (after subtracting a paraboloid) close to $\Delta u = 0$. Thus, the result can be proved by using the information that we have on harmonic functions.
Let us start by stating the results we want to prove in this section: Schauder estimates for the Laplacian.
\begin{thm}[Schauder estimates for the Laplacian]\index{Schauder estimates!Laplacian}
\label{thm.Schauder_estimates_L}
Let $\alpha \in (0, 1)$, and let $u\in C^{2,\alpha}(B_1)$ satisfy
\[
\Delta u = f\quad\textrm{in } B_1,
\]
with $f\in C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)$. Then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.Schauder_estimates_L}
\|u\|_{C^{2, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C\left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+\|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right).
\end{equation}
The constant $C$ depends only on $\alpha$ and the dimension $n$.
\end{thm}
We will, in general, state our estimates in balls $B_{1/2}$ and $B_1$. By means of a covering argument explained below, this allows us to obtain interior regularity estimates in general domains.
\begin{rem}[Covering argument]\index{Covering argument}
\label{rem.covering_argument}
Let us assume that we have an estimate, like the one in \eqref{eq.Schauder_estimates_L}, but in a ball $B_{r_1}$ for some $r_1 \in (0, 1)$, which will be typically very close to zero. Namely, we know that if $\Delta u = f$ in $B_1$, then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.estrhorho}
\|u\|_{C^{2, \alpha}(B_{r_1})} \le C\left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+\|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right).
\end{equation}
Let us suppose that we are interested in finding an estimate for a bigger ball, $B_{r_2}$ with $r_1 <r_2 \in (0, 1)$, where ${r_2}$ will be typically close to one. We do that via a ``covering argument''. (See Figure~\ref{fig.6}.)
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.9]{./Figures/fig6.pdf}
\caption{Graphical representation of the ``covering argument'' in the case $r_1 = \frac14$, $r_2 = \frac12$, and $r = \frac18$. }
\label{fig.6}
\end{figure}
That is, let us cover the ball $B_{r_2}$ with smaller balls $B_{r}(x_i)$ such that $x_i \in B_{{r_2}}$ and $ r = (1-{r_2})r_1$. We can do so with a finite number of balls, so that $i \in \{1,\dots, N\}$, for some $N$ depending on $r_1$, ${r_2}$, and $n$. Notice that $B_{r/r_1}(x_i)\subset B_1$.
We apply our estimate \eqref{eq.estrhorho} (translated and rescaled) at each of these balls $B_{r/r_1}(x_i)$ (we can do so, because $\Delta u = f$ in $B_{r/r_1}(x_i)\subset B_1$). Thus, we obtain a bound for $\|u\|_{C^{2, \alpha}(B_r(x_i))}$
\begin{align*}
\|u\|_{C^{2, \alpha}(B_{r}(x_i))} & \le C(r_1, {r_2})\left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_{r/r_1}(x_i))}+\|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{r/r_1}(x_i))}\right)\\
& \le C(r_1, {r_2})\left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_{1})}+\|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1})}\right).
\end{align*}
Now, since $B_{r_2}$ can be covered by a finite number of these balls, we obtain
\[
\|u\|_{C^{2, \alpha}(B_{r_2})} \le \sum_{i = 1}^n \|u\|_{C^{2, \alpha}(B_{r}(x_i))} \le NC(r_1, {r_2})\left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_{1})}+\|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1})}\right).
\]
This is the type of bound we wanted, where the constant now also depends on $r_1$ and $r_2$.
\end{rem}
As a consequence of the ``a priori'' estimate for the Laplacian we will show:
\begin{cor}
\label{cor.Schauder_estimates_L}
Let $u$ be any bounded weak solution to
\[
\Delta u = f\quad\textrm{in } B_1,
\]
with $f\in C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)$ for some $\alpha\in(0,1)$. Then, $u$ is in $ C^{2, \alpha}$ inside $B_1$, and the estimate \eqref{eq.Schauder_estimates_L} holds.
\end{cor}
Furthermore, iterating the previous estimate we will establish the following.
\begin{cor}[Higher order regularity estimates]\index{Higher order Schauder estimates!Laplacian}
\label{cor.Schauder_estimates_L_HO}
Let $u$ be any bounded weak solution to
\[
\Delta u = f\quad\textrm{in } B_1,
\]
with $f\in C^{k, \alpha}(B_1)$ for some $\alpha\in(0,1)$, and $k\in\mathbb{N}$. Then, $u$ is in $ C^{k+2, \alpha}$ inside $B_1$ and
\[
\|u\|_{C^{k+2, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C\left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+\|f\|_{C^{k, \alpha}(B_1)}\right),
\]
for some constant $C$ that depends only on $k$, $\alpha$, and the dimension $n$.
\end{cor}
In case $f\in L^\infty$, we will prove the following.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop.Schauder_estimates_L_bounded}
Let $u$ be any solution to
\[
\Delta u = f\quad\textrm{in } B_1,
\]
with $f\in L^\infty(B_1)$. Then, $u$ is in $ C^{1, 1-\varepsilon}$ inside $B_1$, for any $\varepsilon > 0$, with the estimate
\[
\|u\|_{C^{1, 1-\varepsilon}(B_{1/2})} \le C_\varepsilon \left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)} + \|f\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\right)
\]
for some constant $C_\varepsilon$ depending only on $\varepsilon$ and $n$.
\end{prop}
We will give two different proofs of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_L}. The first proof follows a method introduced by Wang in \cite{Wan} and shows the a priori estimate using a very much self-contained approach. For the second proof we use an approach {\it \`a la} Caffarelli from \cite{M, Caf89}.
Before doing so, let us observe the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item If $\Delta u = f\in L^\infty$ then $\tilde u(x) := u(rx)$ solves $\Delta \tilde u = r^2f(rx)$. In other words, if $|\Delta u |\le C$, then $|\Delta\tilde u|\le Cr^2$ (and if $r$ is small, the right-hand side becomes smaller and smaller).
\item If $\Delta u = f\in C^{0, \alpha}$, $\tilde u(x) = u(rx) - \frac{f(0)}{2n}|x|^2$ solves $\Delta \tilde u = r^2 (f(rx)-f(0))$, so that $|\Delta \tilde u |\le Cr^{2+\alpha}$ in $B_1$. This, by the comparison principle, means that $\tilde u$ is ``very close'' to a harmonic function.
\end{itemize}
Let us now show that Corollary~\ref{cor.Schauder_estimates_L} holds assuming Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_L}. This follows by an approximation argument.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary~\ref{cor.Schauder_estimates_L}]
We will deduce the result from Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_L}. Let $u$ be any solution to $\Delta u = f$ in $B_1$, with $f\in C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)$, and let $\eta\in C^\infty_c (B_1)$ be any smooth function with $\eta \ge 0$ and $\int_{B_1}\eta = 1$. Let
\[
\eta_\varepsilon (x) := \varepsilon^{-n} \eta\left(\frac{x}{\varepsilon}\right),
\]
which satisfies $\int_{B_{\varepsilon}} \eta_\varepsilon = 1$, $\eta_\varepsilon\in C^\infty_c(B_\varepsilon)$. Consider the convolution
\[
u_\varepsilon(x) := u * \eta_\varepsilon(x) = \int_{B_\varepsilon} u(x-y)\eta_\varepsilon(y)\, dy,
\]
which is $C^\infty$ and satisfies
\[
\Delta u_\varepsilon = f*\eta_\varepsilon =: f_\varepsilon \quad\textrm{in}\quad B_{1-\varepsilon}.
\]
(Notice that for smooth functions, derivatives and convolutions commute; the same can be done for weak derivatives.) Since $u_\varepsilon \in C^\infty$, we can use Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_L} to get
\[
\|u_\varepsilon\|_{C^{2, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C\left(\|u_\varepsilon\|_{L^\infty(B_{1-\varepsilon})}+\|f_\varepsilon\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1-\varepsilon})}\right),
\]
where we are also using the covering argument in Remark~\ref{rem.covering_argument} to write it in a ball $B_{1-\varepsilon}$ in the right-hand side. Observe now that for any $x,y\in B_{1-\varepsilon}$
\[
|u_\varepsilon(x)| \le \int_{B_\varepsilon} |u(x-z)|\eta_\varepsilon(z)\, dy \le \|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\int_{B_\varepsilon}\eta_\varepsilon(z)\, dz = \|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)},
\]
and
\[
|f_\varepsilon(x) - f_\varepsilon(y)| \le \int_{B_\varepsilon} |f(x-z) - f(y-z)| \eta_\varepsilon(z)\, dz = [f]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)} |x-y|^\alpha.
\]
From here, we deduce $\|u_\varepsilon\|_{L^\infty(B_{1-\varepsilon})}\le \|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}$ and $\|f_\varepsilon\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1-\varepsilon})}\le \|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1})}$. Thus, the sequence $u_\varepsilon $ is uniformly bounded in $C^{2,\alpha}(B_{1/2})$,
\[
\|u_\varepsilon\|_{C^{2, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C\left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_{1})}+\|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1})}\right).
\]
Moreover, since $u$ is continuous (see Corollary~\ref{cor.Hold_cont_f}), arguing as before we get $\|u_\varepsilon- u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\to 0$ as $\varepsilon \downarrow 0$, so that $u_\varepsilon\to u$ uniformly. We can use \ref{it.H8} from Chapter~\ref{ch.0} to deduce that $u\in C^{2,\alpha}$ and
\[
\|u\|_{C^{2, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C \left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+\|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right).
\]
By a covering argument (see Remark~\ref{rem.covering_argument}) we can get a similar estimate in any ball $B_\rho$ with $\rho <1$,
\[
\|u\|_{C^{2, \alpha}(B_{\rho})} \le C_\rho\left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+\|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right),
\]
where now the constant $C_\rho$ depends also on $\rho$, and in fact, blows up when $\rho\uparrow 1$. In any case, we have that $u\in C^{2,\alpha}(B_\rho)$ for any $\rho < 1$, i.e., $u$ is in $C^{2,\alpha}$ inside $B_1$.
\end{proof}
The previous proof is an example of a recurring phenomenon when proving regularity estimates for PDEs. If one can get estimates of the kind
\[
\|u\|_{C^{2, \alpha}} \le C\left(\|u\|_{L^\infty}+\|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}}\right),
\]
for all $C^\infty$ functions $u$, and with a constant $C$ that depends only on $\alpha$ and $n$ (but independent of $u$ and $f$), then, in general, the estimate holds as well for all solutions $u$. Thus, if one wants to prove the higher-order regularity estimates from Corollary~\ref{cor.Schauder_estimates_L_HO}, it is enough to get a priori estimates in the spirit of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_L}. As a consequence, assuming that Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_L} holds, we can prove Corollary~\ref{cor.Schauder_estimates_L_HO}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary~\ref{cor.Schauder_estimates_L_HO}]
As mentioned above, we just need to show that for any $u\in C^\infty$ such that $\Delta u = f$, one has
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.toshowk}
\|u\|_{C^{k+2, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C\left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+\|f\|_{C^{k, \alpha}(B_1)}\right).
\end{equation}
for some constant $C$ depending only on $n$, $\alpha$, and $k$; and then we are done by a covering argument (see Remark~\ref{rem.covering_argument}). We prove it by induction on $k$, and it follows applying the induction hypothesis to derivatives of $u$. Notice that \eqref{eq.toshowk} deals with balls $B_{1/2}$ and $B_1$, but after a rescaling and covering argument (see Remark \ref{rem.covering_argument}), it could also be stated in balls $B_{1/2}$ and $B_{3/4}$ (we will use it in this setting).
The base case, $k = 0$, already holds by Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_L}. Let us now assume that \eqref{eq.toshowk} holds for $k = m-1$, and we will show it for $k = m$.
In this case, let us differentiate $\Delta u = f$ to get $\Delta \partial_i u = \partial_i f$, for $i\in \{1,\dots,n\}$. Applying \eqref{eq.toshowk} for $k = m-1$ to $\partial_i u$ in balls $B_{1/2}$ and $B_{3/4}$, we get
\begin{align*}
\|\partial_i u\|_{C^{m+1, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} & \le C\left(\|\partial_i u\|_{L^\infty(B_{3/4})}+\|\partial_i f\|_{C^{m-1, \alpha}(B_{3/4})}\right)\\
& \le C\left(\|u\|_{C^{2,\alpha}(B_{3/4})}+\| f\|_{C^{m, \alpha}(B_{3/4})}\right).
\end{align*}
Using now Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_L} in balls $B_{3/4}$ and $B_{1}$,
\[
\|\partial_i u\|_{C^{m+1, \alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le C\left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{\alpha}(B_{1})}+\| f\|_{C^{m, \alpha}(B_{3/4})}\right)
\]
This, together with the basic estimate from Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_L} for $\Delta u = f$, and used for each $i\in \{1,\dots,n\}$, directly yields that \eqref{eq.toshowk} holds for $k = m$.
\end{proof}
Similarly, if one wants to prove regularity estimates in other contexts, it is often enough to obtain the corresponding a priori estimate. For instance, using an estimate that we prove later in the chapter (in the more general context of non-divergence-form equations) we can immediately obtain also the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates_L_bounded}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates_L_bounded}]
The proof is exactly the same as the proof of Corollary~\ref{cor.Schauder_estimates_L} but using Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates_cont} from below instead of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_L}. (Alternatively, see Remark~\ref{rem:zygmund}.)
\end{proof}
Let us now provide the first proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_L}. The method used here was introduced by Wang in \cite{Wan}.
\begin{proof}[First proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_L}.]
We will prove that
\[
|D^2 u(z) - D^2 u(y) | \le C|z-y|^\alpha\left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+ [f]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right),
\]
for all $y, z\in B_{1/32}$. After a translation, we assume that $y = 0$, so that the proof can be centered around 0. This will prove our theorem with estimates in a ball $B_{1/32}$, and the desired result in a ball of radius $\frac12$ follows by a covering argument. Moreover, after dividing the solution $u$ by $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+ [f]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}$ if necessary, we may assume that $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le 1$ and $[f]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\le 1$, and we just need to prove that for all $z\in B_{1/16}$,
\[
|D^2 u(z) - D^2 u(0) | \le C|z|^\alpha.
\]
Throughout the proof, we will use the following basic estimates for harmonic functions:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.harmkap}
\Delta w = 0\quad\textrm{in} \quad B_r\quad\Rightarrow \quad \|D^\kappa w\|_{L^\infty(B_{r/2})} \le Cr^{-\kappa} \| w \|_{L^\infty(B_r)},
\end{equation}
where $C$ depends only on $n$ and $\kappa \in \mathbb{N}$. (In fact, we will only use $\kappa \in \{1, 2, 3\}$.)
Such estimate follows by rescaling the estimate \eqref{eq.estimatesuk} --- which corresponds to the case $r = 1$.
We will also use the estimate
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.harmkap2}
\Delta w = \lambda\quad\textrm{in} \quad B_r\quad\Rightarrow \quad \|D^2 w\|_{L^\infty(B_{r/2})} \le C\left(r^{-2} \| w \|_{L^\infty(B_r)} + |\lambda|\right),
\end{equation}
for some constant $C$ depending only on $n$. This estimate follows from \eqref{eq.harmkap} after subtracting $\frac{\lambda}{2n}|x|^2$.
For $k = 0,1,2,\dots$, let $u_k$ be the solution to
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta u_k & = & f(0) &\text{in } B_{2^{-k}}\\
u_k &=& u &\text{on } \partial B_{2^{-k}}.
\end{array}
\right.
\]
Then, $\Delta (u_k-u) = f(0)-f$, and by the rescaled version of Lemma~\ref{lem.maxPrinciple}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.fromu0u}
\|u_k-u\|_{L^\infty(B_{2^{-k}})}\le C (2^{-k})^2\|f(0)-f\|_{L^\infty(B_{2^{-k}})}\le C2^{-k(2+\alpha)},
\end{equation}
where we are using that $[f]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\le 1$.
Hence, the triangle inequality yields
\[
\|u_{k+1}-u_k\|_{L^\infty(B_{2^{-k-1}})}\le C2^{-k(2+\alpha)}.
\]
Since $u_{k+1}-u_k$ is harmonic, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.d2uk}
\|D^2 (u_{k+1}-u_k)\|_{L^\infty(B_{2^{-k-2}})} \le C2^{2(k+1)}\|u_{k+1}-u_k\|_{L^\infty(B_{2^{-k-1}})} \le C2^{-k\alpha}.
\end{equation}
Now, notice that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.d2ulim}
D^2 u (0) = \lim_{k\to \infty} D^2 u_k (0).
\end{equation}
Indeed, let $\tilde u(x) := u(0) + x\cdot \nabla u(0) + \frac12 x\cdot D^2 u(0) x$ be the second order expansion of $u$ at 0. Then, since $u\in C^{2,\alpha}$, we have $\|\tilde u - u\|_{L^\infty(B_r)} \le Cr^{2+\alpha} = o(r^2)$. Using that $\tilde u - u_k$ is harmonic together with \eqref{eq.harmkap} we deduce
\begin{align*}
|D^2 u_k(0) - D^2 u(0)| & \le \|D^2 (u_k - \tilde u)\|_{L^\infty(B_{2^{-k-1}})}\\
& \le C 2^{2k} \|u_k - \tilde u\|_{L^\infty(B_{2^{-k}})}\\
& = C 2^{2k} \|u - \tilde u\|_{L^\infty(\partial B_{2^{-k}})} \to 0\quad\textrm{as}\quad k\to \infty.
\end{align*}
Now, for any point $z$ near the origin, we have
\begin{align*}
|D^2 u(z) - D^2u(0)|\le |D^2& u_k(0) -D^2 u(0)|\\
&+|D^2 u_k(0)-D^2 u_k(z)|+|D^2 u_k(z)-D^2 u(z)|.
\end{align*}
For a given $z\in B_{1/16}$, we choose $k\in \mathbb{N}$ such that \[
2^{-k-4}\le |z|\le 2^{-k-3}.
\]
Thanks to \eqref{eq.d2uk}-\eqref{eq.d2ulim}, and by the triangle inequality, we get
\[
|D^2 u_k(0)-D^2 u(0)|\le \sum_{j = k}^\infty |D^2 u_j(0)-D^2 u_{j+1}(0)|\le C\sum_{j = k }^\infty 2^{-j\alpha} = C2^{-k\alpha},
\]
where we use that $\alpha\in (0, 1)$.
In order to estimate $|D^2 u(z)-D^2 u_k(z)|$, the same argument can be repeated around $z$ instead of $0$. That is, take solutions of $\Delta v_j = f(z)$ in $B_{2^{-j}(z)}$ and $v_j = u$ on $\partial B_{2^{-j}}(z)$. Then,
\[
|D^2 u_k(z) - D^2u(z) |\le |D^2 u_k(z) -D^2 v_k(z)|+|D^2 v_k(z) - D^2 u(z)|.
\]
The second term above can be bounded by $C2^{-k\alpha}$ arguing as before. For the first term, we use \eqref{eq.harmkap2} by noticing that $\Delta (u_k - v_k) = f(0)-f(z)$ in $B_{2^{-k}}\cap B_{2^{-k}}(z)\supset B_{2^{-k-1}}(z)$ (recall $|z|\le 2^{-k-3}$), so that, in $B_{2^{-2-k}(z)}$ we have
\begin{align*}
|D^2 u_k(z) - D^2 v_k(z)|& \le \|D^2(u_k-v_k)\|_{L^\infty(B_{2^{-2-k}}(z))}\\
& \le C2^{2k}\|u_k-v_k\|_{L^\infty(B_{2^{-k-1}(z)})} + C|f(z)-f(0)|\\
& \le C2^{2k}\|u_k-v_k\|_{L^\infty(B_{2^{-k-1}(z)})} + C2^{-k\alpha},
\end{align*}
where we use, again, that $|z|\le 2^{-k-3}$, and $[f]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\le 1$
Finally, from \eqref{eq.fromu0u}, we know that
\[
\|u_k-u\|_{L^\infty(B_{2^{-k-1}}(z))}\le \|u_k-u\|_{L^\infty(B_{2^{-k}})}\le C2^{-k(2+\alpha)},
\]
and
\[
\|u-v_k\|_{L^\infty(B_{2^{-k-1}(z)})}\le C2^{-k(2+\alpha)},
\]
which gives
\[
\|u_k-v_k\|_{L^\infty(B_{2^{-k-1}(z)})}\le C2^{-k(2+\alpha)}.
\]
Thus, we deduce that
\[
|D^2 u_k (z) -D^2 u (z) |\le C2^{-k\alpha}.
\]
Finally, to estimate $|D^2 u_k(z)-D^2 u_k(0)|$, we denote $h_j := u_j-u_{j-1}$ for $j = 1,2,\dots, k$. Since $h_j$ are harmonic, by \eqref{eq.harmkap} with $\kappa = 3$ and using that $B_{2^{-k-3}}\subset B_{2^{-j-1}}$, we see that
\begin{align*}
\left|\frac{D^2 h_j(z)-D^2 h_j (0)}{|z|}\right|& \le \|D^3 h_j\|_{L^\infty(B_{2^{-k-3}})}\\
& \le C2^{3j}\|h_j\|_{L^\infty(B_{2^{-j}})}\le C2^{j(1-\alpha)}.
\end{align*}
Hence,
\begin{align*}
|D^2 u_k(0) - D^2 u_k(z) | & \le |D^2 u_0(z) -D^2 u_0(0)|+\sum_{j = 1}^k |D^2 h_j(z) - D^2 h_j(0)|\\
& \le C|z|\|u_0\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+C |z|\sum_{j = 1}^k 2^{j(1-\alpha)}.
\end{align*}
We have also used here that, if we define $w := u_0 - \frac{f(0)}{2n} |x|^2 + \frac{f(0)}{2n}$ then $w$ is harmonic, $D^3 w = D^3 u_0$, and $w = u_0$ on $\partial B_1$, and
\begin{align*}
|z|^{-1}|D^2 u_0(z) -D^2 u_0(0)|& \le \|D^3 u_0\|_{L^\infty(B_{1/2})} = \|D^3 w\|_{L^\infty(B_{1/2})} \\
& \le C \|w\|_{L^\infty(B_{1})} = C \|u_0\|_{L^\infty(\partial B_{1})} \le C\|u_0\|_{L^\infty(B_1)},
\end{align*}
by higher order regularity estimates for harmonic functions (see~\eqref{eq.harmkap}) and the maximum principle (Lemma~\ref{lem.maxPrinciple}). Note that here the constant $C$ depends only on $n$.
Combined with the fact that, from \eqref{eq.fromu0u},
\[
\|u_0\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le C,
\]
(where we also use $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le 1$) and $|z|\le 2^{-k-3}$, we deduce that
\[
|D^2 u_k(0) - D^2 u_k(z) | \le C|z|+ C|z| 2^{k(1-\alpha)}\le C2^{-k\alpha}.
\]
We finish by noticing that $|z|\ge 2^{-k-4}$ and combining all the last inequalities we reach
\[
|D^2 u(z) - D^2 u(0) |\le C2^{-k\alpha}\le C|z|^\alpha
\]
for all $z\in B_{1/16}$. That is,
\[
[D^2 u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/16})}\le C.
\]
Now, thanks to the interpolation inequalities (see \eqref{ch0-interp2} with $\varepsilon = 1$),
\begin{align*}
\|u\|_{C^{2,\alpha}(B_{1/16})} & = \|u\|_{C^{2}(B_{1/16})} +[D^2 u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/16})}\\
& \le C\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_{1/16})} + 2 [D^2 u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/16})}\le C.
\end{align*}
We finish by recalling that we divided the solution $u$ by $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+ [f]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}$, and we use a covering argument to get the desired result (see Remark~\ref{rem.covering_argument}).
\end{proof}
For the second proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_L}, we use the methods from \cite{M}, originally from \cite{Caf89}.
\begin{proof}[Second proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_L}.]
After subtracting $\frac{f(0)}{2n}|x|^2$ we may assume that $f(0) = 0$. After dividing $u$ by $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+\varepsilon^{-1}\|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}$ if necessary, we may also assume that $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le 1$ and $\|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\le\varepsilon$, where $\varepsilon> 0$ is a constant to be chosen depending only on $n$ and $\alpha$.
After these simplifications, it is enough to show that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.udone}
\|u\|_{C^{2, \alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le C
\end{equation}
for some constant $C$ depending only on $n$ and $\alpha$.
We will show that, for every $x\in B_{1/2}$, there exist a sequence of quadratic polynomials, $(P_k)_{k\in \mathbb{N}}$, and a $\rho_\circ< 1$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.H_QP}
\|u-P_k\|_{L^\infty(B_{\rho_\circ^k}(x))}\leq C_\circ\rho_\circ^{k(2+\alpha)}\qquad\textrm{for all }\, k\in \mathbb{N},
\end{equation}
for some constant $C_\circ$. By property \ref{it.H5} from Chapter~\ref{ch.0}, this yields that $[D^2u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le CC_\circ$. After using an interpolation inequality \eqref{ch0-interp2}, we get \eqref{eq.udone}.
We will prove \eqref{eq.H_QP} for $x = 0$ (after a translation, it follows for all $x\in B_{1/2}$). We are going to use that $\Delta u = f$, $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le 1$, $f(0 ) = 0$ and $[f]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\le \varepsilon$.
Notice that $\|\Delta u\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)} = \|f\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}\le 2\varepsilon$, i.e., $u$ is $2\varepsilon$-close in H\"older norm to a harmonic function: let $w$ be such that $\Delta w = 0$ and $w = u $ on $\partial B_1$. Then, $\Delta(u- w) = f$ in $B_1$, and $u-v = 0$ on $\partial B_1$, so that by Lemma~\ref{lem.maxPrinciple},
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.connor1}
\|u-w\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le C'\|f\|_{L^\infty(B_1)} \le C\varepsilon,
\end{equation}
for some $C$ universal (we are only using $\|f\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le 2\varepsilon$, and not using its $C^\alpha$ norm at this point). The function $w$ is harmonic and $|w|\le 1$ (since $|u|\le 1$). Therefore, it has a quadratic Taylor polynomial $P_1$ at the origin, which satisfies $\Delta P_1 \equiv 0$ and $|P_1|\le C$. Moreover, since $w$ is harmonic (and in particular $w\in C^3$), we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.connor2}
\|w-P_1 \|_{L^\infty(B_r)}\le Cr^3\qquad\textrm{for all }\, r \le 1,
\end{equation}
for some $C$ depending only on $n$.
Combining \eqref{eq.connor1} and \eqref{eq.connor2} we obtain
\[
\|u-P_1\|_{L^\infty(B_r)}\le C(r^3+\varepsilon)\qquad\textrm{for all }\, r \le 1.
\]
Choose now $r_\circ$ small enough such that $Cr_\circ^3\le \frac12 r_\circ^{2+\alpha}$ (notice $\alpha < 1$), and $\varepsilon$ small enough such that $C\varepsilon< \frac12 r_\circ^{2+\alpha}$. (Notice that both $r_\circ$ and $\varepsilon$ can be chosen depending only on $n$ and $\alpha$.) Then,
\[
\|u-P_1\|_{L^\infty(B_{r_\circ})}\le r_\circ^{2+\alpha}.
\]
Let us now define
\[
u_2(x) := \frac{(u-P_1)(r_\circ x)}{r_\circ^{2+\alpha} }.\]
Notice that $\|u_2\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le 1$ and $\Delta u_2(x) = r_\circ^{-\alpha}f(r_\circ x)=:f_2(x)$. Then, $f_2(0) = 0$ and $[f_2]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}\le [f]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}\le \varepsilon$. That is, the same hypotheses as before are fulfilled.
Repeating the same procedure, there exists a polynomial $P_2$ such that
\[
\|u_2 - P_2\|_{L^\infty(B_{r_\circ})}\le r_\circ^{2+\alpha}.
\]
That is, substituting back,
\[
\big\|u - P_1 - r_\circ^{2+\alpha}P_2(x/r_\circ)\big\|_{L^\infty(B_{r^2_\circ})}\le r_\circ^{2(2+\alpha)}.
\]
Continuing iteratively, for every $k\in \mathbb{N}$ we can define
\[
u_{k+1}(x):= \frac{(u_k-P_k)(r_\circ x)}{r_\circ^{2+\alpha}},
\]
which satisfies
\[
\|u_{k+1}\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le 1,\quad\Delta u_{k+1}(x) = r_\circ^{-\alpha} f_{k}(r_\circ x) = r_\circ^{-k\alpha} f(r_\circ^k x) =: f_{k+1}(x),
\]
and there exists some $P_{k+1}$ such that
\[
\|u_{k+1}-P_{k+1}\|_{L^\infty(B_{r_\circ})}\le r_\circ^{2+\alpha}.
\]
Substituting back,
\[
\big\|u - P_1 - r_\circ^{2+\alpha}P_2(x/r_\circ) - \dots - r_\circ^{k(2+\alpha)} P_{k+1}(x/r_\circ^k)\big\|_{L^\infty(B_{r^{k+1}_\circ})}\le r_\circ^{(k+1)(2+\alpha)}.
\]
That is, we have constructed a sequence of quadratic polynomials approximating $u$ in a decreasing sequence of balls around 0; which shows that \eqref{eq.H_QP} holds around 0. After a translation, the same argument can be repeated around any point $x\in B_{1/2}$, so that, by \ref{it.H5} we are done.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
\label{rem:zygmund}
When $\alpha = 0$, the previous proof implies that if $f\in L^\infty(B_1)$ then, by \eqref{eq.H_QP}, $\nabla u$ is in the Zygmund space $\Lambda^1(B_1)$; see Remark~\ref{rem.zygmund} in the Appendix~\ref{app.A} for more details. In particular, we also get a proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates_L_bounded}.
\end{rem}
Notice that in the previous proof we have not directly used that $u$ is $C^2$. In fact, the only properties of $u$ (and the Laplacian) we have used are that the maximum principle holds and that $\Delta (u(rx)) = r^2 (\Delta u)(rx)$.
In particular, the second proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_L} is {\it not} an a priori estimate, and rather it says that any weak solution to the Laplace equation with $C^\alpha$ right-hand side is $C^{2,\alpha}$. That is, we have directly proved Corollary~\ref{cor.Schauder_estimates_L}.
\section{Schauder estimates for operators in non-divergence form}
After proving the Schauder estimates for the Laplacian, we will study now more general second order linear elliptic operators. We start with operators in non-divergence form. The type of equation we are interested in is
\[
\boxed{
{\rm tr} \big(A(x)D^2 u(x)\big) = \sum_{i,j = 1}^n a_{ij}(x)\partial_{ij}u(x) = f(x) \quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1
}
\]
where the matrix $A(x) = (a_{ij}(x))_{ij}$ is uniformly elliptic --- in the sense that \eqref{eq.ellipt} below holds --- and $a_{ij}(x) \in C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)$. We will prove the following a priori estimates.
\begin{thm}[Schauder estimates in non-divergence form]\index{Schauder estimates!Non-divergence form}
\label{thm.Schauder_estimates}
Let $\alpha\in (0, 1)$, and let $u\in C^{2,\alpha}$ be any solution to
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} u = f(x) \quad\textrm{in} \quad B_1,
\]
with $f\in C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)$ and $a_{ij}(x) \in C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)$, and $(a_{ij}(x))_{ij}$ fulfilling the ellipticity condition
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.ellipt}
0< \lambda\,{\rm Id} \le (a_{ij}(x))_{ij} \le\Lambda\,{\rm Id}\quad\textrm{in} \quad B_1,
\end{equation}
for some $0 < \lambda \le\Lambda < \infty$. Then,
\[
\|u\|_{C^{2, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C \left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right)
\]
for some constant $C$ depending only on $\alpha$, $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, and $\|a_{ij}\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}$.
\end{thm}
As for the Laplacian, we will provide two different proofs of the previous result.
On the other hand, as a consequence of the previous result, we also obtain higher order Schauder estimates in non-divergence form.
\begin{cor}[Higher order Schauder estimates in non-divergence form]\index{Higher order Schauder estimates!Non-divergence form}
\label{cor.Schauder_estimates_HO}
Let $u\in C^{k+2,\alpha}$ be a solution to
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} u = f(x) \quad\textrm{in} \quad B_1,
\]
with $f\in C^{k, \alpha}(B_1)$ and $a_{ij}(x) \in C^{k, \alpha}(B_1)$ for some $\alpha\in (0, 1)$, $k\in \mathbb{N}$, and $(a_{ij}(x))_{ij}$ fulfilling the ellipticity conditions \eqref{eq.ellipt} for some $0 < \lambda \le\Lambda < \infty$. Then,
\[
\|u\|_{C^{k+2, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C \left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{k, \alpha}(B_1)}\right)
\]
for some constant $C$ depending only on $\alpha$, $k$, $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, and $\|a_{ij}\|_{C^{k, \alpha}(B_1)}$.
\end{cor}
\begin{rem}[Ellipticity condition]\index{Uniform ellipticity condition!Linear equations}
The uniform ellipticity condition in $B_1$, \eqref{eq.ellipt}, is a quantification of the fact that the matrix
\[
A(x) := (a_{ij}(x))_{ij}
\]
is uniformly positive definite and uniformly bounded as well. Notice that we can always assume that $A(x)$ is symmetric (from $\partial_{ij} u = \partial_{ji} u$). We recall that the inequality $A_1 \le A_2$ for symmetric matrices $A_1, A_2\in \mathcal{M}_n$ has to be understood in the sense that $A_2-A_1$ is positive semi-definite. Alternatively, \eqref{eq.ellipt} will hold if
\[
0< \lambda|\xi|^2 \le \sum_{i,j= 1}^n \xi_i \xi_j a_{ij}(x)\le \Lambda|\xi|^2\quad\textrm{for all} \quad x\in B_1
\]
for all $\xi \in \mathbb{R}^n$.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}[Constant coefficients]
\label{rem.constcoef}
Let us start by understanding the case of constant coefficients,
\[
\sum_{i,j = 1}^n a_{ij} \partial_{ij} u(x) = 0 \quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1,
\]
where $a_{ij}$ are constants and satisfy the uniform ellipticity assumption,
\[
0 < \lambda{\rm Id} \le (a_{ij})_{ij} \le \Lambda{\rm Id},
\]
for $0< \lambda \le \Lambda < \infty$.
Let us denote $A := (a_{ij})_{ij}\in \mathcal{M}_n$. Then, $A$ is a symmetric positive definite matrix, and therefore has a unique positive definite square root $A^{1/2}$. After an affine change of variables
\[
z = A^{1/2} x ,
\]
the equation
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n a_{ij}\partial_{x_i x_j} u = 0\quad\textrm{becomes}\quad \sum_{i = 1}^n \partial_{z_i z_i} u = 0
\]
or $\Delta_z u = 0$. Indeed,
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n a_{ij} \partial_{x_i x_j} u = {\rm tr}(AD^2_x u ) = {\rm tr}(A^{1/2}D^2_x uA^{1/2} ) = {\rm tr}(D_z^2 u) = \Delta_z u.
\]
Therefore (and since $0 < \lambda{\rm Id} \le A \le \Lambda{\rm Id}$), the case of constant coefficients (uniformly elliptic) can be reduced to the case of {\em harmonic functions}.
Thanks to the uniform ellipticity, the change of variables is {\em not} degenerate, and thus the estimates on $\|u\|_{C^{2, \alpha}}$ that we get depend only on $\alpha$, $n$, $\lambda$, and $\Lambda$ (but not on $A$). Similarly, after changing variables, there could be a shrinking of the domain, say that the $C^{2, \alpha}$ norm of $u$ is bounded in $B_\rho$ instead of $B_{1/2}$, for some $\rho < 1/2$. Once again, since the change is non-degenerate, such $\rho$ depends only on $n$, $\lambda$, and $\Lambda$, and one can complete the proof by a covering argument in $B_{1/2}$ (see Remark~\ref{rem.covering_argument}).
\end{rem}
\subsection*{The maximum principle}
We state the maximum principle for equations in non-divergence form, which will be used in this section.
\begin{prop}[Maximum Principle in non-divergence form]\index{Maximum principle!Non-divergence form}
\label{prop.weakMaxNonDiv}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be any bounded open set. Suppose that $u\in C^0(\overline{\Omega})\cap C^2(\Omega)$ satisfies
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} u \ge 0 \quad\textrm{in} \quad \Omega,
\]
where $(a_{ij}(x))_{ij}$ satisfy
\[
0< \lambda\,{\rm Id} \le (a_{ij}(x))_{ij} \quad\textrm{in} \quad \Omega.
\]
Then,
\[
\sup_{\Omega} u = \sup_{\partial \Omega} u.
\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let us begin by showing the maximum principle in the case
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.MaxPrStrict}
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} u> 0 \quad\textrm{in} \quad B_1,
\end{equation}
that is, when we have a strict inequality. We show it by contradiction: suppose that there exists some $x_\circ\in \Omega$ such that $\sup_{\Omega} u = u(x_\circ)$. Since it is an interior maximum, we must have $\nabla u (x_\circ) = 0$ and $D^2 u(x_\circ) \le 0$, that is, $D^2 u(x_\circ)$ is a negative semi-definite symmetric matrix. In particular, all its eigenvalues are non-positive, and after a change of variables we have that
\[
P^T D^2 u(x_\circ) P = {\rm diag}(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_n) := D_{x_\circ}
\]
for some orthogonal $n\times n$ matrix $P$, and with $\lambda_i \le 0$ for all $1\le i \le n$. Let $A(x) = (a_{ij}(x))_{ij}$, and let $A^P(x_\circ) := P^T A(x_\circ) P$. Then, since $A(x_\circ)$ is positive definite, so is $A^P(x_\circ) = (a_{ij}^P(x_\circ))_{ij}$. In particular, $a_{ii}^P(x_\circ) \ge 0$ for all $1\le i \le n$. Then,
\[
{\rm tr} (A(x_\circ) D^2 u(x_\circ)) = {\rm tr}(A(x_\circ)PD_{x_\circ} P^T)= {\rm tr}(P^T A(x_\circ)PD_{x_\circ})
\]
and, therefore
\[
0< {\rm tr} (A(x_\circ) D^2 u(x_\circ)) = {\rm tr}(A^P(x_\circ) D_{x_\circ}) = \sum_{i = 1}^n a_{ii}^P(x_\circ) \lambda_i \le 0,
\]
a contradiction. Here, we used that $a_{ii}^P(x_\circ) \ge 0$ and $\lambda_i \le 0$ for all $1\le i \le n$. This shows that the maximum principle holds when the strict inequality \eqref{eq.MaxPrStrict} is satisfied.
Let us now remove this hypothesis. Let $R$ be large enough such that $B_R\supset \Omega$ --- after a translation, we can take $R =\frac12{\rm diam}(\Omega)$. Consider now the function
\[
u_\varepsilon (x) := u(x) +\varepsilon e^{x_1} \quad\textrm{for}\quad x\in \Omega,
\]
for $\varepsilon > 0$. Notice that,
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} u_\varepsilon (x) \ge \lambda \varepsilon e^{x_1}>0 \quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega.
\]
In particular, we can apply the result for \eqref{eq.MaxPrStrict} to obtain that
\[
\sup_\Omega u \le \sup_{\Omega} u_\varepsilon = \sup_{\partial \Omega} u_\varepsilon \le \sup_{\partial \Omega} u + \varepsilon e^{R}.
\]
By letting $\varepsilon\downarrow 0$, we obtain the desired result.
\end{proof}
As a consequence, we find:
\begin{lem}
\label{lem.maxPrinciple_2}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be a bounded open set, and let $u\in C^0(\overline{\Omega})\cap C^2(\Omega)$ be a function satisfying
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} u & = & f &\text{in } \Omega\\
u &=& g &\text{on } \partial \Omega,
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation*}
where $(a_{ij})_{ij}$ fulfill the ellipticity conditions \eqref{eq.ellipt} for some $0 < \lambda \le\Lambda < \infty$.
Then,
\[\|u\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}\leq C\bigl(\|f\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}+\|g\|_{L^\infty(\partial\Omega)}\bigr),\]
for a constant $C$ depending only on the diameter of $\Omega$, $\lambda$, and $\Lambda$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
This follows exactly as in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem.maxPrinciple} using Proposition~\ref{prop.weakMaxNonDiv}.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Proof of Schauder estimates}
Let us now proceed with the proof of Schauder estimates for equations in non-divergence form, Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates}. We will first prove (in two ways) the following proposition, which is a weaker version of the estimate we want to show.
We will later prove that, in fact, such estimate is enough to prove Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates}.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop.Schauder_estimates}
Let $u\in C^{2,\alpha}$ be a solution to
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} u = f(x) \quad\textrm{in} \quad B_1,
\]
with $f\in C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)$ and $a_{ij}(x) \in C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)$ for some $\alpha\in (0, 1)$, and $(a_{ij}(x))_{ij}$ fulfilling the ellipticity condition
\[
0< \lambda {\rm Id} \le (a_{ij}(x))_{ij} \le\Lambda{\rm Id}\quad\textrm{in} \quad B_1,
\]
for some $0 < \lambda \le\Lambda < \infty$. Then, for any $\delta> 0$,
\[
[D^2 u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le \delta[D^2 u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)} +C_\delta \left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right),
\]
for some constant $C_\delta$ depending only on $\delta$, $\alpha$, $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, and $\|a_{ij}\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}$.
\end{prop}
Notice that, the previous statement is almost what we want: if we could let $\delta\downarrow 0$ and $C_\delta$ remained bounded, Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates} would be proved (after using interpolation inequalities \eqref{ch0-interp2}). On the other hand, if the H\"older norm was in $B_{1/2}$ instead of $B_1$, choosing $\delta = \frac12$ would also complete the proof. As we will see, although it is not so straightforward, Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates} is just one step away from the final result.
Let us provide two different proofs of Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates}. The first proof is a sketch that follows the same spirit as the first proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates}. The second proof is through a blow-up argument (by contradiction).
\begin{proof}[First Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates}]
The proof is very similar to the case of the Laplacian, the first proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_L}.
We define $u_k$ as the solution to
\[
\left\{\begin{array}{rcll}
\sum_{i,j = 1}^n a_{ij}(0) \partial_{ij} u_k & = & f(0) & \textrm{in } B_{2^{-k}}\\
u_k & = & u & \textrm{on } \partial B_{2^{-k}}.
\end{array}
\right.
\]
(We freeze the coefficients at zero.) Then,
\[
v_k := u- u_k
\]
satisfies
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n a_{ij} (0) \partial_{ij} v_k = f(x)-f(0) +\sum_{i, j =1}^n \big(a_{ij} (0)-a_{ij}(x) \big) \partial_{ij} u\quad\textrm{in} \quad B_{2^{-k}}.
\]
By the maximum principle (Lemma~\ref{lem.maxPrinciple_2}) we get
\begin{align*}
\|u-u_k\|_{L^\infty(B_{ 2^{-k}})} \le C 2^{-2k}\bigg(& 2^{-\alpha k}\|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{ 2^{-k}})} \\
& +2^{-\alpha k} \|D^2 u\|_{L^\infty(B_{ 2^{-k}})}\sum_{i,j = 1}^n \|a_{ij}\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{ 2^{-k}})} \bigg).
\end{align*}
Thus,
\[
\|u_k -u_{k+1}\|_{L^\infty(2^{-k-1})} \le C 2^{-k(2+\alpha)}\left(\|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{2^{-k}})}+\|D^2 u\|_{L^\infty(B_{2^{-k}})}\right),
\]
where the constant $C$ depends only on $\alpha$, $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, and $\|a_{ij}\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}$.
Following the exact same proof as in the case of the Laplacian, $\Delta u = f(x) $, we now get
\[
[D^2 u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C\left(\|u\|_{L^\infty( B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)} + \|D^2 u \|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\right) .
\]
This is {\em almost} exactly what we wanted to prove. However, we have an extra term $\|D^2 u \|_{L^\infty(B_1)}$ on the right-hand side. This can be dealt with by means of interpolation inequalities.
We use that, for any $\varepsilon > 0$, there is $C_\varepsilon$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.interpolation}
\|D^2 u \|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le \varepsilon [D^2 u ]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)} + C_\varepsilon\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}
\end{equation}
see \eqref{ch0-interp2} in Chapter~\ref{ch.0}.
The idea is that, since the $\|D^2 u \|_{L^\infty}$ term is lower order, we can absorb it in the left-hand side by paying the price of adding more $\|u\|_{L^\infty}$ norm on the right-hand side.
Namely, we have
\begin{align*}
[D^2 u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})} & \le C\left(\|u\|_{L^\infty( B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)} + \|D^2 u \|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\right) \\
\textrm{\tiny (by interpolation) } & \le C\left(C_\varepsilon \|u\|_{L^\infty( B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)} + \varepsilon[D^2 u ]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right) \\
& \le C_{\delta}\left( \|u\|_{L^\infty( B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right) + \delta[D^2 u ]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)},
\end{align*}
where we have used the interpolation inequality, and in the last step we have chosen $\varepsilon = \delta / C> 0$. The constant $C_{\delta}$ depends only on $\delta$, $\alpha$, $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, and $\|a_{ij}\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}$.
This concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
For the second proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates} we use a robust blow-up method due to L. Simon, \cite{Sim}. For simplicity, we will first prove it for the Laplacian case. After proving it for the Laplacian, we explain in detail how to adapt the method for the more general non-divergence operators.
\begin{proof}[Second Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates}]
Assume first that $(a_{ij}(x))_{ij} = {\rm Id}$, that is, $\Delta u = f$ in $B_1$. We then explain the modifications needed to show the result in the general case, $\sum_{i,j=1}^n a_{ij}(x)\partial_{ij}u (x)= f(x)$ in $B_1$.
Thanks to interpolation inequalities we only need to prove the following estimate for any $\delta > 0$ sufficiently small,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.contr.SAL}
[D^2u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le \delta[D^2u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1})}+ C_\delta\left(\|D^2u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+[f]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right)
\end{equation}
for all $u \in C^{2,\alpha}(B_1)$ with $\Delta u = f$ in $B_1$. Indeed, if \eqref{eq.contr.SAL} holds then, by interpolation \eqref{eq.interpolation}, with $\varepsilon = \delta/C_\delta$,
\[
[D^2u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le 2\delta[D^2u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1})}+ C_\delta \left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+[f]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right)
\]
for some new $C_\delta$ depending only on $\delta$, $n$ and $\alpha$, which is the desired result.
We will now show that \eqref{eq.contr.SAL} holds by contradiction, for some $C_\delta$ depending only on $\delta$, $n$, and $\alpha$. Indeed, suppose that it does not hold. Then, there exist sequences $u_k\in C^{2, \alpha}(B_1)$ and $f_k\in C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)$ for $k\in \mathbb{N}$ such that
\[
\Delta u_k = f_k\quad\textrm{in} \quad B_1,
\]
and for a fixed small constant $\delta_\circ >0$ we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.contr.SAL_2}
[D^2u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}> \delta_\circ[D^2u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1})}+ k\left(\|D^2u_k\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+[f_k]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right).
\end{equation}
We now have to reach a contradiction.
Select $x_k, y_k\in B_{1/2}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.halfeq}
\frac{|D^2u_k(x_k)-D^2u_k(y_k)|}{|x_k-y_k|^\alpha}\ge \frac12 [D^2u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}
\end{equation}
and let
\[
\rho_k := |x_k-y_k|.
\]
Observe that we must necessarily have $\rho_k \to 0 $ as $k \to \infty$, since
\begin{align*}
\frac12 [D^2u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}& \le \frac{|D^2u_k(x_k)-D^2u_k(y_k)|}{\rho_k^\alpha}\\
& \le \frac{2\|D^2u_k\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}}{\rho_k^\alpha}\le \frac{2[D^2 u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}}{k\rho_k^\alpha},
\end{align*}
where we have used \eqref{eq.contr.SAL_2} in the last inequality. Thus,
\[
\rho_k\le Ck^{-\frac{1}{\alpha}}\to 0 \quad\textrm{as}\quad k\to \infty
\]
Now, we rescale and blow up. Define
\[
\tilde u_k(x) := \frac{u_k(x_k+\rho_k x)-p_k(x)}{\rho_k^{2+\alpha}[D^2 u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}},\quad\tilde f_k(x) := \frac{f_k(x_k+\rho_k x)-f_k(x_k)}{\rho_k^\alpha[D^2u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}},
\]
where the quadratic polynomial $p_k$ is chosen so that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.AA1}
\tilde u_k(0) = |\nabla \tilde u_k(0)| = |D^2 \tilde u_k(0)| = 0.
\end{equation}
Namely,
\[
p_k(z) := u_k(x_k) + \rho_k \sum_{i = 1}^n \partial_i u_k(x_k) z_i + \frac{1}{2} \rho_k^2 \sum_{i, j = 1}^n \partial_{ij}u_k(x_k) z_i z_j.
\]
It is now a simple computation to check that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.simplecomputation}
\Delta \tilde u_k = \tilde f_k\quad\textrm{in} \quad B_{1/(2\rho_k)}.
\end{equation}
Let us also denote
\[
\xi_k := \frac{y_k-x_k}{\rho_k}\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}.
\]
Notice that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.AA2}
[D^2 \tilde u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}\big(B_{1/{(2\rho_k)}}\big)} \le 1,\qquad\textrm{and}\qquad \big|D^2 \tilde u_k (\xi_k)\big|> \frac{\delta_\circ}{2},
\end{equation}
where for the second inequality we use \eqref{eq.contr.SAL_2}-\eqref{eq.halfeq}.
Since $\tilde u_k$ are uniformly bounded in compact subsets, and bounded in the $C^{2, \alpha}$ norm (see \eqref{eq.AA1}-\eqref{eq.AA2}), we have by Arzel\`a--Ascoli that the sequence $\tilde u_k$ converges (up to a subsequence and in the $C^2$ norm) to a $C^{2, \alpha}$ function $\tilde u$ on compact subsets of $\mathbb{R}^n$. Moreover, again up to a subsequence, we have that $\xi_k\to \xi\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$.
By the properties of $\tilde u_k$, we deduce that $\tilde u$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.contradiction2}
\tilde u (0) = |\nabla \tilde u(0) | = |D^2 \tilde u (0)| = 0,\quad[D^2\tilde u ]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\mathbb{R}^n)}\le 1,\quad |D^2\tilde u(\xi)|>\frac{\delta_\circ}{2}.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, for any $R\ge 1$ we have
\begin{align*}
\|\tilde f_k\|_{L^\infty(B_R)} & = \sup_{x\in B_R} \frac{|f_k(x_k+\rho_k x)-f_k(x_k)|}{\rho_k^\alpha[D^2 u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}}
\le \frac{(\rho_kR)^\alpha[f_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}}{\rho_k^\alpha[D^2 u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}}\\
& \le \frac{R^\alpha[D^2u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}}{k[D^2u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}}\le \frac{R^\alpha } {k}\to 0,\textrm{ as } k \to \infty.
\end{align*}
Thus, $\tilde f_k \to 0$ uniformly on compact sets of $\mathbb{R}^n$. Together with the fact that $\tilde u_k \to \tilde u$ in the $C^2$ norm in compact sets, we deduce (recall \eqref{eq.simplecomputation})
\[
\Delta \tilde u = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad \mathbb{R}^n.
\]
That is, $\tilde u$ is harmonic and, in particular, so is $\partial_{ij} \tilde u$ for any $i, j = 1,\dots,n$.
Let us now use the three properties in \eqref{eq.contradiction2} to get a contradiction.
First notice that we have $[D^2 \tilde u ]_{C^{0, \alpha}(\mathbb{R}^n)} \le 1$. Thus, $D^2 \tilde u$ has sub-linear growth at infinity, and by Liouville's theorem (Proposition~\ref{cor.Liouville}) we find that $D^2\tilde u$ is constant. That is, $\tilde u$ is a quadratic polynomial, which also fulfills $\tilde u (0) = |\nabla \tilde u(0) | = |D^2 \tilde u (0)| = 0$. The only possibility is that $\tilde u \equiv 0$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$, which is a contradiction with $|D^2\tilde u(\xi)|>\frac{\delta_\circ}{2}$.
Thus, the proposition is proved in the case of the Laplacian.
We now treat the case of variable coefficients,
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} u(x) = f(x) \quad\textrm{in} \quad B_1,
\]
with $a_{ij}(x) $ uniformly elliptic in $B_1$ (i.e., $0<\lambda {\rm Id}\le (a_{ij}(x))_{ij}\le \Lambda{\rm Id}$ for $x\in B_1$) and with $\|a_{ij}\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}\le M<\infty$ for some $M$.
The proof is essentially the same. As before, we proceed by contradiction, by assuming that there exist sequences $u_k$, $f_k$, and $a_{ij}^{(k)}$ such that
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n a^{(k)}_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} u_k(x) = f_k(x) \quad\textrm{in} \quad B_1,
\]
and \eqref{eq.contr.SAL_2} holds.
The only difference with respect to the Laplacian case is the equation satisfied by $\tilde u_k$. Let us define,
\[
\tilde a_{ij}^{(k)} (x) := a_{ij}^{(k)}(x_k+\rho_k x).
\]
Notice that
\[
[\tilde a^{(k)}_{ij}]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{{1}/{(2\rho_k)}})}\le \rho_k^\alpha[a^{(k)}_{ij}]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}\to 0,\quad\textrm{as}\quad k\to \infty.
\]
In particular, up to subsequences, $\tilde a_{ij}^{(k)}$ converges uniformly in compact sets to some $\tilde a_{ij}$ with $[\tilde a^{(k)}_{ij}]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\mathbb{R}^n)} = 0$, i.e., $\tilde a_{ij}$ is constant. Then $\tilde u_k$ satisfies
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n \tilde a_{ij}^{(k)} \partial_{ij}\tilde u_k = \tilde f_k (x) -\sum_{i,j = 1}^n\frac{\left(a_{ij}^{(k)}(x_k+\rho_k x) - a_{ij}^{(k)}(x_k)\right)\partial_{ij} u_k(x_k)}{\rho_k^\alpha [D^2 u_k]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}}.
\]
Thus,
\begin{align*}
\left|\sum_{i, j = 1}^n \tilde a_{ij}^{(k)} \partial_{ij}\tilde u_k - \tilde f_k (x)\right| & \le \sum_{i,j = 1}^n\frac{|x|^\alpha\rho_k^\alpha [a_{ij}^{(k)}]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}\|\partial_{ij} u_k\|_{L^\infty(B_{1})}}{\rho_k^\alpha [D^2 u_k]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}}\\
& \le C|x|^\alpha \frac{\|D^2 u_k\|_{L^\infty(B_{1})}}{[D^2 u_k]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}} \le C|x|^\alpha \frac{\|D^2 u_k\|_{L^\infty(B_{1})}}{[D^2 u_k]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1/2})}}.
\end{align*}
Using \eqref{eq.contr.SAL_2} we deduce that, for any $x\in B_{\sigma}$ for some fixed $\sigma\in (0, \infty)$, and for $k$ large enough,
\[
\left|\sum_{i, j = 1}^n \tilde a_{ij}^{(k)} \partial_{ij}\tilde u_k - \tilde f_k (x)\right|\le C(\sigma) \frac{\|D^2 u_k\|_{L^\infty(B_{1})}}{[D^2 u_k]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1/2})}}\le \frac{C(\sigma)}{k}.
\]
Taking the limit $k\to \infty$ (and recalling that $\tilde f_k\to 0$ uniformly in compact sets) we get
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n \tilde a_{ij} \partial_{ij}\tilde u = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad \mathbb{R}^n,
\]
an equation with constant coefficients, which is equivalent to $\Delta \tilde u = 0$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$ (see Remark~\ref{rem.constcoef}), and we reach a contradiction as well.
\end{proof}
We can now proceed with the proof of the Schauder estimates in non-divergence form.
Namely, we will show how to go from Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates} to Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates}. As with the previous results, we will do it in two different ways. In this case, however, both ways reduce to the same idea.
\begin{proof}[First Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates}]
Define the semi-norm
\[
[D^2u]_{\alpha; B_1}^* := \sup_{B_\rho(x_\circ)\subset B_1} \rho^{2+\alpha}[D^2u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{\rho/2}(x_\circ))}.
\]
Notice that this norm measures in a precise way how the $C^{2,\alpha}$ norm of $U$ blows up as we approach $\partial B_1$.
From the fact that H\"older semi-norms are sub-additive with respect to unions of convex sets,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.comparable}
[D^2 u]^*_{\alpha; B_1}\le C\sup_{B_\rho(x_\circ)\subset B_1} \rho^{2+\alpha}[D^2u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{\rho/4}(x_\circ))}
\end{equation}
(and, in fact, they are comparable) for some constant $C$ depending only on $\alpha$ and $n$. Indeed, for any fixed ball $B_\rho(x_\circ)\subset B_1$, we cover $B_{\rho/2}(x_\circ)$ with $N$ smaller balls $(B_{\rho/8}(z_j))_{1\le j\le N}$, which, since $B_{\rho/2}(z_j)\subset B_1$, gives
\[
\left(\frac{\rho}{2}\right)^{2+\alpha} [D^2u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{\rho/8}(z_j))} \le \sup_{B_\rho(x_\circ)\subset B_1} \rho^{2+\alpha}[D^2u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{\rho/4}(x_\circ))}.
\]
Thus,
\begin{align*}
\rho^{2+\alpha}[D^2u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{\rho/2}(x_\circ))} & \le \rho^{2+\alpha}\sum_{j = 1}^N [D^2u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{\rho/8}(z_j))}\\
& \le 2^{2+\alpha} N\sup_{B_\rho(x_\circ)\subset B_1} \rho^{2+\alpha}[D^2u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{\rho/4}(x_\circ))}.
\end{align*}
Taking the supremum on the left-hand side gives \eqref{eq.comparable}.
Applying the inequality
\[
[D^2 u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le \delta [D^2 u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1})} + C_\delta\left( \|u\|_{L^\infty( B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right)
\]
from Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates} to any ball $B_{\rho/2}(x_\circ)\subset B_\rho(x_\circ)\subset B_1$ we get
\begin{align*}
\rho^{2+\alpha}[D^2 u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{\rho/4})}& \le \delta\rho^{2+\alpha} [D^2 u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{\rho/2})} + C_\delta\left( \|u\|_{L^\infty( B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right)\\
& \le \delta[D^2 u]^*_{\alpha; B_1} + C_\delta\left( \|u\|_{L^\infty( B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right).
\end{align*}
Taking the supremum and using \eqref{eq.comparable} we get
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{C}[D^2 u]^*_{\alpha; B_1}& \le \sup_{B_\rho(x_\circ)\subset B_1} \rho^{2+\alpha}[D^2u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{\rho/4}(x_\circ))}
\\
& \le \delta[D^2 u]^*_{\alpha; B_1} + C\left( \|u\|_{L^\infty( B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right).
\end{align*}
Now, if we fix a small enough $\delta > 0$, we can absorb the $[D^2 u]^*_{\alpha; B_1}$ term on the left-hand side to get
\[
[D^2 u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le [D^2 u]^*_{\alpha; B_1} \le C_\delta\left( \|u\|_{L^\infty( B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right),
\]
which, after interpolation (see \eqref{ch0-interp2}) gives the desired result.
\end{proof}
We also give an alternative proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates} by directly using the following abstract lemma. Such lemma constitutes a generalization of the previous proof.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem.SAL}
Let $k\in \mathbb{R}$ and $\gamma > 0$. Let $S$ be a non-negative function on the class of open convex subsets of $B_1$, and suppose that $S$ is sub-additive. That is, if $A, A_1, \dots, A_N$ are open convex subsets of $B_1$ with $A\subset \bigcup_{j = 1}^N A_j$, then $S(A) \le \sum_{j = 1}^N S(A_j)$.
Then, there is $\delta > 0$ small (depending only on $n$ and $k$) such that,
if
\[
\rho^k S(B_{\rho/2}(x_\circ))\le \delta \rho^k S(B_\rho(x_\circ))+\gamma \quad\textrm{for all } B_\rho(x_\circ) \subset B_1,
\]
then
\[
S(B_{1/2}) \le C\gamma,
\]
for some $C$ depending only on $n$ and $k$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let
\[
Q := \sup_{B_\rho(x_\circ)\subset B_1} \rho^k S(B_{\rho/2}(x_\circ)).
\]
Thanks to the assumption in the Lemma, we get
\[
\left(\frac{\rho}{2}\right)^k S(B_{\rho/4}(x_\circ))\le \delta \left(\frac{\rho}{2}\right)^k S(B_{\rho/2}(x_\circ))+\gamma\le \delta Q+\gamma,\quad\textrm{for all } B_\rho(x_\circ)\subset B_1.
\]
Taking now the supremum for all $B_\rho(x_\circ)\subset B_1$ we get
\[
\tilde Q := \sup_{B_\rho(x_\circ) \subset B_1} \left(\frac{\rho}{2}\right)^k S(B_{\rho/4}(x_\circ)) \le \delta Q +\gamma.
\]
We now claim that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.claimSAL}
Q \le C\tilde Q,
\end{equation}
for some $C$ depending only on $n$ and $k$. This will yield
\[
\frac{1}{C} Q \le\tilde Q \le \delta Q +\gamma \Rightarrow Q\le \tilde C \gamma
\]
if $\delta > 0$ is small enough depending only on $n$ and $k$. Thus, we have to show \eqref{eq.claimSAL}.
Take any $B_\rho(x_\circ)\subset B_1$, and cover $B_{\rho/2}(x_\circ)$ with a finite collection of smaller balls $B_{\rho/8}(z_j)$ ($j = 1,2,\dots,N$), with $z_j \in B_{\rho/2}(x_\circ)$ and $N\le C$ (universally bounded depending only on the dimension). Since $B_{\rho /2}(z_j)\subset B_1$ we then have
\[
\left(\frac{\rho}{4}\right)^k S(B_{\rho/8}(z_j))\le \tilde Q.
\]
Adding up over all indices $j$, and using the sub-additivity of $S$, we obtain
\[
\rho^k S(B_{\rho/2}(x_\circ))\le \sum_{j = 1}^N \rho^kS(B_{\rho/8}(z_j))\le N 4^k\tilde Q = C\tilde Q.
\]
Taking the supremum, we reach \eqref{eq.claimSAL}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Second Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates}]
We use Lemma~\ref{lem.SAL}, with $k = \alpha$ and
\[
S(A):= [D^2 u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(A)},
\]
which is sub-additive on open convex subsets. From the estimate in Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates}, fixing $\delta>0$ from Lemma~\ref{lem.SAL} (which depends only on $\alpha$ and~$n$) we know
\[
[D^2 u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le C\left( \|u\|_{L^\infty( B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right) + \delta [D^2 u ]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}.
\]
Rescaling\footnote{The rescaling is done by considering the estimate on $u_\rho(x) = u(x_\circ+\rho x)$, which fulfills $\sum a^{(\rho)}_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} u_\rho(x) = \rho^{2}f(x_\circ+\rho x) =: f_\rho(x)$ in $B_1$, with $a_{ij}^{(\rho)}(x) = a_{ij}(x_\circ + \rho x)$ (notice that $\|a_{ij}^{(\rho)}\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}\le \|a_{ij}\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}$). Then, $[D^2 u_\rho]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})} = \rho^{2+\alpha}[D^2 u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{\rho/2}(x_\circ))}$ and $[f_\rho]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1})} = \rho^{2+\alpha}[f]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{\rho}(x_\circ))}$.} to $B_\rho(x_\circ)$ with $\rho \le 1$ we obtain
\begin{align*}
\rho^{2+\alpha}[&D^2u ]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{\rho/2}(x_\circ))} \le \\
&\le \delta \rho^{2+\alpha} [D^2 u ]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_\rho(x_\circ))} \\
&\qquad +C\left( \|u\|_{L^\infty( B_\rho(x_\circ))} + \rho^2 \|f\|_{L^\infty(B_\rho(x_\circ))}+\rho^{2+\alpha}[f]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_\rho(x_\circ))}\right) \\
& \le \delta \rho^{2+\alpha} [D^2 u ]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_\rho)} +C\left( \|u\|_{L^\infty( B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}\right).
\end{align*}
This is exactly
\[
\rho^k S(B_{\rho/2}(x_\circ))\le \delta \rho^k S(B_\rho(x_\circ))+\gamma ,
\]
with
\[
\gamma = C_\delta\left( \|u\|_{L^\infty( B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}\right).
\]
Thus, thanks to Lemma~\ref{lem.SAL}, we immediately deduce
\[
S(B_{1/2})\le C\gamma,
\]
that is,
\[
[D^2 u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le C\left( \|u\|_{L^\infty( B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right).
\]
Therefore, after using interpolation inequalities (see \eqref{ch0-interp2}) we get
\[
\|u\|_{C^{2, \alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le C\left( \|u\|_{L^\infty( B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right)
\]
as desired.
\end{proof}
We finish this section by proving Corollary~\ref{cor.Schauder_estimates_HO}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary~\ref{cor.Schauder_estimates_HO}]
We follow the proof of Corollary~\ref{cor.Schauder_estimates_L_HO}. We will show by induction on $k$ that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.toshowknondiv}
\|u\|_{C^{k+2, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C\left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+\|f\|_{C^{k, \alpha}(B_1)}\right)
\end{equation}
for some constant $C$ depending only on $n$, $\alpha$, $k$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, and $\|a_{ij}\|_{C^{k, \alpha}(B_1)}$. We apply the induction hypothesis to derivatives of the equation in non-divergence form.
As in the proof of Corollary~\ref{cor.Schauder_estimates_L_HO}, \eqref{eq.toshowknondiv} deals with balls $B_{1/2}$ and $B_1$, but after a rescaling and covering argument (see Remark~\ref{rem.covering_argument}), it could also be stated in balls $B_{1/2}$ and $B_{3/4}$.
The base case, $k = 0$, already holds by Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates}. Let us now assume that \eqref{eq.toshowknondiv} holds for $k = m-1$, and we will show it for $k = m$.
We differentiate the non-divergence-form equation with respect to $\partial_e$ to get
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n \ a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} \partial_e u (x) = \partial_e f(x)-\sum_{i, j = 1}^n \partial_e a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} u (x) \quad\textrm{in} \quad B_1.
\]
Now, we apply the estimate \eqref{eq.toshowknondiv} with $k = m-1$ to $\partial_e u$ in the previous expression, in balls $B_{1/2}$ and $B_{3/4}$, to get
\begin{align*}
\|\partial_e u\|_{C^{m+1, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} & \le C\bigg(\|\partial_e u\|_{L^\infty(B_{3/4})}+\|\partial_e f\|_{C^{m-1, \alpha}(B_{3/4})} \\
& \qquad\qquad \qquad + \sum_{i, j = 1}^n \|\partial_e a_{ij} \partial_{ij} u\|_{C^{m-1, \alpha}(B_{3/4})} \bigg).
\end{align*}
Notice that
\begin{align*}
\|\partial_e a_{ij} \partial_{ij} u\|_{C^{m-1, \alpha}(B_{3/4})} & \le \|\partial_e a_{ij}\|_{C^{m-1, \alpha}(B_{3/4})}\|\partial_{ij} u\|_{C^{m-1, \alpha}(B_{3/4})}\\
& = C\|\partial_{ij} u\|_{C^{m-1, \alpha}(B_{3/4})}\\
& \le C\left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+\|f\|_{C^{m-1, \alpha}(B_1)}\right),
\end{align*}
where in the last inequality we have used the induction hypothesis in balls $B_{3/4}$ and $B_1$ (see Remark~\ref{rem.covering_argument}). Using that $\|\partial_e u\|_{L^\infty(B_{3/4})}\le \|u\|_{C^{2, \alpha}(B_{3/4})}$ we can use the base case (with balls $B_{3/4}$ and $B_1$) of \eqref{eq.toshowknondiv} to bound this term. In all, we obtain that
\[
\|\partial_e u\|_{C^{m+1, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C\left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+\|f\|_{C^{m-1, \alpha}(B_1)}\right),
\]
which, combined with the base case, and for every $e\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$, yields the desired estimate.
\end{proof}
\section{Schauder estimates for operators in divergence form}
We will next prove Schauder estimates for operators in divergence form. In particular, we will study the equation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.div}
\boxed{
{\rm div} \big(A(x)\nabla u(x)\big) = \sum_{i,j = 1}^n\partial_i\big(a_{ij}(x) \partial_j u(x)\big)= f(x) \quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1,
}
\end{equation}
where $A(x) := (a_{ij}(x))_{ij}$ is uniformly elliptic, and $a_{ij}(x )\in C^{0,\alpha}$.
Notice that, a priori, the expression \eqref{eq.div} does not make sense even for $C^\infty$ functions~$u$: we are taking derivatives of $a_{ij}(x)$, which is only $C^{0,\alpha}$. That is why we need to define a weak notion of solution to \eqref{eq.div}. Thus, we will say that $u\in H^1(B_1)$ solves \eqref{eq.div} weakly if
\[
\int_{B_1} \nabla \phi(y)\cdot A(y) \nabla u(y)\, dy = -\int_{B_1} \phi(y) f(y)\, dy\qquad\textrm{for all}\quad\phi\in C^\infty_c(B_1).
\]
We will prove the following:
\begin{thm}[Schauder estimates in divergence form]\index{Schauder estimates!Divergence form}
\label{thm.Schauder_estimates_div}
Let $u\in C^{1,\alpha}$ be a weak solution to
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n \partial_i\big(a_{ij}(x) \partial_{j} u (x)\big) = f(x) \quad\textrm{in} \quad B_1,
\]
with $f\in L^q(B_1)$ for $q \ge \frac{n}{1-\alpha}$, and $a_{ij}(x) \in C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)$ for some $\alpha\in (0, 1)$, such that $(a_{ij}(x))_{ij}$ fulfills the ellipticity condition
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.ellipt_2}
0< \lambda\,{\rm Id} \le (a_{ij}(x))_{ij} \le\Lambda\,{\rm Id}\quad\textrm{in} \quad B_1,
\end{equation}
for some $0 < \lambda \le\Lambda < \infty$. Then,
\[
\|u\|_{C^{1, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C \left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)} + \|f\|_{L^q(B_1)}\right)
\]
for some constant $C$ depending only on $\alpha$, $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, and $\|a_{ij}\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}$.
\end{thm}
And as a consequence, we also get higher order Schauder estimates for operators in divergence form.
\begin{cor}[Higher order Schauder estimates in divergence form]\index{Higher order Schauder estimates!Divergence form}
\label{cor.Schauder_estimates_div_HO}
Let $u\in C^{k+1,\alpha}$ be a weak solution to
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n \partial_i\big(a_{ij}(x) \partial_{j} u (x)\big) = f(x) \quad\textrm{in} \quad B_1,
\]
with $f\in C^{k-1+\alpha}(B_1)$ and $a_{ij}(x) \in C^{k, \alpha}(B_1)$ for some $\alpha\in (0, 1)$, $k\in\mathbb{N}$, such that $(a_{ij}(x))_{ij}$ fulfills the ellipticity condition \eqref{eq.ellipt_2} for some $0 < \lambda \le\Lambda < \infty$. Then,
\[
\|u\|_{C^{k+1, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C \left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{k-1, \alpha}(B_1)}\right)
\]
for some constant $C$ depending only on $\alpha$, $k$, $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, and $\|a_{ij}\|_{C^{k, \alpha}(B_1)}$.
\end{cor}
\subsection*{The maximum principle} As in the case of operators in non-divergence form, we also have a maximum principle for equations in divergence form.
\begin{prop}[Maximum Principle in divergence form]\index{Maximum principle!Divergence form}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be a bounded open set. Suppose that $u\in H^{1}(\Omega)$ satisfies, in the weak sense,
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n \partial_i \big(a_{ij}(x) \partial_{j} u (x)\big) \ge 0 \quad\textrm{in} \quad \Omega,
\]
where $(a_{ij}(x))_{ij}\in L^\infty(\Omega)$ fulfill the pointwise ellipticity condition,
\[
0< (a_{ij}(x))_{ij} \quad\textrm{in} \quad \Omega.
\]
Then,
\[
\sup_{\Omega} u = \sup_{\partial \Omega} u.
\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We know that, denoting $A(x) = (a_{ij}(x))_{ij}$,
\[
\int_\Omega \nabla \phi \cdot A(x) \nabla u \, dx \le 0\quad\textrm{for all}\quad\phi\in C^\infty_c(\Omega),~\phi \ge 0.
\]
In particular, by approximation (see \ref{it.S7} in Chapter~\ref{ch.0}), the previous expression holds for all $\phi \in H^1_0(\Omega)$ such that $\phi \ge 0$. We take, as test function, $\phi(x) := (u - \sup_{\partial \Omega} u)^+\in H^1_0(\Omega)$, where $f^+ := \max\{f, 0\}$ denotes the positive part. Then,
\[
\int_\Omega \nabla \phi \cdot A(x) \nabla \phi \, dx = \int_\Omega \nabla \phi \cdot A(x) \nabla u \, dx\le 0.
\]
Since $A(x) > 0$, this implies that $\nabla\phi \equiv 0$, and $\phi$ is constant. Since $\phi \in H^1_0(\Omega)$, this implies that $\phi\equiv 0$, that is, $u \le\sup_{\partial\Omega} u$ in $\Omega$, as wanted.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Proof of Schauder estimates}
We proceed with the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_div}. We will do so via a blow-up argument, in the spirit of the second proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_div}]
As in the (second) proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates}, we will show that, for any $\delta > 0$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.contr.SAL_div}
[\nabla u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le \delta[\nabla u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1})}+ C_\delta\left(\|\nabla u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+\|f \|_{L^q(B_1)}\right)
\end{equation}
for all $u \in C^{1,\alpha}(B_1)$ such that
\[
{\rm div}(A(x)\nabla u(x)) = \sum_{i,j= 1}^n \partial_i\left(a_{ij}(x) \partial_j u(x)\right) = f(x),\quad\textrm{weakly in}\quad B_1.
\]
This yields
\[
\|u\|_{C^{1,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le \delta[\nabla u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1})}+ C_\delta \left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+\|f\|_{L^q(B_1)}\right)
\]
and so, proceeding as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates} by using Lemma~\ref{lem.SAL}, (or, alternatively, adapting the first proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates}), we get the desired result. Let us focus, therefore, on the proof of \eqref{eq.contr.SAL_div}:
Suppose that it does not hold. Then, there exist sequences $u_k\in C^{1, \alpha}(B_1)$ and $f_k\in L^q(B_1)$ for $k\in \mathbb{N}$ such that
\[
{\rm div}\big(A_k(x)u_k(x)\big) = f_k(x)\quad\textrm{weakly in} \quad B_1,
\]
and for a fixed small constant $\delta_\circ >0$ we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.contr.SAL_2_div}
[\nabla u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}> \delta_\circ[\nabla u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1})}+ k\left(\|\nabla u_k\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+\|f_k\|_{L^q(B_1)}\right).
\end{equation}
We now have to reach a contradiction.
Select $x_k, y_k\in B_{1/2}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.halfeq_div}
\frac{|\nabla u_k(x_k)-\nabla u_k(y_k)|}{|x_k-y_k|^\alpha}\ge \frac12 [\nabla u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}
\end{equation}
and let
\[
\rho_k := \frac{|x_k-y_k|}{2},\quad\textrm{and}\quad z_k := \frac{x_k+y_k}{2}.
\]
Then, as in Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates}, $\rho_k \le Ck^{-\frac{1}{\alpha}} \to 0$ as $ k \to \infty$. Define
\[
\tilde u_k(x) := \frac{u_k(z_k+\rho_k x)+u_k(z_k-\rho_k x)-2u_k(z_k)}{\rho_k^{1+\alpha}[\nabla u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}}.
\]
Then,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.AA1_d}
\tilde u_k(0) = |\nabla \tilde u_k(0)| = 0.
\end{equation}
We remark that here, instead of defining $\tilde u_k$ as in Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates} (i.e., subtracting a quadratic polynomial), we have used second order incremental quotients.
Let us also denote
\[
\xi_k := \frac{y_k-x_k}{2\rho_k}\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}.
\]
Notice that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.AA2_d}
[\nabla \tilde u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}\left(B_{1/(2\rho_k)}\right)} \le 2,\qquad\textrm{and}\qquad |\nabla \tilde u_k (\xi_k)|> \frac{\delta_\circ}{2},
\end{equation}
where for the second inequality we use \eqref{eq.contr.SAL_2_div} and \eqref{eq.halfeq_div}.
Since $\tilde u_k$ are uniformly bounded in compact subsets, and bounded in the $C^{1, \alpha}$ norm (due to \eqref{eq.AA1_d} and \eqref{eq.AA2_d}), it follows by Arzel\`a--Ascoli that the sequence $\tilde u_k$ converges (in the $C^1$ norm) to a $C^{1, \alpha}$ function $\tilde u$ on compact subsets of $\mathbb{R}^n$ (up to a subsequence). Moreover, again up to a subsequence, we have that $\xi_k\to \xi\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$.
By the properties of $\tilde u_k$, we deduce that $\tilde u$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.contradiction2_div}
\tilde u (0) = |\nabla \tilde u(0) | = 0,\quad[\nabla \tilde u ]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\mathbb{R}^n)}\le 2,\quad |\nabla \tilde u(\xi)|>\frac{\delta_\circ}{2}.
\end{equation}
Let us check which equation does $\tilde u_k$ satisfy. Let
\[
\tilde a_{ij}^{(k)} (x) := a_{ij}^{(k)}(z_k+\rho_k x),
\]
so that, as in Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates}, $\tilde a_{ij}^{(k)}$ converges uniformly in compact sets to some $\tilde a_{ij}$ constant. For any $\phi\in C^\infty_c(B_1)$, we know that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.divweknow}
\int_{B_1} \nabla\phi \cdot A_k(x) \nabla u_k = -\int_{B_1} f_k \phi.
\end{equation}
Let $\tilde A_k(x) := A_k(z_k + \rho_k x) = (\tilde a_{ij}^{(k)}(x))_{ij}$. Let $\phi \in C_c^\infty(\mathbb{R}^n)$, and let $k$ be large enough so that ${\rm supp}\, \phi \subset \, B_{1/(2\rho_k)}$. Let
\[
\int \nabla\phi \cdot \tilde A_k(x) \nabla \tilde u_k = \textrm{I} - \textrm{II},
\]
where
\begin{align*}
\textrm{I} & = \frac{1}{\rho_k^{\alpha}[\nabla u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}} \int \nabla\phi(x) \cdot A_k(z_k+\rho_k x) \nabla u_k(z_k+\rho_k x)\, dx \\
& = \frac{1}{\rho_k^{\alpha}[\nabla u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}} \int \nabla_y\left(\phi\left(\rho_k^{-1}(y-z_k)\right)\right) \cdot A_k(y) \nabla u_k(y) \rho_k^{-n+1}\, dy\\
& = \frac{-\rho_k^{1-\alpha}}{[\nabla u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}} \int \phi (x) f_k(z_k+\rho_k x) \, dx,
\end{align*}
thanks to \eqref{eq.divweknow}, and
\[
\textrm{II} = \frac{1}{\rho_k^{\alpha}[\nabla u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}} \int \nabla\phi(x) \cdot A_k(z_k+\rho_k x) \nabla u_k(z_k-\rho_k x)\, dx = \textrm{II}_{i} + \textrm{II}_{ii}.
\]
Here, we have denoted by $\textrm{II}_i$ and $\textrm{II}_{ii}$ the following quantities:
\[
\textrm{II}_i = \frac{1}{\rho_k^{\alpha}[\nabla u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}} \int \nabla\phi(x) \cdot (A_k(z_k+\rho_k x) - A_k(z_k-\rho_k x)) \nabla u_k(z_k-\rho_k x)\, dx
\]
and
\begin{align*}
\textrm{II}_{ii}& = \frac{1}{\rho_k^{\alpha}[\nabla u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}} \int \nabla\phi(x) \cdot A_k(z_k-\rho_k x) \nabla u_k(z_k-\rho_k x)\, dx \\
& = \frac{\rho_k^{1-\alpha}}{[\nabla u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}} \int \phi (x) f_k(z_k-\rho_k x) \, dx.
\end{align*}
Let us now show that
\[
\left|\int \nabla\phi \cdot \tilde A_k \nabla \tilde u_k \right|\to 0,\quad\textrm{as}\quad k\to \infty
\]
for all $\phi \in C^\infty_c(\mathbb{R}^n)$, by bounding each term separately.
Notice that, for $\frac{1}{q}+\frac{1}{q'} = 1$,
\begin{align*}
\left|\int \phi (x) f_k(z_k+\rho_k x) \, dx \right|& \le \left(\int |\phi|^{q'}\right)^{\frac{1}{q'}}\left(\int |f_k(z_k+\rho_k x)|^q\, dx\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}
\\
& \le C(\phi) \|f_k\|_{L^q(B_1)}\rho_k^{-\frac{n}{q}}.
\end{align*}
Then,
\[
|\textrm{I}|\le C(\phi)\rho_k^{1-\alpha-\frac{n}{q}}\frac{\|f_k\|_{L^q(B_1)}}{[\nabla u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}} \le C(\phi)\rho_k^{1-\alpha-\frac{n}{q}}k^{-1}\to 0,\quad\textrm{as}\quad k \to \infty,
\]
as long as $1-\alpha-\frac{n}{q}\ge 0$, that is, $q \ge \frac{n}{1-\alpha}$. In the last step we have used \eqref{eq.contr.SAL_2_div}. Similarly,
\[
|\textrm{II}_{ii}|\to 0,\quad\textrm{as}\quad k \to \infty,
\]
since $q \ge \frac{n}{1-\alpha}$. Finally,
\begin{align*}
|\textrm{II}_i|& \le \frac{[A_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}}{[\nabla u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}} \int |\nabla\phi| |x|^\alpha \|\nabla u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\, dx\\
& \le C(\phi) \frac{\|\nabla u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}}{[\nabla u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}} \le \frac{C(\phi)}{k}\to 0,\quad\textrm{as}\quad k \to \infty.
\end{align*}
Here, we used again \eqref{eq.contr.SAL_2_div}. That is, $|\textrm{II}_i|\to 0 $ uniformly in compact sets of~$\mathbb{R}^n$.
Then we conclude that, for any $\phi\in C_c^\infty(\mathbb{R}^n)$,
\[
\left|\int \nabla\phi \cdot \tilde A_k(x) \nabla \tilde u_k \right| \to 0,\quad\textrm{as}\quad k \to \infty.
\]
By taking limits, up to a subsequence we will have that $\tilde A_k\to \tilde A$ uniformly in compact sets, where $\tilde A$ is a constant coefficient matrix.
Thus, we deduce that
\[
\int \nabla\phi \cdot \tilde A \nabla \tilde u = 0\quad\textrm{for all}\quad \phi\in C_c^\infty(\mathbb{R}^n).
\]
This means that, after a change of variables, $\tilde u$ is harmonic (recall Remark~\ref{rem.constcoef}). By Liouville's theorem (Proposition~\ref{cor.Liouville}) we obtain that $\nabla \tilde u$ must be constant (since it is harmonic, and $[\nabla \tilde u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(\mathbb{R}^n)}\le 2$). However, $\nabla \tilde u (0) = 0$ and $\nabla \tilde u (\xi)\neq 0$ (see \eqref{eq.contradiction2_div}), a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary~\ref{cor.Schauder_estimates_div_HO}]
We proceed by induction on $k$. The case $k = 0$ is due to Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_div}. Then, let us assume that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.inddiv}
\|u\|_{C^{k+1, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C \left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{k-1,\alpha}(B_1)}\right)
\end{equation}
holds for all $k \le m-1$, and let us show it for $k = m$.
To do so, notice that, since $a_{ij}(x) \in C^{m, \alpha}$, and $m \ge 1$, we can compute the derivatives in the divergence-form equation, to get
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} u = f(x)-\sum_{i, j = 1}^n \partial_ia_{ij}(x) \partial_{j} u \quad\textrm{in} \quad B_1,
\]
that is, a non-divergence-form equation, where the right-hand side is in $C^{m-1, \alpha}$. Applying the higher order Schauder estimates for equations in non-divergence form, Corollary~\ref{cor.Schauder_estimates_HO} (in balls $B_{1/2}$ and $B_{3/4}$), we get that
\begin{align*}
\|u\|_{C^{m+1, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} & \le C \bigg(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_{3/4})} + \|f\|_{C^{m-1,\alpha}(B_{3/4})}+ \\
& \qquad\qquad + \sum_{i, j = 1}^n \|\partial_i(a_{ij})\|_{C^{m-1, \alpha}(B_{3/4})} \|\partial_{j} u \|_{C^{m-1, \alpha}(B_{3/4})}\bigg),
\end{align*}
that is,
\[
\|u\|_{C^{m+1, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C \bigg(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_{3/4})} + \|f\|_{C^{m-1,\alpha}(B_{3/4})} + \| u \|_{C^{m, \alpha}(B_{3/4})}\bigg),
\]
where the constant $C$ depends only on $n$, $\alpha$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, and $\|a_{ij}\|_{C^{m, \alpha}(B_1)}$. Using now the hypothesis induction, \eqref{eq.inddiv} for $k = m-1$, in balls $B_{3/4}$ and $B_1$, completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{The case of continuous coefficients}
Let us finish this chapter by studying equations in divergence and non-divergence form with continuous coefficients.
In this section we establish a priori Schauder estimates for \eqref{eq.mainEPDE} and \eqref{eq.mainEPDE_div} whenever $a_{ij}\in C^0(B_1)$ (and the right-hand side is bounded or in $L^n$ respectively). This kind of estimates will be useful in the next chapters.
In this limiting case (when $\alpha \downarrow 0$), one could extrapolate from the previous results that the solution has respectively bounded $C^2$ and $C^1$ norm. However, this is not true.
We will show, instead, that we gain \emph{almost} two derivatives. Namely, for any $\varepsilon > 0$, the solution has bounded $C^{2-\varepsilon}$ and $C^{1-\varepsilon}$ norm. More precisely, we prove below the following results:
\begin{prop}
\label{prop.Schauder_estimates_cont}\index{Schauder estimates for continuous coefficients!Non-divergence form}
Let $u\in C^{2}$ be any solution to
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} u = f(x) \quad\textrm{in} \quad B_1,
\]
with $f\in L^\infty(B_1)$ and $a_{ij} \in C^{0}(B_1)$ for some $(a_{ij}(x))_{ij}$ satisfying \eqref{eq.ellipt} for some $0 < \lambda \le\Lambda$. Then, for any $\varepsilon > 0$,
\[
\|u\|_{C^{1, 1-\varepsilon}(B_{1/2})} \le C_\varepsilon \left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)} + \|f\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\right)
\]
for some constant $C_\varepsilon$ depending only on $\varepsilon$, $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, and $(a_{ij})_{ij}$.
\end{prop}
That is, we are not gaining two {\it full} derivatives, but instead we are losing an arbitrarily small factor. This loss is paired with the fact that the constant $C_\varepsilon$ diverges when $\varepsilon\downarrow 0$; see \cite{JMV09, EM17} for counterexamples in the case $\varepsilon = 0$. This is also consistent with what occurs with the Laplacian (see the counterexample at the beginning of Section~\ref{sec.Sch_Lap}).
We remark that the dependence of $C$ on $(a_{ij})_{i,j}$ in the previous proposition is a dependence on the modulus of continuity of $(a_{ij})_{i,j}$. That is, if $\omega: [0, \infty)\to [0, \infty)$ is a continuous monotone function with $\omega(0) = 0$ and such that
\[
|a_{ij}(x)-a_{ij}(y)|\le\omega(|x-y|), \quad\textrm{for all}\quad x, y\in B_1,
\]
then the constant in the previous proposition depends on $\omega$ rather than on~$(a_{ij})_{i,j}$.
For divergence-form equations we have the following:
\begin{prop}
\label{prop.Schauder_estimates_div}\index{Schauder estimates for continuous coefficients!Divergence form}
Let $u\in C^{1}$ be a weak solution to
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n \partial_i\big(a_{ij}(x) \partial_{j} u\big) = f(x) \quad\textrm{in} \quad B_1,
\]
with $f\in L^n(B_1)$ and $a_{ij}(x) \in C^{0}(B_1)$ satisfying the ellipticity conditions \eqref{eq.ellipt_2} for some $0 < \lambda \le\Lambda$. Then, for any $\varepsilon > 0$,
\[
\|u\|_{C^{1-\varepsilon}(B_{1/2})} \le C_\varepsilon \left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)} + \|f\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\right)
\]
for some constant $C_\varepsilon$ depending only on $\varepsilon$, $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, and $(a_{ij})_{ij}$.
\end{prop}
The proofs of the previous two propositions are analogous to those of the Schauder estimates for operators in non-divergence and divergence form respectively.
We give short sketches of the proofs of Propositions~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates_cont} and \ref{prop.Schauder_estimates_div} that contain all the essential information regarding the steps to take.
\begin{proof}[Sketch of the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates_cont}]
We give a short sketch of the proof in the case $(a_{ij}(x))_{ij} = {\rm Id}$, and leave the details to the reader. The proof sketched follows the same steps and arguments as the second proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates}.
Proceeding analogously, and after using Lemma~\ref{lem.SAL}, (cf. first or second proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates}), we just need to show that for any $\delta > 0$
\[
[\nabla u]_{C^{1-\varepsilon}(B_{1/2})} \le \delta [\nabla u]_{C^{1-\varepsilon}(B_{1})} + C_\delta(\|\nabla u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)} + \|f\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}),
\]
for some $C_\delta$.
By contradiction, suppose that we have a sequence $f_k\in L^\infty(B_1)$, $u_k\in C^2(B_1)$, and coefficients $(a_{ij}^{(k)})_{ij}$ with a common modulus of continuity, such that $\sum_{i, j= 1}^n a_{ij}^{(k)}\partial_{ij} u_k = f_k$ and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.contr.SAL_2_CC}
[\nabla u_k]_{C^{1-\varepsilon}(B_{1/2})} > \delta_\circ [\nabla u_k]_{C^{1-\varepsilon}(B_{1})} + k(\|\nabla u_k\|_{L^\infty(B_1)} + \|f_k\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}),
\end{equation}
for some $\delta_\circ > 0$.
Select $x_k, y_k\in B_{1/2}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.halfeq_CC}
\frac{|\nabla u_k(x_k)-\nabla u_k(y_k)|}{|x_k-y_k|^{1-\varepsilon}}\ge \frac12 [\nabla u_k]_{C^{1-\varepsilon}(B_{1/2})}
\end{equation}
and let $\rho_k := |x_k-y_k|$, so that as in the second proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates} $\rho_k\downarrow 0$. Define
\[
\tilde u_k(x) := \frac{u_k(x_k+\rho_k x)-u_k(x_k) - \rho_k \nabla u_k(x_k)\cdot x}{\rho_k^{2-\varepsilon}[\nabla u_k]_{C^{1-\varepsilon}(B_1)}}\]
and
\[
\quad\tilde f_k(x) := \rho_k^{\varepsilon}\frac{f_k(x_k+\rho_k x)-f_k(x_k)}{[\nabla u_k]_{C^{1-\varepsilon}(B_1)}},
\]
so that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.equation_visc}
\tilde u_k(0) = |\nabla \tilde u_k(0)| = 0,\qquad \sum_{i, j = 1}^n \tilde a_{ij}^{(k)}\partial_{ij} \tilde u_k = \tilde f_k\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_{1/(2\rho_k)}.
\end{equation}
where
\[
\tilde a_{ij}^{(k)}(x) := a^{(k)}_{ij}(z_k +\rho_k x).
\]
Denoting $\xi_k := \frac{y_k-x_k}{\rho_k}\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$, we have
\[
[\nabla \tilde u_k]_{C^{1-\varepsilon}\big(B_{\frac{1}{2\rho_k}}\big)} \le 1,\qquad\textrm{and}\qquad \big|\nabla \tilde u_k (\xi_k)\big|> \frac{\delta_\circ}{2},
\]
by means of \eqref{eq.contr.SAL_2_CC} and \eqref{eq.halfeq_CC}.
As in Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates}, $\tilde u_k$ converges (up to a subsequence and in the $C^1$ norm) to a $C^{1,1-\varepsilon}$ function $\tilde u$ on compact subsets of $\mathbb{R}^n$, and $\xi_k\to \xi\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$. Furthermore, \[
\tilde u (0) = |\nabla \tilde u(0) | = 0,\quad[\nabla \tilde u ]_{C^{1-\varepsilon}(\mathbb{R}^n)}\le 1,\quad |\nabla \tilde u(\xi)|>\frac{\delta_\circ}{2}.
\]
On the other hand, for any $R\ge 1$ we have
\begin{align*}
\|\tilde f_k\|_{L^\infty(B_R)} & \le \frac{\rho_k^\varepsilon} {k}\to 0,\textrm{ as } k \to \infty,
\end{align*}
and that, from the uniform modulus of continuity of $a_{ij}^{(k)}$, $\tilde a_{ij}^{(k)}(x) \to \tilde a_{ij}$
locally uniformly in $\mathbb{R}^n$, where the limiting coefficients $\tilde a_{ij}$ are constant. At this point, in the equation \eqref{eq.equation_visc} the coefficients converge locally uniformly to constant coefficients, and the solutions $\tilde u_k$ converge simply in $C^1$. The passage to the limit is now more involved than before: in order to do it, we need the notion of viscosity solutions (see Definition~\ref{ch0-viscosity} and Section~\ref{sec.43}) and the fact that they are stable under uniform limits (see Proposition~\ref{prop.stability_viscosity}). In all, we can show that the limiting $\tilde u$ satisfies
\[
\sum_{i, j= 1}^n \tilde a_{ij}\partial_{ij}\tilde u = 0 \qquad\text{in}\quad \mathbb{R}^n
\]
(in the viscosity sense). Hence, the limiting solution $\tilde u$ is harmonic (after changing variables) and we reach a contradiction as in the second proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates}.
\end{proof}
In order to prove the convergence of the sequence in the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates_div} we will need the following lemma:
\begin{lem}
\label{lem.takelim}
Let $u\in H^1(B_1)$ satisfy
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.theequation}
{\rm div}(A (x)\nabla u(x)) = f(x)\quad\text{in}\quad B_1,
\end{equation}
in the weak sense, for some $f\in L^2(B_1)$ and $A(x) = (a_{ij}(x))_{ij}$ uniformly elliptic with ellipticity constants $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$ (see \eqref{eq.ellipt}). Then
\[
\|\nabla u\|_{L^{2}(B_{1/2})}\le C(\|u\|_{L^2(B_1)}+\|f\|_{L^2(B_1)})
\]
for some $C$ depending only on $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, and $n$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let us prove the lemma in the case $A(x)$ is symmetric for all $x\in B_1$.
Let $\eta\in C^\infty_c(B_1)$ be arbitrary with $\eta \equiv 1$ in $B_{1/2}$, and observe that
\[
\int_{B_{1/2}} |\nabla u|^2 \le C \int_{B_1} \nabla (u\eta) \cdot A(x) \nabla (u\eta) \, dx
\]
by ellipticity. In particular, since $A(x)$ is symmetric for all $x\in B_1$ we can use that $\nabla(u\eta)\cdot A \nabla(u\eta) = u^2 \nabla \eta\cdot A\nabla\eta + \nabla(u\eta^2) \cdot A\nabla u$ and the equation \eqref{eq.theequation} to get
\[
\int_{B_{1/2}} |\nabla u|^2 \le C \int_{B_1} u^2 |\nabla \eta|^2 + C\int_{B_1} |fu|\eta^2.
\]
By H\"older's inequality, we get the desired estimate. We refer to the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem.energyinequality} for more details on the proof and on the non-symmetric case in a very similar situation.
\end{proof}
Let us now give the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates_div}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates_div}]
The proof is by contradiction and proceeds as the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_div}, with the analogous modifications introduced in the Sketch of the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates_cont} with respect to the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates}.
Observe that, in this case, we should define $\tilde u_k(x)$ as first order incremental quotients:
\[
\tilde u_k(x) = \frac{u_k(x_k + \rho_k x) -u_k(x_k)}{\rho_k^{1-\varepsilon} [u_k]_{C^{1-\varepsilon}(B_1)}}
\]
so that we directly have (differently from the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_div}) that $\tilde u_k$ satisfies:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.takelim}
{\rm div}(\tilde A_k(x)\nabla \tilde u_k(x)) = \tilde f_k(x)\quad\text{in}\quad B_{{1}/{(2\rho_k)}},\qquad \tilde f_k(x) = \frac{\rho_k^{1+\varepsilon} f_k(x_k +\rho_k x)}{[u_k]_{C^{1-\varepsilon}(B_1)}},
\end{equation}
in the weak sense, where $\tilde A_k(x) := A_k(x_k + \rho_k x)$ and $\|\tilde f_k\|_{L^n(B_{1/(2\rho_k)})}\downarrow 0$ as $k\to \infty$. In particular, $\tilde A_k(x)$ converges to some constant matrix $\tilde A_\infty$ locally uniformly by uniform continuity of $A_k$.
On the other hand, observe that each $\tilde u_k$ is in $H^1$ (since they are $C^1$ by assumption), and they are locally uniformly in $L^2$ (since they are uniformly locally bounded). Hence, we can apply Lemma~\ref{lem.takelim} to get that $\tilde u_k$ are locally uniformly bounded in $H^1$. In particular, by \ref{it.S4} from Chapter~\ref{ch.0} (see \eqref{ch0-weak-conv}) $\nabla \tilde u_k$ converges weakly to $\nabla \tilde u_\infty$. Thus:
\[
\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} \nabla \phi \cdot \tilde A_k\nabla \tilde u_k \to \int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\nabla \phi \cdot \tilde A_\infty \nabla \tilde u_\infty\quad\text{as}\quad k\to \infty, \quad \text{for all }\phi\in C^\infty_c(\mathbb{R}^n),
\]
and from \eqref{eq.takelim} we have that $u_\infty$ is harmonic (after changing variables) in $\mathbb{R}^n$. The contradiction is now reached, again, by the Liouville theorem, Proposition~\ref{cor.Liouville}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
The blow-up technique is a common tool in analysis that has great versatility. In particular, the technique presented in this section is due to L. Simon, \cite{Sim}, and can be applied in a similar fashion to many different situations.
We have seen the technique applied in interior a priori estimates for linear second-order equations, both in divergence and non-divergence form, and blow-up arguments like the one presented above can be adapted also to boundary estimates, parabolic equations, nonlinear equations, and even integro-differential equations.
\end{rem}
\section{Boundary regularity}
We finish the chapter by stating the corresponding results to Corollaries~\ref{cor.Schauder_estimates_L} and \ref{cor.Schauder_estimates_L_HO} for the global (up to the boundary) estimates, for a sufficiently smooth domain.
For the sake of readability we state the result for the Laplacian, but there exists an analogous result for uniformly elliptic equations in non-divergence form (with the corresponding regularity on the coefficients).
\begin{thm}[Boundary regularity]\index{Boundary regularity Laplace equation}
\label{thm.Global_Schauder_estimates}
Let $\alpha\in (0, 1)$ and $k\in \mathbb{N}$ with $k\ge 2$, and let $\Omega$ be a bounded $C^{k, \alpha}$ domain of $\mathbb{R}^n$. Let $u\in H^1({\Omega})$ be a weak solution to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.glob_eq}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta u &=& f& \textrm{in }\Omega\\
u & = & g& \textrm{on }\partial \Omega,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
for some $f\in C^{k-2,\alpha}(\overline{\Omega})$, $g\in C^{k,\alpha}(\partial\Omega)$.
Then, $u\in C^{k,\alpha}(\overline{\Omega})$ and
\[
\|u\|_{C^{k, \alpha}(\overline\Omega)}\le C\left(\|f\|_{C^{k-2,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)}+\|g\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(\partial \Omega)}\right),
\]
for some constant $C$ depending only on $\alpha$, $n$, $k$, and $\Omega$.
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
Notice that in this case we do not need a term $\|u\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}$ on the right-hand side because, thanks to the maximum principle (Lemma~\ref{lem.maxPrinciple_2}),
\[
\max_{\overline{\Omega}} u \le C\left(\max_{\partial \Omega} g+ \|f\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}\right)
\]
for some $C$ depending only on $\Omega$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, and $M$.
\end{rem}
Theorem~\ref{thm.Global_Schauder_estimates} can be proved using similar techniques (correspondingly adapted) to the ones in the previous sections: after a blow-up, points near the boundary behave like in a local problem in the half-space (that is, the blow-up flattens $\partial\Omega$), and we can reach a contradiction with Liouville's theorem in the half-space.
One might wonder what happens under lower regularity assumptions on the domain (we refer to \cite{Ken94, K} for further reading in this direction). In such case, similar regularity results hold in $C^{1,\alpha}$ (and even $C^1$) domains, but when $\Omega$ is merely Lipschitz, almost all regularity is lost. Namely, assume that $u$ solves \eqref{eq.glob_eq}, with $f$ and $g$ smooth enough. Then,
\begin{itemize}
\item If $\Omega$ is a $C^{1,\alpha}$ domain, then solutions are $C^{1, \alpha}(\overline{\Omega})$.
\item If $\Omega$ is a $C^1$ domain, then solutions are $C^{1-\varepsilon}(\overline{\Omega})$ for all $\varepsilon > 0$, but not $C^{0,1}(\overline{\Omega})$ in general.
\item If $\Omega$ is a Lipschitz domain, then solutions are $C^\gamma(\overline{\Omega})$ for some small $\gamma > 0$ that depends on the Lipschitz norm of the domain, and this is optimal.
\end{itemize}
We see that, if $\Omega$ is a Lipschitz domain, then essentially all regularity is lost. If one thinks on the blow-up and compactness method, it is clear that Lipschitz domains are quite different from $C^1$. Indeed, Lipschitz domains do \emph{not} get flatter by doing a blow-up (they remain Lipschitz, with the same Lipschitz norm). Thus, one cannot improve regularity by blowing up. Solutions turn out to be $C^\gamma$ for some small $\gamma > 0$ and, in general, not better.
\endinput
\chapter{Nonlinear variational PDE \& Hilbert's XIXth problem}
\label{ch.2}
\vspace{-2cm}
{\it \small Eine der begrifflich merkw\"urdigsten Thatsachen in den Elementen der Theorie der analytischen Functionen erblicke ich darin, da{\ss} es partielle Differentialgleichungen giebt, deren Integrale s\"amtlich notwendig analytische Funktionen der unabh\"angigen Variabeln sind, die also, kurz gesagt, nur analytischer L\"osungen f\"ahig sind.}
\begin{flushright}
--- David Hilbert (1900).
\end{flushright}
\vspace{0.4cm}
Up until this point, we have studied linear elliptic PDEs. In this chapter we start the study of {\em nonlinear} elliptic PDEs.
More precisely, we study {\em variational} nonlinear PDEs, that is, those that appear in the Calculus of Variations (minimizing an energy functional). In particular, our main goal is to introduce and solve Hilbert's XIXth problem\footnote{The original statement by Hilbert says that ``{\it there exist partial differential equations whose integrals are all of necessity analytic functions of the independent variables, that is, in short, equations susceptible of none but analytic solutions}'', and refers to solutions to what he calls ``regular variational problems'', involving convex (in $\nabla w$) and analytic operators of the form $L(\nabla w, w, x)$. We deal here with $L(\nabla w)$ for simplicity.}.
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{center}
\fbox{
\begin{minipage}{0.85\textwidth}
\vspace{1.5mm}
\noindent \ $\bullet$\ \textbf{\underline{\smash{Hilbert's XIXth problem (1900)}}}\index{Hilbert XIXth problem}: Consider any local minimizer of energy functionals of the form
\[
\mathcal{E}(w) := \int_\Omega L(\nabla w) \, dx,
\]
where $L:\mathbb{R}^n\to \mathbb{R}$ is smooth and uniformly convex, and $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$.
Is is true that all local minimizers to this type of problems are smooth?
\vspace{2mm}
\end{minipage}
}
\end{center}
\vspace{2mm}
Notice that, given a boundary condition
\[
u = g \quad\textrm{on}\quad\partial \Omega,
\]
one can show that there is a unique minimizer to this problem, $u\in H^1(\Omega)$, with $u|_{\partial\Omega} = g$. That is, there exists a unique $u\in H^1(\Omega)$ such that $u$ minimizes the functional $\mathcal{E}(w) := \int_\Omega L(\nabla w)\, dx$, among all functions $w\in H^1(\Omega)$ such that $w|_{\partial \Omega} = g$. We will be more precise about this in the first two sections of this chapter.
The question in Hilbert's XIXth problem is that of {\em regularity}: Is such minimizer $u$ smooth?
\begin{rem}[On the convexity assumption]
\label{rem.conv}
The uniform convexity of the function is what gives us existence and uniqueness of a minimizer (see Theorem~\ref{thm.existuniq} below). Moreover, from the point of view of regularity, if $L$ is not convex and reaches its minimum at two different points, then even in dimension $n = 1$ there exist counterexamples to regularity.
If $n = 1$ and $L$ has a minimum at two points $p_1< p_2$, then we can construct Lipschitz only minimizers zigzagging with slopes $p_1$ and $p_2$ (e.g., if $p_1 = -1$ and $p_2 = 1$, then $u(x) =|x|$ would be a minimizer).
Thus, the convexity assumption is needed.
\end{rem}
\section{Overview}
\label{sec.overview}
Hilbert's XIXth problem as posed above is a generalization of the minimization of the Dirichlet integral,
\[
\int_\Omega|\nabla w |^2\, dx.
\]
Local minimizers of the Dirichlet integral verify the corresponding Euler--Lagrange equation, which in this case is the Laplace equation
\[
\Delta w = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad\Omega.
\]
Solutions to this PDE, as seen in Chapter~\ref{ch.1}, are known to be $C^\infty$ in the interior of~$\Omega$.
Thus, the Dirichlet integral case $L(p) = |p|^2$ is extremely simple. Surprisingly, the general case is far more difficult, and its resolution took more than 50 years.
First, let us be more precise about the problem: by a {\em local minimizer} of $\mathcal{E}(w) =\int_\Omega L(\nabla w) \, dx$, we mean a function $u\in H^1(\Omega)$ such that
\[
\mathcal{E}(u)\le \mathcal{E}(u+\phi)\quad\textrm{for all}\quad\phi\in C^\infty_c(\Omega).
\]
The {\em uniform convexity } of the functional is equivalent to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.unifconv}
0<\lambda {\rm Id}\le D^2L(p)\le\Lambda{\rm Id}\quad\textrm{for all}\quad p \in \mathbb{R}^n,
\end{equation}
(i.e., uniform convexity of $L$). Notice the analogy with the uniform ellipticity from the previous chapter.
Now, what is the PDE satisfied by minimizers of $\mathcal{E}(u)$? (Namely, the Euler--Lagrange equation of the problem.) If $u\in H^1(\Omega)$ is a local minimizer, then
\[
\mathcal{E}(u)\le \mathcal{E}(u+\varepsilon\phi)\quad\textrm{for all}~~\phi\in C^\infty_c(\Omega), \quad\textrm{and all}~~\varepsilon \in \mathbb{R}.
\]
Hence,
\[
\int_\Omega L(\nabla u)\, dx\le \int_\Omega L(\nabla u + \varepsilon \nabla \phi)\, dx\quad\textrm{for all}~~\phi\in C^\infty_c(\Omega), \quad\textrm{and all}~~\varepsilon \in \mathbb{R},
\]
and thus, as a function of $\varepsilon$, it has a minimum at $\varepsilon = 0$. Taking derivatives in $\varepsilon$ we reach
\[
0 = \frac{d}{d\varepsilon}\bigg|_{\varepsilon = 0}\int_\Omega L(\nabla u + \varepsilon\nabla \phi)\, dx = \int_\Omega DL(\nabla u)\nabla \phi\, dx.
\]
The {\em weak formulation} of the Euler--Lagrange equation is then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.var_nonlinear2}
\int_\Omega DL(\nabla u)\nabla \phi\, dx = 0\quad\textrm{for all}~~\phi\in C^\infty_c(\Omega).
\end{equation}
That is, $u$ solves in the weak sense the PDE
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.var_nonlinear}
\boxed{
{\rm div} \left(DL(\nabla u )\right) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad\Omega.
}
\end{equation}
(This derivation will be properly justified in Theorem~\ref{thm.existuniq} below.)
If $u$ is $C^2$, \eqref{eq.var_nonlinear} is equivalent to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.uisC2}
\sum_{i,j = 1}^n(\partial_{ij}L)(\nabla u)\partial_{ij} u = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad\Omega.
\end{equation}
By uniform convexity of $L$, this is a (nonlinear) {\em uniformly elliptic} PDE. What can we say about the regularity of $u$?
\subsection*{Regularity of local minimizers: First approach}
Let us assume that $u$ is smooth enough so that it solves \eqref{eq.uisC2}. We can regard \eqref{eq.uisC2} as a linear equation with variable coefficients, by denoting
\[
a_{ij}(x):= (\partial_{ij} L)(\nabla u(x) ),
\]
and we notice that, by uniform convexity of $L$, we have
\[
0< \lambda\,{\rm Id}\le (a_{ij}(x))_{ij}\le \Lambda\,{\rm Id}.
\]
Moreover, if $\nabla u\in C^{0,\alpha}$, then $a_{ij}\in C^{0,\alpha}$. In particular, using Schauder estimates (see Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates}), we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.sch_int}
u\in C^{1,\alpha}\Rightarrow a_{ij}\in C^{0,\alpha}\Rightarrow u \in C^{2, \alpha}.
\end{equation}
We can then bootstrap the regularity and get $C^\infty$:
\[
u \in C^{2, \alpha}\Rightarrow \nabla u \in C^{1,\alpha}\Rightarrow a_{ij}\in C^{1,\alpha}\Rightarrow u \in C^{3,\alpha}\Rightarrow\dots\Rightarrow u\in C^\infty.
\]
In fact, using the linear estimates for continuous coefficients, one can actually get $u\in C^1\Rightarrow a_{ij}\in C^0\Rightarrow u\in C^{1,\alpha}$. We remark that while the previous implications are true at a formal level, we did not properly argue the use of Schauder estimates. Indeed, our results for Schauder estimates in both non-divergence form (Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates}) and divergence form (Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_div}) are {\it a priori}, i.e., they already assume regularity on $u$. We show how to use them in Theorem~\ref{thm.C1aimpCinf} below to prove the results we want and expect.
\subsection*{Equations with bounded measurable coefficients}
\index{Equation in divergence form with bounded measurable coefficients}
We have argued that using perturbative results for linear equations (Schauder estimates), one expects to prove that
\[
u\in C^1\quad \Longrightarrow \quad u\in C^\infty.
\]
However, this approach does not allow us to prove any regularity if we do not know a priori that $u \in C^1$. The main open question in Hilbert's XIXth problem was then
\[
\textrm{is it true that } u \in H^1\Rightarrow u \in C^1~\textrm{?}
\]
This problem was open for many years, and it was finally solved (independently and almost at the same time) by De Giorgi \cite{deGiorgi} and Nash \cite{Nash0, Nash}.
\begin{thm}[De Giorgi--Nash]\index{De Giorgi--Nash}
\label{thm.DN_short}
Let $u$ be a local minimizer of
\[
\mathcal{E}(w) = \int_\Omega L(\nabla w)\, dx,
\]
with $L$ uniformly convex and smooth. Then, $u\in C^{1,\alpha}$ for some $\alpha > 0$.
\end{thm}
This theorem solved Hilbert's XIXth problem.
In order to show regularity of local minimizers $u$ of $\mathcal{E}(w) = \int_\Omega L(\nabla w)\, dx$, with $w\in H^1(\Omega)$, we first notice that they solve (in the weak sense) the nonlinear elliptic equation
\[
{\rm div}\left(DL(\nabla u)\right) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega.
\]
The first idea in the proof is to consider derivatives of $u$, $v = \partial_e u$, and to show that they solve an elliptic PDE as well.
If we differentiate the equation ${\rm div}\left(DL(\nabla u)\right) = 0$ with respect to $e\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$, we get
\[
{\rm div}\left(D^2L(\nabla u )\nabla\partial_e u\right) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad\Omega.
\]
Denoting (as before) $v :=\partial_e u$, $a_{ij}(x) := \partial_{ij}L (\nabla u (x) )$ and $A(x) := \left(a_{ij}(x)\right)_{ij}$, we can write this equation as
\[
{\rm div}\left(A(x)\nabla v\right) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad\Omega.
\]
This is a linear, uniformly elliptic equation in divergence form, but we do not have \emph{any} regularity of $A(x)$ in the $x$-variable. We only know that the equation is uniformly elliptic.
This is called a (uniformly elliptic) equation in divergence form with {\em bounded measurable coefficients}. (Recall that the uniform convexity of $L$ yields $0<\lambda{\rm Id}\le A(x) \le \Lambda{\rm Id}$.)
De Giorgi and Nash established a new regularity result for such type of equations, see Theorem~\ref{thm.DGN_Om}.
The aim of this Chapter is to provide a complete and detailed proof of the solution to Hilbert's XIXth problem. We will follow De Giorgi's approach.
\section{Existence and basic estimates}
We start by showing the existence and uniqueness of minimizers of $\mathcal{E}$ among the class of $H^1(\Omega)$ functions with prescribed boundary data. That is, we want a statement analogous to Theorem~\ref{ch0-existence}, but with the functional involving $L$ instead. We recall that we denote by $u|_{\partial\Omega}$ the trace of $u$ on $\partial\Omega$; see \ref{it.S5} in Chapter~\ref{ch.0}.
\begin{thm}[Existence and uniqueness of minimizers]\index{Existence and uniqueness!Minimizers convex functional}
\label{thm.existuniq}
Assume that $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is any bounded Lipschitz domain, and that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.nonempt}
\left\{w\in H^1(\Omega) : w|_{\partial\Omega} = g\right\} \neq \varnothing.
\end{equation}
Let $L:\mathbb{R}^n\to \mathbb{R}$ be smooth and uniformly convex, see \eqref{eq.unifconv}. Let
\[
\mathcal{E}(w) := \int_\Omega L(\nabla w) \, dx.
\]
Then, there exists a unique minimizer $u\in H^1(\Omega)$ with $u|_{\partial\Omega} = g$. Moreover, $u$ solves \eqref{eq.var_nonlinear} in the weak sense.
\end{thm}
In order to prove the existence and uniqueness theorem for minimizers, we need first to show the following result on the lower semi-continuity of the energy in this context. We provide two different proofs.
\begin{lem}[Lower semi-continuity of the functional]\label{lem.lscE} Let $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ be a bounded domain. Let $L:\mathbb{R}^n\to \mathbb{R}$ be smooth and uniformly convex, see \eqref{eq.unifconv}; and let
\[
\mathcal{E}(w) := \int_\Omega L(\nabla w) \, dx.
\]
Then, $\mathcal{E}$ is weakly lower semi-continuous in $H^1(\Omega)$. That is, if $H^1(\Omega)\ni w_k \rightharpoonup w\in H^1(\Omega)$ weakly in $H^1(\Omega)$, then
\[
\mathcal{E}(w) \le \liminf_{k\to \infty}\mathcal{E}(w_k).
\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}[First proof]
Let us define the set
\[
\mathcal{A}(t) := \left\{v\in H^1(\Omega) : \mathcal{E}(v) \le t\right\}.
\]
Notice that, by convexity of $\mathcal{E}$, $\mathcal{A}(t)$ is convex as well. Let us show that it is closed, i.e., if $\mathcal{A}(t) \ni w_k \to w$ strongly in $H^1(\Omega)$, then $w\in \mathcal{A}(t)$. This simply follows by noticing that, up to a subsequence, $\nabla w_k \to \nabla w$ almost everywhere, so that, by Fatou's lemma,
\[
\mathcal{E}(w) = \int_\Omega L(\nabla w) \le \liminf_{k\to \infty} \int_\Omega L(\nabla w_k) \le t,
\]
that is, $w\in \mathcal{A}(t)$. Therefore, $\mathcal{A}(t)$ is closed (with respect to the $H^1(\Omega)$ convergence), and it is convex. By a standard result in functional analysis (closed and convex sets are weakly closed; see, for example, \cite[Theorem 3.7]{Brezis}), $\mathcal{A}(t)$ is also closed under weak convergence; namely, if $\mathcal{A}(t) \ni w_k\rightharpoonup w$ weakly in $H^1(\Omega)$ then $w\in \mathcal{A}(t)$.
Let us now consider a sequence weakly converging in $H^1(\Omega)$, $w_k \rightharpoonup w$, and let us denote $t^* := \liminf_{k\to \infty}\mathcal{E}(w_k)$. For any $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists some subsequence $k_{j,\varepsilon}$ such that $w_{k_{j,\varepsilon}} \rightharpoonup w$ weakly in $H^1(\Omega)$ and $\mathcal{E}(w_{k_{j,\varepsilon}}) \le t^* + \varepsilon$. That is, $w_{k_{j, \varepsilon}}\in \mathcal{A}(t^*+\varepsilon)$, and therefore, since $\mathcal{A}(t)$ is weakly closed (in $H^1(\Omega)$) for all $t$, we have $w\in \mathcal{A}(t^*+\varepsilon)$ and $\mathcal{E}(w) \le t^*+\varepsilon$. Since this can be done for any $\varepsilon > 0$, we reach that $\mathcal{E}(w) \le t^*$, and therefore, we have shown the weak lower semi-continuity of $\mathcal{E}$ in $H^1(\Omega)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Second proof]
Let us prove the lower semi-continuity of the functional by means of a different proof, from \cite{Mag11}. We will actually show that if $u_k, u \in W^{1,1}(\Omega)$ and $u_k \to u$ in $L^1_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$, then
\[
\int_\Omega L(\nabla u) \le \liminf_{k\to \infty} \int_\Omega L(\nabla u_k).
\]
In particular, since $\Omega$ is bounded, we can apply this result to the sequences in $H^1(\Omega)$ converging weakly in $H^1(\Omega)$ (by \ref{it.S2} from Chapter~\ref{ch.0}). Let $\eta\in C^\infty_c(B_1)$ be a smooth function with $\eta \ge 0$ and $\int_{B_1} \eta = 1$, and let $\eta_\varepsilon(x) = \varepsilon^{-n} \eta(x/\varepsilon)$, so that we can consider the mollifications
\[
(u_k)_\varepsilon (x) := (u_k * \eta_\varepsilon)(x) = \int_{B_\varepsilon} u(x-y) \eta_\varepsilon(y) \, dy,\qquad u_\varepsilon(x) := (u*\eta_\varepsilon)(x).
\]
Let $\Omega'\subset \Omega$ be such that for all $x\in \Omega'$, $B_\varepsilon(x)\subset \Omega$. In particular, since $u_k\to u$ in $L^1_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$, we have $\nabla (u_k)_\varepsilon(x) \to \nabla u_\varepsilon(x)$ for every $x\in \Omega'$. From the smoothness of $L$ we also have that $L(\nabla (u_k)_\varepsilon(x) ) \to L(\nabla u_\varepsilon(x) ) $ and by Fatou's lemma (recall that we may assume $L\ge 0$)
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.comb_with}
\int_{\Omega'} L(\nabla u_\varepsilon)\le \liminf_{k\to \infty} \int_{\Omega'} L(\nabla (u_k)_\varepsilon).
\end{equation}
Noticing now that $\nabla (u_k)_\varepsilon = (\nabla u_k)_\varepsilon$ and using Jensen's inequality (since $L$ is convex and $\int \eta_\varepsilon = 1$) we have
\[
L(\nabla (u_k)_\varepsilon) = L \left(\int_{B_\varepsilon(x)} \eta_\varepsilon(x-y) \nabla u_k (y)\, dy\right) \le \int_{B_\varepsilon(x)} \eta_\varepsilon(x-y) L(\nabla u_k(y))\, dy
\]
which leads to
\begin{align*}
\int_{\Omega'} L(\nabla (u_k)_\varepsilon) & \le \int_{\Omega'}\left\{\int_{B_\varepsilon(x)}\eta_\varepsilon(x-y) L(\nabla u_k(y))\, dy\right\}\, dx\\
& \le \int_{I_\varepsilon(\Omega')}L(\nabla u_k(y)) \int_{B_\varepsilon(y)\cap \Omega'} \eta_\varepsilon(x-y)\, dx\, dy\le \int_\Omega L(\nabla u_k),
\end{align*}
where $I_\varepsilon(\Omega')\subset \Omega$ denotes an $\varepsilon$-neighborhood of $\Omega'$. Combined with \eqref{eq.comb_with}, this yields
\[
\int_{\Omega'}L(\nabla u_\varepsilon) \le \liminf_{k\to \infty} \int_{\Omega} L (\nabla u_k).
\]
Now, since $u\in W^{1,1}(\Omega)$, we have $\nabla u_\varepsilon \to \nabla u$ as $\varepsilon\downarrow 0$ almost everywhere in $\Omega'$ and so, again by Fatou's Lemma, we can let $\varepsilon\downarrow 0$ to deduce
\[
\int_{\Omega'}L(\nabla u) \le \liminf_{k\to \infty}\int_{\Omega} L(\nabla u_k).
\]
By taking an increasing sequence of sets $\Omega'$ whose union is $\Omega$ we reach the desired result.
\end{proof}
We can now prove Theorem~\ref{thm.existuniq}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.existuniq}]
We divide the proof into three different parts.
\\[0.1cm]
{\it \underline{\smash{Step 1}}.} If $u$ is a local minimizer, then it solves \eqref{eq.var_nonlinear} in the weak sense. This follows from the fact that
\[
\int_\Omega L(\nabla u)\, dx\le \int_\Omega L(\nabla u + \varepsilon \nabla \phi)\, dx\quad\textrm{for all}~~\varepsilon,\quad\textrm{for all}~~\phi\in C^\infty_c(\Omega).
\]
Indeed, notice that the integrals are bounded ($L$ being uniformly convex, i.e., at most quadratic at infinity, and $\nabla u \in L^2$). Since $L$ is smooth, we can take a Taylor expansion
\[
L(\nabla u+\varepsilon \nabla \phi) \le L(\nabla u) + \varepsilon DL(\nabla u) \nabla \phi + \frac{\varepsilon^2}{2}|\nabla \phi|^2 \sup_{p \in \mathbb{R}^n} \left|D^2 L(p)\right|.
\]
Recalling from \eqref{eq.unifconv} that $\left|D^2 L\right|$ is bounded by $\Lambda$, and plugging it back into the integral we obtain
\[
- \Lambda \frac{\varepsilon}{2}|\nabla \phi|^2 \le \int_\Omega DL(\nabla u) \nabla \phi \, dx\quad \textrm{for all}~~\varepsilon>0,\quad\textrm{for all}~~\phi\in C^\infty_c(\Omega).
\]
Letting $\varepsilon$ go to zero, we reach that
\[
\int_\Omega DL(\nabla u) \nabla \phi \, dx\ge 0\quad\textrm{for all}~~\phi\in C^\infty_c(\Omega).
\]
On the other hand, taking $-\phi$ instead of $\phi$, we reach the equality \eqref{eq.var_nonlinear2}, as we wanted to see.
\\[0.1cm]
{\it \underline{\smash{Step 2}}.} Let us now show the existence of a solution.
Since $L$ is uniformly convex (see \eqref{eq.unifconv}) it has a unique minimum. That is, there exists $p_L\in \mathbb{R}^n$ such that $L(p) \ge L(p_L)$ for all $p\in\mathbb{R}^n$. In particular, since $L$ is smooth, $\nabla L(p_L) = 0$ and thus, from the uniform convexity \eqref{eq.unifconv} we have that
\[
0 <\lambda |p|^2 \le L(p - p_L) - L(p_L) \le \Lambda|p|^2,\quad\textrm{for all}\quad p\in\mathbb{R}^n.
\]
Without loss of generality, by taking $\tilde L(p) = L(p-p_L) - L(p_L)$ if necessary, we may assume that $L(0) = 0$ and $\nabla L(0) = 0$, so that we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.unifconv2}
0 <\lambda |p|^2 \le L(p) \le \Lambda|p|^2,\quad\textrm{for all}\quad p\in\mathbb{R}^n.
\end{equation}
(Notice that we may assume that because if $u$ is a minimizer for $L$, then $u+\langle p_L, x\rangle$ is a minimizer for $\tilde L$, since the domain is bounded and therefore the integral of $L(p_L)$ is finite.)
Let
\[\mathcal{E}_\circ=\inf\left\{\int_{ \Omega} L(\nabla w)\,dx\,:\, w\in H^1( \Omega),\ w|_{\partial \Omega}=g\right\},\]
that is, the infimum value of $\mathcal E(w)$ among all admissible functions $w$. Notice that, by assumption \eqref{eq.nonempt}, such infimum exists. Indeed, if $w\in H^1(\Omega)$, by \eqref{eq.unifconv2} we have that
\[
\mathcal{E}(w) = \int_{ \Omega} L(\nabla w) \le \Lambda \int_{ \Omega} |\nabla w|^2 = \Lambda \|\nabla w \|^2_{L^2( \Omega)}< \infty
\]
that is, the energy functional is bounded for functions in $H^1(\Omega)$.
Let us take a minimizing sequence of functions. That is, we take $\{u_k\}$ such that $u_k\in H^1(\Omega)$, $u_k|_{\partial\Omega}=g$, and $\mathcal E(u_k)\to \mathcal{E}_\circ$ as $k\to\infty$. We begin by showing that $\mathcal{E}(u_k)$ are bounded, and that $u_k$ is a sequence bounded in $H^1(\Omega)$. By \eqref{eq.unifconv2},
\[
\lambda\|\nabla u_k\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)} \le \lambda\int_\Omega |\nabla u_k |^2 \le \int_{\Omega} L(\nabla u_k) \le \mathcal{E}(u_k) < \infty,
\]
That is, since $\mathcal{E}(u_k)$ is uniformly bounded (being a convergent sequence with non-infinite elements), we reach that $ \|\nabla u_k\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}$ is uniformly bounded.
Thus, by the Poincar\'e inequality (see Theorem~\ref{ch0-Poinc}) the sequence $u_k$ is uniformly bounded in $H^1(\Omega)$.
In particular, there exists a subsequence $u_{k_j}$ converging strongly in $L^2(\Omega)$ and weakly in $H^1(\Omega)$ to some $u\in H^1(\Omega)$, $u_k \rightharpoonup u$ weakly in $H^1(\Omega)$. By the weak lower semi-continuity (Lemma~\ref{lem.lscE}) we reach that
\[
\mathcal{E}(u) \le \liminf_{k\to \infty}\mathcal{E}(u_k) = \mathcal{E}_\circ,
\]
so that $\mathcal{E}(u) = \mathcal{E}_\circ$ (by minimality) and therefore $u$ is a minimizer.
\\[0.1cm]
{\it \underline{\smash{Step 3}}.} We finish the proof by showing the uniqueness of such minimizer.
This follows from the uniform convexity. Indeed, since $L$ is uniformly convex, if $p\neq q$, then
\[
\frac{L(p) + L(q)}{2} > L\left(\frac{p+q}{2}\right).
\]
Let $u, v \in H^1(\Omega)$ be two distinct minimizers with the same boundary data ($\mathcal{E}(u) = \mathcal{E}(v) = \mathcal{E}_\circ$). In particular, $\nabla u \not\equiv \nabla v$ in $\Omega$, so that $U := \{x\in \Omega : \nabla u \neq \nabla v\} \subset\Omega$ has positive measure. Thus,
\[
\frac{L(\nabla u) + L(\nabla v)}{2} > L\left(\frac{\nabla u +\nabla v}{2}\right)\quad\textrm{in}\quad U,
\]
so that, since $|U| > 0$,
\[
\frac12 \int_U \big\{L(\nabla u) + L(\nabla v)\big\} > \int_U L\left(\frac{\nabla u +\nabla v}{2}\right).
\]
Since the integrals are equal in $\Omega\setminus U$, we reach
\[
\mathcal{E}_\circ = \frac12 \int_\Omega \big\{L(\nabla u) + L(\nabla v)\big\} > \int_\Omega L\left(\frac{\nabla u +\nabla v}{2}\right) \ge \mathcal{E}_\circ,
\]
where the last inequality comes from the minimality of $\mathcal{E}_\circ$. We have reached a contradiction, and thus, the minimizer is unique.
\end{proof}
We next give a complete and rigorous proof of the formal argumentation from the previous section, where we explained that $C^1$ solutions are $C^\infty$.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm.C1aimpCinf}
Let $u\in H^1(\Omega)$ be a local minimizer of
\[
\mathcal{E}(w) =\int_\Omega L(\nabla w)\, dx,
\]
with $L$ uniformly convex and smooth. Assume that $u\in C^{1}$. Then $u\in C^\infty$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We know that if $u\in C^1$ and $u$ is a minimizer of $\mathcal{E}(w)$, then
\[
\int_\Omega DL(\nabla u(x))\nabla \phi(x)\, dx = 0\quad\textrm{for all }\phi\in C^\infty_c(\Omega).
\]
Let $h\in \mathbb{R}^n$, and assume that $|h|$ is small. We have, in particular, that
\[
\int_\Omega \bigg(DL(\nabla u(x+h))-DL(\nabla u(x))\bigg)\nabla \phi(x)\, dx = 0\quad\textrm{for all }\phi\in C^\infty_c(\Omega_h),
\]
where $\Omega_h := \{x\in \Omega: {\rm dist}(x, \partial\Omega) > |h|\}$. Notice that, by the fundamental theorem of calculus for line integrals, we can write
\begin{align*}
&DL(\nabla u(x+h))-DL(\nabla u(x)) = \\
&\qquad= \int_0^1 D^2 L\bigg(t\nabla u(x+h)+(1-t)\nabla u(x)\bigg) \bigg(\nabla u(x+h)-\nabla u(x)\bigg) \, dt.
\end{align*}
If we define
\[
\tilde A(x) := \int_0^1 D^2 L\bigg(t\nabla u(x+h)+(1-t)\nabla u(x)\bigg)\, dt,
\]
then $\tilde A(x)$ is uniformly elliptic (since $L$ is uniformly convex), and continuous (since $L$ is smooth and $\nabla u$ is continuous). Then, by the previous argumentation,
\[
\int_\Omega \nabla \left(\frac{u(x+h)-u(x)}{|h|}\right)\cdot \tilde A(x) \nabla \phi(x)\, dx = 0\quad\textrm{for all }\phi\in C^\infty_c(\Omega_h),
\]
that is, $\frac{u(\cdot+h)-u}{|h|}$ solves weakly
\[
{\rm div}\left(\tilde A(x)\nabla \left[\frac{u(x+h)-u(x)}{|h|}\right]\right) = 0\quad\textrm{for }x\in \Omega_h.
\]
Moreover, notice that $\frac{u(\cdot+h)-u}{|h|}$ is $C^1$ for all $h\neq 0$, since $u$ is $C^1$. Thus, by the Schauder-type estimates for operators in divergence form and continuous coefficients(Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates_div}),
\[
\left\|\frac{u(\cdot+h)-u}{|h|}\right\|_{C^{\beta}(B_{\rho/2}(x_\circ))} \le C(\rho) \left\|\frac{u(\cdot+h)-u}{|h|}\right\|_{L^\infty(B_\rho(x_\circ))} \le C,
\]
for all $B_\rho(x_\circ) \subset \Omega_h$ and $\beta\in (0,1)$. In the last inequality we used that $\nabla u$ is continuous (and thus, bounded). Notice that the constant $C(\rho)$ is independent of $h$ (but might depend on $\beta$). In particular, from \ref{it.H7} in Chapter~\ref{ch.0}, namely \eqref{eq.H7} with $\alpha = 1$, we obtain that $u \in C^{1, \beta}(\overline{\Omega_h})$ for all $h\in \mathbb{R}^n$. Letting $|h|\downarrow 0$ we get that $u \in C^{1, \beta}$ inside $\Omega$.
We want to repeat the previous reasoning, noticing now that $\tilde A(x)$ is $C^{0, \beta}$ (since $\nabla u\in C^{0, \beta}$ and $L$ is smooth). That is, $\frac{u(\cdot+h)-u}{|h|}\in C^{1,\beta}(\Omega)$ and fulfills
\[
{\rm div}\left(\tilde A(x)\nabla\left[\frac{u(x+h)-u(x)}{|h|}\right]\right) = 0\quad\textrm{for }x\in \Omega_h,
\]
in the weak sense, with $\tilde A\in C^{\beta}$ and uniformly elliptic. By Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_div},
\[
\left\|\frac{u(\cdot+h)-u}{|h|}\right\|_{C^{1, \beta}(B_{\rho/2})} \le C(\rho) \left\|\frac{u(\cdot+h)-u}{|h|}\right\|_{L^\infty(B_\rho)} \le C,
\]
for all $B_\rho\subset\Omega_h$, and again, thanks to \ref{it.H7}, \eqref{eq.H7}, we obtain that $u \in C^{2, \beta}(\Omega)$. We can now proceed iteratively using the higher order interior Schauder estimates in divergence form (Corollary~\ref{cor.Schauder_estimates_div_HO}) to obtain that $u\in C^k(\Omega)$ for all $k\in \mathbb{N}$, i.e, $u\in C^\infty$ inside $\Omega$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
Notice that in the formal proof \eqref{eq.sch_int} we were using Schauder estimates in non-divergence form, since we were already assuming that the solution $u$ was $C^2$. Here, in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.C1aimpCinf}, we need to \emph{differentiate} the equation (in incremental quotients) and then we obtain an equation in divergence form whose coefficients have the right regularity. Thus, in the actual proof we are using Schauder estimates for equations in divergence form instead.
\end{rem}
\section{De Giorgi's proof}
The result of De Giorgi and Nash regarding the regularity of solutions to equations with bounded measurable coefficients is the following (see the discussion in Section~\ref{sec.overview}).
\begin{thm}[De Giorgi--Nash]\index{De Giorgi--Nash}\index{Equation in divergence form with bounded measurable coefficients}
\label{thm.DGN_Om}
Let $v\in H^1(\Omega)$ be any weak solution to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.divformA}
{\rm div}\left(A(x)\nabla v\right) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad\Omega,
\end{equation}
with $0<\lambda{\rm Id}\le A(x) \le \Lambda{\rm Id}$. Then, there exists some $\alpha > 0$ such that $v\in C^{0,\alpha}(\tilde\Omega)$ for any $\tilde \Omega\subset\subset\Omega$, with
\[
\|v\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\tilde\Omega)}\le C\|v\|_{L^2(\Omega)}.
\]
The constant $C$ depends only on $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, $\Omega$, and $\tilde\Omega$. The constant $\alpha > 0$ depends only on $n$, $\lambda$, and $\Lambda$.
\end{thm}
This theorem yields Theorem~\ref{thm.DN_short}, and combined with previous discussions, solved Hilbert's XIXth problem. Indeed, if $u\in H^1(\Omega)$ is any local minimizer of $\mathcal{E}(w) =\int_\Omega L(\nabla w)\, dx$, then any derivative of $u$, $v = \partial_e u$, solves \eqref{eq.divformA}.
Thanks to Theorem~\ref{thm.DGN_Om} we will have
\[
u\in H^1(\Omega)\Rightarrow v\in L^2(\Omega)\xRightarrow[\begin{subarray}{c}\rm De Giorgi\\ \rm -Nash\end{subarray}]{} v\in C^{0,\alpha}(\tilde \Omega)\Rightarrow u \in C^{1,\alpha}\xRightarrow[\rm Schauder]{} u \in C^\infty.
\]
This will be proved in detail in Section~\ref{sec.solution}.
Theorem~\ref{thm.DGN_Om} is significantly different in spirit than all the results on elliptic regularity which existed before.
Most of the previous results can be seen as perturbation of the Laplace equation (they are perturbative results). In Schauder-type estimates, we always use that, when zooming in a solution at a point, the operator gets closer and closer to the Laplacian.
In De Giorgi's theorem, this is not true anymore. The uniform ellipticity is preserved by scaling, but the equation is not better, nor closer to the Laplace equation.
\subsection*{General ideas of the proof}
We will follow the approach of De Giorgi.
From now on, we denote $\mathcal{L}$ any operator of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.mL}
\mathcal{L} v := -{\rm div}(A(x)\nabla v),\quad
\begin{array}{l}
\textrm{where $A(x)$ is uniformly elliptic}\\
\textrm{with ellipticity constants $0 < \lambda\le\Lambda$}.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
By a standard covering argument (cf. Remark~\ref{rem.covering_argument}), we only need to prove the estimate for $\Omega = B_1$ and $\tilde \Omega = B_{1/2}$.
Throughout the proof, we will use that, if $v$ solves $\mathcal{L}v = 0$, then $\tilde v (x) := C v(x_\circ+rx)$ solves an equation of the same kind, $\tilde{\mathcal{L}} \tilde v = 0$, for some operator $\tilde{\mathcal{L}}$ with the same ellipticity constants as $\mathcal{L}$ --- given by $\tilde{\mathcal{L}} \tilde v = {\rm div}\big(A(x_\circ + rx) \nabla \tilde v\big)$.
De Giorgi's proof is split into two steps:
\\[1mm]
\underline{\smash{First step:}} Show that $\|v\|_{L^\infty} \le C\|v\|_{L^2}$
\\[1mm]
\underline{\smash{Second step:}} Show that $\|v\|_{C^{0,\alpha}}\le C\|v\|_{L^\infty}$.
\vspace{1mm}
In the first step, we work on the family of balls (see Figure~\ref{fig.7})
\[
\tilde B_k := \left\{x : |x|\le \frac12+2^{-k-1} \right\}.
\]
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{./Figures/fig7.pdf}
\caption{Representation of the family of balls $\tilde B_k$.}
\label{fig.7}
\end{figure}
Note that $\tilde B_0 = B_1$, and $\tilde B_k$ converges to $B_{1/2}$ as $k\to \infty$.
We assume $\|v\|_{L^2(B_1)}\leq \delta\ll 1$ and then consider the truncated functions
\[
v_k:= (v-C_k)_+\quad\textrm{with}\quad C_k := 1-2^{-k},
\]
and the numbers
\[
V_k \approx \int_{\tilde B_k}|v_k|^2\, dx.
\]
Then, the main point is to derive an estimate of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.boundUk}
V_k\le C^k V_{k-1}^\beta\quad\textrm{for some}\quad\beta > 1,
\end{equation}
for some constant $C$ depending only on $n$, $\lambda$, and $\Lambda$. This previous inequality implies that $V_k\to 0$ as $k\to \infty$ if $V_0$ is small enough.
In particular, $v_\infty = (v-1)_+$ is equal to zero in $B_{1/2}$, and so $v \le 1$ in $B_{1/2}$.
Notice that our equation $\mathcal{L}v = 0$ in $B_1$ is linear, while the bound \eqref{eq.boundUk} is nonlinear. The ``game'' consists in using the Sobolev inequality (which gives control of $L^p$ norms of $v_k$ in terms of $L^2$ norms of $\nabla v_k$), combined with an energy inequality, which gives a ``reversed'' Poincar\'e inequality, i.e., a control of $\|\nabla v_k\|_{L^2}$ in terms of $\|v_k\|_{L^2}$.
Once we have the first step $v\in L^2\Rightarrow v \in L^\infty$, the second step consists of showing an oscillation-decay lemma
\[
\mathcal{L}v = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1\quad\Longrightarrow \quad \osc_{B_{1/2}} v \le (1-\theta)\osc_{B_1} v.
\]
This implies the $C^{0,\alpha}$ regularity of $v$ (as we saw in Corollary~\ref{cor.Holder_regularity_1}).
In the next proofs we follow \cite{CV10, Vas16}.
\subsection*{De Giorgi's first step: from $L^2$ to $L^\infty$}
The two main ingredients are the Sobolev inequality
\[
\|v\|_{L^p(\mathbb{R}^n)}\le C\|\nabla v\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)},\qquad p = \frac{2n}{n-2},
\]
(see Theorem~\ref{ch0-Sob}) and the following energy inequality (the Caccioppoli inequality):
\begin{lem}[Energy inequality] \index{Energy inequality}
\label{lem.energyinequality}
Let $v\in H^1(B_1)$ with $v \ge 0$ such that $\mathcal{L} v \le 0$ in $B_1$, for some $\mathcal{L}$ of the form \eqref{eq.mL}. Then, for any $\varphi\in C^\infty_c(B_1)$ we have
\[
\int_{B_1}|\nabla (\varphi v)|^2\, dx \le C\|\nabla \varphi\|^2_{L^\infty(B_1)}\int_{B_1\cap {\rm supp }\, \varphi} v^2\, dx,
\]
where $C$ depends only on $n$, $\lambda$, and $\Lambda$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Notice that the weak formulation of $-{\rm div}(A(x)\nabla v)\le 0$ in $B_1$ is
\[
\int_{B_1} \nabla \eta\cdot A (x) \nabla v\, dx\le 0\quad\textrm{for all}\quad\eta\in H^1_0(B_1), \eta\ge 0.
\]
Take $\eta = \varphi^2v$, to get
\[
\int_{B_1} \nabla(\varphi^2v)\cdot A (x)\nabla v \, dx \le 0.
\]
Now, we want to ``bring one of the $\varphi$ from the first gradient to the second gradient''. Indeed, using
\begin{align*}
\nabla (\varphi^2 v)& = \varphi\nabla (\varphi v) +(\varphi v)\nabla \varphi,\\
\nabla (\varphi v)& = \varphi\nabla v +v\nabla \varphi,
\end{align*}
we get
\begin{align*}
0& \ge \int_{B_1} \nabla(\varphi^2 v)\cdot A(x) \nabla v\, dx\\
& = \int_{B_1} \varphi \nabla(\varphi v)\cdot A (x)\nabla v\, dx+\int_{B_1}\varphi v \,\nabla\varphi \cdot A (x)\nabla v\, dx\\
& = \int_{B_1} \nabla(\varphi v)\cdot A(x) \nabla(\varphi v)\, dx-\int_{B_1}v \nabla(\varphi v)\cdot A (x) \nabla \varphi\, dx\\
& \hspace{6cm}+\int_{B_1}\varphi v \, \nabla \varphi\cdot A (x)\nabla v\, dx\\
& = \int_{B_1} \nabla(\varphi v)\cdot A (x)\nabla(\varphi v)\, dx - \int_{B_1}v \nabla(\varphi v)\cdot( A(x)-A^T(x)) \nabla\varphi \, dx
\\
& \hspace{6cm}-\int_{B_1}v^2\nabla \varphi \cdot A (x) \nabla \varphi\, dx.
\end{align*}
Let us first bound the term involving $(A - A^T)$. By H\"older's inequality, using the uniform ellipticity of $A$ and that $(A - A^T)^2 \le 4\Lambda^2{\rm Id}$, we get
\begin{align*}
\int_{B_1} v \nabla(& \varphi v)\cdot( A(x)-A^T(x)) \nabla\varphi \, dx \\
& \le \left(\int_{B_1} |v\,( A(x)-A^T(x)) \nabla\varphi|^2 \, dx \right)^{\frac12}\left(\int_{B_1} |\nabla(\varphi v)|^2 \, dx \right)^{\frac12}\\
& \le 2\frac{\Lambda}{\lambda^{\frac12}}\left(\int_{B_1} |v\nabla\varphi|^2 \, dx \right)^{\frac12}\left(\int_{B_1} \nabla(\varphi v)A(x)\nabla(\varphi v) \, dx \right)^{\frac12}\\
& \le \frac12 \int_{B_1} \nabla(\varphi v)A(x)\nabla(\varphi v) \, dx + 2\frac{\Lambda^2}{\lambda}\int_{B_1} |v\nabla\varphi|^2\, dx,
\end{align*}
where in the last inequality we are using that $2ab \le a^2 + b^2$. Combining the previous inequalities, we obtain that
\[
2\frac{\Lambda^2}{\lambda}\int_{B_1} |v\nabla\varphi|^2\, dx \ge \frac12 \int_{B_1} \nabla(\varphi v)\cdot A(x) \nabla(\varphi v)\, dx -\int_{B_1}v^2\nabla \varphi \cdot A(x) \nabla \varphi\, dx.
\]
Therefore, we deduce
\begin{align*}
\lambda\int_{B_1}|\nabla (\varphi v)|^2\, dx& \le \int_{B_1}\nabla (\varphi v)\cdot A(x) \nabla (\varphi v)\, dx \\
& \le 2 \int_{B_1} v^2\,\nabla \varphi\cdot A(x) \nabla \varphi\, dx+4\frac{\Lambda^2}{\lambda}\int_{B_1} |v\nabla\varphi|^2\, dx\\
& \le \left(2\Lambda + 4 \frac{\Lambda^2}{\lambda}\right) \|\nabla \varphi\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}^2\int_{B_1\cap {\rm supp}\, \varphi} v^2\, dx,
\end{align*}
and the lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
We will use the energy inequality (from the previous lemma) applied to the function
\[
v_+:= \max\{v, 0\}.
\]
Before doing so, let us show that if $\mathcal{L}v \le 0$ (i.e., $v$ is a subsolution), then $\mathcal{L}v_+ \le 0$ (i.e., $v_+$ is a subsolution as well). (More generally, the maximum of two subsolutions is always a subsolution.)
\begin{lem}
\label{lem.pospartSH}
Let $\mathcal{L}$ be of the form \eqref{eq.mL}, let $v\in H^1(B_1)$ be such that $\mathcal{L} v \le 0$ in $B_1$. Then, $\mathcal{L} v_+ \le 0$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We proceed by approximation. Let $F\in C^\infty(\mathbb{R})$ be a smooth, non-decreasing, convex function, with globally bounded first derivatives. We start by showing that $\mathcal{L}(F(v))\le 0$ in $B_1$.
Notice that if $v\in W^{1, 2}(B_1)$, then $F(v) \in W^{1, 2}(B_1)$ as well.
We know that $\mathcal{L}(v) \le 0$, i.e.,
\[
\int_{B_1} \nabla \eta\cdot A \nabla v\, dx\le 0\quad\textrm{for all}\quad\eta\in H^1_0(B_1), \eta\ge 0.
\]
Let us now compute, for any fixed $\eta\in H^1_0(\Omega)$ satisfying $\eta\ge 0$, $\mathcal{L}(F(v))$. Notice that the weak formulation still makes sense.
\begin{align*}
\int_{B_1} \nabla \eta\cdot A \nabla F(v)\, dx & = \int_{B_1} F'(v) \nabla \eta\cdot A \nabla v\, dx\\
& = \int_{B_1} \nabla (F'(v)\eta)\cdot A \nabla v\, dx-\int_{B_1} \eta F''(v) \nabla v\cdot A \nabla v\, dx.
\end{align*}
The first term is non-positive, since $F'(v) \eta\in H^1_0(B_1)$ and $F'(v) \ge 0$ ($F$ is non-decreasing), so that $F'(v) \eta$ is an admissible test function. The second term is also non-positive, since $\eta F''(v) \ge 0$ and $\nabla v \cdot A \nabla v \ge 0$ by ellipticity (and the integral is well defined, since $\eta F''(v)$ can be assumed to be bounded by approximation, and $\int_{B_1} \nabla v \cdot A \nabla v \le \Lambda \|\nabla v\|_{L^2(B_1)}^2$). Therefore,
\[
\int_{B_1} \nabla \eta\cdot A \nabla F(v)\, dx \le 0,
\]
and the proof is complete. We finish by taking smooth approximations of the positive part function, $F_\varepsilon$, converging uniformly in compact sets to $F(x) = \max\{x, 0\}$. Notice that this can be done in such a way that $\|F_\varepsilon(v)\|_{W^{1, 2}(B_1)}\le C$, for some $C$ independent of $\varepsilon > 0$, which gives the desired result.
\end{proof}
We want to prove the following.
\begin{prop}[from $L^2$ to $L^\infty$]
\label{prop.L2Linfty}
Let $\mathcal{L}$ be of the form \eqref{eq.mL}, and let $v\in H^1(B_1)$ be a solution to
\[
\mathcal{L}v \le 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1.
\]
Then
\[
\|v_+\|_{L^\infty(B_{1/2})}\le C\|v_+\|_{L^2(B_1)},
\]
for some constant $C$ depending only on $n$, $\lambda$, and $\Lambda$.
\end{prop}
We will prove, in fact, the following (which is actually equivalent):
\begin{prop}[from $L^2$ to $L^\infty$]
\label{prop.L2Linfty_2}
Let $\mathcal{L}$ be of the form \eqref{eq.mL}. There exists a constant $\delta > 0$ depending only on $n$, $\lambda$, and $\Lambda$, such that if $v\in H^1(B_1)$ solves
\[
\mathcal{L}v \le 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1\quad\text{and}\quad
\int_{B_1}v_+^2 \le \delta,
\]
then
\[
v\le 1\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_{1/2}.
\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Define, as introduced in the general ideas of the proof, for $k\ge 0$,
\[
\tilde B_k := \left\{|x|\le \frac12+2^{-k-1}\right\},
\]
\[
v_k := (v-C_k)_+\quad\textrm{with}\quad C_k = 1-2^{-k},
\]
and let $\varphi_k$ be a family of shrinking cut-off functions $0\le \varphi_k\le 1$ that fulfill
\[
\varphi_k\in C^\infty_c(B_1),\quad\varphi_k = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 & \textrm{ in } \tilde B_k\\
0 & \textrm{ in } \tilde B_{k-1}^c
\end{array}
\right.,
\quad\textrm{and}\quad |\nabla \varphi_k|\le C2^k~\textrm{ in }~\tilde B_{k-1}\setminus \tilde B_k,
\]
where $C$ here depends only on $n$.
Let
\[
V_k := \int_{B_1}\varphi^2_kv_k^2\, dx.
\]
Now, the Sobolev inequality, and the energy inequality (Lemma~\ref{lem.energyinequality}) give
\begin{align*}
\left(\int_{B_1} |\varphi_{k+1}v_{k+1}|^p\, dx\right)^{\frac2p}& \le C\left(\int_{B_1} |\nabla(\varphi_{k+1}v_{k+1})|^2\, dx\right)\\
& \le C 2^{2k}\int_{\tilde B_k}|v_{k+1}|^2\, dx\\
& \le C2^{2k}\int_{B_1} (\varphi_kv_k)^2\, dx = C2^{2k} V_k,
\end{align*}
for $p = \frac{2n}{n-2}$ if $n \ge 3$. If $n = 1$ or $n = 2$, we can take $p = 4$.
On the other hand, by H\"older's inequality,
\[
V_{k+1} = \int_{B_1}\varphi_{k+1}^2v_{k+1}^2\, dx\le \left(\int_{B_1}(\varphi_{k+1}v_{k+1})^p\, dx\right)^{\frac{2}{p}} \big|\{\varphi_{k+1}v_{k+1} > 0\}\big|^\gamma,
\]
where $\gamma := \frac{2}{n}$ (if $n = 1$ or $n = 2$, $\gamma = \frac12$). Here, we are using that $\int_A f\le (\int_A |f|^{p/2})^{2/p}|A|^\gamma$.
Now, from Chebyshev's inequality and the definition of $v_k$ and $\varphi_k$,
\begin{align*}
\big|\{\varphi_{k+1}v_{k+1} > 0\}\big| &\le \big|\{\varphi_k v_k > 2^{-k-1}\}\big|\\
& = \big|\{\varphi_k^2v_k^2 > 2^{-2k-2}\}\big|\\
& \le 2^{2(k+1)}\int_{B_1} \varphi_k^2 v_k^2 \, dx = 2^{2(k+1)}V_k.
\end{align*}
Apart from Chebyshev's inequality, we are using here that if $v_{k+1} > 0$ and $\varphi_{k+1} > 0$, then $v_k > 2^{-k-1}$ and $\varphi_k = 1$. Thus, combining the previous inequalities, we get
\begin{align*}
V_{k+1}& \le \left(\int_{B_1}(\varphi_{k+1}v_{k+1})^p\, dx\right)^\frac{2}{p} \big|\{\varphi_{k+1}v_{k+1} > 0\}\big|^\gamma \\
& \le C2^{2k}V_k\big(2^{2(k+1)}V_k\big)^\gamma \le C^{k+1}V_k^{1+\gamma},
\end{align*}
where we recall $\gamma = \frac2n$ if $n\ge 3$, and $\gamma = \frac12$ otherwise; and $C$ depends only on $n$, $\lambda$, and $\Lambda$.
Now, we claim that, if $\delta > 0$ is small enough, then
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcccl}
0& \le & V_{k+1} & \le &C^{k+1}V_k^{1+\gamma}\\
0& \le & V_{0} & \le &\delta
\end{array}
\right.
\quad \Longrightarrow \quad V_k \to 0\quad\textrm{as}\quad k \to \infty.
\]
Indeed, in order to see this it is enough to check by induction that if $V_0 \le C^{-1/\gamma-1/\gamma^2}$ then
\[
V_k^\gamma\le \frac{C^{-k-1}}{(2C)^{\frac1\gamma}},
\]
which is a simple computation.
Alternatively, one could check by induction that $V_k \le C^{(1+\gamma)^k\left(\sum_{i = 1}^k \frac{i}{(1+\gamma)^i}\right)} V_0^{(1+\gamma)^k}$.
Hence, we have proved that
\[
V_k = \int_{B_1}(\varphi_k v_k)^2\, dx\to 0 \quad\textrm{as}\quad k \to \infty.
\]
Passing to the limit, we get
\[
\int_{B_{1/2}}(v-1)^2_+\, dx = 0,
\]
and thus, $v \le 1$ in $B_{1/2}$, as wanted.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.L2Linfty}]
To deduce the Proposition~\ref{prop.L2Linfty} from Proposition~\ref{prop.L2Linfty_2}, just use $\tilde v := {\sqrt{\delta}}\, v/{\|v_+\|_{L^2(B_1)}}$ (which solves the same equation).
\end{proof}
This proves the first part of the estimate
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.L2Linfty}
\mathcal{L} v \le 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1\qquad \Longrightarrow \qquad \|v_+\|_{L^\infty(B_{1/2})}\le C\|v_+\|_{L^2(B_1)}.
\end{equation}
Notice that, as a direct consequence, we have the $L^2$ to $L^\infty$ estimate. Indeed, if $\mathcal{L}v = 0$ then $\mathcal{L} v_+ \le 0$ (see Lemma~\ref{lem.pospartSH}) but also $\mathcal{L} v_- \le 0$, where $v_- := \max\{0, -v\}$. Thus, $\|v_-\|_{L^\infty(B_{1/2})}\le C\|v_-\|_{L^2(B_1)}$, and since $\|v\|_{L^2(B_1)} = \|v_+\|_{L^2(B_1)}+ \|v_-\|_{L^2(B_1)}$, combining the estimate for $v_+$ and $v_-$ we get
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.L2Linfty0}
\mathcal{L} v = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1\qquad \Longrightarrow \qquad \|v\|_{L^\infty(B_{1/2})}\le C\|v\|_{L^2(B_1)},
\end{equation}
as we wanted to see.
\begin{rem}[Moser's proof]
The proof of \eqref{eq.L2Linfty} here presented is the original proof of De Giorgi. The first ingredient in the proof was to use $\varphi^2v_+$ as a test function in the weak formulation of our PDE to get the energy inequality from Lemma~\ref{lem.energyinequality},
\[
\int_{B_1}|\nabla(\varphi v)^2|\, dx\le C\int_{B_1} v^2|\nabla \varphi|^2\, dx\quad\textrm{for all}\quad \varphi\in C^\infty_c(B_1).
\]
Roughly speaking, this inequality said that $v$ cannot jump too quickly (the gradient is controlled by $v$ itself).
Moser did something similar, but taking $\eta = \varphi^2(v_+)^\beta$ instead, for some $\beta \ge 1$, to get the inequality
\[
\int_{B_1}\left|\nabla\left(v^{\frac{\beta+1}{2}}\varphi\right)^2\right|\, dx\le C\int_{B_1} v^{\beta+1}|\nabla \varphi|^2\, dx\quad\textrm{for all}\quad \varphi\in C^\infty_c(B_1).
\]
Combining this with Sobolev's inequality, one gets
\[
\left(\int_{B_{r_1}} v^{q\gamma}\, dx\right)^{\frac{1}{q\gamma}}\le \left(\frac{C}{|r_2-r_1|^2}\int_{B_{r_2}} v^{q}\, dx\right)^{\frac{1}{q}},
\]
where $\gamma =\frac{2^*}{2}> 1$ and $q = \beta+1$. Taking a sequence of $r_k \downarrow \frac12$ as in De Giorgi's proof, one obtains
\[
\|v\|_{L^{2\gamma^k}(B_{r_k})}\le C\|v\|_{L^2(B_1)},
\]
and taking $k\to \infty$ we obtain the $L^\infty$ bound in $B_{1/2}$.
We refer the interested reader to \cite[Chapter 4]{HL} for a full proof.
\end{rem}
\subsection*{De Giorgi's second step: $L^\infty$ to $C^{0,\alpha}$}
We next prove the second step of De Giorgi's estimate. We want to prove:
\begin{prop}[Oscillation decay] \index{Oscillation decay}
\label{prop.osc_decay_L}
Let $\mathcal{L}$ be of the form \eqref{eq.mL}. Let $v\in H^1(B_2)$ be a solution to
\[
\mathcal{L}v = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_2.
\]
Then,
\[
\osc_{B_{1/2}} v \le (1-\theta)\osc_{B_2} v
\]
for some $\theta > 0$ small depending only on $n$, $\lambda$, and $\Lambda$.
\end{prop}
As we saw in Chapter~\ref{ch.1} (see Corollary~\ref{cor.Holder_regularity_1}), this proposition immediately implies $C^{0,\alpha}$ regularity of solutions.
As shown next, Proposition~\ref{prop.osc_decay_L} follows from the following lemma.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem.osc_decay}
Let $\mathcal{L}$ be of the form \eqref{eq.mL}, and let $v\in H^1(B_2)$ be such that
\[
v\le 1\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_2,\qquad\textrm{and}\qquad
\mathcal{L}v\le 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_2.
\]
Assume that
\[
\big|\{v \le 0\}\cap B_1\big|\ge\mu > 0.
\]
Then,
\[
\sup_{B_{1/2}} v \le 1-\gamma,
\]
for some small $\gamma > 0$ depending only on $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, and $\mu$.
\end{lem}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 1.25]{./Figures/fig8.pdf}
\caption{Graphical representation of $v$ with $\mathcal{L} v \le 0$ from Lemma~\ref{lem.osc_decay}.}
\label{fig.8}
\end{figure}
In other words, if $v\le 1$, and it is ``far from 1'' in a set of non-zero measure, then $v$ cannot be close to 1 in $B_{1/2}$. (See Figure~\ref{fig.8}.)
Let us show how this lemma yields the oscillation decay:
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.osc_decay_L}]
Consider the function
\[
w(x) := \frac{2}{\osc_{B_2} v}\left(v(x) - \frac{\sup_{B_2} v +\inf_{B_2} v}{2}\right)
\]
and notice that
\[
-1\le w \le 1\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_2,
\]
(in fact, $\osc_{B_2} w = 2$).
Let us assume that $\big|\{w \le 0\}\cap B_1\big|\ge \frac12|B_1|$ (otherwise, we can take $-w$ instead). Then, by Lemma~\ref{lem.osc_decay}, we get
\[
w\le 1-\gamma\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_{1/2},
\]
and thus
\[
\osc_{B_{1/2}} w\le 2-\gamma.
\]
This yields
\[
\osc_{B_{1/2}} v \le \left(1-\frac\gamma2\right)\osc_{B_2} v,
\]
and thus the proposition is proved.
\end{proof}
To prove Lemma~\ref{lem.osc_decay}, we will need the following De Giorgi isoperimetric inequality. It is a kind of a quantitative version of the fact that an $H^1$ function cannot have a jump discontinuity.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem.osc_dec_2.2}
Let $w\in H^1(B_1)$ be such that
\[
\int_{B_1}|\nabla w|^2\, dx\le C_\circ.
\]
Let
\[
A:= \{w\le 0\}\cap B_1,\quad D:= \left\{w\ge \frac12\right\}\cap B_1,\quad E:= \left\{0<w<\frac12\right\}\cap B_1.
\]
Then, we have
\[
C_\circ |E|\ge c |A|^2 \cdot |D|^2
\]
for some constant $c$ depending only on $n$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We define $\bar w$ in $B_1$ as $\bar w = w$ in $E$, $\bar w \equiv 0$ in $A$ and $\bar w = \frac12$ in $D$. In this way, $\nabla \bar w \equiv 0$ in $B_1\setminus E$ and $\int_{B_1}|\nabla \bar w|^2 \le C_\circ$.
Let us denote the average of $\bar w$ in $B_{1}$ by $\bar w_{B_{1}} := \strokedint_{B_{1}} \bar w(x) \, dx$. Then,
\begin{align*}
|A|\cdot |D|& \le 2\int_A\int_D |\bar w(x)-\bar w(y)|\, dx\, dy \\
& \le 2\int_{B_{1}}\int_{B_{1}} \left(\big|\bar w(x) - \bar w_{B_{1}} \big| + \big|\bar w(y) - \bar w_{B_{1}}\big| \right)\, dx\, dy \\
& = 4|B_{1}|\int_{B_{1}} \big|\bar w(x) - \bar w_{B_{1}} \big|\, dx \le C \int_{E} |\nabla \bar w(x)|\, dx,
\end{align*}
where in the last step we have used the Poincar\'e inequality (Theorem~\ref{ch0-Poinc} with $p= 1$) and the fact that $\nabla \bar w \equiv 0$ in $B_1\setminus E$. Thus, by H\"older's inequality we reach
\[
|A|\cdot |D|\le C \int_{E} |\nabla \bar w| \le C \left(\int_{E} |\nabla \bar w|^2\right)^{1/2}|E|^{1/2}\le CC_\circ^{1/2}|E|^{1/2},
\]
as we wanted to see.
\end{proof}
Finally, we prove Lemma~\ref{lem.osc_decay}:
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem.osc_decay}]
Consider the sequence
\[
w_k := 2^k\left[v-(1-2^{-k})\right]_+.
\]
Notice that $w_k \le 1$ in $B_2$ since $v\le 1$ in $B_2$. Moreover, $\mathcal{L}w_k \le 0$ in $B_2$.
Using the energy inequality (Lemma~\ref{lem.energyinequality}), we easily get that
\[
\int_{B_1}|\nabla w_k|^2 \le C\int_{B_2}w_k^2 \le C_\circ \qquad (\textrm{notice } 0\le w_k\le 1\textrm{ in } B_2).
\]
We also have
\[
\big|\{w_k\le 0 \}\cap B_1\big|\ge \mu > 0
\]
(by the assumption on $v$). We now apply Lemma~\ref{lem.osc_dec_2.2} recursively to $w_k$, as long as
\[
\int_{B_1}w_{k+1}^2 \ge \delta^2.
\]
We get
\[
\left|\left\{w_k\ge\frac12\right\}\cap B_1\right| \ge \big|\{w_{k+1}>0\}\cap B_1\big| \ge \int_{B_1}w_{k+1}^2 \ge \delta^2.
\]
Thus, from Lemma~\ref{lem.osc_dec_2.2},
\[
\left|\left\{0<w_k<\frac12\right\}\cap B_1\right|\ge \frac{c}{C_\circ}\delta^4\mu^2 = \beta > 0,
\]
where $\beta > 0$ is independent of $k$, and depends only on $n$, $\delta$, and $\mu$.
But notice that the sets $\left\{0<w_k<\frac12\right\}$ are disjoint for all $k\in \mathbb{N}$, therefore we cannot have the previous inequality for every $k$. This means that, for some $k_\circ\in \mathbb{N}$ (depending only on $n$ and $\beta$) we have
\[
\int_{B_1} w_{k_\circ}^2 < \delta^2
\]
and, hence, by the $L^2$ to $L^\infty$ estimate from Proposition~\ref{prop.L2Linfty}
\[
\|w_+\|_{L^\infty(B_{1/2})}\le C\|w_+\|_{L^2(B_1)}.
\]
We get
\[
\|w_{k_\circ}\|_{L^\infty(B_{1/2})}\le C\delta\le \frac12,
\]
provided that $\delta > 0$ is small enough, depending only on $n$, $\lambda$, and $\Lambda$. This means that $w_{k_\circ}\le \frac12$ in $B_{1/2}$, and thus
\[
v\le \frac12 2^{-k_\circ} + \left(1-2^{-k_\circ}\right)\le 1-2^{-k_\circ-1} = 1-\gamma
\]
as desired, where $k_\circ$ (and therefore, $\gamma$) depends only on $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, and $\mu$.
\end{proof}
Summarizing, we have now proved Lemma~\ref{lem.osc_decay} (by using the $L^2$ to $L^\infty$ estimate and Lemma~\ref{lem.osc_dec_2.2}).
Then, Lemma~\ref{lem.osc_decay} implies the oscillation decay, and the oscillation decay implies the H\"older regularity.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm.DGCaLi}
Let $\mathcal{L}$ be of the form \eqref{eq.mL}, and let $v\in H^1(B_1)$ solve
\[
\mathcal{L}v = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1.
\]
Then,
\[
\|v\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le C\|v\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}
\]
for some $\alpha > 0$ and $C$ depending only on $n$, $\lambda$, and $\Lambda$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The theorem follows from the oscillation decay, in much the same way as Corollary~\ref{cor.Holder_regularity_1}).
\end{proof}
Combining this last result with the $L^2$ to $L^\infty$ estimate, Proposition~\ref{prop.L2Linfty}, we finally obtain the theorem of De Giorgi--Nash.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm.DGN_B}
Let $v\in H^1(B_1)$ be a weak solution to ${\rm div}\left(A(x)\nabla v\right) = 0$ in~$B_1$, with $0<\lambda\,{\rm Id}\le A(x) \le \Lambda\,{\rm Id}$. Then, there exists some $\alpha > 0$ such that $v\in C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})$ and
\[
\|v\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le C\|v\|_{L^2(B_1)}.
\]
The constants $C$ and $\alpha > 0$ depend only on $n$, $\lambda$, and $\Lambda$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The result follows from Theorem~\ref{thm.DGCaLi} combined with Proposition~\ref{prop.L2Linfty} (by \eqref{eq.L2Linfty0}).
\end{proof}
As a consequence of the previous result, we have:
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm.DGN_Om}]
It follows by Theorem \ref{thm.DGN_B} by a covering argument.
\end{proof}
In particular, as shown below, Theorem~\ref{thm.DGN_B} solved Hilbert's XIXth problem.
This is one of the main results for which De Giorgi got the Wolf Prize in 1990, and Nash got the Abel Prize in 2015.
It has been speculated that if only one of them had solved Hilbert's XIXth problem, he would also have received the Fields Medal for the proof.
\begin{rem}[Harnack's inequality]
Even though it is not needed to prove Theorem \ref{thm.DGN_B}, it is interesting to notice that with some more work one can also prove Harnack's inequality for operators of the form ${\rm div}\left(A(x)\nabla v\right)$; see \cite{LZ17,Mo61}.
\end{rem}
\section{Solution to Hilbert's XIXth problem}
\label{sec.solution}
In this chapter, we have proved the {\em interior regularity} result for $v\in H^1(B_1)$
\[
{\rm div}\big(A(x) \nabla v\big) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1\qquad\Longrightarrow \qquad\|v\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le C\|v\|_{L^2(B_1)},
\]
for some small $\alpha > 0$ depending only on $n$, $\lambda$, and $\Lambda$.
For a general domain $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$, this gives the estimate for $v\in H^1(\Omega)$
\[
{\rm div}\big(A(x) \nabla v\big) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega\quad\Longrightarrow \quad\|v\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\tilde\Omega)}\le C\|v\|_{L^2(\Omega)},
\]
for any $\tilde\Omega\subset\subset\Omega$ (with a constant $C$ that depends only on $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, $\Omega$, and~$\tilde \Omega$).
Thanks to this, one can in fact solve Hilbert's XIXth problem:
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{center}
\fbox{
\begin{minipage}{0.85\textwidth}
\vspace{2.5mm}
\begin{thm*}
\index{Hilbert XIXth problem} Let $u\in H^1(\Omega)$ be any local minimizer of
\[
\mathcal{E}(w) := \int_\Omega L(\nabla w) \, dx,
\]
where $L$ is smooth and uniformly convex, and $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ is bounded. Then, $u$ is $C^\infty$ in $\Omega$.
\end{thm*}
\vspace{0mm}
\end{minipage}
}
\end{center}
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{proof}
Any local minimizer $u$ satisfies
\[
\int_\Omega DL(\nabla u) \nabla\phi\, dx = 0,\qquad\textrm{for all}\quad \phi\in C^\infty_c(\Omega).
\]
(This is the weak formulation of ${\rm div}(DL(\nabla u)) = 0$ in $\Omega$.)
As in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.C1aimpCinf}, if we define for any $h\in \mathbb{R}^n$,
\[
\tilde A(x) := \int_0^1 D^2 L\big(t\nabla u(x+h)+(1-t)\nabla u(x)\big)\, dt,
\]
then $\tilde A(x)$ is uniformly elliptic (since $L$ is uniformly convex, $0< \lambda{\rm Id}\le D^2L(p)\le \Lambda{\rm Id}$). We have that $\frac{u(\cdot+h)-u}{|h|}\in H^1(\Omega_h)$ fulfills (again, see Theorem~\ref{thm.C1aimpCinf})
\[
\int_\Omega \nabla \left(\frac{u(x+h)-u(x)}{|h|}\right)\cdot \tilde A(x) \nabla \phi(x)\, dx = 0\quad\textrm{for all }\phi\in C^\infty_c(\Omega_h),
\]
that is, $\frac{u(\cdot+h)-u}{|h|}$ solves weakly
\[
{\rm div}\left(\tilde A\nabla\left[\frac{u(\cdot+h)-u}{|h|}\right]\right) = 0,\quad\textrm{in}\quad\Omega_h.
\]
(We recall $\Omega_h := \{x\in \Omega : {\rm dist}(x, \partial\Omega)> |h|\}$.)
By the estimate of De Giorgi and Nash (Theorem~\ref{thm.DGN_Om}), we find that
\[
\left\|\frac{u(\cdot+h)-u}{|h|}\right\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\tilde \Omega)}\le C\left\|\frac{u(\cdot+h)-u}{|h|}\right\|_{L^2(\Omega_h)}\le C\|\nabla u\|_{L^2(\Omega)}
\]
for any $\tilde \Omega\subset\subset\Omega_h$ (see \ref{it.S9} in Chapter~\ref{ch.0}). By \ref{it.H7}, since the constant $C$ is independent of $h$, this yields
\[
\|u\|_{C^{1,\alpha}(\tilde\Omega)}\le C\|u\|_{H^1(\Omega)}.
\]
Now, once $u$ is $C^{1,\alpha}$, we are done by Theorem~\ref{thm.C1aimpCinf}.
\end{proof}
\section{Further results and open problems}
Let us finish this chapter by mentioning some state-of-the art results and open problems regarding the minimization of convex energy functionals.
As we have explained, the minimization of a convex functional is a classical problem in the Calculus of Variations. Namely,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.minLW}
\min_{w\in \mathcal{W}} \int_\Omega L(\nabla w)\, dx,
\end{equation}
with $L:\mathbb{R}^n\to \mathbb{R}$ convex, $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$, and some appropriate class of functions $\mathcal{W}$, say, with prescribed trace on $\partial\Omega$. Hilbert's XIXth problem deals with the case in which $L$ is \emph{uniformly} convex and smooth, to obtain nice regularity results. In Remark~\ref{rem.conv} we discuss that lack of convexity can yield non-uniqueness of minimizers, but it is not that clear what occurs if we simply remove the condition on the uniform convexity, but maintain the \emph{strict} convexity. In fact, functionals involving functions $L$ that only involve strict convexity (that is, $D^2 L$ could have 0 and $\infty$ as eigenvalues in some sets) appear naturally in some applications: anisotropic surface tensions, traffic flow, and statistical mechanics (see \cite{M19B} and the references therein).
Minimizers of \eqref{eq.minLW} are known to be Lipschitz (under enough smoothness of the domain and boundary data) by the comparison principle.
Thus, the following natural question is to whether first derivatives of minimizers are continuous:
\[
\textrm{If $L$ is strictly convex, are minimizers to \eqref{eq.minLW} $C^1$?}
\]
The answer to that question has been investigated in the last years. The problem was first addressed by De Silva and Savin in \cite{DS10}, where they studied the case of dimension 2:
\begin{thm}[\cite{DS10}]
Let $u$ be a Lipschitz minimizer to \eqref{eq.minLW} in $\mathbb{R}^2$, and suppose that $L$ is strictly convex. Assume that the set of points where $D^2L$ has some eigenvalue equal to 0 or $\infty$ is finite. Then, $u\in C^1$.
\end{thm}
Later, Mooney in \cite{M19B} studied the problem in higher dimensions and showed that the question has a negative answer, in general, in dimensions $n\ge 4$:
\begin{thm}[\cite{M19B}]
In $\mathbb{R}^4$ there exists a Lipschitz minimizer to \eqref{eq.minLW}, with $L$ strictly convex, that is not $C^1$.
\end{thm}
In the example by Mooney, the minimizer is analytic outside the origin (having a singularity there), and the corresponding functional has a Hessian with an eigenvalue going to $\infty$ in $\{x_1^2+x_2^2 = x_3^2+x_4^2\}\cap \sqrt{2} \mathbb{S}^3$, but otherwise, the eigenvalues are uniformly bounded from below away from zero.
It is currently an open question what happens in dimension $n =3$, as well as what happens for general strictly convex functionals in $\mathbb{R}^2$.
\endinput
\chapter{Fully nonlinear elliptic PDE}
\label{ch.3}
Second order nonlinear elliptic PDEs in their most general form can be written as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.fully}
F(D^2 u , \nabla u , u, x ) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n.
\end{equation}
Understanding the regularity of solutions to these equations has been a major research direction since the mid-20th century.
These are called \emph{fully nonlinear elliptic equations}.
Besides their own interest in PDE theory, they arise in Probability Theory (stochastic control, differential games; see Appendix~\ref{app.B} for a probabilistic interpretation), and in Geometry.
Thanks to Schauder-type estimates, under natural assumptions on the dependence on $\nabla u$, $u$, and $x$, the regularity for \eqref{eq.fully} can be reduced to understanding solutions to \index{Fully nonlinear equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.fully2}
\boxed{F(D^2 u) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n.}
\end{equation}
Indeed, some of the ``perturbative'' methods that we used in Chapter~\ref{ch.1} to prove Schauder estimates for linear equations $\sum a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} u = f(x)$ in $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ work in such fully nonlinear setting, too.
For simplicity, we will focus here on the study of \eqref{eq.fully2}.
In the next sections we will discuss the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item[--] What is ellipticity for solutions to \eqref{eq.fully2}?
\item[--] Existence and uniqueness of solutions.
\item[--] Regularity of solutions to \eqref{eq.fully2}.
\end{itemize}
We will \emph{not} prove all the main known results of this Chapter, but only give an overview of what is known.
We refer to the books \cite{CC} and \cite{NTV} for more details about this topic.
\section{What is ellipticity?}
\label{sec.ellipt}
There are (at least) two possible ways to define ellipticity:
\begin{itemize}
\item[--] Linearizing the equation.
\item[--] ``Imposing'' that the comparison principle holds.
\end{itemize}
We will see that they are essentially the same.
\begin{defi}\index{Ellipticity condition!Fully nonlinear equations}
Let $F: \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\to \mathbb{R}$. We say that $F$ is \emph{elliptic} if for any two symmetric matrices $A, B\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ such that $A \ge B$ (i.e., $A-B$ is positive semi-definite) we have
\[
F(A) \ge F(B),
\]
with strict inequality if $A > B$ (i.e., $A-B$ positive definite).
\end{defi}
The Laplace equation $\Delta u = 0$ corresponds to the case $F(M) ={\rm tr}\,M $. For a linear equation (with constant coefficients)
\[
\sum_{i,j = 1}^n a_{ij} \partial_{ij} u = 0,
\]
$F$ is given by $F(M) = {\rm tr}\, (AM)$, where $A = (a_{ij})_{i,j}$. This equation is elliptic if and only if the coefficient matrix $A$ is positive definite. Therefore, it coincides with our notion of ellipticity for linear equations.
\begin{rem}[Comparison Principle]
If a $C^2$ function $v$ touches $u\in C^2$ from below at a point $x_\circ$ (i.e. $u\ge v$ everywhere, and $u(x_\circ) = v(x_\circ)$; see Figure~\ref{fig.9}), then it follows that
\[
\nabla u (x_\circ ) = \nabla v (x_\circ),\qquad D^2 u(x_\circ) \ge D^2 v(x_\circ).
\]
Therefore, for these functions we would have $F(D^2 u(x_\circ)) \ge F(D^2 v(x_\circ))$ if $F$ is elliptic. This is essential when proving the comparison principle.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 1.3]{./Figures/fig9_2.pdf}
\caption{The function $v$ touches $u$ from below at $x_\circ$.}
\label{fig.9}
\end{figure}
\end{rem}
\begin{prop}[Comparison Principle]\index{Comparison principle!Fully nonlinear equations (classical)}
\label{prop.comp_princ_C2}
Assume that $F$ is elliptic, and $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ is bounded. Let $u, v\in C^2(\Omega)\cap C^0(\overline{\Omega})$. Then,
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
u & \ge & v& \textrm{on } ~\partial \Omega\\
F(D^2 u)& \le & F(D^2 v)& \textrm{in }~\Omega.
\end{array}
\right.
\quad
\Longrightarrow
\quad u \ge v\quad\textrm{in}\quad \overline{\Omega}.
\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} We separate into two cases.
\\[0.1cm]
{\it \underline{\smash{Case 1}}.} Assume first that $F(D^2 u) < F(D^2 v)$ in $\Omega$ (with strict inequality). If the conclusion is false, then the function $u-v$ would have an interior minimum inside $\Omega$, say at $x_\circ \in \Omega$. Then, we would have $D^2(u-v)(x_\circ) \ge 0$. Therefore, $D^2 u(x_\circ)\ge D^2 v(x_\circ)$ and by ellipticity of $F$, this yields $F(D^2 u(x_\circ))\ge F(D^2 v(x_\circ))$. This is a contradiction with $F(D^2 u) < F(D^2 v)$ in $\Omega$, and hence $u \ge v$ in $\overline{\Omega}$.
\\[0.1cm]
{\it \underline{\smash{Case 2}}.} Assume now $F(D^2 u)\le F(D^2 v)$ in $\Omega$.
Then, we can define
\[
\bar u(x) := u(x) +\varepsilon\left(c_\Omega - |x|^2\right),
\]
where $c_\Omega > 0$ is a constant such that $c_\Omega-|x|^2 > 0$ in $\overline{\Omega}$ (recall that $\Omega$ is bounded).
Then, we have $\bar u \ge u $ on $\partial \Omega$, and $D^2\bar u = D^2 u - 2\varepsilon{\rm Id}$. Thus, by ellipticity,
\[
F(D^2\bar u ) = F(D^2 u - 2\varepsilon{\rm Id}) < F(D^2 u) \le F(D^2 v) \quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega.
\]
By Case 1,
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\bar u & \ge & v& \textrm{on } ~\partial \Omega,\\
F(D^2 \bar u)& < & F(D^2 v)& \textrm{in }~\Omega.
\end{array}
\right.
\quad
\Longrightarrow
\quad \bar u \ge v\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega.
\]
This gives
\[
u(x) +\varepsilon\left(c_\Omega - |x|^2\right) \ge v(x)\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega.
\]
Letting $\varepsilon\downarrow 0$ we deduce that $u \ge v$ in $\Omega$.
\end{proof}
Thus, we see that ellipticity is exactly what we need in order to prove the comparison principle. We will see that \emph{uniform ellipticity} (analogously to the case of linear equations) implies, in fact, the regularity of solutions.
\begin{defi}
\label{defi.unifellipt}\index{Uniform ellipticity condition!Fully nonlinear equations}
Let $F: \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\to \mathbb{R}$. Then $F$ is \emph{uniformly elliptic} if there are $0 < \lambda\le \Lambda$ (the \emph{ellipticity constants}\index{Ellipticity constants!Fully nonlinear equations}), such that for every symmetric matrices $M$, $N$ with $N \ge 0$ (that is, positive semi-definite), we have
\[
\lambda\|N\|\le F(M+N) - F(M) \le \Lambda\|N\|,
\]
where $\|N\|:= {\rm tr}\left( (N^T N)^{1/2}\right) = {\rm tr}(N)$ is the sum of the (absolute value of the) eigenvalues.
\end{defi}
We remark that our choice of matrix norm in the previous definition is not standard. In $\mathbb{R}^n$, all norms are equivalent and thus we could have chosen any other norm. This definition of norm, however, avoids dealing with constants in future computations.
Of course, uniform ellipticity implies ellipticity, in a quantitative way.
For linear equations, i.e. $F(M) = {\rm tr}\, (AM)$, uniform ellipticity is equivalent to
\[
0<\lambda {\rm Id}\le A\le \Lambda{\rm Id},
\]
as usual.
The alternative way to see ellipticity is by linearizing the equation:
Assume $F\in C^1$ (which is not always the case!).
We consider the functions
\[
F_{ij}(M) := \frac{\partial F}{\partial M_{ij}} (M),
\]
i.e., the first derivative of $F(M)$ with respect to the component $M_{ij}$ of the matrix $M$.
Then, it is immediate to see that \index{Uniform ellipticity condition!Fully nonlinear equations}
\[
\begin{split}
\textrm{$F$ is uniformly elliptic} & ~~~\Longleftrightarrow ~~~ 0< \lambda\,{\rm Id}\le (F_{ij}(M))_{i,j}\le \Lambda\,{\rm Id},\qquad \forall M\\
& ~~~\Longleftrightarrow ~~~\textrm{the linearized equation is uniformly elliptic.}
\end{split}
\]
Therefore, at least when $F$ is $C^1$, uniform ellipticity can be seen as uniform ellipticity of the linearized equation.
In general, though, the uniform ellipticity condition implies that $F$ is Lipschitz, but not always $C^1$. There are, in fact, important examples of equations $F(D^2 u) = 0$ in which the corresponding $F$ is Lipschitz but not~$C^1$. In this case, the previous characterization of ellipticity through the derivatives of $F$ still holds, understanding now that they are defined almost every\-where.
\begin{rem}[Convex (or concave) equations]\index{Convex fully nonlinear equations}
An important subclass of equations $F(D^2 u) = 0$ are those for which $F$ is convex (or concave). Namely, $F(M)$ as a function $F:\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\to \mathbb{R}$ is convex (or concave). In this case, the equation can be written as a \emph{Bellman equation} \index{Bellman equation}(see \eqref{eq.maxPDE}), as
\[
F(D^2 u) = \max_{\alpha\in \mathcal{A}} \{L_\alpha u\} = 0,
\]
where $\{L_\alpha\}_{\alpha\in \mathcal{A}}$ is a family of linear operators of the form
\[
L_\alpha u := \sum_{i,j=1}^n a_{ij}^\alpha \partial_{ij} u + c_\alpha,
\]
for a family of coefficients $\{a_{ij}^\alpha\}_{\alpha\in \mathcal{A}}$ uniformly elliptic, with ellipticity constants $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$.
Notice that if $u$ solves $F(D^2 u) = 0$, with $F$ convex, then $v = -u$ solves $G(D^2 v) = 0$, with $G(M) = -F(-M)$, and therefore, $G$ is concave.
\end{rem}
\subsection*{Pucci operators}
Within the class of fully nonlinear uniformly elliptic operators with ellipticity constants $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$, the \emph{extremal} or \emph{Pucci} operators, denoted by $\mathcal{M}^+$ and $\mathcal{M}^-$, are those that attain the \emph{extreme} values (from above and below, respectively). Alternatively, every other elliptic operator with the same ellipticity constants is ordered with respect to them in the sense of \eqref{eq.pucciext} below.
We define $\mathcal{M}^\pm$ as follows.
\begin{defi}\label{def.pucci}\index{Pucci operators}\index{Extremal operators}
Given $0<\lambda\le \Lambda$, the \emph{extremal} or \emph{Pucci} operators with ellipticity constants $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$, $\mathcal{M}^\pm:\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\to \mathbb{R}$, are defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.Pucci}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{M}^-(M) & := \inf_{\lambda{\rm Id}\le (a_{ij})_{i,j}\le \Lambda{\rm Id}}\bigg\{\sum_{i, j = 1}^n a_{ij}M_{ij} \bigg\} = \inf_{\lambda{\rm Id}\le A\le \Lambda{\rm Id}}\left\{{\rm tr}\,(AM)\right\}\\
\mathcal{M}^+(M) & := \sup_{\lambda{\rm Id}\le (a_{ij})_{i,j}\le \Lambda{\rm Id}}\bigg\{\sum_{i, j = 1}^n a_{ij}M_{ij}\bigg\}= \sup_{\lambda{\rm Id}\le A\le \Lambda{\rm Id}}\left\{{\rm tr}\,(AM)\right\},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
for any symmetric matrix $M$. They are uniformly elliptic operators, with ellipticity constants $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$.
\end{defi}
In particular, from the definition we have
\[
\mathcal{M}^\pm(\alpha M) = \alpha\mathcal{M}^\pm(M), \quad\textrm{for all}\quad \alpha \ge 0.
\]
Notice that $\mathcal{M}^\pm= \mathcal{M}^\pm_{n, \lambda, \Lambda}$. In general, however, the dependence on the ellipticity constants and the dimension will be clear in the corresponding context, and thus we will drop it in the notation.
Sometimes, it is easier to define the Pucci operators through the eigenvalues of the corresponding matrix, appropriately weighted with the ellipticity constants, in the following way.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem.Pucci}
The Pucci operators as defined in \eqref{eq.Pucci} can be equivalently defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.Pucci2}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{M}^-(M) & = \lambda \sum_{\mu_i > 0} \mu_i + \Lambda \sum_{\mu_i < 0 }\mu_i = \lambda\|M_+\| - \Lambda \|M_-\|,\\
\mathcal{M}^+(M) & = \Lambda \sum_{\mu_i > 0} \mu_i + \lambda \sum_{\mu_i < 0 }\mu_i = \Lambda\|M_+\| - \lambda\|M_-\|,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\mu_i = \mu_i(M)$ denote the eigenvalues of the symmetric matrix $M$, the matrices $M_+$ and $M_-$ are such that $M_\pm \ge 0$, $M = M_+-M_-$, and $\|A\| = {\rm tr}\left((A^T A)^{1/2}\right)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The proof follows directly using the following rearrangement-type inequalities involving the eigenvalues and the product of two symmetric matrices $A$ and $B$:
\[
\sum_{i = 1}^n \lambda_i(A)\lambda_{n-i}(B) \le {\rm tr}(AB) \le\sum_{i = 1}^n \lambda_i(A) \lambda_i(B),
\]
where $\lambda_1(A)\le \dots\le \lambda_n(A)$ denote the ordered eigenvalues of $A$, and $\lambda_1(B)\le \dots\le \lambda_n(B)$ denote the ordered eigenvalues of $B$.
\end{proof}
From the definition of uniform ellipticity of $F$ (Definition~ \ref{defi.unifellipt}) it follows that, given two symmetric matrices $M$, $N$,
\[
\lambda \|N_+\|-\Lambda\|N_-\| \le F(M+N)-F(M) \le \Lambda\|N_+\|-\lambda\|N_-\|,
\]
where $N = N_+ -N_-$, and $N_\pm \ge 0$. Thus, by Lemma~\ref{lem.Pucci},
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.pucciext0}
\mathcal{M}^-(N)\le F(M+N) -F(M) \le \mathcal{M}^+(N).
\end{equation}
If we take $M = 0$, we see that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.pucciext}
\mathcal{M}^-(N) \le F(N) -F(0) \le \mathcal{M}^+(N),
\end{equation}
so these operators are like the ``worse case'' from above and below --- up to a constant, $F(0)$.
(Recall that $\mathcal{M}^\pm$ are fully nonlinear uniformly elliptic operators with ellipticity constants $\lambda$, $\Lambda$.)
If we further assume that $F(0) = 0$, we see that if $u$ solves any equation of the form $F(D^2 u) = 0$ then in particular
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.nondiv_bmc}
\mathcal{M}^-(D^2 u) \le 0 \le \mathcal{M}^+(D^2 u).
\end{equation}
\begin{rem}\label{rem.eqnondivbmc}\index{Equation in non-divergence form with bounded measurable coefficients}Equation \eqref{eq.nondiv_bmc} is called \emph{equation in non-divergence form with bounded measurable coefficients}. Indeed, notice that given some uniformly elliptic coefficients $(a_{ij}(x))_{i,j}$ with no regularity assumption on $x$, if $u\in C^2$ fulfills $\sum_{i,j} a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} u$ then in particular \eqref{eq.nondiv_bmc} holds. On the other hand, if \eqref{eq.nondiv_bmc} holds for some $u\in C^2$, one can recover some uniformly elliptic coefficients $(a_{ij}(x))_{i,j}$ such that $\sum_{i,j} a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} u$.
\end{rem}
\section{Equations in two variables}
Before going into the general theory of existence and regularity for fully nonlinear equations in $\mathbb{R}^n$, let us study a simpler case: fully nonlinear equations in two variables.
The main regularity estimate in this context is due to Nirenberg \cite{Nir}, and reads as follows.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm.2D}\index{Equations in two variables (fully nonlinear)}
Let $F:\mathbb{R}^{2\times 2}\to \mathbb{R}$ be uniformly elliptic with ellipticity constants $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$. Let $u\in C^2(B_1)$ solve
\[
F(D^2u ) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1\subset\mathbb{R}^2.
\]
Then,
\[
\|u\|_{C^{2,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le C\|u \|_{L^\infty(B_1)},
\]
for some constants $\alpha > 0$ and $C$ depending only on $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$.
\end{thm}
The idea of the proof is the following: define $v := \partial_e u$, and differentiate the equation $F(D^2u)=0$ in the $e$ direction, to get
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:newtag1}
\sum_{i, j = 1}^2 a_{ij}(x)\partial_{ij} v(x) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1\subset\mathbb{R}^2,
\end{equation}
where $a_{ij}(x) := F_{ij}(D^2 u(x))$ for $i,j\in \{1,2\}$.
Since $F$ is uniformly elliptic, we have $a_{22}(x) \ge \lambda > 0$. Thus, we can divide \eqref{eq:newtag1} by $a_{22}(x)$ to obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:newtag2}
a(x) \partial_{11}v(x) + b(x) \partial_{12}v(x) +\partial_{22}v(x) = 0,
\end{equation}
for some coefficients
\[
a(x) = \frac{a_{11}(x)}{a_{22}(x)}\quad\text{and} \quad b(x) = \frac{a_{12}(x)+a_{21}(x)}{a_{22}(x)} = \frac{2a_{12}(x)}{a_{22}(x)}.
\]
If we write $w := \partial_{1} v$ and differentiate \eqref{eq:newtag2} with respect to $x_1$, we get
\[
\partial_{1}\big(a(x) \partial_{1}w(x) + b(x)\partial_{2} w(x) \big) + \partial_{22}w(x) = {\rm div}(A(x)\nabla w) = 0,
\]
where
$$
A(x) := \left(\begin{matrix}
a(x) & b(x)\\
0 & 1
\end{matrix}\right).
$$
That is, $w$ solves an equation in divergence form, and $A$ is uniformly elliptic, with ellipticity constants depending on $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$.
Thus, by the De~Giorgi--Nash result (Theorem~\ref{thm.DGN_Om}) one has $\partial_1 v=w\in C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})$.
Since the roles of $x_1$ and $x_2$ can be changed, and since $v=\partial_e u$ (with $e\in \mathbb S^{n-1}$ arbitrary), we deduce that $u\in C^{2,\alpha}(B_{1/2})$.
Let us now formally prove it. The idea is the one presented in the lines above, where we used that $u\in C^4$. In reality we can only use that $u\in C^2$, so we proceed by means of incremental quotients.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.2D}]
Let us define
\[
v(x) = \frac{u(x+h)-u(x)}{|h|}\in C^2(B_{1-|h|}),
\]
with $|h|< \frac14$, and proceed similarly to Theorem~\ref{thm.C1aimpCinf}. Since $F$ is translation invariant, we have
\[
F(D^2 u(x) ) = 0,\quad F(D^2 u(x+h) ) = 0 \quad\textrm{in}\quad B_{1-|h|}.
\]
Then, by the fundamental theorem of calculus for line integrals,
\[
0 = F(D^2 u(x+h) ) - F(D^2 u(x)) = \sum_{i,j = 1}^2 a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} \big(u(x+h)-u(x)\big),
\]
where
\[
a_{ij}(x) = \int_0^1 F_{ij}\big(t D^2 u(x+h) + (1-t) D^2 u(x) \big)\, dt.
\]
Since $F$ is uniformly elliptic, $(a_{ij})_{i,j}$ is uniformly elliptic (with the same ellipticity constants). That is, $v\in C^2(B_{1-|h|})$ solves an equation in non-divergence form
\[
a_{11}(x) \partial_{11}v(x)+ 2a_{12}(x)\partial_{12}v(x) + a_{22}(x) \partial_{22}v(x) = 0 \quad\textrm{in}\quad B_{1-|h|},
\]
where $a_{12} = a_{21}$ and $\partial_{12}v = \partial_{21}v$ because $v\in C^2$. From the ellipticity conditions, we have $\lambda \le a_{22}(x)\le \Lambda$, and we can divide by $a_{22}(x)$ to get
\[
a(x) \partial_{11}v(x)+ b(x)\partial_{12} v(x)+\partial_{22}v(x) = 0 \quad\textrm{in}\quad B_{1-|h|}.
\]
Let
$$
A(x) := \left(\begin{matrix}
a(x) & b(x)\\
0 & 1
\end{matrix}\right).
$$
It is straightforward to check that $A$ is uniformly elliptic, with ellipticity constants $\lambda/\Lambda$ and $\Lambda/\lambda$.
Let $\eta\in C^2_c(B_{1-|h|})$ and notice that, by integration by parts,
\[
\int_{B_{1-|h|}} \partial_2\eta \,\partial_{12}v = \int_{B_{1-|h|}} \partial_1\eta \,\partial_{22}v.
\]
Thus,
\begin{align*}
\int_{B_{1-|h|}} \nabla \eta \cdot A(x) \nabla \partial_{1}v & = \int_{B_{1-|h|}} \nabla \eta(x) \cdot \left(\begin{matrix}
a(x)\partial_{11}v(x) + b(x) \partial_{12}v(x) \\
\partial_{12}v (x)
\end{matrix}\right)\, dx\\
& = \int_{B_{1-|h|}} \big\{\partial_1\eta \,\big(a(x) \partial_{11}v + b(x) \partial_{12}v \big)+ \partial_2\eta \, \partial_{12}v\big\}\, dx\\
& = \int_{B_{1-|h|}} \partial_1\eta\, \big(a(x) \partial_{11}v + b(x) \partial_{12}v + \partial_{22}v\big)\, dx\\
& = 0.
\end{align*}
That is, $\partial_{1}v$ solves an equation with bounded measurable coefficients $A(x)$ in divergence form. Thus, by the De~Giorgi--Nash theorem (see Theorem~\ref{thm.DGCaLi}), we know that $\partial_{1}v\in C^\alpha$ and
\[
\|\partial_{1}v\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C\|\partial_{1}v\|_{L^\infty(B_{1-|h|})}\le C\|\partial_{1}u\|_{C^{0,1}(B_{1})},
\]
(notice that we can go from $B_1$ to $B_{1-|h|}$ in Theorem~\ref{thm.DGCaLi} by a covering argument for $|h|$ small), for some constant $C$ depending only on $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$. By letting $|h|\to 0$, thanks to \ref{it.H7}, we obtain that
\[
\|\nabla \partial_{1}u\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C\|\partial_{1}v\|_{L^\infty(B_{1-|h|})}\le C\|\partial_{1}u\|_{C^{0,1}(B_{1})},
\]
for some constant $C$ depending only on $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$.
By symmetry, the same inequality is true for $\partial_{2}v$ (and $\partial_{2}u$), so that
\[
\|u\|_{C^{2, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C\|u\|_{C^{1,1}(B_{1})}.
\]
Notice that, by interpolation inequalities (see \eqref{ch0-interp2}), for each $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists some $C_\varepsilon > 0$ such that
\[
\|u\|_{C^{1, 1}(B_{1/2})} \le \varepsilon \|u\|_{C^{2, \alpha}(B_{1})}+ C_\varepsilon\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_{1})}.
\]
Now, the proof can be concluded by means of Lemma~\ref{lem.SAL} analogously to what has been done in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates}.
\end{proof}
Thus, as we can see, in the two-dimensional case it is rather easy to show a priori $C^{2,\alpha}$ estimates for solutions to the fully nonlinear equation. Thanks to these estimates, by means of the continuity method (see \cite{GT} or \cite{HL}) one can actually show the existence of $C^{2,\alpha}$ solutions for the Dirichlet problem.
Nonetheless, as we will see, it turns out that in higher dimensions such an a priori estimate is no longer available, and one needs to prove existence of solutions in a different way, by introducing a new notion of weak solution (viscosity solutions).
This is what we do in the next section.
\section{Existence of solutions}
\label{sec.43}
We now turn our attention to fully nonlinear elliptic equations in $\mathbb{R}^n$.
The first question to understand is the existence of solutions: given a nice domain $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$, and a nice boundary data $g: \partial\Omega\to \mathbb{R}$, can we always solve the following Dirichlet problem?
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
F(D^2 u) & = & 0 & \textrm{in }~\Omega\\
u & = & g & \textrm{on }~\partial\Omega.
\end{array}
\right.
\]
Notice that here we cannot construct the solution by minimizing a functional, since these fully nonlinear equations do not come, in general, from any energy functional.
To construct the solution, we only have two options:
\begin{itemize}
\item[--] Prove ``a priori estimates'' and then use the continuity method.
\item[--] Use the comparison principle and Perron's method.
\end{itemize}
The continuity method is reasonably easy to use, but we need $C^{2, \alpha}$ estimates for solutions up to the boundary. This is a very difficult problem, and in fact, in general we do \emph{not} have $C^{2, \alpha}$ estimates for these equations in~$\mathbb{R}^n$.
Therefore, we need to construct some kind of generalized notion of solution: \emph{viscosity solutions}.
The right concept of solution must be so that we have
\begin{itemize}
\item \underline{\smash{Existence of solutions}}.
\item \underline{\smash{Comparison principle}} (and in particular, uniqueness of solutions).
\item \underline{\smash{Stability}} (so that limits of solutions are solutions).
\end{itemize}
Notice that if we consider only $C^2$ solutions, then we have the comparison principle (and it is easy to prove), but we may not be able to prove existence.
On the other hand, if we relax the notion of solution, then we may be able to easily prove the existence of a solution, but then it will be more difficult to prove the uniqueness/comparison principle.
The right notion of generalized solution is the one given in Definition~\ref{defi.visco} below, known as viscosity solutions. For subsolutions in the viscosity sense, this notion only requires that the function is upper semi-continuous (USC), while for supersolutions in the viscosity sense, this notion can be checked on lower semi-continuous (LSC) functions. This is important in the proof of existence of solutions.
We recall that a function $f$ is said to be upper semi-continuous at $x_\circ$ if
\[
\limsup_{x\to x_\circ} f(x) \le f(x_\circ).
\]
Similarly, it is lower semi-continuous at $x_\circ$ if \[\liminf_{x\to x_\circ} f(x) \ge f(x_\circ).\]
We refer to \cite{S-viscosity} for a nice introduction to viscosity solutions to elliptic equations.
\begin{defi}[Viscosity solutions]\index{Viscosity solution}
\label{defi.visco}
Let $F:\mathbb{R}^{n \times n}\to \mathbb{R}$ be uniformly elliptic, and consider the PDE
\[
F(D^2 u) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad\Omega.
\]
$\bullet$ \ \index{Viscosity subsolution} We say that $u\in {\rm USC}(\overline{\Omega})$ is a \emph{subsolution} (in the viscosity sense), and we write $F(D^2u) \ge 0$, if for any $\phi\in C^2(\Omega)$ such that $\phi \ge u$ in $\Omega$ and $\phi(x_\circ) = u(x_\circ)$, $x_\circ \in \Omega$, we have $F(D^2\phi(x_\circ)) \ge 0$.
\vspace{1mm}
\noindent $\bullet$ \ \index{Viscosity supersolution} We say that $u\in {\rm LSC}(\overline{\Omega})$ is a \emph{supersolution} (in the viscosity sense), and we write $F(D^2u) \le 0$, if for any $\phi\in C^2(\Omega)$ such that $\phi \le u$ in $\Omega$ and $\phi(x_\circ) = u(x_\circ)$, $x_\circ \in \Omega$, we have $F(D^2\phi(x_\circ)) \le 0$.
\vspace{1mm}
\noindent $\bullet$ \ \index{Viscosity solution} We say that $u\in C(\overline{\Omega})$ solves $F(D^2 u) = 0$ in $\Omega$ in the viscosity sense if it is both a subsolution and a supersolution.
\end{defi}
Notice that there may be points $x_\circ\in \Omega$ at which no function $\phi\in C^2$ touches $u$ at $x_\circ$ (from above and/or from below). This is allowed by the previous definition.
\begin{rem}[Some history]
The concept of viscosity solution was introduced in 1983 by Crandall and P.-L. Lions in the study of first-order equations.
During a few years, the work on viscosity solutions focused on first-order equations, because it was not known whether second-order uniformly elliptic PDEs would have a unique viscosity solution (or if the comparison principle would hold for these solutions).
In 1988 the comparison principle for viscosity solutions was finally proved by Jensen \cite{Jensen}, and in subsequent years the concept has become prevalent in the analysis of elliptic PDEs.
In 1994, P.-L. Lions received the Fields Medal for his contributions to nonlinear PDEs, one of his major contributions being his work on viscosity solutions \cite{ICM94}.
\end{rem}
A key result in the theory of viscosity solutions is the following (see \cite{Jensen, CC}).
\begin{thm}[Comparison principle for viscosity solutions]\index{Comparison principle!Fully nonlinear equations (viscosity)}
\label{thm.comppr}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be any bounded domain, and $F:\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\to \mathbb{R}$ be uniformly elliptic.
Assume that $u \in {\rm LSC}(\overline{\Omega})$ and $v \in {\rm USC}(\overline{\Omega})$ satisfy
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:tag01}
u \ge v\quad\textrm{on}\quad\partial\Omega,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:tag02}
F(D^2 u) \le 0 \le F(D^2 v)\quad\textrm{in}\quad\Omega\quad\textrm{in the viscosity sense}.
\end{equation}
Then,
\[
u \ge v\quad\textrm{in}\quad\overline{\Omega}.
\]
\end{thm}
We already proved this for $C^2$ functions $u$ in Proposition~\ref{prop.comp_princ_C2}, and the proof was very simple.
For viscosity solutions the proof is more involved.
The main step in the proof of the comparison principle is the following.
\begin{prop} \label{prop.star}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be any bounded domain, and $F:\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\to \mathbb{R}$ be uniformly elliptic.
Assume that $u \in {\rm LSC}(\overline{\Omega})$ and $v \in {\rm USC}(\overline{\Omega})$ are bounded functions that satisfy \eqref{eq:tag01} and \eqref{eq:tag02}. Then,
\[
\mathcal M^-(D^2(u-v)) \leq 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad {\Omega}.
\]
\end{prop}
We refer the reader to \cite[Theorem 5.3]{CC} for a proof of such result, where it is proved assuming that $u, v\in C(\overline{\Omega})$.
The same proof works under the hypotheses here presented.
The comparison principle follows using Proposition \ref{prop.star} and the next lemma.
\begin{lem} \label{lem.star}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be any bounded domain, and assume that $w \in {\rm LSC}(\overline{\Omega})$ satisfies
\[
w \ge 0\quad\textrm{on}\quad\partial\Omega,
\]
and
\[
\mathcal M^-(D^2w) \leq 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad {\Omega}.
\]
Then, $w\geq 0$ in $\Omega$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The proof is similar to that of Proposition \ref{max-princ-viscosity}.
Indeed, first notice that after a rescaling we may assume $\Omega\subset B_1$, and assume by contradiction that $w$ has a negative minimum in $\Omega$.
Then, since $w\geq0$ on $\partial \Omega$, we have $\min_{\overline \Omega} w=-\delta$, with $\delta>0$, and the minimum is achieved in $\Omega$.
Let us now consider $0<\varepsilon<\delta$, and $v(x):= -\kappa+\varepsilon(|x|^2-1)$, with $\kappa>0$ (that is, a sufficiently flat paraboloid).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 1.3]{./Figures/fig_Lemma413.pdf}
\caption{We slide $v$ from below until it touches $w$ at a point $x_\circ$.}
\label{fig.9_413}
\end{figure}
Now, notice that $v<0$ on $\partial\Omega$, and we can choose $\kappa>0$ so that $v$ touches $w$ from below at a point inside $\Omega$.
In other words, there is $\kappa>0$ such that $w\geq v$ in $\Omega$, and $w(x_\circ)= v(x_\circ)$ for some $x_\circ\in \Omega$. (See Figure~\ref{fig.9_413}.)
Then, by definition of viscosity supersolution, we have
\[\mathcal M^-(D^2v)(x_\circ)\leq0.\]
However, a direct computation gives $\mathcal M^-(D^2v)=\mathcal M^-(2\varepsilon\textrm{Id})\equiv 2\lambda n\varepsilon>0$ in~$\Omega$, a contradiction.
\end{proof}
Once we have the comparison principle for viscosity solutions, we can use \emph{Perron's method} \index{Perron's method for viscosity solutions} to prove existence of solutions.
We next do this, following \cite{S-viscosity}.
First let us notice that, for any bounded function $u$ in $\overline \Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$, we may define its \emph{upper semi-continuous envelope} as
\[u^*(x):= \sup\{\limsup_k u(x_k) : x_k\to x\},\]
where the supremum is taken among all sequences $\overline\Omega\ni x_k\to x$.
Notice that $u^*$ is the smallest function satisfying $u^*\in {\rm USC}(\overline\Omega)$ and $u^*\geq u$.
Similarly, we define the lower semi-continuous envelope of $u$ as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.lscenv}
u_*(x):= \inf\{\liminf_k u(x_k) : x_k\to x\}.
\end{equation}
We will need the following lemma, which is a generalization of the fact that the maximum of subsolutions is also a subsolution.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem.limsuplim}
Let $F:\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\to \mathbb{R}$ be uniformly elliptic, and let $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ be any bounded domain.
Let $(u_a)_{a\in \mathcal A}$ be a family of subsolutions: $u_a \in {\rm USC}(\overline{\Omega})$, and $F(D^2 u_a)\ge 0$ in $\Omega$, for all $a\in \mathcal A$.
Let
\[u(x):= \sup_{a\in \mathcal A} u_a,\]
and let
\[u^*(x) := \sup\big\{\limsup_{k\to \infty} u(x_k) : x_k \to x\big\}.\]
Then, $u^*\in {\rm USC}(\overline \Omega)$ is a subsolution: $F(D^2u^*) \ge 0$ in $\Omega$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We divide the proof into two steps.
\\[0.1cm]
{\it \underline{\smash{Step 1}}.} In the first part, we show that if $u^*$ has a strict local maximum at $x_\circ$, then one can extract sequences of indices $a_k\in \mathcal A$ for $k\in \mathbb{N}$, and of points $x_{k}\in \overline{\Omega}$, such that $x_k\to x_\circ$, $u_{a_k}$ has a local maximum at $x_{k}$, and $u_{a_k}(x_{k})\to u^*(x_\circ)$.
By definition of $u^*(x_\circ)$, we can extract a sequence of indices $(a_j)_{j\in \mathbb{N}}$, $a_j\in \mathcal A$, and of points $y_j\to x_\circ$, such that $u_{a_j}(y_j)\to u^*(x_\circ)$. Now let us prove that we can extract a further subsequence $a_k:= a_{j_k}$ such that our desired conclusion holds.
Indeed, let $r> 0$ be such that $u^*(y) < u^*(x_\circ)$ for $y\in B_r(x_\circ)\setminus\{x_\circ\}$, and let $\rho > 0$ be so small that, if $K_\rho := B_r(x_\circ)\setminus B_\rho(x_\circ)$, then
\[
\max_{K_\rho} u^* \le u^*(x_\circ) - \delta,
\]
for some $\delta >0$.
Now notice that, for $j$ large enough, $u_{a_j} \le u^*(x_\circ) - \delta/2$ in $K_\rho$. Otherwise, there would be $j_m \to \infty$ and $z_m$ such that $u_{a_{j_m}}(z_m) > u^*(x_\circ) - \delta/2 \ge \max_{K_\rho} u^*+\delta/2$. Since $K_\rho$ is compact, up to a subsequence, $z_m \to z_\infty$ for some $z_\infty$ in $K_\rho$ such that
\[
u^*(z_\infty) \ge \limsup_{m\to \infty} u_{a_{j_m}} (z_m) > \max_{K_\rho} u^*+\delta/2.
\]
A contradiction. Thus, $u_{a_j} \le u^*(x_\circ) - \delta/2$ in $K_\rho$ for $j$ large enough.
Let now $x_j\in \overline{B_r(x_\circ)}$ be the point where the maximum of $u_{a_j}$ in $\overline{B_r(x_\circ)}$ is attained. In particular, $u_{a_j}(x_j) \ge u_{a_j}(y_j) \to u^*(x_\circ)$, that is, $u_{a_j}(x_j) \ge u^*(x_\circ) - \delta/4$ for $j$ large enough. Since $u_{a_j} \le u^*(x_\circ)-\delta/2$ in $K_\rho$ (again, for $j$ large enough), this implies that $x_j \in B_\rho(x_\circ)$. That is, $u_{k_j}$ attains its maximum in $B_r(x_\circ)$, inside $B_\rho(x_\circ)$. By repeating this argument choosing smaller $\rho> 0$, we can extract a subsequence $a_k:= a_{j_k}$ to get the desired result. Notice that $x_j \to x_\circ$, and that by construction, $u_{a_j}(x_j) \ge u_{a_j} (y_j) \to u^*(x_\circ)$, so that $u_{a_j}(x_j) \to u^*(x_\circ)$. This completes the first part of the proof.
Notice that so far we have not used that $u_a$ are subsolutions.
\\[0.1cm]
{\it \underline{\smash{Step 2}}.}
Let us now proceed with the second part of the proof, which proves the lemma. Let $\phi\in C^2$ be such that $\phi(x_\circ) = u^*(x_\circ)$ and $u\le \phi$ around $x_\circ$ (that is, $u-\phi$ attains its local maximum at $x_\circ$), with $x_\circ\in \Omega$. By considering $\bar \phi (x)= \phi (x)+ |x- x_\circ|^4$, we have that $u-\bar \phi$ attains a strict local maximum at $x_\circ$. We apply now the first part of the proof with $v_a := u_{a} - \bar \phi$. That is, there exist sequences of indices $(a_k)_{k\in \mathbb{N}}$, and points $x_k \to x_\circ$ such that $u_{a_k} - \bar \phi$ attains its local maximum at $x_k$ and $u_{a_k}(x_k) \to u^*(x_\circ)$ (since $\bar \phi$ is continuous). In particular, since $u_{a_k}$ are subsolutions in the viscosity sense, we have
\[
F\big(D^2\bar \phi(x_k) \big) \ge 0 \quad \Longrightarrow \quad F\big(D^2\bar \phi(x_\circ) \big) = F\big(D^2\phi(x_\circ) \big) \ge 0,
\]
by continuity of $F$ and $D^2\phi$. Thus, $u$ is a viscosity subsolution.
\end{proof}
We can now prove the existence of viscosity solutions.
To do so, we assume that we are given a bounded domain $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.Pprop}
\begin{split}
&\textrm{for every $x_\circ \in \partial\Omega$, there exists some $\psi_+\in C^2(\overline{\Omega})$ such that}\\
&\psi_+(x_\circ) = 0,\quad \psi_+|_{\partial\Omega\setminus \{x_\circ\}} > 0,\quad \textrm{and}~\mathcal{M}^+(D^2\psi_+) \le 0 \textrm{ in }\Omega,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where we recall that $\mathcal{M}^+$ is the Pucci operator defined in \eqref{eq.Pucci} with ellipticity constants $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$.
Notice that, if \eqref{eq.Pprop} holds, then we also have that for every $x_\circ \in \partial\Omega$, there exists some $\psi_-\in C^2(\overline{\Omega})$ such that $\psi_-(x_\circ) = 0$, $\psi_-|_{\partial\Omega\setminus \{x_\circ\}} < 0$, and
\[
\mathcal{M}^-(D^2\psi_-) \ge 0\textrm{ in }\Omega,
\]
where $\psi_-$ is simply given by $\psi_- = -\psi_+$.
We will later show that any bounded $C^2$ domain satisfies \eqref{eq.Pprop}, for any constants $0<\lambda\leq \Lambda$.
\begin{rem}
\label{rem.f00}
In the following results, we will often assume that $F(0) = 0$. Otherwise, if $F(0) \neq 0$, we can consider the uniformly elliptic operator $\tilde F_t(D^2 u) := F\left(D^2(u+t|x|^2/2)\right) = F(D ^2u + t{\rm Id})$ instead. Then, $\tilde F_t(0) = F(t{\rm Id})$, and we can choose $t\in \mathbb{R}$ such that $F(t{\rm Id}) = 0$. Indeed, if $F(0) > 0$, by \eqref{eq.pucciext} $\tilde F_t(0) = F(t{\rm Id}) \le \mathcal{M}^+(t{\rm Id}) + F(0) = tn\lambda + F(0) < 0$ for $t <0 $ negative enough. Since $\tilde F_0(0) = F(0) > 0$, by continuity of $\tilde F_t$ in $t$, we are done for some $t\in \big[-\frac{F(0)}{n\lambda}, 0\big)$. The case $F(0) < 0$ follows analogously.
\end{rem}
\begin{thm}[Existence and uniqueness of viscosity solutions]\index{Existence and uniqueness!Viscosity solutions}
\label{thm.exist_sol}
Let $F:\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\to \mathbb{R}$ be uniformly elliptic with ellipticity constants $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$, let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be any bounded domain such that \eqref{eq.Pprop} holds, and let $g\in C(\partial\Omega)$.
Then, there exists a (unique) viscosity solution to the Dirichlet problem
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
F(D^2 u) & = & 0 & \textrm{in }\Omega\\
u & = & g & \textrm{on }\partial\Omega.
\end{array}
\right.
\]
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The uniqueness follows directly from the comparison principle, Theorem~\ref{thm.comppr}.
Thanks to Remark~\ref{rem.f00}, we will assume $F(0) = 0$.
The proof of existence follows by means of Perron's method, as shown next.
Let us define the set of all subsolutions as
\[
\mathcal{A} := \big\{v\in {\rm USC}(\overline{\Omega}) : F(D^2 v)\ge 0~~\textrm{ in }~~\Omega, ~~ v \le g ~~\textrm{ on }~~\partial\Omega\big\}.
\]
Then, we can define the pointwise supremum of all subsolutions in $\mathcal{A}$,
\[
u(x) := \sup_{v\in \mathcal{A}} v(x).
\]
Notice that since the constant function $-\|g\|_{L^\infty(\partial\Omega)}$ belongs to $\mathcal{A}$, such set is non-empty.
Notice also that all elements of $\mathcal{A}$ must be below the constant $\|g\|_{L^\infty(\partial\Omega)}$ by the comparison principle, and thus $u$ is bounded.
We define the upper semi-continuous envelope
\[u^*(x) = \sup\big\{\limsup_{k\to \infty} u(x_k) : x_k \to x\big\}.\]
Notice that, by Lemma~\ref{lem.limsuplim}, we have $F(D^2 u^*)\geq0$ in $\Omega$.
The strategy of the proof is as follows.
We first prove that $u^*=g$ on~$\partial\Omega$.
This implies that $u^*\in \mathcal A$, and therefore $u^*=u$.
Then, once this is done, we will define $u_*$ as the lower semi-continuous envelope of $u$, and show that $u_*$ is a supersolution.
By the comparison principle, this will imply that $u_*\geq u$, and thus $u_*=u$.
This means that $u$ is continuous, and that it is both a subsolution and a supersolution, as wanted.
\vspace{1mm}
\noindent {\it \underline{\smash{Step 1}}.} Let us start by showing that $u^* = g$ on $\partial\Omega$, and that $u^*$ is continuous on $\partial\Omega$.
Namely, we show that for every $x_\circ\in \partial\Omega$, and every $x_k \to x_\circ$ with $x_k \in \Omega$, then $\liminf_{k\to \infty} u^*(x_k) = \limsup_{k\to \infty} u^*(x_k) = g(x_\circ)$.
Let $\varepsilon > 0$, and let us define
\[
w_\varepsilon^- := g(x_\circ) - \varepsilon + k_\varepsilon\psi_- = g(x_\circ) - \varepsilon - k_\varepsilon\psi_+,
\]
where $k_\varepsilon > 0$ is chosen large enough (depending on $\varepsilon$ but also on $g$ and $\Omega$) such that $w_\varepsilon^- \le g$ on $\partial\Omega$, and $\psi_- = -\psi_+$ is the function given by property \eqref{eq.Pprop} at $x_\circ$.
Let us also define
\[
w_\varepsilon^+ := g(x_\circ) + \varepsilon + k_\varepsilon\psi_+,
\]
where $k_\varepsilon > 0$ is such that $w_\varepsilon^+ \ge g$ on $\partial\Omega$ (without loss of generality, by taking it larger if necessary, we can assume it is the same as before).
By the properties of the extremal operators \eqref{eq.Pucci}, we have $\mathcal{M}^-(D^2 w_\varepsilon^-) = k_\varepsilon \mathcal{M}^-(D^2 \psi_-) \ge 0$ and $\mathcal{M}^+(D^2 w_\varepsilon^+) = k_\varepsilon \mathcal{M}^+(D^2 \psi_+) \le 0$ in $\Omega$.
In particular, by \eqref{eq.pucciext} (recall $F(0) = 0$),
\[
F(D^2 w_\varepsilon^-)\ge 0\qquad \textrm{and} \qquad F(D^2 w_\varepsilon^+)\le 0\qquad\textrm{in}\quad\Omega,
\]
and $w_\varepsilon^-\in \mathcal{A}$.
Notice that, by continuity of $\psi_-$, for each $\varepsilon > 0$ there exists some $\delta > 0$ such that $w_\varepsilon^- \ge g(x_\circ) - 2\varepsilon$ in $B_\delta(x_\circ)\cap \Omega$.
This yields, $u^*\ge w_\varepsilon^- \ge g(x_\circ) - 2\varepsilon$ in $B_\delta(x_\circ)\cap \Omega$, so that if $x_k \to x_\circ$, then \[\liminf_{k\to \infty} u(x_k) \ge g(x_\circ)-2\varepsilon.\]
On the other hand, by the comparison principle, all elements in $\mathcal{A}$ are below $w_\varepsilon^+$ for any $\varepsilon > 0$.
Again, by continuity of $\psi_+$, for each $\varepsilon > 0$ there exists some $\delta > 0$ such that $w_\varepsilon^+ \le g(x_\circ) + 2 \varepsilon$ in $B_\delta(x_\circ)\cap \Omega$.
This yields, $u^*\le w_\varepsilon^+ \le g(x_\circ) + 2\varepsilon$ in $B_\delta(x_\circ)\cap \Omega$, so that if $x_k \to x_\circ$, then \[\limsup_{k\to \infty} u(x_k) \le g(x_\circ)+2\varepsilon.\]
Since $\varepsilon>0$ is arbitrary, we have that if $x_k \to x_\circ$, then
\[
\lim_{k\to \infty} u^*(x_k) = g(x_\circ).
\]
Therefore, $u^* = g$ on $\partial\Omega$ and $u$ is continuous on $\partial\Omega$. In particular, we have $u^*\in\mathcal A$ and (since $u^*\geq u$) $u^*\equiv u$.
This means that $u\in {\rm USC}(\overline\Omega)$ and $F(D^2 u)\geq0$ in $\Omega$.
\noindent {\it \underline{\smash{Step 2}}.}
Now, we show that $u$ is a supersolution as well.
To do so, we consider its lower semi-continuous envelope $u_*$, \eqref{eq.lscenv}, and prove that $F(D^2 u_*)\leq 0$ in $\Omega$.
We start by noticing that, since $u$ is continuous on the boundary (by Step 1), then $u_* = g$ on $\partial\Omega$.
Assume by contradiction that $u_*$ is not a supersolution, that is, there exists some $x_\circ \in \Omega$ such that for some $\phi\in C^2$ we have $\phi(x_\circ) = u_*(x_\circ)$, $\phi \le u_*$, but $F(D^2\phi(x_\circ)) > 0$.
By taking $\bar \phi = \phi - |x-x_\circ|^4$ if necessary, we may assume that $\phi < u_*$ if $x\neq x_\circ$, and we still have $F(D^2 \phi(x_\circ)) > 0$.
Notice that, by continuity of $F$ and $D^2\phi$, we have $F(D^2 \phi) > 0$ in $B_\rho(x_\circ)$ for some small $\rho > 0$.
On the other hand, consider $\phi + \delta$ for $\delta > 0$, and define $u_\delta := \max\{u, \phi+\delta\}$.
Since $\phi(x) < u_*(x) \le u(x) $ for $x\neq x_\circ$, we have for $\delta > 0$ small enough that $\phi_\delta < u$ outside $B_\rho(x_\circ)$.
Now, notice that $u_\delta$ is a subsolution, since it coincides with $u$ outside $B_\rho(x_\circ)$ and it is the maximum of two subsolutions in $B_\rho(x_\circ)$.
This means that $u_\delta\in \mathcal A$, and thus $u_\delta \leq u$.
However, this means that $\phi+\delta\leq u$ everywhere in $\Omega$, and thus $\phi+\delta\leq u_*$, a contradiction.
Thus, $u_*$ had to be a supersolution.
But then, again by the comparison principle, since $u$ is a subsolution and $u = u_* = g$ on $\partial \Omega$, we get that $u_*\ge u$ in $\Omega$, which means that $u = u_*$.
Therefore, $u$ is continuous, both a subsolution and a supersolution, and $u = g$ on~$\partial\Omega$.
This concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
As a consequence, we find the following.
\begin{cor}
\label{cor.fig10}\index{Dirichlet problem!Fully nonlinear equations}
Let $\Omega$ be any bounded $C^2$ domain, and $F:\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\to \mathbb{R}$ be uniformly elliptic. Then, for any continuous $g\in C(\partial\Omega)$, the Dirichlet problem
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
F(D^2 u) & = & 0 & \textrm{in }\Omega\\
u & = & g & \textrm{on }\partial\Omega,
\end{array}
\right.
\]
has a unique viscosity solution.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
The result follows from the previous theorem, we just need to check that any $C^2$ domain fulfils \eqref{eq.Pprop}.
To do so, we need to construct an appropriate barrier at every boundary point $z\in \partial\Omega$.
Notice, that in the very simple case that $\Omega$ is strictly convex, such barrier $\psi_+$ can simply be a hyperplane with zero level set tangent to $\Omega$ at a given boundary point, such that it is positive in $\Omega$.
In general, since $\Omega$ is a bounded $C^2$ domain, it satisfies the exterior ball condition for some uniform radius $\rho > 0$: that is, for each point $x_\circ\in \partial\Omega$ there exist some point $z_{x_\circ} = z(x_\circ)\in \Omega^c$ and a ball $B_\rho(z_{x_\circ})$ such that $B_\rho(z_{x_\circ}) \subset \Omega^c$ and $B_\rho(z_{x_\circ}) \cap \partial\Omega = \{x_\circ\}$. See Figure~\ref{fig.10}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 1.3]{./Figures/fig10_2.pdf}
\caption{Representation of the construction from the proof of Corollary~\ref{cor.fig10}.}
\label{fig.10}
\end{figure}
Let us construct the barrier $\psi_+$ from \eqref{eq.Pprop} for $C^2$ domains. We consider the function $\psi$ in $\mathbb{R}^n\setminus B_\rho$, for $\rho > 0$ given by the exterior ball condition,
\[
\psi(x)= e^{-\alpha\rho^2}-e^{-\alpha|x|^2},
\]
for some $\alpha > 0$ also to be chosen.
Notice that
\begin{align*}
e^{\alpha|x|^2} D^2\psi(x) & = -4\alpha^2 \left(\begin{matrix}
x_1^2 & x_1 x_2 & \dots & x_1 x_n \\
x_2x_1 & x_2^2 & \dots & x_2x_n \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
x_{n}x_1 &\dots & \dots & x_{n}^2
\end{matrix}\right) + 2\alpha{\rm Id}\\
& = 2\alpha{\rm Id}-4\alpha^2 xx^T.
\end{align*}
Then, for $|x|\geq\rho$ we have
\[\begin{split}
e^{\alpha|x|^2}\mathcal{M}^+(D^2\psi) & \leq 2\alpha\mathcal{M}^+({\rm Id}) - 4\alpha^2\mathcal{M}^-(xx^T)
= 2\alpha n\Lambda - 4\alpha^2\lambda|x|^2 \\
&\leq 2\alpha (n\Lambda - 2\alpha\lambda \rho^2).
\end{split}\]
In particular, if we choose $\alpha \ge \frac{n\Lambda}{2\lambda\rho^2}$, we have
\[
\mathcal{M}^+(D^2\psi) \le 0\quad \textrm{in}\quad B_\rho^c.
\]
Therefore, translations of $\psi$ are good candidates for the function $\psi_+$ from \eqref{eq.Pprop}.
Let now $x_\circ\in \partial\Omega$ be any point on the boundary, and take $\psi_+(x) := \psi(x-z_{x_\circ})$. It is clear that $\psi_+(x_\circ) = 0$, and that $\psi_+(x) > 0$ for any $x\in \overline{\Omega}\setminus \{x_\circ\}$. On the other hand, from the discussion above we know that $\mathcal{M}^+(D^2\psi_+) \le 0$. Thus, $\Omega$ fulfills \eqref{eq.Pprop}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}[Lipschitz domains]
It is actually possible to show that \eqref{eq.Pprop} holds for any bounded Lipschitz domain, too.
In particular, this yields the existence of viscosity solutions in such class of domains.
\end{rem}
Finally, we also have the following:
\begin{prop}[Stability of viscosity solutions]\index{Stability of viscosity solutions}
\label{prop.stability_viscosity}
Let $F_k$ be a sequence of uniformly elliptic operators (with ellipticity constants $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$), and let $u_k\in C(\Omega)$ be such that $F_k(D^2 u_k) = 0$ in $\Omega$ in the viscosity sense.
Assume that $F_k$ converges to $F$ uniformly in compact sets, and $u_k \to u$ uniformly in compact sets of $\Omega$. Then, $F(D^2 u) = 0$ in $\Omega$ in the viscosity sense.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The proof uses the same ideas as the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem.limsuplim}.
Let $x_\circ\in \Omega$ and $\phi\in C^2$ be such that $\phi(x_\circ) = u(x_\circ)$ and $\phi\le u$ in $\Omega$. By taking $\bar\phi(x) = \phi(x) + |x-x_\circ|^4$ we have that $u - \bar\phi$ attains a strict local maximum at $x_\circ$.
Let now $v_k := u_k - \bar\phi$. Up to a subsequence, by Step 1 in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem.limsuplim}, there exists a sequence $x_k\to x_\circ$ such that $u_k - \bar\phi$ attains a local maximum at $x_k$, and from the uniform convergence of $u_k$ to $u$, we also have $u_k(x_k) \to u(x_\circ)$. Since $u_k$ are, in particular, subsolutions in the viscosity sense for the operator $F_k$, we have that $F_k(D^2\bar\phi(x_k)) \ge 0$. Now, since $x_k\to x_\circ$, and $F_k$ converges uniformly to $F$, we get that, letting $k\to \infty$, $F(D^2\bar\phi(x_\circ)) = F(D^2\phi(x_\circ)) \ge 0$.
In particular, $u$ is a viscosity subsolution for $F$. Doing the same for $-u$, we reach that $u$ is a viscosity solution.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
We have seen that for fully nonlinear equations $F(D^2 u)=0$ we have existence, uniqueness, and stability of viscosity solutions. The same can be done for more general equations like $F(D^2 u, x)=f(x)$, with continuous coefficients in $x$, see \cite{CC}.
However, when we want to study linear equations in non-divergence form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.linearbmc}
\sum a_{ij}(x)\partial_{ij} u(x)=0
\end{equation}
with bounded measurable coefficients, it turns out that viscosity solutions do not behave so well; see the counterexample in \cite{Nad97} (see also \cite{CCKS96}). This is the reason why, instead of defining viscosity solutions for a specific equation of the type \eqref{eq.linearbmc}, what we do is to say that $u$ solves an equation with bounded measurable coefficients (in non-divergence form) whenever it satisfies
\[
\mathcal{M}^-(D^2 u) \le 0 \le \mathcal{M}^+(D^2 u)
\]
in viscosity sense, where $\mathcal{M}^\pm$ are the Pucci extremal operators (recall Definition~\ref{def.pucci}). As explained in Remark~\ref{rem.eqnondivbmc}, for $C^2$ functions $u$ these two inequalities are equivalent to saying that $u$ solves \eqref{eq.linearbmc} for \emph{some} coefficients $a_{ij}(x)$.
\end{rem}
\underline{\smash{Summarizing}}: For viscosity solutions we now have all we need in order to study regularity issues:
\begin{itemize}
\item[--] Existence of solutions.
\item[--] Comparison principle.
\item[--] Stability under uniform limits.
\end{itemize}
\section{Regularity of solutions: an overview}
In the last section we saw that for any (smooth) domain $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ and any (continuous) boundary data $g$, one can find a unique viscosity solution $u\in C(\overline{\Omega})$ to the Dirichlet problem
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
F(D^2 u) & = & 0 & \textrm{in }~\Omega\\
u & = & g & \textrm{on }~\partial\Omega.
\end{array}
\right.
\]
Now, the main question is that of regularity:
\[
\begin{array}{l}
\textrm{If $u\in C({B_1})$ solves $F(D^2 u) = 0$ in $B_1$,}\\
\textrm{what can we say about the regularity of $u$?}
\end{array}
\]
Is the following implication true?
\begin{equation}\label{question-fully}
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\textrm{$F\in C^\infty$ and}\\
\textrm{uniformly elliptic}\\
\& \\
\textrm{$F(D^2u) = 0$ in $B_1$}
\end{array}
\right.
\quad
\xRightarrow[]{\quad\textrm{\Large ?}\quad}
\quad u \in C^\infty(B_{1/2}).
\end{equation}
This is in some sense a question analogous to Hilbert's XIXth problem.
\subsection*{Regularity for fully nonlinear equations: first results}
Assume that $u$ has some initial regularity, and that $F$ is $C^\infty$ and uniformly elliptic.
Then,
\[
F(D^2 u ) = 0 \quad \xrightarrow[\textrm{$\partial_e$}]{} \quad \sum_{i,j = 1}^n F_{ij}(D^2 u) \partial_{ij}(\partial_e u) = 0,
\]
where
\[
F_{ij} := \frac{\partial F}{\partial M_{ij}}
\]
is the derivative of $F(M)$ with respect to $M_{ij}$. Therefore, if we denote
\[
a_{ij} (x) := F_{ij}(D^2 u(x)),
\]
we will then have
\[
\textrm{$a_{ij}(x)$ is uniformly elliptic,}\quad 0<\lambda{\rm Id}\le (a_{ij}(x))_{i,j} \le\Lambda{\rm Id},
\]
thanks to the uniform ellipticity of $F$.
Denoting
\[
v = \partial_e u,
\]
we have
\[
F(D^2 u ) = 0 \quad\Longrightarrow \quad v = \partial_e u \quad\textrm{solves} \quad\sum_{i,j = 1}^n a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij}(\partial_e u) = 0,
\]
where $a_{ij}(x) = F_{ij}(D^2 u(x))$.
Now, if $u \in C^2$ (or $C^{2, \alpha}$), then the coefficients $a_{ij}(x)$ are continuous (or $C^{0,\alpha}$), and therefore we get, by Schauder-type estimates,
\[
u\in C^{2}\Rightarrow a_{ij}\in C^0 \Rightarrow v \in C^{1,\alpha}\Rightarrow u \in C^{2,\alpha}\Rightarrow \dots\Rightarrow u\in C^\infty,
\]
where we use the bootstrap argument
\[
u\in C^{2,\alpha}\Rightarrow a_{ij} \in C^{0,\alpha}\Rightarrow u \in C^{3,\alpha}\Rightarrow a_{ij}\in C^{1, \alpha}\Rightarrow \dots\Rightarrow u\in C^\infty.
\]
In other words, this suggests that the following result.
\begin{prop}
Let $F$ be uniformly elliptic and $C^\infty$.
Let $u$ be any solution of $F(D^2 u) = 0$ in $B_1$, and assume that $u\in C^2$.
Then, $u\in C^\infty$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The idea is the one presented in the lines above, but we can only use that $u\in C^2$ (in the previous argumentation, we used that $u$ is $C^3$).
To do so, we make use of incremental quotients, as in Theorem~\ref{thm.C1aimpCinf}.
Let $u\in C^2(B_1)$, and let $h\in \mathbb{R}^n$ with $|h|$ small.
Notice that $F$ is translation invariant, so
\[
F(D^2 u(x) ) = 0,\quad F(D^2 u(x+h) ) = 0 \quad\textrm{in}\quad B_{1-|h|}.
\]
Then,
\[
0 = F(D^2 u(x+h) ) - F(D^2 u(x)) = \sum_{i,j = 1}^n a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} \big(u(x+h)-u(x)\big) ,
\]
where
\[
a_{ij}(x) = \int_0^1 F_{ij}\big(t D^2 u(x+h) + (1-t) D^2 u(x)\big)\, dt
\]
(cf. the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.C1aimpCinf} or Theorem~\ref{thm.2D}). This is just the fundamental theorem of calculus.
In particular, since $F$ is uniformly elliptic, $(a_{ij})_{i,j}$ is uniformly elliptic (with the same ellipticity constants). Since $u\in C^2$ and $F$ is smooth, $a_{ij}$ are continuous. That is, $\frac{u(\cdot+h)-u}{|h|}$ solves the equation in non-divergence form
\[
\sum_{i,j= 1}^n a_{ij}(x)\partial_{ij}\left(\frac{u(x+h)-u(x)}{|h|}\right) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_{1-|h|},
\]
for some continuous and uniformly elliptic coefficients $a_{ij}$.
By the a priori estimates for equations with continuous coefficients (Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates_cont}), we know that for any $\alpha\in(0,1)$ we have
\[
\left\|\frac{u(\cdot+h)-u}{|h|}\right\|_{C^{1, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C \left\|\frac{u(\cdot+h)-u}{|h|}\right\|_{L^\infty(B_{3/4})}\le C\|u\|_{C^{0,1}(B_{3/4})},
\]
for some constant $C$ that is independent of $h$.
By \ref{it.H7}, \eqref{eq.H7}, from Chapter~\ref{ch.0}, we reach that $u\in C^{2, \alpha}(B_{1/2})$, and by a covering argument $u\in C^{2, \alpha}$ inside $B_1$.
Now, we proceed iteratively.
Since $u\in C^{2, \alpha}$ inside $B_1$, we have that $\frac{u(\cdot+h)-u}{|h|}\in C^{2, \alpha}$ inside $B_{1-|h|}$ for all $h$. Together with $F$ being smooth, this implies that $a_{ij}\in C^{0,\alpha}$ inside $B_{1-|h|}$.
That is, now $\frac{u(\cdot+h)-u}{|h|}$ solves a non-divergence-form equation with H\"older continuous coefficients, and from Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates} we get uniform bounds in the $C^{2,\alpha}$ norm for $\frac{u(\cdot+h)-u}{|h|}$, thus yielding that $u\in C^{3, \alpha}$ inside $B_1$.
We can repeat this argument iteratively, using the higher order estimates from Corollary~\ref{cor.Schauder_estimates_HO}, to reach the desired result.
\end{proof}
This is similar to what happened in Hilbert's XIXth problem: in that case we proved $C^1\Rightarrow C^\infty$.
Notice, however, that for fully nonlinear equations, the ``gap to be filled'' (from $C^0$ to $C^2$) is ``bigger'' than in Hilbert's XIXth problem (from $H^1$ to $C^1$).
Now, the central question to be answered is:
\[
\textrm{Is it true that solutions are always $C^2$?}
\]
In particular, we wonder whether viscosity solutions are always classical solutions or not, and thus, whether the Dirichlet problem always admits a classical solution.
\subsection*{Regularity for fully nonlinear equations}
An important observation in the previous argument was the following:
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\textrm{$u$ solves}\\
F(D^2 u) = 0
\end{array}
\right.
\quad
\Longrightarrow
\quad
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
v = \partial_e u \textrm{ solves }\sum_{i,j= 1}^n a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} v = 0,\\
\textrm{with } a_{ij}(x) = F_{ij}(D^2 u(x) ).
\end{array}
\right.
\]
This means that, at least formally, the derivatives of any solution to any fully nonlinear equation solve an equation with bounded measurable coefficients.
This can be argued properly by looking at incremental quotients:
Recall from \eqref{eq.pucciext0} the equivalence
\[
\begin{array}{c}
F \textrm{ is uniformly elliptic} \\[0.2cm]
\big\Updownarrow\\[0.2cm]
\mathcal{M}^-(D^2(u-v)) \le F(D^2 u) - F(D^2 v) \le \mathcal{M}^+(D^2(u-v)),
\end{array}
\]
where $\mathcal{M}^\pm$ are the Pucci operators. Thus,
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{M}^-\big(D^2(u(x+h)-u(x))\big) & \le F(D^2 u(x+h)) - F(D^2 u(x)) \leq \\& \qquad\qquad \le \mathcal{M}^+\big(D^2(u(x+h)-u(x))\big) .
\end{align*}
Using $F(D^2 u) = 0$ and denoting
\[
v_h(x) = \frac{u(x+h)-u(x)}{|h|},
\]
we then reach
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
\mathcal{M}^+(D^2 v_h) & \ge & 0\\
\mathcal{M}^-(D^2 v_h) & \le & 0
\end{array}
\right.
\quad
\quad
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\textrm{equation with bounded}\\
\textrm{measurable coefficients}
\end{array}
\right).
\]
The question is now: in case of divergence-form equations we proved
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\textrm{equation with bounded}\\
\textrm{meas. coeff. }{\rm div}(A(x) \nabla v) = 0
\end{array}
\right.
~\Longrightarrow
~
v \in C^{0,\alpha}\quad\textrm{(De Giorgi-Nash)}.
\]
Is there a similar result for equations in non-divergence form? The answer is \textsc{Yes}.
\begin{thm}[Krylov--Safonov, 1979]\index{Krylov--Safonov Theorem} \label{thm-kry-saf-bdd}
Let $0<\lambda\le \Lambda$ be the ellipticity constants, and $v\in C(B_1)$ be any solution to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.forc2funct}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
\mathcal{M}^+(D^2 v) & \ge & 0\quad \textrm{in }~~ B_1\\
\mathcal{M}^-(D^2 v) & \le & 0\quad \textrm{in }~~ B_1,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
in the viscosity sense. Then,
\[
\|v\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le C\|v\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}
\]
for some small $\alpha > 0$ and $C$ depending only on $n$, $\lambda$, and $\Lambda$.
\end{thm}
This result was proved in \cite{KS-KS} (for classical solutions); see also \cite{M19} for a more recent and simplified proof, and \cite{DS-quasi} for an extension of the result.
Recall that (see the end of Section~\ref{sec.ellipt}), for $C^2$ functions, \eqref{eq.forc2funct} is actually equivalent to $v$ solving an equation of the type $\sum_{i,j} a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij}v$ for some uniformly elliptic coefficients. This is why \eqref{eq.forc2funct} is called an {\em equation in non-divergence form with bounded measurable coefficients}.
As a consequence of this result, we find the following.
We assume for simplicity $F(0) = 0$, otherwise see Remark~\ref{rem.f00}.
\begin{thm}[Krylov--Safonov, 1979]\index{Krylov--Safonov Theorem} \label{thm-kry-saf-fully}
Let $F$ be uniformly elliptic, $F(0) = 0$, and $u\in C(B_1)$ be any viscosity solution to
\[
F(D^2 u) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1.
\]
Then,
\[
\|u\|_{C^{1, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}
\]
for some small $\alpha > 0$ and $C$ depending only on $n$, $\lambda$, and $\Lambda$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition \ref{prop.star} (with $v\equiv0$), the function $u\in C(B_1)$ solves itself an equation with bounded measurable coefficients
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
\mathcal{M}^+(D^2 u) & \ge & 0\quad \textrm{in }~~ B_1\\
\mathcal{M}^-(D^2 u) & \le & 0 \quad \textrm{in }~~ B_1.
\end{array}
\right.
\]
Therefore, by Theorem \ref{thm-kry-saf-bdd}, $u\in C^{0,\alpha}$ inside $B_1$.
Now, for $\beta\in(0,1]$ take
\[
v_h(x) := \frac{u(x+h)-u(x)}{|h|^\beta},
\]
which (again by Proposition \ref{prop.star}) also solves an equation with bounded measurable coefficients,
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
\mathcal{M}^+(D^2 v_h) & \ge & 0\quad \textrm{in }~~ B_{1-|h|}\\
\mathcal{M}^-(D^2 v_h) & \le & 0 \quad \textrm{in }~~ B_{1-|h|}.
\end{array}
\right.
\]
Then, again by Theorem \ref{thm-kry-saf-bdd}, we have
\[
\|v_h\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le C\|v_h\|_{L^\infty(B_{1-|h|})}\leq C\|u\|_{C^\beta(B_1)}.
\]
By \ref{it.H7}, we deduce that
\[
\|u\|_{C^{\alpha+\beta}(B_{1/2})}\le C\|u\|_{C^\beta(B_1)},
\]
provided that $\alpha+\beta$ is not an integer and $\beta\leq 1$.
Using this estimate with $\beta=\alpha,2\alpha, ...,k\alpha$, one gets $C^{1,\alpha}$ regularity in a finite number of steps.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem} Observe that:
$\bullet~~$The $C^{0,\alpha}$ estimate for bounded measurable coefficients, Theorem \ref{thm-kry-saf-bdd}, is the best one can get in dimensions $n \ge 3$; see \cite{Saf}.
$\bullet~~$In a sense, Theorem \ref{thm-kry-saf-bdd} is the analogue of the result of De Giorgi--Nash for divergence-form equations.
However, it is not enough to get $C^2$ regularity for solutions to fully nonlinear equations.
\end{rem}
\noindent \underline{\smash{Summary}}: We have $F(D^2 u) =0\Rightarrow u \in C^{1,\alpha}$ (for some small $\alpha >0$). Moreover, $u\in C^2\Rightarrow u \in C^\infty$.
However, we have no idea (yet) if
\[u\in C^{1,\alpha}\quad \xRightarrow[]{?} \quad u \in C^2.\]
In the two-dimensional case, as we have seen in Theorem~\ref{thm.2D} (as an a priori estimate), it turns out that one can do something better, and \emph{all} solutions are $C^{2, \alpha}$.
This is because, in $\mathbb{R}^2$, solutions to equations with bounded measurable coefficients are not only $C^{0, \alpha}$, but $C^{1,\alpha}$.
As a consequence, we have the following.
\begin{thm}\index{Equations in two variables (fully nonlinear)}
Let $F:\mathbb{R}^{2\times 2}\to \mathbb{R}$ be uniformly elliptic and smooth.
Let $u\in C(B_1)$ be any viscosity solution to
\[
F(D^2 u) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1\subset \mathbb{R}^2.
\]
Then $u \in C^\infty$.
\end{thm}
This completely answers question \eqref{question-fully} in two dimensions.
In higher dimensions, a famous result established (independently) by Evans \cite{Evans-EK} and Krylov \cite{Krylov} gives the following.
\begin{thm}[Evans--Krylov, 1982]\index{Evans--Krylov Theorem}
\label{thm.EK83}
Let $F$ be any {\bf convex} (or concave) uniformly elliptic operator, with $F(0) = 0$. Let $u\in C(B_1)$ be any viscosity solution to
\[
F(D^2 u ) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1.
\]
Then,
\[
\|u\|_{C^{2,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le C\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)},
\]
for some $\alpha > 0$ and $C$ depending only on $n$, $\lambda$, and $\Lambda$. In particular, if $F$ is smooth then $u\in C^\infty$.
\end{thm}
We refer to \cite{CS-EK} for a shorter proof of such result.
\vspace{1mm}
Thus, for any solution to \eqref{eq.fully2}, with $F$ uniformly elliptic and smooth, we have:
\begin{itemize}
\item If $u\in C^2$, then $u\in C^\infty$.
\item $u\in C^{1,\alpha}$ always (Krylov--Safonov, 1979).
\item In two dimensions, $u \in C^\infty$ (Nirenberg, 1952).
\item If $F$ is convex, then $u\in C^\infty$ (Evans--Krylov, 1982)
\end{itemize}
\noindent \underline{\smash{Question}}: What happens in general?
For decades it was an open problem to decide whether all solutions are $C^2$ or not.
The question was finally answered by Nadirashvili and Vladuts in the 2000s \cite{NV1,NV2,NV3}:
\begin{thm}[Nadirashvili--Vladuts, 2007-2013]\index{Nadirashvili--Vladuts counterexamples}
There are solutions to \eqref{eq.fully2} that are not $C^2$.
These counterexamples exist in dimensions $n \ge 5$.
Moreover, for every $\tau > 0$, there exists a dimension $n$ and ellipticity constants $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$, such that there are solutions $u$ to $F(D^2 u ) = 0$ with $u\notin C^{1,\tau}$.
\end{thm}
We refer to the monograph \cite{NTV} for more references and details.
It is {\em not} known what happens in $\mathbb{R}^3$ and $\mathbb{R}^4$.
This is one of the most remarkable open problems in elliptic PDEs.
\section{Further results and open problems}
As explained above, one of the main open questions regarding the problem
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.fur_reg_4}
F(D^2 u ) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1\subset \mathbb{R}^n
\end{equation}
is the following:
\[
\textrm{Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{eq.fur_reg_4} in $\mathbb{R}^3$ or $\mathbb{R}^4$. Is it true that $u\in C^2$?}
\]
We have seen that it is in general not true that solutions to fully nonlinear equations (in dimension $n\ge 5$) are $C^2$ under the assumption that $F$ is simply uniformly elliptic.
Convexity, on the other hand, is a strong condition under which $C^2$ regularity is achieved, which, unfortunately, does not hold in some important applications.
Even with this, it is still unclear what the optimal regularity of solutions is when $F$ is convex and uniformly elliptic (not necessarily smooth). Theorem~\ref{thm.EK83} only gives, a priori, $C^{2, \alpha}$ regularity for some small $\alpha > 0$.
These observations motivate, on the one hand, a more refined study for the regularity (and size of singularity) of solutions to general fully nonlinear elliptic equations, and on the other hand, the study of the optimal regularity under the convexity assumption.
\subsection*{Partial regularity}
Recall that the ellipticity requirement for $F$ implies that $F$ is Lipschitz.
Under the slightly more restrictive requirement that $F$ is also $C^1$, the following \emph{partial regularity} result was proved by Armstrong, Silvestre, and Smart in \cite{ASS}:
\begin{thm}[\cite{ASS}]
Let $F$ be uniformly elliptic, and assume in addition that $F\in C^1$.
Let $u\in C^0(B_1)$ be any viscosity solution to \eqref{eq.fur_reg_4}.
Then, there exist some $\varepsilon > 0$ depending only on $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, and a closed subset $\Sigma\subset \overline{B_1}$ with $\dim_{\mathcal{H}} \Sigma \le n-\varepsilon$, such that $u\in C^{2}(B_1\setminus \Sigma)$.
\end{thm}
Here, $\dim_{\mathcal{H}}$ denotes the Hausdorff dimension of a set; see \cite{Mat}.
Notice that if $\dim_{\mathcal{H}} \Sigma \le n-\varepsilon$ then in particular $\Sigma$ has zero measure.
This result is the best known partial regularity result for solutions of (non-convex) fully nonlinear equations in dimensions $n\ge 3$.
Notice that the size of the singular set is not known to be optimal (it could be much smaller!).
Moreover, it is an important open problem to decide whether the same statement holds without the regularity assumption $F\in C^1$.
\subsection*{Optimal regularity when $F$ is convex}
When $F$ is convex and uniformly elliptic, solutions to \eqref{eq.fur_reg_4}
are known to be $C^{2,\alpha}$ for some small $\alpha > 0$. If $F\in C^\infty$, a bootstrap argument then yields higher regularity for $u$, but the higher regularity of $F$ is needed. What happens if we just require $F$ to be convex and uniformly elliptic?
Since $F$ is convex, the expression \eqref{eq.fur_reg_4} can be reformulated as a supremum of linear uniformly elliptic operators as
\[
\sup_{a\in \mathcal{A}} L_a u = 0 \quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1\subset \mathbb{R}^n,
\]
also known as Bellman equation (see \eqref{eq.maxPDE} in the Appendix~\ref{app.B}), where each of the operators $L_a$ is a linear uniformly elliptic operator.
The question that remains open here is:
\[
\textrm{What is the optimal regularity of solutions to Bellman equations?}
\]
In the simpler model of just two different operators, the previous equation is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.maxtwo}
\max\{L_1 u, L_2 u\} = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1\subset \mathbb{R}^n.
\end{equation}
The best known result in this direction was proved by Caffarelli, De Silva, and Savin in 2018, and establishes the optimal regularity of solutions to \eqref{eq.maxtwo} in two dimensions:
\begin{thm}[\cite{CDS}]
Let $u$ be any viscosity solution to \eqref{eq.maxtwo} in $B_1\subset \mathbb{R}^2$. Then
\[
\|u\|_{C^{2,1}(B_{1/2})}\le C \|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)},
\]
for some constant $C$ depending only on $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$.
\end{thm}
The approach used in \cite{CDS} to show this result does not work in higher dimensions $n \ge 3$, and thus the following question remains open:
\[
\textrm{Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{eq.maxtwo}, with $n \ge 3$. Is is true that $u\in C^{2,1}$?}
\]
\endinput
\chapter{The obstacle problem}
\label{ch.4}
In this last chapter we focus our attention on a third type of nonlinear elliptic PDE: a \emph{free boundary problem}.
In this kind of problems we are no longer only interested in the regularity of a solution $u$, but also in the study of an a priori unknown interphase $\Gamma$ (the free boundary).
As explained later, there is a wide variety of problems in physics, industry, biology, finance, and other areas which can be described by PDEs that exhibit {free boundaries}.
Many of such problems can be written as variational inequalities, for which the solution is obtained by minimizing a constrained energy functional.
And one of the most important and canonical examples is the \emph{obstacle problem}.\footnote{Other examples of important free boundary problems include the one-phase or Bernoulli problem, the thin or fractional obstacle problem, etc. We refer the interested reader to \cite{CS, PSU, Vel19, Fer21} and the references therein.}
Given a smooth function $\varphi$, the obstacle problem is the following:\index{Obstacle problem}
\begin{equation}\label{ch4-min}
\textrm{minimize}\qquad \frac12\int_\Omega|\nabla v|^2dx\qquad\textrm{among all functions}\ v\geq\varphi.
\end{equation}
Here, the minimization is subject to boundary conditions $v|_{\partial\Omega}=g$.
The interpretation of such problem is clear: One looks for the least ener\-gy function $v$, but the set of admissible functions consists only of functions that are above a certain ``obstacle'' $\varphi$.
In the two-dimensional case, one can think of the solution $v$ as a ``membrane'' which is elastic and is constrained to be above $\varphi$ (see Figure~\ref{fig.13}).
The Euler--Lagrange equation of the minimization problem is the following:\index{Euler--Lagrange for obstacle problem}
\begin{equation}\label{ch4-obst-pb}
\left\{\begin{array}{rcll}
v&\geq&\varphi & \textrm{in}\ \Omega \\
\Delta v&\leq&0 & \textrm{in}\ \Omega\\
\Delta v&=&0 & \textrm{in the set}\ \{v>\varphi\},
\end{array}\right.\end{equation}
together with the boundary conditions $v|_{\partial\Omega}=g$.
Indeed, notice that if we denote $\mathcal E(v)=\frac12\int_\Omega|\nabla v|^2dx$, then we will have
\[
\mathcal E(v+\varepsilon \eta)\geq \mathcal E(v)\quad\textrm{for every}\ {\varepsilon\geq0}\ \textrm{and}\ {\eta\geq0},\ \eta\in C^\infty_c(\Omega),\]
which yields $\Delta v\leq 0$ in $\Omega$.
That is, we can perturb $v$ with \emph{nonnegative} functions $(\varepsilon \eta)$ and we always get admissible functions $(v+\varepsilon \eta)$.
However, due to the constraint $v\geq\varphi$, we cannot perturb $v$ with negative functions in all of $\Omega$, but only in the set $\{v>\varphi\}$.
This is why we get $\Delta v\leq0$ \emph{everywhere} in $\Omega$,
but $\Delta v=0$ \emph{only} in $\{v>\varphi\}$.
(We will show later that any minimizer $v$ of \eqref{ch4-min} is continuous, so that $\{v>\varphi\}$ is open.)
Alternatively, we may consider $u:=v-\varphi$, and the problem is equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{ch4-obst-pb2}
\left\{\begin{array}{rcll}
u&\geq&0 & \textrm{in}\ \Omega \\
\Delta u&\leq&f & \textrm{in}\ \Omega\\
\Delta u&=&f & \textrm{in the set}\ \{u>0\},
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
where $f:=-\Delta \varphi$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 1]{./Figures/fig13.pdf}
\caption{The function $v$ minimizes the Dirichlet energy among all functions with the same boundary values situated above the obstacle.}
\label{fig.13}
\end{figure}
Such solution $u$ can be obtained as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{ch4-min2}
\qquad\textrm{minimize}
\quad \int_\Omega\left\{\frac12|\nabla u|^2+fu\right\}dx
\quad \textrm{among all functions}\ u\geq0.
\end{equation}
In other words, we can make the \emph{obstacle} just \emph{zero}, by adding a \emph{right-hand side} $f$.
Here, the minimization is subject to the boundary conditions $u|_{\partial\Omega}=\tilde g$, with $\tilde g:=g-\varphi$.
\subsection*{On the Euler--Lagrange equations}
As said above, the Euler--Lagrange equations of the minimization problem \eqref{ch4-min} are:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $v\geq\varphi$\, in $\Omega$ \ ($v$ is \emph{above} the \emph{obstacle}).
\item[(ii)] $\Delta v\leq 0$\, in $\Omega$ \ ($v$ is a \emph{supersolution}).
\item[(iii)] $\Delta v=0$\, in $\{v>\varphi\}$ \ ($v$ is \emph{harmonic} where it \emph{does not touch} the obstacle).
\end{itemize}
These are inequalities, rather than a single PDE.
Alternatively, one can write also the Euler--Lagrange equations in the following way:
\[
\min\{-\Delta v,\,v-\varphi\}=0\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega.
\]
(Notice that this resembles a fully nonlinear equation $\min\{L_1u,\,L_2u\}=0$, but in the present situation one of the two operators is of order zero.)
Of course, the same can be done for the equivalent problem \eqref{ch4-obst-pb2}.
In that case, moreover, the minimization problem \eqref{ch4-min2} is equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{ch4-min2B}
\textrm{minimize}\qquad \int_\Omega\left\{\frac12|\nabla u|^2+fu^+\right\}dx,
\end{equation}
where $u^+=\max\{u,0\}$.
In this way, we can see the problem not as a constrained minimization but as a minimization problem with a \emph{non-smooth} term $u^+$ in the functional.
The Euler--Lagrange equation for this functional is then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.ELOP}
\Delta u=f\chi_{\{u>0\}}\quad \textrm{in}\quad \Omega.
\end{equation}
(Here, $\chi_A$ denotes the characteristic function of a set $A\subset\mathbb{R}^n$.) We will show this in detail later.
\subsection*{The free boundary}
Let us take a closer look at the obstacle problem~\eqref{ch4-obst-pb2}.
One of the most important features of such problem is that it has \emph{two} unknowns: the \emph{solution} $u$, and the \emph{contact set} $\{u=0\}$. In other words, there are two regions in $\Omega$: one in which $u=0$; and one in which $\Delta u=f$.
These regions are characterized by the minimization problem \eqref{ch4-min2}.
Moreover, if we denote \index{Free boundary}
\[\Gamma:=\partial\{u>0\}\cap \Omega,\]
then this is called the \emph{free boundary}, see Figure~\ref{fig.14}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.9]{./Figures/fig14.pdf}
\caption{The free boundary could, a priori, be very irregular.}
\label{fig.14}
\end{figure}
The obstacle problem is a \emph{free boundary problem}, as it involves an \emph{unknown interface} $\Gamma$ as part of the problem.
Moreover, it is not difficult to see that the fact that $u$ is a nonnegative supersolution must imply $\nabla u=0$ on $\Gamma$, that is, we will have that $u\geq0$ solves
\[
\left\{\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta u&=&f & \textrm{in}\ \{u>0\}\\
u&=&0 & \textrm{on}\ \Gamma\\
\nabla u&=&0 & \textrm{on}\ \Gamma.
\end{array}\right.
\]
This is an alternative way to write the Euler--Lagrange equation of the problem.
In this way, the interface $\Gamma$ appears clearly, and we see that we have \emph{both} Dirichlet \emph{and} Neumann conditions on $\Gamma$.
This would usually be an over-determined problem (too many boundary conditions on $\Gamma$), but since $\Gamma$ is also free, it turns out that the problem has a unique solution (where $\Gamma$ is part of the solution, of course).
\section{Some motivations and applications}
\label{sec.appl}
Let us briefly comment on some of the main motivations and applications in the study of the obstacle problem, which are further developed in Appendix~\ref{app.C} (see also Appendix~\ref{app.B}).
We refer to the books \cite{DL,KS, Rod87,Fri,PSU}, for more details and further applications of obstacle-type problems.
\subsection*{Fluid filtration}
The so-called Dam problem aims to describe the filtration of water inside a porous dam.
One considers a dam separating two reservoirs of water at different heights, made of a porous medium (permeable to water).
Then there is some transfer of water across the dam, and the interior of the dam has a wet part, where water flows, and a dry part.
In this setting, an integral of the pressure (with respect to the height of the column of water at each point) solves the obstacle problem, and the free boundary corresponds precisely to the interphase separating the wet and dry parts of the dam.
\subsection*{Phase transitions}
The Stefan problem, dating back to the 19th century, is one of the most classical and important free boundary problems.
It describes the temperature of a homogeneous medium undergoing a phase change, typically a body of ice at zero degrees submerged in water.
In this context, it turns out that the integral of the temperature $\theta(x,t)$, namely $u(x,t):=\int_0^t\theta$, solves the parabolic version of the obstacle problem,
\[\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
u_t-\Delta u &=& \chi_{\{u>0\}}&\quad \textrm{in}\quad \Omega\times (0,T)\subset \mathbb{R}^3\times \mathbb{R},\\
\partial_t u &\geq& 0,&\\
u &\geq& 0.&
\end{array}
\right.\]
The moving interphase separating the solid and liquid is exactly the free boundary $\partial\{u>0\}$.
\subsection*{Hele-Shaw flow}
This two-dimensional model, dating back to 1898, describes a fluid flow between two flat parallel plates separated by a very thin gap.
Various problems in fluid mechanics can be approximated to Hele-Shaw flows, and that is why understanding these flows is important.
A Hele-Shaw cell is an experimental device in which a viscous fluid is sandwiched in a narrow gap between two parallel plates.
In certain regions, the gap is filled with fluid while in others the gap is filled with air.
When liquid is injected inside the device through some sinks (e.g. through a small hole on the top plate) the region filled with liquid grows.
In this context, an integral of the pressure solves, for each fixed time~$t$, the obstacle problem.
In a similar way to the Dam problem, the free boundary corresponds to the interface between the fluid and the air regions.
\subsection*{Optimal stopping, finance}
In probability and finance, the obstacle problem appears when considering optimal stopping problems for stochastic processes.
Indeed, consider a random walk (Brownian motion) inside a domain $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$, and a payoff function $\varphi$ defined on the same domain.
We can stop the random walk at any moment, and we get the payoff at that position.
We want to maximize the expected payoff (by choosing appropriately the stopping strategy).
Then, it turns out that the highest expected payoff $v(x)$ starting at a given position $x$ satisfies the obstacle problem \eqref{ch4-obst-pb}, where the contact set $\{v=\varphi\}$ is the region where we should immediately stop the random walk and get the payoff, while $\{v>\varphi\}$ is the region where we should wait (see Appendix~\ref{app.B} for more details).
\subsection*{Interacting particle systems}
Large systems of interacting particles arise in physical, biological, or material sciences.
In some models, the particles attract each other when they are far, and experience a repulsive force when they are close.
In other related models in statistical mechanics, the particles (e.g. electrons) repel with a Coulomb force and one wants to understand their behavior in presence of some external field that confines them.
In this kind of models, a natural and interesting question is to determine the ``equilibrium configurations''.
For instance, in Coulomb systems the charges accumulate in some region with a well defined boundary.
Interestingly, these problems are equivalent to the obstacle problem --- namely, the electric potential $u=u(x)$ generated by the charges solves such problem --- and the contact set $\{u=0\}$ corresponds to the region in which the particles concentrate.
\subsection*{Quasi-Steady Electrochemical Shaping}
Consider a metal inside an electrolyte under the action of an electric potential, in such a way that the metal shrinks with time due to a chemical reaction.
Then, the integral (in time) of the potential satisfies, for each fixed time, the obstacle problem, whose free boundary corresponds to the shape of the metal at that moment.
\subsection*{Heat control}
Trying to automatically control the temperature of a room using only heating devices, under suitable conditions, also yields the obstacle problem (in this case, for the temperature). Here, the free boundary separates the region where the heating devices are active and where they are not.
\subsection*{Elasticity}
Finally, in elasticity theory we probably find the most visual representation of the obstacle problem.
Given a thin membrane that is affected only by tension forces (thus tries to minimize area), it \emph{approximately} satisfies the obstacle problem, where the contact region is the area where the membrane touches the obstacle.
\section{Basic properties of solutions I}
We proceed now to study the basic properties of solutions to the obstacle problem: existence of solutions, optimal regularity, and nondegeneracy.
We will first study all these properties for minimizers $v\geq\varphi$ of \eqref{ch4-min}, and then in the next section we will study independently minimizers $u\geq0$ of \eqref{ch4-min2} or \eqref{ch4-min2B}.
This is not only for completeness and clarity of presentation, but also to have both points of view.
For instance, the proof of the optimal regularity of solutions can be done in two completely different ways, one for each of the settings.
\subsection*{Existence of solutions}
Existence and uniqueness of solutions follows easily from the fact that the functional $\int_\Omega |\nabla v|^2dx$ is convex, and that we want to minimize it in the closed convex set $\{v\in H^1(\Omega): v\geq\varphi\}$.
Recall that $w|_{\partial\Omega}$ denotes the trace of $w$ on $\partial\Omega$ whenever it is defined.
\begin{prop}[Existence and uniqueness]\label{obstacle-existence}\index{Existence and uniqueness!Obstacle problem}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be any bounded Lipschitz domain, and let $g:\partial\Omega\to\mathbb{R}$ and $\varphi\in H^1(\Omega)$ be such that
\[\mathcal C=\bigl\{w\in H^1(\Omega): w\geq\varphi\ \textrm{in}\ \Omega,\ w|_{\partial\Omega}=g\bigr\}\neq \varnothing.\]
Then, there exists a unique minimizer of $\int_\Omega|\nabla v|^2dx$ among all functions $v\in H^1(\Omega)$ satisfying $v\geq\varphi$ in $\Omega$ and $v|_{\partial\Omega}=g$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The proof is quite similar to that of Theorem \ref{ch0-existence}.
Indeed, let
\[\theta_\circ :=\inf\left\{\frac12\int_\Omega |\nabla w|^2dx\,:\, w\in H^1(\Omega),\ w|_{\partial\Omega}=g,\ w\geq \varphi\ \textrm{in}\ \Omega\right\},\]
that is, the infimum value of $\mathcal E(w)=\frac12\int_\Omega |\nabla w|^2dx$ among all admissible functions~$w$.
Let us take a sequence of functions $\{v_k\}$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $v_k\in H^1(\Omega)$
\item $v_k|_{\partial\Omega}=g$ and $v_k\geq \varphi$ in $\Omega$.
\item $\mathcal E(v_k)\to \theta_\circ $ as $k\to\infty$.
\end{itemize}
By the Poincar\'e inequality (Theorem \ref{ch0-Poinc}), the sequence $\{v_k\}$ is uniformly bounded in $H^1(\Omega)$, and therefore a subsequence $\{v_{k_j}\}$ will converge to a certain function $v$ strongly in $L^2(\Omega)$ and weakly in $H^1(\Omega)$.
Moreover, by compactness of the trace operator (see \ref{it.S5} in Chapter \ref{ch.0}), we will have $v_{k_j}|_{\partial\Omega}\to v|_{\partial\Omega}$ in $L^2(\partial\Omega)$, so that $v|_{\partial\Omega}=g$.
Furthermore, such function $v$ will satisfy $\mathcal E(v)\leq \liminf_{j\to\infty}\mathcal E(v_{k_j})$ (by \eqref{ch0-weak-conv2}-\eqref{ch0-weak-conv3} from \ref{it.S4} in Chapter~\ref{ch.0}), and therefore it will be a minimizer of the energy functional.
Since $v_{k_j}\geq \varphi$ in $\Omega$ and $v_{k_j}\to v$ in $L^2(\Omega)$, we have $v\geq\varphi$ in $\Omega$.
Thus, we have proved the existence of a minimizer~$v$.
The uniqueness of the minimizer follows from the strict convexity of the functional $\mathcal E(v)$, exactly as in Theorem \ref{ch0-existence}.
\end{proof}
As in the case of harmonic functions, it is easy to show that if a function $v$ satisfies
\[\left\{\begin{array}{rcll}
v&\geq&\varphi & \textrm{in}\ \Omega \\
\Delta v&\leq&0 & \textrm{in}\ \Omega\\
\Delta v&=&0 & \textrm{in the set}\ \{v>\varphi\},
\end{array}\right.\]
then it must actually be the minimizer of the functional.
There are two alternative ways to construct the solution to the obstacle problem: as the ``least supersolution above the obstacle'', or with a ``penalized problem''.
Let us briefly describe them.
\vspace{2mm}
\noindent$\bullet$ \underline{\smash{Least supersolution}}: This is related to the existence of viscosity solutions described in Chapter \ref{ch.3}.
Indeed, we consider
\[v(x):=\inf\biggl\{w(x):w\in C(\overline\Omega),\ -\Delta w\geq0\ \textrm{in}\ \Omega,\ w\geq\varphi\ \textrm{in}\ \Omega,\ w|_{\partial\Omega}\geq g\biggr\}.\]
Here, the inequality $-\Delta w\geq0$ in $\Omega$ has to be understood in the viscosity sense.
Then, as in Perron's method (recall Chapters \ref{ch.0} and \ref{ch.3}), it turns out that $v$ is itself a continuous supersolution, it satisfies $\Delta v=0$ in $\{v>\varphi\}$, and thus it solves the obstacle problem.
Therefore,
\[\left\{\begin{array}{c} \textrm{least} \\ \textrm{supersolution}\end{array}\right\}\longleftrightarrow \left\{\begin{array}{c} \textrm{minimizer of} \\ \textrm{the functional}\end{array}\right\}.\]
\vspace{2mm}
\noindent$\bullet$ \underline{\smash{Penalized problem}}: We consider $\beta_\varepsilon:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ smooth and convex, converging to
\[\beta_0(t):=\left\{\begin{array}{lll} 0 & \textrm{if} & t\geq0 \\ \infty & \textrm{if} & t<0.\end{array}\right.\]
We may take for example $\beta_\varepsilon(t):=e^{-t/\varepsilon}$, see Figure~\ref{fig.15}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{./Figures/fig15.pdf}
\caption{The function $\beta_\varepsilon \to \beta_0$ as $\varepsilon \downarrow 0$.}
\label{fig.15}
\end{figure}
Then, we minimize the functional
\[J_\varepsilon(v):=\frac12\int_\Omega |\nabla v|^2dx+\int_\Omega \beta_\varepsilon(v-\varphi)dx,\]
subject to the appropriate boundary conditions on $\partial\Omega$, and get a solution $v_\varepsilon\in C^\infty$ of $\Delta v_\varepsilon=\beta_\varepsilon'(v_\varepsilon-\varphi)$ in $\Omega$.
Since $\beta_\varepsilon'\leq 0$ everywhere, and $\beta_\varepsilon'(t)=0$ for $t\geq0$, we have
\[\left\{\begin{array}{rcll}-\Delta v_\varepsilon &\geq&0 & \quad \textrm{everywhere in}\ \Omega \\ \Delta v_\varepsilon &=&0 &\quad \textrm{in}\ \{v_\varepsilon>\varphi\}.\end{array}\right.\]
As $\varepsilon\to0$, we have $v_\varepsilon\to v$, where $v$ is the solution to the obstacle problem.
We refer to \cite{PSU} for more details.
\subsection*{Basic properties of solutions}
Let us next prove that any minimizer $v$ of \eqref{ch4-min} is actually continuous and solves \eqref{ch4-obst-pb}.
From now on we will ``forget'' about the regularity of the obstacle, and assume that it is as smooth as needed. This is why we will always be dealing with obstacles $\varphi\in C^\infty(\Omega)$. One gets analogous results under much weaker regularity assumptions on $\varphi$, which depend on the type of result to be proved. The role of the regularity of the obstacle is beyond the scope of this book, and thus we will always assume $\varphi$ to be smooth.
We start with the following lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{ch4-supersol}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be any bounded Lipschitz domain, $\varphi\in C^\infty(\Omega)$, and $v\in H^1(\Omega)$ be any minimizer of \eqref{ch4-min} subject to the boundary conditions $v|_{\partial\Omega}=g$.
Then, $-\Delta v\geq0$ in $\Omega$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let
\[\mathcal E(v)=\frac12\int_\Omega |\nabla v|^2dx.\]
Then, since $v$ minimizes $\mathcal{E}$ among all functions above the obstacle $\varphi$ (and with fixed boundary conditions on $\partial\Omega$), we have that
\[\mathcal E(v+\varepsilon \eta)\geq \mathcal E(v)\quad\textrm{for every}\ {\varepsilon\geq0}\ \textrm{and}\ {\eta\geq0},\ \eta\in C^\infty_c(\Omega).\]
This yields
\[\varepsilon\int_\Omega \nabla v\cdot\nabla \eta+\frac{\varepsilon^2}{2}\int_\Omega |\nabla \eta|^2dx\geq 0\quad\textrm{for every}\ {\varepsilon\geq0}\ \textrm{and}\ {\eta\geq0},\ \eta\in C^\infty_c(\Omega),\]
and thus
\[\int_\Omega \nabla v\cdot\nabla \eta\geq 0\quad\textrm{for every}\ {\eta\geq0},\ \eta\in C^\infty_c(\Omega).\]
This means that $-\Delta v\geq0$ in $\Omega$ in the weak sense, as desired.
\end{proof}
From here, by showing first that $\{v>\varphi\}$ is open, we obtain the Euler--Lagrange equations for the functional:
\begin{prop}\label{ch4-Euler-Lagrange}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be any bounded Lipschitz domain, $\varphi\in C^\infty(\Omega)$, and $v\in H^1(\Omega)$ be any minimizer of \eqref{ch4-min} subject to the boundary conditions $v|_{\partial\Omega}=g$.
Then, $v\in C(\Omega)$ and it satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{Euler-Lagrange}
\left\{\begin{array}{rcll}
v&\geq&\varphi & \textrm{in}\ \Omega \\
\Delta v&\leq&0 & \textrm{in}\ \Omega\\
\Delta v&=&0 & \textrm{in}\ \{v>\varphi\} \cap\Omega.
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By construction, we already know that $v\ge \varphi$ in $\Omega$ and, thanks to Lemma~\ref{ch4-supersol}, $-\Delta v\ge 0$ in $\Omega$, i.e, $v$ is (weakly) superharmonic. Up to replacing $v$ in a set of measure zero, we may also assume that $v$ is lower semi-continuous (by Lemma~\ref{lem.lower_semi}). Thus, we only need to prove that $\Delta v=0$ in $\{v>\varphi\}\cap\Omega$ and that $v$ is, in fact, continuous.
In order to do that, let us show first that $\{v > \varphi\}\cap\Omega$ is open. Let $x_\circ\in \{v > \varphi\}\cap\Omega$ be such that $v(x_\circ) - \varphi(x_\circ) > \varepsilon_\circ > 0$. Since $v$ is lower semi-continuous and $\varphi$ is continuous, there exists some $\delta > 0$ such that $v(x) - \varphi(x) > \varepsilon_\circ/2$ for all $x\in B_\delta(x_\circ)$, and hence $B_\delta(x_\circ)\subset \{v > \varphi\}$. Since $x_\circ$ was arbitrary, this means that $\{v > \varphi\}$ is open. This implies, also, that $\Delta v = 0$ weakly in $\{v > \varphi\}\cap\Omega$. Indeed, for any $x_\circ\in \{v>\varphi\}$ and $\eta\in C^\infty_c(B_{\delta}(x_\circ))$ with $|\eta|\le 1$, we have $v\pm \varepsilon\eta\geq \varphi$ in $\Omega$ for all $|\varepsilon| < \varepsilon_\circ/2$, and therefore it is an admissible competitor to the minimization problem.
Thus, we have $\mathcal E(v+\varepsilon \eta)\geq \mathcal E(v)$ for all $|\varepsilon|<\varepsilon_\circ $, and differentiating in $\varepsilon$ we deduce that $v$ is harmonic in $\{v>\varphi\}\cap\Omega$.
Finally, let us show that $v$ is continuous. We already know, by the regularity of harmonic functions (e.g. Corollary~\ref{ch0-smooth}), that $v$ is continuous in $\{v > \varphi\}\cap\Omega$. Let us now show that $v$ is continuous in $\{v = \varphi\}\cap \Omega$ as well.
Let $y_\circ\in \{v = \varphi\}\cap \Omega$, and let us argue by contradiction. That is, since $v$ is lower semi-continuous, let us assume that there is a sequence $y_k \to y_\circ$ such that $v(y_k) \to v(y_\circ) +\varepsilon_\circ = \varphi(y_\circ) + \varepsilon_\circ$ for some $\varepsilon_\circ>0$. Since $\varphi$ is continuous, we may assume also that $y_k\in\{v > \varphi\}$. Let us denote by $z_k$ the projection of $y_k$ towards $\{v = \varphi\}$, so that $\delta_k := |z_k - y_\circ| \le 2|y_k - y_\circ|\downarrow 0$ and $v(z_k) \to v(y_\circ) = \varphi(y_\circ)$. Now, since $v$ is superharmonic by \eqref{eq.superharmonic_integral},
\[
v(z_k) \ge \strokedint_{B_{2\delta_k}(y_k)} v = (1-2^{-n})\strokedint_{B_{2\delta_k}(y_k)\setminus B_{\delta_k}(y_k)} v + 2^{-n}\strokedint_{B_{\delta_k}(y_k)} v =I_1 + I_2.
\]
Observe that, for the first term, since $v$ is lower semi-continuous and $\delta_k \downarrow 0$, we can assume that, for $k$ large enough, $v \ge \varphi(y_\circ) - 2^{-n} \varepsilon_\circ$ in $B_{2\delta_k}$, so that $I_1 \ge (1-2^{-n}) [\varphi(y_\circ) - 2^{-n}\varepsilon_\circ]$. On the other hand, since $v$ is harmonic in $B_{\delta_k}(y_k)$, we have by the mean-value property that $I_2 = 2^{-n} v(y_k)$. Combining everything, we get
\[
v(z_k) \ge (1-2^{-n})[\varphi(y_\circ)-2^{-n}\varepsilon_\circ] + 2^{-n} v(y_k) \to \varphi(y_\circ) +2^{-2n}\varepsilon_\circ
\]
which contradicts the fact that we had $v(z_k) \to v(y_\circ) = \varphi(y_\circ)$. Hence, $v$ is continuous in $\Omega$.
\end{proof}
We next prove the following result, which says that $v$ can be characterized as the {least supersolution} above the obstacle.
\begin{prop}[Least supersolution]\label{ch4-least-supersol}\index{Least supersolution}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be any bounded Lipschitz domain, $\varphi\in H^1(\Omega)$, and $v\in H^1(\Omega)$ be any minimizer of \eqref{ch4-min} subject to the boundary conditions $v|_{\partial\Omega}=g$.
Then, for any function $w$ satisfying $-\Delta w\geq0$ in $\Omega$, $w\geq\varphi$ in $\Omega$, and $w|_{\partial\Omega}\geq v|_{\partial\Omega}$, we have $w\geq v$ in $\Omega$.
In other words, if $w$ is any supersolution above the obstacle $\varphi$, then $w\geq v$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
If $w$ is any function satisfying $-\Delta w\geq0$ in $\Omega$, $w\geq\varphi$ in $\Omega$, and $w|_{\partial\Omega}\geq v|_{\partial\Omega}$, it simply follows from the maximum principle (Proposition~\ref{max-princ-weak}) that $w\geq v$.
Indeed, we have $-\Delta w\geq -\Delta v$ in $\Omega\cap \{v>\varphi\}$, and on the boundary of such set we have $w|_{\partial\Omega}\geq v|_{\partial\Omega}$ and $w\geq\varphi=v$ on $\{v=\varphi\}$.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Optimal regularity of solutions}
Thanks to Proposition \ref{ch4-Euler-Lagrange}, we know that any minimizer of \eqref{ch4-min} is continuous and solves \eqref{Euler-Lagrange}.
From now on, we will actually localize the problem and study it in a ball:
\begin{equation}\label{ch4-obst-B1}
\left\{\begin{array}{rcll}
v&\geq&\varphi & \textrm{in}\ B_1 \\
\Delta v&\leq&0 & \textrm{in}\ B_1\\
\Delta v&=&0 & \textrm{in}\ \{v>\varphi\}\cap B_1.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
Our next goal is to answer the following question:
\[\textrm{\underline{Question}: }\textit{ What is the optimal regularity of solutions?}\]
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{./Figures/fig16.pdf}
\caption{Second derivatives are in general discontinuous across the free boundary.}
\label{fig.16}
\end{figure}
First, a few important considerations.
Notice that in the set $\{v>\varphi\}$ we have $\Delta v=0$, while in the interior of $\{v=\varphi\}$ we have $\Delta v=\Delta \varphi$ (since $v=\varphi$ there); see Figure~\ref{fig.16}.
Thus, since $\Delta \varphi$ is in general not zero, $\Delta v$ is \emph{discontinuous} across the free boundary $\partial\{v>\varphi\}$ in general.
In particular, $v\notin C^2$.
We will now prove that any minimizer of \eqref{ch4-min} is actually $C^{1,1}$, which gives the:
\[\textrm{\underline{Answer}: }\ v\in C^{1,1}\ \textit{ (second derivatives are bounded but not continuous)}\]
The precise statement and proof are given next.
\begin{thm}[Optimal regularity]\label{ch4-optimal-reg}\index{Optimal regularity, Obstacle problem}
Let $\varphi\in C^\infty(B_1)$, and $v$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-B1}.
Then, $v$ is $C^{1,1}$ in $B_{1/2}$, with the estimate
\[\|v\|_{C^{1,1}(B_{1/2})}\leq C\bigl(\|v\|_{L^\infty(B_{1})}+\|\varphi\|_{C^{1,1}(B_{1})}\bigr).\]
The constant $C$ depends only on $n$.
\end{thm}
To prove this, the main step is the following.
\begin{lem}\label{ch4-optimal-reg-lem}
Let $\varphi\in C^\infty(B_1)$, and $v$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-B1}.
Let $x_\circ \in \overline{B_{1/2}}$ be any point on $\{v=\varphi\}$.
Then, for any $r\in (0,\frac14)$ we have
\[0\leq \sup_{B_r(x_\circ )}(v-\varphi)\leq Cr^2,\]
with $C$ depending only on $n$ and $\|\varphi\|_{C^{1,1}(B_{1})}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
After dividing $v$ by a constant if necessary, we may assume that $\|\varphi\|_{C^{1,1}(B_{1})}\leq 1$.
Let $\ell(x):=\varphi(x_\circ )+\nabla \varphi(x_\circ )\cdot(x-x_\circ )$ be the linear part of $\varphi$ at $x_\circ $.
Let $r\in (0,\frac14)$.
Then, by $C^{1,1}$ regularity of $\varphi$, in $B_r(x_\circ )$ we have
\[\ell(x)-r^2\leq \varphi(x)\leq v(x).\]
We want to show that, in the ball $B_r(x_\circ)$ (see Figure~\ref{fig.17}), we have
\[v(x)\leq \ell(x)+Cr^2.\]
For this, consider
\[w(x):=v(x)-\bigl[\ell(x)-r^2\bigr].\]
This function $w$ satisfies $w\geq0$ in $B_r(x_\circ )$, and $-\Delta w=-\Delta v\geq0$ in $B_r(x_\circ )$.
Let us split $w$ into
\[w=w_1+w_2,\]
with
\[
\left\{\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta w_1 &=&0 &\ \textrm{in}\ B_r(x_\circ )\\
w_1&=& w &\ \textrm{on}\ \partial B_r(x_\circ )
\end{array}\right.
\quad \textrm{and}\quad
\left\{\begin{array}{rcll}
-\Delta w_2 &\geq&0 &\ \textrm{in}\ B_r(x_\circ )\\
w_2&=& 0 &\ \textrm{on}\ \partial B_r(x_\circ ).
\end{array}\right.
\]
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{./Figures/fig17.pdf}
\caption{The solution $v$ and a free boundary point $x_\circ $}
\label{fig.17}
\end{figure}
Notice that
\[0\leq w_1\leq w \quad \textrm{and}\quad 0\leq w_2\leq w.\]
We have that
\[w_1(x_\circ )\leq w(x_\circ )= v(x_\circ )-\bigl[\ell(x_\circ )-r^2\bigr]=r^2,\]
and thus by the Harnack inequality
\[\|w_1\|_{L^{\infty}(B_{r/2}(x_\circ ))}\leq Cr^2.\]
For $w_2$, notice that $\Delta w_2=\Delta v$, and in particular $\Delta w_2=0$ in $\{v>\varphi\}$.
This means that $w_2$ attains its maximum on $\{v=\varphi\}$.
But in the set $\{v=\varphi\}$ we have
\[w_2\leq w=\varphi-\bigl[\ell-r^2\bigr]\leq Cr^2,\]
and therefore we deduce that
\[\|w_2\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x_\circ ))}\leq Cr^2.\]
Combining the bounds for $w_1$ and $w_2$, we get $\|w\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x_\circ ))}\leq Cr^2$.
Translating this into $v$, and using that $\|\varphi\|_{C^{1,1}(B_1)}\leq1$, we find $v-\varphi\leq Cr^2$ in $B_{r/2}(x_\circ )$.
\end{proof}
Therefore, we have proved that:
\[\textit{At every free boundary point }x_\circ ,\ v\textit{ separates from }\varphi\textit{ at most quadratically.}\]
As shown next, this easily implies the $C^{1,1}$ regularity.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{ch4-optimal-reg}]
Dividing $v$ by a constant if necessary, we may assume that $\|v\|_{L^\infty(B_{1})}+\|\varphi\|_{C^{1,1}(B_{1})}\leq 1$.
We already know that $v\in C^\infty$ in the set $\{v>\varphi\}$ (since $v$ is harmonic), and also in the interior of the set $\{v=\varphi\}$ (since $\varphi\in C^\infty$).
Moreover, on the interface $\Gamma=\partial\{v>\varphi\}$ we have proved the quadratic growth $\sup_{B_r(x_\circ )}(v-\varphi)\leq Cr^2$.
Let us prove that this yields the $C^{1,1}$ bound we want.
Let $x_1\in \{v>\varphi\}\cap B_{1/2}$, and let $x_\circ \in \Gamma$ be the closest free boundary point.
Denote $\rho=|x_1-x_\circ |$.
Then, we have $\Delta v=0$ in $B_\rho(x_1)$ (see the setting in Figure~\ref{fig.18}), and thus we have also $\Delta(v-\ell)=0$ in $B_\rho(x_1)$, where $\ell$ is the linear part of $\varphi$ at $x_\circ $.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 1.2]{./Figures/fig18_2.pdf}
\caption{A solution $v$ satisfying $\Delta v = 0$ in $B_\rho(x_1)\subset \{v > \varphi\}$.}
\label{fig.18}
\end{figure}
By estimates for harmonic functions, we find
\[\|D^2v\|_{L^\infty(B_{\rho/2}(x_1))}= \|D^2(v-\ell)\|_{L^\infty(B_{\rho/2}(x_1))} \leq \frac{C}{\rho^2}\|v-\ell\|_{L^\infty(B_{\rho}(x_1))}.\]
But by the growth proved in the previous Lemma, we have $\|v-\ell\|_{L^\infty(B_{\rho}(x_1))}\leq C\rho^2$, which yields
\[\|D^2v\|_{L^\infty(B_{\rho/2}(x_1))}\leq \frac{C}{\rho^2}\,\rho^2=C.\]
In particular, $|D^2v(x_1)|\leq C$. We can do this for all $x_1\in \-\{v>\varphi\}\cap B_{1/2}$, and on $\partial\{v>\varphi\}$ we have quadratic growth by Lemma~\ref{ch4-optimal-reg-lem}, hence it follows that $\|v\|_{C^{1,1}(B_{1/2})}\leq C$, as wanted.
\end{proof}
The overall strategy of the proof of optimal regularity is summarized in Figure \ref{fig.19}.
\subsection*{Nondegeneracy}
We now want to prove that, at all free boundary points, $v$ separates from $\varphi$ \emph{at least} quadratically (we already know \emph{at most} quadratically).
That is, we want
\begin{equation} \label{ch4-nondeg}
0<cr^2\leq \sup_{B_r(x_\circ )}(v-\varphi)\leq Cr^2
\end{equation}
for all free boundary points $x_\circ \in \partial\{v>\varphi\}$.
This property is essential in order to study the free boundary later.
\begin{rem}
\label{rem.caff.vanish}
Since $-\Delta v\geq0$ \emph{everywhere}, it is clear that if $x_\circ \in \partial\{v>\varphi\}$ is a free boundary point, then necessarily $-\Delta \varphi(x_\circ )\geq0$ (otherwise we would have $-\Delta \varphi(x_\circ )<0$, and since $u$ touches $\varphi$ from above at $x_\circ $, also $-\Delta v(x_\circ )<0$, a contradiction).
Moreover it can be proved that, in fact, if $\Delta \varphi$ and $\nabla\Delta\varphi$ do \emph{not} vanish simultaneously, then $-\Delta\varphi>0$ near \emph{all} free boundary points \cite{Caf98}.
\end{rem}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{./Figures/fig19.pdf}
\caption{Strategy of the proof of Theorem~\ref{ch4-optimal-reg}.}
\label{fig.19}
\end{figure}
This motivates the following:
\vspace{2mm}
\noindent\textbf{Assumption}: \emph{The obstacle} $\varphi$ \emph{satisfies}
\[-\Delta \varphi\geq c_\circ >0\]
\emph{in the ball} $B_1$.
\vspace{2mm}
In particular, by Remark~\ref{rem.caff.vanish}, if $\Delta \varphi$ and $\nabla\Delta\varphi$ do {not} vanish simultaneously, then we have $-\Delta \varphi>0$ near any free boundary point, and thus by zooming in if necessary, we will always have that the assumption is satisfied in $B_1$, for some small $c_\circ >0$.
Thus, the only real assumption here is that $\Delta \varphi$ and $\nabla\Delta\varphi$ do {not} vanish simultaneously, which is a very mild assumption.
Moreover, this is in a sense a \emph{necessary} assumption: without this, the nondegeneracy \eqref{ch4-nondeg} does \emph{not} hold, and no regularity result can be proved for the free boundary. (Without the assumption, one can actually construct counterexamples in which the free boundary is a fractal set with infinite perimeter.)
\begin{prop}[Nondegeneracy]\label{ch4-prop-nondeg}\index{Nondegeneracy, Obstacle problem}
Let $\varphi\in C^\infty(B_1)$, and $v$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-B1}.
Assume that $\varphi$ satisfies $-\Delta \varphi\geq c_\circ >0$ in $B_1$.
Then, for every free boundary point $x_\circ \in \partial\{v>\varphi\}\cap B_{1/2}$, we have
\[\qquad\qquad 0<cr^2\leq \sup_{B_r(x_\circ )}(v-\varphi)\leq Cr^2\qquad \textrm{for all}\ r\in (0,{\textstyle\frac14}),\]
with a constant $c>0$ depending only on $n$ and $c_\circ $.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $x_1\in \{v>\varphi\}$ be any point close to $x_\circ $ (we will then let $x_1\to x_\circ $ at the end of the proof).
Consider the function
\[w(x):=v(x)-\varphi(x)-\frac{c_\circ }{2n}|x-x_1|^2.\]
Then, in $\{v>\varphi\}$ we have
\[\Delta w=\Delta v-\Delta \varphi-c_\circ =-\Delta\varphi-c_\circ \geq 0\]
and hence $-\Delta w\leq 0$ in $\{v>\varphi\}\cap B_r(x_1)$.
Moreover, $w(x_1)>0$.
By the maximum principle, $w$ attains a positive maximum on $\partial\bigl(\{v>\varphi\}\cap B_r(x_1)\bigr)$.
But on the free boundary $\partial\{v>\varphi\}$ we clearly have $w<0$.
Therefore, there is a point on $\partial B_r(x_1)$ at which $w>0$.
In other words,
\[0<\sup_{\partial B_r(x_1)}w=\sup_{\partial B_r(x_1)}(v-\varphi)-\frac{c_\circ }{2n}\,r^2.\]
Letting now $x_1\to x_\circ $, we find $\sup_{\partial B_r(x_\circ )}(v-\varphi)\geq cr^2>0$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Summary of basic properties}
Let $v$ be any solution to the obstacle problem
\[
\left\{\begin{array}{rcll}
v&\geq&\varphi & \textrm{in}\ B_1 \\
\Delta v&\leq&0 & \textrm{in}\ B_1\\
\Delta v&=&0 & \textrm{in}\ \{v>\varphi\}\cap B_1.
\end{array}
\right.
\]
Then, we have:
\vspace{3mm}
\noindent$\bullet$ \underline{\smash{Optimal regularity}}:\quad $\displaystyle \|v\|_{C^{1,1}(B_{1/2})}\leq C\bigl(\|v\|_{L^\infty(B_{1})}+\|\varphi\|_{C^{1,1}(B_{1})}\bigr)$
\vspace{3mm}
\noindent$\bullet$ \underline{\smash{Nondegeneracy}}: If $-\Delta \varphi\geq c_\circ >0$, then
\[\qquad\qquad 0<cr^2\leq \sup_{B_r(x_\circ )}(v-\varphi)\leq Cr^2\qquad \textrm{for all}\ r\in (0,{\textstyle\frac12})\]
at all free boundary points $x_\circ \in \partial\{v>\varphi\}\cap B_{1/2}$.
\vspace{3mm}
\noindent$\bullet$ \underline{\smash{Equivalence with zero obstacle}}: The problem is equivalent to
\[
\left\{\begin{array}{rcll}
u&\geq&0 & \textrm{in}\ B_1 \\
\Delta u&\leq&f & \textrm{in}\ B_1\\
\Delta u&=&f & \textrm{in}\ \{u>0\}\cap B_1,
\end{array}
\right.
\]
where $f=-\Delta \varphi\geq c_\circ >0$.
\vspace{5mm}
We will next provide an alternative approach to the optimal regularity.
\section{Basic properties of solutions II}
We proceed now to study the basic properties of solutions $u\geq0$ to the obstacle problem \eqref{ch4-min2} or \eqref{ch4-min2B}.
As explained before, the main point here is that we prove optimal regularity independently from the previous Section.
Throughout this section we will always assume
\[
f\ge 0\quad\text{in}\quad \Omega.
\]
\subsection*{Existence of solutions}
Since problem \eqref{ch4-min2} is equivalent to \eqref{ch4-min}, existence and uniqueness of solutions follow easily from Proposition \ref{obstacle-existence}, as shown next.
\begin{prop}[Existence and uniqueness]\index{Existence and uniqueness!Obstacle problem}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be any bounded Lipschitz domain, and let $g:\partial\Omega\to\mathbb{R}$ be such that
\[\mathcal C=\bigl\{u\in H^1(\Omega): u\geq0\ \textrm{in}\ \Omega,\ u|_{\partial\Omega}=g\bigr\}\neq \varnothing.\]
Then, for any $f\in L^2(\Omega)$ there exists a unique minimizer of
\[\frac12\int_\Omega|\nabla u|^2dx+\int_\Omega fu\]
among all functions $u\in H^1(\Omega)$ satisfying $u\geq0$ in $\Omega$ and $u|_{\partial\Omega}=g$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We follow the proof of Proposition \ref{obstacle-existence}. Let
\[\theta_\circ :=\inf\left\{\frac12\int_\Omega |\nabla w|^2dx + \int_\Omega fw \,:\, w\in H^1(\Omega),\ w|_{\partial\Omega}=g,\ w\geq 0\ \textrm{in}\ \Omega\right\},\]
that is, the infimum value of $\mathcal E(w)=\frac12\int_\Omega |\nabla w|^2dx+\int_\Omega fw$ among all admis\-sible functions~$w$. Notice that, by H\"older's inequality, $\mathcal E(w) < +\infty$ if $w\in H^1(\Omega)$.
We take again a sequence of functions $\{v_k\}$ such that $v_k\in H^1(\Omega)$, $v_k|_{\partial\Omega}=g$, $v_k\geq 0$ in $\Omega$, and $\mathcal E(v_k)\to \theta_\circ $ as $k\to\infty$. By the Poincar\'e inequality (Theorem \ref{ch0-Poinc}), H\"older's inequality, and the fact that $\mathcal E(v_k)\le \theta_\circ +1$, for $k$ large enough
\begin{align*}
\|v_k\|_{H^1 (\Omega)}^2 & \le C \left(\int_\Omega|\nabla v_k|^2 + \int_{\partial \Omega} g^2 \right)
\le C \left(\theta_\circ + 1 + \int_\Omega |fv_k| + \frac12 \int_{\partial \Omega} g^2 \right)\\
& \le C \left(\theta_\circ + 1+ \|f\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\|v_k\|_{H^1(\Omega)} + \frac12 \int_{\partial \Omega} g^2 \right).
\end{align*}
In particular, $\|v_k\|_{H^1(\Omega)}\le C$ for some constant $C$ depending only on $n$, $\Omega$, $g$, $f$, and $\theta_\circ$ (recall that $g\in L^2(\partial\Omega)$ by the trace theorem, \ref{it.S5} in Chapter \ref{ch.0}). Hence, a subsequence $\{v_{k_j}\}$ converges to a certain function $v$ strongly in $L^2(\Omega)$ and weakly in $H^1(\Omega)$.
By compactness of the trace operator $v_{k_j}|_{\partial\Omega}\to v|_{\partial\Omega} = g$ in $L^2(\partial\Omega)$.
Furthermore, $v$ satisfies $\mathcal E(v)\leq \liminf_{j\to\infty}\mathcal E(v_{k_j})$ (by \eqref{ch0-weak-conv2}-\eqref{ch0-weak-conv3} from \ref{it.S4} and weak convergence), and therefore it will be a minimizer of the energy functional.
Since $v_{k_j}\geq 0$ in $\Omega$ and $v_{k_j}\to v$ in $L^2(\Omega)$, we have $v\geq 0$ in $\Omega$. Thus, there is a minimizer~$v$.
The uniqueness of the minimizer follows from the strict convexity of the functional $\mathcal{E}(v)$, exactly as in Theorem \ref{ch0-existence}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
Alternatively, we could have denoted $v := u +\varphi$ with $\varphi$ such that $-\Delta \varphi = f$ in $\Omega$, and use Proposition~\ref{obstacle-existence}.
\end{rem}
Furthermore, we have the following equivalence. (Recall that we denote $u^+ = \max\{u, 0\}$, and $u^- = \max\{-u, 0\}$, so that $u = u^+-u^-$.)
\begin{prop}\label{ch4-equivalence-3pb}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be any bounded Lipschitz domain, and let $g:\partial\Omega\to\mathbb{R}$ be such that
\[\mathcal C=\bigl\{u\in H^1(\Omega): u\geq0\ \textrm{in}\ \Omega,\ u|_{\partial\Omega}=g\bigr\}\neq \varnothing.\]
Then, the following are equivalent.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $u$ minimizes $\frac12\int_\Omega |\nabla u|^2+\int_\Omega fu$ among all functions satisfying $u\geq0$ in $\Omega$ and $u|_{\partial\Omega}=g$.
\item[(ii)] $u$ minimizes $\frac12\int_\Omega |\nabla u|^2+\int_\Omega fu^+$ among all functions satisfying $u|_{\partial\Omega}=g$.
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The two functionals coincide whenever $u\geq0$.
Thus, the only key point is to prove that the minimizer in (ii) must be nonnegative, i.e., $u=u^+$. (Notice that $\mathcal{C}\neq \varnothing$ implies that $g\ge 0$ on $\partial\Omega$.)
To show this, recall that the positive part of any $H^1$ function is still in $H^1$, and moreover $|\nabla u|^2=|\nabla u^+|^2+|\nabla u^-|^2$ (see \ref{it.S10} in Chapter~\ref{ch.0}).
Thus, we have that (recall that $f \ge 0$ in $\Omega$)
\[\frac12\int_\Omega |\nabla u^+|^2+\int_\Omega fu^+ \leq \frac12\int_\Omega |\nabla u|^2+\int_\Omega fu^+,\]
with strict inequality unless $u=u^+$.
This means that any minimizer $u$ of the functional in (ii) must be nonnegative, and thus we are done.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Basic properties of solutions}
Let us next prove that any minimizer of \eqref{ch4-min2} is actually a solution to \eqref{equation-PSU} below.
We recall that we are always assuming that obstacles are as smooth as necessary, $\varphi\in C^\infty(\Omega)$, and therefore we assume here that $f\in C^\infty(\Omega)$ as well.
\begin{prop}\label{ch4-equation-PB-f}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be any bounded Lipschitz domain, $f\in C^\infty(\Omega)$, and $u\in H^1(\Omega)$ be any minimizer of \eqref{ch4-min2} subject to the boundary conditions $u|_{\partial\Omega}=g$.
Then, $u$ solves
\begin{equation}\label{equation-PSU}
\Delta u=f\chi_{\{u>0\}}\quad \textrm{in}\quad \Omega
\end{equation}
in the weak sense.
In particular, $u$ is $C^{1,\alpha}$ inside $\Omega$, for every $\alpha\in (0,1)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Notice that, by Proposition \ref{ch4-equivalence-3pb}, $u$ is actually a minimizer of
\[\mathcal E(u)= \frac12\int_\Omega |\nabla u|^2+\int_\Omega fu^+\]
subject to the boundary conditions $u|_{\partial\Omega}=g$.
Thus, for any $\eta\in H^1_0(\Omega)$ and $\varepsilon > 0$ we have
\[\mathcal E(u+\varepsilon\eta)\geq \mathcal E(u).\]
In particular, we obtain
\[
0\le \lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0} \frac{\mathcal{E}(u+\varepsilon \eta) - \mathcal{E}(u)}{\varepsilon} = \int_\Omega \nabla u \cdot \nabla \eta + \lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow0}\int_{\Omega} f \frac{(u+\varepsilon\eta)^+-u^+}{\varepsilon}.
\]
Notice that
\[\lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0}\frac{(u+\varepsilon\eta)^+-u^+}{\varepsilon}= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\eta & \qquad \textrm{in}\quad \{u>0\} \\
\eta^+& \qquad \textrm{in}\quad \{u=0\},
\end{array}\right.\]
so that we have
\[
\int_\Omega \nabla u \cdot \nabla \eta + \int_{\Omega} f \eta\chi_{\{u > 0\}} +\int_{\Omega} f \eta^+\chi_{\{u = 0\}}\ge 0\quad\text{for all}\quad \eta\in H^1_0(\Omega).
\]
Assume first that $\eta \ge 0$, so that
\[
\int_\Omega \nabla u \cdot \nabla \eta + \int_{\Omega} f \eta \ge 0\quad\text{for all}\quad \eta\in H^1_0(\Omega), \quad \eta\ge 0,
\]
which implies that $\Delta u \le f$ in the weak sense. On the other hand, if $\eta \le 0$, then
\[
\int_\Omega \nabla u \cdot \nabla \eta + \int_{\Omega} f \eta\chi_{\{u > 0\}} \ge 0\quad\text{for all}\quad \eta\in H^1_0(\Omega), \quad \eta\le 0,
\]
which implies that $\Delta u \ge f \chi_{\{u > 0\}}$ in the weak sense. In all (recall that $f \ge 0$),
\[
f \chi_{\{u > 0\}} \le \Delta u \le f\quad\text{in}\quad\Omega.
\]
(In particular, notice that $\Delta u = f $ in $\{u > 0\}$.) Now, since $f$ is smooth, this implies that $\Delta u \in L^\infty_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$. By Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates_L_bounded} we deduce that $u\in C^{1,1-\varepsilon}$ for every $\varepsilon>0$. Moreover, since $\Delta u \in L^\infty_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ we have $\Delta u \in L^2_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ and by Calder\'on-Zygmund estimates (see, for example, Remark~\ref{rem.CZ2}) we have $u\in W^{2, 2}_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$. Thus, $\Delta u = 0$ almost everywhere in the level set $\{u = 0\}$ (see \ref{it.S10} in Chapter~\ref{ch.0}) and we have
\[
\Delta u=f\chi_{\{u>0\}}\quad \textrm{a.e. in}\quad \Omega.
\]
From here we deduce that $\Delta u=f\chi_{\{u>0\}}$ in $\Omega$ in the weak sense.
\end{proof}
Notice that in the previous Section, when dealing with minimizers $v$ of \eqref{ch4-min}, it was not easy to prove that $v$ is continuous (see Proposition \ref{ch4-Euler-Lagrange}).
Here, instead, thanks to Proposition \ref{ch4-equation-PB-f} we simply used Schauder-type estimates for the Laplacian to directly deduce that $u$ is $C^{1,1-\varepsilon}$, which is the almost-optimal regularity of solutions.
\subsection*{Optimal regularity of solutions}
Thanks to the previous results, we know that any minimizer of \eqref{ch4-min2} is continuous and solves \eqref{equation-PSU}.
From now on, we will localize the problem and study it in a ball:
\begin{equation}\label{ch4-obst-B1-u}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
u&\geq&0 & \textrm{in}\ B_1 \\
\Delta u&=&f\chi_{\{u>0\}} & \textrm{in}\ B_1.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
Our next goal is to answer the following question:
\[\textrm{\underline{Question}: }\textit{ What is the optimal regularity of solutions?}\]
First, a few important considerations.
Notice that in the set $\{u>0\}$ we have $\Delta u=f$, while in the interior of $\{u=0\}$ we have $\Delta u=0$ (since $u\equiv 0$ there).
Thus, since $f$ is in general not zero, $\Delta u$ is \emph{discontinuous} across the free boundary $\partial\{u>0\}$ in general.
In particular, $u\notin C^2$.
We will now prove that any minimizer of \eqref{ch4-min2} is actually $C^{1,1}$, which gives the:
\[\textrm{\underline{Answer}: }\ u\in C^{1,1}\ \textit{ (second derivatives are bounded but not continuous)}\]
The precise statement and proof are given next.
\begin{thm}[Optimal regularity]\label{ch4-optimal-reg-u}\index{Optimal regularity, Obstacle problem}
Let $f\in C^\infty(B_1)$, and let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-B1-u}.
Then, $u$ is $C^{1,1}$ inside $B_{1/2}$, with the estimate
\[\|u\|_{C^{1,1}(B_{1/2})}\leq C\bigl(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_{1})}+\|f\|_{{\rm Lip}(B_{1})}\bigr).\]
The constant $C$ depends only on $n$.
\end{thm}
To prove this, the main step is the following.
\begin{lem}\label{ch4-optimal-reg-lem-u}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-B1-u}.
Let $x_\circ \in \overline{B_{1/2}}$ be any point on $\{u=0\}$.
Then, for any $r\in (0,\frac14)$ we have
\[0\leq \sup_{B_r(x_\circ )}u\leq Cr^2,\]
with $C$ depending only on $n$ and $\|f\|_{L^\infty(B_{1})}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We have that $\Delta u=f\chi_{\{u>0\}}$ in $B_1$, with $f\chi_{\{u>0\}}\in L^\infty(B_1)$.
Thus, since $u\geq0$, we can use the Harnack inequality (Theorem \ref{thm.Harnack.f}) for the equation $\Delta u=f\chi_{\{u>0\}}$ in $B_{2r}(x_\circ )$, to find
\[\sup_{B_r(x_\circ )} u \leq C\left(\inf_{B_r(x_\circ )}u + r^2\|f\chi_{\{u>0\}}\|_{L^\infty(B_{2r}(x_\circ ))} \right).\]
Since $u\geq0$ and $u(x_\circ )=0$, this yields $\sup_{B_r(x_\circ )} u \leq C\|f\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}r^2$, as wanted.
\end{proof}
Notice that this proof is significantly shorter than the one given in the previous Section (Lemma \ref{ch4-optimal-reg-lem}).
This is an advantage of using the formulation~\eqref{equation-PSU}.
We have proved the following:
\[\textit{At every free boundary point }x_\circ ,\ u\textit{ grows (at most) quadratically.}\]
As shown next, this easily implies the $C^{1,1}$ regularity.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{ch4-optimal-reg-u}]
Dividing $u$ by a constant if necessary, we may assume that $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_{1})}+\|f\|_{{\rm Lip}(B_{1})}\leq 1$.
We already know that $u\in C^\infty$ in the set $\{u>0\}$ (since $\Delta u=f\in C^\infty$ there), and also inside the set $\{u=0\}$ (since $u=0$ there).
Moreover, on the interface $\Gamma=\partial\{u>0\}$ we have proved the quadratic growth $\sup_{B_r(x_\circ )}u\leq Cr^2$.
Let us prove that this yields the $C^{1,1}$ bound we want.
Let $x_1\in \{u>0\}\cap B_{1/2}$, and let $x_\circ \in \Gamma$ be the closest free boundary point.
Denote $\rho=|x_1-x_\circ |$.
Then, we have $\Delta u=f$ in $B_\rho(x_1)$.
By Schauder estimates, we find
\[\|D^2u\|_{L^\infty(B_{\rho/2}(x_1))} \leq C\left(\frac{1}{\rho^2}\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_{\rho}(x_1))}+\|f\|_{{\rm Lip}(B_{1})}\right).\]
But by the growth proved in the previous Lemma, we have $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_{\rho}(x_1))}\leq C\rho^2$, which yields
\[\|D^2u\|_{L^\infty(B_{\rho/2}(x_1))}\leq C.\]
In particular,
\[|D^2u(x_1)|\leq C.\]
We can do this for each $x_1\in \{u>0\}\cap B_{1/2}$, and therefore $\|u\|_{C^{1,1}(B_{1/2})}\leq C$, as wanted.
\end{proof}
Also, notice that as a consequence of the previous results, we have that as soon as the solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-B1-u} has non-empty contact set, then its $C^{1,1}$ norm is universally bounded.
\begin{cor}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-B1-u}, and let us assume that $u(0) = 0$ and $\|f\|_{{\rm Lip}(B_1)}\le 1$. Then,
\[
\|u\|_{C^{1, 1}(B_{1/2})}\le C
\]
for some $C$ depending only on $n$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
It is an immediate consequence of Theorem~\ref{ch4-optimal-reg-u} combined with Lemma~\ref{ch4-optimal-reg-lem-u}.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Nondegeneracy}
For completeness, we now state the nondegeneracy in this setting (analogously to Proposition~\ref{ch4-prop-nondeg}). That is, at all free boundary points, $u$ grows \emph{at least} quadratically (we already know \emph{at most} quadratically). We want:
\[
0<cr^2\leq \sup_{B_r(x_\circ )}u\leq Cr^2
\]
for all free boundary points $x_\circ \in \partial\{u>0\}$.
This property is essential in order to study the free boundary later.
As before, for this we need the following natural assumption:
\vspace{2mm}
\noindent\textbf{Assumption}: \emph{The right-hand side} $f$ \emph{satisfies}
\[f\geq c_\circ >0\]
\emph{in the ball} $B_1$.
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{prop}[Nondegeneracy]\label{ch4-prop-nondeg2}\index{Nondegeneracy, Obstacle problem}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-B1-u}.
Assume that $f\geq c_\circ >0$ in $B_1$.
Then, for every free boundary point $x_\circ \in \partial\{u>0\}\cap B_{1/2}$, we have
\[\qquad\qquad 0<cr^2\leq \sup_{B_r(x_\circ )}u\leq Cr^2\qquad \textrm{for all}\ r\in (0,{\textstyle\frac12}),\]
with a constant $c>0$ depending only on $n$ and $c_\circ $.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The proof is the one from Proposition \ref{ch4-prop-nondeg}.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Summary of basic properties}
Let $u$ be any solution to the obstacle problem
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
u&\geq&0 & \textrm{in}\ B_1, \\
\Delta u&=&f\chi_{\{u>0\}} & \textrm{in}\ B_1.
\end{array}
\right.
\]
Then, we have:
\vspace{3mm}
\noindent$\bullet$ \underline{\smash{Optimal regularity}}:\qquad $\displaystyle \|u\|_{C^{1,1}(B_{1/2})}\leq C\left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_{1})}+\|f\|_{{\rm Lip}(B_{1})}\right)$
\vspace{3mm}
\noindent$\bullet$ \underline{\smash{Nondegeneracy}}: If $f\geq c_\circ >0$, then
\[\qquad\qquad 0<cr^2\leq \sup_{B_r(x_\circ )}u\leq Cr^2\qquad \textrm{for all}\ r\in (0,{\textstyle\frac12})\]
at all free boundary points $x_\circ \in \partial\{u>0\}\cap B_{1/2}$.
\vspace{5mm}
Using these properties, we can now start the study of the free boundary.
\section{Regularity of free boundaries: an overview}
From now on, we consider any solution to
\begin{equation}\label{ch4-obst-f-1}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
u\in C^{1,1}(B_1),
\vspace{1mm}
\\
u\geq0\quad \textrm{in}\ B_1,
\vspace{1mm}
\\
\Delta u=f\quad \textrm{in}\ \{u>0\},
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
(see Figure~\ref{fig.20}) with
\begin{equation}\label{ch4-obst-f-2}
f\geq c_\circ >0\qquad\textrm{and}\qquad f\in C^\infty.
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.9]{./Figures/fig20.pdf}
\caption{A solution to the obstacle problem in $B_1$.}
\label{fig.20}
\end{figure}
Notice that on the interface
\[\Gamma=\partial\{u>0\}\cap B_1\]
we have that
\[\begin{split} u&=0\quad \textrm{on}\ \Gamma,\\
\nabla u&=0\quad \textrm{on}\ \Gamma.\end{split}\]
The central mathematical challenge in the obstacle problem is to
\[\textit{understand the geometry/regularity of the free boundary }\Gamma.\]
Notice that, even if we already know the optimal regularity of $u$ (it is $C^{1,1}$), we know nothing about the free boundary $\Gamma$.
A priori $\Gamma$ could be a very irregular object, even a fractal set with infinite perimeter.
As we will see, under the natural assumption $f\geq c_\circ >0$, it turns out that free boundaries are always smooth, possibly outside a certain set of singular points. In fact, in our proofs we will assume for simplicity that $f\equiv 1$ (or constant). We do that in order to avoid $x$-dependence and the technicalities associated to it, which gives cleaner proofs. In this way, the main ideas behind the regularity of free boundaries are exposed.
\subsection*{Regularity of free boundaries: main results}
Assume from now on that $u$ solves \eqref{ch4-obst-f-1}-\eqref{ch4-obst-f-2}.
Then, the main known results on the free bound\-a\-ry $\Gamma=\partial\{u>0\}$ can be summarized as follows:
\vspace{3mm}
\noindent$\bullet$ At every free boundary point $x_\circ \in \Gamma$, we have
\[\qquad\qquad 0<cr^2\leq \sup_{B_r(x_\circ )}u\leq Cr^2\qquad \qquad\forall r\in \left(0,r_\circ\right).\]
\vspace{0mm}
\noindent$\bullet$ The free boundary $\Gamma$ splits into \emph{regular points} and \emph{singular points}.
\vspace{3mm}
\noindent$\bullet$ \index{Regular points} The set of \emph{regular points} is an open subset of the free boundary, and $\Gamma$ is $C^\infty$ near these points.
\vspace{3mm}
\noindent$\bullet$ \index{Singular points} \emph{Singular points} are those at which the contact set $\{u=0\}$ has \emph{zero density}, and these points (if any) are contained in an $(n-1)$-dimensional $C^1$ manifold.
\vspace{3mm}
Summarizing, \emph{the free boundary is smooth, possibly outside a certain set of singular points}. See Figure~\ref{fig.21}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{./Figures/fig21.pdf}
\caption{Singular points are those where the contact set has zero density.}
\label{fig.21}
\end{figure}
So far, we have not even proved that $\Gamma$ has finite perimeter, or anything at all about $\Gamma$.
Our goal will be to prove that $\Gamma$ \emph{is} $C^\infty$ \emph{near regular points}.
This is the main and most important result in the obstacle problem.
It was proved by Caffarelli in 1977, and it is one of the major results for which he received the Wolf Prize in 2012 and the Shaw Prize in 2018.
\subsection*{Overview of the strategy}
To prove these regularity results for the free boundary, one considers \emph{blow-ups}.
Namely, given any free boundary point~$x_\circ$ for a solution $u$ of \eqref{ch4-obst-f-1}-\eqref{ch4-obst-f-2}, one takes the rescalings
\[u_r(x):= \frac{u(x_\circ +rx)}{r^2},\]
with $r>0$ small.
This is like ``zooming in'' at a free boundary point.
The factor $r^{-2}$ is chosen so that
\[\|u_r\|_{L^{\infty}(B_1)}\approx 1\]
as $r\to0$; recall that $0<cr^2\leq \sup_{B_r(x_\circ )}u\leq Cr^2$.
Then, by $C^{1,1}$ estimates, we will prove that a subsequence of $u_r$ converges to a function $u_0$ locally uniformly in $\mathbb{R}^n$ as $r\to0$.
Such function $u_0$ is called a \emph{blow-up of} $u$ \emph{at}~$x_\circ $.
Any blow-up $u_0$ is a \emph{global} solution to the obstacle problem, with $f\equiv 1$ (or with $f\equiv \textrm{constant}>0$).
Then, the main issue is to \emph{classify blow-ups}: that is, to show that
\[\begin{split}
\textrm{either}\qquad & u_0(x)={\textstyle \frac12}(x\cdot e)_+^2 \qquad\qquad\,\, \textrm{(this happens at regular points)} \\
\textrm{or} \qquad & u_0(x)={\textstyle \frac12}x^TAx \qquad\qquad\quad \textrm{(this happens at singular points)}. \end{split}\]
Here, $e\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ is a unit vector, and $A\geq0$ is a positive semi-definite matrix satisfying $\textrm{tr}A=1$.
Notice that the contact set $\{u_0=0\}$ becomes a half-space in case of regular points, while it has zero measure in case of singular points; see Figure~\ref{fig.22}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width =\textwidth]{./Figures/fig22.pdf}
\caption{Possible blow-ups of the solution to the obstacle problem at free boundary points.}
\label{fig.22}
\end{figure}
Once this is done, one has to ``transfer'' the information from the blow-up $u_0$ to the original solution $u$.
Namely, one shows that, in fact, the free boundary is $C^{1,\alpha}$ near regular points (for some small $\alpha>0$).
Finally, once we know that the free boundary is $C^{1,\alpha}$, we will ``bootstrap'' the regularity to $C^\infty$.
This is in a somewhat similar spirit as in \emph{Hilbert's XIXth problem} (Chapter \ref{ch.2}), where the really difficult point was to prove that minimizers are always $C^{1,\alpha}$.
Once this was done, by Schauder estimates (Chapter \ref{ch.1}) and a bootstrap argument we saw that solutions are actually~$C^\infty$.
Classifying blow-ups is not easy.
Generally speaking, classifying blow-ups is of similar difficulty to proving regularity estimates --- recall the blow-up arguments in Chapter~\ref{ch.1}.
Thus, how can we classify blow-ups?
Do we get any extra information on $u_0$ that we did not have for $u$?
(Otherwise it seems hopeless!)
The answer is \emph{yes}: \textsc{Convexity}.
We will prove that all blow-ups are always \emph{convex}.
This is a huge improvement, since this yields that the contact set $\{u_0=0\}$ is also convex.
Prior to that, we will also show that blow-ups are also \emph{homogeneous}.
So, before the blow-up we had no information on the set $\{u=0\}$, but after the blow-up we get that $\{u_0=0\}$ \emph{is a convex cone}.
Thanks to this we will be able to classify blow-ups, and thus to prove the regularity of the free boundary.
\vspace{3mm}
The main steps in the proof of the regularity of the free boundary will be the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $0<cr^2\leq \sup_{B_r(x_\circ )}u\leq Cr^2$
\vspace{1mm}
\item Blow-ups $u_0$ are \emph{homogeneous} and \emph{convex}.
\vspace{1mm}
\item If the contact set has \emph{positive density} at $x_\circ $, then $u_0(x)={\textstyle \frac12}(x\cdot e)_+^2$.
\vspace{1mm}
\item Deduce that the free boundary is $C^{1,\alpha}$ near $x_\circ $.
\vspace{1mm}
\item Deduce that the free boundary is $C^\infty$ near $x_\circ $.
\end{enumerate}
\vspace{2mm}
The proof we will present here for the convexity of blow-ups is new, based on the fact that they are homogeneous.
We refer to \cite{Caf98}, \cite{PSU}, \cite{W}, and \cite{KN}, for different proofs of the classification of blow-ups and/or of the regularity of free boundaries.
\section{Classification of blow-ups}
\index{Classification of blow-ups}
The aim of this Section is to classify all possible blow-ups $u_0$.
For this, we will first prove that blow-ups are homogeneous, then we will prove that they are convex, and finally we will establish their complete classification.
\subsection*{Homogeneity of blow-ups}
We start by proving that blow-ups are homogeneous.
This is not essential in the proof of the regularity of the free boundary (see \cite{Caf98}), but it actually simplifies it.
Recall that, for simplicity, from now on we will assume that $f\equiv1$ in~$B_1$.
This is only to avoid $x$-dependence in the equation, it simplifies some proofs.
Therefore, from now on we consider a solution $u$ satisfying (see Figure~\ref{fig.23}):
\begin{equation}\label{ch4-obst-f=1}
\begin{array}{l}
u\in C^{1,1}(B_1)
\vspace{1mm}
\\
u\geq0\quad \textrm{in}\ B_1
\vspace{1mm}
\\
\Delta u=1\quad \textrm{in}\ \{u>0\}
\vspace{1mm}
\\
0\ \textrm{is a free boundary point.}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
We will prove all the results around the origin (without loss of generality).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{./Figures/fig23.pdf}
\caption{A solution $u$ to the obstacle problem with $f\equiv1$.}
\label{fig.23}
\end{figure}
We will show that, for the original solution $u$ in $B_1$, the closer we look at a free boundary point $x_\circ $, the closer is the solution to being homogeneous.
\begin{prop}[Homogeneity of blow-ups]\label{cor-Weiss}\index{Homogeneity of blow-ups}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}.
Then, any blow-up of $u$ at $0$ is homogeneous of degree $2$.
\end{prop}
It is important to remark that not all global solutions to the obstacle problem in $\mathbb{R}^n$ are homogeneous.
There exist global solutions $u_0$ that are convex, $C^{1,1}$, and whose contact set $\{u_0=0\}$ is an ellipsoid, for example.
However, thanks to the previous result, we find that such non-homogeneous solutions cannot appear as blow-ups, i.e., that all blow-ups must be homogeneous.
We provide two different proofs of Proposition~\ref{cor-Weiss}. The first one uses a monotonicity formula as introduced by Weiss; while the second one does not require any monotonicity formula and is due to Spruck.
\subsubsection*{Homogeneity of blow-ups \textit{\`a la} Weiss}
For the first proof of Proposition~\ref{cor-Weiss}, we need the following monotonicity formula due to Weiss \cite{W}.
\begin{thm}[Weiss' monotonicity formula]\label{thm-Weiss}\index{Weiss monotonicity formula}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}.
Then, the quantity
\begin{equation}
\label{weissenergy}
W_u(r):=\frac{1}{r^{n+2}}\int_{B_r}\left\{{\textstyle \frac12}|\nabla u|^2+u\right\} -\frac{1}{r^{n+3}}\int_{\partial B_r}u^2
\end{equation}
is monotone in $r$, that is,
\[\frac{d}{dr}W_u(r)=\frac{1}{r^{n+4}}\int_{\partial B_r}(x\cdot \nabla u-2u)^2dx\geq 0\]
for $r\in(0,1)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let $u_r(x)=r^{-2}u(rx)$, and observe that
\[W_u(r)=\int_{B_1}\left\{{\textstyle \frac12}|\nabla u_r|^2+u_r\right\} -\int_{\partial B_1}u_r^2.\]
Using this, together with
\[\frac{d}{dr}(\nabla u_r)=\nabla \frac{d}{dr}u_r,\]
we find
\[\frac{d}{dr}W_u(r)=\int_{B_1}\left\{\nabla u_r\cdot \nabla \frac{d}{dr}u_r+\frac{d}{dr}u_r\right\}-2\int_{\partial B_1}u_r\frac{d}{dr}u_r.\]
Now, integrating by parts we get
\[\int_{B_1}\nabla u_r\cdot \nabla \frac{d}{dr}u_r=-\int_{B_1}\Delta u_r\frac{d}{dr}u_r+\int_{\partial B_1}\partial_\nu(u_r)\frac{d}{dr}u_r.\]
Since $\Delta u_r=1$ in $\{u_r>0\}$ and $\frac{d}{dr}u_r=0$ in $\{u_r=0\}$, we have
\[\int_{B_1}\nabla u_r\cdot \nabla \frac{d}{dr}u_r=-\int_{B_1}\frac{d}{dr}u_r+\int_{\partial B_1}\partial_\nu(u_r)\frac{d}{dr}u_r.\]
Thus, we deduce
\[\frac{d}{dr}W_u(r)=\int_{\partial B_1}\partial_\nu(u_r)\frac{d}{dr}u_r-2\int_{\partial B_1}u_r\frac{d}{dr}u_r.\]
Using that on $\partial B_1$ we have $\partial_\nu=x\cdot \nabla$, combined with
\[
\frac{d}{dr}u_r=\frac1r\left\{x\cdot\nabla u_r-2u_r\right\}
\]
yields
\[\frac{d}{dr}W_u(r)=\frac1r\int_{\partial B_1}\left(x\cdot\nabla u_r-2u_r\right)^2,\]
which gives the desired result.
\end{proof}
We now give the:
\begin{proof}[First proof of Proposition \ref{cor-Weiss}]
Let $u_r(x)=r^{-2}u(rx)$, and notice that we have the scaling property
\[W_{u_r}(\rho)=W_u(\rho r),\]
for any $r,\rho>0$.
If $u_0$ is any blow-up of $u$ at $0$ then there is a sequence $r_j\to0$ satisfying $u_{r_j}\to u_0$ in $C^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^n)$.
Thus, for any $\rho>0$ we have
\[W_{u_0}(\rho)=\lim_{r_j\to0}W_{u_{r_j}}(\rho)=\lim_{r_j\to0}W_{u}(\rho r_j)=W_u(0^+).\]
Notice that the limit $W_u(0^+):=\lim_{r\to0}W_u(r)$ exists by monotonicity of $W$ and since $u\in C^{1,1}$ implies $W_u(r)\ge - C$ for all $r \ge 0$.
Hence, the function $W_{u_0}(\rho)$ is \emph{constant} in $\rho$.
However, by Theorem \ref{thm-Weiss} this yields that $x\cdot \nabla u_0-2u_0\equiv0$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$, and therefore $u_0$ is homogeneous of degree~$2$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
Here, we used that a $C^1$ function $u_0$ is $2$-homogeneous (i.e. $u_0(\lambda x)=\lambda^2 u_0(x)$ for all $\lambda\in \mathbb{R}_+$) if and only if $x\cdot \nabla u_0\equiv 2u_0$.
This is because $\partial_\lambda|_{\lambda=1}\left\{\lambda^{-2}u_0(\lambda x)\right\}=x\cdot \nabla u_0-2u_0$.
\end{rem}
\subsubsection*{Homogeneity of blow-ups \textit{\`a la} Spruck}
We present an alternative (and quite different) proof of the homogeneity of blow-ups. Such proof is due to Spruck \cite{Spr83} and is not based on any monotonicity formula.
\begin{proof}[Second proof of Proposition~\ref{cor-Weiss}]
Let $u_0$ be a blow-up given by the limit along a sequence $r_k\downarrow 0$,
\[
u_0(x) := \lim_{k\to \infty} r_k^{-2} u(r_k x).
\]
By taking polar coordinates $(\varrho, \theta)\in [0, +\infty)\times \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ with $x = \varrho \theta$, and by denoting $\tilde u_0 (\varrho, \theta) = u_0 (\varrho \theta) = u_0(x)$, we will prove that $u_0(x) = \varrho^2\tilde u_0(1, \theta) = |x|^2u_0(x/|x|)$.
Let us define $\tau := -\log\varrho$, $\tilde u(\varrho, \theta) = u(x)$, and $\psi = \psi(\tau, \theta)$ as
\[
\psi(\tau, \theta) := \varrho^{-2} \tilde u(\varrho, \theta)= e^{2\tau}u(e^{-\tau}\theta)
\]
for $\tau \ge 0$. We observe that, since $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_r)}\le C r^2$, $\psi$ is bounded. Moreover, $\psi \in C^1((0, \infty)\times \mathbb{S}^{n-1})\cap C^2(\{\psi > 0\})$ from the regularity of $u$; and $\partial_\tau \psi$ and $\nabla_\theta \psi$ are not only continuous, but also uniformly bounded in $[0, \infty)\times \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$. Indeed,
\[
\big|\nabla_\theta \psi(\tau, \theta)\big| \le e^{\tau}\big|\nabla u(e^{-\tau}\theta) \big|\le C,
\]
since $\|\nabla u\|_{L^\infty(B_r)}\le C r$ by $C^{1,1}$ regularity and the fact that $\nabla u(0) =0$. For the same reason we also obtain
\[
\big|\partial_\tau \psi(\tau, \theta)\big| \le 2\psi(\tau, \theta) +e^{\tau}\big|\nabla u(e^{-\tau}\theta)\big|\le C.
\]
Observe that, by assumption, if we denote $\tau_k := -\log r_k$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.goestozerohi}
\psi(\tau_k, \theta) \to \tilde u_0(1, \theta)\quad \text{uniformly on $\mathbb{S}^{n-1}$, as $k\to \infty$}.
\end{equation}
Let us now write an equation for $\psi$. In order to do that, since we know that $\Delta u = \chi_{\{u > 0\}}$ and $\chi_{\{u > 0\}} = \chi_{\{\psi > 0\}}$, we have
\[
\Delta \big(\varrho^2 \psi(-\log \varrho, \theta)\big) = \chi_{\{\psi > 0\}}.
\]
By expanding the Laplacian in polar coordinates, $\Delta = \partial_{\varrho \varrho} +\frac{n-1}{\varrho}\partial_\varrho + \varrho^{-2}\Delta_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}}$ (where $\Delta_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}}$ denotes the spherical Laplacian, i.e. the Laplace--Beltrami operator on $\mathbb{S}^{n-1}$) we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.goingbackto}
2n \psi- (n+2)\partial_\tau \psi+\partial_{\tau\tau}\psi + \Delta_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}}\psi = \chi_{\{\psi > 0\}}.
\end{equation}
We multiply the previous equality by $\partial_\tau \psi$, and integrate in $[0, \tau]\times\mathbb{S}^{n-1}$. We can consider the terms separately, integrating in $\tau$ first,
\[
2n \int_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}}\int_{0}^\tau \psi\partial_\tau \psi = n \int_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}} \big(\psi^2(\tau,\theta) - \psi^2(0, \theta)\big)\, d\theta
\]
and
\[
\int_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}}\int_{0}^\tau \partial_{\tau\tau} \psi\partial_\tau \psi = \frac12 \int_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}} \big((\partial_\tau\psi)^2(\tau,\theta) - (\partial_\tau\psi)^2(0, \theta)\big)\, d\theta,
\]
and then integrating by parts in $\theta$ first, to integrate in $\tau$ afterwards:
\[
\begin{split}
\int_{0}^\tau \int_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}}\Delta_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}} \psi\partial_\tau \psi & = - \frac12\int_{0}^\tau \int_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}} \partial_\tau |\nabla_\theta \psi|^2\\
& = \frac12 \int_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}} \big(|\nabla_\theta \psi|^2(0,\theta) - |\nabla_\theta \psi|^2(\tau, \theta)\big)\, d\theta.
\end{split}
\]
Finally, since $\partial_\tau \psi = 0$ whenever $\psi = 0$, we have $\chi_{\{\psi > 0\}}\partial_\tau \psi = \partial_\tau \psi $ and
\[
\int_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}}\int_{0}^\tau\chi_{\{\psi > 0\}} \partial_\tau \psi = \int_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}} \big(\psi(\tau,\theta) - \psi(0, \theta)\big)\, d\theta.
\]
In all, plugging back in \eqref{eq.goingbackto} the previous expressions, and using that $\partial_\tau \psi$ and $\nabla_\theta \psi$ are uniformly bounded in $[0, \infty)\times\mathbb{S}^{n-1}$, we deduce that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.boundL2partial}
\int_{0}^\infty\int_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}} (\partial_\tau \psi)^2 =\int_{0}^\infty \|\partial_\tau \psi\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{S}^{n-1})} \le C < \infty.
\end{equation}
To finish, now observe that for any $|s|\le C_*$ fixed and for a sufficiently large $k$ (such that $\tau_k +s \ge 0$),
\[
\begin{split}
\|\psi(\tau_k + s, \cdot) - \tilde u_0(1, \cdot)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{S}^{n-1})} & \le \|\psi(\tau_k + s, \cdot) - \psi(\tau_k, \cdot)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{S}^{n-1})} \\
& \quad +\|\psi(\tau_k, \cdot) - \tilde u_0(1, \cdot)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{S}^{n-1})}.
\end{split}
\]
The last term goes to zero, by \eqref{eq.goestozerohi}. On the other hand, for the first term and by H\"older's inequality
\[
\begin{split}
\|\psi(\tau_k + s, \cdot) - \psi(\tau_k, \cdot)\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{S}^{n-1})} & \le \left\|\int_0^s \partial_\tau \psi(\tau_k + \tau, \cdot)\, d\tau\right\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{S}^{n-1})} \\
& \le C_*\left|\int_{\tau_k}^{\tau_k+s}\|\partial_\tau \psi\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{S}^{n-1})}\right|\to 0,
\end{split}
\]
as $k\to \infty$, where we are using \eqref{eq.boundL2partial}. Hence, $\psi(\tau_k + s, \cdot) \to \tilde u_0(1, \cdot)$ in $L^2(\mathbb{S}^{n-1})$ as $k\to \infty$, for any fixed $s\in \mathbb{R}$. On the other hand,
\[
\psi(\tau_k + s, \theta) = e^{2s}r_k^{-2} u(e^{-2}r_k\theta)\to e^{2s}u_0(e^{-s}\theta) = e^{2s}\tilde u_0(e^{-s}, \theta).
\]
That is, for any $\rho = e^{-s} > 0$,
\[
\tilde u_0(1, \cdot) = \rho^{-2} \tilde u_0(\rho, \theta),
\]
as we wanted to see.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Convexity of blow-ups}
By taking advantage of the fact that we know that blow-ups are 2-homogeneous, we can now give a short (and new) proof of the fact that they are also convex. More precisely, we will prove that 2-homogeneous global solutions to the obstacle problem are convex (and in particular, by Proposition~\ref{cor-Weiss}, blow-ups are convex).
\begin{thm}
\label{ch4_thm_convexity}
Let $u_0\in C^{1,1}$ be any $2$-homogeneous global solution to
\[\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
u_0&\geq&0&\quad \textrm{in}\ \mathbb{R}^n
\vspace{1mm}
\\
\Delta u_0&=&1&\quad \textrm{in}\ \{u_0>0\}
\vspace{1mm}
\\
&&& \hspace{-2.0cm} 0\ \textrm{is a free boundary point}.
\end{array}
\right.
\]
Then, $u_0$ is convex.
\end{thm}
The heuristic idea behind the proof of the previous result is the following: second derivatives $D^2 u_0$ are harmonic in $\{u_0 > 0\}$ and satisfy that $D^2 u_0 \ge 0 $ on $\partial\{u_0 > 0\}$ (since $u_0\ge 0$, it is ``convex at the free boundary''). Since $D^2u_0$ is also 0-homogeneous, we can apply the maximum principle and conclude that $D^2 u_0 \ge 0$ everywhere. That is, $u_0$ is convex. Let us formalize the previous heuristic idea into an actual proof.
We state a short lemma before providing the proof, which says that if $w\ge 0$ is superharmonic in $\{w > 0\}$, then it is superharmonic everywhere. For the sake of generality, we state the lemma for general $H^1$ functions, but we will use it only for functions that are also continuous.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem.second_convex}
Let $\Lambda\subset B_1$ be closed. Let $w\in H^1(B_1)$ be such that $w \ge 0$ on $\Lambda$ and such that $w$ is superharmonic in the weak sense in $B_1 \setminus \Lambda$. Then $\min\{w, 0\}$ is superharmonic in the weak sense in $B_1$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let us start by assuming that $w$ is, furthermore, continuous. In this case, we define $w_\varepsilon = \min\{w, -\varepsilon\}\in H^1(B_1)$. Then notice that (by continuity) in a neighborhood of $\{w = -\varepsilon\}$, $w$ is superharmonic ($\Delta w \le 0$). By Lemma~\ref{lem.pospartSH} (we apply the lemma with $v = -w-\varepsilon$) we have that $\Delta w_\varepsilon \le 0$ in the weak sense, namely, $w_\varepsilon$ is superharmonic. Moreover, they are uniformly in $H^1$, so up to subsequences they converge weakly to $\min\{w, 0\}$. Since the weak limit of weakly superharmonic functions is superharmonic, we deduce the desired result.
Finally, to remove the continuity assumption on $w\in H^1(B_1)$, we repeat the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem.pospartSH}. The only thing we need to check is that $F'(v)\eta \in H^1_0(B_1\setminus\Lambda)$, which follows from the fact that such function is in $H^1(B_1)$ and vanishes in $\Lambda$; see for example \cite[Theorem 9.1.3]{AH95}.
\end{proof}
We now give the:
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{ch4_thm_convexity}]
Let $e\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ and consider the second derivatives $\partial_{ee} u_0$. We define
\[
w_0 := \min\{\partial_{ee} u_0, 0\}
\]
and we claim that $w_0$ is superharmonic in $\mathbb{R}^n$, in the sense \eqref{eq.superharmonic_integral}.
Indeed, let $\delta_t^2 u_0(x)$ for $t > 0$ be defined by
\[
\delta_t^2 u_0(x) := \frac{u_0(x+te)+u_0(x-te)-2u_0(x)}{t^2}.
\]
Now, since $\Delta u_0 = \chi_{\{u_0 >0\}}$, we have that
\[
\Delta \delta_t^2 u_0 = \frac{1}{t^2} \big(\chi_{\{u_0(\,\cdot\,+te)\}}+\chi_{\{u_0(\,\cdot\,-te)\}}-2\big) \le 0\quad\text{in}\quad \{u_0 > 0\}
\]
in the weak sense. On the other hand, $\delta_t^2 u_0 \ge 0$ in $\{u_0 = 0\}$ and $\delta_t^2 u_0 \in C^{1,1}$. Thus, by Lemma~\ref{lem.second_convex}, $w_t := \min\{\delta_t^2 u_0, 0\}$ is weakly superharmonic, and hence it satisfies \eqref{eq.superharmonic_integral}. Also notice that $\delta_t^2 u_0(x)$ is uniformly bounded independently of $t$, since $u_0\in C^{1,1}$, and therefore $w_{t}$ is uniformly bounded in $t$ and converges pointwise to $w_0$ as $t\downarrow 0$. In particular, by Lemma~\ref{lem.convergence_pointwise} we have that $w_0$ is superharmonic in the sense of \eqref{eq.superharmonic_integral}, as claimed.
Up to changing it in a set of measure 0, $w_0$ is lower semi-continuous by Lemma~\ref{lem.lower_semi}. In particular, since $w_0$ is 0-homogeneous, it must attain its minimum at a point $y_\circ\in B_1$. But since $\strokedint_{B_r(y_\circ)} w_0$ is non-increasing for $r > 0$, we must have that $w_0$ is constant. Since it vanishes on the free boundary, we have $w_0 \equiv 0$. That is, for any $e\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ we have that $\partial_{ee} u_0 \ge 0$ and therefore $u_0$ is convex.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}[Convexity of blow-ups \emph{\`a la} Caffarelli]
The original proof by Caffarelli on the convexity of blow-ups, \cite{Caf, Caf98}, is more involved than the previous one, but obtains a quantitative estimate on the convexity without using the homogeneity assumption (in particular, it is valid for any global solution).
More precisely, for any solution $u$ to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1} in $B_1$
\[\qquad \qquad \partial_{ee}u(x)\geq -\frac{C}{\bigr|\log|x|\bigr|^{\varepsilon}}\qquad \text{for all}\quad e\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1},~~ x \in B_{1/2}, \]
for some $\varepsilon>0$. Notice that $C\bigr|\log|x|\bigr|^{-\varepsilon}\to0$ as $x\to0$.
Thus, $u$ becomes closer and closer to being convex as we approach to the free boundary. Rescaling this result to $B_R$, and letting $R\to\infty$, this implies that any global solution is convex.
\end{rem}
Finally, we refer to \cite[Theorem 5.1]{PSU} for yet another different proof of the convexity of blow-ups.
\subsection*{Classification of blow-ups}
We next want to classify all possible blow-ups for solutions to the obstacle problem \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}.
First, we will prove the following.
\begin{prop}\label{ch4-prop-blowups}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}, and let
\[u_r(x):=\frac{u(rx)}{r^2}.\]
Then, for any sequence $r_k\to0$ there is a subsequence $r_{k_j}\to0$ such that
\[u_{r_{k_j}}\longrightarrow u_0\quad\textrm{in}\ C^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^n)\]
as $k_j\to\infty$, for some function $u_0$ satisfying
\[
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
u_0\in C^{1,1}_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^n)
\vspace{1mm}
\\
u_0\geq0\quad \textrm{in}\ B_1
\vspace{1mm}
\\
\Delta u_0=1\quad \textrm{in}\ \{u_0>0\}
\vspace{1mm}
\\
0\ \textrm{is a free boundary point}
\vspace{1mm}
\\
u_0\ \textrm{is convex}
\\
u_0\ \textrm{is homogeneous of degree 2}.
\end{array}\right.
\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By $C^{1,1}$ regularity of $u$, and by nondegeneracy, we have that
\[\frac{1}{C}\leq \sup_{B_1}u_r \leq C\]
for some $C>0$.
Moreover, again by $C^{1,1}$ regularity of $u$, we have
\[\|D^2u_r\|_{L^\infty(B_{1/(2r)})}\leq C.\]
Since the sequence $\{u_{r_k}\}$, for $r_k\to0$, is uniformly bounded in $C^{1,1}(K)$ for each compact set $K\subset \mathbb{R}^n$, there is a subsequence $r_{k_j}\to0$ such that
\[u_{r_{k_j}}\longrightarrow u_0\quad\textrm{in}\ C^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^n)\]
for some $u_0\in C^{1,1}(K)$.
Moreover, such function $u_0$ satisfies $\|D^2u_0\|_{L^\infty(K)}\leq C$, with $C$ independent of $K$, and clearly $u_0\geq0$ in $K$.
The fact that $\Delta u_0=1$ in $\{u_0>0\}\cap K$ can be checked as follows.
For any smooth function $\eta\in C^\infty_c(\{u_0>0\}\cap K)$ we will have that, for $k_j$ large enough, $u_{r_{k_j}}>0$ in the support of $\eta$, and thus
\[\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} \nabla u_{r_{k_j}}\cdot \nabla \eta\,dx=-\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} \eta\,dx.\]
Since $u_{r_{k_j}}\to u_0$ in $C^1(K)$, we can take the limit $k_j\to\infty$ to get
\[\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} \nabla u_0\cdot \nabla \eta\,dx=-\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} \eta\,dx.\]
Since this can be done for any $\eta\in C^\infty_c(\{u>0\}\cap K)$, and for every $K\subset \mathbb{R}^n$, it follows that $\Delta u_0=1$ in $\{u_0>0\}$.
The fact that $0$ is a free boundary point for $u_0$ follows simply by taking limits to $u_{r_{k_j}}(0)=0$ and $\|u_{r_{k_j}}\|_{L^\infty(B_\rho)}\approx \rho^2$ for all $\rho\in (0,1)$.
Finally, the homogeneity and convexity of $u_0$ follow from Proposition~\ref{cor-Weiss} and Theorem~\ref{ch4_thm_convexity}.
\end{proof}
Our next goal is to prove the following.
\begin{thm}[Classification of blow-ups]\label{thm-classification-blowups}\index{Classification of blow-ups}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}, and let $u_0$ be any blow-up of $u$ at $0$.
Then,
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] either
\[u_0(x)=\frac12(x\cdot e)_+^2\]
for some $e\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$.
\item[(b)] or
\[u_0(x)=\frac12x^TAx\]
for some matrix $A\geq0$ with ${\rm tr}\,A=1$.
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}
It is important to remark here that, a priori, different subsequences could lead to different blow-ups $u_0$.
In order to establish Theorem \ref{thm-classification-blowups}, we will need the following.
\begin{lem}\label{lem-cone-homog1}
Let $\Sigma\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be any closed convex cone with nonempty interior, and with vertex at the origin.
Let $w\in C(\mathbb{R}^n)$ be a function satisfying $\Delta w=0$ in $\Sigma^c$, $w>0$ in $\Sigma^c$, and $w=0$ in $\Sigma$.
Assume in addition that $w$ is homogeneous of degree 1.
Then, $\Sigma$ must be a half-space.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By convexity of $\Sigma$, there exists a half-space $H=\{x\cdot e>0\}$, with $e\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$, such that $H\subset \Sigma^c$.
Let $v(x)=(x\cdot e)_+$, which is harmonic and positive in $H$, and vanishes in~$H^c$.
By the Hopf Lemma (see Lemma~\ref{Hopf}), we have that $w\geq c_\circ d_\Sigma$ in $\Sigma^c\cap B_1$, where $d_\Sigma(x)={\rm dist}(x,\Sigma)$ and $c_\circ $ is a small positive constant.
In particular, since both $w$ and $d_\Sigma$ are homogeneous of degree 1, we deduce that $w\geq c_\circ d_\Sigma$ in all of $\Sigma^c$.
Notice that, in order to apply the Hopf Lemma, we used that --- by convexity of $\Sigma$ --- the domain $\Sigma^c$ satisfies the interior ball condition.
Thus, since $d_\Sigma\geq d_{H^c}= v$, we deduce that $w\geq c_\circ v$, for some $c_\circ >0$.
The idea is now to consider the functions $w$ and $cv$, and let $c>0$ increase until the two functions touch at one point, which will give us a contradiction (recall that two harmonic functions cannot touch at an interior point).
To do this rigorously, define
\[c_*:=\sup\{c>0\,:\, w\geq cv\quad\textrm{in}\quad\Sigma^c\}.\]
Notice that $c_*\geq c_\circ >0$.
Then, we consider the function $w-c_*v\geq0$.
Assume that $w-c_*v$ is not identically zero.
Such function is harmonic in $H$ and hence, by the strict maximum principle, $w-c_*v>0$ in $H$.
Then, using the Hopf Lemma in $H$ (see Lemma~\ref{Hopf}) we deduce that $w-c_*v\geq c_\circ d_{H^c}=c_\circ v$, since $v$ is exactly the distance to $H^c$.
But then we get that $w-(c_*+c_\circ )v\geq0$, a contradiction with the definition of $c_*$.
Therefore, it must be $w-c_*v\equiv0$.
This means that $w$ is a multiple of $v$, and therefore $\Sigma=H^c$, a half-space.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}[Alternative proof]
An alternative way to argue in the previous lemma could be the following.
Any function $w$ which is harmonic in a cone $\Sigma^c$ and homogeneous of degree $\alpha$ can be written as a function on the sphere, satisfying $\Delta_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}}w=\mu w$ on $\mathbb{S}^{n-1}\cap \Sigma^c$ with $\mu=\alpha(n+\alpha-2)$ --- in our case $\alpha=1$. (Here, $\Delta_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}}$ denotes the spherical Laplacian, i.e. the Laplace--Beltrami operator on $\mathbb{S}^{n-1}$.)
In other words, \emph{homogeneous harmonic functions solve an eigenvalue problem on the sphere}.
Using this, we notice that $w>0$ in $\Sigma^c$ and $w=0$ in $\Sigma$ imply that $w$ is the \emph{first} eigenfunction of $\mathbb{S}^{n-1}\cap \Sigma^c$, and that the first eigenvalue is $\mu=n-1$.
But, on the other hand, the same happens for the domain $H=\{x\cdot e>0\}$, since $v(x)=(x\cdot e)_+$ is a positive harmonic function in $H$.
This means that both domains $\mathbb{S}^{n-1}\cap \Sigma^c$ and $\mathbb{S}^{n-1}\cap H$ have the same first eigenvalue $\mu$.
But then, by strict monotonicity of the first eigenvalue with respect to domain inclusions, we deduce that $H\subset \Sigma^c$ implies $H=\Sigma^c$, as desired.
\end{rem}
We will also need the following.
\begin{lem}\label{ch4-removable}
Assume that $\Delta u=1$ in $\mathbb{R}^n\setminus \partial H$, where $\partial H$ is a hyperplane.
If $u\in C^1(\mathbb{R}^n)$, then $\Delta u=1$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Assume $\partial H=\{x_1=0\}$.
For any ball $B_R\subset\mathbb{R}^n$, we consider the solution to $\Delta w=1$ in $B_R$, $w=u$ on $\partial B_R$, and define $v=u-w$.
Then, we have $\Delta v=0$ in $B_R\setminus \partial H$, and $v=0$ on $\partial B_R$.
We want to show that $u$ coincides with $w$, that is, $v\equiv0$ in $B_R$.
For this, notice that since $v$ is bounded, for $\kappa>0$ large enough we have
\[v(x)\leq \kappa(2R-|x_1|) \quad \textrm{in}\quad B_R,\]
where $2R-|x_1|$ is positive in $B_R$ and harmonic in $B_R\setminus\{x_1=0\}$.
Thus, we may consider $\kappa^*:=\inf\{\kappa\geq0: v(x)\leq \kappa(2R-|x_1|) \quad \textrm{in}\quad B_R\}$.
Assume $\kappa^*>0$.
Since $v$ and $2R-|x_1|$ are continuous in $B_R$, and $v=0$ on $\partial B_R$, we must have a point $p\in B_R$ at which $v(p)=\kappa^* (2R-|p_1|)$.
Moreover, since $v$ is $C^1$, and the function $2R-|x_1|$ has a wedge on $\partial H=\{x_1=0\}$, we must have $p\in B_R\setminus \partial H$.
However, this is not possible, as two harmonic functions cannot touch tangentially at an interior point $p$.
This means that $\kappa^*=0$, and hence $v\leq0$ in $B_R$.
Repeating the same argument with $-v$ instead of $v$, we deduce that $v\equiv0$ in $B_R$, and thus the lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
Finally, we will use the following basic property of convex functions.
\begin{lem}\label{convex-1D}
Let $u: \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be a convex function such that the set $\{u=0\}$ contains the straight line $\{te'\,:\, t\in \mathbb{R}\}$, $e'\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$.
Then, $u(x+te')=u(x)$ for all $x\in \mathbb{R}^n$ and all $t\in\mathbb{R}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
After a rotation, we may assume $e'=e_n$.
Then, writing $x=(x',x_n)\in \mathbb{R}^{n-1}\times \mathbb{R}$, we have that $u(0,x_n)=0$ for all $x_n\in \mathbb{R}$, and we want to prove that $u(x',x_n)=u(x',0)$ for all $x'\in \mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ and all $x_n\in \mathbb{R}$.
Now, by convexity, given $x'$ and $x_n$, for every $\varepsilon>0$ and $M\in \mathbb{R}$ we have
\[(1-\varepsilon)u(x',x_n)+\varepsilon u(0,x_n+M)\geq u((1-\varepsilon)x',x_n+\varepsilon M).\]
Since $u(0,x_n+M)=0$, choosing $M=\lambda/\varepsilon$ and letting $\varepsilon\to0$ we deduce that
\[u(x',x_n)\geq u(x',x_n+\lambda).\]
Since this can be done for any $\lambda\in \mathbb{R}$ and $x_n\in\mathbb{R}$, the result follows.
\end{proof}
We finally establish the classification of blow-ups at regular points.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm-classification-blowups}]
Let $u_0$ be any blow-up of $u$ at $0$.
We already proved that $u_0$ is convex and homogeneous of degree 2.
We divide the proof into two cases.
\noindent{\it \underline{\smash{Case 1}}.}
Assume that $\{u_0=0\}$ has nonempty interior.
Then, we have $\{u_0=0\}=\Sigma$, a closed convex cone with nonempty interior.
For any direction $\tau\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ such that $-\tau\in \mathring{\Sigma}$, we claim that
\[\partial_\tau u_0\geq0 \quad \textrm{in}\quad \mathbb{R}^n.\]
Indeed, for every $x\in \mathbb{R}^n$ we have that $u_0(x+\tau t)$ is zero for $t\ll -1$, and therefore by convexity of $u_0$ we get that $\partial_t u_0(x+\tau t)$ is monotone non-decreasing in $t$, and zero for $t\ll-1$.
This means that $\partial_tu_0\geq0$, and thus $\partial_\tau u_0\geq0$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$, as claimed.
Now, for any such $\tau$, we define $w:=\partial_\tau u_0\geq0$.
Notice that, at least for some $\tau\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ with $-\tau\in \mathring{\Sigma}$, the function $w$ is not identically zero.
Moreover, since it is harmonic in $\Sigma^c$ --- recall that $\Delta u_0=1$ in $\Sigma^c$ --- then $w>0$ in $\Sigma^c$.
But then, since $w$ is homogeneous of degree 1, we can apply Lemma~\ref{lem-cone-homog1} to deduce that we must necessarily have that $\Sigma$ is a half-space.
By convexity of $u_0$ and Lemma~\ref{convex-1D}, this means that $u_0$ is a one-dimensional function, i.e., $u_0(x)=U(x\cdot e)$ for some $U:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ and some $e\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$.
Thus, we have that $U\in C^{1,1}$ solves $U''(t)=1$ for $t>0$, with $U(t)=0$ for $t\leq0$.
We deduce that $U(t)=\frac12 t_+^2$, and therefore $u_0(x)=\frac12(x\cdot e)_+^2$.
\vspace{1mm}
\noindent{\it \underline{\smash{Case 2}}.}
Assume now that $\{u_0=0\}$ has empty interior.
Then, by convexity, $\{u_0=0\}$ is contained in a hyperplane $\partial H$.
Hence, $\Delta u_0=1$ in $\mathbb{R}^n\setminus \partial H$, with $\partial H$ being a hyperplane, and $u_0\in C^{1,1}$.
It follows from Lemma~\ref{ch4-removable} that $\Delta u_0=1$ in all of $\mathbb{R}^n$.
But then all second derivatives of $u_0$ are harmonic and globally bounded in $\mathbb{R}^n$, so they must be constant.
Hence, $u_0$ is a quadratic polynomial.
Finally, since $u_0(0)=0$, $\nabla u_0(0)=0$, and $u_0\geq0$, we deduce that $u_0(x)=\frac12x^TAx$ for some $A\geq0$, and since $\Delta u_0=1$, we have ${\rm tr}\,A=1$.
\end{proof}
\section{Regularity of the free boundary}
The aim of this Section is to prove Theorem \ref{ch4-FB-smooth} below, i.e., that if $u$ is any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1} satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{ch4-positive-density}
\limsup_{r\to0}\frac{\bigl|\{u=0\}\cap B_r\bigr|}{|B_r|}>0
\end{equation}
(i.e., the contact set has positive density at the origin),
then the free boundary $\partial\{u>0\}$ is $C^\infty$ in a neighborhood of the origin.
For this, we will use the classification of blow-ups established in the previous Section.
\subsection*{$C^{1,\alpha}$ regularity of the free boundary}
The first step here is to transfer the local information on $u$ given by \eqref{ch4-positive-density} into a blow-up $u_0$.
More precisely, we next show that
\[\eqref{ch4-positive-density}\qquad \Longrightarrow\qquad \begin{array}{cc}
\textrm{The contact set of a blow-up}\ u_0 \\
\textrm{has nonempty interior}.
\end{array}\]
\begin{lem}\label{ch4-lem-positive-density}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}, and assume that \eqref{ch4-positive-density} holds.
Then, there is at least one blow-up $u_0$ of $u$ at $0$ such that the contact set $\{u_0=0\}$ has nonempty interior.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $r_k\to0$ be a sequence along which
\[\lim_{r_k\to0}\frac{\bigl|\{u=0\}\cap B_{r_k}\bigr|}{|B_{r_k}|}\geq \theta>0.\]
Such sequence exists (with $\theta>0$ small enough) by assumption \eqref{ch4-positive-density}.
Recall that, thanks to Proposition \ref{ch4-prop-blowups}, there exists a subsequence $r_{k_j}\downarrow 0$ along which $u_{r_{k_j}}\to u_0$ uniformly on compact sets of $\mathbb{R}^n$, where $u_r(x)=r^{-2}u(rx)$ and $u_0$ is convex.
Assume by contradiction that $\{u_0=0\}$ has empty interior.
Then, by convexity, we have that $\{u_0=0\}$ is contained in a hyperplane, say $\{u_0=0\}\subset \{x_1=0\}$.
Since $u_0>0$ in $\{x_1\neq 0\}$ and $u_0$ is continuous, we have that for each $\delta>0$
\[u_0\geq\varepsilon>0\quad \textrm{in}\ \{|x_1|>\delta\}\cap B_1\]
for some $\varepsilon>0$.
Therefore, by uniform convergence of $u_{r_{k_j}}$ to $u_0$ in $B_1$, there is $r_{k_j}>0$ small enough such that
\[u_{r_{k_j}}\geq \frac{\varepsilon}{2}>0\quad \textrm{in}\ \{|x_1|>\delta\}\cap B_1.\]
In particular, the contact set of $u_{r_{k_j}}$ is contained in $\{|x_1|\leq\delta\}\cap B_1$, so
\[\frac{\bigl|\{u_{r_{k_j}}=0\}\cap B_1\bigr|}{|B_1|}\leq \frac{\bigl|\{|x_1|\leq\delta\}\cap B_1\bigr|}{|B_1|}\leq C\delta.\]
Rescaling back to $u$, we find
\[\frac{\bigl|\{u=0\}\cap B_{r_{k_j}}\bigr|}{|B_{r_{k_j}}|}
=\frac{\bigl|\{u_{r_{k_j}}=0\}\cap B_1\bigr|}{|B_1|}<C\delta.\]
Since we can do this for every $\delta>0$, we find that
$\lim_{r_{k_j}\to0}\frac{|\{u=0\}\cap B_{r_{k_j}}|}{|B_{r_{k_j}}|}=0$, a contradiction.
Thus, the lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
Combining the previous lemma with the classification of blow-ups from the previous Section, we deduce:
\begin{cor}\label{ch4-lem-one-blowup}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}, and assume that \eqref{ch4-positive-density} holds.
Then, there is at least one blow-up of $u$ at $0$ of the form
\[
\qquad\qquad u_0(x)=\frac12(x\cdot e)_+^2,\qquad\qquad e\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}.
\]
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
The result follows from Lemma~\ref{ch4-lem-positive-density} and Theorem \ref{thm-classification-blowups}.
\end{proof}
We now want to use this information to show that the free boundary must be smooth in a neighborhood of $0$.
For this, we start with the following.
\begin{prop}\label{ch4-FBreg-prop}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}, and assume that \eqref{ch4-positive-density} holds.
Fix any $\varepsilon>0$.
Then, there exist $e\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ and $r_\circ >0$ such that
\[\qquad \bigl|u_{r_\circ }(x) - {\textstyle\frac12}(x\cdot e)_+^2\bigr|\leq \varepsilon\qquad\textrm{in}\quad B_1,\]
and
\[\qquad \bigl|\partial_\tau u_{r_\circ }(x) - (x\cdot e)_+(\tau\cdot e)\bigr|\leq \varepsilon\qquad\textrm{in}\quad B_1\]
for all $\tau\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By Corollary \ref{ch4-lem-one-blowup} and Proposition~\ref{ch4-prop-blowups}, we know that there is a subsequence $r_j\to0$ for which $u_{r_j}\to \frac12(x\cdot e)^2_+$ in $C^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^n)$, for some $e\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$.
In particular, for every $\tau\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ we have $u_{r_j}\to \frac12(x\cdot e)^2_+$ and $\partial_\tau u_{r_j}\to \partial_\tau \bigl[\frac12(x\cdot e)^2_+\bigr]$ uniformly in $B_1$.
This means that, given $\varepsilon>0$, there exists $j_\circ $ such that
\[\qquad \bigl|u_{r_{j_\circ }}(x) - {\textstyle\frac12}(x\cdot e)_+^2\bigr|\leq \varepsilon\qquad\textrm{in}\quad B_1,\]
and
\[\qquad \left|\partial_\tau u_{r_{j_\circ }}(x) - \partial_\tau \bigl[{\textstyle \frac12}(x\cdot e)^2_+\bigr]\right|\leq \varepsilon\qquad\textrm{in}\quad B_1.\]
Since $\partial_\tau \bigl[{\textstyle \frac12}(x\cdot e)^2_+\bigr]=(x\cdot e)_+(\tau\cdot e)$, the proposition is proved.
\end{proof}
Now, notice that if $(\tau\cdot e)>0$, then the derivatives $\partial_\tau u_0 = (x\cdot e)_+(\tau\cdot e)$ are \emph{nonnegative}, and strictly positive in $\{x\cdot e>0\}$ (see Figure~\ref{fig.27}).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 1.3]{./Figures/fig27.pdf}
\caption{Derivatives $\partial_\tau u_0$ are nonnegative if $\tau\cdot e \ge \frac12$.}
\label{fig.27}
\end{figure}
We want to transfer this information to $u_{r_\circ }$, and prove that $\partial_\tau u_{r_\circ } \geq0$ in $B_1$ for all $\tau\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ satisfying $\tau\cdot e\geq\frac12$.
For this, we need a lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{ch4-lem-almost-positive}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}, and consider $u_{r_\circ }(x)=r_\circ ^{-2}u(r_\circ x)$ and $\Omega=\{u_{r_\circ }>0\}$.
Assume that a function $w\in C(B_1)$ satisfies:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $w$ is bounded and harmonic in $\Omega\cap B_1$.
\item[(b)] $w=0$ on $\partial\Omega\cap B_1$.
\item[(c)] Denoting $N_\delta:=\{x\in B_1:{\rm dist}(x,\partial\Omega)<\delta\}$, we have
\[w\geq -c_1 \quad\textrm{in}\quad N_\delta\qquad\quad\textrm{and}\quad\qquad w\geq C_2>0\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega\setminus N_\delta.\]
\end{itemize}
If $c_1/C_2$ is small enough, and $\delta>0$ is small enough, then $w\geq0$ in $B_{1/2}\cap \Omega$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Notice that in $\Omega\setminus N_\delta$ we already know that $w>0$.
Let $y_\circ \in N_\delta\cap\Omega\cap B_{1/2}$, and assume by contradiction that $w(y_0)<0$.
Consider, in $B_{1/4}(y_\circ )$, the function
\[v(x)=w(x)-\gamma\left\{u_{r_\circ }(x)-\frac{1}{2n}|x-y_\circ |^2\right\}.\]
Then, $\Delta v=0$ in $B_{1/4}(y_\circ )\cap \Omega$, and $v(y_\circ )<0$.
Thus, $v$ must have a negative minimum in $\partial\bigl(B_{1/4}(y_\circ )\cap \Omega\bigr)$.
However, if $c_1/C_2$ and $\delta$ are small enough, then we reach a contradiction as follows:
On $\partial\Omega$ we have $v\geq0$.
On $\partial B_{1/4}(y_\circ )\cap N_\delta$ we have
\[v\geq -c_1-C_\circ \gamma\delta^2+\frac{\gamma}{2n}\left({\frac14}\right)^2\geq0 \quad \textrm{on}\quad \partial B_{1/4}(y_\circ )\cap N_\delta.\]
On $\partial B_{1/4}(y_\circ )\cap \bigl(\Omega\setminus N_\delta\bigr)$ we have
\[v\geq C_2-C_\circ \gamma\geq0 \quad \textrm{on}\quad \partial B_{1/4}(y_\circ )\cap \bigl(\Omega\setminus N_\delta\bigr).\]
Here, we used that $\|u_{r_\circ }\|_{C^{1,1}(B_1)}\leq C_\circ $, and chose $C_\circ c_1\leq \gamma\leq C_2/C_\circ $.
\end{proof}
Using the previous lemma, we can now show that there is a cone of directions $\tau$ in which the solution is monotone near the origin.
\begin{prop}\label{ch4-monotone-directional}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}, and assume that \eqref{ch4-positive-density} holds.
Let $u_r(x)=r^{-2}u(rx)$.
Then, there exist $r_\circ >0$ and $e\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ such that
\[\partial_\tau u_{r_\circ }\geq0\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_{1/2}\]
for every $\tau\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ satisfying $\tau\cdot e\geq\frac12$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition \ref{ch4-FBreg-prop}, for any $\varepsilon>0$ there exist $e\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ and $r_\circ >0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{ch4-circ-1}
\qquad \bigl|u_{r_\circ }(x) - {\textstyle\frac12}(x\cdot e)_+^2\bigr|\leq \varepsilon\qquad\textrm{in}\quad B_1
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{ch4-circ-2}
\qquad \bigl|\partial_\tau u_{r_\circ }(x) - (x\cdot e)_+(\tau\cdot e)\bigr|\leq \varepsilon\qquad\textrm{in}\quad B_1
\end{equation}
for all $\tau\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$.
We now want to use Lemma \ref{ch4-lem-almost-positive} to deduce that $\partial_\tau u_{r_\circ }\geq0$ if $\tau\cdot e\geq\frac12$.
First, we claim that
\[u_{r_\circ }>0\quad \textrm{in}\quad \{x\cdot e>C_\circ \sqrt{\varepsilon}\},\]
\begin{equation}\label{ch4-use-CS}
u_{r_\circ }=0\quad \textrm{in}\quad \{x\cdot e<-C_\circ \sqrt{\varepsilon}\},
\end{equation}
and therefore the free boundary $\partial\Omega=\partial\{u_{r_\circ }>0\}$ is contained in the strip $\{|x\cdot e|\leq C_\circ \sqrt{\varepsilon}\}$, for some $C_\circ $ depending only on $n$ (see Figure~\ref{fig.28}).
To prove this, notice that if $x\cdot e>C_\circ \sqrt{\varepsilon}$ then
\[u_{r_\circ }>\frac12(C_\circ \sqrt{\varepsilon})^2-\varepsilon>0,\]
while if there was a free boundary point $x_\circ $ in $\{x\cdot e<-C_\circ \varepsilon\}$ then by nondegeneracy we would get
\[\sup_{B_{C_\circ \sqrt{\varepsilon}}(x_\circ )} u_{r_\circ }\geq c(C_\circ \sqrt{\varepsilon})^2>2\varepsilon,\]
a contradiction with \eqref{ch4-circ-1}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{./Figures/fig28_2.pdf}
\caption{The setting in which we use Lemma~\ref{ch4-lem-almost-positive}.}
\label{fig.28}
\end{figure}
Therefore, we have
\[
\partial\Omega\subset \{|x\cdot e|\leq C_\circ \sqrt{\varepsilon}\}.
\]
Now, for each $\tau\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ satisfying $\tau\cdot e\geq\frac12$ we define
\[w:=\partial_\tau u_{r_\circ }.\]
In order to use Lemma \ref{ch4-lem-almost-positive}, we notice:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $w$ is bounded and harmonic in $\Omega\cap B_1$.
\item[(b)] $w=0$ on $\partial\Omega\cap B_1$.
\item[(c)] Thanks to \eqref{ch4-circ-2}, if $\delta\gg\sqrt{\varepsilon}$ then $w$ satisfies
\[w\geq -\varepsilon \quad\textrm{in}\quad N_\delta\]
and
\[w\geq \delta/4>0\quad\textrm{in}\quad (\Omega\setminus N_\delta)\cap B_1.\]
\end{itemize}
(We recall $N_\delta:=\{x\in B_1:{\rm dist}(x,\partial\Omega)<\delta\}$.)
Indeed, to check the last inequality we use that, by \eqref{ch4-use-CS}, we have $\{x\cdot e<\delta-C_\circ \sqrt{\varepsilon}\}\cap \Omega\subset N_\delta$.
Thus, by \eqref{ch4-circ-2}, we get that for all $x\in (\Omega\setminus N_\delta)\cap B_1$
\[w\geq \frac12(x\cdot e)_+-\varepsilon\geq \frac12\delta-\frac12C_\circ \sqrt{\varepsilon}-\varepsilon\geq \frac14\delta,\]
provided that $\delta\gg\sqrt{\varepsilon}$.
Using (a)-(b)-(c), we deduce from Lemma \ref{ch4-lem-almost-positive} that
\[w\geq0\quad \textrm{in}\quad B_{1/2}.\]
Since we can do this for every $\tau\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ with $\tau\cdot e\geq\frac12$, the proposition is proved.
\end{proof}
As a consequence of the previous proposition, we find:
\begin{cor}\label{ch4-FB-Lip}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}, and assume that \eqref{ch4-positive-density} holds.
Then, there exists $r_\circ >0$ such that the free boundary $\partial\{u_{r_\circ }>0\}$ is \emph{Lipschitz} in $B_{1/2}$.
In particular, the free boundary of $u$, $\partial\{u>0\}$, is Lipschitz in $B_{r_\circ /2}$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
This follows from the fact that $\partial_\tau u_{r_\circ }\geq0$ in $B_{1/2}$ for all $\tau\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ with $\tau\cdot e\geq \frac12$ (by Proposition~\ref{ch4-monotone-directional}), as explained next.
Let $x_\circ \in B_{1/2}\cap \partial\{u_{r_\circ }>0\}$ be any free boundary point in $B_{1/2}$, and let
\[\Theta:=\bigl\{\tau\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}: \tau\cdot e>{\textstyle\frac12}\bigr\},\]
\[\Sigma_1:=\bigl\{x\in B_{1/2}: x=x_\circ -t\tau,\ {\rm with}\ \tau\in \Theta,\ t>0\bigr\},\]
and
\[\Sigma_2:=\bigl\{x\in B_{1/2}: x=x_\circ +t\tau,\ {\rm with}\ \tau\in \Theta,\ t>0\bigr\},\]
see Figure~\ref{fig.29}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.9]{./Figures/fig29.pdf}
\caption{Representation of $\Sigma_1$ and $\Sigma_2$.}
\label{fig.29}
\end{figure}
We claim that
\begin{equation} \label{ch4-FB-Lip-Q}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
u_{r_\circ }&=&0& \ \textrm{in} \quad\Sigma_1,\\
u_{r_\circ }&>&0& \ \textrm{in} \quad\Sigma_2.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
Indeed, since $u_{r_\circ}(x_\circ )=0$, it follows from the monotonicity property $\partial_\tau u_{r_\circ }\geq0$ --- and the nonnegativity of $u_{r_\circ }$ --- that $u_{r_\circ }(x_\circ -t\tau)=0$ for all $t>0$ and $\tau\in\Theta$.
In particular, there cannot be any free boundary point in $\Sigma_1$.
On the other hand, by the same argument, if $u_{r_\circ }(x_1)=0$ for some $x_1\in \Sigma_2$ then we would have $u_{r_\circ }=0$ in $\bigl\{x\in B_{1/2}: x=x_1-t\tau,\ {\rm with}\ \tau\in \Theta,\ t>0\bigr\}\ni x_\circ $, and in particular $x_\circ $ would not be a free boundary point.
Thus, $u_{r_\circ }(x_1)>0$ for all $x_1\in \Sigma_2$, and \eqref{ch4-FB-Lip-Q} is proved.
Finally, notice that \eqref{ch4-FB-Lip-Q} yields that the free boundary $\partial\{u_{r_\circ }>0\}\cap B_{1/2}$ satisfies both the interior and exterior cone condition, and thus it is Lipschitz.
\end{proof}
Once we know that the free boundary is Lipschitz, we may assume without loss of generality that $e=e_n$ and that
\[\partial\{u_{r_\circ }>0\}\cap B_{1/2}=\{x_n=g(x')\}\cap B_{1/2}\]
for a Lipschitz function $g:\mathbb{R}^{n-1}\to\mathbb{R}$.
Here, $x=(x',x_n)$, with $x'\in\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ and $x_n\in\mathbb{R}$.
Now, we want to prove that Lipschitz free boundaries are $C^{1,\alpha}$.
A key ingredient for this will be the following basic property of harmonic functions (see Figure~\ref{fig.26} for a representation of the setting).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{./Figures/fig26.pdf}
\caption{Setting of the boundary Harnack.}
\label{fig.26}
\end{figure}
\begin{thm}[Boundary Harnack] \label{boundary-Harnack}\index{Boundary Harnack}
Let $w_1$ and $w_2$ be \emph{positive harmonic} functions in $B_1\cap \Omega$, where $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is any \emph{Lipschitz domain}.
Assume that $w_1$ and $w_2$ vanish on $\partial\Omega\cap B_1$, and $C_\circ ^{-1}\leq \|w_i\|_{L^\infty(B_{1/2})}\leq C_\circ $ for $i = 1,2$.
Then,
\[\frac1C w_2 \leq w_1 \leq Cw_2\qquad \textrm{in}\quad \overline\Omega\cap B_{1/2}.\]
Moreover,
\[\left\|\frac{w_1}{w_2}\right\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline\Omega\cap B_{1/2})} \leq C\]
for some small $\alpha>0$.
The constants $\alpha$ and $C$ depend only on $n$, $C_\circ $, and~$\Omega$.
\end{thm}
For completeness, we provide in Appendix~\ref{app.D} a proof of this result.
We refer to \cite{DS-bdryH} for the boundary Harnack for more general operators and to \cite{AS19,RT20} for the boundary Harnack for equations with a right hand side.
\begin{rem}
The main point in Theorem \ref{boundary-Harnack} is that $\Omega$ is allowed to be \emph{Lipschitz}.
If $\Omega$ is smooth (say, $C^2$ or even $C^{1,\alpha}$) then it follows from a simple barrier argument that both $w_1$ and $w_2$ would be comparable to the distance to $\partial\Omega$, i.e., they vanish at a linear rate from $\partial\Omega$.
However, in Lipschitz domains the result cannot be proved with a simple barrier argument, and it is much more delicate to establish.
\end{rem}
The boundary Harnack is a crucial tool in the study of free boundary problems, and in particular in the obstacle problem.
Here, we use it to prove that the free boundary is $C^{1,\alpha}$ for some small $\alpha>0$.
\begin{prop}\label{ch4-FB-C1alpha}\index{Regularity of the free boundary}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}, and assume that \eqref{ch4-positive-density} holds.
Then, there exists $r_\circ >0$ such that the free boundary $\partial\{u_{r_\circ }>0\}$ is $C^{1,\alpha}$ in $B_{1/4}$, for some small $\alpha>0$.
In particular, the free boundary of $u$, $\partial\{u>0\}$, is $C^{1,\alpha}$ in $B_{r_\circ /4}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $\Omega=\{u_{r_\circ }>0\}$.
By Corollary~\ref{ch4-FB-Lip}, if $r_\circ >0$ is small enough then (possibly after a rotation) we have
\[\Omega\cap B_{1/2}=\{x_n\geq g(x')\}\cap B_{1/2}\]
and the free boundary is given by
\[\partial\Omega\cap B_{1/2}=\{x_n= g(x')\}\cap B_{1/2},\]
where $g$ is Lipschitz.
Let
\[w_2:=\partial_{e_n}u_{r_\circ }\]
and
\[\qquad w_1:=\partial_{e_i}u_{r_\circ }+\partial_{e_n}u_{r_\circ },\qquad i=1,...,n-1.\]
Since $\partial_\tau u_{r_\circ }\geq0$ in $B_{1/2}$ for all $\tau\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ with $\tau\cdot e_n\geq\frac12$, we have that $w_2\geq0$ in $B_{1/2}$ and $w_1\geq0$ in $B_{1/2}$.
This is because $\partial_{e_i}+\partial_{e_n}=\partial_{e_i+e_n}=\sqrt{2}\partial_{\tau}$, with $\tau\cdot e_n=1/\sqrt{2}>\frac12$.
Notice that we add the term $\partial_{e_n}u_{r_\circ }$ in $w_1$ in order to get a nonnegative function $w_2\geq0$.
Now since $w_1$ and $w_2$ are positive harmonic functions in $\Omega\cap B_{1/2}$, and vanish on $\partial\Omega\cap B_{1/2}$, we can use the boundary Harnack, Theorem~\ref{boundary-Harnack} (or Corollary~\ref{boundary-Harnack_App2}), to get
\[\left\|\frac{w_1}{w_2}\right\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline\Omega\cap B_{1/4})} \leq C\]
for some small $\alpha>0$.
Therefore, since $w_1/w_2=1+\partial_{e_i}u_{r_\circ }/\partial_{e_n}u_{r_\circ }$, we deduce
\begin{equation}\label{ch4-FB-C1alpha-Q}
\left\|\frac{\partial_{e_i}u_{r_\circ }}{\partial_{e_n}u_{r_\circ }}\right\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline\Omega\cap B_{1/4})} \leq C.
\end{equation}
Now, we claim that this implies that the free boundary is $C^{1,\alpha}$ in $B_{1/4}$.
Indeed, if $u_{r_\circ }(x)=t$ then the normal vector to the level set $\{u_{r_\circ }=t\}$ is given by
\[\qquad\qquad \nu^i(x)=\frac{\partial_{e_i}u_{r_\circ }}{|\nabla u_{r_\circ }|}=\frac{\partial_{e_i}u_{r_\circ }/\partial_{e_n}u_{r_\circ }}{\sqrt{1+\sum_{j=1}^{n-1} \left(\partial_{e_j}u_{r_\circ }/\partial_{e_n}u_{r_\circ }\right)^2}},\qquad i=1,...,n.\]
This is a $C^{0,\alpha}$ function by \eqref{ch4-FB-C1alpha-Q}, and therefore we can take $t\to0$ to find that the free boundary is $C^{1,\alpha}$ (since the normal vector to the free boundary is given by a $C^{0,\alpha}$ function).
\end{proof}
So far we have proved that
\[\left(\begin{array}{c}
\{u=0\}\ \textrm{has positive} \\ \textrm{density at the origin}
\end{array}\right) \Longrightarrow
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\textrm{any blow-up is} \\ u_0={\textstyle\frac12}(x\cdot e)^2_+
\end{array}\right) \Longrightarrow
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\textrm{free boundary} \\ \textrm{is}\ C^{1,\alpha}\ \textrm{near}\ 0
\end{array}\right)\]
As a last step in this section, we will now prove that $C^{1,\alpha}$ free boundaries are actually $C^\infty$.
\subsection*{Higher regularity of the free boundary}\index{Regularity of the free boundary!Higher regularity}
We want to finally prove the smoothness of free boundaries near regular points.
\begin{thm}[Smoothness of the free boundary near regular points]\label{ch4-FB-smooth}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}, and assume that \eqref{ch4-positive-density} holds.
Then, the free boundary $\partial\{u>0\}$ is $C^\infty$ in a neighborhood of the origin.
\end{thm}
For this, we need the following result.
\begin{thm}[Higher order boundary Harnack]\label{ch4-higher-bdry-Harnack}\index{Boundary Harnack!Higher order regularity}
Let $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ be any $C^{k,\alpha}$ domain, with $k\geq1$ and $\alpha\in(0,1)$.
Let $w_1$, $w_2$ be two solutions of $\Delta w_i=0$ in $B_1\cap \Omega$, $w_i=0$ on $\partial\Omega\cap B_1$, with $w_2>0$ in $\Omega$.
Assume that $C_\circ ^{-1}\leq \|w_i\|_{L^\infty(B_{1/2})}\leq C_\circ $.
Then,
\[\left\|\frac{w_1}{w_2}\right\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(\overline\Omega\cap B_{1/2})} \leq C,\]
where $C$ depends only on $n$, $k$, $\alpha$, $C_\circ $, and $\Omega$.
\end{thm}
Contrary to Theorem~\ref{boundary-Harnack}, the proof of Theorem \ref{ch4-higher-bdry-Harnack} is a perturbative argument, in the spirit of (but much more delicate than) the Schauder estimates from Chapter \ref{ch.2}.
We will not prove the higher order boundary Harnack here; we refer to \cite{DS} for the proof of such result.
Using Theorem \ref{ch4-higher-bdry-Harnack}, we can finally prove Theorem~\ref{ch4-FB-smooth}:
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{ch4-FB-smooth}]
Let $u_{r_\circ }(x)=r_\circ ^{-2}u(r_\circ x)$.
By Proposition \ref{ch4-FB-C1alpha}, we know that if $r_\circ >0$ is small enough then the free boundary $\partial\{u_{r_\circ }>0\}$ is $C^{1,\alpha}$ in $B_1$, and (possibly after a rotation) $\partial_{e_n}u_{r_\circ }>0$ in $\{u_{r_\circ }>0\}\cap B_1$.
Thus, using the higher order boundary Harnack (Theorem \ref{ch4-higher-bdry-Harnack}) with $w_1=\partial_{e_i}u_{r_\circ }$ and $w_2=\partial_{e_n}u_{r_\circ }$, we find that
\[\left\|\frac{\partial_{e_i}u_{r_\circ }}{\partial_{e_n}u_{r_\circ }}\right\|_{C^{1,\alpha}(\overline\Omega\cap B_{1/2})} \leq C.\]
Actually, by a simple covering argument we find that
\begin{equation}\label{ch4-higher-order-subballs}
\left\|\frac{\partial_{e_i}u_{r_\circ }}{\partial_{e_n}u_{r_\circ }}\right\|_{C^{1,\alpha}(\overline\Omega\cap B_{1-\delta})} \leq C_\delta
\end{equation}
for any $\delta>0$.
Now, as in the proof of Proposition \ref{ch4-FB-C1alpha}, we notice that if $u_{r_\circ }(x)=t$ then the normal vector to the level set $\{u_{r_\circ }=t\}$ is given by
\[\qquad\qquad \nu^i(x)=\frac{\partial_{e_i}u_{r_\circ }}{|\nabla u_{r_\circ }|}=\frac{\partial_{e_i}u_{r_\circ }/\partial_{e_n}u_{r_\circ }}{\sqrt{1+\sum_{j=1}^n \left(\partial_{e_j}u_{r_\circ }/\partial_{e_n}u_{r_\circ }\right)^2}},\qquad \qquad i=1,...,n.\]
By \eqref{ch4-higher-order-subballs}, this is a $C^{1,\alpha}$ function in $B_{1-\delta}$ for any $\delta>0$, and therefore we can take $t\to0$ to find that the normal vector to the free boundary is $C^{1,\alpha}$ inside $B_1$.
But this means that the free boundary is actually $C^{2,\alpha}$.
Repeating now the same argument, and using that the free boundary is $C^{2,\alpha}$ in $B_{1-\delta}$ for any $\delta>0$, we find that
\[\left\|\frac{\partial_{e_i}u_{r_\circ }}{\partial_{e_n}u_{r_\circ }}\right\|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline\Omega\cap B_{1-\delta'})} \leq C_{\delta'},\]
which yields that the normal vector is $C^{2,\alpha}$ and thus the free boundary is $C^{3,\alpha}$.
Iterating this argument, we find that the free boundary $\partial\{u_{r_\circ }>0\}$ is $C^\infty$ inside $B_1$, and hence $\partial\{u>0\}$ is $C^\infty$ in a neighborhood of the origin.
\end{proof}
This completes the study of \emph{regular} free boundary points.
It remains to understand what happens at points where the contact set has \emph{density zero} (see e.g. Figure~\ref{fig.21}).
This is the content of the next section.
\section{Singular points}
\label{sec-singular-points}
We finally study the behavior of the free boundary at singular points, i.e., when
\begin{equation}\label{ch4-zero-density-0}
\lim_{r\to0}\frac{\bigl|\{u=0\}\cap B_r\bigr|}{|B_r|}=0.
\end{equation}
For this, we first notice that, as a consequence of the results of the previous Section, we get the following.
\begin{prop}\label{thm-classification-ALL-blowups}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}.
Then, we have the following dichotomy:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] Either \eqref{ch4-positive-density} holds and
all blow-ups of $u$ at $0$ are of the form
\[u_0(x)=\frac12(x\cdot e)_+^2,\]
for some $e\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$.
\item[(b)] Or \eqref{ch4-zero-density-0} holds and all blow-ups of $u$ at $0$ are of the form
\[u_0(x)=\frac12x^TAx,\]
for some matrix $A\geq0$ with ${\rm tr}\,A=1$.
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
Points of type (a) were studied in the previous Section; they are called \emph{regular} points and the free boundary is $C^\infty$ around them (in particular, the blow-up is unique).
Points of type (b) are those at which the contact set has zero density, and are called \emph{singular} points.
To prove the result, we need the following:
\begin{lem}\label{ch4-lem-zero-density}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}, and assume that \eqref{ch4-zero-density-0} holds.
Then, every blow-up of $u$ at $0$ satisfies $|\{u_0=0\}|=0$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $u_0$ be a blow-up of $u$ at $0$, i.e., $u_{r_k}\to u_0$ in $C^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ along a sequence $r_k\to0$, where $u_r(x)=r^{-2}u(rx)$.
Notice that the functions $u_r$ solve
\[\Delta u_r=\chi_{\{u_r>0\}}\quad \textrm{in}\quad B_1,\]
in the sense that
\begin{equation}\label{ch4-weak-chi}
\int_{B_1}\nabla u_r\cdot \nabla \eta\,dx=\int_{B_1} \chi_{\{u_r>0\}}\eta\,dx\qquad \textrm{for all}\ \eta\in C^\infty_c(B_1).
\end{equation}
Moreover, by assumption \eqref{ch4-zero-density-0}, we have $\bigl|\{u_r=0\}\cap B_1\bigr|\longrightarrow 0$, and thus taking limits $r_k\to0$ in \eqref{ch4-weak-chi} we deduce that $\Delta u_0=1$ in $B_1$.
Since we know that $u_0$ is convex, nonnegative, and homogeneous, this implies that $|\{u_0=0\}|=0$.
\end{proof}
We can now give the:
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm-classification-ALL-blowups}]
By the classification of blow-ups (Theorem~\ref{thm-classification-blowups}), the possible blow-ups can only have one of the two forms presented.
If \eqref{ch4-positive-density} holds for at least one blow-up, thanks to the smoothness of the free boundary (by Proposition~\ref{ch4-FB-C1alpha}), it holds for all blow-ups, and thus, by Corollary~\ref{ch4-lem-one-blowup}, $u_0(x)=\frac12(x\cdot e)_+^2$ (and in fact, the smoothness of the free boundary yields uniqueness of the blow-up in this case).
If \eqref{ch4-zero-density-0} holds, then by Lemma \ref{ch4-lem-zero-density} the blow-up $u_0$ must satisfy $\bigl|\{u_0=0\}\bigr|=0$, and thus we are in case (b) (see the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-classification-blowups}).
\end{proof}
In the previous Section we proved that the free boundary is $C^\infty$ in a neighborhood of any regular point.
A natural question then is to understand better the solution $u$ near singular points.
One of the main results in this direction is the following.
\begin{thm}[Uniqueness of blow-ups at singular points]\label{thm-uniqueness-blowups}\index{Uniqueness of blow-ups at singular points}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}, and assume that $0$ is a singular free boundary point.
Then, there exists a homogeneous quadratic polynomial $p_2(x)=\frac12x^TAx$, with $A\geq0$ and $\Delta p_2=1$, such that
\[u_r\longrightarrow p_2\qquad \textrm{in}\quad C^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^n).\]
In particular, the blow-up of $u$ at $0$ is unique, and $u(x)=p_2(x)+o(|x|^2)$.
\end{thm}
To prove this, we need the following monotonicity formula due to Monneau.
\begin{thm}[Monneau's monotonicity formula]\label{thm-Monneau}\index{Monneau monotonicity formula}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}, and assume that $0$ is a singular free boundary point.
Let $q$ be any homogeneous quadratic polynomial with $q\geq0$, $q(0)=0$, and $\Delta q=1$.
Then, the quantity
\[M_{u,q}(r):=\frac{1}{r^{n+3}}\int_{\partial B_r}\left(u-q\right)^2\]
is monotone in $r$, that is, $\frac{d}{dr}M_{u,q}(r)\geq 0$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We sketch the argument here, and refer to \cite[Theorem 7.4]{PSU} for more details.
We first notice that
\[M_{u,q}(r)=\int_{\partial B_1}\frac{(u-q)^2(rx)}{r^4},\]
and hence a direct computation yields
\[\frac{d}{dr}M_{u,q}(r)=\frac{2}{r^{n+4}}\int_{\partial B_r}(u-q)\left\{x\cdot \nabla(u-q)-2(u-q)\right\}.\]
On the other hand, it turns out that
\[\begin{split}\frac{1}{r^{n+3}}\int_{\partial B_r}(u-q)\left\{x\cdot \nabla(u-q)-2(u-q)\right\}=&\,W_u(r)-W_u(0^+)+\\&+\frac{1}{r^{n+2}}\int_{B_r}(u-q)\Delta(u-q),\end{split}\]
where $W_u(r)$ (as defined in \eqref{weissenergy}) is monotone increasing in $r>0$ thanks to Theorem~\ref{thm-Weiss}.
Thus, we have
\[\frac{d}{dr}M_{u,q}(r)\geq \frac{2}{r^{n+3}}\int_{B_r}(u-q)\Delta(u-q).\]
But since $\Delta u=\Delta q=1$ in $\{u>0\}$, and $(u-q)\Delta(u-q)=q\geq0$ in $\{u=0\}$, we have
\[\frac{d}{dr}M_{u,q}(r)\geq \frac{2}{r^{n+3}}\int_{B_r\cap \{u=0\}}q\geq 0,\]
as wanted.
\end{proof}
We can now give the:
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm-uniqueness-blowups}]
By Proposition~\ref{thm-classification-ALL-blowups} (and Proposition~\ref{ch4-prop-blowups}), we know that at any singular point we have a subsequence $r_j\to0$ along which $u_{r_j}\to p$ in $C^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^n)$, where $p$ is a $2$-homogeneous quadratic polynomial satisfying $p(0)=0$, $p\geq0$, and $\Delta p=1$.
Thus, we can use Monneau's monotonicity formula with such polynomial $p$ to find that
\[M_{u,p}(r):=\frac{1}{r^{n+3}}\int_{\partial B_r}\left(u-p\right)^2\]
is monotone increasing in $r>0$.
In particular, the limit $\lim_{r\to0}M_{u,p}(r):=M_{u,p}(0^+)$ exists.
Now, recall that we have a sequence $r_j\to0$ along which $u_{r_j}\to p$.
In particular, $r_j^{-2}\left\{u(r_jx)-p(r_jx)\right\}\longrightarrow 0$ locally uniformly in $\mathbb{R}^n$, i.e.,
\[\frac{1}{r_j^2}\|u-p\|_{L^\infty(B_{r_j})}\longrightarrow 0\]
as $r_j\to0$.
This yields that
\[M_{u,p}(r_j)\leq \frac{1}{r_j^{n+3}} \int_{\partial B_{r_j}}\|u-p\|_{L^\infty(B_{r_j})}^2 \longrightarrow 0\]
along the subsequence $r_j\to0$, and therefore $M_{u,p}(0^+)=0$.
Let us show that this implies the uniqueness of blow-ups.
Indeed, if there was another subsequence $r_\ell\to0$ along which $u_{r_\ell}\to q$ in $C^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^n)$, for a $2$-homogeneous quadratic polynomial $q$, then we would repeat the argument above to find that $M_{u,q}(0^+)=0$.
But then this yields, by homogeneity of $p$ and $q$,
\[\int_{\partial B_1}\left(p-q\right)^2=\frac{1}{r^{n+3}}\int_{\partial B_r}\left(p-q\right)^2\leq 2M_{u,p}(r)+2M_{u,q}(r)\longrightarrow0,\]
and hence
\[\int_{\partial B_1}\left(p-q\right)^2=0.\]
This means that $p=q$, and thus the blow-up of $u$ at $0$ is unique.
Let us finally show that $u(x)=p(x)+o(|x|^2)$, i.e., $r^{-2}\|u-p\|_{L^\infty(B_r)}\to0$ as $r\to0$.
Indeed, assume by contradiction that there is a subsequence $r_k\to0$ along which
\[r_k^{-2}\|u-p\|_{L^\infty(B_{r_k})}\geq c_1>0.\]
Then, there would be a subsequence of $r_{k_i}$ along which $u_{r_{k_i}}\to u_0$ in $C^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^n)$, for a certain blow-up $u_0$ satisfying $\|u_0-p\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\geq c_1>0$.
However, by uniqueness of blow-ups it must be $u_0=p$, and hence we reach a contradiction.
\end{proof}
We refer to \cite{SY19,Bon01} for an alternative approach to the uniqueness of blow-ups at singular points, not based on monotonicity formulas.
Summarizing, we have proved the following result:
\begin{thm}\label{thm-final}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}.
Then, we have the following dichotomy:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] Either all blow-ups of $u$ at $0$ are of the form
\[\qquad\qquad u_0(x)=\frac12(x\cdot e)_+^2 \qquad \textrm{for some}\quad e\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1},\]
and the free boundary is $C^\infty$ in a neighborhood of the origin.
\item[(b)] Or there is a homogeneous quadratic polynomial $p$, with $p(0)=0$, $p\geq0$, and $\Delta p=1$, such that
\[\qquad \qquad \|u-p\|_{L^\infty(B_r)}=o(r^2)\qquad \textrm{as}\quad r\to0.\]
In particular, when this happens we have
\[\lim_{r\to0}\frac{\bigl|\{u=0\}\cap B_r\bigr|}{|B_r|}=0.\]
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}
The last question that remains to be answered is: How large can the set of singular points be?
This is the topic of the following section.
\section{On the size of the singular set}
We finish this chapter with a discussion of more recent results (as well as some open problems) about the set of singular points.
Recall that a free boundary point $x_{\circ}\in \partial\{u>0\}$ is singular whenever
\[
\lim_{r\to0}\frac{\bigl|\{u=0\}\cap B_r(x_{\circ})\bigr|}{|B_r(x_{\circ})|}=0.
\]
The main known result on the size of the singular set reads as follows.
\begin{thm}[\cite{Caf98}]\label{thm-singular-set}\index{Singular points!Size}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}.
Let $\Sigma\subset B_1$ be the set of singular points.
Then, $\Sigma\cap B_{1/2}$ is locally contained in a $C^1$ manifold of dimension $n-1$.
\end{thm}
This result is sharp, in the sense that it is not difficult to construct examples in which the singular set is $(n-1)$-dimensional; see \cite{Sch3}.
As explained below, such result essentially follows from the uniqueness of blow-ups at singular points, established in the previous section.
Indeed, given any singular point $x_{\circ}$, let $p_{x_{\circ}}$ be the blow-up of $u$ at $x_{\circ}$ (recall that $p_{x_{\circ}}$ is a nonnegative 2-homogeneous polynomial).
Let $k$ be the dimension of the set $\{p_{x_{\circ}}=0\}$ --- notice that this is a proper linear subspace of $\mathbb{R}^n$, so that $k\in \{0,...,n-1\}$ --- and define
\begin{equation}\label{Sigma-k}
\Sigma_k:=\big\{x_{\circ}\in\Sigma : {\rm dim}(\{p_{x_{\circ}}=0\})=k\big\}.
\end{equation}
Clearly, $\Sigma=\bigcup_{k=0}^{n-1} \Sigma_k$.
The following result gives a more precise description of the singular set.
\begin{prop}[\cite{Caf98}]\label{prop-singular-set-k}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}.
Let $\Sigma_k\subset B_1$ be defined by \eqref{Sigma-k}, $k=1,...,n-1$.
Then, $\Sigma_k$ is locally contained in a $C^1$ manifold of dimension $k$.
\end{prop}
The rough heuristic idea of the proof of this result is as follows.
Assume for simplicity that $n=2$, so that $\Sigma=\Sigma_1\cup \Sigma_0$.
Let us take a point $x_{\circ}\in \Sigma_0$.
Then, by Theorem \ref{thm-final}, we have the expansion
\begin{equation}\label{expansion-final}
u(x)=p_{x_{\circ}}(x-x_{\circ})+o\big(|x-x_{\circ}|^2\big)
\end{equation}
where $p_{x_{\circ}}$ is the blow-up of $u$ at $x_{\circ}$ (recall that this came from the uniqueness of blow-ups at $x_{\circ}$).
By definition of $\Sigma_0$, the polynomial $p_{x_{\circ}}$ must be positive outside the origin, and thus by homogeneity satisfies $p_{x_{\circ}}(x-x_{\circ})\geq c|x-x_{\circ}|^2$, with $c>0$.
This, combined with \eqref{expansion-final}, yields then that $u$ must be positive in a neighborhood of $x_\circ$.
In particular, all points in $\Sigma_0$ are isolated.
On the other hand, let us now take a point $x_{\circ}\in \Sigma_1$.
Then, by definition of $\Sigma_1$ the blow-up must necessarily be of the form $p_{x_{\circ}}(x)=\frac12(x\cdot e_{x_{\circ}})^2$, for some $e_{x_{\circ}}\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$.
Again by the expansion \eqref{expansion-final}, we find that $u$ is positive in a region of the form
\[\big\{x\in B_\rho(x_{\circ}) : \big|(x-x_{\circ})\cdot e_{x_{\circ}}\big|>\omega(|x-x_{\circ}|)\big\},\]
where $\omega$ is a certain modulus of continuity, and $\rho>0$ is small (see Figure~\ref{fig.30}).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.65]{./Figures/fig30.pdf}
\caption{$u$ is positive in $\{x\in B_\rho(x_{\circ}) : |(x-x_{\circ})\cdot e_{x_{\circ}}| > \omega(|x-x_{\circ}|)\}$.}
\label{fig.30}
\end{figure}
This is roughly saying that the set $\Sigma_1$ ``has a tangent plane'' at $x_{\circ}$.
Repeating the same at any other point $\tilde x_\circ\in \Sigma_1$ we find that the same happens at every point in $\Sigma_1$ and, moreover, if $\tilde x_\circ$ is close to $x_{\circ}$ then $e_{\tilde x_\circ}$ must be close to $e_{x_{\circ}}$ --- otherwise the expansions \eqref{expansion-final} at $\tilde x_\circ$ and $x_{\circ}$ would not match.
Finally, since the modulus $\omega$ can be made independent of the point (by a compactness argument), it turns out that the set $\Sigma_1$ is contained in a $C^1$ curve (see Figure~\ref{fig.31}).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 1]{./Figures/fig31.pdf}
\caption{Singular points $x_{\circ},\tilde x_\circ \in \Sigma_1$.}
\label{fig.31}
\end{figure}
What we discussed here is just an heuristic argument; the actual proof uses Whitney's extension theorem and can be found for example in \cite{PSU}.
Finally, we refer to \cite{CSV}, \cite{FSerra}, and \cite{FZ21} (and the expository paper \cite{Fig18b}) for some recent finer results about the set of singular points.
\subsection*{Generic regularity}
\index{Generic regularity}
In PDE problems in which singularities may appear, it is very natural and important to understand whether these singularities appear ``often'', or if instead ``most'' solutions have no singularities.
In the context of the obstacle problem, the key question is to understand the generic regularity of free boundaries.
Explicit examples show that singular points in the obstacle problem can form a very large set, of dimension $n-1$ (as large as the regular set).
Still, singular points are expected to be rare (see \cite{Sch1}):
\vspace{3mm}
\noindent \textbf{Conjecture} \index{Schaeffer conjecture}(Schaeffer, 1974): \ \emph{Generically, the weak solution of the obstacle problem is also a strong solution, in the sense that the free boundary is a $C^\infty$ manifold.}
\vspace{3mm}
In other words, the conjecture states that, generically, the free boundary has \emph{no} singular points.
The first result in this direction was established by Monneau in 2003, who proved the following.
\begin{thm}[\cite{Mon}]\label{Schaeffer-2D}
Schaeffer's conjecture holds in $\mathbb{R}^2$.
\end{thm}
More precisely, Monneau considers a 1-parameter family of solutions $u_\lambda$, with $\lambda\in (0,1)$, such that
\[\left\{\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta u_\lambda&=&\chi_{\{u_\lambda>0\}} &\quad \textrm{in}\ \Omega \\
u_\lambda&=&g_\lambda & \quad \textrm{on}\ \partial \Omega,
\end{array}\right.\]
with $g_\lambda=g+\lambda$ and $g\geq0$ on $\partial \Omega$.
Then, the first step is to notice that not only each of the singular sets $\Sigma_\lambda \subset \Omega$ is contained in a $C^1$ manifold of dimension $(n-1)$, but actually the union $\bigcup_{\lambda\in (0,1)}\Sigma_\lambda\subset \Omega$ is still contained in an $(n-1)$-dimensional manifold.
After that, we look at the free boundary as a set in $\Omega\times (0,1)\ni (x,\lambda)$, and notice that it can be written as a graph $\{\lambda=h(x)\}$, for some function~$h$.
A second key step in the proof is to show that $h$ is Lipschitz and, furthermore, it has zero gradient at any singular point.
This, combined with the coarea formula, yields that in $\mathbb{R}^2$ the set of singular points is empty for almost every $\lambda\in(0,1)$, which implies Theorem \ref{Schaeffer-2D}.
Finally, the best known result in this direction was established very recently by Figalli, Serra, and the second author.
\begin{thm}[\cite{FRS}]
Schaeffer's conjecture holds in $\mathbb{R}^3$ and $\mathbb{R}^4$.
\end{thm}
The proof of this result is based on a new and very fine understanding of singular points.
For this, \cite{FRS} combines Geometric Measure Theory tools, PDE estimates, several dimension reduction arguments, and even several new monotonicity formulas.
It remains an open problem to decide whether or not Schaeffer's conjecture holds in dimensions $n\geq5$ or not.
\endinput
\chapter*{Notation}
Let us introduce some of the notation be used throughout the book.
\\[0.4cm]
\noindent {\bf Matrix notation.}\\[0.3cm]
\begin{tabular}{ l m{10cm} }
$A = (a_{ij})_{ij}$ & Matrix with $(i, j)-{\rm th}$ entry denoted by $a_{ij}$. \\[0.15cm]
$\mathcal{M}_n$ & Space of matrices of size $n\times n$. \\[0.15cm]
${\rm Id}$& Identity matrix. \\[0.15cm]
${\rm tr}\, A$& Trace of the matrix $A$, ${\rm tr}\, A = a_{11}+\dots+a_{nn}$. \\[0.2cm]
${\rm det}\, A$& Determinant of the matrix $A$. \\[0.15cm]
$A^T$& Transpose of the matrix $A$. \\[0.2cm]
\end{tabular}
\noindent {\bf Geometric notation.}\\[0.3cm]
\begin{tabular}{ l m{11cm} }
$\mathbb{R}^n$, $\mathbb{S}^n$ & $n$-dimensional Euclidean space, $n$-sphere. \\[0.15cm]
$e_i\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ & $i-{\rm th}$ element of the base, $e_i = (0,\dots,0, \stackrel{(i)}{1},0,\dots 0)$. \\[0.15cm]
$x \in \mathbb{R}^n$& Typical point $x = (x_1, \dots, x_n)$. \\[0.15cm]
$|x| $& Modulus of the point $x$, $|x| = \sqrt{x_1^2 +\dots + x_n^2}$. \\[0.15cm]
$|U| $& $n$-dimensional Lebesgue measure of a set $U\subset\mathbb{R}^n$. \\[0.15cm]
$\mathbb{R}^n_+$& $\{x = (x_1,\dots, x_n)\in \mathbb{R}^n : x_n > 0\}$. \\[0.15cm]
$\partial U$& Boundary of the set $U\subset \mathbb{R}^n$. \\[0.15cm]
$V\subset\subset U$& The set $V$ is compactly contained in $U$, that is $\overline{V}\subset U$. \\[0.15cm]
$B_r(x)$& Ball of radius $r$ centered at $x$, $B_r(x) := \{y \in \mathbb{R}^n : |x-y|< r\}$. \\[0.15cm]
$x\cdot y$ & For $x, y\in \mathbb{R}^n$, scalar product of $x$ and $y$, $x\cdot y = x_1y_1+\dots+x_n y_n$.
\end{tabular}
\\[1cm]
\noindent {\bf Functional notation.}\\[0.3cm]
\begin{tabular}{ l m{11cm} }
$u$ & In general, $u$ denotes a function $u:\mathbb{R}^n\to \mathbb{R}$ (unless stated otherwise). \\[0.2cm]
$u^+,u^-$ & Positive and negative part of a function, $u^+ = \max\{u, 0\}$, $u^- = \max\{-u, 0\}$. \\[0.2cm]
$\chi_E$ & Characteristic function of the set $E$, $\chi_E(x) = 1$ for $x\in E$, and $\chi_E(x) = 0$ for $x\notin E$. \\[0.2cm]
${\rm supp}\, u$ & Support of $u$, ${\rm supp}\,u = \overline{\{x : u(x) \neq 0\}}$. \\[0.2cm]
$\strokedint_A$ & Average integral over the positive measure set $A$, $\strokedint_A f := \frac{1}{|A|}\int_A f$.
\end{tabular}
\\[0.5cm]
\noindent {\bf Function spaces.} Let $U\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be an open set. \\[0.3cm]
\begin{tabular}{ l m{9.5cm} }
$C(U), C^0(U)$ & Space of continuous functions $u: U\to \mathbb{R}$. \\[0.2cm]
$C(\overline{U}), C^0(\overline{U})$ & Functions $u\in C(U)$ continuous up to the boundary. \\[0.2cm]
$C^k(U), C^k(\overline{U})$ & Space of functions $k$ times continuously differentiable. \\[0.2cm]
$C^{k,\alpha}(U)$ & H\"older spaces, see Section \ref{sec.hs}. \\[0.2cm]
$C^\infty(U), C^\infty(\overline{U})$ & Set of functions in $C^k(U)$ or $C^k(\overline{U})$ for all $k\ge 1$.\\[0.2cm]
$C_c(U), C^k_c(U)$ & Set of functions with compact support in $U$.\\[0.2cm]
$C_0(U), C^k_0(U)$ & Set of functions with $u = 0$ on $\partial U$.\\[0.2cm]
$L^p$ & $L^p$ space, see Section \ref{sec.hs}.\\[0.2cm]
$L^\infty$ & $L^\infty$ space, see Section \ref{sec.hs} (see ${\rm esssup}_\Omega u$ below).\\[0.2cm]
${\rm esssup}_\Omega u$ & {Essential supremum of $u$ in $\Omega$: infimum of the essential upper bounds, ${\rm esssup}_\Omega u := \inf\{b > 0 : |\{u > b\}| = 0\}$.}\\[0.2cm]
$W^{1,p}, W^{1,p}_0$ & Sobolev spaces, see Section \ref{sec.hs} and \ref{it.S6}.\\[0.2cm]
$H^{1}, H^{1}_0$ & Sobolev spaces with $p = 2$, see Section \ref{sec.hs} and \ref{it.S6}.\\[0.2cm]
$\|\cdot\|_{\mathcal{F}}$ & Norm in the functional space $\mathcal{F} \in \{C^0, C^k, L^p, \dots\}$, defined when used for the first times.
\end{tabular}
\\[0.4cm]
\newpage
\noindent {\bf Differential notation.} Let $u:U \to \mathbb{R}$ be a function.\\[0.3cm]
\begin{tabular}{ l m{9cm} }
$\partial_i u, \partial_{x_i} u , u_{x_i}$ & Partial derivative in the $e_i$ direction, $\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_i}$. \\[0.15cm]
$\partial_e u$ & Derivative in the $e\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ direction. \\[0.15cm]
$\nabla u, Du$ & Gradient, $\nabla u = (\partial_1 u, \dots, \partial_n u)$. \\[0.15cm]
$\partial_{ij} u, \partial_{x_i x_j} u , u_{x_i x_j}$ & Second partial derivatives in the directions $e_i$ and $e_j$, $\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x_i\partial x_j }$. \\[0.15cm]
$D^2 u$ & Hessian, $D^2 u = (\partial_{ij} u)_{ij} \in \mathcal{M}_n$. \\[0.15cm]
$D^k u$ & Higher derivatives forms, $D^k u := (\partial_{i_1}\dots\partial_{i_k} u)_{i_1,\dots ,i_k}$. \\[0.15cm]
$|D^k u(x)|$ & Norm of $D^k u(x)$ (any equivalent norm). \\[0.15cm]
$\|D^k u(x)\|_{\mathcal{F}}$ & Norm of $D^k u$, $\| |D^k u|\|_{\mathcal{F}}$.\\[0.15cm]
$\Delta u$ & Laplacian of $u$, $\Delta u = \partial_{11} u + \dots + \partial_{nn} u$.
\end{tabular}
\\[0.4cm]
\label{domainnotation}
\noindent {\bf Domains.} We say that $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ is a domain if it is an open connected set.\\[0.2cm]
A domain $\Omega$ is said to be $C^{k, \alpha}$ (resp. $C^k$) if $\partial\Omega$ can be written locally as the graph of a $C^{k,\alpha}$ (resp. $C^k$) function.
\chapter*{Preface}
One of the most basic and important
questions in PDE is that of regularity.
It is also a unifying problem in the field, since it affects all kinds of PDEs.
A~classical example is Hilbert's XIXth problem (1900), which roughly speaking asked to determine whether all solutions to uniformly elliptic {variational} PDEs are smooth.
The question was answered positively by De Giorgi and Nash in 1956 and 1957, and it is now one of the most famous and important theorems in the whole field of PDE.
The question of regularity has been a central line of research in elliptic PDE since the mid-20th century, with extremely important contributions by Nirenberg, Caffarelli, Krylov, Evans, Figalli, and many others.
Their works have enormously influenced many areas of Mathematics linked one way or another with PDE, including: Harmonic Analysis, Calculus of Variations, Differential Geometry, Geometric Measure Theory, Continuum and Fluid Mechanics, Probability Theory, Mathematical Physics, and Computational and Applied Mathematics.
This text emerged from two PhD courses on elliptic PDE given by the second author at the University of Z\"urich in 2017 and 2019.
It aims to provide a self-contained introduction to the regularity theory for elliptic PDE, focusing on the main ideas rather than proving all results in their greatest generality.
The book can be seen as a bridge between an elementary PDE course and more advanced textbooks such as \cite{GT} or \cite{CC}.
Moreover, we believe that the present selection of results and techniques complements nicely other books on elliptic PDE such as \cite{Evans}, \cite{HL}, and \cite{K}, as well as the recent book \cite{ACM}.
For example, we give a different proof of the Schauder estimates (due to L. Simon) which is not contained in other textbooks; we prove some basic results for fully nonlinear equations that are not covered in \cite{CC}; and we also include a detailed study of the obstacle problem, often left to more specialized textbooks such as \cite{Fri} or \cite{PSU}.
Furthermore, at the end of Chapters 3, 4, and 5 we provide a review of some recent results and open problems.
We would like to thank Alessio Figalli, Thomas Kappeler, Alexis Michelat, Joaquim Serra, and Wei Wang, for several comments and suggestions on this book.
Finally, we acknowledge the support received from the following funding agencies:
X.F. was supported by the European Research Council under the Grant Agreement No. 721675 ``Regularity and Stability in Partial Differential Equations (RSPDE)'', by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF grants
200021\_182565 and PZ00P2\_208930), and by the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and lnnovation (SERI) under contract number M822.00034;
X.R. was supported by the European Research Council under the Grant Agreement No. 801867 ``Regularity and singularities in elliptic PDE (EllipticPDE)'', by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF grant 200021\_178795), by AEI project PID2021-125021NA-I00 (Spain), by the grant RED2018-102650-T funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033, and by the Spanish State Research Agency through the Mar\'ia de Maeztu Program for Centers and Units of Excellence in R{\&}D (CEX2020-001084-M).
\aufm{Z\"urich, 2020}
\chapter{Overview and Preliminaries}
\label{ch.0}
A beautiful result in Complex Analysis states that because the real part $u(x, y)$ of any holomorphic function satisfies
\[u_{xx}+u_{yy}=0,\]
it must be real analytic.
Moreover, the oscillation of $u$ in any given domain controls \emph{all} the derivatives in any (compactly contained) subdomain.
In higher dimensions, the same phenomenon occurs for solutions to
\begin{equation} \label{eq.LapD}
\Delta u =0\quad \textrm{in}\quad \Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n.
\end{equation}
These are \emph{harmonic functions}, and \eqref{eq.LapD} is the simplest elliptic partial differential equation (PDE).
Any solution to this equation is smooth (real analytic), and satisfies
\[\|u\|_{C^k(Q)}\leq C_{k,Q}\|u\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}\qquad \textrm{for all}\quad k=1,2,3,...\]
for any compact subdomain $Q\subset\subset \Omega$.
That is, all derivatives are controlled by the supremum of $u$.
Here, and throughout the book, $\Omega$ is any bounded domain of $\mathbb{R}^n$.
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{center}
\fbox{
\begin{minipage}{0.85\textwidth}
\vspace{1.5mm}
\noindent \ $\bullet$\ \emph{Regularity for Laplace's equation}:
\vspace{2mm}
\[\qquad\Delta u=0\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n\qquad \Longrightarrow\qquad u\ \textrm{is}\ C^\infty\ \textrm{inside}\ \Omega.\quad\]
\vspace{2mm}
\end{minipage}
}
\end{center}
\vspace{2mm}
This kind of regularization property is common in elliptic PDEs and is the topic of the present book.
\vspace{3mm}
One can give three different kinds of explanations for this phenomenon:
\vspace{1mm}
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] \underline{\smash{Integral representation of solutions}}: Poisson kernels, fundamental solutions, etc.
\vspace{2mm}
\item[(b)] \underline{\smash{Energy considerations}}: Harmonic functions are local minimizers of the Dirichlet energy
\[\mathcal E(u):=\int_\Omega |\nabla u|^2\,dx\]
(i.e., if we change $u$ to $w$ in $\tilde\Omega\subset\Omega$, then $\mathcal E(w)\geq\mathcal E(u)$).
\vspace{2mm}
\item[(c)] \underline{\smash{Comparison principle}}: A harmonic function cannot have any interior maximum point (maximum principle).
\end{itemize}
\vspace{2mm}
These three approaches are extremely useful in different contexts, as well as in the development of the regularity theory for \emph{nonlinear} elliptic PDEs.
\vspace{3mm}
The structure of the book is as follows:
\vspace{2mm}
$\star$ First, in {\bf Chapter \ref{ch.1}} we will study \emph{linear} elliptic PDEs
\[\sum_{i,j=1}^n a_{ij}(x)\partial_{ij}u= f(x)\quad \textrm{in}\quad \Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n\]
and
\[\sum_{i,j=1}^n \partial_i\bigl(a_{ij}(x)\partial_{j}u\bigr)= f(x)\quad \textrm{in}\quad \Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n,\]
where the coefficients $a_{ij}(x)$ and the right-hand side $f(x)$ satisfy appropriate regularity assumptions.
In the simplest case, $(a_{ij})_{i,j}\equiv \textrm{Id}$, we have
\[\Delta u=f(x)\quad \textrm{in}\quad \Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n.\]
The type of result we want to prove is: ``$u$ \emph{is two derivatives more regular than} $f$''.
\vspace{2mm}
$\star$ Then, in {\bf Chapter \ref{ch.2}} we will turn our attention to \emph{nonlinear variational PDEs}:
\[\textrm{minimizers of}\quad \mathcal E(u):=\int_\Omega L(\nabla u)dx,\quad L\ \textrm{smooth and uniformly convex}.\]
The regularity for such kind of nonlinear PDEs was Hilbert's XIXth problem (1900).
\vspace{2mm}
$\star$ In {\bf Chapter \ref{ch.3}} we will study nonlinear elliptic PDEs in their most general form
\[F(D^2u,\nabla u,u,x)=0 \quad \textrm{in}\quad \Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n,\]
or simply
\[F(D^2u)=0 \quad \textrm{in}\quad \Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n.\]
These are called \emph{fully nonlinear elliptic equations}, and in general they do \emph{not} have a variational formulation in terms of an energy functional.
\vspace{2mm}
$\star$ In {\bf Chapter \ref{ch.4}} we will study the \emph{obstacle problem}, a constrained minimization problem:
\[\textrm{minimize}\qquad \int_\Omega |\nabla u|^2dx,\qquad \textrm{among functions}\ u\geq\varphi\ \textrm{in}\ \Omega,\]
where $\varphi$ is a given smooth ``obstacle''.
This is the simplest and most important elliptic \emph{free boundary problem}.
Moreover, it can be seen as a nonlinear PDE of the type \ $\min\{-\Delta u,\,u-\varphi\}=0$ in $\Omega$.
\vspace{3mm}
As we will see, in each of these contexts we will use mainly: (b) energy considerations, or (c) maximum principle.
At the end of the book, we have also included four appendices to complement the theory from the main chapters.
\section{Preliminaries: Sobolev and H\"older spaces}
\label{sec.hs}
We next give a quick review on $L^p$, Sobolev, and H\"older spaces, stating the results that will be used later in the book.
\subsection*{$L^p$ spaces}
Given $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ and $1\leq p<\infty$, the space $L^p(\Omega)$ is the set
\[L^p(\Omega):=\left\{u\textrm{ measurable in }\Omega\,:\, \int_\Omega |u|^pdx<\infty\right\}.\]
It is a Banach space, with the norm $\|u\|_{L^p(\Omega)}:=(\int_\Omega |u|^p)^{1/p}$.
When $p=\infty$, the space $L^\infty(\Omega)$ is the set of bounded functions (up to sets of measure zero), with the norm $\|u\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}:=\textrm{esssup}_\Omega|u|$.
A well-known result in this setting is the Lebesgue differentiation theorem (see, for example, \cite{EG92}).
\begin{thm}\label{Lebesgue}\index{Lebesgue differentiation theorem}
If $u\in L^1(\Omega)$, then for almost every $x\in \Omega$ we have
\[\lim_{r\to0}\strokedint_{B_r(x)}\bigl|u(x)-u(y)\bigr|dy=0.\]
When this holds at a point $x\in \Omega$, we say that $x$ is a Lebesgue point of $u$.
\end{thm}
Here, and throughout the book, $\strokedint_A$ denotes the average $\frac{1}{|A|}\int_A$, where $A\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ is any set of finite and positive measure.\index{Average integral}
A useful consequence of this result is the following.
\begin{cor}\label{ch0-ae}
Assume $u\in L^1(\Omega)$, and
\[\int_\Omega uv\,dx=0\qquad \textrm{for all }\, v\in C^\infty_c(\Omega).\]
Then, $u=0$ a.e. in $\Omega$.
\end{cor}
\subsection*{Integration by parts}
A fundamental identity in the study of PDEs is the following.
\begin{thm}[Integration by parts]\label{ch0-int-parts}\index{Integration by parts}
Assume $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ is any bounded $C^1$ domain\footnote{We refer to the Notation section (page \pageref{domainnotation}) for the definition of $C^1$ domains.}.
Then, for any $u, v\in C^1(\overline\Omega)$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{int-parts}
\int_\Omega \partial_iu\,v\,dx= -\int_\Omega u\,\partial_iv\,dx+\int_{\partial\Omega} uv\,\nu_i\,dS,
\end{equation}
where $\nu$ is the unit (outward) normal vector to $\partial\Omega$, and $i=1,2,...,n$.
\end{thm}
Notice that, as an immediate consequence, we find the divergence theorem, as well as Green's first identity
\[\int_\Omega \nabla u\cdot\nabla v\,dx= -\int_\Omega u\,\Delta v\,dx+\int_{\partial\Omega} u\,\frac{\partial v}{\partial \nu}\,dS.\]
The regularity requirements of Theorem \ref{ch0-int-parts} can be relaxed.
For instance, the domain $\Omega$ need only be Lipschitz, while only $u,v\in H^1(\Omega)$ is necessary in \eqref{int-parts} --- where $H^1$ is a Sobolev space, defined below.
\subsection*{Sobolev spaces}
\index{Sobolev space}
Given any domain $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ and $1\leq p\leq\infty$, the Sobolev spaces $W^{1,p}(\Omega)$ consist of all functions whose (weak) derivatives are in $L^p(\Omega)$, namely
\[W^{1,p}(\Omega):=\left\{u\in L^p(\Omega)\,:\, \partial_i u\in L^p(\Omega)\,\textrm{ for }\,i=1,...,n\right\}.\]
We refer to the excellent books \cite{Evans,Brezis} for the definition of weak derivatives and a detailed exposition on Sobolev spaces.
A few useful properties of Sobolev spaces are the following (see \cite{Evans}):
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=*,label={\bf (S\arabic*)}]
\setlength\itemsep{2mm}
\item \label{it.S1} The spaces $W^{1,p}(\Omega)$ are complete.
\item \label{it.S2} The inclusion $W^{1,p}(\Omega)\subset L^p(\Omega)$ is compact.
\item \label{it.S3} The space $H^1(\Omega):=W^{1,2}(\Omega)$ is a Hilbert space with the scalar product
\[(u,v)_{H^1(\Omega)}=\int_\Omega uv+\int_\Omega \nabla u\cdot\nabla v.\]
\item \label{it.S4} Any bounded sequence $\{u_k\}$ in the Hilbert space $H^1(\Omega)$ contains a weakly convergent subsequence $\{u_{k_j}\}$, that is, there exists $u\in H^1(\Omega)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{ch0-weak-conv}
\qquad\qquad(u_{k_j},v)_{H^1(\Omega)}\to (u,v)_{H^1(\Omega)} \quad \textrm{for all}\ v\in H^1(\Omega).
\end{equation}
In addition, such $u$ will satisfy
\begin{equation}\label{ch0-weak-conv2}
\|u\|_{H^1(\Omega)}\leq \liminf_{j\to\infty}\|u_{k_j}\|_{H^1(\Omega)},
\end{equation}
and since $H^1(\Omega)$ is compactly embedded in $L^2(\Omega)$ one has
\begin{equation}\label{ch0-weak-conv3}
\|u\|_{L^2(\Omega)}= \lim_{j\to\infty}\|u_{k_j}\|_{L^2(\Omega)}.
\end{equation}
\item \label{it.S5} Let $\Omega$ be any bounded Lipschitz domain, and $1\leq p\le\infty$.
Then, there is a continuous (and compact for $p>1$) trace operator from $W^{1,p}(\Omega)$ to $L^p(\partial\Omega)$.
For $C^0$ functions, such trace operator is simply $u\mapsto u|_{\partial\Omega}$.
Because of this, for any function $u \in H^1(\Omega)$ we will still denote by $u|_{\partial\Omega}$ its trace on $\partial\Omega$.
\item \label{it.S7} For $1\le p < \infty$, $C^\infty(\Omega)$ functions are dense in $W^{1,p}(\Omega)$. Moreover, if $\Omega$ is bounded and Lipschitz, $C^\infty(\overline{\Omega})$ functions are dense in $W^{1,p}(\Omega)$.
\item \label{it.S6} For $1\le p < \infty$, we define the space $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$ as the closure of $C^\infty_c(\Omega)$ in $W^{1,p}(\Omega)$. Similarly, we denote $H_0^1(\Omega) := W^{1,2}_0(\Omega)$. When $\Omega$ is bounded and Lipschitz, it is the space of functions $u\in W^{1,p}(\Omega)$ such that $u|_{\partial\Omega}=0$.
\item \label{it.S9} If $u\in W^{1,p}(\Omega)$, $1\leq p\leq \infty$, then for any subdomain $K\subset\subset \Omega$ we have
\[\left\|\frac{u(x+h)-u(x)}{|h|}\right\|_{L^p(K)}\leq C\left\|\nabla u\right\|_{L^p(\Omega)}\]
for all $h\in B_\delta$, with $\delta>0$ small enough.
Conversely, if $u\in L^p(\Omega)$, $1<p\leq \infty$, and
\[\left\|\frac{u(x+h)-u(x)}{|h|}\right\|_{L^p(K)}\leq C\]
for every $h\in B_\delta$, then $u\in W^{1,p}(K)$ and $\left\|\nabla u\right\|_{L^p(\Omega)}\leq C$.
(However, this property fails when $p=1$.)
\item \label{it.S10} Given any function $u$, define $u^+=\max\{u,0\}$ and $u^-=\max\{-u,0\}$, so that $u=u^+-u^-$.
Then, for any $u\in W^{1,p}(\Omega)$ we have $u^+,u^-\in W^{1,p}(\Omega)$, and $\nabla u=\nabla u^+-\nabla u^-$ a.e. in $\Omega$.
In particular, the gradient of Sobolev functions vanishes almost everywhere on level sets, $\nabla u(x) = 0$ for a.e. $x\in \{u = 0\}$.
\end{enumerate}
An important inequality in this context is the following.
\begin{thm}[Sobolev inequality]\label{ch0-Sob}\index{Sobolev inequality}
If $p<n$, then
\[
\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} |u|^{p_*}dx\right)^{1/p_*} \leq C \left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|\nabla u|^pdx \right)^{1/p}, \qquad \frac{1}{p_*}=\frac1p-\frac1n,
\]
for some constant $C$ depending only on $n$ and $p$.
In particular, we have a continuous inclusion $W^{1,p}(\mathbb{R}^n)\subset L^{p_*}(\mathbb{R}^n)$.
\end{thm}
Notice that, as $p\uparrow n$ we have $p_*\to\infty$.
In the limiting case $p=n$, however, it is \emph{not} true that $W^{1,n}$ functions are bounded.
This can be seen by taking, for example, $u(x)=\log \log \left(1+\frac{1}{|x|}\right)\in W^{1,n}(B_1)$.
Still, in case $p>n$, the following occurs.
\begin{thm}[Morrey inequality]\index{Morrey inequality}
If $p>n$, then
\[
\sup_{x\neq y}\frac{\bigl|u(x)-u(y)\bigr|}{|x-y|^\alpha} \leq C \left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|\nabla u|^pdx \right)^{1/p}, \qquad \alpha=1-\frac{n}{p},
\]
for some constant $C$ depending only on $n$ and $p$.
\end{thm}
In particular, when $p>n$ any function in $W^{1,p}$ is continuous (after possibly being redefined on a set of measure 0).
Finally, we will also use the following inequalities in bounded domains.
\begin{thm}[Poincar\'e inequality]\label{ch0-Poinc}\index{Poincar\'e inequality}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be any bounded Lipschitz domain, and let $p\in [1, \infty)$.
Then, for any $u\in W^{1, p}(\Omega)$ we have
\[
\int_{\Omega} |u-u_\Omega|^pdx \leq C_{\Omega, p} \int_\Omega|\nabla u|^pdx,
\]
where $u_\Omega:=\strokedint_\Omega u$, and
\[
\int_{\Omega} |u|^pdx \leq C_{\Omega,p}' \left(\int_\Omega|\nabla u|^pdx +\int_{\partial\Omega}\bigl|u|_{\partial\Omega}\bigr|^pd\sigma\right).
\]
The constants $C_{\Omega,p}$ and $C_{\Omega,p}'$ depend only on $n$, $p$, and $\Omega$.
\end{thm}
\subsection*{H\"older spaces}
\label{ssec.HolderSpaces}
\index{H\"older space}
Given $\alpha\in(0,1)$, the H\"older space $C^{0,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)$ is the set of continuous functions $u\in C(\overline\Omega)$ such that the H\"older semi-norm is finite,
\[ [u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{\Omega})} := \sup_{\substack{x,y\in\overline\Omega\\x\neq y}}\frac{\bigl|u(x)-u(y)\bigr|}{|x-y|^\alpha}<\infty.\]\index{H\"older semi-norm}
The H\"older norm is
\[\|u\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)}:=\|u\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}+[u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{\Omega})}.\]\index{H\"older norm}
When $\alpha=1$, this is the usual space of Lipschitz continuous functions.
More generally, given $k\in\mathbb N$ and $\alpha\in(0,1)$, the space $C^{k,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)$ is the set of functions $u\in C^k(\overline\Omega)$ such that the following norm is finite
\[
\|u\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)} = \|u\|_{C^k(\overline\Omega)} + [D^k u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{\Omega})},
\]
where
\[
\|u\|_{C^k(\overline\Omega)} := \sum_{j=1}^k\|D^ju\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}.
\]
Notice that this yields the inclusions
\[C^0\supset C^{0,\alpha} \supset \textrm{Lip} \supset C^1 \supset C^{1,\alpha}\supset ...\supset C^\infty.\]
We will often write $\|u\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(\Omega)}$ instead of $\|u\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)}$.
Finally, it is sometimes convenient to use the following notation.
When $\beta>0$ is \emph{not} an integer, we define $C^\beta(\overline\Omega):=C^{k,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)$, where $\beta=k+\alpha$, $k\in\mathbb N$, $\alpha\in(0,1)$.
\vspace{2mm}
There are many properties or alternative definitions of H\"older spaces that will be used throughout the book.
They are valid for all $\alpha\in(0,1)$, and are proved in Appendix~\ref{app.A}.
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=*,label={\bf (H\arabic*)}]
\setlength\itemsep{2mm}
\item \label{it.H1} Assume
\[{\rm osc}_{B_r(x)}u\leq C_{\circ}r^\alpha\qquad \textrm{for all }\, B_r(x)\subset\overline{B_1},\]
where ${\rm osc}_A u:=\sup_A u - \inf_A u$.
Then, $u\in C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})$ and $[u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha$.
\item \label{it.H2} Let $u_{x,r}:=\strokedint_{B_r(x)}u$. Assume
\[\|u-u_{x,r}\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x))}\leq C_{\circ}r^\alpha\qquad \textrm{for all }\, B_r(x)\subset\overline{B_1}.\]
Then, $u\in C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})$ and $[u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha$.
\item \label{it.H3} Let $u_{x,r}:=\strokedint_{B_r(x)}u$. Assume
\[\left(\strokedint_{B_r(x)}|u-u_{x,r}|^2\right)^{1/2}\leq C_{\circ}r^\alpha\qquad \textrm{for all }\, B_r(x)\subset\overline{B_1}.\]
Then, $u\in C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})$ and $[u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha$.
\item \label{it.H4} Assume that for every $x$ there is a constant $C_x$ such that
\[\|u-C_x\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x))}\leq C_{\circ}r^\alpha\qquad \textrm{for all }\, B_r(x)\subset\overline{B_1}.\]
Then, $u\in C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})$ and $[u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha$.
Assume that for every $x$ there is a linear function $\ell_x(y)=a_x+b_x\cdot(y-x)$ such that
\[\|u-\ell_x\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x))}\leq C_{\circ}r^{1+\alpha}\qquad \textrm{for all }\, B_r(x)\subset\overline{B_1}.\]
Then, $u\in C^{1,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})$ and $[Du]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha$.
Assume that for every $x$ there is a quadratic polynomial $P_x(y)$ such that
\[\|u-P_x\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x))}\leq C_{\circ}r^{2+\alpha}\qquad \textrm{for all }\, B_r(x)\subset\overline{B_1}.\]
Then, $u\in C^{2,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})$ and $[D^2u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha$.
\item \label{it.H5} Let $\rho_\circ\in (0,1)$.
Assume that, for every $x\in B_{1/2}$, there exists a sequence of quadratic polynomials, $(P_k)_{k\in \mathbb{N}}$, such that
\begin{equation}
\label{ch0-H_QP}
\|u-P_k\|_{L^\infty(B_{\rho_\circ^k}(x))}\leq C_{\circ}\rho_\circ^{k(2+\alpha)}\qquad\textrm{for all }\, k\in \mathbb{N}.
\end{equation}
Then, $u\in C^{2,\alpha}(B_{1/2})$ and $[D^2u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le C C_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n$, $\alpha$, and $\rho_\circ$.
\item \label{it.H6} Assume that $\alpha\in(0,1)$, $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le C_{\circ}$, and
\[
\sup_{\substack{x\in B_1\\ x\pm h\in\overline{B_1}}}\frac{\bigl|u(x+h)+u(x-h)-2u(x)\bigr|}{|h|^\alpha}\leq C_{\circ}.
\]
Then, $u\in C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})$ and $\|u\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha$.
Assume that $\alpha\in (0, 1)$, $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le C_{\circ}$, and
\[\sup_{\substack{x\in B_1\\ x\pm h\in\overline{B_1}}}\frac{\bigl|u(x+h)+u(x-h)-2u(x)\bigr|}{|h|^{1+\alpha}}\leq C_{\circ}.
\]
Then, $u\in C^{1,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})$ and $\|u\|_{C^{1,\alpha}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha$.
However, such property fails when $\alpha=0$.
\item \label{it.H7} Assume that $\alpha\in (0,1]$, $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le C_{\circ}$, and that for every $h\in B_1$ we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.H7}
\left\|\frac{u(x+h)-u(x)}{|h|^\alpha}\right\|_{C^\beta(B_{1-|h|})}\leq C_{\circ},
\end{equation}
with $C_{\circ}$ independent of $h$.
Assume in addition that $\alpha+\beta$ is not an integer.
Then, $u\in C^{\alpha+\beta}(\overline{B_1})$ and $\|u\|_{C^{\alpha+\beta}(\overline{B_1})}\leq CC_{\circ}$, with $C$ depending only on $n,\alpha,\beta$.
However, such property fails when $\alpha+\beta$ is an integer.
\item \label{it.H8} Assume that $u_i\to u_0$ uniformly in $\overline\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$, and that $\|u_i\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)}\leq C_{\circ}$, with $\alpha\in (0, 1]$ and for some $C_{\circ}$ independent of $i$.
Then, we have that $u_0\in C^{k,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)$, and
\[\|u_0\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)}\leq C_{\circ}.\]
\end{enumerate}
\vspace{2mm}
Finally, an important result in this context is the following particular case of the Arzel\`a--Ascoli theorem.
\begin{thm}[Arzel\`a--Ascoli]\label{ch0-AA}\index{Arzel\`a-Ascoli Theorem}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$, $\alpha\in (0,1)$, and let $\{f_i\}_{i\in \mathbb N}$ be any sequence of functions $f_i$ satisfying
\[\|f_i\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)}\leq C_{\circ}.\]
Then, there exists a subsequence $f_{i_j}$ which converges uniformly to a function $f\in C^{0,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)$.
\end{thm}
More generally, this result --- combined with \ref{it.H8} --- implies that if
\[\|u_i\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)}\leq C_{\circ},\]
with $\alpha\in(0,1)$, then a subsequence $u_{i_j}$ will converge in the $C^k(\overline\Omega)$ norm to a function $u\in C^{k,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)$.
\subsection*{Interpolation inequalities in H\"older spaces}
\index{Interpolation inequalities}
A useful tool that will be used throughout the book is the following.
For each $0\leq \gamma<\alpha<\beta\leq1$ and every $\varepsilon>0$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{ch0-interp}
\|u\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)} \leq C_{\varepsilon}\|u\|_{C^{0,\gamma}(\overline\Omega)} + \varepsilon \|u\|_{C^{0,\beta}(\overline\Omega)},
\end{equation}
where $C$ is a constant depending only on $n$ and $\varepsilon$. (When $\gamma=0$, $C^{0,\gamma}$ should be replaced by $L^\infty$.)
This follows from the interpolation inequality
\[\|u\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)} \leq \|u\|_{C^{0,\gamma}(\overline\Omega)}^t \|u\|_{C^{0,\beta}(\overline\Omega)}^{1-t} \qquad t=\frac{\beta-\alpha}{\beta-\gamma}.\]
More generally, \eqref{ch0-interp} holds for higher-order H\"older norms too.
In particular, we will use that for any $\varepsilon>0$ and $\alpha\in(0,1)$
\[
\|\nabla u\|_{L^\infty(\overline\Omega)} \leq C_{\varepsilon}\|u\|_{L^\infty(\overline\Omega)} + \varepsilon [\nabla u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)},
\]
and
\begin{equation}\label{ch0-interp2}
\|u\|_{C^{2}(\overline\Omega)} = \|u\|_{C^{1,1}(\overline\Omega)} \leq C_{\varepsilon}\|u\|_{L^\infty(\overline\Omega)} + \varepsilon [D^2 u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)}.
\end{equation}
We refer to \cite[Lemma 6.35]{GT} for a proof of such inequalities.
\section{A review on the Laplace equation}
Elliptic equations are those that share some common properties with the Laplace equation. (We will be more rigorous about this in the subsequent chapters.)
Thus, we start with a quick review about the Laplace equation and harmonic functions.
The \emph{Dirichlet problem} for this equation is the following:\index{Dirichlet problem!Laplace equation}
\begin{equation}\label{DirP}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta u & = & 0 &\text{in } \Omega\\
u &=& g &\text{on } \partial\Omega,
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
where the boundary condition $g$ is given.
The domain $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ is bounded and smooth (or at least Lipschitz).
The Dirichlet problem is solvable, and it has a unique solution.
A useful way to think of the Laplacian $\Delta$ is to notice that, up to a multiplicative constant, it is the only linear operator of second order which is translation invariant \emph{and} rotation invariant.
Indeed, it can be seen as an operator which measures (infinitesimally) the difference between $u$ at $x$ and the average of $u$ around $x$, in the following sense: for any $C^2$ function $w$ we have
\begin{equation} \label{Laplacian-radially}
\begin{split}
\Delta w(x)&=\lim_{r\to0}\frac{c_n}{r^2}\left\{\strokedint_{B_r(x)}w(y)dy-w(x)\right\}\\
&=\lim_{r\to0}\frac{c_n}{r^2}\strokedint_{B_r(x)}\bigl(w(y)-w(x)\bigr)dy,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
for some positive constant $c_n$.
This can be shown, for example, by using the Taylor expansion of $w(y)$ around $x$.
Moreover, a similar formula holds with integrals in $\partial B_r(x)$ instead of $B_r(x)$. See, for example, \cite{DV21}.
Actually, one can show by using the divergence theorem that
\begin{equation}
\label{Laplacian-radially_2}
\frac{n}{r} \frac{d}{dr}\strokedint_{\partial B_r(x)} w \, d\sigma = \strokedint_{B_r(x)}\Delta w,
\end{equation}
from which \eqref{Laplacian-radially} also follows.
\subsection*{Existence of solutions: energy methods}
\index{Energy method}
The most classical way to construct solutions of \eqref{DirP} is by ``energy methods''.
Namely, we consider the convex functional
\[\qquad\qquad\mathcal E(u):= \frac12\int_\Omega |\nabla u|^2dx\qquad \textrm{among functions satisfying}\quad u|_{\partial\Omega}=g,\]
and then look for the function $u$ that minimizes the functional --- see Theorem~\ref{ch0-existence} below for more details about the existence of a minimizer.
Notice that such minimizer $u$ will clearly satisfy the boundary condition $u=g$ on $\partial\Omega$, so we only have to check that it will satisfy in addition $\Delta u=0$ in $\Omega$.
If $u$ is the minimizer, then $\mathcal E(u)\leq \mathcal E(u+\varepsilon v)$ for every $v\in C^\infty_c(\Omega)$.
Since, for every fixed $v$, such function in $\varepsilon$ has a minimum at $\varepsilon=0$, we have
\[\left.\frac{d}{d\varepsilon}\right|_{\varepsilon=0}\mathcal E(u+\varepsilon v) =0.\]
Thus,
\begin{eqnarray*}
0 & = & \left.\frac{d}{d\varepsilon}\right|_{\varepsilon=0} \mathcal E(u+\varepsilon v)
= \left.\frac{d}{d\varepsilon}\right|_{\varepsilon=0} \frac12\int_\Omega |\nabla u+\varepsilon v|^2 dx\\
&=& \left.\frac{d}{d\varepsilon}\right|_{\varepsilon=0} \frac12\int_\Omega \bigl(|\nabla u|^2+2\varepsilon\nabla u\cdot\nabla v+\varepsilon^2|\nabla v|^2\bigr)dx\\
&=& \int_\Omega \nabla u\cdot\nabla v\,dx.
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence, if $u$ is the minimizer of the functional, then
\begin{equation}\label{weaksol-0}
\int_\Omega \nabla u\cdot\nabla v\,dx=0\qquad \textrm{for all}\quad v\in C^\infty_c(\Omega).
\end{equation}
\emph{If $u$ is regular enough} (say, $u\in C^2$), then we can integrate by parts (Theorem~\ref{ch0-int-parts}) to find that
\[\int_\Omega \Delta u\, v\,dx=0\qquad \textrm{for all}\quad v\in C^\infty_c(\Omega).\]
Thus, using Corollary \ref{ch0-ae} we deduce that $\Delta u=0$ in $\Omega$, as wanted.
\vspace{3mm}
\begin{rem}
As mentioned above, one should prove \emph{regularity} of $u$ before integrating by parts --- a priori the minimizer $u$ will only satisfy $u\in H^1(\Omega)$.
We will prove this in Corollary \ref{ch0-smooth} below.
If no extra regularity of $u$ is available, then the above argument shows that any minimizer $u$ of $\mathcal E$ is a \emph{weak solution}, in the following sense.
\end{rem}
\begin{defi}\label{defi-weak}\index{Weak solution}
We say that $u$ is a \emph{weak solution} of the Dirichlet problem \eqref{DirP} whenever $u\in H^1(\Omega)$, $u|_{\partial\Omega}=g$, and
\[ \int_\Omega \nabla u\cdot\nabla v\,dx=0\qquad \textrm{for all}\quad v\in H^1_0(\Omega).\]
Here, $u|_{\partial\Omega}$ is the trace of $u$ on $\partial\Omega$; recall \ref{it.S5} above.
More generally, given $f\in L^2(\Omega)$, we say that $u$ satisfies $-\Delta u=f$ in~$\Omega$ in the weak sense whenever $u\in H^1(\Omega)$ and
\[ \int_\Omega \nabla u\cdot\nabla v\,dx=\int_\Omega fv\qquad \textrm{for all}\quad v\in H^1_0(\Omega).\]
Finally, we say that $u$ is \emph{weakly superharmonic} (resp. \emph{weakly subharmonic}) in $\Omega$, or satisfies $\Delta u \le 0$ in $\Omega$ in the weak sense (resp. $\Delta u \ge 0$ in the weak sense) if
\[ \int_\Omega \nabla u\cdot\nabla v\,dx \ge 0 \quad \left(\text{resp. } \int_\Omega \nabla u\cdot\nabla v\,dx \le 0 \right)\quad \textrm{for all}\quad v\in H^1_0(\Omega), v\ge 0.\]
\end{defi}
Notice that, if $H^1(\Omega)\ni u_k \rightharpoonup u\in H^1(\Omega)$ weakly in $H^1$, and $L^2(\Omega)\ni f_k \rightharpoonup f\in L^2(\Omega)$ weakly in $L^2$ are such that $\Delta u_k = f_k$ in $\Omega$ in the weak sense, then $\Delta u = f$ in the weak sense as well (by taking the limits in the previous definitions). Similarly, the weak limit of weakly (sub-)superharmonic functions is (sub-)superharmonic.
We next show the following:
\begin{thm}[Existence and uniqueness of weak solutions]\label{ch0-existence} \index{Existence and uniqueness!Laplace equation}
Assume that $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ is any bounded Lipschitz domain, and that
\begin{equation} \label{ch0-nonempty-g}
\left\{w\in H^1(\Omega)\,:\, w|_{\partial\Omega}=g\right\}\neq \varnothing.
\end{equation}
Then, there exists a unique weak solution to the Dirichlet problem \eqref{DirP}.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
\textsc{Existence.}
Let
\[\theta_{\circ}:=\inf\left\{\frac12\int_\Omega |\nabla w|^2dx\,:\, w\in H^1(\Omega),\ w|_{\partial\Omega}=g\right\},\]
that is, the infimum value of $\mathcal E(w)$ among all admissible functions $w$.
Let us take a sequence of functions $\{u_k\}$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $u_k\in H^1(\Omega)$
\item $u_k|_{\partial\Omega}=g$
\item $\mathcal E(u_k)\to \theta_{\circ}$ as $k\to\infty$.
\end{itemize}
By the Poincar\'e inequality (Theorem \ref{ch0-Poinc} with $p = 2$), the sequence $\{u_k\}$ is uniformly bounded in $H^1(\Omega)$, and therefore a subsequence $\{u_{k_j}\}$ will converge to a certain function $u$ strongly in $L^2(\Omega)$ and weakly in $H^1(\Omega)$ (recall \eqref{ch0-weak-conv}-\eqref{ch0-weak-conv3} in \ref{it.S4}).
Moreover, by compactness of the trace operator, we will have $u_{k_j}|_{\partial\Omega}\to u|_{\partial\Omega}$ in $L^2(\partial\Omega)$, so that $u|_{\partial\Omega}=g$.
Furthermore, such function $u$ will satisfy $\mathcal E(u)\leq \liminf_{j\to\infty}\mathcal E(u_{k_j})$ (by \eqref{ch0-weak-conv2} and \eqref{ch0-weak-conv3}), and therefore it will be a minimizer of the energy functional.
Thus, we have constructed a minimizer $u$ of the energy functional $\mathcal E(u)$ satisfying the boundary condition $u|_{\partial\Omega}=g$.
By the argument above, for any minimizer $u$ we have that \eqref{weaksol-0} holds.
Since $C^\infty_c(\Omega)$ is dense in $H^1_0(\Omega)$, it follows that \eqref{weaksol-0} holds for all $v\in H^1_0(\Omega)$, and thus it is a weak solution of \eqref{DirP}.
\vspace{2mm}
\textsc{Uniqueness.}
If $u$ is any weak solution to \eqref{DirP}, then for every $v\in H^1_0(\Omega)$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal E(u+v)&=&\frac12\int_\Omega|\nabla u+\nabla v|^2dx\\ &=&\frac12\int_\Omega |\nabla u|^2dx+\int_\Omega\nabla u\cdot \nabla v\,dx+\frac12\int_\Omega|\nabla v|^2dx\\
&=&\mathcal E(u)+0+\frac12\int_\Omega|\nabla v|^2dx\geq \mathcal E(u),
\end{eqnarray*}
with strict inequality if $v\not\equiv0$.
Thus, if $u$ solves \eqref{DirP}, then it is unique.
\end{proof}
In other words, we have shown that $u$ is a weak solution of \eqref{DirP} if and only if it minimizes the functional $\mathcal E(u)$ and, moreover, the minimizer of such energy functional exists and it is unique.
\begin{rem}
An interesting question is to determine the set of possible boundary data $g:\partial\Omega\to\mathbb{R}$ such that \eqref{ch0-nonempty-g} holds.
Of course, when $\Omega$ is any bounded Lipschitz domain, and $g$ is Lipschitz, then it is easy to show that $g$ has a Lipschitz extension inside $\Omega$, and in particular \eqref{ch0-nonempty-g} holds.
However, if $g$ is very irregular then it might happen that it is \emph{not} the trace of any $H^1(\Omega)$ function, so that \eqref{ch0-nonempty-g} fails in this case.
It turns out that the right condition on $g$ is the following: Given any bounded Lipschitz domain $\Omega$, \eqref{ch0-nonempty-g} holds if and only if
\[\int_{\partial\Omega}\int_{\partial\Omega}\frac{|g(x)-g(y)|^2}{|x-y|^{n+1}}\,dx\,dy<\infty.\]
We refer to \cite{Evans} for more details.
\end{rem}
\subsection*{Poisson kernel and fundamental solution}
\index{Poisson kernel}\index{Fundamental solution}
The unique weak solution to the Dirichlet problem in a ball is explicit:
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta u & = & 0 &\text{in } B_1\\
u &=& g &\text{on } \partial B_1,
\end{array}\right.\qquad \Longrightarrow\qquad u(x)=c_n\int_{\partial B_1}\frac{(1-|x|^2)g(\sigma)}{|x-\sigma|^n}\,d\sigma,
\end{equation*}
where $c_n$ is a positive dimensional constant.
By an easy rescaling argument, a similar formula holds in any ball $B_r(x_{\circ})\subset\mathbb{R}^n$.
Thus, we deduce that for any harmonic function $\Delta u=0$ in $\Omega$, with $B_r\subset\Omega$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{ch0-Poisson}
u(x)=\frac{c_n}{r}\int_{\partial B_r}\frac{(r^2-|x|^2)u(y)}{|x-y|^n}\,dy.
\end{equation}
By taking $x=0$, this yields the \emph{mean value property} $u(0)=\strokedint_{\partial B_r}u$.
Moreover, an immediate consequence of the Poisson kernel representation is the following.
\begin{cor}\label{ch0-smooth}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be any open set, and $u\in H^1(\Omega)$ be any function satisfying $\Delta u=0$ in $\Omega$ in the weak sense.
Then, $u$ is $C^\infty$ inside~$\Omega$.
Moreover, if $u$ is bounded and $\Delta u = 0$ in $B_1$ in the weak sense, then we have the estimates
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.estimatesuk}
\|u\|_{C^k(B_{1/2})} \le C_k \|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)},
\end{equation}
for all $k\in \mathbb{N}$, and for some constant $C_k$ depending only on $k$ and $n$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
For any ball $B_r(x_{\circ})\subset \Omega$, we will have \eqref{ch0-Poisson}.
Thanks to such representation, it is immediate to see then that $u\in C^\infty(B_{r/2}(x_{\circ}))$ and the estimates \eqref{eq.estimatesuk} hold.
Since this can be done for any ball $B_r(x_{\circ})\subset \Omega$, we deduce that $u$ is $C^\infty$ inside~$\Omega$.
\end{proof}
\vspace{2mm}
On the other hand, we recall that the \emph{fundamental solution} for the Laplacian is given by
\begin{equation}\label{fundamental-sol}
\Phi(x):=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} \displaystyle
\frac{\kappa_n}{|x|^{n-2}} & \quad\textrm{if}\ n\ge3 \\
\displaystyle \kappa_2\log\frac{1}{|x|} & \quad\textrm{if}\ n=2,
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
for some explicit positive dimensional constant $\kappa_n$.
Such function satisfies $\Delta \Phi=0$ in $\mathbb{R}^n\setminus\{0\}$, but it is singular at $x=0$.
In fact, it satisfies
\[-\Delta\Phi=\delta_{0}\quad \textrm{in}\quad \mathbb{R}^n,\]
where $\delta_{0}$ is the Dirac delta function.
In particular, we have that $w:=\Phi * f$ solves $-\Delta w=f$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$, for any given $f$ with appropriate decay at infinity.
\subsection*{Maximum principle}
\index{Maximum principle!Laplace equation}
The maximum principle states the following: If $\Delta u\geq0$ in $\Omega$, and $u\in C(\overline\Omega)$, then
\[\max_{\overline\Omega}u=\max_{\partial\Omega}u.\]
In particular, we also deduce the \emph{comparison principle}: if $\Delta u\geq \Delta v$ in $\Omega$, and $u\leq v$ on $\partial\Omega$, then $u\leq v$ in the whole domain $\Omega$.\index{Comparison principle!Laplace equation}
Recall that a function is said to be \emph{subharmonic} if $-\Delta u\leq0$, and \emph{superharmonic} if $-\Delta u\geq0$.\index{Subharmonic function}\index{Superharmonic function}
As shown next, the maximum principle actually holds for any weak solution $u$.
\begin{prop}\label{max-princ-weak}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be any bounded open set.
Assume that $u\in H^1(\Omega)$ satisfies, in the weak sense,
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
-\Delta u & \geq & 0 &\text{in } \Omega\\
u &\geq& 0 &\text{on } \partial \Omega.
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation*}
Then, $u\geq0$ in $\Omega$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Notice that $-\Delta u \geq 0$ in $\Omega$ if and only if
\begin{equation}\label{ch0-max-princ1}
\int_\Omega \nabla u\cdot\nabla v\,dx\geq0\qquad \textrm{for all}\quad v\geq 0,\ v\in H^1_0(\Omega).
\end{equation}
Let us consider $u^-:=\max\{-u,0\}$ and $u^+:=\max\{u,0\}$, so that $u=u^+-u^-$.
By \ref{it.S10} we have that $u^\pm\in H^1(\Omega)$ whenever $u\in H^1(\Omega)$, and thus we can choose $v=u^-\geq0$ in \eqref{ch0-max-princ1}.
Namely, using that $u^+u^-=0$ and $\nabla u=\nabla u^+-\nabla u^-$, we get
\[0\leq \int_\Omega \nabla u\cdot\nabla u^-\,dx=-\int_\Omega |\nabla u^-|^2\,dx.\]
Since $u^-|_{\partial\Omega} \equiv 0$ this implies $u^-\equiv0$ in $\Omega$, that is, $u\geq0$ in $\Omega$.
\end{proof}
A useful consequence of the maximum principle is the following.
\begin{lem} \label{lem.maxPrinciple}
Let $u$ be any weak solution of
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta u & = & f &\text{in } \Omega\\
u &=& g &\text{on } \partial \Omega.
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation*}
Then,
\[\|u\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}\leq C\bigl(\|f\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}+\|g\|_{L^\infty(\partial\Omega)}\bigr),\]
for a constant $C$ depending only on the diameter of $\Omega$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let us consider the function
\[\tilde u(x):=u(x)/\left(\|f\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}+\|g\|_{L^\infty(\partial\Omega)}\right).\]
We want to prove that $|\tilde u|\leq C$ in $\Omega$, for some constant $C$ depending only on the diameter of $\Omega$.
Notice that such function $\tilde u$ solves
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta \tilde u & = & \tilde f &\text{in } \Omega\\
u &=& \tilde g &\text{on } \partial \Omega,
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation*}
with $|\tilde g|\leq 1$ and $|\tilde f|\leq 1$.
Let us choose $R$ large enough so that $B_R\supset \Omega$; after a translation, we can take $R=\frac12\textrm{diam}(\Omega)$.
In $B_R$, let us consider the function
\[w(x)=\frac{R^2-x_1^2}{2}+1.\]
Such function $w$ satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta w & = & -1 &\text{in } \Omega\\
w &\geq& 1 &\text{on } \partial \Omega,
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation*}
Therefore, by the comparison principle, we deduce that
\[\tilde u\leq w\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega.\]
Since $w\leq C$ (with $C$ depending only on $R$), we deduce that $\tilde u\leq C$ in $\Omega$.
Finally, repeating the same argument with $-\tilde u$ instead of $\tilde u$, we find that $|\tilde u|\leq C$ in $\Omega$, and thus we are done.
\end{proof}
Finally, another important result which follows from the maximum principle is the following.
Here, we say that $\Omega$ satisfies the interior ball condition whenever there exists $\rho_{\circ}>0$ such that every point on $\partial\Omega$ can be touched from inside with a ball of radius $\rho_{\circ}$ contained in $\overline\Omega$.
That is, for any $x_\circ\in \partial\Omega$ there exists $B_{\rho_\circ}(y_\circ)\subset \Omega$ with $x_\circ\in \partial B_{\rho_\circ}(y_\circ)$.
It is not difficult to see that any $C^2$ domain satisfies such condition, and also any domain which is the complement of a convex set.
\begin{lem}[Hopf Lemma]\label{Hopf}\index{Hopf Lemma}
Let $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ be any domain satisfying the interior ball condition.
Let $u\in C(\overline\Omega)$ be any positive harmonic function in $\Omega\cap B_2$, with $u\geq0$ on $\partial\Omega \cap B_2$.
Then, $u\geq c_{\circ}d$ in $\Omega\cap B_1$ for some $c_{\circ}>0$, where $d(x):={\rm dist}(x,\Omega^c)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Since $u$ is positive and continuous in $\Omega\cap B_2$, we have that $u\geq c_1>0$ in $\{d\geq \rho_{\circ}/2\}\cap B_{3/2}$ for some $c_1>0$.
Let us consider the solution of $\Delta w=0$ in $B_{\rho_{\circ}}\setminus B_{\rho_{\circ}/2}$, with $w=0$ on $\partial B_{\rho_{\circ}}$ and $w=1$ on $\partial B_{\rho_{\circ}/2}$.
Such function $w$ is explicit --- it is simply a truncated and rescaled version of the fundamental solution $\Phi$ in \eqref{fundamental-sol}.
In particular, it is immediate to check that $w\geq c_2(\rho_{\circ}-|x|)$ in $B_{\rho_{\circ}}$ for some $c_2>0$.
By using the function $c_1w(x_{\circ}+x)$ as a subsolution in any ball $B_{\rho_{\circ}}(x_{\circ})\subset \Omega\cap B_{3/2}$, we deduce that $u(x)\geq c_1w(x_{\circ}+x)\geq c_1c_2(\rho_{\circ}-|x-x_{\circ}|)\geq c_1c_2d$ in $B_{\rho_{\circ}}(x_\circ)$.
Setting $c_{\circ}=c_1c_2$ and using the previous inequality for every ball $B_{\rho_{\circ}}(x_{\circ})\subset \Omega\cap B_{3/2}$, the result follows.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Mean value property and Liouville theorem}
If $u$ is harmonic in $\Omega$ (i.e., $\Delta u=0$ in $\Omega$), then
\index{Mean value property}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.mean_value_property}
u(x)=\strokedint_{B_r(x)} u(y)dy\qquad \textrm{for any ball}\quad B_r(x)\subset\Omega.
\end{equation}
This is called the mean value property.
Conversely, if $u\in C^2(\Omega)$ satisfies the mean value property, then $\Delta u=0$ in $\Omega$.
This can be seen for example by using \eqref{Laplacian-radially} above.
In fact, the mean value property \eqref{eq.mean_value_property} can be used to give yet another (weak) definition of harmonic functions that only requires $u$ to be locally integrable. Similarly, it is not difficult to deduce the corresponding pro\-per\-ty arising from the definitions of weak super- and subharmonicity (see Definition~\ref{defi-weak}):
From \eqref{Laplacian-radially_2}, if $u$ is weakly superharmonic in $\Omega$ ($\Delta u \le 0$ in $\Omega$ in the weak sense) then for all $x\in \Omega$
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.superharmonic_integral}
r\mapsto \strokedint_{B_r(x)} u(y)\, dy\quad\text{is monotone non-increasing for $r\in (0, {\rm dist}(x, \partial\Omega))$.}
\end{equation}
(And it is monotone non-decreasing for weakly subharmonic functions.)
Thus, we can define (weak) super- and subharmonicity for $L^1_{\rm loc}$ functions: we say that $u\in L^1_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ is superharmonic in $\Omega$ if \eqref{eq.superharmonic_integral} holds for all $x\in\Omega$. Similarly, we say that $u\in L^1_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ is subharmonic in $\Omega$ if the map in \eqref{eq.superharmonic_integral} is monotone non-decreasing for all $x\in\Omega$ and $r\in (0, {\rm dist}(x, \partial\Omega))$.
We now give two lemmas that will be used in Chapter~\ref{ch.4}. The first lemma says that the pointwise limit of a sequence of superharmonic uniformly bounded functions is superharmonic.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem.convergence_pointwise}
Let $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$, and let $\{w_n\}_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ be a sequence of uniformly bounded functions $w_n: \Omega\to \mathbb{R}$ satisfying \eqref{eq.superharmonic_integral}, converging pointwise to some $w:\Omega \to \mathbb{R}$. Then $w$ satisfies \eqref{eq.superharmonic_integral}.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $w_\infty := w$ and let us define for $n\in \mathbb{N}\cup\{\infty\}$, $\varphi_{x,n}(r) := \strokedint_{B_r(x)} w_n$. Notice that $\varphi_{x,n}(r)$ is non-increasing in $r$ for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$. In particular, given $0< r_1 < r_2 < R_x$, we have that $\varphi_{x, n}(r_1) \ge \varphi_{x, n}(r_2)$ for $n\in \mathbb{N}$. Now we let $n\to \infty$ and use that $w_n\to w$ pointwise to deduce, by the dominated convergence theorem (notice that $w_n$ are uniformly bounded), that $\varphi_{x, \infty}(r_1) \ge \varphi_{x, \infty}(r_2)$. That is, $w_\infty = w$ satisfies \eqref{eq.superharmonic_integral}.
\end{proof}
The second lemma shows that superharmonic functions are lower semi-continuous.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem.lower_semi}
Let us assume that $w$ is bounded and satisfies \eqref{eq.superharmonic_integral} in $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$. Then, up to changing $w$ in a set of measure 0, $w$ is lower semi-continuous.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The proof is standard. If we define $w_0(x) := \lim_{r\downarrow 0}\strokedint_{B_r(x)} w$ (which is well defined, since the average is monotone non-increasing), then $w_0 (x) = w(x) $ if $x$ is a Lebesgue point, and thus $w_0 = w$ almost everywhere in $\Omega$. Let us now consider $x_\circ\in \Omega$, and let $x_k \to x_\circ$ as $k\to \infty$. Then, by the dominated convergence theorem we have that
\[
\strokedint_{B_r(x_\circ)} w = \lim_{k\to \infty} \strokedint_{B_r(x_k)} w \le \liminf_{k\to \infty} w_0(x_k)
\]
for $0 < r < \frac12 {\rm dist}(x_\circ, \partial\Omega)$. Now, by letting $r\downarrow 0$ on the left-hand side, we reach that
\[
w_0(x_\circ) \le \liminf_{k\to \infty} w_0(x_k),
\]
that is, $w_0$ is lower semi-continuous.
\end{proof}
On the other hand, a well-known theorem that can be deduced from the mean value property is the classification of global bounded harmonic functions.
\index{Liouville Theorem}\begin{thm}[Liouville's theorem]
\label{thm.Liouville}
Any bounded solution of $\Delta u=0$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$ is constant.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let $u$ be any global bounded solution of $\Delta u=0$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$.
Since $u$ is smooth (by Corollary \ref{ch0-smooth}), each derivative $\partial_i u$ is well-defined and is harmonic too.
Thus, thanks to the mean-value property and the divergence theorem, for any $x \in \mathbb{R}^n$ and $R \ge 1$ we have
\[
|\partial_i u(x)| = \left|\frac{c_n}{R^n}\int_{B_R(x)} \partial_i u \right| =
\left|\frac{c_n}{R^n}\int_{\partial B_R(x)} u(y) \frac{y_i}{|y|} \,dy\right|\le \frac{C}{R^{n}}\int_{\partial B_R(x)} |u| .
\]
Thus, using that $|u|\leq M$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$, we find
\begin{align*}
|\partial_i u(x)| & \le \frac{c_n}{R^n} |\partial B_R(x)| M \\
& = \frac{c_n}{R^n} |\partial B_1|R^{n-1} M= \frac{c_nM}{R} \to 0,\quad\textrm{ as }\quad R\to \infty.
\end{align*}
Therefore, $\partial_i u(x) = 0$ for all $x\in \mathbb{R}^n$, and $u$ is constant.
\end{proof}
More generally, one can even prove a classification result for functions with polynomial growth.
Here, for $\gamma\in\mathbb{R}$, $\lfloor \gamma\rfloor$ denotes the floor function, that is, the largest integer less or equal to $\gamma$.
\begin{prop}[Liouville's theorem with growth]
\label{cor.Liouville}
Assume that $u$ is a solution of $\Delta u=0$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$ satisfying $|u(x)|\leq C(1+|x|^\gamma)$ for all $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$, with $\gamma>0$.
Then, $u$ is a polynomial of degree at most $\lfloor \gamma\rfloor$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let us define $u_R(x) := u(Rx)$, and notice that $\Delta u_R = 0$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$. From Corollary~\ref{ch0-smooth} and the growth assumption
\begin{align*}
R^k \|D^{k} u\|_{L^\infty(B_{R/2})} & = \|D^{k} u_R\|_{L^\infty(B_{1/2})} \\
& \le C_k \|u_R\|_{L^\infty(B_1)} = C_k \|u\|_{L^\infty(B_R)} \le C_k R^\gamma.
\end{align*}
In particular, if $k = \lfloor \gamma \rfloor+1$,
\[
\|D^{k} u\|_{L^\infty(B_{R/2})} \le C_k R^{\gamma-k} \to 0\quad\textrm{as}\quad R\to \infty.
\]
That is, $D^k u \equiv 0$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$, and $u$ is a polynomial of degree $k-1 = \lfloor\gamma\rfloor$.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Existence of solutions: comparison principle}
We saw that one way to prove existence of solutions to the Dirichlet problem for the Laplacian is by using \emph{energy methods}.
With such approach, one proves in fact the existence of a \emph{weak solution} $u\in H^1(\Omega)$.
Now, we will see an alternative way to construct solutions: via the \emph{comparison principle}.
With this method, one can show the existence of a \emph{viscosity solution} $u\in C(\overline\Omega)$.
For the Laplace equation, these solutions (weak or viscosity) can then be proved to be $C^\infty(\Omega)$, and thus they coincide.
We start by giving the definition of sub- and superharmonicity \emph{in the viscosity sense}.
It is important to remark that in such definition the function $u$ is only required to be \emph{continuous}.
\begin{defi}\label{ch0-viscosity}\index{Viscosity solution}
A function $u\in C(\overline\Omega)$ is \emph{subharmonic} (in the viscosity sense) if for every function $v\in C^2$ such that $v$ touches $u$ from above at $x_{\circ}\in \Omega$ (that is, $v\geq u$ in $\Omega$ and $v(x_{\circ})=u(x_{\circ})$), we have $\Delta v(x_{\circ})\geq0$. See Figure~\ref{fig.1}.
The definition of \emph{superharmonicity} for $u\in C(\Omega)$ is analogous (touching from below and with $\Delta v(x_\circ) \le 0$).
A function $u\in C(\Omega)$ is \emph{harmonic} if it is both sub- and superharmonic in the above viscosity sense.
\end{defi}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./Figures/fig1_2.pdf}
\caption{$v$ touches $u$ from above at $x_\circ$, $w$ touches $u$ from above at $y_\circ$.}
\label{fig.1}
\end{figure}
\vspace{2mm}
This definition obviously coincides with the one we know in case $u\in C^2$.
However, it allows non-$C^2$ functions $u$, for example $u(x)=|x|$ is subharmonic and $-|x|$ is superharmonic.
A useful property of viscosity sub-/supersolutions is the following.
\begin{prop}
The maximum of two subharmonic functions is also subharmonic.
That is, if $u_1,u_2\in C(\Omega)$ are subharmonic, then the function $v:=\max\{u_1,u_2\}$ is subharmonic as well. See Figure~\ref{fig.2}.
Similarly, the minimum of two superharmonic functions is superharmonic.
\end{prop}
The proof follows easily from Definition \ref{ch0-viscosity} above, and it is left as an exercise to the reader.
Moreover, we also have the following:
\begin{prop}\label{max-princ-viscosity}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be a bounded domain, and assume that $u\in C(\overline\Omega)$ satisfies, in the viscosity sense,
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
-\Delta u & \geq & 0 &\text{in } \Omega\\
u &\geq& 0 &\text{on } \partial \Omega.
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation*}
Then, $u\geq0$ in $\Omega$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
After a rescaling, we may assume $\Omega\subset B_1$.
Assume by contradiction that $u$ has a negative minimum in $\Omega$.
Then, since $u\geq0$ on $\partial \Omega$, we have $\min_{\overline \Omega} u=-\delta$, with $\delta>0$, and the minimum is achieved in $\Omega$.
Let us now consider $0<\varepsilon<\delta$, and $v(x):= -\kappa+\varepsilon(|x|^2-1)$, with $\kappa>0$ (that is, a sufficiently flat paraboloid).
Now, notice that $u-v>0$ on $\partial\Omega$, and that we can choose $\kappa>0$ so that $\min_{\overline \Omega} (u-v)=0$. That is, we can slide the paraboloid from below the solution $u$ until we touch it, by assumption, at an interior point.
Thus, there exists $x_\circ\in \Omega$ such that $u(x_\circ)-v(x_\circ)=\min_{\overline \Omega} (u-v)=0$.
Therefore, with such choice of $\kappa$, the function $v$ touches $u$ from below at $x_\circ\in\Omega$, and hence, by definition of viscosity solution, we must have
\[\Delta v(x_\circ)\leq0.\]
However, a direct computation gives $\Delta v\equiv 2n\varepsilon>0$ in $\Omega$, a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./Figures/fig2_2.pdf}
\caption{The maximum of two functions $u_1$ and $u_2$.}
\label{fig.2}
\end{figure}
Thanks to these two propositions, the existence of a (viscosity) solution to the Dirichlet problem can be shown as follows.
Let
\[S_g:=\left\{v\in C(\overline\Omega)\,:\,v\ \textrm{is subharmonic, and}\ v\leq g\ \textrm{on}\ \partial\Omega\right\},\]
and define the pointwise supremum
\[u(x):=\sup_{v\in S_g} v(x).\]
Then, it can be shown that, if $\Omega$ is regular and $g$ is continuous, then $u\in C(\overline\Omega)$, and $\Delta u=0$ in $\Omega$, with $u=g$ on $\partial \Omega$.
This is the so-called \emph{Perron method}.
We refer to \cite{HL} for a complete description of the method in case of the Laplace operator.
In Chapter~\ref{ch.2} we will study the existence of viscosity solutions in the more general setting of fully nonlinear elliptic equations.
\subsection*{Short summary on existence of solutions}
We have \emph{two completely different ways} to construct solutions: by energy methods; or by the maximum (or comparison) principle.
In the first case, the constructed solution belongs to $H^1(\Omega)$, in the second case to $C(\overline\Omega)$.
In any case, one can then prove that $u\in C^\infty(\Omega)\cap C(\overline\Omega)$ --- as long as $\Omega$ and $g$ are regular enough --- and therefore $u$ solves the Dirichlet problem in the usual sense.
\section{Probabilistic interpretation of harmonic functions}
\label{sec.prob_interp}
To end this introductory chapter, we give a well-known probabilistic interpretation of harmonic functions.
The discussion will be mostly heuristic, just to give an intuition on the Laplace equation in terms of stochastic processes. We refer to Appendix~\ref{app.B} for further probabilistic interpretations for fully nonlinear equations and for the obstacle problem.
\vspace{2mm}
\index{Brownian motion}Recall that the \emph{Brownian motion} is a stochastic process $X_t$, $t\geq0$, satisfying the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}[(1)]
\item \label{it.1} $X_0 = 0$ almost surely.
\item \label{it.2} $X_t$ has \emph{no memory} (is independent of the past, or it has independent increments).
\item \label{it.3} $X_t$ has \emph{stationary increments}: $X_{t+s}-X_s$ is equal in distribution to $X_{t}$.
\item \label{it.4} $X_t$ has \emph{continuous paths} ($t\mapsto X_t$ is continuous) almost surely.
\item \label{it.5} $X_t$ is \emph{isotropic}, i.e., it is rotationally symmetric in distribution.
\end{enumerate}
The previous properties actually determine the stochastic process $X_t$ up to a multiplicative constant.
Another important property of Brownian motion is that it is scale invariant, i.e.,
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(6)] \label{it.6} $r^{-1}X_{r^2t}$ equals $X_t$ in distribution, for any $r>0$.
\end{enumerate}
As we will see next, there is a strong connection between the Brownian motion and the Laplace operator.
\subsection*{Expected payoff}
\index{Expected payoff}
Given a regular domain $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$, and a Brownian motion $X_t^x$ starting at $x$ (i.e., $X_t^x:=x+X_t$), we play the following stochastic game:
When the process $X_t^x$ hits the boundary $\partial\Omega$ for the first time we get a \emph{payoff} $g(z)$, depending on the hitting point $z\in \partial\Omega$. (See Figure~\ref{fig.3}.)
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 1.4]{./Figures/fig3.pdf}
\caption{A stochastic process $X_t^x$ defined in $\Omega$ starting at $x$ until it hits the first point on the boundary $z\in \partial\Omega$.}
\label{fig.3}
\end{figure}
We then ask ourselves:
\[\textit{What is the expected payoff?}\]
To answer this question, we define
\[
\begin{split}
&\tau:=\textrm{first hitting time of }X_t^x,\\
&u(x):=\mathbb E\left[g(X_\tau^x)\right]\qquad \textrm{(value function)}.
\end{split}
\]
The value of $u(x)$ is, by definition, the answer to the question above.
Namely, it is the expected value of $g$ at the first point where $X_t^x$ hits the boundary $\partial \Omega$.
To find $u(x)$, we try to relate it with values of $u(y)$ for $y\neq x$.
Then, we will see that this yields a \emph{PDE for} $u$, and by solving it we can find $u(x)$.
Indeed, let us consider a ball $B_r(x)\subset\Omega$, with $r>0$.
For any such ball, we know that the process $X_t^x$ will hit (before reaching $\partial\Omega$, by property \ref{it.4}) some point on $\partial B_r(x)$, and moreover any point on $\partial B_r(x)$ will be hit with the \emph{same probability}.
This is because the process is \emph{rotationally symmetric in distribution}, \ref{it.5}.
Since the process has \emph{no memory}, \ref{it.2}, and \emph{stationary increments}, \ref{it.3}, this means that
\begin{equation}\label{ch0-brownian-mean}
u(x)=\strokedint_{\partial B_r(x)}u(y)dy.
\end{equation}
Heuristically, this is because when the process hits the boundary $\partial B_r(x)$ at a point $y$, it simply starts again the game from such point $y$.
But because all points $y\in \partial B_r(x)$ are reached for the first time with the same probability, then \eqref{ch0-brownian-mean} holds.
Now, since this can be done for every $x\in \Omega$ and $r>0$, we deduce that $u(x)$ satisfies the mean value property, and therefore it is harmonic, $\Delta u=0$ in $\Omega$, \eqref{Laplacian-radially}.
Moreover, since we also know that $u=g$ on $\partial \Omega$ (since when we hit the boundary we get the payoff $g$ surely), then $u$ must be the unique solution of
\[\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta u & = & 0 &\text{in } \Omega\\
u &=& g &\text{on } \partial\Omega.
\end{array}\right.\]
We refer to \cite{Law} for a nice introduction to this topic.
\subsection*{Expected hitting time}
A similar stochastic problem is the following.
Given a smooth domain $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$, and a Brownian motion $X_t^x$, we ask:
\index{Expected hitting time}\[\textit{What is the expected first time at which}\ X_t^x\ \textit{will hit}\ \partial\Omega\, \textrm{?}\]
To answer this question, we argue as before, using that the process must first hit the boundary of balls $B_r(x)\subset\Omega$.
Indeed, we first denote by $u(x)$ the expected hitting time that we are looking for.
Then, for any such ball we have that the process $X_t^x$ will hit (before reaching $\partial\Omega$) some point on $\partial B_r(x)$, and moreover any point $y\in\partial B_r(x)$ will be hit with the same probability.
Thus, the total expected time $u(x)$ will be the expected time it takes to hit $\partial B_r(x)$ for the first time, \emph{plus} the expected time when we start from the corresponding point $y\in \partial B_r(x)$, which is $u(y)$.
In other words, we have
\[u(x)=T(r)+\strokedint_{\partial B_r(x)}u(y)dy.\]
Here, $T(r)$ is the expected first time at which $X_t^x$ hits $\partial B_r(x)$ --- which clearly depends only on $r$ and $n$.
Now, using the scale-invariance property of the Brownian motion, i.e. $r^{-1}X_{r^2t}\sim X_t$, we see that $T(r)=T(1)r^2=c_1r^2$ for some constant $c_1>0$.
Thus, we have
\[u(x)=c_1r^2+\strokedint_{\partial B_r(x)}u(y)dy,\]
and by rearranging terms we find
\[-\frac{1}{r^2}\left\{\strokedint_{B_r(x)}u(y)dy-u(x)\right\}=c_1.\]
Finally, taking $r\to0$ and using \eqref{Laplacian-radially}, we deduce that $-\Delta u=c_2$, for some constant $c_2>0$.
Since we clearly have $u=0$ on $\partial\Omega$, the expected hitting time $u(x)$ is the unique solution of the problem
\[\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
-\Delta u & = & c_2 &\text{in } \Omega\\
u &=& 0 &\text{on } \partial\Omega.
\end{array}\right.\]
By considering a \emph{non-homogeneous} medium (in which it takes more time to move in some regions than others), the same argument leads to the problem with a right-hand side
\[\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
-\Delta u & = & f(x) &\text{in } \Omega\\
u &=& 0 &\text{on } \partial\Omega,
\end{array}\right.\]
with $f\geq0$.
\part{This is a Part Title Sample}
\chapter{Linear elliptic PDE}
\label{ch.1}
In this chapter we will study linear elliptic PDEs of the type\index{Non-divergence-form PDE}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.mainEPDE}
\boxed{{\rm tr} \big(A(x) D^2 u(x)\big) = \sum_{i,j=1}^n a_{ij}(x)\partial_{ij}u= f(x)\quad \textrm{in}\quad \Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n,}
\end{equation}
as well as\index{Divergence-form PDE}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.mainEPDE_div}
\boxed{{\rm div}\big(A(x) \nabla u(x) \big) = \sum_{i,j=1}^n \partial_i \big(a_{ij}(x)\partial_{j}u(x) \big)= f(x)\quad \textrm{in}\quad \Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n.}
\end{equation}
These are elliptic PDEs in non-divergence and divergence form, respectively.
The coefficients $(a_{ij}(x))_{ij}$ and the right-hand side $f(x)$ satisfy appropriate regularity assumptions. In addition, we will assume that the coefficient matrix $A(x) = (a_{ij}(x))_{ij}$ satisfies the {\em uniform ellipticity} condition\index{Uniform ellipticity condition}
\[
0< \lambda\,{\rm Id}\le (a_{ij}(x))_{ij} \le\Lambda\,{\rm Id},
\]
for some ellipticity constants\index{Ellipticity constants!Linear equations} $0<\lambda \le \Lambda<\infty$. (For two matrices $A, B\in \mathcal{M}_n$, we say $A \ge B$ if the matrix $A-B$ is positive semi-definite.)
We will show that, under appropriate regularity assumptions on $A(x)$, solutions $u$ to \eqref{eq.mainEPDE} ``gain two derivatives'' with respect to $f$ and the coefficients $A(x)$. On the other hand, for the divergence-form equation, \eqref{eq.mainEPDE_div}, we expect solutions to ``gain one derivative'' with respect to the coefficients $A(x)$.
In order to do that, we will use perturbative methods, by ``freezing'' the coefficients around a certain point and studying the constant coefficient equation first. After a change of variables, one can transform the constant coefficient equation into the most ubiquitous and simple elliptic equation: Laplace's equation, where $(a_{ij}(x))_{ij}$ is the identity. Thus, we will begin the chapter by studying properties of Laplace's equation such as Harnack's inequality and the H\"older regularity with bounded right-hand side. After that, we proceed by showing Schauder estimates for the Laplacian to continue with the main theorems of the current chapter: Schauder estimates for \eqref{eq.mainEPDE} and \eqref{eq.mainEPDE_div}.
We finish the chapter by studying equations of the type \eqref{eq.mainEPDE} and \eqref{eq.mainEPDE_div} with continuous coefficients. In this case we do not gain two (resp. one) derivatives, and instead we lose an arbitrarily small H\"older exponent of regularity.
Equations in non-divergence and divergence form will become particularly useful in Chapters~\ref{ch.2} and \ref{ch.3} in the context of nonlinear variational PDEs and fully nonlinear elliptic PDEs.
For both equations in non-divergence and divergence form, we establish {\it a priori} estimates. That is, rather than proving that the solution is regular, we show that if the solution is regular, then one can actually estimate the norm of respectively two and one derivative higher in terms of the H\"older norms of the coefficients $(a_{ij}(x))_{ij}$ and the right-hand side $f$. This is enough for the application to nonlinear equations in Chapters~\ref{ch.2} and~\ref{ch.3}.
When the operator is the Laplacian, thanks to the a priori estimates, and by means of an approximation argument, we show that weak solutions are in fact smooth. For more general elliptic operators, a priori estimates together with the continuity method yield the existence of regular solutions.
We refer the reader to \cite{GT} for such an approach.
\section{Harnack's inequality}
We start this chapter with one of the most basic estimates for harmonic functions. It essentially gives a kind of ``maximum principle in quantitative form''.
We will usually write that $u\in H^1$ is harmonic, meaning in the weak sense. Recall from the introduction, however, that as soon as a function is harmonic, it is immediately $C^\infty$.
\begin{thm}[Harnack's inequality]\index{Harnack inequality}
\label{thm.Harnack}
Assume $u\in H^1(B_1)$ is a non-negative, harmonic function in $B_1$. Then the infimum and the supremum of $u$ are comparable in $B_{1/2}$. That is,
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta u & = & 0 &\text{in } B_1\\
u &\geq& 0 &\text{in } B_1
\end{array}\right. \quad \Rightarrow\quad
\sup_{B_{1/2}} u \le C\inf_{B_{1/2}} u,
\]
for some constant $C$ depending only on $n$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
This can be proved by the mean value property. Alternatively, we can also use the Poisson kernel representation,
\[
u(x) = c_n\int_{\partial B_1} \frac{(1-|x|^2)u(z)}{|x-z|^n} \, dz.
\]
Notice that, for any $x\in B_{1/2}$ and $z\in \partial B_1$, we have $2^{-n} \le |x-z|^n \le (3/2)^{n}$ and $3/4\le 1-|x|^2\le 1$. Thus, since $u\ge 0$ in $B_1$,
\[
C^{-1} \int_{\partial B_1} u(z)\, dz \le u(x) \le C\int_{\partial B_1} u(z) \, dz,\quad\textrm{for all}\quad x\in B_{1/2},
\]
for some dimensional constant $C$. In particular, for any $x_1, x_2\in B_{1/2}$ we have that $u(x_1) \le C^2 u(x_2)$. Taking the infimum for $x_2\in B_{1/2}$ and the supremum for $x_1\in B_{1/2}$, we reach that $\sup_{B_{1/2}} u \le \tilde C\inf_{B_{1/2}} u$, for some dimensional constant $\tilde C$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
\label{rem.harnack_rho}
This inequality says that, if $u\ge 0$ in $B_1$, then not only $u > 0$ in $B_{1/2}$ (strong maximum principle), but also we get quantitative information: $u \ge C^{-1}\sup_{B_{1/2}} u$ in $B_{1/2}$, for some constant $C$ depending only on $n$. See Figure~\ref{fig.4}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 1.3]{./Figures/fig4.pdf}
\caption{Graphic representation of Harnack's inequality for a harmonic function $u > 0$ such that $\sup_{B_1} u = 1$. }
\label{fig.4}
\end{figure}
Notice that there is nothing special about $B_{1/2}$. We can obtain a similar inequality in $B_\rho$ with $\rho< 1$, but the constant $C$ would depend on $\rho$ as well. Indeed, repeating the previous argument, one gets that if $\Delta u = 0$ and $u\ge 0$ in $B_1$, then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.Harnack_rho}
\sup_{B_\rho} u\le \frac{C}{(1-\rho)^n}\inf_{B_\rho} u,
\end{equation}
for some $C$ depending only on $n$, and where $\rho\in (0, 1)$.
\end{rem}
From Harnack's inequality, we deduce the oscillation decay for harmonic functions. That is, the oscillation of a harmonic function is reduced (quantitatively) in smaller domains. The oscillation in a domain $\Omega$ is defined as
\[
\osc_{\Omega} u := \sup_{\Omega} u - \inf_{\Omega} u.
\]
We remark that the following lemma is valid for all harmonic functions, not necessarily positive.
\begin{cor}[Oscillation decay]\index{Oscillation decay}
\label{cor.osc_decay}
Let $u\in H^1(B_1)$ be a harmonic function in $B_1$, i.e. $\Delta u = 0$ in $B_1$. Then
\[
\osc_{B_{1/2}} u \le (1-\theta)\osc_{B_1} u
\]
for some small $\theta > 0$ depending only on $n$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Let
\[
w(x) := u(x)- \inf_{B_1} u,
\]
which satisfies $w\ge 0$ in $B_1$ and $\osc_{B_{1/2}} w = \osc_{B_{1/2}} u$. Since $\Delta w = 0$ in $B_1$, we get by Harnack's inequality
\[
\sup_{B_{1/2}} w \le C\inf_{B_{1/2}} w,
\]
so that
\[
\osc_{B_{1/2}} u =\osc_{B_{1/2}} w = \sup_{B_{1/2}} w - \inf_{B_{1/2}} w \le \left(1 - \frac{1}{C}\right) \sup_{B_{1/2}} w \le \left(1 - \frac{1}{C}\right) \sup_{B_{1}} w.
\]
Now notice that $\sup_{B_1} w = \osc_{B_1} u$, and we are done.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}[Alternative proof of Corollary~\ref{cor.osc_decay}]
Alternatively, we can rewrite the previous proof of Corollary~\ref{cor.osc_decay} by taking advantage of the invariance of the estimate.
Indeed, the function $u-\inf_{B_1} u$ is non-negative and harmonic. Since the estimate we want to prove is invariant under addition and multiplication by constants, we may assume that $\inf_{B_1} u = 0$ and $\sup_{B_1} u = 1$. Let $\theta := \frac{1}{C+1}$, where $C$ is the constant in Harnack's inequality, Theorem~\ref{thm.Harnack}. Now we have two options:
\begin{itemize}
\item If $\sup_{B_{1/2}} u \le 1-\theta$, we are done,
\item If $\sup_{B_{1/2}} u \ge 1-\theta$ we use Harnack's inequality to get
\[
\inf_{B_{1/2}} u \ge \frac{1}{C} (1-\theta)\ge\theta.
\]
\end{itemize}
In any case, we get $\osc_{B_{1/2}} u \le 1-\theta$, so we are done.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
We have proved that Harnack's inequality implies the oscillation decay. This is {\em always} true, we did not use the fact that we are dealing with harmonic functions. In general, we have
\[
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\text{Harnack's}\\
\text{inequality}
\end{array}
\right)\Longrightarrow
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\text{Oscillation}\\
\text{decay}
\end{array}
\right)\Longrightarrow
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\text{H\"older}\\
\text{regularity}
\end{array}
\right)
\]
\end{rem}
Harnack's inequality and the oscillation decay are scale invariant. That is, the following corollary holds:
\begin{cor}[Rescaled versions]
\label{cor.independent_radius_Harnack}
Let $u\in H^1(B_r)$ be such that $\Delta u = 0$ in $B_r$. Then
\begin{itemize}
\item {\rm (Harnack's inequality)} If $u \ge 0$ in $B_r$, then
\[
\sup_{B_{r/2}} u \le C\inf_{B_{r/2}} u,
\]
for some $C$ depending only on $n$.
\item {\rm (Oscillation decay)} One has
\[
\osc_{B_{r/2}} u \le (1-\theta)\osc_{B_r} u,
\]
for some small $\theta> 0$ depending only on $n$.
\end{itemize}
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Define $\tilde u(x) := u(r x)$, which fulfills $\Delta \tilde u = 0$ in $B_1$ and therefore
\[
\sup_{B_{r/2}} u = \sup_{B_{1/2}} \tilde u \le C\inf_{B_{1/2}} \tilde u = C\inf_{B_{r/2}} u,
\]
by Theorem~\ref{thm.Harnack}. Similarly,
\[
\osc_{B_{r/2}} u = \osc_{B_{1/2}} \tilde u \le (1-\theta)\osc_{B_{1}} \tilde u = (1-\theta)\osc_{B_r} u
\]
by Corollary~\ref{cor.osc_decay}.
\end{proof}
A standard consequence of the quantitative oscillation decay proved above is the H\"older regularity of solutions.
\begin{cor}[H\"older regularity]
\label{cor.Holder_regularity_1}
Let $u\in H^1(B_1)\cap L^\infty(B_1)$ be such that $\Delta u = 0$ in $B_1$. Then
\[
\|u\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}
\]
for some constants $\alpha > 0$ and $C$ depending only on $n$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
If we denote $\tilde u := (2\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)})^{-1} u$, then $\tilde u \in H^1\cap L^\infty(B_1)$ fulfills $\Delta \tilde u = 0$ in $B_1$ and $\|\tilde u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le \frac12$. If we show $\|\tilde u\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le C$, then the result will follow.
Thus, dividing $u$ by a constant if necessary, we may assume that $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le \frac12$. We need to prove that
\[
|u(x) - u(y)|\le C |x-y|^\alpha\quad\textrm{for all}\quad x, y \in B_{1/2},
\]
for some small $\alpha > 0$. We do it at $y = 0$ for simplicity.
Let $x\in B_{1/2}$ and let $k\in \mathbb{N}$ be such that $x\in B_{2^{-k}}\setminus B_{2^{-k-1}}$. Then,
\[
|u(x) - u(0)|\le \osc_{B_{2^{-k}}} u \le (1-\theta)^k \osc_{B_1} u \le (1-\theta)^k = 2^{-\alpha k},
\]
with $\alpha = -\log_2 (1-\theta)$. (Notice that we are using Corollary~\ref{cor.independent_radius_Harnack} $k$-times, where the constant $\theta$ is independent from the radius of the oscillation decay.)
Now, since $2^{-k}\le 2|x|$, we find
\[
|u(x)-u(0)|\le (2|x|)^\alpha \le C|x|^\alpha,
\]
as desired. See Figure~\ref{fig.5} for a graphical representation of this proof.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./Figures/fig5.pdf}
\caption{Graphical representation of the fact that oscillation decay-type lemmas imply H\"older regularity.}
\label{fig.5}
\end{figure}
\end{proof}
Finally, another important consequence of Harnack's inequality is the Liouville theorem for non-negative harmonic functions.
\begin{cor}
\label{cor.Liouv_pos}\index{Liouville Theorem}
Let $u$ be a non-negative harmonic function, that is, $u\ge 0$ and $\Delta u = 0$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$. Then, $u$ is constant.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Let
\[
v = u - \inf_{\mathbb{R}^n} u,
\]
where $\inf_{\mathbb{R}^n} u$ is well-defined and finite since $u \ge 0$. Then, thanks to Harnack's inequality in arbitrary balls from Corollary~\ref{cor.independent_radius_Harnack}, we get that for any $R > 0$,
\[
\sup_{B_{R}} v \le C\inf_{B_R} v = C\left( \inf_{B_{R}} u - \inf_{\mathbb{R}^n} u\right) \to 0,
\]
as $R\to \infty$. That is, $\sup_{\mathbb{R}^n} u = \inf_{\mathbb{R}^n} u$ and therefore $u$ is constant in $\mathbb{R}^n$.
\end{proof}
Of course, the previous result also holds if $u \ge -M$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$, for some constant $M$, since then $u + M$ is non-negative and harmonic.
\subsection*{Harnack's inequality with a right-hand side}
We can prove a Harnack inequality for equations with a right-hand side, that is, when the Laplacian is not necessarily zero, $\Delta u = f$. Again, we will be dealing with functions $u\in H^1$, so that we have to understand the equation $\Delta u = f $ in the weak sense.
\begin{thm}\label{thm.Harnack.f}\index{Harnack's inequality}
Let $f\in L^\infty(B_1)$, and $u\in H^1(B_1)$. Then,
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta u & = & f &\text{in } B_1\\
u &\geq& 0 &\text{in } B_1
\end{array}\right. \quad \Rightarrow\quad
\sup_{B_{1/2}} u \le C\left(\inf_{B_{1/2}} u+\|f\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\right),
\]
for some $C$ depending only on $n$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We express $u$ as $u = v+w$ with
\[
\left\{\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta v & = & 0 &\text{in } B_1\\
v &=& u &\text{on } \partial B_1
\end{array}
\right.
\qquad\qquad
\left\{\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta w & = & f &\text{in } B_1\\
w &=& 0 &\text{on } \partial B_1.
\end{array}
\right.
\]
Then, we have
\[
\sup_{B_{1/2}} v \le C\inf_{B_{1/2}} v\qquad\textrm{and}\qquad \sup_{B_1} w \le C\|f\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}
\]
by Theorem~\ref{thm.Harnack} and Lemma~\ref{lem.maxPrinciple}. Thus,
\begin{align*}
\sup_{B_{1/2}} u & \le \sup_{B_{1/2}} v + C\|f\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\\
& \le C\inf_{B_{1/2}} v +C\|f\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le C\left(\inf_{B_{1/2}} u +\|f\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\right),
\end{align*}
where we are taking a larger constant if necessary.
Notice that we have also used here that $v \le u + C\|f\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}$.
\end{proof}
Thus, as before, we also get an oscillation decay, but now involving an error term of size $\|f\|_{L^\infty}$.
\begin{cor}
\label{cor.osc_decay_2}\index{Oscillation decay}
Let $f\in L^\infty(B_1)$ and $u\in H^1(B_1)$. If $\Delta u = f$ in $B_1$ and $f\in L^\infty(B_1)$, then
\[
\osc_{B_{1/2}} u \le (1-\theta)\osc_{B_1} u + {2}\|f\|_{L^\infty(B_1)},
\]
for some $\theta > 0$ depending only on $n$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
The proof is the same as in the case $f \equiv 0$, see the proof of Corollary~\ref{cor.osc_decay}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
Now, with the right-hand side $f = f(x)$, the equation $\Delta u =f$ and Harnack's inequality are {\em not} invariant under rescalings in $x$. In fact, as we zoom-in, the right-hand side gets smaller!
Namely, if $\Delta u = f$ in $B_r$, then $\tilde u(x) := u(rx)$ satisfies $\Delta \tilde u(x) = r^2 f(rx)$ in $B_1$ so that
\[
\sup_{B_{1/2}} \tilde u \le C \left(\inf_{B_{1/2}} \tilde u + 2 r^2 \|f\|_{L^\infty(B_r)}\right),
\]
and therefore
\[
\sup_{B_{r/2}} u \le C \left(\inf_{B_{r/2}} u + 2 r^2 \|f\|_{L^\infty(B_r)}\right)
\]
for some constant $C$ depending only on $n$.
\end{rem}
Even if the previous oscillation decay contains an error depending on $f$, it is enough to show H\"older regularity of the solution.
\begin{cor}[H\"older regularity]
\label{cor.Hold_cont_f}
Let $f\in L^\infty(B_1)$ and $u\in H^1\cap L^\infty(B_1)$. If $\Delta u = f$ in $B_1$, then
\[
\|u\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le C \left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+\|f\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\right),
\]
for some constants $\alpha > 0$ and $C$ depending only on $n$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
If we denote $\tilde u := (2\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+2\|f\|_{L^\infty(B_1)})^{-1} u$, then $\tilde u \in H^1(B_1)\cap L^\infty(B_1)$ fulfills $\Delta \tilde u = \tilde f$ in $B_1$ with $\|\tilde u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le \frac12$ and $\|\tilde f \|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le \frac12$. If we show that $\|\tilde u\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le C$, then the result will follow.
Thus, after dividing $u$ by a constant if necessary, we may assume that $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le \frac12$ and $\|f\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le \frac12$.
As in Corollary~\ref{cor.Holder_regularity_1} we want to prove that $|u(x_\circ)-u(0)|\le C|x_\circ|^\alpha$ for all $x_\circ\in B_{1/2}$ and for some constant $C$ depending only on $n$.
Let us show that it is enough to prove that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.osc_it}
\osc_{B_{2^{-k}}} u \le C2^{-\alpha k}\quad\textrm{for all }k\in \mathbb{N},\,k\ge k_\circ,
\end{equation}
for some $\alpha > 0$, $C$, and for some fixed $k_\circ$, all three depending only on $n$. Indeed, let $k\in \mathbb{N}$ be such that $x\in B_{2^{-k}}\setminus B_{2^{-k-1}}$. If $k < k_\circ$, then $|x|\ge 2^{-k_\circ-1}$ and
\[
|u(x)- u(0)|\le \osc_{B_1} u \le 1 \le 2^{\alpha(k_\circ+1)} |x|^\alpha.
\]
On the other hand, if $k \ge k_\circ$, by \eqref{eq.osc_it}
\[
|u(x)-u(0)|\le \osc_{B_{2^{-k}}} u \le C2^{-\alpha k} \le C (2|x|)^\alpha,
\]
where in the last inequality we used that $|x| \ge 2^{-k-1}$. Thus, it will be enough to show \eqref{eq.osc_it}.
Let $k\in \mathbb{N}$ and $k \ge k_\circ$ for some $k_\circ$ to be chosen, and define
\[
\tilde u (x) := u(rx),\quad r = 2^{-k+1}.
\]
Then $\tilde u$ satisfies $\Delta \tilde u = r^2 f(rx)$ in $B_1$ (in fact, in $B_{2^{k-1}}$), and thus, by Corollary~\ref{cor.osc_decay_2}
\[
\osc_{B_{1/2}} \tilde u \le (1-\theta)\osc_{B_1} \tilde u + 2 r^2\|f\|_{L^\infty(B_r)}.
\]
Since $\osc_{B_1} \tilde u = \osc_{B_{2^{-k+1}}} u $ and $\|f\|_{L^\infty(B_r)}\le \frac12$, we find
\[
\osc_{B_{2^{-k}}} u \le (1-\theta)\osc_{B_{2^{-k+1}}} u + 4^{-k+2}.
\]
Now, take $k_\circ\in \mathbb{N}$ large enough so that $4^{-k_\circ+1}\le\frac{\theta}{2}$. Then,
\[
\osc_{B_{2^{-k}}} u \le (1-\theta)\osc_{B_{2^{-k+1}}} u + \frac{\theta}{2} 4^{k_\circ-k}.
\]
It is immediate to check by induction that this yields
\[
\osc_{B_{2^{-k+1}}} u \le 2^{\alpha(k_\circ-k)},\quad\textrm{for all }k \in \mathbb{N}.
\]
Indeed, the induction step follows as
\begin{align*}
\osc_{B_{2^{-k}}} u& \le (1-\theta)2^{\alpha(k_\circ-k)}+ \frac{\theta}{2}4^{k_\circ-k} \le (1-\theta)2^{\alpha(k_\circ-k)}+ \frac{\theta}{2}2^{\alpha(k_\circ-k)} \\
& = \left(1-\frac{\theta}{2}\right)2^{\alpha(k_\circ-k)} = 2^{\alpha(k_\circ-k-1)} \qquad\textrm{if}\quad1-\frac{\theta}{2} = 2^{-\alpha}.
\end{align*}
Thus, \eqref{eq.osc_it} holds with $C = 2^{\alpha k_\circ}$.
\end{proof}
Summarizing, we have checked that \underline{\smash{Harnack's inequality}} for harmonic functions yields the \underline{\smash{H\"older regularity}} of solutions, even with a right-hand side $f \in L^\infty$.
This is a general fact, and holds for other types of elliptic equations, too.
\section{Schauder estimates for the Laplacian}
\label{sec.Sch_Lap}
We now want to establish sharp results for the equation
\[
\boxed{\Delta u = f(x) \quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1}\qquad \left(\textrm{or in } \Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n\right).
\]
This will serve as an introduction for the more general case of equations in non-divergence and divergence form.
The philosophy is that the sharp results should state that ``$u$ is two derivatives more regular than $f(x)$''.
The main known results in that directions are the following:
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item \underline{\smash{Schauder estimates.}} If $f\in C^{0, \alpha}$ then $u\in C^{2, \alpha}$, for $\alpha \in (0, 1)$.
\item \underline{\smash{Calder\'on--Zygmund estimates.}} If $f\in L^p$ then $u\in W^{2, p}$, for $p\in (1, \infty)$.
\item When $\alpha $ is an integer, or when $p \in \{1, \infty\}$, the above results do {\em not} hold. For example, if $f\in C^0$, it is not true in general that $u \in C^2$, not even $C^{1, 1}$. (In that case, $u\in C^{1, 1-\varepsilon}$ for all $\varepsilon > 0$, and $u \in W^{2, p}$ for all $p < \infty$.)
\end{enumerate}
\subsection*{Two counterexamples}
Let us provide two counterexamples to show that Schauder and Calder\'on--Zygmund estimates in general do not hold for the limiting values, $\alpha = 0$ and $p = 1$ or $p = \infty$.
We start with an example of a function $u$ whose Laplacian is bounded ($\Delta u \in L^\infty$), but whose second derivatives are {\em not} bounded ($u\notin W^{2,\infty}$). Thus, we give a counterexample to Calder\'on--Zygmund estimates for $p = \infty$.
Let
\[
u(x, y) = (x^2-y^2) \log(x^2+y^2) \quad\textrm{in}\quad \mathbb{R}^2.
\]
Then,
\begin{align*}
\partial_{xx} u& = 2\log(x^2+y^2) + \frac{8x^2}{x^2+y^2} - 2\left(\frac{x^2-y^2}{x^2+y^2}\right)^2,\\
\partial_{yy} u& = -2\log(x^2+y^2) - \frac{8y^2}{x^2+y^2} + 2\left(\frac{x^2-y^2}{x^2+y^2}\right)^2,
\end{align*}
that is, both $\partial_{xx} u$ and $\partial_{yy} u$ are unbounded, and $u\notin W^{2, \infty}$. However,
\[
\Delta u = \partial_{xx} u +\partial_{yy} u = 8\frac{x^2-y^2}{x^2+y^2} \in L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^2).
\]
One can modify such construction in order to make $\Delta u $ continuous and $u\notin C^{1, 1}$, thus giving a counterexample to Schauder estimates for $\alpha = 0$, by taking $u(x, y) = (x^2-y^2) \log |\log (x^2+y^2)|$. (However, recall that Schauder estimates tell us that this is \emph{not} possible if $\Delta u$ is H\"older continuous ($C^{0, \alpha}$).)
Let us now provide a counterexample for Calder\'on--Zygmund estimates when $p = 1$. The fact that the estimate does not hold can be seen by taking smooth approximations of the Dirac delta (with constant integral) as right-hand side, so that the solution converges to the fundamental solution, which is not in $W^{2,1}$.
Let us, however, give a specific example of a function $u$ whose Laplacian is integrable ($\Delta u \in L^1$) but whose second derivatives are not ($u\notin W^{2,1}$).
Let
\[
u(x, y) = \log \log \frac{1}{x^2 +y^2} = \log \log r^{-2}\quad\textrm{in}\quad \mathbb{R}^2,
\]
where we are using polar coordinates and denote $r^2 := x^2+y^2$. Since $u= u(r)$ and $u_r = \frac{1}{r\log r}$ we have that
\[
\Delta u = u_{rr} + \frac{1}{r} u_r = -\frac{\log r + 1}{r^2 (\log r)^2} + \frac{1}{r^2\log r} = -\frac{1}{r^2(\log r)^2} \in L^1(B_{1/2}),
\]
since $\int_{B_{1/2}} \Delta u = -2\pi \int_0^{1/2} \frac{dr}{r(\log r)^2} <\infty$. On the other hand, a direct computation gives that $\partial_{xx} u$ (and $\partial_{yy} u$) are not absolutely integrable around the origin, and thus $u\notin W^{2,1}$. (Alternatively, since one has the embedding $W^{2,1}(\mathbb{R}^2)\subset L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^2)$ \cite[Corollary 9.13]{Brezis} and $u\notin L^\infty$, we deduce $u\notin W^{2,1}$).
A similar counterexample can be built in any dimension $n\ge 2$, by taking as function $u$ an appropriate primitive of $\frac{r^{1-n}}{\log r}$.
In this book we focus our attention on proving (a) Schauder estimates, but not (b) Calder\'on--Zygmund estimates. Later in the book we will see applications of Schauder-type estimates to nonlinear equations.
\begin{rem}[Calder\'on-Zygmund estimates for $p = 2$]
\label{rem.CZ2}
In the case $p = 2$, one can prove a priori Calder\'on-Zygmund estimates with a simple computation.
That is, let $u, f\in C^\infty(B_1)$, be such that
\[
\Delta u = f\quad\text{in}\quad B_1.
\]
Then,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.calderon2}
\|u\|_{W^{2,2}(B_{1/2})} \le C \left(\|u\|_{L^{2}(B_1)} + \|f\|_{L^2(B_1)}\right)
\end{equation}
for some constant $C$ depending only on $n$. Indeed, let $w := \eta u$ for some fixed test function $\eta\in C^\infty_c(B_1)$ such that $\eta \equiv 1$ in $B_{1/2}$, $\eta \equiv 0$ in $B_1\setminus B_{3/4}$ and $\eta \ge 0$. Then, integrating by parts gives
\begin{align*}
\|D^2 u\|_{L^2(B_{1/2})} & = \sum_{i,j=1}^n \int_{B_{1/2}} |D_{ij}^2 u|^2 \le \sum_{i,j=1}^n \int_{B_{1}} |D_{ij}^2 w|^2 \\
& = - \sum_{i,j=1}^n \int_{B_{1}} (D_{iij} w) (D_j w) = \sum_{i,j=1}^n \int_{B_{1/2}} (D_{ii} w) (D_{jj} w)\\
& = \int_{B_1} (\Delta w)^2 \le C\int_{B_1} \left(u^2 + (\Delta u)^2 + |\nabla \eta|^2|\nabla u|^2\right),
\end{align*}
where in the last equality we can take $ C = C'\sup_{B_1} \left(\eta^2 + |\Delta \eta|^2\right)$ for some dimensional constant $C'$. Then, again integrating by parts twice and using $2ab \le a^2+b^2$, we get
\begin{align*}
\int_{B_1} |\nabla \eta|^2|\nabla u|^2 & = - \int_{B_1} |\nabla \eta|^2 u \Delta u + \int_{B_1} \frac12 u^2 \Delta |\nabla \eta|^2 \le \tilde C \int_{B_1} \big(u^2 + (\Delta u)^2\big),
\end{align*}
where $\tilde C = \sup_{B_1} \big(|\nabla \eta|^2 + \Delta |\nabla\eta|^2\big)$.
This directly yields the result \eqref{eq.calderon2} for smooth functions $u$ and $f$ such that $\Delta u = f$. Arguing as in the proof of Corollary~\ref{cor.Schauder_estimates_L} below, the same result also holds as long as $u\in H^1(B_1)$ is a weak solution to $\Delta u = f$ in $B_1$ for $f\in L^2(B_1)$ .
\end{rem}
\subsection*{Proofs of Schauder estimates: some comments}
There are various proofs of Schauder estimates, mainly using:
\begin{enumerate}
\item integral representation of solutions (fundamental solutions);
\item energy considerations;
\item comparison principle.
\end{enumerate}
The most flexible approaches are (2) and (3). Here, we will see different proofs of type (3).
The {\em common traits} in proofs of type (2)-(3) are their ``perturbative character'', that is, that by zooming in around any point the equation gets closer and closer to $\Delta u = {\rm constant}$, and thus (after subtracting a paraboloid) close to $\Delta u = 0$. Thus, the result can be proved by using the information that we have on harmonic functions.
Let us start by stating the results we want to prove in this section: Schauder estimates for the Laplacian.
\begin{thm}[Schauder estimates for the Laplacian]\index{Schauder estimates!Laplacian}
\label{thm.Schauder_estimates_L}
Let $\alpha \in (0, 1)$, and let $u\in C^{2,\alpha}(B_1)$ satisfy
\[
\Delta u = f\quad\textrm{in } B_1,
\]
with $f\in C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)$. Then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.Schauder_estimates_L}
\|u\|_{C^{2, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C\left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+\|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right).
\end{equation}
The constant $C$ depends only on $\alpha$ and the dimension $n$.
\end{thm}
We will, in general, state our estimates in balls $B_{1/2}$ and $B_1$. By means of a covering argument explained below, this allows us to obtain interior regularity estimates in general domains.
\begin{rem}[Covering argument]\index{Covering argument}
\label{rem.covering_argument}
Let us assume that we have an estimate, like the one in \eqref{eq.Schauder_estimates_L}, but in a ball $B_{r_1}$ for some $r_1 \in (0, 1)$, which will be typically very close to zero. Namely, we know that if $\Delta u = f$ in $B_1$, then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.estrhorho}
\|u\|_{C^{2, \alpha}(B_{r_1})} \le C\left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+\|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right).
\end{equation}
Let us suppose that we are interested in finding an estimate for a bigger ball, $B_{r_2}$ with $r_1 <r_2 \in (0, 1)$, where ${r_2}$ will be typically close to one. We do that via a ``covering argument''. (See Figure~\ref{fig.6}.)
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.9]{./Figures/fig6.pdf}
\caption{Graphical representation of the ``covering argument'' in the case $r_1 = \frac14$, $r_2 = \frac12$, and $r = \frac18$. }
\label{fig.6}
\end{figure}
That is, let us cover the ball $B_{r_2}$ with smaller balls $B_{r}(x_i)$ such that $x_i \in B_{{r_2}}$ and $ r = (1-{r_2})r_1$. We can do so with a finite number of balls, so that $i \in \{1,\dots, N\}$, for some $N$ depending on $r_1$, ${r_2}$, and $n$. Notice that $B_{r/r_1}(x_i)\subset B_1$.
We apply our estimate \eqref{eq.estrhorho} (translated and rescaled) at each of these balls $B_{r/r_1}(x_i)$ (we can do so, because $\Delta u = f$ in $B_{r/r_1}(x_i)\subset B_1$). Thus, we obtain a bound for $\|u\|_{C^{2, \alpha}(B_r(x_i))}$
\begin{align*}
\|u\|_{C^{2, \alpha}(B_{r}(x_i))} & \le C(r_1, {r_2})\left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_{r/r_1}(x_i))}+\|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{r/r_1}(x_i))}\right)\\
& \le C(r_1, {r_2})\left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_{1})}+\|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1})}\right).
\end{align*}
Now, since $B_{r_2}$ can be covered by a finite number of these balls, we obtain
\[
\|u\|_{C^{2, \alpha}(B_{r_2})} \le \sum_{i = 1}^n \|u\|_{C^{2, \alpha}(B_{r}(x_i))} \le NC(r_1, {r_2})\left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_{1})}+\|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1})}\right).
\]
This is the type of bound we wanted, where the constant now also depends on $r_1$ and $r_2$.
\end{rem}
As a consequence of the ``a priori'' estimate for the Laplacian we will show:
\begin{cor}
\label{cor.Schauder_estimates_L}
Let $u$ be any bounded weak solution to
\[
\Delta u = f\quad\textrm{in } B_1,
\]
with $f\in C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)$ for some $\alpha\in(0,1)$. Then, $u$ is in $ C^{2, \alpha}$ inside $B_1$, and the estimate \eqref{eq.Schauder_estimates_L} holds.
\end{cor}
Furthermore, iterating the previous estimate we will establish the following.
\begin{cor}[Higher order regularity estimates]\index{Higher order Schauder estimates!Laplacian}
\label{cor.Schauder_estimates_L_HO}
Let $u$ be any bounded weak solution to
\[
\Delta u = f\quad\textrm{in } B_1,
\]
with $f\in C^{k, \alpha}(B_1)$ for some $\alpha\in(0,1)$, and $k\in\mathbb{N}$. Then, $u$ is in $ C^{k+2, \alpha}$ inside $B_1$ and
\[
\|u\|_{C^{k+2, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C\left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+\|f\|_{C^{k, \alpha}(B_1)}\right),
\]
for some constant $C$ that depends only on $k$, $\alpha$, and the dimension $n$.
\end{cor}
In case $f\in L^\infty$, we will prove the following.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop.Schauder_estimates_L_bounded}
Let $u$ be any solution to
\[
\Delta u = f\quad\textrm{in } B_1,
\]
with $f\in L^\infty(B_1)$. Then, $u$ is in $ C^{1, 1-\varepsilon}$ inside $B_1$, for any $\varepsilon > 0$, with the estimate
\[
\|u\|_{C^{1, 1-\varepsilon}(B_{1/2})} \le C_\varepsilon \left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)} + \|f\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\right)
\]
for some constant $C_\varepsilon$ depending only on $\varepsilon$ and $n$.
\end{prop}
We will give two different proofs of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_L}. The first proof follows a method introduced by Wang in \cite{Wan} and shows the a priori estimate using a very much self-contained approach. For the second proof we use an approach {\it \`a la} Caffarelli from \cite{M, Caf89}.
Before doing so, let us observe the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item If $\Delta u = f\in L^\infty$ then $\tilde u(x) := u(rx)$ solves $\Delta \tilde u = r^2f(rx)$. In other words, if $|\Delta u |\le C$, then $|\Delta\tilde u|\le Cr^2$ (and if $r$ is small, the right-hand side becomes smaller and smaller).
\item If $\Delta u = f\in C^{0, \alpha}$, $\tilde u(x) = u(rx) - \frac{f(0)}{2n}|x|^2$ solves $\Delta \tilde u = r^2 (f(rx)-f(0))$, so that $|\Delta \tilde u |\le Cr^{2+\alpha}$ in $B_1$. This, by the comparison principle, means that $\tilde u$ is ``very close'' to a harmonic function.
\end{itemize}
Let us now show that Corollary~\ref{cor.Schauder_estimates_L} holds assuming Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_L}. This follows by an approximation argument.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary~\ref{cor.Schauder_estimates_L}]
We will deduce the result from Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_L}. Let $u$ be any solution to $\Delta u = f$ in $B_1$, with $f\in C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)$, and let $\eta\in C^\infty_c (B_1)$ be any smooth function with $\eta \ge 0$ and $\int_{B_1}\eta = 1$. Let
\[
\eta_\varepsilon (x) := \varepsilon^{-n} \eta\left(\frac{x}{\varepsilon}\right),
\]
which satisfies $\int_{B_{\varepsilon}} \eta_\varepsilon = 1$, $\eta_\varepsilon\in C^\infty_c(B_\varepsilon)$. Consider the convolution
\[
u_\varepsilon(x) := u * \eta_\varepsilon(x) = \int_{B_\varepsilon} u(x-y)\eta_\varepsilon(y)\, dy,
\]
which is $C^\infty$ and satisfies
\[
\Delta u_\varepsilon = f*\eta_\varepsilon =: f_\varepsilon \quad\textrm{in}\quad B_{1-\varepsilon}.
\]
(Notice that for smooth functions, derivatives and convolutions commute; the same can be done for weak derivatives.) Since $u_\varepsilon \in C^\infty$, we can use Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_L} to get
\[
\|u_\varepsilon\|_{C^{2, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C\left(\|u_\varepsilon\|_{L^\infty(B_{1-\varepsilon})}+\|f_\varepsilon\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1-\varepsilon})}\right),
\]
where we are also using the covering argument in Remark~\ref{rem.covering_argument} to write it in a ball $B_{1-\varepsilon}$ in the right-hand side. Observe now that for any $x,y\in B_{1-\varepsilon}$
\[
|u_\varepsilon(x)| \le \int_{B_\varepsilon} |u(x-z)|\eta_\varepsilon(z)\, dy \le \|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\int_{B_\varepsilon}\eta_\varepsilon(z)\, dz = \|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)},
\]
and
\[
|f_\varepsilon(x) - f_\varepsilon(y)| \le \int_{B_\varepsilon} |f(x-z) - f(y-z)| \eta_\varepsilon(z)\, dz = [f]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)} |x-y|^\alpha.
\]
From here, we deduce $\|u_\varepsilon\|_{L^\infty(B_{1-\varepsilon})}\le \|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}$ and $\|f_\varepsilon\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1-\varepsilon})}\le \|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1})}$. Thus, the sequence $u_\varepsilon $ is uniformly bounded in $C^{2,\alpha}(B_{1/2})$,
\[
\|u_\varepsilon\|_{C^{2, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C\left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_{1})}+\|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1})}\right).
\]
Moreover, since $u$ is continuous (see Corollary~\ref{cor.Hold_cont_f}), arguing as before we get $\|u_\varepsilon- u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\to 0$ as $\varepsilon \downarrow 0$, so that $u_\varepsilon\to u$ uniformly. We can use \ref{it.H8} from Chapter~\ref{ch.0} to deduce that $u\in C^{2,\alpha}$ and
\[
\|u\|_{C^{2, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C \left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+\|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right).
\]
By a covering argument (see Remark~\ref{rem.covering_argument}) we can get a similar estimate in any ball $B_\rho$ with $\rho <1$,
\[
\|u\|_{C^{2, \alpha}(B_{\rho})} \le C_\rho\left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+\|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right),
\]
where now the constant $C_\rho$ depends also on $\rho$, and in fact, blows up when $\rho\uparrow 1$. In any case, we have that $u\in C^{2,\alpha}(B_\rho)$ for any $\rho < 1$, i.e., $u$ is in $C^{2,\alpha}$ inside $B_1$.
\end{proof}
The previous proof is an example of a recurring phenomenon when proving regularity estimates for PDEs. If one can get estimates of the kind
\[
\|u\|_{C^{2, \alpha}} \le C\left(\|u\|_{L^\infty}+\|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}}\right),
\]
for all $C^\infty$ functions $u$, and with a constant $C$ that depends only on $\alpha$ and $n$ (but independent of $u$ and $f$), then, in general, the estimate holds as well for all solutions $u$. Thus, if one wants to prove the higher-order regularity estimates from Corollary~\ref{cor.Schauder_estimates_L_HO}, it is enough to get a priori estimates in the spirit of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_L}. As a consequence, assuming that Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_L} holds, we can prove Corollary~\ref{cor.Schauder_estimates_L_HO}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary~\ref{cor.Schauder_estimates_L_HO}]
As mentioned above, we just need to show that for any $u\in C^\infty$ such that $\Delta u = f$, one has
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.toshowk}
\|u\|_{C^{k+2, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C\left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+\|f\|_{C^{k, \alpha}(B_1)}\right).
\end{equation}
for some constant $C$ depending only on $n$, $\alpha$, and $k$; and then we are done by a covering argument (see Remark~\ref{rem.covering_argument}). We prove it by induction on $k$, and it follows applying the induction hypothesis to derivatives of $u$. Notice that \eqref{eq.toshowk} deals with balls $B_{1/2}$ and $B_1$, but after a rescaling and covering argument (see Remark \ref{rem.covering_argument}), it could also be stated in balls $B_{1/2}$ and $B_{3/4}$ (we will use it in this setting).
The base case, $k = 0$, already holds by Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_L}. Let us now assume that \eqref{eq.toshowk} holds for $k = m-1$, and we will show it for $k = m$.
In this case, let us differentiate $\Delta u = f$ to get $\Delta \partial_i u = \partial_i f$, for $i\in \{1,\dots,n\}$. Applying \eqref{eq.toshowk} for $k = m-1$ to $\partial_i u$ in balls $B_{1/2}$ and $B_{3/4}$, we get
\begin{align*}
\|\partial_i u\|_{C^{m+1, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} & \le C\left(\|\partial_i u\|_{L^\infty(B_{3/4})}+\|\partial_i f\|_{C^{m-1, \alpha}(B_{3/4})}\right)\\
& \le C\left(\|u\|_{C^{2,\alpha}(B_{3/4})}+\| f\|_{C^{m, \alpha}(B_{3/4})}\right).
\end{align*}
Using now Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_L} in balls $B_{3/4}$ and $B_{1}$,
\[
\|\partial_i u\|_{C^{m+1, \alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le C\left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{\alpha}(B_{1})}+\| f\|_{C^{m, \alpha}(B_{3/4})}\right)
\]
This, together with the basic estimate from Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_L} for $\Delta u = f$, and used for each $i\in \{1,\dots,n\}$, directly yields that \eqref{eq.toshowk} holds for $k = m$.
\end{proof}
Similarly, if one wants to prove regularity estimates in other contexts, it is often enough to obtain the corresponding a priori estimate. For instance, using an estimate that we prove later in the chapter (in the more general context of non-divergence-form equations) we can immediately obtain also the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates_L_bounded}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates_L_bounded}]
The proof is exactly the same as the proof of Corollary~\ref{cor.Schauder_estimates_L} but using Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates_cont} from below instead of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_L}. (Alternatively, see Remark~\ref{rem:zygmund}.)
\end{proof}
Let us now provide the first proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_L}. The method used here was introduced by Wang in \cite{Wan}.
\begin{proof}[First proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_L}.]
We will prove that
\[
|D^2 u(z) - D^2 u(y) | \le C|z-y|^\alpha\left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+ [f]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right),
\]
for all $y, z\in B_{1/32}$. After a translation, we assume that $y = 0$, so that the proof can be centered around 0. This will prove our theorem with estimates in a ball $B_{1/32}$, and the desired result in a ball of radius $\frac12$ follows by a covering argument. Moreover, after dividing the solution $u$ by $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+ [f]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}$ if necessary, we may assume that $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le 1$ and $[f]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\le 1$, and we just need to prove that for all $z\in B_{1/16}$,
\[
|D^2 u(z) - D^2 u(0) | \le C|z|^\alpha.
\]
Throughout the proof, we will use the following basic estimates for harmonic functions:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.harmkap}
\Delta w = 0\quad\textrm{in} \quad B_r\quad\Rightarrow \quad \|D^\kappa w\|_{L^\infty(B_{r/2})} \le Cr^{-\kappa} \| w \|_{L^\infty(B_r)},
\end{equation}
where $C$ depends only on $n$ and $\kappa \in \mathbb{N}$. (In fact, we will only use $\kappa \in \{1, 2, 3\}$.)
Such estimate follows by rescaling the estimate \eqref{eq.estimatesuk} --- which corresponds to the case $r = 1$.
We will also use the estimate
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.harmkap2}
\Delta w = \lambda\quad\textrm{in} \quad B_r\quad\Rightarrow \quad \|D^2 w\|_{L^\infty(B_{r/2})} \le C\left(r^{-2} \| w \|_{L^\infty(B_r)} + |\lambda|\right),
\end{equation}
for some constant $C$ depending only on $n$. This estimate follows from \eqref{eq.harmkap} after subtracting $\frac{\lambda}{2n}|x|^2$.
For $k = 0,1,2,\dots$, let $u_k$ be the solution to
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta u_k & = & f(0) &\text{in } B_{2^{-k}}\\
u_k &=& u &\text{on } \partial B_{2^{-k}}.
\end{array}
\right.
\]
Then, $\Delta (u_k-u) = f(0)-f$, and by the rescaled version of Lemma~\ref{lem.maxPrinciple}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.fromu0u}
\|u_k-u\|_{L^\infty(B_{2^{-k}})}\le C (2^{-k})^2\|f(0)-f\|_{L^\infty(B_{2^{-k}})}\le C2^{-k(2+\alpha)},
\end{equation}
where we are using that $[f]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\le 1$.
Hence, the triangle inequality yields
\[
\|u_{k+1}-u_k\|_{L^\infty(B_{2^{-k-1}})}\le C2^{-k(2+\alpha)}.
\]
Since $u_{k+1}-u_k$ is harmonic, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.d2uk}
\|D^2 (u_{k+1}-u_k)\|_{L^\infty(B_{2^{-k-2}})} \le C2^{2(k+1)}\|u_{k+1}-u_k\|_{L^\infty(B_{2^{-k-1}})} \le C2^{-k\alpha}.
\end{equation}
Now, notice that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.d2ulim}
D^2 u (0) = \lim_{k\to \infty} D^2 u_k (0).
\end{equation}
Indeed, let $\tilde u(x) := u(0) + x\cdot \nabla u(0) + \frac12 x\cdot D^2 u(0) x$ be the second order expansion of $u$ at 0. Then, since $u\in C^{2,\alpha}$, we have $\|\tilde u - u\|_{L^\infty(B_r)} \le Cr^{2+\alpha} = o(r^2)$. Using that $\tilde u - u_k$ is harmonic together with \eqref{eq.harmkap} we deduce
\begin{align*}
|D^2 u_k(0) - D^2 u(0)| & \le \|D^2 (u_k - \tilde u)\|_{L^\infty(B_{2^{-k-1}})}\\
& \le C 2^{2k} \|u_k - \tilde u\|_{L^\infty(B_{2^{-k}})}\\
& = C 2^{2k} \|u - \tilde u\|_{L^\infty(\partial B_{2^{-k}})} \to 0\quad\textrm{as}\quad k\to \infty.
\end{align*}
Now, for any point $z$ near the origin, we have
\begin{align*}
|D^2 u(z) - D^2u(0)|\le |D^2& u_k(0) -D^2 u(0)|\\
&+|D^2 u_k(0)-D^2 u_k(z)|+|D^2 u_k(z)-D^2 u(z)|.
\end{align*}
For a given $z\in B_{1/16}$, we choose $k\in \mathbb{N}$ such that \[
2^{-k-4}\le |z|\le 2^{-k-3}.
\]
Thanks to \eqref{eq.d2uk}-\eqref{eq.d2ulim}, and by the triangle inequality, we get
\[
|D^2 u_k(0)-D^2 u(0)|\le \sum_{j = k}^\infty |D^2 u_j(0)-D^2 u_{j+1}(0)|\le C\sum_{j = k }^\infty 2^{-j\alpha} = C2^{-k\alpha},
\]
where we use that $\alpha\in (0, 1)$.
In order to estimate $|D^2 u(z)-D^2 u_k(z)|$, the same argument can be repeated around $z$ instead of $0$. That is, take solutions of $\Delta v_j = f(z)$ in $B_{2^{-j}(z)}$ and $v_j = u$ on $\partial B_{2^{-j}}(z)$. Then,
\[
|D^2 u_k(z) - D^2u(z) |\le |D^2 u_k(z) -D^2 v_k(z)|+|D^2 v_k(z) - D^2 u(z)|.
\]
The second term above can be bounded by $C2^{-k\alpha}$ arguing as before. For the first term, we use \eqref{eq.harmkap2} by noticing that $\Delta (u_k - v_k) = f(0)-f(z)$ in $B_{2^{-k}}\cap B_{2^{-k}}(z)\supset B_{2^{-k-1}}(z)$ (recall $|z|\le 2^{-k-3}$), so that, in $B_{2^{-2-k}(z)}$ we have
\begin{align*}
|D^2 u_k(z) - D^2 v_k(z)|& \le \|D^2(u_k-v_k)\|_{L^\infty(B_{2^{-2-k}}(z))}\\
& \le C2^{2k}\|u_k-v_k\|_{L^\infty(B_{2^{-k-1}(z)})} + C|f(z)-f(0)|\\
& \le C2^{2k}\|u_k-v_k\|_{L^\infty(B_{2^{-k-1}(z)})} + C2^{-k\alpha},
\end{align*}
where we use, again, that $|z|\le 2^{-k-3}$, and $[f]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\le 1$
Finally, from \eqref{eq.fromu0u}, we know that
\[
\|u_k-u\|_{L^\infty(B_{2^{-k-1}}(z))}\le \|u_k-u\|_{L^\infty(B_{2^{-k}})}\le C2^{-k(2+\alpha)},
\]
and
\[
\|u-v_k\|_{L^\infty(B_{2^{-k-1}(z)})}\le C2^{-k(2+\alpha)},
\]
which gives
\[
\|u_k-v_k\|_{L^\infty(B_{2^{-k-1}(z)})}\le C2^{-k(2+\alpha)}.
\]
Thus, we deduce that
\[
|D^2 u_k (z) -D^2 u (z) |\le C2^{-k\alpha}.
\]
Finally, to estimate $|D^2 u_k(z)-D^2 u_k(0)|$, we denote $h_j := u_j-u_{j-1}$ for $j = 1,2,\dots, k$. Since $h_j$ are harmonic, by \eqref{eq.harmkap} with $\kappa = 3$ and using that $B_{2^{-k-3}}\subset B_{2^{-j-1}}$, we see that
\begin{align*}
\left|\frac{D^2 h_j(z)-D^2 h_j (0)}{|z|}\right|& \le \|D^3 h_j\|_{L^\infty(B_{2^{-k-3}})}\\
& \le C2^{3j}\|h_j\|_{L^\infty(B_{2^{-j}})}\le C2^{j(1-\alpha)}.
\end{align*}
Hence,
\begin{align*}
|D^2 u_k(0) - D^2 u_k(z) | & \le |D^2 u_0(z) -D^2 u_0(0)|+\sum_{j = 1}^k |D^2 h_j(z) - D^2 h_j(0)|\\
& \le C|z|\|u_0\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+C |z|\sum_{j = 1}^k 2^{j(1-\alpha)}.
\end{align*}
We have also used here that, if we define $w := u_0 - \frac{f(0)}{2n} |x|^2 + \frac{f(0)}{2n}$ then $w$ is harmonic, $D^3 w = D^3 u_0$, and $w = u_0$ on $\partial B_1$, and
\begin{align*}
|z|^{-1}|D^2 u_0(z) -D^2 u_0(0)|& \le \|D^3 u_0\|_{L^\infty(B_{1/2})} = \|D^3 w\|_{L^\infty(B_{1/2})} \\
& \le C \|w\|_{L^\infty(B_{1})} = C \|u_0\|_{L^\infty(\partial B_{1})} \le C\|u_0\|_{L^\infty(B_1)},
\end{align*}
by higher order regularity estimates for harmonic functions (see~\eqref{eq.harmkap}) and the maximum principle (Lemma~\ref{lem.maxPrinciple}). Note that here the constant $C$ depends only on $n$.
Combined with the fact that, from \eqref{eq.fromu0u},
\[
\|u_0\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le C,
\]
(where we also use $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le 1$) and $|z|\le 2^{-k-3}$, we deduce that
\[
|D^2 u_k(0) - D^2 u_k(z) | \le C|z|+ C|z| 2^{k(1-\alpha)}\le C2^{-k\alpha}.
\]
We finish by noticing that $|z|\ge 2^{-k-4}$ and combining all the last inequalities we reach
\[
|D^2 u(z) - D^2 u(0) |\le C2^{-k\alpha}\le C|z|^\alpha
\]
for all $z\in B_{1/16}$. That is,
\[
[D^2 u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/16})}\le C.
\]
Now, thanks to the interpolation inequalities (see \eqref{ch0-interp2} with $\varepsilon = 1$),
\begin{align*}
\|u\|_{C^{2,\alpha}(B_{1/16})} & = \|u\|_{C^{2}(B_{1/16})} +[D^2 u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/16})}\\
& \le C\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_{1/16})} + 2 [D^2 u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/16})}\le C.
\end{align*}
We finish by recalling that we divided the solution $u$ by $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+ [f]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}$, and we use a covering argument to get the desired result (see Remark~\ref{rem.covering_argument}).
\end{proof}
For the second proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_L}, we use the methods from \cite{M}, originally from \cite{Caf89}.
\begin{proof}[Second proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_L}.]
After subtracting $\frac{f(0)}{2n}|x|^2$ we may assume that $f(0) = 0$. After dividing $u$ by $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+\varepsilon^{-1}\|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}$ if necessary, we may also assume that $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le 1$ and $\|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\le\varepsilon$, where $\varepsilon> 0$ is a constant to be chosen depending only on $n$ and $\alpha$.
After these simplifications, it is enough to show that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.udone}
\|u\|_{C^{2, \alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le C
\end{equation}
for some constant $C$ depending only on $n$ and $\alpha$.
We will show that, for every $x\in B_{1/2}$, there exist a sequence of quadratic polynomials, $(P_k)_{k\in \mathbb{N}}$, and a $\rho_\circ< 1$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.H_QP}
\|u-P_k\|_{L^\infty(B_{\rho_\circ^k}(x))}\leq C_\circ\rho_\circ^{k(2+\alpha)}\qquad\textrm{for all }\, k\in \mathbb{N},
\end{equation}
for some constant $C_\circ$. By property \ref{it.H5} from Chapter~\ref{ch.0}, this yields that $[D^2u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le CC_\circ$. After using an interpolation inequality \eqref{ch0-interp2}, we get \eqref{eq.udone}.
We will prove \eqref{eq.H_QP} for $x = 0$ (after a translation, it follows for all $x\in B_{1/2}$). We are going to use that $\Delta u = f$, $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le 1$, $f(0 ) = 0$ and $[f]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\le \varepsilon$.
Notice that $\|\Delta u\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)} = \|f\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}\le 2\varepsilon$, i.e., $u$ is $2\varepsilon$-close in H\"older norm to a harmonic function: let $w$ be such that $\Delta w = 0$ and $w = u $ on $\partial B_1$. Then, $\Delta(u- w) = f$ in $B_1$, and $u-v = 0$ on $\partial B_1$, so that by Lemma~\ref{lem.maxPrinciple},
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.connor1}
\|u-w\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le C'\|f\|_{L^\infty(B_1)} \le C\varepsilon,
\end{equation}
for some $C$ universal (we are only using $\|f\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le 2\varepsilon$, and not using its $C^\alpha$ norm at this point). The function $w$ is harmonic and $|w|\le 1$ (since $|u|\le 1$). Therefore, it has a quadratic Taylor polynomial $P_1$ at the origin, which satisfies $\Delta P_1 \equiv 0$ and $|P_1|\le C$. Moreover, since $w$ is harmonic (and in particular $w\in C^3$), we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.connor2}
\|w-P_1 \|_{L^\infty(B_r)}\le Cr^3\qquad\textrm{for all }\, r \le 1,
\end{equation}
for some $C$ depending only on $n$.
Combining \eqref{eq.connor1} and \eqref{eq.connor2} we obtain
\[
\|u-P_1\|_{L^\infty(B_r)}\le C(r^3+\varepsilon)\qquad\textrm{for all }\, r \le 1.
\]
Choose now $r_\circ$ small enough such that $Cr_\circ^3\le \frac12 r_\circ^{2+\alpha}$ (notice $\alpha < 1$), and $\varepsilon$ small enough such that $C\varepsilon< \frac12 r_\circ^{2+\alpha}$. (Notice that both $r_\circ$ and $\varepsilon$ can be chosen depending only on $n$ and $\alpha$.) Then,
\[
\|u-P_1\|_{L^\infty(B_{r_\circ})}\le r_\circ^{2+\alpha}.
\]
Let us now define
\[
u_2(x) := \frac{(u-P_1)(r_\circ x)}{r_\circ^{2+\alpha} }.\]
Notice that $\|u_2\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le 1$ and $\Delta u_2(x) = r_\circ^{-\alpha}f(r_\circ x)=:f_2(x)$. Then, $f_2(0) = 0$ and $[f_2]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}\le [f]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}\le \varepsilon$. That is, the same hypotheses as before are fulfilled.
Repeating the same procedure, there exists a polynomial $P_2$ such that
\[
\|u_2 - P_2\|_{L^\infty(B_{r_\circ})}\le r_\circ^{2+\alpha}.
\]
That is, substituting back,
\[
\big\|u - P_1 - r_\circ^{2+\alpha}P_2(x/r_\circ)\big\|_{L^\infty(B_{r^2_\circ})}\le r_\circ^{2(2+\alpha)}.
\]
Continuing iteratively, for every $k\in \mathbb{N}$ we can define
\[
u_{k+1}(x):= \frac{(u_k-P_k)(r_\circ x)}{r_\circ^{2+\alpha}},
\]
which satisfies
\[
\|u_{k+1}\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le 1,\quad\Delta u_{k+1}(x) = r_\circ^{-\alpha} f_{k}(r_\circ x) = r_\circ^{-k\alpha} f(r_\circ^k x) =: f_{k+1}(x),
\]
and there exists some $P_{k+1}$ such that
\[
\|u_{k+1}-P_{k+1}\|_{L^\infty(B_{r_\circ})}\le r_\circ^{2+\alpha}.
\]
Substituting back,
\[
\big\|u - P_1 - r_\circ^{2+\alpha}P_2(x/r_\circ) - \dots - r_\circ^{k(2+\alpha)} P_{k+1}(x/r_\circ^k)\big\|_{L^\infty(B_{r^{k+1}_\circ})}\le r_\circ^{(k+1)(2+\alpha)}.
\]
That is, we have constructed a sequence of quadratic polynomials approximating $u$ in a decreasing sequence of balls around 0; which shows that \eqref{eq.H_QP} holds around 0. After a translation, the same argument can be repeated around any point $x\in B_{1/2}$, so that, by \ref{it.H5} we are done.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
\label{rem:zygmund}
When $\alpha = 0$, the previous proof implies that if $f\in L^\infty(B_1)$ then, by \eqref{eq.H_QP}, $\nabla u$ is in the Zygmund space $\Lambda^1(B_1)$; see Remark~\ref{rem.zygmund} in the Appendix~\ref{app.A} for more details. In particular, we also get a proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates_L_bounded}.
\end{rem}
Notice that in the previous proof we have not directly used that $u$ is $C^2$. In fact, the only properties of $u$ (and the Laplacian) we have used are that the maximum principle holds and that $\Delta (u(rx)) = r^2 (\Delta u)(rx)$.
In particular, the second proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_L} is {\it not} an a priori estimate, and rather it says that any weak solution to the Laplace equation with $C^\alpha$ right-hand side is $C^{2,\alpha}$. That is, we have directly proved Corollary~\ref{cor.Schauder_estimates_L}.
\section{Schauder estimates for operators in non-divergence form}
After proving the Schauder estimates for the Laplacian, we will study now more general second order linear elliptic operators. We start with operators in non-divergence form. The type of equation we are interested in is
\[
\boxed{
{\rm tr} \big(A(x)D^2 u(x)\big) = \sum_{i,j = 1}^n a_{ij}(x)\partial_{ij}u(x) = f(x) \quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1
}
\]
where the matrix $A(x) = (a_{ij}(x))_{ij}$ is uniformly elliptic --- in the sense that \eqref{eq.ellipt} below holds --- and $a_{ij}(x) \in C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)$. We will prove the following a priori estimates.
\begin{thm}[Schauder estimates in non-divergence form]\index{Schauder estimates!Non-divergence form}
\label{thm.Schauder_estimates}
Let $\alpha\in (0, 1)$, and let $u\in C^{2,\alpha}$ be any solution to
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} u = f(x) \quad\textrm{in} \quad B_1,
\]
with $f\in C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)$ and $a_{ij}(x) \in C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)$, and $(a_{ij}(x))_{ij}$ fulfilling the ellipticity condition
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.ellipt}
0< \lambda\,{\rm Id} \le (a_{ij}(x))_{ij} \le\Lambda\,{\rm Id}\quad\textrm{in} \quad B_1,
\end{equation}
for some $0 < \lambda \le\Lambda < \infty$. Then,
\[
\|u\|_{C^{2, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C \left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right)
\]
for some constant $C$ depending only on $\alpha$, $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, and $\|a_{ij}\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}$.
\end{thm}
As for the Laplacian, we will provide two different proofs of the previous result.
On the other hand, as a consequence of the previous result, we also obtain higher order Schauder estimates in non-divergence form.
\begin{cor}[Higher order Schauder estimates in non-divergence form]\index{Higher order Schauder estimates!Non-divergence form}
\label{cor.Schauder_estimates_HO}
Let $u\in C^{k+2,\alpha}$ be a solution to
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} u = f(x) \quad\textrm{in} \quad B_1,
\]
with $f\in C^{k, \alpha}(B_1)$ and $a_{ij}(x) \in C^{k, \alpha}(B_1)$ for some $\alpha\in (0, 1)$, $k\in \mathbb{N}$, and $(a_{ij}(x))_{ij}$ fulfilling the ellipticity conditions \eqref{eq.ellipt} for some $0 < \lambda \le\Lambda < \infty$. Then,
\[
\|u\|_{C^{k+2, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C \left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{k, \alpha}(B_1)}\right)
\]
for some constant $C$ depending only on $\alpha$, $k$, $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, and $\|a_{ij}\|_{C^{k, \alpha}(B_1)}$.
\end{cor}
\begin{rem}[Ellipticity condition]\index{Uniform ellipticity condition!Linear equations}
The uniform ellipticity condition in $B_1$, \eqref{eq.ellipt}, is a quantification of the fact that the matrix
\[
A(x) := (a_{ij}(x))_{ij}
\]
is uniformly positive definite and uniformly bounded as well. Notice that we can always assume that $A(x)$ is symmetric (from $\partial_{ij} u = \partial_{ji} u$). We recall that the inequality $A_1 \le A_2$ for symmetric matrices $A_1, A_2\in \mathcal{M}_n$ has to be understood in the sense that $A_2-A_1$ is positive semi-definite. Alternatively, \eqref{eq.ellipt} will hold if
\[
0< \lambda|\xi|^2 \le \sum_{i,j= 1}^n \xi_i \xi_j a_{ij}(x)\le \Lambda|\xi|^2\quad\textrm{for all} \quad x\in B_1
\]
for all $\xi \in \mathbb{R}^n$.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}[Constant coefficients]
\label{rem.constcoef}
Let us start by understanding the case of constant coefficients,
\[
\sum_{i,j = 1}^n a_{ij} \partial_{ij} u(x) = 0 \quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1,
\]
where $a_{ij}$ are constants and satisfy the uniform ellipticity assumption,
\[
0 < \lambda{\rm Id} \le (a_{ij})_{ij} \le \Lambda{\rm Id},
\]
for $0< \lambda \le \Lambda < \infty$.
Let us denote $A := (a_{ij})_{ij}\in \mathcal{M}_n$. Then, $A$ is a symmetric positive definite matrix, and therefore has a unique positive definite square root $A^{1/2}$. After an affine change of variables
\[
z = A^{1/2} x ,
\]
the equation
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n a_{ij}\partial_{x_i x_j} u = 0\quad\textrm{becomes}\quad \sum_{i = 1}^n \partial_{z_i z_i} u = 0
\]
or $\Delta_z u = 0$. Indeed,
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n a_{ij} \partial_{x_i x_j} u = {\rm tr}(AD^2_x u ) = {\rm tr}(A^{1/2}D^2_x uA^{1/2} ) = {\rm tr}(D_z^2 u) = \Delta_z u.
\]
Therefore (and since $0 < \lambda{\rm Id} \le A \le \Lambda{\rm Id}$), the case of constant coefficients (uniformly elliptic) can be reduced to the case of {\em harmonic functions}.
Thanks to the uniform ellipticity, the change of variables is {\em not} degenerate, and thus the estimates on $\|u\|_{C^{2, \alpha}}$ that we get depend only on $\alpha$, $n$, $\lambda$, and $\Lambda$ (but not on $A$). Similarly, after changing variables, there could be a shrinking of the domain, say that the $C^{2, \alpha}$ norm of $u$ is bounded in $B_\rho$ instead of $B_{1/2}$, for some $\rho < 1/2$. Once again, since the change is non-degenerate, such $\rho$ depends only on $n$, $\lambda$, and $\Lambda$, and one can complete the proof by a covering argument in $B_{1/2}$ (see Remark~\ref{rem.covering_argument}).
\end{rem}
\subsection*{The maximum principle}
We state the maximum principle for equations in non-divergence form, which will be used in this section.
\begin{prop}[Maximum Principle in non-divergence form]\index{Maximum principle!Non-divergence form}
\label{prop.weakMaxNonDiv}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be any bounded open set. Suppose that $u\in C^0(\overline{\Omega})\cap C^2(\Omega)$ satisfies
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} u \ge 0 \quad\textrm{in} \quad \Omega,
\]
where $(a_{ij}(x))_{ij}$ satisfy
\[
0< \lambda\,{\rm Id} \le (a_{ij}(x))_{ij} \quad\textrm{in} \quad \Omega.
\]
Then,
\[
\sup_{\Omega} u = \sup_{\partial \Omega} u.
\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let us begin by showing the maximum principle in the case
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.MaxPrStrict}
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} u> 0 \quad\textrm{in} \quad B_1,
\end{equation}
that is, when we have a strict inequality. We show it by contradiction: suppose that there exists some $x_\circ\in \Omega$ such that $\sup_{\Omega} u = u(x_\circ)$. Since it is an interior maximum, we must have $\nabla u (x_\circ) = 0$ and $D^2 u(x_\circ) \le 0$, that is, $D^2 u(x_\circ)$ is a negative semi-definite symmetric matrix. In particular, all its eigenvalues are non-positive, and after a change of variables we have that
\[
P^T D^2 u(x_\circ) P = {\rm diag}(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_n) := D_{x_\circ}
\]
for some orthogonal $n\times n$ matrix $P$, and with $\lambda_i \le 0$ for all $1\le i \le n$. Let $A(x) = (a_{ij}(x))_{ij}$, and let $A^P(x_\circ) := P^T A(x_\circ) P$. Then, since $A(x_\circ)$ is positive definite, so is $A^P(x_\circ) = (a_{ij}^P(x_\circ))_{ij}$. In particular, $a_{ii}^P(x_\circ) \ge 0$ for all $1\le i \le n$. Then,
\[
{\rm tr} (A(x_\circ) D^2 u(x_\circ)) = {\rm tr}(A(x_\circ)PD_{x_\circ} P^T)= {\rm tr}(P^T A(x_\circ)PD_{x_\circ})
\]
and, therefore
\[
0< {\rm tr} (A(x_\circ) D^2 u(x_\circ)) = {\rm tr}(A^P(x_\circ) D_{x_\circ}) = \sum_{i = 1}^n a_{ii}^P(x_\circ) \lambda_i \le 0,
\]
a contradiction. Here, we used that $a_{ii}^P(x_\circ) \ge 0$ and $\lambda_i \le 0$ for all $1\le i \le n$. This shows that the maximum principle holds when the strict inequality \eqref{eq.MaxPrStrict} is satisfied.
Let us now remove this hypothesis. Let $R$ be large enough such that $B_R\supset \Omega$ --- after a translation, we can take $R =\frac12{\rm diam}(\Omega)$. Consider now the function
\[
u_\varepsilon (x) := u(x) +\varepsilon e^{x_1} \quad\textrm{for}\quad x\in \Omega,
\]
for $\varepsilon > 0$. Notice that,
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} u_\varepsilon (x) \ge \lambda \varepsilon e^{x_1}>0 \quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega.
\]
In particular, we can apply the result for \eqref{eq.MaxPrStrict} to obtain that
\[
\sup_\Omega u \le \sup_{\Omega} u_\varepsilon = \sup_{\partial \Omega} u_\varepsilon \le \sup_{\partial \Omega} u + \varepsilon e^{R}.
\]
By letting $\varepsilon\downarrow 0$, we obtain the desired result.
\end{proof}
As a consequence, we find:
\begin{lem}
\label{lem.maxPrinciple_2}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be a bounded open set, and let $u\in C^0(\overline{\Omega})\cap C^2(\Omega)$ be a function satisfying
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} u & = & f &\text{in } \Omega\\
u &=& g &\text{on } \partial \Omega,
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation*}
where $(a_{ij})_{ij}$ fulfill the ellipticity conditions \eqref{eq.ellipt} for some $0 < \lambda \le\Lambda < \infty$.
Then,
\[\|u\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}\leq C\bigl(\|f\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}+\|g\|_{L^\infty(\partial\Omega)}\bigr),\]
for a constant $C$ depending only on the diameter of $\Omega$, $\lambda$, and $\Lambda$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
This follows exactly as in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem.maxPrinciple} using Proposition~\ref{prop.weakMaxNonDiv}.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Proof of Schauder estimates}
Let us now proceed with the proof of Schauder estimates for equations in non-divergence form, Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates}. We will first prove (in two ways) the following proposition, which is a weaker version of the estimate we want to show.
We will later prove that, in fact, such estimate is enough to prove Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates}.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop.Schauder_estimates}
Let $u\in C^{2,\alpha}$ be a solution to
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} u = f(x) \quad\textrm{in} \quad B_1,
\]
with $f\in C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)$ and $a_{ij}(x) \in C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)$ for some $\alpha\in (0, 1)$, and $(a_{ij}(x))_{ij}$ fulfilling the ellipticity condition
\[
0< \lambda {\rm Id} \le (a_{ij}(x))_{ij} \le\Lambda{\rm Id}\quad\textrm{in} \quad B_1,
\]
for some $0 < \lambda \le\Lambda < \infty$. Then, for any $\delta> 0$,
\[
[D^2 u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le \delta[D^2 u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)} +C_\delta \left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right),
\]
for some constant $C_\delta$ depending only on $\delta$, $\alpha$, $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, and $\|a_{ij}\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}$.
\end{prop}
Notice that, the previous statement is almost what we want: if we could let $\delta\downarrow 0$ and $C_\delta$ remained bounded, Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates} would be proved (after using interpolation inequalities \eqref{ch0-interp2}). On the other hand, if the H\"older norm was in $B_{1/2}$ instead of $B_1$, choosing $\delta = \frac12$ would also complete the proof. As we will see, although it is not so straightforward, Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates} is just one step away from the final result.
Let us provide two different proofs of Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates}. The first proof is a sketch that follows the same spirit as the first proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates}. The second proof is through a blow-up argument (by contradiction).
\begin{proof}[First Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates}]
The proof is very similar to the case of the Laplacian, the first proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_L}.
We define $u_k$ as the solution to
\[
\left\{\begin{array}{rcll}
\sum_{i,j = 1}^n a_{ij}(0) \partial_{ij} u_k & = & f(0) & \textrm{in } B_{2^{-k}}\\
u_k & = & u & \textrm{on } \partial B_{2^{-k}}.
\end{array}
\right.
\]
(We freeze the coefficients at zero.) Then,
\[
v_k := u- u_k
\]
satisfies
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n a_{ij} (0) \partial_{ij} v_k = f(x)-f(0) +\sum_{i, j =1}^n \big(a_{ij} (0)-a_{ij}(x) \big) \partial_{ij} u\quad\textrm{in} \quad B_{2^{-k}}.
\]
By the maximum principle (Lemma~\ref{lem.maxPrinciple_2}) we get
\begin{align*}
\|u-u_k\|_{L^\infty(B_{ 2^{-k}})} \le C 2^{-2k}\bigg(& 2^{-\alpha k}\|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{ 2^{-k}})} \\
& +2^{-\alpha k} \|D^2 u\|_{L^\infty(B_{ 2^{-k}})}\sum_{i,j = 1}^n \|a_{ij}\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{ 2^{-k}})} \bigg).
\end{align*}
Thus,
\[
\|u_k -u_{k+1}\|_{L^\infty(2^{-k-1})} \le C 2^{-k(2+\alpha)}\left(\|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{2^{-k}})}+\|D^2 u\|_{L^\infty(B_{2^{-k}})}\right),
\]
where the constant $C$ depends only on $\alpha$, $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, and $\|a_{ij}\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}$.
Following the exact same proof as in the case of the Laplacian, $\Delta u = f(x) $, we now get
\[
[D^2 u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C\left(\|u\|_{L^\infty( B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)} + \|D^2 u \|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\right) .
\]
This is {\em almost} exactly what we wanted to prove. However, we have an extra term $\|D^2 u \|_{L^\infty(B_1)}$ on the right-hand side. This can be dealt with by means of interpolation inequalities.
We use that, for any $\varepsilon > 0$, there is $C_\varepsilon$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.interpolation}
\|D^2 u \|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\le \varepsilon [D^2 u ]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)} + C_\varepsilon\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}
\end{equation}
see \eqref{ch0-interp2} in Chapter~\ref{ch.0}.
The idea is that, since the $\|D^2 u \|_{L^\infty}$ term is lower order, we can absorb it in the left-hand side by paying the price of adding more $\|u\|_{L^\infty}$ norm on the right-hand side.
Namely, we have
\begin{align*}
[D^2 u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})} & \le C\left(\|u\|_{L^\infty( B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)} + \|D^2 u \|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\right) \\
\textrm{\tiny (by interpolation) } & \le C\left(C_\varepsilon \|u\|_{L^\infty( B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)} + \varepsilon[D^2 u ]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right) \\
& \le C_{\delta}\left( \|u\|_{L^\infty( B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right) + \delta[D^2 u ]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)},
\end{align*}
where we have used the interpolation inequality, and in the last step we have chosen $\varepsilon = \delta / C> 0$. The constant $C_{\delta}$ depends only on $\delta$, $\alpha$, $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, and $\|a_{ij}\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}$.
This concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
For the second proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates} we use a robust blow-up method due to L. Simon, \cite{Sim}. For simplicity, we will first prove it for the Laplacian case. After proving it for the Laplacian, we explain in detail how to adapt the method for the more general non-divergence operators.
\begin{proof}[Second Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates}]
Assume first that $(a_{ij}(x))_{ij} = {\rm Id}$, that is, $\Delta u = f$ in $B_1$. We then explain the modifications needed to show the result in the general case, $\sum_{i,j=1}^n a_{ij}(x)\partial_{ij}u (x)= f(x)$ in $B_1$.
Thanks to interpolation inequalities we only need to prove the following estimate for any $\delta > 0$ sufficiently small,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.contr.SAL}
[D^2u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le \delta[D^2u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1})}+ C_\delta\left(\|D^2u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+[f]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right)
\end{equation}
for all $u \in C^{2,\alpha}(B_1)$ with $\Delta u = f$ in $B_1$. Indeed, if \eqref{eq.contr.SAL} holds then, by interpolation \eqref{eq.interpolation}, with $\varepsilon = \delta/C_\delta$,
\[
[D^2u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le 2\delta[D^2u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1})}+ C_\delta \left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+[f]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right)
\]
for some new $C_\delta$ depending only on $\delta$, $n$ and $\alpha$, which is the desired result.
We will now show that \eqref{eq.contr.SAL} holds by contradiction, for some $C_\delta$ depending only on $\delta$, $n$, and $\alpha$. Indeed, suppose that it does not hold. Then, there exist sequences $u_k\in C^{2, \alpha}(B_1)$ and $f_k\in C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)$ for $k\in \mathbb{N}$ such that
\[
\Delta u_k = f_k\quad\textrm{in} \quad B_1,
\]
and for a fixed small constant $\delta_\circ >0$ we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.contr.SAL_2}
[D^2u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}> \delta_\circ[D^2u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1})}+ k\left(\|D^2u_k\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+[f_k]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right).
\end{equation}
We now have to reach a contradiction.
Select $x_k, y_k\in B_{1/2}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.halfeq}
\frac{|D^2u_k(x_k)-D^2u_k(y_k)|}{|x_k-y_k|^\alpha}\ge \frac12 [D^2u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}
\end{equation}
and let
\[
\rho_k := |x_k-y_k|.
\]
Observe that we must necessarily have $\rho_k \to 0 $ as $k \to \infty$, since
\begin{align*}
\frac12 [D^2u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}& \le \frac{|D^2u_k(x_k)-D^2u_k(y_k)|}{\rho_k^\alpha}\\
& \le \frac{2\|D^2u_k\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}}{\rho_k^\alpha}\le \frac{2[D^2 u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}}{k\rho_k^\alpha},
\end{align*}
where we have used \eqref{eq.contr.SAL_2} in the last inequality. Thus,
\[
\rho_k\le Ck^{-\frac{1}{\alpha}}\to 0 \quad\textrm{as}\quad k\to \infty
\]
Now, we rescale and blow up. Define
\[
\tilde u_k(x) := \frac{u_k(x_k+\rho_k x)-p_k(x)}{\rho_k^{2+\alpha}[D^2 u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}},\quad\tilde f_k(x) := \frac{f_k(x_k+\rho_k x)-f_k(x_k)}{\rho_k^\alpha[D^2u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}},
\]
where the quadratic polynomial $p_k$ is chosen so that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.AA1}
\tilde u_k(0) = |\nabla \tilde u_k(0)| = |D^2 \tilde u_k(0)| = 0.
\end{equation}
Namely,
\[
p_k(z) := u_k(x_k) + \rho_k \sum_{i = 1}^n \partial_i u_k(x_k) z_i + \frac{1}{2} \rho_k^2 \sum_{i, j = 1}^n \partial_{ij}u_k(x_k) z_i z_j.
\]
It is now a simple computation to check that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.simplecomputation}
\Delta \tilde u_k = \tilde f_k\quad\textrm{in} \quad B_{1/(2\rho_k)}.
\end{equation}
Let us also denote
\[
\xi_k := \frac{y_k-x_k}{\rho_k}\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}.
\]
Notice that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.AA2}
[D^2 \tilde u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}\big(B_{1/{(2\rho_k)}}\big)} \le 1,\qquad\textrm{and}\qquad \big|D^2 \tilde u_k (\xi_k)\big|> \frac{\delta_\circ}{2},
\end{equation}
where for the second inequality we use \eqref{eq.contr.SAL_2}-\eqref{eq.halfeq}.
Since $\tilde u_k$ are uniformly bounded in compact subsets, and bounded in the $C^{2, \alpha}$ norm (see \eqref{eq.AA1}-\eqref{eq.AA2}), we have by Arzel\`a--Ascoli that the sequence $\tilde u_k$ converges (up to a subsequence and in the $C^2$ norm) to a $C^{2, \alpha}$ function $\tilde u$ on compact subsets of $\mathbb{R}^n$. Moreover, again up to a subsequence, we have that $\xi_k\to \xi\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$.
By the properties of $\tilde u_k$, we deduce that $\tilde u$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.contradiction2}
\tilde u (0) = |\nabla \tilde u(0) | = |D^2 \tilde u (0)| = 0,\quad[D^2\tilde u ]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\mathbb{R}^n)}\le 1,\quad |D^2\tilde u(\xi)|>\frac{\delta_\circ}{2}.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, for any $R\ge 1$ we have
\begin{align*}
\|\tilde f_k\|_{L^\infty(B_R)} & = \sup_{x\in B_R} \frac{|f_k(x_k+\rho_k x)-f_k(x_k)|}{\rho_k^\alpha[D^2 u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}}
\le \frac{(\rho_kR)^\alpha[f_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}}{\rho_k^\alpha[D^2 u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}}\\
& \le \frac{R^\alpha[D^2u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}}{k[D^2u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}}\le \frac{R^\alpha } {k}\to 0,\textrm{ as } k \to \infty.
\end{align*}
Thus, $\tilde f_k \to 0$ uniformly on compact sets of $\mathbb{R}^n$. Together with the fact that $\tilde u_k \to \tilde u$ in the $C^2$ norm in compact sets, we deduce (recall \eqref{eq.simplecomputation})
\[
\Delta \tilde u = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad \mathbb{R}^n.
\]
That is, $\tilde u$ is harmonic and, in particular, so is $\partial_{ij} \tilde u$ for any $i, j = 1,\dots,n$.
Let us now use the three properties in \eqref{eq.contradiction2} to get a contradiction.
First notice that we have $[D^2 \tilde u ]_{C^{0, \alpha}(\mathbb{R}^n)} \le 1$. Thus, $D^2 \tilde u$ has sub-linear growth at infinity, and by Liouville's theorem (Proposition~\ref{cor.Liouville}) we find that $D^2\tilde u$ is constant. That is, $\tilde u$ is a quadratic polynomial, which also fulfills $\tilde u (0) = |\nabla \tilde u(0) | = |D^2 \tilde u (0)| = 0$. The only possibility is that $\tilde u \equiv 0$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$, which is a contradiction with $|D^2\tilde u(\xi)|>\frac{\delta_\circ}{2}$.
Thus, the proposition is proved in the case of the Laplacian.
We now treat the case of variable coefficients,
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} u(x) = f(x) \quad\textrm{in} \quad B_1,
\]
with $a_{ij}(x) $ uniformly elliptic in $B_1$ (i.e., $0<\lambda {\rm Id}\le (a_{ij}(x))_{ij}\le \Lambda{\rm Id}$ for $x\in B_1$) and with $\|a_{ij}\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}\le M<\infty$ for some $M$.
The proof is essentially the same. As before, we proceed by contradiction, by assuming that there exist sequences $u_k$, $f_k$, and $a_{ij}^{(k)}$ such that
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n a^{(k)}_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} u_k(x) = f_k(x) \quad\textrm{in} \quad B_1,
\]
and \eqref{eq.contr.SAL_2} holds.
The only difference with respect to the Laplacian case is the equation satisfied by $\tilde u_k$. Let us define,
\[
\tilde a_{ij}^{(k)} (x) := a_{ij}^{(k)}(x_k+\rho_k x).
\]
Notice that
\[
[\tilde a^{(k)}_{ij}]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{{1}/{(2\rho_k)}})}\le \rho_k^\alpha[a^{(k)}_{ij}]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}\to 0,\quad\textrm{as}\quad k\to \infty.
\]
In particular, up to subsequences, $\tilde a_{ij}^{(k)}$ converges uniformly in compact sets to some $\tilde a_{ij}$ with $[\tilde a^{(k)}_{ij}]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\mathbb{R}^n)} = 0$, i.e., $\tilde a_{ij}$ is constant. Then $\tilde u_k$ satisfies
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n \tilde a_{ij}^{(k)} \partial_{ij}\tilde u_k = \tilde f_k (x) -\sum_{i,j = 1}^n\frac{\left(a_{ij}^{(k)}(x_k+\rho_k x) - a_{ij}^{(k)}(x_k)\right)\partial_{ij} u_k(x_k)}{\rho_k^\alpha [D^2 u_k]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}}.
\]
Thus,
\begin{align*}
\left|\sum_{i, j = 1}^n \tilde a_{ij}^{(k)} \partial_{ij}\tilde u_k - \tilde f_k (x)\right| & \le \sum_{i,j = 1}^n\frac{|x|^\alpha\rho_k^\alpha [a_{ij}^{(k)}]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}\|\partial_{ij} u_k\|_{L^\infty(B_{1})}}{\rho_k^\alpha [D^2 u_k]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}}\\
& \le C|x|^\alpha \frac{\|D^2 u_k\|_{L^\infty(B_{1})}}{[D^2 u_k]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}} \le C|x|^\alpha \frac{\|D^2 u_k\|_{L^\infty(B_{1})}}{[D^2 u_k]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1/2})}}.
\end{align*}
Using \eqref{eq.contr.SAL_2} we deduce that, for any $x\in B_{\sigma}$ for some fixed $\sigma\in (0, \infty)$, and for $k$ large enough,
\[
\left|\sum_{i, j = 1}^n \tilde a_{ij}^{(k)} \partial_{ij}\tilde u_k - \tilde f_k (x)\right|\le C(\sigma) \frac{\|D^2 u_k\|_{L^\infty(B_{1})}}{[D^2 u_k]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1/2})}}\le \frac{C(\sigma)}{k}.
\]
Taking the limit $k\to \infty$ (and recalling that $\tilde f_k\to 0$ uniformly in compact sets) we get
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n \tilde a_{ij} \partial_{ij}\tilde u = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad \mathbb{R}^n,
\]
an equation with constant coefficients, which is equivalent to $\Delta \tilde u = 0$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$ (see Remark~\ref{rem.constcoef}), and we reach a contradiction as well.
\end{proof}
We can now proceed with the proof of the Schauder estimates in non-divergence form.
Namely, we will show how to go from Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates} to Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates}. As with the previous results, we will do it in two different ways. In this case, however, both ways reduce to the same idea.
\begin{proof}[First Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates}]
Define the semi-norm
\[
[D^2u]_{\alpha; B_1}^* := \sup_{B_\rho(x_\circ)\subset B_1} \rho^{2+\alpha}[D^2u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{\rho/2}(x_\circ))}.
\]
Notice that this norm measures in a precise way how the $C^{2,\alpha}$ norm of $U$ blows up as we approach $\partial B_1$.
From the fact that H\"older semi-norms are sub-additive with respect to unions of convex sets,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.comparable}
[D^2 u]^*_{\alpha; B_1}\le C\sup_{B_\rho(x_\circ)\subset B_1} \rho^{2+\alpha}[D^2u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{\rho/4}(x_\circ))}
\end{equation}
(and, in fact, they are comparable) for some constant $C$ depending only on $\alpha$ and $n$. Indeed, for any fixed ball $B_\rho(x_\circ)\subset B_1$, we cover $B_{\rho/2}(x_\circ)$ with $N$ smaller balls $(B_{\rho/8}(z_j))_{1\le j\le N}$, which, since $B_{\rho/2}(z_j)\subset B_1$, gives
\[
\left(\frac{\rho}{2}\right)^{2+\alpha} [D^2u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{\rho/8}(z_j))} \le \sup_{B_\rho(x_\circ)\subset B_1} \rho^{2+\alpha}[D^2u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{\rho/4}(x_\circ))}.
\]
Thus,
\begin{align*}
\rho^{2+\alpha}[D^2u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{\rho/2}(x_\circ))} & \le \rho^{2+\alpha}\sum_{j = 1}^N [D^2u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{\rho/8}(z_j))}\\
& \le 2^{2+\alpha} N\sup_{B_\rho(x_\circ)\subset B_1} \rho^{2+\alpha}[D^2u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{\rho/4}(x_\circ))}.
\end{align*}
Taking the supremum on the left-hand side gives \eqref{eq.comparable}.
Applying the inequality
\[
[D^2 u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le \delta [D^2 u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1})} + C_\delta\left( \|u\|_{L^\infty( B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right)
\]
from Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates} to any ball $B_{\rho/2}(x_\circ)\subset B_\rho(x_\circ)\subset B_1$ we get
\begin{align*}
\rho^{2+\alpha}[D^2 u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{\rho/4})}& \le \delta\rho^{2+\alpha} [D^2 u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{\rho/2})} + C_\delta\left( \|u\|_{L^\infty( B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right)\\
& \le \delta[D^2 u]^*_{\alpha; B_1} + C_\delta\left( \|u\|_{L^\infty( B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right).
\end{align*}
Taking the supremum and using \eqref{eq.comparable} we get
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{C}[D^2 u]^*_{\alpha; B_1}& \le \sup_{B_\rho(x_\circ)\subset B_1} \rho^{2+\alpha}[D^2u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{\rho/4}(x_\circ))}
\\
& \le \delta[D^2 u]^*_{\alpha; B_1} + C\left( \|u\|_{L^\infty( B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right).
\end{align*}
Now, if we fix a small enough $\delta > 0$, we can absorb the $[D^2 u]^*_{\alpha; B_1}$ term on the left-hand side to get
\[
[D^2 u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le [D^2 u]^*_{\alpha; B_1} \le C_\delta\left( \|u\|_{L^\infty( B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right),
\]
which, after interpolation (see \eqref{ch0-interp2}) gives the desired result.
\end{proof}
We also give an alternative proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates} by directly using the following abstract lemma. Such lemma constitutes a generalization of the previous proof.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem.SAL}
Let $k\in \mathbb{R}$ and $\gamma > 0$. Let $S$ be a non-negative function on the class of open convex subsets of $B_1$, and suppose that $S$ is sub-additive. That is, if $A, A_1, \dots, A_N$ are open convex subsets of $B_1$ with $A\subset \bigcup_{j = 1}^N A_j$, then $S(A) \le \sum_{j = 1}^N S(A_j)$.
Then, there is $\delta > 0$ small (depending only on $n$ and $k$) such that,
if
\[
\rho^k S(B_{\rho/2}(x_\circ))\le \delta \rho^k S(B_\rho(x_\circ))+\gamma \quad\textrm{for all } B_\rho(x_\circ) \subset B_1,
\]
then
\[
S(B_{1/2}) \le C\gamma,
\]
for some $C$ depending only on $n$ and $k$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let
\[
Q := \sup_{B_\rho(x_\circ)\subset B_1} \rho^k S(B_{\rho/2}(x_\circ)).
\]
Thanks to the assumption in the Lemma, we get
\[
\left(\frac{\rho}{2}\right)^k S(B_{\rho/4}(x_\circ))\le \delta \left(\frac{\rho}{2}\right)^k S(B_{\rho/2}(x_\circ))+\gamma\le \delta Q+\gamma,\quad\textrm{for all } B_\rho(x_\circ)\subset B_1.
\]
Taking now the supremum for all $B_\rho(x_\circ)\subset B_1$ we get
\[
\tilde Q := \sup_{B_\rho(x_\circ) \subset B_1} \left(\frac{\rho}{2}\right)^k S(B_{\rho/4}(x_\circ)) \le \delta Q +\gamma.
\]
We now claim that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.claimSAL}
Q \le C\tilde Q,
\end{equation}
for some $C$ depending only on $n$ and $k$. This will yield
\[
\frac{1}{C} Q \le\tilde Q \le \delta Q +\gamma \Rightarrow Q\le \tilde C \gamma
\]
if $\delta > 0$ is small enough depending only on $n$ and $k$. Thus, we have to show \eqref{eq.claimSAL}.
Take any $B_\rho(x_\circ)\subset B_1$, and cover $B_{\rho/2}(x_\circ)$ with a finite collection of smaller balls $B_{\rho/8}(z_j)$ ($j = 1,2,\dots,N$), with $z_j \in B_{\rho/2}(x_\circ)$ and $N\le C$ (universally bounded depending only on the dimension). Since $B_{\rho /2}(z_j)\subset B_1$ we then have
\[
\left(\frac{\rho}{4}\right)^k S(B_{\rho/8}(z_j))\le \tilde Q.
\]
Adding up over all indices $j$, and using the sub-additivity of $S$, we obtain
\[
\rho^k S(B_{\rho/2}(x_\circ))\le \sum_{j = 1}^N \rho^kS(B_{\rho/8}(z_j))\le N 4^k\tilde Q = C\tilde Q.
\]
Taking the supremum, we reach \eqref{eq.claimSAL}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Second Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates}]
We use Lemma~\ref{lem.SAL}, with $k = \alpha$ and
\[
S(A):= [D^2 u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(A)},
\]
which is sub-additive on open convex subsets. From the estimate in Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates}, fixing $\delta>0$ from Lemma~\ref{lem.SAL} (which depends only on $\alpha$ and~$n$) we know
\[
[D^2 u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le C\left( \|u\|_{L^\infty( B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right) + \delta [D^2 u ]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}.
\]
Rescaling\footnote{The rescaling is done by considering the estimate on $u_\rho(x) = u(x_\circ+\rho x)$, which fulfills $\sum a^{(\rho)}_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} u_\rho(x) = \rho^{2}f(x_\circ+\rho x) =: f_\rho(x)$ in $B_1$, with $a_{ij}^{(\rho)}(x) = a_{ij}(x_\circ + \rho x)$ (notice that $\|a_{ij}^{(\rho)}\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}\le \|a_{ij}\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}$). Then, $[D^2 u_\rho]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})} = \rho^{2+\alpha}[D^2 u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{\rho/2}(x_\circ))}$ and $[f_\rho]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1})} = \rho^{2+\alpha}[f]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{\rho}(x_\circ))}$.} to $B_\rho(x_\circ)$ with $\rho \le 1$ we obtain
\begin{align*}
\rho^{2+\alpha}[&D^2u ]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{\rho/2}(x_\circ))} \le \\
&\le \delta \rho^{2+\alpha} [D^2 u ]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_\rho(x_\circ))} \\
&\qquad +C\left( \|u\|_{L^\infty( B_\rho(x_\circ))} + \rho^2 \|f\|_{L^\infty(B_\rho(x_\circ))}+\rho^{2+\alpha}[f]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_\rho(x_\circ))}\right) \\
& \le \delta \rho^{2+\alpha} [D^2 u ]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_\rho)} +C\left( \|u\|_{L^\infty( B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}\right).
\end{align*}
This is exactly
\[
\rho^k S(B_{\rho/2}(x_\circ))\le \delta \rho^k S(B_\rho(x_\circ))+\gamma ,
\]
with
\[
\gamma = C_\delta\left( \|u\|_{L^\infty( B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}\right).
\]
Thus, thanks to Lemma~\ref{lem.SAL}, we immediately deduce
\[
S(B_{1/2})\le C\gamma,
\]
that is,
\[
[D^2 u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le C\left( \|u\|_{L^\infty( B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right).
\]
Therefore, after using interpolation inequalities (see \eqref{ch0-interp2}) we get
\[
\|u\|_{C^{2, \alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le C\left( \|u\|_{L^\infty( B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}\right)
\]
as desired.
\end{proof}
We finish this section by proving Corollary~\ref{cor.Schauder_estimates_HO}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary~\ref{cor.Schauder_estimates_HO}]
We follow the proof of Corollary~\ref{cor.Schauder_estimates_L_HO}. We will show by induction on $k$ that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.toshowknondiv}
\|u\|_{C^{k+2, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C\left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+\|f\|_{C^{k, \alpha}(B_1)}\right)
\end{equation}
for some constant $C$ depending only on $n$, $\alpha$, $k$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, and $\|a_{ij}\|_{C^{k, \alpha}(B_1)}$. We apply the induction hypothesis to derivatives of the equation in non-divergence form.
As in the proof of Corollary~\ref{cor.Schauder_estimates_L_HO}, \eqref{eq.toshowknondiv} deals with balls $B_{1/2}$ and $B_1$, but after a rescaling and covering argument (see Remark~\ref{rem.covering_argument}), it could also be stated in balls $B_{1/2}$ and $B_{3/4}$.
The base case, $k = 0$, already holds by Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates}. Let us now assume that \eqref{eq.toshowknondiv} holds for $k = m-1$, and we will show it for $k = m$.
We differentiate the non-divergence-form equation with respect to $\partial_e$ to get
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n \ a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} \partial_e u (x) = \partial_e f(x)-\sum_{i, j = 1}^n \partial_e a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} u (x) \quad\textrm{in} \quad B_1.
\]
Now, we apply the estimate \eqref{eq.toshowknondiv} with $k = m-1$ to $\partial_e u$ in the previous expression, in balls $B_{1/2}$ and $B_{3/4}$, to get
\begin{align*}
\|\partial_e u\|_{C^{m+1, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} & \le C\bigg(\|\partial_e u\|_{L^\infty(B_{3/4})}+\|\partial_e f\|_{C^{m-1, \alpha}(B_{3/4})} \\
& \qquad\qquad \qquad + \sum_{i, j = 1}^n \|\partial_e a_{ij} \partial_{ij} u\|_{C^{m-1, \alpha}(B_{3/4})} \bigg).
\end{align*}
Notice that
\begin{align*}
\|\partial_e a_{ij} \partial_{ij} u\|_{C^{m-1, \alpha}(B_{3/4})} & \le \|\partial_e a_{ij}\|_{C^{m-1, \alpha}(B_{3/4})}\|\partial_{ij} u\|_{C^{m-1, \alpha}(B_{3/4})}\\
& = C\|\partial_{ij} u\|_{C^{m-1, \alpha}(B_{3/4})}\\
& \le C\left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+\|f\|_{C^{m-1, \alpha}(B_1)}\right),
\end{align*}
where in the last inequality we have used the induction hypothesis in balls $B_{3/4}$ and $B_1$ (see Remark~\ref{rem.covering_argument}). Using that $\|\partial_e u\|_{L^\infty(B_{3/4})}\le \|u\|_{C^{2, \alpha}(B_{3/4})}$ we can use the base case (with balls $B_{3/4}$ and $B_1$) of \eqref{eq.toshowknondiv} to bound this term. In all, we obtain that
\[
\|\partial_e u\|_{C^{m+1, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C\left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+\|f\|_{C^{m-1, \alpha}(B_1)}\right),
\]
which, combined with the base case, and for every $e\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$, yields the desired estimate.
\end{proof}
\section{Schauder estimates for operators in divergence form}
We will next prove Schauder estimates for operators in divergence form. In particular, we will study the equation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.div}
\boxed{
{\rm div} \big(A(x)\nabla u(x)\big) = \sum_{i,j = 1}^n\partial_i\big(a_{ij}(x) \partial_j u(x)\big)= f(x) \quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1,
}
\end{equation}
where $A(x) := (a_{ij}(x))_{ij}$ is uniformly elliptic, and $a_{ij}(x )\in C^{0,\alpha}$.
Notice that, a priori, the expression \eqref{eq.div} does not make sense even for $C^\infty$ functions~$u$: we are taking derivatives of $a_{ij}(x)$, which is only $C^{0,\alpha}$. That is why we need to define a weak notion of solution to \eqref{eq.div}. Thus, we will say that $u\in H^1(B_1)$ solves \eqref{eq.div} weakly if
\[
\int_{B_1} \nabla \phi(y)\cdot A(y) \nabla u(y)\, dy = -\int_{B_1} \phi(y) f(y)\, dy\qquad\textrm{for all}\quad\phi\in C^\infty_c(B_1).
\]
We will prove the following:
\begin{thm}[Schauder estimates in divergence form]\index{Schauder estimates!Divergence form}
\label{thm.Schauder_estimates_div}
Let $u\in C^{1,\alpha}$ be a weak solution to
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n \partial_i\big(a_{ij}(x) \partial_{j} u (x)\big) = f(x) \quad\textrm{in} \quad B_1,
\]
with $f\in L^q(B_1)$ for $q \ge \frac{n}{1-\alpha}$, and $a_{ij}(x) \in C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)$ for some $\alpha\in (0, 1)$, such that $(a_{ij}(x))_{ij}$ fulfills the ellipticity condition
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.ellipt_2}
0< \lambda\,{\rm Id} \le (a_{ij}(x))_{ij} \le\Lambda\,{\rm Id}\quad\textrm{in} \quad B_1,
\end{equation}
for some $0 < \lambda \le\Lambda < \infty$. Then,
\[
\|u\|_{C^{1, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C \left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)} + \|f\|_{L^q(B_1)}\right)
\]
for some constant $C$ depending only on $\alpha$, $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, and $\|a_{ij}\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_1)}$.
\end{thm}
And as a consequence, we also get higher order Schauder estimates for operators in divergence form.
\begin{cor}[Higher order Schauder estimates in divergence form]\index{Higher order Schauder estimates!Divergence form}
\label{cor.Schauder_estimates_div_HO}
Let $u\in C^{k+1,\alpha}$ be a weak solution to
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n \partial_i\big(a_{ij}(x) \partial_{j} u (x)\big) = f(x) \quad\textrm{in} \quad B_1,
\]
with $f\in C^{k-1+\alpha}(B_1)$ and $a_{ij}(x) \in C^{k, \alpha}(B_1)$ for some $\alpha\in (0, 1)$, $k\in\mathbb{N}$, such that $(a_{ij}(x))_{ij}$ fulfills the ellipticity condition \eqref{eq.ellipt_2} for some $0 < \lambda \le\Lambda < \infty$. Then,
\[
\|u\|_{C^{k+1, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C \left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{k-1, \alpha}(B_1)}\right)
\]
for some constant $C$ depending only on $\alpha$, $k$, $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, and $\|a_{ij}\|_{C^{k, \alpha}(B_1)}$.
\end{cor}
\subsection*{The maximum principle} As in the case of operators in non-divergence form, we also have a maximum principle for equations in divergence form.
\begin{prop}[Maximum Principle in divergence form]\index{Maximum principle!Divergence form}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be a bounded open set. Suppose that $u\in H^{1}(\Omega)$ satisfies, in the weak sense,
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n \partial_i \big(a_{ij}(x) \partial_{j} u (x)\big) \ge 0 \quad\textrm{in} \quad \Omega,
\]
where $(a_{ij}(x))_{ij}\in L^\infty(\Omega)$ fulfill the pointwise ellipticity condition,
\[
0< (a_{ij}(x))_{ij} \quad\textrm{in} \quad \Omega.
\]
Then,
\[
\sup_{\Omega} u = \sup_{\partial \Omega} u.
\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We know that, denoting $A(x) = (a_{ij}(x))_{ij}$,
\[
\int_\Omega \nabla \phi \cdot A(x) \nabla u \, dx \le 0\quad\textrm{for all}\quad\phi\in C^\infty_c(\Omega),~\phi \ge 0.
\]
In particular, by approximation (see \ref{it.S7} in Chapter~\ref{ch.0}), the previous expression holds for all $\phi \in H^1_0(\Omega)$ such that $\phi \ge 0$. We take, as test function, $\phi(x) := (u - \sup_{\partial \Omega} u)^+\in H^1_0(\Omega)$, where $f^+ := \max\{f, 0\}$ denotes the positive part. Then,
\[
\int_\Omega \nabla \phi \cdot A(x) \nabla \phi \, dx = \int_\Omega \nabla \phi \cdot A(x) \nabla u \, dx\le 0.
\]
Since $A(x) > 0$, this implies that $\nabla\phi \equiv 0$, and $\phi$ is constant. Since $\phi \in H^1_0(\Omega)$, this implies that $\phi\equiv 0$, that is, $u \le\sup_{\partial\Omega} u$ in $\Omega$, as wanted.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Proof of Schauder estimates}
We proceed with the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_div}. We will do so via a blow-up argument, in the spirit of the second proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_div}]
As in the (second) proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates}, we will show that, for any $\delta > 0$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.contr.SAL_div}
[\nabla u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le \delta[\nabla u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1})}+ C_\delta\left(\|\nabla u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+\|f \|_{L^q(B_1)}\right)
\end{equation}
for all $u \in C^{1,\alpha}(B_1)$ such that
\[
{\rm div}(A(x)\nabla u(x)) = \sum_{i,j= 1}^n \partial_i\left(a_{ij}(x) \partial_j u(x)\right) = f(x),\quad\textrm{weakly in}\quad B_1.
\]
This yields
\[
\|u\|_{C^{1,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le \delta[\nabla u]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1})}+ C_\delta \left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+\|f\|_{L^q(B_1)}\right)
\]
and so, proceeding as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates} by using Lemma~\ref{lem.SAL}, (or, alternatively, adapting the first proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates}), we get the desired result. Let us focus, therefore, on the proof of \eqref{eq.contr.SAL_div}:
Suppose that it does not hold. Then, there exist sequences $u_k\in C^{1, \alpha}(B_1)$ and $f_k\in L^q(B_1)$ for $k\in \mathbb{N}$ such that
\[
{\rm div}\big(A_k(x)u_k(x)\big) = f_k(x)\quad\textrm{weakly in} \quad B_1,
\]
and for a fixed small constant $\delta_\circ >0$ we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.contr.SAL_2_div}
[\nabla u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}> \delta_\circ[\nabla u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1})}+ k\left(\|\nabla u_k\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}+\|f_k\|_{L^q(B_1)}\right).
\end{equation}
We now have to reach a contradiction.
Select $x_k, y_k\in B_{1/2}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.halfeq_div}
\frac{|\nabla u_k(x_k)-\nabla u_k(y_k)|}{|x_k-y_k|^\alpha}\ge \frac12 [\nabla u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}
\end{equation}
and let
\[
\rho_k := \frac{|x_k-y_k|}{2},\quad\textrm{and}\quad z_k := \frac{x_k+y_k}{2}.
\]
Then, as in Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates}, $\rho_k \le Ck^{-\frac{1}{\alpha}} \to 0$ as $ k \to \infty$. Define
\[
\tilde u_k(x) := \frac{u_k(z_k+\rho_k x)+u_k(z_k-\rho_k x)-2u_k(z_k)}{\rho_k^{1+\alpha}[\nabla u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}}.
\]
Then,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.AA1_d}
\tilde u_k(0) = |\nabla \tilde u_k(0)| = 0.
\end{equation}
We remark that here, instead of defining $\tilde u_k$ as in Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates} (i.e., subtracting a quadratic polynomial), we have used second order incremental quotients.
Let us also denote
\[
\xi_k := \frac{y_k-x_k}{2\rho_k}\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}.
\]
Notice that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.AA2_d}
[\nabla \tilde u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}\left(B_{1/(2\rho_k)}\right)} \le 2,\qquad\textrm{and}\qquad |\nabla \tilde u_k (\xi_k)|> \frac{\delta_\circ}{2},
\end{equation}
where for the second inequality we use \eqref{eq.contr.SAL_2_div} and \eqref{eq.halfeq_div}.
Since $\tilde u_k$ are uniformly bounded in compact subsets, and bounded in the $C^{1, \alpha}$ norm (due to \eqref{eq.AA1_d} and \eqref{eq.AA2_d}), it follows by Arzel\`a--Ascoli that the sequence $\tilde u_k$ converges (in the $C^1$ norm) to a $C^{1, \alpha}$ function $\tilde u$ on compact subsets of $\mathbb{R}^n$ (up to a subsequence). Moreover, again up to a subsequence, we have that $\xi_k\to \xi\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$.
By the properties of $\tilde u_k$, we deduce that $\tilde u$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.contradiction2_div}
\tilde u (0) = |\nabla \tilde u(0) | = 0,\quad[\nabla \tilde u ]_{C^{0,\alpha}(\mathbb{R}^n)}\le 2,\quad |\nabla \tilde u(\xi)|>\frac{\delta_\circ}{2}.
\end{equation}
Let us check which equation does $\tilde u_k$ satisfy. Let
\[
\tilde a_{ij}^{(k)} (x) := a_{ij}^{(k)}(z_k+\rho_k x),
\]
so that, as in Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates}, $\tilde a_{ij}^{(k)}$ converges uniformly in compact sets to some $\tilde a_{ij}$ constant. For any $\phi\in C^\infty_c(B_1)$, we know that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.divweknow}
\int_{B_1} \nabla\phi \cdot A_k(x) \nabla u_k = -\int_{B_1} f_k \phi.
\end{equation}
Let $\tilde A_k(x) := A_k(z_k + \rho_k x) = (\tilde a_{ij}^{(k)}(x))_{ij}$. Let $\phi \in C_c^\infty(\mathbb{R}^n)$, and let $k$ be large enough so that ${\rm supp}\, \phi \subset \, B_{1/(2\rho_k)}$. Let
\[
\int \nabla\phi \cdot \tilde A_k(x) \nabla \tilde u_k = \textrm{I} - \textrm{II},
\]
where
\begin{align*}
\textrm{I} & = \frac{1}{\rho_k^{\alpha}[\nabla u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}} \int \nabla\phi(x) \cdot A_k(z_k+\rho_k x) \nabla u_k(z_k+\rho_k x)\, dx \\
& = \frac{1}{\rho_k^{\alpha}[\nabla u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}} \int \nabla_y\left(\phi\left(\rho_k^{-1}(y-z_k)\right)\right) \cdot A_k(y) \nabla u_k(y) \rho_k^{-n+1}\, dy\\
& = \frac{-\rho_k^{1-\alpha}}{[\nabla u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}} \int \phi (x) f_k(z_k+\rho_k x) \, dx,
\end{align*}
thanks to \eqref{eq.divweknow}, and
\[
\textrm{II} = \frac{1}{\rho_k^{\alpha}[\nabla u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}} \int \nabla\phi(x) \cdot A_k(z_k+\rho_k x) \nabla u_k(z_k-\rho_k x)\, dx = \textrm{II}_{i} + \textrm{II}_{ii}.
\]
Here, we have denoted by $\textrm{II}_i$ and $\textrm{II}_{ii}$ the following quantities:
\[
\textrm{II}_i = \frac{1}{\rho_k^{\alpha}[\nabla u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}} \int \nabla\phi(x) \cdot (A_k(z_k+\rho_k x) - A_k(z_k-\rho_k x)) \nabla u_k(z_k-\rho_k x)\, dx
\]
and
\begin{align*}
\textrm{II}_{ii}& = \frac{1}{\rho_k^{\alpha}[\nabla u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}} \int \nabla\phi(x) \cdot A_k(z_k-\rho_k x) \nabla u_k(z_k-\rho_k x)\, dx \\
& = \frac{\rho_k^{1-\alpha}}{[\nabla u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}} \int \phi (x) f_k(z_k-\rho_k x) \, dx.
\end{align*}
Let us now show that
\[
\left|\int \nabla\phi \cdot \tilde A_k \nabla \tilde u_k \right|\to 0,\quad\textrm{as}\quad k\to \infty
\]
for all $\phi \in C^\infty_c(\mathbb{R}^n)$, by bounding each term separately.
Notice that, for $\frac{1}{q}+\frac{1}{q'} = 1$,
\begin{align*}
\left|\int \phi (x) f_k(z_k+\rho_k x) \, dx \right|& \le \left(\int |\phi|^{q'}\right)^{\frac{1}{q'}}\left(\int |f_k(z_k+\rho_k x)|^q\, dx\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}
\\
& \le C(\phi) \|f_k\|_{L^q(B_1)}\rho_k^{-\frac{n}{q}}.
\end{align*}
Then,
\[
|\textrm{I}|\le C(\phi)\rho_k^{1-\alpha-\frac{n}{q}}\frac{\|f_k\|_{L^q(B_1)}}{[\nabla u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}} \le C(\phi)\rho_k^{1-\alpha-\frac{n}{q}}k^{-1}\to 0,\quad\textrm{as}\quad k \to \infty,
\]
as long as $1-\alpha-\frac{n}{q}\ge 0$, that is, $q \ge \frac{n}{1-\alpha}$. In the last step we have used \eqref{eq.contr.SAL_2_div}. Similarly,
\[
|\textrm{II}_{ii}|\to 0,\quad\textrm{as}\quad k \to \infty,
\]
since $q \ge \frac{n}{1-\alpha}$. Finally,
\begin{align*}
|\textrm{II}_i|& \le \frac{[A_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}}{[\nabla u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}} \int |\nabla\phi| |x|^\alpha \|\nabla u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\, dx\\
& \le C(\phi) \frac{\|\nabla u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}}{[\nabla u_k]_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_1)}} \le \frac{C(\phi)}{k}\to 0,\quad\textrm{as}\quad k \to \infty.
\end{align*}
Here, we used again \eqref{eq.contr.SAL_2_div}. That is, $|\textrm{II}_i|\to 0 $ uniformly in compact sets of~$\mathbb{R}^n$.
Then we conclude that, for any $\phi\in C_c^\infty(\mathbb{R}^n)$,
\[
\left|\int \nabla\phi \cdot \tilde A_k(x) \nabla \tilde u_k \right| \to 0,\quad\textrm{as}\quad k \to \infty.
\]
By taking limits, up to a subsequence we will have that $\tilde A_k\to \tilde A$ uniformly in compact sets, where $\tilde A$ is a constant coefficient matrix.
Thus, we deduce that
\[
\int \nabla\phi \cdot \tilde A \nabla \tilde u = 0\quad\textrm{for all}\quad \phi\in C_c^\infty(\mathbb{R}^n).
\]
This means that, after a change of variables, $\tilde u$ is harmonic (recall Remark~\ref{rem.constcoef}). By Liouville's theorem (Proposition~\ref{cor.Liouville}) we obtain that $\nabla \tilde u$ must be constant (since it is harmonic, and $[\nabla \tilde u]_{C^{0, \alpha}(\mathbb{R}^n)}\le 2$). However, $\nabla \tilde u (0) = 0$ and $\nabla \tilde u (\xi)\neq 0$ (see \eqref{eq.contradiction2_div}), a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary~\ref{cor.Schauder_estimates_div_HO}]
We proceed by induction on $k$. The case $k = 0$ is due to Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_div}. Then, let us assume that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.inddiv}
\|u\|_{C^{k+1, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C \left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)} + \|f\|_{C^{k-1,\alpha}(B_1)}\right)
\end{equation}
holds for all $k \le m-1$, and let us show it for $k = m$.
To do so, notice that, since $a_{ij}(x) \in C^{m, \alpha}$, and $m \ge 1$, we can compute the derivatives in the divergence-form equation, to get
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} u = f(x)-\sum_{i, j = 1}^n \partial_ia_{ij}(x) \partial_{j} u \quad\textrm{in} \quad B_1,
\]
that is, a non-divergence-form equation, where the right-hand side is in $C^{m-1, \alpha}$. Applying the higher order Schauder estimates for equations in non-divergence form, Corollary~\ref{cor.Schauder_estimates_HO} (in balls $B_{1/2}$ and $B_{3/4}$), we get that
\begin{align*}
\|u\|_{C^{m+1, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} & \le C \bigg(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_{3/4})} + \|f\|_{C^{m-1,\alpha}(B_{3/4})}+ \\
& \qquad\qquad + \sum_{i, j = 1}^n \|\partial_i(a_{ij})\|_{C^{m-1, \alpha}(B_{3/4})} \|\partial_{j} u \|_{C^{m-1, \alpha}(B_{3/4})}\bigg),
\end{align*}
that is,
\[
\|u\|_{C^{m+1, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C \bigg(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_{3/4})} + \|f\|_{C^{m-1,\alpha}(B_{3/4})} + \| u \|_{C^{m, \alpha}(B_{3/4})}\bigg),
\]
where the constant $C$ depends only on $n$, $\alpha$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, and $\|a_{ij}\|_{C^{m, \alpha}(B_1)}$. Using now the hypothesis induction, \eqref{eq.inddiv} for $k = m-1$, in balls $B_{3/4}$ and $B_1$, completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{The case of continuous coefficients}
Let us finish this chapter by studying equations in divergence and non-divergence form with continuous coefficients.
In this section we establish a priori Schauder estimates for \eqref{eq.mainEPDE} and \eqref{eq.mainEPDE_div} whenever $a_{ij}\in C^0(B_1)$ (and the right-hand side is bounded or in $L^n$ respectively). This kind of estimates will be useful in the next chapters.
In this limiting case (when $\alpha \downarrow 0$), one could extrapolate from the previous results that the solution has respectively bounded $C^2$ and $C^1$ norm. However, this is not true.
We will show, instead, that we gain \emph{almost} two derivatives. Namely, for any $\varepsilon > 0$, the solution has bounded $C^{2-\varepsilon}$ and $C^{1-\varepsilon}$ norm. More precisely, we prove below the following results:
\begin{prop}
\label{prop.Schauder_estimates_cont}\index{Schauder estimates for continuous coefficients!Non-divergence form}
Let $u\in C^{2}$ be any solution to
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} u = f(x) \quad\textrm{in} \quad B_1,
\]
with $f\in L^\infty(B_1)$ and $a_{ij} \in C^{0}(B_1)$ for some $(a_{ij}(x))_{ij}$ satisfying \eqref{eq.ellipt} for some $0 < \lambda \le\Lambda$. Then, for any $\varepsilon > 0$,
\[
\|u\|_{C^{1, 1-\varepsilon}(B_{1/2})} \le C_\varepsilon \left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)} + \|f\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\right)
\]
for some constant $C_\varepsilon$ depending only on $\varepsilon$, $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, and $(a_{ij})_{ij}$.
\end{prop}
That is, we are not gaining two {\it full} derivatives, but instead we are losing an arbitrarily small factor. This loss is paired with the fact that the constant $C_\varepsilon$ diverges when $\varepsilon\downarrow 0$; see \cite{JMV09, EM17} for counterexamples in the case $\varepsilon = 0$. This is also consistent with what occurs with the Laplacian (see the counterexample at the beginning of Section~\ref{sec.Sch_Lap}).
We remark that the dependence of $C$ on $(a_{ij})_{i,j}$ in the previous proposition is a dependence on the modulus of continuity of $(a_{ij})_{i,j}$. That is, if $\omega: [0, \infty)\to [0, \infty)$ is a continuous monotone function with $\omega(0) = 0$ and such that
\[
|a_{ij}(x)-a_{ij}(y)|\le\omega(|x-y|), \quad\textrm{for all}\quad x, y\in B_1,
\]
then the constant in the previous proposition depends on $\omega$ rather than on~$(a_{ij})_{i,j}$.
For divergence-form equations we have the following:
\begin{prop}
\label{prop.Schauder_estimates_div}\index{Schauder estimates for continuous coefficients!Divergence form}
Let $u\in C^{1}$ be a weak solution to
\[
\sum_{i, j = 1}^n \partial_i\big(a_{ij}(x) \partial_{j} u\big) = f(x) \quad\textrm{in} \quad B_1,
\]
with $f\in L^n(B_1)$ and $a_{ij}(x) \in C^{0}(B_1)$ satisfying the ellipticity conditions \eqref{eq.ellipt_2} for some $0 < \lambda \le\Lambda$. Then, for any $\varepsilon > 0$,
\[
\|u\|_{C^{1-\varepsilon}(B_{1/2})} \le C_\varepsilon \left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)} + \|f\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\right)
\]
for some constant $C_\varepsilon$ depending only on $\varepsilon$, $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, and $(a_{ij})_{ij}$.
\end{prop}
The proofs of the previous two propositions are analogous to those of the Schauder estimates for operators in non-divergence and divergence form respectively.
We give short sketches of the proofs of Propositions~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates_cont} and \ref{prop.Schauder_estimates_div} that contain all the essential information regarding the steps to take.
\begin{proof}[Sketch of the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates_cont}]
We give a short sketch of the proof in the case $(a_{ij}(x))_{ij} = {\rm Id}$, and leave the details to the reader. The proof sketched follows the same steps and arguments as the second proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates}.
Proceeding analogously, and after using Lemma~\ref{lem.SAL}, (cf. first or second proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates}), we just need to show that for any $\delta > 0$
\[
[\nabla u]_{C^{1-\varepsilon}(B_{1/2})} \le \delta [\nabla u]_{C^{1-\varepsilon}(B_{1})} + C_\delta(\|\nabla u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)} + \|f\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}),
\]
for some $C_\delta$.
By contradiction, suppose that we have a sequence $f_k\in L^\infty(B_1)$, $u_k\in C^2(B_1)$, and coefficients $(a_{ij}^{(k)})_{ij}$ with a common modulus of continuity, such that $\sum_{i, j= 1}^n a_{ij}^{(k)}\partial_{ij} u_k = f_k$ and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.contr.SAL_2_CC}
[\nabla u_k]_{C^{1-\varepsilon}(B_{1/2})} > \delta_\circ [\nabla u_k]_{C^{1-\varepsilon}(B_{1})} + k(\|\nabla u_k\|_{L^\infty(B_1)} + \|f_k\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}),
\end{equation}
for some $\delta_\circ > 0$.
Select $x_k, y_k\in B_{1/2}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.halfeq_CC}
\frac{|\nabla u_k(x_k)-\nabla u_k(y_k)|}{|x_k-y_k|^{1-\varepsilon}}\ge \frac12 [\nabla u_k]_{C^{1-\varepsilon}(B_{1/2})}
\end{equation}
and let $\rho_k := |x_k-y_k|$, so that as in the second proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates} $\rho_k\downarrow 0$. Define
\[
\tilde u_k(x) := \frac{u_k(x_k+\rho_k x)-u_k(x_k) - \rho_k \nabla u_k(x_k)\cdot x}{\rho_k^{2-\varepsilon}[\nabla u_k]_{C^{1-\varepsilon}(B_1)}}\]
and
\[
\quad\tilde f_k(x) := \rho_k^{\varepsilon}\frac{f_k(x_k+\rho_k x)-f_k(x_k)}{[\nabla u_k]_{C^{1-\varepsilon}(B_1)}},
\]
so that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.equation_visc}
\tilde u_k(0) = |\nabla \tilde u_k(0)| = 0,\qquad \sum_{i, j = 1}^n \tilde a_{ij}^{(k)}\partial_{ij} \tilde u_k = \tilde f_k\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_{1/(2\rho_k)}.
\end{equation}
where
\[
\tilde a_{ij}^{(k)}(x) := a^{(k)}_{ij}(z_k +\rho_k x).
\]
Denoting $\xi_k := \frac{y_k-x_k}{\rho_k}\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$, we have
\[
[\nabla \tilde u_k]_{C^{1-\varepsilon}\big(B_{\frac{1}{2\rho_k}}\big)} \le 1,\qquad\textrm{and}\qquad \big|\nabla \tilde u_k (\xi_k)\big|> \frac{\delta_\circ}{2},
\]
by means of \eqref{eq.contr.SAL_2_CC} and \eqref{eq.halfeq_CC}.
As in Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates}, $\tilde u_k$ converges (up to a subsequence and in the $C^1$ norm) to a $C^{1,1-\varepsilon}$ function $\tilde u$ on compact subsets of $\mathbb{R}^n$, and $\xi_k\to \xi\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$. Furthermore, \[
\tilde u (0) = |\nabla \tilde u(0) | = 0,\quad[\nabla \tilde u ]_{C^{1-\varepsilon}(\mathbb{R}^n)}\le 1,\quad |\nabla \tilde u(\xi)|>\frac{\delta_\circ}{2}.
\]
On the other hand, for any $R\ge 1$ we have
\begin{align*}
\|\tilde f_k\|_{L^\infty(B_R)} & \le \frac{\rho_k^\varepsilon} {k}\to 0,\textrm{ as } k \to \infty,
\end{align*}
and that, from the uniform modulus of continuity of $a_{ij}^{(k)}$, $\tilde a_{ij}^{(k)}(x) \to \tilde a_{ij}$
locally uniformly in $\mathbb{R}^n$, where the limiting coefficients $\tilde a_{ij}$ are constant. At this point, in the equation \eqref{eq.equation_visc} the coefficients converge locally uniformly to constant coefficients, and the solutions $\tilde u_k$ converge simply in $C^1$. The passage to the limit is now more involved than before: in order to do it, we need the notion of viscosity solutions (see Definition~\ref{ch0-viscosity} and Section~\ref{sec.43}) and the fact that they are stable under uniform limits (see Proposition~\ref{prop.stability_viscosity}). In all, we can show that the limiting $\tilde u$ satisfies
\[
\sum_{i, j= 1}^n \tilde a_{ij}\partial_{ij}\tilde u = 0 \qquad\text{in}\quad \mathbb{R}^n
\]
(in the viscosity sense). Hence, the limiting solution $\tilde u$ is harmonic (after changing variables) and we reach a contradiction as in the second proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates}.
\end{proof}
In order to prove the convergence of the sequence in the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates_div} we will need the following lemma:
\begin{lem}
\label{lem.takelim}
Let $u\in H^1(B_1)$ satisfy
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.theequation}
{\rm div}(A (x)\nabla u(x)) = f(x)\quad\text{in}\quad B_1,
\end{equation}
in the weak sense, for some $f\in L^2(B_1)$ and $A(x) = (a_{ij}(x))_{ij}$ uniformly elliptic with ellipticity constants $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$ (see \eqref{eq.ellipt}). Then
\[
\|\nabla u\|_{L^{2}(B_{1/2})}\le C(\|u\|_{L^2(B_1)}+\|f\|_{L^2(B_1)})
\]
for some $C$ depending only on $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, and $n$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let us prove the lemma in the case $A(x)$ is symmetric for all $x\in B_1$.
Let $\eta\in C^\infty_c(B_1)$ be arbitrary with $\eta \equiv 1$ in $B_{1/2}$, and observe that
\[
\int_{B_{1/2}} |\nabla u|^2 \le C \int_{B_1} \nabla (u\eta) \cdot A(x) \nabla (u\eta) \, dx
\]
by ellipticity. In particular, since $A(x)$ is symmetric for all $x\in B_1$ we can use that $\nabla(u\eta)\cdot A \nabla(u\eta) = u^2 \nabla \eta\cdot A\nabla\eta + \nabla(u\eta^2) \cdot A\nabla u$ and the equation \eqref{eq.theequation} to get
\[
\int_{B_{1/2}} |\nabla u|^2 \le C \int_{B_1} u^2 |\nabla \eta|^2 + C\int_{B_1} |fu|\eta^2.
\]
By H\"older's inequality, we get the desired estimate. We refer to the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem.energyinequality} for more details on the proof and on the non-symmetric case in a very similar situation.
\end{proof}
Let us now give the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates_div}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates_div}]
The proof is by contradiction and proceeds as the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_div}, with the analogous modifications introduced in the Sketch of the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates_cont} with respect to the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates}.
Observe that, in this case, we should define $\tilde u_k(x)$ as first order incremental quotients:
\[
\tilde u_k(x) = \frac{u_k(x_k + \rho_k x) -u_k(x_k)}{\rho_k^{1-\varepsilon} [u_k]_{C^{1-\varepsilon}(B_1)}}
\]
so that we directly have (differently from the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_div}) that $\tilde u_k$ satisfies:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.takelim}
{\rm div}(\tilde A_k(x)\nabla \tilde u_k(x)) = \tilde f_k(x)\quad\text{in}\quad B_{{1}/{(2\rho_k)}},\qquad \tilde f_k(x) = \frac{\rho_k^{1+\varepsilon} f_k(x_k +\rho_k x)}{[u_k]_{C^{1-\varepsilon}(B_1)}},
\end{equation}
in the weak sense, where $\tilde A_k(x) := A_k(x_k + \rho_k x)$ and $\|\tilde f_k\|_{L^n(B_{1/(2\rho_k)})}\downarrow 0$ as $k\to \infty$. In particular, $\tilde A_k(x)$ converges to some constant matrix $\tilde A_\infty$ locally uniformly by uniform continuity of $A_k$.
On the other hand, observe that each $\tilde u_k$ is in $H^1$ (since they are $C^1$ by assumption), and they are locally uniformly in $L^2$ (since they are uniformly locally bounded). Hence, we can apply Lemma~\ref{lem.takelim} to get that $\tilde u_k$ are locally uniformly bounded in $H^1$. In particular, by \ref{it.S4} from Chapter~\ref{ch.0} (see \eqref{ch0-weak-conv}) $\nabla \tilde u_k$ converges weakly to $\nabla \tilde u_\infty$. Thus:
\[
\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} \nabla \phi \cdot \tilde A_k\nabla \tilde u_k \to \int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\nabla \phi \cdot \tilde A_\infty \nabla \tilde u_\infty\quad\text{as}\quad k\to \infty, \quad \text{for all }\phi\in C^\infty_c(\mathbb{R}^n),
\]
and from \eqref{eq.takelim} we have that $u_\infty$ is harmonic (after changing variables) in $\mathbb{R}^n$. The contradiction is now reached, again, by the Liouville theorem, Proposition~\ref{cor.Liouville}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
The blow-up technique is a common tool in analysis that has great versatility. In particular, the technique presented in this section is due to L. Simon, \cite{Sim}, and can be applied in a similar fashion to many different situations.
We have seen the technique applied in interior a priori estimates for linear second-order equations, both in divergence and non-divergence form, and blow-up arguments like the one presented above can be adapted also to boundary estimates, parabolic equations, nonlinear equations, and even integro-differential equations.
\end{rem}
\section{Boundary regularity}
We finish the chapter by stating the corresponding results to Corollaries~\ref{cor.Schauder_estimates_L} and \ref{cor.Schauder_estimates_L_HO} for the global (up to the boundary) estimates, for a sufficiently smooth domain.
For the sake of readability we state the result for the Laplacian, but there exists an analogous result for uniformly elliptic equations in non-divergence form (with the corresponding regularity on the coefficients).
\begin{thm}[Boundary regularity]\index{Boundary regularity Laplace equation}
\label{thm.Global_Schauder_estimates}
Let $\alpha\in (0, 1)$ and $k\in \mathbb{N}$ with $k\ge 2$, and let $\Omega$ be a bounded $C^{k, \alpha}$ domain of $\mathbb{R}^n$. Let $u\in H^1({\Omega})$ be a weak solution to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.glob_eq}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta u &=& f& \textrm{in }\Omega\\
u & = & g& \textrm{on }\partial \Omega,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
for some $f\in C^{k-2,\alpha}(\overline{\Omega})$, $g\in C^{k,\alpha}(\partial\Omega)$.
Then, $u\in C^{k,\alpha}(\overline{\Omega})$ and
\[
\|u\|_{C^{k, \alpha}(\overline\Omega)}\le C\left(\|f\|_{C^{k-2,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)}+\|g\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(\partial \Omega)}\right),
\]
for some constant $C$ depending only on $\alpha$, $n$, $k$, and $\Omega$.
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
Notice that in this case we do not need a term $\|u\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}$ on the right-hand side because, thanks to the maximum principle (Lemma~\ref{lem.maxPrinciple_2}),
\[
\max_{\overline{\Omega}} u \le C\left(\max_{\partial \Omega} g+ \|f\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}\right)
\]
for some $C$ depending only on $\Omega$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, and $M$.
\end{rem}
Theorem~\ref{thm.Global_Schauder_estimates} can be proved using similar techniques (correspondingly adapted) to the ones in the previous sections: after a blow-up, points near the boundary behave like in a local problem in the half-space (that is, the blow-up flattens $\partial\Omega$), and we can reach a contradiction with Liouville's theorem in the half-space.
One might wonder what happens under lower regularity assumptions on the domain (we refer to \cite{Ken94, K} for further reading in this direction). In such case, similar regularity results hold in $C^{1,\alpha}$ (and even $C^1$) domains, but when $\Omega$ is merely Lipschitz, almost all regularity is lost. Namely, assume that $u$ solves \eqref{eq.glob_eq}, with $f$ and $g$ smooth enough. Then,
\begin{itemize}
\item If $\Omega$ is a $C^{1,\alpha}$ domain, then solutions are $C^{1, \alpha}(\overline{\Omega})$.
\item If $\Omega$ is a $C^1$ domain, then solutions are $C^{1-\varepsilon}(\overline{\Omega})$ for all $\varepsilon > 0$, but not $C^{0,1}(\overline{\Omega})$ in general.
\item If $\Omega$ is a Lipschitz domain, then solutions are $C^\gamma(\overline{\Omega})$ for some small $\gamma > 0$ that depends on the Lipschitz norm of the domain, and this is optimal.
\end{itemize}
We see that, if $\Omega$ is a Lipschitz domain, then essentially all regularity is lost. If one thinks on the blow-up and compactness method, it is clear that Lipschitz domains are quite different from $C^1$. Indeed, Lipschitz domains do \emph{not} get flatter by doing a blow-up (they remain Lipschitz, with the same Lipschitz norm). Thus, one cannot improve regularity by blowing up. Solutions turn out to be $C^\gamma$ for some small $\gamma > 0$ and, in general, not better.
\endinput
\chapter{Nonlinear variational PDE \& Hilbert's XIXth problem}
\label{ch.2}
\vspace{-2cm}
{\it \small Eine der begrifflich merkw\"urdigsten Thatsachen in den Elementen der Theorie der analytischen Functionen erblicke ich darin, da{\ss} es partielle Differentialgleichungen giebt, deren Integrale s\"amtlich notwendig analytische Funktionen der unabh\"angigen Variabeln sind, die also, kurz gesagt, nur analytischer L\"osungen f\"ahig sind.}
\begin{flushright}
--- David Hilbert (1900).
\end{flushright}
\vspace{0.4cm}
Up until this point, we have studied linear elliptic PDEs. In this chapter we start the study of {\em nonlinear} elliptic PDEs.
More precisely, we study {\em variational} nonlinear PDEs, that is, those that appear in the Calculus of Variations (minimizing an energy functional). In particular, our main goal is to introduce and solve Hilbert's XIXth problem\footnote{The original statement by Hilbert says that ``{\it there exist partial differential equations whose integrals are all of necessity analytic functions of the independent variables, that is, in short, equations susceptible of none but analytic solutions}'', and refers to solutions to what he calls ``regular variational problems'', involving convex (in $\nabla w$) and analytic operators of the form $L(\nabla w, w, x)$. We deal here with $L(\nabla w)$ for simplicity.}.
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{center}
\fbox{
\begin{minipage}{0.85\textwidth}
\vspace{1.5mm}
\noindent \ $\bullet$\ \textbf{\underline{\smash{Hilbert's XIXth problem (1900)}}}\index{Hilbert XIXth problem}: Consider any local minimizer of energy functionals of the form
\[
\mathcal{E}(w) := \int_\Omega L(\nabla w) \, dx,
\]
where $L:\mathbb{R}^n\to \mathbb{R}$ is smooth and uniformly convex, and $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$.
Is is true that all local minimizers to this type of problems are smooth?
\vspace{2mm}
\end{minipage}
}
\end{center}
\vspace{2mm}
Notice that, given a boundary condition
\[
u = g \quad\textrm{on}\quad\partial \Omega,
\]
one can show that there is a unique minimizer to this problem, $u\in H^1(\Omega)$, with $u|_{\partial\Omega} = g$. That is, there exists a unique $u\in H^1(\Omega)$ such that $u$ minimizes the functional $\mathcal{E}(w) := \int_\Omega L(\nabla w)\, dx$, among all functions $w\in H^1(\Omega)$ such that $w|_{\partial \Omega} = g$. We will be more precise about this in the first two sections of this chapter.
The question in Hilbert's XIXth problem is that of {\em regularity}: Is such minimizer $u$ smooth?
\begin{rem}[On the convexity assumption]
\label{rem.conv}
The uniform convexity of the function is what gives us existence and uniqueness of a minimizer (see Theorem~\ref{thm.existuniq} below). Moreover, from the point of view of regularity, if $L$ is not convex and reaches its minimum at two different points, then even in dimension $n = 1$ there exist counterexamples to regularity.
If $n = 1$ and $L$ has a minimum at two points $p_1< p_2$, then we can construct Lipschitz only minimizers zigzagging with slopes $p_1$ and $p_2$ (e.g., if $p_1 = -1$ and $p_2 = 1$, then $u(x) =|x|$ would be a minimizer).
Thus, the convexity assumption is needed.
\end{rem}
\section{Overview}
\label{sec.overview}
Hilbert's XIXth problem as posed above is a generalization of the minimization of the Dirichlet integral,
\[
\int_\Omega|\nabla w |^2\, dx.
\]
Local minimizers of the Dirichlet integral verify the corresponding Euler--Lagrange equation, which in this case is the Laplace equation
\[
\Delta w = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad\Omega.
\]
Solutions to this PDE, as seen in Chapter~\ref{ch.1}, are known to be $C^\infty$ in the interior of~$\Omega$.
Thus, the Dirichlet integral case $L(p) = |p|^2$ is extremely simple. Surprisingly, the general case is far more difficult, and its resolution took more than 50 years.
First, let us be more precise about the problem: by a {\em local minimizer} of $\mathcal{E}(w) =\int_\Omega L(\nabla w) \, dx$, we mean a function $u\in H^1(\Omega)$ such that
\[
\mathcal{E}(u)\le \mathcal{E}(u+\phi)\quad\textrm{for all}\quad\phi\in C^\infty_c(\Omega).
\]
The {\em uniform convexity } of the functional is equivalent to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.unifconv}
0<\lambda {\rm Id}\le D^2L(p)\le\Lambda{\rm Id}\quad\textrm{for all}\quad p \in \mathbb{R}^n,
\end{equation}
(i.e., uniform convexity of $L$). Notice the analogy with the uniform ellipticity from the previous chapter.
Now, what is the PDE satisfied by minimizers of $\mathcal{E}(u)$? (Namely, the Euler--Lagrange equation of the problem.) If $u\in H^1(\Omega)$ is a local minimizer, then
\[
\mathcal{E}(u)\le \mathcal{E}(u+\varepsilon\phi)\quad\textrm{for all}~~\phi\in C^\infty_c(\Omega), \quad\textrm{and all}~~\varepsilon \in \mathbb{R}.
\]
Hence,
\[
\int_\Omega L(\nabla u)\, dx\le \int_\Omega L(\nabla u + \varepsilon \nabla \phi)\, dx\quad\textrm{for all}~~\phi\in C^\infty_c(\Omega), \quad\textrm{and all}~~\varepsilon \in \mathbb{R},
\]
and thus, as a function of $\varepsilon$, it has a minimum at $\varepsilon = 0$. Taking derivatives in $\varepsilon$ we reach
\[
0 = \frac{d}{d\varepsilon}\bigg|_{\varepsilon = 0}\int_\Omega L(\nabla u + \varepsilon\nabla \phi)\, dx = \int_\Omega DL(\nabla u)\nabla \phi\, dx.
\]
The {\em weak formulation} of the Euler--Lagrange equation is then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.var_nonlinear2}
\int_\Omega DL(\nabla u)\nabla \phi\, dx = 0\quad\textrm{for all}~~\phi\in C^\infty_c(\Omega).
\end{equation}
That is, $u$ solves in the weak sense the PDE
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.var_nonlinear}
\boxed{
{\rm div} \left(DL(\nabla u )\right) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad\Omega.
}
\end{equation}
(This derivation will be properly justified in Theorem~\ref{thm.existuniq} below.)
If $u$ is $C^2$, \eqref{eq.var_nonlinear} is equivalent to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.uisC2}
\sum_{i,j = 1}^n(\partial_{ij}L)(\nabla u)\partial_{ij} u = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad\Omega.
\end{equation}
By uniform convexity of $L$, this is a (nonlinear) {\em uniformly elliptic} PDE. What can we say about the regularity of $u$?
\subsection*{Regularity of local minimizers: First approach}
Let us assume that $u$ is smooth enough so that it solves \eqref{eq.uisC2}. We can regard \eqref{eq.uisC2} as a linear equation with variable coefficients, by denoting
\[
a_{ij}(x):= (\partial_{ij} L)(\nabla u(x) ),
\]
and we notice that, by uniform convexity of $L$, we have
\[
0< \lambda\,{\rm Id}\le (a_{ij}(x))_{ij}\le \Lambda\,{\rm Id}.
\]
Moreover, if $\nabla u\in C^{0,\alpha}$, then $a_{ij}\in C^{0,\alpha}$. In particular, using Schauder estimates (see Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates}), we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.sch_int}
u\in C^{1,\alpha}\Rightarrow a_{ij}\in C^{0,\alpha}\Rightarrow u \in C^{2, \alpha}.
\end{equation}
We can then bootstrap the regularity and get $C^\infty$:
\[
u \in C^{2, \alpha}\Rightarrow \nabla u \in C^{1,\alpha}\Rightarrow a_{ij}\in C^{1,\alpha}\Rightarrow u \in C^{3,\alpha}\Rightarrow\dots\Rightarrow u\in C^\infty.
\]
In fact, using the linear estimates for continuous coefficients, one can actually get $u\in C^1\Rightarrow a_{ij}\in C^0\Rightarrow u\in C^{1,\alpha}$. We remark that while the previous implications are true at a formal level, we did not properly argue the use of Schauder estimates. Indeed, our results for Schauder estimates in both non-divergence form (Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates}) and divergence form (Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_div}) are {\it a priori}, i.e., they already assume regularity on $u$. We show how to use them in Theorem~\ref{thm.C1aimpCinf} below to prove the results we want and expect.
\subsection*{Equations with bounded measurable coefficients}
\index{Equation in divergence form with bounded measurable coefficients}
We have argued that using perturbative results for linear equations (Schauder estimates), one expects to prove that
\[
u\in C^1\quad \Longrightarrow \quad u\in C^\infty.
\]
However, this approach does not allow us to prove any regularity if we do not know a priori that $u \in C^1$. The main open question in Hilbert's XIXth problem was then
\[
\textrm{is it true that } u \in H^1\Rightarrow u \in C^1~\textrm{?}
\]
This problem was open for many years, and it was finally solved (independently and almost at the same time) by De Giorgi \cite{deGiorgi} and Nash \cite{Nash0, Nash}.
\begin{thm}[De Giorgi--Nash]\index{De Giorgi--Nash}
\label{thm.DN_short}
Let $u$ be a local minimizer of
\[
\mathcal{E}(w) = \int_\Omega L(\nabla w)\, dx,
\]
with $L$ uniformly convex and smooth. Then, $u\in C^{1,\alpha}$ for some $\alpha > 0$.
\end{thm}
This theorem solved Hilbert's XIXth problem.
In order to show regularity of local minimizers $u$ of $\mathcal{E}(w) = \int_\Omega L(\nabla w)\, dx$, with $w\in H^1(\Omega)$, we first notice that they solve (in the weak sense) the nonlinear elliptic equation
\[
{\rm div}\left(DL(\nabla u)\right) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega.
\]
The first idea in the proof is to consider derivatives of $u$, $v = \partial_e u$, and to show that they solve an elliptic PDE as well.
If we differentiate the equation ${\rm div}\left(DL(\nabla u)\right) = 0$ with respect to $e\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$, we get
\[
{\rm div}\left(D^2L(\nabla u )\nabla\partial_e u\right) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad\Omega.
\]
Denoting (as before) $v :=\partial_e u$, $a_{ij}(x) := \partial_{ij}L (\nabla u (x) )$ and $A(x) := \left(a_{ij}(x)\right)_{ij}$, we can write this equation as
\[
{\rm div}\left(A(x)\nabla v\right) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad\Omega.
\]
This is a linear, uniformly elliptic equation in divergence form, but we do not have \emph{any} regularity of $A(x)$ in the $x$-variable. We only know that the equation is uniformly elliptic.
This is called a (uniformly elliptic) equation in divergence form with {\em bounded measurable coefficients}. (Recall that the uniform convexity of $L$ yields $0<\lambda{\rm Id}\le A(x) \le \Lambda{\rm Id}$.)
De Giorgi and Nash established a new regularity result for such type of equations, see Theorem~\ref{thm.DGN_Om}.
The aim of this Chapter is to provide a complete and detailed proof of the solution to Hilbert's XIXth problem. We will follow De Giorgi's approach.
\section{Existence and basic estimates}
We start by showing the existence and uniqueness of minimizers of $\mathcal{E}$ among the class of $H^1(\Omega)$ functions with prescribed boundary data. That is, we want a statement analogous to Theorem~\ref{ch0-existence}, but with the functional involving $L$ instead. We recall that we denote by $u|_{\partial\Omega}$ the trace of $u$ on $\partial\Omega$; see \ref{it.S5} in Chapter~\ref{ch.0}.
\begin{thm}[Existence and uniqueness of minimizers]\index{Existence and uniqueness!Minimizers convex functional}
\label{thm.existuniq}
Assume that $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is any bounded Lipschitz domain, and that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.nonempt}
\left\{w\in H^1(\Omega) : w|_{\partial\Omega} = g\right\} \neq \varnothing.
\end{equation}
Let $L:\mathbb{R}^n\to \mathbb{R}$ be smooth and uniformly convex, see \eqref{eq.unifconv}. Let
\[
\mathcal{E}(w) := \int_\Omega L(\nabla w) \, dx.
\]
Then, there exists a unique minimizer $u\in H^1(\Omega)$ with $u|_{\partial\Omega} = g$. Moreover, $u$ solves \eqref{eq.var_nonlinear} in the weak sense.
\end{thm}
In order to prove the existence and uniqueness theorem for minimizers, we need first to show the following result on the lower semi-continuity of the energy in this context. We provide two different proofs.
\begin{lem}[Lower semi-continuity of the functional]\label{lem.lscE} Let $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ be a bounded domain. Let $L:\mathbb{R}^n\to \mathbb{R}$ be smooth and uniformly convex, see \eqref{eq.unifconv}; and let
\[
\mathcal{E}(w) := \int_\Omega L(\nabla w) \, dx.
\]
Then, $\mathcal{E}$ is weakly lower semi-continuous in $H^1(\Omega)$. That is, if $H^1(\Omega)\ni w_k \rightharpoonup w\in H^1(\Omega)$ weakly in $H^1(\Omega)$, then
\[
\mathcal{E}(w) \le \liminf_{k\to \infty}\mathcal{E}(w_k).
\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}[First proof]
Let us define the set
\[
\mathcal{A}(t) := \left\{v\in H^1(\Omega) : \mathcal{E}(v) \le t\right\}.
\]
Notice that, by convexity of $\mathcal{E}$, $\mathcal{A}(t)$ is convex as well. Let us show that it is closed, i.e., if $\mathcal{A}(t) \ni w_k \to w$ strongly in $H^1(\Omega)$, then $w\in \mathcal{A}(t)$. This simply follows by noticing that, up to a subsequence, $\nabla w_k \to \nabla w$ almost everywhere, so that, by Fatou's lemma,
\[
\mathcal{E}(w) = \int_\Omega L(\nabla w) \le \liminf_{k\to \infty} \int_\Omega L(\nabla w_k) \le t,
\]
that is, $w\in \mathcal{A}(t)$. Therefore, $\mathcal{A}(t)$ is closed (with respect to the $H^1(\Omega)$ convergence), and it is convex. By a standard result in functional analysis (closed and convex sets are weakly closed; see, for example, \cite[Theorem 3.7]{Brezis}), $\mathcal{A}(t)$ is also closed under weak convergence; namely, if $\mathcal{A}(t) \ni w_k\rightharpoonup w$ weakly in $H^1(\Omega)$ then $w\in \mathcal{A}(t)$.
Let us now consider a sequence weakly converging in $H^1(\Omega)$, $w_k \rightharpoonup w$, and let us denote $t^* := \liminf_{k\to \infty}\mathcal{E}(w_k)$. For any $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists some subsequence $k_{j,\varepsilon}$ such that $w_{k_{j,\varepsilon}} \rightharpoonup w$ weakly in $H^1(\Omega)$ and $\mathcal{E}(w_{k_{j,\varepsilon}}) \le t^* + \varepsilon$. That is, $w_{k_{j, \varepsilon}}\in \mathcal{A}(t^*+\varepsilon)$, and therefore, since $\mathcal{A}(t)$ is weakly closed (in $H^1(\Omega)$) for all $t$, we have $w\in \mathcal{A}(t^*+\varepsilon)$ and $\mathcal{E}(w) \le t^*+\varepsilon$. Since this can be done for any $\varepsilon > 0$, we reach that $\mathcal{E}(w) \le t^*$, and therefore, we have shown the weak lower semi-continuity of $\mathcal{E}$ in $H^1(\Omega)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Second proof]
Let us prove the lower semi-continuity of the functional by means of a different proof, from \cite{Mag11}. We will actually show that if $u_k, u \in W^{1,1}(\Omega)$ and $u_k \to u$ in $L^1_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$, then
\[
\int_\Omega L(\nabla u) \le \liminf_{k\to \infty} \int_\Omega L(\nabla u_k).
\]
In particular, since $\Omega$ is bounded, we can apply this result to the sequences in $H^1(\Omega)$ converging weakly in $H^1(\Omega)$ (by \ref{it.S2} from Chapter~\ref{ch.0}). Let $\eta\in C^\infty_c(B_1)$ be a smooth function with $\eta \ge 0$ and $\int_{B_1} \eta = 1$, and let $\eta_\varepsilon(x) = \varepsilon^{-n} \eta(x/\varepsilon)$, so that we can consider the mollifications
\[
(u_k)_\varepsilon (x) := (u_k * \eta_\varepsilon)(x) = \int_{B_\varepsilon} u(x-y) \eta_\varepsilon(y) \, dy,\qquad u_\varepsilon(x) := (u*\eta_\varepsilon)(x).
\]
Let $\Omega'\subset \Omega$ be such that for all $x\in \Omega'$, $B_\varepsilon(x)\subset \Omega$. In particular, since $u_k\to u$ in $L^1_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$, we have $\nabla (u_k)_\varepsilon(x) \to \nabla u_\varepsilon(x)$ for every $x\in \Omega'$. From the smoothness of $L$ we also have that $L(\nabla (u_k)_\varepsilon(x) ) \to L(\nabla u_\varepsilon(x) ) $ and by Fatou's lemma (recall that we may assume $L\ge 0$)
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.comb_with}
\int_{\Omega'} L(\nabla u_\varepsilon)\le \liminf_{k\to \infty} \int_{\Omega'} L(\nabla (u_k)_\varepsilon).
\end{equation}
Noticing now that $\nabla (u_k)_\varepsilon = (\nabla u_k)_\varepsilon$ and using Jensen's inequality (since $L$ is convex and $\int \eta_\varepsilon = 1$) we have
\[
L(\nabla (u_k)_\varepsilon) = L \left(\int_{B_\varepsilon(x)} \eta_\varepsilon(x-y) \nabla u_k (y)\, dy\right) \le \int_{B_\varepsilon(x)} \eta_\varepsilon(x-y) L(\nabla u_k(y))\, dy
\]
which leads to
\begin{align*}
\int_{\Omega'} L(\nabla (u_k)_\varepsilon) & \le \int_{\Omega'}\left\{\int_{B_\varepsilon(x)}\eta_\varepsilon(x-y) L(\nabla u_k(y))\, dy\right\}\, dx\\
& \le \int_{I_\varepsilon(\Omega')}L(\nabla u_k(y)) \int_{B_\varepsilon(y)\cap \Omega'} \eta_\varepsilon(x-y)\, dx\, dy\le \int_\Omega L(\nabla u_k),
\end{align*}
where $I_\varepsilon(\Omega')\subset \Omega$ denotes an $\varepsilon$-neighborhood of $\Omega'$. Combined with \eqref{eq.comb_with}, this yields
\[
\int_{\Omega'}L(\nabla u_\varepsilon) \le \liminf_{k\to \infty} \int_{\Omega} L (\nabla u_k).
\]
Now, since $u\in W^{1,1}(\Omega)$, we have $\nabla u_\varepsilon \to \nabla u$ as $\varepsilon\downarrow 0$ almost everywhere in $\Omega'$ and so, again by Fatou's Lemma, we can let $\varepsilon\downarrow 0$ to deduce
\[
\int_{\Omega'}L(\nabla u) \le \liminf_{k\to \infty}\int_{\Omega} L(\nabla u_k).
\]
By taking an increasing sequence of sets $\Omega'$ whose union is $\Omega$ we reach the desired result.
\end{proof}
We can now prove Theorem~\ref{thm.existuniq}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.existuniq}]
We divide the proof into three different parts.
\\[0.1cm]
{\it \underline{\smash{Step 1}}.} If $u$ is a local minimizer, then it solves \eqref{eq.var_nonlinear} in the weak sense. This follows from the fact that
\[
\int_\Omega L(\nabla u)\, dx\le \int_\Omega L(\nabla u + \varepsilon \nabla \phi)\, dx\quad\textrm{for all}~~\varepsilon,\quad\textrm{for all}~~\phi\in C^\infty_c(\Omega).
\]
Indeed, notice that the integrals are bounded ($L$ being uniformly convex, i.e., at most quadratic at infinity, and $\nabla u \in L^2$). Since $L$ is smooth, we can take a Taylor expansion
\[
L(\nabla u+\varepsilon \nabla \phi) \le L(\nabla u) + \varepsilon DL(\nabla u) \nabla \phi + \frac{\varepsilon^2}{2}|\nabla \phi|^2 \sup_{p \in \mathbb{R}^n} \left|D^2 L(p)\right|.
\]
Recalling from \eqref{eq.unifconv} that $\left|D^2 L\right|$ is bounded by $\Lambda$, and plugging it back into the integral we obtain
\[
- \Lambda \frac{\varepsilon}{2}|\nabla \phi|^2 \le \int_\Omega DL(\nabla u) \nabla \phi \, dx\quad \textrm{for all}~~\varepsilon>0,\quad\textrm{for all}~~\phi\in C^\infty_c(\Omega).
\]
Letting $\varepsilon$ go to zero, we reach that
\[
\int_\Omega DL(\nabla u) \nabla \phi \, dx\ge 0\quad\textrm{for all}~~\phi\in C^\infty_c(\Omega).
\]
On the other hand, taking $-\phi$ instead of $\phi$, we reach the equality \eqref{eq.var_nonlinear2}, as we wanted to see.
\\[0.1cm]
{\it \underline{\smash{Step 2}}.} Let us now show the existence of a solution.
Since $L$ is uniformly convex (see \eqref{eq.unifconv}) it has a unique minimum. That is, there exists $p_L\in \mathbb{R}^n$ such that $L(p) \ge L(p_L)$ for all $p\in\mathbb{R}^n$. In particular, since $L$ is smooth, $\nabla L(p_L) = 0$ and thus, from the uniform convexity \eqref{eq.unifconv} we have that
\[
0 <\lambda |p|^2 \le L(p - p_L) - L(p_L) \le \Lambda|p|^2,\quad\textrm{for all}\quad p\in\mathbb{R}^n.
\]
Without loss of generality, by taking $\tilde L(p) = L(p-p_L) - L(p_L)$ if necessary, we may assume that $L(0) = 0$ and $\nabla L(0) = 0$, so that we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.unifconv2}
0 <\lambda |p|^2 \le L(p) \le \Lambda|p|^2,\quad\textrm{for all}\quad p\in\mathbb{R}^n.
\end{equation}
(Notice that we may assume that because if $u$ is a minimizer for $L$, then $u+\langle p_L, x\rangle$ is a minimizer for $\tilde L$, since the domain is bounded and therefore the integral of $L(p_L)$ is finite.)
Let
\[\mathcal{E}_\circ=\inf\left\{\int_{ \Omega} L(\nabla w)\,dx\,:\, w\in H^1( \Omega),\ w|_{\partial \Omega}=g\right\},\]
that is, the infimum value of $\mathcal E(w)$ among all admissible functions $w$. Notice that, by assumption \eqref{eq.nonempt}, such infimum exists. Indeed, if $w\in H^1(\Omega)$, by \eqref{eq.unifconv2} we have that
\[
\mathcal{E}(w) = \int_{ \Omega} L(\nabla w) \le \Lambda \int_{ \Omega} |\nabla w|^2 = \Lambda \|\nabla w \|^2_{L^2( \Omega)}< \infty
\]
that is, the energy functional is bounded for functions in $H^1(\Omega)$.
Let us take a minimizing sequence of functions. That is, we take $\{u_k\}$ such that $u_k\in H^1(\Omega)$, $u_k|_{\partial\Omega}=g$, and $\mathcal E(u_k)\to \mathcal{E}_\circ$ as $k\to\infty$. We begin by showing that $\mathcal{E}(u_k)$ are bounded, and that $u_k$ is a sequence bounded in $H^1(\Omega)$. By \eqref{eq.unifconv2},
\[
\lambda\|\nabla u_k\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)} \le \lambda\int_\Omega |\nabla u_k |^2 \le \int_{\Omega} L(\nabla u_k) \le \mathcal{E}(u_k) < \infty,
\]
That is, since $\mathcal{E}(u_k)$ is uniformly bounded (being a convergent sequence with non-infinite elements), we reach that $ \|\nabla u_k\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}$ is uniformly bounded.
Thus, by the Poincar\'e inequality (see Theorem~\ref{ch0-Poinc}) the sequence $u_k$ is uniformly bounded in $H^1(\Omega)$.
In particular, there exists a subsequence $u_{k_j}$ converging strongly in $L^2(\Omega)$ and weakly in $H^1(\Omega)$ to some $u\in H^1(\Omega)$, $u_k \rightharpoonup u$ weakly in $H^1(\Omega)$. By the weak lower semi-continuity (Lemma~\ref{lem.lscE}) we reach that
\[
\mathcal{E}(u) \le \liminf_{k\to \infty}\mathcal{E}(u_k) = \mathcal{E}_\circ,
\]
so that $\mathcal{E}(u) = \mathcal{E}_\circ$ (by minimality) and therefore $u$ is a minimizer.
\\[0.1cm]
{\it \underline{\smash{Step 3}}.} We finish the proof by showing the uniqueness of such minimizer.
This follows from the uniform convexity. Indeed, since $L$ is uniformly convex, if $p\neq q$, then
\[
\frac{L(p) + L(q)}{2} > L\left(\frac{p+q}{2}\right).
\]
Let $u, v \in H^1(\Omega)$ be two distinct minimizers with the same boundary data ($\mathcal{E}(u) = \mathcal{E}(v) = \mathcal{E}_\circ$). In particular, $\nabla u \not\equiv \nabla v$ in $\Omega$, so that $U := \{x\in \Omega : \nabla u \neq \nabla v\} \subset\Omega$ has positive measure. Thus,
\[
\frac{L(\nabla u) + L(\nabla v)}{2} > L\left(\frac{\nabla u +\nabla v}{2}\right)\quad\textrm{in}\quad U,
\]
so that, since $|U| > 0$,
\[
\frac12 \int_U \big\{L(\nabla u) + L(\nabla v)\big\} > \int_U L\left(\frac{\nabla u +\nabla v}{2}\right).
\]
Since the integrals are equal in $\Omega\setminus U$, we reach
\[
\mathcal{E}_\circ = \frac12 \int_\Omega \big\{L(\nabla u) + L(\nabla v)\big\} > \int_\Omega L\left(\frac{\nabla u +\nabla v}{2}\right) \ge \mathcal{E}_\circ,
\]
where the last inequality comes from the minimality of $\mathcal{E}_\circ$. We have reached a contradiction, and thus, the minimizer is unique.
\end{proof}
We next give a complete and rigorous proof of the formal argumentation from the previous section, where we explained that $C^1$ solutions are $C^\infty$.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm.C1aimpCinf}
Let $u\in H^1(\Omega)$ be a local minimizer of
\[
\mathcal{E}(w) =\int_\Omega L(\nabla w)\, dx,
\]
with $L$ uniformly convex and smooth. Assume that $u\in C^{1}$. Then $u\in C^\infty$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We know that if $u\in C^1$ and $u$ is a minimizer of $\mathcal{E}(w)$, then
\[
\int_\Omega DL(\nabla u(x))\nabla \phi(x)\, dx = 0\quad\textrm{for all }\phi\in C^\infty_c(\Omega).
\]
Let $h\in \mathbb{R}^n$, and assume that $|h|$ is small. We have, in particular, that
\[
\int_\Omega \bigg(DL(\nabla u(x+h))-DL(\nabla u(x))\bigg)\nabla \phi(x)\, dx = 0\quad\textrm{for all }\phi\in C^\infty_c(\Omega_h),
\]
where $\Omega_h := \{x\in \Omega: {\rm dist}(x, \partial\Omega) > |h|\}$. Notice that, by the fundamental theorem of calculus for line integrals, we can write
\begin{align*}
&DL(\nabla u(x+h))-DL(\nabla u(x)) = \\
&\qquad= \int_0^1 D^2 L\bigg(t\nabla u(x+h)+(1-t)\nabla u(x)\bigg) \bigg(\nabla u(x+h)-\nabla u(x)\bigg) \, dt.
\end{align*}
If we define
\[
\tilde A(x) := \int_0^1 D^2 L\bigg(t\nabla u(x+h)+(1-t)\nabla u(x)\bigg)\, dt,
\]
then $\tilde A(x)$ is uniformly elliptic (since $L$ is uniformly convex), and continuous (since $L$ is smooth and $\nabla u$ is continuous). Then, by the previous argumentation,
\[
\int_\Omega \nabla \left(\frac{u(x+h)-u(x)}{|h|}\right)\cdot \tilde A(x) \nabla \phi(x)\, dx = 0\quad\textrm{for all }\phi\in C^\infty_c(\Omega_h),
\]
that is, $\frac{u(\cdot+h)-u}{|h|}$ solves weakly
\[
{\rm div}\left(\tilde A(x)\nabla \left[\frac{u(x+h)-u(x)}{|h|}\right]\right) = 0\quad\textrm{for }x\in \Omega_h.
\]
Moreover, notice that $\frac{u(\cdot+h)-u}{|h|}$ is $C^1$ for all $h\neq 0$, since $u$ is $C^1$. Thus, by the Schauder-type estimates for operators in divergence form and continuous coefficients(Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates_div}),
\[
\left\|\frac{u(\cdot+h)-u}{|h|}\right\|_{C^{\beta}(B_{\rho/2}(x_\circ))} \le C(\rho) \left\|\frac{u(\cdot+h)-u}{|h|}\right\|_{L^\infty(B_\rho(x_\circ))} \le C,
\]
for all $B_\rho(x_\circ) \subset \Omega_h$ and $\beta\in (0,1)$. In the last inequality we used that $\nabla u$ is continuous (and thus, bounded). Notice that the constant $C(\rho)$ is independent of $h$ (but might depend on $\beta$). In particular, from \ref{it.H7} in Chapter~\ref{ch.0}, namely \eqref{eq.H7} with $\alpha = 1$, we obtain that $u \in C^{1, \beta}(\overline{\Omega_h})$ for all $h\in \mathbb{R}^n$. Letting $|h|\downarrow 0$ we get that $u \in C^{1, \beta}$ inside $\Omega$.
We want to repeat the previous reasoning, noticing now that $\tilde A(x)$ is $C^{0, \beta}$ (since $\nabla u\in C^{0, \beta}$ and $L$ is smooth). That is, $\frac{u(\cdot+h)-u}{|h|}\in C^{1,\beta}(\Omega)$ and fulfills
\[
{\rm div}\left(\tilde A(x)\nabla\left[\frac{u(x+h)-u(x)}{|h|}\right]\right) = 0\quad\textrm{for }x\in \Omega_h,
\]
in the weak sense, with $\tilde A\in C^{\beta}$ and uniformly elliptic. By Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates_div},
\[
\left\|\frac{u(\cdot+h)-u}{|h|}\right\|_{C^{1, \beta}(B_{\rho/2})} \le C(\rho) \left\|\frac{u(\cdot+h)-u}{|h|}\right\|_{L^\infty(B_\rho)} \le C,
\]
for all $B_\rho\subset\Omega_h$, and again, thanks to \ref{it.H7}, \eqref{eq.H7}, we obtain that $u \in C^{2, \beta}(\Omega)$. We can now proceed iteratively using the higher order interior Schauder estimates in divergence form (Corollary~\ref{cor.Schauder_estimates_div_HO}) to obtain that $u\in C^k(\Omega)$ for all $k\in \mathbb{N}$, i.e, $u\in C^\infty$ inside $\Omega$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
Notice that in the formal proof \eqref{eq.sch_int} we were using Schauder estimates in non-divergence form, since we were already assuming that the solution $u$ was $C^2$. Here, in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.C1aimpCinf}, we need to \emph{differentiate} the equation (in incremental quotients) and then we obtain an equation in divergence form whose coefficients have the right regularity. Thus, in the actual proof we are using Schauder estimates for equations in divergence form instead.
\end{rem}
\section{De Giorgi's proof}
The result of De Giorgi and Nash regarding the regularity of solutions to equations with bounded measurable coefficients is the following (see the discussion in Section~\ref{sec.overview}).
\begin{thm}[De Giorgi--Nash]\index{De Giorgi--Nash}\index{Equation in divergence form with bounded measurable coefficients}
\label{thm.DGN_Om}
Let $v\in H^1(\Omega)$ be any weak solution to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.divformA}
{\rm div}\left(A(x)\nabla v\right) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad\Omega,
\end{equation}
with $0<\lambda{\rm Id}\le A(x) \le \Lambda{\rm Id}$. Then, there exists some $\alpha > 0$ such that $v\in C^{0,\alpha}(\tilde\Omega)$ for any $\tilde \Omega\subset\subset\Omega$, with
\[
\|v\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\tilde\Omega)}\le C\|v\|_{L^2(\Omega)}.
\]
The constant $C$ depends only on $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, $\Omega$, and $\tilde\Omega$. The constant $\alpha > 0$ depends only on $n$, $\lambda$, and $\Lambda$.
\end{thm}
This theorem yields Theorem~\ref{thm.DN_short}, and combined with previous discussions, solved Hilbert's XIXth problem. Indeed, if $u\in H^1(\Omega)$ is any local minimizer of $\mathcal{E}(w) =\int_\Omega L(\nabla w)\, dx$, then any derivative of $u$, $v = \partial_e u$, solves \eqref{eq.divformA}.
Thanks to Theorem~\ref{thm.DGN_Om} we will have
\[
u\in H^1(\Omega)\Rightarrow v\in L^2(\Omega)\xRightarrow[\begin{subarray}{c}\rm De Giorgi\\ \rm -Nash\end{subarray}]{} v\in C^{0,\alpha}(\tilde \Omega)\Rightarrow u \in C^{1,\alpha}\xRightarrow[\rm Schauder]{} u \in C^\infty.
\]
This will be proved in detail in Section~\ref{sec.solution}.
Theorem~\ref{thm.DGN_Om} is significantly different in spirit than all the results on elliptic regularity which existed before.
Most of the previous results can be seen as perturbation of the Laplace equation (they are perturbative results). In Schauder-type estimates, we always use that, when zooming in a solution at a point, the operator gets closer and closer to the Laplacian.
In De Giorgi's theorem, this is not true anymore. The uniform ellipticity is preserved by scaling, but the equation is not better, nor closer to the Laplace equation.
\subsection*{General ideas of the proof}
We will follow the approach of De Giorgi.
From now on, we denote $\mathcal{L}$ any operator of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.mL}
\mathcal{L} v := -{\rm div}(A(x)\nabla v),\quad
\begin{array}{l}
\textrm{where $A(x)$ is uniformly elliptic}\\
\textrm{with ellipticity constants $0 < \lambda\le\Lambda$}.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
By a standard covering argument (cf. Remark~\ref{rem.covering_argument}), we only need to prove the estimate for $\Omega = B_1$ and $\tilde \Omega = B_{1/2}$.
Throughout the proof, we will use that, if $v$ solves $\mathcal{L}v = 0$, then $\tilde v (x) := C v(x_\circ+rx)$ solves an equation of the same kind, $\tilde{\mathcal{L}} \tilde v = 0$, for some operator $\tilde{\mathcal{L}}$ with the same ellipticity constants as $\mathcal{L}$ --- given by $\tilde{\mathcal{L}} \tilde v = {\rm div}\big(A(x_\circ + rx) \nabla \tilde v\big)$.
De Giorgi's proof is split into two steps:
\\[1mm]
\underline{\smash{First step:}} Show that $\|v\|_{L^\infty} \le C\|v\|_{L^2}$
\\[1mm]
\underline{\smash{Second step:}} Show that $\|v\|_{C^{0,\alpha}}\le C\|v\|_{L^\infty}$.
\vspace{1mm}
In the first step, we work on the family of balls (see Figure~\ref{fig.7})
\[
\tilde B_k := \left\{x : |x|\le \frac12+2^{-k-1} \right\}.
\]
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{./Figures/fig7.pdf}
\caption{Representation of the family of balls $\tilde B_k$.}
\label{fig.7}
\end{figure}
Note that $\tilde B_0 = B_1$, and $\tilde B_k$ converges to $B_{1/2}$ as $k\to \infty$.
We assume $\|v\|_{L^2(B_1)}\leq \delta\ll 1$ and then consider the truncated functions
\[
v_k:= (v-C_k)_+\quad\textrm{with}\quad C_k := 1-2^{-k},
\]
and the numbers
\[
V_k \approx \int_{\tilde B_k}|v_k|^2\, dx.
\]
Then, the main point is to derive an estimate of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.boundUk}
V_k\le C^k V_{k-1}^\beta\quad\textrm{for some}\quad\beta > 1,
\end{equation}
for some constant $C$ depending only on $n$, $\lambda$, and $\Lambda$. This previous inequality implies that $V_k\to 0$ as $k\to \infty$ if $V_0$ is small enough.
In particular, $v_\infty = (v-1)_+$ is equal to zero in $B_{1/2}$, and so $v \le 1$ in $B_{1/2}$.
Notice that our equation $\mathcal{L}v = 0$ in $B_1$ is linear, while the bound \eqref{eq.boundUk} is nonlinear. The ``game'' consists in using the Sobolev inequality (which gives control of $L^p$ norms of $v_k$ in terms of $L^2$ norms of $\nabla v_k$), combined with an energy inequality, which gives a ``reversed'' Poincar\'e inequality, i.e., a control of $\|\nabla v_k\|_{L^2}$ in terms of $\|v_k\|_{L^2}$.
Once we have the first step $v\in L^2\Rightarrow v \in L^\infty$, the second step consists of showing an oscillation-decay lemma
\[
\mathcal{L}v = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1\quad\Longrightarrow \quad \osc_{B_{1/2}} v \le (1-\theta)\osc_{B_1} v.
\]
This implies the $C^{0,\alpha}$ regularity of $v$ (as we saw in Corollary~\ref{cor.Holder_regularity_1}).
In the next proofs we follow \cite{CV10, Vas16}.
\subsection*{De Giorgi's first step: from $L^2$ to $L^\infty$}
The two main ingredients are the Sobolev inequality
\[
\|v\|_{L^p(\mathbb{R}^n)}\le C\|\nabla v\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)},\qquad p = \frac{2n}{n-2},
\]
(see Theorem~\ref{ch0-Sob}) and the following energy inequality (the Caccioppoli inequality):
\begin{lem}[Energy inequality] \index{Energy inequality}
\label{lem.energyinequality}
Let $v\in H^1(B_1)$ with $v \ge 0$ such that $\mathcal{L} v \le 0$ in $B_1$, for some $\mathcal{L}$ of the form \eqref{eq.mL}. Then, for any $\varphi\in C^\infty_c(B_1)$ we have
\[
\int_{B_1}|\nabla (\varphi v)|^2\, dx \le C\|\nabla \varphi\|^2_{L^\infty(B_1)}\int_{B_1\cap {\rm supp }\, \varphi} v^2\, dx,
\]
where $C$ depends only on $n$, $\lambda$, and $\Lambda$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Notice that the weak formulation of $-{\rm div}(A(x)\nabla v)\le 0$ in $B_1$ is
\[
\int_{B_1} \nabla \eta\cdot A (x) \nabla v\, dx\le 0\quad\textrm{for all}\quad\eta\in H^1_0(B_1), \eta\ge 0.
\]
Take $\eta = \varphi^2v$, to get
\[
\int_{B_1} \nabla(\varphi^2v)\cdot A (x)\nabla v \, dx \le 0.
\]
Now, we want to ``bring one of the $\varphi$ from the first gradient to the second gradient''. Indeed, using
\begin{align*}
\nabla (\varphi^2 v)& = \varphi\nabla (\varphi v) +(\varphi v)\nabla \varphi,\\
\nabla (\varphi v)& = \varphi\nabla v +v\nabla \varphi,
\end{align*}
we get
\begin{align*}
0& \ge \int_{B_1} \nabla(\varphi^2 v)\cdot A(x) \nabla v\, dx\\
& = \int_{B_1} \varphi \nabla(\varphi v)\cdot A (x)\nabla v\, dx+\int_{B_1}\varphi v \,\nabla\varphi \cdot A (x)\nabla v\, dx\\
& = \int_{B_1} \nabla(\varphi v)\cdot A(x) \nabla(\varphi v)\, dx-\int_{B_1}v \nabla(\varphi v)\cdot A (x) \nabla \varphi\, dx\\
& \hspace{6cm}+\int_{B_1}\varphi v \, \nabla \varphi\cdot A (x)\nabla v\, dx\\
& = \int_{B_1} \nabla(\varphi v)\cdot A (x)\nabla(\varphi v)\, dx - \int_{B_1}v \nabla(\varphi v)\cdot( A(x)-A^T(x)) \nabla\varphi \, dx
\\
& \hspace{6cm}-\int_{B_1}v^2\nabla \varphi \cdot A (x) \nabla \varphi\, dx.
\end{align*}
Let us first bound the term involving $(A - A^T)$. By H\"older's inequality, using the uniform ellipticity of $A$ and that $(A - A^T)^2 \le 4\Lambda^2{\rm Id}$, we get
\begin{align*}
\int_{B_1} v \nabla(& \varphi v)\cdot( A(x)-A^T(x)) \nabla\varphi \, dx \\
& \le \left(\int_{B_1} |v\,( A(x)-A^T(x)) \nabla\varphi|^2 \, dx \right)^{\frac12}\left(\int_{B_1} |\nabla(\varphi v)|^2 \, dx \right)^{\frac12}\\
& \le 2\frac{\Lambda}{\lambda^{\frac12}}\left(\int_{B_1} |v\nabla\varphi|^2 \, dx \right)^{\frac12}\left(\int_{B_1} \nabla(\varphi v)A(x)\nabla(\varphi v) \, dx \right)^{\frac12}\\
& \le \frac12 \int_{B_1} \nabla(\varphi v)A(x)\nabla(\varphi v) \, dx + 2\frac{\Lambda^2}{\lambda}\int_{B_1} |v\nabla\varphi|^2\, dx,
\end{align*}
where in the last inequality we are using that $2ab \le a^2 + b^2$. Combining the previous inequalities, we obtain that
\[
2\frac{\Lambda^2}{\lambda}\int_{B_1} |v\nabla\varphi|^2\, dx \ge \frac12 \int_{B_1} \nabla(\varphi v)\cdot A(x) \nabla(\varphi v)\, dx -\int_{B_1}v^2\nabla \varphi \cdot A(x) \nabla \varphi\, dx.
\]
Therefore, we deduce
\begin{align*}
\lambda\int_{B_1}|\nabla (\varphi v)|^2\, dx& \le \int_{B_1}\nabla (\varphi v)\cdot A(x) \nabla (\varphi v)\, dx \\
& \le 2 \int_{B_1} v^2\,\nabla \varphi\cdot A(x) \nabla \varphi\, dx+4\frac{\Lambda^2}{\lambda}\int_{B_1} |v\nabla\varphi|^2\, dx\\
& \le \left(2\Lambda + 4 \frac{\Lambda^2}{\lambda}\right) \|\nabla \varphi\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}^2\int_{B_1\cap {\rm supp}\, \varphi} v^2\, dx,
\end{align*}
and the lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
We will use the energy inequality (from the previous lemma) applied to the function
\[
v_+:= \max\{v, 0\}.
\]
Before doing so, let us show that if $\mathcal{L}v \le 0$ (i.e., $v$ is a subsolution), then $\mathcal{L}v_+ \le 0$ (i.e., $v_+$ is a subsolution as well). (More generally, the maximum of two subsolutions is always a subsolution.)
\begin{lem}
\label{lem.pospartSH}
Let $\mathcal{L}$ be of the form \eqref{eq.mL}, let $v\in H^1(B_1)$ be such that $\mathcal{L} v \le 0$ in $B_1$. Then, $\mathcal{L} v_+ \le 0$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We proceed by approximation. Let $F\in C^\infty(\mathbb{R})$ be a smooth, non-decreasing, convex function, with globally bounded first derivatives. We start by showing that $\mathcal{L}(F(v))\le 0$ in $B_1$.
Notice that if $v\in W^{1, 2}(B_1)$, then $F(v) \in W^{1, 2}(B_1)$ as well.
We know that $\mathcal{L}(v) \le 0$, i.e.,
\[
\int_{B_1} \nabla \eta\cdot A \nabla v\, dx\le 0\quad\textrm{for all}\quad\eta\in H^1_0(B_1), \eta\ge 0.
\]
Let us now compute, for any fixed $\eta\in H^1_0(\Omega)$ satisfying $\eta\ge 0$, $\mathcal{L}(F(v))$. Notice that the weak formulation still makes sense.
\begin{align*}
\int_{B_1} \nabla \eta\cdot A \nabla F(v)\, dx & = \int_{B_1} F'(v) \nabla \eta\cdot A \nabla v\, dx\\
& = \int_{B_1} \nabla (F'(v)\eta)\cdot A \nabla v\, dx-\int_{B_1} \eta F''(v) \nabla v\cdot A \nabla v\, dx.
\end{align*}
The first term is non-positive, since $F'(v) \eta\in H^1_0(B_1)$ and $F'(v) \ge 0$ ($F$ is non-decreasing), so that $F'(v) \eta$ is an admissible test function. The second term is also non-positive, since $\eta F''(v) \ge 0$ and $\nabla v \cdot A \nabla v \ge 0$ by ellipticity (and the integral is well defined, since $\eta F''(v)$ can be assumed to be bounded by approximation, and $\int_{B_1} \nabla v \cdot A \nabla v \le \Lambda \|\nabla v\|_{L^2(B_1)}^2$). Therefore,
\[
\int_{B_1} \nabla \eta\cdot A \nabla F(v)\, dx \le 0,
\]
and the proof is complete. We finish by taking smooth approximations of the positive part function, $F_\varepsilon$, converging uniformly in compact sets to $F(x) = \max\{x, 0\}$. Notice that this can be done in such a way that $\|F_\varepsilon(v)\|_{W^{1, 2}(B_1)}\le C$, for some $C$ independent of $\varepsilon > 0$, which gives the desired result.
\end{proof}
We want to prove the following.
\begin{prop}[from $L^2$ to $L^\infty$]
\label{prop.L2Linfty}
Let $\mathcal{L}$ be of the form \eqref{eq.mL}, and let $v\in H^1(B_1)$ be a solution to
\[
\mathcal{L}v \le 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1.
\]
Then
\[
\|v_+\|_{L^\infty(B_{1/2})}\le C\|v_+\|_{L^2(B_1)},
\]
for some constant $C$ depending only on $n$, $\lambda$, and $\Lambda$.
\end{prop}
We will prove, in fact, the following (which is actually equivalent):
\begin{prop}[from $L^2$ to $L^\infty$]
\label{prop.L2Linfty_2}
Let $\mathcal{L}$ be of the form \eqref{eq.mL}. There exists a constant $\delta > 0$ depending only on $n$, $\lambda$, and $\Lambda$, such that if $v\in H^1(B_1)$ solves
\[
\mathcal{L}v \le 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1\quad\text{and}\quad
\int_{B_1}v_+^2 \le \delta,
\]
then
\[
v\le 1\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_{1/2}.
\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Define, as introduced in the general ideas of the proof, for $k\ge 0$,
\[
\tilde B_k := \left\{|x|\le \frac12+2^{-k-1}\right\},
\]
\[
v_k := (v-C_k)_+\quad\textrm{with}\quad C_k = 1-2^{-k},
\]
and let $\varphi_k$ be a family of shrinking cut-off functions $0\le \varphi_k\le 1$ that fulfill
\[
\varphi_k\in C^\infty_c(B_1),\quad\varphi_k = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 & \textrm{ in } \tilde B_k\\
0 & \textrm{ in } \tilde B_{k-1}^c
\end{array}
\right.,
\quad\textrm{and}\quad |\nabla \varphi_k|\le C2^k~\textrm{ in }~\tilde B_{k-1}\setminus \tilde B_k,
\]
where $C$ here depends only on $n$.
Let
\[
V_k := \int_{B_1}\varphi^2_kv_k^2\, dx.
\]
Now, the Sobolev inequality, and the energy inequality (Lemma~\ref{lem.energyinequality}) give
\begin{align*}
\left(\int_{B_1} |\varphi_{k+1}v_{k+1}|^p\, dx\right)^{\frac2p}& \le C\left(\int_{B_1} |\nabla(\varphi_{k+1}v_{k+1})|^2\, dx\right)\\
& \le C 2^{2k}\int_{\tilde B_k}|v_{k+1}|^2\, dx\\
& \le C2^{2k}\int_{B_1} (\varphi_kv_k)^2\, dx = C2^{2k} V_k,
\end{align*}
for $p = \frac{2n}{n-2}$ if $n \ge 3$. If $n = 1$ or $n = 2$, we can take $p = 4$.
On the other hand, by H\"older's inequality,
\[
V_{k+1} = \int_{B_1}\varphi_{k+1}^2v_{k+1}^2\, dx\le \left(\int_{B_1}(\varphi_{k+1}v_{k+1})^p\, dx\right)^{\frac{2}{p}} \big|\{\varphi_{k+1}v_{k+1} > 0\}\big|^\gamma,
\]
where $\gamma := \frac{2}{n}$ (if $n = 1$ or $n = 2$, $\gamma = \frac12$). Here, we are using that $\int_A f\le (\int_A |f|^{p/2})^{2/p}|A|^\gamma$.
Now, from Chebyshev's inequality and the definition of $v_k$ and $\varphi_k$,
\begin{align*}
\big|\{\varphi_{k+1}v_{k+1} > 0\}\big| &\le \big|\{\varphi_k v_k > 2^{-k-1}\}\big|\\
& = \big|\{\varphi_k^2v_k^2 > 2^{-2k-2}\}\big|\\
& \le 2^{2(k+1)}\int_{B_1} \varphi_k^2 v_k^2 \, dx = 2^{2(k+1)}V_k.
\end{align*}
Apart from Chebyshev's inequality, we are using here that if $v_{k+1} > 0$ and $\varphi_{k+1} > 0$, then $v_k > 2^{-k-1}$ and $\varphi_k = 1$. Thus, combining the previous inequalities, we get
\begin{align*}
V_{k+1}& \le \left(\int_{B_1}(\varphi_{k+1}v_{k+1})^p\, dx\right)^\frac{2}{p} \big|\{\varphi_{k+1}v_{k+1} > 0\}\big|^\gamma \\
& \le C2^{2k}V_k\big(2^{2(k+1)}V_k\big)^\gamma \le C^{k+1}V_k^{1+\gamma},
\end{align*}
where we recall $\gamma = \frac2n$ if $n\ge 3$, and $\gamma = \frac12$ otherwise; and $C$ depends only on $n$, $\lambda$, and $\Lambda$.
Now, we claim that, if $\delta > 0$ is small enough, then
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcccl}
0& \le & V_{k+1} & \le &C^{k+1}V_k^{1+\gamma}\\
0& \le & V_{0} & \le &\delta
\end{array}
\right.
\quad \Longrightarrow \quad V_k \to 0\quad\textrm{as}\quad k \to \infty.
\]
Indeed, in order to see this it is enough to check by induction that if $V_0 \le C^{-1/\gamma-1/\gamma^2}$ then
\[
V_k^\gamma\le \frac{C^{-k-1}}{(2C)^{\frac1\gamma}},
\]
which is a simple computation.
Alternatively, one could check by induction that $V_k \le C^{(1+\gamma)^k\left(\sum_{i = 1}^k \frac{i}{(1+\gamma)^i}\right)} V_0^{(1+\gamma)^k}$.
Hence, we have proved that
\[
V_k = \int_{B_1}(\varphi_k v_k)^2\, dx\to 0 \quad\textrm{as}\quad k \to \infty.
\]
Passing to the limit, we get
\[
\int_{B_{1/2}}(v-1)^2_+\, dx = 0,
\]
and thus, $v \le 1$ in $B_{1/2}$, as wanted.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.L2Linfty}]
To deduce the Proposition~\ref{prop.L2Linfty} from Proposition~\ref{prop.L2Linfty_2}, just use $\tilde v := {\sqrt{\delta}}\, v/{\|v_+\|_{L^2(B_1)}}$ (which solves the same equation).
\end{proof}
This proves the first part of the estimate
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.L2Linfty}
\mathcal{L} v \le 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1\qquad \Longrightarrow \qquad \|v_+\|_{L^\infty(B_{1/2})}\le C\|v_+\|_{L^2(B_1)}.
\end{equation}
Notice that, as a direct consequence, we have the $L^2$ to $L^\infty$ estimate. Indeed, if $\mathcal{L}v = 0$ then $\mathcal{L} v_+ \le 0$ (see Lemma~\ref{lem.pospartSH}) but also $\mathcal{L} v_- \le 0$, where $v_- := \max\{0, -v\}$. Thus, $\|v_-\|_{L^\infty(B_{1/2})}\le C\|v_-\|_{L^2(B_1)}$, and since $\|v\|_{L^2(B_1)} = \|v_+\|_{L^2(B_1)}+ \|v_-\|_{L^2(B_1)}$, combining the estimate for $v_+$ and $v_-$ we get
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.L2Linfty0}
\mathcal{L} v = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1\qquad \Longrightarrow \qquad \|v\|_{L^\infty(B_{1/2})}\le C\|v\|_{L^2(B_1)},
\end{equation}
as we wanted to see.
\begin{rem}[Moser's proof]
The proof of \eqref{eq.L2Linfty} here presented is the original proof of De Giorgi. The first ingredient in the proof was to use $\varphi^2v_+$ as a test function in the weak formulation of our PDE to get the energy inequality from Lemma~\ref{lem.energyinequality},
\[
\int_{B_1}|\nabla(\varphi v)^2|\, dx\le C\int_{B_1} v^2|\nabla \varphi|^2\, dx\quad\textrm{for all}\quad \varphi\in C^\infty_c(B_1).
\]
Roughly speaking, this inequality said that $v$ cannot jump too quickly (the gradient is controlled by $v$ itself).
Moser did something similar, but taking $\eta = \varphi^2(v_+)^\beta$ instead, for some $\beta \ge 1$, to get the inequality
\[
\int_{B_1}\left|\nabla\left(v^{\frac{\beta+1}{2}}\varphi\right)^2\right|\, dx\le C\int_{B_1} v^{\beta+1}|\nabla \varphi|^2\, dx\quad\textrm{for all}\quad \varphi\in C^\infty_c(B_1).
\]
Combining this with Sobolev's inequality, one gets
\[
\left(\int_{B_{r_1}} v^{q\gamma}\, dx\right)^{\frac{1}{q\gamma}}\le \left(\frac{C}{|r_2-r_1|^2}\int_{B_{r_2}} v^{q}\, dx\right)^{\frac{1}{q}},
\]
where $\gamma =\frac{2^*}{2}> 1$ and $q = \beta+1$. Taking a sequence of $r_k \downarrow \frac12$ as in De Giorgi's proof, one obtains
\[
\|v\|_{L^{2\gamma^k}(B_{r_k})}\le C\|v\|_{L^2(B_1)},
\]
and taking $k\to \infty$ we obtain the $L^\infty$ bound in $B_{1/2}$.
We refer the interested reader to \cite[Chapter 4]{HL} for a full proof.
\end{rem}
\subsection*{De Giorgi's second step: $L^\infty$ to $C^{0,\alpha}$}
We next prove the second step of De Giorgi's estimate. We want to prove:
\begin{prop}[Oscillation decay] \index{Oscillation decay}
\label{prop.osc_decay_L}
Let $\mathcal{L}$ be of the form \eqref{eq.mL}. Let $v\in H^1(B_2)$ be a solution to
\[
\mathcal{L}v = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_2.
\]
Then,
\[
\osc_{B_{1/2}} v \le (1-\theta)\osc_{B_2} v
\]
for some $\theta > 0$ small depending only on $n$, $\lambda$, and $\Lambda$.
\end{prop}
As we saw in Chapter~\ref{ch.1} (see Corollary~\ref{cor.Holder_regularity_1}), this proposition immediately implies $C^{0,\alpha}$ regularity of solutions.
As shown next, Proposition~\ref{prop.osc_decay_L} follows from the following lemma.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem.osc_decay}
Let $\mathcal{L}$ be of the form \eqref{eq.mL}, and let $v\in H^1(B_2)$ be such that
\[
v\le 1\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_2,\qquad\textrm{and}\qquad
\mathcal{L}v\le 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_2.
\]
Assume that
\[
\big|\{v \le 0\}\cap B_1\big|\ge\mu > 0.
\]
Then,
\[
\sup_{B_{1/2}} v \le 1-\gamma,
\]
for some small $\gamma > 0$ depending only on $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, and $\mu$.
\end{lem}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 1.25]{./Figures/fig8.pdf}
\caption{Graphical representation of $v$ with $\mathcal{L} v \le 0$ from Lemma~\ref{lem.osc_decay}.}
\label{fig.8}
\end{figure}
In other words, if $v\le 1$, and it is ``far from 1'' in a set of non-zero measure, then $v$ cannot be close to 1 in $B_{1/2}$. (See Figure~\ref{fig.8}.)
Let us show how this lemma yields the oscillation decay:
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop.osc_decay_L}]
Consider the function
\[
w(x) := \frac{2}{\osc_{B_2} v}\left(v(x) - \frac{\sup_{B_2} v +\inf_{B_2} v}{2}\right)
\]
and notice that
\[
-1\le w \le 1\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_2,
\]
(in fact, $\osc_{B_2} w = 2$).
Let us assume that $\big|\{w \le 0\}\cap B_1\big|\ge \frac12|B_1|$ (otherwise, we can take $-w$ instead). Then, by Lemma~\ref{lem.osc_decay}, we get
\[
w\le 1-\gamma\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_{1/2},
\]
and thus
\[
\osc_{B_{1/2}} w\le 2-\gamma.
\]
This yields
\[
\osc_{B_{1/2}} v \le \left(1-\frac\gamma2\right)\osc_{B_2} v,
\]
and thus the proposition is proved.
\end{proof}
To prove Lemma~\ref{lem.osc_decay}, we will need the following De Giorgi isoperimetric inequality. It is a kind of a quantitative version of the fact that an $H^1$ function cannot have a jump discontinuity.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem.osc_dec_2.2}
Let $w\in H^1(B_1)$ be such that
\[
\int_{B_1}|\nabla w|^2\, dx\le C_\circ.
\]
Let
\[
A:= \{w\le 0\}\cap B_1,\quad D:= \left\{w\ge \frac12\right\}\cap B_1,\quad E:= \left\{0<w<\frac12\right\}\cap B_1.
\]
Then, we have
\[
C_\circ |E|\ge c |A|^2 \cdot |D|^2
\]
for some constant $c$ depending only on $n$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We define $\bar w$ in $B_1$ as $\bar w = w$ in $E$, $\bar w \equiv 0$ in $A$ and $\bar w = \frac12$ in $D$. In this way, $\nabla \bar w \equiv 0$ in $B_1\setminus E$ and $\int_{B_1}|\nabla \bar w|^2 \le C_\circ$.
Let us denote the average of $\bar w$ in $B_{1}$ by $\bar w_{B_{1}} := \strokedint_{B_{1}} \bar w(x) \, dx$. Then,
\begin{align*}
|A|\cdot |D|& \le 2\int_A\int_D |\bar w(x)-\bar w(y)|\, dx\, dy \\
& \le 2\int_{B_{1}}\int_{B_{1}} \left(\big|\bar w(x) - \bar w_{B_{1}} \big| + \big|\bar w(y) - \bar w_{B_{1}}\big| \right)\, dx\, dy \\
& = 4|B_{1}|\int_{B_{1}} \big|\bar w(x) - \bar w_{B_{1}} \big|\, dx \le C \int_{E} |\nabla \bar w(x)|\, dx,
\end{align*}
where in the last step we have used the Poincar\'e inequality (Theorem~\ref{ch0-Poinc} with $p= 1$) and the fact that $\nabla \bar w \equiv 0$ in $B_1\setminus E$. Thus, by H\"older's inequality we reach
\[
|A|\cdot |D|\le C \int_{E} |\nabla \bar w| \le C \left(\int_{E} |\nabla \bar w|^2\right)^{1/2}|E|^{1/2}\le CC_\circ^{1/2}|E|^{1/2},
\]
as we wanted to see.
\end{proof}
Finally, we prove Lemma~\ref{lem.osc_decay}:
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem.osc_decay}]
Consider the sequence
\[
w_k := 2^k\left[v-(1-2^{-k})\right]_+.
\]
Notice that $w_k \le 1$ in $B_2$ since $v\le 1$ in $B_2$. Moreover, $\mathcal{L}w_k \le 0$ in $B_2$.
Using the energy inequality (Lemma~\ref{lem.energyinequality}), we easily get that
\[
\int_{B_1}|\nabla w_k|^2 \le C\int_{B_2}w_k^2 \le C_\circ \qquad (\textrm{notice } 0\le w_k\le 1\textrm{ in } B_2).
\]
We also have
\[
\big|\{w_k\le 0 \}\cap B_1\big|\ge \mu > 0
\]
(by the assumption on $v$). We now apply Lemma~\ref{lem.osc_dec_2.2} recursively to $w_k$, as long as
\[
\int_{B_1}w_{k+1}^2 \ge \delta^2.
\]
We get
\[
\left|\left\{w_k\ge\frac12\right\}\cap B_1\right| \ge \big|\{w_{k+1}>0\}\cap B_1\big| \ge \int_{B_1}w_{k+1}^2 \ge \delta^2.
\]
Thus, from Lemma~\ref{lem.osc_dec_2.2},
\[
\left|\left\{0<w_k<\frac12\right\}\cap B_1\right|\ge \frac{c}{C_\circ}\delta^4\mu^2 = \beta > 0,
\]
where $\beta > 0$ is independent of $k$, and depends only on $n$, $\delta$, and $\mu$.
But notice that the sets $\left\{0<w_k<\frac12\right\}$ are disjoint for all $k\in \mathbb{N}$, therefore we cannot have the previous inequality for every $k$. This means that, for some $k_\circ\in \mathbb{N}$ (depending only on $n$ and $\beta$) we have
\[
\int_{B_1} w_{k_\circ}^2 < \delta^2
\]
and, hence, by the $L^2$ to $L^\infty$ estimate from Proposition~\ref{prop.L2Linfty}
\[
\|w_+\|_{L^\infty(B_{1/2})}\le C\|w_+\|_{L^2(B_1)}.
\]
We get
\[
\|w_{k_\circ}\|_{L^\infty(B_{1/2})}\le C\delta\le \frac12,
\]
provided that $\delta > 0$ is small enough, depending only on $n$, $\lambda$, and $\Lambda$. This means that $w_{k_\circ}\le \frac12$ in $B_{1/2}$, and thus
\[
v\le \frac12 2^{-k_\circ} + \left(1-2^{-k_\circ}\right)\le 1-2^{-k_\circ-1} = 1-\gamma
\]
as desired, where $k_\circ$ (and therefore, $\gamma$) depends only on $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, and $\mu$.
\end{proof}
Summarizing, we have now proved Lemma~\ref{lem.osc_decay} (by using the $L^2$ to $L^\infty$ estimate and Lemma~\ref{lem.osc_dec_2.2}).
Then, Lemma~\ref{lem.osc_decay} implies the oscillation decay, and the oscillation decay implies the H\"older regularity.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm.DGCaLi}
Let $\mathcal{L}$ be of the form \eqref{eq.mL}, and let $v\in H^1(B_1)$ solve
\[
\mathcal{L}v = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1.
\]
Then,
\[
\|v\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le C\|v\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}
\]
for some $\alpha > 0$ and $C$ depending only on $n$, $\lambda$, and $\Lambda$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The theorem follows from the oscillation decay, in much the same way as Corollary~\ref{cor.Holder_regularity_1}).
\end{proof}
Combining this last result with the $L^2$ to $L^\infty$ estimate, Proposition~\ref{prop.L2Linfty}, we finally obtain the theorem of De Giorgi--Nash.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm.DGN_B}
Let $v\in H^1(B_1)$ be a weak solution to ${\rm div}\left(A(x)\nabla v\right) = 0$ in~$B_1$, with $0<\lambda\,{\rm Id}\le A(x) \le \Lambda\,{\rm Id}$. Then, there exists some $\alpha > 0$ such that $v\in C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})$ and
\[
\|v\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le C\|v\|_{L^2(B_1)}.
\]
The constants $C$ and $\alpha > 0$ depend only on $n$, $\lambda$, and $\Lambda$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The result follows from Theorem~\ref{thm.DGCaLi} combined with Proposition~\ref{prop.L2Linfty} (by \eqref{eq.L2Linfty0}).
\end{proof}
As a consequence of the previous result, we have:
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm.DGN_Om}]
It follows by Theorem \ref{thm.DGN_B} by a covering argument.
\end{proof}
In particular, as shown below, Theorem~\ref{thm.DGN_B} solved Hilbert's XIXth problem.
This is one of the main results for which De Giorgi got the Wolf Prize in 1990, and Nash got the Abel Prize in 2015.
It has been speculated that if only one of them had solved Hilbert's XIXth problem, he would also have received the Fields Medal for the proof.
\begin{rem}[Harnack's inequality]
Even though it is not needed to prove Theorem \ref{thm.DGN_B}, it is interesting to notice that with some more work one can also prove Harnack's inequality for operators of the form ${\rm div}\left(A(x)\nabla v\right)$; see \cite{LZ17,Mo61}.
\end{rem}
\section{Solution to Hilbert's XIXth problem}
\label{sec.solution}
In this chapter, we have proved the {\em interior regularity} result for $v\in H^1(B_1)$
\[
{\rm div}\big(A(x) \nabla v\big) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1\qquad\Longrightarrow \qquad\|v\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le C\|v\|_{L^2(B_1)},
\]
for some small $\alpha > 0$ depending only on $n$, $\lambda$, and $\Lambda$.
For a general domain $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$, this gives the estimate for $v\in H^1(\Omega)$
\[
{\rm div}\big(A(x) \nabla v\big) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega\quad\Longrightarrow \quad\|v\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\tilde\Omega)}\le C\|v\|_{L^2(\Omega)},
\]
for any $\tilde\Omega\subset\subset\Omega$ (with a constant $C$ that depends only on $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, $\Omega$, and~$\tilde \Omega$).
Thanks to this, one can in fact solve Hilbert's XIXth problem:
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{center}
\fbox{
\begin{minipage}{0.85\textwidth}
\vspace{2.5mm}
\begin{thm*}
\index{Hilbert XIXth problem} Let $u\in H^1(\Omega)$ be any local minimizer of
\[
\mathcal{E}(w) := \int_\Omega L(\nabla w) \, dx,
\]
where $L$ is smooth and uniformly convex, and $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ is bounded. Then, $u$ is $C^\infty$ in $\Omega$.
\end{thm*}
\vspace{0mm}
\end{minipage}
}
\end{center}
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{proof}
Any local minimizer $u$ satisfies
\[
\int_\Omega DL(\nabla u) \nabla\phi\, dx = 0,\qquad\textrm{for all}\quad \phi\in C^\infty_c(\Omega).
\]
(This is the weak formulation of ${\rm div}(DL(\nabla u)) = 0$ in $\Omega$.)
As in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.C1aimpCinf}, if we define for any $h\in \mathbb{R}^n$,
\[
\tilde A(x) := \int_0^1 D^2 L\big(t\nabla u(x+h)+(1-t)\nabla u(x)\big)\, dt,
\]
then $\tilde A(x)$ is uniformly elliptic (since $L$ is uniformly convex, $0< \lambda{\rm Id}\le D^2L(p)\le \Lambda{\rm Id}$). We have that $\frac{u(\cdot+h)-u}{|h|}\in H^1(\Omega_h)$ fulfills (again, see Theorem~\ref{thm.C1aimpCinf})
\[
\int_\Omega \nabla \left(\frac{u(x+h)-u(x)}{|h|}\right)\cdot \tilde A(x) \nabla \phi(x)\, dx = 0\quad\textrm{for all }\phi\in C^\infty_c(\Omega_h),
\]
that is, $\frac{u(\cdot+h)-u}{|h|}$ solves weakly
\[
{\rm div}\left(\tilde A\nabla\left[\frac{u(\cdot+h)-u}{|h|}\right]\right) = 0,\quad\textrm{in}\quad\Omega_h.
\]
(We recall $\Omega_h := \{x\in \Omega : {\rm dist}(x, \partial\Omega)> |h|\}$.)
By the estimate of De Giorgi and Nash (Theorem~\ref{thm.DGN_Om}), we find that
\[
\left\|\frac{u(\cdot+h)-u}{|h|}\right\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\tilde \Omega)}\le C\left\|\frac{u(\cdot+h)-u}{|h|}\right\|_{L^2(\Omega_h)}\le C\|\nabla u\|_{L^2(\Omega)}
\]
for any $\tilde \Omega\subset\subset\Omega_h$ (see \ref{it.S9} in Chapter~\ref{ch.0}). By \ref{it.H7}, since the constant $C$ is independent of $h$, this yields
\[
\|u\|_{C^{1,\alpha}(\tilde\Omega)}\le C\|u\|_{H^1(\Omega)}.
\]
Now, once $u$ is $C^{1,\alpha}$, we are done by Theorem~\ref{thm.C1aimpCinf}.
\end{proof}
\section{Further results and open problems}
Let us finish this chapter by mentioning some state-of-the art results and open problems regarding the minimization of convex energy functionals.
As we have explained, the minimization of a convex functional is a classical problem in the Calculus of Variations. Namely,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.minLW}
\min_{w\in \mathcal{W}} \int_\Omega L(\nabla w)\, dx,
\end{equation}
with $L:\mathbb{R}^n\to \mathbb{R}$ convex, $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$, and some appropriate class of functions $\mathcal{W}$, say, with prescribed trace on $\partial\Omega$. Hilbert's XIXth problem deals with the case in which $L$ is \emph{uniformly} convex and smooth, to obtain nice regularity results. In Remark~\ref{rem.conv} we discuss that lack of convexity can yield non-uniqueness of minimizers, but it is not that clear what occurs if we simply remove the condition on the uniform convexity, but maintain the \emph{strict} convexity. In fact, functionals involving functions $L$ that only involve strict convexity (that is, $D^2 L$ could have 0 and $\infty$ as eigenvalues in some sets) appear naturally in some applications: anisotropic surface tensions, traffic flow, and statistical mechanics (see \cite{M19B} and the references therein).
Minimizers of \eqref{eq.minLW} are known to be Lipschitz (under enough smoothness of the domain and boundary data) by the comparison principle.
Thus, the following natural question is to whether first derivatives of minimizers are continuous:
\[
\textrm{If $L$ is strictly convex, are minimizers to \eqref{eq.minLW} $C^1$?}
\]
The answer to that question has been investigated in the last years. The problem was first addressed by De Silva and Savin in \cite{DS10}, where they studied the case of dimension 2:
\begin{thm}[\cite{DS10}]
Let $u$ be a Lipschitz minimizer to \eqref{eq.minLW} in $\mathbb{R}^2$, and suppose that $L$ is strictly convex. Assume that the set of points where $D^2L$ has some eigenvalue equal to 0 or $\infty$ is finite. Then, $u\in C^1$.
\end{thm}
Later, Mooney in \cite{M19B} studied the problem in higher dimensions and showed that the question has a negative answer, in general, in dimensions $n\ge 4$:
\begin{thm}[\cite{M19B}]
In $\mathbb{R}^4$ there exists a Lipschitz minimizer to \eqref{eq.minLW}, with $L$ strictly convex, that is not $C^1$.
\end{thm}
In the example by Mooney, the minimizer is analytic outside the origin (having a singularity there), and the corresponding functional has a Hessian with an eigenvalue going to $\infty$ in $\{x_1^2+x_2^2 = x_3^2+x_4^2\}\cap \sqrt{2} \mathbb{S}^3$, but otherwise, the eigenvalues are uniformly bounded from below away from zero.
It is currently an open question what happens in dimension $n =3$, as well as what happens for general strictly convex functionals in $\mathbb{R}^2$.
\endinput
\chapter{Fully nonlinear elliptic PDE}
\label{ch.3}
Second order nonlinear elliptic PDEs in their most general form can be written as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.fully}
F(D^2 u , \nabla u , u, x ) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n.
\end{equation}
Understanding the regularity of solutions to these equations has been a major research direction since the mid-20th century.
These are called \emph{fully nonlinear elliptic equations}.
Besides their own interest in PDE theory, they arise in Probability Theory (stochastic control, differential games; see Appendix~\ref{app.B} for a probabilistic interpretation), and in Geometry.
Thanks to Schauder-type estimates, under natural assumptions on the dependence on $\nabla u$, $u$, and $x$, the regularity for \eqref{eq.fully} can be reduced to understanding solutions to \index{Fully nonlinear equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.fully2}
\boxed{F(D^2 u) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n.}
\end{equation}
Indeed, some of the ``perturbative'' methods that we used in Chapter~\ref{ch.1} to prove Schauder estimates for linear equations $\sum a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} u = f(x)$ in $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ work in such fully nonlinear setting, too.
For simplicity, we will focus here on the study of \eqref{eq.fully2}.
In the next sections we will discuss the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item[--] What is ellipticity for solutions to \eqref{eq.fully2}?
\item[--] Existence and uniqueness of solutions.
\item[--] Regularity of solutions to \eqref{eq.fully2}.
\end{itemize}
We will \emph{not} prove all the main known results of this Chapter, but only give an overview of what is known.
We refer to the books \cite{CC} and \cite{NTV} for more details about this topic.
\section{What is ellipticity?}
\label{sec.ellipt}
There are (at least) two possible ways to define ellipticity:
\begin{itemize}
\item[--] Linearizing the equation.
\item[--] ``Imposing'' that the comparison principle holds.
\end{itemize}
We will see that they are essentially the same.
\begin{defi}\index{Ellipticity condition!Fully nonlinear equations}
Let $F: \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\to \mathbb{R}$. We say that $F$ is \emph{elliptic} if for any two symmetric matrices $A, B\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ such that $A \ge B$ (i.e., $A-B$ is positive semi-definite) we have
\[
F(A) \ge F(B),
\]
with strict inequality if $A > B$ (i.e., $A-B$ positive definite).
\end{defi}
The Laplace equation $\Delta u = 0$ corresponds to the case $F(M) ={\rm tr}\,M $. For a linear equation (with constant coefficients)
\[
\sum_{i,j = 1}^n a_{ij} \partial_{ij} u = 0,
\]
$F$ is given by $F(M) = {\rm tr}\, (AM)$, where $A = (a_{ij})_{i,j}$. This equation is elliptic if and only if the coefficient matrix $A$ is positive definite. Therefore, it coincides with our notion of ellipticity for linear equations.
\begin{rem}[Comparison Principle]
If a $C^2$ function $v$ touches $u\in C^2$ from below at a point $x_\circ$ (i.e. $u\ge v$ everywhere, and $u(x_\circ) = v(x_\circ)$; see Figure~\ref{fig.9}), then it follows that
\[
\nabla u (x_\circ ) = \nabla v (x_\circ),\qquad D^2 u(x_\circ) \ge D^2 v(x_\circ).
\]
Therefore, for these functions we would have $F(D^2 u(x_\circ)) \ge F(D^2 v(x_\circ))$ if $F$ is elliptic. This is essential when proving the comparison principle.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 1.3]{./Figures/fig9_2.pdf}
\caption{The function $v$ touches $u$ from below at $x_\circ$.}
\label{fig.9}
\end{figure}
\end{rem}
\begin{prop}[Comparison Principle]\index{Comparison principle!Fully nonlinear equations (classical)}
\label{prop.comp_princ_C2}
Assume that $F$ is elliptic, and $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ is bounded. Let $u, v\in C^2(\Omega)\cap C^0(\overline{\Omega})$. Then,
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
u & \ge & v& \textrm{on } ~\partial \Omega\\
F(D^2 u)& \le & F(D^2 v)& \textrm{in }~\Omega.
\end{array}
\right.
\quad
\Longrightarrow
\quad u \ge v\quad\textrm{in}\quad \overline{\Omega}.
\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} We separate into two cases.
\\[0.1cm]
{\it \underline{\smash{Case 1}}.} Assume first that $F(D^2 u) < F(D^2 v)$ in $\Omega$ (with strict inequality). If the conclusion is false, then the function $u-v$ would have an interior minimum inside $\Omega$, say at $x_\circ \in \Omega$. Then, we would have $D^2(u-v)(x_\circ) \ge 0$. Therefore, $D^2 u(x_\circ)\ge D^2 v(x_\circ)$ and by ellipticity of $F$, this yields $F(D^2 u(x_\circ))\ge F(D^2 v(x_\circ))$. This is a contradiction with $F(D^2 u) < F(D^2 v)$ in $\Omega$, and hence $u \ge v$ in $\overline{\Omega}$.
\\[0.1cm]
{\it \underline{\smash{Case 2}}.} Assume now $F(D^2 u)\le F(D^2 v)$ in $\Omega$.
Then, we can define
\[
\bar u(x) := u(x) +\varepsilon\left(c_\Omega - |x|^2\right),
\]
where $c_\Omega > 0$ is a constant such that $c_\Omega-|x|^2 > 0$ in $\overline{\Omega}$ (recall that $\Omega$ is bounded).
Then, we have $\bar u \ge u $ on $\partial \Omega$, and $D^2\bar u = D^2 u - 2\varepsilon{\rm Id}$. Thus, by ellipticity,
\[
F(D^2\bar u ) = F(D^2 u - 2\varepsilon{\rm Id}) < F(D^2 u) \le F(D^2 v) \quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega.
\]
By Case 1,
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
\bar u & \ge & v& \textrm{on } ~\partial \Omega,\\
F(D^2 \bar u)& < & F(D^2 v)& \textrm{in }~\Omega.
\end{array}
\right.
\quad
\Longrightarrow
\quad \bar u \ge v\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega.
\]
This gives
\[
u(x) +\varepsilon\left(c_\Omega - |x|^2\right) \ge v(x)\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega.
\]
Letting $\varepsilon\downarrow 0$ we deduce that $u \ge v$ in $\Omega$.
\end{proof}
Thus, we see that ellipticity is exactly what we need in order to prove the comparison principle. We will see that \emph{uniform ellipticity} (analogously to the case of linear equations) implies, in fact, the regularity of solutions.
\begin{defi}
\label{defi.unifellipt}\index{Uniform ellipticity condition!Fully nonlinear equations}
Let $F: \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\to \mathbb{R}$. Then $F$ is \emph{uniformly elliptic} if there are $0 < \lambda\le \Lambda$ (the \emph{ellipticity constants}\index{Ellipticity constants!Fully nonlinear equations}), such that for every symmetric matrices $M$, $N$ with $N \ge 0$ (that is, positive semi-definite), we have
\[
\lambda\|N\|\le F(M+N) - F(M) \le \Lambda\|N\|,
\]
where $\|N\|:= {\rm tr}\left( (N^T N)^{1/2}\right) = {\rm tr}(N)$ is the sum of the (absolute value of the) eigenvalues.
\end{defi}
We remark that our choice of matrix norm in the previous definition is not standard. In $\mathbb{R}^n$, all norms are equivalent and thus we could have chosen any other norm. This definition of norm, however, avoids dealing with constants in future computations.
Of course, uniform ellipticity implies ellipticity, in a quantitative way.
For linear equations, i.e. $F(M) = {\rm tr}\, (AM)$, uniform ellipticity is equivalent to
\[
0<\lambda {\rm Id}\le A\le \Lambda{\rm Id},
\]
as usual.
The alternative way to see ellipticity is by linearizing the equation:
Assume $F\in C^1$ (which is not always the case!).
We consider the functions
\[
F_{ij}(M) := \frac{\partial F}{\partial M_{ij}} (M),
\]
i.e., the first derivative of $F(M)$ with respect to the component $M_{ij}$ of the matrix $M$.
Then, it is immediate to see that \index{Uniform ellipticity condition!Fully nonlinear equations}
\[
\begin{split}
\textrm{$F$ is uniformly elliptic} & ~~~\Longleftrightarrow ~~~ 0< \lambda\,{\rm Id}\le (F_{ij}(M))_{i,j}\le \Lambda\,{\rm Id},\qquad \forall M\\
& ~~~\Longleftrightarrow ~~~\textrm{the linearized equation is uniformly elliptic.}
\end{split}
\]
Therefore, at least when $F$ is $C^1$, uniform ellipticity can be seen as uniform ellipticity of the linearized equation.
In general, though, the uniform ellipticity condition implies that $F$ is Lipschitz, but not always $C^1$. There are, in fact, important examples of equations $F(D^2 u) = 0$ in which the corresponding $F$ is Lipschitz but not~$C^1$. In this case, the previous characterization of ellipticity through the derivatives of $F$ still holds, understanding now that they are defined almost every\-where.
\begin{rem}[Convex (or concave) equations]\index{Convex fully nonlinear equations}
An important subclass of equations $F(D^2 u) = 0$ are those for which $F$ is convex (or concave). Namely, $F(M)$ as a function $F:\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\to \mathbb{R}$ is convex (or concave). In this case, the equation can be written as a \emph{Bellman equation} \index{Bellman equation}(see \eqref{eq.maxPDE}), as
\[
F(D^2 u) = \max_{\alpha\in \mathcal{A}} \{L_\alpha u\} = 0,
\]
where $\{L_\alpha\}_{\alpha\in \mathcal{A}}$ is a family of linear operators of the form
\[
L_\alpha u := \sum_{i,j=1}^n a_{ij}^\alpha \partial_{ij} u + c_\alpha,
\]
for a family of coefficients $\{a_{ij}^\alpha\}_{\alpha\in \mathcal{A}}$ uniformly elliptic, with ellipticity constants $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$.
Notice that if $u$ solves $F(D^2 u) = 0$, with $F$ convex, then $v = -u$ solves $G(D^2 v) = 0$, with $G(M) = -F(-M)$, and therefore, $G$ is concave.
\end{rem}
\subsection*{Pucci operators}
Within the class of fully nonlinear uniformly elliptic operators with ellipticity constants $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$, the \emph{extremal} or \emph{Pucci} operators, denoted by $\mathcal{M}^+$ and $\mathcal{M}^-$, are those that attain the \emph{extreme} values (from above and below, respectively). Alternatively, every other elliptic operator with the same ellipticity constants is ordered with respect to them in the sense of \eqref{eq.pucciext} below.
We define $\mathcal{M}^\pm$ as follows.
\begin{defi}\label{def.pucci}\index{Pucci operators}\index{Extremal operators}
Given $0<\lambda\le \Lambda$, the \emph{extremal} or \emph{Pucci} operators with ellipticity constants $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$, $\mathcal{M}^\pm:\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\to \mathbb{R}$, are defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.Pucci}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{M}^-(M) & := \inf_{\lambda{\rm Id}\le (a_{ij})_{i,j}\le \Lambda{\rm Id}}\bigg\{\sum_{i, j = 1}^n a_{ij}M_{ij} \bigg\} = \inf_{\lambda{\rm Id}\le A\le \Lambda{\rm Id}}\left\{{\rm tr}\,(AM)\right\}\\
\mathcal{M}^+(M) & := \sup_{\lambda{\rm Id}\le (a_{ij})_{i,j}\le \Lambda{\rm Id}}\bigg\{\sum_{i, j = 1}^n a_{ij}M_{ij}\bigg\}= \sup_{\lambda{\rm Id}\le A\le \Lambda{\rm Id}}\left\{{\rm tr}\,(AM)\right\},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
for any symmetric matrix $M$. They are uniformly elliptic operators, with ellipticity constants $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$.
\end{defi}
In particular, from the definition we have
\[
\mathcal{M}^\pm(\alpha M) = \alpha\mathcal{M}^\pm(M), \quad\textrm{for all}\quad \alpha \ge 0.
\]
Notice that $\mathcal{M}^\pm= \mathcal{M}^\pm_{n, \lambda, \Lambda}$. In general, however, the dependence on the ellipticity constants and the dimension will be clear in the corresponding context, and thus we will drop it in the notation.
Sometimes, it is easier to define the Pucci operators through the eigenvalues of the corresponding matrix, appropriately weighted with the ellipticity constants, in the following way.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem.Pucci}
The Pucci operators as defined in \eqref{eq.Pucci} can be equivalently defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.Pucci2}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{M}^-(M) & = \lambda \sum_{\mu_i > 0} \mu_i + \Lambda \sum_{\mu_i < 0 }\mu_i = \lambda\|M_+\| - \Lambda \|M_-\|,\\
\mathcal{M}^+(M) & = \Lambda \sum_{\mu_i > 0} \mu_i + \lambda \sum_{\mu_i < 0 }\mu_i = \Lambda\|M_+\| - \lambda\|M_-\|,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\mu_i = \mu_i(M)$ denote the eigenvalues of the symmetric matrix $M$, the matrices $M_+$ and $M_-$ are such that $M_\pm \ge 0$, $M = M_+-M_-$, and $\|A\| = {\rm tr}\left((A^T A)^{1/2}\right)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The proof follows directly using the following rearrangement-type inequalities involving the eigenvalues and the product of two symmetric matrices $A$ and $B$:
\[
\sum_{i = 1}^n \lambda_i(A)\lambda_{n-i}(B) \le {\rm tr}(AB) \le\sum_{i = 1}^n \lambda_i(A) \lambda_i(B),
\]
where $\lambda_1(A)\le \dots\le \lambda_n(A)$ denote the ordered eigenvalues of $A$, and $\lambda_1(B)\le \dots\le \lambda_n(B)$ denote the ordered eigenvalues of $B$.
\end{proof}
From the definition of uniform ellipticity of $F$ (Definition~ \ref{defi.unifellipt}) it follows that, given two symmetric matrices $M$, $N$,
\[
\lambda \|N_+\|-\Lambda\|N_-\| \le F(M+N)-F(M) \le \Lambda\|N_+\|-\lambda\|N_-\|,
\]
where $N = N_+ -N_-$, and $N_\pm \ge 0$. Thus, by Lemma~\ref{lem.Pucci},
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.pucciext0}
\mathcal{M}^-(N)\le F(M+N) -F(M) \le \mathcal{M}^+(N).
\end{equation}
If we take $M = 0$, we see that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.pucciext}
\mathcal{M}^-(N) \le F(N) -F(0) \le \mathcal{M}^+(N),
\end{equation}
so these operators are like the ``worse case'' from above and below --- up to a constant, $F(0)$.
(Recall that $\mathcal{M}^\pm$ are fully nonlinear uniformly elliptic operators with ellipticity constants $\lambda$, $\Lambda$.)
If we further assume that $F(0) = 0$, we see that if $u$ solves any equation of the form $F(D^2 u) = 0$ then in particular
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.nondiv_bmc}
\mathcal{M}^-(D^2 u) \le 0 \le \mathcal{M}^+(D^2 u).
\end{equation}
\begin{rem}\label{rem.eqnondivbmc}\index{Equation in non-divergence form with bounded measurable coefficients}Equation \eqref{eq.nondiv_bmc} is called \emph{equation in non-divergence form with bounded measurable coefficients}. Indeed, notice that given some uniformly elliptic coefficients $(a_{ij}(x))_{i,j}$ with no regularity assumption on $x$, if $u\in C^2$ fulfills $\sum_{i,j} a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} u$ then in particular \eqref{eq.nondiv_bmc} holds. On the other hand, if \eqref{eq.nondiv_bmc} holds for some $u\in C^2$, one can recover some uniformly elliptic coefficients $(a_{ij}(x))_{i,j}$ such that $\sum_{i,j} a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} u$.
\end{rem}
\section{Equations in two variables}
Before going into the general theory of existence and regularity for fully nonlinear equations in $\mathbb{R}^n$, let us study a simpler case: fully nonlinear equations in two variables.
The main regularity estimate in this context is due to Nirenberg \cite{Nir}, and reads as follows.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm.2D}\index{Equations in two variables (fully nonlinear)}
Let $F:\mathbb{R}^{2\times 2}\to \mathbb{R}$ be uniformly elliptic with ellipticity constants $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$. Let $u\in C^2(B_1)$ solve
\[
F(D^2u ) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1\subset\mathbb{R}^2.
\]
Then,
\[
\|u\|_{C^{2,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le C\|u \|_{L^\infty(B_1)},
\]
for some constants $\alpha > 0$ and $C$ depending only on $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$.
\end{thm}
The idea of the proof is the following: define $v := \partial_e u$, and differentiate the equation $F(D^2u)=0$ in the $e$ direction, to get
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:newtag1}
\sum_{i, j = 1}^2 a_{ij}(x)\partial_{ij} v(x) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1\subset\mathbb{R}^2,
\end{equation}
where $a_{ij}(x) := F_{ij}(D^2 u(x))$ for $i,j\in \{1,2\}$.
Since $F$ is uniformly elliptic, we have $a_{22}(x) \ge \lambda > 0$. Thus, we can divide \eqref{eq:newtag1} by $a_{22}(x)$ to obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:newtag2}
a(x) \partial_{11}v(x) + b(x) \partial_{12}v(x) +\partial_{22}v(x) = 0,
\end{equation}
for some coefficients
\[
a(x) = \frac{a_{11}(x)}{a_{22}(x)}\quad\text{and} \quad b(x) = \frac{a_{12}(x)+a_{21}(x)}{a_{22}(x)} = \frac{2a_{12}(x)}{a_{22}(x)}.
\]
If we write $w := \partial_{1} v$ and differentiate \eqref{eq:newtag2} with respect to $x_1$, we get
\[
\partial_{1}\big(a(x) \partial_{1}w(x) + b(x)\partial_{2} w(x) \big) + \partial_{22}w(x) = {\rm div}(A(x)\nabla w) = 0,
\]
where
$$
A(x) := \left(\begin{matrix}
a(x) & b(x)\\
0 & 1
\end{matrix}\right).
$$
That is, $w$ solves an equation in divergence form, and $A$ is uniformly elliptic, with ellipticity constants depending on $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$.
Thus, by the De~Giorgi--Nash result (Theorem~\ref{thm.DGN_Om}) one has $\partial_1 v=w\in C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})$.
Since the roles of $x_1$ and $x_2$ can be changed, and since $v=\partial_e u$ (with $e\in \mathbb S^{n-1}$ arbitrary), we deduce that $u\in C^{2,\alpha}(B_{1/2})$.
Let us now formally prove it. The idea is the one presented in the lines above, where we used that $u\in C^4$. In reality we can only use that $u\in C^2$, so we proceed by means of incremental quotients.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.2D}]
Let us define
\[
v(x) = \frac{u(x+h)-u(x)}{|h|}\in C^2(B_{1-|h|}),
\]
with $|h|< \frac14$, and proceed similarly to Theorem~\ref{thm.C1aimpCinf}. Since $F$ is translation invariant, we have
\[
F(D^2 u(x) ) = 0,\quad F(D^2 u(x+h) ) = 0 \quad\textrm{in}\quad B_{1-|h|}.
\]
Then, by the fundamental theorem of calculus for line integrals,
\[
0 = F(D^2 u(x+h) ) - F(D^2 u(x)) = \sum_{i,j = 1}^2 a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} \big(u(x+h)-u(x)\big),
\]
where
\[
a_{ij}(x) = \int_0^1 F_{ij}\big(t D^2 u(x+h) + (1-t) D^2 u(x) \big)\, dt.
\]
Since $F$ is uniformly elliptic, $(a_{ij})_{i,j}$ is uniformly elliptic (with the same ellipticity constants). That is, $v\in C^2(B_{1-|h|})$ solves an equation in non-divergence form
\[
a_{11}(x) \partial_{11}v(x)+ 2a_{12}(x)\partial_{12}v(x) + a_{22}(x) \partial_{22}v(x) = 0 \quad\textrm{in}\quad B_{1-|h|},
\]
where $a_{12} = a_{21}$ and $\partial_{12}v = \partial_{21}v$ because $v\in C^2$. From the ellipticity conditions, we have $\lambda \le a_{22}(x)\le \Lambda$, and we can divide by $a_{22}(x)$ to get
\[
a(x) \partial_{11}v(x)+ b(x)\partial_{12} v(x)+\partial_{22}v(x) = 0 \quad\textrm{in}\quad B_{1-|h|}.
\]
Let
$$
A(x) := \left(\begin{matrix}
a(x) & b(x)\\
0 & 1
\end{matrix}\right).
$$
It is straightforward to check that $A$ is uniformly elliptic, with ellipticity constants $\lambda/\Lambda$ and $\Lambda/\lambda$.
Let $\eta\in C^2_c(B_{1-|h|})$ and notice that, by integration by parts,
\[
\int_{B_{1-|h|}} \partial_2\eta \,\partial_{12}v = \int_{B_{1-|h|}} \partial_1\eta \,\partial_{22}v.
\]
Thus,
\begin{align*}
\int_{B_{1-|h|}} \nabla \eta \cdot A(x) \nabla \partial_{1}v & = \int_{B_{1-|h|}} \nabla \eta(x) \cdot \left(\begin{matrix}
a(x)\partial_{11}v(x) + b(x) \partial_{12}v(x) \\
\partial_{12}v (x)
\end{matrix}\right)\, dx\\
& = \int_{B_{1-|h|}} \big\{\partial_1\eta \,\big(a(x) \partial_{11}v + b(x) \partial_{12}v \big)+ \partial_2\eta \, \partial_{12}v\big\}\, dx\\
& = \int_{B_{1-|h|}} \partial_1\eta\, \big(a(x) \partial_{11}v + b(x) \partial_{12}v + \partial_{22}v\big)\, dx\\
& = 0.
\end{align*}
That is, $\partial_{1}v$ solves an equation with bounded measurable coefficients $A(x)$ in divergence form. Thus, by the De~Giorgi--Nash theorem (see Theorem~\ref{thm.DGCaLi}), we know that $\partial_{1}v\in C^\alpha$ and
\[
\|\partial_{1}v\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C\|\partial_{1}v\|_{L^\infty(B_{1-|h|})}\le C\|\partial_{1}u\|_{C^{0,1}(B_{1})},
\]
(notice that we can go from $B_1$ to $B_{1-|h|}$ in Theorem~\ref{thm.DGCaLi} by a covering argument for $|h|$ small), for some constant $C$ depending only on $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$. By letting $|h|\to 0$, thanks to \ref{it.H7}, we obtain that
\[
\|\nabla \partial_{1}u\|_{C^{0, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C\|\partial_{1}v\|_{L^\infty(B_{1-|h|})}\le C\|\partial_{1}u\|_{C^{0,1}(B_{1})},
\]
for some constant $C$ depending only on $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$.
By symmetry, the same inequality is true for $\partial_{2}v$ (and $\partial_{2}u$), so that
\[
\|u\|_{C^{2, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C\|u\|_{C^{1,1}(B_{1})}.
\]
Notice that, by interpolation inequalities (see \eqref{ch0-interp2}), for each $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists some $C_\varepsilon > 0$ such that
\[
\|u\|_{C^{1, 1}(B_{1/2})} \le \varepsilon \|u\|_{C^{2, \alpha}(B_{1})}+ C_\varepsilon\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_{1})}.
\]
Now, the proof can be concluded by means of Lemma~\ref{lem.SAL} analogously to what has been done in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates}.
\end{proof}
Thus, as we can see, in the two-dimensional case it is rather easy to show a priori $C^{2,\alpha}$ estimates for solutions to the fully nonlinear equation. Thanks to these estimates, by means of the continuity method (see \cite{GT} or \cite{HL}) one can actually show the existence of $C^{2,\alpha}$ solutions for the Dirichlet problem.
Nonetheless, as we will see, it turns out that in higher dimensions such an a priori estimate is no longer available, and one needs to prove existence of solutions in a different way, by introducing a new notion of weak solution (viscosity solutions).
This is what we do in the next section.
\section{Existence of solutions}
\label{sec.43}
We now turn our attention to fully nonlinear elliptic equations in $\mathbb{R}^n$.
The first question to understand is the existence of solutions: given a nice domain $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$, and a nice boundary data $g: \partial\Omega\to \mathbb{R}$, can we always solve the following Dirichlet problem?
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
F(D^2 u) & = & 0 & \textrm{in }~\Omega\\
u & = & g & \textrm{on }~\partial\Omega.
\end{array}
\right.
\]
Notice that here we cannot construct the solution by minimizing a functional, since these fully nonlinear equations do not come, in general, from any energy functional.
To construct the solution, we only have two options:
\begin{itemize}
\item[--] Prove ``a priori estimates'' and then use the continuity method.
\item[--] Use the comparison principle and Perron's method.
\end{itemize}
The continuity method is reasonably easy to use, but we need $C^{2, \alpha}$ estimates for solutions up to the boundary. This is a very difficult problem, and in fact, in general we do \emph{not} have $C^{2, \alpha}$ estimates for these equations in~$\mathbb{R}^n$.
Therefore, we need to construct some kind of generalized notion of solution: \emph{viscosity solutions}.
The right concept of solution must be so that we have
\begin{itemize}
\item \underline{\smash{Existence of solutions}}.
\item \underline{\smash{Comparison principle}} (and in particular, uniqueness of solutions).
\item \underline{\smash{Stability}} (so that limits of solutions are solutions).
\end{itemize}
Notice that if we consider only $C^2$ solutions, then we have the comparison principle (and it is easy to prove), but we may not be able to prove existence.
On the other hand, if we relax the notion of solution, then we may be able to easily prove the existence of a solution, but then it will be more difficult to prove the uniqueness/comparison principle.
The right notion of generalized solution is the one given in Definition~\ref{defi.visco} below, known as viscosity solutions. For subsolutions in the viscosity sense, this notion only requires that the function is upper semi-continuous (USC), while for supersolutions in the viscosity sense, this notion can be checked on lower semi-continuous (LSC) functions. This is important in the proof of existence of solutions.
We recall that a function $f$ is said to be upper semi-continuous at $x_\circ$ if
\[
\limsup_{x\to x_\circ} f(x) \le f(x_\circ).
\]
Similarly, it is lower semi-continuous at $x_\circ$ if \[\liminf_{x\to x_\circ} f(x) \ge f(x_\circ).\]
We refer to \cite{S-viscosity} for a nice introduction to viscosity solutions to elliptic equations.
\begin{defi}[Viscosity solutions]\index{Viscosity solution}
\label{defi.visco}
Let $F:\mathbb{R}^{n \times n}\to \mathbb{R}$ be uniformly elliptic, and consider the PDE
\[
F(D^2 u) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad\Omega.
\]
$\bullet$ \ \index{Viscosity subsolution} We say that $u\in {\rm USC}(\overline{\Omega})$ is a \emph{subsolution} (in the viscosity sense), and we write $F(D^2u) \ge 0$, if for any $\phi\in C^2(\Omega)$ such that $\phi \ge u$ in $\Omega$ and $\phi(x_\circ) = u(x_\circ)$, $x_\circ \in \Omega$, we have $F(D^2\phi(x_\circ)) \ge 0$.
\vspace{1mm}
\noindent $\bullet$ \ \index{Viscosity supersolution} We say that $u\in {\rm LSC}(\overline{\Omega})$ is a \emph{supersolution} (in the viscosity sense), and we write $F(D^2u) \le 0$, if for any $\phi\in C^2(\Omega)$ such that $\phi \le u$ in $\Omega$ and $\phi(x_\circ) = u(x_\circ)$, $x_\circ \in \Omega$, we have $F(D^2\phi(x_\circ)) \le 0$.
\vspace{1mm}
\noindent $\bullet$ \ \index{Viscosity solution} We say that $u\in C(\overline{\Omega})$ solves $F(D^2 u) = 0$ in $\Omega$ in the viscosity sense if it is both a subsolution and a supersolution.
\end{defi}
Notice that there may be points $x_\circ\in \Omega$ at which no function $\phi\in C^2$ touches $u$ at $x_\circ$ (from above and/or from below). This is allowed by the previous definition.
\begin{rem}[Some history]
The concept of viscosity solution was introduced in 1983 by Crandall and P.-L. Lions in the study of first-order equations.
During a few years, the work on viscosity solutions focused on first-order equations, because it was not known whether second-order uniformly elliptic PDEs would have a unique viscosity solution (or if the comparison principle would hold for these solutions).
In 1988 the comparison principle for viscosity solutions was finally proved by Jensen \cite{Jensen}, and in subsequent years the concept has become prevalent in the analysis of elliptic PDEs.
In 1994, P.-L. Lions received the Fields Medal for his contributions to nonlinear PDEs, one of his major contributions being his work on viscosity solutions \cite{ICM94}.
\end{rem}
A key result in the theory of viscosity solutions is the following (see \cite{Jensen, CC}).
\begin{thm}[Comparison principle for viscosity solutions]\index{Comparison principle!Fully nonlinear equations (viscosity)}
\label{thm.comppr}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be any bounded domain, and $F:\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\to \mathbb{R}$ be uniformly elliptic.
Assume that $u \in {\rm LSC}(\overline{\Omega})$ and $v \in {\rm USC}(\overline{\Omega})$ satisfy
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:tag01}
u \ge v\quad\textrm{on}\quad\partial\Omega,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:tag02}
F(D^2 u) \le 0 \le F(D^2 v)\quad\textrm{in}\quad\Omega\quad\textrm{in the viscosity sense}.
\end{equation}
Then,
\[
u \ge v\quad\textrm{in}\quad\overline{\Omega}.
\]
\end{thm}
We already proved this for $C^2$ functions $u$ in Proposition~\ref{prop.comp_princ_C2}, and the proof was very simple.
For viscosity solutions the proof is more involved.
The main step in the proof of the comparison principle is the following.
\begin{prop} \label{prop.star}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be any bounded domain, and $F:\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\to \mathbb{R}$ be uniformly elliptic.
Assume that $u \in {\rm LSC}(\overline{\Omega})$ and $v \in {\rm USC}(\overline{\Omega})$ are bounded functions that satisfy \eqref{eq:tag01} and \eqref{eq:tag02}. Then,
\[
\mathcal M^-(D^2(u-v)) \leq 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad {\Omega}.
\]
\end{prop}
We refer the reader to \cite[Theorem 5.3]{CC} for a proof of such result, where it is proved assuming that $u, v\in C(\overline{\Omega})$.
The same proof works under the hypotheses here presented.
The comparison principle follows using Proposition \ref{prop.star} and the next lemma.
\begin{lem} \label{lem.star}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be any bounded domain, and assume that $w \in {\rm LSC}(\overline{\Omega})$ satisfies
\[
w \ge 0\quad\textrm{on}\quad\partial\Omega,
\]
and
\[
\mathcal M^-(D^2w) \leq 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad {\Omega}.
\]
Then, $w\geq 0$ in $\Omega$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The proof is similar to that of Proposition \ref{max-princ-viscosity}.
Indeed, first notice that after a rescaling we may assume $\Omega\subset B_1$, and assume by contradiction that $w$ has a negative minimum in $\Omega$.
Then, since $w\geq0$ on $\partial \Omega$, we have $\min_{\overline \Omega} w=-\delta$, with $\delta>0$, and the minimum is achieved in $\Omega$.
Let us now consider $0<\varepsilon<\delta$, and $v(x):= -\kappa+\varepsilon(|x|^2-1)$, with $\kappa>0$ (that is, a sufficiently flat paraboloid).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 1.3]{./Figures/fig_Lemma413.pdf}
\caption{We slide $v$ from below until it touches $w$ at a point $x_\circ$.}
\label{fig.9_413}
\end{figure}
Now, notice that $v<0$ on $\partial\Omega$, and we can choose $\kappa>0$ so that $v$ touches $w$ from below at a point inside $\Omega$.
In other words, there is $\kappa>0$ such that $w\geq v$ in $\Omega$, and $w(x_\circ)= v(x_\circ)$ for some $x_\circ\in \Omega$. (See Figure~\ref{fig.9_413}.)
Then, by definition of viscosity supersolution, we have
\[\mathcal M^-(D^2v)(x_\circ)\leq0.\]
However, a direct computation gives $\mathcal M^-(D^2v)=\mathcal M^-(2\varepsilon\textrm{Id})\equiv 2\lambda n\varepsilon>0$ in~$\Omega$, a contradiction.
\end{proof}
Once we have the comparison principle for viscosity solutions, we can use \emph{Perron's method} \index{Perron's method for viscosity solutions} to prove existence of solutions.
We next do this, following \cite{S-viscosity}.
First let us notice that, for any bounded function $u$ in $\overline \Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$, we may define its \emph{upper semi-continuous envelope} as
\[u^*(x):= \sup\{\limsup_k u(x_k) : x_k\to x\},\]
where the supremum is taken among all sequences $\overline\Omega\ni x_k\to x$.
Notice that $u^*$ is the smallest function satisfying $u^*\in {\rm USC}(\overline\Omega)$ and $u^*\geq u$.
Similarly, we define the lower semi-continuous envelope of $u$ as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.lscenv}
u_*(x):= \inf\{\liminf_k u(x_k) : x_k\to x\}.
\end{equation}
We will need the following lemma, which is a generalization of the fact that the maximum of subsolutions is also a subsolution.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem.limsuplim}
Let $F:\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\to \mathbb{R}$ be uniformly elliptic, and let $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ be any bounded domain.
Let $(u_a)_{a\in \mathcal A}$ be a family of subsolutions: $u_a \in {\rm USC}(\overline{\Omega})$, and $F(D^2 u_a)\ge 0$ in $\Omega$, for all $a\in \mathcal A$.
Let
\[u(x):= \sup_{a\in \mathcal A} u_a,\]
and let
\[u^*(x) := \sup\big\{\limsup_{k\to \infty} u(x_k) : x_k \to x\big\}.\]
Then, $u^*\in {\rm USC}(\overline \Omega)$ is a subsolution: $F(D^2u^*) \ge 0$ in $\Omega$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We divide the proof into two steps.
\\[0.1cm]
{\it \underline{\smash{Step 1}}.} In the first part, we show that if $u^*$ has a strict local maximum at $x_\circ$, then one can extract sequences of indices $a_k\in \mathcal A$ for $k\in \mathbb{N}$, and of points $x_{k}\in \overline{\Omega}$, such that $x_k\to x_\circ$, $u_{a_k}$ has a local maximum at $x_{k}$, and $u_{a_k}(x_{k})\to u^*(x_\circ)$.
By definition of $u^*(x_\circ)$, we can extract a sequence of indices $(a_j)_{j\in \mathbb{N}}$, $a_j\in \mathcal A$, and of points $y_j\to x_\circ$, such that $u_{a_j}(y_j)\to u^*(x_\circ)$. Now let us prove that we can extract a further subsequence $a_k:= a_{j_k}$ such that our desired conclusion holds.
Indeed, let $r> 0$ be such that $u^*(y) < u^*(x_\circ)$ for $y\in B_r(x_\circ)\setminus\{x_\circ\}$, and let $\rho > 0$ be so small that, if $K_\rho := B_r(x_\circ)\setminus B_\rho(x_\circ)$, then
\[
\max_{K_\rho} u^* \le u^*(x_\circ) - \delta,
\]
for some $\delta >0$.
Now notice that, for $j$ large enough, $u_{a_j} \le u^*(x_\circ) - \delta/2$ in $K_\rho$. Otherwise, there would be $j_m \to \infty$ and $z_m$ such that $u_{a_{j_m}}(z_m) > u^*(x_\circ) - \delta/2 \ge \max_{K_\rho} u^*+\delta/2$. Since $K_\rho$ is compact, up to a subsequence, $z_m \to z_\infty$ for some $z_\infty$ in $K_\rho$ such that
\[
u^*(z_\infty) \ge \limsup_{m\to \infty} u_{a_{j_m}} (z_m) > \max_{K_\rho} u^*+\delta/2.
\]
A contradiction. Thus, $u_{a_j} \le u^*(x_\circ) - \delta/2$ in $K_\rho$ for $j$ large enough.
Let now $x_j\in \overline{B_r(x_\circ)}$ be the point where the maximum of $u_{a_j}$ in $\overline{B_r(x_\circ)}$ is attained. In particular, $u_{a_j}(x_j) \ge u_{a_j}(y_j) \to u^*(x_\circ)$, that is, $u_{a_j}(x_j) \ge u^*(x_\circ) - \delta/4$ for $j$ large enough. Since $u_{a_j} \le u^*(x_\circ)-\delta/2$ in $K_\rho$ (again, for $j$ large enough), this implies that $x_j \in B_\rho(x_\circ)$. That is, $u_{k_j}$ attains its maximum in $B_r(x_\circ)$, inside $B_\rho(x_\circ)$. By repeating this argument choosing smaller $\rho> 0$, we can extract a subsequence $a_k:= a_{j_k}$ to get the desired result. Notice that $x_j \to x_\circ$, and that by construction, $u_{a_j}(x_j) \ge u_{a_j} (y_j) \to u^*(x_\circ)$, so that $u_{a_j}(x_j) \to u^*(x_\circ)$. This completes the first part of the proof.
Notice that so far we have not used that $u_a$ are subsolutions.
\\[0.1cm]
{\it \underline{\smash{Step 2}}.}
Let us now proceed with the second part of the proof, which proves the lemma. Let $\phi\in C^2$ be such that $\phi(x_\circ) = u^*(x_\circ)$ and $u\le \phi$ around $x_\circ$ (that is, $u-\phi$ attains its local maximum at $x_\circ$), with $x_\circ\in \Omega$. By considering $\bar \phi (x)= \phi (x)+ |x- x_\circ|^4$, we have that $u-\bar \phi$ attains a strict local maximum at $x_\circ$. We apply now the first part of the proof with $v_a := u_{a} - \bar \phi$. That is, there exist sequences of indices $(a_k)_{k\in \mathbb{N}}$, and points $x_k \to x_\circ$ such that $u_{a_k} - \bar \phi$ attains its local maximum at $x_k$ and $u_{a_k}(x_k) \to u^*(x_\circ)$ (since $\bar \phi$ is continuous). In particular, since $u_{a_k}$ are subsolutions in the viscosity sense, we have
\[
F\big(D^2\bar \phi(x_k) \big) \ge 0 \quad \Longrightarrow \quad F\big(D^2\bar \phi(x_\circ) \big) = F\big(D^2\phi(x_\circ) \big) \ge 0,
\]
by continuity of $F$ and $D^2\phi$. Thus, $u$ is a viscosity subsolution.
\end{proof}
We can now prove the existence of viscosity solutions.
To do so, we assume that we are given a bounded domain $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.Pprop}
\begin{split}
&\textrm{for every $x_\circ \in \partial\Omega$, there exists some $\psi_+\in C^2(\overline{\Omega})$ such that}\\
&\psi_+(x_\circ) = 0,\quad \psi_+|_{\partial\Omega\setminus \{x_\circ\}} > 0,\quad \textrm{and}~\mathcal{M}^+(D^2\psi_+) \le 0 \textrm{ in }\Omega,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where we recall that $\mathcal{M}^+$ is the Pucci operator defined in \eqref{eq.Pucci} with ellipticity constants $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$.
Notice that, if \eqref{eq.Pprop} holds, then we also have that for every $x_\circ \in \partial\Omega$, there exists some $\psi_-\in C^2(\overline{\Omega})$ such that $\psi_-(x_\circ) = 0$, $\psi_-|_{\partial\Omega\setminus \{x_\circ\}} < 0$, and
\[
\mathcal{M}^-(D^2\psi_-) \ge 0\textrm{ in }\Omega,
\]
where $\psi_-$ is simply given by $\psi_- = -\psi_+$.
We will later show that any bounded $C^2$ domain satisfies \eqref{eq.Pprop}, for any constants $0<\lambda\leq \Lambda$.
\begin{rem}
\label{rem.f00}
In the following results, we will often assume that $F(0) = 0$. Otherwise, if $F(0) \neq 0$, we can consider the uniformly elliptic operator $\tilde F_t(D^2 u) := F\left(D^2(u+t|x|^2/2)\right) = F(D ^2u + t{\rm Id})$ instead. Then, $\tilde F_t(0) = F(t{\rm Id})$, and we can choose $t\in \mathbb{R}$ such that $F(t{\rm Id}) = 0$. Indeed, if $F(0) > 0$, by \eqref{eq.pucciext} $\tilde F_t(0) = F(t{\rm Id}) \le \mathcal{M}^+(t{\rm Id}) + F(0) = tn\lambda + F(0) < 0$ for $t <0 $ negative enough. Since $\tilde F_0(0) = F(0) > 0$, by continuity of $\tilde F_t$ in $t$, we are done for some $t\in \big[-\frac{F(0)}{n\lambda}, 0\big)$. The case $F(0) < 0$ follows analogously.
\end{rem}
\begin{thm}[Existence and uniqueness of viscosity solutions]\index{Existence and uniqueness!Viscosity solutions}
\label{thm.exist_sol}
Let $F:\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\to \mathbb{R}$ be uniformly elliptic with ellipticity constants $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$, let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be any bounded domain such that \eqref{eq.Pprop} holds, and let $g\in C(\partial\Omega)$.
Then, there exists a (unique) viscosity solution to the Dirichlet problem
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
F(D^2 u) & = & 0 & \textrm{in }\Omega\\
u & = & g & \textrm{on }\partial\Omega.
\end{array}
\right.
\]
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The uniqueness follows directly from the comparison principle, Theorem~\ref{thm.comppr}.
Thanks to Remark~\ref{rem.f00}, we will assume $F(0) = 0$.
The proof of existence follows by means of Perron's method, as shown next.
Let us define the set of all subsolutions as
\[
\mathcal{A} := \big\{v\in {\rm USC}(\overline{\Omega}) : F(D^2 v)\ge 0~~\textrm{ in }~~\Omega, ~~ v \le g ~~\textrm{ on }~~\partial\Omega\big\}.
\]
Then, we can define the pointwise supremum of all subsolutions in $\mathcal{A}$,
\[
u(x) := \sup_{v\in \mathcal{A}} v(x).
\]
Notice that since the constant function $-\|g\|_{L^\infty(\partial\Omega)}$ belongs to $\mathcal{A}$, such set is non-empty.
Notice also that all elements of $\mathcal{A}$ must be below the constant $\|g\|_{L^\infty(\partial\Omega)}$ by the comparison principle, and thus $u$ is bounded.
We define the upper semi-continuous envelope
\[u^*(x) = \sup\big\{\limsup_{k\to \infty} u(x_k) : x_k \to x\big\}.\]
Notice that, by Lemma~\ref{lem.limsuplim}, we have $F(D^2 u^*)\geq0$ in $\Omega$.
The strategy of the proof is as follows.
We first prove that $u^*=g$ on~$\partial\Omega$.
This implies that $u^*\in \mathcal A$, and therefore $u^*=u$.
Then, once this is done, we will define $u_*$ as the lower semi-continuous envelope of $u$, and show that $u_*$ is a supersolution.
By the comparison principle, this will imply that $u_*\geq u$, and thus $u_*=u$.
This means that $u$ is continuous, and that it is both a subsolution and a supersolution, as wanted.
\vspace{1mm}
\noindent {\it \underline{\smash{Step 1}}.} Let us start by showing that $u^* = g$ on $\partial\Omega$, and that $u^*$ is continuous on $\partial\Omega$.
Namely, we show that for every $x_\circ\in \partial\Omega$, and every $x_k \to x_\circ$ with $x_k \in \Omega$, then $\liminf_{k\to \infty} u^*(x_k) = \limsup_{k\to \infty} u^*(x_k) = g(x_\circ)$.
Let $\varepsilon > 0$, and let us define
\[
w_\varepsilon^- := g(x_\circ) - \varepsilon + k_\varepsilon\psi_- = g(x_\circ) - \varepsilon - k_\varepsilon\psi_+,
\]
where $k_\varepsilon > 0$ is chosen large enough (depending on $\varepsilon$ but also on $g$ and $\Omega$) such that $w_\varepsilon^- \le g$ on $\partial\Omega$, and $\psi_- = -\psi_+$ is the function given by property \eqref{eq.Pprop} at $x_\circ$.
Let us also define
\[
w_\varepsilon^+ := g(x_\circ) + \varepsilon + k_\varepsilon\psi_+,
\]
where $k_\varepsilon > 0$ is such that $w_\varepsilon^+ \ge g$ on $\partial\Omega$ (without loss of generality, by taking it larger if necessary, we can assume it is the same as before).
By the properties of the extremal operators \eqref{eq.Pucci}, we have $\mathcal{M}^-(D^2 w_\varepsilon^-) = k_\varepsilon \mathcal{M}^-(D^2 \psi_-) \ge 0$ and $\mathcal{M}^+(D^2 w_\varepsilon^+) = k_\varepsilon \mathcal{M}^+(D^2 \psi_+) \le 0$ in $\Omega$.
In particular, by \eqref{eq.pucciext} (recall $F(0) = 0$),
\[
F(D^2 w_\varepsilon^-)\ge 0\qquad \textrm{and} \qquad F(D^2 w_\varepsilon^+)\le 0\qquad\textrm{in}\quad\Omega,
\]
and $w_\varepsilon^-\in \mathcal{A}$.
Notice that, by continuity of $\psi_-$, for each $\varepsilon > 0$ there exists some $\delta > 0$ such that $w_\varepsilon^- \ge g(x_\circ) - 2\varepsilon$ in $B_\delta(x_\circ)\cap \Omega$.
This yields, $u^*\ge w_\varepsilon^- \ge g(x_\circ) - 2\varepsilon$ in $B_\delta(x_\circ)\cap \Omega$, so that if $x_k \to x_\circ$, then \[\liminf_{k\to \infty} u(x_k) \ge g(x_\circ)-2\varepsilon.\]
On the other hand, by the comparison principle, all elements in $\mathcal{A}$ are below $w_\varepsilon^+$ for any $\varepsilon > 0$.
Again, by continuity of $\psi_+$, for each $\varepsilon > 0$ there exists some $\delta > 0$ such that $w_\varepsilon^+ \le g(x_\circ) + 2 \varepsilon$ in $B_\delta(x_\circ)\cap \Omega$.
This yields, $u^*\le w_\varepsilon^+ \le g(x_\circ) + 2\varepsilon$ in $B_\delta(x_\circ)\cap \Omega$, so that if $x_k \to x_\circ$, then \[\limsup_{k\to \infty} u(x_k) \le g(x_\circ)+2\varepsilon.\]
Since $\varepsilon>0$ is arbitrary, we have that if $x_k \to x_\circ$, then
\[
\lim_{k\to \infty} u^*(x_k) = g(x_\circ).
\]
Therefore, $u^* = g$ on $\partial\Omega$ and $u$ is continuous on $\partial\Omega$. In particular, we have $u^*\in\mathcal A$ and (since $u^*\geq u$) $u^*\equiv u$.
This means that $u\in {\rm USC}(\overline\Omega)$ and $F(D^2 u)\geq0$ in $\Omega$.
\noindent {\it \underline{\smash{Step 2}}.}
Now, we show that $u$ is a supersolution as well.
To do so, we consider its lower semi-continuous envelope $u_*$, \eqref{eq.lscenv}, and prove that $F(D^2 u_*)\leq 0$ in $\Omega$.
We start by noticing that, since $u$ is continuous on the boundary (by Step 1), then $u_* = g$ on $\partial\Omega$.
Assume by contradiction that $u_*$ is not a supersolution, that is, there exists some $x_\circ \in \Omega$ such that for some $\phi\in C^2$ we have $\phi(x_\circ) = u_*(x_\circ)$, $\phi \le u_*$, but $F(D^2\phi(x_\circ)) > 0$.
By taking $\bar \phi = \phi - |x-x_\circ|^4$ if necessary, we may assume that $\phi < u_*$ if $x\neq x_\circ$, and we still have $F(D^2 \phi(x_\circ)) > 0$.
Notice that, by continuity of $F$ and $D^2\phi$, we have $F(D^2 \phi) > 0$ in $B_\rho(x_\circ)$ for some small $\rho > 0$.
On the other hand, consider $\phi + \delta$ for $\delta > 0$, and define $u_\delta := \max\{u, \phi+\delta\}$.
Since $\phi(x) < u_*(x) \le u(x) $ for $x\neq x_\circ$, we have for $\delta > 0$ small enough that $\phi_\delta < u$ outside $B_\rho(x_\circ)$.
Now, notice that $u_\delta$ is a subsolution, since it coincides with $u$ outside $B_\rho(x_\circ)$ and it is the maximum of two subsolutions in $B_\rho(x_\circ)$.
This means that $u_\delta\in \mathcal A$, and thus $u_\delta \leq u$.
However, this means that $\phi+\delta\leq u$ everywhere in $\Omega$, and thus $\phi+\delta\leq u_*$, a contradiction.
Thus, $u_*$ had to be a supersolution.
But then, again by the comparison principle, since $u$ is a subsolution and $u = u_* = g$ on $\partial \Omega$, we get that $u_*\ge u$ in $\Omega$, which means that $u = u_*$.
Therefore, $u$ is continuous, both a subsolution and a supersolution, and $u = g$ on~$\partial\Omega$.
This concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
As a consequence, we find the following.
\begin{cor}
\label{cor.fig10}\index{Dirichlet problem!Fully nonlinear equations}
Let $\Omega$ be any bounded $C^2$ domain, and $F:\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\to \mathbb{R}$ be uniformly elliptic. Then, for any continuous $g\in C(\partial\Omega)$, the Dirichlet problem
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
F(D^2 u) & = & 0 & \textrm{in }\Omega\\
u & = & g & \textrm{on }\partial\Omega,
\end{array}
\right.
\]
has a unique viscosity solution.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
The result follows from the previous theorem, we just need to check that any $C^2$ domain fulfils \eqref{eq.Pprop}.
To do so, we need to construct an appropriate barrier at every boundary point $z\in \partial\Omega$.
Notice, that in the very simple case that $\Omega$ is strictly convex, such barrier $\psi_+$ can simply be a hyperplane with zero level set tangent to $\Omega$ at a given boundary point, such that it is positive in $\Omega$.
In general, since $\Omega$ is a bounded $C^2$ domain, it satisfies the exterior ball condition for some uniform radius $\rho > 0$: that is, for each point $x_\circ\in \partial\Omega$ there exist some point $z_{x_\circ} = z(x_\circ)\in \Omega^c$ and a ball $B_\rho(z_{x_\circ})$ such that $B_\rho(z_{x_\circ}) \subset \Omega^c$ and $B_\rho(z_{x_\circ}) \cap \partial\Omega = \{x_\circ\}$. See Figure~\ref{fig.10}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 1.3]{./Figures/fig10_2.pdf}
\caption{Representation of the construction from the proof of Corollary~\ref{cor.fig10}.}
\label{fig.10}
\end{figure}
Let us construct the barrier $\psi_+$ from \eqref{eq.Pprop} for $C^2$ domains. We consider the function $\psi$ in $\mathbb{R}^n\setminus B_\rho$, for $\rho > 0$ given by the exterior ball condition,
\[
\psi(x)= e^{-\alpha\rho^2}-e^{-\alpha|x|^2},
\]
for some $\alpha > 0$ also to be chosen.
Notice that
\begin{align*}
e^{\alpha|x|^2} D^2\psi(x) & = -4\alpha^2 \left(\begin{matrix}
x_1^2 & x_1 x_2 & \dots & x_1 x_n \\
x_2x_1 & x_2^2 & \dots & x_2x_n \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
x_{n}x_1 &\dots & \dots & x_{n}^2
\end{matrix}\right) + 2\alpha{\rm Id}\\
& = 2\alpha{\rm Id}-4\alpha^2 xx^T.
\end{align*}
Then, for $|x|\geq\rho$ we have
\[\begin{split}
e^{\alpha|x|^2}\mathcal{M}^+(D^2\psi) & \leq 2\alpha\mathcal{M}^+({\rm Id}) - 4\alpha^2\mathcal{M}^-(xx^T)
= 2\alpha n\Lambda - 4\alpha^2\lambda|x|^2 \\
&\leq 2\alpha (n\Lambda - 2\alpha\lambda \rho^2).
\end{split}\]
In particular, if we choose $\alpha \ge \frac{n\Lambda}{2\lambda\rho^2}$, we have
\[
\mathcal{M}^+(D^2\psi) \le 0\quad \textrm{in}\quad B_\rho^c.
\]
Therefore, translations of $\psi$ are good candidates for the function $\psi_+$ from \eqref{eq.Pprop}.
Let now $x_\circ\in \partial\Omega$ be any point on the boundary, and take $\psi_+(x) := \psi(x-z_{x_\circ})$. It is clear that $\psi_+(x_\circ) = 0$, and that $\psi_+(x) > 0$ for any $x\in \overline{\Omega}\setminus \{x_\circ\}$. On the other hand, from the discussion above we know that $\mathcal{M}^+(D^2\psi_+) \le 0$. Thus, $\Omega$ fulfills \eqref{eq.Pprop}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}[Lipschitz domains]
It is actually possible to show that \eqref{eq.Pprop} holds for any bounded Lipschitz domain, too.
In particular, this yields the existence of viscosity solutions in such class of domains.
\end{rem}
Finally, we also have the following:
\begin{prop}[Stability of viscosity solutions]\index{Stability of viscosity solutions}
\label{prop.stability_viscosity}
Let $F_k$ be a sequence of uniformly elliptic operators (with ellipticity constants $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$), and let $u_k\in C(\Omega)$ be such that $F_k(D^2 u_k) = 0$ in $\Omega$ in the viscosity sense.
Assume that $F_k$ converges to $F$ uniformly in compact sets, and $u_k \to u$ uniformly in compact sets of $\Omega$. Then, $F(D^2 u) = 0$ in $\Omega$ in the viscosity sense.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The proof uses the same ideas as the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem.limsuplim}.
Let $x_\circ\in \Omega$ and $\phi\in C^2$ be such that $\phi(x_\circ) = u(x_\circ)$ and $\phi\le u$ in $\Omega$. By taking $\bar\phi(x) = \phi(x) + |x-x_\circ|^4$ we have that $u - \bar\phi$ attains a strict local maximum at $x_\circ$.
Let now $v_k := u_k - \bar\phi$. Up to a subsequence, by Step 1 in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem.limsuplim}, there exists a sequence $x_k\to x_\circ$ such that $u_k - \bar\phi$ attains a local maximum at $x_k$, and from the uniform convergence of $u_k$ to $u$, we also have $u_k(x_k) \to u(x_\circ)$. Since $u_k$ are, in particular, subsolutions in the viscosity sense for the operator $F_k$, we have that $F_k(D^2\bar\phi(x_k)) \ge 0$. Now, since $x_k\to x_\circ$, and $F_k$ converges uniformly to $F$, we get that, letting $k\to \infty$, $F(D^2\bar\phi(x_\circ)) = F(D^2\phi(x_\circ)) \ge 0$.
In particular, $u$ is a viscosity subsolution for $F$. Doing the same for $-u$, we reach that $u$ is a viscosity solution.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
We have seen that for fully nonlinear equations $F(D^2 u)=0$ we have existence, uniqueness, and stability of viscosity solutions. The same can be done for more general equations like $F(D^2 u, x)=f(x)$, with continuous coefficients in $x$, see \cite{CC}.
However, when we want to study linear equations in non-divergence form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.linearbmc}
\sum a_{ij}(x)\partial_{ij} u(x)=0
\end{equation}
with bounded measurable coefficients, it turns out that viscosity solutions do not behave so well; see the counterexample in \cite{Nad97} (see also \cite{CCKS96}). This is the reason why, instead of defining viscosity solutions for a specific equation of the type \eqref{eq.linearbmc}, what we do is to say that $u$ solves an equation with bounded measurable coefficients (in non-divergence form) whenever it satisfies
\[
\mathcal{M}^-(D^2 u) \le 0 \le \mathcal{M}^+(D^2 u)
\]
in viscosity sense, where $\mathcal{M}^\pm$ are the Pucci extremal operators (recall Definition~\ref{def.pucci}). As explained in Remark~\ref{rem.eqnondivbmc}, for $C^2$ functions $u$ these two inequalities are equivalent to saying that $u$ solves \eqref{eq.linearbmc} for \emph{some} coefficients $a_{ij}(x)$.
\end{rem}
\underline{\smash{Summarizing}}: For viscosity solutions we now have all we need in order to study regularity issues:
\begin{itemize}
\item[--] Existence of solutions.
\item[--] Comparison principle.
\item[--] Stability under uniform limits.
\end{itemize}
\section{Regularity of solutions: an overview}
In the last section we saw that for any (smooth) domain $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ and any (continuous) boundary data $g$, one can find a unique viscosity solution $u\in C(\overline{\Omega})$ to the Dirichlet problem
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
F(D^2 u) & = & 0 & \textrm{in }~\Omega\\
u & = & g & \textrm{on }~\partial\Omega.
\end{array}
\right.
\]
Now, the main question is that of regularity:
\[
\begin{array}{l}
\textrm{If $u\in C({B_1})$ solves $F(D^2 u) = 0$ in $B_1$,}\\
\textrm{what can we say about the regularity of $u$?}
\end{array}
\]
Is the following implication true?
\begin{equation}\label{question-fully}
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\textrm{$F\in C^\infty$ and}\\
\textrm{uniformly elliptic}\\
\& \\
\textrm{$F(D^2u) = 0$ in $B_1$}
\end{array}
\right.
\quad
\xRightarrow[]{\quad\textrm{\Large ?}\quad}
\quad u \in C^\infty(B_{1/2}).
\end{equation}
This is in some sense a question analogous to Hilbert's XIXth problem.
\subsection*{Regularity for fully nonlinear equations: first results}
Assume that $u$ has some initial regularity, and that $F$ is $C^\infty$ and uniformly elliptic.
Then,
\[
F(D^2 u ) = 0 \quad \xrightarrow[\textrm{$\partial_e$}]{} \quad \sum_{i,j = 1}^n F_{ij}(D^2 u) \partial_{ij}(\partial_e u) = 0,
\]
where
\[
F_{ij} := \frac{\partial F}{\partial M_{ij}}
\]
is the derivative of $F(M)$ with respect to $M_{ij}$. Therefore, if we denote
\[
a_{ij} (x) := F_{ij}(D^2 u(x)),
\]
we will then have
\[
\textrm{$a_{ij}(x)$ is uniformly elliptic,}\quad 0<\lambda{\rm Id}\le (a_{ij}(x))_{i,j} \le\Lambda{\rm Id},
\]
thanks to the uniform ellipticity of $F$.
Denoting
\[
v = \partial_e u,
\]
we have
\[
F(D^2 u ) = 0 \quad\Longrightarrow \quad v = \partial_e u \quad\textrm{solves} \quad\sum_{i,j = 1}^n a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij}(\partial_e u) = 0,
\]
where $a_{ij}(x) = F_{ij}(D^2 u(x))$.
Now, if $u \in C^2$ (or $C^{2, \alpha}$), then the coefficients $a_{ij}(x)$ are continuous (or $C^{0,\alpha}$), and therefore we get, by Schauder-type estimates,
\[
u\in C^{2}\Rightarrow a_{ij}\in C^0 \Rightarrow v \in C^{1,\alpha}\Rightarrow u \in C^{2,\alpha}\Rightarrow \dots\Rightarrow u\in C^\infty,
\]
where we use the bootstrap argument
\[
u\in C^{2,\alpha}\Rightarrow a_{ij} \in C^{0,\alpha}\Rightarrow u \in C^{3,\alpha}\Rightarrow a_{ij}\in C^{1, \alpha}\Rightarrow \dots\Rightarrow u\in C^\infty.
\]
In other words, this suggests that the following result.
\begin{prop}
Let $F$ be uniformly elliptic and $C^\infty$.
Let $u$ be any solution of $F(D^2 u) = 0$ in $B_1$, and assume that $u\in C^2$.
Then, $u\in C^\infty$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The idea is the one presented in the lines above, but we can only use that $u\in C^2$ (in the previous argumentation, we used that $u$ is $C^3$).
To do so, we make use of incremental quotients, as in Theorem~\ref{thm.C1aimpCinf}.
Let $u\in C^2(B_1)$, and let $h\in \mathbb{R}^n$ with $|h|$ small.
Notice that $F$ is translation invariant, so
\[
F(D^2 u(x) ) = 0,\quad F(D^2 u(x+h) ) = 0 \quad\textrm{in}\quad B_{1-|h|}.
\]
Then,
\[
0 = F(D^2 u(x+h) ) - F(D^2 u(x)) = \sum_{i,j = 1}^n a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} \big(u(x+h)-u(x)\big) ,
\]
where
\[
a_{ij}(x) = \int_0^1 F_{ij}\big(t D^2 u(x+h) + (1-t) D^2 u(x)\big)\, dt
\]
(cf. the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm.C1aimpCinf} or Theorem~\ref{thm.2D}). This is just the fundamental theorem of calculus.
In particular, since $F$ is uniformly elliptic, $(a_{ij})_{i,j}$ is uniformly elliptic (with the same ellipticity constants). Since $u\in C^2$ and $F$ is smooth, $a_{ij}$ are continuous. That is, $\frac{u(\cdot+h)-u}{|h|}$ solves the equation in non-divergence form
\[
\sum_{i,j= 1}^n a_{ij}(x)\partial_{ij}\left(\frac{u(x+h)-u(x)}{|h|}\right) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_{1-|h|},
\]
for some continuous and uniformly elliptic coefficients $a_{ij}$.
By the a priori estimates for equations with continuous coefficients (Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates_cont}), we know that for any $\alpha\in(0,1)$ we have
\[
\left\|\frac{u(\cdot+h)-u}{|h|}\right\|_{C^{1, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C \left\|\frac{u(\cdot+h)-u}{|h|}\right\|_{L^\infty(B_{3/4})}\le C\|u\|_{C^{0,1}(B_{3/4})},
\]
for some constant $C$ that is independent of $h$.
By \ref{it.H7}, \eqref{eq.H7}, from Chapter~\ref{ch.0}, we reach that $u\in C^{2, \alpha}(B_{1/2})$, and by a covering argument $u\in C^{2, \alpha}$ inside $B_1$.
Now, we proceed iteratively.
Since $u\in C^{2, \alpha}$ inside $B_1$, we have that $\frac{u(\cdot+h)-u}{|h|}\in C^{2, \alpha}$ inside $B_{1-|h|}$ for all $h$. Together with $F$ being smooth, this implies that $a_{ij}\in C^{0,\alpha}$ inside $B_{1-|h|}$.
That is, now $\frac{u(\cdot+h)-u}{|h|}$ solves a non-divergence-form equation with H\"older continuous coefficients, and from Theorem~\ref{thm.Schauder_estimates} we get uniform bounds in the $C^{2,\alpha}$ norm for $\frac{u(\cdot+h)-u}{|h|}$, thus yielding that $u\in C^{3, \alpha}$ inside $B_1$.
We can repeat this argument iteratively, using the higher order estimates from Corollary~\ref{cor.Schauder_estimates_HO}, to reach the desired result.
\end{proof}
This is similar to what happened in Hilbert's XIXth problem: in that case we proved $C^1\Rightarrow C^\infty$.
Notice, however, that for fully nonlinear equations, the ``gap to be filled'' (from $C^0$ to $C^2$) is ``bigger'' than in Hilbert's XIXth problem (from $H^1$ to $C^1$).
Now, the central question to be answered is:
\[
\textrm{Is it true that solutions are always $C^2$?}
\]
In particular, we wonder whether viscosity solutions are always classical solutions or not, and thus, whether the Dirichlet problem always admits a classical solution.
\subsection*{Regularity for fully nonlinear equations}
An important observation in the previous argument was the following:
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\textrm{$u$ solves}\\
F(D^2 u) = 0
\end{array}
\right.
\quad
\Longrightarrow
\quad
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
v = \partial_e u \textrm{ solves }\sum_{i,j= 1}^n a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij} v = 0,\\
\textrm{with } a_{ij}(x) = F_{ij}(D^2 u(x) ).
\end{array}
\right.
\]
This means that, at least formally, the derivatives of any solution to any fully nonlinear equation solve an equation with bounded measurable coefficients.
This can be argued properly by looking at incremental quotients:
Recall from \eqref{eq.pucciext0} the equivalence
\[
\begin{array}{c}
F \textrm{ is uniformly elliptic} \\[0.2cm]
\big\Updownarrow\\[0.2cm]
\mathcal{M}^-(D^2(u-v)) \le F(D^2 u) - F(D^2 v) \le \mathcal{M}^+(D^2(u-v)),
\end{array}
\]
where $\mathcal{M}^\pm$ are the Pucci operators. Thus,
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{M}^-\big(D^2(u(x+h)-u(x))\big) & \le F(D^2 u(x+h)) - F(D^2 u(x)) \leq \\& \qquad\qquad \le \mathcal{M}^+\big(D^2(u(x+h)-u(x))\big) .
\end{align*}
Using $F(D^2 u) = 0$ and denoting
\[
v_h(x) = \frac{u(x+h)-u(x)}{|h|},
\]
we then reach
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
\mathcal{M}^+(D^2 v_h) & \ge & 0\\
\mathcal{M}^-(D^2 v_h) & \le & 0
\end{array}
\right.
\quad
\quad
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\textrm{equation with bounded}\\
\textrm{measurable coefficients}
\end{array}
\right).
\]
The question is now: in case of divergence-form equations we proved
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\textrm{equation with bounded}\\
\textrm{meas. coeff. }{\rm div}(A(x) \nabla v) = 0
\end{array}
\right.
~\Longrightarrow
~
v \in C^{0,\alpha}\quad\textrm{(De Giorgi-Nash)}.
\]
Is there a similar result for equations in non-divergence form? The answer is \textsc{Yes}.
\begin{thm}[Krylov--Safonov, 1979]\index{Krylov--Safonov Theorem} \label{thm-kry-saf-bdd}
Let $0<\lambda\le \Lambda$ be the ellipticity constants, and $v\in C(B_1)$ be any solution to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.forc2funct}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
\mathcal{M}^+(D^2 v) & \ge & 0\quad \textrm{in }~~ B_1\\
\mathcal{M}^-(D^2 v) & \le & 0\quad \textrm{in }~~ B_1,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
in the viscosity sense. Then,
\[
\|v\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le C\|v\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}
\]
for some small $\alpha > 0$ and $C$ depending only on $n$, $\lambda$, and $\Lambda$.
\end{thm}
This result was proved in \cite{KS-KS} (for classical solutions); see also \cite{M19} for a more recent and simplified proof, and \cite{DS-quasi} for an extension of the result.
Recall that (see the end of Section~\ref{sec.ellipt}), for $C^2$ functions, \eqref{eq.forc2funct} is actually equivalent to $v$ solving an equation of the type $\sum_{i,j} a_{ij}(x) \partial_{ij}v$ for some uniformly elliptic coefficients. This is why \eqref{eq.forc2funct} is called an {\em equation in non-divergence form with bounded measurable coefficients}.
As a consequence of this result, we find the following.
We assume for simplicity $F(0) = 0$, otherwise see Remark~\ref{rem.f00}.
\begin{thm}[Krylov--Safonov, 1979]\index{Krylov--Safonov Theorem} \label{thm-kry-saf-fully}
Let $F$ be uniformly elliptic, $F(0) = 0$, and $u\in C(B_1)$ be any viscosity solution to
\[
F(D^2 u) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1.
\]
Then,
\[
\|u\|_{C^{1, \alpha}(B_{1/2})} \le C\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}
\]
for some small $\alpha > 0$ and $C$ depending only on $n$, $\lambda$, and $\Lambda$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition \ref{prop.star} (with $v\equiv0$), the function $u\in C(B_1)$ solves itself an equation with bounded measurable coefficients
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
\mathcal{M}^+(D^2 u) & \ge & 0\quad \textrm{in }~~ B_1\\
\mathcal{M}^-(D^2 u) & \le & 0 \quad \textrm{in }~~ B_1.
\end{array}
\right.
\]
Therefore, by Theorem \ref{thm-kry-saf-bdd}, $u\in C^{0,\alpha}$ inside $B_1$.
Now, for $\beta\in(0,1]$ take
\[
v_h(x) := \frac{u(x+h)-u(x)}{|h|^\beta},
\]
which (again by Proposition \ref{prop.star}) also solves an equation with bounded measurable coefficients,
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
\mathcal{M}^+(D^2 v_h) & \ge & 0\quad \textrm{in }~~ B_{1-|h|}\\
\mathcal{M}^-(D^2 v_h) & \le & 0 \quad \textrm{in }~~ B_{1-|h|}.
\end{array}
\right.
\]
Then, again by Theorem \ref{thm-kry-saf-bdd}, we have
\[
\|v_h\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le C\|v_h\|_{L^\infty(B_{1-|h|})}\leq C\|u\|_{C^\beta(B_1)}.
\]
By \ref{it.H7}, we deduce that
\[
\|u\|_{C^{\alpha+\beta}(B_{1/2})}\le C\|u\|_{C^\beta(B_1)},
\]
provided that $\alpha+\beta$ is not an integer and $\beta\leq 1$.
Using this estimate with $\beta=\alpha,2\alpha, ...,k\alpha$, one gets $C^{1,\alpha}$ regularity in a finite number of steps.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem} Observe that:
$\bullet~~$The $C^{0,\alpha}$ estimate for bounded measurable coefficients, Theorem \ref{thm-kry-saf-bdd}, is the best one can get in dimensions $n \ge 3$; see \cite{Saf}.
$\bullet~~$In a sense, Theorem \ref{thm-kry-saf-bdd} is the analogue of the result of De Giorgi--Nash for divergence-form equations.
However, it is not enough to get $C^2$ regularity for solutions to fully nonlinear equations.
\end{rem}
\noindent \underline{\smash{Summary}}: We have $F(D^2 u) =0\Rightarrow u \in C^{1,\alpha}$ (for some small $\alpha >0$). Moreover, $u\in C^2\Rightarrow u \in C^\infty$.
However, we have no idea (yet) if
\[u\in C^{1,\alpha}\quad \xRightarrow[]{?} \quad u \in C^2.\]
In the two-dimensional case, as we have seen in Theorem~\ref{thm.2D} (as an a priori estimate), it turns out that one can do something better, and \emph{all} solutions are $C^{2, \alpha}$.
This is because, in $\mathbb{R}^2$, solutions to equations with bounded measurable coefficients are not only $C^{0, \alpha}$, but $C^{1,\alpha}$.
As a consequence, we have the following.
\begin{thm}\index{Equations in two variables (fully nonlinear)}
Let $F:\mathbb{R}^{2\times 2}\to \mathbb{R}$ be uniformly elliptic and smooth.
Let $u\in C(B_1)$ be any viscosity solution to
\[
F(D^2 u) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1\subset \mathbb{R}^2.
\]
Then $u \in C^\infty$.
\end{thm}
This completely answers question \eqref{question-fully} in two dimensions.
In higher dimensions, a famous result established (independently) by Evans \cite{Evans-EK} and Krylov \cite{Krylov} gives the following.
\begin{thm}[Evans--Krylov, 1982]\index{Evans--Krylov Theorem}
\label{thm.EK83}
Let $F$ be any {\bf convex} (or concave) uniformly elliptic operator, with $F(0) = 0$. Let $u\in C(B_1)$ be any viscosity solution to
\[
F(D^2 u ) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1.
\]
Then,
\[
\|u\|_{C^{2,\alpha}(B_{1/2})}\le C\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)},
\]
for some $\alpha > 0$ and $C$ depending only on $n$, $\lambda$, and $\Lambda$. In particular, if $F$ is smooth then $u\in C^\infty$.
\end{thm}
We refer to \cite{CS-EK} for a shorter proof of such result.
\vspace{1mm}
Thus, for any solution to \eqref{eq.fully2}, with $F$ uniformly elliptic and smooth, we have:
\begin{itemize}
\item If $u\in C^2$, then $u\in C^\infty$.
\item $u\in C^{1,\alpha}$ always (Krylov--Safonov, 1979).
\item In two dimensions, $u \in C^\infty$ (Nirenberg, 1952).
\item If $F$ is convex, then $u\in C^\infty$ (Evans--Krylov, 1982)
\end{itemize}
\noindent \underline{\smash{Question}}: What happens in general?
For decades it was an open problem to decide whether all solutions are $C^2$ or not.
The question was finally answered by Nadirashvili and Vladuts in the 2000s \cite{NV1,NV2,NV3}:
\begin{thm}[Nadirashvili--Vladuts, 2007-2013]\index{Nadirashvili--Vladuts counterexamples}
There are solutions to \eqref{eq.fully2} that are not $C^2$.
These counterexamples exist in dimensions $n \ge 5$.
Moreover, for every $\tau > 0$, there exists a dimension $n$ and ellipticity constants $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$, such that there are solutions $u$ to $F(D^2 u ) = 0$ with $u\notin C^{1,\tau}$.
\end{thm}
We refer to the monograph \cite{NTV} for more references and details.
It is {\em not} known what happens in $\mathbb{R}^3$ and $\mathbb{R}^4$.
This is one of the most remarkable open problems in elliptic PDEs.
\section{Further results and open problems}
As explained above, one of the main open questions regarding the problem
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.fur_reg_4}
F(D^2 u ) = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1\subset \mathbb{R}^n
\end{equation}
is the following:
\[
\textrm{Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{eq.fur_reg_4} in $\mathbb{R}^3$ or $\mathbb{R}^4$. Is it true that $u\in C^2$?}
\]
We have seen that it is in general not true that solutions to fully nonlinear equations (in dimension $n\ge 5$) are $C^2$ under the assumption that $F$ is simply uniformly elliptic.
Convexity, on the other hand, is a strong condition under which $C^2$ regularity is achieved, which, unfortunately, does not hold in some important applications.
Even with this, it is still unclear what the optimal regularity of solutions is when $F$ is convex and uniformly elliptic (not necessarily smooth). Theorem~\ref{thm.EK83} only gives, a priori, $C^{2, \alpha}$ regularity for some small $\alpha > 0$.
These observations motivate, on the one hand, a more refined study for the regularity (and size of singularity) of solutions to general fully nonlinear elliptic equations, and on the other hand, the study of the optimal regularity under the convexity assumption.
\subsection*{Partial regularity}
Recall that the ellipticity requirement for $F$ implies that $F$ is Lipschitz.
Under the slightly more restrictive requirement that $F$ is also $C^1$, the following \emph{partial regularity} result was proved by Armstrong, Silvestre, and Smart in \cite{ASS}:
\begin{thm}[\cite{ASS}]
Let $F$ be uniformly elliptic, and assume in addition that $F\in C^1$.
Let $u\in C^0(B_1)$ be any viscosity solution to \eqref{eq.fur_reg_4}.
Then, there exist some $\varepsilon > 0$ depending only on $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, and a closed subset $\Sigma\subset \overline{B_1}$ with $\dim_{\mathcal{H}} \Sigma \le n-\varepsilon$, such that $u\in C^{2}(B_1\setminus \Sigma)$.
\end{thm}
Here, $\dim_{\mathcal{H}}$ denotes the Hausdorff dimension of a set; see \cite{Mat}.
Notice that if $\dim_{\mathcal{H}} \Sigma \le n-\varepsilon$ then in particular $\Sigma$ has zero measure.
This result is the best known partial regularity result for solutions of (non-convex) fully nonlinear equations in dimensions $n\ge 3$.
Notice that the size of the singular set is not known to be optimal (it could be much smaller!).
Moreover, it is an important open problem to decide whether the same statement holds without the regularity assumption $F\in C^1$.
\subsection*{Optimal regularity when $F$ is convex}
When $F$ is convex and uniformly elliptic, solutions to \eqref{eq.fur_reg_4}
are known to be $C^{2,\alpha}$ for some small $\alpha > 0$. If $F\in C^\infty$, a bootstrap argument then yields higher regularity for $u$, but the higher regularity of $F$ is needed. What happens if we just require $F$ to be convex and uniformly elliptic?
Since $F$ is convex, the expression \eqref{eq.fur_reg_4} can be reformulated as a supremum of linear uniformly elliptic operators as
\[
\sup_{a\in \mathcal{A}} L_a u = 0 \quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1\subset \mathbb{R}^n,
\]
also known as Bellman equation (see \eqref{eq.maxPDE} in the Appendix~\ref{app.B}), where each of the operators $L_a$ is a linear uniformly elliptic operator.
The question that remains open here is:
\[
\textrm{What is the optimal regularity of solutions to Bellman equations?}
\]
In the simpler model of just two different operators, the previous equation is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.maxtwo}
\max\{L_1 u, L_2 u\} = 0\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_1\subset \mathbb{R}^n.
\end{equation}
The best known result in this direction was proved by Caffarelli, De Silva, and Savin in 2018, and establishes the optimal regularity of solutions to \eqref{eq.maxtwo} in two dimensions:
\begin{thm}[\cite{CDS}]
Let $u$ be any viscosity solution to \eqref{eq.maxtwo} in $B_1\subset \mathbb{R}^2$. Then
\[
\|u\|_{C^{2,1}(B_{1/2})}\le C \|u\|_{L^\infty(B_1)},
\]
for some constant $C$ depending only on $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$.
\end{thm}
The approach used in \cite{CDS} to show this result does not work in higher dimensions $n \ge 3$, and thus the following question remains open:
\[
\textrm{Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{eq.maxtwo}, with $n \ge 3$. Is is true that $u\in C^{2,1}$?}
\]
\endinput
\chapter{The obstacle problem}
\label{ch.4}
In this last chapter we focus our attention on a third type of nonlinear elliptic PDE: a \emph{free boundary problem}.
In this kind of problems we are no longer only interested in the regularity of a solution $u$, but also in the study of an a priori unknown interphase $\Gamma$ (the free boundary).
As explained later, there is a wide variety of problems in physics, industry, biology, finance, and other areas which can be described by PDEs that exhibit {free boundaries}.
Many of such problems can be written as variational inequalities, for which the solution is obtained by minimizing a constrained energy functional.
And one of the most important and canonical examples is the \emph{obstacle problem}.\footnote{Other examples of important free boundary problems include the one-phase or Bernoulli problem, the thin or fractional obstacle problem, etc. We refer the interested reader to \cite{CS, PSU, Vel19, Fer21} and the references therein.}
Given a smooth function $\varphi$, the obstacle problem is the following:\index{Obstacle problem}
\begin{equation}\label{ch4-min}
\textrm{minimize}\qquad \frac12\int_\Omega|\nabla v|^2dx\qquad\textrm{among all functions}\ v\geq\varphi.
\end{equation}
Here, the minimization is subject to boundary conditions $v|_{\partial\Omega}=g$.
The interpretation of such problem is clear: One looks for the least ener\-gy function $v$, but the set of admissible functions consists only of functions that are above a certain ``obstacle'' $\varphi$.
In the two-dimensional case, one can think of the solution $v$ as a ``membrane'' which is elastic and is constrained to be above $\varphi$ (see Figure~\ref{fig.13}).
The Euler--Lagrange equation of the minimization problem is the following:\index{Euler--Lagrange for obstacle problem}
\begin{equation}\label{ch4-obst-pb}
\left\{\begin{array}{rcll}
v&\geq&\varphi & \textrm{in}\ \Omega \\
\Delta v&\leq&0 & \textrm{in}\ \Omega\\
\Delta v&=&0 & \textrm{in the set}\ \{v>\varphi\},
\end{array}\right.\end{equation}
together with the boundary conditions $v|_{\partial\Omega}=g$.
Indeed, notice that if we denote $\mathcal E(v)=\frac12\int_\Omega|\nabla v|^2dx$, then we will have
\[
\mathcal E(v+\varepsilon \eta)\geq \mathcal E(v)\quad\textrm{for every}\ {\varepsilon\geq0}\ \textrm{and}\ {\eta\geq0},\ \eta\in C^\infty_c(\Omega),\]
which yields $\Delta v\leq 0$ in $\Omega$.
That is, we can perturb $v$ with \emph{nonnegative} functions $(\varepsilon \eta)$ and we always get admissible functions $(v+\varepsilon \eta)$.
However, due to the constraint $v\geq\varphi$, we cannot perturb $v$ with negative functions in all of $\Omega$, but only in the set $\{v>\varphi\}$.
This is why we get $\Delta v\leq0$ \emph{everywhere} in $\Omega$,
but $\Delta v=0$ \emph{only} in $\{v>\varphi\}$.
(We will show later that any minimizer $v$ of \eqref{ch4-min} is continuous, so that $\{v>\varphi\}$ is open.)
Alternatively, we may consider $u:=v-\varphi$, and the problem is equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{ch4-obst-pb2}
\left\{\begin{array}{rcll}
u&\geq&0 & \textrm{in}\ \Omega \\
\Delta u&\leq&f & \textrm{in}\ \Omega\\
\Delta u&=&f & \textrm{in the set}\ \{u>0\},
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
where $f:=-\Delta \varphi$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 1]{./Figures/fig13.pdf}
\caption{The function $v$ minimizes the Dirichlet energy among all functions with the same boundary values situated above the obstacle.}
\label{fig.13}
\end{figure}
Such solution $u$ can be obtained as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{ch4-min2}
\qquad\textrm{minimize}
\quad \int_\Omega\left\{\frac12|\nabla u|^2+fu\right\}dx
\quad \textrm{among all functions}\ u\geq0.
\end{equation}
In other words, we can make the \emph{obstacle} just \emph{zero}, by adding a \emph{right-hand side} $f$.
Here, the minimization is subject to the boundary conditions $u|_{\partial\Omega}=\tilde g$, with $\tilde g:=g-\varphi$.
\subsection*{On the Euler--Lagrange equations}
As said above, the Euler--Lagrange equations of the minimization problem \eqref{ch4-min} are:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $v\geq\varphi$\, in $\Omega$ \ ($v$ is \emph{above} the \emph{obstacle}).
\item[(ii)] $\Delta v\leq 0$\, in $\Omega$ \ ($v$ is a \emph{supersolution}).
\item[(iii)] $\Delta v=0$\, in $\{v>\varphi\}$ \ ($v$ is \emph{harmonic} where it \emph{does not touch} the obstacle).
\end{itemize}
These are inequalities, rather than a single PDE.
Alternatively, one can write also the Euler--Lagrange equations in the following way:
\[
\min\{-\Delta v,\,v-\varphi\}=0\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega.
\]
(Notice that this resembles a fully nonlinear equation $\min\{L_1u,\,L_2u\}=0$, but in the present situation one of the two operators is of order zero.)
Of course, the same can be done for the equivalent problem \eqref{ch4-obst-pb2}.
In that case, moreover, the minimization problem \eqref{ch4-min2} is equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{ch4-min2B}
\textrm{minimize}\qquad \int_\Omega\left\{\frac12|\nabla u|^2+fu^+\right\}dx,
\end{equation}
where $u^+=\max\{u,0\}$.
In this way, we can see the problem not as a constrained minimization but as a minimization problem with a \emph{non-smooth} term $u^+$ in the functional.
The Euler--Lagrange equation for this functional is then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.ELOP}
\Delta u=f\chi_{\{u>0\}}\quad \textrm{in}\quad \Omega.
\end{equation}
(Here, $\chi_A$ denotes the characteristic function of a set $A\subset\mathbb{R}^n$.) We will show this in detail later.
\subsection*{The free boundary}
Let us take a closer look at the obstacle problem~\eqref{ch4-obst-pb2}.
One of the most important features of such problem is that it has \emph{two} unknowns: the \emph{solution} $u$, and the \emph{contact set} $\{u=0\}$. In other words, there are two regions in $\Omega$: one in which $u=0$; and one in which $\Delta u=f$.
These regions are characterized by the minimization problem \eqref{ch4-min2}.
Moreover, if we denote \index{Free boundary}
\[\Gamma:=\partial\{u>0\}\cap \Omega,\]
then this is called the \emph{free boundary}, see Figure~\ref{fig.14}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.9]{./Figures/fig14.pdf}
\caption{The free boundary could, a priori, be very irregular.}
\label{fig.14}
\end{figure}
The obstacle problem is a \emph{free boundary problem}, as it involves an \emph{unknown interface} $\Gamma$ as part of the problem.
Moreover, it is not difficult to see that the fact that $u$ is a nonnegative supersolution must imply $\nabla u=0$ on $\Gamma$, that is, we will have that $u\geq0$ solves
\[
\left\{\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta u&=&f & \textrm{in}\ \{u>0\}\\
u&=&0 & \textrm{on}\ \Gamma\\
\nabla u&=&0 & \textrm{on}\ \Gamma.
\end{array}\right.
\]
This is an alternative way to write the Euler--Lagrange equation of the problem.
In this way, the interface $\Gamma$ appears clearly, and we see that we have \emph{both} Dirichlet \emph{and} Neumann conditions on $\Gamma$.
This would usually be an over-determined problem (too many boundary conditions on $\Gamma$), but since $\Gamma$ is also free, it turns out that the problem has a unique solution (where $\Gamma$ is part of the solution, of course).
\section{Some motivations and applications}
\label{sec.appl}
Let us briefly comment on some of the main motivations and applications in the study of the obstacle problem, which are further developed in Appendix~\ref{app.C} (see also Appendix~\ref{app.B}).
We refer to the books \cite{DL,KS, Rod87,Fri,PSU}, for more details and further applications of obstacle-type problems.
\subsection*{Fluid filtration}
The so-called Dam problem aims to describe the filtration of water inside a porous dam.
One considers a dam separating two reservoirs of water at different heights, made of a porous medium (permeable to water).
Then there is some transfer of water across the dam, and the interior of the dam has a wet part, where water flows, and a dry part.
In this setting, an integral of the pressure (with respect to the height of the column of water at each point) solves the obstacle problem, and the free boundary corresponds precisely to the interphase separating the wet and dry parts of the dam.
\subsection*{Phase transitions}
The Stefan problem, dating back to the 19th century, is one of the most classical and important free boundary problems.
It describes the temperature of a homogeneous medium undergoing a phase change, typically a body of ice at zero degrees submerged in water.
In this context, it turns out that the integral of the temperature $\theta(x,t)$, namely $u(x,t):=\int_0^t\theta$, solves the parabolic version of the obstacle problem,
\[\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
u_t-\Delta u &=& \chi_{\{u>0\}}&\quad \textrm{in}\quad \Omega\times (0,T)\subset \mathbb{R}^3\times \mathbb{R},\\
\partial_t u &\geq& 0,&\\
u &\geq& 0.&
\end{array}
\right.\]
The moving interphase separating the solid and liquid is exactly the free boundary $\partial\{u>0\}$.
\subsection*{Hele-Shaw flow}
This two-dimensional model, dating back to 1898, describes a fluid flow between two flat parallel plates separated by a very thin gap.
Various problems in fluid mechanics can be approximated to Hele-Shaw flows, and that is why understanding these flows is important.
A Hele-Shaw cell is an experimental device in which a viscous fluid is sandwiched in a narrow gap between two parallel plates.
In certain regions, the gap is filled with fluid while in others the gap is filled with air.
When liquid is injected inside the device through some sinks (e.g. through a small hole on the top plate) the region filled with liquid grows.
In this context, an integral of the pressure solves, for each fixed time~$t$, the obstacle problem.
In a similar way to the Dam problem, the free boundary corresponds to the interface between the fluid and the air regions.
\subsection*{Optimal stopping, finance}
In probability and finance, the obstacle problem appears when considering optimal stopping problems for stochastic processes.
Indeed, consider a random walk (Brownian motion) inside a domain $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$, and a payoff function $\varphi$ defined on the same domain.
We can stop the random walk at any moment, and we get the payoff at that position.
We want to maximize the expected payoff (by choosing appropriately the stopping strategy).
Then, it turns out that the highest expected payoff $v(x)$ starting at a given position $x$ satisfies the obstacle problem \eqref{ch4-obst-pb}, where the contact set $\{v=\varphi\}$ is the region where we should immediately stop the random walk and get the payoff, while $\{v>\varphi\}$ is the region where we should wait (see Appendix~\ref{app.B} for more details).
\subsection*{Interacting particle systems}
Large systems of interacting particles arise in physical, biological, or material sciences.
In some models, the particles attract each other when they are far, and experience a repulsive force when they are close.
In other related models in statistical mechanics, the particles (e.g. electrons) repel with a Coulomb force and one wants to understand their behavior in presence of some external field that confines them.
In this kind of models, a natural and interesting question is to determine the ``equilibrium configurations''.
For instance, in Coulomb systems the charges accumulate in some region with a well defined boundary.
Interestingly, these problems are equivalent to the obstacle problem --- namely, the electric potential $u=u(x)$ generated by the charges solves such problem --- and the contact set $\{u=0\}$ corresponds to the region in which the particles concentrate.
\subsection*{Quasi-Steady Electrochemical Shaping}
Consider a metal inside an electrolyte under the action of an electric potential, in such a way that the metal shrinks with time due to a chemical reaction.
Then, the integral (in time) of the potential satisfies, for each fixed time, the obstacle problem, whose free boundary corresponds to the shape of the metal at that moment.
\subsection*{Heat control}
Trying to automatically control the temperature of a room using only heating devices, under suitable conditions, also yields the obstacle problem (in this case, for the temperature). Here, the free boundary separates the region where the heating devices are active and where they are not.
\subsection*{Elasticity}
Finally, in elasticity theory we probably find the most visual representation of the obstacle problem.
Given a thin membrane that is affected only by tension forces (thus tries to minimize area), it \emph{approximately} satisfies the obstacle problem, where the contact region is the area where the membrane touches the obstacle.
\section{Basic properties of solutions I}
We proceed now to study the basic properties of solutions to the obstacle problem: existence of solutions, optimal regularity, and nondegeneracy.
We will first study all these properties for minimizers $v\geq\varphi$ of \eqref{ch4-min}, and then in the next section we will study independently minimizers $u\geq0$ of \eqref{ch4-min2} or \eqref{ch4-min2B}.
This is not only for completeness and clarity of presentation, but also to have both points of view.
For instance, the proof of the optimal regularity of solutions can be done in two completely different ways, one for each of the settings.
\subsection*{Existence of solutions}
Existence and uniqueness of solutions follows easily from the fact that the functional $\int_\Omega |\nabla v|^2dx$ is convex, and that we want to minimize it in the closed convex set $\{v\in H^1(\Omega): v\geq\varphi\}$.
Recall that $w|_{\partial\Omega}$ denotes the trace of $w$ on $\partial\Omega$ whenever it is defined.
\begin{prop}[Existence and uniqueness]\label{obstacle-existence}\index{Existence and uniqueness!Obstacle problem}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be any bounded Lipschitz domain, and let $g:\partial\Omega\to\mathbb{R}$ and $\varphi\in H^1(\Omega)$ be such that
\[\mathcal C=\bigl\{w\in H^1(\Omega): w\geq\varphi\ \textrm{in}\ \Omega,\ w|_{\partial\Omega}=g\bigr\}\neq \varnothing.\]
Then, there exists a unique minimizer of $\int_\Omega|\nabla v|^2dx$ among all functions $v\in H^1(\Omega)$ satisfying $v\geq\varphi$ in $\Omega$ and $v|_{\partial\Omega}=g$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The proof is quite similar to that of Theorem \ref{ch0-existence}.
Indeed, let
\[\theta_\circ :=\inf\left\{\frac12\int_\Omega |\nabla w|^2dx\,:\, w\in H^1(\Omega),\ w|_{\partial\Omega}=g,\ w\geq \varphi\ \textrm{in}\ \Omega\right\},\]
that is, the infimum value of $\mathcal E(w)=\frac12\int_\Omega |\nabla w|^2dx$ among all admissible functions~$w$.
Let us take a sequence of functions $\{v_k\}$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $v_k\in H^1(\Omega)$
\item $v_k|_{\partial\Omega}=g$ and $v_k\geq \varphi$ in $\Omega$.
\item $\mathcal E(v_k)\to \theta_\circ $ as $k\to\infty$.
\end{itemize}
By the Poincar\'e inequality (Theorem \ref{ch0-Poinc}), the sequence $\{v_k\}$ is uniformly bounded in $H^1(\Omega)$, and therefore a subsequence $\{v_{k_j}\}$ will converge to a certain function $v$ strongly in $L^2(\Omega)$ and weakly in $H^1(\Omega)$.
Moreover, by compactness of the trace operator (see \ref{it.S5} in Chapter \ref{ch.0}), we will have $v_{k_j}|_{\partial\Omega}\to v|_{\partial\Omega}$ in $L^2(\partial\Omega)$, so that $v|_{\partial\Omega}=g$.
Furthermore, such function $v$ will satisfy $\mathcal E(v)\leq \liminf_{j\to\infty}\mathcal E(v_{k_j})$ (by \eqref{ch0-weak-conv2}-\eqref{ch0-weak-conv3} from \ref{it.S4} in Chapter~\ref{ch.0}), and therefore it will be a minimizer of the energy functional.
Since $v_{k_j}\geq \varphi$ in $\Omega$ and $v_{k_j}\to v$ in $L^2(\Omega)$, we have $v\geq\varphi$ in $\Omega$.
Thus, we have proved the existence of a minimizer~$v$.
The uniqueness of the minimizer follows from the strict convexity of the functional $\mathcal E(v)$, exactly as in Theorem \ref{ch0-existence}.
\end{proof}
As in the case of harmonic functions, it is easy to show that if a function $v$ satisfies
\[\left\{\begin{array}{rcll}
v&\geq&\varphi & \textrm{in}\ \Omega \\
\Delta v&\leq&0 & \textrm{in}\ \Omega\\
\Delta v&=&0 & \textrm{in the set}\ \{v>\varphi\},
\end{array}\right.\]
then it must actually be the minimizer of the functional.
There are two alternative ways to construct the solution to the obstacle problem: as the ``least supersolution above the obstacle'', or with a ``penalized problem''.
Let us briefly describe them.
\vspace{2mm}
\noindent$\bullet$ \underline{\smash{Least supersolution}}: This is related to the existence of viscosity solutions described in Chapter \ref{ch.3}.
Indeed, we consider
\[v(x):=\inf\biggl\{w(x):w\in C(\overline\Omega),\ -\Delta w\geq0\ \textrm{in}\ \Omega,\ w\geq\varphi\ \textrm{in}\ \Omega,\ w|_{\partial\Omega}\geq g\biggr\}.\]
Here, the inequality $-\Delta w\geq0$ in $\Omega$ has to be understood in the viscosity sense.
Then, as in Perron's method (recall Chapters \ref{ch.0} and \ref{ch.3}), it turns out that $v$ is itself a continuous supersolution, it satisfies $\Delta v=0$ in $\{v>\varphi\}$, and thus it solves the obstacle problem.
Therefore,
\[\left\{\begin{array}{c} \textrm{least} \\ \textrm{supersolution}\end{array}\right\}\longleftrightarrow \left\{\begin{array}{c} \textrm{minimizer of} \\ \textrm{the functional}\end{array}\right\}.\]
\vspace{2mm}
\noindent$\bullet$ \underline{\smash{Penalized problem}}: We consider $\beta_\varepsilon:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ smooth and convex, converging to
\[\beta_0(t):=\left\{\begin{array}{lll} 0 & \textrm{if} & t\geq0 \\ \infty & \textrm{if} & t<0.\end{array}\right.\]
We may take for example $\beta_\varepsilon(t):=e^{-t/\varepsilon}$, see Figure~\ref{fig.15}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{./Figures/fig15.pdf}
\caption{The function $\beta_\varepsilon \to \beta_0$ as $\varepsilon \downarrow 0$.}
\label{fig.15}
\end{figure}
Then, we minimize the functional
\[J_\varepsilon(v):=\frac12\int_\Omega |\nabla v|^2dx+\int_\Omega \beta_\varepsilon(v-\varphi)dx,\]
subject to the appropriate boundary conditions on $\partial\Omega$, and get a solution $v_\varepsilon\in C^\infty$ of $\Delta v_\varepsilon=\beta_\varepsilon'(v_\varepsilon-\varphi)$ in $\Omega$.
Since $\beta_\varepsilon'\leq 0$ everywhere, and $\beta_\varepsilon'(t)=0$ for $t\geq0$, we have
\[\left\{\begin{array}{rcll}-\Delta v_\varepsilon &\geq&0 & \quad \textrm{everywhere in}\ \Omega \\ \Delta v_\varepsilon &=&0 &\quad \textrm{in}\ \{v_\varepsilon>\varphi\}.\end{array}\right.\]
As $\varepsilon\to0$, we have $v_\varepsilon\to v$, where $v$ is the solution to the obstacle problem.
We refer to \cite{PSU} for more details.
\subsection*{Basic properties of solutions}
Let us next prove that any minimizer $v$ of \eqref{ch4-min} is actually continuous and solves \eqref{ch4-obst-pb}.
From now on we will ``forget'' about the regularity of the obstacle, and assume that it is as smooth as needed. This is why we will always be dealing with obstacles $\varphi\in C^\infty(\Omega)$. One gets analogous results under much weaker regularity assumptions on $\varphi$, which depend on the type of result to be proved. The role of the regularity of the obstacle is beyond the scope of this book, and thus we will always assume $\varphi$ to be smooth.
We start with the following lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{ch4-supersol}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be any bounded Lipschitz domain, $\varphi\in C^\infty(\Omega)$, and $v\in H^1(\Omega)$ be any minimizer of \eqref{ch4-min} subject to the boundary conditions $v|_{\partial\Omega}=g$.
Then, $-\Delta v\geq0$ in $\Omega$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let
\[\mathcal E(v)=\frac12\int_\Omega |\nabla v|^2dx.\]
Then, since $v$ minimizes $\mathcal{E}$ among all functions above the obstacle $\varphi$ (and with fixed boundary conditions on $\partial\Omega$), we have that
\[\mathcal E(v+\varepsilon \eta)\geq \mathcal E(v)\quad\textrm{for every}\ {\varepsilon\geq0}\ \textrm{and}\ {\eta\geq0},\ \eta\in C^\infty_c(\Omega).\]
This yields
\[\varepsilon\int_\Omega \nabla v\cdot\nabla \eta+\frac{\varepsilon^2}{2}\int_\Omega |\nabla \eta|^2dx\geq 0\quad\textrm{for every}\ {\varepsilon\geq0}\ \textrm{and}\ {\eta\geq0},\ \eta\in C^\infty_c(\Omega),\]
and thus
\[\int_\Omega \nabla v\cdot\nabla \eta\geq 0\quad\textrm{for every}\ {\eta\geq0},\ \eta\in C^\infty_c(\Omega).\]
This means that $-\Delta v\geq0$ in $\Omega$ in the weak sense, as desired.
\end{proof}
From here, by showing first that $\{v>\varphi\}$ is open, we obtain the Euler--Lagrange equations for the functional:
\begin{prop}\label{ch4-Euler-Lagrange}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be any bounded Lipschitz domain, $\varphi\in C^\infty(\Omega)$, and $v\in H^1(\Omega)$ be any minimizer of \eqref{ch4-min} subject to the boundary conditions $v|_{\partial\Omega}=g$.
Then, $v\in C(\Omega)$ and it satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{Euler-Lagrange}
\left\{\begin{array}{rcll}
v&\geq&\varphi & \textrm{in}\ \Omega \\
\Delta v&\leq&0 & \textrm{in}\ \Omega\\
\Delta v&=&0 & \textrm{in}\ \{v>\varphi\} \cap\Omega.
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By construction, we already know that $v\ge \varphi$ in $\Omega$ and, thanks to Lemma~\ref{ch4-supersol}, $-\Delta v\ge 0$ in $\Omega$, i.e, $v$ is (weakly) superharmonic. Up to replacing $v$ in a set of measure zero, we may also assume that $v$ is lower semi-continuous (by Lemma~\ref{lem.lower_semi}). Thus, we only need to prove that $\Delta v=0$ in $\{v>\varphi\}\cap\Omega$ and that $v$ is, in fact, continuous.
In order to do that, let us show first that $\{v > \varphi\}\cap\Omega$ is open. Let $x_\circ\in \{v > \varphi\}\cap\Omega$ be such that $v(x_\circ) - \varphi(x_\circ) > \varepsilon_\circ > 0$. Since $v$ is lower semi-continuous and $\varphi$ is continuous, there exists some $\delta > 0$ such that $v(x) - \varphi(x) > \varepsilon_\circ/2$ for all $x\in B_\delta(x_\circ)$, and hence $B_\delta(x_\circ)\subset \{v > \varphi\}$. Since $x_\circ$ was arbitrary, this means that $\{v > \varphi\}$ is open. This implies, also, that $\Delta v = 0$ weakly in $\{v > \varphi\}\cap\Omega$. Indeed, for any $x_\circ\in \{v>\varphi\}$ and $\eta\in C^\infty_c(B_{\delta}(x_\circ))$ with $|\eta|\le 1$, we have $v\pm \varepsilon\eta\geq \varphi$ in $\Omega$ for all $|\varepsilon| < \varepsilon_\circ/2$, and therefore it is an admissible competitor to the minimization problem.
Thus, we have $\mathcal E(v+\varepsilon \eta)\geq \mathcal E(v)$ for all $|\varepsilon|<\varepsilon_\circ $, and differentiating in $\varepsilon$ we deduce that $v$ is harmonic in $\{v>\varphi\}\cap\Omega$.
Finally, let us show that $v$ is continuous. We already know, by the regularity of harmonic functions (e.g. Corollary~\ref{ch0-smooth}), that $v$ is continuous in $\{v > \varphi\}\cap\Omega$. Let us now show that $v$ is continuous in $\{v = \varphi\}\cap \Omega$ as well.
Let $y_\circ\in \{v = \varphi\}\cap \Omega$, and let us argue by contradiction. That is, since $v$ is lower semi-continuous, let us assume that there is a sequence $y_k \to y_\circ$ such that $v(y_k) \to v(y_\circ) +\varepsilon_\circ = \varphi(y_\circ) + \varepsilon_\circ$ for some $\varepsilon_\circ>0$. Since $\varphi$ is continuous, we may assume also that $y_k\in\{v > \varphi\}$. Let us denote by $z_k$ the projection of $y_k$ towards $\{v = \varphi\}$, so that $\delta_k := |z_k - y_\circ| \le 2|y_k - y_\circ|\downarrow 0$ and $v(z_k) \to v(y_\circ) = \varphi(y_\circ)$. Now, since $v$ is superharmonic by \eqref{eq.superharmonic_integral},
\[
v(z_k) \ge \strokedint_{B_{2\delta_k}(y_k)} v = (1-2^{-n})\strokedint_{B_{2\delta_k}(y_k)\setminus B_{\delta_k}(y_k)} v + 2^{-n}\strokedint_{B_{\delta_k}(y_k)} v =I_1 + I_2.
\]
Observe that, for the first term, since $v$ is lower semi-continuous and $\delta_k \downarrow 0$, we can assume that, for $k$ large enough, $v \ge \varphi(y_\circ) - 2^{-n} \varepsilon_\circ$ in $B_{2\delta_k}$, so that $I_1 \ge (1-2^{-n}) [\varphi(y_\circ) - 2^{-n}\varepsilon_\circ]$. On the other hand, since $v$ is harmonic in $B_{\delta_k}(y_k)$, we have by the mean-value property that $I_2 = 2^{-n} v(y_k)$. Combining everything, we get
\[
v(z_k) \ge (1-2^{-n})[\varphi(y_\circ)-2^{-n}\varepsilon_\circ] + 2^{-n} v(y_k) \to \varphi(y_\circ) +2^{-2n}\varepsilon_\circ
\]
which contradicts the fact that we had $v(z_k) \to v(y_\circ) = \varphi(y_\circ)$. Hence, $v$ is continuous in $\Omega$.
\end{proof}
We next prove the following result, which says that $v$ can be characterized as the {least supersolution} above the obstacle.
\begin{prop}[Least supersolution]\label{ch4-least-supersol}\index{Least supersolution}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be any bounded Lipschitz domain, $\varphi\in H^1(\Omega)$, and $v\in H^1(\Omega)$ be any minimizer of \eqref{ch4-min} subject to the boundary conditions $v|_{\partial\Omega}=g$.
Then, for any function $w$ satisfying $-\Delta w\geq0$ in $\Omega$, $w\geq\varphi$ in $\Omega$, and $w|_{\partial\Omega}\geq v|_{\partial\Omega}$, we have $w\geq v$ in $\Omega$.
In other words, if $w$ is any supersolution above the obstacle $\varphi$, then $w\geq v$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
If $w$ is any function satisfying $-\Delta w\geq0$ in $\Omega$, $w\geq\varphi$ in $\Omega$, and $w|_{\partial\Omega}\geq v|_{\partial\Omega}$, it simply follows from the maximum principle (Proposition~\ref{max-princ-weak}) that $w\geq v$.
Indeed, we have $-\Delta w\geq -\Delta v$ in $\Omega\cap \{v>\varphi\}$, and on the boundary of such set we have $w|_{\partial\Omega}\geq v|_{\partial\Omega}$ and $w\geq\varphi=v$ on $\{v=\varphi\}$.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Optimal regularity of solutions}
Thanks to Proposition \ref{ch4-Euler-Lagrange}, we know that any minimizer of \eqref{ch4-min} is continuous and solves \eqref{Euler-Lagrange}.
From now on, we will actually localize the problem and study it in a ball:
\begin{equation}\label{ch4-obst-B1}
\left\{\begin{array}{rcll}
v&\geq&\varphi & \textrm{in}\ B_1 \\
\Delta v&\leq&0 & \textrm{in}\ B_1\\
\Delta v&=&0 & \textrm{in}\ \{v>\varphi\}\cap B_1.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
Our next goal is to answer the following question:
\[\textrm{\underline{Question}: }\textit{ What is the optimal regularity of solutions?}\]
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{./Figures/fig16.pdf}
\caption{Second derivatives are in general discontinuous across the free boundary.}
\label{fig.16}
\end{figure}
First, a few important considerations.
Notice that in the set $\{v>\varphi\}$ we have $\Delta v=0$, while in the interior of $\{v=\varphi\}$ we have $\Delta v=\Delta \varphi$ (since $v=\varphi$ there); see Figure~\ref{fig.16}.
Thus, since $\Delta \varphi$ is in general not zero, $\Delta v$ is \emph{discontinuous} across the free boundary $\partial\{v>\varphi\}$ in general.
In particular, $v\notin C^2$.
We will now prove that any minimizer of \eqref{ch4-min} is actually $C^{1,1}$, which gives the:
\[\textrm{\underline{Answer}: }\ v\in C^{1,1}\ \textit{ (second derivatives are bounded but not continuous)}\]
The precise statement and proof are given next.
\begin{thm}[Optimal regularity]\label{ch4-optimal-reg}\index{Optimal regularity, Obstacle problem}
Let $\varphi\in C^\infty(B_1)$, and $v$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-B1}.
Then, $v$ is $C^{1,1}$ in $B_{1/2}$, with the estimate
\[\|v\|_{C^{1,1}(B_{1/2})}\leq C\bigl(\|v\|_{L^\infty(B_{1})}+\|\varphi\|_{C^{1,1}(B_{1})}\bigr).\]
The constant $C$ depends only on $n$.
\end{thm}
To prove this, the main step is the following.
\begin{lem}\label{ch4-optimal-reg-lem}
Let $\varphi\in C^\infty(B_1)$, and $v$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-B1}.
Let $x_\circ \in \overline{B_{1/2}}$ be any point on $\{v=\varphi\}$.
Then, for any $r\in (0,\frac14)$ we have
\[0\leq \sup_{B_r(x_\circ )}(v-\varphi)\leq Cr^2,\]
with $C$ depending only on $n$ and $\|\varphi\|_{C^{1,1}(B_{1})}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
After dividing $v$ by a constant if necessary, we may assume that $\|\varphi\|_{C^{1,1}(B_{1})}\leq 1$.
Let $\ell(x):=\varphi(x_\circ )+\nabla \varphi(x_\circ )\cdot(x-x_\circ )$ be the linear part of $\varphi$ at $x_\circ $.
Let $r\in (0,\frac14)$.
Then, by $C^{1,1}$ regularity of $\varphi$, in $B_r(x_\circ )$ we have
\[\ell(x)-r^2\leq \varphi(x)\leq v(x).\]
We want to show that, in the ball $B_r(x_\circ)$ (see Figure~\ref{fig.17}), we have
\[v(x)\leq \ell(x)+Cr^2.\]
For this, consider
\[w(x):=v(x)-\bigl[\ell(x)-r^2\bigr].\]
This function $w$ satisfies $w\geq0$ in $B_r(x_\circ )$, and $-\Delta w=-\Delta v\geq0$ in $B_r(x_\circ )$.
Let us split $w$ into
\[w=w_1+w_2,\]
with
\[
\left\{\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta w_1 &=&0 &\ \textrm{in}\ B_r(x_\circ )\\
w_1&=& w &\ \textrm{on}\ \partial B_r(x_\circ )
\end{array}\right.
\quad \textrm{and}\quad
\left\{\begin{array}{rcll}
-\Delta w_2 &\geq&0 &\ \textrm{in}\ B_r(x_\circ )\\
w_2&=& 0 &\ \textrm{on}\ \partial B_r(x_\circ ).
\end{array}\right.
\]
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{./Figures/fig17.pdf}
\caption{The solution $v$ and a free boundary point $x_\circ $}
\label{fig.17}
\end{figure}
Notice that
\[0\leq w_1\leq w \quad \textrm{and}\quad 0\leq w_2\leq w.\]
We have that
\[w_1(x_\circ )\leq w(x_\circ )= v(x_\circ )-\bigl[\ell(x_\circ )-r^2\bigr]=r^2,\]
and thus by the Harnack inequality
\[\|w_1\|_{L^{\infty}(B_{r/2}(x_\circ ))}\leq Cr^2.\]
For $w_2$, notice that $\Delta w_2=\Delta v$, and in particular $\Delta w_2=0$ in $\{v>\varphi\}$.
This means that $w_2$ attains its maximum on $\{v=\varphi\}$.
But in the set $\{v=\varphi\}$ we have
\[w_2\leq w=\varphi-\bigl[\ell-r^2\bigr]\leq Cr^2,\]
and therefore we deduce that
\[\|w_2\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x_\circ ))}\leq Cr^2.\]
Combining the bounds for $w_1$ and $w_2$, we get $\|w\|_{L^\infty(B_r(x_\circ ))}\leq Cr^2$.
Translating this into $v$, and using that $\|\varphi\|_{C^{1,1}(B_1)}\leq1$, we find $v-\varphi\leq Cr^2$ in $B_{r/2}(x_\circ )$.
\end{proof}
Therefore, we have proved that:
\[\textit{At every free boundary point }x_\circ ,\ v\textit{ separates from }\varphi\textit{ at most quadratically.}\]
As shown next, this easily implies the $C^{1,1}$ regularity.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{ch4-optimal-reg}]
Dividing $v$ by a constant if necessary, we may assume that $\|v\|_{L^\infty(B_{1})}+\|\varphi\|_{C^{1,1}(B_{1})}\leq 1$.
We already know that $v\in C^\infty$ in the set $\{v>\varphi\}$ (since $v$ is harmonic), and also in the interior of the set $\{v=\varphi\}$ (since $\varphi\in C^\infty$).
Moreover, on the interface $\Gamma=\partial\{v>\varphi\}$ we have proved the quadratic growth $\sup_{B_r(x_\circ )}(v-\varphi)\leq Cr^2$.
Let us prove that this yields the $C^{1,1}$ bound we want.
Let $x_1\in \{v>\varphi\}\cap B_{1/2}$, and let $x_\circ \in \Gamma$ be the closest free boundary point.
Denote $\rho=|x_1-x_\circ |$.
Then, we have $\Delta v=0$ in $B_\rho(x_1)$ (see the setting in Figure~\ref{fig.18}), and thus we have also $\Delta(v-\ell)=0$ in $B_\rho(x_1)$, where $\ell$ is the linear part of $\varphi$ at $x_\circ $.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 1.2]{./Figures/fig18_2.pdf}
\caption{A solution $v$ satisfying $\Delta v = 0$ in $B_\rho(x_1)\subset \{v > \varphi\}$.}
\label{fig.18}
\end{figure}
By estimates for harmonic functions, we find
\[\|D^2v\|_{L^\infty(B_{\rho/2}(x_1))}= \|D^2(v-\ell)\|_{L^\infty(B_{\rho/2}(x_1))} \leq \frac{C}{\rho^2}\|v-\ell\|_{L^\infty(B_{\rho}(x_1))}.\]
But by the growth proved in the previous Lemma, we have $\|v-\ell\|_{L^\infty(B_{\rho}(x_1))}\leq C\rho^2$, which yields
\[\|D^2v\|_{L^\infty(B_{\rho/2}(x_1))}\leq \frac{C}{\rho^2}\,\rho^2=C.\]
In particular, $|D^2v(x_1)|\leq C$. We can do this for all $x_1\in \-\{v>\varphi\}\cap B_{1/2}$, and on $\partial\{v>\varphi\}$ we have quadratic growth by Lemma~\ref{ch4-optimal-reg-lem}, hence it follows that $\|v\|_{C^{1,1}(B_{1/2})}\leq C$, as wanted.
\end{proof}
The overall strategy of the proof of optimal regularity is summarized in Figure \ref{fig.19}.
\subsection*{Nondegeneracy}
We now want to prove that, at all free boundary points, $v$ separates from $\varphi$ \emph{at least} quadratically (we already know \emph{at most} quadratically).
That is, we want
\begin{equation} \label{ch4-nondeg}
0<cr^2\leq \sup_{B_r(x_\circ )}(v-\varphi)\leq Cr^2
\end{equation}
for all free boundary points $x_\circ \in \partial\{v>\varphi\}$.
This property is essential in order to study the free boundary later.
\begin{rem}
\label{rem.caff.vanish}
Since $-\Delta v\geq0$ \emph{everywhere}, it is clear that if $x_\circ \in \partial\{v>\varphi\}$ is a free boundary point, then necessarily $-\Delta \varphi(x_\circ )\geq0$ (otherwise we would have $-\Delta \varphi(x_\circ )<0$, and since $u$ touches $\varphi$ from above at $x_\circ $, also $-\Delta v(x_\circ )<0$, a contradiction).
Moreover it can be proved that, in fact, if $\Delta \varphi$ and $\nabla\Delta\varphi$ do \emph{not} vanish simultaneously, then $-\Delta\varphi>0$ near \emph{all} free boundary points \cite{Caf98}.
\end{rem}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{./Figures/fig19.pdf}
\caption{Strategy of the proof of Theorem~\ref{ch4-optimal-reg}.}
\label{fig.19}
\end{figure}
This motivates the following:
\vspace{2mm}
\noindent\textbf{Assumption}: \emph{The obstacle} $\varphi$ \emph{satisfies}
\[-\Delta \varphi\geq c_\circ >0\]
\emph{in the ball} $B_1$.
\vspace{2mm}
In particular, by Remark~\ref{rem.caff.vanish}, if $\Delta \varphi$ and $\nabla\Delta\varphi$ do {not} vanish simultaneously, then we have $-\Delta \varphi>0$ near any free boundary point, and thus by zooming in if necessary, we will always have that the assumption is satisfied in $B_1$, for some small $c_\circ >0$.
Thus, the only real assumption here is that $\Delta \varphi$ and $\nabla\Delta\varphi$ do {not} vanish simultaneously, which is a very mild assumption.
Moreover, this is in a sense a \emph{necessary} assumption: without this, the nondegeneracy \eqref{ch4-nondeg} does \emph{not} hold, and no regularity result can be proved for the free boundary. (Without the assumption, one can actually construct counterexamples in which the free boundary is a fractal set with infinite perimeter.)
\begin{prop}[Nondegeneracy]\label{ch4-prop-nondeg}\index{Nondegeneracy, Obstacle problem}
Let $\varphi\in C^\infty(B_1)$, and $v$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-B1}.
Assume that $\varphi$ satisfies $-\Delta \varphi\geq c_\circ >0$ in $B_1$.
Then, for every free boundary point $x_\circ \in \partial\{v>\varphi\}\cap B_{1/2}$, we have
\[\qquad\qquad 0<cr^2\leq \sup_{B_r(x_\circ )}(v-\varphi)\leq Cr^2\qquad \textrm{for all}\ r\in (0,{\textstyle\frac14}),\]
with a constant $c>0$ depending only on $n$ and $c_\circ $.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $x_1\in \{v>\varphi\}$ be any point close to $x_\circ $ (we will then let $x_1\to x_\circ $ at the end of the proof).
Consider the function
\[w(x):=v(x)-\varphi(x)-\frac{c_\circ }{2n}|x-x_1|^2.\]
Then, in $\{v>\varphi\}$ we have
\[\Delta w=\Delta v-\Delta \varphi-c_\circ =-\Delta\varphi-c_\circ \geq 0\]
and hence $-\Delta w\leq 0$ in $\{v>\varphi\}\cap B_r(x_1)$.
Moreover, $w(x_1)>0$.
By the maximum principle, $w$ attains a positive maximum on $\partial\bigl(\{v>\varphi\}\cap B_r(x_1)\bigr)$.
But on the free boundary $\partial\{v>\varphi\}$ we clearly have $w<0$.
Therefore, there is a point on $\partial B_r(x_1)$ at which $w>0$.
In other words,
\[0<\sup_{\partial B_r(x_1)}w=\sup_{\partial B_r(x_1)}(v-\varphi)-\frac{c_\circ }{2n}\,r^2.\]
Letting now $x_1\to x_\circ $, we find $\sup_{\partial B_r(x_\circ )}(v-\varphi)\geq cr^2>0$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Summary of basic properties}
Let $v$ be any solution to the obstacle problem
\[
\left\{\begin{array}{rcll}
v&\geq&\varphi & \textrm{in}\ B_1 \\
\Delta v&\leq&0 & \textrm{in}\ B_1\\
\Delta v&=&0 & \textrm{in}\ \{v>\varphi\}\cap B_1.
\end{array}
\right.
\]
Then, we have:
\vspace{3mm}
\noindent$\bullet$ \underline{\smash{Optimal regularity}}:\quad $\displaystyle \|v\|_{C^{1,1}(B_{1/2})}\leq C\bigl(\|v\|_{L^\infty(B_{1})}+\|\varphi\|_{C^{1,1}(B_{1})}\bigr)$
\vspace{3mm}
\noindent$\bullet$ \underline{\smash{Nondegeneracy}}: If $-\Delta \varphi\geq c_\circ >0$, then
\[\qquad\qquad 0<cr^2\leq \sup_{B_r(x_\circ )}(v-\varphi)\leq Cr^2\qquad \textrm{for all}\ r\in (0,{\textstyle\frac12})\]
at all free boundary points $x_\circ \in \partial\{v>\varphi\}\cap B_{1/2}$.
\vspace{3mm}
\noindent$\bullet$ \underline{\smash{Equivalence with zero obstacle}}: The problem is equivalent to
\[
\left\{\begin{array}{rcll}
u&\geq&0 & \textrm{in}\ B_1 \\
\Delta u&\leq&f & \textrm{in}\ B_1\\
\Delta u&=&f & \textrm{in}\ \{u>0\}\cap B_1,
\end{array}
\right.
\]
where $f=-\Delta \varphi\geq c_\circ >0$.
\vspace{5mm}
We will next provide an alternative approach to the optimal regularity.
\section{Basic properties of solutions II}
We proceed now to study the basic properties of solutions $u\geq0$ to the obstacle problem \eqref{ch4-min2} or \eqref{ch4-min2B}.
As explained before, the main point here is that we prove optimal regularity independently from the previous Section.
Throughout this section we will always assume
\[
f\ge 0\quad\text{in}\quad \Omega.
\]
\subsection*{Existence of solutions}
Since problem \eqref{ch4-min2} is equivalent to \eqref{ch4-min}, existence and uniqueness of solutions follow easily from Proposition \ref{obstacle-existence}, as shown next.
\begin{prop}[Existence and uniqueness]\index{Existence and uniqueness!Obstacle problem}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be any bounded Lipschitz domain, and let $g:\partial\Omega\to\mathbb{R}$ be such that
\[\mathcal C=\bigl\{u\in H^1(\Omega): u\geq0\ \textrm{in}\ \Omega,\ u|_{\partial\Omega}=g\bigr\}\neq \varnothing.\]
Then, for any $f\in L^2(\Omega)$ there exists a unique minimizer of
\[\frac12\int_\Omega|\nabla u|^2dx+\int_\Omega fu\]
among all functions $u\in H^1(\Omega)$ satisfying $u\geq0$ in $\Omega$ and $u|_{\partial\Omega}=g$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We follow the proof of Proposition \ref{obstacle-existence}. Let
\[\theta_\circ :=\inf\left\{\frac12\int_\Omega |\nabla w|^2dx + \int_\Omega fw \,:\, w\in H^1(\Omega),\ w|_{\partial\Omega}=g,\ w\geq 0\ \textrm{in}\ \Omega\right\},\]
that is, the infimum value of $\mathcal E(w)=\frac12\int_\Omega |\nabla w|^2dx+\int_\Omega fw$ among all admis\-sible functions~$w$. Notice that, by H\"older's inequality, $\mathcal E(w) < +\infty$ if $w\in H^1(\Omega)$.
We take again a sequence of functions $\{v_k\}$ such that $v_k\in H^1(\Omega)$, $v_k|_{\partial\Omega}=g$, $v_k\geq 0$ in $\Omega$, and $\mathcal E(v_k)\to \theta_\circ $ as $k\to\infty$. By the Poincar\'e inequality (Theorem \ref{ch0-Poinc}), H\"older's inequality, and the fact that $\mathcal E(v_k)\le \theta_\circ +1$, for $k$ large enough
\begin{align*}
\|v_k\|_{H^1 (\Omega)}^2 & \le C \left(\int_\Omega|\nabla v_k|^2 + \int_{\partial \Omega} g^2 \right)
\le C \left(\theta_\circ + 1 + \int_\Omega |fv_k| + \frac12 \int_{\partial \Omega} g^2 \right)\\
& \le C \left(\theta_\circ + 1+ \|f\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\|v_k\|_{H^1(\Omega)} + \frac12 \int_{\partial \Omega} g^2 \right).
\end{align*}
In particular, $\|v_k\|_{H^1(\Omega)}\le C$ for some constant $C$ depending only on $n$, $\Omega$, $g$, $f$, and $\theta_\circ$ (recall that $g\in L^2(\partial\Omega)$ by the trace theorem, \ref{it.S5} in Chapter \ref{ch.0}). Hence, a subsequence $\{v_{k_j}\}$ converges to a certain function $v$ strongly in $L^2(\Omega)$ and weakly in $H^1(\Omega)$.
By compactness of the trace operator $v_{k_j}|_{\partial\Omega}\to v|_{\partial\Omega} = g$ in $L^2(\partial\Omega)$.
Furthermore, $v$ satisfies $\mathcal E(v)\leq \liminf_{j\to\infty}\mathcal E(v_{k_j})$ (by \eqref{ch0-weak-conv2}-\eqref{ch0-weak-conv3} from \ref{it.S4} and weak convergence), and therefore it will be a minimizer of the energy functional.
Since $v_{k_j}\geq 0$ in $\Omega$ and $v_{k_j}\to v$ in $L^2(\Omega)$, we have $v\geq 0$ in $\Omega$. Thus, there is a minimizer~$v$.
The uniqueness of the minimizer follows from the strict convexity of the functional $\mathcal{E}(v)$, exactly as in Theorem \ref{ch0-existence}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
Alternatively, we could have denoted $v := u +\varphi$ with $\varphi$ such that $-\Delta \varphi = f$ in $\Omega$, and use Proposition~\ref{obstacle-existence}.
\end{rem}
Furthermore, we have the following equivalence. (Recall that we denote $u^+ = \max\{u, 0\}$, and $u^- = \max\{-u, 0\}$, so that $u = u^+-u^-$.)
\begin{prop}\label{ch4-equivalence-3pb}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be any bounded Lipschitz domain, and let $g:\partial\Omega\to\mathbb{R}$ be such that
\[\mathcal C=\bigl\{u\in H^1(\Omega): u\geq0\ \textrm{in}\ \Omega,\ u|_{\partial\Omega}=g\bigr\}\neq \varnothing.\]
Then, the following are equivalent.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $u$ minimizes $\frac12\int_\Omega |\nabla u|^2+\int_\Omega fu$ among all functions satisfying $u\geq0$ in $\Omega$ and $u|_{\partial\Omega}=g$.
\item[(ii)] $u$ minimizes $\frac12\int_\Omega |\nabla u|^2+\int_\Omega fu^+$ among all functions satisfying $u|_{\partial\Omega}=g$.
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The two functionals coincide whenever $u\geq0$.
Thus, the only key point is to prove that the minimizer in (ii) must be nonnegative, i.e., $u=u^+$. (Notice that $\mathcal{C}\neq \varnothing$ implies that $g\ge 0$ on $\partial\Omega$.)
To show this, recall that the positive part of any $H^1$ function is still in $H^1$, and moreover $|\nabla u|^2=|\nabla u^+|^2+|\nabla u^-|^2$ (see \ref{it.S10} in Chapter~\ref{ch.0}).
Thus, we have that (recall that $f \ge 0$ in $\Omega$)
\[\frac12\int_\Omega |\nabla u^+|^2+\int_\Omega fu^+ \leq \frac12\int_\Omega |\nabla u|^2+\int_\Omega fu^+,\]
with strict inequality unless $u=u^+$.
This means that any minimizer $u$ of the functional in (ii) must be nonnegative, and thus we are done.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Basic properties of solutions}
Let us next prove that any minimizer of \eqref{ch4-min2} is actually a solution to \eqref{equation-PSU} below.
We recall that we are always assuming that obstacles are as smooth as necessary, $\varphi\in C^\infty(\Omega)$, and therefore we assume here that $f\in C^\infty(\Omega)$ as well.
\begin{prop}\label{ch4-equation-PB-f}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be any bounded Lipschitz domain, $f\in C^\infty(\Omega)$, and $u\in H^1(\Omega)$ be any minimizer of \eqref{ch4-min2} subject to the boundary conditions $u|_{\partial\Omega}=g$.
Then, $u$ solves
\begin{equation}\label{equation-PSU}
\Delta u=f\chi_{\{u>0\}}\quad \textrm{in}\quad \Omega
\end{equation}
in the weak sense.
In particular, $u$ is $C^{1,\alpha}$ inside $\Omega$, for every $\alpha\in (0,1)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Notice that, by Proposition \ref{ch4-equivalence-3pb}, $u$ is actually a minimizer of
\[\mathcal E(u)= \frac12\int_\Omega |\nabla u|^2+\int_\Omega fu^+\]
subject to the boundary conditions $u|_{\partial\Omega}=g$.
Thus, for any $\eta\in H^1_0(\Omega)$ and $\varepsilon > 0$ we have
\[\mathcal E(u+\varepsilon\eta)\geq \mathcal E(u).\]
In particular, we obtain
\[
0\le \lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0} \frac{\mathcal{E}(u+\varepsilon \eta) - \mathcal{E}(u)}{\varepsilon} = \int_\Omega \nabla u \cdot \nabla \eta + \lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow0}\int_{\Omega} f \frac{(u+\varepsilon\eta)^+-u^+}{\varepsilon}.
\]
Notice that
\[\lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow 0}\frac{(u+\varepsilon\eta)^+-u^+}{\varepsilon}= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\eta & \qquad \textrm{in}\quad \{u>0\} \\
\eta^+& \qquad \textrm{in}\quad \{u=0\},
\end{array}\right.\]
so that we have
\[
\int_\Omega \nabla u \cdot \nabla \eta + \int_{\Omega} f \eta\chi_{\{u > 0\}} +\int_{\Omega} f \eta^+\chi_{\{u = 0\}}\ge 0\quad\text{for all}\quad \eta\in H^1_0(\Omega).
\]
Assume first that $\eta \ge 0$, so that
\[
\int_\Omega \nabla u \cdot \nabla \eta + \int_{\Omega} f \eta \ge 0\quad\text{for all}\quad \eta\in H^1_0(\Omega), \quad \eta\ge 0,
\]
which implies that $\Delta u \le f$ in the weak sense. On the other hand, if $\eta \le 0$, then
\[
\int_\Omega \nabla u \cdot \nabla \eta + \int_{\Omega} f \eta\chi_{\{u > 0\}} \ge 0\quad\text{for all}\quad \eta\in H^1_0(\Omega), \quad \eta\le 0,
\]
which implies that $\Delta u \ge f \chi_{\{u > 0\}}$ in the weak sense. In all (recall that $f \ge 0$),
\[
f \chi_{\{u > 0\}} \le \Delta u \le f\quad\text{in}\quad\Omega.
\]
(In particular, notice that $\Delta u = f $ in $\{u > 0\}$.) Now, since $f$ is smooth, this implies that $\Delta u \in L^\infty_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$. By Proposition~\ref{prop.Schauder_estimates_L_bounded} we deduce that $u\in C^{1,1-\varepsilon}$ for every $\varepsilon>0$. Moreover, since $\Delta u \in L^\infty_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ we have $\Delta u \in L^2_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ and by Calder\'on-Zygmund estimates (see, for example, Remark~\ref{rem.CZ2}) we have $u\in W^{2, 2}_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$. Thus, $\Delta u = 0$ almost everywhere in the level set $\{u = 0\}$ (see \ref{it.S10} in Chapter~\ref{ch.0}) and we have
\[
\Delta u=f\chi_{\{u>0\}}\quad \textrm{a.e. in}\quad \Omega.
\]
From here we deduce that $\Delta u=f\chi_{\{u>0\}}$ in $\Omega$ in the weak sense.
\end{proof}
Notice that in the previous Section, when dealing with minimizers $v$ of \eqref{ch4-min}, it was not easy to prove that $v$ is continuous (see Proposition \ref{ch4-Euler-Lagrange}).
Here, instead, thanks to Proposition \ref{ch4-equation-PB-f} we simply used Schauder-type estimates for the Laplacian to directly deduce that $u$ is $C^{1,1-\varepsilon}$, which is the almost-optimal regularity of solutions.
\subsection*{Optimal regularity of solutions}
Thanks to the previous results, we know that any minimizer of \eqref{ch4-min2} is continuous and solves \eqref{equation-PSU}.
From now on, we will localize the problem and study it in a ball:
\begin{equation}\label{ch4-obst-B1-u}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
u&\geq&0 & \textrm{in}\ B_1 \\
\Delta u&=&f\chi_{\{u>0\}} & \textrm{in}\ B_1.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
Our next goal is to answer the following question:
\[\textrm{\underline{Question}: }\textit{ What is the optimal regularity of solutions?}\]
First, a few important considerations.
Notice that in the set $\{u>0\}$ we have $\Delta u=f$, while in the interior of $\{u=0\}$ we have $\Delta u=0$ (since $u\equiv 0$ there).
Thus, since $f$ is in general not zero, $\Delta u$ is \emph{discontinuous} across the free boundary $\partial\{u>0\}$ in general.
In particular, $u\notin C^2$.
We will now prove that any minimizer of \eqref{ch4-min2} is actually $C^{1,1}$, which gives the:
\[\textrm{\underline{Answer}: }\ u\in C^{1,1}\ \textit{ (second derivatives are bounded but not continuous)}\]
The precise statement and proof are given next.
\begin{thm}[Optimal regularity]\label{ch4-optimal-reg-u}\index{Optimal regularity, Obstacle problem}
Let $f\in C^\infty(B_1)$, and let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-B1-u}.
Then, $u$ is $C^{1,1}$ inside $B_{1/2}$, with the estimate
\[\|u\|_{C^{1,1}(B_{1/2})}\leq C\bigl(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_{1})}+\|f\|_{{\rm Lip}(B_{1})}\bigr).\]
The constant $C$ depends only on $n$.
\end{thm}
To prove this, the main step is the following.
\begin{lem}\label{ch4-optimal-reg-lem-u}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-B1-u}.
Let $x_\circ \in \overline{B_{1/2}}$ be any point on $\{u=0\}$.
Then, for any $r\in (0,\frac14)$ we have
\[0\leq \sup_{B_r(x_\circ )}u\leq Cr^2,\]
with $C$ depending only on $n$ and $\|f\|_{L^\infty(B_{1})}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We have that $\Delta u=f\chi_{\{u>0\}}$ in $B_1$, with $f\chi_{\{u>0\}}\in L^\infty(B_1)$.
Thus, since $u\geq0$, we can use the Harnack inequality (Theorem \ref{thm.Harnack.f}) for the equation $\Delta u=f\chi_{\{u>0\}}$ in $B_{2r}(x_\circ )$, to find
\[\sup_{B_r(x_\circ )} u \leq C\left(\inf_{B_r(x_\circ )}u + r^2\|f\chi_{\{u>0\}}\|_{L^\infty(B_{2r}(x_\circ ))} \right).\]
Since $u\geq0$ and $u(x_\circ )=0$, this yields $\sup_{B_r(x_\circ )} u \leq C\|f\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}r^2$, as wanted.
\end{proof}
Notice that this proof is significantly shorter than the one given in the previous Section (Lemma \ref{ch4-optimal-reg-lem}).
This is an advantage of using the formulation~\eqref{equation-PSU}.
We have proved the following:
\[\textit{At every free boundary point }x_\circ ,\ u\textit{ grows (at most) quadratically.}\]
As shown next, this easily implies the $C^{1,1}$ regularity.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{ch4-optimal-reg-u}]
Dividing $u$ by a constant if necessary, we may assume that $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_{1})}+\|f\|_{{\rm Lip}(B_{1})}\leq 1$.
We already know that $u\in C^\infty$ in the set $\{u>0\}$ (since $\Delta u=f\in C^\infty$ there), and also inside the set $\{u=0\}$ (since $u=0$ there).
Moreover, on the interface $\Gamma=\partial\{u>0\}$ we have proved the quadratic growth $\sup_{B_r(x_\circ )}u\leq Cr^2$.
Let us prove that this yields the $C^{1,1}$ bound we want.
Let $x_1\in \{u>0\}\cap B_{1/2}$, and let $x_\circ \in \Gamma$ be the closest free boundary point.
Denote $\rho=|x_1-x_\circ |$.
Then, we have $\Delta u=f$ in $B_\rho(x_1)$.
By Schauder estimates, we find
\[\|D^2u\|_{L^\infty(B_{\rho/2}(x_1))} \leq C\left(\frac{1}{\rho^2}\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_{\rho}(x_1))}+\|f\|_{{\rm Lip}(B_{1})}\right).\]
But by the growth proved in the previous Lemma, we have $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_{\rho}(x_1))}\leq C\rho^2$, which yields
\[\|D^2u\|_{L^\infty(B_{\rho/2}(x_1))}\leq C.\]
In particular,
\[|D^2u(x_1)|\leq C.\]
We can do this for each $x_1\in \{u>0\}\cap B_{1/2}$, and therefore $\|u\|_{C^{1,1}(B_{1/2})}\leq C$, as wanted.
\end{proof}
Also, notice that as a consequence of the previous results, we have that as soon as the solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-B1-u} has non-empty contact set, then its $C^{1,1}$ norm is universally bounded.
\begin{cor}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-B1-u}, and let us assume that $u(0) = 0$ and $\|f\|_{{\rm Lip}(B_1)}\le 1$. Then,
\[
\|u\|_{C^{1, 1}(B_{1/2})}\le C
\]
for some $C$ depending only on $n$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
It is an immediate consequence of Theorem~\ref{ch4-optimal-reg-u} combined with Lemma~\ref{ch4-optimal-reg-lem-u}.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Nondegeneracy}
For completeness, we now state the nondegeneracy in this setting (analogously to Proposition~\ref{ch4-prop-nondeg}). That is, at all free boundary points, $u$ grows \emph{at least} quadratically (we already know \emph{at most} quadratically). We want:
\[
0<cr^2\leq \sup_{B_r(x_\circ )}u\leq Cr^2
\]
for all free boundary points $x_\circ \in \partial\{u>0\}$.
This property is essential in order to study the free boundary later.
As before, for this we need the following natural assumption:
\vspace{2mm}
\noindent\textbf{Assumption}: \emph{The right-hand side} $f$ \emph{satisfies}
\[f\geq c_\circ >0\]
\emph{in the ball} $B_1$.
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{prop}[Nondegeneracy]\label{ch4-prop-nondeg2}\index{Nondegeneracy, Obstacle problem}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-B1-u}.
Assume that $f\geq c_\circ >0$ in $B_1$.
Then, for every free boundary point $x_\circ \in \partial\{u>0\}\cap B_{1/2}$, we have
\[\qquad\qquad 0<cr^2\leq \sup_{B_r(x_\circ )}u\leq Cr^2\qquad \textrm{for all}\ r\in (0,{\textstyle\frac12}),\]
with a constant $c>0$ depending only on $n$ and $c_\circ $.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The proof is the one from Proposition \ref{ch4-prop-nondeg}.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Summary of basic properties}
Let $u$ be any solution to the obstacle problem
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
u&\geq&0 & \textrm{in}\ B_1, \\
\Delta u&=&f\chi_{\{u>0\}} & \textrm{in}\ B_1.
\end{array}
\right.
\]
Then, we have:
\vspace{3mm}
\noindent$\bullet$ \underline{\smash{Optimal regularity}}:\qquad $\displaystyle \|u\|_{C^{1,1}(B_{1/2})}\leq C\left(\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_{1})}+\|f\|_{{\rm Lip}(B_{1})}\right)$
\vspace{3mm}
\noindent$\bullet$ \underline{\smash{Nondegeneracy}}: If $f\geq c_\circ >0$, then
\[\qquad\qquad 0<cr^2\leq \sup_{B_r(x_\circ )}u\leq Cr^2\qquad \textrm{for all}\ r\in (0,{\textstyle\frac12})\]
at all free boundary points $x_\circ \in \partial\{u>0\}\cap B_{1/2}$.
\vspace{5mm}
Using these properties, we can now start the study of the free boundary.
\section{Regularity of free boundaries: an overview}
From now on, we consider any solution to
\begin{equation}\label{ch4-obst-f-1}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
u\in C^{1,1}(B_1),
\vspace{1mm}
\\
u\geq0\quad \textrm{in}\ B_1,
\vspace{1mm}
\\
\Delta u=f\quad \textrm{in}\ \{u>0\},
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
(see Figure~\ref{fig.20}) with
\begin{equation}\label{ch4-obst-f-2}
f\geq c_\circ >0\qquad\textrm{and}\qquad f\in C^\infty.
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.9]{./Figures/fig20.pdf}
\caption{A solution to the obstacle problem in $B_1$.}
\label{fig.20}
\end{figure}
Notice that on the interface
\[\Gamma=\partial\{u>0\}\cap B_1\]
we have that
\[\begin{split} u&=0\quad \textrm{on}\ \Gamma,\\
\nabla u&=0\quad \textrm{on}\ \Gamma.\end{split}\]
The central mathematical challenge in the obstacle problem is to
\[\textit{understand the geometry/regularity of the free boundary }\Gamma.\]
Notice that, even if we already know the optimal regularity of $u$ (it is $C^{1,1}$), we know nothing about the free boundary $\Gamma$.
A priori $\Gamma$ could be a very irregular object, even a fractal set with infinite perimeter.
As we will see, under the natural assumption $f\geq c_\circ >0$, it turns out that free boundaries are always smooth, possibly outside a certain set of singular points. In fact, in our proofs we will assume for simplicity that $f\equiv 1$ (or constant). We do that in order to avoid $x$-dependence and the technicalities associated to it, which gives cleaner proofs. In this way, the main ideas behind the regularity of free boundaries are exposed.
\subsection*{Regularity of free boundaries: main results}
Assume from now on that $u$ solves \eqref{ch4-obst-f-1}-\eqref{ch4-obst-f-2}.
Then, the main known results on the free bound\-a\-ry $\Gamma=\partial\{u>0\}$ can be summarized as follows:
\vspace{3mm}
\noindent$\bullet$ At every free boundary point $x_\circ \in \Gamma$, we have
\[\qquad\qquad 0<cr^2\leq \sup_{B_r(x_\circ )}u\leq Cr^2\qquad \qquad\forall r\in \left(0,r_\circ\right).\]
\vspace{0mm}
\noindent$\bullet$ The free boundary $\Gamma$ splits into \emph{regular points} and \emph{singular points}.
\vspace{3mm}
\noindent$\bullet$ \index{Regular points} The set of \emph{regular points} is an open subset of the free boundary, and $\Gamma$ is $C^\infty$ near these points.
\vspace{3mm}
\noindent$\bullet$ \index{Singular points} \emph{Singular points} are those at which the contact set $\{u=0\}$ has \emph{zero density}, and these points (if any) are contained in an $(n-1)$-dimensional $C^1$ manifold.
\vspace{3mm}
Summarizing, \emph{the free boundary is smooth, possibly outside a certain set of singular points}. See Figure~\ref{fig.21}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{./Figures/fig21.pdf}
\caption{Singular points are those where the contact set has zero density.}
\label{fig.21}
\end{figure}
So far, we have not even proved that $\Gamma$ has finite perimeter, or anything at all about $\Gamma$.
Our goal will be to prove that $\Gamma$ \emph{is} $C^\infty$ \emph{near regular points}.
This is the main and most important result in the obstacle problem.
It was proved by Caffarelli in 1977, and it is one of the major results for which he received the Wolf Prize in 2012 and the Shaw Prize in 2018.
\subsection*{Overview of the strategy}
To prove these regularity results for the free boundary, one considers \emph{blow-ups}.
Namely, given any free boundary point~$x_\circ$ for a solution $u$ of \eqref{ch4-obst-f-1}-\eqref{ch4-obst-f-2}, one takes the rescalings
\[u_r(x):= \frac{u(x_\circ +rx)}{r^2},\]
with $r>0$ small.
This is like ``zooming in'' at a free boundary point.
The factor $r^{-2}$ is chosen so that
\[\|u_r\|_{L^{\infty}(B_1)}\approx 1\]
as $r\to0$; recall that $0<cr^2\leq \sup_{B_r(x_\circ )}u\leq Cr^2$.
Then, by $C^{1,1}$ estimates, we will prove that a subsequence of $u_r$ converges to a function $u_0$ locally uniformly in $\mathbb{R}^n$ as $r\to0$.
Such function $u_0$ is called a \emph{blow-up of} $u$ \emph{at}~$x_\circ $.
Any blow-up $u_0$ is a \emph{global} solution to the obstacle problem, with $f\equiv 1$ (or with $f\equiv \textrm{constant}>0$).
Then, the main issue is to \emph{classify blow-ups}: that is, to show that
\[\begin{split}
\textrm{either}\qquad & u_0(x)={\textstyle \frac12}(x\cdot e)_+^2 \qquad\qquad\,\, \textrm{(this happens at regular points)} \\
\textrm{or} \qquad & u_0(x)={\textstyle \frac12}x^TAx \qquad\qquad\quad \textrm{(this happens at singular points)}. \end{split}\]
Here, $e\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ is a unit vector, and $A\geq0$ is a positive semi-definite matrix satisfying $\textrm{tr}A=1$.
Notice that the contact set $\{u_0=0\}$ becomes a half-space in case of regular points, while it has zero measure in case of singular points; see Figure~\ref{fig.22}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width =\textwidth]{./Figures/fig22.pdf}
\caption{Possible blow-ups of the solution to the obstacle problem at free boundary points.}
\label{fig.22}
\end{figure}
Once this is done, one has to ``transfer'' the information from the blow-up $u_0$ to the original solution $u$.
Namely, one shows that, in fact, the free boundary is $C^{1,\alpha}$ near regular points (for some small $\alpha>0$).
Finally, once we know that the free boundary is $C^{1,\alpha}$, we will ``bootstrap'' the regularity to $C^\infty$.
This is in a somewhat similar spirit as in \emph{Hilbert's XIXth problem} (Chapter \ref{ch.2}), where the really difficult point was to prove that minimizers are always $C^{1,\alpha}$.
Once this was done, by Schauder estimates (Chapter \ref{ch.1}) and a bootstrap argument we saw that solutions are actually~$C^\infty$.
Classifying blow-ups is not easy.
Generally speaking, classifying blow-ups is of similar difficulty to proving regularity estimates --- recall the blow-up arguments in Chapter~\ref{ch.1}.
Thus, how can we classify blow-ups?
Do we get any extra information on $u_0$ that we did not have for $u$?
(Otherwise it seems hopeless!)
The answer is \emph{yes}: \textsc{Convexity}.
We will prove that all blow-ups are always \emph{convex}.
This is a huge improvement, since this yields that the contact set $\{u_0=0\}$ is also convex.
Prior to that, we will also show that blow-ups are also \emph{homogeneous}.
So, before the blow-up we had no information on the set $\{u=0\}$, but after the blow-up we get that $\{u_0=0\}$ \emph{is a convex cone}.
Thanks to this we will be able to classify blow-ups, and thus to prove the regularity of the free boundary.
\vspace{3mm}
The main steps in the proof of the regularity of the free boundary will be the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $0<cr^2\leq \sup_{B_r(x_\circ )}u\leq Cr^2$
\vspace{1mm}
\item Blow-ups $u_0$ are \emph{homogeneous} and \emph{convex}.
\vspace{1mm}
\item If the contact set has \emph{positive density} at $x_\circ $, then $u_0(x)={\textstyle \frac12}(x\cdot e)_+^2$.
\vspace{1mm}
\item Deduce that the free boundary is $C^{1,\alpha}$ near $x_\circ $.
\vspace{1mm}
\item Deduce that the free boundary is $C^\infty$ near $x_\circ $.
\end{enumerate}
\vspace{2mm}
The proof we will present here for the convexity of blow-ups is new, based on the fact that they are homogeneous.
We refer to \cite{Caf98}, \cite{PSU}, \cite{W}, and \cite{KN}, for different proofs of the classification of blow-ups and/or of the regularity of free boundaries.
\section{Classification of blow-ups}
\index{Classification of blow-ups}
The aim of this Section is to classify all possible blow-ups $u_0$.
For this, we will first prove that blow-ups are homogeneous, then we will prove that they are convex, and finally we will establish their complete classification.
\subsection*{Homogeneity of blow-ups}
We start by proving that blow-ups are homogeneous.
This is not essential in the proof of the regularity of the free boundary (see \cite{Caf98}), but it actually simplifies it.
Recall that, for simplicity, from now on we will assume that $f\equiv1$ in~$B_1$.
This is only to avoid $x$-dependence in the equation, it simplifies some proofs.
Therefore, from now on we consider a solution $u$ satisfying (see Figure~\ref{fig.23}):
\begin{equation}\label{ch4-obst-f=1}
\begin{array}{l}
u\in C^{1,1}(B_1)
\vspace{1mm}
\\
u\geq0\quad \textrm{in}\ B_1
\vspace{1mm}
\\
\Delta u=1\quad \textrm{in}\ \{u>0\}
\vspace{1mm}
\\
0\ \textrm{is a free boundary point.}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
We will prove all the results around the origin (without loss of generality).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{./Figures/fig23.pdf}
\caption{A solution $u$ to the obstacle problem with $f\equiv1$.}
\label{fig.23}
\end{figure}
We will show that, for the original solution $u$ in $B_1$, the closer we look at a free boundary point $x_\circ $, the closer is the solution to being homogeneous.
\begin{prop}[Homogeneity of blow-ups]\label{cor-Weiss}\index{Homogeneity of blow-ups}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}.
Then, any blow-up of $u$ at $0$ is homogeneous of degree $2$.
\end{prop}
It is important to remark that not all global solutions to the obstacle problem in $\mathbb{R}^n$ are homogeneous.
There exist global solutions $u_0$ that are convex, $C^{1,1}$, and whose contact set $\{u_0=0\}$ is an ellipsoid, for example.
However, thanks to the previous result, we find that such non-homogeneous solutions cannot appear as blow-ups, i.e., that all blow-ups must be homogeneous.
We provide two different proofs of Proposition~\ref{cor-Weiss}. The first one uses a monotonicity formula as introduced by Weiss; while the second one does not require any monotonicity formula and is due to Spruck.
\subsubsection*{Homogeneity of blow-ups \textit{\`a la} Weiss}
For the first proof of Proposition~\ref{cor-Weiss}, we need the following monotonicity formula due to Weiss \cite{W}.
\begin{thm}[Weiss' monotonicity formula]\label{thm-Weiss}\index{Weiss monotonicity formula}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}.
Then, the quantity
\begin{equation}
\label{weissenergy}
W_u(r):=\frac{1}{r^{n+2}}\int_{B_r}\left\{{\textstyle \frac12}|\nabla u|^2+u\right\} -\frac{1}{r^{n+3}}\int_{\partial B_r}u^2
\end{equation}
is monotone in $r$, that is,
\[\frac{d}{dr}W_u(r)=\frac{1}{r^{n+4}}\int_{\partial B_r}(x\cdot \nabla u-2u)^2dx\geq 0\]
for $r\in(0,1)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let $u_r(x)=r^{-2}u(rx)$, and observe that
\[W_u(r)=\int_{B_1}\left\{{\textstyle \frac12}|\nabla u_r|^2+u_r\right\} -\int_{\partial B_1}u_r^2.\]
Using this, together with
\[\frac{d}{dr}(\nabla u_r)=\nabla \frac{d}{dr}u_r,\]
we find
\[\frac{d}{dr}W_u(r)=\int_{B_1}\left\{\nabla u_r\cdot \nabla \frac{d}{dr}u_r+\frac{d}{dr}u_r\right\}-2\int_{\partial B_1}u_r\frac{d}{dr}u_r.\]
Now, integrating by parts we get
\[\int_{B_1}\nabla u_r\cdot \nabla \frac{d}{dr}u_r=-\int_{B_1}\Delta u_r\frac{d}{dr}u_r+\int_{\partial B_1}\partial_\nu(u_r)\frac{d}{dr}u_r.\]
Since $\Delta u_r=1$ in $\{u_r>0\}$ and $\frac{d}{dr}u_r=0$ in $\{u_r=0\}$, we have
\[\int_{B_1}\nabla u_r\cdot \nabla \frac{d}{dr}u_r=-\int_{B_1}\frac{d}{dr}u_r+\int_{\partial B_1}\partial_\nu(u_r)\frac{d}{dr}u_r.\]
Thus, we deduce
\[\frac{d}{dr}W_u(r)=\int_{\partial B_1}\partial_\nu(u_r)\frac{d}{dr}u_r-2\int_{\partial B_1}u_r\frac{d}{dr}u_r.\]
Using that on $\partial B_1$ we have $\partial_\nu=x\cdot \nabla$, combined with
\[
\frac{d}{dr}u_r=\frac1r\left\{x\cdot\nabla u_r-2u_r\right\}
\]
yields
\[\frac{d}{dr}W_u(r)=\frac1r\int_{\partial B_1}\left(x\cdot\nabla u_r-2u_r\right)^2,\]
which gives the desired result.
\end{proof}
We now give the:
\begin{proof}[First proof of Proposition \ref{cor-Weiss}]
Let $u_r(x)=r^{-2}u(rx)$, and notice that we have the scaling property
\[W_{u_r}(\rho)=W_u(\rho r),\]
for any $r,\rho>0$.
If $u_0$ is any blow-up of $u$ at $0$ then there is a sequence $r_j\to0$ satisfying $u_{r_j}\to u_0$ in $C^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^n)$.
Thus, for any $\rho>0$ we have
\[W_{u_0}(\rho)=\lim_{r_j\to0}W_{u_{r_j}}(\rho)=\lim_{r_j\to0}W_{u}(\rho r_j)=W_u(0^+).\]
Notice that the limit $W_u(0^+):=\lim_{r\to0}W_u(r)$ exists by monotonicity of $W$ and since $u\in C^{1,1}$ implies $W_u(r)\ge - C$ for all $r \ge 0$.
Hence, the function $W_{u_0}(\rho)$ is \emph{constant} in $\rho$.
However, by Theorem \ref{thm-Weiss} this yields that $x\cdot \nabla u_0-2u_0\equiv0$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$, and therefore $u_0$ is homogeneous of degree~$2$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
Here, we used that a $C^1$ function $u_0$ is $2$-homogeneous (i.e. $u_0(\lambda x)=\lambda^2 u_0(x)$ for all $\lambda\in \mathbb{R}_+$) if and only if $x\cdot \nabla u_0\equiv 2u_0$.
This is because $\partial_\lambda|_{\lambda=1}\left\{\lambda^{-2}u_0(\lambda x)\right\}=x\cdot \nabla u_0-2u_0$.
\end{rem}
\subsubsection*{Homogeneity of blow-ups \textit{\`a la} Spruck}
We present an alternative (and quite different) proof of the homogeneity of blow-ups. Such proof is due to Spruck \cite{Spr83} and is not based on any monotonicity formula.
\begin{proof}[Second proof of Proposition~\ref{cor-Weiss}]
Let $u_0$ be a blow-up given by the limit along a sequence $r_k\downarrow 0$,
\[
u_0(x) := \lim_{k\to \infty} r_k^{-2} u(r_k x).
\]
By taking polar coordinates $(\varrho, \theta)\in [0, +\infty)\times \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ with $x = \varrho \theta$, and by denoting $\tilde u_0 (\varrho, \theta) = u_0 (\varrho \theta) = u_0(x)$, we will prove that $u_0(x) = \varrho^2\tilde u_0(1, \theta) = |x|^2u_0(x/|x|)$.
Let us define $\tau := -\log\varrho$, $\tilde u(\varrho, \theta) = u(x)$, and $\psi = \psi(\tau, \theta)$ as
\[
\psi(\tau, \theta) := \varrho^{-2} \tilde u(\varrho, \theta)= e^{2\tau}u(e^{-\tau}\theta)
\]
for $\tau \ge 0$. We observe that, since $\|u\|_{L^\infty(B_r)}\le C r^2$, $\psi$ is bounded. Moreover, $\psi \in C^1((0, \infty)\times \mathbb{S}^{n-1})\cap C^2(\{\psi > 0\})$ from the regularity of $u$; and $\partial_\tau \psi$ and $\nabla_\theta \psi$ are not only continuous, but also uniformly bounded in $[0, \infty)\times \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$. Indeed,
\[
\big|\nabla_\theta \psi(\tau, \theta)\big| \le e^{\tau}\big|\nabla u(e^{-\tau}\theta) \big|\le C,
\]
since $\|\nabla u\|_{L^\infty(B_r)}\le C r$ by $C^{1,1}$ regularity and the fact that $\nabla u(0) =0$. For the same reason we also obtain
\[
\big|\partial_\tau \psi(\tau, \theta)\big| \le 2\psi(\tau, \theta) +e^{\tau}\big|\nabla u(e^{-\tau}\theta)\big|\le C.
\]
Observe that, by assumption, if we denote $\tau_k := -\log r_k$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.goestozerohi}
\psi(\tau_k, \theta) \to \tilde u_0(1, \theta)\quad \text{uniformly on $\mathbb{S}^{n-1}$, as $k\to \infty$}.
\end{equation}
Let us now write an equation for $\psi$. In order to do that, since we know that $\Delta u = \chi_{\{u > 0\}}$ and $\chi_{\{u > 0\}} = \chi_{\{\psi > 0\}}$, we have
\[
\Delta \big(\varrho^2 \psi(-\log \varrho, \theta)\big) = \chi_{\{\psi > 0\}}.
\]
By expanding the Laplacian in polar coordinates, $\Delta = \partial_{\varrho \varrho} +\frac{n-1}{\varrho}\partial_\varrho + \varrho^{-2}\Delta_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}}$ (where $\Delta_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}}$ denotes the spherical Laplacian, i.e. the Laplace--Beltrami operator on $\mathbb{S}^{n-1}$) we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.goingbackto}
2n \psi- (n+2)\partial_\tau \psi+\partial_{\tau\tau}\psi + \Delta_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}}\psi = \chi_{\{\psi > 0\}}.
\end{equation}
We multiply the previous equality by $\partial_\tau \psi$, and integrate in $[0, \tau]\times\mathbb{S}^{n-1}$. We can consider the terms separately, integrating in $\tau$ first,
\[
2n \int_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}}\int_{0}^\tau \psi\partial_\tau \psi = n \int_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}} \big(\psi^2(\tau,\theta) - \psi^2(0, \theta)\big)\, d\theta
\]
and
\[
\int_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}}\int_{0}^\tau \partial_{\tau\tau} \psi\partial_\tau \psi = \frac12 \int_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}} \big((\partial_\tau\psi)^2(\tau,\theta) - (\partial_\tau\psi)^2(0, \theta)\big)\, d\theta,
\]
and then integrating by parts in $\theta$ first, to integrate in $\tau$ afterwards:
\[
\begin{split}
\int_{0}^\tau \int_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}}\Delta_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}} \psi\partial_\tau \psi & = - \frac12\int_{0}^\tau \int_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}} \partial_\tau |\nabla_\theta \psi|^2\\
& = \frac12 \int_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}} \big(|\nabla_\theta \psi|^2(0,\theta) - |\nabla_\theta \psi|^2(\tau, \theta)\big)\, d\theta.
\end{split}
\]
Finally, since $\partial_\tau \psi = 0$ whenever $\psi = 0$, we have $\chi_{\{\psi > 0\}}\partial_\tau \psi = \partial_\tau \psi $ and
\[
\int_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}}\int_{0}^\tau\chi_{\{\psi > 0\}} \partial_\tau \psi = \int_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}} \big(\psi(\tau,\theta) - \psi(0, \theta)\big)\, d\theta.
\]
In all, plugging back in \eqref{eq.goingbackto} the previous expressions, and using that $\partial_\tau \psi$ and $\nabla_\theta \psi$ are uniformly bounded in $[0, \infty)\times\mathbb{S}^{n-1}$, we deduce that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq.boundL2partial}
\int_{0}^\infty\int_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}} (\partial_\tau \psi)^2 =\int_{0}^\infty \|\partial_\tau \psi\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{S}^{n-1})} \le C < \infty.
\end{equation}
To finish, now observe that for any $|s|\le C_*$ fixed and for a sufficiently large $k$ (such that $\tau_k +s \ge 0$),
\[
\begin{split}
\|\psi(\tau_k + s, \cdot) - \tilde u_0(1, \cdot)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{S}^{n-1})} & \le \|\psi(\tau_k + s, \cdot) - \psi(\tau_k, \cdot)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{S}^{n-1})} \\
& \quad +\|\psi(\tau_k, \cdot) - \tilde u_0(1, \cdot)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{S}^{n-1})}.
\end{split}
\]
The last term goes to zero, by \eqref{eq.goestozerohi}. On the other hand, for the first term and by H\"older's inequality
\[
\begin{split}
\|\psi(\tau_k + s, \cdot) - \psi(\tau_k, \cdot)\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{S}^{n-1})} & \le \left\|\int_0^s \partial_\tau \psi(\tau_k + \tau, \cdot)\, d\tau\right\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{S}^{n-1})} \\
& \le C_*\left|\int_{\tau_k}^{\tau_k+s}\|\partial_\tau \psi\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{S}^{n-1})}\right|\to 0,
\end{split}
\]
as $k\to \infty$, where we are using \eqref{eq.boundL2partial}. Hence, $\psi(\tau_k + s, \cdot) \to \tilde u_0(1, \cdot)$ in $L^2(\mathbb{S}^{n-1})$ as $k\to \infty$, for any fixed $s\in \mathbb{R}$. On the other hand,
\[
\psi(\tau_k + s, \theta) = e^{2s}r_k^{-2} u(e^{-2}r_k\theta)\to e^{2s}u_0(e^{-s}\theta) = e^{2s}\tilde u_0(e^{-s}, \theta).
\]
That is, for any $\rho = e^{-s} > 0$,
\[
\tilde u_0(1, \cdot) = \rho^{-2} \tilde u_0(\rho, \theta),
\]
as we wanted to see.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Convexity of blow-ups}
By taking advantage of the fact that we know that blow-ups are 2-homogeneous, we can now give a short (and new) proof of the fact that they are also convex. More precisely, we will prove that 2-homogeneous global solutions to the obstacle problem are convex (and in particular, by Proposition~\ref{cor-Weiss}, blow-ups are convex).
\begin{thm}
\label{ch4_thm_convexity}
Let $u_0\in C^{1,1}$ be any $2$-homogeneous global solution to
\[\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
u_0&\geq&0&\quad \textrm{in}\ \mathbb{R}^n
\vspace{1mm}
\\
\Delta u_0&=&1&\quad \textrm{in}\ \{u_0>0\}
\vspace{1mm}
\\
&&& \hspace{-2.0cm} 0\ \textrm{is a free boundary point}.
\end{array}
\right.
\]
Then, $u_0$ is convex.
\end{thm}
The heuristic idea behind the proof of the previous result is the following: second derivatives $D^2 u_0$ are harmonic in $\{u_0 > 0\}$ and satisfy that $D^2 u_0 \ge 0 $ on $\partial\{u_0 > 0\}$ (since $u_0\ge 0$, it is ``convex at the free boundary''). Since $D^2u_0$ is also 0-homogeneous, we can apply the maximum principle and conclude that $D^2 u_0 \ge 0$ everywhere. That is, $u_0$ is convex. Let us formalize the previous heuristic idea into an actual proof.
We state a short lemma before providing the proof, which says that if $w\ge 0$ is superharmonic in $\{w > 0\}$, then it is superharmonic everywhere. For the sake of generality, we state the lemma for general $H^1$ functions, but we will use it only for functions that are also continuous.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem.second_convex}
Let $\Lambda\subset B_1$ be closed. Let $w\in H^1(B_1)$ be such that $w \ge 0$ on $\Lambda$ and such that $w$ is superharmonic in the weak sense in $B_1 \setminus \Lambda$. Then $\min\{w, 0\}$ is superharmonic in the weak sense in $B_1$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let us start by assuming that $w$ is, furthermore, continuous. In this case, we define $w_\varepsilon = \min\{w, -\varepsilon\}\in H^1(B_1)$. Then notice that (by continuity) in a neighborhood of $\{w = -\varepsilon\}$, $w$ is superharmonic ($\Delta w \le 0$). By Lemma~\ref{lem.pospartSH} (we apply the lemma with $v = -w-\varepsilon$) we have that $\Delta w_\varepsilon \le 0$ in the weak sense, namely, $w_\varepsilon$ is superharmonic. Moreover, they are uniformly in $H^1$, so up to subsequences they converge weakly to $\min\{w, 0\}$. Since the weak limit of weakly superharmonic functions is superharmonic, we deduce the desired result.
Finally, to remove the continuity assumption on $w\in H^1(B_1)$, we repeat the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem.pospartSH}. The only thing we need to check is that $F'(v)\eta \in H^1_0(B_1\setminus\Lambda)$, which follows from the fact that such function is in $H^1(B_1)$ and vanishes in $\Lambda$; see for example \cite[Theorem 9.1.3]{AH95}.
\end{proof}
We now give the:
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{ch4_thm_convexity}]
Let $e\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ and consider the second derivatives $\partial_{ee} u_0$. We define
\[
w_0 := \min\{\partial_{ee} u_0, 0\}
\]
and we claim that $w_0$ is superharmonic in $\mathbb{R}^n$, in the sense \eqref{eq.superharmonic_integral}.
Indeed, let $\delta_t^2 u_0(x)$ for $t > 0$ be defined by
\[
\delta_t^2 u_0(x) := \frac{u_0(x+te)+u_0(x-te)-2u_0(x)}{t^2}.
\]
Now, since $\Delta u_0 = \chi_{\{u_0 >0\}}$, we have that
\[
\Delta \delta_t^2 u_0 = \frac{1}{t^2} \big(\chi_{\{u_0(\,\cdot\,+te)\}}+\chi_{\{u_0(\,\cdot\,-te)\}}-2\big) \le 0\quad\text{in}\quad \{u_0 > 0\}
\]
in the weak sense. On the other hand, $\delta_t^2 u_0 \ge 0$ in $\{u_0 = 0\}$ and $\delta_t^2 u_0 \in C^{1,1}$. Thus, by Lemma~\ref{lem.second_convex}, $w_t := \min\{\delta_t^2 u_0, 0\}$ is weakly superharmonic, and hence it satisfies \eqref{eq.superharmonic_integral}. Also notice that $\delta_t^2 u_0(x)$ is uniformly bounded independently of $t$, since $u_0\in C^{1,1}$, and therefore $w_{t}$ is uniformly bounded in $t$ and converges pointwise to $w_0$ as $t\downarrow 0$. In particular, by Lemma~\ref{lem.convergence_pointwise} we have that $w_0$ is superharmonic in the sense of \eqref{eq.superharmonic_integral}, as claimed.
Up to changing it in a set of measure 0, $w_0$ is lower semi-continuous by Lemma~\ref{lem.lower_semi}. In particular, since $w_0$ is 0-homogeneous, it must attain its minimum at a point $y_\circ\in B_1$. But since $\strokedint_{B_r(y_\circ)} w_0$ is non-increasing for $r > 0$, we must have that $w_0$ is constant. Since it vanishes on the free boundary, we have $w_0 \equiv 0$. That is, for any $e\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ we have that $\partial_{ee} u_0 \ge 0$ and therefore $u_0$ is convex.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}[Convexity of blow-ups \emph{\`a la} Caffarelli]
The original proof by Caffarelli on the convexity of blow-ups, \cite{Caf, Caf98}, is more involved than the previous one, but obtains a quantitative estimate on the convexity without using the homogeneity assumption (in particular, it is valid for any global solution).
More precisely, for any solution $u$ to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1} in $B_1$
\[\qquad \qquad \partial_{ee}u(x)\geq -\frac{C}{\bigr|\log|x|\bigr|^{\varepsilon}}\qquad \text{for all}\quad e\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1},~~ x \in B_{1/2}, \]
for some $\varepsilon>0$. Notice that $C\bigr|\log|x|\bigr|^{-\varepsilon}\to0$ as $x\to0$.
Thus, $u$ becomes closer and closer to being convex as we approach to the free boundary. Rescaling this result to $B_R$, and letting $R\to\infty$, this implies that any global solution is convex.
\end{rem}
Finally, we refer to \cite[Theorem 5.1]{PSU} for yet another different proof of the convexity of blow-ups.
\subsection*{Classification of blow-ups}
We next want to classify all possible blow-ups for solutions to the obstacle problem \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}.
First, we will prove the following.
\begin{prop}\label{ch4-prop-blowups}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}, and let
\[u_r(x):=\frac{u(rx)}{r^2}.\]
Then, for any sequence $r_k\to0$ there is a subsequence $r_{k_j}\to0$ such that
\[u_{r_{k_j}}\longrightarrow u_0\quad\textrm{in}\ C^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^n)\]
as $k_j\to\infty$, for some function $u_0$ satisfying
\[
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
u_0\in C^{1,1}_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^n)
\vspace{1mm}
\\
u_0\geq0\quad \textrm{in}\ B_1
\vspace{1mm}
\\
\Delta u_0=1\quad \textrm{in}\ \{u_0>0\}
\vspace{1mm}
\\
0\ \textrm{is a free boundary point}
\vspace{1mm}
\\
u_0\ \textrm{is convex}
\\
u_0\ \textrm{is homogeneous of degree 2}.
\end{array}\right.
\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By $C^{1,1}$ regularity of $u$, and by nondegeneracy, we have that
\[\frac{1}{C}\leq \sup_{B_1}u_r \leq C\]
for some $C>0$.
Moreover, again by $C^{1,1}$ regularity of $u$, we have
\[\|D^2u_r\|_{L^\infty(B_{1/(2r)})}\leq C.\]
Since the sequence $\{u_{r_k}\}$, for $r_k\to0$, is uniformly bounded in $C^{1,1}(K)$ for each compact set $K\subset \mathbb{R}^n$, there is a subsequence $r_{k_j}\to0$ such that
\[u_{r_{k_j}}\longrightarrow u_0\quad\textrm{in}\ C^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^n)\]
for some $u_0\in C^{1,1}(K)$.
Moreover, such function $u_0$ satisfies $\|D^2u_0\|_{L^\infty(K)}\leq C$, with $C$ independent of $K$, and clearly $u_0\geq0$ in $K$.
The fact that $\Delta u_0=1$ in $\{u_0>0\}\cap K$ can be checked as follows.
For any smooth function $\eta\in C^\infty_c(\{u_0>0\}\cap K)$ we will have that, for $k_j$ large enough, $u_{r_{k_j}}>0$ in the support of $\eta$, and thus
\[\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} \nabla u_{r_{k_j}}\cdot \nabla \eta\,dx=-\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} \eta\,dx.\]
Since $u_{r_{k_j}}\to u_0$ in $C^1(K)$, we can take the limit $k_j\to\infty$ to get
\[\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} \nabla u_0\cdot \nabla \eta\,dx=-\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} \eta\,dx.\]
Since this can be done for any $\eta\in C^\infty_c(\{u>0\}\cap K)$, and for every $K\subset \mathbb{R}^n$, it follows that $\Delta u_0=1$ in $\{u_0>0\}$.
The fact that $0$ is a free boundary point for $u_0$ follows simply by taking limits to $u_{r_{k_j}}(0)=0$ and $\|u_{r_{k_j}}\|_{L^\infty(B_\rho)}\approx \rho^2$ for all $\rho\in (0,1)$.
Finally, the homogeneity and convexity of $u_0$ follow from Proposition~\ref{cor-Weiss} and Theorem~\ref{ch4_thm_convexity}.
\end{proof}
Our next goal is to prove the following.
\begin{thm}[Classification of blow-ups]\label{thm-classification-blowups}\index{Classification of blow-ups}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}, and let $u_0$ be any blow-up of $u$ at $0$.
Then,
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] either
\[u_0(x)=\frac12(x\cdot e)_+^2\]
for some $e\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$.
\item[(b)] or
\[u_0(x)=\frac12x^TAx\]
for some matrix $A\geq0$ with ${\rm tr}\,A=1$.
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}
It is important to remark here that, a priori, different subsequences could lead to different blow-ups $u_0$.
In order to establish Theorem \ref{thm-classification-blowups}, we will need the following.
\begin{lem}\label{lem-cone-homog1}
Let $\Sigma\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be any closed convex cone with nonempty interior, and with vertex at the origin.
Let $w\in C(\mathbb{R}^n)$ be a function satisfying $\Delta w=0$ in $\Sigma^c$, $w>0$ in $\Sigma^c$, and $w=0$ in $\Sigma$.
Assume in addition that $w$ is homogeneous of degree 1.
Then, $\Sigma$ must be a half-space.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By convexity of $\Sigma$, there exists a half-space $H=\{x\cdot e>0\}$, with $e\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$, such that $H\subset \Sigma^c$.
Let $v(x)=(x\cdot e)_+$, which is harmonic and positive in $H$, and vanishes in~$H^c$.
By the Hopf Lemma (see Lemma~\ref{Hopf}), we have that $w\geq c_\circ d_\Sigma$ in $\Sigma^c\cap B_1$, where $d_\Sigma(x)={\rm dist}(x,\Sigma)$ and $c_\circ $ is a small positive constant.
In particular, since both $w$ and $d_\Sigma$ are homogeneous of degree 1, we deduce that $w\geq c_\circ d_\Sigma$ in all of $\Sigma^c$.
Notice that, in order to apply the Hopf Lemma, we used that --- by convexity of $\Sigma$ --- the domain $\Sigma^c$ satisfies the interior ball condition.
Thus, since $d_\Sigma\geq d_{H^c}= v$, we deduce that $w\geq c_\circ v$, for some $c_\circ >0$.
The idea is now to consider the functions $w$ and $cv$, and let $c>0$ increase until the two functions touch at one point, which will give us a contradiction (recall that two harmonic functions cannot touch at an interior point).
To do this rigorously, define
\[c_*:=\sup\{c>0\,:\, w\geq cv\quad\textrm{in}\quad\Sigma^c\}.\]
Notice that $c_*\geq c_\circ >0$.
Then, we consider the function $w-c_*v\geq0$.
Assume that $w-c_*v$ is not identically zero.
Such function is harmonic in $H$ and hence, by the strict maximum principle, $w-c_*v>0$ in $H$.
Then, using the Hopf Lemma in $H$ (see Lemma~\ref{Hopf}) we deduce that $w-c_*v\geq c_\circ d_{H^c}=c_\circ v$, since $v$ is exactly the distance to $H^c$.
But then we get that $w-(c_*+c_\circ )v\geq0$, a contradiction with the definition of $c_*$.
Therefore, it must be $w-c_*v\equiv0$.
This means that $w$ is a multiple of $v$, and therefore $\Sigma=H^c$, a half-space.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}[Alternative proof]
An alternative way to argue in the previous lemma could be the following.
Any function $w$ which is harmonic in a cone $\Sigma^c$ and homogeneous of degree $\alpha$ can be written as a function on the sphere, satisfying $\Delta_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}}w=\mu w$ on $\mathbb{S}^{n-1}\cap \Sigma^c$ with $\mu=\alpha(n+\alpha-2)$ --- in our case $\alpha=1$. (Here, $\Delta_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}}$ denotes the spherical Laplacian, i.e. the Laplace--Beltrami operator on $\mathbb{S}^{n-1}$.)
In other words, \emph{homogeneous harmonic functions solve an eigenvalue problem on the sphere}.
Using this, we notice that $w>0$ in $\Sigma^c$ and $w=0$ in $\Sigma$ imply that $w$ is the \emph{first} eigenfunction of $\mathbb{S}^{n-1}\cap \Sigma^c$, and that the first eigenvalue is $\mu=n-1$.
But, on the other hand, the same happens for the domain $H=\{x\cdot e>0\}$, since $v(x)=(x\cdot e)_+$ is a positive harmonic function in $H$.
This means that both domains $\mathbb{S}^{n-1}\cap \Sigma^c$ and $\mathbb{S}^{n-1}\cap H$ have the same first eigenvalue $\mu$.
But then, by strict monotonicity of the first eigenvalue with respect to domain inclusions, we deduce that $H\subset \Sigma^c$ implies $H=\Sigma^c$, as desired.
\end{rem}
We will also need the following.
\begin{lem}\label{ch4-removable}
Assume that $\Delta u=1$ in $\mathbb{R}^n\setminus \partial H$, where $\partial H$ is a hyperplane.
If $u\in C^1(\mathbb{R}^n)$, then $\Delta u=1$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Assume $\partial H=\{x_1=0\}$.
For any ball $B_R\subset\mathbb{R}^n$, we consider the solution to $\Delta w=1$ in $B_R$, $w=u$ on $\partial B_R$, and define $v=u-w$.
Then, we have $\Delta v=0$ in $B_R\setminus \partial H$, and $v=0$ on $\partial B_R$.
We want to show that $u$ coincides with $w$, that is, $v\equiv0$ in $B_R$.
For this, notice that since $v$ is bounded, for $\kappa>0$ large enough we have
\[v(x)\leq \kappa(2R-|x_1|) \quad \textrm{in}\quad B_R,\]
where $2R-|x_1|$ is positive in $B_R$ and harmonic in $B_R\setminus\{x_1=0\}$.
Thus, we may consider $\kappa^*:=\inf\{\kappa\geq0: v(x)\leq \kappa(2R-|x_1|) \quad \textrm{in}\quad B_R\}$.
Assume $\kappa^*>0$.
Since $v$ and $2R-|x_1|$ are continuous in $B_R$, and $v=0$ on $\partial B_R$, we must have a point $p\in B_R$ at which $v(p)=\kappa^* (2R-|p_1|)$.
Moreover, since $v$ is $C^1$, and the function $2R-|x_1|$ has a wedge on $\partial H=\{x_1=0\}$, we must have $p\in B_R\setminus \partial H$.
However, this is not possible, as two harmonic functions cannot touch tangentially at an interior point $p$.
This means that $\kappa^*=0$, and hence $v\leq0$ in $B_R$.
Repeating the same argument with $-v$ instead of $v$, we deduce that $v\equiv0$ in $B_R$, and thus the lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
Finally, we will use the following basic property of convex functions.
\begin{lem}\label{convex-1D}
Let $u: \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be a convex function such that the set $\{u=0\}$ contains the straight line $\{te'\,:\, t\in \mathbb{R}\}$, $e'\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$.
Then, $u(x+te')=u(x)$ for all $x\in \mathbb{R}^n$ and all $t\in\mathbb{R}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
After a rotation, we may assume $e'=e_n$.
Then, writing $x=(x',x_n)\in \mathbb{R}^{n-1}\times \mathbb{R}$, we have that $u(0,x_n)=0$ for all $x_n\in \mathbb{R}$, and we want to prove that $u(x',x_n)=u(x',0)$ for all $x'\in \mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ and all $x_n\in \mathbb{R}$.
Now, by convexity, given $x'$ and $x_n$, for every $\varepsilon>0$ and $M\in \mathbb{R}$ we have
\[(1-\varepsilon)u(x',x_n)+\varepsilon u(0,x_n+M)\geq u((1-\varepsilon)x',x_n+\varepsilon M).\]
Since $u(0,x_n+M)=0$, choosing $M=\lambda/\varepsilon$ and letting $\varepsilon\to0$ we deduce that
\[u(x',x_n)\geq u(x',x_n+\lambda).\]
Since this can be done for any $\lambda\in \mathbb{R}$ and $x_n\in\mathbb{R}$, the result follows.
\end{proof}
We finally establish the classification of blow-ups at regular points.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm-classification-blowups}]
Let $u_0$ be any blow-up of $u$ at $0$.
We already proved that $u_0$ is convex and homogeneous of degree 2.
We divide the proof into two cases.
\noindent{\it \underline{\smash{Case 1}}.}
Assume that $\{u_0=0\}$ has nonempty interior.
Then, we have $\{u_0=0\}=\Sigma$, a closed convex cone with nonempty interior.
For any direction $\tau\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ such that $-\tau\in \mathring{\Sigma}$, we claim that
\[\partial_\tau u_0\geq0 \quad \textrm{in}\quad \mathbb{R}^n.\]
Indeed, for every $x\in \mathbb{R}^n$ we have that $u_0(x+\tau t)$ is zero for $t\ll -1$, and therefore by convexity of $u_0$ we get that $\partial_t u_0(x+\tau t)$ is monotone non-decreasing in $t$, and zero for $t\ll-1$.
This means that $\partial_tu_0\geq0$, and thus $\partial_\tau u_0\geq0$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$, as claimed.
Now, for any such $\tau$, we define $w:=\partial_\tau u_0\geq0$.
Notice that, at least for some $\tau\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ with $-\tau\in \mathring{\Sigma}$, the function $w$ is not identically zero.
Moreover, since it is harmonic in $\Sigma^c$ --- recall that $\Delta u_0=1$ in $\Sigma^c$ --- then $w>0$ in $\Sigma^c$.
But then, since $w$ is homogeneous of degree 1, we can apply Lemma~\ref{lem-cone-homog1} to deduce that we must necessarily have that $\Sigma$ is a half-space.
By convexity of $u_0$ and Lemma~\ref{convex-1D}, this means that $u_0$ is a one-dimensional function, i.e., $u_0(x)=U(x\cdot e)$ for some $U:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ and some $e\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$.
Thus, we have that $U\in C^{1,1}$ solves $U''(t)=1$ for $t>0$, with $U(t)=0$ for $t\leq0$.
We deduce that $U(t)=\frac12 t_+^2$, and therefore $u_0(x)=\frac12(x\cdot e)_+^2$.
\vspace{1mm}
\noindent{\it \underline{\smash{Case 2}}.}
Assume now that $\{u_0=0\}$ has empty interior.
Then, by convexity, $\{u_0=0\}$ is contained in a hyperplane $\partial H$.
Hence, $\Delta u_0=1$ in $\mathbb{R}^n\setminus \partial H$, with $\partial H$ being a hyperplane, and $u_0\in C^{1,1}$.
It follows from Lemma~\ref{ch4-removable} that $\Delta u_0=1$ in all of $\mathbb{R}^n$.
But then all second derivatives of $u_0$ are harmonic and globally bounded in $\mathbb{R}^n$, so they must be constant.
Hence, $u_0$ is a quadratic polynomial.
Finally, since $u_0(0)=0$, $\nabla u_0(0)=0$, and $u_0\geq0$, we deduce that $u_0(x)=\frac12x^TAx$ for some $A\geq0$, and since $\Delta u_0=1$, we have ${\rm tr}\,A=1$.
\end{proof}
\section{Regularity of the free boundary}
The aim of this Section is to prove Theorem \ref{ch4-FB-smooth} below, i.e., that if $u$ is any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1} satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{ch4-positive-density}
\limsup_{r\to0}\frac{\bigl|\{u=0\}\cap B_r\bigr|}{|B_r|}>0
\end{equation}
(i.e., the contact set has positive density at the origin),
then the free boundary $\partial\{u>0\}$ is $C^\infty$ in a neighborhood of the origin.
For this, we will use the classification of blow-ups established in the previous Section.
\subsection*{$C^{1,\alpha}$ regularity of the free boundary}
The first step here is to transfer the local information on $u$ given by \eqref{ch4-positive-density} into a blow-up $u_0$.
More precisely, we next show that
\[\eqref{ch4-positive-density}\qquad \Longrightarrow\qquad \begin{array}{cc}
\textrm{The contact set of a blow-up}\ u_0 \\
\textrm{has nonempty interior}.
\end{array}\]
\begin{lem}\label{ch4-lem-positive-density}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}, and assume that \eqref{ch4-positive-density} holds.
Then, there is at least one blow-up $u_0$ of $u$ at $0$ such that the contact set $\{u_0=0\}$ has nonempty interior.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $r_k\to0$ be a sequence along which
\[\lim_{r_k\to0}\frac{\bigl|\{u=0\}\cap B_{r_k}\bigr|}{|B_{r_k}|}\geq \theta>0.\]
Such sequence exists (with $\theta>0$ small enough) by assumption \eqref{ch4-positive-density}.
Recall that, thanks to Proposition \ref{ch4-prop-blowups}, there exists a subsequence $r_{k_j}\downarrow 0$ along which $u_{r_{k_j}}\to u_0$ uniformly on compact sets of $\mathbb{R}^n$, where $u_r(x)=r^{-2}u(rx)$ and $u_0$ is convex.
Assume by contradiction that $\{u_0=0\}$ has empty interior.
Then, by convexity, we have that $\{u_0=0\}$ is contained in a hyperplane, say $\{u_0=0\}\subset \{x_1=0\}$.
Since $u_0>0$ in $\{x_1\neq 0\}$ and $u_0$ is continuous, we have that for each $\delta>0$
\[u_0\geq\varepsilon>0\quad \textrm{in}\ \{|x_1|>\delta\}\cap B_1\]
for some $\varepsilon>0$.
Therefore, by uniform convergence of $u_{r_{k_j}}$ to $u_0$ in $B_1$, there is $r_{k_j}>0$ small enough such that
\[u_{r_{k_j}}\geq \frac{\varepsilon}{2}>0\quad \textrm{in}\ \{|x_1|>\delta\}\cap B_1.\]
In particular, the contact set of $u_{r_{k_j}}$ is contained in $\{|x_1|\leq\delta\}\cap B_1$, so
\[\frac{\bigl|\{u_{r_{k_j}}=0\}\cap B_1\bigr|}{|B_1|}\leq \frac{\bigl|\{|x_1|\leq\delta\}\cap B_1\bigr|}{|B_1|}\leq C\delta.\]
Rescaling back to $u$, we find
\[\frac{\bigl|\{u=0\}\cap B_{r_{k_j}}\bigr|}{|B_{r_{k_j}}|}
=\frac{\bigl|\{u_{r_{k_j}}=0\}\cap B_1\bigr|}{|B_1|}<C\delta.\]
Since we can do this for every $\delta>0$, we find that
$\lim_{r_{k_j}\to0}\frac{|\{u=0\}\cap B_{r_{k_j}}|}{|B_{r_{k_j}}|}=0$, a contradiction.
Thus, the lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
Combining the previous lemma with the classification of blow-ups from the previous Section, we deduce:
\begin{cor}\label{ch4-lem-one-blowup}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}, and assume that \eqref{ch4-positive-density} holds.
Then, there is at least one blow-up of $u$ at $0$ of the form
\[
\qquad\qquad u_0(x)=\frac12(x\cdot e)_+^2,\qquad\qquad e\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}.
\]
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
The result follows from Lemma~\ref{ch4-lem-positive-density} and Theorem \ref{thm-classification-blowups}.
\end{proof}
We now want to use this information to show that the free boundary must be smooth in a neighborhood of $0$.
For this, we start with the following.
\begin{prop}\label{ch4-FBreg-prop}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}, and assume that \eqref{ch4-positive-density} holds.
Fix any $\varepsilon>0$.
Then, there exist $e\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ and $r_\circ >0$ such that
\[\qquad \bigl|u_{r_\circ }(x) - {\textstyle\frac12}(x\cdot e)_+^2\bigr|\leq \varepsilon\qquad\textrm{in}\quad B_1,\]
and
\[\qquad \bigl|\partial_\tau u_{r_\circ }(x) - (x\cdot e)_+(\tau\cdot e)\bigr|\leq \varepsilon\qquad\textrm{in}\quad B_1\]
for all $\tau\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By Corollary \ref{ch4-lem-one-blowup} and Proposition~\ref{ch4-prop-blowups}, we know that there is a subsequence $r_j\to0$ for which $u_{r_j}\to \frac12(x\cdot e)^2_+$ in $C^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^n)$, for some $e\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$.
In particular, for every $\tau\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ we have $u_{r_j}\to \frac12(x\cdot e)^2_+$ and $\partial_\tau u_{r_j}\to \partial_\tau \bigl[\frac12(x\cdot e)^2_+\bigr]$ uniformly in $B_1$.
This means that, given $\varepsilon>0$, there exists $j_\circ $ such that
\[\qquad \bigl|u_{r_{j_\circ }}(x) - {\textstyle\frac12}(x\cdot e)_+^2\bigr|\leq \varepsilon\qquad\textrm{in}\quad B_1,\]
and
\[\qquad \left|\partial_\tau u_{r_{j_\circ }}(x) - \partial_\tau \bigl[{\textstyle \frac12}(x\cdot e)^2_+\bigr]\right|\leq \varepsilon\qquad\textrm{in}\quad B_1.\]
Since $\partial_\tau \bigl[{\textstyle \frac12}(x\cdot e)^2_+\bigr]=(x\cdot e)_+(\tau\cdot e)$, the proposition is proved.
\end{proof}
Now, notice that if $(\tau\cdot e)>0$, then the derivatives $\partial_\tau u_0 = (x\cdot e)_+(\tau\cdot e)$ are \emph{nonnegative}, and strictly positive in $\{x\cdot e>0\}$ (see Figure~\ref{fig.27}).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 1.3]{./Figures/fig27.pdf}
\caption{Derivatives $\partial_\tau u_0$ are nonnegative if $\tau\cdot e \ge \frac12$.}
\label{fig.27}
\end{figure}
We want to transfer this information to $u_{r_\circ }$, and prove that $\partial_\tau u_{r_\circ } \geq0$ in $B_1$ for all $\tau\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ satisfying $\tau\cdot e\geq\frac12$.
For this, we need a lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{ch4-lem-almost-positive}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}, and consider $u_{r_\circ }(x)=r_\circ ^{-2}u(r_\circ x)$ and $\Omega=\{u_{r_\circ }>0\}$.
Assume that a function $w\in C(B_1)$ satisfies:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $w$ is bounded and harmonic in $\Omega\cap B_1$.
\item[(b)] $w=0$ on $\partial\Omega\cap B_1$.
\item[(c)] Denoting $N_\delta:=\{x\in B_1:{\rm dist}(x,\partial\Omega)<\delta\}$, we have
\[w\geq -c_1 \quad\textrm{in}\quad N_\delta\qquad\quad\textrm{and}\quad\qquad w\geq C_2>0\quad\textrm{in}\quad \Omega\setminus N_\delta.\]
\end{itemize}
If $c_1/C_2$ is small enough, and $\delta>0$ is small enough, then $w\geq0$ in $B_{1/2}\cap \Omega$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Notice that in $\Omega\setminus N_\delta$ we already know that $w>0$.
Let $y_\circ \in N_\delta\cap\Omega\cap B_{1/2}$, and assume by contradiction that $w(y_0)<0$.
Consider, in $B_{1/4}(y_\circ )$, the function
\[v(x)=w(x)-\gamma\left\{u_{r_\circ }(x)-\frac{1}{2n}|x-y_\circ |^2\right\}.\]
Then, $\Delta v=0$ in $B_{1/4}(y_\circ )\cap \Omega$, and $v(y_\circ )<0$.
Thus, $v$ must have a negative minimum in $\partial\bigl(B_{1/4}(y_\circ )\cap \Omega\bigr)$.
However, if $c_1/C_2$ and $\delta$ are small enough, then we reach a contradiction as follows:
On $\partial\Omega$ we have $v\geq0$.
On $\partial B_{1/4}(y_\circ )\cap N_\delta$ we have
\[v\geq -c_1-C_\circ \gamma\delta^2+\frac{\gamma}{2n}\left({\frac14}\right)^2\geq0 \quad \textrm{on}\quad \partial B_{1/4}(y_\circ )\cap N_\delta.\]
On $\partial B_{1/4}(y_\circ )\cap \bigl(\Omega\setminus N_\delta\bigr)$ we have
\[v\geq C_2-C_\circ \gamma\geq0 \quad \textrm{on}\quad \partial B_{1/4}(y_\circ )\cap \bigl(\Omega\setminus N_\delta\bigr).\]
Here, we used that $\|u_{r_\circ }\|_{C^{1,1}(B_1)}\leq C_\circ $, and chose $C_\circ c_1\leq \gamma\leq C_2/C_\circ $.
\end{proof}
Using the previous lemma, we can now show that there is a cone of directions $\tau$ in which the solution is monotone near the origin.
\begin{prop}\label{ch4-monotone-directional}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}, and assume that \eqref{ch4-positive-density} holds.
Let $u_r(x)=r^{-2}u(rx)$.
Then, there exist $r_\circ >0$ and $e\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ such that
\[\partial_\tau u_{r_\circ }\geq0\quad\textrm{in}\quad B_{1/2}\]
for every $\tau\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ satisfying $\tau\cdot e\geq\frac12$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition \ref{ch4-FBreg-prop}, for any $\varepsilon>0$ there exist $e\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ and $r_\circ >0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{ch4-circ-1}
\qquad \bigl|u_{r_\circ }(x) - {\textstyle\frac12}(x\cdot e)_+^2\bigr|\leq \varepsilon\qquad\textrm{in}\quad B_1
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{ch4-circ-2}
\qquad \bigl|\partial_\tau u_{r_\circ }(x) - (x\cdot e)_+(\tau\cdot e)\bigr|\leq \varepsilon\qquad\textrm{in}\quad B_1
\end{equation}
for all $\tau\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$.
We now want to use Lemma \ref{ch4-lem-almost-positive} to deduce that $\partial_\tau u_{r_\circ }\geq0$ if $\tau\cdot e\geq\frac12$.
First, we claim that
\[u_{r_\circ }>0\quad \textrm{in}\quad \{x\cdot e>C_\circ \sqrt{\varepsilon}\},\]
\begin{equation}\label{ch4-use-CS}
u_{r_\circ }=0\quad \textrm{in}\quad \{x\cdot e<-C_\circ \sqrt{\varepsilon}\},
\end{equation}
and therefore the free boundary $\partial\Omega=\partial\{u_{r_\circ }>0\}$ is contained in the strip $\{|x\cdot e|\leq C_\circ \sqrt{\varepsilon}\}$, for some $C_\circ $ depending only on $n$ (see Figure~\ref{fig.28}).
To prove this, notice that if $x\cdot e>C_\circ \sqrt{\varepsilon}$ then
\[u_{r_\circ }>\frac12(C_\circ \sqrt{\varepsilon})^2-\varepsilon>0,\]
while if there was a free boundary point $x_\circ $ in $\{x\cdot e<-C_\circ \varepsilon\}$ then by nondegeneracy we would get
\[\sup_{B_{C_\circ \sqrt{\varepsilon}}(x_\circ )} u_{r_\circ }\geq c(C_\circ \sqrt{\varepsilon})^2>2\varepsilon,\]
a contradiction with \eqref{ch4-circ-1}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{./Figures/fig28_2.pdf}
\caption{The setting in which we use Lemma~\ref{ch4-lem-almost-positive}.}
\label{fig.28}
\end{figure}
Therefore, we have
\[
\partial\Omega\subset \{|x\cdot e|\leq C_\circ \sqrt{\varepsilon}\}.
\]
Now, for each $\tau\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ satisfying $\tau\cdot e\geq\frac12$ we define
\[w:=\partial_\tau u_{r_\circ }.\]
In order to use Lemma \ref{ch4-lem-almost-positive}, we notice:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $w$ is bounded and harmonic in $\Omega\cap B_1$.
\item[(b)] $w=0$ on $\partial\Omega\cap B_1$.
\item[(c)] Thanks to \eqref{ch4-circ-2}, if $\delta\gg\sqrt{\varepsilon}$ then $w$ satisfies
\[w\geq -\varepsilon \quad\textrm{in}\quad N_\delta\]
and
\[w\geq \delta/4>0\quad\textrm{in}\quad (\Omega\setminus N_\delta)\cap B_1.\]
\end{itemize}
(We recall $N_\delta:=\{x\in B_1:{\rm dist}(x,\partial\Omega)<\delta\}$.)
Indeed, to check the last inequality we use that, by \eqref{ch4-use-CS}, we have $\{x\cdot e<\delta-C_\circ \sqrt{\varepsilon}\}\cap \Omega\subset N_\delta$.
Thus, by \eqref{ch4-circ-2}, we get that for all $x\in (\Omega\setminus N_\delta)\cap B_1$
\[w\geq \frac12(x\cdot e)_+-\varepsilon\geq \frac12\delta-\frac12C_\circ \sqrt{\varepsilon}-\varepsilon\geq \frac14\delta,\]
provided that $\delta\gg\sqrt{\varepsilon}$.
Using (a)-(b)-(c), we deduce from Lemma \ref{ch4-lem-almost-positive} that
\[w\geq0\quad \textrm{in}\quad B_{1/2}.\]
Since we can do this for every $\tau\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ with $\tau\cdot e\geq\frac12$, the proposition is proved.
\end{proof}
As a consequence of the previous proposition, we find:
\begin{cor}\label{ch4-FB-Lip}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}, and assume that \eqref{ch4-positive-density} holds.
Then, there exists $r_\circ >0$ such that the free boundary $\partial\{u_{r_\circ }>0\}$ is \emph{Lipschitz} in $B_{1/2}$.
In particular, the free boundary of $u$, $\partial\{u>0\}$, is Lipschitz in $B_{r_\circ /2}$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
This follows from the fact that $\partial_\tau u_{r_\circ }\geq0$ in $B_{1/2}$ for all $\tau\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ with $\tau\cdot e\geq \frac12$ (by Proposition~\ref{ch4-monotone-directional}), as explained next.
Let $x_\circ \in B_{1/2}\cap \partial\{u_{r_\circ }>0\}$ be any free boundary point in $B_{1/2}$, and let
\[\Theta:=\bigl\{\tau\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}: \tau\cdot e>{\textstyle\frac12}\bigr\},\]
\[\Sigma_1:=\bigl\{x\in B_{1/2}: x=x_\circ -t\tau,\ {\rm with}\ \tau\in \Theta,\ t>0\bigr\},\]
and
\[\Sigma_2:=\bigl\{x\in B_{1/2}: x=x_\circ +t\tau,\ {\rm with}\ \tau\in \Theta,\ t>0\bigr\},\]
see Figure~\ref{fig.29}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.9]{./Figures/fig29.pdf}
\caption{Representation of $\Sigma_1$ and $\Sigma_2$.}
\label{fig.29}
\end{figure}
We claim that
\begin{equation} \label{ch4-FB-Lip-Q}
\left\{
\begin{array}{rcll}
u_{r_\circ }&=&0& \ \textrm{in} \quad\Sigma_1,\\
u_{r_\circ }&>&0& \ \textrm{in} \quad\Sigma_2.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
Indeed, since $u_{r_\circ}(x_\circ )=0$, it follows from the monotonicity property $\partial_\tau u_{r_\circ }\geq0$ --- and the nonnegativity of $u_{r_\circ }$ --- that $u_{r_\circ }(x_\circ -t\tau)=0$ for all $t>0$ and $\tau\in\Theta$.
In particular, there cannot be any free boundary point in $\Sigma_1$.
On the other hand, by the same argument, if $u_{r_\circ }(x_1)=0$ for some $x_1\in \Sigma_2$ then we would have $u_{r_\circ }=0$ in $\bigl\{x\in B_{1/2}: x=x_1-t\tau,\ {\rm with}\ \tau\in \Theta,\ t>0\bigr\}\ni x_\circ $, and in particular $x_\circ $ would not be a free boundary point.
Thus, $u_{r_\circ }(x_1)>0$ for all $x_1\in \Sigma_2$, and \eqref{ch4-FB-Lip-Q} is proved.
Finally, notice that \eqref{ch4-FB-Lip-Q} yields that the free boundary $\partial\{u_{r_\circ }>0\}\cap B_{1/2}$ satisfies both the interior and exterior cone condition, and thus it is Lipschitz.
\end{proof}
Once we know that the free boundary is Lipschitz, we may assume without loss of generality that $e=e_n$ and that
\[\partial\{u_{r_\circ }>0\}\cap B_{1/2}=\{x_n=g(x')\}\cap B_{1/2}\]
for a Lipschitz function $g:\mathbb{R}^{n-1}\to\mathbb{R}$.
Here, $x=(x',x_n)$, with $x'\in\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ and $x_n\in\mathbb{R}$.
Now, we want to prove that Lipschitz free boundaries are $C^{1,\alpha}$.
A key ingredient for this will be the following basic property of harmonic functions (see Figure~\ref{fig.26} for a representation of the setting).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{./Figures/fig26.pdf}
\caption{Setting of the boundary Harnack.}
\label{fig.26}
\end{figure}
\begin{thm}[Boundary Harnack] \label{boundary-Harnack}\index{Boundary Harnack}
Let $w_1$ and $w_2$ be \emph{positive harmonic} functions in $B_1\cap \Omega$, where $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is any \emph{Lipschitz domain}.
Assume that $w_1$ and $w_2$ vanish on $\partial\Omega\cap B_1$, and $C_\circ ^{-1}\leq \|w_i\|_{L^\infty(B_{1/2})}\leq C_\circ $ for $i = 1,2$.
Then,
\[\frac1C w_2 \leq w_1 \leq Cw_2\qquad \textrm{in}\quad \overline\Omega\cap B_{1/2}.\]
Moreover,
\[\left\|\frac{w_1}{w_2}\right\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline\Omega\cap B_{1/2})} \leq C\]
for some small $\alpha>0$.
The constants $\alpha$ and $C$ depend only on $n$, $C_\circ $, and~$\Omega$.
\end{thm}
For completeness, we provide in Appendix~\ref{app.D} a proof of this result.
We refer to \cite{DS-bdryH} for the boundary Harnack for more general operators and to \cite{AS19,RT20} for the boundary Harnack for equations with a right hand side.
\begin{rem}
The main point in Theorem \ref{boundary-Harnack} is that $\Omega$ is allowed to be \emph{Lipschitz}.
If $\Omega$ is smooth (say, $C^2$ or even $C^{1,\alpha}$) then it follows from a simple barrier argument that both $w_1$ and $w_2$ would be comparable to the distance to $\partial\Omega$, i.e., they vanish at a linear rate from $\partial\Omega$.
However, in Lipschitz domains the result cannot be proved with a simple barrier argument, and it is much more delicate to establish.
\end{rem}
The boundary Harnack is a crucial tool in the study of free boundary problems, and in particular in the obstacle problem.
Here, we use it to prove that the free boundary is $C^{1,\alpha}$ for some small $\alpha>0$.
\begin{prop}\label{ch4-FB-C1alpha}\index{Regularity of the free boundary}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}, and assume that \eqref{ch4-positive-density} holds.
Then, there exists $r_\circ >0$ such that the free boundary $\partial\{u_{r_\circ }>0\}$ is $C^{1,\alpha}$ in $B_{1/4}$, for some small $\alpha>0$.
In particular, the free boundary of $u$, $\partial\{u>0\}$, is $C^{1,\alpha}$ in $B_{r_\circ /4}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $\Omega=\{u_{r_\circ }>0\}$.
By Corollary~\ref{ch4-FB-Lip}, if $r_\circ >0$ is small enough then (possibly after a rotation) we have
\[\Omega\cap B_{1/2}=\{x_n\geq g(x')\}\cap B_{1/2}\]
and the free boundary is given by
\[\partial\Omega\cap B_{1/2}=\{x_n= g(x')\}\cap B_{1/2},\]
where $g$ is Lipschitz.
Let
\[w_2:=\partial_{e_n}u_{r_\circ }\]
and
\[\qquad w_1:=\partial_{e_i}u_{r_\circ }+\partial_{e_n}u_{r_\circ },\qquad i=1,...,n-1.\]
Since $\partial_\tau u_{r_\circ }\geq0$ in $B_{1/2}$ for all $\tau\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ with $\tau\cdot e_n\geq\frac12$, we have that $w_2\geq0$ in $B_{1/2}$ and $w_1\geq0$ in $B_{1/2}$.
This is because $\partial_{e_i}+\partial_{e_n}=\partial_{e_i+e_n}=\sqrt{2}\partial_{\tau}$, with $\tau\cdot e_n=1/\sqrt{2}>\frac12$.
Notice that we add the term $\partial_{e_n}u_{r_\circ }$ in $w_1$ in order to get a nonnegative function $w_2\geq0$.
Now since $w_1$ and $w_2$ are positive harmonic functions in $\Omega\cap B_{1/2}$, and vanish on $\partial\Omega\cap B_{1/2}$, we can use the boundary Harnack, Theorem~\ref{boundary-Harnack} (or Corollary~\ref{boundary-Harnack_App2}), to get
\[\left\|\frac{w_1}{w_2}\right\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline\Omega\cap B_{1/4})} \leq C\]
for some small $\alpha>0$.
Therefore, since $w_1/w_2=1+\partial_{e_i}u_{r_\circ }/\partial_{e_n}u_{r_\circ }$, we deduce
\begin{equation}\label{ch4-FB-C1alpha-Q}
\left\|\frac{\partial_{e_i}u_{r_\circ }}{\partial_{e_n}u_{r_\circ }}\right\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\overline\Omega\cap B_{1/4})} \leq C.
\end{equation}
Now, we claim that this implies that the free boundary is $C^{1,\alpha}$ in $B_{1/4}$.
Indeed, if $u_{r_\circ }(x)=t$ then the normal vector to the level set $\{u_{r_\circ }=t\}$ is given by
\[\qquad\qquad \nu^i(x)=\frac{\partial_{e_i}u_{r_\circ }}{|\nabla u_{r_\circ }|}=\frac{\partial_{e_i}u_{r_\circ }/\partial_{e_n}u_{r_\circ }}{\sqrt{1+\sum_{j=1}^{n-1} \left(\partial_{e_j}u_{r_\circ }/\partial_{e_n}u_{r_\circ }\right)^2}},\qquad i=1,...,n.\]
This is a $C^{0,\alpha}$ function by \eqref{ch4-FB-C1alpha-Q}, and therefore we can take $t\to0$ to find that the free boundary is $C^{1,\alpha}$ (since the normal vector to the free boundary is given by a $C^{0,\alpha}$ function).
\end{proof}
So far we have proved that
\[\left(\begin{array}{c}
\{u=0\}\ \textrm{has positive} \\ \textrm{density at the origin}
\end{array}\right) \Longrightarrow
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\textrm{any blow-up is} \\ u_0={\textstyle\frac12}(x\cdot e)^2_+
\end{array}\right) \Longrightarrow
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\textrm{free boundary} \\ \textrm{is}\ C^{1,\alpha}\ \textrm{near}\ 0
\end{array}\right)\]
As a last step in this section, we will now prove that $C^{1,\alpha}$ free boundaries are actually $C^\infty$.
\subsection*{Higher regularity of the free boundary}\index{Regularity of the free boundary!Higher regularity}
We want to finally prove the smoothness of free boundaries near regular points.
\begin{thm}[Smoothness of the free boundary near regular points]\label{ch4-FB-smooth}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}, and assume that \eqref{ch4-positive-density} holds.
Then, the free boundary $\partial\{u>0\}$ is $C^\infty$ in a neighborhood of the origin.
\end{thm}
For this, we need the following result.
\begin{thm}[Higher order boundary Harnack]\label{ch4-higher-bdry-Harnack}\index{Boundary Harnack!Higher order regularity}
Let $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ be any $C^{k,\alpha}$ domain, with $k\geq1$ and $\alpha\in(0,1)$.
Let $w_1$, $w_2$ be two solutions of $\Delta w_i=0$ in $B_1\cap \Omega$, $w_i=0$ on $\partial\Omega\cap B_1$, with $w_2>0$ in $\Omega$.
Assume that $C_\circ ^{-1}\leq \|w_i\|_{L^\infty(B_{1/2})}\leq C_\circ $.
Then,
\[\left\|\frac{w_1}{w_2}\right\|_{C^{k,\alpha}(\overline\Omega\cap B_{1/2})} \leq C,\]
where $C$ depends only on $n$, $k$, $\alpha$, $C_\circ $, and $\Omega$.
\end{thm}
Contrary to Theorem~\ref{boundary-Harnack}, the proof of Theorem \ref{ch4-higher-bdry-Harnack} is a perturbative argument, in the spirit of (but much more delicate than) the Schauder estimates from Chapter \ref{ch.2}.
We will not prove the higher order boundary Harnack here; we refer to \cite{DS} for the proof of such result.
Using Theorem \ref{ch4-higher-bdry-Harnack}, we can finally prove Theorem~\ref{ch4-FB-smooth}:
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{ch4-FB-smooth}]
Let $u_{r_\circ }(x)=r_\circ ^{-2}u(r_\circ x)$.
By Proposition \ref{ch4-FB-C1alpha}, we know that if $r_\circ >0$ is small enough then the free boundary $\partial\{u_{r_\circ }>0\}$ is $C^{1,\alpha}$ in $B_1$, and (possibly after a rotation) $\partial_{e_n}u_{r_\circ }>0$ in $\{u_{r_\circ }>0\}\cap B_1$.
Thus, using the higher order boundary Harnack (Theorem \ref{ch4-higher-bdry-Harnack}) with $w_1=\partial_{e_i}u_{r_\circ }$ and $w_2=\partial_{e_n}u_{r_\circ }$, we find that
\[\left\|\frac{\partial_{e_i}u_{r_\circ }}{\partial_{e_n}u_{r_\circ }}\right\|_{C^{1,\alpha}(\overline\Omega\cap B_{1/2})} \leq C.\]
Actually, by a simple covering argument we find that
\begin{equation}\label{ch4-higher-order-subballs}
\left\|\frac{\partial_{e_i}u_{r_\circ }}{\partial_{e_n}u_{r_\circ }}\right\|_{C^{1,\alpha}(\overline\Omega\cap B_{1-\delta})} \leq C_\delta
\end{equation}
for any $\delta>0$.
Now, as in the proof of Proposition \ref{ch4-FB-C1alpha}, we notice that if $u_{r_\circ }(x)=t$ then the normal vector to the level set $\{u_{r_\circ }=t\}$ is given by
\[\qquad\qquad \nu^i(x)=\frac{\partial_{e_i}u_{r_\circ }}{|\nabla u_{r_\circ }|}=\frac{\partial_{e_i}u_{r_\circ }/\partial_{e_n}u_{r_\circ }}{\sqrt{1+\sum_{j=1}^n \left(\partial_{e_j}u_{r_\circ }/\partial_{e_n}u_{r_\circ }\right)^2}},\qquad \qquad i=1,...,n.\]
By \eqref{ch4-higher-order-subballs}, this is a $C^{1,\alpha}$ function in $B_{1-\delta}$ for any $\delta>0$, and therefore we can take $t\to0$ to find that the normal vector to the free boundary is $C^{1,\alpha}$ inside $B_1$.
But this means that the free boundary is actually $C^{2,\alpha}$.
Repeating now the same argument, and using that the free boundary is $C^{2,\alpha}$ in $B_{1-\delta}$ for any $\delta>0$, we find that
\[\left\|\frac{\partial_{e_i}u_{r_\circ }}{\partial_{e_n}u_{r_\circ }}\right\|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\overline\Omega\cap B_{1-\delta'})} \leq C_{\delta'},\]
which yields that the normal vector is $C^{2,\alpha}$ and thus the free boundary is $C^{3,\alpha}$.
Iterating this argument, we find that the free boundary $\partial\{u_{r_\circ }>0\}$ is $C^\infty$ inside $B_1$, and hence $\partial\{u>0\}$ is $C^\infty$ in a neighborhood of the origin.
\end{proof}
This completes the study of \emph{regular} free boundary points.
It remains to understand what happens at points where the contact set has \emph{density zero} (see e.g. Figure~\ref{fig.21}).
This is the content of the next section.
\section{Singular points}
\label{sec-singular-points}
We finally study the behavior of the free boundary at singular points, i.e., when
\begin{equation}\label{ch4-zero-density-0}
\lim_{r\to0}\frac{\bigl|\{u=0\}\cap B_r\bigr|}{|B_r|}=0.
\end{equation}
For this, we first notice that, as a consequence of the results of the previous Section, we get the following.
\begin{prop}\label{thm-classification-ALL-blowups}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}.
Then, we have the following dichotomy:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] Either \eqref{ch4-positive-density} holds and
all blow-ups of $u$ at $0$ are of the form
\[u_0(x)=\frac12(x\cdot e)_+^2,\]
for some $e\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$.
\item[(b)] Or \eqref{ch4-zero-density-0} holds and all blow-ups of $u$ at $0$ are of the form
\[u_0(x)=\frac12x^TAx,\]
for some matrix $A\geq0$ with ${\rm tr}\,A=1$.
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
Points of type (a) were studied in the previous Section; they are called \emph{regular} points and the free boundary is $C^\infty$ around them (in particular, the blow-up is unique).
Points of type (b) are those at which the contact set has zero density, and are called \emph{singular} points.
To prove the result, we need the following:
\begin{lem}\label{ch4-lem-zero-density}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}, and assume that \eqref{ch4-zero-density-0} holds.
Then, every blow-up of $u$ at $0$ satisfies $|\{u_0=0\}|=0$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $u_0$ be a blow-up of $u$ at $0$, i.e., $u_{r_k}\to u_0$ in $C^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ along a sequence $r_k\to0$, where $u_r(x)=r^{-2}u(rx)$.
Notice that the functions $u_r$ solve
\[\Delta u_r=\chi_{\{u_r>0\}}\quad \textrm{in}\quad B_1,\]
in the sense that
\begin{equation}\label{ch4-weak-chi}
\int_{B_1}\nabla u_r\cdot \nabla \eta\,dx=\int_{B_1} \chi_{\{u_r>0\}}\eta\,dx\qquad \textrm{for all}\ \eta\in C^\infty_c(B_1).
\end{equation}
Moreover, by assumption \eqref{ch4-zero-density-0}, we have $\bigl|\{u_r=0\}\cap B_1\bigr|\longrightarrow 0$, and thus taking limits $r_k\to0$ in \eqref{ch4-weak-chi} we deduce that $\Delta u_0=1$ in $B_1$.
Since we know that $u_0$ is convex, nonnegative, and homogeneous, this implies that $|\{u_0=0\}|=0$.
\end{proof}
We can now give the:
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm-classification-ALL-blowups}]
By the classification of blow-ups (Theorem~\ref{thm-classification-blowups}), the possible blow-ups can only have one of the two forms presented.
If \eqref{ch4-positive-density} holds for at least one blow-up, thanks to the smoothness of the free boundary (by Proposition~\ref{ch4-FB-C1alpha}), it holds for all blow-ups, and thus, by Corollary~\ref{ch4-lem-one-blowup}, $u_0(x)=\frac12(x\cdot e)_+^2$ (and in fact, the smoothness of the free boundary yields uniqueness of the blow-up in this case).
If \eqref{ch4-zero-density-0} holds, then by Lemma \ref{ch4-lem-zero-density} the blow-up $u_0$ must satisfy $\bigl|\{u_0=0\}\bigr|=0$, and thus we are in case (b) (see the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-classification-blowups}).
\end{proof}
In the previous Section we proved that the free boundary is $C^\infty$ in a neighborhood of any regular point.
A natural question then is to understand better the solution $u$ near singular points.
One of the main results in this direction is the following.
\begin{thm}[Uniqueness of blow-ups at singular points]\label{thm-uniqueness-blowups}\index{Uniqueness of blow-ups at singular points}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}, and assume that $0$ is a singular free boundary point.
Then, there exists a homogeneous quadratic polynomial $p_2(x)=\frac12x^TAx$, with $A\geq0$ and $\Delta p_2=1$, such that
\[u_r\longrightarrow p_2\qquad \textrm{in}\quad C^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^n).\]
In particular, the blow-up of $u$ at $0$ is unique, and $u(x)=p_2(x)+o(|x|^2)$.
\end{thm}
To prove this, we need the following monotonicity formula due to Monneau.
\begin{thm}[Monneau's monotonicity formula]\label{thm-Monneau}\index{Monneau monotonicity formula}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}, and assume that $0$ is a singular free boundary point.
Let $q$ be any homogeneous quadratic polynomial with $q\geq0$, $q(0)=0$, and $\Delta q=1$.
Then, the quantity
\[M_{u,q}(r):=\frac{1}{r^{n+3}}\int_{\partial B_r}\left(u-q\right)^2\]
is monotone in $r$, that is, $\frac{d}{dr}M_{u,q}(r)\geq 0$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We sketch the argument here, and refer to \cite[Theorem 7.4]{PSU} for more details.
We first notice that
\[M_{u,q}(r)=\int_{\partial B_1}\frac{(u-q)^2(rx)}{r^4},\]
and hence a direct computation yields
\[\frac{d}{dr}M_{u,q}(r)=\frac{2}{r^{n+4}}\int_{\partial B_r}(u-q)\left\{x\cdot \nabla(u-q)-2(u-q)\right\}.\]
On the other hand, it turns out that
\[\begin{split}\frac{1}{r^{n+3}}\int_{\partial B_r}(u-q)\left\{x\cdot \nabla(u-q)-2(u-q)\right\}=&\,W_u(r)-W_u(0^+)+\\&+\frac{1}{r^{n+2}}\int_{B_r}(u-q)\Delta(u-q),\end{split}\]
where $W_u(r)$ (as defined in \eqref{weissenergy}) is monotone increasing in $r>0$ thanks to Theorem~\ref{thm-Weiss}.
Thus, we have
\[\frac{d}{dr}M_{u,q}(r)\geq \frac{2}{r^{n+3}}\int_{B_r}(u-q)\Delta(u-q).\]
But since $\Delta u=\Delta q=1$ in $\{u>0\}$, and $(u-q)\Delta(u-q)=q\geq0$ in $\{u=0\}$, we have
\[\frac{d}{dr}M_{u,q}(r)\geq \frac{2}{r^{n+3}}\int_{B_r\cap \{u=0\}}q\geq 0,\]
as wanted.
\end{proof}
We can now give the:
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm-uniqueness-blowups}]
By Proposition~\ref{thm-classification-ALL-blowups} (and Proposition~\ref{ch4-prop-blowups}), we know that at any singular point we have a subsequence $r_j\to0$ along which $u_{r_j}\to p$ in $C^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^n)$, where $p$ is a $2$-homogeneous quadratic polynomial satisfying $p(0)=0$, $p\geq0$, and $\Delta p=1$.
Thus, we can use Monneau's monotonicity formula with such polynomial $p$ to find that
\[M_{u,p}(r):=\frac{1}{r^{n+3}}\int_{\partial B_r}\left(u-p\right)^2\]
is monotone increasing in $r>0$.
In particular, the limit $\lim_{r\to0}M_{u,p}(r):=M_{u,p}(0^+)$ exists.
Now, recall that we have a sequence $r_j\to0$ along which $u_{r_j}\to p$.
In particular, $r_j^{-2}\left\{u(r_jx)-p(r_jx)\right\}\longrightarrow 0$ locally uniformly in $\mathbb{R}^n$, i.e.,
\[\frac{1}{r_j^2}\|u-p\|_{L^\infty(B_{r_j})}\longrightarrow 0\]
as $r_j\to0$.
This yields that
\[M_{u,p}(r_j)\leq \frac{1}{r_j^{n+3}} \int_{\partial B_{r_j}}\|u-p\|_{L^\infty(B_{r_j})}^2 \longrightarrow 0\]
along the subsequence $r_j\to0$, and therefore $M_{u,p}(0^+)=0$.
Let us show that this implies the uniqueness of blow-ups.
Indeed, if there was another subsequence $r_\ell\to0$ along which $u_{r_\ell}\to q$ in $C^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^n)$, for a $2$-homogeneous quadratic polynomial $q$, then we would repeat the argument above to find that $M_{u,q}(0^+)=0$.
But then this yields, by homogeneity of $p$ and $q$,
\[\int_{\partial B_1}\left(p-q\right)^2=\frac{1}{r^{n+3}}\int_{\partial B_r}\left(p-q\right)^2\leq 2M_{u,p}(r)+2M_{u,q}(r)\longrightarrow0,\]
and hence
\[\int_{\partial B_1}\left(p-q\right)^2=0.\]
This means that $p=q$, and thus the blow-up of $u$ at $0$ is unique.
Let us finally show that $u(x)=p(x)+o(|x|^2)$, i.e., $r^{-2}\|u-p\|_{L^\infty(B_r)}\to0$ as $r\to0$.
Indeed, assume by contradiction that there is a subsequence $r_k\to0$ along which
\[r_k^{-2}\|u-p\|_{L^\infty(B_{r_k})}\geq c_1>0.\]
Then, there would be a subsequence of $r_{k_i}$ along which $u_{r_{k_i}}\to u_0$ in $C^1_{\rm loc}(\mathbb{R}^n)$, for a certain blow-up $u_0$ satisfying $\|u_0-p\|_{L^\infty(B_1)}\geq c_1>0$.
However, by uniqueness of blow-ups it must be $u_0=p$, and hence we reach a contradiction.
\end{proof}
We refer to \cite{SY19,Bon01} for an alternative approach to the uniqueness of blow-ups at singular points, not based on monotonicity formulas.
Summarizing, we have proved the following result:
\begin{thm}\label{thm-final}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}.
Then, we have the following dichotomy:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] Either all blow-ups of $u$ at $0$ are of the form
\[\qquad\qquad u_0(x)=\frac12(x\cdot e)_+^2 \qquad \textrm{for some}\quad e\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1},\]
and the free boundary is $C^\infty$ in a neighborhood of the origin.
\item[(b)] Or there is a homogeneous quadratic polynomial $p$, with $p(0)=0$, $p\geq0$, and $\Delta p=1$, such that
\[\qquad \qquad \|u-p\|_{L^\infty(B_r)}=o(r^2)\qquad \textrm{as}\quad r\to0.\]
In particular, when this happens we have
\[\lim_{r\to0}\frac{\bigl|\{u=0\}\cap B_r\bigr|}{|B_r|}=0.\]
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}
The last question that remains to be answered is: How large can the set of singular points be?
This is the topic of the following section.
\section{On the size of the singular set}
We finish this chapter with a discussion of more recent results (as well as some open problems) about the set of singular points.
Recall that a free boundary point $x_{\circ}\in \partial\{u>0\}$ is singular whenever
\[
\lim_{r\to0}\frac{\bigl|\{u=0\}\cap B_r(x_{\circ})\bigr|}{|B_r(x_{\circ})|}=0.
\]
The main known result on the size of the singular set reads as follows.
\begin{thm}[\cite{Caf98}]\label{thm-singular-set}\index{Singular points!Size}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}.
Let $\Sigma\subset B_1$ be the set of singular points.
Then, $\Sigma\cap B_{1/2}$ is locally contained in a $C^1$ manifold of dimension $n-1$.
\end{thm}
This result is sharp, in the sense that it is not difficult to construct examples in which the singular set is $(n-1)$-dimensional; see \cite{Sch3}.
As explained below, such result essentially follows from the uniqueness of blow-ups at singular points, established in the previous section.
Indeed, given any singular point $x_{\circ}$, let $p_{x_{\circ}}$ be the blow-up of $u$ at $x_{\circ}$ (recall that $p_{x_{\circ}}$ is a nonnegative 2-homogeneous polynomial).
Let $k$ be the dimension of the set $\{p_{x_{\circ}}=0\}$ --- notice that this is a proper linear subspace of $\mathbb{R}^n$, so that $k\in \{0,...,n-1\}$ --- and define
\begin{equation}\label{Sigma-k}
\Sigma_k:=\big\{x_{\circ}\in\Sigma : {\rm dim}(\{p_{x_{\circ}}=0\})=k\big\}.
\end{equation}
Clearly, $\Sigma=\bigcup_{k=0}^{n-1} \Sigma_k$.
The following result gives a more precise description of the singular set.
\begin{prop}[\cite{Caf98}]\label{prop-singular-set-k}
Let $u$ be any solution to \eqref{ch4-obst-f=1}.
Let $\Sigma_k\subset B_1$ be defined by \eqref{Sigma-k}, $k=1,...,n-1$.
Then, $\Sigma_k$ is locally contained in a $C^1$ manifold of dimension $k$.
\end{prop}
The rough heuristic idea of the proof of this result is as follows.
Assume for simplicity that $n=2$, so that $\Sigma=\Sigma_1\cup \Sigma_0$.
Let us take a point $x_{\circ}\in \Sigma_0$.
Then, by Theorem \ref{thm-final}, we have the expansion
\begin{equation}\label{expansion-final}
u(x)=p_{x_{\circ}}(x-x_{\circ})+o\big(|x-x_{\circ}|^2\big)
\end{equation}
where $p_{x_{\circ}}$ is the blow-up of $u$ at $x_{\circ}$ (recall that this came from the uniqueness of blow-ups at $x_{\circ}$).
By definition of $\Sigma_0$, the polynomial $p_{x_{\circ}}$ must be positive outside the origin, and thus by homogeneity satisfies $p_{x_{\circ}}(x-x_{\circ})\geq c|x-x_{\circ}|^2$, with $c>0$.
This, combined with \eqref{expansion-final}, yields then that $u$ must be positive in a neighborhood of $x_\circ$.
In particular, all points in $\Sigma_0$ are isolated.
On the other hand, let us now take a point $x_{\circ}\in \Sigma_1$.
Then, by definition of $\Sigma_1$ the blow-up must necessarily be of the form $p_{x_{\circ}}(x)=\frac12(x\cdot e_{x_{\circ}})^2$, for some $e_{x_{\circ}}\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$.
Again by the expansion \eqref{expansion-final}, we find that $u$ is positive in a region of the form
\[\big\{x\in B_\rho(x_{\circ}) : \big|(x-x_{\circ})\cdot e_{x_{\circ}}\big|>\omega(|x-x_{\circ}|)\big\},\]
where $\omega$ is a certain modulus of continuity, and $\rho>0$ is small (see Figure~\ref{fig.30}).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.65]{./Figures/fig30.pdf}
\caption{$u$ is positive in $\{x\in B_\rho(x_{\circ}) : |(x-x_{\circ})\cdot e_{x_{\circ}}| > \omega(|x-x_{\circ}|)\}$.}
\label{fig.30}
\end{figure}
This is roughly saying that the set $\Sigma_1$ ``has a tangent plane'' at $x_{\circ}$.
Repeating the same at any other point $\tilde x_\circ\in \Sigma_1$ we find that the same happens at every point in $\Sigma_1$ and, moreover, if $\tilde x_\circ$ is close to $x_{\circ}$ then $e_{\tilde x_\circ}$ must be close to $e_{x_{\circ}}$ --- otherwise the expansions \eqref{expansion-final} at $\tilde x_\circ$ and $x_{\circ}$ would not match.
Finally, since the modulus $\omega$ can be made independent of the point (by a compactness argument), it turns out that the set $\Sigma_1$ is contained in a $C^1$ curve (see Figure~\ref{fig.31}).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 1]{./Figures/fig31.pdf}
\caption{Singular points $x_{\circ},\tilde x_\circ \in \Sigma_1$.}
\label{fig.31}
\end{figure}
What we discussed here is just an heuristic argument; the actual proof uses Whitney's extension theorem and can be found for example in \cite{PSU}.
Finally, we refer to \cite{CSV}, \cite{FSerra}, and \cite{FZ21} (and the expository paper \cite{Fig18b}) for some recent finer results about the set of singular points.
\subsection*{Generic regularity}
\index{Generic regularity}
In PDE problems in which singularities may appear, it is very natural and important to understand whether these singularities appear ``often'', or if instead ``most'' solutions have no singularities.
In the context of the obstacle problem, the key question is to understand the generic regularity of free boundaries.
Explicit examples show that singular points in the obstacle problem can form a very large set, of dimension $n-1$ (as large as the regular set).
Still, singular points are expected to be rare (see \cite{Sch1}):
\vspace{3mm}
\noindent \textbf{Conjecture} \index{Schaeffer conjecture}(Schaeffer, 1974): \ \emph{Generically, the weak solution of the obstacle problem is also a strong solution, in the sense that the free boundary is a $C^\infty$ manifold.}
\vspace{3mm}
In other words, the conjecture states that, generically, the free boundary has \emph{no} singular points.
The first result in this direction was established by Monneau in 2003, who proved the following.
\begin{thm}[\cite{Mon}]\label{Schaeffer-2D}
Schaeffer's conjecture holds in $\mathbb{R}^2$.
\end{thm}
More precisely, Monneau considers a 1-parameter family of solutions $u_\lambda$, with $\lambda\in (0,1)$, such that
\[\left\{\begin{array}{rcll}
\Delta u_\lambda&=&\chi_{\{u_\lambda>0\}} &\quad \textrm{in}\ \Omega \\
u_\lambda&=&g_\lambda & \quad \textrm{on}\ \partial \Omega,
\end{array}\right.\]
with $g_\lambda=g+\lambda$ and $g\geq0$ on $\partial \Omega$.
Then, the first step is to notice that not only each of the singular sets $\Sigma_\lambda \subset \Omega$ is contained in a $C^1$ manifold of dimension $(n-1)$, but actually the union $\bigcup_{\lambda\in (0,1)}\Sigma_\lambda\subset \Omega$ is still contained in an $(n-1)$-dimensional manifold.
After that, we look at the free boundary as a set in $\Omega\times (0,1)\ni (x,\lambda)$, and notice that it can be written as a graph $\{\lambda=h(x)\}$, for some function~$h$.
A second key step in the proof is to show that $h$ is Lipschitz and, furthermore, it has zero gradient at any singular point.
This, combined with the coarea formula, yields that in $\mathbb{R}^2$ the set of singular points is empty for almost every $\lambda\in(0,1)$, which implies Theorem \ref{Schaeffer-2D}.
Finally, the best known result in this direction was established very recently by Figalli, Serra, and the second author.
\begin{thm}[\cite{FRS}]
Schaeffer's conjecture holds in $\mathbb{R}^3$ and $\mathbb{R}^4$.
\end{thm}
The proof of this result is based on a new and very fine understanding of singular points.
For this, \cite{FRS} combines Geometric Measure Theory tools, PDE estimates, several dimension reduction arguments, and even several new monotonicity formulas.
It remains an open problem to decide whether or not Schaeffer's conjecture holds in dimensions $n\geq5$ or not.
\endinput
\chapter*{Notation}
Let us introduce some of the notation be used throughout the book.
\\[0.4cm]
\noindent {\bf Matrix notation.}\\[0.3cm]
\begin{tabular}{ l m{10cm} }
$A = (a_{ij})_{ij}$ & Matrix with $(i, j)-{\rm th}$ entry denoted by $a_{ij}$. \\[0.15cm]
$\mathcal{M}_n$ & Space of matrices of size $n\times n$. \\[0.15cm]
${\rm Id}$& Identity matrix. \\[0.15cm]
${\rm tr}\, A$& Trace of the matrix $A$, ${\rm tr}\, A = a_{11}+\dots+a_{nn}$. \\[0.2cm]
${\rm det}\, A$& Determinant of the matrix $A$. \\[0.15cm]
$A^T$& Transpose of the matrix $A$. \\[0.2cm]
\end{tabular}
\noindent {\bf Geometric notation.}\\[0.3cm]
\begin{tabular}{ l m{11cm} }
$\mathbb{R}^n$, $\mathbb{S}^n$ & $n$-dimensional Euclidean space, $n$-sphere. \\[0.15cm]
$e_i\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ & $i-{\rm th}$ element of the base, $e_i = (0,\dots,0, \stackrel{(i)}{1},0,\dots 0)$. \\[0.15cm]
$x \in \mathbb{R}^n$& Typical point $x = (x_1, \dots, x_n)$. \\[0.15cm]
$|x| $& Modulus of the point $x$, $|x| = \sqrt{x_1^2 +\dots + x_n^2}$. \\[0.15cm]
$|U| $& $n$-dimensional Lebesgue measure of a set $U\subset\mathbb{R}^n$. \\[0.15cm]
$\mathbb{R}^n_+$& $\{x = (x_1,\dots, x_n)\in \mathbb{R}^n : x_n > 0\}$. \\[0.15cm]
$\partial U$& Boundary of the set $U\subset \mathbb{R}^n$. \\[0.15cm]
$V\subset\subset U$& The set $V$ is compactly contained in $U$, that is $\overline{V}\subset U$. \\[0.15cm]
$B_r(x)$& Ball of radius $r$ centered at $x$, $B_r(x) := \{y \in \mathbb{R}^n : |x-y|< r\}$. \\[0.15cm]
$x\cdot y$ & For $x, y\in \mathbb{R}^n$, scalar product of $x$ and $y$, $x\cdot y = x_1y_1+\dots+x_n y_n$.
\end{tabular}
\\[1cm]
\noindent {\bf Functional notation.}\\[0.3cm]
\begin{tabular}{ l m{11cm} }
$u$ & In general, $u$ denotes a function $u:\mathbb{R}^n\to \mathbb{R}$ (unless stated otherwise). \\[0.2cm]
$u^+,u^-$ & Positive and negative part of a function, $u^+ = \max\{u, 0\}$, $u^- = \max\{-u, 0\}$. \\[0.2cm]
$\chi_E$ & Characteristic function of the set $E$, $\chi_E(x) = 1$ for $x\in E$, and $\chi_E(x) = 0$ for $x\notin E$. \\[0.2cm]
${\rm supp}\, u$ & Support of $u$, ${\rm supp}\,u = \overline{\{x : u(x) \neq 0\}}$. \\[0.2cm]
$\strokedint_A$ & Average integral over the positive measure set $A$, $\strokedint_A f := \frac{1}{|A|}\int_A f$.
\end{tabular}
\\[0.5cm]
\noindent {\bf Function spaces.} Let $U\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be an open set. \\[0.3cm]
\begin{tabular}{ l m{9.5cm} }
$C(U), C^0(U)$ & Space of continuous functions $u: U\to \mathbb{R}$. \\[0.2cm]
$C(\overline{U}), C^0(\overline{U})$ & Functions $u\in C(U)$ continuous up to the boundary. \\[0.2cm]
$C^k(U), C^k(\overline{U})$ & Space of functions $k$ times continuously differentiable. \\[0.2cm]
$C^{k,\alpha}(U)$ & H\"older spaces, see Section \ref{sec.hs}. \\[0.2cm]
$C^\infty(U), C^\infty(\overline{U})$ & Set of functions in $C^k(U)$ or $C^k(\overline{U})$ for all $k\ge 1$.\\[0.2cm]
$C_c(U), C^k_c(U)$ & Set of functions with compact support in $U$.\\[0.2cm]
$C_0(U), C^k_0(U)$ & Set of functions with $u = 0$ on $\partial U$.\\[0.2cm]
$L^p$ & $L^p$ space, see Section \ref{sec.hs}.\\[0.2cm]
$L^\infty$ & $L^\infty$ space, see Section \ref{sec.hs} (see ${\rm esssup}_\Omega u$ below).\\[0.2cm]
${\rm esssup}_\Omega u$ & {Essential supremum of $u$ in $\Omega$: infimum of the essential upper bounds, ${\rm esssup}_\Omega u := \inf\{b > 0 : |\{u > b\}| = 0\}$.}\\[0.2cm]
$W^{1,p}, W^{1,p}_0$ & Sobolev spaces, see Section \ref{sec.hs} and \ref{it.S6}.\\[0.2cm]
$H^{1}, H^{1}_0$ & Sobolev spaces with $p = 2$, see Section \ref{sec.hs} and \ref{it.S6}.\\[0.2cm]
$\|\cdot\|_{\mathcal{F}}$ & Norm in the functional space $\mathcal{F} \in \{C^0, C^k, L^p, \dots\}$, defined when used for the first times.
\end{tabular}
\\[0.4cm]
\newpage
\noindent {\bf Differential notation.} Let $u:U \to \mathbb{R}$ be a function.\\[0.3cm]
\begin{tabular}{ l m{9cm} }
$\partial_i u, \partial_{x_i} u , u_{x_i}$ & Partial derivative in the $e_i$ direction, $\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_i}$. \\[0.15cm]
$\partial_e u$ & Derivative in the $e\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ direction. \\[0.15cm]
$\nabla u, Du$ & Gradient, $\nabla u = (\partial_1 u, \dots, \partial_n u)$. \\[0.15cm]
$\partial_{ij} u, \partial_{x_i x_j} u , u_{x_i x_j}$ & Second partial derivatives in the directions $e_i$ and $e_j$, $\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x_i\partial x_j }$. \\[0.15cm]
$D^2 u$ & Hessian, $D^2 u = (\partial_{ij} u)_{ij} \in \mathcal{M}_n$. \\[0.15cm]
$D^k u$ & Higher derivatives forms, $D^k u := (\partial_{i_1}\dots\partial_{i_k} u)_{i_1,\dots ,i_k}$. \\[0.15cm]
$|D^k u(x)|$ & Norm of $D^k u(x)$ (any equivalent norm). \\[0.15cm]
$\|D^k u(x)\|_{\mathcal{F}}$ & Norm of $D^k u$, $\| |D^k u|\|_{\mathcal{F}}$.\\[0.15cm]
$\Delta u$ & Laplacian of $u$, $\Delta u = \partial_{11} u + \dots + \partial_{nn} u$.
\end{tabular}
\\[0.4cm]
\label{domainnotation}
\noindent {\bf Domains.} We say that $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ is a domain if it is an open connected set.\\[0.2cm]
A domain $\Omega$ is said to be $C^{k, \alpha}$ (resp. $C^k$) if $\partial\Omega$ can be written locally as the graph of a $C^{k,\alpha}$ (resp. $C^k$) function.
\chapter*{Preface}
One of the most basic and important
questions in PDE is that of regularity.
It is also a unifying problem in the field, since it affects all kinds of PDEs.
A~classical example is Hilbert's XIXth problem (1900), which roughly speaking asked to determine whether all solutions to uniformly elliptic {variational} PDEs are smooth.
The question was answered positively by De Giorgi and Nash in 1956 and 1957, and it is now one of the most famous and important theorems in the whole field of PDE.
The question of regularity has been a central line of research in elliptic PDE since the mid-20th century, with extremely important contributions by Nirenberg, Caffarelli, Krylov, Evans, Figalli, and many others.
Their works have enormously influenced many areas of Mathematics linked one way or another with PDE, including: Harmonic Analysis, Calculus of Variations, Differential Geometry, Geometric Measure Theory, Continuum and Fluid Mechanics, Probability Theory, Mathematical Physics, and Computational and Applied Mathematics.
This text emerged from two PhD courses on elliptic PDE given by the second author at the University of Z\"urich in 2017 and 2019.
It aims to provide a self-contained introduction to the regularity theory for elliptic PDE, focusing on the main ideas rather than proving all results in their greatest generality.
The book can be seen as a bridge between an elementary PDE course and more advanced textbooks such as \cite{GT} or \cite{CC}.
Moreover, we believe that the present selection of results and techniques complements nicely other books on elliptic PDE such as \cite{Evans}, \cite{HL}, and \cite{K}, as well as the recent book \cite{ACM}.
For example, we give a different proof of the Schauder estimates (due to L. Simon) which is not contained in other textbooks; we prove some basic results for fully nonlinear equations that are not covered in \cite{CC}; and we also include a detailed study of the obstacle problem, often left to more specialized textbooks such as \cite{Fri} or \cite{PSU}.
Furthermore, at the end of Chapters 3, 4, and 5 we provide a review of some recent results and open problems.
We would like to thank Alessio Figalli, Thomas Kappeler, Alexis Michelat, Joaquim Serra, and Wei Wang, for several comments and suggestions on this book.
Finally, we acknowledge the support received from the following funding agencies:
X.F. was supported by the European Research Council under the Grant Agreement No. 721675 ``Regularity and Stability in Partial Differential Equations (RSPDE)'', by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF grants
200021\_182565 and PZ00P2\_208930), and by the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and lnnovation (SERI) under contract number M822.00034;
X.R. was supported by the European Research Council under the Grant Agreement No. 801867 ``Regularity and singularities in elliptic PDE (EllipticPDE)'', by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF grant 200021\_178795), by AEI project PID2021-125021NA-I00 (Spain), by the grant RED2018-102650-T funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033, and by the Spanish State Research Agency through the Mar\'ia de Maeztu Program for Centers and Units of Excellence in R{\&}D (CEX2020-001084-M).
\aufm{Z\"urich, 2020}
|
\section{Introduction}
Local Volt/VAR (Volt-Ampere Reactive) control facilitates voltage regulation on distribution grids by providing reactive power compensation from DERs equipped with smart inverters. Different from centralized control schemes which incur large computational and communication burden, local rules decide DER setpoints based on local measurements. Volt/VAR control rules can be categorized into \emph{non-incremental} and \emph{incremental} ones. The former compute DER reactive power setpoints based on local voltage readings. The IEEE Standard 1547.8 prescribes such non-incremental control rules as piecewise-linear functions of voltage~\cite{IEEE1547}. On the other hand, incremental Volt/VAR rules compute the \emph{change} in VAR setpoints as a function of voltage~\cite{LQD14,FZC15,7361761,VKZG16,Guido16}.
The existing literature on designing Volt/VAR control rules can be classified into \emph{stability}- and \emph{optimality}-centric works. Stability-centric works study the effect of Volt/VAR rules as a closed-loop dynamical system, which may be rendered unstable under steep slopes of non-incremental rules~\cite{FCL13,9091863}. In fact, to ensure stability, non-incremental rules may have to compromise on the quality of their steady-state voltage profile~\cite{VKZG16,9091863}. Incremental rules however do not experience stability limitations and can thus achieve improved voltage profiles compared to their non-incremental counterparts. Nonetheless, such improvements may come at the expense of longer settling times of the associated Volt/VAR dynamics~\cite{9091863}.
Optimality-centric works focus on designing stable control rules to minimize a voltage regulation objective. To this end, optimization-based strategies have been employed to design affine non-incremental rules using heuristics~\cite{6601722,6727491,8365842}. Two of our recent works in~\cite{MGCK23} and~\cite{GCK22} have addressed the problem of optimally designing the slope, deadband, saturation, and reference voltage. Reference~\cite{MGCK23} performs ORD via a bilevel optimization applicable to single-phase feeders. Reference~\cite{GCK22} proposes DNN-based digital twins that emulate Volt/VAR dynamics, and reformulates ORD as a DNN training task for single-/multi-phase feeders.
This letter deals with optimally selecting the shape of incremental Volt/VAR control rules, with contributions on three fronts: \emph{c1)} Although this \emph{optimal rule design} (ORD) task can be posed as a mixed-integer nonlinear optimization program, it does not scale well with the numbers of DERs, nodes, and grid loading scenarios. To address this challenge, the genuine idea here is to reformulate ORD as a deep-learning task and judiciously adapt the fast software modules widely available for training deep neural networks (DNNs). We have put forth a similar approach for designing non-incremental control rules in~\cite{GCK22}. However, migrating from non-incremental to incremental rules is non-trivial due to the different curve shapes, stability, and settling time properties. \emph{c2)} To further expedite ORD for incremental rules, we suggest implementing accelerated Nesterov-type variants of the rules to yield a shallower DNN emulator. \emph{c3)} We also establish the convergence of incremental rules on multiphase feeders.
Recently, reference~\cite{Baosen22} deals with the optimal design of incremental rules. It uses DNNs with a single hidden layer to model piecewise-linear functions and formulates ORD as a reinforcement learning task. While~\cite{Baosen22} also utilizes DNNs to design incremental rules, we delineate from it in several ways. Reference~\cite{Baosen22} focuses on voltage control during transient dynamics, whereas this work aims at ORD to drive steady-state voltages closer to unity and over different grid loading scenarios. Reference~\cite{Baosen22} utilizes a DNN to model the piecewise-linear mapping of the rule. In contrast, this work develops a DNN-based digital twin that emulates end-to-end Volt/VAR dynamics. Lastly, we provide stability and convergence analysis for single- and multiphase feeders alike, whereas \cite{Baosen22} applies only to single-phase feeders.
The rest of this letter is organized as follows. Section~\ref{sec:model} models the feeder and discusses non-incremental and incremental Volt/VAR control rules. Section~\ref{sec:1pDNN} formulates DNN-based digital twins for Volt/VAR dynamics of incremental rules, and their accelerated version. It also presents ORD for single-phase feeders as a deep learning task. Section~\ref{sec:3pDNN} extends the ORD process to multiphase feeders. The incremental rules are then benchmarked against non-incremental rules from~\cite{GCK22} using tests on real-world data, in Section~\ref{sec:tests}. The letter is concluded in Section~\ref{sec:conclusions}.
\section{Volt/VAR Control Rules}\label{sec:model}
\allowdisplaybreaks
Consider a radial feeder serving $N$ buses equipped with DERs, indexed by $n$. Let $(\bq^{\ell},\bq)$ collect reactive loads and generations at all nodes. Vectors $(\bp,\bv)$ collect the net active power injections and voltage magnitudes at all nodes. The impact of $\bq$ on $\bv$ can be approximately captured using the linearized grid model~\cite{GCK22}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ldf}
\bv\simeq \bX\bq+\tbv
\end{equation}
where $\tbv:=\bR\bp-\bX\bq^{\ell}+v_0\bone$ models the underlying \emph{grid conditions}, and $v_0$ is the substation voltage. Vector $\tbv$ represents the impact of non-controlled quantities $(\bp,\bq^{\ell})$ on voltages. Matrices $(\bR,\bX)$ depend on the feeder topology. For single-phase feeders, they are symmetric positive definite with positive entries~\cite{TJKT-SG21}. For multiphase feeders, they are non-symmetric and have positive and negative entries~\cite{VKZG16,GCK22}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.62]{volt_var_curve.png}
\caption{Non-incremental Volt/VAR control rule provisioned by the IEEE Std. 1547 for the interconnection of DERs~\cite{IEEE1547}.}
\label{fig:curve}
\end{figure}
Vector $\bq$ in \eqref{eq:ldf} carries the reactive injections by DERs we would like to control. Per the non-incremental rules of the IEEE Std. 1547~\cite{IEEE1547}, DER setpoints are decided based on the Volt/VAR curve of Fig.~\ref{fig:curve}, which is parameterized by $(\bar{v},\delta,\sigma,\bar{q})$. The standard further constrains these parameters within a polytopic feasible set~\cite{IEEE1547,MGCK23}. The negative slope of the linear segment of the curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:curve} can be expressed as
\[\alpha:=\frac{\bar{q}}{\sigma-\delta}.\]
The interaction of Volt/VAR rules with the feeder gives rise to nonlinear dynamics. These dynamics are stable if $\|\diag(\balpha)\bX\|_2<1$, where $\diag(\balpha)$ is a diagonal matrix carrying the rule slopes over all buses on its diagonal~\cite{FCL13}. The equilibrium setpoints for DERs cannot be expressed in closed form. However, they coincide with the minimizer of the convex optimization problem~\cite{FCL13}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:inner}
\min_{-\bbq\leq \bq\leq\bbq}\frac{1}{2}\bq^\top \bX\bq+\bq^\top(\tbv-\bbv)+\frac{1}{2}\bq^\top\diag^{-1}(\balpha)\bq+\bdelta^\top|\bq|
\end{equation}
where $|\bq|$ applies the absolute value on $\bq$ entrywise. Problem~\eqref{eq:inner} depends on rule parameters $(\bar{v},\delta,\alpha,\bar{q})$ across all buses, collected in the $4N$-long vector $\bz:=(\bbv,\bdelta,\balpha,\bbq)$. We denote by $\bq_\bz(\tbv)$ the equilibrium setpoints, and by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:veq}
\bv_\bz(\tbv)=\bX\bq_\bz(\tbv)+\tbv
\end{equation}
the related equilibrium voltages reached by Volt/VAR rules parameterized by $\bz$ under grid conditions $\tbv$.
\emph{Optimal rule design (ORD)} can be stated as the task of selecting $\bz$ to bring equilibrium voltages $\bv_\bz(\tbv)$ close to unity. To cater to diverse conditions, the utility may sample loading scenarios $\{\tbv_s\}_{s=1}^S$ for the next hour, and find $\bz$ as
\begin{align}\label{eq:ord}\tag{ORD}
\bz^*\in \arg\min_{\bz}~&~F(\bz):=\frac{1}{S}\sum_{s=1}^S\|\bv_\bz(\tbv_s)-\bone\|_2^2\\
\textrm{subject to}~&~\eqref{eq:veq}~\text{and}~\bz\in\mcZ.\nonumber
\end{align}
Once found, the customized rules $\bz^*$ are sent to DERs to operate autonomously over the next hour. Note that $\bv_\bz(\tbv_s)$ depends on $\bz$ because the equilibrium setpoints $\bq_\bz(\bv_s)$ in \eqref{eq:veq} are the minimizers of problem \eqref{eq:inner}, which is parameterized by $\bz$. When solving \eqref{eq:ord} for non-incremental rules, the feasible set $\mcZ$ consists of the polytopic constraints imposed on $\bz$ by the IEEE Std. 1547 as well as additional constraints on $\balpha$ to ensure $\|\diag(\balpha)\bX\|_2<1$; see \cite{MGCK23}. Therefore, the feasible set $\mcZ$ can be quite confined. This can lead to less desirable voltage profiles; that is, higher objective values $F(\bz^*)$.
The aforesaid issue can be addressed by replacing the non-incremental Volt/VAR rules of IEEE Std. 1547 by incremental ones as suggested in~\cite{LQD14,FZC15,7361761,VKZG16,Guido16}. Incremental rules express the \emph{change} rather than the actual value in setpoints as a function of voltage. One option for incremental rules is to implement a proximal gradient descent (PGD) algorithm solving \eqref{eq:inner} as proposed in~\cite{VKZG16}. In this case, the control rule coincides with the PGD iterations, which are implemented by DERs in a decentralized fashion. Using incremental rules, set $\mcZ$ is enlarged as now we only need to ensure
\begin{align*}
&\bz\geq \bzero\\
&0.95\cdot\bone\leq\bbv\leq 1.05\cdot\bone
\end{align*}
and that $\bbq$ are within the reactive power ratings of the DERs.
The PGD algorithm is an extension of gradient descent to handle constraints and non-differentiable costs~\cite{VKZG16}. At iteration $t$, PGD proceeds with two steps: \emph{s1)} It first computes the gradient of the first two terms of $F(\bz)$, that is $\bX\bq^t+\tbv-\bbv=\bv^t-\bbv$. Here $\bq^t$ is the latest estimate of the minimizer of \eqref{eq:inner}; \emph{s2)} PGD then updates $\bq^{t+1}$ as the minimizer of
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pgds2}
\min_{-\bbq\leq \bq\leq \bbq}~\frac{1}{2}\bq^\top\diag^{-1}(\balpha)\bq +\bdelta^\top|\bq|+\frac{1}{2\mu}\|\bq-(\bv^t-\bbv)\|_2^2
\end{equation}
for a step size $\mu>0$. The last problem involves the last two terms in the cost of \eqref{eq:inner} regularized by the Euclidean distance of $\bq$ to the gradient $(\bv^t-\bbv)$ computed in step \emph{s1)}.
Converting PGD to control rules, step \emph{s1)} is performed by the physics of the feeder when injecting $\bq^t$ and measuring the local voltage deviations. Step~\emph{s2)} is run by each DER independently as \eqref{eq:pgds2} is separable across buses. Using the subdifferential, solving \eqref{eq:pgds2} provides the update~\cite{VKZG16}
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:inc}
\begin{align}
y_n^t&=\tilde{\alpha}_n\cdot\left(q_n^t-\mu(v_n^t-\bar{v}_n)\right)\label{eq:inc:y}\\
q_n^{t+1}&=g_n\left(y_n^t\right)\label{eq:inc:g}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $g_n(y_n)$ is the \emph{proximal operator}
\begin{align}\label{eq:S}
g_n(y_n):=
\begin{cases}
+\bar{q}_n&,~ y_n>\overline{q}_n+\mu \tilde{\delta}_n\\
y_n-\mu \tilde{\delta}_n &,~\mu \tilde{\delta}_n<y_n \leq \overline{q}_
n+\mu \tilde{\delta}_n \\
0 &,~-\mu \tilde{\delta}_n \leq y_n \leq \mu \tilde{\delta}_n\\
y_n+\mu\tilde{\delta}_n &,~-\overline{q}_n-\mu \tilde{\delta}_n \leq y_n<-\mu \tilde{\delta}_n \\
-\overline{q}_n&,~ y_n<-\overline{q}_n-\mu \tilde{\delta}_n.
\end{cases}
\end{align}
and the new parameters $(\tilde{\alpha}_n,\tilde{\delta}_n)$ are defined as
\[\tilde{\alpha}_n:=\frac{1}{1+\mu/\alpha_n}\quad \text{and}\quad \tilde{\delta}_n:=\frac{\delta_n}{1+\mu/\alpha_n}.\]
The proximal operator is plotted in the top panel of Figure~\ref{fig:relus_inc}. Note that in \eqref{eq:inc}, rule parameters are transformed from representation $\bz=(\bbv,\bdelta,\balpha,\bbq)$ to representation $\tbz:=(\bbv,\tbdelta,\tbalpha,\bbq)$. This is without loss of generality as the transformation is a bijection, and so one can work exclusively with $\tbz$. The feasible set $\tilde{\mcZ}$ for $\tbz$ is similar to $\mcZ$ with the addition that $\tbalpha\leq \bone$.
As with non-incremental rules, the rules in~\eqref{eq:S} are driven by local data, but now $q_n^{t+1}$ depends on $(v_n^t,q_n^t)$, and not $v_n^t$ alone. Both types of rules solve \eqref{eq:inner}. Hence, they both converge to the same equilibrium. The advantage of incremental rules is that they are stable for all $\balpha$ as long as $\mu<2/\lambda_{\text{max}}(\bX)$; see~\cite{VKZG16}. It is worth stressing that $\bz$ does not have the same physical interpretation as in non-incremental rules (slopes, deadband, or saturation), though $\bz$ parameterizes \eqref{eq:inner} for both rules.
\emph{Accelerated incremental rules.} Although PGD rules enlarge $\mcZ$, their settling times can be long. They reach an $\varepsilon$-optimal cost of \eqref{eq:inner} within $-\frac{2\log{\varepsilon}}{\log{2}}\kappa\left(\bX\right)$ iterations. Here $\kappa(\bX):=\lambda_{\max}(\bX)/\lambda_{\min}(\bX)$ is the condition number of $\bX$. References~\cite{VKZG16,SGC15} put forth \emph{accelerated} incremental rules based on accelerated PGD (APGD). These rules need $-\frac{2\log{\varepsilon}}{\log{2}} \sqrt{\kappa\left(\bX\right)}$ iterations to attain an $\varepsilon$-optimal cost, and take the form
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:acc_inc}
\begin{align}
\tilde{y}_n^t&:=\left(1+\beta_t\right)y_n^t-\beta_t y_n^{t-1}\label{eq:acc_inc:ytilde}\\
q_n^{t+1}&:=g_n\left(\tilde{y}_n^t\right)
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $\beta_t:=\frac{t-1}{t+2}$, while $y_n^t$ and $g_n(y_n)$ are as defined in~\eqref{eq:inc:y} and \eqref{eq:S}. Updates \eqref{eq:acc_inc} remain local, but introduce additional memory as $q_n^{t+1}$ depends on $(v_n^t,q_n^t)$ and $(v_n^{t-1},q_n^{t-1})$.
\section{Deep Learning for Optimal Rule Design (ORD) in Single-Phase Feeders}\label{sec:1pDNN}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{relu_inc.png}
\caption{Proximal operator $g(y)$ expressed as a sum of four shifted rectified linear units (ReLUs).}
\label{fig:relus_inc}
\end{figure}
Solving \eqref{eq:ord} is challenging as it is a nonconvex bilevel program. Although it can be modeled as a mixed-integer nonlinear program, such an approach does not scale well with the number of DERs and/or scenarios for non-incremental rules~\cite{GCK22}. Seeking a more scalable solution, we reformulate \eqref{eq:ord} as a deep learning task. The key idea is to design a DNN that emulates Volt/VAR dynamics under the control rule of \eqref{eq:inc}. To this end, note that $g_n(y_n)$ is a piecewise-linear function with four breakpoints~\cite{VKZG16}. Interestingly, this operator can be expressed as the superposition of four rectified linear units (ReLUs) as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:relus_inc}, where ReLUs are denoted by $\rho(\cdot)$. The intercepts of the ReLUs depend linearly on $(\tilde{\delta}_n,\bar{q}_n)$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.47]{nestrov_single.png}
\caption{A DNN emulating the accelerated incremental rules of~\eqref{eq:acc_inc}. Plain incremental rules can be modeled by dropping the second layer (setting $\beta^t=0$) and ignoring output $y_n^t$.}
\label{fig:nest_single}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.46]{nestrov_rnn.png}
\caption{Recurrent neural network (RNN) implementation for accelerated incremental Volt/VAR control rules.}
\label{fig:nest_RNN}
\end{figure}
Building on this, one APGD iteration for DER $n$ can be implemented by the 4-layer DNN in Fig.~\ref{fig:nest_single}, whose weights depend affinely on $(\bar{v}_n,\tilde{\delta}_n,\tilde{\alpha}_n,\bar{q}_n)$. This DNN takes $(q_n^t,v_n^t)$ as its input, and computes $(q_n^{t+1},y_n^t)$ at its output. It is termed $\text{IC}_n$ and will be used as a building block to emulate Volt/VAR dynamics. This is accomplished by the recursive neural network (RNN) shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:nest_RNN}. Here blocks $\text{IC}_n$ are arranged vertically to model the parallel operation of DERs. Their outputs $\bq^{t+1}$ are multiplied by $\bX$, and the new voltage is computed as $\bv^{t+1}=\bX\bq^{t+1}+\tbv$. This is repeated $T$ times. Thanks to the RNN structure, there is \emph{weight sharing}, so the number of DNN weights is $4N$ rather than $4NT$.
The RNN takes a grid loading vector $\tbv_s$ as its input, the rule parameters $\tbz$ as weights, and computes the voltages $\bv^T_{\tbz}(\tbv_s)$ at time $T$ at its output. For the output $\bv^T_{\tbz}(\tbv_s)$ to approximate well equilibrium voltages, the depth $T$ can be chosen by the convergence rate of PGD as follows.
\begin{proposition}\label{pro:accdepth}
For the DNN of Fig.~\ref{fig:nest_RNN} to ensure $\|\Phi\left(\tbv;\bz\right) -\bv^*(\bz)\|_2\leq \epsilon_1$ $\forall$ $\tbv$, its depth $T$ should satisfy
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lemma:inc}
T\geq \left(\frac{\kappa-1}{2}\right)\log\left(\frac{2\|\bX\|_2\|\hbq\|_2}{\epsilon_1}\right).
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\emph{Proof:} From the control rule of~\eqref{eq:inc:g}, it follows that
\begin{align}
\|\bq^{t}-\bq^{*}\|_2&=\|\bg\left(\by^{t}\right)-\bg\left(\by^{*}\right)\|_2\nonumber\\
&\leq \|\by^{t}-\by^{*}\|_2\nonumber\\
&=\|\diag(\tilde{\balpha})(\bI-\mu\bX)\left(\bq^{t-1}-\bq^{*}\right)\|_2\nonumber\\
&\leq \|\diag(\tilde{\balpha})\|_2\cdot \|\bI-\mu\bX\|_2\cdot \|\bq^{t-1}-\bq^{*}\|_2\nonumber\\
&\leq\|\bI-\mu\bX\|_2\cdot \|\bq^{t-1}-\bq^{*}\|_2.\label{eq:pro:accdepth:bound}
\end{align}
The first inequality stems from the non-expansive property of the proximal operator $\bg$. The next equality follows from~\eqref{eq:inc:y}. The second inequality from the sub-multiplicative property of the spectral norm. The last inequality follows by the definition of spectral norm and because $\tilde{\alpha}_n\leq1$ for all $n$.
If $\|\bI-\mu\bX\|_2<1$, inequality~\eqref{eq:pro:accdepth:bound} implies that the dynamics in~\eqref{eq:inc} are a non-expansive mapping, and thus, are stable and converge to $\bq^{*}$. Condition $\|\bI-\mu\bX\|_2<1$ holds when $\mu<2/\lambda_{\max}(\bX)$. The norm $\|\bI-\mu\bX\|_2$ achieves its minimum of $\left(1-\frac{2}{\kappa+1}\right)$ when \[\mu_0:=\frac{2}{\lambda_{\max}(\bX)+\lambda_{\min}(\bX)}.\]
Plugging $\mu_0$ into~\eqref{eq:pro:accdepth:bound} and unfolding the dynamics over $t$ provides
\begin{align*}
\|\bq^t-\bq^*\|_2&\leq\left(1-\tfrac{2}{\kappa+1}\right)^t \|\bq^0-\bq^*\|_2\\
&\leq
2\left(1-\tfrac{2}{\kappa+1}\right)^t\|\hbq\|_2.
\end{align*}
For the voltage approximation error $ \|\bv^T-\bv^*\|_2 = \|\bX\left(\bq^T-\bq^*\right)\|_2$ at time $T$ to be smaller than $\epsilon_1$, we need
\begin{equation*}
\|\bv^T-\bv^*\|_2\leq 2\|\bX\|_2\cdot\|\hbq\|_2\cdot \left(1-\frac{2}{\kappa+1}\right)^T\leq \epsilon_1.
\end{equation*}
This can be achieved by selecting $T$ such that
\begin{align*}
T&\geq \frac{\log\left(\frac{2\|\bX\|_2\|\hbq\|_2}{\epsilon_1}\right)}{\log\left(1+\frac{2}{\kappa-1}\right)}\\
&\geq\left(\frac{\kappa-1}{2}\right)\log\frac{2\|\bX\|_2\|\hbq\|_2}{\epsilon_1}.
\end{align*}
where the last inequality follows from $\log(1+x)\leq x$. $\qed$
Plugging the values $\|\bX\|_2=0.463$ and $\kappa=848$ for the IEEE 37-bus feeder, $\|\hbq\|_2=0.1$, and $\epsilon_1=10^{-5}$ in \eqref{eq:lemma:inc}, yields $T\geq 2,892$ layers, which is relatively large. A key contributor to this large $T$ is the $\kappa$ term in \eqref{eq:lemma:inc}. This promulgates the adoption of accelerated rules~\eqref{eq:acc_inc}, which are known to have $\mcO(\sqrt{\kappa})$ dependence. Interestingly, during implementation, one does not need to fix $T$ to the above worst-case bounds. Leveraging dynamic computation graphs offered by Python libraries such as Pytorch, one may determine $T$ \emph{`on the fly'} depending on the convergence of $\bv^t$ between pairs of successive layers.
Since the RNN emulates Volt/VAR dynamics, it can surrogate $\bv_{\bz}(\tbv_s)$ in \eqref{eq:ord}. Then \eqref{eq:ord} can be posed as training a DNN over its weights $\tbz\in\tilde{\mcZ}$ or $\bz\in\mcZ$. Grid loading scenarios $\{\tbv_s\}_{s=1}^S$ are treated as features and equilibrium voltages $\bv_\bz(\tbv_s)$ as predictions that should be brought close to the target value of $\bone$ for scenarios $s$. The DNN can be trained using stochastic projected gradient descent (SPGD) as~\cite{GCK22}
\begin{align}\label{eq:spgd}
\tbz^{i+1}&=\left[\tbz^{i}-\frac{\lambda}{2B}{\nabla_{\tbz^i}}\left(\sum_{s\in \mcB_i} \|\Phi(\tbv_s;\tbz)-\bone\|_2^2\right)\right]_{\tilde{\mcZ}}
\end{align}
where $\lambda>0$ is the learning rate; set $\mcB_i$ is a batch of $B$ scenarios; and $[\cdot]_{\tilde{\mcZ}}$ is the projection onto $\tilde{\mcZ}$. Since $\tilde{\mcZ}$ consists of simple box constraints, projection essentially means clipping the values to the box. Lastly $\nabla_{\tbz^i}(\cdot)$ represents the gradient with respect to $\tbz$ evaluated at $\tbz=\tbz^i$, and is calculated efficiently thanks to \emph{gradient back-propagation}. Although our DNN-based ORD assumed PGD-based rule, it may be applicable to other incremental rules too.
A discussion about control rules and their DNN-based emulators is due. Recall that all three types of Volt/VAR control rules (non-incremental, incremental, and accelerated incremental) reach the same equilibrium voltages, if stable. The emulators aim at computing these equilibrium voltages. A natural question is whether the DNN emulator could implement a rule of a type different from the rule actually implemented on the feeder. This may be desirable to leverage the advantages of two types. Some caution is needed here. If the feeder implements non-incremental rules, but incremental rules converge faster to equilibrium voltages, it makes sense for the emulator to implement incremental rules. Of course, in this case, stability constraints on the non-incremental rules have to be enforced during DNN training. The reverse is not recommended: If the emulator implements non-incremental rules, its parameters $\bz$ should be constrained to be stable and that would be a restriction of the actual ORD problem. Finally, given the convergence advantage of accelerated incremental rules, they are always preferable over plain incremental rules for the DNN implementation. This showcases the utility of accelerated control rules even if they are not actually implemented on the feeder.
\section{Deep Learning for Optimal Rule Design (ORD) in Multiphase Feeders}\label{sec:3pDNN}
In multiphase feeders, matrix $\bX$ is non-symmetric and has both positive and negative entries. Therefore, the rule analysis and design of Section~\ref{sec:1pDNN} has to be revisited. For example, equilibrium setpoints cannot be found as the minimizers of an optimization problem as with \eqref{eq:inner}. Moreover, increasing $\bq$ does not mean that all voltages increase.
In multiphase feeders, the non-incremental rules of IEEE Std. 1547 remain stable as long as $\|\diag(\balpha)\bX\|_2<1$. This is the same condition as in the single-phase setup. How about the stability and equilibrium of incremental rules in multiphase feeders? Recall that for single-phase rules, incremental rules were obtained as the PGD iterations solving~\eqref{eq:inner}. Lacking an equivalent inner optimization for multiphase feeders precludes a similar approach here. Despite the incremental rules of~\eqref{eq:inc} do not correspond to PGD iterates anymore, they can still be shown to be stable for multiphase feeders.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:inc:3p:step}
Let $\bU\bLambda\bU^{\top}$ be the eigen-decomposition of matrix $\bX\bX^{\top}$. The incremental rules of~\eqref{eq:inc} are stable for multiphase feeders if their step size is selected as $\mu <\lambda_{\min}\left(\bLambda^{-1/2}\bU^{\top}\left(\bX+\bX^{\top}\right)\bU\bLambda^{-1/2}\right)$.
\end{proposition}
The claim follows readily by adopting the proof of Proposition~\ref{pro:accdepth}: If $\mu$ is selected as above, then $\|\bI-\mu\bX\|_2<1$ follows from~\cite[Prop. 6]{VKZG16}. Similar to the single-phase case, incremental rules in multiphase feeders allow us to enlarge the feasible set $\mcZ$ of rule parameters $\bz$. It is worth stressing that different from the single-phase setting, incremental and non-incremental rules do not converge to the same equilibrium on multiphase feeders.
The ORD task for multiphase feeders can also be formulated as a deep-learning task, with some modifications. Firstly, matrices $\bR$ and $\bX$ need to be altered. Secondly, the DNNs for multiphase feeders have $12N$ trainable parameters, since each layer consists of $3N$ building modules corresponding to bus/phase (node) combinations. Lastly, the step size has to be selected per Proposition~\ref{prop:inc:3p:step}. Adopting the proof of Proposition~\ref{pro:accdepth}, we next find the minimum DNN depth in multiphase feeders.
\begin{proposition}\label{pro:inc:3p}
Let the DNN of Fig.~\ref{fig:nest_RNN} implement the incremental rules of~\eqref{eq:inc} on multiphase feeders with $\mu$ selected per Proposition~\ref{prop:inc:3p:step}. The DNN depth $T$ ensuring voltage approximation error $\|\Phi\left(\tbv;\bz\right) -\bv^*(\bz)\|_2\leq \epsilon_1$ is
\begin{align*}
T\geq \frac{ \log\frac{\epsilon_1}{2\|\bX\|_2\|\hbq\|_2}}{\log\|\bI-\mu\bX\|_2}.
\end{align*}
\end{proposition}
We next numerically evaluate the proposed DNN-based ORD approach in single- and multiphase feeders, and contrast the performance of incremental control rules with that of non-incremental rules.
\section{Numerical Tests}\label{sec:tests}
We benchmark the performance of DNN-based incremental rules against non-incremental rules from~\cite{GCK22} on single- and multiphase feeders. Real-world data were sourced from the Smart* project on April 2, 2011~\cite{Smartsolar}, as explained in~\cite{GCK22}. The DNNs were implemented and trained using Pytorch.
We first compare (non)-incremental rules, both designed via DNN training for the single-phase IEEE 37-bus feeder of Figure~\ref{fig:37bus}. Homes with IDs 20--369 were averaged 10 at a time and successively added as active
loads to buses 2--26 as shown in Fig. 6. Active generation from solar panels was also added, as per the mapping in
Fig. 6. Buses $\{6, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 20, 22, 24, 25\}$
were assumed to host DERs with Volt/VAR control customized per bus.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{ieee37.png}
\caption{The IEEE 37-bus feeder converted to single-phase. Node numbering follows the format \texttt{node number \{panel ID\}}. DERs at buses $\{6,9,11,12,15,16,20,22,24,25\}$ provide reactive power control; the rest operate at unit power factor.}
\label{fig:37bus}
\end{figure}
Incremental rules were simulated in their accelerated rendition. Both sets of rules were trained over $S=80$ scenarios and $200$ epochs with a learning rate of $0.001$, using the Adam optimizer, and setting $\mu=1$ for incremental rules. To ensure repeatability, the results were repeated across several time periods between 1--6~PM, and are compiled in Table~\ref{tab:nivsi}. Incremental rules obtained marginally lower objectives than non-incremental rules across all periods, with a somewhat significant difference for the 5~PM period. This behavior is explained because incremental rules allow for a larger set $\mcZ$.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering\label{tab:nivsi}
\caption{Incremental vs. non-incremental Volt/VAR control rules on the single-phase IEEE 37-bus feeder}
\begin{adjustbox}{width=1\columnwidth}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|cc|cc|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Time} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\bq=\bzero$} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Non-incremental} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Incremental} \\ \cline{2-6}
& \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Obj. (p.u.)} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Time (s)} & Obj. (p.u.) & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Time (s)} & Obj. (p.u.) \\ \hline
$1$ pm & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$3.01\cdot10^{-3}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$37.98$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$3.68\cdot10^{-4}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$39.39$} & $3.66\cdot10^{-4}$ \\ \hline
$2$ pm & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$3.13\cdot10^{-3}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$42.93$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$4.26\cdot10^{-4}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$37.91$} & $4.25\cdot10^{-4}$ \\ \hline
$3$ pm & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$4.24\cdot10^{-3}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$45.02$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$8.59\cdot10^{-4}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$34.97$} & $8.50\cdot10^{-4}$ \\ \hline
$4$ pm & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$2.12\cdot10^{-3}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$48.30$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$1.47\cdot10^{-4}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$38.52$} & $1.48\cdot10^{-4}$ \\ \hline
$5$ pm & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$8.53\cdot10^{-4}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$47 .37$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$9.70\cdot10^{-5}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$374.01$} & $6.90\cdot10^{-5}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{adjustbox}
\end{table}
DNN-based incremental control rules were also contrasted with their non-incremental ones on the multiphase IEEE 13-bus feeder, using the testing setup from~\cite{GCK22}. Active loads were sampled $10$ at a time from homes with IDs $20$-$379$ and added to all three phases for the buses $1$-$12$. Figure~\ref{fig:ieee13} also shows the solar panel assignments shown in Fig~\ref{fig:ieee13} for solar generation. Lastly, nine DERs with inverters were added across phases and bus indices as shown in Fig~\ref{fig:ieee13}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{13bus_3phase.png}
\caption{Multiphase IEEE 13-bus distribution feeder.}
\label{fig:ieee13}
\end{figure}
The learning rates for non-incremental and incremental DNNs were set as $0.1$ and $0.001$, respectively, with the design parameters $\bz:=(\bbv,\bdelta,\bsigma,\balpha)$ initialized to feasible values $(0.95,0.01,0.3,1.5)$. Table~\ref{tab:13_nivsi} compares the performance of the two rule categories over multiple periods for $S=80$. While incremental rules took longer times to train, they were successful in lowering the cost $F(\bz)$ by more than $50\%$, thus yielding improved voltage profiles across all periods.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering\label{tab:13_nivsi}
\caption{Incremental vs. non-incremental Volt/VAR control rules on the multiphase IEEE 13-bus feeder}
\begin{adjustbox}{width=1\columnwidth}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|cc|cc|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Time} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\bq=\bzero$} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Non-incremental} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Incremental} \\ \cline{2-6}
& \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Obj. (p.u.)} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Time (s)} & Obj. (p.u.) & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Time (s)} & Obj. (p.u.) \\ \hline
$1$ pm & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$2.51\cdot10^{-3}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$64.65$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$1.15\cdot10^{-3}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$199.24$} & $4.11\cdot10^{-4}$ \\ \hline
$2$ pm & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$1.48\cdot10^{-3}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$66.60$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$6.89\cdot10^{-4}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$209.92$} & $3.03\cdot10^{-4}$ \\ \hline
$3$ pm & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$6.89\cdot10^{-4}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$74.68$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$4.94\cdot10^{-4}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$263.37$} & $2.16\cdot10^{-4}$ \\ \hline
$4$ pm & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$8.03\cdot10^{-4}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$68.32$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$5.26\cdot10^{-4}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$126.81$} & $2.47\cdot10^{-4}$ \\ \hline
$5$ pm & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$5.51\cdot10^{-4}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$62.58$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$4.11\cdot10^{-4}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$129.71$} & $1.95\cdot10^{-4}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{adjustbox}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec:conclusions}
We have devised a DNN approach to optimally design incremental Volt/VAR control rules for single- and multi-phase feeders. The key idea is to construct a DNN that emulates end-to-end the associated Volt/VAR dynamics. The DNN takes grid conditions as the input, the rule parameters as weights, and outputs the associated equilibrium voltages. Leveraging the convergence rates of the related optimization algorithms, we have provided bounds on the minimum depth of the DNN emulator to approximate equilibrium voltages within the desired accuracy. We have also established the stability of incremental control rules for multiphase feeders. Numerical tests have demonstrated that the designed control rules attain improved voltage profiles compared to their non-incremental alternatives. The improvement was found to be starker for mutiphase feeders, wherein (non)-incremental rules do not reach the same equilibrium. Our findings motivate further research to possibly characterize the equilibria of control rules for multiphase feeders; the convergence of accelerated incremental rules for multiphase feeders; and to deal with chance-constrained formulations or ORD problems targeting phase imbalances.
\balance
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
\section{Introduction}
Local Volt/VAR (Volt-Ampere Reactive) control facilitates voltage regulation on distribution grids by providing reactive power compensation from DERs equipped with smart inverters. Different from centralized control schemes which incur large computational and communication burden, local rules decide DER setpoints based on local measurements. Volt/VAR control rules can be categorized into \emph{non-incremental} and \emph{incremental} ones. The former compute DER reactive power setpoints based on local voltage readings. The IEEE Standard 1547.8 prescribes such non-incremental control rules as piecewise-linear functions of voltage~\cite{IEEE1547}. On the other hand, incremental Volt/VAR rules compute the \emph{change} in VAR setpoints as a function of voltage~\cite{LQD14,FZC15,7361761,VKZG16,Guido16}.
The existing literature on designing Volt/VAR control rules can be classified into \emph{stability}- and \emph{optimality}-centric works. Stability-centric works study the effect of Volt/VAR rules as a closed-loop dynamical system, which may be rendered unstable under steep slopes of non-incremental rules~\cite{FCL13,9091863}. In fact, to ensure stability, non-incremental rules may have to compromise on the quality of their steady-state voltage profile~\cite{VKZG16,9091863}. Incremental rules however do not experience stability limitations and can thus achieve improved voltage profiles compared to their non-incremental counterparts. Nonetheless, such improvements may come at the expense of longer settling times of the associated Volt/VAR dynamics~\cite{9091863}.
Optimality-centric works focus on designing stable control rules to minimize a voltage regulation objective. To this end, optimization-based strategies have been employed to design affine non-incremental rules using heuristics~\cite{6601722,6727491,8365842}. Two of our recent works in~\cite{MGCK23} and~\cite{GCK22} have addressed the problem of optimally designing the slope, deadband, saturation, and reference voltage. Reference~\cite{MGCK23} performs ORD via a bilevel optimization applicable to single-phase feeders. Reference~\cite{GCK22} proposes DNN-based digital twins that emulate Volt/VAR dynamics, and reformulates ORD as a DNN training task for single-/multi-phase feeders.
This letter deals with optimally selecting the shape of incremental Volt/VAR control rules, with contributions on three fronts: \emph{c1)} Although this \emph{optimal rule design} (ORD) task can be posed as a mixed-integer nonlinear optimization program, it does not scale well with the numbers of DERs, nodes, and grid loading scenarios. To address this challenge, the genuine idea here is to reformulate ORD as a deep-learning task and judiciously adapt the fast software modules widely available for training deep neural networks (DNNs). We have put forth a similar approach for designing non-incremental control rules in~\cite{GCK22}. However, migrating from non-incremental to incremental rules is non-trivial due to the different curve shapes, stability, and settling time properties. \emph{c2)} To further expedite ORD for incremental rules, we suggest implementing accelerated Nesterov-type variants of the rules to yield a shallower DNN emulator. \emph{c3)} We also establish the convergence of incremental rules on multiphase feeders.
Recently, reference~\cite{Baosen22} deals with the optimal design of incremental rules. It uses DNNs with a single hidden layer to model piecewise-linear functions and formulates ORD as a reinforcement learning task. While~\cite{Baosen22} also utilizes DNNs to design incremental rules, we delineate from it in several ways. Reference~\cite{Baosen22} focuses on voltage control during transient dynamics, whereas this work aims at ORD to drive steady-state voltages closer to unity and over different grid loading scenarios. Reference~\cite{Baosen22} utilizes a DNN to model the piecewise-linear mapping of the rule. In contrast, this work develops a DNN-based digital twin that emulates end-to-end Volt/VAR dynamics. Lastly, we provide stability and convergence analysis for single- and multiphase feeders alike, whereas \cite{Baosen22} applies only to single-phase feeders.
The rest of this letter is organized as follows. Section~\ref{sec:model} models the feeder and discusses non-incremental and incremental Volt/VAR control rules. Section~\ref{sec:1pDNN} formulates DNN-based digital twins for Volt/VAR dynamics of incremental rules, and their accelerated version. It also presents ORD for single-phase feeders as a deep learning task. Section~\ref{sec:3pDNN} extends the ORD process to multiphase feeders. The incremental rules are then benchmarked against non-incremental rules from~\cite{GCK22} using tests on real-world data, in Section~\ref{sec:tests}. The letter is concluded in Section~\ref{sec:conclusions}.
\section{Volt/VAR Control Rules}\label{sec:model}
\allowdisplaybreaks
Consider a radial feeder serving $N$ buses equipped with DERs, indexed by $n$. Let $(\bq^{\ell},\bq)$ collect reactive loads and generations at all nodes. Vectors $(\bp,\bv)$ collect the net active power injections and voltage magnitudes at all nodes. The impact of $\bq$ on $\bv$ can be approximately captured using the linearized grid model~\cite{GCK22}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ldf}
\bv\simeq \bX\bq+\tbv
\end{equation}
where $\tbv:=\bR\bp-\bX\bq^{\ell}+v_0\bone$ models the underlying \emph{grid conditions}, and $v_0$ is the substation voltage. Vector $\tbv$ represents the impact of non-controlled quantities $(\bp,\bq^{\ell})$ on voltages. Matrices $(\bR,\bX)$ depend on the feeder topology. For single-phase feeders, they are symmetric positive definite with positive entries~\cite{TJKT-SG21}. For multiphase feeders, they are non-symmetric and have positive and negative entries~\cite{VKZG16,GCK22}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.62]{volt_var_curve.png}
\caption{Non-incremental Volt/VAR control rule provisioned by the IEEE Std. 1547 for the interconnection of DERs~\cite{IEEE1547}.}
\label{fig:curve}
\end{figure}
Vector $\bq$ in \eqref{eq:ldf} carries the reactive injections by DERs we would like to control. Per the non-incremental rules of the IEEE Std. 1547~\cite{IEEE1547}, DER setpoints are decided based on the Volt/VAR curve of Fig.~\ref{fig:curve}, which is parameterized by $(\bar{v},\delta,\sigma,\bar{q})$. The standard further constrains these parameters within a polytopic feasible set~\cite{IEEE1547,MGCK23}. The negative slope of the linear segment of the curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:curve} can be expressed as
\[\alpha:=\frac{\bar{q}}{\sigma-\delta}.\]
The interaction of Volt/VAR rules with the feeder gives rise to nonlinear dynamics. These dynamics are stable if $\|\diag(\balpha)\bX\|_2<1$, where $\diag(\balpha)$ is a diagonal matrix carrying the rule slopes over all buses on its diagonal~\cite{FCL13}. The equilibrium setpoints for DERs cannot be expressed in closed form. However, they coincide with the minimizer of the convex optimization problem~\cite{FCL13}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:inner}
\min_{-\bbq\leq \bq\leq\bbq}\frac{1}{2}\bq^\top \bX\bq+\bq^\top(\tbv-\bbv)+\frac{1}{2}\bq^\top\diag^{-1}(\balpha)\bq+\bdelta^\top|\bq|
\end{equation}
where $|\bq|$ applies the absolute value on $\bq$ entrywise. Problem~\eqref{eq:inner} depends on rule parameters $(\bar{v},\delta,\alpha,\bar{q})$ across all buses, collected in the $4N$-long vector $\bz:=(\bbv,\bdelta,\balpha,\bbq)$. We denote by $\bq_\bz(\tbv)$ the equilibrium setpoints, and by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:veq}
\bv_\bz(\tbv)=\bX\bq_\bz(\tbv)+\tbv
\end{equation}
the related equilibrium voltages reached by Volt/VAR rules parameterized by $\bz$ under grid conditions $\tbv$.
\emph{Optimal rule design (ORD)} can be stated as the task of selecting $\bz$ to bring equilibrium voltages $\bv_\bz(\tbv)$ close to unity. To cater to diverse conditions, the utility may sample loading scenarios $\{\tbv_s\}_{s=1}^S$ for the next hour, and find $\bz$ as
\begin{align}\label{eq:ord}\tag{ORD}
\bz^*\in \arg\min_{\bz}~&~F(\bz):=\frac{1}{S}\sum_{s=1}^S\|\bv_\bz(\tbv_s)-\bone\|_2^2\\
\textrm{subject to}~&~\eqref{eq:veq}~\text{and}~\bz\in\mcZ.\nonumber
\end{align}
Once found, the customized rules $\bz^*$ are sent to DERs to operate autonomously over the next hour. Note that $\bv_\bz(\tbv_s)$ depends on $\bz$ because the equilibrium setpoints $\bq_\bz(\bv_s)$ in \eqref{eq:veq} are the minimizers of problem \eqref{eq:inner}, which is parameterized by $\bz$. When solving \eqref{eq:ord} for non-incremental rules, the feasible set $\mcZ$ consists of the polytopic constraints imposed on $\bz$ by the IEEE Std. 1547 as well as additional constraints on $\balpha$ to ensure $\|\diag(\balpha)\bX\|_2<1$; see \cite{MGCK23}. Therefore, the feasible set $\mcZ$ can be quite confined. This can lead to less desirable voltage profiles; that is, higher objective values $F(\bz^*)$.
The aforesaid issue can be addressed by replacing the non-incremental Volt/VAR rules of IEEE Std. 1547 by incremental ones as suggested in~\cite{LQD14,FZC15,7361761,VKZG16,Guido16}. Incremental rules express the \emph{change} rather than the actual value in setpoints as a function of voltage. One option for incremental rules is to implement a proximal gradient descent (PGD) algorithm solving \eqref{eq:inner} as proposed in~\cite{VKZG16}. In this case, the control rule coincides with the PGD iterations, which are implemented by DERs in a decentralized fashion. Using incremental rules, set $\mcZ$ is enlarged as now we only need to ensure
\begin{align*}
&\bz\geq \bzero\\
&0.95\cdot\bone\leq\bbv\leq 1.05\cdot\bone
\end{align*}
and that $\bbq$ are within the reactive power ratings of the DERs.
The PGD algorithm is an extension of gradient descent to handle constraints and non-differentiable costs~\cite{VKZG16}. At iteration $t$, PGD proceeds with two steps: \emph{s1)} It first computes the gradient of the first two terms of $F(\bz)$, that is $\bX\bq^t+\tbv-\bbv=\bv^t-\bbv$. Here $\bq^t$ is the latest estimate of the minimizer of \eqref{eq:inner}; \emph{s2)} PGD then updates $\bq^{t+1}$ as the minimizer of
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pgds2}
\min_{-\bbq\leq \bq\leq \bbq}~\frac{1}{2}\bq^\top\diag^{-1}(\balpha)\bq +\bdelta^\top|\bq|+\frac{1}{2\mu}\|\bq-(\bv^t-\bbv)\|_2^2
\end{equation}
for a step size $\mu>0$. The last problem involves the last two terms in the cost of \eqref{eq:inner} regularized by the Euclidean distance of $\bq$ to the gradient $(\bv^t-\bbv)$ computed in step \emph{s1)}.
Converting PGD to control rules, step \emph{s1)} is performed by the physics of the feeder when injecting $\bq^t$ and measuring the local voltage deviations. Step~\emph{s2)} is run by each DER independently as \eqref{eq:pgds2} is separable across buses. Using the subdifferential, solving \eqref{eq:pgds2} provides the update~\cite{VKZG16}
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:inc}
\begin{align}
y_n^t&=\tilde{\alpha}_n\cdot\left(q_n^t-\mu(v_n^t-\bar{v}_n)\right)\label{eq:inc:y}\\
q_n^{t+1}&=g_n\left(y_n^t\right)\label{eq:inc:g}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $g_n(y_n)$ is the \emph{proximal operator}
\begin{align}\label{eq:S}
g_n(y_n):=
\begin{cases}
+\bar{q}_n&,~ y_n>\overline{q}_n+\mu \tilde{\delta}_n\\
y_n-\mu \tilde{\delta}_n &,~\mu \tilde{\delta}_n<y_n \leq \overline{q}_
n+\mu \tilde{\delta}_n \\
0 &,~-\mu \tilde{\delta}_n \leq y_n \leq \mu \tilde{\delta}_n\\
y_n+\mu\tilde{\delta}_n &,~-\overline{q}_n-\mu \tilde{\delta}_n \leq y_n<-\mu \tilde{\delta}_n \\
-\overline{q}_n&,~ y_n<-\overline{q}_n-\mu \tilde{\delta}_n.
\end{cases}
\end{align}
and the new parameters $(\tilde{\alpha}_n,\tilde{\delta}_n)$ are defined as
\[\tilde{\alpha}_n:=\frac{1}{1+\mu/\alpha_n}\quad \text{and}\quad \tilde{\delta}_n:=\frac{\delta_n}{1+\mu/\alpha_n}.\]
The proximal operator is plotted in the top panel of Figure~\ref{fig:relus_inc}. Note that in \eqref{eq:inc}, rule parameters are transformed from representation $\bz=(\bbv,\bdelta,\balpha,\bbq)$ to representation $\tbz:=(\bbv,\tbdelta,\tbalpha,\bbq)$. This is without loss of generality as the transformation is a bijection, and so one can work exclusively with $\tbz$. The feasible set $\tilde{\mcZ}$ for $\tbz$ is similar to $\mcZ$ with the addition that $\tbalpha\leq \bone$.
As with non-incremental rules, the rules in~\eqref{eq:S} are driven by local data, but now $q_n^{t+1}$ depends on $(v_n^t,q_n^t)$, and not $v_n^t$ alone. Both types of rules solve \eqref{eq:inner}. Hence, they both converge to the same equilibrium. The advantage of incremental rules is that they are stable for all $\balpha$ as long as $\mu<2/\lambda_{\text{max}}(\bX)$; see~\cite{VKZG16}. It is worth stressing that $\bz$ does not have the same physical interpretation as in non-incremental rules (slopes, deadband, or saturation), though $\bz$ parameterizes \eqref{eq:inner} for both rules.
\emph{Accelerated incremental rules.} Although PGD rules enlarge $\mcZ$, their settling times can be long. They reach an $\varepsilon$-optimal cost of \eqref{eq:inner} within $-\frac{2\log{\varepsilon}}{\log{2}}\kappa\left(\bX\right)$ iterations. Here $\kappa(\bX):=\lambda_{\max}(\bX)/\lambda_{\min}(\bX)$ is the condition number of $\bX$. References~\cite{VKZG16,SGC15} put forth \emph{accelerated} incremental rules based on accelerated PGD (APGD). These rules need $-\frac{2\log{\varepsilon}}{\log{2}} \sqrt{\kappa\left(\bX\right)}$ iterations to attain an $\varepsilon$-optimal cost, and take the form
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:acc_inc}
\begin{align}
\tilde{y}_n^t&:=\left(1+\beta_t\right)y_n^t-\beta_t y_n^{t-1}\label{eq:acc_inc:ytilde}\\
q_n^{t+1}&:=g_n\left(\tilde{y}_n^t\right)
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $\beta_t:=\frac{t-1}{t+2}$, while $y_n^t$ and $g_n(y_n)$ are as defined in~\eqref{eq:inc:y} and \eqref{eq:S}. Updates \eqref{eq:acc_inc} remain local, but introduce additional memory as $q_n^{t+1}$ depends on $(v_n^t,q_n^t)$ and $(v_n^{t-1},q_n^{t-1})$.
\section{Deep Learning for Optimal Rule Design (ORD) in Single-Phase Feeders}\label{sec:1pDNN}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{relu_inc.png}
\caption{Proximal operator $g(y)$ expressed as a sum of four shifted rectified linear units (ReLUs).}
\label{fig:relus_inc}
\end{figure}
Solving \eqref{eq:ord} is challenging as it is a nonconvex bilevel program. Although it can be modeled as a mixed-integer nonlinear program, such an approach does not scale well with the number of DERs and/or scenarios for non-incremental rules~\cite{GCK22}. Seeking a more scalable solution, we reformulate \eqref{eq:ord} as a deep learning task. The key idea is to design a DNN that emulates Volt/VAR dynamics under the control rule of \eqref{eq:inc}. To this end, note that $g_n(y_n)$ is a piecewise-linear function with four breakpoints~\cite{VKZG16}. Interestingly, this operator can be expressed as the superposition of four rectified linear units (ReLUs) as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:relus_inc}, where ReLUs are denoted by $\rho(\cdot)$. The intercepts of the ReLUs depend linearly on $(\tilde{\delta}_n,\bar{q}_n)$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.47]{nestrov_single.png}
\caption{A DNN emulating the accelerated incremental rules of~\eqref{eq:acc_inc}. Plain incremental rules can be modeled by dropping the second layer (setting $\beta^t=0$) and ignoring output $y_n^t$.}
\label{fig:nest_single}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.46]{nestrov_rnn.png}
\caption{Recurrent neural network (RNN) implementation for accelerated incremental Volt/VAR control rules.}
\label{fig:nest_RNN}
\end{figure}
Building on this, one APGD iteration for DER $n$ can be implemented by the 4-layer DNN in Fig.~\ref{fig:nest_single}, whose weights depend affinely on $(\bar{v}_n,\tilde{\delta}_n,\tilde{\alpha}_n,\bar{q}_n)$. This DNN takes $(q_n^t,v_n^t)$ as its input, and computes $(q_n^{t+1},y_n^t)$ at its output. It is termed $\text{IC}_n$ and will be used as a building block to emulate Volt/VAR dynamics. This is accomplished by the recursive neural network (RNN) shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:nest_RNN}. Here blocks $\text{IC}_n$ are arranged vertically to model the parallel operation of DERs. Their outputs $\bq^{t+1}$ are multiplied by $\bX$, and the new voltage is computed as $\bv^{t+1}=\bX\bq^{t+1}+\tbv$. This is repeated $T$ times. Thanks to the RNN structure, there is \emph{weight sharing}, so the number of DNN weights is $4N$ rather than $4NT$.
The RNN takes a grid loading vector $\tbv_s$ as its input, the rule parameters $\tbz$ as weights, and computes the voltages $\bv^T_{\tbz}(\tbv_s)$ at time $T$ at its output. For the output $\bv^T_{\tbz}(\tbv_s)$ to approximate well equilibrium voltages, the depth $T$ can be chosen by the convergence rate of PGD as follows.
\begin{proposition}\label{pro:accdepth}
For the DNN of Fig.~\ref{fig:nest_RNN} to ensure $\|\Phi\left(\tbv;\bz\right) -\bv^*(\bz)\|_2\leq \epsilon_1$ $\forall$ $\tbv$, its depth $T$ should satisfy
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lemma:inc}
T\geq \left(\frac{\kappa-1}{2}\right)\log\left(\frac{2\|\bX\|_2\|\hbq\|_2}{\epsilon_1}\right).
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\emph{Proof:} From the control rule of~\eqref{eq:inc:g}, it follows that
\begin{align}
\|\bq^{t}-\bq^{*}\|_2&=\|\bg\left(\by^{t}\right)-\bg\left(\by^{*}\right)\|_2\nonumber\\
&\leq \|\by^{t}-\by^{*}\|_2\nonumber\\
&=\|\diag(\tilde{\balpha})(\bI-\mu\bX)\left(\bq^{t-1}-\bq^{*}\right)\|_2\nonumber\\
&\leq \|\diag(\tilde{\balpha})\|_2\cdot \|\bI-\mu\bX\|_2\cdot \|\bq^{t-1}-\bq^{*}\|_2\nonumber\\
&\leq\|\bI-\mu\bX\|_2\cdot \|\bq^{t-1}-\bq^{*}\|_2.\label{eq:pro:accdepth:bound}
\end{align}
The first inequality stems from the non-expansive property of the proximal operator $\bg$. The next equality follows from~\eqref{eq:inc:y}. The second inequality from the sub-multiplicative property of the spectral norm. The last inequality follows by the definition of spectral norm and because $\tilde{\alpha}_n\leq1$ for all $n$.
If $\|\bI-\mu\bX\|_2<1$, inequality~\eqref{eq:pro:accdepth:bound} implies that the dynamics in~\eqref{eq:inc} are a non-expansive mapping, and thus, are stable and converge to $\bq^{*}$. Condition $\|\bI-\mu\bX\|_2<1$ holds when $\mu<2/\lambda_{\max}(\bX)$. The norm $\|\bI-\mu\bX\|_2$ achieves its minimum of $\left(1-\frac{2}{\kappa+1}\right)$ when \[\mu_0:=\frac{2}{\lambda_{\max}(\bX)+\lambda_{\min}(\bX)}.\]
Plugging $\mu_0$ into~\eqref{eq:pro:accdepth:bound} and unfolding the dynamics over $t$ provides
\begin{align*}
\|\bq^t-\bq^*\|_2&\leq\left(1-\tfrac{2}{\kappa+1}\right)^t \|\bq^0-\bq^*\|_2\\
&\leq
2\left(1-\tfrac{2}{\kappa+1}\right)^t\|\hbq\|_2.
\end{align*}
For the voltage approximation error $ \|\bv^T-\bv^*\|_2 = \|\bX\left(\bq^T-\bq^*\right)\|_2$ at time $T$ to be smaller than $\epsilon_1$, we need
\begin{equation*}
\|\bv^T-\bv^*\|_2\leq 2\|\bX\|_2\cdot\|\hbq\|_2\cdot \left(1-\frac{2}{\kappa+1}\right)^T\leq \epsilon_1.
\end{equation*}
This can be achieved by selecting $T$ such that
\begin{align*}
T&\geq \frac{\log\left(\frac{2\|\bX\|_2\|\hbq\|_2}{\epsilon_1}\right)}{\log\left(1+\frac{2}{\kappa-1}\right)}\\
&\geq\left(\frac{\kappa-1}{2}\right)\log\frac{2\|\bX\|_2\|\hbq\|_2}{\epsilon_1}.
\end{align*}
where the last inequality follows from $\log(1+x)\leq x$. $\qed$
Plugging the values $\|\bX\|_2=0.463$ and $\kappa=848$ for the IEEE 37-bus feeder, $\|\hbq\|_2=0.1$, and $\epsilon_1=10^{-5}$ in \eqref{eq:lemma:inc}, yields $T\geq 2,892$ layers, which is relatively large. A key contributor to this large $T$ is the $\kappa$ term in \eqref{eq:lemma:inc}. This promulgates the adoption of accelerated rules~\eqref{eq:acc_inc}, which are known to have $\mcO(\sqrt{\kappa})$ dependence. Interestingly, during implementation, one does not need to fix $T$ to the above worst-case bounds. Leveraging dynamic computation graphs offered by Python libraries such as Pytorch, one may determine $T$ \emph{`on the fly'} depending on the convergence of $\bv^t$ between pairs of successive layers.
Since the RNN emulates Volt/VAR dynamics, it can surrogate $\bv_{\bz}(\tbv_s)$ in \eqref{eq:ord}. Then \eqref{eq:ord} can be posed as training a DNN over its weights $\tbz\in\tilde{\mcZ}$ or $\bz\in\mcZ$. Grid loading scenarios $\{\tbv_s\}_{s=1}^S$ are treated as features and equilibrium voltages $\bv_\bz(\tbv_s)$ as predictions that should be brought close to the target value of $\bone$ for scenarios $s$. The DNN can be trained using stochastic projected gradient descent (SPGD) as~\cite{GCK22}
\begin{align}\label{eq:spgd}
\tbz^{i+1}&=\left[\tbz^{i}-\frac{\lambda}{2B}{\nabla_{\tbz^i}}\left(\sum_{s\in \mcB_i} \|\Phi(\tbv_s;\tbz)-\bone\|_2^2\right)\right]_{\tilde{\mcZ}}
\end{align}
where $\lambda>0$ is the learning rate; set $\mcB_i$ is a batch of $B$ scenarios; and $[\cdot]_{\tilde{\mcZ}}$ is the projection onto $\tilde{\mcZ}$. Since $\tilde{\mcZ}$ consists of simple box constraints, projection essentially means clipping the values to the box. Lastly $\nabla_{\tbz^i}(\cdot)$ represents the gradient with respect to $\tbz$ evaluated at $\tbz=\tbz^i$, and is calculated efficiently thanks to \emph{gradient back-propagation}. Although our DNN-based ORD assumed PGD-based rule, it may be applicable to other incremental rules too.
A discussion about control rules and their DNN-based emulators is due. Recall that all three types of Volt/VAR control rules (non-incremental, incremental, and accelerated incremental) reach the same equilibrium voltages, if stable. The emulators aim at computing these equilibrium voltages. A natural question is whether the DNN emulator could implement a rule of a type different from the rule actually implemented on the feeder. This may be desirable to leverage the advantages of two types. Some caution is needed here. If the feeder implements non-incremental rules, but incremental rules converge faster to equilibrium voltages, it makes sense for the emulator to implement incremental rules. Of course, in this case, stability constraints on the non-incremental rules have to be enforced during DNN training. The reverse is not recommended: If the emulator implements non-incremental rules, its parameters $\bz$ should be constrained to be stable and that would be a restriction of the actual ORD problem. Finally, given the convergence advantage of accelerated incremental rules, they are always preferable over plain incremental rules for the DNN implementation. This showcases the utility of accelerated control rules even if they are not actually implemented on the feeder.
\section{Deep Learning for Optimal Rule Design (ORD) in Multiphase Feeders}\label{sec:3pDNN}
In multiphase feeders, matrix $\bX$ is non-symmetric and has both positive and negative entries. Therefore, the rule analysis and design of Section~\ref{sec:1pDNN} has to be revisited. For example, equilibrium setpoints cannot be found as the minimizers of an optimization problem as with \eqref{eq:inner}. Moreover, increasing $\bq$ does not mean that all voltages increase.
In multiphase feeders, the non-incremental rules of IEEE Std. 1547 remain stable as long as $\|\diag(\balpha)\bX\|_2<1$. This is the same condition as in the single-phase setup. How about the stability and equilibrium of incremental rules in multiphase feeders? Recall that for single-phase rules, incremental rules were obtained as the PGD iterations solving~\eqref{eq:inner}. Lacking an equivalent inner optimization for multiphase feeders precludes a similar approach here. Despite the incremental rules of~\eqref{eq:inc} do not correspond to PGD iterates anymore, they can still be shown to be stable for multiphase feeders.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:inc:3p:step}
Let $\bU\bLambda\bU^{\top}$ be the eigen-decomposition of matrix $\bX\bX^{\top}$. The incremental rules of~\eqref{eq:inc} are stable for multiphase feeders if their step size is selected as $\mu <\lambda_{\min}\left(\bLambda^{-1/2}\bU^{\top}\left(\bX+\bX^{\top}\right)\bU\bLambda^{-1/2}\right)$.
\end{proposition}
The claim follows readily by adopting the proof of Proposition~\ref{pro:accdepth}: If $\mu$ is selected as above, then $\|\bI-\mu\bX\|_2<1$ follows from~\cite[Prop. 6]{VKZG16}. Similar to the single-phase case, incremental rules in multiphase feeders allow us to enlarge the feasible set $\mcZ$ of rule parameters $\bz$. It is worth stressing that different from the single-phase setting, incremental and non-incremental rules do not converge to the same equilibrium on multiphase feeders.
The ORD task for multiphase feeders can also be formulated as a deep-learning task, with some modifications. Firstly, matrices $\bR$ and $\bX$ need to be altered. Secondly, the DNNs for multiphase feeders have $12N$ trainable parameters, since each layer consists of $3N$ building modules corresponding to bus/phase (node) combinations. Lastly, the step size has to be selected per Proposition~\ref{prop:inc:3p:step}. Adopting the proof of Proposition~\ref{pro:accdepth}, we next find the minimum DNN depth in multiphase feeders.
\begin{proposition}\label{pro:inc:3p}
Let the DNN of Fig.~\ref{fig:nest_RNN} implement the incremental rules of~\eqref{eq:inc} on multiphase feeders with $\mu$ selected per Proposition~\ref{prop:inc:3p:step}. The DNN depth $T$ ensuring voltage approximation error $\|\Phi\left(\tbv;\bz\right) -\bv^*(\bz)\|_2\leq \epsilon_1$ is
\begin{align*}
T\geq \frac{ \log\frac{\epsilon_1}{2\|\bX\|_2\|\hbq\|_2}}{\log\|\bI-\mu\bX\|_2}.
\end{align*}
\end{proposition}
We next numerically evaluate the proposed DNN-based ORD approach in single- and multiphase feeders, and contrast the performance of incremental control rules with that of non-incremental rules.
\section{Numerical Tests}\label{sec:tests}
We benchmark the performance of DNN-based incremental rules against non-incremental rules from~\cite{GCK22} on single- and multiphase feeders. Real-world data were sourced from the Smart* project on April 2, 2011~\cite{Smartsolar}, as explained in~\cite{GCK22}. The DNNs were implemented and trained using Pytorch.
We first compare (non)-incremental rules, both designed via DNN training for the single-phase IEEE 37-bus feeder of Figure~\ref{fig:37bus}. Homes with IDs 20--369 were averaged 10 at a time and successively added as active
loads to buses 2--26 as shown in Fig. 6. Active generation from solar panels was also added, as per the mapping in
Fig. 6. Buses $\{6, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 20, 22, 24, 25\}$
were assumed to host DERs with Volt/VAR control customized per bus.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{ieee37.png}
\caption{The IEEE 37-bus feeder converted to single-phase. Node numbering follows the format \texttt{node number \{panel ID\}}. DERs at buses $\{6,9,11,12,15,16,20,22,24,25\}$ provide reactive power control; the rest operate at unit power factor.}
\label{fig:37bus}
\end{figure}
Incremental rules were simulated in their accelerated rendition. Both sets of rules were trained over $S=80$ scenarios and $200$ epochs with a learning rate of $0.001$, using the Adam optimizer, and setting $\mu=1$ for incremental rules. To ensure repeatability, the results were repeated across several time periods between 1--6~PM, and are compiled in Table~\ref{tab:nivsi}. Incremental rules obtained marginally lower objectives than non-incremental rules across all periods, with a somewhat significant difference for the 5~PM period. This behavior is explained because incremental rules allow for a larger set $\mcZ$.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering\label{tab:nivsi}
\caption{Incremental vs. non-incremental Volt/VAR control rules on the single-phase IEEE 37-bus feeder}
\begin{adjustbox}{width=1\columnwidth}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|cc|cc|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Time} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\bq=\bzero$} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Non-incremental} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Incremental} \\ \cline{2-6}
& \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Obj. (p.u.)} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Time (s)} & Obj. (p.u.) & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Time (s)} & Obj. (p.u.) \\ \hline
$1$ pm & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$3.01\cdot10^{-3}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$37.98$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$3.68\cdot10^{-4}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$39.39$} & $3.66\cdot10^{-4}$ \\ \hline
$2$ pm & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$3.13\cdot10^{-3}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$42.93$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$4.26\cdot10^{-4}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$37.91$} & $4.25\cdot10^{-4}$ \\ \hline
$3$ pm & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$4.24\cdot10^{-3}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$45.02$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$8.59\cdot10^{-4}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$34.97$} & $8.50\cdot10^{-4}$ \\ \hline
$4$ pm & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$2.12\cdot10^{-3}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$48.30$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$1.47\cdot10^{-4}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$38.52$} & $1.48\cdot10^{-4}$ \\ \hline
$5$ pm & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$8.53\cdot10^{-4}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$47 .37$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$9.70\cdot10^{-5}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$374.01$} & $6.90\cdot10^{-5}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{adjustbox}
\end{table}
DNN-based incremental control rules were also contrasted with their non-incremental ones on the multiphase IEEE 13-bus feeder, using the testing setup from~\cite{GCK22}. Active loads were sampled $10$ at a time from homes with IDs $20$-$379$ and added to all three phases for the buses $1$-$12$. Figure~\ref{fig:ieee13} also shows the solar panel assignments shown in Fig~\ref{fig:ieee13} for solar generation. Lastly, nine DERs with inverters were added across phases and bus indices as shown in Fig~\ref{fig:ieee13}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{13bus_3phase.png}
\caption{Multiphase IEEE 13-bus distribution feeder.}
\label{fig:ieee13}
\end{figure}
The learning rates for non-incremental and incremental DNNs were set as $0.1$ and $0.001$, respectively, with the design parameters $\bz:=(\bbv,\bdelta,\bsigma,\balpha)$ initialized to feasible values $(0.95,0.01,0.3,1.5)$. Table~\ref{tab:13_nivsi} compares the performance of the two rule categories over multiple periods for $S=80$. While incremental rules took longer times to train, they were successful in lowering the cost $F(\bz)$ by more than $50\%$, thus yielding improved voltage profiles across all periods.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering\label{tab:13_nivsi}
\caption{Incremental vs. non-incremental Volt/VAR control rules on the multiphase IEEE 13-bus feeder}
\begin{adjustbox}{width=1\columnwidth}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|cc|cc|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Time} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\bq=\bzero$} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Non-incremental} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Incremental} \\ \cline{2-6}
& \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Obj. (p.u.)} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Time (s)} & Obj. (p.u.) & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Time (s)} & Obj. (p.u.) \\ \hline
$1$ pm & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$2.51\cdot10^{-3}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$64.65$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$1.15\cdot10^{-3}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$199.24$} & $4.11\cdot10^{-4}$ \\ \hline
$2$ pm & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$1.48\cdot10^{-3}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$66.60$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$6.89\cdot10^{-4}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$209.92$} & $3.03\cdot10^{-4}$ \\ \hline
$3$ pm & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$6.89\cdot10^{-4}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$74.68$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$4.94\cdot10^{-4}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$263.37$} & $2.16\cdot10^{-4}$ \\ \hline
$4$ pm & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$8.03\cdot10^{-4}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$68.32$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$5.26\cdot10^{-4}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$126.81$} & $2.47\cdot10^{-4}$ \\ \hline
$5$ pm & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$5.51\cdot10^{-4}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$62.58$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$4.11\cdot10^{-4}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$129.71$} & $1.95\cdot10^{-4}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{adjustbox}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec:conclusions}
We have devised a DNN approach to optimally design incremental Volt/VAR control rules for single- and multi-phase feeders. The key idea is to construct a DNN that emulates end-to-end the associated Volt/VAR dynamics. The DNN takes grid conditions as the input, the rule parameters as weights, and outputs the associated equilibrium voltages. Leveraging the convergence rates of the related optimization algorithms, we have provided bounds on the minimum depth of the DNN emulator to approximate equilibrium voltages within the desired accuracy. We have also established the stability of incremental control rules for multiphase feeders. Numerical tests have demonstrated that the designed control rules attain improved voltage profiles compared to their non-incremental alternatives. The improvement was found to be starker for mutiphase feeders, wherein (non)-incremental rules do not reach the same equilibrium. Our findings motivate further research to possibly characterize the equilibria of control rules for multiphase feeders; the convergence of accelerated incremental rules for multiphase feeders; and to deal with chance-constrained formulations or ORD problems targeting phase imbalances.
\balance
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
High-mass stars have significant impact on their surrounding environment through various feedback mechanisms, e.g., stellar winds, ultraviolet radiation, and supernovae.
However, our understanding of the formation processes of high mass stars remains inadequate, hampered by the observational difficulties of their birth in distant, very deeply embedded dense gas.
The Class II 6.7 GHz methanol maser is a well-known tracer of high-mass star-forming regions (HMSFRs) (e.g, Menten\ 1991; Minier et al.\ 2003; Pandian et al.\ 2007; Breen et al.\ 2013).
Emission arises in most cases from regions of an interface between the protostellar disk and envelope at a typical distance of $\sim$1000 au from a protostar (Bartkiewicz et al.\ 2016).
The 6.7 GHz maser is sensitive to the local physical conditions around high-mass protostars (e.g., Cragg, Sobolev, and Godfrey\ 2005; Sugiyama et al.\ 2008; Moscadelli et al.\ 2017; Burns et al.\ 2020), and thus is an excellent observational probe to study the high-mass star formation process.
Goedhart et al.\ (2003) first discovered a periodic flux variation of 243.3 days in the 6.7 GHz methanol masers associated with HMSFR G9.62$+$0.20E.
Another 27 periodic methanol maser sources have been reported (Goedhart et al.\ 2004, 2009, 2014; Szymczak et al.\ 2011, 2014, 2015, 2016; Araya et al.\ 2010; Fujisawa et al.\ 2014; Maswanganye et al.\ 2015, 2016; Sugiyama et al.\ 2015, 2017; Proven-Adzri et al.\ 2019; Olech et al.\ 2019, 2022), and their periods range from 23.9 to 668 days.
Systematic monitoring observations toward large sample have contributed significantly to the discovery of maser periodicity (e.g., Goedhard et al.\ 2004; Sugiyama et al.\ 2018; Szymczak et el.\ 2018; Olech et al.\ 2022).
The variation pattern in the time series of the 6.7 GHz methanol maser are classified into two types: continuous (e.g., G188.95$+$0.89 reported by Goedhard et al.\ 2014) and intermittent (e.g., IRAS 22198$+$6336$=$G107.298$+$0.5639 reported by Fujisawa et al.\ 2014).
Such differences in variation patterns are thought to be due to differences in the origin of 6.7 GHz maser periodicity.
The mechanism of these maser periodicity remains an open question, and several explanations have been proposed;
colliding wind binary (CWB) system (van der Walt\ 2011; van der Walt et al.\ 2016), protostellar pulsation (Inayoshi et al.\ 2013), spiral shock (Parfenov \& Sobolev\ 2014), periodic accretion in a circumbinary system (Araya et al.\ 2010), or a very young low-mass companion blocking the ultraviolet radiation from the high-mass star in an eclipsing binary (Maswanganye et al.\ 2015).
These models can explain the maser fluctuations of some sources well, however, there is no clear consensus.
In this paper, we present the new discovery of periodicity in 6.7 GHz methanol maser source in HMSFR G5.900$-$0.430, and discuss the mechanism of its flux variability.
\section{Observation}
Monitoring observations of the 6.7 GHz methanol maser were made with the Hitachi 32m telescope of Ibaraki station, a branch of the Mizusawa VLBI Observatory of the National Astronomical Observatories Japan (NAOJ), operated jointly by Ibaraki University and NAOJ (Yonekura et al. 2016).
This is as a part of the Ibaraki 6.7 GHz Methanol Maser Monitor\ (iMet) program\footnote{http://vlbi.sci.ibaraki.ac.jp/iMet/}.
Monitoring observations of G5.900$-$0.430 began on 2013 Jan.\ 03 (modified julian day (MJD) $=$ 56295).
The cadence of observations is once par every $\sim$10 days from the start of the monitoring observations to 2015 Aug.\ 08 (MJD $=$ 57242), and once par every $\sim$5 days from 2015 Sep.\ 19 (MJD $=$ 57284) to the present.
Observations after 2014 May 08 (MJD = 56785) were made at about the same azimuth ($\sim$187$\degree$) and elevation angle ($\sim$27$\degree$) to minimise intensity variations due to systematic telescope pointing errors.
The half-power beam width of the telescope is $\sim$ \timeform{4.6'} with the pointing accuracy better than $\sim$ \timeform{30"}.
The coordinates of G5.900$-$0.430 adopted in observations are ${\rm R.A.} =$ \timeform{18h00m 40s.86}, Dec. $=$ \timeform{-24D04'20.8"} (J2000.0)\ (Caswell\ 2009; Caswell et al.\ 2010).
Observations are made by using a position-switching method. The OFF position is set to $\Delta {\rm R.A.} = +\ \timeform{60'}$ from the target source. The integration time per observation is 5 minutes for both the ON and OFF positions.
A single left circular polarization (LCP) signal was sampled at 64 Mbps (16 mega-samples per second with 4 bit sampling) by using a K5/VSSP32 sampler.
The recorded bandwidth is 8 MHz (RF:6664-6672 MHz) and they are divided into 8192 channels.
After averaging over 3 channels, the 1-sigma root-mean-squares noise level is approximately 0.3 Jy and the velocity resolution is 0.13 km s$^{-1}$.
The antenna temperature was measured by the chopper-wheel method and the system noise temperature toward the zenith after the correction for the atmosphere opacity (${T}^{*}_{\rm sys}$) is typically 25--35 K.
In our monitoring program, we observe $\sim$60 methanol maser sources per day, of which the variation of the flux density of sources that do not show the intrinsic variation are less than $\sim$20\%.
\section{Result}
The averaged spectrum and dynamic spectrum compiling all 437 scans of G5.900-0.430 is presented in Figures \ref{sp} and \ref{dy}.
In this source, seven velocity features are distributed from $V_{\rm LSR}$ $\sim$0 km s$^{-1}$ to $\sim$14
km s$^{-1}$.
According to Caswell et al.\ (2010), the 6.7 km s$^{-1}$ feature (C and D in Figure \ref{sp}) is associated with HMSFR G5.885$-$0.393, approximately 2.3 arcmin apart from G5.900$-$0.430.
Therefore we exclude these features from the discussion below.
The results of periodicity analysis are summarized in Figures \ref{sr}, \ref{fit} and Table \ref{tabl}.
The periodicity was estimated eby mploying the Lomb-Scargle (LS) periodogram method (Lomb\ 1976 and Scargle\ 1982) and the asymmetric power function given by the equation adopted from Szymczak et al. (2011):
\begin{equation}
S(t)=C\times {\rm exp}^{s(t)} +D ,
\end{equation}
where {\it C} and {\it D} are constants and
\begin{equation}
s(t)=\frac{-B\ {\rm cos}(2\pi\frac{t}{P}+\phi)}{1-f\ {\rm sin}(2\pi\frac{t}{P} +\phi)}+A\ .
\end{equation}
Here {\it A} and {\it B} are constants,
{\it P} is the period, $\phi$ is the phase at $t=0$, and $f$ is the asymmetric parameter defined as the rise time from the minimum to the maximum flux (Szymczak et al.\ 2011).
When $f = 0$, the power function is symmetric with respect to the peak.
The error of periods obtained by the LS method are estimated as the half width of half maximum (HWHM) of each peak in the periodgram.
A periodic and intermittent profile is found at 0.66 km s$^{-1}$ feature (A in Figure \ref{sp}).
Periods of 130.6$\ \pm\ $2.8 and 65.2$\ \pm\ $0.7 days were determined from the LS periodicity analysis. Note the latter appears to be a harmonic of the former, i.e. $P=$130.6/n where n = 2.
In fact in figure \ref{066}, almost no flares can be detected in the period of 65.3 days (dashed line), which is half of 130.6 days (solid line).
Thus the 130.6 days is the most plausible period for 0.66 km s$^{-1}$ feature.
An asymmetric power function fitting determines a value of $P_{\rm fit}=$130.5 $\ \pm\ $ 0.1 days and $f=$0.73.
The periods obtained by the two methods are within the errors measured.
The value of $f$ suggests that the 0.66 km s$^{-1}$ feature experiences an asymmetrical temporal flux density variation; a rapid onset followed by a slower decline.
The HWHM of rising and decaying time obtained directly from fitting results are 8.16 and 13.88 days, respectively.
As shown in Figure \ref{066}, during our monitoring observation, there were 3 cases where no flares were detected at the expected flare date.
In the first two of these three cases, observations were not made within 5 days before and after the expected flare date due to maintenance or other reasons.
In the third case, we detected emissions with flux density of 2.5$\sigma$ and 2.6 $\sigma$ at 2 days before and 3 days after the expected flare date (MJD $=$ 59607), respectively, but no emissions above 3$\sigma$.
The 4.35 km s$^{-1}$ feature (B in Figure \ref{sp}) is generally below detection limits after MJD $=$ 57363, and no periodicity is detected for this feature.
The 9.77 km s$^{-1}$ and 10.84 km s$^{-1}$ features (E and F in Figure \ref{sp}) experience very long and continuous flux variation.
The estimated period from LS method and power function fitting for 9.77 km s$^{-1}$ feature are 1264.9$\ \pm\ $265.5 days and 1260.3 $\ \pm\ $8.6 days, respectively, and those for 10.84 km s$^{-1}$ feature are 1264.9$\ \pm\ $324.3 days and 1260.7$\ \pm\ $9.6 days, respectively.
The periods of each velocity features obtained by the two methods are consistent within the estimated errors.
The results of fitting show that the flux variation of these features are symmetric with $f=$ -0.20 and -0.11 for 9.77 and 10.84 km s$^{-1}$, respectively.
MacLeod et al.\ (2022) detected periodic flux variation of maser features with two different periods in HMSFR G9.62$+$0.20E.
According to MacLeod et al.\ (2022),
G9.62$+$0.20E has secondary period of 52 days for 8.8 km s$^{-1}$ feature, along with the previously reported period of 243 days for another features.
G5.900$-$0.430 may be the second example which has a secondary period.
The temporal profiles of the 8.8 km s$^{-1}$ feature and the others are quite different, intermittent and continuous, respectively.
This is similar to the present results for G5.900$-$0.430.
On the other hand, the relationship in the flux variation profiles and the periods shows a completely opposite trend.
In G5.900$-$0.430, the feature with a long period shows a continuous profile and the feature with a short period shows an intermittent profile, whereas in G9.62$+$0.20E has opposite tendency.
\begin{figure}[h!tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm, bb= 0 0 576 432]{5.900-04_spec.png}
\caption{Averaged spectrum of the 6.7 GHz methanol maser associated with G5.900$-$0.430.
All 437 scans of 5 minutes duration are averaged and 3$\sigma$ detection limit is 0.042 Jy.
Labels A, B, C, D, E and F indicate spectral components at $V_{\rm LSR} =$ 0.66, 4.35, 6.76, 7.29, 9.77, and 10.84 km s$^{-1}$
, respectively.}
\label{sp}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[h!tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=18cm, bb=0 0 720 405]{5.900-04_dynamic_spectra.pdf}
\caption{Dynamic spectrum compiling all 437 scans of the 6.7 GHz methanol masers associated with G5.900-0.430.
Labels on the upper axis indicate beginning of the each year.
White blanks indicate no observations were made.}
\label{dy}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[h!tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=18cm, bb=0 0 1296 720]{5.900-04_ls.pdf}
\caption{Time series and results of LS analysis for all velocity components in G5.900$-$0.340.
Left column show the time series of flux density of each velocity feature.
We excluded the data points whose flux densities are less than 3 $\sigma$.
The second and third column show the Lomb-Scargle power spectra plots.
The dotted lines in second and third columns represent the 0.01\% false alarm probability (probability of judging noise as a real signal) levels and if the peak value of the power spectrum is higher than the dotted line, the obtained period is reliable.}
\label{sr}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[h!tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=18cm, bb=0 0 1296 288]{5.900-04_fitting.pdf}
\caption{Results of power function fitting.
Gray points represent time series of each periodic component excluding the data points whose flux densities are less than 3 $\sigma$ and black lines show the best fitting of periodic power function.
It should be noted that, the entire data were used for the fitting, but for 0.66 km s$^{-1}$ feature (left panel), we show here only the data from MJD = 59290 to MJD = 59530.}
\label{fit}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[h!tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=18cm, bb=0 0 720 324]{0.66_2.pdf}
\caption{Time series of 0.66 km s$^{-1}$ feature.
The solid lines show every 130.6 days from MJD $=$ 56342.3 which is the first peak of best-fit power function
and the dotted lines is in the middle of the solid lines.
Labels on the upper axis indicate
beginning of the each year.
The thick solid lines around MJD=56734, 56865, and 59607 indicate that the flux density over 3 sigma were not detected during the 8 days before and after the expected flare date.}
\label{066}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table}[h!tb]
{\scriptsize
\centering
\caption{Parameters of the periodicity}
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
$V_{\rm LSR}$&$ P_{\rm LS}$\footnotemark[$*$] &$P_{\rm fit}$\footnotemark[$\dag$]& {\it f}\footnotemark[$\ddag$]&$r^2$\footnotemark[$\S$] \\
(km s$^{-1}$)&(days)&(days)&&\\\hline
0.66 & 130.6\ (2.8) & 130.5\ (0.1) & 0.73\ (0.07) & 0.44\\
9.77 & 1264.9\ (265.5)& 1260.3\ (8.6) & -0.20\ (0.07) &0.67\\
10.84 & 1264.9 (324.3)& 1260.7\ (9.6) & -0.11\ (0.07) &0.68
\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tabl}
\begin{tabnote}
\footnotemark[$*$]Period estimated by LS method.
\footnotemark[$\dag$]Period estimated by power function fitting.
\footnotemark[$\ddag$]Asymmetric parameter.
\footnotemark[$\S$]Coefficient of determination.
\end{tabnote}
}
\end{table}
\section{Discussion}
\subsection{Spacial distribution of maser features}
The 6.7 GHz methanol maser emission of G5.900$-$0.430 was imaged by Hu et al.\ (2016) with the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA).
The 0.66 km s$^{-1}$ feature was not detected and 4 km s$^{-1}$ to 10 km s$^{-1}$ features were imaged.
The observations by Hu et al.\ (2016) were made between MJD$=$55985 and 56033.
Assuming that the 0.66 km s$^{-1}$ feature has a period of 130 days before we started the monitoring,
the expected flare dates closest to dates of observations by Hu et al.\ (2016) are MJD$=$55952 and 56082, both of which are outside the observations of Hu et al.\ (2016).
Thus the observations of Hu et al.\ (2016) must have conducted in the quiet state of the 0.66 km s$^{-1}$ feature.
According to Hu et al.\ (2016), the 9-11 km s$^{-1}$ features have a special distribution of $\sim$ 600 mas, which correspond to $\sim$1700 au when the distance of 2.9 kpc is adopted
(see subsection \ref{pe}).
This is approximately comparable in size to typical maser distribution in high-mass protostar system.
Therefore, the high velocity features with a long period are thought to be excited by the central protostar.
The 4.35 km s$^{-1}$ feature is only just above our detection limits in our most recent single-dish observation.
These masers are superimposed on a bright, 7.4 Jy, H\emissiontype{II} region, obtained by two 1024 MHz sub-bands from 4.9840 to 6.0080 GHz and from 6.6245 to 7.6485 GHz, suggesting they are associated (Hu et al.\ 2016).
\subsection{Periodicity}\label{pe}
According to Olech et al.\ (2019 and 2022), among the known periodic maser sources, the longest period is 668 days in G196.45$-$1.68 (Goedhart et al.\ 2004) and only two sources have periods longer than 500 days.
Our result increases the upper end of the range of known periods by a factor of two.
On the other hand, the 0.66 km s$^{-1}$ feature has a much shorter period of 130.6 days and the flaring is intermittent perhaps owing to the relative weakness of the feature.
The difference in the behavior of the variability of the low-velocity feature (0.66 km s$^{-1}$) and high-velocity features (9.77 and 10.84 km s$^{-1}$) suggests that the variability of the flux of these components may be the result of different mechanisms.
We discuss the mechanisms of maser variability below.
The CWB model to cause periodic variations in HMSFRs was first proposed by var der Walt, Goedhart, and Gaylard\ (2009) and it was modeled more in detail by van der Walt\ (2011).
In this model, periodic wind interaction in a binary system generates changes in the background free-free emission which is amplified by the masers.
It requires a varying H\emissiontype{II} region, the free-free radiation acts as the seed photons.
According to van der Walt et\ (2011), van der Walt et al.\ (2016) and Olech et al.\ (2022),
the maser flare temporal profile may be explained by the CWB model where it is typified by a short onset and long decay.
This is the best explanation for the flare characteristics of the 0.66 km s$^{-1}$ feature in G5.900-0.430.
It is proposed that resulting variations of the associated background H\emissiontype{II} region cause the flaring in the 0.66 km s$^{-1}$ feature.
However, this model is unsuitable for the high-velocity features, which show continuous sinusoidal variation.
Inayoshi et al.\ (2013) presented that the high-mass protostars become pulsationally unstable under rapid mass accretion with rates of $\dot{M_{*}}\gtrsim 10^{-3}\ M_{\odot}\ {\rm yr}^{-1}$.
The protostar's luminosity varies periodically and as the temperature of the surrounding dust rises and falls to a temperature suitable for maser radiation, resulting in that the maser fluxes increase and decrease.
In this model, the flux variation of the maser is expected to be continuous, thus the pulsation model is the best describe the variation of the high-velocity features.
Inayoshi et al. (2013) also derived the period-luminosity relation \begin{equation}
{\rm log}\frac{L}{\ L_{\odot}} = 4.62 + 0.98\ {\rm log}\frac{P}{100 \ {\rm days}},
\end{equation}
where {\it L} is luminosity of the protostar and {\it P} is period expected from the maser.
For a period of 1260 days, the luminosity of G5.900$-$0.430 should be $\sim4.9\times$10$^{5}\ L_{\odot}$.
On the other hand, Urquhart et al.\ (2018) estimated a luminosity of $\sim$6.3$\times$10$^{4}\ L_{\odot}$ for this source adopting the parallax distance of 2.9 kpc (Sato et al.\ 2014) and using the spectral energy distribution (SED) obtained from near-infrared to 870 $\mu$m flux by the APEX Telescope Large Area Survey of the Galaxy (ATLASGAL) survey.
It should be noted that the distance of 2.9 kpc is measured for HMSFR G5.88$-$0.39 which is different source apart from G5.900$-$0.340 by $\sim$2.3 arcmin and these are likely to be part of the same molecular cloud complex (Caswell et al.\ 1995, 2010).
In addition, Green et al.\ (2017) derived the distance of these two sources as 2.9 kpc, using Reid et al.\ (2016), which estimated the shapes of the spiral arm by the Bayesian approach.
Thus here we also adopt the same distance of 2.9 kpc for G5.900$-$0.340.
According to Urquhart et al.\ (2018), the mean value of measurement error of luminosity is 42\%.
In addition, the uncertainty due to the assumption of $\beta$ used in SED fitting is effective by a factor of few.
Considering these two errors, the total uncertainty of luminosity is $\sim$100\%.
On the other hand, an uncertainty of the P--L relation arises from possible variations of protostellar evolution tracks (Inayoshi et al.\ 2013).
According to Inayoshi et al.\ (2013), the P--L relation shown in equation (1) Inayoshi et al.\ (2013) derived from protostellar evolution with spherical accretion model given by Hosokawa and Omukai\ (2009), while accretion via a geometrically thin disk model given by Hosokawa, Yorke, and Omukai\ (2010) give the period of 10 times longer than period in equation (1) in Inayoshi et al.\ (2013).
Therefore, we cannot completely rule out that the periodic variation of high velocity features is derived from protostellar pulsation.
Thus the protostellar pulsation can be driving the flux variations of the 9.77 and 10.84 km s$^{-1}$ features.
If the pulsationally unstable model is applied for this source,
the protostellar mass and mass accretion rate estimated from the period of $\sim$ 1260 days using the equations (2) and (4) in Inayoshi et al (2013) are $M_{*}=37\ M_{\odot}$ and $\dot{M_{*}}=2\times$10$^{-2}\ M_{\odot}\ {\rm yr}^{-1}$, respectively.
Rotating spiral shock model in a binary system is proposed by Parfenov and Sobolev (2014).
The dust temperature variations are caused by rotation of hot and dense material in the spiral shock wave in the circumbinary disk central gap.
This model does not require either radio or infrared emission variability,
but needs an edge-on protostellar disk which masers are associated.
According to van der Walt et al.\ (2016), the flux variation pattern in spiral shock model has to show a tail in decaying phase, resulting in non-quiescent phase and difficulty to present an intermittent profile of each flare.
Morgan et al.\ (2021) suggests that the source geometry and orientation are also important factors influencing observed flare profiles.
Therefore, it is important to clarify the spatial distribution of maser features and their flux variation pattern.
Unfortunately, the spatial distribution of this source especially for $V_{\rm LSR} < \rm{4\ km\ s}^{-1}$ is not observationally revealed and we cannot examine the validity of this model.
Therefore, we cannot judge whether the spiral shock model is appropriate for the flux variation of the 0.66 km s$^{-1}$ feature or not.
High-resolution Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) observations during the active phase of the 0.66 km s$^{-1}$ feature are required to better understand the periodic variation of this source.
In general, however, pulsation of the central star spreads spherically without directionality, therefore in the pulsation model, all features will vary with the same period.
On the other hand, for the CWB and spiral shock models, the presence or absence of periodic flux variation, and the phase of periodic flux variation may vary from feature to feature, depending on their geometric arrangement.
Thus the 0.66 km s$^{-1}$ and high-velocity features may be associated with different sources.
VLBI observations are required to obtain the spatial distribution of the 0.66 km s$^{-1}$ and high velocity features to resolve this open question.
\section{Summary}
We present the new periodic 6.7 GHz methanol maser source G5.900$-$0.430, detected from long-term monitoring observations conducted by Ibaraki University.
Periodic flux variabilities was detected at three velocity features among four in this source.
The obtained periods are 130.6 days for low-velocity feature and $\sim$1260 days for two high velocity features.
The period of 1260 days is the longest ever found.
From the intermittent and asymmetric variability profile, the low-velocity feature is likely to be explained by the CWB model or spiral shock model, while the continuous and symmetric variation of the high-velocity features are likely to be caused by the protostellar pulsation.
Consistency with the expected period-luminosity relation also supports the pulsation as the cause of the periodic variation of the high-velocity components.
Simultaneous VLBI observations of the high-velocity and low-velocity components during the active phase of 0.66 km s$^{-1}$ feature will lead to a better understanding of the nature of this source.
\begin{ack}
The authors are grateful to all the staff and students at Ibaraki University who have supported observations of the Ibaraki 6.7 GHz Methanol Maser Monitor (iMet) program.
This work is partially supported by the Inter-university collaborative project ``Japanese VLBI Network (JVN)'' of NAOJ and JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP24340034, JP21H01120, and JP21H00032 (YY).
\end{ack}
|
\section{Introduction}
Consider the following degenerate parabolic equation \cite{bessemoulin2012finite}
\begin{align}\label{1.a}
\begin{cases}
u_t=\nabla\cdot(f(u)\nabla(\phi(\pmb{x})+H'(u))), &{\rm{ in }}\ \Omega\times(0,T],\\
u(\pmb{x},0)=u_0(\pmb{x}), &\rm{ in }\ \Omega
\end{cases}
\end{align}
with zero-flux boundary condition
\begin{align}\label{1.abound}
\nabla(\phi(\pmb{x})+H'(u))\cdot \pmb{\nu}=0,\quad {\rm{ on }}\ \partial\Omega\times(0,T],
\end{align}
where $\Omega$ is an open bounded domain in $\mathbb{R}^d, d=1,2$, with unit outward normal vector $\pmb{\nu}$ at the boundary $\partial\Omega$, $u(\pmb{x}, t)\geqslant 0$ is a nonnegative density with time derivative denoted as $u_t$, $\phi(\pmb{x})$ is a given potential function for $\pmb{x}\in\mathbb{R}^d$, $f, H$ are given functions such that
\begin{align}\label{1.fh}
f: \mathbb{R}^+ \xrightarrow {} \mathbb{R}^+,\quad H: \mathbb{R}^+ \xrightarrow {} \mathbb{R},\quad f(u)H''(u)\geqslant 0,
\end{align}
where $\mathbb{R}^+$ is the nonnegative real space. Here $f(u)H''(u)$ can vanish for certain values of $u$, resulting in degenerate cases. The entropy corresponding to (\ref{1.a}) is defined by
\begin{align}\label{1.b}
E(u)=\int_\Omega (u\phi(\pmb{x})+H(u))d\Omega.
\end{align}
Multiplying (\ref{1.a}) with $\phi(\pmb{x})+H'(u)$ and integrating over $\Omega$, with the zero-flux boundary condition (\ref{1.abound}), together with (\ref{1.b}), we obtain that the time derivative of the entropy satisfies
\begin{align}\label{1.c}
\frac d{dt}E(u)=-\int_\Omega f(u)|\nabla(\phi(\pmb{x})+H'(u))|^2d\Omega\leqslant 0.
\end{align}
System (\ref{1.a}) can represent different physical problems, such as the porous media equation \cite{vazquez2007porous, zhang2009numerical}, the nonlinear nonlocal equation with a double-well potential \cite{carrillo2015finite}, the nonlinear Fokker-Plank model for fermion and boson gases \cite{abdallah2011minimization, carrillo2009fermi, toscani2012finite}.
Recently, many numerical discretizations have been proposed for (\ref{1.a}); e.g. mixed finite element methods \cite{burger2009mixed}, finite volume methods \cite{bessemoulin2012finite, carrillo2015finite}, DG methods \cite{liu2016entropy, liu2014maximum, liu2015entropy} and LDG methods \cite{zhang2009numerical}. Regarding positivity preserving discretizations, Liu and Yu developed in \cite{liu2014maximum, liu2015entropy}, respectively, for the linear Fokker-Plank equation a maximum preserving DG scheme and an entropy satisfying DG scheme, but these discretizations can not be directly applied to the general case given by (\ref{1.a}). Liu and Wang subsequently developed in \cite{liu2016entropy} an explicit Runge-Kutta (RK) time-discrete method for (\ref{1.a}) in one dimension together with a positivity preserving high order accurate DG scheme under some Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy (CFL) constraints. For the porous media equation, an LDG discretization coupled with an explicit RK method was considered in \cite{zhang2009numerical}, which is similar to the DG method in \cite{liu2016entropy}. Still, it uses a special numerical flux to ensure the non-negativity of the numerical solution. Cheng and Shen in \cite{cheng2022} propose a Lagrange multiplier approach to construct positivity preserving schemes for a class of parabolic equations, which is different from (\ref{1.a}), but contains the porous media equation.
For the time-step $\tau$ and mesh size $h$, the condition $\tau=O(h^2)$ is needed for stability in \cite{liu2016entropy} and \cite{zhang2009numerical}. Therefore, these explicit time discretizations suffer from severe time step restrictions, but there are currently no feasible positivity preserving time-implicit LDG discretizations for (\ref{1.a}). In this paper, we present higher order accurate Diagonally Implicit Runge-Kutta (DIRK) LDG discretizations, which ensure positivity and mass conservation of the numerical solution without the severe time step restrictions of explicit methods.
The LDG method proposed by Cockburn and Shu in \cite{cockburn1998local} has many advantages, including high parallelizability, high order accuracy, a simple choice of trial and test spaces and easy handling of complicated geometries. We refer to \cite{cockburn2001superconvergence, guo2018high, tian2016h, zhou2018stability} for examples of applications of the LDG method.
For many physical problems, it is crucial that the numerical discretization preserves the positivity properties of the partial differential equations (PDEs). Not only is this necessary to obtain physically meaningful solutions, but also negative values may result in ill-posedness of the problem and divergence of the numerical discretization. Positivity preserving DG methods have been extensively studied by many mathematicians. However, most positivity preserving DG methods are combined with explicit time-discretizations \cite{liu2016entropy, yang2013discontinuous, zhang2010maximum, zhang2010positivity}, for which numerical stability frequently imposes severe time step restrictions. These severe time-step constraints make explicit methods impractical for parabolic PDEs, such as (\ref{1.a}).
Recently, Qin and Shu extended in \cite{qin2018implicit} the general framework for establishing positivity-preserving schemes, proposed in \cite{zhang2010maximum, zhang2010positivity}, from explicit to implicit time discretizations. They developed for one-dimensional conservation laws a positivity preserving DG method with high-order spatial accuracy combined with the first-order backward Euler implicit temporal discretization. This approach requires, however, a detailed analysis of the numerical discretization to ensure positivity and it is not straightforward to extend this approach to higher order accurate time-implicit methods. Huang and Shen in \cite{huang2021} constructed higher order linear bound preserving implicit discretizations for the Keller-Segel and Poisson-Nernst-Planck equations. Van der Vegt, Xia and Xu proposed in \cite{van2019positivity} the KKT limiter concept to construct positivity preserving time-implicit discretizations. The KKT limiter in \cite{van2019positivity} is obtained by coupling the inequality and equality constraints imposed by the physical problem with higher order accurate DIRK-DG discretizations using Lagrange multipliers. The resulting semi-smooth nonlinear equations are solved by an efficient active set semi-smooth Newton method.
In this paper, we consider a general class of nonlinear degenerate parabolic equations given by (\ref{1.a}) and aim at developing higher order accurate entropy dissipative and positivity preserving time-implicit LDG discretizations. For the spatial discretization, we use an LDG method with simple alternating numerical fluxes, which results in entropy dissipation of the semi-discrete LDG discretization. For the temporal discretization, we consider DIRK methods, which significantly enlarge the time step for stability. The unconditional entropy dissipation of the LDG discretization combined with an implicit Euler time integration method is proved theoretically. We construct positivity preserving discretizations using the KKT limiter by imposing the positivity constraint on the numerical discretization using Lagrange multipliers. The unique solvability of the resulting positivity preserving KKT system is proved. We will also prove the unconditional entropy dissipation of the positivity preserving LDG discretization when it is combined with the backward Euler time integration method. Numerical results demonstrate the accuracy and entropy dissipation of the higher order accurate positivity preserving DIRK-LDG discretizations.
This paper is organized as follows.
In Section \ref{semi}, we present the semi-discrete LDG discretization with simple alternating numerical fluxes for the nonlinear degenerate parabolic equation stated in (\ref{1.a}) and prove that the numerical approximation is entropy dissipative. Higher order accurate DIRK-LDG discretizations, which enlarge the stable time step to a great extent, are discussed in Section \ref{fully}. The unconditional entropy dissipation of the implicit Euler LDG discretizations is proved in Section \ref{Backward Euler}. In order to ensure positivity of the numerical solution and mass conservation of the positivity limited numerical discretizations, we introduce in Section \ref{KKT} the KKT system. The higher order DIRK-LDG discretizations with positivity and mass conservation constraints are formulated in Section \ref{KKT numerical} as a KKT mixed complementarity problem. The unique solvability and unconditional entropy dissipation of the resulting algebraic system are proved in Section \ref{well-posedness and stability for KKT system1}. In Section \ref{Numerical}, numerical results are provided to demonstrate the higher order accuracy, positivity and entropy dissipation of the positivity preserving KKT-DIRK-LDG discretizations. Concluding remarks are given in Section \ref{sec:conclusions}.
\section{Semi-discrete LDG schemes}\label{semi}
\subsection{Definitions, Notations}
Let $\mathcal{T}_{h}$ be a shape-regular tessellation of $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^d$, $d=1,2$, with line or convex quadrilateral elements $K$. Given the reference element $\widehat{K}=[-1,1]^{d}$. Let ${\mathcal{Q}_{k}(\widehat{K})}$ denote the space composed of the tensor product of Legendre polynomials $\mathcal{P}_{k}(\widehat{K})$ on $[-1,1]$ of degree at most $\displaystyle k\geqslant 0$. The space ${\mathcal{Q}_{k}(K)}$ is obtained by using an isoparametric transformation from element $K$ to the reference element $\widehat{K}$. The finite element spaces $V_{h}^k$ and $\pmb{W}_{h}^k$ are defined by
\begin{align*}
&{V_{h}^k}=\{v\in L^2(\Omega): \ v|_K \in {\mathcal{Q}_{k}(K)}, \ \forall K\in \mathcal{T}_{h}\},\\
&\pmb{W}_{h}^k=\{\pmb{w}\in [L^2(\Omega)]^d: \ \pmb{w}|_K \in [{\mathcal{Q}_{k}(K)}]^{d}, \ \forall K\in \mathcal{T}_{h}\},
\end{align*}
and are allowed to have discontinuities across element interfaces. Let $e$ be an interior edge connected to the ``left" and ``right'' elements denoted, respectively, by $K_L$ and $K_R$. If $u$ is a function on $K_L$ and $K_R$, we set $u^L:=\left(u|_{K_L}\right)|_e$ and $u^R:=(u|_{K_R})|_e$ for the left and right trace of $u$ at $e$.
Note that $L^{1}(\Omega)$, $L^{2}(\Omega)$ and $L^{\infty}(\Omega)$ are standard Sobolev spaces, $\|u\|_{L^{2}(\Omega)}$ is the $L^{2}(\Omega)$-norm and $(\cdot, \cdot)_\Omega$ is the $L^{2}(\Omega)$ inner product.
For simplicity, we denote the inner product as $(u, v):=(u, v)_{\Omega}$.
\subsection{LDG discretization in space}
For the LDG discretization of (\ref{1.a}), we first rewrite this equation as a first order system
\begin{align*}
u_t=&\nabla\cdot\pmb{q},\nonumber \\
\pmb{q}=&f(u)\pmb{s},\nonumber\\
\pmb{s}=&\nabla p,\nonumber\\
\displaystyle p=&\phi(\pmb{x})+H'(u).
\end{align*}
Then the LDG discretization can be readily obtained by multiplying the above equations with arbitrary test functions, integrating by parts over each element $K\in \mathcal{T}_{h}$, and finally a summation of element and face contributions. The LDG discretization can be stated as: find $u_{h}, p_{h}\in V_h^k$, $\pmb{q}_h,\pmb{s}_h\in \pmb{W}_h^k$, such that for all $\rho, \varphi \in V_h^k$ and $\pmb{\theta}, \pmb{\eta} \in \pmb{W}_h^k$, we have
\begin{subequations}\label{2.bb}
\begin{alignat}{2}\label{2.b}
(u_{ht}, \rho)+L_h^1(\pmb{q}_h; \rho)=0, \\
\label{2.b1}
(\pmb{q}_h, \pmb{\theta})+L_h^2(u_h, \pmb{s}_h; \pmb{\theta})=0,\\
\label{2.b2}
(\pmb{s}_h, \pmb{\eta})+L_h^3(p_h; \pmb{\eta})=0,\\
\label{2.b3}
(p_h, \varphi)+L_h^4(u_h; \varphi)=0,
\end{alignat}
\end{subequations}
where
\begin{subequations}\label{L1}
\begin{alignat}{2}\label{L11}
L_h^1(\pmb{q}_h; \rho):=&(\pmb{q}_h, \nabla\rho)-\sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_{h}}(\widehat{\pmb{q}}_{h}\cdot\pmb{\nu}, \rho)_{\partial K},\\
\label{L12}
L_h^2(u_h, \pmb{s}_h; \pmb{\theta}):=&-(f(u_h)\pmb{s}_h, \pmb{\theta}),\\
\label{L13}
L_h^3(p_h; \pmb{\eta}):=&(p_h, \nabla\cdot\pmb{\eta})-\sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_{h}}(\widehat{p}_h, \pmb{\nu}\cdot\pmb{\eta})_{\partial K},\\
\label{L14}
L_h^4(u_h; \varphi):=&-\left(\phi(\pmb{x})+H'(u_h), \varphi\right).
\end{alignat}
\end{subequations}
Note that $\pmb{\nu}$ is the unit outward normal vector of an element $K$ at its boundary $\partial K$. The ``hat" terms in $L_h^1$ and $L_h^3$ are the so-called ``numerical fluxes", whose choices play an important role in ensuring stability. We remark that the choices for the numerical fluxes are not unique. Here we use the alternating numerical fluxes
\begin{align}\label{2.a}
\widehat{\pmb{q}}_{h}=&\pmb{q}_h^R, \quad \widehat{p}_h=p_h^L,
\end{align}
or
\begin{align}\label{2.aa}
\widehat{\pmb{q}}_{h}=&\pmb{q}_h^L, \quad \widehat{p}_h=p_h^R.
\end{align}
Considering the zero-flux boundary condition $\nabla(\phi(\pmb{x})+H'(u))\cdot \pmb{\nu}=0$, we take
\begin{align}\label{2.a1}
\widehat{\pmb{q}}_{h}\cdot \pmb{\nu}=0, \quad p_h=(p_h)^{in}
\end{align}
at $\partial \Omega$, where ``in" refers to the value obtained by taking the boundary trace from the inside of the domain $\Omega$.
\subsection{Entropy dissipation}
\begin{thm}
\label{th: Stability1} For $u_{h}\in V_h^k$, $\pmb{s}_h\in \pmb{W}_h^k$, the LDG scheme (\ref{2.bb})-(\ref{2.a1}) with $f$ satisfying (\ref{1.fh}) is entropy dissipative and satisfies
\begin{align*}
\frac{d}{dt}E(u_h)=-(f(u_h)\pmb{s}_h,\pmb{s}_h)\leqslant 0,
\end{align*}
which is consistent with the entropy dissipation property (\ref{1.c}) of the PDE (\ref{1.a}).
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
By taking
\begin{align*}
\rho=p_h,\quad \pmb{\theta}=-\pmb{s}_h,\quad \pmb{\eta}=\pmb{q}_h,\quad \varphi=-u_{ht},
\end{align*}
in (\ref{2.b})-(\ref{2.b3}), respectively, and after integration by parts, we have
\begin{align}\label{2.3a}
&(\phi(\pmb{x})+H'(u_h), u_{ht})\nonumber\\
=&-(f(u_h)\pmb{s}_h,\pmb{s}_h)-(\pmb{q}_h, \nabla p_h)+\sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_{h}}(\widehat{\pmb{q}}_{h}\cdot\pmb{\nu}, p_h)_{\partial K}-(p_h, \nabla\cdot\pmb{q}_h)+\sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_{h}}(\widehat{p}_h, \pmb{\nu}\cdot\pmb{q}_h)_{\partial K}\nonumber\\
=&-(f(u_h)\pmb{s}_h,\pmb{s}_h)-\sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_{h}}(\pmb{q}_{h}\cdot\pmb{\nu}, p_h)_{\partial K}+\sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_{h}}(\widehat{\pmb{q}}_{h}\cdot\pmb{\nu}, p_h)_{\partial K}+\sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_{h}}(\widehat{p}_h, \pmb{\nu}\cdot\pmb{q}_h)_{\partial K}.
\end{align}
Assume that $e$ is an interior edge shared by elements $K_L$ and $K_R$, then $\pmb{\nu}^R=-\pmb{\nu}^L$, and together with the numerical fluxes (\ref{2.a}), we obtain
\begin{align}\label{2.3b}
&-\sum_{K_L\bigcup K_R}(\pmb{q}_{h}\cdot\pmb{\nu}, p_h)_{e}+\sum_{K_L\bigcup K_R}(\widehat{\pmb{q}}_{h}\cdot\pmb{\nu}, p_h)_{e}
+\sum_{K_L\bigcup K_R}(\widehat{p}_h, \pmb{\nu}\cdot\pmb{q}_h)_{e}\nonumber\\
=&-(\pmb{q}_{h}^L\cdot\pmb{\nu}^L, p_h^L)_{e}+(\pmb{q}_{h}^R\cdot\pmb{\nu}^L, p_h^R)_{e}+(\pmb{q}_{h}^R\cdot\pmb{\nu}^L, p_h^L)_{e}-(\pmb{q}_{h}^R\cdot\pmb{\nu}^L, p_h^R)_{e}\nonumber\\
&+(\pmb{q}_{h}^L\cdot\pmb{\nu}^L, p_h^L)_{e}-(\pmb{q}_{h}^R\cdot\pmb{\nu}^L, p_h^L)_{e}=0.
\end{align}
Combining (\ref{2.3a})-(\ref{2.3b}), using (\ref{1.b}), boundary conditions (\ref{2.a1}) and the condition on $f$ (\ref{1.fh}), we get
\begin{align*}
\frac{d}{dt}E(u_h)=(\phi(\pmb{x})+H'(u_h), u_{ht})=-(f(u_h)\pmb{s}_h,\pmb{s}_h)\leqslant 0.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
For brevity, we will only consider in the remaining article the numerical fluxes (\ref{2.a}) and omit the discussion of the numerical fluxes (\ref{2.aa}), but all results also apply to the numerical fluxes (\ref{2.aa}).
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
Compared to the spatial discretizations in \cite{liu2016entropy, zhang2009numerical}, we choose the simpler alternating numerical fluxes (\ref{2.a}) and (\ref{2.aa}), which significantly simplifies the theoretical analysis of the entropy dissipation property of the LDG discretization.
\end{rem}
\section{Time-implicit LDG schemes}\label{fully}
The numerical discretization of the nonlinear parabolic equations (\ref{1.a}) using explicit time discretization methods suffers from the rather severe time-step constraint $\tau=O(h^2)$. In this section, we will discuss implicit time discretizations coupled with positivity constraints in Section \ref{Positivity}.
We divide the time interval $\displaystyle[0,T]$ into $N$ parts $0=t_0<t_1<...<t_N=T$, with $\tau^n=t_n-t_{n-1}\ (n=1,2,\ldots,N)$. For $n=0,1,\ldots,N$, let $u_n=u(\cdot, t_n)$ and $u_h^n$, respectively, denote the exact and approximate values of $u$ at time $t_n$.
\subsection{Backward Euler LDG discretization}\label{Backward Euler}
Discretizing (\ref{2.bb}) in time with the implicit Euler method gives the following discrete system
\begin{subequations}\label{3.aa}
\begin{alignat}{2}\label{3.a}
\left(\frac{u_h^{n+1}-u_h^{n}}{\tau^{n+1} }, \rho\right)+L_h^1(\pmb{q}_h^{n+1}; \rho)=0, \\
\label{3.a1}
(\pmb{q}_h^{n+1}, \pmb{\theta})+L_h^2(u_h^{n+1}, \pmb{s}_h^{n+1}; \pmb{\theta})=0,\\
\label{3.a2}
(\pmb{s}_h^{n+1}, \pmb{\eta})+L_h^3(p_h^{n+1}; \pmb{\eta})=0,\\
\label{3.a3}
(p_h^{n+1}, \varphi)+L_h^4(u_h^{n+1}; \varphi)=0.
\end{alignat}
\end{subequations}
Define the discrete entropy as
\begin{align}\label{Eh}
E_h(u_h^{n})=\int_\Omega (u_h^{n}\phi(\pmb{x})+H(u_h^{n}))dx.
\end{align}
We have the following relation for the discrete entropy dissipation.
\begin{thm}
\label{th: Stability2}
For all time levels $n$, the numerical solutions $u_h^{n}, \ u_h^{n+1}\in V_h^k$ of the LDG discretization (\ref{3.aa}), with boundary condition (\ref{2.a1}) and conditions on $f,H$ stated in (\ref{1.fh}), satisfy the following entropy dissipation relation
\begin{align}\label{3.c}
{E}_h(u_h^{n+1})\leqslant{E}_h(u_h^{n}),
\end{align}
which implies that the LDG discretization is unconditionally entropy dissipative.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
By choosing, respectively, in (\ref{3.a})-(\ref{3.a3}) the following test functions
\begin{align*}
\rho=p_h^{n+1},\quad \pmb{\theta}=-\pmb{s}_h^{n+1},\quad \pmb{\eta}=\pmb{q}_h^{n+1},\quad \varphi=-\displaystyle \frac{u_h^{n+1}-u_h^{n}}{\tau^{n+1}},
\end{align*}
we get
\begin{align*}
&\left(\phi(\pmb{x}), \displaystyle \frac{u_h^{n+1}-u_h^{n}}{\tau^{n+1}}\right)+\left(H'(u_h^{n+1}), \displaystyle \frac{u_h^{n+1}-u_h^{n}}{\tau^{n+1}}\right)\nonumber\\
=&-\left(f(u_h^{n+1})\pmb{s}_h^{n+1},\pmb{s}_h^{n+1}\right)-\left(\pmb{q}_h^{n+1}, \nabla p_h^{n+1}\right)+\sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_{h}}(\widehat{\pmb{q}}_h^{n+1}\cdot\pmb{\nu}, p_h^{n+1})_{\partial K}\nonumber\\
&-(p_h^{n+1}, \nabla\cdot\pmb{q}_h^{n+1})+\sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_{h}}(\widehat{p}_h^{n+1}, \pmb{\nu}\cdot\pmb{q}_h^{n+1})_{\partial K}\nonumber\\
=&-(f(u_h^{n+1})\pmb{s}_h^{n+1},\pmb{s}_h^{n+1})-\sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_{h}}(\pmb{q}_h^{n+1}\cdot\pmb{\nu}, p_h^{n+1})_{\partial K}+\sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_{h}}(\widehat{\pmb{q}}_h^{n+1}\cdot\pmb{\nu}, p_h^{n+1})_{\partial K}\nonumber\\
&+\sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_{h}}(\widehat{p}_h^{n+1}, \pmb{\nu}\cdot\pmb{q}_h^{n+1})_{\partial K}.
\end{align*}
Together with (\ref{2.3b}), the numerical fluxes (\ref{2.a}) and the boundary condition (\ref{2.a1}), we obtain then
\begin{align*}
\left(\phi(\pmb{x}), \displaystyle \frac{u_h^{n+1}-u_h^{n}}{\tau^{n+1}}\right)+\left(H'(u_h^{n+1}), \displaystyle \frac{u_h^{n+1}-u_h^{n}}{\tau^{n+1}}\right)=-\left(f(u_h^{n+1})\pmb{s}_h^{n+1},\pmb{s}_h^{n+1}\right).
\end{align*}
Because of the following Taylor expansion
\begin{align*}
H(u_h^{n})=&H(u_h^{n+1})+H'(u_h^{n+1})(u_h^{n}-u_h^{n+1})+\frac12H''(\xi^{n+1})(u_h^{n+1}-u_h^{n})^2,\quad \xi^{n+1}\in(u_h^{n}, u_h^{n+1}),
\end{align*}
we have, using the conditions on $f,H$ stated in (\ref{1.fh}) and the definition of $E_h$ in (\ref{Eh}),
\begin{align*
{E}_h(u_h^{n+1})-{E}_h(u_h^{n})=&\left(\phi(\pmb{x}), u_h^{n+1}-u_h^{n}\right)+\left(H(u_h^{n+1})-H(u_h^{n}),1\right)\nonumber\\
=&-\tau^{n+1}\left(f(u_h^{n+1})\pmb{s}_h^{n+1},\pmb{s}_h^{n+1}\right)-\frac12\left(H''(\xi^{n+1}), \left(u_h^{n+1}-u_h^{n}\right)^2\right)\nonumber\\
\leqslant&\ 0.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\subsection {Higher order DIRK-LDG discretizations}\label{Second}
For higher order accurate implicit in time discretizations of the system (\ref{2.bb}), we use a Diagonally Implicit Runge-Kutta (DIRK) method \cite{hairer2010solving}. Assuming we know the numerical solution at time level $n$,
we obtain the solution at time level $n+1$ with a DIRK method by solving for each DIRK stage $i, i=1,2,\cdots,s$ the following equations.
\begin{subequations}\label{3.2aa}
\begin{alignat}{2}\label{3.2a}
\left(\frac{u_h^{n+1,i}-u_h^{n}}{\tau^{n+1} }, \rho\right)+\sum_{j=1}^{i}a_{ij}L_h^1(\pmb{q}_h^{n+1,j}; \rho)=0, \\
\label{3.2a1}
(\pmb{q}_h^{n+1,i}, \pmb{\theta})+L_h^2(u_h^{n+1,i}, \pmb{s}_h^{n+1,i}; \pmb{\theta})=0,\\
\label{3.2a2}
(\pmb{s}_h^{n+1,i}, \pmb{\eta})+L_h^3(p_h^{n+1,i}; \pmb{\eta})=0,\\
\label{3.2a3}
(p_h^{n+1,i}, \varphi)+L_h^4(u_h^{n+1,i}; \varphi)=0.
\end{alignat}
\end{subequations}
Then the solution at time $t_{n+1}$ is
\begin{align}\label{3.2c}
(u_h^{n+1}, \rho)= &(u_h^{n}, \rho)-\tau\sum_{i=1}^{s}b_{i}L_h^1(\pmb{q}_h^{n+1,i}; \rho).
\end{align}
The coefficient matrices $(a_{ij})$ in (\ref{3.2a}) and $(b_i)$ in (\ref{3.2c}) are defined in the Butcher tableau. We choose for polynomials of order $k=1$ and $k=2,3$ the DIRK methods introduced in \cite{alexander1977diagonally} and \cite{skvortsov2006diagonally}, respectively, that satisfy $a_{si}=b_i,\ i=1,2,\cdot\cdot\cdot,s$, which implies $u_h^{n+1}=u_h^{n+1,s}$. The order of these DIRK methods is $k+1$. The above time discretization methods are easy to implement since the matrix $(a_{ij})$ in the DIRK methods has a lower triangular structure, which means that we can compute the DIRK stages one after another, starting from $i=1$ up to $i=s$. For detailed information about the DIRK time integration method, we refer to \cite{hairer2010solving}.
\section{Higher order accurate positivity preserving DIRK-LDG discretizations}\label{Positivity}
The positivity constraints on the LDG solution will be enforced by transforming the DIRK-LDG equations with positivity constraints into a mixed complementarity problem using the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) equations \cite{facchinei2007finite}. In the following sections, we will first define the positivity preserving KKT-DIRK-LDG discretization. Next, we will consider the unique solvability and unconditional entropy dissipation of the discrete KKT system.
\subsection {KKT-system}\label{KKT}
For the KKT equations \cite{facchinei2007finite}, we define the set
\begin{align}\label{K}
\mathbb{K}:=\{\widetilde{U}\in \mathbb{R}^{dof}|\ h(\widetilde{U})=0,\ g(\widetilde{U})\leqslant 0\},
\end{align}
with equality constraints $h: \mathbb{R}^{dof} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{l}$ and inequality constraints $g: \mathbb{R}^{dof} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{m}$ being vector-valued continuously differentiable functions. The inequality constraints are used to ensure positivity. The equality constraint ensures that the limited DIRK-LDG discretization is mass conservative. Mass conservation is a property of the unlimited DIRK-LDG discretization, but one has to ensure that this property also holds after applying the positivity preserving limiter.
Let $L$ be the LDG discretization (\ref{3.2aa}) for each DIRK stage $i=1,2,\cdots,s$, without a positivity preserving limiter. We assume that $L$ is a continuously differentiable function from $ \mathbb{K}$ to $\mathbb{R}^{dof}$. The corresponding KKT-system \cite{facchinei2007finite} then is
\begin{subequations}\label{5}
\begin{alignat}{2}\label{5.1a}
L(\widetilde{U})+\nabla_{\widetilde{U}} h(\widetilde{U})^T\mu+\nabla_{\widetilde{U}} g(\widetilde{U})^T\lambda=0,\\
\label{5.1a1}
-h(\widetilde{U})=0,\\
\label{5.1a2}
0\geqslant g(\widetilde{U})\bot \lambda\geqslant 0,
\end{alignat}
\end{subequations}
where $\mu\in \mathbb{R}^{l}$ and $\lambda\in \mathbb{R}^{m}$ are the Lagrange multipliers used to ensure $h(\widetilde{U})=0$ and $g(\widetilde{U})\leqslant 0$, respectively, $\widetilde{U}\in R^{dof}$ are the LDG coefficients in the KKT-DIRK-LDG discretization, and $\nabla_{\widetilde{U}}$ denotes the gradient with respect to $\widetilde{U}$. The compatibility condition (\ref{5.1a2}) is equivalent to
\begin{align*}
g_j(\widetilde{U})\leqslant 0,\quad \lambda_j\geqslant 0, \quad \mathrm{and} \quad g_j(\widetilde{U})\lambda_j=0,\quad j=1,2,\cdot\cdot\cdot,m,
\end{align*}
which can be expressed as
\begin{align*}
\min(-g_j(\widetilde{U}), \lambda_j)=0,\quad j=1,2,\cdot\cdot\cdot,m.
\end{align*}
The KKT-system then can be formulated as
\begin{align}\label{5.1b}
0=F(z)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
L(\widetilde{U})+\nabla_{\widetilde{U}} h(\widetilde{U})^T\mu+\nabla_{\widetilde{U}} g(\widetilde{U})^T\lambda \\
-h(\widetilde{U})\\
\min(-g(\widetilde{U}), \lambda)
\end{array}
\right).
\end{align}
Here $z=(\widetilde{U},\mu,\lambda)\in\mathbb{R}^{dof+l+m}$, and $F: \mathbb{R}^{dof+l+m} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{dof+l+m}$ represents the DIRK-LDG discretization combined with the positivity and mass conservation constraints. Note, the KKT system (\ref{5.1b}) is nonlinear and $F(z)$ is not continuously differentiable, as is necessary for standard Newton methods, but semi-smooth. We will therefore solve (\ref{5.1b}) with the active set semi-smooth Newton method presented in \cite{van2019positivity}.
\subsection {Positivity preserving LDG discretizations}\label{KKT numerical}
In this section, we will provide the details of the higher order accurate positivity preserving DIRK-LDG discretizations (\ref{3.2aa}) coupled with the positivity and mass conservation constraints using Lagrange multipliers as stated in (\ref{5}).
Let $N_k$ be the number of basis functions in one element. Let $N_e$ be the number of elements $K$ in the tessellation $\mathcal{T}_{h}$ of
the domain $\Omega$. We introduce the following notation for the element-wise positivity preserving LDG solution
\begin{align*}
U_h|_K:=\sum_{j=1}^{N_k} \widetilde{U}_j^K\phi_j^K, \quad \pmb{Q}_h|_K:=\sum_{j=1}^{N_k} \widetilde{ \pmb{Q}}_j^K\phi_j^K
\end{align*}
with $K\in \mathcal{T}_h$, $\phi_j^K$ the tensor product Legendre basis functions in $\mathcal{Q}_{k}(K)$, and LDG coefficients $\widetilde{U}_j^K\in \mathbb{R},\ \widetilde{ \pmb{Q}}_j^K\in \mathbb{R}^d$. Taking in each element $K\in \mathcal{T}_h$ the test function $\rho=\phi_j^K,\ j=1,2,\cdots, N_k$ in the operator $L_h^1(\pmb{Q}_h; \rho)$, stated in (\ref{L11}), we can define
\begin{align}\label{talta}
\mathbb{L}_h^1(\widetilde{\pmb{Q}}):=L_h^1(\pmb{Q}_h; \rho)\in \mathbb{R}^{N_kN_e},
\end{align}
with similar definitions of $\mathbb{L}_h^k$ for $L_h^k, k=2,3,4$ stated in (\ref{L12})-(\ref{L14}).
Representing the block-diagonal mass matrices for the scalar and vector variables as $M\in \mathbb{R}^{N_kN_e\times N_kN_e}$ and $\pmb{M}\in \mathbb{R}^{dN_kN_e\times dN_kN_e}$, respectively, the operator $L$ for DIRK stage $i\ (i=1,2,\cdots, s)$, as stated in (\ref{3.2a}), can be expressed as
\begin{align}\label{5.1c}
L(\widetilde{U}^{n+1,i}):=&M(\widetilde{U}^{n+1,i}-\widetilde{U}^{n})+\tau^{n+1}\sum_{j=1}^{i}a_{ij}\mathbb{L}_h^1(\widetilde{\pmb{Q}}^{n+1,j}),
\end{align}
with LDG coefficients $\widetilde{U}^{n+1,i}\in\mathbb{R}^{N_kN_e}$. Similarly, using (\ref{3.2a1}), (\ref{3.2a2}) and (\ref{3.2a3}), we have
\begin{subequations}\label{5.1cc}
\begin{alignat}{2}\label{5.1c1}
\widetilde{\pmb{Q}}^{n+1,i}=&-\pmb{M}^{-1}\mathbb{L}_h^2(\widetilde{U}^{n+1,i}, \widetilde{\pmb{S}}^{n+1,i}),\\
\label{5.1c2}
\widetilde{\pmb{S}}^{n+1,i}=&-\pmb{M}^{-1}\mathbb{L}_h^3(\widetilde{P}^{n+1,i}),\\
\label{5.1c3}
\widetilde{P}^{n+1,i}=&-M^{-1}\mathbb{L}_h^4(\widetilde{U}^{n+1,i}),
\end{alignat}
\end{subequations}
with LDG coefficients $\widetilde{\pmb{Q}}^{n+1,i}\in \mathbb{R}^{dN_kN_e}$, $\widetilde{\pmb{S}}^{n+1,i}\in \mathbb{R}^{dN_kN_e}$, $\widetilde{P}^{n+1,i}\in \mathbb{R}^{N_kN_e}$.
The constraints on the DIRK-LDG discretization can be directly imposed on the DG coefficients for each DIRK stage using the equality and inequality constraints in the KKT-system (\ref{5.1b}). We obtain for each DIRK stage $i$, with $i=1,2,\cdots,s$, the LDG coefficients $\widetilde{U}^{n+1,i}$ by solving the following KKT system for $\widetilde{U}^{n+1,i}$,
\begin{align}\label{5.1breal}
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
L(\widetilde{U}^{n+1,i})+\nabla_{\widetilde{U}} h(\widetilde{U}^{n+1,i})^T\mu+\nabla_{\widetilde{U}} g(\widetilde{U}^{n+1,i})^T\lambda \\
-h(\widetilde{U}^{n+1,i})\\
\min(-g(\widetilde{U}^{n+1,i}), \lambda)
\end{array}
\right)=0,
\end{align}
where the positivity preserving inequality constraint $g(\widetilde{U}^{n+1,i})$ and the mass conservation equality constraint $h(\widetilde{U}^{n+1,i})$ are defined as follows.
\textit{1. Positivity preserving inequality constraint}
In each element $K\in \mathcal{T}_h$, we define the function $g$ stated in (\ref{5.1breal}) as
\begin{align}\label{5.1e}
g_{p}^K(\widetilde{U}^{n+1,i})=u_{\min}-\sum_{j=1}^{N_k}\widetilde{U}_j^{K,(n+1,i)}\phi_j^K(\pmb{x}_p), \quad p=1,\cdot\cdot\cdot,N_p,
\end{align}
with $N_{p}$ the number of Gauss-Lobatto quadrature points, and $\pmb{x}_p$ the Gauss-Lobatto quadrature points where the inequality constraints $U_h(\pmb{x}_p)\geqslant u_{\min}$ are imposed. The use of Gauss-Lobatto quadrature rules ensures that the positivity constraint is also
imposed in the computation of the numerical fluxes at the element edges where
Gauss-Lobatto rules have, next to the element itself, also quadrature points. Note,
the Gauss-Lobatto quadrature points $\pmb{x}_p$ are the only points used in the LDG
discretization and the positivity constraint $u_{\min}$ therefore only needs to be enforced
at these points.
\textit{2. Mass conservation equality constraint}
In order to ensure mass conservation of the LDG discretization when the positivity constraint is enforced, we impose the following equality constraint, which is obtained
by setting $\rho=1$ in (\ref{3.2a}) and using the numerical flux (\ref{2.a}) or (\ref{2.aa}).
\begin{align}\label{equality constraint}
h(\widetilde{U}^{n+1,i})
=&\sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_h}\int_K U_h^n dK+\tau^{n+1}\sum_{j=1}^{i}a_{ij}\sum_{\substack{K\in \mathcal{T}_h\\ \partial K\cap \partial \Omega\neq\emptyset}}(\widehat{\pmb{Q}}_h^{n+1,j}\cdot\pmb{\nu}, 1)_{\partial K}\nonumber\\
&-\sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_h}\sum_{j=1}^{N_k}\widetilde{U}_j^{K,(n+1,i)}\int_K\phi_j^K(\pmb{x}) dK,
\end{align}
with $U_h^n$ the KKT-DIRK-LDG solution at time $t_n$.
For each DIRK stage $i$, the KKT-system (\ref{5.1breal}) for the higher order accurate positivity preserving LDG discretization is now defined. After solving the KKT equations (\ref{5.1breal}) for $i=1,\cdots,s$, the numerical solution at time $t^{n+1}$ is directly obtained from the last DIRK stage, $U_h^{n+1}=U_h^{n+1,s}$ since we use DIRK methods with $a_{si}=b_i$.
\begin{rem}
In order to ensure the positivity of the discrete initial solution $U_h^0$, we use the $L^2$-projection coupled with the positivity constraint (\ref{5.1e}), which is obtained by replacing $\widetilde{U}^{n+1,i}$ with $\widetilde{U}^{0}$. The equality constraint ensures mass conservation of the positivity limited initial solution
\begin{align*}
h(\widetilde{U}^{0})
=&\sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_h}\int_K u_0(\pmb{x}) dK-\sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_h}\sum_{j=1}^{N_k}\widetilde{U}_j^{K,0}\int_K\phi_j^K(\pmb{x}) dK.
\end{align*}
The constraints on the $L^2$-projection are imposed using KKT equations similar to (\ref{5.1b}). To prevent pathological cases, we assume that the limited initial solution satisfies
\[\displaystyle \frac1{|\Omega|}\sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_h}\int_K u_0(\pmb{x}) dK\geqslant u_{\min}.\]
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
We emphasize that $u_{\min}$ must be chosen strictly positive to ensure that errors do not violate the positivity of the numerical solution due to the finite precision of the computer arithmetic.
\end{rem}
\subsection {Unique solvability and stability of the positivity preserving LDG discretization}\label{well-posedness and stability for KKT system1}
In Section \ref{KKT numerical}, we have presented the positivity preserving LDG discretization for (\ref{1.a}). In this section, we will consider the unique solvability of the algebraic equations resulting from the backward Euler KKT-LDG discretization. In the theoretical analysis we will also consider the entropy dissipation of the positivity preserving backward Euler LDG discretization and use periodic boundary conditions.
With (\ref{5.1c})-(\ref{equality constraint}), the positivity preserving backward Euler LDG discretization results now in the following KKT system,
\begin{subequations}\label{43.1}
\begin{alignat}{2}\label{43.1a}
L(\widetilde{U}^{n+1})+\nabla_{\widetilde{U}} h(\widetilde{U}^{n+1})^T\mu^{n+1}+\nabla_{\widetilde{U}} g(\widetilde{U}^{n+1})^T\lambda^{n+1}=0,\\
\label{43.1a1}
-h(\widetilde{U}^{n+1})=0,\\
\label{43.1a2}
\min(-g(\widetilde{U}^{n+1}), \lambda^{n+1})=0.
\end{alignat}
\end{subequations}
Here $L: \mathbb{R}^{N_kN_e} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{N_kN_e}$ and
\begin{align}\label{43.1c}
L(\widetilde{U}^{n+1}):=&M\displaystyle(\widetilde{U}^{n+1}-\widetilde{U}^{n})+\tau^{n+1}B\widetilde{\pmb{Q}}^{n+1},\\
\label{43.1cQ1}
\pmb{M} \widetilde{\pmb{Q}}^{n+1}=&C_d(\widetilde{U}^{n+1})\widetilde{\pmb{S}}^{n+1},\\
\label{43.1cQ2}
\pmb{M} \widetilde{\pmb{S}}^{n+1}=&A\widetilde{P}^{n+1},\\
\label{43.1cQ3}
M \widetilde{P}^{n+1}=&D(\widetilde{U}^{n+1}).
\end{align}
From (\ref{talta})-(\ref{5.1cc}), we obtain that
\begin{align}\label{Matrix}
B\widetilde{\pmb{Q}}^{n+1}=&\mathbb{L}_h^1(\widetilde{\pmb{Q}}^{n+1})\in \mathbb{R}^{N_kN_e},\\
\label{Matrix1}
C_d(\widetilde{U}^{n+1})\widetilde{\pmb{S}}^{n+1}=&-\mathbb{L}_h^2(\widetilde{U}^{n+1},\widetilde{\pmb{S}}^{n+1})\in \mathbb{R}^{dN_kN_e},\\
\label{Matrix2}
A\widetilde{P}^{n+1}=&-\mathbb{L}_h^3(\widetilde{P}^{n+1})\in \mathbb{R}^{dN_kN_e},\\
\label{Matrix3}
D(\widetilde{U}^{n+1})=&-\mathbb{L}_h^4(\widetilde{U}^{n+1})\in \mathbb{R}^{N_kN_e},
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}\label{Matrix4}
C_d(\widetilde{U}^{n+1})=&\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
C(\widetilde{U}^{n+1}) & & \\
& \ddots & \\
& & C(\widetilde{U}^{n+1}) \\
\end{array}
\right)
\in\mathbb{R}^{dN_kN_e\times dN_kN_e},\ C(\widetilde{U}^{n+1})\in \mathbb{R}^{N_kN_e}.
\end{align}
The constraints $h: \mathbb{R}^{N_kN_e} \rightarrow \mathbb{R},\ g: \mathbb{R}^{N_kN_e} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{N_pN_e}$ are defined by
\begin{align}
\label{43.1c1}
h(\widetilde{U}^{n+1}):=&\sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_h}\int_K U_h^0 dK-\sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_h}\sum_{j=1}^{N_k}\widetilde{U}_j^{K,(n+1)}\int_K\phi_j^K(\pmb{x}) dK,\\
\label{43.1c2}
g(\widetilde{U}^{n+1}):=&(g_{1}^{K_1}(\widetilde{U}^{n+1}),\cdots,g_{N_p}^{K_1}(\widetilde{U}^{n+1}),\cdots,g_1^{K_{N_e}}(\widetilde{U}^{n+1}),\cdots,g_{N_p}^{K_{N_e}}(\widetilde{U}^{n+1})),
\end{align}
with the definition of the constraints $g_p^{K_j},\ 1\leqslant p\leqslant N_p,1\leqslant j\leqslant N_e$ given in (\ref{5.1e}).
\subsubsection {Auxiliary results used to prove the solvability of the KKT-system}\label{Auxiliary}
In this section, we will introduce some auxiliary results, which will be used in Section \ref{well-posedness and stability for KKT system} to prove the unique solvability of the KKT-system (\ref{43.1}).
\begin{defi}\cite[Sections 1.1, 3.2]{facchinei2007finite}\label{VI}
Let $\mathbb{K}$ be given by (\ref{K}), given a map $L: \mathbb{K}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{dof}$. The Variational Inequality (VI$(\mathbb{K},L)$) is to find $\widetilde{U}\in \mathbb{K}$ such that
\begin{align}\label{VIe}
(y-\widetilde{U})^TL(\widetilde{U})\geqslant 0,\quad y\in \mathbb{K}.
\end{align}
The solution of VI$(\mathbb{K},L)$ (\ref{VIe}) is denoted by SOL$(\mathbb{K},L)$.
\end{defi}
Using the nodal basis function and the definition of $g$ in (\ref{43.1c2}) and (\ref{5.1e}), the inequality constraint set in (\ref{K}) can be written as
\begin{align}\label{Kb}
\mathbb{K}_b:=\{\widetilde{U}\in \mathbb{R}^{dof}|\ \widetilde{U}_i^{\min}\leqslant\widetilde{U}_i\leqslant \widetilde{U}_i^{\max}, i\in\{1,\cdots,dof\}\},
\end{align}
and we write $\mathbb{K}_b$ as
\begin{align}
\mathbb{K}_b=\prod_{\vartheta=1}^N \mathbb{K}_{n_\vartheta},
\end{align}
where $\mathbb{K}_{n_\vartheta}$ is a subset of $\mathbb{R}^{n_\vartheta}$ with $\displaystyle \sum_{\vartheta=1}^N n_\vartheta=dof$. Thus for a vector $\widetilde{U}\in \mathbb{K}_b$, we write $\widetilde{U}=(\widetilde{U}_\vartheta)$, where each $\widetilde{U}_\vartheta$
belongs to $\mathbb{K}^{n_\vartheta}$.
\begin{defi}\cite[Section 3.5.2]{facchinei2007finite}\label{uniPfunc}
Let $\mathbb{K}_b$ be given by (\ref{Kb}), a map $L: \mathbb{K}_b\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{dof}$ is said to be
a) a P-function on $\mathbb{K}_b$ if for all pairs of distinct vectors $\widetilde{U}$ and $\widetilde{U}'$ in $\mathbb{K}_b$,
\begin{align*}
\max_{1\leqslant \vartheta\leqslant N}(\widetilde{U}_\vartheta-\widetilde{U}'_\vartheta)^T(L_\vartheta(\widetilde{U})-L_\vartheta(\widetilde{U}'))>0,
\end{align*}
b) a uniformly P-function on $\mathbb{K}_b$ if there exists a constant $\varpi>0$ such that for all pairs of distinct vectors $\widetilde{U}$ and $\widetilde{U}'$ in $\mathbb{K}_b$,
\begin{align*}
\max_{1\leqslant \vartheta\leqslant N}(\widetilde{U}_\vartheta-\widetilde{U}'_\vartheta)^T(L_\vartheta(\widetilde{U})-L_\vartheta(\widetilde{U}'))\geqslant \varpi\|\widetilde{U}-\widetilde{U}'\|^2.
\end{align*}
\end{defi}
\begin{lmm} \cite[Proposition 3.5.10]{facchinei2007finite}\label{sym}
Let $\mathbb{K}_b$ be given by (\ref{Kb}).
a) If $L$ is a P-function on $\mathbb{K}_b$, then VI$(\mathbb{K}_b,L)$ has at most one solution.
b) If each $\mathbb{K}_{n_\vartheta}$ is closed convex and $L$ is a continuous uniformly P-function on $\mathbb{K}_b$, then the VI$(\mathbb{K}_b,L)$ has a unique solution.
\end{lmm}
\begin{lmm} \cite[Proposition 1.3.4]{facchinei2007finite}\label{rela}
Let $\widetilde{U}\in$ SOL$(\mathbb{K},L)$ solve (\ref{VIe}) with $\mathbb{K}$ given by (\ref{K}). If Abadie's Constraint Qualification holds at $\widetilde{U}$, then there exist vectors $\mu\in\mathbb{R}^{l}$ and $\lambda\in\mathbb{R}^{m}$ satisfying the KKT system (\ref{43.1}).
Conversely, if each function $h_j\ (1\leqslant j\leqslant l)$ is affine and each function $g_i\ (1\leqslant i\leqslant m)$ is convex, and if $(\widetilde{U},\mu\, \lambda)$ satisfies (\ref{43.1}), then $\widetilde{U}$ solves VI$(\mathbb{K},L)$ given by (\ref{VIe}) with $\mathbb{K}$ given by (\ref{K}).
\end{lmm}
\subsubsection {Existence and uniqueness of LDG discretization with positivity and mass conservation constraints}\label{well-posedness and stability for KKT system}
In this section, we will prove the existence and uniqueness of the KKT system (\ref{43.1})-(\ref{43.1c2}) using the unique solvability conditions discussed in Section \ref{Auxiliary}.
\begin{lmm}\label{positive}
For periodic boundary conditions, the matrices $B$ in (\ref{Matrix}) and $A$ in (\ref{Matrix2}) satisfy $B^T=A$.
\end{lmm}
\begin{proof}
In order to prove the symmetry of $B$ in (\ref{Matrix}) and $A$ in (\ref{Matrix2}), we define the bilinear function $a:(V_{h}^{k} \times\pmb{W}_h^k)\times(V_{h}^{k} \times\pmb{W}_h^k)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ by
\begin{align*}
a(P_h^{n+1},\pmb{Q}_h^{n+1}; \rho,\pmb{\theta})=&(\pmb{Q}_h^{n+1}, \nabla\rho)-\sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_{h}}(\widehat{\pmb{Q}}_h^{n+1}\cdot\pmb{\nu}, \rho)_{\partial K}\nonumber\\
&-(P_h^{n+1}, \nabla\cdot\pmb{\theta})+\sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_{h}}(\widehat{P}_h^{n+1}, \pmb{\nu}\cdot\pmb{\theta})_{\partial K}.
\end{align*}
Based on the definition of $B$ in (\ref{Matrix}) using (\ref{L11}), $A$ in (\ref{Matrix2}) using (\ref{L13}), we rewrite the above bilinear function $a$ as follows:
\begin{align*}
a(P_h^{n+1},\pmb{Q}_h^{n+1}; \rho,\pmb{\theta})
=&(\varrho,\Theta) \left(\begin{array}{cc}
0&B\\
A&0
\end{array}\right)(\widetilde{P}^{n+1},\widetilde{\pmb{Q}}^{n+1})^T,
\end{align*}
with $\varrho, \Theta$ the LDG coefficients of $\rho,\pmb{\theta}$ and $\widetilde{P}^{n+1},\widetilde{\pmb{Q}}^{n+1}$ the LDG coefficients of $P_h^{n+1},\pmb{Q}_h^{n+1}$, respectively.
Interchanging the arguments of $a$, we get
\begin{align*}
a( \rho,\pmb{\theta}; P_h^{n+1},\pmb{Q}_h^{n+1})=&(\pmb{\theta}, \nabla P_h^{n+1})-\sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_{h}}(\widehat{\pmb{\theta}}\cdot\pmb{\nu}, P_h^{n+1})_{\partial K}\nonumber\\
&-(\rho, \nabla\cdot \pmb{Q}_h^{n+1})+\sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_{h}}(\widehat{\rho}, \pmb{\nu}\cdot \pmb{Q}_h^{n+1})_{\partial K}\nonumber\\
=&-( P_h^{n+1}, \nabla\cdot\pmb{\theta})+\sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_{h}}(\pmb{\theta}\cdot\pmb{\nu}, P_h^{n+1})_{\partial K}-\sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_{h}}(\widehat{\pmb{\theta}}\cdot\pmb{\nu}, P_h^{n+1})_{\partial K}\nonumber\\
&+( \pmb{Q}_h^{n+1}, \nabla\rho)-\sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_{h}}(\rho, \pmb{\nu}\cdot \pmb{Q}_h^{n+1})_{\partial K}+\sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_{h}}(\widehat{\rho}, \pmb{\nu}\cdot \pmb{Q}_h^{n+1})_{\partial K},
\end{align*}
Using equality (\ref{2.3b}), the alternating numerical fluxes for $\widehat{\pmb{\theta}}$ and $\widehat{\rho}$ in (\ref{2.a}) or (\ref{2.aa}), and the periodic boundary conditions, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_{h}}(\pmb{\theta}\cdot\pmb{\nu}, P_h^{n+1})_{\partial K}-\sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_{h}}(\widehat{\pmb{\theta}}\cdot\pmb{\nu}, P_h^{n+1})_{\partial K}=&\sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_{h}}(\widehat{P}_h^{n+1}, \pmb{\nu}\cdot\pmb{\theta})_{\partial K},\nonumber\\
-\sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_{h}}(\rho, \pmb{\nu}\cdot \pmb{Q}_h^{n+1})_{\partial K}+\sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_{h}}(\widehat{\rho}, \pmb{\nu}\cdot \pmb{Q}_h^{n+1})_{\partial K}=&-\sum_{K\in \mathcal{T}_{h}}(\widehat{\pmb{Q}}_h^{n+1}\cdot\pmb{\nu}, \rho)_{\partial K}.
\end{align*}
Hence,
\begin{align*}
a(P_h^{n+1}, \pmb{Q}_h^{n+1}; \rho,\pmb{\theta})=a( \rho,\pmb{\theta}; P_h^{n+1}, \pmb{Q}_h^{n+1}),
\end{align*}
which implies
\begin{align}\label{symm}
(\varrho,\Theta) \left(\begin{array}{cc}
0&B\\
A&0
\end{array}\right)(\widetilde{P}^{n+1},\widetilde{\pmb{Q}}^{n+1})^T=&(\widetilde{P}^{n+1},\widetilde{\pmb{Q}}^{n+1}) \left(\begin{array}{cc}
0&B\\
A&0
\end{array}\right)(\varrho,\Theta)^T\nonumber\\
=&(\varrho,\Theta) \left(\begin{array}{cc}
0&A^T\\
B^T&0
\end{array}\right)(\widetilde{P}^{n+1},\widetilde{\pmb{Q}}^{n+1})^T.
\end{align}
Since $(P_h^{n+1}, \pmb{Q}_h^{n+1})\in V_{h}^{k} \times\pmb{W}_h^k$ and $(\rho,\pmb{\theta})\in V_{h}^{k} \times\pmb{W}_h^k$ are arbitrary functions, relation (\ref{symm}) implies that $A=B^T$.
\end{proof}
Using (\ref{43.1cQ1})-(\ref{43.1cQ3}) and Lemma \ref{positive}, the operator $L(\widetilde{U}^{n+1})$ in (\ref{43.1c}) can be written as
\begin{align}\label{L}
L(\widetilde{U}^{n+1})=M(\widetilde{U}^{n+1}-\widetilde{U}^{n})
+\tau^{n+1}B\pmb{M}^{-1}C_d(\widetilde{U}^{n+1})\pmb{M}^{-1}B^TM^{-1}D(\widetilde{U}^{n+1}).
\end{align}
\begin{lmm}\label{exist1}
Given $\widetilde{U}^{n}$, the operator $L$ in (\ref{L}) is a uniformly P-function on $\mathbb{K}_b$.
\end{lmm}
\begin{proof}
Using relation (\ref{L}) for $L$, for arbitrary $\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1}, \widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1}\in \mathbb{K}_b$, there holds
\begin{align}\label{P-function}
L(\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1})-L(\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1})
=&M(\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1}-\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1})
+\tau^{n+1}B\pmb{M}^{-1}C_d(\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1})\pmb{M}^{-1}B^TM^{-1}D(\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1})\nonumber\\
&-\tau^{n+1}B\pmb{M}^{-1}C_d(\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1})\pmb{M}^{-1}B^TM^{-1}D(\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1}).
\end{align}
After subtracting and adding $\tau^{n+1}B\pmb{M}^{-1}C_d(\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1})\pmb{M}^{-1}B^TM^{-1}D(\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1})$ in (\ref{P-function}), we obtain
\begin{align}\label{P-function1}
&L(\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1})-L(\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1})\nonumber\\
=&M(\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1}-\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1})
+\tau^{n+1}B\pmb{M}^{-1}C_d(\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1})\pmb{M}^{-1}B^TM^{-1}(D(\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1})-D(\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1}))\nonumber\\
&+\tau^{n+1}B\pmb{M}^{-1}(C_d(\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1})-C_d(\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1}))\pmb{M}^{-1}B^TM^{-1}D(\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1}).
\end{align}
With the definition of $D$ in (\ref{Matrix3}) using (\ref{L14}), we obtain that
\begin{align*}
&(D(\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1})-D(\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1}))_i
=\int_\Omega\left(H'\left(\sum_{j=1}^{N_kN_e}\widetilde{U}_{I,j}^{n+1}\phi_j\right)
-H'\left(\sum_{j=1}^{N_kN_e}\widetilde{U}_{II,j}^{n+1}\phi_j\right)\right)\phi_id\Omega\nonumber\\
=&\sum_{j=1}^{N_kN_e}(\widetilde{U}_{I,j}^{n+1}-\widetilde{U}_{II,j}^{n+1})
\int_\Omega H''(\xi_1^{n+1})\phi_j\phi_id\Omega, \ i\in \{1,\cdots,N_kN_e\}, \xi_1^{n+1}\in(U_{h,I}^{n+1},U_{h,II}^{n+1}),
\end{align*}
and write
\begin{align}\label{Du}
D(\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1})-D(\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1}):=&D_ {\widetilde{U}}(\xi_1^{n+1})(\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1})-\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1}).
\end{align}
Similarly, from the definition of $C_d$ in (\ref{Matrix1}), (\ref{Matrix4}) using (\ref{L12}), we obtain that
\begin{align*}
&C_d(\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1})-C_d(\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1})=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
C(\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1})-C(\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1}) & & \\
& \ddots & \\
& & C(\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1})-C(\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1}) \\
\end{array}
\right),\\ \\
&(C(\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1})-C(\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1}))_{ij}=\int_\Omega\left(f\left(\sum_{k=1}^{N_kN_e}\widetilde{U}_{I,k}^{n+1}\phi_k\right)
-f\left(\sum_{k=1}^{N_kN_e}\widetilde{U}_{II,k}^{n+1}\phi_k\right)\right)\phi_j\phi_id\Omega\nonumber\\
=&\sum_{k=1}^{N_kN_e}(\widetilde{U}_{I,k}^{n+1}-\widetilde{U}_{II,k}^{n+1})
\int_\Omega f'(\xi_2^{n+1})\phi_k\phi_j\phi_id\Omega,\ i,j,k\in \{1,\cdots,N_kN_e\}, \xi_2^{n+1}\in(U_{h,I}^{n+1},U_{h,II}^{n+1}),
\end{align*}
and write
\begin{align}\label{Cdu}
C(\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1})-C(\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1})
:=\sum_{k=1}^{N_kN_e}[C_{d\widetilde{U}}(\xi_2^{n+1})]_k(\widetilde{U}_{I,k}^{n+1})-\widetilde{U}_{II,k}^{n+1}).
\end{align}
Assume for arbitrary $\widetilde{U}\in \mathbb{K}_b$ in (\ref{Kb}), that
\begin{align}\label{asu}
|C(\widetilde{U})_{ij}|\leqslant& c,\quad |D(\widetilde{U})_{i}|\leqslant c,\nonumber\\
|[C_ {\widetilde{U}}(\widetilde{U})_{ij}]_{k}|\leqslant& c,\quad |D_ {\widetilde{U}}(\widetilde{U})_{ij}|\leqslant c,\ i,j,k\in \{1,\cdots,N_kN_e\},
\end{align}
with $c$ a positive constant, independent of $\widetilde{U}$. In the remainder of this section, $c$ is a positive constant, but not necessarily the same.
Using (\ref{Du})-(\ref{Cdu}) and assumption (\ref{asu}), we obtain the following two estimates
\begin{align*}
&(\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1}-\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1})^TB\pmb{M}^{-1}C_d(\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1})\pmb{M}^{-1}B^TM^{-1}(D(\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1})-D(\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1}))\nonumber\\
\leqslant&\|B\|\|\pmb{M}^{-1}\|\|C_d(\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1})\|\|\pmb{M}^{-1}\|\|B^T\|\|M^{-1}\|\|D_{\widetilde{U}}(\xi_1^{n+1})\|\|\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1}-\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1}\|^2\nonumber\\
\leqslant& c\|\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1}-\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1}\|^2,
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
&(\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1}-\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1})^TB\pmb{M}^{-1}
(C_d(\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1})-C_d(\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1}))\pmb{M}^{-1}B^TM^{-1}D(\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1})\nonumber\\
\leqslant&\|B\|\|\pmb{M}^{-1}\|\sum_{k=1}^{N_kN_e}\|[C_{d\widetilde{U}}(\xi_2^{n+1})]_k\|\|\pmb{M}^{-1}\|
\|B^T\|\|M^{-1}\|\|D(\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1})\|\|\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1}-\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1}\|^2\nonumber\\
\leqslant& c\|\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1}-\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1}\|^2.
\end{align*}
Then multiplying (\ref{P-function1}) with $(\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1}-\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1})^T$ gives
\begin{align}\label{P-function2}
&(\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1}-\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1})^T(L(\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1})-L(\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1}))
=(\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1}-\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1})^TM(\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1}-\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1})\nonumber\\
&+\tau^{n+1}(\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1}-\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1})^TB\pmb{M}^{-1}C_d(\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1})\pmb{M}^{-1}B^TM^{-1}(D(\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1})-D(\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1}))\nonumber\\
&+\tau^{n+1}(\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1}-\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1})^TB\pmb{M}^{-1}(C_d(\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1})-C_d(\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1}))\pmb{M}^{-1}B^TM^{-1}D(\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1})\nonumber\\
\geqslant&\sigma\|\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1}-\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1}\|^2
-2c\tau^{n+1}\|\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1}-\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1}\|^2,
\end{align}
where $\sigma>0$ is the smallest eigenvalue of the symmetric positive mass matrix $M$.
Choosing $0<\tau^{n+1}\leqslant \displaystyle\frac{\sigma}{4c}$, we obtain that
\begin{align}\label{P-function3}
&(\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1}-\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1})^T(L(\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1})-L(\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1}))
\geqslant\frac{\sigma}2\|\widetilde{U}_I^{n+1}-\widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1}\|^2,\ \forall \widetilde{U}_I^{n+1}, \widetilde{U}_{II}^{n+1}\in \mathbb{K}_b,
\end{align}
which implies that for $\tau^{n+1}$ sufficiently small $L(\widetilde{U}^{n+1})$ is a uniformly function of $\mathbb{K}_b$,
\end{proof}
From Lemmas \ref{sym}, Lemma \ref{rela} and Lemma \ref{exist1}, we obtain the main result of this section.
\begin{thm}
\label{th: well-defined}
Given the DG coefficients $\widetilde{U}^{n}$ and the positivity preserving backward Euler KKT-LDG discretization (\ref{43.1})-(\ref{43.1c2}) with equality constraint $h\equiv 0$. If assumption (\ref{asu}) is satisfied, then the KKT system (\ref{43.1})-(\ref{43.1c2}) has only one solution.
\end{thm}
\begin{cor}
\label{th: well-defined1}
Given the DG coefficients $\widetilde{U}^{n}$. If assumption (\ref{asu}) is satisfied, then for the degenerate parabolic equation (\ref{1.a}) with periodic boundary conditions there exists only one solution satisfying the higher order accurate in time, positivity preserving KKT-DIRK-LDG discretizations (\ref{5.1breal}) with equality constraint $h\equiv 0$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Since the DIRK coefficient matrix $(a_{ij})$ introduced in Section \ref{Second} is a lower triangular matrix, the structure of the DIRK-LDG discretizations is similar to the form obtained for the backward Euler LDG discretization. The analysis therefore is completely analogous to Theorem \ref{th: well-defined}.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection {Stability of the KKT-LDG discretization}\label{Entropy dissipation for KKT system}
\begin{thm}
\label{th: Stability3}
Given the numerical solution $U_h^{n}\in V_h^k$ of the positivity preserving backward Euler KKT-LDG discretization (\ref{43.1})-(\ref{43.1c2}). If assumption (\ref{asu}) is satisfied, then the discrete entropy $E_h$ stated in (\ref{Eh}) satisfies for $n=0,1,\cdots$,
\begin{align}\label{43.c}
{E}_h(U_h^{n+1})\leqslant{E}_h(U_h^{n}),
\end{align}
which implies that the positivity preserving backward Euler KKT-LDG discretization is unconditionally entropy dissipative.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
From Lemma \ref{rela}, we obtain that the LDG coefficients $\widetilde{U}^{n+1}$ of the positivity preserving solution $U_h^{n+1}$ solve
\begin{align}\label{VIe1}
(y-\widetilde{U}^{n+1})^TL(\widetilde{U}^{n+1})\geqslant 0,\quad \forall y\in \mathbb{K},
\end{align}
with $L$ given by (\ref{L}) and $\mathbb{K}$ given by (\ref{K}).
From assumption (\ref{asu}), we have that there exists a positive constant $c\geqslant c_0>0$ such that
\begin{align}
\widetilde{U}^{n+1}-cM^{-1}D(\widetilde{U}^{n+1})\in \mathbb{K}.
\end{align}
Next, we choose $y=\widetilde{U}^{n+1}-cM^{-1}D(\widetilde{U}^{n+1})$ in (\ref{VIe1}), which implies
\begin{align}\label{11}
-c(M^{-1}D(\widetilde{U}^{n+1}))^TL(\widetilde{U}^{n+1})\geqslant 0.
\end{align}
Using (\ref{L}) and the fact that $c>0$, we obtain that (\ref{11}) implies the inequality
\begin{align}\label{qqq}
&D(\widetilde{U}^{n+1})^T(\widetilde{U}^{n+1}-\widetilde{U}^{n})\nonumber\\
+&\tau^{n+1}D(\widetilde{U}^{n+1})^TM^{-1}B\pmb{M}^{-1}C_d(\widetilde{U}^{n+1})\pmb{M}^{-1}B^TM^{-1}D(\widetilde{U}^{n+1})\leqslant 0.
\end{align}
From the definition of $C_d$ in (\ref{Matrix1}), (\ref{Matrix4}) using (\ref{L12}) and the conditions on $f$ stated in (\ref{1.fh}), we obtain that $C_d(\widetilde{U}^{n+1})$ is symmetric positive definite. Hence using $\tau^{n+1}>0$, we have
\begin{align*}
\tau^{n+1}D(\widetilde{U}^{n+1})^TM^{-1}B\pmb{M}^{-1}C_d(\widetilde{U}^{n+1})\pmb{M}^{-1}B^TM^{-1}D(\widetilde{U}^{n+1})\geqslant 0,
\end{align*}
which with (\ref{qqq}) yields
\begin{align}\label{4331}
D(\widetilde{U}^{n+1})^T(\widetilde{U}^{n+1}-\widetilde{U}^{n})\leqslant0.
\end{align}
From the definition of $D$ in (\ref{Matrix3}) using (\ref{L14}) and (\ref{4331}), we obtain the bound
\begin{align}\label{22}
\left(\phi(\pmb{x}), \displaystyle U_h^{n+1}-U_h^{n}\right)+\left(H'(U_h^{n+1}), U_h^{n+1}-U_h^{n}\right)\leqslant0.
\end{align}
Using the following Taylor expansion
\begin{align*}
H(U_h^{n})=&H(U_h^{n+1})+H'(U_h^{n+1})(U_h^{n}-U_h^{n+1})
\nonumber\\
&+\frac12H''(\xi_3^{n+1})(U_h^{n+1}-U_h^{n})^2,\ \xi_3^{n+1}\in(U_h^{n}, U_h^{n+1}),
\end{align*}
we obtain that (\ref{22}) gives
\begin{align*
\left(\phi(\pmb{x}), U_h^{n+1}-U_h^{n}\right)+\left(H(U_h^{n+1})-H(U_h^{n}),1\right)
+\frac12\left(H''(\xi_3^{n+1}), \left(U_h^{n+1}-U_h^{n}\right)^2\right)
\leqslant 0,
\end{align*}
which implies, using the definition of $E_h$ in (\ref{Eh}), that
\begin{align*
{E}_h(U_h^{n+1})-{E}_h(U_h^{n})=&\left(\phi(\pmb{x}), U_h^{n+1}-U_h^{n}\right)+\left(H(U_h^{n+1})-H(U_h^{n}),1\right)
\leqslant 0,
\end{align*}
since (\ref{1.fh}) gives $H''(\xi_3^{n+1})\geqslant 0$. This proves (\ref{43.c}).
\end{proof}
\section{Numerical tests} \label{Numerical}
In this section, we will discuss several numerical experiments to demonstrate the performance of the KKT-DIRK-LDG positivity preserving algorithm for the degenerate parabolic equation (\ref{1.a}).
In the computations, we will consider the porous medium equation, the nonlinear diffusion equation with a double-well potential and the nonlinear Fokker-Plank equation for fermion and boson gases. Firstly, we will present in Section \ref{order} the order of accuracy of the DIRK-LDG discretizations with and without positivity preserving limiter to investigate if the limiter negatively affects the accuracy of the discretizations. Next, we will present in Sections \ref{double-well}-\ref{boson} test cases for which the positivity preserving limiter is essential. Without the positivity constraint, obtaining a numerical solution or only for extremely small time steps is impossible.
In the computations, we take $\tau=\alpha \cdot h$. If the Newton method during strongly nonlinear stages requires a large number of iterations, it is generally more efficient to reduce the time step to $\displaystyle\frac{1}2\tau$ and restart the Newton iterations. When the Newton method converges well, then $\tau$ is increased each time step to $1.2\tau$, till the maximum predefined time step is obtained.
In order to avoid round-off effects, a positivity bound $u_{\min}=10^{-10}$ is used in the numerical simulations, except for Section \ref{order} where $u_{\min}=10^{-14}$. If it is not stated otherwise, the numerical results for 1D problems are obtained on a mesh containing 100 elements and Legendre polynomials of order 2. For 2D problems, a mesh consisting of $30\times 30$ square elements and tensor product Legendre polynomial basis functions of order 2 are used.
\subsection {Accuracy tests}\label{order}
For the accuracy test, we use a uniform mesh with $M$ elements and positivity bound $u_{\min}=10^{-14}$.
\begin{ex}\label{order2}
We consider (\ref{1.a}) on the domain $\Omega=[-1,1]$ with Dirichlet boundary conditions based on the exact solution and select the following parameters
\begin{align*}
f(u)=u,\quad H'(u)=u^{2},\quad \phi(x)=0,\quad x\in \Omega.
\end{align*}
Then (\ref{1.a}) with a properly chosen source term has the nonnegative solution
\begin{align*}
u(x,t)=\exp(-t)(1-x^4)^{5},\quad x\in \Omega.
\end{align*}
We take $\alpha$ in the definition of the time step as $\alpha=1$. Tables \ref{num2}-\ref{num3} show that the DIRK-LDG discretizations with and without positivity preserving limiter are convergent at the rate $O(h^{k+1})$ for basis functions with polynomial order ranging from 1 to 3. The errors and orders of accuracy presented in Tables \ref{num2}-\ref{num3} indicate that the positivity preserving limiter is necessary and does not negatively affect accuracy.
{
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{\small\label{num2} Error in $L^\infty-$ and $L^1-$ norms for Example \ref{order2} at time $T=1$ without positivity preserving limiter.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|r|c|ccccc|}
\hline
$\mathcal{P}_{k}$ & $M$ & $\|u_n-u_h^n\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}$ & Order& $\|u_n-u_h^n\|_{L^1(\Omega)}$ & Order & $\min u_h^n$ \\\hline
& $40$ &7.33E-003& --&1.03E-003& --& -8.87e-005\\
1 &$80$ &1.24e-003&2.56 &2.27e-004&2.18& -1.08e-005\\
&$160$ &2.63e-004&2.24&5.44e-005&2.06& -4.41e-007\\
&$320$ &6.05e-005&2.12&1.35e-005&2.01& -1.57e-008\\
\hline
&$40$ &1.70E-003& --&8.73E-005& -- & -1.60e-005\\
2 &$80$ &1.43e-004&3.57 &8.07e-006&3.44& -1.79e-007\\
&$160$ &1.36e-005&3.39&9.40e-007&3.10& -6.24e-009\\
&$320$ &1.34e-006&3.34&1.16e-007&3.02& -2.07e-010\\
\hline
&$40$ &1.45e-004&-- &6.00e-006&--& -2.14e-006\\
3 &$80$ &9.87e-006&3.88&3.11e-007&4.27& -9.56e-008\\
&$160$ &5.51e-007&4.16&1.76e-008&4.14& -3.51e-009\\
&$320$ &3.50e-008&3.98&1.11e-009&3.99& -1.19e-010\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\bigskip
\caption{\small\label{num3} Error in $L^\infty-$ and $L^1-$ norms for Example \ref{order2} at time $T=1$ with positivity preserving limiter.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|r|c|ccccc|}
\hline
$\mathcal{P}_{k}$ & $M$ & $\|u_n-U_h^n\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}$ & Order & $\|u_n-U_h^n\|_{L^1(\Omega)}$ & Order & $\min U_h^n$ \\\hline
& $40$ &7.33E-003& --&1.05E-003& --& 2.05e-005\\
1 &$80$ &1.24e-003&2.56 &2.27e-004&2.21& 8.15e-007\\
&$160$ &2.63e-004&2.24&5.44e-005&2.06& 2.77e-008\\
&$320$ &6.05e-005&2.12&1.35e-005&2.01& 8.55e-010\\
\hline
&$40$ &1.70E-003& --&8.73E-005& -- & 6.15e-008\\
2 &$80$ &1.43e-004&3.57 &8.08e-006&3.43& 3.03e-007\\
&$160$ &1.36e-005&3.39&9.40e-007&3.10& 1.08e-008\\
&$320$ &1.34e-006&3.34&1.16e-007&3.02& 4.55e-010\\
\hline
&$40$ &1.45e-004&-- &6.02e-006&--& 1.00e-014\\
3 &$80$ &9.87e-006&3.88&3.13e-007&4.27& 4.45e-008\\
&$160$ &5.51e-007&4.16&1.77e-008&4.14& 1.21e-009\\
&$320$ &3.50e-008&3.98&1.11e-009&4.00& 2.55e-011\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
}
\end{ex}
\subsection{Porous media equation}\label{diffusion}
For the porous media equation, $f(u)H''(u)$ can locally vanish, resulting in degenerate cases \cite{bessemoulin2012finite}. We test the asymptotic behavior of the numerical solution and will show that the KKT limiter is necessary. The entropy defined in (\ref{1.b}), which should be non-increasing, is also computed.
\begin{ex}\label{porous}
In order to test degenerate cases, we choose the following parameters in (\ref{1.a}) on the domain $\Omega= [0,1]$ with zero-flux boundary conditions
\begin{align*}
f(u)=u,\quad H'(u)=\displaystyle\frac43\left(u-\frac12\right)^3\max\left(u,\frac12\right),\quad \phi(x)=0, \quad x \in \Omega,
\end{align*}
and initial data
\begin{align*}
u(x,0)=\displaystyle\frac12-\frac12\cos(2 \pi x), \quad x \in \Omega.
\end{align*}
During the computations, the value of $\alpha$ for optimal convergence of the semi-smooth Newton algorithm is usually close to 0.1. We present the numerical solution in Fig. \ref{num6} for basis functions with polynomial order ranging from 1 to 3 and with the KKT limiter enforced. Values of the Lagrange multiplier $\lambda$ larger than $10^{-10}$ are shown in Fig. \ref{num6}, which indicate that the positivity constraint works well since it is only active at locations where the solution is close to the minimum value. The entropy decay using the KKT limiter and polynomial basis functions of order 3 is presented in Fig. \ref{num71}, in which the result is consistent with the stability analysis. In Fig. \ref{num72}, the numerical solution without KKT limiter and for polynomial basis functions with order 3 is plotted. This computation breaks down due to unphysical oscillations.
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\small
\centering
\subfigure [$\mathcal{P}_{1}$]{\includegraphics[height=5.5cm,width=5.1cm]{Degenerate_T30000-1.eps}}
\subfigure [$\mathcal{P}_{2}$]{\includegraphics[height=5.5cm,width=5.1cm]{Degenerate_T30000-2.eps}}
\subfigure[$\mathcal{P}_{3}$] {\includegraphics[height=5.5cm,width=5.1cm]{Degenerate_T30000-3.eps}}
\caption{\small\label{num6}(Example \ref{porous}) Numerical solution $U_h$ for different orders of polynomial basis functions $\mathcal{P}_{1}$-$\mathcal{P}_{3}$ with the KKT limiter enforced and Lagrange multiplier $\lambda$ (red dots).}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\small
\centering
\subfigure {\includegraphics[height=7cm,width=7.9cm]{Degenerate_E30000.eps}}
\caption{\small\label{num71}(Example \ref{porous}) Entropy $E_h$ for $\mathcal{P}_{3}$ basis functions with the KKT limiter enforced.}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\small
\centering
\subfigure {\includegraphics[height=7cm,width=7.9cm]{Degenerate_T02932.eps}}
\caption{\small\label{num72}(Example \ref{porous}) Numerical solution $U_h$ for $\mathcal{P}_{3}$ basis functions \emph{without} KKT limiter just before blow up.}
\end{figure*}
\end{ex}
\begin{ex}\label{porous3}
We consider a 2D test case on the domain $\Omega=[-6,6]^2$ with zero-flux boundary conditions by choosing in (\ref{1.a}) the following parameters
\begin{align*}
f(u)=u,\quad H'(u)=2u,\quad \phi(\pmb{x})=0,\quad \pmb{x}\in \Omega,
\end{align*}
and initial data
\begin{align*}
u(\pmb{x},0)=\exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}|\pmb{x}|^2\right),\quad \pmb{x}\in \Omega.
\end{align*}
The value of $\alpha$ in the definition of the time step ranges in this case between 0.1 and 1. Fig. \ref{num10} presents the numerical solution with the KKT limiter active and also the Lagrange multiplier $\lambda$. Considering the position of the non-zero Lagrange multipliers, we can see that the limiter also works well in the two-dimensional case since it is only active in areas where positivity must be enforced. The entropy decay is plotted in Fig. \ref{num11}, which is consistent with the stability result of the numerical solution. Without the KKT limiter, there will be unphysical oscillations, and the computation will break down at some point in the computations.
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\small
\centering
\subfigure{\includegraphics[height=6.5cm,width=7.5cm]{Porous2D_5_Uh.eps}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[height=6.5cm,width=7.5cm]{Porous2D_5_Lambda.eps}}
\caption{\small\label{num10}(Example \ref{porous3}) Numerical solution $U_h$ for $\mathcal{P}_{2}$ basis functions with KKT limiter enforced (Left) and Lagrange multiplier $\lambda$ (Right).}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[height=6.05cm,width=7.05cm]{Porous2D_energy_5.eps}}
\caption{\small\label{num11}(Example \ref{porous3}) Entropy $E_h$ for $\mathcal{P}_{2}$ basis functions with KKT limiter enforced.
\end{figure*}
\end{ex}
\subsection{Nonlinear diffusion with a double-well potential}\label{double-well}
Consider the nonlinear diffusion equation with double-well potential \cite{kalmykov2007brownian} on the domain $\Omega=[-1.4,1.4]$, which is obtained by choosing in (\ref{1.a}) zero-flux boundary conditions and the following parameters
\begin{align}\label{**}
f(u)=u,\quad H'(u)=u ,\quad \phi(x)=\frac{1}{4}x^4-\frac{1}{2}x^2, \quad x\in \Omega.
\end{align}
This model is taken from \cite{carrillo2015finite}. We will test the evolution of the numerical solution with and without KKT limiter, and also the decay of the entropy (\ref{1.b}). The value of $\alpha$ to compute the time step ranges between 0.01 to 0.1.
\begin{ex}\label{double-well1}
We consider (\ref{1.a}) with (\ref{**}) and the initial data
\begin{align*}
u(x,0)=\frac{0.2}{\sqrt{0.4\pi}}\exp\left({-\frac{x^2}{0.4}}\right),\quad x\in \Omega.
\end{align*}
The numerical solution with the KKT limiter enforced and the values of the Lagrange multiplier $\lambda$ larger than $10^{-10}$ are shown in Fig. \ref{num4}. These results indicate that the numerical solution tends to a steady state and that the KKT limiter is only active at places where the positivity constraint needs to be imposed. The entropy dissipation is presented in Fig. \ref{num5}, in which uniform decay coincides with our theoretical analysis. For the numerical solution without the KKT limiter, we observe that violating the positivity constraint will result in discontinuities in the solution and a computation breakdown, even for a very small CFL number.
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\small
\centering
\subfigure{\includegraphics[height=6.25cm,width=6.25cm]{Doublewell_10.eps}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[height=6.25cm,width=6.25cm]{Doublewell_200000.eps}}
\caption{\small\label{num4}(Example \ref{double-well1}) Numerical solution $U_h$ for $\mathcal{P}_{2}$ basis functions with KKT limiter enforced and Lagrange multiplier $\lambda$ (red dots).}
\small
\centering
\subfigure{\includegraphics[height=6.6cm,width=8cm]{Doubel-potential-E20.eps}}
\caption{\small\label{num5}(Example \ref{double-well1}) Entropy $E_h$ for $\mathcal{P}_{2}$ basis functions with KKT limiter enforced.
\end{figure*}
\end{ex}
\subsection {Nonlinear Fokker-Plank equation for fermion gases}\label{Fermion1}
We consider the nonlinear Fokker-Plank equation for fermion gases \cite{bessemoulin2012finite} on the domain $\Omega=[-10,10]^2$, for which we select the following parameters in (\ref{1.a})
\begin{align}\label{546}
f(u)=u(1-u),\quad H'(u)=\log \frac{u}{1-u},\quad \phi(\pmb{x})=\frac{1}{2}|\pmb{x}|^2,\quad \pmb{x}\in\Omega,
\end{align}
together with zero-flux boundary conditions.
\begin{ex}\label{Fermion2D}
We consider (\ref{1.a}) with (\ref{546}) and initial data
\begin{align*}
\displaystyle u(\pmb{x},0)=&\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2\pi}}\left(\exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}|\pmb{x}-(2,2)|^2\right)+\exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}|\pmb{x}-(2,-2)|^2\right)\right.\\
&+\left.\exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}|\pmb{x}-(-2,2)|^2\right)+\exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}|\pmb{x}-(-2,-2)|^2\right)\right),\quad \pmb{x}\in\Omega.
\end{align*}
During the computations, the value of $\alpha$ in the definition of the time step ranges between 0.1 and 1, but for most time steps $\alpha=1$. The numerical solutions at several time levels with the KKT limiter enforced and the entropy dissipation are presented in Figs \ref{num13} and \ref{num13-1}, respectively, showing the time-asymptotic convergence of the numerical solution towards a steady state. Without the KKT limiter, the computations break down, even for very small CFL numbers.
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\small
\centering
\subfigure {\includegraphics[height=6.25cm,width=6.25cm]{Ferminion-gas-0.eps}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[height=6.25cm,width=6.25cm]{Ferminion-gas-05.eps}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[height=6.25cm,width=6.25cm]{Ferminion-gas-10.eps}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[height=6.25cm,width=6.25cm]{Ferminion-gas-20.eps}}
\caption{\small\label{num13}(Example \ref{Fermion2D}) Numerical solution $U_h$ for $\mathcal{P}_{2}$ basis functions with KKT limiter enforced.}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\small
\centering
\subfigure{\includegraphics[height=6.3cm,width=6.5cm]{Ferminion-gas-E20.eps}}
\caption{\small\label{num13-1}(Example \ref{Fermion2D}) Entropy $E_h$ for $\mathcal{P}_{2}$ basis functions with KKT limiter enforced.}
\end{figure*}
\end{ex}
\subsection{Nonlinear Fokker-Plank equation for boson gases}\label{boson}
\begin{ex}\label{boson1}
We consider a nonlinear Fokker-Plank equation for boson gases with zero-flux boundary condition on a domain $\Omega=[-10,10]$, which requires the following parameters in (\ref{1.a})
\begin{align*}
f(u)=u(1+u^3),\quad H'(u)=\log \frac{u}{(1+u^3)^{\frac13}} ,\quad \phi(x)=\frac{x^2}{2},\quad x\in\Omega.
\end{align*}
The initial data is \cite{bessemoulin2012finite, liu2016entropy}
\begin{align*}
\displaystyle u(x,0)=&\frac{M}{2\sqrt{2\pi}}\left(\exp\left({-\frac{(x-2)^2}{2}}\right)+\exp\left({-\frac{(x+2)^2}{2}}\right)\right),\quad x\in \Omega,
\end{align*}
where $M\geqslant 0$ is the mass of $u(x,0)$.
For most time steps, the value of $\alpha$ in the definition of the time step is 1. For the case $M=1$, Fig. \ref{num14-1} displays the numerical solution at various times. Also, the locations and values of the Lagrange multiplier $\lambda$ and the entropy with the KKT limiter enforced are shown. The results in Figs \ref{num14-1} and \ref{num14} indicate that the numerical solution tends to a steady state, and that the Lagrange multiplier $\lambda$ is needed to ensure that the positivity constraint is satisfied. Without the KKT limiter, the computations break down, even for very small CFL numbers.
For this model equation, there is a critical mass phenomenon \cite{abdallah2011minimization}, which states that solutions with a large initial mass blows-up in a finite time, while solutions with a small mass at an initial time will not. The numerical solutions with sub-critical mass $M=1$ at times $t=5$ and $t=10$ and with super-critical mass $M=10$ at times $t=0.2$ and $t=1$ are shown in Fig. \ref{num15} and Fig. \ref{num16}, respectively, and agree with the results shown in \cite{abdallah2011minimization} and the numerical observation in \cite{bessemoulin2012finite, liu2016entropy}.
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\small
\centering
\subfigure{\includegraphics[height=6.25cm,width=6.25cm]{Boson-gas-0.eps}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[height=6.25cm,width=6.25cm]{Boson-gas-036.eps}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[height=6.25cm,width=6.25cm]{Boson-gas-5.eps}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[height=6.25cm,width=6.25cm]{Boson-gas-10.eps}}
\caption{\small\label{num14-1}(Example \ref{boson1}): Numerical solution $U_h$ for $\mathcal{P}_{2}$ basis functions with KKT limiter enforced.}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\small
\centering
\subfigure {\includegraphics[height=6.5cm,width=7.5cm]{Boson-gasE10.eps}}
\caption{\small\label{num14}(Example \ref{boson1}): Entropy $E_h$ for $\mathcal{P}_{2}$ basis functions with KKT limiter enforced.}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\small
\centering
\subfigure{\includegraphics[height=6.25cm,width=6.25cm]{Boson-gas-5.eps}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[height=6.25cm,width=6.25cm]{Boson-gas-10.eps}}
\caption{\small\label{num15}(Example \ref{boson1}: $M=1$): Numerical solution $U_h$ for $\mathcal{P}_{2}$ basis functions with KKT limiter enforced.}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[height=6.25cm,width=6.25cm]{BosongasesM10-02.eps}}
\subfigure {\includegraphics[height=6.25cm,width=6.25cm]{BosongasesM10-1.eps}}
\caption{\small\label{num16}(Example \ref{boson1}: $M=10$) Numerical solution $U_h$ for $\mathcal{P}_{2}$ basis functions with KKT limiter enforced.}
\end{figure*}
\end{ex}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
The main topic of this paper is the formulation of higher order accurate positivity preserving DIRK-LDG discretizations for the nonlinear degenerate parabolic equation (\ref{1.a}). The presented numerical discretizations allow the combination of a positivity preserving limiter and time-implicit numerical discretizations for PDEs and alleviate the time step restrictions of currently available positivity preserving DG discretizations, which generally require the use of explicit time integration methods. For the spatial discretization an LDG method combined with a simple alternating numerical flux is used, which simplifies the theoretical analysis for the entropy dissipation. For the temporal discretization, the implicit DIRK methods significantly enlarge the time-step required for stability of the numerical discretization. We prove the existence, uniqueness and unconditional entropy dissipation of the positivity preserving high order accurate KKT-LDG discretization combined with an implicit Euler time discretization. Numerical results are presented to demonstrate the accuracy of the higher order accurate positivity preserving KKT-DIRK-LDG discretizations, which are of optimal order and not affected by the positivity preserving KKT limiter. The numerical solutions satisfy the entropy decay condition.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
\label{sec:acknowledgements}
The research of Fengna Yan was funded by a fellowship from the China Scholarship Council (No. 201806340058). The research of J.J.W. van der Vegt was partially supported by the University
of Science and Technology of China (USTC), Hefei, Anhui, China, while the author was in residence at USTC.
The research of Yinhua Xia was partially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China grant No. 12271498. The research of Yan Xu was partially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China grant No. 12071455.
\iffalse
|
\section*{Appendix}
\subsection*{Visualized Samples (Expanded)}
This appendix section presents the reconstruction and synthesized samples from the PFF models in the main paper at a larger image scale/size.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.35\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/mnist_recon.png}
\caption{PFF reconstructed images.}
\label{fig:mnist_recon_big}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{0.5cm}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.35\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/mnist_samples.jpg}
\caption{PFF sampled images.}
\label{fig:mnist_fantasies_big}
\end{subfigure} \\
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/kmnist_rep_filters.jpg}
\caption{PFF representation receptive fields.}
\label{fig:mnist_rep_filters_big}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/mnist_gen_filters.jpg}
\caption{PFF generative receptive fields.}
\label{fig:mnist_gen_filters_big}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{MNIST model reconstruction (Left) and generated (Right) samples. In the bottom row, the receptive fields of the bottom-most layer of the representation circuit (Left) and those of the generative circuit (Right).}
\label{fig:mnist_samples_big}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.35\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/kmnist_recon.png}
\caption{PFF reconstructed images.}
\label{fig:kmnist_recon_big}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{0.5cm}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.35\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/kmnist_samples.jpg}
\caption{PFF sampled images.}
\label{fig:kmnist_fantasies_big}
\end{subfigure} \\
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/kmnist_rep_filters.jpg}
\caption{PFF representation receptive fields.}
\label{fig:kmnist_rep_filters_big}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/kmnist_gen_filters.jpg}
\caption{PFF generative receptive fields.}
\label{fig:kmnist_gen_filters_big}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{In the top row, Kuzushiji-MNIST model reconstruction (Left) and generated (Right) samples. In the bottom row, the receptive fields of the bottom-most layer of the representation circuit (Left) and those of the generative circuit (Right).}
\label{fig:kmnist_samples_big}
\end{figure}
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The algorithm known as backpropagation of errors \cite{rumelhart1988backprop}, or ``backprop'' for short, has long faced criticism concerning its neurobiological plausibility \cite{crick1989recent, marblestone2016toward, grossberg1987competitive}. Despite having powered the tremendous progress and success behind deep learning and its every-growing myriad of promising applications \cite{silver2016mastering,floridi2020gpt}, it is improbable that backprop is a good, viable model of learning in the brain, such as in cortical regions. Notably, there are both practical and biophysical issues \cite{grossberg1987competitive, marblestone2016toward}, and among these issues are the following:
\begin{itemize}[noitemsep,nolistsep]
\item there is a lack of evidence that neural activities are explicitly stored to be used later for synaptic adjustment,
\item error derivatives are backpropagated along a global feedback pathway to generate teaching signals,
\item the error signals move back along the same neural pathways used to forward propagate information, and,
\item inference and learning are locked to be largely sequential (instead of massively/easily parallel).
\end{itemize}
Furthermore, in processing temporal data, it is certainly not the case that the neural circuitry of the brain is unfolded backwards through time in order to calculate and adjust synapses \cite{ororbia2018continual} (as it is for backprop through time).
Recently, there has been a growing interest in the research domain of brain-inspired computing, which focuses on developing algorithms and computational models that attempt to circumvent or resolve the critical issues such as those highlighted above. Among the most powerful and promising ones is predictive coding (PC) \cite{helmholtz1924treatise, rao1999predictive,friston2010free,bastos2012canonical,salvatori2021associative,ororbia2022neural}, and among the most recent ones is the forward-forward (FF) algorithm \cite{hinton2022forward}. These alternatives offer powerful, different means of conducting credit assignments that have shown similar performance as backprop, but to the contrary, are more likely consistent with and similar to real biological neuron learning (see Figure \ref{fig:learningalgo_comp} for some representative credit assignment depictions). This paper will propose a novel model and learning/inference process, the \textbf{predictive forward-forward (PFF)} process, that generalizes and combines FF and PC into a robust (stochastic) neural system that simultaneously learns a representation and generative model in a biologically-plausible fashion. Like the FF algorithm, the PFF procedure offers a promising, potentially helpful model of biological neural circuits, a potential candidate system for low-power analog hardware and neuromorphic circuits, and a potential backprop-alternative worthy of future investigation and study.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.865\textwidth]{figs/Model_diagram_PFF.pdf}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\caption{Comparison of learning algorithms that relax constraints imposed by backpropagation of errors (BP). Algorithms visually depicted include feedback alignment (FA) \cite{lillicrap2014random}, predictive coding (PC) \cite{rao1999predictive,salvatori2022reverse}, local representation alignment (LRA) \cite{ororbia2018biologically}, neural generative coding (NGC) \cite{ororbia&mali2019lifelong,ororbia2022neural}, the forward-forward procedure (FF) \cite{hinton2022forward}, and predictive forward-forward algorithm (PFF).}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\label{fig:learningalgo_comp}
\end{figure}
\section{The Predictive Forward-Forward Learning Process}
\label{sec:method}
The brain-inspired neural process that we will design and study is called the predictive forward-forward (PFF) algorithm, which builds on and generalizes aspects of the FF algorithm \cite{hinton2022forward}. At a high level, the PFF process consists of two neural structures or circuits, i.e., a representation circuit (parameterized by $\Theta_r$) that focuses on acquiring distributed representations of data samples and a top-down generative circuit (parameterized by $\Theta_g$) that focuses on learning to synthesize data given the activity values of the representation circuit. Thus, the PFF process can be characterized as a complementary system with the aim of jointly learning a classifier and generative model.
We will first define the notation used throughout this paper, then proceed to describe the inference and learning mechanics of the representation circuit followed by those of the generative circuit.
\paragraph{Notation:}
We use $\odot$ to indicate a Hadamard product and $\cdot$ to denote a matrix/vector multiplication. $(\mathbf{v})^T$ is the transpose of $\mathbf{v}$. Matrices/vectors are depicted in bold font, e.g., matrix $\mathbf{M}$ or vector $\mathbf{v}$ (scalars shown in italic). $\mathbf{z}_j$ will refer to extracting $j$th scalar from vector $\mathbf{z}$.
Finally, $||\mathbf{v}||_2$ denotes the Euclidean norm of vector $\mathbf{v}$. The sensory input has shape $\mathbf{x} \in \mathcal{R}^{J_0 \times 1}$ ($J_0$ is the number of input features, e.g., pixels), label has shape $\mathbf{y} \in \mathcal{R}^{C \times 1}$ (where $C$ is the number of classes), and any neural layer has shape $\mathbf{z}^\ell \in \mathcal{R}^{J_\ell \times 1}$ ($J_\ell$ is the number of neurons in layer $\ell$).
\subsection{The Forward-Forward Learning Rule}
\label{sec:ff_rule}
The PPF process, like the FF algorithm when it is applied to a recurrent network, involves adjusting the synaptic efficacies of a group of neurons by measuring their ``goodness'', or, in other words, the probability that their activity indicates that an incoming signal comes from the target training data distribution (or the ``positive class''). Formally, for any single layer $\ell$ in an $L$-layered neural system, we calculate the goodness as the sum of the squared activities for a given neural activity vector $\mathbf{z}^\ell$ and compare it to particular threshold value $\theta_z$ in one of two ways:
\begin{align}
p(c=1)_\ell = \frac{1}{1 + \exp \big( -(\sum^{J_\ell}_j (\mathbf{z}^\ell_j)^2 - \theta_z ) \big)}, \; \mbox{or, } \; p(c=1)_\ell = \frac{1}{1 + \exp \big( -(\theta_z - \sum^{J_\ell}_j (\mathbf{z}^\ell_j)^2 ) \big)} \label{eqn:goodness}
\end{align}
where $p(c=1)_\ell$ indicates the probability that the data comes from the data distribution (i.e., positive data, where the positive class is labeled $c = 1$) while the probability that the data does not come from the training data distribution is $p(c=0)_\ell = 1 - p(c=1)_\ell$. Note that $p(c)_\ell$ indicates the probability that is assigned by a layer $\ell$ of neurons in a system/network.
This means the cost function that any layer is trying to solve/optimize is akin to a binary class logistic regression problem formulated as follows:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}(\Theta^\ell) = -\frac{1}{N}\sum^N_{i=1} c_i \log p(c_i=1)_\ell + (1 - c_i) \log p(c_i=0)_\ell \label{eqn:rep_loss}
\end{align}
where the binary label $c_i$ (the label for the $i$th datapoint $\mathbf{x}_i$) can be generated correctly and automatically if one formulates a generative process for producing negative data samples. Data patterns sampled from the training set $\mathbf{x}_j \sim \mathcal{D}_{train}$ can be labeled as $c_j = 1$ and patterns sampled outside of $\mathcal{D}_{train}$ (from the negative data generating process) can be automatically labeled as $c_j = 0$. Crucial to the success of the FF procedure is the design of a useful negative data distribution, much as is the case for noise contrastive estimation \cite{gutmann2010noise}.
It is important to notice that the FF learning rule is local in nature -- this means that the synapses of any particular layer of neurons can be adjusted independently of the others. The rule's form is furthermore different from a classical Hebbian update \cite{hebb1949organization} (which produces a weight change by a product of incoming and outgoing neural activities), given that this synaptic adjustment requires knowledge across a group of neurons (goodness depends on the sum of squares of the activities of a group rather than an individual unit) and integrates contrastive learning into the dynamics.
Synaptic updates are specifically calculated by taking the gradient of Equation \ref{eqn:rep_loss}, i.e., $\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\Theta^\ell)}{\partial \Theta^\ell}$.
In effect, a neural layer optimizes Equation \ref{eqn:rep_loss} by either maximizing the squared activities of a layer (to be above threshold $\theta_z$) (left form of the probability presented in Equation \ref{eqn:goodness}) or, alternatively, minimizing the squared activities (right form of the probability presented in Equation \ref{eqn:goodness}).
\subsection{The Representation Circuit}
\label{sec:ff_rnn}
In order to take advantage of the above FF learning rule (and to model contextual prediction via top-down and bottom-up influences), a recurrent network was proposed in \cite{hinton2022forward}, where, at each layer, a set of top-down and bottom-up forces are combined to compute the activity of any layer $\ell$, much akin to the inference process of a deep Boltzmann machine \cite{salakhutdinov2010efficient}. The core parameters of this model are housed in the construct $\Theta_r = \{\mathbf{W}^1,\mathbf{W}^2,...,\mathbf{W}^L\}$ (later referred to as the representation parameters). Note that no additional classification-specific parameters are included in our model (in contrast to the model of \cite{hinton2022forward}), although incorporating these is straightforward.\footnote{
If classification-specific parameters are desired, one could include an additional set of synaptic weights $\Theta^d = \{\mathbf{W},\mathbf{b}\}$ that take in as input the top-most (normalized) activity $\text{LN}(\mathbf{z}^L)$ of the recurrent representation circuit in order to make a rough prediction of the label distribution over $\mathbf{y}$, i.e, $p(y=i|\text{LN}(\mathbf{z}^L)) = \exp(\mathbf{W} \cdot \text{LN}(\mathbf{z}^L) + \mathbf{b})_i/\big( \sum_c \exp(\mathbf{W} \cdot \text{LN}(\mathbf{z}^L) + \mathbf{b})_c \big)$. This would make the recurrent model of this work much more similar to that of \cite{hinton2022forward}.
Softmax parameters $\mathbf{W}$ and $\mathbf{b}$ would then be adjusted by taking the relevant gradients of the objective $\mathcal{L}^y(\mathbf{W},\mathbf{b}) = -\log p(y=i | \text{LN}(\mathbf{z}^L))$.
}
Note that the representation circuit of the the PFF process will take the form of a recurrent network.
To compute any layer's activity within the representation circuit, top-down and bottom-up messages are combined with an interpolation of the layer's activity at the previous time step. Specifically, in PFF, this is done as follows:
\begin{align}
\mathbf{z}^\ell(t) = \beta \Big( \phi^\ell \big( \mathbf{W}^\ell \cdot \text{LN}( \mathbf{z}^{\ell-1}(t-1) ) + \mathbf{V}^\ell \cdot \text{LN}( \mathbf{z}^{\ell+1}(t-1) ) \big) + \mathbf{\epsilon}^\ell_r \Big) + (1 - \beta) \mathbf{z}^\ell(t-1) \label{eqn:ff_state_update}
\end{align}
where $\epsilon^\ell_r \sim \mathcal{N}(0,\sigma)$ is injected, centered Gaussian noise and $\mathbf{z}^0(t-1) = \mathbf{x}$.
As in \cite{hinton2022forward}, we set the activation function $\phi^\ell()$ for each layer $\ell$ to be the linear rectifier, i.e., $\phi^\ell(\mathbf{v}) = \text{max}(0, \mathbf{v})$.
Notice the introduction of an interpolation coefficient $\beta$, which allows integration of the state $\mathbf{z}^{\ell}$ over time (the new activity state at time $t$ is a convex combination of the newly proposed state and the previous value of the state at $t-1$). Furthermore, notice that this interpolation is similar to that of the ``regression'' factor introduced into the recirculation algorithm \cite{hinton1988learning}, a classical local learning algorithm that made use of carefully crafted autoencoders to generate the signals needed for computing synaptic adjustments.
$\text{LN}(\mathbf{z})$ is a layer normalization function applied to the activity vector, i.e., $\text{LN}(\mathbf{z}^\ell) = \mathbf{z}^\ell/(||\mathbf{z}^\ell||_2 + \epsilon)$ ($\epsilon$ is a small numerical stability factor for preventing division by zero).
Note that the topmost layer of the representation circuit is clamped to a context vector $\mathbf{y}$ (which could be provided by another neural circuit or be set to be a data point's label/target vector), i.e., $\mathbf{z}^{L+1} = \mathbf{y}$\footnote{It is important to scale the label/context vector by a factor of about $5$, i.e., the topmost layer activity would be $\mathbf{z}^{L+1} = \mathbf{y} * 5$ (Geoffrey Hinton, personal communication, Dec 12, 2022).}, while the bottom layer is clamped to sensory input, i.e., $\mathbf{z}^0(t) = \mathbf{x}(t)$ (where $\mathbf{x}(t)$ could be the frame of video or a repeated copy of a static image $\mathbf{x}$).
Equation \ref{eqn:ff_state_update} depicts a synchronous update of all layer-wise activities, but, as noted in \cite{hinton2022forward}, the recurrent model could alternatively be implemented by cycling between even and odd-number layers, i.e., first updating all even-numbered layers given the activities of the odd-numbered layers followed by updating the values of the odd-numbered layers given the new values of the even layers, much like the generative stochastic networks of \cite{bengio2014deep}.
To create the negative data needed to train this system, we disregard the current class indicated by the label $\mathbf{y}$ of the positive data $\mathbf{x}^p$ and create an incorrect ``negative label'' $\mathbf{y}^n$ by randomly (uniformly) sampling an incorrect class index, excluding the correct one.\footnote{This deviates from how the negative label was made in \cite{hinton2022forward}, which chose an incorrect class index in proportion to the probabilities produced by a forward pass of the classification-specific parameters. This was not needed for the PFF algorithm.}
A final mini-batch of samples is dynamically created by concatenating positive and negative samples, i.e., $\mathbf{x} = <\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{x}>$ and $\mathbf{y} = <\mathbf{y}, \mathbf{y}^n>$ (notice that positive image pixels are reused and paired with the negative labels in order to create the negative samples). The PFF process then involves running the combined mini-batch through the neural system and calculating the relevant synaptic updates.
Equation \ref{eqn:ff_state_update} is typically run several times ($8$ to $10$ times as in this study and \cite{hinton2022forward}), similar to the stimulus processing window that is simulated for predictive coding systems \cite{rao1999predictive,ororbia2022neural}. Each time Equation \ref{eqn:ff_state_update} is run, the (bottom-up and top-down) synapses for layer $\ell$ are adjusted according to the following local update:
\begin{align}
\Delta \mathbf{W}^\ell = \Big( 2 \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\Theta^\ell)}{\partial \sum^{J_\ell}_j (\mathbf{z}^\ell_j)^2} \odot \mathbf{z}^\ell \Big) \cdot \big( \text{LN}(\mathbf{z}^{\ell-1}) \big)^T, \; \mbox{and, } \; \Delta \mathbf{V}^\ell = \Big( 2 \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\Theta^\ell)}{\partial \sum^{J_\ell}_j (\mathbf{z}^\ell_j)^2} \odot \mathbf{z}^\ell \Big) \cdot \big( \text{LN}(\mathbf{z}^{\ell+1}) \big)^T
\end{align}
which can then be applied to the relevant parameters, i.e., $\mathbf{W}^\ell$ and $\mathbf{V}^\ell$, via methods such as stochastic gradient descent (SGD) with momentum or Adam \cite{kingma2014adam}. In principle, the neural layers of the representation circuit are globally optimizing the objective $\mathcal{L}(\Theta_r) = \sum^L_{\ell=1} \mathcal{L}^\ell(\mathbf\Theta^\ell = \mathbf{W}^\ell)$ (the summation of local goodness functions).
\paragraph{On Classifying Sensory Patterns:} One might observe that our representation circuit does not include discriminatory parameters that classify inputs directly. Nevertheless, given that the supervised target $\mathbf{y}$ is used as context to mediate the top-most latent representations of the recurrent circuit above, the representation system should (positive data samples) acquire distributed representations that implicitly encode label information.
To take advantage of the discriminative information encoded in PFF's representations, as was also done in the FF algorithm, we may still classify by executing an inference process similar to that of early hybrid Boltzmann machine models \cite{larochelle2008classification,ororbia2015online}.
Specifically, to classify an input $\mathbf{x}$, we iterate over all possible (one-hot) values that $\mathbf{y}$ could be, starting with the first class index. Specifically, for any chosen $\mathbf{y}$ (such as the one-hot encoding of class index $i$), we run Equation \ref{eqn:ff_state_update} for the representation circuit for $T$ steps and then record the goodness across the layers in the middle three iterations (from $T/2-1$ to $T/2+1$), i.e., $\mathcal{G}_{y=i} = \frac{1}{3}\sum^{T/2+1}_{T/2-1} \frac{1}{L}\sum^L_{\ell=1} \theta_z - \sum^{J_\ell}_{j} (\mathbf{z^\ell_j}^2)$. This goodness calculation is made for all class indices $y = 1, 2,...,C$, resulting in $\{ \mathcal{G}_{y=1}, \mathcal{G}_{y=2}, ..., \mathcal{G}_{y=C} \}$ over which the argmax is applied in order to obtain the index of the class with the highest average goodness value. Note that, as mentioned in \cite{hinton2022forward}, if classification-specific parameters are included in PFF's representation circuit, then a single feedforward pass could be used to obtain initial class probabilities. Then the above search could instead be simplified by conducting it over only the top $M$ highest probabilities (and thus avoid an expensive search over a massive number of classes). To estimate the label probability distribution under the representation circuit, as we do in this work, we run the goodness (logits) through the softmax, i.e., $p(y=i|\mathbf{x}) \sim \exp(\mathcal{G}_i)/(\sum_c \exp(\mathcal{G}_c))$.
\subsection{The Generative Circuit}
\label{sec:gen_circuit}
As mentioned before, the PFF algorithm incorporates the joint adaptation of a top-down directed generative model. This aspect of the PFF process is motivated by the generative nature of predictive processing (PP) models \cite{rao1999predictive,friston2010free}, particularly those that focus on learning a top-down generative model as in the framework of neural generative coding \cite{ororbia2022neural}. Crucially, we remark that jointly learning (in a biologically-plausible fashion) a generative feedback system could favorably provide a means of inspecting the content of the representations acquired by an FF-centric process as well as provide a plausible, alternative means for(internally) synthesizing negative data.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.385\textwidth]{figs/ff_ngc.pdf}
\vspace{-0.15cm}
\caption{The PFF algorithmic process depicted over three-time steps for a three hidden layer network system coupled to a four-layer generative system (topmost layer is the sampled latent variable $\mathbf{z}_s$). Solid arrows represent synaptic weights, dashed blue arrows depict interpolation between left and right states, and dash-dotted arrows depict state carry-over/direct copying. The dashed diamond curve represents a feedback pathway, gray circles represent neural units, and red diamonds represent error neurons. Note that since all elements of the system are adjusted dynamically, the generative circuit is run/updated each time the representation circuit is run/updated.}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\label{fig:pff_process}
\end{figure}
The generative circuit, which is comprised of the set of synaptic parameters $\Theta_g = \{\mathbf{G}^0, \mathbf{G}^1,...,\mathbf{G}^L\}$, attempts to learn how to predict, at each layer, a local region of neural activity, which, as we will see by design, facilitates simple error Hebbian updates (much like those calculated in a PP system). Formally, the objective that this generative circuit will attempt to optimize (for a single data point) is:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}(\Theta_g) = \sum^L_{\ell=0} \mathcal{L}^\ell_g(\mathbf{G}^\ell) = \sum^L_{\ell=0} \sum^{J_\ell}_{j=1} (\mathbf{\bar{z}}^\ell_j - \mathbf{z}^\ell_j(t))^2
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{z}^0 = \mathbf{x}$ (the bottom layer target is clamped to the data point being processed).
Each layer of the generative circuit conducts the following computation:
\begin{align}
\mathbf{\bar{z}}^\ell& = g^\ell(\mathbf{G}^\ell \cdot \text{LN}(\mathbf{\widehat{z}}^{\ell+1}) ), \; \mbox{where, } \mathbf{\widehat{z}}^{\ell+1} = \phi^{\ell+1}(\mathbf{z}^{\ell+1}(t) + \epsilon^{\ell+1}_z) \; \mbox{and, } \; \mathbf{e}^\ell = \mathbf{\bar{z}}^\ell - \mathbf{z}^\ell(t) \\
\mathbf{\bar{z}}^L &= g^L(\mathbf{G}^L \cdot \text{LN}(\mathbf{z}_s) ), \; \mbox{where, } \; \mathbf{z}_s \leftarrow \mathbf{z}_s - \gamma \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}^L_g(\mathbf{G}^\ell)}{\partial \mathbf{z}_s} \quad \text{// Topmost latent layer activity $\mathbf{z}_s$}
\end{align}
where $\epsilon^\ell_z \sim \mathcal{N}(0,\sigma_z)$ is controlled (additive) activity noise injected into layer $\ell$ (with a small scale, such as $\sigma_z = 0.025$). $g^\ell()$ is the elementwise activation function applied to any generative layer's prediction and, in this work, we set the activation functions for layers $\ell >= 1$ to be the linear rectifier while the bottom one is specifically set to be the clipped identity, i.e., $g^0(\mathbf{v}) = \text{HardClip}(\mathbf{v}, 0, 1)$.
At each step of the inference process that in Section \ref{sec:ff_rnn}, the synaptic weights of the generative model (at each layer) are adjusted via the following Hebbian rule:
\begin{align}
\Delta \mathbf{G}^\ell = \mathbf{e}^\ell \cdot \big( \text{LN}(\mathbf{z}^{\ell+1}(t)) \big)^T, \; \mbox{and, } \; \Delta \mathbf{G}^L = \mathbf{e}^\ell \cdot \big( \text{LN}(\mathbf{z}_s) \big)^T \mbox{.}
\end{align}
Notice that the topmost layer of the generative circuit (i.e., layer $L+1$) is treated a bit differently from the rest, i.e., the highest latent generative layer $\mathbf{z}_s$ predicts the topmost neural activity of the representation circuit $\mathbf{z}^L$ and is then adjusted by an iterative inference feedback scheme, much akin to that of sparse/predictive coding \cite{olshausen1997sparse,rao1999predictive,ororbia2022neural}. Once trained, synthesizing data from the generative circuit can be done using ancestral sampling:
\begin{align}
\mathbf{\bar{z}}^{L+1} &= \mathbf{z}_s \sim P(\mathbf{z}_s) \\
\mathbf{\bar{z}}^\ell &= g^\ell(\mathbf{G}^\ell \cdot \text{LN}(\mathbf{\bar{z}}^{\ell+1})), \; \ell = L,(L-1),...,0
\end{align}
where we choose the prior $P(\mathbf{z}_s)$ to be a Gaussian mixture model (GMM) with $10$ components, which, in this study, was retro-fit to samples of the trained system's topmost activity values (acquired by running the training dataset $\mathcal{D}_{train}$ through the model), as was done for the top-down directed generative PP models of \cite{ororbia2022neural}.
Note that for all circuits in PFF (both the representation and generative circuits), we treat the derivative of the linear rectifier activation function as a vector of ones with the same shape as the layer activity $\mathbf{z}^\ell$ (as was done in \cite{hinton2022forward}).
The learning process of the PFF procedure is shown in Algorithm \ref{alg:inference} and its neural circuits are depicted in Figure \ref{fig:pff_process}.
\begin{algorithm}[!t]
\caption{The predictive forward-forward (PFF) credit assignment algorithm. \textcolor{red}{red} denotes representation circuit computation and \textcolor{blue}{blue} denotes generative circuit computation.}
\label{alg:inference}
\fontsize{8.5}{9}\selectfont
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State {\bfseries Input:} sample $(\mathbf{y}_i,\mathbf{x}_i)$, data label $c_i$ (binary label: $1 =$ ``positive'', $0 =$ ``negative''), PFF parameters $\Theta_r$ and $\Theta_g$
\State {\bfseries Hyperparameters:} State interpolation $\beta$, SGD step size $\eta$, noise scales $\sigma_r$ and $\sigma_z$, stimulus time $T$
\LineComment Note that $\text{LN}(\mathbf{z}^\ell) = \mathbf{z}^\ell/(||\mathbf{z}^\ell||_2 + 1\mathrm{e}{-8})$
\Function{Simulate}{$(\mathbf{y}_i,\mathbf{x}_i, c_i), \Theta_r, \Theta_g$}
\LineComment Run forward pass to get initial activities
\State $\mathbf{z}^0 = \mathbf{x}_i$, \; $\mathbf{z}^\ell = \phi^\ell(\mathbf{W}^\ell \cdot \mathbf{z}^{\ell-1})$, for $\ell = 1,2,...,L$, \; $\mathbf{z}^{L+1} = \mathbf{y}_i$, \; $\mathbf{\widehat{z}}^{L+1} = \mathbf{0}$ (same as $\mathbf{z}_s$)
\For{$t = 1$ to $T$}
\color{red}
\LineComment Run representation circuit
\For{$\ell = 1$ to $L$} \Comment{Compute representation activities with layer-wise parameters $\Theta^\ell_r = \{\mathbf{W}^\ell,\mathbf{V}^\ell\}$}
\State $\Theta^\ell_r = \Theta_r[\ell]$, \; $\mathbf{W}^\ell, \mathbf{V}^\ell \leftarrow \Theta^\ell_r$ \Comment Extract relevant parameters
\State $\epsilon^\ell_r \sim \mathcal{N}(0,\sigma_r)$, \; $\mathbf{z}^\ell(t) = \beta \Big( \phi^\ell \big( \mathbf{W}^\ell \cdot \text{LN}( \mathbf{z}^{\ell-1}(t-1) ) + \mathbf{V}^\ell \cdot \text{LN}( \mathbf{z}^{\ell+1}(t-1) ) \big) + \mathbf{\epsilon}^\ell_r \Big) + (1 - \beta) \mathbf{z}^\ell(t-1)$
\State Calculate local goodness loss $\mathcal{L}(\Theta^\ell_r)$ (Equation \ref{eqn:goodness} using data label $c_i$)
\State $\Delta \mathbf{W}^\ell = \Big( 2 \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\Theta^\ell_r)}{\partial \sum^{J_\ell}_j (\mathbf{z}^\ell_j)^2} \odot \mathbf{z}^\ell \Big) \cdot \big( \text{LN}(\mathbf{z}^{\ell-1}) \big)^T$, \; $\Delta \mathbf{V}^\ell = \Big( 2 \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}(\Theta^\ell_r)}{\partial \sum^{J_\ell}_j (\mathbf{z}^\ell_j)^2} \odot \mathbf{z}^\ell \Big) \cdot \big( \text{LN}(\mathbf{z}^{\ell+1}) \big)^T$
\State $\mathbf{W}^\ell \leftarrow \mathbf{W}^\ell - \eta \Delta \mathbf{W}^\ell$, \; $\mathbf{V}^\ell \leftarrow \mathbf{V}^\ell - \eta \Delta \mathbf{V}^\ell$ \Comment SGD update with step size $\eta$ shown (could use Adam \cite{kingma2014adam} instead)
\EndFor
\color{blue}
\LineComment Run generative circuit
\For{$\ell = L$ to $1$} \Comment Compute generative predictions with layer-wise parameters $\Theta^\ell_g = \{\mathbf{G}^\ell\}$
\State $\Theta^\ell_g = \Theta_g[\ell]$, \; $\mathbf{G}^\ell \leftarrow \Theta^\ell_r$ \Comment Extract relevant parameters
\State $\epsilon^\ell \sim \mathcal{N}(0,\sigma_z)$, \; $\mathbf{\widehat{z}}^{\ell+1} = \phi^{\ell+1}(\mathbf{z}^{\ell+1} + \epsilon^{\ell+1})$, \; $\mathbf{\bar{z}}^\ell = \phi^\ell(\mathbf{G}^\ell \cdot \text{LN}(\mathbf{\widehat{z}}^{\ell+1}))$
\State Calculate local generative loss $\mathcal{L}^\ell_g(\mathbf{G}^\ell) = \frac{1}{2} \sum_j (\mathbf{\bar{z}}^\ell_j - \mathbf{z}^\ell_j(t))^2$
\State $\mathbf{e}^\ell = \mathbf{\bar{z}}^\ell - \mathbf{z}^\ell$, \; $\Delta \mathbf{G}^\ell = \mathbf{e}^\ell \cdot \big( \text{LN}(\mathbf{z}^{\ell+1}(t)) \big)^T$ \Comment{Note that $\mathbf{e}^\ell = \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}^\ell_g(\mathbf{G}^\ell)}{\partial \mathbf{\bar{z}}^\ell}$}
\State $\mathbf{G}^\ell \leftarrow \mathbf{G}^\ell - \eta \Delta \mathbf{G}^\ell$
\EndFor
\State $\mathbf{z}^{L+1} \leftarrow \mathbf{z}^{L+1} - \gamma \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}^L_g(\mathbf{G}^L)}{\partial \mathbf{z}^{L+1}}$
\Comment Update latent variable $\mathbf{z}_s$ (one step of iterative inference)
\EndFor
\color{black}
\State \textbf{Return} $\Theta_g, \Theta_r$ \Comment Output newly updated PFF parameters
\EndFunction
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\paragraph{Relationship to Contrastive Hebbian Learning:} When designing a network much as we do above, one might notice that the inference process is quite similar to that of a neural system learned under contrastive Hebbian learning (CHL) \cite{movellan1991contrastive}, although there are several significant differences.
Layer activities in a CHL-based system are updated as follows:
\begin{align}
\mathbf{z}^\ell(t) = \mathbf{z}^\ell(t-1) + \beta \Big( -\mathbf{z}^\ell(t-1) + \phi^\ell \big(\mathbf{W}^\ell \cdot \mathbf{z}^{\ell-1}(t-1) + (\mathbf{W}^{\ell+1})^T \cdot \mathbf{z}^{\ell+1}(t-1) \big) \Big) \label{eqn:chl_state_update}
\end{align}
where we notice that dynamics do not involve any normalization and the values for any layer $\ell$ are integrated a bit differently than in Equation \ref{eqn:ff_state_update}, i.e., neural values change as a function of a form of a leaky Euler integration, where the top-down and bottom-up transmissions are combined to produce a perturbation to the layer rather than propose a new value of the state itself.
Like CHL, FF and PFF require two phases (or modes of computation) where the signals propagated through the neural system will be used in contrast with one another.
Given data sample $(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y})$, CHL specifically entails running the neural system first in an un-clamped phase (negative phase), where only the input image $\mathbf{x}$ is clamped to the sensory input/bottom layer, followed by a clamped phase, where both $\mathbf{x}$ and its target $\mathbf{y}$ are clamped, i.e., $\mathbf{y}$ is clamped to the output layer (positive phase). At the end of each phase (or inference cycle), the layer-wise activities are recorded and then used in a subtractive/contrastive Hebbian rule to calculate the updates for each matrix of synapses. Note that the positive phase of CHL depends on first running the negative phase. FF and PFF, in contrast, essentially amount to running the positive and negative phases in parallel (with each phase conditioned on different data), resulting in an overall faster pattern processing time (instead of one inference cycle being conditioned on the statistics of another, the same cycles are now run on either positive or negative data with opposite objectives \cite{hinton2022forward}).
\paragraph{Relationship to Predictive Coding:} The PFF algorithm integrates the local hypothesis generation component of predictive coding (PC) into the inference process by leveraging the representations acquired within the recurrent representation network's iterative processing window. Specifically, each layer of the representation circuit, at each time step, becomes the prediction target for each layer of the generative circuit. In contrast, PC generative models must leverage a set of feedback synapses to progressively modify their layerwise neural activities before finally adjusting synaptic values. Furthermore, PFF iteratively/dynamically modifies the synapses within each processing time step, whereas; typically, most PC circuits implement a form of expectation-maximization that, as a result, generally requires longer stimulus processing windows in order to learn effective generative models \cite{ororbia2022neural} given that Euler integration is being simulated (in this work, the PFF generative circuit learns a good-quality generative model in only $8$ steps whereas the models of \cite{ororbia2022neural} required at least $50$ steps).
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.825\textwidth]{figs/Table_LR.pdf}
\vspace{-0.35cm}
\caption{Properties of different learning algorithms, i.e., backprop (BP), feedback alignment (FA), predictive coding (PC), local representation alignment (LRA), neural generative coding (NGC), the forward-forward algorithm (FF), and the predictive forward-forward process (PFF).}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\label{fig:algo_properties}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Relationship to Local Learning:}
It has been strongly argued that the synapses in the brain are likely to be adjusted according to a local scheme, i.e., only information closest spatially and in time to a target synapse is involved in computing its change in efficacy. Methods that adhere to this biological constraint/setup are referred to as local learning procedures~\cite{ororbia2018biologically,lee2015difference,nokland2016direct, pmlr-v97-nokland19a, belilovsky2020decoupled, kaiser2020synaptic}, offering a potential replacement for backprop for training deep neural networks, relaxing one or more of its core constraints (see Figure \ref{fig:algo_properties} for details related to some of the key ones). Desirably, it has even been shown that, empirically, updates from a local scheme can result in improved model generalization~\cite{lee2015difference,ororbia2018biologically}. There have been many efforts in designing biologically-plausible local learning algorithms, such as contrastive Hebbian learning (mentioned above) \cite{movellan1991contrastive}, contrastive divergence for learning harmoniums (or restricted Boltzmann machines) \cite{hinton2002training}, the wake-sleep algorithm for learning Helmholtz machines \cite{hinton1995wake}, and algorithms such as equilibrium propagation \cite{scellier2017equilibrium}.
Other efforts that directly integrate local learning into the deep learning pipeline include kickback~\cite{balduzzi2015kickback} and decoupled neural interfaces~\cite{jaderberg2016decoupled}.
It is worth pointing out that PFF does bear some similarity to the wake-sleep algorithm, which itself entails learning a generative model jointly with an inference (recognition) model. However, the wake-sleep algorithm suffers from instability, given that the recognition network could be damaged by random fantasies produced by the generative network and the generative network could itself be hampered by the low-quality representation capability of the inference network (motivating the design of improvements, such as reweighted wake-sleep \cite{bornschein2014reweighted}). PFF, in contrast, aims to learn the generative model given the representation circuit, using the locally-adapted distributed neural activities as a guide for the synthesization process rather than randomly sampling the generative model to generate teaching signals for the recognition network (potentially distracting its optimization with nonsensical noisy signals).
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:experiments}
This section describes the simulations/experiments that were run to test the proposed PFF procedure. We leverage several benchmark image datasets to quantitatively evaluate PFF's classification ability (in terms of test-set error) and qualitatively evaluate its generative capability (in terms of visual inspection of sample reconstruction and pattern synthesization). The PFF process (PFF-RNN) is compared with the FF algorithm (FF) as well as several baselines, including the $K$-nearest neighbors algorithm (with $K=4$, or 4-KNN), the recurrent network trained with the original FF algorithm \cite{hinton2022forward}, and two backprop-based models, i.e., a feedforward network that uses backprop to adjust all of its internal synapses (BP-FNN) and the same network but one that only adjusts the top-most softmax/output layer parameters and fixes the hidden layer synaptic parameters (Rnd-FNN). Both backprop-based networks are trained to minimize the categorical cross-entropy of each dataset's provided labels. The partially-trained model, i.e., the Rnd-FNN, serves as a sort of lower bound on the generalization ability of a neural system, given that it is possible to obtain respectable classification performance with only random hidden feature detectors (a neural credit assignment algorithm should not perform worse than this).
\begin{table}[!t]
\centering
\caption{Classification generalization results for neural systems trained under different learning algorithms (except for 4-KNN, which is a non-parametric learning baseline model). Measurements of mean and standard deviation are made across five experimental trial runs.}
\label{results:classify}
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c}
& \textbf{MNIST} & \textbf{K-MNIST} \\
\textbf{Model} & \textbf{Test Error} (\%) & \textbf{Test Error} (\%) \\
\hline
4-KNN & $2.860 \pm 0.000$ & $7.900 \pm 0.000$ \\
Rnd-FNN & $3.070 \pm 0.018$ & $14.070 \pm 0.189 $ \\
BP-FNN & $1.300 \pm 0.023$ & $6.340 \pm 0.202$ \\
FF-RNN \cite{hinton2022forward} & $1.320 \pm 0.100$ & $6.590 \pm 0.420$ \\
PFF-RNN & $1.360 \pm 0.030$ & $6.460 \pm 0.120$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Datasets:} In this study, we experiment with two (gray-scale) image collections, i.e., the MNIST and the Kuzushiji-MNIST databases. The MNIST dataset \cite{lecun1998mnist} specifically contains $28\times28$ images containing handwritten digits across $10$
different categories. Kuzushiji-MNIST (KMNIST) is a challenging drop-in replacement for MNIST, containing $28\times28$ images depicting hand-drawn Japanese Kanji characters \cite{clanuwat2018deep} (each class corresponding to the character's modern hiragana counterpart, with $10$ classes in total).
\paragraph{Simulation Setup:} All models simulated in this study were constrained to use similar architectures in order to ensure a more fair comparison. All networks for all neural-based learning algorithms contained two hidden layers of $2000$ neurons (which was also done for the FF models in \cite{hinton2022forward}), with initial synaptic weight values selected according to the random orthogonal initialization scheme \cite{saxe2013exact} (using singular value decomposition). Once any given learning algorithm calculated adjustment values for the synapses, parameters were adjusted, using the Adam adaptive learning rate \cite{kingma2014adam} with mini-batches containing $500$ samples.
Both FF and PFF were set to use a threshold value of $\theta_z = 10.0$ and PFF was set to use $20$ latent variables (i.e., $\mathbf{z}_s \in \mathcal{R}^{20 \times 1}$), representation noise $\epsilon^\ell = 0.05$, and generative noise $\epsilon_z = 0.025$.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.245\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/mnist_recon.png}
\caption{MNIST recon.}
\label{fig:mnist_recon}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.245\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/mnist_samples.jpg}
\caption{MNIST synthesis.}
\label{fig:mnist_fantasies}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.245\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/kmnist_recon.png}
\caption{K-MNIST recon.}
\label{fig:kmnist_recon}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.245\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/kmnist_samples.jpg}
\caption{K-MNIST synthesis..}
\label{fig:kmnist_fantasies}
\end{subfigure} \\
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/kmnist_rep_filters.jpg}
\vspace{-0.75cm}
\caption{MNIST rep. fields.}
\label{fig:mnist_rep_filters}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/mnist_gen_filters.jpg}
\vspace{-0.75cm}
\caption{MNIST gen. fields.}
\label{fig:mnist_gen_filters}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/kmnist_rep_filters.jpg}
\vspace{-0.75cm}
\caption{K-MNIST rep. fields.}
\label{fig:kmnist_rep_filters}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.24\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/kmnist_gen_filters.jpg}
\vspace{-0.75cm}
\caption{K-MNIST gen. fields.}
\label{fig:kmnist_gen_filters}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Model reconstruction (Left) and generated (Right) samples for MNIST and K-MNIST. In the bottom row, the receptive fields of the bottom-most layer of the representation (rep.) circuit (Left) and those of the generative (gen.) circuit (Right) are displayed.}
\label{fig:model_samples}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Discussion}
\label{sec:dicussion}
Observe in Table \ref{results:classify} that the PFF procedure performs well in the context of the models simulated in this study, reaching a top/good-quality classification error of about $1.36$\% on MNIST, nearly reaching that of the well-tuned backprop-based classifier BP-FNN. Notably, the PFF-RNN model outperforms BP-FNN slightly on K-MNIST, arguably a more difficult benchmark. Both FF and PFF outperform the lower-bound baselines, i.e., 4-KNN and Rnd-FNN, indicating that they acquire hidden feature detectors that facilitate good discriminative performance.
Qualitatively, in Figure \ref{fig:model_samples} (Top Row), observe that PFF learns a good-quality reconstruction model and generative model of the image inputs. The reconstructed digits and Kanji characters are excellent and the image samples for both cases exhibit variety/diversity across the categories (albeit a bit blurry). Note that to sample from the PFF's directed generative model, as mentioned earlier in Section \ref{sec:gen_circuit}, we retro-fit a GMM to samples of its latent variable $\mathbf{z}_s$, specifically optimizing a GMM via expectation-maximization with $10$ components.
In addition, as shown in the bottom row of Figure \ref{fig:model_samples}, the receptive fields (of the synapses of the layer closest to the sensory input layer) acquired by the fully-connected representation circuits of both the representation and generative circuits appear to extract useful/interesting structure related to digit or Kanji character strokes, often, as is expected for fully-connected neural structures, acquiring representative full object templates (if one desired each receptive field to acquire only single strokes/component features specifically, then an additional prior would need to be imposed, such as convolution or the locally-connected receptive field structure employed in \cite{bartunov2018assessing,hinton2022forward}).
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
In this work, we proposed the predictive forward-forward (PFF) process for dynamically adjusting the synaptic efficacies of a recurrent neural system that jointly learns how to classify, reconstruct, and synthesize data samples without backpropagation of errors. Our model and credit assignment procedure integrates elements of the forward-forward algorithm, such as its local synaptic adaptation rule based on goodness and contrastive learning, with aspects of predictive coding, such as its local error Hebbian manner of adjusting generative synaptic weights, resulting in a promising brain-inspired, forward-only and backprop-free form of machine learning.
\bibliographystyle{acm}
|
\section{Introduction}
Emulsions, \emph{i.e.} mixtures composed of two immiscible
(totally or partially) liquids
with similar densities, are extremely common in industrial
applications environment such as pharmaceuticals
\citep{nielloud2000pharmaceutical, spernath2006microemulsions},
food processing \citep{mcclements2015food}
and oil production
\citep{kokal2005crude,mandal2010characterization,kilpatrick2012water}.
Emulsions are also important in geophysical applications: as example, when oil or industrial wastes spill into water streams (from rivers to oceans), the oil droplet
distribution becomes fundamental for quantifying the environmental damage
\citep{Li1998,french2004oil,gopalan2010turbulent}.
At very low-volume-fraction, turbulent emulsions are mainly
characterized by the breakup of droplets.
The droplet size distribution is produced by the turbulent stresses
and the feedback of the dispersed phase on the carrier flow is small, and often neglected.
The dynamics of droplet breakup, for a dilute emulsion in a homogeneous
and isotropic turbulent flow was initially investigated by \citet{Kolmogorov1949} and
\citet{Hinze1955}, who derived an expression for the maximum size of droplets resisting breakup
as a function of the flow characteristics and the fluid properties.
This is usually referred to as the Kolmogorov-Hinze (KH) scale.
Recent numerical investigations of droplets, bubbles and emulsions
confirmed the general validity of the KH theory, both in isotropic and homogeneous
turbulence \citep{Perlekar2014,Mukherjee2019,Riviere2021,crialesi2022,girotto2022build,begemann2022effect},
and in anisotropic flows \citep{Soligo2019,Rosti2020,Pandey2022},
while some theoretical corrections were lately proposed to account for scale-local nature of the process \citep{crialesi2022interaction,qi2022fragmentation}.
At finite volume fraction of the dispersed phase, the distribution of the droplet sizes
results from the interplay between breakup and coalescence.
In this regime, the presence of droplets also modulates the underlying turbulence, affecting the flow statistics both at large
\citep{Yi2021,wang2022turbulence} and small scales
\citep{Mukherjee2019,Freund2019,Vela2021,crialesi2022}.
In particular, the presence of a dispersed phase alters significantly the statistics at the small scales,
producing large deviations from the average values
of dissipation and vorticity \citep{crialesi2022}.
In this work, we address the effects of the dispersed phase
on the velocity increments of the turbulent flow at moderate ($10\%$)
and high ($50\%$) volume fractions.
We study the role of the interface separating the two phases
by examining the statistics of velocity increments
between two points which are conditioned
to be either in the same phase or in different phases.
We find that the most important deviations from the statistics of
single-phase flows, quantified by the PDFs of the velocity increments,
are concentrated in regions around the interface,
i.e.\ when the two points belongs to different phases.
Moreover, we show that the amplitude of the third-order structure function (SF)
is reduced because of the contribution of the points located around the interface.
This is associated with a reduction of the flux
of kinetic energy in the turbulent cascade, which, in combination with the surface tension term, alters significantly the energy transport across scales.
Finally, we discuss the effects of the droplets on the local
scaling exponents of the high-order structure functions,
which display a striking saturation at small scales.
The remaining of this paper is organized as follows.
In Section~\ref{sec2} we introduce the numerical
method adopted for the simulations,
Section~\ref{sec3} is devoted to the presentation of the results
and Section~\ref{sec4} summarises the main conclusions.
\section{Methodology}
\label{sec2}
We consider the velocity field ${\bm u}({\bm x},t)$ obeying
the Navier-Stokes equations
\begin{equation}
\rho \left( \partial_t {\bm u} + {\bm u} \cdot {\bm \nabla u} \right) =
- {\bm \nabla} p + {\bm \nabla} \cdot \left[\mu \left({\bm \nabla u}
+ {\bm \nabla u}^{T} \right) \right] + {\bm f}^{\sigma} + {\bm f}
\label{eq2.1}
\end{equation}
and the incompressibility condition
${\bm \nabla} \cdot {\bm u}=0$. In \Cref{eq2.1} $p$ is the pressure and
$\rho$ is the density and $\mu({\bm x},t)$ is the local
viscosity.
The surface tension force is represented by the term
${\bm f}^{\sigma}=\sigma \xi \delta_S {\bm n}$ where $\sigma$ is the
surface tension coefficient, $\xi$ is the local interface curvature, ${\bm n}$ the
surface normal unit vector and $\delta_S$ represents a delta function which
ensures that the surface force is applied at the interface only
\citep{tryggvason2011direct}. The last term ${\bm f}$ is a constant in time
body force which sustains turbulence by injecting energy at large scales.
Here, we adopt the so-called ABC forcing \citep{Mininni2006} which reads
${\bm f}=(A\sin(k_f z)+C\cos(k_f y),B\sin(k_f x)+A\cos(k_f z),
C\sin(k_f y)+B\cos(k_f x))$.
The forcing scale is given by $L_f = 2\pi/k_f$.
We solve \Cref{eq2.1} in a triply-periodic, cubic domanin of size $L=2\pi$,
discertized on a staggered uniform Cartesian grid.
Spatial derivative are discretised with a second-order centered finite difference scheme
and time integration performed by means of a second-order Adam-Bashford scheme.
To reconstruct the interface, we use the algebraic Volume of Fluid method, MTHINC, introduced by \cite{Ii2012}.
A constant-coefficient Poisson equation is obtained using the
pressure splitting method \citep{Dodd2014}, which is solved
using a Fast Fourier Transform direct solver.
All the simulations have been performed with the code
FluTAS, described in \cite{crialesi2023flutas},
where further details on the numerical methods employed in this study can be found.
We consider four different cases, all using a fixed ABC forcing
with $A=B=C=1$ and $k_f=2 \pi/L_f=2$.
The reference single phase (SP) simulation assumes viscosity $\mu=0.006$, corresponding to a Taylor-scale Reynolds number
$Re_\lambda=15 k^2/(\nu\varepsilon)^{1/2}\approx137$, with
$\varepsilon=\nu\langle(\nabla{\bm u})^2\rangle$ the energy dissipation
rate, $k$ the turbulent kinetic energy and $\nu$ the kinematic viscosity.
We vary the volume fraction $\alpha=V_d/V$,
defined as the ratio between the volume of the
dispersed phase $V_d$ and the total volume $V=L^3$,
and the viscosity ratio $\gamma=\mu_d/\mu_c$.
As regards different volume fractions, we analyze the two cases with
$\alpha=0.1$ (hereafter MP10) and $\alpha=0.5$ (hereafter MP50), while keeping
$\gamma=1$ for both cases. Finally, we study the case $\alpha=0.1$ and
$\gamma=100$ (hereafter MPM). For all multiphase (MP) simulations the density
ratio among the two phases is kept equal to $1$ and
the Weber number $We=\rho L_f u_{rms}^2/\sigma$=42.6.
All the simulations are performed at a resolution $N=512$ which is
sufficient to resolve all the scales \citep[see][]{crialesi2022}; statistics are accumulated over several large eddy turnover times
$T=L_f/u_{rms}$ once statistical stationary conditions have been reached.
For further details on the simulation setup, we refer the reader to \cite{crialesi2022}.
\section{Statistics of the multiphase flow}
\label{sec3}
In turbulent multiphase flows, part of the kinetic energy of the carrier phase
is absorbed at large scales by the deformation
and breakup of the interface of the dispersed phase,
while the coalescence of small droplets, their surface oscillations
and relaxation from high local curvature re-inject energy
in the carrier phase at scales smaller
than the Kolmogorov-Hinze scale~\citep{crialesi2022interaction}.
The consequences of this complex exchange of energy between the two phases
are evident in the kinetic energy spectrum shown in \Cref{fig1}.
Comparing the spectra of a multiphase flow with that of a single-phase
flow sustained by the same forcing, we observe a suppression of energy
at low wavenumbers (i.e. large scales) and an enhancement at high wavenumbers.
This effect increases with the volume fraction $\alpha$ of the
dispersed phase~\citep{Mukherjee2019,crialesi2022}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{fig1}
\caption{Kinetic energy spectra of SP flow (black continuous line),
and MP flows at $\alpha=0.1$ (red dashed line)
and $\alpha=0.5$ (blue dash-dotted line)}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
Because of the injection of energy at small scales, due to the droplet
dynamics, we expect higher intermittency of the velocity
fluctuations in the MP flow than in the SP flow at fixed amplitude of the
external forcing.
In order to quantify this effect we compute the probability density
functions (PDF) of the longitudinal velocity increments
$\delta_{\ell} u=({\bm u}({\bm x}_2)-{\bm u}({\bm x}_1)) \cdot ({\bm x}_2-{\bm x}_1)/\ell$
at distance $\ell=|{\bm x}_2-{\bm x}_1|$.
The comparison of the PDFs at two scales within the inertial range, shown in \Cref{fig2},
confirms that the velocity increments have larger fluctuations
in the case of MP flows, in particular at
smaller values of $\ell$.
This effect increases with the concentration $\alpha$ of the dispersed phase.
We also observe that in the case $\gamma=100$ (i.e. when the dispersed
phase is much more viscous than the carrier phase) the
effect of the droplets on the velocity increments vanishes
due to the damping of fluctuations in the dispersed phase,
and we recover the statistics of the SP flow.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig2a}
\put(-150,160){\large\textbf{(\textit{a})}}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig2b}
\put(-150,160){\large\textbf{(\textit{b})}}
\caption{PDF of velocity increments at distance
$\ell = 0.03L_f$ (left panel)
and $\ell = 0.12L_f$ (right panel),
normalized by the standard deviation of the SP case.
The single-phase Kolmogorov scale is at $\ell\approx0.008L_f$
}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
Note that the PDF shown in \Cref{fig2} are computed over the
full simulation domain, i.e. the velocity increments are computed
among points ${\bm x}_{1,2}$ which can belong to both phases unconditionally.
To understand the role of the interface
in the turbulent statistics, we therefore compute the PDF of the velocity
increments conditioned to points belonging to the same or to different
phases. Hence, we introduce three different PDFs of the velocity
increments depending on which phase the two points ${\bm x}_1$
and ${\bm x}_2$ belong to.
We denote by $P_{cc}$, $P_{dd}$ and $P_{cd}$ the PDFs relative to
points belonging only to the carrier phase $c$, only to the dilute phase $d$
and to both phases, respectively.
We remark that, for small values of $\alpha$,
the statistics in the two phases are different.
For $\alpha=0.5$ and $\gamma=1$
the two phases are equivalent and therefore $P_{dd}=P_{cc}$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig3a}
\put(-150,160){\large\textbf{(\textit{a})}}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig3b}
\put(-150,160){\large\textbf{(\textit{b})}}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig3c}
\put(-150,160){\large\textbf{(\textit{c})}}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig3d}
\put(-150,160){\large\textbf{(\textit{d})}}
\caption{PDFs of velocity increments conditioned to the phases
on which the two velocities are measured: $cc$ (both points in
the carrier phase, red line), $dd$ (both points in the dispersed
phase, orange line), $cd$ (one point in each phase, blue line).
Upper panel: Simulation MP10 with $\alpha=0.1$ and $\gamma=1$.
Lower panel: Simulation MP50 with $\alpha=0.5$ and $\gamma=1$.
Black line: PDF of velocity increments for a single-phase simulation with
the same parameters of the MP simulation.
Dashed black line: Gaussian distribution.
All the PDFs are rescaled with the variance of the SP case
}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
\Cref{fig3} (panels \textit{a}, \text{b})
shows the conditional PDF (normalized with the
corresponding variance of the SP case) pertaining the simulation with
volume fraction $\alpha=0.1$.
First, we note that the PDF of the carrier phase is not too far from that of the
SP case (and this is the case also for the variance).
In the dispersed phase, on the contrary, velocity
increments develop relatively larger tails at small separations.
Remarkably, the PDF $P_{cd}$ develops
the largest tails at small scale (panel \textit{a}), a clear indication of the role of
the interface for small-scale intermittency in MP flows.
Similar observations can be made for the emulsion with $\alpha=0.5$,
shown in \Cref{fig3} (panels \textit{c}, \text{d}).
As expected
$P_{cc}=P_{dd}$, and also in this case the data show that
the leading contribution to the increased intermittency at small scales comes from velocity increments across the interface,
$P_{cd}$. Note that, although the
shapes of $P_{cd}$
are similar for MP10 and MP50, their contribution to the overall flow statistics is different because
of the different statistical weight (i.e.\ the different extension of the total interface).
A remarkable feature shown in \Cref{fig3}
is that the skewness of $P_{cd}$ at small scales is opposite
(i.e. positive) to that of $P_{cc}$.
We remind that the sign of the skweness is linked to the direction
of the turbulent energy cascade
via the third-order velocity structure function
(SF) defined as $S_3(\ell)=\langle (\delta_{\ell} u)^3 \rangle$.
In the case of SP flows,
under the assumption of statistical stationariety, homogeneity and isotropy,
the Kolmogorov $4/5$ law gives $S_3(\ell) = -(4/5) \varepsilon \ell$,
where the viscous energy dissipation rate $\varepsilon$
is equal to the flux of the turbulent cascade \citep{Frisch1995a}.
The negative skewness of the PDF of the longitudinal velocity increments
is therefore related to the direction of the energy transfer
and the negative amplitude of $S_3(\ell)$ is proportional to the energy flux.
In MP flows, because of the opposite sign of the skewness of $P_{cd}$
with respect to $P_{cc}$,
we expect that the presence of the interface reduces the energy flux
associated to the turbulent cascade.
This can be quantified by looking at the
third-order velocity structure function
$S_3(\ell)=\langle (\delta_{\ell} u)^3 \rangle$, whose average can be unconditioned,
or conditioned to two points belonging
either to the carrier phase $S_3^{cc}(\ell)$,
or to the dispersed phase $S_3^{dd}(\ell)$,
or points located on different sides of the interface $S_3^{dc}(\ell)$. These are shown in \Cref{fig4}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig4a}
\put(-150,160){\large\textbf{(\textit{a})}}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig4b}
\put(-150,160){\large\textbf{(\textit{b})}}
\caption{Third-order stucture function $S_3(\ell)$ averaged on the
whole domain (violet line) or conditioned on the
two phases of the flows. Simulation with
$\alpha=0.1$ (left panel)
$\alpha=0.5$ (right panel) and $\gamma=1$.
The black line represents the SP case.
}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
We see in the figure that the third-order SF of the MP turbulent flows
is qualitatively similar to the
SP flow when averaged over the whole domain, yet with a smaller amplitude.
This is due the fact that part of the turbulence energy is used to break
the interface and the direct transfer of energy to small scales is reduced \citep{crialesi2022}.
If we consider the
same quantity averaged over one of the two phases only:
$S_3^{cc}(\ell)$ and $S_3^{dd}(\ell)$, which are equivalent in a binary flow,
the magnitude of the flux increases and approaches the SP limit, indicating that the turbulent cascade is not significantly affected when considering flow structures living in one of the two phases.
On the contrary, the flux across two points belonging to different phases
is strongly suppressed: the associated $S_3^{dc}(\ell)$
is closer to zero and even changes sign at intermediate scales for $\alpha=0.5$
(consistently with what suggested in
\Cref{fig3}).
The physical interpretation is that the interface
``decouples'' the velocity fields in the two phases which become
less correlated and therefore with a reduced energy flux,
signaled by the reduction of $S_3(\ell)$.
The precise behavior of $S_3^{dc}(\ell)$ depends on
the value of $\alpha$, as shown by the comparison with the case $\alpha=0.1$
(see \Cref{fig4}, left panel).
Positive values of $S_3^{dc}(\ell)$, hint however to the possibility of scale-local
backscatter, which becomes more relevant at increasing volume fractions.
Nevertheless, the reduction of the energy flux at intermediate scales
is a general feature, independent on $\alpha$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig5a}
\put(-150,160){\large\textbf{(\textit{a})}}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig5b}
\put(-150,160){\large\textbf{(\textit{b})}}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig5c}
\put(-150,160){\large\textbf{(\textit{c})}}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{fig5d}
\put(-150,160){\large\textbf{(\textit{d})}}
\caption{Local scaling exponents $\zeta_p$ of the structure functions,
for the single phase (Upper left panel),
case MP10 at $\alpha=0.1$ (Upper right panel),
case MP50 at $\alpha=0.5$ (Lower left panel),
case MPM at $\gamma=100$ (Lower right panel).
In each figure, the exponents of different order $p$ assume
increasing values.
Vertical black dashed lines represent the Kolmogorov-Hinze scale,
computed in \cite{crialesi2022interaction}.
Curves for $p=3$ is omitted.
}
\label{fig5}
\end{figure}
The effects of the presence of a dispersed phase
on the statistics of the velocity fluctuations affects also
the scaling behavior of the structure functions
of the absolute values of the longitudinal velocity increments
defined as $S^a_p(\ell) = \langle |\delta_{\ell} u|^p \rangle$.
It is well known that in SP flows the SFs display a power-law behavior
$S^a_p(\ell) \sim \ell^{\zeta^p}$ at scales $\ell$ in the inertial range
\citep{Frisch1995a}.
In this context, intermittency manifests in the non-linear behavior of the
scaling exponents: $\zeta^p \neq p/3$.
In the MP flows, because of the different physical processes which occur
at scales larger and smaller than the Kolmogorov-Hinze scale (dominated by brak-up and coalescence respectively),
we expect to observe a more complex scaling behavior.
To address this issue, we compute the {\it local scaling exponents}
defined as the logarithmic derivative of the SFs
$\zeta^p_{\ell} = {\text{d} \log(S^a_p(\ell))}/{\text{d} \log(\ell)}$
and here applied to multiphase flows for the first time.
The local scaling exponents $\zeta^p_{\ell}$ are displayed
for $p \le 8$ in figure~\ref{fig5}, where they are
divided by the reference scaling exponent $\zeta^3_{\ell}$ of the third
order SF.
In the SP case, panel \textit{a}, we find that the ratios $\zeta^p_{\ell}/\zeta^3_{\ell}$
are almost constant in the inertial range $ 0.09\le \ell/L_f \le 0.32$.
In the MP flows, the value of the exponents are a little smaller but comparable
to that of the SP case only
at large scales;
we observe a dramatic decrease of the scaling exponents at scales
$\ell$ smaller than the KH scale
$L_{KH} \approx 0.14 L_f$ for the case MP10 (panel \textit{b})
and $L_{KH} \approx 0.19 L_f$ for the case MP50 (panel \textit{b}) (see vertical line in figure).
In particular, we observe a striking saturation of the
scaling exponents of the high-order SF with $p \ge 5$
at scales $\ell \simeq 0.02 L_f$ for the MP50 case and
$\ell \simeq 0.04 L_f$ for the MP10 case.
The saturation of the scaling exponents of the high order SFs
reveals the presence of strong velocity
differences across the interface between the two phases,
which originates from the pressure jump at the interface
caused by the surface tension forces.
Note also that the saturation of the exponents is not observed when the dispersed phase presents higher viscosity, case MPM in panel \textit{d}. This is consistent with the previous observations in \Cref{fig2}, showing that when velocity gradients across the interface are significantly reduced (\emph{e.g.} by higher viscosity) no exponent saturation is observed.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec4}
We have discussed intermittency and scaling exponent obtained from direct numerical simulations (DNS)
of turbulent emulsions at moderate ($10\%$) and high ($50\%$) volume fractions and two different values of the viscosity contrast.
As observed in previous works \citep{Perlekar2019,Pandey2020,crialesi2022},
the presence of a deformable interface
increases the intermittency in the flow and the energy content at small scales,
when the surface tension offers an alternative path for energy transport across
scales.
By investigating the statistics of the velocity increments conditioned to
points belonging to a single phase or to different phases, we demonstrate that
the increased intermittency is mostly due to the presence of strong velocity
differences across the interface between the carrier and the dispersed phase.
We also show that the presence of the dispersed phase causes a decrease of the
negative skewness of the PDF of the longitudinal velocity increments. This is
associated with a reduction of the flux of the kinetic energy from the forcing
scale to the viscous scales.
In other words, the presence of a deformable
interface affects the vortex stretching and tilting associated to the classic
turbulent energy cascade of single-phase flows.
This effect becomes remarkable at the highest volume fraction considered here,
when the flux related to points lying on either side of the interface gives a
positive contribution to the distribution skewness.
This suggests
a not-negligible backscatter in multiphase flows,
expected in proximity of the interface separating the two fluids.
We interpret this reduced flux as due to the absorption and dissipation of part
of the kinetic energy of the turbulent flow by the deformation and break-up of
drops of the dispersed phase.
Finally, to understand the local properties of turbulence, we have analysed the longitudinal Structure Functions at higher orders.
Interestingly,
at scales larger than the Kolmogorov-Hinze, the exponents are only slightly smaller than in the single-phase flow,
which implies increased intermittency, yet a similar anomalous scaling.
More importantly, we report a neat saturation of the exponents for structure functions higher than 3 at scales smaller than the Kolmogorov-Hinze length.
This is typically related to a strongly intermittent dynamics and to the presence of jumps, here due to the pressure differences across the interface induced by the surface tension.
A further demonstration that the interface is responsible of the increased
intermittency is given by the results for the flow at viscosity ratio
$\gamma=100$. In this case, small-scale fluctuations are damped,
especially
in the more viscous dispersed phase, and the statistics approach those of the
single-phase turbulence with no exponent saturation.
These observations may prove fundamental for understanding small scale dynamics
in multiphase flows and for their future sub-grid modelling. Indeed, our
results indicate that a correct model would need to account for the reduction
of the energy fluxes near an interface. Moreover, we have shown that the
turbulence statistics approach those of the single-phase flow when the droplets
consist of a highly viscous fluid. This suggests that, despite several global
measures seem to indicate a similar dynamics
\citep{Olivieri2022,yousefi2022transport}, the turbulence modulation is
significantly different in the case of rigid particles and deformable
intrusions.
\bibliographystyle{jfm}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The problem of interest in this paper is the study of
the complete monotonicity of the Mittag-Leffler function.
Complete monotonicity is an analytic property of functions.
Accordingly, Pollard~\cite{PollardML} used analytic methods to prove the property in the instance of the Mittag-Leffler function.
Pollard also cited personal communication by Feller of a discovery of the result by ``methods of probability theory''.
However, Pollard's comment notwithstanding,
the published proof by Feller~\cite{Feller2}~(XIII.8) also may be regarded as more analytic than probabilistic
(we discuss both approaches later in this section).
This prompted us to ask the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item What might constitute a ``method of probability theory'' in proving an analytic property of a function,
at least in the context of proving that the Mittag-Leffler function is completely monotone?
\item What additional or complementary insight, if any, might the method of probability theory offer
relative to an analytic method?
\end{enumerate}
The strategy of this paper is simple -- assign appropriate probability distributions
and use the sum and product rules of probability theory to explore analytic attributes of associated functions.
Beyond reproducing known analytic results due to Pollard and Feller,
we discuss the generalisation that flows from adopting such reasoning.
We start with definitions of complete monotonicity and the Mittag-Leffler function.
\subsection{Definitions}
\label{sec:definitions}
An infinitely differentiable function $\varphi(x)$ on $x>0$ is completely monotone if its derivatives $\varphi^{(n)}(x)$
satisfy $(-1)^n\varphi^{(n)}(x)\ge0$, $n\ge 0$.
Bernstein's theorem
states that $\varphi(x)$ is completely monotone iff it may be expressed as
\begin{align}
\varphi(x) &= \int_0^\infty e^{-x t}\,dF(t)
= \int_0^\infty e^{-x t} f(t)dt
\label{eq:LT}
\end{align}
for a non-decreasing distribution function $F(t)$ with density $f(t)$, {\it i.e.}\ $F(t)=\int_0^t f(u)du$.
The first integral in~(\ref{eq:LT}) is formally called the Laplace-Stieltjes transform of $F$ and
the latter the (ordinary) Laplace transform of $f$.
For bounded $F(t)$, $\varphi(x)$ is defined on $x\ge0$.
Integrating~(\ref{eq:LT}) by parts in this case gives $\varphi(x)$ in terms of
the ordinary Laplace transform of $F$:
\begin{align}
\varphi(x) &= x \int_{0}^\infty e^{-xt} F(t)\,dt = \int_{0}^\infty e^{-t} F(t/x)\,dt
\end{align}
The (one-parameter) Mittag-Leffler function
$E_\alpha(x)$ is defined by the infinite series
\begin{align}
E_\alpha(x) &= \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{x^k}{\Gamma(\alpha k+1)} \quad \alpha\ge0
\label{eq:ML}
\end{align}
For later reference, the Laplace transform of
$E_\alpha(-\lambda x^\alpha)$ $(\lambda>0)$ is
\begin{align}
\int_0^\infty e^{-sx} E_\alpha(-\lambda x^\alpha) \,dx &= \frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\lambda+s^\alpha} \qquad {\rm Re}(s)\ge0
\label{eq:LaplaceML}
\end{align}
We shall introduce the two and three-parameter generalisations below.
For now, we may turn to the problem of proving the complete monotonicity of $E_\alpha(-x)$.
We discuss the approaches due to Pollard and Feller in turn before turning to our probabilistic perspective.
\subsection{Pollard's Method}
\label{sec:Pollard}
In a 1948 paper, Pollard~\cite{PollardML} led with the opening remark:
\begin{quote}
``W.~Feller communicated to me his discovery -- by the methods of probability theory -- that if $0\le \alpha \le1$
the function $E_\alpha(-x)$ is completely monotonic for $x\ge0$.
This means that it can be written in the form
\begin{align*}
E_\alpha(-x) &= \int_{0}^\infty e^{-xt} dP_\alpha(t)
\end{align*}
where $P_\alpha(t)$ is nondecreasing and bounded.
In this note we shall prove this fact directly and determine the function $P_\alpha(t)$ explicitly.'' \newline
[we use $P_\alpha$ where Pollard used $F_\alpha$, which we reserve for another purpose]
\end{quote}
Having dispensed with $E_0(-x)=1/(1+x)$ and $E_1(-x)=e^{-x}$ since ``there is nothing to be proved in these cases'',
Pollard used a contour integral representation of $E_\alpha(-x)$:
\begin{align}
E_\alpha(-x) &= \frac{1}{2\pi i}\oint_{C} \frac{s^{\alpha-1}e^s}{x+s^{\alpha}}\,ds
= \frac{1}{2\pi i\alpha}\oint_{C^\prime} \frac{e^{z^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}}}{x+z}\,dz
\label{eq:MLcontour}
\end{align}
to prove that
\begin{alignat}{3}
p_\alpha(t) &\equiv P_\alpha^{\,\prime}(t) = \frac{1}{\alpha}\, f_\alpha(t^{-1/\alpha})\, t^{-1/\alpha-1} \qquad && 0<\alpha<1
\label{eq:Pollarddensity}
\intertext{where $f_\alpha(t)$ is defined by}
e^{-s^\alpha} &= \int_0^\infty e^{-s t} f_\alpha(t)\,dt && 0<\alpha<1
\label{eq:stable}
\end{alignat}
Pollard~\cite{Pollard} had earlier proved that $f_\alpha(t)>0$, so that
$p_\alpha(t)\ge0$, thereby completing his proof that $E_\alpha(-x)$ is completely monotone for $0\le \alpha \le1$.
Pollard stopped at the point of deriving~(\ref{eq:Pollarddensity}), the density $p_\alpha(t)\equiv P_\alpha^{\,\prime}(t)$.
As per initial task, we proceed to discuss $P_\alpha(t)$ explicitly.
We first recognise $f_\alpha(t)$ as the density of the stable distribution $F_\alpha$ on $[0,\infty)$
\begin{alignat}{3}
F_\alpha(t) &= \int_0^t f_\alpha(u)\,du \qquad && 0<\alpha<1
\label{eq:stableF}
\end{alignat}
with normalisation $F_\alpha(\infty)=1$.
In turn, the Pollard distribution $P_\alpha(t)$ is
\begin{align}
P_\alpha(t) &= \int_0^t p_\alpha(u)\,du = \frac{1}{\alpha} \int_0^t f_\alpha(u^{-1/\alpha})\, u^{-1/\alpha-1} \, du
\label{eq:PollardP1}
\end{align}
Janson~\cite{Janson} derived $P_\alpha(t)$ as a limiting distribution of
a P{\' o}lya urn scheme.
$P_\alpha(t)$ is known as the Mittag-Leffler distribution in the probabilistic literature (one of two distributions
bearing the same name as discussed later).
Setting $y=u^{-1/\alpha}$ in~(\ref{eq:PollardP1}) gives a simple relation between $P_\alpha$ and $F_\alpha$:
\begin{align}
P_\alpha(t) &= \int_{t^{-1/\alpha}}^\infty f_\alpha(y)\, dy
= 1- \int_0^{t^{-1/\alpha}} f_\alpha(y)\, dy
\equiv 1- F_\alpha(t^{-1/\alpha})
\label{eq:PollardP}
\end{align}
This `duality' between the Mittag-Leffler and stable distributions
is key to the discussion that follows.
The Pollard result may accordingly be written in several equivalent forms:
\begin{align}
E_\alpha(-x)
&= \int_{0}^\infty e^{-xt} dP_\alpha(t) = \int_{0}^\infty e^{-t} P_\alpha(t/x)\, dt \nonumber \\
{\rm or} \quad
E_\alpha(-x^\alpha) &= \int_{0}^\infty e^{-t} P_\alpha(x^{-\alpha}t)\, dt
= \int_{0}^\infty e^{-t} (1- F_\alpha(xt^{-1/\alpha}))\,dt
\label{eq:LaplacePollardP}
\end{align}
Another representation arising from change of variable in Pollard's original result is
\begin{align}
\alpha E_\alpha(-x^\alpha) &= \int_0^\infty e^{-x^\alpha u} \, f_\alpha(u^{-1/\alpha})\, u^{-1/\alpha-1} \, du \nonumber \\
&= x \int_0^\infty e^{-t} \, f_\alpha(xt^{-1/\alpha})\, t^{-1/\alpha-1} \, dt
\label{eq:LaplacePollardvariant}
\end{align}
Setting aside Pollard's contour integral proof, it is hard to evaluate directly any of the equivalent integral representations above
to demonstrate that they do indeed generate $E_\alpha(-x), E_\alpha(-x^\alpha)$.
A method that may be convenient to prove one representation effectively proves all other representations because they are
interchangeable ways of stating the Pollard result.
In particular, Feller followed an indirect route to prove the representation~(\ref{eq:LaplacePollardP}), discussed next.
\subsection{Feller's Method}
\label{sec:Feller}
In an illustration of the use of the two-dimensional Laplace transform,
Feller~\cite{Feller2}(p453) considered $1-F_\alpha(xt^{-1/\alpha})$ as a bivariate distribution over $x>0,t>0$.
The Laplace transform over $x$, followed by that over $t$ gives
\begin{align}
\int_{0}^\infty e^{-sx} (1-F_\alpha(xt^{-1/\alpha}))\,dx &= \frac{1}{s}-\frac{e^{-ts^\alpha}}{s}
\label{eq:FellerLaplace1} \\
\frac{1}{s} \int_{0}^\infty e^{-\lambda t} \left(1-e^{-ts^\alpha}\right)dt &= \frac{1}{\lambda} \frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\lambda+s^\alpha}
\label{eq:FellerLaplace2}
\end{align}
By reference to~(\ref{eq:LaplaceML}), the right hand side of~(\ref{eq:FellerLaplace2}) is the
Laplace transform of $E_\alpha(-\lambda x^\alpha)/\lambda$.
Since the two-dimensional Laplace transform equivalently can be evaluated first over $t$ then over $x$,
Feller concluded that
\begin{align}
E_\alpha(-\lambda x^\alpha) &= \lambda \int_{0}^\infty e^{-\lambda t} (1-F_\alpha(xt^{-1/\alpha}))\,dt
\label{eq:FellerPollard}
\end{align}
which, for $\lambda=1$, is the Pollard result in the form~(\ref{eq:LaplacePollardP}).
Feller's proof is based on the interchange of the order of integration (Fubini's theorem) and the
uniqueness of Laplace transforms.
We represent it by the commutative diagram below, where $\scrL_{s\vert t}$ denotes
the one-dimensional Laplace transform of a bivariate source function at fixed $t$,
to give
a bivariate function of $(s,t)$ where $s$ is the Laplace variable.
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzpicture}[auto,scale=1.8, baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\newcommand*{\size}{\scriptsize}%
\newcommand*{\gap}{.2ex}%
\newcommand*{\width}{3.0}%
\newcommand*{\height}{1.5}%
\node (P) at (0,0) {$1-F_\alpha(xt^{-1/\alpha})$};
\node (Q) at ($(P)+(\width,0)$) {$\dfrac{1}{s}-\dfrac{e^{-ts^\alpha}}{s}$};
\node (B) at ($(P)-(0,\height)$) {$\dfrac{1}{\lambda}E_\alpha(-\lambda x^\alpha)$};
\node (C) at ($(B)+(\width,0)$) {$\dfrac{1}{\lambda}\dfrac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\lambda+s^\alpha}$};
\draw[Myarrow] ([yshift = \gap]P.east) -- node[above] {\size $\scrL_{s\vert t}$} node[below]{\size easy} ([yshift = \gap]Q.west) ;
\draw[Myarrow]([xshift = \gap]Q.south) -- node[left] {\size $\scrL_{\lambda\vert s}$} node[right] {\size easy} ([xshift = \gap]C.north);
\draw[Myarrow] ([xshift = \gap]P.south) -- node[left] {\size $\scrL_{\lambda\vert x}$} node[right] {\size hard}
([xshift = \gap]B.north);
\draw[Myarrow] ([yshift = +\gap]C.west) -- node[above] {\size $\scrL^{-1}_{x\vert \lambda}$} node[below]{\size easy} ([yshift = +\gap]B.east);
\end{tikzpicture}
\label{eq:Fellerdiagram}
\end{equation}
The desired proof is the ``hard'' direct path, which is equivalent to the ``easy'' indirect path.
We will return to commutative diagram representation in a different context later in the paper
when we discuss the main theorem.
Feller's concise proof uses ``methods of probability theory'', as cited by Pollard, only to the extent
of choosing the bivariate distribution as input to the two-dimensional Laplace transform.
Short of any further insight, the methods by both Pollard and Feller might be described as more analytic than probabilistic.
\subsection{Purpose and Scope of Paper}
\label{sec:purpose}
We assign appropriate distribution guided by the
task of proving that $E_\alpha(-x)$ is completely monotone.
We first cast Feller's argument in such terms before proceeding to a more general probabilistic discussion.
The Mittag-Leffler function is of growing interest in probability theory and physics,
with a diversity of applications, notably fractional calculus.
A comprehensive study of the properties and applications of the Mittag-Leffler function
and its numerous generalisations is beyond the scope of this paper.
We consciously restrict the scope to the theme of complete monotonicity and Mittag-Leffler functions,
underpinned by probability theory.
Other studies that explicitly discuss complete monotonicity and Mittag-Leffler functions
build upon complex analytic approaches similar to Pollard's rather than
the probabilistic underpinning discussed here
(de Oliviera et al.~\cite{Oliveira}, Mainardi and Garrappa~\cite{MainardiGarrappa},
G\'{o}rska et al.~\cite{Gorska}).
These papers comment on the fundamental importance of the complete monotonicity of Mittag-Leffler functions used in
the modelling of physical phenomena, such as anomalous dielectric relaxation and viscoelasticity.
Finally, we are keenly aware that there are other views on the interpretation of ``methods of probability theory''.
We comment on this before discussing our probabilistic approach in detail.
\subsection{Probabilistic Perspectives}
\label{sec:perspectives}
The phrase `methods of probability theory' used by Pollard may suggest an
experiment with random outcomes as a fundamental metaphor.
As noted earlier, $P_\alpha$ is derived as a limiting distribution of
a P{\' o}lya urn scheme in the probabilistic literature.
Diversity of approach is commonplace in probability theory and mathematics more generally.
For example, in a context of nonparametric Bayesian analysis,
Ferguson~\cite{Ferguson1} constructed the Dirichlet process based on
the gamma distribution as the fundamental probabilistic concept,
without invoking a random experiment.
Blackwell and MacQueen~\cite{BlackwellMacQueen} observed that the Ferguson approach
``involves a rather deep study of the gamma process'' as they proceeded to give an alternate construction
based on the metaphor of a generalised P{\' o}lya urn scheme.
Adopting the one approach is not to deny or diminish the other, but to bring attention to the diversity of thinking in probability theory,
even when the end result is the same mathematical object.
We look upon this as healthy complementarity rather than undesirable contestation.
For our purpose, we have no need to invoke an underlying random experiment or indeed an explicit random variable,
while not denying the latter as an alternative probabilistic approach.
Hence, for example, we shall continue to express the Laplace transform of a distribution as an explicit integral
rather than as an expectation $\mathbb{E}\left[e^{-sX}\right]$
for a random variable $X$.
\section{A Probabilistic Method}
\label{sec:probabilistic}
First, we note that the scale change $s\to t^{1/\alpha}s$ $(t>0)$ in~(\ref{eq:stable}) gives
\begin{align}
e^{-t s^\alpha} &= \int_0^\infty e^{-s x} f_\alpha(x\,t^{-1/\alpha}) t^{-1/\alpha}\,dx
\equiv \int_0^\infty e^{-s x} f_\alpha(x \vert t) \,dx
\label{eq:stablescaled}
\end{align}
where $f_\alpha(x\vert t)\equiv f_\alpha(x\,t^{-1/\alpha}) t^{-1/\alpha}$ is
the stable density conditioned on the scale parameter $t$,
with $f_\alpha(x) \equiv f_\alpha(x\vert 1)$.
Correspondingly, the stable distribution conditioned on $t$ is
\begin{align}
F_\alpha(x\vert t) &= \int_0^x\, f_\alpha(u\vert t)\,du
= \int_0^{x t^{-1/\alpha}} f_\alpha(u) \,du \equiv F_\alpha(x t^{-1/\alpha})
\label{eq:stablescaleddistribution}
\end{align}
with Laplace transform
$ e^{-t s^\alpha}/s$.
We then assign a distribution $G(t)$ to the scale parameter $t$ of
$F_\alpha(x\vert t)$.
Then, by the sum and product rules of probability theory, the unconditional or marginal distribution $M_\alpha(x)$ over $x$ is
\begin{align}
M_\alpha(x) &= \int_0^\infty F_\alpha(x\vert t) dG(t)
\label{eq:marginaldistribution}
\intertext{with Laplace transform}
\int_0^\infty e^{-s x} M_\alpha(x) \,dx
&= \frac{1}{s} \int_0^\infty e^{-ts^\alpha}\, dG(t)
\label{eq:marginaldistributionLaplace}
\end{align}
$M_\alpha$
is also referred to as a mixture distribution,
arising from randomising or mixing the parameter $t$ in $F_\alpha(x\vert t)$ with $G(t)$.
This has the same import as saying that we assign a prior distribution $G(t)$ on $t$
and we shall continue to use the latter language.
$G$ may depend on one or more parameters.
A notable example is the gamma distribution $G(\mu,\lambda)$ with shape and scale parameters $\mu>0, \lambda>0$ respectively:
\begin{align}
dG(t\vert \mu,\lambda)
&=\dfrac{\lambda^\mu}{\Gamma(\mu)}\,t^{\mu-1}e^{-\lambda t}\, dt
\label{eq:gammadistribution}
\end{align}
$\lambda$ is not fundamental and may be set to $\lambda=1$ by change of scale
$t\to\lambda t$, while $\mu$ controls the shape of $G(t\vert \mu,\lambda)$.
The marginal~(\ref{eq:marginaldistribution}) becomes $M_{\alpha}(x\vert \mu,\lambda)$, with Laplace transform
\begin{align}
\int_0^\infty e^{-s x} M_\alpha(x\vert \mu,\lambda) \,dx &= \frac{1}{s}\left(\frac{\lambda}{\lambda+ s^\alpha}\right)^\mu
= \frac{1}{s}\left(1-\frac{s^\alpha}{\lambda+ s^\alpha}\right)^\mu
\label{eq:marginaldistributionLaplace}
\end{align}
We may now state Feller's approach from a probabilistic perspective.
\subsection{A Probabilistic View of Feller's Approach}
\label{sec:probFeller}
The case $\mu=1$ in~(\ref{eq:gammadistribution}) gives the exponential distribution $dG(t\vert \lambda) = \lambda e^{-\lambda t}dt$.
Then $M_\alpha(x\vert \lambda)\equiv M_\alpha(x\vert \mu=1,\lambda)$ is
\begin{align}
M_\alpha(x\vert \lambda) &= \int_0^\infty F_\alpha(x\vert t) dG(t\vert \lambda)
= \lambda \int_0^\infty F_\alpha(x\vert t) e^{-\lambda t}\,dt
\label{eq:expprior}
\end{align}
The Laplace transform of $M_\alpha(x\vert \lambda)$, read from~(\ref{eq:marginaldistributionLaplace}) with $\mu=1$, is
\begin{alignat}{3}
\int_0^\infty e^{-s x} &M_\alpha(x\vert \lambda) \,dx
&&= \frac{1}{s}- \frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\lambda+s^\alpha}
\label{eq:LaplaceMarginaldistribution} \\
\implies
&\quad M_\alpha(x\vert \lambda) &&= 1-E_\alpha(-\lambda x^\alpha) \\
\implies
&E_\alpha(-\lambda x^\alpha) &&= 1-M_\alpha(x\vert \lambda)
= \lambda \int_0^\infty (1-F_\alpha(x\vert t)) e^{-\lambda t} \,dt
\label{eq:MLmarginal}
\end{alignat}
This reproduces Feller's result~(\ref{eq:FellerPollard})
from a probabilistic perspective.
The difference is purely a matter of conceptual outlook:
\begin{description
\item[Feller:] Study the two-dimensional Laplace transform of the bivariate distribution $1-F_\alpha(x t^{-1/\alpha})$,
where $F_\alpha$ is the stable distribution.
Deduce that $E_\alpha(-\lambda x^\alpha)/\lambda$ is the Laplace transform of $1-F_\alpha(x t^{-1/\alpha})$ over $t$ at fixed $x$,
where $\lambda$ is the Laplace variable.
\item[Probabilistic:] Assign an exponential prior distribution $G(t\vert 1,\lambda)$ to the scale factor $t$ of the stable distribution
$F_\alpha(x\vert t)\equiv F_\alpha(x t^{-1/\alpha})$, where $G(t\vert\mu,\lambda)$ is the gamma distribution.
Marginalise
over $t$ to generate the Feller result directly.
\end{description}
Feller himself might also have established the result by the latter reasoning.
Under subordination of processes, Feller~\cite{Feller2}(p451) discussed mixture distributions but he did not specifically discuss the Mittag-Leffler function in this context in his published work.
The task fell on Pillai~\cite{Pillai}
to study $M_\alpha(x\vert\mu)\equiv M_\alpha(x\vert \mu, \lambda=1)$,
including its infinite divisibility and the corresponding Mittag-Leffler stochastic process.
He also proved that $M_\alpha(x\vert 1)=1-E_\alpha(-x^\alpha)$ (as discussed above),
which he referred to as the Mittag-Leffler distribution.
There are thus two distributions bearing the name ``Mittag-Leffler distribution'':
$M_\alpha(x)=1-E_\alpha(-x^\alpha)$ and $P_\alpha(t) =1- F_\alpha(t^{-1/\alpha})$.
The natural question arising from the probabilistic approach is whether there might be other choices of $\mu$
in $G(\mu,\lambda)$ (or indeed other choices of $G$ altogether)
that yield the Pollard result and, if so, what insight they might offer.
At face value, there would appear to be nothing further to be said since other choices of $\mu$
can be expected to lead to different results, beyond the study of the Mittag-Leffler function.
The main contribution of this paper is that, in fact, there is a limit relationship that generates the Pollard result
for any $\mu>0$, as discussed next.
We first note,
given the definition of the conditional stable density
\begin{align*}
f_\alpha(x\vert t)\equiv f_\alpha(x\,t^{-1/\alpha}) t^{-1/\alpha}
&\implies f_\alpha(1\vert t)\equiv f_\alpha(t^{-1/\alpha}) t^{-1/\alpha}
\end{align*}
that we may write $P_\alpha(t)$ of~(\ref{eq:PollardP1}) and the representation~(\ref{eq:LaplacePollardvariant})
of the Pollard result as
\begin{align}
P_\alpha(t) &= \int_0^t p_\alpha(u)\,du = \frac{1}{\alpha} \int_0^t f_\alpha(1\vert u) \, u^{-1} \,du
\label{eq:Pollard1a} \\
\alpha E_\alpha(-\lambda x^\alpha) &= x \int_0^\infty f_\alpha(x\vert t) \, t^{-1} e^{-\lambda t} \,dt \qquad 0<\alpha<1
\label{eq:MLBayes1} \\
u=x^{-\alpha}t:\quad
E_\alpha(-\lambda x^\alpha) &= \int_0^\infty e^{-\lambda x^\alpha u} \, dP_\alpha(u)
\label{eq:MLBayes2}
\end{align}
The intent is to generate this representation using the general $G(\mu,\lambda)$ prior distribution,
{\it i.e.} without reference to Pollard's analytic method and without explicit restriction to the $G(\mu=1,\lambda)$ case that
is equivalent to Feller's approach, as demonstrated above.
\section{Main Contribution}
\label{sec:contribution}
We first state Theorem~\ref{thm:main}, which warrants dedicated discussion, even though it
is actually a special case of the more general Theorem~\ref{thm:ML3par} stated later.
We note first that the density of the marginal distribution $M_\alpha(x|\mu,\lambda)$ of Section~\ref{sec:probabilistic} is
\begin{align}
m_\alpha(x\vert \mu, \lambda) &= \int_0^\infty f_\alpha(x\vert t)\, dG(t\vert \mu, \lambda) \qquad \mu>0, \lambda>0 \nonumber \\
&= \frac{\lambda^\mu}{\Gamma(\mu)} \int_0^\infty f_\alpha(x\vert t)\, t^{\mu-1} e^{-\lambda t} \,dt \nonumber \\
&= \frac{\mu \lambda^\mu}{\Gamma(\mu+1)} \int_0^\infty f_\alpha(x\vert t)\, t^{\mu-1} e^{-\lambda t} \,dt
\label{eq:marginaldensity}
\end{align}
where the latter expression follows from the identity $\mu\Gamma(\mu)=\Gamma(\mu+1)$.
\begin{theorem}
The limit
\begin{align}
\lim_{n\to\infty} \tfrac{n}{\mu} \, x \, m_\alpha(x\vert \tfrac{\mu}{n},\lambda)
&= \lim_{n\to\infty} \tfrac{n}{\mu} \, x \int_0^\infty f_\alpha(x\vert t)\, dG(t\vert \tfrac{\mu}{n},\lambda)
\label{eq:limitmarginaldensity}
\intertext{is finite and independent of $\mu$ for any $\mu>0$.
This limit yields the following integral representation of the Mittag-Leffler function
$E_\alpha(-\lambda x^\alpha)$}
\alpha E_\alpha(-\lambda x^\alpha) &= x \int_0^\infty f_\alpha(x\vert t) \, t^{-1} e^{-\lambda t} \,dt
\label{eq:ML_intrep0} \\
u=x^{-\alpha}t:\quad
E_\alpha(-\lambda x^\alpha)
&= \int_0^\infty e^{-\lambda x^\alpha u}\, dP_\alpha(u)
\label{eq:PollardML_intrep0}
\intertext{where $P_\alpha(t)$ is the (one-parameter) Pollard distribution}
P_\alpha(t) &= \frac{1}{\alpha} \int_0^t f_\alpha(1\vert u) \, u^{-1} \,du \nonumber \\
&= \frac{1}{\alpha} \int_0^t f_\alpha(u^{-1/\alpha}) \, u^{-1/\alpha-1} \,du \nonumber
\end{align}
Hence $E_\alpha(-x)$ is completely monotone.
\label{thm:main}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main}]
The Laplace transform
of $x \,m_\alpha(x\vert \mu,\lambda)$ is
\begin{align*}
\int_0^\infty e^{-sx} x \,m_\alpha(x\vert \mu,\lambda) \, dx
&= \int_0^\infty e^{-sx} x \int_0^\infty f_\alpha(x\vert t)\, dG(t\vert \mu, \lambda) \, dx \\
&= -\frac{d}{ds} \int_0^\infty \int_0^\infty e^{-sx} f_\alpha(x\vert t) \, dx \, dG(t\vert \mu, \lambda) \\
&= -\frac{d}{ds} \int_0^\infty e^{-t s^\alpha} \, dG(t\vert \mu, \lambda) \\
&= \alpha s^{\alpha-1} \int_0^\infty t \,e^{-t s^\alpha} \, dG(t\vert \mu, \lambda) \\
&= \alpha s^{\alpha-1} \frac{\lambda^\mu}{\Gamma(\mu)} \int_0^\infty t^\mu \, e^{-(\lambda+s^\alpha) t} \, dt \\
&= \alpha s^{\alpha-1} \frac{\lambda^\mu}{\Gamma(\mu)} \frac{\Gamma(\mu+1)}{(\lambda+s^\alpha)^{\mu+1}} \\
&= \lambda^\mu \mu \alpha \frac{s^{\alpha-1} }{(\lambda+s^\alpha)^{\mu+1}} \\
\implies \;
\lim_{n\to\infty} \tfrac{n}{\mu} \int_0^\infty e^{-sx} x \, &m_\alpha(x\vert \tfrac{\mu}{n},\lambda) \, dx
= \alpha \frac{s^{\alpha-1}}{\lambda+s^\alpha}
\intertext{which is the Laplace transform of $\alpha E_\alpha(-\lambda x^\alpha)$.
With the aid of~(\ref{eq:marginaldensity}), it also readily follows that the limit~(\ref{eq:limitmarginaldensity}) is}
\lim_{n\to\infty} \tfrac{n}{\mu} \, x \, m_\alpha(x\vert \tfrac{\mu}{n},\lambda)
&= x \int_0^\infty f_\alpha(x\vert t) \, t^{-1} e^{-\lambda t} \,dt
\end{align*}
The integral representations (\ref{eq:ML_intrep0}) and (\ref{eq:PollardML_intrep0}) of $E_\alpha(-\lambda x^\alpha)$ follow,
hence the conclusion that $E_\alpha(-x)$ is completely monotone.
\end{proof}
Pursuing the probabilistic theme, we turn next to Laplace convolution
to demonstrate the complete monotonicity of the two and three parameter Mittag-Leffler functions.
\section{A Convolution Representation}
\label{sec:convolution}
Toward a more general discussion, we first present an alternative representation of $x f_\alpha(x|t)$ using Laplace convolution.
The convolution $\{\rho \star f\}(x)$ of $\rho(x), f(x)$
is given by
\begin{align}
\{\rho\star f\}(x) &= \int_0^x \rho(x-u)f(u)\, du
\label{eq:convolution}
\end{align}
The convolution theorem states that the Laplace transform of $\{\rho \star f\}$ is a product of the
Laplace transforms of $\rho, f$.
\subsection{One Parameter Case}
\label{sec:1par}
\begin{proposition}
Let $\rho_\alpha(x) = x^{-\alpha}/\Gamma(1-\alpha)$, $0<\alpha<1$ with Laplace transform
$s^{\alpha-1}$.
Let $\{\rho_\alpha\star f_\alpha(\cdot\vert t)\}(x)$ be the convolution of $\rho_\alpha(x)$ and $f_\alpha(x\vert t)$
with Laplace transform $s^{\alpha-1}e^{-ts^\alpha}$.
Then
\begin{align}
x\, f_\alpha(x\vert t) =\alpha\, t\{\rho_\alpha\star f_\alpha(\cdot\vert t)\}(x) = \alpha\, \{\rho_\alpha\star f_\alpha\}(xt^{-1/\alpha})
\label{eq:convolution1}
\end{align}
where $\{\rho_\alpha\star f_\alpha\}(x)$ is the convolution of $\rho_\alpha(x)$ and $f_\alpha(x)\equiv f_\alpha(x|1)$.
For compatibility with later discussion, we also use the name $w_\alpha(x\vert t)$ defined by
$\alpha w_\alpha(x\vert t) \equiv x\, f_\alpha(x\vert t)$.
\label{prop:convolution1}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:convolution1}]
By the convolution theorem, $\{\rho_\alpha\star f_\alpha(\cdot\vert t)\}(x)$ has Laplace transform
\begin{align*}
s^{\alpha-1} e^{-ts^\alpha} = -\frac{1}{\alpha t}\frac{d}{ds} e^{-ts^\alpha}
&= \frac{1}{\alpha t} \int_0^\infty e^{-sx} x f_\alpha(x\vert t)\, dx \nonumber \\
\implies\;
\alpha\, t\, \{\rho_\alpha\star f_\alpha(\cdot\vert t)\}(x) &= x f_\alpha(x\vert t)
\end{align*}
The convolution $\{\rho_\alpha\star f_\alpha(\cdot\vert t)\}(x)$ takes the explicit form:
\begin{align*}
\{\rho_\alpha\star f_\alpha(\cdot\vert t)\}(x) &= \int_0^x \rho_\alpha(x-u)f_\alpha(u\vert t)\, du \\
&= \int_0^x \rho_\alpha(x-u)f_\alpha(u t^{-1/\alpha})t^{-1/\alpha} \, du \\
y=ut^{-1/\alpha}:\quad
&= \int_0^{xt^{-1/\alpha}} \rho_\alpha(x-yt^{1/\alpha})f_\alpha(y) \, dy \\
&= \int_0^{xt^{-1/\alpha}} \rho_\alpha(t^{1/\alpha}(xt^{-1/\alpha}-y))f_\alpha(y) \, dy \\
&= t^{-1}\int_0^{xt^{-1/\alpha}} \rho_\alpha(xt^{-1/\alpha}-y)f_\alpha(y) \, dy \\
&= t^{-1} \{\rho_\alpha\star f_\alpha\}(xt^{-1/\alpha})
\end{align*}
\label{proof:prop:convolution1}
so that $\alpha w_\alpha(x\vert t) \equiv
x\, f_\alpha(x\vert t) =\alpha\, t\{\rho_\alpha\star f_\alpha(\cdot\vert t)\}(x) = \alpha\, \{\rho_\alpha\star f_\alpha\}(xt^{-1/\alpha})$.
\end{proof}
Hence the following are equivalent representations of the Pollard distribution $P_\alpha(t)$:
\begin{align}
P_\alpha(t) &= \int_0^t w_\alpha(1\vert t) \, u^{-1} \,du
\equiv \frac{1}{\alpha} \int_0^t f_\alpha(1\vert u) \, u^{-1} \,du \nonumber \\
&= \int_0^t \{\rho_\alpha\star f_\alpha(\cdot\vert u)\}(1) \, du \nonumber \\
&= \int_0^t \{\rho_\alpha\star f_\alpha\}(u^{-1/\alpha})\, u^{-1} \, du
\label{eq:PollardP1par}
\end{align}
The motivation for the convolution representation is to facilitate generalisation.
Specifically, the Laplace transform $\alpha t s^{\alpha-1}e^{-ts^\alpha}$ of $xf_\alpha(x\vert t)$
is the derivative of $-e^{-ts^\alpha}$.
However, a more general term like $t s^{\alpha-\beta}e^{-ts^\alpha}$ cannot arise from simple derivatives of
$e^{-ts^\alpha}$ for non-integer $\beta$.
It might be interpreted as a fractional derivative, as can be represented instead by convolutions.
Accordingly, we proceed to consider more general convolutions than the
convolution form~(\ref{eq:convolution1}) for $xf_\alpha(x\vert t)$.
\subsection{Two Parameter Case}
\label{sec:2par}
First, we introduce the two-parameter Mittag-Leffler function
\begin{align}
E_{\alpha,\beta}(x) &= \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{x^k}{\Gamma(\alpha k+\beta)}
\label{eq:ML2parseries}
\end{align}
The Laplace transform of $x^{\beta-1}E_{\alpha,\beta}(-\lambda x^\alpha)$ is
\begin{align}
\int_0^\infty e^{-sx} x^{\beta-1}E_{\alpha,\beta}(-\lambda x^\alpha) \,dx &= \frac{s^{\alpha-\beta}}{\lambda+s^\alpha}
\label{eq:LaplaceML2par}
\end{align}
We may now proceed to prove that $E_{\alpha,\beta}(-x)$ is completely monotone
by showing that it is the Laplace transform of a two-parameter variant $P_{\alpha,\beta}(t)$ of the Pollard distribution.
We follow a corresponding two-parameter variant of the convolution argument presented above for the one-parameter case.
\begin{proposition}
Let $\rho_{\alpha,\beta}(x) = x^{\beta-\alpha-1}/\Gamma(\beta-\alpha)$ $\beta>\alpha$, with Laplace transform
$s^{\alpha-\beta}$.
Let $\{\rho_{\alpha,\beta}\star f_\alpha(\cdot\vert t)\}(x)$
be the convolution of $\rho_{\alpha,\beta}(x)$ and $f_\alpha(x\vert t)$.
Then
\begin{align}
w_{\alpha,\beta}(x\vert t) \equiv
t\, \{\rho_{\alpha,\beta}\star f_\alpha(\cdot\vert t)\}(x) &= t^{(\beta-1)/\alpha}\ \{\rho_{\alpha,\beta}\star f_\alpha\}(xt^{-1/\alpha})
\label{eq:convolution2}
\end{align}
$($the name $w_{\alpha,\beta}(x\vert t)$ is a shorthand adopted for convenience$)$.
\label{prop:convolution2}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:convolution2}]
\begin{align*}
\{\rho_{\alpha,\beta}\star f_\alpha(\cdot\vert t)\}(x) &= \int_0^x \rho_{\alpha,\beta}(x-u)f_\alpha(u\vert t)\, du \\
&= \int_0^{xt^{-1/\alpha}} \rho_{\alpha,\beta}(t^{1/\alpha}(xt^{-1/\alpha}-u))f_\alpha(u) \, du \\
&= t^{(\beta-1)/\alpha-1} \int_0^{xt^{-1/\alpha}} \rho_{\alpha,\beta}(xt^{-1/\alpha}-u)f_\alpha(u) \, du \\
&= t^{(\beta-1)/\alpha-1} \{\rho_{\alpha,\beta}\star f_\alpha\}(xt^{-1/\alpha}) \\
\end{align*}
\label{proof:prop:convolution2}
Thus $w_{\alpha,\beta}(x\vert t) \equiv t\,\{\rho_{\alpha,\beta}\star f_\alpha(\cdot\vert t)\}(x)
= t^{(\beta-1)/\alpha} \{\rho_{\alpha,\beta}\star f_\alpha\}(xt^{-1/\alpha})$.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
The two-parameter Mittag-Leffler function $E_{\alpha,\beta}(-\lambda x^\alpha)$ has the integral representation
\begin{align}
E_{\alpha,\beta}(-\lambda x^\alpha) &= \int_0^\infty e^{-\lambda x^\alpha t} \, dP_{\alpha,\beta}(t)
\label{eq:ML2par}
\intertext{where $P_{\alpha,\beta}(t)$, which we refer to as the two-parameter Pollard distribution, is}
P_{\alpha,\beta}(t) &= \int_0^t w_{\alpha,\beta}(1\vert u) \, u^{-1}\, du \nonumber \\
&\equiv \int_0^t \{\rho_{\alpha,\beta}\star f_\alpha(\cdot\vert u)\}(1) \, du \nonumber \\
&= \int_0^t \{\rho_{\alpha,\beta}\star f_\alpha\}(u^{-1/\alpha})\, u^{(\beta-1)/\alpha-1} \, du
\label{eq:PollardP2par}
\end{align}
Hence $E_{\alpha,\beta}(-x)$ is completely monotone.
\label{thm:ML2par}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:ML2par}]
The theorem is a particular case of the more general Theorem~\ref{thm:ML3par} below, hence the current proof is deferred
to that of the latter theorem.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Three Parameter Case}
\label{sec:3par}
The three-parameter Mittag-Leffler function, also known as the Prabhakar function, is given by
\begin{align}
E^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(x) &= \frac{1}{\Gamma(\gamma)}
\sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{\Gamma(\gamma+k)}{k!\,\Gamma(\alpha k+\beta)}\, x^k
\label{eq:ML3parseries}
\end{align}
The Laplace transform of $x^{\beta-1}E^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(-\lambda x^\alpha)$ is
\begin{align}
\int_0^\infty e^{-sx} x^{\beta-1}E^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(-\lambda x^\alpha) \,dx
&= \frac{s^{\alpha\gamma-\beta}}{(\lambda+s^\alpha)^\gamma}
\label{eq:LaplaceML3par}
\end{align}
We may now proceed to prove that $E^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(-x)$ is completely monotone
by showing that it is the Laplace transform of a three-parameter variant $P^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(t)$ of the Pollard distribution.
In principle, we need only have discussed the three-parameter case from the outset because
the two and one-parameter instances are the special cases $\gamma=1$ and $\gamma=\beta=1$ respectively.
We chose instead to present in sequential order for clarity of exposition.
We devote a separate section to the three-parameter case, which subsumes all prior discussion,
by restating Theorem~\ref{thm:main} in the three-parameter context.
\section{Main Theorem}
\label{sec:genmain}
We start with a proposition required for the general theorem that follows:
\begin{proposition}
Let $\rho^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(x) = x^{\beta-\alpha\gamma-1}/\Gamma(\beta-\alpha\gamma)$
$(0<\alpha<1, \gamma>0, \beta>\alpha\gamma)$
and let $\{\rho^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}\star f_\alpha(\cdot\vert t)\}(x)$
be the convolution of $\rho^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(x)$ and the stable density $f_\alpha(x\vert t)$.
Then
\begin{align}
w^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(x\vert t) \equiv
t^\gamma \, \{\rho^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}\star f_\alpha(\cdot\vert t)\}(x)
&= t^{(\beta-1)/\alpha} \{\rho^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}\star f_\alpha\}(xt^{-1/\alpha})
\label{eq:convolution3}
\end{align}
\label{prop:convolution3}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:convolution3}]
\begin{align*}
\{\rho^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}\star f_\alpha(\cdot\vert t)\}(x) &= \int_0^x \rho^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(x-u)f_\alpha(u\vert t)\, du \\
&= \int_0^{xt^{-1/\alpha}} \rho^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(t^{1/\alpha}(xt^{-1/\alpha}-u))f_\alpha(u) \, du \\
&= t^{(\beta-1)/\alpha-\gamma} \int_0^{xt^{-1/\alpha}} \rho^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(xt^{-1/\alpha}-u)f_\alpha(u) \, du \\
&= t^{(\beta-1)/\alpha-\gamma} \{\rho^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}\star f_\alpha\}(xt^{-1/\alpha})
\end{align*}
Thus $w^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(x\vert t) \equiv t^\gamma \,\{\rho^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}\star f_\alpha(\cdot\vert t)\}(x)
= t^{(\beta-1)/\alpha} \{\rho^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}\star f_\alpha\}(xt^{-1/\alpha})$.
\label{proof:convolution3}
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
Let $\rho^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(x), w^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(x\vert t)$ $(0<\alpha<1, \gamma>0, \beta>\alpha\gamma)$
be as defined in Proposition~\ref{prop:convolution3}
and let $G(\mu, \lambda)$ be the gamma distribution with shape and scale parameters $\mu>0, \lambda>0$ respectively.
Let the distribution $M^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(x|\mu,\lambda)$
have density
\begin{align}
m^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(x|\mu,\lambda)
&= \int_0^\infty w^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(x\vert t) \, dG(t\vert \mu, \lambda) \nonumber \\
&= \frac{\lambda^\mu}{\Gamma(\mu)} \int_0^\infty w^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(x\vert t) \, t^{\mu-1} e^{-\lambda t} \,dt
\label{eq:genmarginaldensity} \\
&\equiv \frac{\lambda^\mu}{\Gamma(\mu)} \int_0^\infty \{\rho^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}\star f_\alpha(\cdot\vert t)\}(x)
\, t^{\gamma+\mu-1} e^{-\lambda t} \,dt
\label{eq:genmarginaldensity1} \\
&= \frac{\lambda^\mu}{\Gamma(\mu)} \int_0^\infty \{\rho^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}\star f_\alpha\}(xt^{-1/\alpha})
\, t^{(\beta-1)/\alpha+\mu-1} e^{-\lambda t} \,dt
\label{eq:genmarginaldensity2}
\end{align}
where the latter two forms follow from Proposition~\ref{prop:convolution3}.
Then the following limit is finite and independent of $\mu$ for any $\mu>0$
\begin{align}
\lim_{n\to\infty} \tfrac{n}{\mu} \, m^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(x\vert \tfrac{\mu}{n},\lambda)
\label{eq:limitgenmarginaldensity}
\end{align}
This limit yields the following integral representation of the three-parameter Mittag-Leffler or Prabhakar function
$E^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(-\lambda x^\alpha)$
\begin{align}
E^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(-\lambda x^\alpha) &= \int_0^\infty w^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(x\vert t) \, t^{-1} e^{-\lambda t} \,dt
= \int_0^\infty e^{-\lambda x^\alpha t}\, dP^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(t)
\label{eq:ML3par}
\intertext{where $P^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(t)$, which we refer to as the three-parameter Pollard distribution, is}
P^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(t) &= \int_0^t w^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(1\vert u) \, u^{-1}\, du \nonumber \\
&\equiv \frac{1}{\Gamma(\gamma)} \int_0^t \{\rho^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}\star f_\alpha(\cdot\vert u)\}(1)\, u^{\gamma-1} \, du \nonumber \\
&= \frac{1}{\Gamma(\gamma)} \int_0^t \{\rho^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}\star f_\alpha\}(u^{-1/\alpha})\, u^{(\beta-1)/\alpha-1} \, du
\label{eq:PollardP3par}
\end{align}
Hence $E^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(-x)$ is completely monotone.
\label{thm:ML3par}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:ML3par}]
The Laplace transform $\widetilde m^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(s \vert \mu,\lambda)$
of (\ref{eq:genmarginaldensity}) is
\begin{align}
\widetilde m^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(s \vert \mu,\lambda)
&\equiv \int_0^\infty e^{-sx} \, m^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(x\vert \mu,\lambda)\, dx \nonumber \\
&= s^{\alpha\gamma-\beta} \frac{\lambda^\mu}{\Gamma(\mu)} \int_0^\infty
\, t^{\gamma+\mu-1} e^{-(\lambda+s^\alpha) t} \,dt \nonumber \\
&= \lambda^\mu \frac{\Gamma(\gamma+\mu) }{\Gamma(\mu)}
\frac{s^{\alpha\gamma-\beta}}{(\lambda+s^\alpha)^{\gamma+\mu}}
\label{eq:genmarginaldensityLaplace} \\
\implies \;
\lim_{n\to\infty} \tfrac{n}{\mu} \int_0^\infty &e^{-sx} m^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(x\vert \tfrac{\mu}{n},\lambda) \, dx
= \Gamma(\gamma)
\frac{s^{\alpha\gamma-\beta}}{(\lambda+s^\alpha)^{\gamma}}
\label{eq:limitgenmarginaldensityLaplace}
\end{align}
By (\ref{eq:LaplaceML3par}), the right hand side is the Laplace transform of
$\Gamma(\gamma)\,x^{\beta-1}E^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(-\lambda x^\alpha)$.
Given (\ref{eq:genmarginaldensity1}) and
(\ref{eq:genmarginaldensity2}), it also readily follows that
the limit~(\ref{eq:limitgenmarginaldensity}) is
\begin{align}
\int_0^\infty t^\gamma \{\rho^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}\star f_\alpha(\cdot\vert t)\}(x)
&t^{-1} e^{-\lambda t} dt
= \int_0^\infty \{\rho^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}\star f_\alpha\}(xt^{-1/\alpha}) \, t^{(\beta-1)/\alpha-1} e^{-\lambda t} dt \nonumber \\
\implies\; E^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(-\lambda x^\alpha)
&= \frac{x^{1-\beta}}{\Gamma(\gamma)}
\int_0^\infty \{\rho^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}\star f_\alpha\}(xt^{-1/\alpha})\, t^{(\beta-1)/\alpha-1} e^{-\lambda t} \,dt \nonumber \\
u=x^{-\alpha}t:\;
&= \frac{1}{\Gamma(\gamma)}
\int_0^\infty e^{-\lambda x^\alpha u}\, \{\rho^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}\star f_\alpha\}(u^{-1/\alpha})\, u^{(\beta-1)/\alpha-1} \,du \nonumber \\
&= \int_0^\infty e^{-\lambda x^\alpha u} \, dP^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(u) \nonumber
\end{align}
Hence $E^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(-x)$ is completely monotone.
\label{proof:ML3par}
\end{proof}
Theorem~\ref{thm:ML3par} may be visually represented by the following commutative diagram,
where $m_{\alpha,\beta}^\gamma(x\vert\mu,\lambda)$ and its Laplace transform
$\widetilde{m}_{\alpha,\beta}^\gamma(s\vert\mu,\lambda)$
are given by (\ref{eq:genmarginaldensity}) and (\ref{eq:genmarginaldensityLaplace}) respectively.
The equivalence of the two routes from the top left node to the bottom left node induces the integral representation of the Mittag-Leffler function.
\begin{equation}
\begin{tikzpicture}[auto,scale=3, baseline=(current bounding box.center)]
\newcommand*{\size}{\small}%
\newcommand*{\gap}{.2ex}%
\newcommand*{\width}{1.7}%
\newcommand*{\height}{1.25}%
\node (P) at (0,0) [align=center]
{$m_{\alpha,\beta}^\gamma(x\vert\mu,\lambda)$};
\node (Q) at ($(P)+(\width,0)$) [align=center]
{$\widetilde{m}_{\alpha,\beta}^\gamma(s\vert\mu,\lambda)$};
\node (B) at ($(P)-(0,\height)$) {$\Gamma(\gamma)x^{\beta-1}E_{\alpha,\beta}^\gamma(-\lambda x^\alpha)$};
\node (C) at ($(B)+(\width,0)$) {$\Gamma(\gamma)\dfrac{s^{\alpha\gamma-\beta}}{(\lambda+s^\alpha)^\gamma}$};
\draw[Myarrow] ([yshift = \gap]P.east) -- node[above] {\size $\scrL$} ([yshift = \gap]Q.west) ;
\draw[Myarrow]([xshift = \gap]Q.south) -- node[right] {\size $\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}\tfrac{n}{\mu}\;
\widetilde{m}_{\alpha,\beta}^\gamma(s\vert \tfrac{\mu}{n},\lambda)$} ([xshift = \gap]C.north);
\draw[Myarrow] ([xshift = \gap]P.south) -- node[left] {\size $\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}\tfrac{n}{\mu}\;
m_{\alpha,\beta}^\gamma(x\vert \tfrac{\mu}{n},\lambda)$} ([xshift = \gap]B.north);
\draw[Myarrow] ([yshift = +\gap]C.west) -- node[below] {\size $\scrL^{-1}$} ([yshift = +\gap]B.east);
\end{tikzpicture}
\label{eq:CommutativeDiagram}
\end{equation}
The representation~(\ref{eq:ML3par}) of $E^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(x)$,
with $P^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(t)$ given by (\ref{eq:PollardP3par}),
is equivalent to equation (2.4) in G\'{o}rska et al.~\cite{Gorska}.
The difference is one of approach.
This paper offers a fundamentally probabilistic argument,
while G\'{o}rska et al.~\cite{Gorska} follows a complex analytic route inspired by Pollard~\cite{PollardML}.
The balance of G\'{o}rska et al.~\cite{Gorska} is devoted to finding an explicit formula for a function $f^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(x)$ featuring in
the paper in terms of the Meijer $G$ function and associated confluent Wright function.
In turns out that $f^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(x)$ in G\'{o}rska et al.~\cite{Gorska} is identical to
$\{\rho^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}\star f_\alpha\}(x)$ in this paper.
We are content to leave it in the conceptually simple convolution form:
\begin{align}
\{\rho^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}\star f_\alpha\}(x) &= \int_0^x \rho^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(x-u) f_\alpha(u)\, du \nonumber \\
&= \frac{1}{\Gamma(\beta-\alpha\gamma)} \int_0^x (x-u)^{\beta-\alpha\gamma-1} f_\alpha(u)\, du
\label{eq:rhostarstablef}
\end{align}
rather than express it in terms of special functions.
In our context, we have actually worked with the conditional density
\begin{align*}
w^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(x\vert t) \equiv
t^\gamma \, \{\rho^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}\star f_\alpha(\cdot\vert t)\}(x)
&= t^{(\beta-1)/\alpha} \{\rho^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}\star f_\alpha\}(xt^{-1/\alpha})
\end{align*}
where we assigned a gamma prior distribution to the scale parameter $t$.
The density $w^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(x\vert t) $ reduces to (\ref{eq:rhostarstablef}) for the particular choice $t=1$.
We have completed the task of proving that the three-parameter Mittag-Leffler function
$E^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(-x)$ is completely monotone by methods of probability theory,
using probabilistic reasoning to derive an explicit form for $P^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(t)$,
whose Laplace transform is $E^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(-x)$.
Beyond that,
we draw conclusions on the complete monotonicity of related functions, notably
$x^{\beta-1} E^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(-x^\alpha)$ and $ E^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(-x^\alpha)$ in isolation.
First, we discuss $x^{\beta-1} E^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(-x^\alpha)$, the bottom left node of the
commutative diagram~(\ref{eq:CommutativeDiagram}),
in the probabilistic context of Theorem~\ref{thm:ML3par}.
The discussion involves an alternative representation of the fundamental probabilistic object -- the convolution
density $\{\rho^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}\star f_\alpha(\cdot\vert t)\}(x)$.
\section{An Alternative Representation}
\label{sec:alternative}
For $x^{\beta-1}E^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(-\lambda x^\alpha)$ to be completely monotone, there must exist a
distribution $R^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(u\vert\lambda)$ defined by the Laplace transform
\begin{align}
x^{\beta-1}E^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(-\lambda x^\alpha) &= \int_0^\infty e^{- x u} \, dR^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(u\vert\lambda)
\label{eq:LaplaceRabg}
\intertext{In turn, the Laplace transform of~(\ref{eq:LaplaceRabg}) is the
Stieltjes transform (or iterated Laplace transform) of $R^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(u\vert\lambda)$:}
\frac{s^{\alpha\gamma-\beta}}{(\lambda+s^\alpha)^\gamma}
&= \int_0^\infty \frac{1}{s+u} \, dR^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(u\vert\lambda)
\label{eq:StieltjesRabg}
\end{align}
Then, as de Oliviera et al.~\cite{Oliveira}, Mainardi and Garrappa~\cite{MainardiGarrappa} show,
the Stieltjes inversion formula (Titchmarsh~\cite{Titchmarsh}(11.8, p318),
Widder~\cite{Widder}(VIII.7, p342)) gives
\begin{align}
dR^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(u\vert\lambda)
&= \frac{1}{\pi}\,{\rm Im}\left\{\frac{(e^{-i\pi}u)^{\alpha\gamma-\beta}}{(\lambda+(e^{-i\pi}u)^\alpha)^\gamma}\right\} \, du
\label{eq:Rabg}
\intertext{
The expression in braces on the RHS of (\ref{eq:Rabg}) is (\ref{eq:StieltjesRabg}) at $s=e^{-i\pi}u$.
In particular, for $\gamma=\beta=1$, (\ref{eq:Rabg}) reduces to}
dR_\alpha(u\vert\lambda)
&= \frac{1}{\pi}\, \frac{\lambda\,u^{\alpha-1}\sin\pi\alpha}{\lambda^2+2\lambda\,u^\alpha\cos\pi\alpha+u^{2\alpha}} \, du
\label{eq:Ra}
\end{align}
which has been discussed in various contexts in the fractional calculus and probabilistic literature
({\it e.g.}\ James~\cite{James_Lamperti} in the latter context).
We have mentioned (\ref{eq:LaplaceRabg})
for completeness but it was not the core of our probabilistic discussion, whose focus was to determine
$P^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(t)$, with Laplace transform $E^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(-x)$.
That said, we can offer a `hybrid' derivation of (\ref{eq:LaplaceRabg}) that combines the core of the probabilistic argument
in the form of the convolution density $\{\rho^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}\star f_\alpha(\cdot\vert t)\}(x)$
with the complex analytic Stieltjes inversion argument presented above.
Assume $\{\rho^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}\star f_\alpha(\cdot\vert t)\}(x)$ to be the Laplace transform of a distribution
$S^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(u\vert t)$:
\begin{align}
\{\rho^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}\star f_\alpha(\cdot\vert t)\}(x)
&= \int_0^\infty e^{- x u} \, dS^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(u\vert t)
\label{eq:LaplaceSabg}
\intertext{In turn, the Laplace transform of~(\ref{eq:LaplaceSabg}) is the Stieltjes transform of $S^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(u\vert t)$:}
s^{\alpha\gamma-\beta} e^{-ts^\alpha}
&= \int_0^\infty \frac{1}{s+u} \, dS^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(u\vert t)
\label{eq:StieltjesSabg}
\intertext{By the Stieltjes inversion formula:}
dS^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(u\vert t)
&= \frac{1}{\pi} \, {\rm Im} \left\{(ue^{-i\pi})^{\alpha\gamma-\beta} e^{-t(ue^{-i\pi})^\alpha} \right\}\, du
\end{align}
Hence, using the representation (\ref{eq:LaplaceSabg}) in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:ML3par}:
\begin{align}
\Gamma(\gamma)\,x^{\beta-1}E^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(-\lambda x^\alpha)
&= \int_0^\infty t^\gamma \{\rho^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}\star f_\alpha(\cdot\vert t)\}(x) \, t^{-1} e^{-\lambda t} \,dt \nonumber \\
&= \int_0^\infty dt \, t^{\gamma-1} e^{-\lambda t} \int_0^\infty e^{-xu} \, dS^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(u\vert t) \nonumber \\
&= \frac{1}{\pi}\, {\rm Im} \int_0^\infty du \, e^{-xu} (ue^{-i\pi})^{\alpha\gamma-\beta}
\int_0^\infty t^{\gamma-1} e^{-(\lambda+(ue^{-i\pi})^\alpha)t} \, dt \nonumber \\
&= \frac{\Gamma(\gamma)}{\pi}\, {\rm Im} \int_0^\infty \, e^{-xu}
\frac{(e^{-i\pi}u)^{\alpha\gamma-\beta}}{(\lambda+(e^{-i\pi}u)^\alpha )^\gamma} du \nonumber \\
&= \Gamma(\gamma) \, \int_0^\infty e^{- x u} \, dR^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(u\vert\lambda)
\end{align}
thereby reproducing (\ref{eq:LaplaceRabg}).
The Stieltjes transform and its complex analytic inverse are not unfamiliar in probability theory.
In his study of a family of distributions known as generalised gamma convolutions,
Bondesson~\cite{Bondesson} used the concept under the guise of Pick functions (also known as Nevanlinna functions).
We turn next to the complete monotonicity of $E^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(-\lambda x^\alpha)$.
\section{A Further Consequence}
\label{sec:consequence}
There is a well-known property of completely monotone functions ({\it e.g.}\ Schilling et al.~\cite{Schilling})
that we state without proof in Proposition~\ref{prop:composition}.
We start with a definition:
\begin{definition}
A Bernstein function is a nonnegative function $\eta(x)$, $x\ge0$ with a completely monotone derivative,
{\it i.e.} $\eta(x)\ge0$ and $(-1)^{k-1}\eta^{(k)}(x)\ge0$, $k\ge1$.
For example, $\eta(x\vert\lambda)=\lambda x^\alpha$ ($0\le\alpha\le1, \lambda>0$) is a Bernstein function.
\label{def:Bernstein}
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}
If $\varphi(x)$ is completely monotone and $\eta$ is a Bernstein function, $\varphi(\eta)$ is completely monotone.
\label{prop:composition}
\end{proposition}
\begin{theorem}
Given a Bernstein function $\eta$,
the Mittag-Leffler function $E^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(-\eta)$ is completely monotone.
For example,
$E^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(-\lambda x^\alpha)$ is completely monotone.
\label{thm:composition}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:composition}]
We have already shown that $E^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(-x)$ is completely monotone.
Hence, by Proposition~\ref{prop:composition},
$E^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(-\eta)$ is completely monotone for a Bernstein function $\eta$.
Specifically, $\eta(x\vert\lambda)=\lambda x^\alpha$ $(0\le\alpha\le1, \lambda>0)$ is a Bernstein function,
hence $E^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(-\lambda x^\alpha)$ is completely monotone.
\label{proof:composition}
\end{proof}
The complete monotonicity of $E^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(-\lambda x^\alpha)$ implies that there exists a distribution
$Q^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(t\vert\lambda)$ whose Laplace transform is $E^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(-\lambda x^\alpha)$:
\begin{align}
E^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(-\lambda x^\alpha) &= \int_0^\infty e^{- x t} \, dQ^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(t\vert\lambda)
\label{eq:Qabg}
\end{align}
$Q^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(t\vert\lambda)$ is to $E^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(-\lambda x^\alpha)$ what
$P^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(t)$ is to $E^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(-x)$.
However, determining $Q^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(t\vert\lambda)$ appears to be a challenging problem,
whether the approach is analytic or probabilistic.
Clearly, (\ref{eq:Qabg}) and (\ref{eq:Rabg}) are identical for $\beta=1$,
{\it i.e.}\ $Q^\gamma_{\alpha,1}(t\vert\lambda)\equiv R^\gamma_{\alpha,1}(t\vert\lambda)$.
But, to our awareness, determining $Q^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(t\vert\lambda)$ for $\beta\ne1$ is an open problem.
We shall not pursue it further here.
Our primary purpose in this section was to bring attention to Theorem~\ref{thm:composition}
and hence the existence of a distribution $Q^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(t\vert\lambda)$ defined by~(\ref{eq:Qabg}).
\section{A Different Generalisation}
\label{sec:tilting}
As mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:perspectives}, the Pollard distribution $P_\alpha$
is known as the Mittag-Leffler distribution in probabilistic literature.
For completeness, we briefly discuss a different generalisation of $P_\alpha$
that features extensively in such literature.
It is known as the generalised Mittag-Leffler distribution $P_{\alpha,\theta}$
(Pitman~\cite{Pitman_CSP}, p70 (3.27)), also denoted by ${\rm ML(\alpha,\theta})$
(Goldschmidt and Haas~\cite{GoldschmidtHaas}, Ho et al.~\cite{HoJamesLau}).
Despite its name,
$P_{\alpha,\theta}(t)$ is different from
the two-parameter Pollard distribution $P_{\alpha,\beta}(t)$ discussed above,
whose Laplace transform is the Mittag-Leffler function $E_{\alpha,\beta}(-x)$.
Janson~\cite{Janson} showed that $P_{\alpha,\theta}$ may be constructed
as a limiting distribution of a P{\' o}lya urn scheme.
It is also intimately linked to a concept known as `polynomial tilting'.
For some parameter $\theta$,
$f_{\alpha,\theta} (x)\propto x^{-\theta}f_\alpha(x)$
is said to be a polynomially tilted variant of $f_\alpha(x)$
({\it e.g.}\ Arbel et al.~\cite{Arbel}, Devroye~\cite{Devroye}, James~\cite{James_Lamperti}).
Here, we consider the polynomially tilted density
$f_{\alpha,\theta} (x\vert t)\propto x^{-\theta}f_\alpha (x\vert t)$
conditioned on a scale factor $t>0$.
Normalisation gives
\begin{align}
f_{\alpha,\theta}(x\vert t)= \frac{\Gamma(\theta+1)}{\Gamma(\theta/\alpha+1)} t^{\theta/\alpha} \,x^{-\theta}f_\alpha (x\vert t)
\label{eq:tiltedstablenormfactor}
\end{align}
so that $f_{\alpha,\theta}(x\vert t)$ is defined for $\theta/\alpha+1>0$, or $\theta>-\alpha$.
We then consider a two-parameter function $h_{\alpha,\theta} (x\vert\lambda)$ defined by:
\begin{align}
\alpha\, h_{\alpha,\theta} (x\vert\lambda) &= x \int_0^\infty f_{\alpha,\theta} (x\vert t) \, t^{-1} e^{-\lambda t} \,dt
\label{eq:ah_at} \\
&= \frac{\Gamma(\theta+1)}{\Gamma(\theta/\alpha+1)} \, x^{1-\theta}
\int_0^\infty f_{\alpha}(x\vert t)\, t^{\theta/\alpha-1}\, e^{-\lambda t} \, dt \nonumber \\
u=x^{-\alpha}t:\quad
h_{\alpha,\theta} (x\vert\lambda)
&= \int_0^\infty e^{-\lambda x^\alpha u} \, dP_{\alpha,\theta}(u)
\label{eq:h_at} \\
{\rm where}\quad
P_{\alpha,\theta}(t)
&= \frac{\Gamma(\theta+1)}{\Gamma(\theta/\alpha+1)} \, \frac{1}{\alpha}
\int_0^t f_\alpha(u^{-1/\alpha}) \, u^{(\theta-1)/\alpha-1} \, du
\label{eq:P_at1} \\
{\rm or}\quad
dP_{\alpha,\theta}(t)
&= \frac{\Gamma(\theta+1)}{\Gamma(\theta/\alpha+1)}\, t^{\theta/\alpha} \,dP_\alpha(t)
\label{eq:P_at2}
\end{align}
It is clear from~(\ref{eq:h_at}) that $h_{\alpha,\theta} (x\vert\lambda)$ may be written as $h_{\alpha,\theta} (\lambda x^\alpha)$.
It follows that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $h_{\alpha,\theta} (x)$ is completely monotone
\item $\theta=0$: $P_{\alpha,0}(t)=P_\alpha(t) \implies h_{\alpha,0}(x)=E_\alpha(-x)$,
as directly apparent from comparing (\ref{eq:ML_intrep0}) and (\ref{eq:ah_at}).
\item $h_{\alpha,\theta} (\eta)$ is completely monotone where $\eta$ is a Bernstein function
as discussed in Section~\ref{sec:consequence}.
In particular, $h_{\alpha,\theta} (\lambda x^\alpha)$ is completely monotone and thus
expressible as the Laplace transform of a corresponding distribution $Q_{\alpha,\theta} (t\vert\lambda)$
(distinct from $Q_{\alpha,\beta} (t\vert\lambda)$ discussed in Section~\ref{sec:consequence}).
\end{enumerate}
We are not aware of a representation of $h_{\alpha,\theta}$ other than that generated by $P_{\alpha,\theta}$ in~(\ref{eq:h_at}).
By comparison, the two-parameter Mittag-Leffler function $E_{\alpha,\beta}$ has a well-established
infinite series representation~(\ref{eq:ML2parseries}),
in addition to the representation~(\ref{eq:ML2par}) generated by the
two-parameter Pollard distribution $P_{\alpha,\beta}$.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
The integral representation~(\ref{eq:ML3par}) of $E^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(-\lambda x^\alpha)$ in Theorem~\ref{thm:ML3par},
arising from the limit~(\ref{eq:limitgenmarginaldensity}),
contains the L\'{e}vy measure $t^{-1}e^{-\lambda t}dt$ of the infinitely divisible gamma distribution.
There is indeed an intimate relationship between completely monotone functions and the theory of
infinitely divisible distributions on the nonnegative half-line $\mathbb{R}_{+}=[0,\infty)$
(Feller~\cite{Feller2} (XIII.4,~XIII.7), Steutel and van Harn~\cite{SteutelvanHarn} (III)).
Sato~\cite{Sato} considers infinitely divisible distributions on $\mathbb{R}^d$,
but the deliberate restriction to $\mathbb{R}_{+}$ makes for simpler discussion
and relates directly to the core concept of complete monotonicity that is of interest here.
There is also an intimate link to the generalised gamma convolutions studied by Bondesson~\cite{Bondesson}.
The limit~(\ref{eq:limitgenmarginaldensity}) of Theorem~\ref{thm:ML3par}
is an instance of a limit rule to generate the
L\'{e}vy measure of an infinitely divisible distribution given in Steutel and van Harn~\cite{SteutelvanHarn}~(III(4.7)) and
Sato~\cite{Sato} (Corollary~8.9 restricted to $\mathbb{R}_{+}$ rather than $\mathbb{R}^d$).
Barndorff-Nielsen and Hubalek~\cite{BarndorffHubalek} also cite Sato's Corollary.
Further exploration using the probabilistic machinery of this paper
possibly includes the explicit determination of the three-parameter distribution
$Q^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(t\vert\lambda)$, whose Laplace transform is
$E^\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}(-\lambda x^\alpha)$, as per~(\ref{eq:Qabg}).
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
We have presented a probabilistic derivation of the complete monotonicity of the three-parameter Mittag-Leffler function
(also known as the Prabhakar function) by expressing it as the Laplace transform of a distribution that
we referred to as the three-parameter Pollard distribution.
This is a generalisation of a result due to Pollard for the one-parameter case.
|
\section{Introduction}
The metrical invariants of smooth curves in Euclidean D-dimensional space are length, curvature and $(D-2)$ torsion parameters as functions along the curve.
For piecewise smooth curves with cusps \footnote{We follow the language in the Wilson loop literature and use the word cusp for a kink
with nonzero opening angle.}, in addition each cusp is characterised by the Euler angles specifying the orthogonal transformation needed to rotate the Frenet-Serret frames on both sides of a cusp to one another.
What concerns the issue of conformal invariants, there is for smooth curves a considerable amount of mathematical papers.
In analogy to the metrical invariants length $s$, curvature $\kappa$ and torsion $\tau$ one finds for 3-dimensional curves, see e.g. \cite{Cairns},
conformal length $\omega$,\footnote{The prime denotes derivative with respect to $s$.}
\begin{equation}
d\omega~=~\sqrt{\nu}ds,~~~~~~\nu~=~\sqrt{(\kappa ')^2+\kappa ^2\tau ^2}~,\label{omega}
\end{equation}
conformal curvature $Q$
\begin{equation}
Q~=~\frac{4(\nu ''-\kappa ^2\nu)\nu -5(\nu ')^2}{8\nu ^3}~,\label{Q}
\end{equation}
and conformal torsion $T$
\begin{equation}
T~=~\frac{2(\kappa ')^2\tau+\kappa^2\tau ^3+\kappa\kappa'\tau '-\kappa\kappa''\tau}{\nu ^{\frac{5}{2}}}~.\label{T}
\end{equation}
Use of these invariants has been made in the physical literature to characterise the boundary conditions for the treatment of minimal surfaces in AdS via Pohlmeyer reduction \cite{He:2017cwd}.
But what concerns the extension to piecewise smooth curves, we did not find any paper in the mathematical literature. Therefore, we decided to write up what one gets by straightforward application of one of the
various techniques used for the smooth case: the kinematics of osculating spheres, see e.g. \cite{Fuster1,Fuster2,Langevin1,Langevin2} and refs. therein.
This note is organised as follows. In the next section we find formulas expressing the conformal invariants for cusps, with legs
made of generic smooth pieces of curves, in terms of their metrical invariants.
Then in section 3 we consider the very special curves studied in our papers \cite{Dorn:2020meb,Dorn:2020vzj}, i.e. polygon-like curves with circular edges. These curves need a separate discussion, since along the circular edges all the conformal invariants \eqref{omega},\eqref{Q},\eqref{T} are zero or ill-defined.
\section{Conformal invariants of generic cusps}
In 3-dimensional space the osculating circle (sphere ) at a generic point $x$ on a smooth curve is a circle (sphere) having contact of
second (third) order with the curve at $x$. Since the order of contact is preserved under conformal transformations, osculating circles (spheres) at a given point of a curve are mapped to those for the image under a conformal map. Let us denote by $\vec t,\vec n,\vec b$ the unit tangent, normal and binormal vectors at $x$. Then the center $a$ of the osculating circle $S^1$ is given by
\begin{equation}
a~=~x~+~\frac{1}{\kappa}~\vec n\label{circle}
\end{equation}
and the center $c$ of the osculating sphere $S^2$ by
\begin{equation}
c~=~x~+~\frac{1}{\kappa}~\vec n~-~\frac{\kappa '}{\tau\kappa ^2}~\vec b~.\label{sphere}
\end{equation}
We now turn to the case where $x$ is a point of discontinuity, i.e. the tip of a cusp. The cusp is then characterised by
two osculating circles $S^1_-,S^1_+$ and two osculating spheres $S^2_-,S^2_+$. The index $ " \pm "$ indicates
the limits one gets by approaching $x$ along the both respective legs of the cusp.
Let us first count the number of conformal invariants we can expect for the cusp. There are 9 metrical invariants at hand:
$\kappa_{\pm},\kappa'_{\pm},\tau_{\pm}$ and the 3 Euler angles for the rotations from the Frenet frame $\{\vec t_-,\vec n_-,\vec b_-\}$ to $\{\vec t_+,\vec n_+,\vec b_+\}$. The difference of the numbers of parameters of the 3-dimensional conformal
and isometry group is equal to 4. This should result in $9-4=5$ conformal parameters. Now of course two of them are the corresponding limits of the differential of the conformal length \eqref{omega}. Hence there remain 3 conformal parameters to be attributed
genuinely to the cusp.
To find explicit formulas for them, we start with the conformal invariants of pairs of spheres $(S^m,S^n)$ of the same or of different dimension. There is a rigorous mathematical treatment for arbitrary dimensions in ref. \cite{Sulanke}. Applied to
our case it means that to each of the pair $(S^1_-,S^1_+),~(S^1_-,S^2_+),~(S^2_-,S^1_+),~(S^2_-,S^2_+)$ belongs just
one conformal parameter. To proceed, we first study these four invariants and will show afterwards, that only three of them
are independently.\\[2mm]
\underline{$(S^1_-,S^1_+)$}$~~~$
The tangents of the osculating circles agree with those of the curve. Therefore the related conformal invariant is
\begin{equation}
A_{11}~=~\vec t_-\vec t_+~=~-\mbox{cos}\ \alpha~. \label{A11}
\end{equation}
Here $\alpha$ is the cusp angle (understood as the opening angle, i.e. $\alpha =\pi$ in the smooth case).\\[2mm]
\underline{$(S^2_-,S^2_+)$}$~~~$
Now the conformal invariant is given by the so-called inversive product, see e.g.\cite{Fuster1,Sulanke}
\begin{equation}
A_{22}~=~\frac{R_-^2+R_+^2-(c_--c_+)^2}{2R_-R_+}~=~\frac{(c_--x)(c_+-x)}{R_-R_+}~.\label{A22}
\end{equation}
$R_-$ and $R_+$ are the radii of $S^2_-$ and $S^2_+$. Obviously $A_{22} $ is the cosine of the angle between
the vectors pointing from $x$ to the centers of the two osculating spheres. Strictly speaking, only its absolute value is invariant, since $A_{22} $ changes sign under those special conformal transformations for which the preimage of infinity is situated inside just one of the spheres. The same comment applies to $A_{12}$ and $A_{21}$ below.\\[2mm]
\underline{$(S^2_-,S^1_+)$ and $(S^1_-,S^2_+)$}$~~~$For a sphere and an intersecting circle the conformal invariant is the scalar product of the unit vector
pointing from $x$ to the center of the sphere with the unit tangent of the circle
\begin{equation}
A_{12}~=~\frac{\vec t_-(c_+-x)}{R_+},~~~
A_{21}~=~\frac{(c_--x)\ \vec t_+}{R_-}~.\label{A21}
\end{equation}
Using \eqref{circle},\eqref{sphere} for both legs of the cusp we get from \eqref{A22} and \eqref{A21}
\begin{equation}
A_{22}~=~\frac{\kappa_-\tau_-\kappa_+\tau_+\ \vec n_-\vec n_++\kappa_-'\kappa_+'\ \vec b_-\vec b_+-\kappa_-\tau_-\kappa_+'\ \vec n_-\vec b_+-\kappa_+\tau_+\kappa_-'\ \vec b_-\vec n_+}{\sqrt{\kappa_-^2\tau_-^2+\kappa _-'^2}~\sqrt{\kappa_+^2\tau_+^2+\kappa _+'^2}}~,
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray}
A_{12}&=&\frac{\kappa_+\tau_+\ \vec t_-\vec n_+-\kappa_+'\ \vec t_-\vec b_+}{\sqrt{\kappa_+^2\tau_+^2+\kappa _+'^2}}~,\\
A_{21}&=&\frac{\kappa_-\tau_-\ \vec t_+\vec n_- -\kappa_-'\ \vec t_+\vec b_-}{\sqrt{\kappa_-^2\tau_-^2+\kappa _-'^2}}~.
\end{eqnarray}
All the scalar products in the above formulas can be expressed in terms of three Euler angles $\varphi,\vartheta,\psi$ needed to rotate the Frenet frame $\{n_-,b_-,t_-\}$
to $\{n_+,b_+,t_+\}$. Then we get
\begin{equation}
A_{11}~=~\vec t_-\vec t_+~=~\mbox{cos}\vartheta~,~~~~\mbox{i.e.} ~\vartheta=\pi-\alpha~,
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray}
A_{22}&=&~\frac{1}{\sqrt{\kappa_-^2\tau_-^2+\kappa _-'^2}~\sqrt{\kappa_+^2\tau_+^2+\kappa _+'^2}}\Big ( \kappa_-\tau_-\kappa_+\tau_+\ (\mbox{cos}\varphi\mbox{cos}\psi-\mbox{sin}\varphi\mbox{sin}\psi\mbox{cos}\vartheta) \nonumber\\
&&+\kappa_-'\kappa_+'(\mbox{cos}\varphi\mbox{cos}\psi\mbox{cos}\vartheta-\mbox{sin}\varphi\mbox{sin}\psi)+\kappa_-\tau_-\kappa_+'\ (\mbox{sin}\varphi\mbox{cos}\psi+\mbox{cos}\varphi\mbox{sin}\psi\mbox{cos}\vartheta)\nonumber\\
&&-\kappa_+\tau_+\kappa_-'\ (\mbox{cos}\varphi\mbox{sin}\psi+\mbox{sin}\varphi\mbox{cos}\psi\mbox{cos}\vartheta)\Big )~,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
A_{12}&=&\frac{\mbox{sin}\vartheta}{\sqrt{\kappa_+^2\tau_+^2+\kappa _+'^2}}\ \big (\kappa_+\tau_+\ \mbox{sin}\varphi-\kappa_+'\ \mbox{cos}\varphi\big )~,\\
A_{21}&=&\frac{\mbox{sin}\vartheta}{\sqrt{\kappa_-^2\tau_-^2+\kappa _-'^2}}\ \big (\kappa_-\tau_-\ \mbox{sin}\psi +\kappa_-'\ \mbox{cos}\psi\big )~.
\end{eqnarray}
The part of $A_{22}$ containing the factor $\mbox{cos}\vartheta$ is related to the product of $A_{12}$ and $A_{21}$ in an obvious manner. With
a bit more careful inspection one gets for the whole $A_{22}$
\begin{equation}
A_{22}(\varphi,\vartheta,\psi)~=~\frac{1}{\mbox{sin}^2\vartheta}\Big ( A_{12}(\varphi+\frac{\pi}{2})\ A_{21}(\psi+\frac{\pi}{2})-\mbox{cos}\vartheta \ A_{12}(\varphi)A_{21}(\psi)\Big )\label{A22A12}~.
\end{equation}
Now $A_{12}$ and $A_{21}$ for arguments shifted by $\frac{\pi}{2}$ are not independent, but related by
\begin{equation}
\big (A_{12}(\varphi)\big )^2+\big (A_{12}(\varphi+\frac{\pi}{2})\big )^2~=~(A_{21}(\psi)\big )^2+\big (A_{21}(\psi+\frac{\pi}{2})\big )^2~=~\mbox{sin}^2\vartheta\label{A22A12b}~.
\end{equation}
This means that a complete set of independent conformal invariants attributed to the cusp is given by the three parameters \footnote{Remember $\varphi,\vartheta,\psi$
Euler angles, $\alpha =\pi-\vartheta$ opening angle of the cusp.}
\begin{equation}
\boxed{\alpha~, ~~~ B_{12}= \frac{\kappa_+\tau_+\ \mbox{sin}\varphi-\kappa_+'\ \mbox{cos}\varphi}{\sqrt{\kappa_+^2\tau_+^2+\kappa _+'^2}}~,~~~B_{21}=\frac{\kappa_-\tau_-\ \mbox{sin}\psi+\kappa_-'\ \mbox{cos}\psi}{\sqrt{\kappa_-^2\tau_-^2+\kappa _-'^2}}~.}
\end{equation}
Let us add a warning. Inserting by brute force $\varphi=\psi=0$ into $B_{12}$ and $B_{21}$ one could reach the wrong conclusion that
$\frac{\kappa'}{\sqrt{\kappa^2\tau^2+\kappa '^2}}$ could be an invariant for smooth curves. But since putting $\varphi$ or $\psi$ to zero
is not a conformal invariant statement, this conclusion is not allowed and also straightforwardly proven to be wrong.
We continue with some casual comment on the conformal invariants in 4-dimensio\-nal space. To fix all the osculating spheres from $S^1$
to $S^3$ at a smooth point one needs $\kappa,\kappa ',\kappa'',\tau_1,\tau_1',\tau_2$. This for the limits from both sides of the cusp, together
with 6 Euler angles, needed in 4D for the rotation of the Frenet frame, gives 18 metrical parameters. The difference of the number of parameters
oft the conformal and isometry group is now 5, hence we tentatively reach 13 conformal parameters. Now on both sides the limits of the differential
of the conformal length and the first conformal torsion\footnote{In 3D the conformal torsion \eqref{T} cannot be build out of the metrical parameters needed to fix all the osculating spheres at the cusp. But in 4D the osculating $S^3$ inherits all the information.} are not related to the cusp. Hence we can expect $13-4=9$ conformal parameters to be attributed genuinely to the cusp.
On the other side, among the nine pairs of osculating spheres \\$(S^i_-,S^j_+),\ i,j=1,2,3$, the pairs $(S^2_-,S^2_+),\ (S^2_-,S^1_+),\ (S^1_-,S^2_+)$ have two invariants and all other only one\cite{Sulanke}. This yields $12$ conformal parameters. We keep it as an open question, whether there are
indeed three relations of the 3D type \eqref{A22A12},\eqref{A22A12b} to reach the minimal number of 9 independent parameters seen in the previous paragraph.
We close this section with a comment on the cusp anomalous dimension for Wilson loops. It is generally believed to depend on the cusp
angle $\alpha$ only, and therefore calculations have been done using straight edges. While in field theoretic perturbation theory this
can be justified by power counting in the corresponding Feynman integrals, a rigorous proof for the generic situation at strong coupling is still lacking. We have presented a proof for the planar case with generically curved edges in \cite{Dorn:2015bfa}. For full generality in 3D, a proof
of its independence from $B_{12}$ and $B_{21}$ is still lacking.
\section{Comments on Wilson loops on polygon-like \\curves with circular edges}
The polygon-like curves with circular edges, whose related Wilson loops have been studied in our papers \cite{Dorn:2020meb,Dorn:2020vzj},
are not covered by the setting for generic curves as presented in the previous section. Along their edges one has constant curvature $\kappa$ and zero
torsion $\tau$, resulting in zero conformal length \eqref{omega} and undefined conformal curvature and torsion. In mathematical language these edges are conformal vertices.\footnote{See e.g. \cite{Cairns,Fuster1,Fuster2}.}
Although such single edges carry no conformal data, their combination to a polygon does\footnote{ In a sense one could
call it a conformal vertex with internal conformal substructure.} It has still no extension in the sense of conformal length, but there are of course
the cusp angles at each cusp of the polygon and for more than 3 cusp points the corresponding cross ratios. In addition, like generic curves, these
polygons can wind themselves out of a plane and exhibit torsion. In our paper \cite{Dorn:2020meb} we have this issue parameterised by the introduction of torsion angles $\beta_j$, defined at a given cusp point $x_j$ by
\begin{equation}
\beta_j~=~\measuredangle (\{x_{j},x_{j+1}\},cc_j)~,\label{beta}
\end{equation}
where $\{x_{j},x_{j+1}\} $ denotes the circular edge between $x_j$ and $x_{j+1}$ and $cc_j$ the circle fixed by the three cusp points $x_{j-1},x_j,x_{j+1}$.
However, in contrast to $B_{12}$ and $B_{21}$ for cusps of generic curves, these torsion angles are not attributed to the local properties at the corresponding cusp. This is simply seen by changing in \eqref{beta}
the neighbouring cusp point $x_{j+1}$ along the circle of which the edge $\{x_{j},x_{j+1}\} $ is a part . Then the tangent of the edge at $x_j$ remains the same, but the circle $cc_j$ and its tangent at $x_j$ changes. By this manipulation $\beta_j$ changes, although the local situation at the cusp at $x_j$ remains the same as before.
We end with a remark on some setting for Wilson loops on piecewise smooth curves intermediate between
those of full generality considered in section 2 and the polygons with circular edges in \cite{Dorn:2020meb}. In conformal invariant gauge field theories as in e.g. ${\cal N}=4$ SYM there will be an anomalous conformal Ward identity of the type derived in \cite{Dorn:2020meb},
imposing for the Wilson loop the structure of a conformally covariant factor depending on the distances of the
tips of the cusps times a conformally invariant remainder factor. In the generic case this remainder factor is a
function of the cross ratios formed out of cusp points and the conformal cusp parameters identified in section 2, but in addition also a functional of the conformal invariants as functions along the edges. For the case of polygons with circular edges the remainder is a function of only a finite number of conformal parameters.
To have a curve characterised by a finite number of conformal parameters but nevertheless having nonzero
conformal length, one could consider polygons with edges which are pieces of curves with constant conformal curvature and torsion.
Such curves have been classified in\cite{Sulanke2}. Among them are loxodromes on rotational surfaces.\\[20 mm]
{\bf Acknowledgement}\\[2mm]
I thank the Quantum Field and String Theory Group at Humboldt University for kind hospitality.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{imgs/teaser2.jpg}}
\caption{Several examples of in-rack test tube detection. Each grid includes two images. The left image is captured by a vision sensor. The right image is the recognition result. The data used for training the detection neural network is prepared using the proposed method.}
\label{fig:in_rack_test_tube_detection}
\end{figure}
Recent advances in deep learning have led to a revolution in object detection. Deep learning-based methods use deep neural networks to learn features from training data. They outperform traditional hand-crafted features with impressive results. Despite these advantages, deep learning-based object detection requires collecting a large amount of labeled data for training, which is time-consuming and labor-intensive, and has significantly hindered the scalability and flexibility of deep learning-based applications.
Previously, researchers have developed several methods to reduce data collection costs. For example, data augmentation \cite{shorten2019survey} enriched existing training data sets by applying random transformations like image rotation or scaling. Data synthesis \cite{gupta2016synthetic}\cite{yi2019generative} generated previously unseen data using simulation or adversarial neural networks. The main challenge of the augmentation or synthesis methods was the ``domain gap'' \cite{hinterstoisser2019an}\cite{karsch2011rendering}: Augmented data had less varied visual contexts. Synthesized data was prone to discrepancies with the real world. Recently, researchers have revisited using the copy-paste method \cite{perez2003poisson} to increase data. The method was effective in compensating for the ``domain gap'' problem, exhibiting impressive performance. There is no clear boundary between augmentation and synthesis when using the copy-paste method to generate data. It was mainly classified as an synthesis method \cite{dwibedi2017cut}\cite{georgakis2017synthesizing}, although some studies considered it to be augmentation \cite{ghiasi2021simple}. This paper calls it a synthesis method to avoid confusion with transformation and scale-based data generation.
The most tiring aspect of the copy-and-paste method is how to neatly cut a large variety of target regions and paste them onto a new background. Previously, researchers working on robotic manipulation have developed robotic methods to segment novel objects from backgrounds. For example, Florence et al. \cite{florence2020robot}, Boerdijk et al. \cite{boerdijk2021s}, and Pathak et al. \cite{pathak2018learning} respectively used robotic in-hand or non-prehensile manipulation to change objects' observation viewpoints and segmented the objects based on the robot motion. Such systems could replace humans to segment goal object regions under various conditions. Very recent studies \cite{boerdijk2021s}\cite{boerdijk2020self} has noticed the advantage, and increased data size and contextual variety by pasting the objects segmented by robotic systems onto random backgrounds. Despite their seminal proposals, the need for copy-and-paste synthesis and the impact of data volume and ratios remain undiscussed.
Based on the current research status, this paper further delves into using robots to collect training data automatically. Considering the low efficiency and high energy consumption in robotic data collection, we propose combining robotic observation and copy-paste synthesis to reduce costs. We assume a test tube detection task shown in Fig. \ref{fig:in_rack_test_tube_detection} and use a robot with a depth sensor to move and observe tubes. The robot collects observation images and, at the same time, segments tubes from the images for copy-paste synthesis. The observation and synthetic images are used as training data for deep detection neural networks. Especially for the synthesis routine, we value the co-occurrence of tubes and racks, and paste tubes inside a rack area to obtain contextual consistency. Also, we take into account factors like tube-to-tube occlusions and foreground changes caused by environment or visual difference to reduce unrealistic synthetic results. The proposed method helps enrich the data set and resolve the ``domain gap''. It does not need heavy robotic effort.
In experiments, we trained several YOLOv5x networks to understand the performance of the proposed method. The training data was collected using the proposed and several other methods. The results confirmed data collected using the proposed method do have claimed advantages. We also conducted multiple ablation studies to look into the impact of data volumes and ratios when training detection neural networks using data collected with the proposed method. The results provided a good guide on optimizing data configurations and parameter settings for training detectors.
The contributions of this work are as follows. (1) We develop an automatic data-collection method in which a robot holds target objects and observes them. The method yields observation images and target regions segmented from the images. (2) We develop a copy-paste image synthesis method to enrich the training data. The method pastes object regions on various rack backgrounds to balance ``domain randomization'' and ``domain gap''. The rack backgrounds are also automatically collected by the robot. (3) We examined combinations of the observation and synthetic images and compared them with other data sets to understand the impact of data volume and ratios.
The remaining part of this paper is organized as follows: Section \ref{sec:related_work} reviews related work. Section \ref{sec:sys_hardware_data_pre_workflow} presents the hardware system and the proposed method's workflow. Section \ref{sec:detail_implem} delivers technical details. Section \ref{sec:experiment} shows experiments and analysis. Section \ref{sec:conclusions} draws conclusions.
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:related_work}
We review the related work considering robotic data collection and data synthesis, respectively.
\subsection{Automatic Data Collection Using Robots}
Segmenting the object regions from a picture is the basis of automatic data collection. Conventional methods used simple backgrounds \cite{sapp2008fast}, known environments \cite{suchi2019easylabel}, or designed easily identifiable gadgets \cite{kiyokawa2019fully}\cite{gregorio2020} to simplify object extraction. The methods required careful preparation about scenes and objects.
Robot-based methods leverage actuated robots to simplify object segmentation. They can be traced back to early studies in object recognition and 3D object modeling \cite{fitzpatrick2003grounding}\cite{welke2010autonomous}\cite{browatzki2012active}\cite{krainin2011manipulator}. These work took advantages of robotic manipulation sequence to perceive objects from different viewpoints and segment the objects from the background. From the robotic manipulation perspective, such segmentation can be divided into two categories: In-hand object segmentation and Interaction-based segmentation.
\subsubsection{In-hand object segmentation}
Previous work on in-hand object segmentation used known robot models and handcrafted visual features to isolate in-hand objects from background environments and robot hands. For example, Krainin et al. \cite{krainin2011manipulator} isolated in-hand objects' point clouds by examining the Euclidean distance to the robot model. Welke et al. \cite{welke2010autonomous} segmented in-hand objects from images based on Eigen background subtraction, disparity map, and hand localization. These methods required manually preparing detectors for various targets considering their visual features.
More recent studies used deep learning to reduce the reliance on hand-crafted visual features for in-hand object segmentation. For instance, Florence et al. \cite{florence2020robot} proposed a self-supervised framework to segment in-hand objects. The framework involved two steps that used the same training and learning routine. In the first step, the authors generated masks for the robot by considering combined depth and RGB information, and trained a neural network model based on the masks to differentiate the robot from the background. In the second step, the authors masked the grasped object and train neural network models to isolate the object from the robot hand. Boerdijk et al. \cite{boerdijk2020self} used optical flow to respectively segment manipulators that were holding and not holding objects. The segmented data set were used to train a neural network for isolating manipulators and grasped objects.
\subsubsection{Robot-object interaction}
On the other hand, some researchers took advantages of non-prehensile robot manipulation like push to change object perspectives and segment them based on robot motion cues \cite{pathak2018learning}\cite{bjorkman2010active}\cite{faulhammer2016autonomous}. For example, Pathak et al. \cite{pathak2018learning} designed a framework to continuously refine a neural network model that generates object segmentation masks through robot interaction. The model initially generated hypothesis segmentation masks for objects. The masks were refined based on the pixel differences of the images captured before and after robotic interactions. The generating model was updated along with the refined masks. Singh et al. \cite{singh2021nudgeseg} proposed to segment unknown objects in a cluttered scene while repeatedly using robotic nudge motions to interact with objects and induce geometric constraints. Robotic interactive segmentation often requires a static scene or surface to permit interaction between robots and objects \cite{schiebener2014physical}\cite{eitel2019self}. It is more complicated compared with the in-hand object segmentation as the object poses needs to be controlled and changed through robotic manipulation.
A critical problem of the robotic methods is that they are unsuitable for preparing a large amount of training data as robots consume much time and energy to perform the physical motion. Conducting thousands of robotic motion trajectories to collect data is impractical. Also, the robots in the systems are fixed, have limited views, and can only collect data in a narrow range of scenarios. Neural networks trained using the collected data may suffer from contextual (background) bias and have bad generalizability \cite{divvala2009an}\cite{barnea2019exploring}.
This study focuses on robotic data collection while considering leveraging data synthesis to reduce robotic usage. We first ask the robot to hold a single tube and annotate the tube's bounding polyhedron by extracting in-hand point cloud according to the robot's tool center point (TCP) and hand model. Then, we map the annotated bounding polyhedron to 2D image regions in the robot's camera view for extracting the tube region. The robot moves the tube to different positions and rotations to obtain many varieties of 2D images and tube regions. The images and tube regions are respectively used for training and synthesizing new data in a later stage.
\subsection{Data Augmentation and Synthesis}
Data augmentation and synthesis are the two most well-used methods to enrich training data. Data augmentation generates new data by transforming the existing training data with specific rules or learning-based methods. Data synthesis generates synthetic data by merging existing data with others or using computer simulations. Concurrent publications tend to mix these nomenclatures. Therefore we conduct a uniform literature review of them below without differentiation.
The copy-paste method is widely used for generating synthetic data. It segments foreground objects from existing images, possibly modifies them, and pastes them onto new backgrounds \cite{georgakis2017synthesizing}\cite{dwibedi2017cut}\cite{ghiasi2021simple}. The copy-paste method is easy to implement and shows notable performance over using pure real data. Previous studies showed that it was important to carefully select the backgrounds when pasting objects. For example, Divvala et al. \cite{divvala2009empirical} experimentally showed visual context benefited object detection performance and reduced detection errors. Dvornik et al. \cite{dvornik2018modeling} showed that the correct visual context when pasting object can improve prediction performance while inappropriate visual context led to negative results. Wang et al. \cite{wang2020constrained} swapped objects of the same class in different images to ensure contextual consistency between objects and backgrounds and showed using the exsiting backgrounds had better performance than random ones. Also, the copy-paste method requires a data set containing many possible views of the object that are easy to be cut out. It is burdensome for humans to prepare them.
Graphical simulation is another popular method for synthesizing training data. The benefits of simulation is that it allows freely changing light conditions and materials to increase variation. It also allows capturing many views of objects by simply transforming virtual camera poses. For example, Hoda{\v{n}} et al. \cite{hodavn2019photorealistic} and Richter et al. \cite{richter2016playing} respectively used photo-realistic rendering to synthesize images of 3D object models and scenes. The methods required a lot of computational resources to narrow down the domain gap between synthetic and realistic data. Tobin et al. \cite{tobin2017domain} proposed the concept of domain randomization (DR). They randomized a simulator to expose models to a wide range of environments and obtain varied training data. Instead of photo-realistic rendering, the method only required low-fidelity rendering results to reach satisfying accuracy for medium-size objects. Carlson et al. \cite{carlson2018modeling}, Hinterstoisser et al. \cite{hinterstoisser2019an}, Prakash et al. \cite{prakash2019structured}, and Tremblay et al. \cite{tremblay2018training} respectively used DR to narrow down the domain gap. The authors randomly changed the context in simulation so that ``the real data was made to be just like another simulation'' \cite{tsirikoglou2020survey}. Yang et al. \cite{yang2022image} and Sundermeyer et al. \cite{sundermeyer2018implicit} respectively sampled viewpoints of 3D object models using simulation and mixed the samples with real backgrounds to reduce the human effort for preparing scenes with rich domain randomness. Besides DR, Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) were also promising to reduce domain gap. For example, Chatterjee et al. \cite{chatterjee2022enhancement} designed a lightweight-GAN to synthesize data for training plastic bottle detectors.
In this study, we leverage data synthesis to enrich the training data. We develop a copy-paste based method to attach tube cap regions separated from robotic observation images to rack backgrounds and thus synthesize new images. Various constraints like rack dimensions and tube occlusions can be considered during the synthesis to reduce the domain gap. The synthetic data is mixed with real-world data to promote the performance of YOLO-based tube recognition neural networks. It is also compared with other data collection methods to understand the influence of data volume and data combination ratio.
\section{Robot System and Workflow}
\label{sec:sys_hardware_data_pre_workflow}
\subsection{Configurations of the Robot System}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{imgs/exp_setup.jpg}}
\caption{(a) The system configuration. (b) The test tubes and rack in the view of the Phoxi M 3D Scanner.}
\label{fig:env}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[!htbp]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{imgs/flow.jpg}}
\caption{Workflow of the proposed method. (a.1,2) Data collection component. (b) Data synthesis component. (c) Resulted data.}
\label{fig:workflow}
\end{figure*}
Fig. \ref{fig:env}(a) shows our robot system used for preparing the training data. A Photoneo Phoxi M 3D Scanner is used for capturing objects on the flat table. An ABB Yumi dual-arm robot with a two-finger gripper is used to manipulate objects in the system. A flat table is set up in the front of the Yumi robot. The in-rack test tubes to be recognized are placed on the surface. The Phoxi scanner is a structured-light based depth sensor. It can capture gray images and point clouds simultaneously. Each data point of a point cloud captured by the Phoxi scanner have a one-to-one correspondence to a pixel in a gray image. We can segment an object in the gray image by considering its point cloud.
Especially, we install the Phoxi scanner on top of the robot to obtain a top view of the racks and tubes. When recognizing tubes in the rack, we select the tube caps as the primary identifiers. There are two reasons why we prefer using the tube caps for identification. The first one is that obtaining the point cloud of a translucent or crystal test tube fails easily due to limitations of the structured-light based depth sensors. The second one is that the tube bodies are blocked by the caps and also occluded by surrounding tubes when placed in the rack and viewed from a top position. They are less visible. However, despite the reasons and their merits, there is a problem that different types of tubes may share a same cap type. In this work, we assume the test tubes with the same caps can be identified by their heights in the rack and analyze the point cloud to differentiate them.
\subsection{Workflow for Data Preparation}
We prepare the training data using the robot system following the workflow shown in Fig. \ref{fig:workflow}. There are four dashed boxes in the chart, where (a.1) and (a.2) have a blue background color and represent the data collection component, (b) has an orange background color and represents the data synthesis component, (c) has a gray background and represents the resulted data.
The first blue dashed box (Fig. \ref{fig:workflow}(a.1)) comprises three steps. First, a human hands over an unknown test tube to the robot. The tube is assumed to be grasped vertically by the robot after handover, with the tube cap left above the robotic fingertips. Second, the robot moves the test tube to the observation poses prepared offline while considering avoiding self-occlusions. The Phoxi sensor will capture the test tube's gray image and point cloud at each observation pose. Third, the system segments the cap region out of the captured image based on a mapping from its counterpart point cloud. The segmentation result only includes the cap. The background will be removed thanks to the point cloud mapping. The output of this dashed box includes many cap region pictures. They are observed from different views and thus have different illumination and visual conditions.
The second blue dashed box (Fig. \ref{fig:workflow}(a.2)) is similar to the first one and also comprises three steps. First, a person places a rack in the environment. Then, the robot pushes the rack to random poses, capturing the rack's gray image and point cloud at each pose. Third, the system segments the rack region out of the captured image based on the mapping from the rack's counterpart point cloud. The result of this dashed box includes many rack region pictures. Like the caps, the rack region pictures also have different illumination and visual conditions since the data is captured from different view positions.
The orange dashed box shows the data synthesis process, where the cap region pictures obtained in the first ``Data Collection'' dashed box are pasted onto the rack region pictures obtained in the second ``Data Collection'' dashed box for synthesizing new images. Constraints like rack boundaries and overlapping caused by perspective projection are considered during the synthesis. The output of the dashed box will be racks filled with many tube caps. The ``Copy-paste data synthesis'' sub-block illustrates several examples of the output.
The final data preparation results include the images obtained during collecting the tube cap data (observation images) and the synthetic images. They are illustrated in the gray dashed box (Fig. \ref{fig:workflow}(c)).
Note that the above workflow is not completely automatic. The sub-blocks with texts highlighted in a green color involve human intervention. Also, before data collection, we need to prepare the camera calibration matrix and test tube observation poses. The camera calibration matrix transforms the point cloud captured in the camera's local coordinate system into the robot coordinate system. Many existing methods exist for obtaining the calibration matrix \cite{lundberg2015intrinsic}. To avoid repetition, we don't discuss the details in this manuscript. The test tube observation poses are a set of tube positions and rotations for the robot to hold and capture observation images. The developed method will generate robot joint configurations considering the robot grasping and tube observation poses. Section \ref{sec:detail_implem} will present detailed algorithms on the generation.
\section{Implementation Details}
\label{sec:detail_implem}
\subsection{Observation Poses for Collecting Tube Caps}
When collecting the tube cap data, the robot moves the tube held in its hand to different poses for observation. The observation poses are generated considering two constraints: (1) Diversity of the captured cap data; (2) Occlusions by robot links. Taking into account these two constraints allow us to include the tube caps from many viewpoints and thus cover lots of illumination and visual conditions. Meanwhile, they help to prevent the robot links from occluding the grasped test tubes and make sure the tubes are visible to the vision sensor.
Fig. \ref{fig:offline_obs_pose} illustrates the observation pose generation process and how the two constraints are taken into account in it. First, we sample the positions and rotations of a tube held by the robot hand uniformly in the Phoxi depth sensor's visible range. Tube data captured under the sampled poses will have rich light conditions and a large variety of visible tube edges for training a recognition neural network. Especially, the tube rotations are sampled according to the vertices of a level-four icosphere \cite{wan16}. An icosphere is a spherical polyhedron with regularly distributed vertices. The vectors pointing to the vertices of an icosphere help to define the rotations of a tube\footnote{A tube is centeral symmetric. We do not need to consider its rotation around the central axis. The vectors pointing to the vertices of an icosphere can thus define a tube pose.}. A level-four icosphere has $642$ vertices and thus leads to $642$ vectors and test tube rotation poses. Thanks to the visibility constraints, we do not move a test tube to all of the rotation poses for capturing data as the tube caps facing downward will not be seen by the Phoxi sensor. We filter the $642$ vectors by considering their angles with the normal of the table surface for placing a rack. The vectors with large angles from the surface normal cannot be seen and will not be considered. The spherical polyhedron in Fig. \ref{fig:offline_obs_pose}(b.1) illustrates the level-four icosphere. Vectors pointing to the red vertices have more than $\theta$ angles from the surface normal and are removed. The green vertices are the remaining candidates. The purple tube bouquet on the right side of Fig. \ref{fig:offline_obs_pose}(b.1) illustrate the tube poses implied by vectors pointing to the remaining candidate vertices.
Next, we plan the robot motion to move the test tube held in a robot hand to the sampled tube positions and rotations. We assume a test tube is vertically grasped at the finger center of a robot hand. Since a tube is central symmetric, many grasping poses meet the assumption. The grasping hand may rotate freely around the symmetry axis of the test tube, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:offline_obs_pose}(b.2). The rotation is compact and forms a SO(2) group. For numerical analysis, we sample the rotation in the SO(2) group with a rotation interval hyperparameter named $\omega$ to obtain a series of discretized grasping poses. The hand illustrations in Fig. \ref{fig:offline_obs_pose}(b.2) are the grasping poses obtained with $\omega$ = 60$^\circ$. The sampled grasping poses provide many candidate goals for robot motion planning and thus increase the chances of successfully moving and observing the tube.
When determining which exact candidate goal to move to, we examine the occlusions from the robot arm links and avoid choosing the grasping poses that lead to invisible tubes. In detail, examining the occlusion is done by checking the collision between a visual polyhedron and the robot arm links. The visual polyhedron is computed using the camera origin and vertices of the robot hand model, as illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:offline_obs_pose}(c.1). The robot arm may occlude the tube and the vision sensor fails to capture it when there is collision between the visual polyhedron and the robot arm links. Fig. \ref{fig:offline_obs_pose}(c.2) exemplifies such a case.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{imgs/detail1.jpg}}
\caption{(a) Sampling observation positions. The green region is the visible area of the Phoxi scanner. The red points are the sampled positions. (b.1) Sampling rotations based on a level-four icosphere. The left spherical polyhedron illustrates the icosphere. The green vertices are the ends of feasible vectors that have less than $\theta=60^{\circ}$ angles with the surface normal. They imply the tube rotation poses shown on the right. (b.2) The grasping poses for each sampled tube pose form a SO(2) group. They are sampled considering an interval $\omega$ for numerical analysis. (c.1) A visual polyhedron computed using the camera origin and vertices of the robot hand model. (c.2) The grasped object has a risk of being occluded by the robot arm when there is a collision between the visual polyhedron and the robot arm links.}
\label{fig:offline_obs_pose}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Using Annotation Masks to Segment Cap Pictures}
Since the tube is handed over from a human and the Phoxi sensor captures the cap data from many different views, the captured tube point clouds change dynamically and have noises. It is unstable to extract cap point clouds by autonomously detecting them. Thus, instead of autonomous detection, we prepare an annotation mask in the robot hand's local coordinate system to help extract the test tube cap's point clouds. The extracted point clouds will be back-projected to the corresponding 2D grey image for segmenting a picture of the cap region. Fig. \ref{fig:ann_mask} shows the details of this mask and how it helps to segment the cap regions. The mask and back projection enable us to precisely segment the cap regions while avoiding including backgrounds.
\begin{figure}[!tbp]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{imgs/cap_ext.jpg}}
\caption{Workflow for extracting the cap picture using an annotation mask. (a) Applying a mask described in the local coordinate system of the holding robot hand to the captured point cloud. (b) The extract point cloud is projected back to the 2D grey image for segmenting a picture of the cap region. (b.1) The back-projected results might be disconnected pixels. (b.2) A bounding convex hull of the disconnected pixels is computed. (b.3,4) The cap region is segmented based on the bounding convex hull.}
\label{fig:ann_mask}
\end{figure}
To prepare an annotation mask, we move the robot hand that holds a test tube to a fixed position under the Phoxi sensor and trigger the sensor to capture a point cloud. We can easily get the cap's point cloud data by examining the area on top of the holding fingers and obtain an annotation mask by considering a bounding polyhedron of the data. However, a single bounding polyhedron may not be general for others since the captured point cloud is susceptible to light reflection or perspective projection (self-occlusion). Thus, instead of a single point cloud and polyhedron, we collect point clouds from multiple views, merge them under the robot hand's local coordinate system, and compute a bounding box of the merged result as an annotation mask. Fig. \ref{fig:mask_extract} shows an example. The multiple views are sampled the same way as the observation poses mentioned in the previous subsection. However, we do not need to change the observation positions since we aim to obtain a bounding box mask in the hand's coordinate system. The views under various rotations could provide enough superficial point cloud data to meet the requirements. Note that the merged result may include noise point data induced by reflections from the transparent tube body and lead to a mask larger than the cap. We provide an interactive user interface for manually adjusting the bounding box sizes and minimizing the negative influences caused by the noises. The adjustment is optional and may be performed when precisely segmenting the cap region is demanded.
\begin{figure}[!tbp]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{imgs/mask.jpg}}
\caption{(a) Capture data from different views. The tube cap's point clouds are obtained by examining the area on top of the holding fingers. They are high lighted with colored polyhedrons. (b) Merge the cap's point clouds in (a) under the robot hand's local coordinate system, and compute a bounding box of the merged result as an annotation mask. (b.1) Raw bounding box. (b.2) The bounding box can be adjusted interactively if needed.}
\label{fig:mask_extract}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Copy-Paste Synthesis}
We apply random scaling, blurring, brightness, and contrast to the segmented tube caps and then paste them onto the segmented rack background for data synthesis. During pasting, we permit the overlap among the cap regions to approximate tube-to-tube occlusion. After pasting, we randomize the environmental background (background of the rack) to narrow further the domain gap between synthetic images and images captured in the real world.
A critical maneuver here is that we consider the co-occurrence of the test tubes and the rack and paste the tube cap pictures onto a rack instead of random backgrounds like \cite{boerdijk2021s}. We randomly sample positions inside rack pictures for pasting tube caps and use a pasting number $T$ to control the clutter. Note that there is no need to exactly paste a tube cap near the hole centers of a rack as the tubes tilt randomly inside the rack holes. The visible cap regions may reasonably overlap with a hole boundary or other holes.
For tube-to-tube occlusion, we consider the perspective projection of a vision sensor and define an occlusion threshold $t$ to permit overlap among the visible cap regions. A vision sensor's perspective projection leads to mutual occlusions in the rack at certain viewpoints. The occlusion threshold helps to simulate the occlusion and defines the maximum percentage that segmented cap pictures can overlap or occlude. Fig. \ref{fig:overlap_constraints} shows how the $t$ threshold works. It adds a constraint to pasting, where a previously pasted cap picture ``A'' must have less than $t$ percentage overlap with the union of caps pasted later. The $B\cup C \cup...$ component in the nominator of Fig. \ref{fig:overlap_constraints} implies the union of caps pasted after ``A''. When a new cap is randomized, it must be unioned with this component to ensure the $t$ constraint on all previous ``A'' is not violated. There are two noticeable points for $t$. First, its value could be devised respectively considering the heights of specific tube types. Second, its value is correlated with the pasting number $T$. The maximum number of pasted tube caps in a rack that meet the $t$ threshold may be less than a given $T$. In that case, we constrain the maximum number of pasted tube caps to the smaller value to ensure $t$ is not invalidated.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{imgs/equation.jpg}}
\caption{(a) Using a threshold $t$ to simulate cap occlusions. ``A'' represents a previously pasted cap region. ``B'', ``C'', ... represent the caps pasted after ``A''. (b) Results with different $t$ values.}
\label{fig:overlap_constraints}
\end{figure}
For the environmental background, we use the BG-20k data set \cite{li2022bridging} to obtain high-resolution random background images and change the background of a synthetic image with a $0.5$ probability.
\section{Experiments and Analysis}
\label{sec:experiment}
We carried out experiments to compare YOLOv5x \cite{glenn_jocher_2020_4154370} detectors trained using data sets collected with the proposed method and several other methods to understand the performance. Table \ref{tab:evalution_results} shows the methods. The SR (Synthesis by pasting to Racks) method pastes randomly selected cap pictures onto rack backgrounds to synthesize training data. It represents the synthesizing method used in this work. The SB (Synthesis by pasting to BG-20k) method is an alternative synthesis method. Instead of being pasted onto a rack, randomly selected cap pictures are pasted to random backgrounds selected from the BG-20k data set. The RO (Robotic Observation) method is a byproduct of robotic cap segmentation, where the robot holds test tubes for data collection. We considered RO an independent method because we wondered if the hand-held observation was enough for training. We also combined RO, SR, and SB methods (the ** row) to see if they help achieve a satisfying performance. The RO+SR combination is exactly our proposed method in this work. We especially proposed it since RO is a pre-process of robotic cap segmentation. Using combined RO+SR does not increase effort. Combining RO+SB or RO+SR+SB are also candidate choices. They have the same cost as using independent SR or SB data\footnote{Synthesizing data is considered to be free as it only require computational work. Thus, the costs of SR and SB depend on the RO process.}. Finally, the CL (Crowd-source Labeling) method is a conventional one that requires humans to place racks with tubes under the robot and label the captured images manually. Fig. \ref{fig:alldata} shows exemplary images collected using the different methods.
\begin{table}[!htbp]
\caption{Summary of the data collection methods}
\label{tab:evalution_results}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lll}
\toprule
Abbr. & Full Name & Description\\
\midrule
SR & Synthesis by pasting to Racks & Caps on racks\\
SB & Synthesis by pasting to BG-20k & Caps on random background\\
RO & Robotic Observation & Tubes held in robotic hands\\
** & Combinations of above methods & SR+SB is the proposed one\\
CL & Crowd-source Labeling & Tubes in a rack on the table\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{imgs/alldata.jpg}
\caption{Exemplary images collected using the various methods. (a) RO. (b) SR. (c) SB (d) CL.}
\label{fig:alldata}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Performance of Various Data sets}
We collected various data sets with the methods and their combinations, used the data sets to train YOLOv5x detectors, and examined the performance of the trained detectors using a testing data set for comparison.
The first data set is CL${}^{200}$. It is considered a baseline for comparison. In collecting the data set, we collected $200$ images with random tube and rack states and labeled the tube regions manually using LabelImg\footnote{https://github.com/heartexlabs/labelImg}. There are, in total, $5916$ labeled instances in the $200$ images.
The second data set is SR${}^{1600}$. In order to collect it, we first prepared many cap pictures using robotic observation. As shown in Fig. \ref{fig:env}(b), we assumed four different test tubes and took advantage of the Yumi robot's both arms to collect cap data quickly. For each tube type, we handed over two same ones to the two robotic arms for observation. Each arm moved its held tube to $400$ observation poses for data collection. See Fig. \ref{fig:collectrob}(a) for example. Here, we set the hyperparameter $\theta$ and $\omega$ to $30^{\circ}$ and $360^{\circ}$ (single grasping pose) and set the positions to be evenly sampled on the table with a granularity of $0.1m$ for generating the observation poses. In total, more than $400$ observation poses were obtained under the parameter setting for each arm, and we used the first $400$ for collecting images. As a result, we obtained $400$ observation images ($800$ cap pictures since there are two tubes in each image, see Fig. \ref{fig:collectrob}(b) for example) for a single tube type and $1600$ observation images for all tube types. We segmented $3200$ pictures of cap regions from the observation images considering point cloud mapping. Fig. \ref{fig:collectrob}(c) shows the collected point clouds with highlighted caps (green). Fig. \ref{fig:collectrob}(d) shows the segmented cap regions. Besides the cap regions, we collected $15$ images with racks (a single rack in each image) and segmented $15$ pictures of racks. We synthesized a data set of $1600$ images by pasting caps randomly selected from the $3200$ cap pictures to racks randomly selected from the $15$ rack pictures (SR method). During synthesis, we set the pasting number to be $T = 30$, and set the occlusion threshold for the ``Blue Tube'' to be $t_{blue} = 0.4$ and other tubes to be $t_{others} = 0.15$. We chose these parameter settings because the ``Blue Tube'' was shorter and susceptible to occlusion. We increased its occlusion threshold to mimic frequent visual blockage from other tubes. Also, we increased the variety of the segmented cap pictures by applying random scaling ($0.9\sim1.1$ of original picture size, $0.5$ probability), random blur ($3\times3$ kernel, $0.5$ probability), random brightness ($0.9\sim1.1$ of original brightness, $0.5$ probability), and random contrast ($0.9\sim1.1$ of the original contrast value, $0.5$ probability) using the Albumentations\footnote{https://albumentations.ai/} library. The background of the rack was randomly chosen from the BG-20k data set with a $0.5$ changing probability.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{imgs/collectrob.jpg}
\caption{(a) The robot moves test tubes for observation. Both arms are used. (b) Observation Image. (c) Point clouds captured by the Phoxi sensor. (d) Cap pictures segmented from the observation image.}
\label{fig:collectrob}
\end{figure}
The third data set is RO${}^{1600}$. It is a semi product of robotic cap segmentation and comprises the $1600$ observation images obtained during robotic observation.
The fourth data set is SB${}^{1600}$. In contrast with the SR${}^{1600}$ data set, we pasted randomly selected caps directly to images from the BG-20k data set for obtaining data. The pasted caps might freely distribute on the image background. The segmented racks were not used. The pasting number $T$ and occlusion threshold $t$ are $35$ and $0.15$ respectively. There was no difference on $t$ for different tubes. The randomization were performed in the same way as obtaining SR${}^{1600}$.
We also used combined methods to collect data sets and study if the combination led to better results. The combined data sets include RO${}^{1600}$+SR${}^{800}$, RO${}^{1600}$+SB${}^{800}$, RO${}^{1600}$+SR${}^{400}$+SB${}^{400}$, SR${}^{800}$+SB${}^{800}$. Here, the superscript number on the upper-right of a method name means the number of images collected using the method. The ``$+$'' symbol indicates that the data sets comprise data collected using different methods. The RO${}^{1600}$+SR${}^{800}$ data set represents the data collected using the proposed method.
The left part of Table \ref{tab:evalution_results} summarizes the various data sets. They are used to train YOLOv5x detectors for comparison. Before training, the YOLOv5x detectors for all data sets were initialized with weights pre-trained using the COCO data set. The images in all data sets were regulated into a resolution of $1376\times1376$. Each data set is divided into a training subset and a validation subset according to a $4$ to $1$ data ratio. During learning, the training subset was fed to the training program with a batch size of $2$, and the training program performed validation per episode. The training process was stopped when the mAPs (mean Average Precision) \cite{zou2019object} for all objects reached higher than $99.0$\% under a $0.5$ IoU (Intersection over Union). Here, we defined a detected bounding box to be correct when its IoU with a ground truth cap bounding box was larger than $0.5$.
For evaluating the performance of YOLOv5x detectors trained using the various data sets, we collected a testing data set with $100$ images and labeled their ground truth using the same method as CL. We used the trained detectors to detect tubes in the testing data set. Like validation, we defined a detected bounding box as correct when its IoU with a ground truth cap bounding box is larger than $0.5$. We used the AP (Average Precision) metric to measure the detection performance of a single object class and used the mAP for all objects. Since the detector that met a single satisfying validation was not necessarily the best, we trained each detector twice and took the higher precision value on the testing data set as the final evaluation result.
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1}
\caption{Comparison of detectors trained using different data sets}
\label{tab:evalution_results}
\centering
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tabular}{llll|cccc|c}
\toprule
& & & & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{AP} &\\
\cmidrule(lr){5-8}
ID & Data Set Names & \# Caps & Remark & Blue & Purple & White & Purple Ring & mAP \\
\midrule
1 & CL${}^{200}$ & $5916$ & Multiple tubes / image & $\mathbf{0.993}$ & $\mathbf{0.995}$ & $\mathbf{0.989}$ & $0.984$ & $\mathbf{0.990}$\\
2 & RO${}^{1600}$ & $3200$ & Two tubes / image & $0.380$ & $0.923$ & $0.695$ & $0.630$ & $0.657$\\
3 & SR${}^{1600}$ & $40000$ & $t_{blue}{=}0.4$ \& $t_{others}{=}0.15$, $T=25$ & $0.955$ & $ 0.979 $ & $0.871$ & $0.953$ & $ 0.940$\\
4 & SB${}^{1600}$ & $56000$ & $t{=}0.15$ (same for all tubes), $T=35$ & $0.808$ & $0.978$ & $0.812$ & $0.897$ & $0.874$\\
5 & RO${}^{1600}$+SR${}^{800}$ & $23200$ & See note 2 & $0.968$ & $\mathbf{0.995}$ & $0.978$ & $0.992$ & $0.983$ \\
6 & RO${}^{1600}$+SB${}^{800}$ & $31200$ & See note 2 & $0.881$ & $0.994$ & $0.971$ & $0.992$ & $0.959$\\
7 & RO${}^{1600}$+SR${}^{400}$+SB${}^{400}$ & $27200$ & See note 2 & $0.969$ & $0.994$ & $0.986$ & $\mathbf{0.993}$ & $0.986$\\
8 & SR${}^{800}$+SB${}^{800}$ & $48000$ & See note 2 & $0.973$ & $0.993$ & $0.969$ & $0.985$ & $0.980$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\item[Note 1:] Largest AP and mAP values are highlighted in bold.
\item[Note 2:] The combined data sets are collected using the same parameters as respective ones.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table*}
Table \ref{tab:evalution_results} shows the evaluation results. We obtained the following observations and speculations from them.
\begin{enumerate}[noitemsep,topsep=0pt]
\item[i)] Using the data set collected by robotic observation for training exhibited the worst performance, as shown by the 2nd row (RO${}^{1600}$).\\
\underline{Speculation:} All images in the data set had a similar robotic background. They suffered from a domain shift.
\item[ii)] The synthetic data sets do not necessarily lead to a good AP, as shown by the 3rd (SR${}^{1600}$) and 4th (SB${}^{1600}$) rows. The SR${}^{1600}$ data set exhibited higher performance than the SB${}^{1600}$ data set.\\
\underline{Speculation:} The copy-paste synthesis failed to cover certain visual contexts; Pasting onto racks (SR) provided more effective visual contexts and benefited the neural network more than pasting onto random backgrounds (SB).
\item[iii)] Combining the synthetic data sets with robotic observations is effective. It can be concluded by comparing the 5th, 6th, and 7th rows (RO${}^{1600}$+SR${}^{800}$, RO${}^{1600}$+SB${}^{800}$, RO${}^{1600}$+SR${}^{400}$+SB${}^{400}$) with the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th rows (RO${}^{1600}$, SR${}^{1600}$, and SB${}^{1600}$). The former rows had higher mAP than the latter.\\
\underline{Speculation:} The robotic observation data set additionally provided helpful visual contexts.
\item[iv)] The 5th row (RO${}^{1600}$+SR${}^{800}$) had a $2.4\%$ higher mAP than the 6th row (RO${}^{1600}$+SB${}^{800}$). Especially, the AP of the ``Blue Tube'' on the 5th row was $8.7\%$ higher than that on the 6th row. The AP of other tubes also had $0.1\%\sim0.7\%$ performance increase.\\
\underline{Speculation:} Considering the rack as a local context helped improve domain-specific performance; The short ``Blue Tube'' could be easily blocked. The data set collected using the SR method had more simulated occlusions. They were important for recognizing the short ``Blue Tube''.
\item[v)] The 7th row (RO${}^{1600}$+SR${}^{400}$+SB${}^{400}$) exhibited slightly higher mAP ($0.3\%$) than the 5th row (RO${}^{1600}$+SR${}^{800}$).\\
\underline{Speculation:} Pasting onto racks (SR) provided better domain-specific features. Random backgrounds for the tubes slightly benefited the neural network and were less necessary if the goal context was limited.
\item[vi)] The 5th row (RO${}^{1600}$+SR${}^{800}$) is competitive compared with the 1st row (CL${}^{200}$). The mAP was $0.7\%$ lower. The AP of the ``Blue Tube'' and ``White Tube'' were $2.5\%$ and $1.1\%$ lower, respectively. The AP of the ``Purple Tube'' was the same. The AP of the ``Purple Ring'' tube was $0.8\%$ higher.\\
\underline{Speculation:} The robotic observation and paste-to-rack synthesis compensated for each other's shortcomings; There remained extreme cases that could be labeled manually but failed to be covered by robotic observation or synthesis, especially for the ``Blue Tube''.
\end{enumerate}
Several failure cases are visualized in Fig. \ref{fig:cases} to provide the readers an insight into our observations and speculations. Fig. \ref{fig:cases}(a) and (b) exemplify the recognition results of detectors trained using the 5th (RO${}^{1600}$+SR${}^{800}$) and 6th data sets (RO${}^{1600}$+SR${}^{800}$). The latter one failed to recognize occluded tubes as the training data set had fewer simulated occlusions. The example is consistent with the observation and speculation in iv). Fig. \ref{fig:cases}(c) and (d) exemplify cases that the detectors trained using the 5th (RO${}^{1600}$+SB${}^{800}$) data set failed. In the first case, shadows from other test tubes were cast on a blue test tube cap. The detector failed to recognize the tube. In the second case, the detector misrecognized a crystal tube body as the ``Blue Tube'' cap due to the illusion caused by body-and-rack overlap. The two failure examples are consistent with the observation and speculation in vi). The synthetic data sets do not involve shadows or tube bodies. The detectors trained using them had worse performance in these cases than the one trained using the crowd-sourced real-world data.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{imgs/cases.jpg}
\caption{(a) Detector trained using the 5th data set successfully recognized all tubes. (b) Detector trained using the 6th data set failed to recognize the occluded tube in the red circle. (c) Detector trained using the 5th data set failed to recognize the shadowed tube in the red circle. (d) Detector trained using the 5th data set misrecognized the tube body in the red circle as a ``Blue Tube''.}
\label{fig:cases}
\end{figure}
In summary, the results of the various training data sets showed that combining data collected using the RO and SR methods was effective. The conclusion was satisfying as the RO method is a subset of the SR method. The workflow for collecting them is simple and clean. However, we wonder if the number of images in the RO data set could be reduced, as it needs much manual handover to collect them. This query prompted us to carry out the studies in the following subsection.
\subsection{Ablation Study}
In this subsection, we conduct multiple ablation studies on the combined RO+SR data set to further understand 1) the influence of the data combination ratio and 2) the influence of pasting number $T$ and occlusion threshold $t$ used for generating synthetic data.
\subsubsection{Influence of data combination ratio}
\label{subsec:blended_img_num}
The experiments for studying the influence of data combination ratio are divided into two parts. In the first part, we set the number of images collected using the RO method to $800$ and varied the number of images collected using the SR method from $200$ to $1600$ in a $2$-fold ratio to understand the importance of the SR data. The upper section of Table \ref{tab:number_real_syn} shows the precision of detectors trained using the varied data. The results indicate that the mAP improved when the SR image numbers increased from $200$ to $1600$.
The second part is similar to the first one. In this part, we fixed the number of images collected using the SR method to $800$ and varied the number of images collected using the RO method from $200$ to $1600$ in a two-fold ratio to understand the importance of the RO data.
The lower section of Table \ref{tab:number_real_syn} shows the precision of detectors trained using the varied data. The result indicates that the mAP improved when the RO image numbers increased from $200$ to $1600$.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\caption{Influence of data combination ratio}
\label{tab:number_real_syn}
\centering
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tabular}{l|cccc|c}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{4}{c|}{AP} &\\
\cmidrule{2-5}
Data Set Names & Blue & Purple & White & Purple Ring & mAP \\
\midrule
RO$^{800}$+SR$^{200}$ & $0.958$ & $0.994$ & $0.973$ & $0.987$ & $0.978$\\
RO$^{800}$+SR$^{400}$ & $0.964$ & $0.992$ & $0.975$ & $0.985$ & $0.979$\\
RO$^{800}$+SR$^{800}$ & $0.966$ & $\mathbf{0.995}$ & $0.979$ & $\mathbf{0.986}$ & $\mathbf{0.981}$\\
RO$^{800}$+SR$^{1600}$ & $\mathbf{0.970}$ & $0.994$ & $\mathbf{0.987}$ & $0.987$ & $0.985$ \\
\midrule
RO$^{200}$+SR$^{800}$ & $0.962$ & $0.992$ & $0.952$ & $0.978$ & $0.971$\\
RO$^{400}$+SR$^{800}$ & $0.965$ & $0.992$ & $\mathbf{0.979}$ & $0.978$ & $0.979$\\
RO$^{800}$+SR$^{800}$ & $0.966$ & $\mathbf{0.995}$ & $\mathbf{0.979}$ & $0.986$ & $0.981$\\
RO$^{1600}$+SR$^{800}$ & $\mathbf{0.968}$ & $\mathbf{0.995}$ & $0.978$ & $\mathbf{0.992}$ & $\mathbf{0.983}$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\item[Note 1] Largest AP and mAP values are highlighted in bold.
\item[Note 2] We used the following hyper-parameter setting $t_{blue}=0.4$ \& $t_{others}=0.15$, $T=30$ to collect the SB data sets. The values were the same as the experiments in Section V.A.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Influence of hyperparameters}
Besides the data combination ratio, we also studied the influence of pasting number $T$ and occlusion threshold $t$ used in the SR method. We set both the RO and SR image numbers to $800$ and observed the performance of detectors trained with data sets collected using different $T$ and $t$ values.
Although we previously used a different $t$ value for the ``Blue Tube'', we did not differentiate the tubes here. Like the study on different data combination ratios, this study also comprised two parts. In the first part, we fixed $t$ to be $0.1$ and increased $T$ from $10$ to $40$ with a step length of 10. The upper section of Table \ref{tab:T_t} shows the precision changes under the parameter variations. The results exhibited a significant increase from $10$ to $30$. However, an even larger $T$ had little influence on the recognition performance. In the second part, we set $T$ to be $30$ and varied $t$ from $0.20$ to $0.80$ with a step length of $0.2$. The lower section of Table \ref{tab:T_t} shows the precision changes under the parameter variations. The results exhibited a clear precision increase on the ``Blue Tube''. We speculate that the reason was that the ``Blue Tube'' was shorter and vulnerable to occlusions. A larger $t$ helped provide more occlusion cases in the training data set, leading to a higher detection rate. The results also indicated that the precision of the "White Tube" and "Purple Ring Tube" irregularly changed as the $t$ increased. They were taller and did not suffer from occlusions. Adding occlusions for them caused unexpected errors. For a complete observation, we recommend interested readers to compare with the third row of the table's upper section to catch the changes starting from $t=0.1$. The $T$ value of the upper section's third row was the same as the rows in the lower section.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\caption{Influence of parameters used for synthesis}
\label{tab:T_t}
\centering
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tabular}{l|cccc|c}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{4}{c|}{AP} &\\
\cmidrule{2-5}
Params. ($T$, $t$) & Blue & Purple & White & Purple Ring & mAP \\
\midrule
(10, 0.10) & $0.904$ & $\mathbf{0.995}$ & $0.971$ & $0.973$ & $0.961$\\
(20, 0.10) & $0.915$ & $\mathbf{0.995}$ & $0.976$ & $0.985$ & $0.968$\\
(30, 0.10) & $\mathbf{0.939}$ & $\mathbf{0.995}$ & $\mathbf{0.987}$ & $\mathbf{0.992}$ & $\mathbf{0.978}$\\
(40, 0.10) & $0.934$ & $0.994$ & $ 0.972$ & $0.983 $ & $0.970$\\
\midrule
(30, 0.20) & $0.945$ & $ \mathbf{0.995}$ & $\mathbf{0.985}$ & $0.989$ & $0.978$\\
(30, 0.40) & $0.969$ & $\mathbf{0.995}$ & $\mathbf{0.985}$ & $\mathbf{0.994}$ & $0.986$\\
(30, 0.60) & $0.985$ & $\mathbf{0.995}$ & $0.965$ & $0.967$ & $0.978$\\
(30, 0.80) & $\mathbf{0.987}$ & $\mathbf{0.995}$ & $0.984$ & $0.988$ & $\mathbf{0.988}$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\item[*] Largest AP and mAP values are highlighted in bold.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table}
\subsection{Further Analysis on Synthetic Data}
We also studied the influence of cap variation and combination ratio on synthetic data sets (the data sets collected using the SR, SB, or SR+SB methods). The goal was to understand the best performance we could reach with synthesis.
First, we fixed the number of images collected by the SR and SB methods to $800$, respectively. We changed the number of cap region pictures (equals to the number of observation images multiplied by two) used for synthesis from $400$ to $3200$ in a 2-fold ratio to study the influence of cap variation. The previsions YOLOv5x detectors using the changing data sets are shown in Table \ref{tab:abs_R_P}. The results showed that the $400$ row had competitive precision compared to the $1600$ or $3200$ rows. The number was enough to support a satisfying detector. The cap variations were thus considered to have a low influence on learning.
Second, we fix the number of cap region pictures to $3200$ and change the number of images collected using the SR and SB methods, respectively, to study the influence of the combination ratio. Like the ablation study in Section \ref{subsec:blended_img_num}, we divided the experiment here into two parts. In the first part, we set the number of images collected by the SR method to $800$ and varied the number of images collected by the SB method from $200$ to $1600$ in a 2-fold ratio to understand the importance of the SB data. The upper section of Table \ref{tab:SR_SB_Ratio} shows the precision of detectors trained using the varied data. The number of SB images did not appear to be positively correlated with the final detector's precision, although the largest mAP was observed when the number of SB images was $800$. In the second part, we fixed the number of images collected by the SB method to $800$ and varied the number of images collected by the SR method to understand the importance of the SR data. The lower section of Table \ref{tab:SR_SB_Ratio} shows the precision of detectors trained using the varied data. The result indicated that the mAP improved as the SR image number increased to $800$. There was no significant difference when the image number increased from $800$ to $1600$.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\caption{The influence of \textit{\#}caps to synthesis}
\label{tab:abs_R_P}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|cccc|c}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{4}{c|}{AP} &\\
\cmidrule{2-5}
\textit{\#}Caps & Blue & Purple & White & Purple Ring & mAP \\
\midrule
$400$ & $0.970$ & $0.994$ & $0.969$ & $0.984$ & $0.979$\\
$800$ & $0.971$ & $0.993$ & $0.954$ & $0.976$ & $0.973$\\
$1600$ & $0.971$ & $0.992$ & $0.980$ & $0.985$ & $0.982$\\
$3200$ & $0.973 $ & $0.993$ & $0.969$ & $0.985$ & $0.980$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[htbp]
\caption{Influence of the SR and SB ratio
}
\label{tab:SR_SB_Ratio}
\centering
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tabular}{l|cccc|c}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{4}{c|}{AP} &\\
\cmidrule{2-5}
Data Set Names & Blue & Purple & White & Purple Ring & mAP \\
\midrule
SB$^{200}$ + SR$^{800}$ & $\mathbf{0.975}$ & $\mathbf{0.994}$ & $0.943$ & $0.957$ & $0.967$\\
SB$^{400}$ + SR$^{800}$ & $0.973$ & $0.990$ & $0.960$ & $0.970$ & $0.973$\\
SB$^{600}$ + SR$^{800}$ & $0.967$ & $0.988$ & $0.951$ & $0.968$ & $0.969$\\
SB$^{800}$ + SR$^{800}$ & $0.973 $ & $0.993$ & $\mathbf{0.969}$ & $\mathbf{0.985}$ & $\mathbf{0.980}$\\
SB$^{1600}$ + SR$^{800}$ & $0.952$ & $0.978$ & $0.926$ & $0.972$ & $0.957$\\
\midrule
SB$^{800}$ + SR$^{200}$ & $0.951$ & $0.982$ & $0.925$ & $0.963$ & $0.955$\\
SB$^{800}$ + SR$^{400}$ & $0.932 $ & $0.969$ & $0.914$ & $0.952$ & $0.942$\\
SB$^{800}$ + SR$^{600}$ & $0.966$ & $0.990$ & $0.930$ & $0.893$ & $0.945$\\
SB$^{800}$ + SR$^{800}$ & $0.973 $ & $\mathbf{0.993}$ & $\mathbf{0.969}$ & $0.985$ & $\mathbf{0.980}$\\
SB$^{800}$ + SR$^{1600}$ & $\mathbf{0.975}$ & $ \mathbf{0.993}$ & $0.967$ & $\mathbf{0.986}$ & $\mathbf{0.980} $\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\item[Note 1] Largest AP and mAP values are highlighted in bold.
\item[Note 2] We used the following hyper-parameter setting $t_{blue}=0.4$ \& $t_{others}=0.15$, $T=30$ to collect the SB data sets, and used the following hyper-parameter setting $T=30$, $t=0.15$ (same for all tubes) to collect the SR data sets. The values were the same as the experiments in Section V.A.
\item[Note 2] We used 3200 segmented cap region pictures for both methods.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
In this paper, we proposed an integrated robot observation and data synthesis framework for data preparation. The proposed framework can significantly reduce the human effort in data preparation. It required only a single process and was a low-cost way to produce the combined data. The experimental result showed that combined observation and synthetic images led to comparable performance to manual data preparation. The ablation studies provided a good guide on optimizing data configurations and parameter settings for training detectors using the combined data.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{ Introduction}
Let $(X,\omega)$ be a K\"ahler manifold of dimension $n$, $(E,D)$ be a complex flat vector bundle over $X$. Given a Hermitian metric $H$ on $E$, there is a unique decomposition
\begin{equation}
D=D_{H}+\psi_{H},
\end{equation}
where $D_{H}$ is an $H$-unitary connection and $\psi_{H}\in \Omega^{1}(\mbox{End}(E))$ is self-adjoint with respect to $H$.
By the Riemann-Hilbert correspondence, we know that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the flat bundle $(E,D)$ and the fundamental group representation $\rho_{D}:\pi_{1}(X)\rightarrow \mbox{Gl}(r,\mathbb{C})$. Then any Hermitian metric $H$ on $E$ induces a $\rho_{D}$-equivariant map
\begin{equation}
f_{H}:\tilde{X}\rightarrow \mbox{Gl}(r,\mathbb{C})/\mbox{U}(r),
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{X}$ is the universal covering space of $X$. A Hermitian metric $H$ is called harmonic if $f_{H}$ is a harmonic map. On the other hand, we know that $\psi_{H}=-\frac{1}{2}f_{H}^{-1}df_{H}$ (\cite{Gui}). So $H$ is a harmonic metric if and only if it is a critical point of the following energy functional
\begin{equation}\label{eq:f}
E(D,H)=\frac{1}{2}\int_{X}|\psi_{H}|^{2}_{H,\omega}\frac{\omega^{n}}{n!}.
\end{equation}
That is, it satisfies the Euler-Lagrange equation
\begin{equation}
D_{H}^{*}\psi_{H}=0.
\end{equation}
The notion of harmonic maps was introduced by Eells and Sampson (\cite{ES}) in the 1960s and generalized to harmonic metric on flat bundles by Corlette (\cite{Cor}). Donaldson (\cite{Don3}) and Corlette (\cite{Cor}) proved that $(E,D)$ admits a harmonic metric if and only if it is semisimple. This result has also been extended to some noncompact or non-K\"ahler manifolds by Jost-Zuo (\cite{JZ1,JZ2}), Simpson (\cite{S3}), Mochizuki (\cite{M2}), Collins-Jacob-Yau (\cite{CJY}), Pan-Zhang-Zhang (\cite{PZZ}) and Wu-Zhang (\cite{WZ}).
On the other hand, we have the Hitchin-Kobayashi correspondence which states that the stability of holomorphic vector bundles is equivalent to the existence of irreducible Hermitian-Einstein metrics. It was proved by Narasimhan-Seshadri (\cite{NarSe}) for Riemann surfaces, Donaldson (\cite{Don2,Don1}) for algebraic manifolds and Uhlenback-Yau (\cite{UhYau}) for higher dimension K\"ahler manifolds. Hitchin (\cite{Hit}) and Simpson (\cite{S1}) proved the Hitchin-Kobayashi correspondence for Higgs bundles. Based on the results of Corlette (\cite{Cor}), Donaldson (\cite{Don3}), Hitchin (\cite{Hit}) and Simpson (\cite{S1,S3}), one can obtain the famous non-abelian Hodge correspondence between the moduli space for semisimple flat bundles and the moduli space for poly-stable Higgs bundles with vanishing Chern numbers. There are many important and interesting generalizations of the non-abelian Hodge correspondence, such as: Jost and Zuo (\cite{JZ2}), Biquard and Boalch (\cite{BB}), Mochizuki (\cite{M1,M2}) for the quasiprojective varieties case; Bradlow, Garc\'ia-Prada and Mundet i Riera (\cite{BGM}), Garc\'ia-Prada and Mundet i Riera (\cite{GM1}), Garc\'ia-Prada, Gothen and I.Mundet i Riera (\cite{GGM}) for the the principal $G$-Higgs bundles case; Biswas and Kasuya (\cite{BK1,BK2}) for Sasakian manifolds case.
\medskip
A connection $D$ in $E$ is called non-Hermitian Yang-Mills (NHYM for short) if its curvature $F_D$
satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{DFNH}
F_{D}=D^{2}\in \Omega^{1,1}_{X}(\mbox{End}(E))\ \ \ \text{and} \ \ \sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}F_{D}=\lambda Id_{E},
\end{equation}
where $\lambda\in\mathbb{R}$ is a constant. $(E,D)$ is called a NHYM bundle if $D$ is a NHYM connection. This concept was first introduced by Kaledin and Verbitsky in \cite{KV}. Their original motivation is to extend the Corlette-Donaldson-Hitchin-Simpson's correspondence to vector bundles with arbitrary Chern class. In their paper, they studied the moduli space of NHYM connections $\mathscr{M}$, and they proved that $\mathscr{M}$ is naturally complex analytic with dimension twice that of the subspace of Hermitian Yang-Mills connections $\mathscr{M}_{0}$. They also constructed a complex symplectic $2$-form near $\mathscr{M}_{0}$, and they conjectured that this form gives rise to a hyper-K\"ahler structure on the whole of $\mathscr{M}$. At the end of their paper, the authors listed some open problems and conjectures which generalize the known facts about flat bundles to non-Hermitian Yang-Mills bundles.
In analogy with the flat bundle case, we define the harmonic metrics on NHYM bundles as follows.
\begin{defn}
Let $(E,D)$ be a NHYM bundle, a Hermitian metric $H$ is called harmonic if it is a critical point of the energy functional (\ref{eq:f}), i.e., $D_{H}^{*}\psi_{H}=0$.
\end{defn}
The main work of this paper is to prove the following theorem which gives the answer of the Conjecture 8.7 in \cite{KV}.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:m}
Let $(X,\omega)$ be a compact K\"ahler manifold, $(E,D)$ be a NHYM bundle over $X$. Then $(E,D)$ admits a harmonic metric if and only if it is semisimple.
\end{thm}
In this paper, we use the heat flow approach to prove the existence of harmonic metrics. We study the following equation on the NHYM bundle $(E,D)$,
\begin{equation}
\left\{\begin{split}
&H^{-1}(t)\frac{\partial H(t)}{\partial t}=2D_{H(t)}^{*}\psi_{H(t)},\\
&H(0)=H_{0}.
\end{split}\right.
\end{equation}
The NHYM conditions ensures that the heat flow is a parabolic flow and therefore a short-time solution exists. The long-time existence of the flow can also be proved by a classical method. We also introduce the concept of Donaldson's functional $\mathcal{M}(K,H)$ on NHYM bundles, and prove that it is decreasing along the flow. These concepts are widely used in the proofs of the Hitchin-Kobayashi correspondence. It is important to note that the NHYM condition is critical in all relevant calculations.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{sec:Pre}, we introduce some basic concepts and show that the existence of harmonic metrics implies the semisimplicity. In Section \ref{sec:DF}, we introduce the Donaldson type functional on NHYM bundles. In Section \ref{sec:FL}, we introduce a heat flow and prove the long time existence of such flow. In Section \ref{sec:FP}, we complete the remainder proof of Theorem \ref{thm:m}.
\section{Preliminary}\label{sec:Pre}
Let $(X,\omega)$ be a K\"ahler manifold of dimension $n$, $E$ be a complex vector bundle of rank $r$ over $X$. If $D$ is a NHYM connection on $E$, then we call $(E,D)$ a NHYM bundle. By the definition, the $(0,1)$-part of $D$ determines a holomorphic structure in $E$. Let $\mathcal{E}$ be the sheaf of holomorphic sections.
In analogy with the flat bundle case, we can define the simplicity of $(E,D)$.
\begin{defn}
A subbundle $S\subset E$ is called $D$-subbundle of $(E,D)$ if it is a $D$-invariant subbundle of $E$.
\end{defn}
\begin{defn}
We say the NHYM bundle $(E,D)$ is simple if there is no proper $D$-subbundle. We say $(E,D)$ is semisimple if it is the direct sum of several simple NHYM bundles.
\end{defn}
\begin{lem}\label{l:0}
Let $\mathcal{S}$ be a coherent subsheaf of $\mathcal{E}$, $S$ be the holomorphic bundle on $X\setminus \Sigma$ corresponding to $\mathcal{S}$, where $\Sigma$ is the singularity set of $\mathcal{S}$. If $S$ is a $D$-subbundle of $E|_{X\setminus\Sigma}$, then there exists a $D$-subbundle $\bar{S}$ of $E$ on $X$ such that $\bar{S}|_{X\setminus \Sigma}=S$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $H$ be a Hermitian metric on $E$, $\pi$ be the projection map of $E|_{X\setminus\Sigma}$ to $S$ corresponding to $H$. Then
\begin{equation}
\pi^{2}=\pi^{*H}=\pi, \ \ (Id-\pi)D\pi=0 \ \ on\ X\setminus\Sigma.
\end{equation}
Moreover, we have $\pi\in L_{1}^{2}(X,\mbox{End}(E))\cap C^{\infty}(X\setminus \Sigma,\mbox{End}(E))$, and \begin{equation}
\pi^{2}=\pi^{*H}=\pi, \ \ (Id-\pi)D\pi=0\ \ a.e.\ on\ X,
\end{equation}
where $D\pi\in L^{2}(X,\mbox{End}(E))$ is the weak derivative of $\pi$. Applying the operator $D$ to the equality $\pi^{2}=\pi$ and combining with $(Id-\pi)D\pi=0$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
D\pi\pi=0\ \ a.e.\ on\ X.
\end{equation}
Let $D=D_{H}+\psi_{H}$, where $D_{H}$ is a unitary connection and $\psi_{H}\in \Omega^{1}(\mbox{End}(E))$ is self-adjoint with respect to $H$. Set $\bar{D}=D_{H}-\psi_{H}$, then
\begin{equation}
\bar{D}\pi(Id-\pi)=0\ \ a.e.\ on\ X.
\end{equation}
Therefore, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq}
\begin{split}
D\pi=&\bar{D}\pi\pi+2[\psi_{H},\pi]\\
=&D\pi\pi-2[\psi_{H},\pi]\pi+[\psi_{H},\pi]\\
=&2\pi\psi_{H}(Id-\pi).
\end{split}\ \ \ \ a.e.\ on\ X.
\end{equation}
Since $|\pi|_{H}^{2}=\mbox{rank}(S)$ almost everywhere on $X$, $\pi\in L^{p}(X,\mbox{End}(E))$ for $0<p\leq +\infty$. Then $D\pi\in L^{p}(X,\mbox{End}(E))$ for $0<p\leq +\infty$ by (\ref{eq}). Applying Sobolev's embedding theorem and the equation (\ref{eq}), we obtain that $\pi\in C^{\infty}(X,\mbox{End}(E))$. Let $\bar{S}=\pi(E)$, then the proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
The above Lemma means that a $D$-invariant subsheaf can always be extended to a $D$-invariant subbundle. So our definition of $D$-simplicity of NHYM bundles coincides with Kaledin-Verbitsky's $D$-stablity in \cite{KV}.
\end{rem}
\begin{prop}\label{p:un}
Let $\mbox{End}(E,D)$ be the endomorphism space of $(E,D)$. Assume $(E,D)$ is simple, then $\mbox{End}(E,D)\simeq \mathbb{C}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $f\in \mbox{End}(E,D)$. If $f\neq0$, then $f$ is isomorphism. Otherwise $\mbox{Ker}(f)$ or $\mbox{Im}(f)$ determines a proper $D$-subbundle of $(E,D)$ by Lemma \ref{l:0}. Since $f$ is holomorphic with repect to $D^{0,1}$, so the eigenvalues of $f$ are constants. Let $\lambda$ be a eigenvalue of $f$, then $\tilde{f}=f-\lambda Id_E$ is not a isomorphism. So $f=\lambda Id_E$.
\end{proof}
Let $(X,\omega)$ be a K\"ahler manifold of dimension $n$, $E$ be a complex vector bundle over $X$ with rank $r$. Given any connection $D$ and Hermitian metric $H$ on $E$, there is a unique decomposition
\begin{equation}
D=D_H+\psi_H,
\end{equation}
where $D_H$ is a unitary connection preserving $H$ and $\psi_H \in \Omega^{1}(\mbox{End}(E))$ is self-adjoint with respect to $H$. If $D$ is a NHYM connection, then
\begin{equation}
\lambda Id_E=\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}F_D=\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}(D_H^2+\psi_H\wedge \psi_H+D_H\circ \psi_H+\psi_H\circ D_H).
\end{equation}
Considering the anti-self-adjoint and self-adjoint parts of the above identity, we have
\begin{equation}\label{SAP}
\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}D_H\psi_H=0,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{ASAP}
\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}(D_H^2+\psi_H\wedge \psi_H)=\lambda Id_E.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, if we consider the decomposition of $D_H$ (resp. $\psi_H$) into the $(1,0)$-part $\partial_H$ (resp. $\psi_H^{1,0}$) and $(0,1)$-part $\bar{\partial}_H$ (resp. $\psi_H^{0,1}$), we have
\begin{equation}
D_{H}=\partial_{H}+\bar{\partial}_{H},\ \ \psi_{H}=\psi_{H}^{1,0}+\psi_{H}^{0,1}.
\end{equation}
Let
\begin{equation}
D^{''}_{H}=\bar{\partial}_{H}+\psi_{H}^{1,0}, \ \ D_{H}^{'}=\partial_{H}+\psi_{H}^{0,1},
\end{equation}
then the pseudo-curvature $G_H$ with respect to the connection $D$ and the Hermitian metric $H$ is defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
G_H=(D_H^{''})^2=(\bar{\partial}_{H}+\psi_{H}^{1,0})^2.
\end{equation}
By the K\"ahler identities, we obtain
\begin{equation}
D^{*}_{H}\psi_{H}=2\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_{H}.
\end{equation}
Therefore $H$ is a harmonic metric if and only if it satisfies the equation $\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_{H}=0$.
Furthermore, if we consider the decompositions of the formulas (\ref{SAP}) and (\ref{ASAP}) into $(1,0)$-part and (0,1)-part, we obtain the following equations
\begin{equation}\label{eq:111}
\left\{\begin{split}
&\partial_{H}^{2}+\psi_{H}^{1,0}\wedge\psi_{H}^{1,0}=\bar{\partial}_{H}^{2}+\psi_{H}^{0,1}\wedge\psi_{H}^{0,1}=0,\\
&\partial_{H}\psi_{H}^{1,0}=\bar{\partial}_{H}\psi_{H}^{0,1}=0,\\
&\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}(\partial_{H}\psi_{H}^{0,1}+\bar{\partial}_{H}\psi_{H}^{1,0})=0,\\
&\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}([\partial_{H},\bar{\partial}_{H}]+[\psi_{H}^{1,0},\psi_{H}^{0,1}])=\lambda Id_{E},
\end{split}\right.
\end{equation}
where we used the NHYM condition.
For any two Hermitian metrics $K$ and $H$ on $E$, then we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&D_H=h^{-1}\circ D_K \circ h+\frac{1}{2}(D-h^{-1}\circ D\circ h),\\
&\psi_{H}=h^{-1}\circ\psi_{K}\circ h+\frac{1}{2}(D-h^{-1}\circ D\circ h),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $h=K^{-1}H$ is a positive endomorphism which is defined by $H(\cdot,\cdot)=K(h(\cdot),\cdot)$. If we set $D_{K}^{c}=D^{''}_{K}-D_{K}^{'}$, then a straightforward calculation shows that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:n1}
\begin{split}
D_{H}^{''}-D^{''}_{K}=&\frac{1}{2}h^{-1}D_{K}^{c}h,\\
\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_{H}-\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_{K}=&\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{4}\Lambda_{\omega}D(h^{-1}D_{K}^{c}h),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where we used the equation (\ref{eq:111}).
\subsection{Harmonic metric on NHYM bundles}
In the following, we show that the existence of harmonic metrics implies the semisimplicity of $E$. Let $S\subset E$ be a $D$-invariant subbundle, $Q$ be the quotient bundle. Then any Hermitian metric $H$ on $E$ induces a smooth isomorphism $f_{H}:S\oplus Q\rightarrow E$. Let
\begin{equation}
f^{*}_{H}(D)=\left(\begin{split}
&D_{S}\ &2\beta\\
&0\ &D_{Q}
\end{split}\right),
\end{equation}
where $\beta\in \Omega^{1}(X,Q^{*}\otimes S)$. Then
\begin{equation}
f^{*}_{H}(D_{H})=\left(\begin{split}
&D_{S,H_{S}}\ &\beta\\
&-\beta^{*}\ &D_{Q,H_{Q}}
\end{split}\right),\ \ \ \ f^{*}_{H}(\psi_{H})=\left(\begin{split}
&\psi_{S,H_{S}}\ &\beta\\
&\beta^{*}\ &\psi_{Q,H_{Q}}
\end{split}\right),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
f^{*}_{H}(G_{H})=\left(\begin{split}
&G_{S,H_{S}}+\beta\wedge(\beta^{c})^{*}\ & D^{''}\beta\\
&D^{''}(\beta^{c})^{*}\ &G_{Q,H_{Q}}+(\beta^{c})^{*}\wedge\beta^{c}
\end{split}\right),
\end{equation}
where $\beta^{c}=\beta^{0,1}-\beta^{1,0}$. Taking the trace and the integral on both sides, we see
\begin{equation}
\int_{X}(\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}\mbox{tr}(G_{S,H_{S}})-|\beta|^{2})\frac{\omega^{n}}{n!}=0.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, by the Stokes' formula, we have
\begin{equation}
\int_{X}\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}\mbox{tr}(G_{S,H_{S}})\frac{\omega^{n}}{n!}=0.
\end{equation}
Therefore, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eee}
\beta=0,
\end{equation}
which means that $(E,D)\simeq (S,D_{S})\oplus(Q,D_{Q})$. Thus we obtain that $(E,D)$ is semisimple by induction on the rank.
\section{Donaldson's functional on NHYM bundles}\label{sec:DF}
In this section, we wil introduce the Donaldson's functional by following Donaldson (\cite{Don2}) and Simpson (\cite{S1}) in our situation.
For any two Hermitian metrics $K,L$, we now define the Donaldson's functional on NHYM bundles as follows
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}(K,L)=\int_{0}^1\int_X{\rm tr}\bigg(-4\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_{H(s)}\cdot H^{-1}(s)\frac{\partial H(s)}{\partial s}\bigg)\frac{\omega^n}{n!}ds,
\end{equation}
where $H(s)$ is a path connecting the Hermitian metrics $K$ and $L$ in the space of all metrics on $E$.
\begin{prop}\label{DFP1}
The Donaldson's functional $\mathcal{M}$ is independent of the path.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $H(\tau,s),s\in[0,1]$ be a family of path with $\tau\in (-\varepsilon,\varepsilon)$ such that $H(\tau,0)=K, H(\tau,1)=L$. If we denote $h(\tau,s)=K^{-1}H(\tau,s)$, then $h(\tau,0)={\rm Id}, h(\tau,1)=K^{-1}L$. For writing convenience, we omit the parameters here. By direct calculation, we have
\begin{equation}\label{DFC1}
\frac{\partial }{\partial \tau}\bigg(\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_H\bigg)=\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{4}\Lambda_{\omega}DD_H^c\bigg(h^{-1}\frac{\partial h}{\partial \tau}\bigg).
\end{equation}
Since $D$ is a NHYM connection, we also have
\begin{equation}\label{DFC2}
\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_H=\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{4}\Lambda_{\omega}[D,D_{H}^c].
\end{equation}
By using (\ref{DFC1}) and (\ref{DFC2}), we can easily obtain that
\begin{equation}\label{DFC3}
\begin{split}
&\quad\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}{\rm tr}\bigg(\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_H \cdot h^{-1}\frac{\partial h}{\partial s}\bigg)-\frac{\partial}{\partial s}{\rm tr}\bigg(\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_H \cdot h^{-1}\frac{\partial h}{\partial \tau}\bigg)\\
&={\rm tr}\bigg(\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{4}\Lambda_{\omega}DD_H^c\big(h^{-1}\frac{\partial h}{\partial \tau}\big)h^{-1}\frac{\partial h}{\partial s}-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{4}\Lambda_{\omega}DD_H^c\big(h^{-1}\frac{\partial h}{\partial s}\big)h^{-1}\frac{\partial h}{\partial \tau}\bigg)\\
&\quad +{\rm tr}\bigg(-\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_H\cdot h^{-1}\frac{\partial h}{\partial \tau}h^{-1}\frac{\partial h}{\partial s}+\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_H\cdot h^{-1}\frac{\partial h}{\partial s}h^{-1}\frac{\partial h}{\partial \tau}\bigg)\\
&={\rm tr}\bigg(\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{4}\Lambda_{\omega}DD_H^c\big(h^{-1}\frac{\partial h}{\partial \tau}\big)h^{-1}\frac{\partial h}{\partial s}-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{4}\Lambda_{\omega}DD_H^c\big(h^{-1}\frac{\partial h}{\partial s}\big)h^{-1}\frac{\partial h}{\partial \tau}\bigg)\\
&\quad +{\rm tr}\bigg(\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{4}\Lambda_{\omega}[D,D^c_H]\big(h^{-1}\frac{\partial h}{\partial s}\big)h^{-1}\frac{\partial h}{\partial \tau}\bigg)\\
&=\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{4}\Lambda_{\omega}{\rm tr}\bigg(DD_H^c\big(h^{-1}\frac{\partial h}{\partial \tau}\big)h^{-1}\frac{\partial h}{\partial s}+D_H^cD\big(h^{-1}\frac{\partial h}{\partial s}\big)h^{-1}\frac{\partial h}{\partial \tau}\bigg)\\
&=\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{4}\Lambda_{\omega}d{\rm tr}\bigg(D^c_H\big(h^{-1}\frac{\partial h}{\partial \tau}\big)h^{-1}\frac{\partial h}{\partial s}\bigg)+\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{4}\Lambda_{\omega}d^c{\rm tr}\bigg(D\big(h^{-1}\frac{\partial h}{\partial s}\big)h^{-1}\frac{\partial h}{\partial \tau}\bigg).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Using the Stokes' formula together with (\ref{DFC3}) yields that
\begin{equation}
\int_X\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}{\rm tr}\bigg(\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_H \cdot h^{-1}\frac{\partial h}{\partial s}\bigg)-\frac{\partial}{\partial s}{\rm tr}\bigg(\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_H \cdot h^{-1}\frac{\partial h}{\partial \tau}\bigg)\frac{\omega^n}{n!}=0.
\end{equation}
Hence,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&\quad \frac{d}{d\tau}\int_0^1\int_X{\rm tr}\bigg(-4\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_{H(\tau,s)}\cdot H^{-1}(\tau,s)\frac{\partial H(\tau,s)}{\partial s}\bigg)\frac{\omega^n}{n!}ds\\
&=\int_0^{1}\int_X\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}\mbox{tr}\bigg(-4\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_{H(\tau,s)}\cdot H^{-1}(\tau,s)\frac{\partial H(\tau,s)}{\partial s}\bigg)\frac{\omega^n}{n!}ds\\
&=\int_0^{1}\int_X\frac{\partial}{\partial s}\mbox{tr}\bigg(-4\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_{H(\tau,s)}\cdot H^{-1}(\tau,s)\frac{\partial H(\tau,s)}{\partial \tau}\bigg)\frac{\omega^n}{n!}ds\\
&=\int_X{\rm tr}\bigg(-4\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_{H(\tau,s)}\cdot H^{-1}(\tau,s)\frac{\partial H(\tau,s)}{\partial \tau}\bigg)\frac{\omega^n}{n!}\bigg|_{s=0}^1\\
&=0.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
This means that the Donaldson's functional is independent of the path.
\end{proof}
Let $s$ be the endomorphism of $E$ determined by the condition $L=Ke^s$. Choosing a special path $H(t)=Ke^{ts}$ connecting $K$ and $L$, then the Donaldson's functional can be written as follows
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}(K,L)=\int_0^1\int_{X}{\rm tr}\bigg(\big(-4\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_{H(t)}\big)s\bigg)\frac{\omega^n}{n!}dt.
\end{equation}
Set
\begin{equation*}
\Psi(x,y):=
\frac{e^{y-x}-(y-x)-1}{(y-x)^2}.
\end{equation*}
Then we have the following Proposition.
\begin{prop}Let $L=Ke^s$, then we have
\begin{equation}\label{DFkey}
\mathcal{M}(K,L)=\int_{X}{\rm tr}\bigg(\big(-4\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_{K}\big)s\bigg)\frac{\omega^n}{n!}+\int_{X}\langle\Psi(s)(Ds),Ds\rangle_{K}
\frac{\omega^n}{n!}.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By directly calculation, we deduce
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\mathcal{M}(K,H(t))=\int_{X}{\rm tr}\bigg(\big(-4\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_{H(t)}\big)s\bigg)\frac{\omega^n}{n!}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{DFC4}
\begin{split}
&\quad \frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2}\mathcal{M}(K,H(t))=\int_X{\rm tr}\bigg(\big(-\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}DD_{H(t)}^cs\big)s\bigg)\frac{\omega^{n}}{n!}\\
&=\int_{X}-\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}d{\rm tr}(D_{H(t)}^cs\cdot s)\frac{\omega^{n}}{n!}-\int_{X}\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}{\rm tr}\big(D_{H(t)}^cs\wedge Ds\big)\frac{\omega^n}{n!}\\
&=\int_{X}|Ds|_{H(t),\omega}^2\frac{\omega^n}{n!},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where we used $\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}{\rm tr}(D_H^cs \wedge Ds)=|Ds|_{H,\omega}^2$. Choosing a orthonormal basis $\{e_1,\cdots,e_r\}$ with respect to the metric $K$, such that $s=\sum_{i=1}^{r}\lambda_{i}e_{i}\otimes e_{i}^{*}$. Let $Ds=\sum_{i,j=1}^{r}(Ds)_{i}^{j}e_{j}\otimes e_{i}^{*}$, then we have
\begin{equation}\label{DFC5}
|Ds|_{H(t),\omega}^2=\sum_{i,j=1}^{r}|(Ds)_i^j|_{\omega}^2e^{t(\lambda_j-\lambda_i)}.
\end{equation}
Using (\ref{DFC5}) and integrating (\ref{DFC4}) from $0$ to $t$ yields
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\mathcal{M}(K,H(t))=\sum_{i,j=1}^{r}\int_X|(Ds)_i^j|_{\omega}^2\frac{e^{t(\lambda_j-\lambda_i)}-1}{(\lambda_j-\lambda_i)}
\frac{\omega^n}{n!}+\int_X{\rm tr}\bigg
(\big(-4\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_{K}\big)s\bigg)\frac{\omega^n}{n!}.
\end{equation}
Hence,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&\quad \mathcal{M}(K,L)=\int_{0}^1\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\mathcal{M}(K,H(t))dt\\
&=\int_{X}{\rm tr}\bigg(\big(-4\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_{K}\big)s\bigg)\frac{\omega^n}{n!}+\sum_{i,j=1}^{r}\int_X|(Ds)_i^j|_{\omega}^2
\Psi(\lambda_{i},\lambda_{j})\frac{\omega^n}{n!}\\
&=\int_{X}{\rm tr}\bigg(\big(-4\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_{K}\big)s\bigg)\frac{\omega^n}{n!}+\int_{X}\langle\Psi(s)(Ds),Ds\rangle_{K}
\frac{\omega^n}{n!}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
The following property are easily derived from the definition of the Donaldson's functional.
\begin{prop}
Let $K$, $J$ and $L$ be three Hermitian metrics on $(E,D)$, then
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}(K,J)+\mathcal{M}(J,L)=\mathcal{M}(K,L).
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\section{The heat flow on NHYM bundle}\label{sec:FL}
In this section, we consider the following heat flow on the NHYM bundle $(E,D)$ over compact K\"ahler manifolds:
\begin{equation}\label{HFeq1}
H^{-1}(t)\frac{\partial H(t)}{\partial t}=4\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_{H(t)}.
\end{equation}
For convenience, we set $\Phi(H)=4\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_{H}$. It is easy to see that $\Phi(H)$ is self-adjoint with respect to $H$. Next we will give some basic properties about this flow.
\begin{prop}\label{HFP1}
Let $H(t)$ be a solution of the heat flow (\ref{HFeq1}) with initial metric $H_{0}$, then
\begin{equation}\label{HFC1}
\bigg(\frac{\partial }{\partial t}-\Delta\bigg){\rm tr}\big(\Phi(H(t))\big)=0,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{HFC2}
\bigg(\frac{\partial }{\partial t}-\Delta\bigg)|\Phi(H(t))|_{H(t)}^{2}=-2|D\Phi(H(t))|_{H(t),\omega}^2.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Set $h(t)=H_0^{-1}H(t)$. We omit the parameter $t$ in the computations when there is no confusion. Making use of identity (\ref{eq:n1}),
we have
\begin{equation}\label{HFC3}
\begin{split}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi(H)&=\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{4}\Lambda_{\omega}D\bigg(-h^{-1}\frac{\partial h}{\partial t}h^{-1}D_{H_0}^ch+h^{-1}D_{H_0}^c\frac{\partial h}{\partial t}\bigg)\\
&=\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{4}\Lambda_{\omega}D\bigg(-h^{-1}\frac{\partial h}{\partial t}h^{-1}D_{H_0}^ch+h^{-1}D_{H_0}^ch h^{-1}\frac{\partial h}{\partial t}+D_{H_0}^c\big(h^{-1}\frac{\partial h}{\partial t}\big)\bigg)\\
&=\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{4}\Lambda_{\omega}D\bigg([h^{-1}D_{H_0}^ch,h^{-1}\frac{\partial h}{\partial t}]+D_{H_0}^c\big(h^{-1}\frac{\partial h}{\partial t}\big)\bigg)\\
&=\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}DD_{H}^c\Phi(H).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The formula (\ref{HFC1}) can be easily deduced form (\ref{HFC3}). On the other hand, we have
\begin{equation}\label{HFC4}
\begin{split}
\Delta|\Phi(H)|_{H}^2&=\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}dd^c|\Phi(H)|_{H}^2=\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}dd^c{\rm tr}(\Phi(H)\Phi(H))\\
&=\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}d\{{\rm tr} (D_H^c\Phi(H)\cdot \Phi(H)+\Phi(H)\cdot D_H^c\Phi(H))\}\\
&=\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}{\rm tr}\left\{DD_H^c\Phi(H)\cdot\Phi(H)-D_H^c\Phi(H)\wedge D\Phi(H)\right.\\
&\quad +\left. D\Phi(H)\wedge D_{H}^c\Phi(H)+\Phi(H)DD_{H}^c\Phi(H)\right\}\\
&=2\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}{\rm tr}(\Phi(H)DD_H^c\Phi(H))+2|D\Phi(H)|_H^2
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Combining (\ref{HFC3}) and (\ref{HFC4}) yields
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\bigg(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}-\Delta\bigg)|\Phi(H)|_H^2&=2{\rm tr}(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi(H)\Phi(H))-\Delta|\Phi(H)|_H^2\\
&=-2|D\Phi(H)|_H^2.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
By Proposition \ref{HFP1} and the maximum principle, we can easily deduce that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:n2}
\sup_{X}|\Phi(H(t))|_{H(t)}\leq \sup_{X}|\Phi(H_{0})|_{H_{0}}.
\end{equation}
If we take the initial metric $H_0$ such that $\mbox{tr}(\Phi(H_{0}))=0$, then $\mbox{tr}(\Phi(H(t)))=0$. Combining with the equation (\ref{HFeq1}), it can be derived that
\begin{equation}
\log\det (H_{0}^{-1}H(t))=\mbox{tr}(\log(H_{0}^{-1}H(t)))=0.
\end{equation}
Following Donaldson's argument (\cite{Don2}), we introduce the Donaldson's distance on the space of the Hermitian metrics as follows.
\begin{defn}
Given any two Hermitian metrics $K$ and $H$ on the vector bundle $E$, the Donaldson's distance is defined by
\begin{equation}
\sigma(K,H)={\rm tr}(K^{-1}H)+{\rm tr}(H^{-1}K)-2{\rm rank }E.
\end{equation}
\end{defn}
It is obvious that $\sigma(K,H)\geq 0$ with the equality holds if and only if $K=H$. And a sequence of Hermitian metrics $H_i$ converge to some $H$ in the usual $C^0$-topology if and only if
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{i\to \infty}\sup_{X}\sigma(H_i,H)=0.
\end{equation*}
\begin{prop}\label{HFP2}
Let $H$ and $K$ be two harmonic metrics on the NHYM bundle $(E,D)$, then we have
\begin{equation}
\Delta\sigma(H,K)=|h^{-\frac{1}{2}}\cdot Dh|_K^2+|h^{\frac{1}{2}}\cdot Dh^{-1}|_H^2\geq 0.
\end{equation}
where $h=K^{-1}H$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By making use of (\ref{eq:n1}), we obtain
\begin{equation}
{\rm tr}\bigg(4h(\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_H-\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_K)\bigg)=\Delta {\rm tr}h-\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}{\rm tr}(Dh\wedge h^{-1}D_K^ch),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
{\rm tr}\bigg(4h^{-1}(\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_K-\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_H)\bigg)=\Delta {\rm tr}h^{-1}-\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}{\rm tr}(Dh^{-1}\wedge hD_K^ch^{-1}).
\end{equation}
Hence, we complete the proof by the following identities
\begin{equation}
\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}{\rm tr}(Dh\wedge h^{-1}D_K^ch)=|h^{-\frac{1}{2}}\cdot Dh|_K^2,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}{\rm tr}(Dh^{-1}\wedge hD_{H}^ch^{-1})=|h^{\frac{1}{2}}\cdot Dh^{-1}|_H^2.
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
By Proposition \ref{HFP2} and \ref{p:un}, we have the following corollary.
\begin{cor}
Let $H_{1},H_{2}$ be two harmonic metrics, then $H_{1}=e^{c}H_{2}$ where $c\in \mathbb{R}$.
\end{cor}
If $H(t)$, $K(t)$ are two solutions of the heat flow (\ref{HFeq1}), then using the same method as Proposition \ref{HFP2}, we can easily deduce the following proposition.
\begin{prop}\label{HFP3}
Let $H(t)$, $K(t)$ be two solutions of the heat flow (\ref{HFeq1}), then we have
\begin{equation}
\bigg(\frac{\partial }{\partial t}-\Delta\bigg)\sigma(H(t),K(t))=-|h^{-\frac{1}{2}}(t)\cdot Dh(t)|_{K(t)}^2-|h^{\frac{1}{2}}(t)\cdot Dh^{-1}(t)|_{H(t)}^2,
\end{equation}
where $h(t)=K^{-1}(t)H(t)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{prop}\label{Prop:Ineq}
Let $H$ and $K$ are two Hermitian metrics on the NHYM bundle $(E,D)$, then
\begin{equation}\label{p:eq1}
\Delta \log({\rm tr}h+{\rm tr}h^{-1})\geq -4|\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_H|_H-4|\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_K|_K,
\end{equation}
where $h=K^{-1}H$. Moreover
\begin{equation}\label{p:eq2}
\sup_{X}|\log(h)|_{K}\leq C_{1}\|\log(h)\|_{L^{1}(X,K)}+C_2,
\end{equation}
where $C_{1}$ and $C_{2}$ are positive constants depending only on $\sup_{X}|\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_{H}|_{H}$, $\sup_{X}|\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_{K}|_{K}$ and the geometry of $(X,\omega)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By making use of (\ref{eq:n1}), we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{HFC5}
\Delta {\rm tr}h\geq |h^{-\frac{1}{2}}\cdot Dh|_K^2-4{\rm tr}h \cdot( |\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_{H}|_{H}+|\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_{K}|_{K}),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{HFC6}
\Delta {\rm tr}h^{-1}\geq |h^{\frac{1}{2}}\cdot Dh^{-1}|_H^2-4{\rm tr}h^{-1}\cdot (|\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_{H}|_{H}+|\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_K|_K).
\end{equation}
Combining (\ref{HFC5}) and (\ref{HFC6}) yields
\begin{equation}\label{HFC7}
\begin{split}
\Delta({\rm tr}h+{\rm tr}h^{-1})&\geq |h^{-\frac{1}{2}}\cdot Dh|_K^2+|h^{\frac{1}{2}}\cdot Dh^{-1}|_H^2\\
&\quad -4({\rm tr}h+{\rm tr}h^{-1})\big(|\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_{H}|_{H}+|\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_K|_K\big).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
On the other hand, note that
\begin{equation}\label{HFC8}
\Delta\log({\rm tr}h+{\rm tr}h^{-1})=-\frac{|{\rm tr}(Dh)+{\rm tr}(Dh^{-1})|^2}{({\rm tr}h+{\rm tr}h^{-1})^2}+\frac{\Delta({\rm tr}h+{\rm tr}h^{-1})}{{\rm tr}h+{\rm tr}h^{-1}}.
\end{equation}
Combining (\ref{HFC7}) and (\ref{HFC8}), it suffices to prove
\begin{equation*}
\frac{|{\rm tr}(Dh)+{\rm tr}(Dh^{-1})|^2}{{\rm tr}h+{\rm tr}h^{-1}}\leq |h^{-\frac{1}{2}}\cdot Dh|_K^2+|h^{\frac{1}{2}}\cdot Dh^{-1}|_H^2,
\end{equation*}
which is valid from the Young's inequality immediately. So we obtain (\ref{p:eq1}). Noting
\begin{equation}
\log\big(\frac{1}{2r}(\mbox{tr}(h)+\mbox{tr}(h^{-1}))\big)\leq |\log(h)|_{K}\leq r^{1/2}\log(\mbox{tr}(h)+\mbox{tr}(h^{-1})).
\end{equation}
Applying Moser's iteration, we finish the proof.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Long-time existence of the heat flow}
In this subsection, we consider the long-time existence of the solution to the heat flow (\ref{HFeq1}). Let $H(t)$ be a solution of (\ref{HFeq1}) with initial metric $H_{0}$. Set $h(t)=H_{0}^{-1}H(t)$, then (\ref{HFeq1}) can be written as:
\begin{equation}\label{HFeq2}
\frac{\partial h(t)}{\partial t}=h(t)(\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}D(h^{-1}(t)D_{H_{0}}^{c}h(t))+4\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_{H_{0}}),
\end{equation}
By above formula, it is easy to see that the heat flow (\ref{HFeq2}) is strictly parabolic, so we obtain the short-time existence from the standard PDE theory.
\begin{thm}\label{ThmHF1}
For sufficiently small $T>0$, the equation (\ref{HFeq1}) has a smooth solution $H(t)$ defined for $0\leq t<T$.
\end{thm}
In the following, we prove the long-time existence of (\ref{HFeq1}) following the standard argument in \cite{Don2}.
\begin{lem}\label{HFL1}
Let $H(t)$ be a smooth solution of the equation (\ref{HFeq1}) defined for $0\leq t<T<\infty$. Then $H(t)$ converges in $C^0$-topology to some continuous non-degenerate Hermitian metric $H_T$ as $t\to T$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Given $\varepsilon>0$, by the continuity at $t=0$, we can find $\delta>0$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{X}\sigma(H(t),H(t'))<\varepsilon, \quad \text{for} \; 0<t,t'<\delta.
\end{equation*}
Combining Proposition \ref{HFP3} and the maximum principle yields that
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{X}\sigma(H(t),H(t'))<\varepsilon, \quad \text{for} \; T-\delta<t,t'<T.
\end{equation*}
This means that $H(t)$ is a Cauchy sequence and converges to a continuous metric $H_T$.
So, it remains to show that $H_T$ is a non-degenerate metric. By direct calculation, we have
\begin{equation}\label{HFC9}
\bigg|\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\log{\rm tr}h(t)\bigg|\leq |\Phi(H(t))|_{H(t)},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{HFC10}
\bigg|\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\log{\rm tr}h^{-1}(t)\bigg|\leq |\Phi(H(t))|_{H(t)}.
\end{equation}
Hence, (\ref{HFC9}) and (\ref{HFC10}) together with Proposition \ref{HFP1} imply that $\sigma(H(t),H_0)$ is uniformly bounded on $X\times [0,T)$. Therefore, $H_T$ is a non-degenerate metric.
\end{proof}
Using the same method as in \cite{Don2}, we get the following lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{HFL2}
Let $H(t),0\leq t< T$ be a family of Hermitian metrics on a non-Hermitian Yang-Mills bundle $E$ over $X$. Suppose $H(t)$ converges in $C^0$-topology to some continuous metric $H_T$ as $t\to T$ and $\sup_{X}|\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_{H(t)}|_{H(t)}$ is uniformly bounded in $t$, then $H(t)$ are bounded in $C^1$ and also bounded in $L_2^p$ for any $1<p<\infty$.
\end{lem}
\begin{thm}
The equation (\ref{HFeq1}) has a unique long-time solution $H(t)$ for $0\leq t<+\infty$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem \ref{ThmHF1}, we know that the solution $H(t)$ of the equation (\ref{HFeq1}) exists for a short time defined for $0\leq t<T$. On the one hand, we deduce that $H(t)$ converges in $C^0$-topology to a non-degenerate continuous metric $H(T)$ as $t\to T$ from Lemma \ref{HFL1}. On the other hand, using Proposition (\ref{HFP1}) and maximum principle implies that $\sup_{X}|\Lambda_{\omega}G_{H(t)}|_{H_0}$ is uniformly bounded in $t$. Hence, by Lemma \ref{HFL2}, $H(t)$ is bounded in $C^1$ and also bounded in $L_2^p$ for $1<p<\infty$. Finally, we can use the Hamilton's method (\cite{H}) to deduce that $H(t)$ converges to $H(T)$ in $C^{\infty}$-topology and the solution can be continued past $T$. Therefore, the equation (\ref{HFeq1}) has a solution $H(t)$ which exists for all time.
It is easy to obtain the uniqueness of the solution from Proposition \ref{HFP3} and the maximum principle.
\end{proof}
In the following, we will derive the $C^{1}$-estimates of the solution using maximum principle. Let $H(t)$ be the solution of equation (\ref{HFeq1}) with initial metric $H_{0}$. By direct calculation, we have
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}(\sigma(H_{0},H(t))+2r)\leq 2|\Phi(H(t))|_{H(t)}(\sigma(H_{0},H(t))+2r).
\end{equation}
Then we obtain the following $C^{0}$-estimate of $H(t)$.
\begin{prop}
Let $C=\sup_{X}\Phi(H_{0})$, then
\begin{equation}
\sup_{X}\sigma(H_{0},H(t))\leq 2r(e^{Ct}-1).
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
If we denote the anti-self-adjoint part (resp. self-adjoint part) of $F_D$ by $F_D^{+}$ (resp. $F_D^{-}$), i.e., $F_{D}^{+}=D_{H}^{2}+\psi_{H}\wedge\psi_{H}$, $F_{D}^{-}=D_{H}\psi_{H}$, then we have
\begin{equation}
F_{D}=F_{D}^{+}+F_{D}^{-},\ \ \ \ |F_{D}|^{2}_{H,\omega}=|F_{D}^{+}|^{2}_{H,\omega}+|F_{D}^{-}|^{2}_{H,\omega}.
\end{equation}
By direct calculation, we obtain the following Bochner-type formula
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
-\Delta|\psi_{H}|^{2}_{H,\omega}=&-2\langle\Box^{+}\psi_{H},\psi_{H}\rangle_{H,\omega}-2|\nabla\psi_{H}|^{2}_{H,\omega}-2\langle \psi_{H}\circ Ric,\psi_{H}\rangle_{H,\omega}\\
&-2|\psi_{H}\wedge\psi_{H}|^{2}_{H,\omega}+4\langle F_{D}^{+},\psi_{H}\wedge\psi_{H}\rangle,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\Box^{+}=-D_{H}D_{H}^{*}-D_{H}^{*}D_{H}$ and $\psi_{H}\circ Ric=g^{jk}Ric_{ij}\psi_{k}dx^{i}$. So we can easily deduce that
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\bigg(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}-\Delta\bigg)|\psi_{H}|^{2}_{H,\omega}=&-2|\nabla\psi_{H}|^{2}_{H,\omega}-2\langle \psi_{H}\circ Ric,\psi_{H}\rangle_{H,\omega}\\
&-2|\psi_{H}\wedge\psi_{H}|^{2}_{H,\omega}+4\langle F_{D}^{+},\psi_{H}\wedge\psi_{H}\rangle_{H,\omega}+2\langle D_{H}^{*}D_{H}\psi_{H},\psi_{H}\rangle_{H,\omega}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Since $\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}D_{H}\psi_{H}=0$, by the K\"ahler identities, we have
\begin{equation}
D_{H}^{*}D_{H}\psi_{H}=\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}D_{H}^{c}D_{H}\psi_{H}.
\end{equation}
For simplicity, we denote the $(1,0)$-part of $\psi_H$ by $\theta$, then
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
D_{H}^{c}D_{H}\psi_{H}=&-[\theta^{*}\wedge\theta^{*},\theta]+[\theta\wedge\theta,\theta^{*}]+[F_{D}^{+},\theta^{*}]\\
&-[[\theta,\theta^{*}],\theta^{*}]-[F_{D}^{+},\theta]+[[\theta,\theta^{*}],\theta].
\end{split}
\end{equation}
A direct calculation shows that
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\langle \sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}D_{H}^{c}D_{H}\psi_{H},\psi_{H}\rangle_{H}=&|[\theta,\theta]|^{2}_{H,\omega}+|[\theta,\theta]|^{2}_{H,\omega}+\langle F^{+}_{D},[\theta,\theta^{*}]\rangle_{H,\omega}\\
&-|[\theta,\theta]|^{2}_{H,\omega}+\langle F^{+}_{D},[\theta,\theta^{*}]\rangle_{H,\omega}-|[\theta,\theta]|^{2}_{H,\omega}\\
=&2\langle F^{+}_{D},\psi_{H}\wedge\psi_{H}\rangle_{H,\omega}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Combining above inequalities, we have the following proposition.
\begin{prop}\label{p:c1} Let $(E,D)$ be a NHYM bundle over the compact K\"ahler manifold $(X,\omega)$. Given any Hermitian metirc $H$, we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\bigg(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}-\Delta\bigg)|\psi_{H}|^{2}_{H,\omega}=&-2|\nabla\psi_{H}|^{2}_{H,\omega}-2\langle \psi_{H}\circ Ric,\psi_{H}\rangle_{H,\omega}\\
&-2|\psi_{H,D}\wedge\psi_{H,D}|^{2}_{H,\omega}+8\langle F_{D}^{+},\psi_{H}\wedge\psi_{H}\rangle_{H,\omega}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{prop}\label{p:last}
Let $T\in(0,+\infty]$. Assume that there exists a constant $C_{1}>0$ such that
\begin{equation}
\sup_{X\times[0,T)}|\log(h)|_{K}<C_{1},
\end{equation}
then there exists a constant $C_{2}>0$ depending only on $C_{1}$ and the geometry of $(X,\omega)$ such that
\begin{equation}
\sup_{X\times[0,T)}|\psi_{H}|_{H,\omega}<C_{2}.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Computing directly, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\bigg(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}-\Delta\bigg)\mbox{tr}(h)=-|Dh\cdot h^{-1/2}|^{2}_{H,\omega}+\mbox{tr}(h\cdot\Phi(H_{0})).
\end{equation}
Since $|Dh\cdot h^{-1/2}|^{2}_{H,\omega}\geq \tilde{C}_{1}|\psi_{H}|_{H,\omega}^{2}-\tilde{C}_{2}$, we have
\begin{equation}
\bigg(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}-\Delta\bigg)\mbox{tr}(h)\leq -\tilde{C}_{1}|\psi_{H}|_{H,\omega}^{2}+\tilde{C}_{3}.
\end{equation}
By Proposition \ref{p:c1}, we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\bigg(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}-\Delta\bigg)|\psi_{H}|^{2}_{H,\omega}\leq &\tilde{C}_{4}|\psi_{H}|_{H,\omega}^{2}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Consider the following test function
\begin{equation}
f=A\cdot\mbox{tr}(h)+|\psi_{H}|^{2}_{H,\omega},
\end{equation}
where the constant $A$ is chosen large enough such that
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\bigg(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}-\Delta\bigg)f\leq &-\tilde{C}_{5}|\psi_{H}|_{H,\omega}^{2}+\tilde{C}_{6}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
All the constants $\tilde{C}_{i}$ depend only on $C_{1}$, $H_{0}$ and the geometry of $(X,\omega)$. Then using the maximum principle, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\sup_{X\times[0,T)}|\psi_{H}|_{H,\omega}<C_{2}.
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of theorem \ref{thm:m}}\label{sec:FP}
Let $H(t)$ be a solution of the equation (\ref{HFeq1}) with initial metric $K$. Without loss of generality, we can assume that the initial metric $K$ satisfies $\mbox{tr}(\Phi(K))=0$. As the same as it before, we set $h(t)=K^{-1}H(t)$ and $s(t)=\log(h(t))$.
First, we prove the following lemma which will be used in the proof of theorem \ref{thm:m}.
\begin{lem}\label{l:1}
Let $\pi\in L_{1}^{2}(X,\mbox{End}(E))$ be a projection map, and it satisfies
\begin{equation}
\pi^{2}=\pi^{*H}=\pi,\ \ (Id-\pi)D\pi=0\
\end{equation}
almost everywhere on $X$. Then $\pi\in C^{\infty}(X,\mbox{End}(E))$, and $\pi(E)$ defines a $D$-subbundle of $E$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By the conditions above, we have $d|\pi|^{2}_{H}=d\mbox{tr}(\pi^{2})=0$ in the sense of distribution. Therefore $|\pi|^{2}_{H} :=r_{1}\leq r$ almost everywhere, and $\pi\in L^{p}(X,\mbox{End}(E))$ for $0<p\leq+\infty$. The rest of the proof is exactly the same as Lemma \ref{l:0}.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{Prop:m}
Suppose that the NHYM bundle $(E,D)$ is simple, then there exists a constant $C>0$ independent of $t$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{PF1}
\|s(t)\|_{L^{\infty}}<C.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Following from Simpson's arguments as in \protect{\cite[Proposition 5.3]{S1}}, we will prove if the equality (\ref{PF1}) doesn't hold, there exists a $D$-invariant subbundle destabilizing the simplicity. By Proposition \ref{Prop:Ineq} and Proposition \ref{HFP1}, we have
\begin{equation*}
||s(t)||_{L^{\infty}}\leq C_1||s(t)||_{L^1}+C_2,
\end{equation*}
where $C_{1}, C_{2}$ are constants independent of $t$. So it is enough to show that $\|s(t)\|_{L^{1}}<C$.
If not, there exists a subsequence $t_i\to +\infty$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{PF2}
\lim_{t_{i}\rightarrow +\infty}\|s(t_{i})\|_{L^{1}}=+\infty.
\end{equation}
Set $u_i=l_{i}^{-1}s(t_i)$, where $l_i=||s(t_i)||_{L^1}$, then we have $||u_i||_{L^1}=1$. Moreover,
\begin{equation}
{\rm tr}u_{i}=0,\quad ||u_i||_{L^{\infty}}\leq C.
\end{equation}
By the definition of Donaldson's functional, we have
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{dt}M(K,H(t))=-16\int_{X}|\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_{H(t)}|^{2}_{H(t)}\frac{\omega^{n}}{n!},
\end{equation}
so $M(K,H(t))<0$ for $t>0$. Hence
\begin{equation}\label{PF3}
\int_X{\rm tr}\bigg(\big(-4\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_{K}\big)u_i\bigg)\frac{\omega^n}{n!}+l_i\int_{X}
\langle \Psi(l_iu_i)(Du_i),Du_i\rangle_K\frac{\omega^n}{n!}< 0.
\end{equation}
Consider the following function
\begin{equation}\label{PF4}
l\Psi(lx,ly)=\begin{cases}
\frac{e^{l(y-x)}-l(y-x)-1}{l(y-x)^{2}},&x\neq y,\\
l/2,&x=y.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
According to $||u_i||_{L^{\infty}}\leq C$, we may assume that $(x,y)\in [-C,C]\times [-C,C]$. Then we can easy check that
\begin{equation}\label{PF5}
l\Psi(lx,ly)\to\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{x-y},&x>y,\\
+\infty,&x\leq y,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
increases monotonically as $l\to \infty$. Let $\zeta:\mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}$ be a positive smooth function satisfy $\zeta(x,y)\leq \frac{1}{x-y}$ whenever $x>y$. Then from (\ref{PF3}),(\ref{PF5}) and the arguments in \protect{\cite[Lemma 5.4]{S1}}, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{PF6}
\int_X{\rm tr}\bigg(\big(-4\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_K\big)u_i\bigg)\frac{\omega^n}{n!}+\int_{X}\langle
\zeta(u_i)(Du_i),Du_i\rangle_K\frac{\omega^n}{n!}\leq 0,
\end{equation}
for $i\gg 0$. In particular, if we take $\zeta=\frac{1}{3C}$. It is obvious to check that $\frac{1}{3C}<\frac{1}{x-y}$ since $-C\leq x,y\leq C$ and $x>y$. This implies that
\begin{equation*}
\int_X{\rm tr}\bigg(\big(-4\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_K\big)u_i\bigg)\frac{\omega^n}{n!}+\frac{1}{3C}\int_{X}|Du_i|^2_K\frac{\omega^n}{n!}\leq 0,
\end{equation*}
for $i\gg 0$. Then we have
\begin{equation*}
\int_{X}|Du_i|_K^2\frac{\omega^n}{n!}<+\infty.
\end{equation*}
Thus, $u_i$ are bounded in $L_1^2$. Choose a subsequence $\{u_{ij}\}$ such that $u_{ij}\rightharpoonup u_{\infty}$ weakly in $L_1^2$, still denoted by $u_i$ for simplicity. Noting that $L_1^2\hookrightarrow L^1$ is compact, we get
\begin{equation*}
1=||u_i||_{L^1}\to ||u_{\infty}||_{L^1}.
\end{equation*}
This means that $||u_{\infty}||_{L^1}=1$ and $u_{\infty}$ is non-trivial. By using (\ref{PF6}) and following the same discussion as in \protect{\cite[Lemma 5.4]{S1}}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{PF7}
\int_X{\rm tr}\bigg(\big(-4\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_K\big)u_{\infty}\bigg)\frac{\omega^n}{n!}+\int_{X}\langle
\zeta(u_{\infty})(Du_{\infty}),Du_{\infty}\rangle_K\frac{\omega^n}{n!}\leq 0.
\end{equation}
By the same argument as in \cite{S1}, we can obtain the following lemma.
\begin{lem}
The eigenvalues of $u_{\infty}$ are constants almost everywhere.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
It is enough to show that for any $\varphi:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, $\mbox{tr}(\varphi(u_{\infty}))$ is a constant almost everywhere. First, we have
\begin{equation}
d\mbox{tr}(\varphi(u_{\infty}))=\mbox{tr}(D\varphi(u_{\infty}))=\mbox{tr}(d\varphi(u_{\infty})(Du_{\infty})).
\end{equation}
Suppose $N>0$ is a constant which is big enough. Choose $\Upsilon:\mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\Upsilon(x,x)=d\varphi(x,x)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
N\Upsilon^{2}(x,y)<\frac{1}{x-y}
\end{equation}
for $x>y$. Then
\begin{equation}
\mbox{tr}(d\varphi(u_{\infty})(Du_{\infty}))=\mbox{tr}(\Upsilon(u_{\infty})(Du_{\infty})).
\end{equation}
Let $\zeta=N\Upsilon^{2}$. By (\ref{PF7}), we get
\begin{equation}
\int_{X}|\Upsilon(u_{\infty})(Du_{\infty})|_{K}^{2}\frac{\omega^{n}}{n!}\leq \frac{4}{N}\int_{X}\mbox{tr}(\sqrt{-1}\Lambda_{\omega}G_{K}u_{\infty})\frac{\omega^{n}}{n!}.
\end{equation}
Combining above, we have
\begin{equation}
\|d\mbox{tr}(\varphi(u_{\infty}))\|_{L^{2}}^{2}\leq \frac{C}{N}.
\end{equation}
Let $N\rightarrow +\infty$, then we get $d\mbox{tr}(\varphi(u_{\infty}))=0$.
\end{proof}
Next, we want to construct a $D$-invariant subbundle which contradicts the simplicity of $(E,D)$ by using Lemma \ref{l:1} about $L^2_1$ bundle. Let $\lambda_1<\cdots<\lambda_l$ be the distinct eigenvalues of $u_{\infty}$. Since ${\rm tr}u_{\infty}=0$ and $||u||_{L^1}=1$, we must have $l\geq 2$. For each $1\leq \alpha \leq l-1$, we define a function $P_{\alpha}$ such that
\begin{equation*}
P_{\alpha}=\begin{cases}
1,&x\leq \lambda_{\alpha},\\
0,&x\geq \lambda_{\alpha+1}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Set $\pi_{\alpha}=P_{\alpha}(u_{\infty})$. Then from \protect{\cite[p.887]{UhYau}}, we have
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$(1)$] $\pi_{\alpha}\in L_1^2$;
\item[$(2)$] $\pi_{\alpha}^2=\pi_{\alpha}=\pi_{\alpha}^{*K}$;
\item[$(3)$] $({\rm Id}-\pi_{\alpha})D\pi_{\alpha}=0$.
\end{enumerate}
By Lemma \ref{l:1}, $\{\pi_{\alpha}\}_{\alpha=1}^{l-1}$ determine $l-1$ $D$-subbundles of $E$ denoted by $E_{\alpha}$. So we get a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:m}]
We have already showed that the existence of harmonic metrics implies semisimplicity. So we just need to show the converse is also true. It comes from Proposition \ref{Prop:m}, Proposition \ref{p:last} and the regularity theory of elliptic equation.
\end{proof}
\medskip
{\bf Acknowledgement:} The research was supported by the National Key R and D Program of China 2020YFA0713100.
The authors are partially supported by NSF in China No.12141104, 11801535 and 11721101.
\medskip
|
\section*{Notations}
Let $\mathbf{C}$ and $\mathbf{R}$ be the complex numbers and real numbers, respectively. Let $\mathbf{D}=\{z\in \mathbf{C}:|z|<1\}$ be the open unit disc in the complex plane. Fix an integer $N\ge 2$.
Let $\omega:=e^{\frac{2\pi i }{N}}$ denote a primitive root of unity of order $N$. Let $\mathbb{Z}_N:=\{0,1,\dots, N-1\}$ be the additive cyclic group of order $N$ and $\Omega_N:=\{ 1, \omega, \dots, \omega^{N-1}\}$ the multiplicative cyclic group of order $N$. We also need
$$
\widetilde{\Om}_N:= \text{conv} (\Omega_N),
$$
a regular polygon inscribed in the circle $\mathbf{T}$. We use $M_n(\mathbf{C})$ to denote the $n$-by-$n$ complex matrix algebra and $\textbf{1}$ the identity matrix. Denote by $\{e_j:1\le j\le N\}$ the standard basis of $\mathbf{C}^N$. We use $\langle \cdot,\cdot\rangle$ to denote the inner product on $\mathbf{C}^n$ that is linear in the second argument. For two vectors $\xi,\eta\in\mathbf{C}^n$, we use $\ketbra{\xi}{\eta}$ to denote the linear operator such that $\ketbra{\xi}{\eta} e_j=\braket{\eta,e_j}\cdot \ket{\xi}$.
\section{Introduction}
Let
$$
f(z) = \sum_\alpha c_\alpha z^\alpha=\sum_\alpha c_\alpha z^{\alpha_1}_1 \cdots z_n^{\alpha_n},
$$
where $\alpha=(\alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_n)$ are vectors of non-negative integers and the total degree of polynomial $f$ is $d=\max_\alpha (\alpha_1+\dots+\alpha_n)$. Here $z$ can be all complex vectors in $\mathbf{T}^n$ or all sequences of $\pm1$ in Boolean cube $\{-1,1\}^n$. Bohnenblust--Hille type of inequalities are the following
\begin{equation}
\label{BHcom}
\Big(\sum_\alpha |c_\alpha|^{\frac{2d}{d+1}}\Big)^{\frac{d+1}{2d}} \le C(d) \sup_{z}|f(z)|\,.
\end{equation}
The supremum is taken either over torus $\mathbf{T}^n$ or Boolean cube $\{-1,1\}^n$. In both cases this inequality is proven with constant $C(d)$ that is independent of the dimension $n$ and sub-exponential in the degree $d$. More precisely, denote by $\textnormal{BH}^{\le d}_{\mathbf{T}}$ and $\textnormal{BH}^{\le d}_{\{\pm 1\}}$ the best constants in the Bohnenblust--Hille inequalities \eqref{BHcom} for degree-$d$ polynomials on $\mathbf{T}^n$ and $\{-1,1\}^n$, respectively. Then both $\textnormal{BH}^{\le d}_{\mathbf{T}}$ and $ \textnormal{BH}^{\le d}_{\{\pm 1\}}$ are bounded from above by $e^{c\sqrt{d\log d}}$ for some universal $c>0$ \cite{BPS,DMP}.
One of the key features of this inequality \eqref{BHcom} is the dimension-freeness of $C(d)$. This, together with its sub-exponential growth phenomenon in $d$, plays an important role in resolving some open problems in functional analysis and harmonic analysis \cite{DGMS,BPS,DFOOS}. The optimal dependence of $\textnormal{BH}^{\le d}_{\mathbf{T}}$ and $ \textnormal{BH}^{\le d}_{\{\pm 1\}}$ on the degree $d$ remains open. Important questions in quantum computing would be resolved if one would improve the constant $C(d)$ to $d^C$, see \cite{AA}.
\bigskip
The Bohnenblust--Hille inequalities for the Boolean cubes $\{-1,1\}^n$ have found great applications in learning bounded low degree polynomials on Boolean cubes \cite{EI22}. Motivated by learning quantum observables, a quantum counterpart of the Bohnenblust--Hille inequality for Boolean cubes was recently conjectured in \cite{RWZ22}. In the quantum setting, functions on Boolean cubes $\{-1,1\}^n$ are replaced by $2^n$-by-$2^n$ matrices. More precisely, suppose $\sigma_0=\textbf{1}$ is the $2$-by-$2$ identity matrix and $\sigma_1,\sigma_2,\sigma_3$ are Pauli matrices:
\begin{equation*} \sigma_1=\begin{pmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{pmatrix},\quad \sigma_2=\begin{pmatrix}0&-i\\i&0\end{pmatrix},\quad \sigma_3=\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\textsuperscript{0}&-1\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation*}
The degree-$d$ polynomial Pauli observables are matrices $A\in M_2(\mathbf{C})^{\otimes n}$ of the form
\begin{equation*}
A=\sum_{\mathbf{s}\in\{0,1,2,3\}^n:|\mathbf{s}|\le d} \widehat{A}_\mathbf{s} \sigma_{\mathbf{s}_1}\otimes \cdots \otimes \sigma_{\mathbf{s}_n},
\end{equation*}
where $\widehat{A}_\mathbf{s}\in\mathbf{C}$ is the Fourier coefficient, and for $\mathbf{s}=(\mathbf{s}_1,\dots, \mathbf{s}_n)\in \{0,1,2,3\}^n$, $|\mathbf{s}|$ is the number of nonzero $\mathbf{s}_j$'s. Then the Bohnenblust--Hille inequality for Pauli observables reads: for all $n\ge 1$ and $A\in M_2(\mathbf{C})^{\otimes n}$ of degree-$d$
\begin{equation}\label{ineq:bh pauli}
\left(\sum_{\mathbf{s}:|\mathbf{s}|\le d}|\widehat{A}_\mathbf{s}|^{\frac{2d}{d+1}}\right)^{\frac{d+1}{2d}}
\le C(d)\|A\|.
\end{equation}
Here and in what follows, $\|A\|$ always denotes the operator norm of $A$. The inequality \eqref{ineq:bh pauli} was conjectured in \cite{RWZ22} and was resolved in \cite{HCP22} with $C(d)=d^{C d}$ for some universal $C>0$. A different proof was given in \cite{VZ22} with constant that is of exponential growth i.e. $C(d)= C^d$ for some universal $C>0$. Although it is still not clear if one may match the sub-exponential growth in the classical setting, the quantum Bohnenblust--Hille inequality \eqref{ineq:bh pauli} with dimension-free $C(d)<\infty$ already has a number of interesting applications. For example, it enables the learning of low degree Pauli observables using a logarithmic number of random queries \cite{VZ22} similar to the classical setting \cite{EI22}.
This in turn enables learning more general quantum dynamics \cite{HCP22}.
\medskip
However, in many contexts it is desirable to consider quantum observables decomposed in the product space $M_N(\mathbf{C})^{\otimes n}$ for $N > 2$, such as when studying observables of multilevel quantum systems (termed \emph{qudits}---though given our use of $N$ for local dimension, the term ``quNit'' might be more apt).
For example, when learning an unknown qudit observable, it can be physically important that sample states be drawn from the native dimension of the system, rather than some larger ambient Hilbert space.
Having these inequalities in new bases also greatly expands the distributions under which a PAC-learning theorem is available for arbitrary quantum processes.
Of particular interest to us are the \emph{Gell-Mann (GM) observables} and \emph{Heisenberg--Weyl (HW) observables}, both of which (essentially) reduce to Pauli observables when $N=2$. In this paper we prove noncommutative Bohnenblust--Hille inequalities in these two settings following the approach in \cite{VZ22}, where the proof of quantum Bohnenblust--Hille inequalities \eqref{ineq:bh pauli} is reduced to the classical Bohnenblust--Hille inequalities \eqref{BHcom} for Boolean cubes. It turns out that the GM case can again be reduced to the case for classical Boolean cubes $(\Omega_{2})^n=\{-1,1\}^{c(N)n}$, while the HW case (under certain conditions) can be reduced to the case for cyclic groups $(\Omega_{N})^{d(N)n}, N\ge 2$.
The Bohnenblust--Hille inequalities for cyclic groups $(\Omega_{N})^n, N\ge 3$ was not known before, however, so we also initiate its study here.
The constants $c(N), d(N)$ are specified below.
\begin{comment}
\medskip
\medskip
In the article we approach the non-commutative estimates
\begin{equation}
\label{BHNC}
\Big(\sum_\alpha |c_\alpha|^{\frac{2d}{d+1}}\Big)^{\frac{d+1}{2d}} \le C(d) \|A\|_{op}
\end{equation}
for not just Pauli, but also GM-observables $A$ of degree at most $d$, and also for HW-observables $A$ of degree at most $d$. In both cases we obtain $C(d) =C^d$ as in Pauli case \cite{VZ22}.
\medskip
\end{comment}
\subsection{Gell-Mann matrix basis}
\label{GMbasis}
Let $N\ge 1$ and put $E_{jk}=\ket{e_j}\!\!\bra{e_k}, 1\le j,k\le N$.
The generalized Gell-Mann Matrices are a basis of $M_N(\mathbf{C})$ and are comprised of the identity matrix $\textbf{1}$ along with:
\begin{align*}
\text{symmetric: }&& \mathbf{A}_{jk} &= {\textstyle\sqrt{\!\frac{N}{2}}}\big(E_{jk}+E_{kj}\big) & &\text{ for } 1\leq j<k\leq N\\[0.3em]
\text{antisymmetric: }&& \mathbf{B}_{jk} &= {\textstyle\sqrt{\!\frac{N}{2}}}\big(-iE_{jk}+iE_{kj}\big) & &\text{ for } 1\leq j < k\leq N\\
\text{diagonal: }&& \mathbf{C}_m\, &= \Gamma\!_{m}\left(\textstyle\sum_{k=1}^mE_{kk}-jE_{j+1,j+1}\right) & &\text{ for } 1\leq m \leq N-1,
\end{align*}
where $\Gamma\!_{m} :=\sqrt{\!\frac{N}{m^2+m}}$. We denote
$$
\textnormal{GM(N)}:= \{\textbf{1}, \mathbf{A}_{jk}, \mathbf{B}_{jk}, \mathbf{C}_m\}_{1\leq j<k\leq N, 1\leq m \leq N-1}\,.
$$
These are self-adjoint matrices and are orthonormal with respect to the inner product induced by the normalized trace $\frac1N\textnormal{tr}$. If $N=2$, they are exactly the Pauli matrices.
We refer the reader to \cite{BK} for more details.
Here $\sqrt{N}$ is a normalization factor that guarantees that those matrices are orthonormal with respect to the inner product
\begin{equation*}
\langle A,B\rangle:=\textnormal{tr}_N(A^\ast B).
\end{equation*}
where $\textnormal{tr}_N:=\frac{1}{N}\textnormal{tr}$ is the normalized trace.
\medskip
Now the GM observable will be an expression of the type
$$
\mathcal{A}:=\sum_\alpha \widehat{\mathcal{A}}_\alpha M_{\alpha_1}\otimes\dots\otimes M_{\alpha_n}, \qquad \alpha=(\alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_n),
$$
where each $M_{\alpha_i}$ is a matrix from $\textnormal{GM(N)}$. It is said to be \emph{of degree-$d$} if for each $\alpha$ only at most $d$ of $\{M_{\alpha_i}\}_{1\le i\le n}$ are {\it not} the identity matrix. Such aggregate $\mathcal{A}$ we call a \emph{GM observable of degree-$d$}. For the Fourier coefficients $\widehat{\mathcal{A}}=(\widehat{\mathcal{A}}_\alpha)_{\alpha}$, we write
\begin{equation*}
\|\widehat{\mathcal{A}}\|_{p}:=\left(\sum_{\alpha}|\widehat{\mathcal{A}}_\alpha|^p\right)^{1/p},\qquad 1\le p<\infty.
\end{equation*}
In this setup, our main result is a family of Bohnenblust--Hille inequalities for GM observables of degree-$d$:
\begin{thm}\label{thm:GM}
Fix any $N\ge 2$ and $d\ge 1$. There exists $C(d,N)>0$ such that for all $n\ge 1$ and GM observable $\mathcal{A}\in M_N(\mathbf{C})^{\otimes n}$ of degree-$d$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{ineq:bh GM}
\|\widehat{\mathcal{A}}\|_{\frac{2d}{d+1}}\le C(d,N)\|\mathcal{A}\|.
\end{equation}
Moreover, we have $C(d,N)\le \big(\tfrac32(N^2-N)\big)^d \textnormal{BH}^{\le d}_{\{\pm 1\}}$.
\end{thm}
Notice that when $N=2$ (the Pauli case of \cite{VZ22}) this upper bound of $C(d,N)$ becomes $3^d \textnormal{BH}^{\le d}_{\{\pm 1\}}$.
\medskip
The proof of this theorem follows similarly the approach in \cite{VZ22} and we can reduce the problem to the Bohnenblust--Hille inequalities \eqref{BHcom} for Boolean cubes $\{-1,1\}^{c(N)n}$. See Section \ref{sect:GM} for details.
\subsection{Heisenberg--Weyl matrix basis}
\label{HWbasis}
Fix $N\ge 2$. Recall that $\omega=e^{\frac{2\pi i}{N}}$ and $\{e_j:j\in \mathbb{Z}_N\}=\{e_j:1\le j\le N\}$ is the standard basis of $\mathbf{C}^N$. The ``shift" operator $X$ and ``phase" operator $Z$ are defined via
\begin{equation*}
X e_j= e_{j+1},\qquad Ze_j = \omega^j e_j,\qquad \textnormal{for all} \qquad j\in \mathbb{Z}_N.
\end{equation*}
Note that $X^N=Z^N=\textbf{1}$. See more in \cite{AEHK}. In the following, everything is $\!\!\mod\, N$.
Below we consider Heisenberg--Weyl collection of matrices of size $N\times N$:
$$
\textnormal{HW}(N):=\{X^\ell Z^m\}_{\ell,m\in \mathbb{Z}_N}\,.
$$
These are unitary matrices and form a basis of $M_N(\mathbf{C})$ (see Lemma \ref{lem:facts}). Moreover, they are orthonormal with respect to
the normalized trace $\textnormal{tr}_N$.
Fix $n\ge 1$. Any HW observable $A\in M_N(\mathbf{C})^{\otimes n}$ has a unique Fourier expansion with respect to $\textnormal{HW}(N)$:
\begin{equation*}
A=\sum_{\vec{\ell},\vec{m}\in \mathbb{Z}_N^n}\widehat{A}(\vec{\ell},\vec{m})X^{\ell_1}Z^{m_1}\otimes \cdots \otimes X^{\ell_n}Z^{m_n},
\end{equation*}
where $\widehat{A}(\vec{\ell},\vec{m})\in\mathbf{C}$ is the Fourier coefficient at $(\vec{\ell},\vec{m})$.
We say that $A$ is \emph{of degree-$d$} if $\widehat{A}(\vec{\ell},\vec{m})=0$ whenever
\begin{equation*}
|(\vec{\ell},\vec{m})|:=\sum_{j=1}^{n}(\ell_j+m_j)>d.
\end{equation*}
Here, $0\le \ell_j,m_j\le N-1$ and we do not $\!\!\mod N$ freely.
We denote by $\widehat{A}$ the sequence of Fourier coefficients of $A$, and write
\begin{equation*}
\|\widehat{A}\|_p:=\left(\sum_{\vec{\ell},\vec{m}\in \mathbb{Z}_N^n}|\widehat{A}(\vec{\ell},\vec{m})|^p\right)^{1/p},\qquad 1\le p<\infty.
\end{equation*}
Now we are ready to state the Bohnenblust--Hille inequalities for the Heisenberg--Weyl basis. However, due to some technical difficulties, we are not able to prove it in full generality. Moreover, different from the Gell-Mann basis setting, we shall see that the problem for the Heisenberg--Weyl basis will be reduced to the Bohnenblust--Hille inequalities for the cyclic groups $(\Omega_{N})^n$, instead of the Boolean cubes $(\Omega_{2})^n=\{-1,1\}^n$. One may already see the connection to $\Omega_{N}$ (instead of $\Omega_2$) by considering $X^\ell, \ell\in \mathbb{Z}_N$ only. However, the Bohnenblust--Hille inequalities for the cyclic groups $(\Omega_{N})^n$ were not known before. Recall that in the classical setting, Bohnenblust--Hille inequalities have been known for groups $(\Omega_{2})^n=\{-1,1\}^n$ and $(\Omega_{\infty})^n=\mathbf{T}^n$, and their analogs for cyclic groups $(\Omega_{N})^n, N \ge 3$ can be understood as the results in between.
Our main result in this part consists of a partial solution to the Bohnenblust--Hille inequalities for the cyclic groups $(\Omega_{N})^n$, and a family of quantum analogs for the Heisenberg--Weyl basis. For this, recall that any polynomial $f:(\Omega_N)^n \to \mathbf{C}$ has the Fourier expansion:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fourier expansion cyclic group of order N}
f(z)=\sum_{\alpha}\widehat{f}(\alpha)z_{1}^{\alpha_1}\cdots z_{n}^{\alpha_n},\qquad z=(z_1,\dots, z_n)\in(\Omega_N)^n,
\end{equation}
where $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_n)\in \mathbb{Z}_N^n$. It is said to be \emph{of degree-$d$} if $\widehat{f}(\alpha)=0$ whenever $|\alpha|:=\sum_{j=1}^{n}\alpha_j>d$. As usual, we denote by $\|\widehat{f}\|_p$ the $\ell^p$-norm of the Fourier coefficients $\widehat{f}(\alpha)$.
It turns out that the Bohnenblust--Hille inequalities for the cyclic groups $(\Omega_{N})^n, N\ge 3$ are far from being trivial. Mimicking the classical proof for $\{-1,1\}^n$ and $\mathbf{T}^n$, one may arrive the following:
\begin{thm}\label{thm: bh convex hull}
Fix $N\ge 2$ and $d\ge 1$. There exists $C(d)>0$ such that for any polynomial $f$ on $(\Omega_N)^n$ of degree-$d$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{ineq:bh convex hull}
\|\widehat{f}\|_{\frac{2d}{d+1}}\le C(d)\sup_{z\in (\widetilde{\Om}_N)^n}|f(z)|,
\end{equation}
where $f$ on the right hand side is the extension of $f$ on $(\widetilde{\Omega}_N)^n$ via the same formula \eqref{eq:fourier expansion cyclic group of order N}. Moreover, $C(d)\le e^{c\sqrt{d\log d}}$ for some universal $c>0$.
\end{thm}
The sketch proof of Theorem \ref{thm: bh convex hull} will be presented in Section \ref{sect:difficulty}. The full proof will be the goal of our subsequent article.
Recall that $\widetilde{\Om}_N$ is the convex hull of $\Omega_{N}$. On the right hand side of \eqref{ineq:bh convex hull}, the sup over $(\widetilde{\Om}_N)^n$ can be replaced by $(\Omega_{N})^n$ when $N=2$ (since $f$ in this case is always multi-affine, and therefore convex in each variable) or $N=\infty$ i.e. $\Omega_N=\mathbf{T}$ (by the maximum modulus principle). For general $N \ge 3$, it is not obvious. This brings forward an interesting complex analysis question for commutative \eqref{BHcom} on $(\Omega_N)^n$.
This is one new difficulty which will be discussed in Section \ref{sect:partial}. We have a partial solution that is the following theorem. We need to restrict to the polynomials for which each variable has degree at most $\frac{N-1}{2}$. For notational convenience, we consider odd $N$ only, say replace $N$ with $2N-1$.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:bh cyclic groups}
Let $N\ge 2$. Suppose that
$$f(z):=\sum_\alpha a_\alpha z^\alpha,\qquad z=(z_1, \dots, z_n)\in \mathbf{C}^n$$
is any analytic polynomial of $n$ complex variables of degree at most $d$
and such that in each variable $z_i$ its degree is at most $N-1$.
Then
$$
\Big( \sum_{\alpha} |a_\alpha|^{\frac{2d}{d+1}}\Big)^{\frac{d+1}{2d}} \le C'(d,N) \sup_{z \in (\Omega_{2N-1})^n} |f(z)|\,,
$$
where $C'(d)\le c_N^{d}C(d)$ with some constant $c_N>0$ and $C(d)$ given in \eqref{ineq:bh convex hull}.
\end{thm}
Let us have Fourier expansion of a matrix $A$
\begin{equation}
\label{expHW}
A=\sum_{\vec{\ell},\vec{m}\in \mathbb{Z}_N^n}\widehat{A}(\vec{\ell},\vec{m})X^{\ell_1}Z^{m_1}\otimes \cdots \otimes X^{\ell_n}Z^{m_n}\,.
\end{equation}
Our main result for the Heisenberg--Weyl basis is the following quantum analog of Bohnenblust--Hille inequality:
\begin{thm}\label{thm:bh HW}
Fix a prime number $N\ge 2$ and suppose $d\ge 1$. If the Bohnenblust--Hille inequality holds for degree-$d$ polynomials on cyclic groups
$(\Omega_N)^n,n\ge 1$ with the best constant $\textnormal{BH}_{\Omega_N}^{\le d}<\infty$ independent of $n$, then the Bohnenblust--Hille inequalities hold for the Heisenberg--Weyl basis:
for any $n\ge 1$ and any $A\in M_N(\mathbf{C})^{\otimes n}$ of degree-$d$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\|\widehat{A}\|_{\frac{2d}{d+1}}\le C(d,N)\|A\|,
\end{equation*}
with $C(d,N)\le (N+1)^d \textnormal{BH}_{\Omega_N}^{\le d}$.
In particular, if in the Fourier expansion \eqref{expHW} either all $\ell_i \le \frac{N-1}{2}$ or all $m_i \le \frac{N-1}{2}$, then
$\|\widehat{A}\|_{\frac{2d}{d+1}}\le C(d,N)\|A\|$ with the constant $C(d,N)\le (N+1)^d \textnormal{BH}_{\Omega_N}^{\le d}$.
\end{thm}
As the statement suggests, we actually reduce the problem to the Bohnenblust--Hille inequality for cyclic groups $(\Omega_N)^{d(N)n}$. In this reduction step, we need $N$ to be prime. The proof is contained in Section \ref{sect:HW}. Combined with Theorems \ref{thm:bh cyclic groups} and \ref{thm:bh HW}, we obtain partial solution to the Bohnenblust--Hille inequality for the Heisenberg--Weyl basis. Notice that the restrictions on powers $\ell_i$ or $m_i$ represent a sort of generalization of multi-affinity in each variable,
which was important for $N=2$ case. For $N=3$ this is still a multi-affinity assumption, but for $N=5, 7,\dots$ it is an assumption that is considerably weaker than multi-affinity.
\begin{comment}
For us ``observable" will be an expression of the type
$$
A:=\sum_\alpha \widehat{A}_{\alpha}M_\alpha, \,\, \alpha=(\alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_n),
$$
where $\widehat{A}_\alpha\in\mathbf{C}$,
$$
M_\alpha:= M_{\alpha_1}\otimes\dots\otimes M_{\alpha_n},
$$
and each $M_{\alpha_i}$ is a matrix from $\textnormal{HW}(N)$, moreover, for each $\alpha$ only at most $d$ of $\alpha_i$ are {\it not} identity matrix. Such aggregate $O$ we call HW-observable of degree at most $d$.
Here
$$
N\le d <<n,
$$
and all our estimates below must be independent of $n$ (but dependent of $d$).
\end{comment}
\section{Applications}
\label{appl}
In this section, we present some applications of quantum Bohnenblust--Hille inequalities for GM observables. For $A\in M_n(\mathbf{C})$ we use $\|A\|_2$ to denote the Schatten-2 norm of $A$ with respect to the normalized trace $\frac{1}{n}\textnormal{tr}$.
\subsection{Quantum $k$-juntas for qudits}
\label{quantum-junta}
Recall that a function $f:\{-1,1\}^n\to \mathbf{C}$ is called a {\em $k$-junta} if it depends on at most $k$ coordinates. Similarly, a self-adjoint operator $A\in M_{N}(\mathbf{C})^{\otimes n}$ is a {\em quantum $k$-junta} if it acts non-trivially on at most $k$ qudits. It is known that \cite{Bou02,DFKO07} if a bounded function $f$ over $\{-1,1\}^n$ is of low degree, then it is close to some juntas. In the next corollary we derive such a result in a quantum setting. We refer to \cite{RWZ22} to another quantum junta type theorem related to the influences instead of the degree.
\begin{thm}\label{cor:junta}
Fix $N \ge 2$ and $d\ge 1$. For any $n\ge 1$, suppose that $\mathcal{A}\in M_N(\mathbf{C})^{\otimes n}$ is a self-adjoint GM observable of degree-$d$ and $\|\mathcal{A}\|\le 1$. Then for any $\epsilon>0$, there exists a quantum $k$-junta $\mathcal{B}\in M_N(\mathbf{C})^{\otimes n}$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\|\mathcal{A}-\mathcal{B}\|_2\le \epsilon \qquad {\rm with }\qquad k\le \frac{d\left(\textnormal{BH}^{\le d}_{M_N(\mathbf{C})}\right)^{2d}}{\epsilon^{2d}},
\end{equation*}
where $\textnormal{BH}^{\le d}_{M_N(\mathbf{C})}$ denotes the best constant in Bohnenblust--Hille inequalities for GM observables \eqref{ineq:bh GM}. In particular, we may choose $k\le d(\frac{C_N}{\epsilon})^{2d}$ for some $C_N>0$ depending only on $N$.
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
The results in \cite{Bou02,DFKO07} are in commutative setting, in this setting they are more general. However, in the case when polynomials are of low degree, the proof that uses Bohnenblust--Hille inequalities is simpler. We are grateful to Alexandros Eskenazis for pointing this out to us.
\end{rem}
\begin{comment}
The latter result for HW-observables brings forward an interesting complex analysis question for commutative \eqref{BHcom} on $(\Omega_N)^n$, where $\Omega_N$ is the cyclic group of $N$-th root of unity. We restrict the collection of polynomials as follows: we consider polynomials $f$ of degree at most $N-1$ in each variable $z_i$ (see details below) and of global degree at most $d$ (reminding: $N<<d<<n$), and we wish to get ``a cyclic group analog of \eqref{BHcom}, namely, for such $f$ as we just described
\begin{equation}
\label{BHcyclic}
\Big(\sum_\alpha |c_\alpha|^{\frac{2d}{d+1}}\Big)^{\frac{d+1}{2d}} \le C(d) \sup_{z\in (\Omega_N)^n}|f(z)|\,.
\end{equation}
\medskip
For the convenience of the reader we repeat that for $N=2$ this is Boolean cube Bohnenblust--Hille inequality proved in \cite{DMP}, \cite{DGMS}. This result deals with multi-linear polynomials, that is with polynomials of local degree $1$ (local means in each variable separately). For $N=\infty$, that is for $\Omega_\infty=\mathbf{T}$, the corresponding result was proved in \cite{BPS}. For both cases the constant $C(d)$ was found to be sub-exponential. For $2<N<\infty$ we will manage to prove \eqref{BHcyclic} with exponential $C(d)=C^d$. Moreover, there will be some restrictions on local degrees of $f$, but not on the global degree. This concerns a question which is purely commutative and looks very classical.
\end{comment}
\subsection{Learning quantum observables of low degrees}
\label{sect:learning}
Suppose we need to learn an observable $\mathcal{A}$ over $n$ qudits, \emph{i.e.} $\mathcal{A}\in M_N(\mathbf{C})^{\otimes n}$, and suppose we \emph{a priori} know that it is a polynomial of degree-$d$ in the Gell-Mann basis
with
\begin{equation}
\label{bdd}
\|\mathcal{A}\| \le 1.
\end{equation}
To learn it we can randomly choose a state (somehow), sampling it by the same law. After that we wish to be able to build another (random) observable $\widetilde \mathcal{A}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eps}
\|\widetilde \mathcal{A} -\mathcal{A}\|_2^2\le \varepsilon
\end{equation}
with probability at least $1-\delta$.
The question is how many random samples $K=K(\varepsilon, \delta, N, d, n)$ we need to accomplish this?
In the scalar case this was solved in \cite{EI22} with
$$
K\le \frac{C(d)}{\varepsilon^{d+1}}\log \Big(\frac{n}{\delta}\Big) ,
$$
where $C(d)$ depends on the Bohnenblust--Hille constant $\textnormal{BH}^{\le d}_{\{\pm 1\}}$ for degree-$d$ polynomials on Boolean cubes $\{-1,1\}^n$.
In \cite{VZ22} we explained one such algorithm for matrices in Pauli basis. The algorithm for the Gell-Mann basis is almost the same and we will publish it separately. The fact that $\mathcal{A}$ is of degree-$d$ might be not so important as remarked in the discussion before \cite[Theorem 4]{CHP}: with respect to certain measures, the contribution of Gell-Mann monomials is exponentially decaying in the number of qudits that the monomials act nontrivially on.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:learning}
Suppose that $\mathcal{A}\in M_N(\mathbf{C})^{\otimes n}$ is of degree-$d$ in the Gell-Mann basis and satisfies \eqref{bdd}. Fix $\delta,\epsilon\in (0,1)$ and
\begin{equation*}
K\ge \frac{C^{d^2}\left(\textnormal{BH}^{\le d}_{\{\pm 1\}}\right)^{2d}}{\epsilon^{d+1}}\log\left(\frac{n}{\delta}\right),
\end{equation*}
with $C>0$ large enough. Then given any $K$ i.i.d. random variables $\vec{x}(m)$ uniformly distributed on $\{-1,1\}^{(N^2-1)n}$, as well as the queries of pairs $\left(\vec{x}(m), \textnormal{tr}[\mathcal{A}\rho(\vec{x}(m))]\right)$, we can construct a random polynomial $\widetilde{\mathcal{A}}\in M_N(\mathbf{C})^{\otimes n}$ such that
$\|\mathcal{A}-\widetilde{\mathcal{A}}\|_2^2\le \epsilon$ with probability at least $1-\delta$. Here for each $\vec{x}\in \{-1,1\}^{(N^2-1)n}$, $\rho(\vec{x})$ is an explicit positive semi-definite matrix with trace $1$, independent of $\mathcal{A}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
The algorithm that builds $\widetilde \mathcal{A}$ deserves the name PAC, probably approximately correct construction.
\end{rem}
\section{Main results for the Gell-Mann matrix basis}
\label{sect:GM}
\begin{comment}
We now return to the setting of the Gell-Mann basis, GM(N), where we consider operators $\mathcal{A}$ decomposed as
\[\mathcal{A} :=\sum_\alpha c_\alpha\mathcal{M}_\alpha\]
for monomials $\mathcal{M}_\alpha = M_{\alpha_1}\otimes M_{\alpha_2}\otimes\cdots\otimes M_{\alpha_n}$ with $M_{\alpha_j}$'s drawn from GM(N).
We wish to learn $\mathcal{A}$ in a minimal number of trials and for this we wish to prove a noncommutative Bohnenblust--Hille inequality with constant independent of $n$:
\begin{equation}
\label{BHGM}
\Big(\sum_\alpha |c_\alpha|^{\frac{2d}{d+1}}\Big)^{\frac{d+1}{2d}} \le C(d) \|\mathcal{A}\|\,.
\end{equation}
To do that we are going to reduce \eqref{BHGM} to a known commutative Bohnenblust--Hille inequality.
\bigskip
\end{comment}
In this section we prove Theorem \ref{thm:GM}. To reach this goal we consider the Boolean cube
$$H_N:=\{-1, 1\}^{N \choose 2}\times \{-1, 1\}^{N \choose 2}\times \{-1, 1\}^{N-1},$$
for each $N\ge 2$, and we will be reducing \eqref{ineq:bh GM} to commutative Bohnenblust--Hille inequality on $H_N^n= \{-1, 1\}^{n (N^2-1)}$. Notice that in \cite{VZ22} we already did this for $N=2$, and the reduction was to $ \{-1, 1\}^{3n}$.
\medskip
For $b\in\{-1,1\}$ and $1\le j<k\le N$ consider unit vectors,
$$
\alpha_{jk}^{(b)} = (e_j+be_k)/\sqrt{2}, \qquad \beta_{jk}^{(b)}=(e_j+b i e_k)/\sqrt{2}.
$$
These are $b\sqrt{\!\frac{N}{2}}$-valued eigenvectors of $\mathbf{A}_{jk}, \mathbf{B}_{jk}$ correspondingly.
Now consider density matrices, again for $b\in\{-1,1\}$ and $1\le j<k\le N$
$$
A_{jk}^{(b)}= \ketbra{\alpha_{jk}^{(b)}}{\alpha_{jk}^{(b)}} ,\qquad B_{jk}^{(b)}= \ketbra{\beta_{jk}^{(b)}}{\beta_{jk}^{(b)}}.
$$
Fix any point
\begin{equation*}
(x,y,z)\in H_N=\{-1, 1\}^{N \choose 2}\times \{-1, 1\}^{N \choose 2}\times \{-1, 1\}^{N-1}
\end{equation*}
with
\begin{equation*}
x=(x_{jk})_{1\le j<k\le N}\in \{-1, 1\}^{N \choose 2}, \qquad y=(y_{jk})_{1\le j<k\le N}\in \{-1, 1\}^{N \choose 2},
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
z=(z_m)_{1\le m\le N-1}\in \{-1, 1\}^{N-1},
\end{equation*}
we define
$$
\rho(x, y, z) =\sum_{1\le j<k\le N} A_{jk}^{(x_{jk})} + \sum_{1\le j<k\le N} B_{jk}^{(y_{jk})} + \sum_{m=1}^{N-1} z_m \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2N}}\mathbf{C}_m+ \tfrac{N-1}{2}\cdot \textbf{1}\,.
$$
Observe $\rho$ is a positive semi-definite Hermitian matrix: each $A_{jk}^{(x_{jk})},B_{jk}^{(y_{jk})}$ are positive semi-definite Hermitian and the remaining summands form a diagonal matrix with positive entries.
Also we have
\begin{equation}
\label{trace-rho}
\textnormal{tr} \,\rho = \frac{N(N-1)}{2}+\frac{N(N-1)}{2}+0+\frac{N(N-1)}{2}=3\binom{N}{2}\,.
\end{equation}
\begin{lem}
\label{action}
For any $(x,y,z)\in H_N$, $1\le j<k\le N$ and $1\le m \le N-1$ we have
\begin{equation}
\label{action-xs}
\textnormal{tr} (\mathbf{A}_{jk} \rho(x, y, z)) = {\textstyle\sqrt{\!\frac{N}{2}}}x_{jk}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{action-ys}
\textnormal{tr} (\mathbf{B}_{jk} \rho(x, y, z)) = {\textstyle\sqrt{\!\frac{N}{2}}}y_{jk}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{action-zs}
\textnormal{tr} (\mathbf{C}_{m} \rho(x, y, z)) = {\textstyle\sqrt{\!\frac{N}{2}}}z_{m}
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Note for any $1\leq j<k\leq N$ the anti-commutative relationship
$$
\mathbf{A}_{jk} \mathbf{B}_{jk} + \mathbf{B}_{jk}\mathbf{A}_{jk}=0\,.
$$
This implies that (see for example \cite[Lemma 2.1]{VZ22}) for any $b\in\{-1,1\}$,
\begin{equation*}
\braket{\mathbf{A}_{jk} \beta_{jk}^{(b)},\beta_{jk}^{(b)}}=0\qquad
\textnormal{and}\qquad
\braket{\mathbf{B}_{jk} \alpha_{jk}^{(b)},\alpha_{jk}^{(b)}}=0.
\end{equation*}
This means
\begin{equation*}
\textnormal{tr}(\mathbf{A}_{jk} B_{jk}^{(b)})=0 \qquad
\textnormal{and}\qquad
\textnormal{tr}(\mathbf{B}_{jk} A_{jk}^{(b)})=0\,.
\end{equation*}
Next relationships are rather easy: when $(j, k)\neq (j', k')$ then the operators ``miss'' each other and we get for all $b\in\{-1,1\}$
\begin{equation*}
\textnormal{tr}(\mathbf{A}_{jk} B_{j'k'}^{(b)})=\textnormal{tr}(\mathbf{B}_{jk} A_{j'k'}^{(b)})=\textnormal{tr}(\mathbf{A}_{jk} A_{j'k'}^{(b)})=\textnormal{tr}(\mathbf{B}_{jk} B_{j'k'}^{(b)})=0.
\end{equation*}
\begin{comment}
\begin{align*}
&\textnormal{tr}(\mathbf{A}_{jk} B_{j'k'}^{(b)})=0,\, (j, k)\neq (j', k')
\\
&\textnormal{tr}(\mathbf{B}_{jk} A_{j'k'}^{(b)})=0,\, (j, k)\neq (j', k')
\\
&\textnormal{tr}(\mathbf{A}_{jk} A_{j'k'}^{(b)})=0,\, (j, k)\neq (j', k')
\\
&\textnormal{tr}(\mathbf{B}_{jk} B_{j'k'}^{(b)})=0,\, (j, k)\neq (j', k')\,.
\end{align*}
\end{comment}
By orthogonality the remaining summands in $\rho$ contribute $0$ to $\textnormal{tr}(\mathbf{A}_{jk}\rho),\textnormal{tr}(\mathbf{B}_{jk}\rho)$.
We conclude \eqref{action-xs} and \eqref{action-ys} hold.
So far all follows more or less the path of \cite{VZ22}. A bit more surprising are the cancellations giving \eqref{action-zs}. For any $x=(x_{jk})_{1\le j<k\le N}\in\{-1,1\}^{\binom{n}{2}}$,
\begin{equation}
\label{CjA}
\textnormal{tr} \bigg(\mathbf{C}_m \Big(\sum_{1\le j<k\le N} A_{jk}^{(x_{jk})}\Big)\Bigg)=0\,.
\end{equation}
Similarly, for any $y=(y_{jk})_{1\le j<k\le N}\in\{-1,1\}^{\binom{n}{2}}$,
\begin{equation}
\label{CjB}
\textnormal{tr} \bigg(\mathbf{C}_m \Big(\sum_{1\le j<k\le N} B_{jk}^{(y_{jk})}\Big)\bigg)=0\,.
\end{equation}
Let us prove \eqref{CjA} with Figure \ref{fig:C-cancel-matrix} for reference.
For a fixed $k>m+1$ we can immediately see that $\sum_{j=1}^{m+1} \textnormal{tr} (\mathbf{C}_m A^{(x_{jk})}_{j k}) = \frac12\Gamma\!_m(1+1+\dots+1 -(m+1))=0$.
We are left to consider the $j<k\le m$ summation and the $j\le m, k=m+1$ summation.
The first one gives ${m \choose 2}\Gamma\!_m$, while the second one gives $\frac12 m\Gamma\!_m -\frac12 m^2 \Gamma\!_m$. Altogether,
$$
{m \choose 2}\Gamma\!_m +\frac12 m\Gamma\!_m -\frac12 m^2 \Gamma\!_m=0\,.
$$
Now, the rest of $\rho(x, y, z)$ is $\sum_{m=1}^{N-1} z_m \frac{1}{\sqrt{2N}}\mathbf{C}_m + \frac{N-1}{2}\textbf{1}$, a sum of orthogonal matrices.
Hence \eqref{action-zs} follows from \eqref{CjA}, \eqref{CjB}, and this orthogonality.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\[
\begin{tikzpicture}[decoration={brace,amplitude=5pt},baseline=(current bounding box.west)]
\matrix (m) [
matrix of math nodes,
nodes in empty cells,
nodes={minimum size=6.5mm, anchor=center},
left delimiter=(,right delimiter=)
] {
1 & & & & & & & \\
& 1 & & & & & & \\
& & \rotatebox[origin=c]{-45}{$\cdots$} & & & & & \\
& & & 1 & & & & \\
& & & & \!\!\!\shortminus m\!\! & & & \\
& & & & & 0 & & 0\\
& & & & & & \rotatebox[origin=c]{-45}{$\cdots$} &\\
& & & & & & & 0\\
};
\draw[decorate] (m-4-4.south west) -- (m-1-1.south west) node[below=5pt,midway,sloped] {\footnotesize $m$-many};
\draw (m-1-1.north east) -- (m-1-1.south east) -- (m-2-2.north east) -- (m-2-2.south east) -- (m-3-3.north);
\draw (m-3-3.east) -- (m-3-3.south east) -- (m-4-4.north east) -- (m-4-4.south east) -- (m-5-5.north east) -- (m-5-5.south east) -- (m-6-6.north east) -- (m-6-6.south east) -- (m-7-7.north);
\draw (m-7-7.east) -- (m-7-7.south east) -- (m-8-8.north east)--(m-1-8.north east) -- (m-1-1.north east);
\draw (m-4-4.north east) -- (m-1-4.north east);
\draw (m-5-5.north east) -- (m-1-5.north east);
\draw (m-5-5.north east) -- (m-5-8.north east);
\draw (m-6-6.north east) -- (m-6-8.north east);
\node[fit=(m-2-3)(m-2-4)]{$\Gamma\!_m$};
\node[fit=(m-1-6)(m-4-8), text height = 4em]{$\frac12\Gamma\!_m$};
\node[fit=(m-5-6)(m-5-8), text height = 1.em]{$-\frac12\Gamma\!_m$};
\draw (m-3-5.north) + (60:2.1) node(B){$\frac{1-m}{2}\Gamma\!_m$};
\path [out=90,in=195] (m-2-5.north) edge (B);
\end{tikzpicture}
\]
\caption{Collating $\textnormal{tr}[\mathbf{C}_mA_{jk}^{(b)}]$'s and $\textnormal{tr}[\mathbf{C}_mB_{jk}^{(b)}]$'s.
In the upper triangle, a value $v$ in coordinate $(j,k)$ means $\textnormal{tr}[\mathbf{C}_mA_{jk}^{(b)}]=\textnormal{tr}[\mathbf{C}_mB_{jk}^{(b)}]=v$ for any $b$.
For reference, the (unnormalized) definition of $\mathbf{C}_m$ is recorded on the diagonal.}
\label{fig:C-cancel-matrix}
\end{figure}
\end{proof}
Now we are ready to prove Theorem \ref{thm:GM}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:GM}]
Let us normalize $\rho$ as $r(x, y, z) :=\frac13\binom{N}{2}^{-1} \rho (x, y, z)$, so
\begin{equation}
\label{bound}
\textnormal{tr} \big(r(x, y, z)\big) =1\,.
\end{equation}
Now choosing any $(\vec x, \vec y, \vec z) \in H_N^n$ with
\begin{equation*}
\vec x=\left(x^{(1)},\dots, x^{(n)}\right), \qquad
\vec y=\left(y^{(1)},\dots, y^{(n)}\right), \qquad
\vec z=\left(z^{(1)},\dots, z^{(n)}\right),
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\left(x^{(j)},y^{(j)},z^{(j)}\right)\in H_N, \qquad 1\le j\le n
\end{equation*}
we can consider
$$
r(\vec x, \vec y, \vec z) = r\left(x^{(1)}, y^{(1)}, z^{(1)}\right) \otimes r\left(x^{(2)}, y^{(2)}, z^{(2)}\right) \otimes\dots \otimes r\left(x^{(n)}, y^{(n)}, z^{(n)}\right)\,.
$$
Recall that any GM observable $\mathcal{A}$ of degree at most $d$ has the unique expansion
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{A}=\sum_{\alpha=(\alpha_1,\dots, \alpha_n)\in \Lambda_N^n}\widehat{\mathcal{A}}_\alpha M_{\alpha_1}\otimes \cdots \otimes M_{\alpha_n}
\end{equation*}
where $\{M_\alpha \}_{\alpha\in \Lambda_N}=\textnormal{GM(N)}$ and $\widehat{\mathcal{A}}_\alpha=0$ if more than $d$ matrices of $M_{\alpha_j}, 1\le j\le n$ are not identity matrices.
By Lemma \ref{action}, for any $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\dots, \alpha_n)\in \Lambda_N^n$ with $|\{\alpha_j: M_{\alpha_j}\neq \textbf{1}\}|:=\kappa\le d$,
\begin{equation*}
(\vec x,\vec y,\vec z)\mapsto \textnormal{tr} \left(M_{\alpha_1}\otimes \cdots \otimes M_{\alpha_n} r(\vec x, \vec y, \vec z)\right)
\end{equation*}
is a multi-affine monomial of degree-$\kappa$ on the Boolean cube $H_N^n = \{-1, 1\}^{n(N^2-1)} $ with coefficient
$$
\left(\frac{\sqrt{N/2}}{3\binom{N}{2}}\right)^\kappa.$$
Note also that for different $\alpha\neq \alpha'\in \Lambda_N^n$, the resulting monomials on $H_N^n$ are different.
Since the coefficients of this scalar polynomial are of the form
$$
\left(\frac{\sqrt{N/2}}{3\binom{N}{2}}\right)^\kappa \widehat{\mathcal{A}}_\alpha,\qquad 0\le \kappa \le d\,.
$$
Therefore the absolute values of those coefficients are at least
$$
\frac{1}{\big(\frac32(N^2-N)\big)^d} |\widehat{\mathcal{A}}_\alpha|\,,
$$
so that by commutative Bohnenblust--Hille inequality on Boolean cube as in \cite{DMP}
\begin{equation*}
\Big(\sum_\alpha |\widehat{\mathcal{A}}_\alpha|^{\frac{2d}{d+1}}\Big)^{\frac{d+1}{2d}} \le \big(\tfrac32(N^2-N)\big)^d \textnormal{BH}^{\le d}_{\{\pm 1\}}\sup_{(\vec x,\vec y,\vec z)\in H_N^n}|\textnormal{tr}(\mathcal{A}\cdot r(\vec x, \vec y, \vec z)|\, ,
\end{equation*}
On the other hand,
by \eqref{bound}
$$
|\textnormal{tr}(\mathcal{A}\cdot r(\vec x, \vec y, \vec z)|\le \|\mathcal{A}\|\,.
$$
All combined, we get
\begin{equation*}
\Big(\sum_\alpha |\widehat{\mathcal{A}}_\alpha|^{\frac{2d}{d+1}}\Big)^{\frac{d+1}{2d}} \le \big(\tfrac32(N^2-N)\big)^d C^{\sqrt{d\log d}} \|\mathcal{A}\|\,.
\qedhere
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\section{Main results for Heisenberg--Weyl matrix basis}\label{sect:HW}
We collect first a few facts about $X$ and $Z$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:facts}
We have the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\{X^\ell Z^m: \ell, m\in \mathbb{Z}_N\}$ form a basis of $M_N(\mathbf{C})$.
\item For all $k,\ell,m\in \mathbb{Z}_N$:
\begin{equation*}
(X^\ell Z^m)^k=\omega^{\frac{1}{2}k(k-1)\ell m}X^{k\ell} Z^{km}
\end{equation*}
and for all $\ell_1,\ell_2,m_1,m_2\in\mathbb{Z}_N$:
\begin{equation*}
X^{\ell_1}Z^{m_1} X^{\ell_2}Z^{m_2}=\omega^{\ell_2 m_1-\ell_1 m_2}X^{\ell_2}Z^{m_2}X^{\ell_1}Z^{m_1}.
\end{equation*}
\item If $N$ is prime, then for any $(0,0)\neq (\ell,m)\in \mathbb{Z}_N\times \mathbb{Z}_N$, the eigenvalues of $X^\ell Z^m$ are $\{1,\omega,\dots, \omega^{N-1}\}$. This is not the case if $N$ is not prime.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Suppose that $\sum_{\ell,m}a_{\ell,m}X^\ell Z^m=0$. For any $j,k\in \mathbb{Z}_N$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{\ell,m} a_{\ell,m} \langle X^\ell Z^m e_j,e_{j+k}\rangle
=\sum_{m} a_{k,m} \omega^{jm}
=0.
\end{equation*}
Since the Vandermonde matrix associated to $(1,\omega,\dots,\omega^{N-1})$ is invertible, we have $a_{k,m}=0$ for all $k,m\in \mathbb{Z}_N$.
\item It follows immediately from the identity $ZX=\omega XZ$ which can be verified directly: for all $j\in \mathbb{Z}_N$
\begin{equation*}
ZXe_j= Ze_{j+1}=\omega^{j+1}e_{j+1}=\omega^{j+1} X e_{j}=\omega XZ e_{j}.
\end{equation*}
\item Assume $N$ to be prime and $(\ell,m)\neq (0,0)$. If $\ell=0$ and $m\neq 0$, then the eigenvalues of $Z^m$ are
$$\{\omega^{jm}:j\in\mathbb{Z}_N\}=\{\omega^{j}:j\in \mathbb{Z}_N\},$$
since $N$ is prime. If $\ell\neq 0$, then we may relabel the standard basis $\{e_j:j\in\mathbb{Z}_N\}$ as $\{e_{j\ell}:j\in\mathbb{Z}_N\}$. Consider the non-zero vectors
\begin{equation*}
\zeta_k:=\sum_{j\in \mathbb{Z}_N}\omega^{\frac{1}{2}j(j-1)\ell m-jk}e_{j\ell},\qquad k\in \mathbb{Z}_N.
\end{equation*}
A direct computation shows: for all $k\in \mathbb{Z}_N$
\begin{align*}
X^{\ell}Z^m \zeta_k
&=\sum_{j\in \mathbb{Z}_N}\omega^{\frac{1}{2}j(j-1)\ell m-jk}\cdot \omega^{j\ell m}X^{\ell}e_{j\ell}\\
&=\sum_{j\in \mathbb{Z}_N}\omega^{\frac{1}{2}j(j+1)\ell m-jk}e_{(j+1)\ell}\\
&=\sum_{j\in \mathbb{Z}_N}\omega^{\frac{1}{2}j(j-1)\ell m-jk+k}e_{j\ell}\\
&=\omega^k\zeta_k.
\end{align*}
If $N$ is not prime, say $N=N_1 N_2$ with $N_1,N_2>1$, then $X^{N_1}$ has $1$ as eigenvalue with multiplicity $N_1>1$. So we do need $N$ to be prime.
\qedhere
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
Let us record the following observation as a lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:orthogonal}
Suppose that $k\ge 1$, $A,B$ are two unitary matrices such that $B^k=\textbf{1}$, $AB=\lambda BA$ with $\lambda\in\mathbf{C}$ and $\lambda\ne 1$.
Suppose that $\xi$ is a non-zero vector such that $B\xi =\mu \xi$ ($\mu\ne 0$ since $\mu^k=1$). Then
\begin{equation*}
\langle \xi,A\xi\rangle=0.
\end{equation*}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By assumption
$$
\mu\langle \xi,A\xi\rangle
=\langle \xi,AB\xi\rangle
=\lambda \langle \xi,BA\xi\rangle.
$$
Since $B^\ast=B^{k-1}$, $B^\ast\xi=B^{k-1}\xi=\mu^{k-1}\xi=\overline{\mu}\xi$. Thus
$$
\mu\langle \xi,A\xi\rangle
=\lambda \langle \xi,BA\xi\rangle
=\lambda \langle B^\ast\xi,A\xi\rangle
=\lambda \mu\langle \xi,A\xi\rangle.
$$
Hence, $\mu(\lambda-1)\langle \xi,A\xi\rangle=0$. This gives $\langle \xi,A\xi\rangle=0$ as $\mu(\lambda-1)\ne 0$.
\end{proof}
Now we are ready to prove Theorem \ref{thm:bh HW}:
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:bh HW}]
Fix a prime number $N\ge 2$. Recall that $\omega=e^{\frac{2\pi i}{N}}$. Consider the generator set of $\mathbb{Z}_N\times \mathbb{Z}_N$
$$
\Sigma_N:=\{(1,0),(1,1),\dots, (1,N-1),(0,1)\}.
$$
For any $z\in\Omega_N$ and $(\ell,m)\in \Sigma_N$, we denote by $e^{\ell,m}_{z}$ the unit eigenvector of $X^\ell Z^m$ corresponding to the eigenvalue $z$.
For any vector $\vec{\omega}\in(\Omega_N)^{(N+1)n}$ of the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:defn of vec omega}
\vec{\omega}=({\vec{\omega}}^{\ell,m})_{(\ell,m)\in \Sigma_N},
\qquad {\vec{\omega}}^{\ell,m}=(\omega^{\ell,m}_1,\dots, \omega^{\ell,m}_n)\in (\Omega_N)^{(N+1)n},
\end{equation}
we consider the matrix
$$
\rho(\vec{\omega}):=\rho_{1}(\vec{\omega})\otimes \cdots\otimes \rho_{n}(\vec{\omega})
$$
where
$$
\rho_k(\vec{\omega}):=\frac{1}{N+1}\sum_{(\ell,m)\in \Sigma_N}\ketbra{e^{\ell,m}_{\omega^{\ell,m}_k}}{e^{\ell,m}_{\omega^{\ell,m}_k}}.
$$
Then each $\rho_{k}(\vec{\omega})$ is a density matrix and so is $\rho(\vec{\omega})$.
Suppose that $(\ell,m)\in \Sigma_N$ and $(\ell',m')\notin\{(k\ell,km):(\ell,m)\in \Sigma_N\}$, then by Lemma \ref{lem:facts}
\begin{equation*}
X^{\ell'}Z^{m'}X^{\ell}Z^{m}=\omega^{\ell m'-\ell'm}X^{\ell}Z^{m}X^{\ell'}Z^{m'}.
\end{equation*}
From our choice $\omega^{\ell m'-\ell'm}\neq 1$. By Lemmas \ref{lem:facts} and \ref{lem:orthogonal}
\begin{equation*}
\textnormal{tr}[X^{\ell'}Z^{m'}\ketbra{e^{\ell,m}_{z}}{e^{\ell,m}_{z}}]
=\langle X^{\ell'}Z^{m'}e^{\ell,m}_{z},e^{\ell,m}_{z}\rangle=0, \qquad z\in \Omega_N.
\end{equation*}
Suppose that $(\ell,m)\in \Sigma_N$ and $1\le k\le N-1$. Then by Lemma \ref{lem:facts}
\begin{align*}
\textnormal{tr}[X^{k\ell}Z^{k m}\ketbra{e^{\ell,m}_{z}}{e^{\ell,m}_{z}}]
&=\omega^{-\frac{1}{2}k(k-1)\ell m}\langle (X^\ell Z^m)^k e^{\ell,m}_{z},e^{\ell,m}_{z}\rangle\\
&=\omega^{-\frac{1}{2}k(k-1)\ell m}z^k, \qquad z\in \Omega_N.
\end{align*}
All combined, for all $1\le k\le N-1,(\ell,m)\in \Sigma_N$ and $1\le i\le n$ we get
\begin{align*}
\textnormal{tr}[X^{k\ell} Z^{k m } \rho_i(\vec{\omega})]
&=\frac{1}{N+1}\sum_{(\ell',m')\in \Sigma_N}\langle e^{\ell',m'}_{\omega^{\ell',m'}_i}, X^{k\ell}Z^{ km}e^{\ell',m'}_{\omega^{\ell',m'}_i}\rangle\\
&=\frac{1}{N+1}\langle e^{\ell,m}_{\omega^{\ell,m}_i}, X^{k\ell}Z^{ km}e^{\ell,m}_{\omega^{\ell,m}_i}\rangle\\
&=\frac{1}{N+1}\omega^{-\frac{1}{2}k(k-1)\ell m}(\omega^{\ell,m}_i)^k.
\end{align*}
Recall that any degree-$d$ polynomial in $M_N(\mathbf{C})^{\otimes n}$ is a linear combination of monomials
$$
A(\vec{k},\vec{\ell},\vec{m};\vec{i}):=
\cdots \otimes X^{k_1\ell_1}Z^{k_1 m_1}\otimes \cdots \otimes X^{k_\kappa\ell_\kappa}Z^{k_\kappa m_\kappa}\otimes\cdots
$$
where
\begin{itemize}
\item $\vec{k}=(k_1,\dots,k_\kappa)\in \{1,\dots, N-1\}^\kappa$ with $0\le \sum_{j=1}^{\kappa}k_j\le d$;
\item $\vec{\ell}=(\ell_1,\dots, \ell_\kappa),\vec{m}=(m_1,\dots, m_\kappa)$ with each $(\ell_j,m_j)\in \Sigma_N$;
\item $\vec{i}=(i_1,\dots, i_\kappa)$ with $1\le i_1 <\cdots<i_\kappa\le n$;
\item $X^{k_j\ell_j}Z^{k_j m_j}$ appears in the $i_j$-th place, $1\le j\le \kappa$, and all the other $n-\kappa$ elements in the tensor product are the identity matrices $\textbf{1}$.
\end{itemize}
So for any $\vec{\omega}\in (\Omega_N)^{(N+1)n}$ of the form \eqref{eq:defn of vec omega} we have from the above discussion that
\begin{align*}
\textnormal{tr}[A(\vec{k},\vec{\ell},\vec{m};\vec{i})\rho(\vec{\omega})]
&=\prod_{j=1}^{\kappa}\textnormal{tr}[X^{k_j\ell_j}Z^{k_j m_j}\rho_{i_j}(\vec{\omega})]\\
&=\frac{\omega^{-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{\kappa}k_j(k_j-1)\ell_j m_j}}{(N+1)^{\kappa}}(\omega^{\ell_1,m_1}_{i_1})^{k_1}\cdots (\omega^{\ell_\kappa,m_\kappa}_{i_\kappa})^{k_\kappa}.
\end{align*}
So $\vec{\omega}\mapsto \textnormal{tr}[A(\vec{k},\vec{\ell},\vec{m};\vec{i})\rho(\vec{\omega})]$ is a polynomial on $(\Omega_N)^{(N+1)n}$ of degree at most $\sum_{j=1}^{\kappa}k_j\le d$.
Now for general polynomial $A\in M_N(\mathbf{C})^{\otimes n}$ of degree-$d$:
\begin{equation*}
A=\sum_{\vec{k},\vec{\ell},\vec{m},\vec{i}} c(\vec{k},\vec{\ell},\vec{m};\vec{i})A(\vec{k},\vec{\ell},\vec{m};\vec{i})
\end{equation*}
where the sum runs over the above $(\vec{k},\vec{\ell},\vec{m};\vec{i})$. This is the Fourier expansion of $A$ and each $c(\vec{k},\vec{\ell},\vec{m};\vec{i})\in \mathbf{C}$ is the Fourier coefficient. So
\begin{equation*}
\|\widehat{A}\|_p=\left(\sum_{\vec{k},\vec{\ell},\vec{m},\vec{i}}|c(\vec{k},\vec{\ell},\vec{m};\vec{i})|^p\right)^{1/p}.
\end{equation*}
To each $A$ we assign the function $f_A$ on $(\Omega_N)^{(N+1)n}$ given by
\begin{align*}
f_A(\vec{\omega})&=\textnormal{tr}[A\rho(\vec{\omega})]\\
&=\sum_{\vec{k},\vec{\ell},\vec{m},\vec{i}} \frac{\omega^{-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{\kappa}k_j(k_j-1)\ell_j m_j}c(\vec{k},\vec{\ell},\vec{m};\vec{i})}{(N+1)^{\kappa}}(\omega^{\ell_1,m_1}_{i_1})^{k_1}\cdots (\omega^{\ell_\kappa,m_\kappa}_{i_\kappa})^{k_\kappa}.
\end{align*}
Note that this is the Fourier expansion of $f_A$ since the monomials $(\omega^{\ell_1,m_1}_{i_1})^{k_1}\cdots (\omega^{\ell_\kappa,m_\kappa}_{i_\kappa})^{k_\kappa}$ differ for different $(\vec{k},\vec{\ell},\vec{m},\vec{i})$. Therefore,
\begin{align*}
\|\widehat{f_A}\|_p
&=\left(\sum_{\vec{k},\vec{\ell},\vec{m},\vec{i}}\left|\frac{c(\vec{k},\vec{\ell},\vec{m};\vec{i})}{(N+1)^{\kappa}}\right|^p\right)^{1/p}\\
&\ge \frac{1}{(N+1)^{d}}\left(\sum_{\vec{k},\vec{\ell},\vec{m},\vec{i}}|c(\vec{k},\vec{\ell},\vec{m};\vec{i})|^p\right)^{1/p}\\
&=\frac{1}{(N+1)^{d}} \|\widehat{A}\|_p.
\end{align*}
So if the Bohnenblust--Hille inequalities hold for cyclic group $\mathbb{Z}_N$ for $N$ prime, then
\begin{equation*}
\|\widehat{f_A}\|_{\frac{2d}{d+1}}\le C(d)\|f_A\|_{L^\infty((\Omega_N)^{(N+1)n})}
\end{equation*}
for some $C(d)>0$. All combined, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\|\widehat{A}\|_{\frac{2d}{d+1}}
\le (N+1)^d \|\widehat{f_A}\|_{\frac{2d}{d+1}}
\le (N+1)^dC(d)\|f_A\|_{L^\infty((\Omega_N)^{(N+1)n})}
\le (N+1)^dC(d)\|A\|.
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\section{Bohnenblust--Hille inequalities for cyclic groups: the difficulty} \label{sect:difficulty}
Let us recall the reader that $\widetilde{\Om}_N$ denotes the convex hull of cyclic group $\Omega_N=(1, \omega,\dots \omega^{N-1})$. In this section we sketch the proof Theorem \ref{thm: bh convex hull}.
We wish to prove the following theorem:
\begin{thm}
\label{convOmN}
Let $f=\sum_\alpha b_\alpha z^\alpha$ be an analytic polynomial of $n$ complex variables $z=(z_1, \dots, z_n)$ of global degree at most $d$
and such that in each variable $z_i$ its degree is at most $N-1$.
Then
$$
\Big( \sum |c_\alpha|^{\frac{2d}{d+1}}\Big)^{\frac{d+1}{2d}} \le C(d) \sup_{z \in (\widetilde{\Om}_N)^n} |f(z)|\,.
$$
\end{thm}
Here $C(d)$ is as in \cite{DGMS}, in particular, it is sub-exponential. The proof of Theorem \ref{convOmN} follows closely the proof of \cite{DMP}, \cite{BPS} and \cite{DGMS} and will be recorded elsewhere.
Now we give a sketch of this proof. We repeat Theorem 8.10 and Remark 8.16 of \cite{DGMS}. As a result we get hypercontractive inequalities for polynomials of arbitrary
number $n$ of variables $z_i$ such that polynomials have degree at most $N-1$ in each variable and such that in Remark 8.16 the integration in both parts is not over $\mathbf{T}^n$ but over $(\Omega_N)^n$. The explanation is simple: for polynomials of degree $N-1$ in each variable we can use integration over $(\Omega_N)^n$ to calculate its $L^2$ norm. This allows us to have the hypercontractivity constant on page 265 of \cite{DGMS} to be as in this page
$$
HC_{\frac{2k}{k+1}, 2} \le 2^{\frac4{3k-1}}
$$
but the norms in hypercontractivity estimate use again integration over $(\Omega_N)^n$ rather than over $\mathbf{T}^n$.
The proof of Bohnenblust--Hille inequality uses several ingredients: a) algebraic calculations and Blei's inequality, b) hypercontractivity or more precisely some moment comparison estimates, c) polarization. Of course a) will be the same, b) is the same as we just observed.
However, the polarization argument on pages 67--68 of \cite{DGMS} one needs to be careful. One can repeat the proof with $x_i$ (or $x, y$) being vectors in $(\Omega_N)^n$, complex
variables $(w_1, w_2)$ to be from $(\Omega_N)^2$ instead of $\mathbf{T}^2$, but
$|\varphi(w_1 n_1 x+ w_2 n_2 y,\dots , w_1 n_1 x+ w_2 n_2 y)|$ now will have estimate $\max_{u\in (\widetilde{\Om}_N)}|\varphi (u, \dots, u) |(n_1+n_2)^m$ (in our case we denote $m$ by $d$).
This is the sketch of the proof of Theorem \ref{convOmN}.
However, unlike the case when the $\max_{\mathbf{D}^n}|f(z)|$ by $\max_{\mathbf{T}^n}|f(z)|$ estimate is obvious by maximum principle, we cannot replace $\max_{(\widetilde{\Om}_N)^n}|f(z)|$ by $\max_{( \Omega_N)^n}|f(z)|$ by any obvious consideration.
\begin{comment}
Notice that \eqref{eval} evaluates $f_A$ on $(\Omega_N)^{nN}$, and as $\rho$ is a density matrix, we get that
\begin{equation}
\label{onOmN}
\sup_{(\vec \omega) \in (\Omega_N)^{nN}} |f_A(\vec \omega )| \le \|A\|_{op}\,.
\end{equation}
\bigskip
Now we want to combine Theorem \ref{convOmN} and \eqref{onOmN}. But we cannot do that
directly because $(\widetilde{\Om}_N)^{nN}$ is much bigger than $(\Omega_N)^{nN}$ and we {\it do not} know the inequality
$$
\sup_{\vec \zeta \in (\widetilde{\Om}_N)^{nN}} |f_A(\vec \zeta ) | \le B(d) \sup_{\vec \gamma \in (\Omega_N)^{nN}} |f_A(\vec \gamma )|
$$
for polynomials of degree at most $d$ of $z=(z_1, \dots, z_{2n})$ such that in each $z_i$ the degree is at most $N-1$.
One exception is $N=2$, when polynomials are multi-linear and the previous inequality does hold just by convexity in each argument.
\end{comment}
\begin{rem}
In application to matrix Bohnenblust--Hille inequality in Heisenberg--Weyl basis, which we considered above, we
wanted to replace $(\widetilde{\Om}_N)^{n}$ with $( \Omega_N)^{n}$, but we cannot do that
directly because $(\widetilde{\Om}_N)^{n}$ is much bigger than $(\Omega_N)^{n}$ and we {\it do not} know the inequality
$$
\sup_{\vec \zeta \in (\widetilde{\Om}_N)^{(n}} |f_A(\vec \zeta ) | \le B(d) \sup_{\vec \gamma \in (\Omega_N)^{n}} |f_A(\vec \gamma )|
$$
for polynomials of degree at most $d$ of $z=(z_1, \dots, z_{n})$ such that in each $z_i$ the degree is at most $N-1$.
One exception is $N=2$, when polynomials are multi-affine and the previous inequality does hold just by convexity in each argument.
But for $N\ge 3$ this reasoning flops by the lack of convexity. This lack of convexity is our main difficulty, and for some time we will struggle with this difficulty.
\end{rem}
\bigskip
\noindent{\bf Question.} Is it true that the following inequality holds with constant independent of $n$
$$
\sup_{z \in (\widetilde{\Om}_N)^n} |f( z ) | \le B(d) \sup_{\vec w \in (\Omega_N)^n} |f(\vec \omega )|,
$$
for polynomials $f$ of $n$ complex variables $z=(z_1, \dots, z_n)$ of global degree at most $d$ of such that in each $z_i$ the degree is at most $N-1$?
\section{Bohnenblust--Hille inequalities for cyclic groups: a partial remedy}
\label{sect:partial}
Let $f(z)$ be an analytic polynomial of total degree $d$ of variables $(z_1, \dots, z_n)$ such that in each $z_i$ its degree is at most $N-1$.
We should think that
$$
n\gg d \gg N\,.
$$
\bigskip
We would like to compare $\|f\|_{L^\infty(\mathbf{T}^n)}$, $\|f\|_{L^\infty(\widetilde{\Om}_N^n)}$, and $\|f\|_{L^\infty(\Omega_N^n)}$. We wish for the estimates independent of $n$. Obviously
$$
\|f\|_{L^\infty(\Omega_N^n)} \le \|f\|_{L^\infty(\widetilde{\Om}_N^n)} \le \|f\|_{L^\infty(\mathbf{D}^n)} = \|f\|_{L^\infty(\mathbf{T}^n)}\,.
$$
The converse estimate with constant $1$ is impossible, we show this now.
\subsection{Constant cannot be $1$} Let $N=3$.
\label{not1}
\begin{lem}
\label{C3}
Let $v_1, v_2, v_3$ be linear independent vectors in $\mathbf{C}^3$. Let $\mathcal{C}$ be their absolute convex hull.
Then $v\in \mathcal{C}$ if and only if for every vector $u$ we have $|(u, v)| \le \max_{i=1,2,3} |(u, v_i)|$.
\end{lem}
This is just the Hahn--Banach theorem.
\medskip
\begin{prop}
\label{N3}
There exists a polynomial of one complex variable $p(z)= a_0+a_1z + a_2 z^2$, $z\in \mathbf{D}$, such that
$$
\|p\|_{L^\infty(\widetilde{\Om}_3)} > \|p\|_{L^\infty( \Omega_3)}\,.
$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Consider three vectors in $\mathbf{C}^3$: $v_1=(1,1,1)$, $v_2=(1, \omega, \omega^2)$, $v_3=(1, \omega^2, \omega^4)=(1, \omega^2, \omega)$, where $\omega =
e^{\frac{2\pi i}{3}}$.
Consider vector $v=(1, z, z^2)$ with some $z\in \widetilde{\Om}_3$. If for every $u=(a_0, a_1, a_2)$,
we have $|(u, v)| \le \max_{i=1, 2, 3} |(u, v_i)|$ then $v$ is in absolute convex combination of
$(v_1, v_2, v_3)$ and so there exist convex coefficients $p_1, p_2, p_3$ and $\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \alpha_3$ in $\mathbf{T}$ such that
$$
v= \alpha_1 p_1 v_1 + \alpha_2 p_2 v_2 +\alpha_3 p_3 v_3.
$$
In particular $\alpha_1 p_1 + \alpha_2 p_2 + \alpha_3 p_3=1$, which means that $\alpha_i=1$.
Hence,
$$
z= p_1 + p_2 \omega +p_3 \omega^2, \,\, z^2 = p_1 + p_2 \omega^2 +p_3 \omega\,.
$$
Then
$$
p_1^2 + 2p_2 p_3 + (p_2^2 + 2p_1p_3) \omega^2 + (p_3^2+ 2p_1 p_2) \omega = p_1 + p_2 \omega^2 +p_3 \omega\,.
$$
Two convex combinations (in the LHS we also have a convex combination) should have the same coefficients.
We get
$$
p_1^2 + 2p_2 p_3 =p_1, \, p_2^2 + 2p_1p_3 =p_2, \, p_3^2+ 2p_1 p_2 =p_3\,.
$$
There can be only finitely many such $(p_1, p_2, p_3)$. Thus, choosing $z= p_1 + p_2 \omega +p_3 \omega^2$ with a triple different from those finitely many ones, we get that $v=(1, z, z^2)$ is not in an absolute convex combination of $v_1, v_2, v_3$. Then Lemma \ref{C3} shows that there exists
$u=(\widetilde a_0, \widetilde a_1, \widetilde a_2)$ with $|(v, u)|>\max_{i=1,2,3} |( v_i, u)$.
This is the same as to say that $|p(z)| > \max_{k=0,1,2} |p(\omega^k)|$.
\end{proof}
Here is a concrete example showing that the constant cannot be $1$. Let $\omega:=e^{\frac{2\pi i}{3}}$. Consider the polynomial
\begin{equation*}
p(z):=p(1)\frac{(z-\omega)(z-\omega^2)}{(1-\omega)(1-\omega^2)}
+p(\omega)\frac{(z-1)(z-\omega^2)}{(\omega-1)(\omega-\omega^2)}
+p(\omega^2)\frac{(z-1)(z-\omega)}{(\omega^2-1)(\omega^2-\omega)}
\end{equation*}
with $p(1), p(\omega), p(\omega^2)$ to be chosen later. Put $z_0:=\frac{1+\omega}{2}\in \widetilde{\Om}_3$. Then
\begin{equation*}
|z_0-1|=|z_0-\omega|=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2},\qquad |z_0-\omega^2|=\frac{3}{2}.
\end{equation*}
Now we choose $p(1), p(\omega), p(\omega^2)$ to be complex numbers of modules $1$ such that
\begin{equation*}
p(1)\frac{(z_0-\omega)(z_0-\omega^2)}{(1-\omega)(1-\omega^2)}=\left|\frac{(z_0-\omega)(z_0-\omega^2)}{(1-\omega)(1-\omega^2)}\right|
=\frac{\frac{3\sqrt{3}}{4}}{3}
=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{4},
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
p(\omega)\frac{(z_0-1)(z_0-\omega^2)}{(\omega-1)(\omega-\omega^2)}
=\left|\frac{(z_0-1)(z_0-\omega^2)}{(\omega-1)(\omega-\omega^2)}\right|
=\frac{\frac{3\sqrt{3}}{4}}{3}
=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{4},
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
p(\omega^2)\frac{(z_0-1)(z_0-\omega)}{(\omega^2-1)(\omega^2-\omega)}
=\left|\frac{(z_0-1)(z_0-\omega)}{(\omega^2-1)(\omega^2-\omega)}\right|
=\frac{\frac{3}{4}}{3}
=\frac{1}{4}.
\end{equation*}
Therefore, this choice of $p$ satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\|p\|_{L^\infty(\widetilde{\Om}_3)}\ge |p(z_0)|
=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{4}+\frac{\sqrt{3}}{4}+\frac{1}{4}
=\frac{1+2\sqrt{3}}{4}>1=\|p\|_{L^\infty(\Omega_3)}.
\end{equation*}
\bigskip
\noindent{\bf Question.} Is there a constant independent of $n$ (but dependent on $d$) such that for analytic polynomials of global degree $d$ and degree $\le N$ in each variable $z_i$ has the estimate
$$
\|f\|_{L^\infty(\mathbf{T}^n)} \le C(d) \|f\|_{L^\infty(\Omega_N^n)}\,?
$$
We believe that there can be a counterexample.
\subsection{A partial solution}
In this sequel, we partially answer this latter question. But we will need to make some concessions to answer affirmatively. The strategy will be to reverse the argument in Section \ref{not1}. We start with the following key matrix lemma.
\begin{lem}
\label{key lem}
Fix $N\ge 2$, put $\xi_k=e^{\frac{2\pi i k}{2N-1}}$. There exists $\varepsilon_0=\varepsilon_0(N)\in (0,1)$ such that, for all $z\in\mathbf{C}$ with $|z|\le \varepsilon_0$, one can find $p_k=p_k(z)\ge 0, 0\le k\le 2N-2$ satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{eq:complex equations to solve}
z^m=\sum_{k=0}^{2N-2}p_k\xi_k^{m}, \qquad 0\le m\le N-1.
\end{equation}
In particular, when $m=0$, $\sum_{k=0}^{2N-2}p_k=1$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Put $\theta=\frac{2\pi}{2N-1}$. The equations \eqref{eq:complex equations to solve} are equivalent to ($p_k$'s are non-negative and thus real)
\begin{equation}\label{eq:real equations to solve}
\begin{cases*}
\sum_{k=0}^{2N-2}p_k=1&\\
\sum_{k=0}^{2N-2}p_k\cos(km\theta)=\Re z^m& $1\le m\le N-1$\\
\sum_{k=0}^{2N-2}p_k\sin(km\theta)=\Im z^m& $1\le m\le N-1$
\end{cases*}.
\end{equation}
Or equivalently, we want to find a solution to $D_N\vec p=\vec v_z$ with each entry of $\vec p$ being non-negative. Here $D_N$ is a $(2N-1)\times (2N-1)$ real matrix given by
\begin{equation*}
D_N=
\begin{bmatrix*}
1 & 1 & 1 &\cdots & 1\\
1 & \cos(\theta) &\cos(2\theta)&\cdots &\cos((2N-2)\theta)\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots &&\vdots \\
1 & \cos((N-1)\theta) &\cos(2(N-1)\theta)&\cdots &\cos((2N-2)(N-1)\theta)\\
1 & \sin(\theta) &\sin(2\theta)&\cdots &\sin((2N-2)\theta)\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots &&\vdots \\
1 & \sin((N-1)\theta) &\sin(2(N-1)\theta)&\cdots &\sin((2N-2)(N-1)\theta)
\end{bmatrix*},
\end{equation*}
and $\vec v_z=(1,\Re z, \dots, \Re z^{N-1},\Im z,\dots, \Im z^{N-1})^T\in \mathbf{R}^{2N-1}$.
Note first that $D_N$ is non-singular. In fact, assume that $D_N\vec x=\vec 0$ with $\vec x=(x_0,x_1, \dots, x_{2N-2})^T\in \mathbf{R}^{2N-1}$. Then
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{k=0}^{2N-2}x_k\xi_k^{m}=0, \qquad 0\le m\le N-1.
\end{equation*}
Since each $x_k$ is real and $\xi^{2N-1}=1$, we have by taking conjugation that
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{k=0}^{2N-2}x_k\xi_k^{m}=0, \qquad N\le m\le 2N-1.
\end{equation*}
Altogether we get
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{k=0}^{2N-2}x_k\xi_k^{m}=0, \qquad 0\le m\le 2N-2.
\end{equation*}
Since the Vandermonde matrix associated to $(1,\xi,\dots, \xi_{2N-2})$ has determinant
\begin{equation*}
\prod_{0\le j<k\le 2N-2}(\xi_{j}-\xi_{k})\neq 0,
\end{equation*}
we get $\vec x=\vec 0$. So $D_N$ is non-singular.
Therefore, for any $z\in\mathbf{C}$, the solution to \eqref{eq:real equations to solve}, thus to \eqref{eq:complex equations to solve}, is given by
$$
\vec p_z=(p_0(z),p_1(z),\dots, p_{2N-2}(z))=D_N^{-1}\vec v_z\in \mathbf{R}^{2N-1}.
$$
Notice one more thing about the rows of $D$. As
$$
\sum_{k=0}^{2N-2} \xi_k^m =0,\quad \forall m=1, 2, \dots, 2N-2,
$$
we have automatically that vector $\vec v_0 := (\frac1{2N-1}, \dots, \frac1{2N-1})$ of length $2N-1$ gives
$$
D \vec v_0 =(1, 0, 0, \dots, 0)^T\,.
$$
For any $k$-by-$k$ matrix $A$ denote
$$\|A\|_{\infty\to\infty}:=\sup_{\vec 0\neq v\in\mathbf{R}^{k}}\frac{\|Av\|_\infty}{\|v\|_\infty}.$$
So we have
\begin{align*}
\|\vec p_z-\vec p_0\|_\infty
\le &\|D_N^{-1}\|_{\infty\to \infty}\|\vec v_z-\vec v_0\|_\infty\\
=&\|D_N^{-1}\|_{\infty\to \infty}\max\left\{\max_{1\le k\le N-1}|\Re z^k|,\max_{1\le k\le N-1}|\Im z^k|\right\}\\
\le &\|D_N^{-1}\|_{\infty\to \infty}\max\{|z|,|z|^{N-1}\}.
\end{align*}
That is,
\begin{equation*}
\max_{0\le j\le 2N-2}\left|p_j(z)-\frac{1}{2N-1}\right|
\le \|D_N^{-1}\|_{\infty\to \infty}\max\{|z|,|z|^{N-1}\}.
\end{equation*}
Since $D_N^{-1}\vec v_0=\vec p_0$, we have $\|D_N^{-1}\|_{\infty\to \infty}\ge 2N-1$.
Put
$$
\varepsilon_0:=\frac{1}{(2N-1)\|D_N^{-1}\|_{\infty\to \infty}}\in \left(0,\frac{1}{(2N-1)^2}\right].
$$
Thus whenever $|z|<\varepsilon_0<1$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\max_{0\le j\le 2N-2}\left|p_j(z)-\frac{1}{2N-1}\right|
\le \varepsilon_0 \|D_N^{-1}\|_{\infty\to \infty}\le \frac{1}{2N-1}.
\end{equation*}
Therefore, $p_j(z)\ge 0$ for all $0\le j\le 2N-2$ and the proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{comment}
For that purpose we consider
$$
\zeta_k= e^{\frac{i 2\pi k}{2N-1}}, \, k=0, \dots, 2N-2,
$$
and we consider the matrix in $M_{(2N-1)\times (2N-1)}$ given by
$$
D= \begin{bmatrix} &1,\quad 1\quad\dots, 1
\\
& 1, \cos (\frac{i 2\pi }{2N-1}), \dots, \cos (\frac{i 2\pi (2N-2)}{2N-1}
\\
& 1, \cos (\frac{i 2\pi 2 }{2N-1}), \dots, \cos (\frac{i 2\pi 2(2N-2)}{2N-1})
\\
&\dots
\\
& 1, \cos (\frac{i 2\pi (N-1) }{2N-1}), \dots, \cos (\frac{i 2\pi (N-1)(2N-2)}{2N-1})
\\
& 0, \sin (\frac{i 2\pi }{2N-1}), \dots, \sin (\frac{i 2\pi (2N-2)}{2N-1})
\\
& 0, \sin (\frac{i 2\pi 2 }{2N-1}), \dots, \sin (\frac{i 2\pi 2(2N-2)}{2N-1})
\\
&\dots
\\
& 0, \sin (\frac{i 2\pi (N-1) }{2N-1}), \dots, \sin (\frac{i 2\pi (N-1)(2N-2)}{2N-1})
\end{bmatrix}
$$
In other words the matrix elements $D_{km}$ are $\Re \zeta_k^m$ and $\Im \zeta_k^m$, $k=0, \dots, 2N-2$, $m=0, \dots, 2N-2$. These matrix elements arranged in the way that
real parts stand in the first $N$ rows and imaginary parts stand in the lower $N-1$ row.
\begin{lem}
\label{det}
Matrix $D$ has a non-zero determinant.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Consider for example matrix $D$ for $N=3$.
$$
D=\begin{bmatrix}
&1,\quad 1,\quad 1,\quad 1,\quad 1
\\
&1, \cos (\frac{i 2\pi }{5}), \cos (\frac{i 4\pi }{5}), \cos (\frac{i 6\pi }{5}), \cos (\frac{i 8\pi }{5})
\\
&1, \cos (\frac{i 4\pi }{5}), \cos (\frac{i 8\pi }{5}), \cos (\frac{i 12\pi }{5}), \cos (\frac{i 16\pi }{5})
\\
&0, \sin (\frac{i 2\pi }{5}), \sin (\frac{i 4\pi }{5}), \sin (\frac{i 6\pi }{5}), \sin (\frac{i 8\pi }{5})
\\
&0, \sin (\frac{i 4\pi }{5}), \sin (\frac{i 8\pi }{5}), \sin (\frac{i 12\pi }{5}), \sin (\frac{i 16\pi }{5})
\end{bmatrix}
$$
This is ``almost'' the matrix of discrete Fourier transform on $\Omega_5$, so it is non-degenerate. Let us clarify. Suppose there is a
real non-zero vector $\vec x =(x_0, x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4)^T$ such that $D_5 \vec x=\vec 0$.
It is clear then that $\sum_{k=0}^4 \zeta_k^m x_k =0$ for $m=0, 1, 2, 3, 4$. In fact, for $m=0,1,2$ it follows by observation. For $m=3, 4$ one should use that $x_i$ are all real. This transforms $m=1$ to $m=4$ and $m=2$ to $m=3$ by complex conjugation. But by the definition of the discrete Fourier transform on group $\Omega_5$
this means that $\hat x=0$. Then $x=0$, a contradiction.
The same reasoning works for any $N$.
\end{proof}
Notice one more thing about the rows of $D$. As
$$
\sum_{k=0}^{2N-2} \zeta_k^m =0,\quad \forall m=1, 2, \dots, 2N-2,
$$
we have automatically that vector $\vec v_0 := (\frac1{2N-1}, \dots, \frac1{2N-1})$ of length $2N-1$ gives
$$
D \vec v_0 =(1, 0, 0, \dots, 0)^T\,.
$$
\medskip
Consider map $\mathcal{D}: \mathbf{R}^{2N-1} \to \mathbf{R}^{2N-1}$ given by $\mathcal{D}(\vec x) = D \vec x$.
Then $\mathcal{D} (\vec v_0) = (1, 0, 0, \dots, 0)$ (with $2N-2$ zeros in this vector).
\medskip
Let us apply Lemma \ref{key lem}. This means, in particular, that for an arbitrary sufficiently small $z\in \mathbf{C}$, $\vec v_z:=(1, \Re z, \Re z^2, \dots, \Re z^{N-1}, \Im z, \Im z^2, \dots, \Im z^{N-1})$,
there exists a vector $\vec p=(p_0, p_1, \dots, p_{2N-2})$ with all $p_i$ sufficiently close to $\frac1{2N-1}$ (so, in particular, all $p_i>0$), such that
$$
D \vec p = \vec v_z=(1, \Re z, \Re z^2, \dots, \Re z^{N-1}, \Im z, \Im z^2, \dots, \Im z^{N-1})\,.
$$
So we have real positive $p_i$ that are convex tuple such that
$$
z^m =\sum_{k=0}^{2N-2} p_k \zeta_k^m, \quad m=0, \dots, N-1\,.
$$
Thus,
for any polynomial of degree $\le N-1$ there exists a convex tuple such that
$$
|z|\le \varepsilon_0\Rightarrow p(z) =\sum_{k=0}^{2N-2} p_k p(\zeta_k)\,.
$$
This immediately implies that for any analytic polynomial $P$ of $n$ variables and any $\vec z=(z_1, \dots, z_n)$ such that its degree in each $z_i$ is at most $N-1$ we have
$$
\|\vec z\|_\infty \le \varepsilon_0\Rightarrow P(\vec z) =\prod_{i=1}^n\sum_{k_i=0}^{2N-2} p_{k_i} P(z_1, \dots, z_n)\,.
$$
Therefore,
\begin{equation}
\label{eps0}
\max_{\|\vec z\|_\infty \le \varepsilon_0}|P(\vec z)| \le \max_{\vec \zeta \in (\Omega_{2N-1})^n} |P(\vec \zeta)|\,.
\end{equation}
Thus, just by scaling $\vec z\to \varepsilon_0 \vec z$, we have that for homogeneous polynomials whose global degree is $d$ and degree in each variable is at most $N-1$
\begin{equation}
\label{homog}
\max_{\|\vec z\|_\infty \le 1}|P(\vec z)| \le \varepsilon_0^{-d}\max_{\vec \zeta \in (\Omega_{2N-1})^n} |P(\vec \zeta)|\,.
\end{equation}
The attempt to prove \eqref{homog} for {\it all} polynomials of global degree $\le d$ (and degree in each variable at most $N-1$) by
the usual trick of considering a new polynomial of one more variable seems to fail. In fact,
$$
Q(\vec z, w):=\sum_\alpha c_\alpha \vec z^\alpha w^{d-|\alpha | },
$$
where $\vec z^\alpha= z_1^{\alpha_1}\dots z_n^{\alpha_n}$. It is a homogeneous polynomial of degree $d$. But unfortunately its degree in a new variable $w$ is $d$, not $N-1$.
However, repeating the argument that brought us \eqref{homog} we conclude
\begin{equation}
\label{allP0}
\max_{\|(\vec z, w)\|_\infty \le 1}|Q(\vec z, w)| \le \varepsilon_0^{-d}\max_{\vec \zeta \in (\Omega_{2N-1})^n,\, \omega\in \Omega_{2d+1}} |Q(\vec \zeta,\omega )|\,.
\end{equation}
Observe
$$
|Q(\vec \zeta,\omega )| =|\omega^d \sum_\alpha c_\alpha (\zeta_1\bar w)^{\alpha_1} \dots (\zeta_n\bar w)^{\alpha_n}| = |P(\zeta_1\bar w)^{\alpha_1} \dots (\zeta_n\bar w)^{\alpha_n}| \,.
$$
Hence, as $\zeta_i \bar\omega \in \Omega_{2N-1}\cdot \Omega_{2d+1}$, we conclude that
\begin{equation}
\label{allP}
\max_{\|(\vec z)\|_\infty \le 1}|P(\vec z)| \le \max_{\|(\vec z, w)\|_\infty \le 1}|Q(\vec z, w)| \le \varepsilon_0^{-d}\max_{\vec \zeta \in (\Omega_{2d+1})^{n}} |P(\vec \zeta)|\,.
\end{equation}
This is far from what we would like to have because in the right hand side we wish to have not $\max_{\vec \zeta \in (\Omega_{2d+1})^{n}} |P(\vec \zeta)|$ but $\max_{\vec \zeta \in (\Omega_{2N-1})^{n}} |P(\vec \zeta)|$.
\medskip
Actually, we do not really need the analog of \eqref{homog} for {\it all} polynomials. We can just use \eqref{eps0}. We use the trivial scaling $\vec z\to \varepsilon_0 \vec z$ to change the polynomials coefficients
$c_\alpha \to \varepsilon_0^{|\alpha|} c_\alpha$. This allows us to apply \eqref{eps0} to the polynomial with new coefficients $\varepsilon_0^{|\alpha|} c_\alpha$ by replacing $\max_{\|\vec z\|_\infty \le \varepsilon_0}$ with $\max_{\|\vec z\|_\infty \le 1}$ in \eqref{eps0} and to
combine Theorem \ref{convOmN} and this new form of \eqref{eps0} to get the following theorem.
\begin{thm}
\label{BH-HW}
Let $A=\sum_\alpha c_\alpha M_\alpha$ be a polynomial in $n$ tensor products of $(2N-1)\times (2N-1)$ Heisenberg--Weyl basis matrices, where each monomial has at most $d$ Heisenberg--Weyl matrices
that are not identity, and $m_{\alpha,1}+\dots +m_{\alpha, n}+\ell_{\alpha, 1}+\dots +\ell_{\alpha, n} \le d$, and $m_{\alpha, i}\le N-1, \ell_{\alpha, i}\le N-1$ for each monomial $M_\alpha$ (degree in each variable is at most $N-1$). Then we have the Bohnenblust--Hille inequality
$$
\Big(\sum_\alpha |c_\alpha|^{\frac{2d}{d+1}}\Big)^{\frac{d+1}{2d}} \le \varepsilon_0^{-d} C(d) \|A\|_{op},
$$
where $C(d)$ is the sub-exponential constant from \cite{DGMS} and $\varepsilon_0$ is from implicit mapping theorem used above.
\end{thm}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
Recall that we have the following Bohnenblust--Hille type inequalities for the convex hull of cyclic groups $\widetilde{\Om}_N$.
\begin{thm}\label{thm: bh conv hull}
Let $N\ge 2$. Suppose that
$$f(\vec z):=\sum_\alpha a_\alpha z^\alpha,\qquad \vec z=(z_1, \dots, z_n)$$
is any analytic polynomial of $n$ complex variables of degree at most $d$
and such that in each variable $z_i$ its degree is at most $N-1$.
Then
$$
\Big( \sum_{\alpha} |a_\alpha|^{\frac{2d}{d+1}}\Big)^{\frac{d+1}{2d}} \le C(d) \sup_{\vec z \in (\widetilde{\Om}_N)^n} |f(\vec z)|\,.
$$
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
Here the constant $C(d)\le C^{\sqrt{d\log d}}$ for some universal $C>0$. The proof is essentially the same as in the hypercube case. A much simpler proof yields $C(d)\le C^d$ for some universal $C>0$.
\end{rem}
\end{comment}
With Lemma \ref{key lem}, we may replace $\widetilde{\Om}_N$ in Theorem \ref{thm: bh convex hull} with $\Omega_N$ up to a constant.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:bh cyclic groups}]
Denote $\xi:=e^{\frac{2\pi i}{2N-1}}$ and $\xi_k:=\xi^k$. Note that by Lemma \ref{key lem}, there exists $\varepsilon_0=\varepsilon_0(N)\in (0,1)$ such that for all $ z=(z_1,\dots, z_n)$ with $\| z\|_\infty\le \varepsilon_0$, we have
\begin{equation*}
z^m_j=\sum_{k=0}^{2N-2}p^{(j)}_k \xi^{m}_k, \qquad 1\le j\le n, \quad 0\le m\le N-1,
\end{equation*}
where $p_k^{(j)}=p_k^{(j)}(z_j)>0$ satisfies $\sum_{k=0}^{2N-2}p_k^{(j)}=1$ for any $1\le j\le n$. Then
%
we have
\begin{align*}
\left|f(z_1,\dots, z_n)\right|
&=\left|\sum_{\alpha_1,\dots, \alpha_n=0}^{d}a_{\alpha_1,\dots, \alpha_n}z_1^{\alpha_1}\cdots z_n^{\alpha_n}\right|\\
&=\left|\sum_{\alpha_1,\dots, \alpha_n=0}^{d}\sum_{k_1,\dots, k_n=0}^{2N-2}a_{\alpha_1,\dots, \alpha_n}p_{k_1}^{(1)}\cdots p_{k_n}^{(n)}\xi_{k_1}^{\alpha_1}\cdots \xi_{k_n}^{\alpha_n}\right|\\
&\le \sum_{k_1,\dots, k_n=0}^{2N-2}p_{k_1}^{(1)}\cdots p_{k_n}^{(n)}\left|\sum_{\alpha_1,\dots, \alpha_n=0}^{d}a_{\alpha_1,\dots, \alpha_n}\xi_{k_1}^{\alpha_1}\cdots \xi_{k_n}^{\alpha_n}\right|\\
&= \sum_{k_1,\dots, k_n=0}^{2N-2}p_{k_1}^{(1)}\cdots p_{k_n}^{(n)}|P(\xi_{k_1},\dots, \xi_{k_n})|\\
&\le \sum_{k_1,\dots, k_n=0}^{2N-2}p_{k_1}^{(1)}\cdots p_{k_n}^{(n)}\sup_{z \in (\Omega_{2N-1})^n}\left|f(z)\right|\\
&=\sup_{z \in (\Omega_{2N-1})^n}\left|f( z)\right|.
\end{align*}
So we have shown that
\begin{equation}\label{ineq:key}
\sup_{\|z\|_\infty \le \varepsilon_0}\left|f(z)\right|
\le \sup_{z \in (\Omega_{2N-1})^n}\left|f(z)\right|.
\end{equation}
Now consider
$$P(z):=f(\varepsilon_0 z_1,\dots, \varepsilon_0 z_n)=\sum_{\alpha}\varepsilon_0^{|\alpha|}a_{\alpha}z^{\alpha}.$$
Then we have by Theorem \ref{thm: bh convex hull} that
\begin{equation*}
\Big( \sum_{\alpha} |a_\alpha|^{\frac{2d}{d+1}}\Big)^{\frac{d+1}{2d}}
\le \varepsilon_0^{-d}\Big( \sum_{\alpha} |\varepsilon_0^{|\alpha|} a_\alpha|^{\frac{2d}{d+1}}\Big)^{\frac{d+1}{2d}}
\le \varepsilon_0^{-d}C(d)\sup_{z \in (\widetilde{\Om}_{2N-1})^n} |P(z)| .
\end{equation*}
By \eqref{ineq:key}, we get
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{z \in (\widetilde{\Om}_{2N-1})^n} |P(z)|
\le \sup_{\|z\|_\infty\le 1} |P(z)|
= \sup_{\|z\|_\infty\le \varepsilon_0} |f(z)|
\le \sup_{z \in (\Omega_{2N-1})^n}\left|f(z)\right|.
\end{equation*}
This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
Positron Annihilation Lifetime Spectroscopy (PALS) is one of the useful experimental methods using positrons for studying structural details in a wide spectrum of materials, in particular in the solid state~\cite{Piro20}. This method is based on the annihilation of positrons where their lifetime and annihilation intensity in the sample is dependent on some properties of the material in the nano scale, including local electron density, bound electron energy, and the density and size of free volumes in the sample.
\par
Depending on the material, besides the process of direct annihilation, a positron can form a meta-stable atomic state with an electron, called a positronium (Ps), which can exist in two spin states referred to as \emph{para}- and \emph{ortho}-Ps differing in properties (especially, their lifetimes differ in vacuum by three orders of magnitude)~\cite{GreinerField}. A number of conditions must be met for the Ps to be formed in matter. One of them is that free volumes of a sufficiently large size must be present. For these materials, a Ps is extremely useful in material science since its lifetime can be related to the size of free volumes~\cite{Goworek15}. Depending on the structure of the sample, there is possibly a variety of Ps components which annihilate with characteristic lifetimes. All these populations give their own account to the positron annihilation spectrum measured experimentally. PALS spectra require decomposition in the post-measuring procedure of decomposition resulting in both the calculation of lifetimes for particular species of positrons and the relative amplitudes for these processes (so-called spectrum inversion problem)~\cite{Jean13}.
\par
Many algorithms used for data processing require assuming an exponential character of positron decay. They also require fixing the number of components used during the decomposition. For example, the method used by one of the adequate software, the LT programme~\cite{Kansy96} or PALSfit~\cite{PALSfit07}, consists in fitting the PALS experimental spectrum to a sum of a given number of exponential functions usually convoluted with the (multi) gaussian apparatus resolution curve.
\par
The PALS spectra used here were measured for normal alkanes (n-alkanes), i.e. the simplest organic molecules where carbon atoms form a straight chain of the molecule and are saturated by hydrogen atoms. The n-alkanes with a different number $n$ of carbon atoms in the molecule form a homologous series described by the general chemical formula C$_n$H$_{2n+2}$ (C$n$ is used as an abbreviation). Alkanes in the solid phase form molecular crystals where the trains of elongated molecules are separated by gaps called the inter-lamellar gaps. Ps can be formed in the free volumes made by both the gaps and the spaces generated by changes in the conformation with temperature~\cite{Goworek15}. Using the PALS technique, the size of these free volumes can be determined from the lifetime and the relation between both being given by the Tao-Eldrup formula or its modification~\cite{Wada13}. According to our previous analysis of alkanes carried out with the use of the PALS technique, the best results of the spectrum decomposition are achieved assuming only one population of \emph{ortho}- and \emph{para}-Ps, whereas the ratio of the \emph{ortho} to \emph{para} intensity is fixed at 3/1.
\par
Tools of machine learning like genetic algorithms or artificial neural networks have been used to perform numerical calculations in a variety of aspects in positron science~\cite{Jegal22,Herraiz21,Jegal22,Wedrowski10,Whiteley20,Petschke19}. They have also been used for unfolding the lifetimes and intensities from PALS spectra~\cite{Lemes05,Pazsit99,An12,Viterbo01}. Possibly due to the low computing power of the hardware and the low time resolution of PALS spectrometers at the time when the neural network algorithms for decomposition of PALS spectra were proposed, most of the spectra used in these calculations are simulated by the software but not measured directly. For the same reason, the neural network architecture used there does not allow changing parameters as much as is allowed by algorithms developed today. Furthermore, no procedure allowing application for the same calculations of spectra registered for different time constants per channel has been presented since then. Thus, the preferred software used for spectrum decomposition is still based on non-linear fitting algorithms which do not include a possibility of establishing the result based on a multi-spectra set at the same time.
\par
Here, we present an approach to analysis of PALS spectra based on the multi-layer perceptron (MLP) model, which is one of the tools of machine learning~\cite{Rebala19}. The model assumes a network of inter-connected neurons grouped in the input layer ($\mathtt{In}_i$), the hidden neurons layers ($\mathtt{h}_i^k$) and the output neurons layer ($\mathtt{Out}_i$), where $i$ goes over the neurons in a given layer and $k$ numbers the hidden layers. A graphical diagram of the network used is shown in fig.~\ref{fig:architecture}. The numbers of $\mathtt{In}$ and $\mathtt{Out}$ neurons are determined by the amount of the independent input data introduced to the network and the data defined to be the results of calculation in a given problem, respectively. The number of hidden layers and the number of neurons within these layers are set experimentally to optimise the network to give required results. To each layer (excluding the output layer), one bias neuron is attached for technical reasons~\cite{Heaton12}. The tool assumes the learning process first, where the $\mathtt{In}$ neurons are fed with the data for which the result of the $\mathtt{Out}$ neurons is known in advance. During this process, the weight coefficients for pairs of inter-connected neurons are adjusted by an algorithm, so that the output of the MLP can give results most similar to the expected ones. The MLP becomes to be trained after a number of iterations of training. Once the MLP results of learning are satisfied, the MLP can be used to calculate the output for the input data never used in the training process.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.2, angle=90]{palsNN_architecture.png}
\caption{Schematic view of the MLP applied. The PALS data from consecutive channels of the MCA are transferred as the amplitudes of the consecutive input neurons $\mathtt{In}_i$. $\mathtt{h}_i$ denote neurons in the $i$-th hidden layer whereas $\mathtt{Out}_i$ denote output neurons returning chosen PALS decomposition parameters.}
\label{fig:architecture}
\end{figure}
\par
The MLP type of network can be applied to solve the problem of both classification and regression. For the first group of problems, it is required from the MLP to ascribe the values of the output parameters in the form of well separated categories. These so-called \emph{labels} can always be parametrised by a discrete set of numbers. The problem described in this paper is classified as rather a regression problem (MLPR) where the values of the output at each $\mathtt{Out}$ neuron are characterised by a continuous set of values. Consequently, the output may contain values approaching these appearing during the learning process but may not necessarily be exactly of the same value. The internal algorithms of the MLPR allows regarding the learning process as a way of finding the quasi-continuous output function of input parameters. In our case, based on the data from the PALS spectra applied as the input values of the perceptron, the MLPR is used for solving the regression problem of finding the values of key PALS parameters on the output.
\section{Method}
The \emph{scikit-learn} library was used to estimate the PALS parameters for alkanes \cite{Abraham11}. In our case, the MLP regressor class (called \emph{MLPRegressor}), which belongs to one of the supervised neural network models, was implemented. In this class, the output is a set of continuous values. It uses the square error as the loss function. This model optimises the squared error using the Broyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shanno algorithm (LBFGS)~\cite{LBFGS}, which belongs to quasi-Newton methods. Some MLPRegressor parameters playing a key role are mentioned below. Their values require to be tuned, especially the $\mathtt{alpha}$ hyper-parameter, which helps in avoiding over-fitting by penalising weights with large magnitudes. A full list of parameters of MLPRegressor is defined in~\cite{scikit}.
\par
In the learning process here, we used spectra collected for years from an analog spectrometer for several alkanes (in the range of C$_6$ -- C$_{40}$) measured at several temperatures (-142$^{\circ}$C -- 100$^{\circ}$C). Irrespective of both the goal of the particular experiment and the length of the alkane chain used as a sample, the initial assumptions made for starting the analysis of the spectra made by the LT programme~\cite{Kansy96} were the same. Each measurement resulting in the spectra used was performed with a sample prepared in a similar way, i.e. the sample was degassed, and the rate of cooling or heating was the same. In each case, the measurement at constant temperature took place for at least one hour which gave some hundreds of thousands of annihilations (the strength of the radioactive source was similar in each case). During some experiments the temperature was changed stepswise but each spectrum was collected at constant temperature. The most important issue here is that the post-experimental analysis of the spectra was conducted under the same general assumptions every time. Especially, for the decomposition of these spectra, we used LT supposing that the time resolution curve can be approximated by one-gaussian curve. Every time it was assumed that the annihilation process in the Kapton envelope accounted for 10\% (so-called \emph{source correction}). Additionally, only one component was always assumed for \emph{para}- and \emph{ortho}-Ps, whereas their intensity ratio was fixed at the value 3/1 (see~\cite{Goworek09} for details of the experimental procedure).
\par
Taking into account these assumptions, each spectrum was decomposed into three exponential curves for which the intensities ($I$) and lifetimes ($\tau$) were calculated for the following sub-populations of positrons: the free positron annihilation ($I_2$, $\tau_2$), \emph{para} ($I_1$, $\tau_1$), and \emph{ortho}-Ps ($I_3$, $\tau_3$)\footnote{Numbering of the indices is related to the length of $\tau$. The increasing values of the indices correspond to the rising length of lifetime.}. The database collected in this way contained 7973 PALS spectra, wherein about 75\% were used in the neural network training process and the rest were used as a testing set for checking the accuracy of the results given by the learned network.
\par
The number of input neurons is determined by the number of channels of the Multi-channel Analyser (MCA) module of the PALS spectrometer recording PALS spectra. Furthermore, the number of the output neurons is related in this model to the number of PALS parameters, which are supposed to be predicted for further studies of physical processes in the sample. The decomposition of the PALS spectrum made by commonly used programs, like LT, allows determining ($I$,$\tau$) pairs for all assumed components of a given spectrum. However, often, not all these parameters are needed for further analysis. Furthermore, some of these parameters are inter-dependent. For example, in the case of PALS spectra for the alkanes discussed here, one assumes that the spectrum is built up by events from the three populations of positrons mentioned above ($\tau_1$ -- $\tau_3$, $I_1$ -- $I_3$ parameters). However, from the practical view point, only $\tau_2$, $I_2$, $\tau_3$, and $I_3$ are then used for studying physical processes and the structure of the sample. Furthermore, in this case, $I_i$ are inter-dependent and fulfil the following relations $I_1$+$I_2$+$I_3$=100\%\footnote{Annihilation in Kapton was subtracted in advance.} and $I_3/I_1$=3. Thus, effectively, the parameters considered as the $\mathtt{Out}$ parameters of MLPR are only $I_2$, $\tau_2$, and $\tau_3$. According to this, we declared in our modelling only three output neurons for receiving values for these three parameters.
\section{Preparation of input and output data}
\label{sec:Preparation}
During the PALS measurements, the time constant per channel ($\Delta$) varied, depending on the internal properties and settings of the spectrometer. Most of the data used here were collected with $\Delta$=11.9~ps; however, some spectra were measured with $\Delta$=11.2~ps, 13.2~ps, 11.6~ps, and 19.5~ps (fig.~\ref{fig:TimeConstantsSet}).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{CenaKanalu.png}
\caption{Number of spectra (horizontal axis) with a given value of the time constant per channel $\Delta$ (vertical axis) used as a data set in the presented calculations.}
\label{fig:TimeConstantsSet}
\end{figure}
Therefore, it is important for the $\mathtt{In}$ neurons to code the PALS amplitude samples not in the relation to the channel numbers but in the scale of time. Hence, in addition to the spectrum amplitudes, the regressor has to learn the times associated with these amplitudes. Thus, one half of the $\mathtt{In}$ neurons is fed with time values for consecutive channels of a spectrum, whereas the second half is fed with the values of their amplitude. The advantage of the regression approach applied here is the ability to test spectra measured even for a time sequence that has never appeared in an extreme case in the training process.
\par
This method requires setting correctly a common zero-time for each spectrum. To achieve this, the original data from the left slope of the spectrum peak (and only a few points to its right) were used to interpolate the resolution curve, which is assumed to be in the gaussian form. The position of this peak defines a zero-time for a spectrum. One-gaussian interpolation is compatible with previous LT analysis assumptions. Based on the common starting position for all spectra established in this way, the values of time for each channel on the right to the peak were re-calibrated for each spectrum depending on $\Delta$ for which the spectrum was measured. Finally, for further analysis, we took the same $N$ number of consecutive channels for each spectrum on the right to its peak (points $p_i$ in fig.~\ref{fig:normalization}). The $\delta$ parameter shown in fig.~\ref{fig:normalization} denotes the distance (in time units) between the first point on the right to the peak and the calculated time position of the peak. The number $N$ taken for further analysis was established experimentally. Finally, the spectrum data for the MLPR input are the $N$ points $p_i$ with their two values: the re-calibrated number of counts in a given channel (see below) and their re-calibrated times of annihilation.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{normalizacja.png}
\caption{Schematic view of a peak region of the PALS spectrum. The bullets indicate $(t,log(A))$ pairs saved in the MCA channels, whereas the star indicates a position of a peak calculated assuming a gaussian shape of an apparatus distribution function. Only the points to the right of the star ($p_1$, $p_2$, ...) are taken as data introduced to MLPR. The $\delta$ parameter denotes a time distance between the calculated peak and the first point, whereas $\Delta$ is the time distance between two points.}
\label{fig:normalization}
\end{figure}
\par
Then, to minimise errors, the original input data were transformed before application. Each original spectrum was stored in 8192 channels of MCA. Firstly, starting from the first channel on the right to the spectrum maximum ($p_1$ in fig.~\ref{fig:normalization}), 2k channels were taken from the original spectrum. This means that the spectra were truncated at about 25~ns of the registration time (varying to some extent, depending on the $\Delta$ for a given spectrum). Secondly, to smooth random fluctuations, the data were smoothed in most cases. One of the examples of smoothing is averaging over five consecutive channels. In this case, the number of samples in each spectrum shrank from the original 2k channels to the amount of 400. Since the $\mathtt{In}$ neurons transfer information about the pair of values -- times ($t$-part) and amplitudes ($A$-part), 800 input neurons that fed the MLPR with the data in this case were declared. Thirdly, to standardise the range of the input data values, the set of the PALS amplitudes was normalised to the maximum value of the amplitude and then logarithmised. According to these transformations, the $A$-part data covered the numerical range [-9,0] -- fig.~\ref{fig:InputSpectra}. Furthermore, to adjust the range of the values in the $t$-sector, the values of time were divided by -2.5. As a result, all data transferred to the $\mathtt{In}$ neurons were in the range of [-10,0].
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{InputSpectra.png}
\caption{Input data directed to $\mathtt{In}$ neurons can be divided into two sub-sets: $t$-part which is a set of time values for points $p_1$, $p_2$, ... (see fig.~\ref{fig:normalization}) and $A$-part coding the log function of their normalised amplitudes. In special cases, these data are smoothed or compressed before use in MLPR.}
\label{fig:InputSpectra}
\end{figure}
\par
Additionally, we applied some transformation of the original values for the $\mathtt{Out}$ neurons in order to have their values at each neuron scaled to the same range. Initially, the first output neuron is related to $I_2$, whereas its original value range is typically tenths (in \% units). The second neuron transfers the information related to $\tau_2$ whose original values are of the order of 0.1 (of ns), whereas the order of $\tau_3$ related to the third neuron is originally 1 (of ns). In order to have the uniform order of numerical values on all $\mathtt{Out}$ neurons, the data that finally feed with them are [$I_2$/10, $\tau_2 \cdot$10, $\tau_3$].
\par
The criterion of acceptance of training the network was the best value of the score validation function defined for this regressor as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{S}=1-\frac{\sum_{N}(\mathcal{O}_{\text{true}}-\mathcal{O}_{\text{pred}})^2}{\sum_{N}\mathcal{O}_{\text{true}}^2},
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{O}_{\text{true}}$, $\mathcal{O}_{\text{pred}}$ -- expected (known) and calculated (predicted) values of the result, respectively~\cite{Abraham11,scikit}. $\mathcal{S}$ is calculated for both the learning and testing sets separately. $N$ here denotes the number of spectra in the trained or tested set. The optimum value of $\mathcal{S}$ is~$\approx$1.
\section{Results}
The MLPRegressor used in these calculations requires establishing some key parameters~\cite{scikit} influencing the ability to learn and a speed of the learning process. We performed some tests trying to optimise these parameters. The best results we obtained by the settings shown in tab.~\ref{tab:params}.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{Values of the MLPRegressor parameters applied for producing the final MPLR results.}
\begin{tabular}{|r|c|}
\hline
Parameter & value\\ \hline\hline
$\mathtt{hidden\_layer\_sizes}$ = & 7$\times$150\\
$\mathtt{activation}$ = & \emph{relu}\\
$\mathtt{solver}$ = & \emph{lbfgs} \\
$\mathtt{alpha}$ = & 0.01 \\
$\mathtt{learning\_rate}$ = & \emph{invscaling}\\
$\mathtt{power\_t}$ = & 0.5 \\
$\mathtt{max\_iter}$ = & 5e+9 \\
$\mathtt{random\_state}$ = & None \\
$\mathtt{tol}$ = & 0.0001 \\
$\mathtt{warm\_start}$ = & True \\
$\mathtt{max\_fun}$ = & 15000 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:params}
\end{table}
Both the names and the meaning of the technical parameters shown in the table are identical to these defined in the routine description~\cite{scikit}. Once the key parameters of the MLPR were established (especially the $\mathtt{solver}$), we performed tests of credibility of the network changing the number of hidden layers, the number of neurons within ($\mathtt{hidden\_layer\_sizes}$ parameter), and the $\mathtt{alpha}$ parameter. The results in tab.~\ref{tab:DifferentNetworks} show examples of the results. For these networks, we specified the mean validation score parameter for both the training $\langle\mathcal{S}_{tr}\rangle$ and testing $\langle\mathcal{S}_{te}\rangle$ sets separately with their variation $\delta\mathcal{S}$. Averaging was made over the results of ten runs of the training process for identical networks differing by initially random weights. We did not notice any rule giving a ratio of the numbers of neurons that should be declared in the consecutive hidden layers (especially as the number of neurons should decrease proportionally in the consecutive layers). A few initial examples shown here suggest that the accuracy of results increases when both the number of hidden layers and the number of neurons inside increase. However, the last two rows of the table show that a further increase in these parameters does not give better results. Finally, the network that gave a nearly best result was chosen (marked in bold $\langle\mathcal{S}_{tr}\rangle$ in the table). It was checked for this network that an increase in the iterations of training ($\mathtt{max\_iter}$ parameter) beyond about 5$\cdot$10$^{9}$ did not improve $\langle\mathcal{S}\rangle$.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{Valuation score for chosen values of some MLPR parameters. $\mathcal{S}$ values are averages over 10 runs with random initial neuron weights. A nearly optimum case of parameters is placed in a row with $\mathcal{S}$ marked in bold.}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c||c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$\mathtt{hidden\_layer\_sizes}$ & $\mathtt{max\_iter}$ & $\mathtt{alpha}$ & $\langle\mathcal{S}_{tr}\rangle$ & $\delta\mathcal{S}_{tr}$ & $\langle\mathcal{S}_{te}\rangle$ & $\delta\mathcal{S}_{te}$\\
\hline\hline
$30 \times 25 \times 15$ & 10$^6$ & 0.7 & 0.950 & 0.003 & 0.942 & 0.004\\
\hline
$3 \times 100$ & 10$^8$ & 0.7 & 0.969 & 0.005 & 0.965 & 0.008\\
\hline
$3 \times 100$ & 10$^8$ & 0.1 & 0.974 & 0.005 & 0.968 & 0.008\\
\hline
$3 \times 100$ & 5$\cdot$ 10$^8$ & 0.1 & 0.975 & 0.003 & 0.976 & 0.003\\
\hline
$4 \times 100$ & 10$^8$ & 0.1 & 0.978 & 0.004 & 0.975 & 0.006\\
\hline
$500 \times 400 \times 300 \times 200$ & 5$\cdot$10$^9$ & 0.01 & 0.977 & 0.003 & 0.974 & 0.007\\
\hline
$7 \times 150$ & 5$\cdot$10$^8$ & 0.01 & \textbf{0.985} & 0.002 & 0.975 & 0.013\\
\hline
$\begin{array} {rl} & 500 \times 500 \times 400 \times 400 \times \\ & \times 300 \times 300 \times 200 \times 200 \end{array}$ & 5$\cdot$10$^9$ & 0.01 & 0.978 & 0.005 & 0.977 & 0.008\\
\hline
$8 \times 500$ & 5$\cdot$10$^9$ & 0.01 & 0.982 & 0.004 & 0.980 & 0.005\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:DifferentNetworks}
\end{table}
\par
For several finally tested networks, the spectrum of the magnitude of inter-neurons weights was checked. It is expected that weights that differ significantly from the average range of values may affect the stability of the results. In this case, the range of weight values seems to be quite narrow. As shown in fig.~\ref{fig:weights}, the weight magnitude order (exponent of weights) for the chosen network ranges from 10$^{-5}$ to 10$^{0}$, while the relative number of cases in these subsets changes exponentially. The lack of values outside the narrow set of values suggests that self-cleaning of the resultant weights is performed by the MLPRegressor algorithm itself.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{weights.jpg}
\caption{Number of cases (log scale) of exponents of weights for a network with 7$\times$100 hidden layers. For this network, the key parameters are: $\mathtt{solver}$=\emph{lbfgs}, $\mathtt{max\_iter}$=5$\cdot$10$^{11}$, $\mathtt{alpha}$=0.005, $\mathtt{learning\_rate}$=\emph{invscaling}, and $\mathtt{activation}$=\emph{relu}.}
\label{fig:weights}
\end{figure}
\par
The number of all PALS spectra used as a database for the network was 7973, and 6500 were used to learn the output values (training set) by the network, while the rest were used for checking the results of learning (testing set). Tab.~\ref{tab:exampleA} shows a few examples of randomly taken results given by one of the networks finally used.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{Examples of a few randomly taken results of calculations (prediction) of the $I_2$, $\tau_2$, and $\tau_3$ parameters compared to the expected values calculated by LT. Here, $\mathtt{hidden\_layer\_size}$=7$\times$150, $\mathcal{S}$=0.985 for both training and testing sets.}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Example} &
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$I_2$ [\%]} &
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\tau_2$ [ns]} &
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\tau_3$ [ns]} \\
& \scriptsize{expected} & \scriptsize{predicted} & \scriptsize{expected} & \scriptsize{predicted} & \scriptsize{expected} & \scriptsize{predicted} \\
\hline
\scriptsize{1} & 68.0 & 68.8 & 0.27 & 0.28 & 1.21 & 1.20 \\
\hline
\scriptsize{2} & 47.2 & 47.6 & 0.38 & 0.39 & 3.23 & 3.18 \\
\hline
\scriptsize{3} & 65.4 & 65.5 & 0.30 & 0.29 & 1.35 & 1.38 \\
\hline
\scriptsize{4} & 78.3 & 78.3 & 0.23 & 0.24 & 1.11 & 1.12 \\
\hline
\scriptsize{5} & 52.4 & 52.4 & 0.35 & 0.34 & 2.93 & 2.93 \\
\hline
\scriptsize{6} & 60.5 & 60.4 & 0.31 & 0.30 & 1.25 & 1.20 \\
\hline
\scriptsize{7} & 59.3 & 58.8 & 0.29 & 0.29 & 1.19 & 1.22 \\
\hline
\scriptsize{8} & 61.0 & 62.3 & 0.30 & 0.31 & 1.91 & 1.91 \\
\hline
\scriptsize{9} & 70.2 & 69.5 & 0.21 & 0.21 & 1.06 & 1.10 \\
\hline
\scriptsize{10} & 39.9 & 38.8 & 0.23 & 0.22 & 1.15 & 1.13 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:exampleA}
\end{table}
The results given by the trained network were compared to the expected values known from the LT analysis. Although $\mathcal{S}$ for both the trained and tested sets in this case is not the highest one obtained in our tests, the result of the use of this network is satisfactory in a practical sense because the deviation of the predicted and expected result is in the range of deviation given by LT itself.
\par
The problem of pre-preparation of spectra for calculations by MLPR is worth mentioning. The main problems are where the spectrum should be cut and to what extent it is acceptable to smooth the spectra by averaging their consecutive values. As for the first problem, it was determined by series of runs for which the spectra were cut at other that mentioned limit of 2k channels that this number of channels was almost the best choice. $\langle \mathcal{S}\rangle$ was found to worsen in the case of a shorter cut (say, 1.5k channels), and did not improve significantly in the case of the longer ones (e.g. 3k channels) (but it took longer to compute the result because of an increase in the number of $\mathtt{In}$ neurons).
\par
The accuracy of the prediction increases when the learning and testing processes are limited to one only $\Delta$ with all parameters of the network kept constant. In this case, the set of values in the $t$-part for every spectrum varies in a much narrower range (only $\delta$ changes). In this case, the training process is more effective even if the size of the training set is reduced. To show this, we separated the set of spectra measured for only one $\Delta$=11.9~ps. Consequently, the whole set of samples under consideration shrank to 4116 members, and 3000 of them were used for training after the transformations described above. The score $\mathcal{S}$ obtained in this case was much greater than $\mathcal{S}$ for an identical network applied to spectra with all possible $\Delta$. The comparison of these two cases is shown in tab.~\ref{tab:DeltaDiff} (the last row of the table). Here, to have the result reliable for networks with different (random) initial weights, the score was averaged over 30 runs.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\caption{Comparison of MLPR validation score $\mathcal{S}$ for different formats of the input data. Comparison of the results for 'raw' data (log of normalised and adjusted data according to the procedure described in section~\ref{sec:Preparation}) and data on which the moving average and compressing average (by each 3 and 5 separate spectrum points) are applied. The result for the network fed with the data collected for one chosen $\Delta$ is added in the last row of the table.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|llc|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{|c|}{MLPR and spectra parameters} & $\langle\mathcal{S}_{tr}\rangle$ & $\langle\mathcal{S}_{te}\rangle$ \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{\multirow{7}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}$\mathtt{solver}$=\emph{lbfgs}\\ $\mathtt{activation}$=\emph{relu}\\ $\mathtt{learning\_rate}$=\emph{invscaling}\\ $\mathtt{alpha}$=0.01, $\mathtt{In}$=800\\ $\mathtt{hidden\_layer\_sizes}$=7$\times$150\\$\mathtt{max\_iter}$=5$\times$10$^9$\\ averaged over 30 trials\end{tabular}}} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{\multirow{4}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Several $\Delta$s \\ $N_{tr}$=6500 ($\sim$ 80\%)\\ $N_{te}$=1473\end{tabular}}} & unsmoothed data & 0.984$\pm$0.005 & 0.963$\pm$0.006 \\ \cline{3-5}
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{} & moving average & 0.984$\pm$0.005 & 0.977$\pm$0.007 \\ \cline{3-5}
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{} & k=3 & 0.981$\pm$0.005 & 0.976$\pm$0.007 \\ \cline{3-5}
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{} & k=5 & 0.981$\pm$0.006 & 0.974$\pm$0.010 \\ \cline{2-5}
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{\multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}Fixed $\Delta$=11.9 ps\\ $N_{tr}$=3000 ($\sim$73\%)\\ $N_{te}$=1116\end{tabular}}} & \multirow{3}{*}{k=5} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.993$\pm$0.002} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.989$\pm$0.003} \\
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{} & & & \\
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{} & & & \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:DeltaDiff}
\end{table}
\par
The validation score $\mathcal{S}$ is sensitive to smoothing the spectrum which reduces to some extent the information given by the PALS spectrum. In tab.~\ref{tab:DeltaDiff}, two cases are compared where each 3- and 5-tuples of points of the spectrum (forming non-overlapping windows) were taken to calculate their average amplitude. For example, $N$=3500 points of the initial spectrum are reduced to 700 points when averaging over $k$=5 points; when the remainder of the division of $N$ by $k$ is not zero, an integer quotient is taken. $\langle \mathcal{S}\rangle$ calculated for these two cases shows that both of them give the same results statistically. However, further shrinking the spectrum by setting $k$=6 or more produces worse $\mathcal{S}$.
\par
Tab.~\ref{tab:DeltaDiff} also shows the $\mathcal{S}$ parameter when the moving average is applied during preparation of spectra. The sampling window applied here is 10. The comparison of this result to the result of calculation with unsmoothed data shows that the application of the moving average does improve predictions for the testing data set.
\section{Conclusions}
We have shown in this paper that the easy-to-reach machine learning MLPRegressor tool enhanced with some programming in \emph{Python} making some preparation of data, can be used as an alternative method of solving the problem of inversion of PALS spectra. The main disadvantage of the presented method is the need of decomposition of training spectra by other software to have $\mathtt{Out}$ values for training. Once the training set is collected and the network is trained, the algorithm works very quickly, giving the result for the tested spectrum. The training process used here is based on results given by LT, i.e. a method producing results with some uncertainty itself. The uncertainty produced by the LT is caused by the use of numerical methods to compute the fit in particular cases. On the other hand, since the MLPR prediction bases on information from a large set of spectra, this approach seems to be less sensitive to the specific shape of a given spectrum and may be more accurate in predicting parameters. Furthermore, the presented method seems to be faster than the referenced ones, since calculations made by a trained network are reduced to simple transformations of matrices and vectors, which is not demanding computationally and less sensitive to numerical problems.
\par
Although the model presented here is similar to that described in~\cite{Pazsit99} (and repeated in~\cite{An12}), there are significant differences indicated in tab.~\ref{tab:PazsitVsOur}.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Comparison of key parameters and results of the MLPR modelling applied in this study (\emph{skLearn}) and a three-component spectrum analysis published previously (presented in~\cite{Pazsit99} and~\cite{An12}).}
\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{|X|c|c|c|}\hline
& \textbf{P\'{a}zsit}~\cite{Pazsit99} & \textbf{An}~\cite{An12} & \textbf{skLearn}\\
\hlin
Type of training spectra & simulated & simulated & real (alkanes)\\
No. of training spectra & 575 & 920 & 7973\\
Type of spectra tested & simulated & simulated, silicon & alkanes \\
No. of test spectra & 50 & 100 (30) & 1473\\
Type of network & one-layer perc. & one-layer perc. & multi-layer perc.\\
Channel width [ps] & 23.2 & 24.5 & \textbf{some} (11.2-19.5)\\
No. of MCA/taken channels & 1500/1500 & 1024/1024 & 8192/3500\\
Approx. no. of counts in spec. & 10M & 10M & $\sim$400k\\
Solver & backward error prop. & backward error prop. & \textbf{some}\\
No. of hidden layers & 1 & 1 & some\\ \hline
$I_2$, $\tau_3$ average error [\%] \newline on tested \textbf{simulated} spectra & 7.3, 1.0 & 1.07-3.52, 0.55-1.21 & -, -\\
$I_2$, $\tau_3$ average error [\%] \newline on tested \textbf{real} spectra & -, - & -, - & 1.03, 1.70 \\ \hline
\end{tabularx}
\label{tab:PazsitVsOur}
\end{table}
Our experimental data are collected by spectrometers differing in functional properties, especially differing in time resolution. Even for one spectrometer, this parameter should be re-calibrated periodically due to changes in experimental conditions, especially temperature. In the algorithm presented in~\cite{Pazsit99}, the same resolution curve for all spectra is assumed. In our data preparation procedure, the parameters of the resolution curve are interpolated for each case. Based on this, the $\delta$ parameter is calculated and the value of the shift in time is established for consecutive channels. Although one-gaussian resolution curve was assumed here, it is possible to extend this algorithm for much more complicated cases where the distribution curve consisted in a sum of gaussians, for example. As already mentioned in~\cite{Pazsit99}, in that case, a possibility of recognising a distribution function would give compatibility to MELT~\cite{Shukla93}. Such an extension requires extending the calculations by applying another neural network, working in advance, which returns the parameters of the resolution curve in a given case. This problem has been solved by application of a Hopfield neural network~\cite{Viterbo01}. Taking into account our collection of spectra, it was checked with the use of LT and (occasionally) with MELT that the apparatus resolution curve is one-gaussian for our spectra. Hence, they do not allow testing such an extended model.
\par
Furthermore, the MCA module of spectrometers may differ in the time constant per channel $\Delta$. Thus, spectra used as a training data set may be collected for different channel widths. Taking into account the method presented in~\cite{Pazsit99} for fixed $\Delta$, the training result is of little use for spectra collected with another $\Delta$. Oppositely, we have shown the possibility of application of an improved algorithm to data collected for different $\Delta$s. The data collected from many spectrometers may contribute to a large training data set, which allows solving the inversion problem for any PALS spectrum and, thus, may be a universal tool that can be used in different laboratories. Although the set of $\Delta$ used here is small, the accuracy of the results is quite good. To use this tool to determine the real-world spectrum parameters, the training process should be extended by adding the spectra measured for a wider range of $\Delta$.
\par
For greater generalisation, it is possible in principle to attach spectra collected for other compounds to the training data set. For consistency, it suffices for a training database to keep the same number of components (three here) in spectrum decomposition. However, in practice, some incompatibilities of the spectra for different compounds may arise because decomposition into a few exponential processes is probably always a simplification of a real case where some distribution of the size and shape of free volumes should be taken into account as well as other Ps formation details.
\par
Although the approach presented here is reduced to the analysis of alkanes solely, the algorithm can be applied in calculation of PALS parameters of other types of samples as well.
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
|
\section{Introduction}
The method of \emph{trivializing maps} was formulated by L\"uscher~\cite{Luscher:2009eq}
to improve the efficiency of Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulations of
lattice QCD by mapping the theory to another one that is easier to simulate,
ideally to a theory in which the degrees of freedom are decoupled.
L\"uscher discussed how to construct such a map systematically by integrating
certain flow equations in field space
and pointed out that, once such a map is constructed, the theory ``can be simulated
simply by generating uniformly distributed random gauge fields''~\cite{Luscher:2009eq}.
Although the last remark seemed ``likely to remain an academic one''~\cite{Luscher:2009eq},
it took less than one decade that a similar idea, which is called the method of
\emph{normalizing flows} (NF),
flourished with many applications such as image generation;
for review, see Refs.~\cite{Kobyzev:2021abc, Papamakarios:2021abc}.
The method of normalizing flows is implemented using deep neural networks rather
than integrating certain flow equations.
Deep neural networks can approximate a huge class of functions and,
as a result, provide a way to tackle complicated problems without a need to model
them first, in this case, constructing some flow equations and integrating them.
This, however, does not mean that one cannot use theoretical developments
to construct more suitable neural network architectures for NF.
Li and Wang~\cite{Li:2018nnrg} used a flow-based method for sampling from
a dual version of two-dimensional Ising model that resembles a scalar field
theory.
Albergo \emph{et.al.}~\cite{Albergo:2019eim, Albergo:2021vyo} extended the study
by applying NF to scalar field theories with quartic potential in two-dimensional
lattices up to $14^2$ sites
and discussed in detail different aspects of the algorithm
such as effects on the autocorrelation time.
Del Debbio \emph{et.al.}~\cite{DelDebbio:2021qwf} explored the scalability of the
method by investigating lattices up $20^2$ sites using different architectures.
Their study indicates that, in general, the method's efficiency deteriorates as
the lattice size increases (for a fixed architecture).
For a review of applications of generative models on lattice field theory,
we refer the reader to Ref.~\cite{Boyda:2022nmh}.
In this manuscript, we expand the study of scalar field theories with quartic
potential in two dimensions by introducing a novel flow model
inspired by effective field theories, discuss the scalability of the model,
and present a way to deal with the low acceptance rate at large volumes.
\section{Background and review of widely used architectures for NF}
\label{background}
Let us start with a quick comment about the method of inverse transform sampling
(ITS).
This method can be used to draw samples from the probability density function
(PDF) of a continuous random variable, $f_Y(y)$,
by sampling from a simpler one, $f_X(x)$, and transforming the samples using
\begin{equation}
y = F_Y^{-1} \circ F_X (x)\,,
\end{equation}
in which $F_X$ and $F_Y$ stand for the cumulative distribution functions of $x$
(the \emph{prior}) and $y$ (the \emph{target}) variables.
The method of NF can be considered a generalization of the ITS method
to higher dimensional distributions. With the method of NF, we deal with
a series of invertible and differentiable
transformations that are typically implemented by deep neural networks.
The series of transformations map the prior variable/distribution to a
new one that we simply refer to as the \emph{transformed} variable/distribution.
Training a NF-based model is then nothing but optimizing the parameters of the
model such that the transformed distribution resembles the target distribution.
To this end, one can minimize the relative entropy of the transformed and target
distributions using the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence
\begin{align}
D_\text{KL}(q || p) &\equiv \int d\phi ~ q[\phi] \log \frac{q[\phi]}{p[\phi]} ~~ \ge ~0.
\label{eq:KL}
\end{align}
Here, $\phi$ denotes the transformed variable;
$p[\phi]$ is the target PDF;
and $q[\phi]$, which can be written in terms of the prior PDF and the Jacobian
of transformation, is the transformed PDF.
The equality in KL divergence holds only if $p[\phi] = q[\phi]$.
The ``TRAIN'' block in Fig.~\ref{fig:NF:diagram} depicts the described
training procedure.
Here, $\xi(x)$ and $\phi(x)$ are the prior and transformed variables (fields) at position
$x$, and $r[\xi]$ and $q[\phi]$ are corresponding probability densities.
For the prior, we use a set of independent normal distributions.
The target PDF is
$$
p[\phi] = \frac{1}{Z} e^{-S[\phi]},
$$
where $S$ is the action of the theory and the normalization factor $Z$ is
typically not known, indicating that the lower bound in \eqref{eq:KL}
is not known.
\begin{figure}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/Normflow.pdf}
\caption{Block diagram for the method of normalizing flows.
$\xi(x)$ and $\phi(x)$ are the prior and
transformed fields at position $x$, and and $r[\xi]$ and $q[\phi]$ are
corresponding probability densities. The ``GENERATE`` block illustrates
the integration of NF and MCMC by including an accept/reject step.}
\label{fig:NF:diagram}
\end{figure}
Once the model is perfectly trained, one can use it to draw samples from the
target distribution.
In practice, however, it is unlikely to find a perfectly trained model,
especially when the degrees of freedom increase.
To correct the samples, one can integrate the method of NF with MCMC.
For example, Ref.~\cite{Albergo:2019eim} introduced an accept/reject
step as used in the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm
to ensure exactness.
The ``GENERATE'' block in Fig.~\ref{fig:NF:diagram} illustrates
such an integration, in which the accept/reject step is formulated using the
logarithm of the ratio of transformed and target densities,
$\log (q[\phi]/p[\phi])$, of consecutive proposed fields as input.
The method of normalizing flows requires invertible transformations, putting
some restrictions on NF architectures.
\emph{Coupling flows} are one of the most widely used architectures;
see Refs.~\cite{Kobyzev:2021abc, Papamakarios:2021abc} for reviews of different
types of flows.
With coupling flows, one divides the field degrees of freedom into two partitions,
which can be labeled as $a$ (active) and $f$ (frozen/fixed) partitions.
A checkerboard-like mask is convenient for such partitioning.
Each coupling-flow layer transforms the active partition by a function parametrized
with the frozen partition of the data:
$$
x_a ~\to~ T(x_a ; \Theta(x_f)) \,.
$$
It is convenient to employ element-wise operations for $T$,
e.g., element-wise linear (affine) and spline transformations.
With such transformations, the Jacobian matrix is triangular,
making it easy to calculate its determinant.
Contrary to $T$, the form of $\Theta$ can be extremely complicated,
which is usually implemented by deep neural networks.
There are two widely used neural networks to model $\Theta$:
linear (dense) networks and convolutional networks.
The former is great for small-size lattices, but the number of parameters
grows fast as the size of the lattice grows.
The latter takes advantage of the translational symmetry of the underlying
theory and in general needs much fewer parameters. However, the latter
requires many layers of neural networks to propagate the correlation
throughout the data.
\section{Designing new architectures for normalizing flows}
\subsection{Effective action and power spectral density}
Inspired by symmetries of the action and effective theories of scalar fields,
our primary goal in this section is to construct a novel flow layer that
can propagate the correlation in data in an efficient way.
To this end, we start with an effective description of a real, scalar field
theory. The action of such a field in $d$ spacetime dimensions is
\begin{align}
S[\phi] = \int d^d x
\left(\frac{\zeta}{2} \partial_\mu \phi(x) \partial_\mu \phi(x)
+ \frac{m^2}{2} \phi^2(x)
+ \sum_{n=3}^\infty g_n \phi^n(x) \right)\, .
\label{eq:def:scalar-action}
\end{align}
The corresponding quantum effective action reads
\begin{align}
\Gamma[\phi] = \frac{1}{2} \int \frac{d^d k}{(2\pi)^d}\,
\Big(\zeta k^2 + m^2 + \Pi(k^2) \Big) |\tilde \phi(k)|^2
+ \cdots\,,
\label{eq:effective:action}
\end{align}
where $\tilde \phi(k)$ is the scalar field in Fourier space.
The quantum effective action has the following property:
the tree-level Feynman diagrams that it generates give the complete scattering
amplitude of the original theory~\cite{Srednicki:2007qft}.
Note that $\Big(\zeta k^2 + m^2 + \Pi(k^2) \Big)$ is the inverse of the two-point
correlator and, employing the engineering terminology, it is proportional
to the inverse of power spectral density (PSD) generalized to $d$ dimensions.
As manifested in \eqref{eq:effective:action},
an element-wise operation on $\tilde \phi(k)$ can map the PSD to the one
of interest. Depending on the properties of PSD, one can restrict the map even
further. For example, the Lorentz invariance of PSD implies that
the element-wise operation depends only on $k^2$.
We now examine a couple of examples for further restrictions.
Figure~\ref{fig:IPSD:examples} shows the inverse of PSD of a $\phi^4$ scalar
theory with double-well potential in one and two
dimensions obtained from MCMC simulations plotted
against $\hat k^2 = \sum_i 4 \sin^2 (k_i/2)$.
The figure indicates that the inverse of PSD can be modeled using a positive,
monotonically increasing function of $\hat{k}^2$.
Here, we model the inverse of PSD with a rational quadratic spline (RQS)
\cite{Gregory:1982rqs, Delbourgo:1983rqs, Durkan:2019rqsf}
as a function of $\hat k^2$, and we scale $\tilde \phi(k)$ accordingly.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{figures/IPSD.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{figures/ipsd_2dim.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{The inverse of PSD of quartic scaler field theories
with double-well potential (from MCMC simulations).
Left: One-dimensional lattice with size $L = 1024$ and parameters $\zeta = 1$,
$m^2 = -1.6$, $g_4 = 0.1$ (with lattice spacing set to $0.125$).
Right: Two-dimensional lattice with size $L^2 = 32^2$ and parameters $\zeta=0.7$,
$m^2 = -2.8$, and $g_4 = 0.5$.
The dashed lines are guide for the eye.
}
\label{fig:IPSD:examples}
\end{figure}
In the case of a two-dimensional problem, PSD blows up at $k^2 = 0$ in the
broken phase.
This special point can be handled using the mean field theory:
the mean-field potential turns to a double-well potential at the broken phase.
Therefore, at $k^2 = 0$, instead of scaling $\tilde \phi(0)$,
we feed it to a separate RQS, which can change the distribution
of $\tilde \phi(0)$ to a multi-modal distribution.
We use the term \emph{PSD flow} to denote the described transformation.
Note that a PSD flow can change the correlation in data at the largest
and shortest scales. In the next part, we investigate an architecture with one
PSD-flow layer followed by four coupling-flow layers.
\subsection{A new architecture}
In this part, we explain how we use a PSD-flow layer to construct a new
NF architecture for a real, scalar field theory in two dimensions,
and we investigate the scalability of the new architecture.
The architecture that we investigated contains three blocks.
A PSD-flow layer, followed by two blocks of affine coupling flows,
each block has two layers alternating the active and frozen partitions.
(In total, there are four coupling-flow layers.)
For the $\Theta$ function in the affine coupling flows, we use convolutional
neural networks.
Each of the three blocks has its own activation:
symmetric RQS, tanh, symmetric RQS, respectively.
Unlike the tanh activation, the symmetric RQS splines that we use have free
parameters.
We use symmetric RQS activations because they respect the $Z_2$ symmetry of
$\phi^4$ scalar theories.
In total, there are about 3.4~K parameters in the model.
We use this NF model for $\phi^4$ scalar fields in two dimensions
with several values of $L$: $8, 12, 16, \cdots, 64$.
We train the model for the $8^2$ lattice with 10~K epochs.
For the $12^2$ lattice, instead of training from scratch, we rely on transfer
learning:
we start from the model trained for the $8^2$ lattice
and train it for 5~K epochs.
Then, we use the model trained for the $12^2$ lattice as the starting point
for the $16^2$ lattice and analogously for larger lattices.
In order to compare our results with the literature,
we fix the parameters of the action in \eqref{eq:def:scalar-action}
as follows: $\zeta = \kappa$, $m^2 = -4 \kappa$, $g_4 = 1/2$,
and $g_n = 0$ for $n \neq 4$.
Varying $\kappa$ from 0.5 to 0.8, we can compare our results with
Ref.~\cite{DelDebbio:2021qwf}[Fig.~4].
The left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:accept-rate} shows the acceptance rate plotted
against $\kappa$ for several values of lattice size.
For $L=8$ lattices, the acceptance rate of the trained models has a mild dependence
on $\kappa$.
As the lattice size increases, the acceptance rate decreases.
Similar to Ref.~\cite{DelDebbio:2021qwf}, we observe that as $\kappa$ approaches
its critical value ($\kappa_c \approx 0.67$), the acceptance rate deteriorates
faster as the lattice size increases.
The middle and right panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:accept-rate} show the acceptance
rate plotted against $L$ and $L^2$, respectively.
The acceptance rate drops exponentially fast as $L$ increases,
but the asymptotic dependence cannot be reliably extracted from the graphs.
To investigate this behavior, we examine the acceptance rate and its dependence
on the distribution of $\log q[\phi]/p[\phi]$ by introducing a toy model in
the next part.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim=0.6cm 0 0.5cm 0, clip, width=5.4cm]{figures/accept-rate_kappa.pdf}
\includegraphics[trim=0.3cm 0 2.2cm 0, clip, width=4.7cm]{figures/accept-rate_L.pdf}
\includegraphics[trim=0.3cm 0 2.2cm 0, clip, width=4.7cm]{figures/accept-rate_L2.pdf}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\caption{Acceptance rate plotted against $\kappa$, $L$, and $L^2$.
The dashed lines are guide for the eye.
}
\label{fig:accept-rate}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Before concluding this part,
it is in order to examine the effect of employing a PSD-flow layer.
To this end, we present results from the model with parameters $\kappa = 0.6$
and $L = 32$.
Figure~\ref{fig:example:hist:32} shows histograms of snapshots of $\phi(x)$
from the prior (upper left panel)
and the outputs of three blocks of transformations (2nd, 3rd, and 4th columns,
respectively).
The lower panels show corresponding 2-point correlation functions.
We observe that the PSD-flow block (the second column) can introduce a correlation
to the data that roughly remains unchanged in the next blocks.
\begin{figure}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim=0 10cm 5.1cm 0, clip, width=14cm]{figures/all-hist_b0.60_L32.pdf}
\includegraphics[trim=0 0 5.1cm 10cm, clip, width=14cm]{figures/all-hist_b0.60_L32.pdf}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\caption{Histograms of snapshots of $\phi(x)$ from the prior and outputs
of three blocks of transformations.
The lower panels show corresponding 2-point correlation functions.
}
\label{fig:example:hist:32}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Variance in $\log(q/p)$, acceptance rate, and poor scaling at large volumes}
The distribution of $\log (q[\phi]/p[\phi])$ determines the acceptance rate of
the model. For the architecture investigated here, we observe that
the variance of $\log(q/p)$ roughly scales with the volume of the lattice
in most cases.
This rough behavior can be heuristically explained as follows.
One can divide a large lattice into multiple blocks.
If the blocks are large enough, the field fluctuations in one block can be
considered independent of other blocks.
Then, the variance of $\log(q/p)$ is proportional to the number of blocks
and, in turn, to the volume of the lattice.
It is easy to compose models that yield a large acceptance rate for a small
lattice. As the lattice volume increases, the given model reaches a poor scaling
area. One can improve the model's performance by changing the
hyperparameters, adding more layers, or using more complicated architectures.
As an alternative approach, we introduce and use a method that we
call \emph{block updating}.
To this end, we first introduce a toy model, investigate it,
and explain the block-updating approach.
\subsection{Toy model}
\label{sec:toy}
Let $x_{n}$ be a sequence of independent and identically distributed (iid)
random variables with normal distribution $\mathcal{N}(0, \sigma^2)$.
We define a new random sequence based on the Metropolis-Hastings accept/reject
step as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:def:JK-process}
y_n = h(x_n, y_{n-1}) =
\begin{cases}
x_n\quad \text{with probability}~ e^{-\text{Relu}(x_n - y_{n-1})}\, \\
y_{n-1}\quad \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
for $n > 0$ and $y_0 = x_0$.
The conditional probability distribution, for $n > 0$, is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:cond-pdf}
f_{Y_n | X_n , Y_{n-1}}(y_n | x_n , y_{n-1}) = \delta(y_n - x_n) e^{-\text{Relu}(x_n - y_{n-1})}
+ \delta(y_n - y_{n-1}) \left(1 - e^{-\text{Relu}(x_n - y_{n-1})}\right).
\end{equation}
We are interested to calculate the (static) distribution of the $y_n$ sequence
for large values of $n$.
From
\begin{align}
f_{Y_n}(y_n)
&= \int dx_n\, dy_{n-1} f_{X_n}(x_n) f_{Y_{n-1}}(y_{n-1}) f_{Y_n | X_n , Y_{n-1}}(y_n | x_n , y_{n-1})\,,
\end{align}
we conclude that $Y_n \sim \mathcal{N}(-\sigma^2, \sigma^2)$ for large $n$.
The acceptance rate is then
\begin{align}
\int dx_n dy_{n-1} f_{X_n}(x_n) f_{Y_{n-1}}(y_{n-1}) e^{-\text{Relu}(x_n - y_{n-1})}
%
= \text{erfc}(\sigma/2)\,.
\label{eq:toy:accept-rate}
\end{align}
The left panel in Fig.~\ref{fig:toy-model} illustrates $\text{erfc}(\sigma/2)$
and also the simulation values of acceptance rate plotted against $\sigma$.
For later use, let us calculate the asymptotic form of the acceptance rate.
From the asymptotic behavior of the complementary error function,
we conclude that for large $\sigma$,
\begin{equation}
-\log(\text{accept rate}) = \frac{1}{4}\sigma^2 + \text{O}(\log(\sigma))\,.
\label{eq:accept-rate:asymptotic}
\end{equation}
We now study the autocorrelation in the $y_n$ sequence defined as
$R[n]/R[0]$, with
\begin{align}
R[n] &=
\mathbb{E} \left(y_k + \sigma^2\right) \left(y_{n+k} + \sigma^2\right)
\end{align}
for $k$ large enough.
The autocorrelation function can be calculated asymptotically for large $n$;
the expression is lengthy, and we do not reproduce it here.
The middle panel in Fig.~\ref{fig:toy-model} shows the
autocorrelation in $y_n$ for several values of $\sigma$.
The decay of the autocorrelation function is sub-exponential,
in agreement with the corresponding asymptotic expression shown by dashed lines.
For a fraction of points, rough estimates of uncertainties in determining
the autocorrelation are shown with error bars.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim=0.3cm 0 10.4cm 0, clip, width=4.6cm]{figures/accept-rate.pdf}
\includegraphics[trim=0.5cm 0 11.4cm 0, clip, width=5.1cm]{figures/autocorr_multisigma.pdf}
\includegraphics[trim=0.5cm 0 11.4cm 0, clip, width=5.1cm]{figures/autocorr_multiblock.pdf}
\caption{Acceptance rate (left panel) and autocorrelation function
(middle and right panels) for the toy model introduced in Sec.~\ref{sec:toy}.
The dashed lines show the asymptotic expression of the autocorrelation
function.
In the right panel, the block-updating procedure is used for several numbers
of blocks and $\sigma=2$.
}
\label{fig:toy-model}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We aim to modify the model to decrease the autocorrelation in the $y_n$ sequence.
We implement a method that we call block updating.
First, we assume that $x_n$ is obtained by adding $n_\text{blocks}$ iid
normal variables with mean $0$ and variance $\sigma^2/n_\text{blocks}$ as
$x_n = \sum_{b=1}^{n_\text{blocks}} x^{\{b\}}_n $.
Similarly, we decompose $y_n$ as
$y_n = \sum_{b=1}^{n_\text{blocks}} y^{\{b\}}_n $.
Then, instead of proposing independent values of $x_n$ at each step,
we divide each step to $n_\text{blocks}$ substeps.
At each substep, we draw a new value for one block of $x_n$, i.e.,
for $x^{\{b\}}_n$, and propose it to update $y^{\{b\}}_n$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:def:JK-process:blocked}
y^{\{b\}}_n = h \left(x^{\{b\}}_n, y^{\{b\}}_{n-1}\right).
\end{equation}
Because the blocks are independent, the problem can be reduced to having
$n_\text{blocks}$ independent copies of the original problem with reduced
variance $\sigma^2/n_\text{blocks}$.
As the number of blocks increases, the reduced variance decreases and
consequently the acceptance rate increases (at the price of splitting each step
into $n_\text{blocks}$ substeps or having $n_\text{blocks}$ copies).
From equation \eqref{eq:accept-rate:asymptotic} one may conclude that
we do not gain any advantages because the probability of getting a completely
fresh vector $(y^{\{1\}}_n, \cdots, y^{\{n_\text{blocks}\}}_n)$ compared to
$(y^{\{1\}}_{n-1}, \cdots, y^{\{n_\text{blocks}\}}_{n-1})$,
in which all blocks are replaced with proposed ones,
does not change asymptotically because
\begin{equation}
n_\text{blocks} \log
\text{erfc} \left(\frac{\sigma}{2\sqrt{n_\text{blocks}}}\right)
= \sigma^2 + \text{O}(\log(\sigma))
\end{equation}
when $\sigma^2/n_\text{blocks}$ is large enough.
However, the block-updating procedure has a significant effect on the
autocorrelation in $y_n$.
There are two competing aspects in the block-updating procedure.
On the one hand, as $n_\text{blocks}$ increases, the outputs of consecutive
substeps get more correlated because we update only a block of the data at each
substep.
On the other hand, the acceptance rate increases for each substep,
which in general reduces the autocorrelation in the output.
The effects of these two competing aspects can be seen in the right panel of
Fig.~\ref{fig:toy-model}, which illustrates the autocorrelation in
$y_n$ with $\sigma = 2$ for several blocks: 1, 4, 16, 64.
In this panel,
to take into account the cost of block updating, i.e., splitting each step into
$n_\text{blocks}$ substeps, the argument of the autocorrelation function
(the horizontal axis) is inflated by the number of blocks.
We observe that
the decay of the autocorrelation function speeds up as the number of blocks
increases from 1, indicating that the effects of the second aspect are dominant.
But, after a certain point, the effects of the first aspect dominate and
autocorrelation time increases.
We leave detailed discussions on the integrated autocorrelation time
to future work.
\subsection{Variance of $\log(q/p)$, block size, and acceptance rate}
There are similarities and differences between the toy model introduced in the
previous part and the main problem investigated in this manuscript.
Assuming the distribution of $\log(q/p)$ is normal, one could identify
the sequence of proposed values of $\log(q/p)$ with $x_n$ in the toy model and
the sequence of accepted values of $\log(q/p)$ with $y_n$.
Then, one could apply the results of the previous section to study $\log(q/p)$
and, to some extent, other quantities.
There are three main differences.
Firstly, the distribution of $\log(q/p)$ is not necessarily normal.
Secondly, all quantities do not necessarily suffer from the same autocorrelation
in the sequence of accepted values of $\log(q/p)$.
Finally, the effects of applying a block updating procedure cannot be reduced
to having $n_\text{blocks}$ independent copies of a similar problem.
We first examine the relation between acceptance rate and volume.
As mentioned above, for the architecture studied here, we observe that
the variance of $\log(q/p)$ roughly scales with the volume of the lattice
in most cases.
Based on this observation and assuming the distribution of $\log(q/p)$ is normal,
one can employ the asymptotic relation in~\eqref{eq:accept-rate:asymptotic}
and argue that as $V\to\infty$,
\begin{equation}
-\log(\text{acceptance rate}) \propto V + \text{O}(\log(V))\,.
\label{eq:accept-rate_V}
\end{equation}
In practice, however, the above assumptions are not completely correct,
and by comparing the middle and right panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:accept-rate},
one may conclude that dependence of the logarithm of the acceptance rate
on the volume is milder than what equation \eqref{eq:accept-rate_V} suggests
for large volumes.
Even in some cases, the dependence looks more consistent with scaling by $\sqrt{V}$
rather than $V$, but this might be because the volume is not large enough
to use the asymptotic relation.
Moreover, note that these observations may change once one varies the settings,
e.g., by using a different model or increasing the number of epochs.
Similar to the toy model, we can use the block-updating procedure to improve
acceptance rate and integrated autocorrelation time.
To this end, instead of proposing completely independent configurations
at each step, we split the lattice into several blocks,
and at each substep, we update only the prior fields on the corresponding
block.
Figure~\ref{fig:accept-rate-block-updating} shows the effect
of block-updating procedure applied on the largest lattice, $L^2 = 64^2$,
for three values of $\kappa$ close to the critical point of theory.
The circle, cross, and square points show the acceptance rate
for 1, 4, and 16 blocks, respectively.
As expected, the acceptance rate improves as we increase the number of blocks.
Our primary investigation shows that the block-updating procedure introduced
here also improves the autocorrelation in various quantities.
We leave this discussion to another work.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{figures/accept-rate_L_blocked.pdf}
\caption
Effects of block updating on acceptance rate for three values of $\kappa$
close to the critical point.
The circle, cross, and square points show the acceptance rate for 1, 4,
and 16 blocks applied on the largest lattice.}
\label{fig:accept-rate-block-updating}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Summary and outlook}
In this manuscript, we reviewed coupling flows as one of the widely
use building blocks to construct NF architectures.
Inspired by effective field theories,
we presented a new transformation called PSD flow.
With a new architecture that employs a PSD-flow layer
and (in total) 4 coupling-flow layers, we investigated lattices up to $64^2$ sites.
Although the new architecture allows us to increase the lattice size,
the model's acceptance rate deteriorates at large volumes
in a fashion similar to what was observed in Ref.~\cite{DelDebbio:2021qwf}.
To investigate the behavior of the acceptance rate as a function of the volume
of the lattice, we introduced a toy model and discussed how one could handle the
poor acceptance rate and long integrated autocorrelation time of the toy model
by block updating.
Based on the similarities between the toy model and the problem at hand,
we proposed that a block-updating procedure can be employed to handle the poor
scaling of the acceptance rates for large lattices.
We are extending our studies to other theories, e.g., gauge theories, and
applying the PSD flow to these theories.
We are also exploring variants of the PSD flow.
Moreover, we are investigating the effects of the block-updating procedure on
various quantities related to the scalar field theory.
\input{ref}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
The development of smartphone processors enable edge devices (i.e., mobile phones) to generate and process large-scale image, video, and immersive extended reality data, which will significantly increase network congestion \cite{saad2019vision}. Therefore, it is necessary to design novel communication techniques to support such large data-sized data transmission and processing. Current research \cite{saad2019vision} studied the use of machine learning (ML) tools, reflecting intelligent surface (RIS), millimeter wave (mmWave), and edge computing to improve network performance. However, the performance of a network that exploits these techniques will be limited by the Shannon capacity since most of these techniques are trying to maximize edge devices' data rates so as to reach the Shannon capacity limit \cite{shannon1948mathematical}. In consequence, it is necessary to design novel communication techniques that further improve network performance beyond the Shannon capacity limit.
Semantic communication technique is a promising method to overcome the Shannon capacity limit, which enables an edge device to extract the meaning of large-sized data, called semantic information hereinafter, and transmit only the semantic information to the receiver instead of transmitting the entire data \cite{qin2021semantic}. Therefore, compared to current works that only focus on the maximization of devices' data rates, the purpose of semantic communications is not only to maximize each device's data rate but also maximize the meanings that the transmitted data can carry. Since semantic communication is still in its infancy, it faces many challenges such as semantic information definition, semantic information extraction, semantic communication measurement, security issues, and resilience.
Recently, a number of surveys and tutorials related to semantic communications appeared in \cite{qin2021semantic,9663101,yang2022semantic,9530497}. In particular, the authors in \cite{qin2021semantic,9663101,yang2022semantic} provided a comprehensive tutorial on the use of information theory for semantic information representation and semantic communication metric design. The authors in \cite{9530497} introduced an edge intelligence based semantic communication framework and present its implementation challenges. However, none of these existing surveys and tutorials \cite{qin2021semantic,9663101,yang2022semantic,9530497} introduced the security problems in semantic communications. Compared to attackers that only consider the amount of stolen data in standard communication systems, attackers in semantic communications have two unique features. First, an attacker in semantic communications considers not only the amount of stolen data but also the meanings of stolen data. For example, if one attacker steals a large amount of data from a user but does not obtain the target content/meanings from the stolen data, we will consider that the attacker does not attack the user successfully. Second, an attacker in semantic communication systems can attack not only semantic information transmission as done in standard communication systems but also attacks
ML models used for semantic information extraction since most of semantic information is generated using ML based methods. Due to these unique features of attackers in semantic communications, it is necessary to provide an introduction on the fundamentals and challenges of implementing secure semantic communications.
In this paper, we introduce fundamentals, solutions, and challenges of designing secure semantic communication systems. In this context, we first introduce basic semantic communication process. Then, we overview four methods to define semantic information: a) autoencoder, b) information bottleneck (IB), c) knowledge graph, and, d) probability graph, and summarize their advantages, drawbacks, and applications. We then introduce how attackers can attack semantic information transmission and extraction, and explain the methods to defense these attacks from the point views of both information security and ML security.
\section{Fundamentals of Semantic Communications}
In this section, we first the process of semantic communications. Then, we
introduce four methods to model the semantic information extracted from original data and explain their differences, advantages, disadvantages, and applications.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{./fig1.eps}
\caption{Illustration of the basic structures of a semantic communication system.}
\label{fig:OverallSemantic1}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Semantic Communication Process}
The overall semantic communication process mainly includes three stages.
In the first stage, the transmitter utilizes ML tool to extract the small-size semantic information from the original large-size data based on the central knowledge base, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:OverallSemantic1}.
Then, the semantic information is transmitted over wireless link in the second stage.
In the third stage, the receiver recovers the intended meaning behind the semantic information based on its own local knowledge base, which includes both common knowledge and private knowledge.
\subsection{Semantic Information Construction}
\subsubsection{Autoencoder}
Semantic communication transmits semantic messages, which refer to a sequence of well-formed symbols learned from the “meaning” underlying source. Correspondingly, the receiver aims at fully understanding the ``meaning'' of the encoded semantic symbols.
Therefore, effectively extracting the semantics of the source while ignoring the redundant information plays a key role in semantic communications.
Due to the powerful representation and learning capability, neural networks are typically employed to extract semantics from the source. In particular, autoencoder is a type of neural network used to learn efficient representation for high-dimensional data, which can extract the most important information and is thus particularly suitable for semantic communications.
In particular, autoencoder consists of an encoder and a decoder. The encoder outputs encoded symbols with much fewer dimensions compared to the source data, since it only reserves the key information while discards the insignificant parts of the data. Then, the decoder is used to recover the original data from the low-dimensional symbols.
Using autoencoder to extract the semantic information has following advantages. First, autoencoder can be implemented based on various types of neural networks such as convolutional neural network, transformer, and fully-connected neural networks. Therefore, it is applicable to semantic communications of different source data including text, images, videos, and multi-modal data. In addition, since the output of the encoder has much less dimensions, the transmission efficiency of semantic communications can be significantly improved. Moreover, autoencoders can be trained in an self-supervised way. However, there are also some key challenges of autoencoders. In particular, even though the coding generated by the autoencoder can be efficiently understood by machines, it is incomprehensible for humans, which seems to be contradicted to the principle of semantic communications in a certain way. Table \ref{tab:trajectory} summarizes the advantages, disadvantages, and applications of using autoencoder to model semantic information.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{./fig2.eps}
\caption{Illustration of four types of semantic information extraction.}
\label{fig：Semanticextraction}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Information Bottleneck}
Since semantic communications aim to only reserve the semantics, the essence of semantic communications is a lossy compression problem. To solve this type of problems, Claude Shannon has proposed fundamental theory, i.e. rate-distortion theory, which solves the optimal trade-off between compression and fidelity \cite{Shannon1959Coding}.
In particular, rate-distortion theory aims to minimize the required rate under a given distortion, which can be used to guide the training process of semantic communication systems. However, one problem of rate-distortion theory is that it needs to choose a specific distortion function in advance, which will further determine the extracted semantics. However, the choice of the distortion function is not part of the theory.
To tackle this issue, information bottleneck (IB) principle was proposed from the perspective of information theory, which can be deemed as a generalization of rate-distortion theory \cite{Goldfeld2020The}. On the one hand, the distortion in IB principle is measured by the mutual information between the encoded semantic symbols and a target variable. In semantic communications, the target variable varies with the applications. For instance, for an image classification task, the target variable is the label of the source image, since we try to correctly classify the source image. On the other hand, the rate in IB principle is characterized by the mutual information between the source and the encoded symbols, which indicates the number of bits the encoded symbols used to represent the source.
The advantage of IB is that it provides a specific theoretical bound for minimizing the rate under given distortion. However, in practice, the joint and marginal distributions of information bits are challenging to obtain and, thus, the original IB cannot be directly used to guide the training process of semantic communications. Table \ref{tab:trajectory} summarizes the advantages, disadvantages, and applications of using information bottleneck to model semantic information.
\subsubsection{Knowledge Graph} Since semantic information represented by the output of autoencoder is incomprehensible for humans and does not have any physical meaning, next, we introduce the use of knowledge graph for semantic information representation. Since a knowledge graph consists of nodes and edges, we use nodes to represent an object or a concept in the original data and edges are used to represent the relations between each pair of nodes. Each pair of nodes and their relations are defined by a triple. Hence, a semantic information modeled by a knowledge graph consists of multiple triples. Different from other graph models, triples in knowledge graph are determined by both original data that a user wants to transmit and the knowledge that this user has to understand the original data. Hence, the semantic information extracted from the same original data by different users with different knowledge may be different.
Using knowledge graph to model semantic information has several key advantages. First, the extracted semantic information is comprehensible for
humans. Hence, a receiver may not need to recover the original data when it receives a semantic information since the semantic information represents the similar meanings of original data. Second, one can manage the data size of semantic information that consists of several triples according to network conditions and resources. In particular, when the network resources (i.e., bandwidth) are limited, one can limit the number of triples in the semantic information to meet communication service requirements (i.e., delay). However, exploiting knowledge graphs for semantic information also faces several challenges. First, all triples in a semantic information are extracted by neural network based methods. Therefore, the complexity and time of training these neural networks must be considered and reduced when using knowledge graph for energy limited devices (i.e., Internet-of-things devices). Second, most of current researches assume that all users have the same knowledge for triple extractions which may not be practical. Hence, it is necessary to design novel methods to model and generate unique knowledge library for each user. Table \ref{tab:trajectory} summarizes the advantages, disadvantages, and applications of using knowledge graph to model semantic information.
\subsubsection{Probability Graph}
The directional probability graph can also be used to characterize the inherent information of the transmitted information \cite{griffiths2019probabilistic}.
In the directional probability graph, each vertex represents the semantic entity and the edge stands for the probability of connection between these two vertexes. Since multiple vertexes with high connection probabilities among each other can be fused into a single vertex, the new generated vertex can contain higher level semantic information than the original vertexes. Probability graph shows the probabilities among different entities, which can be used to extract the corn semantic information with overall high probability in the probability graph.
There are some advantages of extracting semantic information with probability graph. First, different levels of semantic information can be generated with using probability with combing highly-rated low-level semantic entity into a high-level semantic entity. Second, the probability graph can be used to predict the incoming information of the receiver. Through prediction and inference, the receiver side can adapt its actions in advance.
However, there are still some challenges using probability graph. Since the probability graph can be learned with neural network and multi-level semantic information extractions needs additional computation, the complexity of constructing multi-level semantic information is high. Besides, to ensure that the receiver can precisely predict the future information of the transmitter, both the transmitter and receiver needs to share some highly related common knowledge.
Table \ref{tab:trajectory} summarizes the advantages, disadvantages, and applications of using probability graph to model semantic information.
As a result,
Fig, \ref{fig：Semanticextraction} illustrates the semantic extraction processes of above four methods.
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{Various Semantic Information Construction Methods}
\label{tab:trajectory}
\begin{tabular}{|p{3.0cm}|p{5.0cm}|p{5.0cm}|p{3cm}|}
\hline
Classifications& Advantages & Disadvantages & Applications \\
\hline
\vspace{2em}
Autoencoder
& \begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item Autoecnoder is applicable to data of different modalities
\item Autoencoder can be trained in an self-supervised way
\end{itemize} &
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item The extracted semantic information is incomprehensible for humans
\end{itemize} &
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item Deep joint source-channel coding
\item Multi-modal semantic transmission
\end{itemize}
\\
\hline
\vspace{1.5em}
Information Bottleneck & \begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item IB provides a specific theoretical bound for minimizing the rate under given distortion
\end{itemize} &
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item The mutual information is challenging to be obtained
\item The extracted semantic information is incomprehensible for humans
\end{itemize}
&
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item Task-oriented semantic transmission
\end{itemize}
\\
\hline
\vspace{2em}
Knowledge Graph & \begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item Modeled semantic information has physical meanings
\item Receivers do not need to recover original data
\end{itemize} &
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item Senders need to generate knowledge library for ML model training
\item Token selection is implemented by complex neural networks
\end{itemize}
&
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item Machine to machine communications
\item Human to machine communications
\end{itemize}\\
\hline
\vspace{2em}
Probability Graph &
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item Probability graph can be utilized to conduct inference
\item Different levels of semantic information can be extracted
\end{itemize} &
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item High computation complexity
\item Both the transmitter and receiver need to
share some common knowledge
\end{itemize}
&
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item Multi-level semantic information
\item Information prediction and inference
\end{itemize}
\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\section{Information Security}
Next, we introduce security issues in semantic information transmission. In particular, we discuss the security issues in information bottleneck, convert communications, and physical layers and summarize the challenges of implementing secure semantic communications in these scenarios.
\subsection{Information Bottleneck Security}
In this subsection, we introduce the use of IB for secure semantic communications. As previously mentioned, IB utilizes the mutual information between the source and the encoded symbols, and that between the encoded symbols and the target variable to represent the rate and distortion of a semantic communication system respectively. Following this principle, one can further extend IB to secure semantic communications. In particular, when an attacker exists who tries to detect the sensitive semantic information of the legitimate users during semantic communications, one can lower the sensitive semantic information leakage probability by minimizing the mutual information between the sensitive information and encoded semantic symbols. In this way, IB simultaneously considers rate, distortion, and security of the semantic communications and, thus, its target becomes to minimize the rate under given distortion and information leakage dangers.
In addition, IB may also be used to analyze the training process of a secure semantic communication system. In particular, we can employ IB as the loss function to train a semantic communication system. During the training, we can estimate the values of the three mutual information terms, and thus the performance trade-off process of the rate, distortion, and security in each stage of the training can be analyzed. In this way, we can better understand the training process of the secure semantic communication systems, and further choose proper hyberparameters accordingly to optimize the performance of the systems.
However, applying IB to instruct secure semantic communications still has some key challenges. In particular, similar to the origianl form of IB, the mutual information is challenging to be calculated since the joint and marginal distributions of the encoded symbols and the sensitive information are typically unknown. Therefore, tight, trainable bounds for the mutual information terms are needed to effectively train the semantic communications.
\subsection{Convert Semantic Communications}
In this subsection, we introduce the use of convert communications for semantic information transmission. In semantic communications, we consider not only the amount of data that is detected by an attacker but also the detected meanings of the original data. Therefore, we can use two methods to protect a sender's data privacy. First, we can use traditional convert communication techniques to protect a sender's data privacy. In particular, one can transmit interference signals to the user that the attacker wants to attack so as to protect the user's data privacy. Second, one can modify the triples in semantic information so as to avoid carrying the triples that an attacker wants to detect. We can also jointly consider the use of traditional convert communication methods and triple selection methods to protect users' data security.
However, using convert communications for secure semantic communications also faces several challenges. First, the sender needs to estimate the triples that attackers want to detect as well as the triples that the receiver wants to receive since the sender will not communicate with the attackers and receiver before semantic information transmission. Second, it is necessary to analyze energy consumption, data transmission delay, and other costs of implementing these two data protection methods. To this end, one can determine to use traditional convert communication methods or triple selection methods for different network conditions. For example, when the sender has limited transmit power for semantic information transmission, we may not be able to use traditional convert communication methods to protect user's data security since the receiver may not be able to detect the original signal of the sender. Finally, investigating the cooperation between the sender and receiver to further improve data security is another interesting research direction.
\subsection{Physical Layer Security}
The physical layer security \cite{shiu2011physical,mukherjee2014principles} of semantic communication includes two aspects: common knowledge base security and semantic information security.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{./fig3.eps}
\caption{Illustration of the physical layer security in semantic communication systems with eavesdropper
and jammer.}
\label{fig:PLS}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Knowledge Base Security}
The common knowledge base is shared among the transmitter and the receiver, which helps the transmitter to extract semantic information and allows the receiver to recover the behind information of the received bits.
As a result, it is of importance to protect the common knowledge base. As shown in Fig. \ref{fig:PLS}, the physical layer security of semantic communication includes two cases. For the eavesdropping case, the knowledge of the transmitter can be leakaged. For the jamming case, a jammer can send wrong knowledge, which can lead the legitimate user to recover the wrong message from the received semantic information. To protect the knowledge security, beamforming design and secure key distribution method can be applied.
\subsubsection{Semantic Information Security}
The semantic information is based on the shared knowledge between the transmitter and the receiver, which indicates that the semantic information relates to the conditional information.
According to the construction procedures of semantic information, in additional to conventional interference and noise, there also exist semantic interference and noise.
The semantic interference includes the ambiguity of the information.
For example, one word or phrase can have different meanings in various scenarios. With limited background information, it is hard to distinguish the real meaning of the specific semantic information, which causes semantic interference.
The semantic noise is introduced since the original information is mapped into the semantic space, which can introduce additional noise since multiple information can be mapped into the same or similar semantic information.
Thus, the secure semantic information rate should take into the semantic interference and noise into consideration , which calls for new design to protect semantic information security. One possible way is a joint learning and communication design \cite{chen2021a} to ensure the security of semantic communication.
\section{Semantic ML Security}
As mentioned in Section II, many ML techniques such as knowledge graph, encoder/decoder, and deep neural networks are perceived as important enablers for constructing basic components of semantic communication systems. In this section, we denote these enablers as ``semantic ML". It is of great significance to predict, model, and analyze the emerging security risks of semantic ML in advance for the development and popularization of future semantic communication systems. For example, all semantic features uploaded to the knowledge base should have sophisticated censorship mechanisms to prevent from being modified by malicious users. In this section, we firstly analyze the vulnerabilities of semantic ML and known threats. And then, we also discuss promising countermeasures against these threats. Finally, we envision the potential of trustworthy and explainable technologies for constructing secure semantic ML models for semantic communication systems.
\subsection{Security Risks}
Main security risks of semantic ML can be summarized as endogenous risks and derived risks, as illustrated in Fig. ~\ref{fig:AT-CM}.
\subsubsection{Endogenous Risks}
For semantic ML, data is an important driver, algorithm is the core technology, and infrastructure is the underlying support.
Endogenous risks may result in data security threats, algorithm security threats, and infrastructure security threats.
\textbf{Risk 1: data security risk}. Known data security risks \cite{9743317} include privacy leakage, data poisoning, data pollution, data forgery, etc. In semantic communication systems, we may use ML to extract semantic features, generate knowledge base, and parse transmitted semantic features as original data. During the model training process of each semantic communication node, if the opponent tampers some original data samples by poisoning, polluting, etc.), the accuracy of data transmission will decrease significantly. Moreover, if a particular backdoor is injected into the ML models of semantic communication, that is, forcing the ML models to be extremely sensitive to a specific trigger (content with specific semantics), then the entire semantic communication system will be vulnerable to malicious manipulation. Besides, with the emerging of model inversion, gradient leakage and membership inference, both black-box and white-box data reconstruction may threaten the practicality of ML in semantic communication systems, which is very difficult to prevent.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{./Figx0.png}
\caption{Hierarchical components of semantic ML and its security risks.}
\label{fig:AT-CM}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Risk 2: Algorithm security}. Black-box and fairness are the two major sources of algorithm security risks. On one hand, the ML algorithm based on neural networks extracts the features of the input data through a complex calculation process, and then classifies it into the calibrated class, but existing scientific knowledge and principles cannot give a reasonable explanation for the classification results, which is the fundamental reason why attacks are difficult to be effectively defended against. For example, it is difficult to locate where there is a fault when the receiver in a neural network-based semantic communication system outputs wrong results. On the other hand, in the process of extracting knowledge from massive data, algorithms such as sorting, classifying, associating, filtering, and attention mechanism are usually used to process the data items. If the algorithms exhibit unfair outputs under different gender or ethnicity settings, information transmission using semantic communication systems will suffer from complex social problems.
\textbf{Risk 3: Infrastructure security}. To train semantic ML models and provide intelligent communication services, it is necessary to construct various development libraries, connect heterogeneous computing devices and build cloud platforms. Once vulnerabilities in these semantic ML infrastructures are exploited by attackers, the semantic ML models generated through these infrastructures may exhibit abnormal behaviors. For example, malwares on Tensorflow and PyTorch may modify model structures, while some hackers will try to illegally occupy the computing resources (for example GPU, CPU, and virtual machines) of deep learning nodes for mining.
\subsubsection{Derived Risks}
In addition to existing endogenous risks, deploying ML models in semantic communication also face many derived risks due to the openness of real application scenarios. Derived risks mainly contain semantic adversarial samples and semantic backdoors. For example, the vision transformer that can be used to construct real-time semantic communications is vulnerable to adversarial examples \cite{9710333}. Besides, derived risks also contain man-in-the-middle attacks, DDoS attacks, and signal interference attacks, because ML models on the senders and receivers of semantic communications need cross-domain training.
\subsection{Countermeasures}
To bring out how to attack a ML model with above security risks in semantic communication systems, Fig.~\ref{fig:AT-CM2} illustrates most of known attacks. According to features of known attacks, corresponding countermeasures can be mainly divided into three branches: 1) Anti-poisoning; 2) Improving the robustness to adversarial examples; 3) Preventing privacy leakage. As for anti-poisoning methods, there are three different designing paradigms, including a) removing poisoned data, b) smoothing abnormal activation values, and c) erasing hidden backdoors. Both a) and b) require to access the model training process, which is often unpractical for service providers. Trigger inversion and data-free knowledge distillation acting as black-box defence techniques are being considered increasingly.
For model robustness, the most popular countermeasures are adversarial training and differential privacy. However, adversarial training often needs more data samples and the differential privacy may reduce model accuracy, so that combining model interpretability to explore the causes of adversarial samples becomes current hotspots. To prevent an attacker from recovering the original data and semantics from the ML model, privacy-preserving frameworks such as confidential computing, differential privacy \cite{9158374}, and federated learning are being studied to satisfy individual requirements in different scenarios. In different application scenarios, users need to choose appropriated privacy preserving methods based on their own individual requirements. Besides, many artifical intelligence service providers attach great importance to model watermarking and authentication techniques in order to secure their intellectual property rights.
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.83\textwidth]{./Figx.png}
\caption{Illustration of known threats and countermeasures in the ML lifecycle. Each intelligent agent in the semantic communication network that is configured with at least one ML model may suffer from various attacks. When senders and receivers need to train the encoder/decoder networks jointly, the semantic communication can also suffer from security threats from transmission channels.}
\label{fig:AT-CM2}
\end{figure*}
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we have provided four kinds of methods to represent the semantic information. Based on the construction of semantic information, we pointed out that the main securities in semantic information followed into two aspects, information security and ML security.
For each aspect, we have pointed out the main problems and the corresponding treatments. Future directions include the joint communication and computation design for performance analysis and optimization of secure semantic communication.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $V$ be a real vector space defined as $V\coloneqq \{x=(x_1,\dots, x_r)\in\R^r\mid x_1+\cdots+x_r=0\}$. We take a generator $v_1,\dots, v_r$ of $V$ defined as $v_j\coloneqq u_{j+1}-u_j \ (j=1,\dots, r-1), \ v_r\coloneqq u_1-u_r$, where we denote by $u_1,\dots, u_r$ the canonical basis of $\R^r$. Let $(M,g_M)$ be a Riemannian manifold with geometric Laplacian $\Delta_{g_M}$. Let $a_1,\dots, a_r:M \rightarrow \R_{\geq0}$ be non-negative functions and $w:M\rightarrow V$ a $V$-valued function. We suppose that for each $j=1,\dots, r$, the function $a_j$ is not identically zero. We consider the following PDE on $M$:
\begin{align}
\Delta_{g_M}\xi+\sum_{j=1}^ra_je^{(v_j, \xi)}v_j=w. \label{KW}
\end{align}
Our main theorems are as follows:
\begin{theo}\label{main theorem 1} {\it Let $(M,g_M)$ be a compact Riemannian manifold with a smooth, possibly empty boundary $\partial M$. Suppose that $a_1,\dots, a_r,w$ are all smooth functions. Then, for any smooth function $\eta: M\rightarrow V$, there exists a unique one parameter family $(\xi_t)_{t\in[0,\infty)}$ that is continuous on $M\times [0,\infty)$ and smooth on $M\times (0,\infty)$, such that:
\begin{align}
&\frac{d\xi_t}{dt}+\Delta_{g_M}\xi_t+\sum_{j=1}^ra_je^{(v_j,\xi_t)}v_j-w=0 \ \text{for all $t\in(0,\infty)$}, \label{heat equation}\\
&\xi_t\left.\right|_{\partial M}=\eta\left.\right|_{\partial M} \ \text{for all $t\in[0,\infty)$}, \ \xi_0=\eta. \label{boundary}
\end{align}
Moreover, for the solution $(\xi_t)_{t\in [0,\infty)}$ of (\ref{heat equation}), with the boundary condition (\ref{boundary}), the following holds:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item Suppose that the boundary $\partial M$ is not empty. Then there exists a sequence $(t_i)_{i\in \N}$ going to infinity such that $(\xi_{t_i})_{i\in \N}$ converges in $C^\infty$ to a smooth solution $\xi$ of equation (\ref{KW}) satisfying the Dirichlet boudary condition $\xi\left.\right|_{\partial M}=\eta\left.\right|_{\partial M}$. Furthermore, the solutions of equation (\ref{KW}) satisfying the same Dirichlet boundary condition are unique.
\item Suppose that the boundary $\partial M$ is empty and that for each $j=1,\dots, r$, $a_j^{-1}(0)$ is a measure $0$ set and $\log a_j$ is integranle. Then there exists a sequence $(t_i)_{i\in \N}$ going to infinity such that $\xi_{t_i}$ converges in $C^\infty$ to a smooth solution $\xi$
of equation (\ref{KW}). Furthermore, the solution of equation (\ref{KW}) is unique.
\end{enumerate}
}
\end{theo}
\begin{theo}\label{main theorem 3}{\it Let $\xi,\xi^\prime:M\rightarrow V$ be $V$-valued $C^2$-functions. Then the following holds:
\begin{align*}
&\Delta_{g_M}\log|\sum_{j=1}^re^{(\xi-\xi^\prime,u_j)}| \\
\leq &|\Delta_{g_M}\xi+\sum_{j=1}^ra_je^{(v_j,\xi)}v_j-w|+|\Delta_{g_M}\xi^\prime+\sum_{j=1}^ra_je^{(v_j,\xi^\prime)}v_j-w|.
\end{align*}
}
\end{theo}
\begin{theo}\label{main theorem 4}{\it For each $j=1,\dots, r$, suppose that $a_j$ is a $C^2$-function, and that the following holds on $M\backslash a_j^{-1}(0)$.
\begin{align*}
\Delta_{g_M}\log (a_j)\leq -(v_j,w).
\end{align*}
Let $\xi:M\rightarrow V$ be a $C^2$-solution of (\ref{KW}). Then the following holds on $M\backslash\bigcup_{j=1}^ra_j^{-1}(0)$:
\begin{align*}
\Delta_{g_M}\log\bigl(\sum_{j=1}^ra_je^{(v_j,\xi)}\bigr)\leq -\frac{\left|\sum_{j=1}^ra_je^{(v_j,\xi)}v_j\right|^2}{\left|\sum_{j=1}^ra_je^{(v_j,\xi)}\right|}.
\end{align*}
}
\end{theo}
\begin{rem} A function on a manifold with boundary is said to be {\it smooth} if it is smooth on $M\backslash \partial M$, and if it has a smooth extension at each point on the boundary.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem} All of the above theorems can easily be generalized to theorems for the more generalized equation investigated in \cite{Miy1, Miy3}.
\end{rem}
Equation (\ref{KW}) is a generalization of the Hermitian-Einstein equation for diagonal harmonic metrics on cyclic Higgs bundles \cite{Bar1, DL1}. For cyclic Higgs bundles, Theorem \ref{main theorem 1} follows from \cite{Don1, Sim1}, Theorem \ref{main theorem 3} follows from \cite[Lemma 3.1]{Sim1}, and Theorem \ref{main theorem 4} follows from \cite[proof of Lemma 10.1]{Sim1} (see also \cite{LM1, LM2}). These are very fundamental, and important theorems for Higgs bundles. We briefly recall the definition of cyclic Higgs bundles and their Hermitian-Einstein equation. Let $X$ be a connected Riemann surface with the canonical bundle $K_X\rightarrow X$.
We take a square root $K_X^{1/2}\rightarrow X$ and we define a holomorphic vector bundle $E\rightarrow X$ of rank $r$ as $E\coloneqq K_X^{(r-1)/2}\oplus K_X^{(r-3)/2}\oplus\cdots\oplus K_X^{-(r-3)/2}\oplus K_X^{-(r-1)/2}$. We take a $q\in H^0(K_X^r)$. We set $\Phi(q)_{j+1,j}$ to equal 1 for each $j=1,\dots, r-1$, and $\Phi(q)_{1,r}$ to equal $q$. We define $\Phi(q)\in H^0(\End E\otimes K_X)$ as $\Phi(q)\coloneqq \sum_{j=1}^{r-1}\Phi(q)_{j+1,j}+\Phi(q)_{1,r}$, where $\Phi(q)_{i,j}$ is considered to be the $(i,j)$-component of $\Phi(q)$, and $1$ (resp. $q$) is considered to be a $K_X^{-1}$ (resp. $K_X^{r-1}$)-valued holomorphic 1-form. We call $(E,\Phi(q))$ a cyclic Higgs bundle (see \cite{DL1} for a more generalization). We take a diagonal Hermitian metric $h=(h_1,\dots, h_r)$ on $E$ with curvature $F_h$ such that $\det(h)=1$. We also take a K\"ahler form $\omega_X$. We denote by $\Lambda_{\omega_X}$ the dual of $\omega_X\wedge$, and by $\Delta_{\omega_X}$ the geometric Laplacian.
The following PDE for a $V$-valued function $\xi=(f_1,\dots, f_r): X\rightarrow V$ is the Hermitian-Einstein equation of the metric $(e^{f_1}h_1,\dots, e^{f_r}h_r)$ on $(E,\Phi(q))$:
\begin{align}
\Delta_{\omega_X}\xi+\sum_{j=1}^r4k_je^{(v_j,\xi)}v_j=-2\inum \Lambda_{\omega_X}F_{h}, \label{HEeq}
\end{align}
where $\R^r$ is identified with diagonal matrices, and we denote by $k_1,\dots, k_r$ the positive functions defined by $k_j\coloneqq |1|_{h,\omega_X}^2 \ (j=1,\dots, r-1), \ k_r\coloneqq |q|_{h,\omega_X}^2$. Equation (\ref{HEeq}) is also called Toda lattice with opposite sign (see \cite{GL1}). Equation (\ref{KW}) is a generalization of (\ref{HEeq}). Equation (\ref{KW}) also includes the following examples:
\begin{ex}[Generalization by using subharmonic functions]\label{ex3} We consider the case where $X$ is a domain of $\C$ for simplicity. Let $\omega_X$ be the restriction of the standard K\"ahler form on $\C$ to $X$, and $h=(h_1,\dots, h_r)$ the metric on $E$ induced by $\omega_X$. Let $f:X\rightarrow \C$ be a holomorphic function and we set $q\coloneqq f(dz)^r$. We normalize the metric $h$ so that $|q|_{h,\omega_X}^2=|f|^2$. We consider a generalization of (\ref{HEeq}) obtained by replacing $|f|^2=e^{\log|f|^2}$ by $e^{\eta}$ with an arbitrary subharmonic function $\eta: X\rightarrow \R$ (cf. \cite{Ran1}):
\begin{align}
\Delta_{\omega_X}\xi+\sum_{j=1}^r4k_j^\prime e^{(v_j,\xi)}v_j=0, \label{HEeq2}
\end{align}
where $k_j^\prime$ $(j=1,\dots, r)$ are defined as $k_j^\prime\coloneqq |1|_{h,\omega_X}^2$ $(j=1,\dots, r-1)$, $k_r^\prime\coloneqq e^\eta$. Consider the case that $\eta=\frac{1}{N}\log|f|^2$ for some $N\in\Z_{>0}$ and some holomorphic function $f:X\rightarrow \C$. Then on a subdomain $D\subseteq X$ such that we can choose a well-defined single-valued function $f^{1/N}$, equation (\ref{HEeq2}) is the Hermitian-Einstein equation for a cyclic Higgs bundle associated with $q=f^{\frac{1}{N}}(dz)^r$, and a solution of equation (\ref{HEeq2}) gives a harmonic bundle on $D$. Let $(\eta_j=\frac{1}{N_j}\log|f_j|^2)_{j\in\N}$ be a sequence of subharmonic functions with $N_j\in\Z_{>0}$ and holomorphic functions $f_j:X\rightarrow \C$ $(j=1,2, \dots, )$. If $\eta$ is obtained as a limit of a sequence $(\eta_j=\frac{1}{N_j}\log|f_j|^2)_{j\in\N}$ with respect to some topology on the space of subharmonic functions, then equation (\ref{HEeq2}) associated with $\eta$ can be considered to be a limit of equations (\ref{HEeq2}) associated with $\eta_j=\frac{1}{N}\log|f_j|^2$ $(j=1,2,\dots, )$. The above sentence ``equation (\ref{HEeq2}) associated with $\eta$ can be considered to be a limit of equations (\ref{HEeq2}) associated with $\eta_j=\frac{1}{N}\log|f_j|^2$ $(j=1,2,\dots, )$'' is not a rigorous statement, but the author hopes that this statement will be a mathematically rigorous claim.
\end{ex}
\begin{ex} [Perturbation by currents]\label{ex1} Let $T=(T_1,\dots, T_r)$ be a $V$-valued real current on $X$. We consider equation (\ref{HEeq}) perturbed by $T$:
\begin{align}
\Delta_{\omega_X}\xi+\sum_{j=1}^r4k_je^{(v_j,\xi)}v_j=-2\inum \Lambda_{\omega_X}F_{h_j}+T_j\label{HEeqT}
\end{align}
On an open subset $U\subseteq X$ such that $T\left.\right|_U=0$, (\ref{HEeqT}) is the usual Hermitian-Einstein equation, and we obtain a harmonic bundle on $U$ from a solution of (\ref{HEeqT}).
\end{ex}
\begin{ex}[Cyclic Higgs bundles with non-holomorphic Higgs fields]\label{ex2} Let $q$ be a non-holomorphic section of $K_X^r\rightarrow X$. We consider equation (\ref{HEeq}) for a non-holomorphic $q$. On an open subset $U\subseteq X$ such that $\bar{\partial}q=0$, a solution of the Hermitian-Einstein equation gives a harmonic bundle (see also \cite{Miy4}).
\end{ex}
We can also consider the combination of the above examples. The above generalization can also be considered for the more generalized cyclic Higgs bundles \cite{DL1}, and for cyclic Higgs bundles on real 3-dimensional manifolds with transverse complex structures (see \cite{Miy3}).
\section{Proof}
Proof of Theorem \ref{main theorem 1} heavily relies on the techniques used in \cite{ Don0, Don1, Ham1, Sim1}. We prepare some lemmas.
\begin{lemm}\label{lemma1}{\it Let $(\xi_t)_{t\in I}$ and $(\xi_t^\prime)_{t\in I}$ be solutions of (\ref{heat equation}) defined on an interval $I$. Then the following holds:
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{d}{dt}+\Delta_{g_M}\right)|\xi_t-\xi_t^\prime|^2\leq -\sum_{j=1}^ra_j(e^{(v_j,\xi_t)}v_j-e^{(v_j,\xi_t^\prime)}v_j,\xi_t-\xi_t^\prime)\leq 0.
\end{align*}
}
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof} By calculation, we have
\begin{align*}
&\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{d}{dt}+\Delta_{g_M}\right)|\xi_t-\xi_t^\prime|^2 \\
=&\left(\left\{\frac{d}{dt}+\Delta_{g_M}\right\}(\xi_t-\xi_t^\prime), \xi_t-\xi_t^\prime\right) -|d(\xi_t-\xi_t^\prime)|^2 \\
\leq & -\sum_{j=1}^ra_j(e^{(v_j,\xi_t)}v_j-e^{(v_j,\xi_t^\prime)}v_j,\xi_t-\xi_t^\prime) \\
\leq & 0
\end{align*}
Then we have the result.
\end{proof}
As a special case of Lemma \ref{lemma1}, we have
\begin{lemm}\label{xi-}{\it Let $\xi$ and $\xi^\prime$ be solutions of (\ref{KW}). Then the following holds:
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{2}\Delta_{g_M}|\xi-\xi^\prime|^2\leq -\sum_{j=1}^ra_j(e^{(v_j,\xi)}v_j-e^{(v_j,\xi^\prime)}v_j,\xi-\xi^\prime)\leq 0.
\end{align*}
}
\end{lemm}
\begin{rem}
For the proof of Theorem \ref{main theorem 1}, for $V$-valued functions $\xi$ and $\xi^\prime$, we use the above function $|\xi-\xi^\prime|^2$ instead of the following function used in \cite{Don0, Don1, Sim1}:
\begin{align*}
\sigma(\xi,\xi^\prime)\coloneqq \sum_{j=1}^r(e^{(\xi-\xi^\prime,u_j)}+e^{(\xi^\prime-\xi,u_j)})-2r.
\end{align*}
Note, however, that all arguments in the proof of Theorem \ref{main theorem 1} can be done just as well using $\sigma(\xi,\xi^\prime)$ instead of $|\xi-\xi^\prime|^2$.
\end{rem}
\begin{defi}\label{F, G}
For a $V$-valued function $\xi$, we set
\begin{align*}
&F(\xi)\coloneqq \Delta_{g_M}\xi+\sum_{j=1}^ra_je^{(v_j,\xi)}v_j-w.
\end{align*}
\end{defi}
The following holds:
\begin{comment}
\begin{lemm}{\it Let $(\xi_t)_{t\in I}$ be a solution of (\ref{heat equation}) defined on an interval $I$. Then for each $k\in\Z_{\geq 0}$, the following holds:
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{d}{dt}+\Delta_{g_M}\right)|\Delta_{g_M}^k\xi_t|^2\leq -(\Delta_{g_M}^kG(\xi), \Delta_{g_M}^k\xi),
\end{align*}
where we denote by $\Delta_{g_M}^k$ the Laplacian multiplied $k$-times: $\Delta_{g_M}\circ\cdots\circ \Delta_{g_M}$.
}
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
By calculation, we have
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{d}{dt}+\Delta_{g_M}\right)\left|\Delta_{g_M}^k\xi_t\right|^2&=\left(\left(\frac{d}{dt}+\Delta_{g_M}\right)\Delta_{g_M}^k\xi_t,\Delta_{g_M}^k\xi_t\right) -\left|d\Delta_{g_M}^k\xi_t\right|^2 \\
&\leq -(\Delta_{g_M}^kG(\xi), \Delta_{g_M}^k\xi).
\end{align*}
Then we have the claim.
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\begin{lemm}\label{lemma2} {\it Let $(\xi_t)_{t\in I}$ be a solution of (\ref{heat equation}) defined on an interval $I$. Then the following holds:
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{d}{dt}+\Delta_{g_M}\right)|F(\xi_t)|^2\leq -\sum_{j=1}^ra_je^{(v_j,\xi_t)}(v_j,F(\xi_t))^2\leq 0.
\end{align*}
}
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
The following holds:
\begin{align*}
&\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{d}{dt}+\Delta_{g_M}\right)|F(\xi_t)|^2 \\
=&\left(\left\{\frac{d}{dt}+\Delta_{g_M}\right\}F(\xi_t), F(\xi_t)\right) -|dF(\xi_t)|^2 \\
\leq &\left(\left\{\frac{d}{dt}+\Delta_{g_M}\right\}F(\xi_t), F(\xi_t)\right).
\end{align*}
By calculation, we have
\begin{align*}
\left(\frac{d}{dt}+\Delta_{g_M}\right)F(\xi_t) &=\Delta_{g_M}\frac{d\xi_t}{dt}+\frac{d}{dt}\sum_{j=1}^ra_je^{(v_j,\xi_t)}v_j+\Delta_{g_M}F(\xi_t) \\
&=-\sum_{j=1}^ra_je^{(v_j,\xi_t)}(v_j,F(\xi_t))v_j.
\end{align*}
Then we have the claim.
\end{proof}
For each $j=0, 1,2,\dots,$ let $W_j\coloneqq \bigotimes^j T^\ast M$. We denote by $\Delta_{p,W_j}:\Omega^p(W_j)\rightarrow \Omega^p(W_j)$ the Laplacian acting on the space of $p$-forms which takes values in $W_j$. Let $R_j\coloneqq \Delta_{0, W_j}-\Delta_{1,W_{j-1}}:\Omega^0(W_j)\rightarrow \Omega^0(W_j)$, where $\Omega^0(W_j)$ is identified with $\Omega^1(W_{j-1})$ through the natural identification. From the Weitzenb\"ock formula, it follows that $R_j$ is $C^\infty(M,\R)$-linear, and thus $R_j\in\Gamma(\End(W_j))$. The following holds:
\begin{lemm}\label{curvature}{\it Let $(\xi_t)_{t\in I}$ be a solution of (\ref{heat equation}) defined on an interval $I$. Then for each $k=0,1,2, \dots$, the following holds:
\begin{align*}
&\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{d}{dt}+\Delta_{g_M}\right)|\nabla^kF(\xi_t)|^2 \\
\leq &\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}(\nabla^j(R_{k-j}\nabla^{k-j}F(\xi_t)), \nabla^kF(\xi_t))-\sum_{j=1}^r(\nabla^k\{a_je^{(v_j,\xi_t)}(v_j,F(\xi_t))\})(v_j,\nabla^k F(\xi_t)),
\end{align*}
where $\nabla^k$ denotes $\nabla\circ\cdots\circ \nabla:\Gamma(W_0)\rightarrow \Gamma(W_k)$.
}
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
By calculation, we have
\begin{align*}
&\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{d}{dt}+\Delta_{g_M}\right)|\nabla^kF(\xi_t)|^2 \\
=&\left(\left\{\frac{d}{dt}+\Delta_{0,W_k}\right\}\nabla^kF(\xi_t),\nabla^kF(\xi_t)\right)-|\nabla(\nabla^kF(\xi_t))|^2 \\
\leq &\left(\left\{\frac{d}{dt}+\Delta_{0,W_k}\right\}\nabla^kF(\xi_t),\nabla^kF(\xi_t)\right).
\end{align*}
By induction on $k$, we have
\begin{align*}
\Delta_{0, W_k}\nabla^k F(\xi_t)=\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}\nabla^j \{R_{k-j}\nabla^{k-j}F(\xi_t)\}+\nabla^k(\Delta_{g_M}F(\xi_t)),
\end{align*}
where we have used $\nabla\circ \Delta_{0, W_j}=\Delta_{1,W_j}\circ \nabla$. Therefore we have
\begin{align*}
&\left(\left\{\frac{d}{dt}+\Delta_{0,W_k}\right\}\nabla^kF(\xi_t),\nabla^kF(\xi_t)\right) \\
=&\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}(\nabla^j(R_{k-j}\nabla^{k-j}F(\xi_t)), \nabla^kF(\xi_t))+\left(\nabla^k\left(\frac{d}{dt}+\Delta_{g_M}\right)F(\xi_t), \nabla^k F(\xi_t)\right).
\end{align*}
From the same calculation as in the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma2}, we have the following:
\begin{align*}
\left(\frac{d}{dt}+\Delta_{g_M}\right)F(\xi_t)
&=-\sum_{j=1}^ra_je^{(v_j,\xi_t)}(v_j,F(\xi_t))v_j.
\end{align*}
From this equation the desired claim is deduced.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemm}[\cite{Ham1,Kob1}] \label{max}{\it Let $f:[a,b]\times M\rightarrow \R$ be a continuous function such that $f\left.\right|_{[a,b]\times\partial M}$ is constant and that $f$ is $C^2$ on $(a,b ]\times M\backslash \partial M$. Suppose that the following holds on $(a,b]\times M\backslash \partial M$:
\begin{align*}
\left(\frac{d}{dt}+\Delta_{g_M}\right)f\leq 0.
\end{align*}
Then $\sup_{p\in M}f(t,p)$ is a monotone decreasing function for $t\in[a,b]$.
}
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof} Following \cite{Kob1}, for the readers convenience, we give a proof of the above lemma. For each $\epsilon>0$, let $f_\epsilon\coloneqq f-\epsilon t$. It is enough to show that for each $t_1<t_2$, $\sup_{p\in M}f_\epsilon(t_1,p)\geq \sup_{p\in M}f_\epsilon(t_2,p)$ holds for all $\epsilon>0$. Without loss of generality, we can assume that $t_1=a$. Let $(\bar{t}, \bar{p})\in [a,b]\times M$ be a point such that $f_\epsilon(\bar{t},\bar{p})=\sup_{(t,p)\in[a,b]\times M}f_\epsilon(t,p)$. We show that $\bar{t}=a$. We first consider the case that $\bar{p}\in\partial M$. Then $f_\epsilon(\bar{t},\bar{p})=-\epsilon \bar{t}+C$ with some constant $C$. Therefore, $\bar{t}=a$. We next consider the case that $\bar{p}\notin \partial M$. Suppose that $\bar{t}\in (a,b]$. Then the following holds:
\begin{align*}
\frac{df_\epsilon}{dt}(\bar{t},\bar{p})\leq (-\Delta_{g_M}f)(\bar{t},\bar{p})-\epsilon\leq -\epsilon <0.
\end{align*}
This contradicts the assumption that $f_\epsilon(\bar{t},\bar{p})=\sup_{(t,p)\in[a,b]\times M}f_\epsilon(t,p)$. Therefore, it must be that $\bar{t}=a$ and thus we have the desired claim.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{main theorem 1}]
We first show the uniqueness of the solution of equation (\ref{heat equation}). Let $(\xi_t)_{t\in[0,\infty)}$ and $(\xi^\prime_t)_{t\in[0,\infty)}$ be solutions of equation (\ref{heat equation}) such that $\xi_0=\xi^\prime_0$ and that $\xi_t\left.\right|_{\partial M}=\xi^\prime_t\left.\right|_{\partial M}$ for all $t\in[0,\infty)$. We define a function $f:[0,\infty)\times M\rightarrow \R$ as $f\coloneqq |\xi_t-\xi_t^\prime|^2$. Then, the function $f$ vanishes on $[0,\infty)\times \partial M\cup\{0\}\times M$. Therefore from Lemma \ref{lemma1} and Lemma \ref{max}, $f$ vanishes on $[0,\infty)\times M$ and thus $\xi_t=\xi^\prime_t$ for all $t\in [0,\infty)$.
Secondly, we demonstrate the existence of a solution for a short time interval for equation (\ref{heat equation}). For each $T>0$, let $C^\infty([0,T]/0\times M,V)$ be the space of $V$-valued $C^\infty$-functions on $[0,T]\times M$ whose all of the derivative at $\{0\}\times M$ vanishes. We denote by $L^p_k([0,T]/0\times M, V)$ the completion of $C^\infty ([0,T]/0\times M, V)$ by the weighted $L^p_k$-sobolev norm (see \cite{Ham1, Kob1}). Furthermore, let $L^p_k([0,T]/0\times M, V)_\#\subseteq L^p_k([0,T]/0\times M, V)$ be a closed subspace defined as
\begin{align*}
&L^p_k([0,T]/0\times M, V)_\#\coloneqq \\
&\{ (\xi_t)_{t\in [0,T]}\in L^p_k([0,T]/0\times M, V)\mid \xi_t\left.\right|_{\partial M}=0\ \text{for all $t\in[0,T]$}\}.
\end{align*}
We take $p>0$ large enough so that $L^p_2([0,T]/0\times M)\subseteq C^0([0,T]\times M, V)$ and that \cite[the first theorem on page 116]{Ham1} holds. Let $(\widetilde{\xi}_t:M\rightarrow V)_{t\in[0,T]}$ be a smooth 1-parameter family of $V$-valued functions such that $\xi_0=\eta$ and that $\widetilde{\xi}_t\left.\right|_{\partial M}=\eta\left.\right|_{\partial M}$ for all $t\in[0,T]$. We define a map $H:L^p_2([0,T]/0\times M)_\#\rightarrow L^p([0,T]\times M)$ as follows:
\begin{align*}
H(\xi^\#_t)\coloneqq \frac{d(\xi^\#_t+\widetilde{\xi}_t)}{dt}+F(\xi^\#_t+\widetilde{\xi}_t)\ \text{for $\xi^\#_t\in L^p_2([0,T]/0\times M)$},
\end{align*}
where $F$ is defined in Definition \ref{F, G}. The linearization of $H$ at 0, denoted as $H_\ast$, is given by the following:
\begin{align*}
H_\ast(\chi_t)=\frac{d\chi_t}{dt}+\Delta_{g_M}\chi_t+\sum_{j=1}^ra_je^{(v_j,\widetilde{\xi}_t)}(v_j,\chi_t)v_j
\end{align*}
for all $\chi_t\in L^p_2([0,T]/0\times M)$. Let $\chi_t\in \ker H_\ast$. Then from the regularity theorem for parabolic operators (see \cite{Ham1, Kob1}), $\chi_t$ is smooth on $(0,T]\times M$. Moreover, we have
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{d}{dt}+\Delta_{g_M}\right)|\chi_t|^2\leq -\sum_{j=1}^ra_je^{(v_j,\widetilde{\xi}_t)}(v_j,\chi_t)^2\leq 0.
\end{align*}
Then from Lemma \ref{max}, $\chi_t=0$ and thus $H_\ast$ is injective. By using \cite[the first theorem on page 116]{Ham1} and the invariance of indices of Fredholm operators under perturbations by compact operators (see \cite{Ham1, Kob1}), we see that $H_\ast$ is bijective. From the implicit function theorem (see \cite{Ham1, Kob1}), we can find a small $0<\epsilon \ll T$ and a $\xi^\#\in L^p_2([0,\epsilon)/0\times M)_\#$ such that $H(\widetilde{\xi}_t+\xi^\#_t)=0$. Then from the regularity theorem for parabolic operators (see \cite{Ham1, Kob1}), $\xi^\#_t$ is smooth on $(0,\epsilon)\times M$.
Thirdly, we show the global existence of a solution to equation (\ref{heat equation}) satisfying the boundary condition. Suppose that for a finite $T>0$, we have a solution $(\xi_t)_{t\in[0,T)}$ satisfying the boundary condition. From Lemma \ref{lemma1} and Lemma \ref{max}, by using the same argument as \cite[Corollary 15]{Don0}, we see that there exists a continuous map $\xi_T: M\rightarrow V$ satisfying the boundary condition $\xi_T\left.\right|_{\partial M}=\eta\left.\right|_{\partial M}$ such that $\lim_{t\rightarrow T}\sup_M|\xi_t-\xi_T|=0$. From Lemma \ref{lemma2} and Lemma \ref{max}, we also see that $\sup_M|\Delta_{g_M}\xi_t|$ is bounded for $t\in [0, T)$. Then from the $L^p$-estimate (see \cite[p.96]{Ham1}) for Laplacian $\Delta_{g_M}$, we see $|\xi_t|_{L^p_2}$ is bounded for any $1<p<\infty$, and thus $\sup_M(|d\xi_t|+|\xi_t|)$ is bounded for $t\in[0,T)$. Then from Lemma \ref{curvature}, we see that $f\coloneqq |d F(\xi_t)|^2$ satisfies
\begin{align*}
\left(\frac{d}{dt}+\Delta_{g_M}\right)f\leq A(f+1)
\end{align*}
for a positive constant $A$. Then from the argument of \cite[pp.120-121, proof of (8.15)]{Kob1} and the existence theorem of the solution of the linear heat equation \cite[pp.116-118]{Ham1}, we see that $\sup_M|d F(\xi_t)|$ is bounded for $t\in[0,T)$. Then by repeating the argument above, we see that $\sup_M(|\xi_t|+|d\xi_t|+|\nabla^2\xi_t|)$ is bounded for $t\in [0, T)$. By induction, we see that $\sup_M|\nabla^kF(\xi_t)|$ and $\sup_M(\sum_{j=0}^k|\nabla^j\xi_t|)$ are bounded for every $k$. From this, we also easily see that $|\nabla^l\frac{d^k\xi_t}{dt^k}|$ is bounded for all $k$ and $l$. Therefore, $(\xi_t)_{t\in [0,T)}$ converges to $\xi_T$ in $C^\infty$. This implies the global existence of a solution of equation (\ref{heat equation}).
Fourthly, for the solution $(\xi_t)_{t\in [0,\infty)}$ of equation (\ref{heat equation}) satisfying the boundary condition (\ref{boundary}), we prove (i) of the latter statement of Theorem \ref{main theorem 1}. Suppose that $\partial M$ is not empty. We first note the uniqueness of the solution of equation (\ref{KW}) satisfying the same boundary condition follows from Lemma \ref{xi-} and the maximum principle (see \cite[p.94]{Don1}). For the rest of the proof of (i) of Theorem \ref{main theorem 1}, we use the argument of \cite{Don1}. Since $F(\xi_t)\left.\right|_{\partial M}=0$ for all $t\in [0,\infty)$ and we have Lemma \ref{lemma2}, by applying \cite[Lemma on p.98]{Don1} to $|F(\xi_t)|^2$, we see that there exists a positive constant $C$ and $\mu$ such that
\begin{align*}
\sup_M|F(\xi_t)|^2\leq Ce^{-\mu t} \ \text{for all $t\in[0,\infty)$}.
\end{align*}
From this, we see that $\sup_M|\xi_t|$ is bounded for $t\in [0,\infty)$. Then by the same argument as in the proof of the global existence of $(\ref{heat equation})$ above, we see that for all $k=0,1,2,\dots,$ $\sup_M(\sum_{j=0}^k|\nabla^j\xi_t|)$ and $\sup_M|\nabla^k F(\xi_t)|$ are bounded for $t\in [0,\infty)$ and thus $|\nabla^l\frac{d^k\xi_t}{dt^k}|$ is bounded for all $k$ and $l$. Therefore we can find a sequence $(t_i)_{i\in \N}$ going to infinity and a smooth $\xi: M\rightarrow V$ such that $\xi_{t_i}\rightarrow \xi$ in $C^\infty$. This $\xi$ solves equation (\ref{KW}) and satisfies the Dirichlet boundary condition.
Finally, we prove (ii) of Theorem \ref{main theorem 1}. Suppose that the boundary $\partial M$ is empty and that for each $j=1,\dots, r$, $a_j^{-1}(0)$ is a measure $0$ set and $\log a_j$ is integrable. Let $E$ be the functional introduced in \cite{Miy1}. From the assumption, we see that $E$ is bounded below and the estimate of \cite[Lemma 3]{Miy1} holds. By calculation we have
\begin{align*}
\frac{d}{dt} E(\xi_t)=-\int_M|F(\xi_t)|^2.
\end{align*}
In particular, $E(\xi_t)$ is bounded above and thus $|\xi_t|_{L^2}$ is bounded for $t\in[0,\infty)$. Then from \cite[pp.72-73]{LT1} (see \cite[Lemma 6]{Miy1}) and the proof of \cite[Lemma 5]{Miy1}, we see that $\sup_M|\xi_t|$ is bounded for $t\in[0,\infty)$. Then by repeating the argument of the proof of (i) of Theorem \ref{main theorem 1}, we can find a sequence $(t_i)_{i\in \N}$ going to infinity and a smooth $\xi: M\rightarrow V$ such that $\xi_{t_i}\rightarrow \xi$ in $C^\infty$. This $\xi$ solves equation (\ref{KW}). The uniqueness of the solution of equation (\ref{KW}) follows from \cite[Theorem 1]{Miy1}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{main theorem 3}]
For each $j=1,\dots, r$, let $f_j\coloneqq (\xi-\xi^\prime,u_j)$. We set $\varphi\coloneqq \sum_{j=1}^re^{f_j/2}u_j$, $\widetilde{\varphi}\coloneqq \sum_{j=1}^re^{f_j}u_j$. Then we can calculate $\Delta_{g_M}\log|\sum_{j=1}^re^{(\xi-\xi^\prime,u_j)}|=\Delta_{g_M}\log|\varphi|^2$ as follows:
\begin{align*}
\Delta_{g_M}\log|\varphi|^2&=\frac{\Delta_{g_M}|\varphi|^2}{|\varphi|^2}+\frac{|d|\varphi|^2|^2}{|\varphi|^4} \\
&\leq \frac{2(\Delta_{g_M}\varphi,\varphi)}{|\varphi|^2}-\frac{2|d\varphi|^2}{|\varphi|^2}+\frac{4|d\varphi|^2}{|\varphi|^2} \\
&= \frac{2(\Delta_{g_M}\varphi,\varphi)}{|\varphi|^2}+\frac{2|d\varphi|^2}{|\varphi|^2},
\end{align*}
where we have used $d|\varphi|^2=2(d\varphi,\varphi)$ and the inequality $|(d\varphi,\varphi)|^2\leq |d\varphi|^2|\varphi|^2$. Furthermore, $\Delta_{g_M}\varphi$ is calculated as follows:
\begin{align*}
\Delta_{g_M}\varphi=\sum_{j=1}^r\frac{1}{2}\Delta_{g_M}f_je^{\frac{f_j}{2}}u_j-\sum_{j=1}^r\frac{1}{4}|df_j|^2e^{\frac{f_j}{2}}u_j.
\end{align*}
Therefore, we have
\begin{align*}
(\Delta_{g_M}\varphi,\varphi)&=\sum_{j=1}^r(\frac{1}{2}\Delta_{g_M}f_je^{\frac{f_j}{2}}u_j-\sum_{j=1}^r\frac{1}{4}|df_j|^2e^{\frac{f_j}{2}}u_j,\varphi) \\
&=\frac{1}{2}(\Delta_{g_M}(\xi-\xi^\prime),\widetilde{\varphi})-|d\varphi|^2.
\end{align*}
Then we have the following:
\begin{align*}
\Delta_{g_M}\log|\varphi|^2\leq \frac{(\Delta_{g_M}(\xi-\xi^\prime),\widetilde{\varphi})}{|\varphi|^2}.
\end{align*}
Since, for each $j=1,\dots, r$, the function
\begin{align*}
((e^{(v_j,\xi)}-e^{(v_j,\xi^\prime)})v_j,\widetilde{\varphi})=(e^{(v_j,\xi)}-e^{(v_j,\xi^\prime)})(e^{(\xi-\xi^\prime,u_j)}-e^{(\xi-\xi^\prime,u_{j+1})})
\end{align*}
is a positive function, we have
\begin{align*}
&\Delta_{g_M}\log|\varphi|^2 \\
\leq &\frac{(\Delta_{g_M}(\xi-\xi^\prime),\widetilde{\varphi})}{|\varphi|^2} \\
\leq &\frac{1}{|\varphi|^2}\{(\Delta_{g_M}\xi+\sum_{j=1}^ra_je^{(v_j,\xi)}v_j-w,\widetilde{\varphi})
-(\Delta_{g_M}\xi^\prime+\sum_{j=1}^ra_je^{(v_j,\xi^\prime)}v_j-w, \widetilde{\varphi})\}. \\
\leq &\frac{|\widetilde{\varphi}|}{|\varphi|}\{|\Delta_{g_M}\xi+\sum_{j=1}^ra_je^{(v_j,\xi)}v_j-w|
+|\Delta_{g_M}\xi^\prime+\sum_{j=1}^ra_je^{(v_j,\xi^\prime)}v_j-w|\}. \\
\leq &|\Delta_{g_M}\xi+\sum_{j=1}^ra_je^{(v_j,\xi)}v_j-w| +|\Delta_{g_M}\xi^\prime+\sum_{j=1}^ra_je^{(v_j,\xi^\prime)}v_j-w|.
\end{align*}
Then we have the desired claim.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{main theorem 4}] Let $\xi$ be a $C^2$-solution of (\ref{KW}). For each $j=1,\dots, r$, let $f_j\coloneqq (v_j,\xi)+\log(a_j)$. We set $\varphi\coloneqq \sum_{j=1}^re^{\frac{1}{2}f_j}u_j, \Psi\coloneqq \sum_{j=1}^re^{f_j}v_j$. By the same calculation as in the proof of Theorem \ref{main theorem 3}, we have
\begin{align*}
\Delta_{g_M}\log|\varphi|^2 \leq &\frac{1}{|\varphi|^2}\sum_{j=1}^r\Delta_{g_M}f_je^{f_j} \\
=&\frac{1}{|\varphi|^2}\sum_{j=1}^r\Delta_{g_M}((v_j,\xi)+\log(a_j))e^{f_j}.
\end{align*}
By assumption, we have
\begin{align*}
&\frac{1}{|\varphi|^2}\sum_{j=1}^r\Delta_{g_M}((v_j,\xi)+\log(a_j))e^{f_j} \\
&\leq \frac{1}{|\varphi|^2}\sum_{j=1}^r (\Delta_{g_M}\xi-w,v_j)e^{f_j} \\
&=-\frac{1}{|\varphi|^2}\sum_{j=1}^r(\Psi, v_j)e^{f_j} \\
&=-\frac{|\Psi|^2}{|\varphi|^2}.
\end{align*}
Then we have the desired claim.
\end{proof}
\noindent
{\bf Acknowledgements.} I am very grateful to Takahiro Aoi for his valuable discussions. I would like to express my gratitude to Ryushi Goto, Yoshinori Hashimoto, and Hisashi Kasuya for their valuable discussions and many supports. I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to Takuro Mochizuki for answering my many questions, and for informing me of many things about harmonic bundles and cyclic Higgs bundles.
|
\section{Introduction}
Solar jets are an integral part of the solar atmosphere, and they are an important feature of the mass/energy cycle within the solar atmosphere. Solar jets occur everywhere in the solar atmosphere. The solar jets have been classified into different categories based on different criteria, namely, (1) based on morphology{--}standard jets $\&$ blowout jets \citep{2010ApJ...720..757M, 2013ApJ...769..134M}, (2) based on the region of solar atmosphere where they occur{--} active-region jets, coronal hole jets, quiet-Sun jets, network jets, umbral jets, penumbral jets, and polar jets \citep{2011A&A...534A..62S,2013ApJ...770L...3K, 2018A&A...616A..99K, 2014Sci...346A.315T, 2016ApJ...816...92T, 2017A&A...598A..11M, 2018NatAs...2..951S}, and (3) based on the filter in which they observed{--}e.g., H-$\alpha$ jet, extreme ultraviolet (EUV) jets, ultraviolet jet (UV) jets, X-ray jets, and radio jets (e.g., \citealt{1992PASJ...44L.173S, 1997Natur.386..811I, 2007Sci...318.1591S, 2015Natur.523..437S,2015MNRAS.451.1117F, 2017ApJ...851...67S,2014A&A...567A..11Z, 2017ApJ...841...27N, 2019ApJ...870..113Z}). Solar surges are another category of solar jet-like features, and they are made of mainly cool plasma. Therefore, cool lines/filters (e.g., H$_{\alpha}$, Ca~{\sc ii} H $\&$ K line, Mg~{\sc ii} h $\&$ k lines, Si~{\sc iv}, IRIS/SJI~1400~{\AA}, AIA~304~{\AA}, and many more) use to observe the solar surges \citep[e.g.,][]{2000SoPh..196...79S, 2005A&A...444..265T, 2021MNRAS.505.5311K}. However, the surges can heat the plasma up to transition region/coronal temperature and then rapidly cools down to chromospheric temperatures \citep{2016ApJ...822...18N,2017ApJ...850..153N, 2018ApJ...858....8N,2021SoPh..296...84D}. In addition, \citet{2015ApJ...801..124Y} have added one more category to the solar jets, i.e., dark jets{--} no intensity enhancement, but the signature exists in the Doppler velocity.\\
The energy required to power the solar jets comes from the complex magnetic field through the most widely occurring process (i.e., magnetic reconnection) in the solar atmosphere. These solar jets are distributed all over the solar atmosphere as magnetic reconnection can occur anywhere within the solar atmosphere when suitable physical conditions are pronounced. Widely, the bipolar magnetic field reconnects with the pre-existing magnetic field, and produces the jets in the solar atmosphere (e.g., \citealt{1995Natur.375...42Y, 1996PASJ...48..353Y, 1996PASJ...48..123S, 2007Sci...318.1591S, 2008ApJ...683L..83N, 2016SSRv..201....1R}). \citet{2013ApJ...771...20M} have performed a detailed numerical simulation, based on the magnetic reconnection between an emerging bipolar magnetic field with the pre-existing open coronal magnetic field, to understand the triggering mechanisms and dynamics of solar jets. Further, in another remarkable work, \cite{2015Natur.523..437S} have shown that mini-filament can also trigger the solar jets, i.e., the eruption of the mini-filament trigger the magnetic reconnection which ultimately produces the solar jet. In this continuation, \citet{2017Natur.544..452W} has proposed the universal magnetic breakout model to trigger the jet, i.e., magnetic reconnection takes place due to the mini-filament eruption. However, it must be noted that this magnetic breakout model was already known $\&$ widely used in the triggering of the large-scale eruptions, and \cite{2018ApJ...852...98W} have extended this model to the formation of solar jets. As per the magnetic breakout model, the magnetic reconnection takes place due to the mini-filament eruption, and it finally triggers the jet in the solar atmosphere. Hence, we can say that magnetic reconnection is an integral process of the formation of solar jets. \\
There are at least three different theoretical explanations for plasma acceleration from various numerical simulations. In the first type of acceleration mechanisms, the plasma is accelerated from the magnetic reconnection site by the slingshot effect along the newly reconnected magnetic field lines \citep{1996PASJ...48..353Y, 2008ApJ...683L..83N, 2008ApJ...673L.211M}. The released energy from the magnetic reconnection can be deposited through various ways, e.g., adiabatic compression, Joule heating, accelerated particles, and shocks. Hence, this released energy from the magnetic reconnection can heat the plasma impulsively, and the strong pressure and temperature gradient will develop there that can induce the evaporation flows \citep{2001ApJ...550.1051S, 2003ApJ...593L.133M, 2012ApJ...759...15M}. The evaporation flows is the second plasma acceleration mechanism for the solar jets, and it is induced by the magnetic reconnection. The speed in this mechanism (i.e., evaporation flow) of the jet plasma is much slower than the speed of plasma attained through the slingshot effect. When the twisted closed magnetic field lines reconnect with the untwisted open field lines then the twist will transfer to the newly reconnected magnetic field lines. And, the newly reconnected magnetic field lines will exhibit untwisting motions, which is the third type of acceleration mechanism induced by the magnetic reconnection. The models, which are based on this mechanism, are known as the untwisting models of the solar jets \citep[e.g.,][]{1986SoPh..103..299S, 1995SoPh..156..245S, 1996ApJ...464.1016C, 2004ApJ...610.1129J, 2010A&A...510L...1K, 2013ApJ...769L..21A, 2013ApJ...771...20M, 2014ApJ...789L..19F}. The helical/rotational motions (i.e., an important feature of the solar jets) can be explained through these untwisting models of the solar jets. In addition, it can be noted that the helical/rotational motion is a main feature of cool emissions of the solar jets \citep[e.g.,][]{1996ApJ...464.1016C, 2001A&A...379..324H, 2010A&A...510L...1K, 2013RAA....13..253H}. The blowout jet mainly emits at cooler temperature, and they always exhibit a strong rotation \citep[e.g.,][]{2010A&A...521A..49S, 2013ApJ...769..134M}.\\
The physical process used in the untwisting models (i.e., reconnection between the twisted magnetic field and open magnetic field lines) is not the only way to trigger the solar jets and their helical or rotating motions. Various types of magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) instabilities (e.g., Rayleigh-Taylor (RT), Kelvin-Helmholtz (KH), Ballooning mode, convective-driven instability, radiatively-driven instability, heating-driven thermal instabilities, tearing mode, kink mode, sausage mode, helical/torsional mode, and current-sheet mode) are important physical process trigger the wide varieties of the solar phenomena, i.e., from the small-scale event (e.g., solar jets) to large-scale eruptions \citep{2018ApJ...856...86M, 2019ApJ...874...57M, 2021ApJ...923...72M}. Kink instability is one of the prominent mechanisms to trigger the solar jets \citep[see review;][]{2016SSRv..201....1R}. The observational and theoretical studies suggest that the rotational/twisting motions of the solar jets are directly linked with the helical kink instability \citep{1986SoPh..103..299S, 2009ApJ...691...61P, 2019FrASS...6...44L, 2021A&A...649A.179Z}.\\
The embedded magnetic dipole is key feature of the numerical simulations based on the kink-instability. Generally, the MHD instabilities are associated with the embedded magnetic bipole in such numerical simulations, and the kink instability takes place when threshold in energy or helicity or twist exceeds some critical values \citep[e.g.,][]{2009ApJ...691...61P}. The kink instability may evolve in a flux rope if the azimuthal component of the magnetic field exceeds some critical threshold \citep{2004psci.book.....A}. The theoretical and observational studies suggest different threshold values of twist/helicity for the kink instability, namely, 2$\pi$ \citep{1958PhFl....1..265K}, 2.5$\pi$ (\cite{1981GApFD..17..297H}), 2.6$\pi$ \citep[e.g.,][]{2009ApJ...691...61P, 2015A&A...573A.130P},and 1.3 turns \citep{2019FrASS...6...44L}. Hence, we can say that the threshold value of twist to trigger kink-instability varies a lot, and it depends on the magnetic field conditions. Now, this kink instability forces a loss of the stability of the whole stable magnetic field configuration \citep[i.e., the embedded magnetic flux in the uniform magnetic field;][]{2009ApJ...691...61P}, and it leads to the magnetic reconnection that drives the helical solar jets \citep{2015A&A...573A.130P}. However, such magnetic field configuration is not the only possibility for helical jets. The high-resolution observations have shown the existence of twisted flux rope, and the reconnection within the twisted magnetic structure can also produce such helical jets \citep{2010ApJ...718..981R, 2011ApJ...735L..18L, 2013ApJ...770L...3K}.\\
The solar jets may also be the source of MHD waves \citep{2007Sci...318.1580C, 2012A&A...537A.124Z} and quasi-periodic pulsations \citep[e.g.,][]{2012A&A...542A..70M, 2014A&A...561A.134Z}. The quasi-periodic pulsations (QPPs) are a phenomenon frequently associated with solar flares, and these QPPs in solar flares occur over a vast range of periods, i.e, from a fraction of a second to several minutes \citep[e.g.,][]{2010PPCF...52l4009N, 2016SSRv..200...75N, 2020A&A...642A.195K}. The different periods of QPPs may be related to the different physical processes in the solar atmosphere. Recently, \citet{2021SSRv..217...66Z} have reviewed the observational and theoretical aspects of the QPPs in solar and stellar flares, and they suggest more than fifteen different mechanisms in support of the formation of QPPs in solar/stellar flares. All these physical mechanisms for QPPs are primarily associated with either MHD waves or quasi-periodic regimes of magnetic reconnection. As we know that QPPs are very common phenomena associated with solar/stellar flares while the observational detection of QPPs in solar jets is very rare. So far, there are only a few observational works that report the existence of the QPPs in the solar jets \citep[e.g.,][]{2012A&A...542A..70M, 2014A&A...561A.134Z}. Similar to the QPPs in solar flares, it is reported that multiple magnetic reconnection can trigger the QPPs in blowout jets also \citep{2012A&A...542A..70M}. Here, we mention that QPPs are not well studied in solar jets as there are only a few reports of QPPs in solar jets so far. And, on top of this fact, we further say that solar jet, kink-instability, and the formation of QPPs are not investigated as per the best of our knowledge.\\
In the present scientific work, we provide a systematic observational study of solar jet triggered due to the kink instability, and subsequent evolution of quasi-periodic pulsations. The observations and data analysis are discussed in section~\ref{sect:obs_data}. In section~\ref{sect:results} we presents the observational results related to the eruption of kink unstable jets and quasi-periodic pulsation. Finally, the discussion and conclusion are presented in Section~\ref{sect:discuss}.
\section{Observations and Data Analysis} \label{sect:obs_data}
The Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA) onboard Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) provides the full-disk images of the Sun in several filters (i.e., AIA~4500{\AA}, AIA~1600~{\AA}, AIA~1700~{\AA}, AIA~304~{\AA}, AIA~171~{\AA}, AIA~211~{\AA}, AIA~131~{\AA}, and AIA~94~{\AA}; \citealt{2012SoPh..275...17L}). Some filters capture the emission from the extreme ultra-violet (EUV)/UV region, and one filter of AIA captures the emission from the visible waveband. Therefore, these AIA filters capture the emission of the Sun from the top of the photosphere to the lower corona. The spatial resolution of the EUV waveband is 1.5$''$ with 0.6$''$ per pixel width and a cadence of 12 seconds (see \citealt{2012SoPh..275...17L} for more details). We use multi-wavelength imaging observation obtained from AIA/SDO for this present work. The jet was triggered around $\sim$06:28 UT on August 29${th}$, 2014 near the west limb of the Sun, and the jet event ended at $\approx$07:20 UT.\\
The AIA images are used to understand the temporal evolution of this jet event. In addition to the temporal evolution, the AIA images can also be used to perform the differential emission measures (DEM). The Differential Emission Measure (DEM) is a very useful parameter to understand the thermal nature of this jet event. To estimate the DEM, we have used the method developed by \citet{2012A&A...539A.146H}. This method uses regularized inversion technique to perform the DEM using the warm/hot EUV channel of AIA/SDO (i.e., 94~{\AA}, 131~{\AA}, 171~{\AA}, 193~{\AA}, 211~{\AA}, and 335 {\AA}). It is an automated method that uses the zeroth-order regularized inversion to return the DEM as a function of temperature. This regularized method provide a positive solution for the extracted DEM. We divide the temperature range between log $T$=5.0{--}7.5 K, with 25 temperature bins and an interval of log $\Delta T$=0.1 K.\\
In addition to AIA imaging observations, we also use imaging (slit-jaw images(SJI)) and simultaneous spectroscopic observations obtained from the Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph (IRIS). The IRIS telescope captures the emission from the lower solar atmosphere (chromosphere and transition region) using a slit-jaw imager (SJI), and IRIS takes images in far ultraviolet (FUV: 1331.56{--}1358.40 {\AA} and 1390.00{--}1406.79 {\AA}) and near ultraviolet (NUV: 2782.56{--}2833.89 {\AA}) wavebands. IRIS does not provide full-disk images rather it provided small field-of-view (FOV) images of the Sun in some filters, namely, Mg~{\sc ii}~2796.0~{\AA} filter, Si~{\sc iv}~1400~{\AA} filter, C~{\sc ii}~1330~{\AA} filter, and more filters \citep[for more details see; ][]{2014SoPh..289.2733D}. The IRIS has observed this jet event only in the C~{\sc ii}~1330~{\AA} filter with the temporal cadence of 10 seconds, and the full field-of-view (FOV) of SJI is 119$''\times$119$''$.\\
The IRIS also provides spectroscopic observations, and it observes some of the prominent spectral lines of interface-region, such as Mg~{\sc ii} k~2796{\AA}, Mg~{\sc ii} h~2803~{\AA}, C~{\sc ii}~1334.53~{\AA}, C~{\sc ii}~1335.66~{\AA}, Si~{\sc iv} 1393.76~{\AA}, and Si~{\sc iv} 1402.77~{\AA}. IRIS has observed the spectra of this particular jet event with an 8-step coarse raster observation of temporal cadence of 9.6 seconds. Hence, each raster file of this observation takes $\sim$77 seconds (i.e., 8.0$\times$9.6 = 76.8 seconds).\\
Lastly, we mention that we have also utilized wavelet analysis to diagnose the quasi-periodic behavior of various light curves extracted from this jet event. We adopt the method of \cite{1998BAMS...79...61T} for the wavelet analysis of the time series. We have applied the wavelet analysis on AIA~304~{\AA}, AIA~171~{\AA}, AIA~131~{\AA}, and AIA~211~{\AA} filter observations. We computed the wavelet power, global power, and 95$\%$ significance levels using the method developed by \cite{1998BAMS...79...61T}.
\section{Observational Results} \label{sect:results
We used high-resolution multi-wavelength imaging and spectroscopic data of AIA and IRIS to study an eruptive jet on August 29$^{th}$, 2014. This jet was situated near the west limb, and the jet was initiated around~06:28 UT. Here, we have described the whole jet event in upcoming subsections.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[trim = 0.0cm 0.0cm 3.0cm 0.0cm, scale=1.0]{Fig1.eps}
\caption{The sequence of the images from SDO/AIA~304~{\AA} with reverse color contrast shows the onset of the kink instability in a blowout jet. The morphological sign of kink instability (inverse $\gamma$-shape), bright knot, propagation of brightening along the twisted field lines, and rotation of the plasma thread (i.e., twist in the jet) have been identified, and these observational findings are indicated by the different arrows. The first panel shows the direction to understand the dynamics in the jet's leg. The black and white arrow indicates the northern and southern legs of the eruptive jet (last panel).}
\label{fig:kink_unstable}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Onset of the Kink-instability} \label{sect:kink}
We use a sequence of AIA 304~{\AA} images to understand the spatio-temporal evolution of kink instability in a blowout jet (cf., Figure~\ref{fig:kink_unstable}). The images of Figure~\ref{fig:kink_unstable} are plotted in the reverse intensity. The direction system is displayed in the panel (a) of Figure~\ref{fig:kink_unstable}. This blowout jet starts to lift at $\approx$06:28 UT from an active region NOAA 12146.
At t = 06:29:07~UT, we see the inverse $\gamma$-shape structure outlined by a white-dashed line (panel a; Figure~\ref{fig:kink_unstable}), which is a manifestation of the writhing motion near the base of the jet. This magnetized structure (i.e., inverse $\gamma$-shape structure) is developing with time, i.e., it is expanding and rising (panels (b) and (c); Figure~\ref{fig:kink_unstable}; animation\_1.mp4, animation\_2.mp4). In the meantime, the inverse $\gamma$-shape structure performs an anticlockwise twist (see attached animation; animation$\_1$.mp4), and as a result, it may become kink unstable. The characteristic inverse $\gamma$-shape evolves due to the conversion of the initial twist into the writhe \citep{2010A&A...516A..49T, 2014PPCF...56f4012T}, and the inverse $\gamma$ shape-like structure is a morphological signature for the onset of the kink instability.\\
We see that the inverse $\gamma$-shape structure is lifting and expanding with time (panels (b) and (c); Figure~\ref{fig:kink_unstable}). Now, at time t = 06:30:19~UT, the inverse $\gamma$-shape structure has fully developed, and again we have outlined the fully developed structure by the white dashed line (panel (d); Figure~\ref{fig:kink_unstable}). We see little brightening around the knot (i.e., cross point) of the inverse $\gamma$-shape structure.
In addition, we also see localized bright dots, and two bright dots are indicated by two black arrows (see panel d). The bright dots further propagate upward along the magnetic field lines as the jet develops with time. The brightening at the knot (as indicated by white arrows in the panel (e); Figure~\ref{fig:kink_unstable}) is becoming stronger and wider with time (see, panels (e) and (f); Figure~\ref{fig:kink_unstable}; animation\_1.mp4, animation\_2.mp4).\\
Meanwhile, the plasma is moving up along the magnetic field that is forming the main body of this jet. This jet is not well-collimated as the width of the jet is increasing with time (see, panels (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i); Figure~\ref{fig:kink_unstable}; animation\_1.mp4, animation\_2.mp4). Hence, this jet is a typical blowout jet as per the morphological classification of the solar jets \citep[e.g.,][]{2010ApJ...720..757M, 2013ApJ...769..134M}. The jet is made of various plasma threads, and out of them, we have marked one plasma thread at 06:30:43~UT by a black arrow (panel (e); Figure~\ref{fig:kink_unstable}). This particular thread is located at the top edge of the jet this time (i.e., 06:30:43~UT), and further, we have traced this particular plasma thread at various other times (please see the black arrows from panel (e) to (l); Figure~\ref{fig:kink_unstable}). This particular thread follows anticlockwise motion with time, which suggests that the jet spire is rotating. In addition, we have also shown the evolution of the jet using IRIS~1330~{\AA} filter (cf., figure~\ref{fig:jet_evol_iris}). This animated figure describes the main features of the jet as per the IRIS animations (animation$\_$1.mp4, animation$\_$2.mp4). Similar to AIA~304~{\AA}, the IRIS/SJI~1330~{\AA} filter observations also show the rotating motion of the jet. Hence, finally, we can say that the rotating motion of the jet plasma is also visible in the animated figure~\ref{fig:jet_evol_iris}.
\subsection{Multi-wavelength imaging observations of solar jet} \label{sect:multi_jet}
In the previous subsection (i.e., section~\ref{sect:kink}), we have described the dynamics of the inverse $\gamma$-shape flux-rope and triggering of the blowout jet. In this subsection, we are investigating the dynamics of the blowout jet in cool (i.e., AIA~1600~{\AA}, AIA~304~{\AA}, and IRIS/SJI~1330~{\AA}) and warm/hot temperature filters (i.e., AIA~171~{\AA}, AIA~131~{\AA}, and AIA~94~{\AA}) to understand the multiwavelength nature of this jet. The distinction between hot and cool temperature filters is relative, and the classification between hot and cool temperatures may changes from case to case. Here, in the present study, we say that AIA~1600~{\AA}, AIA~304~{\AA}, and IRIS/SJI~1330~{\AA} are cool filters while AIA~171~{\AA}, AIA~131~{\AA}, and AIA~94~{\AA} are warm/hot filters. We know that this inverse $\gamma$-shape magnetic structure lifts up with time (see; Figure~\ref{fig:kink_unstable}). Here, in this subsection, we have discussed the multi-wavelength observations of the blowout jet. The Figure~\ref{fig:jet_trigger} shows the spatio-temporal evolution of the jet in AIA 1600~{\AA} (top row), IRIS/SJI~1330 {\AA} (second row), AIA~171~{\AA} (third row), and AIA~131~{\AA} wavebands. Similar to Figure~\ref{fig:kink_unstable}, we have again displayed the directions in the panel Figure~\ref{fig:jet_trigger}(a1). At t = 06:29:23~UT, the inverse $\gamma$-shape structure has significantly developed, and the top of this structure is well above the limb. This inverse $\gamma$-shape structure is clearly visible in cool temperature filters (panel (a1), (a2), (b1), and (b2);Figure~\ref{fig:jet_trigger}), but it is not visible in the hot temperature filters (panels (c1), (c2), (d1), and (d2); Figure~\ref{fig:jet_trigger}; animation\_3.mp4). However, we see that the brightened base of inverse $\gamma$-shaped structure in the hot temperature filters.\\
At the next time (t = 06:29:30~UT), we clearly see the jet in the cool temperature filter which is indicated by the black arrows (see, panels (a2) and (b2); Figure~\ref{fig:jet_trigger}). At this time, we see a compact brightening in the vicinity of knot of inverse $\gamma$-shape structure (indicated by black arrows in panels (c2) and (d2); Figure~\ref{fig:jet_trigger}) in the hot temperature filters (panels (c2) and (d2); Figure~\ref{fig:jet_trigger}). We do not see the spire of jet in the hot temperature filters as we have seen in cool filters.
At the next time (t = 06:31:18~UT), the jet is fully developed with two legs rooted at the solar surface (panels (a3) and (b3); Figure~\ref{fig:jet_trigger}). The upper leg is termed as northern leg while the lower leg is termed as southern leg. And, these two legs are clearly indicated by the white and black arrows in the panels (a3) and (b3) of Figure~\ref{fig:jet_trigger}, respectively. Interestingly, we do see the signature of bi-directional flows, i.e., plasma falls along both legs below the bright knot (see red arrows in (a3), (b3), (c3), and (d3) panels; Figure~\ref{fig:jet_trigger}; animation\_3.mp4) while the plasma flows up above the bright knot (see blue arrows in (a3), (b3), (c3), and (d3) panels; Figure~\ref{fig:jet_trigger}). This bi-directional flow is also clearly visible in the animation$\_$1.mp4, animation\_2.mp4, animation\_3.mp4. This up-and-down flow of the plasma builds the main body of this blowout jet. Also, the bi-directional flows of the jet are visible in the cool filters. However, we only see some faint signatures of the blowout jet in the hot temperature filters (panels (c3) and (d3); Figure~\ref{fig:jet_trigger}). At time t = 06:35:52~UT, the northern leg of inverse $\gamma$-shape flux-rope is completely disconnected from the solar limb while, the southern leg remains connected to the limb of the Sun (panels (a4), (b4), (c4), and (d4); Figure~\ref{fig:jet_trigger}). Now, the jet is fully developed at this time along southern leg. Interestingly, we see big cavity in the jet plasma that is indicated by cyan color arrows (panels (a4) and (b4); Figure~\ref{fig:jet_trigger}). It seems that some plasma from the main body of the jet has bifurcated, and the space between main body and bifurcated plasma of jet appears the black region (i.e., cavity).
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[trim = 0.0cm 0.0cm 3.0cm 0.0cm, scale=1.0]{Fig2.eps}
\caption{The figures show the multi-wavelength view of the kink unstable blowout jet observed on August 29${th}$, 2014 by SDO/AIA and IRIS. It shows the morphological evolution of kink unstable blowout jet in the different layers of the solar atmosphere (i.e., AIA 1600 (top row), IRIS/SJI 1330 (second row), AIA 304 (third row), and AIA 131 (bottom row)). In this evolution, we have seen various important features of this blowout jet, namely, the development of inverse $\gamma$-shape in the cool filters (panels (a1) and (b1)), bright knot due to magnetic reconnection along with the triggering of blowout jet (panels (a2), (b2), (c2), and (d2)), bi-directional flows from bright know ((a3), (b3), (c3), and (d3)), and matured phase of jet with a cavity (panels (a4) and (b4)). Here, it should be noted that the jet is mainly visible in the cool filters, and does not emit much in hot filters. However, we see a compact bright structure in the hot filters (see (c2) and (d2)) which justifies the occurrence of internal magnetic reconnection in highly twisted magnetic field lines of inverse $\gamma$-shape near its apex. The northern and southern legs are indicated by white and black arrows in the panel (a3) and (b3). The two boxes 'a' and 'b' are shown in panels (a3), (b3), (c3), and (d3). We have used these boxes to investigate the total emission measure (EM) (see Figure~\ref{fig:dem_jet}(c) and(d)). The animation shows the (animation$\_$3.mp4; AIA 304, AIA 171, AIA 131, and AIA 94 {\AA}) triggering and the complete evolution of the kink unstable jet and their association with the multi-thermal plasma. The kink instability at the base of the jet, triggering of magnetic reconnection, the eruption of the jet, and associated dynamics are shown between 06:25 UT to 07:00 UT. The real-time duration of 12 s for this animation.}
\label{fig:jet_trigger}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Time-distance analysis of blowout jet}\label{sect:td}
We have performed the time-distance estimation along and across (perpendicular) the blowout jet to understand the kinematics of this blowout jet (cf., Figure~\ref{fig:time_distance}). We displayed the late phase of the blowout jet along with one horizontal slit (S1) and four vertical slits (P1, P2, P3, and P4) in the panel (a) of Figure~\ref{fig:time_distance}. All of the slits are shown by white dashed lines (panel (a)). As we have already indicated that jet is mainly visible in the cool temperature filters, therefore, the time-distance analysis is performed using the cool temperature filter, i.e., AIA~304~{\AA}. The panel (b) of Figure~\ref{fig:time_distance} shows the time-distance diagram corresponding to the horizontal slit (i.e. slit S1). We have considered the width of 30 pixels around the horizontal slit (i.e., 15 pixels on each side of the slit) for the time-distance diagram shown in the panel (b) of Figure~\ref{fig:time_distance}. We have drawn a path (dashed cyan line) on the ascending motion of jet plasma, and it is found that the jet plasma is moving up with the speed of 234.0 km s$^{-1}$. Interestingly, on the close inspection, we noticed the multiple intensity enhancement at a regular intervals as indicated by the black arrows in the panel (b) of Figure~\ref{fig:time_distance}. Here, we have identified at-lest three peaks. \\
The right column of the Figure~\ref{fig:time_distance} shows four time-distance diagrams of the jet deduced from four different heights, i.e., along the slits P1 (panel (c)), P2 (panel (d)), P3 (panel (e)), and P4 (panel (f)). Again, we have used the same width of 30 pixels on both sides of all four slits (i.e., 15 pixels on both sides of the slit) in the production of time-distance diagrams. The panel (c) shows the time-distance diagram along the first vertical slit P1. We have already shown the presence of inverse $\gamma$-shape flux-rope, and the legs of this flux-rope show opposite motion before the jet eruption (see section~\ref{sect:multi_jet}). The slit P1 is located at the base of the jet, and covers both legs of the inverse $\gamma$-shape flux-rope. We observe two opposite motions of the plasma (white dotted curve on panel (c) of Figure~\ref{fig:time_distance}). This particular pattern is visible due to the opposite motion of the legs of the flux rope.
The time-distance diagram as per the second slit P2 is displayed in the panel (d) of Figure~\ref{fig:time_distance}. In the first instance, we see two different intensity patches in the time-distance diagram, i.e., the first one is a long $\&$ broad patch (indicated by green arrow) while the second one is a narrow and slanted patch (indicated by cyan arrow). In the very initial phase, the blowout jet had a single body, while after some time the jet body was bifurcated into two parts with a cavity in between them as already explained in section~\ref{sect:multi_jet}. Even, in the reference image (panel (a); Figure~\ref{fig:time_distance}), one can see the long straight main body of the jet, and some plasma fragments are distributed on a curved path below the main body of the jet. The base of slit P2 lies on the curved path, and then the slit crosses some part of the cavity before covering the main body of the jet. Hence, the bottom narrow slanted intensity patch (indicated by cyan color arrow) in the time-distance diagram forms due to the plasma fragments along a curved path. While the long $\&$ broad patch (indicated by green arrow) is due to the dynamics of the main jet body. \\
The main body of the blowout jet contains small bright dots that are indicated by white arrows in the long straight intensity patch. The time-distance diagram along the slit S1 (i.e., panel (b); Figure~\ref{fig:time_distance}) has already shown the multiple intensity peaks. We observe that \textit{same intensity enhancement is visible as multiple bright dots on regular time-interval} in this time-distance diagram (panel (d) of Figure~\ref{fig:time_distance}) drawn for the across the jet (i.e., slit P2). Here, at least we have identified three bright dots, and it should be noted that these bright dots are aligned on the slanted path in the broad $\&$ long patch.\\
The time-distance diagram corresponding to slit P3 is displayed in the panel (e) of Figure~\ref{fig:time_distance}. Similar to the previous time-distance diagram, at this height, we also see the bright dots in the main body of the jet. Here, again these bright dots are indicated by the white arrows in the time-distance diagram corresponding to slit P3 (panel (e); Figure~\ref{fig:time_distance}), and these bright dots are on the slanted path in the long $\&$ broad patch (indicated by green arrow). The narrow slanted patch of intensity (indicated by cyan arrow) exists here as already seen in the panel (d) of Figure~\ref{fig:time_distance}. The last vertical slit (i.e., slit P4) is located very far away from the base of the jet. And, the panel (f) of Figure~\ref{fig:time_distance} shows the time-distance diagram corresponding to this slit. Again, we see both patches of intensity as already seen in the panels (d) and (e). Although, intensity in the slanted patch is weak in comparison to the panels (d) and (e) of Figure~\ref{fig:time_distance}. It is because that slit P4 is located near the top part of the jet. However, we see the multiple bright dots like the time-distance diagrams corresponding to the slits P2 (panel (d)) and P3 (panel (e) of Figure~\ref{fig:time_distance}).
\begin{figure*}
\hspace{-1 cm}
\includegraphics[scale=1.0,angle=0,width=20.0cm,height=20.0cm,keepaspectratio]{Fig3.eps}
\caption{The panel (a) shows the intensity image from AIA~304~{\AA} at t = 06:37:55~UT, i.e., from the decay phase of the jet. The over-plotted dashed lines are various slits along (i.e., S1) and across (i.e., P1, P2, P3, and P4) the jet, and they are used to produce the time-distance diagrams. The time-distance diagram along the slit S1 is shown in the panel (b), and we have drawn a line (i.e., dashed cyan line) along the ascending phase of the jet to estimate the speed of the blowout jet which is 234 km/s. We have also seen multiple spikes in this time-distance diagram which are indicated by the black arrows. In the right column, we have shown the time-distance diagrams along the slits P1 (panel (c)), P2 (panel (d)), P3 (panel (e)), and P4 (panel (f)). Here, we have seen the opposite motion of inverse $\gamma$-shape as indicated by the path drawn by the cyan dashed line in panel (c). Further, we have also seen the bright dots jet's body which is indicated by white arrows (panels (d) and (e)). Here, we see a slanted intensity patch (panels (d), (e), and (f)) in the last three panels of the right column which is occurring due to the fragmented plasma on a curved path from the main body of the blowout jet.}
\label{fig:time_distance}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Thermal structure of blowout jet}\label{sect:dem}
We perform the differential emission measure (DEM) analysis to understand the thermal nature of this blowout jet. We use regularized inversion code developed by \citep{2012A&A...539A.146H} to extract the DEM using hot AIA/SDO filters. We use six hot optically thin EUV filters (e.g., 94~{\AA}, 131~{\AA}, 171~{\AA}, 193~{\AA}, 211~{\AA}, and 335~{\AA}) of the AIA/SDO to estimate DEM coming from different temperatures bins. In the panels (a1), (a2), and (a3) of Figure~\ref{fig:dem_jet}, we have displayed three emission measure (EM) maps deduced from three different temperature ranges (i.e., log T/K = 5.7{--} 6.0, log T/K = 6.0{--} 6.3, and log T/K = 6.9{--} 7.2) during the onset of the kink-instability (i.e., t = $\sim$06:32:03~UT). Similarly, in the panels (b1), (b2), and (b3) of Figure~\ref{fig:dem_jet}, we have shown the same three EM maps during the developed phase of the blowout jet (i.e., t = $\sim$06:35:03~UT).\\
In the initial phase, EM maps show a significant emission around the bright knot (as defined previously in sections~\ref{sect:kink} and ~\ref{sect:multi_jet}) above the legs of inverse $\gamma$ flux-rope as indicated by the black arrows in (a1), (a2), and (a3) panels of the Figure~\ref{fig:dem_jet}. The emission in the bright knot region exists over a very wide range of the temperature, i.e., log T = 5.7 to 7.2 K. Hence, it justifies the presence of multi-thermal plasma at the knot of inverse $\gamma$-shape flux-rope.
After approximately 03 minutes, the emissions in the vicinity of the bright knot are significantly reduced (see all panels (b1), (b2), and (b3); Figure~\ref{fig:dem_jet}). Although we see little emission in the bottom region of the bright knot. And, a faint jet originating from this little emission area. The faint jet is indicated by the black arrows in the panels (b1), (b2), and (b3) of Figure~\ref{fig:dem_jet}.This EM study indicates that the spire of jet has very little hot emission. That is consistent with this jet showing up strongly in the cool filters, and being very faint in the hot filters.
\begin{figure*}
\mbox{
\includegraphics[trim = 0.0cm 0.0cm 0.0cm 0.0cm, scale=1.0]{Fig4a.eps}
}
\mbox{
\includegraphics[trim = .0cm 0.0cm 0.0cm 0.0cm, scale=0.5]{Fig4b.eps}
\includegraphics[trim = .0cm 0.0cm 0.0cm 0.0cm, scale=0.5]{Fig4c.eps}
}
\caption{The panels (a1), (a2), and (a3) shows EM maps in three different temperature ranges (i.e., log T/K = 5.7{--}6.0, 6.0{--}6.3, and 6.9{--}7.2) during the time t = 06:32:03~UT when the magnetic reconnection takes place around the bright knot of inverse-$\gamma$ structure. The bright knot is indicated by the black arrows in all panels of the top row. Similarly, the middle row shows the same EM maps during the developed phase of this blowout jet (i.e., t = 06:35:03~UT). Here, we see very faint emission of the jet as indicated by black arrows in the middle row. Further, we have selected one box in the northern leg (i.e., box a) and another box in the southern leg (box b) to investigate the temporal variations of the EM curves in various temperature ranges. Various EM curves are shown in panels c (box a) and d (box b) of Figure~\ref{fig:dem_jet} by various colors. The color scheme and temperature ranges are mentioned in both panels. All EM curves from the box a show only one peak while all EM curves from box b show three to four peaks. The box (a) is located in the northern leg which erupts in the initial phase of the jet.}
\label{fig:dem_jet}
\end{figure*}
We have selected a box (a) within the bright knot region (see, black rectangular box in panel (a1); Figure~\ref{fig:dem_jet}) to know the temporal behavior of DEM. We classify the entire DEM into five different temperature ranges (bins), namely, 0.5{--}1.0, 1.0{--}2.0, 2.0{--}4.0, 4.0{--}8.0, and 8.0{--}15 MK. Then, we estimated emission (EM = $\int_{T_{min}}^{T_{max}}{DEM(T) dT}$) in all above specified temperature bins. Through this approach, we got five different EM curves, and they are displayed by five different colors in the panel (c) of Figure~\ref{fig:dem_jet}. It is visible that all five curves show a dominant peak during the formation of the bright knot. The total emission in all five temperature ranges is highest during the formation of the bright knot.\\
We also extract the EM curves from another box (i.e., box (b)), which is situated inside the southern leg of the blowout jet (please see box (b) in panel (b1) of Figure~\ref{fig:dem_jet}). These EM curves are displayed in panel (d) of Figure~\ref{fig:dem_jet}. Interestingly, the EM curves from box (b) show periodic nature, unlike the nature of EM curves deduced from the box (a) (panel (c) of Figure~\ref{fig:dem_jet}). The box (a) is located in the northern leg of the blowout jet that erupts completely during the initial phase of the blowout jet. The plasma is completely swept away in the vicinity of the northern leg right after its eruption. Hence, we see only one dominant peak in EM curves extracted from the box (a). While, box (b) is situated near the base of the stable leg (i.e., southern leg) of this blowout jet. The periodic nature of EM curves extracted from the box (b) is present in all five temperature bins. We can easily locate at least three to four peaks in each EM curve, and it matches with the intensity light curve extracted from the different boxes from cool temperature filter AIA~304{\AA} (see, section~\ref{sect:QPP}). The vertical black dotted line in the lower panels (i.e., panels (c) and (d); Figure~\ref{fig:dem_jet}) indicates the jet event start time (t = $\sim$06:28~UT).
\subsection{Spectroscopic diagnosis of blowout jet}\label{sect:spectra}
In addition to the slit jaw images, IRIS has also captured the near ultraviolet (NUV) as well as far ultraviolet (FUV) spectrum of this jet event.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[trim = 0.5cm 0.0cm 3.0cm 0.0cm, scale=1.0]{sji_spectra_ref.eps}
\caption{IRIS/SJI 1330 {\AA} image depicts the blowout jet at time t = 06:32:06~UT along with 8-slit positions shown by white dashed lines in panel (a). IRIS has captured the spectra along these slits. Further, we have selected one location (i.e., red plus sign) in the northern leg while another location (blue plus sign) in the southern leg of the blowout jet. The panel (b), (c), and (d) show the spectral profiles of Si~{\sc iv} from both locations (i.e., the red curve from red plus location and black curve from blue plus location) at time t = 06:30~UT (panel b), 06:31~UT (panel (c)), and 06:32~UT (panel (d)). In the same fashion, we have shown C~{\sc ii} (panels (e), (f), and (g)) and Mg~{\sc ii} (panels h, i, and (j)) from both locations at the same three times. In general, all the spectral profiles from the red plus location are red-shifted (i.e., plasma downfall) while these profiles are blue-shifted (i.e., plasma upflows) from the blue plus location. In addition, all the spectral profiles are very complex profiles.}
\label{fig:sji_spectra}
\end{figure*}
The panel (a) of Figure~\ref{fig:sji_spectra} shows the IRIS/SJI intensity map at a time of $\sim$06:32:06~UT. The IRIS has observed the event with a roll angle of 90$^{\circ}$. Therefore, this IRIS/SJI intensity map (i.e., panel (a)) of the Figure~\ref{fig:sji_spectra} is 90$^{\circ}$ rotated in comparison to other Figures (i.e., Figure~\ref{fig:kink_unstable}, ~\ref{fig:jet_trigger}, and other Figures) of this manuscript. Here, we mention that direction system is added in the panel (a) of Figure~\ref{fig:sji_spectra}. We have over-plotted all eight slit positions (i.e., eight vertical gray-dashed lines) on this IRIS/SJI intensity map (panel a). Then, we have chosen two locations to know the nature of Si~{\sc iv}, C~{\sc ii} and Mg~{\sc ii} profiles, namely, red plus sign (x = 993.12$"$ and y = 95.19$"$) and blue plus sign (x = 997.12$"$ and y = 93.52$"$). It should be noted that the selected locations (red and blue plus sign in panel a of Figure~\ref{fig:sji_spectra}) are located in the vicinity of the bright knot region, i.e., most probably in the magnetic-reconnection region.\\
In the imaging analysis, we have already shown the existence of the bi-directional flows in this jet event (see; section~\ref{sect:multi_jet}). And, as per the imaging analysis, the red plus sign lies in the down-flow region while the blue plus sign is in the up-flow region (see; Figure~\ref{fig:jet_trigger} and section~\ref{sect:multi_jet}). In Figure~\ref{fig:sji_spectra}, we have displayed Si~{\sc iv} 1393.77~{\AA} spectral profiles from red plus sign location by the red curve at three different times (i.e., 06:30:21~UT (panel b), 06:31:37~UT (panel c), and 06:32:54~UT (panel d)). Similarly, the Si~{\sc iv} 1393.77~{\AA} spectral profiles from blue plus locations are displayed by the black curve at three different times (i.e., t = 06:30:40~UT (panel (b)),~06:31:56~UT (panel (c)), and 06:33:13~UT (panel (d)). In the same way, we have shown the spectral profiles from red plus (red curve) and blue plus locations (black curve) of C~{\sc ii} 1335.66~{\AA} spectral profiles (see panels (e), (f), and (g)) and Mg~{\sc ii} 2796.35~{\AA} (see panels (h), (i), and (j)).
We have noticed that all black profiles (i.e., from Si~{\sc iv}, C~{\sc ii}, and Mg~{\sc ii} at all three times) are blue-shifted (upflows) while all the red profiles are red-shifted (down-flows). Hence, we can say that all three spectral lines (e.g., Si~{\sc iv}, C~{\sc ii}, and Mg~{\sc ii}) justify that red plus location is dominated by plasma downfall while the blue plus location is dominated by up flows, i.e., the spectra confirm the presence of bi-directional flows in the vicinity of the bright knot. Hence, finally, we can say that both (spectra and images) confirm the presence of bi-directional flows in the vicinity of the bright knot. In addition, we do see very broad profiles from Si~{\sc iv}, C~{\sc ii}, and Mg~{\sc ii} spectral lines during the initial/main phases of the blowout jet. Si~{\sc iv} 1393.77~{\AA} spectral line is an optically thin line, and normally, it is a single peak. However, in this blowout jet, the Si~{\sc iv} 1393.77~{\AA} spectral line is either double peak or highly asymmetric profile (panels (b), (c), and (d) of Figure~\ref{fig:sji_spectra}). On the other hand, C~{\sc ii} 1335.62~{\AA} and Mg~{\sc ii} 2796.35~{\AA} spectral lines are optically thick lines, and mostly, they appear as double peak profiles in the solar atmosphere. However, in this blowout jet, we see the very complex type of profiles from C~{\sc ii} 1335.62~{\AA} (see panels (e), (f), and (g)) and Mg~{\sc ii} 2796.35~{\AA} (see panels (h), (i), and (j)). Such type of complex profiles are reported in some small-scale energetic events \citep[e.g.,][]{2014Sci...346C.315P, 2018ApJ...857....5Y}.
\begin{figure*}
\mbox{
\includegraphics[trim = 1.0cm 1.0cm 0.0cm 0.0cm, scale=1.2]{mr_spectra_evol.eps}
}
\caption{The temporal evolution of normalized averaged Si-IV line profiles (i.e., averaged over the five pixels around the blue plus location shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sji_spectra}) from the most probable reconnection region. It should be noted that all spectral profiles are normalized by their maximum
counts. All the spectral profiles are fitted by single Gaussian (see blue curve in all panels). We do see periodic fluctuations in the line width of Si~{\sc iv}. The first panel does not show the line as it is before the triggering of the solar jets.}
\label{fig:mr_evol}
\end{figure*}
Further, we have taken five pixels around blue plus location (see; panel (a) Figure~\ref{fig:sji_spectra}), and then all five profiles were averaged to get a single averaged Si~{\sc iv} profile at any particular instant of time. Through this approach, we have produced 33 averaged spectral profiles in a time range from 06:21:43~UT to 07:06:25~UT. This observation is an 8-step coarse raster observation with the cadence of 77 seconds. Therefore, the averaged spectral profile of any location is available after every 77 seconds (i.e., 8.0*cadence time).
Some key averaged spectral profiles are displayed in the Figure~\ref{fig:mr_evol}. Panel (a) does not show the presence of the Si~{\sc iv} line as it is well before the jet event (t = 06:24:17~UT). While, t = 06:29:23 UT, we see the Si IV spectral line as the formation of the jet has already begun (see panel (b); Figure~\ref{fig:mr_evol}). We have fitted the line profile with the single Gaussian (blue curve) to estimate the peak intensity, Doppler velocity, and line width of the profile. The line width of this profile is high (i.e., 46.99 km/s) at time t = 06:29:23~UT (panel (b)). At next time t = 06:31:56~UT, we found that the profile is very wide and asymmetric too. We have fitted this profile with the single Gaussian, and found a very high line width (i.e., 67.66 km/s). It should be noted that the line width has increased a lot (i.e., 67.66 km/s) in comparison to the previous time t = 06:29:29~UT (panel (b). After t = 06:31:56~UT, we notice a decrease pattern in the line width of Si~{\sc iv} 1393.77~{\AA} profiles, i.e., the line width is 39.32 km/s at time t = 06:33:13 (panel (d) of Figure~\ref{fig:mr_evol}) and 31.22 km/s at time t = 06:34:30~UT (panel (e); Figure~\ref{fig:mr_evol}). Hence, for approximately 03 minutes (i.e., from 06:31:56~UT to 06:34:40~UT), the line width shows a decreasing pattern as the line width falls from 67.66 km/s to 31.22 km/s.
However, this decrease pattern in the line width breaks at time t = 06:35:46~UT as we see that the line width is now increasing with time (see; panels (f) and (g) of Figure~\ref{fig:mr_evol}). But again, the line width decreases with time t = 06:38:20~UT (panel (h); Figure~\ref{fig:mr_evol}). And one more time (i.e., third time), we see the same behavior of the line width, i.e., the line width increase (panels (i) and (j); Figure~\ref{fig:mr_evol}) and decrease further with time (panels (k) and (l) of Figure~\ref{fig:mr_evol}). This particular finding indicates that the line width of the Si~{\sc iv} spectral line has periodic behavior.\\
\begin{figure*}
\mbox{
\includegraphics[trim = 0.0cm 0.0cm 3.0cm 1.0cm, scale=1.0]{width_oscillations.eps}}
\caption{The temporal evolution of line width and Doppler velocity from the most probable reconnection region (blue plus sign in Figure~\ref{fig:sji_spectra}) is displayed in panels a and b, respectively. The triggering time of the jet is indicated by the green-dashed line, therefore, all the points before the green-dashed line are zero. The downfall phase of the blowout jet dominates after the red vertical dashed line. In the up flow phase of the jet, we do see the periodic behavior of the line width. Further, we also see the periodic behavior of Doppler velocity in the up-flow phase of the blowout jet (panel b). We have performed a correlation between line width and Doppler velocity which is shown in panel (c). It is found that line width is negatively correlated with the Doppler velocity, i.e., line width is during the up-flow, and the line width decreases as line profiles move towards the red-shifts.}
\label{fig:width_dv_qpp}
\end{figure*}
To understand the periodic behavior of line width clearly, we have plotted the line width with time (see; panel (a) of Figure~\ref{fig:width_dv_qpp}). As we know already, in the specified time range (i.e., t = 06:21:28~UT to 07:03:52~UT), there are 33 spectral lines, i.e., 33 line widths values. The specified time range starts from 06:21:28~UT, however, the jet appears in the selected region around 06:28:07~UT (see dashed green vertical line in panel (a); Figure~\ref{fig:width_dv_qpp}). We know that there is no spectral line before 06:28:07~UT, therefore, all the points before the green dashed vertical line have zero line width. We see the increase and decrease in the line width on a regular interval of time (see; panel (a); Figure~\ref{fig:width_dv_qpp}) . The oscillating behavior of the line width exists up to the time of t = 06:48~UT, i.e., up to the red-dashed vertical line. After $\sim$06:48~UT, the downfall phase of the blowout jet dominates, and we don't see much variations in the line width. So, finally, we can say that oscillations in the line width are present during the up-flow phase of the blowout jet.\\
In addition to the line width, we have also shown the Doppler velocity with the time in panel (b) of Figure~\ref{fig:width_dv_qpp}. The first few points are at zero Doppler velocity (up to the green dashed line) as the jet was not triggered by that time. And after that, we do see the fluctuation in the Doppler velocities (see points after the green dashed line). The careful inspection reveals that Doppler velocity is anti-correlated with line width during the up flow phase of the jet (i.e., points in between the green and red dashed lines). It means when the line width is high then Si~{\sc iv} line is blue-shifted and vice versa. As the line width decreases with time, then in response, the Si~{\sc iv} line moves towards the red shifts. We have already pointed out that there are a few cycles of periodic increase and decrease in the line width during the up-flow phase of the blowout jet. Similarly, we do see a kind of periodic behavior of Doppler velocity too. After 06:48:33~UT, all spectral profiles are red-shifted (see, points after the red dashed vertical line) as this is downfall dominant phase of the blowout jet. Further, we have checked the correlation between the line width and Doppler velocity for the up-flow dominated phase of the blowout jet (i.e., points between green and red dashed vertical lines) which is shown in the panel (c) of Figure~\ref{fig:width_dv_qpp}. Now, it is well clear that line width and Doppler velocity are anti-correlated, i.e., the blue shifts (upflows) have high line width, and when line width moves towards the red shifts (downflows) the line width decrease. The Pearson coefficient is quite good (i.e., -0.57) for this correlation. Hence, we can say that Doppler velocity and line widths are anti-correlated during the up-flow phase of the jet.
\subsection{Quasi-periodic Pulsation}\label{sect:QPP}
We have found the presence of QPPs during the blowout jet. We have utilized AIA~304~{\AA}, AIA~171~{\AA}, AIA~131~{\AA}, and AIA~211{\AA} filters to study the QPPs in this blowout jet.
\begin{figure*}
\mbox{
\centering
\includegraphics[trim = -6.0cm -0.45cm -2.0cm 0.0cm, scale=0.9]{lt_Curve_box.eps}
}
\mbox{
\includegraphics[trim = -1.0cm -0.45cm 0.0cm 0.0cm, scale=1.]{wavelet_power_304.eps}}
\caption{The panel (a) displays SDO/AIA 304 {\AA} image of the blowout jet at time t = 06:32:31~UT, and we select five boxes (B1, B2, B3, and B4) to deduce the emission curve from this filter. The temporal evolution of the intensity (i.e., black curve) in AIA 304 {\AA} filter from box B1 is displayed in the first panel of the first column. The over-plotted red dashed line is smoothed curve with a window of 15 points. The second panel of the first column shows the detrended curve, and the wavelet transform is applied to this detrended curve. The wavelet power map is displayed in the third panel with 95\% significance (i.e., white contours). The power is mainly concentrated around $\sim$03 minutes. Finally, in the last panel of first column, the global wavelet power is displayed which again shows that global power peaks around $\sim$ 03 minutes (i.e., 2.78 minutes). A similar analysis is shown for B2 (second column), B3 (third column), and B4 (fourth column), and the dominant period is $\sim$ 03 minutes. While we did not find any significant period in B4.}
\label{fig:wavelet_qpp}
\end{figure*}
We have selected four different boxes (i.e., B1, B2, B3, and B4) that are shown in the panel (a) of Figure~\ref{fig:wavelet_qpp} by different colors. Further, we estimated the averaged intensity curve (i.e., averaged over all pixels in the box) from all four boxes in all AIA filters (i.e, AIA~304~{\AA}, AIA~171~{\AA}, AIA~131~{\AA}, and AIA~211{\AA}). The panels (b) to (q) of Figure~\ref{fig:wavelet_qpp} show the wavelet analysis from four boxes. The wavelet analysis is performed on the averaged intensity light curves deduced from AIA~304~{\AA}. The panel (b) of Figure~\ref{fig:wavelet_qpp} shows the averaged AIA~304~{\AA} intensity curve (black curve) deduced from box B1 (black box in panel (a) of Figure~\ref{fig:wavelet_qpp}). There is an over-plotted red curve that is a smoothed averaged intensity curve with a window of 15 points. Further, the panel (f) shows the detrended intensity curve, i.e., averaged AIA~304~{\AA} light curve (black curve) - smoothed AIA~304~{\AA} curve (red curve; panel (b); Figure~\ref{fig:wavelet_qpp}). Then, we applied the wavelet analysis on this detrended light curve, and the deduced wavelet power map is shown in the panel (j) of Figure~\ref{fig:wavelet_qpp}. Here, we do see a concentrated patch of power around the period of 03 minutes (i.e., 3.03 minutes) for a time range from 06 to 20 minutes. Further, we have estimated a 95\% significance level that is important to check the reliability of any detected period in the wavelet analysis. And, the 95\% significance level is shown by a white contour on the wavelet power map. Now, it is visible that a concentrated patch of the power lies within the 95\% significance level contours. The cross-hatched gray area in the panel (j) of Figure~\ref{fig:wavelet_qpp} outlines the cone-of-influence (COI), and the powers inside this cross-hatched area are not reliable. But, here we can see that all the significant powers are outside of the COI. In the panel (n) of Figure~\ref{fig:wavelet_qpp}, we have shown the global power (i.e., wavelet power averaged over time) against the period. The global power shows dominant peak at a period of $\sim$03 minutes, i.e., 3.03 minutes.\\
We have applied the wavelet analysis in the same fashion to all other boxes (i.e., B2, B3, and B4) which are shown in panel (a) of Figure~\ref{fig:wavelet_qpp}. The original $\&$ smoothed intensity curves, detrended intensity curve, wavelet power maps, and global power maps are shown in the same manner for box B2 (panels (c), (g), (k), and (o)), box B3 (panels (d), (h), (l), and (p)), and box B4 (panels (e), (i), (m), and (q)) in the Figure~\ref{fig:wavelet_qpp}. Boxes B2 and B3 show very similar behavior as we found for box B1. The dominant period is also approximately 03 minutes (i.e., 2.34 minutes for box B2 (panel (o) of Figure~\ref{fig:wavelet_qpp}) and box B3 (panel (p) of Figure~\ref{fig:wavelet_qpp})) for the almost same time range from 06 to 20 minutes. \\
However, the intensity curve of the last box (i.e., B4) shows a sharp jump in the intensity for a short interval of time (i.e., around 05 minutes only). It is unlike to the other boxes (B1, B2, and B3) as fluctuations sustain a bit longer therein (around 15 minutes). We applied wavelet analysis in the same manner to box B4 also, and we found three concentrated patches of the power around the period of 06, 03, and 0.5 minutes (panel (q) of Figure~\ref{fig:wavelet_qpp}). The wavelet power patches around the period of 06, 03, and 0.5 minutes persist only for 10 minutes, 05 minutes, and less than one minute, respectively. Hence, these periods of box B4 (i.e., 06, 03, and 0.5 minutes; panel (q) of Figure~\ref{fig:wavelet_qpp}) do not even complete two cycles, therefore, we are assuming them as non-reliable power. In addition, some part of the longer period (06 minutes) also lies within the COI (panel (m) of Figure~\ref{fig:wavelet_qpp}). Hence, finally, we can say that none of the power patches in this wavelet power map of box B4 is reliable. And, we mention that the B4 does not has any periodicity unlike the other boxes (i.e., B1, B2, and B3). We have also shown the QPPs in the same fashion for AIA~171{\AA} (cf., Figure~\ref{fig:wavlet_qpp_171}), AIA~131{\AA} (cf., Figure~\ref{fig:wavelet_qpp_131}), and AIA~211{\AA} (cf., Figure~\ref{fig:wavelet_qpp_211}) in the appendix~\ref{sect:append1}. The findings from these fitters are similar to what we have reported for AIA~304{\AA} here.
\section{Discussion and Conclusions} \label{sect:discuss}
The present work provides an observation of the formation of blowout jet through kink instability. Initially, an inverse $\gamma$-shape flux-rope appears on the west limb on August 29$^{th}$, 2014 that is a morphological indication for the onset of kink instability \citep{2005ApJ...630L..97T, 2009ApJ...691...61P, 2013ApJ...770L...3K, 2016ApJ...832..106H}. The inverse $\gamma$-shape flux-rope activates around 06:28:00~UT, i.e., this structure rises, and expands with time. The twisted field lines are associated with inverse $\gamma$-shape flux-rope, and these magnetic field lines reconnect. The primary magnetic reconnection takes place around 06:31:00~UT near the apex of the inverse $\gamma$-shape flux-rope, i.e., in the vicinity of the bright knot. We have witnessed the bi-directional flows from the apex of the flux rope through the imaging analysis (section~\ref{sect:multi_jet}). Various spectral lines (i.e., Si~{\sc iv}, C~{\sc ii}, and Mg~{\sc ii}) clearly show red-shifted profiles (i.e., plasma downfall) below the apex, and all these profiles become blue-shifted (i.e., plasma up flow) above the apex of flux-rope (cf., Figure~\ref{fig:sji_spectra}), i.e., bi-directional flows. Hence, both (images and spectra) confirm the presence of bidirectional flows which is a typical characteristic of the magnetic reconnection in the solar atmosphere \citep{1997Natur.386..811I, 2014ApJ...797...88H, 2015ApJ...813...86I, 2020ApJ...898..101Y, 2020ApJ...890L...2C, 2021NatAs...5..237B, 2021SoPh..296...84D, 2021NatAs...5...54A}. Further, DEM analysis shows the presence of multi-thermal plasma around the knot of inverse $\gamma$-shape flux-rope in the wide temperature range (log T/K = 5.4{--}7.2; Figure~\ref{fig:dem_jet}). Hence, these observational findings (i.e., bi-directional flows and multi-thermal plasma) indicate that the magnetic reconnection (primary) takes place around the knot of inverse $\gamma$-shape flux-rope which triggers the jet. \\
Soon after the primary magnetic reconnection, the northern leg of the inverse $\gamma$-shape flux-rope completely erupts, and further, the jet has developed along only the southern leg. Interestingly, we have seen the multiple bright regions (with time) within the jet. Here, we have clearly seen the multiple bright spikes in the time-distance diagram estimated as per the slit (i.e., S1) along the blowout jet. Similarly, the time-distance diagrams estimated as per the slits (i.e., P2, P3, and P3) across the blowout jet show the multiple bright dots (cf.,(section~\ref{sect:td})). It is trivial to understand that these multiple spikes (along the jet) or multiple bright dots (across the jet) are forming due to multiple enhancement in the intensity with time. Most probably, this multiple enhancements in the intensity supports the multiple magnetic reconnection scenario \citep{2012A&A...542A..70M, 2015ApJ...807...72L, 2017ApJ...836..121K}. Spectroscopic observations reveal a periodic enhancement in the line width of Si~{\sc iv} 1393.77~{\AA} (cf., Figure~\ref{fig:mr_evol} and~\ref{fig:width_dv_qpp}). For the first time, the periodic enhancement of Si~{\sc iv} line width is being reported in this blowout jet event. On top of these crucial observational findings, we have seen that Si~{\sc iv} profiles are blue-shifted (upflows) when they are very broad (i.e., high line width). And, gradually, the profiles become narrower while they are moving toward the red-shifts (down flows). The periodic existence of such broadened blue-shifted Si~{\sc iv} profiles is most probably due to the occurrence of multiple magnetic reconnection in this blowout jet. Most importantly, our observations also reveal very complex and explosive type profiles of some prominent spectral lines (i.e., Si~{\sc iv}, C~{\sc ii}, and Mg~{\sc ii}) of the solar interface-region (cf., Figure~\ref{fig:sji_spectra}). As we know that such complex $\&$ explosive type profiles are produced only due to the magnetic reconnection \citep{2014Sci...346C.315P, 2015ApJ...813...86I, 2017MNRAS.464.1753H, 2018ApJ...857....5Y, 2020ApJ...890L...2C}, all the observational findings indicate the occurrence of multiple magnetic reconnection. \\
QPPs in the solar/stellar flares is an often phenomenon that occurs with few seconds to few minutes of oscillations period. Several reports discuss the triggering and related dynamics of QPPs in the solar atmosphere \citep[e.g., ][]{2006SoPh..238..313C, 2009A&A...493..259I, 2009SSRv..149..119N, 2016SoPh..291.3143V, 2017A&A...597L...4L, 2018ApJ...859..154N, 2018SSRv..214...45M, 2020A&A...642A.195K, 2022Univ....8..104S, 2022ApJ...930L...5Z}. The statistical studies of the intense solar flares suggest that the occurrence rate of QPPs reaches 30-80 $\%$ with intense flares lying above the M5 class \citep{2015SoPh..290.3625S}. However, the QPPs occurrence rate reduces with the low intense solar flares \citep{2021SSRv..217...66Z}. Using GOES X-ray data from 2011 to 2018, \citep{2020ApJ...895...50H} performed the statistical analysis for QPPs and their association with the different classes of solar flares. The authors claimed that the $\approx$46$\%$ of X-class and $\approx$29$\%$ of M-class flares show QPPs signature. However, only $\approx$9$\%$ of C-class flares exhibit QPPs signature. On the other hand, there are few reported observations of QPPs in jets \citep{2012A&A...542A..70M, 2014A&A...561A.134Z, 2018MNRAS.480L..63S}. Interestingly, in the present work, the wavelet analysis of light curves from five different boxes in various AIA filters clearly demonstrates the existence of QPPs in the present blowout jet (section~\ref{sect:QPP}).\\
The triggering mechanisms of QPPs are very crucial, and so far, more than 15 mechanisms have been proposed to understand the initiation mechanism of the QPPs \citep{2009SSRv..149..119N, 2016SoPh..291.3143V, 2021SSRv..217...66Z}. Broadly, these triggering mechanisms of QPP may be classified into two categories, namely, periodic spontaneous magnetic reconnection \citep{2000A&A...360..715K, 2005A&A...432..705K, 2009A&A...494..329M, 2012A&A...542A..70M, 2015ApJ...807...72L, 2018SSRv..214...45M} and the MHD waves that may induce the periodic magnetic reconnection \citep[e.g.,][]{2004A&A...419.1141N,2005A&A...440L..59F, 2006A&A...446.1151N, 2011ApJ...730L..27N, 2016ApJ...823L..16T, 2016ApJ...832...65Z, 2016ApJ...822....7K, 2021SSRv..217...66Z}. \citet{2004A&A...419.1141N} found recurring explosive events with a period of 3{--}5 minutes when the compressible waves push the oppositely directed field lines to reconnect. This process leads to multiple magnetic reconnection, and the QPPs were triggered by multiple magnetic reconnection (i.e., recurring explosive events). The other wave modes (e.g., fast mode MHD waves and global kink mode) may also trigger the periodic magnetic reconnection in a coronal loop that is situated near the flaring region. It initiates QPPs with a period of several minutes (e.g., \cite{2005A&A...440L..59F, 2006A&A...446.1151N}). In the present work, the detected QPPs from various intensity light curves in the blowout jet have a period of $\sim$ 03 minutes (section~\ref{sect:QPP}). The extracted EM from the blowout jet in the temperature range of 0.5{--}15 MK also shows the temporal variations on a time-scale of $\sim$ 03 minutes (section~\ref{sect:dem}; Figure~\ref{fig:dem_jet}). Apart from the intensity and EM curves, the line-width of Si~{\sc iv} is also fluctuating on a time scale of approximately 03 minutes (section~\ref{sect:spectra}). Hence, consistently, we have found the fluctuations at a time scale of $\sim$ 03 minutes in various parameters (e.g., intensity, EM, and line width). Here, we would like to mention that this blowout jet triggers within an active region (AR). The umbra of the sunspot (i.e., photospheric and chromospheric atmosphere of AR) is filled with the 3-minute slow MHD waves (e.g.,\citealt{1991A&A...250..235F, 2014ApJ...786..137T, 2012ApJ...757..160J, 2017ApJ...836...18C,2019A&A...627A.169F,2021NatAs...5....2F, 2011ApJ...728...84B, 2020ApJ...903...19F, 2021ApJ...906..121K}). Hence, we conjecture that 03-minute oscillations are present within the triggering site of the blowout jet, and they may drive the periodic magnetic reconnection at time-scale of $\sim$ 03 minutes. Hence, most probably, we can say that the periodic magnetic reconnection produces the observed periodic fluctuations (i.e., QPPs) in the intensity, EM, and line width.\\
It should be noted that the magnetic reconnection between pre-existing and open coronal field and closed magnetic fields can produce a collimated jet without the rotation or twist, i.e., a kind of standard jet \citep[e.g.,][]{1996PASJ...48..353Y, 2003ApJ...593L.133M, 2008ApJ...673L.211M, 2010ApJ...720..757M, 2011ApJ...735L..18L, 2013ApJ...771...20M, 2016SSRv..201....1R, 2021RSPSA.47700217S}. On the other hand, the magnetic reconnection between the pre-existing open coronal magnetic field and the twisted closed magnetic fields can produce newly twisted magnetic field lines which undergo the untwisting motions (e.g., \citealt{2014ApJ...789L..19F}). The plasma flows along the newly twisted magnetic field lines that form the solar jet, and the rotational/helical motion of the solar jets is a result of untwisting motion of these newly twisted magnetic field lines. Hence, the magnetic reconnection is an important physical process to trigger the solar jets in the solar atmosphere \citep{1992PASJ...44L.173S, 1995Natur.375...42Y, 1996PASJ...48..123S, 1998SoPh..178..379S, 2007Sci...318.1591S, 2013ApJ...770L...3K, 2015Natur.523..437S, 2014Sci...346A.315T, 2015A&A...581A.131J, 2017Natur.544..452W, 2018A&A...616A..99K, 2021ApJ...920...18S}. That is why this physical process (i.e., magnetic reconnection) is an integral feature of various 2.5D and 3D models of the solar jets \citep{1996PASJ...48..353Y, 2008ApJ...683L..83N, 2008ApJ...673L.211M, 2009A&A...506L..45G, 2015A&A...573A.130P, 2016A&A...596A..36P}. The present blowout jet shows a very strong rotation of the plasma column (see attached animation$\_$1.mp4).
The helical or rotational motions of the solar jets are an important indication of the kink instability (e.g., \citealt{1996AdSpR..17d.197S, 2016SSRv..201....1R, 2021RSPSA.47700217S}). The numerical simulations have shown that destabilization of the system by global kink-instability (when helicity or twist exceeded the critical value) can trigger the magnetic reconnection through the separatrix surface, and the magnetic reconnection drives the helical solar jets (e.g., \citealt{2009ApJ...691...61P, 2010ApJ...714.1762P, 2010ApJ...715.1556R,2015A&A...573A.130P}).
Most of the magnetic field is either open or long curvature magnetic field in the vicinity of the blowout jet (see panels (c1), and (d1) of Figure~\ref{fig:jet_trigger}). Here, we mention that kink instability destabilizes the pre-existing coronal magnetic field configuration through either magnetic reconnection between the kinked flux rope (i.e., kinked/erupting loops) and the pre-existing coronal fields or the internal magnetic reconnection within the kink unstable flux rope. Hence, due to the magnetic reconnection, the plasma flows along reconnected magnetic field lines which collectively form the spire of the blowout jet. This blowout jet is mainly visible in the cool-temperature filters, and the signature of this blowout jet is faint in the hot-temperature filters (see section~\ref{sect:multi_jet}). However, usually, the blowout jets have strong emissions at hot temperatures along with strong emissions at cool temperatures (e.g.,\citealt{2010ApJ...720..757M,2013ApJ...769..134M}). Here, it should be noted that surges emit mainly at the cool temperature. Therefore, in the present observational baseline, we don't rule out the possibility of this jet being an chromospheric surge. However, the emission measure (EM) in high-temperature wavebands also shows some hot plasma emission (4-6 MK) from the spire of this jet. Therefore, this manuscript uses this feature as a blowout jet.
Hence, kink-instability is an possibly an important driver of solar jets, and not only in the solar jets, but the kink-instability also plays crucial role in the triggering of the large-scale eruptions of the solar atmosphere \citep{2004A&A...413L..27T, 2005ApJ...630L..97T, 2010ApJ...715..292S, 2013ApJ...765L..42S, 2012ApJ...746...67K, 2021NatCo..12.2734Z}. In case of observations related to the kinked solar flux-rope in the solar jets, \citet{2013ApJ...770L...3K} have reported a kinked flux-tube that drives a solar jet, i.e., internal magnetic reconnection in the kinked flux-tube at the north polar triggers the polar jet. Further, \citet{2017ApJ...844L..20Z} have also shown that kink instability triggers a blowout jet in the solar atmosphere. The present observation clearly shows the occurrence of the kinked flux rope at the west limb prior to the jet formation. Further, the imaging, as well as spectroscopic observations, confirms the multiple magnetic reconnection in support of the formation of this solar blowout jet.
Hence, in conclusion, we say that the present observational baseline shows the inverse $\gamma$-shape, rotational or helical motion, and multiple magnetic reconnection in this blowout jet event. Most probably, these observational findings collectively indicate that the kink-instability triggers this blowout jet, and multiple magnetic reconnection leads to the formation of QPPs in this jet.
\section{Acknowledgements}
S. K. Mishra acknowledges the Indian Institute of Astrophysics (IIA, Bangalore) for providing the computational facilities and institute fellowship. K. Sangal would like to acknowledge the Council of Scientific \& Industrial Research (CSIR), Government of India, for financial support through a Senior Research Fellowship (UGC-SRF). P. Jel\'{i}nek acknowledges support from grant 21-16508J of the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic. A. K. Srivastava acknowledges the ISRO Project Grant (DS\_2B-13012(2)/26/2022-Sec.2) for the support of his research. S.P. Rajaguru acknowledges support from SERB (Govt of India) research grant CRG/2019/003786. We acknowledge the use of \citep{2012A&A...539A.146H} for calculating the differential emission measure (DEM). Data courtesy of SDO/AIA and IRIS science team. We also acknowledge the use of \citep{1998BAMS...79...61T} method to extract the wavelet power spectra and average period of QPPs.
|
\section{Stochastic Fokker-Planck equation}
\section{Introduction}
Consider a filtered probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},P, \mathbb{F}=\{\mathcal{F}\}_{t\geq 0})$ on which we are given a $d$-dimensional Brownian motion $B=(B_1, B_2, \ldots , B_d)$, a $k$-dimensional compensated Poisson random measure $\widetilde{N}(dt,d\zeta)$ such that
$$ \widetilde{N}(dt,d\zeta)=N(dt,d\zeta)-\nu(d\zeta)dt, $$
where $N(dt,d\zeta)$ is a Poisson random measure and $\nu(d\zeta)$ the L\'evy measure of $N$, and a random variable $Z \in L^2(P)$ that is independent of $\mathbb{F}$. We denote by $L^2(P)$ the set of all the $d-$dimensional $\mathcal{F}$-measurable random variables $X$ such that ${\mathbb{ E}}[X^2]<\infty,$
where $\mathbb{E}$ denotes the expectation with respect to $P$. We consider the state process $X(t) \in \mathbb{R}^d$ given as the solution of the following \textit{conditional McKean-Vlasov jump equation}
\small
\begin{align}
X(t) &=Z+\int_0^t\alpha(s,X(s),\mu_s)dt+\beta(s,X(s),\mu_{s})dB(s)\nonumber\\
&+\int_0^t\int_{
\mathbb{R}^d
}\gamma(s,X(s^-),\mu_{s^{-}},\zeta)\widetilde{N}(ds,d\zeta),\label{MV}
\end{align}
where we denote by
$\mu_t=\mathcal{L}(X(t) | \mathcal{F}_t^{(1)})$
the conditional probability distribution of $X(t)$ given the filtration $\mathcal{F}_t^{(1)}$generated by the first component $B_1(u);u\leq t$ of the Brownian motion up to time $t$.
Loosely speaking, the equation above models a McKean-Vlasov dynamics which is subject to what is called a "common noise" coming from the Brownian motion $B_1(t)$, which is observed and is influencing the dynamics of the system.\\
So defined, $\mu_t$ is a Borel probability measure on $\mathbb{R}^d$
for all $t \in [0,T],\; \omega \in \Omega$. In particular, $\mu_t \in {\mathbb{M}}_0$, with ${\mathbb{M}}_0$ the set of deterministic Radon measures i.e. Borel measures finite on compact sets, outer regular on all Borel sets and inner regular on all open sets. Notice that all Borel probability measures on $\mathbb{R}^d$ are Radon measures. From now on we will indicate with ${\mathbb{M}}$ the set of random measures $\lambda(dx,\omega)$ which are Radon measures with respect to $x$ for each $\omega$. We refer to \cite{F} for more information.\\
We suppose that
$\alpha(t,x,\mu) \colon [0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^d\times{\mathbb{M}} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^d$, \; $\beta(t,x,\mu) \colon [0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^d\times{\mathbb{M}} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{d\times m}$, \;$\gamma(t,x,\mu,\zeta) \colon [0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^d\times{\mathbb{M}}\times\mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{d\times k}$ are bounded processes and $\mathbb{F}$-predictable for all $x,\mu,\zeta$ and they are also continuous with respect to $t$ and $x$ for all $\mu,\zeta$. \\
We can easily see that, under hypothesis of Lipschitz continuity and at most linear growth, there exists a unique solution for \eqref{MV}
for all $t$ in $[0,T]$.
The purpose of this paper is to study impulse control problems for conditional McKean-Vlasov jump diffusions. In particular, we will define a performance criterion and then attempt to find a policy that maximizes performance within the admissible impulse strategies. Using a verification theorem approach, we establish a general form of quasi-variational inequalities and identify the sufficient conditions that lead to an optimal function. See precise formulation below. Standard impulse control problems can be solved by using the Dynkin formula. We refer to e.g. Bensoussan \& Lions \cite{BL} in the continuous case and to \O ksendal and Sulem \cite{OS} in the setting of jump diffusions. \\
Impulse control problems naturally arise in many concrete applications, in particular when an operator, because of the intervention costs, decides to control the system by intervening only at a discrete set of times with a chosen intervention size: a sequence of stopping times $(\tau_1,\tau_2,\ldots,\tau_k, \ldots)$ is chosen to intervene and exercise the control. At each time $\tau_k$ of the player's $\textit{k}^{th}$ intervention, the player chooses an intervention of size $\zeta_k$. The impulse control consists of the sequence $\{ (\tau_k,\zeta_k) \}_{k\ge1}$. \\
Impulse control has sparked great interest in the financial field and beyond. See, for example, \cite{K} for portfolio theory applications, \cite{B} for energy markets, and \cite{CCTZ} for insurance. All of these works are based on quasi-variational inequalities and employ a verification approach.\\
Despite its adaptability to more realistic financial models, few papers have studied the case of mean field problems with impulse control. We refer to \cite{BCG} for a discussion of a more special type of impulse, where the only type of impulse is to add something to the system. This is a mean field game (MFG) where the mean-field (only the empirical mean) appears as an approximation of the many-player game.
They
use the smooth fit principle (as used in the present work) to solve a specific MFG explicitly. \\
We refer also to \cite{CNS} for a MFG impulse control approach. Specifically, a problem of optimal harvesting in natural resource management is addressed. \\
A maximum principle for regime switching control problem for mean-field jump diffusions is studied by \cite{LLWH} but in that paper the problem considered is not really an impulse control problem because the intervention times are fixed in advance. \\
In our setting, we will not consider a MFG setup, as in the above mentioned works, we will only consider a decision maker who chooses the control to optimise a certain reward. Moreover, the mean-field appears as a conditional probability distribution and to overcome the lack of the Markov property, we introduce the equation of the measure which is of stochastic Fokker-Planck type.\\
In \cite{DHH}, the authors can handle a non-Markovian dynamics. However, the impulse control is given in a particular compact form and only a given number of impulses are allowed. They use a Snell envelope approach and related reflected backward stochastic differential equations.\\
In the next section, we introduce some notations and present some preliminary results. As part of Section $3$, we state the optimal control problem and prove the verification theorem. In Section 4, we apply the previous results to solve an explicit problem of optimal dividend streams under transaction costs.
\section{Preliminaries}
The process $X(t)$ given by \eqref{MV} is not in itself Markovian, so to be able to use the Dynkin formula, we extend the system to the process $Y$ defined by
\begin{equation*}
Y(t)=(s+t,X(t),\mu_t); \quad t\geq 0;\quad Y(0)=(s,Z,\mu_0)=:y,
\end{equation*}
for some arbitrary starting time $s\geq 0$, with state dynamics given by $X(t)$, conditional law of the state given by $\mu_t$ and with $X(0)=Z, \; \mu_0=\mathcal{L}(X(0))$. This system is Markovian, in virtue of the following Fokker-Planck equation for the conditional law
$\mu_t$, proved in \cite{AO}.
\begin{theorem}{(Conditional stochastic Fokker-Planck equation)} \label{FP1}\\
Let $X(t)$ be as in \eqref{MV} and let $\mu_t=\mu_t(dx,\omega)$ be the regular conditional distribution of $X(t)$ given $\mathcal{F}_t^{(1)}$. Then $\mu_t$ satisfies the following SPIDE (in the sense of distributions):
\begin{align} \label{FPmu}
d\mu _{t} =A_0^{*} \mu_t dt + A_1^{*}\mu_t dB_1(t); \quad \mu_0=\mathcal{L}(X(0)),
\end{align}
where
$A_0^{*}$ is the integro-differential operator
\begin{align*}
A_0^{*}\mu&= -\sum_{j=1}^d D_j [\alpha_j \mu] +\frac{1}{2}\sum_{n,j=1}^d D_{n,j}[(\beta \beta^{(T)})_{n,j} \mu] \nonumber\\
&+\sum_{\ell=1}^k \int_{\mathbb{R}}\Big\{\mu^{(\gamma^{(\ell)})}-\mu+\sum_{j=1}^d D_j[\gamma_j^{(\ell)}(s,\cdot,\zeta)\mu]\Big\} \nu_{\ell} \left( d\zeta \right),
\end{align*}
and $A_1^{*}$ is the differential operator
\begin{align*}
A_1^{*}\mu= - \sum_{j=1}^d D_j[\beta_{1,j} \mu],
\end{align*}
where $\beta^{(T)}$ denotes the transposed of the $d \times m$ - matrix $\beta=\big[\beta_{j,k}\big]_{1\leq j \leq d,1 \leq k \leq m}$ and $\gamma^{(\ell)}$ is column number $\ell$ of the matrix $\gamma$.
\end{theorem}
For notational simplicity, we use $D_j, D_{n,j}$
to denote $\frac{\partial }{\partial x_j}$ and $\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_n \partial x_j}$ in the sense of distributions. \\
We have also used the following notation, taken from \cite{AO}.\\
For fixed $t,\mu,\zeta$ and $\ell=1,2,... k$, we write for simplicity $\gamma^{(\ell)}=\gamma^{(\ell)}(t,x,\mu,\zeta)$ for column number $\ell$ of the $d \times k$-matrix $\gamma$. Then $\nu_\ell$ represents the L\'evy measure of $N_\ell$ for all $\ell$. Note that for given $\mu \in {\mathbb{M}}$ the map
$$g \mapsto \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} g(x+\gamma^{(\ell)}) \mu(dx)$$
is a bounded linear map on $C_0(\mathbb{R}^d),$ which is defined to be the uniform closure of the space $C_c(\mathbb{R}^d)$ of continuous functions with compact support.
Therefore, since $\mathbb{M}$ is the dual of $\mathcal{C}_0(\mathbb{R}^d)$, there is a unique measure $\mu^{(\gamma^{(\ell)})} \in {\mathbb{M}}$ such that
\begin{align*}
\langle \mu^{(\gamma^{(\ell)})},g \rangle:=\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} g(x) \mu^{(\gamma^{(\ell)})}(dx)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}g(x+\gamma^{(\ell)}) \mu(dx), \text{ for all } g \in C_0(\mathbb{R}^d),
\end{align*}
where $\langle\mu^{(\gamma^{(\ell)})},g \rangle$ denotes the action of the measure $\mu^{(\gamma^{(\ell)})}$ on $g$. We call $\mu^{(\gamma^{(\ell)})}$ the $\gamma^{(\ell)}$-shift of $\mu$. Note that $\mu^{(\gamma^{(\ell)})}$ is positive
and absolutely continuous with respect to $\mu$.\\
\section{A General Formulation and a Verification Theorem}
As noted above, in virtue of the Fokker-Planck equation \eqref{FPmu} we can extend the system \eqref{MV} into a Markovian system by defining the following $[0,\infty) \times L^2(P) \times {\mathbb{M}}$ - valued process $Y(t):=(s+t, X(t),\mu_t)$ as follows:
\begin{align}
dY(t)&=F(Y(t))dt + G(Y(t))dB(t) + \int_{\mathbb{R}^k}
H(Y(t^-),z)\widetilde{N}(dt,dz) \nonumber \\
&:=\left[\begin{array}{clcr}
dt \\dX(t)\\d\mu_t
\end{array} \right] =\left[ \begin{array}{c}
1\\ \alpha(Y(t)) \\A_0^{*}\mu_t
\end{array} \right] dt
+\left[\begin{array}{rc}
0_{1\times m} \\ \beta(Y(t)) \\ A_1^{*}\mu_t,0,0 ...,0
\end{array} \right]dB(t)\nonumber\\
&+ \int_{\mathbb{R}^d} \left[ \begin{array}{rc}
0_{1\times k}\\ \gamma(Y(t^-),\zeta) \\0_{1\times k}
\end{array}\right] \widetilde{N}(dt,d\zeta),\quad s\leq t \leq T, \label{Y2}
\end{align}
where $X(t)$ and $\mu_t$ satisfy the equations \eqref{MV} and \eqref{FPmu}, respectively.
Moreover, we have used the shorthand notation
\begin{align*}
\alpha(Y(t))&=\alpha(s+t,X(t),\mu(t))\\
\beta(Y(t))&= \beta(s+t,X(t),\mu(t))\\
\gamma(Y(t^-),\zeta)&=\gamma(s+t,X(t^-),\mu(t^-),\zeta).
\end{align*}
The process $Y(t)$ starts at $y=(s, Z,\mu)$. We shall denote by $\mu$ the initial probability distribution $\mathcal{L}(X(0))$ or the generic value of the conditional law $\mu_t :=\mathcal{L}(X(t) | \mathcal{F}_t^{(1)})$, when there is no ambiguity. Similarly, we use the following notation:
\begin{notation}
We use
\begin{itemize}
\item
$x$ to denote a generic value of the point $X(t,\omega) \in \mathbb{R}^d$, and
\item
$X$ to denote a generic value of the random variable $X(t, \cdot) \in L^2(P).$
\item
When the meaning is clear from the context we use $x$ in both situations.
\end{itemize}
\end{notation}
The concept of impulse control is simple and intuitive: at any time the agent can make an intervention $\zeta$ into the system. Due to the cost of each intervention the agent can intervene only at discrete times $\tau_1, \tau_2, \ldots $. The impulse problem is to find out at what times it is optimal to intervene and what is the corresponding optimal intervention sizes. We now proceed to formulate precisely our impulse control problem for conditional McKean-Vlasov jump diffusions.
Suppose that -- if there are no interventions -- the $[0,\infty) \times L^2(P) \times {\mathbb{M}}$ - valued process
$Y(t)=(s+t,X(t),\mu_t)$ is the conditional McKean-Vlasov jump diffusion given by \eqref{Y2}.
Suppose that at any time $t$ and any state $y=(s,X,\mu)$ we are free to
intervene and give the state $X$ an impulse $\zeta\in\mathcal{Z}\subset\mathbb{R}^d$,
where $\mathcal{Z}$ is a given set (the set of admissible impulse values).
Suppose the result of giving the state $X$ the impulse $\zeta$ is that the state jumps immediately from $X$ to
$\Gamma(X,\zeta)$, where $\Gamma(X,\zeta): L^2(P)\times\mathcal{Z}\to L^2(P)$
is a given function. In many applications, the process shifts as a result of a simple translation, i.e. $\Gamma(y,\zeta)=y+\zeta$. \\Simultaneously, the conditional law jumps from $\mu_{t}=\mathcal{L}(X|\mathcal{F}_t^{(1)} )$ to
\begin{align} \label{muG}
\mu_t^{\Gamma(X,\zeta)}:=\mathcal{L}(\Gamma(X,\zeta)|\mathcal{F}_t^{(1)}).
\end{align}
An {\em impulse control}\index{impulse control} for this system is a double (possibly
finite) sequence
\[
v=(\tau_1,\tau_2,\ldots,\tau_j,\ldots;
\zeta_1,\zeta_2,\ldots,\zeta_j,\ldots)_{j\leq M},\quad
M\leq\infty,
\]
where $0 \leq \tau_1 \leq \tau_2 \leq \cdots$ are $\mathcal{F}_t$-stopping
times (the {\em intervention times})\index{intervention time}
and $\zeta_1,\zeta_2,\ldots$ are the corresponding {\em
impulses}\index{impulses} at these times. Mathematically, we assume that $\tau_j$ is a stopping time with respect to a suitable filtration $\{\mathcal{F}_t\}_{t\ge0}$, with $\tau_{j+1}\ge\tau_j$
and
$\zeta_j$ is $\mathcal{F}_{\tau_j}$-measurable for all $j$.
We let $\mathcal{V}$ denote the set of all impulse controls.\\
If $v=(\tau_1,\tau_2,\ldots;\zeta_1,\zeta_2,\ldots) \in \mathcal{V}$, the corresponding state process $Y^{(v)}(t)$ is
defined by
\begin{align}
& Y^{(v)}(0^-) = y \quad \mbox{and} \quad Y^{(v)}(t) = Y(t);\quad 0< t\leq \tau_1, \label{513}\\[.5ex]
& Y^{(v)}(\tau_j) = \Big(\tau_j,\Gamma[\check{X}^{(v)}(\tau_j^-),\zeta_j],\mathcal{L}(\Gamma[\check{X}^{(v)}(\tau_j^-),\zeta_j]|\mathcal{F}_t^{1})\Big), \quad j=1,2,\ldots \label{514}\\[1ex]
& {\rm d}Y^{(v)}(t) = F(Y^{(v)}(t)){\rm d}t
+G(Y^{(v)}(t)){\rm d}B(t) \nonumber \\
&\qquad\quad\hspace*{17pt} +\int_{\mathbb{R}^k} H(Y^{(v)}(t^-),z)\widetilde{N}({\rm
d}t,{\rm d}z) \quad \label{515}
\hbox{for\;$\tau_j< t<\tau_{j+1}\wedge \tau^\ast$},
\end{align}
where
we have used the notation
\begin{equation*}
\check{X}^{(v)}(\tau_j^-)=X^{(v)}(\tau_j^-)
+\Delta_N X(\tau_j),
\end{equation*}
$\Delta_N X^{(v)}(t)$ being the jump of $X^{(v)}$ stemming from the jump of the random measure
$N(t,\cdot)$
Note that we distinguish between the (possible) jump of
$X^{(v)}(\tau_j)$ stemming from the random measure $N$, denoted
by $\Delta_N X^{(v)}(\tau_j)$
and the jump caused by the intervention $v$, given by
\begin{equation*}
\Delta_v X^{(v)}(\tau_j):=\Gamma(\check{X}^{(v)}(\tau_j^-),\zeta)
-\check{X}^{(v)}(\tau_j^-).
\end{equation*}
Accordingly, at the time $t= \tau_j$, $X^{(v)}(t)$ jumps from
$\check{X}^{(v)}(\tau_j^-)$ to
$\Gamma[\check{X}^{(v)}(\tau_j^-), \zeta_j]$\\
and $\mu_{\tau_j^-}$ jumps to
\begin{align*}
\mu_{\tau_j}=\mathcal{L}(\Gamma[\check{X}^{(v)}(\tau_j^-),\zeta_j]|\mathcal{F}_{\tau_j}^{1}).
\end{align*}
Consider a fixed open set (called the solvency region) $\mathcal{S}\subset [0,\infty) \times \mathbb{R}^d \times {\mathbb{M}}$. It represents the set in which the game takes place since it will end once the controlled process leaves $\mathcal{S}$. In portfolio optimization problems, for instance, the game ends in case of bankruptcy, which may be modelled by choosing $\mathcal{S}$ to be the set of states where the capital is above a certain threshold.
Define
\begin{equation*}
\tau_{\mathcal{S}}=\inf \{ t\in(0,\infty); Y^{(v)}(t)\not\in \mathcal{S}\},
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{T}=\left \{ \tau \; ; \; \textnormal{stopping time,} \; 0 \le \tau \le \tau_\mathcal{S} \right\}.
\end{equation*}
Suppose we are given a continuous {\em profit function}\index{profit rate}
$f:\mathcal{S}\to\mathbb{R}$ and a continuous {\em bequest function}\index{bequest rate}
$g:\mathcal{S} \to\mathbb{R}$. Moreover, suppose the profit/utility of
making an intervention with impulse $\zeta\in \mathcal{Z}$ when the state
is $y$ is $K(y,\zeta)$, where $K:\mathcal{S}\times\mathcal{Z}\to\mathbb{R}$ is a given
continuous function.
We assume we are given a set $\mathcal{V}$ of {\em admissible impulse
controls}\index{admissible impulse controls} which is included in
the set of $v=(\tau_1,\tau_2,\ldots;\zeta_1,\zeta_2,\ldots)$ such
that a unique solution $Y^{(v)}$ of (\ref{513})--(\ref{515})
exist, for all $v\in \mathcal{V}$, and the following additional properties hold, assuring that the performance functional below is well-defined:
\begin{equation*}
E^y\Big[ \int_0^{\tau_{\mathcal{S}}} f^-(Y^{(v)}(s))ds\Big]
<\infty, \quad \hbox{for all\;$y\in \mathcal{S}$,\;$v\in\mathcal{V}$},
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
E^y\left[ g^-(Y^{(v)}(\tau_{\mathcal{S}}))\mathbbm{1}_{[\tau_{\mathcal{S}}<\infty]}\right]
<\infty, \quad \hbox{for all\;$y\in \mathcal{S}$,\;$v\in\mathcal{V}$},
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
E^y\left[ \sum_{\tau_j\leq \tau_{\mathcal{S}}}
K^-(\check{Y}^{(v)}(\tau_j^-),\zeta_j)\right] <\infty, \quad
\hbox{for all\;$y\in\mathcal{S}$,\;$v\in\mathcal{V}$},
\end{equation*}
where ${E}^y$ denotes expectation given that $Y(0)=y$.\\
We now define the performance criterion, which consists of three parts: a continuous time running profit in $[0,\tau_\mathcal{S}]$, a terminal bequest value if the game ends, and a discrete-time intervention profit, namely \begin{align*}
J^{(v)}(y)&= E^y \Bigg[ \int_0^{\tau_{\mathcal{S}}} f(Y^{(v)}(t)){\rm d}t
+g(Y^{(v)}(\tau_{\mathcal{S}}))\mathbbm{1}_{[\tau_{\mathcal{S}}<\infty]}+\sum_{\tau_j\leq \tau_{\mathcal{S}}}
K(\check{Y}^{(v)}(\tau_j^-),\zeta_j)\Bigg].
\end{align*}
We consider the following {\em impulse control problem}:
\begin{problem}
Find $\Phi(y)$ and $v^\ast\in\mathcal{V}$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\Phi(y)=\sup \{ J^{(v)}(y);v\in\mathcal{V}\}=J^{(v^\ast)}(y),\quad y \in \mathcal{S}.
\end{equation*}
The function $\Phi(y)$ is called the value function and $v^\ast$ is called an optimal control.
\end{problem}
The following concept is crucial for the solution of this problem.
\begin{definition}\label{def511}
Let $\mathcal{H}$ be the space of all measurable functions $h:\mathcal{S}\to\mathbb{R}$.
The {\em intervention operator}\index{intervention operator}
$\mathcal{M}:\mathcal{H}\to\mathcal{H}$ is defined by
\begin{equation}\label{6.1.17}
\mathcal{M} h(s,X,\mu)=\sup_{\zeta \in \mathcal{Z}} \{ h(s,\Gamma(X,\zeta),\mu^{\Gamma(X,\zeta)})+K(y,\zeta), \zeta\in\mathcal{Z}
\text{ and } (s,\Gamma(X,\zeta),\mu^{\Gamma(X,\zeta)})\in \mathcal{S}\},
\end{equation}
where $\mu^{\Gamma(X,\zeta)}$ is given by \eqref{muG}.
\end{definition}
Let $\mathcal{C}^{(1,2,2)}(\mathcal{S})$ denote the family of functions $\varphi(s,x,\mu):\mathcal{S} \to \mathbb{R}$ which are continuously differentiable w.r.t. $s$ and twice continuously Fr\'echet
differentiable w.r.t. $x \in \mathbb{R}^d$ and $\mu \in {\mathbb{M}}$. We let $\nabla_\mu \varphi \in L({\mathbb{M}},\mathbb{R})$ (the set of bounded linear functionals on ${\mathbb{M}}$) denote the Fr\'echet derivative (gradient) of $\varphi$ with respect to $\mu \in \mathbb{M}$. Similarly, $D^2_\mu\varphi$ denotes the double derivative of $\varphi$ with respect to $\mu$ and it belongs to $ L({\mathbb{M}} \times {\mathbb{M}},\mathbb{R})$ (see Appendix for further details). \\The infinitesimal generator $\mathcal{G}$ of the Markov jump diffusion process $Y(t)$ is defined on functions $\varphi \in \mathcal{C}^{(1,2,2)}(\mathcal{S})$ by
\begin{align*}
&\mathcal{G} \varphi= \frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial s} +\sum_{j=1}^d \alpha_j \frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial x_j} + \langle \nabla_{\mu} \varphi, A_0^{*} \mu \rangle + \tfrac{1}{2}\sum_{j,n=1}^{d} (\beta \beta^{T})_{j,n}\frac{\partial ^2 \varphi}{\partial x_j \partial x_n} \nonumber\\
& + \tfrac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^d \beta_{j,1}\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}\langle\nabla_{\mu} \varphi,A_1^{*}\mu\rangle +\tfrac{1}{2}
\langle A_1^{*}\mu, \langle D_{\mu}^2 \varphi,A_1^{*}\mu\rangle \rangle \nonumber\\
&+\sum_{\ell =1}^k \int_{\mathbb{R}} \{ \varphi(s, X+\gamma^{(\ell)}, \mu)) - \varphi(s,X,\mu)
-\sum_{j=1}^d\gamma_j^{(\ell)} \tfrac{\partial}{\partial x_j} \varphi(s,X,\mu) \}\nu_{\ell}(d\zeta),
\end{align*}
where, as before,
$A_0^{*}$ is the integro-differential operator
\begin{align*}
A_0^{*}\mu&= -\sum_{j=1}^d D_j [\alpha_j \mu] +\frac{1}{2}\sum_{n,j=1}^d D_{n,j}[(\beta \beta^{(T)})_{n,j} \mu] \nonumber\\
&+\sum_{\ell=1}^k \int_{\mathbb{R}}\Big\{\mu^{(\gamma^{(\ell)})}-\mu+\sum_{j=1}^d D_j[\gamma_j^{(\ell)}(s,\cdot,\zeta)\mu]\Big\} \nu_{\ell} \left( d\zeta \right),
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
A_1^{*}\mu= - \sum_{j=1}^d D_j[\beta_{1,j} \mu].
\end{align*}
We can now state a verification
theorem for conditional McKean-Vlasov impulse control problems, providing sufficient conditions that a given function is the value function and a given impulse control is optimal. The verification theorem links the impulse control problem to a suitable system of quasi-variational inequalities. \\
Since the process $Y(t)$ is Markovian, we can, with appropriate modifications, use the approach in Chapter 9 in \cite{OS}.\\
For simplicity of notation we will in the following write
\begin{align*}
\overline{\Gamma}(y,\zeta)=(s,\Gamma(x,\zeta),\mu^{\Gamma(x,\zeta)}), \text{ when } y=(s,x,\mu) \in [0,\infty) \times L^2 (P) \times {\mathbb{M}}.
\end{align*}
\begin{theorem}
{Variational inequalities for conditional McKean-Vlasov impulse control}
\label{th512}
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (a)}] Suppose we can find
$\phi:\bar{\mathcal{S}}\to\mathbb{R}$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (i)}]
$\phi\in \mathcal{C}^1(\mathcal{S})\cap \mathcal{C}(\bar{\mathcal{S}})$.
\item[{\rm (ii)}]
$\phi\geq\mathcal{M}\phi$ on $\mathcal{S}$.
\\ Define
\[
D=\{y\in \mathcal{S}; \phi(y)>\mathcal{M}\phi(y)\}\quad \hbox{ (the continuation
region\index{continuation region}).}
\]
Assume
\item[{\rm (iii)}]
$\displaystyle \; E^y\left[ \int_0^{\tau_{\mathcal{S}}} Y^{(v)}(t)\mathbbm{1}_{\partial
D}{\rm d}t\right]=0$\quad for all $y\in \mathcal{S}$,\;
$v\in\mathcal{V}$.
\item[{\rm (iv)}]
$\partial D$ is a Lipschitz surface.
\item[{\rm (v)}]
$\phi\in \mathcal{C}^{(1,2,2)}(\mathcal{S}\setminus \partial D)$ with locally bounded
derivatives near $\partial D$.
\item[{\rm (vi)}]
$\mathcal{G}\phi+f\leq 0$ on $\mathcal{S}\setminus \partial {D}$.
\item[{\rm (vii)}]
$\phi(y) = g(y) \text{ for all } y \not\in \mathcal{S}$.
\item[{\rm (viii)}]
$ \{\phi^-(Y^{(v)}(\tau));\tau\in\mathcal{T}\}$ is uniformly
integrable, for all $y\in \mathcal{S}$, $v\in\mathcal{V}$.
\item[{\rm (ix)}]
$\displaystyle E^y\left[|\phi(Y^{(v)}(\tau))| +
\int_0^{\tau_{\mathcal{S}}} |\mathcal{G} \phi(Y^{(v)}(t))| {\rm d}t\right]<\infty$
for all $\tau \in \mathcal{T}, v \in \mathcal{V}, y \in \mathcal{S}$.
\noindent Then
\begin{equation*}
\phi(y)\geq\Phi(y)\quad \hbox{for all $y\in \mathcal{S}$}.
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (b)}] Suppose in addition that
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (x)}]
$\mathcal{G}\phi+f=0$ in $D$.
\item[{\rm (xi)}]
$\hat{\zeta}(y)\in{\rm
Argmax}\{\phi({\overline{\Gamma}(y,\cdot)})+K(y,\cdot)\}\in\mathcal{Z}$ exists for all
$y\in \mathcal{S}$ and $\hat{\zeta}(\cdot)$ is a Borel measurable
selection.\vskip.2cm
Put $\hat{\tau}_0=0$ and define
$\,\hat{v}=(\hat{\tau}_1,\hat{\tau}_2,\ldots;\hat{\zeta}_1,
\hat{\zeta}_2,\ldots)$ inductively by
$\hat{\tau}_{j+1}=\inf\{ t>\hat{\tau}_j;
Y^{(\hat{v}_j)}(t)\not\in D\}\wedge \tau_{\mathcal{S}}$ and
$\,\hat{\zeta}_{j+1}=\hat{\zeta}(Y^{(\hat{v}_j)}(\hat{\tau}_{j+1}^-))$
if
$\hat{\tau}_{j+1}<\tau_{\mathcal{S}}$,
where $Y^{(\hat{v}_j)}$ is the result of applying
$\hat{v}_j:=(\hat{\tau}_1,\ldots,\hat{\tau}_j;
\hat{\zeta}_1,\ldots,\hat{\zeta}_j)$ to $Y$.
Suppose
\item[{\rm (xii)}]
$\hat{v}\in\mathcal{V}$ and $\{ \phi(Y^{(\hat{v})}(\tau));
\tau\in\mathcal{T}\}$ is uniformly integrable.
Then
\begin{equation*}
\phi(y)=\Phi(y)\quad \hbox{and $\;\hat{v}\,$ is an optimal
impulse control}.\index{optimal
impulse control}
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\noindent
\begin{remark}
We give the intuitive idea behind intervention operator as in \eqref{6.1.17}:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M} \Phi(y)=\sup_{\zeta \in \mathcal{Z}} \{ \Phi(\overline{\Gamma}(y,\zeta))+K(y,\zeta), \; \zeta\in\mathcal{Z}
\text{ and } \overline{\Gamma}(y,\zeta)\in \mathcal{S}\},
\end{equation}
Assume that the value function $\Phi$ is known.
If $y=(s,x,\mu)$ is the current state of the process, and the agent intervenes with impulse of size $\zeta$, the resulting value can be represented as $\Phi(\overline{\Gamma}(y,\zeta))+K(y,\zeta)$, consisting of the sum of the value of $\Phi$ in the new state $\overline{\Gamma}(y,\zeta)$ and the intervention cost $K$. Therefore, $\mathcal{M}\Phi(y)$
represents the optimal new value if the agent decides to make an intervention at $y$.\\
Note that by $(ii)$ $\Phi\geq\mathcal{M}\Phi$ on $\mathcal{S}$, so it is not always optimal to intervene. At the time $\hat{\tau}_j$, the operator should intervene with impulse $\hat{\zeta}_j$ when the controlled process leaves the continuation region, that is when $\Phi(Y^{\hat{v}_j}) \leq \mathcal{M}\Phi(Y^{\hat{v}_j})$.
\end{remark}
\noindent {Proof.} \quad
{(a)}
By an approximation argument (see e.g. Theorem 3.1 in \cite{OS}) and (iii)--(v), we may assume that
$\phi\!\in\! C^2(\mathcal{S}) \cap C(\bar{\mathcal{S}})$. Choose
$\,v\!=\!(\tau_1,\tau_2,\ldots;\zeta_1,\zeta_2,\ldots)\!\in\!\mathcal{V}$
and set $\tau_0 = 0$. By \nobreak another approximation argument we may
assume that we can apply the Dynkin formula to the stopping times
$\tau_j$. Then for $j=0,1,2,\ldots$, with $Y=Y^{(v)}$
\begin{equation*}
E^y[\phi(Y(\tau_j))]-E^y [\phi(\check{Y}(\tau_{j+1}^-))] =-E^y
\left[ \int_{\tau_j}^{\tau_{j+1}} \mathcal{G}\phi(Y(t)){\rm d}t\right],
\end{equation*}
where $\check{Y}(\tau_{j+1}^-)=Y(\tau_{j+1}^-)+\Delta_N Y(\tau_{j+1})$,
as before. Summing this from $j=0$ to $j=m$ we get
\begin{align}
\phi(y)&+ \sum_{j=1}^m E^y [\phi(Y(\tau_j))
-\phi(\check{Y}(\tau_j^-))]
-E^y[\phi(\check{Y}(\tau_{m+1}^-))] \nonumber \\
&=-E^y \left[ \int_0^{\tau_{m+1}} \mathcal{G}\phi(Y(t)){\rm d}t\right] \geq
E^y \left[ \int_0^{\tau_{m+1}} f(Y(t)){\rm d}t\right].
\label{5123}
\end{align}
\noindent Now
\begin{align*}
\phi(Y (\tau_j))& =\phi(\Gamma(\check{Y}(\tau_j^-),\zeta_j))
\nonumber \\
&\leq\mathcal{M}\phi(\check{Y}(\tau_j^-))-K(\check{Y}(\tau_j^-),\zeta_j)\quad
\hbox{if $\;\tau_j<\tau_{\mathcal{S}}$\ by\ \eqref{6.1.17}} \end{align*}
\noindent and
\begin{align*}
\phi(Y
(\tau_j))&=\phi(\check{Y}(\tau_j^-))\quad
\hbox{if $\;\tau_j=\tau_{\mathcal{S}}$ \ by (vii).}
\end{align*}
Therefore
\[
\mathcal{M}\phi(\check{Y}(\tau_j^-))-\phi(\check{Y}(\tau_j^-))
\geq \phi(Y(\tau_j))-\phi(\check{Y}(\tau_j^-))
+K(\check{Y}(\tau_j^-),\zeta_j),
\]
and
\begin{align*}
&\phi (y) + \sum_{j=1}^m E^y
[\{\mathcal{M}\phi(\check{Y}(\tau_j^-))-\phi(\check{Y}(\tau_j^-)) \}
\mathbbm{1}_{[\tau_j<\tau_{\mathcal{S}}]}] \\
&\qquad \geq E^y \left[ \int_0^{\tau_{m+1}}
f(Y(t)){\rm d}t+\phi(\check{Y}(\tau_{m+1}^-))
+\sum_{j=1}^m K(\check{Y}(\tau_j^-),\zeta_j) \right].
\end{align*}
Letting $m\to M$ and using quasi-left continuity of $Y(\cdot)$, we get
\begin{equation}
\phi(y) \geq E^y\! \left[ \!\int_0^{\tau_{\mathcal{S}}}\! f(Y(t)){\rm
d}t+g(Y(\tau_{\mathcal{S}})) \mathbbm{1}_{[\tau_{\mathcal{S}}<\infty]
+ \sum_{j=1}^M
K(\check{Y}(\tau_j^-),\zeta_j)\!\right]\!=\!J^{(v)}(y).\label{5125}
\end{equation}
Hence $\phi(y)\geq\Phi(y)$.\\
\noindent {(b)}
Next assume (x)--(xii) also hold. Apply the
above argument to
$\hat{v}=(\hat{\tau}_1,\hat{\tau}_2,\ldots;\hat{\zeta}_1,\hat{\zeta}_2,\ldots)$.
Then by (x) we get {\em equality} in (\ref{5123}) and by our
choice of $\zeta_j=\hat{\zeta}_j$ we have {\em equality} in
(\ref{5125}). Hence
\[
\phi(y)=J^{(\hat{v})}(y),
\]
which combined with (a) completes the proof.
\hfill $\square$ \bigskip
\section{Example: Optimal stream of dividends
under transaction costs}
In this Section, we solve explicitly an optimal stream of dividends
under transaction costs. \\
To this end, for $v = (\tau_1, \tau_2, \ldots ; \zeta_1, \zeta_2, \ldots)$
with $\zeta_i \in \mathbb{R}_+$, we define \\$Y^{(v)}(t)=(s+t, X^{(v)}(t),\mu_t^{(v)})$ by
\begin{align}
&dX(t)= {E}\left[ X(t)\mid \mathcal{F}_{t}^{(1)}\right] \Big(\alpha
_{0}dt+\sigma _{1}dB_{1}(t)+\sigma _{2}dB_{2}(t) +\int_{\mathbb{R}}\gamma _{0}(\zeta )\widetilde{N}(dt,d\zeta
)\Big), \label{Xt}\\ \nonumber
&\mu_t^{(v)} = \mathcal{L}(X^{(v)}(t)|\mathcal{F}_t^{(1)}); \quad \tau_i < t < \tau_{i+1},\\ \nonumber
&X^{(v)}(\tau_{i+1})= \check{X}^{(v)}(\tau^-_{i+1}) - (1 +
\lambda) \zeta_{i+1} - c,\\ \nonumber
&\mu_{\tau_{i+1}}^{(v)}= \mathcal{L}(X^{(v)}(\tau_{i+1})|\mathcal{F}^{(1)}_{\tau_{i+1}});
\quad i = 0,1,2, \ldots, \\ \nonumber
&X^{(v)}(0^-)= x > 0; \text{ a.s., }
\end{align}
where $\alpha_0, \sigma_1 \neq 0, \sigma_2 \neq 0, \lambda \geq 0$, and $c >
0$ are constants with $ -1 \leq \gamma_0(z) $
a.s. $\nu$. \\
Here $X(t)$ represents the amount available at time $t$ of a cash flow. We assume that it satisfies the McKean-Vlasov equation in \eqref{Xt}. Note that at any time $\tau_{i}, \; i=0,1,2,\ldots,$ the system jumps from
$\check{X}^{(v)}(\tau_i^-)$ to
$$X^{(v)}(\tau_{i})= \Gamma[\check{X}^{(v)}(\tau_i^-), \zeta_i] = \check{X}^{(v)}(\tau^-_{i}) - (1 +
\lambda) \zeta_{i} - c, $$
where the quantity $c+\lambda\zeta_i$ represents the transaction cost with a \textit{fixed} part $c$ and a \textit{proportional} part $\lambda\zeta_i$, while $\zeta_i$ is the amount we decide to take out at time $\tau_i$. \\
At the same time $\mu_{\tau_i^-}$ jumps to
\begin{align*}
\mu_{\tau_i}=\mathcal{L}(\check{X}^{(v)}(\tau_i^-)|\mathcal{F}_{\tau_i}^{1}).
\end{align*}
\begin{problem}\label{prob}
We want to find $\Phi$ and $v^\ast \in \mathcal{V}$ such that
\begin{align}\nonumber
\Phi(s,x,\mu) = \sup_v J^{(v)}(s,x,\mu) = J^{(v^\ast)}(s,x,\mu),
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}\nonumber
J^{(v)}(s,x,\mu) = J^{(v)}(y) =E^y \left[\sum_{\tau_k < \tau_{\mathcal{S}}} {\rm e}^{-\rho
(s + \tau_k)} \zeta_k \right] \qquad (\rho > 0 \text{ constant})
\end{align}
is the expected discounted total dividend up to time $\tau_{\mathcal{S}}$, where
\begin{align}\nonumber
\tau_{\mathcal{S}} = \tau_{\mathcal{S}}(\omega) = \inf \{t > 0 ; P^y[ E^y[X^{(v)}(t)|\mathcal{F}_t^{(1)}] \leq
0 ] > 0\}
\end{align}
is the time of bankruptcy.
\end{problem}
To put this problem into the context above, we define
\begin{align*}
&Y^{(v)}(t)=\begin{bmatrix}s+t\\ X^{(v)}(t)\\ \mu^{(v)}_t\end{bmatrix}, \quad Y^{(v)}(0^-)=\begin{bmatrix} s\\ x\\ \mu\end{bmatrix}=y,\\
&\Gamma(y,\zeta)=\Gamma(s,x,\mu)=(s,x-c-(1+\lambda)\zeta, \mathcal{L}(x-c-(1+\lambda)\zeta)|\mathcal{F}^{(1)}), \quad x \in L^2(P),\\
&K(y,\zeta)={\rm e}^{-\rho s}\zeta, \\
&f\equiv g\equiv 0, \\
&\mathcal{S} =\left\{(s,x,\mu):x>0 \text{ a.s. }\right\}.
\end{align*}
Comparing with our Theorem, we see that in this case we have $d=1,m=2,k=1$ and%
\begin{equation*}
\alpha _{1}=\alpha _{0}\left\langle \mu ,q\right\rangle ,\beta _{1}=\sigma
_{1}\left\langle \mu ,q\right\rangle ,\beta _{2}=\sigma _{2}\left\langle \mu
,q\right\rangle ,\gamma (s,x,\mu ,\zeta )=\gamma _{0}(t,\zeta )\left\langle
\mu ,q\right\rangle ,
\end{equation*}%
where we have put $q(x)=x$ so that $\left\langle \mu_t ,q\right\rangle =E\left[ X(t)\mid
\mathcal{F}_{t}^{(1)}\right] .$ \\ Therefore the operator $\mathcal{G}$ takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{G}{\varphi }(s,x,\mu ) &=&\frac{\partial \varphi }{\partial s}+\alpha
_{0}\left\langle \mu ,q\right\rangle \frac{\partial \varphi }{\partial x}%
+\left\langle \nabla _{\mu }\varphi ,A_{0}^{\ast }\mu \right\rangle
\nonumber \\
&&+\tfrac{1}{2}(\sigma _{1}^{2}+\sigma _{2}^{2})\left\langle \mu
,q\right\rangle ^{2}\frac{\partial ^{2}\varphi }{\partial x^{2}}+\frac{1}{2}%
\sigma _{1}\left\langle \mu ,q\right\rangle \frac{\partial }{\partial x}%
\left\langle \nabla _{\mu }\varphi ,A_{1}^{\ast }\mu \right\rangle
\nonumber \\
&&+\tfrac{1}{2}\left\langle A_{1}^{\ast }\mu ,\left\langle D_{\mu
}^{2}\varphi ,A_{1}^{\ast }\mu \right\rangle \right\rangle \nonumber \\
&&+\int_{\mathbb{R}}\left\{ \varphi (s,x+\gamma _{0}\left\langle \mu
,q\right\rangle ,\mu )-\varphi (s,x,\mu )-\gamma _{0}\left\langle \mu
,q\right\rangle \frac{\partial }{\partial x}\varphi (s,x,\mu )\right\} \nu
(d\zeta ), \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}%
where%
\begin{equation*}
A_{0}^{\ast }\mu =-D[\alpha _{0}\left\langle \mu ,q\right\rangle \mu ]+\tfrac{%
1}{2}D^{2}[(\sigma _{1}^{2}+\sigma _{2}^{2})\left\langle \mu ,q\right\rangle
^{2}\mu ],
\end{equation*}%
and%
\begin{equation*}
A_{1}^{\ast }\mu =-D[\sigma _{1}\left\langle \mu ,q\right\rangle \mu ].
\end{equation*}%
The adjoints of the last two operators are%
\begin{equation*}
A_{0}\mu =\alpha _{0}\left\langle \mu ,q\right\rangle D\mu +\tfrac{1}{2}%
(\sigma _{1}^{2}+\sigma _{2}^{2})\left\langle \mu ,q\right\rangle
^{2}D^{2}\mu,
\end{equation*}
and%
\begin{equation*}
A_{1}\mu =\sigma _{1}\left\langle \mu ,q\right\rangle D\mu .
\end{equation*}
In this case the intervention operator gets the form
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{M} h(s,x,\mu)=\sup \left\{ h(s,x-c-(1+\lambda)\zeta,\mu^{x-c-(1+\lambda)\zeta})
+e^{-\rho t}\zeta; \quad 0\leq\zeta\leq\frac{x-c}{1+\lambda}\right\}.
\end{equation*}
Note that the condition on $\zeta$ is due to the fact that the impulse
must be positive and $x-c-(1+\lambda)\zeta$ must belong to $\mathcal{S}$. We
distinguish between two cases:\\
1. $\alpha_0>\rho$. In this case, suppose we wait until some time $t_1$ and then take out
\[
\zeta_1=\frac{X(t_1)-c}{1+\lambda}.
\]
Noting that $E^y|X(t)]= x \exp(\alpha_0 t)$ for $t<t_1$, we see that the corresponding performance is
\begin{align*}
J^{(v_1)} (s,x,\mu)&= E^y \Bigg[
\frac{{\rm e}^{-\rho(t_1+s)}}{1+\lambda} (X(t_1)-c)\Bigg] \\[4pt]
&=E^x \Bigg[ \frac{1}{1+\lambda} \big( x{\rm e}^{-\rho s}
{\rm e}^{(\alpha_0-\rho)t_1} - c \text{ } {\rm e}^{-\rho(s+t_1)}\big) \Bigg] \\[4pt]
&\rightarrow \infty\ \text{as}\ t_1 \rightarrow \infty.
\end{align*}
Therefore we obtain $\Phi(s,x,\mu)=+\infty$ in this case.\\
2. $\alpha_0<\rho$. We look for a solution by using the results of
Theorem~\ref{th512}. \\
We guess that the
continuation region is of the form
\[
D=\left\{ (s,x,\mu): 0< \langle \mu,q \rangle<\bar{x}\right\}
\]
for some $\bar{x} > 0$ (to be determined),
and in $D$ we try a value function of the form
\begin{align*}
\varphi(s,x,\mu)=e^{-\rho s}\psi(\langle \mu,q \rangle).
\end{align*}
This gives
$\mathcal{G}\phi(s,x,\mu)= e^{-\rho s} \mathcal{G}_0\psi(\langle \mu,q \rangle)$, where
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{G}_0 \psi(x,\mu)&= -\rho \psi(\langle \mu,q \rangle)
+\left\langle \nabla _{\mu }\psi,A_{0}^{\ast }\mu \right\rangle
+\frac{1}{2}%
\sigma _{1}\left\langle \mu ,q\right\rangle \frac{\partial }{\partial x}%
\left\langle \nabla _{\mu }\psi ,A_{1}^{\ast }\mu \right\rangle
\nonumber \\
&+\frac{1}{2}\left\langle A_{1}^{\ast }\mu ,\left\langle D_{\mu
}^{2}\psi ,A_{1}^{\ast }\mu \right\rangle \right\rangle \nonumber \\
&+\int_{\mathbb{R}}\left\{ \psi (x+\gamma _{0}\left\langle \mu
,q\right\rangle ,\mu )-\psi (x,\mu )-\gamma _{0}\left\langle \mu
,q\right\rangle \frac{\partial }{\partial x}\psi (x,\mu )\right\} \nu
(d\zeta ).
\end{align*}
By the chain rule for Fr\'echet derivatives (see Appendix), we have
\begin{align*}
\nabla_{\mu}\psi (h)= \psi'(\langle \mu,q \rangle) \langle h,q\rangle \text{ and } D^2_{\mu} \psi(h,k)= \psi''(\langle \mu,q \rangle)\langle h,q\rangle \langle k,q\rangle.
\end{align*}
Therefore,
\begin{align*}
\langle \nabla_{\mu} \psi, A_0^{*}\mu\rangle = \psi'(\langle\mu,q\rangle)\langle A_0^{*}\mu,q\rangle =\psi'(\langle \mu,q\rangle )\langle \mu,A_0q\rangle = \psi'(\langle \mu,q\rangle )\alpha_0 \langle \mu,q\rangle,
\end{align*}
and similarly
\begin{align*}
\tfrac{1}{2} \langle A_1^{*}\mu,\langle D^2_{\mu} \psi,A_1^{*} \mu\rangle \rangle &= \tfrac{1}{2} \psi''(\langle \mu,q \rangle \langle A_1^{*} \mu,q\rangle \langle A_1^{*} \mu,q \rangle= \tfrac{1}{2} \psi''(\langle \mu,q \rangle )\langle \mu,A_1q\rangle \langle \mu,A_1q \rangle \nonumber\\
&=\tfrac{1}{2} \psi''(\langle \mu,q \rangle ) \sigma_1^2 \langle \mu,q\rangle^2.
\end{align*}
Moreover, since $\psi $ does not depend on $x$ we see that%
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\mathbb{R}}\left\{ \phi (s,x+\gamma _{0}\left\langle \mu
,q\right\rangle ,\mu )-\phi (s,x,\mu )-\gamma _{0}\left\langle \mu
,q\right\rangle \frac{\partial \phi }{\partial x}(s,x,\mu )\right\} \nu
(d\zeta )=0.
\end{equation*}
Substituting this into the expression for $\mathcal{G}_0 \psi$ we get, with $u=\langle \mu,q \rangle$,
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{G}_0 \psi(u)= -\rho \psi (u) + \alpha_0 u \psi'(u) + \tfrac{1}{2} \sigma_1^2 u^2 \psi''(u).
\end{align*}
By condition (x) we are required to have $\mathcal{G}_0 \psi(u)=0$ for all $u \in (0,\bar{x})$,
and this equation has the general solution
\begin{align*}
\psi(u)=C_1 u^{\gamma_1} + C_2 u^{\gamma_2},\quad u \in (0,\bar{x}),
\end{align*}
where $\gamma_1 > 1, \gamma_2 < 0, \text{ and } C_1, C_2$ are constants.
Since we expect $\phi$ to be bounded near 0, we guess that $C_2=0$.\\
We guess that it is optimal to wait till $u=\langle\mu_t,q \rangle= E^y[X(t)|\mathcal{F}_t^{(1)}]$
reaches or exceeds a value $u=\bar{u} > c$ and then take out as
much as possible, i.e., reduce $E^y[X(t)|\mathcal{F}_t^{(1)}]$ to 0. Taking the transaction
costs into account this means that we should take out
$$\hat{\zeta}(u) = \frac{u-c}{1+\lambda} \text{ for } u \geq \bar{u}.$$
We therefore propose that $\psi(u)$ has the form
$$\psi(u) =
\begin{cases} C_1 u^{\gamma_1} \text{for}\ 0 < u < \bar{u} \\
\displaystyle \frac{u-c}{1+\lambda} \text{ for } u \geq \bar{u}.
\end{cases}
$$
Continuity and differentiability of $\psi(u)$ at $u = \bar{u}$
give the equations
$$C_1 \bar{u}^{\gamma_1} = \frac{\bar{u} - c}{1 + \lambda},$$
and
$$C_1 \gamma_1 \bar{u}^{\gamma_1 - 1} = \frac{1}{1 + \lambda}.$$
Combining these we get
$$\bar{u} = \frac{\gamma_1 c}{\gamma_1 - 1}\quad \text{and}\quad C_1 = \frac{\bar{u} - c}{1 + \lambda} \bar{u}^{- \gamma_1}.$$
With these values of $\bar{u}$ and $C_1$, we have to verify that
$\psi$ satisfies all the requirements of Theorem \ref{th512}. We
check some of them:\vspace*{4pt}
\noindent(ii)
$\phi \geq \mathcal{M} \phi$ on $\mathcal{S}$.\\
In our case we have $\Gamma(s,X,\mu)=(s,X-c-(1+\lambda)\zeta, \mu^{X-c-(1+\lambda)\zeta})$ and hence we get
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{M} \phi (s,X,\mu)&= \sup_{\zeta} \Big \{ \phi(s,X - c - (1 + \lambda) \zeta), \mu^{X - c - (1 + \lambda) \zeta} )+e^{-\rho s} \zeta; \ 0 \leq \zeta \leq \displaystyle \frac{\bar{u}-c}{1+\lambda} \Big \}\\
&= e^{-\rho s} \sup_{\zeta} \Big \{C_1 \langle \mu^{X-c-(1+\lambda)\zeta},q\rangle^{\gamma_1} + \zeta; \ 0 \leq \zeta \leq \displaystyle \frac{\bar{u}-c}{1+\lambda} \Big\}\\
&= e^{-\rho s} \sup_{\zeta} \Big\{C_1 (\langle \mu,q(x) - c - (1+\lambda)\zeta\rangle^{\gamma_1} + \zeta; \ 0 \leq \zeta \leq \displaystyle \frac{\bar{u}-c}{1+\lambda}\Big \}\\
&= e^{-\rho s} \sup_{\zeta} \Big\{ C_1 (\langle \mu,q \rangle - c - (1+\lambda)\zeta)^{\gamma_1} + \zeta; \ 0 \leq \zeta \leq \displaystyle \frac{\bar{u}-c}{1+\lambda}\Big\}.
\end{align*}
If $u- c - (1 + \lambda) \zeta \geq \bar{u}$, then
$$\psi (u-c-(1+\lambda)\zeta) + \zeta = \frac{u - 2c}{1 + \lambda} < \frac{u-c}{1 + \lambda} = \psi(u)$$
and if $u-c-(1+\lambda)\zeta < \bar{u}$ then
$$h(\zeta) := \psi(u-c-(1+\lambda)\zeta) + \zeta = C_1 (u-c-(1+\lambda)\zeta)^{\gamma_1} + \zeta.$$
Since
$$h'\left( \frac{u-c}{1+\lambda}\right) = 1\ \text{and}\ h''(\zeta) > 0,$$
we see that the maximum value of $\displaystyle h(\zeta) ; \ 0 \leq \zeta \leq
\frac{u-c}{1+\lambda}$, is attained at $\displaystyle \zeta = \hat{\zeta}(u) =
\frac{u-c}{1+\lambda}$.
\noindent Therefore
$$\mathcal{M} \psi(u) = \max \left( \frac{x-2c}{1+\lambda},\frac{u-c}{1+\lambda}\right)
= \frac{u-c}{1+\lambda}\ \text{for all}\ u > c.$$
Hence $\mathcal{M} \psi(u) = \psi(u)$ for $u \geq \bar{u}$.\\
For $0 < u < \bar{u}$ consider
$$k(u) := C_1u^{\gamma_1} - \frac{u-c}{1+\lambda}.$$
\noindent Since
$$k(\bar{u}) = k'(\bar{u}) = 0\quad \text{and}\quad k''(u) > 0\ \text{for all}\ u,$$
we conclude that
$$k(u) > 0\quad \text{for}\ 0 < u < \bar{u}.$$
Hence
$$\psi(u) > \mathcal{M} \psi(u)\quad \text{for}\ 0 < u < \bar{u}.$$
\noindent(vi)
$A_0 \psi(u) \leq 0$ for $u \in \mathcal{S} \backslash \bar{D}$ i.e., for
$u > \bar{u}$.
For $u > \bar{u}$, we have
{\begin{align*}
A_0 \psi(u) &= - \rho \frac{u-c}{1+\lambda} + \alpha_0 u \text{ }
\frac{1}{1+\lambda}\\
&\quad +\int_{u \kern-0.5pt +\kern-0.5pt \gamma u z < \bar{u}}\left\{C_1(u + \gamma u z)^{\gamma_1}\kern-0.5pt -\kern-0.5pt \frac{u + \gamma u z - c}{1 + \lambda}\right\}\! \nu({\rm d}z) \\
&\leq (1+\lambda)^{-1} [(\mu - \rho) u + (\rho + \|\nu\|) c].
\end{align*}}
\noindent Therefore we see that
\begin{align*}
A_0 \psi(u) & \leq 0\ \text{for all}\ u > \bar{u} \\[3pt]
& \Leftrightarrow (\alpha_0 - \rho) u + (\rho + \|\nu\|) c \leq 0 \text{ for all } u > \bar{u} \\[3pt]
& \Leftrightarrow (\alpha_0 - \rho) \bar{u} + (\rho + \|\nu\|) c \leq 0 \\[3pt]
& \Leftrightarrow \bar{u} \geq \frac{(\rho + \|\nu\|) c}{\rho - \alpha_0} \\[3pt]
& \Leftrightarrow \frac{\gamma_1 c}{\gamma_1 - 1} \geq \frac{(\rho + \|\nu\|) c}{\rho - \alpha_0} \\[3pt]
& \Leftrightarrow \gamma_1 \leq \frac{\rho + \|\nu\|}{\alpha_0 + \|\nu\|}.
\end{align*}
Since
$$F \left(\frac{\rho}{\mu}\right) \geq - \rho + \alpha_0
\frac{\rho}{\alpha_0} + \frac{1}{2} \sigma^2 \frac{\rho}{\alpha_0} \left(
\frac{\rho}{\alpha_0} - 1 \right) > 0,$$ and $F(\gamma_1) = 0$,
$\gamma_1 > 1$ we conclude that $\gamma_1 < \frac{\rho}{\alpha_0}$ and
hence (vi) holds if $\|\nu\|$ is small enough, say $\|\nu\| \leq K$.\\
Therefore,
we have
the following.
\begin{theorem}
Suppose $\| \nu \| \leq K$. Then the value function for \textbf{Problem \ref{prob}} is
$$\Phi(s,x,\mu) =
\begin{cases} e^{-\rho s} C_1 u^{\gamma_1} \text{for}\ 0 < u < \bar{u} \\
\displaystyle e^{-\rho s} \frac{u-c}{1+\lambda} \text{ for } u \geq \bar{u}.
\end{cases}
$$
where $u=\langle \mu,q \rangle=E[X(t) | \mathcal{F}_t^{(1)}]$ and
$$\bar{u} = \frac{\gamma_1 c}{\gamma_1 - 1}\quad \text{and}\quad C_1 = \frac{\bar{u} - c}{1 + \lambda} \bar{u}^{- \gamma_1}.$$
and $\gamma=\gamma_1 >1$ is the positive solution of the equation
\begin{align*}
-\rho + \alpha_0 \gamma + \tfrac{1}{2} \sigma_1^2 \gamma (\gamma -1) =0.
\end{align*}
The optimal impulse control is to do nothing while $u=E[X(t) | \mathcal{F}_t^{(1)}] < \bar{u}$
and take out immediately
$$\hat{\zeta}(u) = \frac{u-c}{1+\lambda} \text{ when } u \geq \bar{u}.$$
This brings $E[X(t) | \mathcal{F}_t^{(1)}]$ down to 0, and the system stops. Hence the optimal impulse consists of at most one intervention.
\end{theorem}
\section{Appendix: Double Fr\' echet derivatives}
In this section we recall some basic facts we are using about the Fr\' echet derivatives of a function $f: V \mapsto W$, where $V,W$ are given Banach spaces.
\begin{definition}
We say that $f$ has a Fr\' echet derivative $\nabla_xf=Df(x)$ at $x \in V$ if there exists a bounded linear map $A:V \mapsto W$ such that
\begin{align*}
\lim_{h \rightarrow 0} \frac{||f(x+h)-f(x)-A(h)||_{W}}{||h||_{V}} =0.
\end{align*}
Then we call $A$ the Fr\' echet derivative of $f$ at x and we put $Df(x) =A$.
\end{definition}
Note that $Df(x) \in L(V,W)$ (the space of bounded linear functions from $V$ to $W$), for each $x$.
\begin{definition}
We say that $f$ has a double Fr\' echet derivative $D^2 f(x)$ at $x$ if there exists a bounded bilinear map $A(h,k): V \times V \mapsto W$ such that
\begin{align*}
\lim_{k \rightarrow 0} \frac{||Df(x+k)(h)-Df(x)(h)-A(h,k)||_{W}}{||h||_{V}} =0.
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
\begin{example}
\begin{itemize}
\item
Suppose $f:\mathbb{M} \mapsto \mathbb{R}$ is given by
\begin{align*}
f(\mu)=\<\mu,q\>^2, \text{ where } q(x)=x.
\end{align*}
Then
\begin{align*}
f(\mu +h) -f(\mu)&= \<\mu+h,q\>^2 -\<\mu,q\>^2\nonumber\\
&= 2 \<\mu,q\> \<h,q\>+\<h,q\>^2,
\end{align*}
so we see that
\begin{equation*}
Df(\mu)(h)=2\<\mu,q\>\<h,q\>.
\end{equation*}
To find the double derivative we consider
\begin{align*}
&Df(\mu+k)(h)-Df(\mu)(h)\nonumber\\
&=2\<\mu+k,q\>\<h,q\>-2\<\mu,q\>\<h,q\>\nonumber\\
&=2\<k,q\>\<h,q\>,
\end{align*}
and we conclude that
\begin{equation*}
D^2f(\mu)(h,k)=2\<k,q\>\<h,q\>.
\end{equation*}
\item
Next assume that $g:{\mathbb{M}} \mapsto \mathbb{R}$ is given by $g(\mu)=\<\mu,q\>$.
Then, proceeding as above we find that
\begin{align*}
Dg(\mu)(h)&=\<h,q\> \text{ (independent of } \mu)\\
&\text{ and }\nonumber\\
D^2g(\mu) &=0.
\end{align*}
\end{itemize}
\end{example}
|
\section*{Introduction}
Semiconductor avalanche photodiodes (APD's) are versatile for weak light detection, with applications from remote ranging\cite{Wehr1999,Schreiber1999}, quantum communication \cite{yuan2018} and fluorescence lifetime imaging\cite{Damalakiene2016} to optical time-domain reflectometry \cite{Healey1984,Eraerds2010}.
For practical fiber quantum key distribution (QKD), InGaAs/InP APD's are the detector of choice because they are compact and low cost, and allow cryogenic-free or even room-temperature operation \cite{yuan2018}.
However, they suffer from spurious afterpulsing arising from carrier trapping by defects in the multiplication layer, especially at high detection efficiencies \cite{Comandar2015,Tada2020}.
To minimise afterpulsing, an APD can be biased on for a sub-nanosecond duration only when a photon arrival is expected.
In doing so, charge per avalanche can be reduced to the order of 10~fC \cite{yuan2010,Restelli2013,Namekata2006}, corresponding to a transient current of less than 0.1~mA.
Such weak avalanches have to be discriminated through use of a readout circuit that removes the strong capacitive response to the applied gates. Gated InGaAs detectors are capable of counting photons at up to 60\% efficiencies \cite{Fang2020} and 1~GHz rate \cite{patel2012} and with photon number resolution \cite{kardynal2008}. Thanks to this success, gating approach has been applied to traditionally free-running Si devices for performance enhancement \cite{Thomas2010,wayne2021}.
Existing readout circuits include band stop \cite{Namekata2006,Namekata09,Tada2020} or low-pass\cite{walenta2012,He2017,Fang2020} filtering under sine-wave gating\cite{Namekata2006}, self-differencing \cite{Yuan2007,Comandar2015}, and transient reference cancellation \cite{Restelli2013,Liang2019}. While simple for implementation, frequency filtering distorts the avalanche signals due to its rejection of a sizeable portion of frequency components, thus increasing time jitter and temporal errors in photon registrations \cite{walenta2012}. Self-differencing \cite{Yuan2007} and reference cancellation methods \cite{Restelli2013} are able to maintain avalanche signal fidelity but may suffer operational complexities.
The former requires wideband performance for the entire circuitry and thus inconvenience an adjustable delayline \cite{yuan2010} for frequency alignment, while the latter can be unstable because the transient reference is derived separately from the capacitive response.
Here we propose and experimentally demonstrate a simple, low-distortion ultra-narrowband interference circuit (UNIC)
that can suppress the capacitive response for a 1.25~GHz gated InGaAs/InP APD single photon detector.
The circuit is an asymmetric radio-frequency (RF) interferometer. One of its arms contains a narrow band pass filter (BPF) based on surface acoustic wave resonator (SAW) to retrieve the fundamental wave of the gating signal.
The filtered wave then interferes destructively with the same frequency component transmitted via the other arm through a coupling module, thereby eliminating the capacitive response.
This interference occurs over the narrow band, so it can provide a broad
and continuous pass band in frequency domain to maintain the avalanche signal with little distortion.
This allows to achieve ultra-low afterpulsing probabilities and excellent jitter performance at high detection efficiencies from two InGaAs APD's that exhibit capacitive responses of very different amplitudes.
\section*{Detector characterisation setup}
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.6\linewidth]{Figure1.pdf}
\caption{
\textbf{(a)} Single-photon characterisation setup for 1.25~GHz sinusoidally gated InGaAs/InP APDs using UNICs for avalanche impulse readout;
\textbf{(b)} Histogram of the photon detection events measured by the characterisation setup \textbf{(a)} on an InGaAs APD detector that was regulated at a temperature of 30~$^\circ$C. The photon detection peak exhibits a 30~dB width of 650~ps.
AMP: amplifier; APD: avalanche photodiode; BSF: band stop filter; DISC: discriminator;
SG: signal generator; TDC: time-to-digital converter; UNIC: ultra-narrowband interference circuit; VOA: variable optical attenuator.
}
\label{fig:001}
\newpage
\end{figure*}
Figure~\ref{fig:001}(a) shows our single photon characterisation setup for InGaAs APDs. A 1550~nm passively mode-locked laser serves as the light source and provides stable short pulses of 0.5~ps duration at a repetition rate of 10~MHz.
The laser output power is monitored by an optical power meter (EXFO FTB-1750) and its pulse intensity is set by a variable optical attenuator (VOA, EXFO FTB-3500) to 0.1 photon/pulse at the fiber input of APD under test. It provides a 10~MHz reference to a signal generator (SG) for synthesising a 1.25~GHz sinusoidal wave with up to 27 V voltage swing.
In combination of a suitable DC bias, this AC signal periodically gates the APD above its breakdown voltage ($60 - 70$~V) to achieve single photon sensitivity.
The APD output is processed by the readout module consisting of two identical 1.25~GHz UNIC's, one 2.5~GHz band stop filter (BSF), and three RF amplifiers (AMPs). Amplification of the raw APD signalis is useful as it prevents weak avalanche signals from falling below thermal noise by attenuation of the first UNIC.
The readout signal is discriminated by a discriminator for avalanches before feeding to a time-digital-converter (TDC) with a dead time of
2~ns for time-resolved photon counting.
Figure~\ref{fig:001}\textbf{(b)} is a typical histogram obtained with this setup.
APD under test is temperature-regulated using their integrated thermal-electric cooler, which is driven by a temperature controller (Thorlabs TED200C).
A source-measure unit (Keithley 2635B) provides the DC bias and simultaneously monitors the current flowing through the APD. In characterising the maximum count rate, we replace the 10~MHz laser with a continuous-wave distributed feedback laser (DFB) laser, the output of which is carved into 1.25~GHz, 50~ps pulse train using an intensity modulator.
We use a high speed digital oscilloscope to record the detector output and extract the count rate through digital discrimination in software. The oscilloscope method is carefully calibrated at low count rate regimes to be consistent with the hardware discriminated result using the photon counter (Stanford Research SR400).
The setup is able to measure dark count probability, afterpulsing probability, detection efficiency, maximum count rate, avalanche charge and time jitter. With no performance screening, two fiber-pigtailed APDs from different manufacturers were used in this study, named APD\#1 and APD\#2 respectively.
\section*{Ultra-narrowband interference circuit (UNIC)}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{Figure2.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{(a)} Schematic for ultranarrow interference circuit (UNIC); \textbf{(b)} Transmission spectrum of a heroic UNIC PCB; Inset: Magnified view for region of 1.24 -- 1.26~GHz. \textbf{(c)} Raw capacitive responses from APD\#1 (top) and APD\#2 (bottom) under identical 27.0~V V$_{p-p}$ gating; \textbf{(d)} Recovered avalanche impulses. ATT: attenuator; SAW BPF: surface acoustic wave band pass filter.
}
\label{fig:002}
\end{figure}
With sub-nanosecond gating, a photon induced avalanche is an impulse and has a wide spectrum. On the other hand, the capacitive response is periodic and has its most energy concentrated at the gating frequency or its higher harmonics. This spectral difference allows frequency-dependent signal processing to remove the capacitive response and keep the wide-band impulses intact.
Figure~\ref{fig:002}\textbf{(a)} shows a circuit diagram of UNIC. It is an RF interferometer containing two couplers of 9:1 power splitting ratio, a $\pi$-resistive attenuator (ATT) and surface acoustic wave band pass filter.
Two of the ports are terminated by 50~$\Omega$ resistors.
The SAW BPF features a central frequency of 1.25~GHz, 20-dB passband of 35~MHz, insertion loss of 3~dB, and group delay of 34~ns. It filters out the fundamental wave of the gating frequency, which then interferes with the APD signal transmitted through the other arm.
The attenuation and differential delay are set to enable destructive interference for the 1.25~GHz frequency component at the UNIC output port. The UNIC differential delay ($\Delta t$) meets the condition below
\begin{equation}
\Delta t = T_g^{SAW} + \delta t
= (N+1/2)/f_g,
\end{equation}
\noindent where $T_g^{SAW}$ is the group delay of the SAW BPF, $\delta t$ the delay caused by the track length difference between two arms, $f_g = 1.25$~GHz the APD gating frequency, and $N$ is an integer number. For a compact circuit, we choose $\delta t$ to be less than the half-wave of the gating signal. With the SAW device used, $N = 42$ and $\delta t = 155$~ps. The resulting UNIC unit has a small footprint of $38 \times 15$~mm$^2$ on printed circuit boards (PCBs).
The large $T_g^{SAW}$ brings two additional benefits. Firstly, it substantially increases the PCB manufacturing tolerance, as a 0.5~mm deviation in the RF track length will just alter the circuit central frequency by less than $10^{-4}$. This eliminates the requirement of an adjustable delayline which is required in a self-differencing circuit for precise frequency alignment. Secondly, it helps to produce an ultra-narrow band rejection at its designed frequency. Figure~\ref{fig:002}(b) shows the measured transmission spectrum (S21 parameter) of our heroic UNIC PCB, and its inset expands the frequency section of 1.24 -- 1.26~GHz to show the narrowness of the insertion loss dip in the close proximity of the resonance frequency of 1.25~GHz. The dip of the heroic (typical) PCB features a loss of -95~dB (-80~dB), representing a suppression of 80~dB (65~dB) as compared with the background loss for other frequencies under 2~GHz.
The dip has a 30~dB linewidth of merely 30~kHz, thus ensuring crucial suppression of the APD gating signal without overly distorting the avalanche signals.
The background loss of about 14~dB is caused mainly by the 9:1 couplers and can be reduced in future with more balanced splitters.
Cascading two UNIC's enables a stable 100~dB suppression of the primary gating frequency and thus provides sufficient performance redundancy. Their attenuation to the avalanche signal is compensated by using RF amplifiers (Fig.~\ref{fig:001}\textbf{(a)}). Second order harmonics (2.5~GHz) is suppressed by a band stop filter of conventional LC design.
Figure~\ref{fig:002}\textbf{(c)} shows raw outputs from two different APD's under identical sinusoidal gating. Their respective capacitive responses are measured to be 0.42~V and 1.75~V. Despite their 4 times differences, UNIC's can successfully reject the sinusoidal responses and retrieve avalanches with excellent signal-to-background ratio, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:002}\textbf{(d)}. For APD\#2, we just adjusted the gain of the first AMP to avoid saturation and distortion.
\section*{Results and discussion}
Time-resolved photon counting allows precise extraction of the net photon detection efficiency ($\eta_{net}$) and the afterpulsing probability ($P_A$), which is defined as the ratio of the total afterpulses per photon counting event.
Figure~\ref{fig:001}\textbf{(b)} shows a histogram of avalanche events measured for APD\#1 under 10~MHz pulsed excitation of 0.1~photon/pulse.
The illuminated peak has a full-width of 1/1000 maximum (30~dB width) of just 650~ps, which is shorter than the gating period of 800~ps and thus allows low-error clock number assignment that is essential for high speed QKD. The count at non-illuminated gates arise from detector dark count and afterpulses and is more than 3 orders of magnitude lower than that of the illuminated gate.
We extract quantities of $P_I$ and $P_{NI}$, \textit{i.e.}, the respective counting probabilities for each illuminated and non-illuminated gate. With a separate measurement of the detector dark count probability ($P_D$), we calculate the afterpulsing probability using the standard method \cite{Yuan2007,Namekata09},
\begin{equation}
P_A = \frac{(P_{NI} - P_{D}) \cdot R}{P_I - P_{NI}},
\end{equation}
\noindent where $R = 125$ here is the ratio of the gating frequency (1.25~GHz) to the laser illumination (10~MHz).
Excluding the dark and afterpulse count probabilities, the net single photon detection efficiency is given by~\cite{Comandar2015}
\begin{equation}
\eta_{net} = \frac{1}{\mu}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1-P_{NI}}{1-P_{I}},
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\mu$ is the average incident photon number per illumination pulse.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{Figure3.pdf}
\caption{Dark count probability (top) and afterpulse probability (bottom) as a function of photon detection efficiency of \textbf{(a)} APD\#1 and \textbf{(b)} APD\#2 measured for several different temperatures.
}
\label{fig:003}
\newpage
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:003} shows the characterisation results for APD\#1 and APD\#2.
We fixed the amplitude of the 1.25~GHz sinusoidal signal at 27.0~V, and measured the relevant parameters as a function of the applied direct current (DC) bias, but for clarity the results are plotted as a function of the net detection efficiency ($\eta_{net}$). Each device was measured at several different temperatures, while APD\#2 could reach only a narrower temperature range due to its cooler compatibility with the temperature control driver.
Qualitatively, two devices behave similarly.
Both dark count and afterpulsing probabilities increase with photon detection efficiency, and exhibit opposite dependencies on temperature. For both APDs at $\eta_\mathrm{net} = 30~\%$, the afterpulsing probabilities are less than 2.3~\% at their lowest measurement temperatures with corresponding dark count probabilities of $1.25 \times 10^{-6}$ and $1.6 \times 10^{-6}$ for APD\#1 (-30~$^\circ$C) and APD\#2 (-20~$^\circ$C), respectively.
Moreover, our UNIC-APDs can offer record low afterpulsing probabilities, as summarised for APD\#1 in Figure~\ref{fig:004}. At -30~$^\circ$C, APD\#1 is able to achieve 5~\% and 21.2~\% detection efficiencies at 0.5~\% and 1.0~\% afterpulsing probabilities. At these afterpulsing probabilities, the maximum detection efficiency increases with temperature and reaches 25.3~\% and 34.2~\% at 30~$^\circ$C. At 5.9~\% $P_A$, APD\#2 has a detection efficiency of 50~\% efficiency at 30~$^\circ$C and dark count probability of $1.1 \times 10^{-4}$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{Figure4.pdf}
\caption{Temperature dependencies of photon detection efficiency for APD\#1 at the given afterpulsing probabilities of 0.5 \% (blue) and 1 \% (red).}
\label{fig:004}
\newpage
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{Figure5.pdf}
\caption{Maximum count rate (blue) and photoncurrent (red) \textit{vs } incident flux for APD\#1.
}
\label{fig:005}
\newpage
\end{figure}
The maximum count rate is a crucial parameter for a number of applications, for example, high bit rate QKD \cite{yuan2018} and rapid phase tracking in twin-field QKD \cite{lucamarini18,zhou22}.
To determine their maximum count rates, we used a DFB laser transmitting at 1.25~GHz as the illumination source and measure the count rate as a function of photon flux.
Figure~\ref{fig:005} shows an exemplar result obtained from APD\#1 at a temperature of
30~$^\circ$C with its detection efficiency set to 25.3~\% in the low flux regime. The detector maintains a linear dependence with incident flux for count rates exceeding 100~MHz, while a maximum count rate of 700~MHz is obtained at the few photons/pulse regime.
We attribute the high count rate to the UNIC's ability of removing the capacitive response and thus allowing discrimination of faint avalanches. From the accompanying current measurement, we extract an avalanche charge of 38~fC, comparable to the best value of 35~fC \cite{yuan2010} obtained with the photocurrent measurement method. The ability to detect such weak avalanches ensures low afterpulsing probabilities in our UNIC-APDs.
APD\#2 was measured to have a similar avalanche charge as that of APD\#1. When setting its efficiency to 50~\%, APD\#2's avalanche charge rose to 65~fC due to stronger bias applied. Nevertheless, it was still able to achieve a maximum count rate of 600~MHz.
\begin{table*}[h]
\caption{\label{tab:Comparison} Performance comparison of sub-nanosecond gated InGaAs detectors using different types of readout circuits.}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.4mm}{
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\hline\hline
& $ P_{\mathrm{A}}$(\%)& $\eta_\mathrm{net}$ (\%)&$P _{\mathrm{D}}$ ($ \mathrm{gate}^{\mathrm{-1}}$)&T ($^{\circ}$C) & $f_g$ (GHz)& Readout Method
\\
\hline \hline
This work & 1.0 &21.2 & 5.4$\times10^{-7} $ & -30 &1.25 & UNIC \\
\hline
He \textit{et al}\cite{He2017} &1.0 &20.7 & 7.6$\times10^{-7}$ &-30 &1.00 &low-pass filter +\\ & & & & & & variable width discriminator \\
\hline
Tada \textit{et al}\cite{Tada2020} &1.8 &27.7 & 8$\times10^{-7}$ &-35 &1.27
& band stop filter \\
\hline
Fang \textit{et al}\cite{Fang2020} &2.5 &20 & 1.1$\times10^{-6}$ &-30 &1.25 &low-pass filter \\
\hline
Comandar \textit{et al}\cite{Comandar2015} &2.9 &20 & 1.0$\times10^{-6}$ &-30 &1.00 &self-differencing \\
\hline
Liang \textit{et al}\cite{Liang2019} &4.5 &20 & 3.2$\times10^{-6}$ &-30 &1.25 &reference subtraction \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{table*}
Table~\ref{tab:Comparison} compares our results with those gigahertz-gated detectors equipped with different readout circuits. For impartiality, we list just data measured at a fixed temperature of -30~$^\circ$C whenever possible. Here, our UNIC-APD achieved an impressive 1\% afterpulsing probability at $\eta_\mathrm{net} =21.2$~\%, considerably outperforming most other methods among filtering\cite{Fang2020,Tada2020}, self-differencing \cite{Comandar2015} and reference subtraction \cite{Liang2019}.
In terms of detection efficiency, our result improves marginally over the previous best\cite{He2017}, but which was achieved with help of an uncommon variable width discriminator to mitigate signal distortion by excessive filtering. We attribute the outstanding performance of our detectors to low-distortion signal processing by UNIC's.
It is useful to compare our UNIC-APDs with detectors deployed in QKD systems. In the QKD system optimised for secure key rates (SKRs) \cite{yuan2018}, the room-temperature self-differencing detectors featured $f_g = 1$~GHz, $\eta_\mathrm{net} = 31$ \%, $P_A = 4.4$\% and $P_D = 2.25 \times 10^{-4}$ and a SKR of 13.72~Mb/s over a 2~dB channel was obtained. Our UNIC-APD could outperform in all these parameters. At 30~$^\circ$C and with $P_A =4.4$~\%, APD\#2 offers a higher efficiency of 49~\% efficiency and twice lower dark count probability of $9.4 \times 10^{-5}$, see Fig.~\ref{fig:003}\textbf{b}. Combined with its high count capability, UNIC detectors are expected to allow a SKR exceeding 25~Mb/s over the same channel loss. This provides an interesting technological path towards 100~Mb/s via wavelength multiplexing.
\section*{Conclusion}
To summarise, we have developed a novel approach of using UNICs for reading out avalanche signals from 1.25~GHz sinusoidally gated InGaAs APDs.
UNIC-APDs were characterised to exhibit excellent performance across the temperature range of $-30$ -- 30~$^\circ$C, and can offer \textgreater20~\% detection efficiency at an ultra low afterpulsing probability of 1~\%. This performance, together with the circuit's compactness and manufacturing tolerance, will allow UNIC-APDs a considerable potential in QKD applications.
\begin{backmatter}
\bmsection{Disclosures}
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest related to this article.
\bmsection{Data availability}
Data underlying the results presented in this paper are not publicly available at this time but may be obtained from the authors upon reasonable request.
\end{backmatter}
|
\section{Appendix}\label{app}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:1}}
This proof can be found in \cite{beck2009fast}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of \ref{lem:1}]
First from the inequality $F(prox_{\eta_P}(\mathbf{P}))
\leq M_{\mathbf{P},\eta_P}(prox_{\eta_P}(\mathbf{P}))$, we have:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:inq}
F(\mathbf{A}) - F(prox_{\eta_P}(\mathbf{P})) \geq F(\mathbf{A}) - M_{\mathbf{P},\eta_P}(prox_{\eta_P}(\mathbf{P})).
\end{equation}
Since $F(x) = f(x) + g(x)$ and $f(x), g(x)$ are convex:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fg}
\begin{aligned}
& f(\mathbf{A}) \geq f(\mathbf{P}) + \langle \mathbf{A} - \mathbf{P}, \nabla f(\mathbf{P}) \rangle;\\
& g(\mathbf{A}) \geq g(prox_{\eta_P}(\mathbf{P})) + \langle \mathbf{A} - prox_{\eta_P}(\mathbf{P}), \gamma(\mathbf{P}) \rangle,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\gamma(\mathbf{P})$ is defined as $\gamma(\mathbf{P}) \in \partial g(prox_{\eta_P}(\mathbf{P}))$ and $\nabla f(\mathbf{P}) + \eta_P(prox_{\eta_P}(\mathbf{P}) - \mathbf{P}) + \gamma(\mathbf{P}) = 0$.
Summing the inequalities in Eq. (\ref{eq:fg}) yields
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sum}
F(\mathbf{A}) \geq & f(\mathbf{P}) + \langle \mathbf{A} - \mathbf{P}, \nabla f(\mathbf{P}) \rangle + g(prox_{\eta_P}(\mathbf{P})) \\
& + \langle \mathbf{A} - prox_{\eta_P}(\mathbf{P}), \gamma(\mathbf{P}) \rangle.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
And by the definition of $prox_{\eta_P}(\mathbf{P})$, we have
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned} \label{eq:prox}
M_{\mathbf{P},\eta_P}(prox_{\eta_P}(\mathbf{P})) = & f(\mathbf{P}) + \langle prox_{\eta_P}(\mathbf{P}) - \mathbf{P}, \nabla f(\mathbf{P}) \rangle \\
& + \frac{\eta_P}{2} \|prox_{\eta_P}(\mathbf{P}) - \mathbf{P} \|^2 + g(prox_{\eta_P}(\mathbf{P})).
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
Therefore, plugging in Eq. (\ref{eq:sum}) and Eq. (\ref{eq:prox}) in Eq. (\ref{eq:inq}) gives
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& F(\mathbf{A}) - F(prox_{\eta_P}(\mathbf{P}))\\
\geq & - \frac{\eta_P}{2} \|prox_{\eta_P}(\mathbf{P}) - \mathbf{P} \|^2 + \langle \mathbf{A} - prox_{\eta_P}(\mathbf{P}), \gamma(\mathbf{P}) + \nabla f(\mathbf{P}) \rangle \\
= & - \frac{\eta_P}{2} \|prox_{\eta_P}(\mathbf{P}) - \mathbf{P} \|^2 + \eta_P \langle \mathbf{A} - prox_{\eta_P}(\mathbf{P}), \mathbf{P} - prox_{\eta_P}(\mathbf{P}) \rangle \\
= & \frac{\eta_P}{2} \|prox_{\eta_P}(\mathbf{P}) - \mathbf{P} \|^2 + \eta_P \langle \mathbf{P} - \mathbf{A}, prox_{\eta_P}(\mathbf{P}) - \mathbf{P} \rangle.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:ista}}
The following proof is modified based on \cite{beck2009fast}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of \ref{thm:ista}]
Invoking Lemma \ref{lem:1} with $\mathbf{A} = \mathbf{P}^*, \mathbf{P} = \mathbf{P}_n,$ and $\eta_P = \eta_{n+1}$, we have:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:4.2.1}
\begin{aligned}
&\frac{2}{\eta_{n+1}} F(\mathbf{P}^*) - F(\mathbf{P}_{n+1}) \\
\geq & \|\mathbf{P}_{n+1} - \mathbf{P}_n \|^2 + 2 \langle \mathbf{P}_n - \mathbf{P}^*, \mathbf{P}_{n+1} - \mathbf{P}_n \rangle \\
= & \|\mathbf{P}^* - \mathbf{P}_{n+1}\|^2 - \|\mathbf{P}^* - \mathbf{P}_{n}\|^2,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
and we have the fact that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:4.2.2}
\alpha L_P \leq \eta_k \leq \beta L_P,
\end{equation}
where $L_P$ is the Lipschitz constant of $f(\mathbf{P})$ regarding to $\mathbf{P}$, $\beta$ is the $\beta_P$ initialized in \Cref{alg:2}, $\alpha = \min \frac{\eta_{1,2, \dots, k}}{L_P}$.
Combine Eq. (\ref{eq:4.2.1}) and Eq. (\ref{eq:4.2.2}), and because $F(\mathbf{P}^*) \leq F(\mathbf{P}_{n+1})$, we have:
\begin{equation}
\frac{2}{\beta L_P} F(\mathbf{P}^*) - F(\mathbf{P}_{n+1})
\geq \|\mathbf{P}^* - \mathbf{P}_{n+1}\|^2 - \|\mathbf{P}^* - \mathbf{P}_{n}\|^2.
\end{equation}
Summing the above inequality over $n = 0, 1, \dots, k-1$ gives
\begin{equation}\label{eq:4.2.3}
\frac{2}{\beta L_P} (kF(\mathbf{P}^*) - \sum_{n=0}^{k-1}F(\mathbf{P}_{n+1})
\geq \|\mathbf{P}^* - \mathbf{P}_{k}\|^2 - \|\mathbf{P}^* - \mathbf{P}_{0}\|^2.
\end{equation}
Similarly, invoking Lemma \ref{lem:1} again with $\mathbf{A} = \mathbf{P} = \mathbf{P}_n$, and $\eta_P = \eta_{n+1}$, we get
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{2}{\eta_{n+1}} F(\mathbf{P}_n) - F(\mathbf{P}_{n+1})
& \geq \|\mathbf{P}_{n+1} - \mathbf{P}_n \|^2,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
since $\eta_{n+1} \geq \alpha L_P$ and $F(\mathbf{P}_n) \leq F(\mathbf{P}_{n+1})$, it follows that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:4.2.4}
\frac{2}{\alpha L_P} F(\mathbf{P}_n) - F(\mathbf{P}_{n+1})
\geq \|\mathbf{P}_n - \mathbf{P}_{n+1}\|^2.
\end{equation}
Multiplying Eq. (\ref{eq:4.2.4}) by n and summing over $n = 0, 1, \dots, k-1$ gives
\begin{equation}\label{eq:4.2.5}
\frac{2}{\alpha L_P} (-kF(\mathbf{P}_k)) + \sum_{n=0}^{k-1}F(\mathbf{P}_{n+1}))
\geq \sum_{n=0}^{k-1} n\|\mathbf{P}_n - \mathbf{P}_{n+1}\|^2.
\end{equation}
Adding Eq. (\ref{eq:4.2.3}) and Eq. (\ref{eq:4.2.5}) times $\alpha / \beta$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\begin{aligned}\label{eq:4.2.6}
& \frac{2k}{\beta L_P} (F(\mathbf{P}^*)) - F(\mathbf{P}_{k}))\\
\geq & \|\mathbf{P}^* - \mathbf{P}_{k}\|^2 + \frac{\alpha}{\beta} \sum_{n=0}^{k-1} n\|\mathbf{P}_n - \mathbf{P}_{n+1}\|^2 - \|\mathbf{P}^* - \mathbf{P}_{0}\|^2.
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
Therefore it follows the following inequality:
\begin{equation}
F(\mathbf{P}_{k}) - F(\mathbf{P}^*)) \leq \frac{\beta L_P \|\mathbf{P}^* - \mathbf{P}_{0}\|^2}{2k}.
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
\section{Convergence Analysis}\label{sec:conv}
In the previous section, we mentioned Algorithm \ref{alg:2} has a sublinear convergence rate and Algorithm \ref{alg:3} has a linear convergence rate.
There are other studies showing algorithms with a linear convergence rate for solving such problem~\cite{zhang2013linear}, but different from these studies, there is no strong assumption required in our algorithm, and we utilize the momentum trick following the Nesterov accelerated gradient, which is proven to be unbeatable in general cases.
The convergence proof of Algorithm \ref{alg:2} can be easily adapted from the proof in~\cite{beck2009fast} to modified step-size searching and be extended from vector variables to matrix variables due to the equivalence of matrix Frobenius norm and vector Euclidean norm.
Here we only present the key lemma and theorem of the convergence rate:
\begin{lemma}
If for $\mathbf{P} \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times m}$,
we have
$F(prox_{\eta_P}(\mathbf{P}))
\leq M_{\mathbf{P},\eta_P}(prox_{\eta_P}(\mathbf{P}))$,
then for any $\mathbf{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times m}$,
$F(\mathbf{A}) - F(prox_{\eta_P}(\mathbf{P}))
\geq \frac{\eta_P}{2} \|prox_{\eta_P}(\mathbf{P}) - \mathbf{P}\|_F^2
+ \eta_P \langle \mathbf{P} - \mathbf{A}, prox_{\eta_P}(\mathbf{P}) - \mathbf{P}\rangle
$.
\label{lem:1}
\end{lemma}
We present the following theorem about the convergence rate of solving Eq.(\ref{eq:obj}) via Algorithm \ref{alg:2}:
\begin{theorem}
Let $\mathbf{P}^k$ be the output generated by Algorithm \ref{alg:2} in the $k-$th iteration, then for any $k \geq 1$ we have
$F(\mathbf{P}^k) - F(\mathbf{P}^*) = O(\frac{1}{k})$,
where $\mathbf{P}^*$ is the optimal solution in Eq.(\ref{eq:obj}).
\label{thm:ista}
\end{theorem}
Before diving into the detailed proof of convergence rate in Algorithm \ref{alg:3}, we first provide two useful lemmas that are important for the following proof process:
\begin{lemma}
For $F(x) = f(x) + g(x)$, if $g(x)$ is convex, and $f(x)$ is $\sigma-$strongly convex and $L-$smooth, then for any $x, y$ and $\alpha>0$ satisfying
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
& f(prox_{\alpha}(y))\\
\leq
& f(y) + \langle \nabla f(y), prox_{\alpha}(y) - y \rangle + \frac{\alpha}{2}\|prox_{\alpha}(y) - y\|^2
\end{split}
\label{eq:lem21}
\end{align}
the following inequality holds:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
& F(x) - F(prox_{\alpha}(y)) \\
\geq
& \frac{\alpha}{2}\|x-prox_{\alpha}(y)\|^2
- \frac{\alpha}{2}\|x - y\|^2 \\
& +f(x) - f(y) - \langle \nabla f(y), x - y \rangle.
\end{split}
\label{eq:lem22}
\end{align}
\label{lem:2}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider function $\phi(u) = f(y) + \langle \nabla f(y), u - y \rangle + g(u) + \frac{\alpha}{2}\|u-y\|^2$, it is obvious that such $\phi(u)$ is $\alpha-$strongly convex and $prox_{\alpha}(y) = \mathop{\rm arg\,min}_{u}(\phi(u))$.
Then we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\phi(x) - \phi(prox_{\alpha}(y)) \geq \frac{\alpha}{2}\|x-prox_{\alpha}(y)\|^2.
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:lem23}
\end{equation}
According to Eq.(\ref{eq:lem21}):
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
& \phi(prox_{\alpha}(y)) \\
= & f(y) + \langle \nabla f(y), prox_{\alpha}(y)- y \rangle \\
& + \frac{\alpha}{2}\|y-prox_{\alpha}(y)\|^2+ g(prox_{\alpha}(y)) \\
\geq & f(prox_{\alpha}(y)) + g(prox_{\alpha}(y))\\
= & F(prox_{\alpha}(y)),
\label{eq:lem24}
\end{split}
\end{align}
combine with Eq.(\ref{eq:lem23}), we obtain
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\phi(x) - F(prox_{\alpha}(y)) \geq \frac{\alpha}{2} \|x - prox_{\alpha}(y)\|^2.
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:lem25}
\end{equation}
Therefore it's easy to get the following inequality after we plug in the formula of $\phi(x)$:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
& \phi(x) - F(prox_{\alpha}(y)) \\
= & F(x) - f(x) + f(y)
+ \frac{\alpha}{2}\|x-y\|^2 \\
& + \langle \nabla f(y), x - y \rangle - F(prox_{\alpha}(y)) \\
\geq & \frac{\alpha}{2} \|x - prox_{\alpha}(y)\|^2,
\end{split}
\label{eq:lem26}
\end{align}
which is the same as Eq.(\ref{eq:lem22}).
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
For any vector $\mathbf{a}, \mathbf{b}$ and constant $\beta < 1$, we have the following equation:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\|\mathbf{a} + \mathbf{b}\|^2 - \beta\|\mathbf{a}\|^2 = (1-\beta)\|\mathbf{a} + \frac{1}{1-\beta}\mathbf{b}\|^2 - \frac{\beta}{1-\beta} \|\mathbf{b}\|^2.
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:lem31}
\end{equation}
\label{lem:3}
\end{lemma}
Here we introduce the theorem about the convergence rate of Algorithm \ref{alg:3}:
\begin{theorem}
For $F(x) = f(x) + g(x)$ in Eq.(\ref{eq:combined}), $g(x)$ is convex, and $f(x)$ is $\sigma-$strongly convex and $L-$smooth, let $c = \frac{L}{\sigma}$ and $t = \sqrt{c}$. Let $\mathbf{P}^k$ be the $k_{th}$ iteration's output in Algorithm \ref{alg:3}, $\mathbf{P}^*$ be the optimal solution
$V_k = F(\mathbf{P}^k) - F(\mathbf{P}^*)$. Then for any $k \geq 1$ we have
$V_k \leq (1- \frac{1}{t})^k (V_0 + \frac{\sigma}{2}\|\mathbf{P}^0 - \mathbf{P}^*\|^2)$.
\label{thm:linear}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
According to Lemma \ref{lem:2} and the fact that $f(x)$ is $\sigma-$strongly convex and $L-$smooth, we obtain
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
& F(x) - F(prox_{L}(y)) \\
\geq & \frac{L}{2}\|x-prox_{L}(y)\|^2 - \frac{L}{2}\|x - y\|^2
+ \frac{\sigma}{2}\|x - y\|^2.
\end{split}
\label{eq:t1}
\end{align}
Invoking the above inequality with $x = \frac{1}{t}\mathbf{P}^* + (1 - \frac{1}{t})\mathbf{P}^k$ and $y = \mathbf{A}^k$ in Algorithm \ref{alg:3}, we get
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
& F(\frac{1}{t}\mathbf{P}^* + (1 - \frac{1}{t})\mathbf{P}^k) - F(\mathbf{P}^{k+1}) \\
\geq & \frac{L}{2}\|\mathbf{P}^{k+1}-(\frac{1}{t}\mathbf{P}^* + (1 - \frac{1}{t})\mathbf{P}^k)\|^2 \\
& - \frac{L-\sigma}{2}\|\mathbf{A}^k - (\frac{1}{t}\mathbf{P}^* + (1 - \frac{1}{t})\mathbf{P}^k)\|^2 \\
= & \frac{L}{2t^2}\|t\mathbf{P}^{k+1} - (\mathbf{P}^* + (t-1)\mathbf{P}^k)\|^2 \\
& - \frac{L-\sigma}{2t^2}\|t\mathbf{A}^k-(\mathbf{P}^*+(t-1)\mathbf{P}^k)\|^2.
\end{split}
\label{eq:t2}
\end{align}
Since $f$ is a $\sigma-$strongly convex function, for $\alpha \in [0,1]$, we have
$f(\alpha x + (1-\alpha)y) \leq \alpha f(x) + (1-\alpha) f(y) - \frac{\sigma\alpha(1-\alpha)}{2}\|x-y\|^2$, and obviously $\frac{1}{t}\in [0,1]$, so we have
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
& F(\frac{1}{t}\mathbf{P}^* + (1 - \frac{1}{t})\mathbf{P}^k) \\
\leq & \frac{1}{t}F(\mathbf{P}^*) + (1-\frac{1}{t})F(\mathbf{P}^k)
- \frac{\sigma t^{-1}(1-t^{-1})}{2}\|\mathbf{P}^k - \mathbf{P}^*\|^2.
\end{split}
\label{eq:t3}
\end{align}
With $V_k = F(\mathbf{P}^k) - F(\mathbf{P}^*)$, we can get
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
& F(\frac{1}{t}\mathbf{P}^* + (1 - \frac{1}{t})\mathbf{P}^k)-F(\mathbf{P}^{k+1}) \\
\leq & (1-t^{-1})V_k - V_{k+1} - \frac{\sigma t^{-1}(1-t^{-1})}{2}\|\mathbf{P}^k - \mathbf{P}^*\|^2.
\end{split}
\label{eq:t4}
\end{align}
Combine Eq.(\ref{eq:t4}) and Eq.(\ref{eq:t2})
we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{L-\sigma}{2}\|t\mathbf{A}^k - (\mathbf{P}^*+(t-1)\mathbf{P}^k)\|^2 - \frac{\sigma (t-1)}{2}\|\mathbf{P}^k - \mathbf{P}^*\|^2
\\ \geq t^2 V_{k+1} -t(t-1)V_k + \frac{L}{2}\|t\mathbf{P}^{k+1}- (\mathbf{P}^*+(t-1)\mathbf{P}^k)\|^2.
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:t5}
\end{equation}
With Lemma \ref{lem:3} and set $a:=\mathbf{P}^k - \mathbf{P}^*, b:= t(\mathbf{A}^k-\mathbf{P}^k), \beta:=\frac{\sigma (t-1)}{L-\sigma}$, then for the left side in the above inequality, we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\small
& \frac{L-\sigma}{2}\|t\mathbf{A}^k - (\mathbf{P}^*+(t-1)\mathbf{P}^k)\|^2 \\
& - \frac{\sigma (t-1)}{2}\|\mathbf{P}^k - \mathbf{P}^*\|^2
\\
=& \frac{L-\sigma}{2}\{\|t(\mathbf{A}^k-\mathbf{P}^k)+(\mathbf{P}^k-\mathbf{P}^*)\|^2 \\
& - \frac{\sigma (t-1)}{L-\sigma}\|\mathbf{P}^k-\mathbf{P}^*\|^2 \}
\\
=& \frac{L-\sigma}{2}\{\frac{L-\sigma t}{L-\sigma}\|(\mathbf{P}^k-\mathbf{P}^*) +
\frac{L-\sigma}{L-\sigma t}t(\mathbf{A}^k-\mathbf{P}^k)\|^2 \\
& - \frac{\sigma (t-1)}{L-\sigma t}\|t(\mathbf{A}^k-\mathbf{P}^k)\|^2 \}
\\
\leq & \frac{L-\sigma t}{2}\|\mathbf{P}^k - \mathbf{P}^* + \frac{L-\sigma}{L-\sigma t} t(\mathbf{A}^k - \mathbf{P}^k)\|^2
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:t6}
\end{equation}
Therefore we have the following inequality according to Eq.(\ref{eq:t5}):
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& t(t-1)V_k + \frac{L-\sigma t}{2}\|\mathbf{P}^k - \mathbf{P}^* + \frac{L-\sigma}{L-\sigma t} t(\mathbf{A}^k - \mathbf{P}^k)\|^2
\\
& \geq t^2V_{k+1} + \frac{L}{2}\|t\mathbf{P}^{k+1}- (\mathbf{P}^*+(t-1)\mathbf{P}^k)\|^2.
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:t7}
\end{equation}
With the update rule $\mathbf{A}^{k} = \mathbf{P}^k + \frac{\sqrt{c} - 1}{\sqrt{c}+1}(\mathbf{P}^k - \mathbf{P}^{k-1})$ in Algorithm \ref{alg:3} and $t = \sqrt{c}$,
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{P}^k - \mathbf{P}^* + \frac{L-\sigma}{L-\sigma t} t(\mathbf{A}^k - \mathbf{P}^k)
\\
= &\mathbf{P}^k - \mathbf{P}^* + \frac{L-\sigma}{L-\sigma t}\frac{t(t-1)}{t+1}(\mathbf{P}^k - \mathbf{P}^{k-1})
\\
= &t\mathbf{P}^k-(\mathbf{P}^*+(t-1)\mathbf{P}^{k-1}).
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:t8}
\end{equation}
Since $L = \sigma t^2$, based on Eq.(\ref{eq:t7}) and Eq.(\ref{eq:t8}), divide both sides of the inequality by $t^2$, we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& V_{k+1} + \frac{\sigma}{2}\|t\mathbf{P}^{k+1}- (\mathbf{P}^*+(t-1)\mathbf{P}^k)\|^2 \\
\leq & (1-\frac{1}{t})(V_k + \frac{\sigma}{2}\|t\mathbf{P}^k - (\mathbf{P}^* + (t-1)\mathbf{P}^{k-1})\|^2).
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:t9}
\end{equation}
For $k =0$, with the initialization setting $\mathbf{A}^0 = \mathbf{P}^0$,
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{P}^0 - \mathbf{P}^* + \frac{L-\sigma}{L-\sigma t} t(\mathbf{A}^0 - \mathbf{P}^0) = \mathbf{P}^0 - \mathbf{P}^*,
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:t10}
\end{equation}
based on Eq.(\ref{eq:t9}), naturally we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& V_{k} + \frac{\sigma}{2}\|t\mathbf{P}^{k}- (\mathbf{P}^*+(t-1)\mathbf{P}^{k-1})\|^2 \\
\leq & (1-\frac{1}{t})^k(V_0 + \frac{\sigma}{2}\|\mathbf{P}^0 - \mathbf{P}^{*}\|^2).
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:t11}
\end{equation}
Thus we can get
$V_{k} \leq (1-\frac{1}{t})^k(V_0 + \frac{\sigma}{2}\|\mathbf{P}^0 - \mathbf{P}^{*}\|^2)$. The objective in Eq.(\ref{eq:obj}) is not guaranteed to be monotonically non-increasing due to the existence of the $\frac{\sigma}{2}\|t\mathbf{P}^k - (\mathbf{P}^* + (t-1)\mathbf{P}^{k-1})\|^2$ term, but in general we can expect it can achieve optimal solution with a linear convergence rate. Also, one can see that when the problem is well-conditioned, it converges faster, otherwise, it can be rather slow.
\end{proof}
\section{Experimental Results}\label{sec:exp}
\subsection{Experiment Setup}
\begin{table*}[ht]
\begin{center}
\caption{Regression tasks: generalization performance measures over ten runs}
\label{tab:1}
\scalebox{1}{
\begin{tabular}{*{7}{c}}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{Metric}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{Dataset}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{FedEM}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{DMTL}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{MTFL}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{MMTFL}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{OURS-NATURAL}}\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{VE ($\%$)}& School & 38.7$\pm$3.2 & 28.8$\pm$5.6 & 29.7$\pm$2.1
& 31.5$\pm$4.2 &\textbf{39.8$\pm$2.2}\\
& Sarcos & 51.2$\pm$12.1 & 42.6$\pm$7.3 & 49.2$\pm$5.1 & 49.9$\pm$2.7 & 51.8$\pm$6.6\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{nMSE ($\%$)}& School & 61.2$\pm$0.9 & 75.1$\pm$0.8 & 72.9$\pm$1.1 & 68.7$\pm$3.1 & \textbf{60.2$\pm$0.5}\\
& Sarcos & 15.7$\pm$3.1 & 20.9$\pm$0.8 & 19.1$\pm$2.7 & 17.1$\pm$2.2 &14.9$\pm$0.8\\
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{Metric}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{Dataset}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{MTRL}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{RMTL}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{CLMT}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{MKMTL}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{OURS-ART}}\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{VE ($\%$)}& School & 29.9$\pm$2.0 & 33.6$\pm$5.7 & 37.9$\pm$2.1 & 37.9$\pm$1.9 & \textbf{39.8$\pm$2.5}\\
& Sarcos & 42.5$\pm$8.2 & 49.9$\pm$7.2 & 50.1$\pm$9.9 & 50.1$\pm$1.7 & \textbf{51.9$\pm$6.2}\\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{nMSE ($\%$)}& School & 73.1$\pm$0.9 & 68.9$\pm$2.7 & 63.7$\pm$0.7 & 62.7$\pm$0.9 & \textbf{60.2$\pm$0.3}\\
& Sarcos & 17.9$\pm$0.7 & 15.6$\pm$0.3 & 16.2$\pm$0.6 & 15.7$\pm$0.5 & \textbf{14.7$\pm$0.9}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[ht]
\begin{center}
\caption{Classification tasks: generalization performance measures over ten runs}
\label{tab:2}
\scalebox{1}{
\begin{tabular}{*{7}{c}}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{Metric}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{Dataset}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{FedEM}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{DMTL}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{MTFL}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{MMTFL}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{OURS-NATURAL}}\\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{AUC ($\%$)}& Yale & 96.9$\pm$2.7 & 95.7$\pm$3.2 & 86.8$\pm$1.6 & 92.7$\pm$1.1 & \textbf{97.7$\pm$1.7}\\
& MNIST & \textbf{98.1$\pm$3.2} & 90.9$\pm$3.1 & 91.2$\pm$1.9 & 91.5$\pm$2.3 & 96.5$\pm$1.2\\
& Letter & 63.2$\pm$2.9 & 61.9$\pm$1.8 & 62.1$\pm$2.2 & 61.8$\pm$1.8 & 63.5$\pm$1.1\\
& ORL & 81.3$\pm$5.8 & 72.9$\pm$3.7 & 77.2$\pm$5.2 & 77.9$\pm$3.2 & 82.5$\pm$2.2\\
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{Metric}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{Dataset}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{MTRL}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{RMTL}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{CLMT}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{MKMTL}} &
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{OURS-ART}}\\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{AUC ($\%$)}& Yale & 96.1$\pm$3.5 & 97.2$\pm$1.9 & 96.7$\pm$2.3 & 95.7$\pm$1.8 & \textbf{97.7$\pm$1.7}\\
& MNIST & 93.7$\pm$7.1 & 92.5$\pm$3.1 & 94.7$\pm$3.8 & 93.2$\pm$5.2 & 97.6$\pm$1.2\\
& Letter & 60.3$\pm$2.1 & 62.7$\pm$3.6 & 61.5$\pm$7.2 & 60.9$\pm$7.1 & \textbf{65.5$\pm$1.3}\\
& ORL & 77.6$\pm$3.9 & 80.2$\pm$9.1 & 78.9$\pm$6.3 & 78.8$\pm$3.2 & \textbf{84.3$\pm$1.8}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\subfigure[Yale]{\label{fig:11}\includegraphics[width=55mm]{rocYale.pdf}}
\subfigure[MNIST]{\label{fig:12}\includegraphics[width=55mm]{rocMnist.pdf}}
\subfigure[ORL]{\label{fig:13}\includegraphics[width=55mm]{rocORL.pdf}}
\caption{The ROC curve for Yale, MNIST, ORL dataset with tuned parameters.}
\label{fig:roc}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\subfigure[AUC, Yale]{\label{fig:21}\includegraphics[width=41mm]{aucYale.pdf}}
\subfigure[AUC, ORL]{\label{fig:22}\includegraphics[width=41mm]{aucORL.pdf}}
\subfigure[VE, School]{\label{fig:23}\includegraphics[width=41mm]{varianceSchool.pdf}}
\subfigure[nMSE, School]{\label{fig:24}\includegraphics[width=41mm]{NMSESCHOOL.pdf}}
\caption{Ablation study -- the influence of regularization parameters on learning performance.}
\label{fig:cubic}
\end{figure*}
We compare the experimental results of the following MTL algorithms with our method:
FedEM~\cite{marfoq2021federated},
DMTL~\cite{jalali2010dirty},
MTFL~\cite{jawanpuria2012convex},
MMTFL~\cite{wang2014multiplicative},
MTRL~\cite{zhang2012convex},
RMTL~\cite{chen2011integrating},
CLMT~\cite{ciliberto2015convex},
MKMTL~\cite{liu2018linearized}.
The empirical studies are conducted on the following benchmark multi-task regression and classification datasets:
\textbf{School}~\cite{cortez2008using}: there are exam scores of 15362 students from 139 schools in the dataset, each student is described with 28 attributes. Thus there are 139 related tasks,
each sample has 28 features along with 1 output. We aim to perform multi-task regression to predict exam scores.
\textbf{Sarcos}~\cite{vijayakumar2005incremental}: it is collected for an inverse dynamics prediction problem for a seven degrees-of-freedom robot arm. The number of related tasks is 7, and there are 21 features for each sample. Following the work in~\cite{zhang2009semi} we sample 2000 random samples for each task.
\textbf{Yale}: it contains 165 images from 15 subjects, each image is scaled to 32 $\times$ 32 pixels. We use the first 8 subjects from it to construct related tasks, each task is defined as a binary classification problem of classifying two subjects, there are 28 binary classification tasks.
\textbf{MNIST}~\cite{lecun-mnisthandwrittendigit-2010}: we use a subset from the MNIST dataset with 10000 samples of 10 handwritten digits. We cast the multi-task learning as 45 binary classification tasks to classify pairs of digits.
\textbf{Letter}~\cite{Dua:2019}: it consists of handwritten letters from different writers, we construct 8 binary classification tasks from it to distinguish between pairs of letters.
\textbf{ORL}~\cite{samariaproceedings}: there are 10 different images of 40 distinct subjects. What's different for the ORL dataset is we construct 40 one-vs-all multi-class classification tasks from it rather than one-vs-one binary classification.
During the experiment process, each dataset is randomly split into a training set and a test set. In all classification tasks, the data is split according to a rough 60$\%$-40$\%$ training-test split ratio, in the School regression task 20 random samples are used for training, and in the Sarcos regression task, 50 random samples are selected for training and the rest for testing. The prior knowledge matrix $\mathbf{D}$ can be initialized based on known prior, our common sense, and the correlation among features obtained with statistical methods. In the experiment, we have two methods to obtain the required $\mathbf{D}$: the first method is to utilize the natural correlation among features, we calculate the covariance matrix for all the features, and select the strongest ones as the information contained in $\mathbf{D}$, we call the prior knowledge matrix obtained in this way the $\mathbf{natural}$ $\mathbf{D}$; the second method is we create the strong correlation among features manually by appending features repeatedly on purpose, for example, we transform the original feature $(x_1,x_2,x_3)$ into $(x_1, x_2, x_3,x_1)$ to enhance the correlation among features (this may introduce multicollinearity, but since we only care about the predictive result, it should be fine), the matrix obtained is called as the $\mathbf{artificial}$ $\mathbf{D}$.
Parameters in all the methods are tuned using 5-fold cross-validation, and for each method, we stop the experiment when the objective change is $< 10^{-3}$. We use Matlab R2019a on a laptop with a 1.4 GHz QuadCore Intel Core i5 processor.
\subsection{Results}
Results of the experiment are presented in Table \ref{tab:1} and Table \ref{tab:2}, for regression tasks and classification tasks respectively, our method with a natural $\mathbf{D}$ is denoted as OURS-NATURAL, with an artificial $\mathbf{D}$ is denoted as OURS-ART. In OURS-ART, we manually repeat about 5\% features to construct $\mathbf{D}$. In the case of regression tasks, we report the variance explained (VE) and the normalized mean squared error (nMSE) following previous studies~\cite{chen2011integrating, jawanpuria2012convex}, whereas the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) are employed as the classification performance measurements as used in previous studies~\cite{chen2011integrating, jawanpuria2012convex}. ROC curves show the performance of a binary classification model at all classification thresholds by plotting the true positive rate against the false positive rate. Higher explained variance and AUC indicate better performance, and the opposite for nMSE reported. Each experiment with one specific dataset is repeated 10 times and we report the averaged performance and the standard deviation, the best performances are in \textbf{bold}.
In Table \ref{tab:1} and Table \ref{tab:2}, our method can achieve the best performance in most cases, while the FedEM method achieves better results with the MNIST dataset. The reason perhaps is that neural networks still have unique advantages when dealing with large-scale complex image datasets, and prior knowledge about features is hard to establish with complex image data. Also, in regression tasks, our method works well with both natural prior knowledge and artificial prior knowledge. In image classification tasks, the improvement in performance with artificial prior knowledge matrices is more significant than that with natural ones, the reason may be due to the fact that the natural correlations between features in regression tasks are stronger than those involved in image classification tasks.
We present the ROC curves with a natural prior knowledge matrix for the classification tasks on Yale, MNIST, and ORL datasets in Figure \ref{fig:roc}, the slim colorful lines are the ROC curves for each task, and the weighted black line is the averaged ROC curve over all the tasks, and the green area represents the range between the mean $\pm$ standard deviation. While for each dataset there is a small number of tasks with performances that are not so perfect on some level, the overall performance is satisfactory with a pretty high AUC, and the mean $-$ standard deviation curve is almost always over the diagonal line, especially for the one-vs-one classification tasks on Yale and MNIST.
We also provide Figure \ref{fig:cubic} to illustrate the influence of regularization parameters. With a super wide tuning range for each parameter, which is from 1 to 100, the effect of each parameter on the performance is not significant until the value reaches a threshold, there is a generous range for each parameter to be able to provide stable and great performance.
We can roughly draw the conclusion that for classification tasks, no matter whether it’s one-vs-one binary classification tasks or one-vs-all binary classification tasks, the values of regularization parameters have a marginal influence on the results as long as the value is within a reasonable range. While in a regression situation the performance is much more sensitive to the value of parameters, especially to the group Lasso penalty parameter, which is in accordance with common sense that under-fitting happens with large regularization term parameters.
\section{Conclusion}
We propose a convex formulation of multi-task learning problem utilizing prior information. A novel optimization algorithm to solve the formulated problem with a linear convergence rate is proposed with theoretical guarantee instead of sub-linear rate of the counterparts. Results on benchmark datasets with both regression and classification tasks demonstrate the effectiveness and advantages of our proposed multi-task learning formulation and algorithm. Identifying outlier tasks using the framework will be left to our future work.
\section{Introduction}
Over past decades, Multi-Task Learning (MTL)~\cite{caruana1997multitask} has attracted great interest and has been applied successfully in various research areas, including computer vision~\cite{quadrianto2010multitask}, health informatics~\cite{malhotra2022multi}, and natural language processing~\cite{clark2019bam}, etc. MTL aims to boost the generalization performance of multiple related tasks simultaneously by leveraging potentially useful information contained in those related tasks. Generally speaking, the objective of a MTL problem can be formulated as:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:mtl}
\min_\mathbf{W}\sum_{i = 1}^m\|\mathbf{X}_i \mathbf{w}_i - \mathbf{y}_i\|^2,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{W} = [\mathbf{w}_1, \dots, \mathbf{w}_m]$ is the matrix formed by the weight vectors of $m$ tasks, $\mathbf{X}_i$ denotes the input feature matrix for the $i$-th task, $y_i$ is the corresponding response. Based on the above objective with the goal of minimizing the overall error across all the tasks, previous studies have been done to improve the performance by identifying the intrinsic relationships among tasks~\cite{vithayathil2020survey}, such as a common set of features they share, and some outlier tasks which are in fact not related with other tasks. Existing methods focusing on finding common feature sets can be classified into two major categories: explicit parameter sharing, where all the tasks share some common coefficients explicitly~\cite{ando2005framework}, and implicit structure sharing, which captures the shared structure among tasks implicitly by constraining a common low-rank subspace~\cite{negahban2011estimation}.
Some studies also perform outlier task detection~\cite{kang2011learning} at the same time.
One key observation which is ignored by previous studies is: the prior knowledge regarding different features relationship is not taken into account, which can play an important role in feature selection. For instance, expertise knowledge may indicate two features have a similar influence on the response, therefore the correspondent coefficients should be close to each other, while two features having opposite influences should have significantly different coefficients. Besides, for common features in related tasks, coefficients for the same feature should not change dramatically across tasks. Such prior information is reasonable and not difficult to obtain when we deal with real-world data where each feature denotes a certain property of the data and relationships between different features can be inferred without much cost.
Another shortcoming of previous MTL studies targeting optimizing Eq.(\ref{eq:mtl}) is the slow convergence rate. In short, gradient descent requires $\mathcal{O}(\frac{1}{\epsilon})$ iterations to achieve $\epsilon$ accuracy, while momentum based methods will not exceed $\mathcal{O}(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon}})$, which is still sub-linear convergence rate. To accelerate the convergence asymptotically and in light of the objective by adding the regularization terms described above, we propose a novel updating algorithm that enjoys a linear convergence rate
with $\mathcal{O}(log(\frac{1}{\epsilon}))$ iterations. One can see its advantage over its counterparts when $\epsilon$ becomes sufficiently small in terms of fewer iterations to obtain $\epsilon$ precision
We explicitly list the main contributions of this paper as:
\begin{itemize}
\item We add a regularization term based on prior information to obtain more accurate coefficients for related tasks. We impose an extra constraint on the coefficients' changing for the same features among related tasks, which will lead the coefficients for the same features to change smoothly across similar tasks.
\item We present three methods to optimize the MTL with prior information objective, including the vanilla gradient descent with a fixed stepsize, the iterative shrinkage thresholding algorithm (ISTA) with modified stepsize searching~\cite{beck2009fast}, and a novel algorithm with linear convergence rate, which is proved to have comparable speed with the fast iterative shrinkage thresholding algorithm (FISTA) with backtracking~\cite{beck2009fast} in experiments.
We also provide the linear convergence rate proof of our proposed algorithm, validating the superiority of our new algorithm in terms of speed accelerating in the setting of MTL with prior information.
\item We conduct empirical experiments with real-world data, the experiment results demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed algorithm.
\end{itemize}
The remaining of this paper is organized as follows: In Section \ref{sec:problem} we introduce the problem formulation of our proposed MTL with prior information. In Section \ref{sec:opt}, we present the three methods to solve the optimization problem we formulated. Detailed proof of the convergence rate of our proposed algorithm in the MTL scenario is provided in Section \ref{sec:conv}. In Section \ref{sec:exp} we demonstrate the experimental results on both regression and classification tasks, showing the good performance of our proposed algorithm in MTL.
Before we start to formulate the problem, we first introduce some notations throughout the paper in advance for clarity and simplicity. Scalars, vectors, and matrices are denoted by lower case letters, bold lower case letters, and bold capital letters, respectively. $x_i$ denotes the $i$-th entry of a vector $\mathbf{x}$, $x_{ij}$ denotes the ($i$, $j$)-th entry of a matrix $\mathbf{X}$. For the $i$-th row in a matrix $\mathbf{X}$, we use $\mathbf{x}^i$, and for the $i$-th column we use $\mathbf{x}_i$.
The $l_{p,q}$-norm of a matrix $\mathbf{X}$ is defined as $\|\mathbf{X}\|_{p,q} = (\sum_i ((\sum_j x_{ij}^p)^{1/p})^q)^{1/q}$. The inner product of matrices $\mathbf{X}$ and $\mathbf{Y}$ is denoted as $\langle\mathbf{X}$, $\mathbf{Y}\rangle$. $\| \cdot \|_F$ represents the Frobenius norm. $\mathbf{P}^k$ denotes the $\mathbf{P}$ matrix we obtain in the $k$-th iteration, $\eta_{Pk}$ denotes the stepsize of $\mathbf{P}$ in the $k$-th iteration, $prox()$ denotes the proximal operator.
\section{Optimization Algorithm}\label{sec:opt}
In this section, we will show how to solve the problem formulated in Eq.(\ref{eq:obj}) with multiple methods.
Obviously, it is a nonsmooth convex problem due to the existence of the group Lasso regularization term. To handle this, we can decompose Eq.(\ref{eq:obj}) into two parts:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
f(\mathbf{P}) & = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i = 1}^m\|\mathbf{X}_i \mathbf{p}_i - \mathbf{y}_i\|^2
+ \frac{1}{2} \theta \|\mathbf{D} \mathbf{P}\|_F^2 \\
& + \frac{1}{2}\epsilon \sum_{i=1}^{m-1} \|\mathbf{p}_i - \mathbf{p}_{i+1}\|^2,
\end{split}
\label{eq:diff}
\end{align}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
g(\mathbf{P}) = \lambda \|\mathbf{P}\|_{2,1},
\label{eq:nondiff}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
thus
\begin{equation}
F(\mathbf{P}) = f(\mathbf{P}) + g(\mathbf{P}),
\label{eq:combined}
\end{equation}
where $f(\mathbf{P})$ is a smooth differential strongly-convex function, $g(\mathbf{P})$ is a nondifferential convex function. Without loss of generality, let $s_{min}^i, s_{max}^i, d_{min}, d_{max}$ denote the minimum and maximum singular value of $\mathbf{X}_i^T\mathbf{X}_i$ and $\mathbf{D}^T\mathbf{D}$, respectively, the Lipschitz constant $L_P$ of $f(\mathbf{P})$ can be calculated as $max_i(s_{max}^i) + \theta \cdot d_{max} + 2\epsilon$, and the strongly-convex constant $\sigma_P$ can be calculated as $min_i(s_{min}^i) + \theta \cdot d_{min} + \epsilon$.
Following the basic approximation model in~\cite{zhang2022rethinking}, given the Taylor expansion of $f(\mathbf{P})$ at $(\mathbf{A})$ is
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
T_{\mathbf{A}, \eta_P}(\mathbf{P}) = f(\mathbf{A}) + \langle \nabla f(\mathbf{A}), \mathbf{P} - \mathbf{A} \rangle + \frac{\eta_P}{2}\|\mathbf{P} - \mathbf{A}\|_F^2,
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:taylor}
\end{equation}
we can minimize $F(\mathbf{P})$ via minimizing its quadratic approximation $M_{\mathbf{A}, \eta_P}(\mathbf{P})$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathop{\rm arg\,min}_{\mathbf{P}} M_{\mathbf{A}, \eta_P}(\mathbf{P}) = \mathop{\rm arg\,min}_{\mathbf{P}} T_{\mathbf{A}, \eta_P}(\mathbf{P}) + g(\mathbf{P}),
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:qua}
\end{equation}
which admits a unique minimizer for any $\eta_P > 0$. Moreover, as long as $\eta_P \ge L_p$, then $M_{\mathbf{A}, \eta_P}(\mathbf{P})$ is a majorization function w.r.t $F(\mathbf{P})$, therefore we can leverage majorize-minimization (\textit{\textbf{MM}}) to optimize $\mathbf{P}$.
Therefore we can get the following optimization problem:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{P} & = \mathop{\rm arg\,min}_\mathbf{P} f(\mathbf{A}) + \langle \nabla f(\mathbf{A}), \mathbf{P} - \mathbf{A} \rangle
+ \frac{\eta_P}{2}\|\mathbf{P} - \mathbf{A}\|_F^2 + \lambda \|\mathbf{P}\|_{2,1}\\
& = \mathop{\rm arg\,min}_\mathbf{P} \frac{\eta_P}{2}\|\mathbf{P} - (\mathbf{A} - \frac{1}{\eta_P}\nabla f(\mathbf{A}))\|_F^2 + \lambda \|\mathbf{P}\|_{2,1},
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:p}
\end{equation}
which leads to a closed proximal operator of rows in $\mathbf{P}$ with the following closed-form solution~\cite{liu2019spherical}:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{U} = \mathbf{A} - \frac{1}{\eta_P} \nabla f(\mathbf{A}), \\
& \mathbf{p}^i = prox_{\eta_P}(\mathbf{u^i}) = \max (0, 1- \frac{\lambda}{\eta_P \|\mathbf{u}^i\|})\mathbf{u}^i.
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:pi}
\end{equation}
We propose three methods to solve the problem above, including the vanilla gradient descent method with constant stepsize, ISTA with modified stepsize searching, and an algorithm proposed by us with a linear convergence rate.
In vanilla gradient descent with constant stepsize, the optimal solution at the $k$-th iteration is obtained by solving the following problem
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{P}^k = \mathop{\rm arg\,min}_\mathbf{P} M_{\mathbf{P}^{k-1}, \eta_P}(\mathbf{P})
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:vanilla}
\end{equation}
with an appropriate stepsize $1/\eta_P$. We can verify that the objective has a sufficient decrease when we set $\eta_P$ as the Lipschitz constant $L_P$ of $f(\mathbf{P})$ with regards to $\mathbf{P}$. The algorithm is summarized in Algorithm \ref{alg:1}.
\begin{algorithm}[tb]
\caption{Vanilla Gradient Descent Method with Constant Stepsize}
\label{alg:1}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE {\bfseries Input:} $\eta_P = L_P$.
\STATE {\bfseries Initialization:} $\mathbf{P}^0$
\REPEAT
\STATE \textbf{1}. Set $\mathbf{A} = \mathbf{P}^{k-1}$.
\STATE \textbf{2}. Calculate $\mathbf{P}^k$ according to Eq.(\ref{eq:pi}).
\UNTIL{convergence}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
While it is guaranteed that the objective in Eq.(\ref{eq:obj}) is monotonically non-increasing with vanilla gradient descent, an obvious drawback of using $1/L_P$ as the constant stepsize is it is too small to achieve an optimal result rapidly. To improve it, we can apply ISTA with modified stepsize searching. In the previous work about ISTA with backtracking, $\eta_{P0}> 0$ and $\beta_P > 1$ are initialized randomly and we need to find the smallest non-negative integer $i_k$ such that with $\eta_{P} = \beta_P^{i_k}\eta_{P^{k-1}}$ we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
F(prox_{\eta_P}(\mathbf{P}^{k-1}))
\leq M_{\mathbf{P^{k-1}}, \eta_P}(prox_{\eta_P}(\mathbf{P}^{k-1})).
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:step}
\end{equation}
One potential flaw in the ISTA with the conventional backtracking method described above lies in the initialization of $\eta_0$. It is possible that the value of $\eta_0$ at the very first step is already larger than the actual Lipschitz constant $L$, and the starting step size is already too small to have fast convergence. And the stepsize $\eta_k$ searching in the $k_{th}$ iteration always starts from $\eta_{k-1}$, thus there may be a larger stepsize available satisfying the condition Eq.(\ref{eq:step}) in the $k_{th}$ iteration that cannot be discovered by this searching process. For this reason, we do the stepsize searching reversely starting from setting $\eta_0$ to its Lipschitz constant $L$, then we keep shrinking it until Eq.(\ref{eq:step}) is not satisfied in terms of $\mathbf{P}$ in the optimization process, which is
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
F(prox_{\eta_P}(\mathbf{P}^{k-1})) > M_{\mathbf{P^{k-1}}, \eta_P}(prox_{\eta_P}(\mathbf{P}^{k-1})),
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:istap}
\end{equation}
in this way, we are able to find the largest stepsize meeting the condition in each iteration.
By updating as Algorithm \ref{alg:2}, the objective is decreasing much faster than vanilla gradient descent with constant step size.
\begin{algorithm}[tb]
\caption{ISTA with Modified stepsize Searching}
\label{alg:2}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE {\bfseries Input:} $\eta_{P0} = L_P, 0 < \beta_P < 1$.
\STATE {\bfseries Initialization:} $\mathbf{P}^0$
\REPEAT
\STATE \textbf{1}. Find the smallest integer $i_k$ such that
with $\eta_{P} = \beta_P^{i_k}\eta_{P0}$
Eq. (\ref{eq:istap}) is satisfied.
Set $\eta_{Pk} = \eta_{P} / \beta_P$.
\STATE \textbf{3}. With $\mathbf{A} = \mathbf{P}^{k-1}, \eta_P = \eta_{Pk}$,
calculate $\mathbf{P}^k$ according to Eq.(\ref{eq:pi}).
\UNTIL{convergence}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
While ISTA converges faster than vanilla gradient descent with constant stepsize, the convergence rate is still sub-linear (including FISTA), therefore we propose a new algorithm to solve the multi-task learning problem in Eq.(\ref{eq:p}) with a linear convergence rate, utilizing the strongly-convex property of $f(\mathbf{P})$. As we said before, all the parameters $\lambda, \theta, \epsilon$ are nonnegative, thus we are able to guarantee that $f(\mathbf{P})$ in Eq.(\ref{eq:diff}) is strongly-convex with $\sigma_P$, and Lipschitz smooth with $L_P$.
The algorithm is summarized as Algorithm \ref{alg:3}.
\begin{algorithm}[tb]
\caption{Fast Algorithm with Linear Convergence rate}
\label{alg:3}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE {\bfseries Input:} $\eta_P = L_P, c = \frac{L_P}{\sigma_P}$.
\STATE {\bfseries Initialization:} $\mathbf{P}^0$, set $\mathbf{A}^0 = \mathbf{P}^0$
\REPEAT
\STATE \textbf{1}.
calculate $\mathbf{P}^k$ according to Eq.(\ref{eq:pi}).
\STATE \textbf{2}. Update $\mathbf{A}^{k} = \mathbf{P}^k
+ \frac{\sqrt{c} - 1}{\sqrt{c}+1}(\mathbf{P}^k - \mathbf{P}^{k-1})$
\UNTIL{convergence}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
By updating as Algorithm \ref{alg:3}, although the objective in Eq.(\ref{eq:obj}) is not guaranteed to be monotonically non-increasing, in general it can achieve an optimal solution with a higher convergence rate compared with Algorithm \ref{alg:1} and Algorithm \ref{alg:2}.
Figure \ref{fig:compare} shows the objective versus the number of iterations in five algorithms with a synthetic dataset. We can see that ISTA with our modified stepsize searching converges faster than ISTA with backtracking in~\cite{beck2009fast}, and the new algorithm we proposed generally converges faster than FISTA with backtracking in~\cite{beck2009fast}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{compare1.pdf}
\caption{Objective plot in five algorithms.}
\label{fig:compare}
\end{figure}
\section{Problem Formulation}\label{sec:problem}
In MTL, we are given $m$ learning tasks associated with the input data $\{\mathbf{X}_1, \dots, \mathbf{X}_m\}$ and the corresponding responses $\{\mathbf{y}_1, \dots, \mathbf{y}_m\}$, where $\mathbf{X}_i \in \mathbb{R}^{n_i \times d}$ with each row as a sample, and $\mathbf{y}_i \in \mathbb{R}^{n_i \times 1}$. $d$ is the number of features in each task, and $n_i$ is the number of samples in the $i_{th}$ task. For each task, we aim to learn a vector of coefficients $\mathbf{p}_i$ such that $\mathbf{y}_i \approx \mathbf{X}_i \mathbf{p}_i$, the matrix $\mathbf{P}$ is formed by the m coefficient vectors as $\mathbf{P} = [\mathbf{p}_1, \dots, \mathbf{p}_m] \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times m}$.
Assume we have some prior knowledge about the relationships between features, we are able to construct a matrix $\mathbf{D}$ to contain such prior information, in this way the regularization term $\|\mathbf{D} \mathbf{P}\|_F^2$ is able to force that the learned coefficients are in accordance with the given prior information. To give a straightforward illustration of how it works, we provide an example as follows: suppose we have some prior knowledge regarding features, say the $i_{th}$ feature and the $j_{th}$ feature have a similar influence on the response, then accordingly the corresponding coefficients should be close, namely $\|\mathbf{p}^i-\mathbf{p}^j\|$ should be small. In practice, there can be various such feature relationship constraints (say $s$), by following the above we can formulate the constraint as
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
& \sum_{t=1}^{s}\|\mathbf{p}^{i(t)}-\mathbf{p}^{j(t)}\|^2= \\
& \left\| \underbrace{\begin{bmatrix}
d_{11} & \dots & d_{1d}\\
\vdots & \ddots & \dots\\
d_{s1} & \dots & d_{sd}
\end{bmatrix}}_{\mathbf{D}} \cdot
\begin{bmatrix}
p_{11} & \dots & p_{1m}\\
\vdots & \ddots & \dots\\
p_{d1} & \dots & p_{dm}
\end{bmatrix} \right\|_F^2,
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $i(t)$ and $j(t)$ denote the indices in $t$-th constraint and each row in $\mathbf{D}$ all elements are 0's except a pair of $\{1,-1\}$ indexed by $i(t)$ and $j(t)$.
Furthermore, related tasks sharing a common set of features should have similar coefficients for each feature, thus we can integrate the term $\|\mathbf{p}_i - \mathbf{p}_{i+1}\|^2$ in the objective to ensure the smoothness of coefficients' changing between two adjacent tasks (such as a temporal task).
Combined together, our multi-task learning with prior information is formulated as follows:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\min_{\mathbf{P}} & \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i = 1}^m\|\mathbf{X}_i \mathbf{p}_i - \mathbf{y}_i\|^2 + \lambda \|\mathbf{P}\|_{2,1} \\
& + \frac{1}{2} \theta \|\mathbf{D} \mathbf{P}\|_F^2
+ \frac{1}{2}\epsilon \sum_{i=1}^{m-1} \|\mathbf{p}_i - \mathbf{p}_{i+1}\|^2,
\label{eq:obj}
\end{split}
\end{align}
where all the parameters $\lambda, \theta, \epsilon$ are nonnegative. Specifically, the first term is the empirical loss, while the following $l_{2,1}$-norm regularization term is based on the group Lasso penalty~\cite{liu2019learning,liu2019visual}, which is applied to the rows of $\mathbf{P}$ to identify a common set of features~\footnote{One can also change the group Lasso to Nuclear norm ($\|\mathbf{P}\|_*=\sum_i\sigma_i(\mathbf{P})$) to obtain the low-rank property of $\mathbf{P}$, the whole general process remains the same except the proximal solution changing to $SVT$ (Singular Value Thresholding) in Eq.~(\ref{eq:p}).}. The last two regularization terms are aiming to obtain a $\mathbf{P}$ that is consistent with given prior information. From the problem formulation, it's easy to see we have the beneficial fact that the smooth part in the objective function is strongly-convex.
|
\section{Introduction}
Quantum chromodynamics (QCD) is the fundamental theory to describe strong interaction among quarks and gluons.
However, due to its non-perturbative properties under the hadron energy scale, one cannot get the hadron-hadron interaction through QCD in the framework of perturbation theory,
i.e., it is unavailable to extract the hadron-hadron interaction directly from the quarks and gluons.
Until now, since the analytical mathematical method for non-perturbation is still missing, it is sufficient for the effective way to extract the hadron information from experimental data.
In phenomenology, establishing a clear hadron spectrum is the promise to understand the low-energy behavior of strong interaction, including the properties of hadron mass, lifetime or width, spin, parity and so on.
In order to obtain such informations, it is necessary to analyze the final state invariant mass and angular distributions by partial wave analysis (PWA) which is, in principle, a model-independent approach.
PWA is a standard method to extract quantum numbers from invariant mass and angular distributions, which can project the scattering amplitude to several parts with definite orbital angular momentum $L$ and spin $S$ quantum numbers.
There are several PWA formalisms, including multipole analysis~\cite{Wennstrom:1968mkp,Cutkosky:1979zv,Arndt:1989ww,Hanstein:1997tp}, helicity formalism~\cite{Jacob:1959at,Chung:1993da}, covariant effective Lagrangian approach~\cite{Liang:2002tk}, covariant $L$-$S$ scheme~\cite{Zou:2002ar,Zou:2002yy,Dulat:2011rn} and so on.
Among all of these methods, we found the covariant $L$-$S$ scheme have several unique benefits.
Comparing to the helicity formalism, it keeps the Lorentz covariance which promises to applied this scheme in various cascade decays easily.
Furthermore, the fixed $L$ will help to distinguish the contributions from different partial wave amplitudes.
It was the first time that this scheme was proposed to describe the partial wave amplitude of $\psi$-Meson-Meson $(\psi MM)$~\cite{Zou:2002ar} and (Excited Nucleon)-Nucleon-Meson (or photon) $N^*NM (N^*N\gamma)$~\cite{Zou:2002yy, Dulat:2011rn}, which is the main PWA method used in BESIII group.
In previous works~\cite{Zou:2002ar,Zou:2002yy,Dulat:2011rn} of the covariant $L$-$S$ scheme, a general formula for all cases is lacking.
Especially for the high half-integer spin cases, only examples are provided, e.g., the coupling of one meson and two fermions with three-half spins is missing.
In this paper, a general theoretical framework of covariant $L$-$S$ scheme has been developed.
By using irreducible tensors (ir.tens) of the homogeneous proper Lorentz group ($L_p$) and its little groups, one can obtain all possible Lorentz covariant coupling structures among particles with arbitrary spin and any given orbital-spin ($L$-$S$) quantum numbers.
For convenience, the panorama of deriving partial wave amplitude through our method are shown in fig.~\ref{fig:flowchart}.
This paper is organized as follows.
In section~\ref{sec:covariant_LS_irten}, we systematically introduce a general form of three-particle Lorentz covariant partial wave amplitude.
In section~\ref{sec:app}, three examples are given --- one for process with bosons, one for process including fermions and one for process including massless particles.
In section~\ref{sec:summary}, a brief summary is given.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{color_chart}
\caption{The panorama of deriving partial wave amplitude by using covariant $L$-$S$ scheme.}
\label{fig:flowchart}
\end{figure}
\section{The General Framework of Covariant Orbital-Spin Scheme}
\label{sec:covariant_LS_irten}
\subsection{General form of covariant $L$-$S$ scheme}
\label{sec:covariant_General}
In this section, we will make a general discussion on Lorentz covariant partial wave amplitudes.
To ensure the Lorentz covariance of scattering amplitudes, the coupling structures (amplitudes without spin wave functions of external particles) of $n$-particle vertex amplitudes is an order-$n$ covariant tensor (cov.ten).
In fact, any cov.ten can be decomposed into ir.tens, and any ir.ten can be expressed by order-3 ir.tens (one may see appendix~\ref{appd:irrep_and_irten} for a brief discussion).
Correspondingly, in physical side, the multi-particle vertex can be derived recursively by the three-particle vertex.
Thus, in this work, we will focus on the coupling structure of three-particle system.
The vertex amplitude of three-particle interaction (e.g., consider a process of $1\to 2+3$)\footnote{It is worth pointing out that due to the crossing symmetry, a Lorentz covariant three-particle vertex amplitude can describe many different processes, such as $1\to2+3$ and $2\to1+3$.
%
However, when discussing the partial wave amplitude, for a given Lorentz covariant coupling structure, the partial wave components contained in the amplitude of different processes connected by crossing symmetry are generally different.
%
See appendix~\ref{appd_LS_decomposition} for some examples.}
with arbitrary spin can be written in the following general form,
\begin{equation}
{\cal A}_{\sigma_1}^{\sigma_2\sigma_3}\left(\mathbf{p}_1,\mathbf{p}_2,\mathbf{p}_3;s_1,s_2,s_3\right) = \Gamma^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}}_{\alpha^{s_1}}\left(\mathbf{p}_1,\mathbf{p}_2,\mathbf{p}_3\right) \,\bar{u}_{\sigma_1}^{\alpha^{s_1}}(\mathbf{p}_1;s_1)\, u^{\sigma_2}_{\alpha^{s_2}}(\mathbf{p}_2;s_2)\, u^{\sigma_3}_{\alpha^{s_3}}(\mathbf{p}_3;s_3),
\label{eq:any_spin_j_general}
\end{equation}
where $u_{\sigma_i}^{\alpha^{s_i}}(\mathbf{p}_i;s_i)/\bar{u}_{\sigma_i}^{\alpha^{s_i}}(\mathbf{p}_i;s_i)$ is the covariant/inverse spin wave function of the $i$-th particle with a Lorentz covariant index $\alpha^{s_i}$ carrying the representation of the homogeneous proper lorentz group ($L_p$), total spin $s_i$, spin polarization component $\sigma_i$, and the three momentum $\mathbf{p}_i$;
$\Gamma^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}}_{\alpha^{s_1}}(\mathbf{p}_1,\mathbf{p}_2,\mathbf{p}_3)$ is an order-3 cov.ten which makes the amplitude invariant with any Lorentz transformation; we adopt Einstein's summation rule, the repeated indices represent summation.
For convenience, we will drop $s_1$, $s_2$ and $s_3$ for ${\cal A}$ in the rest of this paper.
The aim of $L$-$S$ scheme is to decompose the full amplitude as terms with fixed angular momentum ($L$) and the total spin ($S$) of two final particles.
There are three steps to realize it.
At the first step, we need to separate the continuous part labeled by momentum $\mathbf{p}$ from the discrete part labeled by spin $s$ in the spin wave function as follows,
\begin{align}
u^{\sigma}_{\alpha}(\mathbf{p};s)= D_{\alpha}^{~~\beta}\left(h_{\mathbf{p}}\right)\,
u^{\sigma}_{\beta}(\mathbf{k};s),
\label{eq:any_spin_general_U}
\end{align}
where $h_\mathbf{p}\left(\in L_p\right)$ is a pure-boost Lorentz transformation;
and $u^{\sigma}_{\alpha}(\mathbf{k};s)$ is the spin wave function in the \emph{standard-momentum frame}.
The standard-momentum is labeled as $k^{\mu}=\left(k^0,\mathbf{k}\right)$ (e.g., it is convenient to choose rest frame for a massive particle).
As a result, $u^{\sigma}_{\alpha}(\mathbf{k};s)$ does not contain any continuous degrees of freedom, which just describes a particle's the intrinsic property, spin.
Since $S$ and $L$ are defined in the standard-momentum frame of particle-$1$, i.e., $\mathbf{p}_1=\mathbf{k}_1$, the amplitude of eq.~\eqref{eq:any_spin_j_general} becomes
\begin{align}
{\cal A}_{\sigma_1}^{\sigma_2\sigma_3}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3) =&\, \underbrace{\Gamma^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}}_{\alpha^{s_1}}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3) \,D_{\alpha^{s_2}}^{~~\beta^{s_2}}\left(h_{\mathbf{p}^*_2}\right)\, D_{\alpha^{s_3}}^{~~\beta^{s_3}}\,\left(h_{\mathbf{p}^*_3}\right)}_{\text{pure-orbitial part}}~\times\notag\\
&\,\underbrace{\bar{u}_{\sigma_1}^{\alpha^{s_1}}(\mathbf{k}_1;s_1)\,u^{\sigma_2}_{\beta^{s_2}}(\mathbf{k}_2;s_2)\,u^{\sigma_3}_{\beta^{s_3}}(\mathbf{k}_3;s_3)}_{\text{pure-spin part}},
\label{eq:any_spin_general_LS_1_rest}
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{p}^*_2$ and $\mathbf{p}^*_3$ are the three-momenta of particle-2 and particle-3 in the standard-momentum frame of particle-1, respectively.
At the second step, we will decompose above amplitude as the terms with fixed $L$ and $S$ quantum numbers.
The pure-spin part can be kept but we need spin projection tensors to pick out fixed $S$ of two final states, while the pure-orbital part will be divided by fixed $L$.
Thus, the Lorentz covariant partial wave amplitude can be expressed as follows,
\begin{align}
{\cal A}_{\sigma_1}^{\sigma_2\sigma_3}\left(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;L,S\right)=\, \Gamma_{\alpha^{s_1}}^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;L,S)\,
\bar{u}_{\sigma_1}^{\alpha^{s_1}}(\mathbf{k}_1;s_1)\,u^{\sigma_2}_{\alpha^{s_2}}(\mathbf{k}_2;s_2)\,u^{\sigma_3}_{\alpha^{s_3}}(\mathbf{k}_3;s_3),
\label{eq:general_LS_expand_1_rest}
\end{align}
where
$\Gamma_{\alpha^{s_1}}^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;L,S)$ is a Lorentz covariant coupling structure with definite $L$ and $S$ quantum numbers.
The main task in the paper is to explicitly express this coupling structure.
In previous work~\cite{Zou:2002yy}, the pure spin wave function of two fermions is constructed by a linear combination of some Lorentz structures.
For instance, one can construct a pure spin-1 system (${}^3S_1$) of two half-spin fermions by a linear combination of $\bar{\psi}_2\gamma_{\mu}\psi_1$ and $\bar{\psi}_2\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\partial}_{\mu}\psi_1$ with the ${}^3P_0$ component ignored, see table~\ref{tab:12_12_j_common_results}.
Therefore, it is feasible to use ir.tens to \emph{decompose} the amplitudes containing different Lorentz structures, and obtain partial wave amplitudes through their linear combinations.
However, with the increase of $L$ and $S$, the amount of computation will increase dramatically, see table~\ref{tab:12_32_j_common_results} for the case including a fermion with a three-half spin.
For this reason, here we directly consider how to \emph{construct} the Lorentz covariant partial wave amplitude based on the ir.tens of $L_p$ and the ir.tens of the little group.
At the third step, since three-particle amplitude is just a block for the whole amplitude in the cascade reaction, it is necessary to transfer the rest frame of initial state to any given frame, i.e., from
$(\mathbf{k}_1, \mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3)$ to $(\mathbf{p}_1, \mathbf{p}_2,\mathbf{p}_3)$.
It is quiet straightforward to use several Lorentz-boost transformations as follows,
\begin{align}
{\cal A}_{\sigma_1}^{\sigma_2\sigma_3}(\mathbf{p}_1,\mathbf{p}_2,\mathbf{p}_3;L,S) =&\,\Gamma_{\alpha^{s_1}}^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;L,S)\,
D^{\alpha^{s_1}}_{~~\beta^{s_1}}\left(h^{-1}_{\mathbf{p}_1}\right)
D_{\alpha^{s_2}}^{~~\beta^{s_2}}\left(h^{-1}_{\mathbf{p}_2}\right)
D_{\alpha^{s_3}}^{~~\beta^{s_3}}\left(h^{-1}_{\mathbf{p}_3}\right)\notag\\
&\,\times\bar{u}_{\sigma_1}^{\beta^{s_1}}(\mathbf{p}_1;s_1)~u^{\sigma_2}_{\beta^{s_2}}(\mathbf{p}_2;s_2)~u^{\sigma_3}_{\beta^{s_3}}(\mathbf{p}_3;s_3).
\label{eq:general_LS_expand_1_motion}
\end{align}
Finally, one will get the Lorentz covariant partial wave amplitude ${\cal A}_{\sigma_1}^{\sigma_2\sigma_3}\left(\mathbf{p}_1,\mathbf{p}_2,\mathbf{p}_3;L,S\right)$ in any frame.
To construct Lorentz covariant partial wave amplitudes based on eq.~\eqref{eq:general_LS_expand_1_motion}, one needs to write down the spin wave functions of particles with arbitrary spin and the specific form of covariant coupling structure $\Gamma_{\alpha^{s_1}}^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;L,S)$, which are the main contents of this paper.
Actually, $\Gamma_{\alpha^{s_1}}^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;L,S)$ can be organized as three parts, (a) the covariant tensor of orbital angular momentum $L$ part, (b) the covariant tensor of $s_2$ and $s_3$ coupled to total spin $S$, and (c) the covariant tensor of $S$ and $L$ coupled to $s_1$, as follows,
\begin{align} \Gamma_{\alpha^{s_1}}^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;L,S) = P^{\alpha^L\alpha^S}_{\alpha^{s_1}}(\mathbf{k}_1;s_1,L,S)~P^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}}_{\alpha^S}(\mathbf{k}_1;S,s_1,s_2)~\tilde{t}^{(L)}_{\alpha^L}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2-\mathbf{p}^*_3), \label{eq:coupling_structure_Gamma_1_rest}
\end{align}
where $P^{\alpha^L\alpha^S}_{\alpha^J}(\mathbf{k}_1;J,L,S)$ is for angular momentum coupling $\mathbf{J}=\mathbf{L}+\mathbf{S}$ in the standard-momentum frame of particle-1;
and $\tilde{t}^{(L)}_{\alpha^L}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2-\mathbf{p}^*_3)$ for the $L$-wave orbital angular tensor.
Typically, these tensors are the ir.tens of the group SO(3) with Lorentz covariance, which can be constructed by spin wave functions according to the eigen-function method~\cite{Chen:1985zzd}.
Thus, all building blocks of covariant $L$-$S$ scheme can be reduced to the spin wave functions, while the spin wave function can be described by the representation of $L_p$.
In the following of this section, we give a general discussion on Lorentz covariant spin wave function for any spin in subsection~\ref{sec:any_spin_wave_function};
and show how to use these spin wave functions to construct the ir.tens of $L_p$ and the ir.tens of the little group SO(3) in subsection~\ref{sec:irten_Lp};
then, we discuss the difference in the form of the spin wave function between particles with or without mass in subsection~\ref{sec:massless_spin_wave_func};
at last, we explicitly show a general form of the Lorentz covariant partial wave amplitude ${\cal A}_{\sigma_1}^{\sigma_2\sigma_3}\left(\mathbf{p}_1,\mathbf{p}_2,\mathbf{p}_3;L,S\right)$ in subsection~\ref{sec:irten_exact}.
\subsection{Spin wave function based on irreducible representations of $L_p$}
\label{sec:any_spin_wave_function}
By considering Poinc$\acute{\text{a}}$re invariance and causality, Weinberg had constructed the covariance causal field operator of a particle with arbitrary mass $m$ and spin $s$ as follows~\cite{Weinberg:1964cn,Weinberg:1964ev,Weinberg:1969di},
\begin{equation}
\psi_{\alpha}(x)= \int \frac{\mathrm{d}^{3} \mathbf{p}}{(2 \pi)^{3}2 \omega_{\mathbf{p}}} \left[\, a_\sigma(\mathbf{p})\, u_{\alpha}^{\sigma}(\mathbf{p};s)\, e^{i p \cdot x}\,+\,b^\dag_\sigma(\mathbf{p})\, v_{\alpha}^\sigma(\mathbf{p};s)\, e^{-i p \cdot x}\,\right],
\label{eq:field_operator}
\end{equation}
where $\omega_{\mathbf{p}}=\sqrt{|\mathbf{p}|^2+m^2}$ is energy of the particle with mass $m$;
$a_\sigma(\mathbf{p})$ and $b^\dag_\sigma(\mathbf{p})$ are annihilation operator of the particle and generation operator of the antiparticle, respectively;
$u_{\alpha}^\sigma(\mathbf{p};s)$ and $v_{\alpha}^\sigma(\mathbf{p};s)$ are the spin wave functions of the particle and the antiparticle in the momentum space, respectively;
the index $\alpha$ carries a representation of $L_p$, recorded as $[\alpha]$;
$\sigma$ is the spin polarization component of the particle.
One also has the corresponding inverse causal field operator as follows,
\begin{equation}
\bar{\psi}^{\alpha}(x)= \int \frac{\mathrm{d}^{3} \mathbf{p}}{(2 \pi)^{3}2 \omega_{\mathbf{p}}} \left[\, b^\sigma(\mathbf{p})\, \bar{v}^{\alpha}_{\sigma}(\mathbf{p};s)\, e^{i p \cdot x}\,+\,a^{\dag\sigma}(\mathbf{p})\, \bar{u}^{\alpha}_\sigma(\mathbf{p};s)\, e^{-i p \cdot x}\,\right],
\label{eq:field_operator_inverse}
\end{equation}
if the antiparticle of a particle is itself, i.e., $b_\sigma(\mathbf{p})=a_\sigma(\mathbf{p})$ and $v_\alpha^\sigma(\mathbf{p};s)=u^{*\sigma}_\alpha(\mathbf{p};s)$.
The contraction of a covariance spin wave function with the corresponding inverse spin wave function obeys the following orthogonal normalization relation,
\begin{equation}
\bar{u}^{\alpha}_{\sigma_1}(\mathbf{p};s)\, u_{\alpha}^{\sigma_2}(\mathbf{p};s)~=~\delta^{~~\sigma_2}_{\sigma_1},\qquad
\bar{v}^{\alpha}_{\sigma_1}(\mathbf{p};s)\, v_{\alpha}^{\sigma_2}(\mathbf{p};s)~=~\delta^{~~\sigma_2}_{\sigma_1}.
\label{eq:orthogonal_normalization}
\end{equation}
In eq.~\eqref{eq:field_operator}, the spin wave functions with momentum $p^\mu=(\omega_{\mathbf{p}},\mathbf{p})$ are defined as follows,
\begin{equation}
u^\sigma_\alpha(\mathbf{p};s)=D_{\alpha}^{~~\beta}(h_\mathbf{p})\,u^\sigma_\beta(\mathbf{k};s),\qquad v^\sigma_\alpha(\mathbf{p};s)=D_{\alpha}^{~~\beta}(h_\mathbf{p})\,v^\sigma_\beta(\mathbf{k};s),
\label{eq:move_wave_function}
\end{equation}
where $u^\sigma_\beta(\mathbf{k};s)$ and $v^\sigma_\beta(\mathbf{k};s)$ are spin wave functions of the particle and the antiparticle with the standard momentum $k^\mu=\left(\omega_{\mathbf{k}},\mathbf{k}\right)$.
The definition of standard momentum is dependent on the particle mass $m$, see table~\ref{tab:little_group}.
$D_{\alpha}^{~~\beta}(h_\mathbf{p})$ is the transformation matrix in the representation $[\alpha]$, with a group element $h_\mathbf{p}~ (\in L_p)$ which makes $k^\mu$ become $p^\mu$ while keeping the spin polarization component $\sigma$ unchanged.
The Lorentz transformation matrix in any representation of $L_p$ can be derived easily after introducing the ir.tens of $L_p$.
\begin{table}
\caption{
%
The standard momentum $k^\mu$ and the corresponding little group $L_{p,k}$ of a particle with arbitrary mass $m$.
%
The generators in the last column are defined in appendix~\ref{sec:irten_of_Lp} for notations.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c}
\hline
\hline
~~~$k^\mu~(k^2=m^2)$~~~&~~~$L_{p,k}$~~~&~~~Generators of $L_{p,k}$~~~ \\
\hline
$(\pm |m|,0,0,0)$ & SO(3) & $\mathfrak{j}_1,~\mathfrak{j}_2,~\mathfrak{j}_3$\\
$(\pm|\mathbf{k}|,0,0,|\mathbf{k}|)$ & ISO(2) & ~$\mathfrak{j}_3,~(\mathfrak{j}_2+\mathfrak{b}_1),~(\mathfrak{j}_1-\mathfrak{b}_2)$~\\
$(0,0,0,im)$ & SO(1,2) & $\mathfrak{j}_3,~\mathfrak{b}_1,~\mathfrak{b}_2$\\
$(0,0,0,0)$ & SO(1,3) & $\mathfrak{j}_1,~\mathfrak{j}_2,~\mathfrak{j}_3,~\mathfrak{b}_1,~\mathfrak{b}_2,~\mathfrak{b}_3$\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:little_group}
\end{table}
Let us consider how to derive $u^{\sigma}_\alpha(\mathbf{k};s)$ and $v^{\sigma}_\alpha(\mathbf{k};s)$.
Firstly, one should fix the representation of $L_p$ carried by index ${\alpha}$.
On the one hand, arbitrary ir.rep of $L_p$ can be labeled by a binary $(s_L, s_R)$ where $s_L$ and $s_R$ are any positive integers or half integers, see appendix~\ref{sec:irten_of_Lp} for more details.
On the other hand, a covariant causal field $\psi_\alpha(x)$ carries an ir.rep $[\alpha]=(s_L,s_R)$, while the corresponding inverse causal field $\bar{\psi}^\alpha(x)$ carries the inverse representation $[\alpha]^{-1}=(s_L,s_R)^{-1}$.
Meanwhile, for the field operators defined in eqs.~\eqref{eq:field_operator} and \eqref{eq:field_operator_inverse}, where the generation and annihilation operators of both particle and its antiparticle are introduced in the same representation $[\alpha]$, this implies that the representation $[\alpha]$ must be a self-conjugate representation.
Because of $(s_L,s_R)^{*}\simeq(s_R,s_L)^{-1}\simeq(s_R,s_L)$, an ir.rep $(s_L,s_R)$ with $s_L\neq s_R$ is not a self-conjugate representation of $L_p$.\footnote{One may see appendix~\ref{appd:self_conj_rep_relation} for a brief discussion.}
Then, for a ir.rep $(s_L,s_R)$ with $s_L\neq s_R$, a self-conjugate representation needs to be constructed as $[\alpha]=(s_L,s_R)\oplus(s_R,s_L)$.
We will use the following convention to label a self-conjugate representation of $L_p$,
\begin{equation}
[s_L,s_R]~\equiv~\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
~(s_L,s_R)~ &\text{for $s_L=s_R$}, \\
\\
~(s_L,s_R)\oplus(s_R,s_L)~ &\text{for $s_L \neq s_R$}.
\end{array}\right.
\label{eq:self_conj_rep_label}
\end{equation}
In table~\ref{tab:irreps_Lip}, we list the representations of $L_p$ labeled by $\left[\alpha\right]$ which is used to form a field operator $\psi_\alpha$.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{The self-conjugate representations of the homogeneous Lorentz group $L_{p}$ and some physical correspondence.}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\hline
\hline
~~~Representation~~~ \hspace{1cm}&\hspace{1cm} Physical correspondence \\
\hline
$\left(0,0\right)$\hspace{1cm}&\hspace{1cm} Scalar \\
$\left(\frac{1}{2},0\right)\oplus\left(0,\frac{1}{2}\right)$\hspace{1cm}&\hspace{1cm} Dirac spinor for spin 1/2\\
$\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right)$\hspace{1cm}&\hspace{1cm} Lorentz four-vector \\
$(1,0)\oplus(0,1)$\hspace{1cm}&\hspace{1cm} Maxwell electromagnetic fields \\
$\left(\frac{3}{2},0\right)\oplus\left(0,\frac{3}{2}\right)$\hspace{1cm}&\hspace{1cm} Weinberg spinor for spin 3/2 \\
$\left(1,1\right)$\hspace{1cm}&\hspace{1cm} Lorentz order-2 traceless symmetric tensor \\
$\left(1,\frac{1}{2}\right)\oplus\left(\frac{1}{2},1\right)$\hspace{1cm}&\hspace{1cm} Rarita-Schwinger spinor for spin 3/2 \\
$\left(2,0\right)\oplus\left(0,2\right)$\hspace{1cm}&\hspace{1cm} Einstein gravitational fields\\
$\vdots$\hspace{1cm}&\hspace{1cm} \vdots \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:irreps_Lip}
\end{table}
Secondly, there are group elements of $L_p$ that make the standard momentum $k^\mu$ unchanged.
All of these elements construct a subgroup of $L_p$, which is known as the \emph{little group}~\cite{Bargmann:1948ck} of $L_p$, recorded as $L_{p,k}$.
The little groups of various standard momenta $k^\mu$ are shown in table~\ref{tab:little_group}, except for the trivial case of vacuum momentum $k_{\mu}=\left(0,\mathbf{0}\right)_\mu$.
The other three cases correspond to three different little group chains of $L_p$ as shown in fig.~\ref{fig:properlorentzgroupchain}.
\begin{figure}[tbph]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{proper_Lorentz_group_chain}
\caption{Three different little group chains of the homogeneous Lorentz group $L_p$.}
\label{fig:properlorentzgroupchain}
\end{figure}
These different little group chains imply that one can choose different \emph{complete set of commuting operators} (CSCO, see ref.~\cite{Chen:1985zzd}) to characterize Lorentz covariant wave functions.
Since the main objective of this paper is to construct the Lorentz covariant partial wave amplitude, we will only discuss the case of little group chain containing SO(3).
The covariant wave function characterized by this little group chain is identified as \emph{spin wave function}.
Due to the requirement of Lorentz covariance, for any $R\in\text{SO(3)}\subset L_{p}$, spin wave function requires (see section~VIII of ref.~\cite{Weinberg:1964cn})
\begin{align}
D_{\alpha}^{~~\beta}(R)\, u^\sigma_\beta(\mathbf{k};s)=&\, u^{\sigma'}_\alpha(\mathbf{k};s)\, D^{(s)\sigma}_{\sigma'}(R),\notag\\ D_{\alpha}^{~~\beta}(R)\, v^\sigma_\beta(\mathbf{k};s)=&\, v^{\sigma'}_\alpha(\mathbf{k};s)~ D^{(s)\sigma}_{\sigma'}(R),
\label{eq:spin_wave_function}
\end{align}
where $D^{(s)\sigma}_{\sigma'}(R)$ is the \emph{wigner-$D$ matrix} in arbitrary ir.rep of SO(3), labeled by spin $s$.
From the above eq.~\eqref{eq:spin_wave_function} and the definition of ir.ten in eq.~\eqref{eq:def_of_irten}, one gets \emph{the spin wave functions
$u^\sigma_\alpha(\mathbf{k};s)$ and $v^\sigma_\alpha(\mathbf{k};s)$ are both irreducible tensors of the little group SO(3)}.
This conclusion also holds for the corresponding inverse spin wave functions, $\bar{u}_\sigma^\alpha(\mathbf{k};s)$ and $\bar{v}_\sigma^\alpha(\mathbf{k};s)$.
The relevant two representations are $D_{\alpha}^{~~\beta}(L_{p,k})$ and $D^{(s)\sigma}_{\sigma'}(L_{p,k})$, respectively.
According to this conclusion, one can obtain the specific form of the spin wave function in the standard-momentum frame by calculating the ir.ten of the little group SO(3).
For example, we consider an ir.rep of $L_p$, labeled by
\begin{equation}
[\alpha]=(s_L,s_R)=(s_L,0)\otimes(0,s_R)\equiv[l]\otimes[r],\notag
\end{equation}
where $l=-s_L,-s_L+1,\cdots,s_L$ and $r=-s_R,-s_R+1,\cdots,s_R$ correspond to the ir.reps indices of SU$(2)_L$ and SU$(2)_R$, respectively.
The corresponding covariant and inverse spin wave function with standard-momentum are as follows,
\begin{align}
u_{\alpha}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k};s\right)\equiv u_{\alpha}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k};(s_L,s_R),s\right)&=U_{\alpha}^{lr}~u_{lr}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k};(s_L,s_R),s\right),\notag\\
\bar{u}^{\alpha}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k};s\right)\equiv\bar{u}^{\alpha}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k};(s_L,s_R),s\right)&=U^{\alpha}_{lr}~\bar{u}^{lr}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k};(s_L,s_R),s\right),
\end{align}
where $U_{\alpha}^{lr}$ and $U^{\alpha}_{lr}$ are defined in eq.~\eqref{eq:appd_index_map_alpha_to_lr}.
Then, for $u_{lr}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k};(s_L,s_R),s\right)$, eq.~\eqref{eq:spin_wave_function} can be written as
\begin{align}
D_{l}^{(s_L)l'}(R)~D_{r}^{(s_R)r'}(R)\, u_{l'r'}^{\sigma}(\mathbf{k};(s_L,s_R),s)=&\, u_{lr}^{\sigma'}(\mathbf{k};(s_L,s_R),s)\, D^{(s)\sigma}_{\sigma'}(R),\notag\\
\text{or}\quad D^{(s)\sigma}_{\sigma'}(R^{-1})~D_{l}^{(s_L)l'}(R)~D_{r}^{(s_R)r'}(R)\, u_{l'r'}^{\sigma'}(\mathbf{k};(s_L,s_R),s)=&\, u_{lr}^{\sigma}(\mathbf{k};(s_L,s_R),s).
\label{eq:spin_wave_function_chiral}
\end{align}
Comparing the above equation with eq.~\eqref{eq:trans_nature_CGCs}, one can immediately get that the standard-momentum spin wave function $u_{lr}^{\sigma}(\mathbf{k};(s_L,s_R),s)$ is just the Clebsch–Gordan Coefficients (CGCs) of SU(2),
\begin{align}
u_{lr}^{\sigma}(\mathbf{k};(s_L,s_R),s) = (C^s_{s_L s_R})^\sigma_{lr}.\footnote{See also section XI of chapter V in ref.~\cite{weinberg_1995}.}
\label{eq:spin_wave_func_CGCs}
\end{align}
Similarly, we have,
\begin{equation}
\bar{u}^{lr}_{\sigma}(\mathbf{k};(s_L,s_R),s) = (C_s^{s_L s_R})_\sigma^{lr}=(C^s_{s_L s_R})^\sigma_{lr},
\label{eq:spin_wave_func_CGCs_inverse}
\end{equation}
for the inverse spin wave function.
Indeed, the $u_{lr}^{\sigma}(\mathbf{k};(s_L,s_R),s)$ and $\bar{u}^{lr}_{\sigma}(\mathbf{k};(s_L,s_R),s)$ satisfy the orthogonal normalization relation as shown in eq.~\eqref{eq:orthogonal_normalization}.
Then, with the spin wave function in any ir.rep of $L_p$ as shown in eq.~\eqref{eq:spin_wave_func_CGCs}, one can construct a spin wave function in any representation of $L_p$, including any self-conjugate representation listed in table~\ref{tab:irreps_Lip}, see appendix~\ref{appd:spin_wave_function} for more details.
Finally, by combining the Lorentz transformation matrix $D_{\alpha}^{~~\beta}(h_{\mathbf{p}})$ and the standard-momentum spin wave function $u_{\alpha}^{\sigma}(\mathbf{k};(s_L,s_R),s)$, one can obtain the spin wave function in any self-conjugate representation $[\alpha]=[s_L,s_R]$.
For $s_L=s_R$, the spin wave function can be directly composed of a CGC and a pure-boost Lorentz transformation.
For $s_L\neq s_R$,
\begin{align}
u_{\alpha}^{\sigma}(\mathbf{p};s)&\equiv u_{\alpha}^{\sigma}(\mathbf{p};\chi,s)\notag\\
&=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\,\begin{pmatrix} \,u^{\sigma}(\mathbf{p};(s_L,s_R),s)\,\\
0_{\mathbf{LR}}\end{pmatrix}_{\alpha}= \left(U_L\right)^{lr}_{\alpha} u^{\sigma}_{lr}(\mathbf{p};(s_L,s_R),s) ~~\text{with $\chi=(s_L,s_R)$}, \\ \\ \,\begin{pmatrix} 0_{\mathbf{LR}}~\\
\,u^{\sigma}(\mathbf{p};(s_R,s_L),s)\,\end{pmatrix}_{\alpha}= \left(U_R\right)^{lr}_{\alpha} u^{\sigma}_{lr}(\mathbf{p};(s_R,s_L),s) ~~\text{with $\chi=(s_R,s_L)$},
\end{array}\right.
\label{eq:self_conj_rep_spin_wave_func}
\end{align}
where the $0_{\mathbf{LR}}$ is a $(\mathbf{L}\times\mathbf{R})$-dimensional vector with zero elements with $\mathbf{L}=(2s_L+1)$ and $\mathbf{R}=(2s_R+1)$; please see eq.~\eqref{eq:appd_index_map_alpha_to_lr_rerep} for the explicitly forms of $\left(U_L\right)^{lr}_{\alpha}$ and $\left(U_R\right)^{lr}_{\alpha}$.
Similarly, the corresponding inverse spin wave functions are as follows,
\begin{align}
\bar{u}^{\alpha}_{\sigma}(\mathbf{p};s)&\equiv\bar{u}^{\alpha}_{\sigma}(\mathbf{p};\chi,s)\notag\\
&=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\,\begin{pmatrix} 0_{\mathbf{LR}}~\\
\,\bar{u}_{\sigma}(\mathbf{p};(s_R,s_L),s)\,\end{pmatrix}^{\alpha} = \left(U_R\right)_{lr}^{\alpha} \bar{u}_{\sigma}^{lr}(\mathbf{p};(s_R,s_L),s) ~~\text{with $\chi=(s_L,s_R)$}, \\
\\
\,\begin{pmatrix} \,\bar{u}_{\sigma}(\mathbf{p};(s_L,s_R),s)\,\\
0_{\mathbf{LR}}\end{pmatrix}^{\alpha} = \left(U_L\right)_{lr}^{\alpha} \bar{u}_{\sigma}^{lr}(\mathbf{p};(s_L,s_R),s) ~~\text{with $\chi=(s_R,s_L)$},
\end{array}\right.
\label{eq:self_conj_rep_spin_wave_func_inverse}
\end{align}
and we also have the orthogonal-normalization relation,
\begin{equation}
\bar{u}^{\alpha}_{\sigma_1}(\mathbf{p};\chi_1,s)\, u_{\alpha}^{\sigma_2}(\mathbf{p};\chi_2^*,s)\,=\,\delta_{\sigma_1}^{~~\sigma_2}\,\delta_{\chi_1\chi_2},
\label{eq:self_conj_rep_oorthogonal_norm}
\end{equation}
where $\chi_2^*=(s_R,s_L)$ and $(s_L,s_R)$ while $\chi_2=(s_L,s_R)$ and $(s_R,s_L)$, respectively.
Furthermore, eq.~\eqref{eq:spin_wave_func_CGCs} implies that a spin wave function $u_{\alpha}^{\sigma}(\mathbf{p};\chi,s)$ is able to describe a particle with a definite spin $s$ which satisfies the triangular relation,
\begin{equation}
|s_L-s_R|\leq s \leq s_L +s_R,
\label{eq:select_rule_spin_wave_func}
\end{equation}
otherwise $u_{\alpha}^{\sigma}(\mathbf{p};\chi,s)$ must be zero.
This fact means that there are many choices to express Lorentz covariant wave function of a particle with given spin $s$.
Actually, in the development of formalism of spin wave function, there are several conventional forms for particles with arbitrary spin $s$.
The most famous one is known as \emph{Rarita-Schwinger spin wave function}~\cite{Rarita:1941mf}, which is based on the following self-conjugate reducible representation (re.rep) of $L_p$,
\begin{align}
\left[\alpha^{s}\right]&=\left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
\,\left(\frac{2 s+1}{4}, \frac{2 s-1}{4}\right)\oplus\left(\frac{2 s-1}{4}, \frac{2 s+1}{4}\right) & ~~\text{for half-integer }s,\\
\\
\,\left(\frac{s}{2},\frac{s}{2}\right)& ~~\text{for integer }s.
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq:massive_particle_rep}
\end{align}
These representations can be expressed by Lorentz four-vector indices (and an additional Dirac-spinor index for half-integer $s$), which makes the physical meaning clearly.
Unfortunately, there are too many components of such spin wave function, including many irrelevant degrees of freedom.
About seven years after Schwinger published the work, Bargmann and Wigner proposed another form of spin wave function~\cite{Bargmann:1948ck}, which is based on the following self-conjugate re.rep of $L_p$,
\begin{align}
\left[\alpha^{s}\right]=\underbrace{\left[\frac12,0\right]\otimes\left[\frac12,0\right]\otimes\cdots\otimes\left[\frac12,0\right]}_{2s} ~~\text{for integer and half-integer }s.
\label{eq:swf_BW_1948}
\end{align}
These representations can be expressed by Dirac-spinor indices only, which makes the form more compact, but there are still many irrelevant degrees of freedom in this form.
Until 1964, Weinberg proposed \emph{general covariant causal fields}, wrote down the most general form of the spin wave function, and suggested the following self-conjugate re.rep of $L_p$~\cite{Weinberg:1964cn},
\begin{align}
\left[\alpha^s\right]=\left(s,0\right)\oplus\left(0, s\right) ~~\text{for integer and half-intger }s.
\end{align}
These representations do not contain any redundant components, which makes the form elegant and concise.
Subsequently, in order to further simplify the form of scattering amplitude, only the left- or right-hand spinor with half spin is retained as the basic quantity, which is abbreviated as
$\lambda^I_\alpha/\tilde{\lambda}^{\dot{\alpha}}_{I}$ instead of $u_{l0}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{p};\left(\frac{1}{2},0\right),\frac12\right)/\bar{u}^{0r}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{p};\left(0,\frac{1}{2}\right),\frac12\right)$ with $\alpha\mapsto l$, $\dot{\alpha}\mapsto r$ and $I\mapsto\sigma$ in our convention.
The amplitudes including particles of higher spin can be expressed by tensor product and contraction of the basic quantity, which is called \emph{spinor-helicity formalism}. %
For more details, one may refer to Nima's recent work on scattering amplitudes~\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2017jhn} and references therein.
\subsection{Derivation of irreducible tensors of $L_p$ and its little group SO(3)}
\label{sec:irten_Lp}
Since we have already got the explicit form of spin wave function $u_{\alpha}^{\sigma}(\mathbf{p};\chi,s)$ in arbitrary representation $[\alpha]$, it is easy to construct the ir.tens of $L_p$ and the ir.tens of little group SO(3) from these spin wave functions.
Before the discussion, it is convenient to make some symbol conventions.
We will use the \emph{Latin alphabet} such as $a,~b,~c,\cdots$ to label the Dirac spinor representation $\left(\frac{1}{2},0\right)\oplus\left(0,\frac{1}{2}\right)$;
and use $a^{3},~b^{3},~c^{3},\cdots$ to label the Rarita-Schwinger spinor representation $\left(1, \frac{1}{2}\right)\oplus\left(\frac{1}{2}, 1\right)$;
and use the \emph{Greek alphabet} such as $\mu,~\nu,~\rho~,\cdots$ to label the Lorentz four-vector representation $\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right)$;
and use $\mu^{2},~\nu^{2},~\rho^{2},\cdots$ to label the representation $\left(1,1\right)$;
and see table~\ref{tab:symbol_conventions} for other cases.
In general, we will use $\alpha,~\beta$ to label any representation of $L_p$.
Our discussion will focus on the self-conjugate representations.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Some symbol conventions about the representations of $L_p$.}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c}
\hline
\hline
Representation of $L_p$ & Marker index & Abbreviated symbols \\
\hline
~~$(s,0)~(2s\in\mathbbm{N}^*)$~~&~~$l$~~&~~$[l]$~~\\
~~$(0,s)~(2s\in\mathbbm{N}^*)$~~&~~$r$~~&~~$[r]$~~\\
~~$\left(\frac{2 s+1}{4}, \frac{2 s-1}{4}\right)\oplus\left(\frac{2 s-1}{4}, \frac{2 s+1}{4}\right)~\left(s\in\mathbbm{N}+\frac{1}{2}\right)$~~ & ~~$a^{2s},~b^{2s},\cdots$~~ & ~~$[a^{2s}],~[b^{2s}],\cdots$~~ \\
~~$\left(\frac{2 s+1}{4}, \frac{2 s-1}{4}\right)~\left(s\in\mathbbm{N}+\frac{1}{2}\right)$~~ & ~~$a_L^{2s},~b_L^{2s},\cdots$~~ & ~~$[a_L^{2s}],~[b_L^{2s}],\cdots$~~ \\
~~$\left(\frac{2 s-1}{4}, \frac{2 s+1}{4}\right)~\left(s\in\mathbbm{N}+\frac{1}{2}\right)$~~ & ~~$a_R^{2s},~b_R^{2s},\cdots$~~ & ~~$[a_R^{2s}],~[b_R^{2s}],\cdots$~~ \\
$\left(\frac{s}{2},\frac{s}{2}\right)~(s\in\mathbbm{N})$ ~~& $\mu^{s},~\nu^{s},\cdots$~~ & ~~$[\mu^{s}],~[\nu^{s}],\cdots$~~ \\
~~any other representation~~ & ~~$\zeta,~\xi,\cdots$~~ & ~~$[\zeta],~[\xi],\cdots$~~ \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:symbol_conventions}
\end{table}
Firstly, let us consider the ir.tens of $L_p$.
The order-3 ir.ten $T^{\alpha_1\alpha_2}_\beta$ is a projection operator from the representation space $[\alpha_1]\otimes[\alpha_2]$ to one of its representation subspace $[\beta]$.
Thus, one can obtain an order-3 ir.ten $T^{\alpha_1\alpha_2}_\beta$ by using the spin wave functions introduced in subsection~\ref{sec:any_spin_wave_function} as follows,
\begin{equation}
T^{\alpha_1\alpha_2}_\beta =\,\sum_{\chi,s}\, u^{\sigma}_\beta(\mathbf{p};\chi,s)\,\bar{u}_{\sigma}^{\alpha_1\alpha_2}(\mathbf{p};\chi^*,s),
\end{equation}
where $\chi$ can be any ir.rep of $L_p$ belonging to the representation $[\beta]$, and $\chi^*=(s_R,s_L)$ when $\chi=(s_L,s_R)$;
$s$ contains all possible spin values in the ir.rep $\chi$ from the selection rule as shown in eq.~\eqref{eq:select_rule_spin_wave_func};
$\sigma$ is the spin polarization components.
Since $T^{\alpha_1\alpha_2}_\beta$ is invariant with any Lorentz transformation,
for simplicity, the standard-momentum frame is chosen for $T^{\alpha_1\alpha_2}_\beta$ which must be independent on the momentum $\mathbf{p}$.
\begin{equation}
T^{\alpha_1\alpha_2}_\beta =\,\sum_{\chi,s}\, u^{\sigma}_\beta(\mathbf{k};\chi,s)\,\bar{u}_{\sigma}^{\alpha_1\alpha_2}(\mathbf{k};\chi^*,s).
\label{eq:irten_order_3_CGCs}
\end{equation}
Thus, once one has the spin wave function $u^{\sigma}_{\alpha_1\alpha_2}(\mathbf{k};\chi,s)$ in arbitrary direct-product representation $[\alpha_1]\otimes[\alpha_2]$, one will obtain the order-3 ir.ten $T^{\alpha_1\alpha_2}_\beta$ of $L_p$.
Actually, for any two ir.reps of $L_p$, $(s_{L_1},s_{R_1})$ and $(s_{L_2},s_{R_2})$, one has
\begin{equation}
(s_{L_1},s_{R_1})\otimes(s_{L_2},s_{R_2})=(s_{L_1}\otimes s_{L_2},s_{R_1}\otimes s_{R_2})=\bigoplus_{s_L,s_R}(s_L,s_R).
\label{eq:irrep_direct_product}
\end{equation}
By combining eqs.~\eqref{eq:spin_wave_func_CGCs}, \eqref{eq:spin_wave_func_CGCs_inverse} and \eqref{eq:irrep_direct_product}, one can get
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
u^{\sigma}_{l_1r_1l_2r_2}\left(\mathbf{k};(s_L,s_R),s\right) &=\, \left(C^{s_L}_{s_{L_1}s_{L_2}}\right)^{\sigma_L}_{l_1l_2}\,\left(C^{s_R}_{s_{R_1}s_{R_2}}\right)^{\sigma_R}_{r_1r_2}\,\left(C^s_{s_Ls_R}\right)^\sigma_{\sigma_L\sigma_R},\\
\bar{u}_{\sigma}^{l_1r_1l_2r_2}\left(\mathbf{k};(s_L,s_R),s\right) &=\, \left(C_{s_L}^{s_{L_1}s_{L_2}}\right)_{\sigma_L}^{l_1l_2}\,\left(C_{s_R}^{s_{R_1}s_{R_2}}\right)_{\sigma_R}^{r_1r_2}\,\left(C_s^{s_Ls_R}\right)_\sigma^{\sigma_L\sigma_R}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:spin_wave_func_direct_product}
\end{equation}
Similarly, one can calculate spin wave functions in direct-product of two representations (ir.rep or re.rep) of $L_p$.
Here, we give a brief discussion in appendix~\ref{appd:spin_wave_function}.
Finally, by combining eqs.~\eqref{eq:spin_wave_func_CGCs}, \eqref{eq:irten_order_3_CGCs} and \eqref{eq:spin_wave_func_direct_product}, one can write down arbitrary order-3 ir.ten of $L_p$.
We give some examples on derivation of ir.tens of $L_p$ in appendix~\ref{appd:ex_irten_Lp}.
Ir.tens of the little group SO(3) can be derived in a similar way.
The only difference is that group elements are limited to the little group SO(3).
In this little group, according to the definition of generators $\mathfrak{l}_i$ and $\mathfrak{r}_i~(i=1,2,3)$ as given in eq.~\eqref{eq:Lp_generator_su2}, there is no difference between the left-hand representation $(s_L,0)$ and the right-hand representation $(0,s_R)$.
In addition, the spin quantum number $s$ is an invariant, so one can get arbitrary ir.ten of the little group SO(3) by removing the restriction on type of ir.reps ($\chi\mapsto\chi^*$) and the summation of spins $s$ in eq.~\eqref{eq:irten_order_3_CGCs},
\begin{equation}
P^{\alpha_1\alpha_2}_\beta(\mathbf{p};\chi_1,\chi_2,s) = u^{\sigma}_\beta(\mathbf{p};\chi_1,s)\,\bar{u}_{\sigma}^{\alpha_1\alpha_2}(\mathbf{p};\chi_2,s),
\label{eq:irten_little_group_so3}
\end{equation}
where $\chi_1$ and $\chi_2$ are corresponding to arbitrary ir.rep of $L_p$ belonging to the representation $[\beta]$ and the representation $[\alpha_1]\otimes[\alpha_2]$, respectively.
As shown in appendix~\ref{appd:irrep_and_irten}, ir.tens have projection properties.
The role of ir.tens of the little group SO(3) is to project states with definite spin quantum numbers $s$, so ir.tens of the little group SO(3) are always called \emph{Lorentz covariant spin projection tensors}.
It is worth noting that the components of different spin states of arbitrary ir.rep $(s_L,s_R)$ will mix with each other with a Lorentz boost, unless there is only one possible spin value in the ir.rep.\footnote{This is only true for ir.rep $(s_L,s_R)$ with $s_L=0$ or $s_R=0$, i.e., the Weinberg spin wave function as discussed in section~\ref{sec:any_spin_wave_function}, which is not the general case used in our scheme here.}
Therefore, the ir.tens of the little group is dependent on the momentum $\mathbf{p}$, and is invariant only with rotation transformation, but covariant with Lorentz transformation.
To understand ir.tens of the little group SO(3) more intuitively, we give some examples in appendix~\ref{appd:ex_irten_so3}.
\subsection{Spin wave function of massless particle}
\label{sec:massless_spin_wave_func}
In subsection~\ref{sec:any_spin_wave_function}, we did not mention the difference of the spin wave functions of particles with and without mass.
In this subsection, we will focus on this point.
The little groups for the standard-momenta of the spin wave function with or without mass is different.
As given in table~\ref{tab:little_group}, the little group of a massive particle is SO(3).
The corresponding group element $h_\mathbf{p}$ (see eq.~\eqref{eq:move_wave_function}) must belong to $L_p/\text{SO(3)}$ which corresponds to a pure-boost Lorentz transformation, and can be written as follows,
\begin{equation}
L_p/\text{SO(3)}\,\ni\,h_\mathbf{p}\,=\,R_{\hat{\mathbf{p}}}\,\cdot\,B_{|\mathbf{p}|}\,\cdot\,R^{-1}_{\hat{\mathbf{p}}},
\label{eq:convention_massive_h_p}
\end{equation}
where $R_{\hat{\mathbf{p}}}$ is a space-rotation transformation from $z$-axis to the direction of $\mathbf{p}$;
and $B_{|\mathbf{p}|}$ is a $z$-axis pure-boost transformation which makes the energy of a rest massive particle from $m$ to $\omega_\mathbf{p}$.
Thus, for a massive particle, the form has been shown in subsection~\ref{sec:any_spin_wave_function}.
In order to match the commonly used form, we will use the Rarita-Schwinger spin wave function, i.e., for a massive particle with given spin $s$, the convention shown in eq.~\eqref{eq:massive_particle_rep} will be used by default.
For massless particles, since the little group is ISO(2), the corresponding group element $\tilde{h}_\mathbf{p}$ must belong to $L_p/\text{ISO(2)}$, which will not correspond to pure-boost Lorentz transformation.
Through some simple analysis (see section~V of chapter~II in ref.~\cite{weinberg_1995} for details), it is convenient to adopt the following form,
\begin{equation}
L_p/\text{ISO(2)}\,\ni\,\tilde{h}_\mathbf{p}\,=\,R_{\hat{\mathbf{p}}}\,\cdot\,B_{|\mathbf{p}|},
\label{eq:convention_massless_h_p}
\end{equation}
where $R_{\hat{\mathbf{p}}}$ and $B_{|\mathbf{p}|}$ are the same as those in eq.~\eqref{eq:convention_massive_h_p}.
Then, based on eq.~\eqref{eq:move_wave_function},
\begin{equation}
u^{\sigma}_{\alpha}\left(\mathbf{p};\chi,\tilde{s}\right) =\, D_{\alpha}^{~~\beta}\left(\tilde{h}_{\mathbf{p}}\right)\,u^{\sigma}_{\alpha}\left(\mathbf{k};\chi,\tilde{s}\right),
\label{eq:def_helicity_wave_func}
\end{equation}
where $\chi=\left(s_L,s_R\right)$ is arbitrary ir.rep of $L_p$ belonging to $[\alpha]$;
$\tilde{s}$ is eigenvalue of the Casimir operator of ISO(2), recorded as $\mathfrak{C}_{\text{ISO(2)}}$, which labels ir.reps of ISO(2).
Then, similar to the analysis around eq.~\eqref{eq:spin_wave_function}, one can get the explicit form of $u^{\sigma}_{\alpha}\left(\mathbf{k};\chi,\tilde{s}\right)$ by calculating the ir.tens of ISO(2), and interested readers may refer to ref.~\cite{Weinberg:1964ev}.
Since the goal of this paper is to construct the Lorentz covariant partial wave amplitude, according to eq.~\eqref{eq:any_spin_general_LS_1_rest}, the pure-spin part is indispensable.
We require a definite spin $s$ for $u^{\sigma}_{\alpha}\left(\mathbf{k};\chi,\tilde{s}\right)$, then it is rewritten as $u^{\sigma}_{\alpha}\left(\mathbf{k};\chi,s,\tilde{s}\right)$.
In other words, it is an eigenstate of the Casimir operator of SO(3), recorded as $\mathfrak{C}_{\text{SO(3)}}$.
In summary, this spin wave function $u^{\sigma}_{\alpha}\left(\mathbf{k};\chi,s,\tilde{s}\right)$ should be an eigenstate of $\mathfrak{C}_{\text{ISO(2)}}$ and $\mathfrak{C}_{\text{SO(3)}}$, as well as the $\mathfrak{j}_3$ which is one of usual rotation generators of $L_p$ as defined in appendix~\ref{sec:irten_of_Lp}.
Correspondingly, from the commutation relations as shown in eq.~\eqref{eq:Lp_generator}, one can obtain
\begin{align}
\mathfrak{C}_{\text{ISO(2)}} &=\, \left(\mathfrak{b}_1-\mathfrak{j}_2\right)^2+\left(\mathfrak{b}_2+\mathfrak{j}_1\right)^2,\notag\\
\mathfrak{C}_{\text{SO(3)}} &=\, \mathfrak{j}_1^2+\mathfrak{j}_2^2+\mathfrak{j}_3^2.
\label{eq:casimir_so3_iso2}
\end{align}
The eigen-equations of $u^{\sigma}_{\alpha}\left(\mathbf{k};\chi,s,\tilde{s}\right)$ can be expressed as follows,
\begin{align}
\left[\,\mathfrak{j}_3\,\right]_{\alpha}^{~~\beta}\,u^{\sigma}_{\beta}\left(\mathbf{k};\chi,s,\tilde{s}\right) &=\, \sigma\,u^{\sigma}_{\alpha}\left(\mathbf{k};\chi,s,\tilde{s}\right),\notag\\
\left[\mathfrak{C}_{\text{ISO(2)}}\right]_{\alpha}^{~~\beta}\,u^{\sigma}_{\beta}\left(\mathbf{k};\chi,s,\tilde{s}\right) &=\, \tilde{s}\,u^{\sigma}_{\alpha}\left(\mathbf{k};\chi,s,\tilde{s}\right),\notag\\
\left[\mathfrak{C}_{\text{SO(3)}}\right]_{\alpha}^{~~\beta}\,u^{\sigma}_{\beta}\left(\mathbf{k};\chi,s,\tilde{s}\right) &=\, s(s+1)\,u^{\sigma}_{\alpha}\left(\mathbf{k};\chi,s,\tilde{s}\right).
\label{eq:spin_helicity_wave_function}
\end{align}
Then, by combining eqs.~\eqref{eq:casimir_so3_iso2} and \eqref{eq:spin_helicity_wave_function}, the spin wave function for a massless particle with spin $s$ and helicity $\sigma=\pm s$ must be described in the following self-conjugate representation,
\begin{equation}
\left[\zeta^s\right]=\left(s,0\right)\oplus\left(0,s\right),
\label{eq:self_conj_rep_spin_helicity}
\end{equation}
and one also has $\tilde{s}=0$ in these representations.
For simplicity, we can rewrite $u^{\sigma}_{\alpha}\left(\mathbf{k};\chi,s,\tilde{s}\right)$ as $u^{\sigma}_{\alpha}\left(\mathbf{k};\chi,s\right)$, which has the same form as the spin wave function of massive particles.
We will find the spin wave function of massless particles can be projected from the corresponding spin wave function of massive particles.
Such projection operator is named as \emph{helicity projection tensor}.
Now, we will explain how to construct these helicity projection tensors.
At first, we note that the re.rep $[s,0]$ is included in the following direct-product decompositions (with the symbol convention as given in table~\ref{tab:symbol_conventions}),
\begin{align}
\left[a^{2s}\right]\otimes\left[\,\nu^{\bar{s}}\,\right]&=\left[\left(\frac{2s+1}{4},\frac{2s-1}{4}\right)\oplus\left(\frac{2s-1}{4},\frac{2s+1}{4}\right)\right]\otimes\left(\frac{\bar{s}}{2},\frac{\bar{s}}{2}\right)\notag\\
&=\left(s,0\right)\oplus\left(0,s\right)\oplus\cdots,\notag\\
\left[\,\mu^s\,\right]\otimes\left[\,\nu^s\,\right]&=\left(\frac{s}{2},\frac{s}{2}\right)\otimes\left(\frac{s}{2},\frac{s}{2}\right)\notag\\
&=\left(s,0\right)\oplus\left(0,s\right)\oplus\cdots,
\end{align}
where $\bar{s}=s-\frac{1}{2}$.
These decompositions indicate the existence of ir.tens as follows,
\begin{align}
\left[\frac{2s+1}{4},\frac{2s-1}{4}\right]\otimes\left(\frac{\bar{s}}{2},\frac{\bar{s}}{2}\right)~&\mapsto~\left(s,0\right) ~:~ T^{a^{2s}\nu^{\bar{s}}}_{l},\notag\\
\left[\frac{2s+1}{4},\frac{2s-1}{4}\right]\otimes\left(\frac{\bar{s}}{2},\frac{\bar{s}}{2}\right)~&\mapsto~\left(0,s\right) ~:~ T^{a^{2s}\nu^{\bar{s}}}_{r},
\notag\\
\left(\frac{s}{2},\frac{s}{2}\right)\otimes\left(\frac{s}{2},\frac{s}{2}\right)~&\mapsto~\left(s,0\right) ~:~ T^{\mu^s\nu^s}_{l},\notag\\
\left(\frac{s}{2},\frac{s}{2}\right)\otimes\left(\frac{s}{2},\frac{s}{2}\right)~&\mapsto~\left(0,s\right) ~:~ T^{\mu^s\nu^s}_{r}.
\end{align}
To get specific forms of the above ir.tens, one can refer to section~\ref{sec:irten_Lp}.
The indices $\nu^s$ and $\nu^{\bar{s}}$ of the above ir.tens can be replaced by many Lorentz four-vector indices by ir.tens $T_{\nu^s}^{\nu_1\nu_2\cdots\nu_s}$ and $T_{\nu^{\bar{s}}}^{\nu_1\nu_2\cdots\nu_{\bar{s}}}$ as follows,
\begin{align}
T^{\mu^s\nu_1\nu_2\cdots\nu_s}_{l} &= T^{\mu^s\nu^s}_{l}~T_{\nu^s}^{\nu_1\nu_2\cdots\nu_s},\notag\\
T^{\mu^s\nu_1\nu_2\cdots\nu_s}_{r} &= T^{\mu^s\nu^s}_{r}~T_{\nu^s}^{\nu_1\nu_2\cdots\nu_s},\notag\\
T^{a^{2s}\nu_1\nu_2\cdots\nu_{\bar{s}}}_{l} &= T^{a^{2s}\nu^{\bar{s}}}_{l} ~ T_{\nu^{\bar{s}}}^{\nu_1\nu_2\cdots\nu_{\bar{s}}},\notag\\
T^{a^{2s}\nu_1\nu_2\cdots\nu_{\bar{s}}}_{r} &= T^{a^{2s}\nu^{\bar{s}}}_{r} ~ T_{\nu^{\bar{s}}}^{\nu_1\nu_2\cdots\nu_{\bar{s}}}.
\label{eq:irten_Lp_any_spin_massless}
\end{align}
Then, since the standard momentum of a massless particle, $k_\mu=|\mathbf{k}|(1,0,0,1)_\mu$, is covariant with Lorentz transformation and invariant with transformation of the little group ISO(2), the contractions between $k_\mu$ and the ir.tens in eq.~\eqref{eq:irten_Lp_any_spin_massless} have the same projection properties.
In other words, one will have the following helicity projection tensors,
\begin{align}
P^{\mu^s}_{l}\left(\mathbf{k};s\right) &= T^{\mu^s\nu_1\nu_2\cdots\nu_s}_{l}~k_{\nu_1}~k_{\nu_2}~\cdots~k_{\nu_s},\notag\\
P^{\mu^s}_{r}\left(\mathbf{k};s\right) &= T^{\mu^s\nu_1\nu_2\cdots\nu_s}_{r}~k_{\nu_1}~k_{\nu_2}~\cdots~k_{\nu_s},\notag\\
P^{a^{2s}}_{l}\left(\mathbf{k};s\right) &= T^{a^{2s}\nu_1\nu_2\cdots\nu_{\bar{s}}}_{l}~k_{\nu_1}~k_{\nu_2}~\cdots~k_{\nu_{\bar{s}}},\notag\\
P^{a^{2s}}_{r}\left(\mathbf{k};s\right) &= T^{a^{2s}\nu_1\nu_2\cdots\nu_{\bar{s}}}_{r}~k_{\nu_1}~k_{\nu_2}~\cdots~k_{\nu_{\bar{s}}}.
\end{align}
With the above helicity projection tensors, one can convert a spin wave function in any given representation $\left[\alpha^s\right]$ in eq.~\eqref{eq:massive_particle_rep} into a spin wave function in the ir.reps $(s,0)$ and $(0,s)$.
For an integer helicity $\sigma=\pm s$, the spin wave function of a massless particle in the standard-momentum frame can be defined as follows,
\begin{align}
u_{\zeta^s}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k};(s,0),s\right) &=\,\lim_{|\mathbf{p}|\to\infty}\,\left(U_L\right)_{\zeta^s}^{l0}\, P^{\mu^s}_{l}\left(\mathbf{k};s\right) \, D_{\mu^s}^{~~\nu^s}\left(B_{|\mathbf{p}|}\right)\,u_{\nu^s}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{0};\left(\frac{s}{2},\frac{s}{2}\right),s\right),\notag\\
u_{\zeta^s}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k};(0,s),s\right) &=\,\lim_{|\mathbf{p}|\to\infty}\,\left(U_R\right)_{\zeta^s}^{0r}\, P^{\mu^s}_{r}\left(\mathbf{k};s\right) \, D_{\mu^s}^{~~\nu^s}\left(B_{|\mathbf{p}|}\right)\,u_{\nu^s}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{0};\left(\frac{s}{2},\frac{s}{2}\right),s\right),\notag\\
\bar{u}^{\zeta^s}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k};(s,0),s\right) &=\,\lim_{|\mathbf{p}|\to\infty}\,\left(U_R\right)^{\zeta^s}_{0r}\, P_{\mu^s}^{r}\left(\mathbf{k};s\right) \, D^{\mu^s}_{~~\nu^s}\left(B_{|\mathbf{p}|}\right)\,\bar{u}^{\nu^s}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{0};\left(\frac{s}{2},\frac{s}{2}\right),s\right),\notag\\
\bar{u}^{\zeta^s}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k};(0,s),s\right) &=\,\lim_{|\mathbf{p}|\to\infty}\,\left(U_L\right)^{\zeta^s}_{l0}~ P_{\mu^s}^{l}\left(\mathbf{k};s\right) \, D^{\mu^s}_{~~\nu^s}\left(B_{|\mathbf{p}|}\right)\,\bar{u}^{\nu^s}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{0};\left(\frac{s}{2},\frac{s}{2}\right),s\right),
\label{eq:spin_wave_func_massless_integer}
\end{align}
and for a half-integer helicity $\sigma=\pm s$, one has
\begin{align}
u_{\zeta^s}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k};(s,0),s\right)&=\lim_{|\mathbf{p}|\to\infty}\left(U_L\right)_{\zeta^s}^{l0}\,P^{a^{2s}}_{l}\left(\mathbf{k};s\right) \,D_{a^{2s}}^{~~b^{2s}}\left(B_{|\mathbf{p}|}\right)\, u_{b^{2s}}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{0};\left(\frac{2s+1}{4},\frac{2s-1}{4}\right),s\right),\notag\\
u_{\zeta^s}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k};(0,s),s\right)&=\lim_{|\mathbf{p}|\to\infty}\left(U_R\right)_{\zeta^s}^{0r}\,P^{a^{2s}}_{r}\left(\mathbf{k};s\right) \,D_{a^{2s}}^{~~b^{2s}}\left(B_{|\mathbf{p}|}\right)\, u_{b^{2s}}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{0};\left(\frac{2s-1}{4},\frac{2s+1}{4}\right),s\right),\notag\\
\bar{u}^{\zeta^s}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k};(s,0),s\right)&=\lim_{|\mathbf{p}|\to\infty}\left(U_R\right)^{\zeta^s}_{0r}\,P_{a^{2s}}^{r}\left(\mathbf{k};s\right) \,D^{a^{2s}}_{~~b^{2s}}\left(B_{|\mathbf{p}|}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b^{2s}}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{0};\left(\frac{2s+1}{4},\frac{2s-1}{4}\right),s\right),\notag\\
\bar{u}^{\zeta^s}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k};(0,s),s\right)&=\lim_{|\mathbf{p}|\to\infty}\left(U_L\right)^{\zeta^s}_{l0}\,P_{a^{2s}}^{l}\left(\mathbf{k};s\right) \,D^{a^{2s}}_{~~b^{2s}}\left(B_{|\mathbf{p}|}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b^{2s}}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{0};\left(\frac{2s-1}{4},\frac{2s+1}{4}\right),s\right),
\label{eq:spin_wave_func_massless_half_integer}
\end{align}
where $U_L$ and $U_R$ matrices can be found in eq.~\eqref{eq:appd_index_map_alpha_to_lr_rerep};
and $B_{|\mathbf{p}|}$ is defined in eq.~\eqref{eq:convention_massive_h_p};
the spin wave functions with $\mathbf{0}$ momentum at the right hand side of equations are of massive particle, where $\mathbf{0}$ momentum is the spatial part of standard momentum of the little group SO(3).
It is worth pointing out that the limit in eqs.~\eqref{eq:spin_wave_func_massless_integer} and \eqref{eq:spin_wave_func_massless_half_integer} is to remove the non-transverse polarized components in the spin wave functions, and has no effect on the remaining two transverse polarized components.
Thus, one can consider only the transverse polarization of spin wave functions without the limit.
Finally, according to eq.~\eqref{eq:any_spin_general_LS_1_rest}, we need to divide the spin wave function of a massless particle into the pure orbital part and the pure spin part, where the pure orbital part must be a pure-boost Lorentz transformation.
Thus, by combining this requirement with eq.~\eqref{eq:convention_massless_h_p}, we will adopt the following separation to define the pure orbital part and the pure spin part of a spin wave function in arbitrary frame,
\begin{align}
u^{\sigma}_{\zeta^s}(\mathbf{p};\chi,s) ~&=~ D_{\zeta^s}^{~~\zeta^s_1}\left(\tilde{h}_{\mathbf{p}}\right)~u^{\sigma}_{\zeta^s_1}(\mathbf{k};\chi,s)\notag\\
~&=~D_{\zeta^s}^{~~\zeta^s_1}\left(R_{\hat{\mathbf{p}}}\right)\,D_{\zeta^s_1}^{~~\zeta^s_2}\left(B_{|\mathbf{p}|}\right)~u^{\sigma}_{\zeta^s_2}(\mathbf{k};\chi,s)\notag\\
~&=~\underbrace{D_{\zeta^s}^{~~\zeta^s_1}\left(R_{\hat{\mathbf{p}}}\right)\,D_{\zeta^s_1}^{~~\zeta^s_2}\left(B_{|\mathbf{p}|}\right)\,D_{\zeta^s_2}^{~~\zeta^s_3}\left(R^{-1}_{\hat{\mathbf{p}}}\right)}_{\text{pure orbital part}}\,\underbrace{D_{\zeta^s_3}^{~~\zeta^s_4}\left(R_{\hat{\mathbf{p}}}\right)\,u^{\sigma}_{\zeta^s_4}(\mathbf{k};\chi,s)}_{\text{pure spin part}}\notag\\
~&\equiv~ D_{\zeta^s}^{~~\zeta^s_1}\left(h_\mathbf{p}\right)~u^\sigma_{\zeta^s_1}\left(\hat{\mathbf{p}};\chi,s\right),
\label{eq:spin_wave_func_standard_to_another}
\end{align}
where $D_{\zeta^s}^{~~\zeta_1^s}\left(h_\mathbf{p}\right)$ is a pure-boost Lorentz transformation matrix;
and $u^\sigma_{\zeta^s}\left(\hat{\mathbf{p}};\chi,s\right)$ is the spin wave function with polarization components along the direction of motion, called \emph{helicity wave function}~\cite{Jacob:1959at}.
This result shows that to get Lorentz covariant amplitudes with definite $L$-$S$ quantum numbers, it is necessary to use the spin wave function along a fixed direction for massive particles and use the helicity wave function for massless particles.
In addition, using the self-conjugate representation $\left[\zeta^s\right]$ to describe the spin wave function of massless particles is equivalent to directly using the field-strength tensor to describe massless particles.
From table~\ref{tab:irreps_Lip}, the self-conjugate representation $\left[\zeta^1\right]=(1,0)\oplus(0,1)$ carries the \emph{Maxwell fields}, which is the \emph{adjoint representation} of $L_p$.
The dimension of this representation is 6, containing three vectors and three axial vectors, corresponding to three components of the electric field and three components of the magnetic field, respectively.
The self-conjugate representation $\left[\zeta^2\right]=(2,0)\oplus(0,2)$ carries the \emph{Einstein gravitational field}.
The dimension of this representation is 10, corresponding to the ten components of the \emph{Riemann curvature tensor}.
Thus, when the partial wave amplitudes are constructed by containing gauge bosons, gauge invariance will be automatically satisfied.
\subsection{Explicit form of covariant $L$-$S$ scheme}
\label{sec:irten_exact}
In this subsection, we will introduce how to use ir.tens of the little group SO(3) to construct Lorentz covariant partial wave amplitude.
Firstly, let us consider the case with massive particles only.
Since the conventional form is Rarita-Schwinger spin wave function, we will use a Lorentz covariant index $\alpha^s$\,\footnote{In the conventional form, spin wave function only contains Dirac spinor indices and Lorentz four-vector indices, which is different from the form adopted in this work, we discuss the relationship between them in appendix~\ref{appd_relation_spin_wave_func}.}, with $\left[\alpha^s\right]$ shown in eq.~\eqref{eq:massive_particle_rep}, to label the spin wave function of a particle with spin-$s$.
Meanwhile, it is convenient to use the spin wave function with definite parity for the process with parity conservation.
These spin wave functions as parity eigenstates are shown in eq.~\eqref{eq:spin_wave_func_parity_eigenstate}.
In subsection~\ref{sec:covariant_General}, we have shown
\begin{align}
\Gamma_{\alpha^{s_1}}^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;L,S)=\,P^{\alpha^S\alpha^L}_{\alpha^{s_1}}(\mathbf{k}_1;s_1,L,S)\,P^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}}_{\alpha^S}(\mathbf{k}_1;S,s_1,s_2)\,\tilde{t}^{(L)}_{\alpha^L}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2-\mathbf{p}^*_3),
\label{eq:general_LS_expand_1_rest_Gamma}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
\tilde{t}^{(L)}_{\alpha^L}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2-\mathbf{p}^*_3)\equiv P^{\mu_1\cdots\mu_L}_{\alpha^L}(\mathbf{k}_1;L)~(p^*_2-p^*_3)_{\mu_1}\cdots (p^*_2-p^*_3)_{\mu_L},
\label{eq:t_tilde}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
P_{\alpha^{j}}^{\alpha^{j_1}\,\alpha^{j_2}}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;j,j_1,j_2\right) ~&=~ \sum_{\chi_1\in[\alpha^{j}],\,\chi_2\in\left(\left[\alpha^{j_1}\right]\otimes[\alpha^{j_2}]\right)}~C_{\chi_1\chi_2}~ P_{\alpha^{j}}^{\alpha^{j_1}\,\alpha^{j_2}}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\chi_1,\chi_2,j\right),\notag\\
P^{\mu_1\cdots\mu_L}_{\alpha^L}(\mathbf{k}_1;L) ~&=~ \prod_{n=1}^{L}\, P^{\mu_n\alpha^{L-n}}_{\alpha^{L-n+1}}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[\mu^{L-n+1}\right],\left[\mu^{L-n+1}\right],L-n+1\right).
\label{eq:spin_proj_ten_JLS}
\end{align}
Here $P_{\alpha^{j}}^{\alpha^{j_1}\,\alpha^{j_2}}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;j,j_1,j_2\right)$ is the most general form of Lorentz covariant coupling structure between spin-$j_i~(i=1,2)$ wave functions and the total spin-$j$ wave function.
$P^{\mu_1\cdots\mu_L}_{\alpha^L}(\mathbf{k}_1;L)$ is the Lorentz covariant coupling structure between four-momenta $q_{\mu_i}~(i=1,2,\cdots,L)$ and the orbital angular momentum $(L)$ wave function.
The $\chi_i~(i=1,2)$ are arbitrary ir.reps of $L_p$ belonging to the representations $[\alpha^{j}]$ and $(\left[\alpha^{j_1}\right]\otimes[\alpha^{j_2}])$ respectively.
The coefficients $C_{\chi_1\chi_2}$ are indeterminate, because they represent the degrees of freedom of the Lorentz covariant coupling structure.\footnote{It is worth pointing out that according to \emph{Wigner-Eckart theorem}, the form of the partial wave amplitude is only related to $L$ and $S$, and is independent of the parameters $C_{\chi_1\chi_2}$.
%
Thus, the change of coefficients $C_{\chi_1\chi_2}$ can be absorbed into the definition of the coupling constants, see appendix~\ref{appd:cov_coupling_structure} for more details.}
Then, by recalling the definition of spin projection tensor as shown in eq.~\eqref{eq:irten_little_group_so3}, one will obtain
\begin{align}
P_{\alpha^{j}}^{\alpha^{j_1}\,\alpha^{j_2}}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\chi_1,\chi_2,j\right) ~&=~ u^{\sigma}_{\alpha^j}(\mathbf{k}_1;\chi_1,j)\, \bar{u}_{\sigma}^{\alpha^{j_1}\,\alpha^{j_2}}(\mathbf{k}_1;\chi_2,j).
\label{eq:spin_proj_ten_sum_decomposetion}
\end{align}
The specific form of these spin wave functions can be got by various combinations of the CGCs of SU(2) as we discussed in subsection~\ref{sec:any_spin_wave_function} and appendix~\ref{appd:spin_wave_function}.
Finally, the Lorentz covariant coupling structure $\Gamma_{\alpha^{s_1}}^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;L,S)$ is expressed as combinations of various spin wave functions, then the exact form of ${\cal A}_{\sigma_1}^{\sigma_2\sigma_3}(\mathbf{p}_1,\mathbf{p}_2,\mathbf{p}_3;L,S) $ is straightforward based on eq.~\eqref{eq:general_LS_expand_1_motion}.
For a partial wave amplitude including massless particles, the explicit form is basically the same as that in eq.~\eqref{eq:general_LS_expand_1_motion}.
The two differences are that (a) for massless particles with helicity $\sigma=\pm s$, the adopted self-conjugate re.rep is
\begin{equation}
\left[\zeta^s\right] ~=~ (s,0)\oplus(0,s);
\label{eq:massless_rep_convention}
\end{equation}
(b) for massless particles, one needs to replace the spin wave function $u^{\sigma}_{\alpha^s}(\mathbf{k};\chi,s)$ with the helicity wave function $u^\sigma_{\zeta^s}\left(\hat{\mathbf{p}};\chi,s\right)$.
By combining eqs.~\eqref{eq:spin_wave_func_massless_integer}, \eqref{eq:spin_wave_func_massless_half_integer} and \eqref{eq:spin_wave_func_standard_to_another} with eqs.~\eqref{eq:general_LS_expand_1_motion} and \eqref{eq:coupling_structure_Gamma_1_rest}, one can write down the partial wave amplitude including massless particles with definite $L$-$S$ quantum numbers.
In addition, it is useful to show the relationship between the partial wave amplitude obtained by covariant $L$-$S$ scheme and the \emph{helicity amplitude}~\cite{Jacob:1959at}.
By combining eqs.~\eqref{eq:general_LS_expand_1_rest} and \eqref{eq:coupling_structure_Gamma_1_rest}, the partial wave amplitude at the rest frame of the initial particle can be written as the following general form,
\begin{align}
{\cal A}_{\sigma_1}^{\sigma_2\sigma_3}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;L,S)=& \,P^{\alpha^S\alpha^L}_{\alpha^{s_1}}(\mathbf{k}_1;s_1,L,S)\,P^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}}_{\alpha_S}(\mathbf{k}_1;S,s_1,s_2)\,\tilde{t}^{(L)}_{\alpha^L}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2-\mathbf{p}^*_3)\notag\\
&\,\times
\bar{u}_{\sigma_1}^{\alpha^{s_1}}(\mathbf{k}_1;s_1)\,u^{\sigma_2}_{\alpha^{s_2}}(\mathbf{k}_2;s_2)\,u^{\sigma_3}_{\alpha^{s_3}}(\mathbf{k}_3;s_3).
\label{eq:general_LS_explicity_1_rest}
\end{align}
In eq.~\eqref{eq:general_LS_explicity_1_rest}, the three polarization indices $\sigma_i~(i=1,2,3)$ refer to the polarization component along the $z$-axis.
According to the definition of helicity amplitude~\cite{Jacob:1959at}, recorded as ${\cal H}$,
the polarization of the initial particle ($\lambda_1=\sigma_1$) is along the $z$-axis, and the polarizations of the final particles ($\lambda_2$ and $\lambda_3$) are along their respective motion directions.
We have,
\begin{align}
{\cal H}^{\lambda_2\lambda_3}_{\lambda_1}\left(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;L,S\right) &=\, {\cal H}^{\lambda_2\lambda_3}_{\sigma_1}\left(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;L,S\right)\notag\\
&=\, D^{(s_2)\lambda_2}_{\sigma_2}\left(R_{\hat{\mathbf{p}}^*_2}\right)\,D^{(s_3)\lambda_3}_{\sigma_3}\left(R_{\hat{\mathbf{p}}^*_3}\right)\,{\cal A}_{\sigma_1}^{\sigma_2\sigma_3}\left(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;L,S\right),
\label{eq:helicity_amplitude_def}
\end{align}
where $R_{\hat{\mathbf{p}}^*_{2(3)}}$ is a rotation transformation from $z$-axis to the motion direction of particle-2(3).
Then, from eqs.~\eqref{eq:general_LS_explicity_1_rest} and \eqref{eq:t_tilde}, the angular dependence of ${\cal A}$ comes from the relative momentum $\left(p_2^*-p_3^*\right)$, so one can separate the angular variables through a rotation transformation as follows,
\begin{align}
\tilde{t}^{(L)}_{\alpha^L}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2-\mathbf{p}^*_3)&=\, P^{\mu_1\cdots\mu_L}_{\alpha^L}(\mathbf{k}_1;L)\,(p^*_2-p^*_3)_{\mu_1}\cdots (p^*_2-p^*_3)_{\mu_L}\notag\\
&=\, P^{\mu_1\cdots\mu_L}_{\alpha^L}(\mathbf{k}_1;L)\,D_{\mu_1}^{~~\nu_1}\left(R_{\hat{\mathbf{p}}^*_2}\right)\,(\bar{p}^*_2-\bar{p}^*_3)_{\nu_1}\cdots D_{\mu_L}^{~~\nu_L}\left(R_{\hat{\mathbf{p}}^*_2}\right)\,(\bar{p}^*_2-\bar{p}^*_3)_{\nu_L}\notag\\
&=\, D_{\alpha^L}^{~~\beta^L}\left(R_{\hat{\mathbf{p}}^*_2}\right)\,P^{\mu_1\cdots\mu_L}_{\beta^L}(\mathbf{k}_1;L)\,(\bar{p}^*_2-\bar{p}^*_3)_{\mu_1}\cdots(\bar{p}^*_2-\bar{p}^*_3)_{\mu_L}\notag\\
&=\, D_{\alpha^L}^{~~\beta^L}\left(R_{\hat{\mathbf{p}}^*_2}\right)\,\tilde{t}^{(L)}_{\beta^L}(\mathbf{k}_1,\bar{\mathbf{p}}^*_2-\bar{\mathbf{p}}^*_3),
\label{eq:t_tilde_separation}
\end{align}
where $(\bar{p}^*_2-\bar{p}^*_3)$ is the relative momentum along $z$-axis;
from the second line to the third line, the property of spin projection tensor has been used, i.e., order-3 ir.tens of the little group SO(3) are invariant with any rotation transformation.
Since all the spin projection tensors and spin wave functions in eq.~\eqref{eq:general_LS_explicity_1_rest} are ir.tens of the little group SO(3), the rotation transformation matrix $D_{\alpha^L}^{~~\beta^L}\left(R_{\hat{\mathbf{p}}^*_2}\right)$ can be continuously transferred to the three polarization indices $\sigma_i~(i=1,2,3)$.
Then, one obtains
\begin{align}
{\cal A}_{\sigma_1}^{\sigma_2\sigma_3}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;L,S)=&\, D^{(s_1)\sigma_1'}_{\sigma_1}\left(R_{\hat{\mathbf{p}}^*_2}\right)\,D^{(s_2)\sigma_2}_{\sigma_2'}\left(R^{-1}_{\hat{\mathbf{p}}^*_2}\right)\,D^{(s_3)\sigma_3}_{\sigma_3'}\left(R^{-1}_{\hat{\mathbf{p}}^*_2}\right)\notag\\
&\,\times{\cal A}_{\sigma_1'}^{\sigma_2'\sigma_3'}(\mathbf{k}_1,\bar{\mathbf{p}}^*_2,\bar{\mathbf{p}}^*_3;L,S).
\label{eq:amplitude_angle_dependence}
\end{align}
Substitute eq.~\eqref{eq:amplitude_angle_dependence} into eq.~\eqref{eq:helicity_amplitude_def}, one has
\begin{align}
{\cal H}^{\lambda_2\lambda_3}_{\sigma_1}\left(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;L,S\right)
&=\,D^{(s_1)\sigma_1'}_{\sigma_1}\left(R_{\hat{\mathbf{p}}^*_2}\right)\,D^{(s_3)\lambda_3}_{\sigma_3}\left(R^{-1}_{\hat{\mathbf{p}}^*_2}\cdot R_{\hat{\mathbf{p}}^*_3}\right)\,{\cal A}_{\sigma_1'}^{\lambda_2\sigma_3}(\mathbf{k}_1,\bar{\mathbf{p}}^*_2,\bar{\mathbf{p}}^*_3;L,S)\notag\\
&\equiv\,e^{i\Theta\left(R_{\hat{\mathbf{p}}^*_2},R_{\hat{\mathbf{p}}^*_3}\right)}\,D^{(s_1)\sigma_1'}_{\sigma_1}\left(R_{\hat{\mathbf{p}}^*_2}\right)\,{\cal F}_{\sigma_1'}^{\lambda_2\,\lambda_3}(\mathbf{k}_1,|\mathbf{p}^*_2|,|\mathbf{p}^*_3|;L,S),\notag\\
{\cal F}^{\lambda_2\lambda_3}_{\sigma_1}\left(\mathbf{k}_1,|\mathbf{p}^*_2|,|\mathbf{p}^*_3|;L,S\right)
&=\, {\cal A}_{\sigma_1}^{\lambda_2\,-\lambda_3}(\mathbf{k}_1,\bar{\mathbf{p}}^*_2,\bar{\mathbf{p}}^*_3;L,S),
\label{eq:helicity_coupling_amplitude}
\end{align}
where $e^{i\Theta\left(R_{\hat{\mathbf{p}}^*_2},R_{\hat{\mathbf{p}}^*_3}\right)}$ is a global phase factor which depends on the phase convention;
and
${\cal F}^{\lambda_2\lambda_3}_{\sigma_1}\left(\mathbf{k}_1,|\mathbf{p}^*_2|,|\mathbf{p}^*_3|;L,S\right)$ is called \emph{helicity-coupling amplitude}~\cite{Chung:1993da}.
Eqs.~\eqref{eq:helicity_amplitude_def}, \eqref{eq:amplitude_angle_dependence} and \eqref{eq:helicity_coupling_amplitude} clearly show the relationship among the helicity amplitude, helicty coupling amplitude and the partial wave amplitude obtained from the covariant $L$-$S$ scheme.
For helicity amplitude including massless particles, the modification is straightforward.
For convenience, through this scheme the general steps for calculating partial wave amplitude
${\cal A}_{\sigma_1}^{\sigma_2\,\sigma_3}(\mathbf{p}_1,\mathbf{p}_2,\mathbf{p}_3;L,S)$ are summarized in fig.~\ref{fig:flowchart}.
\section{Examples of Deriving Lorentz Covariant Partial Wave Amplitudes}
\label{sec:app}
In this section, some specific examples are given.
In subsection~\ref{sec:ex_1_10} and ~\ref{sec:ex_12_121}, we give an example of a two-body decay process containing only bosons and involving fermions, respectively.
In subsection~\ref{sec:massless_LS_amp}, we reconsider the example as discussed in subsection~\ref{sec:ex_1_10} with a final-state particle replaced by photon, and give a brief discussion on the number of linearly independent terms in partial wave amplitudes.
\subsection{Spin-one particle to two-body system of spin-one and spin-zero}
\label{sec:ex_1_10}
In this section, let us discuss how to get the Lorentz covariant partial wave amplitudes of $1(s_1=1)\to 2(s_2=1) + 3(s_3=0)$ process with definite $L$-$S$ quantum numbers by using eq.~\eqref{eq:general_LS_expand_1_motion}.
Firstly, one needs to choose a representation of $L_p$ to express the spin wave function of these particles in question.
Here, recalling eq.~\eqref{eq:massive_particle_rep} and the symbol conventions in table~\ref{tab:symbol_conventions}, one has
\begin{align}
\text{Particle 1 : }~~ \left[\alpha^{s_1}\right] ~&=~ \left[\mu^1\right] ~=~ \left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right) ~\equiv~ [\mu] ,\notag\\
\text{Particle 2 : }~~ \left[\alpha^{s_2}\right] ~&=~ \left[\mu^1\right] ~=~ \left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right) ~\equiv~ [\mu],\notag\\
\text{Particle 3 : }~~ \left[\alpha^{s_3}\right] ~&=~ \left[\mu^0\right] ~=~ ~~\left(0,0\right) ~\equiv~ [~\,],\notag\\
~L~ : ~~ \left[\alpha^{L}\right] ~&=~ \left[\mu^L\right] ~=~ \left(\frac{L}{2},\frac{L}{2}\right).
\label{eq:ex_1_10_symbol_spin_orbit}
\end{align}
Then, according to eqs.~\eqref{eq:general_LS_expand_1_rest_Gamma}, \eqref{eq:t_tilde} and \eqref{eq:spin_proj_ten_JLS}, one needs to write down the specific form of three spin projection tensors $P^{\alpha^S\,\alpha^L}_{\alpha^{s_1}}(\mathbf{k}_1;s_1,S,L)$, $ P^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}}_{\alpha^S}(\mathbf{k}_1;S,s_2,s_3)$ and $P^{\mu_1\cdots\mu_L}_{\alpha^L}(\mathbf{k}_1;L)$.
Let us discuss them one by one.
The spin projection tensor $P^{\alpha^S\,\alpha^L}_{\alpha^{s_1}}(\mathbf{k}_1;s_1,S,L)$ has three indices, where $\alpha^{s_1}$ and $\alpha^L$ have introduced in eq.~\eqref{eq:ex_1_10_symbol_spin_orbit}.
The index $\alpha^S$ carries the representation which describes the spin wave function of the two-body system of particle-2 and particle-3.
Since $s_2=1$ and $s_3=0$, the only choice of total spin $S=1$.
Thus we may take $\left[\alpha^S\right]=[\mu]$.
Then, one has
\begin{equation}
P^{\alpha^S\,\alpha^L}_{\alpha^{s_1}}(\mathbf{k}_1;s_1,S,L) ~=~ P_{\mu}^{\nu\,\mu^L}(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,L),
\label{eq:ex_proj_ten_s1_1_S_1_L_any}
\end{equation}
which will be worked out when the orbital angular momentum $L$ is given.
According to the triangular relation, one has
\begin{equation}
|s_1-S|~\leq~L~\leq~s_1+S~~\Rightarrow~~0\leq L\leq2,
\label{eq:ex_triangular_relation_L_1_10}
\end{equation}
so one will have three different spin projection tensors as follows,
\begin{align}
L=0 ~&:~ P_{\mu}^{\nu\,\mu^L}(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,0) ~=~ P_{\mu}^{\nu\,\mu^0}(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,0) ~\equiv~ P_{\mu}^{\nu}(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,0),\notag\\
L=1 ~&:~ P_{\mu}^{\nu\,\mu^L}(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,1) ~=~ P_{\mu}^{\nu\,\mu^1}(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,1) ~\equiv~ P_{\mu}^{\nu\rho}(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,1),\notag\\
L=2 ~&:~ P_{\mu}^{\nu\,\mu^L}(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,2) ~=~ P_{\mu}^{\nu\,\mu^2}(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,2).
\end{align}
Then, recalling eq.~\eqref{eq:spin_proj_ten_JLS}, for $L=0$, one will get
\begin{equation}
P_\mu^{\nu}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,0\right) ~=~ \sum_{\chi_1\in[\mu],\chi_2\in\left([\mu]\otimes\left[\mu^0\right]\right)} C_{\chi_1\chi_2}~ u_\mu^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\chi_1,1\right)\, \bar{u}^{\nu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\chi_2,1\right),
\end{equation}
since $[\mu]$ is an ir.rep and $\left[\mu^0\right]$ is the identity representation, so both $\chi_1$ and $\chi_2$ must be $[\mu]$, then
\begin{equation}
P_\mu^{\nu}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,0\right) ~=~ C~ u_\mu^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[\mu],1\right)\, \bar{u}^{\nu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[\mu],1\right)
~=~ -C ~ \tilde{g}_{\mu}^{~~\nu},
\label{eq:spin_proj_ten_JLS_1_10_L_1}
\end{equation}
where $C$ is just an indeterminate parameter, one may take $C=1$ for simplicity;
and see eq.~\eqref{eq:proj_spin_tensor_1212_1} for the right equivalence.
For $L=1$, one will get
\begin{equation}
P_\mu^{\nu\rho}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,1\right) ~=~ \sum_{\chi_1\in[\mu],\chi_2\in\left([\mu]\otimes\left[\mu^1\right]\right)} C_{\chi_1\chi_2}~ u_\mu^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\chi_1,1\right)\, \bar{u}^{\nu\rho}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\chi_2,1\right),
\end{equation}
where $\chi_1$ must be $[\mu]$, and $\chi_2$ is one of the ir.rep belonging to $[\mu]\otimes\left[\mu^1\right]=[\mu]\otimes[\mu]$, see eq.~\eqref{eq:direct_prod_decomposition_1212x1212}.
Then,
\begin{align}
P_\mu^{\nu\rho}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,1\right) =~~~ & \sum_{\chi_2\in\left([\mu]\otimes\left[\mu^1\right]\right)} C_{[\mu]\chi_2}~ u_\mu^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[\mu],1\right)\, \bar{u}^{\nu\rho}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\chi_2,1\right)\notag\\
=~~~ &C_{1}~ u_\mu^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[\mu],1\right)\, \bar{u}^{\nu\rho}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;(1,0),1\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{2} ~ u_\mu^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[\mu],1\right)\, \bar{u}^{\nu\rho}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;(0,1),1\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{3} ~ u_\mu^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[\mu],1\right)\, \bar{u}^{\nu\rho}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;(1,1),1\right),\notag\\
=~~~ & \frac{1}{2}\left(C_1+C_2\right)~v_{\rho}~g_{\mu\mu'}~\left(T_{[(1,0)\oplus(0,1)]^-}\right)^{\rho\mu'\nu_1\nu_2}\notag\\
+\,&\frac{1}{2}\left(C_1-C_2\right)~v_{\rho}~g_{\mu\mu'}~\left(T_{[(1,0)\oplus(0,1)]^+}\right)^{\rho\mu'\nu_1\nu_2}\notag\\
+\,&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}C_3~ v_{\rho}~(v^{\nu_2}v_{\nu_2'}g^{\nu_1}_{~~\nu_1'}+v^{\nu_1}v_{\nu_1'}g^{\nu_2}_{~~\nu_2'})~\tilde{g}_{\mu\mu'}~\left(T_{(1,1)}\right)^{\rho\mu'\nu_1'\nu_2'},
\label{eq:ex_1_10_spin_proj_ten_JLS_L_1}
\end{align}
from the second line to the last line, see eq.~\eqref{eq:irten_so3_boson_coupling_1212_1212x1212}.
Then, the indices $\nu$ and $\rho$ label the total spin wave function ($S=1$) and the orbital angular momentum wave function ($L=1$), respectively.
If we further restrict the spin carried by the indices $\nu$ and $\rho$ both to be 1, the last two terms in eq.~\eqref{eq:ex_1_10_spin_proj_ten_JLS_L_1} which are labeled by representations $[(1,0)\oplus(0,1)]^+$ and $(1,1)$ will be vanished (see eq.~\eqref{eq:appd_coupling_structure_9jsymbol}).
Then one may take $C_1+C_2=4$ for simplicity, and finally get
\begin{equation}
P_\mu^{\nu\rho}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,1\right) ~=~ 2~ v_{\nu_1}\, g_{\mu\mu'}\, T_{[(1,0)\oplus(0,1)]^-}^{\nu_1\mu'\nu\rho} ~=~ i \, v_{\nu_1}\, g_{\mu\mu'}\, \epsilon^{\nu_1\mu'\nu\rho}.
\label{eq:spin_proj_ten_1_to_11}
\end{equation}
For $L=2$, we have,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
P_\mu^{\nu\mu^2}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,2\right) ~=~ \sum_{\chi_1\in[\mu],\chi_2\in\left([\mu]\otimes\left[\mu^2\right]\right)} C_{\chi_1\chi_2}~ u_\mu^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\chi_1,1\right)\, \bar{u}^{\nu\mu^2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\chi_2,1\right).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Similarly, the ir.rep $\chi_1$ can only be $[\mu]$, and $\chi_2$ can be any ir.rep belonging to
\begin{align}
[\mu]\otimes\left[\mu^2\right] ~=~ \left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right)\otimes(1,1) ~&=~ \left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right) \oplus \left(\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right) \oplus \left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}\right) \oplus \left(\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}\right)\notag\\
~&\equiv~ [\mu] ~\oplus~ [\zeta_L] ~\oplus~ [\zeta_R] ~\oplus~ \left[\mu^3\right].
\end{align}
Then, one will have
\begin{align}
P_\mu^{\nu\mu^2}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,2\right) =~~~& \sum_{\chi_2\in\left([\mu]\otimes\left[\mu^2\right]\right)} C_{[\mu]\chi_2} ~ u_\mu^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[\mu],1\right)\, \bar{u}^{\nu\mu^2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\chi_2,1\right)\notag\\
=~~~&C_{1} ~ u_\mu^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[\mu],1\right)\, \bar{u}^{\nu\mu^2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[\mu],1\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{2} ~ u_\mu^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[\mu],1\right)\, \bar{u}^{\nu\mu^2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[\zeta_L],1\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{3} ~ u_\mu^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[\mu],1\right)\, \bar{u}^{\nu\mu^2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[\zeta_R],1\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{4} ~ u_\mu^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[\mu],1\right)\, \bar{u}^{\nu\mu^2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[\mu^3\right],1\right),
\label{eq:ex_JLS_1_10_L_2_spin_proj_tensor}
\end{align}
and get the specific form of such spin projection tensors based on the spin wave functions as follows,
\begin{align}
u_\mu^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[\mu],1\right) ~&=~ U_\mu^{~~lr}~ \left(C_{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}}^1\right)^{\sigma}_{lr},\notag\\
\bar{u}^{\nu\mu^2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[\mu],1\right) ~&=~ U_{~~l_1r_1}^{\nu}~ U_{l_2r_2}^{\mu^2}~ \left(C^{\frac{1}{2}1}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)^{l_1l_2}_{l}\left(C^{\frac{1}{2}1}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)^{r_1r_2}_{r}\left(C^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}}_{1}\right)^{lr}_\sigma,\notag\\
\bar{u}^{\nu\mu^2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[\zeta_L],1\right) ~&=~ U_{~~l_1r_1}^{\nu}~ U_{l_2r_2}^{\mu^2}~ \left(C^{\frac{1}{2}1}_{\frac{3}{2}}\right)^{l_1l_2}_{l}\left(C^{\frac{1}{2}1}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)^{r_1r_2}_{r}\left(C^{\frac{3}{2}\frac{1}{2}}_{1}\right)^{lr}_\sigma,\notag\\
\bar{u}^{\nu\mu^2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[\zeta_R],1\right) ~&=~ U_{~~l_1r_1}^{\nu}~ U_{l_2r_2}^{\mu^2}~ \left(C^{\frac{1}{2}1}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)^{l_1l_2}_{l}\left(C^{\frac{1}{2}1}_{\frac{3}{2}}\right)^{r_1r_2}_{r}\left(C^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{3}{2}}_{1}\right)^{lr}_\sigma,\notag\\
\bar{u}^{\nu\mu^2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[\mu^3\right],1\right) ~&=~ U_{~~l_1r_1}^{\nu}~ U_{l_2r_2}^{\mu^2}~ \left(C^{\frac{1}{2}1}_{\frac{3}{2}}\right)^{l_1l_2}_{l}\left(C^{\frac{1}{2}1}_{\frac{3}{2}}\right)^{r_1r_2}_{r}\left(C^{\frac{3}{2}\frac{3}{2}}_{1}\right)^{lr}_\sigma,
\label{eq:ex_JLS_1_10_L_2_spin_wave_func}
\end{align}
where $U_\mu^{~~lr}=U_\mu^{~~\alpha}\,U_{\alpha}^{~~lr}$ is the similarity transformation matrices from the chiral representation to the space-time representation as given in eqs.~\eqref{eq:appd_index_map_alpha_to_lr} and \eqref{eq:appd_spacetime_chiral};
$U_{l_2r_2}^{\mu^2}$ is an operation which flatten the two indices $l_2$ and $r_2$ into one index $\mu^2$, and the corresponding rule of such indices is shown in eq.~\eqref{eq:appd_index_map_alpha_to_lr}.
If we further restrict the spin carried by the indices $\nu$ and $\mu^2$ to be 1 and 2 respectively, all four terms in eq.~\eqref{eq:ex_JLS_1_10_L_2_spin_proj_tensor} are not vanished.
We take a parity conserved process as an example.
One can take $C_1=3$ and $C_2=C_3=C_4=0$ for simplicity, then
\begin{equation}
P_\mu^{\nu\mu^2}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,2\right) ~=~3~ u_\mu^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[\mu],1\right)\, \bar{u}^{\nu\mu^2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[\mu],1\right),
\end{equation}
the above equation contains a Lorentz covariant index $\mu^2$, which can be replaced by two Lorentz indices $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$ by using the ir.ten $T^{\rho_1\rho_2}_{\mu^2}$ as given in eq.~\eqref{eq:irten_1212x1212}.
Finally, one has
\begin{align}
P_\mu^{\nu\rho_1\rho_2}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,2\right) ~&\equiv~ P_\mu^{\nu\mu^2}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,2\right) ~ T^{\rho_1\rho_2}_{\mu^2}\notag\\
~&=~2~\tilde{g}_{\mu\mu'}\,\left(T_{(1,1)}\right)^{\mu'\nu\rho_1\rho_2}\notag\\
~&=~ \left(\tilde{g}_\mu^{~~\rho_1}g^{\nu\rho_2}+\tilde{g}_\mu^{~~\rho_2}g^{\nu\rho_1}\right)-\frac{1}{2}~\tilde{g}_\mu^{~~\nu}g^{\rho_1\rho_2},
\label{eq:spin_proj_ten_1_to_12}
\end{align}
where $\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}$ is the same as that in eq.~\eqref{eq:proj_spin_tensor_1212_1}.
From the second line to the third line, please see eq.~\eqref{eq:irten_1212x1212_Lorentz}.
The spin projection tensor $P_{\alpha^S}^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}} \left(\mathbf{k}_1;S,s_2,s_3\right)$ has three indices.
From the above discussion about $P^{\alpha^S\alpha^L}_{\alpha^{s_1}}(\mathbf{k}_1;s_1,S,L)$, we have chosen $[\alpha^{s_2}]=\left[\alpha^S\right]=[\mu]$ and $[\alpha^{s_3}]=(0,0)$, thus,
\begin{align}
P_{\alpha^S}^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}} \left(\mathbf{k}_1;S,s_2,s_3\right) ~=~ P_\mu^{\nu\mu^0} \left(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,0\right) ~\equiv~ P_{\mu}^{\nu} \left(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,0\right),
\end{align}
where $P_{\mu}^{\nu}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,0\right)$ is the same as that in eq.~\eqref{eq:spin_proj_ten_JLS_1_10_L_1}.
The spin projection tensor $P^{\mu_1\cdots\mu_L}_{\alpha^L}(\mathbf{k}_1;L)$ only depends on the orbital angular momentum quantum number $L$ which is constrained in eq.~\eqref{eq:ex_triangular_relation_L_1_10}.
Then we have
\begin{align}
L=0 ~&:~ P^{\mu_1\cdots\mu_L}_{\alpha^L}(\mathbf{k}_1;L) ~=~ P_{\mu^0}(\mathbf{k}_1;0) ~\equiv~ P(\mathbf{k}_1;0) ~=~ 1,\notag\\
L=1 ~&:~ P^{\mu_1\cdots\mu_L}_{\alpha^L}(\mathbf{k}_1;L) ~=~ P^{\mu_1}_{\mu^1}(\mathbf{k}_1;1) ~\equiv~ P^{\mu_1}_{\mu}(\mathbf{k}_1;1),\notag\\
L=2 ~&:~ P^{\mu_1\cdots\mu_L}_{\alpha^L}(\mathbf{k}_1;L) ~=~ P^{\mu_1\mu_2}_{\mu^2}(\mathbf{k}_1;2),
\label{eq:ex_1_orbit_wave_func}
\end{align}
where $P^{\mu_1}_{\mu}(\mathbf{k}_1;1)$ is the same as that in eq.~\eqref{eq:spin_proj_ten_JLS_1_10_L_1}; and
\begin{equation}
P^{\mu_1\mu_2}_{\mu^2}(\mathbf{k}_1;2) ~=~ u_{\mu^2}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;(1,1),2\right) \bar{u}^{\mu_1\mu_2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;(1,1),2\right),
\end{equation}
with
\begin{align}
u_{\mu^2}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;(1,1),2\right) ~&=~ U_{\mu^2}^{lr}~ \left(C_{11}^{2}\right)_{lr}^{\sigma},\notag\\
\bar{u}^{\mu_1\mu_2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;(1,1),2\right) ~&=~ U^{\mu_1}_{~~l_1r_1} ~U^{\mu_2}_{~~l_2r_2}~ \left(C^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}}_{1}\right)^{l_1l_2}_{l} \left(C^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}}_{1}\right)^{r_1r_2}_{r}\left(C_2^{11}\right)^{lr}_\sigma,
\end{align}
where $U_{\mu^2}^{lr}$ and $U^{\mu}_{~~lr}$ are the same as those in eq.~\eqref{eq:ex_JLS_1_10_L_2_spin_wave_func}.
Similarly, the Lorentz covariant index $\mu^2$ can be replaced by two Lorentz indices $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$ by the ir.ten $T^{\nu_1\nu_2}_{\mu^2}$ as given in eq.~\eqref{eq:irten_1212x1212}.
Finally, we have
\begin{align}
P^{\nu_1\nu_2\mu_1\mu_2}(\mathbf{k}_1;2) ~&=~ T^{\nu^2\nu_1\nu_2}~P^{\mu_1\mu_2}_{\nu^2}(\mathbf{k}_1;2)\notag\\
~&=~ \tilde{g}^{\nu_1\nu_1'}\, \tilde{g}^{\nu_2\nu_2'}\, \tilde{g}^{\mu_1\mu_1'}\, \tilde{g}^{\mu_2\mu_2'}\,\left(T_{(1,1)}\right)_{\nu_1'\nu_2'\mu_1'\mu_2'}~-~\frac{1}{12}\,\tilde{g}^{\nu_1\nu_2}\,\tilde{g}^{\mu_1\mu_2},\notag\\
~&=~ \frac{1}{2}~\left(\tilde{g}^{\nu_1\mu_1}\tilde{g}^{\nu_2\mu_2}~+~\tilde{g}^{\nu_1\mu_2}\tilde{g}^{\nu_2\mu_1}\right)~-~\frac{1}{3}~\tilde{g}^{\nu_1\nu_2}\tilde{g}^{\mu_1\mu_2},
\end{align}
where $\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}$ is the same as that in eq.~\eqref{eq:proj_spin_tensor_1212_1}.
From the second line to the third line, please see eq.~\eqref{eq:irten_1212x1212_Lorentz}.
With the above specific forms of the three spin projection tensors $P^{\alpha^S\alpha^L}_{\alpha^{s_1}}(\mathbf{k}_1;s_1,S,L)$, $P^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}}_{\alpha^S}(\mathbf{k}_1;S,s_2,s_3)$ and $P^{\mu_1\cdots\mu_L}_{\alpha^L}(\mathbf{k}_1;L)$, according to eq.~\eqref{eq:general_LS_expand_1_motion}, one will get the Lorentz covariant partial wave amplitudes of $1(s_1=1)\to 2(s_2=1) + 3(s_3=0)$.
There are three different amplitudes, corresponding to partial wave amplitudes with different orbital angular momentum $L$.
For $L=0$, one has
\begin{align}
\Gamma_{\alpha^{s_1}}^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;L,S) ~&=~
\Gamma_{\mu}^{\nu\mu^0}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;1,1,0,0,1)\notag\\
~&\equiv~ \Gamma_{\mu}^{\nu}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;1,1,0,0,1)\notag\\
~&=~
P^{\rho}_{\mu}(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,0)~ P^{\nu}_{\rho}(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,0),\notag\\
~&=~ \left(\tilde{g}_1\right)_{\mu}^{~~\nu},
\label{eq:ex_1_Gamma_L_0}
\end{align}
where $\left(\tilde{g}_1\right)_{\mu}^{~~\nu}=-g_\mu^{~~\nu}+\left(v_1\right)_\mu\left(v_1\right)^\nu$ with the four velocity of particle-1, $v_1=p_1/m$.
For $L=1$, one has
\begin{align}
\Gamma_{\alpha^{s_1}}^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;L,S) ~&=~ \Gamma_{\mu}^{\nu\mu^0}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;1,1,0,1,1)\notag\\
~&\equiv~ \Gamma_{\mu}^{\nu}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;1,1,0,1,1)\notag\\
~&=~
P^{\nu'\rho}_{\mu}(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,1)~ P^{\nu}_{\nu'}(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,0)~\tilde{t}^{(1)}_{\rho}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2-\mathbf{p}^*_3)\notag\\
~&=~ i\,g_{\mu\mu'}\,\left(v_1\right)_{\nu'}\, \epsilon^{\mu'\nu'\rho\nu}~\tilde{t}^{(1)}_{\rho}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2-\mathbf{p}^*_3),
\label{eq:ex_1_Gamma_L_1}
\end{align}
where $v_1$ is the same as that in eq.~\eqref{eq:ex_1_Gamma_L_0}; from the third line to the last line, please see eq.~\eqref{eq:spin_proj_ten_1_to_11}.
For $L=2$, one has
\begin{align}
\Gamma_{\alpha^{s_1}}^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;L,S) ~&=~
\Gamma_{\mu}^{\nu\mu^0}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;1,1,0,2,1)\notag\\
~&\equiv~ \Gamma_{\mu}^{\nu}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;1,1,0,2,1)\notag\\
~&=~
P^{\nu'\rho^2}_{\mu}(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,2)~ P^{\nu}_{\nu'}(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,0)~\tilde{t}^{(2)}_{\rho^2}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2-\mathbf{p}^*_3),
\label{eq:ex_1_Gamma_L_2_first}
\end{align}
by using the following orthogonal normalization relation of the ir.ten $T_{\mu^2}^{\mu_1\mu_2}$,
\begin{equation}
T_{\mu^2}^{\mu_1\mu_2}~T^{\nu^2}_{\mu_1\mu_2} ~=~ \delta^{\nu^2}_{\mu^2}.
\end{equation}
One can replace both the Lorentz covariant and inverse indices $\rho^2$ with two Lorentz indices $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$ in eq.~\eqref{eq:ex_1_Gamma_L_2_first} as follows,
\begin{align}
\Gamma_{\mu}^{\nu}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;1,1,0,2,1)
=\,& P^{\nu'\rho_1\rho_2}_{\mu}(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,2)~ P^{\nu}_{\nu'}(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,0)~\tilde{t}^{(2)}_{\rho_1\rho_2}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2-\mathbf{p}^*_3)\notag\\
=\,& \left\{\left[\left(\tilde{g}_1\right)_\mu^{~~\rho_1}\,\left(\tilde{g}_1\right)^{\nu'\rho_2}+\left(\tilde{g}_1\right)_\mu^{~~\rho_2}\,\left(\tilde{g}_1\right)^{\nu'\rho_1}\right]-\frac{5}{3}~\left(\tilde{g}_1\right)_\mu^{~~\nu'}\,\left(\tilde{g}_1\right)^{\rho_1\rho_2}\right\}\notag\\
&\times\,\tilde{t}^{(2)}_{\rho_1\rho_2}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2-\mathbf{p}^*_3),
\label{eq:ex_1_Gamma_L_2_second}
\end{align}
where $\left(\tilde{g}_1\right)_{\mu}^{~~\nu}$ is the same as that in eq.~\eqref{eq:ex_1_Gamma_L_0}.
From the first line to the second line, we have used a given form of $P^{\nu\rho_1\rho_2}_{\mu}(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,2)$ as shown in eq.~\eqref{eq:spin_proj_ten_1_to_12}.
Finally, by combining eqs.~\eqref{eq:general_LS_expand_1_motion}, \eqref{eq:ex_1_Gamma_L_0}, \eqref{eq:ex_1_Gamma_L_1} and \eqref{eq:ex_1_Gamma_L_2_second}, we have the following partial wave amplitudes,
\begin{align}
\mathcal{A}_{\sigma_1}^{\sigma_2}(\mathbf{p}_1,\mathbf{p}_2,\mathbf{p}_3;0,1) ~=~ &D^{~~\nu}_{\mu}\left(h_{\mathbf{p}_1}\cdot h_{\mathbf{p}_2}^{-1}\right)\, \bar{u}_{\sigma_1}^{\mu}\left(\mathbf{p}_1;1\right)\,u^{\sigma_2}_{\nu}\left(\mathbf{p}_2;1\right),\notag\\
\mathcal{A}_{\sigma_1}^{\sigma_2}(\mathbf{p}_1,\mathbf{p}_2,\mathbf{p}_3;1,1) ~=~ &D_{\nu'}^{~~\nu}\left(h_{\mathbf{p}_1}\cdot h_{\mathbf{p}_2}^{-1}\right)\,i\,\epsilon^{\mu'\nu'\rho\rho'}\, g_{\mu\mu'}\,\left(v_1\right)_{\rho}\, \tilde{t}^{(1)}_{\rho'}(\mathbf{p}_1,\mathbf{p}_2-\mathbf{p}_3)\notag\\ &\times\,\bar{u}_{\sigma_1}^{\mu}\left(\mathbf{p}_1;1\right)\,u^{\sigma_2}_{\nu}\left(\mathbf{p}_2;1\right),\notag\\
\mathcal{A}_{\sigma_1}^{\sigma_2}(\mathbf{p}_1,\mathbf{p}_2,\mathbf{p}_3;2,1) ~=~ &D_{\nu'}^{~~\nu}\left(h_{\mathbf{p}_1}\cdot h_{\mathbf{p}_2}^{-1}\right)\,g^{\nu'\rho}\,\tilde{t}^{(2)}_{\mu\rho}(\mathbf{p}_1,\mathbf{p}_2-\mathbf{p}_3)\notag\\ &\times\,\bar{u}_{\sigma_1}^{\mu}\left(\mathbf{p}_1;1\right)\,u^{\sigma_2}_{\nu}\left(\mathbf{p}_2;1\right),
\label{eq:ex_1_amplitude}
\end{align}
where $D^{~~\nu}_{\mu}\left(h_{\mathbf{p}_1}\cdot h_{\mathbf{p}_2}^{-1}\right)$ is a Lorentz transformation matrix.
If one removes this transformation matrix, the obtained partial wave amplitude will be exactly the same as that given in previous work~\cite{Zou:2002ar}.
It is equivalent to take non-relativistic approximation for the spin wave functions of final state particles, i.e., $|\mathbf{p}^*_{2(3)}|/m_{2(3)}\to0$ and then $D^{~~\nu}_{\mu}\left(h_{\mathbf{p}_1}\cdot h_{\mathbf{p}_2}^{-1}\right)\to \delta^{~~\nu}_{\mu}$.
\subsection{Spin-half particle to two-body system of spin-half and spin-one}
\label{sec:ex_12_121}
In this section, let us discuss how to get the Lorentz covariant partial wave amplitudes of $1(s_1=\frac12)\to 2(s_2=\frac12)+3(s_3=1)$ process with definite $L$-$S$ quantum numbers by using eq.~\eqref{eq:general_LS_expand_1_motion}.
Firstly, one needs to choose a representation of $L_p$ to express the spin wave functions of these particles involved vertex.
Recalling eq.~\eqref{eq:massive_particle_rep} and the symbol conventions in table~\ref{tab:symbol_conventions}, one has
\begin{align}
\text{Particle 1 : }~~ \left[\alpha^{s_1}\right] ~&=~ \left[a^1\right] ~=~ [a] ~=~ \left[\left(\frac{1}{2},0\right)\oplus\left(0,\frac{1}{2}\right)\right],\notag\\
\text{Particle 2 : }~~ \left[\alpha^{s_2}\right] ~&=~ \left[a^1\right] ~=~ [a] ~=~ \left[\left(\frac{1}{2},0\right)\oplus\left(0,\frac{1}{2}\right)\right],\notag\\
\text{Particle 3 : }~~ \left[\alpha^{s_3}\right] ~&=~ \left[\mu^1\right] ~=~ [\mu] ~=~ \left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right),\notag\\
\text{$L$ : }~~ \left[\alpha^L\right] ~&=~ \left[\mu^L\right] ~=~ \left(\frac{L}{2},\frac{L}{2}\right).
\label{eq:ex_12_121_symbol_spin_orbit}
\end{align}
Then, according to eqs.~\eqref{eq:general_LS_expand_1_rest_Gamma}, \eqref{eq:t_tilde} and \eqref{eq:spin_proj_ten_JLS}, the specific form of three spin projection tensors $P^{\alpha^S\,\alpha^L}_{\alpha^{s_1}}(\mathbf{k}_1;s_1,S,L)$, $ P^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}}_{\alpha^S}(\mathbf{k}_1;S,s_2,s_3)$ and $P^{\mu_1\cdots\mu_L}_{\alpha^L}(\mathbf{k}_1;L)$ are essential to derive one by one.
The spin projection tensor $P^{\alpha^S\,\alpha^L}_{\alpha^{s_1}}(\mathbf{k}_1;s_1,S,L)$ has three indices, where $\alpha^{s_1}$ and $\alpha^L$ have been introduced in eq.~\eqref{eq:ex_12_121_symbol_spin_orbit}.
The index $\alpha^S$ carries the representation which describes the total spin wave function of the two-body system of particle-2 and particle-3.
Since $s_2=\frac{1}{2}$ and $s_3=1$, the total spin of this system is $S=\frac{1}{2}$ or $\frac{3}{2}$.
The corresponding representation $\left[\alpha^S\right]$ is as follows,
\begin{align}
S=\frac{1}{2} ~&:~ ~~\left[\alpha^S\right] ~=~ \left[a^1\right] ~=~ [a] ~=~ \left[\left(\frac{1}{2},0\right)\oplus\left(0,\frac{1}{2}\right)\right],\notag\\
S=\frac{3}{2} ~&:~ ~~\left[\alpha^S\right] ~=~ \left[a^3\right] ~=~ \left[\left(1,\frac{1}{2}\right)\oplus\left(\frac{1}{2},1\right)\right].
\end{align}
For each value of $S$, one gets the corresponding possible value of $L$ as follows,
\begin{align}
S=\frac{1}{2} ~&:~ |s_1-S|~\leq~L~\leq~s_1+S~~\Rightarrow~~0\leq L\leq1,\notag\\
S=\frac{3}{2} ~&:~ |s_1-S|~\leq~L~\leq~s_1+S~~\Rightarrow~~1\leq L\leq2.
\label{eq:ex_triangular_relation_L_12_121}
\end{align}
Then, one has
\begin{align}
\left(S,L\right)=\left(\frac{1}{2},0\right) ~&:~ P^{\alpha^S\,\alpha^L}_{\alpha^{s_1}}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;s_1,S,L\right) ~=~ P_{a}^{b\,\mu^0}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},0\right) ~\equiv~ P_{a}^{b}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},0\right),\notag\\
\left(S,L\right)=\left(\frac{1}{2},1\right) ~&:~ P^{\alpha^S\,\alpha^L}_{\alpha^{s_1}}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;s_1,S,L\right)~=~P_{a}^{b\,\mu}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},1\right),\notag\\
\left(S,L\right)=\left(\frac{3}{2},1\right) ~&:~ P^{\alpha^S\,\alpha^L}_{\alpha^{s_1}}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;s_1,S,L\right)~=~ P_{a}^{b^3\mu}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2},1\right),\notag\\
\left(S,L\right)=\left(\frac{3}{2},2\right) ~&:~ P^{\alpha^S\,\alpha^L}_{\alpha^{s_1}}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;s_1,S,L\right)~=~P_{a}^{b^3\mu^2}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2},2\right).
\end{align}
By recalling eq.~\eqref{eq:spin_proj_ten_JLS}, for $(S,L)=\left(\frac{1}{2},0\right)$, one will obtain,
\begin{equation}
P_a^{b}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},0\right) ~=~ \sum_{\chi_1\in[a],\chi_2\in[a]} C_{\chi_1\chi_2}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\chi_1,\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\chi_2,\frac{1}{2}\right),
\end{equation}
where both $\chi_1$ and $\chi_2$ can be arbitrary ir.rep belonging to the Dirac spinor representation $\left[\left(\frac{1}{2},0\right)\oplus\left(0,\frac{1}{2}\right)\right]$, i.e. $\left(\frac{1}{2},0\right)=[a_L]$ or $\left(0,\frac{1}{2}\right)=[a_R]$.
Thus one has
\begin{align}
P_a^{b}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},0\right) =~~~~&C_{1} ~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{2} ~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{3} ~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{4} ~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right),
\label{eq:ex_12_121_proj_ten_JLS_L_0_S_12}
\end{align}
where $C_i~(i=1,2,3,4)$ are just some indeterminate coefficients as discussed before;
the $u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_{R/L}\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)$ can be expressed by the parity-eigenstate spin wave functions as given in eq.~\eqref{eq:spin_wave_func_parity_eigenstate}.
At last, we will obtain,
\begin{align}
P_a^{b}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},0\right) =~~~&\frac{C_1+C_2+C_3+C_4}{2}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[a],\frac{1}{2}^+\right)\, \bar{u}^{b}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[a],\frac{1}{2}^+\right)\notag\\
+\,&\frac{C_1+C_2-C_3-C_4}{2}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[a],\frac{1}{2}^-\right)\, \bar{u}^{b}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[a],\frac{1}{2}^+\right)\notag\\
+\,&\frac{C_1-C_2+C_3-C_4}{2}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[a],\frac{1}{2}^+\right)\, \bar{u}^{b}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[a],\frac{1}{2}^-\right)\notag\\
+\,&\frac{C_1-C_2-C_3+C_4}{2}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[a],\frac{1}{2}^-\right)\, \bar{u}^{b}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[a],\frac{1}{2}^-\right)\notag\\
=~~~&\frac{C_1+C_2+C_3+C_4}{2}\, \left[\frac{\mathbbm{1}+\left(v_1\right)_\mu\gamma^\mu}{2}\right]_a^{~~b}\notag\\
+\,&\frac{C_1-C_2-C_3+C_4}{2}\, \left[\frac{-\mathbbm{1}+\left(v_1\right)_\mu\gamma^\mu}{2}\right]_a^{~~b}\notag\\
+\,&\frac{C_1+C_2-C_3-C_4}{2}\, \left[\frac{\gamma_5+\left(v_1\right)_\mu\gamma_5\gamma^\mu}{2}\right]_a^{~~b}\notag\\
+\,&\frac{C_1-C_2+C_3-C_4}{2}\, \left[\frac{-\gamma_5+\left(v_1\right)_\mu\gamma_5\gamma^\mu}{2}\right]_a^{~~b},
\label{eq:spin_proj_ten_12_to_12+0}
\end{align}
where $v_1$ is the same as that in eq.~\eqref{eq:ex_1_Gamma_L_0}.
The detailed derivation is shown in eq.~\eqref{eq:irten_so3_120_012_proj_func}.
These four terms are just for the specific parity sets of particle-1 and particle-2.
Once the parities of them is determined, only one of the four terms will remain.
For $(S,L)=\left(\frac{1}{2},1\right)$, one has,
\begin{equation}
P_a^{b\mu}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},1\right) ~=~ \sum_{\chi_1\in[a],\chi_2\in\left([a]\otimes[\mu]\right)} C_{\chi_1\chi_2} ~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\chi_1,\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\chi_2,\frac{1}{2}\right),
\end{equation}
where $\chi_1$ can be an arbitrary ir.rep belonging to the Dirac spinor representation $\left[\frac{1}{2},0\right]$, and $\chi_2$ can be any ir.rep belonging to
\begin{align}
[a]\otimes[\mu] ~=~ \left[\left(\frac{1}{2},0\right)\oplus\left(0,\frac{1}{2}\right)\right]\otimes\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right)~&=~ \left(0,\frac{1}{2}\right)\oplus\left(\frac{1}{2},0\right)\oplus\left(1,\frac{1}{2}\right)\oplus\left(\frac{1}{2},1\right)\notag\\
~&\equiv~ \left[a_R\right]~\oplus~\left[a_L\right]~\oplus~\left[a^3_L\right]~\oplus~\left[a^3_R\right].
\end{align}
Then,
\begin{align}
P_a^{b\mu}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},1\right) =~~~&C_{1}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{2}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{3}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^3_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{4}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^3_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{5}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{6}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{7}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^3_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{8}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^3_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right).
\label{eq:ex_2_proj_ten_S_12_L_1}
\end{align}
$C_i~(i=1,2,\cdots,8)$ are just some indeterminate coefficients.
The spin wave functions $u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_{L/R}\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)$ are the same as those in eq.~\eqref{eq:ex_12_121_proj_ten_JLS_L_0_S_12}.
Others are as follows,
\begin{align}
\bar{u}^{b\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right) ~&=~ \left(C^{0\frac{1}{2}}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_l^{l_1l_2} \left(C^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}}_{0}\right)_r^{r_1r_2} \left(C^{\frac{1}{2}0}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_\sigma^{lr} \left(U_R\right)_{l_1r_1}^b T^\mu_{l_2r_2},\notag\\
\bar{u}^{b\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right) ~&=~ \left(C^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}}_{0}\right)_l^{l_1l_2} \left(C^{0\frac{1}{2}}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_r^{r_1r_2} \left(C^{0\frac{1}{2}}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_\sigma^{lr} \left(U_L\right)_{l_1r_1}^b T^\mu_{l_2r_2},\notag\\
\bar{u}^{b\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^3_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right) ~&=~ \left(C^{0\frac{1}{2}}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_l^{l_1l_2} \left(C^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}}_{1}\right)_r^{r_1r_2} \left(C^{\frac{1}{2}1}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_\sigma^{lr} \left(U_R\right)_{l_1r_1}^b T^\mu_{l_2r_2},\notag\\
\bar{u}^{b\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^3_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right) ~&=~ \left(C^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}}_{1}\right)_l^{l_1l_2} \left(C^{0\frac{1}{2}}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_r^{r_1r_2} \left(C^{1\frac{1}{2}}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_\sigma^{lr} \left(U_L\right)_{l_1r_1}^b T^\mu_{l_2r_2},
\label{eq:ex_2_spin_wave_func_bmu}
\end{align}
where $T^\mu_{lr}$ is the same as that in eq.~\eqref{eq:irten_1212_12x12_similarity_trans};
$\left(U_L\right)^b_{lr}$ and $\left(U_R\right)^b_{lr}$ are defined in eq.~\eqref{eq:appd_index_map_alpha_to_lr_rerep}.
Similarly, by using the parity-eigenstate spin waves functions as shown in eq.~\eqref{eq:spin_wave_func_parity_eigenstate}to express above spin wave functions, we obtain,
\begin{align}
&P_a^{b\mu}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},1\right)\notag\\
=~~~& \frac{C_1+C_2+C_5+C_6}{2}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[a],\frac{1}{2}^+\right)\, \bar{u}^{b\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[a],\frac{1}{2}^+\right)\notag\\
+\,&\frac{C_1+C_2-C_5-C_6}{2}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[a],\frac{1}{2}^-\right)\, \bar{u}^{b\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[a],\frac{1}{2}^+\right)\notag\\
+\,&\frac{C_1-C_2+C_5-C_6}{2}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[a],\frac{1}{2}^+\right)\, \bar{u}^{b\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[a],\frac{1}{2}^-\right)\notag\\
+\,&\frac{C_1-C_2-C_5+C_6}{2}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[a],\frac{1}{2}^-\right)\, \bar{u}^{b\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[a],\frac{1}{2}^-\right)\notag\\
+\,&\frac{C_3+C_4+C_7+C_8}{2}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[a],\frac{1}{2}^+\right)\, \bar{u}^{b\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^3\right],\frac{1}{2}^+\right)\notag\\
+\,&\frac{C_3+C_4-C_7-C_8}{2}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[a],\frac{1}{2}^-\right)\, \bar{u}^{b\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^3\right],\frac{1}{2}^+\right)\notag\\
+\,&\frac{C_3-C_4+C_7-C_8}{2}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[a],\frac{1}{2}^+\right)\, \bar{u}^{b\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^3\right],\frac{1}{2}^-\right)\notag\\
+\,&\frac{C_3-C_4-C_7+C_8}{2}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[a],\frac{1}{2}^-\right)\, \bar{u}^{b\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^3\right],\frac{1}{2}^-\right)\notag\\
=~~~&\left(\frac{C_1+C_2+C_5+C_6}{4}+\frac{C_3-C_4+C_7-C_8}{4\sqrt{3}}\right)\,
\left\{\left[\mathbbm{1}+\left(v_1\right)_\nu\gamma^\nu\right]\gamma_5\gamma^\mu\right\}_a^{~~b}\notag\\
+\,&\left(\frac{C_1+C_2-C_5-C_6}{4}+\frac{C_3-C_4-C_7+C_8}{4\sqrt{3}}\right)\,
\left\{\left[\mathbbm{1}-\left(v_1\right)_\nu\gamma^\nu\right]\gamma^\mu\right\}_a^{~~b}\notag\\
+\,&\left(\frac{C_1-C_2+C_5-C_6}{4}+\frac{C_3+C_4+C_7+C_8}{4\sqrt{3}}\right)\,
\left\{\left[\mathbbm{1}+\left(v_1\right)_\nu\gamma^\nu\right]\gamma^\mu\right\}_a^{~~b}\notag\\
+\,&\left(\frac{C_1-C_2-C_5+C_6}{4}+\frac{C_3+C_4-C_7-C_8}{4\sqrt{3}}\right)
\left\{\left[\mathbbm{1}-\left(v_1\right)_\nu\gamma^\nu\right]\gamma_5\gamma^\mu\right\}_a^{~~b}.
\end{align}
Again, these four terms are corresponding to the cases where particle-1 and the system of particle-2 and particle-3 take different intrinsic parity.
For $(S,L)=\left(\frac{3}{2},1\right)$, one will have
\begin{equation}
P_{a}^{b^3\mu}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2},1\right) ~=~ \sum_{\chi_1\in[a],\chi_2\in\left(\left[a^3\right]\otimes[\mu]\right)} C_{\chi_1\chi_2}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\chi_1,\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b^3\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\chi_2,\frac{1}{2}\right),
\end{equation}
where $\chi_1$ can be an arbitrary ir.rep belonging to the Dirac spinor representation $\left[\frac{1}{2},0\right]$, and $\chi_2$ can be an arbitrary ir.rep belonging to
\begin{align}
\left[a^3\right]\otimes[\mu] =~~~& \left[\left(1,\frac{1}{2}\right)\oplus\left(\frac{1}{2},1\right)\right]\otimes\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
=~~~& \left(\frac{1}{2},0\right)\oplus\left(0,\frac{1}{2}\right)\oplus\left(\frac{1}{2},1\right)\oplus\left(1,\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
\oplus\,&\left(\frac{3}{2},0\right)\oplus\left(0,\frac{3}{2}\right)\oplus\left(\frac{3}{2},1\right)\oplus\left(1,\frac{3}{2}\right)\notag\\
\equiv~~~& \left[a_L\right]~\oplus~\left[a_R\right]~\oplus~\left[a^3_R\right]~\oplus~\left[a^3_L\right]
\notag\\
\oplus\,&\left[l\right]~\oplus~\left[r\right]~\oplus~\left[a^5_L\right]~\oplus~\left[a^5_R\right].
\end{align}
It is noting that the spin wave function with $\chi_2=[l]$ or $[r]$ cannot be used to describe a spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ particle.
Thus, one only needs to consider the remaining 12 terms as follows,
\begin{align}
P_a^{b^3\mu}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2},1\right) =~~~& C_{1}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b^3\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{2}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b^3\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{3}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b^3\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^3_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{4}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b^3\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^3_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{5}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b^3\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^5_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{6}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b^3\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^5_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{7}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b^3\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{8}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b^3\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{9}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b^3\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^3_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{10}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b^3\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^3_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{11}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b^3\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^5_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{12}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b^3\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^5_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right),
\end{align}
where $C_i~(i=1,2,\cdots,12)$ are just some indeterminate coefficients .
The spin wave functions $u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)$ and $u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)$ are the same as those in eq.~\eqref{eq:ex_12_121_proj_ten_JLS_L_0_S_12}, while the other spin wave functions are as follows,
\begin{align}
\bar{u}^{b^3\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right) ~&=~ \left(C^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}}_{0}\right)_l^{l_1l_2} \left(C^{1\frac{1}{2}}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_r^{r_1r_2} \left(C^{0\frac{1}{2}}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_\sigma^{lr} \left(U_R\right)_{l_1r_1}^{b^3} T^\mu_{l_2r_2},\notag\\
\bar{u}^{b^3\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right) ~&=~ \left(C^{1\frac{1}{2}}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_l^{l_1l_2} \left(C^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}}_{0}\right)_r^{r_1r_2} \left(C^{\frac{1}{2}0}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_\sigma^{lr} \left(U_L\right)_{l_1r_1}^{b^3} T^\mu_{l_2r_2},\notag\\
\bar{u}^{b^3\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^3_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right) ~&=~ \left(C^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}}_{1}\right)_l^{l_1l_2} \left(C^{1\frac{1}{2}}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_r^{r_1r_2} \left(C^{1\frac{1}{2}}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_\sigma^{lr} \left(U_R\right)_{l_1r_1}^{b^3} T^\mu_{l_2r_2},\notag\\
\bar{u}^{b^3\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^3_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right) ~&=~ \left(C^{1\frac{1}{2}}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_l^{l_1l_2} \left(C^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}}_{1}\right)_r^{r_1r_2} \left(C^{\frac{1}{2}1}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_\sigma^{lr} \left(U_L\right)_{l_1r_1}^{b^3} T^\mu_{l_2r_2},\notag\\
\bar{u}^{b^3\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^5_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right) ~&=~ \left(C^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}}_{1}\right)_l^{l_1l_2} \left(C^{1\frac{1}{2}}_{\frac{3}{2}}\right)_r^{r_1r_2} \left(C^{1\frac{3}{2}}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_\sigma^{lr} \left(U_R\right)_{l_1r_1}^{b^3} T^\mu_{l_2r_2},\notag\\
\bar{u}^{b^3\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^5_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right) ~&=~ \left(C^{1\frac{1}{2}}_{\frac{3}{2}}\right)_l^{l_1l_2} \left(C^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}}_{1}\right)_r^{r_1r_2} \left(C^{\frac{3}{2}1}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_\sigma^{lr} \left(U_L\right)_{l_1r_1}^{b^3} T^\mu_{l_2r_2},
\end{align}
where $T^\mu_{lr}$ is the same as that in eq.~\eqref{eq:irten_1212_12x12_similarity_trans};
$\left(U_L\right)^b_{lr}$, $\left(U_R\right)^b_{lr}$, $\left(U_L\right)^{b^3}_{lr}$ and $\left(U_R\right)^{b^3}_{lr}$ are the same as those in eq.~\eqref{eq:self_conj_rep_spin_wave_func_inverse}.
In order to derive the explicit form of $P_a^{b\nu\mu}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2},1\right)$, we need to transfer the index $b^3$ as one Dirac spinor index $b$ and one Lorentz indices $\nu$ by the ir.ten $T^{b\mu}_{b^3}$ defined in eq.~\eqref{eq:irten_12+12x1212}, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
P_a^{b\nu\mu}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2},1\right)~\equiv~T^{b\nu}_{b^3}~P_a^{b^3\mu}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2},1\right),
\end{equation}
We will not give the tedious result of $P_a^{b\nu\mu}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2},1\right)$ here.
For $(S,L)=\left(\frac{3}{2},2\right)$, we have,
\begin{equation}
P_{a}^{b^3\mu^2}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2},2\right) ~=~ \sum_{\chi_1\in[a],\chi_2\in\left(\left[a^3\right]\otimes\left[\mu^2\right]\right)} C_{\chi_1\chi_2}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\chi_1,\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b^3\mu^2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\chi_2,\frac{1}{2}\right),
\end{equation}
where $\chi_1$ can be an arbitrary ir.rep belonging to the Dirac spinor representation $\left[\frac{1}{2},0\right]$, and $\chi_2$ can be an arbitrary ir.rep belonging to
\begin{align}
\left[a^3\right]\otimes\left[\mu^2\right] = \left[\left(1,\frac{1}{2}\right)\oplus\left(\frac{1}{2},1\right)\right]\otimes\left(1,1\right)=~~~& \left(0,\frac{1}{2}\right)\oplus\left(\frac{1}{2},0\right)\oplus\left(0,\frac{3}{2}\right)\oplus\left(\frac{3}{2},0\right)\notag\\
\oplus\,&\left(1,\frac{1}{2}\right)\oplus\left(\frac{1}{2},1\right)\oplus\left(1,\frac{3}{2}\right)\oplus\left(\frac{3}{2},1\right)\notag\\
\oplus\,&\left(2,\frac{1}{2}\right)\oplus\left(\frac{1}{2},2\right)\oplus\left(2,\frac{3}{2}\right)\oplus\left(\frac{3}{2},2\right)\notag\\
\equiv~~~&\left[a_R\right]~\oplus\left[a_L\right]~\oplus~[r]~\oplus~[l]\notag\\ \oplus\,&\left[a_L^3\right]~\oplus~[a_R^3]~\oplus~\left[a^5_R\right]~\oplus~\left[a^5_L\right]\notag\\
\oplus\,&\left[\zeta_L\right]~\oplus~\left[\zeta_R\right]~\oplus~\left[a^7_L\right]~\oplus~\left[a^7_R\right],
\end{align}
where the spin wave functions with $\chi_2=[l]$, $[r]$, $[\zeta_L]$ and $[\zeta_R]$ cannot be used to describe a spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ particle.
Thus, one only needs to consider the remaining 16 terms as follows,
\begin{align}
P_a^{b^3\mu^2}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2},2\right) =~~~&C_{1}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b^3\mu^2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{2}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b^3\mu^2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{3}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b^3\mu^2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^3_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{4}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b^3\mu^2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^3_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{5}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b^3\mu^2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[a^5_R],\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{6}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b^3\mu^2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[a^5_L],\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{7}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b^3\mu^2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[a^7_L],\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{8}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b^3\mu^2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[a^7_R],\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{9}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b^3\mu^2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{10}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b^3\mu^2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{11}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b^3\mu^2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^3_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{12}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b^3\mu^2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^3_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{13}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b^3\mu^2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[a^5_R],\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{14}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b^3\mu^2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[a^5_L],\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{15}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b^3\mu^2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[a^7_L],\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{16}~ u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b^3\mu^2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[a^7_R],\frac{1}{2}\right),
\end{align}
where $C_i~(i=1,2,\cdots,16)$ are just some indeterminate coefficients.
The spin wave functions $u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)$ and $u_a^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right)$ are the same as those in eq.~\eqref{eq:ex_12_121_proj_ten_JLS_L_0_S_12}, while the other spin wave functions are as follows,
\begin{align}
\bar{u}^{b^3\mu^2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right) ~&=~ \left(C^{\frac{1}{2}1}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_l^{l_1l_2} \left(C^{11}_{0}\right)_r^{r_1r_2} \left(C^{\frac{1}{2}0}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_\sigma^{lr} \left(U_R\right)_{l_1r_1}^{b^3} U^{\mu^2}_{l_2r_2},\notag\\
\bar{u}^{b^3\mu^2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right) ~&=~ \left(C^{11}_{0}\right)_l^{l_1l_2} \left(C^{\frac{1}{2}1}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_r^{r_1r_2} \left(C^{0\frac{1}{2}}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_\sigma^{lr} \left(U_L\right)_{l_1r_1}^{b^3} U^{\mu^2}_{l_2r_2},\notag\\
\bar{u}^{b^3\mu^2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^3_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right) ~&=~ \left(C^{\frac{1}{2}1}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_l^{l_1l_2} \left(C^{11}_{1}\right)_r^{r_1r_2} \left(C^{\frac{1}{2}1}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_\sigma^{lr} \left(U_R\right)_{l_1r_1}^{b^3} U^{\mu^2}_{l_2r_2},\notag\\
\bar{u}^{b^3\mu^2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^3_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right) ~&=~ \left(C^{11}_{1}\right)_l^{l_1l_2} \left(C^{\frac{1}{2}1}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_r^{r_1r_2} \left(C^{1\frac{1}{2}}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_\sigma^{lr} \left(U_L\right)_{l_1r_1}^{b^3} U^{\mu^2}_{l_2r_2},\notag\\
\bar{u}^{b^3\mu^2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^5_R\right],\frac{1}{2}\right) ~&=~ \left(C^{\frac{1}{2}1}_{\frac{3}{2}}\right)_l^{l_1l_2} \left(C^{11}_{1}\right)_r^{r_1r_2} \left(C^{\frac{3}{2}1}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_\sigma^{lr} \left(U_R\right)_{l_1r_1}^{b^3} U^{\mu^2}_{l_2r_2},\notag\\
\bar{u}^{b^3\mu^2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^5_L\right],\frac{1}{2}\right) ~&=~ \left(C^{11}_{1}\right)_l^{l_1l_2} \left(C^{\frac{1}{2}1}_{\frac{3}{2}}\right)_r^{r_1r_2} \left(C^{1\frac{3}{2}}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_\sigma^{lr} \left(U_L\right)_{l_1r_1}^{b^3} U^{\mu^2}_{l_2r_2},\notag\\
\bar{u}^{b^3\mu^2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[a^7_L],\frac{1}{2}\right) ~&=~ \left(C^{\frac{1}{2}1}_{\frac{3}{2}}\right)_l^{l_1l_2} \left(C^{11}_{2}\right)_r^{r_1r_2} \left(C^{\frac{3}{2}2}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_\sigma^{lr} \left(U_R\right)_{l_1r_1}^{b^3} U^{\mu^2}_{l_2r_2},\notag\\
\bar{u}^{b^3\mu^2}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[a^7_R],\frac{1}{2}\right) ~&=~ \left(C^{11}_{2}\right)_l^{l_1l_2} \left(C^{\frac{1}{2}1}_{\frac{3}{2}}\right)_r^{r_1r_2} \left(C^{2\frac{3}{2}}_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_\sigma^{lr} \left(U_L\right)_{l_1r_1}^{b^3} U^{\mu^2}_{l_2r_2},
\end{align}
where $T^\mu_{lr}$ is the same as that in eq.~\eqref{eq:irten_1212_12x12_similarity_trans};
$\left(U_L\right)^b_{lr}$, $\left(U_R\right)^b_{lr}$, $\left(U_L\right)^{b^3}_{lr}$ and $\left(U_R\right)^{b^3}_{lr}$ are the same as those in eq.~\eqref{eq:self_conj_rep_spin_wave_func_inverse};
$U^{\mu^2}_{l_2r_2}$ is the same as that in eq.~\eqref{eq:ex_JLS_1_10_L_2_spin_wave_func}.
In order to obtain explicit form of $P_a^{b\nu\mu_1\mu_2}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2},2\right)$, we need to replace the indices $b^3$ and $\mu^2$ of $P_a^{b^3\mu^2}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2},2\right)$ as Dirac spinor indices and Lorentz four-vector indices by the ir.ten $T^{b\nu}_{b^3}$ and $T^{\mu_1\mu_2}_{\mu^2}$ which are defined as eq.~\eqref{eq:irten_12+12x1212} and eq.~\eqref{eq:irten_1212x1212}, respectively.
We have,
\begin{equation}
P_a^{b\nu\mu_1\mu_2}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2},2\right)~\equiv~T^{b\nu}_{b^3}~T^{\mu_1\mu_2}_{\mu^2}~P_a^{b^3\mu^2}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2},2\right),
\end{equation}
We will not give the tedious result of $P_a^{b\nu\mu_1\mu_2}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2},2\right)$ here.
The spin projection tensor $P_{\alpha^S}^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}} \left(\mathbf{k}_1;S,s_2,s_3\right)$ has three indices, and from the above discussion about $P^{\alpha^S\alpha^L}_{\alpha^{s_1}}(\mathbf{k}_1;s_1,S,L)$, we have chosen $[\alpha^{s_2}]=[a]$, $[\alpha^{s_3}]=[\mu]$ and $\left[\alpha^S\right]=[a]~\left(S=\frac{1}{2}\right)$ or $\left[a^3\right]~\left(S=\frac{3}{2}\right)$, thus,
\begin{align}
S=\frac{1}{2}~:~~P_{\alpha^S}^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}} \left(\mathbf{k}_1;S,s_2,s_3\right) ~&=~ P_a^{b\mu} \left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},1\right),\notag\\
S=\frac{3}{2}~:~~P_{\alpha^S}^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}} \left(\mathbf{k}_1;S,s_2,s_3\right) ~&=~ P_{a^3}^{b\mu} \left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2},1\right),
\end{align}
where $P_{a}^{b\mu} \left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},1\right)$ is expressed in eq.~\eqref{eq:ex_2_proj_ten_S_12_L_1}.
On other hand, by recalling eq.~\eqref{eq:spin_proj_ten_JLS}, one can get the spin projection tensor $P_{b^3}^{b\mu} \left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2},1\right)$ as follows,
\begin{align}
P_{b^3}^{b\mu} \left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2},1\right) =~~~&C_{1} ~ u_{b^3}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^3_L\right],\frac{3}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^3_L\right],\frac{3}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{2}~ u_{b^3}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^3_L\right],\frac{3}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^3_R\right],\frac{3}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{3}~ u_{b^3}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^3_R\right],\frac{3}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^3_L\right],\frac{3}{2}\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_{4}~ u_{b^3}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^3_R\right],\frac{3}{2}\right)\, \bar{u}^{b\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^3_R\right],\frac{3}{2}\right),
\end{align}
where $C_i~(i=1,2,3,4)$ are just some indeterminate coefficients;
$\bar{u}^{b\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^3_L\right],\frac{3}{2}\right)$ and $\bar{u}^{b\mu}_{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^3_R\right],\frac{3}{2}\right)$ are the same as those in eq.~\eqref{eq:ex_2_spin_wave_func_bmu}; and
\begin{align}
u_{b^3}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^3_L\right],\frac{3}{2}\right) ~=~ \left(C^{\frac{3}{2}}_{1\frac{1}{2}}\right)^\sigma_{lr}~\left(U_L\right)^{lr}_{b^3},\notag\\
u_{b^3}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left[a^3_R\right],\frac{3}{2}\right) ~=~ \left(C^{\frac{3}{2}}_{\frac{1}{2}1}\right)^\sigma_{lr}~\left(U_R\right)^{lr}_{b^3},
\end{align}
$\left(U_L\right)^{b^3}_{lr}$ and $\left(U_R\right)^{b^3}_{lr}$ are shown in eq.~\eqref{eq:appd_index_map_alpha_to_lr_rerep}.
The Lorentz covariant index $b^3$ of the above spin projection tensor $P_{b^3}^{b\mu} \left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2},1\right)$ can be replaced by Dirac spinor indices and Lorentz indices by the ir.ten $T_{a\nu}^{b^3}$ as given in eq.~\eqref{eq:irten_12+12x1212}.
Then, $P_{a\nu}^{b\mu} \left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2},1\right)$ can be calculated as follows,
\begin{equation}
P_{a\nu}^{b\mu} \left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2},1\right)~\equiv~T_{a\nu}^{b^3}~P_{b^3}^{b\mu} \left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2},1\right).
\end{equation}
The spin projection tensor $P^{\mu_1\cdots\mu_L}_{\mu^L}(\mathbf{k}_1;L)$ only depends on $L$.
Eq.~\eqref{eq:ex_triangular_relation_L_12_121} gives the possible values of $L$, which is the same as that in eq.~\eqref{eq:ex_triangular_relation_L_1_10}.
Thus, the spin projection tensor $P^{\mu_1\cdots\mu_L}_{\mu^L}(\mathbf{k}_1;L)$ here is the same as that in eq.~\eqref{eq:ex_1_orbit_wave_func}.
With the above specific forms of the three spin projection tensors,
$P^{\alpha^S\alpha^L}_{\alpha^{s_1}}(\mathbf{k}_1;s_1,S,L)$, $ P^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}}_{\alpha^S}(\mathbf{k}_1;S,s_2,s_3)$ and $P^{\mu_1\cdots\mu_L}_{\alpha^L}(\mathbf{k}_1;L)$, according to eq.~\eqref{eq:general_LS_expand_1_motion}, we will have the Lorentz covariant amplitude of a spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ particle with a system of two particles of spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ and spin-1.
There are four independent amplitudes, corresponding to partial wave amplitudes with fixed $\left(S,L\right)$ combinations in eq.~\eqref{eq:ex_triangular_relation_L_12_121},
\begin{align}
\Gamma_{\alpha^{s_1}}^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}}\left(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;0,\frac{1}{2}\right) ~&=~
\Gamma_{a}^{b\mu}\left(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},1,0,\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
~&=~ P^{c}_{a}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},0\right)\,P_{c}^{b\mu} \left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},1\right),\notag\\
\Gamma_{\alpha^{s_1}}^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}}\left(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;1,\frac{1}{2}\right) ~&=~
\Gamma_{a}^{b\mu}\left(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},1,1,\frac{1}{2}\right)\notag\\
~&=~ P_{a}^{c\nu} \left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},1\right)\,P_{c}^{b\mu} \left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},1\right)\,\tilde{t}^{(1)}_{\nu}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2-\mathbf{p}^*_3),\notag\\
\Gamma_{\alpha^{s_1}}^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}}\left(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;1,\frac{3}{2}\right) ~&=~
\Gamma_{a}^{b\mu}\left(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},1,1,\frac{3}{2}\right)\notag\\
~&=~ P_{a}^{b^3\nu} \left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2},1\right)\,P_{b^3}^{b\mu} \left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2},1\right)~\tilde{t}^{(1)}_{\nu}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2-\mathbf{p}^*_3)\notag\\
~&=~ P_{a}^{c\rho\nu} \left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2},1\right)\,P_{c\rho}^{b\mu} \left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2},1\right)\,\tilde{t}^{(1)}_{\nu}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2-\mathbf{p}^*_3),\notag\\
\Gamma_{\alpha^{s_1}}^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}}\left(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;2,\frac{3}{2}\right) ~&=~
\Gamma_{a}^{b\mu}\left(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},1,2,\frac{3}{2}\right)\notag\\
~&=~ P_{a}^{b^3\nu^2} \left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2},2\right)\,P_{b^3}^{b\mu} \left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2},1\right)\,\tilde{t}^{(2)}_{\nu^2}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2-\mathbf{p}^*_3)\notag\\
~&=~ P_{a}^{c\rho\nu_1\nu_2} \left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2},1\right)\,P_{c\rho}^{b\mu} \left(\mathbf{k}_1;\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2},1\right)\,\tilde{t}^{(1)}_{\nu_1\mu_2}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2-\mathbf{p}^*_3).
\label{eq:ex_2_Gamma_SL_all}
\end{align}
Finally, by combining eqs.~\eqref{eq:general_LS_expand_1_motion} and \eqref{eq:ex_2_Gamma_SL_all}, one can get the explicit form of these partial wave amplitudes.
In the conventional form, one needs to express a Lorentz covariant amplitude as the contraction between the tensors containing just Dirac spinor indices and Lorentz four-vector indices.
However, as we have seen in this subsection, the conventional form is unnecessary.
Therefore, we will not show the detailed results of these amplitudes in the common form.
\subsection{Three-particle partial wave amplitude including massless particles}
\label{sec:massless_LS_amp}
In this subsection, we will make a general discussion on three-particle partial wave amplitude including massless particles.
Firstly, let us reconsider the example in subsection~\ref{sec:ex_1_10} with particle-2 is massless, e.g., photon.
According to eq.~\eqref{eq:massless_rep_convention}, we will take $[\alpha^{s_2}]=(1,0)\oplus(0,1)\equiv[\zeta]$, and the other representations are the same as those in eq.~\eqref{eq:ex_1_10_symbol_spin_orbit}.
From eq.~\eqref{eq:spin_wave_func_massless_integer}, the spin wave function of particle-2 can be written as follows,
\begin{align}
u_{l}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_2;(1,0),1\right) ~&=~ P^{\mu^1}_{l}\left(\mathbf{k}_2;1\right) ~ u_{\mu^1}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{0};\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right),1\right)\notag\\
~&\equiv~ P^{\mu}_{l}\left(\mathbf{k}_2;1\right) ~ u_{\mu}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{0};\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right),1\right)\notag\\
~&=~ T_l^{\mu\mu'}~\left(k_2\right)_{\mu'}~\epsilon^{\sigma}_{\mu}\left(\mathbf{0}\right),\notag\\
u_{r}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_2;(0,1),1\right) ~&=~ P^{\mu^1}_{r}\left(\mathbf{k}_2;1\right) ~ u_{\mu^1}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{0};\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right),1\right)\notag\\
~&\equiv~ P^{\mu}_{r}\left(\mathbf{k}_2;1\right) ~ u_{\mu}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{0};\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right),1\right)\notag\\
~&=~ T_r^{\mu\mu'}~\left(k_2\right)_{\mu'}~\epsilon^{\sigma}_{\mu}\left(\mathbf{0}\right),
\label{eq:helicity_proj_ten_ex_1}
\end{align}
where $T_l^{\mu\nu}$ and $T_r^{\mu\nu}$ are the same as those in eq.~\eqref{eq:irten_1212x1212};
$\epsilon^{\sigma}_{\mu}\left(\mathbf{0}\right)$ is the polarization vector as shown in eq.~\eqref{eq:proj_spin_tensor_1212_1} with $\mathbf{p}=\mathbf{0}$.
Instead of taking limit $|\mathbf{p}|\to \infty$ in eqs.~\eqref{eq:spin_wave_func_massless_integer} and \eqref{eq:spin_wave_func_massless_half_integer}, only the transverse polarization components of the polarization vector $\epsilon^{\sigma}_{\mu}\left(\mathbf{0}\right)$ are considered here.
The Lorentz covariant indices $l$ and $r$ of the above spin wave functions can be replaced by Lorentz four-vector indices as follows,
\begin{align}
u_{\nu\nu'}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_2;(1,0),1\right) ~&=~ T^{l}_{\nu\nu'}~T_l^{\mu\mu'}~\left(k_2\right)_{\mu'}~\epsilon^{\sigma}_{\mu}\left(\mathbf{0}\right),\notag\\
u_{\nu\nu'}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_2;(0,1),1\right) ~&=~ T^{r}_{\nu\nu'}~T_r^{\mu\mu'}~\left(k_2\right)_{\mu'}~\epsilon^{\sigma}_{\mu}\left(\mathbf{0}\right).
\end{align}
The above spin wave functions can also be written as the following form of parity-eigenstate,
\begin{align}
\text{Positive parity : }~ u_{\nu\nu'}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_2;[1,0],1^+\right) ~&=~
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}~\left[u_{\nu\nu'}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_2;(1,0),1\right) +u_{\nu\nu'}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_2;(0,1),1\right) \right]\notag\\
~&=~ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}~\left(T_{\left[(1,0)\oplus(0,1)\right]^+}\right)^{~~~~\mu\mu'}_{\nu\nu'}~\left(k_2\right)_{\mu'}~\epsilon^{\sigma}_{\mu}\left(\mathbf{0}\right),\notag\\
\text{Negative parity : }~ u_{\nu\nu'}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_2;[1,0],1^-\right) ~&=~
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}~\left[u_{\nu\nu'}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_2;(1,0),1\right) -u_{\nu\nu'}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_2;(0,1),1\right) \right]\notag\\
~&=~ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}~\left(T_{\left[(1,0)\oplus(0,1)\right]^-}\right)^{~~~~\mu\mu'}_{\nu\nu'}~\left(k_2\right)_{\mu'}~\epsilon^{\sigma}_{\mu}\left(\mathbf{0}\right),
\label{eq:spin_wave_func_massless_parity}
\end{align}
where $T_{\left[(1,0)\oplus(0,1)\right]^+}$ and $T_{\left[(1,0)\oplus(0,1)\right]^-}$ are the same as those in eq.~\eqref{eq:irten_1212x1212_Lorentz}.
The helicity wave functions with definite parity are written as,
\begin{align}
\begin{array}{rc}
\text{Positive parity : }~& u_{\mu\mu'}^{\sigma}\left(\hat{\mathbf{p}}_2;[1,0],1^+\right) ~=~ D_{\mu}^{~~\mu'}\left(R_{\hat{\mathbf{p}}_2}\right)~D_{\nu}^{~~\nu'}\left(R_{\hat{\mathbf{p}}_2}\right)~ u_{\nu\nu'}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_2;[1,0],1^+\right),\\
\text{Negative parity : }~& u_{\nu\nu'}^{\sigma}\left(\hat{\mathbf{p}}_2;[1,0],1^-\right) ~=~ D_{\mu}^{~~\mu'}\left(R_{\hat{\mathbf{p}}_2}\right)~D_{\nu}^{~~\nu'}\left(R_{\hat{\mathbf{p}}_2}\right)~ u_{\nu\nu'}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_2;[1,0],1^-\right).
\end{array}
\label{eq:helicity_wave_func_massless_parity}
\end{align}
Then, according to eqs.~\eqref{eq:general_LS_expand_1_rest_Gamma}, \eqref{eq:t_tilde} and \eqref{eq:spin_proj_ten_JLS}, one needs to write down the specific form of three spin projection tensors,
$P^{\alpha^S\,\alpha^L}_{\alpha^{s_1}}(\mathbf{k}_1;s_1,S,L)$, $ P^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}}_{\alpha^S}(\mathbf{k}_1;S,s_2,s_3)$ and $P^{\mu_1\cdots\mu_L}_{\alpha^L}(\mathbf{k}_1;L)$.
Let us discuss them one by one.
The spin projection tensor $P^{\alpha^S\,\alpha^L}_{\alpha^{s_1}}(\mathbf{k}_1;s_1,S,L)$ has three indices
which all have the same meaning as those in the previous case, please see the discussion before eq.~\eqref{eq:ex_proj_ten_s1_1_S_1_L_any}.
Since $s_2=1$ and $s_3=0$, the only choice of the total spin $S=1$, correspondingly, $\left[\alpha^S\right]=[\mu]$.
So the spin projection tensor $P^{\alpha^S\,\alpha^L}_{\alpha^{s_1}}(\mathbf{k}_1;s_1,S,L)$ is the same as that in eq.~\eqref{eq:ex_proj_ten_s1_1_S_1_L_any}.
The spin projection tensor $P^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}}_{\alpha^S}(\mathbf{k}_1;S,s_2,s_3)$ has three indices.
Based on the above discussion, we have chosen $[\alpha^{s_2}]=[\zeta]$, $\left[\alpha^S\right]=[\mu]$ and $[\alpha_3]=(0,0)$, thus,
\begin{align}
P^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}}_{\alpha^S}(\mathbf{k}_1;S,s_2,s_3) ~=~ P_\mu^{\zeta\mu^0} (\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,0)
~\equiv~ P_\mu^{\zeta} (\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,0),
\end{align}
where $P_{\mu}^{\zeta} \left(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,0\right)$, recalling eq.~\eqref{eq:spin_proj_ten_JLS}, is as follows,
\begin{align}
P_{\mu}^{\zeta} \left(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,0\right) =~~~& \sum_{\chi_2\in[\zeta]}~C_{[\mu]\chi_2}~ u_{\mu}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[\mu],1\right)~\bar{u}_{\sigma}^{\zeta}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\chi_2,1\right)\notag\\
=~~~& C_1~u_{\mu}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[\mu],1\right)~\bar{u}_{\sigma}^{\zeta}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left(1,0\right),1\right)\notag\\
+\,&C_2 ~u_{\mu}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[\mu],1\right)~\bar{u}_{\sigma}^{\zeta}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left(0,1\right),1\right),
\end{align}
where $C_1$ and $C_2$ are just two indeterminate parameters;
$u_{\mu}^{\sigma}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;[\mu],1\right)$ is the same as that in eq.~\eqref{eq:ex_JLS_1_10_L_2_spin_wave_func}.
Others are as follows,
\begin{equation}
\bar{u}_{\sigma}^{\zeta}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left(1,0\right),1\right) ~=~ \left(U_R\right)_{lr}^{\zeta} \, \left(C_1^{01}\right)^{lr}_{\sigma}, \quad
\bar{u}_{\sigma}^{\zeta}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;\left(0,1\right),1\right) ~=~ \left(U_L\right)_{lr}^{\zeta} \, \left(C_1^{10}\right)^{lr}_{\sigma},
\label{eq:ex_3_massless_spin_wave_func_zeta}
\end{equation}
please see eq.~\eqref{eq:appd_index_map_alpha_to_lr_rerep} for $\left(U_L\right)_{lr}^{\zeta}$ and $\left(U_R\right)_{lr}^{\zeta}$.
From eq.~\eqref{eq:direct_prod_decomposition_1212x1212}, the Lorentz covariant index $\zeta$ of the spin projection tensor $P_{\mu}^{\zeta}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,0\right)$ can be replaced by two Lorentz indices $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ by the ir.ten $T^{\mu_1\mu_2}_{\zeta}$ as follows,
\begin{align}
P_{\mu}^{\mu_1\mu_2}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,0\right) =~~~& T^{\mu_1\mu_2}_{\zeta}~ P_{\mu}^{\zeta}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,0\right)\notag\\
=~~~& \left[T^{\mu_1\mu_2}_{l}~\left(U_L\right)^{l0}_{\zeta}~+~T^{\mu_1\mu_2}_{r}~\left(U_R\right)^{0r}_{\zeta}\right]P_{\mu}^{\zeta}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,0\right)\notag\\
=~~~& \left(C_1+C_2\right)\,\left(v_1\right)_{\rho}~g_{\mu\mu'}~\left(T_{[(1,0)\oplus(0,1)]^+}\right)^{\rho\mu'\mu_1\mu_2}\notag\\+\,& \left(C_1-C_2\right)\,\left(v_1\right)_{\rho}~g_{\mu\mu'}~\left(T_{[(1,0)\oplus(0,1)]^-}\right)^{\rho\mu'\mu_1\mu_2},
\label{eq:ex_3_spin_proj_ten_Lorentz_index}
\end{align}
where $\left(U_L\right)^{l0}_{\zeta}$ and $\left(U_R\right)^{0r}_{\zeta}$ are the same as those in eq.~\eqref{eq:ex_3_massless_spin_wave_func_zeta} with $r=0$ and $l=0$ respectively;
$T_{l}^{\mu_1\mu_2}$ and $T_{r}^{\mu_1\mu_2}$ are the same as those in eq.~\eqref{eq:irten_1212x1212}.
The last line of eq.~\eqref{eq:ex_3_spin_proj_ten_Lorentz_index} can be calculated from eq.~\eqref{eq:irten_so3_boson_coupling_1212_1212x1212}.
The spin projection tensor $P^{\mu_1\cdots\mu_L}_{\alpha^L}(\mathbf{k}_1;L)$ only depends on $L$ which possible values are shown in eq.~\eqref{eq:ex_triangular_relation_L_1_10}.
Thus, the spin projection tensor $P^{\mu_1\cdots\mu_L}_{\alpha^L}(\mathbf{p}_1;L)$ in consideration is the same as that in eq.~\eqref{eq:ex_1_orbit_wave_func}.
With the above specific forms of the three spin projection tensors, $P^{\alpha^S\alpha^L}_{\alpha^{s_1}}(\mathbf{k}_1;s_1,S,L)$, $ P^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}}_{\alpha^S}(\mathbf{k}_1;S,s_2,s_3)$ and $P^{\mu_1\cdots\mu_L}_{\alpha^L}(\mathbf{k}_1;L)$, the Lorentz covariant amplitude of a spin-1 particle with a system of two particles of spin-1 and spin-0 with particle-2 is massless can be obtained according to eq.~\eqref{eq:general_LS_expand_1_motion}.
There are three different amplitudes, corresponding to partial wave amplitudes with $L=0,1,2$.
The corresponding Lorentz covariant coupling structures are as follows,
\begin{align}
\Gamma_{\alpha^{s_1}}^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;0,1) ~&=~
\Gamma_{\mu}^{\zeta\mu^0}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;1,1,0,0,1)\notag\\
~&\equiv~ \Gamma_{\mu}^{\zeta}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;1,1,0,1,1)\notag\\
~&=~ P^{\nu}_{\mu}(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,0)~ P^{\zeta}_{\nu}(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,0),\notag\\
\Gamma_{\alpha^{s_1}}^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;1,1) ~&=~
\Gamma_{\mu}^{\zeta\mu^0}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;1,1,0,1,1)\notag\\
~&\equiv~ \Gamma_{\mu}^{\zeta}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;1,1,0,1,1)\notag\\
~&=~
P^{\nu\rho}_{\mu}(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,1)~ P^{\zeta}_{\nu}(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,0)~\tilde{t}^{(1)}_{\rho}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2-\mathbf{p}^*_3),\notag\\
\Gamma_{\alpha^{s_1}}^{\alpha^{s_2}\alpha^{s_3}}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;2,1) ~&=~
\Gamma_{\mu}^{\zeta\mu^0}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;1,1,0,2,1)\notag\\
~&\equiv~ \Gamma_{\mu}^{\zeta}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;1,1,0,2,1)\notag\\
~&=~
P^{\nu\rho^2}_{\mu}(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,2)~ P^{\zeta}_{\nu}(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,0)~\tilde{t}^{(2)}_{\rho^2}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2-\mathbf{p}^*_3),\notag\\
\label{eq:ex_3_Gamma_L_012}
\end{align}
where $P^{\nu}_{\mu}(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,0)$ is the same as that in eq.~\eqref{eq:ex_1_Gamma_L_0};
$P^{\nu\rho}_{\mu}(\mathbf{k}_1;1,1,1)$ and $\tilde{t}^{(1)}_{\rho}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2-\mathbf{p}^*_3)$ are the same as those in eq.~\eqref{eq:ex_1_Gamma_L_1};
$\tilde{t}^{(2)}_{\rho^2}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2-\mathbf{p}^*_3)$ is the same as that in eq.~\eqref{eq:ex_1_Gamma_L_2_first}.
Finally, by combining eqs.~\eqref{eq:general_LS_expand_1_rest} and \eqref{eq:ex_3_Gamma_L_012}, we obtain the Lorentz covariant partial wave amplitudes satisfying gauge invariance with different $(S,L)$ combinations as follows,
\begin{align}
{\cal A}_{\sigma_1}^{\sigma_2}\left(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;0,1\right) &= \Gamma_{\mu}^{\zeta}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;1,1,0,0,1)\, \bar{u}_{\sigma_1}^{\mu}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;1\right)\,v^{\sigma_2}_{\zeta}\left(\hat{\mathbf{p}}^*_2;\left[1,0\right],1\right)\notag\\
&=\Gamma_{\mu}^{\mu_1\mu_2}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;1,1,0,0,1)\, \bar{u}_{\sigma_1}^{\mu}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;1\right)\,v^{\sigma_2}_{\mu_1\mu_2}\left(\hat{\mathbf{p}}^*_2;\left[1,0\right],1\right),\notag\\
{\cal A}_{\sigma_1}^{\sigma_2}\left(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;1,1\right) &= \Gamma_{\mu}^{\zeta}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;1,1,0,1,1)\, \bar{u}_{\sigma_1}^{\mu}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;1\right)\,v^{\sigma_2}_{\zeta}\left(\hat{\mathbf{p}}^*_2;\left[1,0\right],1\right)\notag\\
&=\Gamma_{\mu}^{\mu_1\mu_2}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;1,1,0,1,1)\, \bar{u}_{\sigma_1}^{\mu}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;1\right)\,v^{\sigma_2}_{\mu_1\mu_2}\left(\hat{\mathbf{p}}^*_2;\left[1,0\right],1\right),\notag\\
{\cal A}_{\sigma_1}^{\sigma_2}\left(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;2,1\right) &= \Gamma_{\mu}^{\zeta}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;1,1,0,2,1)\, \bar{u}_{\sigma_1}^{\mu}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;1\right)\,v^{\sigma_2}_{\zeta}\left(\hat{\mathbf{p}}^*_2;\left[1,0\right],1\right)\notag\\
&=\Gamma_{\mu}^{\mu_1\mu_2}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{p}^*_2,\mathbf{p}^*_3;1,1,0,2,1)\, \bar{u}_{\sigma_1}^{\mu}\left(\mathbf{k}_1;1\right)\,v^{\sigma_2}_{\mu_1\mu_2}\left(\hat{\mathbf{p}}^*_2;\left[1,0\right],1\right),
\label{eq:ex_1_PWA_massless}
\end{align}
where we have used two Lorentz four-vector indices $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ to replace the index $\zeta$;
and $v^{\sigma_2}_{\mu_1\mu_2}\left(\hat{\mathbf{p}}^*_2;\left[1,0\right],1\right)$ is the helicity wave function of spin-1 massless particle with negative parity, i.e., photon, as shown in eq.~\eqref{eq:helicity_wave_func_massless_parity}.
Furthermore, according to eq.~\eqref{eq:helicity_coupling_amplitude}, the helicity-coupling amplitudes which are independent on angular variables can be extracted from above three partial wave amplitudes as follows,
\begin{align}
{\cal F}_{\sigma_1}^{\lambda_2}(\mathbf{k}_1,|\mathbf{p}^*_2|,|\mathbf{p}^*_3|;0,1) &\propto \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & ~\,1\,~ \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
-1\,~ & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}_{\sigma_1}^{~~\lambda_2},\notag\\
{\cal F}_{\sigma_1}^{\lambda_2}(\mathbf{k}_1,|\mathbf{p}^*_2|,|\mathbf{p}^*_3|;1,1) &\propto \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & \,~1~\, \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
\,~1~\, & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}_{\sigma_1}^{~~\lambda_2},\notag\\
{\cal F}_{\sigma_1}^{\lambda_2}(\mathbf{k}_1,|\mathbf{p}^*_2|,|\mathbf{p}^*_3|;2,1) &\propto \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & \,~1~\, \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
-1~\, & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}_{\sigma_1}^{~~\lambda_2}.
\end{align}
It can be seen that only two of the above three amplitudes are linearly independent.
This example shows that, for processes involving massless particles such as photons, with definite $L$-$S$ quantum numbers, we are able to write down the partial wave amplitudes which satisfy both Lorentz covariance and gauge invariance.
However, in general, these amplitudes are not all linearly independent.
Therefore, firstly we need to determine the number of linearly independent terms in these partial wave amplitudes, and secondly to select a kind of linearly independent amplitudes from them.
Here, we propose a set of counting rules to calculate the number of linearly independent terms, please see appendix~\ref{appd:InDenNum_PWA} for details.
Typically, we list the results of some common cases in table~\ref{tab:massless_InDenNum_PWA}.
Furthermore, according to the core idea of the counting rules, we suggest\footnote{This is only a suggestion, because any other $L$-$S$ combinations can also be selected, as long as these amplitudes are linearly independent.}
that we can select the $L$-$S$ combinations with $S=(s_2+s_3)$ and $(s_2+s_3-1)$ only, and then $L$ as small as possible.
Then the corresponding partial wave amplitude of these combinations can be recognized as a set of linear independent amplitudes.
\vspace{5mm}
\hspace{-5.5mm}\textbf{Table~\ref{tab:massless_InDenNum_PWA}}.
The number of linearly independent terms in partial wave amplitudes of some common cases.
$N_0$, $N_1$ and $N_2$ are the number of linearly independent terms in partial wave amplitudes of three different cases as introduced in the above counting rules, respectively.
We have $\tilde{N}_1(s_1;s_2,s_3)=N_1(s_1;s_3,s_2)$.
The superscripts $+$ and $-$ correspond to the cases with the orbital-angular momentum $L$ is even and odd, respectively.
For the process with parity conservation such as electromagnetic process and strong process, the number of linearly independent terms is $N_i^+$ or $N_i^-~(i=0,1,2)$, which is based on the intrinsic parity of three particles.
For the process without parity conservation such as weak process, the number of linearly independent terms is $N_i^++N_i^-~(i=0,1,2)$.
{\normalsize
\begin{longtable}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
\hline
\hline
~$(s_1;s_2,s_3)$~ & ~~$N_0^+$~~ & ~~$N_0^-$~~ & ~~$N_1^+$~~ & ~~$N_1^-$~~ & ~~$\tilde{N}_1^+$~~ & ~~$\tilde{N}_1^-$~~ & ~~$N_2^+$~~ & ~~$N_2^-$~~ \\
\hline
\endfirsthead
\caption{Continued.}\\
\hline
\hline
~$(s_1;s_2,s_3)$~ & ~~$N_0^+$~~ & ~~$N_0^-$~~ & ~~$N_1^+$~~ & ~~$N_1^-$~~ & ~~$\tilde{N}_1^+$~~ & ~~$\tilde{N}_1^-$~~ & ~~$N_2^+$~~ & ~~$N_2^-$~~ \\
\hline
\endhead
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{r}{Continued on next page.} \\
\endfoot
\hline
\hline
\endlastfoot
$\left(0;\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right)$ & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
$\left(1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right)$ & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2\\
$\left(2;\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right)$ & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2\\
$\left(\frac{1}{2};\frac{1}{2},1\right)$ & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1\\
$\left(\frac{3}{2};\frac{1}{2},1\right)$ & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2\\
$\left(\frac{5}{2};\frac{1}{2},1\right)$ & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2\\
$\left(0;\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}\right)$ & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
$\left(1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}\right)$ & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
$\left(2;\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}\right)$ & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2\\
$\left(\frac{1}{2};\frac{1}{2},2\right)$ & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
$\left(\frac{3}{2};\frac{1}{2},2\right)$ & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
$\left(\frac{5}{2};\frac{1}{2},2\right)$ & 5 & 5 & 5 & 5 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2\\
$\left(0;\frac{1}{2},\frac{5}{2}\right)$ & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
$\left(1;\frac{1}{2},\frac{5}{2}\right)$ & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
$\left(2;\frac{1}{2},\frac{5}{2}\right)$ & 5 & 5 & 5 & 5 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
$\left(0;1,1\right)$ & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
$\left(1;1,1\right)$ & 3 & 4 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1\\
$\left(2;1,1\right)$ & 5 & 4 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 2 & 2\\
$\left(\frac{1}{2};1,\frac{3}{2}\right)$ & 3 & 3 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
$\left(\frac{3}{2};1,\frac{3}{2}\right)$ & 5 & 5 & 3 & 3 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1\\
$\left(\frac{5}{2};1,\frac{3}{2}\right)$ & 6 & 6 & 4 & 4 & 3 & 3 & 2 & 2\\
$\left(0;1,2\right)$ & 1 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
$\left(1;1,2\right)$ & 5 & 4 & 3 & 3 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
$\left(2;1,2\right)$ & 6 & 7 & 4 & 4 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1\\
$\left(\frac{1}{2};1,\frac{5}{2}\right)$ & 3 & 3 & 2 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
$\left(\frac{3}{2};1,\frac{5}{2}\right)$ & 6 & 6 & 4 & 4 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
$\left(\frac{5}{2};1,\frac{5}{2}\right)$ & 8 & 8 & 5 & 5 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1\\
$\left(0;\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}\right)$ & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
$\left(1;\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}\right)$ & 5 & 5 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1\\
$\left(2;\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}\right)$ & 7 & 7 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 1 & 1\\
$\left(\frac{1}{2};\frac{3}{2},2\right)$ & 4 & 4 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
$\left(\frac{3}{2};\frac{3}{2},2\right)$ & 7 & 7 & 3 & 3 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1\\
$\left(\frac{5}{2};\frac{3}{2},2\right)$ & 9 & 9 & 4 & 4 & 3 & 3 & 1 & 1\\
$\left(0;\frac{3}{2},\frac{5}{2}\right)$ & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
$\left(1;\frac{3}{2},\frac{5}{2}\right)$ & 6 & 6 & 3 & 3 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
$\left(2;\frac{3}{2},\frac{5}{2}\right)$ & 9 & 9 & 4 & 4 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1\\
$\left(0;2,2\right)$ & 3 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
$\left(1;2,2\right)$ & 6 & 7 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
$\left(2;2,2\right)$ & 10 & 9 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 1 & 1\\
$\left(\frac{1}{2};2,\frac{5}{2}\right)$ & 5 & 5 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
$\left(\frac{3}{2};2,\frac{5}{2}\right)$ & 9 & 9 & 3 & 3 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1\\
$\left(\frac{5}{2};2,\frac{5}{2}\right)$ & 12 & 12 & 4 & 4 & 3 & 3 & 1 & 1\\
$\left(0;\frac{5}{2},\frac{5}{2}\right)$ & 3 & 3 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
$\left(1;\frac{5}{2},\frac{5}{2}\right)$ & 8 & 8 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1\\
$\left(2;\frac{5}{2},\frac{5}{2}\right)$ & 12 & 12 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 1 & ~1
\label{tab:massless_InDenNum_PWA}
\end{longtable}
}
\section{Summary}
\label{sec:summary}
In summary, we generalize the covariant $L$-$S$ coupling scheme based on the ir.tens of $L_p$ and its little groups, which gives a general procedure for constructing the partial wave amplitude with obvious Lorentz covariant form.
This scheme is applicable to both massive and massless particles with arbitrary spins, and also applicable to processes with or without the conservation of ${\cal P}$-parity, ${\cal C}$-parity and so on.
Thus, this scheme is applicable to the PWA of strong and electroweak interaction processes.
Here we give the detailed derivations for calculating the partial wave amplitudes of three examples including bosons, fermions and photon.
Typically, we propose a set of counting rules for the number of linearly independent partial wave amplitudes involved massless particles processes which is less than that of independent $L$-$S$ combinations because of gauge invariance.
In addition, the partial wave amplitudes including gauge boson proposed here are automatically satisfy the gauge invariance.
At last, it is worth to emphasize that the pure $L$-$S$ component in the corresponding partial wave amplitude labeled by $(L,S)$ is well-defined at any energy point in this work, while it is just for non-relativistic limit in previous work~\cite{Zou:2002ar,Zou:2002yy,Dulat:2011rn}.
This point should be paid special attention when we need to cross check the results of different PWA schemes.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We thank useful discussions with Xiao-Yu Li, Xiang-Kun Dong and Feng-Kun Guo.
%
This work is partly supported by the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation under Grants No. 119103S408 (H.J.J.),
%
and by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants No.12175239, 12221005 (J.J.W.),
%
and by the National Key R$\&$D Program of China under Contract No.
2020YFA0406400 (J.J.W.),
%
and by the NSFC under Grant No. 12070131001 (CRC110 cofunded by the DFG and NSFC), Grant
No. 11835015, No. 12047503, and by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) under Grant
No. XDB34030000 (B.S.Z.).
\end{acknowledgments}
\newpage
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
In the 20th century, Sobolev spaces were commonly used in a wide variety of fields of pdes. Since the 1960s, many spaces of functions wider than Sobolev spaces were created for meeting the needs of various practical problems. Orlicz spaces (see Definition (1.5))have been studied as the generalization of Sobolev spaces since they were introduced by Orlicz \cite{Orlicz}. The theory of Orlicz spaces plays a crucial role in many fields of mathematics including geometric, probability, stochastic, Fourier analysis and partial differential equations (see \cite{rao2002applications}).
In this paper, we are concerned about the following the Dirichlet problem in a unit ball:
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases} \label{Poisson}
-\Delta u=f \quad \quad in \quad B_1, \\
u |_{\partial B_1}=0.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where the dimension $n \geq 2$. Our main purpose is to study what are the optimal conditions on those Young functions $\phi$ that satisfy the estimate
\begin{equation} \label{estimate}
\int_{B_1} \phi\left(\left|D^2 u\right|\right) dx \leq C \int_{B_1} \phi(|f|) d x,
\end{equation}
for all pairs $(u, f)$ satisfying Poisson equation \eqref{Poisson} where $C$ is a positive constant independent of $u$ and $f$.
Indeed, if $\phi(t)=|t|^p$, \eqref{estimate} is reduced to the classical $L^p$ estimate (see \cite{chen1998second,gilbarg1977elliptic} where the domain is $\mathbb{R}^n$ ). That's the reason why we call it `generalized $L^p$ estimate' in the title.
In the case where the domain is $\mathbb{R}^n$, there are other previous related works. Wang \cite{wang2003geometric} gave a new proof of local $L^p$ estimates for the Poisson and heat equation by a geometric approach, in which the Hardy-Littlewood maximal function, modified Vitali covering lemma, and compactness method are used. By employing the same techniques as in \cite{wang2003geometric}, Jia, Li and Wang \cite{jia2007regularity} generalized local estimates in $L^p$ space to Orlicz spaces for the Poisson equation when $\phi \in \Delta_2 \cap \nabla_2$ (see Definition (\ref{Young1}) and (\ref{Young2})). Since $\phi$ is not certain to be a polynomial, which leads to the failure of the normalization, the authors in \cite{jia2007regularity} first assume that $u \in C_0^{\infty}(\Omega)$ and then use an interpolation inequality to obtain the result. Acerbi and Mingione \cite{acerbi2007gradient} obtained local $L^q, q \geq p$, gradient estimates for the degenerate parabolic $p$-Laplacian systems. There they invent a new iteration-covering approach, which is completely free from harmonic analysis. Wang, Yao, Zhou and Jia \cite{wang2009optimal} simplified the iteration-covering procedure used in \cite{acerbi2007gradient} and extended it to the whole space.
In this paper, we use the following notations. Let $B_r=\left\{y \in \mathbb{R}^n:|y|<r\right\}$ be an open ball in $\mathbb{R}^n$ with center 0 and radius $r>0$, and $B_r(x)=B_r+x$. We denote
$$
\left|D^2 u\right|=\sum_{i, j=1, \ldots, n}\left|D_{x_i x_j} u\right|
\quad and\quad
\left\|D^2 u\right\|_{L^p\left(\Omega\right)}=\sum_{i, j=1, \ldots, n}\left\|D_{x_i x_j} u\right\|_{L^p\left(\Omega\right)},
$$
where
$$
\left\|D_{x_i x_j} u\right\|_{L^p\left(\Omega\right)}=\left(\int_{\Omega}\left|D_{x_i x_j} u\right|^p d x\right)^{1 / p} \text { for } p>1 .
$$
In addition, we denote the set
$$
\Phi=\left\{\phi:[0,+\infty) \longrightarrow[0,+\infty)\quad |\quad \phi \quad is \quad increasing \quad and \quad convex\right\}.
$$
\begin{definition}
A function $\phi \in \Phi$ is said to be a Young function if
$$
\lim _{t \rightarrow 0+} \frac{\phi(t)}{t}=\lim _{t \rightarrow+\infty} \frac{t}{\phi(t)}=0.
$$
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
A Young function $\phi \in \Phi$ is said to satisfy the global $\nabla_2$ condition, denoted by $\phi \in \nabla_2$, if there exists a number $a>1$ such that for every $t>0$,
$$
\phi(t) \leq \frac{\phi(a t)}{2 a} .
$$
\end{definition}
We can verify that if $\phi \in \nabla_2$, then $\phi$ satisfies for $0<\theta_1 \leq 1$,
\begin{equation} \label{Young1}
\phi\left(\theta_1 t\right) \leq 2 a \theta_1^{\alpha_2} \phi(t),
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_2=\log _a 2+1 (> 1)$.
\begin{definition}
A Young function $\phi \in \Phi$ is said to satisfy the global $\Delta_2$ condition, denoted by $\phi \in \Delta_2$, if there exists a positive constant $K$ such that for every $t>0$,
$$
\phi(2 t) \leq K \phi(t) .
$$
Obviously, $K \geq 2$. Also if $K=2$, $\phi$ is linear so it cannot satisfy the global $\nabla_2$ condition.
\end{definition}
It is easy to check if $\phi \in \Delta_2$, for $1 \leq \theta_2<\infty$ $\phi$ satisfies
\begin{equation} \label{Young2}
\phi\left(\theta_2 t\right) \leq K \theta_2^{\alpha_1} \phi(t),
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_1=\log _2 K (\geq 1)$. When young function $\phi$ satisfy the global $\nabla_2$ and $\Delta_2$ condition at the same time, $K>2$ and $\alpha_1>1$.
\begin{remark}
The global $\Delta_2 \cap \nabla_2$ condition makes the function grow moderately. For example, $\phi(t)=|t|^\alpha(1+|\log | t||)$ for $\alpha>1$ satisfies the global $\Delta_2 \cap \nabla_2$ condition.
\end{remark}
\begin{definition}
Let $\phi$ be a Young function. Then the Orlicz class $K^\phi\left( B_1\right)$ is the set of all measurable functions $g: B_1 \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ satisfying
$$
\int_{B_1} \phi(|g|) d x<\infty .
$$
The Orlicz space $L^\phi\left( B_1\right)$ is the linear hull of $K^\phi\left( B_1\right)$.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark} \label{dense property}
In general, $K^\phi \subset L^\phi$. However, if $\phi$ satisfies the global $\Delta_2$ condition, then $K^\phi=L^\phi$ and $C_0^{\infty}$ is dense in $L^\phi$ (see \cite{adams2003sobolev}).
\end{remark}
\begin{remark} \label{another integral form}
If $g \in L^\phi\left( B_1\right)$, then $\int_{ B_1} \phi(|g|) d x$ can be rewritten in an integral form as
\begin{equation}
\int_{ B_1}\phi(|g|) d x=\int_0^{\infty}\left|\left\{x \in B_1:|g|>\lambda\right\}\right| d[\phi(\lambda)] .
\end{equation}
\end{remark}
Now let us state the main result of this work:
\begin{theorem} \label{main result}
Assume that $\phi \in \Phi$.
(1) If estimate \eqref{estimate} holds for every pair $(u, f) \in$ $C_0^{\infty}\left(B_1\right) \times C_0^{\infty}\left(B_1\right)$ satisfying the Dirichlet problem \eqref{Poisson} and $D^2 u \in L^\phi\left(B_1\right)$, then $\phi \in \Delta_2 \cap \nabla_2$.
(2) On the contrary, if $\phi \in \Delta_2 \cap \nabla_2$, then for every $f \in L^\phi\left(B_1\right)$, there is a solution $u \in W_{l o c}^{2,1}\left(B_1\right)$ and $u |_{\partial B_1}=0$, satisfying estimate \eqref{estimate}.
\end{theorem}
\section{PROOF OF THE MAIN RESULT}
\subsection{Proof for (1) of Theorem 1.7}
In this subsection we show that $\phi \in \triangle_2 \cap \nabla_2$ if estimate (\ref{estimate}) is true.
\subsubsection{$\phi$ satisfies the global $\nabla_2$ condition.}
Now we consider the special case in (\ref{Poisson}) when
$$
f_t(x)=t \eta,
$$
where $t$ is a positive parameter, $\eta \in C_0^{\infty}\left(B_1\right)$ is a cutoff function satisfying
\begin{equation} \label{eta def}
0 \leq \eta(x) \leq 1, \quad \eta(x) \equiv 1 \quad in \quad B_{\frac{1}{6\sqrt{n}}} , \quad\eta(x)=0 \quad in \quad B_{\frac{1}{6\sqrt{n}}} / B_{\frac{1}{12\sqrt{n}}} .
\end{equation}
Therefore equation \ref{Poisson} has a solution
\begin{equation} \label{eta's solution}
u_t(x)=\int_{B_1} \Gamma(x-\xi) f_t(\xi) d \xi,
\end{equation}
where
$$
\Gamma(x)= \begin{cases}\frac{1}{n(n-2) w_n} \frac{1}{|x|^{n-2}} & (n>2), \\ -\frac{1}{2 \pi} \ln |x| & (n=2)\end{cases}
$$
is the fundamental solution of $-\triangle$.
It follows from (\ref{estimate}) and (\ref{eta def}) that
\begin{equation} \label{ut estimate}
\int_{B_1} \phi\left(\left|D^2 u_t\right|\right) d x \leq C \int_{B_1} \phi\left(\left|f_t\right|\right) dx
= C \int_{B_{\frac{1}{6\sqrt{n}}}} \phi\left(\left|f_t\right|\right) dx
\leq C \int_{B_{\frac{1}{6\sqrt{n}}}} \phi\left(t\right) dx \leq C \phi(t) .
\end{equation}
We know from (\ref{eta's solution}) that when $|x|>\frac{1}{6\sqrt{n}}$, the following integral has no singular points so it is valid:
$$
D_{x_i x_i} u_t(x)=\int_{B_\frac{1}{6\sqrt{n}}} \frac{1}{w_n|x-\xi|^n}\left[\frac{\left(x_i-\xi_i\right)^2}{|x-\xi|^2}-\frac{1}{n}\right] f_t(\xi) d \xi.
$$
We define
$$
D:=\left\{x \in B_1: |x|\geq\frac{1}{2}+\frac{7}{12\sqrt{n}} \quad and \quad |x_1| \geq \frac{4}{3}|x|\right\}.
$$
When $x \in D, \xi \in B_{\frac{1}{6\sqrt{n}}} / B_{\frac{1}{12\sqrt{n}}}$, we can compute that
$$
\frac{\left|x_1-\xi_1\right|}{|x-\xi|} \geq \frac{|x_1|-\frac{1}{6\sqrt{n}}}{|x|+\frac{1}{6\sqrt{n}}} \geq \frac{\frac{4}{3}|x| -\frac{1}{6\sqrt{n}}}{|x|+\frac{1}{6\sqrt{n}}} \geq \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} .
$$
When $x \in D, \xi \in B_\frac{1}{12\sqrt{n}}$,
$$
\frac{\left|x_1-\xi_1\right|}{|x-\xi|} \geq \frac{\left|x_1\right|-\frac{1}{12\sqrt{n}}}{|x|+\frac{1}{12\sqrt{n}}} \geq \frac{\frac{4}{3}|x| -\frac{1}{12\sqrt{n}}}{|x|+\frac{1}{12\sqrt{n}}} \geq \frac{7}{6} \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}},
$$
and
$$
|x-\xi| \leq|x|+|\xi| \leq|x|+\frac{1}{2}|x| \leq \frac{3}{2}|x| .
$$
Therefore, for $x \in D$ we conclude that
$$
\begin{aligned}
D_{x_1 x_1} u_t(x) & =t \int_{B_\frac{1}{6\sqrt{n}}} \frac{1}{w_n|x-\xi|^n}\left[\frac{\left(x_1-\xi_1\right)^2}{|x-\xi|^2}-\frac{1}{n}\right] \eta d \xi \\
& \geq t \frac{2^n}{3^n} \frac{1}{w_n|x|^n} \int_{B_\frac{1}{12\sqrt{n}}}\left[\left(\frac{7}{6}\right)^2 \frac{1}{n}-\frac{1}{n}\right] d \xi \\
& \geq \frac{t}{36^n n^{\frac{n}{2}} n^2}|x|^{-n} \geq \frac{t}{M^n n^2}|x|^{-n}.
\end{aligned}
$$
where $M=36\sqrt{n} $. Recalling estimate (\ref{ut estimate}) we find that
$$
\begin{aligned}
\int_D \phi\left(\frac{t}{M^n n^2}|x|^{-n}\right) dx & \leq C \int_D \phi\left(D_{x_1 x_1} u_t(x)\right) dx
\leq C \int_D \phi\left(|D^2 u_t\right|) dx \\
& \leq C \int_{B_1} \phi\left(|D^2 u_t\right|) dx \leq C \phi(t).
\end{aligned}
$$
which implies that
$$
\int_{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{7}{12\sqrt{n}}}^{1} \phi\left(\frac{t}{M^n n^2} r^{-n}\right) r^{n-1} dr \int_{\left|\cos \theta_1\right|>\frac{4}{3}} d \omega \leq C \phi(t)
$$
By changing the variable, let $s=\frac{t}{M^n n^2} r^{-n} $, it is easy to find that for $t>0$,
$$
\int_{\alpha_1 t}^{\alpha_2 t} \frac{\phi(s)}{s^2} ds \leq \frac{C \phi(t)}{t},
$$
where $\alpha_1=M^{-n} n^{-2}$ and $\alpha_2=(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{7}{12\sqrt{n}})^{-n}M^{-n} n^{-2}$.
We should note that $\phi(0)=0$ due to the definition of Young function and the countinuity of convex function. Combined with the convexity of $\phi$, if $0< {t_1}\leq {t_2}$, we immediately know that $\frac{\phi(t)}{t}$ is an increasing function from
$$
\frac{\phi(t_1)-\phi(0)}{t_1-0} \leq \frac{\phi(t_2)-\phi(0)}{t_2-0}.
$$
Then
$$
\frac{\phi(t)}{t} \geq \frac{1}{C}\int_{\alpha_1 t}^{\alpha_2 t} \frac{\phi(s)}{s^2} ds \geq \frac{1}{C}\frac{\phi(\alpha_1t)}{\alpha_1t}\int_{\alpha_1 t}^{\alpha_2 t} \frac{1}{s}ds = C\frac{\phi(\alpha_1t)}{\alpha_1t}
\geq C\frac{\phi(\epsilon t)}{\epsilon t},
$$
where we can choose $\epsilon$ small enough, until $\phi$ satisfies the global $\nabla_2$ condition.
\subsubsection{$\phi$ satisfies the global $\Delta_2$ condition.}
Define two constants,
$$
C_1=\max _{x \in B_1}|\Delta \eta|
\quad and \quad
C_2=\max _{x \in {B_1}}\left\{\left|D^2 \eta\right|=\sum_{i, j=1, \ldots, n}\left|D_{x_i x_j} \eta\right|\right\},
$$
where $\eta(x) \in C_0^{\infty}\left(B_1\right)$ is a cutoff function defined in (\ref{eta def}). It is easy to see that $C_2>C_1$.
Now we substitute the special pairs into (\ref{estimate}),
$$
u_t(x)=\frac{t \eta(x)}{C_1} \quad \text { and } \quad f_t(x)=-\frac{t \Delta \eta(x)}{C_1},
$$
where $t>0$.
From the proof of section 2.1.1, we know that $\phi \in \nabla_2$ if estimate (1.2) is true. Set
$$
C_3=\frac{C_1+C_2}{2}, \quad \gamma=\frac{C_3}{C_1} .
$$
It is obvious that $\gamma>1$. Then from (\ref{estimate}) and (\ref{Young1}) we obtain
$$
\begin{aligned}
\phi(\gamma t)\left|\left\{x \in B_1:\left|D^2 \eta\right|>C_3\right\}\right| & =\phi(\gamma t)\left|\left\{x \in
B_1:\left|D^2 u_t\right|>\gamma t\right\}\right| \\
& \leq \int_{B_1} \phi\left(\left|D^2 u_t\right|\right) d x \\
& \leq C \int_{B_1} \phi\left(\left|f_t\right|\right) d x \\
& \leq C \phi(t) \int_{B_1} 2 a\left(\frac{|\Delta \eta|}{C_1}\right)^{\alpha_2} d x \\
& \leq C \phi(t) .
\end{aligned}
$$
Therefore, we conclude that
$$
\phi(\gamma t) \leq C \phi(t),
$$
which implies that
$$
\phi(2 t) \leq C \phi(t) .
$$
This completes our proof.
\subsection{Proof for (2) of Theorem \ref{main result}}
\subsubsection{In the case when $f \in C_0^{\infty}\left(B_1\right)$.}
According to Remark \ref{dense property}, when $\phi$ satisfies the global $\Delta_2$ condition, $C_0^{\infty}\left(B_1\right)$ is dense in Orlicz space, so we first consider the result when $f \in C_0^{\infty}\left(B_1\right)$. This moment by the classical theory, there is only one solution $u \in C_0^{\infty}\left(B_1\right)$ satisfying (\ref{Poisson}). It follows that $ D^2 u \in C_0^{\infty}\left(B_1\right)$ so that $ D^2 u \in L^\phi$.
Also because Remark \ref{another integral form}, we can first rewrite the integral like this:
$$
\int_{B_1} \phi\left(\left|D^2 u\right|\right) dx= \int_0^{\infty}\left|\left\{x \in B_1:\left|D^2 u\right|>\lambda\right\}\right| d\left[\phi\left(\lambda\right)\right].
$$
We choose to use a method motivated by the iteration-covering procedure in \cite{acerbi2007gradient,wang2009optimal}. First, we need to estimate the measure of $\left|\{x \in B_1:|D^2 u|>\lambda\}\right|$. In order to use $L^p$ estimate, we choose a fix constant $p$ with
\begin{equation} \label{p definition}
1<p<\alpha_2
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_2$ is defined in (\ref{Young2}). The reason of choice of p will be discussed later. And we denote
\begin{equation} \label{E definition}
E^p=\int_{B_1}\left|D^2 u\right|^p d x+M^p \int_{B_1}|f|^p dx,
\end{equation}
while $M>1$ is a large enough constant which will be determined later. Set
\begin{equation} \label{ulambda definition}
u_\lambda= \frac{u}{E\lambda} \quad and \quad f_\lambda=\frac{f}{E \lambda},
\end{equation}
for any $\lambda>0$. $u_\lambda$ is still the solution of (\ref{Poisson}) with $f_\lambda$ replacing $f$.
In addition, for any domain $B$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$, we write
$$
J_\lambda[B]=\int_B \hspace{-1.20em}- \left|D^2 u_\lambda\right|^p d x+M^p \int_B \hspace{-1.20em}-\left|f_\lambda\right|^p d x
$$
and
$$
E_\lambda(1)=\left\{x \in B_1:\left|D^2 u_\lambda\right|>1\right\} =\left\{x \in B_1:\left|D^2 u\right|>\lambda E\right\} .
$$
Since $\left|D^2 u_\lambda(x)\right| \leq 1$ for $x \in B_1 \backslash E_\lambda(1)$, we focus our attention on the level set $E_\lambda(1)$. Next, we will decompose the level set $E_\lambda(1)$.
\begin{lemma}
For $\forall \lambda>0$, there exists a family of disjoint balls $\left\{B_{\rho_i}\left(x_i\right)\right\}_{i \geq 1}$ with $x_i \in E_\lambda(1)$ and $\rho_i=\rho\left(x_i, \lambda\right)>0$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{B rho estimate}
J_\lambda\left[B_{\rho_i}\left(x_i\right)\right]=1, \quad J_\lambda\left[B_\rho\left(x_i\right)\right]<1 \quad for \quad \forall \rho >\rho_i,
\end{equation}
and
$$
E_\lambda(1) \subset \bigcup_{i \geq 1} B_{5 \rho_i}\left(x_i\right) \cup \text { negligible set. }
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Fix $\forall x \in B_1$ and fixed $\lambda$, there exists $\rho_0=\rho_0(\lambda)>0$ satisfying $\lambda^p\left|B_{\rho_0}(x)\right|=1$.
When $\rho > \rho_0$,
$$
J_\lambda\left[B_\rho(x)\right] \leq \frac{1}{\left|B_\rho(x)\right|}\left[\int_{B_1}\left|D^2 u_\lambda\right|^p d x+M^p \int_{B_1}\left|f_\lambda\right|^p d x\right] \leq \frac{1}{\lambda^p\left|B_\rho(x)\right| } < 1 .
$$
Thus we conclude that
\begin{equation} \label{J estimate}
\sup _{x \in B_1} \sup _{\rho \geq \rho_0} J_\lambda\left[B_\rho(x)\right] \leq 1.
\end{equation}
For a.e. $x \in E_\lambda(1)$, by Lebesgue's differentiation theorem we know that
$$
\lim _{\rho \rightarrow 0} J_\lambda\left[B_\rho(x)\right] = \left|D^2 u_\lambda (x)\right|>1,
$$
which implies that there exists some $\rho>0$ satisfying
$
J_\lambda\left[B_\rho(x)\right]>1 .
$
Compared with (\ref{J estimate}), one can select $\rho_x \in\left(0, \rho_0\right]$ such that
$$
J_\lambda\left[B_{\rho_x}(x)\right]=1, \quad J_\lambda\left[B_\rho(x)\right]<1 \text { for any } \rho>\rho_x .
$$
It follows from the argument above that for a.e. $x \in E_\lambda(1)$ there exists a ball $B_{\rho_x}(x)$ constructed as above. Therefore, applying Vitali's covering lemma, we can find a family of disjoint balls $\left\{B_{\rho_i}\left(x_i\right)\right\}_{i \geq 1}$ such that the results of the lemma hold. This completes our proof.
\end{proof}
Now We can use the union of the balls covering the level set $E_{\lambda}(1)$. So for every fixed ball $\left\{B_{\rho_i}\left(x_i\right)\right\}$, we need an estimate of its measure.
\begin{lemma}
Under the same hypotheses and results as those in Lemma 2.2.1, we have
$$
\begin{aligned}
\left|B_{\rho_i}\left(x_i\right)\right| \leq \frac{2^{p-1}}{2^{p-1}-1} \left( \int_{{x \in B_{\rho_i}(x_i):\left|D^2 u_\lambda\right|>1/2}}\left|D^2 u_\lambda\right|^p dx \right.\\ \left.
+M^p \int_{\left\{x \in B_{\rho_i}(x_i):\left|f_\lambda\right|>1/(2M)\right\}}\left|f_\lambda\right|^p dx \right) .
\end{aligned}
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
From (\ref{B rho estimate}) in the lemma above we see that
$$
\left|B_{\rho_i}\left(x_i\right)\right|=\int_{B_{\rho_i}\left(x_i\right)}\left|D^2 u_\lambda\right|^p d x+M^p \int_{B_{\rho_i}\left(x_i\right)}\left|f_\lambda\right|^p d x .
$$
Therefore, by splitting the two integrals above as follows we have
$$
\begin{aligned}
\left|B_{\rho_i}\left(x_i\right)\right| \leq
&\int_{\left\{x \in B_{\rho_i}(x_i):\left|D^2 u_\lambda\right|>1/2\right\}}\left|D^2 u_\lambda\right|^p dx+(\frac{1}{2})^p\left|B_{\rho_i}(x_i)\right| \\
+M^p &\int_{\left\{x \in B_{\rho_i}\left(x_i\right):\left|f_\lambda\right|>1 /(2M)\right\}}\left|f_\lambda\right|^p d x+(\frac{1}{2})^p\left|B_{\rho_i}\left(x_i\right)\right| .
\end{aligned}
$$
After transposition, the proof is completed.
\end{proof}
Now the problem becomes to a new one: after replacing the measure of level set by the $L^p$ estimate of $D^2 u_\lambda$ and $f_\lambda$, we wish the integral in remark (\ref{another integral form}) could be controlled by the RHS of estimate (\ref{estimate}), so we need the following lemma:
\begin{lemma}
If $\phi \in \Phi$ satisfies the global $\triangle_2 \cap \nabla_2$ condition, and $g \in L^\phi$, then for any $b_1, b_2>0$ we have
$$
\int_0^{\infty} \frac{1}{\mu^p}\left\{\int_{\left\{x \in B_1:|g|>b_1 \mu\right\}}|g|^p d x\right\} d\left[\phi\left(b_2 \mu\right)\right] \leq C\left(b_1, b_2, \phi\right) \int_{B_1} \phi(|g|) d x .
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Interchanging the order of integration and integrating by parts, we deduce that
$$
\begin{aligned}
I & =: \int_{B_1}|g|^p\left\{\int_0^{\frac{|g|}{b_1}} \frac{d\left[\phi\left(b_2 \mu\right)\right]}{\mu^p}\right\} dx \\
& \leq \int_{B_1}|g|^p\left\{\frac{\phi\left(b_2\frac{|g|}{b_1}\right)}{\left(\frac{|g|}{b_1}\right)^p}+p \int_0^{\frac{|g|}{b_1}} \frac{\phi\left(b_2 \mu\right)}{\mu^{p+1}} d \mu\right\} d x,
\end{aligned}
$$
and it follows from (\ref{Young1}), (\ref{Young2}) and (\ref{p definition}) that
$$
\begin{aligned}
I & \leq C \int_{B_1} \phi(|g|) d x+2 a p b_1^{\alpha_2} \int_{B_1} \phi\left(b_2\frac{|g|}{b_1}\right)|g|^{p-\alpha_2}\left\{\int_0^{\frac{|g|}{b_1}} \frac{1}{\mu^{p+1-\alpha_2}} d \mu\right\} d x \\
& \leq C \int_{B_1} \phi(|g|) d x .
\end{aligned}
$$
Here we use the condition $p<\alpha_2$, and it explain the reason for choice of $p$.
\end{proof}
Now we started prove the (2) in Theorem \ref{main result} when $f \in C_0^{\infty} (B_1)$.
\begin{proof}
Fix $i \geq 1 $ and $ B_{\rho_i}$. By Lemma 2.2.1,
\begin{equation} \label{ulambda flambda}
\int_{B_{10 \rho_i}\left(x_i\right)} \hspace{-3.90em}- \quad \quad\left|D^2 u_\lambda\right|^p dx < 1 \text { and } \int_{B_{10 \rho_i}\left(x_i\right)} \hspace{-3.90em}- \quad
\quad \left|f_\lambda\right|^p dx
< \frac{1}{M^p} .
\end{equation}
Now let $v_\lambda$ satisfy the following boundary problem (the solution exists for sure)
$$
\left\{\begin{aligned}
-\Delta v_\lambda=0 & \text { in } B_{10 \rho_i}\left(x_i\right), \\
v_\lambda=u_\lambda & \text { on } \partial B_{10 \rho_i}\left(x_i\right) .
\end{aligned}\right.
$$
Let $w_\lambda=u_\lambda-v_\lambda$. Then $w$ satisfies
$$
\left\{\begin{aligned}
-\Delta w_\lambda=f_\lambda & \text { in } B_{10 \rho_i}\left(x_i\right), \\
w_\lambda=0 & \text { on } \partial B_{10 \rho_i}\left(x_i\right) .
\end{aligned}\right.
$$
Thus from the elementary $L^p$ estimates and (\ref{ulambda flambda}) we find that
\begin{equation} \label{w estimate}
\int_{B_{10 \rho_i}\left(x_i\right)} \hspace{-3.90em}- \quad \quad\left|D^2 w_\lambda\right|^p d x \leq C \int_{B_{10 \rho_i}\left(x_i\right)} \hspace{-3.90em}- \quad \quad\left|f_\lambda\right|^p d x \leq \frac{C}{M^p} .
\end{equation}
Note that $v_\lambda=u_\lambda-w_\lambda$,
$$
\int_{B_{10 \rho_i}\left(x_i\right)} \hspace{-3.90em}- \quad \quad\left|D^2 v_\lambda\right|^p dx
\leq 2^{p-1} \left\{
\int_{B_{10 \rho_i}\left(x_i\right)} \hspace{-3.90em}- \quad \quad\left|D^2 w_\lambda\right|^p dx +
\int_{B_{10 \rho_i}\left(x_i\right)} \hspace{-3.90em}- \quad \quad\left|D^2 u_\lambda\right|^p\right\} d x \leq C,
$$
and due to the $W_{\text {loc }}^{2, \infty}$ regularity,
\begin{equation} \label{v D^2 estimate}
\sup _{B_{5 \rho_i}\left(x_i\right)}\left|D^2 v_\lambda\right| \leq N_1,
\end{equation}
where $N_1>1$ only depends on $n, p$.
Set $\mu=\lambda E$. Now we decompose the level set $E_\lambda (2N_1)$. By (\ref{ulambda definition}), (\ref{w estimate}) and (\ref{v D^2 estimate}),
$$\begin{aligned}
& \left|\left\{x \in B_{5 \rho_i}\left(x_i\right):\left|D^2 u\right|>2 N_1 \mu\right\}\right|=\left|\left\{x \in B_{5 \rho_i}\left(x_i\right):\left|D^2 u_\lambda\right|>2 N_1\right\}\right| \\
& \leq\left|\left\{x \in B_{5 \rho_i}\left(x_i\right):\left|D^2 w_\lambda\right|>N_1\right\}\right|+\left|\left\{x \in B_{5 \rho_i}\left(x_i\right):\left|D^2 v_\lambda\right|>N_1\right\}\right| \\
& =\left|\left\{x \in B_{5 \rho_i}\left(x_i\right):\left|D^2 w_\lambda\right|>N_1\right\}\right| \leq \frac{1}{N_1^p} \int_{B_{5 \rho_i}\left(x_i\right)}\left|D^2 w_\lambda\right|^p d x \leq \frac{C\left|B_{\rho_i}\left(x_i\right)\right|}{M^p} .
\end{aligned}
$$
By the estimate of $\left|B_{\rho_i}\left(x_i\right)\right|$ in Lemma 2.2.2 and \ref{ulambda definition} ,
$$
\begin{aligned}
& \left|\left\{x \in B_{5 \rho_i}\left(x_i\right):\left|D^2 u\right|>2 N_1 \mu\right\}\right| \\
& \leq \frac{C_1}{M^p \mu^p}\left(\int_{\left\{x \in B_{\rho_i}\left(x_i\right):\left|D^2 u\right|>\mu / 2\right\}}\left|D^2 u\right|^p d x+M^p \int_{\left\{x \in B_{\rho_i}\left(x_i\right):|f|>\mu /(2 M)\right\}}|f|^p d x\right),
\end{aligned}
$$
where $C_1=C_1(n, \phi)$. Note that the balls $\left\{B_{\rho_i}\left(x_i\right)\right\}$ are disjoint and
$$
\bigcup_{i \geq 1} B_{5 \rho_i}\left(x_i\right) \cup \text { negligible set } \supset E_\lambda(1)=\left\{x \in B_1:\left|D^2 u\right|>\mu\right\}
$$
for any $\lambda>0$, by replace $u$ by $u/2N_1$,
$$
\begin{aligned}
& \left|\left\{x \in B_1:\left|D^2 u\right|>2 N_1 \mu\right\}\right| \leq \sum_i\left|\left\{x \in B_{5 \rho_i}\left(x_i\right):\left|D^2 u\right|>2 N_1 \mu\right\}\right| \\
& \leq \frac{C_1}{M^p \mu^p}\left(\int_{\left\{x \in B_1:\left|D^2 u\right|>\mu / 2\right\}}\left|D^2 u\right|^p d x+M^p \int_{\left\{x \in B_1:|f|>\mu /(2 M)\right\}}|f|^p d x\right) .
\end{aligned}
$$
Now, back to the very beginning of this section 2.2.1, and usingLemma 2.2.3,
$$
\begin{aligned}
\int_{B_1} \phi\left(\left|D^2 u\right|\right) d x= & \int_0^{\infty}\left|\left\{x \in B_1:\left|D^2 u\right|>2 N_1 \mu\right\}\right| d\left[\phi\left(2 N_1 \mu\right)\right] \\
\leq & \frac{C_1}{M^p} \int_0^{\infty} \frac{1}{\mu^p}\left\{\int_{\left\{x \in B_1:\left|D^2 u\right|>\mu / 2\right\}}\left|D^2 u\right|^p d x\right\} d\left[\phi\left(2 N_1 \mu\right)\right] \\
& +C_1 \int_0^{\infty} \frac{1}{\mu^p}\left\{\int_{\left\{x \in B_1:|f|>\mu /(2 M)\right\}}|f|^p d x\right\} d\left[\phi\left(2 N_1 \mu\right)\right] \\
\leq & \frac{C_2}{M^p} \int_{B_1} \phi\left(\left|D^2 u\right|\right) d x+C_3 \int_{B_1} \phi(|f|) d x
\end{aligned}
$$
where $C_2=C_2(n, \phi)$ and $C_3=C_3(n, \phi, M)$. Finally, choosing a suitable $M>0$ such that $C_2 / M^p<1 / 2$, we obtain
$$
\int_{B_1} \phi\left(\left|D^2 u\right|\right) d x \leq C \int_{B_1} \phi(|f|) d x .
$$
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{In the case when $f \in L^\phi$.}
Now we use an approximation argument to complete the final proof.
\begin{proof}
Let $\left\{f_k\right\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ be a sequence of smooth functions in $C_0^{\infty}\left(B_1\right)$ satisfying
$$
f_k \longrightarrow f \text { in } L^\phi\left(B_1\right)
$$
for a given Young function $\phi \in \triangle_2 \cap \nabla_2$. By the continuity of the convex $\phi$, it's easy to check that
\begin{equation} \label{approximation}
\int_{B_1} \phi\left(\left|f_k\right|\right) d x \longrightarrow \int_{B_1} \phi(|f|) dx .
\end{equation}
Now we consider the regularized problems
$$
-\Delta u_k=f_k \in C_0^{\infty}\left(B_1\right) \text { in } B_1.
$$
Because of the result in section 2.2.1,
$$
\int_{B_1} \phi\left(\left|D^2 u_k\right|\right) d x \leq C \int_{B_1} \phi\left(\left|f_k\right|\right) d x,
$$
where the constant $C$ is independent of $k \in \mathbb{N}$. Let $k \rightarrow \infty$. By (\ref{approximation}) and the lower semicontinuity of the left-hand side of above inequality, we obtain
$$
\int_{B_1} \phi\left(\left|D^2 u\right|\right) d x \leq C \int_{B_1} \phi(|f|) d x .
$$
\end{proof}
\newpage
\bibliographystyle{ieeetr}
\small
|
\section{Introduction}\label{introduction}}
When there are many predictors in linear regression, or when predictors
are colinear, many researchers replace the predictors with fewer
principal components, derived from the predictor matrix, instead (PCs,
Pearson 1901). PCs have the benefit of being orthogonal, so that
including PCs has the tendency to stabilize computation (Hotelling 1957;
Jolliffe 1982).
Jolliffe (1982) noted that the original idea behind PC-regression was to
include all PCs, while authors usually omit PCs with small eigenvalues.
Consequently, many authors have cautioned against the potential
consequences of PC-regression (Artigue and Smith 2019; Hadi and Ling
1998; Mardia, Kent, and Bibby 1980). However, note that there are better
ways to determine which PCs should be included in the regression, e.g.,
with cross-validation (Hastie, Friedman, and Tibshirani 2001) or
significance testing (Mardia, Kent, and Bibby 1980), which instead focus
on the variation PCs explain in the response.
However, the arguments made against omitting PCs with small eigenvalues
have mostly been qualitative than quantitative (Jolliffe 1982; Artigue
and Smith 2019). Hadi and Ling (1998) notes that the sum of squared
errors obtained by PCR will never be lower than that obtained by
ordinary least squares (OLS). Næs and Martens (1988) discusses the
variance of the PC-regression estimator but neglects to discuss how the
PC-regression estimator for the residual variance compares to the OLS
estimator.
To improve on this I here provide various expressions for the variance
of the PC-regression estimator of the regression slopes, and for the
PC-regression estimator of the residual variance, to indicate that 1)
the PC-regression estimator for the residual variance is biased upwards,
and that consequently 2) the variance of the PC-regression estimators
for the slope parameters is usually, but not always, smaller than that
of the OLS estimator.
\hypertarget{pc-regression}{%
\subsection{PC-regression}\label{pc-regression}}
When including \(d\) PCs in a regression, instead of the \(r\) measured
predictors, the matrix of predictors \(\boldsymbol{X}\) with
\(i = 1 \ldots n\) rows and \(p = 1 \ldots K\) columns is first
subjected to a Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) to retrieve its left
\(\boldsymbol{U} = \boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{V} \boldsymbol{\Sigma}^{-1}\)
and right
\(\boldsymbol{V} = \boldsymbol{X}^\top\boldsymbol{U}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}^{-1}\)
singular vectors, where \(\boldsymbol{\Sigma}\) a diagonal matrix of
singular values. In applied sciences, the left singular vectors take the
interpretation of gradients or latent variables, such as temperature,
climate, or genetic similarity in ecology and evolution, or types of
behavior such as aggressiveness, kindness, or passiveness in social
science. As such, the columns of \(\boldsymbol{U}\) represent a compound
of effects vaguely related to the original identities of the predictor
variables.
Let
\(\tilde{\boldsymbol{X}} = \boldsymbol{X} - \boldsymbol{U}_{k}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{k}\boldsymbol{V}_{k}^\top\)
denote the predictor variables ``observed'' with error, or equivalently,
the predictor matrix as reconstructed from its SVD with the first \(d\)
left singular vectors, where \(\boldsymbol{\beta}_d\) and
\(\boldsymbol{\beta}_k\) are the (slope) parameters due to the first
\(d\) and last \(k\) left singular vectors of \(\boldsymbol{X}\), and
where usually \(d \le K\), we have:
\begin{equation}
\begin{alignedat}{3}
\boldsymbol{y} &= \tilde{\boldsymbol{X}}\boldsymbol{\beta} &+ &\boldsymbol{\epsilon}\\
&= \biggl(\boldsymbol{X} - \boldsymbol{U}_{k}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{k}\boldsymbol{V}_{k}^\top \biggr)\biggl(\boldsymbol{\beta}_d+\boldsymbol{\beta}_k \biggr) &+ &\boldsymbol{\epsilon}\\
&= \boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{\beta}_d &+ &\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_{PC,d}, \qquad \text{where } \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_{PC,d} = \boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{\beta}_k - \boldsymbol{U}_d\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_d\boldsymbol{V}_d^\top\boldsymbol{\beta}_k - \boldsymbol{U}_k\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_k\boldsymbol{V}_k^\top + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}
\end{alignedat}
\label{one}
\end{equation}
\noindent where \(\boldsymbol{\epsilon}\) is the error from a regression
with the predictor variables. Here, \(\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_{PC,d}\) is
the error from a regression with \(d\) left singular vectors. Let
\(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_d\) to be the \(K \times 1\)-sized vector of
parameter estimates from a regression of the response on \(d\) first
left singular vectors, i.e., the estimators that maximize the likelihood
of the model:
\begin{equation}
\begin{alignedat}{4}
\boldsymbol{y} &= \boldsymbol{U}_{d}\boldsymbol{\beta}_{PC,d} &+ &\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_{PC,d}, \qquad &\text{where } &\boldsymbol{\beta}_{PC} &= &\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{d}\boldsymbol{V}_{d}^\top\boldsymbol{\beta}_d\\
&= \boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{\beta}_{d} &+ &\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_{PC,d}, \qquad &\text{where } &\boldsymbol{\beta}_d &= &\boldsymbol{V}_{d}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{d}^{-1}\boldsymbol{\beta}_{PC,d},
\end{alignedat}
\label{two}
\end{equation}
\noindent where \(\boldsymbol{\beta}_{PC,d}\) a \(d \times 1\)-sized
vector of slope parameters for the first \(d\) left singular vectors,
and so that we have a similar estimator for \(\boldsymbol{\beta}_k\).
Consequently, the terms
\(\boldsymbol{U}_d\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_d\boldsymbol{V}_d^\top\boldsymbol{\beta}_k\)
and
\(\boldsymbol{U}_k\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_k\boldsymbol{V}_k^\top\boldsymbol{\beta}_d\)
from equation \eqref{one} are zero due to orthogonality of the singular
vectors, and we have that
\(\boldsymbol{\beta} = \boldsymbol{V}_{d}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}^{-1}_{d}\boldsymbol{\beta}_{PC,d} + \boldsymbol{V}_{k}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}^{-1}_{k}\boldsymbol{\beta}_{PC,k}\)
or equivalently
\(\boldsymbol{\beta} = \boldsymbol{\beta}_d+\boldsymbol{\beta}_k\), and
\(\text{cov}(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_k, \hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_d) = 0\).
We thus see that the discrepancy of the PC-regression error relative to
the error from a regression fitted by OLS can be estimated as
\(\boldsymbol{H}_{PC,k}\boldsymbol{y}\), so that we have:
\begin{equation}
\begin{alignedat}{4}
\boldsymbol{y} = \boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{\beta} &+ &\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_{PC,d}, \qquad \text{where } \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_{PC,d} = \boldsymbol{\epsilon} + \boldsymbol{H}_{PC,k}\boldsymbol{y},
\end{alignedat}
\label{three}
\end{equation}
\noindent where
\(\boldsymbol{H}_{PC,k} = \boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{V}_{k}\boldsymbol{V}_{k}^\top (\boldsymbol{X}^\top\boldsymbol{X})^{-1}\boldsymbol{X}^\top = \boldsymbol{U}_{k}\boldsymbol{U}_{k}^\top\)
is the hat matrix for a regression of \(\boldsymbol{y}\) on the last
\(k\) right singular vectors with errors
\(\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_{PC,k}\) (without additional intercept). As
such, the the error in PC-regression is given as the sum of the error
from a regression with the predictor variables, and that of a
PC-regression with the \(k\) remaining left singular vectors.
The two terms that make up the residual of PC-regression in the last
line of equation \eqref{three} are independent, so that the sum of
squared errors is:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_{PC,d}^\top\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_{PC,d} &= \boldsymbol{\boldsymbol{\epsilon}}^\top\boldsymbol{\epsilon} + \boldsymbol{y}^\top\boldsymbol{H}_{PC,k}\boldsymbol{y}\\
&= \boldsymbol{\boldsymbol{\epsilon}}^\top\boldsymbol{\epsilon} + \boldsymbol{y}^\top\boldsymbol{H}_{PC,k}\boldsymbol{y}\\
&= \boldsymbol{y}^\top(\textbf{I}-\boldsymbol{H})\boldsymbol{y} + \boldsymbol{y}^\top\boldsymbol{H}_{PC,k}\boldsymbol{y}\\
&= \boldsymbol{y}^\top(\textbf{I}-\boldsymbol{H}_{PC,d})\boldsymbol{y}.
\end{split}
\end{align}
\noindent Consequently, the expected value of the sum of squared errors
for PC-regression is:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\text{E}(\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_{PC,d}^\top\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_{PC,d}) &= \text{E}(\boldsymbol{\boldsymbol{\epsilon}}^\top\boldsymbol{\epsilon}) + \text{E}(\boldsymbol{y}^\top\boldsymbol{H}_{PC,k}\boldsymbol{y})\\
&= \sigma^2(n-r) + (\boldsymbol{\beta}-\boldsymbol{\beta}_d)^\top\boldsymbol{X}^\top\boldsymbol{X}(\boldsymbol{\beta}-\boldsymbol{\beta}_d),
\end{split}
\label{var2}
\end{align}
\noindent so that the estimator for the residual variance in a
PC-regression is:
\begin{equation}
\hat{\sigma}^2_{PC,d} = \frac{\sigma^2(n-r)}{n-d} + \frac{(\boldsymbol{\beta}-\boldsymbol{\beta}_d)^\top\boldsymbol{X}^\top\boldsymbol{X}(\boldsymbol{\beta}-\boldsymbol{\beta}_d)}{n-d},
\label{varPC}
\end{equation}
\noindent and an unbiased estimator for the residual variance of linear
regression \(\sigma^2\), based on the PC-regression estimator, is:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\hat{\sigma}^2 &= \frac{\hat{\sigma}^2_{PC,d}(n-d)-\boldsymbol{y}^\top\boldsymbol{H}_{PC,k}\boldsymbol{y}}{n-r}.
\end{split}
\end{align}
From equation \eqref{varPC} it is possible conclude that
\(\hat{\sigma}^2_{PC,d}\) is generally an upwards biased estimator for
\(\sigma^2\) with \(d<K\), and similarly for \(\sigma^2_{PC,k}\). More
specifically, the bias for the PC-regression estimator is:
\begin{equation}
\begin{alignedat}{3}
\text{E}(\hat{\sigma}^2_{PC,d}-\sigma^2) &= \frac{\sigma^2(n-r)}{n-d} &+ &\frac{\text{E}(\boldsymbol{y}^\top\boldsymbol{H}_{PC,k}\boldsymbol{y})}{n-d} - \sigma^2\\
&= (\frac{n-r}{n-d}-1)\sigma^2 &+ &\frac{(\boldsymbol{\beta}-\boldsymbol{\beta}_d)^\top\boldsymbol{X}^\top\boldsymbol{X}(\boldsymbol{\beta}-\boldsymbol{\beta}_d)}{n-d},
\end{alignedat}
\label{bias}
\end{equation} \noindent which shows that the bias is likely to increase
with the number of left signular vectors omitted \(k\), and that both
terms converge to zero as \(d \to r\), i.e., when the PC-regression
estimator coincides with the OLS estimator. However, note that the bias
induced depends on the importance of each omitted left singular vector
in explaining the response variable, and that if none of the omitted
left singular vectors is relevant in explaining the response variable,
the residual variance is instead underestimated rather than
overestimated by PC-regression. Further, as \(n\to\infty\), the second
term in equation \eqref{bias} dominates the bias of the residual
variance, but that if the omitted left singular vector holds little
importance and there are few included left singular vectors, the bias in
the residual variance estimate by PC-regression will be negligible.
\noindent The residual variance of a PC-regression can alternatively be
formulated as a function of the residual variance of a regression for
each separate dimension, due to the orthogonality of the singular
vectors. Specifically, we see that
\(\boldsymbol{y}^\top\boldsymbol{H}\boldsymbol{y} = \sum \limits^{k}_{q=1} \boldsymbol{y}^\top\boldsymbol{H}_{PC,q} \boldsymbol{y}\),
where \(\boldsymbol{H}_{PC,q}\) is the hat matrix of a regression that
only includes the \(q^{th}\) left singular vector, so that for the
residual variance we have:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\hat{\sigma}^2_{PC,d} &= \frac{\sigma^2(n-r) + \boldsymbol{y}^\top\boldsymbol{y} -\sigma_{PC,k}^2(n-r+d)}{n-d}\\
&= \frac{\sigma^2(n-r) + \boldsymbol{y}^\top\boldsymbol{y}(k)- (n-1)\sum \limits^{k}_{q=1}\sigma^2_{PC,q}}{n-d}\\
&= \frac{(n-1)\sum \limits^{d}_{q=1}\sigma^2_{PC,q} - \boldsymbol{y}^\top\boldsymbol{y}(d-1)}{n-d},
\end{split}
\label{var3}
\end{align}
\noindent where \(\sigma^2_{PC,q}\) is a vector of residual variances
for each regression.
So far we had: \begin{equation}
\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_d \sim \mathcal{N}(\boldsymbol{V}_{d}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}^{-1}_{d}\boldsymbol{\beta}_{PC,d},\boldsymbol{V}_{d}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}^{-1}_{d}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{PC,d}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}^{-1}_{d}\boldsymbol{V}_{d}^\top),
\end{equation} \noindent or equivalently: \begin{equation}
\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_d \sim \mathcal{N}\{(\boldsymbol{X}^\top\boldsymbol{X})^{-1}\boldsymbol{V}\boldsymbol{V}^\top\boldsymbol{y},\boldsymbol{V}_{d}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}^{-1}_{d}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{PC,d}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}^{-1}_{d}\boldsymbol{V}_{d}^\top\}.
\end{equation} \noindent However, with the result from above, we are
able to write the estimated covariance matrix of
\(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_d\) in terms of the covariance matrix of a
regression with the predictors, and of a regression with the remaining
\(k\) left singular vectors. This will facilitate a better understanding
of changes in the variance of the PC-regression estimator for different
numbers left singular vectors in a PC-regression. Let again
\(\tilde{\boldsymbol{X}} = \boldsymbol{X} - \boldsymbol{U}_{k}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{k}\boldsymbol{V}_{k}^\top\)
denote the predictors observed with error as included in a
PC-regression. Then,
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\text{var}(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_d) &= (\tilde{\boldsymbol{X}}^\top\tilde{\boldsymbol{X}})^{-1}\sigma_{PC,d}^2\\
&= \text{var}(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}})\boldsymbol{V}_{d}\boldsymbol{V}_{d}^\top\frac{\sigma_{PC,d}^2}{\sigma^2},
\end{split}
\label{variance}
\end{align} where we note that the diagonal of
\(\boldsymbol{V}_d\boldsymbol{V}_d^\top\) monotonically increases in the
number of left singular vectors in the regression \(d\), and that
\(\sigma^2_{PC,d}/\sigma^2 \ge 1\) so that it represents the inflation
in residual variance of the PC-regression due to omission of the last
\(k\) left singular vectors (see appendix S1 for an expanded proof).
This further demonstrates that
\(\text{var}(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}})\boldsymbol{V}_{d}\boldsymbol{V}_{d}^\top \propto \text{var}(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_d)\),
with the benefit that \(\boldsymbol{V}_{d}\boldsymbol{V}_{d}^\top\) can
be computed without fitting a regression, but only with the matrix of
predictors and its SVD. The diagonal entries of the outer product of the
first \(d\) right singular vectors of \(\boldsymbol{X}\) are thus equal
the proportional variance decrease by omitting \(k\) left singular
vectors of the variance for the OLS estimator. This result emphasizes
that the variance of the PC-regression estimator decreases monotonically
in the number of left singular vectors used to approximate the OLS
estimator. However, since \(\hat{\sigma^2_{PC,d}}\) increases in the
number of omitted left singular vectors \(k\), the variance of the
PC-regression estimator does not need to be lower than that of the OLS
estimator, unless some eigenvalues are zero.
Finally, the variance of the PC-regression can also be written as a
difference between the variance of the estimators of a regression with
the predictors, and that of the estimator for a regression of the
remaining \(k\) left singular vectors:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\text{var}(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_d) &= \text{var}(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}})(I_K-\boldsymbol{V}_{k}\boldsymbol{V}_{k}^\top)\frac{\sigma_{PC,d}^2}{\sigma^2}\\
&= \{\text{var}(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}})-\frac{\sigma^2}{\sigma_{PC,k}^2}\text{var}(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_k)\}\frac{\sigma_{PC,d}^2}{\sigma^2}.
\end{split}
\end{align}
\noindent consequently, we have
\(\text{var}(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}) = \text{var}(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_d)\frac{\sigma^2}{\sigma^2_{PC,d}} + \text{var}(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_k)\frac{\sigma^2}{\sigma_{PC,k}^2}\)
(see appendix S2 for an expanded proof). Here,
\(\sigma^2/\sigma^2_{PC,k} \le 1\) increases in \(k\) and converges to
one as \(k \to r\) and is zero at \(d = r\). Consequently, the
PC-regression estimator studied here has sampling distribution
\(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_d \sim \mathcal{N}\{\boldsymbol{\beta}-\boldsymbol{\beta}_k,\text{var}(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}})\boldsymbol{V}_{d}\boldsymbol{V}_{d}^\top\frac{\sigma^2_{PC,d}}{\sigma^2}\}\),
or alternatively,
\(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_d \sim \mathcal{N}\{(\boldsymbol{X}^\top\boldsymbol{X})^{-1}\boldsymbol{V}\boldsymbol{V}^\top\boldsymbol{y},\text{var}(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}})\frac{\sigma_{PC,d}^2}{\sigma^2}-\text{var}(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_k)\frac{\sigma_{PC,d}^2}{\sigma_{PC,k}^2}\}\).
\hypertarget{concluding-remarks}{%
\section{Concluding remarks}\label{concluding-remarks}}
Similarly to Hadi and Ling (1998), I conclude that omitting dimensions
as in PC-regression is likely to result in lack of fit. Various authors
have pointed out that it is important to consider the relationship of
PCs with the response variable, and that it is not the magnitude of the
associated eigenvalue that should dictate whether a PC is included in a
PC-regression (Hadi and Ling 1998; Jolliffe 1982; Artigue and Smith
2019). This is further supported by results due to various expressions
in this article, but by equation \eqref{varPC} in particular. It is the
relationship of PCs with the response variable that determines how
significant an issue omitting dimensions presents. If a PC is omitted
that is unrelated to the response variable, PC-regression will
underestimate the residual variance relative to OLS, and the variance of
the PC-regression estimator of the regression slopes will be smaller
than the variance of the OLS estimator. If a PC is omitted that is
important in explaining the response variable, PC-regression will result
in lack of fit, the residual will depend on the predictors, and as a
consequence the residual variance will be overestimated. Consequently,
the magnitude of the variance of the PC-regression estimator for the
regression s lopes depends on the importance of the omitted PCs in
explaining the response variable, which cannot be assessed from the
eigenvalues of the PCA.
Fortunately, better strategies for determining relevant PCs to include
in a regression exist (Mardia, Kent, and Bibby 1980; Hastie, Friedman,
and Tibshirani 2001), while ridge regression (Bair et al. 2006; Frank
and Friedman 1993; Dormann et al. 2013) or Partial Least Squares
(Dormann et al. 2013; Liland, Mevik, and Wehrens 2022) represent less
ambiguous and more rigorous methodologies that can be used instead of
PC-regression.
\hypertarget{acknowledgements}{%
\section{Acknowledgements}\label{acknowledgements}}
The writing of this short note was motivated by the lack of nuance on
the variance of the PC-regression estimator in the associated Wikipedia
article (wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal\_component\_regression). I would
like to than Erik Blystad Solbu and Robert Brian O'Hara for comments on
an earlier draft of the manuscript.
\hypertarget{references}{%
\section{References}\label{references}}
\hypertarget{refs}{}
\begin{CSLReferences}{1}{0}
\leavevmode\vadjust pre{\hypertarget{ref-artiguePrincipalProblemPrincipal2019}{}}%
Artigue, Heidi, and Gary Smith. 2019. {``The Principal Problem with
Principal Components Regression.''} Edited by Zudi Lu. \emph{Cogent
Mathematics \& Statistics} 6 (1): 1622190.
\url{https://doi.org/10.1080/25742558.2019.1622190}.
\leavevmode\vadjust pre{\hypertarget{ref-bair2006prediction}{}}%
Bair, Eric, Trevor Hastie, Debashis Paul, and Robert Tibshirani. 2006.
{``Prediction by Supervised Principal Components.''} \emph{Journal of
the American Statistical Association} 101 (473): 119--37.
\leavevmode\vadjust pre{\hypertarget{ref-dormann2013collinearity}{}}%
Dormann, Carsten F, Jane Elith, Sven Bacher, Carsten Buchmann, Gudrun
Carl, Gabriel Carré, Jaime R García Marquéz, et al. 2013.
{``Collinearity: A Review of Methods to Deal with It and a Simulation
Study Evaluating Their Performance.''} \emph{Ecography} 36 (1): 27--46.
\leavevmode\vadjust pre{\hypertarget{ref-frankStatisticalViewChemometrics1993}{}}%
Frank, lldiko E., and Jerome H. Friedman. 1993. {``A {Statistical View}
of {Some Chemometrics Regression Tools}.''} \emph{Technometrics} 35 (2):
109--35. \url{https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1993.10485033}.
\leavevmode\vadjust pre{\hypertarget{ref-hadiCautionaryNotesUse1998}{}}%
Hadi, Ali S., and Robert F. Ling. 1998. {``Some {Cautionary Notes} on
the {Use} of {Principal Components Regression}.''} \emph{The American
Statistician} 52 (1): 15--19. \url{https://doi.org/10.2307/2685559}.
\leavevmode\vadjust pre{\hypertarget{ref-hastieElementsStatisticalLearning2001}{}}%
Hastie, Trevor, Jerome Friedman, and Robert Tibshirani. 2001. \emph{The
{Elements} of {Statistical Learning}}. Springer {Series} in
{Statistics}. {New York, NY}: {Springer}.
\url{https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21606-5}.
\leavevmode\vadjust pre{\hypertarget{ref-hotellingRelationsNewerMultivariate1957}{}}%
Hotelling, Harold. 1957. {``The {Relations} of the {Newer Multivariate
Statistical Methods} to {Factor Analysis}.''} \emph{British Journal of
Statistical Psychology} 10 (2): 69--79.
\url{https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1957.tb00179.x}.
\leavevmode\vadjust pre{\hypertarget{ref-jolliffeNoteUsePrincipal1982}{}}%
Jolliffe, Ian T. 1982. {``A {Note} on the {Use} of {Principal
Components} in {Regression}.''} \emph{Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society. Series C (Applied Statistics)} 31 (3): 300--303.
\url{https://doi.org/10.2307/2348005}.
\leavevmode\vadjust pre{\hypertarget{ref-lilandPlsPartialLeast2022}{}}%
Liland, Kristian Hovde, Bjørn-Helge Mevik, and Ron Wehrens. 2022.
\emph{Pls: {Partial} Least Squares and Principal Component Regression}.
Manual. \url{https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pls}.
\leavevmode\vadjust pre{\hypertarget{ref-mardiaMultivariateAnalysis1980}{}}%
Mardia, Kanti V., J. T. Kent, and J. M. Bibby. 1980. \emph{Multivariate
{Analysis}}. 1st edition. {London ; New York}: {Academic Press}.
\leavevmode\vadjust pre{\hypertarget{ref-naes1988principal}{}}%
Næs, Tormod, and Harald Martens. 1988. {``Principal Component Regression
in {NIR} Analysis: Viewpoints, Background Details and Selection of
Components.''} \emph{Journal of Chemometrics} 2 (2): 155--67.
\leavevmode\vadjust pre{\hypertarget{ref-pearsonLIIILinesPlanes1901}{}}%
Pearson, Karl. 1901. {``{LIII}. {On} Lines and Planes of Closest Fit to
Systems of Points in Space.''} \emph{The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin
Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science} 2 (11): 559--72.
\url{https://doi.org/10.1080/14786440109462720}.
\end{CSLReferences}
\hypertarget{appendix}{%
\section{Appendix}\label{appendix}}
\hypertarget{appendix-s1}{%
\subsection{Appendix S1}\label{appendix-s1}}
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\text{var}(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_d) &= (\boldsymbol{X}-\boldsymbol{U}_{k}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{k}\boldsymbol{X}_{\boldsymbol{V},k}^\top)^\top(\boldsymbol{X}-\boldsymbol{U}_{k}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{k}\boldsymbol{X}_{\boldsymbol{V},k}^\top)^{-1}\sigma_{PC,d}^2\\
&= (\boldsymbol{V}_{d}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{d}\boldsymbol{u}_{d}^\top\boldsymbol{u}_{d}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{d}\boldsymbol{V}_{d}^\top)^{-1}\sigma_{PC,d}^2\\
&= (\boldsymbol{V}_{d}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{d}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{d}\boldsymbol{V}_{d}^\top)^{-1}\sigma_{PC,d}^2\\
&= \boldsymbol{V}_{d}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{d}^{-1}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{d}^{-1}\boldsymbol{V}_{d}^\top\sigma_{PC,d}^2\\
&= \boldsymbol{V}_{d}\boldsymbol{V}_{d}^\top(\boldsymbol{X}^\top\boldsymbol{X})^{-1}\boldsymbol{V}_{d}\boldsymbol{V}_{d}^\top\sigma_{PC,d}^2\\
&= (\boldsymbol{X}^\top\boldsymbol{X})^{-1}\boldsymbol{V}_{d}\boldsymbol{V}_{d}^\top\boldsymbol{V}_{d}\boldsymbol{V}_{d}^\top\sigma_{PC,d}^2\\
&= (\boldsymbol{X}^\top\boldsymbol{X})^{-1}\boldsymbol{V}_{d}\boldsymbol{V}_{d}^\top\sigma_{PC,d}^2\\
&= \text{var}(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}})\boldsymbol{V}_{d}\boldsymbol{V}_{d}^\top\frac{\sigma_{PC,d}^2}{\sigma^2}.
\end{split}
\end{align}
\hypertarget{appendix-s2}{%
\subsection{Appendix S2}\label{appendix-s2}}
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\text{var}(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_d) &= \text{var}(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}})(I_K-\boldsymbol{V}_{k}\boldsymbol{V}_{k}^\top)\frac{\sigma_{PC,d}^2}{\sigma^2}\\
&= \text{var}(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}})(I_K-\boldsymbol{X}^\top\boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{V}_{k}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{k}^{-2}\boldsymbol{V}_{k}^\top)\frac{\sigma_{PC,d}^2}{\sigma^2}\\
&= \{\text{var}(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}})-\text{var}(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}})\boldsymbol{X}^\top\boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{V}_{k}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{k}^{-2}\boldsymbol{V}_{k}^\top\}\frac{\sigma_{PC,d}^2}{\sigma^2}\\
&= \{\text{var}(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}})-(\boldsymbol{X}^\top\boldsymbol{X})^{-1}\sigma^2\boldsymbol{X}^\top\boldsymbol{X}\boldsymbol{V}_{k}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{k}^{-2}\boldsymbol{V}_{k}^\top\}\frac{\sigma_{PC,d}^2}{\sigma^2}\\
&= \{\text{var}(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}})-\sigma^2\boldsymbol{V}_{k}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{k}^{-2}\boldsymbol{V}_{k}^\top\}\frac{\sigma_{PC,d}^2}{\sigma^2}\\
&= \{\text{var}(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}})-\frac{\sigma^2}{\sigma_{PC,k}^2}\text{var}(\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_k)\}\frac{\sigma_{PC,d}^2}{\sigma^2}.
\end{split}
\end{align}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
In recent years, the study of the high-redshift($z>6$) quasars was a direct probe to explore the Universe at the age less than 1 Gyr after the Big Bang. These early forming quasars are essential to studying the early growth of supermassive black holes (SMBHs) \cite{inayoshi2019assembly}.
By detecting the reverberation between the variations of broad emission lines and the continuum we can determine SMBHs mass in quasars \cite{blandford1982reverberation}. Until now, the time lag of H$\beta$ emission lines has been confirmed and measured only in $\sim $100 quasars \cite{du2019radius}.
The continuum and line emission from luminous quasars which are one of the most luminous objects, over a large wavelength range can be characterized by several leading parts. The broad emission line region \cite{antonucci1993unified}
the optical-to-ultraviolet continuum emission, which is explained by a standard accretion disk extending down to the innermost stable circular orbit \cite{shields1978thermal},
X-ray emission with a power-law spectrum produced by inverse Compton scattering of photons from the accretion disk of relativistic electrons in the hot corona \cite{svensson1994black}, and a soft X-ray excess \cite{arnaud1985exosat}. Spectroscopic observations from optical to near-infrared of these
quasars suggest that such SMBHs are already established when the universe is only $ 700 Myr $ old \cite{yang2020poniua}.
To explain the existence of these SMBHs, many theoretical models have been proposed like using primordial density seeds \cite{wise2019formation,kroupa2020very,bernal2018signatures} and appealing a super-Eddington accretion process \cite{volonteri2015case}.
To utilize the spectroscopic observational data in physical studies, we need an exact classification and redshift determination of astrophysical objects. Along the way, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Catalogue 16th Data Release Quasar Only(SDSS-DR16Q) \cite{Lyke2020}, consists of two files, being the quasar-only main catalog of 750414 entries which contains sooner visually confirmed quasars SDSS-I/II/III, and a 1440615-row “superset” of SDSS-IV/eBOSS quasar object classifications.
The DR16Q catalogs present multiple redshifts per object that are available, including the neural automated QuasarNET \cite{Busca2018} redshift which is claimed $>99\%$ efficiency and $>99\%$ accuracy, that rests on garnering deeper insights into this triumvirate connection by co-locating and analyzing observational data and simulated data. Meanwhile, the enormous increase in computing power over the last decades has allowed the application of acquired statistical methods in the analysis of big and complex data sets.
Using previously-fed data has brought huge opportunities for astronomers to develop intelligent tools and interfaces, utilizing pipeline classifiers, machine learning(ML), and deep learning(DL) methods, to deal with data sets and extract novel information with possible predictions and estimate the relevant confidence which the behavior new data will have.
In astronomy and astrophysics, ML \cite{ball2010data,baron2019machine} and DL \cite{allen2019deep, meher2021deep} have been used in a broad range of subjects(e.g. quasars and other types of sources), such as redshift determination \cite{nakoneczny2021photometric,wenzl2021random}, morphological classification and references therein \cite{vardoulaki2021fr, burhanudin2021light},
source selection and classification \cite{parkinson2016classification,xiao2020efficient,wang2022j}, image and spectral reconstruction \cite{li2021ai}, and more.
ML methods for obtaining redshift estimation for quasars are becoming progressively crucial in the epoch of rich data astronomy. Redshift measurements of quasars are important as they can enable quasar population studies, and provide insight into the star formation rate(SFR), the luminosity function(LF), and the density rate evolution \cite{dainotti2021predicting}.
In this work, we have used DL to model the mass of quasars' central SMBH as a function of their redshift. Firstly, Sec. II is dedicated to the available observational data and evidence on quasars. The estimation of a quasar's central SMBH mass is discussed in detail in Sec. III. Furthermore, in Sec. IV, the mass evolution of these black holes(BHs) is investigated. Sec. V is the comparison between two newborn research platforms, QuasarNET and FNET, and the reasons behind using QuasarNET for our model are explained. Additionally, we use two correction methods which are explained in Sec. VI. A detailed explanation of our DL model can be found in Sec. VII to X. In Sec. VII we introduce Long short-term memory(LSTM) which is the recurrent neural network(RNN) that we build our model based on. We explain the chosen optimization function and its validation loss in Sec. VIII which is shown in multiple figures. Sec. IX presents the topology design of our model and finally, the comparison of the model predictions with other data sets is discussed in Sec. X.\\
\maketitle
\section{Observational evidence and data}
The most comprehensive observed quasi-stellar objects(QSOs) spectra to date are cataloged in the SDSS-IV. SDSS has been operative since 2000 and catalogs of quasars have been produced and made available since 2002. In addition to producing images, it performs spectroscopic surveys across a large area of the sky. We can get about one million galaxies and 10,000 quasars spectra from the survey images of the sky, which are obtained by a 2.5m telescope equipped with a large format mosaic Charge-coupled device(CCD) camera, and two digital spectrographs. As part of its calibration, the SDSS uses observations of the US Naval Observatory's 1m telescope to calibrate its photometry, and an array of astrometric CCDs control its astrometry \cite{York2000}.
The SDSS provides data necessary to study the large-scale structure of the universe. As far as the observatory's limit allows, the imaging survey should detect $\sim5\times10^7$ galaxies, $\sim10^6$ quasars, and $\sim8\times10^7$ stars. By using photometric redshifts and angular correlation functions, these photometric data allow studies of large-scale structures that go beyond spectroscopic analysis. Quasars can provide information on the structure at even larger scales \cite{York2000}.
The SDSS-DR16Q contains 750,414 quasars, with the automated redshift range $1\leq z \leq7.1$. The number of sources reaches its maximum around $z \approx 2.5$ and at earlier epochs i.e. higher redshifts, they are comparatively rare \cite{Rastegarnia2022}.
However, there is a problem with the SDSS-DR16Q catalog. It contains non quasar sources due to pipeline classification errors and incorrect redshift estimations \cite{Lyke2020}. For example, in a search for undeclared quasars, the SDSS-DR16Q main quasars are found to contain 81 entries that are not quasars. It must therefore be noted that the pipeline catalog is not an adequate training samples for quasars because many objects with $z\geq6$ as well as significant fractions of these objects at $z\geq4$, may not be quasars or not quasars at the given redshifts due to incorrect pipeline classifications \cite{Rastegarnia2022}.
\maketitle
\section{Mass estimation of quasars' central SMBH}
In terms of fundamental parameters of quasars, one can mention the central SMBH mass and structure, along with the ratio of the accretion rate to the Eddington accretion rate \cite{Chen2005}.
The central SMBH mass can be measured via the gas or stellar dynamics \cite{Chen2005} from optical or ultraviolet(UV) spectroscopy using empirical relations \cite{Vestergaard2002}.
The broad emission line region(BLR) probably provides the best probe of these characteristics \cite {Wandel1999}. The size of BLRs can be determined by reverberation mapping(RM) \cite{Rodriguez1997}, which is a measuring technique in astrophysics. RM provides
invaluable information about the kinematic and ionization distribution of the gas using the time lag between emission line and continuum variations \cite{Wandel1999}.
Assuming that gravity dominates the dynamics of the BLR and the virial relationship between time lag
and line width exists, the BH mass can be estimated as \cite{Bentz2009}
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:eq1}
M_{BH}= \frac{f c \tau v^2}{G},
\end{equation}
where $\tau$ is the mean time delay for the region of interest, $v$ is the velocity of the gas in that region, $c$ is the speed of light, $G$ is the gravitational constant, and $f$ is a scaling factor of order unity that depends on the detailed geometry and kinematics of the line-emitting region.
The worth mentioning point is that the virial relationship claims a virialized system with individual clouds moving in their Keplerian orbits. This leads to the proportionality of mean cloud velocity and emissivity radius \cite{Netzer2013}
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:eq2}
v \propto{r_{BLR}}^{\frac{1}{2}},
\end{equation}
where $r_{BLR}$ is the emissivity radius.
In the absence of RM, the quasar continuum luminosity is sufficient to estimate the BLR. With RM estimations, the best-fitting $R_{BLR}-\lambda L_\lambda$ relations were derived for quasars at monochromatic luminosity in both 3000 and 5100 $\AA$ rest-frames as follows \cite{McLure2002}
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:eq3}
R_{BLR} = (18.5 \pm 6.6){[\lambda L_{3000} / 10^{37} W]}^{(0.32 \pm 0.14)},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:eq4}
R_{BLR} = (26.4 \pm 4.4){[\lambda L_{5100} / 10^{37} W]}^{(0.61 \pm 0.10)}.
\end{equation}
Here, $L$ is the luminosity measured at a
wavelength $\lambda$.
In Eq. \ref{eqn:eq1},
an intrinsic Keplerian velocity of a broad-line gas is related to the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of a chosen broad emission line by the geometric factor $f$ as
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:eq5}
V_{BLR} = f\times FWHM,
\end{equation}
In other words, it is the width of a spectrum curve measured between those points on the y-axis which are half of the maximum amplitude.
As the geometry of the BLR in radio-quiet quasars is currently unknown, it is generally agreed that $f = \sqrt{3/2}$, which is appropriate for randomly oriented orbits of the BLR gas. However, FWHM measurements for broad emission lines in radio-loud quasars indicate a disc-like geometry \cite{Wills1986}.
Given the similarity between the optical emission-line spectra of radio-loud and radio-quiet quasars, it is not unreasonable to consider the possibility that BLRs of radio-quiet quasars that dominate the SDSS data can follow the same equation as well \cite{McLure2004}
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:eq6}
V_{BLR} = \frac{FWHM}{(2 \sin i)}.
\end{equation}
Here, $i$ represents the angle between the line of sight and the axis of the disc.
Our virial BH mass estimators are derived by substituting the calibrations of the $R_{BLR}–\lambda L_\lambda$ relations into Eq. \ref{eqn:eq1} and determining $V_{BLR}$ using $Mg II$ or $H\beta$ \cite{McLure2002}.
Based on the $L_{5100}$ which is the monochromatic luminosity at rest-frame 5100 $\AA$ and the $H\beta$ line, a more specific expression to calculate the mass of a BH can be written as \cite{Koss2017}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:eq7}
M_{BH}(H\beta) &=& 1.05 \times 10^8 (\frac{L_{5100}}{10^{46}ergs^{-1}})^{0.65} \\
\nonumber
&\times&[\frac{FWHM({H\beta)}}{10^3 kms^{-1}}]^2 M_{\odot},
\end{eqnarray}
where $M_{BH}(H\beta)$ represents BH mass by considering $H\beta$ line, $FWHM({H\beta})$ is the full width at half maximum of $H\beta$ line, and $M_\odot$ is the solar mass.
Large spectroscopic surveys like the SDSS observe both broad $H\beta$ and $Mg II$ lines. Therefore, one can be calibrated against the other and based on $L_{3000}$ and $Mg II \lambda 2798$ line width, a similar expression can be derived as \cite{Netzer2013}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:eq8}
M_{BH}(MgII\lambda2798) &=& 8.9 \times 10^7 (\frac{L_{3000}}{10^{46}ergs^{-1}})^{0.58}\\
\nonumber
&\times&[\frac{FWHM(MgII\lambda{2798})}{10^3 kms^{-1}}]^2 M_{\odot},
\end{eqnarray}
where $M_{BH}(MgII \lambda2798)$ represents BH mass by considering $H\beta$ line, and $FWHM({MgII \lambda2798})$ is the full width at half maximum of $MgII$ line.
Based on empirical estimation of $f\simeq 1.1$ for the $H\beta$ line, we can now write more specific expressions to calculate $M_{BH}$ for several emission lines like $MgII$ as follows \cite{Koss2017}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:eq10}
\frac{M_{BH}}{M_\odot} &=& 4.7 {(\frac{\lambda L_{5100}}{10^{37} W})}^{0.61} {[\frac{FWHM (H\beta)}{kms^{-1}}]}^2, \\
\label{eqn:eq9}
\frac{M_{BH}}{M_\odot} &=& 3.2 {(\frac{\lambda L_{3200}}{10^{37} W})}^{0.62} {[\frac{FWHM (Mg II)}{kms^{-1}}]}^2.
\end{eqnarray}
Besides, it is well-known that the relationship between stellar velocity dispersion and BH mass can be written as \cite{Koss2017}
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:eq11}
log(\frac{M_{BH}}{M_{\odot}}) = 4.38 \times log (\frac{\sigma_{*}}{200kms^{-1}}) +8.49,
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_{*}$ is the stellar velocity dispersion.
Furthermore, to estimate the mass of a BH, observations in the local universe reveal the existence of a correlation between the central SMBH mass and the bulge of the host galaxies \cite{Schutte2019}.
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:eq12}
log (\frac{M_{BH}}{M_{\odot}}) = \alpha + \beta log
(\frac{M_{Bulge,*}}{10^{11} M_{\odot}}),
\end{equation}
where $M_{Bulge,*}$ is the bulge stellar mass and the best-fit of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ should be
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:eq13}
\alpha = 7.93 \pm 0.061 ; \,\beta = 1.15 \pm 0.075.
\end{equation}
\section{Mass evolution of quasars' central SMBH}
As studying the cosmic history of compact cosmological objects is so crucial to track the history line of the universe in a much bigger structure, we are so curious about the evolution of SMBHs mass. In the presence of a SMBH, there are obvious links between the physical properties and those of its host. Due to high redshifts that many quasars have, they are ideal to be studied to recognize BH evolution through time back to the early universe \cite{Willott2010}.
According to the modelling of spectra from the SDSS first data release, the virial mass of BHs for 12698 quasars in the redshift interval $0.1 \leq z \leq 2.1$ is estimated. There is entirely consistent evidence to suggest that the BH mass of SDSS quasars lies in $10^7 M_{\odot} \leq M_{BH} \leq 3 \times 10^9 M_{\odot}$. The local BH mass function for early-type galaxies using the $M_{BH}-\sigma$ and $M_{BH}- L_{bulge}$ correlations(Eq. \ref{eqn:eq11} and Eq. \ref{eqn:eq12}) are also estimated.
In addition, by comparing the number density of active BHs at $z \approx 2$ with the local mass density of inactive ones, a lower limit is set on the lifetime of quasars, which confirms that the bulk of BHs with mass $\geq 10^{8.5} M_{\odot}$ are situated in place by $z \approx 2$ \cite{McLure2004}.
There are several different ideas on the central SMBH mass evolution through time in literature. Based on the effective flux limit along with the role of the quasar continuum luminosity, most studies agree that the SMBH mass increases as a function of redshift, namely most low mass SMBHs can be found in the late universe(e.g. stepping down from $\approx10^9 M_{\odot}$ at $z\approx
2.0$ to $\approx10^8 M_{\odot}$ at $z \approx 0.2$). Considering Eq. \ref{eqn:eq10} and Eq. \ref{eqn:eq9}, redshift does not alter the mean FWHM and it can be roughly considered to be constant. Therefore, the mean virial mass of the SMBH should be increased as $ [L_{\lambda}]^{0.6}$ \cite{McLure2004}.
Quasars undergo important cosmic evolution according to optical, X-ray, and bolometric LFs. Interestingly, based on predictions of \cite{Fanidakis2012} using an extended version of the galaxy formation model, GALFORM code, quasars evolution will be influenced by different physical processes such as the accretion mode and the obscuration prescription. Observational data have also reported similar trends \cite{Hopkins2007}.
Furthermore, SMBHs grow exponentially during a period in which accretion governs their mass evolution. When $z\gtrsim5$, the growth of a SMBH in a quasar is as follows \cite{Benny2019}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:eq115}
M_{BH}(t) &=& M_{BH}(t_0) e^{t\tau}, \\
\tau &\simeq& 0.4 Gyr \frac{\eta}{1-\eta} \frac{1}{\mu}, \\
\mu &\equiv& \frac{L}{L_{Edd}}\times f_{active},
\end{eqnarray}
where $M_{BH}(t_0)$ is the initial mass of BH i.e. the seed's mass, $\eta$ is the radiative efficiency(see \cite{Benny2017} for reported values of $\eta$ for several objects), $L$ is the luminosity of the quasar, $L_{Edd}$ is the luminosity at Eddington limit, $f_{active}$ is the duty cycle, and $\mu$ is a constant which is determined as a combination of $L/L_{Edd}$ and $f_{active}$. Therefore, it is possible to calculate the growth of the BH easily as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:eq1157}
\log{M_{BH}}(z) &=& \log{M_{BH}}(z_0) \\
\nonumber
&+& \log [\exp{(R (\frac{1-\eta}{\eta})z_d}), \\
\eta &\equiv&\frac{L_{bol}}{ \Dot{M}c^2},\\
z_d &\equiv& (1+z)^{-3/2} - (1+z_0)^{-3/2}.
\end{eqnarray}
In above equations, $M_{BH}(z_0)$ is the mass of BHs' seed and $R$ is a constant that is defined as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
R &\equiv& \frac{0.4 Gyr}{\mu},\\
R&=& \begin{cases}
3.79322, \qquad \mu=0.1\\
18.9661, \qquad \mu=0.5\\
37.9322, \qquad \mu=1.0.\\
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
\section{QuasarNET and FNET }
To investigate the mass evolution even more precisely, QuasarNET and FNET are the two available research platforms. Using ML, QuasarNET makes deployment of data-driven modelling techniques possible by combining and co-locating large observational data sets of quasars, the high-redshift luminous population of accreting BHs, at $z\geq3$ alongside simulated data spanning the same cosmic epochs. The main quasar population data source of QuasarNET is NASA Extra-galactic Database(NED) which contains quasars retrieved from several independent optical surveys, principally the magnitude-limited SDSS. There is no comparison between quasars from SDSS and those from other surveys when it comes to spectra and photometry \cite{Natarajan2021}.
NED contains all quasars in principle, but some are missing because their photometric redshifts were incorrectly assigned. Photometric redshift estimation methods suffer from degeneracy, a well-known limitation of current photometric redshift determination methods \cite{Salvato2019}. QuasarNET fills in the missing sources by analyzing the published catalogues from all surveys. It expands to include additional parameters used to
derive BHs mass, instead of archiving only the reported masses. It contains 136 quasars' features, such as the position, redshift, luminosity, mass, line width, and
Eddington ratio.
Two observationally determined functions are used as constraints in theoretical models to describe the assembly history of the BHs population across time: the BH mass function and the Quasar Luminosity Function(QLF). As a statistical measurement of the combined distribution of BHs mass through redshifts, the BH mass function encodes the mass growth history. Similar to the QLF, which reflects their accretion history, the BH mass function is a statistical measurement of the distribution of quasars' luminosities through redshift \cite{Natarajan2021}.
On the other hand, by using DL, to study quasars in the SDSS-DR16Q of eBOSS on a wide range of signal-to-noise(SNR) ratios, there is a 1-dimensional convolutional neural network(CNN) with a residual neural network(ResNet) structure, named FNet. With its 24 convolutional layers and ResNet structure, which has different kernel sizes of 500, 200, and 15, FNET can use a self-learning process to identify "local" and "global" patterns in the entire sample of spectra \cite{Rastegarnia2022}.
Although FNET seems to be similar to the recently adopted CNN-based redshift estimator and classifier, i.e. QuasarNET \cite{Busca2018}, their hidden layer implementations are distinct.
The redshift estimation in FNET is done based on relating the hidden pattern which lies in flux to a specific redshift, not using any information about emission/absorption lines, while QuasarNET
follows the traditional redshift estimation procedure using the identified emission lines in spectra. This makes FNET to outperform QuasarNET for some complex spectra(insufficient lines, high noise, etc.) by recognizing the global pattern.
Moreover, FNET provides similar accuracy to QuasarNET, but it is applicable for a wider range of SDSS spectra, especially for those missing the clear emission lines exploited by QuasarNET. In more detail, from a statistical point of view, FNET is capable to infer accurate redshifts
even for low SNRs or incomplete spectra. It predicts the redshift of 5,190 quasars with 91.6 \% accuracy, while QuasarNET fails to estimate \cite{Rastegarnia2022}.
It is important to know that the FNET vs. QuasarNET comes out on top in redshift prediction, but its lack of quasars' central SMBH mass information makes QuasarNET the preferred option for some studies like this work. However, if in the future SMBHs mass will be estimated by using redshifts from FNET approach, our study can be done again to achieve more accurate results.
\section{Flux and volume-limited samples}
Observations are affected by flux as we move to higher redshifts and more distant objects. This is why some objects are not included in data sets. We suppose that they are not even present because their low flux makes them very difficult or in some cases impossible to observe. This will influence the results of any model that is built on a set of objects. To remove this bias, we must first correct the data set.
Two correction methods can be put into use to build a corrected data set and check if the result is solid or if the correction can end up with a huge deviation from the first result.
Using the friends-of-friends algorithm, quasars can be linked into systems with a specific neighbourhood radius, called linking length($LL$). The size of the group can be determined based on the choice of $LL$ or more generally on its scaling law. $LL$ is parameterized upon a scaling law as \cite{Tago2010}
\begin{equation}
\frac{LL}{LL_0}=1+a\,\arctan(\frac{z}{z_*}),
\end{equation}
where $a=1.00$, $z_*=0.050$ and $LL_0$ is the value of $LL$ at initial redshift.
Setting a limit for absolute magnitude is needed for creating volume-limited samples and all less luminous quasars have to be excluded from the data set. Flux-limited samples, on the other hand, are formed from dozens of cylinders containing quasars. Flux-limited samples can be made with both constant and varying $LL$. The constant $LL_0$ is set as \cite{Tago2010}
\begin{eqnarray}
LL_0 &=& 250 [kms^{-1}], \\
LL_0 &=& 0.25 [h^{-1}Mpc].
\end{eqnarray}
Following the extraction of the necessary columns and rejecting duplicate quasars from the data set, there is only one step left, which is verifying if the quasars are within the volume of cylinders generated by the $LL$s.
To do so first we generate a cylinder, then by using the distance between quasars and comparing this distance with the volume of the cylinder, we consider a quasar to be an accepted object if it is located in the cylinder. The distance can be easily obtained from the redshift difference between them in the data set. This algorithm should be repeated as a loop for each quasar.
As a result of applying the correction methods that are described, we end up with 3246 objects to work with, instead of 37648 objects that are available in QuasarNET. In FIG. \ref{fig:108} accepted and rejected quasars' central SMBH of SDSS-DR16Q in terms of their redshift are illustrated.
\begin{figure}
{\includegraphics[width = 3in]{Corrected.PNG}}\\
\caption{ \footnotesize The total number of objects available in the QuasarNET data set is 37648. As a result of data correction methods, 34403 objects were removed (red dots). The accepted data are the final flux and volume-limited samples, made of 3245 Objects(blue dots).}
\label{fig:108}
\end{figure}
\section{Long short-term memory}
LSTM is one of the most powerful RNN that is used in DL and artificial intelligence \cite{Staudemeyer2019}. The RNN is a dynamic system in which there is an internal state at each step of the classification process \cite{Williams1990,Werbos1990}. The circular connections between neurons at the higher and lower layers, as well as the possibility of self-feedback, are responsible for this. These feedback connections enable RNNs to propagate data from earlier events to current processing steps. Thus, RNNs build a memory of time series events.
A standard RNN is not capable of bridging more than 5 to 10 time steps. It is because back-propagated error signals either grow or shrink with every time step \cite{Staudemeyer2019}. As a result, the error typically blows up or disappears over a long period of time \cite{Bengio1994,Hochreiter1996}. When error signals are blown up, the result is oscillating weights, while vanishing errors mean learning takes too long or does not work at all. It is possible to solve the vanishing error problem by using a gradient-based approach known as LSTM \cite{Hochreiter1997,Hochreiter1996,Gers2000,Gers2002}. More than 1,000 discrete time steps can be bridged using LSTM. LSTM uses constant error carousels(CECs), which enforce a constant error flow within special cells.
Cell accessibility is handled by multiplicative gate units, which learn when to grant access to cells \cite{Staudemeyer2019}. Using a multiplicative input gate unit, memory contents stored in j are protected from irrelevant inputs. We also introduce a multiplicative output gate unit that protects other units from being perturbed by currently irrelevant memory contents stored in j \cite{Graves2012}. Considering distinct time steps t= 1, 2, etc., an individual step includes forward and backward passes which are the update of all units and calculation of error signals for all weights, respectively. The Input $y^{in}$ and output $y^{out}$ gate activation are computed as \cite{Gers2000}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:eq14}
net_{out_{j}}(t)&=&\sum_{m} \omega_{out_{j}m}y^{m}(t-1),\,y^{out_{j}}(t)\\
\nonumber
&=&f_{out_{j}}(net_{out_{j}}(t)),
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:eq15}
net_{in_{j}}(t)&=&\sum_{m} \omega_{in_{j}m}y^{m}(t-1),\,y^{in_{j}}(t)\\
\nonumber
&=&f_{in_{j}}(net_{in_{j}}(t)).
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $net_{inj}$ and $net_{out}$ are the input and output gate activation, $j$ indices are memory blocks, $\omega_{lm}$ is the weight on the connection from unit $m$ to $l$. Index m ranges over all source units, as specified by the network topology. For gates, $f$ is a logistic sigmoid in the range of $[0, 1]$.
Furthermore, there are adaptive gates, which learn to reset memory blocks once their contents are out of date and therefore, useless. Like the activation of the other gates(Eq. \ref{eqn:eq14} and Eq. \ref{eqn:eq15}), the forget gate activation $y^{\phi}$ is calculated as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:eq16}
net_{\phi_{j}}(t)&=&\sum_{m} \omega_{\phi_{j}m}y^{m}(t-1),\,y^{\phi_{j}}(t)\\
\nonumber
&=&f_{\phi_{j}}(net_{\phi_{j}}(t)),
\end{eqnarray}
where $net_{\phi j}$ is the input from the network to the forget gate. The logistic
sigmoid with range $[0, 1]$ is used as squashing function $f_{\phi j}$ and weighted by the hyperbolic tangent function which has the overall task of memory correction \cite{Gers2000}. The forget gate stores all the $1$ outputs while forgetting all the $0$ outputs. Finally, LSTM can be written as \cite{Yao2015}
\begin{eqnarray}
i_t &=& \sigma(W_{xi} x_t + W_{hi} h_{t-1} + W_{ci} c_{t-1}),\\
f_t &=& \sigma(W_{xf} x_t + W_{hf} h_{t-1} + W_{cf} c_{t-1}),\\
o_t &=& \sigma(W_{xo} x_t + W_{ho} h_{t-1} + W_{co} c_{t-1}),\\
h_t &=& o_t \odot \tanh(c_t).
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $i_t$
, $f_t$, and $o_t$ are input gate, forget gate and output gate of LSTM, $h_t$ represents LSTM output, $\sigma$ is LSTM logistic function, $\odot$ denotes element-wise product, $W$ is the weight metric components, $x$ is the input data in time $t$, and $c$ is LSTM memory cells.
In our application of LSTM,
the forget gate and input gate share the same parameters, but are computed as $f_t = 1 - i_{t}$. Note that
bias terms are omitted in the above equations, but they are applied by default. A linear dependence between LSTM memory cells($c_t$) and its past($c_{t-1}$) are introduced as
\begin{equation}
c_t = f_t \odot c_{t-1} + i_t \odot \tanh(W_{xc}x_t + W_{hc}x_{t-1}).
\end{equation}\\
\section{Hyperparameter selection}
Hyperparameter selection in neural networks is represented by optimization functions. Therefore, specifying
hyperparameters such as the type of optimization function, learning rate, number of neurons in each
layer, number of epochs, and validation are very important. Adam, Stochastic gradient descent(SGD),
RMSProp, AdaDelta, and Ftrl are used as optimization functions.
We have considered about $20\%$ of the learning data
as validation data. To determine the quality of the model, we determine the loss. The cost function that we have considered for the network is mean squared error(MSE). The number of epochs for the network learning process is equal to
50 and the batch size is equal to 25. Results of the cost function values for each learning process
with different optimization functions and a learning rate of $0.0005$ are shown in FIG. \ref{fig:1}.
\begin{figure}
\subfloat[]{\includegraphics[width = 3in]{sgd.png}}\\
\subfloat[]{\includegraphics[width = 3in]{rmsprop.png}}\\
\subfloat[]{\includegraphics[width = 3in]{adam.png}}\\
\subfloat[]{\includegraphics[width = 3in]{Ftrl1.png}}\\
\subfloat[]{\includegraphics[width = 3in]{adadelta.png}}
\caption{ \footnotesize (a) shows model evaluation for SGD optimization function. Optimization function loss is illustrated by the blue line and orange lines represent validation loss. (b) is the model evaluation using RMSProp whose optimization function loss and validation loss are shown in blue and orange. (c) illustrates the Adam model evaluation by comparing the Optimization function loss(blue line) and validation loss(orange line). The model evaluation for Ftel is shown in (d). loss of the optimization function is represented by the blue line and the validation function loss is shown by the orange line. (e) shows model evaluation for the AdaDelta optimization function. Optimization function loss is illustrated by the blue line and orange lines represent validation loss. }
\label{fig:1}
\end{figure}
The results related to the loss value for learning and testing data with different optimization functions are reported in the TABLE \ref{table:1}.\\
\begin{table}[h!]
\footnotesize
\begin{center}
\centering
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{7pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
Optimization functions & Train data MSE & Test data MSE \\
\hline
SGD & 0.38 & 0.39 \\
\hline
RMSProp & 0.37 & 0.38 \\
\hline
Adam & 0.23 & 0.23 \\
\hline
AdaDelta & 0.22 & 0.23 \\
\hline
Ftrl & 0.26 & 0.27 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{
\footnotesize This table shows the result of algorithm evaluation by SGD, RMSProp, Adam, Ftrl and AdaDelta optimization functions.}
\label{table:1}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Data and Network Topology}
Using QuasarNET data we predict the SMBHs mass with the help of their redshift. We use 3245 data for modelling, 2596 data for the network learning process, and 649 data for testing the network result. Data have a redshift range of 3 to 7. In the first step, data are sorted in ascending order of their redshifts. The reason is that redshift is a time series and LSTM has a recurrent architecture which creates memory through time. Then, the learning and testing data are separated in chronological order.
The network topology can be described by an LSTM layer as the dynamic layer of the network, a drop-out layer to prevent over-fitting, 3 dense layers as static layers, and the output of the network which is printed by the last dense layer. We use the hyperbolic tangent which is an active function for the LSTM layer and the first dense. Because the hyperbolic tangent is a non-linear function with a symmetric range. It is a suitable option to control sudden changes when they are in chronological order. For the second dense, we use the rectified linear unit(ReLU), to transfer the magnitude of the positive value to the next layer. For the third dense, which outputs the network as a continuous number, we use a linear function. TABLE \ref{table:2} shows the network structure based on the hyperparameters of the network.
\begin{table}[h!]
\footnotesize
\begin{center}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{10pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{tabular}{ | c | c |c | }
\hline
Layers & Neurons & Computational Parameters \\
\hline
Inputs & - & - \\
\hline
LSTM & (None,256) & 264192
\\
\hline
Dropout & (None,256) & 0 \\
\hline
Dense &(None,512) & 131584\\
\hline
Dense & (None,256) & 131328\\
\hline
Dense & (None,1) & 257 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{c|c}
Total Computational Parameters & 527361 \\
\hline
Trainable
Computational Parameters & 527361 \\
\hline
Non-Trainable Computational
Parameter & 0 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{ \footnotesize This table illustrates the network topology which includes each layer along with neurons and computational parameters.
\footnotesize }
\label{table:2}
\end{center}
\end{table}
One of the main challenges that always exists in ML and DL is the issue of transparency. Transparency is a dynamic issue and solving this problem is different for each task. There is no specific method to solve this problem. Many factors such as the design of an interpretable learning experience, the fundamental determination of hyperparameters by the task, the observance of the principles of feature selection, and the determination of the appropriate number of data based on characteristics can allow us to have a transparent model.
Transparency in the structure of algorithms is also noteworthy. In this paper, we investigate the transparency of the model built by the designed network. Trained data are also based on redshifts from 3 to 7. With the help of the built model, SMBHs mass at $0<z<3$ and $7<z<10$ are then predicted.
We can see the predicted changes of SMBHs mass through redshift in FIG. \ref{fig:107} based on our built model with its 95 percent confidence level. FIG. \ref{fig:fig8} compares the linear best-fit with our LSTM model best-fit both before and after applying correction methods. It can clearly be seen that stated correcting methods change our model significantly.
\begin{figure}
{\includegraphics[width = 3in]{107.PNG}}\\
\caption{ \footnotesize Model built using flux and volume-limited samples. Corrected QuasarNET data are plotted with blue dots. The black line represents our LSTM model best-fit. In addition, red dotted lines represent our models that include 95 percent of all data.}
\label{fig:107}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\subfloat[]{\includegraphics[width = 3in]{bestfit.png}}\\
\subfloat[]{\includegraphics[width = 3in]{109b.png}}\\
\caption{ \footnotesize (a) compares our model with the linear best-fit. Blue dots indicate train data, the LSTM model prediction is showed the colour red, and the orange line is the linear best-fit.
(b) illustrates our model and compares it with linear best-fit based on flux and volume-limited samples. Train data is shown as blue dots, LSTM model prediction as red, and linear best-fit as an orange line.}
\label{fig:fig8}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\subfloat[]{\includegraphics[width = 3in]{0z7.PNG}}\\
\subfloat[]{\includegraphics[width = 3in]{3z10.PNG}}\\
\caption{ \footnotesize (a) shows the examination of our model using multiple data sets in the redshift range of $0<z<7$. An overview of the utilized data can be found in TABLE \ref{table:3} and \ref{table:4}.
(b) is also the model examination at $3<z<10$ whose data is available in TABLE \ref{table:5} and \ref{table:6}.}
\label{fig:c}
\end{figure}
\section{Comparing with other data}
Using corrected flux and volume-limited samples of QuasarNET data, we build a DL model for quasars' central SMBH mass.
By applying correction methods, only $\simeq 8.62\%$ of QuasarNET data is accepted to use for modelling. FIG. \ref{fig:108} shows the accepted data along with the removed data.
Moreover, FIG. \ref{fig:107} illustrated our model whose best-fit contains 95 percent of corrected data samples.
The model shows that SMBHs mass increases in $0<z<4.72$ and reaches its peak at $z\simeq4.72$. The mass then falls exponentially with increasing redshift at $z>4.72$. It should be noted that our model yields a different result than what is shown in other recent works like \cite{Benny2019}, where the peak is $z<4$. Nevertheless, in some studies which attempt to show quasars' central SMBHs mass evolution, Eq. \ref{eqn:eq115} is used that does not include any peaks(e.g. see \cite{Banados2017}).
The model is then evaluated by using different data sets which are available in multiple tables. We use the results of the long-term spectroscopic monitoring of 15 PG quasars that have relatively strong Fe II emission to generate TABLE \ref{table:3} \cite{Hu2021}. Moreover, TABLE \ref{table:4} shows relatively nearby quasars with redshifts obtained from the NED and central SMBHs mass determined through multi-epoch spectrophotometry and RM \cite{Vestergaard2005}. A list of 69 high-redshift quasars is also available in TABLE \ref{table:5} and TABLE \ref{table:6}. For each quasar, the most accurate estimation of its central SMBH mass using Mg II emission lines along with its uncertainty is shown \cite{Aggarwal2022, Yang2021}. While the model matches observational data quite well at $3<z<10$, there is a minor deviation at lower redshifts, i.e. $0<z<3$. The comparison between our model predictions and the observational data for both low-redshift and high-redshift quasars can be seen in FIG. \ref{fig:c}.
In addition to gas being sucked into SMBHs, there is an alternative process that turns them into stars. There has been a comparison of SMBH accretion rate and SFR on a galactic scale in several observational studies \cite{Netzer2007, Wild2007, Wild2010, Rosario2012}.
In our next work, we will address the SFR and its effects on the model. Thus, it is possible to fix the minor deviation between the model and observations. Further, there are more data available for lower redshift quasars, compared to higher ones, whose reasons should be studied and may have an impact on the final results of our model.\\
\section{Conclusions}
The question of how the SMBHs that have been observed in the universe came into being is one of the biggest questions in cosmology. In recent years, it has been established that stellar BHs cannot accrete mass, resulting in such BHs. If we want to consider these BHs as stellar BHs that have reached such incredible mass due to accretion, the age of the universe should have been much longer than it is. On the other hand, it is impossible for a star to form a SMBH as a result of its collapse. In addition, there is another idea that states that these BHs are actually primordial BHs. Although this idea is very controversial, it has not been rejected yet. There are even hopes to prove such a thing.
One of the most interesting surveys available for quasars is the SDSS. In this paper, we have used SDSS-DR16Q. In particular, we have taken advantage of the QuasarNET research platform. QuasarNET specifically has focused on the study of SMBHs. Although 37648 data in redshifts between 3 and 7 have been reported in it, these data need accurate corrections to be used. These corrections are flux and volume-limited, which makes the right conditions to work on SMBHs over time for training the machine. After applying these corrections, 3246 data remained and 34403 data were removed. In FIG. \ref{fig:108} we have plotted accepted and removed data after correcting them.
Considering the remaining 3246 data of the mass of BHs in the center of quasars at redshifts between 3 and 7, we have modeled them over time with the help of the LSTM RNN. We have elaborated details of our used DL approach in several sections. The model we have presented with the help of QuasarNET data tries to predict the mass of the central massive BHs of quasars at redshifts between 0 and 10.
Firstly, in FIG. \ref{fig:fig8}, we have compared our prediction with the linear best-fit of QuasarNET data before and after correcting data. Then, we illustrated the best-fit and a band that 95 percent of the QuasarNET data is within 2 standard deviations of the mean for our model in redshifts 0 to 10.
Eventually, we should have compared our model with other observational data at redshifts between 0 and 3 and also 7 and 10. This will enable us to see whether our model works or not. We have used four data sets for this comparison. Two of them are related to redshifts 0 to 3 and the other two are related to redshifts 7 to 10. FIG. \ref{fig:c} demonstrates two redshift ranges, 0 to 7 and 3 to 10. As it is evident, at redshifts higher than 7, our model has a very good description of the data and can make a reliable prediction, but at redshifts below 3, it seems that there is a slight deviation.
This deviation can be due to not considering other parameters describing quasars. We have only used the estimation of the mass of the central SMBHs of quasars and their redshift in QuasarNET data. However, data such as the Eddington ratio and bolometric luminosity are also available and can be used for subsequent modeling.
Another thing that can improve the model is to consider star formation with the help of other observational data sets. Accurately obtaining the time of star formation causes the redshift of the peak of the model we obtained to change to lower redshifts. This issue makes our model predict more massive central SMBHs at redshifts below 3, and as a result, it fits better with other data.
Finally, we must state that this effort to model SMBHs at high redshifts will help us to find out when and how they have been formed and their role in the formation of the structures. Furthermore, if the process of their growth through the accretion and merger of primordial BHs is also studied in future works, it will probably yield interesting results. Because by going back through time, the initial masses of these central SMBHs can be examined.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
Authors thank Shant Baghram for the great discussions that helped us to model and correct the QuasarNET data and Rahim Moradi for helpful discussion.
\section*{Data availability}
The catalogue underlying this paper is available in the Sloan
Digital Sky Survey Quasar catalogue: 16th data release
(DR16Q) at \url{https://www.sdss.org/dr16/algorithms/qsocatalog/} \cite{Lyke2020}.
The data that support the findings of this study are openly available at \url{https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/quasarnet/quasarnet}, reference number \cite{QuasarNet}.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
System identification is a core task where the model of dynamical systems is estimated based on observed inputs and states (\cite{ljung1987theory,pillonetto2022regularized}). In particular, identification of linear time-invariant (LTI) systems is a well-investigated problem that has recently received renewed attention due to lines of research in the context of data-driven control and optimization (see, for example, the representative works in~\cite{de2019formulas,coulson2019data,hewing2020learning,berberich2020data,krishnan2021direct,li2022data}).
When the observation of the state is noise-free, the LTI system matrices can be readily identified by leveraging the Willems’ Fundamental Lemma, provided that the recorded trajectory satisfies the persistency of excitation (PE) condition as discussed in, e.g.,~\cite{willems2005note,de2019persistency}.
On the other hand, when the LTI system
is subject to unknown process noise or disturbances,
several existing works focus on the asymptotic and finite time estimation errors and sample complexity of the least squares (LS) estimator; see, for example, the representative works of~\cite{sarkar2019near,simchowitz2018learning,faradonbeh2018finite,oymak2019non,zheng2020non,Xin2022learning} and pertinent references therein. In particular, finite time error bounds for estimating
LTI systems from
a single trajectory using the LS method are provided in~\cite{sarkar2019near}, and a statistical analysis of the LS estimator is presented in ~\cite{simchowitz2018learning,zheng2020non} and~\cite{faradonbeh2018finite}. Additionally, regularized system identification methods are investigated in, e.g.,~\cite{chen2014system,chiuso2019system,pillonetto2022regularized}; a low-order linear system identification via regularized regression is considered in~\cite{sun2020finite}. These regularized identification methods allow one to add a prior on the system matrices, and to strike a balance between LS fit and model complexity~\cite{hastie2009elements,hastie2015statistical}.
The performance of the LS estimator hinges on the availability of a recorded trajectory that is sufficiently rich to satisfy the PE condition and to render the LS sufficiently well conditioned. In this paper, we are interested in cases where the PE condition may not be satisfied. In particular, we consider the task of estimating the system matrices of $N > 1$ LTI systems, in cases where we do not have sufficiently long (or sufficiently rich) recorded trajectories for at least one of the systems (or for some of the systems). Accordingly, the question posed in this paper is as follows: \emph{is it possible to leverage ``similarities'' among the $N$ systems to obtain accurate estimates of the system matrices, even if the PE condition is not satisfied? In particular, if the PE condition fails for the $i$-th system, can one use recorded data from the other LTI systems to improve the estimation error?}
In this direction,~\cite{xin2022identifying}, consider estimating the matrices of a linear system from samples generated by a ``similar'' one; in particular, in~\cite{xin2022identifying}, a system is considered ``similar'' if its matrices are perturbed versions of the true system. In this paper, we expand the notion of ``similarity'' to account for additional structural properties that the $N$ systems may have in common. We consider cases where the $N$ LTI systems are similar in the sense that the system matrices share a common sparsity pattern, their norm difference is small, or some system matrices can be expressed as a linear combination of the ones of some of the other systems.
Leveraging these similarity models, we propose a system identification framework that bridges core tools investigated in the context of multi-task learning (\cite{evgeniou2004regularized,sener2018multi,zhang2021survey,crawshaw2020multi}), statistical learning (\cite{hastie2009elements}), and regularized identification methods (\cite{pillonetto2022regularized}); the proposed multi-task system identification is formalized as a regularized regression problem where we minimize the LS fit for each system plus a regularization function that enforces a prior on the structural similarities of the LTI systems. By appropriately tuning (typically via cross-validation~\cite{hastie2015statistical}) the weight assigned to the regularization function, one can find a balance between fitting of the recorded data and model complexity. More importantly, we show experimentally that the regularization function allows one to transfer structural information and data across systems to alleviate the ill-conditioning of the LS for systems without sufficiently rich recorded trajectories.
\vspace{.2cm}
\noindent \textbf{Contributions}. Our contributions are as follows.
\noindent \emph{(c1)} We formalize a multi-task system identification problem for multiple LTI systems, where we consider the minimization of the LS fit for each system plus a regularization function that enforces a prior on the structural similarities of the LTI systems. We provide relevant regularization functions that are inspired by the group Lasso~\cite{yuan2006model,huang2010benefit}, nuclear norm minimization~\cite{chandrasekaran2009sparse,mardani2015subspace}, and ridge regression.
\noindent \emph{(c2)} We provide a proximal-gradient method for solving the multi-task system identification problem, and show that the algorithm enjoys closed-form updates. We also develop a decentralized algorithm where the $N$ systems collaboratively solve the identification problem without exchanging their recorded trajectories; the decentralized algorithm involves a message-passing that is similar to federated learning architectures~\cite{yang2019federated,wang2022federated}.
\noindent \emph{(c3)} We demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed multi-task system identification method using: (i) synthetic LTI systems that feature structural similarities, and (ii) real data from the Human Connectome Project (HCP), where blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) signals are obtained from resting state functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) \cite{nozari2020brain}.
In particular, we show that the proposed method requires a significantly smaller number of fMRI readings to achieve the same error of the LS by presuming that the LTI systems modeling the brain dynamics in number of subjects feature a common sparsity pattern. We also consider the case where only a few fMRI readings are available for one subject, showing the ability to ``transfer information'' from the dynamics of the other subjects.
In this paper, ideas and merits of the proposed method are assessed numerically; the paper does not include analytical error bounds, which are part of our ongoing research efforts.
\section{Multi-Task System Identification Problem}
\subsection{Modeling}
We consider $N$ linear time-invariant (LTI) systems\footnote{\textbf{Notation}: We denote by $\mathbb{N}$ and $\mathbb{R}$ the set of natural numbers and the set of real numbers, respectively, and define $[n]=\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$. We let $^\top$ denote transposition.
For a given column vector $x \in \mathbb{R}^n$, $\|x\|_2$ is the Euclidean norm and $\|x\|_1$ denotes the $\ell_1$ norm; for a matrix $X \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times m}$, $\|X\|_F$ denotes the Frobenious norm and $\|X\|_*$ the nuclear norm. Moreover $(X)_{ij}$ refers to the entry $(i,j)$ of the matrix $X$, and $\textrm{vec}(X)$ is a $mn \times 1$ vector stacking the columns of $X$. Given a differentiable function $f: \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, $\nabla f(x)$ denotes the gradient of $f$ at $x$ (taken to be a column vector). Given a closed convex set $C \subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$, $\textrm{proj}_{C}:\mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}^n$ denotes the Euclidean projection of $y$ onto $C$, namely $\textrm{proj}_{C} (y) := \arg \min_{v \in C} \norm{y-v}$.
Given a lower-semicontinuous convex function $g:\mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}$, the proximal operator is defined as $\textrm{prox}_{\lambda g}(y) := \arg \min_{x \in \mathbb{R}^n} g(x) + \frac{1}{2 \lambda} \|x - y\|_2^2$. }
\begin{align}
\label{eq:system}
x_{i}(t+1) = A_i x_i (t)+ B_i u_i (t) + w_i(t) , \quad x_i(0) \in \mathbb{R}^n, \quad i \in [N],
\end{align}
with $i \in [N]$ the system index and $t \in \mathbb{N}$ the time index, and where $x_i(t) \in \mathbb{R}^{n}$, $u_i(t) \in \mathbb{R}^{p}$, and $w_i(t) \in \mathbb{R}^{n}$ are the state, input and process noise, respectively, and $A_i \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ and $B_i \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times p}$ are the matrices of the $i$-th LTI system.
Assume that, for each system, the input $u_i(t)$ and state $x_i(t)$ can be measured; on the other hand, the system matrices are unknown and the disturbance $w_i(t) $ cannot be measured.
For the $i$-th system, suppose that one has access to one trajectory $\{x_i(\tau), u_i(\tau)\}_{\tau = 0}^{P_i}$, for some $P_i \in \mathbb{N}$, for the state and the inputs. With these measurements,
the system matrices can be estimated using the following LS criterion:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:ls_i}
\min_{A \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}, B \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times p}} \sum_{\tau = 1}^{P_i} \|x_i(\tau+1) - A x_i(\tau) - B u_i(\tau)\|_2^2 ,
\end{align}
which is solved for each of the $N$ systems independently. The LS estimator~\eqref{eq:ls_i} has been extensively studied in the literature, especially when the recorded data $\{x_i(\tau), u_i(\tau)\}_{\tau = 0}^{P_i}$ satisfy the persistency of excitation (PE) condition~\cite{moore1983persistence,willems2005note} -- where the PE condition translates into the regression matrix being full column rank. In this case, several results are available in terms of estimation error and in terms of sample complexity; see, for example, the results in the recent works of~\cite{faradonbeh2018finite,simchowitz2018learning,oymak2019non,sarkar2019near,sun2020finite}, as well as pertinent references therein. Of course, the data for solving~\eqref{eq:ls_i} can also be collected from multiple trajectories; see, for example,~\cite{zheng2020non}.
In this paper, we are interested in cases where the PE condition is not satisfied for some of the $N$ LTI systems (leading to ill-conditioning of the LS for those systems where the PE fails). In this case, the question we pose in this paper pertains to whether it is possible to leverage ``similarities'' among the $N$ systems to obtain accurate estimates of the system matrices, even if the PE condition is not satisfied for one or more systems.
Key towards answering this question is to define the notion of ``similarity'' for the system matrices. A first effort in this direction was made in~\cite{xin2022identifying}, where the matrices $\{A_i\}_{i \in [N ]}$ and $\{B_i\}_{i \in [N ]}$ are given by perturbations of given common matrices $\bar{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ and $\bar{B} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$, respectively. In this paper, we expand this first concept of ``similar matrices'' to account for the following models:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(s1)] \textbf{Small distance}: For any pair $A_i, A_j$, $i,j \in [N]$, there exists $\epsilon > 0$ such $\|A_i - A_j\|_F^2 \leq \epsilon$.
\item[(s2)] \textbf{Common sparsity}: The matrices $A_1, \ldots A_N$ have the same sparsity pattern; i.e., $(A_1)_{ij} = (A_2)_{ij} = \ldots = (A_N)_{ij} = 0$ for some entries $(i,j)$.
\item[(s3)] \textbf{Linear combinations}:
For the subset of systems $i \in \mathcal{C}, \mathcal{C} \subseteq [N]$, there exists $\{\alpha_{i,j} \in \mathbb{R}\}$ such that $A_i = \sum_{j = 1, j\neq i}^N \alpha_{ij} A_j$.
\end{itemize}
Similarity (s1) models the case where the norm of the matrix difference $A_i - A_j$ is small; this is the case, for example, for the model considered by~\cite{xin2022identifying}. On the other hand, (s2) captures a prior on the structural properties of the $N$ systems; general examples include dynamics on network systems. As a concrete example, when~\eqref{eq:system} represents the dynamics of brain networks, (s2) naturally emerges from a similar functional or structural connectivity of the brain across different individuals (see, e.g.,~\cite{srivastava2020models,nozari2020brain}). Finally, (s3) models the case where the matrix $A_i$ of the $i$-th system can be expressed as a linear combination of some of the other matrices $\{A_j\}_{j = 1, j\neq i}^N$; as an example, this model may be applicable to traffic flows and mobility-on-demand services (see, e.g.,~\cite{turan2021competition}), where the LTI systems~\eqref{eq:system} model the evolution of the density of vehicles in given geographical areas over given periods of the day. We note that, while the list above focuses on $\{A_i\}_{i \in [N]}$, similar arguments may apply to the system matrices $\{B_i\}_{i \in [N]}$.
In the next section, we will present appropriate reformulations of~\eqref{eq:ls_i} that leverage the similarity models (s1)--(s3). For notational simplicity, hereafter we assume that the matrices $\{B_i\}_{i \in [N]}$ are known and focus on the estimation of $\{A_i\}_{i \in [N]}$ from data. However, the proposed methodology extends directly to the case where both $\{A_i\}_{i \in [N]}$ and $\{B_i\}_{i \in [N]}$ are unknown.
\subsection{Multi-task system identification problem}
Assume that one can observe the states and inputs $\{x_i(\tau), u_i(\tau)\}_{\tau = 0}^{P_i}$ for each system $i \in [N]$ (as mentioned above, $B_i$ is known). Let $\mathcal{L}_i(A_i) := \sum_{\tau = 1}^{P_i} \|x_i(\tau+1) - A_i x_i(\tau) - B_i u_i(\tau)\|_2^2 $ be the LS fit for the $i$-th system as in~\eqref{eq:ls_i}. In the spirit of regularized LS methods (\cite{hastie2009elements}), we consider estimating the matrices $\{A_i\}_{i \in [N]}$ by solving the following optimization problem:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:mtsysid}
\{\hat A_i\}_{i \in [N]} \in \arg \min_{\{A_i\}_{i = 1}^N} \sum_{i = 1}^N \mathcal{L}_i(A_i) + \lambda \mathcal{R}(A_1, \ldots, A_N) ,
\end{align}
where the first term is the LS fit for the $N$ systems, $(A_1, \ldots, A_N) \mapsto \mathcal{R}(A_1, \ldots, A_N)$ is a lower-semicontinuous convex function that promotes the prior specified by (s1)--(s3), and $\lambda > 0$ is a tuning parameter. In particular, for the priors (s1)--(s3), the following regularization functions can be used:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(r1)] For (s1), one can use the function $\mathcal{R}(A_1, \ldots, A_N) = \sum_{i = 1}^N \sum_{j = i+1}^N \|A_i - A_j\|_F^2$ to penalize large deviations between the estimated matrices (\cite{hastie2009elements}).
\item[(r2)] Common sparsity patterns can be promoted by leveraging \emph{group sparsity regularization functions}~\cite{yuan2006model,huang2010benefit}. For instance,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:group_sparsity}
\mathcal{R}(A_1, \ldots, A_N) = \sum_{i = 1}^N \sum_{j = 1}^N \|[(A_1)_{ij}, (A_2)_{ij}, \ldots, (A_N)_{ij}]^\top\|_2 \, .
\end{equation}
\item[(r3)] For the model in (s3), when $q \ll N$ of the matrices $\{A_i\}_{i \in [N]}$ are such that the remaining $N-q$ can be represented as a linear combination of these $q$ matrices, the $n^2 \times N$ matrix $[\textrm{vec}(A_1),\textrm{vec}(A_2),\ldots,\textrm{vec}(A_N)]$ has rank $q \ll N$. In this case, the regularization function can be taken to be (see, e.g.,~\cite{chandrasekaran2009sparse,mardani2015subspace}):
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:low_rank}
\mathcal{R}(A_1,A_2,\cdots,A_N)=\left\|[\textrm{vec}(A_1),\textrm{vec}(A_2), \ldots,\textrm{vec}(A_N) ] \right\|_* .
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
In the formulation~\eqref{eq:mtsysid}, the role of the regularization function $\lambda \mathcal{R}(A_1,A_2,\cdots,A_N)$ is twofold: \emph{(i)} similarly to classical regularized LS criteria, the parameter $\lambda$ in~\eqref{eq:mtsysid} strikes a balance between the LS fit (in our case, the LS fit for individual LTI systems) and the complexity of the models~\cite{hastie2015statistical}; for example, for (r2), higher values of $\lambda$ promote a more parsimonious set of entries in the system matrices that best represents the data. \emph{(ii)} In our specific case, $\lambda \mathcal{R}(A_1,A_2,\cdots,A_N)$ allows us to
fit the data of individual systems less closely -- especially for the systems where the PE condition fails -- and bypass the ill-conditioning of the LS by using the a priori information (s1)--(s2). We note that cross-validation procedures are typically utilized to find the value of $\lambda$ such that the estimated matrices yield the lowest error on test data~\cite{hastie2015statistical,hastie2009elements}. We also note that by varying $\lambda$ we can identify whether the prior one postulates on the system matrices is true; experimentally, if the error on test data is small for $\lambda \rightarrow 0^+$, then the systems may not be similar.
In the next section, we provide two low-complexity solution methods for~\eqref{eq:mtsysid}.
\section{Centralized and Federated Solutions}
\label{eq:algorithms}
\subsection{Proximal-gradient method}
We note that the problem~\eqref{eq:mtsysid} is convex; when the functions (r2) and (r3) are utilized,~\eqref{eq:mtsysid} involves a composite cost where the regularization function is not differentiable. Accordingly, we consider a proximal-gradient method (with line search) for solving \eqref{eq:mtsysid} (see, e.g., \cite{beck2009gradient,combettes2011proximal,parikh2014proximal}). The algorithm is tabulated as Algorithm~1.
\begin{algorithm}[h!]
\caption{Proximal gradient method with line search for solving \eqref{eq:mtsysid}}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE{Given}: $\hat A_1^{(0)},\cdots, \hat A_N^{(0)}, \eta^{(0)}$, and $\beta \in(0,1)$.
\STATE{\textbf{Repeat}:} $m=0,1,2,\ldots$ until convergence
\quad \textbf{[S1]} $\alpha \leftarrow \eta^{(m)}$.
\STATE{\quad \textbf{[S2]} \emph{Proximal-gradient with line search}:}
\quad \quad \textbf{[S2.1]} $Z_i = \hat A_i^{(m)}-\alpha \nabla\mathcal{L}_i (\hat A_i^{(m)})$, $i \in [N]$
\quad\quad \textbf{[S2.2]} $\{Y_i\}_{i \in [N]} =\textrm{prox}_{\alpha\lambda R}(\{Z_i\}_{i \in [N]})$
\quad\quad \textbf{[S2.3]} Break if:
{\small
$ \sum_{i=1}^N \mathcal{L}_i(Y_i)\leq \sum_{i=1}^N \left( \mathcal{L}_i(\hat A_i^{(m)}) + \nabla \mathcal{L}_i(\hat A_i^{(m)})^{\top}(Y_i-\hat A_i^{(m)}) +\frac{1}{2\lambda} \| Y_i- \hat A_i^{(m)}\|_F^2 \right)
$}
\quad \quad \textbf{[S2.4]} Update $\alpha \leftarrow \beta \alpha$.
\STATE{\quad \textbf{[S3]}} $\eta^{(m+1)} \leftarrow \alpha, \hat A_i^{(m+1)} \leftarrow Y_i$, $i \in [N]$.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
We first note that the convergence to optimal solutions of~\eqref{eq:mtsysid} of Algorithm~1 is guaranteed as shown in~\cite[Chapter~2]{beck2009gradient}. Moreover, Algorithm~1 can be converted into a classical proximal-gradient method if the line search is not performed~\cite{parikh2014proximal}. Importantly, the proximal step \textbf{[S2.2]} enjoys a closed-form update when the regularization functions in (r1)--(r3) are utilized. In particular:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(r1)] Consider the function $\mathcal{R}(A_1, \ldots, A_N) = \sum_{i = 1}^N \sum_{j = i+1}^N \|A_i - A_j\|_F^2$. For notational simplicity, let $z_{ij} := [(Z_1)_{ij}, (Z_2)_{ij}, \ldots, (Z_N)_{ij}]^\top$. Then, \textbf{[S2.2]} boils down to $n^2$ parallel steps given by:
$$y_{ij}=(z_{ij}+2\alpha\lambda s_{ij}[1,1,\cdots,1])/(2\alpha\lambda N+1), \quad i,j \in [N] ,$$
where $s_{ij}=\sum_{p=1}^N (Z_p)_{ij}$.
\item[(r2)] Consider~\eqref{eq:group_sparsity} and let $z_{ij} := [(Z_1)_{ij}, (Z_2)_{ij}, \ldots, (Z_N)_{ij}]^\top$. Then, \textbf{[S2.2]} boils down to $n^2$ parallel steps given by:
$$y_{ij} = \frac{z_{ij}}{\|z_{ij}\|_2} \max (\|z_{ij}\|_2-\alpha\lambda, 0) , \quad i,j \in [N] .$$
The entries of the matrices $\{Y_\ell\}_{\ell\in [N]}$ are then filled as $(Y_\ell)_{ij} = (y_{ij})_{\ell}$.
\item[(r3)] Consider~\eqref{eq:low_rank} and let $\bar Z = [\textrm{vec}(A_1),\textrm{vec}(A_2), \ldots,\textrm{vec}(A_N)]$. Then, \textbf{[S2.2]} is given by $\bar Y = U \textrm{diag} ( \{\max\{\sigma_i-\alpha\lambda,0 \} \}) V^*$,
where the singular value decomposition of $\bar{Z}$ is $U \textrm{diag} (\{\sigma_i \}) V$. The matrices $\{Y_\ell\}_{\ell\in [N]}$ are then extracted from the columns of $\bar Y$.
\end{itemize}
Before proceeding, a couple of remarks are in order.
\begin{remark}
The multi-task system identification problem~\eqref{eq:mtsysid} can be extended to cases where the system matrices $\{A_i\}_{i \in [N]}$ are similar according to more than one of the priors (s1)--(s2). For example, if the matrices have a common sparsity patters and the differences in the non-zero entries are small, one can utilize the composite regularization function $\lambda_1 \sum_{i = 1}^N \sum_{j = i+1}^N \|A_i - A_j\|_F^2$ $+ \lambda_2 \sum_{i = 1}^N \sum_{j = 1}^N \|[(A_1)_{ij}, (A_2)_{ij}, \ldots, (A_N)_{ij}]^\top\|_2$, where $\lambda_1, \lambda_2 \geq 0$ are tuning parameters. \hfill $\Box$
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
The proximal-gradient method outlined in Algorithm~1 without line search is amenable to an online implementation~\cite{dall2020optimization,chang2022distributed}. An online proximal-gradient method is suitable for cases where the estimates of the systems matrices are updated at each time $t \in \mathbb{N}$ after receiving a new measurement $x_i(t), u_i(t)$ for at least one of the
$N$ LTI systems. \hfill $\Box$
\end{remark}
\subsection{Federated Case}
In this subsection, we consider a decentralized algorithm where the $N$ systems collaboratively solve the identification problem~\eqref{eq:mtsysid} without exchanging their recorded trajectories. We consider a message passing strategy similar to existing federated learning architectures (see, e.g.,~\cite{yang2019federated,wang2022federated}), where each system updates locally its own matrix $\hat{A}_i$ and where a central node provides global support to the estimation process by enforcing the similarities across systems.
To this end, we consider $N$ auxiliary optimization variables $\{K_i \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}\}_{i \in [N]}$, and reformulate~\eqref{eq:mtsysid} in the following equivalent manner:
\begin{align}
\min_{\{A_i, K_i\}_{i = 1}^N} & \sum_{i = 1}^N \mathcal{L}_i(A_i) + \lambda \mathcal{R}(K_1, \ldots, K_N) \hspace{.5cm} \text{s.t.:} ~~ A_i=K_i,\quad i=1,2,\cdots,N \, . \label{eq:mtsysid_reformulated}
\end{align}
The structure of the $N$ equality constraints in~\eqref{eq:mtsysid_reformulated} naturally leads to a decentralized solution approach with a star communication strategy when primal-dual-type algorithms or the alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM) are utilized. Focusing on the ADMM (see, e.g.,~\cite{boyd2011distributed,giannakis2016decentralized}), we obtain the following updates (where $m$ is the ADMM iteration index):
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:mt_admm}
\begin{align}
A_i^{(m+1)}&=\arg \min_{A_i} \mathcal{L}_i(A_i) +\frac{\gamma}{2}\|A_i-K^{(m)}_i+ \gamma^{-1} \Lambda_i^{(n)}\|_F^2
\hspace{1.0cm} i=1,2,\cdots,N \label{eq:mt_admmA} \\
\{K^{(m+1)}_i\}_{i = 1}^N &= \arg \min_{\{K_i\}_{i = 1}^N} \lambda \mathcal{R}(K_1, \ldots K_N)+\sum_{i=1}^N\frac{\gamma}{2}\|K_i-A_i^{(m+1)}-\gamma^{-1} \Lambda_i^{(m)}\|_F^2 \label{eq:mt_admmK} \\
\Lambda_i^{(m+1)}&=\Lambda_i^{(m)}+\gamma\left(A_i^{(m+1)}-K_i^{(m+1)}\right), \hspace{3.2cm} i=1,2,\cdots,N \label{eq:mt_admmV}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $\Lambda_i \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ are the dual multipliers associated with the $i$-th equality constraint in~\eqref{eq:mtsysid_reformulated}, and $\gamma > 0$ is a given parameter. Convergence of the ADMM~\eqref{eq:mt_admm} to solutions of~\eqref{eq:mtsysid_reformulated} is well investigated (see, e.g.,~\cite{boyd2011distributed,giannakis2016decentralized}).
Importantly, we note that the steps~\eqref{eq:mt_admm} can be implemented in a decentralized manner where: (i)~step~\eqref{eq:mt_admmA} is implemented locally at each of the $N$ systems; (ii) step~\eqref{eq:mt_admmK} is performed by a central node to promote similarities across the system matrices; and (iii) copies of the multiplier matrices can be stored and updated at both the systems and the central node. At each iteration, each of the $N$ systems exchange with the central note the current iterates $A_i^{(m)}$ and $K_i^{(m)}$.
We note that the updates~\eqref{eq:mt_admmA} and \eqref{eq:mt_admmK} admit closed-form expressions; these closed-form expressions are omitted from the paper because of space limitations.
\section{Numerical Simulations}
\subsection{Experiments on brain networks}
We test the proposed method for the problem of estimating the dynamics of brain networks, using data corresponding to the resting state functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) from the Human Connectome Project (HCP)\footnote{Data available at https://wiki.humanconnectome.org/} \cite{nozari2020brain,srivastava2020models,gu2015controllability}. Here, $x_i(t)$ is an $116$-dimensional blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) time series for $116$ parcellations of the brain of the $i$-th subject. Our goal here is to estimate $N=5$ dynamical systems of the form $x_{i}(t+1) = A_i x_i (t) + w_i(t)$, that model the evolution of BOLD signal when the individual is in a resting state, with $w_i(t)$ capturing process noise (the model does not contain external inputs $u_i$ due to the resting state condition).
Since the matrices $\{A_i\}_{i \in [5]}$ are unknown, we consider the following error for each system:
$$
\mathcal{E}(A) : =\frac{1}{n} \sum_{k=1}^{n} \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{p} (x_i(k) -[A x_i](k) )^2 }{ \sum_{i=1}^{p} (x_i(k) -\bar{x}(k) )^2 },
$$
where $n$ is the length of the testing vector, $p$ is the number of testing data and $\bar{x}(k) : =\frac{1}{p} \sum_{i=1}^p x_i(k)$. Note that $1-\mathcal{E}(A) $ is precisely the average $R^2$ indicator of~\cite{nozari2020brain}.
We consider three different methods: (i) the LS estimator~\eqref{eq:ls_i}, which is utilized per individual; (ii) the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO), which is again utilized per individual as proposed in~\cite{nozari2020brain}; and, (iii) the proposed method~\eqref{eq:mtsysid} with the
group-sparsity regularization function~\eqref{eq:group_sparsity}. The rationale behind the group-sparsity is that the brain dynamics should exhibit the same effective connectivity between parcellations, though the remaining entries acknowledge the diversity in intensities of the interactions across individuals. We note that the effectiveness of the LS and LASSO has been experimentally validated in~\cite{nozari2020brain}, where their estimation accuracy has been compared with several identification methods. Moreover, we performed a cross-validation procedure to optimize the performance of the LASSO.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[]{\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{mean_error_1.eps}} \end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[]{\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{mean_error_2.eps}}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{-.2cm}
\caption{(a) Mean error of LS, LASSO and multi-task (MT) system identification; ``Case $k$'' means that $100 k$ training data points are available for each subject ($k=1,2,\cdots,9$). (b) Mean error for subjects 2-5 and error for subject 1. ``Case $k$'' means that $25 k$ fMRI scans are used for subjects 1 (dashed line) while $100 k$ (solid line) scans are used for subjects 2-5.}
\label{fig:mean_error}
\end{figure}
In Figure \ref{fig:mean_error}, we compare the LS, LASSO and our approach (which is labeled as ``MT'') in two cases: (a) the same amount of training data is utilized for the five subjects; and, (b) for subject 1, we utilize only 25\% of the training data points with respect to the other subjects 2-5. We use $100$ test points. In Figure \ref{fig:mean_error}(a) we plot the mean error across the subjects 1-5; in Figure \ref{fig:mean_error}(b) we plot the mean error across the subjects 2-5 and the error for subject 1, for which fewer fMRI readings are available. The proposed method outperforms the LS and the LASSO, on par with the number of fMRI scans in both cases. The merits of the proposed method are particularly evident in Figure~\ref{fig:mean_error}(b), where the proposed method significantly outperforms the LASSO for the subject 1; on the other hand, the LS is ill-conditioned and does not return meaningful estimates. This shows the ability to leverage information and data (in this case, fMRI readings) from the dynamics of subjects 2-5 to assist the estimation of the dynamics in subject 1.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[]{\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{case_1.eps}} \end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[]{\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{case_2.eps}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[]{\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{case_3.eps}}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{-0.8cm}
\caption{Comparison between LS, LASSO and multi-task (MT) system identification (a) Case 1: $900$ training data points for each subject. (b) Case 2: For subject 1, $75$ training data points, and $300$ for subjects 2-5. (c) Case 3: For subject 1 and 3, $150$ training data points, and $600$ for subjects 2, 4, and 5. In the box plots, the red center line, box limits, and whiskers represent the median, upper and lower quartiles, and the smallest and largest samples, respectively. Red crosses indicate outliers.}
\label{fig:comp_methods}
\vspace{-0.6cm}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{heatmap_A_est_case_3_7.eps}
\vspace{-0.8cm}
\caption{Estimated matrix $\hat A_i$ for Case 3, individuals 1, 2 and 3, for $n = 116$ brain parcellations.}
\label{fig:heatmap1}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\end{figure}
To provide additional comparisons other than the mean error, Figure \ref{fig:comp_methods} shows the box plots for the LS, the LASSO, and the proposed approach in three different scenarios. In particular, Figure \ref{fig:comp_methods}(a) shows that proposed multi-task identification method can achieve a smaller or comparable error (on average) than LS or LASSO when trajectories of 900 time steps are used for each subject (and these training trajectories are sufficiently rich). Figure \ref{fig:comp_methods}(b) considers the case where $75$ training data points are available for subject 1 and $300$ for subjects 2-5. Here, the LS does not perform well due to ill-conditioning. The performance of the LASSO is comparable with the one of the proposed method in terms of median; however, the proposed method shows smaller upper and lower quartiles. Finally, Figure \ref{fig:comp_methods}(c) considers the case where fewer fMRI readings are available for subjects 1 and 3; the proposed method performs better than the LASSO in terms of quartiles and has a significantly less error deviation across the parcellations.
Finally, a representative example of the estimated matrices $\hat A_i$ for the subjects 1-3 is provided in Figure \ref{fig:heatmap1}. The estimated matrices are the ones obtained in the case considered in Figure \ref{fig:comp_methods}(c), where subjects 1 and 3 have fewer training points. It is possible to notice that the three matrices have zeros in many common entries. Based on this result, we will explore additional regularization methods that will combine group sparsity with (entry-wise) sparsity.
\subsection{Experiments on synthetic data}
We provide additional results on synthetic data. We consider 10 systems as in \eqref{eq:system}, where $\{A_i\}_{i \in [10]} \in \mathbb{R}^{50 \times 50}$, $\{B_i\}_{i \in [10]} \in\mathbb{R}^{50 \times 4}$, $u_i(t)$ is the vector of all ones in $\mathbb{R}^{4}$, i.e. $u_i(t)$ is constant vector and $w_i(t)\sim \mathcal{N}(0,0.1^2)$. We consider two different cases: common sparsity and linear combinations. We compare the LS estimator~\eqref{eq:ls_i} and the proposed method~\eqref{eq:mtsysid} with the group-sparsity regularization~\eqref{eq:group_sparsity} and nuclear norm regularization~\eqref{eq:low_rank}.
Figure~\ref{fig:mean_error_sd} compares the LS and our approach in two cases: (a) all the 10 systems can be represented by a linear combination of 3 systems and only 25\% of the training data points are accessible for the tenth system with respect to the other systems 1-9; (b) all the 10 systems have the same sparsity pattern and only 25\% of the training data points are accessible for the tenth system with respect to the other systems 1-9. The testing is on $60$ data points. In Figure~\ref{fig:mean_error_sd}(a), we plot the mean error across systems 1-9 as well as the error for system 10. The proposed method outperforms the LS approach in both the mean error and the error for system 10, especially in the case of only a small number of data available. In Figure~\ref{fig:mean_error_sd}(b), we can observe similar results.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[]{\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{mean_error_LR.eps}} \end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[]{\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{mean_error_GS.eps}}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{-.3cm}
\caption{Mean error curve to compare LS and multi-task (MT) system identification methods. (a) Linear combinations. (b) Common sparsity. ``Case $k$'' means that $10 k+10$ samples of the trajectory are used for system 10 (dash line) while $40k+40 k$ (solid line) are used for system 1-9, $k=1,2,3,4$. In ``Case $5$'', $75$ data points are used for system 10 (dashed line) while $300 k$ (solid line) are used for system 1-9.
}
\label{fig:mean_error_sd}
\end{figure}
\acks{The work of Y. Chen, A. M. Ospina, and E. Dall'Anese was supported in part by the National Science foundation through the award 1941896 and the ERC ASPIRE. The work of F. Pasqualetti was supported in part by awards NSF-NCS-FO-1926829 and ARO-W911NF1910360.
The authors would like to thank Dr. Erfan Nozari (University of California at Riverside) for the assistance with the data used in the simulations, and Killian Wood and Seunghyun Kim (University of Colorado Boulder) for the discussions on this topic.
}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:Intro}
In a variety of biological models, different species are typically
described through their densities $u^1, u^2,\ldots, u^k$ and, in
general, each $u^h$ depends on time $t \in \reali_+$, on age
$a \in \reali_+$, on a spatial coordinate in $\reali^2$ or $\reali^3$
and possibly also on some structural variables. Thus, a unified
treatment of these models finds its natural setting in the following
general mixed Initial -- Boundary Value Problem (IBVP) in
$\mathcal{X} = \reali_+^m \times \reali^n$
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:1}
\!\!\!\!\left\{
\begin{array}{@{\,}l@{\qquad}r@{\,}c@{\,}l@{}}
\partial_t u^h
+
\diver_x \left(v^h (t,x) \, u^h\right)
=
g^h \left(t, x, u(t, x), u(t)\right)
& (t,x)
& \in
& \reali_+ \times\mathcal{X}
\\
u^h (t,\xi) = u_b^h\left(t,\xi, u(t)\right)
& (t,\xi)
& \in
& \reali_+ \times \partial\mathcal{X}
\\
u^h (0,x) = u_o^h (x)
& x
& \in
& \mathcal{X}\,,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $h = 1, \ldots, k$. Aiming at a rather general setting while keeping sharp estimates,
without any loss in generality, we write~\eqref{eq:1} in the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:32}
\!\!\!\!\left\{
\begin{array}{@{\,}l@{\qquad}r@{\,}c@{\,}l@{}}
\partial_t u^h
+
\diver_x \left(v^h (t,x) \, u^h\right)
=
p^h\left(t, x, u (t)\right) u^h
+ q^h\left(t, x, u, u (t)\right)
& (t,x)
& \in
& I {\times} \mathcal{X}
\\
u^h (t,\xi) = u_b^h\left(t,\xi, u(t)\right)
& (t,\xi)
& \in
& I {\times} \partial\mathcal{X}
\\
u^h (0,x) = u_o^h (x)
& x
& \in
& \mathcal{X}\,,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $h = 1, \ldots, k$. Note that the decomposition of the source
term $g^h$ in~\eqref{eq:1} into $p^h$ and $q^h$ is neither unique nor
in any sense restrictive.
We stress that both in~\eqref{eq:1} and in~\eqref{eq:32} the term
$u (t)$ appearing in the right hand sides is understood as a
\emph{function}, so that both the source and boundary terms
in~\eqref{eq:1}, besides being \emph{non linear}, also comprise quite
general \emph{non local}, i.e., \emph{functional}, dependencies.
The current literature comprehends a multitude of well known models
fitting into~\eqref{eq:1}: we recall here for
instance~\cite{MR2496711, MR4263205, BELL1967329, MR3013074, preprint,
KangRuan2021, LorenziEtAl, MeeardTran_2009, PerthameBook}, leaving
to Section~\ref{sec:App} the highlighting of specific aspects
of~\eqref{eq:1} in other recent or classical models. In particular,
the well posedness and stability theorems below apply also to
model~\eqref{eq:4} which, to our knowledge, does not fully fit into
other well posedness results in the literature. At the same time, the
literature covering particular instances of~\eqref{eq:1} dates back to
classical milestones, such as~\cite{MR354068, KermackMcKendrick1927,
Lotka339, m'kendrick_1925}. Moreover, various textbooks introduce to
the analytical study of models fitting into~\eqref{eq:1}, see for
instance~\cite{MR3700352, MR3616174, MR3887640, MR860962,
PerthameBook, MR772205}.
A multitude of compartmental models share the key features of the
chosen framework~\eqref{eq:1}: they are the domain $\mathcal X$ of the
$x$ variable and the coexistence of rather general local and non local
terms. Indeed, under the choice of $\mathcal{X}$ above, we comprise
also bounded space/age domains~\cite{KangRuan2021}, half
lines~\cite{FisterEtAl2004}, full vector spaces~\cite{LorenziEtAl} as
well as their combinations~\cite{BELL1967329, preprint,
NordmannPerthameTaing2017, TuckerZimmerman1988}. In all these cases,
rather general conditions are assigned along the different types of
boundaries that fit into~\eqref{eq:1}, such as, for instance, natality
terms~\cite{BELL1967329, NordmannPerthameTaing2017,
TuckerZimmerman1988
. The biological meaning imposes that these boundary terms, as well as
the sources in~\eqref{eq:1}, may contain both local and non local
terms. The former ones comprehend, for
instance,
mortality terms~\cite{MR3013074, preprint}, while the latter can be
motivated by natality~\cite{BELL1967329, NordmannPerthameTaing2017},
predation~\cite{Elena2015} or interaction between
populations~\cite{MR3013074}, e.g., the propagation of an
infection~\cite{preprint}.
We underline that the present framework does not rely on any
regularizing effect of diffusion. The general non local terms here
considered need not have any smoothing effect, and can also be
absent. The lack of diffusion operators ensures that any movement or
evolution described by~\eqref{eq:1} propagates with a \emph{finite}
speed. In particular, the present approach is consistent with
deterministic modeling, while the Laplace operator may also serve to
describe various sorts of random effects, see for
instance~\cite{AinsebaIannelli2003, LanglaisBusenberg1997}.
\smallskip
Within this general framework, we first prove well posedness, i.e.,
local existence, uniqueness and continuous dependence of the solution
to~\eqref{eq:1} on the initial datum. Then, we provide conditions
ensuring the global in time existence and the stability with respect
to functions and parameters defining~\eqref{eq:1}. Throughout, the
functional setting is provided by $\LL1$ and the distance between
solutions is always evaluated through the $\LL1$ norm. As a
consequence, we can deal with non smooth solutions, a necessary
feature in view of control problems. Moreover, the boundedness neither
of the total variation nor of the $\LL\infty$ norm of the data is
required. Indeed, among the different notions of solutions to IBVPs
for renewal equations, we choose to establish our framework on that
introduced in~\cite{Martin, Vovelle}. This definition not only is
stated in terms of integral inequalities, more convenient in any
limiting procedure, but remarkably it does not require any notion of
trace, allowing us to deal with merely $\LL1$ solutions.
Remark that in~\eqref{eq:1} both the source terms and the boundary
terms are non linear. Thus, a key tool in the proofs is Banach
Contraction Theorem, based on precise estimates on scalar
equations. Merely requiring some sort of local Lipschitz regularity
does not rule out the possibility of finite time blow ups (in any
norm), as shown below by explicit examples. We thus resort to a
Gronwall type argument to obtain global in time existence. As a
byproduct, we also record a uniqueness result in the general setting
of~\eqref{eq:1} based, as in the classical {Kru\v zkov} case, on a
carefully chosen definition of solution, see\
\S~\ref{sec:defin-semi-entr}.
We also note that particular instances of equations falling
within~\eqref{eq:1} can be studied through other techniques, such as,
for instance, analytic semigroup theory, generalized entropy methods
or Laplace transform. We refer, for instance, to~\cite{MR3700352,
MR3616174, MR3887640, PerthameBook}.
\smallskip
The present results, besides unifying the treatment of various models,
provide tools useful in tackling control/optimization problems based
on~\eqref{eq:1}. Indeed, the stability estimates proved in
Theorem~\ref{thm:stab} ensure that general integral functional defined
on the solutions are Lipschitz continuous functions of the data and
parameters characterizing~\eqref{eq:1}. A further direction that can
be pursued using the present results is that of inverse problems,
i.e., exhibiting conditions ensuring that an optimal choice of data
and parameters in~\eqref{eq:1} is possible, in order to best fit sets
of given experimental data.
\smallskip
This paper is organized as follows. In
Section~\ref{sec:assumptions-results} we provide the basic well
posedness and stability results. Then, Section~\ref{sec:App} is
devoted to specific applications that fit into~\eqref{eq:1}. The
technical analytic proofs are deferred to the final
Section~\ref{sec:AP}.
\section{Assumptions, Definitions and Results}
\label{sec:assumptions-results}
Throughout, we set $\reali_+ = \mathopen[0, +\infty\mathclose[$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:33}
I = \reali_+
\quad \mbox{ or } \quad
I = [0,T]
\quad \mbox{ and } \quad
\mathcal{X} = \reali_+^m \times \reali^n
\end{equation}
for a positive $T$.
First, we state what we mean by \emph{solution} to~\eqref{eq:1}. To
this aim, we extend to the present case the definitions
in~\cite{Martin, Vovelle}, see in
particular~\cite[Definition~3.5]{ElenaBoundary2018}.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:sol}
A map $u_* \in \C0(I; \LL1 (\mathcal{X}; \reali^k))$ is a
\emph{solution} to~\eqref{eq:1} if setting for $h = 1, \ldots, k$,
$t \in I$, $x \in \mathcal{X}$ and $\xi \in \partial\mathcal{X}$
\begin{displaymath}
\mathcal{G}^h (t,x)
=
g^h\left(
t,x, u_*(t, x), u_*(t)
\right)
\quad \mbox{ and }\quad
\mathcal{U}_b^h (t,\xi)
=
u_b^h\left(t, \xi, u_*(t) \right) \,,
\end{displaymath}
for $h = 1, \ldots,k$ the map $u_*^h$ is a semi--entropy solution to
the IBVP
\begin{displaymath}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l@{\qquad}r@{\,}c@{\,}l@{}}
\partial_t u
+
\diver_x \left(v^h (t,x) \, u\right)
=
\mathcal{G}^h (t,x)
& (t,x)
& \in
& I \times \mathcal{X}
\\
u (t,\xi) = \mathcal{U}_b^h (t,\xi)
& (t,\xi)
& \in
& I \times \partial\mathcal{X}
\\[2pt]
u (0,x) = u_o^h (x)
& x
& \in
& \mathcal{X} \,.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{displaymath}
\end{definition}
\noindent We recall in Definition~\ref{def:mvsol} below the notion of
semi-entropy solution.
The main result of this paper concerns the well posedness of the
Cauchy Problem~\eqref{eq:32}.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:main}
Use the notation~\eqref{eq:33} and let the following assumptions
hold:
\begin{enumerate}[label=\bf{(V)}, ref=\textup{\textbf{(V)}}, align =
left]
\item \label{ip:(v)}
$v \in (\C1 \cap \LL\infty)(I \times \mathcal{X}; \reali^{k\times
(n+m)})$,
$\diver_x v^h \in \Lloc1 (I; \LL\infty(\mathcal{X}; \reali))$ for
$h = 1, \ldots, k$ and there exists a positive $V$ such that
\begin{displaymath}
\left(v^h (t,x)\right)_i > V
\qquad \forall \, (t,x) \in I \times \partial\mathcal{X}
\mbox{ and for }
\begin{array}{r@{\,}c@{\,}l@{}}
h
& =
&1, \ldots, k\,;
\\
i
& =
& 1, \ldots, m \,.
\end{array}
\end{displaymath}
\end{enumerate}
\begin{enumerate}[label=\bf{(P)}, ref=\textup{\textbf{(P)}},
align=left]
\item \label{hyp:g_a} For all $w \in \LL1(\mathcal{X}; \reali^k)$,
the map $(t,x) \to p (t,x,w)$ is in
$\C0 (I\times\mathcal{X}; \reali^k)$ and there exist positive
$P_1$ and $P_2$ such that for $t \in I$, $x \in \mathcal{X}$,
$w, w' \in \LL1(\mathcal{X}; \reali^k)$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\norma{p(t, x, w)}
& \leq
& P_1 + P_2 \, \norma{w}_{\LL1(\mathcal{X};\reali^k)} \,;
\\
\norma{p(t, x, w) - p(t, x, w')}
& \leq
& P_2 \, \norma{w - w'}_{\LL1(\mathcal{X};\reali^k)} \,.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{enumerate}
\begin{enumerate}[label=\bf{(Q)}, ref=\textup{\textbf{(Q)}},
align=left]
\item \label{hyp:g_b} For all $w \in \LL1(\mathcal{X}; \reali^k)$,
the map $(t,x,u) \to q (t,x,u,w)$ is in
$\C0 (I \times \mathcal{X}\times \reali^k; \reali^k)$ and there
exist positive $Q_1$ and $Q_3$ and a function
$Q_2 \in (\LL1 \cap \LL\infty)(\mathcal{X}; \reali_+)$ such that
for $t \in I$, $x \in \mathcal{X}$, $u, u' \in \reali^k$,
$w, w' \in \LL1(\mathcal{X}; \reali^k)$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\norma{q(t, x, u, w)}
& \leq
& Q_1 \, \norma{u}
+ Q_2(x) \, \norma{w}_{\LL1(\mathcal{X};\reali^k)}
+ Q_3 \, \norma{u} \, \norma{w}_{\LL1(\mathcal{X};\reali^k)} \,;
\\
\norma{q(t, x, u, w) - q(t, x, u', w')}
& \leq
&
Q_1 \, \norma{u - u'}
+ Q_3 \, \norma{w}_{\LL1(\mathcal{X};\reali^k)} \, \norma{u - u'}
\\
&
& \quad
+ \, Q_3 \, \norma{u'} \, \norma{w - w'}_{\LL1(\mathcal{X};\reali^k)} \,.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{enumerate}
\begin{enumerate}[label=\bf{(BD)}, ref=\textup{\textbf{(BD)}}, align
= left]
\item\label{ip:(ub)}
$u_b \colon \reali_+ \times \partial \mathcal{X} \times
\LL1(\mathcal X; \reali^k) \to \reali^k$ is such that for any
$w \in \LL1 (\partial\mathcal{X}; \reali^k)$, the map
$(t,\xi) \to u_b(t, \xi, w)$ is measurable. Moreover, there exists
a function
$B \in (\LL1 \cap \LL\infty) (\partial \mathcal{X}; \reali_+)$
such that for every $t \in I$, $\xi \in \partial\mathcal{X}$,
$w,w' \in \LL1(\mathcal{X}; \reali^k)$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\norma{u_b(t, \xi, w)}
& \leq
& B(\xi)
\left(
1
+
\norma{w}_{\LL1(\mathcal{X},\reali^k)}
\right)
\\
\norma{u_b(t, \xi, w) - u_b(t, \xi, w')}
& \leq
& B(\xi) \, \norma{w - w'}_{\LL1(\mathcal{X},\reali^k)} \,.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{enumerate}
\begin{enumerate}[label=\bf{(ID)}, ref=\textup{\textbf{(ID)}}, align
= left]
\item \label{ip:(u0)} $u_o \in \LL1 (\mathcal{X}; \reali^k)$.
\end{enumerate}
\noindent Then,
\begin{enumerate}[label=\bf{(WP.\arabic*)},
ref=\textup{\bf{(WP.\arabic*)}}, align = left]
\item \label{thm:it:1} There exists a positive $T_* \in I$ such
that, setting $I_* = [0,T_*]$, the IBVP~\eqref{eq:32} admits a
solution in the sense of \Cref{def:sol} defined on $I_*$.
\item \label{thm:it:uni} Assume $u_1$ and $u_2$ solve~\eqref{eq:32}
in the sense of Definition~\ref{def:sol} with
$u_1, u_2 \in \LL\infty (I\times\mathcal{X}; \reali^k)$. Then,
$u_1 = u_2$.
\item \label{thm:it:ID} Let
$\hat u_o, \check u_o \in \LL1 (\mathcal{X};\reali^k)$. If
$\hat u \colon \hat I \to \reali^k$, respectively
$\check u \colon \check I \to \reali^k$, solve~\eqref{eq:32} in
the sense of Definition~\ref{def:sol} with initial datum
$u_o = \hat u_o$, respectively $u_o = \check u_o$, then there
exists a function
$\mathcal{L} \in \Lloc\infty (\hat I \cap \check I; \reali)$ such
that for all $t \in \hat I \cap \check I$
\begin{displaymath}
\norma{\hat{u}(t) - \check{u}(t)}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X};\reali^k)}
\leq
\mathcal{L} (t) \;
\norma{\hat{u}_{o} - \check{u}_{o}}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X};\reali^k)} \,.
\end{displaymath}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\noindent The proof is deferred to Section~\ref{sec:AP}.
In several applications it is of interest to guarantee that each
component in the solution attains non negative values. To this aim, we
state the following Corollary.
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:piu}
Let the same assumptions of Theorem~\ref{thm:main} hold and assume
moreover that for an index $h \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$
\begin{enumerate}[label=\bf{(Q+)}, ref=\textup{\textbf{(Q+)}},
align=left]
\item \label{hyp:g-positivity} For $t \in I$,
a.e.~$x \in \mathcal{X}$, $u \in \reali_+^k$,
$w \in \LL1(\mathcal{X}; \reali_+^k)$, $q^h(t, x, u, w) \ge 0$.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{enumerate}[label=\bf{(BD+)}, ref=\textup{\textbf{(BD+)}},
align = left]
\item \label{ip:(ub-2)} For $t \in I$, $\xi \in \partial \mathcal X$
and $w \in \LL1(\mathcal{X}; \reali^k)$,
$u_b^h\left(t, \xi, w\right) \ge 0$.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{enumerate}[label=\bf{(ID+)}, ref=\textup{\textbf{(ID+)}},
align = left]
\item \label{ip:(u0plus)} For a.e. $x \in \mathcal{X}$,
$u_o^h (x) \geq 0$.
\end{enumerate}
\noindent Then the unique solution $u$ to~\eqref{eq:32} also
satisfies for every $t \in I_*$ and for a.e. $x \in \mathcal{X}$.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:positivity}
u^h(t, x) \ge 0 \,.
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
\noindent The proof is deferred to Section~\ref{sec:AP}.
The above result is of a local nature and, without further
assumptions, it can not be extended to a global result, as the
following examples show. Consider the Cauchy Problem~\eqref{eq:32}
with $k=1$, $m=0$, $n=1$, $\mathcal{X} = \reali$,
$p (t,x,w) = \int_0^1 w (x) \dd{x}$, $q \equiv 0$, which results in
\begin{displaymath}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\partial_t u = u \, \int_0^1u (t,x) \dd{x}
\vspace{.2cm}\\
u (0,x) = \caratt{[0,1]} (x)
\end{array}
\right.
\quad \mbox{ solved by } \quad
u (t,x) = \dfrac{1}{1-t} \; \caratt{[0,1]} (x) \,.
\end{displaymath}
Note that~\ref{hyp:g_a} holds with $P_1=0$ and $P_2=1$. Clearly, $u$
blows up in any norm at $t=1$.
Similarly, setting $k=1$, $m=1$, $n=0$, $\mathcal{X} = \reali_+$,
$p (t,x,w) = \int_{\reali_+} w (x) \dd{x}$, $q \equiv 0$
in~\eqref{eq:32}, which satisfies~\ref{hyp:g_a} with $P_1=0$ and
$P_2=1$, leads to the Cauchy Problem
\begin{displaymath}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\partial_t u + \partial_x u = u \, \int_{\reali_+} u (t,x) \dd{x}
\\
u (t, 0) = 0
\\
u (0,x) = \caratt{[0,1]} (x) \,,
\end{array}
\right.
\quad \mbox{ solved by } \quad
u (t,x) = \dfrac{1}{1-t} \; \caratt{[t,t+1]} (x) \,.
\end{displaymath}
Again, the solution blows up in any norm at $t=1$.
Typical biological/epidemiological models have further properties
ensuring that solutions are defined globally in time. In particular,
the model described in \S~\ref{subs:AP} displays a quadratic right
hand side similar to those in the examples above, differing in the
sign. Nevertheless, in this example, well posedness holds globally in
time. Indeed, in general, a lower bound on the solutions is available
since Corollary~\ref{cor:piu} ensures that the components of the
solution attain non negative values. An upper bound, preventing finite
time blow up, is obtained through assumption~\ref{ip:(ub)} on the
boundary datum and a further condition, see~\eqref{eq:36} below, that
bounds the overall growth.
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:assumpt-defin-result}
Let $I = \reali_+$. Let the assumptions of Corollary~\ref{cor:piu}
hold for all $h=1, \ldots, k$. Assume moreover that for suitable
$C_1 \in \Lloc\infty (\reali_+ ; \LL1(\mathcal{X}; \reali))$ and
$C_2 \in \Lloc\infty (\reali_+; \reali)$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:36}
\sum_{h=1}^kp^h (t,x,w) \, u^h + q^h (t,x,u,w)
\leq C_1(t,x) + C_2 (t) \, \sum_{h=1}^k u^h
\end{equation}
for all $t \in \reali_+$, a.e. $x \in \mathcal{X}$,
$u,w \in \reali^k$. Then, the solution to~\eqref{eq:32} is defined
for all $t \in \reali_+$.
\end{corollary}
Finally, we provide the stability estimates essential to tackle, for
instance, control problems. To this aim, we need to slightly
specialize the functional dependence of $p$, $q$ and $u_b$ on $u
(t)$. We thus obtain sufficient conditions to apply
Theorem~\ref{thm:main} and get stability estimates.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:stab}
Let assumptions~\ref{ip:(v)} and~\ref{ip:(u0)} hold. Assume that
in~\eqref{eq:32}, for $t \in I$, $x \in \mathcal{X}$,
$u \in \reali^k$, $w \in \LL1 (\mathcal{X}; \reali^k)$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:37}
\begin{array}{rcl}
p^h (t,x,w)
& =
& P^h \left(t, x, \int_{\mathcal{X}} \mathcal{K}_p^h (t,x,x') \, w (x') \dd{x'}\right)
\\
q^h (t,x,u,w)
& =
& Q^h \left(t, x, u, \int_{\mathcal{X}} \mathcal{K}_q^h (t,x,x') \, w (x') \dd{x'}\right)
\\
u_b^h (t,\xi,w)
& =
& U_b^h\left(
t, \xi, \int_{\mathcal{X}} \mathcal{K}_u^h (t,\xi,x') \, w (x') \dd{x'}
\right) \,,
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where the functions above satisfy:
\begin{enumerate}[label=\bf{($\overline{\mathbf{P}}$)},
ref=\textup{\bf($\overline{\mathbf{P}}$)}, align = left]
\item \label{stab:it:1} There exist $\bar P_1 \ge 0$ and
$\bar P_2 \ge 0$ such that, for every $h=1, \ldots, k$, the
function $P^h: I \times \mathcal X \times \reali^{k_p} \to \reali$
($k_p \ge 1$) satisfies
\begin{displaymath}
\modulo{P^h\left(t, x, \eta\right)} \le
\bar P_1 + \bar P_2 \norma{\eta}
\quad \mbox{ and } \quad
\modulo{P^h\left(t, x, \eta_1\right) - P^h\left(t, x, \eta_2\right)}
\le \bar P_2 \norma{\eta_1 - \eta_2}
\end{displaymath}
for every $t \in I$, $x \in \mathcal X$,
$\eta, \eta_1, \eta_2 \in \reali^{k_p}$;
$\mathcal K_p^h \in \LL\infty(I \times \mathcal X^2; \reali^{k_p
k})$.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{enumerate}[label=\bf{($\overline{\mathbf{Q}}$)},
ref=\textup{\bf($\overline{\mathbf{Q}}$)}, align = left]
\item \label{stab:it:2} There exist $\bar Q_1, \bar Q_3 \ge 0$ and
$\bar Q_2 \in \left(\LL1 \cap \LL\infty\right) \left(\mathcal X;
\reali^+\right)$ such that, for every $h=1, \ldots, k$, the
function
$Q^h: I \times \mathcal X \times \reali^k \times \reali^{k_p} \to
\reali^+$ ($k_q \ge 1$) satisfies
\begin{eqnarray*}
\modulo{Q^h\left(t, x, u, \eta\right)}
& \!\!\!\!\!\le\!\!\!\!\!
& \bar Q_1\norma{u} + \bar Q_2(x) \norma{\eta}
+ \bar Q_3 \norma{u} \norma{\eta}
\\
\modulo{Q^h\left(t, x, u_1, \eta_1\right) {-} Q^h\left(t, x, u_2,
\eta_2\right)}
& \!\!\!\!\!\le\!\!\!\!\!
& \bar Q_1 \norma{u_1 - u_2} + \bar Q_3 \norma{\eta_1}
\norma{u_1 - u_2} + \bar Q_3 \norma{u_2} \norma{\eta_1 - \eta_2}
\end{eqnarray*}
for every $t \in I$, $x \in \mathcal X$,
$u, u_1, u_2 \in \reali^k$,
$\eta, \eta_1, \eta_2 \in \reali^{k_q}$;
$\mathcal K_q^h \in \LL\infty(I \times \mathcal X^2; \reali^{k_q
k})$.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{enumerate}[label=\bf{($\overline{\mathbf{BD}}$)},
ref=\textup{\bf($\overline{\mathbf{BD}}$)}, align = left]
\item \label{stab:it:3} There exists
$\bar B \in (\LL1 \cap \LL\infty) (\partial\mathcal{X}; \reali_+)$
such that for every $h=1, \ldots, k$, the function
$U_b^h \colon I \times \partial\mathcal{X} \times \reali^{k_u} \to
\reali_+$ satisfies
\begin{displaymath}
\modulo{U_b^h (t, \xi, \eta)}
\leq
\bar B (\xi) \left(1 + \norma{\eta}\right)
\quad \mbox{ and } \quad
\modulo{U_b^h (t, \xi, \eta_1) - U_b^h (t, \xi, \eta_2)}
\leq
\bar B (\xi) \, \norma{\eta_1 - \eta_2}
\end{displaymath}
for every $t \in I$, $\xi \in \partial\mathcal{X}$ and
$\eta, \eta_1, \eta_2 \in \reali^{k_u}$;
$\mathcal K_u^h \in \LL\infty(I \times \partial \mathcal X \times
\mathcal X; \reali^{k_u k})$.
\end{enumerate}
Then, Theorem~\ref{thm:main} applies. Moreover, if both systems
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:25}
\!\!\!\!\left\{
\begin{array}{@{\,}l@{\quad}r@{\,}c@{\,}l}
\partial_t u^h
+
\diver_x \left(v^h (t,x) \, u^h\right)
=
\hat p^h\left(t, x, u(t)\right) u^h
+ \hat q^h\left(t, x, u, u(t)\right)
& (t,x)
& \in
& I {\times}\mathcal{X}
\\
u^h (t,\xi) = \hat{u}_b^h\left(t,\xi, u(t)\right)
& (t,\xi)
& \in
& I {\times} \partial\mathcal{X}
\\
u^h (0,x) = \hat{u}_o^h (x)
& x
& \in
& \mathcal{X}\,,
\end{array}
\right.
\\
\label{eq:26}
\!\!\!\!\left\{
\begin{array}{@{\,}l@{\quad}r@{\,}c@{\,}l}
\partial_t u^h
+
\diver_x \left(v^h (t,x) \, u^h\right)
=
\check p^h\left(t, x, u(t)\right) u^h
+ \check q^h\left(t, x, u, u(t)\right)
& (t,x)
& \in
& I {\times}\mathcal{X}
\\
u^h (t,\xi) = \check{u}_b^h\left(t,\xi, u(t)\right)
& (t,\xi)
& \in
& I {\times} \partial\mathcal{X}
\\
u^h (0,x) = \check{u}_o^h (x)
& x
& \in
& \mathcal{X}\,,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{eqnarray}
satisfy the assumptions above, then the following stability
estimates hold:
\begin{eqnarray*}
&
& \norma{\hat{u}(t) - \check{u}(t)}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X};\reali^k)}
\\
& \leq
& \OO
\bigl[
\norma{\hat{P} - \check{P}}_{\LL\infty\left([0,t] \times \mathcal X
\times \reali^{k_p}; \reali^k\right)}
+
\norma{\hat{\mathcal{K}}_p - \check{\mathcal{K}}_p}_{\LL\infty ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X}^2; \reali^{k_p k^2})}
\bigr.
\\
&
&
\qquad\qquad
+
\norma{\hat Q - \check Q}_{\LL1 ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X}; \LL\infty (\reali^k\times\reali^{k_q}; \reali^k
))}
+
\norma{\hat{\mathcal{K}}_q - \check{\mathcal{K}}_q}_{\LL\infty ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X}^2; \reali^{k_q k^2})}
\\
&
& \qquad\qquad
\bigl.
+ \norma{\hat U_b - \check U_b}_{\LL1 ([0,t]\times \partial\mathcal{X}; \LL\infty (\reali^{k_u};\reali^k))}
+
\norma{\hat{\mathcal{K}}_u - \check{\mathcal{K}}_u}_{\LL\infty ([0,t]\times\partial\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{X}; \reali^{k_u k^2})}
\bigr]
e^{\OO t}
\end{eqnarray*}
for every $t$ such that $\hat u$ and $\check u$ are defined on
$[0,t]$ and where the Landau symbol $\OO{}$ denotes a constant
independent of the initial data.
\end{theorem}
\noindent The proof is deferred to Section~\ref{sec:AP}.
Finally, we note that~\ref{ip:(v)} and Definition~\ref{def:sol} allow
to immediately extend all results in the present section to the case
$\mathcal{X} = \left(\prod_{i=1}^m I_i\right) \times \reali^n$, as
soon as $I_1, \ldots, I_m$ are (non trivial) real intervals bounded
below. In particular, any of the $I_i$ may well be bounded also above.
\subsection{The Definition of Semi--Entropy Solution Ensures
Uniqueness}
\label{sec:defin-semi-entr}
This paragraph provides a definition of solution and the consequent
uniqueness statement in a setting more general than the one usually
found in the literature. In particular, it extends the results
in~\cite[Section~3]{Martin} to the slightly more general case of the
unbounded domain $\mathcal{X}$. Indeed, with the
notation~\eqref{eq:33}, consider the fully nonlinear IBVP
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:14}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l@{\qquad}r@{\,}c@{\,}l}
\partial_t u + \diver_x f (t,x,u)
=
g (t,x,u)
& (t,x)
& \in
& I \times \mathcal{X}
\\
u (t, \xi) = u_b (t,\xi)
& (t,\xi)
& \in
& I \times \partial\mathcal{X}
\\
u (0,x) = u_o (x)
& x
& \in
& \mathcal{X} \,.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
The following definition is the extension to~\eqref{eq:14}
of~\cite[Definition~3.5]{ElenaBoundary2018}, see also~\cite{Martin,
Vovelle}.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:mvsol}
A \emph{semi-entropy solution} to the IBVP~\eqref{eq:14} on the real
interval $I$ is a map
$u \in \Lloc\infty (I; \LL1( \mathcal{X}; \reali))$ such that for
any $\kappa \in \reali$ and for any test function
$\varphi \in \Cc1 (\mathopen]-\infty,\sup I\mathclose[ \times
\reali^{n+m}; \reali_+)$
\begin{align}
\nonumber
& \int_I \int_{\mathcal{X}}
\left(u (t,x) - \kappa \right)^\pm
\partial_t \varphi (t,x)
\dd{x} \dd{t}
\\
\nonumber
& + \int_I \int_{\mathcal{X}}
\sgn{}^\pm (u (t,x) -\kappa)
\left(f (t,x, u) - f (t,x,\kappa)\right) \cdot
\grad_x \varphi (t,x)
\dd{x} \dd{t}
\\
\label{eq:mv}
& + \int_I \int_{\mathcal{X}}
\sgn{}^\pm (u (t,x) -\kappa)
\left[
g\left(t,x,u (t,x) \right) - \diver_x f (t,x,\kappa)
\right] \, \varphi (t,x) \dd{x}
\dd{t}
\\ \nonumber
& + \int_{\mathcal{X}}
\left(u_o (x) -
\kappa \right)^\pm
\, \varphi (0,x)
\dd{x}
\\
\nonumber
& + \Lip (f)
\int_I \int_{\partial \mathcal{X}}
\left(u_b(t,\xi) - \kappa \right)^\pm \, \varphi
(t,\xi) \dd\xi \dd{t} \geq 0
\end{align}
where $\Lip (f)$ is a Lipschitz constant of the map
$u \to f (t,x,u)$, uniform in $(t,x) \in I \times \mathcal{X}$.
\end{definition}
\noindent Above, we use the notation $w^+ = \max \{w, 0\}$ and
$w^- = \max \{-w, 0\}$.
A key feature of~\eqref{eq:mv} is its ensuring uniqueness, which we
detail in the next Proposition to ease comparisons with the current
literature.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:Uniqueness}
Consider the general scalar IBVP~\eqref{eq:14} under the assumptions
\begin{enumerate}[label=\bf{(f)}, ref=\textup{\textbf{(f)}}, align =
left]
\item \label{ip:(f)}
$f \in \C0 (I \times \mathcal{X} \times \reali; \reali^{n+m})$
admits continuous derivatives $\partial_u f$,
$\partial_u \grad_x f$, $D^2_{xx}f$ with $\partial_u f$ and
$\grad_x f$ bounded in $(t, x) \in I \times \reali_+$ locally in
$u \in \reali$; $\partial_u \grad_x f$ is bounded.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{enumerate}[label=\bf{(g)}, ref=\textup{\textbf{(g)}}, align =
left]
\item \label{ip:(lin-G)}
$g, \partial_u g, \partial_{x_i}g \in \C0 (I\times
\mathcal{X}\times \reali; \reali)$ and for all
$(t,x) \in I \times \mathcal{X}$, $\modulo{g (t,x,u)} \leq G (u)$
for a map $G \in \Lloc\infty (\reali; \reali_+)$ and
$\partial_u g$ is bounded.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{enumerate}[label=\bf{(bd)}, ref=\textup{\textbf{(bd)}}, align
= left]
\item \label{ip:(gs-ub)} The boundary datum satisfies
$u_b \in \LL\infty (I \times \partial\mathcal{X}; \reali)$.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{enumerate}[label=\bf{(id)}, ref=\textup{\textbf{(id)}}, align
= left]
\item \label{ip:(gs-u0)} The initial datum satisfies
$u_o \in \LL\infty (\mathcal{X}; \reali)$.
\end{enumerate}
\noindent If $u_1,u_2 \in \LL\infty (I\times\mathcal{X}; \reali)$
both satisfy~\eqref{eq:mv}, then they coincide.
\end{proposition}
This Proposition slightly extends~\cite[Theorem~18]{Martin}. However,
its proof relies on merely technical modifications to~\cite[Lemma~16
and Lemma~17]{Martin}, due to the present unboundedness of the domain
$\mathcal{X}$. Very similar techniques are employed also
in~\cite[\S~2.6 and \S~2.7]{MalekEtAlBook}, which is devoted to a
hyperplane.
\section{Sample Applications}
\label{sec:App}
The structure of~\eqref{eq:1} is sufficiently flexible to comprise a
variety of applications of mathematics to biology, in particular to
epidemiology. The general results in the preceding section can be
applied to well known models in the literature, see for
instance~\cite{MR2496711, MR3013074, ColomboGaravello2017_ControlBio,
PerthameBook}. In the next paragraphs, we select sample applications
based on analytic structure that differ in the number of equations, in
the number of independent variables, in the presence of (partial)
boundaries and in the role of non local terms. In particular,
\S~\ref{subs:SP} deals with a recently proposed model,
see~\cite{preprint}, while the subsequent ones refer to other
classical models that fit into~\eqref{eq:1}.
\subsection{The Spreading of an Epidemic}
\label{subs:SP}
During the spreading of an epidemic, within a population we
distinguish among individuals that are Susceptible, Infective,
Hospitalized or Recovered, see~\cite{preprint}. Each of these
populations is described through its time, age and space dependent
density: $S = S (t,a,y)$, $I = I (t,a,y)$, $H = H(t,a,y)$ and
$R = R (t,a,y)$, respectively. Remark that the distinction between $I$
and $H$ consists in the $H$ individuals that, being hospitalized or
quarantined, do not infect anyone although being ill. In its most
general form, the model presented in~\cite[\S~2]{preprint} to describe
the evolution of these populations, reads
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:4}
\!\!\!
\left\{
\begin{array}{c@{\,}c@{\,}c@{\,}c@{\,}c@{\,}c@{\,}c@{\,
c@{\,}r@{\,}c@{\,}c@{\,}c@{\,}c@{\,}c@{\,}c@{\,}}
\partial_t S
& +
& \partial_a S
& +
& \diver_y (v_S\, S)
& +
& \mu_S \, S
& =
& - (\rho \otimes I) S
\\
\partial_t I
& +
& \partial_a I
& +
& \diver_y (v_I\, I)
& +
& \mu_I \, I
& =
& (\rho \otimes I) S
& -
& \kappa \, I
& -
& \vartheta \, I
\\
\partial_t H
& +
& \partial_a H
&
&
& +
& \mu_H \, H
& =
&
& +
& \kappa \, I
&
&
& -
& \eta \, H
\\
\partial_t R
& +
& \partial_a R
& +
& \diver_y (v_R\, R)
& +
& \mu_R \, R
& =
&
&
&
& +
& \vartheta\, I
& +
& \eta \, H
\end{array}
\right.
\qquad\qquad
\begin{array}{r@{\,}c@{\,}l@{}}
t
& \in
& \reali_+
\\
a
& \in
& \reali_+
\\
y
& \in
& \reali^2
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where the propagation of the infection is described by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:6}
\left(\rho \otimes I (t)\right) (a,y) =
\int_{\reali_+} \int_{\reali^2}
\rho (a, a', y, y') \, I (t,a', y') \, \dd{y'} \, \dd{a'} \,.
\end{equation}
Here, the function $\rho$ plays the key role of describing how
infective individuals infect others, at which distance and with which
dependence on age or time, see~\cite{preprint} for more
details. In~\eqref{eq:4}, $v_S = v_S (t,a,y)$, $v_I = v_I (t,a,y)$ and
$v_R = v_R (t,a,y)$ describe the time, age and, possibly, space
dependent movements of the $S$, $I$ and $R$ individuals, while
$\mu_S = \mu_S (t,a,y)$, $\mu_I = \mu_I (t,a,y)$,
$\mu_H = \mu_H (t,a,y)$ and $\mu_R = \mu_R (t,a,y)$ are the
mortalities. The term $\kappa = \kappa (t,a,y)$ describes how quickly
infected individuals are confined to quarantine;
$\vartheta = \vartheta (t,a,y)$, respectively $\eta = \eta (t,a,y)$,
quantifies the speed at which infected, respectively quarantined,
individuals recover.
System~\eqref{eq:4} needs to be supplemented by boundary and initial
data:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:7}
\left\{
\begin{array}{r@{\,}c@{\,}l}
S (t,a=0, y)
& =
& S_b (t,y)
\\
I (t,a=0, y)
& =
& 0
\\
H (t,a=0, y)
& =
& 0
\\
R (t,a=0, y)
& =
& 0
\end{array}
\right.
\qquad \mbox{ and } \qquad
\left\{
\begin{array}{r@{\,}c@{\,}l}
S (t=0,a,y)
& =
& S_o (a,y)
\\
I (t=0,a,y)
& =
& I_o (a,y)
\\
H (t=0,a,y)
& =
& H_o (a,y)
\\
R (t=0,a,y)
& =
& R_o (a,y) \,.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
Note that a more precise boundary term, though not amenable to be used
in the short term, might be a natality term of the form
\begin{displaymath}
S (t,a=0,y)
=
\int_{\reali_+} b (t,a',y) \, S (t,a',y) \dd{a'}
\end{displaymath}
which also fits in the framework of Theorem~\ref{thm:main} and
Theorem~\ref{thm:stab}. Note
that~\eqref{eq:4}--\eqref{eq:6}--\eqref{eq:7} is a system with
independent variables $(a,y)$ where $a$ is bounded below while $y$ is
in $\reali^2$ and no second order differential operator is
present. The model~\eqref{eq:4}--\eqref{eq:6}--\eqref{eq:7} fits
into~\eqref{eq:32} in the form~\eqref{eq:37} setting
$\mathcal{X} = \reali_+ \times \reali^2$, $x = (a,y)$, $\xi = (0,y)$
and
\begin{displaymath}
\begin{array}{@{}r@{\;}c@{\;}l@{\qquad}r@{\;}c@{\;}l@{\qquad
r@{\;}c@{\;}l@{\qquad}r@{\,}c@{\;}l@{}}
k
& =
& 4
& m
& =
& 1
& n
& =
& 2
\\
u^1
& =
&S
& u^2
& =
& I
& u^3
& =
& H
& u^4
& =
& R
\\
w^1
& =
&S (t)
& w^2
& =
& I (t)
& w^3
& =
& H (t)
& w^4
& =
& R (t)
\\
v^1
& =
& \left[
\begin{array}{@{}c@{}}
1\\v_S
\end{array}
\right]
& v^2
& =
& \left[
\begin{array}{@{}c@{}}
1\\v_I
\end{array}
\right]
& v^3
& =
& \left[
\begin{array}{@{}c@{}}
1\\0
\end{array}
\right]
& v^4
& =
& \left[
\begin{array}{@{}c@{}}
1\\v_R
\end{array}
\right]
\\
u^1_b
& =
& S_b
& u^2_b
& =
& 0
& u^3_b
& =
& 0
& u^4_b
& =
& 0
\\
u_o^1
& =
& S_o
& u_o^2
& =
& I_o
& u_o^3
& =
& H_o
& u_o^4
& =
& R_o
\end{array}
\end{displaymath}
\begin{displaymath}
\begin{array}{rcl}
p^1(t,x,\Lambda)
& =
& - \mu_S - \Lambda
\\
p^2(t,x,\Lambda)
& =
& - \mu_I - \kappa - \vartheta
\\
p^3(t,x,\Lambda)
& =
& - \mu_H - \eta
\\
p^4(t,x,\Lambda)
& =
& - \mu_R
\end{array}
\qquad
\begin{array}{rcl}
q^1(t, x, u,\Lambda)
& =
& 0
\\
q^2(t, x, u,\Lambda)
& =
& \Lambda \; u_1
\\
q^3(t, x, u,\Lambda)
& =
& \kappa \, u_2
\\
q^4(t, x, u,\Lambda)
& =
& \vartheta \, u_2 + \eta \, u_3
\end{array}
\end{displaymath}
and the only $2$ non zero entries in $\mathcal{K}_p$ and
$\mathcal{K}_q$ are valued $\rho$, so that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_{\mathcal{X}}
\mathcal{K}_p^1 \left(t,(a,y),(a',y')\right)
\; w (a',y') \dd{a'} \dd{y'}
& =
& \left(\rho \otimes I (t)\right) (a,y) \,,
\\
\int_{\mathcal{X}}
\mathcal{K}_q^2 \left(t,(a,y),(a',y')\right)
\; w (a',y') \dd{a'} \dd{y'}
& =
& \left(\rho \otimes I (t)\right) (a,y) \,.
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:spreading-pandemic}
Set $\mathcal{I} = [0,T]$ or $\mathcal{I} = \reali_+$. Let
$v_S, v_I, v_R \in (\C1 \cap \LL\infty) (\mathcal{I} \times
\mathcal{X}; \reali^2)$ with divergence in
$\LL1 (\mathcal{I}; \LL\infty (\mathcal{X};\reali))$;
$\rho \in \LL\infty (\reali_+^2 \times \reali^4; \reali)$ and
$S_b \in (\LL1 \cap \LL\infty) (\mathcal{I} \times \reali^2;
\reali)$. Let $\mu_S$, $\mu_I$, $\mu_H$, $\mu_R$, $\vartheta$,
$\eta$ and $\kappa$ be positive and in $\LL\infty$. Fix an initial
datum $(S_o, I_o, H_o, R_o)$ in $\LL1 (\mathcal{X};
\reali^4)$. Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Problem~\eqref{eq:4}--\eqref{eq:6}--\eqref{eq:7} fits into
Theorem~\ref{thm:main} and Theorem~\ref{thm:stab} and hence admits
a solution
$(S,I,H,R) \in \C0\left([0,T_*]; \L1 (\mathcal{X};
\reali^4)\right)$, for a $T_*>0$.
\item If the initial and boundary data $(S_o, I_o, H_o, R_o)$ and
$S_b$ are non negative, if $\rho\geq 0$ and if the constants
$\kappa, \eta, \theta$ are non negative, then
Corollary~\ref{cor:piu} applies, ensuring that the solution is non
negative: $(S,I,H,R) (t) \in \L1 (\mathcal{X}; \reali_+^4)$, for
all $t \in [0,T_*]$.
\item If, in addition to what required at 2., the mortalities
$\mu_S, \mu_I, \mu_H, \mu_R$ are non negative,
then~\Cref{cor:assumpt-defin-result} applies, so that the solution
is defined globally in time.
\item If, in addition to what required at 3., $(S_o, I_o, H_o, R_o)$
in $\L\infty (\mathcal{X}; \reali_+^4)$, then the solution is
locally bounded:
$(S,I,H,R) \in \L\infty (\mathcal{J} \times \mathcal{X};
\reali_+^4)$, for any bounded interval
$\mathcal{J} \subseteq \mathcal{I}$. Hence, $(S,I,H,R)$ is the
unique solution to~\eqref{eq:4} in the sense of
Definition~\ref{def:sol}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\noindent The proof is deferred to Section~\ref{sec:AP}.
As pointed out in~\eqref{eq:4}, a natural control parameter is the
coefficient $\kappa = \kappa (t,a,y)$, which determines how quickly
infective individuals are isolated in quarantine.
A first natural choice for a \emph{cost} to be minimized by a careful
choice of $\kappa$ is the total number of deaths on the time interval
$[0,T]$, namely
\begin{displaymath}
\mathcal{D} (\kappa)
=
\int_0^T \! \int_{\reali_+} \! \int_{\reali^2}
\left(\mu_I (t,a,y) \, I (t,a,y) + \mu_H (t,a,y) \, H (t,a,y)\right)
\, \dd{y} \, \dd{a} \, \dd{t} \,.
\end{displaymath}
Proposition~\ref{prop:spreading-pandemic} ensures that the cost
$\mathcal{D}$ is a continuous function of $\kappa$. Hence, standard
compactness arguments, for instance in the case of a constant
$\kappa$, ensure the existence of an optimal control. Moreover, the
Lipschitz continuity, again ensured by
Proposition~\ref{prop:spreading-pandemic}, allows to use standard
optimization algorithms to actually find near--to--optimal controls.
A second reasonable choice is to minimize the maximal number of
infected individuals
$\norma{I}_{\L\infty ([0,T] \times \reali_+ \times \reali^2)}$, aiming
at minimizing the maximal stress on the health care system. Again, the
continuity proved in Proposition~\ref{prop:spreading-pandemic} allows
to use Weierstrass type arguments to exhibit the existence of optimal
controls, thanks to the lower semicontinuity of the $\L\infty$ norm
with respect to the $\L1$ distance.
\subsection{Cell Growth and Division}
\label{subs:GandD}
Consider the classical model~\cite[Formula~(2)]{BELL1967329} devoted
to the description of cell growth and cell division, as extended
in~\cite[Formul\ae~(1.5)--(1.7)]{TuckerZimmerman1988}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:22}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\partial_t N + \partial_a N + \diver_y (V (a,y)\, N)
=
-
\lambda(a,y) \, N
\\
N (t,0,y)
=
\int_{\reali_+}\int_{\reali^n}
\beta \left((a',y'),y, N (t,a',y')\right)
\dd{y'} \dd{a'}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $t \in \reali_+$ is time, $a \in \reali_+$ is age,
$(y_1, \ldots, y_n) \in \reali^n$ is an $n$--tuple of structure
variables, $\lambda = \lambda (a,y)$ is the age-- and state--specific
loss rate, $N = N (t,a,y)$ is the population density and $V = V (a,y)$
is the (time independent) individual cell's growth rate. Therefore,
\eqref{eq:22} fits into~\eqref{eq:32} setting
\begin{displaymath}
\begin{array}{@{}c@{}}
k = 1
\,,\quad
n \in \naturali
\,,\quad
m = 1
\,,\quad
\mathcal{X} = \reali_+ {\times} \reali^n
\,,\quad
x = (a, y)
\,,\quad
\xi = (0,y)
\,,\quad
u = N
\,,\quad
w = N (t)
\,,
\\[6pt]
v \left(t,(a,y)\right)
=
V (a,y)
\,,\quad
p\left(t, (a,y), N (t)\right)
=
-\lambda (a,y)
\,,\quad
q\left(t, (a,y), N, N (t)\right)
=
0\,,
\\[6pt]
u_b(t,y,N, N (t))
=
\displaystyle\int_{\reali^n} \int_{\reali_+}
\beta\left((a', y'), y, N (t, a', y')\right) \dd{a'} \dd{y'} \,.
\end{array}
\end{displaymath}
Concerning the assumptions of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}, we have
that~\ref{ip:(v)} is satisfied as soon as
$V \in (\C1 \cap \LL\infty)(\mathcal{X}; \reali^n)$ and
$\diver V \in \LL1 (I; \LL\infty (\mathcal{X};
\reali))$. Condition~\ref{hyp:g_a} is met whenever
$\lambda \in \C0 \cap \LL\infty$, with
$P_1 = \norma{\lambda}_{\LL\infty(\reali_+ \times \reali^n; \reali)}$
and $P_2=0$. Assumption~\ref{hyp:g_b} trivially holds. To comply
with~\ref{ip:(ub)}, we need $\beta$ to be Lipschitz continuous and
sublinear in its fourth argument, i.e.,
$\beta ((a',y') , y, w) \leq B (y) \left(1+ \modulo{w}\right)$ for a
suitable $B \in \LL1 \cap \LL\infty$. Under these assumptions,
Theorem~\ref{thm:main} applies to~\eqref{eq:22}.
As soon as $\beta \geq 0$ and the initial datum is non negative, also
Corollary~\ref{cor:piu} applies, ensuring the solution is non
negative. It is reasonable to assume from the biological point of view
that $\lambda \geq 0$, so that also
Corollary~\ref{cor:assumpt-defin-result} applies (with $C_1 = 0$,
$C_2 = 0$), ensuring that the solution is globally defined in time.
It is straightforward to see that, as soon as $\beta$ is linear in its
third argument, it is possible to apply also Theorem~\ref{thm:stab}.
\subsection{An Age and Phenotypically Structured Population Model}
\label{subs:AP}
Within the general form~\eqref{eq:1} we recover also the recent
model~\cite[Formula~(1)]{NordmannPerthameTaing2017}, namely
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:12}
\left\{
\begin{array}{@{\,}l@{}}
\displaystyle
\varepsilon\, \partial_t M_\varepsilon
+
\partial_a \left(A (a,y) \, M_\varepsilon\right)
=
-\left(
\int_{\reali_+} \!\int_{\reali^n} \!
M_\varepsilon (t,a',y') \dd{a'} \dd{y'}
+
d (a,y)
\right) M_\varepsilon
\\
\displaystyle
M_\varepsilon (t,a=0,y)
=
\dfrac{1}{A (a=0,y) \, \varepsilon^n}
\int_{\reali_+} \! \int_{\reali^n}
\mathcal{M} \! \left(\frac{y'-y}{\varepsilon}\right) \,
b (a',y') \,
M_\varepsilon (t, a', y')
\dd{a'} \dd{y'}
\\
M_\varepsilon (t=0, a,y)
=
M_\varepsilon^0 (a,y) \,.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
Here, the dependent variable $M_\varepsilon = M_\varepsilon (t,a,y)$
describes the population density at time $t$, of age $a \in \reali_+$
and trait $x \in \reali^n$, so that
$\int_{\reali_+} \!\int_{\reali^n} M_\varepsilon (t,a,y) \dd{a}
\dd{x}$ is the total population. The growth function $A = A (a,y)$
describes the age and trait dependent aging. The mortality, on the
right hand side of the first equation in~\eqref{eq:12}, both depends
on the crowding, due to intraspecies competition, and on a given
mortality $d = d (a,y)$. The function $b = b (a,y)$ quantifies the
natality and is modulated by the mutation probability kernel
$\mathcal{M}$, both defining the boundary term along $a=0$, see
also~\cite{MischlerPerthameRyzhik_2002}.
Note that the IBVP~\eqref{eq:12} can be seen as a prototype equation
for various other similar models, see for
instance~\cite[Formula~(2.8)]{MeeardTran_2009
.
\smallskip
The above system~\eqref{eq:12} fits into~\eqref{eq:32} setting
$\mathcal{X} = \reali_+ \times \reali^n$ and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:13}
\begin{array}{c}
k=1 \,,\quad
m=1 \,,\quad
n \geq 1\,,\quad
x = (a,y) \,,\quad
\xi = (0,y) \,,\quad
u = M_\eps \,,\quad
w = M_\eps (t) \,,\quad
\\
\displaystyle
v = \left[
\begin{array}{@{}c@{}}
A (a,y)/\eps
\\
0
\end{array}
\right]
\,,\qquad
p (t, x, w)
=
- \dfrac{1}{\eps}
\int_{\reali^n} w(x) \dd{x} - \dfrac{d (x)}{\eps}
\,,\qquad
q (t, x, u, w)
=
0\,,
\\
\displaystyle
u_b (t, y, w)
=
\dfrac{1}{A (a=0,y) \, \varepsilon^n}
\int_{\reali_+} \! \int_{\reali^n}
\mathcal{M} \! \left(\frac{y'-y}{\varepsilon}\right) \,
b (a',y') \,
w(a', y')
\dd{a'} \dd{y'} \,.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:an-age-phen}
Let $A \in (\C1 \cap \LL\infty)(\mathcal{X}; \reali)$ with
$\inf A >0$ and $\div_{a,y}A \in \LL\infty (\mathcal{X};
\reali)$. Let $d \in \LL\infty (\reali^n; \reali)$,
$\mathcal{M} \in \LL\infty (\reali^n; \reali)$ such that
$\mathcal{M} (\eta) = 0$ whenever $\norma{\eta} \geq r$, for a fixed
$r>0$. Moreover,
$b \in \LL\infty (\reali_+ \times \reali^n; \reali)$ such that
$\modulo{b (a,y)} \leq \left(1+\norma{y}\right)^{-(n+1)}$. Then, for
any initial datum
$u_o \in (\LL1 \cap \LL\infty)(\mathcal{X}; \reali)$,
Theorem~\ref{thm:main} applies to the Cauchy Problem
for~\eqref{eq:12} with datum $u_o$. If moreover $u_o \geq 0$,
$A (0,y) \geq 0$, $\mathcal{M}\geq0$ and $b\geq 0$,
Corollary~\ref{cor:piu} and Corollary~\ref{cor:assumpt-defin-result}
apply, ensuring that the solution is non negative and defined on all
$\reali_+$.
\end{proposition}
\noindent The proof is deferred to Section~\ref{sec:AP}. Thus, the
above result ensures existence on $\mathopen[0, +\infty \mathclose[$
as soon as all the assumptions are available therein, recovering the
well posedness results in~\cite{MischlerPerthameRyzhik_2002,
NordmannPerthameTaing2017}.
\subsection{Further Applications}
\label{sec:furth-appl}
We briefly recall here further models considered in the literature
that fit within~\eqref{eq:1}. In each of the cases below, we refer to
the original sources for detailed descriptions of the modeling
environments.
\smallskip
The model presented in~\cite[Formula~(5)]{LorenziEtAl}, devoted to the
modeling of leukemia development, reads (here, $i = 2, \ldots, M-1$
for a fixed $M \in \naturali$, $M \geq 3$):
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:9}
\!\!\!\!\!\!
\left\{
\begin{array}{@{}l@{}}
\partial_t n_1
=
\left(\dfrac{2\, a_1 (x)}{1 + K \int_0^1 n_M (t,x') \dd{x'}}-1\right)
p_1 (x) \, n_1
\\
\partial_t n_i
=
2 \left(
1
{-}
\dfrac{a_{i-1} (x)}{1 {+} K \! \int_0^1 n_M (t,x') \dd{x'}}
\right)
\! p_{i-1} (x) \, n_{i-1}
{+}
\left(
\dfrac{2 a_i (x)}{1 {+} K \! \int_0^1 n_M (t,x') \dd{x'}}
{-}
1
\right)
\! p_i (x) \, n_i
\\
\partial_t n_M
=
2 \left(1-\dfrac{a_{M-1} (x)}{1 + K \int_0^1 n_M (t,x') \dd{x'}}\right)
p_{M-1} (x) \, n_{M-1} - d\, n_M
\\
n_i (0,x)
=
n_i^o (x)\,.
\end{array}
\right.
\!\!\!
\end{equation}
Remark that~\eqref{eq:9} can be seen as a system of ordinary
differential equations on functions defined on $[0,1]$ or,
alternatively, as a system of ordinary differential equations coupled
also through a non local dependence on the $x$ variable. Nevertheless,
it fits within~\eqref{eq:1}:
indeed, set $k = M$, $m=0$, $n=1$, $\mathcal{X} = \reali$,
$u = (n_1, \ldots, n_M)$, $v \equiv 0$, the other terms being
obviously chosen.
It is worth noting that the recent model~\cite[Formula~(13)]
{MR4263205}, though devoted to an entirely different scenario, is
analytically analogous to~\eqref{eq:9} and also fits within the
framework formalized in Section~\ref{sec:assumptions-results}. The
use of Theorem~\ref{thm:main} and Theorem~\ref{thm:stab} thus extends
the results in~\cite{MR4263205, LorenziEtAl} comprehending $\LL1$
solutions and providing a full set of stability estimates.
\medskip
Another example is the model recently presented
in~\cite[Formula~(1.1)]{KangRuan2021}, devoted to an age--structured
population described by the time, age and space dependent density
$u = u (t,a,y)$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:38}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\partial_t u + \partial_a u = d (J*u (t) - u) + G\left(u (t)\right)
\\
u (t,0,y) = F\left(u (t)\right)
\\
u (0,a,y) = \Phi (a,y)
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
considered in~\cite{KangRuan2021} for $a \in [0, a^+]$ and
$y \in \Omega$, where $a^+ \in \, \left]0, +\infty\right[$ and
$\Omega \subseteq \reali^N$ are given. Above, $J$ is a convolution
kernel, while the functionals $F$ and $G$ are locally Lipschitz
continuous with respect to the $\LL1$ norm. Model~\eqref{eq:38} fits
into~\eqref{eq:1} setting $k=1$, $m=1$, $n=N$,
$\mathcal{X} = \reali_+ \times \reali^N$, $x = (a,y)$,
$\setlength{\delimitershortfall}{2pt}v = \left[
\begin{array}{@{}c@{}}
1\\0
\end{array}
\right]$, the choice of the other terms being immediate. The results
in Section~\ref{sec:assumptions-results} immediately apply even if the
age interval $[0,a^+]$ and the space domain are bounded, thanks to the
generality of the assumptions required on $v$. This allows to have
qualitative information on the dependence of the solutions exhibited
in~\cite{KangRuan2021} on the various parameters and functions
defining~\eqref{eq:38}.
\medskip
We recall also the following competitive population model with age
structure as an example of a system of equations. It was introduced
and studied from the optimal management point of view
in~\cite[Formula~(1.1)]{FisterEtAl2004}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:39}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle
\partial_t u^1 + \partial_a u^1
=
- \mu_1 (a, u^1) \, u^1 - f^1 (t,a)\, u^1
- u^1 \int_0^A c_1 (a',a)\, u^2 (t,a') \dd{a'}
\\
\displaystyle
\partial_t u^2 + \partial_a u^2
=
- \mu_2 (a,u^2)\, u^2 - f^2 (t,a)\, u^2
- u^2 \int_0^A c_2 (a',a)\, u^1 (t,a') \dd{a'}
\\
\displaystyle
u^1 (t,0) = \int_0^A \beta_1 (a') \, u^1 (t,a') \dd{a'}
\\
\displaystyle
u^2 (t,0) = \int_0^A \beta_2 (a') \, u^2 (t,a') \dd{a'}
\\
u^1 (0,a) = u^1_o (a)
\\
u^2 (0,a) = u^2_o (a) \,.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
Here, we have $k=2$, $m=1$, $n=0$, $\mathcal{X}= \reali_+$,
$v=1$. Under the assumptions of Theorem~\ref{thm:main} and
Theorem~\ref{thm:stab} we recover the continuity of the profit
functional~\cite[Formula~(1.2)]{FisterEtAl2004}
\begin{displaymath}
J (f) =
\int_0^T \int_0^A \left(
K_1 (a) \, f^1 (t,a)\, u^1 (t,a)
+
K_2 (a) \, f^2 (t,a)\, u^2 (t,a)
\right) \dd{a} \dd{t} \,,
\end{displaymath}
now also in the setting of $\LL1$ solutions.
\section{Analytic Proofs}
\label{sec:AP}
\subsection{The Scalar Case}
We now consider in detail the affine scalar case, namely~\eqref{eq:14}
with $f (t, x, u) = v (t, x) \; u$ and
$g (t,x,u) = p (t,x) \, u + q (t,x)$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:2}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l@{\qquad}r@{\,}c@{\,}l@{}}
\partial_t u
+
\diver_x \left(v (t,x) u\right)
=
p (t,x) \, u + q (t,x)
& (t,x)
& \in
& \reali_+ \times \mathcal{X}
\\
u (t,\xi) = u_b (t,\xi)
& (t,\xi)
& \in
& \reali_+ \times \partial\mathcal{X}
\\
u (0,x) = u_o (x)
& x
& \in
& \mathcal{X} \,.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
\noindent Recall the following standard notation. A
\emph{characteristic} of~\eqref{eq:2} is the solution
$t \to X (t; t_o,x_o)$ to the following Cauchy Problem for the system
of ordinary differential equations
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:3}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\dot x = v (t,x)
\\
x (t_o) = x_o \,.
\end{array}
\right.
\qquad
\begin{array}{r@{\,}c@{\,}l}
(t, x)
& \in
& I \times \mathcal{X}
\\
(t_o, x_o)
& \in
& I \times \mathcal{X} \,.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
For $\tau, t \in I$ and for $x \in \mathcal{X}$, define
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:10}
\mathcal{E} (\tau,t,x)
=
\exp\left(
\int_\tau^t
\left(
p\left(s, X (s;t,x)\right)
-
\diver_x v \left(s,X (s;t,x)\right)
\right)
\dd{s}
\right)
\end{equation}
and for all $(t,x) \in I \times \mathcal{X}$, if
$x \in X(t; [0,t[, \partial\mathcal{X})$, we set
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:11}
T (t,x)
=
\inf \left\{
s \in [0,t[
\colon
X (s; t,x) \in \mathcal{X}
\right\} \,.
\end{equation}
With the notation introduced above, we recall the well known formula
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:8}
\!\!\!\!\!
u (t,x)=
\left\{
\begin{array}{l@{\qquad}r@{\,}c@{\,}l@{}}
u_o \left(X (0;t,x)\right) \mathcal{E} (0,t,x)
\\
\displaystyle
\qquad\qquad
+
\int_0^t q\left(\tau, X (\tau;t,x)\right)\, \mathcal{E} (\tau,t,x)\dd\tau
& x
& \in
& X (t; 0,\mathcal{X})
\\[6pt]
u_b\left(T (t,x), X\left(T (t,x); t, x\right)\right) \,
\mathcal{E}\left(T (t,x), t, x\right)
\\
\displaystyle
\qquad\qquad
+ \int_{T (t,x)}^t q\left(\tau, X (\tau; t,x)\right) \, \mathcal{E} (\tau,t,x) \dd\tau
& x
& \in
& X (t; \mathopen[0,t\mathclose[, \partial \mathcal{X})
\end{array}
\right.
\!\!\!
\end{equation}
obtained from the integration along characteristics, a standard tool
at least since the classical paper~\cite{MR354068}. The following
relations are of use below, for a proof see for
instance~\cite[Chapter~3]{BressanPiccoliBook},
\begin{align}
\label{eq:ptX}
\partial_t X (t; t_o, x_o)
& =
v\left(t, X (t; t_o, x_o)\right)
\\
\label{eq:ptoX}
\partial_{t_o} X (t; t_o, x_o)
& =
-v (t_o, x_o) \;
\exp \int_{t_o}^t \diver_x v\left(s; X(t, t_o, x_o)\right) \dd{s}
\\
\label{eq:21}
D_{x_o} X (t; t_o, x_o)
& =
M (t)
\mbox{, the matrix } M \mbox{ solves }
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\dot M = D_xv\left(t, X (t; t_o, x_o)\right) M
\\
M (t_o) = \Id \,.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align}
In order to prove that~\eqref{eq:8} solves~\eqref{eq:2} in the sense
of Definition~\ref{def:mvsol} and to provide the basic well posedness
estimates, a few technical lemmas are in order. First introduce the
following notation: where misunderstandings might arise, we use the
positional notation for derivatives. For instance, with reference to
the map $(t; t_o, x_o) \to X (t; t_o, x_o)$, we denote
\begin{displaymath}
\partial_2 X (t; t_o, x_o)
=
\partial_{t_o} X (t; t_o, x_o)
=
\lim_{\tau \to 0} \dfrac{X (t;t_o+\tau,x_o) - X (t; t_o, x_o)}{\tau} \,.
\end{displaymath}
We also set $X = (X_1, \ldots, X_{m+n})$, with $X_i = X \cdot e_i$,
where $(e_1, \ldots, e_{m+n})$ is the canonical base of
$\reali^{m+n}$. Recall also that
$\partial_l X_i = \partial_l (X \cdot e_i) = (\partial_l X) \cdot
e_i$, for $l = 1,2,3$ and $i = 1, \ldots, m+n$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:t-new}
Under assumption~\ref{ip:(v)} with $k=1$, the map in~\eqref{eq:11}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:16-new}
\begin{array}{@{}c@{\,}c@{\,}ccc@{}}
T
& \colon
& \left\{ (t,x) \in \reali_+ \times \mathcal{X}
\colon
x \in X (t; \left[0, t\right[,\partial\mathcal{X})\right\}
&\to
& \reali_+
\\
&
& (t,x)
& \mapsto
& \inf \left\{
s \in [0,t[
\colon
X (s; t,x) \in \mathcal{X}
\right\}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
is well defined. Moreover, for all $t \in \reali_+$ and
a.e.~$x \in \mathcal{X}$ such that
$x \in X (t;[0,t[,\partial \mathcal{X})$, there exists a unique
$i \in \{1, \ldots, m\}$, depending on $t$ and $x$, such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:15-new}
X_i (T (t,x); t, x) = 0.
\end{equation}
Given $t \in \reali_+$, for $i \in \{1, \ldots, m\}$, call
${\mathbb X}_i^t$ the set of $x \in \mathcal{X}$ such that $i$ is
the \emph{unique} index satisfying~\eqref{eq:15-new}. Then, the map
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:20-new}
\begin{array}{cccc}
M_i \colon
& {\mathbb X}_i^t
& \to
& \reali_+ \times \reali^{n+m-1}
\\
& x
& \mapsto
& \left(T (t,x),
\left(X_j (T (t,x), t, x)\right)_{j \ne i}
\right)
\end{array}
\end{equation}
is a local diffeomorphism. The derivatives of the function $T$ are
given by
\begin{align}
\label{eq:18-new}
\partial_t T (t,x)
& =
- \dfrac{\partial_{2} X_i (T (t,x);t,x)
{v_i \left(T (t,x),X (T (t,x);t,x)\right)}
\\
\label{eq:19-new}
\partial_{x_\ell} T (t,x)
& =
-\dfrac{\partial_{3_\ell} X_i \left(T (t,x); t, x\right)
{v_i\left(T (t,x), X\left(T (t,x); t, x\right)\right)}
\qquad \ell = 1, \ldots, n+m \,.
\end{align}
Finally the absolute value of the determinant of the Jacobian matrix
$D M_i$ at $x$ is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:det-jabobian}
\frac{1}{v_i\left(T (t,x), X (T (t,x); t,x\right)}
\exp \int_{t}^{T(t, x)} \sum_{j = 1}^{m+n} \partial_{x_j}
v_j\left(s, X\left(s; t, x\right)
\right) \dd s.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By~\ref{ip:(v)}, the usual Cauchy Theorem for systems of ordinary
differential equations ensures that, for all
$(t_o, x_o) \in \reali_+ \times \mathcal{X}$, the Cauchy
Problem~\eqref{eq:3} admits a unique solution defined on a maximal
interval $[T_{(t_o,x_o)}, +\infty [$, with
$T_{(t_o,x_o)} \in [0,t_o]$. Then, the map $T$ defined
in~\eqref{eq:11} can be written $T (t,x) = T_{(t,x)}$ whenever
$T_{(t,x)} >0$ and $T(t, x) = 0$ otherwise. Hence, the
map~\eqref{eq:16-new} is well defined.
Once $x \in X (t; \mathopen[0,t\mathclose[, \partial\mathcal{X})$,
it is clear that there exists at least one index $i$ such
that~\eqref{eq:15-new} holds. The uniqueness follows, since
$X (t;\cdot, \cdot)$ is a diffeomorphism.
Fix $t >0$, $i \in \{1, \ldots, m\}$, and $x \in {\mathbb X}_i^t$.
Locally around $(t, x)$, the constraint~\eqref{eq:15-new} remains
valid. To compute the derivatives of the map $(t,x) \to T (t,x)$,
differentiating~\eqref{eq:15-new} with respect to~$t$ yields
\begin{equation*}
\partial_1 X_i\left(T (t,x); t, x\right) \, \partial_t T (t,x)
+ \partial_{2} X_i\left(T (t,x);t,x\right)
=
0
\end{equation*}
and so, using~\eqref{eq:ptX},
\begin{equation*}
v_i \left(T (t,x), X\left(T (t,x); t, x\right)\right)
\partial_t T (t,x)
+ \partial_{2} X_i\left(T (t,x);t,x\right)
=
0
\end{equation*}
which proves~\eqref{eq:18-new}, while a differentiation with respect
to~$x_\ell$ ($\ell \in \left\{1, \ldots, m+n\right\}$) yields
\begin{equation*}
\partial_1 X_i\left(T (t,x);t,x\right) \; \partial_{x_\ell} T (t,x)
+
\partial_{3_\ell} X_i\left(T (t,x); t,x\right) = 0
\end{equation*}
and so, using~\eqref{eq:ptX},
\begin{equation*}
v_i \left(T (t,x), X\left(T(t, x); t, x\right)\right)
\; \partial_{x_\ell} T (t,x)
+
\partial_{3_\ell} X_i\left(T (t,x); t,x\right) = 0,
\end{equation*}
which proves~\eqref{eq:19-new}.
Consider the $\left(n+m\right) \times \left(n+m\right)$ Jacobian
matrix $D M_i$. By~\eqref{eq:19-new}, the first row is
\begin{equation*}
\left(\partial_{x_1} T(t, x), \cdots,
\partial_{x_{n+m}} T(t, x)\right)
=
\left(- \frac{\partial_{3_1} X_i}{v_i}, \cdots,
- \frac{\partial_{3_{n+m}} X_i}{v_i}\right),
\end{equation*}
where, for simplicity, we omitted the arguments of the functions
$X_i$ and $v_i$. The remaining rows, indexed by
$j \in \left\{1, \ldots, n+m\right\}$, $j \ne i$, of $D M_i$ are
given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
&
&
\left(\partial_{x_1} X_j(T(t, x); t, x), \cdots,
\partial_{x_{n+m}} X_j(T(t, x); t, x)\right)
\\
& =
& \left(-v_j \frac{\partial_{3_1} X_i}{v_i} + \partial_{3_1} X_j,
\cdots, -v_j \frac{\partial_{3_{n+m}} X_i}{v_i} + \partial_{3_{n+m}} X_j
\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
We compute the determinant of $DM_i$ using Gauss method. We modify
all the rows, except the first one, by adding to each row a multiple
of the first one. In this way the determinant of $DM_i$ equals the
determinant of the matrix
\begin{equation*}
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
- \frac{\partial_{3_1} X_i}{v_i}
&
- \frac{\partial_{3_2} X_i}{v_i}
& \cdots
& - \frac{\partial_{3_{n+m}} X_i}{v_i}
\vspace{.2cm}\\
\partial_{3_1} X_1
& \partial_{3_2} X_1
& \cdots
& \partial_{3_{n+m}} X_1
\vspace{.2cm}\\
\vdots
& \vdots
& \vdots
& \vdots
\vspace{.2cm}\\
\partial_{3_1} X_{n+m}
& \partial_{3_2} X_{n+m}
& \cdots
& \partial_{3_{n+m}} X_{n+m}
\end{array}
\right)
\end{equation*}
in the case $i \ne 1, n+m$, the other cases being entirely similar.
Therefore
$\modulo{\det \left(DM_i\right)} = \frac{1}{v_i} \, \modulo{\det
\left(D_3 X\right)}$. Using~\eqref{eq:21} and Liouville
Theorem~\cite[Theorem~1.2, Chapter IV]{MR1929104}, we deduce
\begin{displaymath}
\begin{split}
\modulo{\det \left(DM_i(x)\right)} & = \frac{1}{v_i\left(T
(t,x); X(T (t,x); t,x)\right)} \exp \int_{t}^{T(t, x)} \tr
\left(D_x v\left(s, X\left(s; t, x\right) \right) \right)\dd s
\\
& = \frac{1}{v_i\left(T (t,x); X(T (t,x); t,x)\right)} \exp
\int_{t}^{T(t, x)} \sum_{j = 1}^{m+n} \partial_{x_j} v_j\left(s,
X\left(s; t, x\right) \right) \dd s
\end{split}
\end{displaymath}
which proves~\eqref{eq:det-jabobian}.
\end{proof}
The next two lemmas provide the basic \emph{a priori} and stability
estimates on~\eqref{eq:2}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:L1inf}
Let~\ref{ip:(v)} with $k=1$ hold, let
$p \in \LL\infty(I \times \mathcal{X}; \reali)$,
$q \in \LL1(I \times \mathcal{X}; \reali)$,
$u_b \in \LL1 (I \times \partial \mathcal{X}; \reali)$ and
$u_o \in \LL1 (\mathcal{X};\reali)$. Then, for every $t \in I$ the
solution to problem~\eqref{eq:2} defined through
formula~\eqref{eq:8} satisfies the following \emph{a priori}
estimates:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:17}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\norma{u(t)}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X};\reali)}
& \leq
& \displaystyle
\left(
\norma{q}_{\LL1([0, t] \times \mathcal{X}; \reali)}
+ \norma{u_o}_{\LL1(\mathcal{X})}
\right)
e^{\norma{p}_{\LL\infty ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X};\reali)}t}
\\
&
& \displaystyle
+ \left(
\sum_{i=1}^{m}
\iint_{\Gamma_i}
\modulo{u_b(\tau, \xi)} \,
v_i (\tau, \xi) \dd \tau \dd \xi
\right)
e^{\norma{p}_{\LL\infty ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X};\reali)}t} ,
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma_i = M_i (\mathbb X_i^t)$ with $M_i$ as
in~\eqref{eq:20-new} and $\mathbb X^i_t$ is as in
Lemma~\ref{lem:t-new}. If moreover
$q \in \LL1\left(I; \LL\infty\left(\mathcal{X};
\reali\right)\right)$,
$u_o \in \LL\infty\left(\mathcal X; \reali\right)$, and
$u_b \in \LL\infty (I \times \partial \mathcal{X}; \reali)$, then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:5}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\norma{u(t)}_{\LL\infty (\mathcal{X}; \reali)}
& \leq
& \displaystyle
\left(
\norma{u_o}_{\LL\infty (\mathcal{X};\reali)}
+
\norma{u_b}_{\LL\infty ([0,t] \times \partial \mathcal{X};\reali))}
+
\norma{q}_{\LL1 ([0,t]; \LL\infty (\mathcal{X};\reali))}
\right)
\\
&
& \displaystyle
\times \exp\left(
\int_0^t \left(
\norma{p (\tau)}_{\LL\infty (\mathcal{X};\reali)}
+
\norma{\diver_x v (\tau)}_{\LL\infty (\mathcal{X};\reali)}
\right)\dd\tau
\right) \,.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof of the $\LL\infty$ bound directly follows from
\begin{displaymath}
\mathcal{E} (\tau, t, x)
\leq
\exp \left(
\norma{p}_{\LL1 ([\tau,t]; \LL\infty (\mathcal{X};\reali))}+
\norma{\diver_x v}_{\LL1 ([\tau,t]; \LL\infty (\mathcal{X};\reali))}
\right)\,,
\end{displaymath}
and~\eqref{eq:8}. In order to get the $\LL1$ bound, observe that
$\norma{u (t)}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X}; \reali)} = \norma{u (t)}_{\LL1 (X
(t; 0, \mathcal{X}); \reali)} + \norma{u (t)}_{\LL1 (X (t; [0,t[,
\partial \mathcal{X}); \reali)}$. We thus consider two cases and
apply a suitable change of variable.
By~\eqref{eq:8}, for $t \in I$, we have that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:L1-initial-case}
\begin{split}
\int_{X\left(t; 0, \mathcal{X}\right)} \modulo{u(t, x)} \dd x &
\leq \int_{X\left(t; 0, \mathcal{X}\right)} \modulo{u_o
\left(X(0; t, x)\right)} \, \mathcal E\left(0, t, x\right) \dd
x
\\
& \quad + \int_{X\left(t; 0, \mathcal{X}\right)} \int_0^t
\modulo{q\left(\tau, X\left(\tau; t, x\right)\right)} \,
\mathcal E\left(\tau, t, x\right) \dd \tau \dd x.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Consider the first term in the right hand side
of~\eqref{eq:L1-initial-case}. Using Liouville
Theorem~\cite[Theorem~1.2, Chapter IV]{MR1929104}, the change of
variables $\xi = X(0; t, x)$ and the assumptions on $p$,
\begin{align*}
\int_{X\left(t; 0, \mathcal{X}\right)}
\modulo{u_o \left(X(0; t, x)\right)}
\mathcal E\left(0, t, x\right) \dd x
& = \int_{\mathcal{X}} \modulo{u_o(\xi)} \exp \left(\int_0^t
p \left(s, X\left(s; 0, \xi\right)\right) \dd s\right) \dd \xi
\\
& \leq
\norma{u_o}_{\LL1(\mathcal{X})} \,
e^{\norma{p}_{\LL\infty ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X};\reali)} t}.
\end{align*}
Consider the second term in the right hand side
of~\eqref{eq:L1-initial-case}. Using the change of variable
$\xi = X\left(\tau; t, x\right)$,
\begin{align*}
& \int_{X\left(t; 0, \mathcal{X}\right)} \int_0^t
\modulo{q\left(\tau, X\left(\tau; t, x\right)\right)}
\mathcal E\left(\tau, t, x\right) \dd \tau \dd x
\\
=
&\int_0^t \int_{X\left(\tau; 0, \mathcal{X}\right)}
\modulo{q(\tau, \xi)}
\exp\left(\int_\tau^t p \left(s, X(s; \tau, \xi)\right) \dd s
\right) \dd \xi \dd \tau
\\
\leq
& \norma{q}_{\LL1(X\left([0, t]; 0, \mathcal{X}\right); \reali)}
e^{\norma{p}_{\LL\infty ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X};\reali)} t} .
\end{align*}
Therefore, using~\eqref{eq:L1-initial-case}, for $t \in I$, we
deduce
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:L1-initial-cond-final}
\int_{X(t; 0, \mathcal{X})}
\modulo{u(t, x)} \dd x
\leq
\left(\norma{u_o}_{\LL1(\mathcal{X})}
+ \norma{q}_{\LL1(X\left([0, t]; 0, \mathcal{X}\right); \reali)}
\right)
e^{\norma{p}_{\LL\infty ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X};\reali)} t}.
\end{equation}
To estimate now the term depending on the boundary conditions, for
$t \in I$, use~\eqref{eq:8}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
\int_{X(t; [0, t[, \partial \mathcal{X})}
\modulo{u(t,x)} \dd x
& =
& \sum_{i=1}^{m} \int_{\mathbb X_i^t}
\modulo{u(t, x)} \dd x
\\
\nonumber
& \leq
& \sum_{i=1}^{m} \int_{\mathbb X_i^t} \modulo{u_b
\left(T(t, x), X\left(T(t, x); t, x\right)\right)} \,
\mathcal{E}
\left(T(t, x), t, x\right) \dd x
\\
\label{eq:L1-boundary-case}
&
& + \sum_{i=1}^{m} \int_{\mathbb X_i^t} \int_{T(t,
x)}^t \modulo{q\left(\tau, X\left(\tau; t, x\right)\right)} \,
\mathcal E\left(\tau, t, x\right) \dd \tau \dd x.
\end{eqnarray}
For $i \in \{1, \ldots, m\}$, use the diffeomorphism $M_i$
in~\eqref{eq:20-new} as change of variables, i.e.,~$\tau = T(t, x)$,
$\xi = X\left(T(t, x); t, x\right)$ and we set
$\Gamma_i = M_i (\mathbb X_i^t)$. Thus, we have
\begin{align*}
& \int_{\mathbb X_i^t}
\modulo{u_b \left(T(t, x), X\left(T(t, x); t, x\right)\right)} \,
\mathcal E\left(T(t, x), t, x\right) \dd x
\\
=
& \iint_{\Gamma_i}
\modulo{u_b(\tau, \xi)} \, \exp \left(\int_\tau^t
p\left(s, X(s; \tau, \xi)\right) \dd s\right) \,
v_i (\tau, \xi) \, \dd \tau \, \dd \xi
\\
\le
& e^{\norma{p}_{\LL\infty ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X}; \reali)} t}
\iint_{\Gamma_i}
\modulo{u_b(\tau, \xi)} \,
v_i (\tau, \xi) \, \dd \tau \, \dd \xi.
\end{align*}
For $i \in \{1, \ldots, m\}$, using again the change of variables
$\xi = X \left(\tau; t, x\right)$, define
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:27}
\Xi^i_t
=
\left\{
(\tau,\xi) \in \reali^{1+m+n} \colon
\tau \in [t, T (t,x)]
\,,\;
x \in \mathbb X_t^i
\,,\;
\xi = X (\tau;t,x)
\right\}
\end{equation}
and we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&
& \int_{\mathbb X^i_t} \int_{T (t,x)}^t
\modulo{q \left(\tau, X\left(\tau; t, x\right)\right)} \,
\mathcal{E}\left(\tau, t, x\right) \dd{\tau} \dd x
\\
& =
& \iint_{\Xi^i_t}
\modulo{q(\tau, \xi)}
\exp \left(\int_\tau^t p \left(s, X(s; \tau, \xi)\right) \dd s\right)
\dd \tau \dd \xi
\\
& \le
& \norma{q}_{\LL1(\Xi^i_t; \reali)} \,
e^{\norma{p}_{\LL\infty ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X};\reali)} t}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore, using~\eqref{eq:L1-boundary-case}, for $t \in I$, we
deduce
\begin{displaymath}
\int_{X(t; [0, t[, \partial\mathcal{X})}
\modulo{u(t, x)} \dd x
\leq
e^{\norma{p}_{\LL\infty ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X};\reali)} t}
\sum_{i=1}^{m} \left[ \iint_{\Gamma_i}
\modulo{u_b(\tau, \xi)}
v_i (\tau, \xi) \dd \tau \dd \xi
+ \norma{q}_{\LL1(\Xi^i_t; \reali)}\right] \,.
\end{displaymath}
This concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:stability-linear-system}
Fix $v$ satisfying~\ref{ip:(v)} with $k=1$. Let
$p_1,p_2 \in \LL\infty(I \times \mathcal{X}; \reali)$,
$q_1, q_2 \in \LL1(I \times \mathcal{X}; \reali)$ with $u_{b,1}$ and
$u_{b,2}$ as in \Cref{lem:L1inf} and let $u_{o,1}, u_{o, 2}$
satisfy~\ref{ip:(u0)}. Define $u_1$ and $u_2$ respectively the
solutions to
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\partial_t u_1
+
\diver_x \left(v \, u_1\right)
=
p_1 \, u_1 + q_1
\\
u_1 (t,\xi) = u_{b,1} (t,\xi)
\\
u_1 (0,x) = u_{o,1} (x)
\end{array}
\right.
\quad \mbox{ and } \quad
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\partial_t u_2
+
\diver_x \left(v \, u_2\right)
= p_2 \, u_2 + q_2
\\
u_2 (t,\xi) = u_{b,2} (t,\xi)
\\
u_2 (0,x) = u_{o,2} (x).
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation*}
Then, for every $t \in I$, the following stability estimate holds
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
&
& \norma{u_1(t) - u_2(t)}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X};\reali)}
\\
\nonumber
&\le
& \mathcal{P} (t) \,
\norma{u_{o,1} - u_{o,2}}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X}; \reali)} \,
\\
\nonumber
&
& + \mathcal{P} (t) \,
\norma{v}_{\LL\infty ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X}; \reali^{n+m})} \,
\norma{u_{b,1}- u_{b,2}}_{\LL1 (I\times \partial\mathcal{X};\reali)}
\\
\nonumber
&
& + \mathcal{P} (t) \,
\norma{q_1-q_2}_{\LL1 ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X};\reali)}
\\
\nonumber
&
& + \mathcal{P} (t)
\left(
\norma{u_{o,1}}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X}; \reali)}
{+}
\norma{v}_{\LL\infty ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X}; \reali^{n+m})}
\norma{u_{b,2}}_{\LL1 ([0,t]\times\partial\mathcal{X};\reali)}
\right)
\norma{p_1{-}p_2}_{\LL1 ([0,t]; \LL\infty(\mathcal{X}; \reali))}
\\
&
& +
\mathcal{P} (t) \,
\norma{q_2}_{\LL1 ([0,t] \times \mathcal{X}; \reali)} \,
\norma{p_1-p_2}_{\LL1 ([0,t]; \LL\infty(\mathcal{X};\reali))} \,
\,,
\label{eq:stability-linear}
\end{eqnarray}
where
$\mathcal{P} (t) = \exp\left(t\, \max\left\{ \norma{p_1}_{\LL\infty
([0,t]\times\mathcal{X};\reali)}, \norma{p_2}_{\LL\infty
([0,t]\times\mathcal{X};\reali)}\right\}\right)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider $u_1$ and $u_2$ the solutions to the two systems and fix
$t \in I$. Define for $i=1, 2$
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal E_i\left(\tau, t, x\right)
= \exp\left(
\int_\tau^t
\left(
p_i\left(s, X (s;t,x)\right)
-
\diver_x v \left(s,X (s;t,x)\right)
\right)
\dd{s}
\right).
\end{equation*}
We have the decomposition
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:stab-decomposition}
\norma{u_1(t) - u_2(t)}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X}; \reali)}
=
\int_{X\left(t; 0, \mathcal{X}\right)} \modulo{u_1(t) - u_2(t)} \dd x
+ \int_{X(t; [0, t[, \partial \mathcal{X})}
\modulo{u_1(t) - u_2(t)} \dd x \,.
\end{equation}
We treat the two terms in the right hand side
of~\eqref{eq:stab-decomposition} separately. The first one is dealt
with the explicit formula~\eqref{eq:8}:
\begin{align*}
&
\quad \int_{X\left(t; 0, \mathcal{X}\right)} \modulo{u_1(t) - u_2(t)} \dd x
\\
&
\le \int_{X\left(t; 0, \mathcal{X}\right)}
\modulo{u_{o,1}\left(X\left(0; t, x\right)\right)
\mathcal E_1\left(0, t, x\right)
- u_{o,2}\left(X\left(0; t, x\right)\right)
\mathcal E_2\left(0, t, x\right)} \dd x
\\
& \quad + \int_{X\left(t; 0, \mathcal{X}\right)} \int_0^t
\modulo{q_1\left(\tau, X\left(\tau; t, x\right)\right)
\mathcal E_1\left(\tau, t, x\right)
- q_2\left(\tau, X\left(\tau; t, x\right)\right)
\mathcal E_2\left(\tau, t, x\right)} \dd \tau \dd x
\\
&
\le \int_{X\left(t; 0, \mathcal{X}\right)}
\mathcal E_1\left(0, t, x\right)
\modulo{u_{o,1}\left(X\left(0; t, x\right)\right)
- u_{o,2}\left(X\left(0; t, x\right)\right)
} \dd x
\\
&
\quad + \int_{X\left(t; 0, \mathcal{X}\right)}
\modulo{u_{o,2}\left(X\left(0; t, x\right)\right)}
\modulo{
\mathcal E_1\left(0, t, x\right)
- \mathcal E_2\left(0, t, x\right)} \dd x
\\
& \quad + \int_{X\left(t; 0, \mathcal{X}\right)} \int_0^t
\mathcal E_1\left(\tau, t, x\right)
\modulo{q_1\left(\tau, X\left(\tau; t, x\right)\right)
- q_2\left(\tau, X\left(\tau; t, x\right)\right)
} \dd \tau \dd x
\\
& \quad + \int_{X\left(t; 0, \mathcal{X}\right)} \int_0^t
\modulo{q_2\left(\tau, X\left(\tau; t, x\right)\right)}
\modulo{
\mathcal E_1\left(\tau, t, x\right)
-
\mathcal E_2\left(\tau, t, x\right)} \dd \tau \dd x.
\end{align*}
Using the two changes of variable $\xi = X\left(0; t, x\right)$ and
$\xi = X\left(\tau; t, x\right)$, we obtain that
\begin{align*}
&
\quad \int_{X\left(t; 0, \mathcal{X}\right)} \modulo{u_1(t) - u_2(t)} \dd x
\\
&
\le \int_{\mathcal{X}}
\exp\left(
\int_0^t
p_1\left(s, X (s; 0, \xi)\right)
\dd{s}
\right)
\modulo{u_{o,1}\left(\xi\right)
- u_{o,2}\left(\xi\right)
} \dd \xi
\\
&
\quad + \int_{\mathcal{X}}
\modulo{u_{o,2}\left(\xi\right)}
\modulo{
\exp\left(
\int_0^t
p_1\left(s, X (s; 0, \xi)\right)
\dd{s}
\right)
-
\exp\left(
\int_0^t
p_2\left(s, X (s; 0, \xi)\right)
\dd{s}
\right)
} \dd \xi
\\
& \quad + \int_0^t \int_{X\left(\tau; 0, \mathcal{X}\right)}
\modulo{q_1\left(\tau, \xi\right)
- q_2\left(\tau, \xi\right)
}
\exp\left(
\int_\tau^t
p_1\left(s, X (s; \tau, \xi)\right)
\dd{s}
\right)
\dd \xi \, \dd \tau
\\
& \quad
+ \int_0^t \int_{X\left(\tau; 0, \mathcal{X}\right)}
\modulo{q_2\left(\tau, \xi\right)}
\\
& \qquad\qquad \times
\modulo{
\exp\left(
\int_\tau^t
p_1\left(s, X (s; \tau, \xi)\right)
\dd{s}
\right)
-
\exp\left(
\int_\tau^t
p_2\left(s, X (s; \tau, \xi)\right)
\dd{s}
\right)
} \dd \xi \dd \tau
\\
& \leq
\mathcal{P} (t)
\left(
\norma{u_{o,1} - u_{o,2}}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X}; \reali)}
+
\norma{q_1-q_2}_{\LL1 \left(X\left([0,t]; 0, \mathcal{X}\right);
\reali\right)}
\right)
\\
& \qquad +
\mathcal{P}(t)
\norma{u_{o,2}}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X};\reali)}
\norma{p_1 - p_2}_{\LL1 ([0,t]; \LL\infty(\mathcal{X}; \reali))}
\\
& \qquad +
\mathcal{P}(t)
\norma{q_2}_{\LL1\left(X\left([0,t]; 0, \mathcal{X}\right);\reali\right)}
\norma{p_1 - p_2}_{\LL1 ([0,t]; \LL\infty(\mathcal{X}; \reali))} \,,
\end{align*}
where we set
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:35}
\mathcal{P} (t) = \exp
\left(
\max
\left\{
{\norma{p_1}_{\LL\infty ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X};\reali)} t}\,,\;
{\norma{p_2}_{\LL\infty ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X};\reali)} t}
\right\}
\right) \,.
\end{equation}
Pass now to the second term in the right hand side
of~\eqref{eq:stab-decomposition}, splitting among the different
faces $\mathbb X_i^t$ for $i\in \{1, \ldots, m\}$ as defined
in~\eqref{eq:20-new}:
\begin{displaymath}
\int_{X(t; [0, t[, \partial \mathcal{X})}
\modulo{u_1(t) - u_2(t)} \dd x
=
\sum_{i=1}^{m} \int_{\mathbb X_i^t}
\modulo{u_1(t) - u_2(t)} \dd x.
\end{displaymath}
Fix $i\in \{1, \ldots, m\}$, i.e. consider each term in the sum
separately:
\begin{eqnarray*}
&
& \int_{\mathbb X_i^t}
\modulo{u_1(t) - u_2(t)} \dd x
\\
& \le
& \int_{\mathbb X_i^t}
\left|
u_{b,1}\left(T (t,x), X\left(T (t,x); t, x\right)\right)
\mathcal E_1\left(T (t,x), t, x\right)
\right.
\\
&
& \qquad\qquad
\left.
- u_{b,2}\left(T (t,x), X\left(T (t,x); t, x\right)\right)
\mathcal E_2\left(T (t,x), t, x\right)
\right| \dd x
\\
&
& \quad +
\int_{\mathbb X_i^t} \int_{T (t,x)}^t
\modulo{q_1\left(\tau, X\left(\tau; t, x\right)\right)
\mathcal E_1\left(\tau, t, x\right)
- q_2\left(\tau, X\left(\tau; t, x\right)\right)
\mathcal E_2\left(\tau, t, x\right)} \dd \tau \dd x
\\
& \le
& \int_{\mathbb X_i^t}
\mathcal E_1\left(T (t,x), t, x\right)
\\
&
& \qquad \qquad \times
\modulo{
u_{b,1}\left(T (t,x), X\left(T (t,x); t, x\right)\right)
-
u_{b,2}\left(T (t,x), X\left(T (t,x); t, x\right)\right)
} \dd x
\\
&
& \quad + \int_{\mathbb X_i^t}
\modulo{u_{b,2}\left(T (t,x), X\left(T (t,x); t, x\right)\right)}
\modulo{
\mathcal E_1\left(T (t,x), t, x\right)
-
\mathcal E_2\left(T (t,x), t, x\right)} \dd x
\\
&
& \quad + \int_{\mathbb X_i^t} \int_{T (t,x)}^t
\mathcal E_1\left(\tau, t, x\right)
\modulo{q_1\left(\tau, X\left(\tau; t, x\right)\right)
- q_2\left(\tau, X\left(\tau; t, x\right)\right)
} \dd \tau \dd x
\\
&
& \quad + \int_{\mathbb X_i^t} \int_{T (t,x)}^t
\modulo{q_2\left(\tau, X\left(\tau; t, x\right)\right)}
\, \modulo{
\mathcal E_1\left(\tau, t, x\right)
-
\mathcal E_2\left(\tau, t, x\right)} \dd \tau \dd x.
\end{eqnarray*}
We now use the diffeomorphism $M_i$ as defined in~\eqref{eq:20-new},
for $i \in \{1, \ldots, m\}$, and we use the set $\Xi^i_t$ as
in~\eqref{eq:27}. We thus obtain, using~\eqref{eq:35}, that
\begin{align*}
&
\quad \int_{\mathbb X_i^t}
\modulo{u_1(t,x) - u_2(t,x)} \dd x
\\
& \leq
\iint_{\Gamma_i}
\exp\left(\int_\tau^t p_1 \left(s,X (s;\tau,\xi)\right)\dd{s}\right)
\modulo{u_{b,1}(\tau,\xi) - u_{b,2}(\tau, \xi)} \,
v_i (\tau,\xi) \dd \xi \dd\tau
\\
&
\quad +
\iint_{\Gamma_i} \modulo{u_{b,2}(\tau, \xi)}
\\
& \qquad \times
\modulo{
\exp\left(\int_\tau^t p_1 \left(s,X (s;\tau,\xi)\right)\dd{s}\right)
-
\exp\left(\int_\tau^t p_2 \left(s,X (s;\tau,\xi)\right)\dd{s}\right)
} \,
v_i (\tau,\xi) \dd \xi \dd\tau
\\
& \quad + \iint_{\Xi^i_t}
\exp\left(\int_\tau^t p_1 \left(s,X (s;\tau,\xi)\right)\dd{s}\right)
\modulo{q_1(\tau, \xi)- q_2(\tau, \xi)} \dd \tau \dd \xi
\\
& \quad + \iint_{\Xi^i_t}
\modulo{q_2(\tau, \xi)}
\\
& \qquad \times
\modulo{
\exp\left(\int_\tau^t p_1 \left(s,X (s;\tau,\xi)\right)\dd{s}\right)
-
\exp\left(\int_\tau^t p_2 \left(s,X (s;\tau,\xi)\right)\dd{s}\right)
}
\dd \tau \dd \xi
\\
& \leq
\mathcal{P}(t) \,
\norma{v}_{\LL\infty ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X}; \reali^{n+m})} \,
\norma{u_{b,1} - u_{b,2}}_{\LL1 (\Gamma_i; \reali)}
\\
& \quad +
\mathcal{P}(t) \, \norma{v}_{\LL\infty ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X}; \reali^{n+m})}
\,
\norma{u_{b,2}}_{\LL1 (\Gamma_i; \reali)} \,
\norma{p_1 - p_2}_{\LL1 ([0,t]; \LL\infty(\mathcal{X}; \reali))}
\\
& \quad +
\mathcal{P}(t) \, \norma{q_1 - q_2}_{\LL1 (\Xi^i_t; \reali)}
\\
& \quad +
\mathcal{P}(t) \, \norma{q_2}_{\LL1 (\Xi^i_t; \reali)} \,
\norma{p_1 - p_2}_{\LL1 ([0,t]; \LL\infty(\mathcal{X}; \reali))}
\\
& \le \mathcal{P}(t) \left(\norma{v}_{\LL\infty ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X};
\reali^{n+m})} \,
\norma{u_{b,1} - u_{b,2}}_{\LL1 (\Gamma_i; \reali)}
+ \norma{q_1 - q_2}_{\LL1 (\Xi^i_t; \reali)}\right)
\\
& \quad +
\mathcal{P}(t)
\norma{v}_{\LL\infty ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X}; \reali^{n+m})} \,
\norma{u_{b,2}}_{\LL1 (\Gamma_i; \reali)} \,
\norma{p_1 - p_2}_{\LL1 ([0,t]; \LL\infty(\mathcal{X};\reali))}
\\
& \quad +
\mathcal{P}(t)
\norma{q_2}_{\LL1 (\Xi^i_t; \reali)} \,
\norma{p_1 - p_2}_{\LL1 ([0,t]; \LL\infty(\mathcal{X};\reali))} \,.
\end{align*}
Therefore, using~\eqref{eq:stab-decomposition}, we deduce that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&
& \norma{u_1(t) - u_2(t)}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X}; \reali)}
\\
& \le
& \mathcal{P}(t)
\left(
\norma{u_{o,1} - u_{o,2}}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X}; \reali)}
+
\norma{q_1-q_2}_{\LL1 (X;([0,t]; 0, \mathcal{X});\reali)}
\right)
\\
&
& \quad +
\mathcal{P}(t)
\norma{u_{o,2}}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X};\reali)}
\norma{p_1 - p_2}_{\LL1 ([0,t]; \LL\infty(\mathcal{X}; \reali))}
\\
&
& \quad +
\mathcal{P}(t)
\norma{q_2}_{\LL1 (X;([0,t]; 0, \mathcal{X});\reali)} \,
\norma{p_1 - p_2}_{\LL1 ([0,t]; \LL\infty(\mathcal{X}; \reali))}
\\
&
& \quad + \sum_{i=1}^{m} \,
\mathcal{P}(t) \left(\norma{v}_{\LL\infty ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X};
\reali^{n+m})} \,
\norma{u_{b,1} - u_{b,2}}_{\LL1 (\Gamma_i; \reali)}
+ \norma{q_1 - q_2}_{\LL1 (\Xi^i_t; \reali)}\right)
\\
&
& \quad + \sum_{i=1}^{m} \,
\mathcal{P}(t)
\norma{v}_{\LL\infty ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X}; \reali^{n+m})} \,
\norma{u_{b,2}}_{\LL1 (\Gamma_i;\reali)} \,
\norma{p_1 - p_2}_{\LL1 ([0,t]; \LL\infty(\mathcal{X}; \reali))}
\\
&
& \quad + \sum_{i=1}^{m} \,
\mathcal{P}(t)
\norma{q_2}_{\LL1 (\Xi^i_t; \reali)} \,
\norma{p_1 - p_2}_{\LL1 ([0,t]; \LL\infty(\mathcal{X};\reali))}
\\
& \le
& \mathcal{P}(t) \norma{u_{o,1} - u_{o,2}}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X}; \reali)}
\\
&
& \quad + \mathcal{P}(t)
\norma{v}_{\LL\infty ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X}; \reali^{n+m})}
\norma{u_{b,1}- u_{b,2}}_{\LL1 ([0,t]\times \partial\mathcal{X};\reali)}
\\
&
& \quad + \mathcal{P}(t)
\norma{q_1-q_2}_{\LL1 ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X};\reali)}
\\
&
& \quad + \mathcal{P}(t)
\left(
\norma{u_o}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X}; \reali^k)}
+
\norma{v}_{\LL\infty ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X}; \reali^{n+m})}
\norma{u_{b,2}}_{\LL1 ([0,t]\times\partial\mathcal{X};\reali)}\right)
\norma{p_1-p_2}_{\LL1 ([0,t]; \LL\infty(\mathcal{X}; \reali))}
\\
&
& \quad + \mathcal{P}(t)
\norma{q_2}_{\LL1 ([0,t]\times \mathcal{X};\reali)} \,
\norma{p_1-p_2}_{\LL1 ([0,t]; \LL\infty(\mathcal{X};\reali))} \,,
\end{eqnarray*}
proving~\eqref{eq:stability-linear}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:ClassicalSolution}
Let $v$ satisfy~\ref{ip:(v)} with $k=1$,
$p \in \LL\infty(I \times \mathcal{X}; \reali)$,
$q \in \LL1(I \times \mathcal{X}; \reali)$,
$u_b \in \LL1 (I \times \partial \mathcal{X}; \reali)$ and $u_o$
satisfy~\ref{ip:(u0)} with $k=1$. Then, formula~\eqref{eq:8} defines
a solution $u = u (t,x)$ to~\eqref{eq:2} in the sense of
Definition~\ref{def:mvsol}. Moreover,
$u \in \C0 (I; \LL1 (\mathcal{X}; \reali))$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The first part of the proof amounts to a careful piecing together
various proofs found in the literature. In particular, the part of
the solution depending on the initial data is dealt with exactly as
in~\cite[Lemma~2.7]{Elena2015} and~\cite[Lemma~5.1]{Herty2011}. The
part depending on the boundary datum is treated in the same way,
exploiting the change of variables detailed in
Lemma~\ref{lem:t-new}.
To prove the $\C0$ regularity of the solution with respect to time,
fix a $\bar t \in I$ and a sequence $t_h$, with $t_h \in I$,
converging to $\bar t$. Then, assuming first that $t_h > t$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\norma{u (t_h) - u (\bar t)}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X};\reali)}
& =
& \int_{X (t_h;0,\mathcal{X})} \modulo{u (t_h, x) - u (\bar t, x)} \dd{ x}
\\
&
& + \int_{\mathcal{X} \setminus (X (t_h;0,\mathcal{X}) \cup X (\bar t;[0,\bar t[,\partial \mathcal{X}))}
\modulo{u (t_h, x) - u (\bar t, x)} \dd{ x}
\\
&
& + \int_{X (\bar t;[0,\bar t[,\partial \mathcal{X})} \modulo{u (t_h, x) - u (\bar t, x)} \dd{ x} \,.
\end{eqnarray*}
The second term vanishes as $h \to +\infty$, since it is the
integral of a bounded quantity over a set of vanishing
measure. Consider now the first term, the third one can be treated
similarly.
\begin{eqnarray*}
&
& \int_{X (t_h;0,\mathcal{X})} \modulo{u (t_h, x) - u (\bar t, x)} \dd{ x}
\\
& =
& \int_{\mathcal{X}} \modulo{u (t_h, x) - u (\bar t, x)} \,
\caratt{X (t_h;0,\mathcal{X})} ( x) \, \dd{ x}
\\
& \leq
& \int_{\mathcal{X}}
\modulo{
u_o\left(X (0; t_h,x)\right)\, \mathcal{E} (\tau, t_h, x)
-
u_o\left(X (0; \bar t,x)\right)\, \mathcal{E} (\tau, \bar t, x)}
\,
\caratt{X (t_h;0,\mathcal{X})} ( x)
\dd x
\\
& +
& \int_{\mathcal{X}}
\left|
\int_0^{t_h}
q\left(\tau, X (\tau;t_h, x)\right) \,
\mathcal{E}\left(\tau, t_h, x\right) \,
\dd\tau
\right.
\\
&
& \qquad
\left.
-
\int_0^{\bar t}
q\left(\tau, X (\tau; \bar t, x)\right) \,
\mathcal{E}\left(\tau, \bar t, x\right) \,
\dd \tau
\right| \,
\caratt{X (t_h;0,\mathcal{X})} ( x)\dd x
\end{eqnarray*}
As $h \to +\infty$, we have that
\begin{eqnarray*}
u_o\left(X (0; t_h,x)\right)\, \mathcal{E} (\tau, t_h, x)
& \to
& u_o\left(X (0; \bar t,x)\right)\, \mathcal{E} (\tau, \bar t, x)
\\
\int_0^{t_h}
q\left(\tau, X (\tau;t_h, x)\right) \,
\mathcal{E}\left(\tau, t_h, x\right) \,
\dd\tau
& \to
& \int_0^{\bar t}
q\left(\tau, X (\tau; \bar t, x)\right) \,
\mathcal{E}\left(\tau, \bar t, x\right) \,
\dd\tau
\end{eqnarray*}
for a.e.~$x \in \mathcal{X}$, so that the corresponding integrals
vanish by Lebesgue Dominated Convergence Theorem, which we can apply
thanks to the $\LL1$ \emph{a priori} bound \eqref{eq:17}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The General Case of a System}
Below, in the various estimates we use the following norms:
\begin{displaymath}
\begin{array}{@{}r@{\,}c@{\,}l@{\quad}r@{\,}c@{\,}l@{}}
\norma{u}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X};\reali^k)}
& =
& \sum_{h=1}^k \int_{\mathcal{X}} \modulo{u^h (x)} \dd{x}
&
\norma{u}_{\LL\infty (I\times\mathcal{X}; \reali^k)}
& =
& \sum_{h=1}^k \norma{u^h}_{\LL\infty (I\times\mathcal{X}; \reali)}
\\
\norma{u}_{\LL\infty(I;\LL1(\mathcal{X}; \reali^k))}
& =
& \sum_{h = 1}^k
\norma{u^h}_{\LL\infty(I;\LL1\left(\mathcal{X}; \reali\right))}\,.
\end{array}
\end{displaymath}
\begin{proofof}{Theorem~\ref{thm:main}}
The proof is divided in several steps. Let $I = [0,T]$ for $T>0$.
\paragraph{Construction of the Operator $\mathcal T$.} In the
Banach space $\C0 (I; \LL1 (\mathcal{X}; \reali^k))$, for
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:24}
M > \norma{u_o}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X};\reali^k)} + 1,
\end{equation}
introduce the closed subset $X$ and the norm $\norma{\cdot}_X$:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:X_M}
X
= \
& \left\{
w \in \C0(I; \LL1(\mathcal{X}; \reali^k)) \colon
\norma{w}_{\LL\infty(I;\LL1(\mathcal{X}; \reali^k)) }
\leq
M
\right\} \,,
\\
\label{eq:X_M-norm}
\norma{w}_X
= \
& \sum_{h = 1}^k
\norma{w^h}_{\LL\infty(I;\LL1\left(\mathcal{X}; \reali\right))} \,.
\end{align}
Define the operator
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:operator-T}
\begin{array}{rccc}
\mathcal T:
& X
& \longrightarrow
& X
\\
&
w
& \longmapsto
& u \equiv \left(u^1, \ldots, u^k\right)
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where, for every $h \in \left\{1, \ldots, k\right\}$, $u^h$ solves
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:T-sol}
\!\!\!\!\left\{
\begin{array}{@{\,}l@{\qquad}r@{\,}c@{\,}l@{}}
\partial_t u^h
+
\diver_x \left(v^h (t,x) u^h\right)
=
p^h \left(t, x, w(t)\right) u^h
\\
\hspace{4.6cm} + q^h \left(t, x, w(t, x), w(t)\right)
& (t,x)
& \in
& I \times\mathcal{X}
\\
u^h (t,\xi) = u_b^h \left(t, \xi, w (t)\right)
& (t,\xi)
& \in
& I \times \partial\mathcal{X}
\\
u^h (0,x) = u_o^h (x)
& x
& \in
& \mathcal{X}\,.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
\paragraph{$\mathcal T$ is Well Defined.} We prove that, for
$w \in X$ and $h \in \left\{1, \ldots, k\right\}$, the source term
in~\eqref{eq:T-sol}
\begin{displaymath}
\mathcal{G}^h (t,x, u^h)
=
\mathcal{P}^h (t, x) \, u^h + \mathcal{Q}^h (t, x)
\quad \mbox{ where } \quad
\begin{array}{r@{\,}c@{\,}l}
\mathcal{P}^h (t, x)
& =
& p^h \left(t, x, w(t)\right)
\\
\mathcal{Q}^h (t, x)
& =
& q^h \left(t, x, w(t, x), w(t)\right)
\end{array}
\end{displaymath}
is such that
$\mathcal{P}^h \in \LL\infty(I \times \mathcal{X}; \reali)$ and
$\mathcal{Q}^h \in \LL1(I \times \mathcal{X}; \reali)$.
By~\ref{hyp:g_a}, for every $t \in I$ and $x \in \mathcal{X}$, using
also~\eqref{eq:X_M}, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
\modulo{\mathcal{P}^h (t,x)}
& =
& \modulo{p^h \left(t, x, w(t)\right)}
\; \le \, P_1 + P_2 \; \norma{w(t)}_{\LL1(\mathcal{X}; \reali^k)} \,;
\\
\label{eq:G_a_Linfty}
\norma{\mathcal{P}^h}_{\LL\infty(I \times \mathcal{X}; \reali)}
& \le
& P_1 + P_2\, M,
\end{eqnarray}
proving that $(t,x) \mapsto \mathcal{P}^h(t,x)$ is in
$\LL\infty (I \times \mathcal{X}; \reali)$. On the other hand,
by~\ref{hyp:g_b} we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
&
& \norma{\mathcal{Q}^h}_{\LL1 ([0,T]\times\mathcal{X};\reali)}
\\
\nonumber
& =
& \int_0^T \int_{\mathcal{X}}
\modulo{\mathcal{Q}^h (t,x)}
\dd x\, \dd t
\\
\nonumber
& =
& \int_0^T \int_{\mathcal{X}}
\modulo{q^h\left(t, x, w(t,x), w(t)\right)}
\dd x\, \dd t
\\
\nonumber
& \leq
& Q_1 \int_0^T \int_{\mathcal{X}} \norma{w(t,x)} \dd x\, \dd t
\\
\nonumber
& \quad
& + \int_0^T \int_{\mathcal{X}} Q_2(x)
\norma{w(t)}_{\LL1(\mathcal{X};\reali^k)}\dd x\, \dd t
+ Q_3 \int_0^T \int_{\mathcal{X}} \norma{w(t,x)} \,
\norma{w(t)}_{\LL1(\mathcal{X};\reali^k)}
\dd x\, \dd t
\\
\label{eq:34}
& \leq
& Q_1 T \norma{w}_X + \norma{Q_2}_{\LL1(\mathcal{X}; \reali)}
T \norma{w}_X
+ Q_3 T \norma{w}_X^2,
\end{eqnarray}
proving that $(t, x) \mapsto \mathcal{Q}^h (t,x)$ is in
$\LL1(I \times \mathcal{X}; \reali)$.
Now we prove that, for every $w \in X$ and
$h \in \left\{1, \ldots, k\right\}$, the boundary term
$\mathcal{U}_b^h (t,\xi) = u^h_b \left(t, \xi, w(t)\right)$
in~\eqref{eq:T-sol} satisfies
$\mathcal{U}_b^h \in \LL1 (I \times \partial \mathcal{X}; \reali)$.
By~\ref{ip:(ub)} we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\norma{\mathcal{U}^h_b}_{\LL1 (I\times \partial\mathcal{X}; \reali)}
& =
& \int_0^T \!\! \int_{\partial \mathcal{X}}
\modulo{u_b^h\left(t, \xi, w(t)\right)}
\dd \xi \dd t
\\
& \leq
& \int_0^T \!\! \int_{\partial \mathcal{X}} B(\xi)
\norma{w(t)}_{\LL1(\mathcal{X}; \reali^k)}\dd \xi \dd t
+
\int_0^T \!\! \int_{\partial \mathcal{X}} B(\xi)
\dd \xi \dd t
\\
& \leq
& \norma{B}_{\LL1(\partial \mathcal{X}; \reali)}
\left(\norma{w}_X + 1\right) \, T \,.
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence Proposition~\ref{prop:ClassicalSolution} applies
to~\eqref{eq:T-sol}. To conclude this step, we need to show that
the solution
$u(t, x) \equiv \left(u^1(t, x), \ldots, u^k(t,x)\right)$ belongs to
$X$ in~\eqref{eq:X_M}. By~\eqref{eq:17}, \eqref{eq:G_a_Linfty},
\eqref{eq:34} and since $w \in X$, for $t \in I$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\norma{u^h (t)}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X};\reali)}
& \leq
& e^{(P_1 + P_2 M)t}
\left(
\norma{\mathcal{Q}^h}_{\LL1 ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X};\reali)}
+
\norma{u_o^h}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X};\reali)}\right)
\\
&
& + e^{(P_1 + P_2 M)t}
\sum_{i=1}^{m}
\iint_{\Gamma_i}
\modulo{u_b^h\left(\tau,\xi,w (\tau)\right)} \, v^h_i (\tau,\xi)
\dd\tau \dd\xi
\\
& \leq
& \Big[
\left(
Q_1
+
\norma{Q_2}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X};\reali)}
+
Q_3 \, \norma{w}_X
\right)
T \,
\norma{w}_X
+
\norma{u_o^h}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X};\reali)}
\\
&
& +
\norma{B}_{\LL1(\partial \mathcal{X}; \reali)} \,
\norma{v}_{\LL\infty (I\times\mathcal{X};\reali^{k\times(n+m)})} \,
T \left(\norma{w}_X + 1\right) \Big]
e^{(P_1 + P_2 M)t}
\\
& \leq
& \Big[
\left(
Q_1
+
\norma{Q_2}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X};\reali)}
+
Q_3 \, M
\right)
T \, M
+
\norma{u_o^h}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X};\reali)}
\\
&
& +
\norma{B}_{\LL1(\partial \mathcal{X}; \reali)} \,
\norma{v}_{\LL\infty (I\times\mathcal{X};\reali^{k\times(n+m)})}\,
T (M + 1) \Big]
e^{(P_1 + P_2 M)t}
\\
& \leq
& \left(
\norma{u_o^h}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X};\reali)}
+
\frac{1}{2k}\right)
e^{(P_1 + P_2 M)T},
\end{eqnarray*}
whence $\norma{u (t)}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X};\reali^k)} \leq M$, once
$T$ is sufficiently small, thanks to the choice~\eqref{eq:24} of
$M$.
\paragraph{$\mathcal T$ is a Contraction.} Fix $\hat w$ and
$\check w$ in $X_M$ and call $\hat u =\mathcal{T} \hat w$,
$\check u = \mathcal{T} \check w$. Use the notation
\begin{displaymath}
\!\!\!
\begin{array}{@{}r@{\,}c@{\,}lr@{\,}c@{\,}lr@{\,}c@{\,}l@{}}
\hat{\mathcal{P}}^h (t,x)
& =
& p^h\left(t, x, \hat w (t)\right),
& \hat{\mathcal{Q}}^h (t,x)
& =
& q^h\left(t, x, \hat w (t,x), \hat w (t)\right),
& \hat{\mathcal{U}}_b^h (t,\xi)
& =
& u_b^h\left(t, \xi, \hat w (t)\right),
\\
\check{\mathcal{P}}^h (t,x)
& =
& p^h\left(t, x, \check w (t)\right),
& \check{\mathcal{Q}}^h (t,x)
& =
& q^h\left(t, x, \check w (t,x), \check w (t)\right),
& \check{\mathcal{U}}_b^h (t,\xi)
& =
& u_b^h\left(t, \xi, \check w (t)\right).
\end{array}
\end{displaymath}
Then, by Lemma~\ref{lem:stability-linear-system} and
by~\eqref{eq:G_a_Linfty}, we have:
\begin{align}
\nonumber
& \norma{\hat u^h (t) - \check u^h (t)}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X}; \reali)}
\\
\nonumber
\le
& \, e^{(P_1 + P_2 M) t} \,
\norma{v}_{\LL\infty ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X};\reali^{n+m})}
\norma{\hat{\mathcal{U}}_b^h - \check{\mathcal{U}}_b^h}
_{\LL1 ([0,t] \times \partial\mathcal{X};\reali)}
\\
\nonumber
& \quad +
e^{(P_1 + P_2 M) t}
\norma{\hat{\mathcal{Q}}^h - \check{\mathcal{Q}}^h}
_{\LL1 ([0,t] \times \mathcal{X};\reali)}
\\
\nonumber
& \quad +
\left(
M
+
\norma{v}_{\LL\infty (I\times \mathcal{X}; \reali^{k\times (n+m)})}
\norma{\check{\mathcal{U}}^h_b}_{\LL1 ([0,t]\times\partial\mathcal{X};\reali)}
+\norma{\check{\mathcal{Q}}^h}_{\LL1 ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X};\reali)}
\right)
\\
\label{eq:28}
& \qquad
\times e^{(P_1+P_2 M)t}
\norma{\hat{\mathcal{P}}^h - \check{\mathcal{P}}^h}_{\LL1 ([0,t]; \LL\infty(\mathcal{X}; \reali))} \,.
\end{align}
By~\ref{hyp:g_a} we have:
\begin{align}
\nonumber
\norma{\hat{\mathcal{P}}^h - \check{\mathcal{P}}^h}
_{\LL1([0, t]; \LL\infty(\mathcal{X}; \reali))}
& \le \int_0^t \norma{\hat{\mathcal{P}}^h(s) - \check{\mathcal{P}}^h(s)}
_{\LL\infty(\mathcal{X}; \reali)} \dd s
\\
\nonumber
& \le P_2
\int_0^t \norma{\hat w(s) - \check w(s)}
_{\LL1(\mathcal{X}; \reali^k)} \dd s
\\
\label{eq:29}
& \le P_2 \, \norma{\hat w - \check w}_X \, T \,.
\end{align}
By~\ref{hyp:g_b} we have:
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
&
& \norma{\hat{\mathcal{Q}}^h - \check{\mathcal{Q}}^h}_{\LL1 ([0,t] \times \mathcal{X};\reali)}
\\
\nonumber
& \leq
& Q_1 \, \norma{\hat w - \check w}_{\LL1 ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X}; \reali^k)}
+
Q_3 \, \norma{\hat w}_{\LL\infty([0,t];\LL1 (\mathcal{X}; \reali^k))}
\, \norma{\hat w - \check w}_{\LL1 ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X}; \reali^k)}
\\
\nonumber
&
& +
Q_3 \, \norma{\check w}_{\LL\infty ([0,t]; \LL1 (\mathcal{X}; \reali^k))} \,
\, \norma{\hat w - \check w}_{\LL1([0,t] \times \mathcal{X}; \reali^k)}
\\
\label{eq:30}
& \leq
& (Q_1 + 2 \, M \, Q_3) \, \norma{\hat w - \check w}_X \, T \,.
\end{eqnarray}
Similarly, by~\ref{ip:(ub)}, we have:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:31}
\norma{\hat{\mathcal{U}}_b^h - \check{\mathcal{U}}_b^h}_{\LL1 ([0,t] \times \partial\mathcal{X};\reali)}
\leq
\norma{B}_{\LL1 (\partial \mathcal{X}; \reali)} \,
\norma{\hat w - \check w}_X \, T \,.
\end{equation}
Therefore $\mathcal{T}$ is a contraction as soon as $T$ is
sufficiently small.
\paragraph{Existence of a Solution for Small Times.} Proving that
the unique fixed point of $\mathcal{T}$ solves~\eqref{eq:1} in the
sense of Definition~\ref{def:sol} amounts to pass to the limit in
the integral inequality~\eqref{eq:mv}. This is possible thanks to
the strong convergence ensured by the choice~\eqref{eq:X_M-norm} of
the norm in $X$. The proof of~\ref{thm:it:1} is completed.
\paragraph{Uniqueness.} Assume that~\eqref{eq:32} admits the
solutions $\hat u$ and $\check u$ in the sense of
Definition~\ref{def:sol}. Then, their difference
$\delta = \hat u - \check u$ solves
\begin{displaymath}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\partial_t \delta^h + \div \left(v^h (t,x) \, \delta^h\right)
=
\hat{\mathcal{G}}^h (t,x) - \check{\mathcal{G}}^h (t,x)
\\
\delta^h (t,\xi)
=
\hat{\mathcal{U}}^h_b (t,\xi) - \check{\mathcal{U}}^h_b (t,\xi)
\\
\delta^h (0,x) = 0
\end{array}
\right.
\end{displaymath}
in the sense of Definition~\ref{def:sol}, where
\begin{displaymath}
\begin{array}{r@{\,}c@{\,}l@{;\qquad}r@{\,}c@{\,}l}
\hat{\mathcal{G}}^h (t,x)
& =
& p^h\left(t,x,\hat u (t)\right) \hat u^h
+ q^h\left(t,x,\hat u, \hat u (t)\right)
& \hat{\mathcal{U}}^h_b (t,\xi)
& =
& \hat u_b^h \left(t,\xi,\hat u (t)\right) \,;
\\
\check{\mathcal{G}}^h (t,x)
& =
& p^h\left(t,x,\check u (t)\right) \check u^h
+ q^h\left(t,x,\check u, \check u (t)\right)
& \check{\mathcal{U}}^h_b (t,\xi)
& =
& \check u_b^h \left(t,\xi,\check u (t)\right) \,.
\end{array}
\end{displaymath}
A straightforward application of the classical doubling of variable
method~\cite{Kruzkov}, see~\cite[Lemma~16, Lemma~17]{Martin},
\cite[Theorem~7.28]{MalekEtAlBook}, and
also~\cite[Proposition~2.8]{Elena2015}, leads to the stability
estimate
\begin{eqnarray*}
\norma{\delta^h (t)}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X}; \reali)}
& \leq
& \int_0^t
\norma{
\hat{\mathcal{G}}^h (\tau) - \check{\mathcal{G}}^h (\tau)
}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X}; \reali)} \dd\tau
\\
&
& +
\norma{v^h}_{\LL\infty (I\times\mathcal{X};\reali^{n+m})} \;
\int_0^t
\norma{
\hat{\mathcal{U}}^h_b (\tau) - \check{\mathcal{U}}^h_b (\tau)
}_{\LL1 (\partial \mathcal{X}; \reali)} \dd\tau \,.
\end{eqnarray*}
The assumptions~\ref{hyp:g_a} and~\ref{hyp:g_b} allow now to use
Gronwall Lemma, proving that $\delta \equiv 0$.
\bigskip
\paragraph{Continuous Dependence on the Initial Datum.} With the
notation in~\ref{thm:it:ID}, define
\begin{displaymath}
\begin{array}{@{}r@{\,}c@{\,}lr@{\,}c@{\,}lr@{\,}c@{\,}l@{}}
\hat{\mathcal{P}}^h (t,x)
& =
& p^h\left(t, x, \hat u (t)\right),
& \hat{\mathcal{Q}}^h (t,x)
& =
& q^h\left(t, x, \hat u (t,x), \hat u (t)\right),
& \hat{\mathcal{U}}_b^h (t,\xi)
& =
& u_b^h\left(t, \xi, \hat u (t)\right),
\\
\check{\mathcal{P}}^h (t,x)
& =
& p^h\left(t, x, \check u (t)\right),
& \check{\mathcal{Q}}^h (t,x)
& =
& q^h\left(t, x, \check u (t,x), \check u (t)\right),
& \check{\mathcal{U}}_b^h (t,\xi)
& =
& u_b^h\left(t, \xi, \check u (t)\right),
\end{array}
\end{displaymath}
for $t \in I$ and $h \in \left\{1, \ldots, k\right\}$. A further
application of Lemma~\ref{lem:stability-linear-system} allows to
estimate the difference between the solutions $\hat u$ and
$\check u$.
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:stab-est-proof}
& \norma{\hat{u}^h(t) - \check{u}^h(t)}_{\LL1
(\mathcal{X};\reali)}
\\
\le & \; e^{(P_1 + P_2 M) t} \left(\norma{\hat u_{o,h} - \check
u_{o,h}}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X}; \reali)} + \norma{v}_{\LL\infty
([0,t]\times\mathcal{X};\reali^{n+m})}
\norma{\hat{\mathcal{U}}^h - \check{\mathcal{U}}^h} _{\LL1
([0,t] \times \partial\mathcal{X};\reali)}\right)
\\
& \quad + e^{(P_1 + P_2 M) t}
\left(\norma{\hat{\mathcal{Q}}^h-\check{\mathcal{Q}}^h} _{\LL1
([0,t] \times \mathcal{X};\reali)} + K \norma{\hat{\mathcal
P}^h - \check{\mathcal P}^h} _{\LL1([0, t];
\LL\infty(\mathcal{X}; \reali))}\right),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where, by~\ref{hyp:g_b} and~\ref{ip:(ub)},
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
K & = \norma{\hat u_{o,h} }_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X}; \reali)} +
\norma{v}_{\LL\infty ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X};\reali^{n+m})}
\norma{\check{\mathcal{U}}^h} _{\LL1 ([0,t] \times
\partial\mathcal{X};\reali)} +\norma{\check{\mathcal{Q}}^h}
_{\LL1 ([0,t] \times \mathcal{X};\reali)}
\\
& \le M + \norma{v}_{\LL\infty
([0,t]\times\mathcal{X};\reali^{n+m})}
\norma{B}_{\LL1(\partial \mathcal{X}; \reali)} \left(M +
1\right) \, T + Q_1 T M + \norma{Q_2}_{\LL1(\mathcal{X};
\reali)} T M + Q_3 T M^2.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Using~\ref{ip:(ub)}, \ref{hyp:g_b} and~\ref{hyp:g_a}, we have:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\norma{\hat{\mathcal{U}}^h - \check{\mathcal{U}}^h}
_{\LL1 ([0,t]\times \partial\mathcal{X}; \reali)}
& \leq
& \norma{B}_{\LL1 (\partial\mathcal{X};\reali)} \,
\norma{\hat u - \check u}_{\LL1 ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X}; \reali^k)},
\\
\norma{\hat{\mathcal{Q}}^h - \check{\mathcal{Q}}^h}
_{\LL1 ([0,t]\times \mathcal{X}; \reali)}
& \leq
& Q_1 \norma{\hat u^h - \check u^h}_{\LL1 ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X}; \reali)}
\\
&
& +
Q_3
\left(
\norma{\hat u}_{\LL\infty ([0,t];\LL1 (\mathcal{X};\reali^k))}
+
\norma{\check u}_{\LL\infty ([0,t];\LL1 (\mathcal{X};\reali^k))}
\right)
\\
&
& \qquad \times
\norma{\hat u - \check u}_{\LL1 ([0,t]\times \mathcal{X};\reali^k)}
\\
& \leq
& Q_1\, \norma{\hat u^h - \check u^h}_{\LL1 ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X}; \reali)}
+
2 M Q_3 \,
\norma{\hat u - \check u}_{\LL1 ([0,t]\times \mathcal{X};\reali^k)},
\\
\norma{\hat{\mathcal{P}}^h - \check{\mathcal{P}}^h}
_{\LL1 ([0,t]; \LL\infty\left(\mathcal{X}; \reali\right))}
& \le
& \int_0^t \norma{\hat{\mathcal{P}}^h(s) - \check{\mathcal{P}}^h(s)}
_{\LL\infty(\mathcal{X}; \reali)} \dd s
\\
& \le
& \int_0^t
\norma{
p^h\left(s, \cdot, \hat u (s)\right)
-
p^h\left(s, \cdot, \check u (s)\right)}_{\LL\infty(\mathcal{X}; \reali)}
\dd s
\\
& \le
& P_2 \int_0^t
\norma{\hat u(s) - \check u(s)}_{\LL1(\mathcal{X}; \reali^k)} \dd s
\\
& =
& P_2 \, \norma{\hat u - \check u}
_{\LL1([0, t] \times \mathcal{X}; \reali^k)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Inserting these estimates into~\eqref{eq:stab-est-proof} we deduce
that
\begin{align*}
& \norma{\hat{u}^h(t) - \check{u}^h(t)}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X};\reali)}
\\
\le \
& e^{(P_1 + P_2 M) t}
\norma{\hat u_{o} - \check u_{o}}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X}; \reali^k)}
\\
& + e^{(P_1 + P_2 M) t}\! \left(
\norma{v}_{\LL\infty ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X};\reali^{n+m})}
\norma{B}_{\LL1 (\partial\mathcal{X}; \reali)}+
Q_1 + 2M Q_3 + K P_2 \right) \!
\norma{\hat u - \check u}_{\LL1 ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X}; \reali^k)}.
\end{align*}
Sum over $h = 1, \ldots, k$ and use Gronwall Lemma to
prove~\ref{thm:it:ID}, completing the proof.
\end{proofof}
\begin{proofof}{Corollary~\ref{cor:piu}}
For every $w \in X$, with $X$ as in~\eqref{eq:X_M}, define
$u = \mathcal T w$ as the image of $w$ through the operator
$\mathcal T$, defined in~\eqref{eq:operator-T}. By~\eqref{eq:8}, we
deduce that $u^h(t, x) \ge 0$ for a.e.~$x \in \mathcal{X}$. This
implies that also the unique fixed point of the operator
$\mathcal T$ has the same property, thus~\eqref{eq:positivity}
holds.
\end{proofof}
\begin{proofof}{Corollary~\ref{cor:assumpt-defin-result}}
By Theorem~\ref{thm:main}, we know that there exists a solution
$u \in \C0 ([0,T]; \LL1 (\mathcal{X}; \reali^k))$ and that this
solution can be uniquely extended beyond time $T$ as long as
$\norma{u (T)}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X}; \reali^k)}$ is bounded. By
Corollary~\ref{cor:piu},
$\norma{u (t)}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X}; \reali^k)} = \sum_{h=1}^k
\int_{\mathcal{X}} u^h (t,x) \dd{x}$. Using~\eqref{eq:32}, the
Divergence Theorem and~\ref{ip:(ub)}, we have
\begin{align*}
& \dfrac{\dd{~}}{\dd{t}} \norma{u (t)}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X}; \reali^k)}
\\
= \
& \dfrac{\dd{~}}{\dd{t}}
\sum_{h=1}^k
\int_{\mathcal{X}} u^h (t,x) \dd{x}
\\
= \
& \sum_{h=1}^k
\int_{\mathcal{X}}
\left(
p^h\left(t,x, u (t)\right) u (t)
+
q^h\left(t,x, u (t,x), u (t)\right)
\right)
\dd{x}
+
\sum_{h=1}^k \int_{\partial\mathcal{X}}
u_b^h \left(t, \xi, u (t)\right) \dd\xi
\\
\leq \
& \int_{\mathcal{X}} \left(C_1 (t,x) + C_2 (t)\, \sum_{h=1}^k u^h (t,x)\right) \dd{x}
+ \int_{\partial\mathcal{X}} B (\xi)
\left(k + \norma{u (t)}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X}; \reali^k)}\right) \dd\xi
\\
= \
& \left(\norma{C_1}_{\LL\infty ([0,t]; \LL1(\mathcal{X}; \reali))}
{+}
k \, \norma{B}_{\LL1 (\partial\mathcal{X}; \reali)}\right)
+
\left(
\norma{C_2}_{\LL\infty ([0,t]; \reali)}
{+}
\norma{B}_{\LL1 (\partial\mathcal{X}; \reali)}
\right)
\norma{u (t)}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X}; \reali^k)}
\end{align*}
and usual ODE estimates ensure that
$\norma{u (t)}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X}; \reali^k)}$ is bounded on bounded
intervals.
\end{proofof}
\begin{proofof}{Theorem~\ref{thm:stab}}
We divide the proof in several steps.
\paragraph{Theorem~\ref{thm:main} Applies.}
We first check that the assumptions of Theorem~\ref{thm:main} hold.
\textbf{\ref{hyp:g_a} holds.} Fix
$h \in \left\{1, \ldots, k\right\}$, $t \in I$ and
$x \in \mathcal X$. If $w \in \LL1(\mathcal X; \reali^k)$, then
\begin{align*}
\modulo{p^h\left(t, x, w\right)}
& \le \bar P_1 + \bar P_2
\norma{\int_{\mathcal X}{\mathcal K}^h_p\left(t, x, x'\right) w(x')
\dd x'}
\\
& \le \bar P_1 + \bar P_2 \norma{{\mathcal K}^h_p}_{\LL\infty([0,t]\times
\mathcal X^2; \reali^{k_p k})}
\norma{w}_{\LL1(\mathcal X; \reali^k)}.
\end{align*}
If $w_1, w_2 \in \LL1(\mathcal X; \reali^k)$, then
\begin{align*}
\modulo{p^h\left(t, x, w_1\right) - p^h\left(t, x, w_2\right)}
& \le \bar P_2
\norma{\int_{\mathcal X}\modulo{{\mathcal K}^h_p\left(t, x, x'\right)}
\modulo{w_1(x') - w_2(x')}
\dd x'}
\\
& \le \bar P_2 \norma{{\mathcal K}^h_p}_{\LL\infty([0,t]\times
\mathcal X^2; \reali^{k_p k})} \,
\norma{w_1 - w_2}_{\LL1(\mathcal X; \reali^k)}.
\end{align*}
Therefore \ref{hyp:g_a} holds with $P_1 = \bar P_1$ and
$P_2 = \bar P_2 \norma{{\mathcal K}^h_p}_{\LL\infty([0,t]\times
\mathcal X^2; \reali^{k_p k})}$.
\textbf{\ref{hyp:g_b} holds.} Fix
$h \in \left\{1, \ldots, k\right\}$, $t \in I$ and
$x \in \mathcal X$. If $u \in \reali^k$ and
$w \in \LL1(\mathcal X; \reali^k)$, then
\begin{align*}
\modulo{q^h\left(t, x, u, w\right)}
& = \modulo{Q^h\left(t, x, u,
\int_{\mathcal X}{\mathcal K}^h_q\left(t, x, x'\right) w(x')
\dd x'\right)}
\\
&
\le \bar Q_1 \norma{u} {+} \bar Q_2(x)
\norma{\int_{\mathcal X} \! {\mathcal K}^h_q\left(t, x, x'\right) w(x')
\dd x'}
{+} \bar Q_3 \norma{u}
\norma{\int_{\mathcal X} \! {\mathcal K}^h_q\left(t, x, x'\right) w(x') \dd x'}
\\
& \le \bar Q_1 \norma{u}
+ \left(\bar Q_2(x) + \bar Q_3 \norma{u}\right)
\norma{{\mathcal K}^h_q}_{\LL\infty([0,t]\times \mathcal X^2; \reali^{k_q k})}
\norma{w}_{\LL1(\mathcal X; \reali^k)}.
\end{align*}
If $u_1, u_2 \in \reali^k$ and
$w_1, w_2 \in \LL1(\mathcal X; \reali^k)$, then
\begin{align*}
& \modulo{q^h\left(t, x, u_1, w_1\right) - q^h\left(t, x, u_2, w_2\right)}
\\
& \le \bar Q_1 \norma{u_1 - u_2}
+ \bar Q_3 \norma{{\mathcal K}^h_u}
_{\LL\infty([0,t] \times \mathcal X^2; \reali^{k_q k})}
\norma{w_1}_{\LL1(\mathcal X; \reali^k)} \norma{u_1 - u_2}
\\
& \quad + \bar Q_3 \norma{u_2} \norma{{\mathcal K}^h_u}
_{\LL\infty([0,t] \times \mathcal X^2; \reali^{k_q k})}
\norma{w_1 - w_2}_{\LL1(\mathcal X; \reali^k)}.
\end{align*}
Therefore, condition~\ref{hyp:g_b} holds with $Q_1 = \bar Q_1$,
$Q_2(x) = \bar Q_2(x) \norma{{\mathcal
K}^h_q}_{\LL\infty([0,t]\times \mathcal X^2; \reali^{k_q k})}$,
and
$Q_3 = \bar Q_3(x) \norma{{\mathcal K}^h_q}_{\LL\infty([0,t]\times
\mathcal X^2; \reali^{k_q k})}$. \ref{hyp:g-positivity} is
straightforward.
\textbf{\ref{ip:(ub)} holds:}
\begin{align*}
\modulo{u_b^h (t,\xi,w)}
\leq \
&\bar B (\xi)
\left(
1
+
\norma{\int_{\mathcal{X}} {\mathcal K}^h_u (t,\xi,x') \, w (x') \dd{x'}}
\right)
\\
\leq \
&\bar B (\xi)
\left(
1
+
\norma{{\mathcal K}^h_u}_{\LL\infty ([0,t]\times\partial\mathcal{X} \times \mathcal{X}; \reali^{k_u k})} \, \norma{w}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X};\reali^k)}
\right) \,.
\\
\modulo{u_b^h (t,\xi,w)-u_b^h (t,\xi,w')}
\leq \
& \bar B (\xi)
\norma{{\mathcal K}^h_u}_{\LL\infty ([0,t]\times\partial\mathcal{X} \times \mathcal{X}; \reali^{k_u k})} \, \norma{w-w'}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X};\reali^k)}
\end{align*}
so~\ref{ip:(ub)} holds with
$B (\xi) = \bar B (\xi) \left(1 + \norma{{\mathcal K}_u}_{\LL\infty
([0,t]\times\partial\mathcal{X} \times \mathcal{X}; \reali^{k_u
k^2})}\right)$. Clearly, also~\ref{ip:(ub-2)} holds.
\paragraph{Stability Estimates.}We now pass to the stability
estimates. In each of the following cases, we keep $t \in I$ fixed
and $h \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$. Define
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:23}
\begin{array}{@{}r@{\,}c@{\,}l@{\quad
r@{\,}c@{\,}l@{\quad}r@{\,}c@{\,}l@{}}
\hat{\mathcal{U}}_b^h (t,\xi)
& =
& \hat{u}_b^h\left(t, \xi, \hat{u} (t)\right) ,
& \hat{\mathcal{Q}}^h (t,x)
& =
& \hat{q}^h \left(t,x,\hat{u} (t,x),\hat{u} (t)\right),
& \hat{\mathcal{P}}^h (t,x)
& =
& \hat{p}^h \left(t,x,\hat{u} (t)\right),
\\
\check{\mathcal{U}}_b^h (t,\xi)
& =
& \check{u}_b^h\left(t, \xi, \check{u} (t)\right) ,
& \check{\mathcal{Q}}^h (t,x)
& =
& \check{q}^h \left(t,x,\check{u}(t,x),\check{u}(t)\right),
& \check{\mathcal{P}}^h (t,x)
& =
& \check{p}^h \left(t,x,\check{u}(t)\right) .
\end{array}
\end{equation}
In order to use~\Cref{lem:stability-linear-system}, compute
preliminarily
\begin{displaymath}
\mathcal{P} (t)
=
\exp\left(t \, \max \left\{
\norma{\hat{\mathcal{P}}^h}_{\LL\infty ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X}; \reali)}
\,,\;
\norma{\check{\mathcal{P}}^h}_{\LL\infty ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X}; \reali)}
\right\}
\right)
\leq
\exp\left(t \, (P_1 + P_2 M)\right) \,,
\end{displaymath}
where $M$ is an upper bound for the $\LL\infty$ in time and $\LL1$
in space norms of both solutions. Therefore,
\Cref{lem:stability-linear-system} implies that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:stab-estimate-proof}
\begin{split}
& \norma{\hat{u}^h (t) - \check{u}^h (t)}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X};
\reali)}
\\
\leq\, & \mathcal{P} (t) \, \norma{v}_{\LL\infty
([0,t]\times\mathcal{X}; \reali^{n+m})} \,
\norma{\hat{\mathcal{U}}^h_b- \check{\mathcal{U}}^h_b} _{\LL1
([0,t]\times \partial\mathcal{X};\reali)} + \mathcal{P} (t) \,
\norma{\hat{\mathcal{Q}}^h - \check{\mathcal{Q}}^h} _{\LL1
([0,t]\times\mathcal{X};\reali)}
\\
& + \mathcal{P} (t) \, \left( \norma{u_o}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X};
\reali^k)} +\norma{\check{\mathcal{Q}}^h}_{\LL1 ([0,t]
\times \mathcal{X}; \reali)} \right)
\norma{\hat{\mathcal{P}}^h - \check{\mathcal{P}}^h} _{\LL1
([0,t]; \LL\infty(\mathcal{X}; \reali))}
\\
& + \mathcal{P} (t) \, \norma{v}_{\LL\infty
([0,t]\times\mathcal{X}; \reali^{k\times(n+m)})}\,
\norma{\check{\mathcal{U}}_{b}} _{\LL1
([0,t]\times\partial\mathcal{X};\reali^k)}
\norma{\hat{\mathcal{P}}^h - \check{\mathcal{P}}^h} _{\LL1
([0,t]; \LL\infty(\mathcal{X}; \reali))}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Then, we estimate the terms in~\eqref{eq:stab-estimate-proof}.
Using~\ref{ip:(ub)} and~\eqref{eq:23} we deduce that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&
& \norma{\hat{\mathcal{U}}^h_b- \check{\mathcal{U}}^h_b}_{\LL1 ([0,t]\times \partial\mathcal{X};\reali)}
\\
& =
& \int_0^t \int_{\partial\mathcal{X}}
\modulo{\hat{u}_b^h\left(\tau, \xi, \hat{u} (\tau)\right)
-
\check{u}_b^h\left(\tau, \xi, \check{u} (\tau)\right)
}
\dd\xi \dd{\tau}
\\
& \leq
& \int_0^t \int_{\partial\mathcal{X}}
\modulo{
\hat{u}_b^h\left(\tau, \xi, \hat{u} (\tau)\right)
-
\hat{u}_b^h\left(\tau, \xi, \check{u} (\tau)\right)
}
\dd\xi \dd{\tau}
\\
&
& +
\int_0^t \int_{\partial\mathcal{X}}
\modulo{
\hat{u}_b^h\left(\tau, \xi, \check{u} (\tau)\right)
-
\check{u}_b^h\left(\tau, \xi, \check{u} (\tau)\right)
}
\dd\xi \dd{\tau}
\\
& \le
& \norma{B}_{\LL1 (\partial\mathcal{X};\reali)} \,
\norma{\hat u - \check u}_{\LL1 ([0,t]\times \mathcal{X}; \reali^k)}
\\
&
& + \int_0^t \int_{\partial\mathcal{X}}
\modulo{
\hat U^h_b \left(
\tau, \xi,
\int_{\mathcal{X}} \hat{\mathcal{K}}^h_u (\tau,\xi,x') \, \check u (\tau,x') \dd{x'}
\right)
-
\hat U^h_b \left(
\tau, \xi,
\int_{\mathcal{X}} \check{\mathcal{K}}^h_u (\tau,\xi,x') \, \check u (\tau,x') \dd{x'}
\right)} \dd \xi\, \dd \tau
\\
&
& + \int_0^t \int_{\partial\mathcal{X}}
\modulo{
\hat U^h_b \left(
\tau, \xi,
\int_{\mathcal{X}} \check{\mathcal{K}}^h_u (\tau,\xi,x') \, \check u (\tau,x') \dd{x'}
\right)
-
\check U^h_b \left(
\tau, \xi,
\int_{\mathcal{X}} \check{\mathcal{K}}^h_u (\tau,\xi,x') \, \check u (\tau,x') \dd{x'}
\right)} \dd \xi\, \dd \tau
\\
& \le
& \norma{B}_{\LL1 (\partial\mathcal{X};\reali)} \,
\norma{\hat u - \check u}_{\LL1 ([0,t]\times \mathcal{X}; \reali^k)}
\\
&
& +
\int_0^t \int_{\partial\mathcal{X}} \bar B (\xi)
\norma{\hat{\mathcal{K}}^h_u - \check{\mathcal{K}}^h_u}_{\LL\infty ([0,t]\times\partial\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{X}; \reali^{k_u k})}
\norma{\check u (\tau)}_{\LL1 (\mathcal{X}; \reali^k)} \dd\xi \dd\tau
\\
&
& +
\norma{\hat U_b^h - \check U_b^h}_{\LL1 ([0,t]\times \partial\mathcal{X}; \LL\infty (\reali^{k_u};\reali))}
\\
\\
& \le
& \norma{B}_{\LL1 (\partial\mathcal{X};\reali)} \,
\norma{\hat u - \check u}_{\LL1 ([0,t]\times \mathcal{X}; \reali^k)}
+
\norma{\bar B}_{\LL1 (\partial\mathcal{X}; \reali)}
\norma{\hat{\mathcal{K}}^h_u - \check{\mathcal{K}}^h_u}_{\LL\infty ([0,t]\times\partial\mathcal{X}\times\mathcal{X}; \reali^{k_u k})}
\norma{\check u }_{\LL1 ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X}; \reali^k)}
\\
&
& +
\norma{\hat U_b^h - \check U_b^h}_{\LL1 ([0,t]\times \partial\mathcal{X}; \LL\infty (\reali^{k_u};\reali))} \,.
\end{eqnarray*}
Using~\ref{hyp:g_b} we deduce that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&
& \norma{\hat{\mathcal{Q}}^h - \check{\mathcal{Q}}^h}
_{\LL1 ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X};\reali)}
\\
& \leq
& \int_0^t \int_{\mathcal{X}}
\modulo{
\hat{q}^h \left(\tau,x,\hat{u} (\tau,x),\hat{u} (\tau)\right)
-
\hat{q}^h \left(\tau,x,\check{u} (\tau,x),\check{u} (\tau)\right)
}
\dd{x} \dd{\tau}
\\
&
& +
\int_0^t \int_{\mathcal{X}}
\modulo{
\hat{q}^h \left(\tau,x,\check{u} (\tau,x),\check{u} (\tau)\right)
-
\check{q}^h \left(\tau,x,\check{u} (\tau,x),\check{u} (\tau)\right)
}
\dd{x} \dd{\tau}
\\
& \le
& Q_1 \int_0^t \norma{\hat u(\tau) - \check u(\tau)}
_{\LL1(\mathcal X; \reali^k)} \dd \tau
+ Q_3 \int_0^t \norma{\hat u(\tau)}_{\LL1(\mathcal X; \reali^k)}
\int_{\mathcal X} \norma{\hat u(\tau, x) - \check u(\tau, x)} \dd x\,
\dd \tau
\\
&
& + Q_3 \int_0^t \norma{\hat u(\tau) - \check u(\tau)}
_{\LL1(\mathcal X; \reali^k)}
\int_{\mathcal X} \norma{\check u(\tau, x)} \dd x\, \dd \tau
\\
&
& + \int_0^t \int_{\mathcal{X}}
\left|
\hat Q^h\left(\tau, x, \check u (\tau,x), \int_{\mathcal X}
\hat{\mathcal K}^h_q\left(\tau, x, x'\right)
\check u\left(\tau, x'\right) \dd x'\right)
\right.
\\
&
& \qquad\qquad\quad \left.
-
\check Q^h\left(\tau, x, \check u (\tau,x), \int_{\mathcal X}
\check{\mathcal K}^h_q\left(\tau, x, x'\right)
\check u\left(\tau, x'\right) \dd x'\right)
\right|
\dd{x} \dd\tau
\\
& \leq
& \left(Q_1
+
Q_3
\left(
\norma{\hat u}_{\LL\infty ([0,t];\LL1 (\mathcal{X}; \reali^k))}
+
\norma{\check u}_{\LL\infty ([0,t];\LL1 (\mathcal{X}; \reali^k))}
\right)
\right)
\int_0^t \norma{\hat u(\tau) - \check u(\tau)}
_{\LL1(\mathcal{X}; \reali^k)} \dd \tau
\\
&
& +
\int_0^t \int_{\mathcal{X}}
\sup_{\eta \in \reali^{k_q}}
\modulo{
\hat Q^h\left(\tau, x,\check u (\tau,x), \eta\right)
-
\check Q^h\left(\tau, x, \check u (\tau,x), \eta\right)
}
\dd{x} \dd\tau
\\
&
& + \bar Q_3 \int_0^t \int_\mathcal{X}
\norma{\check u(\tau, x)}
\norma{\int_{\mathcal X}
\left(
\hat{\mathcal{K}}^h_q(\tau, x, x') - \check{\mathcal{K}}^h_q
(\tau, x, x')\right)
\check u\left(\tau, x'\right) \dd x'}\, \dd x\, \dd\tau
\\
& \leq
& \left(Q_1
+
Q_3
\left(
\norma{\hat u}_{\LL\infty ([0,t];\LL1 (\mathcal{X}; \reali^k))}
+
\norma{\check u}_{\LL\infty ([0,t];\LL1 (\mathcal{X}; \reali^k))}
\right)
\right)
\norma{\hat u - \check u}_{\LL1([0,t]\times\mathcal{X}; \reali^k)}
\\
&
& +
\norma{\hat Q^h - \check Q^h}_{\LL1 ([0,t]\times\mathcal{X}; \LL\infty (\reali^k\times\reali^{k_q}; \reali
))}
+ \int_0^t
\norma{\check u\left(\tau\right)}^2_{\LL1(\mathcal X; \reali^k)}
\dd\tau
\norma{\hat{\mathcal K}^h_q - \check{\mathcal K}^h_q}
_{\LL\infty([0,t] \times \mathcal X^2; \reali^{k_q})}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Using~\ref{hyp:g_a}, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&
& \norma{\hat{\mathcal{P}}^h - \check{\mathcal{P}}^h}
_{\LL1 ([0,t]; \LL\infty(\mathcal{X}; \reali))}
\\
& \le
& \int_0^t
\sup_{x \in \mathcal{X}}
\modulo{
\hat{p}^h\left(\tau,x,\hat u (\tau)\right)
-
\hat{p}^h\left(\tau,x,\check u (\tau)\right)
}
\dd{\tau}
+ \int_0^t
\sup_{x \in \mathcal{X}}
\modulo{
\hat{p}^h\left(\tau,x,\check u (\tau)\right)
-
\check{p}^h\left(\tau,x,\check u (\tau)\right)
}
\dd{\tau}
\\
& \le
& P_2 \int_0^t \norma{\hat u(\tau) - \check u(\tau)}
_{\LL1(\mathcal X; \reali^k)}\dd \tau
\\
&
& + \int_0^t
\sup_{x \in \mathcal{X}}
\modulo{
\hat{P}^h
\left(
\tau, x,
\int_{\mathcal{X}} \hat{\mathcal{K}}^h_p (\tau, x, x')
\check{u} (\tau, x') \dd{x'}
\right)
-
\check{P}^h
\left(
\tau, x,
\int_{\mathcal{X}} \hat{\mathcal{K}}^h_p (\tau, x, x')
\check{u} (\tau, x') \dd{x'}
\right)
}
\dd{\tau}
\\
&
& + \int_0^t
\sup_{x \in \mathcal{X}}
\modulo{
\check{P}^h
\left(
\tau, x,
\int_{\mathcal{X}} \hat{\mathcal{K}}^h_p (\tau, x, x')
\check{u} (\tau, x') \dd{x'}
\right)
-
\check{P}^h
\left(
\tau, x,
\int_{\mathcal{X}} \check{\mathcal{K}}^h_p (\tau, x, x')
\check{u} (\tau, x') \dd{x'}
\right)
}
\dd{\tau}
\\
& \le
& P_2 \int_0^t \norma{\hat u(\tau) - \check u(\tau)}
_{\LL1(\mathcal X; \reali^k)}\dd \tau
+ t \norma{\hat P^h - \check P^h}_{\LL\infty\left([0,t] \times \mathcal X
\times \reali^{k_p}; \reali\right)}
\\
&
& + \bar P_2 \int_0^t
\sup_{x \in \mathcal{X}}
\int_{\mathcal X}
\modulo{
\hat{\mathcal{K}}^h_p (\tau, x, x')
-
\check{\mathcal{K}}^h_p (\tau, x, x')}
\modulo{\check{u} (\tau, x')} \dd x'
\dd{\tau}
\\
& \le
& P_2 \int_0^t \norma{\hat u(\tau) - \check u(\tau)}
_{\LL1(\mathcal X; \reali^k)}\dd \tau
+ t \norma{\hat P^h - \check P^h}_{\LL\infty\left([0,t] \times \mathcal X
\times \reali^{k_p}; \reali\right)}
\\
&
& + \bar P_2 \int_0^t \norma{\check u(\tau)}
_{\LL1(\mathcal X; \reali^k)} \dd \tau
\norma{
\hat{\mathcal{K}}^h_p
-
\check{\mathcal{K}}^h_p}_{\LL\infty\left([0,t]\times \mathcal X^2; \reali^{k_p k}
\right)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
The above estimate, duly inserted in~\eqref{eq:stab-estimate-proof}
and followed by a standard application of Gronwall Lemma, completes
the proof.
\end{proofof}
\begin{proofof}{Proposition~\ref{prop:spreading-pandemic}}
Checking~\ref{ip:(v)} and~\ref{ip:(u0)} is immediate. It is
sufficient to verify that the assumptions of Theorem~\ref{thm:stab}
hold. It is immediate to check that~\ref{stab:it:1} holds with
$\bar P_1 = \max \{\norma{\mu_S}, \norma{\mu_I} +
\norma{\kappa+\theta}, \norma{\mu_H} + \norma{\eta},
\norma{\mu_R}\}$ (all norms being in
${\LL\infty (\mathcal{I}\times\reali_+\times\reali^2; \reali)}$),
$\bar P_2 = 1$, thanks to $\rho \in
\LL\infty$. Concerning~\ref{stab:it:2}, choose
$\bar Q_1 = \max\{\norma{\kappa}, \norma{\eta+\theta}\}$,
$\bar Q_2 = 0$, $\bar Q_3 = 1$ and use $\rho \in
\LL\infty$. Finally, \ref{stab:it:3} holds with
$\bar B (\xi) = \sup_I\norma{S_b (t)}_{\LL\infty
(\mathcal{X},\reali)}$.
Positivity is immediate. To apply
Corollary~\ref{cor:assumpt-defin-result}, simply set $C_1 \equiv 0$
and $C_2 \equiv 0$.
To obtain an $\L\infty$ bound, note first that since
$I \in \C0\left(\mathcal{I};\L1 (\reali_+ \times \reali^2; \reali)
\right)$, the integral in~\eqref{eq:6} is bounded on any bounded
time interval. Hence, a repeated application of~\eqref{eq:5} in
Lemma~\ref{lem:L1inf} yields the boundedness of $S$, $I$, $H$ and
$R$ on any bounded interval. Uniqueness then follows
from~\ref{thm:it:uni}.
\end{proofof}
\begin{proofof}{Proposition~\ref{prop:an-age-phen}}
Assumptions~\ref{ip:(v)} and~\ref{ip:(u0)} trivially
hold. Condition~\ref{hyp:g_a} holds with
$P_1 = \norma{d}_{\LL\infty (\reali^n; \reali)} / \eps$ and
$P_2= 1 /\eps$. Verifying~\ref{hyp:g_b} is straightforward. To prove
that~\ref{ip:(ub)} holds, compute for $y \in \reali^n$ with
$\norma {y}> r$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\modulo{u_b (t,y,w)}
& =
& \modulo{\dfrac{1}{A (a=0,y) \, \varepsilon^n}
\int_{\reali_+} \! \int_{\reali^n}
\mathcal{M} \! \left(\frac{y'-y}{\varepsilon}\right) \,
b (a',y') \,
w(a', y')
\dd{a'} \dd{y'}}
\\
& \leq
& \dfrac{1}{\epsilon^n \; \inf A}\;
\modulo{\int_{\reali_+} \! \int_{\reali^n}
\mathcal{M} \! \left(\frac{y'-y}{\varepsilon}\right) \,
b (a',y') \,
w(a', y')
\dd{a'} \dd{y'}}
\\
& \leq
& \dfrac{1}{\epsilon^n\; \inf A}\;
\int_{\reali_+} \! \int_{\reali^n}
\modulo{\mathcal{M} \! \left(\frac{y'-y}{\varepsilon}\right)} \,
\left(\sup_{\modulo{y'-y} <r} \modulo{b (a',y')}\right) \,
\modulo{w(a', y')}
\dd{a'} \dd{y'}
\\
& \leq
& \dfrac{1}{\epsilon^n \; \inf A} \;
\norma{\mathcal{M}}_{\LL\infty (\reali^n; \reali)} \;
\dfrac{1}{\left(1+\norma{y}-r\right)^{n+1}}
\int_{\reali_+} \! \int_{\reali^n}
\modulo{w(a', y')}
\dd{a'} \dd{y'}
\end{eqnarray*}
proving the first requirement in~\ref{ip:(ub)}. Lipschitz continuity
is proved by the same procedure.
The assumptions on the signs of data and parameters allow to apply
Corollary~\ref{cor:piu} and ensure that also~\eqref{eq:36} holds.
\end{proofof}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The authors were partly supported by the GNAMPA 2022 project
\emph{Evolution Equations:Well Posedness, Control and Applications}.
{\footnotesize
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction}
Capturing, modeling, and synthesizing realistic human motion in 3D scenes is crucial in a spectrum of applications such as virtual reality, game character animation, and human-robot interaction. To facilitate research in this area, a plethora of datasets~\citep{prox,AMASS,savva2016pigraphs} have been curated to capture human motion.
For example, \citet{bhatnagar22behave} collected trajectories of humans manipulating objects. The PROX-E dataset~\citep{prox-e} contains human contact with a scene mesh.
However, building high-quality, large-scale datasets annotated with both diverse human motions and rich 3D scenes remains challenging. This is mainly because current data capture pipelines depend on costly devices, such as MoCap systems, structure cameras, and 3D scanners, and therefore can only be conducted in laboratory settings, which entails limited physical space and scene diversity. Inspired by recent advances in modeling 3D human poses and their contact with environments, we aim to address these challenges by exploring a new possibility: \emph{can we learn to synthesize the scenes only from human motion?} If successful, our system will also have many potential applications beyond data collection, such as providing suggestions during the creation of virtual environments based on artists' motions in VR.
Recent works have proposed to estimate room layouts based on human trajectories and learned room priors~\citep{nie2021pose2room}. However, only semantics, not affordances, was considered in the reconstructed layouts. \citet{rec-visual} proposed to reconstruct scene objects from visual inputs and then use Human-Scene Interactions (HSIs) to further improve the feasibility. While such a method produces physically plausible reconstructions, it requires additional visual inputs so that the reconstructed scenes are restricted.
We propose \textbf{S}cene Synthesis from H\textbf{UM}an \textbf{M}oti\textbf{ON} (SUMMON\xspace), a method that predicts feasible object placements in a scene based solely on 3D human pose trajectories, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:teaser}. SUMMON\xspace consists of two modules: a human-scene contact prediction module and a scene synthesis module. The human-scene contact prediction module, named ContactFormer, leverages existing HSI data to learn a mapping from human body vertices to the semantic label of the objects that are in contact. ContactFormer advances previous methods~\citep{POSA} by incorporating temporal cues to enhance the consistency in label prediction in time. Given the estimated semantic contact points, the scene synthesis module first searches for objects that fit the contact points in terms of semantics and physical affordances to the agent; it then populates the scene with other objects that have no contact with humans, based on human motion and objects inferred from previous steps.
We conduct our experiments using the PROXD~\citep{prox} and the GIMO~\citep{zheng2022gimo} datasets. In terms of contact estimation, ContactFormer outperforms previous single-frame contact prediction methods~\citep{POSA}. In terms of scene synthesis, our proposed system shows more realistic, physically plausible, and diverse scenes than baselines, using various metrics and human evaluation. \if 0 Lastly, we show that previous human motion generation approaches can be improved with the generated data from our method, demonstrating the potential for more research in this area. \fi
Our contributions are threefold. First, we propose SUMMON\xspace, a system that synthesizes semantically reasonable, physically plausible, and diverse scenes based only on human motion trajectories.
Second, as a part of SUMMON\xspace, we propose a contact prediction module ContactFormer that outperforms existing methods by modeling the temporal consistency in semantic labels.
Third, we demonstrate that the scenes synthesized by SUMMON\xspace consistently outperform existing methods both qualitatively and quantitatively.
\if 0 4) We demonstrate that the hallucinated data (even from MoCap-only datasets) can be used to help previous motion synthesis methods scale up and improve the quality of the results. \fi
\section{Related Works}
\paragraph{Scene affordance learning.}
Learning affordance from human-scene interaction has caught much attention recently~\cite{fouhey2012people, wang2019geometric, chuang2018learning, delaitre2012scene, gupta20113d, chen2019holistic++,zhu2014reasoning}. In the literature, researchers study how to put human skeletons in a scene. For example, \citet{bingewatching} proposed to learn the affordance from sitcom videos for positioning skeletons in a static image. \citet{gen3dpose} introduced a generative model of 3D poses to predict plausible human poses in a scene.
Along with developing better human body representations, there have been methods that try to put a 3D human body into the scene~\cite{prox-e}. More recently, POSA~\cite{POSA} learns a model that augments a SMPL-X human body model vertices with contact probability and semantic labels to place human poses in a 3D scene mesh. \citet{body-aware-gen} proposed a fitting and comfort-based loss to train an affordance-aware model to generate chairs that fit a human body pose.
Several works also try to collect or generate data that involve human-scene interactions. For example, VirtualHome~\cite{puig2018virtualhome} provides a simulated 3D environment where humanoid agents can interact with 3D objects. BEHAVE~\cite{bhatnagar22behave} provides a dataset of real full-body human parameterized using SMPL interacting and manipulating objects in 3D with contact points. Our work takes an additional step from the affordance learning works: we first learn to understand the affordance, then leverage them to synthesize scenes that can be used for other related tasks.
\paragraph{Human motion synthesis.}
Motion synthesis is a long-standing problem in computer graphics and vision~\citep{brand2000style, kovar2003flexible, park2002line, spallone2015digital, holden2016deep}. \citet{xu2020hierarchical} proposed a hierarchical way to generate long-horizon motion by using a memory bank to retrieve short-horizon reference clips. \citet{harvey2020robust} proposed to predict motion robustly with additional embeddings. Recently, many works also take the environment into consideration~\citep{hassan_samp_2021,wang2021synthesizing,rempe2021humor}.
For example, \citet{wang2021synthesizing} combined long-term human motion synthesis conditioned on a scene mesh with affordance optimization to generate realistic human trajectories. SAMP~\cite{hassan_samp_2021} learns generalized interaction for object classes across different instances of that class. Our work is trying to solve the inverse problem that generates plausible scenes given human motion trajectories.
\paragraph{Scene synthesis.}
Our work is also closely related to synthesizing plausible 3D scenes and room layout~\citep{zhou2019scenegraphnet,li2019grains,purkait2020sg,luo2020end,wang2019planit,zhang2020fast,ritchie2019fast,wang2021sceneformer}. For example, ATISS~\citep{ATISS} learns an autoregressive generative model for furniture placement. It can be used for generating plausible novel room layouts, completing a scene given existing objects, and suggesting possible placements given spatial constraints. Another work, Pose2Room~\citep{nie2021pose2room}, predicts bounding boxes of objects conditioned on 3D human pose trajectory. MOVER~\citep{rec-visual} reconstructs 3D objects constrained by 3D human body predictions from monocular RGB videos. Unlike these prior methods, our model generates not only layouts but also affordable objects with only human trajectories.
\section{Method}
\begin{figure*}[ht!]
\includegraphics[width=7.1in]{figures/method_overview.pdf}
\vspace{-9mm}
\caption{\textbf{The overview of SUMMON\xspace}: (a) an input sequence of human body meshes interacting with a scene, (b) the ContactFormer that predicts per-frame contact labels, (c) per-frame contact predictions, (d) estimated contact points, (e) synthesized objects, and (f) objects in interaction. }
\vspace{-3mm}
\label{fig:method}
\end{figure*}
We aim to predict a set of furniture objects and a physically plausible 3D configuration of them only from human motion sequences. We first introduce the human body and contact representation in Sec.~\ref{sec:representation}. SUMMON\xspace generates a temporally consistent contact semantic estimation for each vertex of the human body to retrieve suitable objects~(Sec.~\ref{sec:ContactFormer}). Then we optimize object placement based on the contact locations and physical plausibility~(Sec.~\ref{sec:obj_rec}). An illustration of our method is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:method}.
\subsection{Human Body and Contact Representation}
\label{sec:representation}
We use a modified version of SMPL-X~\cite{smplx} as the representation of human body poses. Specifically, we parameterize the human body with $M(\theta, \beta): \mathbb{R}^{|\theta| \times |\beta|} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{3N}$, where $\theta$ denotes pose parameters, $\beta$ denotes coefficients in a learned shape space, and $N$ is the number of vertices in a SMPL-X body mesh. For computation efficiency, we downsample the vertices from $10{,}475$ to $655$ points, following the prior work by~\citet{POSA}.
We represent contact information by per-vertex features. For each vertex $v_b \in V_b$, where $V_b$ is all vertices of a human body, we use a one-hot vector $f$ to represent the contact semantic label for that vertex. Each vector $f$ has a length of $|f| = C + 1$, where $C$ is the number of object classes. We introduce an extra ``void'' class to represent vertices without contact. We use $F$ to denote the contact semantic labels for all vertices in a body pose.
\subsection{Human-Scene Contact Prediction}
\label{sec:ContactFormer}
Our dataset consists of a sequence of paired vertices and contact semantic labels $\{ (V^1_b, F^1), (V^2_b, F^2), ..., (V^n_b, F^n) \}$, where $V^i_b$ represents the human body vertices~(Figure~\ref{fig:method}(a)), $F^i$ represents the contact semantic labels for frame $i$, and $n$ is the varied sequence length. We first train a conditional Variational Autoencoder~(cVAE) to learn a probabilistic model of contact semantic labels conditioned on vertex positions. Then we deploy transformer layers on top of the cVAE to improve temporal consistency. We refer to this framework as ContactFormer. An illustration of the overall network architecture is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:network}.
\paragraph{Contact semantics prediction.}
We first train a model to predict contact semantic labels for each individual pose. Given a pair of body vertices and contact semantic labels $(V_b, F)$, we first fuse these two components: $I_e = \text{Concat}(V_b, F)$. We feed $I_e$ into a graph neural network~(GNN) encoder $G_{Enc}$ to get a latent Gaussian space with the mean $H_{\mu}$ and the standard deviation $H_{\sigma}$. Then we sample a latent vector $z$ from the latent Gaussian space and concatenate it with each vertex position: $I_d = \text{Concat}(V_b, z)$. We feed $I_d$ into a GNN decoder $G_{Dec}$ to predict the reconstructed contact semantic labels $F_p$. Note that both GNNs in the encoder and the decoder share the same structure as in~\citet{POSA}. Each vertex feature $h^k_x$ for vertex $x$ at layer $k$ is updated by
\begin{equation}
h^k_x = \text{Linear}(\text{Concat}(\{ h^{k-1}_{x'}: x' \in N(x) \})),
\end{equation}
where $N(x)$ is defined as the $m$-nearest neighbor vertices of $x$ in a spiral-ordered sequence, as proposed by~\citet{spiralnet}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{figures/network_arch.pdf}
\vspace{-5mm}
\caption{\textbf{The architecture of ContactFormer.} We first use a GNN-based variational autoencoder to encode the contact points. Then a transformer is applied to improve the temporal information fusion. We also add a sinusoidal positional encoding to the output of the GNN decoder.}
\vspace{-3.5mm}
\label{fig:network}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{ContactFormer:} We train a transformer to extract temporal information from a pose sequence to enhance prediction consistency, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:network}. Specifically, given a sequence of pose and contact semantic labels $\{ (V^1_b, F^1), ..., (V^n_b, F^n) \}$ from frame $1$ to $n$, we first use the previous model to reconstruct contact semantic labels $F^i_p$ independently for each frame $i$. We then embed each $F^i_p$ into a hidden feature space, augmenting it with a sinusoidal positional embedding before feeding it to the transformer module. The output of the transformer module is a sequence of n vectors $\{ H_1, ..., H_n \}$. For each frame $i$, we concatenate $H_i$ with the initial prediction $F^i_p$ and use a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) to get a final prediction $\hat{F}^i$. The final prediction is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:method}(c).
\paragraph{Training:} We optimize the model's parameters by the following loss function:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}_{rec} + \alpha \cdot \mathcal{L}_{KL},
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{L}_{rec}$ is the sum of the categorical cross entropy~(CCE) loss between the ground truth semantic label $F^i$ and the model prediction $\hat{F}^i$ for any frame $i$:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{rec} = \sum_i \text{CCE} (F^i, \hat{F}^i),
\end{equation}
and $\mathcal{L}_{KL}$ is the Kullback-Leibler divergence loss between the latent Gaussian space and the normal distribution $\mathcal{N}$:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{KL} = KL(Q(z|F, V_b)||\mathcal{N}).
\end{equation}
Here we use $Q$ to represent the encoder network in our cVAE combined with the sampling process with the reparameterization trick. Inspired by \citet{beta-vae}, we also multiply $\mathcal{L}_{KL}$ with a weight $\alpha$ to control the balance between the reconstruction accuracy and diversity.
\subsection{Scene Synthesis} \label{sec:obj_rec}
\paragraph{Contact Object Recovery} Given the accumulated contact points from each frame predicted by ContactFormer~(Figure~\ref{fig:method}(d)), we further reduce spatial prediction noise by performing a local object class majority voting as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:vote_local}. Then, the vertices of each predicted object class are clustered into possible contact instances $V_c$, using the shortest length of all object edges in that class as $\epsilon$ for clustering. In practice, we downsample the contact vertices to keep later computations tractable.
We then optimize the poses of the object point cloud $V_o$ by minimizing the following losses:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}(V_c, V_o) = \mathcal{L}_{contact} + \mathcal{L}_{pen}.
\label{eq:placement_objective_func}
\end{equation}
The contact loss $\mathcal{L}_{contact}$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{contact} = \lambda_{contact} \frac{1}{|V_c|} \sum_{v_c \in V_c} \min_{v_o \in V_o} || v_c - v_o||^2_2,
\label{eq:contact_loss}
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_{contact}$ is a tunable hyperparameter. This loss encourages the object to be in contact with the predicted human vertices.
The penetration loss $\mathcal{L}_{pen}$ is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{pen} = \lambda_{pen} \sum_{d_c^i < t} {d_c^i}^2,
\label{eq:pen_loss}
\end{equation}
where $d_c^i$ are signed distances between the object and the human body sequence, $t$ is the penetration distance threshold. This loss prevents the object from penetrating the human body sequence.
Intuitively, these losses encourage objects to be in contact with human meshes, but not penetrate them. An illustration of the optimized object placement is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:method}(e). To improve computation efficiency, we choose to compute human SDF from merged human meshes of the motion sequence. To have a consistent scale of loss across different objects, we choose the number of sampled points according to the size of the object.
\paragraph{Constrained Scene Completion}
\label{sec:scene_completion}
To obtain a complete scene, we also predict non-contact objects as a scene completion task constrained by 3D human trajectories and existing in-contact objects. The floor is divided into a grid, and each cell is labeled as occupied if feet vertices or object vertices are in close proximity.
Considering the furniture categories in a room as a sequence, we train an autoregressive transformer model on the 3D-FRONT dataset~\cite{3dfront}. The model takes as input the categories of existing objects and returns a probability distribution of the next potential object category. We sample a category from the distribution and randomly place an object of that category onto an unoccupied floor grid. To prevent the sampled object from penetrating the human body sequence, we further optimize the object's translation and rotation using our $\mathcal{L}_{pen}$ (see Equation~\ref{eq:pen_loss}).
\section{Experiment Setup}
In this section, we introduce the datasets and implementation details for the whole SUMMON\xspace framework.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{figures/vote.pdf}
\vspace{-5mm} \caption{\textbf{Illustration of the local majority voting}. From the zoomed-in box, there are multiple inconsistent points in the original contact points. The pink points represent the semantic label bed, and the green points represent the label sofa. We alleviate this issue by adding majority voting.}
\vspace{-5mm}
\label{fig:vote_local}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Datasets} \label{dataset}
We use the PROXD~\cite{prox} dataset for training our ContactFormer. PROXD uses RGB-D cameras to capture 20 human subjects interacting with 12 scenes. We represent human poses using the SMPL-X format to reconstruct human body meshes.
The pose sequences in PROXD are estimated using SMPLify~\cite{smplify} and contain many jitters. We apply LEMO~\cite{lemo}, a learned temporal motion smoothness prior, to produce smooth human motion as training data.
Our ground truth per vertex contact semantic labels are generated using scene SDF with contact semantic labels from PROX-E~\cite{prox-e}, which extends PROXD by manually annotating the scene meshes with predefined object categories. We define human-scene contact as the signed distance between a human vertex and the scene to be less than $0.05$.
We select objects from 3D-FUTURE~\cite{3dfuture} to be placed into the scenes. 3D-FUTURE is a dataset of categorized 3D models of furniture with their original sizes. We use a selected subset of 3D-FUTURE to reduce candidate search time. To simplify contact estimation and limit predicted object classes to the available ones in our object dataset, we reduce the contact object categories in the PROX-E dataset from 42 to 8.
We use the GIMO dataset~\cite{zheng2022gimo} as another test dataset for evaluating the generalization ability of the proposed method on out-of-distribution data.
\subsection{Implementation}
\paragraph{ContactFormer.} \label{sec:ContactFormer_imp}
For the encoder and decoder GNNs, we choose the number of hidden layers to be $3$. The dimension for each hidden vertex feature in the GNNs is 64. In the GNN encoder, we downsample the body vertices after each hidden layer by a factor of $4$. We deploy a similar architecture for the transformer layers as used in the previous work~\cite{transformer}. We provide training details and hyperparameter choices in the supplementary materials.
To compare different architectures' capacities for extracting temporal information, we also implement models that use MLP and LSTM~\citep{lstm} modules as the final block on top of the GNN decoder. For the model that uses the MLP module, we deploy a max pooling layer to the output of the GNN decoder along the dimension of vertices. Then we feed it to an MLP block to get the embedding for the whole sequence. The sequence embedding is then fused with the output of the GNN decoder to get the final prediction via a linear projection. For the model that uses the LSTM module, we linearly project the outputs from the GNN decoder into a higher dimensional embedding space and feed them to a bidirectional LSTM layer to extract features for each frame. Frame features are then concatenated with the output from the GNN decoder to obtain final semantic labels.
\paragraph{Contact Object Recovery.}
To reduce noise in contact semantic estimation, we use majority semantic voting in point cloud clusters with $\epsilon=0.1$ and $minPts = 10$. In point cloud clustering for object instance fitting, we used different values for $\epsilon$ for different classes due to their different sizes.
To place objects into the scene at an appropriate height, we first cluster all the human body vertices that are in contact with the floor. We then take the minimum medians of all clusters as the estimated floor height. Next, we translate the object to place its lowest vertex on the floor.
To avoid local minima, we perform a grid search for translation along the floor plane and rotation around the up axis to warm-start the initial transformation. We then optimize for the same transformation parameters on top of the results from the grid search. In both cases, We use different $\lambda_{contact}$, $\lambda_{pen}$ and $t$ to accommodate for different properties of object classes. We keep the transformation that achieves the lowest loss as the optimization result.
To achieve scene diversity, we consider inter-class and intra-class diversity. Inter-class diversity is when a human motion is likely to interact with different classes of objects. For example, sitting down can be performed on a chair, a bed, or a sofa. To achieve this, we first sample per-vertex contact semantics based on the contact probability distribution predicted by ContactFormer. During local clustering of contact object recovery, we consider class labels in local clusters as a probability distribution and sample the cluster contact class. Intra-class diversity is when a human motion is likely to interact with different instances of the same object class. To achieve this, we perform grid search and optimization on all the instances from the object class.
\section{Evaluations}
In this section, we introduce evaluation metrics, baselines, and results on contact prediction and scene synthesis. We encourage the readers to watch the video in the supplementary materials.
\subsection{Contact Semantic Prediction}
\label{sec:csp}
\paragraph{Baselines.} We compare with three baselines, including POSA~\citep{POSA}, an architectural variant that uses a multi-layer perceptron~(MLP) based predictor, and a temporal information fusion variant that uses a bidirectional LSTM~\citep{lstm}.
\paragraph{Metrics.} We use two metrics for evaluating the contact semantic prediction: reconstruction accuracy and consistency score. The reconstruction accuracy is computed as the average correctness of the predicted label compared with the ground-truth label for each vertex. The consistency score is designed following this intuition: if we accumulate predicted contact points from each frame, close contact points should have consistent contact semantic labels. Hence, this loss is computed as follows: Given a pose sequence and the accumulated contact points, for each point, we compare its predicted contact label with the contact labels of its neighboring points to see if the prediction agrees with the majority of the neighboring contact labels (i.e., a high consistency score).
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{\textbf{Results of contact prediction}. We use the reconstruction accuracy and the consistency score as metrics. Our ContactFormer clearly outperforms the baselines.}
\vspace{-3mm}
\label{table:contact_comparison}
\small{
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\toprule
Models & Reconstruction Acc. $\uparrow$ & Consistency Score $\uparrow$ \\
\midrule
MLP Predictor & 0.9082 & 0.8922 \\
LSTM Predictor & 0.9087 & 0.9209 \\
POSA & 0.9106 & 0.8816 \\
ContactFormer (ours) & \textbf{0.9120} & \textbf{0.9518}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\vspace{-3mm}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{figures/temporal_consistency_modified.pdf}
\vspace{-8mm}
\caption{\textbf{Visualizations of the contact prediction results of POSA and our ContactFormer.} Left: Contact predictions from POSA and ContactFormer when the person lies on the bed. Right: Contact predictions from POSA and ContactFormer when the person lies on the bed again after walking around. ContactFormer has better consistency when the person lies in bed for the second time.}
\vspace{-2mm}
\label{fig:twobed}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{figures/experiments.pdf}
\vspace{-5mm}
\caption{\textbf{Visualizations of the generated objects based on human trajectories}. The human trajectories are from the PROXD dataset and the unseen GIMO dataset. The first column shows the trajectory. The second column shows the results from the ContactICP baseline. The third column shows the results from the Pose Prior baseline. The fourth to sixth columns are snapshots of results generated by SUMMON\xspace.}
\label{fig:baselines}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\paragraph{Results.} Table~\ref{table:contact_comparison} shows the reconstruction accuracy and the consistency score of all methods on the validation set of PROXD. We find that ContactFormer achieves competitive performance in terms of reconstruction accuracies and significantly outperforms all the baselines in consistency scores. This demonstrates the superiority of the transformer-based architecture in predicting temporally consistent yet accurate contact labels.
Figure~\ref{fig:twobed} visualizes the output contact labels from ContactFormer and POSA. We notice that ContactFormer predicts consistent labels the second time the human tries to lie on the bed, while POSA, due to its lack of temporal information, predicts a different label.
\paragraph{User study.}
We conduct a user study to evaluate the quality of the contact semantic label predictions, where we compare ContactFormer with POSA. For each pose sequence in the validation dataset, we render a video showing the human motion, predicted contact semantic labels, and the ground truth scene. We show the predicted contact semantic labels by rendering small areas around body vertices in different colors depending on their labels. Each video is rendered from a camera angle that can clearly capture human motion and semantic labels. For each pose sequence, we ask the human subjects the following question: "Which video seems to have a more reasonable contact label prediction?". Among 22 users, $78.12\%$ of the users choose ContactFormer over POSA, believing ContactFormer provides more reasonable and convincing results. This result echoes the quantitative results in Table~\ref{table:contact_comparison}.
\subsection{Contact Object Recovery}
\paragraph{Baselines.} Since our problem is novel and there are no baselines, we devise two reasonable baselines ourselves: contact-informed point cloud registration~(ContactICP) based on point-to-point ICP~\citep{ICP} and object alignment with pose priors~(Pose Priors) based on the orientation of the hip. We provide the details of those methods in the supplementary materials.
\paragraph{Metrics}
We use the \textit{non-collision score} proposed by~\citet{prox-e}. This score estimates the collision ratio between human body mesh and scene objects. Since all the methods, including SUMMON\xspace, first align the object to the centroid of contact points, contact constraints are naturally satisfied.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{figures/diversity.pdf}
\vspace{-7mm}
\caption{\textbf{Visualizations of possible alternative object placements generated by SUMMON\xspace based on the same human trajectories.} In this example, an in-contact object can be a chair, a sofa, or a bed, as long as it does not violate physical constraints. SUMMON\xspace can also generate different instances~(e.g., chairs) within the same category.}
\vspace{-2mm}
\label{fig:diversity}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{figures/completion.pdf}
\vspace{-5mm}
\caption{\textbf{Visualizations of scene completion.} Based on all the in-contact objects and human motion trajectories, SUMMON\xspace now generates the objects that are not in contact with human meshes. While there is no contact, it makes the scene more complete and introduces the potential for future synthesized human motion sequences to interact with additional objects.}
\label{fig:completion}
\vspace{-2mm}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Non-collision scores for contact object recovery on the smoothed PROXD and the unseen GIMO dataset. For each sequence, the score is computed to be the mean of all possible generated scenes. Higher scores are better.}
\vspace{-3mm}
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\toprule[0.5mm]
Method & PROXD & GIMO \\
\midrule
ContactICP & $0.654$ & $0.820$ \\
Pose Priors & $0.703$ & $0.798$ \\
SUMMON\xspace w/o optimization & $0.815$ & $0.937$ \\
SUMMON\xspace (ours) & $\mathbf{0.851}$ & $\mathbf{0.951}$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-2mm}
\label{table:placement_eval}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Results.}
For each sequence, we compute the mean of the \textit{non-collision scores} for all the objects in the scene. In Table~\ref{table:placement_eval}, we compare the mean non-collision scores on the smoothed PROXD dataset~\cite{lemo}, which was used during training, and the unseen GIMO dataset~\cite{zheng2022gimo}, which also provides SMPL-X parameters for humans interacting with scenes.
We visualize comparisons between our method and the baselines in Figure~\ref{fig:baselines}. We find that SUMMON\xspace can synthesize objects that are physically plausible and semantically reasonable. ContactICP usually suffers from large penetrations because the contact points might be sparse for registration. While Pose Priors can have seemingly correct object locations and orientations, it often fails to consider physical constraints.
Figure~\ref{fig:diversity} demonstrates various possible scenes generated from the same human motion trajectory by SUMMON\xspace. We find that SUMMON\xspace can generalize intra-class~(e.g., chairs with different appearances) and inter-class~(e.g., sofa to a bed). We provide additional examples in the supplementary materials.
\paragraph{Human user study.} We follow the same procedure as in Section~\ref{sec:csp}. Instead of contact prediction, we present the users with the animated human motion sequences and the predicted objects in the scene, and ask them to choose the most plausible and realistic placement.
From the statistics, we find that $74.5\%$ of the users select SUMMON\xspace over ContactICP and Pose Priors. We find that Pose Priors has a $23.5\%$ user selection rate, showing that it can produce reasonable results in some cases.
\paragraph{Ablations.} We also perform ablation on the optimization objectives. Table~\ref{tab:ablation} shows that both the penetration loss and the contact loss are important for SUMMON\xspace. Intuitively, the penetration loss helps the object to avoid a collision, while the contact loss helps to keep the object close to humans. We use both the \textit{non-collision score} and the \textit{contact score}. The \textit{contact score} is computed as the fraction of objects in the scenes that are in contact with the human trajectory~\citet{prox-e}.
\subsection{Scene completion}
To generate a full-fledged scene, we train another object generation model following~\citet{ATISS} as in Section~\ref{sec:scene_completion}. The model outputs a family of possible objects that does not contact or penetrate human meshes. Using this model, we generate a fuller scene with both in-contact and no-contact objects. Visualized results are in Figure~\ref{fig:completion}. The completed scenes have additional objects, such as a TV stand or a coffee table. While there is no contact between these objects and the human meshes, they make the scene semantically more realistic.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{\textbf{Ablation study on the losses}. The penetration loss and the contact loss are ablated. We use the non-collision score and the contact score as metrics.}
\vspace{-3mm}
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\toprule[0.5mm]
Method & non-collision score $\uparrow$ & contact score $\uparrow$ \\
\midrule
SUMMON\xspace & 0.894 & 1 \\
w/o penetration loss & 0.656 & 1 \\
w/o contact loss & 0.995 & 0.194 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:ablation}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}
\looseness=-1
We propose \textbf{S}cene Synthesis from H\textbf{UM}an \textbf{M}oti\textbf{ON}~(SUMMON\xspace), a framework that generates multi-object scenes from a sequence of human interaction. SUMMON\xspace leverages human contact estimations and scene priors to produce scenes that realistically support the interaction and the semantic context. The flexibility of SUMMON\xspace also enables the synthesis of diverse scenes from a single motion sequence. We hope this can also shed light on generating inexpensive diverse human-scene interaction datasets.
In the future, we are interested in exploring the following directions. Since PROXD does not consider soft-body interactions, a potential direction would be considering soft-body deformation of objects such as beds and sofas. Our method considers synthesized scenes to be stationary, hence future works can include movement and rearrangement of furniture during human-scene interaction. As PROXD categorizes all the smaller interaction objects such as books, cups, or TV remotes into a single category, one potential extension to our method would be to include interactions with more specific small objects.
|
\section{First order differential equations}
{\it 1.1. Linear inhomogeneous first order differential equation:}
\begin{gather}\label{eq1}
y'(x)+f(x)y(x)=g(x).
\end{gather}
{\it Logarithmic integration method.} In equation \eqref{eq1} the function $g(x)$ is not identically zero. Then $y(x)$ be not identifically zero. Then with equations \eqref{eq1} we get
$$
\frac{y'(x)}{y(x)}+f(x)=\frac{g(x)}{y(x)}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
(\log |y(x)|)'+f(x)=\frac{g(x)}{y(x)}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
\begin{gather}\label{eq1a}
(\log |y(x)|)'+\left(\int f(x)dx\right)'=\frac{g(x)}{y(x)}, \quad \Rightarrow
\end{gather}
$$
(\log |y(x)|)'+\left(\log e^{\int f(x)dx}\right)'=\frac{g(x)}{y(x)}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
\left(\log |y(x)|+\log e^{\int f(x)dx}\right)'=\frac{g(x)}{y(x)}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
\left(\log \left(|y(x)| e^{\int f(x)dx}\right)\right)'=\frac{g(x)}{y(x)}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
\frac{\left(y(x) e^{\int f(x)dx}\right)'}{y(x) e^{\int f(x)dx}}=\frac{g(x)}{y(x)}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
\left(y(x) e^{\int f(x)dx}\right)' =g(x) e^{\int f(x)dx}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
y(x) e^{\int f(x)dx} =\int g(x) e^{\int f(x)dx} dx + C, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
\begin{gather}\label{eq2}
y(x) =e^{-\int f(x)dx} \left( \int g(x) e^{\int f(x)dx} dx + C \right).
\end{gather}
{\it Remark 1.1.1.} A similar method can be obtain solution the equation \eqref{eq1} in the Cauchy form:
\begin{gather}\label{eq2d}
y(x) =e^{-\int_{x_0}^x f(t)dt}\left(\int_{x_0}^x g(\tau) e^{\int_{x_0}^\tau f(\sigma)d\sigma} d\tau + y(x_{0}) \right),
\end{gather}
where $x_{0}$ is a given constant.
Indeed, the equation \eqref{eq1a} is equivalent to the equation
\begin{gather}\label{eq1b}
(\log |y(x)|)'+\left(\int f(x)dx+ C_{1}\right)'=\frac{g(x)}{y(x)},
\end{gather}
where $C_{1}$ is an integration constant. Let $C_{1}=-F(x_{0})$, where $F(x)$ is a function that has property $F'(x)=f(x)$. Then the equation \eqref{eq1b} can be represented as
$$
(\log |y(x)|)'+\left(\int_{x_0}^x f(t)dt\right)'=\frac{g(x)}{y(x)}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
(\log |y(x)|)'+\left(\log e^{\int_{x_0}^x f(t)dt}\right)'=\frac{g(x)}{y(x)}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
\left(\log |y(x)|+\log e^{\int_{x_0}^x f(t)dt}\right)'=\frac{g(x)}{y(x)}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
\left(\log \left(|y(x)| e^{\int_{x_0}^x f(t)dt}\right)\right)'=\frac{g(x)}{y(x)}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
\frac{\left(y(x) e^{\int_{x_0}^x f(t)dt}\right)'}{y(x) e^{\int_{x_0}^x f(t)dt}}=\frac{g(x)}{y(x)}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
\left(y(x) e^{\int_{x_0}^x f(t)dt}\right)' =g(x) e^{\int_{x_0}^x f(\sigma)d\sigma}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
y(x) e^{\int_{x_0}^x f(t)dt} =\int_{x_0}^x g(\tau) e^{\int_{x_0}^\tau f(\sigma)d\sigma} d\tau + C, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
\begin{gather}\label{eq2c}
y(x) =e^{-\int_{x_0}^x f(t)dt}\left(\int_{x_0}^x g(\tau) e^{\int_{x_0}^\tau f(\sigma)d\sigma} d\tau + C\right).
\end{gather}
If in the equation \eqref{eq2c} we let $C=y(x_{0})$, then we have the formula \eqref{eq2d}.
{\it 1.2. Bernoulli Differential equation:}
\begin{gather}\label{eq3}
y'+f(x)y=g(x)y^{\alpha},
\end{gather}
where $\alpha\in \mathbb{R}\backslash\{0,1\}$.
{\it Logarithmic integration method.} Let $y$ is not identically zero. Then from the equations \eqref{eq3} we obtain
$$
\frac{y'}{y}+f(x)=\frac{g(x)}{y}y^{\alpha}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
(\log |y|)'+f(x)=\frac{g(x)}{y}y^{\alpha}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
(\log |y|)'+\left(\int f(x)dx\right)'=\frac{g(x)}{y}y^{\alpha}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
(\log |y|)'+\left(\log e^{\int f(x)dx}\right)'=\frac{g(x)}{y}y^{\alpha}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
\left(\log |y|+\log e^{\int f(x)dx}\right)'=\frac{g(x)}{y}y^{\alpha}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
\begin{gather}\label{eq3s33434ss}
\left(\log \left(|y| e^{\int f(x)dx}\right)\right)'=\frac{g(x)}{y}y^{\alpha}, \quad \Rightarrow
\end{gather}
$$
\frac{\left(y e^{\int f(x)dx}\right)'}{y e^{\int f(x)dx}}=\frac{g(x)}{y}y^{\alpha}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
\left(y e^{\int f(x)dx}\right)' =g(x) e^{\int f(x)dx}y^{\alpha}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
\left(y e^{\int f(x)dx}\right)' =g(x) e^{(1-\alpha)\int f(x)dx}y^{\alpha}e^{\alpha\int f(x)dx}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
\left(y e^{\int f(x)dx}\right)' =g(x) e^{(1-\alpha)\int f(x)dx}\left(ye^{\int f(x)dx}\right)^{\alpha}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
\frac{\left(y e^{\int f(x)dx}\right)'}{\left(ye^{\int f(x)dx}\right)^{\alpha}} =g(x) e^{(1-\alpha)\int f(x)dx}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
\left(\frac{1}{1-\alpha}\left(y e^{\int f(x)dx}\right)^{1-\alpha}\right)' =g(x) e^{(1-\alpha)\int f(x)dx}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
\frac{1}{1-\alpha}\left(\left(y e^{\int f(x)dx}\right)^{1-\alpha}\right)' =g(x) e^{(1-\alpha)\int f(x)dx}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
\begin{gather}\label{eq3s33434ss1}
\left(\left(y e^{\int f(x)dx}\right)^{1-\alpha}\right)' =\left(1-\alpha\right)g(x) e^{(1-\alpha)\int f(x)dx}, \quad \Rightarrow
\end{gather}
$$
\left(y e^{\int f(x)dx}\right)^{1-\alpha} =\left(1-\alpha\right)\int g(x) e^{(1-\alpha)\int f(x)dx}dx +C, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
y e^{\int f(x)dx} =\left(\left(1-\alpha\right)\int g(x) e^{(1-\alpha)\int f(x)dx}dx +C\right)^{\frac{1}{1-\alpha}}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
\begin{gather}\label{eq4}
y =e^{-\int f(x)dx} \left(\left(1-\alpha\right)\int g(x) e^{(1-\alpha)\int f(x)dx}dx +C\right)^{\frac{1}{1-\alpha}}.
\end{gather}
{\it Remark 1.2.1.} At the beginning of the course of the method, we assumed that $y$ be not identically zero $0$. It follows that the equation \eqref{eq3} has a particular solution $y=0$, if $\alpha\in(0,1)$.
{\it Remark 1.2.2.} {\it (The second version of the logarithmic method.) } In the equation \eqref{eq3} we obtain
$$
\frac{y'}{y}+f(x)=\frac{g(x)}{y}y^{\alpha}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
(\log |y|)'+f(x)=g(x)y^{\alpha-1}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
(1-\alpha)(\log |y|)'+(1-\alpha)f(x)=(1-\alpha)g(x)y^{\alpha-1}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
((1-\alpha)\log |y|)'+(1-\alpha)f(x)=(1-\alpha)g(x)y^{\alpha-1}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
(\log |y|^{1-\alpha})'+(1-\alpha)f(x)=(1-\alpha)g(x)y^{\alpha-1}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
\frac{ \left(y^{1-\alpha}\right)' }{ y^{1-\alpha} } +(1-\alpha)f(x)=(1-\alpha)g(x)y^{\alpha-1}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
\left(y^{1-\alpha}\right)' +(1-\alpha)f(x)y^{1-\alpha}=(1-\alpha)g(x)y^{\alpha-1}y^{1-\alpha}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
\begin{gather}\label{eq4s1112}
\left(y^{1-\alpha}\right)' +(1-\alpha)f(x)y^{1-\alpha}=(1-\alpha)g(x).
\end{gather}
The equation \eqref{eq4s1112} is a linear inhomogeneous first order differential equation, with respect to the function $y^{1-\alpha}$. Its solution by the with formula \eqref{eq2}, has the form
\begin{gather}\label{eq4s1114}
y^{1-\alpha} =e^{-(1-\alpha)\int f(x)dx} \left(\left(1-\alpha\right)\int g(x) e^{(1-\alpha)\int f(x)dx}dx +C\right).
\end{gather}
The formula \eqref{eq4s1114} implies the solution \eqref{eq4}.
{\it Remark 1.2.3.} {\it (The third version of the logarithmic method.) } In the equation \eqref{eq3s33434ss} we obtain
$$
(1-\alpha)\left(\log \left(|y| e^{\int f(x)dx}\right)\right)'=(1-\alpha)g(x)y^{\alpha-1}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
\left((1-\alpha)\log \left(|y| e^{\int f(x)dx}\right)\right)'=(1-\alpha)g(x)y^{\alpha-1}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
\left(\log \left(|y| e^{\int f(x)dx}\right)^{1-\alpha}\right)'=(1-\alpha)g(x)y^{\alpha-1}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
\frac{\left(\left(y e^{\int f(x)dx}\right)^{1-\alpha }\right)'}{\left(y e^{\int f(x)dx}\right)^{1-\alpha }}=(1-\alpha)g(x)y^{\alpha-1}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
\begin{gather}\label{eq4s1114dd1}
\left(\left(y e^{\int f(x)dx}\right)^{1-\alpha }\right)'=(1-\alpha)g(x)y^{\alpha-1}\left(y e^{\int f(x)dx}\right)^{1-\alpha }=(1-\alpha)g(x)e^{(1-\alpha)\int f(x)dx}.
\end{gather}
The equation \eqref{eq4s1114dd1} is similar to the equation \eqref{eq3s33434ss1}.
{\it 1.3. The equation of the form:}
\begin{gather}\label{eq5}
y'+f(x)e^{\beta y}=g(x),
\end{gather}
where $\beta\in \mathbb{R}\backslash{\{0\}}$.
{\it Logarithmic integration method.} In the equation \eqref{eq5} we get
$$
\left(\log\left(e^{y}\right)\right)'+f(x)e^{\beta y}=g(x), \Rightarrow
$$
$$
-\beta\left(\log\left(e^{y}\right)\right)' -\beta f(x)e^{\beta y}=-\beta g(x), \Rightarrow
$$
$$
\left(-\beta\log\left(e^{y}\right)\right)' -\beta f(x)e^{\beta y}=-\beta g(x), \Rightarrow
$$
$$
\left(\log\left(e^{-\beta y}\right)\right)' -\beta f(x)e^{\beta y}=-\beta g(x), \Rightarrow
$$
$$
\frac{\left(e^{-\beta y}\right)'}{e^{-\beta y}} -\beta f(x)e^{\beta y}=-\beta g(x), \Rightarrow
$$
$$
\left(e^{-\beta y}\right)' -\beta f(x)e^{\beta y}e^{-\beta y}=-\beta g(x)e^{-\beta y}, \Rightarrow
$$
$$
\left(e^{-\beta y}\right)' -\beta f(x)=-\beta g(x)e^{-\beta y}, \Rightarrow
$$
\begin{gather}\label{eq6}
\left(e^{-\beta y}\right)' +\beta g(x)e^{-\beta y}=\beta f(x).
\end{gather}
The equation \eqref{eq6} is a linear inhomogeneous first order differential equation, with respect to the function $e^{-\beta y}$. Its solution, by the formula \eqref{eq2}, has the form
\begin{gather}\label{eq7}
e^{-\beta y} =e^{-\beta\int g(x)dx} \left( \beta\int f(x) e^{\beta\int g(x)dx} dx + C \right).
\end{gather}
Solving the equation \eqref{eq7}, with respect to $y$, we have
$$
y =-\frac{1}{\beta}\log\left(e^{-\beta\int g(x)dx} \left( \beta\int f(x) e^{\beta\int g(x)dx} dx + C \right)\right), \Rightarrow
$$
\begin{gather}\label{eq8}
y =\int g(x)dx-\frac{1}{\beta}\log \left( \beta\int f(x) e^{\beta\int g(x)dx} dx + C \right).
\end{gather}
\medskip
\section{Second order differential equations}
{\it 2.1. Linear homogeneous second order differential equation:}
\begin{gather}\label{eq9}
y''+by'+cy=0,
\end{gather}
where $b\in \mathbb{R}$, $c\in \mathbb{R}$.
Let $y$ is not identically zero. Then from the equation \eqref{eq9} we obtain
$$
\frac{y''}{y}+b\frac{y'}{y}+c=0, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
\begin{gather}\label{eq10}
(\log |y|)''+((\log |y|)')^2+ b(\log |y|)'+c=0,
\end{gather}
because $\frac{y'}{y}=(\log |y|)'$, $(\log |y|)''=\left(\frac{y'}{y}\right)'=\frac{y''}{y}-\left(\frac{y'}{y}\right)^2=\frac{y''}{y}-\left((\log |y|)'\right)^2$, $\Rightarrow$ $\frac{y''}{y}=(\log |y|)''+\left((\log |y|)'\right)^2$.
Let in the equation \eqref{eq10}:
$$
(\log |y|)'=z.
$$
Then we have equation \eqref{eq10} in the form
\begin{gather}\label{eq11}
z'+z^2+bz+c=0, \quad \Rightarrow
\end{gather}
\begin{gather}\label{eq12}
\frac{z'}{z^2+bz+c}=-1.
\end{gather}
{\it Case 1.} $b^2-4c>0$. In this case we have equation \eqref{eq12} has be form
$$
\frac{z'}{\left(z+\frac{b}{2}\right)^2-\frac{1}{4}(b^2-4c)}=-1, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
\frac{z'}{\left(z+\frac{b}{2}\right)^2-\left(\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{b^2-4c}\right)^2}=-1, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
\begin{gather}\label{eq13}
\frac{1}{2\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{b^2-4c}}\log\left|\frac{z+\frac{b}{2}-\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{b^2-4c}}{z+\frac{b}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{b^2-4c}}\right|=-x+C_{1,1}.
\end{gather}
Let in the equation \eqref{eq13}: $z+\frac{b}{2}=\xi$, $\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{b^2-4c}=\gamma$. Then we obtain
$$
\frac{1}{\sqrt{b^2-4c}}\log\left|\frac{\xi-\gamma}{\xi+\gamma}\right|=-x+C_{1,1}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
\frac{\xi-\gamma}{\xi+\gamma}=C_{1,2}e^{-\sqrt{b^2-4c}x}, \quad C_{1,2}=e^{C_{1,1}}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
1-\frac{2\gamma}{\xi+\gamma}=C_{1,2}e^{-\sqrt{b^2-4c}x}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
\frac{1}{\xi+\gamma}=\frac{1}{2\gamma}+C_{1,3}e^{-\sqrt{b^2-4c}x}, \quad C_{1,3}=-\frac{1}{2\gamma}C_{1,2}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
\begin{gather}\label{eq14}
\xi+\gamma=\frac{1}{\frac{1}{2\gamma}+C_{1,3}e^{-\sqrt{b^2-4c}x}}.
\end{gather}
Returning to the change of variables $z+\frac{b}{2}=\xi$, $\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{b^2-4c}=\gamma$ in the equation \eqref{eq14}, we obtain
$$
z+\frac{b}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{b^2-4c}=\frac{1}{\frac{1}{\sqrt{b^2-4c}}+C_{1,3}e^{-\sqrt{b^2-4c}x}}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
z=-\left(\frac{b}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{b^2-4c}\right)+\frac{1}{\frac{1}{\sqrt{b^2-4c}}+C_{1,3}e^{-\sqrt{b^2-4c}x}}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
z=-\left(\frac{b}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{b^2-4c}\right)+\frac{\sqrt{b^2-4c}}{1+C_{1,4}e^{-\sqrt{b^2-4c}x}}, \quad C_{1,4}=\sqrt{b^2-4c}C_{1,3}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
\begin{gather}\label{eq15}
z=-\left(\frac{b}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{b^2-4c}\right)+\frac{e^{\sqrt{b^2-4c}x}\sqrt{b^2-4c}}{e^{\sqrt{b^2-4c}x}+C_{1,4}}.
\end{gather}
Because $z=(\log |y|)'$, then we have in the equation \eqref{eq15}
$$
(\log |y|)'=-\left(\frac{b}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{b^2-4c}\right)+\frac{e^{\sqrt{b^2-4c}x}\sqrt{b^2-4c}}{e^{\sqrt{b^2-4c}x}+C_{1,4}}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
\log |y|=\int\frac{e^{\sqrt{b^2-4c}x}\sqrt{b^2-4c}}{e^{\sqrt{b^2-4c}x}+C_{1,4}}dx-\left(\frac{b}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{b^2-4c}\right)x+\log|C_{2,1}|=
$$
$$
=\log \left|e^{\sqrt{b^2-4c}x}+C_{1,4}\right|-\left(\frac{b}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{b^2-4c}\right)x+\log|C_{2,1}|, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
y=\left(e^{\sqrt{b^2-4c}x}+C_{1,4}\right)e^{-\left(\frac{b}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{b^2-4c}\right)x}C_{2,1}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
\begin{gather}\label{eqd141}
y=C_{1}e^{\left(-\frac{b}{2}-\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{b^2-4c}\right)x}+C_{2}e^{\left(-\frac{b}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{b^2-4c}\right)x},
\end{gather}
where $C_{1}=C_{2,1}C_{1,4}$, $C_{2}=C_{2,1}$ is an integration constant.
{\it Case 2.} $b^2-4c=0$.
In this case we have equation \eqref{eq12} has be form
$$
\frac{z'}{\left(z+\frac{b}{2}\right)^2}=-1.
$$
Step by step from the last equation we obtain
$$
\left(-\frac{1}{z+\frac{b}{2}}\right)'=-1, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
\frac{1}{z+\frac{b}{2}}=x+C_{1,5}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
z+\frac{b}{2}=\frac{1}{x+C_{1,5}}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
\begin{gather}\label{eq15sd1}
z=-\frac{b}{2}+\frac{1}{x+C_{1,5}}.
\end{gather}
Because $z=(\log |y|)'$, then we have in the equation \eqref{eq15sd1}
$$
(\log |y|)'=-\frac{b}{2}+\frac{1}{x+C_{1,5}}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
\log |y|=-\frac{b}{2}x+\log \left|x+C_{1,5}\right|+\log\left|C_{2}\right|, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
\begin{gather}\label{eqd142}
y=e^{-\frac{b}{2}x}\left(x+C_{1,5}\right)C_{2}=C_{1}e^{-\frac{b}{2}x}+C_{2}xe^{-\frac{b}{2}x},
\end{gather}
where $C_{1}=C_{1,5}C_{2}$ is an integration constant.
{\it Case 3.} $b^2-4c<0$. In this case we have equation \eqref{eq12} has be form
$$
\frac{z'}{\left(z+\frac{b}{2}\right)^2+\frac{1}{4}(4c-b^2)}=-1, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
\frac{z'}{\left(z+\frac{b}{2}\right)^2+\left(\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{4c-b^2}\right)^2}=-1, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
\frac{1}{\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{4c-b^2}}\arctan \frac{z+\frac{b}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{4c-b^2}}=-x+C_{1,6} \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
\arctan \frac{z+\frac{b}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{4c-b^2}}=-\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{4c-b^2}x+C_{1,7}, \quad C_{1,7}=C_{1,6}\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{4c-b^2}, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
\frac{z+\frac{b}{2}}{\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{4c-b^2}}=\tan \left(-\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{4c-b^2}x+C_{1,7}\right), \quad \Rightarrow
$$
\begin{gather}\label{eq15sd2}
z=-\frac{b}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{4c-b^2}\tan \left(-\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{4c-b^2}x+C_{1,7}\right).
\end{gather}
Because $z=(\log |y|)'$, then we have in the equation \eqref{eq15sd2}
$$
(\log |y|)'=-\frac{b}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{4c-b^2}\tan \left(-\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{4c-b^2}x+C_{1,7}\right), \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
\log |y|=-\frac{b}{2}x+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{4c-b^2}\int\tan \left(-\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{4c-b^2}x+C_{1,7}\right)dx+\log\left|C_{2,2}\right|=
$$
$$
=-\frac{b}{2}x+\log\left|\cos\left(-\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{4c-b^2}x+C_{1,7}\right)\right|+\log\left|C_{2,2}\right|, \quad \Rightarrow
$$
$$
y=e^{-\frac{b}{2}x}\cos\left(-\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{4c-b^2}x+C_{1,7}\right)C_{2,2}=
$$
$$
=C_{2,2}e^{-\frac{b}{2}x}\left(\cos\left(-\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{4c-b^2}x\right)\cos \left(C_{1,7}\right)-\sin\left(-\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{4c-b^2}x\right)\sin \left(C_{1,7}\right)\right)=
$$
\begin{gather}\label{eqd143}
=e^{-\frac{b}{2}x}\left(C_{1}\cos\left(\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{4c-b^2}x\right)+C_{2}\sin\left(\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{4c-b^2}x\right)\right),
\end{gather}
where $C_{1}=C_{2,2}\cos (C_{1,7})$, $C_{2}=C_{2,2}\sin (C_{1,7})$ is an integration constant.
The formulas \eqref{eqd141}, \eqref{eqd142}, \eqref{eqd143}, solve the equation \eqref{eq9} in the respective cases 1,2,3.
\medskip
\textbf{Conclusion.} This method in chapter 2 makes it possible to obtain these solutions without applying a complex analysis and finding a solution in the form $y=\psi(x)e^{\zeta x}$. Also, we got exact solutions for many kinds of first-order differential equations in chapter 1.
\newpage
|
\subsection{Please Capitalize the First Letter of Each Notional Word in Subsection Title}
\section{Introduction}
\label{sect:intro}
Radio lobes powered by the supermassive black hole (SMBH) in the
centers of galaxies are usually hosted by elliptical galaxies. They
extend to several hundred kilo-parsecs which are much larger than
their optical counterparts. The point of view that double radio lobes
are exclusively hosted by elliptical galaxies has been challenged by
the discovery of the double-lobed radio source J0313$-$192
(J0315$-$1906), which was found to be hosted by a {\it spiral} galaxy
\citep{lok98,loyh01,kwol06}.
In the last two decades, a few more spiral galaxies hosting double
radio lobes have been revealed. \citet{hso+11} discovered the second
case, Speca (J1409$-$0302), which has episodic radio
emission. \citet{bvv+14} identified J2345$-$0449 with lobes extending
to an extraordinary length of $\sim$1.6~Mpc. \citet{mmm+16} reported
the serendipitous discovery of the double radio source of
MCG+07--47--10 (J2318+4314) with a low luminosity of $P_{\rm
1.4GHz}\sim10^{22}~\rm W~Hz^{-1}$. Very recently, \citet{Vietri22}
identified a new source J0354$-$1340 with the double radio lobes
extending approximately 240~kpc.
Searches for spiral galaxies with double radio lobes have also been
made systematically by several groups.
\citet{mod+15} cross-matched the optical Galaxy Zoo ``superclean''
sample \citep{lss+08} with the Unified Radio Catalog of
\citet{Kimball08}, which includes radio sources from both the Faint
Images of the Radio Sky at Twenty-centimeters \citep[FIRST,][]{bwh95}
and the NRAO VLA Sky Survey \citep[NVSS,][]{ccg+98} data. They
reported a new spiral J1649+2635 with double radio lobes, which has a
radio power of about $\rm 10^{24}~W~Hz^{-1}$ at 1.4~GHz.
\citet{sis+15} cross-matched the FIRST catalog \citep{bwh95} with the
187\,005 spiral galaxies \citep{mvb15} from the Sloan Digital Sky
Survey \citep[SDSS,][]{yaa+00} Data Release 7 (DR7) to search for
coincidences of a core source within a radius of 3$\arcsec$ and also
the double lobes within a radius of 3$\arcmin$. They conducted an
additional search for the extended radio lobes with the NVSS data
\citep{ccg+98} for the obtained FIRST-SDSS matched objects and
identified four spiral galaxies with double radio lobes, among which
J1159+5820 \citep{kjz+12}, J1352+3126 \citep{Donzelli07}, and
J1649+2635 \citep{mod+15} were already reported previously, while
J0836+0532 was found for the first time.
\citet{Martinez16} collected 675\,874 spiral galaxies from several
spiral galaxy samples \citep[e.g.,][]{Huertas11,Willett13,ks16}, and
searched for the associated FIRST sources \citep{bwh95} within a
larger radius of 6$\arcmin$ under constraints of angular distances,
position angles and arm-length ratio of the double radio sources with
respect to the central optical galaxy. Concentrating on the extremely
symmetric and aligned radio lobes, they finally reported the
re-discovery of the known case of J1649+2635 \citep{mod+15}. Though
these efforts have been dedicated to searching for the spiral galaxies
hosting double radio lobes, only a handful of cases have been
confirmed to date.
It is also unclear why these spirals produce double radio lobes while
the vast majority of other spirals do not. Often radio lobes may be
triggered by the accretion of host galaxies from the over-dense
environments in their vicinity. For example, the source J0315$-$1906
is a member galaxy of the cluster A428 \citep{lok98}. J1409$-$0302 and
J1649+2635 are the brightest galaxies of their parent systems
\citep{hso+11,mod+15}, and J2318+4314 is located close to the galaxy
groups NGC~7618 and UGC~12491 \citep{mmm+16}. However, \citet{sis+15}
found that J0836+0532 and J1352+3126 are in galaxy groups with very
limited members and listed them as field galaxies together with
J1159+5820 (see their Table~7). Therefore, a large sample of such
galaxies is needed to investigate the environmental effect on radio
lobes. \citet{Wu22} recently analyzed the optical images from the
Hubble Space Telescope of a sample of galaxies with extended double
radio lobes seen from FIRST \citep{bwh95}, and found that 18 disk
galaxies have high probability of genuine association. Some of these
disk galaxies have a small inclination angle and show clear spiral
patterns.
We notice that \citet{ks16} classified the broad morphological types
of $\sim3\times10^6$ galaxies in the SDSS \citep{yaa+00} Data Release
8 (DR8) by analyzing images of galaxies with computer programs, and
their pipeline picked out $\sim9\times10^5$ spiral galaxies. Here, we
take this large sample as the optical basis of spiral galaxies, and
cross-match them with the full radio source catalogs of NVSS
\citep{ccg+98} and FIRST \citep{bwh95}. We discover three new spiral
galaxies with double radio lobes. The paper is organized as
follows. In Sect.~2, we introduce the data sets used to identify the
double-lobed spiral galaxies, and also the procedure of
identification. We show the results and discuss the properties of the
galaxies and their environments in Sect.~3. The concluding remarks are
given in Sect.~4.
Throughout the paper, we adopt a flat $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with
$H_{0} = 70~km\ s^{-1}\ Mpc^{-1}$, $\Omega_{m}$ = 0.3 and
$\Omega_{\Lambda}$ = 0.7.
\section{Data and Search Strategy}
\label{sect:Obs}
\subsection{Data}
Via an automatic computer program, \citet{ks16} classified
approximately 9$\times10^5$ spiral galaxies out of $\sim$3 $\times$
10$^{6}$ galaxies observed in the SDSS \citep{yaa+00} DR8. The
classifications for spiral galaxies and elliptical galaxies show good
agreement with those of the Galaxy Zoo debiased ``superclean'' sample
\citep{lss+08} and the agreement rate is claimed to reach 98\% when
the ``classification certainty'' $p \ge 0.54$.
Two catalogs were released by \citet{ks16}. The
``catalog.dat''\footnote{https://cdsarc.cds.unistra.fr/viz-bin/cat/J/ApJS/223/20$\#$/browse}
is the catalog of the broad morphology of SDSS galaxies with only the
classification certainty $p$ indicated, and the ``spec.dat'' including
both indications of $p$ and morphological remarks (Elliptical, Spiral,
Star) is the morphological catalog of the SDSS objects with
spectra. In this work, we first take all the spiral galaxies in the
two catalogs with $p \ge 0.54$. However, we notice that some known
spirals such as J0836+0532 and J1649+2635, as shown in
Table~\ref{sdragn}, have a classification certainty of $p$ = 0.23 and
$p$ = 0.37, respectively, less than 0.54. In order not to miss many
real spirals, we simply include all galaxies marked as ``Spiral'' in
the ``spec.dat'' of \citet{ks16}, regardless of the values of $p$.
Therefore, all 366\,836 entries in the ``spec.dat'' marked as
``Spiral'' and 1\,184\,922 entries with $p \ge 0.54$ in
``catalog.dat'' are used to search for associated double radio
lobes. The duplicates in the two catalogs are treated at the final
stage when inspecting the association between optical and radio
images.
\input{table1.tex}
The radio counterparts of the optical spiral galaxies are searched in
the NVSS \citep{ccg+98} and FIRST \citep{bwh95} source catalogs. The
NVSS was carried out with the Very Large Array (VLA) -- D
configuration at the frequency of 1.4~GHz with an angular resolution
of $\sim45\arcsec$. The survey covers the entire sky north of
decl. $\delta = -40\degr$. Over 1.8~million discrete sources brighter
than $\sim$2.5~mJy (5$\sigma$ level) were compiled into the associated
catalog\footnote{https://www.cv.nrao.edu/nvss/NVSSlist.shtml}. The
positional accuracy of NVSS is about 1$\arcsec$ for strong sources and
7$\arcsec$ for faint sources. The FIRST observations were conducted at
the same frequency, but with a much better angular resolution of
$\sim5\arcsec$ by using the VLA -- B configuration array. It has a
sensitivity of about 0.13~mJy beam$^{-1}$. The sky coverage of FIRST
is limited within the northern and southern Galactic cap regions of
about 10\,000 square degrees in total, which is less than one third
that of NVSS. The FIRST catalog contains over $9.4\times10^{5}$
entries. For the sources whose flux density is higher than 1~mJy, the
radius of the 90\% positional confidence error circle is less than
1$\arcsec$. The latest FIRST source catalog of Version
14Dec17\footnote{http://sundog.stsci.edu/first/catalogs/readme.html}
was used in this study.
\subsection{Search Strategy}
Based on the experiences gained from previous work
\cite[e.g.][]{yhw16}, we learn that the 5$\arcsec$ angular resolution
of FIRST could resolve out extended radio structures so that diffuse
radio lobes can be missed, such as the case for J1409--0302
\citep[Speca,][]{hso+11}. Therefore we take the NVSS data as the
fundamental basis and the FIRST data are used as an auxiliary database
for radio-lobe identification. The radius to search for the radio
counterpart of the central optical spiral galaxy is tricky: the larger
the radius is set, the more radio sources around the central galaxy
one would get, and then the more time would be consumed for
distinguishing the true association. Therefore a trade-off should be
made on setting the searching area to balance the time consumption. By
reviewing the known cases to date \citep[e.g.][]{lok98, hso+11,
bvv+14, mod+15, sis+15, mmm+16}, we search for the NVSS and FIRST
sources within 800~kpc around the central optical spirals if the
redshift information is available; otherwise a radius of 3.5$\arcmin$
around the spiral is set for the NVSS sources and 30$\arcsec$ for the
FIRST sources if the redshift is unknown.
Spiral galaxies with double radio lobes may have various appearances
in the radio images of NVSS and FIRST. In the low resolution image of
NVSS, they could have (1) a central core with distinct double radio
lobes, e.g. J1352+3126 \citep[see Fig.~4 in ][]{sis+15}; (2)
unresolved central core and double radio lobes, i.e. showing a
structure that is elongated, such as J1649+2635 \citep[see Fig.~5 in
][]{sis+15}; and (3) distinct double-lobe structure without a core
component intrinsically or extrinsically. In the high resolution image
of FIRST, the spirals that host double radio lobes could show (1) a
central core with distinct double radio lobes, e.g. J1649+2635
\citep{sis+15}; (2) only a central core, because the extended lobes
are resolved out by the small synthesis beam; and (3) distinct
double-lobe structures without a core, e.g. J1409$-$0302
\citep{hso+11}. The real cases can be any reasonable combinations of
the above possibilities for the NVSS and FIRST data in their common
surveyed area. However, such loose constraints will yield too many
output images, which are very difficult to be checked
manually. According to the observational fact that the associated
radio lobes are generally among the closest sources to the optical
center, we therefore only consider the four closest radio sources to
the central galaxy for association. Unlike \citet{Martinez16} who
searched for extremely symmetric and collimated jets, we allow the
angle between the two radio lobes (any pair of the four closest radio
sources) to vary in the range of $180\pm20\degr$ with respect to the
central galaxy. To avoid missing the cases of blended core and lobes,
we also accept the cases which have one or more radio sources close
enough ($\leqslant$ 22.5$\arcsec$, half of the beam size of the NVSS)
to the central spirals. Finally, the quantity of the images that
qualified for the above conditions is largely reduced and become
suitable for eye inspections. About 200\,000 images in total are left
and inspected manually.
The probable candidates are then picked out and further examined in
composite images which combine both information from radio and
optical. The optical images are taken from the Dark Energy
Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) Legacy Imaging
Survey\footnote{http://legacysurvey.org/} \citep{dsl+19}, which is
deeper and has a better quality than the SDSS. More importantly, the
galaxy images observed by DESI can be well modeled by ``{\it The
Tractor}'' with the point spread function considered \citep[see][for
details]{dsl+19}. The model-subtracted image, namely, the residual
image, can be conveniently used to determine the existence of spiral
patterns in galaxies.
As in previous discoveries introduced in Sect.~\ref{sect:intro}, the
identified host galaxies with double radio lobes all show spiral
patterns. Even for J0315$-$1906, which is somehow edge-on,
\citet{lok98} claimed the detection of a spiral structure through a
deep $B$-band exposure. We follow the same discipline in this work
that a spiral pattern must be visible for the central optical
galaxy. Edge-on galaxies, which appear as disks are therefore not
considered.
\section{Result and Discussion}
\label{sect:result}
\begin{figure*}[!thp]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.39\textwidth]{fig/ms2022-0406fig1-1.eps}
\hspace{8mm}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.39\textwidth]{fig/ms2022-0406fig1-2.eps}\\
\hspace{7mm}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.174\textwidth]{fig/ms2022-0406fig1-3.eps}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.174\textwidth]{fig/ms2022-0406fig1-4.eps}
\hspace{1.4cm}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.174\textwidth]{fig/ms2022-0406fig1-5.eps}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.174\textwidth]{fig/ms2022-0406fig1-6.eps}\\[0.5cm]
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.39\textwidth]{fig/ms2022-0406fig1-7.eps}
\hspace{8mm}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.39\textwidth]{fig/ms2022-0406fig1-8.eps}\\
\hspace{7mm}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.174\textwidth]{fig/ms2022-0406fig1-9.eps}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.174\textwidth]{fig/ms2022-0406fig1-10.eps}
\hspace{1.4cm}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.174\textwidth]{fig/ms2022-0406fig1-11.eps}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.174\textwidth]{fig/ms2022-0406fig1-12.eps}\\
\caption{Images for the eight spiral galaxies hosting double radio
lobes identified in this work. The panels with large figures show
the optical DESI images \citep{dsl+19} overlaid with radio contours,
green for NVSS \citep{ccg+98} and red for FIRST \citep{bwh95}. Both
the NVSS and FIRST contours satisfy $\langle S_{\rm
bg}\rangle+5\times2^{\rm n/2}\sigma$~mJy beam$^{-1}$, here $n=0,
1, 2, ...$. The source name and redshift are labeled on top of each
plot. The cross indicates the center of the radio images. The
physical scale is shown at the bottom-right corner. The panels with
small figures are the zoomed-in DESI images and the model-subtracted
residual images \citep{dsl+19} for the eight spiral galaxies, with
the image size marked at the top-left corner.}
\end{figure*}
\addtocounter{figure}{-1}
\begin{figure*}[!thp]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.39\textwidth]{fig/ms2022-0406fig1-13.eps}
\hspace{8mm}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.39\textwidth]{fig/ms2022-0406fig1-14.eps}\\
\hspace{7mm}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.174\textwidth]{fig/ms2022-0406fig1-15.eps}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.174\textwidth]{fig/ms2022-0406fig1-16.eps}
\hspace{1.4cm}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.174\textwidth]{fig/ms2022-0406fig1-17.eps}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.174\textwidth]{fig/ms2022-0406fig1-18.eps}\\[0.5cm]
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.39\textwidth]{fig/ms2022-0406fig1-19.eps}
\hspace{8mm}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.39\textwidth]{fig/ms2022-0406fig1-20.eps}\\
\hspace{7mm}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.174\textwidth]{fig/ms2022-0406fig1-21.eps}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.174\textwidth]{fig/ms2022-0406fig1-22.eps}
\hspace{1.4cm}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.174\textwidth]{fig/ms2022-0406fig1-23.eps}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.174\textwidth]{fig/ms2022-0406fig1-24.eps}\\
\caption{ - {\it continued}}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure*}
By cross-matching the spiral sample taken from \citet{ks16} with the
radio catalogs of the NVSS \citep{ccg+98} and FIRST \citep{bwh95}, we
successfully identify eight double-lobed spiral galaxies, three of
which, J0326$-$0623, J1110+0321 and J1134+3046 are revealed for the
first time. J1128+2417 is another case that we independently
discovered in this work. However, it was recently reported by
\citet{Wu22} when we were preparing this manuscript for submission,
and we have to list it as a known case. We add a note for this object
in Sect.~\ref{Notes}. Another four previously known cases: J1159+5820
\citep{kjz+12}, J1352+3126 \citep{Donzelli07}, J1649+2635
\citep{mod+15} and the Speca \citep[J1409$-$0302,][]{hso+11} have also
been re-identified. Their recurrences validate our searching
strategy. By combining the radio and optical data, we show the
composite images for these eight spiral galaxies hosting double radio
lobes identified in this work in Fig.~\ref{fig1}.
For the other five known cases, J0836+0532 identified by
\citet{sis+15} is included in the catalog of \citet{ks16}, but without
morphological remarks and the classification certainty is $p$ = 0.23,
therefore it is missed. J0315$-$1906 \citep{lok98}, J0354$-$1340
\citep{Vietri22}, and J2318+4314 \citep{mmm+16} are not in the SDSS
sky, hence we cannot get them. J2345$-$0449 \citep{bvv+14} is not
included in \citet{ks16}. Among the 18 disk galaxies associated with
double radio lobes found in \citet{Wu22}, some of the central optical
galaxies seen face-on or having small inclination angles show
unambiguous spiral patterns, qualifying our selection based on
morphology. They belong to the same type of galaxies as discussed in
this work. Except for J1128+241, which is our target J1128+2417, we
examine the images and pick out seven galaxies: J0209+0750,
J0219+0155, J0806+0624, J0832+1848, J1328+5710, J1656+6407 and
J1721+2624 as spirals. Since J0209+0750, J0806+0624, J1328+5710 and
J1656+6407 have been claimed to show spiral features by \citet{Wu22},
so that these four targets are included as the known cases of spirals
in Table~\ref{sdragn}.
\subsection{Notes on the Newly Identified Spirals with Double Radio Lobes}
\label{Notes}
\subsubsection{J0326$-$0623}
J0326$-$0623 is a face-on galaxy at a redshift of $z = 0.18$ with two
major spiral arms, clearly shown in the zoomed DESI image and the
model-subtracted residual image in Fig.~\ref{fig1}. This galaxy is the
brightest cluster galaxy (BCG) of a galaxy cluster in the catalog of
\citet{Yang07}, which contains 13 bright member galaxies of $M^{\rm
e}_{\rm r}\le-20.5$ mag. The total flux density detected by NVSS at
1.4~GHz is about 6~mJy. However, the upper lobe is superimposed by a
point-like radio source as detected by FIRST, which is associated with
J032624$-$062212, a foreground galaxy at $z \sim 0.16$. The morphology
of the radio lobes is slightly bent. It has a size of $\sim$430~kpc as
inferred by the NVSS 5$\sigma$ contour.
\subsubsection{J1110+0321}
J1110+0321 is a blue galaxy at $z = 0.03$. The optical observational
and residual images displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig1} indicate spiral-arm
structures. This galaxy belongs to a galaxy group \citep{Tempel12},
which contains seven members brighter than $-20.5$ mag. The NVSS image
features an elongated morphology with two lobes close to each other,
and FIRST detects bright sources at the peak in each lobe. The
inner-west component detected by FIRST is probably partially
associated with a background quasar QSO B1107+0337 at $z=0.965$. The
overall scale of the radio lobes measured based on the NVSS 5$\sigma$
contour is about 100~kpc.
\subsubsection{J1128+2417}
J1128+2417 is a blue galaxy at $z = 0.169$. The optical residual image
for this galaxy presents a faint imprint of spiral patterns, while the
high-quality deeper image from the Hubble Space Telescope \citep{Wu22}
clearly shows the existence of the spiral structures. With the method
introduced in Section~\ref{envir}, we find this galaxy is a satellite
galaxy in a galaxy group, which contains four members with $M^{\rm
e}_{\rm r}\le-20.5$ mag. The NVSS map shows unresolved radio lobes
with an elongated morphology, but FIRST detects two bright jets with
some bridge emission. The scale for the radio emission indicated by
the NVSS is around 380~kpc.
\subsubsection{J1134+3046}
J1134+3046 is also a blue galaxy at $z = 0.046$. The optical residual
map of this galaxy presents clear structures of spiral arms. This
galaxy is a member in a galaxy group \citep{Tempel12}, which contains
four bright member galaxies with $M^{\rm e}_{\rm r}\le-20.5$
mag. Similar to J1110+0321 and J1128+2417, the NVSS map of J1134+3046
shows unresolved radio lobes with an elongated morphology, while the
FIRST image presents clear jets. The overall scale of radio emission
presented by the NVSS map is approximately 190~kpc.
\subsection{Relation between Radio Power and Stellar Mass of the Galaxy}
The double radio lobes of the spiral galaxies come from their central
SMBH. It is therefore natural to speculate that the power of these
radio lobes could be related to the mass of the SMBH. The mass of the
SMBH is difficult to assess directly. However, it is related to the
mass of the host galaxy \citep[e.g.,][]{fm00,tgb+02,mh03}.
\citet{Wu22} reported a positive correlation between $L_{\rm1.4~GHz}$
and the mass of SMBH $M_{BH}$ for nine previously known cases
with/without their 18 new disk galaxies hosting double radio lobes
(see their Figure 9). They estimated the stellar mass of the galaxy
$M_{*}$ by using SDSS multi-band photometry. Alternatively, the total
stellar mass of the host galaxy can be well estimated based on the
infrared luminosity of the galaxy which is less affected by star
formation history than the corresponding optical luminosity
\citep{bmk+03,wwz+13}. \citet{wh21} found a good scaling relation
between the stellar mass of the galaxy and the 3.4~$\mu$m luminosity
from the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer
\citep[WISE,][]{wem+10}. Following their procedure, we estimated the
stellar mass of each galaxy listed in Table~\ref{sdragn}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.45\textwidth]{fig/ms2022-0406fig2.eps}
\caption{Radio power versus stellar mass for 14 known (open) and three
newly identified (solid, name labeled) spiral galaxies hosting
double radio lobes.}
\label{magnitude}
\end{figure}
On the other hand, the 1.4~GHz flux densities for the radio lobes of
all these galaxies were obtained from the NVSS catalog, and the radio
powers were calculated via
\begin{equation}
P_{\rm 1.4~GHz}=4\pi D_{\rm L}^{2}\times S_{\rm 1.4~GHz}\times (1+z)^{1-\beta},
\label{power}
\end{equation}
where $P_{\rm 1.4~GHz}$ is the radio power in the unit of $10^{23}$
W~Hz$^{-1}$ and $D_{\rm L}=(1+z) \frac{c}{H_0} \int_{0}^{z}\frac{dz'}
{\sqrt{\Omega_{m}(1+z')^3+\Omega_{\Lambda}}}$ is the luminosity
distance of a galaxy at a redshift $z$. $S_{\rm 1.4~GHz}$ is the
1.4~GHz total flux density of the radio lobes in mJy extracted from
the NVSS catalog. $(1+z)^{(1-\beta)}$ is the {\it k}-correction term
and $\beta$ is the spectral index of radio galaxies. We adopt the
statistical mean of $\beta=0.74$ as obtained by \citet{lm07}. All the
radio flux densities and the corresponding radio powers are listed in
Table~\ref{sdragn}. The radio powers are further compared with the
stellar mass $M_{*}$ of 14 known (open) and three newly identified
(solid) double-lobed spiral galaxies in Figure~\ref{magnitude}.
As shown in Figure~\ref{magnitude}, a positive correlation exists
between the stellar mass of spiral galaxy and the power of their
associated double radio lobes. We test the correlation by the Spearman
rank-order correlation, and get the significance $p_{s} = 0.00$,
indicating the existence of strong dependence between $M_{*}$ and
radio power of the lobes, with a relation of $P_{\rm 1.4~GHz} \propto
M_{*}^{0.81}$.
\subsection{Environment of the Spiral-hosted Double-lobed Sources}
\label{envir}
The mechanism for powering the large-scale double radio lobes by
spiral galaxies is not clear. Physically, radio lobes may be related
to a dense environment. \citet{hso+11} pointed out that J1409$-$0302
belongs to a galaxy cluster of MaxBCG J212.45357$-$03.04237 and it is
the central BCG. Its relic radio lobes may result from the accretion
of galactic filaments. Based on the morphology, \citet{sis+15}
suggested a merger scenario between a spiral and an elliptical galaxy
for both J1159+5820 and J1352+3126. They also noticed that J0836+0532
and J1352+3126 are in galaxy groups with very limited group members,
but listed them as field galaxies together with J1159+5820.
\citet{mod+15} found that J1649+2635 is in a group rather than a
cluster environment and may interact with another group, in which the
bright galaxy SDSS J164933.52+265052.0 resides.
With all such accumulated samples and the new discoveries as listed in
Table~\ref{sdragn}, we can have a good statistics on the environment
of these spiral galaxies. Based on the galaxy group/cluster catalogs
\citep[e.g.][]{Yang07, Tempel12, Tully15, Tempel18}, we find that most
of them are located in a galaxy group or a cluster. For J0354$-$1340,
the information is not available.
We further use the SDSS data to evaluate the richness of their parent
system. We follow the procedures of \citet{whl12} and \citet{wh15} by
counting the member galaxies with $M^{\rm e}_{\rm r}\le-20.5$ mag if
they have a velocity difference of 2500 km~s$^{-1}$ from the group or
cluster when the spectroscopic redshift is available or have a
redshift difference of $0.04(1+z)$ if only photometric redshifts are
available. Here, $M^{\rm e}_{\rm r}$ is evolution-corrected from
$M_{\rm r}$ with $M^{\rm e}_{\rm r}=M_{\rm r}+1.16z$. The number of
such bright member galaxies $N_{\rm gal}$ is listed in
Table~\ref{sdragn}. We notice that the member galaxies in the parent
system of these spirals with double radio lobes are much less than
those in the cluster catalog of \citet{whl12}. Based on the numbers of
member galaxies counted in the above way, we here call the system a
``cluster'' if ten or more members are included, or a ``group'' if
less than 10 members are found. In addition, we found that more than
half of these spirals with double radio lobes are the BCG or brightest
group galaxy (BGG) in the parent system.
We pick seven spiral galaxies from \citet{Wu22} and four of them are
listed in Table~\ref{sdragn} as known cases. We check the environment
for the rest three: J0219+0155, J0832+1848 and J1721+2624 following
the method described above. All of them are found in galaxy groups and
clusters \citep{Yang07, Tempel12, Tully15}, and are the BGGs
(J0219+0155: $N_{gal} = 6$; J0832+1848: $N_{gal} = 3$) and BCG
(J1721+2624: $N_{gal} = 15$). J1646+3831 is one of the six galaxies
claimed to show spiral structures in \citet{Wu22} besides J1128+2417
and the four cases. It is the BGG in a galaxy group ($N_{gal} = 5$)
listed in \citet{Tempel12}. All these evidence support that the
spirals producing large-scale radio jets tend to reside in galaxy
groups and poor clusters.
\section{Concluding Remarks}
\label{sect:summary}
By cross-matching a large sample of machine-selected spiral galaxies
from the SDSS \citep{yaa+00} DR8 \citep{ks16} with the full radio
source catalogs of NVSS \citep{ccg+98} and FIRST \citep{bwh95}, we
identify three new spirals, J0326$–$0623, J1110+0321 and J1134+3046
hosting double radio lobes, together with five previously known
double-lobed spirals.
With the largest sample of double-lobed spiral galaxies by far, we
confirm that more massive spirals could produce more powerful
large-scale radio jets. We notice that most spiral galaxies that host
double radio lobes are located in galaxy groups or galaxy clusters and
more than a half of them are BGGs or BCGs, implying that the formation
of double radio lobes may be highly related to their surrounding
environment. A more noteworthy fact is that the galaxy groups or
clusters in which these spirals reside have very limited members,
i.e. the environmental density is denser than the field, but not so
dense and hot as in the center of rich clusters where spirals may be
destroyed.
\begin{acknowledgements}
We thank the anonymous referee for helpful comments. The authors are
supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC,
Grant Nos. 11988101, 11833009), the National SKA Program of China
(grant No. 2022SKA0120103), the National Key R\&D Program of China
(Nos. 2021YFA1600401 and 2021YFA1600400), and the Open Project Program
of the Key Laboratory of FAST, NAOC, Chinese Academy of
Sciences. X.Y.G acknowledges the financial support from the CAS-NWO
cooperation programme (grant No. GJHZ1865).
The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National
Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated
Universities, Inc.
Funding for the Sloan Digital Sky Survey IV has been provided by the
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy Office of
Science, and the Participating Institutions. SDSS acknowledges support
and resources from the Center for High-Performance Computing at the
University of Utah. The SDSS website is www.sdss.org.
\end{acknowledgements}
\bibliographystyle{raa}
|
\section{Introduction}
\input{parts/intro2}
\section{Related Works}
\input{parts/rw}
\section{Methodology}
\input{parts/method}
\section{Experiments}
\input{parts/exp}
\section{Limitations and Conclusions}
Although we can adapt MoBYv2AL to other applications, we expect further research on the effects of the augmentations and the momentum encoder. Another limiting factor should be analysed at the first AL selection stage, where developers may tune the exploration-exploitation ratio to avoid saturation.
We have presented an SSL-based AL framework for image classification. The main contributions lie in the task-aware contrastive learning pipeline. MoBYv2AL retains the higher visual concepts and aligns them with the downstream task. The joint training is efficient and modular, allowing diverse backbones and sampling functions. We conduct quantitative experiments and demonstrate the state-of-the-art on four datasets. Our method shows robustness even in simulated class-imbalanced data pools.
\section{Acknowledgements}
This work is in part sponsored by KAIA grant (22CTAP-C163793-02, MOLIT), NST grant (CRC 21011, MSIT), KOCCA grant (R2022020028, MCST) and the Samsung Display corporation.
BB and DS are funded in whole, or in part, by the Wellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences (WEISS) [203145/Z/16/Z]; the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) [EP/P027938/1, EP/R004080/1, EP/P012841/1]; and the Royal Academy of Engineering Chair in Emerging Technologies Scheme; and EndoMapper project by Horizon 2020 FET (GA 863146).
\subsection{Datasets, models and baselines}
\textbf{Datasets.}For the quantitative evaluation, we put forward four well-known image classification datasets: CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100 \cite{cifar}, SVHN\cite{Goodfellow2014svhn} and FashionMNIST\cite{Xiao2017Fashion-MNIST:Algorithms}.
\noindent \textbf{Models.} We mentioned in \ref{subsec_cssl} that we use different CNNs for feature encoders. To show that MoBYv2AL is robust to architectural changes, we opt for VGG-16 \cite{Simonyan2015VeryRecognition} in the CIFAR-10/100 quantitative experiments and for ResNet-18 \cite{he2016deep} in SVHN and FashionMNIST.
\noindent \textbf{Training settings.}
We train at every selection stage for 200 epochs, and we keep the batch size at 128. The dictionary size for the keys $m$ is set up as in MoBY at 4096. We noticed in our experiments that the contrastive and cross-entropy loss converge together after 200 epochs. The learning rate starts at 0.01, and it follows a schedule for the queue encoder and task discriminator that decreases ten times at 120 and 160 epochs. However, we keep the momentum scheduler update in the key bottom branch (gradual momentum increment from 0.99). In the contrastive loss, for both queues, we fix the temperature parameter to 0.2.
\noindent \textbf{AL settings.} We followed the AL settings of VAAL\cite{Sinha2019VariationalLearning}, CDAL\cite{cdal} and CoreGCN\cite{ugcn}. For more details, please see Supplementary.
\noindent \textbf{Baselines.}
We compared our method MoBYv2AL with a wide range of methods in active learning such as:
MC Dropout \cite{mcdropoutal}, DBAL \cite{Gal2016DropoutGhahramani}, Learning Loss\cite{Yoo2019LearningLearning}, VAAL\cite{Sinha2019VariationalLearning}, , Learning Loss~\cite{Yoo2019LearningLearning}, CoreGCN\cite{ugcn} and CDAL\cite{cdal}.
\subsection{Quantitative experiments}
\label{subsec:quant_exp}
\textbf{CIFAR10/100.} To maintain a fair comparison, in Figure \ref{fig:cifar10/0}, we report the performance charts obtained by CDAL\cite{cdal} and VAAL\cite{Sinha2019VariationalLearning}. All methods use VGG-16 for the feature encoder. MoBYv2AL has a considerable advantage with the proposed SSL framework in the CIFAR-10/100 experiments from the first selection stage. In both scenarios, we gain 20\% testing accuracy over standard learning (62\% and 28\% on CIFAR-10/100). This justifies the importance of the joint training framework from MoBYv2AL.
Our pipeline's more refined visual representations direct helpful information to the CoreSet selection method. Thus, we notice a gradual increase in Figure \ref{fig:cifar10/0}, where after 7 cycles, with 40\% labelled data, MoBYv2AL achieves 89.6\% mean accuracy on CIFAR-10 and 63.1\% on CIFAR-100. Another observation in the CIFAR-10 experiment is that the AL performance saturates faster than in CIFAR-100. This effect occurs due to a large initial labelled pool in relation to the complexity of the task. MoBYv2 exploits more contrastive information, and it limits the exploratory potential in the next stages.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm, clip, width=.44\textwidth]{fig/cifar10.png}
\includegraphics[trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm, clip, width=.44\textwidth]{fig/cifar100.png}
\caption{Evaluations on CIFAR-10 (\textbf{left}), CIFAR-100 (\textbf{right}) [Zoom in for better view]}
\label{fig:cifar10/0}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm, clip, width=.44\textwidth]{fig/svhn.png}
\includegraphics[trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm, clip, width=.44\textwidth]{fig/fmnist.png}
\caption{Evaluations on SVHN (\textbf{left}), FashionMNIST (\textbf{right}) [Zoom in for better view]}
\label{fig:fmnist}
\end{figure*}
\noindent \textbf{SVHN/FashionMNIST.} We can deduct, from Figure \ref{fig:fmnist} as well, that MoBYv2AL balances the exploration-exploitation trade-off when the initial labelled set is relatively low to the number of classes.
The dark dashed line displays the supervised baseline training on the entire labelled set. While on CIFAR-10/100 and FashionMNIST, MoBYv2AL reaches comparable performance, by the end of the cycles, on SVHN, it surpasses after the sixth one (95\%). Here, we emphasise the relevance of the strong/weak augmentations in enriching the discrete data distribution. Furthermore, grayscale data (as in FashionMNIST) can also benefit from the proposed AL framework. In Figure \ref{fig:fmnist}, we keep the same results of the previous baselines from CoreGCN\cite{ugcn}. Even under these settings, we outperform the state-of-the-arts with a noticeable consistent margin: for SVHN and FashionMNIST a gap of at least 2\% - 3\%.
\begin{table}[hbt!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l|l|l|l}
SSL-AL method vs percentages of labelled & 10\% & 15\% & 20\% & 25\% & 30\% \\ \hline
CSAL & 58.1 & 63.76 & 67.13 & 69.28 &70.08 \\
MoBYv2AL & \textbf{67.66} & \textbf{68.24} & \textbf{68.49} & 68.57 & \textbf{70.11}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison with the SSL-AL method CSAL on CIFAR-100 with a WideResNet-28 learner}
\vspace{-4mm}
\label{tab:csal}
\end{table}
\noindent \textbf{Comparison with other SSL-AL.} MoBYv2 leverages unlabelled data for contrastive learning in the AL framework. Previously, we chose this amount of data equal to the available labelled samples. Therefore, at every AL cycle, this size increases with the newly selected data. Another recent SSL-AL baseline CSAL\cite{csal}, however, deployed the consistency measurements from MixMatch\cite{mixmatch} on the entire unlabelled data. We could identify that MoBYv2AL over-exploits as CSAL the captured representation under these conditions. We further compare the 2 methods on CIFAR-100 in Table \ref{tab:csal} and adjust the feature encoder to WideResNet-28\cite{wideresnet}. In this experiment, MoBYv2AL maintains the initial performance gain.
\noindent\textbf{Imbalanced dataset experiment.}
Apart from SVHN, all the previous experiments have a uniform distribution over the classes. This rarely occurs during real-world acquisition scenarios. Therefore, as in CoreGCN, we simulate an imbalanced CIFAR-10 unlabelled set. Each of the ten classes has originally 5000 training examples. We decide to reduce 5 of the classes to 500 images (resulting in a pool of 27500). The learner contains a ResNet-18 encoder, and it is trained with an initial set of 1000 labelled examples. We apply MoBYv2AL together with the other baselines from CoreGCN\cite{ugcn} for 7 cycles. Figure \ref{fig:imbdist}(left) presents the ability of MoBYv2AL to outperform the previous methods even in possible real-world environments. Investigation of long-tail distributions is still part of our future work.
\begin{figure*}[hbt!]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm, clip, width=.44\textwidth]{fig/cifar10imb.png}
\includegraphics[trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm, clip, width=.46\textwidth]{fig/dist_shift.png}
\caption{CIFAR-10 imbalanced dataset experiment(\textbf{left}); Mitigating the distribution shift with MoBYv2AL(\textbf{right}) [Zoom in for better view]}
\label{fig:imbdist}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Distribution shift discussion}
In deep AL, the cyclical process of re-training the learner with the new labelled data may result in optimising to different local minima. Therefore, the exploration and exploitation of the AL method will be affected by this distribution shift at every stage. During experiments, this is commonly shown through jaggy curves (especially for uncertainty-based methods like MC Dropout\cite{mcdropoutal}, DBAL\cite{Gal2016DropoutGhahramani} or UncertainGCN\cite{ugcn}). To address this known issue \cite{Kirsch2021TestDA}, we analyse MoBYv2AL performance on the entire CIFAR-10 training set when providing 1000 and 2000 samples.
The dark blue bars of each class in Figure \ref{fig:imbdist} (right) level the corresponding classification accuracy with the first 1000 random samples. Tracking the performance on the entire set challenges the learner to prefer certain classes. We continue to select with MoBYv2AL another set of images. Consequently, the resulted accuracy is displayed by the cyan bar. We can clearly observe that the minima shifted in a different direction where only some classes improved at the expense of the others. To mitigate this shift, we investigated what impact the unlabelled samples have in our end-to-end training. These samples play a key role in building up the dictionary of keys. Our insight is that the CoreSet selection on MoBYv2 data representation targets primarily high contrastive samples. We can control this effect by customising the unlabelled set deployed in training our learners. To this extent, we propose to use the unlabelled data with the lowest contrastive loss. In Figure \ref{fig:imbdist} (right), we displayed on green bars the performance with this mechanism. From an initial 1000 set accuracy (dark blue) we get an effective linear increase for all the 10 classes. This effect is consistent throughout all the previous quantitative experiments as well.
\subsection{SSL modules variation and ablation study}
We continue to motivate the proposed design of MoBYv2AL with a set of ablation experiments and by varying its SSL module. On the left side of Table \ref{tab:abl}, we swap in the end-to-end training pipeline the original version of MoBY \cite{xie2021moby} and the preceding SSL state-of-the-arts, MoCov2 \cite{chen2020mocov2} and BYOL \cite{byol}. Apart from MoBY, the learner did not converge on any selection cycle with the other SSL modules. Thus, the setup of large batches and specific training conditions (low learning rates, cosine scheduler) and learners can hardly adapt to this semi-supervision configuration.
For MoBYv2AL, the weak-augmented inferences to the learner stabilise its performance in regard to the original version. Furthermore, our method distances by 4\% class accuracy with each AL cycle.
\begin{table}[hbt!]
\scalebox{0.65}{
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c}
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{SSL model / No. of labelled} &1000 & 2000 & 3000 \\ \hline
MoCov2 & 11.62±.9 & 11.92±.6 & 12.89±.6 \\ \hline
BYOL & 12.32±.7 & 11.72±.4 & 11.47±.2 \\ \hline
MoBY & 62.62±.4 & 72±.5 & 76.43±.1 \\ \hline
MoBYv2AL (Ours) & \textbf{63.06±.5} & \textbf{76.04±.6} & \textbf{80.63±.3}
\end{tabular}}
\quad
\scalebox{0.65}{
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c}
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{MoBYv2AL / No. of labelled} & 1000 & 2000 & 3000 \\ \hline
w/o Discriminator & 60.44±.4 & 72.53±.8 & 77.89±.3 \\ \hline
w/o MLP Projector & 58.57±.6 & 71.96±.5 & 77.02±.6 \\ \hline
w/o Strong Augmentation & 47.7±.4 & 58±.5 & 64.85±.5 \\ \hline
MoBYv2AL (Ours) & \textbf{63.06±.5} & \textbf{76.04±.6} & \textbf{80.63±.3}
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Variation of SSL pipeline (\textbf{left}) and ablation study of MoBYv2AL (\textbf{right}). Average testing performance (5 trials) on CIFAR-10 for 3 AL cycles with ResNet-18 encoder}
\label{tab:abl}
\end{table}
One can argue that our SSL framework comprises several building blocks, and its implementation can deter developers. While we value the significant dominance of MoBYv2 in AL selection, we still motivate the relevance of each part in Table \ref{tab:abl} (right). In the ablation evaluation, we successfully remove the queue Discriminator and the MLP projectors. As a result, we detect a continuous accuracy drop. Projecting larger features and simulating the asymmetry brings the advantage of contrastive learning in MoBYv2. Moreover, strong augmentations also play a crucial role in the SSL pipeline.
\begin{table}[hbt!]
\scalebox{0.6}{
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c}
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{MoBYv2AL} & 1000 & 2000 & 3000 \\ \hline
Multi-stage semi supervised & 34.8±.1 & 34.96±.2 & 35.09±.1 \\ \hline
Jointly with end-task & 63.06±.5 & 76.04±.6 & 80.63±.3
\end{tabular}}
\scalebox{0.55}{
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|l|l|l}
SSL method & Supervised & MoCov2 & BYOL & DINO & MoBYv2AL \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{CIFAR-10 Test accuracy} & 90.08 & 76.7 & 77.89 & 81.2 & \textbf{88.62}
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Multi-stage SSL-AL vs Jointly end-task AL (\textbf{left}). Semi-supervised learning comparison (\textbf{right}). Testing performance on CIFAR-10 with ResNet-18 encoder}
\label{tab:abl_ssl}
\end{table}
\subsection{SSL results and multi-stage AL}
MoBYv2 SSL for AL strategy is designed in a joint manner with the end task. Despite this, the recent work \cite{bengar2021reducing} that proposes contrastive learning with SimSiam\cite{chen2020simsiam} adopts multi-stage learning for the learner. The pipeline proposed fails to sample better than random in the AL paradigm. In Table \ref{tab:abl_ssl}(left), we experiment with MoBYv2 the multi-stage training (with unsupervised contrastive learning and second task fine-tuning) for CIFAR-10. We observe that the performance suffers in context to the end-task, where limited labelled examples are used. Similarly to \cite{bengar2021reducing}, we also notice a minor improvement when adding more selected data with CoreSet. To this extent, we decided to use the entire training set during fine-tuning. We re-iterated the same experiment for SSL cross-validation with MoCov2\cite{chen2020mocov2}, DINO\cite{dino} and BYOL\cite{byol}.
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Active learning ~\cite{Sinha2019VariationalLearning,ugcn,Yoo2019LearningLearning,KimConfidentAnalysis, cdal,csal, bengar2021reducing,kim2021task} has gained more popularity in the research community in recent times. The goal of AL is to sample the most \emph{informative} and \emph{diverse} examples from a large pool of unlabelled data to query their labels. Based on the selection criteria, the existing AL methods can be grouped into two. The first group is
uncertainty-based algorithms~\cite{mcdropoutal,Yoo2019LearningLearning,Gal2016DropoutGhahramani} that select complex and informative examples. Whereas representative-based algorithms select the most diverse examples from the data set. To select diverse examples, existing methods first project the images into a feature space followed by applying sampling techniques such as CoreSet~\cite{Sener2017ActiveApproach}.
Our work falls in the latter category.
Prominent works on representative-based methods for AL in the past few years have tackled
a wide range of architectures to learn the image representations such as Convolutional Neural Network~\cite{Yoo2019LearningLearning}, Graph Convolutional Neural Networks~\cite{ugcn}, Bayesian Network~\cite{caramalau2021active}, Variational Auto-Encoders~\cite{Sinha2019VariationalLearning,kim2021task},
and too few to mention. These works have proven that the learned features of the images have directly
influenced the performance of the pipeline. However, these methods suffer from \emph{cold-start problem}. As we know, in the early selection stage, there are only limited annotated examples, and the above-mentioned architectures
are hard to train with the small training set. Thus, the features extracted from such models get biased from the beginning and continue to become sub-optimal in the subsequent selection stages. This problem is commonly known as \emph{cold-start problem}. To address such a problem, recent works in AL have explored self-supervised learning methods~\cite{csal, bengar2021reducing, altod, revival_iccv21}.
Self-supervised learning methods~\cite{mixmatch,xie2021moby,dino,moco,byol} have made tremendous progress to generate discriminative representations of the images. Some of the methods have even come close to supervised methods in generalization~\cite{chen2020mocov2,byol,xie2021moby}. One of the earliest works in this direction~\cite{csal} employed consistency loss between the input image and its geometrically augmented versions along with the objective of downstream tasks. However, this method limits augmentation methods in the primitive form. Similarly, J. Bengar et. al~\cite{bengar2021reducing} introduced contrastive learning in AL, but the self-supervised method and end-task objective are optimised in multi-stage form. This makes the model sub-optimal, and it affects the representativeness of the features during selection. Simple random labelling overpasses any AL criteria. Thus, the existing works in this direction show explicit limitations.
To address these issues, we introduce a novel component, MoBYv2, in our AL pipeline. This component optimises the loss of both the downstream task and self-supervised loss jointly, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:pipeline}.
The self-supervised loss is inspired from MoBY~\cite{xie2021moby}, which inherits the strength of
two popular SSL methods: MoCo~\cite{moco} and BYOL~\cite{byol}. We choose the MoBY~\cite{xie2021moby} because it addresses the computational complexities and shortcomings of other previous methods such as SimCLR~\cite{simclr} or BYOL\cite{byol}. MoBY
has two branches (as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:pipeline}), one updates with gradient (query encoder) and
another with momentum (key encoder). The parameters of the momentum encoder are updated in slow-moving average with query one. Moreover, the memory bank of keys from the momentum encoder keeps long dependencies with several mini-batches. Apart from minimising a contrastive loss, another advantage consists in the asymmetric structure of BYOL that captures distances from mean representation. MoBYv2 culminates the AL process of selection with the concept-aware function, CoreSet.
We state our contributions and achievements through: a task-aware self-supervised method jointly trained with the learner;
a quantitative evaluation on multiple image classification benchmarks such as: CIFAR-10/100\cite{cifar}, SVHN\cite{Goodfellow2014svhn} and FashionMNIST \cite{Xiao2017Fashion-MNIST:Algorithms};
state-of-the-art performance over the existing AL baselines.
\subsection{Deep Active Learning} \label{subsec_dal}
Standard AL requires an online environment where the task learner selects and optimises simultaneously.
We consider a large unlabelled pool of data $\mathbf{D}_U$ from which we uniformly random sample and label an initial subset $\mathbf{S}^0_L << \mathbf{D}_U$. Let $(\mathbf{x}^L, \mathbf{y}^L) \in \mathbf{S}^0_L$ be the available images and their corresponding classes. Commonly, we deploy a learner by a DL model comprising of a feature encoder $\textbf{f}$ and a class discriminator $\textbf{g}$. The objective loss for the learner is the categorical cross-entropy defined as $\mathcal{L}_{classification} = - \sum_{\mathbf{S}^0_L} \mathbf{y}^L \cdot \log \textbf{g}(\textbf{f}(\mathbf{x}^L))$.
Following the AL objective, we decide upon the \emph{exploration-exploitation trade-off} in conjunction with our classification performance. Thus, we set up the exploitation rate through a budget $b$ across $\mathbf{D}_U /\ \mathbf{S}^0_L$ guided by a \emph{selection criteria}. Consequently, we label the new sampled subset $\mathbf{S}^1_L$ and re-train our learner. The exploration factor is expressed by the \emph{number of stages} $\mathbf{S}^{0 \dots N}_L$ we repeat this loop according to the targeted performance. While we may limit the exploration cycles, in our proposal, we primarily focus on exploitation.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm, clip, width=1\textwidth]{fig/moby2al_diagram.pdf}
\caption{SSL-AL training framework under the proposed MoBYv2AL configuration. The query feature encoder plays two roles: to map the features to the task discriminator for classification; to capture contrastive visual representation with the asymmetry of the query and key modules. For unlabelled data, the \textcolor{blue}{blue lines} show the back-propagation of contrastive loss and its exponential moving average (dashed). The \textcolor{green}{green lines} also include the cross-entropy loss during training when the annotation is available. Once training ends, the unlabelled samples pass through the \textcolor{orange}{learner} for \textcolor{gray}{AL selection}.}
\label{fig:pipeline}
\end{figure*}
\noindent \textbf{Contrastive Semi-supervised learning framework.} \label{subsec_cssl}
We tackle the contrastive unsupervised learning approach compared to previous semi-supervised AL techniques \cite{csal, revival_iccv21, altod} that rely on consistency measurement. Here, we briefly re-introduce the key aspects of the previous SSL techniques. These are constituent to our \emph{MoBYv2AL} proposal.
The goal of self-supervised learning aligns with the AL problem, where there is plenty of unlabelled data and a costly annotation procedure. However, the former tends to learn generalised visual representation in aid of the objective task. For contrastive learning, the main approach to obtaining these representations is by analysing the similarity (dissimilarity) within the data space. From the most successful works \cite{moco,byol,simclr,dino,xie2021moby}, we can broadly form the contrastive learning process of these main parts: data augmentation with or without dual encoder, feature-vector projections, and similarity approximation by a dedicated loss function.
We design the self-supervision framework according to \emph{MoBY} \cite{xie2021moby}. This method combines two innovative prior works \emph{MoCo}\cite{moco} and \emph{BYOL}\cite{byol} on visual transformers \cite{vi,vt}.
MoCo\cite{moco} pioneers contrastive learning by addressing the similarity between an image and a specific dictionary of samples. To deploy the loss, positive examples are required through data augmentation of the input query together with the other negative keys from the dictionary. The self-supervision training pipeline consists of two feature encoders and two MLP projectors for mapping the query and the keys. Consequently, the keys are permuted in a large memory bank, while the positive examples are inferred through the online encoder. The gradient over the dictionary of keys needs a slower update. Thus, a gradual momentum update is implemented.
BYOL\cite{byol}, on the other hand, has a different approach for contrastive self-supervision. It simplifies MoCo by relying only on positive examples. In this way, the memory bank can be discarded. The InfoNCE\cite{infonce} loss is also replaced with a \textit{l2} loss given the new setting. The contrastive learning strategy of BYOL is indirectly obtained through batch normalisation. To achieve this, further modifications are proposed. Thus, the architecture of the dual encoders is asymmetric in regard to MoCo, and BYOL adds a prediction module to the projector of the online encoder. Following only positive examples, the inputs to the two networks are strong-augmented versions of the same image. Finally, BYOL preserves the common mode from the data and inherits contrastive learning when passing a slow exponential moving average from the online to the momentum encoder. We intuitively explore the contrastive learning strategies from both MoCo and BYOL and align the self-supervision with MoBY\cite{xie2021moby}. We further present the combined pipeline depicted in \ref{fig:pipeline}.
From a design perspective, we adopt the asymmetric dual encoders from BYOL as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:pipeline}. The top branch in Figure~\ref{fig:pipeline} culminates with a discriminator $\mathbf{g}_q$ to match the outputs from the bottom. Despite this, both branches consist of the same feature extractor architecture followed by an MLP projector ($\mathbf{f}^{'}_q, \mathbf{f}^{'}_k$ for query and key, respectively). Distinctively from MoBY, we tackle convolutional neural networks (CNNs) as feature encoders. Moreover, we reduce the MLP projectors and the query discriminator to a single layer with batch normalisation and ReLU activation.
The asymmetric pipeline helps to mimic the contrastive learning principle of BYOL. However, to include the concepts from MoCo, we minimise our objective with the InfoNCE loss. In this case, we will also need to keep the memory bank for the queue of keys. We define the contrastive loss as a sum of InfoNCE from two augmented versions of a query $\{q, q{'}\}$ and of a different key $\{k, k{'}\}$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:1}
\mathcal{L}_{contrastive} = -\log \frac{exp(q \cdot k^{'} \slash \tau)}{\sum_{i=0}^m \exp(q \cdot k_i^{'} \slash \tau)}
- \log \frac{exp(q^{'} \cdot k \slash \tau)}{\sum_{i=0}^m \exp(q^{'} \cdot k_i \slash \tau))},
\end{equation}
where $m$ is the size of the memory bank and $\tau$ is the adjusting temperature \cite{wu2018temperature}.
During training, the online query encoder branch is updated by gradient while the key encoder takes the slow-moving average with momentum. We ensure with this combined design the preservation of both MoCo and BYOL representation concepts. On the one hand, the asymmetric structure indirectly finds discrepancies from the average image with moving average and batch normalisation. On the other hand, the contrastive loss with the queue of different keys maintains the direct distinctiveness between the images.
The standard SSL techniques MoCo, BYOL and MoBY demand the supervision stage where the pre-trained models are fine-tuned for the task objective. Such multi-stage pipelines seem ineffective
in AL~\cite{bengar2021reducing}. In this paper, we extended the SSL pipeline of \emph{MoBY}
to minimise both the self-supervised objective and downstream task objective jointly. \\
\noindent \textbf{Joint Objective.}
A final step to clarify before presenting the joint training procedure is data augmentation. MoBY derives the augmentation strategy from BYOL, where the inputs suffer strong transformations. In our proposal, we choose an alternation between strong and weak augmentation, similarly to MoCov2\cite{chen2020mocov2}. This change boosted the performance of its predecessor \cite{moco}. We also observed in our experiments that using only strong augmentations can affect the optimisation of the task-aware branch. The weak augmentations comprise horizontal flips and random crops. In addition, the strong transformation includes colour jitter (on brightness, contrast, saturation, hue), Gaussian blur, grayscale conversion and pixel inversion (solarise). From equation \ref{eq:1}, $\{q, k\}$ can be referred as the weak transformations of query and key, and $\{q^{'}, k^{'}\}$ their corresponding stronger versions.
With all these elements in place, we can change the learner from the existing AL framework with the modified MoBY and train jointly the pipeline. Starting from the first cycle, we consider the available labelled samples $(\mathbf{x}^L, \mathbf{y}^L) \in \mathbf{S}^0_L$ and the remaining unlabelled $\mathbf{x}^U \in \mathbf{D}_U$ as queries and keys. A strong augmentation is marked as $\{\mathbf{\tilde x}^L_q, \mathbf{\tilde x}^L_k\}$, while a weak is represented with $\{\mathbf{\bar x}^L_q, \mathbf{\bar x}^L_k\}$. When training, we alternate between batches of labelled and unlabelled data with every inference. Therefore, we back-propagate only the contrastive loss for the unlabelled to \ref{eq:1}. In this context, given the pipeline from Figure \ref{fig:pipeline} for this contrastive loss $\mathcal{L}^U_{contrastive}(q,q^{'};k,k^{'})$, $\{q, k\}$ and $\{q^{'}, k^{'}\}$ can be obtained so:
\begin{gather} \label{eq:2}
\{q, q^{'}\} = \mathbf{g}_q \:( \mathbf{f}^{'}_q \:( \mathbf{f}_q( \:\{\mathbf{\bar x}^U_q , \mathbf{\tilde x}^U_q \}))), \\
\{k, k^{'}\} = \mathbf{f}^{'}_k \:( \mathbf{f}_k \:(\{\mathbf{\bar x}^U_k, \mathbf{\tilde x}^U_k \})).
\end{gather}
Similarly, we can compute $\mathcal{L}^L_{contrastive}$, the contrastive loss for the labelled images. In addition, we also minimise the categorical cross-entropy, $\mathcal{L}_{classification}$, with the output from the task discriminator. Once computed, we back-propagate both the contrastive and the classification loss. Therefore, the combined loss, adjusted by a scaling factor $\lambda_c$, can be expressed as:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:3}
\mathcal{L}^L_{combined} = \mathcal{L}_{classification} + \lambda_c \mathcal{L}^L_{contrastive}
\end{equation}
While the contrastive loss is computed continuously regarding the classification loss, we decide to reduce its influence over the gradients with $\lambda_c = 0.5$.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that the exponential moving average and the queue of keys are updated on the bottom branch for both labelled and unlabelled samples. \\
\noindent \textbf{Unlabelled samples selection.} \label{sub_section:ssel}
We emphasise that our proposal minimises the self-supervised loss inspired by MoBY. With this, the end-task objective jointly enriches the visual representations of the data compared to the standard AL strategy. AL selection methods that rely on the learner's data distribution will perform better.
CoreSet \cite{Sener2017ActiveApproach} has been proven to be effective in such scenario. To this extent, we primarily choose this selection function with MoBYv2AL. Briefly, CoreSet aims to find a subset of data points where a constant radius bounds the loss difference with the entire data space. This technique is approximated with k-Centre Greedy algorithm \cite{wolf} in the euclidean space of our feature encoder outputs $\mathbf{f}_q(\mathbf{x})$. A thorough visual selection of different AL selection approaches together with CoreSet in presented in the Supplementary.
\subsection{Recent Deep Active Learning}
\noindent \textbf{Recent Advances in Active Learning.}
Recent advancement in AL are either uncertainty-oriented \cite{mcdropoutal,Gal2016DropoutGhahramani, Yoo2019LearningLearning, comm, caramalau2021active, Sinha2019VariationalLearning} or data representativeness \cite{Sener2017ActiveApproach, coresvm, cdal}; and some of them are the mixture of both \cite{BeluchBcai2018TheClassification, csal, kim2021task, ugcn}.
Under the pool-based setting \cite{settles.tr09}, deep active learning has been initially tackled with uncertainty estimation.
For classification tasks, this was addressed from the maximum entropy of the posterior or through Bayesian approximation with Monte Carlo (MC) Dropout\cite{mcdropoutal, Gal2016DropoutGhahramani, caramalau2021active}. Concurrently, methods that used latent representations to sample have outperformed the ones that explored uncertainty. From these works, we recognise CoreSet \cite{Sener2017ActiveApproach} as the most revised and competitive baseline.
However, more recently, a new trend shifted the AL acquisition process to parameterised modules. The first work, Learning Loss \cite{Yoo2019LearningLearning} optimises a predictor for the loss of the learner. Still tracking uncertainty, VAAL \cite{Sinha2019VariationalLearning} deploys a dedicated variational auto-encoder (VAE) to adversarial distinguish between labelled and unlabelled images. CoreGCN\cite{ugcn} and CDAL \cite{cdal}, on the other hand, proposed to improve data representativeness with graph convolutional networks and categorical contextual diversity, respectively. We test these methods in the experiments section and we further detail them in the Supplementary.
Given the shared selection criteria with CoreSet, our MoBYv2 AL framework falls in the representativeness-based category.\\
\noindent \textbf{Self-supervised Learning (SSL).}
For the past years, a new pillar, SSL, has arisen in unsupervised environments with linked goals to AL. Learning generalised concepts from large-scale data is critical for further expansion to various vision applications. We can divide the SSL in two approaches: consistency-based \cite{mixmatch, fixmatch, meanteacher, dino} and contrastive energy-based \cite{moco, chen2020mocov2, simclr, byol, CoMatch, xie2021moby}. Consistency regularisation looks to preserve the class of unlabelled data even after a series of augmentations. For example, both MixMatch \cite{mixmatch} and DINO \cite{dino} sharpen the averaged pseudo-labelled predictions. Conversely, contrastive learning generally demands pairs of positive and negative examples while optimising the similarity/contrast between them. Dual networks are usually deployed to evaluate these losses either within the batch (as in SimCLR \cite{simclr}) or within a dictionary of keys (for methods like MoCo\cite{moco}, MoBY\cite{xie2021moby}). Because contrastive learning is foundational to our proposal, we revise these techniques in Sec.~\ref{Sec:method}. \\
\noindent \textbf{AL with self-supervision.}
\label{subsection:alssl}
In the beginning, SSL and AL evolved in parallel. Only recently, these fields have merged to further progress data sampling. Although SSL brings better visual constructs, there is still the question of which labelled information to allocate. By leveraging the unlabelled data behaviour, CSAL \cite{csal} firstly integrated MixMatch in the AL training and selection. We follow a similar strategy, but our end-to-end training learns contrastive representations. Despite this, CSAL is included in the SSL-based experiment as it is directly comparable. Two new works tackle contrastive learning either in acquiring language samples, CAL \cite{calssl}, or by adapting the sequential SSL SimSiam \cite{chen2020simsiam} in \cite{bengar2021reducing}. CAL is task-dependent on natural language processing. In \cite{bengar2021reducing}, the multi-stage AL selection has no effect against random sampling. To this extent, we omit these works in our analysis.
\section{Detailed settings for the AL experiments on MoBYv2AL}
\label{subsec:sup_set}
\textbf{Datasets.}For the quantitative evaluation, we put forward four well-known image classification datasets: CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100 \cite{cifar}, SVHN\cite{Goodfellow2014svhn} and FashionMNIST\cite{Xiao2017Fashion-MNIST:Algorithms}. CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 contain the same 50000 training examples but with different labelling systems (10 and 100 classes). SVHN and FashionMNIST are separated into ten classes each as CIFAR-10. However, both datasets are larger, with 73257 coloured street numbers and 60000 grayscale images for FashionMNIST. Although CIFAR-10/100 and FashionMNIST have class-balanced data, this is not the case for SVHN. From another perspective, deploying grayscale images from FashionMNIST challenges our contrastive learning approach, previously customised to RGB data.
\noindent \textbf{Models.} We mentioned in the Methodology that we use different CNNs for feature encoders. To show that MoBYv2 is robust to architectural changes, we opt for VGG-16 \cite{Simonyan2015VeryRecognition} in the CIFAR-10/100 quantitative experiments and for ResNet-18 \cite{he2016deep} in SVHN and FashionMNIST. Moreover, for the SSL comparison with CSAL we align the encoder with WideResNet-28\cite{wideresnet}.
\noindent \textbf{AL settings.} Under the exploration-exploitation trade-off, we characterise the budget to select as an exploiting factor while the exploration is captured in the number selection cycles. The initial random-sampled labelled dataset varies between the CIFAR-10/100 experiments and SVHN/FashionMNIST. For CIFAR-10/100, we consider 10\% (5000) of the entire training set as labelled and the rest as unlabelled data. The budget is limited to 5\% (2500) samples for selection, and we repeat this cycle seven times. In the second set of experiments, we test our method in a more restrictive environment with a starting set of 1000 labelled and a similar fixed budget. Despite this, we expanded the exploration to 10 cycles reaching 10000 labelled data. As a performance measurement, we evaluate the average of 5 trials testing accuracy in the AL framework.
\section{Selection function analysis} \label{subsection:abl}
\begin{figure*}[hbt!]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm, clip, width=.49\textwidth]{fig/cifar10_selection_function.png}
\includegraphics[trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm, clip, width=.49\textwidth]{fig/cifar100_selection_fuctions.png}
\caption{Quantitative evaluation with different selection functions for CIFAR-10 (\textbf{left}), CIFAR-100 (\textbf{right}) [Zoom in for better view]}
\label{fig:acq}
\end{figure*}
Our proposed pipeline, MoBYv2AL, can easily adapt to multiple selection methods. Here, we quantitatively motivate the choice of CoreSet from section \ref{sub_section:ssel}. Therefore, we re-evaluate MoBYv2AL on CIFAR-10/100 benchmarks in Figure \ref{fig:acq}. We vary the selection of the new budget between random, maximum class entropy and CoreSet. Intuitively, we also analyse the effect of selecting unlabelled examples with high contrastive loss.
In both benchmarks, sampling with random or max entropy benefits the less MoBYv2AL pipeline. On the other hand, a representativeness-oriented method like CoreSet suits our hypothesis better. When sampling with high contrastive loss, we detected repetitive examples from some specific classes. This can be explained by higher contextual variance in that category. Specifically, on CIFAR-10, animal classes (cat, deer, dog), with stronger patterns, were more preferred than the vehicle ones (car, truck, ship).
For a better visual analysis, we have simulated a toy-set experiment with the first five classes from SVHN. Here, we take t-SNE\cite{Maaten08visualizingdata} representations of the MoBYv2AL query encoder outputs of unlabelled data. In Figure \ref{fig:tsne_sel}, the samples marked with crosses construct the new labelled set.
\begin{figure*}[hbt!]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm, clip, width=.97\textwidth]{fig/tsne_sel.pdf}
\caption{Qualitative AL selection analysis on MoBYv2. t-SNE representations at the first selection stage for 5 classes of SVHN. [Zoom in for better view]}
\label{fig:tsne_sel}
\end{figure*}
The selection behaviour of the Max Entropy and CoreSet can be interpreted as expected: on the left side, the uncertainty-based technique tracks the most class-variant images; CoreSet, on the right side, samples both in and out-of-distribution according to the Euclidean space.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec1}
Let $C$ be a complex Riemann surface of genus 2 and $J(C)$ its Jacobian.
Let $\iota$ be the inversion automorphism of $J(C)$ and
$\Theta$ the theta divisor on $J(C)$.
The complete linear system $|2\Theta|$ gives a double covering from $J(C)$ to
a quartic surface $S$ in ${\bf P}^3$ with 16 nodes
defined by
$$x^4+y^4+z^4+t^4 + A\left(x^2y^2+z^2t^2\right)+B\left(x^2z^2+y^2t^2\right)+C\left(x^2t^2+y^2z^2\right)+Dxyzt=0,$$
where $A, B, C, D$ are constants satisfying a certain explicit equation (e.g. Hudson \cite[p.81]{H}).
The quartic surface $S$ is isomorphic to the quotient surface $J(C)/\langle \iota\rangle$ and is called a Kummer quartic surface. It contains sixteen tropes (= double conics) which are the images of $\Theta$ and its translations by
2-torsions. The incidence relation between sixteen nodes and tropes is called
a $(16_6)$-configuration, that is, each node is contained in six tropes and each trope
contains six nodes. Let $\Sigma$ be the minimal resolution of $S$ which is a $K3$ surface.
The surface $\Sigma$ is realized as a complete intersection of three quadrics in ${\bf P}^5$
which is the image of the rational map from $J(C)$ defined by the linear system
$|4\Theta - \sum p_i|$ where $\{p_i\}$ are sixteen 2-torsion points of $A$
(cf. Griffiths-Harris \cite[p.786]{GH}).
Then $\Sigma$ contains 32 lines forming a $(16_6)$-configuration, that is, there are two sets of disjoint 16 lines on $\Sigma$ such that each member in one set meets exactly six members in another set. The 32 lines consist of the proper
transforms of sixteen tropes and sixteen exceptional curves over sixteen nodes. We remark that
by contracting the proper transforms of sixteen tropes we obtain another quartic surface $S^\vee$
with 16 nodes which is the projective dual of $S$.
In the paper \cite{Klein}, Klein discovered a relationship between Kummer quartic surfaces
and quadric line complexes. A quadric line complex is a 3-dimensional family of
lines in ${\bf P}^3$ which is defined as the intersection of the Grassmannian
$G=G(2,4) \subset {\bf P}^5$ with a quadric $Q$ in ${\bf P}^5$.
In this paper we assume that $G\cap Q$ is non-singular. Then we can diagonalize simultaneously
$G$ and $Q$ as
\begin{equation}\label{diagonal}
G= \left\{\sum_{i=1}^6 X_i^2 =0\right\}, \quad Q=\left\{\sum_{i=1}^6 a_iX_i^2 =0\right\},
\end{equation}
where $(X_1,\cdots, X_6)$ are homogeneous coordinates of ${\bf P}^5$ and
$a_1,\ldots, a_6 \in {\bf C}$, $a_i\not=a_j (i\not=j)$.
Recall that a non-singular quadric in
${\bf P}^5$ contains two irreducible families of planes and a singular quadric of rank 5
contains an irreducible family of planes.
Since the pencil of quadrics in ${\bf P}^5$ defined by $G$ and $Q$ contains exactly six
singular quadrics of rank 5, we thus obtain a non-singular curve $C$ of genus 2 defined by
\begin{equation}\label{genus2}
y^2 = \prod_{i=1}^6 (x - a_i)
\end{equation}
parametrizing the irreducible families of planes contained in members of the pencil.
The classical theory claims that the surface $\Sigma$ is isomorphic to the locus of special lines, called singular lines, and $S$ is the set of foci of these singular lines (see \S \ref{ClassicalQLC}). The surface $\Sigma$ is given by the intersection of three quadrics:
\begin{equation}\label{threeQuadrics}
\Sigma=\left\{\sum_{i=1}^6 X_i^2 = \sum_{i=1}^6 a_iX_i^2 =\sum_{i=1}^6 a_i^2X_i^2 =0\right\}.
\end{equation}
Moreover the variety of lines in $G\cap Q$ is an abelian surface which is
isomorphic to the Jacobian $J(C)$ of $C$. This is an outline of the classical theory.
In the last century, Narasimhan and Ramanan \cite{NR} reproved this in connection with
the theory of vector bundles over $C$.
For modern treatment of this theory, we refer the reader to Griffiths and Harris \cite{GH}, Cassels and Flynn
\cite{CF} and for a history of Kummer surfaces to Dolgachev \cite{Do}.
The above theory holds in any characteristic different from 2.
Now assume that the ground field is an algebraically closed field of characteristic 2. Then the situation is entirely different.
There are mainly two differences between the case of characteristic $p=2$ and the case of $p\not= 2$.
First of all, a quadratic form in characteristic 2 is not determined by the associated alternating bilinear form.
Secondly the moduli space of curves of genus two and that of their Jacobians are stratified in terms
of $2$-rank. There are three types, that is, ordinary ($2$-rank 2), $2$-rank $1$
and supersingular ($2$-rank $0$).
Shioda \cite{Sh} and the first author \cite{Ka} found that
$J(C)/\langle \iota\rangle$
has, instead of sixteen nodes, four rational double points of type $D_4$ for $J(C)$ being ordinary, two rational double points of type $D_8$ for $J(C)$ with $2$-rank 1,
an elliptic singularity of type
$\raise0.2ex\hbox{\textcircled{\scriptsize{4}}}_{0,1}^1$
in the sense of Wagreich \cite{W}
for $J(C)$ being supersingular. See the following Table \ref{Table1} (see Figure \ref{ellipticSing} in Subsection \ref{Char2} for elliptic singularities).
\begin{table}[!htb]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{5cm}|>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{1cm}|>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{2.5cm}|>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{1.5cm}|>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{3cm}|}
\hline
{\rm char $p$} & $p\ne 2$ & $p=2$ & $p=2$ & $p=2$\\ \hline \hline
{\rm $2$-rank of $J(C)$} & -- & $2$\ {\rm (ordinary)} & $1$ & $0$ \ {(supersingular)}\\ \hline
\rm{$\#$ of branches of $C\to {\bf P}^1$} & $6$ & $3$ & $2$ & $1$ \\ \hline
\rm{$\#$ of $2$-torsion points of $J(C)$} & $16$ & $4$ & $2$ & $1$ \\ \hline
\rm{Singularities of $J(C)/\langle \iota \rangle$} & $16$ $A_1$ & $4$ $D_4$ & $2$ $D_8$ & $\raise0.2ex\hbox{\textcircled{\scriptsize{4}}}_{0,1}^1$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{}
\label{Table1}
\end{table}
In characteristic 2, Bhosle \cite{B} studied pencils of quadrics in ${\bf P}^{2g+1}$.
She presented a canonical form of a pencil of quadrics in ${\bf P}^{2g+1}$, associated
a hyperelliptic curve $C$ of genus $g$ to the pencil in general case (that is, ordinary case for $g=2$) and showed that
the Jacobian of $C$ is isomorphic to the variety of $(g-1)$-dimensional subspaces on the
base locus of the pencil. Also Laszlo and Pauly \cite{LP}, \cite{LP2} studied the linear system $|2\Theta|$ and gave the equation of Kummer quartic surface
in ordinary case, and Duquesne \cite{Du} in arbitrary case.
The main purpose of this paper is to present an analogue of the theory of Kummer surfaces
and quadric line complexes in characteristic 2. We show that the stratification of the moduli space of
curves of genus 2 by the $2$-rank bijectively corresponds to the one by the canonical forms of pencils
$\{\lambda G + \mu Q\}_{(\lambda ,\mu)\in {\bf P}^1}$
of quadratic forms. Let $A, B$ be the associated alternating forms of $G, Q$, respectively.
Then there are three possibilities of the associated alternating forms
$\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \lambda A+\mu B \\
^t(\lambda A+ \mu B)& 0 \\
\end{array}
\right)$,
where
$A=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right)$
and $B$ is
as in the following Table \ref{Table2}.
\begin{table}[!htb]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{3cm}|>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{3cm}|>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{3cm}|>{\centering\arraybackslash}m{3cm}|}
\hline
{\rm $2$-rank of $J(C)$} & $2$ & $1$ & $0$ \\ \hline
$B$ &
$\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & a_1 \\
0 & a_2 & 0 \\
a_3 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right)$
&
$\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & a_1 \\
0 & a_2 & 0 \\
a_2 & 1 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right)$
&
$\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & a_1 \\
0 & a_1 & 1 \\
a_1 & 1 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right)$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{}
\label{Table2}
\end{table}
\noindent
Here $a_i\ne a_j$ for $i\ne j$ (see Proposition \ref{CanAlt} and the equations (\ref{(a)}), (\ref{(b)}), (\ref{(c)}) in Proposition \ref{CanFormPencilQuadrics}).
For each canonical form of a pencil of quadrics, we associate to quartic surfaces $S$ and $S^\vee$, an intersection of three quadrics $\Sigma$, a curve $C$ of genus 2 and its Jacobian $J(C)$ in terms of line geometry.
We remark that in characteristic $p\ne 2$ a quadratic form is determined by the associated bilinear form.
Under the condition $G\cap Q$ being non-singular, the case of non-diagonalizable pairs $G, Q$ is excluded.
On the other hand, in the case $p=2$ a quadratic form is not determined by the associated alternating form.
This difference allows the possibility of the above three cases of alternating forms, and hence the exsistence of
three types of curves of genus 2.
The plan of this paper is as follows.
In Section \ref{sec2}, we recall the classical theory of quadric line complexes and Kummer surfaces,
the theory of quadratic forms in characteristic 2 and their pencils, and the theory of curves of genus 2, abelian surfaces and Kummer surfaces in characteristic 2. We study quadric line complexes in Section \ref{sec3-0},
Kummer quartic surfaces associated with quadric line complexes in Section \ref{sec4},
the intersections of three quadrics in ${\bf P}^5$ in Section \ref{sec3}
and the curves of genus 2 in Section \ref{sec5}. Finally in Section \ref{sec6} we
discuss the canonical map $|4\Theta - 2\sum_{i=1}^4 p_i|$ from the Jacobian of an ordinary curve of genus 2 to the intersection of three quadrics, where $p_1,\ldots, p_4$ are 2-torsion points on the Jacobian. This is also
an analogue of the map $|4\Theta - \sum_{i=1}^{16} p_i|$ mentioned above.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{sec2}
\subsection{Classical theory of Quadric line complexes and Kummer surfaces}\label{ClassicalQLC}
Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field of characteristic char$(k) = p \geq 0$ (when we assume $p\not= 2$,
we will mention it).
In the following we recall the classical theory of quadric line complexes over the base field $k$. The main references are Griffiths and Harris \cite[Chapter 6]{GH}, Cassels and Flynn \cite[Chapter 17]{CF}.
Let $G=G(2,4)$ be the Grassmannian variety of lines in ${\bf P}^3$ which can be embedded into
${\bf P}^5$ as a non-singular quadric hypersurface (Pl${\rm \ddot{u}}$cker embedding).
For a point
$p$ and a hyperplane $h$ in ${\bf P}^3$, let
$$
\sigma(p) = \{ \ell \in G : \ p\in \ell\}, \ \sigma(h) = \{ \ell \in G :\ \ell \subset h\},\ \sigma(p,h) = \{ \ell \in G : \ p \in \ell \subset h \}
$$
be the Schubert varieties. Both $\sigma(p)$ and $\sigma(h)$ are planes and $\sigma(p,h)$ is a line in ${\bf P}^5$. Conversely any plane in $G$ is of the form of either
$\sigma(p)$ or $\sigma(h)$ for some
$p, h$ and any line in $G$ is of the form $\sigma(p,h)$.
Any non-singular quadric in ${\bf P}^5$ contains two 3-dimensional irreducible families of planes and in case of $G$ they are nothing but $\{\sigma(p)\}_{p \in {\bf P}^3}$ and $\{\sigma(h)\}_{h\subset {\bf P}^3}$ (see Proposition \ref{maximalSubspaces} for $p= 2$).
Let $Q$ be a quadric hypersurface in ${\bf P}^5$ such that $Q\cap G$ is non-singular.
The variety $\mathcal{X}=Q\cap G$ is called a quadric line complex which parametrizes a 3-dimensional
family of lines in ${\bf P}^3$.
The condition $\mathcal{X}$ being non-singular implies that
$\mathcal{X}$ does not contain any plane (see Lemma \ref{two-quadrics}) and hence
the intersection $\sigma(p) \cap Q$ is a conic in the plane $\sigma(p)$.
Define
\begin{equation}\label{KummerQuartic1}
S = \{ p \in {\bf P}^3 : \ \sigma(p) \cap Q \ {\rm is\ a\ singular\ conic}\},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{KummerQuartic2}
R=\{p \in S : \ \sigma(p) \cap Q \ {\rm is\ a\ double\ line}\}.
\end{equation}
Similarly we define the dual version:
\begin{equation}\label{DualKummer}
S^\vee = \{ h \in ({\bf P}^3)^\vee : \ \sigma(h) \cap Q \ {\rm is\ a\ singular\ conic}\},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{DualKummer2}
R^\vee = \{ h \in S^\vee : \ \sigma(h) \cap Q \ {\rm is\ a\ double\ line}\}.
\end{equation}
For $x \in \mathcal{X}$, we denote by $\ell_x$ the line in ${\bf P}^3$ corresponding to $x$.
A line $\ell_x$ is called singular if $x$ is a singular point of the conic $\sigma(p)\cap Q$
(resp. $\sigma(h)\cap Q$) for some $p$ (resp. $h$). The point $p$ (resp. the plane $h$) is uniquely
determined by $x$ and is called the focus (resp. the plane) of $\ell_x$.
Let
\begin{equation}\label{Kummer}
\Sigma =\{ x \in \mathcal{X} :\ \ell_x\ {\rm is\ a\ singular\ line }\}.
\end{equation}
\begin{prop}\label{singularlines}{\rm (Griffiths and Harris \cite[p.767]{GH}, Cassels and Flynn \cite[Lemma 17.2.1]{CF})}
Let $x \in \mathcal{X}$.
Then $x \in \Sigma$ if and only if the tangent space $T_x(Q)$ of $Q$ at $x$ is tangent to
$G$ at some point.
\end{prop}
There exist canonical morphisms
$$\pi: \Sigma \to S, \quad \pi^\vee: \Sigma \to S^\vee$$
by sending $x$ to the focus or the plane of $\ell_x$. Note that when $\sigma(p)\cap Q$ is a double line,
it sends to the point $p$.
As mentioned above, a non-singular quadric in
${\bf P}^5$ contains two irreducible families of planes and a singular quadric of rank 5
contains an irreducible family of planes for $p\ne 2$. The pencil of quadrics $\{t_0G+t_1Q\}_{(t_0:t_1)\in {\bf P}^1}$
defines a curve $C$, which is a double covering of ${\bf P}^1$, parametrizing irreducible components of families of planes contained in $t_0G+t_1Q$ $((t_0:t_1)\in {\bf P}^1)$. For $p= 2$, see Proposition \ref{maximalSubspaces}.
\begin{remark}\label{KummerChar0}
In case $p\ne 2$, by the assumption $\mathcal{X}=G\cap Q$ being non-singular,
we can diagonalize $G$ and $Q$ simultaneously as in the equation (\ref{diagonal}) (cf. Klingenberg \cite[Satz 1]{Kli}).
Moreover it is known that $S$ is a quartic surface with sixteen nodes and is called a Kummer quartic surface and $S^\vee$ is isomorphic to $S$. The surface $\Sigma$ is non-singular and hence is a $K3$ surface.
The both morphisms $\pi$ and $\pi^\vee$ are the minimal resolutions of singularities. In this case
the curve $C$ is given by the equation (\ref{genus2}).
\end{remark}
Let $A$ be the variety of lines in $\mathcal{X}$.
For each $L\in A$, there exist a point $p_L$ and a plane $h_L$ with $L=\sigma(p_L,h_L)$.
Thus we have morphisms
$$\varphi: A \to S, \quad \varphi^\vee: A \to S^\vee$$
defined by
$\varphi(L) = p_L, \ \varphi^\vee(L) = h_L$
when $L = \sigma(p_L, h_L).$ Note that the conic $\sigma(p_L) \cap Q$ splits into two lines, that is, one is
$\sigma(p_L,h_L)$ and
another is $\sigma(p_L, h')$ for some plane $h'$ containing $p_L$. Similarly $\sigma(h_L)\cap Q= \sigma(p_L,h_L) + \sigma(p', h_L)$ for some point $p' \in h_L$.
Thus both morphisms $\varphi, \varphi^\vee$ have degree 2 branched at each point of $R$ and $R^\vee$.
We will show that $A$ is isomorphic to the Jacobian $J(C)$ of $C$ and the maps $\varphi, \varphi^\vee$ are
the quotient map by inversions of $A$. The following argument is given by
Cassels and Flynn \cite[Chap. 17, \S 1]{CF}.
We denote by $\mathfrak{a}=(t_0,t_1, \mu)$ a point of $C$ over a point $(t_0:t_1)\in {\bf P}^1$, and
by $\bar{\mathfrak{a}}$ another point of $C$ over $(t_0:t_1)\in {\bf P}^1$, where $\mu$ denotes an irreducible family of planes in the quadric $t_0G+t_1Q$.
For $\mathfrak{a}\in C$ and $L\in A$, we define a line $\Upsilon(\mathfrak{a})L\in A$ as follows.
There exists a unique plane $\Pi$ in the family of planes in $t_0G+t_1Q$ corresponding to $\mu$ which
contains $L$ (Lemma \ref{two-quadrics}).
Then the conic $\Pi\cap \mathcal{X}$ in $\Pi$ splits into two lines $L + M$. We now
define $\Upsilon(\mathfrak{a})L=M$.
Thus, if we denote by $A_L$ the set of lines $\{\Upsilon(\mathfrak{a})L\}_{\mathfrak{a}\in C}$, then
$A_L$ is the set of lines meeting with $L$ and is bitational to $C$.
Now, for an effective divisor $\mathfrak{a}_1+\mathfrak{a}_2$ on $C$ and $L\in A$, define
$$L'= \Upsilon(\bar{\mathfrak{a}}_1)\Upsilon(\mathfrak{a}_2)L.$$
We remark that if $\mathfrak{a}_1+\mathfrak{a}_2$ is general, then $\Upsilon(\mathfrak{a}_1)L \cap \Upsilon(\mathfrak{a}_2)L=\emptyset$, $L'\cap L=\emptyset$ and
$L'$ is the unique line meeting with $\Upsilon(\mathfrak{a}_1)L$ and
$\Upsilon(\mathfrak{a}_2)L$ (Cassels and Flynn \cite[Lemma 17.1.5]{CF}). Moreover, if we denote by
$\Lambda$ the 3-dimensional linear space spanned by $L$, $\Upsilon(\mathfrak{a}_1)L$,
$\Upsilon(\mathfrak{a}_2)L$, then
\begin{equation}\label{3-space}
\Lambda \cap \mathcal{X} = L + \Upsilon(\mathfrak{a}_1)L+\Upsilon(\mathfrak{a}_2)L+L'.
\end{equation}
Finally note that for $\bar{\mathfrak{a}}+\mathfrak{a}$ we have
$\Upsilon(\mathfrak{a})\Upsilon(\mathfrak{a})L = L$.
Thus $A$ has a natural structure of principal homogeneous space over $J(C)$.
\begin{prop}\label{Basic}
Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field in characteristic $p \geq 0$. Assume that $C$ is a non-singular curve.
Then $A$ is isomorphic to the Jacobian $J(C)$ of $C$.
\end{prop}
We remark that, by using the theory of vector bundles, Bhosle
studied pencils of quadrics in ${\bf P}^{2g+1}$ in characteristic 2.
She presented a canonical form of a pencil of quadrics in ${\bf P}^{2g+1}$, associated
a hyperelliptic curve $C$ of genus $g$ to a pencil for generic case and showed that
the Jacobian of $C$ is isomorphic to the variety of $(g-1)$-dimensional subspaces on the
base locus of the pencil (Bhosle \cite[Theorem 4]{B}).
Let $\iota$ (resp. $\iota^\vee$) be the covering transformation of the morphism $\varphi: A \to S$ (resp. $\varphi^\vee : A \to S^\vee$).
Then $\iota$ (resp. $\iota^\vee$) has fixed points over $R$ (resp. $R^\vee$).
The following Proposition is well known over the complex numbers (Griffiths and Harris \cite[p.780]{GH}).
\begin{prop}\label{Basic2}
Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field in characteristic $p \geq 0$. Assume that $C$ is a non-singular curve.
The morphisms $\varphi : A \to S$ and $\varphi^\vee: A \to S^\vee$ are the quotient maps
by the inversion. In particular, $S$ and $S^\vee$ are isomorphic.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $\iota$ be the covering transformation of $\varphi$. To prove that $\iota$ is an inversion of $A$,
it is enough to show that $\iota$ has an isolated fixed point and no fixed curves
(Katsura \cite[Lemma 3.5]{Ka2}). Assume that $\iota$ has a fixed curve $G$. Then, by definition of the map $\pi: \Sigma \to S$, $\pi^{-1}(\varphi(p)) \subset \Sigma$ is the line corresponding to $p$ for any
$p\in G$. Thus $\pi^{-1}(\varphi(G))$ has dimension 2. This implies that $\Sigma$ is not irreducible and has singularities along a curve. On the other hand, $\Sigma$ is non-singular in charcteristic $p\ne 2$. In case $p=2$, we will show that $\Sigma$ is singular, but only isolated singularities (Theorems \ref{Int3quadricsOrdinary}, \ref{Int3quadricsP-rank1}, \ref{Int3quadricsSupersingular}). Thus $\iota$ has at most isolated fixed points.
Assume now that $\iota$ has no fixed points. Then $S$ is non-singular. On the other hand, in characteristic $p\ne 2$, $S$ has 16 nodes. In case $p=2$, we will show that $S$ has always singulatiries
(Theorems \ref{KummerQuarticOrdinary}, \ref{KumQuarticRank1}, \ref{ssKummerQ}).
\end{proof}
It is known that $S^\vee$ is the projective dual of $S$ (cf. Cassels and Flynn \cite[p.181]{CF}).
\begin{remark}
Let $\Theta$ be the theta divisor of $A$. Then, over the complex numbers, it is well known that
the morphism $\varphi : A\to S$ is defined by the complete linear system $|2\Theta|$, and the linear system
$|4\Theta - \sum_{i=1}^{16} p_i|$ also defines a rational map
$$\psi : A \to \Sigma$$
of degree 2,
where $\{p_i\}$ is the set of 2-torsion points on $A$ (Griffiths and Harris \cite[p.786]{GH}).
In case $char (k)=2$, Laszlo and Pauly \cite[Proposition 4.1]{LP}
studied the map defined by $|2\Theta|$ and found the equation of the Kummer quartic surface for
ordinary case and Duquesne \cite{Du} for arbitrary case.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Quadratic forms in characteristic 2}
We recall fundamental facts on quadratic forms in characteristic 2 in
Dieudonn\'e \cite{Die} and Bhosle \cite{B}.
In case that $k$ is a field of characteristic $\not= 2$, a quadratic form on a vector space
$M$ over $k$ is a function $q: M \to k$ defined by $q(x)= f(x,x)$ where $f$ is a symmetric bilinear form $f:M\times M \to k$. It is easy to see that $q$ satisfies that
$$q(ax + by) = a^2q(x) + b^2q(y) + 2abf(x,y), \quad a, b \in k.$$
In particular $f$ is given by
$f(x,y) = {1\over 2}(q(x+y)- q(x) - q(y))$.
Now, let $E$ be a vector space over an algebraically closed field $k$ in characteristic 2.
A quadratic form $q$ on $E$ is a function $q: E \to k$ satisfying
\begin{equation}
q(ax + by) = a^2q(x) + b^2q(y) + abA(x,y), \quad a, b \in k,
\end{equation}
where $A$ is a bilinear form on $E$.
Note that since $char(k)=2$, $A(x,x)=0$ for all $x\in E$ and hence $A$ is alternating and symmetric.
A subspace $V$ of $E$ is called totally singular if $q(x)=0$ for all $x\in V$.
A totally singular subspace is totally isotropic, that is, $A(x,y)=0$ for all $x, y\in E$.
The converse is not true. The index $\nu$ of $q$ is defined as the dimension of a maximal
totally singular subspace. Two totally singular subspaces of the same dimension are
equivalent under the action of the orthogonal group of $E$.
A quadratic form is called non-defective if the alternating form $A$ is non-degenerate and
defective if $A$ is degenerate. For a defective quadratic form $q$ we define the null space $N$ of $A$ by
$N=\{ x \in E : \ A(x,y)=0 \ {\rm for \ all \ y\ } \in E\}$.
The dimension of $N$ is called the defect of $q$.
\begin{prop}\label{quadraticForm}{\rm (Bhosle \cite[Lemma 2.5]{B})}
Let $q$ be a quadratic form on $k^{2m}$ with the associated alternating form $A$.
{\rm (1)} \ Assume that $q$ is non-defective.
Let $W$ be a maximal totally singular subspace of $k^{2m}$ which is of dimension $m$
and let $e_1,\ldots, e_{m}$ be a basis of $W$.
Then there exists a basis $e_1,\ldots, e_m, f_1,\ldots, f_m$ of $k^{2m}$ such that
$f_1,\ldots, f_m$ span a totally singular subspace for $q$ and $A(e_i, f_j)=\delta_{ij}$
for $i,j=1,\ldots, m$.
{\rm (2)} Assume that the defect of $q$ is two and the null space $N$ contains a unique singular subspace $N_0$ of dimension one. Let $W$ be a maximal totally singular subspace
of $k^{2m}$. Then there exists a basis $e_1,\ldots, e_m, f_1,\ldots, f_m$ of $k^{2m}$
such that $e_1,\ldots, e_m$ is a basis of $W$ and the span of $f_2,\ldots, f_m$ is totally
singular, $A(e_i, f_j)=\delta_{ij}$ for $i,j=2,\ldots, m$, $e_1$ spans $N_0$ and $e_1, f_1$
is a basis of $N$.
\end{prop}
\begin{prop}\label{maximalSubspaces}{\rm (Bhosle \cite[Lemma 2.6]{B})}
Let $q$ be a quadratic form on $k^{2m}$.
{\rm (1)} \ Assume that $q$ is non-defective.
Then the space of maximal totally singular subspaces for $q$ has two connected components
each of which is a non-singular variety of dimension $m(m-1)/2$.
{\rm (2)} Assume that the defect of $q$ is two and the null space $N$ contains a unique singular subspace $N_0$ of dimension one. Then the space of maximal totally singular subspaces for $q$ is a non-singular variety of dimension $m(m-1)/2$.
\end{prop}
\subsection{Pencils of quadratics in ${\bf P}^5$}\label{Pencils}
Let $q_1, q_2$ be quadratic forms on $k^{2m}$ and consider the pencil $\{xq_1 + yq_2\}_{(x:y)\in {\bf P}^1}$ of quadratic forms generated by $q_1, q_2$.
We may write the pencil as $\{q_1 + xq_2\}_{x \in k}$.
We have a pencil of alternating forms $\{A_1 + xA_2\}$ associated with $\{q_1 + xq_2\}$.
By choosing a basis of $k^{2m}$, we denote the corresponding alternating matrix
by the same symbol $A_1+xA_2$.
The Pfaffian of the pencil is defined as the square root of ${\rm det}(A_1 + xA_2)$.
\begin{prop}\label{CanAlt}{\rm (Klingenberg \cite[Satz 2]{Kli}, Bhosle \cite[Proposition 2.8]{B})}
Let $A_1, A_2$ be alternating forms with $A_1$ non-degenerate.
Let $\prod_i (t-a_i)^{2m_i}$ be the characteristic polynomial of $A_1^{-1}A_2$.
Then the pencil
can be written in the following form$:$
$$A_1= \sum_{i=1}^{m}\sum_{j=1}^{m_i} X_{ij}Y_{ij},\quad
A_2= \sum_i\left\lbrack a_i\left(\sum_{j=1}^{m_i} X_{ij}Y_{ij}\right) + \sum_{j=2}^{m_i} X_{ij}Y_{i(j-1)}\right\rbrack,$$
where $X_{ij}Y_{ij}$ denote the alternating form
$$A((x_{ij},y_{ij}), (x'_{ij},y'_{ij})) = x_{ij}y'_{ij} - x'_{ij}y_{ij}.$$
\end{prop}
In \cite[Satz 2]{Kli}, the author assumed the charcteristic $p\ne 2$, however as Bhosle pointed out
\cite[Proposition 2.8]{B}, the proof of Satz 2 works well in characteristic 2.
Let $(X_1,X_2,X_3,Y_1,Y_2,Y_3)$ be homogeneous coordinates of ${\bf P}^5$.
We consider a pencil $\mathcal{P}$ of quadrics generated by $Q_1, Q_2$ with the associated alternating
forms $A_1, A_2$. We assume that $Q_1$ is non-defective and hence ${\rm det}(A_1)\not=0$.
For simplicity we use the same symbols $Q_1, Q_2$ for the hypersurfaces defined by them.
First we recall the following fact (e.g. Griffiths and Harris \cite[p.762, Lemma]{GH}).
\begin{lemma}\label{two-quadrics}
Assume that $Q_1\cap Q_2$ is non-singular. Then $Q_1\cap Q_2$ does not contain a plane.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $Q_1\cap Q_2$ contains a plane $\Pi$. By changing of coordinates (Proposition \ref{quadraticForm} (1)), we may assume that
$\Pi$ is defined by $X_1=X_2=X_3=0$, and
$Q_1$, $Q_2$ are given by
$$Q_1: \sum_i X_iY_i + c_iX_i^2 =0, \quad
Q_2: \sum_{i,j} a_{ij}X_iY_j + \sum_{i,j}b_{ij}X_iX_j + \sum_i d_i X_i^2=0,$$
respectively. By restricting the Jacobian of $Q_1\cap Q_2$ to $\Pi$, we obtain the three conics
$$Y_1\sum_{j=1}^3 a_{2j}Y_j+Y_2\sum_{j=1}^3 a_{1j}Y_j=0,\quad
Y_2\sum_{j=1}^3 a_{3j}Y_j+Y_3\sum_{j=1}^3 a_{2j}Y_j=0,$$
$$Y_1\sum_{j=1}^3 a_{3j}Y_j+Y_3\sum_{j=1}^3 a_{1j}Y_j=0$$
which have a common zero.
\end{proof}
Let $\prod_{i=1}^3(t-a_i)^2$ be the characteristic polynomial of $A_1^{-1}A_2$.
The following three cases occur.
${\rm (a)} \ a_1, a_2, a_3$ are different;
${\rm (b)}\ a_1\not= a_2=a_3$;
${\rm (c)} \ a= a_1=a_2=a_3$.
\noindent
Now by using Proposition \ref{CanAlt},
$\mathcal{P}$ is given as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{ordinaryPencil}
{\rm (a)} : \
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
Q_1 : \sum_{i=1}^3 (X_iY_i + p_i^2X_i^2 + t_i^2Y_i^2)=0, \\
\\
Q_2: \sum_{i=1}^3 (a_iX_iY_i + r_i^2X_i^2 + s_i^2Y_i^2)=0.
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{p-rank1Pencil}
{\rm (b)} : \
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
Q_1: \sum_{i=1}^3 (X_iY_i + p_i^2X_i^2 + t_i^2Y_i^2)=0,\\
\\
Q_2: \sum_{i=1}^3 (a_iX_iY_i + r_i^2X_i^2 + s_i^2Y_i^2) + X_3Y_2=0.
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{SupersingularPencil}
{\rm (c)} :\
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
Q_1: \sum_{i=1}^3 (X_iY_i + p_i^2X_i^2 + t_i^2Y_i^2)=0,\\
\\
Q_2: \sum_{i=1}^3 (aX_iY_i + r_i^2X_i^2 + s_i^2Y_i^2) + X_2Y_1+X_3Y_2=0.
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
\smallskip
\noindent
As in the proof of Bhosle \cite[Corollary 2.10]{B}, by changing the coordinates
\begin{equation}\label{CC}
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
x_i = \alpha_i X_i +\beta_i Y_i, \\
\\
y_i = \gamma_i X_i + \delta_i Y_i
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
with $\alpha_i\delta_i + \beta_i\gamma_i =1, \ \alpha_i\gamma_i =p_i^2, \beta_i\delta_i = t_i^2$, we may assume that $\mathcal{P}$ is given by the equations in Proposition \ref{CanFormPencilQuadrics}.
\begin{prop}\label{CanFormPencilQuadrics}
\begin{equation}\label{(a)}
{\rm (a)} : \
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
Q_1 : \sum_{i=1}^3 X_iY_i=0, \\
\\
Q_2: \sum_{i=1}^3 a_iX_iY_i + c_iX_i^2 + d_iY_i^2=0.
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{(b)}
{\rm (b)} : \
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
Q_1 : \ \sum_{i=1}^3 X_iY_i=0, \\
\\
Q_2: \ \sum_{i=1}^3 \left(a_iX_iY_i + c_iX_i^2 + d_iY_i^2\right) + B =0
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
where
$
B = b_1X_2Y_3 + b_2X_3Y_2 + b_3X_2X_3 +
b_4Y_2Y_3
$
and
$b_1=\beta_3\gamma_2, \ b_2=\alpha_2\delta_3,\ b_3=\gamma_2\delta_3,\ b_4=\alpha_2\beta_3.$
\begin{equation}\label{(c)}
{\rm (c)} : \
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
Q_1: \ \sum_{i=1}^3 X_iY_i=0, \\
\\
Q_2: \ \sum_{i=1}^3 \left(aX_iY_i + c_iX_i^2 + d_iY_i^2\right) + C = 0
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
where
$C= b_1X_2Y_3 + b_2X_3Y_2 + b_3X_2X_3 +b_4Y_2Y_3 + b_5X_1Y_2+b_6X_2Y_1+b_7X_1X_2+
b_8Y_1Y_2,$ \
$b_1=\beta_3\gamma_2, \ b_2=\alpha_2\delta_3,\ b_3=\gamma_2\delta_3,\ b_4=\alpha_2\beta_3,\
b_5=\beta_2\gamma_1, \ b_6=\alpha_1\delta_2,\ b_7=\gamma_1\delta_2,\ b_8=\alpha_1\beta_2.$
\end{prop}
We use (\ref{(a)}), (\ref{(b)}), (\ref{(c)}) in Proposition \ref{CanFormPencilQuadrics} as canonical forms of pencil of quadrics. Note that
$sQ_1+tQ_2$ is non-defective for $(s,t)\ne (a_i,1)$ and $a_iQ_1+Q_2$ has the defect 2 and the null space contains
a unique singular subspace of dimension one as stated in Proposition \ref{maximalSubspaces} (2).
\begin{remark}\label{coefficients2}
Note that in cases (b), (c), $b_1b_2=b_3b_4$, $b_5b_6=b_7b_8$. Since $\alpha_i\delta_i + \beta_i\gamma_i =1$,
$(b_1,b_2,b_3,b_4)\ne (0,0,0,0)$, and $(b_5,b_6,b_7,b_8)\ne (0,0,0,0)$. Also
by the relations $b_1b_2=b_3b_4$ and $b_5b_6=b_7b_8$, we have
a relation
\begin{equation}\label{relation-9}
(b_1b_5+b_4b_7)(b_2b_6+b_3b_8)=(b_1b_8+b_4b_6)(b_2b_7+b_3b_5).
\end{equation}
Similarly we have
\begin{equation}\label{relation-91}
\begin{array}{l}
b_2(b_1b_8+b_4b_6)=b_4(b_2b_6+b_3b_8),\quad b_3(b_1b_8+b_4b_6)=b_1(b_2b_6+b_3b_8),\\
b_1(b_2b_7+b_3b_5)=b_3(b_1b_5+b_4b_7),\quad b_4(b_2b_7+b_3b_5)=b_2(b_1b_5+b_4b_7),\\
b_5(b_1b_8+b_4b_6)=b_8(b_1b_5+b_4b_7),\quad b_7(b_1b_8+b_4b_6)=b_6(b_1b_5+b_4b_7),\\
b_6(b_2b_7+b_3b_5)=b_7(b_2b_6+b_3b_8),\quad b_8(b_2b_7+b_3b_5)=b_5(b_2b_6+b_3b_8).
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\end{remark}
We use the following Lemma \ref{prank1translation} and Remark \ref{prank1translationRemark} to construct
some involutions of Kummer quartic surfaces (Propositions \ref{prank1translation2}, \ref{prank1translation3} and Lemma \ref{ssAut}).
\begin{lemma}\label{prank1translation}\ Assume that $b_1b_2b_3b_4\ne 0$ and $b_5b_6b_7b_8\ne 0$.
{\rm (1)}\ In the equation $(\ref{(b)})$,
after changing the coordinates, we may assume that $b_2b_4c_2=b_1b_3d_2$.
\smallskip
{\rm (2)}\ In the equation $(\ref{(c)})$,
after changing the coordinates, we may assume that $b_6b_8c_1=b_5b_7d_1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} (1)\
Recall that we start the pencil of quadrics given in (\ref{p-rank1Pencil}),
and by changing of coordinates (\ref{CC}), we have
the equation (\ref{(b)}).
Here
$b_1=\beta_3\gamma_2, b_2=\alpha_2\delta_3, b_3=\gamma_2\delta_3, b_4=\alpha_2\beta_3$
and
$c_i = a_i\gamma_i\delta_i + r_i^2\delta_i^2+s_i^2\gamma_i^2,\ d_i = a_i\alpha_i\beta_i +r_i^2\beta_i^2 + s_i^2\alpha_i^2.$
Since
$$b_2b_4c_2= \beta_3\delta_3(a_2\alpha_2^2\gamma_2\delta_2+r_2^2\alpha_2^2\delta_2^2 +s_2^2\alpha_2^2\gamma_2^2), \ b_1b_3d_2= \beta_3\delta_3(a_2\alpha_2\beta_2\gamma_2^2+r_2^2\beta_2^2\gamma_2^2 +s_2^2\alpha_2^2\gamma_2^2),$$
and $\alpha_2\delta_2+\beta_2\gamma_2=1$,
the condition $c_2b_2b_4=d_2b_1b_3$ is equivalent to $a_2\alpha_2\gamma_2 + r_2^2=0$, that is,
$a_2p_2^2 + r_2^2=0$.
Now first by applying the changing of coordinates
\begin{equation}\label{CC3}
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
Y_2 = \epsilon X_2' +Y_2' \quad (\epsilon \in k) \\
Y_1=Y_1',\ Y_3=Y_3',\ X_i=X_i'\quad (i=1,2,3)
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
to the equation (\ref{p-rank1Pencil}) and then by applying the changing of coordinates (\ref{CC}),
the condition $a_2p_2^2 + r_2^2=0$ is replaced by $a_2p_2^2+r_2^2 +\varepsilon (a_2t_2^2 + s_2^2)+
\varepsilon^2(a_2t_2^2 + s_2^2)=0$.
Thus if $a_2t_2^2 + s_2^2\not= 0$, then we may assume $a_2p_2^2 + r_2^2=0$ and hence $c_2b_2b_4=d_2b_1b_3$.
If $a_2t_2^2 + s_2^2=0$, then first apply the changing of coordinates
\begin{equation}\label{CC2}
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
X_2 = X_2' +\varepsilon Y_2' \quad (\varepsilon \in k), \\
X_1=X_1',\ X_3=X_3',\ Y_i=Y_i' \quad (i=1,2,3)
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
to the equation (\ref{p-rank1Pencil}).
Then the condition $a_2t_2^2 + s_2^2=0$ is replaced by $a_2t_2^2 + s_2^2 +\epsilon^2(a_2p_2^2 + r_2^2)=0$,
and hence we may assume $a_2t_2^2 + s_2^2\not= 0$. Thus we have proved the assertion (1).
(2)\ The proof is the same as in the case (1).
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{prank1translationRemark}
In case $b_1b_2b_3b_4=0$, Lemma \ref{prank1translation} holds after a modification.
For example, if $b_1=b_4=0$ and $b_2b_3\ne 0$, then
instead of $b_2b_4c_2=b_1b_3d_2$, we may assume $b_2^2c_2=b_3^2d_2$.
Also, by the same way, we may assume $b_1b_4c_3=b_2b_3d_3$.
We remark that the changing of coordinates (\ref{CC2}) does not change $\{ b_i\}$, but (\ref{CC3}) may change
$\{ b_i\}$. Therefore we can not assume both $b_2b_4c_2=b_1b_3d_2$ and $b_1b_4c_3=b_2b_3d_3$ at the same time.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Curves of genus 2, abelian surfaces and Kummer surfaces in characteristic 2}\label{Char2}
Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field of characteristic 2, and
we recall fundamental results of curves of genus 2, abelian surfaces and Kummer surfaces
in characteristic 2. Let $A$ be an abelian surface over $k$ and let $\iota$ be the inversion.
Then, for the singularities of $A/\langle \iota \rangle$, we have the
following theorem (cf. Katsura \cite{Ka}).
\def\MARU#1{\textcircled{\scriptsize#1}}
\begin{theorem}\label{Kummer-sigularity}
\begin{itemize}
\item[$({\rm i})$] $4$ rational double points of type $D_4$ if $A$ is ordinary.
\item[$({\rm ii})$] $2$ rational double points of type $D_8$ if the $2$-rank of $A$ is one.
\item[$({\rm iii})$] An elliptic double point of type $\mbox{\MARU{19}}_0$ if $A$ is superspecial.
\item[$({\rm iv})$] An elliptic double point of type $\mbox{\MARU{4}}_{0,1}^{1}$ if $A$ is supersingular and not superspecial.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
Here a supersingular abelian surface is called superspecial if it is isomorphic to the product of two
elliptic curves, and elliptic double points of type $\mbox{\MARU{19}}_0$, $\mbox{\MARU{14}}_{0,1}^{1}$
are in the sense of Wagreich \cite{W}.
The dual graphs of the minimal resolutions of these singularities are given in Figure \ref{ellipticSing}.
Each component is a non-singular rational curve,
$-3$ or $-4$ is the self-intersection number of the component and other components are $(-2)$-curves.
The central component has multiplicity 2.
In Figure \ref{ellipticSing}, an elliptic singularity of type $\mbox{\MARU{14}}_{0,0,1}^{(0),(1)}$ is also
in the sense of Wagreich whose minimal resolution is obtained from the one of a singularity of type
$\mbox{\MARU{14}}_{0,1}^{1}$ by blowing up a point on
the $(-3)$-curve. This singularity appears in Theorem \ref{Int3quadricsSupersingular}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{!}{1.5cm}{
\xy
(0,5)*{};(10,5)*{}**\dir{-};
(10,5)*{};(10,15)*{}**\dir{-};
(10,5)*{};(10,-5)*{}**\dir{-};
(10,5)*{};(18.5,10)*{}**\dir{-};
(10,5)*{};(18.5,0)*{}**\dir{-};
(50,5)*{};(60,5)*{}**\dir{-};
(60,5)*{};(60,15)*{}**\dir{-};
(60,5)*{};(60,-5)*{}**\dir{-};
(60,5)*{};(70,5)*{}**\dir{-};
(108,5)*{};(118,5)*{}**\dir{-};
(118,5)*{};(118,15)*{}**\dir{-};
(118,5)*{};(118,-5)*{}**\dir{-};
(118,5)*{};(128,5)*{}**\dir{-};
@={(0,5),(10,5),(10,15),(18.5,10),
(18.5,0),(10,-5),(50,5),(60,5),(60,15),(60,-5),(70,5),
(108,5),(118,5),(118,15),(118,-5),(128,5)
}@@{*{\bullet}};
(-5,5)*{-3};
(7,8)*{2};
(-15,5)*{\mbox{\MARU{19}}_{0}:};
(45,5)*{-3};
(63,8)*{2};
(35,5)*{\mbox{\MARU{4}}_{0,1}^{1}:};
(103,5)*{-4};
(123,8)*{2};
(90,5)*{\mbox{\MARU{14}}_{0,0,1}^{(0),(1)}:};
\endxy
}
\caption{Dual graphs of minimal resolutions of singularities}
\label{ellipticSing}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Note that in Cases (i) and (ii) the non-singular model of $A/\langle \iota \rangle$ is a $K3$ surface
and that in Cases (iii) and (iv) $A/\langle \iota \rangle$ is a rational surface
(cf. Shioda \cite{Sh} and Katsura \cite{Ka}).
For a non-singular curve $C$ of genus $2$, we denote by $J(C)$ the Jacobian variety of $C$.
As for a normal form of $C$, by Igusa \cite{I} we have the following result.
\begin{equation}\label{g=2}
y^2 + y =
\left\{ \,
\begin{array}{ll}
\alpha x + \beta x^{-1} + \gamma (x-1)^{-1} & \mbox{if}~J(C)~\mbox{is ordinary}, \\
x^3 +\alpha x + \beta x^{-1} & \mbox{if}~J(C)~\mbox{is of}~2\mbox{-rank}~1,\\
x^5 + \alpha x^3 & \mbox{if}~J(C)~\mbox{is supersingular
},
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $\alpha, \beta, \gamma \in k$ and $\alpha, \beta, \gamma$ in the first case and
$\beta$ in the second case are different from $0$.
Note that in characteristic 2 there exists no curves $C$ of genus 2 such that $J(C)$ is superspecial
(cf. Ibukiyama-Katsura-Oort \cite{IKO}), and hence only an elliptic singularity of type
$\mbox{\MARU{4}}_{0,1}^{1}$ appears in the quotient surface $J(C)/\langle \iota\rangle$.
\section{Quadric line complexes and Kummer surfaces in characteristic 2: the intersection of two quadrics}\label{sec3-0}
We use the same notation as in Subsection \ref{Pencils}.
In this section we discuss the intersection of two quadrics in ${\bf P}^5$ associated with a quadric line complex.
Let $\mathcal{P}$, $\mathcal{P}_1$ or $\mathcal{P}_0$ be the pencil of quadrics in ${\bf P}^5$ given
by (\ref{(a)}), (\ref{(b)}) or (\ref{(c)}) in Proposition \ref{CanFormPencilQuadrics}, respectively. We identify $Q_1$ with the grassmannian $G$.
Let $\mathcal{X}, \mathcal{X}_1$ or $\mathcal{X}_0$ be the intersection of $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ for $\mathcal{P}$, $\mathcal{P}_1$ or
$\mathcal{P}_0$, respectively.
\begin{lemma}\label{3-fold}\
{\rm (a)} $\mathcal{X}$ is singular if and only if $\prod_i c_id_i= 0$.
{\rm (b)} $\mathcal{X}_1$ is singular if and only if
$c_1d_1=0$ or $b_2b_4c_2 + b_1b_4c_3 + b_1b_3d_2 + b_2b_3d_3= 0$.
{\rm (c)} $\mathcal{X}_0$ is singular if and only if
$c_1(b_1b_8+b_4b_6)(b_2b_6+b_3b_8)+c_3(b_1b_5+b_4b_7)(b_1b_8+b_4b_6)$
$+d_1(b_1b_5+b_4b_7)(b_2b_7+b_3b_5)+d_3(b_2b_6+b_3b_8)(b_2b_7+b_3b_5)=0.$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $J$ be the Jacobian matrix of $\mathcal{X}, \mathcal{X}_1$ or $\mathcal{X}_0$
with respect to the homogeneous coordinates $(X_1, Y_1, X_2, Y_2, X_3, Y_3)$.
We denote by $\Delta_{ij}$ the determinant of the matrix consisting $i$-th and $j$-th columns.
Assume ${\text{rank}} (J)\leq 1$.
(a) \ In this case, $J$ is given by
$$
\left(
\begin{array}{cccccc}
Y_1 & X_1 & Y_2 & X_2 & Y_3 & X_3\\
a_1Y_1 & a_1X_1 & a_2Y_2 & a_2X_2 & a_3Y_3 & a_3X_3
\end{array}
\right).
$$
By the relation $\sum X_iY_i=0$, 5 columns of $J$ vanish. Hence, if $X_i\ne 0$,
then $c_i=0$ by the equation $Q_2=0$.
Conversely if $c_1=0$, then $(X_1,Y_1,X_2,Y_2,X_3,Y_3)=(1,0,0,0,0,0)$ is a singular point.
\smallskip
(b)\ In this case we use the equations of the pencil given in (\ref{p-rank1Pencil}) instead of
(\ref{(b)}). Moreover we use the pair $Q_1$ and $Q_2+a_2Q_1$. Then $J$ is given by
$$
\left(
\begin{array}{cccccc}
Y_1 & X_1 & Y_2 & X_2 & Y_3 & X_3\\
(a_1+a_2)Y_1 & (a_1+a_2)X_1 & 0 & X_3 & Y_2 & 0
\end{array}
\right).
$$
Obviously $X_3=Y_2=0$ and then $J$ is given by
$$
\left(
\begin{array}{cccccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & X_2 & Y_3 & 0\\
(a_1+a_2)Y_1 & (a_1+a_2)X_1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}
\right).
$$
Thus ${\rm rank}(J)\leq 1$ if and only if $X_2=Y_2=X_3=Y_3=0$ or $X_1=Y_1=X_3=Y_2=0$.
First assume that $X_2=Y_2=X_3=Y_3=0$. Then, by changing the coordinates (\ref{CC}), the new coordinates
should satisfy
$x_1y_1=0$ and $a_1x_1y_1+c_1x_1^2+d_1y_1^2=0$, that is, $c_1d_1=0$.
Next assume that $X_1=Y_1=X_3=Y_2=0$. Then, by changing the coordinates (\ref{CC}), we have
$$\alpha_2\gamma_2X_2^2 +\beta_3\delta_3Y_3^2=0, \quad (c_2\alpha_2^2+d_2\gamma_2^2)X_2^2 + (c_3\beta_3^2+d_3\delta_3^2)Y_3^2=0.$$
Thus $\mathcal{X}_1$ has a singularity if and only if
$$\alpha_2\gamma_2(c_3\beta_3^2+d_3\delta_3^2) +\beta_3\delta_3(c_2\alpha_2^2+d_2\gamma_2^2)=0,$$
by using the relation between $\{b_i\}$ and $\{\alpha_i, \beta_i, \gamma_i, \delta_i\}$,
which is equivalent to
$$b_2b_4c_2 + b_1b_4c_3 + b_1b_3d_2 + b_2b_3d_3= 0.$$
\smallskip
(c)\ In this case we also use the equations of the pencil given in (\ref{SupersingularPencil}) instead of
(\ref{(c)}). Moreover we use the pair $Q_1$ and $Q_2+aQ_1$. Then $J$ is given by
$$
\left(
\begin{array}{cccccc}
Y_1 & X_1 & Y_2 & X_2 & Y_3 & X_3\\
0 & X_2 & Y_1 & X_3 & Y_2 & 0
\end{array}
\right).
$$
Obviously $X_3=Y_1=0$ and hence $J$ is
$$
\left(
\begin{array}{cccccc}
0 & X_1 & Y_2 & X_2 & Y_3 & 0\\
0 & X_2 & 0 & 0 & Y_2 & 0
\end{array}
\right).
$$
Thus ${\rm rank}(J)\leq 1$ if and only if $X_2=X_3=Y_1=Y_2=0$.
By changing the coordinates (\ref{CC}), we have
$$\alpha_1\gamma_1X_1^2 +\beta_3\delta_3Y_3^2=0, \quad (c_1\alpha_1^2+d_1\gamma_1^2)X_1^2 + (c_3\beta_3^2+d_3\delta_3^2)Y_3^2=0.$$
Thus $\mathcal{X}_0$ has a singularity if and only if
$$\alpha_1\gamma_1(c_3\beta_3^2+d_3\delta_3^2) +\beta_3\delta_3(c_1\alpha_1^2+d_1\gamma_1^2)=0.$$
By using the relation between $\{b_i\}$ and $\{\alpha_i, \beta_i, \gamma_i, \delta_i\}$,
we have obtained the assertion.
\end{proof}
{\bf Assumption:}
In the following of this paper we assume that $\mathcal{X}$, $\mathcal{X}_1$, $\mathcal{X}_0$ are non-singular.
\begin{remark}\label{coefficients}
Under the assumption,
the cases $b_1=b_2=0$ and $b_3=b_4=0$ do not occur in case (b) by the condition
$b_3(b_1d_2 + b_2d_3) + b_4(b_2c_2 + b_1c_3)\ne 0$.
Only the case $b_1=b_3=0$, $b_1=b_4=0$,
$b_2=b_3=0$ or $b_2=b_4=0$ is possible. In case (c),
$$(b_1b_5+b_4b_7, b_2b_6+b_3b_8)\ne (0,0),\quad (b_1b_8+b_4b_6, b_2b_7+b_3b_5) \ne (0,0).$$
\end{remark}
The following Lemma \ref{Invariant} will be used to study singularities of Kummer quartic surfaces and their blowing-ups in Theorems \ref{ssKummerQ}, \ref{Int3quadricsSupersingular}.
\begin{lemma}\label{Invariant}
Let $\xi_1=\sqrt{b_2b_4+b_5b_8}, \ \xi_2=\sqrt{b_1b_3+b_6b_7}$. Then $(\xi_1, \xi_2)\ne (0,0)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $\xi_1^2= \alpha_2^2\beta_3\delta_3+\beta_2^2\alpha_1\gamma_1=0$ and
$\xi_2^2=\gamma_2^2\beta_3\delta_3+\delta_2^2\alpha_1\gamma_1=0$. Then it follows that
$\alpha_2^2\delta_2^2\alpha_1\gamma_1\beta_3\delta_3=\gamma_2^2\beta_2^2\alpha_1\gamma_1\beta_3\delta_3$,
that is, $\alpha_1\gamma_1\beta_3\delta_3(\alpha_2\delta_2+\beta_2\gamma_2)^2 =0$.
Since $\alpha_2\delta_2+\beta_2\gamma_2=1$, we have $\alpha_1\gamma_1\beta_3\delta_3=0$.
Again by $\alpha_i\delta_i+\beta_i\gamma_i=1$, we can easily see that
$\alpha_1=\beta_3=0$, $\alpha_1=\delta_3=0$, $\gamma_1=\beta_3=0$ or $\gamma_1=\delta_3=0$.
These imply that $b_1=b_4=b_6=b_8=0$, $b_2=b_3=b_6=b_8=0$, $b_1=b_4=b_5=b_7=0$ or
$b_2=b_3=b_5=b_7=0$. In any case, this contradicts to the condition (c) in Lemma \ref{3-fold}.
\end{proof}
\section{Quadric line complexes and Kummer surfaces in characteristic 2: the Kummer quartic surfaces}\label{sec4}
In this section we discuss the Kummer quartic surfaces associated with quadratic line complexes.
Let $S$, $S_1$ or $S_0$ be the Kummer quartic surface associated with $\mathcal{P}$, $\mathcal{P}_1$ or
$\mathcal{P}_0$, respectively.
\begin{theorem}\label{KummerQuartic}\
{\rm (a)}\ The Kummer quartic surface $S$ is given by the equation
$$(a_1+a_2)^2(c_3x^2y^2+d_3z^2t^2) + (a_1+a_3)^2(c_2x^2z^2+d_2y^2t^2)$$
$$+ (a_2+a_3)^2(c_1x^2t^2 + d_1y^2z^2)
+ (a_1+a_2)(a_2+a_3)(a_3+a_1)xyzt=0.
$$
\smallskip
{\rm (b)}\
The Kummer quartic surface $S_1$ is given by the equation
$$b_3^2c_1x^4 + b_2^2d_1y^4 + b_1^2d_1z^4 + b_4^2c_1t^4$$
$$+(b_3^2d_2 + b_2^2c_2 + (a_1+a_2)^2c_3 + (a_1+a_2)b_2b_3)x^2y^2$$
$$+(b_3^2d_3 + b_1^2c_3 + (a_1+a_2)^2c_2 + (a_1+a_2)b_1b_3)x^2z^2$$
$$+ (b_2^2d_3 + b_4^2c_3 + (a_1+a_2)^2d_2 + (a_1+a_2)b_2b_4)y^2t^2$$
$$+ (b_1^2d_2 + b_4^2c_2 + (a_1+a_2)^2d_3 + (a_1+a_2)b_1b_4)z^2t^2$$
$$+ (a_1+a_2)^2(b_3x^2yz + b_2xy^2t + b_1xz^2t + b_4yzt^2) = 0.$$
\smallskip
{\rm (c)}\
The Kummer quartic surface $S_0$ is given by the equation
$$(b_3^2c_1+b_7^2c_3)x^4 + (b_2^2d_1 +b_8^2c_3)y^4 + (b_1^2d_1+b_6^2d_3)z^4 +
(b_4^2c_1+b_5^2d_3)t^4$$
$$+b_5(b_1b_5+b_4b_7)xt^3 + b_7(b_2b_7+b_3b_5)x^3t + b_2(b_2b_6 + b_3b_8)xy^3
+ b_8(b_2b_6+b_3b_8)y^3z$$
$$+b_3(b_2b_7+b_3b_5)x^3y + b_4(b_1b_5+b_4b_7)zt^3 + b_6(b_1b_8 + b_4b_6)yz^3
+ b_1(b_1b_8+b_4b_6)z^3t$$
$$+ (b_2^2c_2 + b_3^2d_2)x^2y^2
+(b_1^2c_3+b_3^2d_3 + b_6^2c_1+b_7^2d_1)x^2z^2+(b_5^2c_2+b_7^2d_2)x^2t^2$$
$$+(b_6^2d_2+b_8^2c_2)y^2z^2 + (b_2^2d_3 + b_4^2c_3 + b_5^2d_1 + b_8^2c_1)y^2t^2
+ (b_1^2d_2 + b_4^2c_2)z^2t^2$$
$$+ b_7(b_2b_6+b_3b_8)x^2yz + b_3(b_1b_5+b_4b_7)x^2zt + b_8(b_2b_7+b_3b_5)xy^2t + b_2(b_1b_8+b_4b_6)y^2zt$$
$$+b_1(b_2b_6+b_3b_8)xyz^2 + b_6(b_1b_5+b_4b_7)xz^2t + b_4(b_2b_7+b_3b_5)xyt^2
+ b_5(b_1b_8+b_4b_6)yzt^2=0.$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We consider the pencil $\mathcal{P}_0$ of quadrics, but not assuming $a_1=a_2=a_3$.
We identify $Q_1$ and the grassmannian $G=G(2,4)$.
Consider three points
$$(X_1,X_2,X_3,Y_1,Y_2,Y_3)=(x, 0, 0, 0, y, z),\ (0, x, 0, y, 0, t),\ (0, 0, x, z, t, 0)$$
in ${\bf P}^5$ and the plane
$$\Pi= \{(\alpha x, \beta x, \gamma x, \beta y+\gamma z, \alpha y + \gamma t , \alpha z + \beta t) \ :
\ (\alpha, \beta , \gamma)\in {\bf P}^2\}$$
generated by these points, where $(x, y, z, t)\in {\bf P}^3$.
The plane $\Pi$ is a generic member of an irreducible family of planes on $G$.
The conic $\Pi \cap Q_2$ on $\Pi$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{ordinaryConic}
\begin{array}{l}
(c_1x^2+d_2y^2+d_3z^2+b_4yz+b_5xy)\alpha^2\\
\\
+ (c_2x^2+d_1y^2+d_3t^2+b_1xt+b_6xy)\beta^2\\
\\
+(c_3x^2+d_1z^2+d_2t^2+b_2xt+b_8zt)\gamma^2\\
\\
+((a_1+a_2)xy+b_1xz+b_4yt+b_7x^2+b_8y^2)\alpha\beta \\
\\
+((a_2+a_3)xt+b_6xz+b_8yt+b_3x^2+b_4t^2)\beta\gamma \\
\\
+ ((a_1+a_3)xz+b_2xy+b_4zt+b_5xt+b_8yz)\gamma\alpha =0.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Then this conic has a singularity if and only if
$$
\alpha = (a_2+a_3)xt+b_6xz+b_8yt+b_3x^2+b_4t^2,
$$
$$
\beta= (a_1+a_3)xz+b_2xy+b_4zt+b_5xt+b_8yz,
$$
$$
\gamma = (a_1+a_2)xy+b_1xz+b_4yt+b_7x^2+b_8y^2.
$$
By combining this and (\ref{ordinaryConic}), we obtain the sextic equation. The terms of degree
$\leq 1$ in $x$ of this sextic are identically 0, and hence by dividing by $x^2$ we have the following equation:
$$(b_3^2c_1+b_7^2c_3)x^4 + (b_2^2d_1 +b_8^2c_3)y^4 + (b_1^2d_1+b_6^2d_3)z^4 +
(b_4^2c_1+b_5^2d_3)t^4$$
$$+b_5(b_1b_5+b_4b_7)xt^3 + b_7(b_2b_7+b_3b_5)x^3t + b_2(b_2b_6 + b_3b_8)xy^3
+ b_8(b_2b_6+b_3b_8)y^3z$$
$$+b_3(b_2b_7+b_3b_5)x^3y + b_4(b_1b_5+b_4b_7)zt^3 + b_6(b_1b_8 + b_4b_6)yz^3
+ b_1(b_1b_8+b_4b_6)z^3t$$
$$+(a_1+a_3)(b_3b_7x^3z +b_1b_6xz^3 + b_2b_8y^3t+b_4b_5yt^3)$$
$$+ (b_2^2c_2 + b_3^2d_2 + c_3(a_1+a_2)^2 + (a_1+a_2)b_2b_3)x^2y^2
+(b_5^2c_2+b_7^2d_2+ c_1(a_2+a_3)^2 + (a_2+a_3)b_5b_7)x^2t^2$$
$$+(b_1^2c_3+b_3^2d_3 + b_6^2c_1+b_7^2d_1+c_2(a_1+a_3)^2 + (a_1+a_3)(b_1b_3+b_6b_7))x^2z^2$$
$$+(b_6^2d_2+b_8^2c_2 + d_1(a_2+a_3)^2 + (a_2+a_3)b_6b_8)y^2z^2
+ (b_1^2d_2 + b_4^2c_2 + d_3(a_1+a_2)^2 + (a_1+a_2)b_1b_4)z^2t^2$$
$$+ (b_2^2d_3 + b_4^2c_3 + b_5^2d_1 + b_8^2c_1 + d_2(a_1+a_3)^2 + (a_1+a_2)b_2b_4+(a_2+a_3)b_5b_8)y^2t^2$$
$$+ (b_7(b_2b_6+b_3b_8)+ b_3(a_1+a_2)(a_1+a_3))x^2yz + (b_3(b_1b_5+b_4b_7)+b_7(a_1+a_3)(a_2+a_3))x^2zt$$
$$+ (b_8(b_2b_7+b_3b_5) + b_2(a_1+a_2)(a_1+a_3))xy^2t + (b_2(b_1b_8+b_4b_6)+b_8(a_1+a_3)(a_2+a_3))y^2zt$$
$$+(b_1(b_2b_6+b_3b_8)+b_6(a_1+a_3)(a_2+a_3))xyz^2 + (b_6(b_1b_5+b_4b_7)+b_1(a_1+a_2)(a_1+a_3))xz^2t$$
$$ + (b_4(b_2b_7+b_3b_5)+ b_5(a_1+a_3)(a_2+a_3))xyt^2 + (b_5(b_1b_8+b_4b_6)+ b_4(a_1+a_2)(a_1+a_3))yzt^2$$
$$+ (b_2b_7(a_2+a_3)+b_3b_5(a_1+a_2))x^2yt + (b_2b_6(a_1+a_2)+b_3b_8(a_2+a_3))xy^2z$$
$$+ (b_1b_5(a_2+a_3)+b_4b_7(a_1+a_2))xzt^2 + (b_1b_8(a_1+a_2)+b_4b_6(a_2+a_3))yz^2t$$
$$+ ((a_1+a_2)(a_2+a_3)(a_3+a_1)+(a_1+a_2)(b_5b_6+b_7b_8)+(a_2+a_3)(b_1b_2+b_3b_4))xyzt=0.$$
Now by putting $a_1=a_2=a_3$ we have the equation (c) of the Kummer quartic surface.
The case (a) (resp. the case (b)) is obtained by putting $b_1=\cdots =b_8=0$ (resp.
$a_2=a_3$ and $b_5=\cdots = b_8=0$).
\end{proof}
Next we study the Kummer quartic surfaces individually. First we consider the case (a).
\begin{theorem}\label{KummerQuarticOrdinary}\
The quartic surface $S$ has exactly four rational double points
$$P_1=(1, 0, 0, 0),\ P_1=(0, 1, 0, 0),\ P_3=(0, 0, 1, 0),\ P_4=(0, 0, 0, 1)$$
of type $D_4$
and contains four tropes:
\smallskip
$$\overline{\Theta}_1: \ x= (a_1+a_2)\sqrt{d_3}zt + (a_1+a_3)\sqrt{d_2}yt + (a_2+a_3)\sqrt{d_1}yz=0,$$
$$\overline{\Theta}_2:\ y= (a_1+a_2)\sqrt{d_3}zt + (a_1+a_3)\sqrt{c_2}xz + (a_2+a_3)\sqrt{c_1}xt =0,$$
$$\overline{\Theta}_3:\ z= (a_1+a_2)\sqrt{c_3}xy + (a_1+a_3)\sqrt{d_2}yt + (a_2+a_3)\sqrt{c_1}xt=0,$$
$$\overline{\Theta}_4:\ t= (a_1+a_2)\sqrt{c_3}xy + (a_1+a_3)\sqrt{c_2}xz + (a_2+a_3)\sqrt{d_1}yz=0.$$
The trope $\overline{\Theta}_i$ passes through three points $P_j\ (j\not=i)$ among the four points.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
It follows from the Jacobian criterion that $S$ has exactly four singular points
$P_1$$,\ldots,$ $P_4$.
By blowing up the singular points, we can see that $P_i$ is a rational double point
of type $D_4$ (or it follows from Theorem \ref{CurveOrdinary}, Remark \ref{CurveOrdinary2}, Proposition \ref{Basic2} and Theorem \ref{Kummer-sigularity} that the singularities are of type $D_4$).
Each trope is defined by a hyperplane section, e.g.
$2\overline{\Theta}_1 = \{x=0\}$.
The last assertion is straightforward.
\end{proof}
The Cremona transformation
\begin{equation}\label{CremonaOrdinary}
c_r: (x, y, z, t)\to \left(\sqrt{d_1d_2d_3}/x, \sqrt{c_1c_2d_3}/y, \sqrt{c_1d_2c_3}/z, \sqrt{d_1c_2c_3}/t\right)
\end{equation}
preserves the equation of the Kummer quartic surface and
interchanges $P_i$ and $\overline{\Theta}_i$ $(1\leq i \leq 4)$.
Also there are the following involutions of $S$ which generate $({\bf Z}/2{\bf Z})^2$:
$$\varphi_1: (x, y, z, t)\to \left(\sqrt{d_1d_2}y, \sqrt{c_1c_2}x, \sqrt{c_1d_2}t, \sqrt{d_1c_2}z\right)$$
$$\varphi_2: (x, y, z, t)\to \left(\sqrt{d_1d_3}z, \sqrt{c_1d_3}t, \sqrt{c_1c_3}x, \sqrt{d_1c_3}y\right).$$
\begin{remark}\label{LaszloRemark}
Laszlo and Pauly \cite[Proposition 4.1]{LP} gave the equation of the Kummer quartic surface
associated with the Jacobian $J(C)$ of an ordinary curve $C$ of genus 2 as follows:
$$\lambda_{10}^2(x_{00}^2x_{10}^2 + x_{01}^2x_{11}^2) + \lambda_{01}^2(x_{00}^2x_{01}^2 +
x_{10}^2x_{11}^2) + \lambda_{11}^2(x_{00}^2x_{11}^2+x_{01}^2x_{10}^2)$$
$$ + \lambda_{00}^{-1}\lambda_{10}\lambda_{01}\lambda_{11}x_{00}x_{01}x_{10}x_{11}=0.$$
Here $\{x_{ij}\}$ is a basis of $H^0(J(C), 2\Theta)$.
In the equation in Theorem \ref{KummerQuartic} (a), by putting
$$X=x\sqrt[4]{c_1c_2c_3}, \ Y=y\sqrt[4]{d_1d_2c_3}, \ Z=z\sqrt[4]{d_1c_2d_3},\ T=t\sqrt[4]{c_1d_2d_3}$$
and then dividing by ${(a_1+a_2)(a_2+a_3)(a_3+a_1)\over \sqrt{c_1c_2c_3d_1d_2d_3}}$,
we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{LPeq}
\
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
{\sqrt{c_3d_3}(a_1+a_2)\over (a_1+a_3)(a_2+a_3)}(X^2Y^2+Z^2T^2)+ {\sqrt{c_2d_2}(a_1+a_3)\over (a_1+a_2)(a_2+a_3)}(X^2Z^2+Y^2T^2)\\
\\
+{\sqrt{c_1d_1}(a_2+a_3)\over (a_1+a_2)(a_1+a_3)}(X^2T^2+Y^2Z^2)
+ XYZT=0
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
which is the same equation as Laszlo and Pauly's one above.
\end{remark}
\medskip
Next we consider the Kummer quartic surface in the case (b).
\begin{theorem}\label{KumQuarticRank1}
The surface $S_1$ has exactly two singular points
$$P_1=\left(0,\sqrt{b_1}, \sqrt{b_2}, 0\right),\ \ P_2=\left(\sqrt{b_4}, 0, 0, \sqrt{b_3}\right)$$
of type $D_8$ and contains two tropes
$\overline{\Theta}_1$ and $\overline{\Theta}_2$ both of which are double conics cutting by
the hyperplane section $\sqrt{b_2}y + \sqrt{b_1}z=0$ and $\sqrt{b_3}x+\sqrt{b_4}t=0$, respectively.
Two tropes $\overline{\Theta}_1$ and $\overline{\Theta}_2$ meet at $P_1$ and $P_2$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
First note that $(b_1, b_2)\ne (0,0)$, $(b_3,b_4)\ne (0,0)$ (Remark \ref{coefficients}).
By the Jacobian criterion, we can see that $S_1$ has two singular points.
We will show that the Jacobian surface has 2-rank 1 (Theorem \ref{CurveRank1}, Remark \ref{CurveRank12}).
It follows from Proposition \ref{Basic2} and Theorem \ref{Kummer-sigularity} that
the singularities are of type $D_8$.
For the second assertion, for example, by putting the equation $\sqrt{b_2}y + \sqrt{b_1}z=0$ in
the last term of the equation in Theorem \ref{KumQuarticRank1}, we have a decomposition
$$b_3x^2yz + b_2xy^2t + b_1xz^2t + b_4yzt^2= \sqrt{b_1/b_2}z^2\left(\sqrt{b_3}x + \sqrt{b_4}t\right)^2$$
by using $b_1b_2=b_3b_4$. This implies the assertion.
\end{proof}
Recall that we may assume that $b_2b_4c_2=b_1b_3d_2$ for $b_1b_2b_3b_4\ne 0$ and
$b_2^2c_2=b_3^2d_2$ for $b_1=b_4=0$ (Lemma \ref{prank1translation}, Remark \ref{prank1translationRemark}).
\begin{prop}\label{prank1translation2}
$S_1$ has an involution $\iota$ defined by
$$\iota : (x, y, z, t) \to \left(\sqrt[4]{d_1b_2^2/c_1b_3^2}y, \sqrt[4]{c_1b_3^2/d_1b_2^2}x, \sqrt[4]{c_1b_4^2/d_1b_1^2}t, \sqrt[4]{d_1b_1^2/c_1b_4^2}z\right)$$
for $b_1b_2b_3b_4\ne 0$ and
$$\iota : (x, y, z, t) \to \left(\sqrt[4]{d_1b_2^2/c_1b_3^2}y, \sqrt[4]{c_1b_3^2/d_1b_2^2}x, \sqrt[4]{c_1b_2^2/d_1b_3^2}t, \sqrt[4]{d_1b_3^2/c_1b_2^2}z\right)$$
for $b_1=b_4=0$ which satisfies $\iota(\bar{\Theta}_1)=\bar{\Theta}_2$ and $\iota(P_1)=P_2$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The proof is straightforward.
\end{proof}
We do not know an exact formula of a Cremona transformation interchanging $\{\bar{\Theta}_1, \bar{\Theta}_2\}$ and $\{P_1, P_2\}$
as the one given in (\ref{CremonaOrdinary}) for ordinary case.
\medskip
Finally we consider the case (c).
Let $\xi_1= \sqrt{b_2b_4+ b_5b_8},\ \xi_2 = \sqrt{b_1b_3+b_6b_7}$. Recall that
$(b_1b_5+b_4b_7, b_2b_6+b_3b_8)\ne (0,0),\ (b_1b_8+b_4b_6, b_2b_7+b_3b_5) \ne (0,0)$
(Remark \ref{coefficients}) and $(\xi_1, \xi_2) \not=(0,0)$ (Lemma \ref{Invariant}).
Let
$$x_0 =\sqrt{(b_1b_8+b_4b_6)\xi_1},\quad y_0 =\sqrt{(b_1b_5+b_4b_7)\xi_2},$$
$$z_0 =\sqrt{(b_2b_7+b_3b_5)\xi_1},\quad t_0 =\sqrt{(b_2b_6+b_3b_8)\xi_2},$$
$$x_0' =\sqrt{(b_1b_8+b_4b_6)\xi_2}, \quad y_0' =\sqrt{(b_1b_5+b_4b_7)\xi_1},$$
$$z_0' =\sqrt{(b_2b_7+b_3b_5)\xi_2}, \quad t_0' =\sqrt{(b_2b_6+b_3b_8)\xi_1}.$$
\begin{theorem}\label{ssKummerQ}
{\rm (1)}\ $S_0$ has a unique singular point
$P_0= (x_0, y_0, z_0, t_0)$
of type $\mbox{\MARU{4}}_{0,1}^{1}$.
\smallskip
{\rm (2)}\ $S_0$ contains a trope $\bar{\Theta}$ by cutting by the hyperplane
$$z_0'x + t_0'y + x_0'z +y_0't=0.$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
(1)\ By the Jacobian criterion, we
can check that $P_0$ is a singular point of the surface by elementary but long calculation.
Later we show that $S_0$ is the quotient of the supersingular abelian surface (Theorem \ref{CurveSupersingular}, Remark \ref{CurveSupersingularIgusa}).
It follows from Proposition \ref{Basic2} and Theorem \ref{Kummer-sigularity} that
$S_0$ has a unique singularity of type $\mbox{\MARU{4}}_{0,1}^{1}$.
We remark that the point $P_0$ is nothing but the
base point of the linear system defined by six quadrics
$$X_1=b_3x^2+b_4t^2+b_6xz+b_8yt,\ Y_1=b_2y^2+b_1z^2+b_7xz+b_5yt,$$
$$X_2=b_2xy+b_5xt+b_8yz+b_4zt,\ Y_2=b_3xy+b_7xt+b_6yz+b_1zt,$$
$$X_3= b_7x^2+b_8y^2+b_1xz+b_4yt,\ Y_3=b_6z^2+b_5t^2+b_3xz+b_2yt.$$
Here $X_i^2, Y_i^2$ are coefficients of $c_i, d_i$ when we consider the quartic equation of $S_0$
as a linear form of $c_i, d_i$.
(2)\ Consider a hyperplane $t=\alpha x +\beta y + \gamma z$ $(\alpha, \beta, \gamma\in k)$.
By putting this into the equation of $S_0$, we have the equation
$$f(x,y,z)^2 + xy L_1(x,y,z)^2 + yz L_2(x,y,z)^2+ zx L_3(x,y,z)^2=0$$
where $f$ is a quadric and $L_1, L_2, L_3$ are linear forms. We can check that
$L_1, L_2, L_3$ coincide up to constant by elementary but long calculation.
Then we choose $\alpha, \beta, \gamma$ satisfying $L_1 \equiv 0$ which gives
the desired hyperplane. Now a direct calculation shows that
the desired hyperplane is given in (2).
\end{proof}
We do not know an exact formula of a Cremona transformation interchanging $\bar{\Theta}$ and $P_0$
as the one given in (\ref{CremonaOrdinary}) for the ordinary case.
\section{Quadric line complexes and Kummer surfaces in characteristic 2: the intersection of three quadrics}\label{sec3}
Denote by
$\Sigma$, $\Sigma_1$ or $\Sigma_0$ the set of singular lines (see the equation (\ref{Kummer}))
of the quadric line complex defined by the pencil $\mathcal{P}$, $\mathcal{P}_1$ or $\mathcal{P}_0$, respectively.
\begin{theorem}\label{Int3quadrics}\
{\rm (a)} The surface $\Sigma$ is given by the equations
$$\Sigma = \left\{\sum_{i=1}^3 X_iY_i= \sum_{i=1}^3 a_iX_iY_i + c_iX_i^2 + d_iY_i^2=\sum_{i=1}^3 a_i^2X_iY_i=0\right\}.$$
\smallskip
{\rm (b)} \
$\Sigma_1$ is given by the equations
$$\sum_{i=1}^3 X_iY_i = \sum_{i=1}^3 (a_iX_iY_i + c_iX_i^2 + d_iY_i^2) +
b_1X_2Y_3 + b_2X_3Y_2 + b_3X_2X_3 + b_4Y_2Y_3$$
$$=\sum_{i=1}^3 a_i^2X_iY_i + b_1b_3X_2^2 + b_2b_3X_3^2+ b_2b_4Y_2^2+b_1b_4Y_3^2=0$$
where $a_2=a_3$ and $b_1b_2=b_3b_4$.
\smallskip
{\rm (c)}\ $\Sigma_0$ is given by the equations
$$\sum_{i=1}^3 X_iY_i= \sum_{i=1}^3 (aX_iY_i + c_iX_i^2 + d_iY_i^2)$$
$$+b_1X_2Y_3 + b_2X_3Y_2 + b_3X_2X_3 +b_4Y_2Y_3 + b_5X_1Y_2+b_6X_2Y_1+b_7X_1X_2+
b_8Y_1Y_2$$
$$=a^2\sum_{i=1}^3X_iY_i + b_5b_7X_1^2 + (b_1b_3+b_6b_7)X_2^2 + b_2b_3X_3^2+ b_6b_8Y_1^2+(b_2b_4+b_5b_8)Y_2^2+b_1b_4Y_3^2$$
$$+(b_1b_5+b_4b_7)X_1Y_3 + (b_2b_6+b_3b_8)X_3Y_1+(b_2b_7+b_3b_5)X_1X_3+(b_1b_8+b_4b_6)Y_1Y_3 =0,$$
where $b_1b_2=b_3b_4, \ b_5b_6=b_7b_8$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We use Proposition \ref{singularlines}.
Consider the case (c) without assuming $a_1=a_2=a_3$.
For
$$
x=(u_1, u_2, u_3, v_1, v_2, v_3) \in G,\ x'= (u_1', u_2', u_3', v_1', v_2', v_3')\in G\cap Q_2,
$$
the tangent space of $G$ at $x$ is given by
$$
\sum_{i=1}^3 (v_iX_i + u_iY_i) =0,
$$
and that of $Q_2$ at $x'$ is given by
$$
(a_1v_1'+b_7u_2' +b_5v_2')X_1 + (a_1u_1'+b_6u_2'+b_8v_2')Y_1 + (a_2v_2'+b_7u_1'+b_3u_3'+
b_6v_1'+b_1v_3')X_2
$$
$$
+ (a_2u_2'+b_5u_1'+b_2u_3'+ b_8v_1'+b_4v_3')Y_2 + (a_3v_3'+b_3u_2'+b_2v_2')X_3 + (a_3u_3'+ b_1u_2'+b_4v_2')Y_3 =0.
$$
The condition that these two tangent spaces coincide implies that the coefficients of $X_i, Y_i$ coincide, and by putting these into $\sum_i u_iv_i=0$, we obtain the equation
$$(a_1^2 + b_5b_6+b_7b_8)u_1'v_1' + (a_2^2+ b_1b_2+b_3b_4+b_5b_6+b_7b_8)u_2'v_2' +(a_3^2 + b_1b_2+b_3b_4)u_3'v_3'$$
$$+ b_5b_7u_1'^2 + b_6b_8v_1'^2 + (b_1b_3+b_6b_7)u_2'^2 + (b_2b_4+b_5b_8)v_2'^2 + b_2b_3u_3'^2 + b_1b_4v_3'^2$$
$$+ (b_1b_5+b_4b_7)u_1'v_3' + (b_2b_6+b_3b_8)u_3'v_1' + (b_2b_7+b_3b_5)u_1'u_3' + (b_1b_8+b_4b_6)v_1'v_3' $$
$$+ (a_1+a_2)b_7u_1'u_2' + (a_1+a_2)b_5u_1'v_2' + (a_1+a_2)b_6u_2'v_1'+ (a_1+a_2)b_8v_1'v_2'$$
$$+ (a_2+a_3)b_3u_2'u_3' + (a_2+a_3)b_1u_2'v_3' + (a_2+a_3)b_2u_3'v_2'+ (a_2+a_3)b_4v_2'v_3'.$$
Now by using the equations $a_1=a_2=a_3$ and $b_1b_2=b_3b_4, \ b_5b_6=b_7b_8$, we obtain the equation (c).
By putting $b_1=\cdots = b_8=0$, we have the equation (a), and by putting $a_2=a_3$, $b_1b_2=b_3b_4$
and $b_5=\cdots = b_8=0$, we obtain the equation (b).
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{originalequation}
Using (\ref{ordinaryPencil}), (\ref{p-rank1Pencil}) and (\ref{SupersingularPencil}),
we see, in a similar way to the proof of
Theorem \ref{Int3quadrics}, that the surfaces $\Sigma$, $\Sigma_1$ and $\Sigma_0$
are given as follows:
{\rm (a)} \
The surface $\Sigma$ is isomorphic to the surface defined by
$$
\sum_{i=1}^3 (X_iY_i + p_i^2X_i^2 + t_i^2Y_i^2)=
\sum_{i=1}^3 (a_iX_iY_i + r_i^2X_i^2 + s_i^2Y_i^2).
$$
$$
= \sum_{i=1}^3 (a_i^2X_iY_i + a_i^2p_i^2X_i^2 + a_i^2t_i^2Y_i^2)=0.
$$
\smallskip
{\rm (b)} \
The surface $\Sigma_1$ is isomorphic to the surface defined by
$$
\sum_{i=1}^3 (X_iY_i + p_i^2X_i^2 + t_i^2Y_i^2)=
\sum_{i=1}^3 (a_iX_iY_i + r_i^2X_i^2 + s_i^2Y_i^2) + X_3Y_2.
$$
$$
= \sum_{i=1}^3 (a_i^2X_iY_i + a_i^2p_i^2X_i^2 + a_i^2t_i^2Y_i^2)+ p_2^2X_3^2 + t_3^2Y_2^2= 0
$$
\smallskip
{\rm (c)} \
The surface $\Sigma_0$ is isomorphic to the surface defined by
$$
\sum_{i=1}^3 (X_iY_i + p_i^2X_i^2 + t_i^2Y_i^2)=
\sum_{i=1}^3 (aX_iY_i + r_i^2X_i^2 + s_i^2Y_i^2) + X_2Y_1+X_3Y_2.
$$
$$
= \sum_{i=1}^3 (a^2X_iY_i + a^2p_i^2X_i^2 + a^2t_i^2Y_i^2)+
p_1^2X_2^2 +p_2^2X_3^2 + t_2^2Y_1^2 + t_3^2Y_2^2 + X_3Y_1= 0
$$
These equations are sometimes useful to examine the properties of $\Sigma$, $\Sigma_1$ and
$\Sigma_0$, for example, to calculate the singularities.
\end{remark}
Next we study the intersection of three quadrics in Theorem \ref{Int3quadrics} individually.
First we consider the case (a).
\begin{theorem}\label{Int3quadricsOrdinary}\
\smallskip
{\rm (1)} \ The lines on $\Sigma$ are exactly the following eight ones$:$
\smallskip
$\widetilde{\Theta}_1 : X_1=X_2=X_3=\sum_i\sqrt{d_i}Y_i =0,$
$\widetilde{\Theta}_2 : Y_1=Y_2=X_3=\sqrt{c_1}X_1 + \sqrt{c_2}X_2 + \sqrt{d_3}Y_3 =0,$
$\widetilde{\Theta}_3 : Y_1=X_2=Y_3=\sqrt{c_1}X_1 + \sqrt{d_2}Y_2 + \sqrt{c_3}X_3 =0,$
$\widetilde{\Theta}_4 : X_1=Y_2=Y_3=\sqrt{d_1}Y_1 + \sqrt{c_2}X_2 + \sqrt{c_3}X_3 =0,$
$E_1 : Y_1=Y_2=Y_3=\sum_i\sqrt{c_i}X_i =0,$
$E_2 : X_1=X_2=Y_3=\sqrt{d_1}Y_1 + \sqrt{d_2}Y_2 + \sqrt{c_3}X_3 =0,$
$E_3 : X_1=Y_2=X_3=\sqrt{d_1}Y_1 + \sqrt{c_2}X_2 + \sqrt{d_3}Y_3 =0,$
$E_4 : Y_1=X_2=X_3=\sqrt{c_1}X_1 + \sqrt{d_2}Y_2 + \sqrt{d_3}Y_3 =0.$
\smallskip
{\rm (2)}\ The surface $\Sigma$ has exactly twelve nodes at the twelve intersection points of
$\widetilde{\Theta}_i$ and $E_j$. In particular $\Sigma$ is a $K3$ surface with rational double points.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since any line on $\Sigma$ is of the form $\sigma(p,h)$ cutting by planes $\sigma(p)$ and
$\sigma(h)$, it corresponds to a singularity of the Kummer quartic surface or a trope. Hence the number of lines is eight. The assertion (2) follows from the Jacobian criterion and
the resolution of singularities.
\end{proof}
\noindent
The configuration of $\{\widetilde{\Theta}_i, E_j\}$ is given as in Figure \ref{EightLines}:
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{!}{4.0cm}{
\xy
(10,0)*{};(10,40)*{}**\dir{-};
(20,0)*{};(20,40)*{}**\dir{-};
(30,0)*{};(30,40)*{}**\dir{-};
(40,0)*{};(40,40)*{}**\dir{-};
(5,5)*{};(8,5)*{}**\dir{-};
(12,5)*{};(45,5)*{}**\dir{-};
(5,15)*{};(18,15)*{}**\dir{-};
(22,15)*{};(45,15)*{}**\dir{-};
(5,25)*{};(28,25)*{}**\dir{-};
(32,25)*{};(45,25)*{}**\dir{-};
(5,35)*{};(38,35)*{}**\dir{-};
(42,35)*{};(45,35)*{}**\dir{-};
(10,-5)*{E_1};(20,-5)*{E_{2}};(30,-5)*{E_3};(40,-5)*{E_4};
(0,5)*{\widetilde{\Theta}_1};(0,15)*{\widetilde{\Theta}_2};(0,25)*{\widetilde{\Theta}_3};(0,35)*{\widetilde{\Theta}_4};
\endxy
}
\caption{Eight lines on $\Sigma$}
\label{EightLines}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Let $\widetilde{\Sigma}$ be the minimal resolution of $\Sigma$.
Then $\widetilde{\Sigma}$ is a $K3$ surface and contains twenty $(-2)$-curves (i.e. non-singular rational curves) which are the proper transforms of
$\widetilde{\Theta}_i$, $E_j$ and the twelve exceptional curves over the twelve nodes.
We denote the proper transforms by the same symbols $\widetilde{\Theta}_i$, $E_j$.
Then the dual graph of twenty $(-2)$-curves is given as in Figure \ref{20curves}:
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{!}{4.0cm}{
\xy
(10,5)*{};(10,25)*{}**\dir{-};
(25,20)*{};(25,40)*{}**\dir{--};
(30,5)*{};(30,25)*{}**\dir{-};
(45,20)*{};(45,40)*{}**\dir{-};
(10,5)*{};(30,5)*{}**\dir{-};
(10,25)*{};(25,40)*{}**\dir{-};
(25,20)*{};(45,20)*{}**\dir{--};
(30,25)*{};(45,40)*{}**\dir{-};
(10,25)*{};(30,25)*{}**\dir{-};
(10,5)*{};(25,20)*{}**\dir{--};
(30,5)*{};(45,20)*{}**\dir{-};
(25,40)*{};(45,40)*{}**\dir{-};
@={(10,5),(10,15),(10,25),(20,5),(20,25),(30,5),(30,15),(30,25),(25,20),(18.5,13.5),
(25,40),(45,20),(45,40),(37.5,12.5),(37.5, 32.5),(45,30),(17.5,32.5),(35,40),(35,20),(25,30)}@@{*{\bullet}};
(5,5)*{E_1};(5,25)*{\widetilde{\Theta}_{3}};(50,20)*{E_3};(35,5)*{\widetilde{\Theta}_2};
(50,40)*{\widetilde{\Theta}_1};(35,25)*{E_4};(21,20)*{\widetilde{\Theta}_4};(20,40)*{E_2};
\endxy
}
\caption{The dual graph of 20 $(-2)$-curves on $\widetilde{\Sigma}$}
\label{20curves}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{remark}\label{Mukai-Peters}
Over the complex numbers, Peters and Stienstra \cite{PS} studied a 1-dimensional family of $K3$ surfaces
containing 20 $(-2)$-curves forming the dual graph in Figure \ref{20curves} and Mukai and Ohashi \cite{MO} also
studied quartic surfaces given in Remark \ref{LaszloRemark}.
\end{remark}
The projective transformations
$$\iota_1: (X_1, X_2, X_3, Y_1, Y_2, Y_3) \to \left(\sqrt{d_1/c_1}Y_1, X_2, X_3, \sqrt{c_1/d_1}X_1, Y_2, Y_3\right),$$
$$\iota_2: (X_1, X_2, X_3, Y_1, Y_2, Y_3) \to \left(X_1, \sqrt{d_2/c_2}Y_2, X_3, Y_1, \sqrt{c_2/d_2}X_2, Y_3\right),$$
$$\iota_3: (X_1, X_2, X_3, Y_1, Y_2, Y_3) \to \left(X_1, X_2, \sqrt{d_3/c_3}Y_3, Y_1, Y_2: \sqrt{c_3/d_3}X_3\right)$$
act on $\Sigma$ and hence induce an automorphism group of $\widetilde{\Sigma}$ isomorphic to $({\bf Z}/2{\bf Z})^3$. The subgroup $({\bf Z}/2{\bf Z})^2$ generated by $\iota_1\circ \iota_2, \iota_1\circ \iota_3$ preserves
$\{\widetilde{\Theta}_i\}$ and
the remaining involutions interchange $\{\widetilde{\Theta}_i\}$ and $\{E_j\}$.
\begin{prop}\label{OrdinaryStoQ} The linear system defined by six quadrics
$$X_1=(a_2+a_3)xt,\ X_2=(a_1+a_3)xz,\ X_3=(a_1+a_2)xy,$$
$$Y_1=(a_2+a_3)yz,\ Y_2=(a_1+a_3)yt, \ Y_3=(a_1+a_2)zt$$
gives a birational map $\mu$ from the Kummer quartic surface $S$ to $\Sigma$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Note that $X_i^2, Y_i^2$ are coefficients of $c_i, d_i$ when we consider the quartic equation of $S$ as
a linear form of $c_i, d_i$.
By definition of $\mu$, its image satisfies the equations $\sum_{i=1}^3 X_iY_i= \sum_{i=1}^3 a_i^2X_iY_i=0$, and
the relation $\sum_{i=1}^3 (a_iX_iY_i + c_iX_i^2 + d_iY_i^2)=0$ follows from the quartic equation of $S$.
The base locus of the linear system consists of four singular points of $S$.
Let $\tilde{S}$ be the blowing-up of the four singular points of $S$. Then $\mu$ induces a proper morphism from
$\tilde{S}$ to $\Sigma$. Thus if we show that the inverse image $\mu^{-1}(P)$ of a point $P$ of $\Sigma$ consists of one point, then
the assertion follows. Let $P$ be a general point of the line $\tilde{\Theta}_1$. Then we can write
$P=(0, 0, 0, \alpha, \beta, \gamma)$ satisfying $\alpha, \beta, \gamma \in k^*$ and $\sqrt{d_1}\alpha + \sqrt{d_2}\beta +\sqrt{d_3}\gamma =0$.
Then the inverse image $\mu^{-1}(P)$ consists of only one point by solving the equation
$(xt, xz, xy, yz, yt, zt) = \left(0, 0, 0, \alpha/(a_2+a_3), \beta/(a_1+a_3), \gamma/(a_1+a_2)\right).$
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
In Figure \ref{20curves}, by contracting sixteen $(-2)$-curves except $\widetilde{\Theta}_1,
\ldots, \widetilde{\Theta}_4$, we obtain the Kummer quartic surface $S$. If we contract
sixteen $(-2)$-curves except $E_1,\ldots, E_4$, then we obtain the dual Kummer surface $S^\vee$.
\end{remark}
\medskip
Next we consider the case (b).
\begin{theorem}\label{Int3quadricsP-rank1}
{\rm (1)} \ The lines on $\Sigma_1$ are exactly the following four ones$:$
$$\widetilde{\Theta}_1 : Y_1=\sqrt{b_1}X_2 + \sqrt{b_2}X_3= \sqrt{b_2}Y_2 + \sqrt{b_1}Y_3 =0,$$
$$\widetilde{\Theta}_2 : X_1=\sqrt{b_3}X_2 + \sqrt{b_4}Y_3= \sqrt{b_3}X_3 + \sqrt{b_4}Y_2=0,$$
$$E_1 : X_1=\sqrt{b_1}X_2+\sqrt{b_2}X_3=\sqrt{b_2}Y_2+\sqrt{b_1}Y_3 =0,$$
$$E_2 : Y_1=\sqrt{b_3}X_2 + \sqrt{b_4}Y_3= \sqrt{b_3}X_3 +\sqrt{b_4}Y_2=0.$$
Here we give only the equation of a plane $\Pi$ such that $\Pi \cap \Sigma_1$ is a double line.
The dual graph of the four lines is a square, that is, $\widetilde{\Theta}_1 \cdot \widetilde{\Theta}_2 =
E_1\cdot E_2 =0$ and $\widetilde{\Theta}_i\cdot E_j=1, \ 1\leq i,j \leq 2$.
\smallskip
{\rm (2)} \ The surface $\Sigma_1$ has exactly four singular points which are the intersection points of the four lines.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The proof of (1) is the same as that of Theorem \ref{Int3quadricsOrdinary}. We use the condition of Lemma \ref{3-fold}(b) for the intersection multiplicities. The assertion (2) follows from the Jacobian criterion and resolutions of singularities.
\end{proof}
Consider the involutions $\iota_1$, $\iota_2$ of ${\bf P}^5$:
$$\iota_1: (X_1, X_2, X_3, Y_1, Y_2, Y_3) \to \left(\sqrt{d_1/c_1}Y_1, X_2, X_3, \sqrt{c_1/d_1}X_1, Y_2, Y_3\right);$$
In case $b_1b_2b_3b_4\ne 0$,
$$\iota_2: (X_1, X_2, X_3, Y_1, Y_2, Y_3) \to \left(\sqrt{d_1/c_1}Y_1, {\sqrt{b_2b_4/b_1b_3}}Y_2, X_3, \sqrt{c_1/d_1}X_1, \sqrt{b_1b_3/b_2b_4}X_2, Y_3\right),$$
and in case $b_1b_2b_3b_4=0$, for example, $b_1=b_4=0$,
$$\iota_2: (X_1, X_2, X_3, Y_1, Y_2, Y_3) \to \left(\sqrt{d_1/c_1}Y_1, (b_2/b_3)Y_2, X_3, \sqrt{c_1/d_1}X_1, (b_3/b_2)X_2, Y_3\right).$$
Obviously $\iota_1$ preserves the equations of $\Sigma_1$ and hence induces an involution of $\Sigma_1$ and
$\iota_1(\widetilde{\Theta}_1) =E_1$ and $\iota_1(\widetilde{\Theta}_2)=E_2$.
Note that $\iota_2$ preserves $\Sigma_1$ if and only if $b_2b_4c_2=b_1b_3d_2$ for $b_1b_2b_3b_4\ne 0$ and
$b_2^2c_2=b_3^2d_2$ for $b_1=b_4=0$.
\begin{prop}\label{prank1translation3}
After changing the coordinates, we may assume that $b_2b_4c_2=b_1b_3d_2$ for $b_1b_2b_3b_4\ne 0$ and
$b_2^2c_2=b_3^2d_2$ for $b_1=b_4=0$, and hence
the projective transformation $\iota_2$ preserves $\Sigma_1$ and $\iota_2(\widetilde{\Theta}_1)=\widetilde{\Theta}_2$ and $\iota_2(E_1)=E_2$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} The assertion follows from Lemma \ref{prank1translation} and Remark \ref{prank1translationRemark}.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{P-rank1StoQ} The linear system defined by six quadrics
$$X_1=b_3x^2+b_4t^2,\ X_2=b_2xy+b_4zt+(a_1+a_2)xz,\ X_3=b_1xz+b_4yt+(a_1+a_2)xy,$$
$$Y_1=b_2y^2+b_1z^2,\ Y_2=b_3xy+b_1zt+(a_1+a_2)yt, \ Y_3=b_3xz+b_2yt+(a_1+a_2)zt$$
gives a birational map $\mu_1$ from the Kummer quartic surface $S_1$ to $\Sigma_1$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} We remark that $X_i^2, Y_i^2$ are the coefficients of $c_i, d_i$ when we consider the quartic equation of $S_1$ as a linear form of $c_i, d_i$.
The proof of the assertion is similar to the one of Proposition \ref{OrdinaryStoQ}.
In this case consider a general point $(\alpha, \sqrt{b_2}, \sqrt{b_1}, 0, \sqrt{b_1}, \sqrt{b_2})$
of the line $\tilde{\Theta}_1$\ $(\alpha \in k)$. Then we can easily check that $(x,y,z,t)$ is uniquely determined by $\alpha$.
\end{proof}
The involution $\iota_2$ of $\Sigma_1$ corresponds to the involution $\iota$ of $S_1$ defined in
Proposition \ref{prank1translation2} under the birational map $\mu_1$.
\medskip
Finally we consider the case (c).
Let $\iota$ be the projective transformation of ${\bf P}^5$ defined by
$$\iota(X_1)= \sqrt{b_6b_8/b_5b_7}Y_1, \ \iota(Y_1)= \sqrt{b_5b_7/b_6b_8}X_1,\ \iota(X_i)=X_i,\ \iota(Y_i)=Y_i \ (i=2,3)$$
if $b_5b_6b_7b_8\ne 0$,
$$\iota(X_1)= (b_6/b_7)Y_1,\ \iota(Y_1)= (b_7/b_6)X_1,\ \iota(X_i)=X_i,\ \iota(Y_i)=Y_i\ (i=2,3)$$
if, for example, $b_5=b_8=0$.
By Lemma \ref{prank1translation}, Remark \ref{prank1translationRemark}, we may assume that
$b_6b_8c_1=b_5b_7d_1$ in the first case and $b_6^2c_1=b_7^2d_1$ in the second case.
\begin{lemma}\label{ssAut}
The involution $\iota$
acts on $\Sigma_0$ as an automorphism.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This is straightforward.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{Int3quadricsSupersingular}
{\rm (1)}\
The surface $\Sigma_0$ has only one singular point $P$, which is the intersection point of the two conics
defined by $b_7X_1 + b_6Y_1 = 0$ and $b_2X_3 + b_4Y_3 = 0$ or by $b_5X_1 + b_8Y_1 = 0$ and $b_3X_3 + b_1Y_3 = 0$.
The singular point $P$ is an elliptic double point of
type $\mbox{\MARU{14}}_{0,0,1}^{(0),(1)}$
{\rm (Figure \ref{ellipticSing})}.
Let $\xi_1 = \sqrt{b_2b_4 + b_5b_8}$ and
$\xi_2 = \sqrt{b_1b_3 + b_6b_7}$.
Then, the singular point $P= (X_1, X_2, X_3, Y_1, Y_2, Y_3)$ is concretely given by
$$
\begin{array}{l}
X_1 = b_8(\xi_1\sqrt{b_1b_3c_2}+ \xi_2\sqrt{b_1b_3d_2} +
b_1\sqrt{\xi_1\xi_2 c_3} + b_3\sqrt{\xi_1\xi_2 d_3}), \\
X_2 = \xi_1(b_8\sqrt{b_1b_3c_1} + b_5\sqrt{b_1b_3d_1} +
b_1\sqrt{b_5b_8c_3} + b_3\sqrt{b_5b_8d_3}), \\
X_3 = b_1(b_8\sqrt{\xi_1\xi_2 c_1} + b_5\sqrt{\xi_1\xi_2 d_1}
+\xi_1 \sqrt{b_5b_8c_2} + \xi_2 \sqrt{b_5b_8d_2}), \\
Y_1 = b_5(\xi_1 \sqrt{b_1b_3c_2} + \xi_2 \sqrt{b_1b_3d_2} +
b_1\sqrt{\xi_1\xi_2 c_3} + b_3\sqrt{\xi_1\xi_2 d_3}), \\
Y_2 = \xi_2(b_8 \sqrt{b_1b_3c_1} + b_5 \sqrt{b_1b_3d_1} +
b_1\sqrt{b_5b_8c_3} + b_3\sqrt{b_5b_8d_3}), \\
Y_3 = b_3(b_8\sqrt{\xi_1\xi_2 c_1} + b_5\sqrt{\xi_1\xi_2 d_1}
+\xi_1 \sqrt{b_5b_8c_2} +\xi_2 \sqrt{b_5b_8d_2}).
\end{array}
$$
{\rm (2)}\ Let
$x_0, y_0, z_0, t_0, x_0', y_0', z_0', t_0'$ be
as in Theorem {\rm \ref{ssKummerQ}}.
The lines on $\Sigma_0$ are exactly the following two$:$
$$\widetilde{E}: y_0X_1 +t_0X_3+ x_0Y_2= y_0X_2+z_0X_3+x_0Y_1=z_0X_1+t_0X_2+x_0Y_3$$
$$=\left(\sqrt{c_1}x_0 +\sqrt{d_2}y_0 + \sqrt{d_3}z_0+\sqrt{b_4y_0z_0+b_5x_0y_0}\right)X_1$$
$$+\left(\sqrt{c_2}x_0 +\sqrt{d_1}y_0 + \sqrt{d_3}t_0+\sqrt{b_1x_0t_0+b_6x_0y_0}\right)X_2$$
$$+\left(\sqrt{c_3}x_0 +\sqrt{d_1}z_0 + \sqrt{d_2}t_0+\sqrt{b_2x_0t_0+b_8z_0t_0}\right)X_3=0$$
and
$$\widetilde{\Theta}: x_0'Y_1 +z_0'X_3+ y_0'Y_2= x_0'X_2+t_0'X_3+y_0'X_1=z_0'Y_1+z_0'X_2+y_0'Y_3$$
$$=\left(\sqrt{d_1}y_0' +\sqrt{d_2}x_0' + \sqrt{d_3}t_0'+\sqrt{b_4x_0'z_0'+b_8x_0'y_0'}\right)Y_1$$
$$+\left(\sqrt{c_2}y_0' +\sqrt{c_1}x_0' + \sqrt{d_3}z_0'+\sqrt{b_1y_0'z_0'+b_7x_0'y_0'}\right)X_2$$
$$+\left(\sqrt{c_3}y_0' +\sqrt{c_1}t_0' + \sqrt{d_2}z_0'+\sqrt{b_2y_0'z_0'+b_5y_0't_0'}\right)X_3=0,$$
respectively. Moreover
$\widetilde{\Theta} = \iota(\widetilde{E})$,
and $\widetilde{E}$ and $\widetilde{\Theta}$ meet at $P$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Note that by Lemma \ref{Invariant} we have $(\xi_1, \xi_2) \neq (0, 0)$.
To calculate the singularities of $\Sigma_0$, we use the equations
in Remark \ref{originalequation} {\rm (c)}.
Subtracting suitable constant multiples of the first equation
from the second and the third equations,
the surface $\Sigma_0$ is isomorphic to the surface defined by the following three equations:
$$
\begin{array}{l}
(1)~ \sum_{i=1}^3 (X_iY_i + p_i^2X_i^2 + t_i^2Y_i^2)= 0,\\
(2) ~\sum_{i=1}^3 \{(r_i^2 + ap_i^2)X_i^2 + (s_i^2 + at_i^2)Y_i^2\} + X_2Y_1+X_3Y_2= 0,\\
(3)~ p_1^2X_2^2 +p_2^2X_3^2 + t_2^2Y_1^2 + t_3^2Y_2^2 + X_3Y_1= 0
\end{array}
$$
The Jacobian matrix with respect to the coordinates $(X_1, X_2, X_3, Y_1, Y_2, Y_3)$
is given by
$$
\left(
\begin{array}{cccccc}
Y_1 & Y_2 & Y_3 & X_1 & X_2 & X_3\\
0 & Y_1 & Y_2 & X_2 & X_3 & 0\\
0 & 0 & Y_1 & X_3 & 0 & 0
\end{array}
\right).
$$
In this matrix, if $Y_1 \neq 0$, then the first, the second and the third rows are linearly
independent. If $X_3 \neq 0$, then the 4th, the 5th and the 6th rows are linearly
independent. Therefore, singular points must satisfy the equation $Y_1 = X_3 = 0$.
In the change of coordinates (\ref{CC}), we have
$$
Y_1 = \gamma_1x_1 + \alpha_1y_1, X_3 = \delta_3 x_3 + \beta_3 y_3.
$$
Therefore, for the equations which define $\Sigma_0$ in Theorem \ref{Int3quadrics},
the singularities are defined by the following two equations:
\begin{equation}\label{1}
\gamma_1X_1 + \alpha_1Y_1 = 0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{2}
\delta_3 X_3 + \beta_3 Y_3 = 0.
\end{equation}
Note that either $\alpha_2\delta_2 \neq 0$ or $\beta_2\gamma_2\neq 0$ holds
by $\alpha_2\delta_2 + \beta_2\gamma_2 = 1$.
If $\alpha_2\delta_2 \neq 0$, then multiplying (\ref{1}) by $\delta_2$ and
(\ref{2}) by $\alpha_2$, we have $b_7X_1 + b_6Y_1 = 0$ and $b_2X_3 + b_4Y_3 = 0$.
If $\beta_2\gamma_2 \neq 0$, multiplying (\ref{1}) by $\beta_2$ and
(\ref{2}) by $\gamma_2$, we have $b_5X_1 + b_8Y_1 = 0$ and $b_3X_3 + b_1Y_3 = 0$.
Since we are in charactersitic 2, using these equations, we have 3 linear equations
from the defining equations of $\Sigma_0$.
Solving the equations, we get the concrete coordinates of the only one singular point $P$.
Let $\Pi$ be the plane defined by
$$y_0X_1 +t_0X_3+ x_0Y_2= y_0X_2+z_0X_3+x_0Y_1=z_0X_1+t_0X_2+x_0Y_3=0.$$
In Theorem \ref{ssKummerQ}, we showed that the Kummer quartic surface $S_0$
has a singular point $P_0=(x_0, y_0, z_0, t_0)$. The plane $\Pi$ is nothing but the one
consisting of lines in ${\bf P}^3$ passing through $P_0$. We can also check that
$\Pi$ cuts $\Sigma_0$ along the double line $\widetilde{E}$,
$\widetilde{E}$ contains the singular point $P$ and $\widetilde{\Theta} = \iota(\widetilde{E})$
by direct but long calculation.
Since $P$ is the unique singular point, it is fixed by $\iota$ and hence $\iota(\widetilde{E})$ also
contains $P$. Therefore $\widetilde{E}$ and $\widetilde{\Theta}$ meet at $P$.
Recall that there exists a canonical morphism
$\pi: \Sigma_0 \to S_0$ by sending $x$ to the focus of $\ell_x$ (see \S \ref{ClassicalQLC})
which is nothing but the one sending $\tilde{E}$ to $P_0$.
It is easy to see that $\pi$ is the blowing-up of $P_0 \in S_0$.
On the other hand, it follows from the canonical resolution given in Katsura \cite[\S6]{Ka} that
the minimal resolution of a singularity of type $\mbox{\MARU{14}}_{0,0,1}^{(0),(1)}$
is obtained from the one of a singularity of type $\mbox{\MARU{4}}_{0,1}^{1}$ by blowing-up a point
on the $(-3)$-curve (Figure \ref{ellipticSing}). Since $P_0$ is of type $\mbox{\MARU{4}}_{0,1}^{1}$ (Theorem \ref{ssKummerQ}),
$P$ is of type $\mbox{\MARU{14}}_{0,0,1}^{(0),(1)}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{}
In Theorem \ref{Int3quadricsSupersingular} (2), if $x_0=0$, then the equations
$$y_0X_1 +t_0X_3+ x_0Y_2= y_0X_2+z_0X_3+x_0Y_1=z_0X_1+t_0X_2+x_0Y_3=0$$
define a 3-dimensional subspace instead of a plane.
However, together with the relation $\sum X_iY_i=0$, it defines a unique line. The same thing holds if
$y_0'=0$.
\end{remark}
\begin{prop}\label{SupersingularStoQ} The linear system defined by six quadrics
$$X_1=b_3x^2+b_4t^2+b_6xz+b_8yt,\ Y_1=b_2y^2+b_1z^2+b_7xz+b_5yt,$$
$$X_2=b_2xy+b_5xt+b_8yz+b_4zt,\ Y_2=b_3xy+b_7xt+b_6yz+b_1zt,$$
$$X_3= b_7x^2+b_8y^2+b_1xz+b_4yt,\ Y_3=b_6z^2+b_5t^2+b_3xz+b_2yt$$
gives a birational map $\mu_0$ from the Kummer quartic surface $S_0$ to $\Sigma_0$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Note that $X_i^2, Y_i^2$ are coefficients of $c_i, d_i$ when we consider the quartic equation of $S_0$
as a linear form of $c_i, d_i$.
The proof is similar to the one of Proposition \ref{OrdinaryStoQ}.
By using the relations $b_1b_2=b_3b_4$, $b_5b_6=b_7b_8$, we have
$$\sqrt{b_2b_6+b_3b_8}y + \sqrt{b_1b_5+b_4b_7}t = \sqrt{b_7X_1+b_6Y_1+b_3X_3+b_1Y_3},$$
$$\sqrt{b_2b_7+b_3b_5}x +\sqrt{b_1b_8+b_4b_6}z =\sqrt{b_5X_1+b_8Y_1+b_2X_3+b_4Y_3},$$
$$(b_2b_6+b_3b_8)xy+(b_1b_8+b_4b_6)zt=b_6X_2+b_8Y_2.$$
It follows that $(x, y, z, t)$ is uniquely determined by $(X_1, X_2, X_3, Y_1, Y_2, Y_3)$.
\end{proof}
\section{Quadric line complexes and Kummer surfaces in characteristic 2: Curves of genus 2}\label{sec5}
\subsection{General theory}
Let $f_i(t)$ and $g_i(t)$ ($i = 1, 2, 3$) be non-zero rational functions,
and let $a_i$ ($i = 1, 2, 3$) be elements of $k$. Let
\begin{equation}\label{normalpencil}
\begin{array}{rl}
Q(t) &= f_1(t)X_1^2 + (t + a_1)X_1Y_1 + g_1(t)Y_1^2 \\
&\quad + f_2(t)X_2^2 + (t + a_2)X_2Y_2 + g_2(t)Y_2^2 \\
& \quad + f_3(t)X_3^2 + (t + a_3)X_3Y_3 + g_3(t)Y_3^2 = 0
\end{array}
\end{equation}
be a pencil of quadrics. Let $G(3, 6)$ be the Grassmannian of 3-dimensional subspaces
of $k^6$ and let $Z$ be the correspondence variety in ${\bf P}^1 \times G(3, 6)$ defined by
$$
Z = \{(t, W)\mid W \mbox{is totally singular for}~ Q(t)\}.
$$
For a general point $t \in {\bf A}^1 \subset {\bf P}^1$,
the fiber of the morphism $f : Z \longrightarrow {\bf P}^1$ has
two connected components. We set $C = {\rm Spec}(f_{*}{\mathcal O}_Z)$.
Then, $C$ is a double cover of ${\bf P}^1$ (cf. Bhosle \cite[Proposition 2.16]{B}).
We calculate the concrete equation of $C$.
For this purpose, we factorize polynomials $f_i(t)X_i^2 + (t + a_i)X_iY_i + g_i(t)Y_i^2$
($i = 1, 2, 3$) over the algebraic closure of $k(t)$
as
$$
f_i(t)X_i^2 + (t + a_i)X_iY_i + g_i(t)Y_i^2 = f_i(t)(X_i + \alpha_i Y_i)(X_i + \alpha'_i Y_i).
$$
Here, we have
$$
\alpha_i + \alpha'_i = \frac{t + a_i}{f_i(t)}~\mbox{and}~\alpha_i \alpha'_i = \frac{g_i(t)}{f_i(t)} \quad (i = 1, 2, 3).
$$
We have 3 vectors defined by the equations
$$
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
X_1 + \alpha_1Y_1 = 1,~X_1 + \alpha'_1Y_1 = 0, \\
X_2 + \alpha_2Y_2 = 0,~X_2 + \alpha'_2Y_2 = a, \\
X_3 + \alpha_3Y_3 = 0,~X_3 + \alpha'_3Y_3 = b,
\end{array}
\right.
$$
$$
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
X_1 + \alpha_1Y_1 = 0,~X_1 + \alpha'_1Y_1 = a, \\
X_2 + \alpha_2Y_2 = 1,~X_2 + \alpha'_2Y_2 = 0, \\
X_3 + \alpha_3Y_3 = 0,~X_3 + \alpha'_3Y_3 = c,
\end{array}
\right.
$$
$$
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
X_1 + \alpha_1Y_1 = 0,~X_1 + \alpha'_1Y_1 = b, \\
X_2 + \alpha_2Y_2 = 0,~X_2 + \alpha'_2Y_2 = c, \\
X_3 + \alpha_3Y_3 = 1,~X_3 + \alpha'_3Y_3 = 0,
\end{array}
\right.
$$
which are a basis of a 3-dimensional vector space $V$ corresponding with a point of $Z$ over
a general point $t \in {\bf A}^1 \subset {\bf P}^1$. Here, $a$, $b$ and $c$ are arbitrary elements of $k$.
Solving each system of equations, we have 3 vectors ${\bf u}_1$,
${\bf u}_2$ and ${\bf u}_3$ whose coordinates are arranged as $(X_1,X_2, X_3, Y_1, Y_2, Y_3)$:
$$
\begin{array}{l}
{\bf u}_1 = \left(\frac{f_1(t)\alpha'_1}{t + a_1}, \frac{f_2(t)a\alpha_2}{t + a_2}, \frac{f_3(t)b\alpha_3}{t + a_3}, \frac{f_1(t)}{t + a_1}, \frac{f_2(t)a}{t + a_2}, \frac{f_3(t)b}{t + a_3}\right),
\\
{\bf u}_2 = \left(\frac{f_1(t)a\alpha_1}{t + a_1}, \frac{f_2(t)\alpha'_2}{t + a_2}, \frac{f_3(t)c\alpha_3}{t + a_3}, \frac{f_1(t)a}{t + a_1}, \frac{f_2(t)}{t + a_2}, \frac{f_3(t)c}{t + a_3}\right),
\\
{\bf u}_3 = \left(\frac{f_1(t)b\alpha_1}{t + a_1}, \frac{f_2(t)c\alpha_2}{t + a_2},
\frac{f_3(t)\alpha'_3}{t + a_3}, \frac{f_1(t)b}{t + a_1}, \frac{f_2(t)c}{t + a_2},
\frac{f_3(t)}{t + a_3}\right).
\end{array}
$$
We set
$$
\begin{array}{l}
{\bf v}_ 1= \frac{t + a_1}{f_1(t)}{\bf u}_1,\\
{\bf v}_ 2= {\bf u}_2 + {\bf u}_1,\\
{\bf v}_ 3= {\bf u}_3 + {\bf u}_1.
\end{array}
$$
Again we set
$$
\begin{array}{l}
{\bf w}_ 1= {\bf v}_1 + \frac{t + a_1}{t + a_2}\frac{f_2(t)\alpha_2}{f_1(t)}{\bf v}_2 + \frac{t + a_1}{t + a_3}\frac{f_3(t)\alpha_3}{f_1(t)}{\bf v}_3,\\
{\bf w}_ 2= {\bf v}_2, \\
{\bf w}_ 3= {\bf v}_3.
\end{array}
$$
Then, $\{{\bf w}_1, {\bf w}_2, {\bf w}_3\}$ is also a basis of $V$ and the matrix
$$
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
{\bf w}_1 \\
{\bf w}_2 \\
{\bf w}_3
\end{array}
\right)
$$
is the homogeneous coordinates for the point in $G(3, 6)$ which corresponds with $V$.
Putting $a= b = c= 1$ in the matrix, we have a multi-section of $f : Z \longrightarrow {\bf P}^1$.
The homogeneous coordinates are given by
$$
\left(
\begin{array}{cccccc}
\alpha_{1}' + \frac{t + a_1}{t + a_2}\frac{f_2(t)\alpha_2}{f_1(t)}
+ \frac{t + a_1}{t + a_3}\frac{f_3(t)\alpha_3}{f_1(t)}
& 0&
0 & 1 & \frac{t + a_1}{t + a_2}\frac{f_2(t)}{f_1(t)}& \frac{t + a_1}{t + a_3}\frac{f_3(t)}{f_1(t)} \\
1
& 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
1
& 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}
\right),
$$
and certain affine coordinates for the point in $G(3, 6)$ which corresponds with $V$ is given by
$$
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\alpha_{1}' + \frac{t + a_1}{t + a_2}\frac{f_2(t)\alpha_2}{f_1(t)}
+ \frac{t + a_1}{t + a_3}\frac{f_3(t)\alpha_3}{f_1(t)}
& \frac{t + a_1}{t + a_2}\frac{f_2(t)}{f_1(t)}& \frac{t + a_1}{t + a_3}\frac{f_3(t)}{f_1(t)} \\
1 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0
\end{array}
\right),
$$
Using $(1, 1)$ component of this matrix, we set
$$
z = (t + a_2)(t + a_3)f_1(t)\left(\alpha'_1 + \frac{t + a_1}{t + a_2}\frac{f_2(t)\alpha_2}{f_1(t)}
+ \frac{t + a_1}{t + a_3}\frac{f_3(t)\alpha_3}{f_1(t)}\right).
$$
Then, we know
$$
z = (t + a_2)(t + a_3)f_1(t)\alpha'_1
+ (t + a_1)(t + a_3)f_2(t)\alpha_2
+ (t + a_1)(t + a_2)f_3(t)\alpha_3
$$
and we have
\begin{equation}\label{standardcurve}
\begin{array}{l}
z^2 + (t + a_1)(t + a_2) (t + a_3)z \\
=(t + a_2)^2(t + a_3)^2f_1(t)\{f_1(t){\alpha'_1}^2 +(t + a_1)\alpha'_1\}\\
\quad + (t + a_1)^2(t + a_3)^2f_2(t)\{f_2(t)\alpha_2^2 +(t + a_2)\alpha_2\}\\
\quad +(t + a_1)^2(t + a_2)^2f_3(t)\{f_3(t)\alpha_3^2 +(t + a_3)\alpha_3\}\\
=(t + a_2)^2(t + a_3)^2f_1(t)g_1(t) +
(t + a_1)^2(t + a_3)^2f_2(t)g_2(t) \\
\quad + (t + a_1)^2(t + a_2)^2f_3(t)g_3(t).
\end{array}
\end{equation}
We denote by $C$ the curve defined by this equation (\ref{standardcurve}).
\subsection{Cases (a), (b) and (c)}
Now, we consider 3 cases (a), (b) and (c) in Proposition \ref{CanFormPencilQuadrics}.
Case (a). In this case the pencil $\mathcal{P}$ of quadrics is given by
$$
\sum_{i = 1}^{3}\left\{c_iX_i^2 + (t + a_i)X_iY_i + d_iY_i^2\right\} = 0.
$$
Therefore, we set $f_{i}(t) = c_i$ and $g_i(t) = d_i$. Thus we have proved the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}\label{CurveOrdinary}
The curve $C$ associated with $\mathcal{P}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
z^2 + (t + a_1)(t + a_2) (t + a_3)z \\
= c_1d_1(t + a_2)^2(t + a_3)^2 +
c_2d_2(t + a_1)^2(t + a_3)^2 + c_3d_3(t + a_1)^2(t + a_2)^2.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where $\prod_i c_id_i \not= 0$. If $\prod_ic_id_i =0$, then the curve has a singularity.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}\label{CurveOrdinary2}
The equation of Igusa's canonical model of $C$ is given by
$$
y^2+ y = {\sqrt{c_1d_1}(a_2+a_3)\over (a_1+a_2)(a_1+a_3)}x + {\sqrt{c_2d_2}(a_1+a_3)\over (a_1+a_2)(a_2+a_3)x} + {\sqrt{c_3d_3}(a_1+a_2)\over (a_1+a_3)(a_2+a_3)(x+1)}.
$$
The Jacobian variety $J(C)$ is ordinay, that is, of 2-rank 2.
Recall that the coefficients of Igusa's canonical model are different from 0, that is, $\prod c_id_i\ne 0$ (see (\ref{g=2})) which
coincides with the condition of the smoothness of $\mathcal{X}$ (Lemma \ref{3-fold}(a)).
Combining this equation and Laszlo and Pauly \cite[Proposition 3.1]{LP2}, we obtain the equation
(\ref{LPeq}) of the Kummer quartic surface.
\end{remark}
Case (b). In this case the pencil of quadrics is given by
$$
\sum_{i = 1}^{3}\left\{c_iX_i^2 + (t + a_i)X_iY_i + d_iY_i^2\right\} + B = 0,
$$
$$
B = b_1X_2Y_3 + b_2X_3Y_2 + b_3X_2X_3 + b_4Y_2Y_3, \ \mbox{with}~b_1b_2=b_3b_4
$$
as in (\ref{(b)}). By the condition $b_2b_4c_2 + b_1b_4c_3 + b_1b_3d_2 + b_2b_3d_3\ne 0$
for the smoothness of $\mathcal{X}_1$ (Lemma \ref{3-fold}), we may assume $b_4\ne 0$.
Since $B = b_4\left(Y_2 + \frac{b_1}{b_4} X_2\right)\left(Y_3 + \frac{b_2}{b_4} X_3\right)$,
we set
$$
Z_2 = Y_2 + \frac{b_1}{b_4} X_2,~ Z_3 = Y_3 + \frac{b_2}{b_4} X_3.
$$
Moreover, we set
$$
W_3 = X_3 + \frac{b_4}{t + a_3}Z_2.
$$
Then, our pencil becomes
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
c_1X_1^2 + (t + a_1)X_1Y_1 + d_1Y_1^2 \\
+\left(c_2 + \frac{b_1(t + a_2)}{b_4} + \frac{b_1^2d_2}{b_4^2}\right)X_2^2 + (t + a_2)X_2Z_2
+ \left(\frac{b_2^2 d_3 + b_4^2c_3}{(t + a_3)^2} + \frac{b_2b_4}{t + a_3}
+ d_2\right)Z_2^2\\
+\left(c_3 + \frac{b_2(t + a_3)}{b_4} + \frac{b_2^2d_3}{b_4^2}\right)W_3^2 + (t + a_3)W_3Z_3 + d_3Z_3^2= 0.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Comparing this equation with (\ref{normalpencil}), we see that the curve $C_1$ is
given by the equation
$$
\begin{array}{l}
z^2 + (t + a_1)(t + a_2) (t + a_3)z \\
= (t + a_2)^2(t + a_3)^2c_1d_1 \\
+(t + a_1)^2(t + a_3)^2\left(c_2 + \frac{b_1(t + a_2)}{b_4}
+ \frac{b_1^2d_2}{b_4^2}\right)\left(\frac{b_2^2 d_3 + b_4^2c_3}{(t + a_3)^2}
+ \frac{b_2b_4}{t + a_3} + d_2\right)\\
+ (t + a_1)^2(t + a_2)^2\left(c_3 + \frac{b_2(t + a_3)}{b_4} + \frac{b_2^2d_3}{b_4^2}\right)d_3
\end{array}
$$
Using $a_2= a_3$ and $b_1b_2 = b_3b_4$, we have
$$
\begin{array}{l}
z^2 + (t + a_1)(t + a_2)^2z \\
= (t + a_2)^4c_1d_1
+ (t + a_1)^2(t + a_2)^2\left\{b_1b_2 + c_2d_2 + c_3d_3 + (\frac{b_1d_2 + b_2d_3}{b_4})^2\right\}\\
+ (t + a_1)^2(t + a_2)^3(\frac{b_1d_2 + b_2d_3}{b_4}) + (t + a_1)^2(t + a_2)\{b_3(b_1d_2 + b_2d_3)+ b_4(b_2c_2 + b_1c_3)\}\\
+ (t + a_1)^2\{b_1^2c_3d_2 + b_2^2c_2d_3 + b_3^2d_2d_3 + b_4^2c_2c_3\}
\end{array}
$$
Setting
$$
z = v + (t + a_1)(b_1\sqrt{c_3d_2} + b_2\sqrt{c_2d_3} + b_3\sqrt{d_2d_3} + b_4\sqrt{c_2c_3}) +
(t+a_1)(t + a_2)\frac{b_1d_2 + b_2d_3}{b_4},
$$
we have proved the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}\label{CurveRank1}
The curve $C_1$ associated with $\mathcal{P}_1$ is given by
$$
\begin{array}{l}
v^2 +(t + a_1)(t + a_2)^2v = (t +a_2)^4c_1d_1\\
+(t+a_1)^2(t+a_2)^2\left(b_1b_2 + c_2d_2+c_3d_3 + b_1\sqrt{c_3d_2} + b_2\sqrt{c_2d_3} + b_3\sqrt{d_2d_3} + b_4\sqrt{c_2c_3}\right)\\
+(t + a_1)^2(t + a_2)\{b_3(b_1d_2 + b_2d_3) + b_4(b_2c_2 + b_1c_3)\},
\end{array}
$$
where $c_1d_1\ne 0, b_3(b_1d_2 + b_2d_3) + b_4(b_2c_2 + b_1c_3)\ne 0$.
If $c_1d_1= 0$ or $b_3(b_1d_2 + b_2d_3) + b_4(b_2c_2 + b_1c_3)= 0$, then $C_1$ is singular.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}\label{CurveRank12}
The equation of Igusa's canonical model of $C_1$ is given by
$$
y^2+ y = x^3 + \alpha x + \beta x^{-1}
$$
with
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\alpha = \frac{\sqrt[6]{b_4(b_2c_2+b_1c_3) +b_3(b_1d_2 + b_2d_3)}}{\sqrt{a_1} + \sqrt{a_2}}
+\frac{\sqrt{c_2d_2 + c_3d_3 + b_1b_2 + b_4\sqrt{c_2c_3} + b_2\sqrt{c_2d_3} +
b_1\sqrt{c_3d_2} + b_3\sqrt{d_2d_3}}}{\sqrt[3]{b_4(b_2c_2+b_1c_3) +b_3(b_1d_2 + b_2d_3)}}\\
\quad \quad + \frac{\sqrt[3]{\{b_4(b_2c_2+b_1c_3) +b_3(b_1d_2 + b_2d_3)\}^2}}{a_1^2 + a_2^2}\\
\beta = \frac{\sqrt{c_1d_1}\sqrt[3]{b_4(b_2c_2+b_1c_3) +b_3(b_1d_2 + b_2d_3)}}{a_1^2 + a_2^2}.
\end{array}
$$
The Jacobian variety $J(C_1)$ is of 2-rank 1.
Recall that $\beta\ne 0$ (see (\ref{g=2})), that is,
$c_1d_1\ne 0$ and $b_4(b_2c_2+b_1c_3) +b_3(b_1d_2 + b_2d_3)\ne 0$ which
coincides with the condition of the smoothness of $\mathcal{X}_1$ (Lemma \ref{3-fold}(b)).
\end{remark}
Case (c). In this case the pencil of quadrics is given by
$$
\sum_{i = 1}^{3}\left\{c_iX_i^2 + (t + a_i)X_iY_i + d_iY_i^2\right\} + C = 0,
$$
$$
\begin{array}{l}
C= b_1X_2Y_3 + b_2X_3Y_2 + b_3X_2X_3 +b_4Y_2Y_3 + b_5X_1Y_2+b_6X_2Y_1+b_7X_1X_2+
b_8Y_1Y_2, \\\
\end{array}
$$
with $b_1b_2=b_3b_4$ and $b_5b_6=b_7b_8$ as in (\ref{(c)}).
By the condition for the smoothness of $\mathcal{X}_0$ (Lemma \ref{3-fold}),
the cases $b_1=b_2=b_3=b_4=0$ and $b_5=b_6=b_7=b_8=0$ do not occur.
So we may assume that $b_4\ne 0$ and $b_8\ne0$. In this case $b_1b_8+b_4b_6\ne 0$.
In fact if $b_1b_8+b_4b_6= 0$, then we have $b_2b_6+b_3b_8=b_1b_5+b_4b_7=0$ by the relations
$b_2(b_1b_8+b_4b_6)= b_4(b_2b_6+b_3b_8)$ and $b_5(b_1b_8+b_4b_6)= b_8(b_1b_5+b_4b_7)$,
which contradicts the smoothness of $\mathcal{X}_0$ (Lemma \ref{3-fold}).
Thus in the following we may assume that $b_4\ne 0, b_8\ne 0$ and $b_1b_8+b_4b_6\ne 0$.
Since $b_1b_2=b_3b_4$ and $b_5b_6=b_7b_8$, we have
$$
C = b_4\left(\frac{b_1}{b_4}X_2 + Y_2\right)\left(\frac{b_2}{b_4}X_3 + Y_3\right) + b_8\left(\frac{b_5}{b_8}X_1 + Y_1\right)\left(\frac{b_6}{b_8}X_2 + Y_2\right).
$$
We set
$$
\begin{array}{l}
Z_2 = \frac{b_1}{b_4}X_2 + Y_2,~Z_3 = \frac{b_2}{b_4}X_3 + Y_3,\\
Z_1 = \frac{b_5}{b_8}X_1 + Y_1, ~ W_2 = \frac{b_6}{b_8}X_2 + Y_2.
\end{array}
$$
Then, we have
$$
\begin{array}{l}
X_2 = \frac{b_4b_8}{b_1b_8 + b_4b_6}(Z_2 + W_2),\\
Y_2 = \frac{b_4b_6}{b_1b_8 + b_4b_6}Z_2 + \frac{b_1b_8}{b_1b_8 + b_4b_6}W_2,
\end{array}
$$
and our pencil becomes
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\left(c_1 + \frac{b_5^2d_1}{b_8^2} + (t +a_1)\frac{b_5}{b_8}\right)X_1^2 + (t + a_1)X_1Z_1
+ d_1Z_1^2\\
+ \frac{b_4^2b_8^2c_2 + b_1^2b_8^2d_2 + (t + a_2)b_1b_4b_8^2}{(b_1b_8 + b_4b_6)^2}W_2^2
+ (t+a_2)\frac{b_4b_8}{b_1b_8+b_4b_6}W_2Z_2
+ \frac{b_4^2b_8^2c_2 + b_4^2b_6^2d_2 + (t + a_2)b_4^2b_6b_8}{(b_1b_8 + b_4b_6)^2}Z_2^2 \\
+ \left(c_3 + \frac{b_2^2d_3}{b_4^2} + (t+a_3)\frac{b_2}{b_4}\right)X_3^2
+ (t+a_3)X_3Z_3
+ d_3Z_3^2
+b_4Z_2Z_3 + b_8Z_1W_2= 0.
\end{array}
$$
We set
$$
W_1 = X_1 + \frac{b_8}{t + a_1}W_2,~ W_3 = X_3 + \frac{b_4}{t + a_3}Z_2.
$$
Then, we have
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\left(c_1 + \frac{b_5^2d_1}{b_8^2} + (t +a_1)\frac{b_5}{b_8}\right)W_1^2 + (t + a_1)W_1Z_1
+ d_1Z_1^2 \\
+ \left\{\frac{b_8^2c_1 + b_5^2d_1 + (t+a_1)b_5b_8}{(t+a_1)^2} +\frac{b_4^2b_8^2c_2 + b_1^2b_8^2d_2 + (t + a_2)b_1b_4b_8^2}{(b_1b_8 + b_4b_6)^2}\right\}W_2^2 \\
+ (t+a_2)\frac{b_4b_8}{b_1b_8+b_4b_6}W_2Z_2
+ \left\{\frac{b_4^2c_3 + b_2^2d_3 + (t + a_3)b_2b_4}{(t + a_3)^2}
+ \frac{b_4^2b_8^2c_2 + b_4^2b_6^2d_2 +(t + a_2)b_4^2b_6b_8}{(b_1b_8 + b_4b_6)^2}\right\}Z_2^2\\
+ \left(c_3 + \frac{b_2^2d_3}{b_4^2} + (t+a_3)\frac{b_2}{b_4}\right)W_3^2
+ (t+a_3)W_3Z_3 +
d_3Z_3^2 = 0
\end{array}
$$
Setting
$$
\tilde{W}_2 = \frac{\sqrt{b_4b_8}}{\sqrt{b_1b_8+b_4b_6}}W_2 , ~\tilde{Z}_2 = \frac{\sqrt{b_4b_8}}{\sqrt{b_1b_8+b_4b_6}}Z_2 ,
$$
we have
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\left(c_1 + \frac{b_5^2d_1}{b_8^2} + (t +a_1)\frac{b_5}{b_8}\right)W_1^2
+ (t + a_1)W_1Z_1 + d_1Z_1^2 \\
+
\left\{\frac{(b_8^2c_1 + b_5^2d_1 + (t+a_1)b_5b_8)(b_1b_8+b_4b_6)}{(t+a_1)^2b_4b_8} +\frac{b_4^2b_8c_2 + b_1^2b_8d_2 + (t + a_2)b_1b_4b_8}{(b_1b_8 + b_4b_6)b_4}\right\}\tilde{W}_2^2\\
+ (t+a_2)\tilde{W}_2\tilde{Z}_2
+
\left\{\frac{(b_4^2c_3 + b_2^2d_3 + (t + a_3)b_2b_4)(b_1b_8+b_4b_6)}{(t + a_3)^2b_4b_8} + \frac{b_4b_8^2c_2 + b_4b_6^2d_2 + (t + a_2)b_4b_6b_8}{(b_1b_8 + b_4b_6)b_8}\right\}\tilde{Z}_2^2\\
+ \left(c_3 + \frac{b_2^2d_3}{b_4^2} + (t+a_3)\frac{b_2}{b_4}\right)W_3^2
+ (t+a_3)W_3Z_3
+ d_3Z_3^2 = 0.
\end{array}
$$
Comparing this equation with (\ref{normalpencil}), we see that the curve $C_0$ is
given by the equation
$$
\begin{array}{l}
z^2 + (t + a_1)(t + a_2) (t + a_3)z \\
= (t + a_2)^2(t + a_3)^2\left(c_1 + \frac{b_5^2d_1}{b_8^2} + (t +a_1)\frac{b_5}{b_8}\right)d_1 \\
+(t + a_1)^2(t + a_3)^2\left\{\frac{(b_8^2c_1 + b_5^2d_1 + (t+a_1)b_5b_8)(b_1b_8+b_4b_6)}{(t+a_1)^2b_4b_8} +\frac{b_4^2b_8c_2 + b_1^2b_8d_2 + (t + a_2)b_1b_4b_8}{(b_1b_8 + b_4b_6)b_4}\right\}\\
\times \left\{\frac{(b_4^2c_3 + b_2^2d_3 + (t + a_3)b_2b_4)(b_1b_8+b_4b_6)}{(t + a_3)^2b_4b_8} + \frac{b_4b_8^2c_2 + b_4b_6^2d_2 + (t + a_2)b_4b_6b_8}{(b_1b_8 + b_4b_6)b_8}\right\}\\
+ (t + a_1)^2(t + a_2)^2\left(c_3 + \frac{b_2^2d_3}{b_4^2} + (t+a_3)\frac{b_2}{b_4}\right)d_3
\end{array}
$$
Using $a_1 = a_2 = a_3 = a$, we have
$$
\begin{array}{l}
z^2 + (t + a)^3z \\
= (t + a)^6\frac{b_1b_4b_6b_8}{(b_1b_8+b_4b_6)^2}
+ (t + a)^5\left(\frac{b_5}{b_8}d_1 + \frac{b_2}{b_4}d_3
+ \frac{b_4b_8c_2 +b_1b_6d_2}{b_1b_8 + b_4b_6}\right)\\
+ (t+a)^4\left\{\left(c_1 +\frac{b_5^2d_1}{b_8^2}\right)d_1 + \left(c_3 + \frac{b_2^2d_3}{b_4^2}\right)d_3 +
\frac{(b_4^2c_2 + b_1^2d_2)(b_8^2c_2 + b_6^2d_2)}{(b_1b_8 + b_4b_6)^2} +b_1b_2 + b_5b_6\right\}\\
+ (t +a)^3\left\{\frac{(b_8^2c_1+b_5^2d_1)b_6+ (b_8^2c_2 + b_6^2d_2)b_5}{b_8} + \frac{(b_4^2c_3 + b_2^2d_3)b_1+ (b_4^2c_2 + b_1^2d_2)b_2}{b_4}\right\} \\
+ (t+a)^2\left\{\frac{(b_8^2c_1 + b_5^2d_1)(b_8^2c_2+b_6^2d_2)}{b_8^2} + \frac{(b_4^2c_3 + b_2^2d_3)(b_4^2c_2 + b_1^2d_2)}{b_4^2} +
\frac{(b_1b_8 +b_4b_6)^2b_2b_5}{b_4b_8}\right\}\\
+(t+a)(b_1b_8 + b_4b_6)^2\left\{\frac{(b_8^2c_1 + b_5^2d_1)b_2}{b_4b_8^2}
+ \frac{(b_4^2c_3 + b_2^2d_3)b_5}{b_4^2b_8}\right\}
+ \frac{(b_1b_8 + b_4b_6)^2(b_8^2c_1 + b_5^2d_1)(b_4^2c_3 + b_2^2d_3)}{b_4^2b_8^2}.
\end{array}
$$
Let $\alpha$ be a root of the equation $x^2 + x + \frac{b_1b_4b_5b_6}{(b_1b_8 + b_4b_6)^2} = 0$.
Replacing $z$ by
$$
z + (t+ a)^3 \alpha + (t+a)^2\left(\frac{b_5}{b_8}d_1 + \frac{b_2}{b_4}d_3
+ \frac{b_4b_8c_2 + b_1b_6d_2}{b_1b_8 + b_4b_6}\right),
$$
we have proved the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}\label{CurveSupersingular}
The curve $C_0$ associated with $\mathcal{P}_0$ is given by
$$
\begin{array}{l}
z^2 + (t + a)^3z \\
= (t + a)^4(c_1d_1 + c_2d_2 + c_3d_3 + b_1b_2 + b_5b_6)\\
+ (t + a)^3\{b_6b_8c_1 +(b_2b_4+b_5b_8)c_2 + b_1b_4c_3 +b_5b_7d_1 + (b_1b_3 +b_6b_7)d_2 +b_2b_3d_3\}\\
+ (t+a)^2\{b_8^2c_1c_2 +b_6^2c_1d_2 +b_5^2c_2d_1 +b_7^2d_1d_2 \\
+b_4^2c_2c_3 +b_2^2c_2d_3 +b_1^2c_3d_2 +b_3^2d_2d_3 + b_1b_3b_5b_8 +b_2b_4b_6b_7\}\\
+(t+a)\{(b_1b_3b_8^2 +b_2b_4b_6^2)c_1 +(b_1b_3b_5^2 +b_2b_4b_7^2)d_1 \\
+(b_1^2b_5b_8 +b_4^2b_6b_7)c_3 +(b_3^2b_5b_8 +b_2^2b_6b_7)d_3\}\\
+ (b_1b_8 +b_4b_6)^2c_1c_3 +(b_2b_6+b_3b_8)^2c_1d_3 +(b_1b_5 + b_4 b_7)^2c_3d_1 + (b_2b_7+b_3b_5)^2d_1d_3 .
\end{array}
$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}\label{CurveSupersingularIgusa}
The equation of Igusa's canonical model of $C_0$ is given by
$$
y^2+ y = x^5 + \alpha x^3
$$
with
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\alpha = \frac{\alpha_1}{\sqrt[5]{\alpha_2^3}},\\
\alpha_1 = b_6b_8c_1 +(b_5b_8 +b_2b_4)c_2 + b_1b_4c_3 +b_5b_7d_1 + (b_1b_3 +b_6b_7)d_2 +b_2b_3d_3\\
+ (b_1b_8 +b_4b_6)\sqrt{c_1c_3} +(b_3b_8 +b_2b_6)\sqrt{c_1d_3} +(b_1b_5 + b_4 b_7)\sqrt{c_3d_1} + (b_3b_5 +b_2b_7)\sqrt{d_1d_3},\\
\alpha_2 = (b_1b_3b_8^2 +b_2b_4b_6^2)c_1 +(b_1b_3b_5^2 +b_2b_4b_7^2)d_1 +(b_1^2b_5b_8 +b_4^2b_6b_7)c_3 +(b_3^2b_5b_8 +b_2^2b_6b_7)d_3.
\end{array}
$$
The Jacobian variety $J(C_0)$ is supersingular, that is, of 2-rank 0.
The necessary and sufficient condition for the curve $C_0$ to be non-singular
is $\alpha_2\neq 0$, that is,
$(b_1b_3b_8^2 +b_2b_4b_6^2)c_1 +(b_1b_3b_5^2 +b_2b_4b_7^2)d_1 +(b_1^2b_5b_8 +b_4^2b_6b_7)c_3 +(b_3^2b_5b_8 +b_2^2b_6b_7)d_3 \neq 0$,
which
coincides with the condition of the smoothness of $\mathcal{X}_0$ (Lemma \ref{3-fold}(c))
by $b_1b_2 =b_3b_4$ and $b_5b_6 = b_7b_8$.
\end{remark}
\section{Multi-linear systems}\label{sec6}
In this section, let $k$ be an algebraically closed field of characteristic 2, $C$
a curve of genus 2 over $k$, and $J(C)$ the Jacobian variety of $C$. The curve $C$ gives a principal
polarization of $J(C)$ which we call the theta divisor.
We may assume $C$ contains the zero point $O$ of $J(C)$ and is symmetric
with respect to the inversion $\iota$, that is, $\iota^*C = C$.
Throughout this section,
we assume that $J(C)$ is ordinary. Namely, the $2$-rank of $J(C)$ is equal to two and
denoting by $J(C)[2]$ the group scheme of 2-torsion points of $J(C)$,
we have $J(C)[2]_{red}\cong {\bf Z}/2{\bf Z}\oplus {\bf Z}/2{\bf Z}$.
We denote by $a_i$ ($i = 1, 2, 3$) the 2-torsion points of $J(C)$.
We may assume that $a_1$ and $a_2$ are contained in $C$ and
that the points $O$, $a_1$ and $a_2$ give the ramification points of
the double covering $\pi : C \longrightarrow {\bf P}^1$.
In this case, we have $a_3\not\in C$. We sometimes set $a_0 = O$.
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{The elements of $J(C)[2]_{red}$ which are contained in the curve}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}\hline
curve & elements of $J(C)[2]_{red}$\\
\hline
$C$ & $O$, $a_1$, $a_2$ \\
\hline
$T_{a_1}^*C$ & $a_1$, $O$, $a_3$ \\
\hline
$T_{a_2}^*C$ & $a_2$, $a_3$, $O$ \\
\hline
$T_{a_3}^*C$ & $a_3$, $a_2$, $a_1$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
For a point $x \in J(C)$, we denote by $T_x$ the translation by the point $x$
and denote by $\hat{J}(C)$ the dual abelian surface of $J(C)$.
For a divisor $D$, we have a homomorphism
$$
\begin{array}{rccc}
\Phi_D: & J(C) & \longrightarrow & \hat{J}(C)\\
& x & \mapsto & T_x^*(D) - D
\end{array}
$$
If $D$ is ample, then $\Phi_D$ is an isogeny, and if $D$ is a principal polarization,
then $\Phi_D$ is an isomorphism (cf. Mumford \cite{M1})
\subsection{Points on the theta divisor $C$}
We examine intersection points of some divisors.
\begin{lemma}\label{4-torsion}
The theta divisor $C$ contains no $4$-torsion point of $J(C)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose there exists an element $x \in C$ of order 4.
Then, $2x = a$ is a 2-torsion point of $J(C)$.
Assume $a \in C$. Then,
since $C = \iota^*C \ni -x$,
$T_x^*C$ contains $O$, $-2x=2x = a$ and $O-x = -x$.
Therefore, $C \cap T_x^*C$ contains three different points $O$, $a$ and $-x$.
If $T_x^*C\neq C$, then we have $3 \leq (T_x^*C\cdot C) = C^2 = 2$, a contradiction.
Therefore, we have $T_x^*C = C$ in this case.
Therefore, we have $x \in {\text{Ker}}~ \Phi_C$. However, since $C$ is a principal polarization,
we have ${\text{Ker}} ~\Phi_C = \{O\}$, a contradiction.
Hence we have $2x = a = a_3 \not\in C$.
In this case, $T_x^*C$ contains $x-x=O$, $a_1-x$ and $-x-x=-2x =-a_3= a_3$.
$T_{a_1}^*C$ contains $a_1-a_1=O$, $-x-a_1 = -x+a_1$ and $a_2 - a_1 = a_3$.
If $T_x^*C\neq T_{a_1}^*C$, then we have $3 \leq (T_x^*C\cdot T_{a_1}^*C) = C^2 = 2$,
a contradiction.
Therefore, we have $T_x^*C = T_{a_1}^*C$. Therefore, we have $T_{x-a_1}^*C = C$.
This means the non-zero element $x-a_1$ is contained in ${\text{Ker}}~ \Phi_C$.
However, since $C$ is a principal polarization,
we have ${\text{Ker}}~ \Phi_C = \{O\}$, and we have a contradiction again.
Hence, $C$ contains no 4-torsion point of $J(C)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{4-translation}
Let $x$ be a $4$-torsion point of $J(C)$. Then, $T_x^*C$
contains no point of $J(C)[2]$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
This corollary follows from Lemma \ref{4-torsion}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{general-transformation}
Let $x$ be a general point of $J(C)$. Then, $T_x^*C$
contains no point of $J(C)[2]$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
There exists a point $x\in J(C)$ which is not contained
in $\cup_{i=0}^{3}T_{a_i}^*C$. Then, $T_x^*C$
contains no point of $J(C)[2]$.
\end{proof}
The following lemma is well-known.
\begin{lemma}\label{point-divisor}
Let $x_i$ {\rm (}$i = 1,2, \ldots, n${\rm )} be points of $J(C)$. Then,
$$
\sum_{i = 1}^{n}T_{x_i}^*C -nC \sim 0\quad \mbox{if and only if}\quad \sum_{i= 1}^nx_i = O.
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $O_{\hat{J}(C)}$ be the zero point of $\hat{J}(C)$.
Since
$\Phi_C(\sum_{i= 1}^nx_i)= \sum_{i= 1}^n\Phi_C(x_i)= \sum_{i = 1}^{n}T_{x_i}^*C -nC$,
we see $\sum_{i = 1}^{n}T_{x_i}^*C -nC\sim 0$ if and only if
$\Phi_C(\sum_{i= 1}^nx_i) = O_{\hat{J}(C)}$.
Since $C$ is a principal polarization, we see $\Phi_C(\sum_{i= 1}^nx_i) = O_{\hat{J}(C)}$
if and only if $\sum_{i= 1}^nx_i=O$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{systemofparameter}
If $i \neq j$, $T_{a_i}^*C \cap T_{a_j}^*C$ consists of
different two 2-torsion points. Since $(T_{a_i}^*C \cdot T_{a_j}^*C) = C^2 = 2$,
$T_{a_i}^*C$ intersects $T_{a_j}^*C$ at each intersection point transversely.
Therefore, the defining equations for $T_{a_i}^*C$ and $T_{a_j}^*C$
make the system of parameters at each intersection point.
\end{remark}
\subsection{The linear system $\vert 2C\vert$}\label{7.2}
In this subsection, we examine the linear system $\vert 2C\vert$.
Let $L(2C)$ be the vector space given by the divisor $2C$.
By the Riemann-Roch theorem, we have $\dim L(2C) = 4$.
By Lemma \ref{point-divisor}, we have
$$
2(T_{a_i}^*(C) - C) \sim 0 \quad (i = 0, 1, 2, 3).
$$
Therefore, there exists rational functions $f_i$ ($i = 0, 1, 2, 3$) such that
$$
2(T_{a_i}^*(C) - C) = (f_{3-i}).
$$
We take a natural isomorphism
\begin{equation}\label{equation}
\rho : L(2C) \cong {\rm H}^0(J(C), \mathcal{O}_{J(C)}(2C))
\end{equation}
and we set $\tilde{f}_i = \rho (f_i)$.
The following Lemmas \ref{basis} and \ref{iota-action} are known (see Laszlo and Pauly
\cite{LP}). But we give their proofs for the sake of completeness.
\begin{lemma}\label{basis}
$f_i$ ($i = 0, 1, 2, 3$) gives a basis of $L(2C)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Since $\dim L(2C) = 4$ and (\ref{equation}), it suffices
to show that $\tilde{f}_{i}$ ($i = 0, 1, 2, 3$) are linearly independent over $k$.
We consider a linear relation
$$
\alpha_0\tilde{f}_0+\alpha_1\tilde{f}_1+\alpha_2\tilde{f}_2+\alpha_3\tilde{f}_3 = 0
\quad(a_0, a_1, a_2, a_3 \in k).
$$
Note that $\tilde{f}_i$ has 3 zero points in $J(C)[2]$ and $\tilde{f}_i(a_i) \neq 0$.
Therefore, we have $\alpha_i\tilde{f}_i(a_i) =0$ and $\tilde{f}_i(a_i) \neq 0$.
Therefore, we have $\alpha_i = 0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Let $F: J(C) \longrightarrow J(C)^{(2)}$ be the relative Frobenius morphism
and we denote by $\Theta$ the descent divisor of $2C$, i.e., $\rho^{*}(\Theta) \sim 2C$.
We may assume $\Theta$ is an effective divisor.
Since $\dim {\rm H}^0(J(C)^{(2)}, \mathcal{O}_{J(C)^{(2)}}(\Theta))$ is
one-dimensional, we take a basis $\theta$. Then, we may assume $F^*(\theta) = \tilde{f}_3$,
and we may assume $\tilde{f}_{3-i} = T_{a_i}^*\tilde{f}_3$. Then,
$f_i$ ($i = 0, 1, 2, 3$) is our basis and
$\tilde{f}_{i}$ ($i = 0, 1, 2, 3$) gives the canonical basis in Laszlo and Pauly \cite{LP}.
From here on, we take our basis $f_i$ ($i = 0, 1, 2, 3$) of $L(2C)$
like this.
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}\label{iota-action}
The inversion $\iota$ acts on $L(2C)$ identically.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $C$ is symmetric, we have
$$
(\iota^*f_{3-i}) = 2\iota^*(T_{a_i}^*C - C) = 2(T_{a_i}^*C - C) = (f_{3-i}).
$$
Therefore, there exists $\alpha \in k$, $\alpha \neq 0$ such that
$\iota^*f_{3-i} = \alpha f_{3-i}$. Since $\iota^*$ is of order 2 and
the characteristic $p = 2$, we have $\alpha = 1$. Therefore, by Lemma \ref{basis}
we complete our proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{quartic}
We consider the map
$$
\begin{array}{rccc}
\varphi_{\vert 2C \vert}: & J(C) & \longrightarrow & {\bf P}^3 \\
& P & \mapsto & (f_3(P), f_2(P), f_1(P), f_0(P))
\end{array}
$$
The divisor $2C$ is base point free (cf. Mumford \cite{M1}, for instance).
Therefore, $\varphi_{\vert 2C \vert}$ is a morphism.
We set $x_{00}=f_3$, $x_{10}= f_2$, $x_{01}=f_1$ and $x_{11} = f_0$.
Then,
by Laszlo and Pauly \cite{LP} the image $\varphi_{\vert 2C \vert}(J(C))$
is given by the equation
$$
\begin{array}{c}
\lambda_{10}^2(x_{00}^2x_{10}^2 + x_{01}^2x_{11}^2)
+ \lambda_{01}^2(x_{00}^2x_{01}^2 + x_{10}^2x_{11}^2)
+ \lambda_{11}^2(x_{00}^2x_{11}^2 + x_{01}^2x_{10}^2) \\
+\frac{\lambda_{10}\lambda_{01}\lambda_{11}}{\lambda_{00}}x_{00}x_{10}x_{01}x_{11} =0
\end{array}
$$
with certain constants $\lambda_{ij}$ $(\lambda_{10}\lambda_{01}\lambda_{11}\lambda_{00} \neq 0)$,
and the image $\varphi_{\vert 2C \vert}(J(C))$ is isomorphic to
the Kummer quartic surface $J(C)/\langle \iota \rangle$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{The linear system $\vert 4C\vert$}
We denote by $V$ the subspace of $L(4C)$ generated by $f_if_j$ ($i, j = 0, 1, 2, 3$):
$$
V = \langle f_if_j ~(i,j = 0, 1, 2, 3) \rangle,
$$
and we set $\tilde{V} = \rho (V)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{10}
$\dim V = \dim \tilde{V} = 10$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Remark \ref{quartic}, $f_i$ ($i = 0, 1, 2, 3$) has a quartic relation
and there exist no quadric relations. Therefore,
$f_if_j \in L(4C)$ $(i,j = 0, 1, 2, 3)$ are linearly independent over $k$.
Therefore, we have $\dim V = \dim \tilde{V} = 10$.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{6}
$$
\dim \tilde{V} \cap\ {\rm H}^0(J(C), {\mathcal O}_{J(C)}(4C - 2\sum_{i=0}^3a_i)) = 6.
$$
In particular,
$$
\dim {\rm H}^0(J(C), {\mathcal O}_{J(C)}(4C - 2\sum_{i=0}^3a_i)) \geq 6.
$$
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
$\tilde{f}_i\tilde{f}_j$ ($i, j = 0, 1, 2, 3; i\neq j$) are contained in
${\rm H}^0(J(C), {\mathcal O}_{J(C)}(4C - 2\sum_{i=0}^3a_i))$.
Therefore, we have
$\dim \tilde{V} \cap {\rm H}^0(J(C), {\mathcal O}_{J(C)}(4C - 2\sum_{i=0}^3a_i)) \geq 6$.
On the other hand, $\tilde{f}_i^2$ ($i = 0, 1, 2, 3$) has 3 zeros in $J(C)[2]$
and $\tilde{f}_i^2(a_i) \neq 0$. Therefore, we have
$\langle \tilde{f}_i^2 ~(i = 0, 1, 2, 3) \rangle \cap
{\rm H}^0(J(C), {\mathcal O}_{J(C)}(4C - 2\sum_{i=0}^3a_i)) =\{0\}$,
from which the result follows.
\end{proof}
We denote by $L(4C)^{\langle \iota^*\rangle}$ the $\iota^*$-invariant subspace of $L(4C)$.
\begin{corollary}\label{morethan10}
$V \subset L(4C)^{\langle \iota^*\rangle}$.
In particular, $\dim L(4C)^{\langle \iota^*\rangle}\geq 10$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
This follows from Lemmas \ref{iota-action} and \ref{10}.
\end{proof}
We take a 4-torsion point $x \in J(C)[4]\setminus J(C)[2]$.
Then, by Lemma \ref{point-divisor}, there exists a rational function $\varphi_x$
such that $4(T_x^*C - C) = (\varphi_x)$. Considering the action of $\iota$,
we have
$$
(\iota^*\varphi_{x}) = 4(T_{-x}^*C - C) = (\varphi_{-x}).
$$
Considering the constant multiple, we can choose
$\varphi_{-x}$ as $\varphi_{-x} = \iota^*\varphi_{x}$.
For an element $x\in J(C)[2]$, we have already $2(T_x^*C - C) = (f_x)$.
Therefore, we have $4(T_x^*C - C) = (f_x^2)$. In this case we choose
$\varphi_x$ as $\varphi_x = f_x^2$. We denote by $U$ the subspace of $L(4C)$
generated by 16 functions $\varphi_x$.
Since we work in characteristic 2, the theta group $\mathcal{G}(4C)$ acts on
$U$ (cf. Mumford \cite{M1}). The action of the closed points is given by
$$
(x,\varphi_x)\circ\varphi_y = \varphi_x\circ T_x^*\varphi_y = \mbox{constant}\cdot \varphi_{x+y}
$$
(cf. Mumford \cite{M1}, \cite{M3}).
By Mumford \cite{M2} (also see Sekiguchi \cite{S}) the representation of $\mathcal{G}(4C)$
on $L(4C)$ is irreducible. Therefore, we have $U = L(4C)$.
Hence, we have the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
$\varphi_x$ $(x\in J(C)[4])$ are a basis of $L(4C)$.
\end{lemma}
\newfont{\bg}{cmr10 scaled\magstep4}
\newcommand{\smash{\hbox{\bg 0}}}{\smash{\hbox{\bg 0}}}
\newcommand{\smash{\lower1.7ex\hbox{\bg 0}}}{\smash{\lower1.7ex\hbox{\bg 0}}}
\begin{proposition}
$\dim L(4C)^{\langle \iota^*\rangle} = 10$. In particular, $V= L(4C)^{\langle \iota^*\rangle}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We consider the representation of $\iota^*$ with respect to the basis $\{\varphi_x\}$.
We arrange $\varphi_x$ $(x \in J(C)[2])$ first, and then for a 4-torsion point $x$
we arrange $\varphi_{-x}$ next to $\varphi_x$. Then, the representation matrix
is given by
$$
\left(
\begin{array}{cccccccccc}
1 & & & & & & & & &\smash{\lower1.7ex\hbox{\bg 0}} \\
& 1 & & & & & & & & \\
& & 1 & & & & & & & \\
& & & 1 & & & & & & \\
& & & & 0 & 1 & & & & \\
& & & & 1 & 0 & & & & \\
& & & & & & \ddots & & & \\
& & & & & & & & 0 & 1 \\
\smash{\hbox{\bg 0}} & & & & & & & & 1 & 0
\end{array}
\right)
$$
Therefore, we have $\dim L(4C)^{\langle \iota^*\rangle} = 10$.
The latter part follows from Corollary \ref{morethan10}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{16}
$\dim {\rm H}^0(J(C), \mathcal{O}_{J(C)}(4C - \sum_{i=0}^3a_i)) =12$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By the Riemann-Roch theorem, we have $\dim {\rm H}^0(J(C), \mathcal{O}_{J(C)}(4C)) = 16$.
We have $\tilde{f}_i^2(a_i) \neq 0$ $(i = 0, 1, 2, 3)$
and $\tilde{f}_i^2(a_j) = 0$ for $j\neq i$.
Subtracting a suitable linear combination of these four functions,
any element of ${\rm H}^0(J(C), \mathcal{O}_{J(C)}(4C))$
becomes zero at all points of $J(C)[2]$. Therefore, we have
$\dim {\rm H}^0(J(C), \mathcal{O}_{J(C)}(4C - \sum_{i=0}^3a_i)) =12$.
\end{proof}
Let $O_{a_i}$ be the local ring at the point $a_i$ and $m_{a_i}$ the maximal ideal
of $O_{a_i}$. The cotangent space at the point $a_i$ of $J(C)$ is isomorphic to
$m_{a_i}/m_{a_i}^2$ and it is 2-dimensional. We have a natural exact sequence
$$
0 \longrightarrow {\mathcal O}_{J(C)}(-2\sum_{i=0}^3a_i) \longrightarrow
{\mathcal O}_{J(C)}(-\sum_{i=0}^3a_i)\longrightarrow
\oplus_{i = 0}^3m_{a_i}/m_{a_i}^2
\longrightarrow 0.
$$
Tensoring ${\mathcal O}_{J(C)}(4C)$, we have an exact sequence
$$
0 \longrightarrow {\mathcal O}_{J(C)}(4C -2\sum_{i=0}^3a_i) \longrightarrow
{\mathcal O}_{J(C)}(4C -\sum_{i=0}^3a_i)\longrightarrow
\oplus_{i = 0}^3m_{a_i}/m_{a_i}^2
\longrightarrow 0.
$$
Therefore, we have a long exact sequence
\begin{equation}\label{exact}
\begin{array}{c}
0 \longrightarrow {\rm H}^0(J(C), {\mathcal O}_{J(C)}(4C -2\sum_{i=0}^3a_i)) \longrightarrow
{\rm H}^0(J(C), {\mathcal O}_{J(C)}(4C -\sum_{i=0}^3a_i)) \\
\stackrel{\psi}{\longrightarrow}
\oplus_{i = 0}^3m_{a_i}/m_{a_i}^2.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
To calculate the dimension of ${\text{Im}} ~\psi$,
we construct some elements of ${\rm H}^0(J(C), {\mathcal O}_{J(C)}(4C -\sum_{i=0}^3a_i))$.
For this purpose, we choose different two elements $a_i$, $a_j$ in $J(C)[2]$.
Then, there exist an element $x_k$ of order 4 in $J(C)$ such that $2x_k = a_i + a_j$.
By Lemma \ref{point-divisor}, we see
$$
2T_{x_k}^*C + T_{a_i}^*C + T_{a_j}^*C - 4C \sim 0.
$$
Therefore, there exists a rational function $\varphi_{ij}$ such that
$$
2T_{x_k}^*C + T_{a_i}^*C + T_{a_j}^*C - 4C =(\varphi_{ij}).
$$
We set $\tilde{\varphi}_{ij} = \rho (\varphi_{ij})$.
Note that $T_{x_k}^*C$ contains no element of $J(C)[2]$ by Lemma \ref{4-translation}.
By Table 3 the situation of $\tilde{\varphi}_{ij}$ at the points of $J(C)[2]$
is listed as in Table 4.
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{Zero points of $\tilde{\varphi}_{ij}$}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}\hline
& simple zero point in $J(C)[2]$ & double zero point in $J(C)[2]$\\
\hline
$\tilde{\varphi}_{01}$ & $a_2$, $a_3$ & $a_0$, $a_1$ \\
\hline
$\tilde{\varphi}_{02}$ & $a_1$, $a_3$ & $a_0$, $a_2$ \\
\hline
$\tilde{\varphi}_{03}$ & $a_0$, $a_3$ & $a_1$, $a_2$ \\
\hline
$\tilde{\varphi}_{12}$ & $a_1$, $a_2$ & $a_0$, $a_3$ \\
\hline
$\tilde{\varphi}_{13}$ & $a_0$, $a_2$ & $a_1$, $a_3$ \\
\hline
$\tilde{\varphi}_{23}$ & $a_0$, $a_1$ & $a_2$, $a_3$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Now, let $z$ be a general point of $C$. Since $a_1 + a_2 + a_3 = a_0 = O$,
by Lemma \ref{point-divisor} there exist rational functions $g_0$ and $h_0$
such that
$$
\begin{array}{l}
T_{z+a_1}^*C + T_{-z}^*C + T_{a_2}^*C + T_{a_3}^*C -4C =(g_0),\\
T_{z+a_2}^*C + T_{-z}^*C + T_{a_1}^*C + T_{a_3}^*C -4C =(h_0).
\end{array}
$$
Note that $T_{-z}^*C$ contains no point in $J(C)[2]$
and that $T_{z+ a_1}^*C$ contains only $a_1$ among the points of $J(C)[2]$,
and that $T_{z+ a_2}^*C$ contains only $a_2$ among the points of $J(C)[2]$.
Therefore, the situation of $\tilde{g}_0= \rho (g_0)$ and $\tilde{h}_0 = \rho (h_0)$ at the points of $J(C)[2]$ is as follows.
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{Zero points of $\tilde{g}_0$, $\tilde{h}_0$}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}\hline
& simple zero point in $J(C)[2]$ & double zero point in $J(C)[2]$\\
\hline
$\tilde{g}_0$ & $a_0$ & $a_1$, $a_2$, $a_3$ \\
\hline
$\tilde{h}_0$ & $a_0$ & $a_1$, $a_2$, $a_3$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{lemma}\label{m_{a_0}}
$\tilde{g}_0$ and $\tilde{h}_0$ make a basis of the cotangent space $m_{a_0}/m_{a_0}^2$ at the point $O =a_0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We have $a_0 = O \in T_{a_1}^*C \cap T_{a_2}^*C$. Therefore, this lemma
follows from Remark \ref{systemofparameter}.
\end{proof}
By Table 4, $\tilde{\varphi}_{ij}$ gives non-zero vectors at cotangent spaces of two
points of $J(C)[2]$ and becomes 0-vector at cotangent spaces of the other two
points of $J(C)[2]$. We denote by $v^{(k)}_{ij}$ the non-zero vector given by
$\tilde{\varphi}_{ij}$ at the cotangent spaces of the point $a_k$.
By Table 3 and Lemma \ref{m_{a_0}}, $\tilde{g}_0$ and $\tilde{h}_0$ make a basis, say
$\langle v_1, v_2\rangle$, of the cotangent
space $m_{a_0}/m_{a_0}^2$ at $a_0$, and are 0-vectors of the cotangent spaces
at the 2-torsion points.
In Table 5, we summarize the situation of these functions at the cotangent spaces of the points
of $J(C)[2]$.
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{Cotangent vectors}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
& $m_{a_0}/m_{a_0}^2$ & $m_{a_1}/m_{a_1}^2$ & $m_{a_2}/m_{a_2}^2$ & $m_{a_3}/m_{a_3}^2$\\
\hline
$\tilde{\varphi}_{01}$ & $0$ & $0$ & $v_{01}^{(2)}$ & $v_{01}^{(3)}$ \\
\hline
$\tilde{\varphi}_{02}$ & $0$ & $v_{02}^{(1)}$ & $0$ & $v_{02}^{(3)}$ \\
\hline
$\tilde{\varphi}_{03}$ & $v_{03}^{(0)}$ & $0$ & $0$ & $v_{03}^{(3)}$ \\
\hline
$\tilde{\varphi}_{12}$ & $0$ & $v_{12}^{(1)}$ & $v_{12}^{(2)}$ & 0 \\
\hline
$\tilde{g}_0$ & $v_1$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ \\
\hline
$\tilde{h}_0$ & $v_2$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{lemma}\label{morethan6}
$\dim {\rm Im}~\psi \geq 6$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Remark \ref{systemofparameter}, $T_{a_i}^*C$ intersects $T_{a_j}^*C$ ($j\neq i$)
at different two points and the intersection is transversal.
Therefore, the defining equations of $T_{a_i}^*C$ and $T_{a_j}^*C$
give a basis at the cotangent spaces of the two points.
Therefore, in Table 6, two or two of three non-zero vectors
at the cotangent spaces are linearly independent over $k$.
The 6 functions in Table 6 are contained
in ${\rm H}^0(J(C), {\mathcal O}_{J(C)}(4C - \sum_{i=0}^3a_i))$.
Suppose that the images of 6 functions in Table 6 by $\psi$ are linearly dependent.
Then, there exist $b_i \in k$ ($i = 1, 2, \ldots, 6$) such that
$$
b_1\psi(\tilde{\varphi}_{01}) + b_2\psi(\tilde{\varphi}_{02}) + b_3\psi(\tilde{\varphi}_{03}) + b_4\psi(\tilde{\varphi}_{12}) +
b_5\psi(\tilde{g}_0) + b_6\psi(\tilde{h}_0) = 0
$$
Considering the component of the cotangent space $m_{a_1}/m_{a_1}^2$, we have
$b_2v_{02}^{(1)} + b_4v_{12}^{(1)} = 0$. Since $v_{02}^{(1)}$ and $v_{12}^{(1)}$
linearly independent over $k$ as we explained above, we have $b_2 = b_4 = 0$.
Considering the components of the cotangent spaces $m_{a_3}/m_{a_3}^2$ and
$m_{a_0}/m_{a_0}^2$ successively,
by similar arguments we have $b_i = 0$ for all $i = 1, 2, \cdots, 6$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
$\dim {\rm H}^0(J(C), {\mathcal O}_{J(C)}(4C - 2\sum_{i=0}^3a_i)) = 6$ and $\dim {\rm Im}~\psi = 6$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By Lemmas \ref{16}, \ref{morethan6} and (\ref{exact}),
we have
$\dim {\rm H}^0(J(C), {\mathcal O}_{J(C)}(4C - 2\sum_{i=0}^3a_i)) \leq 6$.
The former part follows from Corollary \ref{6}. The latter part follows
from the exact sequence (\ref{exact}).
\end{proof}
We denote by $\tilde{W}$ the subspace of $\tilde{V}$ which is generated by $\tilde{f}_i\tilde{f}_j$ $(i, j = 0, 1, 2, 3; i\neq j)$.
\begin{theorem}\label{4C-2points}
$\tilde{W} = {\rm H}^0(J(C), {\mathcal O}_{J(C)}(4C - 2\sum_{i=0}^3a_i))$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We have $\tilde{W} \subset {\rm H}^0(J(C), {\mathcal O}_{J(C)}(4C - 2\sum_{i=0}^3a_i))$.
Since both sides are 6-dimensional, we get our result.
\end{proof}
Using ${\rm H}^0(J(C), {\mathcal O}_{J(C)}(4C - 2\sum_{i=0}^3a_i))$, we consider
the following rational map.
$$
\begin{array}{rccl}
f :& J(C) & \longrightarrow & {\bf P}^5 \\
&P & \mapsto & (X_0, X_1, X_2, X_3, X_4, X_5)
= (f_3f_2, f_3f_1, f_3f_0, f_2f_1, f_2f_0, f_1f_0).
\end{array}
$$
Then, by Remark \ref{quartic} we have the relation
\begin{equation}\label{quadratic1}
\lambda_{10}^2(X_0^2 + X_5^2)
+ \lambda_{01}^2(X_1^2 + X_4^2)
+ \lambda_{11}^2(X_2^2 + X_3^2)
+\frac{\lambda_{10}\lambda_{01}\lambda_{11}}{\lambda_{00}}X_0X_5 =0 \quad
(\lambda_{10}\lambda_{01}\lambda_{11}\lambda_{00} \neq 0)
\end{equation}
We also have two trivial equations
\begin{equation}\label{quadratic2}
X_0X_5 + X_1X_4 = 0, \quad X_0X_5 + X_2X_3 = 0.
\end{equation}
\begin{theorem}
Let $S$ be a surface in ${\bf P}^5$ defined by the equations $(\ref{quadratic1})$,
$(\ref{quadratic2})$.
Then, $S$ is a K3 surface
with 12 $A_1$-rational double points.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By a direct calculation, we have 12 singularities
at such as a point $(\lambda_{01}, \lambda_{10}, 0, 0, 0, 0)$.
By a blowing-up, the singular points can be resolved and the types are
$A_1$-rational double.
The dualizing sheaf of $S$ is isomorphic to ${\mathcal O}_S(-6 + 2 + 2+ 2) \cong {\mathcal O}_S$.
Since the singularities are rational, the minimal resolution of $S$ is a K3 surface.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{position}
The 12 singular points of $S$ are given as follows:
$$
\begin{array}{lll}
P_{34}= (0, 0, 0, \lambda_{01}, \lambda_{11}, 0),~
P_{24}= (0, 0, \lambda_{01}, 0, \lambda_{11}, 0),\\
P_{13}= (0, \lambda_{11}, 0, \lambda_{01}, 0, 0), ~
P_{12}= (0, \lambda_{11}, \lambda_{01}, 0, 0, 0),\\
P_{35}= (0, 0, 0, \lambda_{10}, 0, \lambda_{11}),~
P_{25}= (0, 0, \lambda_{10},0, 0, \lambda_{11}),\\
P_{03}= (\lambda_{11}, 0, 0, \lambda_{10}, 0, 0), ~
P_{02}= (\lambda_{11}, 0, \lambda_{10}, 0, 0, 0),\\
P_{45}= (0, 0, 0, 0, \lambda_{10}, \lambda_{01}),~
P_{15}= (0, \lambda_{10}, 0, 0, 0, \lambda_{01}),\\
P_{04}= (\lambda_{01}, 0, 0, 0, \lambda_{10}, 0), ~
P_{01}= (\lambda_{01}, \lambda_{10}, 0, 0, 0, 0).
\end{array}
$$
\end{remark}
We have a commutative diagram of rational maps.
$$
\begin{array}{ccl}
J(C) & \stackrel{\varphi_{\vert 2C \vert}}{\longrightarrow} & {\bf P}^3 \ni (f_3, f_2, f_1, f_0)\\
& f \searrow \quad & \downarrow \varphi \\
& & {\bf P}^5 \ni (f_3f_2, f_3f_1, f_3f_0, f_2f_1, f_2f_0, f_1f_0).
\end{array}
$$
In this diagram, $\varphi_{\vert 2C \vert}$ is a morphism and
${\rm Im}~\varphi_{\vert 2C \vert}$ is isomorphic to $J(C)/\langle \iota \rangle$.
\begin{theorem}
$f$ is a rational map whose base points consist of the points in $J(C)[2]$.
$\varphi$ is a biratinal map whose base points consist of the singular points
$J(C)/\langle \iota \rangle$. The inverse map $\varphi^{-1}$ is a blow-down morphism
and $S$ has 4 exceptional curves with respect to $\varphi^{-1}$.
Each exceptional curve contains 4 singular points of $S$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since $\tilde{f}_i\tilde{f}_j \in {\rm H}^0(J(C), {\mathcal O}_{J(C)}(4C - 2\sum_{i=0}^3a_i))$
$(i\neq j)$,
the points in $J(C)[2]$ are base points of $f$. Since some $\tilde{f}_i\tilde{f}_j$ is not zero
outside of $J(C)[2]$, we have the first statement.
By a general theory of Abelian variety, $|2C|$ is base point free (cf. Mumford \cite{M1}).
Therefore, we get the second statement.
The inverse map $\varphi^{-1}$ is given by
$$
(X_0, X_1, X_2, X_3, X_4, X_5) \mapsto (X_0X_1, X_0X_3, X_1X_3, X_0X_5).
$$
If only one component of coordinates of a point $P$ on ${\bf P}^5$ is not zero, then
$P$ is not a point on $S$. Therefore, for a point $P$, there exist at least two non-zero
components of coordinates of $P$, say $i$, $j$. Since we can express $\varphi^{-1}$
as a map which includes $X_iX_j$ as a coordinate, $\varphi^{-1}$ is a morphism.
For example, if $i = 3$ and $j = 5$, then we can express $\varphi^{-1}$ as
$$
(X_0, X_1, X_2, X_3, X_4, X_5) \mapsto (X_0X_5, X_3X_4, X_3X_5, X_4X_5),
$$
which coincides with the original one by $X_0X_5 = X_1X_4 = X_2X_3$ (cf. (\ref{quadratic2})).
Therefore, $\varphi^{-1}$ is a morphism. We can show the other statements
by direct calculations.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
We list up the 4 exceptional curves $\ell_i$ $(i = 1, 2, 3, 4)$
for $\varphi^{-1}$ and the singular points on them.
$$
\begin{array}{rc}
\ell_1 : &X_0 = X_2 = X_4 =0, \lambda_{10}X_5 + \lambda_{01}X_1 + \lambda_{11}X_3 = 0,\\
& \mbox{the singular points on}~\ell_1:\quad P_{12},~P_{15},~P_{35}, \\
\ell_2 : & X_1 = X_2 = X_5 =0, \lambda_{10}X_0 + \lambda_{01}X_4 + \lambda_{11}X_3 = 0,\\
& \mbox{the singular points on}~\ell_2:\quad P_{04},~P_{03},~P_{34}, \\
\ell_3 : & X_3 = X_4 = X_5 =0, \lambda_{10}X_0 + \lambda_{01}X_1 + \lambda_{11}X_2 = 0,\\
& \mbox{the singular points on}~\ell_3:\quad P_{01},~P_{02},~P_{12}, \\
\ell_4 : & X_0 = X_1 = X_3 =0, \lambda_{10}X_5 + \lambda_{01}X_4 + \lambda_{11}X_2 = 0,\\
& \mbox{the singular points on}~\ell_4:\quad P_{24},~P_{25},~P_{45}.
\end{array}
$$
\end{remark}
\subsection{Relations to a paper by Duquesne}
In his paper \cite{Du}, Duquesne examined the linear system $\vert 2C\vert$ in characteristic 2
and showed that the image of the rational map $\varphi_{\vert 2C \vert}$
is isomorphic to the Kummer surface. In this subsection, we examine
the relation between our theory and his results.
Let $C$ be a non-singular curve of genus 2 and we consider the symmetric product $Sym^{2}(C)$
of two $C$'s. Then, as is well-known, we have morphisms
$$
\begin{array}{rccccc}
\tilde{\phi} :& C \times C & \longrightarrow & Sym^2(C) & \stackrel{\nu}{\longrightarrow} & J(C) \\
& (P_1, P_2) & \mapsto & P_1 + P_2 & \mapsto & P_1 + P_2 - K_C.
\end{array}
$$
Here, $\nu$ is the blowing-up at the zero point $O$, and $K_C$ is a canonical divisor of $C$.
We have an inclusion morphism
$$
\phi : C\times \{\infty \} \hookrightarrow C\times C \longrightarrow Sym^2(C) \stackrel{\nu}{\longrightarrow} J(C).
$$
Here, $\infty$ is a point of a ramification point of the hyperelliptic structure
$C \longrightarrow {\bf P}^1$.
We denote by $C_{\infty}$ the image of this inclusion morphism. Then, $C_{\infty}$
gives the principal polarization of $J(C)$.
(a) The ordinary case.
Igusa's normal form of the curve $C$ of genus 2 such that the Jacobian variety
$J(C)$ is ordinary is given by (\ref{g=2}). It is easy to see that this curve is isomorphic
to the curve given by
$$
y^2 +(x^2 + x)y = \alpha x^5 + (\alpha + \beta + \gamma)x^3 + \gamma x^2 + \beta x.
$$
We denote this affine curve by $C_{aff}$ and the point at infinity by $\infty$.
Then, we have
$$
C = C_{aff} \cup \{\infty\}.
$$
We consider points $P_1 = (1, 0)$ and $P_2 =(0, 0)$, and set
$$
a_0 = \phi ((\infty, \infty)), a_1= \phi ((P_1, \infty)),
a_2= \phi((P_2, \infty)),
a_3= \tilde{\phi} ((P_1, P_2)).
$$
Then, $a_0$ is the zero point of $J(C)$, and $a_i$ ($i = 1, 2, 3$) are the 2-torsion points
of $J(C)$. Note $a_0, a_1, a_2 \in C_{\infty}$ and $a_3 \not\in C_{\infty}$.
Using the notation in Duquesne \cite{Du}, we consider symmetric functions
$$
\begin{array}{l}
k_1= 1, k_2 = x_1 + x_2, k_3 = x_1x_2,\\
k_4 = \frac{(x_1+ x_2)(\alpha x_1^2x_2^2 + (\alpha + \beta + \gamma)x_1x_2 + \beta) + (x_2^2 + x_2)y_1 + (x_1^2 + x_1)y_2}{(x_1 + x_2)^2}.
\end{array}
$$
Then, these four functions give a basis of $L(2C_{\infty})$ and we have a morphism
$$
\begin{array}{rccc}
\varphi_{\vert 2C_{\infty} \vert} : & J(C) & \longrightarrow & {\bf P}^3 \\
& P & \mapsto & (k_1(P), k_2(P), k_3(P), k_4(P)).
\end{array}
$$
The image of
$\varphi_{\vert 2C_{\infty} \vert}$ is given by the equation
\begin{equation}\label{ordinary-case}
\begin{array}{l}
k_2^2k_4^2 + k_1^2k_3k_4 + k_1k_3^2k_4 + k_1k_2k_3k_4 +
\beta^2k_1^4 \beta k_1^3k_3 +\beta k_1^2k_2k_3 \\
+
(\alpha^2 + \beta^2 + \gamma^2 + \alpha + \beta) k_1^2 k_3^2
+ \alpha k_1k_2k_3^2 + \alpha k_1k_3^3 + \alpha^2 k_3^4 = 0
\end{array}
\end{equation}
(cf. Duquesne \cite[Sections 2 and 3]{Du}) and
$\varphi_{\vert 2C_{\infty} \vert}(C_{\infty})$ is a trope defined by $k_1 = 0$.
The singularities of this surface are
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\varphi_{\vert 2C_{\infty} \vert}(a_0)=(0,0,0,1),\quad \varphi_{\vert 2C_{\infty} \vert}(a_1)=(0,1,1,\alpha), \\
\varphi_{\vert 2C_{\infty} \vert}(a_2)=(0,1,0,0),\quad \varphi_{\vert 2C_{\infty} \vert}(a_3)=(1,1, 0, \beta).
\end{array}
$$
They are rational double points of type $D_4$.
We consider the change of coodinates
$$
X_1 = k_1, X_2 = k_2 + k_1 + k_3, X_3 = k_3, X_4 =k_4 + \beta k_1 + \alpha k_3.
$$
Using the notation of Subsection \ref{7.2}, we set $C = C_{\infty}$ and $\tilde{X}_i = \rho(X_i)$
($i = 1,2,3,4$). Then, the zero points and the non-zero points of $\tilde{X}_i$
in $J(C)[2]$ are listed as in Table 7.
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{Zero points of $\tilde{X}_i$}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}\hline
& zero points in $J(C)[2]$ & non-zero points in $J(C)[2]$\\
\hline
$\tilde{X}_{1}$ & $a_0$, $a_1$, $a_2$ & $a_3$ \\
\hline
$\tilde{X}_{2}$ & $a_0$, $a_1$, $a_3$ & $a_2$ \\
\hline
$\tilde{X}_{3}$ & $a_0$, $a_2$, $a_3$ & $a_1$ \\
\hline
$\tilde{X}_{4}$ & $a_1$, $a_2$ , $a_3$ & $a_0$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{proposition}
$X_i$ coincides with $f_{4-i}$ given in Lemma \ref{basis} up to constant.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Since $f_0$, $f_1$, $f_2$ and $f_3$ make a basis of $L(2C_{\infty})$, there exist elements
$b_j \in k$ ($j = 0,1,2,3$) such that
$X_i = b_0 f_0 + b_1 f_1 + b_2 f_2 + b_3 f_3$. Therefore, we have
$$
\tilde{X}_i = b_0\tilde{f}_0 + b_1 \tilde{f}_1 + b_2 \tilde{f}_2 + b_3 \tilde{f}_3.
$$
Taking values at the points $a_0$, $a_1$, $a_2$ and $a_3$, we get the result.
\end{proof}
Using this change of coordinates, the quartic surface (\ref{ordinary-case}) is isomorphic to
the surface defined by
$$
(X_1^2X_4^2 + \alpha^2X_2^2X_3^2) + (X_3^2 X_4^2 + \beta^2X_1^2X_2^2) + (X_2^2X_4^2 + \gamma^2X_1^2X_3^2) + X_1X_2X_3X_4 = 0.
$$
Using the theory in Theorem \ref{4C-2points}, we have a rational map
$$
\begin{array}{rccl}
f :& J(C) & \longrightarrow & {\bf P}^5 \\
&P & \mapsto & (Y_0, Y_1, Y_2, Y_3, Y_4, Y_5)
= (X_1X_2, X_1X_3, X_1X_4, X_2X_3, X_2X_4, X_3X_4).
\end{array}
$$
and the image is given by
$$Y_0Y_5 + Y_1Y_4 = Y_0Y_5 + Y_2Y_3 =
Y_2^2 + \alpha Y_3^2 + Y_5^2 + \beta^2Y_0^2 + Y_4^2 + \gamma^2Y_1^2 + Y_0Y_5 = 0.
$$
This surface is a K3 surface with 12 rational double points of type $A_1$, as we already examined.
(b) 2-rank 1 case.
Igusa's normal form of the curve $C$ of gneus 2 such that the the Jacobian variety
$J(C)$ is of 2-rank 1 is given by (\ref{g=2}). It is easy to see that this curve is isomorphic
to the curve defined by
$$
y^2 + xy = x^5 + \alpha x^3 + \beta x.
$$
Using the notation in Duquesne \cite{Du}, we consider symmetric functions
$$
\begin{array}{l}
k_1= 1, k_2 = x_1 + x_2, k_3 = x_1x_2,\\
k_4 = \frac{(x_1+ x_2)(x_1^2x_2^2 + \alpha x_1x_2 + \beta) + x_2y_1 + x_1y_2}{(x_1 + x_2)^2}.
\end{array}
$$
Then, these four functions give a basis of $L(2C_{\infty})$, and the image of
$\varphi_{\vert 2C_{\infty} \vert}$ is given by the equation
$$
k_2^2k_4^2 + k_1^2k_3k_4 + \beta^2k_1^4 + \alpha^2 k_1^2k_3^2 + k_1k_2k_3^2 + k_3^4 = 0
$$
(cf. Duquesne \cite[Sections 2 and 3]{Du}).
The singularities are
$$
(0, 0, 0, 1),\quad (0, 1, 0, 0),
$$
which are rational double points of type $D_8$.
We set
$$
Y_0 = k_2k_4, Y_1 = k_1^2, Y_2= k_3^2, Y_3 = k_1k_3, Y_4 = k_1k_4, Y_5 = k_2k_3.
$$
Then we have a surface in ${\bf P}^5$ defined by
$$
Y_1Y_2 + Y_3^2 = Y_0Y_3 + Y_4Y_5 =
Y_0^2 + \beta^2Y_1^2 + Y_2^2 + \alpha^2 Y_3^2 + Y_3Y_4 + Y_3Y_5 = 0.
$$
This surface has 4 singular points. They are rational double points of type $A_{3}$ at
$(0,0,0,0,0,1)$ and $(0,0,0,0,1,0)$, and rational double points of type $D_{4}$ at
$(1,0,1,0,0,0)$ and $(\beta, 1,0,0,0,0)$.
(c) Supersingular case.
As we stated in (\ref{g=2}) Igusa's normal form of the curve $C$ of genus 2
such that the Jacobian variety
$J(C)$ is supersingular is given by
$$
y^2 + y = x^5 + \alpha x^3.
$$
Using the notation in Duquesne \cite{Du}, we consider symmetric functions
$$
\begin{array}{l}
k_1= 1, k_2 = x_1 + x_2, k_3 = x_1x_2,\\
k_4 = \frac{(x_1+ x_2)(x_1^2x_2^2 + \alpha x_1x_2) + y_1 + y_2}{(x_1 + x_2)^2}.
\end{array}
$$
Then, these four functions give a basis of $L(2C_{\infty})$, and the image of
$\varphi_{\vert 2C_{\infty} \vert}$ is given by the equation
$$
k_2^2k_4^2 + k_1^3k_4 + \alpha k_1^3k_2 + k_1^2k_2k_3 + \alpha^2k_1^2k_3^2 + k_1k_2^3 + k_3^4 = 0
$$
(cf. Duquesne \cite[Sections 2 and 3]{Du}).
This surface has only one singular point at $(0, 0, 0, 1)$,
which is an elliptic double point of type $\mbox{\MARU{4}}_{0,1}^{1}$.
We don't know how to connect this surface with a $(2, 2, 2)$-surface in ${\bf P}^5$.
|
\section{Introduction}
A stochastic gravitational wave background is one of the primary targets of gravitational wave detectors. There exist a large number of theoretical predictions for generation processes such as an inflationary expansion \cite{Starobinsky:1979ty,PhysRevLett.99.221301, Kuroyanagi:2008ye, Cook:2011hg}, a phase transition \cite{Kamionkowski:1993fg,Caprini:2007xq}, and distant unresolved binaries \cite{Farmer:2003pa,Zhu:2012xw} (for other sources, see \cite{Christensen:2018iqi,Kuroyanagi:2018csn}). Many of these backgrounds were generated in strong gravity regimes or high energy states and could be a good probe for physics in an extreme environment. Note also that these backgrounds are expected to be highly isotropic.
In General Relativity (GR), we only have the two tensor degrees of freedom, the + and $\times$ modes. In contrast, some alternative theories of gravity predict additional polarization modes; the two vector ($x$ and $y$) modes and the two scalar ($b$ and $l$) modes \cite{Berti:2015itd}. Therefore, through a polarization study of background, we might detect a signature of modification to GR \cite{Corda:2008si,Callister:2017ocg} (see \cite{Chatziioannou:2012rf, Isi:2017fbj,Takeda:2019gwk,Hagihara:2019ihn,Takeda:2020tjj, Takeda:2021hgo} for studies on the polarization of gravitational waves from compact binary). Furthermore, even if GR is not modified at present, a parity violation process in the early universe could generate an asymmetry between right- and left-handed polarization patterns \cite{Lue:1998mq,Alexander:2004us,Kahniashvili:2005qi,Satoh:2007gn,Adshead:2012kp,Dimastrogiovanni:2016fuu,Ellis:2020uid,Okano:2020uyr}.
The cross-correlation analysis is an efficient method for detecting a weak gravitational wave background \cite{Flanagan:1993ix, Allen:1997ad,Romano:2016dpx}. By taking products of data streams of noise-independent detector pairs, we can gradually improve the sensitivity to a background by increasing observational time. When the gravitational wave frequency is much longer than the arm lengths of detectors \cite{Omiya:2021zif}, the two scalar modes are observationally non-separable, and we can generally measure the five background spectra $I_{T},I_{V},I_{S},W_{T},$ and $W_{V}$. The three spectra $I_{T},I_{V},$ and $I_S$ represent the total intensity of the tensor, vector, and scalar modes. The remaining two spectra $W_{T}$ and $W_{V}$ correspond to the Stokes ``V" parameters which probe the degrees of circular polarization of the tensor and vector modes. In this paper, we utilize $W$ for the ``V" parameter to avoid confusion with the vector modes. Since the spectra $I_{T},I_{V},$ and $I_S$ transform as parity even quantities and the $W_{T}$ and $W_V$ transform as parity odd quantities, we refer to the former three as parity even spectra and the later two as parity odd spectra.
At the correlation analysis, we can measure linear combinations of the five spectra with the five coefficients known as the overlap reduction functions (ORFs). The ORFs characterize the sensitivities to the corresponding spectra and depend on gravitational wave frequency as well as the relative configuration of the two pairwise detectors.
We apply the parity even/odd classification also to the five ORFs.
For probing the existence of the anomalous polarization spectra $I_V$, $I_S$, $W_T$, and $W_V$, we desire to clean the contribution from the standard spectrum $I_T$ (see also \cite{KAGRA:2021kbb} for a maximum likelihood analysis). In addition, we prefer to break down the four anomalous modes and measure them separately. Our strategy in this paper is to utilize the difference between the five ORFs and algebraically decompose the five spectra by taking appropriate linear combinations of the correlation products from multiple pairs (originally proposed in \cite{Seto:2006dz}).
We mainly study the prospects of this algebraic scheme with the second generation detector network. We pay special attention to the impacts of adding LIGO-India as the fifth detector.
In the middle of our study, we newly identify two degenerate relations between the ORFs. The first one is for the three even ORFs, and the second one is for the two odd ORFs. These two relations generally limit the performance of the algebraic decomposition in the low frequency regime $f\lesssim 30$Hz.
On the other hand, LIGO-India can largely mitigate the damage associated with the degeneracy for the even ORFs, because of its relatively remote location from the two other LIGO detectors. Furthermore, LIGO-India can significantly improve the sensitivities to the odd spectra.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec.~\ref{sec:2}, we review the polarization decomposition of an isotropic background and present the analytical expressions for the associated ORFs. We also explain our two new findings with respect to the ORFs.
In Sec.~\ref{sec:4}, we concretely study the geometry of the second generation terrestrial detector network, including LIGO-India. In Sec.~\ref{sec:4A}, we review the correlation analysis, primarily focusing on the evaluation of the signal-to-noise ratio. In Sec.~\ref{sec:4B}, we explain the algebraic decomposition scheme for multiple spectral components. In Secs.~\ref{sec:7} and ~\ref{sec:8}, we apply this scheme to the second generation ground-based detector network. We discuss how the sensitivity depends on the target polarization spectra and the network combinations. Finally, in Sec.~\ref{sec:9}, we summarize our paper.
\section{Basic Quantities}\label{sec:2}
Following our preceding work \cite{Omiya:2021zif} on formal aspects, we first review the basic ingredients for the correlated signals of stochastic backgrounds with ground-based detectors. Since our universe is highly isotropic and homogeneous, the monopole components of the backgrounds are assumed to be our primary target. In addition, because the observed speed of gravitational wave $v_g$ is close to the speed of light $c$, we set $v_g = c$.
In Sec.~\ref{sec:2A}, we describe the polarization states of the isotropic backgrounds and introduce the five relevant spectra $I_T, I_V, I_S,W_T,$ and $W_V$. In Sec.~\ref{sec:2B}, we discuss the ORFs which characterize the correlated response of pairwise detectors to the backgrounds. In Sec.~\ref{sec:2C}, we give analytic expressions of the ORFs for the ground-based detectors. In Secs.~\ref{sec:2D} and~\ref{sec:2E}, we discuss their asymptotic behaviors. In Secs.~\ref{sec:2-F} and~\ref{sec:2-G}, we report our two new findings on the ORFs.
\subsection{Polarization states of a stochastic gravitational wave background}\label{sec:2A}
We start with the plane wave decomposition of the metric perturbation $h_{ij}$ generated by the gravitational waves
\begin{align}
\begin{aligned}
h_{ij}(t,\bm{x}) = &\sum_{P} \int df \int d\bm{\Omega}\\
& \times \tilde{h}_P(f,\bm{\Omega}) \bm{e}_{P,ij}(\bm{\Omega}) e^{-2\pi i f (t - \bm{\Omega} \cdot \bm{x}/c)}~,
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
where $\bm{\Omega}$ is the unit vector for the propagation direction, normalized by $\int d\bm{\Omega} = 4 \pi$. Here, $\bm{e}_P$ ($P=+,\times,x,y,b$ and $l$) represent the polarization tensors given by
\begin{align}\label{eq:3}
\begin{aligned}
\bm{e}_{+} &= \bm{m} \otimes \bm{m} - \bm{n}\otimes \bm{n}~, & \bm{e}_{\times} &= \bm{m} \otimes \bm{n} + \bm{n}\otimes \bm{m}~,\\
\bm{e}_{x} &= \bm{\Omega} \otimes \bm{m} + \bm{m}\otimes \bm{\Omega}~,& \bm{e}_y &= \bm{\Omega} \otimes \bm{n} + \bm{n}\otimes \bm{\Omega}~,\\
\bm{e}_b &= \sqrt{3}(\bm{m} \otimes \bm{m} + \bm{n}\otimes \bm{n})~,& \bm{e}_l &= \sqrt{3}(\bm{\Omega}\otimes\bm{\Omega})
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
with the orthonormal vectors $\bm m$ and $\bm n$ in addition to $\bm \Omega$ (see \cite{Will:1993ns} for geometrical interpretation of these modes). { Note that our definitions for $e_b$ and $e_l$ are different from the conventional one such as used in \cite{Callister:2017ocg} (see also Appendix in \cite{Omiya:2020fvw}).} They are written by the standard polar coordinates $(\theta,\phi)$ as
\begin{align}
\bm{\Omega} &= \left(
\begin{array}{c}
\sin\theta \cos\phi\\
\sin\theta\sin\phi\\
\cos\theta
\end{array}
\right)~,\\
\bm{m} &= \left(
\begin{array}{c}
\cos\theta \cos\phi\\
\cos\theta\sin\phi\\
-\sin\theta
\end{array}
\right)~,\\
\bm{n} &= \left(
\begin{array}{c}
-\sin\phi\\
\cos\phi\\
0
\end{array}
\right)~.
\end{align}
In Eq. (\ref{eq:3}), the labels $P=+,\times$ correspond to the tensor ($T$) modes, $P = x,y$ to the vector ($V$) modes, and $P = b,l$ to the scalar ($S$) modes. Note that GR predicts only the tensor modes. However, numerous alternative theories of gravity allow the existence of the remaining $V$ and $S$ modes.
For a stochastic background, the expansion coefficients $\tilde{h}_P$ can be regarded as random quantities. Their statistical properties are specified by the power spectrum matrix $\braket{\tilde{h}_P(f,\bm{\Omega})\tilde{h}_{P'}^*(f',\bm{\Omega})}$ with no correlation between $T,V$ and $S$ modes for statistically isotropic backgrounds \cite{Omiya:2021zif}. In the case of the tensor modes ($P,P' = +,\times$), the matrix can be written in terms of the Stokes parameters as \cite{Seto:2008sr}
\begin{align}\label{eq:PST}
\begin{aligned}
\braket{\tilde{h}_{P}(f,\bm{\Omega})\tilde{h}_{P'}^*(f',\bm{\Omega'})} =& \frac{1}{2}\delta_{\Omega\Omega'}\delta(f-f')\\
&\times \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
I_T+Q_T & U_T-iW_T\\
U_T+iW_T & I_T-Q_T
\end{array}
\right)_{PP'}~.
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
In the standard literature of polarization, the chiral asymmetry is usually denoted as the Stokes ``$V$'' parameter. In this paper, we apply the notation $V$ to represent the vector modes, and use $W$ for the chiral asymmetry. Note that the combinations $Q_T\pm iU_T$ do not have isotropic components, as understood from their transformation properties \cite{Seto:2008sr, Omiya:2021zif}. We thus drop them hereafter.
In Eq. (\ref{eq:PST}), we use the coefficients $\tilde{h}_{P}(f,\bm{\Omega})$ for the linear polarization bases $(\bm{e}_{+},\bm{e}_{\times})$.
However, the physical meaning of the $W$ parameter becomes transparent
by introducing the circular (right- and left-handed) polarization bases given by
\begin{align}\label{eq:7}
\bm{e}_R^T &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\bm{e}_+ + i \bm{e}_\times \right)~, & \bm{e}_L^T &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\bm{e}_+ - i \bm{e}_\times \right)~,
\end{align}
with the corresponding coefficients
\begin{align}\label{eq:8}
\tilde{h}^{T}_R(f,\bm{\Omega}) &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\tilde{h}_{+}(f,\bm{\Omega}) - i \tilde{h}_{\times}(f,\bm{\Omega})\right)~,\\
\tilde{h}^{T}_L (f,\bm{\Omega})&= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\tilde{h}_{+}(f,\bm{\Omega})+ i \tilde{h}_{\times}(f,\bm{\Omega})\right).\label{eq:9}
\end{align}
We then have
\begin{align}
I_{T} &= \braket{\tilde{h}^{T}_R\tilde{h}_R^{T*}} + \braket{\tilde{h}^{T}_L \tilde{h}_L^{T*}}~, \\
W_{T} &= \braket{\tilde{h}^{T}_R \tilde{h}_R^{T*}} - \braket{\tilde{h}^{T}_L \tilde{h}_L^{T*}},
\end{align}
omitting apparent delta functions.
These expressions show that the spectra $I_{T}$ and $W_{T}$ characterize the total and asymmetry of the amplitudes of the right- and left-handed polarization patterns of the tensor modes. Since the parity transformation interchanges the right-and left-handed waves, we resultantly have $I_T'=I_T$ and $W_T'=-W_T$ ($'$ representing parity transformed quantities).
For the vector modes, we can repeat almost the same arguments as Eqs.~\eqref{eq:PST}-\eqref{eq:9} and obtain
\begin{align}
I_{V} &= \braket{\tilde{h}^{V}_R\tilde{h}_R^{V*}} + \braket{\tilde{h}^{V}_L \tilde{h}_L^{V*}}~, \\
W_{V} &= \braket{\tilde{h}^{V}_R \tilde{h}_R^{V*}} - \braket{\tilde{h}^{V}_L \tilde{h}_L^{V*}}
\end{align}
with the correspondences $I_V'=I_V$ and $W_V'=-W_V$ for the parity transformation.
For the scalar modes ($P,P' = b,l$), considering their potential correlation, we can generally put
\begin{align}
\begin{aligned}
\braket{\tilde{h}_{P}(f,\bm{\Omega})\tilde{h}_{P'}^*(f',\bm{\Omega'})} =& \frac{1}{2}\delta_{\Omega\Omega'}\delta(f-f')\\
&\times \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
I_b & C_S\\
C_S^* & I_l
\end{array}
\right)_{PP'}~.
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
described by the four real parameters in the power spectra. In reality, as long as the low frequency approximation is valid ($f\ll (2\pi L/c)^{-1}$, $L$: the arm length), only the combination
\begin{align}
I_S \equiv \frac{1}{2}(I_b + I_l - C_S - C_S^*)~,
\end{align}
appears in the correlation analysis \cite{Omiya:2021zif}. Therefore, in the following, we keep only $I_S$ for the scalar modes. Because of its spin-0 nature, we also have $I_S'=I_S$ for the parity transformation.
Up to now, we see that an isotropic background is characterized by the five quantities $I_T,I_V,I_S,W_T,$ and $W_V$.
Here, we introduce another commonly used representation for the magnitudes of these spectra. In GR, the amplitude $I_T(f)$ can be simply related to the energy density of the background. More specifically,
with the Hubble parameter $H_0$, we have the relation
\begin{align}\label{omega}
\Omega_{GW}^{I_T}(f) = \left(\frac{32\pi^3}{3 H_0^2}\right) f^3 I_T(f)~
\end{align}
for the energy density of the background per logarithmic frequency (normalized by critical density of universe)~\cite{Flanagan:1993ix, Allen:1997ad}.
In a modified theory of gravity, the relation~\eqref{omega} for the energy density might be invalid \cite{Isi:2018miq}. However, we are not directly interested in the actual energy density of the backgrounds, and thus continue to use Eq.~\eqref{omega} as the definition of $\Omega_{GW}^{I_T}(f) $.
Similarly, we use the effective energy densities
\begin{align}
\Omega_{GW}^{I_V}(f) &\equiv \left(\frac{32\pi^3}{3 H_0^2}\right) f^3 I_V(f)~,\label{e17}\\
\Omega_{GW}^{I_S}(f) &\equiv \left(\frac{32\pi^3}{3 H_0^2}\right) f^3 I_S(f)~,\\
\Omega_{GW}^{W_T}(f) &\equiv \left(\frac{32\pi^3}{3 H_0^2}\right) f^3 W_T(f)~,\\
\Omega_{GW}^{W_V}(f) &\equiv \left(\frac{32\pi^3}{3 H_0^2}\right) f^3 W_V(f)~.\label{omegaWV}
\end{align}
If the left handed modes dominate the right handed ones, we have $\Omega_{GW}^{W_T}(f) <0$ (and $\Omega_{GW}^{W_V}(f) <0$).
\subsection{Correlation Analysis}\label{sec:2B}
Now we discuss how to detect the five spectral components by using multiple interferometers. In the low frequency regime ($f\ll (2\pi L /c)^{-1}$), the response of an interferometer $A$ (at the position $\bm{x}_A$) can be modeled as~\cite{Omiya:2021zif}
\begin{align}\label{eq:GWsig}
h_A(f) = \bm{D}_{A}^{ij} \tilde{h}_{ij}(f, \bm{x}_A)~,
\end{align}
with the beam pattern function
\begin{align}
\bm{D}_{A} = \frac{\bm{u}_A \otimes \bm{u}_A - \bm{v}_A\otimes \bm{v}_A}{2}~.
\end{align}
Here, $\tilde{h}_{ij}(f, \bm{x}_A)$ is the metric perturbation of the background at the detector, and the two unit vectors $\bm{u}_A$ and $\bm{v}_A$ represent the two arm directions of the detector.
By correlating data streams of multiple detectors, we can statistically amplify the background signals relative to the detector noises (closely discussed in Sec. IV). We denote the correlation product of two detector $A$ and $B$ by
\begin{align}\label{eq:GWcorr}
C_{AB}(f) \equiv \braket{h_A(f) h_B^*(f)}~
\end{align}
(again omitting delta functions).
Leaving only the monopole components of the background, we obtain
\begin{align}\label{eq:GWexp}
\begin{aligned}
C_{AB}(f) &= \frac{4\pi}{5} \left(\sum_{P=T,V,S}\gamma^{I_P} I_P + \sum_{P=T,V}\gamma^{W_P} W_P\right)~.
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
Here, $\gamma^{I_P}$ and $\gamma^{W_P}$ are the ORFs which characterize the correlated response of two detectors to the relevant components of an isotropic background. They are written as
\begin{align}\label{25}
\gamma^{I_P}_{AB}&(f) \equiv \bm{D}_{A,ij}\bm{D}_{B,kl} \Gamma^{I_P}_{ijkl}~,\\
\gamma^{W_P}_{AB}&(f) \equiv \bm{D}_{A,ij}\bm{D}_{B,kl} \Gamma^{W_P}_{ijkl}~,
\end{align}
with the angular integrals
\begin{align}
\Gamma^{I_T}_{ijkl} &=\frac{5}{8 \pi} \int d\bm{\Omega} (e_{+,ij} e_{+,kl} + e_{\times,ij} e_{\times,kl}) e^{i y \bm{\Omega}\cdot \hat{\bm{d}}}~,\label{27}\\
\Gamma^{I_V}_{ijkl} &=\frac{5}{8 \pi} \int d\bm{\Omega} (e_{x,ij} e_{x,kl} + e_{y,ij} e_{y,kl}) e^{i y \bm{\Omega}\cdot \hat{\bm{d}}}~,\\
\Gamma^{I_S}_{ijkl} &=\frac{5}{8 \pi} \int d\bm{\Omega} (e_{b,ij} e_{b,kl} + e_{l,ij} e_{l,kl}) e^{i y \bm{\Omega}\cdot \hat{\bm{d}}}~,\\
\Gamma^{W_T}_{ijkl} &=-\frac{5 i}{8 \pi} \int d\bm{\Omega} (e_{+,ij} e_{\times,kl} - e_{\times,ij} e_{+,kl}) e^{i y \bm{\Omega}\cdot \hat{\bm{d}}}~,\\
\Gamma^{W_V}_{ijkl} &=-\frac{5 i}{8 \pi} \int d\bm{\Omega} (e_{x,ij} e_{y,kl} - e_{y,ij} e_{x,kl}) e^{i y \bm{\Omega}\cdot \hat{\bm{d}}}~. \label{31}
\end{align}
Here, we put $d\equiv |{\bm x}_A-{\bm x}_B|$, $\hat{\bm{d}} \equiv ({\bm x}_A-{\bm x}_B)/d$ and $y = 2\pi f d/c$.
As already in Eq.~\eqref{eq:GWexp}, we will use the label $P$ for the polarization modes $P=(T, V, S)$, extending it from the original patterns $P=(+,\times,x,y,b,l)$.
In addition, we introduce the label $Q$ to represent all the five spectral modes $(I_T,I_V,I_S,W_T,W_V)$ of interest.
For notational simplicity, we also omit the labels for the detectors in obvious cases.
\subsection{ORFs for ground-based detectors}\label{sec:2C}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[keepaspectratio, scale=0.2]{earthpair.pdf}
\caption{The relative geometry of the ground-based detector pair $A$ and $B$. The two detectors are on the same great circle and their detector planes are tangential to the earth sphere. The opening angle $\beta$ is measured from the center of the Earth. The angles $\sigma_A$ and $\sigma_B$ correspond to the orientations of the bisectors of the two arms (dotted line) measured counter clock wisely relative to the great circle.}
\label{fig:groundangle}
\end{figure}
Now we focus on the ground-based detectors that are assumed to be tangential to the Earth sphere of the radius $R_E=6400$km. As shown in Fig. 1, the relative geometry of two interferometers $A$ and $B$ are fully characterized by three angles $\beta$, $\sigma_A$ and $\sigma_B$ (following the convention in \cite{Flanagan:1993ix}). The angle $\beta$ represents the opening angle between the two detectors, measured from the center of the Earth, and we have $d=2R_E\sin(\beta/2)$. Meanwhile, the angle $\sigma_{A}$ shows the orientation of the bisector of the two arms of the detector $A$ measured counterclockwise relative to the great circle joining the two detectors. The angle $\sigma_B$ is defined similarly. Below, instead of $\sigma_A$ and $\sigma_B$, we use the angles $\Delta$ and $\delta$
\begin{align}
\Delta &\equiv \frac{\sigma_A + \sigma_B}{2}~, & \delta &\equiv \frac{\sigma_A - \sigma_B}{2}~,
\end{align}
following the standard convention.
The close expressions of the ORFs are presented in \cite{Omiya:2021zif} as
\begin{align}\label{eq:B6}
\gamma^{I_P}_{} &= \Theta_\Delta^{P}(y,\beta) \cos4 \Delta + \Theta_\delta^{P}(y,\beta)\cos4\delta~, & (P &= T,V,S)~,\\
\gamma^{W_P}_{} &= \Xi^{P}(y,\beta) \sin4 \Delta~, & (P &= T,V)~.
\end{align}
Here the angles $\delta$ and $\Delta$ appear only in the forms $\cos 4\delta, \cos4\Delta,$ and $\sin4\Delta$, reflecting certain symmetries \cite{Seto:2007tn}. The coefficients $\Xi^P, \Theta_\Delta^P,$ and $\Theta_\delta^P$ are given by
\begin{align}\label{eq:THDtensor}
\Theta^T_\Delta(y,\beta) &= - \sin^4 \left(\frac{\beta}{2}\right) j_0(y)\cr
& - \frac{5}{56}(-9 + 8\cos\beta + \cos2\beta) j_2(y)\cr
& - \frac{1}{896}(169 + 108 \cos\beta + 3 \cos2\beta) j_4(y)~,\\
\Theta^V_\Delta(y,\beta) &= - \sin^4 \left(\frac{\beta}{2}\right) j_0(y)\cr
&+ \frac{5}{112}(-9 + 8 \cos\beta + \cos2\beta) j_2(y)\cr
&+ \frac{1}{224}(169 + 108 \cos\beta + 3 \cos2\beta) j_4(y)~,\\
\Theta^S_\Delta(y,\beta) &= - \sin^4 \left(\frac{\beta}{2}\right) j_0(y) \cr
&+ \frac{5}{56}(-9 + 8\cos\beta + \cos 2\beta) j_2(y) \cr
&- \frac{3}{448}(169 + 108 \cos\beta + 3 \cos2\beta) j_4(y)~,
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\Theta^T_{\delta}(y,\beta) &= \cos^4\left(\frac{\beta}{2}\right) \left(j_0(y) + \frac{5}{7}j_2(y) + \frac{3}{112} j_4 (y) \right)~,\\
\Theta^V_{\delta}(y,\beta) &=\cos^4\left(\frac{\beta}{2}\right) \left(j_0(y) - \frac{5}{14}j_2(y) - \frac{3}{28} j_4 (y) \right)~,\\
\Theta^S_{\delta}(y,\beta) &=\cos^4\left(\frac{\beta}{2}\right) \left(j_0(y) - \frac{5}{7}j_2(y) + \frac{9}{56} j_4 (y) \right)~,
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\Xi^T(y,\beta) &= \sin\left(\frac{\beta}{2}\right)\left((1-\cos\beta)j_1(y) - \frac{7 + 3 \cos \beta}{8}j_3(y)\right)~,\\
\label{eq:XIvector}
\Xi^V(y,\beta) &= \frac{1}{2}\sin\left(\frac{\beta}{2}\right)\left((1-\cos\beta)j_1(y) + \frac{7 + 3 \cos \beta}{2}j_3(y)\right)
\end{align}
with the spherical Bessel functions $j_n(y)$.
\subsection{Asymptotic Behaviors at $y\to \infty$}\label{sec:2D}
In this subsection, we briefly discuss the asymptotic profiles of the ORFs at $y\to \infty$, based on Eqs.~\eqref{eq:B6}-\eqref{eq:XIvector}.
For the spherical Bessel functions, at large $y$, we have the following correspondences
\begin{align}
\label{eq:asympbessel}
j_{2 l}(y) &\propto \frac{\sin y }{y}~, &
j_{2 l+1}(y) &\propto \frac{\cos y}{y}~,
\end{align}
Then, we can put
\begin{align}\label{eq:asymp}
\gamma^{I_P} &\to C_{I_{P}} \frac{\sin y}{y}~, &
\gamma^{W_P} &\to C_{W_{P}} \frac{\cos y}{y}
\end{align}
with the coefficients $C_{I_P}$ and $C_{W_P}$ presented shortly.
Roughly speaking, these relations show the phase offset of $\sim\pi/2$ (as in the combination of $\sin y$ and $\cos y$),
depending on the two parity types of the background spectra $I^P$ and $W^P$.
We can readily evaluate the coefficients $C_{I_P}$ and $C_{W_P}$ as follows;
\begin{align}
C_{I_T} &= \frac{5}{128} \Bigl(8 \cos ^4\left(\frac{\beta
}{2}\right) \cos 4 \delta \cr
&- (\cos
2 \beta - 28 \cos\beta +35) \cos 4 \Delta \Bigr)~,\\
C_{I_V} &= \frac{5}{8} \cos
^2\left(\frac{\beta }{2}\right) \Bigl(2 \cos
^2\left(\frac{\beta }{2}\right) \cos 4 \delta \cr
&-(\cos
\beta -3) \cos 4 \Delta \Bigr)~,\\
C_{I_S} &= \frac{15}{8} \cos
^4\left(\frac{\beta }{2}\right) (\cos 4 \delta -\cos
4 \Delta )~,
\end{align}
\begin{align}
C_{W_T} &= -\frac{5}{16} \left(-\sin \left(\frac{3 \beta
}{2}\right)+7 \sin \left(\frac{\beta }{2}\right)\right)
\sin 4 \Delta~,\label{56}\\
C_{W_V} &= \frac{5}{2} \sin \left(\frac{\beta
}{2}\right) \cos ^2\left(\frac{\beta }{2}\right) \sin 4
\Delta~.\label{57}
\end{align}
We have $ C_{W_T}\cdot C_{W_V}\le 0$.
Notice that $C_{W_T}$ and $C_{W_V}$ vanish at $\beta = 0$. Two detectors on a plane are apparently mirror symmetric, and thus blind to the parity odd polarizations.
\subsection{Asymptotic Behaviors at $y\to 0$}\label{sec:2E}
At the opposite limit, $y\to 0$, we have
\begin{align}
\gamma^{I_{T,V,S}}(y) &\to 2D_{A,ij}D_B^{ij}\\
&=-\sin^4\left(\frac{\beta}{2}\right)\cos 4\Delta + \cos^4\left(\frac{\beta}{2}\right)\cos 4\delta~, \label{ge0}\\
\gamma^{W_T}(y) &\to 2\sin^3\left(\frac{\beta}{2}\right)y\sin4\Delta ~,\label{go1}\\
\gamma^{W_V}(y) &\to \sin^3\left(\frac{\beta}{2}\right)y\sin4\Delta~.\label{go2}
\end{align}
The first expression shows the degeneracy of the parity even ORFs. Meanwhile, the parity odd ORFs vanish at $y\to0$, due to the parity symmetry of a network at the same place with $d=0$ \cite{Omiya:2021zif}. {Thus, a network becomes blind to the parity odd polarizations for small $y$. }
\subsection{ Trinity degeneracy of even ORFs at the sub-leading order $O(y^2)$}\label{sec:2-F}
At the sub-leading order $O(y^2)$ (or equivalently $O(f^2)$), we can easily confirm a cancellation for the three even ORFs and have
\begin{equation}
\gamma^{I_T}(y)-4\gamma^{I_V}(y) +3\gamma^{I_S}(y)= O(y^4)~.\label{deg}
\end{equation}
This trinity degeneracy will later play an important role in the spectral decomposition of the three even spectra.
\subsection{Degeneracy of odd ORFs at 13Hz}\label{sec:2-G}
For detectors on the Earth, we can put $y=\zeta\sin(\beta/2)$ with $\zeta\equiv 4\pi R_Ef/c$. In Fig. 2, we present a contour plot for the ratio between the odd ORFs
\begin{equation}
\frac{\gamma_{W_T}}{\gamma_{W_V}}=\frac{\Xi^T(y,\beta)}{\Xi^V(y,\beta)}\equiv \Theta (\zeta,\beta).
\end{equation}
At the left end, we can see the limit $\lim_{\zeta\to0}\Theta(\zeta,\beta)=2$ following from Eqs.~\eqref{go1} and \eqref{go2}.
Surprisingly, the function $\Theta$ depends very weakly on $\beta$ around $\zeta=3.57$, as shown with the almost vertical contour $\Theta=1.26$ in Fig. 2. Indeed, along this contour, the variation of $\zeta$ is within $\pm0.01$.
Later, we will find that the odd spectral decomposition practically collapses around $\zeta=3.57$, corresponding to $f=13$Hz for the Earth's radius $R_E=6400$km. This anathematic frequency is intrinsic to ground-based detectors.
In space, we might realize a detector network composed by multiple LISA-like units orbiting around the Sun~\cite{Audley:2017drz,Hu:2017mde} (see also~\cite{Luo:2015ght}). For their typical orbital configuration, we need at least three separated units for fully decomposing the five polarization spectra, and these units contact with a virtual sphere of radius 1.15 a.u.~\cite{Seto:2020zxw,Omiya:2020fvw,Liu:2022umx} (see also \cite{Seto:2020mfd}). In this case, the anathematic frequency becomes 0.57mHz.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[keepaspectratio, scale=0.5]{oddratio.pdf}
\caption{The contour plot for the ratio $\Theta(\zeta,\beta)$. We have the limit $\lim_{\zeta\to 0}\Theta=2$ and almost vertical contour line around $\zeta=3.575$ (corresponding to 13Hz for ground-based detectors). }
\label{fig:corrdif}
\end{figure}
\section{second generation detector network}\label{sec:4}
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{The latitudes, longitudes, and orientations of the five ground-based detectors in units of degree. The angle $\alpha$ is the orientation angle of the bisector of the two arms measured from the local east at each detector\footnote{\url{https://git.ligo.org/}}.}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
detector & latitude & longitude & $\alpha$\\ \hline \hline
KAGRA(K) & 36.41 & 137.31 &74.60\\
LIGO-I(I) & 19.61 & 77.03 & 162.62\\
LIGO-H(H) & 46.45 & -119.41 & 171.00\\
LIGO-L(L) & 30.56 & -90.8 & 242.17\\
Virgo(V) & 43.63 & 10.50 & 115.57\\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\label{tab:position}
\end{table}
\begin{table*}[t]
\caption{(Upper right) The opening angle $\beta$ (in units of degree) of the detector pairs, measured from the center of the Earth. (Lower left) The values of $(\cos4\delta,\cos4\Delta,\sin 4\Delta)$.}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{lccccc}
& KAGRA & LIGO-I & LIGO-H & LIGO-L & Virgo\\ \hline \hline
KAGRA & * & 54.89 & 72.37 & 99.27 & 86.52 \\
LIGO-I & (-0.41,0.63,0.78) & * & 112.28 & 128.47 & 59.79 \\
LIGO-H & (0.99,-0.34,0.94) & (0.75,0.47,-0.88) & * & 27.22 & 79.62 \\
LIGO-L & (-1.00,0.19,-0.98) & (-0.80,-0.06,1.00) & (-1.00,-0.40,-0.91)& * & 76.76\\
Virgo & (-0.60,0.87,0.50)& (-0.99,0.14,-0.99)& (-0.43,-0.80,-0.60) & (-0.31,0.86,-0.50) & *\\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\label{tab:relposition}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[t]
\caption{The expansion coefficients $(C_{I_T},C_{I_V,}C_{I_S})$ (upper right) and $(C_{W_T},C_{W_V})$ (lower left).}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{lccccc}
& KAGRA & LIGO-I & LIGO-H & LIGO-L & Virgo\\ \hline \hline
KAGRA & * & (-0.54,0.43,-1.22) & (0.48,0.15,1.06) & (-0.34,-0.06,-0.39) & (-1.1,0.64,-0.77) \\
LIGO-I & (-0.54,0.70) & * & (-0.80,0.40,0.05) & (0.11,-0.06,-0.05) & (-0.29,-0.53,-1.20)\\
LIGO-H & (-0.93,0.90) & (1.55,-0.57) & * & (-0.11,-1.62,-1.00) & (0.86,-1.02,0.24)\\
LIGO-L & (1.48,-0.78) & (-2.04,0.42) & (0.28,-0.51)& * & (-0.97,0.77,-0.83)\\
Virgo & (-0.63,0.45)& (0.77,-0.93)& (0.68,-0.57) & (0.54,-0.48) & *\\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\label{tab:asympcoef}
\end{table*}
From now on, we mainly discuss the ground-based detector networks composed by the following five second generation interferometers; LIGO-Handford (H), LIGO-India (I), KAGRA (K), LIGO-Livingston (L) and Virgo (V). We present their basic angular parameters in Table~\ref{tab:position}.
From these five interferometers, we can make $\rm _5C_2=10$ pairs and {introduce the abstract index $u$ to represent these ten pairs} $\{{\rm HI, HK,\cdots, LV}\}$. Their relative geometrical parameters are presented in Table~\ref{tab:relposition}.
Since each pair has the five ORFs $\gamma_u^Q(f)$ ($Q; I_T, I_V, I_S, W_T, W_V$), the total number of ORFs is 50. In Fig. \ref{fig:ORFall}, we present all of them at a clip. Later, we will come to deal with the sums of their products such as $\sum_u\gamma_u^Q(f)\gamma_u^{Q'}(f)$, and the collective behaviours of these large number of ORFs would be important there.
As explained in Sec. II.E, at $f=0$, we have the degeneracies $\gamma_u^{I_T}=\gamma_u^{I_V}=\gamma_u^{I_S}$ and $\gamma_u^{W_T}=\gamma_u^{W_V}=~0$. In Fig. \ref{fig:ORFall}, we can easily identify the three conspicuous curves starting from $\gamma_u^Q\simeq-0.9$ at $f=0$. These are the even ORFs of the HL pair. This pair is designed to have a large overlap with $\cos4\delta\simeq -1$.
In Fig. \ref{fig:ORFHL}, its five ORFs are presented, showing loose oscillation patterns due to the small separation angle $\beta$. The small angle $\beta$ also suppresses the amplitudes of the odd ORFs, in contrast to the even ones (see Sec.~\ref{sec:2D} and~\ref{sec:2E}).
Meanwhile, the HI and IL pairs have large separation angles $\beta$ and thus provide relatively large value
\begin{equation}
y\propto f\sin(\beta/2) \label{yf}
\end{equation}
for a given frequency $f$. This will help us to use the higher order correction terms of the variables $y$ (e.g., breaking the spectral degeneracy).
Together with the preferred relative orientation $|\sin4\Delta|\sim 1$, these pairs also have good sensitivities to the odd parity spectra $W_T$ and $W_V$.
As examples of typical pairs, in Fig. \ref{fig:ORFLV}, we show the ORFs of the LV-pair. In the bottom panel, we compare the asymptotic profiles discussed in Sec. II.D. At $f\gtrsim 80$Hz ($y\gtrsim 4\pi$), they show reasonable agreements with the original curves. Accordingly, in the upper panel, we can see the phase offset $\sim \pi/2$ between the odd and even ORFs there. In Table \ref{tab:asympcoef}, we present the asymptotic coefficients $C_Q$ for the ten pairs.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[keepaspectratio, scale=0.5]{plteven_all.pdf}
\includegraphics[keepaspectratio, scale=0.5]{pltodd_all.pdf}
\caption{All the 50 ORFs formed from the five interfeometers H, I, K, L and V. In the upper panel, the three curves starting from $-0.9$ correspond to the HL pair.}
\label{fig:ORFall}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[keepaspectratio, scale=0.4]{ORFLH_all.pdf}
\caption{All the five ORFs of the HL pair with $y=6.3 (f/100{\rm Hz})$. The solid lines correspond to the even ORFs. The dashed lines show the odd ones. }
\label{fig:ORFHL}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[keepaspectratio, scale=0.55]{ORFLV_all.pdf}
\includegraphics[keepaspectratio, scale=0.55]{ORFLV_tensor.pdf}
\caption{The ORFs of the LV pair with $y=16.65 (f/100{\rm Hz})$. (Top) All the five ORFs. The solid lines correspond the even ORFs. The dashed lines are the odd ones. (Bottom) The ORFs for the two tensor modes $I_T $ and $W_T$. The solid ones are the original expressions, and the dotted lines show their asymptotic profiles Eq. \eqref{eq:asymp} with the coefficients $(C_{I_T},C_{W_T})$ given in Table \ref{tab:asympcoef}.}
\label{fig:ORFLV}
\end{figure}
\section{Correlation analysis with ground-based detectors}\label{sec:4A}
Up to this point, we only considered the response of detectors to stochastic backgrounds. In reality, the data streams of the detectors are contaminated by the detector noises. As we see below, the correlation analysis is a powerful framework to coherently amplify the background signals relative to the noises \cite{Flanagan:1993ix,Allen:1997ad}.
Under the existence of the detector noises, the outputs of two detectors $A$ and $B$ can be modeled as
\begin{align}
s_A(f) &= h_A(f) + n_A(f)~, & s_B(f) &= h_B(f) + n_B(f)~.
\end{align}
Here, $h_{A,B}$ are the signals from stochastic backgrounds (see Eq. \eqref{eq:GWsig}) and $n_{A,B}$ are the detector noises. In this paper, we assume the noises $n_{A,B}$ to be stationary, Gaussian, and mutually independent. In addition, the signals are assumed to be much smaller than the noises, namely $|h_{A,B}| \ll |n_{A,B}|$ (the weak signal condition). Then the covariance of the detector noises is given by
\begin{align}\label{eq:noisespec}
\braket{n_A (f)n_B^*(f')} = \frac{\delta_{AB}}{2}N_A(f)\delta(f-f')~,
\end{align}
where $N_A$ is the noise power spectrum.
As a preparation of the correlation analysis, let us take the product of the two outputs of pairwise detectors ($u = AB$) as (again omitting the delta functions)
\begin{align}\label{re}
\mu_{u}(f) \equiv \mathrm{Re}[s_A(f) s_B^*(f)]~.
\end{align}
Here we extracted the real part. This is because, we know the following relation
\begin{eqnarray}
\braket{s_A(f)s^*_B(f)}
&=&
\braket{h_A(f)h_B(f)} + \braket{h_A(f)n_B(f)} \\
& &+ \braket{n_A(f)h_B(f)} + \braket{n_A(f)n_B(f)}]\cr
& =&\braket{h_A(f)h_B(f)} \\
&=& C_u(f) \in {\rm Real}
\end{eqnarray}
for the expectation value (using the statistical independence between $h_{A,B}$ and $n_{A,B}$). As we see shortly, this projection can reduce the associated noise level \cite{Seto:2006hf}.
The variance can be calculated similarly. Under the weak signal condition ($|h_A(f)| \ll |n_A(f)|$), we have
\begin{align}\label{eq:varianceab}
\mathcal{N}_{u}(f) =& \braket{\mu_{u}^{2}} - \braket{\mu_{u}}^2 \sim \braket{\mu_{u}^{2}}\cr
=& \frac{1}{4}\braket{(s_As_B^* + s_A^*s_B)(f)(s_As_B^* + s_A^*s_B)(f)}\cr
\sim& \frac{1}{2}\braket{n_A(f)n_B^*(f) n_A^*(f) n_B(f)}\cr
=& \frac{1}{8} N_A(f) N_B(f) ~
\end{align}
with $\sqrt{\mathcal{N}_u(f)} \gg \left\langle \mu_u(f)\right\rangle $. Note that we have the additional factor $2^{-1}$ due to the real projection \eqref{re}.
The basic idea of the correlation analysis is to coherently amplify the background signal relative to the noise, by using a large number of Fourier modes, after a long observational time. We now explain this by deriving Eqs. \eqref{eq:59} and \eqref{eq:varianceab}.
To deal with the frequency dependence, we first divide the Fourier modes into $N$
bins $(B_1,B_2,\cdots,B_\rho,\cdots ,B_N)$ characterized by the central frequencies $f_\rho$ and a fixed width $\delta f$ \cite{Seto:2006hf}.
We take $\delta f$ to be much smaller than $f_\rho$, such that involved quantities ({\it e.g.} $I^{P}(f),W^P(f),$ and $\gamma^{I_P,W_P}(f)$) are nearly the same in each bin. Meanwhile, we also set the width $\delta f$ to be much larger than the frequency resolution $T_{\rm obs}^{-1}$ determined by the observation time $T_{\rm obs}$ ({\it i.e.} the number of the modes $T_{\rm obs}\delta f\gg 1$ in each bin).
Now, we sum up the product $\mu_u$ in each bin as
\begin{align}
\mu_{u}^{\rho} =& \sum_{f\in B_\rho}\mathrm{Re}[s_A(f)s_B(f)^* ]\cr
\simeq &\sum_{f\in B_\rho}\mathrm{Re}[h_A(f)h_B(f)^* +n_A(f)n_B(f)^* ]\label{eq:estsum}\\
\simeq &\braket{\mu_{u}^{\rho}}
+\sum_{f\in B_\rho}\mathrm{Re}[n_A(f)n_B(f)^* ]~.\label{eq:estsum2}
\end{align}
In Eq. \eqref{eq:estsum}, the first term comes from the background and can be coherently amplified. On the other hand, the second term is due to the noises and is not amplified because of its incoherence.
Let us calculate the expectation value and the variance of the compressed estimator $\mu_u^\rho$. From Eqs. \eqref{eq:GWcorr} and \eqref{eq:GWexp}, the expectation value $\braket{\mu_u^\rho}$ is given by
\begin{align}
\braket{\mu_{u}^{\rho}} =& \sum_{f\in B_\rho} \mathrm{Re}[\braket{h_A(f)h_B(f)^* }] \cr
\sim& \frac{8\pi}{5} T_{obs}\delta f \left(\sum_{P = T,V,S} \gamma^{I_P}_{u}(f_\rho) I_P(f_\rho) \right.\cr
&\left. + \sum_{P=T,V} \gamma^{W_P}_{u}(f_c) W_P(f_c)\right) \label{eq:59} ~.
\end{align}
The variance is given by the second term in Eq. \eqref{eq:estsum} as
\begin{align}\label{eq:varianceab}
\mathcal{N}_{u}^{\rho} =& \braket{\mu_{u}^{\rho2}} - \braket{\mu_{u}^{\rho}}^2\cr
\sim& \frac{1}{2}\sum_{f}\sum_{f'}\braket{n_A(f) n_A^*(f')} \braket{n_B(f) n_B^*(f')} \cr
\sim& \frac{T_{obs} \delta f}{8} N_A(f_\rho) N_B(f_\rho) ~
\end{align}
with no noise correlation between different pairs (e.g., between HK and HL).
The last line is obtained by substitution of Eq. \eqref{eq:noisespec}. These expressions show that expectation value $\braket{\mu^\rho_{u}}$ is proportional to the number of the Fourier modes $T_{obs}\delta f$ but the variance $\sqrt{\mathcal{N}^\rho_u}$ is proportional to $\sqrt{T_{obs} \delta f}$. For $T_{obs}\delta f \gg 1$, the background signal is relatively amplified to the noise, as expected.
Combining Eqs. \eqref{eq:59} and \eqref{eq:varianceab}, we obtain the SNR of each bin as
\begin{align}
{\rm SNR}_{u}^{\rho 2} &= \frac{\braket{\mu_{u}^{\rho}}^2}{\mathcal{N}_{u}^{\rho}}\cr
&\sim 2 \left(\frac{16 \pi}{5}\right)^2 \frac{T_{obs} \delta f}{N_A(f_\rho) N_B(f_\rho)} \left(\sum_{P = T,V,S} \gamma^{I_P}_{u}(f_\rho) I_P(f_\rho) \right.\cr
&\left.+ \sum_{P=T,V} \gamma^{W_P}_{u}(f_\rho) W_P(f_\rho)\right)^2~.
\end{align}
Quadratically summing up all the frequency bin, we obtain total SNR for the detector pair $u$ as
\begin{align}\label{eq:SNRsingle}
{\rm SNR}_{u}^2 & = \sum_{\rho} {\rm SNR}_{u}^{\rho2} \cr
&= 2 T_{obs} \left(\frac{16 \pi}{5}\right)^2\cr
& \times \int df \frac{\left(\sum_{P = T,V,S} \gamma^{P}_{u} I_P + \sum_{T,V} \gamma^{W_P}_{u} W_P\right)^2}{N_A(f) N_B(f)}~.
\end{align}
In this paper, we assume that all detectors have the noise spectrum $N_{\rm AL}$ identical to the design sensitivity of the advanced LIGO \cite{aLIGOsensitivity} (see Fig. \ref{fig:noise} for $N_{\rm AL}(f)$).
{Considering the current status of the LVK-network, this assumption looks unrealistic. However, it is virtually difficult for a largely less sensitive detector to make an effective contribution to the network, and we expect that our assumption will eventually become a reasonable approximation.}
Note that it is, in principle, straightforward to taking into account the difference between detector noise spectra for the rest of this paper.
For simplicity, unless otherwise stated, we also assume flat spectra $\Omega_{GW}^Q(f)\propto f^0$ for the injected backgrounds.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[keepaspectratio, scale=0.42]{Noisecurve.pdf}
\caption{Noise power spectrum of advanced LIGO, taken from \cite{aLIGOsensitivity}. {The spike around 9Hz is due to the resonance of the anti-vibration components.}}
\label{fig:noise}
\end{figure}
In the upper right panel of Table \ref{tab:SNR1}, we present SNR$_u$ for $\Omega_{GW}^{I_T}=10^{-8}$, setting other four spectra at zero. Similarly, in the lower left part, we show SNR$_u$ only with the non-vanishing compoent $\Omega_{GW}^{W_T}=10^{-8}$ (ignoring the physical requirement $|\Omega_{GW}^{W_T}|\le \Omega_{GW}^{I_T}$). In the ten detector pairs, the HL pair has the best sensitivity to $I_T$, but the worst sensitivity to $W_T$. This is due to the small separation angle $\beta=27^\circ$ of the HL pair, as pointed out earlier in Sec. \ref{sec:2D}. In contrast, the IL pair has the worst sensitivity to $I_T$ but the best sensitivity to $W_T$ with the largest separation angle $\beta=128^\circ$.
\begin{table*}[t]\label{tab:SNR1}
\caption{The upper right corresponds to ${\rm SNR}_{AB}$ for $\Omega^{I_T}_{GW}=10^{-8} $ setting other four spectra at zero. The lower left is only with
$\Omega^{W_V}_{GW}=10^{-8} $.}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{lccccc}
& KAGRA & LIGO-I & LIGO-H & LIGO-L & Virgo\\ \hline \hline
KAGRA & * & 2.16 & 2.42 & 1.38 & 4.47\\
LIGO-I & 2.32& * & 2.79 & 0.34 & 3.27 \\
LIGO-H & 3.67 & 5.07 & * & 15.4 &3.51 \\
LIGO-L & 5.09 & 6.33 & 1.04 & * & 3.83\\
VIRGO & 2.28 & 3.22& 2.56 & 2.07& *
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{table*}
\if0
Note that the compressed estimator $\mu^{\rho}_{u}$ approximately has the Gaussian probability distribution function
\begin{align}\label{eq:63}
P(\mu_{u}^{\rho}) \propto \exp\left(-\frac{(\mu_{u}^{\rho} - \braket{\mu_{u}^{\rho}})^2}{2 \mathcal{N}_{u}^{\rho}}\right)~,
\end{align}
dye to the large number of Fourier modes in the bin ($T_{obs} \delta f \gg 1$). In the following section, by generalizing the probability distribution Eq. \eqref{eq:63}, we study the signal analysis with multiple pairs of detectors.
\fi
For a background purely made by $I_T$, we have the network sensitivity
\begin{align}\label{eq:SNRref}
{\rm SNR}_{I_T}^2 = 2 T_{obs} \left(\frac{16 \pi}{5}\right)^2 \int df \frac{\sum_{u} \left(\gamma^{I_T }_{u}\right)^2 I_T^2}{N_{\rm AL}^2(f)}~.
\end{align}
For the HIKLV network and a flat spectrum, we numerically have
\begin{align}\label{eq:snmax}
{\rm SNR}_{I_T} = 19.0 \left(\frac{\Omega_{GW}^{I_T}}{10^{-8}}\right)\left(\frac{T_{obs}}{3 {\rm yr}}\right)^{1/2}(\equiv{\rm SNR}_0)~,
\end{align}
which gives the maximum sensitivity to $I_T$ achieved by the five detectors. In Eq. \eqref{eq:snmax}, we introduced the notation ${\rm SNR}_0$ in order to use this result as a reference value in our study below.
\section{Separation of the five components}\label{sec:4B}
As shown in Eq. (\ref{eq:59}), the expectation value of a single segment $\left\langle \mu_u^\rho(f)\right\rangle$ is given as the linear combination of the five spectra $Q=\{I_T,I_V,I_S,W_T,W_V\}$. For testing alternative gravity theories, we would like to handle them separately. Such a method has been discussed in the literature ($I_T$ and $W_T$ in \cite{Seto:2006dz,Seto:2008sr}, and $I_T,I_V,$ and $I_S$ in \cite{Nishizawa:2009bf}). Its basic strategy is to take the appropriate linear combinations of the cross correlation signals $ \mu_u^\rho(f)$ and algebraically isolate the background spectra.
To this end, we need at least 5 detector pairs. This can be satisfied by 4 or more detectors, which provide 6 or more pairs (not equal to 5). Thus the spectral decomposition is actually an overdetermined problem.
{
Our first objective in this section is to present a simple expression for the signal-to noise ratios ${\rm SNR}^\rho_{Q}$ after the algebraic spectral decomposition.
However, as outlined in Sec. VA, under the orthodox approach, we have a technical difficulty at deriving the simplified expression ${\rm SNR}^\rho_{Q}$. Thus, basically following the arguments in Ref. \cite{Seto:2008sr}, we provide the desired expression that is not proven in a precise mathematical sense.
}
\subsection{Orthodox Approach}
As an example, let us consider the five detector network with 10 data set $\mu_u^\rho$ $(u=1,\cdots,10)$. Each segment contains the five polarization spectra as in Eq.~\eqref{eq:59}. Using the difference between the ORFs,
we can isolate a specific spectrum $Q$ (e.g., $I_V$) by algebraically cancelling other four spectra (e.g., $I_T,I_S,W_T,W_V$). Then we obtain the six linear combinations of the original data $\mu_u^\rho$.
In contrast to the original ten data $\mu_u^\rho$, the resultant six combinations have correlated detector noises. We can newly generate six noise orthogonal combinations, as a standard eigenvalue decomposition for the $6\times 6$ noise matrix. Then, quadratically adding the six orthogonal elements, we obtain the network SNR for the target spectrum $Q$. We can formally put
\begin{align}
({\rm SNR}_Q^\rho)^2=2T_{obs}\delta f \left(\frac{16 \pi}{5}\right)^2 \frac{Q(f)^2X_Q(f)}{N_{\rm AL}^2(f)}. \label{x2}
\end{align}
Here the factor $X_Q(f)$ is given by the 50 ORFs, and can be effectively regarded as the square of a compiled ORF.
Unfortunately, following the above line of argument, we could not analytically obtain the simplified symmetrical form for the factor $X_Q(f)$ even with Mathematica.
\subsection{Alternative Approach}
In Ref. \cite{Seto:2008sr}, a convenient construction scheme was deduced for the factor $X_Q$, on the basis of the likelihood study for the multiple spectra (closely related to the Fisher matrix analyses). Here we concisely provide their final expression (see \cite{Seto:2008sr} for detail).
We first compose a $5\times5$ matrix $F$ as
\begin{align}\label{eq:covariance}
F^{QQ'} \equiv \sum_{u=1}^{n_p}\gamma^{Q}_u \gamma^{Q'}_u~.
\end{align}
Next, we take its inverse matrix
\begin{equation}
\Sigma\equiv F^{-1}~.
\end{equation}
Then, we presume the following relation for the factor $X_Q$
\begin{equation}
X_Q=\frac1{\Sigma^{QQ}(f)}. \label{simp}
\end{equation}
Below, we mention some circumstance evidences for its validity.
For decomposing only two spectra (e.g., $I_T$ and $W_T$), we can analytically confirmed that this relation is actually true for an arbitrary number of detectors. For the five spectral decomposition with ten detector pairs, we numerically generated the 50 ORFs randomly in the range $[-1,1]$ and evaluated the both sides of Eq. \eqref{simp} with Mathematica. We repeated this experiments for many times and confirmed equality within numerical accuracy. Note that, with Mathematica, we need much less computational resources at numerical evaluation than at corresponding symbolic processing.
We hereafter use relation \eqref{simp} and put
\begin{align}
({\rm SNR}_Q^\rho)^2=\frac{\delta f}f Z_Q(f) \left(\frac{\Omega_{GW}^Q(f)}{10^{-8}}\right)^2 \left( \frac{T_{obs}}{\rm 3yr} \right) ,
\end{align}
where we defined (e.g., with Eqs. (\ref{e17}) and (\ref{x2}))
\begin{equation}
Z_Q(f)\equiv 3.7\times 10^{-82} {X_Q}(f) \left(\frac{f}{\rm 1 Hz} \right)^{-5} \left(\frac{N_{AL}(f)}{\rm 1 Hz^{-1}} \right)^{-2} \label{79}~.
\end{equation}
{Here we used $H_0 = 70{\rm km~s^{-1}~Mpc^{-1}}$.}
This function $Z_Q(f)$ shows the contribution of background signals from various frequencies.
After the frequency integral, we obtain
\begin{align}
({\rm SNR}_Q)^2=\int_0^\infty \frac{df}f Z_Q(f) \left(\frac{\Omega_{GW}^Q(f)}{10^{-8}}\right)^2 \left( \frac{T_{obs}}{\rm 3yr} \right) . \label{int}
\end{align}
\section{Statistical loss associated with the mode separation}\label{sec:7}
We now examine the matrices $F$ and $\Sigma$, in particular the role of their off-diagonal elements.
\subsection{Reduction Factors}
For simplicity, we first deal with the two component analysis with the spectra $I_T$ and $Q'$ $(Q' =I_V,I_S$ or $ W_T)$. The $2\times2$ matrix $F$ is given by
\begin{align}
F=& \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\sum_{u=1}^{n_p}\gamma_u^{I_T} \gamma_u^{I_T} & \sum_{u=1}^{n_p}\gamma_u^{I_T}\gamma_u^{Q'} \\
\sum_{u=1}^{n_p}\gamma_u^{I_T}\gamma_u^{Q'} & \sum_{u=1}^{n_p} \gamma_u^{Q'} \gamma_u^{Q'}
\end{array}
\right)~,
\end{align}
and we have
\begin{align}
X_{I_T}=\frac1{\Sigma_{I_TI_T}}=(1-R_{I_TQ'}^2) \sum_{u=1}^{n_p}\gamma_u^{I_T} \gamma_u^{I_T}~,\label{x3}\\
X_{Q'}=\frac1{\Sigma_{Q'Q'}}=(1-R_{I_TQ'}^2) \sum_{u=1}^{n_p}\gamma_u^{Q'} \gamma_u^{Q'}~.
\end{align}
Here we defined the coefficient $R_{I_TQ'}$ by
\begin{align}
R_{I_TQ'} \equiv& \frac{\sum_{u=1}^{n_p} \gamma^{I_T}_u \gamma^{Q'}_u}{\sqrt{\sum_{u=1}^{n_t} \left(\gamma^{I_T}_u\right)^2}\sqrt{ \sum_{u=1}^{n_p}\left(\gamma^{Q'}_u\right)^2}}~.
\end{align}
From Cauchy-Schwartz inequality, we have $|R_{I_TQ'}|\le 1$ with equality only for two parallel vectors $\{ \gamma^{I_T}_u \}$ and $\{ \gamma^{Q'}_u \}$. The coefficient $R_{I_TQ'}$ represents the correlation between the two spectra and reduces SNRs after the spectral decomposition through the factor $(1-R_{I_TQ'}^2)$ (see Eqs. \eqref{x2} and \eqref{x3}). This factor shows the statistical loss associated with the decomposition.
So far, we discussed two component decomposition. When the number $n_Q$ of the target spectral components is larger than two ($n_Q>2$),
we can similarly define the reduction factor $1-R_{Q_i}^2$ ($i=1,\cdots,n_Q$) by
\begin{align}
1-R_{Q_i}^2=\frac{X_{Q_i}(f)}{\sum_u \gamma_u^{Q_i}\gamma_u^{Q_i}}=\frac1{(F^{-1})^{Q_iQ_i}F^{Q_iQ_i}}~.
\end{align}
Note that we omitted the subscripts other than the component of interest for the notational simplicity.
If the vectors $\{ \gamma_u^{Q_i} \}$ ($i=1,\cdots,n_Q$) are close to linearly dependent, the matrix $F$ becomes nearly singular, and we could have $|(F^{-1})^{Q_iQ_i}F^{Q_iQ_i}|\gg 1$, resulting in a large signal loss $1-R_{Q_i}^2 \ll 1$.
In this relation, our two new findings in Sec. II could play interesting roles, as explained in the next subsection.
\subsection{Numerical Results}
In Fig. 7, we show the reduction factor $(1-R_{I_T}^2)$ for the two component models $\{I_T,I_V\}$ (upper) and
$\{I_T,I_S\}$ (lower). As shown in Eq. (\ref{ge0}), we have the degeneracy $\lim_{f\to 0} \{\gamma_u^{I_T}\}=\{\gamma_u^{I_V}\}=\{\gamma_u^{I_S}\}$ and need the sub-leading correction $O(f^2)$ to decompose the two spectra. We thus have a significant suppression $(1-R_{I_T}^2)\lesssim 0.1$ at $f\lesssim10$Hz.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[keepaspectratio, scale=0.6]{corr_TV.pdf}
\includegraphics[keepaspectratio, scale=0.6]{corr_TS.pdf}
\caption{The reduction factors $1-R_{I_T I_V}^2$ (upper) and $1-R_{I_T I_S}^2$ (lower) respectively for the two component analyses $\{I_T, I_V \}$ and $\{I_T, I_S \}$.
}
\label{fig:corrsame}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[keepaspectratio, scale=0.6]{RWTV.pdf}
\caption{The reduction factors $1-R_{W_T W_V}^2$ for the hypothetical two component analysis $\{W_T, W_V \}$. }
\label{fig:corrdif}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[keepaspectratio, scale=0.6]{RIT.pdf}
\caption{The reduction factors $1-R_{T_T}^2$ for the three and five component analyses. }
\label{fig:corrdif}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[keepaspectratio, scale=0.6]{corr_TT.pdf}
\caption{The reduction factors $1-R_{I_T W_T}^2$ for the two component analysis $\{I_T, W_T \}$. }
\label{fig:corrdif}
\end{figure}
In Fig. 8, we examined the hypothetical case for decomposing the two odd spectra $\{W_T,W_V\}$. Their ORFs are parallel at the low frequency limit and nearly parallel around the anathematic frequency 13Hz. We thus have the siginificant signal reduction below 13Hz, as in Fig. 8.
Next we move to examine the decomposition of more than two spectra $n_Q>2$. In Fig. 9, we show the reduction factor $(1-R_{I_T}^2)$ at separating the three even spectra $\{I_T,I_V,I_S\}$. In contrast to the two component cases in Fig. 7, the strong suppression $1-R_{I_T}^2\lesssim 0.1$ continues up to $20$Hz. This is because the trinity degeneracy \eqref{deg} works still at the sub-leading order $O(f^2)$. We thus need the higher corrections $O(f^4)$ to isolate the three spectra. In fact, even for a detector network not tangential to a sphere, we still have $\det F=O(f^4)$ for the $3\times3$ matrix $F$ of the three even spectra $\{I_T,I_V,I_S\}$.
Note that the LIGO-India plays a key role for the usage of the higher order terms $O(f^4)$ (or more appropriately $O(y^4)$ for the perturbative expansion). In Fig. 9, we can clearly see the resulting improvement around 20-40Hz. Here the mechanism around Eq. \eqref{yf} works efficiently, in particular, with the HI and IL pairs.
In Fig. 10, we present the result for the two tensorial spectra $\{I_T,W_T\}$. Since their ORFs $\{\gamma_u^{I_T}\}$ and $\{\gamma_u^{W_T}\}$ are generally not parallel, the reduction is not significant.
If we use the HIKLV pair, the reduction factor is no less than 0.8.
\section{Signal to noise ratio}\label{sec:8}
\subsection{Results for the HIKLV Network}
Now we discuss the signal-to-noise ratios ${\rm SNR}_Q$ after the spectral decomposition and the associated frequency profiles $Z_{Q}(f)$ defined in Eq. (\ref{79}). We start with the results for the HIKLV network and flat spectra $\Omega_{GW}^Q= {\rm const}$.
In Fig. 11, we show the profile $Z_{I_T}(f)$ for $I_T$. The sharp dip around 10Hz is caused by the noise spike in Fig. 5. The uppermost blue line shows the result for the simplest case only with $I_T$ (no reduction factor). Its peak is around 25Hz with the integrated value ${\rm SNR}_{I_T}$ (see Eq.~\eqref{eq:snmax})
\begin{equation}
{\rm SNR}_0=19.0 \left(\frac{\Omega_{GW}^{I_T}}{10^{-8}}\right)\left(\frac{T_{obs}}{3 {\rm yr}}\right)^{1/2}.
\end{equation}
We use this expression to normalize the signals ${\rm SNR}_Q$ in different settings, as presented in Tables V and VI.
In Fig. 11, the four lines other than the blue one show the profiles $Z_{I_T}(f)$ after decomposing multiple spectra. Their fractional differences from the blue lines represent the corresponding reduction factor $(1-R_{I_T}^2)$.
At the decomposition of $I_T$ and $W_T$ (dashed orange line in Fig. 12), the statistical loss is inconspicuous with the total value ${\rm SNR}_{I_T}/{\rm SNR}_0=0.99$ (see Table V).
However, we need to pay a significant cost to isolate the three even spectra $I_T$, $I_V$ and $I_S$. The total signal decreases down to ${\rm SNR}_{I_T}/{\rm SNR}_0=0.47$ and the peak of the profile $Z_{I_T}(f)$ moves up to $\sim 40$Hz.
In Figure 12 and Table VI, we show the results for the odd tensor spectrum $W_T$. Similarly to Fig. 11, we can isolate it from $I_T$ with almost no loss of the integrated signal ${\rm SNR}_{W_T}$ (see Table VI).
When we separate $W_T$ and $W_V$, the anathematic frequency 13Hz clearly appears, as shown by the green and red lines, and the function $Z_{W_T}(f)$ is significantly suppressed below $\sim20$Hz. In contrast to $Z_{I_T}(f)$, the peak of the profile
$Z_{W_T}(f)$ stays around 25Hz.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[keepaspectratio, scale=0.6]{YIT.pdf}
\caption{ The factor $Z_{I_T}(f)$ showing the signal strength defined in Eq. (\ref{79}) for the HIKLV network. The blue and orange curves are nearly overlapped. The ratio between the blue and other curves corresponds to the reduction factor $1-R_{I_T}^2$ due to the signal correlation. The sharp dip around 9Hz is due to the noise spectrum $N_{AL}(f)$. }
\label{fig:corrsame}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[keepaspectratio, scale=0.6]{YWT.pdf}
\caption{The factor $Z_{W_T}(f)$ showing the signal strength defined in Eq. (\ref{79}) for the HIKLV network. The green and the red curves have the sharp dips around 13Hz. }
\label{fig:corrsame}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[keepaspectratio, scale=0.60]{YIT_India.pdf}
\includegraphics[keepaspectratio, scale=0.60]{YWT_India.pdf}
\caption{The top and bottom panels respectively show $Z_{I_T}(f)$ and $Z_{I_T}(f)$ for three networks. The dotted lines in the upper panel are proportional to $f^2$ and $f^{-2}$. }
\label{fig:corrsame}
\end{figure}
\subsection{LIGO-India}
Next we discuss the impacts of adding LIGO-India to the detector network. As shown in Table V, for the single spectral search $I_T$, LIGO-India increases the total signal $SNR_{I_T}$ by only 3\%. However, together with KAGRA, it makes a notable contribution to improve the sensitivity to the odd spectra $W_T$ (see Table VI). In addition, as explained earlier, LIGO-India also helps us to use the higher order terms $O(f^4)$ for decomposing the three even spectra. For the five spectral search, we can double both ${\rm SNR}_{I_T}$ and ${\rm SNR}_{W_T}$ by adding the LIGO-India detector.
\subsection{Power-law Models}
So far, we have assumed that the background has flat spectra $\Omega_{GW}^Q= {\rm const}$. Now, we briefly discuss a power-law form $\Omega_{GW}^Q\propto f^\alpha$ in the frequency regime in interest.
The integrated signal ${\rm SNR}_Q$ in Eq. (\ref{int}) has the dominant contribution around the frequency where the function $Z_Q(f)$ is tangential to a curve $f^{-2\alpha}$. As deduced from Fig. 13, for the five spectral decompositions with the HIKLV network, the tangential frequencies are 40Hz for $I_T$ and 25Hz for $W_T$, as long as the index $\alpha$ is in the range $[-1,1]$. Therefore, the total signals are very roughly given as
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm SNR}_{I_T}\sim 19\times 0.4 \left(\frac{\Omega_{GW}^{I_T}({\rm 40Hz})}{10^{-8}}\right)\left(\frac{T_{obs}}{3 {\rm yr}}\right)^{1/2}\\
{\rm SNR}_{W_T}\sim 19\times 0.39 \left(\frac{\Omega_{GW}^{W_T}({\rm 25Hz})}{10^{-8}}\right)\left(\frac{T_{obs}}{3 {\rm yr}}\right)^{1/2}.
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Ratio ${\rm SNR}_{I_T}/{\rm SNR}_0$ after the spectral isolation. All five components of LHV is missing since LHV has only three independent detector pairs. We assumed a flat spectrum $\Omega_{GW}^{I_T}
={\rm const}$.
}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
background components & KILHV & KLHV & LHV\\ \hline \hline
$I_{T}$ only & 1 & 0.97 & 0.91\\
$I_{T},W_{T}$ & 0.99 & 0.96 & 0.91\\
$I_{T},I_{V}$ & 0.63 & 0.57 & 0.47\\
$I_{T},I_{S}$ & 0.89 & 0.82 & 0.74\\
$I_{T},I_{V},I_{S}$ & 0.47 & 0.33 & 0.22\\
All five & 0.40 & 0.20 & *\\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\label{tab:5}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Ratio ${\rm SNR}_{W_T}/{\rm SNR}_0$ after the spectral isolation. We assume flat spectra and omit the factor $\Omega_{GW}^{W_T}/\Omega_{GW}^{I_T}$ for simplicity. }
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
background components & KILHV & KLHV & LHV\\ \hline \hline
$W_{T}$ only & 0.62 & 0.40 & 0.18\\
$W_{T},I_{T}$ & 0.62 & 0.39 & 0.18\\
$W_{T},W_{V}$ & 0.43 & 0.20 & 0.06\\
All five & 0.39 & 0.17 & *\\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\label{tab:5}
\end{table}
\section{Summary}\label{sec:9}
In this paper, we studied the prospects for the polarizational study of isotropic stochastic gravitational wave backgrounds by correlating second generation detectors.
In the long-wave approximation, the backgrounds are generally characterized by the five spectra $I_{T,V,S}$ and $W_{T,V}$. The modes other than $I_T$ can appear in modified theories of gravity.
For correlation analysis, the ORFs play key roles. In this paper, we newly identified two simple relations behind them. The first one is the trinity degeneracy (\ref{deg}) between the three even ORFs at the sub-leading order $O(f^2)$. The second one is the degeneracy between the two odd ORFs around the specific frequency 13Hz.
For each detector pair, the correlation product is given as a linear combination of the five spectra.
To closely examine theories of gravitation, we desire to separate the five spectra clearly.
We thus examined their algebraic decomposition using the difference between the involved ORFs. Here we generally need to handle an over-determined problem.
By extending an analytic framework in the literature, we derived the formal expression (\ref{int}) for the optimal SNRs after the spectral decomposition.
Then, assuming an identical noise curve for the five detectors and flat background spectra, we discussed the statistical loss of sensitivities accompanied by the decomposition. This loss is closely related to the off-diagonal elements of the matrix $F^{QQ'}\propto \sum_{i=1}^{n_p} \gamma_u^Q \gamma_u^{Q'}$.
In this context, our two findings are quite useful for following the singular behaviors at the decomposition.
On the one hand, when simultaneously dealing with the three even spectra, due to the higher order degeneracy of their ORFs, we have a large signal reduction below 20Hz, unlike the two spectral decomposition (such as $I_T-I_V$ and $I_T-I_S$). On the other hand, it is very difficult to separate the two odd spectra below $\sim 20$Hz, including the anathematic frequency 13Hz. Given the structure of the covariance matrix $F$, these limitations will also appear in the likelihood or Fisher matrix analyses.
We also discussed the advantage of adding the LIGO-India detector to the ground-based detector network. As shown in Tables V and VI, it can largely increase the sensitivities to the odd spectra and will also help us to decompose multiple spectra. Here the HI and LI pairs are particularly useful with the large separation angles $\beta$.
In this paper, we have mainly considered the second generation ground-based detectors. However, our method is general enough to be straightforwardly applied to the third generation ground-based detectors (such as ET~\cite{Punturo:2010zz} and CE~\cite{Reitze:2019iox}, see also ~\cite{Amalberti:2021kzh}) and partially to space borne detectors (LISA~\cite{Audley:2017drz}, TAIJI~\cite{Hu:2017mde}, and TianQin~\cite{Luo:2015ght}). The former will cover a lower frequency regime than that of the second generation ones and will be more severely affected by the limitations associated with our two findings.
\acknowledgments
We would like to thank M. Ando and S. Bose for valuable comments. This work is supported by JSPS Kakenhi Grant-in-Aid
for Scientific Research (Nos. 17H06358 and 19K03870). HO is supported by Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Fellows JP22J14159.
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $X$ be a connected compact complex K\"ahler manifold of dimension $\ge 2$, $\mathrm{H}^2(X,\BQ)$ its second rational cohomology group equipped with the canonical rational Hodge structure, i.e., there is the Hodge decomposition
$$\mathrm{H}^2(X,\BQ)\otimes_{\BQ}\BC=\mathrm{H}^2(X,\BC)=\mathrm{H}^{2,0}(X)\oplus \mathrm{H}^{1,1}(X)\oplus \mathrm{H}^{2,0}(X)$$
where
$\mathrm{H}^{2,0}(X)=\Omega^2(X)$ is the space of holomorphic $2$-forms on $X$,
$\mathrm{H}^{0,2}(X)$ is the ``complex-conjugate'' of $\mathrm{H}^{2,0}(X)$ and
$\mathrm{H}^{1,1}(X)$ coincides with its own ``complex-conjugate'' (see
\cite[Sections 2.1--2.2]{DeligneH2}, \cite[Ch. VI-VII]{V})).
The following property of $X$ was introduced and studied by
F. Campana \cite[Definition 3.3]{Campana}. (Recently, it was used in the study of coisotropic and lagrangian submanifolds of symplectic manifolds \cite{AC}.)
\begin{defn}
\label{CampDef}
A manifold $X$ is {\sl irreducible in weight 2} (irr\'eductible en poids 2) if it
enjoys the following property.
Let $H$ be a rational Hodge substructure of $\mathrm{H}^2(X,\BQ)$ such that
$$H_{\BC}\cap \mathrm{H}^{2,0}(X)\ne \{0\}$$
where $H_{\BC}:=H\otimes_{\BQ}\BC$.
Then $H_{\BC}$ contains the whole $\mathrm{H}^{2,0}(X)$.
\end{defn}
Our aim is to study complex tori $T$ that enjoy this property.
\begin{sect}
Let $T=V/\Lambda$ be a complex torus of positive dimension $g$ where $V$ is a $g$-dimensional complex vector space, and $\Lambda$ is a discrete lattice of rank $2g$ in $V$.
One may naturally identify $\Lambda$ with the first integral homology group $\mathrm{H}_1(T,\BZ)$ of $T$ and
$$\Lambda_{\BQ}=\Lambda\otimes \BQ=\{v \in V \mid \exists n\in \BZ\setminus \{0\} \ \text{ such that } nv \in \Lambda\}$$
with the first rational homology group $\mathrm{H}_1(T,\BQ)$ of $T$.
There are also natural isomorphisms of real vector spaces
$$\Lambda \otimes \BR =\Lambda_{\BQ}\otimes_{\BQ}\BR \to V, \ \lambda\otimes r \mapsto r\lambda$$
that may be viewed as isomorphisms related to the first real cohomology group $\mathrm{H}_1(T,\BR)$ of $T$:
$$\mathrm{H}_1(T,\BR)=\mathrm{H}_1(T,\BZ)\otimes\BR =\mathrm{H}_1(T,\BQ)\otimes_{\BQ}\BR \to V.$$
In particular, there is a canonical isomorphism of real vector spaces
\begin{equation}
\label{VR}
\mathrm{H}_1(T,\BR)=V,
\end{equation}
and a canonical isomorphism of complex vector spaces
\begin{equation}
\label{VC}
\mathrm{H}_1(T,\BC) =\mathrm{H}_1(T,\BQ)\otimes_{\BQ}\BC=\mathrm{H}_1(T,\BR)\otimes_{\BR}\BC=V\otimes_{\BR}\BC=:V_{\BC}
\end{equation}
where $ \mathrm{H}_1(T,\BC)$ is the first complex homology group of $T$.
There are natural isomorphisms of $\BR$-algebras
$$\End_{\BZ}(\Lambda)\otimes \BR \cong \End_{\BR}(V), \ u\otimes r\mapsto ru,$$
$$\End_{\BQ}(\Lambda_{\BQ})\otimes \BR \cong \End_{\BR}(V), \ u\otimes r\mapsto ru,$$
which give rise to the natural ring embeddings
\begin{equation}
\label{embedZQR}
\End_{\BZ}(\Lambda)\subset \End_{\BQ}(\Lambda_{\BQ})\subset \End_{\BR}(V)\subset \End_{\BR}(V)\otimes_{\BR}\BC=\End_{\BC}(V_{\BC}).
\end{equation}
Here the structure of an $2g$-dimensional {\sl complex} vector space on $V_{\BC}$ is defined by
$$z (v\otimes s)=v\otimes zs \ \forall v\otimes s \in V\otimes_{\BR}\BC=V_{\BC}, \ z \in \BC.$$
If $u \in \End_{\BR}(V)$ then we write $u_{\BC}$ for the corresponding $\BC$-linear operator in $V_{\BC}$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\label{notationAbuse}
u_{\BC}(v\otimes z)=u(v)\otimes z \ \forall u \in V, z \in \BC, v\otimes z\in V_{\BC}.
\end{equation}
\begin{rem}
\label{notAB}
Sometimes, we will identify $\End_{\BR}(V)$ with its image
$\End_{\BR}(V)\otimes 1\subset \End_{\BC}(V_{\BC})$ and write $u$ instead of $u_{\BC}$, slightly abusing notation.
\end{rem}
As usual, one may naturally extend the complex conjugation $z \mapsto \bar{z}$ on $\BC$ to the $\BC$-antilinear involution
$$V_{\BC} \to V_{\BC}, \ w \mapsto \bar{w}, \
v\otimes z \mapsto \overline{v\otimes z}=v \otimes \bar{z},$$
which is usually called the complex conjugation on $V_{\BC}$. Clearly,
\begin{equation}
\label{uBar}
u_{\BC}(\bar{w})=\overline{u(w)} \ \forall u \in \End_{\BR}(V), w \in V_{\BC}.
\end{equation}
This implies easily that the set of fixed points of the involution is
$$V=V\otimes 1 \subset V_{\BC}.$$
Let $\End(T)$ be the endomorphism ring of the complex commutative Lie group $T$ and
$\End^0(T)=\End(T)\otimes\BQ$ the corresponding endomorphism algebra, which is a finite-dimensional algebra over the field $\BQ$ of rational numbers,
see \cite{OZ,BL,BZ}.
Then it is well known that there are canonical isomorphisms
$$\End(T)=\End_{\BZ}(\Lambda)\cap \End_{\BC}(V), \
\End^{0}(T)=\End_{\BQ}(\Lambda_{\BQ})\cap \End_{\BC}(V).$$
Let $g \ge 2$ and $$\mathrm{H}^2(T,\BQ)=\bigwedge^2_{\BQ}(\Lambda_{\BQ},\BQ)$$ be the {\sl second rational cohomology group} of $T$,
which carries the natural structure of a rational Hodge structure of weight two:
$$\mathrm{H}^2(T,\BQ)= \mathrm{H}^2(T,\BQ)\otimes_{\BQ}\BC=\mathrm{H}^{2,0}(T)\oplus \mathrm{H}^{1,1}(T)\oplus \mathrm{H}^{0,2}(T)$$
where $\mathrm{H}^{2,0}(T)=\Omega^2(T)$ is the $g(g-1)/2$-dimensional space of holomorphic $2$-forms on $T$.
\end{sect}
\begin{defn}
\label{simple2}
Let $g=\dim(T)\ge 2$. We say that $T$ is {\sl $2$-simple} if it is {\sl irreducible of weight 2}, i.e.,
enjoys the following property.
Let $H$ be a rational Hodge substructure of $\mathrm{H}^2(T,\BQ)$ such that
$$H_{\BC}\cap \mathrm{H}^{2,0}(T)\ne \{0\}$$
where $H_{\BC}:=H\otimes_{\BQ}\BC$.
Then $H_{\BC}$ contains the whole $\mathrm{H}^{2,0}(T)$.
\end{defn}
\begin{rem}
We call such complex tori $2$-simple, because they are simple in the usual meaning of this word if $g>2$, see Theorem \ref{main}(i) below.
\end{rem}
\begin{ex} (See \cite[Example 3.4(2)]{Campana}.)
If $g=2$ then $\dim_{\BC}(\mathrm{H}^{2,0}(T))=1$. This implies that (in the notation of Definition
\ref{simple2}) if $H_{\BC}\cap \mathrm{H}^{2,0}(T)\ne \{0\}$ then $H_{\BC}$ contains the whole
$\mathrm{H}^{2,0}(T)$. Hence, every $2$-dimensional complex torus is $2$-simple.
\end{ex}
In what follows we write $\Aut(T)=\End(T)^{*}$ for the automorphism group of the complex Lie group $T$.
Our main result is the following assertion.
\begin{thm}
\label{main}
Let $T$ be a complex torus of dimension $g\ge 3$. Suppose that $T$ is $2$-simple.
Then $T$ enjoys the following properties.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)]
$T$ is simple.
\item[(ii)]
If $E$ is any subfield of $\End^0(T)$ then it is a number field, whose degree over $\BQ$
is either $1$ or $g$ or $2g$.
\item[(iii)]
$\End^0(T)$ is a number field $E$ such that its degree $[E:\BQ]$
is either $1$ (i.e., $\End^0(T)=\BQ$, $\End(T)=\BZ$) or $g$ or $2g$.
\item[(iv)]
If $\End(T)=\BZ$ then $\Aut(T)=\{\pm 1\}$.
\item[(v)]
If $[E:\BQ]=2g$ then $E$ is a purely imaginary number field and $\Aut(T)\cong\{\pm 1\}\times \BZ^{g-1}$
\item[(vi)] Suppose that $[E:\BQ]=g$. Then $\Aut(T) \cong \BZ^{d} \times \{\pm 1\}$ where the integer $d$ satisfies $\frac{g}{2}-1 \le d \le g-1$.
In addition, if $T$ is a complex abelian variety then $E$ is a totally real number field and $d=g-1$.
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)]
It is well known (and can be easily checked) that $T$ is {\sl simple} if and only if the rational Hodge structure on $\Lambda_{\BQ}=\mathrm{H}_1(T,\BQ)$ is {\sl irreducible}.
\footnote{A rational Hodge structure $H$ is called {\sl irreducible} or {\sl simple} if its only rational Hodge substructures are $H$ itself and $\{0\}$ \cite[Sect. 2.2]{Charles}.}
\item[(ii)]
We may view $\mathrm{H}^2(T,\BQ)$ as the $\BQ$-vector subspace $\HH^2(T,\BQ)\otimes 1$
of $\HH^2(T,\BQ)\otimes_{\BQ}\BC=\HH^2(T,\BC)$.
Let us consider the $\BQ$-vector (sub)space
$$\HH^{1,1}(T,\BQ):=\HH^2(T,\BQ)\cap \HH^{1,1}(T)$$
of $2$-dimensional {\sl Hodge cycles} on $T$. Notice that the {\sl irreducibility}
of the rational Hodge structure on $\Lambda_{\BQ}$ implies the {\sl complete reducibility} of the rational Hodge structure
on $\HH^2(T,\BQ)=\Hom_{\BQ}\left(\bigwedge^2_{\BQ}\Lambda_{\BQ},\BQ\right)$. (It follows from the reductiveness of the Mumford-Tate group of a simple torus \cite[Sect. 2.2]{Charles}.)
In light of (i) and Theorem \ref{main}(i), a complex torus $T$ of dimension $>2$
is $2$-simple if and only if it is simple and $\HH^2(T,\BQ)$ splits into a direct sum of $\HH^{1,1}(T,\BQ)$ and an {\sl irreducible} rational Hodge substructure.
\end{itemize}
\end{rem}
We prove Theorem \ref{main} in Section \ref{proofMain}, using explicit constructions related to the Hodge structure on $\Lambda_{\BQ}$
that will be discussed in Section \ref{hodgeS}.
This paper may be viewed as a follow up of \cite{OZ} and \cite{BZ}.
I am grateful to Fr\'ed\'eric Campana and Ekaterina Amerik for interesting stimulating questions.
\section{Hodge structures}
\label{hodgeS}
\begin{sect}
It is well known that $\Lambda_{\BQ}=\mathrm{H}_1(T,\BQ)$
carries the natural structure of a rational Hodge structure of weight $-1$. Let us recall the construction.
Let $J: V \to V$ be the multiplication by $\ib=\sqrt{-1}$, which is viewed as a certain element of $\End_{\BR}(V)$
such that
$$J^2=-1.$$
Hence, $J_{\BC}^2=-1$ in $\End_{\BC}(V_{\BC})$ and we define
two mutually complex-conjugate $\BC$-vector subspaces (of the same dimension)
$\mathrm{H}_{-1,0}(T)$ and $\mathrm{H}_{0,-1}(T)$ of $V_{\BC}$
as the eigenspaces $V_{\BC}(\mathbf{i})$ and $V_{\BC}(-\mathbf{i})$of $J_{\BC}$ attached to eigenvalues $\ib$ and $-\ib$ respectively. Clearly,
$$V_{\BC}=V_{\BC}(\mathbf{i})\oplus V_{\BC}(-\mathbf{i})=\mathrm{H}_{-1,0}(T)\oplus \mathrm{H}_{0,-1}(T),$$
which defines the rational Hodge structure on $\Lambda_{\BQ}$, in light of
$V_{\BC}=\Lambda_{\BQ}\otimes_{\BQ}\BC$. It also follows that both $\mathrm{H}_{-1,0}(T)$ and $\mathrm{H}_{0,-1}(T)$
have the same dimension $2g/2=g$.
Now it's a time to recall that $V$ is a complex vector space. I claim that the map
\begin{equation}
\label{VV}
\Psi: V \to V_{\BC}(\mathbf{i})=\mathrm{H}_{-1,0}(T), \ v \mapsto Jv\otimes 1+v\otimes \mathbf{i}
\end{equation}
is an isomorphism of complex vector spaces. Indeed, first, $\Psi$ defines a homomorphism of real vector spaces
$V \to V_{\BC}$. Second, if $v\in V$ then
$$J_{\BC}( Jv\otimes 1+v\otimes \mathbf{i})=J^2v\otimes 1+Jv\otimes \mathbf{i}=-v\otimes 1+Jv\otimes \mathbf{i}=
\ib(Jv\otimes 1+v\otimes \ib),$$
i.e., $Jv\otimes 1+v\otimes \ib\in V_{\BC}(\mathbf{i})=\mathrm{H}_{0,-1}(T)$ and therefore the map \eqref{VV}
is defined correctly. Third, taking into account that
$J$ is an automorphism of $V$ and $V_{\BC}=V\otimes 1\oplus V\otimes\ib$, we conclude that $\Psi$ is an injective homomorphism
of real vector spaces and the dimension arguments imply that is is actually an isomorphism. It remains to check that $\Psi$ is $\BC$-linear,
i.e., $$\Psi(Jv)=\ib \Psi(v).$$ Let us do it. We have
$$\Psi(Jv)=J(Jv)\otimes 1+Jv\otimes\ib=-v\otimes 1+Jv\otimes \ib=\ib (Jv\otimes 1+v\otimes \ib)=\ib \Psi(v).$$
Hence, $\Psi$ is a $\BC$-linear isomorphism and we are done.
Now suppose that $u \in \End_{\BR}(V)$ commutes with $J$, i.e., $u\in \End_{\BC}(V)$. Then
\begin{equation}
\label{uPsiBC}
\Psi\circ u=u_{\BC}\circ\Psi.
\end{equation}
In particular, $\mathrm{H}_{-1,0}(T)$ is $u_{\BC}$-invariant. Indeed, if $v\in V$ then
$$ \Psi\circ u(v)=J u(v)\otimes 1+u(v)\otimes\ib=uJ(v)\otimes 1+u_{\BC}(v\otimes \ib)=u_{\BC}(J(v)\otimes 1)+u_{\BC}(v\otimes \ib)=u_{\BC}\circ\Psi(v),$$
which proves our claim.
Similarly, there is an anti-linear isomorphism of complex vector spaces
$$V \to V_{\BC}(\mathbf{-i})=\mathrm{H}_{0,-1}(T), \ v \mapsto Jv\otimes 1-v\otimes \mathbf{i}.$$
\end{sect}
It is also well known that there is a canonical isomorphism of rational Hodge structures of weight 2
$$\mathrm{H}^2(T,\BQ)=\Hom_{\BQ}(\bigwedge^2_{\BQ}\mathrm{H}_1(T,\BQ),\BQ)$$
where the Hodge components $\mathrm{H}^{p,q}(T)$ ($p,q \ge 0, p+q=2$) are as follows.
\begin{equation}
\label{Hodge2T}
\mathrm{H}^{2,0}(T)=\Hom_{\BC}(\bigwedge^2_{\BC}(\mathrm{H}_{-1,0}(T),\BC), \quad
\mathrm{H}^{0,2}(T)=\Hom_{\BC}(\bigwedge^2_{\BC}(\mathrm{H}_{0,-1}(T),\BC),
\end{equation}
$$\mathrm{H}^{1,1}(T)=\Hom_{\BC}(\mathrm{H}_{-1,0}(T),\BC)\wedge \Hom_{\BC}(\mathrm{H}_{0,-1}(T),\BC)\cong
\Hom_{\BC}(\mathrm{H}_{-1,0}(T),\BC)\otimes_{\BC} \Hom_{\BC}(\mathrm{H}_{0,-1}(T),\BC).$$
Clearly,
$$\dim_{\BC}(\mathrm{H}^{2,0}(T))=\frac{g(g-1)}{2}.$$
\section{Endomorphism Fields and Automorphism Groups}
\label{proofMain}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{main}]
Let $T$ be a $2$-simple complex torus and
$$g=\dim(T)\ge 3.$$
(i) Suppose that $T$ is {\sl not} simple. This means that there is a proper complex subtorus
$S=W/\Gamma$ where $W$ is a complex vector subspace of $V$ with
$$0<d=\dim_{\BC}(W)<\dim_{\BC}(V)=g$$
such that
$$\Gamma=W\cap \Lambda$$
is a discrete lattice of rank $2d$ in $W$. Then the quotient $T/S$ is a complex torus of positive dimension $g-d$.
Let $H \subset \mathrm{H}^2(T,\BQ)$ be the image of the canonical
{\sl injective} homomorphism of rational Hodge structures
$\mathrm{H}^2(T/S,\BQ) \hookrightarrow \mathrm{H}^2(T,\BQ)$ induced by the quotient map $T \to T/S$ of complex tori. Clearly, $H$ is a rational Hodge
substructure of $\mathrm{H}^2(T,\BQ)$ and its $(2,0)$-component
$$H^{2,0}\subset H_{\BC}$$
has $\BC$-dimension
$$\dim_{\BC}(H^{2,0})=\dim_{\BC}(\mathrm{H}^{2,0}(T/S)))=\frac{(g-d)(g-d-1)}{2}<\frac{g(g-1)}{2}=
\dim_{\BC}(\mathrm{H}^{2,0}(T))).$$
In light of $2$-simplicity of $T$,
$$\dim_{\BC}(\HH^{2,0})=0,$$
which implies that
$$g-d=1.$$
On the other hand, let $\tilde{H}$ be the kernel of the canonical {\sl surjective}
homomorphism of rational Hodge structures
$\mathrm{H}^2(T,\BQ) \twoheadrightarrow \mathrm{H}^2(S,\BQ)$ induced by the inclusion map $S \subset T$ of complex tori. Clearly, $\tilde{H}$ is a rational Hodge
substructure of $\mathrm{H}^2(T,\BQ)$. Notice that the induced homomorphism of $(2,0)$-components
$\mathrm{H}^{2,0}(T) \to \mathrm{H}^{2,0}(S)$ is also surjective, because every holomorphic $2$-form on $S$ obviously extends to a holomorphic $2$-form on $T$.
This implies that the
$(2,0)$-component
$$\tilde{H}^{2,0}\subset \tilde{H}_{\BC}$$
of $\tilde{H}$
has $\BC$-dimension
$$\dim_{\BC}(\tilde{H}^{2,0})=\dim_{\BC}(\mathrm{H}^{2,0}(T)))-\dim_{\BC}(\mathrm{H}^{2,0}(S)))=
\frac{g(g-1)}{2}-\frac{d(d-1)}{2}>0.$$
In light of $2$-simplicity of $T$,
$$\dim_{\BC}(\tilde{H}^{2,0})=\dim_{\BC}(\mathrm{H}^{2,0}(T)))=\frac{g(g-1)}{2},$$
which implies that $\frac{d(d-1)}{2}=0$, i.e., $d=1$. Taking into account that $g-d=1$, we get $g=1+1=2$, which is not true.
The obtained contradiction proves that $T$ is simple and (i) is proven. In particular, $\End^0(T)$ is a division algebra over $\BQ$.
In order to handle (ii), let us assume that $E$ is a subfield of $\End^0(T)$. The simplicity of $T$ implies that $1\in E$
is the identity automorphism of $T$.
Then $\Lambda_{\BQ}$ becomes a faithful $E$-module.
This implies that $E$ is a number field and $\Lambda_{\BQ}$ is an $E$-vector space of finite positive dimension
$$d_E=\frac{2g}{[E:\BQ]}.$$ This implies that $V_{\BC}=\Lambda_{\BQ}\otimes_{\BQ}\BC$ is a free $E\otimes_{\BQ}\BC$-module of rank $d_E$.
Clearly, both $\mathrm{H}_{-1,0}(T)$ and $\mathrm{H}_{0,-1}(T)$ are $E\otimes_{\BQ}\BC$-submodules of its direct sum $V_{\BC}$.
Let
$$\mathrm{tr}_{E/\BQ}: E \to \BQ$$
bet the trace map attached to the field extension $E/\BQ$ of finite degree. Let
$$\Hom_E(\bigwedge_E^2 \Lambda_{\BQ},E)$$
be the $\frac{d_E(d_E-1)}{2}$-dimensional $E$-vector space of alternating $E$-bilinear forms on $\Lambda_{\BQ}$ that carries the natural structure
of a rational Hodge structure of $\BQ$-dimension $[E:\BQ] \cdot \frac{d_E(d_E-1)}{2}$. There is the natural embedding of rational Hodge structures
\begin{equation}
\label{HE2}
\Hom_E\left(\bigwedge_E^2 \Lambda_{\BQ},E\right) \hookrightarrow \Hom_{\BQ}(\bigwedge_{\BQ}^2 \Lambda_{\BQ},\BQ)=\mathrm{H}^2(T,\BQ), \
\phi_E \mapsto \phi:=\mathrm{tr}_{E/\BQ}\circ \phi_E,
\end{equation}
i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\label{HE3}
\phi(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)=\mathrm{tr}_{E/\BQ} \big(\phi_E(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)\big) \ \forall \lambda_1,\lambda_2\in \Lambda_{\BQ}.
\end{equation}
The image of
$\Hom_E\left(\bigwedge_E^2 \Lambda_{\BQ},E\right)$ in
$\Hom_{\BQ}\left(\bigwedge_{\BQ}^2 \Lambda_{\BQ},\BQ\right)=\mathrm{H}^2(T,\BQ)$
coincides with the $\BQ$-vector subspace
\begin{equation}
\label{psiE}
H_E:=\{\phi \in \Hom_{\BQ}\left(\bigwedge_{\BQ}^2 \Lambda_{\BQ},\BQ\right) \mid
\phi(u \lambda_1,\lambda_2)=\phi(\lambda_1,u\lambda_2) \ \forall u \in E, \ \lambda_1,\lambda_2 \in \Lambda_{\BQ}\}.
\end{equation}
Indeed, it is obvious that the image lies in $H_E$. In order to check that the image coincide with the whole subspace $H_E$, let us construct
the inverse map
$$H_E \to \Hom_E\left(\bigwedge_E^2 \Lambda_{\BQ},E\right), \ \phi \mapsto \phi_E$$
to \eqref{HE2}
as follows. If $\lambda_1,\lambda_2\in \Lambda_{\BQ}$
then there is a $\BQ$-linear map
\begin{equation}
\label{phiE}
\Phi: E \mapsto \BQ, \ u \mapsto \phi(u\lambda_1,\lambda_2)=\phi(\lambda_1,u\lambda_2)=-\phi(u\lambda_2,\lambda_1)=-\phi(\lambda_2,u\lambda_1).
\end{equation}
The properties of trace map imply that there exists precisely one $\beta \in E$ such that
$$\Phi(u)=\tr_{E/\BQ}(u\beta) \ \forall u \in E.$$
Let us put
$$\phi_E(\lambda_1,\lambda_2):=\beta.$$
It follows from \eqref{phiE} that $\phi_E \in \Hom_E\left(\bigwedge_E^2 \Lambda_{\BQ},E\right)$.
In addition,
$$\mathrm{tr}_{E/\BQ}(\phi_E(\lambda_1,\lambda_2))=\mathrm{tr}_{E/\BQ}(\beta)=\mathrm{tr}_{E/\BQ}(1\cdot \beta)=\Phi(1)=
\phi(\lambda_1,\lambda_2),$$
which proves that $\phi\mapsto \phi_E$ is indeed the inverse map, in light of \eqref{HE3}.
Clearly, $H_E$ is a rational Hodge substructure of $\mathrm{H}^2(T,\BQ)$.
By $2$-simplicity of $T$, the $\BC$-dimension of the $(2,0)$-component $H_E^{(2,0)}$ of $H_E$ is either $0$ or $g(g-1)/2$.
Let us express this dimension explicitly in terms of $g$ and $[E:\BQ]$.
In order to do that, let us consider the $[E:\BQ]$-element set $\Sigma_E$ of all field embedding $\sigma: E \hookrightarrow \BC$. We have
\begin{equation}
\label{SigmaE}
E_{\BC}:=E\otimes_{\BQ}\BC=\oplus_{\sigma\in\Sigma_E}\BC_{\sigma} \ \text{ where } \BC_{\sigma}=E\otimes_{E,\sigma}\BC=\BC,
\end{equation}
which gives us the splitting of $E_{\BC}$-modules
\begin{equation}
\label{SigmaV}
V_{\BC}=\oplus_{\sigma \in \Sigma_E}V_{\sigma}=\oplus_{\sigma \in \Sigma_E}\left(\mathrm{H}_{-1,0}(T)_{\sigma}\oplus \mathrm{H}_{0,-1}(T)_{\sigma}\right)
\end{equation}
where for all $\sigma \in \Sigma_E$ we define
$$\mathrm{H}_{-1,0}(T)_{\sigma}: =\BC_{\sigma}\mathrm{H}_{-1,0}(T)=
\{x \in \mathrm{H}_{-1,0}(T) \mid u_{\BC}x=\sigma(u)x \ \forall u \in E\}\subset \mathrm{H}_{-1,0}(T);$$
$$n_{\sigma}:=\dim_{\BC}(\mathrm{H}_{-1,0}(T)_{\sigma});$$
$$\mathrm{H}_{0,-1}(T)_{\sigma}: =\BC_{\sigma}\mathrm{H}_{0,-1}(T)= \{x \in \mathrm{H}_{0,-1}(T) \mid u_{\BC}x=\sigma(u)x \ \forall u \in E\}\subset \mathrm{H}_{0,-1}(T);$$
$$m_{\sigma}:=\dim_{\BC}(\mathrm{H}_{0,-1}(T)_{\sigma});$$
$$V_{\sigma}=\BC_{\sigma}=\BC_{\sigma}V_{\BC}=\{x \in V_{\BC} \mid u_{\BC}x=\sigma(u)x \ \forall u \in E\}=\mathrm{H}_{-1,0}(T)_{\sigma}\oplus \mathrm{H}_{0,-1}(T)_{\sigma} $$
Since $\mathrm{H}_{-1,0}(T)\oplus \mathrm{H}_{0,-1}(T)=V_{\BC}$ is a free $E_{\BC}$-module of rank $d_E$,
its direct summand $V_{\sigma}$ is a $\BC_{\sigma}=\BC$-vector space of dimension $d_E$ and therefore
\begin{equation}
\label{nplusm}
n_{\sigma}+m_{\sigma}=d_E \ \forall \sigma\in \Sigma_E.
\end{equation}
Since $\mathrm{H}_{-1,0}(T)$ and $\mathrm{H}_{0,-1}(T)$ are mutually complex-conjugate subspaces of $V_{\BC}$, it follows from \eqref{uBar}
that $$m_{\sigma}=n_{\bar{\sigma}} \ \ \text{ where }
\bar{\sigma}:E \hookrightarrow \BC, \ u \mapsto \overline{\sigma(u)}$$ is the {\sl complex-conjugate} of $\sigma$. Therefore, in light of \eqref{nplusm},
\begin{equation}
\label{sigmaBaRsigma}
n_{\sigma}+n_{\bar{\sigma}}=d_E \ \forall \sigma.
\end{equation}
We have
\begin{equation}
\label{sumS}
\sum_{\sigma\in \Sigma_E}n_{\sigma}=\sum_{\sigma\in\Sigma_E}\dim_{\BC}(\mathrm{H}_{-1,0}(T)_{\sigma})= \dim_{\BC}(\mathrm{H}_{-1,0}(T))=g.
\end{equation}
Let us consider the complexification of $H_E$
$$H_{E,\BC}:=H_E\otimes_{\BQ}\BC\subset \Hom_{\BQ}\left(\bigwedge^2\Lambda_{\BQ},\BQ\right)\otimes_{\BQ}\BC=\Hom_{\BC}\left(\bigwedge_{\BC}^2(\Lambda_{\BQ}\otimes_{\BQ}\BC),\BC\right)=
\Hom_{\BC}\left(\bigwedge^2V_{\BC},\BC\right).$$
In light of \eqref{psiE},
\begin{equation}
\label{EpsiC}
H_{E,\BC}=\{\phi \in \Hom_{\BC}\left(\bigwedge^2V_{\BC},\BC\right)\mid \phi(u_{\BC}x,y)=\phi(x,u_{\BC}y) \ \forall u\in E,; x,y\in V_{\BC}\}
\end{equation}
$$=\{\phi \in \Hom_{\BC}\left(\bigwedge^2V_{\BC},\BC\right)\mid \phi(u_{\BC}x,y)=\phi(x,u_{\BC}y) \ \forall u\in E_{\BC}; x,y\in V_{\BC}\}.$$
In particular, if $\sigma, \tau \in \Sigma_E$ are {\sl distinct} field embeddings then for all $\phi \in H_{E,\BC}$
$$\phi(V_{\sigma},V_{\tau})=\phi(V_{\tau},V_{\sigma})=\{0\}.$$
This implies that
\begin{equation}
\label{secondH}
H_{E,\BC}=
\oplus_{\sigma\in \Sigma_E}\Hom_{\BC}\left(\bigwedge^2_{\BC}V_{\sigma},\BC\right)
\end{equation}
$$=
\oplus_{\sigma\in \Sigma_E}\Hom_{\BC}\big(\bigwedge_{\BC}^2 \left(\mathrm{H}_{-1,0}(T)_{\sigma} \oplus \mathrm{H}_{0,-1}(T)_{\sigma}\right) ,\BC\big).$$
In light of \eqref{Hodge2T}, the $(2,0)$-Hodge component of $H_{E,\BC}$
\begin{equation}
\label{secondF}
H_E^{(2,0)}=\oplus_{\sigma\in \Sigma_E}\Hom_{\BC}\left(\bigwedge_{\BC}^2 \mathrm{H}_{-1,0}(T)_{\sigma} ,\BC\right) \ \text{ and } \
\dim_{\BC}(H_E^{(2,0)})=\sum_{\sigma\in\Sigma_E} \frac{n_{\sigma}(n_{\sigma}-1)}{2}.
\end{equation}
This implies that
$\dim_{\BC}(H_E^{(2,0)})=0$ if and only if all $n_{\sigma}\in \{0,1\}$. If this is the case then, in light of \eqref{sigmaBaRsigma},
$d_E \in\{1,2\}$, i.e., $[E:\BQ]=2g$ or $g$.
On the other hand, it follows from \eqref{sumS} combined with the second formula in \eqref{secondF} that
$\dim_{\BC}(H_E^{(2,0)})=g(g-1)/2$ if and only if there is precisely one $\sigma$ with $n_{\sigma}=g$
(and all the other multiplicities $n_{\tau}$ are $0$). This implies that either $d_E=2g$ and $E=\BQ$
or $d_E=g$ and $E$ an imaginary quadratic field with the pair of the field embeddings
$$\sigma,\bar{\sigma}: E \hookrightarrow: \BC$$
such that
$$n_{\sigma}=g, \ n_{\bar{\sigma}}=0.$$
Let us assume that $d_E=g$. Then $E$ is an imaginary quadratic field; in addition,
$$u \in E\subset \End_{\BQ}(\Lambda_{\BQ})\subset \End_{\BR}(V)$$ then $u_{\BC}$ acts on $\mathrm{H}_{-1,0}(T)$ as multiplication by $\sigma(u) \in \BC$.
In light of \eqref{uBar}, $u_{\BC}$ acts on the complex-conjugate subspace $\mathrm{H}_{0,-1}(T)$ as multiplication by $\overline{\sigma(u)}=\bar{\sigma}(u) \in \BC$.
Since $E$ is an imaginary quadratic field, there are a positive integer $D$ and $\alpha\in E$ such that
$\alpha^2=-D$ and $E=\BQ(\alpha).$ It follows that
$\sigma(\alpha)=\pm \ib \sqrt{D}$. Replacing if necessary $\alpha$ by $-\alpha$, we may and will assume that
$$\sigma(\alpha)=\ib \sqrt{D}$$
and therefore $\alpha_{\BC}$ acts on $\mathrm{H}_{-1,0}(T)$ as multiplication by $\ib \sqrt{D}$. Hence,
$\alpha_{\BC}$ acts on $\mathrm{H}_{0,-1}(T)$ as multiplication by $\overline{\ib \sqrt{D}}=-\ib \sqrt{D}$. Since
$$V_{\BC}=\mathrm{H}_{-1,0}(T)\oplus\mathrm{H}_{0,-1}(T),$$
we get
$\alpha_{\BC}= \sqrt{D}J_C$ and therefore
$$\alpha= \sqrt{D}J.$$
This implies that the
centralizer $\End^0(T)$ of $J$ in $\End_{\BQ}(\Lambda_{\BQ})$
coincides with the centralizer of $\alpha$ in $\End_{\BQ}(\Lambda_{\BQ})$, which, in turn, coincides with the centralizer $\End_E(\Lambda_{\BQ})$ of $E$ in $\End_{\BQ}(\Lambda_{\BQ})$, i.e.,
$$\End^0(T)=\End_E(\Lambda_{\BQ}) \cong \Mat_{d_E}(E).$$
This is the matrix algebra, which is not a division algebra, because $d_E=g>1$. This contradicts to the simplicity of $T$.
The obtained contradiction rules out the case $d_E=g$.
This ends the proof of (ii).
In order to prove (iii), recall that $\End^0(T)$ is a division algebra of $\BQ$, thanks to the simplicity of $T$ \cite{OZ}.
Hence $\Lambda_{\BQ}$ is a free $\End^0(T)$-module of finite positive rank
and therefore
\begin{equation}
\label{divisionP}
\dim_{\BQ}(\End^0(T))| 2g,
\end{equation}
because
$2g=\dim_{\BQ}(\Lambda_{\BQ})$.
We will apply several times already proven assertion (ii) to various subfields of $\End^0(T)$.
Suppose that $\End^0(T)$ is {\sl not} a field and let $\mathcal{Z}$ be its center. Then $\mathcal{Z}$ is a number field and
there is an integer $d>1$ such that
$\dim_{\mathcal{Z}}(\End^0(T))=d^2$ and therefore
$$\dim_{\BQ}(\End^0(T))=d^2 \cdot [\mathcal{Z}:\BQ]$$
divides $2g$, thanks to \eqref{divisionP}. Since $\mathcal{Z}$ is a subfield of $\End^0(T)$, the degree
$ [\mathcal{Z}:\BQ]$ is either $1$ or $g$ or $2g$. If $ [\mathcal{Z}:\BQ] >1$ then
$2g$ is divisible by
$$d^2 \cdot [\mathcal{Z}:\BQ] \ge 2^2 g=4g,$$ which is nonsense.
Hence, $ [\mathcal{Z}:\BQ]=1$, i.e., $\mathcal{Z}=\BQ$ and $\End^0(T)$ is a central division $\BQ$-algebra
of dimension $d^2$ with $d^2 |2g$. Then every maximal subfield $E$ of the division algebra $\End^0(T)$ has degree $d$ over $\BQ$.
Hence $d\in \{1,g,2g\}$. Since $d > 1$, we obtain that either $d=g$ and $g^2 |2g$ or $d=2g$ and $(2g)^2|2g$. This implies that
$d=g$ and $g=1$ or $2$.
Since $g \ge 3$, we get a contradiction, which implies that $\End^0(T)$ is a field.
It follows from already proven assertion (ii) that the degree $\dim_{\BQ}(\End^0(T))$ of the number field $\End^0(T)$ is either $1$ or $g$ or $2g$. Assertion (iv) is obvious and was included just for the sake of completeness.
In order to handle the structure of $\Aut(T)$, let us check first that the only roots of unity in $\End^0(T)$ are $1$ and $-1$. If this is not the case then the field
$\End^0(T)$ contains either $\sqrt{-1}$ or a primitive $p$th root of unity $\zeta$ where $p$ is a certain odd prime. In the former case
$\End^0(T)$ contains the quadratic field $\BQ(\sqrt{-1})$, which contradicts (ii). In the latter case $\End^0(T)$ contains either
the quadratic field $\BQ(\sqrt{-p})$ or the quadratic field $\BQ(\sqrt{p})$: each of these outcomes contradicts to (ii) as well.
Now recall that $\End(T)$ is an order in the number field $E=\End^0(T)$
and $\Aut(T) =\End(T)^{*}$ is its group of units.
By Theorem of Dirichlet about units \cite[Ch. II, Sect. 4, Th. 5]{BS},
the group of units
\begin{equation}
\label{Dunits}
\Aut(T) \cong \BZ^{d} \times \{\pm 1\} \ \text{ with } \ d=r+s-1
\end{equation}
where $r$ is the number of real field embeddings $E \hookrightarrow \BR$ and
\begin{equation}
\label{realComplex}
r+2s =[E:\BQ], \ \text{ i.e., } \ s=\frac{[E:\BQ]-r}{2}.
\end{equation}
Let us prove (v). Assume that the number field $E:=\End^0(T)$ has degree $2g$. The dimension arguments imply that $\Lambda_{\BQ}$ is a $1$-dimensional $E$-vector space
and $V=\Lambda_{\BQ}\otimes_{\BQ}\BR$ is a free $E_{\BR}=E\otimes_{\BQ}\BR$-module of rank $1$. Hence $E_{\BR}$ coincides with its own centralizer
$\End_{E_{\BR}}(V)$ in $\End_{\BR}(V)$. Since $J$ commutes with $\End^)(T)=E$, it also commutes with $E_{\BR}$ and therefore
$$J \in \End_{E_{\BR}}(V) =E_{\BR}.$$
Recall that the $\BR$-algebra $E_{\BR}$ is isomorphic to a product of copies of $\BR$ and $\BC$. Since $J^2=-1$, the only copies of $\BC$
appear in $E_{\BR}$, i.e., $E$ is purely imaginary, which means that
$r=0$ and therefore $2g=[E:\BQ]=2s$.
This proves the first assertion of (v); the second one follows readily from \eqref{Dunits} combined with \eqref{realComplex}.
Let us prove (vi). Assume that $[E:\BQ]=g$. Then the first assertion follows readily from \eqref{Dunits} combined with \eqref{realComplex}.
Assume now that $T$ is a complex abelian variety. By Albert's classification \cite{MumfordAV}, $E=\End^0(T)$ is either a totally real number field or a CM field. If $E$ is a CM field then it contains a subfield $E_0$ of degree
$[E:\BQ]/2=g/2$. Since $E_0$ is a subfield of $\End^0(T)$ and $1<g/2<g$ (recall that $g \ge 3$), the existence of $E_0$ contradicts to the already proven assertion (ii). This proves that $E$ is a totally real number field, i.e., $s=0, r=g$. Now the assertion about $\Aut(T)$ follows from \eqref{Dunits}.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}
\IEEEPARstart{P}{ancreatic} cancer is the third leading cause of overall cancer death in the United States\cite{siegel2021cancer}, of which approximately 95$\%$ is pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC)\cite{grossberg2020multidisciplinary}. With the poorest prognosis (i.e., 5-year overall survival (OS) of 10$\%$ approximately), surgical resection is the most effective way to achieve long-term survival for patients with PDAC\cite{grossberg2020multidisciplinary}. However, not all patients can benefit from the margin-negative (R0) resection and comprehensive treatment protocol is usually established for pancreatic cancer. The patients' treatment selections can be determined by whether their peripancreatic lymph nodes (LNs) have metastasized with the options of adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) or chemotherapy.
It was found that neoadjuvant therapy before surgery was associated with improved survival and time to recurrence in patients with LN metastasis, since neoadjuvant therapy can not only treat lymphovascular invasion but also benefit tumor downstaging \cite{roland2015neoadjuvant,kanda2011pattern}.
The accurate preoperative detection of LN metastasis becomes vital and would aid in treatment planning and management.
Contrast-enhanced CT is used as the typical imaging protocol for identifying the presence of peripancreatic metastatic disease to LNs, but it is a very challenging task for radiologists to determine whether a patient has LN metastasis by using only CT scans. To this end, poor diagnostic accuracy of CT with a pooled sensitivity of 25$\%$ and positive predictive value (PPV) of 28$\%$ was reported in a meta-analysis \cite{tseng2014diagnostic} on assessing extra-regional LN metastasis in pancreatic and peri-ampullary cancer.
Recently, several radiomics based approaches have been proposed to tackle the LN metastasis differentiation problem of various cancer types ~\cite{ji2019biliary,wang2020ct,li2020contrast,bian2019relationship,yang2020integrating,gao2020radiomics,meng20202d}. However, these methods require hand-crafted feature design which can bring concerns of reproducibility and human bias is often introduced due to manual selection of 2D tumor slice with limited representation power. Although there are some deep learning work that report promising performance on predicting LN metastasis status in gastric cancer~\cite{jin2021deep, dong2020deep}, those models assume that the risk of metastases is fundamentally driven by the primary tumor. They rely on LN CT report information for the integration model without using any LNs detection or segmentation. The model that takes both tumor morphology and lymphatic anatomy into account could be of more clinically usefulness on addressing these aforementioned issues, similarly as in the diagnostic processes performed by radiologist readers. PET/CT is another imaging modality worth exploring. PET/CT based approaches \cite{kim2019predictive,asagi2013utility,dahmarde202018f} generally use maximum standardized uptake value ($SUV_{max}$) of manually-drawn LN RoIs as the prediction element, but it comes with challenges of numerous false positives from inflammatory LNs and false negatives from small-sized metastatic LNs \cite{tseng2021role, jung2017value}. Also, it is relatively not as common as CT, which is less affordable, available and accessible, hence we opt for CT for our research purpose.
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{ImageExample.pdf}}
\caption{\small A visualization of pancreatic tumor (in dark red) and LNs (in pink red for positives or green for negatives) in multi-phase CT images and their spatial distributions corresponding to key anatomical structures as follows. SMA: superior mesenteric artery. TC$\&$SA: truncus coeliacus and splenic artery. LGA: left gastric artery; CHA$\&$PHA: common hepatic artery and proper hepatic artery.}
\label{Fig:distributionExample}
\end{figure*}
In this paper, we tackle the LN metastasis status prediction problem in patients with PDAC by first segmenting and identifying instances of LNs and then classifying the patients into {\it metastasis-positive} or {\it -negative} group. LNs are tiny structures that anatomically locate surrounding organs and vessels. Their locations have been mapped into 18 stations that are relevant for pancreatic cancer tumor according to their relative positions against adjacent anatomical structures, as defined by Japan Pancreas Society (JPS)\cite{kanehara2017classification} (see Supplementary Table 1 in the supplementary material for details). Examples of their spatial distribution are shown in Fig. \ref{Fig:distributionExample}. Metastasis happens when cancer cells spread from the primary tumor to LNs, causing enlargement of LNs and other underlying changes. Response
Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria \cite{eisenhauer2009new} defines the criteria for LN metastasis suspicion, i.e., nodes with short axis greater than 10{\it mm}, heterogeneity and central necrosis. However, these criteria are not pathognomonic since there exist false negatives associated with small node micrometastases and false positives with inflammatory nodes larger than 10{\it mm} in short axis. Hence, finding LNs in CT images is quite time-consuming and can be inconsistent depending on radiologists' subjective experiences. It is ambiguous for radiologists to identify nodal positivity accurately from CT without referring to pathology reports. The gold standard for determination of metastasis is based on post-operative pathological evaluation of pancreatectomy specimens. Automated yet reliable pre-operative LN segmentation and identification are highly desirable for patient surgical or RT treatment planing.
LN segmentation is inherently challenging due to two reasons: 1) small to tiny sizes of LN cause extreme foreground-background class imbalance problem; 2) LNs have CT attenuation values similar to vessels and other soft-tissue structures,
resulting in visual confusions. Existing work \cite{oda2018dense, bouget2019semantic, guo2021deepstationing} mainly adopt U-Net based deep networks \cite{ronneberger2015u, cciccek20163d,isensee2021nnu} as strong backbones, in which skip connections aggregate multi-level semantic representation and alleviate vanishing gradient problem.
They incorporate anatomical context by directly taking organs$\&$vessels segmentation masks as either supervision targets \cite{oda2018dense} or additional inputs \cite{bouget2021mediastinal, guo2021deepstationing}. Concerns are remained that the relationship between lymphatic anatomy and adjacent anatomical structures is not well explored. We address it by introducing a distance-guided attention map to fully utilize the spatial priors. In our segmentation framework, the LN attention map is obtained via a pre-defined mapping from distance maps of related organs/vessels that have been integrated into UNet-based backbone to control the segmentation network's spatial focus. It simultaneously assists in improving sample selection strategy that filters out non-informative negative samples (called "informative negative selection") to tackle the class imbalance problem. The segmented LNs are labeled as positive/negative using radiologist's judgement as the standard that combines information from pathological results and CT intensities. A classification network is subsequently derived by sharing the same backbone with segmentation and initialized with the trained segmentation parameters. This strategy benefits the classification task from densely structured prediction in segmentation. By predicting LN metastasis in patients with PDAC, we employ a modified ResNet\cite{he2016deep} classification model. Tumor characteristics are proven to be important cues for metastasis \cite{li2020contrast,bian2019relationship,gao2020radiomics}, so we integrate both tumor and LN cues by taking as inputs the image patches of tumor and the patient-wise aggregation of LN segmentation and identification.
Our main contribution is four folds: 1) To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first to directly incorporate automated LN segmentation and identification for assisting preoperative LN metastasis status prediction for patients with PDAC. 2) We propose an attention-based LN segmentation network with the guidance of distances to nearby anatomical structures, explicitly exploiting the spatial priors and simultaneously addressing the foreground-background imbalance issue. 3) We design a compositive LN metastasis status prediction network combining both tumor and positive LN characteristics, showing the potential of tumor-LN guided cues. 4) Extensive quantitative experiments are conducted to evidently validate the effectiveness of our deep local attention network in both tasks of LN segmentation and LN metastasis status prediction, and external multi-center clinical evaluation is performed to demonstrate the generalization ability. Without loss of generality, our proposed method is applicable for finding the preoperative LN metastasis status of other types of solid tumor or cancers, such as liver or gastric cancers.
\section{Related Work}
\subsection{Lymph Node Segmentation}
Automated LN segmentation in CT images is an essential yet challenging task in medical image analysis. Traditional approaches tackle this problem by the means of atlas based search
space restriction\cite{feuerstein2012mediastinal}, spatial prior features combination\cite{liu2016mediastinal,liu2014mediastinal}, supervoxel clustering\cite{oda2017hessian}, etc.
In recent years, U-Net based deep networks have shown remarkable performance in numerous organ or tumor segmentation tasks\cite{seo2019modified,huang20193d,kazemifar2018segmentation, oktay2018attention,gerard2019pulmonary}. nnUNet\cite{isensee2021nnu} further proposes a self-configuring approach, with automatic configurations including preprocessing,
network architecture, training and post-processing, that achieves robust performance and general applicability. To address the strong class imbalance issues in LN segmentation, four other anatomical structures are included as training targets \cite{oda2018dense} using 3D U-Net\cite{cciccek20163d} framework. \cite{bouget2019semantic} utilizes parallel networks of 2D U-Net\cite{ronneberger2015u} and Mask R-CNN\cite{he2017mask} with the supervision of all considered anatomical structures and LNs, benefiting from both semantic and instance segmentation. Another strategy to incorporate anatomical context is to take organ segmentation masks as additional channels of the input. \cite{bouget2021mediastinal} proposes an ensemble approach for
a slab-wise and a downsampled full volume based LN segmentation, taking the concatenation of CT image and segmented anatomical structure mask as input. DeepStationing\cite{guo2021deepstationing} presents a key referencing organ auto-search strategy and combines selected organs into the network via input concatentation for LN station parsing. All above methods implicitly exploit spatial priors of LNs by injecting the anatomical structure masks either as inputs or supervisions, hence the prior knowledge has not been fully exploited. More importantly, there is a lack of studies on how LN segmentation could be used for predicting metastasis.
\subsection{Lymph Node Metastasis Prediction}
\textbf{Radiomics Methods.}
Radiomics is a powerful technique for extracting quantitative image features with the purpose of clinical decision support, and thus widely used in cancer research \cite{kumar2012radiomics,gillies2016radiomics,lambin2012radiomics,gao2020radiomics,meng20202d}. It converts imaging data into different types of hand-crafted features, including shape, intensity, texture and filter-based (e.g., wavelet, Laplacian of Gaussian) features. Applications of radiomics on predicting LN metastasis from primary tumor have been explored in many recent works\cite{ji2019biliary,wang2020ct,li2020contrast,bian2019relationship,yang2020integrating}. Radiomics features are first extracted from manually delineated tumor regions in any contrast-enhanced CT images. Feature selection and classification model construction (e.g., logistic regression, random forest) are then performed to give LN metastasis prediction for various cancer types like gastric cancer\cite{wang2020ct, meng20202d}, biliary tract cancer\cite{ji2019biliary} and PDAC\cite{li2020contrast,bian2019relationship,gao2020radiomics}. Relying only on primary tumor radiomics without considering LNs characteristics may limit the prediction performance, thus \cite{yang2020integrating} uses manual annotations of the largest LN visible in the gastric region and combines LN radiomics into the prediction model for gastric cancer. However, problem still remains because it simply involves the largest LN without identifying the nodal positivity.
\textbf{Deep Learning based Methods.} Recent advances in deep learning have made it a mainstream method of addressing the entire workflow of diagnosis and treatment for various cancer types on medical imaging, such as orapharageal cancer~\cite{ChengYao2021CCR}, lung cancer~\cite{xu2019CCR}, as well as pancreatic cancer~\cite{xia2021effective,zhao20213d,yao2020deepprognosis}. Deep neural networks are applied to LN metastasis in many studies\cite{zheng2020deep,dong2020deep,harmon2020multiresolution,jin2021deep}. In \cite{zheng2020deep}, deep features are extracted from tumor ROIs in bimodal image (i.e., US and SWE) using ResNet\cite{he2016deep}, and then fed into a SVM model for predicting axillary LN status in breast cancer. For gastric cancer, \cite{dong2020deep} combines DenseNet\cite{huang2017densely} features with some hand-crafted features, extracted from the 2D tumor ROI with the largest area in multi-phase CT images. To investigate metastasis in individual LN stations for gastric cancer, \cite{jin2021deep} develops a system of multiple independent ResNets with tumor ROIs and corresponding annotation masks as inputs where each ResNet is responsible to predict metastasis at one specific nodal station. Most existing studies capture only tumor characteristics for LN metastasis prediction, while the one leveraging LN radiomics requires manual delineation and considers simply the LN with the largest size \cite{yang2020integrating}. An automated and accurate process of LN segmentation and nodal positivity identification is hence of high importance for assisting metastasis prediction.
\section{Methodology}\label{sec1:methods}
The overall framework is illustrated in Fig. \ref{Fig:framework}, which is composed of (a) distance-guided attention-based LN segmentation and identification network, and (b) tumor and LN combined metastasis status prediction network.
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{LNM_arch_v6.pdf}}
\caption{\small The proposed framework for (\textbf{a}) two-stage LN segmentation and identification and (\textbf{b}) LN metastasis status prediction .}
\label{Fig:framework}
\vspace{-2ex}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Distance-guided Attention-based Lymph Node Segmentation and Identification Network} \label{Sec:LNSeg}
We perform LN detection from any input CT scan by a two-stage strategy: segmenting the image into two classes of LN and background voxels, followed by identifying segmented LN instances as positive or negative.
\subsubsection{Stage 1: Class-agnostic Lymph Node Segmentation}
Based on the spatial prior that LN stations are geometrically distributed or constrained around certain anatomical structures, we propose an attention based LN segmentation network by taking the distances to nearby organs/vessels into account. Our LN segmentation network differs from the strong baseline (i.e., nnUNet \cite{isensee2021nnu}) in that attention mechanism is applied to guide possible LN locations, with the advantage of reducing false positive predictions outside those locations. The intuition behind the attention module is that the attention map can cover regions adjacently constrained to those organs and vessels.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{AttnMapGenExample.pdf}}
\caption{\small An illustration of attention map generation process.}
\label{Fig:AttmapGen}
\vspace{-2ex}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Attention Map Generation.} To explicitly capture and model the lymphatic anatomy, attention computation is implemented as a pre-defined geometric mapping function from organ$\&$vessel distance maps. An example of attention map generation process is shown in Fig. \ref{Fig:AttmapGen}. Specifically, given a multi-phase input CT volume $X \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times W \times H \times D}$, we first obtain organ$\&$vessel segmentation mask using nnUNet \cite{isensee2021nnu} model trained with 19 classes of annotations. Ten classes among them involved with 17 LN stations are used (see Supplementary Table 1 in the supplementary material for the definition of LN stations), i.e., spleen, esophagus, stomach, aorta, pancreas, duodenum, superior mesenteric artery (SMA), truncus coeliacus and splenic artery (TC$\&$SA), left gastric artery (LGA), common hepatic artery and proper hepatic artery (CHA$\&$PHA). Note that station 15\# (LNs along middle colic artery) is left aside here since it is related to distant metastasis that rarely happens in our patient population. A SDT is applied to each class of the segmentation mask $M \in \{0, 1,2,...,10\}^{W \times H \times D}$, generating a total of 10 organ/vessel distance maps $D^{i}$ where $i \in \{1, 2, ..., 10\}$ is the index of organ/vessel class. $D^{i}$ has positive values at the voxels outside the $i$-th organ/vessel and negative scores inside it. Intuitively, LNs are likely to appear within a certain range of distance to each organ/vessel, which requires paying attention to. To obtain the distance-guided attention maps, $D^{i}$ is passed to an isosceles trapezium-shaped non-linear mapping function (see Fig. \ref{Fig:AttmapGen}), formulated as
\begin{equation} \label{Eq:mapping}
f^i (d)=\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&1, &{d^i_{\mathrm{min}} \leq d \leq d^i_{\mathrm{\mathrm{max}}}}\\
& -\frac{(d-d^i_{\mathrm{max}}-3)}{3}, &{d^i_{\mathrm{max}} \textless d \textless d^i_{\mathrm{max}} + 3}\\
& \frac{(d-d^i_{\mathrm{min}}+3)}{3} , &{d^i_{\mathrm{min}} -3 \textless d \textless d^i_{\mathrm{min}}} \\
&0, &{Otherwise}
\end{aligned}
\right..
\end{equation}
where $d$ is the individual element in $D^{i}$; $d^i_{\mathrm{min}}$ and $d^i_{\mathrm{max}}$ determine the distance range in {\it mm}; the smooth border 3{\it mm} is chosen empirically. This mapping function converts the distance maps to the attention scores ranging from 0 to 1, with 1 indicating possible locations of LNs, 0 indicating impossible locations, and decimals lying in between. The $i$-th attention map $A^{i}$ is obtained by $A^{i}=f^i (D^{i})$.
The final attention map $A^{all}$ is produced by integrating all of the organ/vessel-specific attention maps, thus $A^{all}$ can cover the whole areas that need attending to. In specific, $A^{all}$ takes the element-wise maximum of all $A^{i}$ except for the voxels inside an organ/vessel, illustrated as
\begin{equation} \label{Eq:a}
a^{all}_{\mathrm{v}}=\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \max_{i=1,2,...,10} a^{i}_{\mathrm{v}},& m_{\mathrm{v}} = 0\\
&a^{i}_{\mathrm{v}}, & m_{\mathrm{v}} = i\\
\end{aligned}
\right..
\end{equation}
where $a^{*}_{\mathrm{v}}$ and $m_{\mathrm{v}}$ are the values of $A^{*}$ and $M$ at the voxel $\mathrm{v}$.
\textbf{Attention based Lymph Node Segmentation.} After obtaining the distance-guided attention map, we incorporate it to the segmentation network with 3D nnUNet\cite{isensee2021nnu} as the backbone. The attention mechanism emphasizes LN-related regions by spatially scaling the features with the attention map. Given the input image $X$ and the one-hot segmentation label $Y$, the deep features at the penultimate layer are extracted and multiplied element-wisely with $A^{all}$. It is finally passed through a convolution block with a softmax layer to produce the segmentation output $P \in \mathbb{R}^{2 \times W \times H \times D}$.
Due to GPU memory limitation, patch-based training strategy is employed. nnUNet randomly samples 3D image patches from the whole CT scan and enforces that more than a third of samples in a batch contain at least one foreground class to control the foreground-to-background ratio. Considering the extreme class imbalance problem caused by the small LN targets, we improve it with the ``informative negative selection" scheme. Note that our proposed attention mechanism helps block out features at the voxels with a certain distance to or inside all organs and vessels, resulting in lots of non-informative negative patches filled with 0 by applying zero attention scores. Thus we can naturally throw out those
non-informative patches, and select patches containing at least one attention score $\textgreater$ 0 (called informative patches) for training. This sampling strategy further boosts the network's concentration on targeted regions of interest (ROIs) surrounding organs/vessels.
For training objectives to better balance precision and recall , we modify the Dice loss in nnUNet with Tversky loss \cite{salehi2017tversky}:
\begin{equation}
L_{T}= - \frac{2}{\lvert V\rvert } \frac{\sum_{\mathrm{v}} p_{1,\mathrm{v}} y_{1,\mathrm{v}}}{2\sum_{\mathrm{v}} p_{1,\mathrm{v}} y_{1,\mathrm{v}} + \alpha \sum_{\mathrm{v}} p_{1,\mathrm{v}} y_{0,\mathrm{v}} + \beta \sum_{\mathrm{v}} p_{0,\mathrm{v}} y_{1,\mathrm{v}} }
\end{equation}
where $\lvert V\rvert$ is the number of voxels. $p_{1,\mathrm{v}}$ is the probability of voxel $\mathrm{v}$ being a LN, and $p_{0,\mathrm{v}}$ is the probability being a non-LN. Also, $y_{1,\mathrm{v}}$ is 1 for a LN voxel and 0 for a non-LN voxel, and vice versa for the $y_{0,\mathrm{v}}$. In practice, we set $\alpha=0.5$ and $\beta=1.5$ to emphasis on false negatives and boost recall. The whole network is trained by the combination of cross entropy loss $\mathcal{L}_{\text{CE}}$ and Tversky loss $\mathcal{L}_{\text{T}}$ with equal weights as in nnUNet.
\begin{align}
&\mathcal{L}_{\text{CE}} = - \frac{1}{\lvert V\rvert} \sum_{\mathrm{v}} \sum_{\mathrm{k}=0,1} y_{k,\mathrm{v}} \log(p_{k,\mathrm{v}}) \\
&\mathcal{L}_{\text{SEG}} = \mathcal{L}_{\text{CE}} + \mathcal{L}_{\text{T}}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{align}
Following nnUNet, the network is trained with deep supervision, i.e., losses are calculated over multi-resolution outputs given by final and intermediate layers of the decoder, and the corresponding downsampled ground-truth (GT) masks are used as targets. Here attention mechanism is applied in a multi-scale manner. That is, the attention map, after downsampled to match the resolution, is injected to the intermediate decoder feature for each deep supervision output.
\subsubsection{Stage 2: Instance-wise Lymph Node Identification}
After segmenting LN instances from the whole CT image, we then classify them into either positive or negative class. To benefit from the already trained dense segmentation network of stage 1, the task of LN instance identification reuses 3D nnUNet backbone and is initialized using the trained segmentation parameters, with a new classification head added upon it.
Cross entropy loss is adopted to finetune the whole network for classifying the instance as positive/negative. To generate LN instances, we crop patches centered at the connected components of the segmentation mask. GT LN instances are cropped and employed in the training phase. While at inference time, we can apply the classification network to identify each segmented LN of stage 1, and obtain a class-aware LN segmentation mask.
\subsection{Tumor and Lymph Node Combined LN Metastasis Status Prediction Network}
Besides LNs themselves, imaging characteristics in the primary tumor play an important role in predicting the status of LN metastasis. To further boost the performance, we build a combined classification network, integrating both PDAC and LNs related information. In contrast to previous work that only consider tumor characteristics\cite{li2020contrast,bian2019relationship,gao2020radiomics}, our method benefits from directly observing the status of LN instances by automated LN segmentation and identification.
Given a CT image and the corresponding PDAC mask, 2D slices with the top three largest PDAC areas
in each of axial, sagittal, and coronal planes are cropped, resulting in nine image patches in total. Each image patch is fed into a ResNet~\cite{he2016deep} pre-trained on ImageNet~\cite{deng2009imagenet} for metastasis prediction. Inspired by \cite{eppel2018classifying}, a side branch with the PDAC mask as input is added to encourage the network to concentrate on the PDAC region. Specifically, the side branch consists of a Conv-ReLU block and maps the input mask to a feature map with the same shape as the output of ``Conv1" layer in ResNet. It is then integrated into the backbone by element-wise multiplication with the ``Conv1" feature. Our initial experiment empirically shows that such incorporation produces better performance than direct input-level fusion, as the convolution in the side branch learns which region to focus on in each channel of ``Conv1" feature (e.g., regions inside the mask, around the mask border or outside the mask). To be better aligned with the pre-trained backbone and eliminate the initial effect of the side branch, the weights and biases in the convolution layer are initialized to 0 and 1 respectively. Before classification, we additionally employ a Texture Encoding Layer (TEL) \cite{zhang2017deep} on top of the ``Layer4" feature $\mathcal{F}_{L4}$ to extract respective texture representation. TEL serves as an orderless feature pooling layer that encodes spatially invariant representation describing the feature distributions, which benefits texture recognition of the PDAC region. The original deep feature is merged with the texture feature to form an enhanced representation $\mathcal{F}$:
\begin{align}
&\mathcal{F} = \mathrm{Concat}(\mathrm{GAP}(\mathcal{F}_{L4}), \mathrm{TEL}(\mathcal{F}_{L4}))
\vspace{-1em}
\end{align}
where Concat and GAP denote feature concatenation and global average layer, respectively.
We further integrate LN-related cues into the network given the LN segmentation and identification results described in Section \ref{Sec:LNSeg}. A patient is considered as metastasis-positive if there exists at least one positive LN, thus it is very sensitive to the false positives in LN identification. Therefore, we employ the volume of positive LN as the feature instead of
its binary status of presence/absence, based on the fact that positive LNs tend to have larger volume than negative ones. The volume of the largest positive LN in each patient $\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{pLN}}^{\max}=\max \limits_{ln \in \{positive\ LNs\}} \mathcal{V}_{ln}$ (in {\it mm$^3$}) is mapped to a vector-shaped feature, and fused with $\mathcal{F}$ by element-wise addition, formulated as follows:
\begin{align}
&\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{comb}} = \mathrm{FC}(\mathrm{BN}(\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{pLN}}^{\max})) + \mathcal{F}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{align}
where $\mathrm{FC}$ and $\mathrm{BN}$ denote the full-connected layer and batch normalization layer, respectively. Other LN features, such as the average or total volume of positive LNs, are also evaluated, with the current setting giving the best result. Finally, the classification probabilities generated from nine image patches are averaged to given an ensembled prediction for a patient.
\section{Experiments}
In this section, we first demonstrate the multicenter datasets (i.e. the discovery dataset and two external datasets) and implementation details, and then elaborate the strategy we use to generate PDAC segmentation masks. Subsequently we present results on the discovery dataset in each step of our method, including organ$\&$vessel segmentation, attention map generation, LN segmentation and identification, and LN metastasis status prediction. Finally, external validation is conducted to evaluate the generalization performance of LN metastasis status prediction, with only pathology reports accessible in two external datasets.
\subsection{Experimental Settings}
\subsubsection{Dataset}
\begin{table*}[htb]
\small
\centering
\caption{\small Demographic distributions and tumor characteristics in the three datasets (\textbf{Discovery dataset}, \textbf{Ext-validation dataset 1} and \textbf{Ext-validation dataset 2}). Median [interquartile range, 25th–75th percentile] values are reported for continuous variables.}
\label{Tab:Dataset}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{Characteristics} & Discovery dataset & Ext-validation dataset 1& Ext-validation dataset 2 \\
& (n=749) & (n=132) & (n=59) \\
\midrule
Gender, n ($\%$) & & &\\
Female & 282 (38$\%$)& 60 (45$\%$)& 28 (47$\%$)\\
Male & 467 (62$\%$) & 72 (55 $\%$)& 31 (53$\%$)\\
Age at Diagnosis, yrs & 63 [56-69]& 60 [53-65]& 58 [51-62]\\
pT Stage, n ($\%$) & & &\\
pT1 / pT2 & 92 (12$\%$) / 314 (42$\%$)& 24 (18$\%$)/ 80 (61$\%$)& 10 (17$\%$) / 31 (53$\%$)\\
pT3 / pT4 & 316 (42$\%$) / 13 (2$\%$) & 15 (11$\%$)/ 13 (10$\%$)& 5 (8$\%$)/ 13 (22$\%$)\\
Missing & 14 (2$\%$) & 0 (0 $\%$) & 0 (0 $\%$)\\
pN Stage, n ($\%$) & & &\\
pN0 & 398 (53$\%$)& 93 (70$\%$)& 22 (37$\%$)\\
pN1& 242 (32$\%$) & 32 (24$\%$)& 22 (37$\%$)\\
pN2 & 109 (15$\%$)& 7 (5$\%$)& 15 (25$\%$)\\
Tumor Size, cm & 3.0 [2.5-4.1]& 2.7 [2.2-3.0]& 2.9 [2.2-3.4]\\
Tumor Location, n ($\%$) & & &\\
Head / Uncinate & 475 (63$\%$)& 56 (42$\%$)/ 52 (39$\%$)& 35 (59$\%$)/ 22 (37$\%$)\\
Body / Tail & 274 (37$\%$)& 2 (2$\%$)/ 22 (17$\%$)& 2 (3$\%$)/ 0 (0$\%$)\\
Positive LN Volume, {\it mm}$^3$& 665[210-804]& - & -\\
Negative LN Volume, {\it mm}$^3$& 300[106-377]& - & -\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{table*}
We conduct a multicenter study on three independent datasets with a total of 940 patients collected from Changhai Hospital in Shanghai, Shengjing Hospital in Liaoning Province, and Tianjin Cancer Hospital in Tianjin. All patients had a pathologically confirmed diagnosis of PDAC, and contrast-enhanced CT scans of arterial (A) and venous (V) phases acquired before treatment were included in this study. We labeled LNs on the dataset from Changhai Hospital (denoted as Discovery dataset), and developed our model on it using nested cross-validation (CV). The rest two datasets from Shengjing Hospital and Tianjin Cancer Hospital (denoted as Ext-validation dataset 1 and Ext-validation dataset 2) were used as external validation sets with only pathologically diagnosed LN metastasis status provided. This study was reviewed and approved by the Biomedical Research Ethics Committee of the institution (No. CHEC2021164), and was performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki. The requirement for patient informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board due to the retrospective nature of the study and because all procedures performed were part of routine care.
\textbf{Discovery dataset} contains CT scans of 749 patients, among which there are 351 positive samples (patients with LN metastasis) and 398 negative samples (patients without LN metastasis).
The annotation of LNs was performed by two board-certified radiologists (XF with 7 and MZ with 5 years of experiences in pancreatic imaging) with referring to pathology report under supervision of a senior radiologist (YB) with 17 years of experiences in pancreatic imaging. There are totally 2,467 labeled LNs, of which 476 are positive and the rest are negative. In specific, 351 metastasis-positive patients contain 476 labeled positive and 322 labeled negative LNs, and 398 metastasis-negative patients have the rest 1,669 labeled negative LNs.
This dataset was split using nested five-fold CV, with 64\%, 16\% and 20\% as training, validation and testing sets in each CV round. As for the primary tumor, 163 patients among the whole dataset were annotated with 3D tumor masks by two radiologists (XF and MZ). We use these 163 patients as the testing set and the remaining unlabeled 586 patients as the training set for an annotation-efficient PDAC segmentation. Additionally, we generate pseudo annotations of 17 classes of organs and vessels using the self-learning segmentation model described in \cite{yao2021deepprognosis}, and manually annotate extra two vessels (LGA, CHA$\&$PHA) and extend other two vessels (SMA and TC$\&$SA) under the supervision of a radiologist (XF) for 50 patients randomly sampled from our dataset. 40/10 of these patients are used as training and validation sets for organ$\&$vessel segmentation, respectively.
\textbf{Ext-validation dataset 1} contains CT scans of 132 patients with 39 positive and 93 negative patients; \textbf{Ext-validation dataset 2} contains 59 patients with 37 positive and 22 negative patients. More detailed information on three datasets can be seen in Table \ref{Tab:Dataset}.
\subsubsection{Implementation Details}
In our experiments, CT images of arterial phase are registered to venous phase using DEEDS\cite{heinrich2013towards}, and they are all resampled to a median spacing of 0.68 $\times$ 0.68 $\times$ 0.80 mm. For LN segmentation and organ$\&$vessel segmentation, sub-volumes of 160 $\times$ 192 $\times$ 80 are randomly cropped as training patches. In the non-linear mapping from distance maps to attention maps for our LN segmentation, parameters of the mapping function are determined by grouping GT LN voxels according to which organ/vessel is closest to, and calculating the minimum and maximum distances to organ/vessel boundaries in each group. Parameters are listed in Table \ref{Tab:mappingPara}, in which negative values indicate voxels inside organ/vessel.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\small
\centering
\caption{Parameters (i.e. $\mathrm{d_{min}}$ and $\mathrm{d_{max}}$) of non-linear mapping function for each organ or vessel. SMA: superior mesenteric artery. TC$\&$SA: truncus coeliacus and splenic artery. LGA: left gastric artery; CHA$\&$PHA: common hepatic artery and proper hepatic artery.}
\label{Tab:mappingPara}
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\toprule
{Organ/Vessel} & $\mathrm{d_{min}}$ (mm)& $\mathrm{d_{max}}$ (mm)\\
\midrule
Spleen & 0 & 16\\
Esophagus & 0& 25\\
Stomach & -2& 18\\
Aorta &0& 28\\
Pancreas & -5& 20\\
Duodenum & -5& 22\\
SMA & -1& 20\\
TC$\&$SA & -2& 18\\
LGA & 0 & 21\\
CHA$\&$PHA & 0 & 20 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{table}
As for instance-wise LN identification, 3D image training samples are generated by cropping a 96 $\times$ 96 $\times$ 80 sub-volume centered per each GT LN. SGD optimizer with Nesterov momentum ($\mu$ = 0.95) is adopted to train the network, whose initial learning rate and weight decay are $5 \times 10^{-4}$ and $1 \times 10^{-4}$, respectively. Furthermore, the final LN metastasis status prediction model takes 2D inputs of 224 $\times$ 224 centered at PDAC, and is trained using the same optimizer as above. Details of the network architecture are presented in the supplementary material.
\subsection{PDAC Segmentation Mask Acquisition/Harvesting}
We employ an annotation-efficient strategy to generate 3D masks of tumors for the labor cost reduction purpose. Specifically, we start with the PDAC segmentation model trained with arterial-late phase described in \cite{zhao20213d} to generate pseudo annotations. Next, the model is fine-tuned under the supervision of pseudo annotations and then applied to produce segmentation masks on our dataset. To obtain the PDAC segmentation model on venous phase, those segmentation masks are registered to venous phase and are then used to train a nnUNet model from scratch to generate the final 3D masks of tumors. We evaluate the final PDAC segmentation model on the labeled testing set. Median Dice score, average surface distance (ASD, {\it mm}), and Hausdorff distance (HD, {\it mm}) are 0.683, 2.186, and 12.805 respectively.
\subsection{Evaluation of Organ$\&$Vessel Segmentation and Attention Maps}
To evaluate the performance of organ$\&$vessel segmentation, a testing set of 19 randomly selected CT volumes with ten classes of organ/vessel is manually annotated by a radiologist (XF). To reduce the annotation burden, all dense CT volumes are downsampled to 5{\it mm} in the slice thickness dimension. We compare our self-learning model with the pseudo annotation generator \cite{yao2021deepprognosis}, which is able to segment eight of ten classes (except for LGA and CHA$\&$PHA) on single-phase CT. Dice score, ASD ({\it mm}), and HD ({\it mm}) are adopted as the evaluation metrics and the results are provided in Table \ref{Tab:ovseg}. Our model that is trained on two phases outperforms \cite{yao2021deepprognosis} on seven of eight organs/vessels. Note that SMA and TC$\&$SA masks segmented by \cite{yao2021deepprognosis} contain shorter parts compared with those segmented by our model, therefore, resulting in significantly lower performance than ours (0.331 lower Dice score in SMA, and 0.171 lower in TC$\&$SA).
\begin{table}[htb]
\small
\centering
\caption{\small Quantitative Performance of Organ$\&$Vessel Segmentation. A: arterial. V: venous. SMA: superior mesenteric artery. TC$\&$SA: truncus coeliacus and splenic artery. LGA: left gastric artery; CHA$\&$PHA: common hepatic artery and proper hepatic artery. }
\label{Tab:ovseg}
\resizebox{0.5\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{llcccc}
\toprule
{Organ/Vessel} &Methods&CT Phases&Dice & ASD ({\it mm}) & HD ({\it mm})\\
\midrule
{Spleen } & \cite{yao2021deepprognosis} & A & 0.938 & 0.643 & 14.252 \\
& \cite{yao2021deepprognosis} & V & 0.954 & 0.422 & 11.107 \\
& Ours & A+V& \textbf{0.959}& \textbf{0.384}& \textbf{8.129}\\
{Esophagus} &\cite{yao2021deepprognosis} & A & 0.557 & 0.936 & 13.897 \\
& \cite{yao2021deepprognosis} & V & 0.598 & 0.854 & 11.003 \\
& Ours& A+V&\textbf{0.745} & \textbf{0.641}& \textbf{8.125}\\
{Stomach} &\cite{yao2021deepprognosis} & A & 0.846 & 2.223 & 35.338 \\
& \cite{yao2021deepprognosis} & V & 0.813 & 3.765 & 43.114 \\
& Ours& A+V& \textbf{0.905}& \textbf{1.519}& \textbf{19.183}\\
{Aorta } &\cite{yao2021deepprognosis} & A & 0.893 & 0.519 & 8.130 \\
& \cite{yao2021deepprognosis} & V & \textbf{0.924} & 0.417 & 6.158 \\
& Ours& A+V& 0.920 & \textbf{0.359}& \textbf{5.863}\\
{Pancreas } &\cite{yao2021deepprognosis} & A & 0.712 & 2.905 & 25.880 \\
& \cite{yao2021deepprognosis} & V & 0.756 & 1.897 & 19.258 \\
& Ours& A+V& \textbf{0.847}& \textbf{0.975}& \textbf{12.859}\\
{Duodenum } &\cite{yao2021deepprognosis} & A & 0.613 & 2.976 & 34.187 \\
& \cite{yao2021deepprognosis} & V & 0.665 & 3.366 & 32.174 \\
& Ours& A+V&\textbf{ 0.764}& \textbf{1.892}& \textbf{29.131}\\
{SMA } &\cite{yao2021deepprognosis} & A & 0.387 & \textbf{0.663} & 68.869 \\
& \cite{yao2021deepprognosis} & V & 0.415 & 0.710 & 68.098 \\
& Ours& A+V& \textbf{0.746}& 0.860& \textbf{28.840}\\
{TC$\&$SA} & \cite{yao2021deepprognosis} & A & 0.563 & 0.780 & 43.974 \\
& \cite{yao2021deepprognosis} & V & 0.407 & 1.245 & 51.432 \\
& Ours & A+V&\textbf{ 0.734}& \textbf{0.305}& \textbf{22.224}\\
{LGA } & \cite{yao2021deepprognosis} & A & - & - & - \\
& \cite{yao2021deepprognosis} & V & - & - & - \\
& Ours& A+V& 0.651& 0.371& 10.420\\
{CHA$\&$PHA } &\cite{yao2021deepprognosis} & A & - & - & - \\
& \cite{yao2021deepprognosis} & V & - & - & - \\
& Ours & A+V& 0.715& 1.424& 24.239\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{table}
Qualitative evaluation of organ$\&$vessel segmentation examples as well as the corresponding attention maps are visualized in Fig. \ref{Fig:LNSeg} (b).
\subsection{Evaluation of Lymph Node Instance Segmentation and Identification}
\begin{table}[htb]
\small
\centering
\caption{\small Average instance-wise LN classification performance across 5 folds. The results are reported on GT instances.}
\label{Tab:LNCls_Results}
\begin{tabular}{lc}
\toprule
{Metric} & Performance \\
\midrule
AUC & 0.854 \\
Accuracy & 0.789 \\
Balanced accuracy & 0.771 \\
Sensitivity & 0.742 \\
Specificity & 0.800 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{table}
\begin{table*}[htb]
\small
\centering
\caption{\small Performance comparison on LN segmentation before and after instance-wise identification (denoted as \emph{Class-agnostic Seg} and \emph{Class-aware Seg}). Pos and Neg denote positive and negative LNs. Results are averaged across 5 folds. Wilcoxon signed rank test is conducted on voxel-wise Dice and instance-wise F-measure. * indicates $p$-value $\textless$ 0.05. NS indicates no significance.}
\label{Tab:LNSeg_Results}
\begin{tabular}{lcccccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{Stage} & \multirow{2}{*}{Class} &\multirow{2}{*}{Method} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Voxel-wise Metrics ($\%$)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Instance-wise Metrics ($\%$)} \\
\cmidrule{4-6} \cmidrule(lr){7-9}
& & & Dice & Recall & Precision & F-measure & Recall & Precision\\
\midrule
{Class-agnostic Seg}& \multirow{2}{*}{-} &\footnotesize{nnUNet} & 45.9$^ *$ & 75.4 & 36.2 & 36.1$^*$ & \textbf{81.0} &25.3\\
(before identification)& & Ours & \textbf{47.7}$^{ref}$ & \textbf{77.7} & \textbf{37.5} & \textbf{40.6}$^{ref}$ & 80.9 & \textbf{29.9}\\
\cmidrule(lr){1-9}
& \multirow{2}{*}{Pos} &\footnotesize{nnUNet} & 10.2$^*$& 32.3& 11.3& 11.7$^*$& 36.1& 12.0\\
Class-aware Seg & & Ours & \textbf{12.0}$^{ref}$& \textbf{38.9}& \textbf{11.7}& \textbf{13.5}$^{ref}$& \textbf{41.5}& \textbf{13.3}\\
\cmidrule(lr){2-9}
(after identification) & \multirow{2}{*}{Neg} & \footnotesize{nnUNet} & 27.5$^{NS}$& \textbf{51.1}& 25.4& 27.7$^*$& \textbf{60.0}& 22.9\\
& &Ours & \textbf{27.7}$^{ref}$& 49.0& \textbf{27.0}& \textbf{28.9}$^{ref}$& 56.2& \textbf{25.8}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-0.6em}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure*}[!h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{LNSegExample.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-2ex}
\caption{\small Examples of (a) LN segmentation and identification results, and (b) Organ$\&$Vessel segmentation and attention map results. }
\vspace{-0.2em}
\label{Fig:LNSeg}
\end{figure*}
\textbf{Quantitative Evaluation.} LNs are first detected by the class-agnostic segmentation model, and then identified as positive/negative by applying the classification model on the cropped instances. For positive/negative LN identification, our classification model is trained with Ground-Truth (GT) LNs, yielding an average AUC of 0.854 across 5 folds (in Table \ref{Tab:LNCls_Results}). At inference, the automatically segmented LNs are cropped and then identified by the classification model. To evaluate the segmentation performance before and after identification, we compare our method with a strong baseline, nnUNet \cite{isensee2021nnu}.
The segmentation accuracy is measured by voxel-wise metrics (i.e., Dice, Recall, Precision) and instance-wise metrics (F-measure, Recall, Precision). To achieve the statistical analysis, we apply 1,000 iterations of Wilcoxon signed rank test to voxel-wise Dice and instance-wise F-measure. Results are provided in Table \ref{Tab:LNSeg_Results}. An instance is considered successfully detected if its (intersect-over-union) IoU score between the segmentation mask and GT mask is $\ge$ 30 $\%$. Before identification, our segmentation model significantly outperforms nnUNet on both voxel-wise and instance-wise metrics, with the voxel-wise Dice increasing from 45.9$\%$ to 47.7$\%$ and the instance-wise F-measure increasing from 36.1$\%$ to 40.6$\%$, as shown in Table \ref{Tab:LNSeg_Results}. In addition, our model also yields superior performance in terms of both positive and negative LNs after identification, achieving 1.8$\%$ higher voxel-wise Dice and 1.8$\%$ higher instance-wise F-measure in terms of positive LNs, and 0.2$\%$ higher voxel-wise Dice and 1.2$\%$ higher instance-wise F-measure in terms of negative LNs. In total five out of six comparisons, our method is statistically significantly better or more accurate (i.e., with $p$-value $\textless$ 0.05) in LN segmentation than the nnUNet baseline (implemented without the attention maps).
\begin{table*}[!ht]
\renewcommand\arraystretch{0.95}
\small
\centering
\caption{\small Performance comparison and ablation study on LN metastasis status prediction of Discovery dataset. Results are averaged across 5 folds. Wilcoxon signed rank test is conducted on balanced accuracy. * indicates $p$-value $\textless$ 0.05. NS indicates no significance.}
\label{Tab:LNMAbaltionBaseline}
\begin{tabular}{llllll}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{Method} & Balanced Accuracy & AUC & Accuracy & Sensitivity & Specificity \\
& [95$\%$ CI] & [95$\%$ CI] & [95$\%$ CI] & [95$\%$ CI] & [95$\%$ CI] \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{CT-reported LN status} & 0.599$^*$ & - & 0.599 & 0.588 & 0.609 \\
& [0.564-0.634] & & [0.565-0.634] & [0.538-0.635] & [0.558-0.657] \\
\multirow{2}{*}{Radiomics } & 0.597$^*$ & 0.648 & 0.603 & 0.508 & 0.686\\
& [0.563-0.633] & [0.598-0.681] & [0.569-0.637] & [0.456-0.561] & [0.638-0.734] \\
{Radiomics + } & 0.604$^*$& 0.654& 0.610& 0.524& 0.684\\
{CT-reported LN status} & [0.572-0.641] & [0.612-0.692] & [0.575-0.644] & [0.470-0.581] & [0.641-0.731] \\
\multirow{2}{*}{ResNet3D} & 0.562$^*$& 0.609& 0.554& 0.599& 0.524\\
& [0.521-0.593] & [0.550-0.631] & [0.519-0.587] & [0.538-0.644] & [0.475-0.568] \\
\multirow{2}{*}{ResNet2D} & 0.571$^*$& 0.631& 0.574& 0.568& 0.574\\
& [0.540-0.609] & [0.590-0.667] & [0.537-0.607] & [0.519-0.624] & [0.530-0.628] \\
\multirow{2}{*}{DeepTEN} & 0.588$^*$& 0.634& 0.593& 0.609& 0.566 \\
& [0.560-0.628] & [0.599-0.679] & [0.559-0.628] & [0.564-0.667] & [0.520-0.621] \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{ClsfromPDAC} & 0.599$^*$& 0.654 & 0.597 & 0.600& 0.597\\
&[0.558-0.634]& [0.608-0.685] & [0.561-0.633] & [0.547-0.647]&[0.550-0.646]\\
\multirow{2}{*}{ClsbyLNSeg w/o Attn} & 0.545$^*$& 0.590 & 0.566& 0.433& 0.657\\
& [0.525-0.593] & [0.548-0.625] & [0.534-0.601] & [0.393-0.499] & [0.623-0.716] \\
\multirow{2}{*}{ClsbyLNSeg w/ Attn} & 0.563$^*$& 0.603& 0.572& 0.351& \textbf{0.775}\\
& [0.530-0.594] &[0.564-0.642] & [0.539-0.605] & [0.299-0.396] & [0.731-0.814] \\
{Ours (ClsfromPDAC + } & \textbf{0.633}$^{ref}$ & \textbf{0.682} & \textbf{0.635} & \textbf{0.618}& 0.649\\
{ClsbyLNSeg w/ Attn)}& [0.599-0.669] &[0.640-0.717] & [0.601-0.669] & [0.567-0.664] & [0.603-696] \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-1.0em}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]\centering
\subfloat[\label{fig:a}]{ \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{Ablation_testing_roc.PNG}\label{Fig:AblationROC}}
\subfloat[\label{fig:a}]{ \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{baseline_testing_roc.PNG}\label{Fig:BaselineROC}}
\caption{ROC curve comparison of (\textbf{a}) ablation study and (\textbf{b}) baseline models and our method using nested five-fold cross-validation in Discovery dataset.}
\label{Fig:ROC}
\end{figure*}
\textbf{Qualitative Evaluation.}
Examples of LN segmentation and identification results are shown in Fig. \ref{Fig:LNSeg} (a) for qualitative comparison. Our segmentation model leverages prior knowledge of LNs' position distribution by incorporating the attention mechanism to remove false positives that are far from anatomically plausible LN areas. In Fig. \ref{Fig:LNSeg} (a), we can observe that nnUNet tends to falsely detect an instance inside some organs or located very far, while our method provides noticeably less false positives.
\subsection{Evaluation of Patient-wise Lymph Node Metastasis Status Prediction} \label{Sec:metastasis}
\textbf{Metrics.} In this section, we evaluate various performance metrics of LN metastasis status prediction. For this binary classification problem, AUC, accuracy, balanced accuracy, sensitivity and specificity are adopted as evaluation metrics and the average results across 5 folds are reported. Statistical analysis is also carried out to verify the significance of performance improvement.
We collect the predictions of all 5 folds, repeat 1,000 times of bootstrapping for calculating balanced accuracy, and apply Wilcoxon signed rank test to balanced accuracy distributoins to compare our method with several other configurations.
For comparing ROC curves, DeLong test is performed. $P$-values $\textless$ 0.05 are considered as statistically significant. To compute 95$\%$ CI, the 2.5th percentile and 97.5th percentile are estimated after 1,000 times of bootstrapping.
\textbf{Ablation Study.} We first investigate the impact of each component in our framework. To evaluate the metastasis prediction performance of LN segmentation and identification, the results can be aggregated into patient-level prediction, based on the definition that a patient with at least one positive LN is metastasis-positive. However, due to a large number of false positives produced by segmentation (LN segmentation in CT images is challenging after all), it will lead to a poor performance if predicting metastasis simply based on the presence of positive LN in the segmentation results. We instead conduct ROC analysis on the volume of the largest positive LN in each case, and find an optimal threshold with the best balanced accuracy in the validation set. Then the threshold is applied to the testing set. A patients with positive LNs larger than the threshold are classified into metastasis-positive; otherwise, it is classified into metastasis-negative. The ablation models for consideration/comparison are listed as follows:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\setlength\itemsep{0em}
\item ClsfromPDAC: The straightforward strategy combining ResNet2D \cite{he2016deep} feature and DeepTEN \cite{zhang2017deep} feature, extracted from PDAC slices, in the input of the classification layer.
\item ClsbyLNSeg w/o Attn: Patient-level metastasis aggregation from the results of LN segmentation without attention (i.e. nnUNet).
\item ClsbyLNSeg w/ Attn: Patient-level metastasis aggregation from the results of our proposed LN segmentation with attention.
\item ClsfromPDAC + ClsbyLNSeg w/ Attn: Combined model incorporating the volume of the largest positive LN given by ClsbyLNSeg w/ Attn into the classification layer of ClsfromPDAC.
\end{itemize}
The results of the ablation experiments are summarized in Table \ref{Tab:LNMAbaltionBaseline}, and ROC analysis is illustrated in Fig. \ref{Fig:ROC}(a). By using only information about LNs, ClsbyLNSeg w/ Attn gives better aggregation results compared with ClsbyLNSeg w/o Attn (balanced accuracy 0.563 versus 0.545). Our final model (ClsfromPDAC + ClsbyLNSeg w/ Attn) significantly outperforms the other three models with a balanced accuracy of 0.633 ($p$-value $\textless$ 0.05), which reveals the success of integrating both tumor and LNs imaging information for metastasis prediction.
\textbf{Comparison with Baselines.} To validate the effectiveness of our method, radiomics model \cite{li2020contrast} and 2D/3D deep classification models are taken for comparison. To build the radiomics model, 1688 radiomics features of PDAC for each CT phase are extracted using Pyradiomics package \cite{van2017computational}\footnote{https://pyradiomics.readthedocs.io/}, and then shrunk using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) method. Then a logistic regression model is applied to the selected features. The combined model of radiomics and CT-reported LN status is implemented with a logistic regression model on radiomics signature and radiologists' diagnosis. For 2D deep networks, ResNet2D \cite{he2016deep} and DeepTEN \cite{zhang2017deep}, we use ResNet-18 backbone pre-trained on ImageNet \cite{deng2009imagenet}; while for 3D deep networks, we adopt 3D-ResNet-18 \cite{hara3dcnns} backbone pre-trained on Kinetics-700 \cite{kay2017kinetics} and Moments in Time \cite{monfort2019moments}. In all of 2D/3D deep networks, a side branch with the PDAC mask as input is added to the backbone, as we implemented in our method, for fair comparison. Table \ref{Tab:LNMAbaltionBaseline} and Fig. \ref{Fig:ROC}(b) present the quantitative results of different models. More importantly, our method yields the best balanced accuracy (0.633) among all compared methods, and is significantly better than the radiomics method and all of 2D/3D deep networks.
\subsection{External Validation}
In this section, we demonstrate the generalization ability of our LN metastasis status prediction in two external multi-center datasets (i.e., Ext-validation dataset 1 and Ext-validation dataset 2). After training the model on Discovery dataset using cross validation, we apply the model to external datasets for inference. For each patient, the ensemble prediction is generated by averaging the model predictions from five folds. We first evaluate the performance of ablation variants, and then compare our method with baseline models. Metrics are used the same as Section \ref{Sec:metastasis}.
\textbf{Ablation Study.}
We conduct ablation study on two external datasets, and results are shown in Table \ref{Tab:LNMAbaltionBaselineExt}. With respect to LN metastasis status prediction using only LN-related information, our method (ClsbyLNSeg w/ Attn) outperforms nnUNet (ClsbyLNSeg w/o Attn) on both two datasets (balanced accuracy 0.589 versus 0.579 on Ext-validation dataset 1, 0.639 versus 0.607 on Ext-validation dataset 2). By integrating PDAC characteristics, our final model (ClsfromPDAC + ClsbyLNSeg w/ Attn) gives the best results among all ablation models (balanced accuracy 0.620 on Ext-validation dataset 1 and 0.684 on Ext-validation dataset 2).
\begin{table*}[!ht]
\renewcommand\arraystretch{0.95}
\small
\centering
\caption{\small Performance comparison and ablation study on LN metastasis status prediction of two external datasets. Predictions are averaged across 5 folds. Wilcoxon signed rank test is conducted on balanced accuracy. * indicates $p$-value $\textless$ 0.05. NS indicates no significance.}
\label{Tab:LNMAbaltionBaselineExt}
\begin{tabular}{lllllll}
\toprule
\multirow{3}{*}{Dataset} & \multirow{3}{*}{Method} & Balanced & \multirow{2}{*}{AUC} & \multirow{2}{*}{Accuracy} & \multirow{2}{*}{Sensitivity}& \multirow{2}{*}{Specificity} \\
& & Accuracy & & & &\\
&& [95$\%$ CI] & [95$\%$ CI] & [95$\%$ CI] & [95$\%$ CI] & [95$\%$ CI] \\
\midrule
&\multirow{2}{*}{Radiomics } & 0.493$^*$ & 0.511 & 0.672 & 0.051 & \textbf{0.935}\\
&& [0.451-0.537] &[0.400-0.620] & [0.626-0.710]& [0.000-0.128] & [0.880-0.978] \\
&\multirow{2}{*}{ResNet3D} & 0.508$^*$& 0.509& 0.527& 0.462& 0.554\\
&& [0.415-0.612] &[0.409-0.617] & [0.450-0.611] & [0.308-0.615] & [0.457-0.663] \\
&\multirow{2}{*}{ResNet2D} & 0.563$^*$&0.564& 0.542& 0.615& 0.511\\
&&[0.470-0.656]& [0.460-0.676] & [0.466-0.626] & [0.462-0.769] & [0.413-0.609] \\
&\multirow{2}{*}{DeepTEN} & 0.556$^*$&0.557& 0.511& \textbf{0.667}& 0.446 \\
{Ext-validation}&& [0.467-0.647] &[0.454-0.666] & [0.427-0.595] & [0.513-0.795] & [0.348-0.544] \\
\cmidrule(lr){2-7}
{dataset 1} &\multirow{2}{*}{ClsfromPDAC} & 0.515$^*$& 0.554 & 0.485 & 0.590& 0.441\\
& & [0.423-0.609]& [0.450-0.661]& [0.402-0.568] & [0.436-0.744] & [0.344-0.548]\\
&\multirow{2}{*}{ClsbyLNSeg w/o Attn} & 0.579$^*$& 0.555 & 0.689& 0.308& 0.849\\
& & [0.498-0.662] & [0.454-0.641] & [0.621-0.750] &[0.179-0.462]&[0.774-0.914]\\
&\multirow{2}{*}{ClsbyLNSeg w/ Attn} & 0.589$^*$& 0.580& \textbf{0.705}& 0.308& 0.871\\
& & [0.511-0.672]&[0.474-0.694]& [0.644-0.765]& [0.154-0.462]&[0.796-0.935]\\
&{Ours (ClsfromPDAC + } & \textbf{0.620}$^{ref}$ &\textbf{0.603}& 0.674& 0.487& 0.753\\
&{ClsbyLNSeg w/ Attn)}& [0.538-0.713] & [0.498-0.712] & [0.598-0.742] & [0.333-0.641] & [0.667-0.839] \\
\midrule
&\multirow{2}{*}{Radiomics } &0.508$^*$ & 0.609 & 0.441 & 0.243 & 0.773\\
&& [0.391-0.626] &[0.452-0.757] & [0.339-0.542] & [0.108-0.378] & [0.591-0.909] \\
&\multirow{2}{*}{ResNet3D} & 0.461$^*$&0.442& 0.475& 0.514& 0.409\\
&&[0.334-0.584] & [0.300-0.593] & [0.356-0.594] & [0.351-0.676] & [0.182-0.591] \\
&\multirow{2}{*}{ResNet2D} & 0.681$^*$&0.687& 0.650& 0.577& 0.786\\
&& [0.536-0.810] &[0.508-0.849] & [0.500-0.800] & [0.385-0.731] & [0.571-0.930] \\
&\multirow{2}{*}{DeepTEN} & 0.613$^*$&0.647& 0.640& \textbf{0.697}& 0.529 \\
{Ext-validation}&&[0.465-0.747] & [0.474-0.806] & [0.520-0.760] & [0.545-0.848] & [0.294-0.765] \\
\cmidrule(lr){2-7}
{dataset 2}&\multirow{2}{*}{ClsfromPDAC} & 0.620$^*$& 0.639 & 0.593& 0.514 & 0.727\\
& & [0.493-0.734] &[0.490-0.781] & [0.475-0.712] &[0.378-0.676]&[0.545-0.909]\\
&\multirow{2}{*}{ClsbyLNSeg w/o Attn} & 0.607$^*$&0.690& 0.542& 0.351& \textbf{0.864}\\
&&[0.503-0.716]&[0.554-0.818] & [0.441-0.661] & [0.216-0.487]&[0.682-1.000]\\
&\multirow{2}{*}{ClsbyLNSeg w/ Attn} & 0.639$^*$& 0.695 & 0.593& 0.459& 0.818\\
& &[0.525-0.752]& [0.552-0.833] & [0.475-0.695]& [0.297-0.622]&[0.636-0.955]\\
&{Ours (ClsfromPDAC + } &\textbf{0.684}$^{ref}$ & \textbf{0.703} & \textbf{0.661} & 0.595& 0.773\\
&{ClsbyLNSeg w/ Attn)}& [0.570-0.797] &[0.554-0.846] & [0.542-0.780] & [0.432-0.757] & [0.591-0.909] \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{table*}
\textbf{Comparison with Baselines.} Table \ref{Tab:LNMAbaltionBaselineExt} validates the generalization performance of our method compared with radiomics and 2D/3D deep learning models. Note that we skip methods involved with CT-reported LN status since there is no CT report available in two external datasets. The radiomics model shows poor generalization ability with a large drop in performance compared with that in Table \ref{Tab:LNMAbaltionBaseline}, while deep learning models are relatively more robust. Our method significantly surpasses all of 2D/2D deep learning models with $p$-value $\textless$ 0.05 on both external datasets (balanced accuracy 0.620 and 0.684 respectively), demonstrating the power of our model to generalize across different data sites.
\section{Discussion}\label{sec:discussion}
Pre-operative LN metastasis status prediction is of vital significance for PDAC patients in the following aspects. Firstly, if diagnosed with LN metastasis, patients with resectable PDAC are recommended to receive neoadjuvant therapy first before surgery, according to NCCN guidelines \cite{tempero2021pancreatic}. Secondly, pancreatectomy could be guided by whether and where their LNs have metastasized, that is, whether or not a standard or an extended lymphadenectomy should be performed. This could make the surgical procedure being more targeted beforehand which could lead to better patient outcome and avoid over-treatment. Thirdly, LN metastasis is highly associated with patients' survival, which can evidently assist with good prognosis prediction value \cite{yao2021deepprognosis}. Note that it is very time consuming and highly dependent on (board-certified radiologist) observer's experience and energy level to manually determine whether a patients has LN metastasis primarily from CT scans (even it is a very desirable task for patient care). CT-reported LN status in this study shows limited performance with an accuracy of 0.599, thus accurate LN metastasis status prediction is highly desired.
In the literature, LN metastasis status prediction has predominantly been studied through tumor feature extraction, combined with CT report information, using radiomics ~\cite{ji2019biliary,wang2020ct,li2020contrast,bian2019relationship,yang2020integrating,gao2020radiomics,meng20202d} or deep learning approaches~\cite{jin2021deep, dong2020deep}, while the one leveraging LN radiomics requires manual delineation and considers simply the LN with the largest size~\cite{yang2020integrating}. An automated and accurate
process of LN segmentation and nodal positivity identification is hence of high importance for assisting metastasis prediction. Predicting the metastasis status from automated segmented LNs is formulated by detecting metastatic LNs with Faster R-CNN \cite{lu2018identification}, however the spatial context priors towards LNs are not exploited. This work proposes an automated geometric attention mechanism using LN segmentation and identification to predict the patient-level status of LN metastasis.
To demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, we provide extensive quantitative experiments on LN segmentation/identification and LN metastasis status prediction. Our LN segmentation model statistically significantly outperforms the strong baseline nnUNet in voxel-wise and instance-wise metrics. For LN instance-wise detection, our model achieves considerable quantitative improvements (4.6$\%$) in precision (with respect to a similar recall level) as compared to nnUNet (see Table \ref{Tab:LNSeg_Results}). This observation clearly validates that the proposed distance-guided attention mechanism is beneficial to remove false positives as we expect. The success of our model can be attributed to its attention map design and informative negative selection scheme. The former defines the LN-plausible regions that deserve network's focus, and the latter helps to throw out non-informative negative training patches accordingly. As such, it becomes more efficient to train and force the model to learn discriminative features from possible LN locations. To verify the effect of LN detection improvements on patient-level metastasis status prediction, we perform instance-wise positivity identification and patient-wise aggregation on the LN instances to classify the patients into metastasis-positive/-negative, and our model presents better prediction performance than nnUNet (balanced accuracy 0.563 versus 0.545, Table \ref{Tab:LNMAbaltionBaseline}). We further combine the results with tumor CT imaging characteristics and our final prediction model achieves statistically significant performance gains compared to radiomics methods and other deep 2D/3D models (see Table \ref{Tab:LNMAbaltionBaseline}), which demonstrates the success and effectiveness of integrating tumor morphology and lymphatic anatomy. It is worth noting that our method achieves statistically significant improvement (balanced accuracy 0.633 versus 0.604) compared to the approach even with radiologists involved in ``Radiomics + CT-reported LN status" in Table \ref{Tab:LNMAbaltionBaseline}. Nevertheless, using our method, this time-consuming, subjective and highly challenging manual process of CT-reported LN status can be fully automated. External multi-center clinical validation is further conducted on extra two datasets from different hospitals, and the results evidently exhibit our superior performance accuracy and generalization ability with the best results (balanced accuracy 0.620 and 0.684 on the two external datasets) among several compared models (see Table \ref{Tab:LNMAbaltionBaselineExt}). With all above-mentioned experiments, our model reports highly generalized prediction performance (0.620$\sim$0.684) on multi-center datasets and robust improvements over CT-reported LN status (0.599) as well as radiomics and deep learning models, which clearly clarifies the advantage and stability of our model.
Although recent work \cite{li2020contrast,gao2020radiomics} report exceedingly high accuracy (AUC $\textgreater$ 0.9), they use small datasets of $<200$ patients, which would be subject to overfitting. Another recent progress in gastric cancer \cite{meng20202d} enrolls over 500 patients from multiple hospitals, and yields noticeably lower but probably more reliable AUC score of 0.615$\sim$0.712 in validation using 2D/2.5D/3D radiomics features and under different patient splits. \cite{meng20202d} is probably more suitable to serve as reference baseline for our work. We employs 940 patients in total in this study, in which 749 patients are from a high-volume pancreatic cancer clinical center and 191 are from two external centers. The studied patient population is arguably much closer and more realistic to the real-world patient data distributions comparing to \cite{li2020contrast,gao2020radiomics}, similar to \cite{meng20202d}. We present a very promising approach that explicitly explores the role of automated LN segmentation in promoting LN metastasis status prediction to facilitate future clinical adoption as a fully-automated and generalizable clinical tool. One limitation of our framework lies in the intuitive but simple solution that extracts tumor and LNs imaging information separately and then integrates them by feature concatenation, which does not fully exploit the nature of interactions between tumor and cancer cells in LNs. This work could be further improved in the future by designing an enriched deep learning geometric network representation to encode the tumor-LN topology information and spatial anatomical interactions, by modeling the pathways of nodal metastasis explicitly.
Last, without loss of generality, our proposed method is applicable for finding the preoperative LN metastasis status of other types of solid tumor or cancers, such as liver or gastric cancers. We leave this as future work.
\section{Conclusion}
We present an attention based LN segmentation network and utilize it on predicting LN metastasis in patients with PDAC. The proposed LN segmentation network involves an attention mechanism that encourages the network to focus on regions around certain anatomical organs/vessels. It outperforms the strong baseline nnUNet\cite{isensee2021nnu} by leveraging the context information of surrounding anatomical structures. Our segmentation model, followed by a nodal positivity identification model, can serve as a single predictor for LN metastasis. Combined with tumor imaging characteristics, we further build a compositive LN metastasis status prediction model that is validated to surpass the CT-reported results, radiomics based method, and other 2D/3D deep learning models. Further investigations include conceiving a more complicated way to encode tumor-LN relationship and exploring its applications to prognosis and treatment planning in cancer patient management.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work was supported in part by the National
Science Foundation for Scientists of China (81871352,
82171915, and 82171930), Clinical Research Plan of SHDC
(SHDC2020CR4073), 234 Platform Discipline Consolidation
Foundation Project (2019YPT001, 2020YPT001), and The
Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai Science and Technology Innovation Action Plan (21ZR1478500, 21Y11910300).
\input{refs.bbl}
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{\label{sec:intro}Introduction}
Nowadays, the demand for intelligent video analytics is growing across a wide spectrum of application areas~\cite{zhang2019edge}.
The key part of such systems is usually an image recognition (IR) component. However, as of today, the IR subsystem is, most commonly, deployed in the cloud.
This approach offers multiple benefits, such as availability of large and scalable computational resources, reliable APIs, and shifting the burden of system maintenance to the cloud service provider.
However, this comes at a cost. Sending data to the cloud raises both security and privacy concerns.
Moreover, communicating with the cloud always induces network latency, which may be significant in time-critical applications.
To address issues brought about by cloud-centric solutions, edge computing has been proposed. Here, the core of the approach is processing the data as close to the source as possible.
This allows for latency reduction, and helps ensure the security and privacy of data, which remains within the local network.
However, edge computing has its own set of issues. Typically, the computational resources, which are available at the edge are considerably smaller.
A possible solution to addressing the downsides of both these options is a combined approach -- an \emph{edge-cloud continuum}, where data is partially processed on the edge and partially in the cloud.
However, this raises the obvious question: at which point(s), within the continuum, individual parts of the system should be deployed.
Here, this question is considered within a real-world scenario of monitoring the entrance to an active construction site.
Specifically, the system is tasked with ensuring that (1) no unauthorized people enter the worksite, and (2) everybody is wearing appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), i.e. helmets and safety vests.
The scenario is evaluated as part of the ASSIST-IoT project, on a construction site in Warsaw, Poland, managed by the construction company Mostostal Warszawa. Here, the edge versus cloud discussion becomes particularly relevant. On the one hand, the privacy of workers is of paramount importance, while latencies must be minimized, to ensure a quick reaction, which hints at an edge deployment. On the other hand, given the limited hardware resources available on the edge, and the extremely harsh conditions of the construction site, a cloud deployment seems attractive.
Given the possible benefits of both solutions, in this contribution, a solution is proposed for an edge-cloud continuum video analytics architecture. The architecture can be deployed in two variants (edge-only, and edge-cloud), described in the \emph{Architecture} section.
Moreover, to determine the viability of the solution, an initial experimental study was performed. Here, an IR model was developed and integrated with the edge-only variant of the architecture. Next, it was tasked with detecting when personnel wearing PPE entered and exited the work site.
\section{\label{sec:background}Background}
To provide a context for this study, the state of the art of (1) IR system architectures and (2) machine learning models for PPE detection is summarized.
\paragraph{System architectures}
The most obvious benefit of deploying IR systems on the edge is the decreased latency.
This was demonstrated in~\cite{Zhou2020}, where facial recognition models were deployed on the edge.
The authors found that deploying the models on the edge resulted in significantly better response speeds, as compared to a cloud deployment.
In other studies~\cite{Liu2018, Liu2019}, the viability of deploying deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) in the edge-only scenario was investigated.
CNNs are characterized by high resource utilization, and thus are typically deployed in the cloud.
The studies found that deploying CNNs is viable on mobile devices, when parts of the computation can be offloaded to other edge devices.
Edge deployment allowed to achieve a consistently low latency of 2.24\,ms while using CNNs to perform real-time object tracking in augmented reality~\cite{Liu2019}.
Both studies showed that the edge deployment distributing the workload increased the inference capabilities of the system, as the models could not be run on the disconnected mobile devices alone.
One study~\cite{Huang2017} investigated an edge-cloud architecture, where data preprocessing servers were deployed close to the data source. The preprocessed data was then sent to a cloud-based deep-learning platform.
This resulted in decreasing network latency and traffic.
It also increased the security and privacy of the raw data.
On the other hand, edge deployments are more limited in terms of the available hardware. Low computational resources naturally limit the size of models and inference speed.
A study compared different implementations (based on TensorFlow, TensorRT, and TFLite) of the same video processing model~\cite{Koubaa2022}, and found them to differ in their resource utilization. The choice of implementation influenced the energy consumption of the model, as well as its inference speed.
Interestingly, the slowest implementation (TFLite) was the most energy efficient.
It was also found that TFLite managed to remain on par with the other implementations in terms of speed, when processing low-resolution video.
In the case of high-resolution video, more resource-intensive models were needed to maintain the speed, suggesting that a cloud deployment could be more beneficial in low-resource settings.
Nevertheless, some resource-intensive models can be deployed on the edge, if resources available there are sufficient.
The deployment proposed in a different study required all nodes to be equipped with a GPU~\cite{Liu2018}.
This allowed the authors to use CNNs on the edge.
A similar result was reported in~\cite{JL-2}, were IR models deployed on a Raspberry Pi 4B, equipped with a camera, and an Intel Neural Compute Stick 2 (a USB device for deep learning inference on the edge) were studied.
These devices were chosen for their low power consumption and good computing capabilities.
Overall, a model tasked with detecting PPE in the form of helmets and safety vests achieved precision on the order of $99.5\%$.
\paragraph{Models for PPE detection}
Effective video analytics-based methods for detecting the presence of protective helmets, worn by workers, due to its health and safety importance, is currently a hot research topic.
The usage of existing, unmodified machine learning models for detecting protective head covers does not provide sufficient detection accuracy, as proven in a recent study~\cite{WN-1-E-12}. In said article, several versions of the popular YOLO algorithm~\cite{bochkovskiy2020yolov4} were compared. It was shown that the most effective version of YOLO for helmet detection is the v4. After improving the loss function, it achieved more than 93\% accuracy during tests. A similar study~\cite{WN-2-E-13} focused on improving the YOLOv5 algorithm. The system achieved results close to 97\% accuracy, thanks to the improvement of the structure of the neural network. Another study~\cite{WN-3-E-14}, also investigated improving YOLOv5. However, instead of the algorithm itself, work was focused on processing of input data by applying filters on the input image. This allowed to improve the accuracy to above 95\%.
Yet another study~\cite{ZK-2-17} presented an approach for improving the detection speed and accuracy by designing a multi-level pyramidal feature fusion network based on the ConCaNet attention mechanism. Here, YOLOv3 was applied and a dataset with 6000 images was used. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach, which managed to reduce the number of necessary parameters.
Helmet detection can also be done using the SSD-MobileNet algorithm~\cite{Howard2017}, which is based on yet another variant of CNN. An analysis of this method, reported in~\cite{WN-4-E-15}, tested its effectiveness and managed to reach 80\% accuracy during tests. In a wider comparison of algorithm types~\cite{WN-5-E-11}, the authors proposed a helmet detection method based on a dynamically changing neural network -- SHDDM (Safety Helmet Detection Dynamic Model). The developed model analyzes the human posture and defines the area where the helmet should be located, to eliminate the detection of the helmet outside the head area and thus reduce the false positive rate. There are also other approaches to helmet detection, such as methods based on color and shape used to to locate the face, and the proper wearing of a helmet~\cite{ZK-1-16}. Another solution used low-resolution images, captured from a video stream, using the Local Binary Pattern (LBP) and gray-level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) methods along with a back-propagation neural network~\cite{ZK-4-19}.
Another study~\cite{PR-4} investigated the usefulness of artificially created images in the training of CNNs for PPE detection. The paper presented the results achieved with YOLOv3, trained on artificial images generated by the Rockstar Advanced Game Engine (RAGE) from the Grand Theft Auto V video game. This approach achieved a mean average precision (mAP) of only 55.11\% on a test dataset consisting of real-world images. The mAP for synthetic images was much higher at 87.24\%. It should be noted that the poor results for the real-world images are most likely caused by the RAGE engine being unable to generate a sufficient amount of head, welding mask, ear protection, and chest object variations.
As can be seen, there are many possibilities for detecting protective helmets. Here, the SHDDM is particularly noteworthy, as it has an important feature of checking whether the helmet is worn properly, and not only detecting its presence. This, in turn, is particularly relevant in real-world applications.
\section{\label{sec:architecture} Proposed Architecture}
The proposed video analytics system can be deployed in two architecture variants: edge-cloud (Fig.~\ref{fig:acloud}) and edge-only (Fig.~\ref{fig:aedge}). As outlined above, there are reasons to believe that both variants may be appropriate for the considered scenario.
Both architectures share a common core deployed on the edge, consisting of: a camera, the Image Processor (IP) component, and the OSH (Occupational Safety and Health) manager's mobile device.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\begin{minipage}{.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=.98\linewidth]{images/arch_cloud.eps}
\captionof{figure}{Edge-cloud deployment}
\label{fig:acloud}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=.98\linewidth]{images/arch_edge.eps}
\captionof{figure}{Edge deployment}
\label{fig:aedge}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
The camera (in the reported experiments the Dahua IPC-HFW5449T-ASE-LED was used) provides a live RTSP video stream, which is directed to the Image Processor.
The IP is a service written in Python, which can optionally perform preliminary image analysis.
Using configurable methods such as motion detection and brightness thresholding, the IP is able to discard image frames that do not contain moving people, reducing network traffic to components involved in actual image analysis.
It is also responsible for communicating with the rest of the system, designed in accordance with the ASSIST-IoT reference architecture~\cite{fornes2022assist}.
IP communicates with the rest of the system publishing alerts to an MQTT topic.
This design allows other components and devices in the ASSIST-IoT deployment to be notified in a streaming manner of any OSH violations, such as workers not wearing protective helmets.
In the first version of the architecture -- the edge-cloud deployment -- the IP is configured to use the cloud-based AWS Rekognition platform, with its PPE detection service.
In the edge-only variant, the video analysis is performed by the Orange AI\&ML Platform,
which is deployed on a server on the construction site.
This edge deployment allows for maintaining lower network latency, and ensures the privacy of worker data. The
AI\&ML Platform's services are written as Python runnable modules that provide their own APIs and GUIs.
The services can reuse the APIs and GUIs provided by the platform, or build them from scratch.
A service collects frames from a video source, processes them in an ML pipeline specific to the service, and adapts or interprets the results.
The inference results from the Platform are forwarded to external services, with the use of provided connectors.
As the Orange AI\&ML Platform operates on the edge, all video processing takes place on the client's site, ensuring full security of customer data (video) and compliance with appropriate regulations, such as GDPR.
\section{\label{sec:method}Methodology}
As part of this study, a preliminary version of the edge-only variant of the architecture was deployed on an active construction site. Using the Orange AI\&ML Platform, a model was trained to count people wearing helmets entering and exiting a specific area.
The system counts people in helmets in defined recognition areas (bounding boxes), crossing the yellow and green lines visible in Figs.~\ref{fig:bbox_old} and~\ref{fig:bbox_new}. People entering the construction site are counted after crossing the green line, while people leaving are counted after crossing the yellow line. The machine learning pipeline consists of a YOLOX object detection model, trained for detecting heads in helmets, and a DeepSORT~\cite{Wojke2017} multi-object tracking algorithm.
The YOLOX model was trained using a dataset provided by the Northeastern University of China (\url{https://public.roboflow.com/object-detection/hard-hat-workers}).
The system's results were compared to those obtained from an algorithm built into the Dahua camera. It should be noted that the camera counted \emph{all} people entering and leaving, including those without protective helmets. However, this should not impact the results much, as the safety regulations on this particular site forbid entering it without a helmet and the rule is strictly enforced before workers reach the counting location.
The measurements were performed in two series -- each using a different bounding box definition. A single series spanned the length of one workday on the construction site. The number of entering and leaving people was counted in hourly intervals (between 5 AM and 7 PM).
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\begin{minipage}{.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{images/bboxes_old.png}
\captionof{figure}{Bounding boxes location on November 22 (before modification)}
\label{fig:bbox_old}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{images/bboxes_new.png}
\captionof{figure}{Bounding boxes location on November 24 (after modification)}
\label{fig:bbox_new}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\section{\label{sec:results}Results}
The Tables~\ref{tab:bbox_old} and~\ref{tab:bbox_new} present the results of the performed experiments.
The Table~\ref{tab:bbox_old} contains measurements made on 22nd November 2022, with the bounding box set as presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:bbox_old}.
The average difference between the number of people entering, as measured by the camera and the model was equal to $-6.21$, with the standard deviation of $\sigma = 5.08$, whereas for people exiting it was $1.35$ and $\sigma = 2.73$ respectively. The correlation between entrances detected by the camera and the model deployed on the AI\&ML platform, expressed by the Pearson coefficient is $0.988$, whereas for exits $0.995$. The correlations were found to be statistically significant ($p \leq 0.05$).
Table~\ref{tab:bbox_new} contains measurements from 24th November 2022 (for modified detection areas, depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:bbox_new}).
On that day, the average difference for entering was $-4.93$ with $\sigma = 4.25$ and for exiting $3.92$ with $\sigma = 4.92$. For these measurements the Pearson coefficient for people entering is equal to $0.993$ and exiting $0.989$. The correlations were found to be statistically significant ($p \leq 0.05$).
The tables also present differences in the number of people detected by the camera and the AI\&ML platform and the sum of these differences calculated for both movement directions: entries and exits.
During the experiments, several unexpected events took place, which had a significant impact on the reported results.
Workers were observed acting in an unexpected manner -- lingering or walking around the detection area (Fig.~\ref{fig:worker1}).
It was also noticed that sometimes the workers put on their helmets after having passed the detection area (Fig.~\ref{fig:worker7}).
These behaviors present a challenge to the future system, as they significantly affect its accuracy.
\begin{table*}[t]
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|}
\hline
\textbf{Hour} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{05:00} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{06:00} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{07:00} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{08:00} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{09:00} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{10:00} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{11:00} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{12:00} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{13:00} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{14:00} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{15:00} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{16:00} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{17:00} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{18:00} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{\textbf{Total}} \\ \hline
\textbf{Dahua In} & 12 & 65 & 84 & 47 & 26 & 84 & 50 & 51 & 28 & 70 & 28 & 8 & 9 & 0 & 562 \\
\textbf{Dahua Out} & 2 & 15 & 21 & 35 & 81 & 44 & 61 & 31 & 63 & 32 & 59 & 66 & 26 & 8 & 544 \\ \hline
\textbf{AI\&ML In} & 11 & 78 & 87 & 52 & 28 & 96 & 60 & 58 & 43 & 75 & 33 & 18 & 10 & 0 & 649 \\
\textbf{AI\&ML Out} & 2 & 13 & 23 & 33 & 73 & 44 & 63 & 31 & 58 & 31 & 59 & 62 & 25 & 8 & 525 \\ \hline
\textbf{Diff. In} & 1 & -13 & -3 & -5 & -2 & -12 & -10 & -7 & -15 & -5 & -5 & -10 & -1 & 0 & -87 \\
\textbf{Diff. Out} & 0 & 2 & -2 & 2 & 8 & 0 & -2 & 0 & 5 & 1 & 0 & 4 & 1 & 0 & 19 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Entries and exits to the construction site, 22 November 2022.}
\label{tab:bbox_old}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[t]
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|}
\hline
\textbf{Hour} & {05:00} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{06:00} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{07:00} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{08:00} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{09:00} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{10:00} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{11:00} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{12:00} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{13:00} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{14:00} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{15:00} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{16:00} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{17:00} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{18:00} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{\textbf{Total}} \\ \hline
\textbf{Dahua In} & 4 & 57 & 113 & 62 & 34 & 73 & 75 & 65 & 56 & 93 & 27 & 10 & 9 & 0 & 678 \\
\textbf{Dahua Out} & 0 & 10 & 29 & 57 & 80 & 53 & 74 & 41 & 82 & 52 & 49 & 84 & 20 & 8 & 639 \\ \hline
\textbf{AI\&ML In} & 3 & 61 & 113 & 68 & 43 & 76 & 79 & 73 & 69 & 98 & 33 & 21 & 10 & 0 & 747 \\
\textbf{AI\&ML Out} & 0 & 11 & 26 & 46 & 64 & 48 & 72 & 38 & 73 & 49 & 47 & 82 & 22 & 6 & 584 \\ \hline
\textbf{Diff. In} & 1 & -4 & 0 & -6 & -9 & -3 & -4 & -8 & -13 & -5 & -6 & -11 & -1 & 0 & -69 \\ \
\textbf{Diff. Out} & 0 & -1 & 3 & 11 & 16 & 5 & 2 & 3 & 9 & 3 & 2 & 2 & -2 & 2 & 55 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Entries and exits to the construction site, 24 November 2022.}
\label{tab:bbox_new}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\begin{minipage}{.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{images/worker3.png}
\captionof{figure}{Unexpected worker behavior -- staying in the detection area for longer}
\label{fig:worker1}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.47\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{images/worker7.png}
\captionof{figure}{Unexpected worker behavior -- putting the helmet on behind the detection line}
\label{fig:worker7}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\section{\label{sec:conclusions}Concluding remarks}
The tested model demonstrated relatively good performance in the investigated scenario.
Its accuracy when tasked with counting people wearing protective helmets was found to be sufficient, and was validated against a different system.
A number of discrepancies between the counts of the model and the camera can be attributed to unexpected situations (Figs.~\ref{fig:worker1} and~\ref{fig:worker7}) and the fact that the Dahua camera did not differentiate people wearing and not wearing helmets.
The high correlation coefficient between the camera and the Orange AI\&ML Platform's model allows to conclude that the two solutions perform comparably well.
It should be noted that there were changes in the correlation between the days of experiments.
These differences are explained by the changes to the bounding box.
This is one of the parameters that have to be investigated further.
Both variants of the proposed architecture can be used in the investigated scenario of PPE detection on a construction site.
The feasibility of using an edge-deployment was confirmed -- the server's computational capabilities were sufficient to maintain satisfactory inference accuracy.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the construction site is equipped with sufficient hardware to warrant further experiments with the deployment.
In the future, the two proposed architecture variants will be compared in terms of network latencies, resource utilization, and their accuracy.
The presented model will also be tested further, which will include manually annotating the videos to obtain a ground truth for comparison.
This will allow for determining the actual accuracy of the developed model.
Further optimization of bounding box locations is also planned.
\begin{acks}
Work supported by ASSIST-IoT project funded from the European Union's H2020 RIA program under grant 957258.
\end{acks}
\bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{s1}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
Denote by $P_k:= \mathbb F_2[x_1,x_2,\ldots ,x_k]$ the polynomial algebra over the field with two elements, $\mathbb F_2$, in $k$ generators $x_1, x_2, \ldots , x_k$, each of degree 1. This algebra arises as the cohomology with coefficients in $\mathbb F_2$ of a classifying space of an elementary abelian 2-group $V_k$ of rank $k$. Therefore, $P_k$ is a module over the mod-2 Steenrod algebra, $\mathcal A$.
The action of $\mathcal A$ on $P_k$ is determined by the elementary properties of the Steenrod squares $Sq^i$ and subject to the Cartan formula
$Sq^n(fg) = \sum_{i=0}^nSq^i(f)Sq^{n-i}(g),$
for $f, g \in P_k$ (see Steenrod and Epstein~\cite{st}).
A polynomial $f$ in $P_k$ is called \textit{hit} if it can be written as a finite sum $f = \sum_{i> 0}Sq^{i}(h_i)$ for suitable polynomials $h_i\in P_k$. That means $f$ belongs to $\mathcal{A}^+P_k$, where $\mathcal{A}^+$ denotes the augmentation ideal in $\mathcal A$.
We study the \textit{Peterson hit problem} of determining a minimal set of generators for the polynomial algebra $P_k$ as a module over the Steenrod algebra. Equivalently, we want to find a vector space basis for the quotient
\[QP_k := P_k/\mathcal A^+P_k = \mathbb F_2 \otimes_{\mathcal A} P_k.\]
The Peterson hit problem is an open problem in Algebraic Topology. It was first studied by Peterson~\cite{pe}, Priddy~\cite{pr}, Singer~\cite {si1} and Wood~\cite{wo}, who showed its relation to several classical problems respectively in cobordism theory, modular representation theory of general linear groups, Adams spectral sequence for the stable homotopy of spheres, and stable homotopy type of classifying spaces of finite groups. Then, this problem was studied by Carlisle and Wood~\cite{cw}, Crabb and Hubbuck~\cite{ch}, Kameko~\cite{ka,ka2}, Mothebe \cite{mo2}, Nam~\cite{na}, Peterson~\cite{pe1}, Repka and Selick~\cite{res}, Silverman~\cite{sl}, Silverman and Singer~\cite{ss}, Singer~\cite{si2}, Walker and Wood~\cite{wa1,wa2}, Wood~\cite{wo2} and others.
\smallskip
Let $GL_k$ be the general linear group over the field $\mathbb F_2$. Since $V_k$ is an $\mathbb F_2$-vector space of dimension $k$, this group acts naturally on $V_k$ and therefore on the cohomology $P_k$ of $BV_k$. The two actions of $\mathcal A$ and $GL_k$ upon $P_k$ commute with each other. Hence, there is an inherited action of $GL_k$ on $QP_k$.
The vector space $QP_k$ was explicitly calculated by Peterson~\cite{pe} for $k=1, 2,$ by Kameko~\cite{ka} for $k=3$ and by Kameko \cite{ka2} and the present author \cite{su2} for $k = 4$, unknown in general. Recently, the hit problem and its applications to representations of general linear groups have been presented in the monographs of Walker and Wood \cite{wa3, wa4}.
\smallskip
For a positive integer $n$, by $\mu(n)$ one means the smallest number $r$ for which it is possible to write $n = \sum_{1\leqslant i\leqslant r}(2^{u_i}-1)$ with $u_i >0$. By a simple computation, we can see that $\mu(n) = s$ if and only if there exists a unique sequence of integers $d_1 > d_2 >\ldots > d_{s-1}\geqslant d_s>0$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{ct1.1}n = 2^{d_1} + 2^{d_2}+ \ldots + 2^{d_{s-1}}+ 2^{d_{s}} - s = \sum_{1\leqslant i \leqslant s}(2^{d_i}-1),
\end{equation}
(see e.g. \cite[Lemma 2]{su3} for a proof). From this it implies that $n-s$ is even and that $\mu(\frac{n-s}2) \leqslant s$, where $s = \mu(n)$.
Based on the results of Wood \cite{wo} and Kameko \cite[Theorem 4.2]{ka}, the hit problem is reduced to the case of degree $n$ of the form \eqref{ct1.1} with $\mu(n) = s < k$.
The hit problem in the case of degree $n$ of the form \eqref{ct1.1} with $s=k-1$, was studied by Crabb and Hubbuck~\cite{ch}, Nam~\cite{na}, Repka and Selick~\cite{res}, Walker and Wood \cite{wa2} and the present author \cite{su,su2}.
For $s = k - 2$, in \cite{su}, we studied the kernel of Kameko's squaring operation $\widetilde{Sq}^0_*: QP_k \to QP_k$. This operation is induced by the $\mathbb F_2$-linear map $\varphi:P_k\to P_k$, given by
\[\varphi(x) = \left\{
\begin{array}{l@{\enskip}l}
y, &\mbox{ if }x=x_1x_2\ldots x_ky^2,\\
0, &\mbox{ otherwise,}
\end{array}\right.\]
for any monomial $x \in P_k$. Note that $\varphi$ is a homomorphism of $GL_k$-modules but it is not an $\mathcal A$-homomorphism. However,
$\varphi Sq^{2t} = Sq^{t}\varphi$ and $\varphi Sq^{2t+1} = 0$ for any non-negative integer $t$. So, for each positive integer $n$ such that $n-k$ is even, $\varphi$ induced a homomorphism of $GL_k$-modules:
\[(\widetilde{Sq}^0_*)_{(k,n)}:= \widetilde{Sq}^0_*: (QP_k)_{n}\to (QP_k)_{\frac{n-k}2}.\]
Here and in what follows, we denote by $(P_k)_n$ the subspace of $P_k$ consisting of the homogeneous polynomials of degree $n$ in $P_k$ and $(QP_k)_n$ the subspace of $QP_k$ consisting of all the classes represented by the elements in $(P_k)_n$.
Since $(\widetilde{Sq}^0_*)_{(k,n)}$ is a homomorphism of $GL_k$-modules, $\mbox{Ker}(\widetilde{Sq}^0_*)_{(k,n)}$ gives a representation of $GL_k$. We have gave a prediction for the dimension of $\mbox{Ker}(\widetilde{Sq}^0_*)_{(k,n)}$ in this case.
\begin{con}[See \cite{su}] \label{ker} Let $n= \sum_{i=1}^{k-2}(2^{d_i}-1)$ with $d_i$ positive integers. If $d_{i-2} - d_{i-1} > i$ for $3 \leqslant i \leqslant k - 1$ and $d_{k-2} > k \geqslant 3$, then
\[\dim\mbox{\rm Ker}(\widetilde{Sq}^0_*)_{(k,n)} = \prod_{3\leqslant i \leqslant k}(2^i-1).\]
\end{con}
This conjecture is true for $k \leqslant 4$ and unknown for $k \geqslant 5$.
In \cite{su,su2}, we have studied the hit problem in case of the degree $n$ with $\mu(n)= s = k-1$ by using the strictly inadmissible monomials and Singer's criterion in \cite{si2} on hit monomials. However, these tools are not enough to study this problem in the case of the degree $n$ with $\mu(n)=s = k-2$.
In this paper, based on Silverman's criterion in \cite{sl2} on hit polynomials, we introduce the notion of strongly inadmissible monomial to construct a generating set for the kernel of Kameko's squaring operation. One of our main results is Theorem \ref{dlck2} in Section~\ref{s3} which provides the upper bound on the dimension of $\mbox{Ker}(\widetilde{Sq}^0_*)_{(k,n)}$. By using this result, we verify Conjecture \ref{ker} for $k=5$. We prove the following.
\begin{thm}\label{dl20} Let $n = 2^{d+s+t} + 2^{d + s} + 2^d -3$ with $d,\, s,\, t$ non-negative integers. If $d \geqslant 6$ and $t,\, s \geqslant 4$, then
\begin{equation}\label{ct130}\dim\mbox{\rm Ker}(\widetilde{Sq}^0_*)_{(5,n)} = (2^3-1)(2^4-1)(2^5-1) = 3255.
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
Thus, Conjecture \ref{ker} is true for $k =5$. Based on Theorem \ref{dl20} and our result in \cite[Theoren 1.4]{su2}, one gets the following.
\begin{corl}\label{cor4240} Let $n$ be as in Theorem $\ref{dl20}$. If $d \geqslant 6$ and $s,\, t \geqslant 4$, then
$$\dim (QP_5)_n = 4(2^3-1)(2^4-1)(2^5-1) = 13020.$$
\end{corl}
We show in Section \ref{s4} that many of the difficulties encountered when using strictly inadmissible monomials are overcome by using strongly inadmissible monomials. Thus, the notion of strongly inadmissible monomial should be a useful new tool in studying the Peterson hit problem.
\medskip
This paper is organized as follows.
In Section \ref{s2}, we recall some needed information on the admissible monomials in $P_k$ and criterions of Singer \cite{si2} and Silverman \cite{sl2} on hit monomials. In Section \ref{s3}, we present the results for a generating set of the kernel of Kameko's squaring operation. As an application of the results of Section \ref{s3}, in Section \ref{s4}, we prove that Conjecture \ref{ker} is true for $k=5$. Finally, in Section \ref{s5} we list the needed admissible monomials of degree $3(2^d-1)$ in $P_5$.
\section{Preliminaries
}\label{s2}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In this section, we recall some results from Kameko ~\cite{ka}, Singer ~\cite{si2}, Silverman~\cite{sl2} and our work \cite{su2} which will be used in the next sections.
\subsection{The weight vector and the admissible monomials}\
\begin{notas}
In the paper, we use the following notations.
\begin{align*}
\mathbb N_k &= \{1,2, \ldots , k\},\\
X_{\mathbb J} &= X_{j_1,j_2,\ldots , j_s} =
\prod_{j\in \mathbb N_k\setminus \mathbb J}x_j , \ \ \mathbb J = \{j_1,j_2,\ldots , j_s\}\subset \mathbb N_k.
\end{align*}
In particular, we have
$X_\emptyset = x_1x_2\ldots x_k,\, X_j = x_1\ldots\hat x_j\ldots x_{k}, 1\leqslant j \leqslant k,\, X_{\mathbb N_k} =1.$
Denote by $\alpha_i(a)$ the $i$-th coefficient in the dyadic expansion of a non-negative integer $a$. That means
\[a= \alpha_0(a)2^0+\alpha_1(a)2^1+\alpha_2(a)2^2+ \ldots ,\]
for $ \alpha_i(a) =0$ or 1 and $i\geqslant 0.$ Denote by $\alpha(a)$ the number of 1's in the dyadic expansion of $a$.
Let $x=x_1^{a_1}x_2^{a_2}\ldots x_k^{a_k} \in P_k$. We denote $\nu_j(x) = a_j, 1 \leqslant j \leqslant k$ and $\nu(x) = \max\{\nu_j(x):1 \leqslant j \leqslant k\}$.
We set
\[\mathbb J_i(x) = \{j \in \mathbb N_k :\alpha_i(\nu_j(x)) =0\},\]
for $i\geqslant 0$. Then, we have
\[x = \prod_{i\geqslant 0}X_{\mathbb J_i(x)}^{2^i}.\]
\end{notas}
\begin{defns} A weight vector $\omega$ is a sequence of non-negative integers $(\omega_1,\omega_2$, $\ldots , \omega_i, \ldots)$ such that $\omega_i = 0$ for $i \gg 0$.
For any monomial $x$ in $P_k$, we define two sequences associated with $x$ by
\begin{align*}
\omega(x)&=(\omega_1(x),\omega_2(x),\ldots , \omega_i(x), \ldots),\\
\sigma(x) &= (\nu_1(x),\nu_2(x),\ldots ,\nu_k(x)),
\end{align*}
where
$\omega_i(x) = \sum_{1\leqslant j \leqslant k} \alpha_{i-1}(\nu_j(x))= \deg X_{\mathbb J_{i-1}(x)},\ i \geqslant 1.$
The sequences $\omega(x)$ and $\sigma(x)$ are respectively called the weight vector and the exponent vector of $x$.
The set of weight vectors (respectively exponent vectors) is given the left lexicographical order.
For a weight vector $\omega = (\omega_1,\omega_2,\ldots)$, define $\deg \omega = \sum_{i > 0}2^{i-1}\omega_i$ and the length $\ell(\omega) = \max\{i : \omega_i >0\}$. Then, we write $\omega = (\omega_1,\omega_2,\ldots, \omega_r)$ if $\ell(\omega) = r$. For a weight vector $\eta = (\eta_1,\eta_2, \ldots)$, we define the concatenation of weight vectors
\[\omega|\eta = (\omega_1,\ldots,\omega_r,\eta_1,\eta_2,\ldots)\]
if $\ell(\omega) = r$ and $(a)|^b = (a)|(a)|\ldots|(a)$, ($b$ times of $(a)$'s), where $a,\, b$ are positive integers.
We denote $P_k(\omega)$ the subspace of $P_k$ spanned by monomials $y$ such that
$\deg y = \deg \omega$ and $\omega(y) \leqslant \omega$, and by $P_k^-(\omega)$ the subspace of $P_k(\omega)$ spanned by monomials $y$ such that $\omega(y) < \omega$.
\end{defns}
Denote by $\mathcal A(s-1)$ the sub-Hopf algebra of $\mathcal A$ generated by $Sq^i$ with $0\leqslant i < 2^s$, and $\mathcal A(s-1)^+ = \mathcal A^+\cap\mathcal A(s-1)$.
\begin{defns}\label{dfn2} For $\omega$ a weight vector and $f, g$ two polynomials of the same degree in $P_k$, we define
i) $f \equiv g$ if and only if $f + g \in \mathcal A^+P_k$. If $f \equiv 0$, then $f$ is said to be \textit{hit}.
ii) $f \equiv_{\omega} g$ if and only if $f + g \in \mathcal A^+P_k+P_k^-(\omega).$
iii) $f \simeq_{(s,\omega)} g$ if and only if $f + g \in \mathcal A(s-1)^+P_k+P_k^-(\omega)$.
\end{defns}
Obviously, the relations $\equiv$, $\equiv_{\omega}$ and $\simeq_{(s,\omega)}$ are equivalence relations. For $s=0$, we have $f \simeq_{(0,\omega)} g$ if and only if $f + g \in P_k^-(\omega)$.
For $x$ a monomial in $P_k$ and $\omega = \omega(x)$, we denote $x \simeq_{s}g$ if and only if $x \simeq_{(s,\omega(x))}g$.
Denote by $QP_k(\omega)$ the quotient of $P_k(\omega)$ by the equivalence relation $\equiv_\omega$. Following \cite{su3}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{ct21} (QP_k)_n \cong \bigoplus_{\deg \omega = n}QP_k(\omega).\end{equation}
For any polynomial $f$ in $P_k$, we denote $[f]$ the class in $QP_k$ represented by $f$. For a subset $S \subset P_k$, we denote
$[S] = \{[f] : f \in S\} \subset QP_k.$ If $f \in P_k(\omega)$ and $S \subset P_k(\omega)$, then we denote by $[f]_\omega$ the class in $QP_k(\omega)$ represented by $f$ and
\[ [S]_\omega = \{[f]_\omega : f \in S\} \subset QP_k(\omega).\]
We recall some elementary properties on the action of the Steenrod squares on $P_k$.
\begin{props}\label{mdcb1} Let $f$ be a homogeneous polynomial in $P_k$.
{\rm i)} If $i > \deg f$, then $Sq^i(f) =0$. If $i = \deg f$, then $Sq^i(f) =f^2$.
{\rm ii)} If $i$ is not divisible by $2^s$, then $Sq^i(f^{2^s}) = 0$ while $Sq^{r2^s}(f^{2^s}) = (Sq^r(f))^{2^s}$.
\end{props}
\begin{props}[Kameko {\cite[Lemma 3.1]{ka}}]\label{bdkbs} Let $x$ be a monomial in $P_k$ and $n,\, s$ be positive integers such that $0<n<2^s$. If $v$ is a monomial in $P_k$ which appears as a term in the polynomial $Sq^n(x)$, then there is an index $i \leqslant s$ such that $\omega_i(v) < \omega_i(x)$ and $\omega(v) < \omega(x)$.
\end{props}
\begin{defns}\label{defn3}
Let $x, y$ be monomials of the same degree in $P_k$. We define $x <y$ if and only if one of the following holds:
i) $\omega (x) < \omega(y)$;
ii) $\omega (x) = \omega(y)$ and $\sigma(x) < \sigma(y).$
\end{defns}
\begin{defns}
A monomial $x$ is said to be inadmissible if there exist monomials $y_1,y_2,\ldots, y_r$ such that $y_j<x$ for $j=1,2,\ldots , r$ and $x \equiv \sum_{j=1}^ry_j.$
A monomial $x$ is said to be admissible if it is not inadmissible.
\end{defns}
Obviously, the set of all the admissible monomials of degree $n$ in $P_k$ is a minimal set of $\mathcal{A}$-generators for $P_k$ in degree $n$.
\begin{defns}
A monomial $x$ is said to be strictly inadmissible if and only if there exist monomials $y_1,y_2,\ldots, y_r$ such that $y_j<x,$ for $j=1,2,\ldots , r$ and
$x \simeq_s \sum_{j=1}^r y_j $ with $s = \max\{i \, :\, \omega_i(x) > 0\}$.
\end{defns}
It is easy to see that if $x$ is strictly inadmissible, then it is inadmissible. The following theorem is a modification of a result in \cite{ka}.
\begin{thms}[Kameko \cite{ka}, Sum \cite{su}]\label{dlcb1}
For any monomials $x, y, w$ in $P_k$ such that $\omega_i(x) = 0$ for $i > r>0$, $\omega_s(w) \ne 0$ and $\omega_i(w) = 0$ for $i > s>0$, we have
{\rm i)} If $w$ is inadmissible, then so is $xw^{2^r}$.
{\rm ii)} If $w$ is strictly inadmissible, then so is $xw^{2^r}y^{2^{r+s}}$.
\end{thms}
\begin{props}[See \cite{su}]\label{mdcb3} Let $x$ be an admissible monomial in $P_k$ and let $i_0$ be a positive integer. Then we have
{\rm i)} If $\omega_{i_0}(x)=0$, then $\omega_{i}(x)=0$ for all $i > i_0$.
{\rm ii)} If $\omega_{i_0}(x)<k$, then $\omega_{i}(x)<k$ for all $i > i_0$.
\end{props}
For $1 \leqslant i \leqslant k$, define a homomorphism $f_i: P_{k-1} \to P_k$ of $\mathcal A$-algebras by substituting
\begin{equation}\label{ct22}
f_i(x_u) = \begin{cases}x_u, &\mbox{ if } 1 \leqslant u <i,\\ x_{u+1},&\mbox{ if } i \leqslant u <k. \end{cases}
\end{equation}
\begin{props}[See Mothebe and Uys \cite{mo2}]\label{mdmo} Let $i, d$ be positive integers such that $1 \leqslant i \leqslant k$. If $w$ is an admissible monomial in $P_{k-1}$, then $x_i^{2^d-1}f_i(w)$ is also an admissible monomial in $P_{k}$.
\end{props}
\subsection{Some criteria for hit monomials.}\
\medskip
Firstly, we recall Singer's criterion on hit monomials in $P_k$.
\begin{defns} A monomial $z$ in $P_k$ is called a spike if $\nu_j(z)=2^{s_j}-1$ for $s_j$ a non-negative integer and $j=1,2, \ldots , k$.
If $z$ is a spike with $s_1>s_2>\ldots >s_{r-1}\geqslant s_r>0$ and $s_j=0$ for $j>r,$ then it is called the minimal spike.
\end{defns}
Note that if $\mu(n) = s$, then $n$ is of the form \eqref{ct1.1} and $z = \prod_{i=1}^sx_i^{2^{d_i}-1}$ is the minimal spike of degree $n$. It is easy to show that a spike of degree $n$ is the minimal spike if its weight vector order is minimal with respect to other spikes of degree $n$. The following is a criterion for hit monomials in $P_k$.
\begin{thms}[See Singer~\cite{si2}]\label{dlsig} Suppose $x \in P_k$ is a monomial of degree $n$, where $\mu(n) \leqslant k$. Let $z$ be the minimal spike of degree $n$. If $\omega(x) < \omega(z)$, then $x$ is hit.
\end{thms}
We remark that this criterion is not enough to determine all hit monomials. For example, it can be shown that $x_1^{15}x_2^3x_3^3$ is the minimal spike of degee $21$ and $x_1x_2^5x_3^5x_4^5x_5^5$ is hit, but $\omega(x_1x_2^5x_3^5x_4^5x_5^5) = (5,0,4,0) > (3,3,1,1) = \omega(x_1^{15}x_2^3x_3^3)$.
So, we need Silverman's criterion for hit polynomials in $P_k$.
\begin{thms}[{See Silverman~\cite[Theorem 1.2]{sl2}}]\label{dlsil} Let $p$ be a polynomial of the form $fg^{2^m}$ for some homogeneous polynomials $f$ and $g$. If $\deg f < (2^m - 1)\mu(\deg g)$, then $p$ is hit.
\end{thms}
This result leads to a criterion in terms of the minimal spike which strengthens Theorem \ref{dlsig}.
\begin{thms}[{See Walker and Wood~\cite[Theorem 14.1.3]{wa3}}]\label{dlww} Let $x \in P_k$ be a monomial of degree $n$, where $\mu(n)\leqslant k$ and let $z$ be the minimal spike of degree $n$. If there is an index $h$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^{h}2^{i-1}\omega_i(x) < \sum_{i=1}^{h}2^{i-1}\omega_i(z),$ then $x$ is hit.
\end{thms}
For $1 \leqslant r \leqslant k$, we set
\begin{align*}
P_s^0 &=\langle\{x=x_1^{a_1}x_2^{a_2}\ldots x_s^{a_s} \ : \ a_1a_2\ldots a_s=0\}\rangle,\\
P_s^+ &= \langle\{x=x_1^{a_1}x_2^{a_2}\ldots x_s^{a_s} \ : \ a_1a_2\ldots a_s>0\}\rangle.
\end{align*}
It is easy to see that $P_s^0$ and $P_s^+$ are the $\mathcal{A}$-submodules of $P_k$, $P_s = P_s^0\oplus P_s^+$ and $QP_s = QP_s^0\oplus QP_s^+$, where $QP_s^0 = P_s^0/\mathcal A^+P_s^0$ and $QP_s^+ = P_s^+/\mathcal A^+P_s^+$.
For $J= (j_1, j_2, \ldots, j_s) : 1 \leqslant j_1 <\ldots < j_s \leqslant k$, we define a monomorphism $\theta_J: P_s \to P_k$ of $\mathcal A$-algebras by substituting $\theta_J(x_u) = x_{j_u}$ for $1 \leqslant u \leqslant s$. It is easy to see that, for any weight vector $\omega$ of degree $n$,
\[Q\theta_J(P_s^+)(\omega) \cong QP_s^+(\omega)\mbox{ and } (Q\theta_J(P_s^+))_n \cong (QP_s^+)_n\]
for $1 \leqslant s \leqslant k$, where $Q\theta_J(P_s^+) = \theta_J(P_s^+)/\mathcal A^+\theta_J(P_s^+)$. So, by a simple computation using Theorem~ \ref{dlsig} and (\ref{ct21}), we get the following.
\begin{props}[{See Walker and Wood~\cite[Proposition 6.2.9]{wa3}}]\label{mdbs} For a weight vector $\omega$ of degree $n$, we have direct summand decompositions of the $\mathbb F_2$-vector spaces
\begin{align*} QP_k(\omega) &= \bigoplus_{\mu(n) \leqslant s\leqslant k}\bigoplus_{\ell(J) =s}Q\theta_J(P_s^+)(\omega),
\end{align*}
where $\ell(J)$ is the length of $J$. Consequently,
\begin{align*}
\dim QP_k(\omega) &= \sum_{\mu(n) \leqslant s\leqslant k}{k\choose s}\dim QP_s^+(\omega),\\
\dim (QP_k)_n &= \sum_{\mu(n) \leqslant s\leqslant k}{k\choose s}\dim (QP_s^+)_n.
\end{align*}
\end{props}
\begin{notas}
We denote by $B_{k}(n)$ the set of all admissible monomials of degree $n$ in $P_k$, $B_{k}^0(n) = B_{k}(n)\cap P_k^0$, $B_{k}^+(n) = B_{k}(n)\cap P_k^+$. For a weight vector $\omega$ of degree $n$, we set $B_k(\omega) = B_{k}(n)\cap P_k(\omega)$, $B_k^+(\omega) = B_{k}^+(n)\cap P_k(\omega)$.
Then, $[B_{k}^0(n)]$, $[B_{k}^+(n)]$, $[B_k(\omega)]_\omega$ and $[B_k^+(\omega)]_\omega$ are respectively bases of the $\mathbb F_2$-vector spaces $(QP_k^0)_n$, $(QP_k^+)_n$, $QP_k(\omega)$ and $QP_k^+(\omega) := QP_k(\omega)\cap QP_k^+$.
For any $(i;I)$ with $I= (i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_r)$, $1\leqslant i < i_1< i_2<\ldots<i_r\leqslant k$, $0\leqslant r < k$, define a homomorphism $p_{(i;I)}: P_k \to P_{k-1}$ of algebras by substituting
\begin{equation}\label{ct23}
p_{(i;I)}(x_j) =\begin{cases} x_j, &\text{ if } 1 \leqslant j < i,\\
\sum_{t=1}^rx_{i_t-1}, &\text{ if } j = i,\\
x_{j-1},&\text{ if } i< j \leqslant k.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Then $p_{(i;I)}$ is a homomorphism of $\mathcal A$-modules.
These homomorphisms will be used in the proof of Theorem \ref{dl51}.
\end{notas}
\section{On the kernel of Kameko's squaring operation}\label{s3}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In this section, we consider $n =\sum_{i=1}^{k-2}(2^{d_i}-1)$ with $d_i$ positive integers such that $d_1 > d_2 > \ldots > d_{k-3} \geqslant d:=d_{k-2}>0$, $k \geqslant 4$, $m = \sum_{i=1}^{k-3}(2^{d_i-d}-1)=\beta_k^d(n)$, where the function $\beta_k:\mathbb Z \to \mathbb Z$ is defined by $\beta_k(t) = \frac{t-k+2}2$ if $t-k+2$ is even and $\beta_k(t) = 0$ if $t-k+2$ is odd. Note that $\mu(n) = k-2$ and this degree is used in Conjecture \ref{ker} on the dimension of the kernel of Kameko's squaring operation
\[(\widetilde{Sq}^0_*)_{(k,n)}: (QP_k)_n \to (QP_k)_{\frac{n-k}2}.\]
The main result of the section is Theorem \ref{dlck2} that provides an upper bound for the dimension of $\mbox{\rm Ker}((\widetilde{Sq}^0_*)_{(k,n)})$.
Firstly, we prove some properties of monomials in $\mbox{\rm Ker}((\widetilde{Sq}^0_*)_{(k,n)})$ from which we can reduce the computations to the case of weight vector $(k-2)|^d$. In Subsection \ref{s32}, we present the notion of strongly inadmissible monomial and prove Proposition \ref{mdcb51} that is used in place of Theorem \ref{dlcb1}. Note that the notion of strongly inadmissible monomial is weaker than that of strictly inadmissible monomial, so using this notion can overcome many difficulties encountered when using the notion of strictly inadmissible monomial. In Subsection \ref{s33}, we prove our main result by using the results in the previous subsections.
\subsection{Some properties of monomials in $\mbox{\rm Ker}((\widetilde{Sq}^0_*)_{(k,n)})$}\label{s31}\
\medskip
In this subsection we present some properties of the admissible monomials in the kernel of Kameko's squaring operation that allow us to reduce the study of this subspace to the case of weight vector $(k-2)|^d$.
\begin{lems}\label{bdbt1}
If $x$ is an admissible monomial of degree $n$ in $P_k$ such that $[x] \in \mbox{\rm Ker}((\widetilde{Sq}^0_*)_{(k,n)})$, then $\omega_i(x) = k-2$ for $1 \leqslant i \leqslant d_{k-2}$.
\end{lems}
\begin{proof} Note that $z = \prod_{t=1}^{k-2}x_t^{2^{d_t}-1}$ is the minimal spike of degree $n$ and $\omega_i(z) = k-2$ for $1 \leqslant i \leqslant d_{k-2}$. Since $x$ is admissible, $[x] \ne 0$. If $\omega_1(x) = k-1$, then $x = X_jy^2$ with $y$ a monomial of degree $\frac{n-k+1}2= \beta_k(n)+\frac 12$, however this is not an integer. So, by Theorem \ref{dlsig}, we have either $\omega_1(x) = k-2$ or $\omega_1(x) = k$. If $\omega_1(x) = k$, then $x = X_{\emptyset}y^2$ with $y$ a monomial in $P_k$. Since $x$ is admissible, by Theorem \ref{dlcb1}, $y$ is also admissible. Hence, $(\widetilde{Sq}^0_*)_{(k,n)}([x]) = [y] \ne 0$. This contradicts the hypothesis that $x \in \mbox{\rm Ker}((\widetilde{Sq}^0_*)_{(k,n)})$, hence $\omega_1(x) = k-2$. Then, we have $x = X_{j,\ell}y^2$ with $1 \leqslant j < \ell \leqslant k$ and $y$ an admissible monomial of degree $\beta_k(n) =\sum_{i=1}^{k-2}(2^{d_i-1}-1)$. Since $\omega_1(y)\ne k-1$, using Theorem \ref{dlsig} and Proposition \ref{mdcb3} we get $\omega_2(x) = \omega_1(y) = k-2$. By repeating the above argument we obtain $\omega_i(x) = k-2$ for $1 \leqslant i \leqslant d_{k-2}$. The lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
\begin{lems}\label{bdbt2} If $x$ is a monomial of degree $n$ in $P_k$ such that $[x] \in \mbox{\rm Ker}((\widetilde{Sq}^0_*)_{(k,n)})$, then $x \equiv \sum \bar x$ with $\bar x$ monomials in $P_k$ such that $\omega_i(\bar x) = k - 2$, for $1 \leqslant i \leqslant d_{k-2}$.
\end{lems}
\begin{proof} If $\omega_1(x) < k-2$, then by Theorem \ref{dlsig}, $x$ is hit, hence the lemma holds. Suppose $\omega_1(x) = k-2$ and let $s>1$ be the smallest index such that $\omega_s(x) \ne k - 2$. If $\omega_s(x) < k - 2$, then by Theorem \ref{dlsig}, $x$ is hit, hence the lemma holds. Since $\omega_1(x) \ne k-1$, we obtain $\omega_s(x) = k$. Then we have
$x = wy^{2^{s-2}}\prod_{t\geqslant s}X_{\mathbb J_t(x)}^{2^t}$, where $w = \prod_{t=0}^{s-3}X_{\mathbb J_t(x)}^{2^t}$, $y = X_{\mathbb J_{s-2}(x)}X_{\mathbb J_{s-1}(x)}^2 = X_{\mathbb J_{s-2}(x)}X_{\emptyset}^2 = X_{u,v}^3x_u^2x_v^2$ with $1 \leqslant u < v \leqslant k$. It is easy to see that
\begin{equation}\label{ctbs1}
y = \sum_{i\ne u,v}X_{i,u,v}^3x_ux_v^2x_i^4 + Sq^1(X_{u,v}^3x_ux_v^2).
\end{equation}
By combining Proposition \ref{mdcb1} and the Cartan formula, we have \begin{align*}&w(Sq^1(X_{u,v}^3x_ux_v^2))^{2^{s-2}} = wSq^{2^{s-2}}\left((X_{u,v}^3x_ux_v^2)^{2^{s-2}}\right)\\
&\quad = Sq^{2^{s-2}}\left(w(X_{u,v}^3x_ux_v^2)^{2^{s-2}}\right) + Sq^{2^{s-2}}(w)(X_{u,v}^3x_ux_v^2)^{2^{s-2}}.
\end{align*}
Let $\bar w$ be a monomial which appears as a term in $Sq^{2^{s-2}}(w)$. By Proposition \ref{bdkbs}, $\omega(\bar w) < \omega (w)= (k-2)|^{s-2}$. Hence, using Theorem \ref{dlsig} we see that the polynomial $w(Sq^1(X_{u,v}^3x_ux_v^2))^{2^{s-2}}\prod_{t\geqslant s}X_{\mathbb J_t(x)}^{2^t}$ is hit. So, from the relation \eqref{ctbs1} we obtain $x \equiv \sum_{i\ne u,v}x_{(i,u,v)}$, where
\[x_{(i,u,v)} = \prod_{0\leqslant t\leqslant s-3}X_{\mathbb J_t(x)}^{2^t}(X_{i,u,v}^3x_ux_v^2x_i^4)^{2^{s-2}}\prod_{t\geqslant s}X_{\mathbb J_t(x)}^{2^t}.\]
A simple computation shows that $\omega_t(x_{(i,u,v)}) = k -2$ for $1 \leqslant t \leqslant s$. By repeating this argument we see that the lemma is true in this case.
If $\omega_1(x) = k$, then $x = X_\emptyset y^2$ with $y$ a monomial in $P_k$. Then, we have $(\widetilde{Sq}^0_*)_{(k,n)}([x]) = [y] = 0$. Hence,
$y = \sum_{r > 0} Sq^r(g_r)$ with suitable polynomial $g_r$ in $P_k$. Then, by using Proposition \ref{mdcb1} and the Cartan formula, we get
\begin{align*}
x &= X_\emptyset y^2 = \sum_{r > 0} X_\emptyset Sq^{2r}(g_r^2)\\
&=\sum_{r>0}Sq^{2r}(X_\emptyset g_r^2) + \sum_{r>0}\sum_{t=1}^{r}Sq^{2t}(X_\emptyset)(Sq^{r-t}(g_r))^2.
\end{align*}
Since $\deg (X_\emptyset) = k$, $Sq^{2t}(X_\emptyset) = 0$ for $2t > k$. If $2t \leqslant k$ and $w$ is a monomial which appears as a term of $Sq^{2t}(X_\emptyset)$, then $\omega_1(w) = k-2t\leqslant k-2$. Hence, from the above equality and Theorem \ref{dlsig}, we get $x \equiv \sum x'$ with $x'$ monomials in $(P_k)_n$ such that $\omega_1(x') = k - 2$. The lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
From this lemma, it suffices to consider monomials $x$ such that $\omega_i(x) = k-2$ for $1\leqslant i \leqslant d=d_{k-2}$. Then
\[ x = \prod_{t=1}^dX_{i_t,j_t}^{2^{d-t}}y^{2^d},\]
where $1 \leqslant i_t < j_t \leqslant k$, $1 \leqslant t \leqslant d$ and $y \in (P_k)_m$. Note that $\omega(x) = (k-2)|^d|\omega(y)$.
\begin{lems}\label{bdlh} Let $x$ be a monomial of degree $(k-2)(2^d-1)$. If $\omega_1(x) < k$ and there is $r > d$ such that $\omega_r(x) > 0$, then $x \in P_k^-((k-2)|^d) + \mathcal A(d-1)^+P_k$.
\end{lems}
\begin{proof} If $\omega_1(x) < k-2$, then $x \in P_k^-((k-2)|^d)$, hence the lemma holds. Since $\omega_1(x)\ne k-1$, if $\omega_1(x) \geqslant k-2$, then $\omega_1(x) = k-2$. Let $s$ be the smallest index such that $\omega_s(x) > k-2$. Since $\omega_s(x)\ne k-1$, we have $\omega_s(x) = k$. If $s \geqslant d$, then $(k-2)(2^d-1)= \deg x \geqslant (k-2)(2^d-1) + 2^{t-1}\omega_t(x)> (k-2)(2^d-1)$. This is a contradiction, so $s < d$. If there is $1 <r < s$ such that $\omega_r(x) < k-2$, then $x \in P_k^-((k-2)|^d)$, so the lemma holds. Suppose $\omega_r(x) = k-2$ for $1 \leqslant r < s$ and $X_{\mathbb J_{s-2}(x)} = X_{u,v}$ for $1 \leqslant u < v \leqslant k$. Then, we have
\[X_{\mathbb J_{s-1}(x)}^2X_{\mathbb J_{s-2}(x)} = X_{u,v}^3x_u^2x_v^2 = \sum_{i \ne u,v}X_{i,u,v}^3x_i^4x_ux_v^2 + Sq^1(X_{u,v}^3x_ux_v^2).\]
By an argument analogous to the one in the proof of Lemma \ref{bdbt2},
we get
$$x = \sum_{i\ne u,v}x_{(i,u,v)}\quad \mbox{mod}(P_k^-((k-2)|^d) + \mathcal A(d-1)^+P_k),$$ where
\[x_{(i,u,v)} =
\prod_{t=0}^{s-3}X_{\mathbb J_t(x)}^{2^t}(X_{i,u,v}^3x_ux_v^2x_i^4)^{2^{s-2}}\prod_{t\geqslant s}X_{\mathbb J_t(x)}^{2^t}.\]
It is easy to see that $\omega_t(x_{(i,u,v)}) = k -2$ for $1 \leqslant t \leqslant s$ and $\omega_r(x_{(i,u,v)}) > 0$ for suitable $r > d$. By repeating this argument we obtain
$$x =\sum \bar x \quad \mbox{mod}(P_k^-((k-2)|^d) + \mathcal A(d-1)^+P_k) $$ with $\bar x$ monomials such that $\omega_t(\bar x) \leqslant k -2$ for $1 \leqslant t \leqslant d$ and $\omega_r(\bar x) > 0$ for suitable $r > d$. Then we have $\sum_{i=1}^d2^{i-1}\omega_i(\bar x) < \deg \bar x = (k-2)(2^d-1)$. Hence, there is an index $u \leqslant d$ such that $\omega_t(\bar x) = k-2$ for $1\leqslant t < u$, $\omega_u(\bar x) < k-2$, therefore $\bar x \in P_k^-((k-2)|^d)$. The lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Strongly inadmissible monomials}\label{s32}\
\medskip
In this subsection, we introduce the notion of strongly inadmissible monomial in $P_k$ and use it to study the kernel of Kemeko's squaring operation.
\begin{defns}
Let $n$ be a positive integer and $z$ be the minimal spike of degree $n$. Denote by $\mathcal P_{(k,n)}$ the subspace of $P_k$ spanned by all monomials $x$ of degree $n$ such that
\[\sum_{j=1}^h\omega_j(x) < \sum_{j=1}^h\omega_j(z),\]
for some index $h \geqslant 1$.
\end{defns}
\begin{defns}\label{dnstin}
A monomial $x$ of degree $n$ in $P_k$ is said to be strongly inadmissible if there exist monomials $y_1, y_2,\ldots , y_t$ of the same weight vector $\omega(x)$ such that $y_u < x,\, 1\leqslant u \leqslant t$ and
\[ x \simeq_{s} y_1 + y_2 + \ldots + y_t\ \mbox{ mod}(\mathcal P_{(k,n)}),\]
where $s = \max\{i:\omega_i(x)>0\}$.
\end{defns}
Obviously, if $x$ is strictly inadmissible, then it is strongly inadmissible. By using Theorem \ref{dlww}, we see that if $g \in \mathcal P_{(k,n)}$, then $g \in\mathcal A^+P_k$. Hence, if $x$ is strongly inadmissible, then it is inadmissible. However, if $g \notin \mathcal A(s-1)^+P_k$, then $x$ is not strictly inadmissible. Therefore, the use of strongly inadmissible monomials is more convenient than that of the strictly inadmissible monomials. It can overcome many difficulties encountered when using the notion of strictly inadmissible monomial.
For example, let $x= x_1x_2^3x_3^6x_4^6x_5^5$ be the monomial of weight vector $(3)|^3$ in $P_5$. We have
\begin{align*}x &= x_1x_2^{3}x_3^{5}x_4^{6}x_5^{6} + x_1x_2^{3}x_3^{6}x_4^{5}x_5^{6} + x_1x_2^{5}x_3^{5}x_4^{5}x_5^{5}\\ &\qquad + Sq^1(x_1^{2}x_2^{3}x_3^{5}x_4^{5}x_5^{5}) + Sq^2(x_1x_2^{3}x_3^{5}x_4^{5}x_5^{5})\ \mbox{mod}(P_5^-((3)|^3)),
\end{align*}
where $x_1x_2^{5}x_3^{5}x_4^{5}x_5^{5} \in \mathcal P_{(5,21)}$, hence $x$ is strongly inadmissible. It is easy to see that
\begin{align*}x_1x_2^{5}x_3^{5}x_4^{5}x_5^{5} &= Sq^2(x_1x_2^{3}x_3^{5}x_4^{5}x_5^{5} + x_1x_2^{5}x_3^{3}x_4^{5}x_5^{5} + x_1x_2^{5}x_3^{5}x_4^{3}x_5^{5} + x_1x_2^{5}x_3^{5}x_4^{5}x_5^{3})\\ &\quad + Sq^8 (x_1x_2^{3}x_3^{3}x_4^{3}x_5^{3})\ \mbox{mod}(P_5^-((3)|^3)) \in \mathcal A(3)^+P_5 + P_5^-((3)|^3).
\end{align*}
If $x$ is strictly inadmissible, then we must have $x_1x_2^{5}x_3^{5}x_4^{5}x_5^{5} \in \mathcal A(2)^+P_5 + P_5^-((3)|^3)$. However, we have been unable to prove this.
\smallskip
For a positive integer $a$, denote by $\alpha(a)$ the number of ones in the dyadic expansion of $a$ and by $\zeta(a)$ the greatest integer $u$ such that $a$ is divisible by $2^u$. That means $a = 2^{\zeta(a)}b$ with $b$ an odd integer. We set $\delta(a) = a - \alpha(a) - \zeta(a)$.
\begin{props}\label{mdstin} Let $d$ be a positive integer.
If $z^*$ is the minimal spike of degree $n_d := (k-2)(2^d-1)$ and $d > \delta(k-2)$, then $\omega_i(z^*) = k-2$ for $1 \leqslant i \leqslant d-\delta(k-2)$ and $\omega_i(z^*) < k-2$ for $i > d-\delta(k-2)$.
\end{props}
\begin{proof} Set $s =\alpha(k-2)$. We have
$k-2 = 2^{t_1} + 2^{t_2} + \ldots + 2^{t_{s-1}} + 2^{t_s},$
where $t_1 > t_2 > \ldots > t_{s-1} > t_s = \zeta(k-2) \geqslant 0$. Then, we obtain
\begin{align*}
(k-2)(2^d-1) &= 2^{d+t_1} + 2^{d+t_2} + \ldots + 2^{d+t_{s-1}} + 2^{d+t_s} - k + 2\\
&= \sum_{1 \leqslant i \leqslant k-2}(2^{e_i}-1),
\end{align*}
where
\[e_i = \left\{\begin{array}{l@{\enskip}l} d+t_i, &1 \leqslant i < s,\\d+t_s - i+s-1, &s \leqslant i \leqslant k-3,\\ d+t_s - k+s+2, & i = k-2.\end{array}\right.\]
It is easy to see that $e_1 > e_2 > \ldots >e_{k-3} = e_{k-2}=d-\delta(k-2)>0.$ Hence, $z^* = \prod_{i=1}^{k-2}x_i^{2^{e_i-1}}$ is the minimal spike of degree $n_d=(k-2)(2^d-1)$, $\omega_j(z^*) = k-2$ for $1 \leqslant j \leqslant e_{k-2}=d-\delta(k-2)$ and $\omega_i(z^*) < k-2$ for $i > d-\delta(k-2)$. The proposition is proved.
\end{proof}
The following is a refinement of Theorem \ref{dlcb1}.
\begin{props}\label{mdcb51} Let $c, d, e$ be positive integers and let $u,\, w,\, y \in P_k$ be monomials such that $\omega(u) = (k-2)|^c$, $\omega(w) = (k-2)|^d$ and $\omega(y) = (k-2)|^e$.
If $w$ is strongly inadmissible, then so is $uw^{2^c}y^{2^{c+d}}$.
\end{props}
\begin{proof} Note that the weight vector of $uw^{2^c}y^{2^{c+d}}$ is $(k-2)|^{c+d+e}$. Since $w$ is strongly inadmissible, there exist monomials $y_1,y_2,\ldots, y_t$ of the same weight vector $(k-2)|^d$, $g_1 \in P_k^-((k-2)|^d)$ and $g_2 \in \mathcal P_{(k,n_d)}$ such that $y_i<w$ for $i=1,2,\ldots , t$ and
\[w = y_1 + y_2 + \ldots + y_t + g_1 + g_2 + \sum_{1\leqslant j < 2^d} Sq^j(h_j),\]
where $h_j$ are suitable polynomials in $P_k$ and $n_d = (k-2)(2^d-1)$. Since $j2^c < 2^{c+d}$, by using Proposition \ref{mdcb1} and the Cartan formula we have $$(Sq^j(h_j))^{2^c}y^{2^{c+d}} = Sq^{j2^c}(h_j^{2^c})y^{2^{c+d}} = Sq^{j2^c}\left(h_j^{2^c}y^{2^{c+d}}\right).$$
Then, combining the Cartan formula and Proposition \ref{mdcb1}, we get
\begin{align*}u(Sq^j(h_j))^{2^c}y^{2^{c+d}} &= Sq^{j2^c}\left(uh_j^{2^c}y^{2^{c+d}}\right)+ \sum_{1 \leqslant r \leqslant j}Sq^{r2^c}(u)\left(Sq^{j-r}(h_jy^{2^{d}})\right)^{2^c}.
\end{align*}
Suppose $v$ is a monomial which appears as a term of $Sq^{r2^c}(u)$. By Proposition \ref{bdkbs}, we have $\omega(v) < \omega(u) = (k-2)|^c$. Hence,
$$\sum_{1 \leqslant r \leqslant j}Sq^{r2^c}(u)\left(Sq^{j-r}(h_jy^{2^{d}})\right)^{2^c} \in P_k^-((k-2)|^{c+d+e}),$$
for $1\leqslant j < 2^d$. Combining the above equalities gives
\begin{align*}uw^{2^c}y^{2^{c+d}} &= \sum_{1\leqslant i \leqslant t}uy_i^{2^c}y^{2^{c+d}} + ug_1^{2^c}y^{2^{c+d}} + ug_2^{2^c}y^{2^{c+d}}\\
& \quad + \sum_{1\leqslant j < 2^d} Sq^{j2^c}\left(uh_j^{2^c}y^{2^{c+d}}\right)\ \mbox{ mod}(P_k^-((k-2)|^{c+d+e})).
\end{align*}
Since $\omega(u) = (k-2)|^c$, we can easily check that $uy_i^{2^c}y^{2^{c+d}} < uw^{2^c}y^{2^{c+d}}$ for $1 \leqslant i \leqslant t$, $ug_1^{2^c}y^{2^{c+d}} \in P_k^-((k-2)|^{c+d+e})$ and $ug_2^{2^c}y^{2^{c+d}} \in \mathcal P_{(k,n_{c+d+e})}$ with $n_{c+d+e} = (k-2)(2^{c+d+e}-1)$. Hence, the last equality implies that $uw^{2^c}y^{2^{c+d}}$ is strongly inadmissible.
\end{proof}
\begin{lems}\label{bdtd} Let $f, g \in (P_k)_{n_d}$ be homogeneous polynomials with $n_d = (k-2)(2^d-1)$, and let $y \in (P_k)_m$ be a monomial. If $f \simeq_{(d,(k-2)|^d)} g \mbox{ \rm mod}(\mathcal P_{(k,n_d)})$, then $fy^{2^d} \equiv gy^{2^d}$.
\end{lems}
\begin{proof} Note that $z = \prod_{i=1}^{k-2}x^{2^{d_i}-1}$ is the minimal spike of degree $n$ and $\omega_t(z) = k-2$ for $1 \leqslant t \leqslant d$. Suppose
\[f = g + g_1 + \sum_{1\leqslant j < 2^d}Sq^j(h_j),\]
where $g_1\in \mathcal P_{(k,n_d)}$ and suitable polynomials $h_j \in P_k$. By Proposition \ref{mdcb1} and the Cartan formula,
\[Sq^j(h_j)y^{2^d} = Sq^j(h_jy^{2^d}),\ 1 \leqslant j < 2^d.\]
By Definition \ref{dnstin}, if a monomial $w$ appears as a term of the polynomial $g_1$, then there is an integer $h\geqslant 1$, such that
\begin{equation}\label{ctbs}\sum_{1\leqslant i\leqslant h} 2^{i-1}\omega_i(w) < \sum_{1\leqslant i\leqslant h} 2^{i-1}\omega_i(z^*)\leqslant \deg(z^*) = n_d,\end{equation}
where $z^*$ is determined as in Proposition \ref{mdstin}. If $h \leqslant d$, then using Proposition \ref{mdstin} we have
$$\sum_{1\leqslant i\leqslant h} 2^{i-1}\omega_i(z^*) \leqslant (k-2)(2^h-1) = \sum_{1\leqslant i\leqslant h} 2^{i-1}\omega_i(z).$$
Since $\omega_i(w) = \omega_i(wy^{2^d})$ for $1\leqslant i \leqslant h \leqslant d$, using Theorem \ref{dlww} we see that $wy^{2^d}$ is hit.
Suppose that $h > d$. Since $\deg w = n_d$, from \eqref{ctbs} we see that there is an index $r > d$ such that $\omega_r(w)>0$. Then, using Lemma \ref{bdlh} we have $w \in P_k^-((k-2)|^d) + \mathcal A(d-1)^+P_k$. This implies that $wy^{2^d}$ is hit. Hence, the polynomial $g_1y^{2^d}$ is hit and $fy^{2^d} \equiv gy^{2^d}$. The lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
\subsection{A construction for $\mathcal A$-generators of $\mbox{\rm Ker}((\widetilde{Sq}^0_*)_{(k,n)})$}\label{s33}\
\begin{notas}\label{kh2} Let $S$ be a finite sequence of positive integers. Then, there are positive integers $c_0, c_1, \ldots , c_r$ and $s_{0},\, s_{1}, \ldots , s_{r}$ such that $s_{i+1} \ne s_{i}$ and $S = (s_{0})|^{c_0}|(s_{1})|^{c_1}|\ldots|(s_{r})|^{c_r}$. We define
${\rm rl}(S) = c_1 + c_2 + \ldots + c_r$, the reduced length of $S$. For example, with $S= (2,2,3,1,1,1)= (2)|^2|(3)|^1|(1)|^3$, we have $c_0 =2,\, c_1=1,\, c_2 = 3$, hence ${\rm rl}(S) = c_1+c_2=4$.
Denote by ${\sf PSeq}_k^d$ the set of all pairs $(\mathcal I,\mathcal J)$ of sequences $\mathcal I = (i_1, i_2,\ldots,i_d)$, $\mathcal J = (j_1, j_2,\ldots,j_d)$, where $i_t,\, j_t$ are integers such that $1 \leqslant i_t < j_t \leqslant k$, for $1 \leqslant t \leqslant d$, and by ${\sf PInc}_k^d$ the set of all $(\mathcal I,\mathcal J) \in {\sf PSeq}_k^d$ such that $i_1\leqslant i_2 \leqslant \ldots \leqslant i_d$ and $j_1 \leqslant j_2 \leqslant \ldots \leqslant j_{d}$. By convention, ${\sf PSeq}_k^0 = \emptyset$. For $(\mathcal I,\mathcal J)\in {\sf PSeq}_k^d$, we denote
\[X_{(\mathcal I,\mathcal J)} = \prod_{1 \leqslant t \leqslant d}X_{i_t,j_t}^{2^{d-t}} \in P_k((k-2)|^d) \subset (P_k)_{(k-2)(2^d-1)}.\]
\end{notas}
\begin{defns}\label{gth} Let $d_0$ be a positive integer, $d_0 > 2$, and $\mathcal B$ be a subset of ${\sf PInc}_k^{d_0}$. The set $\mathcal B$ is said to be compatible with $(k-2)|^{d_0}$ if the following conditions hold:
\smallskip
i) For any $(\mathcal I, \mathcal J)\in \mathcal B$, $\mbox{rl}(\mathcal I) \leqslant d_0-2$ and $\mbox{rl}(\mathcal J) \leqslant d_0-2$,
ii) For any $(\mathcal H,\mathcal K) \in {\sf PSeq}_k^{d_0}$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{ctbd} X_{(\mathcal H,\mathcal K)} \simeq_{d_0} \sum_{u=\min \mathcal H+1}^{\min \mathcal K}\sum_{(\mathcal I,\mathcal J)\in \mathcal B_u}X_{(\mathcal I,\mathcal J)} \mbox{ \rm mod}(\mathcal P_{(k,n_{d_0})}),
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal B_u$ is a set of some pairs $(\mathcal I,\mathcal J) \in \mathcal B$ such that $\min\mathcal I = \min \mathcal H$, $ \min\mathcal J = u$ and $n_{d_0} = (k-2)(2^{d_0}-1)$.
\end{defns}
From the result in \cite[Proposition 5.2.1]{su} we see that the set
$$\mathcal B_4 = \{(\mathcal I, \mathcal J) \in {\sf PSeq}_4^5: X_{(\mathcal I, \mathcal J)} \in B_4((2)|^5)\} \subset {\sf PInc}_4^5$$ is compatible with $(2)|^{5}$.
For $1 \leqslant i < j \leqslant k$, denote
$f_{(i,j)} = f_if_{j-1}: P_{k-2} \stackrel{{\scriptstyle{f_{j-1}}}}{\longrightarrow} P_{k-1} \stackrel{{\scriptstyle{f_i}}}{\longrightarrow} P_k.$
Here $f_i$ and $f_{j-1}$ are defined by \eqref{ct22}. More precisely,
$$f_{(i,j)}(x_t) = \begin{cases} x_t, &\mbox{ if } 1 \leqslant t < i,\\
x_{t+1}, &\mbox{ if } i \leqslant t < j-2,\\
x_{t+2}, &\mbox{ if } j-2 \leqslant t \leqslant k-2,
\end{cases}$$
for $1 \leqslant t \leqslant k-2$. The main result of this section is the following.
\begin{thms}\label{dlck2} Let $d_0$ be a positive integer, $d_0 > 2$, and let $k \geqslant 4$, $n = \sum_{i=1}^{k-2}(2^{d_i}-1)$ with $d_i$ positive integers such that $d_1 > d_2> \ldots > d_{k-3} \geqslant d_{k-2} = d \geqslant d_0 $. Denote $m = \sum_{i=1}^{k-3}(2^{d_i-d}-1) = \beta_k^d(n)$ with $\beta_k(n) = \frac{n-k+2}2$. Suppose the set $\mathcal B \subset {\sf PInc}_k^{d_0}$ is compatible with $(k-2)|^{d_0}$. Then,
$$ \overline{\mathcal B} := \bigcup_{(\mathcal I,\mathcal J)\in \mathcal B}\Big\{X_{(\mathcal I,\mathcal J)}(X_{i,j})^{2^d-2^{d_0}}(f_{(i,j)}(y))^{2^d}: y \in B_{k-2}(m)
\Big\}$$
is a set of generators for $\mbox{\rm Ker}(\widetilde {Sq}^0)_{(k,n)}$, where $i = \min\mathcal I=i_1$, $j = \min\mathcal J=j_1$ and $B_{k-2}(m)$ is the set of all the admissible monomials of the degree $m$ in $P_{k-2}$. Consequently,
$\dim \mbox{\rm Ker}(\widetilde {Sq}^0)_{(k,n)} \leqslant |\mathcal B|\dim (QP_{k-2})_m.$
\end{thms}
We need the following lemmas for the proof of the theorem.
\begin{lems}\label{bdcbs}Let $n,\, m,\, d_0$ and $\mathcal B$ be as in Theorem \ref{dlck2}. Let $y_0$ be a monomial in $(P_k)_{m_0-1}$ with $m_0 = \sum_{i=1}^{k-2}(2^{d_i-d_0}-1)= \beta_k^{d_0}(n)$, $y_u = y_0x_u$ for $1\leqslant u \leqslant k$, and $(\mathcal I,\mathcal J) \in \mathcal B$, $i = \min \mathcal I$, $j = \min \mathcal J$. Then we have
\begin{align}\label{cth1}
X_{(\mathcal I,\mathcal J)}y_i^{2^{d_0}} &\equiv
\sum _{1\leqslant u < k\atop u \ne i, j}\sum_{(\mathcal U,\mathcal V) \in \mathcal B_u} X_{(\mathcal U,\mathcal V)}y_u^{2^{d_0}},\\
X_{(\mathcal I,\mathcal J)}y_j^{2^{d_0}}&\equiv
\sum _{2\leqslant v \leqslant k\atop v \ne i, j} \sum_{(\mathcal U,\mathcal V) \in \mathcal C_v} X_{(\mathcal U,\mathcal V)}y_v^{2^{d_0}},\label{cth2}
\end{align}
where $\mathcal B_u$ is a set of some $(\mathcal U,\mathcal V) \in B$ such that $\min \mathcal U = u$ for $u < i$ and $\min \mathcal U = i$ for $u > i$; $\mathcal C_v$ is a set of some $(\mathcal U,\mathcal V) \in \mathcal B$ such that $\min \mathcal V = v$ for $v < j$ and $\min \mathcal V = j$ for $v > j$.
\end{lems}
\begin{proof}
By the Cartan formula, we have $Sq^1(X_j) = \sum_{u\ne j}X_{u,j}x_u^2$ and $Sq^1(X_jy_0^{2}) = Sq^1(X_j)y_0^{2}$. Hence, we obtain
\[X_{i,j}y_i^2 = \sum _{1\leqslant u < j\atop u\ne i} X_{u,j}y_u^{2} + \sum _{j < u \leqslant k} X_{j,u}y_u^{2} + Sq^1(X_jy_0^{2}).\]
Since $(\mathcal I,\mathcal J) \in \mathcal B \subset {\sf PInc}_k^{d_0}$, we have $X_{(\mathcal I,\mathcal J)} = X_{(\mathcal I\setminus i,\mathcal J\setminus j)}(X_{i,j})^{2^{d_0-1}}$ with $i=i_1,\, j= j_1$, and
\[X_{(\mathcal I\setminus i,\mathcal J\setminus j)}(X_{u,j})^{2^{d_0-1}} = \left\{\begin{array}{l@{\enskip}l}
X_{(u|(\mathcal I\setminus i),\mathcal J)}, &\mbox{if } u< j,\\
X_{(j|(\mathcal I\setminus i),u|(\mathcal J\setminus j))}, &\mbox{if } u> j.\end{array}\right.\]
By using the Cartan formula, Proposition \ref{mdcb1} and Theorem \ref{dlsig} we see that the polynomial $X_{(\mathcal I\setminus i,\mathcal J\setminus j)}(Sq^1(X_jy_0^{2}))^{2^{d_0-1}}$ is hit. So, we get
\[X_{(\mathcal I,\mathcal J)}y_i^{2^{d_0}} \equiv \sum _{1\leqslant u < j\atop u \ne i} X_{(u|(\mathcal I\setminus i),\mathcal J)}y_u^{2^{d_0}} + \sum _{j < u \leqslant k} X_{(j|(\mathcal I\setminus i),u|(\mathcal J\setminus j))}y_u^{2^{d_0}}. \]
Since ${\rm rl}(\mathcal I) < d_0-1$ and ${\rm rl}(\mathcal J) < d_0-1$, we have $\min (u|(\mathcal I\setminus i)) = u$ for $u < i$, $ \min (j|(\mathcal I\setminus i)) = \min (u|(\mathcal I\setminus i)) = i$ for $i<u < j$ and $\min (u|(\mathcal J\setminus j)) = j$ for $u > j$. Hence, the relation (\ref{cth1}) follows from the condition (\ref{ctbd}) of $\mathcal B$ in Definition \ref{gth} and Lemma \ref{bdtd}.
The relation (\ref{cth2}) is proved by a similar computation.
\end{proof}
\begin{lems}\label{bdbt}
Let $n,\, d_0,\, m_0$ be as in Lemma \ref{bdcbs} and let $\mathcal P_k^1(n)$ denote the subspace of $(P_k)_n$ spanned by all monomials of the form $X_{(\mathcal I,\mathcal J)}(f_i(y))^{2^{d_0}}$ with $(\mathcal I,\mathcal J)\in \mathcal B$, $i = \min \mathcal I$ and $y \in (P_{k-1})_{m_0}$. Then $ \mbox{\rm Ker}(\widetilde {Sq}^0)_{(k,n)} \subset [\mathcal P_k^1(n)].$
\end{lems}
\begin{proof}
Let $x$ be a monomial of degree $n$ such that $[x] \in \mbox{\rm Ker}(\widetilde {Sq}^0)_{(k,n)}$. By using Lemmas \ref{bdbt1} and \ref{bdbt2}, we can assume that $\omega_{i}(x) = k-2$, for $1 \leqslant i \leqslant d$. Then, $x = \prod_{t=1}^dX_{\alpha_t,\delta_t}^{2^{d-t}}\bar y^{2^d}$, where $\alpha_t,\, \delta_t$ are integers such that $1 \leqslant \alpha_t < \delta_t \leqslant k$, for $1 \leqslant t \leqslant d$, and $\bar y$ is a monomial of degree $m= \beta_k^d(n)$ in $P_{k}$. Since $d \geqslant d_0$, we set $\mathcal H = (\alpha_1,\alpha_2, \ldots, \alpha_{d_0})$, $\mathcal K = (\delta_1, \delta_2, \ldots , \delta_{d_0})$, then we have $x = X_{(\mathcal H, \mathcal K)}\tilde y^{2^{d_0}}$, where $\tilde y = \prod_{t=d_0+1}^dX_{\alpha_t,\delta_t}^{2^{d-t}}\bar y^{2^d}$ is the monomial of degree $m_0$ in $P_{k}$. By the condition of the set $\mathcal B$ in Definition \ref{gth}, the monomial $X_{(\mathcal H, \mathcal K)}$ is of the form (\ref{ctbd}). Hence, by using Lemma \ref{bdtd}, one gets
\[
x = X_{(\mathcal H,\mathcal K)}\tilde y^{2^{d_0}} \equiv \sum_{u=\min\mathcal H+1}^{\min\mathcal K}\sum_{(\mathcal I,\mathcal J)\in \mathcal B_u}X_{(\mathcal I,\mathcal J)}\tilde y^{2^{d_0}}
\]
where $\mathcal B_u$ is as in Definition \ref{dnstin}.
For $i = \min \mathcal H$, we have $\tilde y = x_i^af_{i}(y)$ with $a$ a non-negative integer and $y \in (P_{k-1})_{m_0-a}$. We prove the lemma by proving $[X_{(\mathcal I,\mathcal J)}(x_i^af_{i}(y))^{2^{d_0}}] \in [\mathcal P_k^1(n)]$ for all $(\mathcal I,\mathcal J) \in \mathcal B_u$, $i < u \leqslant \min\mathcal K$. We prove this claim by double induction on $(a,i)$.
If $a = 0$, then the claim is true for all $1 \leqslant i < k$. Suppose $a > 0$ and the claim is true for $(a-1,i)$ with $1 \leqslant i < \min \mathcal J$.
For $i = 1$, by using Lemma \ref{bdcbs} with $y_0 = x_1^{a-1}f_1(y)$, we get
\begin{equation}\label{ct2bd}
X_{(\mathcal I,\mathcal J)}(x_1^af_{1}(y))^{2^{d_0}} \equiv \sum_{2 \leqslant t \leqslant k\atop t \ne \min\mathcal J}\sum_{(\mathcal U,\mathcal V)\in \mathcal B_{(t,1)}} X_{(\mathcal U,\mathcal V)}(x_1^{a-1}f_1(x_{t-1}y))^{2^{d_0}},
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal B_{(t,1)}$ is a set of some $(\mathcal U,\mathcal V)\in \mathcal B$ such that $\min\mathcal U=1$.
By the inductive hypothesis, $[X_{(\mathcal U,\mathcal V)}(x_1^{a-1}f_1(x_{t-1}y))^{2^{d_0}}] \in [\mathcal P_k^1(n)]$ for all $(\mathcal U,\mathcal V) \in \mathcal B_{(t,1)}$ with $1 < t \ne \min\mathcal J$. Hence, the claim is true for $(a,1)$.
Suppose $i > 1$ and the claim is true for all $(a',t)$, $1\leqslant t < i$, and for $(a-1,i)$. By applying Lemma \ref{bdcbs} for $y_0 = x_i^{a-1}f_i(y)$, we have
\begin{align}
X_{(\mathcal I,\mathcal J)}(x_i^af_{i}(y))^{2^{d_0}} &\equiv \sum _{1\leqslant t < i}\sum_{(\mathcal U,\mathcal V) \in \mathcal B_{(t,i)}} X_{(\mathcal U,\mathcal V)}(x_tx_i^{a-1}f_i(y))^{2^{d_0}}\nonumber\\ & + \sum _{i< t \leqslant k\atop t \ne \min\mathcal J}\sum_{(\mathcal U,\mathcal V) \in \mathcal B_{(t,i)}} X_{(\mathcal U,\mathcal V)}(x_i^{a-1}f_i(x_{t-1}y))^{2^{d_0}},\label{ct3bd}
\end{align}
where $\mathcal B_{(t,i)}$ is a set of some $(\mathcal U,\mathcal V) \in \mathcal B$ such that $\min\mathcal U = t$ for $t < i$ and $\min\mathcal U = i$ for $t> i$.
From the relation (\ref{ct3bd}) and the inductive hypothesis, we see that our claim is true for $(a,i)$. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
We now prove Theorem \ref{dlck2}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{dlck2}.] Denote by $\langle [\overline{\mathcal B}]\rangle$ the subspace of $(QP_k)_n$ spanned by the set $[\overline{\mathcal B}]$. We prove that $ \mbox{\rm Ker}(\widetilde {Sq}^0)_{(k,n)} \subset \langle [\overline{\mathcal B}]\rangle $. By using Lemma \ref{bdbt}, we need only to prove that $[X_{(\mathcal I,\mathcal J)}(f_{i}(y^*))^{2^d}] \in \langle [\overline{\mathcal B}]\rangle$ for all $(\mathcal I,\mathcal J) \in \mathcal B$ with $\min\mathcal I = i$ and $y^* \in (P_{k-1})_{m_0}$, where $m_0 = \sum_{t=1}^{k-2}(2^{d_t-d_0}-1)=\beta_k^{d_0}(n)$.
Set $j = \min \mathcal J$, we have $f_i(y^*) = x_j^bf_{(i,j)}(y)$ with $b$ a non-negative integer and $y \in (P_{k-2})_{m_0-b}$. We prove $[X_{(\mathcal I,\mathcal J)}(x_j^b f_{(i,j)}( y))^{2^d}] \in \langle [\overline{\mathcal B}]\rangle$ by double induction on $(b,j)$.
If $b = 0$, then $y \in (P_{k-2})_{m_0}$. Since $\omega_u(y) = k-2$ for $1 \leqslant u \leqslant d-d_0$, we get $y = Y^{2^{d-d_0}-1}(\tilde y)^{2^{d-d_0}}$, with $\tilde y \in (P_{k-2})_m$ and $Y = x_1x_2\ldots x_{k-2}$. Note that $f_{(i,j)}(Y) = X_{i,j}$, hence $f_{(i,j)}(y) = X_{i,j}^{2^{d-d_0}-1}(f_{(i,j)}(\tilde y))^{2^{d-d_0}}$. Since $B_{k-2}(m)$ is a set of $\mathcal A$-generators for $(P_{k-2})_m$, there are $z_1,z_2,\ldots, z_r \in B_{k-2}(m)$ such that
\[ \tilde y \equiv z_1 + z_2 + \ldots + z_r + \sum_{t>0}Sq^t(h_t),\]
where $h_t$ are suitable polynomials in $P_{k-2}$. Set $\textsf{p} = X_{(\mathcal I,\mathcal J)}(X_{i,j})^{2^d-2^{d_0}}$. By using Proposition \ref{mdcb1} and the Cartan formula, we have
\begin{align}
&\textsf{p}(Sq^t(f_{(i,j)}(h_t))^{2^d}= \textsf{p}Sq^{t2^d}\left((f_{(i,j)}(h_t))^{2^d}\right)\notag\\
&\quad = Sq^{t2^d}\left(\textsf{p}(f_{(i,j)}(h_t))^{2^d}\right) + \sum_{1\leqslant \ell \leqslant t}Sq^{\ell 2^d}(\textsf{p})\left(Sq^{t-\ell}(f_{(i,j)}(h_t)\right)^{2^d}\label{ctbs2}.
\end{align}
Suppose $w$ is a monomial which appears as a term in the polynomial $Sq^{\ell 2^d}(\textsf{p})$. By Proposition \ref{bdkbs} we have $\omega(w) < \omega(\textsf{p}) = (k-2)|^d$. Hence, using Theorem \ref{dlsig} and \eqref{ctbs2}, we see that the polynomial $\textsf{p}(Sq^t(f_{(i,j)}(h_t))^{2^d}$ is hit. Since $f_{(i,j)}:P_{k-2} \to P_k$ is a homomorphism of $\mathcal A$-algebras, we get
\[ \left[X_{(\mathcal I,\mathcal J)}(f_{(i,j)}(y))^{2^d}\right] = \sum_{1 \leqslant u \leqslant r} \left[X_{(\mathcal I,\mathcal J)}(X_{i,j})^{2^d-2^{d_0}}(f_{(i,j)}(z_u))^{2^d}\right] \in \langle [\overline{\mathcal B}]\rangle.\]
Hence, our claim is true for $(0,j),\ i<j\leqslant k$. We assume $b > 0$ and our claim holds for $(b-1,j)$ with $i < j \leqslant k$.
For $j = 2$, we have $ i = 1$. By applying Lemma \ref{bdcbs} for $y_0 = x_2^{b-1}f_{(1,2)}(y)$ we obtain
\[X_{(\mathcal I,\mathcal J)}(x_2^b f_{(1,2)}(y))^{2^{d_0}} \equiv \sum_{3\leqslant t \leqslant k}\sum_{(\mathcal U,\mathcal V)\in \mathcal B_t}X_{(\mathcal U,\mathcal V)}(x_2^{b-1}f_{(1,2)}(x_{t-2}y))^{2^{d_0}}, \]
where $\mathcal B_t$ is a set of some $(\mathcal U,\mathcal V) \in \mathcal B$ such that $\min \mathcal V = 2$. The last equality and the inductive hypothesis imply our claim for $(b,2)$.
Suppose $j > 2$ and the claim holds for all $(b',t)$ with $1\leqslant i < t <j$ and for $(b-1,j)$. By using Lemma \ref{bdcbs} with $y_0 = x_j^{b-1}f_{(i,j)}(y)$, we have
\begin{align*}X_{(\mathcal I,\mathcal J)}(x_j^b f_{(i,j)}( y))^{2^{d_0}} &\equiv \sum_{1 \leqslant t < i}\sum_{(\mathcal U,\mathcal V)\in \mathcal B_t^*}X_{(\mathcal U,\mathcal V)}(f_{i}(x_{t}x_{j-1}^{b-1}y))^{2^{d_0}}\\
& \qquad + \sum_{i < t < j}\sum_{(\mathcal U,\mathcal V)\in \mathcal B_t^*}X_{(\mathcal U,\mathcal V)}(f_{i}(x_{t-1}x_{j-1}^{b-1}y))^{2^{d_0}}\\
& \qquad + \sum_{j < t \leqslant k}\sum_{(\mathcal U,\mathcal V)\in \mathcal B_t^*}X_{(\mathcal U,\mathcal V)}(x_j^{b-1}f_{(i,j)}(x_{t-2}y))^{2^{d_0}},
\end{align*}
where $\mathcal B_t^*$ is a set of some $(\mathcal U,\mathcal V) \in \mathcal B$ such that $\min \mathcal V = i$ for $t<i$, $\min \mathcal V = t$ for $i<t<j$ and $\min \mathcal V = j$ for $t > j$. From the last equality and the inductive hypothesis, our claim is true for $(b,j)$. The theorem is proved.
\end{proof}
\section{An application to the case $k = 5$}\label{s4}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In this section, we prove one of our main results, Theorem \ref{dl20}, that gives an affirmative answer to Conjecture \ref{ker} for $k = 5$.
To do this, we explicitly determine the set $B_5((3)|^d)$ of all the admissible monomials of weight vector $(3)|^d$ for $d \geqslant 5$. By combining this result and Theorem \ref{dlck2} one gets an upper bound for the dimension of the kernel of Kameko's squaring operation in the degree $n = 2^{d+t+u} + 2^{d+t} + 2^d -3$ with $d > 5$ and $t,\, u \geqslant 4$. By using Theorem \ref{dlwa} below, we show that this upper bound is also a lower bound.
\begin{thm}[See Walker and Wood {\cite[Proposition 24.5.1]{wa4}}]\label{dlwa} Let $k \geqslant 3$ and $n= \sum_{i=1}^{k-2}(2^{d_i}-1)$ with $d_i$ positive integers. If $d_{i} - d_{i+1} \geqslant 4$ for $1 \leqslant i \leqslant k - 3$ and $d_{k-2} \geqslant 5$, then
\begin{equation}\label{ct12}\dim(QP_k)_n \geqslant (k-1)\prod_{3\leqslant i \leqslant k}(2^i-1).\end{equation}
\end{thm}
From the results of Kameko \cite[Theorem 8.1]{ka} and our work \cite[Proposition 2.5.1]{su2} we see that if $d \geqslant 4$, then $QP_3^+((3)|^d) = \langle [(x_1x_2x_3)^{2^d-1}]_{(3)|^d}\rangle$ and
$QP_4^+((3)|^d) = \langle \{[w_{d,u}]_{(3)|^d} : 1\leqslant u \leqslant 11\}\rangle,$
where $w_{d,u}$ are determined as in Section \ref{s5}.
\smallskip
By applying Proposition \ref{mdbs}, we get
$\dim QP_5^0((3)|^d) = {5\choose 3} + 11{5\choose 4} = 65.$
So, we need only to determine $QP_5^+((3)|^d)$.
\begin{thm}\label{dl51} Let $d$ be an integer. If $d \geqslant 5$, then $QP_5^+((3)|^d)$ is an $\mathbb F_2$-vector space of dimension $90$ with a basis consisting the classes represented by the admissible monomials $a_{d,t},\, 1 \leqslant t \leqslant 90$, which are determined as in Section $\ref{s5}$.
Consequently, $\dim QP_5((3)|^d) = 155$ for any $d \geqslant 5$.
\end{thm}
In \cite[Proposition 1]{su3}, we have proved that for any weight vector $\omega$, $QP_k(\omega)$ is an $GL_k$-module. Hence, Theorem \ref{dl51} gives a representation of dimension 155 of the general group $GL_5$.
The theorem is proved by induction on $d$. The proof is based on Proposition \ref{mdcb51} and suitable strongly inadmissible monomials of weight vector $(3)|^d$ with $2 \leqslant d \leqslant 5$. Moreover, to prove the theorem for $d = 5$, we need to use suitable sets of generators for $QP_5((3)|^d)$ with $1 \leqslant d \leqslant 4$.
\subsection{Generating sets for $QP_5((3)|^d)$ with $d \leqslant 4$}\label{s511}\
\begin{props}\label{md52} We have
\smallskip
{\rm i)} $B_5((3)|^1) = \{X_{\alpha, \beta}: 1 \leqslant \alpha < \beta \leqslant 5\}$. Hence, $\dim QP_5((3)|^1) = 10$.
{\rm ii)} $B_5^+((3)|^2)$ is the set of the monomials $a_{2,t}, \, 1 \leqslant t \leqslant 15$, which are determine as follows:
\medskip
\centerline{\begin{tabular}{llll}
$1.\ \ x_1x_2x_3^{2}x_4^{2}x_5^{3} $ & $2.\ \ x_1x_2x_3^{2}x_4^{3}x_5^{2} $ & $3.\ \ x_1x_2x_3^{3}x_4^{2}x_5^{2} $ & $4.\ \ x_1x_2^{2}x_3x_4^{2}x_5^{3} $\cr
$5.\ \ x_1x_2^{2}x_3x_4^{3}x_5^{2} $ & $6.\ \ x_1x_2^{2}x_3^{2}x_4x_5^{3} $ & $7.\ \ x_1x_2^{2}x_3^{2}x_4^{3}x_5 $ & $8.\ \ x_1x_2^{2}x_3^{3}x_4x_5^{2} $\cr
$9.\ \ x_1x_2^{2}x_3^{3}x_4^{2}x_5 $ & $10.\ x_1x_2^{3}x_3x_4^{2}x_5^{2} $ & $11.\ x_1x_2^{3}x_3^{2}x_4x_5^{2} $ & $12.\ x_1x_2^{3}x_3^{2}x_4^{2}x_5 $\cr
$13.\ x_1^{3}x_2x_3x_4^{2}x_5^{2} $ & $14.\ x_1^{3}x_2x_3^{2}x_4x_5^{2} $ & $15.\ x_1^{3}x_2x_3^{2}x_4^{2}x_5 $.&
\end{tabular}}
\smallskip
Consequently, $\dim QP_5((3)|^2) = 55$.
\end{props}
\begin{lems}\label{bdk1} Let $i_1, i_2, j_1, j_2\in \mathbb N_k$ such that $i_1 < j_1,\, i_2 < j_2$.
\smallskip
{\rm i)} If either $i_1 > i_2$ or $i_1 = i_2$ and $j_1 > j_2$, then $X_{i_1,j_1}^2X_{i_2,j_2}$ is strictly inadmissible.
{\rm ii)} If $j_1 > j_2$ and $i,\, j \in \mathbb N_k,\, i < j$, then the monomial $X_{i_1,j_1}^4X_{i_2,j_2}^2X_{i,j}$ is strictly inadmissible.
{\rm iii)} If either $i_1 < i_2 \leqslant j_1$ or $i_1 = i_2, j_1 \ne j_2$, then $X_{i_1,j_1}^4X_{i_2,j_2}^3$ is strictly inadmissible.
{\rm iv)} If either $i_1 < i_2$ or $i_1 = i_2$ and $j_1 \leqslant j_2$, then $X_{i_1,j_1}^8X_{i_2,j_2}^7$ is strictly inadmissible.
\end{lems}
\begin{proof} For simplicity, we prove Part ii). The others can be proved by a similar computation.
If $i_1 = i_2 = i$, then $x = X_{i_1,j_1}^2X_{i_2,j_2} = x_{j_1}x_{j_2}^2X_{i, j_1, j_2}^3$. We have
\[x = x_{j_1}^2x_{j_2}X_{i,j_1,j_2}^3 + \sum_{t\ne i, j_1,j_2} x_{j_1}x_{j_2}x_t^4X_{i,j_1,j_2,j}^3 + Sq^1(x_{j_1}x_{j_2}X_{i,j_1,j_2,j}^3).\]
This equality shows that $x$ is strictly inadmissible. By Theorem \ref{dlcb1}, $x^2X_{i,j}$ is also strictly inadmissible.
Suppose $i_1 < i_2$. Then $x = x_{i_1}x_{i_2}^2x_{j_2}^2x_{j_1}X_{i_1,i_2,j_1,j_2}^3$. We have
\begin{align*} x_{i_1}x_{i_2}^2x_{j_2}^2x_{j_1} &= x_{i_1}x_{i_2}x_{j_2}^2x_{j_1}^2 + x_{i_1}x_{i_2}^2x_{j_2}x_{j_1}^2 \\
& \quad + Sq^1(x_{i_1}^2x_{i_2}x_{j_2}x_{j_1}) + Sq^2(x_{i_1}x_{i_2}x_{j_2}x_{j_1}).
\end{align*}
So, by using the Cartan formula, we get
\[x = x_{i_1}x_{i_2}x_{j_2}^2 x_{j_1}^2X_{i_1,i_2,j_1,j_2}^3 + x_{i_1}x_{i_2}^2x_{j_2}x_{j_1}^2 X_{i_1,i_2,j_1,j_2}^3 + A + B + C,\]
where
\begin{align*}
A &= x_{i_1}^2x_{i_2}x_{j_1}x_{j_2}Sq^1(X_{i_1,i_2,j_1,j_2}^3) + Sq^1(x_{i_1}x_{i_2}x_{j_1}x_{j_2})Sq^1(X_{i_1,i_2,j_1,j_2}^3),\\
B &= x_{i_1}x_{i_2}x_{j_1}x_{j_2}Sq^2(X_{i_1,i_2,j_1,j_2}^3),\\
C &= Sq^1(x_{i_1}^2x_{i_2}x_{j_1}x_{j_2} X_{i_1,i_2,j_1,j_2}^3) + Sq^2(x_{i_1}x_{i_2}x_{j_1}x_{j_2} X_{i_1,i_2,j_1,j_2}^3).
\end{align*}
A simple computation shows that $X_{i,j}A^2 \in P_k^-((k-2)|^3)$, $X_{i,j}B^2 \in P_k^-((k-2)|^3)+\mathcal A(0)^+P_5$ and $X_{i,j}C^2 \in P_k^-((k-2)|^3)+\mathcal A(2)^+P_5$. Hence, the monomial $x^2X_{i,j}$ is strictly inadmissible.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{md52}.]
For $d = 1$, if $x \in P_5((3)|^1)$, then $\omega(x) = (3)|^1$ if and only if $x = X_{\alpha, \beta}$ with $1 \leqslant \alpha < \beta \leqslant 5$. Since $X_{\alpha, \beta}$ is admissible, we see that the first of Proposition \ref{md52} is true.
From the results in Kameko \cite[Theorem 8.1]{ka} and our work \cite[Proposition 5.2.1]{su2}, we have $|B_3^+((3)|^2)| = 1$ and $|B_4^+((3)|^2)| = 6$.
Hence, by applying Proposition \ref{mdbs}, we get $\dim QP_5^0((3)|^2) = {5\choose 3} + 6{5\choose 4} = 40.$ So, we need only to determine $QP_5^+((3)|^2)$. We can check that if $x \in P_5^+((3)|^2)$ and $x \ne a_{2,t}$ for all $t,\, 1 \leqslant t \leqslant 15$, then $x = X_{i_1,j_1}^2X_{i_2,j_2}$ with $i_1 > i_2$. By Lemma \ref{bdk1}(i), $x$ is inadmissible.
We observe that for $1 \leqslant t \leqslant 15$, $a_{2,t} = x_if_i(b_{2,t})$ with $b_{2,t}$ an admissible monomial of degree 8 in $P_4$ and $1\leqslant i \leqslant 5$. By Proposition \ref{mdmo}, $a_{2,t}$ is admissible. The proposition is proved.
\end{proof}
Consider the case $d=3$. From the results in Kameko \cite[Theorem 8.1]{ka} and our work \cite[Proposition 5.4.2]{su2}, we have $|B_3^+((3)|^3)| = 1$ and $|B_4^+((3)|^3)| = 10$.
So, by using Proposition \ref{mdbs}, we get $\dim QP_5^0((3)|^3) = {5\choose 3} + 10{5\choose 4} =60$. We need to compute $QP_5^+((3)|^3)$.
We denote by $A(3)$ the set of the monomials $a_{3,t},\, 1 \leqslant t \leqslant 50$, which are given in Section \ref{s5} for $d=3$ and five monomials:
\medskip
\centerline{\begin{tabular}{lll}
$a_{3,51} = x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{4}x_4^{4}x_5^{7}$&
$a_{3,52} = x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{4}x_4^{7}x_5^{4}$&
$a_{3,53} = x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{7}x_4^{4}x_5^{4}$\cr
$a_{3,54} = x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{3}x_4^{4}x_5^{4} $&
$a_{3,55} = x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{3}x_4^{4}x_5^{4}$.&\cr
\end{tabular}}
\begin{props}\label{mdd532} $B_5^+((3)|^3) \subset A(3)\cup C(3)$, where $C(3)$ is the set of the monomials $a_{3,t},\, 56 \leqslant t \leqslant 70$, which are determined as follows:
\medskip
\centerline{\begin{tabular}{llll}
$56. \ x_1x_2^{3}x_3^{5}x_4^{6}x_5^{6}$&
$57. \ x_1x_2^{3}x_3^{6}x_4^{5}x_5^{6}$&
$58. \ x_1x_2^{6}x_3^{3}x_4^{5}x_5^{6}$&
$59. \ x_1^{3}x_2x_3^{5}x_4^{6}x_5^{6} $\cr
$60. \ x_1^{3}x_2x_3^{6}x_4^{5}x_5^{6}$&
$61. \ x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3x_4^{6}x_5^{6}$&
$62. \ x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{6}x_4x_5^{6}$&
$63. \ x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{2}x_4^{5}x_5^{6}$\cr
$64. \ x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{4}x_4^{5}x_5^{6}$&
$65. \ x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{5}x_4^{4}x_5^{6}$&
$66. \ x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{5}x_4^{6}x_5^{4}$&
$67. \ x_1^{3}x_2^{4}x_3^{3}x_4^{5}x_5^{6} $\cr
$68. \ x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{3}x_4^{4}x_5^{6}$&
$69. \ x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{3}x_4^{6}x_5^{4}$&
$70. \ x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{6}x_4^{3}x_5^{4}$.& \cr
\end{tabular}}
\end{props}
The proof of this proposition uses the following lemmas.
\begin{lems}\label{bdd30}
Let $w$ is one of the monomials: $x_1x_2^{6}x_3^{6}x_4$, $x_1x_2^{2}x_3^{6}x_4^{5}$, $x_1x_2^{6}x_3^{2}x_4^{5}$, $x_1x_2^{6}x_3^{3}x_4^{4}$, $x_1^{3}x_2^{4}x_3x_4^{6}$, $x_1^{3}x_2^{4}x_3^{5}x_4^{2}$, $x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{4}x_4^{2}$, $x_1^{3}x_2^{4}x_3^{3}x_4^{4}$, $x_1^{3}x_2^{4}x_3^{4}x_4^{3}$.
Then, the monomial $x_i^7f_i(w)$, $1\leqslant i \leqslant 5$, is strictly inadmissible.
\end{lems}
\begin{proof} By using the Cartan formula, we have
\begin{align*} x_1x_2^{6}x_3^{6}x_4 &= x_1x_2^{5}x_3^{6}x_4^{2} + x_1x_2^{6}x_3^{5}x_4^{2} + Sq^1(x_1^{2}x_2^{5}x_3^{5}x_4)\\ &\quad + Sq^2(x_1x_2^{5}x_3^{5}x_4)\ \mbox{ mod}(P_4^-((2)|^3)),\\
x_1x_2^{2}x_3^{6}x_4^{5} &= x_1x_2x_3^{6}x_4^{6} + x_1x_2^{2}x_3^{5}x_4^{6} + Sq^1(x_1^{2}x_2x_3^{5}x_4^{5})\\ &\quad + Sq^2(x_1x_2x_3^{5}x_4^{5}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_4^-((2)|^3)),\\
x_1x_2^{6}x_3^{2}x_4^{5} &= x_1x_2^{5}x_3^{2}x_4^{6} + x_1x_2^{6}x_3x_4^{6} + Sq^1(x_1^{2}x_2^{5}x_3x_4^{5})\\ &\quad + Sq^2(x_1x_2^{5}x_3x_4^{5}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_4^-((2)|^3)),\\
x_1x_2^{6}x_3^{3}x_4^{4} &= x_1x_2^{3}x_3^{4}x_4^{6} + x_1x_2^{3}x_3^{6}x_4^{4} + x_1x_2^{4}x_3^{3}x_4^{6} + x_1x_2^{4}x_3^{6}x_4^{3} + x_1x_2^{6}x_3^{2}x_4^{5}\\ &\quad + Sq^1(x_1^{2}x_2^{5}x_3^{3}x_4^{3} + x_1^{2}x_2^{3}x_3^{5}x_4^{3} + x_1^{2}x_2^{3}x_3^{3}x_4^{5}) + Sq^2(x_1x_2^{5}x_3^{3}x_4^{3}\\ &\quad + x_1x_2^{3}x_3^{5}x_4^{3} + x_1x_2^{3}x_3^{3}x_4^{5} + x_1x_2^{6}x_3^{2}x_4^{3})\ \mbox{ mod}(P_4^-((2)|^3)),\\
x_1^{3}x_2^{4}x_3x_4^{6} &= x_1^{2}x_2^{3}x_3^{4}x_4^{5} + x_1^{2}x_2^{5}x_3^{4}x_4^{3} + x_1^{3}x_2^{2}x_3^{4}x_4^{5} + x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{4}x_4^{4}\\ &\quad + Sq^1(x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{4}x_4^{3} + x_1^{3}x_2^{4}x_3x_4^{5}) + Sq^2(x_1^{2}x_2^{3}x_3^{4}x_4^{3} + x_1^{5}x_2^{2}x_3^{2}x_4^{3})\\ &\quad + Sq^4(x_1^{3}x_2^{2}x_3^{2}x_4^{3}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_4^-((2)|^3)),\\
x_1^{3}x_2^{4}x_3^{5}x_4^{2} &= x_1^{3}x_2^{2}x_3^{5}x_4^{4} + x_1^{3}x_2^{4}x_3^{3}x_4^{4}\\ &\quad + Sq^2(x_1^{5}x_2^{2}x_3^{3}x_4^{2}) + Sq^4(x_1^{3}x_2^{2}x_3^{3}x_4^{2}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_4^-((2)|^3)),\\
x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{4}x_4^{2} &= x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{4}x_4^{4} + x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{2}x_4^{4}\\ &\quad + Sq^2(x_1^{5}x_2^{3}x_3^{2}x_4^{2}) + Sq^4(x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{2}x_4^{2}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_4^-((2)|^3)),\\
x_1^{3}x_2^{4}x_3^{3}x_4^{4} &= x_1^{2}x_2^{3}x_3^{5}x_4^{4} + x_1^{2}x_2^{5}x_3^{3}x_4^{4} + x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{4}x_4^{4}\\ &\quad + Sq^1(x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{3}x_4^{4}) + Sq^2(x_1^{2}x_2^{3}x_3^{3}x_4^{4}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_4^-((2)|^3)),\\
x_1^{3}x_2^{4}x_3^{4}x_4^{3} &= x_1^{2}x_2^{3}x_3^{4}x_4^{5} + x_1^{2}x_2^{5}x_3^{4}x_4^{3} + x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{4}x_4^{4}\\ &\quad + Sq^1(x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{4}x_4^{3}) + Sq^2(x_1^{2}x_2^{3}x_3^{4}x_4^{3}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_4^-((2)|^3)).
\end{align*}
From the above equalities we see that there is a positive integer $r$ such that
$$w = y_1 + y_2 + \ldots + y_r + Sq^1(g_1)+Sq^2(g_2) + Sq^4(g_3) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_4^-((2)|^3)),$$
where $y_t$ are monomials of weight vector $(2)|^3$ in $P_4$, $y_t < w$ with $1 \leqslant t \leqslant r$ and $g_1,\, g_2,\, g_3$ are suitable polynomials in $P_4$. Using the Cartan formula and Lemma \ref{bdlh} we get
\begin{align*} x_i^7f_i(w) &= x_i^7f_i(y_1)+ x_i^7f_i(y_2)+\ldots + x_i^7f_i(y_r)\ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^3) +\mathcal A(2)^+P_5).
\end{align*}
Since $x_i^7f_i(y_t) < x_i^7f_i(w)$ for $1 \leqslant t \leqslant r$, the monomial $x_i^7f_i(w)$ is strictly inadmissible. The lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
\begin{lems}\label{bdd31}\
\medskip
{\rm i)} The following monomials are strictly inadmissible:
\medskip
\centerline{\begin{tabular}{lllll}
$x_1x_2^{6}x_3^{3}x_4^{6}x_5^{5}$& $x_1x_2^{6}x_3^{6}x_4^{3}x_5^{5}$& $x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{5}x_4^{2}x_5^{6}$& $x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{5}x_4^{6}x_5^{2}$& $x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{6}x_4^{5}x_5^{2} $\cr $x_1^{3}x_2^{4}x_3^{5}x_4^{3}x_5^{6}$& $x_1^{3}x_2^{4}x_3^{5}x_4^{6}x_5^{3}$& $x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{4}x_4^{3}x_5^{6}$& $x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{4}x_4^{6}x_5^{3}$& $x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{6}x_4^{4}x_5^{3}$.\cr
\end{tabular}}
\medskip
{\rm ii)} The following monomials are strongly inadmissible:
\medskip
\centerline{\begin{tabular}{lllll}
$x_1x_2^{3}x_3^{6}x_4^{6}x_5^{5}$& $x_1^{3}x_2x_3^{6}x_4^{6}x_5^{5}$& $x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{6}x_4^{6}x_5$& $x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{2}x_4^{6}x_5^{5}$& $x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{6}x_4^{2}x_5^{5}$.\cr
\end{tabular}}
\end{lems}
\begin{proof}
Based on the Cartan formula we have
\begin{align*}
x_1x_2^{6}x_3^{3}x_4^{6}x_5^{5} &= x_1x_2^{3}x_3^{5}x_4^{6}x_5^{6} + x_1x_2^{3}x_3^{6}x_4^{5}x_5^{6} + x_1x_2^{3}x_3^{6}x_4^{6}x_5^{5} + x_1x_2^{5}x_3^{3}x_4^{6}x_5^{6}\\ &\quad + x_1x_2^{6}x_3^{3}x_4^{5}x_5^{6} + Sq^1(x_1^{2}x_2^{3}x_3^{5}x_4^{5}x_5^{5} + x_1^{2}x_2^{5}x_3^{3}x_4^{5}x_5^{5})\\ &\quad + Sq^2(x_1x_2^{3}x_3^{5}x_4^{5}x_5^{5} + x_1x_2^{5}x_3^{3}x_4^{5}x_5^{5})\
\mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^3)),\\
x_1x_2^{6}x_3^{6}x_4^{3}x_5^{5} &= x_1x_2^{3}x_3^{5}x_4^{6}x_5^{6} + x_1x_2^{3}x_3^{6}x_4^{5}x_5^{6} + x_1x_2^{3}x_3^{6}x_4^{6}x_5^{5} + x_1x_2^{5}x_3^{6}x_4^{3}x_5^{6}\\ &\quad + x_1x_2^{6}x_3^{5}x_4^{3}x_5^{6} + Sq^1(x_1^{2}x_2^{3}x_3^{5}x_4^{5}x_5^{5} + x_1^{2}x_2^{5}x_3^{5}x_4^{3}x_5^{5})\\ &\quad + Sq^2(x_1x_2^{3}x_3^{5}x_4^{5}x_5^{5} + x_1x_2^{5}x_3^{5}x_4^{3}x_5^{5})\ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^3)),\\
x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{5}x_4^{2}x_5^{6} &= x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{5}x_4^{4}x_5^{6} + x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{3}x_4^{4}x_5^{6} + Sq^1(x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{3}x_4x_5^{10})\\ &\quad + Sq^2(x_1^{5}x_2^{3}x_3^{3}x_4^{2}x_5^{6}) + Sq^4(x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{3}x_4^{2}x_5^{6}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^3)),\\
x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{5}x_4^{6}x_5^{2} &= x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{5}x_4^{6}x_5^{4} + x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{3}x_4^{6}x_5^{4} + Sq^1(x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{3}x_4^{9}x_5^{2})\\ &\quad + Sq^2(x_1^{5}x_2^{3}x_3^{3}x_4^{6}x_5^{2}) + Sq^4(x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{3}x_4^{6}x_5^{2}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^3)),\\
x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{6}x_4^{5}x_5^{2} &= x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{6}x_4^{5}x_5^{4} + x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{6}x_4^{3}x_5^{4} + Sq^1(x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{9}x_4^{3}x_5^{2})\\ &\quad + Sq^2(x_1^{5}x_2^{3}x_3^{6}x_4^{3}x_5^{2}) + Sq^4(x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{6}x_4^{3}x_5^{2}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^3)),\\
x_1^{3}x_2^{4}x_3^{5}x_4^{3}x_5^{6} &= x_1^{3}x_2^{2}x_3^{5}x_4^{5}x_5^{6} + x_1^{3}x_2^{4}x_3^{3}x_4^{5}x_5^{6} + Sq^1(x_1^{3}x_2x_3^{3}x_4^{3}x_5^{10}) \\ &\quad + Sq^2(x_1^{5}x_2^{2}x_3^{3}x_4^{3}x_5^{6}) + Sq^4(x_1^{3}x_2^{2}x_3^{3}x_4^{3}x_5^{6}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^3)),\\
x_1^{3}x_2^{4}x_3^{5}x_4^{6}x_5^{3} &= x_1^{3}x_2^{2}x_3^{5}x_4^{6}x_5^{5} + x_1^{3}x_2^{4}x_3^{3}x_4^{6}x_5^{5} + Sq^1(x_1^{3}x_2x_3^{3}x_4^{10}x_5^{3}) \\ &\quad + Sq^2(x_1^{5}x_2^{2}x_3^{3}x_4^{6}x_5^{3}) + Sq^4(x_1^{3}x_2^{2}x_3^{3}x_4^{6}x_5^{3}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^3)),\\
x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{4}x_4^{3}x_5^{6} &= x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{4}x_4^{5}x_5^{6} + x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{2}x_4^{5}x_5^{6} + Sq^1(x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3x_4^{3}x_5^{10})\\ &\quad + Sq^2(x_1^{5}x_2^{3}x_3^{2}x_4^{3}x_5^{6}) + Sq^4(x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{2}x_4^{3}x_5^{6}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^3)),\\
x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{4}x_4^{6}x_5^{3} &= x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{4}x_4^{6}x_5^{5} + x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{2}x_4^{6}x_5^{5} + Sq^1(x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3x_4^{10}x_5^{3})\\ &\quad + Sq^2(x_1^{5}x_2^{3}x_3^{2}x_4^{6}x_5^{3}) + Sq^4(x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{2}x_4^{6}x_5^{3}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^3)),\\
x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{6}x_4^{4}x_5^{3} &= x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{6}x_4^{4}x_5^{5} + x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{6}x_4^{2}x_5^{5} + Sq^1(x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{9}x_4^{2}x_5^{3})\\ &\quad + Sq^2(x_1^{5}x_2^{3}x_3^{6}x_4^{2}x_5^{3}) + Sq^4(x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{6}x_4^{2}x_5^{3}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^3)).
\end{align*}
Part i) follows from the above equalities.
We prove Part ii). For $w = x_1x_2^{3}x_3^{6}x_4^{6}x_5^{5}$, we have
\begin{align*}
w &= x_1x_2^{3}x_3^{5}x_4^{6}x_5^{6} + x_1x_2^{3}x_3^{6}x_4^{5}x_5^{6} + x_1x_2^{5}x_3^{5}x_4^{5}x_5^{5}\\ &\quad + Sq^1(x_1^{2}x_2^{3}x_3^{5}x_4^{5}x_5^{5}) + Sq^2(x_1x_2^{3}x_3^{5}x_4^{5}x_5^{5}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^3)),
\end{align*}
where $x_1x_2^{3}x_3^{5}x_4^{6}x_5^{6},\, x_1x_2^{3}x_3^{6}x_4^{5}x_5^{6} < w$ and $x_1x_2^{5}x_3^{5}x_4^{5}x_5^{5} \in \mathcal P_{(5,21)}$. Hence, the monomial $w$ is strongly inadmissible. By a similar computation we have
\begin{align*}
x_1^{3}x_2x_3^{6}x_4^{6}x_5^{5} &= x_1^{3}x_2x_3^{5}x_4^{6}x_5^{6} + x_1^{3}x_2x_3^{6}x_4^{5}x_5^{6} + x_1^{5}x_2x_3^{5}x_4^{5}x_5^{5}\\ &\quad + Sq^1(x_1^{3}x_2^{2}x_3^{5}x_4^{5}x_5^{5}) + Sq^2(x_1^{3}x_2x_3^{5}x_4^{5}x_5^{5}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^3)),\\
x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{6}x_4^{6}x_5 &= x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{5}x_4^{6}x_5^{2} + x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{6}x_4^{5}x_5^{2} + x_1^{5}x_2^{5}x_3^{5}x_4^{5}x_5\\ &\quad + Sq^1(x_1^{3}x_2^{6}x_3^{5}x_4^{5}x_5) + Sq^2(x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{5}x_4^{5}x_5) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^3)),\\
x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{2}x_4^{6}x_5^{5} &= x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3x_4^{6}x_5^{6} + x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{2}x_4^{5}x_5^{6} + x_1^{5}x_2^{5}x_3x_4^{5}x_5^{5}\\ &\quad + Sq^1(x_1^{3}x_2^{6}x_3x_4^{5}x_5^{5}) + Sq^2(x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3x_4^{5}x_5^{5}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^3)),\\
x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{6}x_4^{2}x_5^{5} &= x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{5}x_4^{2}x_5^{6} + x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{6}x_4x_5^{6} + x_1^{5}x_2^{5}x_3^{5}x_4x_5^{5}\\ &\quad + Sq^1(x_1^{3}x_2^{6}x_3^{5}x_4x_5^{5}) + Sq^2(x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{5}x_4x_5^{5}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^3)).
\end{align*}
Since $x_1^{5}x_2x_3^{5}x_4^{5}x_5^{5},\, x_1^{5}x_2^{5}x_3^{5}x_4^{5}x_5, \, x_1^{5}x_2^{5}x_3x_4^{5}x_5^{5},\, x_1^{5}x_2^{5}x_3^{5}x_4x_5^{5} \in \mathcal P_{(5,21)}$, Part ii) follows from the above equalities. The lemma is completely proved.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{mdd532}.] We can see that if $x \in P_5^+((3)|^3)$ and $x \ne a_{3,t}$ for all $t,\, 1 \leqslant t \leqslant 70$, then either $x$ is one of the monomials as given in Lemmas \ref{bdd30}, \ref{bdd31}, or $x$ is of the form $X_{i,j}^4X_{i_1,j_1}^2X_{i_2,j_2}$ with $i_1>i_2$. Hence, by Lemma \ref{bdk1}(i) and Theorem \ref{dlcb1}, $x$ is inadmissible. The proposition is proved.
\end{proof}
Consider the case $d = 4$. From the results in Kameko \cite[Theorem 8.1]{ka} and our work \cite[Propositon 5.4.2]{su2}, we get $|B_3^+((3)|^4)| = 1$ and $|B_4^+((3)|^4)| = 11$. By Proposition \ref{mdbs}, $\dim QP_5((3)|^4) = {5\choose 3} + 11{5\choose 4} = 65$. We need to determine the set $B_5^+((3)|^4)$.
\medskip
Denote by $A(4)$ the set of the monomials $a_{4,t}$, $1 \leqslant t \leqslant 55$, which are determined as in Section \ref{s5} for $d=4$.
\begin{props}\label{mdd41} $B_5^+((3)|^4) \subset A(4)\cup C(4)$, where $C(4)$ is the set of the monomials $a_{4,t},\, 56 \leqslant t \leqslant 89,$ which are determined as in Section $\ref{s5}$ for $d=4$, and the following monomials:
\smallskip
\centerline{\begin{tabular}{lll}
$a_{4,90} = x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{8}x_4^{13}x_5^{14}$&
$a_{4,91} = x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{8}x_4^{13}x_5^{14}$&
$a_{4,92} = x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{8}x_4^{9}x_5^{14} $\cr
$a_{4,93} = x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{9}x_4^{8}x_5^{14}$&
$a_{4,94} = x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{9}x_4^{10}x_5^{12}$.&\cr
\end{tabular}}
\end{props}
We need the following lemmas for the proof of this proposition.
\begin{lems}\label{bdd41}
If $v$ is one of the monomials: $x_1x_2^{7}x_3^{10}x_4^{12}$, $x_1^{7}x_2x_3^{10}x_4^{12}$, $x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{12}x_4^{12}$, $x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{8}x_4^{14}$, $x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{14}x_4^{8}$, $x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{8}x_4^{8}$,
then the monomial $x_i^{15}f_i(x)$, $1\leqslant i \leqslant 5$, is strictly inadmissible.
\end{lems}
\begin{proof} Based on the Cartan formula we have
\begin{align*}
x_1x_2^{7}x_3^{10}x_4^{12} &= x_1x_2^{4}x_3^{11}x_4^{14} + x_1x_2^{6}x_3^{11}x_4^{12} + x_1x_2^{7}x_3^{8}x_4^{14}\\ &\quad + Sq^1(x_1^{2}x_2^{7}x_3^{7}x_4^{13} + x_1^{2}x_2^{7}x_3^{9}x_4^{11} + x_1^{2}x_2^{9}x_3^{7}x_4^{11})\\ &\quad + Sq^2(x_1x_2^{7}x_3^{7}x_4^{13} + x_1x_2^{7}x_3^{9}x_4^{11} + x_1x_2^{9}x_3^{7}x_4^{11})\\ &\quad + Sq^4(x_1x_2^{4}x_3^{7}x_4^{14} + x_1x_2^{6}x_3^{7}x_4^{12})\ \mbox{ mod}(P_4^-((2)|^4)),\\
x_1^{7}x_2x_3^{10}x_4^{12} &= x_1^{4}x_2x_3^{11}x_4^{14} + x_1^{6}x_2x_3^{11}x_4^{12} + x_1^{7}x_2x_3^{8}x_4^{14}\\ &\quad + Sq^1(x_1^{7}x_2^{2}x_3^{7}x_4^{13} + x_1^{7}x_2^{2}x_3^{9}x_4^{11} + x_1^{9}x_2^{2}x_3^{7}x_4^{11})\\ &\quad + Sq^2(x_1^{7}x_2x_3^{7}x_4^{13} + x_1^{7}x_2x_3^{9}x_4^{11} + x_1^{9}x_2x_3^{7}x_4^{11})\\ &\quad + Sq^4(x_1^{4}x_2x_3^{7}x_4^{14} + x_1^{6}x_2x_3^{7}x_4^{12}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_4^-((2)|^4)),\\
x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{12}x_4^{12} &= x_1^{2}x_2^{3}x_3^{12}x_4^{13} + x_1^{2}x_2^{5}x_3^{12}x_4^{11} + x_1^{2}x_2^{8}x_3^{13}x_4^{7}\\ &\quad + Sq^1(x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{12}x_4^{11} + x_1^{3}x_2^{8}x_3^{11}x_4^{7}) + Sq^2(x_1^{2}x_2^{3}x_3^{12}x_4^{11}\\ &\quad + x_1^{2}x_2^{8}x_3^{11}x_4^{7}) + Sq^4(x_1^{3}x_2^{4}x_3^{12}x_4^{7}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_4^-((2)|^4)),\\
x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{8}x_4^{14} &= x_1^{2}x_2^{5}x_3^{9}x_4^{14} + x_1^{3}x_2^{4}x_3^{9}x_4^{14} + Sq^1(x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{5}x_4^{18}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{9}x_4^{14}) + Sq^2(x_1^{2}x_2^{3}x_3^{9}x_4^{14} + x_1^{5}x_2^{3}x_3^{6}x_4^{14})\\ &\quad + Sq^4(x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{6}x_4^{14}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_4^-((2)|^4)),\\
x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{14}x_4^{8} &= x_1^{2}x_2^{5}x_3^{14}x_4^{9} + x_1^{3}x_2^{4}x_3^{14}x_4^{9} + Sq^1(x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{14}x_4^{9}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{17}x_4^{6}) + Sq^2(x_1^{2}x_2^{3}x_3^{14}x_4^{9} + x_1^{5}x_2^{3}x_3^{14}x_4^{6})\\ &\quad + Sq^4(x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{14}x_4^{6})\ \mbox{ mod}(P_4^-((2)|^4)),\\
x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{8}x_4^{8} &= x_1^{4}x_2^{7}x_3^{8}x_4^{11} + x_1^{4}x_2^{11}x_3^{8}x_4^{7} + x_1^{5}x_2^{6}x_3^{8}x_4^{11} + x_1^{5}x_2^{10}x_3^{8}x_4^{7}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{6}x_3^{8}x_4^{9} + Sq^1(x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{8}x_4^{7}) + Sq^2(x_1^{7}x_2^{6}x_3^{8}x_4^{7})\\ &\quad + Sq^4(x_1^{4}x_2^{7}x_3^{8}x_4^{7} + x_1^{5}x_2^{6}x_3^{8}x_4^{7})\ \mbox{ mod}(P_4^-((2)|^4)).
\end{align*}
From the above equalities we see that there is a positive integer $s$ such that
$$v = u_1 + u_2 + \ldots + u_s + Sq^1(h_1)+Sq^2(h_2) + Sq^4(h_3) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_4^-((2)|^4)),$$
where $u_t$ are monomials of weight vector $(2)|^4$ in $P_4$, $u_t < v$ with $1 \leqslant t \leqslant s$ and $h_1, h_2, h_3$ are suitable polynomials in $P_4$. Using the Cartan formula and Lemma \ref{bdlh} we get
\begin{align*} x_i^{15}f_i(v) &= x_i^{15}f_i(u_1)+ x_i^{15}f_i(u_2)+\ldots + x_i^{15}f_i(u_s)\ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^4) +\mathcal A(3)^+P_5).
\end{align*}
Since $x_i^{15}f_i(u_t) < x_i^{15}f_i(v)$ for $1 \leqslant t \leqslant s$, the monomial $x_i^{15}f_i(v)$ is strictly inadmissible. The lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
\begin{lems}\label{bdd42}\
\medskip
{\rm i)} The following monomials are strictly inadmissible:
\smallskip
\centerline{\begin{tabular}{llll}
$x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{9}x_4^{14}x_5^{14}$& $x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{14}x_4^{9}x_5^{14}$& $x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{11}x_4^{12}x_5^{12}$& $x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{13}x_4^{8}x_5^{14} $\cr $x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{13}x_4^{14}x_5^{8}$& $x_1^{3}x_2^{12}x_3^{3}x_4^{13}x_5^{14}$& $x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{11}x_4^{12}x_5^{12}$& $x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{13}x_4^{8}x_5^{14} $\cr $x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{13}x_4^{14}x_5^{8}$& $x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{9}x_4^{14}x_5^{8}$& $x_1^{7}x_2^{9}x_3^{7}x_4^{10}x_5^{12}$& $x_1^{7}x_2^{11}x_3^{3}x_4^{12}x_5^{12} $\cr $x_1^{7}x_2^{11}x_3^{5}x_4^{8}x_5^{14}$& $x_1^{7}x_2^{11}x_3^{5}x_4^{14}x_5^{8}$& $x_1^{7}x_2^{11}x_3^{13}x_4^{6}x_5^{8}$.&\cr
\end{tabular}}
\medskip
{\rm ii)} The following monomials are strongly inadmissible:
\smallskip
\centerline{\begin{tabular}{llll}
$x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{14}x_4^{11}x_5^{12}$& $x_1^{3}x_2^{13}x_3^{6}x_4^{11}x_5^{12}$& $x_1^{3}x_2^{13}x_3^{7}x_4^{10}x_5^{12}$& $x_1^{3}x_2^{13}x_3^{14}x_4^{3}x_5^{12}$.\cr
\end{tabular}}
\end{lems}
\begin{proof} By a direct computation using the Cartan formula, we have
\begin{align*}
x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{9}x_4^{14}x_5^{14} &= x_1^{2}x_2^{3}x_3^{13}x_4^{13}x_5^{14} + x_1^{2}x_2^{5}x_3^{11}x_4^{13}x_5^{14} + x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{12}x_4^{13}x_5^{14}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{4}x_3^{11}x_4^{13}x_5^{14} + Sq^1(x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{7}x_4^{13}x_5^{18} + x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{7}x_4^{17}x_5^{14}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{11}x_4^{13}x_5^{14}) + Sq^2(x_1^{2}x_2^{3}x_3^{11}x_4^{13}x_5^{14} + x_1^{5}x_2^{3}x_3^{7}x_4^{14}x_5^{14})\\ &\quad + Sq^4(x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{7}x_4^{14}x_5^{14}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^4)),\\
x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{14}x_4^{9}x_5^{14} &= x_1^{2}x_2^{3}x_3^{13}x_4^{13}x_5^{14} + x_1^{2}x_2^{5}x_3^{13}x_4^{11}x_5^{14} + x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{13}x_4^{12}x_5^{14}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{4}x_3^{13}x_4^{11}x_5^{14} + Sq^1(x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{13}x_4^{7}x_5^{18} + x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{13}x_4^{11}x_5^{14}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{17}x_4^{7}x_5^{14}) + Sq^2(x_1^{2}x_2^{3}x_3^{13}x_4^{11}x_5^{14} + x_1^{5}x_2^{3}x_3^{14}x_4^{7}x_5^{14}) \\ &\quad + Sq^4(x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{14}x_4^{7}x_5^{14}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^4)),\\
x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{11}x_4^{12}x_5^{12} &= x_1^{2}x_2^{7}x_3^{11}x_4^{12}x_5^{13} + x_1^{2}x_2^{7}x_3^{13}x_4^{12}x_5^{11} + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{12}x_4^{10}x_5^{13}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{10}x_4^{12}x_5^{13} + Sq^1(x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{11}x_4^{12}x_5^{12} + x_1^{3}x_2^{11}x_3^{9}x_4^{10}x_5^{11}) \\ &\quad+ Sq^2(x_1^{2}x_2^{7}x_3^{11}x_4^{12}x_5^{11} + x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{10}x_4^{10}x_5^{11})\\ &\quad + Sq^4(x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{10}x_4^{10}x_5^{11}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^4)),\\
x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{13}x_4^{8}x_5^{14} &= x_1^{2}x_2^{7}x_3^{13}x_4^{9}x_5^{14} + x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{11}x_4^{12}x_5^{14} + x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{13}x_4^{10}x_5^{14}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{9}x_4^{12}x_5^{14} + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{12}x_4^{9}x_5^{14} + Sq^1(x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{7}x_4^{5}x_5^{22}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{7}x_4^{9}x_5^{18} + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{11}x_4^{5}x_5^{18} + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{11}x_4^{9}x_5^{14})\\ &\quad + Sq^2(x_1^{2}x_2^{7}x_3^{7}x_4^{5}x_5^{22} + x_1^{2}x_2^{7}x_3^{11}x_4^{9}x_5^{14} + x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{7}x_4^{6}x_5^{18}\\ &\quad + x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{7}x_4^{10}x_5^{14} + x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{11}x_4^{6}x_5^{14})\\ &\quad + Sq^4(x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{7}x_4^{12}x_5^{14} + x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{13}x_4^{6}x_5^{14} + x_1^{3}x_2^{11}x_3^{7}x_4^{6}x_5^{14})\\ &\quad + Sq^8(x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{7}x_4^{6}x_5^{14}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^4)),\\
x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{13}x_4^{14}x_5^{8} &= x_1^{2}x_2^{7}x_3^{13}x_4^{14}x_5^{9} + x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{11}x_4^{14}x_5^{12} + x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{13}x_4^{14}x_5^{10}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{9}x_4^{14}x_5^{12} + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{12}x_4^{14}x_5^{9} + Sq^1(x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{7}x_4^{17}x_5^{10}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{7}x_4^{21}x_5^{6} + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{11}x_4^{14}x_5^{9} + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{11}x_4^{17}x_5^{6})\\ &\quad + Sq^2(x_1^{2}x_2^{7}x_3^{7}x_4^{21}x_5^{6} + x_1^{2}x_2^{7}x_3^{11}x_4^{14}x_5^{9} + x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{7}x_4^{14}x_5^{10}\\ &\quad + x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{7}x_4^{18}x_5^{6} + x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{11}x_4^{14}x_5^{6})\\ &\quad + Sq^4(x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{7}x_4^{14}x_5^{12} + x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{13}x_4^{14}x_5^{6} + x_1^{3}x_2^{11}x_3^{7}x_4^{14}x_5^{6})\\ &\quad + Sq^8(x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{7}x_4^{14}x_5^{6}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^4)),\\
x_1^{3}x_2^{12}x_3^{3}x_4^{13}x_5^{14} &= x_1^{2}x_2^{11}x_3^{5}x_4^{13}x_5^{14} + x_1^{2}x_2^{13}x_3^{3}x_4^{13}x_5^{14} + x_1^{3}x_2^{9}x_3^{5}x_4^{14}x_5^{14}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{11}x_3^{4}x_4^{13}x_5^{14} + Sq^1(x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{3}x_4^{13}x_5^{18} + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{3}x_4^{17}x_5^{14}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{11}x_3^{3}x_4^{13}x_5^{14}) + Sq^2(x_1^{2}x_2^{11}x_3^{3}x_4^{13}x_5^{14} + x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{3}x_4^{14}x_5^{14})\\ &\quad + Sq^4(x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{3}x_4^{14}x_5^{14})\ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^4)),\\
x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{11}x_4^{12}x_5^{12} &= x_1^{7}x_2^{2}x_3^{11}x_4^{12}x_5^{13} + x_1^{7}x_2^{2}x_3^{13}x_4^{12}x_5^{11} + x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{12}x_4^{10}x_5^{13}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{10}x_4^{12}x_5^{13} + Sq^1(x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{11}x_4^{12}x_5^{12} + x_1^{11}x_2^{3}x_3^{9}x_4^{10}x_5^{11})\\ &\quad + Sq^2(x_1^{7}x_2^{2}x_3^{11}x_4^{12}x_5^{11} + x_1^{7}x_2^{5}x_3^{10}x_4^{10}x_5^{11})\\ &\quad + Sq^4(x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{10}x_4^{10}x_5^{11})\ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^4)),\\
x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{13}x_4^{8}x_5^{14} &= x_1^{5}x_2^{3}x_3^{11}x_4^{12}x_5^{14} + x_1^{5}x_2^{3}x_3^{13}x_4^{10}x_5^{14} + x_1^{7}x_2^{2}x_3^{13}x_4^{9}x_5^{14}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{9}x_4^{12}x_5^{14} + x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{12}x_4^{9}x_5^{14} + Sq^1(x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{7}x_4^{5}x_5^{22}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{7}x_4^{9}x_5^{18} + x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{11}x_4^{5}x_5^{18} + x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{11}x_4^{9}x_5^{14})\\ &\quad + Sq^2(x_1^{7}x_2^{2}x_3^{7}x_4^{5}x_5^{22} + x_1^{7}x_2^{2}x_3^{11}x_4^{9}x_5^{14} + x_1^{7}x_2^{5}x_3^{7}x_4^{6}x_5^{18}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{5}x_3^{7}x_4^{10}x_5^{14} + x_1^{7}x_2^{5}x_3^{11}x_4^{6}x_5^{14}) + Sq^4(x_1^{5}x_2^{3}x_3^{7}x_4^{12}x_5^{14}\\ &\quad + x_1^{5}x_2^{3}x_3^{13}x_4^{6}x_5^{14} + x_1^{11}x_2^{3}x_3^{7}x_4^{6}x_5^{14})\\ &\quad + Sq^8(x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{7}x_4^{6}x_5^{14})\ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^4)),\\
x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{13}x_4^{14}x_5^{8} &= x_1^{7}x_2^{2}x_3^{13}x_4^{14}x_5^{9} + x_1^{5}x_2^{3}x_3^{11}x_4^{14}x_5^{12} + x_1^{5}x_2^{3}x_3^{13}x_4^{14}x_5^{10}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{9}x_4^{14}x_5^{12} + x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{12}x_4^{14}x_5^{9} + Sq^1(x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{7}x_4^{17}x_5^{10}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{7}x_4^{21}x_5^{6} + x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{11}x_4^{14}x_5^{9} + x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{11}x_4^{17}x_5^{6})\\ &\quad + Sq^2(x_1^{7}x_2^{2}x_3^{7}x_4^{21}x_5^{6} + x_1^{7}x_2^{2}x_3^{11}x_4^{14}x_5^{9} + x_1^{7}x_2^{5}x_3^{7}x_4^{14}x_5^{10}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{5}x_3^{7}x_4^{18}x_5^{6} + x_1^{7}x_2^{5}x_3^{11}x_4^{14}x_5^{6}) + Sq^4(x_1^{5}x_2^{3}x_3^{7}x_4^{14}x_5^{12}\\ &\quad + x_1^{5}x_2^{3}x_3^{13}x_4^{14}x_5^{6} + x_1^{11}x_2^{3}x_3^{7}x_4^{14}x_5^{6})\\ &\quad + Sq^8(x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{7}x_4^{14}x_5^{6}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^4)),\\
x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{9}x_4^{14}x_5^{8} &= x_1^{4}x_2^{7}x_3^{12}x_4^{11}x_5^{11} + x_1^{4}x_2^{11}x_3^{12}x_4^{7}x_5^{11} + x_1^{5}x_2^{3}x_3^{12}x_4^{11}x_5^{14}\\ &\quad + x_1^{5}x_2^{6}x_3^{12}x_4^{11}x_5^{11} + x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{9}x_4^{14}x_5^{10} + x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{10}x_4^{11}x_5^{12}\\ &\quad + x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{10}x_4^{14}x_5^{9} + x_1^{5}x_2^{10}x_3^{12}x_4^{7}x_5^{11} + x_1^{5}x_2^{11}x_3^{6}x_4^{14}x_5^{9}\\ &\quad + x_1^{5}x_2^{11}x_3^{9}x_4^{14}x_5^{6} + x_1^{5}x_2^{11}x_3^{10}x_4^{7}x_5^{12} + x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{12}x_4^{9}x_5^{14}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{5}x_3^{9}x_4^{14}x_5^{10} + x_1^{7}x_2^{5}x_3^{10}x_4^{11}x_5^{12} + x_1^{7}x_2^{6}x_3^{12}x_4^{9}x_5^{11}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{8}x_4^{14}x_5^{9} + x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{9}x_4^{8}x_5^{14} + x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{9}x_4^{10}x_5^{12}\\ &\quad + Sq^1(x_1^{7}x_2^{5}x_3^{12}x_4^{7}x_5^{13} + x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{9}x_4^{8}x_5^{13} + x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{9}x_4^{9}x_5^{12}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{12}x_4^{7}x_5^{11} + x_1^{7}x_2^{10}x_3^{5}x_4^{13}x_5^{9}) + Sq^2(x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{5}x_4^{22}x_5^{6}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{6}x_4^{7}x_5^{20} + x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{12}x_4^{7}x_5^{14} + x_1^{7}x_2^{6}x_3^{12}x_4^{7}x_5^{11}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{6}x_4^{14}x_5^{9} + x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{9}x_4^{14}x_5^{6} + x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{10}x_4^{7}x_5^{12}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{10}x_4^{8}x_5^{11} + x_1^{7}x_2^{9}x_3^{5}x_4^{13}x_5^{9} + x_1^{7}x_2^{9}x_3^{6}x_4^{11}x_5^{10} \\ &\quad + x_1^{9}x_2^{9}x_3^{3}x_4^{13}x_5^{9}) + Sq^4(x_1^{4}x_2^{7}x_3^{12}x_4^{7}x_5^{11} + x_1^{5}x_2^{3}x_3^{12}x_4^{7}x_5^{14}\\ &\quad + x_1^{5}x_2^{6}x_3^{12}x_4^{7}x_5^{11} + x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{6}x_4^{14}x_5^{9} + x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{9}x_4^{14}x_5^{6} \\ &\quad + x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{10}x_4^{7}x_5^{12} + x_1^{11}x_2^{5}x_3^{5}x_4^{14}x_5^{6} + x_1^{11}x_2^{5}x_3^{6}x_4^{7}x_5^{12})\\ &\quad + Sq^8(x_1^{7}x_2^{5}x_3^{5}x_4^{14}x_5^{6} + x_1^{7}x_2^{5}x_3^{6}x_4^{7}x_5^{12}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^4)),\\
x_1^{7}x_2^{9}x_3^{7}x_4^{10}x_5^{12} &= x_1^{4}x_2^{7}x_3^{11}x_4^{11}x_5^{12} + x_1^{4}x_2^{11}x_3^{7}x_4^{11}x_5^{12} + x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{11}x_4^{10}x_5^{12}\\ &\quad + x_1^{5}x_2^{11}x_3^{7}x_4^{10}x_5^{12} + x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{8}x_4^{11}x_5^{12} + x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{9}x_4^{10}x_5^{12}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{8}x_3^{7}x_4^{11}x_5^{12} + Sq^1(x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{7}x_4^{11}x_5^{12}) + Sq^2(x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{7}x_4^{10}x_5^{12}) \\ &\quad+ Sq^4(x_1^{4}x_2^{7}x_3^{7}x_4^{11}x_5^{12} + x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{7}x_4^{10}x_5^{12}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^4)),\\
x_1^{7}x_2^{11}x_3^{3}x_4^{12}x_5^{12} &= x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{8}x_4^{11}x_5^{14} + x_1^{5}x_2^{11}x_3^{8}x_4^{7}x_5^{14} + x_1^{7}x_2^{9}x_3^{4}x_4^{11}x_5^{14}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{10}x_3x_4^{13}x_5^{14} + x_1^{7}x_2^{10}x_3^{3}x_4^{12}x_5^{13} + x_1^{7}x_2^{10}x_3^{5}x_4^{12}x_5^{11}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{11}x_3x_4^{12}x_5^{14} + x_1^{7}x_2^{11}x_3^{2}x_4^{12}x_5^{13} + Sq^1(x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3x_4^{7}x_5^{22}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3x_4^{11}x_5^{18} + x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3x_4^{10}x_5^{19} + x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3x_4^{18}x_5^{11}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{11}x_3x_4^{7}x_5^{18} + x_1^{7}x_2^{11}x_3x_4^{11}x_5^{14} + x_1^{7}x_2^{11}x_3^{3}x_4^{12}x_5^{11}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{11}x_3^{4}x_4^{9}x_5^{13}) + Sq^2(x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{2}x_4^{13}x_5^{14} + x_1^{7}x_2^{10}x_3x_4^{11}x_5^{14}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{10}x_3^{3}x_4^{12}x_5^{11} + x_1^{7}x_2^{13}x_3^{2}x_4^{7}x_5^{14} + x_1^{7}x_2^{13}x_3^{2}x_4^{10}x_5^{11})\\ &\quad + Sq^4(x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{4}x_4^{11}x_5^{14} + x_1^{5}x_2^{11}x_3^{4}x_4^{7}x_5^{14}\\ &\quad + x_1^{11}x_2^{7}x_3^{2}x_4^{7}x_5^{14} + x_1^{11}x_2^{7}x_3^{2}x_4^{10}x_5^{11})\\ &\quad + Sq^8(x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{2}x_4^{7}x_5^{14} + x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{2}x_4^{10}x_5^{11}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^4)),\\
x_1^{7}x_2^{11}x_3^{5}x_4^{8}x_5^{14} &= x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{9}x_4^{10}x_5^{14} + x_1^{5}x_2^{11}x_3^{9}x_4^{6}x_5^{14} + x_1^{7}x_2^{9}x_3^{5}x_4^{10}x_5^{14}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{10}x_3^{5}x_4^{9}x_5^{14} + x_1^{7}x_2^{11}x_3^{4}x_4^{9}x_5^{14} + Sq^1(x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{3}x_4^{5}x_5^{22}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{3}x_4^{9}x_5^{18} + x_1^{7}x_2^{11}x_3^{3}x_4^{5}x_5^{18} + x_1^{7}x_2^{11}x_3^{3}x_4^{9}x_5^{14})\\ &\quad + Sq^2(x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{2}x_4^{5}x_5^{22} + x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{3}x_4^{12}x_5^{14} + x_1^{7}x_2^{10}x_3^{3}x_4^{9}x_5^{14}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{13}x_3^{3}x_4^{6}x_5^{14}) + Sq^4(x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{5}x_4^{10}x_5^{14} + x_1^{5}x_2^{11}x_3^{5}x_4^{6}x_5^{14}\\ &\quad + x_1^{11}x_2^{7}x_3^{3}x_4^{6}x_5^{14}) + Sq^8(x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{3}x_4^{6}x_5^{14})\ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^4)),\\
x_1^{7}x_2^{11}x_3^{5}x_4^{14}x_5^{8} &= x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{9}x_4^{14}x_5^{10} + x_1^{5}x_2^{11}x_3^{9}x_4^{14}x_5^{6} + x_1^{7}x_2^{9}x_3^{5}x_4^{14}x_5^{10}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{10}x_3^{5}x_4^{14}x_5^{9} + x_1^{7}x_2^{11}x_3^{4}x_4^{14}x_5^{9} + Sq^1(x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{3}x_4^{18}x_5^{9}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{3}x_4^{22}x_5^{5} + x_1^{7}x_2^{11}x_3^{3}x_4^{14}x_5^{9} + x_1^{7}x_2^{11}x_3^{3}x_4^{18}x_5^{5})\\ &\quad + Sq^2(x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{2}x_4^{22}x_5^{5} + x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{3}x_4^{14}x_5^{12} + x_1^{7}x_2^{10}x_3^{3}x_4^{14}x_5^{9}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{13}x_3^{3}x_4^{14}x_5^{6}) + Sq^4(x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{5}x_4^{14}x_5^{10} + x_1^{5}x_2^{11}x_3^{5}x_4^{14}x_5^{6}\\ &\quad + x_1^{11}x_2^{7}x_3^{3}x_4^{14}x_5^{6}) + Sq^8(x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{3}x_4^{14}x_5^{6})\ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^4)),\\
x_1^{7}x_2^{11}x_3^{13}x_4^{6}x_5^{8} &= x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{12}x_4^{9}x_5^{10} + x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{13}x_4^{10}x_5^{8} + x_1^{7}x_2^{9}x_3^{13}x_4^{6}x_5^{10}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{9}x_3^{13}x_4^{10}x_5^{6} + x_1^{7}x_2^{10}x_3^{13}x_4^{6}x_5^{9} + x_1^{7}x_2^{10}x_3^{13}x_4^{9}x_5^{6}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{11}x_3^{12}x_4^{6}x_5^{9} + x_1^{7}x_2^{11}x_3^{12}x_4^{9}x_5^{6} + x_1^{7}x_2^{11}x_3^{13}x_4^{4}x_5^{10}\\ &\quad + Sq^1(x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{11}x_4^{9}x_5^{10} + x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{19}x_4^{5}x_5^{6} + x_1^{7}x_2^{11}x_3^{11}x_4^{6}x_5^{9}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{11}x_3^{11}x_4^{9}x_5^{6}) + Sq^2(x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{11}x_4^{6}x_5^{12} + x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{11}x_4^{12}x_5^{6}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{18}x_4^{5}x_5^{6} + x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{19}x_4^{4}x_5^{6} + x_1^{7}x_2^{10}x_3^{11}x_4^{6}x_5^{9}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{10}x_3^{11}x_4^{9}x_5^{6} + x_1^{7}x_2^{13}x_3^{11}x_4^{6}x_5^{6}) \\ &\quad+ Sq^4(x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{13}x_4^{6}x_5^{10} + x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{13}x_4^{10}x_5^{6} + x_1^{5}x_2^{11}x_3^{13}x_4^{6}x_5^{6}\\ &\quad + x_1^{11}x_2^{7}x_3^{11}x_4^{6}x_5^{6} + x_1^{11}x_2^{7}x_3^{13}x_4^{4}x_5^{6})\\ &\quad + Sq^8(x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{11}x_4^{6}x_5^{6} + x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{13}x_4^{4}x_5^{6}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^4)).
\end{align*}
Hence, Part i) is proved.
We now prove Part ii). We have
\begin{align*}
x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{14}x_4^{11}x_5^{12} &= x_1^{2}x_2^{3}x_3^{13}x_4^{14}x_5^{13} + x_1^{2}x_2^{5}x_3^{13}x_4^{14}x_5^{11} + x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{13}x_4^{14}x_5^{12}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{14}x_4^{13}x_5^{12} + x_1^{3}x_2^{4}x_3^{13}x_4^{14}x_5^{11} + x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{13}x_4^{14}x_5^{10}\\ &\quad + x_1^{5}x_2^{5}x_3^{13}x_4^{13}x_5^{9} + Sq^1(x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{13}x_4^{14}x_5^{11} + x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{13}x_4^{18}x_5^{7}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{17}x_4^{11}x_5^{10} + x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{17}x_4^{14}x_5^{7} + x_1^{3}x_2^{6}x_3^{13}x_4^{13}x_5^{9}) \\ &\quad+ Sq^2(x_1^{2}x_2^{3}x_3^{13}x_4^{14}x_5^{11} + x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{13}x_4^{13}x_5^{9} \\ &\quad+ x_1^{5}x_2^{3}x_3^{14}x_4^{11}x_5^{10} + x_1^{5}x_2^{3}x_3^{14}x_4^{14}x_5^{7})\\ &\quad + Sq^4(x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{14}x_4^{11}x_5^{10} + x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{14}x_4^{14}x_5^{7}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^4)),
\end{align*}
where $x_1^{5}x_2^{5}x_3^{13}x_4^{13}x_5^{9} \in \mathcal P_{(5,45)}$. Hence, this equality shows that $x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{14}x_4^{11}x_5^{12}$ is strongly inadmissible.
\begin{align*}
x_1^{3}x_2^{13}x_3^{6}x_4^{11}x_5^{12} &= x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{8}x_4^{14}x_5^{13} + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{12}x_4^{14}x_5^{9} + x_1^{3}x_2^{9}x_3^{6}x_4^{14}x_5^{13}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{9}x_3^{12}x_4^{14}x_5^{7} + x_1^{3}x_2^{11}x_3^{6}x_4^{13}x_5^{12} + x_1^{3}x_2^{13}x_3^{4}x_4^{14}x_5^{11}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{13}x_3^{5}x_4^{14}x_5^{10} + x_1^{5}x_2^{13}x_3^{5}x_4^{13}x_5^{9} + Sq^1(x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{5}x_4^{18}x_5^{11}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{9}x_4^{18}x_5^{7} + x_1^{3}x_2^{11}x_3^{5}x_4^{18}x_5^{7} + x_1^{3}x_2^{11}x_3^{9}x_4^{11}x_5^{10}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{14}x_3^{5}x_4^{13}x_5^{9}) + Sq^2(x_1^{3}x_2^{13}x_3^{5}x_4^{13}x_5^{9} + x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{6}x_4^{14}x_5^{11}\\ &\quad + x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{10}x_4^{14}x_5^{7} + x_1^{5}x_2^{11}x_3^{6}x_4^{11}x_5^{10} + x_1^{5}x_2^{11}x_3^{6}x_4^{14}x_5^{7}) \\ &\quad+ Sq^4(x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{6}x_4^{14}x_5^{11} + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{10}x_4^{14}x_5^{7} + x_1^{3}x_2^{11}x_3^{6}x_4^{11}x_5^{10} \\ &\quad+ x_1^{3}x_2^{11}x_3^{6}x_4^{14}x_5^{7} + x_1^{3}x_2^{13}x_3^{4}x_4^{14}x_5^{7}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^4)).
\end{align*}
Since $x_1^{5}x_2^{13}x_3^{5}x_4^{13}x_5^{9}\in \mathcal P_{(5,45)}$, the monomial $x_1^{3}x_2^{13}x_3^{6}x_4^{11}x_5^{12}$ is strongly inadmissible.
For $w = x_1^{3}x_2^{13}x_3^{7}x_4^{10}x_5^{12}$, we have
\begin{align*}
w &= x_1^{2}x_2^{7}x_3^{13}x_4^{10}x_5^{13} + x_1^{2}x_2^{7}x_3^{13}x_4^{12}x_5^{11} + x_1^{2}x_2^{7}x_3^{14}x_4^{9}x_5^{13} + x_1^{2}x_2^{13}x_3^{7}x_4^{9}x_5^{14}\\ &\quad + x_1^{2}x_2^{13}x_3^{7}x_4^{10}x_5^{13} + x_1^{2}x_2^{13}x_3^{7}x_4^{12}x_5^{11} + x_1^{2}x_2^{13}x_3^{9}x_4^{7}x_5^{14} + x_1^{2}x_2^{13}x_3^{10}x_4^{7}x_5^{13}\\ &\quad + x_1^{2}x_2^{13}x_3^{12}x_4^{7}x_5^{11} + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{8}x_4^{13}x_5^{14} + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{10}x_4^{13}x_5^{12} + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{13}x_4^{8}x_5^{14}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{14}x_4^{9}x_5^{12} + x_1^{3}x_2^{8}x_3^{7}x_4^{13}x_5^{14} + x_1^{3}x_2^{8}x_3^{13}x_4^{7}x_5^{14} + x_1^{3}x_2^{10}x_3^{7}x_4^{13}x_5^{12}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{10}x_3^{13}x_4^{7}x_5^{12} + x_1^{3}x_2^{13}x_3^{4}x_4^{11}x_5^{14} + x_1^{3}x_2^{13}x_3^{6}x_4^{11}x_5^{12} + x_1^{3}x_2^{13}x_3^{7}x_4^{8}x_5^{14} +g\\ &\quad + Sq^1(x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{7}x_4^{9}x_5^{18} + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{7}x_4^{14}x_5^{13} + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{9}x_4^{7}x_5^{18} + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{9}x_4^{14}x_5^{11}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{13}x_4^{10}x_5^{11} + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{14}x_4^{7}x_5^{13} + x_1^{3}x_2^{9}x_3^{7}x_4^{7}x_5^{18} + x_1^{3}x_2^{9}x_3^{7}x_4^{14}x_5^{11}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{9}x_3^{14}x_4^{7}x_5^{11} + x_1^{3}x_2^{14}x_3^{7}x_4^{7}x_5^{13} + x_1^{3}x_2^{14}x_3^{7}x_4^{9}x_5^{11} + x_1^{3}x_2^{14}x_3^{9}x_4^{7}x_5^{11}\\ &\quad + x_1^{4}x_2^{7}x_3^{7}x_4^{13}x_5^{13} + x_1^{4}x_2^{7}x_3^{9}x_4^{13}x_5^{11} + x_1^{4}x_2^{7}x_3^{13}x_4^{7}x_5^{13} + x_1^{4}x_2^{7}x_3^{13}x_4^{9}x_5^{11}\\ &\quad + x_1^{4}x_2^{9}x_3^{7}x_4^{13}x_5^{11} + x_1^{4}x_2^{9}x_3^{13}x_4^{7}x_5^{11}) + Sq^2(x_1^{2}x_2^{7}x_3^{7}x_4^{14}x_5^{13} + x_1^{2}x_2^{7}x_3^{9}x_4^{14}x_5^{11}\\ &\quad + x_1^{2}x_2^{7}x_3^{13}x_4^{10}x_5^{11} + x_1^{2}x_2^{7}x_3^{14}x_4^{7}x_5^{13} + x_1^{2}x_2^{9}x_3^{7}x_4^{14}x_5^{11} + x_1^{2}x_2^{9}x_3^{14}x_4^{7}x_5^{11}\\ &\quad + x_1^{2}x_2^{13}x_3^{7}x_4^{7}x_5^{14} + x_1^{2}x_2^{13}x_3^{7}x_4^{10}x_5^{11} + x_1^{2}x_2^{13}x_3^{10}x_4^{7}x_5^{11} + x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{7}x_4^{7}x_5^{17}\\ &\quad + x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{7}x_4^{11}x_5^{13} + x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{9}x_4^{11}x_5^{11} + x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{11}x_4^{7}x_5^{13} + x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{11}x_4^{9}x_5^{11}\\ &\quad + x_1^{5}x_2^{9}x_3^{7}x_4^{11}x_5^{11} + x_1^{5}x_2^{9}x_3^{11}x_4^{7}x_5^{11} + x_1^{5}x_2^{11}x_3^{7}x_4^{7}x_5^{13} + x_1^{5}x_2^{11}x_3^{7}x_4^{9}x_5^{11}\\ &\quad + x_1^{5}x_2^{11}x_3^{9}x_4^{7}x_5^{11}) + Sq^4(x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{7}x_4^{7}x_5^{17} + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{7}x_4^{11}x_5^{13} + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{9}x_4^{11}x_5^{11}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{11}x_4^{7}x_5^{13} + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{11}x_4^{9}x_5^{11} + x_1^{3}x_2^{9}x_3^{7}x_4^{11}x_5^{11} + x_1^{3}x_2^{9}x_3^{11}x_4^{7}x_5^{11}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{11}x_3^{7}x_4^{7}x_5^{13} + x_1^{3}x_2^{11}x_3^{7}x_4^{9}x_5^{11} + x_1^{3}x_2^{11}x_3^{9}x_4^{7}x_5^{11}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{13}x_3^{4}x_4^{7}x_5^{14} + x_1^{3}x_2^{13}x_3^{6}x_4^{7}x_5^{12}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^4)),
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
g&= x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{9}x_4^{9}x_5^{17} + x_1^{3}x_2^{9}x_3^{7}x_4^{9}x_5^{17} + x_1^{3}x_2^{9}x_3^{9}x_4^{7}x_5^{17}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{9}x_3^{9}x_4^{11}x_5^{13} + x_1^{3}x_2^{9}x_3^{11}x_4^{9}x_5^{13} + x_1^{3}x_2^{11}x_3^{9}x_4^{9}x_5^{13} \in \mathcal P_{(5,45)}.
\end{align*}
Hence, $w$ is strongly inadmissible.
\begin{align*}
x_1^{3}x_2^{13}x_3^{14}x_4^{3}x_5^{12} &= x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{14}x_4^{8}x_5^{13} + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{14}x_4^{12}x_5^{9} + x_1^{3}x_2^{9}x_3^{14}x_4^{6}x_5^{13}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{9}x_3^{14}x_4^{12}x_5^{7} + x_1^{3}x_2^{11}x_3^{14}x_4^{4}x_5^{13} + x_1^{3}x_2^{11}x_3^{14}x_4^{5}x_5^{12}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{13}x_3^{13}x_4^{6}x_5^{10} + x_1^{3}x_2^{13}x_3^{14}x_4^{2}x_5^{13} + x_1^{5}x_2^{13}x_3^{13}x_4^{5}x_5^{9}\\ &\quad + Sq^1(x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{17}x_4^{6}x_5^{11} + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{17}x_4^{10}x_5^{7} + x_1^{3}x_2^{11}x_3^{17}x_4^{2}x_5^{11}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{11}x_3^{17}x_4^{3}x_5^{10} + x_1^{3}x_2^{11}x_3^{17}x_4^{6}x_5^{7} + x_1^{3}x_2^{14}x_3^{13}x_4^{5}x_5^{9})\\ &\quad + Sq^2(x_1^{3}x_2^{13}x_3^{13}x_4^{5}x_5^{9} + x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{14}x_4^{6}x_5^{11} + x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{14}x_4^{10}x_5^{7}\\ &\quad + x_1^{5}x_2^{11}x_3^{14}x_4^{2}x_5^{11} + x_1^{5}x_2^{11}x_3^{14}x_4^{3}x_5^{10} + x_1^{5}x_2^{11}x_3^{14}x_4^{6}x_5^{7}) \\ &\quad+ Sq^4(x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{14}x_4^{6}x_5^{11} + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{14}x_4^{10}x_5^{7} + x_1^{3}x_2^{11}x_3^{14}x_4^{2}x_5^{11}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{11}x_3^{14}x_4^{3}x_5^{10} + x_1^{3}x_2^{11}x_3^{14}x_4^{6}x_5^{7}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{13}x_3^{14}x_4^{4}x_5^{7}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^4)).
\end{align*}
Since $x_1^{5}x_2^{13}x_3^{13}x_4^{5}x_5^{9} \in \mathcal P_{(5,45)}$, the monomial $x_1^{3}x_2^{13}x_3^{14}x_4^{3}x_5^{12}$ is strongly inadmissible. The lemma is completely proved.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{mdd41}.]
Let $x \in P_5^+((3)|^4)$ be an admissible monomial, then $x = X_{i,j}y^2$ with $1 \leqslant i < j \leqslant k$. Since $x$ is admissible, by Theorem \ref{dlcb1}, $y$ is admissible. We can see that if $z \in A(3)\cup C(3)$ such that $X_{i,j}z^2 \in P_5^+((3)|^4)$ and $X_{i,j}z^2 \ne a_{4,t}$ for all $t,\, 1 \leqslant t \leqslant 94$, then either $X_{i,j}z^2$ is one of the monomials as given in Lemmas \ref{bdk1}(iv), \ref{bdd41}, \ref{bdd42}, or $X_{i,j}z^2$ is of the form $uv^{2^r}$, where $u$ is a monomial as given in one of Lemmas \ref{bdk1}, \ref{bdd30}, \ref{bdd31}, $v$ is a monomial in $P_5$ and $r$ is a suitable positive integer. Hence, by Proposition
\ref{mdcb51}, $X_{i,j}z^2$ is inadmissible. Since $x = X_{i,j}y^2$ and $y$ is admissible, we have $x = a_{4,t}$ for some $t,\, 1 \leqslant t \leqslant 94$. Hence, $B_5^+((3)|^4) \subset A(4)\cup C(4)$. The proposition follows.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proofs of Theorems \ref{dl51} and \ref{dl20}}\
\medskip
By a similar computation as given in the previous lemmas, one get the following.
\begin{lems}\label{bdd51}\
\medskip
{\rm i)} The following monomials are strictly inadmissible:
\[ x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{24}x_4^{29}x_5^{30}\ \ x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{24}x_4^{29}x_5^{30}\ \ x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{25}x_4^{26}x_5^{28}\ \ x_1^{15}x_2^{15}x_3^{17}x_4^{18}x_5^{28}.\]
{\rm ii)} The following monomials are strongly inadmissible:
\[ x_1^{3}x_2^{15}x_3^{21}x_4^{26}x_5^{28}\ \ x_1^{15}x_2^{3}x_3^{21}x_4^{26}x_5^{28}.\]
\end{lems}
\begin{proof} By using the Cartan formula, we obtain
\begin{align*}
x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{24}x_4^{29}x_5^{30} &= x_1^{2}x_2^{7}x_3^{25}x_4^{29}x_5^{30} + x_1^{2}x_2^{9}x_3^{23}x_4^{29}x_5^{30} + x_1^{3}x_2^{4}x_3^{27}x_4^{29}x_5^{30}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{25}x_4^{30}x_5^{30} + Sq^1(x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{15}x_4^{29}x_5^{38} + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{15}x_4^{33}x_5^{34}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{15}x_4^{37}x_5^{30} + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{19}x_4^{29}x_5^{34} + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{19}x_4^{33}x_5^{30}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{23}x_4^{29}x_5^{30}) + Sq^2(x_1^{2}x_2^{7}x_3^{15}x_4^{29}x_5^{38} + x_1^{2}x_2^{7}x_3^{15}x_4^{37}x_5^{30}\\ &\quad + x_1^{2}x_2^{7}x_3^{23}x_4^{29}x_5^{30} + x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{15}x_4^{30}x_5^{34} + x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{15}x_4^{34}x_5^{30}\\ &\quad + x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{19}x_4^{30}x_5^{30}) + Sq^4(x_1^{3}x_2^{4}x_3^{23}x_4^{29}x_5^{30} + x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{21}x_4^{30}x_5^{30} \\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{11}x_3^{15}x_4^{30}x_5^{30}) + Sq^8(x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{15}x_4^{30}x_5^{30}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^5)),\\
x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{24}x_4^{29}x_5^{30} &= x_1^{4}x_2^{3}x_3^{27}x_4^{29}x_5^{30} + x_1^{5}x_2^{2}x_3^{27}x_4^{29}x_5^{30} + x_1^{5}x_2^{3}x_3^{25}x_4^{30}x_5^{30}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{2}x_3^{25}x_4^{29}x_5^{30} + Sq^1(x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{15}x_4^{29}x_5^{38} + x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{15}x_4^{33}x_5^{34}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{15}x_4^{37}x_5^{30} + x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{19}x_4^{29}x_5^{34} + x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{19}x_4^{33}x_5^{30}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{23}x_4^{29}x_5^{30}) + Sq^2(x_1^{7}x_2^{2}x_3^{15}x_4^{29}x_5^{38} + x_1^{7}x_2^{2}x_3^{15}x_4^{37}x_5^{30}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{2}x_3^{23}x_4^{29}x_5^{30} + x_1^{7}x_2^{5}x_3^{15}x_4^{30}x_5^{34} + x_1^{7}x_2^{5}x_3^{15}x_4^{34}x_5^{30}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{5}x_3^{19}x_4^{30}x_5^{30}) + Sq^4(x_1^{4}x_2^{3}x_3^{23}x_4^{29}x_5^{30} + x_1^{5}x_2^{2}x_3^{23}x_4^{29}x_5^{30}\\ &\quad + x_1^{5}x_2^{3}x_3^{21}x_4^{30}x_5^{30} + x_1^{11}x_2^{3}x_3^{15}x_4^{30}x_5^{30})\\ &\quad + Sq^8(x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{15}x_4^{30}x_5^{30}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^5)),\\
x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{25}x_4^{26}x_5^{28} &= x_1^{4}x_2^{7}x_3^{28}x_4^{27}x_5^{27} + x_1^{4}x_2^{11}x_3^{28}x_4^{23}x_5^{27} + x_1^{5}x_2^{3}x_3^{27}x_4^{30}x_5^{28}\\ &\quad + x_1^{5}x_2^{3}x_3^{28}x_4^{27}x_5^{30} + x_1^{5}x_2^{6}x_3^{28}x_4^{27}x_5^{27} + x_1^{5}x_2^{10}x_3^{28}x_4^{23}x_5^{27}\\ &\quad + x_1^{5}x_2^{11}x_3^{19}x_4^{30}x_5^{28} + x_1^{5}x_2^{11}x_3^{22}x_4^{27}x_5^{28} + x_1^{5}x_2^{11}x_3^{26}x_4^{23}x_5^{28}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{25}x_4^{30}x_5^{28} + x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{28}x_4^{25}x_5^{30} + x_1^{7}x_2^{5}x_3^{26}x_4^{27}x_5^{28}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{6}x_3^{28}x_4^{25}x_5^{27} + x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{24}x_4^{27}x_5^{28} + x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{25}x_4^{24}x_5^{30}\\ &\quad + Sq^1(x_1^{7}x_2^{5}x_3^{28}x_4^{23}x_5^{29} + x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{21}x_4^{29}x_5^{28} + x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{25}x_4^{24}x_5^{29}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{25}x_4^{25}x_5^{28} + x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{28}x_4^{23}x_5^{27}) + Sq^2(x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{22}x_4^{23}x_5^{36}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{23}x_4^{30}x_5^{28} + x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{28}x_4^{23}x_5^{30} + x_1^{7}x_2^{6}x_3^{28}x_4^{23}x_5^{27} \\ &\quad+ x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{19}x_4^{30}x_5^{28} + x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{22}x_4^{27}x_5^{28} + x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{26}x_4^{23}x_5^{28}\\ &\quad + x_1^{7}x_2^{7}x_3^{26}x_4^{24}x_5^{27}) + Sq^4(x_1^{4}x_2^{7}x_3^{28}x_4^{23}x_5^{27} + x_1^{5}x_2^{3}x_3^{23}x_4^{30}x_5^{28}\\ &\quad + x_1^{5}x_2^{3}x_3^{28}x_4^{23}x_5^{30} + x_1^{5}x_2^{6}x_3^{28}x_4^{23}x_5^{27} + x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{19}x_4^{30}x_5^{28}\\ &\quad + x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{22}x_4^{27}x_5^{28} + x_1^{5}x_2^{7}x_3^{26}x_4^{23}x_5^{28}\\ &\quad + x_1^{11}x_2^{5}x_3^{22}x_4^{23}x_5^{28} + x_1^{11}x_2^{5}x_3^{25}x_4^{30}x_5^{28})\\ &\quad + Sq^8(x_1^{7}x_2^{5}x_3^{22}x_4^{23}x_5^{28} + x_1^{7}x_2^{5}x_3^{25}x_4^{30}x_5^{28}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^5)),\\
x_1^{15}x_2^{15}x_3^{17}x_4^{18}x_5^{28} &= x_1^{8}x_2^{15}x_3^{23}x_4^{19}x_5^{28} + x_1^{8}x_2^{23}x_3^{15}x_4^{19}x_5^{28} + x_1^{9}x_2^{15}x_3^{23}x_4^{18}x_5^{28}\\ &\quad + x_1^{9}x_2^{23}x_3^{15}x_4^{18}x_5^{28} + x_1^{11}x_2^{12}x_3^{23}x_4^{19}x_5^{28} + x_1^{11}x_2^{13}x_3^{23}x_4^{18}x_5^{28}\\ &\quad + x_1^{11}x_2^{20}x_3^{15}x_4^{19}x_5^{28} + x_1^{11}x_2^{21}x_3^{15}x_4^{18}x_5^{28} + x_1^{15}x_2^{12}x_3^{19}x_4^{19}x_5^{28}\\ &\quad + x_1^{15}x_2^{13}x_3^{19}x_4^{18}x_5^{28} + x_1^{15}x_2^{15}x_3^{16}x_4^{19}x_5^{28} + Sq^1(x_1^{15}x_2^{15}x_3^{15}x_4^{19}x_5^{28})\\ &\quad + Sq^2(x_1^{15}x_2^{15}x_3^{15}x_4^{18}x_5^{28}) + Sq^4(x_1^{15}x_2^{12}x_3^{15}x_4^{19}x_5^{28}\\ &\quad + x_1^{15}x_2^{13}x_3^{15}x_4^{18}x_5^{28}) + Sq^8(x_1^{8}x_2^{15}x_3^{15}x_4^{19}x_5^{28} + x_1^{9}x_2^{15}x_3^{15}x_4^{18}x_5^{28}\\ &\quad + x_1^{11}x_2^{12}x_3^{15}x_4^{19}x_5^{28} + x_1^{11}x_2^{13}x_3^{15}x_4^{18}x_5^{28}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^5)).
\end{align*}
Part i) follows from the above equalities.
\medskip
We prove Part ii). We have
\begin{align*}
x_1^{3}x_2^{15}x_3^{21}x_4^{26}x_5^{28} &= x_1^{2}x_2^{15}x_3^{21}x_4^{25}x_5^{30} + x_1^{2}x_2^{15}x_3^{21}x_4^{26}x_5^{29} + x_1^{2}x_2^{15}x_3^{21}x_4^{28}x_5^{27}\\ &\quad + x_1^{2}x_2^{21}x_3^{15}x_4^{25}x_5^{30} + x_1^{2}x_2^{21}x_3^{15}x_4^{26}x_5^{29} + x_1^{2}x_2^{21}x_3^{15}x_4^{28}x_5^{27}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{8}x_3^{23}x_4^{29}x_5^{30} + x_1^{3}x_2^{10}x_3^{23}x_4^{29}x_5^{28} + x_1^{3}x_2^{13}x_3^{23}x_4^{24}x_5^{30}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{13}x_3^{23}x_4^{26}x_5^{28} + x_1^{3}x_2^{15}x_3^{16}x_4^{29}x_5^{30} + x_1^{3}x_2^{15}x_3^{18}x_4^{29}x_5^{28}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{15}x_3^{21}x_4^{24}x_5^{30} + g_1 + Sq^1(x_1^{3}x_2^{15}x_3^{15}x_4^{25}x_5^{34}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{15}x_3^{15}x_4^{30}x_5^{29} + x_1^{3}x_2^{15}x_3^{17}x_4^{23}x_5^{34} + x_1^{3}x_2^{15}x_3^{17}x_4^{30}x_5^{27}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{15}x_3^{22}x_4^{23}x_5^{29} + x_1^{3}x_2^{15}x_3^{22}x_4^{25}x_5^{27} + x_1^{3}x_2^{17}x_3^{15}x_4^{23}x_5^{34}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{17}x_3^{15}x_4^{30}x_5^{27} + x_1^{3}x_2^{17}x_3^{19}x_4^{23}x_5^{30} + x_1^{3}x_2^{17}x_3^{19}x_4^{26}x_5^{27}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{19}x_3^{17}x_4^{23}x_5^{30} + x_1^{3}x_2^{19}x_3^{17}x_4^{26}x_5^{27} + x_1^{3}x_2^{22}x_3^{15}x_4^{23}x_5^{29}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{22}x_3^{15}x_4^{25}x_5^{27} + x_1^{4}x_2^{15}x_3^{15}x_4^{29}x_5^{29} + x_1^{4}x_2^{15}x_3^{17}x_4^{29}x_5^{27}\\ &\quad + x_1^{4}x_2^{17}x_3^{15}x_4^{29}x_5^{27}) + Sq^2(x_1^{5}x_2^{15}x_3^{19}x_4^{25}x_5^{27} + x_1^{5}x_2^{15}x_3^{19}x_4^{23}x_5^{29}\\ &\quad + x_1^{5}x_2^{15}x_3^{15}x_4^{27}x_5^{29} + x_1^{5}x_2^{15}x_3^{15}x_4^{23}x_5^{33} + x_1^{5}x_2^{17}x_3^{15}x_4^{27}x_5^{27}\\ &\quad + x_1^{5}x_2^{15}x_3^{17}x_4^{27}x_5^{27} + x_1^{5}x_2^{19}x_3^{15}x_4^{23}x_5^{29} + x_1^{5}x_2^{19}x_3^{15}x_4^{25}x_5^{27}\\ &\quad + x_1^{2}x_2^{15}x_3^{17}x_4^{30}x_5^{27} + x_1^{2}x_2^{15}x_3^{21}x_4^{26}x_5^{27} + x_1^{2}x_2^{17}x_3^{15}x_4^{30}x_5^{27}\\ &\quad + x_1^{2}x_2^{21}x_3^{15}x_4^{26}x_5^{27} + x_1^{2}x_2^{15}x_3^{15}x_4^{30}x_5^{29} + x_1^{2}x_2^{15}x_3^{21}x_4^{23}x_5^{30}\\ &\quad + x_1^{2}x_2^{21}x_3^{15}x_4^{23}x_5^{30}) + Sq^4(x_1^{3}x_2^{15}x_3^{19}x_4^{25}x_5^{27} + x_1^{3}x_2^{15}x_3^{19}x_4^{23}x_5^{29}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{15}x_3^{15}x_4^{27}x_5^{29} + x_1^{3}x_2^{15}x_3^{15}x_4^{23}x_5^{33} + x_1^{3}x_2^{17}x_3^{15}x_4^{27}x_5^{27}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{15}x_3^{17}x_4^{27}x_5^{27} + x_1^{3}x_2^{19}x_3^{15}x_4^{23}x_5^{29} + x_1^{3}x_2^{19}x_3^{15}x_4^{25}x_5^{27})\\ &\quad + Sq^8(x_1^{3}x_2^{8}x_3^{15}x_4^{29}x_5^{30} + x_1^{3}x_2^{10}x_3^{15}x_4^{29}x_5^{28} + x_1^{3}x_2^{13}x_3^{15}x_4^{24}x_5^{30}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{13}x_3^{15}x_4^{26}x_5^{28}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^5)),
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
g_1 &= x_1^{3}x_2^{17}x_3^{19}x_4^{27}x_5^{27} + x_1^{3}x_2^{19}x_3^{17}x_4^{27}x_5^{27} + x_1^{3}x_2^{15}x_3^{17}x_4^{25}x_5^{33} + x_1^{3}x_2^{17}x_3^{15}x_4^{25}x_5^{33}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{17}x_3^{17}x_4^{23}x_5^{33} + x_1^{3}x_2^{17}x_3^{17}x_4^{27}x_5^{29} + x_1^{3}x_2^{17}x_3^{21}x_4^{25}x_5^{27} + x_1^{3}x_2^{21}x_3^{17}x_4^{25}x_5^{27}\\ &\quad + x_1^{3}x_2^{17}x_3^{21}x_4^{23}x_5^{29} + x_1^{3}x_2^{21}x_3^{17}x_4^{23}x_5^{29} \in \mathcal P_{(5,93)}.
\end{align*}
Hence, the monomial $x_1^{3}x_2^{15}x_3^{21}x_4^{26}x_5^{28}$ is strongly inadmissible.
By a similar computation, we get
\begin{align*}
x_1^{15}x_2^{3}x_3^{21}x_4^{26}x_5^{28} &= x_1^{8}x_2^{3}x_3^{23}x_4^{29}x_5^{30} + x_1^{10}x_2^{3}x_3^{23}x_4^{29}x_5^{28} + x_1^{13}x_2^{2}x_3^{23}x_4^{25}x_5^{30}\\ &\quad + x_1^{13}x_2^{2}x_3^{23}x_4^{26}x_5^{29} + x_1^{13}x_2^{2}x_3^{23}x_4^{28}x_5^{27} + x_1^{13}x_2^{3}x_3^{23}x_4^{24}x_5^{30}\\ &\quad + x_1^{13}x_2^{3}x_3^{23}x_4^{26}x_5^{28} + x_1^{15}x_2^{2}x_3^{21}x_4^{25}x_5^{30} + x_1^{15}x_2^{2}x_3^{21}x_4^{26}x_5^{29}\\ &\quad + x_1^{15}x_2^{2}x_3^{21}x_4^{28}x_5^{27} + x_1^{15}x_2^{3}x_3^{16}x_4^{29}x_5^{30} + x_1^{15}x_2^{3}x_3^{18}x_4^{29}x_5^{28}\\ &\quad + x_1^{15}x_2^{3}x_3^{21}x_4^{24}x_5^{30} + g_2 + Sq^1(x_1^{15}x_2^{3}x_3^{15}x_4^{25}x_5^{34}\\ &\quad + x_1^{15}x_2^{3}x_3^{15}x_4^{30}x_5^{29} + x_1^{15}x_2^{3}x_3^{17}x_4^{23}x_5^{34} + x_1^{15}x_2^{3}x_3^{17}x_4^{30}x_5^{27}\\ &\quad + x_1^{15}x_2^{3}x_3^{22}x_4^{23}x_5^{29} + x_1^{15}x_2^{3}x_3^{22}x_4^{25}x_5^{27} + x_1^{15}x_2^{4}x_3^{15}x_4^{29}x_5^{29}\\ &\quad + x_1^{15}x_2^{4}x_3^{17}x_4^{29}x_5^{27} + x_1^{17}x_2^{3}x_3^{15}x_4^{23}x_5^{34} + x_1^{17}x_2^{3}x_3^{15}x_4^{30}x_5^{27}\\ &\quad + x_1^{17}x_2^{3}x_3^{19}x_4^{23}x_5^{30} + x_1^{17}x_2^{3}x_3^{19}x_4^{26}x_5^{27} + x_1^{17}x_2^{4}x_3^{15}x_4^{29}x_5^{27}\\ &\quad + x_1^{19}x_2^{3}x_3^{17}x_4^{23}x_5^{30} + x_1^{19}x_2^{3}x_3^{17}x_4^{26}x_5^{27} + x_1^{22}x_2^{3}x_3^{15}x_4^{23}x_5^{29}\\ &\quad + x_1^{22}x_2^{3}x_3^{15}x_4^{25}x_5^{27}) + Sq^2(x_1^{15}x_2^{2}x_3^{15}x_4^{30}x_5^{29} + x_1^{15}x_2^{2}x_3^{17}x_4^{30}x_5^{27}\\ &\quad + x_1^{15}x_2^{2}x_3^{21}x_4^{23}x_5^{30} + x_1^{15}x_2^{2}x_3^{21}x_4^{26}x_5^{27} + x_1^{15}x_2^{5}x_3^{15}x_4^{23}x_5^{33}\\ &\quad + x_1^{15}x_2^{5}x_3^{15}x_4^{27}x_5^{29} + x_1^{15}x_2^{5}x_3^{17}x_4^{27}x_5^{27} + x_1^{15}x_2^{5}x_3^{19}x_4^{23}x_5^{29}\\ &\quad + x_1^{15}x_2^{5}x_3^{19}x_4^{25}x_5^{27} + x_1^{17}x_2^{2}x_3^{15}x_4^{30}x_5^{27} + x_1^{17}x_2^{5}x_3^{15}x_4^{27}x_5^{27}\\ &\quad + x_1^{19}x_2^{5}x_3^{15}x_4^{23}x_5^{29} + x_1^{19}x_2^{5}x_3^{15}x_4^{25}x_5^{27} + x_1^{21}x_2^{2}x_3^{15}x_4^{23}x_5^{30}\\ &\quad + x_1^{21}x_2^{2}x_3^{15}x_4^{26}x_5^{27}) + Sq^4(x_1^{15}x_2^{3}x_3^{15}x_4^{23}x_5^{33} + x_1^{15}x_2^{3}x_3^{15}x_4^{27}x_5^{29}\\ &\quad + x_1^{15}x_2^{3}x_3^{17}x_4^{27}x_5^{27} + x_1^{15}x_2^{3}x_3^{19}x_4^{23}x_5^{29} + x_1^{15}x_2^{3}x_3^{19}x_4^{25}x_5^{27}\\ &\quad + x_1^{17}x_2^{3}x_3^{15}x_4^{27}x_5^{27} + x_1^{19}x_2^{3}x_3^{15}x_4^{23}x_5^{29} + x_1^{19}x_2^{3}x_3^{15}x_4^{25}x_5^{27})\\ &\quad + Sq^8(x_1^{8}x_2^{3}x_3^{15}x_4^{29}x_5^{30} + x_1^{10}x_2^{3}x_3^{15}x_4^{29}x_5^{28} + x_1^{13}x_2^{2}x_3^{15}x_4^{25}x_5^{30}\\ &\quad + x_1^{13}x_2^{2}x_3^{15}x_4^{26}x_5^{29} + x_1^{13}x_2^{2}x_3^{15}x_4^{28}x_5^{27} + x_1^{13}x_2^{3}x_3^{15}x_4^{24}x_5^{30}\\ &\quad + x_1^{13}x_2^{3}x_3^{15}x_4^{26}x_5^{28}) \ \mbox{ mod}(P_5^-((3)|^5)),
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
g_2 &= x_1^{15}x_2^{3}x_3^{17}x_4^{25}x_5^{33} + x_1^{17}x_2^{3}x_3^{15}x_4^{25}x_5^{33} + x_1^{17}x_2^{3}x_3^{17}x_4^{23}x_5^{33} + x_1^{17}x_2^{3}x_3^{17}x_4^{27}x_5^{29}\\ &\quad + x_1^{17}x_2^{3}x_3^{19}x_4^{27}x_5^{27} + x_1^{17}x_2^{3}x_3^{21}x_4^{23}x_5^{29} + x_1^{17}x_2^{3}x_3^{21}x_4^{25}x_5^{27} + x_1^{19}x_2^{3}x_3^{17}x_4^{27}x_5^{27}\\ &\quad + x_1^{21}x_2^{3}x_3^{17}x_4^{23}x_5^{29} + x_1^{21}x_2^{3}x_3^{17}x_4^{25}x_5^{27} \in \mathcal P_{(5,93)}.
\end{align*}
The above equalities show that the monomial $x_1^{15}x_2^{3}x_3^{21}x_4^{26}x_5^{28}$ is strongly inadmissible. The lemma is completely proved.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{dl51}.]
Denote $A(d) = \{a_{d,t}: 1 \leqslant t \leqslant 55\}$ and $C(d) = \{a_{d,t}: 56 \leqslant t \leqslant 90\}$, where $a_{d,t}$, $1 \leqslant t \leqslant 90$, are determined as in Section \ref{s5}. We prove that $B_5^+((3)|^d) \subset A(d)\cup C(d)$ by induction on $d \geqslant 5$.
Let $x \in P_5^+((3)|^d)$ be an admissible monomial. Then, $\omega(x) = (3)|^d$ and $x = X_{i,j}y^2$ with $y$ a monomial in $P_5((3)|^{d-1})$ and $1 \leqslant i < j \leqslant 5$. Since $x$ is admissible, by Theorem \ref{dlcb1}, $y$ is also admissible.
Let $d = 5$ and $z \in A(4)\cup C(4)\cup B_5^0((3)|^4)$. Based on Theorem \ref{dlcb1} we can check that if $X_{i,j}z^2 \in P_5^+((3)|^5)$ and $X_{i,j}z^2 \ne a_{5,t}$ for all $t,\, 1 \leqslant t \leqslant 90$, then either $X_{i,j}z^2$ is one of the monomials as given in Lemma \ref{bdd51}, or $X_{i,j}z^2$ is of the form $uv^{2^r}$, where $u$ is a monomial as given in one of Lemmas \ref{bdk1}, \ref{bdd30}, \ref{bdd31}, \ref{bdd41}, \ref{bdd42}, $v$ is a monomial in $P_5$ and $r$ is a suitable integer. Hence, by Proposition \ref{mdcb51}, $X_{i,j}z^2$ is inadmissible. Since $x = X_{i,j}y^2$ is admissible and $y \in B_5((3)|^4) \subset A(4)\cup C(4)\cup B_5^0((3)|^4)$, we have $x = a_{5,t}$ for some $t,\, 1 \leqslant t \leqslant 90$. Hence, $B_5^+((3)|^5) \subset A(5)\cup C(5).$
Suppose $d > 5$ and $B_5^+((3)|^{d-1}) \subset A(d-1)\cup C(d-1)$. Let $z \in A(d-1)\cup C(d-1)\cup B_5^0((3)|^{d-1})$. It is not difficult to check that if $X_{i,j}z^2 \in P_5^+((3)|^d)$ and $X_{i,j}z^2 \ne a_{d,t}$ for all $t,\, 1 \leqslant t \leqslant 90$, then $X_{i,j}z^2$ is of the form $uw^{2^s}$, where $u$ is a monomial as given in one of Lemmas \ref{bdk1}, \ref{bdd30}, \ref{bdd31}, \ref{bdd41}, \ref{bdd42}, \ref{bdd51}, $w$ is a monomial in $P_5$ and $s$ is a suitable integer. By Proposition \ref{mdcb51}, $X_{i,j}z^2$ is inadmissible. Since $x = X_{i,j}y^2$ and $y$ is admissible, we have $x = a_{d,t}$ for some $t,\, 1 \leqslant t \leqslant 90$. That means $B_5^+((3)|^d) \subset A(d)\cup C(d).$
Now we prove that the set $[A(d)\cup C(d)]_{(3)|^d}$ is linearly independent in $QP_5((3)|^d)$.
Consider $\langle [A(d)]_{(3)|^d}\rangle \subset QP_5((3)|^d)$ and $\langle [C(d)]_{(3)|^d}\rangle \subset QP_5((3)|^d)$. It is easy to see that for $1 \leqslant t \leqslant 55$, $a_{d,t} = x_i^{2^d-1}f_i(b_{d,t})$ with $b_{d,t}$ an admissible monomial of degree $2(2^d-1)$ in $P_4$ and $1 \leqslant i \leqslant 5$. By Proposition \ref{mdmo}, $a_{d,t}$ is admissible. This implies that $\dim \langle [A(d)]_{(3)|^d}\rangle = 55$. Since $\nu(a_{d,t}) = 2^d-1$ for $1\leqslant t \leqslant 55$ and $\nu(a_{d,t}) < 2^d-1$ for $56\leqslant t \leqslant 90$, we obtain $\langle [A(d)]_{(3)|^d}\rangle \cap \langle [C(d)]_{(3)|^d}\rangle = \{0\}$. Hence, we need only to prove the set $[C(d)]_{(3)|^d}$ is linearly independent in $QP_5((3)|^d)$.
Suppose there is a linear relation
\begin{equation}\label{ctd51}
S:= \sum_{56\leqslant t \leqslant 90}\gamma_ta_{d,t} \equiv_{(3)|^d} 0,
\end{equation}
where $\gamma_t \in \mathbb F_2$. We denote $\gamma_{\mathbb J} = \sum_{t \in \mathbb J}\gamma_t$ for any $\mathbb J \subset \{t\in \mathbb N:56\leqslant t \leqslant 90\}$.
Let $w_{d,u},\, 1\leqslant u \leqslant 11$, be as in Section \ref{s5} and the homomorphism $p_{(i;I)}:P_5\to P_4$ which is defined by \eqref{ct23} for $k=5$. From our work \cite[Lemma 3.5]{sp}, we see that $p_{(i;I)}$ passes to a homomorphism from $QP_5((3)|^d)$ to $QP_4((3)|^d)$. By applying $p_{(i;j)}$, $1\leqslant i < j \leqslant 5,$ to (\ref{ctd51}), we obtain
\begin{align*}
&p_{(1;2)}(S) \equiv_{(3)|^d} \gamma_{\{58,68\}}w_{d,7} + \gamma_{62}w_{d,10} \equiv_{(3)|^d} 0,\\
&p_{(1;3)}(S) \equiv_{(3)|^d} \gamma_{\{57,65\}}w_{d,6} + \gamma_{59}w_{d,7} \equiv_{(3)|^d} 0,\\
&p_{(1;4)}(S) \equiv_{(3)|^d} \gamma_{\{56,61,66,70,72,77\}}w_{d,5} + \gamma_{60}w_{d,7} \equiv_{(3)|^d} 0,\\
&p_{(1;5)}(S) \equiv_{(3)|^d} \gamma_{\{56,57,58,59,60,62,67,71,73,74,78\}}w_{d,4} + \gamma_{61}w_{d,7} \equiv_{(3)|^d} 0,\\
&p_{(2;3)}(S) \equiv_{(3)|^d} \gamma_{\{64,65,68,69,76\}}w_{d,6} + \gamma_{80}w_{d,7} \equiv_{(3)|^d} 0,\\
&p_{(2;4)}(S) \equiv_{(3)|^d} \gamma_{\{63,66,82,83\}}w_{d,5} + \gamma_{81}w_{d,7} \equiv_{(3)|^d} 0,\\
&p_{(2;5)}(S) \equiv_{(3)|^d} \gamma_{\{63,64,67,80,81,84,85\}}w_{d,4} + \gamma_{82}w_{d,7} \equiv_{(3)|^d} 0,\\
&p_{(3;4)}(S) \equiv_{(3)|^d} \gamma_{\{75,76,77,79,87,88,89\}}w_{d,5} + \gamma_{86}w_{d,7} \equiv_{(3)|^d} 0,\\
&p_{(3;5)}(S) \equiv_{(3)|^d} \gamma_{\{75,78,86\}}w_{d,4} + \gamma_{87}w_{d,7} \equiv_{(3)|^d} 0,\\
&p_{(4;5)}(S) \equiv_{(3)|^d} \gamma_{79}w_{d,4} + \gamma_{89}w_{d,7} \equiv_{(3)|^d} 0.
\end{align*}
From these equalities, we get $\gamma_{59} = \gamma_{60} = \gamma_{61} = \gamma_{62} = \gamma_{79} = \gamma_{80} = \gamma_{81} = \gamma_{82} = \gamma_{86} = \gamma_{87} = \gamma_{89} = 0$, $\gamma_{65} = \gamma_{57}$, $\gamma_{68} = \gamma_{58}$, $\gamma_{78} = \gamma_{75}$. Then, by applying the homomorphism $p_{(1;(u,v))}$, $2\leqslant u < v \leqslant 4,$ to (\ref{ctd51}), we get
\begin{align*}
p_{(1;(2,3))}(S) &\equiv_{(3)|^d} \gamma_{64}w_{d,6} + \gamma_{69}w_{d,7} + \gamma_{76}w_{d,10} \equiv_{(3)|^d} 0,\\
p_{(1;(2,4))}(S) &\equiv_{(3)|^d} \gamma_{\{56,58,63,66,70,71,72,77,83\}}w_{d,5} + \gamma_{70}w_{d,7} + \gamma_{77}w_{d,10} \equiv_{(3)|^d} 0,\\
p_{(1;(3,4))}(S) &\equiv_{(3)|^d} \gamma_{\{63,64,67,84,85\}}w_{d,3} + \gamma_{\{56,57,66,69,70,72,73,75,76,77,83,88,90\}}w_{d,5}\\ &\hskip3cm + \gamma_{\{66,74,83\}}w_{d,6} + \gamma_{72}w_{d,7} \equiv_{(3)|^d} 0.
\end{align*}
Computing from the above equalities gives $\gamma_{64} = \gamma_{69} = \gamma_{70} = \gamma_{72} = \gamma_{76} = \gamma_{77} = 0$ and $\gamma_{58} = \gamma_{57}$, $\gamma_{66} = \gamma_{56}$, $\gamma_{88} = \gamma_{75}$. Now, by applying $p_{(1;(u,5))}$, $2\leqslant u \leqslant 4,$ to (\ref{ctd51}), we obtain
\begin{align*}
p_{(1;(2,5))}(S) &\equiv_{(3)|^d} \gamma_{\{56,57,63,67,71,73,74,75,84,85,90\}}w_{d,4} + \gamma_{71}w_{d,7} + \gamma_{75}w_{d,10} \equiv_{(3)|^d} 0,\\
p_{(1;(3,5))}(S) &\equiv_{(3)|^d} \gamma_{\{56,63,83\}}w_{d,2} + \gamma_{\{56,57,67,71,73,74,84\}}w_{d,4}\\ &\hskip3cm + \gamma_{\{67,74,84\}}w_{d,6} + \gamma_{73}w_{d,7} \equiv_{(3)|^d} 0,\\
p_{(1;(4,5))}(S) &\equiv_{(3)|^d} \gamma_{\{67,71,73,74,85,90\}}w_{d,4} + \gamma_{\{67,71,73,85,90\}}w_{d,5} + \gamma_{74}w_{d,7} \equiv_{(3)|^d} 0.
\end{align*}
By computing from the above equalities we get $\gamma_t = 0$ for all $t, \, 56 \leqslant t \leqslant 90$. The theorem is proved.
\end{proof}
We need the following for the proof of Theorem \ref{dl20}.
\begin{props}\label{mdt5} The set
$$\mathcal B_5 = \{(\mathcal I, \mathcal J) \in {\sf PSeq}_5^6: X_{(\mathcal I, \mathcal J)} \in B_5((3)|^6)\}\subset {\sf PInc}_5^6$$
is compatible with $(3)|^{6}$.
\end{props}
\begin{proof} Let $(\mathcal H,\mathcal K)\in {\sf PSeq}_5^6$. From the monomials as given in Section \ref{s5}, we can easily check that if $(\mathcal H,\mathcal K)\in \mathcal B_5$, then $\mbox{rl}(\mathcal H)\leqslant 4$ and $\mbox{rl}(\mathcal K)\leqslant 4$. We prove $X_{(\mathcal H,\mathcal K)}$ is of the form \eqref{ctbd} for $k = 5$ and $\mathcal B = \mathcal B_5$. We prove the claim by induction on $X_{(\mathcal H,\mathcal K)}$ with respect to the order as given in Definition \ref{defn3}. Obviously, this claim is true if $X_{(\mathcal H,\mathcal K)}$ is admissible. Suppose $X_{(\mathcal H,\mathcal K)}$ is inadmissible and the claim is true for all $(\mathcal U,\mathcal V)\in {\sf PSeq}_5^6$ such that $X_{(\mathcal U,\mathcal V)}< X_{(\mathcal H,\mathcal K)}$. From the proofs of Propositions \ref{md52}, \ref{mdd532}, \ref{mdd41} and the proof of Theorem \ref{dl51} we see that $X_{(\mathcal H,\mathcal K)} = uw^{2^c}y^{2^{c+d}}$, where $u$ is a monomial of weight vector $(3)|^c$, $y$ is a monomial of weight vector $(3)|^e$ and $w$ is a monomial of weight vector $(3)|^d$ as given in one of Lemmas \ref{bdk1}, \ref{bdd30}, \ref{bdd31}, \ref{bdd41}, \ref{bdd42}, \ref{bdd51}. Here $c,\, e \geqslant 0$, $2 \leqslant d \leqslant 5$ and $c+d+e = 6$. Hence, there are $(\mathcal H_1,\mathcal K_1)\in {\sf PSeq}_5^c$, $(\mathcal H_2,\mathcal K_2)\in {\sf PSeq}_5^d$, $(\mathcal H_3,\mathcal K_3)\in {\sf PSeq}_5^e$ such that $u = X_{(\mathcal H_1,\mathcal K_1)}$, $w = X_{(\mathcal H_2,\mathcal K_2)}$, $y = X_{(\mathcal H_3,\mathcal K_3)}$ and $\mathcal H = \mathcal H_1|\mathcal H_2|\mathcal H_3$, $\mathcal K = \mathcal K_1|\mathcal K_2|\mathcal K_3$. From the proofs of Lemmas \ref{bdk1}, \ref{bdd30}, \ref{bdd31}, \ref{bdd41}, \ref{bdd42}, \ref{bdd51} we see that
$$w = X_{(\mathcal H_2,\mathcal K_2)} = \sum_{(\mathcal S,\mathcal T)\in \mathcal B_w} X_{(\mathcal S,\mathcal T)} + g \ \mbox{mod}(P_5^-((3)|^d)+\mathcal A(d-1)^+P_5), $$
where $\mathcal B_w$ is a set of suitable pairs $(\mathcal S,\mathcal T) \in {\sf PSeq}_5^d$ such that $\min \mathcal S = \min \mathcal H_2$, $\min \mathcal T \leqslant \min \mathcal K_2$, $X_{(\mathcal S,\mathcal T)} < w$ and $g \in \mathcal P_{(5,n_d)}$ with $n_d = 3(2^d-1)$. Using the proof of Proposition \ref{mdcb51} we obtain
$$X_{(\mathcal H,\mathcal K)} = \sum_{(\mathcal S,\mathcal T)\in \mathcal B_w} uX_{(\mathcal S,\mathcal T)}^{2^c} y^{2^{c+d}}+ ug^{2^c}y^{2^{c+d}} \ \mbox{mod}(P_5^-((3)|^6)+\mathcal A(5)^+P_5),$$
where $ug^{2^c}y^{2^{c+d}} \in \mathcal P_{(5,n_6)}$, $uX_{(\mathcal S,\mathcal T)}^{2^c} y^{2^{c+d}} = X_{(\mathcal U,\mathcal V)} < X_{(\mathcal H,\mathcal K)}$ with $\mathcal U = \mathcal H_1|\mathcal S|\mathcal H_3$, $\mathcal V = \mathcal K_1|\mathcal T|\mathcal K_3$. Since $\min \mathcal S = \min \mathcal H_2$, $\min \mathcal T \leqslant \min \mathcal K_2$, we have $\min \mathcal U = \min\mathcal H$, $\min\mathcal V \leqslant \min\mathcal K$. The proposition now follows from the inductive hypothesis.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{dl20}] Let $n = 2^{d+s+t} + 2^{d + s} + 2^d -3$ and $m = 2^{s+t} + 2^s -2$. We have $\frac{n-5}2 = 2^{d-1+s+t} + 2^{d-1 + s} + 2^{d-2} + 2^{d-2} -4 $. By Theorems 1.3 and 1.4 in \cite{su2}, if $d \geqslant 6$, $s \geqslant 4$ and $t \geqslant 4$, then
\[\dim(QP_5)_{\frac{n-5}2} = (2^5-1)\dim(QP_4)_{2^{s+t+1}+2^{s+1}-2}= 3(2^3-1)(2^4-1)(2^5-1).\]
Kameko's squaring operation
$(\widetilde {Sq}^0)_{(5,n)}: (QP_5)_n \longrightarrow (QP_5)_{\frac{n-5}2}$
is an epimorphism, hence by using Theorem \ref{dlwa}, we get
\begin{align*}4(2^3-1)(2^4-1)(2^5-1) &\leqslant \dim(QP_5)_n = \dim \mbox{\rm Ker}(\widetilde {Sq}^0)_{(5,n)} + \dim(QP_5)_{\frac{n-5}2}\\ &= \dim \mbox{\rm Ker}(\widetilde {Sq}^0)_{(5,n)} + 3(2^3-1)(2^4-1)(2^5-1).
\end{align*}
This implies that $\dim \mbox{\rm Ker}(\widetilde {Sq}^0)_{(5,n)} \geqslant (2^3-1)(2^4-1)(2^5-1)$.
By Proposition \ref{mdt5}, the set $\mathcal B_5 \subset {\sf PInc}_5^6$
is compatible with $(3)|^{6}$ and $|\mathcal B_5| = |B_5((3)|^6)| = 155$. By applying Theorem \ref{dlck2}, we obtain
\[\dim \mbox{\rm Ker}(\widetilde {Sq}^0)_{(5,n)} \leqslant |\mathcal B_{5}|\dim (QP_{3})_m = 155\dim (QP_{3})_m.\]
From Kameko \cite[Theorem 8.1]{ka}, we have $\dim (QP_{3})_m = 21$ for any $s,\, t \geqslant 2$. Hence, we get
\begin{align*}
\dim \mbox{\rm Ker}(\widetilde {Sq}^0)_{(5,n)} &\leqslant 155\dim (QP_{3})_m\\
&= 155\times 21 = (2^3-1)(2^4-1)(2^5-1).
\end{align*}
Thus, $\dim \mbox{\rm Ker}(\widetilde {Sq}^0)_{(5,n)} = (2^3-1)(2^4-1)(2^5-1)$, for any $d \geqslant 6$ and $s,\, t \geqslant 4$. The theorem is proved.
\end{proof}
Combining this result and Theorem 1.6 in \cite{su} one gets the following, which is numbered as Corollary \ref{cor4240} in the introduction.
\begin{corls}\label{cor424} Let $n$ be as in Theorem $\ref{dl20}$. If $d \geqslant 6$ and $s,\, t \geqslant 4$, then
$$\dim (QP_5)_n = 4(2^3-1)(2^4-1)(2^5-1) = 13020.$$
Consequently, the inequality $\eqref{ct12}$ is an equality for $k = 5$ and $d\geqslant 6$.
\end{corls}
\section{Appendix}\label{s5}
In this section, we list the admissible monomials of weight vector $(3)^d$ in $P_k$ with $k \leqslant 5$.
From the results of Kameko \cite[Theorem 8.1]{ka} and our work \cite[Proposition 5.4.2]{su2} we see that if $d \geqslant 4$, then $B_3^+((3)|^d) = \{(x_1x_2x_3)^{2^d-1}\}$ and
$B_4^+((3)|^d) = \{w_u=w_{d,u} : 1\leqslant u \leqslant 11\},$
where
\medskip
\centerline{\begin{tabular}{lll}
$w_{1} = x_1x_2^{2^d-2}x_3^{2^d-1}x_4^{2^d-1}$ &\ \ \ &$w_{2} = x_1x_2^{2^d-1}x_3^{2^d-2}x_4^{2^d-1}$\cr
$w_{3} = x_1x_2^{2^d-1}x_3^{2^d-1}x_4^{2^d-2}$ &\ &$w_{4} = x_1^{3}x_2^{2^d-3}x_3^{2^d-2}x_4^{2^d-1}$\cr
$w_{5} = x_1^{3}x_2^{2^d-3}x_3^{2^d-1}x_4^{2^d-2}$ &\ &$w_{6} = x_1^{3}x_2^{2^d-1}x_3^{2^d-3}x_4^{2^d-2}$\cr
$w_{7} = x_1^{7}x_2^{2^d-5}x_3^{2^d-3}x_4^{2^d-2}$ &&$w_{8} = x_1^{2^d-1}x_2x_3^{2^d-2}x_4^{2^d-1}$\cr
$w_{9} = x_1^{2^d-1}x_2x_3^{2^d-1}x_4^{2^d-2}$ &&$w_{10} = x_1^{2^d-1}x_2^{3}x_3^{2^d-3}x_4^{2^d-2}$\cr
$w_{11} = x_1^{2^d-1}x_2^{2^d-1}x_3x_4^{2^d-2}$ &&\cr
\end{tabular}}
\medskip
The sets $B_4((3)|^d)$ and $B_5^0((3)|^d)$ are determined by using Proposition \ref{mdbs}.
\medskip
For any $d \geqslant 5$, $B_5^+((3)|^d) = \{a_t = a_{d,t} : 1\leqslant t \leqslant 90\},$
where
\medskip
\centerline{\begin{tabular}{lll}
$a_{1} = x_1x_2x_3^{2^d-2}x_4^{2^d-2}x_5^{2^d-1}$ &\ \ &$a_{2} = x_1x_2x_3^{2^d-2}x_4^{2^d-1}x_5^{2^d-2}$\cr
$a_{3} = x_1x_2x_3^{2^d-1}x_4^{2^d-2}x_5^{2^d-2}$ &&$a_{4} = x_1x_2^{2}x_3^{2^d-4}x_4^{2^d-1}x_5^{2^d-1}$\cr
$a_{5} = x_1x_2^{2}x_3^{2^d-3}x_4^{2^d-2}x_5^{2^d-1}$ &&$a_{6} = x_1x_2^{2}x_3^{2^d-3}x_4^{2^d-1}x_5^{2^d-2}$\cr
$a_{7} = x_1x_2^{2}x_3^{2^d-1}x_4^{2^d-4}x_5^{2^d-1}$ &&$a_{8} = x_1x_2^{2}x_3^{2^d-1}x_4^{2^d-3}x_5^{2^d-2}$\cr
$a_{9} = x_1x_2^{2}x_3^{2^d-1}x_4^{2^d-1}x_5^{2^d-4}$ &&$a_{10} = x_1x_2^{3}x_3^{2^d-4}x_4^{2^d-2}x_5^{2^d-1}$\cr
$a_{11} = x_1x_2^{3}x_3^{2^d-4}x_4^{2^d-1}x_5^{2^d-2}$& &$a_{12} = x_1x_2^{3}x_3^{2^d-2}x_4^{2^d-4}x_5^{2^d-1}$\cr
$a_{13} = x_1x_2^{3}x_3^{2^d-2}x_4^{2^d-1}x_5^{2^d-4}$ &&$a_{14} = x_1x_2^{3}x_3^{2^d-1}x_4^{2^d-4}x_5^{2^d-2}$\cr
$a_{15} = x_1x_2^{3}x_3^{2^d-1}x_4^{2^d-2}x_5^{2^d-4}$ &&$a_{16} = x_1x_2^{2^d-2}x_3x_4^{2^d-2}x_5^{2^d-1}$\cr
$a_{17} = x_1x_2^{2^d-2}x_3x_4^{2^d-1}x_5^{2^d-2}$ &&$a_{18} = x_1x_2^{2^d-2}x_3^{2^d-1}x_4x_5^{2^d-2}$\cr
$a_{19} = x_1x_2^{2^d-1}x_3x_4^{2^d-2}x_5^{2^d-2}$ &&$a_{20} = x_1x_2^{2^d-1}x_3^{2}x_4^{2^d-4}x_5^{2^d-1}$\cr
$a_{21} = x_1x_2^{2^d-1}x_3^{2}x_4^{2^d-3}x_5^{2^d-2}$ &&$a_{22} = x_1x_2^{2^d-1}x_3^{2}x_4^{2^d-1}x_5^{2^d-4}$\cr
$a_{23} = x_1x_2^{2^d-1}x_3^{3}x_4^{2^d-4}x_5^{2^d-2}$ &&$a_{24} = x_1x_2^{2^d-1}x_3^{3}x_4^{2^d-2}x_5^{2^d-4}$\cr
$a_{25} = x_1x_2^{2^d-1}x_3^{2^d-2}x_4x_5^{2^d-2}$ &&$a_{26} = x_1x_2^{2^d-1}x_3^{2^d-1}x_4^{2}x_5^{2^d-4}$\cr
$a_{27} = x_1^{3}x_2x_3^{2^d-4}x_4^{2^d-2}x_5^{2^d-1}$ &&$a_{28} = x_1^{3}x_2x_3^{2^d-4}x_4^{2^d-1}x_5^{2^d-2}$\cr
$a_{29} = x_1^{3}x_2x_3^{2^d-2}x_4^{2^d-4}x_5^{2^d-1}$ &&$a_{30} = x_1^{3}x_2x_3^{2^d-2}x_4^{2^d-1}x_5^{2^d-4}$\cr
$a_{31} = x_1^{3}x_2x_3^{2^d-1}x_4^{2^d-4}x_5^{2^d-2}$ &&$a_{32} = x_1^{3}x_2x_3^{2^d-1}x_4^{2^d-2}x_5^{2^d-4}$\cr
$a_{33} = x_1^{3}x_2^{2^d-3}x_3^{2}x_4^{2^d-4}x_5^{2^d-1}$ &&$a_{34} = x_1^{3}x_2^{2^d-3}x_3^{2}x_4^{2^d-1}x_5^{2^d-4}$\cr
$a_{35} = x_1^{3}x_2^{2^d-3}x_3^{2^d-1}x_4^{2}x_5^{2^d-4}$ &&$a_{36} = x_1^{3}x_2^{2^d-1}x_3x_4^{2^d-4}x_5^{2^d-2}$\cr
$a_{37} = x_1^{3}x_2^{2^d-1}x_3x_4^{2^d-2}x_5^{2^d-4}$ &&$a_{38} = x_1^{3}x_2^{2^d-1}x_3^{2^d-3}x_4^{2}x_5^{2^d-4}$\cr
$a_{39} = x_1^{2^d-1}x_2x_3x_4^{2^d-2}x_5^{2^d-2}$ &&$a_{40} = x_1^{2^d-1}x_2x_3^{2}x_4^{2^d-4}x_5^{2^d-1}$\cr
$a_{41} = x_1^{2^d-1}x_2x_3^{2}x_4^{2^d-3}x_5^{2^d-2}$ &&$a_{42} = x_1^{2^d-1}x_2x_3^{2}x_4^{2^d-1}x_5^{2^d-4}$\cr
$a_{43} = x_1^{2^d-1}x_2x_3^{3}x_4^{2^d-4}x_5^{2^d-2}$ &&$a_{44} = x_1^{2^d-1}x_2x_3^{3}x_4^{2^d-2}x_5^{2^d-4}$\cr
\end{tabular}}
\centerline{\begin{tabular}{lll}
$a_{45} = x_1^{2^d-1}x_2x_3^{2^d-2}x_4x_5^{2^d-2}$ &&$a_{46} = x_1^{2^d-1}x_2x_3^{2^d-1}x_4^{2}x_5^{2^d-4}$\cr
$a_{47} = x_1^{2^d-1}x_2^{3}x_3x_4^{2^d-4}x_5^{2^d-2}$ &&$a_{48} = x_1^{2^d-1}x_2^{3}x_3x_4^{2^d-2}x_5^{2^d-4}$\cr
$a_{49} = x_1^{2^d-1}x_2^{3}x_3^{2^d-3}x_4^{2}x_5^{2^d-4}$ &&$a_{50} = x_1^{2^d-1}x_2^{2^d-1}x_3x_4^{2}x_5^{2^d-4}$\cr
$a_{51} = x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{2^d-6}x_4^{2^d-4}x_5^{2^d-1}$ &&$a_{52} = x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{2^d-6}x_4^{2^d-1}x_5^{2^d-4}$\cr
$a_{53} = x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{2^d-1}x_4^{2^d-6}x_5^{2^d-4}$ &&$a_{54} = x_1^{3}x_2^{2^d-1}x_3^{5}x_4^{2^d-6}x_5^{2^d-4}$\cr
$a_{55} = x_1^{2^d-1}x_2^{3}x_3^{5}x_4^{2^d-6}x_5^{2^d-4}$ &\ \ &$a_{56} = x_1x_2^{3}x_3^{2^d-3}x_4^{2^d-2}x_5^{2^d-2}$\cr
$a_{57} = x_1x_2^{3}x_3^{2^d-2}x_4^{2^d-3}x_5^{2^d-2}$ &&$a_{58} = x_1x_2^{6}x_3^{2^d-5}x_4^{2^d-3}x_5^{2^d-2}$\cr
$a_{59} = x_1x_2^{7}x_3^{2^d-6}x_4^{2^d-3}x_5^{2^d-2}$ &&$a_{60} = x_1x_2^{7}x_3^{2^d-5}x_4^{2^d-4}x_5^{2^d-2}$\cr
$a_{61} = x_1x_2^{7}x_3^{2^d-5}x_4^{2^d-2}x_5^{2^d-4}$ &&$a_{62} = x_1x_2^{2^d-2}x_3^{3}x_4^{2^d-3}x_5^{2^d-2}$\cr
$a_{63} = x_1^{3}x_2x_3^{2^d-3}x_4^{2^d-2}x_5^{2^d-2}$ &&$a_{64} = x_1^{3}x_2x_3^{2^d-2}x_4^{2^d-3}x_5^{2^d-2}$\cr
$a_{65} = x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{2^d-4}x_4^{2^d-3}x_5^{2^d-2}$ &&$a_{66} = x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{2^d-3}x_4^{2^d-4}x_5^{2^d-2}$\cr
$a_{67} = x_1^{3}x_2^{3}x_3^{2^d-3}x_4^{2^d-2}x_5^{2^d-4}$ &&$a_{68} = x_1^{3}x_2^{4}x_3^{2^d-5}x_4^{2^d-3}x_5^{2^d-2}$\cr
$a_{69} = x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{2^d-6}x_4^{2^d-3}x_5^{2^d-2}$ &&$a_{70} = x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{2^d-5}x_4^{2^d-4}x_5^{2^d-2}$\cr
$a_{71} = x_1^{3}x_2^{5}x_3^{2^d-5}x_4^{2^d-2}x_5^{2^d-4}$ &&$a_{72} = x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{2^d-7}x_4^{2^d-4}x_5^{2^d-2}$\cr
$a_{73} = x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{2^d-7}x_4^{2^d-2}x_5^{2^d-4}$ &&$a_{74} = x_1^{3}x_2^{7}x_3^{2^d-3}x_4^{2^d-6}x_5^{2^d-4}$\cr
$a_{75} = x_1^{3}x_2^{2^d-3}x_3x_4^{2^d-2}x_5^{2^d-2}$ && $a_{76} = x_1^{3}x_2^{2^d-3}x_3^{2}x_4^{2^d-3}x_5^{2^d-2}$\cr
$a_{77} = x_1^{3}x_2^{2^d-3}x_3^{3}x_4^{2^d-4}x_5^{2^d-2}$ &&$a_{78} = x_1^{3}x_2^{2^d-3}x_3^{3}x_4^{2^d-2}x_5^{2^d-4}$\cr
$a_{79} = x_1^{3}x_2^{2^d-3}x_3^{2^d-2}x_4x_5^{2^d-2}$ &&$a_{80} = x_1^{7}x_2x_3^{2^d-6}x_4^{2^d-3}x_5^{2^d-2}$\cr
$a_{81} = x_1^{7}x_2x_3^{2^d-5}x_4^{2^d-4}x_5^{2^d-2}$ &&$a_{82} = x_1^{7}x_2x_3^{2^d-5}x_4^{2^d-2}x_5^{2^d-4}$\cr
$a_{83} = x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{2^d-7}x_4^{2^d-4}x_5^{2^d-2}$ &&$a_{84} = x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{2^d-7}x_4^{2^d-2}x_5^{2^d-4}$\cr
$a_{85} = x_1^{7}x_2^{3}x_3^{2^d-3}x_4^{2^d-6}x_5^{2^d-4}$ &&$a_{86} = x_1^{7}x_2^{2^d-5}x_3x_4^{2^d-4}x_5^{2^d-2}$\cr
$a_{87} = x_1^{7}x_2^{2^d-5}x_3x_4^{2^d-2}x_5^{2^d-4}$ &&$a_{88} = x_1^{7}x_2^{2^d-5}x_3^{5}x_4^{2^d-6}x_5^{2^d-4}$\cr
$a_{89} = x_1^{7}x_2^{2^d-5}x_3^{2^d-3}x_4^{2}x_5^{2^d-4}$ &&$a_{90} = x_1^{7}x_2^{11}x_3^{2^d-11}x_4^{2^d-6}x_5^{2^d-4}$\cr
\end{tabular}}
\section*{Acknowledgment}
The first version of this work was written while the author was visiting the Vietnam Institute for Advanced Study in Mathematics (VIASM). He would like to thank the VIASM for supporting the visit and hospitality.
The author is very grateful to the referee for his valuable comments and suggestions which helped to improve the quality of the paper.
{
|
\section{Statement of result}
The $n$-grid from the title refers to $n$ equally spaced points in $[-1,1]$
\begin{equation} \label{Xin}
E_n = \{ \xi_{k,n} = \tfrac{2k-n-1}{n-1} \mid k = 1, \ldots, n \},
\end{equation}
ranging from $-1$ to $1$. Let $0 < \alpha < 1$.
This paper is about the determination of the limit of the expression
\begin{equation} \label{ratio}
\frac{1}{n} \log \sup_{\deg p \leq \alpha n} \frac{\| p \|_{[-1,1]}}{\| p\|_{E_n}} \end{equation}
as $n \to \infty$, where the norms are uniform norms over the indicated
sets, and the supremum is over univariate polynomials $p$
of degrees at most $\alpha n$ that do not vanish identically.
The result was already announced in the paper \cite{PTK11} from 2011.
Renewed interest in it is due to \cite{HT22}.
\begin{theorem} \label{theorem11} For every $\alpha \in (0,1)$ the limit
\begin{equation} \label{limitresult}
\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \log \sup_{\deg p \leq \alpha n} \frac{\| p \|_{[-1,1]}}{\| p\|_{E_n}} = C(\alpha) \end{equation}
exists and is equal to
\begin{equation} \label{Calpha}
C(\alpha) = \frac{(1+\alpha) \log(1+\alpha) + (1-\alpha) \log(1-\alpha)}{2}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
The limit $C(\alpha)$ is positive and strictly increasing with $\alpha$.
There is a nice Taylor expansion
\[ C(\alpha) = \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \frac{\alpha^{2k}}{2k(2k-1)}. \]
The odd Taylor coefficients vanish since the power series defines an odd function.
The even Taylor coefficients are positive and therefore $C(\alpha) \geq \frac{1}{2} \alpha^2$.
It is also worth noticing that $C(\alpha) \to \log 2$ as $\alpha \to 1-$.
For $\alpha = 1$ however, we have that the limit in \eqref{limitresult}
is $+\infty$, since for each $n$, there is a non-zero polynomial of degree $n$
that vanishes on the $n$-grid.
\paragraph{Discussion}
The limit \eqref{limitresult} shows that a polynomial of degree $\leq \alpha n$
that is bounded on $E_n$ can be exponentially large somewhere in the interval $[-1,1]$.
Namely, if $|p(\xi_{k,n})| \leq 1$ for each $k=1, \ldots, n$, then $|p(x)|$
at some $x \in [-1,1]$ can be as large as $e^{n (C(\alpha) +o(1))}$ as
$n \to \infty$,
and the constant $C(\alpha)$ is sharp.
The result is related to earlier work of
Coppersmith and Rivlin \cite{CR92} who showed that there
exist universal constants $C_2 > C_1 > 1$ such that
for $n$ large enough, and for every $d \leq n-1$,
\begin{equation} \label{CRresult}
C_1^{d^2/n} \leq \sup_{\deg p \leq d} \frac{\| p \|_{[-1,1]}}{\| p\|_{E_n}}
\leq C_2^{d^2/n}. \end{equation}
The inequalities \eqref{CRresult} show that polynomials of degree $d \leq c \sqrt{n}$ that are bounded by one on $E_n$ are uniformly bounded on $[-1,1]$
with a constant that only depends on $c$.
However, if $d$ grows proportionally with $n$ then \eqref{CRresult}
shows that polynomials
that are bounded by one on $E_n$ may be exponentially large on $[-1,1]$,
and this behavior is made more precise in
the limit \eqref{limitresult}.
The comparisons of the two uniform norms $\| \cdot \|_{E_n}$ and $\| \cdot \|_{[-1,1]}$ arises naturally when studying approximation or
interpolation methods for analytic functions based on function values
on the $n$-grid. There is a trade-off between convergence
and stability properties that was made precise in the
impossibility theorem of \cite[Theorem 3.1]{PTK11}. For example, exponential
convergence as $n \to \infty$ comes together with exponential instability.
The proof of the impossibility theorem in \cite{PTK11} relies on
the Coppersmith-Rivlin inequalities \eqref{CRresult}.
For recent work in this direction we refer to \cite{AS23, HT22}.
It was observed in \cite[section 4]{PTK11} that the phenomenon that
polynomials of degree $d \approx \alpha n$
can be much larger on $[-1,1]$ than on $E_n$ may be understood
in terms of potential theory. Here one thinks of a polynomial in terms
of its zeros. A polynomial may be small at certain gridpoints in $E_n$
by simply having a zero very close to these gridpoints.
However, since there are more gridpoints than zeros this cannot
happen for every gridpoint. The extremal polynomial
$p_n^*$ for \eqref{ratio} will place a certain fraction of its zeros
extremely close to gridpoints lying in a subset $S$ of $[-1,1]$ (with $S$ depending on $\alpha$).
Then $p_n^*$ is small at the gridpoints in $S$ but not necessarily in between,
and in fact it has high oscillations in $S$. Following \cite{BKMM07, DS98} we call
$S$ the saturated region.
The non-saturated region $[-1,1] \setminus S$ has considerably
fewer zeros than gridpoints. The extremal polynomial $p_n^*$ is
not only small at the gridpoints in $[-1,1] \setminus S$ but
it is of comparable size over the full
set $[-1,1] \setminus S$, see \cite{Rak07} for very precise estimates.
This phenomenon was first described by Rakhmanov \cite{Rak96} for orthogonal
polynomials on the $n$-grid, or more generally, for polynomials that
minimize a discrete $L_p$ norm on $E_n$. These polynomials
have their zeros in $[-1,1]$ and they are separated by the gridpoints,
in the sense that in between any two distinct zeros there is at least
one gridpoint. In the limit $n \to \infty$ the zeros of the extremal polynomials
of degree $\lfloor \alpha n \rfloor$ considered in \cite{Rak96}
have a limiting distribution $\mu_{\alpha}$ (depending only on $\alpha$)
that is characterized by a constrained equilibrium problem from potential
theory. The measure $\mu_{\alpha}$ has a density with respect to
Lebesgue measure on $[-1,1]$ with $\frac{d\mu_{\alpha}}{dx} \leq \frac{1}{2}$
where $\frac{1}{2}$ is the limiting density of the gridpoints as $n \to \infty$.
The saturated region $S$ is where the
equality $\frac{d\mu_{\alpha}}{dx} = \frac{1}{2}$. holds.
We give details in section \ref{section22} below.
The extremal polynomials $p_n^*$ for the extremal problem in \eqref{limitresult}
have the same limiting zero distribution $\mu_{\alpha}$ as $n \to \infty$,
as we will show in this paper.
Also in other aspects they behave similarly to the $L_p$-extremal polynomials
on the $n$-grid, and this will be the clue to the proof of Theorem \ref{theorem11}.
\paragraph{Outline of the proof}
The extremal polynomial for \eqref{ratio} is a polynomial $p_n^*$
of degree $\leq \alpha n$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{pnstar}
\frac{\| p_n^* \|_{[-1,1]}}{\| p_n^* \|_{E_n}} = \sup_{\deg p \leq \alpha n} \frac{\| p \|_{[-1,1]}}{\| p\|_{E_n}}. \end{equation}
The proof of \eqref{limitresult} then naturally comes in two steps.
In the first step we prove the lower bound
\begin{equation} \label{lowerbound}
\liminf_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{\| p_n^* \|_{[-1,1]}}{\| p_n^* \|_{E_n}}
\geq C(\alpha) \end{equation}
and in the second step the corresponding upper bound
\begin{equation} \label{upperbound}
\limsup_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{\| p_n^* \|_{[-1,1]}}{\| p_n^* \|_{E_n}}
\leq C(\alpha). \end{equation}
The lower bound comes from considering the $L_{\infty}$-extremal
polynomials $P_n^*$ on $E_n$, where $P_n^*$ is the monic polynomial
of degree $\lfloor \alpha n \rfloor$ that minimizes the uniform norm $\| \cdot \|_{E_n}$.
Using the results from \cite{DS98, Rak96} and some additional calculations
we prove in section \ref{section2} that
\begin{equation} \label{lowerbound2}
\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{\| P_n^*\|_{[-1,1]}}{\| P_n^*\|_{E_n}}
= C(\alpha), \end{equation}
and this implies the lower bound \eqref{lowerbound}.
The upper bound \eqref{upperbound} is proved in section \ref{section3}.
It comes from a study of the zeros of the extremal
polynomials $p_n^*$ satisfying \eqref{pnstar}. We show in Lemma \ref{lemma31}
that the zeros are real and simple and at least $\lfloor \alpha n \rfloor -1$
zeros are in $[-1,1]$ where they are separated by the gridpoints. Note that
one zero could be in $\mathbb R \setminus [-1,1]$.
We then use potential theoretic arguments to show that the limiting
distribution of the zeros of $p_n^*$ is equal to the constrained
equilibrium measure $\mu_{\alpha}$. Along the way we prove that
$\mu_{\alpha}$ is the maximizer of a functional $J$ that we define in
\eqref{Jmudef} with $J(\mu_{\alpha}) = C(\alpha)$, which leads to
the upper bound \eqref{upperbound}.
We finally note that discrete orthogonal polynomials and the constrained
equilibrium problem also play a role in the analysis of iterative methods
from numerical linear algebra \cite{BK01,Kui00,Kui06}, and the asymptotic
analysis of integrable systems \cite{DM98}, random matrices and
random tiling models \cite{BKMM07, BL14}.
\section{Proof of the lower bound} \label{section2}
\subsection{Extremal polynomials on the $n$-grid}
As explained above, we are going to consider the monic polynomial
$P_n^*$ of degree $\lfloor \alpha n \rfloor$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{Pnextremal}
\| P_n^*\|_{E_n} = \min_{\scriptsize \begin{array}{c} \deg P = \lfloor \alpha n \rfloor \\
P \text{ is monic}\end{array}} \| P\|_{E_n}. \end{equation}
We are going to show that the limit
\eqref{lowerbound2} holds.
Rakhmanov \cite{Rak96} considered polynomials $P$ of degree $n$ that are monic (leading coefficient
equal to $1$) and that minimize either the uniform norm $\| P \|_{E_N}$,
or a discrete $p$-norm on $E_N$ among all such polynomials. The interest is in their asymptotic
behavior as both $n, N \to \infty$ with $n/N \to c < 1$. The equispaced $n$-grid \eqref{Xin} is
actually only a special case of far more general discrete sets that are considered in \cite{Rak96}.
Compared to \cite{Rak96} we change $N \mapsto n$, $n \mapsto \lfloor \alpha n \rfloor$, $c \mapsto \alpha$.
\subsection{Limiting behavior of zeros} \label{section22}
The zeros of $P_n^*$ are real and simple. They belong to the interval $(-1,1)$,
where they are separated by the nodes in $E_n$, see \cite{DS98,Rak96}.
To $P_n^*$ we associate
the normalized zero counting measure
\[ \nu_n = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{k=1}^{\lfloor \alpha n \rfloor}
\delta_{x_{k,n}}, \]
where $x_{k,n}$ for $k=1, \ldots, \lfloor \alpha n \rfloor$,
denote the zeros of $P_n^*$. Note that we normalize with the factor $1/n$
while the degree of $P_n^*$ is $\lfloor \alpha n \rfloor$. Thus
$\nu_n$ is not a probability measure but rather has
a total mass $\frac{\lfloor \alpha n \rfloor }{n}$
Rakhmanov \cite[Theorem 2]{Rak96}, see also \cite[Theorem 3.3]{DS98},
proved that the weak$^*$ limit
\begin{equation} \label{nuPnlimit}
\nu_n \stackrel{\ast}{\to} \mu_{\alpha} \end{equation}
exists, where $\mu_{\alpha}$ is the measure on $[-1,1]$ with
density \cite[Theorem 1]{Rak96}
\begin{equation} \label{mualpha} \frac{d\mu_{\alpha}}{dx}
= \begin{cases} \ds \frac{1}{2}, & \text{ for }
x \in [-1,-r] \cup [r, 1], \\[10pt]
\ds \frac{1}{\pi} \arctan \left( \frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{r^2-x^2}}\right),
& \text{ for } x \in [-r,r], \end{cases} \end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} \label{ralpha}
r = r(\alpha) = \sqrt{1-\alpha^2}. \end{equation}
The density on $[-r,r]$
can alternatively be written as
\begin{equation} \label{mualpha2}
\frac{d\mu_\alpha}{dx}
= \frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{\pi} \arccos \left(\frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{1-x^2}}\right),
\quad \text{ for } x \in [-r,r].
\end{equation}
The measure $\mu_{\alpha}$ belongs to the class
\begin{equation} \label{Malphasigma}
\mathcal M_{\alpha, \sigma} :=
\{ \mu \mid \smallint d\mu = \alpha, \, 0 \leq \mu \leq \sigma \} \end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} \label{sigma}
d \sigma = \frac{1}{2} \chi_{[-1,1]}(x) dx
\end{equation} denotes the
Lebesgue measure restricted to $[-1,1]$ with normalization such that
$\int d\sigma =1$. The upper constraint
$\mu_{\alpha} \leq \sigma$ comes from the fact that the zeros of $P_n^*$ are separated by the nodes $\xi_{k,n}$ in the equispaced grid $E_n$.
Rakhmanov also characterized $\mu_{\alpha}$ in terms of notions from
logarithmic potential theory \cite{ST97}. Let
\begin{equation} \label{Imu}
I(\mu) = \iint \log \frac{1}{|x-y|} d\mu(x) d\mu(y) \end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} \label{Umu}
U^{\mu}(x) = \int \log \frac{1}{|x-y|} d\mu(y) \end{equation}
denote the logarithmic energy and the logarithmic potential of a
measure $\mu$, respectively. Then
\begin{equation} \label{Imualpha}
I(\mu_{\alpha}) = \min_{\mu \in \mathcal M_{\alpha, \sigma}} I(\mu)
\end{equation}
and $\mu_{\alpha}$ is the unique minimizer within the class \eqref{Malphasigma}.
Furthermore, there is a constant $\ell_{\alpha}$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{Umualpha}
U^{\mu_{\alpha}}(x)
\begin{cases} = \ell_{\alpha}, & \text{ for } x \in \supp(\sigma-\mu_{\alpha}), \\
\leq \ell_{\alpha}, & \text{ for } x \in [-1,1],
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
and $\mu_{\alpha}$ is the only measure $\mu$ in
$\mathcal M_{\alpha, \sigma}$ such that $U^{\mu}(x) = \ell$ is constant
on $\supp(\sigma - \mu)$ and $U^{\mu}(x) \leq \ell$ on $[-1,1]$
for a certain constant $\ell$.
Because of the upper constraint $\mu \leq \sigma$, the
measure $\mu_{\alpha}$ is called a constrained equilibrium
measure, see \cite{BKMM07,DS98}. The saturated region $S$ is
where $ \frac{d\mu_{\alpha}}{dx} = \frac{d\sigma}{dx} = \frac{1}{2}$
and in view of \eqref{mualpha} we have $S = [-1,-r] \cup [r,1]$.
The constraint is not active in the region where $ \frac{d\mu_{\alpha}}{dx} < \frac{1}{2}$.
This is the non-saturated region and its closure is $\supp(\sigma-\mu_{\alpha}) = [-r,r]$.
\subsection{Two lemmas}
The connection between potential theory and the asymptotics theory of
polynomials is well-known. If $P$ is a monic polynomial and
\[ \nu = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{x : P(x) = 0} \delta_x \]
is its normalized zero counting measure (each zero is included in the sum according to
its multiplicity), then
\[ \frac{1}{n} \log |P(x)| = - U^{\nu}(x). \]
If $(P_n)_n$ is a sequence of monic polynomials, and $(\nu_n)_n$
is the corresponding sequence of normalized zero counting measures then
the convergence of $(\nu_n)_n$ contains information on the $n$th root asymptotic behavior of the polynomials.
We need two such results.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma21}
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\rm (a)] Let $(P_n)_n$ be a sequence of monic polynomials,
$\deg P_n \leq \alpha n$, having real and simple zeros, such that
the zeros of $P_n$ are separated by the points of $E_n$ for every $n$.
Suppose that the sequence of normalized zero counting measures $(\nu_n)_n$
where $\nu_n = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{x: P_n(x)=0} \delta_x$,
has a weak$^*$ limit $\mu$ as $n \to \infty$.
Then $\mu \leq \sigma$, and
\begin{equation}\label{minUmu1} \liminf_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \log \| P_n \|_{E_n}
\geq - \min_{x \in \supp(\sigma-\mu)} U^{\mu}(x).
\end{equation}
\item[\rm (b)] If $(P_n^*)_n$ is the sequence of extremal polynomials
satisfying \eqref{Pnextremal} then $\nu_n \stackrel{\ast}{\to} \mu_{\alpha}$ as
$ n \to \infty$, and equality holds
\begin{equation} \label{minUmu2}
\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \log \| P_n^* \|_{E_n}
= - \min_{x \in \supp(\sigma-\mu)} U^{\mu_{\alpha}}(x). \end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Part (a) is Lemma 4.2 of \cite{Rak96}, where it is stated
under the assumption that the zeros are in $[-1,1]$.
See Lemma 5.5 in \cite{DS98} for the statement without
this extra assumption.
Part (b) is in \cite[Theorem 2]{Rak96} or \cite[Theorem 3.3]{DS98}.
\end{proof}
Part (b) of Lemma \ref{lemma21} will be used in the proof of the lower bound,
while part (a) will be used in the proof of the upper bound, see the proof of Proposition \ref{prop32}.
\begin{remark} \label{remark22}
Note that the logarithmic potential $U^{\mu}$ of a positive measure $\mu$
is a lower semi-continuous function \cite{ST97}
and therefore its minimum over a compact (as in \eqref{minUmu1} and \eqref{minUmu2}, as well as in \eqref{minUmu3} below) exists.
In the situation of Lemma \ref{lemma21}, however, the logarithmic potential $U^{\mu}$
is actually continuous.
This follows from $\mu \leq \sigma$ and the fact that $U^{\sigma}$
is continuous. Indeed, $U^{\sigma-\mu}$ is lower semi-continuous,
and therefore $U^{\mu} = U^{\sigma} - U^{\sigma-\mu}$ is upper semi-continuous
as well, hence continuous.
\end{remark}
The second lemma is probably well-known, but I could not find an
appropriate reference for it.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma22}
Suppose $(P_n)_n$ is a sequence of monic polynomials, $\deg P_n \leq \alpha n$,
such that the zeros of all $P_n$ are in a compact set.
Suppose that the sequence of normalized zero counting measures $(\nu_n)_n$
has a weak$^*$ limit $\mu$ as $n \to \infty$.
Then
\begin{equation} \label{minUmu3}
\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \log \|P_n\|_{[-1,1]} = - \min_{x \in [-1,1]} U^{\mu}(x).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By the principle of descent \cite{ST97} we have
\[ U^{\mu}(x^*) \leq \liminf_{n \to \infty} U^{\nu_n}(x_n) \]
whenever $x_n \to x^*$.
Since $|P_n(x)| = e^{-n U^{\nu_n}(x)}$, this means that
\[ \limsup_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \log |P_n(x_n)| \leq - U^{\mu}(x^*)
\leq - \min_{x \in [-1,1]} U^{\mu}(x), \]
whenever $(x_n)_n$ is a convergent sequence with a limit $x^* \in [-1,1]$.
Taking $x_n \in [-1,1]$ with $|P_n(x_n)| = \|P_n\|_{[-1,1]}$
and passing to convergent subsequences if necessary, we then find
\begin{equation} \label{lemma21a}
\limsup_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \log \| P_n\|_{[-1,1]} \leq - \min_{x\in [-1,1]} U^{\mu}(x).
\end{equation}
By the lower envelope theorem \cite{ST97} we have
\begin{equation} \label{lemma21b}
U^{\mu}(x) = \lim_{n \to \infty} U^{\nu_n}(x) \quad \text{q.e.} \end{equation}
where q.e.\ means quasi everywhere, i.e., the exceptional set is
a polar set (a small set for potential theory). The limit \eqref{lemma21b} means
\begin{equation} \label{lemma21c}
\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \log |P_n(x)| = - U^{\mu}(x)
\quad \text{q.e.}
\end{equation}
Let $x_0 \in [-1,1]$ be such that
\begin{equation} \label{lemma21d}
U^{\mu}(x_0) = \min_{x\in [-1,1]} U^{\mu}(x).
\end{equation}
Note that the minimum exists since $U^{\mu}$ is lower semicontinuous.
Let $\varepsilon > 0$. Then we claim that
\begin{equation} \label{lemma21e}
\{x \in [-1,1] \mid U^{\mu}(x) < U^{\mu}(x_0) + \varepsilon \}
\end{equation}
is not a polar set. This is easy to see if $U^{\mu}$ is a continuous
function, since then \eqref{lemma21e}
contains a non-empty interval and this is not a polar set, see e.g.\
\cite[Example 5.2.7]{Helms}.
If $U^{\mu}$ is not continuous, then we can come to the same
conclusion, if we use certain more advanced
results from potential theory, in particular around thinness and the fine
topology, which we will not explain here. The set
$\{ x \in \mathbb C \mid U^{\mu}(x) < U^{\mu}(x_0) + \varepsilon \}$
is an open neighborhood of $x_0$ in the fine topology,
and $[-1,1]$ is not thin at $x_0 \in [-1,1]$, see \cite[Corollary 6.7.8]{Helms}.
Therefore \eqref{lemma21e} is not a polar set.
Knowing that \eqref{lemma21e} is not polar, we conclude from \eqref{lemma21c} that
there exists $x_1 \in [-1,1]$ with
$U^{\mu}(x_1) < U^{\mu}(x_0) + \varepsilon$ and the limit \eqref{lemma21c} holds for $x=x_1$.
Then by the above and \eqref{lemma21d}
\begin{align} \nonumber
\liminf_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \log \| P_n\|_{[-1,1]}
& \geq \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \log |P_n(x_1)|
= - U^{\mu}(x_1) \\ \label{lemma21f}
& > - U^{\mu}(x_0) - \varepsilon
= - \min_{x \in [-1,1]} U^{\mu}(x) - \varepsilon. \end{align}
Then the lemma follows from \eqref{lemma21a} and \eqref{lemma21f},
since $\varepsilon > 0$ is arbitrary.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Conclusion of the proof of the lower bound}
We apply the two lemmas to the
extremal polynomials $P_n^*$ satisfying \eqref{Pnextremal}.
By Lemma \ref{lemma21} (b) we have
\begin{equation} \label{PnonXin}
\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \log \| P_n^*\|_{E_n}
= - \min_{x \in [-r,r]} U^{\mu_{\alpha}}(x), \end{equation}
since $\supp(\sigma-\mu_{\alpha}) = [-r,r]$ by \eqref{mualpha}.
From Lemma \ref{lemma22} and \eqref{nuPnlimit} we get
\begin{equation} \label{PnonI}
\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \log \| P_n^* \|_{[-1,1]}
= - \min_{x \in [-1,1]} U^{\mu_{\alpha}}(x).
\end{equation}
Combining \eqref{PnonXin} and \eqref{PnonI} we obtain
\begin{equation} \label{limPn}
\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{\| P_n^* \|_{[-1,1]}}{\|P_n^*\|_{E_n}}
= \min_{x \in [-r,r]} U^{\mu_{\alpha}}(x) - \min_{x \in [-1,1]}
U^{\mu_{\alpha}}(x).
\end{equation}
The limit \eqref{lowerbound2} and thereby the lower bound \eqref{lowerbound}
follows from \eqref{limPn} and the following proposition.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop24}
We have
\begin{equation} \label{CalphaUmualpha}
C(\alpha) =
\min_{x \in [-r,r]} U^{\mu_{\alpha}}(x) - \min_{x \in [-1,1]}
U^{\mu_{\alpha}}(x) \end{equation}
with $C(\alpha)$ as in \eqref{Calpha} above.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The derivative of $U^{\mu_{\alpha}}$ is a principal value integral
that can be calculated explicitly. The result is
\begin{align} \nonumber \frac{d}{dx} U^{\mu_{\alpha}}(x)
& = - \fint \frac{d\mu_{\alpha}(y)}{x-y} \\
& = \frac{1}{2} \log\left(1-x^2\right) - \log\left(\alpha + \sqrt{x^2-r^2}\right), \label{Identity1}
\qquad \text{for } r < x < 1.
\end{align}
We give the details of the calculations for \eqref{Identity1} later, after
finishing the main line of the argument.
The derivative \eqref{Identity1} is negative for $r < x < 1$.
Therefore (and by symmetry) the minimum of $U^{\mu_{\alpha}}(x)$
over $[-1,-r] \cup[r,1]$ is at $x= \pm 1$. Also $U^{\mu_{\alpha}}$ is constant
on $[-r,r]$ by \eqref{Umualpha}. Hence
\[ \min_{x \in [-r,r]} U^{\mu_{\alpha}}(x) - \min_{x \in [-1,1]} U^{\mu_{\alpha}}(x) = U^{\mu_{\alpha}}(r) - U^{\mu_{\alpha}}(1). \]
In view of \eqref{Identity1} and the fundamental theorem of calculus, we arrive at
\eqref{CalphaUmualpha} provided that
\begin{equation} \label{Identity2}
C(\alpha) = \int_{r}^1 \left(
\log\left(\alpha + \sqrt{x^2-r^2} \right)
- \frac{1}{2} \log\left(1-x^2\right) \right) dx,
\end{equation}
with $r = r(\alpha) = \sqrt{1-\alpha^2}$.
Thus the proof of the proposition is complete up to the verification of the two
identities \eqref{Identity1} and \eqref{Identity2} to which we turn next.
\paragraph{\it Proof of the identity \eqref{Identity1}.}
By \eqref{mualpha} and \eqref{mualpha2} the principal value integral in \eqref{Identity1} (with $x \in (r,1)$) splits into two parts
\begin{align} \nonumber
\fint \frac{d\mu_{\alpha}(y)}{x-y}
& = \frac{1}{2} \fint_{-1}^1 \frac{1}{x-y} dy
- \frac{1}{\pi} \int_{-r}^r \frac{1}{x-y} \arccos \left( \frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{1-y^2}}\right) dy \\
& = \frac{1}{2} \log (1+x) - \frac{1}{2} \log(1-x)
- I_{\alpha}(x) \label{Identity1a}
\end{align}
where
\[ I_{\alpha}(x) = \frac{1}{\pi} \int_{-r}^r \frac{1}{x-y} \arccos \left(\frac{\alpha}{\sqrt{1-y^2}}\right) dy \]
is a usual integral (not a principal value integral)
that converges for every $x > r$.
We integrate by parts
\[ I_{\alpha}(x) = -\frac{\alpha}{\pi} \int_{-r}^r \log(x-y) \frac{y}{1-y^2} \frac{1}{\sqrt{r^2-y^2}} dy, \quad x > r, \]
and then compute the derivative
\begin{align*}
\frac{d}{dx} I_{\alpha}(x) & =
- \frac{\alpha}{\pi} \int_{-r}^r \frac{1}{x-y} \frac{y}{1-y^2} \frac{1}{\sqrt{r^2-y^2}} dy \\
& = - \frac{\alpha x}{1-x^2} \frac{1}{\sqrt{x^2-r^2}}
- \frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{x-1} + \frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{x+1}
\end{align*}
by first turning the integral into an integral on a contour
around the interval $[-r,r]$ in the complex plane, and then
evaluating it by the residue theorem for the exterior domain.
The result can be integrated again to give
\begin{equation} \label{Identity1b} I_{\alpha}(x) =
- \log\left(\alpha + \sqrt{x^2-r^2}\right) + \log (1+x),
\qquad x > r,
\end{equation}
where we note that the constant of integration vanishes since $I_{\alpha}(x) \to 0$
as $x \to + \infty$.
Using this in \eqref{Identity1a} we obtain \eqref{Identity1}.
\paragraph{\it Proof of the identity \eqref{Identity2}.}
Observe that \eqref{Identity2} holds for $\alpha = 0$
since then both sides are equal to $0$.
Thus it is enough to show that the $\alpha$-derivatives of the two
sides agree.
For the left-hand side of \eqref{Identity2} we have by \eqref{Calpha}
\begin{equation} \label{dCalpha}
\frac{d}{d\alpha} C(\alpha) = \frac{\log(1+\alpha) - \log(1-\alpha)}{2}. \end{equation}
For the right-hand side we first compute the $\alpha$-derivative
of the integrand. Using $r= r(\alpha) = \sqrt{1-\alpha^2}$
we find by direct calculation
\[ \frac{d}{d \alpha} \left(
\log\left(\alpha + \sqrt{x^2-r^2} \right)
- \frac{1}{2} \log\left(1-x^2\right) \right)
= \frac{1}{\sqrt{x^2-r^2}}. \]
The integrand of \eqref{Identity2} vanishes
at $x = r$, and thus we obtain the following derivative of
the right hand side of \eqref{Identity2}
\begin{align*}
\int_r^1 \frac{1}{\sqrt{x^2-r^2}} dx
& = \left. \log \left(x + \sqrt{x^2-r^2}\right) \right|_{x=r}^{x=1} \\
& = \log\left(1+ \sqrt{1-r^2}\right) - \log r \\
& = \log \left(1+ \alpha^2\right) - \frac{1}{2} \log(1-\alpha)
\end{align*}
which after simplification agrees with \eqref{dCalpha}.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of the upper bound} \label{section3}
To prove the upper bound \eqref{upperbound} we start by
showing that the extremal polynomial $p_n^*$ has only real
zeros that are separated by the $n$-grid $E_n$.
\subsection{Zeros of the extremal polynomial}
We fix $0 < \alpha < 1$. For each $n$, we take a polynomial $p_n^*$
of degree $\leq \alpha n$ as in \eqref{pnstar} that we normalize
such that
\begin{equation} \label{pnstarnorm}
\| p_n^* \|_{[-1,1]} = 1 = p_n^*(x_n^*) \end{equation}
for some $x_n^* \in [-1,1]$. It is clear that $x_n^* \not\in E_n$
since otherwise $\| p_n \|_{E_n} = 1$, and the polynomial
would not maximize the ratio.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma31}
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\rm (a)] The polynomial $p_n^*$ minimizes
$\| p\|_{E_n}$ among all polynomials $p$
of degree $\leq \alpha n$ with $p(x_n^*) = 1$.
\item[\rm (b)] The polynomial $q_n^*$ defined by
\begin{equation} \label{qndef}
q_n^*(x) = x^{\lfloor \alpha n \rfloor}
p_n^*\left(x_n^* + \tfrac{1}{x}\right) \end{equation}
is a monic polynomial of degree $\lfloor \alpha n \rfloor$
that minimizes the weighted uniform norm
\begin{equation} \label{wnorm}
\max_{x \in \Sigma_n} \left| x^{-\lfloor \alpha n\rfloor} q(x)\right|,
\end{equation}
among all monic polynomials of degree $\lfloor \alpha n \rfloor$,
where $\Sigma_n$ is the transformed grid,
\begin{equation} \label{Sigman}
\quad \Sigma_n = \{ (x-x_n^*)^{-1} \mid x \in E_n \}.
\end{equation}
\item[\rm (c)]
$p_n^*$ has only simple real zeros with at least
$\lfloor \alpha n \rfloor - 1$ zeros in $[-1,1]$,
\item[\rm (d)] The zeros of $p_n^*$ are separated by the
points in the $n$-grid $E_n$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(a) Suppose $p$ is a polynomial of degree $\alpha n$ with $p(x_n^*) = 1$ and $\|p\|_{E_n} < \| p_n^* \|_{E_n}$.
Since $x_n^* \in [-1,1]$ and $p(x_n^*) = 1$, we then have $\| p \|_{[-1,1]} \geq 1 = \| p_n^*\|_{[-1,1]}$, and therefore
\[ \frac{\| p\|_{[-1,1]}}{\| p\|_{E_n}} >
\frac{\| p_n^* \|_{[-1,1]}}{\| p_n^*\|_{E_n}} \]
which contradicts the extremal property \eqref{pnstar} of $p_n^*$.
\medskip
(b) It is easy to see that \eqref{qndef} is indeed a polynomial of
degree $\lfloor \alpha n \rfloor$ and it is monic because $p_n^*(x_n^*) = 1$.
Likewise, we associate to any polynomial $p$ of degree $\leq \alpha n$
with $p(x_n^*) = 1$ the monic polynomial
$q(x) = x^{\lfloor \alpha n\rfloor} p(x_n^*+ \frac{1}{x})$ of degree $\lfloor \alpha n \rfloor$.
Then
\[ p(x) = (x-x_n^*)^{\lfloor \alpha n\rfloor} q\left(\tfrac{1}{x-x_n^*}\right) \]
and, with $\Sigma_n$ as in \eqref{wnorm}
\begin{align*} \| p \|_{E_n} & =
\max_{x \in E_n} \left|(x-x_n^*)^{\lfloor \alpha n\rfloor} q\left(\tfrac{1}{x-x_n^*}\right) \right| = \max_{x \in \Sigma_n}
\left| w(x) q(x) \right|
\end{align*}
with
\[ w(x) = |x|^{-\lfloor \alpha n \rfloor}. \]
Because of part (a) we see that $q_n^*$ minimizes
$\| w q \|_{\Sigma_n}$ among monic polynomials of degree
$\lfloor \alpha n \rfloor$.
\medskip
(c) $q_n^*$ has only real zeros. Indeed if $z_0$
were a non-real zero of $q_n^*$ then
\[ q(x) = \frac{x-\Re z_0}{x-z_0} q_n^*(x) \]
would be a monic polynomial of the same degree satisfying
$|q(x)| < |q_n^*(x)|$ for every real $x$ that is not a zero of $q_n^*$.
This would lead to a contradiction with part (b).
Also the zeros of $q_n^*$ are simple, since if $x_0$ is a higher
order real zero then for small enough $\varepsilon > 0$ the
monic polynomial
\[ q(x) = \frac{(x-x_0-\varepsilon)(x-x_0+\varepsilon) }{(x-x_0)^2} q_n^*(x) \]
would have a smaller weighted norm $\| wq\|_{\Sigma_n}$ than $q_n^*$.
Because of \eqref{qndef} it then follows that $p_n^*$ has only
simple real zeros as well, since any zero $x_0 \neq 0$ of $q_n^*$ corresponds
to the zero $x_n^* + \frac{1}{x_0}$ of $p_n^*$.
Since $q_n^*$ has $\lfloor \alpha n \rfloor$ simple real zeros, at
least $\lfloor \alpha n \rfloor -1$ of them are different from $0$,
and thus $p_n^*$ has at least that number of simple real
zeros.
In particular $p_n^*$ has degree $\geq \lfloor \alpha n \rfloor - 1$.
\medskip
(d)
The zeros of $q_n^*$ are separated by the points of $\Sigma_n$.
Indeed if $x_1 < x_2$ are two zeros of $q_n^*$ and the
interval $[x_1,x_2]$ would not contain any points of $\Sigma_n$
then
\[ x \mapsto \frac{(x-x_1+\varepsilon)(x-x_2-\varepsilon)}{(x-x_1)(x-x_2)} q_n^*(x) \]
would be a monic polynomial of the same degree with a strictly
smaller weighted norm $\| w q_n \|_{\Sigma_n} <
\| wq_n^* \|_{\Sigma_n}$, provided $\varepsilon > 0$
is small enough, which would contradict part (b).
This in turn implies that in between
any two zeros of $p_n^*$ there is a gridpoint of $E_n$, which gives
part (d).
\end{proof}
\subsection{The functional $J$}
Recall from \eqref{Imualpha} that $\mu_{\alpha}$ minimizes $I(\mu)$ among measures
$\mu \in \mathcal M_{\alpha,\sigma}$.
We consider another functional
\begin{equation} \label{Jmudef}
J(\mu) = \min_{x \in \supp(\sigma-\mu)} U^{\mu}(x)
- \min_{x \in [-1,1]} U^{\mu}(x) \end{equation}
on measures $\mu \in \mathcal M_{\alpha,\sigma}$.
Note that by Proposition \ref{prop24} we have
\begin{equation} \label{Jmualpha}
J(\mu_{\alpha}) = C(\alpha) > 0, \end{equation}
since $\supp(\sigma-\mu_{\alpha}) = [-r,r]$.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop32}
We have
\[ \limsup_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \log \frac{\| p_n^* \|_{[-1,1]}}{\| p_n^*\|_{E_n}}
\leq \sup_{\mu \in \mathcal M_{\alpha,\sigma}} J(\mu).
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We start by taking a subsequence $\mathcal N \subset \mathbb N$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{pnstarratio1}
\lim_{\mathcal N \ni n \to \infty}
\frac{1}{n} \log \frac{\| p_n^*\|_{[-1,1]}}{\|p_n^*\|_{E_n}}
= \limsup_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \log
\frac{\| p_n^* \|_{[-1,1]}}{\|p_n^* \|_{E_n}}. \end{equation}
The zeros of $p_n^*$ may not be uniformly bounded. However, by Lemma \ref{lemma31}(c), there is at most one zero outside $[-2,2]$. If there is such
a zero, say $x_0$, then we set
\begin{equation} \label{pnhat1}
\widehat{p}_n(x) = \kappa_n^{-1} \frac{p_n^*(x)}{x-x_0},
\end{equation}
where $\kappa_n$ is the leading coefficient of $p_n^*$. Otherwise we set
\begin{equation} \label{pnhat2}
\widehat{p}_n(x) = \kappa_n^{-1} p_n^*(x). \end{equation}
Then $\widehat{p}_n$ is a monic polynomial of degree
$\lfloor \alpha n \rfloor$ or $\lfloor \alpha n \rfloor - 1$.
In case \eqref{pnhat2} we clearly have
\begin{equation} \label{pnhatratio1}
\frac{ \| p_n^*\|_{[-1,1]}}{\| p_n^*\|_{E_n}}
= \frac{ \| \widehat{p}_n \|_{[-1,1]}}{\| \widehat{p}_n\|_{E_n}},
\end{equation}
while in case \eqref{pnhat1} we can claim that
\begin{equation} \label{pnhatratio2} \frac{1}{3} \frac{\| p_n^*\|_{[-1,1]}}{\|p_n^*\|_{E_n}} \leq \frac{\| \widehat{p}_n\|_{[-1,1]}}{\|\widehat{p}_n\|_{E_n}} \leq 3 \frac{\| p_n^*\|_{[-1,1]}}{\|p_n^*\|_{E_n}}. \end{equation}
To obtain \eqref{pnhatratio2} we note that since $|x_0| > 2$
we have $|x_0|-1 \leq |x-x_0| \leq |x_0|+1$ for $x \in [-1,1]$,
so that
\[ |\kappa_n^{-1}| \frac{|p_n*(x)|}{|x_0|+1} \leq | \widehat{p}_n(x)| \leq |\kappa_n^{-1}| \frac{|p_n^*(x)|}{|x_0|-1}, \qquad \text{for } x \in [-1,1]. \]
Taking the supremum over $x \in [-1,1]$ and over $x\in E_n$, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\frac{|\kappa_n^{-1}|}{|x_0|+1} \|p_n^*\|_{[-1,1]} \leq \| \widehat{p}_n\|_{[-1,1]} \leq \frac{|\kappa_n^{-1}|}{|x_0|-1} \|p_n^*\|_{[-1,1]}, \\
\frac{|\kappa_n^{-1}|}{|x_0|+1}|\kappa_n^{-1}|
\|p_n^*\|_{E_n} \leq \| \widehat{p}_n\|_{E_n} \leq
\frac{|\kappa_n^{-1}|}{|x_0|-1} \|p_n^*\|_{E_n}. \end{align*}
Taking ratios of these inequalities leads to \eqref{pnhatratio2} since $\frac{|x_0|+1}{|x_0|-1} <3$ for $|x_0| > 2$.
From \eqref{pnstarratio1} \eqref{pnhatratio1}, \eqref{pnhatratio2} it then follows that
\begin{equation} \label{pnstarratio2}
\limsup_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \frac{\|p_n^*\|_{[-1,1]}}{\|p_n^*\|_{E_n}}
= \lim_{\mathcal N \ni n \to \infty}
\frac{1}{n} \log \frac{\| \widehat{p}_n\|_{[-1,1]}}{\|\widehat{p}_n\|_{E_n}}.
\end{equation}
Next, by taking a further subsequence if necessary, we may also
assume that the sequence $(\nu_n)_n$ of normalized zero counting measures, i.e.,
\[ \nu_n = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{x : \widehat{p}_n(x) = 0} \delta_x \]
converges in the weak$^*$ sense as $n \to \infty$ with $n \in \mathcal N$.
Here we use Helly's selection theorem, and Lemma \ref{lemma31} (c).
By Lemma \ref{lemma31} (d) the weak$^*$ limit, say $\mu$, belongs to
$\mathcal M_{\alpha, \sigma}$.
Now we apply Lemmas \ref{lemma21} and \ref{lemma22} to the polynomials $\widehat{p}_n$.
From part (a) of Lemma~\ref{lemma21} we get
\[ \liminf_{\mathcal N \ni n \to \infty}
\frac{1}{n} \log \| \widehat{p}_n\|_{E_n} \geq
- \min_{x \in \supp(\sigma-\mu)} U^{\mu}(x) \]
and from Lemma \ref{lemma22}
\[ \lim_{\mathcal N \ni n \to \infty}
\frac{1}{n} \log \| \widehat{p}_n\|_{[-1,1]} =
- \min_{x \in [-1,1]} U^{\mu}(x). \]
These limits and \eqref{pnstarratio2} then imply that
\[ \limsup_{ n \to \infty}
\frac{1}{n} \log \frac{\| p_n^*\|_{[-1,1]}}{\|p_n^*\|_{E_n}}
\leq J(\mu) \]
and the proposition since $\mu \in \mathcal M_{\alpha,\sigma}$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Conclusion of the proof of the upper bound}
In view of Proposition \ref{prop32} it remains to show
that $\sup\limits_{\mu \in \mathcal M_{\alpha,\sigma}} J(\mu) = C(\alpha)$
in order to obtain \eqref{upperbound}. This is the final result of the paper.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop33} For every $\mu \in \mathcal M_{\alpha,\sigma}$
with $\mu \neq \mu_{\alpha}$ we hae
\begin{equation} \label{Jextremal}
J(\mu) < J(\mu_{\alpha}) = C(\alpha).
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} We already noted in \eqref{Jmualpha} that $J(\mu_{\alpha}) = C(\alpha) > 0$.
Let $\mu \in \mathcal M_{\alpha,\sigma}$ with $\mu \neq \mu_{\alpha}$.
Take $x_0 \in [-1,1]$ with
\begin{equation} \label{minprinc1} U^{\mu}(x_0) = \min_{x\in [-1,1]} U^{\mu}(x).
\end{equation}
If $x_0 \in \supp(\sigma-\mu)$, then the minimimu of $U^{\mu}$ over
$\supp(\sigma-\mu)$ is also attained at $x_0$, and it would follow from \eqref{Jmudef} that $J(\mu) = 0$.
Then the strict inequality \eqref{Jextremal} holds.
Hence we may assume that $x_0 \in [-1,1] \setminus \supp(\sigma-\mu)$.
Since $\mu \leq \sigma$ and $\mu_{\alpha} \leq \sigma$ we see that
both $U^{\mu}$ and $U^{\mu_{\alpha}}$ are continuous functions on $\mathbb C$,
see also Remark \ref{remark22}, and they are
both harmonic in $\mathbb \setminus [-1,1]$.
Also $\mu \geq \mu_{\alpha}$ on $[-1,1] \setminus \supp(\sigma-\mu)$,
and therefore
$U^{\mu - \mu_{\alpha}}$ is superharmonic on $\mathbb C \setminus \supp(\sigma-\mu)$.
It has a finite limit at infinity since $\mu$ and $\mu_{\alpha}$
have the same total mass.
The minimum principle for superharmonic functions \cite{Helms,ST97}
then tells us that the minimum of $U^{\mu-\mu_{\alpha}}$ is taken
on $\supp(\sigma-\mu)$ only. In particular, since $x_0 \not\in \supp(\sigma-\mu)$
\begin{equation} \label{minprinc}
U^{\mu - \mu_{\alpha}}(x_0) >
\min_{x \in \supp(\sigma-\mu)} U^{\mu-\mu_{\alpha}}(x).
\end{equation}
Combining \eqref{minprinc} with the obvious inequality (since $\supp(\sigma-\mu) \subset [-1,1]$)
\begin{align*}
\min_{x \in \supp(\sigma-\mu)} U^{\mu - \mu_{\alpha}}(x)
& \geq \min_{x \in \supp(\sigma-\mu)} U^{\mu}(x)
- \max_{x \in [-1,1]} U^{\mu_{\alpha}}(x),
\end{align*}
we obtain
\begin{align*} U^{\mu}(x_0) - U^{\mu_{\alpha}}(x_0) >
\min_{x \in \supp(\sigma-\mu)} U^{\mu}(x) -
\max_{x \in [-1,1]} U^{\mu_{\alpha}}(x), \end{align*}
which leads to
\begin{align} \nonumber
\min_{x \in \supp(\sigma-\mu)} U^{\mu}(x) - U^{\mu}(x_0)
& < \max_{x \in [-1,1]} U^{\mu_{\alpha}}(x) - U^{\mu_{\alpha}}(x_0) \\
& \leq \max_{x \in [-1,1]} U^{\mu_{\alpha}}(x) -
\min_{x \in [-1,1]} U^{\mu_{\alpha}}(x). \label{minprinc2}
\end{align}
The left-hand side of \eqref{minprinc2} is equal to $J(\mu)$ because
of \eqref{Jmudef} and \eqref{minprinc1}.
For the right-hand side, we note that by the special property \eqref{Umualpha}
of $U^{\mu_{\alpha}}$ we have
\[ \max_{x \in [-1,1]} U^{\mu_{\alpha}}(x) = \ell_{\alpha}
= \min_{x \in \supp(\sigma-\mu_{\alpha})} U^{\mu_{\alpha}}(x), \]
and therefore the right-hand side of \eqref{minprinc2} is equal to $J(\mu_{\alpha})$. Thus $J(\mu) < J(\mu_{\alpha})$ and the proposition is proved.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
According to Proposition \ref{prop33} the constrained equilibrium measure
$\mu_{\alpha}$ is the unique maximizer of $J(\mu)$ among measures $\mu \in \mathcal M_{\alpha,\sigma}$.
We may conclude from this that the sequence of normalized zero counting
measures of the extremal polynomials $p_n^*$ tends to the constrained
equilibrium measure $\mu_{\alpha}$ as $n \to \infty$.
This follows from the proof of Proposition \ref{prop32}, combined with the proven
fact that
\[ \lim_{n\to \infty}
\frac{1}{n} \log \frac{\| p_n^*\|_{[-1,1]}}{\|p_n^*\|_{E_n}} = C(\alpha), \]
as this gives that the weak$^*$ limit of any convergent subsequence is a measure
$\mu \in \mathcal M_{\alpha, \sigma}$ with $J(\mu) = C(\alpha)$.
Because of \eqref{Jextremal} this limit has to be $\mu_{\alpha}$, and thus
by a compactness argument the full sequence tends to $\mu_{\alpha}$ indeed.
\end{remark}
\subsection*{Acknowledgement} I want to thank Daan Huybrechs and Nick Trefethen for
their interest in this work, for useful discussions, and for
stimulating me to write the details of the proof of Theorem \ref{theorem11}.
The author was
supported by the long term structural funding "Methusalem grant of the Flemish Government"
and by FWO Flanders projects EOS 30889451 and G.0910.20.
|
\section{Introduction}
Given a graph $X=(V,E)$ with adjacency matrix $A$, a continuous-time quantum walk on $X$ is defined
by the time-dependent unitary matrix $U(t) = e^{-iAt}$. This natural quantum generalization of
continuous-time random walks is important for designing quantum algorithms. Childs \etal \cite{Childs_2003}
showed that a continuous-time quantum walk algorithm provides an exponential time speedup for an
explicit search problem on graphs.
Subsequently, Childs \cite{c09} showed that continuous-time quantum walk is a universal model of
quantum computation.
Our focus in this paper is motivated by Bose \cite{b03} who studied quantum communication via
continuous-time quantum walk on graphs. We say that there is {\em pretty good state transfer} in a graph $X$
from vertex $a$ to vertex $b$ if for any $\epsilon > 0$, there is a time $t$ so that
$\norm{U(t)e_a - \gamma e_b} \le \epsilon$ where $\gamma$ is a phase factor.
Here, $e_a$ denotes the unit vector with $1$ at position $a$ and $0$ elsewhere; similarly for $e_b$.
If $\epsilon = 0$ is achievable, we say there is {\em perfect} state transfer in $X$ from $a$ to $b$
at time $t$.
Kay \cite{k11} proved a monogamy property for perfect state transfer on graphs with real symmetric
adjacency matrices: if there is perfect state transfer from $a$ to $b$ and from $a$ to $c$ then $b=c$.
In contrast, Cameron \etal \cite{USTG} showed that there are {\em oriented} graphs
(whose adjacency matrices are Hermitian with $\pm i$ nonzero entries) where state transfer occurs between
every pair of vertices. This latter property is called {\em universal} state transfer.
Their primary examples are oriented cycles of prime order with universal pretty good
state transfer. A notable exception is the oriented $3$-cycle which exhibits universal
{\em perfect} state transfer.
It was conjectured in \cite{USTG} that the oriented $K_2$ and $3$-cycle are the only oriented
graph with universal perfect state transfer. We prove their conjecture in this work. This confirms
that universal perfect state transfer is an extremely rare phenomenon in oriented graphs.
On the other hand, there are known infinite families of graphs with universal perfect state transfer
but with adjacency matrices that are Hermitian matrices with no restriction on the entries
(see Connelly \etal \cite{UPST}). We call these Hermitian graphs.
Godsil and Lato \cite{gl} proved a strong characterization of perfect state tranfer in oriented graphs
and observed that perfect state transfer always implies periodicity (by the Gelfond-Schneider theorem).
In fact, Godsil \cite{RST} had observed the latter property holds for any adjacency matrix
with algebraic entries.
Our next observation shows that the latter assumption is necessary to guarantee periodicity.
We construct the first infinite family of Hermitian graphs with {\em one-way} perfect state transfer,
where perfect state transfer occurs {\em without} periodicity.
These examples also exhibit a {\em one-time} perfect state transfer property
where perfect state transfer occurs at a single unique time (and never to repeat again).
Godsil and Lato \cite{gl} also introduced a relaxation of universal perfect state transfer
called {\em multiple perfect state transfer}.
We say a graph $X$ has {\em multiple} state transfer on a subset $S \subset V(X)$
of vertices, with $|S| \geq 3$, if state transfer occurs between every pair of vertices of $S$.
An explicit example of a $8$-vertex circulant with multiple perfect state tranfer was given in \cite{gl},
but it was not clear if there are more examples sharing the same properties.
We construct the first infinite family of oriented graphs with multiple perfect state transfer
(which contains the aforementioned $8$-vertex circulant as a special case).
This shows that, unlike universal perfect state transfer, multiple perfect state transfer
is not an extremely rare phenomenon.
It is known that perfect state transfer is closed under the Cartesian graph product.
In this work, under mild assumptions, we show that multiple state transfer
is closed under the rooted graph product (see Godsil and McKay \cite{McKay_1978}).
First, we prove a complete characterization of pretty good state transfer on the rooted product
of the oriented $3$-cycle with stars $K_{1,m}$.
This generalizes a result of Fan and Godsil \cite{Fan_2012} on the double stars.
Next, we consider rooted product with single-looped paths instead of stars.
Let $X$ be a $n$-vertex circulant with universal perfect state transfer and let $P_m^\gamma$ be
a $m$-vertex path with a self-loop of weight $\gamma$ at one of its endpoints.
We prove that the rooted product $X \circ P_m^\gamma$ has multiple pretty good state transfer between
every pair of vertices with self-loop provided $\gamma$ is transcendental.
This generalizes a result of Kempton, Lippner and Yau \cite{kly17} and shows the power of loops
to facilitate multiple state transfer among distant vertices.
In the special case when $X$ is the oriented $3$-cycle, our result strengthens the
experimental observations in Zimbor\'{a}s \etal \cite{zfkwlb} (with the help of self-loops).
\section{Preliminary}
Given a graph $X$ and an associated Hermitian matrix $H$, the transition matrix of its continuous-time quantum walk is
\begin{equation*}
U(t) = e^{-\ii t H}.
\end{equation*}
We call $X$ a {\em Hermitian graph} if we do not assume any additional condition on the entries of $H$.
For the special case where $X$ is an oriented graph, we use the Hermitian matrix $H$ defined as
\begin{equation*}
H_{a,b} =
\begin{cases}
\ii & \text{if there is an arc from $a$ to $b$ in $X$,}\\
-\ii & \text{if there is an arc from $b$ to $a$ in $X$, and}\\
0 & \text{if there is no arc between $a$ and $b$ in $X$.}\\
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Let $\theta_1, \ldots, \theta_d$ be distinct eigenvalues of $H$.
For $r=1,\ldots, d$, let $E_r$ denote the orthogonal projection matrix onto the $\theta_r$-eigenspace of $H$.
Then $E_r E_s = \delta_{r,s} E_r$ and $\sum_r E_r=I$. The spectral decomposition $H=\sum_{r} \theta_r E_r$ gives
\begin{equation*}
U(t) = \sum_{r=1}^d e^{-\ii t \theta_r}E_r.
\end{equation*}
Given a unit vector $v\in \mathbb{C}^n$, the system with initial state $v$ evolves to
$U(t)v=\sum_r e^{-it\theta_r}E_rv$ at time $t$.
Therefore the pair $(\theta_r, E_r)$ with $E_rv=0$ does not influence the state.
We define the \textsl{eigenvalue support} of the vector $v$ to be
$\Phi_v=\{\theta_r: E_r v \neq 0\}$.
In the case $v=e_a$ for some vertex $a$,
we also call $\Phi_{e_a}$ ($\Phi_a$ for short) the eigenvalue support of $a$.
{\em Perfect state transfer} from vertex $a$ to vertex $b$ occurs at time $\tau$ if
\begin{equation}
\label{Eqn:defPST}
U(\tau) e_a=\alpha e_b,
\end{equation}
for some phase factor $\alpha$.
If $a=b$ then we say the quantum walk is {\em periodic at $a$}.
Multiplying $E_r$ to both sides of Equation~(\ref{Eqn:defPST}) gives
\begin{equation}
\label{Eqn:PST}
e^{-\ii \tau \theta_r} E_r e_a = \alpha E_r e_b.
\end{equation}
Hence, for $r=1,\ldots,d$, there exists $q_r(a,b) \in [0, 2\pi)$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{Eqn:Quarrel}
E_r e_a = e^{\ii q_r(a,b)} E_r e_b.
\end{equation}
We say the vertices $a$ and $b$ are {\em strongly cospectral} when this condition is satisfied, and
call $q_r(a,b)$ the {\em quarrel from $a$ to $b$ relative to the eigenvalue $\theta_r$}.
Note that strongly cospectral vertices have the same eigenvalue support.
We study perfect state transfer in oriented graphs and in Hermitian graphs in Sections~\ref{Section:PSTOriented} and \ref{Section:PSTHermitian}.
We give here a characterization of perfect state transfer in Hermitian graphs.
\begin{theorem}
\label{Thm:HermitianPST}
Perfect state transfer occurs from $a$ to $b$ in a Hermitian graph $X$
if and only if
\begin{enumerate}[i.]
\item
\label{Cond:HermitionPST1}
$a$ and $b$ are strongly cospectral vertices with quarrels $q_r(a,b)$, for $\theta_r\in \Phi_a$, and
\item
\label{Cond:HermitionPST2}
for $\theta_r, \theta_s, \theta_h, \theta_{\ell}\in \Phi_a$ such that $h\neq \ell$,
there exist integers $m_{r,s}$ and $m_{h,\ell}$ satisfying
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\theta_r-\theta_s}{\theta_h-\theta_{\ell}} = \frac{q_r(a,b)-q_s(a,b)+2m_{r,s}\pi}{q_h(a,b)-q_{\ell}(a,b)+2m_{h,\ell}\pi}.
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
From Equation~(\ref{Eqn:Quarrel}), we see that perfect state transfer from $a$ to $b$ implies they are strongly cospectral.
Suppose $a$ and $b$ are strongly cospectral with quarrel $q_r(a,b)$, for $\theta_r\in \Phi_a (=\Phi_b)$.
Then Equation~(\ref{Eqn:defPST}) holds if and only if for $\theta_r, \theta_s \in \Phi_a$,
\begin{equation}
\label{Eqn:HermitianPST}
\alpha = e^{\ii \left(q_r(a,b)-\tau \theta_r\right)}=e^{\ii \left(q_s(a,b)-\tau \theta_s\right)}.
\end{equation}
This is equivalent to
\begin{equation*}
e^{\ii \tau \left(\theta_r-\theta_s\right)} = e^{\ii \left(q_r(a,b)-q_s(a,b)\right)}
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\tau \left(\theta_r-\theta_s\right) = q_r(a,b)-q_s(a,b) + 2m_{r,s}\pi,
\end{equation*}
for some integer $m_{r,s}$. Condition~(\ref{Cond:HermitionPST2}) follows immediately.
\end{proof}
We say
the {\em ratio condition on $\Phi_a$} holds if
\begin{equation}
\label{Eqn:Ratio}
\frac{\theta_r-\theta_s}{\theta_h-\theta_{\ell}} \in \QQ
\end{equation}
for $\theta_r, \theta_s, \theta_h, \theta_{\ell}\in \Phi_a$ such that $h\neq \ell$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{Thm:Periodicity}
In a Hermitian graph $X$, $a$ is periodic if and only if the ratio condition on $\Phi_a$ holds.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Note that $q_r(a,a)=0$ for $\theta_r\in \Phi_a$. The result follows immediately from Theorem~\ref{Thm:HermitianPST}.
\end{proof}
In Section~\ref{Section:MPGST}, we consider a relaxation of perfect state transfer. A graph has {\em pretty good state transfer} from $a$ to $b$ if,
for any $\varepsilon > 0$, there is a time $\tau$ satisfying
\begin{equation}
\label{Eqn:defPGST}
\vert U(\tau)_{a,b}\vert \geq 1-\varepsilon.
\end{equation}
Using the proof of Lemma~13.1 in \cite{g12}, we conclude that if there is pretty good state transfer from $a$ to $b$ then $a$ and $b$ are strongly cospectral.
From
\begin{equation*}
U(t)_{a,b} = \sum_{r=1}^d e^{-\ii t \theta_r}e_a^T E_re_b = \sum_{r=1}^d e^{\ii \left(q_r(a,b)-t\theta_r\right)}(E_r)_{b,b},
\end{equation*}
we see that there is pretty good state transfer from $a$ to $b$ if and only if for any $\epsilon >0$, there exists $\tau>0$ and $\delta_{\epsilon} \in \RR$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\vert \tau \theta_r - q_r(a,b) - \delta_{\epsilon} \vert < \epsilon \pmod{2\pi}, \quad \text{for $r\in \Phi_a$.}
\end{equation*}
\begin{theorem} (Kronecker \cite{lz})
\label{Thm:Kron}
Let $\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_d$ and $q_1,\ldots,q_d$ be arbitrary real numbers.
For any $\epsilon>0$, the system of inequalities
\begin{equation*}
|\theta_r\tau - q_r| < \epsilon \pmod{2\pi},
\ \ \
r=1,\ldots,d
\end{equation*}
admits a solution for $\tau$ if and only if, for all set of integers $l_1,\ldots,l_d$,
\begin{equation*}
l_1\theta_1 + \ldots + l_d\theta_d = 0
\end{equation*}
implies
\begin{equation*}
l_1 q_1 + \ldots + l_d q_d = 0\pmod{2\pi}.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}
\label{Thm:PGST}
Let $X$ be Hermitian graph with eigenvalues $\theta_1, \ldots, \theta_d \in \Phi_a$.
Then $X$ has pretty good state transfer from $a$ to $b$ if and only if
the following conditions hold.
\begin{enumerate}[i.]
\item
\label{Cond:PGST1}
The vertices $a$ and $b$ are strongly cospectral with quarrels $q_r(a,b)$, for $r=1,\ldots,d$.
\item
\label{Cond:PGST2}
There exists $\delta\in \RR$ such that, for all integers $l_1,\ldots,l_d$ satisfying
$\sum_{r=1}^d l_r \theta_r = 0$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{Eqn:PGSTK2}
\sum_{r=1}^d l_r \left(q_r(a,b)+\delta\right) = 0 \pmod{2\pi}.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The result follows from Proposition~4.01 of \cite{vanBommel} and Theorem~\ref{Thm:Kron}.
\end{proof}
Let $S$ be a set of vertices in $X$, we say {\em multiple pretty good state transfer} occurs on $S$ if there is pretty good state transfer between any two vertices in $S$.
Section~\ref{Section:MPGST} gives two families of Hermitian graphs that have multiple pretty good state transfer.
\section{Perfect state transfer in oriented graphs}
\label{Section:PSTOriented}
For graphs with real symmetric adjacency matrix, Kay shows that perfect state transfer cannot happen from one vertex to two distinct vertices \cite{k11}. This monogamous behaviour does not hold in Hermitian graphs with non-real entries.
A graph has {\em multiple perfect state transfer} on a set $S$ of at least three vertices if there is perfect state transfer between any two vertices in $S$. When $S=V(X)$, we say $X$ has {\em universal perfect state transfer}. Lemma~22 of \cite{UPST} gives a construction of Hermitian circulants that admit universal perfect state transfer. The oriented 3-cycle is a special
case of this construction. In the same paper, Cameron et al. conjecture that the oriented $K_2$ and the oriented $K_3$ are the only oriented graphs that can have universal perfect state transfer. We confirm this conjecture in Section~\ref{Subsection:UPST}.
In \cite{gl}, Godsil and Lato investigated multiple perfect state transfer in oriented graph where $S$ is a proper subset of $V(X)$. They give an example of an oriented graph on eight vertices that admits multiple perfect state transfer on a set of four vertices.
In Section~\ref{Subsection:MPST}, we extend their example to an infinite family of oriented graphs that have multiple perfect state transfer.
\subsection{Universal perfect state transfer}
\label{Subsection:UPST}
In \cite{USTG}, Cameron et al. show that the oriented $K_2$ and $K_3$ with any orientation admit universal perfect state transfer. They give the following necessary conditions on the Hermitian graphs admitting universal perfect state transfer.
\begin{theorem}
\label{Thm:UPST2014}
Let $H$ be the matrix associated with a Hermitian graph $X$ that admits universal perfect state transfer.
Then the following holds:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
All eigenvalues of $H$ are simple.
\item
If $P$ is a unitary matrix diagonalizing $H$ then $\vert P_{a,b}\vert = \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}$, for $a,b \in V(X)$.
\item
Every vertex in $X$ is periodic.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
Suppose $X$ is an oriented graph on $n$ vertices that has universal perfect state transfer.
Let $H$ be its associated Hermitian matrix with spectral decomposition
\begin{equation*}
H = \sum_{r=1}^n \theta_r E_r.
\end{equation*}
Then $E_r$ has rank one with constant diagonal entries $n^{-1}$. We see that $H^2$ has constant diagonal entries and
the underlying (undirected) graph of $X$ is regular.
Further, it follows from Theorem~6.1 of \cite{gl} that there exists a positive square-free integer $\Delta$ such that $\theta_r \in \ZZ \sqrt{\Delta}$, for $r=1,\ldots,n$. Hence
\begin{equation}
\label{Eqn:mingap}
\min_{r\neq s} \vert \theta_r - \theta_s\vert \geq \sqrt{\Delta}.
\end{equation}
We show in the following lemmas that an oriented graph with universal perfect state transfer can have at most eleven vertices.
\begin{lemma}
\label{Lem:difsqsum}
Let $H$ be a Hermitian matrix of order $n$ with zero diagonal entries. Let $\theta_1\leq \theta_2\leq \cdots \leq \theta_n$ be the eigenvalues of $H$. Then
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{r,s=1}^n \left(\theta_r -\theta_s\right)^2 = 2n \Tr(H^2).
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Observe that $\theta_r-\theta_s$ is an eigenvalue of $\left(H \otimes I_n - I_n\otimes H\right)$, for $r,s=1\ldots,n$.
Hence
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{r,s=1}^n \left(\theta_r -\theta_s\right)^2 = \Tr\left(H \otimes I_n - I_n\otimes H\right)^2
= \Tr \left(H^2 \otimes I_n + I_n\otimes H^2 -2H\otimes H \right).
\end{equation*}
The result follows from $\Tr (H\otimes H)=0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{Lem:boundsigma}
Let $X$ be an oriented graph on $n$ vertices and $m$ edges
with eigenvalues $\theta_1< \cdots <\theta_n$.
Let $\sigma = \min_{r\neq s} \vert \theta_r-\theta_s\vert$. Then
\begin{equation*}
\sigma^2 \frac{n(n^2-1)}{24} \leq m
\quad \text{and}\quad \sigma^2 \leq \frac{12}{n+1}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It follows from the definition of $\sigma$ that $\sigma \vert r-s\vert \leq \vert \theta_r-\theta_s\vert$, and
\begin{equation*}
\sigma^2 \sum_{r,s=1}^n (r-s)^2 \leq \sum_{r,s=1}^n \left(\theta_r -\theta_s\right)^2.
\end{equation*}
The lower bound is
\begin{equation*}
\sigma^2 \sum_{r,s=1}^n (r-s)^2 = \sigma^2 \left(2n \sum_{r=1}^n r^2-2 \left(\sum_{r=1}^n r\right)^2 \right) = \sigma^2\frac{n^2(n^2-1)}{6}.
\end{equation*}
Applying Lemma~\ref{Lem:difsqsum} gives
\begin{equation*}
\sigma^2 \frac{n^2(n^2-1)}{6} \leq 2n \Tr(H^2) = 4mn.
\end{equation*}
The second inequality in the lemma follows immediately from $m\leq \binom{n}{2}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
\label{Cor:11V}
Let $X$ be an oriented graph on $n$ vertices. If $X$ admits universal perfect state transfer then $n\leq 11$.
Further, if $n\geq 6$ then $X$ has integral eigenvalues.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
It follows from Equation~(\ref{Eqn:mingap}) that $\sigma^2 \geq \Delta \geq 1$. The second inequality of
Lemma~\ref{Lem:boundsigma} gives $n\leq 11$.
When $n\geq 6$, we have $\sigma^2 < 2$ which implies $\Delta=1$ and the eigenvalues of $X$ are integers.
\end{proof}
We are ready to rule out universal perfect state transfer in oriented graphs on more than three vertices.
\begin{theorem}
\label{Thm:orientedUPST}
The oriented $K_2$ and $K_3$ are the only oriented graphs admitting universal perfect state transfer.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $X$ is an oriented graph on $n$ vertices that admits universal perfect state transfer.
Then the underlying graph of $X$ is $k$-regular, for some integer $k$.
Let $\theta_1<\cdots<\theta_n$
be the eigenvalues of the Hermitian matrix $H$ associated with $X$. Then $\theta_r \in \ZZ \sqrt{\Delta}$, for some
positive square-free integer $\Delta$.
Since $\ii H$ is a skew-symmetric matrix with entries $\pm 1$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{Eqn:orientedUPST1}
\theta_r=-\theta_{n+1-r} \quad \text{for $r=1,\ldots,n$.}
\end{equation}
Further, the characteristic polynomial of $\ii H$ is equal to the characteristic polynomial of
its underlying graph over $\ZZ_2$.
When $n=4$ or $5$, $C_n$ and $K_n$ are the only regular graphs on $n$ vertices. An exhaustive search rules out oriented graphs on $4$ or $5$ vertices with spectrum satisying the above conditions.
For $n\geq 6$, it follows from Lemma~\ref{Lem:boundsigma} and Corollary~\ref{Cor:11V} that $\sigma=\min_{r\neq s} \vert \theta_r-\theta_s\vert=1$ and
\begin{equation*}
\frac{n^2-1}{12}\leq k \leq n-1.
\end{equation*}
Using this inequality together with the fact that $k$ is even when $n$ is odd, we narrow down to the following possibilities.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
$n$ & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 & 10 & 11\\
\hline
$k$ & 3, 4, 5 & 4, 6 & 6, 7 & 8 & 9 & 10
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Applying Equation~(\ref{Eqn:orientedUPST1}) to $\Tr(H^2)$ yields
\begin{equation*}
nk= 2\sum_{r=1}^{\lfloor \frac{n+1}{2}\rfloor} \theta_r^2.
\end{equation*}
Direct computation returns integral solutions to this equation for only three cases:
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|l}
$n$ & $k$ & underlying graph & Possible spectrum of $\ii H$ \\
\hline
11 & 10 & $K_{11}$ & $0, \pm \ii, \pm 2\ii, \pm 3\ii, \pm 4\ii, \pm 5\ii$\\
7 & 6 &$K_7$ & $0, \pm \ii, \pm 2\ii, \pm 4\ii$\\
7 & 4 & $\overline{C_7}$& $0, \pm \ii, \pm 2\ii, \pm 3\ii$\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
It is straightforward to check that for each case, the characteristic polynomial of the underlying graph is not equal to
the polynomial with the roots listed in the table over $\ZZ_2$.
We conclude that there is no oriented graph on $n\geq 4$ vertices admitting universal perfect state transfer.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Multiple perfect state transfer}
\label{Subsection:MPST}
In \cite{gl}, Godsil and Lato relax the notion of universal perfect state transfer to multiple perfect state transfer on a subset of vertices in oriented graphs.
Let
\begin{equation*}
H_{\overrightarrow{C}_4}= \begin{bmatrix}0&-\ii&0&\ii\\\ii&0&-\ii&0\\0&\ii&0&-\ii\\-\ii&0&\ii&0\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation*}
be the Hermitian matrix of the directed 4-cycle. They show that the oriented graph with Hermitian matrix
\begin{equation*}
\begin{bmatrix} 1&0\\ 0&1 \end{bmatrix} \otimes H_{\overrightarrow{C}_4} + \begin{bmatrix} 0&\ii\\ -\ii&0\end{bmatrix} \otimes J_4
\end{equation*}
has multiple perfect state transfer on a set of four vertices.
Making use of this technical lemma from \cite{GSCQW}, we extend the above example to an infinite family of oriented graphs where multiple perfect state transfer occur.
\begin{lemma}
\label{Lem:Tensor}
Let $A$ and $B$ be Hermitian matrices where $A$ has spectral decomposition $A=\sum_r \theta_r E_r$.
Then
\begin{equation*}
e^{-it(A\otimes B)}=\sum_r E_r\otimes e^{-it\theta_r B}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}
\label{Lem:MPSTconstruction}
Suppose $X$ is an oriented graph on $n$ vertices with associated Hermitian matrix $H_X$, whose eigenvalues are odd integers.
Let $Y$ be the oriented graph with Hermitian matrix
\begin{equation*}
H_Y = I_n \otimes H_{\overrightarrow{C}_4} + H_X \otimes J_4.
\end{equation*}
Then $Y$ admits multiple perfect state transfer on the set $\{4h+1, 4h+2, 4h+3,4h+4\}$, for $h=0,1,\ldots,n-1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $H_X = \sum_{r} \theta_r E_r$ be the spectral decomposition of $H_X$.
Since $I_n \otimes H_{\overrightarrow{C}_4} $ and $H_X\otimes J_4$ commute,
applying Lemma~\ref{Lem:Tensor} gives
\begin{equation*}
e^{-\ii t H_Y} = \left(I_n \otimes e^{-\ii t H_{\overrightarrow{C}_4}}\right) \left(\sum_r E_r \otimes e^{-\ii t \theta_r J_4} \right) = \sum_r E_r \otimes e^{-\ii t \left(H_{\overrightarrow{C}_4}+\theta_rJ_4\right)}.
\end{equation*}
For odd integer $\theta_r$, we have
\begin{equation*}
e^{-\ii \frac{\pi}{4} \left(H_{\overrightarrow{C}_4}+\theta_rJ_4\right)} =
\begin{bmatrix}0&-1&0&0\\0&0&-1&0\\0&0&0&-1\\-1&0&0&0\end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation*}
Hence
\begin{equation*}
e^{-\ii \frac{\pi}{4} H_Y} = I_n \otimes \begin{bmatrix}0&-1&0&0\\0&0&-1&0\\0&0&0&-1\\-1&0&0&0\end{bmatrix},
\end{equation*}
and, for $h=0, 1, \ldots, n-1$, the vertex $4h+1$ has perfect state transfer to $4h+4$, $4h+3$ and $4h+2$ at time $\frac{\pi}{4}$, $\frac{\pi}{2}$
and $\frac{3\pi}{4}$, respectively.
\end{proof}
If $X$ is obtained by orienting all edges in the $(2m+1)$-cube from one bipartition to the other bipartition, then its associated matrix has the form
\begin{equation*}
H_X=\begin{bmatrix} 0 & \ii B\\ -\ii B^T &0\end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation*}
Then $H_X$ has the same spectrum as the adjacency matrix of the (undirected) $(2m+1)$-cube, which consists of only odd integers. Lemma~\ref{Lem:MPSTconstruction} gives an oriented graph admitting multiple perfect state transfer for integer $m\geq 0$. When $m=0$, then $Y$ is the oriented graph given in \cite{gl}.
\section{Perfect state transfer in Hermitian graphs}
\label{Section:PSTHermitian}
We focus on Hermitian graphs with algebraic entries in the first part of this section.
In particular, we study the phase factors when perfect state transfer occurs in these graphs in Section~\ref{Subsection:Phase}.
Suppose $X$ is a Hermitian graph with algebraic entries. By Theorem~6.1 of \cite{RST} and Theorem~\ref{Thm:Periodicity}, if perfect state transfer from $a$ to $b$ occurs then the quantum walk on $X$ is periodic at both $a$ and $b$.
Section~\ref{Subsection:1wayPST} gives examples of Hermitian graphs (with transcendental entries) in which perfect state transfer occurs from $a$ to $b$ but $a$ and $b$ are not periodic.
\subsection{Phase factor}
\label{Subsection:Phase}
We restrict our attention to Hermitian graphs with algebraic entries and extract information about the phase factor when perfect state transfer occurs.
Let $H$ be an algebraic Hermitian matrix. Its characteristic polynomial has algebraic coefficients.
Given spectral decomposition $H=\sum_r \theta_r E_r$, the eigenvalues $\theta_r$'s are algebraic so are the entries in $E_r$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{Thm:Phase1}
Let $H$ be an algebraic matrix associated with a Hermitian graph with spectral decomposition $H=\sum_r \theta_r E_r$. If perfect state transfer occurs from $a$ to $b$ with phase factor $\alpha$, then $\alpha$ is algebraic if and only if
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\theta_r}{\theta_s} \in \QQ,
\end{equation*}
for $\theta_r, \theta_s \in \Phi_a$ such that $\theta_s\neq 0$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose perfect state transfer occurs from $a$ to $b$ at time $\tau$ with algebraic phase factor $\alpha$. It follows from
Equation~(\ref{Eqn:PST}) that $e^{-\ii \tau \theta_r}$ is algebraic, for $\theta_r\in \Phi_a=\Phi_b$.
Applying the Gelfond-Schneider Theorem to
\begin{equation*}
\left(e^{-\ii \tau \theta_s}\right)^{\frac{\theta_r}{\theta_s}} = e^{-\ii \tau \theta_r},
\end{equation*}
for $\theta_r, \theta_s \in \Phi_a$ with $\theta_s\neq 0$, we conclude that $\frac{\theta_r}{\theta_s}$ is rational.
Now suppose $\frac{\theta_s}{\theta_r}\in \QQ$ for $\theta_r, \theta_s \in \Phi_a$ with $\theta_s\neq 0$.
Let $q_r(a,b)$ be the quarrels from $a$ to $b$ relative to $\theta_r\in \Phi_a$. It follows from
Equation~(\ref{Eqn:Quarrel}) that $e^{\ii q_r(a,b)}$ is algebraic.
Applying Equation~(\ref{Eqn:HermitianPST}) yields
\begin{equation*}
\alpha^{\left(\frac{\theta_r}{\theta_s}-1\right)}
= \left(e^{\ii(q_s(a,b)-\tau \theta_s)}\right)^{\frac{\theta_r}{\theta_s}} e^{\ii(\tau\theta_r - q_r(a,b))}
=\left(e^{\ii q_s(a,b)}\right)^{\frac{\theta_r}{\theta_s}} e^{-\ii q_r(a,b)}.
\end{equation*}
The right-hand side is algebraic, so is $\alpha$.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
\label{Thm:Phase2}
Let $H$ be an algebraic matrix associated with a Hermitian graph with spectral decomposition $H=\sum_r \theta_r E_r$.
Suppose perfect state transfer occurs from $a$ to $b$ with phase factor $\alpha$.
If there exist integers $k_r$'s satisfying
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{r\in \Phi_a} k_r \theta_r = 0
\quad
\text{and}
\quad
\sum_{r\in \Phi_a} k_r \neq 0
\end{equation*}
then $\alpha$ is algebraic.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
From Equation~(\ref{Eqn:HermitianPST}), we have
\begin{equation*}
\alpha^{\sum_{r\in \Phi_a} k_r } =
e^{-\ii \tau \left(\sum_{r\in \Phi_a} k_r \theta_r\right)}\prod_{r\in \Phi_a} \left(e^{\ii q_r(a,b)}\right)^{k_r}
= \prod_{r\in \Phi_a} \left(e^{\ii q_r(a,b)}\right)^{k_r}.
\end{equation*}
Since the right-hand side is algebraic and $\sum_{r\in \Phi_a} k_r \neq 0$, we conclude that $\alpha$ is algebraic.
\end{proof}
We apply the theorem to algebraic Hermitian graphs where $\Phi_a$ contains all eigenvalues of $H$.
\begin{corollary}
\label{Cor:Phase}
Let $H$ be an algebraic matrix associated with a Hermitian graph with zero diagonal entries.
Suppose perfect state transfer occurs from $a$ to $b$ with phase factor $\alpha$.
If $a$ has full eigenvalue support then $\alpha$ is algebraic.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let $k_r$ be the multiplicity of $\theta_r$, for $\theta_r \in \Phi_a$.
Since $\Phi_a$ contains all eigenvalues of $H$, we have $\sum_{r\in \Phi_a} k_r \theta_r= \Tr(H)=0$ and
$\sum_{r\in \Phi_a}k_r$ equals the number of vertices. It follows from Theorem~\ref{Thm:Phase2} that the phase factor at perfect state transfer is algebraic.
\end{proof}
Given spectral decomposition of an algebraic Hermitian matrix $H=\sum_r \theta_r E_r$, if $E_r$ has constant diagonal then
every vertex has full eigenvalue support. In particular, Corollary~\ref{Cor:Phase} applies to
\begin{itemize}
\item
the adjacency matrix of a walk regular graph,
\item
an algebraic Hermitian matrix with zero diagonal that belongs to a Bose-Mesner algebra, and
\item
Hermitian circulants with algebraic entries and zero diagonal.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{One-way perfect state transfer}
\label{Subsection:1wayPST}
We saw at the beginning of Section~\ref{Section:PSTHermitian} that if perfect state transfer occurs from $a$ to $b$ in an algebraic Hermitian graph then both $a$ and $b$ are periodic. In particular, there is perfect state transfer from $b$ back to $a$.
We give a family of Hermitian graphs, with transcendental entries, that have perfect state transfer from $a$ to $b$ but not periodic at $a$ nor $b$. In particular, they do not have perfect state transfer from $b$ to $a$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{Thm:1wayPST}
There exist infintely many Hermitian graphs which admit perfect state transfer from $a$ to $b$ but are not periodic at $a$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\lambda$ be any real number such that $\lambda \not \in \QQ \pi$.
Define matrices
\begin{equation*}
P=\frac{1}{2}\begin{bmatrix}1&1&1&1\\1&1&-1&-1\\1&-1&e^{\ii\lambda}& -e^{\ii\lambda}\\1&-1&-e^{\ii\lambda}& e^{\ii\lambda}\end{bmatrix} \quad \text{and}\quad
D=\begin{bmatrix}0&0&0&0\\0&\pi&0&0\\0&0&\lambda&0\\0&0&0&\lambda+\pi \end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation*}
Consider the Hermitian matrix
\begin{equation*}
H := PDP^{-1} = \left(\frac{\pi+\lambda}{2}\right) I_4 -
\begin{bmatrix} 0&\frac{\lambda}{2}&\frac{\pi}{4}(1+e^{-i\lambda}) & \frac{\pi}{4}(1-e^{-i\lambda})\\
\frac{\lambda}{2}&0&\frac{\pi}{4}(1-e^{-i\lambda})&\frac{\pi}{4}(1+e^{-i\lambda})\\
\frac{\pi}{4}(1+e^{i\lambda})&\frac{\pi}{4}(1-e^{i\lambda})&0&\frac{\lambda}{2}\\
\frac{\pi}{4}(1-e^{i\lambda})&\frac{\pi}{4}(1+e^{i\lambda})&\frac{\lambda}{2}&0
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation*}
Let $\theta_1=0,\theta_2=\pi,\theta_3=\lambda$ and $\theta_4=\lambda+\pi$.
All vertices have full eigenvalue support.
Vertices 1 and 3 are strongly cospectral with quarrels: $q_1(3,1)=0$, $q_2(3,1)=\pi$, $q_3(3,1)=\lambda$, and $q_4(3,1)=\lambda+\pi$.
By Theorem~\ref{Thm:HermitianPST}, we have perfect state transfer from vertex $3$ to $1$ at time $\tau=1$ with phase factor $1$.
As $\lambda$ is not a rational multiple of $\pi$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\theta_3-\theta_1}{\theta_2-\theta_1}=\frac{\lambda}{\pi}\notin\mathbb{Q}.
\end{equation*}
By Theorem~\ref{Thm:Periodicity}, $H$ is not periodic at vertex 1 nor at vertex 3.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}
Consider the complex Hadamard matrix
\begin{equation*}
P=\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & i & i & i & i\\
1 & -1 & e^{i\theta} & -e^{i\theta} & -1 & 1 & -e^{i\theta} & e^{i\theta}\\
1 & 1 & e^{i2\theta} & e^{i2\theta} & -i & -i & -ie^{i2\theta} & -ie^{i2\theta}\\
1 & -1 & e^{i3\theta} & -e^{i3\theta} & 1 & -1 & e^{i3\theta} & -e^{i3\theta}\\
i & i & -i & -i & -1 & -1 & 1 & 1\\
-i & i & ie^{i\theta} & -ie^{i\theta} & i & -i & -ie^{i\theta} & ie^{i\theta}\\
i & i & -ie^{i2\theta} & -ie^{i2\theta} & 1 & 1 & -e^{i2\theta} & -e^{i2\theta}\\
-i & i & ie^{i3\theta} & -ie^{i3\theta} & -i & i & ie^{i3\theta} & -ie^{i3\theta}\\
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation*}
and diagonal matrix $D=\operatorname{diag}\left(0, \pi, \theta, \theta+\pi, \frac{\pi}{2}, \frac{3\pi}{2},\theta+\frac{\pi}{2},\theta+\frac{3\pi}{2}\right)$.
Then the Hermitian graph $X$ with matrix $H=PDP^{-1}$
admit perfect state transfer from vertex 1 to 2 at $t=1$,
from vertex 1 to 3 at $t=2$, from vertex 1 to 4 at $t=3$.
Each vertex has full eigenvalue support, and if $\theta \notin \QQ \pi$,
then the ratio condition is not satisfied and $X$ is not periodic at any vertex.
\end{example}
\section{Multiple pretty good state transfer}
\label{Section:MPGST}
Theorem~\ref{Thm:1wayPST} shows that it is possible to have one-way perfect state transfer in Hermitian graph.
We now show that pretty good state transfer in Hermitian graphs goes both ways.
\begin{lemma}
\label{Lem:2wayPGST}
If a Hermitian graph admits pretty good state transfer from $a$ to $b$, then it has pretty good state transfer from $b$ to $a$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $U(t)$ is the transition matrix of a Hermitian graph that has pretty good state transfer from $a$ to $b$. Then, for $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists a time $\tau_1$ such that $U(\tau_1)e_a = \gamma_1 e_b + \rho_1$, for some phase factor $\gamma_1$ and vector $\rho_1$ with $\Vert \rho_1 \Vert < \frac{\varepsilon}{2}$.
As $U(t)$ is almost periodic, there exists $\tau_2 > \tau_1$ such that $U(\tau_2)e_a = \gamma_2 e_a + \rho_2$, for some phase factor $\gamma_2$ and some vector $\rho_2$ with $\Vert \rho_2 \Vert < \frac{\varepsilon}{2}$.
We have
\begin{equation*}
U(\tau_2-\tau_1)e_b = \overline{\gamma_1} U(\tau_2) \left( e_a - U(-\tau_1)\rho_1\right)
=\overline{\gamma_1} \left( \gamma_2 e_a +\rho_2 - U(\tau_2-\tau_1)\rho_1\right).
\end{equation*}
Hence
\begin{equation*}
\Vert U(\tau_2-\tau_1)e_b- \overline{\gamma_1}\gamma_2 e_a \Vert
= \Vert \rho_2 - U(\tau_2-\tau_1)\rho_1 \Vert
\leq \Vert \rho_1\Vert+\Vert \rho_2\Vert <\varepsilon
\end{equation*}
and there is pretty good state transfer from $b$ to $a$.
\end{proof}
In \cite{zfkwlb}, Zimbor\'{a}s et al. assign a complex weight $e^{\ii \beta}$ to an edge in the following graph and use the weight to control the fidelity at $b$ and $c$ with initial state $e_a$.
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\path (0,0) coordinate (00);
\fill (00) circle (3pt);
\path (1,0.75) coordinate (01);
\fill (01) circle (3pt);
\path (1,-0.75) coordinate (10);
\fill (10) circle (3pt);
\draw (00) -- (01);
\draw (00) -- (10);
\draw (01)--(10) node[currarrow,pos=0.5, sloped, scale=1.5] {};
\draw (1,0) node[anchor=west]{{$e^{\ii \beta}$}};
\draw (-5,0) node[anchor=east]{{$a$}};
\path (-5,0) coordinate (a1);
\fill (a1) circle (3pt);
\path (-4,0) coordinate (a2);
\fill (a2) circle (3pt);
\path (-1,0) coordinate (a3);
\fill (a3) circle (3pt);
\draw (a1)--(a2);
\draw (00)--(a3);
\draw [dotted] (a2)--(a3);
\draw (6,0.75) node[anchor=west]{{$b$}};
\path (6,0.75) coordinate (b1);
\fill (b1) circle (3pt);
\path (5,0.75) coordinate (b2);
\fill (b2) circle (3pt);
\path (2,0.75) coordinate (b3);
\fill (b3) circle (3pt);
\draw (b1)--(b2);
\draw (01)--(b3);
\draw [dotted] (b2)--(b3);
\draw (6,-0.75) node[anchor=west]{{$c$}};
\path (6,-0.75) coordinate (c1);
\fill (c1) circle (3pt);
\path (5,-0.75) coordinate (c2);
\fill (c2) circle (3pt);
\path (2,-0.75) coordinate (c3);
\fill (c3) circle (3pt);
\draw (c1)--(c2);
\draw (10)--(c3);
\draw [dotted] (c2)--(c3);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
This graph can be viewed as the rooted product of the weighted $K_3$ with a path.
Given a graph $X$ on $n$ vertices and a rooted graph $Y$ with root $a$.
The rooted product of $X$ and $Y$, $X\circ Y$, is obtained by taking $n$ isomorphic copies of $Y$ and identifying the $j$-th vertex of $X$ with the root of the $j$-th copy of $Y$.
In this section, we give two families of rooted products that have multiple pretty good state transfer.
\subsection{Oriented 3-cycle rooted with a star}
\label{Subsection:RootedStar}
In \cite{Fan_2012}, Fan and Godsil show that the double star, the rooted product of $K_2$ and $K_{1,m}$, has pretty good state transfer between the two non-pendant vertices if and only if $4m+1$ is not a perfect square. Note that $K_2$ is the only simple undirected graph with universal perfect state transfer.
We extend their result to the rooted product of the oriented 3-cycle $\overrightarrow{K}_3$ with $\Star{m}$, where $\Star{m}$ denotes the star $K_{1,m}$ with the non-pendant vertex being its root.
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\path (-1,0) coordinate (a);
\fill (a) circle (3pt);
\draw (-1,-0.1) node[anchor=north]{{$c$}};
\path (0,1.5) coordinate (b);
\fill (b) circle (3pt);
\draw (0,1.4) node[anchor=north]{{$a$}};
\path (1,0) coordinate (c);
\fill (c) circle (3pt);
\draw (1,-0.1) node[anchor=north]{{$b$}};
\draw (a)--(b) node[currarrow,pos=0.5, sloped, scale=1.5] {};
\draw (b)--(c) node[currarrow,pos=0.5, sloped, scale=1.5] {};
\draw (c)--(a) node[currarrow,pos=0.5, xscale=-1, sloped, scale=1.5] {};
\path (-2,1) coordinate (a1);
\fill (a1) circle (3pt);
\path (-2,0.5) coordinate (a2);
\fill (a2) circle (3pt);
\path (-2,-0.5) coordinate (a3);
\fill (a3) circle (3pt);
\path (-2,-1) coordinate (a4);
\fill (a4) circle (3pt);
\draw (a)--(a1);
\draw (a)--(a2);
\draw (a)--(a3);
\draw (a)--(a4);
\draw [dotted] (-2,0.25)--(-2,-0.25);
\path (-1,2.5) coordinate (b1);
\fill (b1) circle (3pt);
\path (-0.5,2.5) coordinate (b2);
\fill (b2) circle (3pt);
\path (0.5,2.5) coordinate (b3);
\fill (b3) circle (3pt);
\path (1,2.5) coordinate (b4);
\fill (b4) circle (3pt);
\draw (b)--(b1);
\draw (b)--(b2);
\draw (b)--(b3);
\draw (b)--(b4);
\draw [dotted] (-0.25,2.5)--(0.25,2.5);
\path (2,1) coordinate (c1);
\fill (c1) circle (3pt);
\path (2,0.5) coordinate (c2);
\fill (c2) circle (3pt);
\path (2,-0.5) coordinate (c3);
\fill (c3) circle (3pt);
\path (2,-1) coordinate (c4);
\fill (c4) circle (3pt);
\draw (c)--(c1);
\draw (c)--(c2);
\draw (c)--(c3);
\draw (c)--(c4);
\draw [dotted] (2,0.25)--(2,-0.25);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\begin{lemma}
\label{Lem:RootStar}
Suppose $a$ and $b$ are strongly cospectral vertices in the Hermitian graph $X$ on $n\geq 2$ vertices.
Then they are strongly cospectral in the rooted product $X\circ \Star{m}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $H_X$ be the Hermitian matrix associated with $X$ with spectral decomposition $H_X=\sum_{r=1}^d \theta_r E_r$ .
Then the matrix associated with the rooted product $Y=X\circ \Star{m}$ is
\begin{equation*}
H_Y = \begin{bmatrix} 1&0&0&\cdots&0 \\ 0&0&0&\cdots&0 \\ \vdots& \vdots & \vdots &\ddots & \vdots\\ 0&0&0&\cdots&0 \\0&0&0&\cdots&0 \end{bmatrix} \otimes H_X + \begin{bmatrix} 0&1&1&\cdots&1 \\ 1 & 0&0&\cdots&0\\ \vdots& \vdots & \vdots &\ddots & \vdots\\1 & 0&0&\cdots&0\\ 1 & 0&0&\cdots&0\end{bmatrix} \otimes I_n.
\end{equation*}
For $r=1,\ldots, d$, define
\begin{equation*}
\lambda_r^{\pm} = \frac{\theta_r \pm \sqrt{\theta_r^2+4m}}{2},
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
F_r^{\pm} = \frac{1}{(\lambda_r^{\pm})^2+m}
\begin{bmatrix} (\lambda_r^{\pm})^2 &\lambda_r^{\pm}&\lambda_r^{\pm}&\cdots&\lambda_r^{\pm} \\ \lambda_r^{\pm}&1&1&\cdots&1 \\ \vdots& \vdots & \vdots &\ddots & \vdots\\ \lambda_r^{\pm}&1&1&\cdots&1 \\\lambda_r^{\pm}&1&1&\cdots&1 \\\end{bmatrix}
\otimes E_r.
\end{equation*}
Define
\begin{equation*}
F_0 = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & &\0_m\\ &&\\ \0_m &&I_m-\frac{1}{m}J_m\end{bmatrix}\otimes I_n.
\end{equation*}
Then $H_Y$ has spectral decomposition
\begin{equation}
\label{Eqn:RootStar}
H_Y= 0 \cdot F_0 + \sum_{r=1}^d \left(\lambda_r^+ \cdot F_r^+ + \lambda_r^- \cdot F_r^-\right).
\end{equation}
Note that the $(1,1)$-block are indexed by the vertices in $X$ and the eigenvalue $0$ is not in the support of $a$ nor $b$.
The result follows from the $(1,1)$-block of $F_r^+$ and $F_r^-$ being non-zero scalar multiple of $E_r$.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
Suppose $X$ is a Hermitian graph with universal perfect state transfer with spectrum $\Phi$.
Let $S$ be the set of non-pendant vertices in $X\circ \Star{m}$.
Let
\begin{equation*}
\Psi = \left\{\frac{\theta \pm \sqrt{\theta^2+4m}}{2} \ \big\vert\ \theta \in \Phi\right\}.
\end{equation*}
If $\Psi$ is linearly independent over $\QQ$, then $X\circ \Star{m}$ has multiple pretty good state transfer on $S$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
For $a,b \in S$, there is perfect state transfer between $a$ and $b$ in $X$,
so $a$ and $b$ are strongly cospectral in $X\circ \Star{m}$ by Lemma~\ref{Lem:RootStar}.
We see in Equation~(\ref{Eqn:RootStar}) that $\Psi$ is the eigenvalue support of $a$ in the rooted product. It follows from Theorem~\ref{Thm:PGST} that pretty good state transfer occurs between
$a$ and $b$ in $X\circ \Star{m}$.
\end{proof}
In the following result, we focus on $X=\overrightarrow{K}_3$ which has spectral decomposition
\begin{equation*}
\begin{bmatrix} 0&-\ii&\ii\\ \ii &0&-\ii \\ -\ii&\ii&0\end{bmatrix}
=0 \cdot \frac{1}{3} J_3 + \sqrt{3} \cdot \frac{1}{3} \begin{bmatrix}1&e^{-2\pi\ii/3}&e^{2\pi\ii/3}\\e^{2\pi\ii/3}&1&e^{-2\pi\ii/3}\\ e^{-2\pi\ii/3}& e^{2\pi\ii/3} & 1 \end{bmatrix}
- \sqrt{3} \cdot \frac{1}{3} \begin{bmatrix}1&e^{2\pi\ii/3}&e^{-2\pi\ii/3}\\e^{-2\pi\ii/3}&1&e^{2\pi\ii/3}\\ e^{2\pi\ii/3}& e^{-2\pi\ii/3} & 1\end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation*}
Hence any two vertices in $\overrightarrow{K}_3$ are strongly cospectral. Let $V(\overrightarrow{K}_3)=\{a,b,c\}$.
Then the eigenvalue support of $a$ in $\overrightarrow{K}_3 \circ \Star{m}$ are $\lambda_1= \sqrt{m}$, $\lambda_2=-\sqrt{m}$,
\begin{equation*}
\lambda_3=\frac{\sqrt{3}+\sqrt{3+4m}}{2},\quad
\lambda_4=\frac{\sqrt{3}-\sqrt{3+4m}}{2}, \quad
\lambda_5=\frac{-\sqrt{3}+\sqrt{3+4m}}{2} \quad\text{and}\quad \lambda_6=\frac{-\sqrt{3}-\sqrt{3+4m}}{2}.
\end{equation*}
From Equation~(\ref{Eqn:RootStar}), the quarrels in $\overrightarrow{K}_3 \circ \Star{m}$ are
\begin{equation*}
q_r(a,b) =
\begin{cases}
0 & \text{if $r=1,2$,}\\
\frac{2\pi}{3} & \text{if $r=3,4$, and}\\
-\frac{2\pi}{3} & \text{if $r=5,6$.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
\ignore{
and
\begin{equation*}
q_r(a,b) =
\begin{cases}
0 & \text{if $r=1,2$,}\\
-\frac{2\pi}{3} & \text{if $r=3,4$, and}\\
\frac{2\pi}{3} & \text{if $r=5,6$.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
}
\begin{theorem}
\label{Thm:RootStar}
The rooted product $\overrightarrow{K}_3 \circ \Star{m}$ admits multiple pretty good state transfer on the set
$\{a,b,c\}$ of non-pendant vertices if and only if one of the following holds.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
\label{Cond:RootStar1}
$\gcd(3, m)=1$.
\item
\label{Cond:RootStar2}
$m=3s$, for some integer $s$ such that neither $s$ nor $4s+1$ are perfect square.
\item
\label{Cond:RootStar3}
$m=27 k^2$, for some integer $k$.
\item
\label{Cond:RootStar4}
$m=27k^2+27k+6$, for some integer $k$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since $\overrightarrow{K}_3 \circ \Star{m}$ has an automorphism that maps $a$ to $b$, $b$ to $c$ and $c$ to $a$, it is sufficient
to prove that there is pretty good state transfer from $a$ to $b$ in the rooted product.
By Lemma~\ref{Lem:RootStar}, Condition~(\ref{Cond:PGST1}) of Theorem~\ref{Thm:PGST} holds.
For Condition~(\ref{Cond:PGST2}) of Theorem~\ref{Thm:PGST}, we consider
integers $l_1, \ldots, l_6$ satisfying
\begin{equation}
\label{Eqn:K1}
\sum_{r=1}^6 l_r \lambda_r=
\left(l_1-l_2\right)\sqrt{m} + \left(\frac{l_3+l_4-l_5-l_6}{2}\right)\sqrt{3} + \left(\frac{l_3-l_4+l_5-l_6}{2}\right)\sqrt{3+4m} = 0.
\end{equation}
\begin{enumerate}[C{a}se 1:]
\item[C{a}se 1:]
If $\gcd(3,m)=1$ then the set $\{\sqrt{3}, \sqrt{m}, \sqrt{3+4m}\}$ is linearly independent over $\QQ$.
Equation~(\ref{Eqn:K1}) implies $(l_3+l_4-l_5-l_6)/2=0$ and
\begin{equation}
\label{Eqn:K2}
\sum_{r=1}^6 l_r q_r(a,b) = \left(l_3+l_4-l_5-l_6\right) \frac{2\pi}{3} = 0 \pmod{2\pi}.
\end{equation}
Condition~(\ref{Cond:PGST2}) of Theorem~\ref{Thm:PGST} holds with $\delta=0$, so there is pretty good state transfer from $a$ to $b$ in $\overrightarrow{K}_3 \circ \Star{m}$.
\item[C{a}se 2:]
When $m=3s$, Equation~(\ref{Eqn:K1}) becomes
\begin{equation*}
\left(l_1-l_2\right)\sqrt{s} + \left(\frac{l_3+l_4-l_5-l_6}{2}\right) + \left(\frac{l_3-l_4+l_5-l_6}{2}\right)\sqrt{1+4s} = 0.
\end{equation*}
If $s$ and $4s+1$ are not perfect squares then $\{1,\sqrt{s}, \sqrt{1+4s}\}$ is linearly independent over $\QQ$ and
Equation~(\ref{Eqn:K1}) implies Equation~(\ref{Eqn:K2}). Hence there is pretty good state transfer from $a$ to $b$.
\item[C{a}se 3:]
Suppose $m=3h^2$, for some integer $h$. Then $4h^2+1$ is not a perfect square, and Equation~(\ref{Eqn:K1}) becomes
\begin{equation*}
\left(\frac{2h(l_1-l_2)+ l_3+l_4-l_5-l_6}{2}\right) + \left(\frac{l_3-l_4+l_5-l_6}{2}\right)\sqrt{4h^2+1} = 0,
\end{equation*}
which implies $l_3+l_4-l_5-l_6 = -2h(l_1-l_2)$.
If $h=3k$, for some integer $k$, then Equation~(\ref{Eqn:K2}) holds and pretty good state transfer occurs from $a$ to $b$.
Suppose $h$ is not divisible by $3$.
Equation~(\ref{Eqn:K1}) holds when $l_1=l_2=l_4=l_5=0$ and $l_3=l_6=1$.
Since
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{r=1}^6 l_r \left(q_r(a,b) + \delta\right)=2\delta,
\end{equation*}
Equation~(\ref{Eqn:PGSTK2}) holds if and only if $\delta \in \ZZ \pi$.
Equation~(\ref{Eqn:K1}) also holds when $l_1=1, l_2=l_3=l_4=0, l_5=l_6=h$, but
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{r=1}^6 l_r (q_r(a,b)+\delta) = -\frac{4h\pi}{3} + (2h+1)\delta \neq 0 \pmod{2\pi}
\end{equation*}
when $\delta \in \ZZ \pi$.
We conclude that pretty good state transfer from $a$ to $b$ does not occur.
\item[C{a}se 4:]
Suppose $m=3s$ with $4s+1=h^2$, for some integer $h$. Then $s$ is not a perfect square, and Equation~(\ref{Eqn:K1}) becomes
\begin{equation*}
(l_1-l_2)\sqrt{s} + \frac{(l_3+l_4-l_5-l_6) + h(l_3-l_4+l_5-l_6)}{2}= 0,
\end{equation*}
which implies $l_3+l_4-l_5-l_6 = -h(l_3-l_4+l_5-l_6)$.
If $h$ is divisible by $3$ then Equation~(\ref{Eqn:K2}) holds and pretty good state transfer occurs from $a$ to $b$.
In this case, $m=27k^2+27k+6$ if we write $4s+1 = 3^2(2k+1)^2$.
If $h$ is not divisible by $3$, Equation~(\ref{Eqn:K1}) holds when $l_1=l_2=l_4=l_5=0$, $l_3=l_6=1$ and when
$l_1=l_2=0$, $l_3=l_4=h$, $l_5=-1$ and $l_6=1$. Using the same argument as in the previous case, we see that
there does not exist $\delta$ satisfying Equation~(\ref{Eqn:PGSTK2}) for both assignments for the $l_j$'s.
We conclude that pretty good state transfer from $a$ to $b$ does not occur.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Circulants rooted with a looped path}
\label{Subsection:RootedPath}
In \cite{kly17}, Kempton et al. show that a path with a loop on each end-vertex with transcendental weight $\gamma$ has pretty good state transfer between the two end-vertices.
We use $\lp{m}$ to denote the rooted path on vertices $\{1, 2, \ldots, m\}$ that has root $m$ and a loop on vertex $1$ with weight $\gamma$.
Then the path of length $2m-1$ with a loop of weight $\gamma$ on each end-vertex studied in \cite{kly17} can be viewed as the rooted product of $K_2$ with $\lp{m}$.
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (2.5,0) node[below]{{Path $\lp{m}$ rooted at $m$ with a loop at $1$}};
\path (0,1) coordinate (b1);
\path (1,1) coordinate (b2);
\path (4,1) coordinate (b3);
\path (5,1) coordinate (b4);
\draw (b1)--(b2);
\draw (b3)--(b4);
\draw [dotted] (b2)--(b3);
\fill (b1) circle (3pt);
\fill (b2) circle (3pt);
\fill (b3) circle (3pt);
\filldraw [thick,fill=white] (b4) circle (3pt);
\draw (0,0.75) node[anchor=north]{{$1$}};
\draw (1,0.75) node[anchor=north]{{$2$}};
\draw (5,0.75) node[anchor=north]{{$m$}};
\draw (b1) to [out=135,in=180] (0,2) to [out=0, in=45] (b1);
\draw (0,2) node[anchor=south]{{$\gamma$}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
We extend their result to the rooted product $X \circ \lp{m}$ where $X$
is Hermitian circulant with rational eigenvalues that admits universal perfect state transfer.
Orthogonal polynomials and field trace are the main tools used in this section. Please see Chapter 8 of \cite{AC} for the background of orthogonal polynomials, and see \cite{kly17} and Chapter 14 of \cite{df} for some basic facts on field trace.
Suppose $V(X)=\{x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1}\}$. Then we label the vertices of $X\circ \lp{m}$
with the ordered pair $(x_h, j)$ denoting the $j$-th vertex on $\lp{m}$ that is rooted at $x_h$ in $X$, for $h=0,1,\ldots, n-1$ and $j=1,\ldots, m$.
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\path (0,0) coordinate (00);
\fill (00) circle (3pt);
\draw (-0.25,0) node[above]{$(x_0,m)$};
\path (1,1) coordinate (01);
\fill (01) circle (3pt);
\draw (01) node[above]{$(x_1,m)$};
\path (1,-1) coordinate (10);
\fill (10) circle (3pt);
\draw (10) node[below]{$(x_2,m)$};
\draw (01)--(10) node[currarrow,pos=0.5, sloped, scale=1.5] {};
\draw (10)--(00) node[currarrow,pos=0.5, sloped, scale=1.5] {};
\draw (00)--(01) node[currarrow,pos=0.5, sloped, scale=1.5] {};
\path (-5,0) coordinate (a1);
\fill (a1) circle (3pt);
\draw (a1) node[left]{$(x_0,1)$};
\path (-4,0) coordinate (a2);
\fill (a2) circle (3pt);
\draw (a2) node[below]{$(x_0,2)$};
\path (-1,0) coordinate (a3);
\fill (a3) circle (3pt);
\draw (a1)--(a2);
\draw (00)--(a3);
\draw [dotted] (a2)--(a3);
\draw (a1) to [out=135,in=180] (-5,1) to [out=0, in=45] (a1);
\draw (-5,1) node[anchor=south]{{$\gamma$}};
\path (6,1) coordinate (b1);
\fill (b1) circle (3pt);
\draw (b1) node[right]{$(x_1,1)$};
\path (5,1) coordinate (b2);
\fill (b2) circle (3pt);
\draw (b2) node[below]{$(x_1,2)$};
\path (2,1) coordinate (b3);
\fill (b3) circle (3pt);
\draw (b1)--(b2);
\draw (01)--(b3);
\draw [dotted] (b2)--(b3);
\draw (b1) to [out=135,in=180] (6,2) to [out=0, in=45] (b1);
\draw (6,2) node[anchor=south]{{$\gamma$}};
\path (6,-1) coordinate (c1);
\fill (c1) circle (3pt);
\draw (c1) node[right]{$(x_2,1)$};
\path (5,-1) coordinate (c2);
\fill (c2) circle (3pt);
\draw (c2) node[below]{$(x_2,2)$};
\path (2,-1) coordinate (c3);
\fill (c3) circle (3pt);
\draw (c1)--(c2);
\draw (10)--(c3);
\draw [dotted] (c2)--(c3);
\draw (c1) to [out=135,in=180] (6,0) to [out=0, in=45] (c1);
\draw (6,0) node[anchor=south]{{$\gamma$}};
\draw (0,-2) node[below]{The rooted product of $\overrightarrow{K}_3$ with $\lp{m}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
Let $H_X$ be the matrix of the Hermitian circulant $X$ with universal perfect state transfer.
It follows from Theorem~8 of \cite{USTG} that the eigenvalues of $H_X$ are simple.
Given distinct eigenvalues $\theta_0, \theta_1, \ldots, \theta_{n-1}$ of $H_X$
and the discrete Fourier matrix of order $n$
\begin{equation*}
F_n = \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}
\begin{bmatrix}
1&1&1&\cdots & 1\\
1&\zeta&\zeta^2&\cdots & \zeta^{n-1}\\
1&\zeta^2&\zeta^4&\cdots & \zeta^{2(n-1)}\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
1&\zeta^{n-1}&\zeta^{2(n-1)}&\cdots & \zeta^{(n-1)^2}\\
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation*}
where $\zeta = e^{2\pi \ii/n}$,
we can write
\begin{equation*}
H_X=F_n \begin{bmatrix}\theta_0&0&\cdots&0\\0&\theta_1&\cdots&0\\\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\0&0&\cdots&\theta_{n-1}\end{bmatrix} F_n^*.
\end{equation*}
For $0\leq a,b \leq n-1$, the vertices $x_a$ and $x_b$ are strongly cospectral with quarrel
\begin{equation}
\label{Eqn:XQ}
q_j(x_a, x_b) = \frac{2\pi j (b-a)}{n},
\end{equation}
for $j=0,1,\ldots,n-1$.
Theorem~22 of \cite{USTG} gives the following characterization of Hermitian circulants that have universal perfect state transfer.
\begin{theorem}
\label{Thm:USTCir}
Let $X$ be a Hermitian circulant on $n$ vertices with simple eigenvalues $\theta_0, \ldots, \theta_{n-1}$.
Then $X$ has universal perfect state transfer if and only if there exist
$\alpha, \beta \in \RR$ with $\beta>0$, $c_0,\ldots,c_{n-1} \in \ZZ$ and integer $h$ coprime with $n$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\theta_j = \alpha + \beta \left(jh+c_j n\right),
\end{equation*}
for $j=0,\ldots, n-1$.
\end{theorem}
To determine the spectrum of $Z=X\circ \lp{m}$, we consider the $m\times m$ Jacobi matrices
\begin{equation}
\label{Eqn:Tj}
T_j:=\begin{bmatrix}
\gamma & 1 & 0 & \cdots& 0 & 0\\
1&0&1&\cdots & 0& 0\\
0&1&0&\cdots & 0&0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots&\vdots\\
0&0&0&\cdots &0& 1\\
0&0&0&\cdots &1& \theta_j
\end{bmatrix},
\qquad \text{for $j=0, 1, \ldots,n-1.$}
\end{equation}
Let $\varphi_{j,0}=1$ and
let $\varphi_{j,r}(t)$ be the characteristic polynomial of the $r$-th leading principal submatrix of $T_j$, for $r=1,\ldots,m$.
Then $\varphi_{j, 0}(t),\varphi_{j, 1}(t), \ldots, \varphi_{j, m}(t)$ is a sequence of orthogonal polynomials satisfying
$\varphi_{j, 0}(t)=1$,
$\varphi_{j, 1}(t)=t-\gamma$,
\begin{equation}
\label{Eqn:OP1}
\varphi_{j, r}(t)= t\ \varphi_{j, r-1}(t) - \varphi_{j, r-2}(t)
\end{equation}
for $r=2,\ldots,m-1$, and
\begin{equation}
\label{Eqn:OP2}
\varphi_{j, m}(t)= \left(t-\theta_j\right) \varphi_{j, m-1}(t) - \varphi_{j, m-2}(t).
\end{equation}
From Lemma~8.5.2 of \cite{AC}, the roots $\lambda_{j,1}, \ldots, \lambda_{j,m}$ of $\varphi_{j,m}(t)=0$ are the eigenvalues of $T_j$. Further,
\begin{equation*}
\Phi_{j,s} =
\begin{bmatrix}
1&\varphi_{j, 1}(\lambda_{j,s})& \ldots& \varphi_{j, m-1}(\lambda_{j,s})
\end{bmatrix}^T
\end{equation*}
is an eigenvector of $T_j$ corresponding to eigenvalue $\lambda_{j,s}$, for $s=1,\ldots,m$.
It follows from Lemma~8.1.1 of \cite{AC} that the eigenvalues of $T_j$ are simple. It is also known that consecutive orthogonal polynomials do not have non-trivial common factor.
The Hermitian matrix of $Z$ is
\begin{equation}
\label{Eqn:HZ}
H_Z =
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & \cdots& 0 & 0\\
0&0&\cdots & 0& 0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots&\vdots\\
0&0&\cdots &0& 0\\
0&0&\cdots &0& 1\\
\end{bmatrix}
\otimes H_X
+
\begin{bmatrix}
\gamma & 1 & \cdots& 0 & 0\\
1&0&\cdots & 0& 0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots&\vdots\\
0&0&\cdots &0& 1\\
0&0&\cdots &1& 0\\
\end{bmatrix}
\otimes I_n.
\end{equation}
Since $H_X F_n e_j = \theta_j F_ne_j$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{Eqn:HZev}
H_Z \left(\Phi_{j,s} \otimes F_n e_j \right) = \lambda_{j,s} \left(\Phi_{j,s} \otimes F_n e_j \right)
\end{equation}
for $j=0,\ldots, n-1$ and $s=1,\ldots,m$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{Lem:X_PmSpecDecomp}
Let $X$ be a Hermitian circulant with distinct eigenvalues $\theta_0, \theta_1, \ldots, \theta_n$ and let $F_n$, $\lambda_{j,s}$, and $\Phi_{j,s}$ be defined as above.
For $j=0,\ldots, n-1$ and $s=1,\ldots,m$, $\lambda_{j,s}$ is a simple eigenvalue of the Hermitian graph $Z$ defined in Equation~(\ref{Eqn:HZ}), with spectral decomposition
\begin{equation*}
H_Z = \sum_{j=0}^{n-1} \sum_{s=1}^m \lambda_{j,s} \frac{1}{\Vert \Phi_{j,s}\Vert^2}
\left(\Phi_{j,s} \Phi_{j,s}^*\right) \otimes \left( (F_ne_j)(F_ne_j)^*\right).
\end{equation*}
For $x_a, x_b \in V(X)$ and $h=1,\ldots,m$, the vertices $(x_a, h)$ and $(x_b,h)$ are strongly cospectral in $Z$ with quarrel corresponding to eigenvalues $\lambda_{j,s}$ being
\begin{equation*}
q_{j,s}\left((x_a,h),(x_b,h)\right) = \frac{2\pi j (b-a)}{n},
\end{equation*}
for $j=0,\ldots, n-1$ and $s=1,\ldots,m$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It is sufficient to show that the eigenvalues $\lambda_{j,s}$ of $Z$, for $j=0,\ldots, n-1$ and $s=1,\ldots,m$, are distinct.
Supoose $\lambda_{j_1,s_1} = \lambda_{j_2,s_2}$. From Equation~(\ref{Eqn:OP1}), we have
\begin{equation*}
\varphi_{j_1,r}\left(\lambda_{j_1,s_1}\right) = \varphi_{j_2,r} \left(\lambda_{j_2,s_2}\right) ,
\end{equation*}
for $r=1,\ldots,m-1$.
From Equation~(\ref{Eqn:OP2}), $\varphi_{j_1,m}\left(\lambda_{j_1,s_1}\right) = \varphi_{j_2,m}\left(\lambda_{j_2,s_2}\right)=0$ implies $\theta_{j_1}=\theta_{j_2}$ and $j_1=j_2$. Since $\varphi_{j_1,m}(t)=0$ has $m$ distinct roots, we conclude that $s_1=s_2$.
We get the quarrels of $Z$ directly from Equations~(\ref{Eqn:HZev})~and~(\ref{Eqn:XQ}).
\end{proof}
For the rest of this section, we assume that $\gamma$ is transcendental and $\theta_0,\theta_1,\ldots, \theta_{n-1}\in \QQ$ as in
Theorem~\ref{Thm:MPGSTrooted}. Applying Laplace expansion along the first two rows of $T_j$ in Equation~(\ref{Eqn:Tj}) gives
\begin{equation*}
\varphi_{j,m}(t) = (t-\gamma)g_{n-1}(t) - g_{n-2}(t),
\end{equation*}
where $g_{n-1}(t)$ is the characteristic polynomial of the $(n-1)\times (n-1)$ Jacobi matrix
\begin{equation*}
\begin{pmatrix}
\theta_j & 1 & \cdots& 0 & 0\\
1&0&\cdots & 0& 0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots&\vdots\\
0&0&\cdots &0& 1\\
0&0&\cdots &1& 0
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation*}
and $g_{n-2}(t)$ is the characteristic polynomial of its $(n-2)$-th leading principal submatrix.
Now $g_{n-1}(t)$ and $g_{n-2}(t)$ are consecutive orthogonal polynomials, so they do not have any common factor of positive degree.
Since $g_{n-1}(t)$ and $g_{n-2}(t)$ are rational polynomials and $\gamma$ is transcendental, we conclude that $\varphi_{j,m}(t)$ is irreducible over $\QQ(\gamma)$. Then the splitting field $F_j$ of $\varphi_{j,m}(t)$ is a Galois extension over $\QQ(\gamma)$.
Given a Galois extension $E/K$, we use $\Tr_{E/K}(\mu)$ to denote the trace of $\mu$ from $E$ to $K$.
Here are some properties of the trace map useful for the proof of Theorem~\ref{Thm:MPGSTrooted}.
\begin{theorem}
\label{Thm:Trace}
Let $E/K$ be a Galois extension. The following properties hold.
\begin{enumerate}[i.]
\item
\label{Prop:Trace1}
For $\mu \in E$, $\Tr_{E/K}(\mu) \in K$.
\item
\label{Prop:Trace2}
For $\mu \in K$, $\Tr_{E/K}(\mu)= [E\ :\ K]\mu$.
\item
\label{Prop:Trace3}
For $\mu_1, \mu_2 \in E$, $\Tr_{E/K}(\mu_1+\mu_2)=\Tr_{E/K}(\mu_1)+\Tr_{E/K}(\mu_2)$.
\item
\label{Prop:Trace4}
If $K\subset F\subset E$ are extension fields, then $\Tr_{E/K}(\mu)= \Tr_{F/K}\left(\Tr_{E/F}(\mu)\right)$.
\item
\label{Prop:Trace5}
If the minimal polynomial of $\mu \in E$ over $K$ is $t^m+a_{m-1}t^{m-1}+\cdots+c_0$ then
\begin{equation*}
\Tr_{E/K}(\mu) = -\frac{[E\ :\ K]}{m} a_{m-1}.
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
The eigenvalue $\lambda_{j,s}$ of $X\circ \lp{m}$ has minimal polynomial $\varphi_{j,m}(t)$ over $\QQ(\gamma)$.
Applying Property~(\ref{Prop:Trace5}) to $\lambda_{j,s}\in F_j$, Equation~(\ref{Eqn:OP2}) gives
\begin{equation}
\label{Eqn:TraceFj}
\Tr_{F_j/\QQ(\gamma)}(\lambda_{j,s}) = \frac{[F_j\ :\ \QQ(\gamma)]}{m} \left(\gamma + \theta_j\right).
\end{equation}
Consider the smallest extension field $M$ of $F_j$ that contains $F_0, \ldots, F_{n-1}$. For $j=0,\ldots,n-1$, $M/F_j$
is a Galois extension. It follows from Properties~(\ref{Prop:Trace2}) and (\ref{Prop:Trace4}) and Equation~(\ref{Eqn:TraceFj})
that
\begin{equation}
\label{Eqn:TraceM}
\Tr_{M/\QQ(\gamma)}(\lambda_{j,s}) = \Tr_{F_j/\QQ(\gamma)}\left([M\ :\ F_j]\lambda_{j,s}\right)=
[M\ :\ F_j] \frac{ [F_j\ :\ \QQ(\gamma)]}{m} \left(\gamma + \theta_j\right)
= \frac{[M\ :\ \QQ(\gamma)]}{m} \left(\gamma + \theta_j\right).
\end{equation}
\begin{theorem}
\label{Thm:MPGSTrooted}
Let $X$ be a Hermitian circulant on $n$ vertices that admits universal perfect state transfer with eigenvalues given in Theorem~\ref{Thm:USTCir}.
If $\theta_0, \ldots, \theta_{n-1}\in \QQ$ and $\gamma$ is transcendental then, for any positive integer $m$, the rooted product $X \circ \lp{m}$ has multiple pretty good state transfer on the set $\{(x_0,h), (x_1,h), \ldots, (x_{n-1},h)\}$, for $1\leq h \leq m$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
For $h=1,\ldots,m$,
$X\circ \lp{m}$ has an automorhism that maps $(x_a,h)$ to $(x_{a+1},h)$, for $a\in \ZZ_n$. It is sufficient
to show that there is pretty good state transfer from $(x_0,h)$ to $(x_1,h)$.
By Lemma~\ref{Lem:X_PmSpecDecomp}, $(x_0,h)$ and $(x_1,h)$ are strongly cospectral with quarrels
\begin{equation*}
q_{j,s}\left((x_0,h),(x_1,h)\right) = \frac{2\pi j}{n},
\end{equation*}
for $j=0,\ldots,n-1$ and $s=1,\ldots,m$.
To show the Theorem~\ref{Thm:PGST}~(\ref{Cond:PGST2}) holds, consider integers $l_{j,s}$'s satisfying
\begin{equation}
\label{Eqn:MPGSTrooted1}
\sum_{j=0}^{n-1} \sum_{s=1}^m l_{j,s} \lambda_{j,s}=0.
\end{equation}
We apply the trace from $M$ to $\QQ(\gamma)$ to both sides.
Applying Theorem~\ref{Thm:Trace}~(\ref{Prop:Trace3}) and Equation~(\ref{Eqn:TraceM}),
Equation~(\ref{Eqn:MPGSTrooted1}) implies
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{j=0}^{n-1} \sum_{s=1}^m l_{j,s} (\gamma + \theta_j) =
\gamma \left(\sum_{j=0}^{n-1} \sum_{s=1}^m l_{j,s}\right) + \sum_{j=0}^{n-1} \theta_j \left(\sum_{s=1}^m l_{j,s} \right)
=0.
\end{equation*}
Since $\gamma$ is transcendental and $\sum_j \theta_j \left(\sum_s l_{j,s} \right)\in \QQ$, Equation~(\ref{Eqn:MPGSTrooted1}) is equivalent to
\begin{equation}
\label{Eqn:MPGSTrooted2a}
\sum_{j=0}^{n-1} \sum_{s=1}^m l_{j,s}=0
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{Eqn:MPGSTrooted2b}
\sum_{j=0}^{n-1} \theta_j \left(\sum_{s=1}^m l_{j,s} \right)=0.
\end{equation}
Recall $\theta_j = \alpha+\beta(jh+c_jn)$ where $\gcd(h,n)=1$. Equations~(\ref{Eqn:MPGSTrooted2a})
and (\ref{Eqn:MPGSTrooted2b}) imply
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{j=0}^{n-1} (jh+c_jn) \left(\sum_{s=1}^m l_{j,s} \right)=0.
\end{equation*}
Since $\gcd(h,n)=1$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{j=0}^{n-1} j\sum_{s=1}^m l_{j,s} = 0 \pmod{n}.
\end{equation*}
If Equations~(\ref{Eqn:MPGSTrooted2a})
and (\ref{Eqn:MPGSTrooted2b}) hold then, for any $\delta \in \RR$,
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\sum_{s=1}^m l_{j,s}\left(q_{j,s}\left((x_0,h), (x_1,h)\right) + \delta\right)
= \frac{2\pi}{n}\left(\sum_{j=0}^{n-1} j\sum_{s=1}^m l_{j,s} \right) + \delta \left(\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\sum_{s=1}^m l_{j,s}\right)
= 0 \pmod{2\pi}.
\end{equation*}
By Theorem~\ref{Thm:PGST}, pretty good state transfer occurs from $(x_0,h)$ to $(x_1,h)$, for $h=1,\ldots,m$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
\
\begin{itemize}
\item
Putting a transcendental weight $\gamma$ on the loops is sufficient for $\varphi_{0,m}(t), \ldots, \varphi_{n-1,m}(t)$ to be irreducible over $\QQ(\gamma)$.
Theorem~5.8 holds for irrational number $\gamma$ as long as $\varphi_{0,m}(t), \ldots, \varphi_{n-1,m}(t)$ are irreducible over $\QQ(\gamma)$.
\item
If we move the loops from the $(x_a,1)$ to $(x_a,m)$, for $a=0,\ldots,n-1$, then a similar argument shows that
the resulting graph has multiple pretty good state transfer on the set $\{(x_0,h), (x_1,h), \ldots, (x_{n-1},h)\}$, for $h=1,\ldots,m$.
\end{itemize}
\end{remark}
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This project was completed under the 2021 Fields Undergraduate Summer Research Program which provided support for A. Acuaviva, S. Eldridge, M. How and E. Wright.
C. Godsil gratefully acknowledges the support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada (NSERC)
Grant No. RGPIN-9439. A. Chan is grateful for the support of the NSERC Grant No. RGPIN-2021-03609.
\printbibliography
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
A solar flare is a sudden release of energy due to magnetic reconnection, resulting in an enhancement across the entire electromagnetic spectrum \citep{Carmichael_1964,Sturrock_1966,Hirayama_1974,Kopp_1976,Adding_free_energy}. For large flares this energy can reach an order of $\sim10^{32}$ ergs \citep{Aulanier_2013}, and is used to accelerate charged particles toward and away from the solar surface. The energy dissipates over stages with timescales that vary from seconds to hours \citep[e.g.,][]{Fletcher2011}. The outward bound material fills the interplanetary medium with high-energy particles and perturbs the heliospheric magnetic field \citep{Rouillard_2016}, both of which interact with Earth's magnetosphere. These events, if directed toward Earth, can trigger power grid blackouts and adversely affect communication systems \citep[e.g.,][]{boteler2006, Schrijver2014}, which in today's technologically saturated environment comes with a high socioeconomic cost, making their prediction critical.\\
Machine learning has provided us with a set of powerful algorithms that can be used to attempt to predict whether an active region (a patch on the Sun associated with enhanced magnetic activity), will produce a flare or not. One of the most successful algorithms for such a task is the so-called neural network (NN) \citep{Rosenblatt_1958}, which is a computational graph-like structure that draws inspiration directly from the mammalian brain. Just as an organic brain, these networks automatically program themselves through experience \citep[e.g.,][]{Ian_2016} and can generalize what they have learned to make informed decisions about new observations \citep[e.g.,][]{Vidyasagar_2003}.
The majority of flare prediction efforts rely on full photospheric vector magnetograms recorded by the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager \citep[HMI,][]{Scherrer_2012,Hoeksema_2014} onboard the Solar Dynamic Observatory \citep[SDO,][]{Lemen_2012}. These photospheric magnetic data are typically fed into a machine learning algorithm such as a NN \citep[e.g.,][]{bobra2015solar,florios2018forecasting,Liu_2019,So_s_2022}. In terms of the true skill statistic (TSS), the standard metric for evaluating a model's predictive performance (1 being optimal and -1 being adverse), the expected baseline TSS using data from SDO is around $\sim 0.7$, regardless of the sophistication of the machine learning algorithm \citep{Monica_Corona_HMI}. This indicates an apparent bottleneck and limit to the utility of photospheric magnetic data.
As a way to overcome this bottleneck, researchers have started experimenting with novel parameterizations of the HMI magnetic data using topological data analysis to codify their rich spatial features \citep{Deshmukh2020, Deshmukh2022}. Moreover, additional information from complementary data sources such as soft X-ray, flare history, and AIA photospheric, chromospheric, and coronal images have been incorporated in an attempt to improve model performance \citep{UV_Brightening,Monica_Corona_HMI}.
New evidence suggests that high resolution spectral data can be used to predict solar flares at least on short subhour timescales. \citet{Panos2020} created two classes of \ion{Mg}{II} spectra captured by NASA's Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph (IRIS) \citep{IRIS}. The first class consisted of spectra from active regions that did not lead to solar flares (hereafter referred to as the AR class), and the second one consisted of spectra collected from active regions $25$ minutes before flare onset (referred to as the preflare PF class). It was demonstrated that a simple feed forward fully connected NN could distinguish between spectra from either class with an $80\%$ accuracy, precision, and recall. Furthermore, the network's performance increased monotonically when successively feeding spectra from $t=30$ to $t=0$ minutes before the onset of a large X1.6-class flare, albeit over a restricted region of the slit. It is not, however, clear why the network performed so well at the classification task, and on what grounds it based its decisions. Nevertheless, these results open up the possibility of not only improving the current performance of our models, but due to the high diagnostic capabilities of spectra \citep[e.g.,][]{Leenaarts_2013A}, could also provide critical information about the state of the preflare atmosphere, and any necessary conditions that might facilitate a solar flare \citep[e.g.,][]{yang_2019}, thus shifting the focus from model performance to physical understanding.
Along these lines, and in an attempt to explain the above results, a recent study made use of a clustering technique to identify common spectroscopic precursors and atmospheric conditions that might facilitate flare triggering events \citep{Woods_2021}. It was found that single-peak emission in both the \ion{Mg}{II} h\&k lines as well as the pair of subordinate lines located at $\sim2798.8~\text{\AA}$ appeared most commonly, but not exclusively, within the study's PF dataset. Inversions of these single-peaked profiles using the STiC inversion code \citep{Cruz_2019A} indicate enhanced chromospheric temperatures and electron densities. Similar to previous findings \citep[e.g.,][]{Cheng_1984,Machado_1988,Harra_2001,Panos2020}, the authors speculate this to be a consequence of small-scale heating events possibly driven by reconnection as far back as $40$ minutes before flare onset. Since this clustering approach of identifying important PF spectra is manually intensive and time-consuming, a recent study automated the process via the use of multiple instance learning (MIL) \citep{Huwyler_2022}. In addition to high accuracies on the AR/PF classification task, their models automatically identified spectra that were judged to be important for flare prediction, confirming the results found in \citet{Woods_2021}. Their work however does not indicate the particular features of each spectrum that are responsible for high model scores.\\
For this study, we made use of the same \ion{Mg}{II} dataset from the original paper. We then trained a powerful "visual" NN called a convolutional neural network or ConvNet on the AR/PF binary classification problem. Once the model learned to distinguish between AR and PF spectra, we used a class of techniques, collectively referred to as Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) \citep{Barredo_2019} to derive direct explanations from the ConvNet without having to perform intermediate manual steps. These techniques allowed us not only to automatically discover which spectra are important, but which features of the spectra are most critical for predicting solar flares.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{figs/13.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{figs/11.jpg}
\label{overview}
\caption{Example of data collection for a single PF (top) and AR (bottom) observation. \ion{Mg}{II} spectra in both cases were extracted from the gray time interval with the interval between each vertical dashed line indicating the completion of a single raster. For context a SJI is included for each observation at the time roughly indicated by the vertical dashed blue line. The blue curves in the time plots indicate the integrated GOES flux in the $1-8~\text{\AA}$ channel, while the blue regions in the SJI indicate the span of the raster, with a four step raster for the PF observation and a sit-and-stare for the AR observation.}
\end{figure*}
\section{Data}
\label{data_section}
The data used in this study are composed of \ion{Mg}{II} spectra captured by the IRIS satellite. For consistency, the dataset is identical to that used in \citet{Panos2020}. As before, we selected a spectral window spanning $2794.14-2805.72~\text{\AA}$, which includes both the \ion{Mg}{II} h\&k lines as well as the triplet emission around $2798.77~\text{\AA}$. We then partitioned observations into two classes based on the GOES soft X-ray flux: The first partition is called the AR class, and is composed of roughly $2.5$ million spectra derived from $18$ observations and extracted from a $25$ minute window at the start of each observation. An observation here means a period with a predefined observing scheme, which can last several hours. The only criterion for an observation in this class was that a large flare (M- or X-class) did not appear over the entire duration of the IRIS observation, as verified by the GOES X-ray flux. This does not preclude smaller flares such as C-class and lower.
Since this study probes short timescales (as apposed to the normal $24$ hour margins used in flare prediction studies), it is not guaranteed that the active region did not produce a large flare after the IRIS observation's time window ended, leading to a possible weak mixing of the classes.
The second partition is called the PF class and consists of $2.4$ million spectra taken from $19$ observations in a time window $25$ minutes (sometimes shorter if IRIS was not recording) before each X- or M-class flare's onset as defined by the NOAA catalog flare start time (Table $1$ of the same study).
Like previous studies \citep[e.g.,][]{Monica_Corona_HMI,Angryk_2020}, we do not consider small flares ($<$M-class) as targets for prediction, but rather as a set of important features whose frequency could help predict larger events, meaning that smaller flares were not necessarily precluded from the $25$ minute analysis window for both the AR- and PF class.
An example of a PF (top) and AR (bottom) observation can be seen in Fig.~\ref{overview}. The gray regions indicate the $25$ minute time windows over which \ion{Mg}{II} spectra were collected with the time in minutes on the x-axis. As indicated by the GOES $1-8~\text{\AA}$ flux (solid blue curve) and flare class along the y-axis, a large M-class flare occurs in the PF observation directly after the sampling region, while the AR observation is flat and then slightly raises to a C-class level towards the end of the observation. It is important to remember that GOES integrates the X-ray flux from the entire solar disk while IRIS observes only a small patch of the sun (a maximum of $175\times175~\text{arcsec}^2$ for the slit-jaw imager and $130\times175~\text{arcsec}^2$ for its spectrometer), therefore, although the large flares were visually confirmed to be within IRIS's field of view (and indeed at some future point crossing the spectrogram), the X-ray signals in the AR class could have occurred somewhere else on the solar disk. Each interval between the vertical black dotted lines indicates the completion of a single IRIS raster. If the observation is a sit-and-stare, meaning no spatial rastering of the spectrogram, as in the AR example, then the intervals indicate the individual exposure times. For context, a SJI accompanies each figure and was rendered roughly around the time indicated by the vertical blue dashed lines. The blue regions within each SJI indicate the spatial extent of the IRIS raster which is spanned by steps of equal size. Each flare was assigned a number in the title for future reference.
After sampling the spectra using the above prescriptions, a series of additional processing steps were performed on the already preprocessed IRIS level 2 data to make it amenable to machine learning methods. These steps were as follows: 1) All spectra were interpolated to a grid size of $240~ \lambda$-points. 2) Each spectral profile was normalized by its maximum value, effectively placing precedence on the shape of the \ion{Mg}{II} spectra instead of their intensity. It is important to keep in mind that the intensity is still weakly encoded into the spectral shape, since high intensity profiles, once normalized, will result in spectra with flat continuum emission. To avoid noisy and corrupt data, entire spectra were replaced with nan's if they met any of the following conditions: Missing data $\to$ If a spectrum (within our selected wavelength window) contained at least one value $<-100$. Overexposure $\to$ If $10$ consecutive intensity values were equal to the maximum intensity value. This is quite a high threshold and in retrospect should be decreased, however, for the sake of continuity with previous results we maintain this setting. Poor signal-to-noise $\to$ Any spectra that remained below a 10 $\text{DN/s}$ threshold. Cosmic rays $\to$ If the maximum intensity value appeared outside of a small window surrounding both the h\&k-cores, or if the k/h-ratio exceeded the theoretical limits of 2:1 or 1:1 by a value of $0.3$, that is spectra with ratios exceeding $2.3$ or less than $0.7$ were excluded. Additionally, the reconstruction error of a variational autoencoder trained on quiet Sun spectra was used as a way to dynamically mask spectra that are typically associated with quiescent Sun observations, see \citet{Panos_2021} for details.
\section{Model development}
In this section, we build up the intuition necessary to understand how our machine learning algorithm predicts whether a spectrum comes from a nonflaring or flaring active region by introducing a general set of machine learning principles and training etiquette. We then discuss our particular case, including a description of the model that we use (a ConvNet), and how IRIS data in combination with the search for quality explanations in addition to high performance, forces us to modify the standard training practice.
\subsection{Problem outline}
\label{general_procedure}
Our goal is to create a function/model $\mathcal{F}_\Theta(x)\to \hat{y}$, that is parameterized by a set of arguments $\{\theta~|~\theta\in\Theta\}$, and can take as input a raw spectrum $x\in X$ from the dataset, and produce an output probability $\hat{y}\in[0,1]$ representing the model's guess as to whether the spectrum belongs to either the AR (output closer to zero) or PF class (output closer to one). The objective is to find a set of parameters $\{\theta\}$, referred to as the model's weights, that generates the closest match between the actual set of labels $\{y_n\}$ and the predicted set of labels $\{\hat{y}_n\}$, for example, we want a model that can correctly predict the class of as many spectra as possible. This type of problem is referred to as a binary classification problem and can be solved using any number of methods. The optimal parameterization is usually found by introducing a loss function $\mathcal{L}(y, \hat{y}, \Theta)$, that when minimized, guides the model parameters in a controlled manner to their optimal values $\{\theta^*\}$. This process of incrementally adjusting the model's weights is referred to as training and is achieved via gradient descent, that is, by taking the derivative of the loss function $\partial_\theta \mathcal{L(\theta)}$ with respect to the weights, and adjusting those parameters in small increments in the direction that results in the largest decrease to the loss. Since the objective is simply to have a model make as many correct label predictions as possible, the loss function depends on the true and predicted labels as well as its internal set of parameters. To train our models we made use of the binary cross-entropy (BCE) loss function (with regularization)
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{L}(y, \hat{y}, \Theta) &= -\frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^{N}\Big\{y_{n} \log \mathcal{F}_\Theta(x_n) \\
&+\left(1-y_{n}\right) \log \left[1-\mathcal{F}_\Theta(x_n)\right]\Big\} \\
& + \lambda \sum^M_{m=1}\theta^2_m,
\end{split}
\label{BCE}
\end{equation}
which is a measure of dissimilarity between the true set of labels $\{y_n\}$ and the predicted set of labels $\{\hat{y}_n\}$. If the differences between these two sets is large, then the loss is also large, and vice versa. In terms of information theory, the BCE is the average number of bits required to decode a signal using an estimated distribution rather than the true distribution. It is also equivalent to maximizing the log-likelihood of the data under $\{\theta\}$ and is identical to the KL-divergence up to an additive constant, where the KL-divergence is a pseudo metric used to measure the dissimilarity/distance between two probability distributions.
With large datasets, it is computationally expensive to only update the weights after computing the sum of the loss over every training example (a single epoch). For this reason, we use a variant of gradient descent called stochastic gradient descent \citep{saad_1999}, which updates the weights based on a pseudo loss that is estimated by randomly sampling a subset of spectra instead of all spectra. In our case, $N$ only runs over $64$ spectra for each update.
The last term in Eq.~\ref{BCE} is not part of the definition of the BCE-loss but is added to penalize the weights and help the model generalize to new data. This is necessary since our true objective is not simply to maximize the number of correct predictions with the data the model was trained on, but to develop a robust model that can correctly label new data. The prefactor $\lambda$ is called a regularization parameter and dictates the trade-off between model performance and robustness, with larger values generally leading to poorer performance on the training set but better generalization to new instances. If we do not regularize the model, gradient descent would most likely converge to a set of weights that are overly optimized on the training data.
To get a true measure of a model’s performance, it is important to test the model with data that it has not encountered during training. It is standard practice to therefore split the data into a training, validation, and test set. While the weights are adjusted using data from the training set, the hyperparameters such as the model architecture as well as the regularization term $\lambda$ are adjusted on the validation set. The test set then serves as the gold standard to judge a model's performance and ability to generalize.
The quality of the model can then be judged by analyzing the behavior of the loss (or accuracy) as a function of epoch (training time) on both the training and test set. During training, these two losses trace out curves collectively known as learning curves (as seen in Fig.~\ref{learning_curve}), whose joint dynamics can be used to identify unwanted behavior such as under or overfitting the training data, as well as the optimal training time (either red or blue vertical lines). The model with the lowest loss on the test set is usually selected as optimal.\\
\begin{figure}[thb]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{figs/learning_curve.pdf}
\caption{Example of learning curves obtained during training. The black and gray curves indicate the performance (in terms of loss) of a model on both the training (black) and test (gray) set. The best model could either be the model that scored the lowest loss on the test set (red dashed line), or the average lowest loss on both the training and test sets (blue dashed line). Notice that after about 50 epochs the test loss starts to increase, indicating a possible overfitting of the training data.}
\label{learning_curve}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[thb]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figs/ConvNet_Digram.pdf}
\caption{Schematic of a ConvNet. This network is a hybrid between a set of convolutional layers and a fully connected feed forward network. The convolutional layers contain kernels that scan through the input and extract feature maps (vertical black solid lines). Each layer forms successively more abstract and sophisticated maps, with each filter being sensitive to a particular feature that the network deems important for the classification task. The high level features which the network automatically generates are then passed through a max pooling layer (gray vertical lines), which take summary statistics of the maps, reducing the number of parameters and promoting generalization. The final content is then fed into the fully connected layers which behave as described in Fig.~\ref{FFNN}, and are responsible for classifying the spectrum into either the AR or PF class. It is important to note that the weights and kernels are updated during training, meaning that the ConvNet adaptively searches for a set of features that is most helpful for distinguishing between AR and PF spectra.}
\label{ConvNet}
\end{centering}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Convolutional neural network}
\label{feature_map_section}
Optimization problems such as these are commonly parameterized by NN's, meaning that the function $\mathcal{F}_\Theta$ is replaced by a NN. A ConvNet is typically composed out of two sections as seen in Fig.~\ref{ConvNet}. A feature extraction segment, inspired from the organization of an animal visual cortex \citep{Hubel_1968}, which derives high level interpretable features via the use of stacked convolutional modules \citep[e.g.,][]{Ian_2016}, and the classification segment, composed of multiple fully connected dense layers that are responsible for interpreting those features and mapping them to a binary classification output (AR/PF). For a detailed description of the fully connected component see appendix \ref{Classical_neural_network}.
ConvNets provide several desirable advantages over simple fully connected networks, most importantly, they provide a means to automatically search for useful features in the input that may help minimize the loss function and lead to better classifications \citep{lecun_1995}. This implies that the convolutional section of the network generates a potential set of "reservoirs" for extracting explanations. Our particular ConvNet contains six such reservoirs referred to as feature maps $A^k$, indicated by black vertical lines in Fig.~\ref{ConvNet}. Each feature map is constructed via a succession of simple layered operations as indicated in Fig.~\ref{convcell}.
\begin{figure}[thb]
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{figs/conv_cell.pdf}
\caption{Schematic for the generation of a single feature map. A filter/kernel consisting of a visual field of three pixels scans over the input in strides of one. At each position, the dot-product between the input and kernel is taken to form a single output in the next layer. This process is referred to as a convolution. The resulting output is then passed through a ReLU activation function which introduces a nonlinearity into the network by setting all negative values to zero. The feature map $A^k_i$ can then optionally be passed through a max pooling function, which scans across the map in strides of two and maintains only the largest value. The convolution process makes the network efficient by promoting sparse connections and weight sharing, while the pooling layer further reduces the number of parameters and promotes invariance of the network output to small shifts and rotations of the input.}
\label{convcell}
\end{figure}
Firstly, a filter/ kernel, sweeps across the input with a predefined number of steps between each stride. In this case, the filter has a visual field of three units and a stride of one unit. At each step, the network takes the dot-product of the input and the kernel (a convolution), to produce the set of numbers seen in the next layer. It is important to note that at this stage two critical attributes are injected into the ConvNet that distinguish it from its fully connected counterpart. Firstly, each output node is connected to only three input pixels, unlike a fully connected layer where every neuron is connected to the entire visual field of the input, and secondly, the parameters of the filter (in this example scalar values $[-1,0,1]$) are reused for each convolution across the entire input. This means that not only do we have fewer connections between the layers, but those connections that we do have are restrained to share similar sets of weights $\{\theta\}$, resulting in a drastic improvement in computational efficiency.
The output vector resulting from these convolutions is then passed through a ReLU activation function which introduces a nonlinearity by replacing any negative numbers by zero. The resulting feature map can optionally be further reduced in size by applying a layer that extracts global statistics, such as a max pooling layer that maintains the largest of two numbers when sweeping over the feature map in strides of two. Pooling layers such as these make the network's output invariant to small shifts or rotations in the input, since only general information across multiple pixels is retained. Additionally, these layers help alleviate overfitting and further reduce the number of parameters fed into the fully connected layers.
Returning back to Fig.~\ref{ConvNet}, each vertical black line represents a feature map that has been obtained using a different filter. The values of each filter also contribute to the set of parameters $\{\theta\}$ that define the network, and are updated in kind via backpropagation (a NN equivalent of gradient descent) in order to minimize the loss function in Eq.~\ref{BCE}. This means that each map tries to identify useful features to serve as an optimal basis for the fully connected layers.
During training, the kernel of each feature map alters its parameters, in order to strengthen responses to particular input patterns. For instance, one of the feature maps could be dedicated to identify triplet emission. If a spectrum has large triplet emission, then this filter will become very active and initiate a strong signal to the fully connected layers. This is demonstrated in Fig.~\ref{feature_maps}, which shows the actual activations of our trained network for each feature map in Fig.~\ref{ConvNet}. In order to see what feature each map is searching for, we have projected the activations back onto the input spectrum, with darker regions indicating importance.
\begin{figure}[thb]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{figs/brain_scan.pdf}
\caption{Diagram showing the actual activations of each feature map in response to an input spectrum $x$. These maps correspond to the 6 vertical black solid lines in Fig.~\ref{ConvNet}. Darker shades show what part of the spectrum each map is identifying.}
\label{feature_maps}
\end{figure}
The first convolutional layer contains two maps that differ only slightly from the input. These maps are then convolved in the second layer to produce more abstract and sophisticated features. We can see that in the final layer, the feature map $A^1$ has understood that the input spectrum contains triplet emission, and furthermore, that this is important for the classification task. Map $A^3$ on the other hand is searching for the presence, or lack of pseudo-continuum emission. We therefore see that the convolutional layers act as a type of translator, identifying the most suitable language for the fully connected layers to interpret, and furthermore, that the final convolutional layer contain the most sophisticated understanding of the spectrum.\footnote{The spatial coherency seen in the feature maps is shattered when passed through the fully connected layers.}
The details of our ConvNet can be seen in Fig.~\ref{ConvNet}. The raw spectrum enters into the network, is convolved with two filters that have strides of $3$ and visual fields of 20 pixels each. The convolved outputs are passed through a ReLU activation function to produce two maps of dimension $74$ each (We note that any remaining pixels after taking the modulus of the convolution are dropped). These two maps serve as inputs for the generation of four more abstract maps that were obtained using filters of stride $3$ and visual fields of 10 pixels. The contents of these filters are then reduced via a max pooling layer (stride $2$ kernel size $2$), flattened into a single vector of size $44$, and then fed into the fully connected layers for classification. For reasons discussed in section \ref{GradCAMsection_detailed} of the appendix, this parameterization of the ConvNet represents a minimalistic architecture that proves sufficient for our classification problem.
\section{Explainable AI techniques}
In this section, we briefly describe two different methods, Gradient-weighted Class Activation Mapping (Grad-CAM) and Expected Gradients (EG) for extracting features from \ion{Mg}{II} that are important for flare prediction, while their detailed description can be found in the appendix. Both of these methods are applied to our ConvNet after it has been trained (post-hoc), and produce visual explanations in the form of saliency maps, which are simple heatmaps that can be projected back onto the input spectrum to indicate the most critical features that were responsible for the network's decision. The most important features of an input are often referred to as the discriminant region, because this is the region that the network focused on to discriminate between the PF/AR classes. If the network was trained to distinguish between spectra from active regions that did not lead to a flare, and active regions that resulted in a flare, then the heatmaps will highlight any hidden features of the spectral line that are particularly associated with preflare activity.
\subsection{Grad-CAM}
\label{GradCAMsection}
Since ConvNets are pattern recognition tools that store spatially coherent high-level representations of the input within their feature maps, much work has gone into understanding and visualizing the internal content of these special units \citep[e.g.,][]{Mahendran_2015, Dosovitskiy_2016}. It was recently demonstrated that the last layer of feature maps in a ConvNet have the ability to behave as object detectors when simply trained on binary classification tasks \citep{zhou_2014}. Further research showed that the addition of a global pooling layer (GAP) directly before the softmax classification layer, allowed researchers to simplify the network enough to project the weights of the feature maps back into the image space to extract the precise discriminant region responsible for a particular classification \citep{Zhou_2015}. Their technique called class activation mapping (CAM) had a distinct disadvantage in that it required an oversimplification of the models architecture to work, which might lead to compromises in the performance of the network.
Gradient-weighted Class Activation Mapping (Grad-CAM) \citep{Selvaraju_2017} represents an improvement on CAM in that it requires fewer architectural constraints. It has recently been used to automatically identify important features in HMI full-disk magnetograms for flare prediction \citep{Kangwoo_2021}. Grad-CAM evaluates the importance of the patterns identified by the feature maps in the final convolutional layer, by monitoring the effect that small perturbations to these maps have on the output prediction score for a particular input spectrum. A low resolution saliency map is then constructed by taking a weighted linear sum of the feature maps, with more weight assigned to those maps that effect the output most. The saliency map is then extrapolated to the dimension of the input and projected back onto the spectrum. One weakness of Grad-CAM is that the quality of the explanation depends strongly on the selection criterion of the network’s architecture. For a detailed description of this method see appendix \ref{GradCAMsection_detailed}.
\subsection{Expected gradients}
\label{EG_section}
Expected gradients (EG) does not require special convolutional layers, although the same network used to generate explanations for Grad-CAM can be reused. Instead of perturbing components within the network to evaluate the importance of patterns, EG works directly at the resolution of the input by removing pixels/wavelength points and evaluating the net effect on the prediction score \citep{Erion_2021}. To ensure the fair distribution of pixel importance, EG makes use of a game theoretic quantity call the Shapley value $\phi_i$ \citep{Shapley1951}, which was originally constructed to fairly distribute rewards over coalitions of players. Under this formalism, the importance $\phi_{\lambda}(\mathcal{F}_\Theta)$ of a single intensity point with the current model is obtained by calculating the average difference between the prediction score under all combinations of pixel coalitions with and without the pixel in question. Since this requires taking many subsets over the input, the formalism has to be adapted to be amenable for NNs, which require information to be pumped continuously through each pixel. In-order to generate pseudo-subsets, EG "turns pixels off" by flooding them with information from the actual dataset, such that the expected value from these pixels after many passes results in a net-zero effect on the output prediction score.
Unlike Grad-CAM, the saliency maps generated from EG are often less smooth. Since it is sensible to require that the variance in importance between proximal pixels be small, EG can incorporate the attributions into the training procedure as a differentiable prior that often leads to smoother saliency maps and faster convergence \citep{Erion_2021}. We however use the attributions derived in Grad-CAM as a guide for applying a post-hoc smoothing after training. For a detailed description of EG see appendix \ref{EG_section_detailed}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figs/ev_0.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figs/ev_1.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figs/ev_2.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figs/ev_3.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figs/ev_4.png}
\caption{Grad-CAM as a function of training time. A single batch means that the network has trained on $240$ spectra from the artificial dataset. Initially the ConvNet focuses randomly on the left wing of the k-line core, before pooling all of its attention onto the artifact, resulting in a classification accuracy of $100$\%. Grad-CAM allows us to deduce that the most important feature for the network's decision making was exclusively the artifact, which by design was the only way to distinguish the two classes of spectra.}
\label{evolution}
\end{figure}
\section{Testing our architecture and XAI implementations on an artificial dataset}
\label{artifact_section}
Only a few examples of attribution methods exist for one-dimensional inputs such as spectra \citep[e.g.,][]{Wang_2016}, we therefore had to test our implementation of the ConvNet's architecture and XAI methods in a controlled environment. We note here that both XAI methods returned similar results (as will be shown in section \ref{eqivv}), and as such, we only show the outputs derived from Grad-CAM.
Our artificial dataset consisted of $700$k randomly selected \ion{Mg}{II} spectra from several solar flares. From these spectra, we constructed two classes, the first class was composed out of the original flare spectra, while the second (positive) class consisted of an identical copy of the first except for a small artificial perturbation inserted at the center of each spectrum, as seen in the top panel of Fig.~\ref{evolution}. The task of the ConvNet is exactly the same as our present task, namely to solve the binary classification problem of correctly labeling the class of each spectrum. Since both classes are identical except for the perturbation, the only way for the ConvNet to distinguish between spectra from the two classes is to focus all of its attention on the perturbation.
This is exactly what we see in the remaining panels of Fig.~\ref{evolution}, which show how the ConvNet adjusts its focus during training. From top to bottom, each panel shows the heatmap derived from the Grad-CAM procedure outlined in the previous section (EG results are equivalent), with warmer colors (oranges, reds) representing wavelengths that the network has deemed important for its classifying task. The batch number associated with each of the plots indicates how many spectra the network has trained on ($1$ batch is equal to 240 spectra, and each batch represents a single adjustment to the weights). The weights of the network, both in the fully connected layers and the six filters, are initiated randomly, and as a consequence, the second panel indicates that the network has not discovered any important features. After batch $50$, gradient descent has allowed the filters to start identifying a portion of the central perturbation. With increasing training time, eventually all of the network's attention is focused on the artifact, resulting in a classification accuracy of $100$\%. This implies that 1) we have a satisfactory network architecture at least for solving simple problems, and 2) that our attribution method highlights the feature that distinguishes the two classes.\\
There is however an important caveat which is not explored by this example. As it turns out, once the network has discovered a portion of the artifact its classification score saturates rapidly, and there exists very little motivation for the network to further adjust its weights to make the perturbation its central focus. This results in saliency maps (as seen in Fig.~\ref{degen}) that highlight residues of unimportant features, such as the h\&k-line cores, and partly, or asymmetrically cover the artifact. To be clear, the saliency maps shown in Fig.~\ref{degen} were derived from fully trained ConvNets, which in both cases performed perfectly on the classification task.
The problem here can possibly be attributed to a flat/wide global minimum within the loss space as depicted in Fig.~\ref{Ensemble_idea}. In this hypothetical loss space, each of the white circles represent a convergent set of parameters $\{\theta_1,\theta_2\}$ found by training different randomly initiated models via gradient descent. Although each converged white circle represents an optimal solution given the loss function $\mathcal{L(\theta)}$, such as those found in Fig.~\ref{degen}, it does not represent the optimal or most intuitive explanation. In other words, when trying to derive explainable solutions we are forced to solve two optimization problems. The first is simply the loss given by Eq.~\ref{BCE}, which promotes accurate predictions, while the second loss is harder to formulate and represents the solution that delivers the maximum amount of explanatory power. Given the simple configuration of this test, we know that the best explanation is to have the network symmetrically highlight only the central artifact. This would represent the solution at the center of the well in Fig.~\ref{Ensemble_idea}.
Since the meaning of "explainable" is not easily formulated mathematically, we cannot construct an additional term in the loss function that gives the ConvNet a set of instructions to automatically transverse the degenerate space of solutions towards its center. We can however locate the center by means of a Monte Carlo approach, by taking advantage of the randomness of the initial states, and then appealing to the law of large numbers. Our course of action is therefore to generate a "swarm" of models, whose solutions populate the perimeter of the degenerate minima, and then take the average saliency map of the entire ensemble
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{figs/degen_1.png}
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{figs/degen_2.png}
\caption{Grad-CAM after two separate training runs. Both figures show saliency maps derived from fully trained ConvNets on the artificial dataset. In both cases, the models achieve near perfect classification scores, however, the central artifact is asymmetrically covered by the network's attention, and residual unimportant features such as the line cores still show nonzero contributions.}
\label{degen}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figs/Degen2.jpg}
\caption{Schematic indicating the problem of obtaining the optimal solution both in terms of model performance and explanatory power. The x- and y-axis represent the parameters of a fictitious two parameter model. Adjusting the model parameters affects the loss, which we ideally want to minimize (lighter regions). Gradient descent allows us to converge to the global minimum in a controlled manner, however, there might be multiple solutions (as indicated by the white circles) that have the same loss. Although these points are degenerate in terms of model performance, they do not all have the same explanatory power. We postulate that the best explanation is located at the center of gravity of this degenerate space. This point must be located stochastically by initiating several models and then taking the average.}
\label{Ensemble_idea}
\end{figure}
\begin{equation}
\bar{M}^c = \sum_{\Theta\in\Omega} (\mathcal{F}_\Theta\to M^c)/|\Omega|,
\label{ensemble_solution}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{F}_\Theta$ as usual is our function parameterized by a ConvNet with unique weights $\Theta$, and $M^c$ is the attribution map produced by a particular model under the Grad-CAM formalism. The final weight solutions are part of a larger set of possible weights $\Omega$. The results of this method which we call the ensemble method, can be seen in Fig.~\ref{Ensemble_res}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{figs/degen_3.png}
\caption{Grad-CAM results after averaging over an ensemble of fully trained models. Although the residual attention in the cores has not fully drained to the artifact, taking the average saliency map from multiple converged runs results in a symmetric covering of the perturbation, indicating that the ensemble method offers a possible mechanism for identifying the most intuitive explanation.}
\label{Ensemble_res}
\end{figure}
Although the line cores still occupy a residual focus of the network, the central minimum is indeed the focus of attention and symmetrically covered. The unwanted attention attributed to the cores (as seen by the turquoise coloring) can possibly be removed in several ways 1) by including more models into the ensemble, 2) by using a smart optimizer such as Stochastic Weight Averaging (SWA) \citep{Izmailov_2018} that allows the solution to stochastically wander around the central minimum before taking the average of the model weights, or 3) by implementing a sort of annealing by randomly perturbing the weights around the minimum and reducing the importance of those weights which affect the model's accuracy least. We selected the first option of including more models, although this is computationally more expensive, it has the least amount of unknowns. It should also be pointed out that in effect, the attribution prior (and less so the post-hoc smoothing) used in EG and discussed in section \ref{EG_section}, is an attempted mechanism for traversing the degenerate minima to the center of gravity.
In conclusion, the need for explainable models places a precedence on the degenerate solution space, since although all solutions have the same performance, they do not have the same explanatory power. We make the assumption that the optimal solution, both in terms of performance and explanation, is located at the center of gravity of the degenerate minimum. Due to the nonmathematical formalization of "explanation," this center of gravity cannot be searched for via controlled optimization techniques, but must be located stochastically via a Monte Carlo approach. It is not clear to what degree the problems encountered here carry over into the real AR/PF dataset, however, we expect that the loss surface will not be as degenerate, allowing the residual attention to naturally drain with increased training time. Furthermore, it is difficult to imagine why the tenants and practices derived here would not hold in more complex scenarios.
\section{Creating train and test sets}
Our data, as well as the objective of obtaining not only high performance classifiers, but also explanations from our network, complicates the training procedure outlined in section \ref{general_procedure}. The last section has clarified that we need to train multiple randomly initiated models simultaneously to derive the most intuitive set of explanations. Although we remain true to the general tenants already outlined, such as minimization of our loss function and splitting our data into a training and test set, it is not immediately obvious how one selects the data that should be in each of these sets. We also note that we do not optimize our model's hyperparameters with the intent of increasing performance metrics. This implies that a validation set is unnecessary. In this section, we explain the method and logic behind our particular choice of data partitioning.\\
Our main objective is not simply to discover that spectra from a single PF region are different from spectra from a single AR. This might be the case, but it also might simply be a peculiarity of the two selected observations. In such a circumstance, the results would not serve our purpose of understanding general flare precursory behavior, and would represent a type of overfitting. We instead wish to extract only those differences that persist over many observations. It is clear then that we require many IRIS observations, and furthermore, that we test the model on data that was not used during training. Additionally, to avoid another potential form of overfitting, spectra from the same IRIS observations cannot be both in the training and test sets, since the models could then learn particulars about the observations themselves, thus suppressing the model's ability to extract general precursory flare behavior.
To decide how to partition the 19 PF and 18 AR observations into two sets, we had to make an experimental design decision. 1) We could either randomly partition the observations, 2) perform a computationally expensive k-fold validation technique which averages over many partitions, or 3) select the partition that leads to the highest model performance. We dismissed the first option on the grounds that it could result in an unfortunate partitioning given the low number of observations, thus flooring the entire experiment. The second option, although thorough, is extremely computationally expensive and has the potential of suppressing common preflare signatures. The computational costs of this option can easily be appreciated if we consider that for every fold, one has to train multiple models to obtain optimal explanations. These models then need to generate a collection of saliency maps at a nonnegligible expense that are then averaged. These averaged maps themselves have to be averaged over all k-folds.
We therefore selected the third option based on the following logic: If a common flare triggering mechanism exists and is noticeable in the UV, then it would be presumptuous to expect that it exists in every observation, and furthermore, even if it did, IRIS's slit may sometimes miss the preflare signatures owing to its limited field of view. Therefore, to give our models the best chance of isolating a frequent preflare signature, the partitioning that leads to the highest model performance would likely coincide with a partitioning that divides observations with this mechanism into both sets.
To determine this optimal partitioning, we trained the ConvNet in Fig.~\ref{ConvNet} for 50 random splittings of observations, assigning $5$ AR and $5$ PF observations to the test set and the remaining observations to the training set for each split. Since each observation contains a different number of spectra, we ensured AR/PF balance by undersampling the majority class. We note that misrepresenting the natural frequency of the classes could result in an inflated false positive rate \citep{Woodcock1976,Bloomfield2012,Deshmukh2022}, however, we found no significant effects due to undersampling. We also enforced a $3/2$ split for the final training and validation sets, meaning we had $50$\% more data for training than testing. For each of the $50$ splits, we allowed the ConvNet to train over $100$ epochs and for each case extracted the model with the lowest loss on the test set, as seen in Fig. \ref{learning_curve}. The statistics for the TSS scores of all $50$ partitions can be seen in the boxplot of Fig. \ref{ConvNet_stats}, which shows that the models in general perform skilfully on the binary classification task (a TSS $>$ $0$ is better than a random guess). We then selected the partition corresponding to the red dot, which resulted in one of the highest TSS scores.
We note that the number of spectra contributed by each observation although similar is not identical, with some observations contributing more than others. To ensure our models were not biased to a particular set of observations, we tested their performance when iteratively removing single observations from the training and test set. We noted little change to the overall TSS, which supports the generality of our results.
\section{Training a swarm of models on the partition}
The high TSS score associated with the chosen data partition in the last section increases the chance that the model learns a meaningful and common set of preflare signatures that is worth extracting using our XAI techniques. From section \ref{artifact_section}, we know that the optimal explanation is most likely obtained using Monte Carlo methods by training a large number of models in concert and then taking the average attributions. We therefore trained a 50 model ensemble on spectra from the training set, with all models achieving TSS scores around $\sim0.8$ on the test set.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figs/ConvNet_stats.pdf}
\caption{Boxplot of the ConvNet's performance in TSS for all 50 random partitions of the observations. The red mark represents the performance of the selected model, while the blue dots are the scores from the remaining partitions. The vertical red line is the median score of all splits, while the edges of the gray box outline the first and third quartiles, the whiskers at the end denote the min and max values while anything outside of this limit is considered to be an outlier. The plot shows that the model easily achieves a high skill on the binary classification task.}
\label{ConvNet_stats}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Downsampling the swarm}
Applying the full 50 model ensemble to each spectrum of the combined PF/AR dataset is computationally expensive. We therefore manually selected a subsample of 9 models that best preserved the average attributions/heatmaps of the entire swarm, resulting in drastic reductions to the computational time. To test the validity of the reduced model selection, we ran tests over several hundred randomly sampled spectra, and compared the heatmaps derived from the full $50$ model swarm and those derived from the $9$ representative models. We noted little to no loss of explainability. The perceived continuity of generated heatmaps under a smart subsampling of models can be interpreted as selecting a minimum of critical points that when averaged result in a point at the center of gravity of the loss landscape. For instance, if the loss function was that seen in Fig.~\ref{Ensemble_idea}, then one could achieve the same result by densely populating the circumference of the minimum with many models, or just simply two critical models whose parameters converge to positions opposite one another.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{figs/GC_VS_EG1.png}
\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{figs/GC_VS_EG2.png}
\caption{Attributions derived using Grad-CAM (top) and Expected Gradients (bottom). Both techniques are equivalent up to an additive constant as they highlight the spectrum in a similar way. In this case, the model indicates that red wing enhancements are important signs of impending flares.}
\label{comparison_EG_GC}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[tbh]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{figs/A_mosaic.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{figs/B_mosaic.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{figs/C_mosaic.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{figs/D_mosaic.jpg}
\caption{Four spectrograms (labeled A-D) in black and white and their associated saliency maps as calculated using Expected Gradients. Darker shades in the spectrograms indicate higher intensities, while warmer colors, such as reds and oranges in the attribution maps are linked to features that the model believes are important for flare prediction. Each attribution map was normalized such that their colors are comparable. The position of the h\&k-line cores, as well as the red wing subordinate line are indicated by horizontal black dashed lines in the attribution maps. Panel A through D shows that triplet emission, downflows, broad line cores, and highly asymmetric spectra respectively, are indicative of forthcoming flares according to the model.}
\label{mosaic}
\end{centering}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Equivalence of Grad-CAM and EG}
\label{eqivv}
We now investigate whether the Grad-CAM and EG formalisms are equivalent, in other words, whether the vector that both methods produce are similar. Figure \ref{comparison_EG_GC} shows a spectrum taken from the PF dataset and fed through the ensemble of representative models. The upper and lower panels show the derived model attributions (colors) using Grad-CAM and EG respectively. Both Explainable AI techniques highlight the spectrum in a similar way, however, the heatmap from Grad-CAM has been scaled up by an additive constant. The similarity between attributions across techniques appears consistent over different samples of spectra. We therefore conclude that the Grad-CAM and EG techniques are equivalent for our purposes up to an additive constant. In this particular case, it appears that the explanation is not optimal since the ConvNet focuses most of its attention on the k-line for its decision rather than distributing the importance evenly over both cores. This may be a consequence of the high degree of symmetry between the line core shape, such that is the network need not analyze both cores for its decision as discussed in section \ref{artifact_section}. We do however stress that these explanations are local, meaning they are particular to each spectrum, and that many times the network does treat the cores on an equal footing.
Having established this equivalence we decided to use EG for the remainder of the analysis because of its favorable axiomatic property of completeness. This property states that $\sum_\lambda\phi(x_\lambda)=\mathcal{F}_\Theta(x)$, that is, the sum of attribution values across a spectrum's wavelengths is equivalent to the prediction score of that spectrum after being passed through the ConvNet. This allows us to create an equivalence between integrated attributions and prediction scores effectively folding the one onto the other. It also means that attributions are only useful at the scale of the wavelength.
\section{Results and discussion}
In this section, we present the results of applying our ConvNet and XAI methods to the AR/PF dataset. After processing the data each spectrum becomes associated with 1) a single scalar value, which is the ConvNets prediction score $\hat{y}$ indicating whether it believes the spectrum is from the PF class (closer to $1$), or the AR class (closer to $0$), as well as 2) a vector which redistributes the total prediction score across the spectrum, functioning as our heatmap to indicate which features are most responsible for the total score. We then analyze these outputs at several progressive resolutions, firstly at the level of single spectra and spectrograms, then across the IRIS slit in time, and finally over entire observations in relation to the flare start time.
\subsection{Attributions over single spectra and spectrograms}
\label{single_spec_sec}
In order to quickly analyze what the model found important throughout the entire dataset, we compiled each spectrum into a compact representation known as a spectrogram. Spectrograms are concatenations of single spectra in time along pixels from IRIS's slit. Four examples of spectrograms can be seen in the black and white images of Fig.~\ref{mosaic}. We note that a single vertical slice from a spectrogram corresponds to a single spectrum, whose shape is encoded as an intensity map (darker here means more intense). This compactification left us with $59026$ PF and $33316$ AR spectrograms instead of millions of single spectra. We then ordered the spectrograms according to their mean prediction scores and manually scanning through the results with the highest scores, that is, those spectrograms that were strongly associated with flare precursory activity. Within these spectrograms we found consistent patterns that are well represented by the four examples shown in Fig.~\ref{mosaic}.
Each of the four panels labeled A-D consist of the original spectrogram (with darker colors indicating more intense emission) and its associated saliency map. The saliency map consists of stacked single spectrum attributions like those in Fig.~\ref{comparison_EG_GC}. The y-axis (left) is always wavelength (measured in Angstroms) while the x-axis is the raster number of the original IRIS observation, which implicitly encodes time as a function of the raster's cadence. For clarity, a minute interval is demarcated by a black horizontal line in the attribution maps. Since all of these observations span $25$ minutes and terminate with a solar flare, the lengths of the markers are equivalent. The y-axis (right) tracks the prediction score which is traced out by white lines in the saliency maps. The position of the vacuum \ion{Mg}{II} h\&k-line cores as well as the red wing triplet emission are demarcated by black dashed horizontal lines.
The scores and attributions are encoded into the attribution maps as follows: The average score assigned to each spectrum (at each raster) from the ensemble of representative models encodes the transparency of the map, such that darker regions are seen to be more important for flare prediction. EG then takes these raw scores and fairly distributes them across the wavelengths turning scores into attributions. Regions of high attributions are colored with warmer colors and indicate those features which are seen as important for flare forecasting. All panels were normalized with an arbitrary value to make their respective colors comparable.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{figs/mosaic_spec_A.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{figs/mosaic_spec_B.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{figs/mosaic_spec_C.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{figs/mosaic_spec_D.png}
\caption{Attributions of individual spectra associated with the saliency maps in Fig.~\ref{mosaic}. Each spectrum is a slice from the attribution maps from the locations indicated by the vertical dashed red lines. The y-axis is normalized intensity and the x-axis is wavelength in angstroms ($\text{\AA}$). Red, orange and turquoise colors indicate features that the model associates with precursory flare activity.}
\label{mosaic_specs}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
Panel A shows that triplet emission is strongly indicative of preflare activity, since EG highlights the portion of the spectrogram (in red) where this emission can be seen to become enhanced. When the triplet emission subsides, the model's attention synchronously dissipates (colors turn from red to blue). Similarly, panel B indicates that velocity flows in the form of red wing enhancements are also indicative of preflare activity as can be seen starting around raster $112$. It is important to note that upflows are regularly flagged as important but are not shown in the figure. The spectra in Panel C appear to become substantially broader around raster $44$, and are consequently highlighted orange and red, indicating a positive relationship between preflare features and broad spectra. Finally, panel D shows extremely broad asymmetric spectra that are flagged as strong predictors. An example spectrum from each panel can be seen in Fig.~\ref{mosaic_specs}, each of which were extracted from their corresponding spectrogram from the locations indicated by the red vertical dashed lines.
We note that the prediction scores, as traced out by the white lines in the attribution maps of Fig.~\ref{mosaic}, are saturated close to the maximum PF prediction score of one. This is because these maps represent some of the highest scoring maps in our dataset, while other maps scored much lower.
\subsection{Attributions over IRIS slits}
The location of high attributions (warm colors) within the 25 minute windows of each saliency map appear to be randomly distributed, and do not display a monotonic increase in prediction score closer to flare onset as was found for the case of the X1.6-class flare observed by IRIS on 2014 September 10 \citep{Panos2020}. It is important to note that for the September 10 event, the authors restricted the pixels of the sit-and-stare to those associated with enhanced activity within the SJIs. To conclude whether or not there is any general tendency for prediction scores to increase during flares, we have to integrate over the entire IRIS slit.
Figure \ref{Integration1} shows two positive instances that demonstrate approximate monotonic increases in prediction score with time (for a comparison with nonflare events see Fig.~\ref{Integration_neg}). Here we have taken the mean attribution score of each spectrum, that is, we integrated over wavelengths to produce saliency maps over the entire IRIS slit. The black and white panels indicate the intensity along the slit at different times with darker colors being more intense than lighter colors. The black curves show the GOES X-ray flux with flare class indicated on the y-axis on the right. Below each of these images are their associated saliency map which as usual indicates the most important regions along the slit in time using the same color code (warmer colors are more important for prediction). The white curves indicate the prediction score in time integrated over all pixels, not just a subset that was used in \citep{Panos2020}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figs/3_atrib.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figs/4_atrib.jpg}
\caption{Attributions over IRIS slits. The top panel shows an intensity map (black and white) over the pixels of one of IRIS's slit positions in time, with darker colors indicating more intense emission. The corresponding saliency map can be seen below, with warmer colors (orange, red etc.) indicating regions that are seen by the models to be important for flare prediction. The black curve in the intensity map corresponds to the GOES-curve whose flare level is indicated on the right axis, while the white curve in the attribution map is the mean prediction score as a function of time along the slit (score seen on the right axis). The bottom panel is the same but for a different observation. Both examples have an increasing prediction score closer to flare onset.}
\label{Integration1}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
The upper left panel of Fig.~\ref{mosaic} is in-fact a spectrogram taken from a single pixel of the upper panel in Fig.~\ref{Integration1}, while the lower panel is of a new PF observation entirely. The vertical black line indicates the end of the PF period and the start of the flare according to the GOES catalog. The intensity and attribution maps were normalized separately across both sides of this divide, to ensure that the details of the PF period were not drowned out by the relatively much higher intensities and attributions during the flare. We find that in roughly 105 out of 135 slits from the 19 PF observations, the location of the maximum attribution along the slit is predictive and aligned with the maximum UV emission later during the flare. Another good example of this can also be seen in Fig.~\ref{aligned_pic} in the supplementary material.
In both cases shown in Fig.~\ref{Integration1}, we see that there is a general tendency for high prediction scores to be associated with enhanced intensities, even though the intensities are only implicitly encoded into our models after the normalization. If an energetic event occurs within the chromosphere, the excess emission from the line cores typically vastly outcompete the gains in the continuum, leading to a pseudo continuum that appears flat after normalizing the spectra by their maximum values, see section \ref{data_section} for details.
To examine the relationship between intensity and prediction score in more detail we plotted the mean attribution score of every PF spectrum as a function of DN's per second in Fig.~\ref{intensity_vs_attrib}. Larger average attributions imply spectra that the model believes is more useful for flare prediction. In the high intensity regime right of the dashed orange line, the intensities appear to be positively correlated with the attributions, with higher intensity spectra being associated with higher attributions, however, towards the "low intensity" regime, the coupling between attribution score and intensity is only weak to nonexistent, and it is possible to have low intensity spectra that are critical for flare prediction.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{figs/intensity_vs_attrib.png}
\caption{Scatterplot of the average attribution using (EG) for each spectra in the PF dataset as a function of intensity (DN/s). The plot is divided into a low and high intensity regime by a dashed vertical line. The red lines in either regime represents the best linear fits, and the corresponding $R^2$ values are provided in the upper part of each regime. We see that "low intensity" spectra can still be critical for flare prediction, and that very high intensity spectra are more strongly correlated with higher prediction scores.}
\label{intensity_vs_attrib}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Global explanations}
Because the explanations derived from Grad-CAM and EG are local, that is, specific for each spectrum, we aim to derive global explanations so that we can investigate PF features in general. To do so, we evaluated the distribution of attributions for the highest scoring PF spectra, that is, those spectra that had prediction scores between $0.9$ and $1$. We then determined the position and magnitude of each spectrum's maximum attribution score and summed the results, allowing us to track the aggregate importance of each wavelength for the model's decisions. The resulting distribution can be seen in the top panel of Fig~\ref{global_exp} together with an arbitrarily scaled PF spectrum (red) and active region spectrum (blue) for reference. The vertical dashed lines mark the position of the \ion{Mg}{ii} h\&k line cores as well as the \ion{Mg}{ii} triplet emission. The histogram makes it clear that in general, the model focuses on regions to the left and right of the k-core, with some attention given to the cores themselves, the triplet emission, as well as three metallic lines. This offers statistical support for the observational claims made in section \ref{single_spec_sec} in relation to Fig~\ref{mosaic}, indicating that features such as triplet emission, flows in the form of red and blue wing enhancements, as well as broad cores all contribute positively to the network's prediction score. The large focus given to wavelengths on the left of the k-core is not exclusively due to upflows, with the model also using these wavelengths to identify broad spectral cores such as those indicated in the third panel of Fig~\ref{mosaic_specs}. In fact, upon visual inspection, downflows are far more prominently given attention than upflows in our dataset.
The model appears to also place focus on particular absorption lines in the pseudo continuum corresponding to \ion{Ni}{i}, \ion{Cr}{ii}, and \ion{Mn}{i}. To explain the model's focus on these metallic lines, we randomly plotted many samples of spectra that coincided with high attributions around these wavelengths. We found no evidence of emission in these lines, however, we know that the continuum height acts as a proxy for intensity (high intensity leads to flat continuum after normalization) and therefore we assume that the model uses these absorption lines to determine the "flatness" of the continuum and thereby the intensity of the spectra. This is supported by a PF observation where the highest attribution scores of the models are clustered around the metallic lines. An example spectrum and its associated attributions is shown in the lower panel Fig~\ref{global_exp}.\\
Interestingly, the second panel of Fig.~\ref{Integration1} shows large increases in attributions from pixels $50-100$ towards the end of the PF period where the GOES curve is relatively flat. Something to note is the decrease in prediction score, which went from maximum values of $1$ in Fig.~\ref{mosaic}, to values around $0.4$ in Fig.~\ref{Integration1}. This decrease in prediction score is a direct consequence of integrating over the entire slit, where many of the slit's pixels are sampling inactive regions of the Sun. The dependence of the score on arbitrary integrations shows that under this current framework, we have to reevaluate our metric and method of predicting flares in real-time.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=0.481\textwidth]{figs/Aver_norm_max_att_score.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figs/metal_line.png}
\caption{Global explanations. Upper panel: Distribution (black bars) showing where the model focuses most of its attention on aggregate for the spectra that have high prediction scores. For context, a red and blue spectrum from the PF and AR class have been plotted respectively, with vertical black dashed lines indicating the positions of the line cores and triplet. Flows that show up left and right of the k-core are important as well as emission in the triplet line. Bottom panel: The model focuses on the metallic absorption lines as a proxy for intensity, since intense spectra after being normalized lead to flat pseudo continuum.}
\label{global_exp}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/PF.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figs/AR.jpg}
\caption{Attributions for all observations. The top and bottom panel indicate the variation across all pixels and rasters of the models prediction score with time for all PF and AR observations respectively. Each row is normalized by its maximum value, and corresponds to a single observation. Higher relative prediction scores are indicated by warmer colors. We see that the PF observations (top) are much more structured and tend to predict flares more strongly closer to flare onset, while the AR scores (bottom), result in a heatmap that is far more sporadic in time. The numbers on each panels y-axis correspond to the observation numbers listed in Table \ref{obs_table}.}
\label{Integation2}
\end{centering}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Monotonicity}
The problem of flare prediction is best framed as a two part problem. The first part is relatively insensitive to the time domain, and is only concerned with the performance of a model on a binary classification task. This is the approach that the majority of flare literature addresses, and it is not principally concerned with how these data are distributed in time or at what point within the time window the flare will occur. The second part concerns itself with how the prediction score evolves over time. The identification of monotonic trends in features and or monotonic increases in predictions are key to deploying practical flare forecasting strategies.
One can imagine a scenario where triplet emission is critical for distinguishing two classes (AR/PF) because this emission is high for all PF observations and low for all AR observations, however, it might be the case that the triplet emission, although a greater indicator of class, does not significantly vary within the PF observations themselves, so that it has a very weak predictive utility along the time dimension. In summary, we need to identify features that not only tell us if a flare will occur, but also when it will occur. There is also no a priori reason to believe that these two sets of features need be the same.
\subsection{Attributions over entire IRIS rasters}
Following the above discussion, it is also possible for the IRIS slit at a particular step during the raster to be positioned off of the active region. When this happens, the prediction score does not monotonically increase, but can randomly fluctuate and even decrease with time. By calculating scores in intervals averaged over each raster of IRIS, we can set a fair baseline prediction for each observation. Since this average score is arbitrarily predicated on the active region itself as well as IRIS' coverage of the region, the baseline of one observation is not comparable to the baseline of another observation, however the trends of the prediction curve in time as well as its inclination do become comparable.
Figure \ref{Integation2} condenses the behavior of our entire PF (top panel) and AR (bottom panel) dataset within a single figure. The upper panel shows a heatmap, where the y-axis indicates PF observation, whose number corresponds to Table~\ref{obs_table}, and the x-axis is time in minutes before flare onset. Again the warmer colors indicate periods of time that are seen by the models as important for predicting flares. In other words, redder colors imply stronger warning signals that a flare will occur.
To derive these heatmaps, each flare observation was placed on a uniform time grid with intervals of 1 second and spanning the PF period of $25$ minutes. A matrix of size $(19 \times 1500)$, corresponding to $19$ PF observations and $1500$ seconds, was then incrementally populated with the average prediction score over an entire raster for each observation. Since most observations typically have cadences of more than two seconds, the initial high cadence grid (and corresponding matrix) was only sparsely populated. Missing values were then filled in by linearly interpolating across the calculated scores within each observation. Each of the $19$ rows of the matrix were then normalized by their maximum value so that observations with relatively high baseline prediction scores did not drown out the behavior of prediction curves from observations with lower baseline scores. Furthermore, the observations were purposefully ordered both within Table \ref{obs_table} and the matrix, such that observations with similar normalized prediction curves would appear close together, thus aiding the identification of patterns across the dataset. The exact same steps were also carried out for the AR observations seen in the bottom panel.
We note that the PF dataset shows much more structure than its AR counterpart which appears to have normalized prediction curves that randomly evolve with time. The PF observations as seen in the upper panel, can be divided into two regimes (a strong and weakly predictive regime) depending on the behavior of their prediction curves. Above the black horizontal line, we see that 13 of the 19 observations tend to have prediction curves that increase as we approach each observations flare onset. Furthermore, the prediction envelope with time smooths out as we move down from PF observation $1$ to $13$. Below the horizontal black line we have six PF observations that do not appear to display any coherent behavior with time.
To understand why some flares are easier to predict than others, we analyzed the SJI and AIA movies in every available passband for all PF observations. We found that within the strongly predictive regime, either the span of the rasters or the position of the sit-and stares covered a region that was associated with small brightenings as seen in Fig~\ref{sji_aia}. In contrast, many observations within the weakly predictive regime had poor coverage of the major preflare activity. Additionally, in the high prediction regime, $77\%$ of observations were large rasters ($10$ of $13$ observations) with only 3 sit-and stare observations, this is in contrast to the low prediction regime where only $33\%$ ($2$ of the $6$ observations) were rasters, implying that more spatial coverage of the active region could lead to more reliable increases in prediction score with time. Furthermore, as indicated in the bottom two panels of Fig~\ref{sji_aia}, those sit-and-stares that were in the strongly predictive regimes had the IRIS slit positioned directly over the regions of most preflare activity. Our small sample also appears to indicate that M-class flares are easier to predict than X-class flares, however, this could simply be due to the way these observations were sampled. A notable exception is the X-class flare on March 29, 2014 (PF obs $14$), which despite having excellent coverage from IRIS nevertheless had a prediction curve that decreased before flare onset. The flare was possibly triggered by an erupting filament which showed increased chromospheric Doppler velocities at least an hour before flare onset, as well as plasma heating 15 minutes prior to the filament eruption \citep{Kleint_2015}. A possible explanation for the poor predictive performance, despite the good IRIS raster coverage and physical precursory activity, is that spectra sampled from the filament are out of the models learned distribution, since the filament eruption is rare in the training dataset. Furthermore, the prediction curve might be saturated in the $25$ minutes analyzed and might therefore drop to lower values further away from flare onset.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[trim=.6cm 1.3cm 2cm 2cm, width=.233\textwidth, clip]{figs/1_AIA_171_172.pdf}
\includegraphics[trim=.6cm 1.5cm 2cm 2.4cm, width=.233\textwidth, clip]{figs/2_AIA_335_155.pdf}
\includegraphics[trim=.6cm 1cm 2cm 1.5cm, width=.233\textwidth, clip]{figs/7_AIA_1700_794.pdf}
\includegraphics[trim=.2cm .8cm 2cm 1.6cm, width=.233\textwidth, clip]{figs/11_AIA_131_1536.pdf}
\caption{Selected images of different PF observations in the strongly predictive regime of Fig~\ref{Integation2}. The PF observation numbering corresponding to Table \ref{obs_table}, as well as the filter wavelength is indicated in the top left and right hand corners of each image, respectively. The green vertical lines indicate the span of the IRIS raster. The flares that are easiest to predict based on spectra have the slit directly over regions where brightenings occur.}
\label{sji_aia}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
We applied a powerful visual network known as a Convolutional Neural Network to IRIS \ion{Mg}{II} spectra with the objective of finding differences between spectral shapes sourced from preflare regions and active regions that did not lead to a flare. Our model was capable of distinguishing spectra from both these classes with a TSS around 0.8, and a large variance depending on how the training and testing datasets were split.
We then obtained visual explanations using two complementary explainable artificial intelligence techniques called Gradient-weighted Class Activation Mapping and Expected Gradients. These techniques allowed us to automatically discover which features of individual spectra were seen by the model to be most important for the task of flare prediction, representing the highest possible resolution of explanations on the level of the individual wavelengths.
The techniques accomplished this by monitoring the sensitivity of the predictions to either small variations within the network's internal components, or variations over input pixels directly. In both cases the techniques returned similar results up to an additive constant, and allowed us to project heatmaps onto the spectra, with warmer colors (reds, oranges, etc.) indicating more important features than cooler colors (blues) for flare prediction. These heatmaps could then be applied to spectrograms of IRIS in-order to automatically highlight critical regions that could possibly indicate a flare triggering event.
We found that in addition to high triplet emission and core intensity, irregularly shaped profiles, broad spectral cores, and single peaked spectra, flows in the form of extended red and blue wing emissions were also consistently flagged by the model as important precursory features, and that $78$\% of the time, high attribution scores along the IRIS slit were predictive of the location of the flare's maximum UV emission.
The possible importance of increased turbulence as an early warning sign and potential flare triggering mechanism has been noted in the literature \citep{Harra_2001}, with an example of a rise in nonthermal velocity taking place $11$ minutes before flare onset, possibly stimulated by rising flux. Furthermore, even though high scoring regions are typically associated with enhanced intensities, there are several instances where prediction scores increase while both intensity and the GOES-curve remain constant, once again consistent with the findings of \citet{Harra_2001}, and indicating the importance of spectral analysis for flare prediction at a high resolution.
We note that any practical deployment of a flare prediction strategy for small field of view spacecrafts like IRIS with multiple programmable observational settings (exposure time, cadence, raster mode etc.) is unlikely. The reasons for this are as follows: If we use the prediction score (number of spectra scored confidently by the network as PF), as a "flare warning signal," then the absolute value of the score becomes meaningless due to arbitrarily variations in active region coverage, which depends on the size of the active region itself, as well as programmatic decisions such as IRIS's slit length and area spanned by the raster. All these free variables can either artificially drive the prediction scores up or down. Additionally, features that were important for the binary classification task of separating AR/PF spectra, are not necessarily equally important for telling us when a flare will occur in time. All these considerations imply that the actual objective for IRIS spectral based flare prediction, is not to achieve high TSS scores, but to identify monotonically increasing predictions that have steep inclinations, while disregarding the absolute value of these curves.
We found that on aggregate, the prediction curves increased for the majority of our PF observations closer to flare onset, however, there were several exceptions that did not show any coherent increase in prediction score, and some observations whose scores actually decreased in time. An extensive analysis of each PF observation over all SJI and AIA filters revealed that flares were easier to predict when IRIS sampled a large spatial region or had its slit positioned directly over small brightenings.
Although practical and reliable flare prediction with IRIS is unlikely, the methods developed here could easily be exported to new instruments that can extract spectroscopic data from entire active regions with multi-slit girds, such as NASA's new MUSE mission that has a multi, $37$ slit EUV coronal spectrograph \citep{DePontieu2020}.\\
\begin{acknowledgements}
All ConvNets and XAI techniques were programmed using the deep learning library of PyTorch \citep{PyTorch} and TensorFlow \citep{tensorflow2015}. For the implementation of the $k$-means algorithm, we used the Scikit-Learn module \citep{SK}. The pre-processing was accomplished with IRISreader, a library specifically developed for handling large volumes of IRIS data \citep{IRISreader}. This work was supported by a SNSF PRIMA grant. We are grateful to LMSAL for allowing us to download the IRIS database. IRIS is a NASA small explorer mission developed and operated by LMSAL with mission operations executed at NASA Ames Research Center and major contributions to downlink communications funded by ESA and the Norwegian Space Centre.
\end{acknowledgements}
\bibliographystyle{apj}
|
\section{{\normalsize Introduction}}
\IEEEPARstart{T}{he} integration of solar photovoltaic (SPV) systems in low voltage (LV) distribution networks, has undergone a rapid upsurge over the last few decades. However, the intermittent and non-dispatchable nature of SPV generation, may restrict their beneficiaries such as the customers from exploiting the merits of SPV fully. These issues can be efficiently alleviated by exploiting energy storage systems. Community energy storage (CES) devices are an emerging type of battery system, which is gaining increasing interest in the industry, as they can enable increased community access and network hosting capacity for renewable energy \cite{shaw2020community}.
An energy management framework which aims at optimizing only the scheduling of a CES such as its charging and discharging pattern, may not deliver the expected rewards from a CES completely. Hence, it is imperative that the planning aspects including the location, the capacity and the rated power of a CES are optimized concurrently with its scheduling. Several studies have presented deterministic optimization frameworks to find the optimal CES planning and/or the scheduling, and thus achieve the objectives of different stakeholders \cite{mediwaththe2020network,mediwaththe2020community,divshali2017improving}. Here, the authors have assumed both real power consumption and SPV generation of the customers are perfectly known ahead from their forecasts. However, due to the uncertainty of SPV generation and real power consumption of the customers, their forecast errors can be quite high at times. Eventually, this may result the optimization models described in \cite{mediwaththe2020network,mediwaththe2020community,divshali2017improving} unable to achieve the objectives effectively. Also, different stakeholders have distinct objectives for them. Thus, a multi-objective optimization framework can reflect the trade-offs between those objectives comprehensively.
In this paper, we examine the extent to which the optimal planning and scheduling of a CES benefit different stakeholders. To this end, we develop an energy management framework between the customers, the CES and the grid, by incorporating the uncertainty of real power consumption and SPV generation of the customers. Additionally, we leverage a linearized power flow model with our energy management framework to formulate a mixed integer linear program (MILP). In summary, the main contributions of this paper can be highlighted as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item We develop a stochastic multi-objective optimization framework which optimizes both planning and scheduling of a CES for benefiting (i) the CES provider by minimizing the investment and the operation costs of the CES, and (ii) the customers by minimizing their social costs.
\item The proposed optimization framework is capable of providing significantly higher economic benefits for the CES provider and the customers than in the models which arbitrarily choose the CES connected node.
\item A case study compares our proposed stochastic model with its corresponding deterministic model for different energy price schemes of the CES provider. This study enables to understand how the economic benefits for the CES provider, and for the customers change due to the uncertainty of real power consumption and SPV generation of the customers, and the energy price scheme of the CES provider.
\end{itemize}
Prior research work have presented optimization frameworks which focus on the scheduling of the CES \cite{mediwaththe2020network,mediwaththe2020community}, and both planning and scheduling of CES \cite{divshali2017improving,alam2015community,hung2011community,bohringer2021sizing}. For instance, the authors of \cite{mediwaththe2020network} have presented a method for CES scheduling, to minimize the social costs of the customers while maximizing the revenue of the CES provider. In \cite{mediwaththe2020community}, an optimization framework is presented to schedule the CES, to minimize the real energy losses, and energy trading costs with the grid by the CES provider and the customers. The authors of \cite{divshali2017improving} and \cite{alam2015community} have presented models to optimize the CES planning and scheduling simultaneously, to enhance the hosting capacity of LV networks, and to mitigate the voltage excursions in three phase unbalanced LV networks, respectively. Also, analytical methods for optimizing the CES planning and scheduling have been discussed in \cite{hung2011community,bohringer2021sizing}. A common feature of \cite{mediwaththe2020network,mediwaththe2020community,alam2015community,divshali2017improving,hung2011community,bohringer2021sizing} is that the authors have used deterministic models, assuming the SPV generation and the real power consumption of the customers are known ahead with no uncertainty. Hence, those models may not be efficient in providing realistic planning and operation decisions.
The uncertainty of real power consumption and generation from SPV have been taken into account in \cite{pamshetti2020coordinated,mahmoodi2020voltage} for CES management problems. For instance, the authors of \cite{pamshetti2020coordinated} have presented a method for optimizing both planning and scheduling of CES to accomplish multiple objectives. Here, the
authors have used the normal distribution and the RWM to model the
uncertainty of real power consumption and SPV generation. In \cite{mahmoodi2020voltage}, the authors of have investigated how the CES location impacts the voltage profile and real power losses in LV networks. For this, they have arbitrarily allocated the CES at different nodes. In contrast to \cite{mediwaththe2020network,mediwaththe2020community,divshali2017improving,alam2015community,hung2011community,bohringer2021sizing}, our paper optimizes both planning and scheduling aspects of the CES taking into account the uncertainty of real power consumption and SPV generation. Thus, our approach models the CES planning and its scheduling problem more realistically. Also, compared to \cite{pamshetti2020coordinated,mahmoodi2020voltage}, we present a method to minimize the personal costs of the CES provider and the customers concurrently.
This paper is structured as follows. Notations used in this paper are detailed in Section II. The system models of the CES, the customers and the network power flow are presented in Section III. The stochastic models of SPV generation and real power consumption of the customers are given in Section IV. The formulation of the multi-objective optimization framework is described in Section V. Section VI presents the validation of the results, and Section VII gives the conclusion of the paper.
\section{Notations}
\subsection{ Stochastic Model-related Notations}
To formulate a scenario-based stochastic program, the uncertainty of SPV generation and real power consumption of the customers are modelled using known probability density functions. Here, a scenario represents a possible combination of SPV generation and real power consumption of all the customers together with their corresponding probabilities at a given time. The initial set of scenarios is denoted by $\mathcal{R}$, and $ r \in \mathcal{R} $. Due to the computational complexity of stochastic programs which use scenarios, it is imperative to use a scenario reduction approach to reduce the number of scenarios, and keep the problem tractability. Thus, a scenario reduction technique is used in this paper, and the set composed by the reduced scenarios is given by $ \mathcal{S}$, where $s \in \mathcal{S}$. The implementation of the scenario-based stochastic program including the scenario reduction are discussed in Section IV.
\subsection{Network and Power Flow-related Notations}
In this paper, a distribution network with a radial topology is considered. It is described by the graph $\mathcal{G=(V,E)}$, where $\mathcal V =\left \{{0,1,..., N} \right \}$ is the set of all nodes, and $\mathcal E= \left \{ (i,j) \right \}\subset \mathcal V\times \mathcal V $ is the set of all lines in the network. Node 0 (slack node) represents the secondary side of the distribution transformer. The resistance and the reactance of line $(i,j)$ are $r_{ij} $ (in $\Omega$) and $x_{ij}$ (in $\Omega$), respectively. The set of customers at node $j$ is represented by $\mathcal C_{j}$, and $ c \in \mathcal C_{j}$ $\forall j\in \mathcal{V\setminus}\left \{ 0 \right \}$. Also, $t \in \mathcal T$, where $\mathcal T$ is the set of time intervals, and $\Delta t$ is the difference between two adjacent time instances (in hours). The real and reactive power flow from $i$ to $j$ node in scenario $s$ at time $t$ are represented by $P_{ij,s}(t)$ (in kW) and $Q_{ij,s}(t)$ (in kVAR), respectively. Also, $\forall j\in \mathcal{V\setminus}\left \{ 0 \right \}$, $t \mathcal{\in T}$, $ s \mathcal{\in S}$, the real power absorption, reactive power absorption, voltage and squared voltage are given by $p_{j,s}(t)$ (in kW), $q_{j,s}(t)$ (in kVAR), $V_{j,s}(t)$ (in $V$) and $U_{j,s}(t)$ (in $V^2$), respectively.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.2in,height=2.3in]{0fig4.PNG}
\caption{Mutual power exchanges between the CES, the grid and a customer in scenario $s$ at time $t$}
\label{fig:Fig. 1}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
\section{System Models}
This section first presents the network power flow model, followed by the power exchange model of the customers, and the CES model. We consider each customer, the CES and the grid can exchange power with each entity as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Fig. 1}.
\subsection{{\normalsize Power Flow Model of the Network}}
In this work, we consider the power absorption for the nodes as positive, and the power injections from the nodes as negative. Additionally, it is considered that there are multiple customers at each node. To model the network power flows, we use the linearized power flow equations (\ref{eq:1}) and (\ref{eq:2}) from the Distflow model in \cite{lin2017decentralized}.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:1}
P_{ij,s}(t)=p_{j,s}(t)+\sum_{k:j\rightarrow k}^{}P_{jk,s}(t) \hspace{3mm} \forall (i,j) \in \mathcal{E}, \hspace{1mm}, t \mathcal{\in T}, \hspace{1mm} s \mathcal{\in S}
\end{equation}
\hspace{2mm}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:2}
Q_{ij,s}(t)=q_{j,s}(t)+\sum_{k:j\rightarrow k}^{}Q_{jk,s}(t) \hspace{3mm} \forall (i,j) \in \mathcal{E}, \hspace{1mm}, t \mathcal{\in T}, \hspace{1mm} s \mathcal{\in S}
\end{equation}
The real and reactive power absorbed by the node $j$ at time $t$ in scenario $s$, can be expressed as (\ref{eq:3}) and (\ref{eq:4}). The real power absorption for the CES installed node is governed by (\ref{eq:3a}), while for all the other nodes (except slack node), it is (\ref{eq:3b}). Th equation (\ref{eq:4}) handles the reactive power absorption for all nodes, and we assume the CES and the SPV devices operate at unity power factor. The real power consumption, reactive power consumption and SPV generation of the customer $c$ at node $j$ at time $t$ in scenario $s$ are given by $p_{cj,s}^{L}(t)$ (in kW), $q_{cj,s}^{L}(t)$ (in kVAR) and $ p_{cj,s}^{PV}(t)$ (in kW), respectively. For $ j\in \mathcal{V\setminus}\left \{ 0 \right \}, t \mathcal{\in T}, s \mathcal{\in S} $, the CES charging and discharging power are represented by $p_{j,s}^{CES,ch}(t)$ and $p_{j,s}^{CES,dis}(t)$, respectively.
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:3}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:3a}
p_{j,s}(t) =\sum_{c \in C_{j}}^{}p_{cj,s}^{L}(t)-\sum_{c \in C_{j}}^{}p_{cj,s}^{PV}(t)+ p_{j,s}^{CES,ch}(t) \\ - p_{j,s}^{CES,dis}(t)
\end{equation}\begin{equation}\label{eq:3b}
p_{j,s}(t) =\sum_{c \in C_{j}}^{}p_{cj,s}^{L}(t)-\sum_{c \in C_{j}}^{}p_{cj,s}^{PV}(t) \\ \hspace{3mm} \forall j\in \mathcal{V\setminus}\left \{ 0 \right \}, \hspace{1mm} t \mathcal{\in T}, \hspace{1mm} s \mathcal{\in S}
\end{equation}\end{subequations}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:4}
\begin{split}
q_{j,s}(t) =\sum_{c \in C_{j}}^{}q_{cj,s}^{L}(t) \hspace{3mm} \forall j\in \mathcal{V\setminus}\left \{ 0 \right \}, \hspace{1mm} t \mathcal{\in T}, \hspace{1mm} s \mathcal{\in S}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The linearized Distflow equations described in (\ref{eq:1})-(\ref{eq:2}) can be explicitly written as (\ref{eq:5}), where $U_0 = \vert V_0 \vert^2$ and $\textbf{U} \! = \! |\textbf{V}(t)|^2$ are the vectors of the squared voltage magnitude of the slack node, and the squared voltage magnitudes of all other nodes, respectively. $\mathbf{1}$ symbolizes a vector of all ones. Moreover, $\textbf{p}$ and $\textbf{q}$ are the vectors of real and reactive power absorption at each node. The matrices $\mathbf{\tilde{R}}$ and $\mathbf{\tilde{X}}$ $\in \mathbb{R}^{N\times N}$ have the elements ${R}_{ij}=2\sum_{(m,n)\in L_{i}\cap L_{j}}^{}r_{mn}$ and ${X}_{ij}=2\sum_{(m,n)\in L_{i}\cap L_{j}}^{}x_{mn}$, respectively, where $L_{i}$ is the set of lines on the path which connects node 0 and $i$ \cite{mediwaththe2020network,lin2017decentralized}. Also, (\ref{eq:6}) ensures the squared voltage magnitude at each node is within its allowable voltage magnitude limits. Here, $\mathbf{U_{min}}=\left | V_{min}^2 \right |\mathbf{1}$ and $\mathbf{U_{max}}=\left | V_{max}^2 \right |\mathbf{1}$, where $V_{min}$ and $V_{max} $ are the allowable lower and upper bound of voltage, respectively.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:5}
\mathbf{U}=U_{0}\mathbf{1}-\mathbf{\tilde{R}}\mathbf{p}-\mathbf{\tilde{X}}\mathbf{q} \hspace{4mm} \forall t \mathcal{\in T}, \hspace{1mm} s \mathcal{\in S}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:6}
\begin{split}
\mathbf{U_{min}}\le \mathbf{U}\le \mathbf{U_{max}}\hspace{4mm} \forall t \mathcal{\in T}, \hspace{1mm} s \mathcal{\in S}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\subsection{{\normalsize Power Exchange Model of the Customers}}
According to Fig. \ref{fig:Fig. 1}, $p_{cj,s}^{G}(t)$ and $p_{cj,s}^{CES}(t)$ denote the real power exchange with the grid and the CES by the customer $c$ at node $j$ at time $t$ in scenario $s$, respectively. When $ p_{cj,s}^{G}(t)>0$, it suggests a power import from the grid by a customer. On the contrary, when that customer exports power back to the grid, it will be $ p_{cj,s}^{G}(t)<0$. The same sign convention is used for customer power exchanges with the CES, and CES power exchange with the grid $ p_{CES,s}^{G}(t)$ (in kW).
When a customer's SPV generation is insufficient to fulfill its real power consumption, that deficit is attained by importing power from the grid and the CES. This is mathematically represented by (\ref{eq:7a}). Nevertheless, the imported power from each entity should be within the deficit quantity. This is ensured by (\ref{eq:7b}) and (\ref{eq:7c}). Besides, when that customer has excess SPV generation, it exports its surplus to the grid and the CES, which is mathematically interpreted by (\ref{eq:8a}). Similar to (\ref{eq:7b}) and (\ref{eq:7c}), the exported power to the CES and the grid should not exceed the mismatch of the SPV generation and the real power consumption. This is demonstrated by (\ref{eq:8b}) and (\ref{eq:8c}). Considering the ability of the CES to exchange power with the grid and the customers, $p_{CES,s}^G(t)$ can be expressed in terms of $p_{cj,s}^{CES}$, $p_{j,s}^{CES,ch}(t)$ and $p_{j,s}^{CES,dis}(t)$ as in (\ref{eq:9}).
If $p_{cj,s}^{L}(t) \geq p_{cj,s}^{PV}(t)$:
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:7}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:7a}
0 \leq p_{cj,s}^{G}(t)+ p_{cj,s}^{CES}(t) = p_{cj,s}^{L}(t)-p_{cj,s}^{PV}(t)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:7b}
\begin{split}
0 \leq p_{cj,s}^{G}(t) \leq p_{cj,s}^{L}(t)-p_{cj,s}^{PV}(t)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:7c}
\begin{split}
0 \leq p_{cj,s}^{CES}(t) \leq p_{cj,s}^{L}(t)-p_{cj,s}^{PV}(t)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
Otherwise:
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:8}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:8a}
p_{cj,s}^{G}(t)+ p_{cj,s}^{CES}(t) = p_{cj,s}^{L}(t)-p_{cj,s}^{PV}(t) \leq 0
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:8b}
\begin{split}
p_{cj,s}^{L}(t)-p_{cj,s}^{PV}(t) \leq p_{cj,s}^{G}(t) \leq 0
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:8c}
\begin{split}
p_{cj,s}^{L}(t)-p_{cj,s}^{PV}(t) \leq p_{cj,s}^{CES}(t) \leq 0 \\ \hspace{3mm} \forall j\in \mathcal{V\setminus}\left \{ 0 \right \}, \hspace{1mm} c \in C_{j}, \hspace{1mm} t \mathcal{\in T}, \hspace{1mm} s \mathcal{\in S}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:9}
\begin{split}
\resizebox{1\hsize}{!}{$p_{CES,s}^G(t)= \sum_{j=1}^{N}\left \{ \sum_{c \in C_{j}}p_{cj,s}^{CES}(t)+p_{j,s}^{CES,ch}(t) -p_{j,s}^{CES,dis}(t) \right \} $} \\ \resizebox{0.6\hsize}{!}{$\forall j\in \mathcal{V\setminus}\left \{ 0 \right \}, \hspace{1mm} c \in C_{j}, \hspace{1mm} t \mathcal{\in T}, \hspace{1mm} s \mathcal{\in S}$} \hspace{15mm}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\subsection{{\normalsize Community Energy Storage Model}}
In this paper, we assume the CES is owned by a third party, and we designate the owner as the CES provider. The planning constraints of the CES are given by (\ref{eq:10})-(\ref{eq:12}), and the operation of the CES is mathematically modeled by (\ref{eq:13})-(\ref{eq:16}).
The equation (\ref{eq:10}) finds the optimal CES node, and we use a binary variable $L_{j}$, in which $L_{j}=1$ suggests node $j$ as the optimal CES node, and $L_{j}=0$ means there is no CES at node $j$. Also, (\ref{eq:10}) guarantees only a single CES is installed in the network. The inequalities in (\ref{eq:11}) and (\ref{eq:12}) find the optimal CES capacity $E_{j}^{cap}$ (in kWh) and its rated power $p_{j}^{Rate}$ (in kW) at node $j$, respectively. Here, $E_{min}^{cap}$ (in kWh) and $E_{max}^{cap}$ (in kWh) are the minimum and maximum CES capacity limits, and $p_{max}^{Rate}$ is the maximum CES rated power limit.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:10}
\begin{split}
\sum_{j=1}^{N}L_{j}=1 \hspace{5mm} \forall j\in \mathcal{V\setminus}\left \{ 0 \right \}, L_{j} \in \left \{ 0,1 \right \}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:11}
\begin{split}
L_{j} E_{min}^{Cap} \le E_{j}^{Cap} \le L_{j} E_{max}^{Cap} \hspace{4mm} \forall j\in \mathcal{V\setminus}\left \{ 0 \right \}, L_{j} \in \left \{ 0,1 \right \}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:12}
\begin{split}
0 \le p_{j}^{Rate} \le L_{j} p_{max}^{Rate} \hspace{4mm} \forall j\in \mathcal{V\setminus}\left \{ 0 \right \}, L_{j} \in \left \{ 0,1 \right \}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The inequality described in (\ref{eq:13}) avoids simultaneous charging and discharging of the CES, while guaranteeing the CES charging and discharging power does not exceed its optimal rated power $p_j^{Rate}$. For this, a binary variable $B_j$ and two additional variables namely, $y$ and $z$ are used. Here, $B_j\in [0,1]$ and $y,z \in \mathbb{R}^{+}$ such that these variables also satisfy (\ref{eq:13}). When the CES is charging, $B_{j}=1$. Hence, $z=p_{j,s}^{CES,dis}(t)=0$ according to (\ref{eq:13d}) and (\ref{eq:13e}). Also, as stated in (\ref{eq:13c}), $y=p_{j}^{Rate}$ and thus, $0 \leq p_{j,s}^{CES,ch}(t) \leq y=p_{j}^{Rate} \leq p_{max}^{Rate}$. When the CES discharges, $B_{j}=0$, and hence, $y=p_{j,s}^{CES,ch}(t)=0$ according to (\ref{eq:13a}) and (\ref{eq:13b}). In this instance, $z=p_{j}^{Rate}$, which generates the inequality $0 \leq p_{j,s}^{CES,dis}(t) \leq z=p_{j}^{Rate} \leq p_{max}^{Rate}$. The equation (\ref{eq:14}) illustrates how the CES energy level changes with time $t$, where $E_{j,s}^{CES}(t)$ (in kWh) is the energy level of the CES at node $j$ at time $t$ in scenario $s$. Additionally, $\eta^{ch} $ and $\eta^{dis}$ are the charging and discharging efficiency of the CES, respectively. Furthermore, the CES energy level should be maintained with in the minimum and maximum state of charge (SoC) levels. This is regulated by (\ref{eq:15}), where $\eta_{min}$ and $\eta_{max}$ represent minimum and maximum percentage coefficients of the CES capacity, respectively. Also, it is required to guarantee the continuity of the CES operation over the next day, and thus, the CES energy level at the end of the day should be kept approximately same as the initial energy level at the start of the day . This is managed by (\ref{eq:16}) \cite{mediwaththe2020network,atzeni2012demand}. Here, $\varepsilon$ is a small positive number (in kWh), and $t_{n} \in \mathcal{T}_{N}$ where $\mathcal{T}_{N}=\left \{ 1,2,....,\left | \mathcal T \right |/24\right \}$.
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:13}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:13a}
0 \leq p_{j,s}^{CES,ch}(t) \leq y
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:13b}
p_{j,s}^{CES,ch}(t) \leq y \leq p_{max}^{Rate}B_j
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:13c}
-p_{max}^{Rate}(1-B_j)\leq y-p_j^{Rate}\leq 0
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:13d}
0 \leq p_{j,s}^{CES,dis}(t) \leq z
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:13e}
p_{j,s}^{CES,dis}(t) \leq z \leq p_{max}^{Rate}(1-B_j)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:13f}
\begin{split}
-p_{max}^{Rate}B_j\leq z-p_j^{Rate}\leq 0 \\
\forall j\in \mathcal{V\setminus}\left \{ 0 \right \}, \hspace{1mm} t \mathcal{\in T}, \hspace{1mm} s \mathcal{\in S}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:14}
\begin{split}
E_{j,s}^{CES}(t) =E_{j,s}^{CES}(t-1)+(\eta^{ch}p_{j,s}^{CES,ch}(t) \\ -\frac{1}{\eta^{dis}}p_{j,s}^{CES,dis}(t)) \Delta t \\ \forall j\in \mathcal{V\setminus}\left \{ 0 \right \}, \hspace{1mm} t \mathcal{\in T}, \hspace{1mm} s \mathcal{\in S}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:15}
\begin{split}
\eta_{min} E_{j}^{Cap} \le E_{j,s}^{CES}(t)\le \eta_{max} E_{j}^{Cap} \\ \forall j\in \mathcal{V\setminus}\left \{ 0 \right \},\hspace{1mm} t \mathcal{\in T},\hspace{1mm} s \mathcal{\in S}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:16}
\begin{split}
\left | E_{j,s}^{CES}(24 t_{n})-E_{j,s}^{CES}(0) \right |\leq \varepsilon \\ \forall j\in \mathcal{V\setminus}\left \{ 0 \right \}, \hspace{1mm} t_{n} \mathcal{\in T}_{N}, \hspace{1mm} s \mathcal{\in S}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\section{{\normalsize Stochastic Models}}
In this section, the uncertainty modeling of real power consumption and SPV generation are presented. Similar to \cite{zafar2018multi,xu2017multi}, the uncertainty of real power consumption and SPV generation are modelled by the probability density functions (PDFs) of normal and beta distributions, respectively.
\subsection{Uncertainty of the Real Power Consumption}
The uncertainty of real power consumption of the customers follows the probability density function of normal distribution $PDF_{L}(.)$ given in (\ref{eq:17}) \cite{zafar2018multi,mohseni2017optimal}. The forecasted real power consumption of the customer $c$ at node $j$ at time $t$ is considered as the mean real power consumption $\mu^{L,t}_{cj}$ of $PDF_{L}(.)$ \cite{zafar2018multi,mohseni2017optimal}. The standard deviation and a sample real power consumption are denoted by $\sigma^{L,t}_{cj}$ and $X^{L,t}_{cj}$, respectively.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:17}
\begin{split}
PDF_{L}(X)=\frac{1}{\sigma^{L,t}_{cj} \sqrt{2\pi }}e^{-0.5\left ( \frac{X^{L,t}_{cj}-\mu^{L,t}_{cj} }{\sigma^{L,t}_{cj} } \right )^2} \\ \hspace{3mm} \forall j\in \mathcal{V\setminus}\left \{ 0 \right \}, \hspace{1mm} c \in C_{j}, \hspace{1mm} t \mathcal{\in T}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Uncertainty of the SPV Generation}
As mentioned in \cite{zafar2018multi,xu2017multi}, the uncertainty of SPV generation of the customers mimic the probability density function of beta distribution $PDF_{PV}(.)$ as given in (\ref{eq:18a}). Also, the forecasted SPV generation of the customer $c$ at node $j$ at time $t$ is taken as the mean SPV generation $\mu^{PV,t}_{cj}$ of $PDF_{PV}(.)$. The equations (\ref{eq:18a})-(\ref{eq:18d}) describe the relationship between the shape parameters $\alpha^t_{cj}, \beta^t_{cj}$, a sample SPV generation $X^{PV,t}_{cj}$, SPV capacity of a customer $PV_{cap,cj}$, the mean $\mu^{PV,t}_{cj}$ and the standard deviation $\sigma^{PV,t}_{cj}$ of $PDF_{PV}(.)$ \cite{zafar2018multi,xu2017multi}. Also, $ \Gamma(. )$ represents the gamma function.
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:18}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:18a}
PDF_{PV}(X)=\left\{\begin{matrix}
\frac{\Gamma(\alpha +\beta )}{\Gamma(\alpha )\Gamma(\beta )}\left (X^{PV,t}_{cj}\right )^{\alpha^t_{cj}-1}\left ( 1-X^{PV,t}_{cj} \right )^{\beta ^t_{cj}-1} \vspace{1.5mm} \\ \vspace{5.5mm}
\forall \hspace{4mm} 0 < X^{PV,t}_{cj} < 1 \hspace{8mm} \alpha^t_{cj}, \beta^t_{cj} \geq 0\ \\ 0 \hspace{15mm} Otherwise
\end{matrix}\right.
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:18b}
\mu^{PV,t}_{cj}=\frac{\alpha^t_{cj}}{\alpha^t_{cj}+\beta^t_{cj}}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:18c}
(\sigma ^{PV,t}_{cj})^2=\frac{\alpha^t_{cj}\beta^t_{cj}}{\left( \alpha^t_{cj}+\beta^t_{cj} \right)^2\left(\alpha^t_{cj}+\beta^t_{cj}+1 \right)}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:18d}
\begin{split}
\sigma^{PV,t}_{cj}=\frac{0.2\mu^{PV,t}_{cj} }{PV_{cap,cj}}+0.21 \\ \hspace{2mm} \forall j\in \mathcal{V\setminus}\left \{ 0 \right \}, \hspace{1mm} c \in C_{j}, \hspace{1mm} t \mathcal{\in T}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
\subsection{Scenario-based Stochastic Program}
Since the normal and beta distributions are continuous PDFs, they represent infinite number of realizations of the random variables. Here, a realization refers to a sample real power consumption or SPV generation of a customer at a given time. A large number of realizations can model the uncertainty better at the expense of a large computational burden. But, continuous PDFs approximated as discrete functions by a finite number of realizations, as given in \cite{li2021review}, can be used to eliminate the similar and less probable real power consumption or SPV generation values. Hence, the discretization of continuous PDFs, reduces the complexity of uncertainty modelling. Thus, both normal and beta PDFs are approximated as discrete functions by 7 realizations. Here, the approximated discrete functions are constructed to have 7 intervals, with every interval having a width of a standard deviation $\sigma$. The midpoint of an interval is a possible realization. For instance, when the forecasted real power consumption is $\mu$, the intervals 1-7 are centered around the 7 realizations $\mu$, $\mu + \sigma, \mu - \sigma, $ $\mu + 2\sigma, \mu - 2\sigma, $ $\mu + 3\sigma$ and $\mu - 3\sigma$ as done in \cite{aghaei2013mip,amjady2009stochastic}. The steps of scenario generation and reduction are given below.
\vspace{3mm}
\begin{itemize}
\item Do Step 1 to Step 5
$\forall t \in \mathcal T $, $j\in \mathcal{V\setminus}\left \{ 0 \right \}$, $c \in \mathcal C_{j}$
\end{itemize}
Step 1: Find the model parameters in (\ref{eq:18}) namely, $\sigma^{PV,t}_{cj}$ $\alpha^t_{cj}$ and $\beta^t_{cj}$, by using the forecasted SPV generation $\mu^{PV,t}_{cj}$. It is assumed that $PV_{cap,cj}$ $ \forall j\in \mathcal{V\setminus}\left \{ 0 \right \}, c \in C_{j}$ are known prior. The standard deviation $\sigma^{L,t}_{cj}$ in (\ref{eq:17}) is taken as 4\% of the mean real power consumption $\mu^{L,t}_{cj}$ of $PDF_{L}(.)$ \cite{zafar2018multi}.
Step 2: Discretize the normal and beta distributions described in (\ref{eq:17}) and (\ref{eq:18}) into 7 intervals. For this, 7 possible realizations for each PDF are calculated as $\mu, \mu + \sigma, \mu - \sigma, $ $\mu + 2\sigma, \mu - 2\sigma, $ $\mu + 3\sigma$ and $\mu - 3\sigma$. Then, their respective probability densities are calculated from (\ref{eq:17}) and (\ref{eq:18}). Once the probability densities are available, the probability for the occurrence of each SPV generation and real power consumption is found by taking the product of probability density and the width of each discrete interval (i.e. $\sigma$).
Step 3: Normalize the calculated probabilities of real power consumption and SPV generation. This is done by taking the sum of the probabilities, and dividing each probability by the sum \cite{pamshetti2020coordinated,aghaei2013mip,amjady2009stochastic}. This should be done for the 7 realizations obtained from each PDF separately. Since the continuous PDFs are approximated by discretization, sum of the 7 probabilities will only be close to unity but not exactly equal to 1. Hence, the normalization guarantees that the sum of the probabilities will be precisely equal to unity \cite{pamshetti2020coordinated,aghaei2013mip,amjady2009stochastic}.
Step 4: Use the roulette wheel mechanism (RWM) explained in \cite{pamshetti2020coordinated,aghaei2013mip,amjady2009stochastic} to construct two roulette wheels in the range [0,1], each having 7 intervals. For this, assign the normalized 7 probabilities obtained from each PDF to [0,1] range. Hence, each interval has a width of the normalized probability of the respective real power consumption or SPV generation.
Step 5: Generate $N_r=\left | \mathcal{R} \right |$ number of random numbers between 0 and 1, which follow the uniform distribution. Here, the random numbers are obtained from a uniform distribution, to guarantee they are generated without any bias.
\begin{itemize}
\item Do Step 6
$\forall t \in \mathcal T $, $j\in \mathcal{V\setminus}\left \{ 0 \right \}$, $c \in \mathcal C_{j}$, $r \in \mathcal{R} $
\end{itemize}
Step 6: Assign each random number to the two roulette wheels according to their magnitudes. Select $\phi^{L,t}_{cj,r}, \phi^{PV,t}_{cj,r}$, $p_{cj,r}^{L}(t)$ and $ p_{cj,r}^{PV}(t)$ from the roulette wheels corresponding to the value of the random number, where $\phi^{L,t}_{cj,r}$ and $\phi^{PV,t}_{cj,r}$ are the normalized probabilities of $p_{cj,r}^{L}(t)$ and $p_{cj,r}^{PV}(t)$, respectively. In this way, the initial set of scenarios are obtained.
\begin{itemize}
\item Do Step 7 $\forall t \in \mathcal T $, $j\in \mathcal{V\setminus}\left \{ 0 \right \}$, $c \in \mathcal C_{j}$
\end{itemize}
Step 7: A scenario reduction approach is essential in scenario based stochastic programs to keep the problem tractability, while sustaining a fair approximation for the uncertainty. Thus, the initially generated scenarios in $\mathcal{R}$, are then reduced to $N_s=\left | \mathcal{S} \right |$ number of scenarios to form a new scenario set $\mathcal{S}$, by using the K-Means clustering algorithm \cite{pamshetti2020coordinated,scarlatache2012using}. This will generate a new set of values for the probabilities and their realizations as $\phi^{L,t}_{cj,s}$, $\phi^{PV,t}_{cj,s}$, $p_{cj,s}^{L}(t)$, $p_{cj,s}^{PV}(t)$ $\forall s \in \mathcal{S}$. The K-Means clustering method is illustrated in Algorithm 1.
\begin{algorithm}
\centering
\caption{K-Means Clustering Algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE Input $\phi^{L,t}_{cj,r}$ $\forall j\in \mathcal{V\setminus}\left \{ 0 \right \}, c \in C_{j}, t \mathcal{\in T}, r \mathcal{\in R} $
\FOR{each $t$ in $\mathcal T$}
\FOR{each $j$ in $\mathcal{V\setminus}\left \{ 0 \right \}$}
\FOR{each $c$ in $\mathcal C_{j}$}
\STATE Randomly initialize the centroids of K-Means clusters as $ Z =\left \{ \phi^{L,t}_{cj,1},..., \phi^{L,t}_{cj,s},..., \phi^{L,t}_{cj,N_s}\right \}$, where $\left | Z \right |=N_s$
\FOR{each $s$ in $\mathcal S$}
\STATE $A_{s} \leftarrow \varnothing$
\ENDFOR
\WHILE{centroids of clusters do not change}
\FOR{each $r$ in $\mathcal R$}
\STATE $s^{*} \leftarrow \underset{s}{arg min}\left \| \phi^{L,t}_{cj,r} - \phi^{L,t}_{cj,s}\right \|$ \vspace{1mm}
\STATE $A_{s^*}\leftarrow A_{s^*} \cup \left \{ \phi^{L,t}_{cj,r} \right \} $
\ENDFOR
\FOR{each $s$ in $\mathcal S$}
\STATE $\phi^{L,t}_{cj,s}\leftarrow \frac{1}{\left | A_s \right |}\sum_{\phi^{L,t}_{cj,r} \in A_s}\phi^{L,t}_{cj,r} $
\ENDFOR
\ENDWHILE
\ENDFOR
\ENDFOR
\ENDFOR
\STATE Repeat Step 1 to Step 20 for the inputs $\phi^{PV,t}_{cj,r}$, $p_{cj,r}^{L}(t)$ and $p_{cj,r}^{PV}(t)$, separately $\forall j\in \mathcal{V\setminus}\left \{ 0 \right \}, c \in C_{j}, t \mathcal{\in T}, r \mathcal{\in R} $
\STATE Return $\phi^{L,t}_{cj,s}, \phi^{PV,t}_{cj,s}$, $p_{cj,s}^{L}(t), p_{cj,s}^{PV}(t)$ $\forall j\in \mathcal{V\setminus}\left \{ 0 \right \}, $ $ c \in C_{j}, $ $t \mathcal{\in T}, s \mathcal{\in S} $
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{itemize}
\item Do Step 8
$\forall t \in \mathcal T $, $s \in \mathcal{S}$
\end{itemize}
Step 8: Calculate the overall probability $\omega_{s,t}$ in (\ref{eq:19}), which gives the probability for the occurrence of scenario $s$ at time $t$. The numerical values found for $\omega_{s,t}$, $p_{cj,s}^{L}(t)$, and $ p_{cj,s}^{PV}(t)$ $\forall j\in \mathcal{V\setminus}\left \{ 0 \right \}, c \in C_{j}, t \mathcal{\in T}, s \mathcal{\in S}$ are then fed into the system models and optimization framework in Section III and V.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:19}
\omega_{s,t}=\frac{\left( \prod_{j=1}^{N} \left( \prod_{c\in C_j}^{} \phi^{L,t}_{cj,s}\phi^{PV,t}_{cj,s}\right)\right)}{\sum_{s=1}^{N_s}\left( \prod_{j=1}^{N} \left( \prod_{c\in C_j}^{} \phi^{L,t}_{cj,s}\phi^{PV,t}_{cj,s}\right)\right)}
\end{equation}
\section{{\normalsize Multi-Objective Optimization Framework}}
In this paper, it is aimed to minimize the investment cost of the CES as a planning objective, and minimize the CES operation cost and the social costs of the customers as the operation objectives. Thus, a multi-objective function is formulated by combining both planning and operation objectives.
\subsection{{\normalsize Objective Functions}}
\subsubsection{{\normalsize Minimizing the Investment Cost of the CES}} The investment cost for a CES can be expressed as (\ref{eq:20}) \cite{pamshetti2020coordinated,zakeri2015electrical}. The first term of (\ref{eq:20}) relates the investment cost for the rated power of the CES, and latter for the capacity of the CES. Since
minimizing the investment cost is a planning objective, it is not
impacted by the uncertainty of the real power consumption and
the SPV generation. Thus, (\ref{eq:20}) is independent of the scenarios.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:20}
f_{Inv,cost}= \rho^{CES}(C^{CES,Inv}_{Rate}p^{Rate}_{j}+C^{CES,Inv}_{Cap}E^{Cap}_{j})
\end{equation}
Here, $ \rho^{CES}=\frac{d(1+d)^\tau}{(1+d)^\tau-1}$, where $\rho^{CES}$, $d$, and $\tau$ are the annual cost of the CES, discount rate and the CES life time (in years), respectively. Also, $ C^{CES,Inv}_{Rate}$ and $ C^{CES,Inv}_{Cap}$ are the CES investment cost per kW (in $AUD/kW$) and the CES investment cost per kWh (in $AUD/kWh$), respectively.
\subsubsection{{\normalsize Minimizing the Operation Cost of the CES}} The cost for operating the CES is given by (\ref{eq:21}) \cite{pamshetti2020coordinated}. Since (\ref{eq:21}) illustrates an
operation objective, it is also a function of the scenarios.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:21}
f_{op,cost}=\sum_{t \mathcal{ \in T}}\left( \sum_{s=1}^{N_s}\omega_{s,t}\left\{ C^{CES,op}_{}p^{CES}_{j,s}(t) \right\} \right)
\end{equation}
where $p^{CES}_{j,s}(t)=\eta^{ch}p_{j,s}^{CES,ch}(t)-\frac{1}{\eta^{dis}}p_{j,s}^{CES,dis}(t)$ and $C^{CES,op}$ is the CES operation cost per kW (in $AUD/kW$).
\subsubsection{{\normalsize Minimizing the Social Costs of the Customers}} Customers incur a cost or earn a revenue for trading energy with the CES and the grid, which is jointly named as the social costs as given in (\ref{eq:22}). Its first term denotes the energy trading cost with the grid, and latter for trading energy with the CES. Similar to (\ref{eq:21}), as the social costs of the customers is also an operation objective, $f_{C,cost}$ is a function of the scenarios.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:22}
\begin{split}
f_{C,cost}= \sum_{t \mathcal{ \in T}} \sum_{s=1}^{N_s}\omega_{s,t}\biggl\{ \lambda _{G}(t)\sum_{j=1}^{N}\sum_{c \in C_{j}}p_{cj,s}^{G}(t) \\ + \hspace{2mm} \lambda _{CES}(t)\sum_{j=1}^{N}\sum_{c \in C_{j}}p_{cj,s}^{CES}(t) \biggl \} \Delta t
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Here, $\lambda _{G}(t)$ and $\lambda _{CES}(t)$ are the grid energy price and CES provider's energy price at time $t$, respectively. We adopt a one-for-one non-dispatchable energy buyback method for $\lambda _{G}(t)$, to value energy imports and exports from/to the grid equally \cite{martin1}.
\subsection{{\normalsize Optimization Problem}}
The three objective functions which determine the CES planning and its operation, are combined together to form a multi-objective function as given in (\ref{eq:23}). The objective functions are normalized by their corresponding nadir and utopia points to attain a Pareto optimal solution for each objective compatible with the weights assigned for them \cite{grodzevich2006normalization}.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:23}
\begin{split}
\resizebox{1\hsize}{!}{$\mathbf{x^{*}}=\underset{\mathbf{x} \in X}{argmin}\hspace{3mm} w_{1}\left \{ \frac{f_{Inv,cost}-f_{Inv,cost}^{utopia}}{f_{Inv,cost}^{Nadir}-f_{Inv,cost}^{utopia}} \right \} + w_{2}\left \{ \frac{f_{op,cost}-f_{op,cost}^{utopia}}{f_{op,cost}^{Nadir}-f_{op,cost}^{utopia}} \right \}$} \\ \resizebox{0.35\hsize}{!}{$+w_{3}\left \{ \frac{f_{C,cost}-f_{C,cost}^{utopia}}{f_{C,cost}^{Nadir}-f_{C,cost}^{utopia}} \right \}$} \hspace{30mm}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Here, \begin{equation}\label{eq:24}
\mathbf{x=(L_j, p_{j}^{Rate},E_j^{Cap},p_{j}^{CES,ch},p_{j}^{CES,dis},p_{cj}^{CES},p_{cj}^{G})}
\end{equation}
where \textbf{x} is the decision variable vector. Here, $\mathbf{L_{j}}$, $\mathbf{E_{j}^{cap}}$ and $\mathbf{p_{j}^{Rate}}$ are the vectors of the optimal CES location, CES capacity and its rated power, respectively. Vectors of the CES charging power, CES discharging power, power exchange with the CES and the grid by the customers are given by $\mathbf{p_{j}^{CES,ch}}$, $\mathbf{p_{j}^{CES,dis}}$, $\mathbf{p_{cj}^{CES}}$ and $\mathbf{p_{cj}^{G}}$, respectively. The feasible set is given by \textit{X}, which is constrained by (\ref{eq:1})-(\ref{eq:16}). Furthermore, the calculation of the utopia and nadir values for each objective function are done in line with the techniques mentioned in \cite{grodzevich2006normalization}. Also, $w_1, w_2$ and $w_3$ are the weight coefficients of each objective function. The implementation of the overall optimization framework is succinctly given in Algorithm 2.
\begin{algorithm}
\centering
\caption{Algorithm to Run the Stochastic Multi-Objective Optimization}
\label{algorithm:2}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE Input $\mu^{L,t}_{cj}, \mu^{PV,t}_{cj} $ $\forall j\in \mathcal{V\setminus}\left \{ 0 \right \}, c \in C_{j}, t \mathcal{\in T}$
\STATE Initialize the model parameters used.
\STATE Execute Step 1 to Step 8 detailed in Section IV-C, including the Algorithm 1, to model the uncertainty of the real power consumption and the SPV generation of the customers.
\STATE Return $\omega_{s,t}$, $p_{cj,s}^{L}(t)$, and $ p_{cj,s}^{PV}(t)$ $\forall j\in \mathcal{V\setminus}\left \{ 0 \right \}, c \in C_{j}, t \mathcal{\in T}, s \mathcal{\in S} $.
\STATE Solve the multi-objective function in (\ref{eq:23}), subject to the set of constraints (\ref{eq:1}) - (\ref{eq:16}), as a MILP.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\section{{\normalsize Numerical and Simulation Results}}
In the simulations, a radial distribution network with 7-nodes given in Fig. \ref{fig:Fig. 2} was considered, and its line data can be found in \cite{zeraati2016distributed}. The forecasted SPV generation and real power consumption data of 30 residential customers in an Australian community, for a period of 1 year, measured in 1-hour time intervals were used for simulations \cite{ausgridaustralia}. Here, all the residential customers generate SPV power and consume real power. Nevertheless, due to the lack of real data on customers' reactive power consumption, it was not considered for the simulations. Also, we randomly assigned the 30 customers for all the nodes except for the slack node (see Fig. \ref{fig:Fig. 2}). Therefore, $\sum_{j=1}^{N}\left | C_{j} \right |=30$. Additionally, $\left | V_{0}\right |=1 p.u.$, $\left | V_{min} \right |=0.95 p.u.$, $\left | V_{max} \right |=1.05 p.u.$, $p_{max}^{Rate}=200 kW$, $E_{min}^{Cap}=50 kWh$, $E_{max}^{Cap}=1000 kWh$, $\eta^{ch}=0.98$, $\eta^{dis}=1.02$, $\eta_{min}=0.05$, $\eta_{max}=1$, $\varepsilon=0.0001 kWh$, $\Delta t=1 h$, $d=0.1$, $\tau=12.5$ years, $C_{Rate}^{CES,Inv}=463 AUD/kW$, $C_{Cap}^{CES,Inv}=795 AUD/kWh$ and $C^{CES,op}=0.69 AUD/kW$. Moreover, the PV capacities of the customers (i.e. $PV_{cap,cj}$) were obtained from \cite{ausgridaustralia}. Also, the values for $C^{CES,Inv}_{Rate}, C^{CES,Inv}_{Cap}$ and $C^{CES,op}$ were taken assuming Li-ion as the CES technology \cite{zakeri2015electrical}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.1in,height=1.9in]{0fig5}
\caption{The 7-Node LV radial feeder with the number of customers marked at each node}
\label{fig:Fig. 2}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.2in,height=1.9in]{0fig7}
\caption{Variation of the grid energy price $\lambda_{G}(t)$ with time}
\label{fig:Fig. 3}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
The three objectives of the multi-objective function in (\ref{eq:23}), were weighted according to their importance. For this, we used the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) illustrated in \cite{saaty2004decision}. We assigned an equal importance for $f_{Inv,cost}$ and $f_{op,cost}$, and a strong importance for $f_{C,cost}$ compared to $f_{Inv,cost}$ and $f_{op,cost}$. Therefore, the values of $w_1, w_2, w_3$ were calculated as 1/7, 1/7, 5,7, respectively \cite{saaty2004decision}. After computing the weight coefficients, the simulations were done over a period of 1 year (i.e. $\left | \mathcal T \right |=8760$) using the CPLEX solver in Python-Pyomo.
\subsection{{\normalsize Case Study I: Comparison of the Proposed Optimization Framework With its Corresponding Deterministic Model}}
To understand the impact of uncertainty on the optimal planning and scheduling decisions of a CES, we compared the results of the proposed stochastic optimization framework and its corresponding deterministic model. The simulations were done for our stochastic model by considering 50 initial scenarios, which is then reduced to 10 (i.e. $N_s=10$) by using the K-Means clustering algorithm. Simulations for the deterministic model were obtained by neglecting the uncertainty of real power consumption and SPV generation of the customers. The same set of constraints and the multi-objective function used for the proposed stochastic model (i.e. (\ref{eq:1})-(\ref{eq:16}) and (\ref{eq:23}) ), were used for the deterministic model as well, while excluding the scenario dependency of (\ref{eq:1})-(\ref{eq:9}), (\ref{eq:13})-(\ref{eq:16}) and (\ref{eq:23}).
In the simulations, a time-of-use (TOU) grid energy price $\lambda_g(t)$ shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Fig. 3} was used \cite{origin}. Due to the lack of accurate real data about the CES provider's energy price $\lambda_{CES}(t)$, we assumed three different energy price schemes for it as (i) $\lambda_{CES}(t)= \lambda_{G}(t)$, (ii) $\lambda_{CES}(t)=0$ and (iii) $\lambda_{CES}(t)=\lambda_{G,avg}$ ,where $\lambda_{G,avg}=\frac{\sum_{t=1}^{24}\lambda_{G}(t)}{24}$. A summary of the numerical results obtained for the two types of the optimization models are given in Table \ref{table:1}. For the three energy price schemes of $\lambda_{CES}(t)$, in both deterministic and proposed stochastic models, the optimal CES location is node 7.
The $p^{Rate}_{j}$ and $E^{Cap}_{j}$ in the stochastic model are higher than their values in the deterministic model. In the stochastic model, due to the impact of the higher values of the realizations with respect to $\mu^{L,t}_{cj}, \mu^{PV,t}_{cj} $ $\forall j\in \mathcal{V\setminus}\left \{ 0 \right \}, c \in C_{j}, t \mathcal{\in T}$, both $p^{Rate}_{j}$ and $E^{Cap}_{j}$ will be greater than their values in the deterministic model. Moreover, in both models, the values of the planning decisions namely, $L_j, p^{Rate}_{j} $ and $E^{Cap}_{j}$ for their respective models have not changed irrespective of the CES provider's energy price scheme. This has happened, as the planning decisions are independent from operation variables, and thus from $\lambda_{CES}(t)$. Hence, the investment costs in the deterministic and stochastic models are AUD 32228 and 33695, respectively, irrespective of the CES provider's energy price scheme.
The operation objectives consider minimizing the CES operation cost $f_{op,cost}$, and the social costs of the customers $f_{C,cost}$. According to Table \ref{table:1}, $f_{op,cost}$ is same for the deterministic model regardless of the CES provider's energy price scheme. This is resulted as $f_{op,cost}$ is a function independent of $\lambda_{CES}(t)$ (see (\ref{eq:21}). Besides, when $\lambda_{CES}(t)=\lambda_{G}(t)$ and $\lambda_{CES}(t)=\lambda_{G,avg}(t)$, $f_{op,cost}$ in the stochastic model is higher than the corresponding deterministic model values. Since the stochastic model takes into account the uncertainty of SPV generation and real power consumption of the customers, the costs in the stochastic model are higher than the ones in the deterministic model. This behaviour is seen for $f_{C,cost}$ as well when $\lambda_{CES}(t)=\lambda_{G}(t)$ and $\lambda_{CES}(t)=\lambda_{G,avg}(t)$. Additionally, as $f_{C,cost}<0$ when $\lambda_{CES}(t)= 0$, it implies that the customers earn a revenue. The customers minimize their social costs by importing power only from the CES as $\lambda_{CES}(t)= 0$. Also, the customers export power solely to the grid to maximize their social revenue. This is the intuition for $f_{C,cost}$ being negative when $\lambda_{CES}(t)= 0$ for both deterministic and stochastic models. This is discussed in detail in Section VI-B-2. In the proposed stochastic model, $f_{op,cost}$ for the three energy price schemes of $\lambda_{CES}(t)$ are different from each other. As the set of random numbers generated during stochastic modelling are unique and different for every execution of Algorithm 2, a unique set of values for $\omega_{s,t}$, $p_{cj,s}^{L}(t)$, and $ p_{cj,s}^{PV}(t)$ $\forall j\in \mathcal{V\setminus}\left \{ 0 \right \}$, $c \in C_{j}, t \mathcal{\in T},$ $ s \mathcal{\in S} $ are obtained. This results in getting different values for $f_{op,cost}$, irrespective of $f_{op,cost}$ being independent of $\lambda_{CES}(t)$.
\begin{table*}[]
\centering
\captionsetup{justification=centering}
\caption{RESULTS OF THE DETERMINISTIC AND PROPOSED STOCHASTIC MODELS }
\label{table:1}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Optimal \\ CES Node \\ $L_{j} $\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Optimal CES\\ Rated Power$^1$ \\ $p^{Rate}_{j}$ (kW)\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Optimal CES\\ Capacity$^1$ \\$E^{Cap}_{j}$ (kWh)\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}CES Investment\\ Cost$^1$ (AUD) \\ $f_{Inv,cost}$\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}CES Operation\\ Cost$^1$(AUD) \\ $f_{op,cost}$\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Social \\ Costs$^1$ (AUD) \\ $f_{C,cost}$ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Deterministic
\end{tabular}} & $\lambda_{CES}(t)=\lambda_G(t)$ & 7 & 72 & 240 & 32228 & 24674 & 124830 \\ \cline{2-8}
{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}} Model\end{tabular}} & $\lambda_{CES}(t)=0$ & 7 & 72 & 240 & 32228 & 24674 & -94681 \\ \cline{2-8}
{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}} \end{tabular}} & $\lambda_{CES}(t)=\lambda_{G,avg}$ & 7 & 72 & 240 & 32228 & 24674 & 70810 \\ \hline
\multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}} Proposed Stochastic \\ Model ($N_s=10$) \end{tabular}} & $\lambda_{CES}(t)=\lambda_G(t)$ & 7 & 78 (7.69\%) & 249 (3.61\%) & 33695 (4.35\%) & 27266 (9.51\%) & 129429 (3.55\%) \\ \cline{2-8}
& $\lambda_{CES}(t)=0$ & 7 & 78 (7.69\%) & 249 (3.61\%) & 33695 (4.35\%) & 29712 (16.96\%) & -98201 (3.58\%) \\ \cline{2-8}
& $\lambda_{CES}(t)=\lambda_{G,avg}$ & 7 & 78 (7.69\%) & 249 (3.61\%) & 33695 (4.35\%) & 29347 (15.92\%) & 75263 (5.92\%) \\ \hline
\multicolumn{7}{l}{$^1$ Increment percentage values are computed with respect to their corresponding values found in the deterministic model} \end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.2in,height=7.25 cm]{0fig51}
\caption{(a) Total power exchange with the grid and the CES by customers, (b) CES charging/discharging power and temporal variation of CES energy - When $N_s=10, \hspace{1mm} \lambda_{CES}(t)=\lambda_{G}(t) $}
\label{fig:Fig. 4}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.2in,height=7.25 cm]{0fig52}
\caption{(a) Total power exchange with the grid and the CES by customers, (b) CES charging/discharging power and temporal variation of CES energy - When $N_s=10, \hspace{1mm}\lambda_{CES}(t)=0 $}
\label{fig:Fig. 5}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
\subsection{{\normalsize Analysis of the Results of CES Scheduling and Mutual Power Exchanges Between the CES, the Grid and Customers}}
The results obtained for the proposed stochastic optimization framework, for different energy price schemes of the CES provider are detailed next. Here, we do the analysis for a randomly selected a day, for a duration of 24 hours.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.2in,height=7.65cm]{0fig53}
\caption{(a) Total power exchange with the grid and the CES by customers, (b) CES charging/discharging power and temporal variation of CES energy - When $N_s=10, \hspace{1mm} \lambda_{CES}(t)=\lambda_{G,avg} $}
\label{fig:Fig. 6}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{{\normalsize When $\lambda_{CES}(t)$=$\lambda_{G}(t)$}} Fig. \ref{fig:Fig. 4}(a) depicts the total power exchange with the grid (brown plot) and the CES (orange plot) by the customers. As the customers do not have sufficient SPV generation during $T_1, T_3$ $T_4$ and $T_5$, they import power from the grid and the CES. Besides, the customers export their excess generation to the CES and the grid during $T_2$. Since $\lambda_{CES}(t)$=$\lambda_{G}(t)$, the customers do not have any preference whether to exchange power with the grid or the CES. The charging and discharging pattern of the CES (red plot), and the CES energy level variation (green plot) with time are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Fig. 4}(b). During $T_1$, the CES charges, and by the end of $T_1$, it discharges completely. The CES is fully discharged by the end of $T_1$ to exploit its full capacity to charge from the excess SPV generation during $T_2$. This is evident as the CES energy level has reached its full capacity of 249 kWh during $T_2$. During $T_3$, the CES exports its power to the customers, and at the end of the day, CES reaches its initial energy level.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\captionsetup{justification=centering}
\caption{RESULTS OF PROPOSED STOCHASTIC MODEL AND CASE I-IV - (WITH \hspace{0.2mm} $N_s=10, \lambda_{CES}(t)=\lambda_{G,avg}$) }
\label{table:2}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Case / CES Node & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Optimal CES\\ Rated Power$^1$ \\ $p^{Rate}_{j} (kW) $\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Optimal CES\\ Capacity$^1$ $E^{Cap}_{j}$ \\ (kWh) \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}CES Investment\\ Cost$^1$ (AUD) \\ $f_{Inv,cost}$ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}CES Operation\\ Cost$^1$ (AUD) \\ $f_{op,cost}$\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Social \\ Costs$^1$ (AUD) \\ $f_{C,cost}$ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Cumulative Cost$^1$ \\ (AUD) \end{tabular} \\ \hline
Proposed Model- 7 (optimal) & 78 & 249 & 33695 & 29347 & 75263 & 138305 \\ \hline
Case I - 3 (chosen) & 124 (37.10\%) & 380 (34.47\%) & 51688 (34.81\%) & 44900 (34.64\%) & 77703 (3.14\%) & 174291 (20.65\%) \\ \hline
Case II - 4 (chosen) & 98 (20.41\%) & 303 (17.82\%) & 41217 (18.25\%) & 36723 (20.09\%) & 76973 (2.22\%) & 154913 (10.72\%) \\ \hline
Case III - 5 (chosen) & 127 (38.58\%) & 366 (31.97\%) & 50258 (32.96\%) & 39093 (24.93\%) & 77024 (2.29\%) & 166375 (16.87\%) \\ \hline
Case IV - 6 (chosen) & 96 (18.75\%) & 310 (19.68\%) & 41837 (19.46\%) & 35578 (17.51\%) & 76491 (1.61\%) & 153906 (10.14\%) \\ \hline
\multicolumn{7}{l}{$^1$ Increment percentage values are computed with respect to their corresponding values found in the proposed model}
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\subsubsection{{\normalsize When $\lambda_{CES}(t)$=0}} In this case, as $\lambda_{CES}(t)$=0, the customers neither incur a cost nor earn a revenue when trading energy with the CES. According to Fig. \ref{fig:Fig. 5}(a), during $T_1$, the customers import power only from the CES, as the customers do not incur a cost for importing power from the CES. The same trend is followed by the customers during $T_3, T_4$ and $T_5$. During $T_2$, the customers export the excess SPV generation to the grid. Also, as $\lambda_{CES}(t)$=0, the customers do not export power to the CES as they cannot earn a revenue from the CES provider. Hence, when $\lambda_{CES}(t)=0$, the customers do not incur a cost for all time. Instead, they earn a revenue from the grid which is shown in Table \ref{table:1} as a negative value for $f_{C,cost}$. Fig. \ref{fig:Fig. 5}(b) shows the charging and discharging pattern of the CES, including its energy level variation with time.
\subsubsection{{\normalsize When $\lambda_{CES}(t)$=$\lambda_{G,avg}$}} In this paper, $\lambda_{G,avg}=0.34180 \hspace{1mm} AUD/kWh $. Hence, during $T_{3}$ $\lambda_{CES}(t) < \lambda_{G}(t) $, and during $T_{1},T_{2}$ $T_{4},T_{5}$ $\lambda_{CES}(t) > \lambda_{G}(t) $. As seen in Fig. \ref{fig:Fig. 6}(a), during $T_1$, the customers import power only from the grid. Since $\lambda_{CES}(t) > \lambda_{G}(t)$ during this time period, it is not economically beneficial for the customers to import expensive power from the CES. During $T_2$, in which the time period with high SPV generation, the customers export the excess SPV generation to the CES as $\lambda_{CES}(t) > \lambda_{G}(t) $. Hence, the customers can earn a higher revenue from the CES provider. Since $\lambda_{CES}(t) < \lambda_{G}(t)$ during $T_3$, the customers import power from the CES, so that they have to pay less for the imported power. During $T_4$ and $T_5$, the customers import power only from the grid as $\lambda_{CES}(t) > \lambda_{G}(t)$. Fig. \ref{fig:Fig. 6}(b) shows the charging and discharging pattern, and the temporal variation of the CES energy level with time.
\subsection{{\normalsize Case Study II: Proposed Optimization Framework Vs Models With Arbitrary CES Locations}}
The merits of a CES may be fully exploited if its both planning and scheduling are optimized simultaneously. To test this, we compared our proposed model with four different cases that randomly choose the CES location, with $\lambda_{CES}(t)=\lambda_{G,avg}(t)$, $N_s=10$, and taking into account the uncertainty of real power consumption and SPV generation. As given in Table \ref{table:2}, the CES is allocated for nodes 3, 4, 5 and 6 which represent Case I, II, III and IV, respectively. For Case I-IV, we considered the constraints (\ref{eq:1})-(\ref{eq:16}), and the objective function in (\ref{eq:23}). Additionally, $L_{j}=1 $ where $j \in \left \{ 3,4,5,6 \right \} $ in (\ref{eq:10})-(\ref{eq:12}) for Case I-IV, respectively. In Case I-IV, $p^{Rate}_{j}$ and $E^{Cap}_{j}$ are significantly higher than in our proposed stochastic model. This has resulted in a substantial increase of the CES investment and operation costs. But, the social costs show only a minor increase for Case I-IV compared with the increase of the investment and operation costs of the CES. This can be explained in terms of the weight coefficients used for weighting the objective functions in (\ref{eq:20})-(\ref{eq:22}). Since $w_1, w_2$ and $w_3$ are 1/7, 1/7 and 5/7, respectively, the highest importance is given for minimizing the social costs. Hence, the optimization solver tries to maintain the social costs as much as close to $f_{C,cost}$ obtained in our proposed model. However, this comes at an expense as $f_{Inv,cost}$ and $f_{op,cost}$ which have a less significance, increase significantly. But, the cumulative cost (i.e. sum of $f_{Inv,cost}$, $f_{op,cost}$ and $f_{C,cost}$ ) is the least for the proposed model, while for Case I-IV, it is about 10-21\% higher than the cost in our proposed model.
\subsection{{\normalsize Case Study III: Impact of Scenario Reduction Approaches}}
In this section, we present a comparison of the results obtained for our optimization model utilizing two scenario reduction methods namely, backward scenario reduction (BSR) method and K-Means clustering algorithm. In BSR method, the initial number of scenarios are reduced by minimizing the Monge-Kantorovich distance between the scenarios in both initial and reduced scenarios sets. Thereby, the initial scenarios are eliminated iteratively one by one, until the desired number of elements in the reduced scenario set is reached. Further explanation about the BSR method can be found in \cite{zafar2018multi}.
In this case study, we considered $\lambda_{CES}(t)=\lambda_{G,avg}$, and the initial number of scenarios as 50. The proposed optimization framework was implemented under the two scenario reduction approaches by taking $N_s=10$ and $N_s=30$ for each method. The numerical results obtained for this case study are summarized in Table \ref{table:3}. Note that, for all the cases, node 7 was recorded as the optimal CES location.
\begin{table*}[]
\centering
\captionsetup{justification=centering}
\caption{RESULTS FOR DIFFERENT SCENARIO REDUCTION METHODS - (WITH $\lambda_{CES}(t)=\lambda_{G,avg}$)}
\label{table:3}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}No. of \\ scenarios\\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Computational\\ time$^1$ \\ (min)\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Optimal CES \\ Rated Power$^1$ \\ $p^{Rate}_{j} $(kW)\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Optimal CES\\ Capacity$^1$\\$E^{Cap}_{j}$ (kWh)\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}CES Investment\\ Cost$^1$ (AUD) \\ $f_{Inv,cost}$\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}CES Operation\\ Cost$^1$ (AUD) \\ $f_{op,cost}$\end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Social \\ Costs$^1$ (AUD) \\ $f_{C,cost}$\end{tabular} \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Without Scenario\\ Reduction\end{tabular} & $N_s=50$ & 91 & 79 & 257 & 34573 & 38434 & 91321 \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}K-Means\\ Clustering Algorithm\end{tabular}} & $N_s=10$ & 38 (58.24\%) & 78 (1.27\%) & 249 (3.11\%) & 33695 (2.54\%) & 29347 (23.64\%) & 75263 (17.58\%) \\ \cline{2-8}
& $N_s=30$ & 53 (41.76\%) & 78 (1.27\%) & 249 (3.11\%) & 33695 (2.54\%) & 30019 (21.89\%) & 89425 (2.08\%) \\ \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}} Backward Scenario \\ Reduction Method\end{tabular}} & $N_s=10$ & 41 (54.95\%) & 78 (1.27\%) & 250 (2.72\%) & 33735 (2.42\%) & 29785 (22.50\%) & 75709 (17.10\%) \\ \cline{2-8}
& $N_s=30$ & 57 (37.36\%) & 78 (1.27\%) & 250 2.72\%) & 33735 (2.42\%) & 30664 (20.22\%) & 89981 (1.47\%) \\ \hline
\multicolumn{7}{l}{$^1$ Decrement percentage values are computed with respect to their corresponding values found without scenario reduction}
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
The costs for all the three objectives are the highest for the model which did not use a scenario reduction method. This is because, the model with $N_s=50$ captures more uncertainty of the real power consumption and SPV generation, so that the optimal CES rated power and the capacity are higher than the models with a lesser number of scenarios. For both K-Means and BSR methods, even with a different number of reduced scenarios (i.e. $N_s=10$ and $N_s=30$), the CES planning aspects have not changed. This occurs as the planning aspects are independent of the number of scenarios. Nevertheless, as the operation decisions are scenario dependent, the operation cost of the CES, and the customers' social costs have changed according to $N_s$. This trend is observed in the results obtained for the model which used the BSR method as well.
The models with reduced number of scenarios have converged for a solution in a lesser time than the case with $N_s=50$. Scenario reduction methods like K-Means clustering algorithm and BSR method play a key role in reducing the computational time while maintaining the problem tractability. However, according to the results obtained for the models which used the K-Means and the BSR method, it is not conclusive to claim which scenario reduction method is better, as there is no any significant difference between the results.
\section{{\normalsize Conclusion \& Future Work }}
In this paper, we have explored how the optimization of the planning and scheduling of a community energy storage (CES) benefit the CES provider by minimizing the CES investment and operation costs, and the customers by minimizing their social costs. The uncertainty of real power consumption and solar photovoltaic (SPV) generation of the customers have been accounted to formulate a scenario-based stochastic optimization program. To reduce the computational burden of the stochastic model, we have used the K-Means clustering algorithm. It has been shown that, both the customers and the CES provider can significantly minimize their personal costs by optimizing both the CES planning and its scheduling.
Future work includes extending the proposed model for unbalanced distribution networks, developing optimization models for networks with multiple CES, and considering the reactive power regulation capabilities of CES and SPV.
|
\section{Introduction}
The subject of this paper is solutions of the stochastic It\^o-McKean-Vlasov (McKean-Vlasov) equation in $\mathbb R^{2d}$
\begin{equation}\label{e1}
dX_t = Y_t dt, \quad
dY_t = B[t,Z_t, \mu_t]dt + \Sigma[t,Z_t, \mu_t]dW_t, \quad
X_0=x_0,\,Y_0=y_0,
\end{equation}
where $Z_t = (X_t, Y_t) \in \mathbb R^{2d}$, in a particular situation called the true McKean-Vlasov case under the convention
\begin{equation}\label{e200}
B[t,z,\mu]=\int
b(t,z,\zeta)\mu(d\zeta), \;\; \Sigma[t,z,\mu]=\int
\sigma(t,z,\zeta)\mu(d\zeta),
\end{equation}
where $z = (x,y)\in \mathbb R^{2d}$ and $\zeta = (\xi,\eta)\in \mathbb R^{2d}$,
and under certain non-degeneracy assumptions on $\sigma$.
Here $W$ is a standard $d$-dimensional
Wiener process, $b$ and $\sigma$ are vector and matrix Borel
functions of corresponding dimensions $d$ and $d\times
d$, $\mu_t$ is the distribution of the process $X$ at time
$t$. The initial data $z_0=(x_0,y_0)$ may be random and in this case it is independent of $W$. Vlasov's proposal was a substitution of a real multiparticle interaction by a certain ``mean field'' \cite{Vlasov68}. The introduction to the whole topic in its stochastic version may be found in \cite{Sz}; one more important reference, although devoted soleyly to the deterministic setting is \cite{Dobr}. In this paper we investigate only the problem of weak existence for genuinly degenerate stochastic McKean -- Vlasov equations. The equations like (\ref{e1}) naturally arise in mechanical systems with stochastic forces or noise. The aim of this paper is to show weak existence for a such a degenerate SDE system simultaneously minimizing the regularity assumptions on both coefficients with respect to all variables. We assume the non-degeneracy of $\sigma$ and highlight that this non-degeneracy only holds for the second component $Y$ of the system (\ref{e1}). The interest to the minimal regularity is mainly due to the control problems where the optimal strategies are usually discontinuous.
Among the most important works on the subject there is the paper \cite{Funaki}. The study in the present paper is based on Krylov's bounds \cite{Kry} and on the approach proposed in \cite{Nisio} for the ordinary It\^o SDEs which was further generalised to some extent in \cite{Ver-ait} also for the ordinary It\^o SDEs. Other useful references may be found in the cited papers.
The structure of the paper is as follows. In the section \ref{sec:we} weak existence is stated under appropriate conditions. The section 3 containts its proof based on a combination of Krylov's bounds and on Krylov's existence results for the nondegenerate Ito's equations \cite{Kry69}, \cite{Kry}, and on Nisio's weak existence proof also for Ito's SDEs \cite{Nisio}. The degeneracy of the diffusion is overcome still by using Krylov's bounds for {\em non-degenerate} It\^o processes. No regularity of the coefficients $b$ and $\sigma$ is assumed with respect to the variables $t$, $y$, and $\eta$. Uniform continuity is assumed for both $b$ and $\sigma$ with respect to the variables $x$ and $\xi$.
The abbreviation by CBS signifies the Cauchy-Buniakovsky-Schwarz inequality and BCM stands the Bienaym\'e-Chebyshev-Markov inequality.
\section{Weak existence}\label{sec:we}
\subsection{Main results}
Let us recall a fact
from functional analysis useful for the case (\ref{e1})-- (\ref{e200}),
see, for example, (see \cite[Theorem 1.5.5]{Kry-ln}). The proposition \ref{Pro1} and its corollary are stated in a slightly more general form than what is needed for bounded coefficients.
\begin{Proposition}\label{Pro1}
For any Borel function $f(z, \zeta)$ and any probability measure
$\mu(d\zeta)$ such that $f(z, \cdot)$ is integrable with respect to this measure, the
function $\displaystyle f[z, \mu]:= \int f(z,\zeta)\,\mu(d\zeta)$ is Borel measurable in $z$.
\end{Proposition}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor1}
Suppose for each $(t,z)$ the Borel coefficients $b(t,z,\zeta)$ and $\sigma(t,z,\zeta)$ are bounded in $\zeta$ and integrable in \(z\) with respect to all $(\mu_t), \, t\ge 0$, where \(\mu_t\) are marginal distributions of any weak solution of the equation (\ref{e1}). Then the functions $\tilde b(t,z):=B[t, z, \mu_t]$ and $\tilde \sigma(t,z):=
\Sigma[t, z, \mu_t]$ are Borel measurable in $(t, z)$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm1}
Let the initial value \(z_0\) have a finite fourth moment and assume that the following three conditions are satisfied.
Firstly, the functions $b$ and $\sigma$ are uniformly bounded, i.e.,
there exists $C>0$ such that for any $s,x,y$,
\begin{equation}\label{linear}
|b(s,z,\zeta)|+\|\sigma(s,z,\zeta)\|\leq C,
\end{equation}
where $|\cdot|$ stands for the Euclidean norm in $\mathbb R^d$ for
$b$ and $\|\cdot \|$ for the $\|\sigma\| =
\sqrt{\sum_{i,j}\sigma_{ij}^2}\,$.
Secondly, the diffusion matrix $\sigma(s,z,\zeta)$ is symmetric and
uniformly nondegenerate in the following sense: there is a value $\nu>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{si}
\inf\limits_{s,z,\zeta}\inf\limits_{|\lambda|=1}
\lambda^*\sigma(s,z,\zeta)
\lambda
\ge \nu.
\end{equation}
Thirdly, $b(t,x,y,\xi,\eta)$ and $\sigma(t,x,y,\xi,\eta)$ are
continuous with respect to $(x,\xi)$ for each $(t,y,\eta)$ with a uniform modulus of continuity $\rho(\cdot)$.
Then the equation (\ref{e1}) has a weak solution on some probability space with a standard $d$-dimensional
Wiener process with respect to some filtration $({\cal F}_t, \, t\ge 0)$.
\end{theorem}
\medskip
Denote
$$
A[t,z,\mu]:= \Sigma\Sigma^*[t,z,\mu].
$$
\subsection{Proof}
{\bf 1.}
Let us mollify both coefficients $b$ and $\sigma$ with respect to all variables by convolutions in such a way that they become globally Lipschitz in $z$, $\zeta$, and $t$. Namely, let
\begin{equation*
b^n(t,z,\zeta) = b(t,z,\zeta) * \psi_n(t) * \varphi_n(x) * \varphi_n(y) *
\varphi_n(\xi) * \varphi_n(\eta),
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*
\sigma^n(t,z,\zeta) = \sigma(t,z,\zeta) * \psi_n(t) * \varphi_n(x) * \varphi_n(y) * \varphi_n(\xi) * \varphi_n(\eta),
\end{equation*}
where the sequences $\varphi_n(\cdot)$ and $\psi_n$ are defined in a
standard way, i.e., as non-negative \(C^\infty\) functions with a compact support, integrated to one, and so that this compact support squeezes to the origin of the corresponding variable as \(n\to\infty\); or, in other words, that they are delta-sequences in the corresponding variables.
Note that, of course, for every $n$ the smoothed coefficients remain uniformly bounded and all have the same uniform modulus of continuity with respect to the variables $y,\eta$; also, the smoothed diffusion $\sigma$ remains uniformly non-degenerate with ellipticity constants independent of~$n$ (however, recall that this nondegeneracy is only valid along the variable $y$). While performing the convolution with $\psi_n$, it is assumed that $\sigma(t,z,\zeta)\equiv I_{d\times d}$ for $t<0$ (this is needed to leave the mollified diffusion acting on the variable $y$ uniformly nondegenerate for $t\ge 0$ near zero), and that $b(t,z,\zeta)\equiv 0$ for $t<0$.
\medskip
The equation with smoothed coefficients has a strong solution. Even under weaker linear growth conditions it is explained, for example, in \cite[proof of proposition 1]{VerMish20}, as well as in many other sources; this is not linked to the non-degeneracy in any way.
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf 2}. In a standard way (see, e.g., the proof of \cite[theorem 1.6.4]{GS68}), the estimates uniform in $n$ follow,
\begin{align}
\label{kol1}
\mathbb{E} \sup_{0\le t\le T} |Z_t^n |^4 \le C_T (1+\mathbb E |z_0|^4),
\end{align}
and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{kol2}
\sup_{0\le s\le t\le T; \, t-s\le h}\mathbb{E} |Z_t^n - Z^n_s|^4 \le
C_{T} h^2,
\end{eqnarray}
with some constants $C_{T}$ which may be different for different inequalities but do not depend on $n$. (In fact, in \cite{GS68} the assumptions allow a linear growth in $x$; overall, it is a very standard material.)
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf 3}.
Let us introduce new processes $(\xi^n,\eta^n)=:\zeta^n$ which are the copies of $(X^n,Y^n)=:Z^n$, that satisfy similar SDEs on some independent probability spaces. In the sequel by $ \mathbb{E}^3 \sigma^n(s,X^n_s,\xi^n_s) $
we denote expectation with respect to the third variable $ \zeta^n_s $
{\em conditional} on $ X^n_s$,
that is,
$$
\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma^n(s,Z^n_s,\zeta^n_s) = \int \sigma^n(s,Z^n_s,\zeta)\mu^{\zeta^n}_s(d\zeta),
$$ where $ \mu^{\zeta^n}_s = {\cal L}(\zeta^n_s)$ (here naturally $\zeta$ is the variable of integration); likewise,
$$
\mathbb{E}^3 (\sigma^n(s,Z^n_s,\zeta^n_s)
- \sigma^n(s,Z^0_s,\zeta^0_s))
$$
is another notation for
$$
\displaystyle \int \sigma^n(s,Z^n_s,\zeta)\mu^{\zeta^n}_s(d\zeta)
- \int \sigma^n(s,Z_s,\zeta)\mu^{\zeta^0}_s(d\zeta),
$$
where $\mu^{\zeta}_s = {\cal L}(\zeta_s)$ for any random variable $\zeta \in \mathbb R^{2d}$;
the integral
$$
\mathbb{E}^3 \|\sigma^n(s, Z^n_s, \eta^n_s) - \sigma(s,Z^0_s, \eta^0_s)\|^2
$$
is understood as
$$
\displaystyle \int \|\sigma^n(s,Z^n_s,\zeta)
- \sigma^n(s,Z_s,\zeta')\|^2
{\mathbb P}(\eta^n_s \in d\zeta,\eta^0_s\in d\zeta'),
$$
if $\zeta^n$ and $\zeta^0$ are defined on the same probability space.
\medskip
Due to the estimates (\ref{kol1})--(\ref{kol2}) and by virtue of Skorokhod's
Lemma about a single probability
space and convergence in probability (see \cite[\S 6, ch. 1]{Sko}, or \cite[Lemma 2.6.2]{Kry}, or \cite[Lemma 4 in the Appendix]{VerMish20})
without loss of generality we may and will assume that
not only $\mu^n \Longrightarrow \mu$, but also on some probability space
$$
(\tilde Z^n_{t},\tilde \zeta^n_{t}, \tilde W^n_{t}) \stackrel{\mathbb{P}}{\to}
(\tilde Z^0_t,\tilde \zeta^0_t, \tilde W^0_t), \quad n\to\infty,
$$
for any~$t$ and for some equivalent random processes $(\tilde Z^n, \tilde \zeta^n, \tilde W^n)$,
generally speaking, over a sub-sequence. Slightly abusing notations, we denote initial values still by \(z_0\) without tilde.
Also, without loss of generality we assume that each process $(\tilde \zeta^n_{t}, \, t\ge 0)$ for any $n\ge 1$ is independent of $(\tilde Z^n, \tilde W^n)$, as well as their limit $\tilde \zeta^0_t$ may be chosen to be independent of the limits $(\tilde Z^0,\tilde W^0)$ (this follows from the fact that on the original probability space $\eta^n$ is independent of $(Z^n, W^n)$ and on the new probability space their joint distribution remains the same; hence, independence of $\tilde \zeta^n$ is also valid and in the limit this is still true). See the details in the proof of the Theorem 2.6.1 in \cite{Kry}.
On independent probability spaces we have,
\begin{equation}\label{exi0}
d\xi^n_t = \eta^n_tdt, \quad d\eta^n_t = B^{n}[t,\zeta^n_t, \mu_t]dt + \Sigma^{n} [t,\zeta^n_t, \mu_t]dW^{\prime,n}_t, \;\; t\ge 0, \quad
{\cal L}(\zeta^n_0)={\cal L}(z_0),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation*
d\tilde \xi^n_t = \tilde \eta^n_tdt, \quad d\tilde \eta^n_t = B^{n}[t,\tilde \zeta^n_t, \mu_t]dt + \Sigma^{n} [t,\tilde \zeta^n_t, \mu_t]d\tilde W^{\prime,n}_t, \;\; t\ge 0, \quad
{\cal L}(\tilde \zeta^n_0)={\cal L}(z_0).
\end{equation*}
Due to the inequality (\ref{kol2}),
the same inequality holds for $\tilde Z^n$ and $\tilde W^n$, in particular,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{kol2t}
\sup_{0\le s\le t\le T; \, t-s\le h}\mathbb{E} |\tilde Z_t^n - \tilde Z^n_s|^4 \le C_{T} h^2.
\end{eqnarray}
Due to Kolmogorov's continuity theorem, it means that all processes $\tilde Z^n$ may be regarded as continuous, and $\tilde W^n$ can be assumed also continuous by the same reason. Note for the sequel that the bound (\ref{kol1}) is also applicable to the process $\tilde Z$:
\begin{align}
\label{kol11}
\mathbb{E} \sup_{0\le t\le T} |\tilde Z_t^n |^4 \le C_T (1+\mathbb E |z_0|^4)
\end{align}
because of the equivalence of $Z$ and $\tilde Z$.
Further, due to the independence of the increments of $W^n$ after time $t$ of the sigma-algebra $\sigma(Z^n_s, W^n_s, s\le t)$, the same property holds true for $\tilde W^n$ and $\sigma(\tilde Z^n_s, \tilde W^n_s, s\le t)$, as well as for $\tilde W^n$ and for the completions of the sigma-algebras $\sigma(\tilde Z^n_s, \tilde W^n_s, s\le t)$ which we denote by ${\cal F}^{(n)}_t$. Also, the processes $\tilde Z^n$ are adapted to the filtration $({\cal F}^{(n)}_t)$. So, all stochastic integrals which involve $\tilde Z^n$ and $\tilde W^n$ are well defined. The same relates to the processes $\tilde \zeta^n$.
Hence,
again by using Skorokhod's lemma
we may choose a
subsequence $n'\to\infty$ so that we may hope to pass to the limit in the equation
\begin{align*}
&\tilde X^{n'}_t = x_0 + \int_0^t \tilde Y^{n'}_s\,ds,
\\\\
&\tilde Y^{n'}_t = y_0 + \int_0^t \mathbb{E}^3 b^{n'}(s,\tilde Z^{n'}_s, \tilde \zeta^{n'}_s)\,ds +
\int_0^t \mathbb{E}^3 \sigma^{n'}(s,\tilde Z^{n'}_s, \tilde \zeta^{n'}_s) d\tilde W^{n'}_s,
\end{align*}
in order to get
\begin{align*
&\tilde X^{0}_t = x_0 + \int_0^t \tilde Y^{0}_s\,ds,
\nonumber \\\\ \nonumber
&\tilde Y^{0}_t = y_0 + \int_0^t \mathbb{E}^3 b^{}(s,\tilde Z^{0}_s, \tilde \zeta^{0}_s)\,ds +
\int_0^t \mathbb{E}^3 \sigma^{}(s,\tilde Z^{0}_s, \tilde \zeta^{0}_s) d\tilde W^{0}_s,
\end{align*}
as $n'\to\infty$, or, equivalently,
\begin{align}\label{limitsde}
&\tilde X^{0}_t = x_0 + \int_0^t \tilde Y^{0}_s\,ds,
\nonumber \\\\ \nonumber
&\tilde Y^{0}_t = y_0 + \int_0^t B^{}(s,\tilde Z^{0}_s, \mu_s)\,ds +
\int_0^t \Sigma^{}(s,\tilde Z^{0}_s, \mu_s) d\tilde W^{0}_s, \quad \mu_s = {\cal L}(\tilde Z^0_s).
\end{align}
First of all, recall that a priori bounds
(\ref{kol1}) -- (\ref{kol2}) and (\ref{kol2t}) hold true with constants not depending on $n$.
Now, by Skorokhod's lemma (\cite[\S 6, ch. 1]{Sko}, or \cite[Lemma 2.6.2]{Kry}, or \cite[Lemma 4 in the Appendix]{VerMish20}), we have a sequence of equivalent processes $(\tilde Z^{n'}_t,\tilde \zeta^{n'}_t, \tilde W^{n'}_t)$ on some probability space and a limiting triple $(\tilde Z^{0}_t,\tilde \zeta^{0}_t, \tilde W^{0}_t)$ such that for any $t$,
\begin{equation*
(\tilde Z^{n'}_t,\tilde \zeta^{n'}_t, \tilde W^{n'}_t) \stackrel{\mathbb P}{\to} (\tilde Z^{0}_t,\tilde \zeta^{0}_t, \tilde W^{0}_t).
\end{equation*}
By virtue of the a priori estimates for \(\tilde W^n\), the process \(\tilde W\) is continuous and it is, naturally, a $d$-dimensional Wiener process.
Also, the limits are adapted to the corresponding filtration $\tilde {\cal F}_t:= \bigvee_{n\ge 1}{\cal F}^{(n)}_t$ and \(\tilde W\) is a Wiener process with respect to this filtration.
Moreover, by virtue of the uniform estimates (\ref{kol2}), the limit \((\tilde Z^{0}_t,\tilde \zeta^{0}_t)\) may be also regarded as continuous due to Kolmogorov's continuity theorem, because a priori bounds (\ref{kol1}) -- (\ref{kol2}) remain valid for the limiting processes \(\tilde Z, \tilde \zeta\).
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf 4}.
\noindent
We have to show that
\begin{equation}\label{limNb0}
\int_0^t \mathbb{E}^3 b^{n'}(s,\tilde Z^{n'}_s, \tilde \zeta^{n'}_s)ds \stackrel{\mathbb P}{\to} \int_0^t \mathbb{E}^3 b(s,\tilde Z^{0}_s, \tilde \zeta^{0}_s)ds,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{limNs0}
\int_0^t \mathbb{E}^3 \sigma^{n'}(s,\tilde Z^{n'}_s, \tilde \zeta^{n'}_s) d\tilde W^{n'}_s \stackrel{\mathbb P}{\to} \int_0^t \mathbb{E}^3 \sigma(s,\tilde Z^{0}_s, \tilde \zeta^{0}_s) d\tilde W^{0}_s, \quad n'\to\infty.
\end{equation}
We start with the drift term.
Let us fix some $n_0$ and let $n>n_0$.
We have for any $t\le T$,
\begin{align*
& \displaystyle \mathbb P \left(\left|\int_0^t \left( (\mathbb{E}^3 b^{n}(s,\tilde X^{n}_s, \tilde Y^{n}_s, \tilde \xi^{n}_s, \tilde \eta^{n}_s)) - (\mathbb{E}^3 b(s,\tilde X^0_s,\tilde Y^0_s, \tilde \xi^{0}_s,\tilde \eta^{0}_s))\right)ds\right| > c\right)
\nonumber \\\nonumber \\\nonumber
& \!\!\!\displaystyle \le \!\mathbb P\!\left(
\left|\int_0^t \!\!\! \left(\!\mathbb{E}^3 b^{n}(s,\tilde X^{n}_s, \tilde Y^{n}_s, \tilde \xi^{n}_s,\tilde \eta^{n}_s) \! -\! (\mathbb{E}^3 b^{n_0}(s,\tilde X^{n}_s, \tilde Y^{n}_s, \tilde \xi^{n}_s, \tilde \eta^{n}_s)\right)ds\right| \!>\! \frac{c}{3}\right)
\nonumber \\\nonumber \\\nonumber
& \displaystyle + \mathbb P \left(\left|\int_0^t \left( ( \mathbb{E}^3 b^{n_0}(s,\tilde Z^{n}_s, \tilde \zeta^{n}_s)) - ( \mathbb{E}^3b^{n_0}(s,\tilde Z^0_s,\tilde \zeta^0_s))\right)ds\right| > \frac{c}3\right)
\nonumber \\\nonumber \\\nonumber
& \!\displaystyle \!+\! \mathbb P \left(\left|\int_0^t \!\!\! \left(\mathbb{E}^3 b^{n_0}(s,\tilde X^{0}_s, \tilde Y^{0}_s, \tilde \xi^{0}_s,\tilde \xi^{0}_s))) \!-\! \mathbb{E}^3 b(s,\tilde X^{0}_s, \tilde Y^{0}_s, \tilde \xi^{0}_s, \tilde \xi^{0}_s))\right)ds\right| \!>\! \frac{c}3\right)
\\ \nonumber\\
& \displaystyle =: I^1 + I^2 + I^3.
\end{align*}
Now the idea is that on a finite interval of time on each $\omega$ the components $\tilde X^{n}_s$ and $\tilde \xi^{n}_s$ are close to certain trajectories of some countable epsilon-net of continuous (even differentiable) functions in $C([0,T]; \mathbb R^d)$; denote this net by ${\cal N}_\epsilon$ and the union of its first $N$ elements by ${\cal N}_{N,\epsilon}$. More than that, since $\tilde Z^{n}_s$ and $\tilde \zeta^{n}_s$ are bounded in probability (uniformly in $n$) on any bounded interval $[0,T]$, we may take into account only finitely many elements of this epsilon-net, up to a small enough probability, that is, for any $\epsilon >0$ there exists $M>0$ such that
$$
\sup_{n\ge 1} \mathbb{P}(\underbrace{\sup_{0\le t\le T}|\tilde Z^n_t| \vee |\tilde \zeta^n_t| > M }_{=:A^n_{M,\epsilon}})<\epsilon,
$$
and there exists $N>0$ such that
$$
\sup_{n\ge 1}\,\mathbb{P}(\underbrace{\bigcup_{k,j=1}^N\sup_{0\le t\le T}|\tilde X^n_t - \phi^k_t| \vee |\tilde \xi^n_t - \phi^j_t| > \epsilon }_{=:B^n_{N,\epsilon}})<\epsilon,
$$
where all $\phi^k \in {\cal N}_\epsilon$. The value $N$ may be chosen uniformly with respect to $n$ due to the a priori bounds (\ref{kol2t})--(\ref{kol11}) and, moreover, because the trajectories $(\tilde X^n_t)$ and $(\tilde \xi^n_t)$ admit H\"older type bounds by the Kolmogorov continuity theorem, see, e.g., \cite[theorems 4.8 and 4.6]{Kry-ln}. Outside these two events $A^n_{M,\epsilon}$ and $B^n_{N,\epsilon}$ of the total probability not exceeding $2\epsilon$ we may assume that
$$
\sup_{0\le t\le T}|\tilde Z^n_t| \vee |\tilde \zeta^n_t| \le M,
$$
and
\begin{equation}\label{phiphi}
\inf_{k,j\le N} \sup_{0\le t\le T}|\tilde X^n_t - \phi^k_t| \vee |\tilde \xi^n_t - \phi^j_t| \le \epsilon.
\end{equation}
On the event $A^n_{k,j,\epsilon}:=(
\sup_{0\le t\le T}|\tilde Y^n_t - \phi^k_t| \vee |\tilde \eta^n_t - \phi^j_t| \le \epsilon)$ we have,
\begin{align*}
\left|\int_0^t \!\!\mathbb{E}^3 1(A^n_{k,j,\epsilon}) \left(b^{n}(s,\tilde X^{n}_s, \tilde Y^{n}_s, \tilde \xi^{n}_s,\tilde \eta^{n}_s) \! -\! b^{n}(s,\phi^k_s, \tilde Y^{n}_s,\phi^j_s, \tilde \eta^{n}_s)\right)ds\right|
\!\le \! t\rho(\epsilon).
\end{align*}
where $\rho$ is the joint modulus of continuity of both coefficients $b(s,x,y,\xi,\eta)$ and $\sigma(s,x,y,\xi,\eta)$ in $x$ and in $\xi$.
\medskip
Similar bounds hold true for the pair $(\tilde X^0_t, \tilde \xi^0_t)$ due to the convergence and because of the a priori bounds (\ref{kol1}). Therefore, there exists $M$ such that
$$
\mathbb{P}(\underbrace{\sup_{0\le t\le T}|\tilde Z^0_t| \vee |\tilde \zeta^0_t| > M }_{A^0_{M,\epsilon}})<\epsilon,
$$
and there exists $N>0$ such that
$$
\mathbb{P}(\underbrace{\bigcup_{k,j=1}^N\sup_{0\le t\le T}|\tilde X^0_t - \phi^k_t| \vee |\tilde \xi^0_t - \phi^j_t| > \epsilon }_{B^0_{N,\epsilon}})<\epsilon,
$$
where all $\phi^k, \phi^j \in {\cal N}_{N,\epsilon}$.
Replacing $\tilde X^{n}_s$ and $\tilde \xi^{n}_s$ by nonrandom $\phi, \psi\in {\cal N}_{N,\epsilon}$ in the integrals like
\begin{equation}\label{xphipsin}
\mathbb P\left(
\left|\int_0^t \left(\mathbb{E}^3 b^{n}(s,\phi_s, \tilde Y^{n}_s, \psi_s,\tilde \eta^{n}_s) - (\mathbb{E}^3 b^{n_0}(s,\phi_s, \tilde Y^{n}_s, \psi_s, \tilde \eta^{n}_s)\right)ds\right| > \frac{c}{3}\right),
\end{equation}
we will be able to apply Krylov's bounds to show convergence due to the nondegeneracy of $\sigma$; a similar approach is applicable to the probability
\begin{equation}\label{xphipsi}
\mathbb P\left(
\left|\int_0^t \left(\mathbb{E}^3 b^{n_0}(s,\phi_s, \tilde Y^{0}_s, \psi_s, \tilde \xi^{0}_s) - (\mathbb{E}^3 b^{}(s,\phi_s, \tilde Y^{0}_s, \psi_s, \tilde \xi^{0}_s)\right)ds\right| > \frac{c}{3}\right),
\end{equation}
with the help of Fatou's lemma,
while the difference due to this replacement can be evaluated by using the modulus of continuity of $b$ in the variables $x, \xi$. Similarly the stochastic integrals can be tackled, which is explained in what follows (in the next steps of the proof). Denote
$$
D^n_{M,N,\epsilon} := \Omega \setminus (A^n_{M,\epsilon} \cup B^n_{N,\epsilon}), \quad n\ge 0.
$$
Notice that $\inf_{n\ge 0}\mathbb{P}(D^n_{M,N,\epsilon})> 1-2\epsilon$ and that
$$
1(D^n_{M,N,\epsilon}) \, \sup_{0\le t\le T}|\tilde Z^n_t| \vee |\tilde \zeta^n_t| \le M, \quad n\ge 0,
$$
and
$$
1(D^n_{M,N,\epsilon}) \,
1\left(\bigcup_{k,j=1}^N\sup_{0\le t\le T}|\tilde X^n_t - \phi^k_t| \vee |\tilde \xi^n_t - \phi^j_t| \le \epsilon\right) = 1(D^n_{M,N,\epsilon}).
$$
Let
$$
D^{n,k,j}_{M,N,\epsilon} := \left(\omega: \sup_{0\le t\le T}|\tilde X^n_t - \phi^k_t| \vee |\tilde \xi^n_t - \phi^j_t| \le \epsilon\right).
$$
\ifpre
\noindent
It is convenient to use similar stopping times as in \cite{VerMish20}.???
Let
\begin{align*}
\gamma_{n,R}:= \inf(t\ge 0: \sup_{0\le s\le t} (|(\tilde X_s^2)^n|\vee |(\tilde \xi^2_s)^n|) \ge R),
\\\\
\gamma_{R}:= \inf(t\ge 0: \sup_{0\le s\le t} (|\tilde Y_s|\vee |\tilde \xi^2_s|) \ge R),
\\\\
\gamma^X_{R}:= \inf(t\ge 0: \, \sup_{0\le s\le t} |\tilde X_s| \ge R), \;
\gamma^\xi_{R}:= \inf(t\ge 0: \, \sup_{0\le s\le t} |\tilde \xi_s| \ge R),
\\\\
\gamma^X_{n,R}:= \inf(t\ge 0: \, \sup_{0\le s\le t} |\tilde X_s^n|\ge R),
\;
\gamma^\xi_{n,R}:= \inf(t\ge 0: \, \sup_{0\le s\le t} |\tilde \xi_s^n| \ge R).
\end{align*}
Denote $R=M+1$ (see ()). Then
\begin{equation*
\mathbb P(\gamma_{R-1}\le T) < \epsilon,
\end{equation*}
and similarly,
\begin{equation*
\sup_n \mathbb P(\gamma_{n,R-1}\le T) < \epsilon.
\end{equation*}
\fi
Denote for a chosen couple $(\phi^k,\phi^j)$
\begin{align*}
g^{n,n_0,k,j}(s,y,\eta):=b^{n}(s,\phi^k_s,y,\phi^j_s,\eta)- b^{n_0}(s,\phi^k_s,y,\phi^j_s,\eta), \\\\
g^{n,k,j}(s,y,\eta):=b^{n}(s,\phi^k_s,y,\phi^j_s,\eta)- b^{}(s,\phi^k_s,y,\phi^j_s,\eta).
\end{align*}
Then the first summand $I^1$ may be estimated by the BCM inequality as follows:
\begin{align*
&I^1 \le \frac3{c} \, \mathbb E \int_0^T C \,\mathbb{E}^3 |b^{n}(s,\tilde Z^{n}_s,\tilde \zeta^{n}_s)- b^{n_0}(s,\tilde Z^n_s, \tilde \zeta^n_s)|\,ds
\\\\
&= C \, \mathbb E (1(D^n_{M,N,\epsilon}) + 1(A^n_{M,\epsilon} \cup B^n_{N,\epsilon})) \int_0^T |b^{n}(s,\tilde Z^{n}_s,\tilde \zeta^{n}_s)- b^{n_0}(s,\tilde Z^n_s, \tilde \zeta^n_s)|\,ds.
\end{align*}
Due to () and () we have
\begin{align*
\mathbb E 1(A^n_{M,\epsilon} \cup B^n_{N,\epsilon}) \int_0^T |b^{n}(s,\tilde Z^{n}_s,\tilde \zeta^{n}_s)- b^{n_0}(s,\tilde Z^n_s, \tilde \zeta^n_s)|\,ds \le C\epsilon.
\end{align*}
So, it remains to evaluate the term
\begin{align*
&\mathbb E 1(D^n_{M,N,\epsilon})\int_0^T |b^{n}(s,\tilde Z^{n}_s,\tilde \zeta^{n}_s)- b^{n_0}(s,\tilde Z^n_s, \tilde \zeta^n_s)|\,ds
\\\\
&\le \sum_{k,j=1}^{N}\mathbb E 1(D^{n,k,j}_{M,N,\epsilon})\int_0^T |b^{n}(s,\tilde Z^{n}_s,\tilde \zeta^{n}_s)- b^{n_0}(s,\tilde Z^n_s, \tilde \zeta^n_s)|\,ds
\end{align*}
We have for any $k,j\le N$
\begin{align*
&\mathbb E 1(D^{n,k,j}_{M,N,\epsilon})\int_0^T |b^{n}(s,\tilde Z^{n}_s,\tilde \zeta^{n}_s)- b^{n_0}(s,\tilde Z^n_s, \tilde \zeta^n_s)|\,ds
\\\\
&\le \mathbb E 1(D^{n,k,j}_{M,N,\epsilon})\int_0^t \left| b^{n}(s,\tilde X^{n}_s, \tilde Y^{n}_s, \tilde \xi^n_s, \tilde \eta^{n}_s) - b^{n}(s,\phi^k_s, \tilde Y^{n}_s, \phi^j_s, \tilde \eta^{n}_s)\right|ds
\\\\
&+\mathbb E 1(D^{n,k,j}_{M,N,\epsilon})\int_0^t \left| b^{n_0}(s,\tilde X^{n}_s, \tilde Y^{n}_s, \tilde \xi^n_s, \tilde \eta^{n}_s) - b^{n_0}(s,\phi^k_s, \tilde Y^{n}_s, \phi^j_s, \tilde \eta^{n}_s)\right|ds
\\\\
&+\mathbb E 1(D^{n,k,j}_{M,N,\epsilon})\int_0^t \left| b^{n}(s,\phi^k_s, \tilde Y^{n}_s, \phi^j_s,\tilde \eta^{n}_s) - b^{n_0}(s,\phi^k_s, \tilde Y^{n}_s, \phi^j_s,\tilde \eta^{n}_s)\right|ds
\\\\
&\le C\epsilon + \mathbb E 1(D^{n,k,j}_{M,N,\epsilon})\int_0^t \left|b^{n}(s,\phi^k_s, \tilde Y^{n}_s, \phi^j_s, \tilde \xi^{n}_s) - b^{n_0}(s,\phi^k_s, \tilde Y^{n}_s, \phi^j_s, \tilde \eta^{n}_s)\right|ds.
\end{align*}
By virtue of Krylov's estimate (see the Theorems 2.4.1 or 2.3.4 in \cite{Kry})
\begin{align}\label{gnn0}
&\mathbb E 1(D^{n,k,j}_{M,N,\epsilon})\int_0^t \left|b^{n}(s,\phi^k_s, \tilde Y^{n}_s, \phi^j_s, \tilde \eta^{n}_s) - b^{n_0}(s,\phi^k_s, \tilde Y^{n}_s, \phi^j_s, \tilde \eta^{n}_s)\right|ds
\nonumber\\\nonumber\\
&= \mathbb E 1(D^{n,k,j}_{M,N,\epsilon})\int_0^t |g|^{n,n_0,k,j}(s,\tilde Y^{n}_s, \tilde \eta^{n}_s)ds
\nonumber\\\\ \nonumber
&\le N_R \left(\|g^{n,k,j}\|_{L_{2d+1}([0,T]\times B_R\times B_R)}
+ \|g^{n_0,k,j}\|_{L_{2d+1}([0,T]\times B_R\times B_R)}\right)
\to 0,
\end{align}
as $n, n_0 \to \infty$ for each $R$, because of the well-known property of mollified functions. Hence, overall, we obtain that
$$
I^1 \to 0, \quad n, n_0\to\infty.
$$
\medskip
Further, the second term admits the bound
\begin{align*}
&I^2 = \mathbb P \left(\left|\int_0^t \left( ( \mathbb{E}^3 b^{n_0}(s,\tilde Z^{n}_s, \tilde \zeta^{n}_s)) - ( \mathbb{E}^3b^{n_0}(s,\tilde Z^0_s,\tilde \zeta^0_s))\right)ds\right| > \frac{c}3\right)
\\\\
&\le C \mathbb E \int_0^t \mathbb{E}^3 \left|b^{n_0}(s,\tilde Z^{n}_s, \tilde \zeta^{n}_s)) - (b^{n_0}(s,\tilde Z^0_s,\tilde \zeta^0_s))\right|ds
\\\\
&\le C \mathbb E \int_0^t \left|b^{n_0}(s,\tilde Z^{n}_s, \tilde \zeta^{n}_s)) - (b^{n_0}(s,\tilde Z^0_s,\tilde \zeta^0_s))\right|ds \to 0, \quad n\to\infty,
\end{align*}
due to the Lebesgue bounded convergence theorem. Hence, for each $n_0$
$$
\lim_{n\to\infty} I^2 = 0,
$$
and therefore
$$
\lim_{n_0\to\infty}\lim_{n\to\infty} I^2 = 0.
$$
\medskip
The term $I^3$ can be considered similarly to $I^1$ with just one nuance that it is not known in advance whether or not the limiting processes $\tilde X^0, \tilde\zeta^0$ are diffusions. However, it is explained in \cite[section II.6]{Kry}; see also some details in \cite[proof of inequality (2.17)]{VerMish20}. The main point is the extension to the limiting process $(\tilde Z^0,\tilde\zeta^0)$ of Krylov's bound for diffusions $(\tilde Z^n,\tilde\zeta^n), n\ge 1$: ($1^\circ$) as a first step these bounds are proved for the limiting process in the argument of continuous functions from $L_{2d+1}$, and ($2^\circ$) as a second step this extension is generalised to any nonnegative Borel measurable functions using the property of regularity of probability measures in finite-dimensional Euclidean spaces. The details may be read in the cited sources.
Hence, by the properties of the mollified functions it follows that
$$
\lim_{n_0\to\infty}I^3 = 0.
$$
The convergence (\ref{limNb0}) is, thus, proved.
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf 5}. Let us show for stochastic integrals in (\ref{limNs0}) that for any $c, \epsilon>0$ there exists $C>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{sest0}
\mathbb P\left(\left\|\int_0^t (\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma^n(s,\tilde Z^n_s, \tilde \zeta^n_s)) d\tilde W^n_s - \int_0^t (\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma(s,\tilde Z^0_s, \tilde \zeta^0_s)) d\tilde W^0_s\right\| > c\right)
< C \epsilon,
\end{equation}
if $n$ is large enough. The task is similar to the convergence of Lebesgue integrals related to the coefficient $b$ studied in the previous steps of the proof. The additional obstacle is to show convergence of the difference of stochastic integrals driven by different Wiener processes \(\tilde W^n \) and \(\tilde W^0\) in (\ref{sest0})
with {\em continuous} and bounded integrands
$f^n_s:= \mathbb{E}^3 \sigma^{n_0}(s,\tilde X^n_s, \tilde \xi^n_s)$ and $f^0_s:= \mathbb{E}^3 \sigma^{n_0}(s,\tilde X_s, \tilde \xi_s)$ in Skorokhod's lemma, which does require such a continuity and boundedness. Some details are as follows:
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb P\left(\left\|\int_0^t (\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma^n(s,\tilde X^n_s, \tilde \xi^n_s)) d\tilde W^n_s - \int_0^t (\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma(s,\tilde X_s, \tilde \xi_s)) d\tilde W_s\right\| > c\right)
\\\\
&\le \mathbb P\left(\left\|\int_0^t (\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma^n(s,\tilde X^n_s, \tilde \xi^n_s)) d\tilde W^n_s - \int_0^t (\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma ^{n_0}(s,\tilde X^n_s, \tilde \xi^n_s)) d\tilde W^n_s\right\| > c/3\right)
\\\\
&+ \mathbb P\left(\left\|\int_0^t (\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma^{n_0}(s,\tilde X^n_s, \tilde \xi^n_s)) d\tilde W^n_s - \int_0^t (\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma ^{n_0}(s,\tilde X_s, \tilde \xi_s)) d\tilde W_s\right\| > c/3\right)
\\\\
&+\mathbb P\left(\left\|\int_0^t (\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma^{n_0}(s,\tilde X_s, \tilde \xi_s)) d\tilde W_s - \int_0^t (\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma ^{}(s,\tilde X_s, \tilde \xi_s)) d\tilde W_s\right\| > c/3\right)
\\\\
&\le C \mathbb E \left\|\int_0^t \mathbb{E}^3 (\sigma^n(s,\tilde X^n_s, \tilde \xi^n_s)) - \sigma ^{n_0}(s,\tilde X^n_s, \tilde \xi^n_s)) d\tilde W^n_s\right\|^2
\\\\
&+C \mathbb E \left\|\int_0^t (\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma^{n_0}(s,\tilde X^n_s, \tilde \xi^n_s)) d\tilde W^n_s - \int_0^t (\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma ^{n_0}(s,\tilde X_s, \tilde \xi_s)) d\tilde W_s\right\|
\\\\
&+ C \mathbb E \left\|\int_0^t \mathbb{E}^3 (\sigma^{n_0}(s,\tilde X_s, \tilde \xi_s)) - \sigma ^{}(s,\tilde X_s, \tilde \xi_s)) d\tilde W_s\right\|^2
\\\\
&\le C \mathbb E \int_0^t \mathbb{E}^3 \left\|(\sigma^n(s,\tilde X^n_s, \tilde \xi^n_s)) - \sigma ^{n_0}(s,\tilde X^n_s, \tilde \xi^n_s))\right\|^2 ds
\\\\
&+C \mathbb E \left\|\int_0^t \underbrace{\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma^{n_0}(s,\tilde Z^n_s, \tilde \zeta^n_s)}_{:=f^n(s,\omega)} d\tilde W^n_s - \int_0^t \underbrace{\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma ^{n_0}(s,\tilde Z^0_s, \tilde \zeta^0_s)}_{:=f^0(s,\omega)} d\tilde W^0_s\right\|
\\\\
&+ C \mathbb E \int_0^t \mathbb{E}^3 \left\|(\sigma^{n_0}(s,\tilde X_s, \tilde \xi_s)) - \sigma ^{}(s,\tilde X_s, \tilde \xi_s))\right\|^2 ds
\\\\
&=: J^1 + J^2 + J^3.
\end{align*}
The terms $J^1$ and $J^3$ are tackled similarly to $I^1$ and $I^3$ from the previous steps. The additional difficulty discussed above relates to the term $J^2$.
Skorokhod's lemma (see \cite[Lemma 4 in the Appendix]{VerMish20}) is applicable if
for {\em bounded and (stochastically) continuous in $s$} integrands $f^n:=\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma^{n_0}(s,\tilde Z^n_s, \tilde \zeta^n_s)$ uniformly with respect to $n\ge 0$ it holds that
\begin{equation}\label{fn0}
f^n(s,\omega) \stackrel{\mathbb{P}}\to f^0(s,\omega), \quad \text{a.e. $s\le T$}\quad n\to\infty.
\end{equation}
The fact that $f^n$ is uniformly bounded follows straightforwardly from the boundedness of the function $\sigma$. Further, $f^n(s,\omega)$ is continuous in $s$ a.s. uniformly in $n\ge 0$ because of the continuity of $\sigma^{n_0}$ in all variables and due to the uniform stochastic continuity of all processes $\tilde X^n_s$ for $n\ge 0$ (see (\ref{kol2t})). Finally, the convergence (\ref{fn0}) in probability {\em for all $s\le T$} follows from the following little calculus:
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb E \|f^n(s,\omega) - f^0(s,\omega)\|
= \mathbb E \|\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma^{n_0}(s,\tilde Z^n_s, \tilde \zeta^n_s) - \mathbb{E}^3 \sigma^{n_0}(s,\tilde Z^0_s, \tilde \zeta^0_s)\|
\\\\
&= \mathbb E \|\mathbb{E}^3 \left(\sigma^{n_0}(s,\tilde Z^n_s, \tilde \zeta^n_s) - \sigma^{n_0}(s,\tilde Z^0_s, \tilde \zeta^0_s) \right)\|
\le \mathbb E \mathbb{E}^3 \|\sigma^{n_0}(s,\tilde Z^n_s, \tilde \zeta^n_s) - \mathbb{E}^3 \sigma^{n_0}(s,\tilde Z^0_s, \tilde \zeta^0_s)\|
\\\\
&= \mathbb E \|\sigma^{n_0}(s,\tilde Z^n_s, \tilde \zeta^n_s) - \mathbb{E}^3 \sigma^{n_0}(s,\tilde Z^0_s, \tilde \zeta^0_s)\| \to 0, \quad n\to\infty,
\end{align*}
the latter convergence by virtue of Lebesgue's bounded convergence theorem.
Hence, in this way we obtain that
$$
J^1 + J^2 + J^3 \to 0, \quad n, n_0\to\infty.
$$
So, the convergence (\ref{limNs0}) holds true, which along with (\ref{limNb0}) leads to the equation (\ref{limitsde}) and, hence, completes the proof of the theorem. \hfill QED
\ifpre
Using the assumptions, we apply It\^o-Skorokhod inequality with any $\delta>0$ and get that
\begin{align*}
& \displaystyle J^1 = \mathbb P\left(\left\|\int_0^t ( (\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma^n(s,\tilde X^n_s, \tilde \xi^n_s)) - (\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma ^{n_0}(s,\tilde X^n_s, \tilde \xi^n_s))) d\tilde W^n_s\right\| > c/3\right)
\\
& \displaystyle \le \mathbb P\left(\int_0^t \left\| (\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma^n(s,\tilde X^n_s, \tilde \xi^n_s)) - (\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma ^{n_0}(s,\tilde X^n_s, \tilde \xi^n_s))\right\|^2 ds > \delta\right)
\\
& \displaystyle + \frac9{c^2} \mathbb E \left(\delta \wedge \int_0^{T} \left\| (\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma^n(s,\tilde X^n_s, \tilde \xi^n_s)) - (\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma ^{n_0}(s,\tilde X^n_s, \tilde \xi^n_s))\right\|^2 ds\right).
\end{align*}
Here the second term is small if we choose $\delta>0$ small. Let us consider the first term given $\delta>0$. We have that
\begin{align*}
\mathbb P\left(\int_0^t \left\| (\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma^n(s,\tilde X^n_s, \tilde \xi^n_s)) - (\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma ^{n_0}(s,\tilde X^n_s, \tilde \xi^n_s))\right\|^2 ds > \delta\right)
\\
\le \mathbb P\left(C \int_0^t
\left\|\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma^n(s,\tilde X^n_s, \tilde \xi^n_s) - \mathbb{E}^3 \sigma ^{n_0}(s,\tilde X^n_s, \tilde \xi^n_s)\right\|^2 ds > \delta\right)
\end{align*}
By BCM inequality,
\begin{align*}
\mathbb P\left(C \int_0^t
\left\|\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma^n(s,\tilde X^n_s, \tilde \xi^n_s) - \mathbb{E}^3 \sigma ^{n_0}(s,\tilde X^n_s, \tilde \xi^n_s)\right\|^2 ds > \delta\right)
\\
\le (\delta/C)^{-1}
\mathbb E\int_0^t
\left\|\mathbb{E}^3 (\sigma^n(s,\tilde X^n_s, \tilde \xi^n_s) - \sigma ^{n_0}(s,\tilde X^n_s, \tilde \xi^n_s)\right\|^2 ds
\\
\le (\delta/C)^{-1}
\mathbb E\int_0^t
\mathbb{E}^3 \left\|\sigma^n(s,\tilde X^n_s, \tilde \xi^n_s) - \sigma ^{n_0}(s,\tilde X^n_s, \tilde \xi^n_s)\right\|^2 ds
\\
= (\delta/C)^{-1}
\mathbb E \mathbb{E}^3\int_0^t
\left\|\sigma^n(s,\tilde X^n_s, \tilde \xi^n_s) - \sigma ^{n_0}(s,\tilde X^n_s, \tilde \xi^n_s)\right\|^2 ds.
\end{align*}
Convergence of the latter term to zero as $n,n_0\to\infty$ follows from the same considerations as for the drift in the previous step of the proof for the analogous term $I^1$ via Krylov's bound. So, we have
\begin{equation*
0\le \;\lim_{n,n_0\to\infty} J^1 \le
\lim_{n,n_0\to\infty} \mathbb E \mathbb{E}^3\int_0^t
\left\|\sigma^n(s,\tilde X^n_s, \tilde \xi^n_s) - \sigma ^{n_0}(s,\tilde X^n_s, \tilde \xi^n_s)\right\|^2 ds = 0.
\end{equation*}
The term $J^2$ converges to zero by Skorokhod's Lemma \ref{app1}:
\begin{align*}
\int_0^t (\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma^{n_0}(s,\tilde X^n_s, \tilde \xi^n_s)) d\tilde W^n_s \stackrel{\mathbb P}{\to} \int_0^t (\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma ^{n_0}(s,\tilde X_s, \tilde \xi_s)) d\tilde W_s, \quad n\to\infty,
\end{align*}
with
$
f^n_s:= (\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma^{n_0}(s,\tilde X^n_s, \tilde \xi^n_s)), \quad f^0_s:= (\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma^{n_0}(s,\tilde X_s, \tilde \xi_s))
$
in this lemma.
Consider $J^3$:
\begin{align*}
J^3 = \mathbb P\left(\left\|\int_0^t ( (\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma^{n_0}(s,\tilde X_s, \tilde \xi_s)) - (\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma ^{}(s,\tilde X_s, \tilde \xi_s))) d\tilde W_s\right\| > c/3\right)
\\
\le \mathbb P\left(\int_0^t \left\| (\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma^{n_0}(s,\tilde X_s, \tilde \xi_s)) - (\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma ^{}(s,\tilde X_s, \tilde \xi_s))\right\|^2 ds > \delta\right)
\\
+ \frac9{c^2} \mathbb E \left(\delta \wedge \int_0^{T} \left\| (\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma^n(s,\tilde X_s, \tilde \xi_s)) - (\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma ^{n_0}(s,\tilde X_s, \tilde \xi_s))\right\|^2 ds\right).
\end{align*}
Similarly to $J^1$, the second term in the last sum is small for small $\delta$. For the first one we have, similarly to $J^1$,
\begin{align*}
\mathbb P\left(\int_0^t \left\| (\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma^{n_0}(s,\tilde X_s, \tilde \xi_s)) - (\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma ^{}(s,\tilde X_s, \tilde \xi_s))\right\|^2 ds > \delta\right)
\\
\le \mathbb P\left(C \int_0^t
\left\|\mathbb{E}^3 \sigma^{n_0}(s,\tilde X_s, \tilde \xi_s) - \mathbb{E}^3 \sigma ^{}(s,\tilde X_s, \tilde \xi_s)\right\|^2 ds > \delta\right)
\\
\le (\delta/C)^{-1}
\mathbb E \mathbb{E}^3\int_0^t
\left\|\sigma^{n_0}(s,\tilde X_s, \tilde \xi_s) - \sigma ^{}(s,\tilde X_s, \tilde \xi_s)\right\|^2 ds.
\end{align*}
Convergence of this term to zero as $n_0\to\infty$ follows from Lemma \ref{lekrybd}, similarly to the analogous convergence of $I^3$ in the previous step. So,
$$
\lim_{n_0\to\infty}J^3 = 0.
$$
This finishes the proof of the desired bound (\ref{sest0}). Thus, a weak solution of the equation (\ref{e1})--(\ref{e200}) exists in the case of $d_1=d$ and under the assumption (\ref{si1}) instead of (\ref{si}). For bounded coefficients and under (\ref{phiA0})--(\ref{psiA0}) the Proposition \ref{pro22} is proved.
\medskip
\fi
\ifpre
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This research has been funded
by HSE (Proposition \ref{pro22}, Lemma \ref{lekrybd}) and by the Russian Science Foundation project 17-11-01098 (extended) (Theorem \ref{thm5a}).
Certain stages of this work have been fulfilled while the second author was visiting Bielefeld university to which programme SFB1283 this author is grateful.
Both authors are grateful to Denis Talay, Mireille Bossy and Sima Mehri who posed valuable questions and thus drew attention of the authors to various gaps in the earlier proofs mainly in the Theorem \ref{thm1} and in this way stimulated us to improve our presentation. Their help was indispensable. The authors are grateful to the referee for many useful comments and remarks which helped essentially with final corrections.
\fi
|
\section{Introduction}
To date, Vision Transformers (ViT)\cite{dosovitskiy2020image} have achieved significant progress in supervised learning\cite{dosovitskiy2020image,touvron2021training,liu2021swin}, self-supervised learning\cite{chen2020generative,Chen_2021_ICCV,xie2022simmim,bao2021beit,he2022masked}, and various other computer vision tasks\cite{carion2020end,zhu2020deformable,radford2021learning,ramesh2021zero}. ViTs have a weaker inductive bias than CNNs\cite{dosovitskiy2020image}, therefore a large amount of training data is often required to make ViTs generalize well. As a consequence, the performance of ViTs is unsatisfactory in semi-supervised learning (SSL), where only a small number of labeled data is provided and the rest are unlabeled. As discussed in \cite{weng2022semi}, using FixMatch\cite{sohn2020fixmatch}, one of the most popular SSL approaches, to train a ViT presents an inferior performance than CNN architectures. To tackle this problem, \cite{weng2022semi} proposes a joint semi-supervised training of CNN and ViT that outperforms CNN counterparts. Further, we continue to explore pure ViTs in SSL, intending to obtain more accurate pseudo labels by improving the visual representation of ViT itself.
In this work, we propose a simple yet efficient SSL paradigm of pure ViTs that surpasses previous CNN-based methods. We consider the success of Transformers\cite{vaswani2017attention} in self-supervised learning\cite{dosovitskiy2020image}, which is a promising solution to the data scarcity issue by leveraging a large amount of unlabeled data. Specifically, we build on FixMatch\cite{sohn2020fixmatch} framework except replace all CNNs with ViTs. Then for enhancing the learning of visual representations, we introduce a masked autoencoder (MAE)\cite{he2022masked} branch, which is parallel to the SSL framework and they share the same encoder. We mask random patches from unlabeled data and design a lightweight decoder to reconstruct the input. Accordingly, the mean squared error (MSE) between the reconstructed and original images contributes to the final loss. We call our method Semi-MAE. Note that Semi-MAE is scalable to any other transformer-based model.
We perform extensive experiments to evaluate Semi-MAE. Notably, Semi-MAE with ViT-Small reaches 75.9\% top-1 accuracy on ImageNet with 10\% labeled images. We demonstrate that pure ViTs can outperform CNN-based\cite{sohn2020fixmatch,zhai2019s4l,Pham_2021_CVPR} and joint\cite{weng2022semi} SSL frameworks. Additionally, our MAE branch is a plug-and-play module that can improve Semiformer\cite{weng2022semi} by 0.9\%. We also show that other masked image modeling methods can further bring gains for Semi-MAE, e.g., 76.0\% top-1 accuracy with LoMaR\cite{chen2022efficient}.
\section{Related Work}
\paragraph{Vision Transformers}
Transformers\cite{vaswani2017attention} have made substantial achievements in natural language processing (NLP)\cite{devlin2018bert}, but in computer vision, convolutional neural networks (CNN) have dominated the past decade due to their image-specific inductive bias. The appearance of \cite{dosovitskiy2020image}, Vision Transformers (ViT) have finally addressed the architectural gap and have achieved success in image recognition\cite{dosovitskiy2020image,yuan2021tokens,liu2021swin}, object detection\cite{carion2020end,zhu2020deformable}, segmentation\cite{wang2021max,zheng2021rethinking}, etc. However, ViTs have encountered obstacles when applied to semi-supervised learning (SSL), where the amount of labeled data is insufficient for its training. In this work, we provide Semi-MAE to solve the aforementioned challenge.
\paragraph{Masked image modeling}
Breakthroughs in masked language modeling (MLM)\cite{devlin2018bert} in NLP have generated great interest in the computer vision community, leading to the birth of masked image modeling (MIM) methods. \cite{dosovitskiy2020image} studied the masked patch prediction objective and surprisingly found that self-training worked quite well on few-shot metrics. iGPT\cite{chen2020generative} trained a sequence transformer to auto-regressively predict pixels on low-resolution ImageNet. BEiT\cite{bao2021beit} first tokenized image patches into visual tokens via discrete VAE and then predicted randomly masked visual tokens by the corrupted original image patches. Recently, masked autoencoder (MAE)\cite{he2022masked} proposed an autoencoding approach, whose objective was simply to reconstruct missing original patches in the pixel space given a partial observation. The asymmetric design and high masking ratio yield a nontrivial task and help to learn well-generalized models while leading to a significant reduction in computation.
\paragraph{Semi-supervised learning}
Semi-supervised learning (SSL) has been shown to be a promising solution to exploit unlabeled data. There are two classic strategies for SSL. One is pseudo labeling\cite{lee2013pseudo,rosenberg2005semi} where model predictions are converted to hard labels, the other is consistency regularization\cite{bachman2014learning,sajjadi2016regularization} where models are trained to output consistent results for different views of the input. FixMatch\cite{sohn2020fixmatch} integrated these two strategies: on unlabeled data, hard pseudo labels are generated with weak augmentation as the target, and the model is fed a strongly-augmented version of the same image. Motivated by ViTs' success, \cite{weng2022semi} proposed a joint semi-supervised training of CNN and ViT. For the first time, the application of ViTs in SSL achieves comparable performance against the CNN counterparts. On top of this, we continue to explore the pure ViTs in SSL.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{model.pdf}
\caption{Overview of Semi-MAE. A weakly-augmented unlabeled sample is fed into the ViT, whose predictions with a high confidence score can be converted to a one-hot pseudo label. The pseudo label is used for supervising the model's predictions of the strongly-augmented version of the same unlabeled sample. At the same time, the weakly-augmented sample is divided into image patches. A random subset of patches is masked out and the rest are taken as the input of the MAE branch. This branch shares the same ViT as the SSL framework. The latent representation and mask tokens are processed by a small decoder to reconstruct the original image.}
\label{fig:model}
\end{figure}
\section{Semi-MAE}
\label{sec:semimae}
Semi-MAE is a semi-supervised learning (SSL) framework of pure Vision Transformers\cite{dosovitskiy2020image} (ViTs) as illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:model}. Building on FixMatch\cite{sohn2020fixmatch}, Semi-MAE introduces a masked autoencoder (MAE) branch to assist the encoder's visual representation learning. This branch parallels the original SSL framework and shares encoder weights. In this section, we will first review FixMatch\cite{sohn2020fixmatch} algorithm and then elaborate proposed MAE branch.
\paragraph{Base architecture}
FixMatch\cite{sohn2020fixmatch} is one of the most popular SSL frameworks in recent times. Its main contribution lies in the combination of consistency regularization and pseudo-labeling. Specifically, the overall loss consists of two cross-entropy losses: a supervised loss $L_s$ and an unsupervised loss $L_u$. For a labeled sample $\{(x^l_i, y^l_i)\}^{N_l}_{i=1}$, a weak augmentation $\alpha(\cdot)$ is applied to compute the supervised loss
\begin{equation}
L_s = \frac{1}{N_l} \sum^{N_l}_{i=1}H(y_i, f(\alpha(x^l_i))),
\end{equation}
where $H(\cdot, \cdot)$ and $f(\cdot)$ are respectively the cross entropy loss function and the model forward function. As for an unlabeled sample $\{x^u_i\}^{N_u}_{i=1}$, we first compute the output probabilities of its weakly-augmented version $p_i = f(\alpha(x^u_i))$. The pseudo label is produced by $\hat{y}_i = argmax(p_i)$ with its confidence $max(p_i)$. The unsupervised loss is calculated on the strong-augmented sample
\begin{equation}
L_u = \frac{1}{N_u} \sum^{N_u}_{i=1}H(\hat{y}_i, f(\mathcal{A}(x^u_i)))\delta(max(p_i) > \tau),
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{A}(\cdot)$ and $\delta(\cdot)$ are respectively the strong augmentation and the indicator function. $\tau$ is the confidence threshold. The overall loss is just $L = L_s + \lambda L_u$ where $\lambda$ denotes the relative weight of the unsupervised loss. In Semi-MAE, we simply replace CNN models with ViTs.
\paragraph{MAE branch}
As figured out in \cite{weng2022semi}, the performance of ViT in SSL building on FixMatch\cite{sohn2020fixmatch} is inferior to CNN counterparts. ViT generates inaccurate pseudo labels due to limited labeled data. Therefore we introduce a masked autoencoder (MAE)\cite{he2022masked} branch to enforce the visual representation learning and help ViT generate more accurate pseudo labels. Masked autoencoder learns visual representations from images with a high masking ratio and has demonstrated its efficiency and effectiveness even only on ImageNet\cite{deng2009imagenet}. In particular, weakly-augmented unlabeled data also serve as the original input of the MAE branch. The original input is first divided into patches, then we mask a high proportion of patches and feed the rest to our encoder. This encoder is a ViT that shares the same weights as the encoder in the SSL framework. Following the asymmetric design in \cite{he2022masked}, a small and independent decoder is used to reconstruct the corrupted image from the latent representation and mask tokens. The reconstructed target is the pixel value for each masked patch. The loss function is the mean square error (MSE) between the reconstructed and original images in the pixel space. Eventually, our total loss function is
\begin{equation}
L = L_s + \lambda L_u + \mu L_{MAE}
\end{equation}
where $\mu$ is the trade-off for self-supervised loss weight.
\section{Experiments}
\subsection{Experiment Settings}
\paragraph{Datasets and evaluation metric}
We conduct experiments on ImageNet\cite{deng2009imagenet}, which contains $\sim$1.28M training and 50K validation images. Following \cite{sohn2020fixmatch}, we sample 10\% labeled images from the ImageNet training set and leave the rest as unlabeled data. We select top-1 accuracy on the validation set as the evaluation metric. In addition, for a fair comparison, we apply the same data augmentation as \cite{weng2022semi}.
\paragraph{Implementation details}
We train the model from scratch. In detail, we first warm up the model for 100 epochs and then train the model for 600 epochs with semi-supervision. We apply AdamW\cite{loshchilov2017decoupled} as the optimizer with an initial learning rate $10^{-3}$, which decays towards $10^{-5}$ using the cosine decay scheduler. The trade-offs $\lambda$ and $\mu$ are respectively 10.0 and 5.0. In each batch, the ratio between labeled and unlabeled images is 1:7. We mainly use ViT-Small\cite{dosovitskiy2020image} as our backbone. As for the MAE branch, we follow the default settings of \cite{he2022masked}.
\subsection{Main Results}
We compare Semi-MAE with the state-of-the-art semi-supervised methods. Results are presented in Table \ref{tab:main results}. Using only ViT-Small, which has a smaller number of parameters than ResNet-50(22M v.s. 26M), Semi-MAE achieves 75.9\% top-1 accuracy that outperforms the prior state-of-the-art CNN-based methods. Semiformer\cite{weng2022semi} first introduces ViT to SSL and achieves 75.5\% top-1 accuracy with a joint framework. However, Semi-MAE with ViT-S alone can further improve the performance over 0.4\% than Semiformer\cite{weng2022semi}. These comparisons demonstrate that Semi-MAE achieves state-of-the-art performance without additional data and more architectural improvement.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\caption{The comparisons with state-of-the-art models.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\toprule
Method & Architecture & Top-1 Acc(\%) \\
\midrule
UDA\cite{xie2020unsupervised} & ResNet-50 & 68.8\% \\
FixMatch\cite{sohn2020fixmatch} & ResNet-50 & 71.5\% \\
S4L\cite{zhai2019s4l} & ResNet-50(4x) & 73.2\% \\
MPL\cite{Pham_2021_CVPR} & ResNet-50 & 73.9\% \\
CowMix\cite{french2020milking} & ResNet-50 & 73.9\% \\
Semiformer\cite{weng2022semi} & ViT-S+ResNet50 & 75.5\% \\
\hline
Semi-MAE (ours) & ViT-S & 75.9\% \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:main results}
\end{table}
\subsection{Ablation Studies}
\label{sec:ablation}
\paragraph{MAE branch}
To prove the effectiveness and efficiency of our MAE branch, we further implement it into Semiformer\cite{weng2022semi}. Results in Table \ref{tab:mae branch} present that the MAE branch can bring marginal gains of 0.9\% over the baseline.
\begin{table}[h!]
\caption{Results of Semiformer\cite{weng2022semi} with MAE branch.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\toprule
Method & Architecture & MAE branch & Top-1 Acc(\%) \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Semiformer} & \multirow{2}{*}{ViT-S+ResNet50} & & 75.5\% \\
& & \checkmark & 76.4\% \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:mae branch}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Other masked image modeling methods}
Several masked image modeling methods\cite{chen2022efficient,bao2021beit,he2022masked} have demonstrated their effectiveness to learn visual representations from images. Therefore, we investigate other MIM methods besides MAE\cite{he2022masked} and observe that LoMaR\cite{chen2022efficient} can further boost the model performance by 0.1\%, as shown in Table \ref{tab:MIM methods}.
\begin{table}[h!]
\caption{Results with other masked image modeling methods.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\toprule
MIM Method & Architecture & Top-1 Acc(\%) \\
\midrule
MAE & ViT-S & 75.9\% \\
LoMaR & ViT-S & 76.0\% \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:MIM methods}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}
We propose Semi-MAE, a pure Vision Transformer-based semi-supervised learning framework. By introducing a masked autoencoder branch, Semi-MAE achieves substantial performance without extra training data. On ImageNet with 10\% labels, Semi-MAE can reach 75.9\% top-1 accuracy, which surpasses the state-of-the-art CNN-based and joint semi-supervised methods. This has proven that pure Vision Transformer is a promising solution for semi-supervised learning.
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
|
\section{Introduction}
Unlike a competitive market with a large number of relatively small companies producing homogeneous products and competing with each other, an oligopoly is a market supplied only by a few firms. It is well known that Cournot developed the first formal theory of oligopoly in \cite{Cournot1838R}, where players are supposed to have the naive expectations that their rivals produce the same quantity of output as in the immediately previous period. Cournot introduced a gradient mechanism of adjusting the quantity of output and proved that his model has one unique equilibrium, which is globally stable provided that only two firms exist in the market.
A monopoly is the simplest oligopoly, which is a market served by one unique firm. In the existing literature, a market supplied by two, three, or even four companies is called a duopoly \cite{Li2022A}, a triopoly \cite{Ma2013C}, or a quadropoly \cite{Matouk2017N}, respectively. However, a monopoly may also exhibit complex dynamic behaviors such as periodic orbits and chaos if the involved firm is supposed to be boundedly rational. As distinguished by Matsumoto and Szidarovszky \cite{Matsumoto2022N}, a boundedly rational monopolist is said to be \emph{knowledgeable} if it has full information regarding the inverse demand function, and \emph{limited} if it does not know the form of the inverse demand function but possesses the values of output and price only in the past two periods. Knowledgeable and limited players have been considered in several monopoly models.
For example, Puu \cite{Puu1995T} introduced a monopoly where the inverse demand function is a cubic function with an inflection point, and the marginal cost is quadratic. In this model, the monopolist is supposed to be a limited player. Puu indicated that there exist multiple (at most three) equilibria, and complex dynamics such as chaos may appear if the reactivity of the monopolist becomes sufficiently large. Moreover, Puu's model was reconsidered by Al-Hdaibat and others in \cite{AlHdaibat2015O}, where a numerical continuation method is used to compute solutions with different periods and determine their stability regions. In particular, they analytically investigated general formulae for solutions with period four.
It should be mentioned that the equilibrium multiplicity and complex dynamics of Puu’s model might depend strictly on the inverse demand function that has an inflection point. In this regard, Naimzada and Ricchiuti \cite{Naimzada2008C} introduced a simpler monopoly with a knowledgeable player, where the inverse demand function is still cubic but has no inflection points. It was discovered that complex dynamics can also arise, especially when the reaction coefficient to variation in profits is high. Askar \cite{Askar2013O} and Sarafopoulos \cite{Sarafopoulos2015C} generalized the inverse demand function of Naimzada and Ricchiuti to a function of a similar form, but the degree of their function could be any positive integer. The difference is that the cost function in Askar's model is linear but quadratic in Sarafopoulos's.
Cavalli and Naimzada \cite{Cavalli2015E} studied a monopoly model characterized by a constant elasticity demand function, in which the firm is also assumed to be knowledgeable with a linear cost. They focused on the equilibrium stability as the variation of the price elasticity of demand and proved that there are two possible different cases, where elasticity has either a stabilizing or a mixed stabilizing/destabilizing effect. Moreover, Elsadany and Awad \cite{Elsadany2016D} explored a monopoly game with delays where the inverse demand is a log-concave function. Caravaggio and Sodini \cite{Caravaggio2020M} considered a nonlinear model, where a knowledgeable monopolist provides a fixed amount of an intermediate good and then uses this good to produce two vertically differentiated final commodities. They found that there are chaotic and multiple attractors. Furthermore, continuous dynamical systems have also been applied in the study of monopolistic markets. In \cite{Matsumoto2012N}, Matsumoto and Szidarovszky proposed a monopoly model formulated in continuous time and investigated the effect of delays in obtaining and implementing the output information. Motivated by the aforementioned work, other remarkable contributions including \cite{Gori2016D, Guerrini2018E} were done in this strand of research.
In our study, we consider two monopoly models formulated with discrete dynamical systems, where the players are supposed to be knowledgeable. The two models are distinct mainly in their inverse demand functions. The first model uses the inverse demand of Naimzada and Ricchiuti \cite{Naimzada2008C}, while the second one employs that of Puu \cite{Puu1995T}. For both models, we analyze the existence and local stability of equilibria and periodic solutions by using tools based on symbolic computations such as the method of triangular decomposition and the method of partial cylindrical algebraic decomposition. It should be mentioned that different from numerical computations, symbolic computations are exact, thus the results can be used to rigorously prove economic theorems in some sense.
The main contributions of this paper are as follows. To the best of our knowledge, the complete stability conditions of the second model are obtained for the first time. We also investigate the periodic solutions in the two models as well as their stability. Most importantly, we find different topological structures of the parameter spaces of the two considered models. Specifically, in the first model, the parameter region for the stability of any periodic solution with a fixed order constitutes a connected set. In the second model, however, the stability regions for the 3-cycle, 4-cycle, and 5-cycle orbits are disconnected sets formed by many disjoint portions. In other words, the topological structures of the regions for stable periodic orbits in Model 2 are much more complex than those in Model 1. This may be because the inverse demand function of Model 2 has an inflection point. Furthermore, according to our numerical simulations of Model 2, it is discovered that the basins of the two stable equilibria are disconnected and also have complex topological structures. In addition, the existence of chaos in the sense of Li-Yorke is rigorously proved by finding snapback repellers and 3-cycle orbits in the two models, respectively.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we revisit the construction of the two models. In Section 3, the local stability of the equilibrium is thoroughly studied, and bifurcations through which the equilibrium loses its stability are also investigated. In Section 4, the existence and stability of periodic orbits with relatively lower orders are explored for the two models. In Section 5, we rigorously derive the existence of chaotic dynamics in the sense of Li-Yorke. The paper is concluded with some remarks in Section 6.
\section{Basic Models}
Suppose a monopolist exists in the market, and the quantity of its output is denoted as $x$. We use $P(x)$ to denote the price function (also called inverse demand function), which is assumed to be downward sloping, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:down}
\frac{dP(x)}{dx}<0,~~~\text{for any}~x> 0.
\end{equation}
It follows that $P(x)$ is invertible. The demand function (the inverse of $P(x)$) exists and is also downward sloping. Furthermore, the cost function is denoted as $C(x)$. Then the profit is
$$\Pi(x)=P(x)x-C(x).$$
The monopolist is assumed to adopt a gradient mechanism of adjusting its output to achieve increased profits. Suppose that the firm is a knowledgeable player, which means that it has full information regarding the inverse demand function $P(x)$ and has the capability of computing the marginal profit ${{\rm d}\Pi}/{{\rm d}x}$. The firm adjusts its output by focusing on how the variation of $x$ affects the variation of $\Pi(x)$. Specifically, the adjustment process is formulated as
\begin{equation*}
x(t+1)=x(t)+K\frac{{\rm d}\Pi(x(t))}{{\rm d}x(t)},~~~K>0.
\end{equation*}
Since $K>0$, a positive marginal profit induces the monopolist to adjust the quantity of its output in a positive direction and vice versa.
The first model considered in this paper was initially proposed by Naimzada and Ricchiuti \cite{Naimzada2008C}, where a cubic price function without the inflection point is employed. We restate the formulation of this model in the sequel.
\begin{model}
The price function is cubic and the cost function is linear as follows.
$$P(x)=a-bx^3,~~~C(x)=cx,$$
where $a,b,c$ are parameters. The downward sloping condition \eqref{eq:down} is guaranteed if ${\rm d}P/{\rm d}x=-3bx^2<0$, that is if $b>0$. Moreover, assume that the marginal cost ${\rm d}C/{\rm d}x=c>0$. We adopt the general principle of setting price above marginal cost, i.e., $P(x)-c>0$ for any $x\geq 0$. Therefore, we must have that $a>c$. One knows the profit function is
$$\Pi(x)=P(x)x-C(x)=(a-bx^3)x-cx=(a-c)x-bx^4.$$
Thus, the gradient adjustment mechanism can be described as
$$x(t+1)=x(t)+K(a-c-4bx^3(t)),~~~K>0.$$
Without loss of generality, we denote $f=4bK$ and $e=(a-c)/4b$. Then, the model is simplified into a map with only two parameters:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:m1-ef}
x(t+1)=x(t)+f(e-x^3(t)),~~~e,f>0.
\end{equation}
\end{model}
The second model considered in this paper is simplified from a famous monopoly model introduced by Puu \cite{Puu1995T}. We retain the same inverse demand function and cost function. The only difference is that the monopolist in our model is knowledgeable, whereas the monopolist in Puu's original model is limited.
\begin{model}
The price function is cubic of a more general form
$$P(x)=a_1-b_1x+c_1x^2-d_1x^3,$$
where $a_1,b_1,c_1,d_1>0$ are parameters. The cost function is also cubic and has no fixed costs, i.e.,
$$C(x)=a_2x-b_2x^2+c_2x^3,$$
where $a_2,b_2,c_2>0$.
Hence, the profit function becomes
$$\Pi(x)=P(x)x-C(x)=(a_1-a_2)x-(b_1-b_2)x^2+(c_1-c_2)x^3-d_1x^4,$$
which can be denoted as
$$\Pi(x)=ax-bx^2+cx^3-dx^4$$
with
$$a=a_1-a_2, ~b=b_1-b_2, ~c=c_1-c_2,~\text{and}~d=d_1.$$
For the sake of simplicity, we assume that $a,b,c,d>0$.
The marginal profit $d\Pi/dx$ is directly obtained and the gradient adjustment mechanism can be formulated as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:m2-iter}
x(t+1)=x(t)+K(a-2bx(t)+3cx^2(t)-4dx^3(t)),~~~a,b,c,d>0.
\end{equation}
\end{model}
\section{Local Stability and Bifurcations}
Firstly, we explain the main idea of the symbolic approach used in this paper by analyzing stepwise the local stability of Model 1. Then the theoretical results of Model 2 are reported without giving all the calculation details.
\subsection{Model 1}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:m1-stab}
Model 1 always has a unique equilibrium, which is stable if
$$4b(a-c)^2K^3<\frac{8}{27}$$
Moreover, there is a period-doubling bifurcation if
$$4b(a-c)^2K^3=\frac{8}{27}.$$
\end{proposition}
The above proposition is a known result, which was first derived by Naimzada and Ricchiuti \cite{Naimzada2008C}. Indeed, this proposition can be easily proved since the analytical expression of the unique equilibrium can be obtained, i.e., $x^*=(\frac{a-c}{4b})^{1/3}.$ However, we would like to provide another proof in a computational style to demonstrate in detail how our symbolic approach works.
In what follows, the model formulation \eqref{eq:m1-ef} is taken. By setting $x(t+1)=x(t)=x$, we acquire the equilibrium equation $x= x+f(e- x^3)$. An equilibrium $x$ of the one-dimensional iteration map is locally stable if
$$\left|\frac{{\rm d}x(t+1)}{{\rm d}x(t)}\bigg|_{x(t)=x}\right|=\left|1-3fx^2\right|<1.$$
Moreover, we say the equilibrium $x$ to be feasible if $x>0$. Thus, a stable and feasible equilibrium can be characterized as a real solution of
\begin{equation}\label{eq:m1-semi}
\left\{\begin{split}
& x=x + f(e-x^3),\\
& \left|1-3fx^2\right|<1,\\
& x>0, ~e>0, ~f>0.
\end{split}\right.
\end{equation}
Although system \eqref{eq:m1-semi} is so simple that one can solve the closed-form expression of $x$ from the equality part, the problem is how we handle a general polynomial that may have no closed-form solutions. Furthermore, it is also a nontrivial task to identify the conditions on the parameters whether a system with inequalities has real solutions. In \cite{Li2014C}, the first author of this paper and his coworker proposed an algebraic approach to systematically tackle these problems. The main idea of this approach is as follows.
The parametric system \eqref{eq:m1-semi} is univariate in $x$. For a univariate system, we introduce a key concept called \emph{border polynomial} in the sequel. One useful property of a border polynomial is that its real zeros divide the parameter space into separated regions and the solution number of the original system is invariant for all parameter points in each region.
\begin{definition}[Border Polynomial]\label{def:bp}
Consider a univariate system
\begin{equation}\label{ex:uni-pq}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}\smallskip
P(\bm{u},x)=\sum_{i=0}^m a_i(\bm{u})\,x^i=0,\\
Q_1(\bm{u},x)>0,\ldots,Q_s(\bm{u},x)>0,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $P$ and $Q_1,\ldots,Q_s$ are univariate polynomials in $x$, and $\bm{u}$ stands for all parameters.
The product
$$a_m(\bm{u})\cdot\discr(P)\cdot\prod_{i=1}^s\res(P,Q_i)$$ is called
the \emph{border polynomial} of system \eqref{ex:uni-pq}. Here, $\res(F,G)$ stands for the resultant of two polynomials $F$ and $G$, while $\discr(F)$ denotes the discriminant of $F$.
\end{definition}
More specifically, the formal definitions of the resultant and the discriminant in the above definition are given as follows. Let $$F=\sum_{i=0}^ma_i\,x^i,\quad G=\sum_{j=0}^lb_j\,x^j$$ be two univariate polynomials in $x$ with coefficients $a_i,b_j$ in the field of complex numbers, and $a_m,b_l\neq 0$. The
determinant
\begin{equation*}\label{eq:sylmat}
\begin{array}{c@{\hspace{-5pt}}l}
\left|\begin{array}{cccccc}
a_m & a_{m-1}& \cdots & a_0 & & \\
& \ddots & \ddots& \ddots &\ddots& \\
& & a_m & a_{m-1}&\cdots& a_0 \\ [5pt]
b_l & b_{l-1}& \cdots & b_0 & & \\
& \ddots &\ddots & \ddots &\ddots& \\
& & b_{l} & b_{l-1} & \cdots & b_0
\end{array}\right|
& \begin{array}{l}\left.\rule{0mm}{8mm}\right\}l\\
\\\left.\rule{0mm}{8mm}\right\}m
\end{array
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
is called the \emph{Sylvester resultant} (or simply
\emph{resultant}) of $F$ and $G$, and denoted by $\res(F,G)$.
The resultant of $F$ and its derivative ${\rm d}F/{\rm d}x$, i.e., $\res(F,{\rm d}F/{\rm d}x)$, is called the \emph{discriminant} of $F$ and denoted by $\discr(F)$. The following lemma is one of the well-known properties of resultants, which could be found in \cite{Mishra1993A}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:res-com}
Two univariate polynomials $F$ and $G$ have common zeros in the field of complex numbers if and only if $\res(F,G)=0$. Moreover, a univariate polynomial $F$ has a multiple zero in the field of complex numbers if and only if $\discr(F)=0$.
\end{lemma}
It is worth noticing that the number of real zeros of $P$ may change when the leading coefficient $a_m(\bm{u})$ or the discriminant $\discr(P)$ goes from non-zero to zero and vice versa. In addition, if $\res(P, Q_i)$ goes across zero, then the zeros of $P$ will pass through the boundaries of $Q_i>0$, which means that the number of real roots of \eqref{ex:uni-pq} may change. Therefore, the following lemma is derived.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:main}
Consider a univariate system as \eqref{ex:uni-pq}. Let $A$ and $B$ be two points in the space of parameters $\bm{u}$. Suppose that any of $A$, $B$ does not annihilate the border polynomial of system \eqref{ex:uni-pq}. If there exists a real path $C$ from $A$ to $B$ such that any point on $C$ is not a root of the border polynomial, then the number of real solutions of system \eqref{ex:uni-pq} evaluated at $A$ is the same as that at $B$.
\end{lemma}
Since $1-3fx^2<1$, we know that system \eqref{eq:m1-semi} is equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:m1-semi-simple}
\left\{\begin{split}
& x^3-e=0,\\
& 2-3fx^2>0,\\
& x>0, ~e>0, ~f>0.
\end{split}\right.
\end{equation}
We have $a_m=1$ and $\discr(x^3-e)=27e^2$. Moreover, $\res(x^3-e, 2-3fx^2)= -27e^2f^3 + 8$ and $\res(x^3-e, x)=e$. According to Definition \ref{def:bp}, the border polynomial of system \eqref{eq:m1-semi-simple} is $27e^3(-27e^2f^3+8)$, the zeros of which are marked in blue as shown in Figure \ref{fig:par-space-model2}. This blue curve divides the parameter set $\{(e,f)\,|\,e>0,f>0\}$ into two (the northeast and the southwest) regions.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{Figures/figure1_final.eps}
\caption{Partitions of the parameter space of Model 1 and sample points}
\label{fig:par-space-model2}
\end{figure}
Notice the two points $S_2$ and $A$ in Figure \ref{fig:par-space-model2}. One can find a real path $C$ from $A$ to $S_2$ such that it does not pass through the blue curve. According to Lemma \ref{lem:main}, system \eqref{eq:m1-semi-simple} has the same number of real roots with the parameters evaluated at $S_2$ and $A$. This means that the number of real solutions of system \eqref{eq:m1-semi-simple} is invariant in the northeast region. Therefore, we can choose a sample point from each region to determine the root number. For this simple system, sample points might be selected directly by eyes, e.g., $S_1=(1, 1/2)$, $S_2=(1,1)$. However, the choosing process might be extremely complex in general, which could be done automatically by using, e.g., the method of partial cylindrical algebraic decomposition or called the PCAD method \cite{Collins1991P}.
For each region, one can determine the root number by counting roots of the non-parametric system of \eqref{eq:m1-semi-simple} evaluated at the corresponding sample point. Take $S_1$ as an example, where \eqref{eq:m1-semi-simple} becomes
\begin{equation}\label{eq:no-par-sys}
\left\{x^3-1=0,~2-\frac{3}{2}x^2>0,~x>0\right\}.
\end{equation}
In order to count the number of its real roots, an obvious way is directly solving $x^3-1=0$, i.e., $x=1$, and then checking whether $2-\frac{3}{2}x^2>0$ and $x>0$ are satisfied. The result is true, which means that there exists one unique real solution of \eqref{eq:no-par-sys}. However, it is difficult to precisely obtain all real zeros of a general univariate system since root formulae do not exist for polynomials with degrees greater than $4$. Therefore, a more systematic method called real root counting \cite{Xia2002A} is generally needed here, and we demonstrate how this method works by using \eqref{eq:no-par-sys} as an example.
It is noted that $x^3-1$, $2-\frac{3}{2}x^2$ and $x$ have no common zeros, i.e., they have no factors in common. Otherwise, one needs to reduce the common factors from the inequalities first. After that, we isolate all real zeros of $2-\frac{3}{2}x^2$ and $x$ by rational intervals, e.g.,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:close-int}
\left[-\frac{12}{10},-\frac{11}{10}\right], ~\left[-\frac{1}{10},\frac{1}{10}\right], ~\left[\frac{11}{10}, \frac{12}{10}\right].
\end{equation}
Although it is trivial for this simple example, the isolation process could be particularly tough for general polynomials, which may be handled by using, e.g., the modified Uspensky algorithm \cite{Collins1983R}. Moreover, the intervals can be made as small as possible to guarantee no zeros of $x^3-1$ lie in these intervals, which could be checked by using, e.g., Sturm's theorem \cite{Sturmfels2002S}. Thus, the real zeros of $x^3-1$ must be in the complement of \eqref{eq:close-int}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:open-interval}
\left(-\infty,-\frac{12}{10}\right),~\left(-\frac{11}{10},-\frac{1}{10}\right),~\left(\frac{1}{10},\frac{11}{10}\right),~\left(\frac{12}{10},+\infty\right).
\end{equation}
In each of these open intervals, the signs of $2-\frac{3}{2}x^2$ and $x$ are invariant and can be determined by checking them at selected sample points. For instance, to determine the sign of $2-\frac{3}{2}x^2$ on $(12/10,+\infty)$, we check the sign at a sample point, e.g., $x=2$. We have that $2-\frac{3}{2}x^2|_{x=2}=-4<0$, thus $2-\frac{3}{2}x^2<0$ on $(12/10,+\infty)$. Similarly, it is obtained that the signs of $2-\frac{3}{2}x^2$ and $x$ at \eqref{eq:open-interval} are $-,+,+,-$ and $-,-,+,+$, respectively. Hence, $(1/10,11/10)$ is the only interval such that the two inequalities $2-\frac{3}{2}x^2>0$ and $x>0$ of system \eqref{eq:no-par-sys} are simultaneously satisfied.
We focus on $(1/10,11/10)$. Using Sturm's theorem, we can count the number of the real zeros of $x^3-1$ at $(1/10,11/10)$, which is one. Therefore, system \eqref{eq:m1-semi-simple} has one real root at $S_1=(1, 1/2)$. The above approach works well for a system formulated with univariate polynomial equations and inequalities although some steps seem silly and not necessary for this simple example. Similarly, we know that system \eqref{eq:m1-semi-simple} has no real roots at $S_2=(1, 1)$.
In conclusion, system \eqref{eq:m1-semi-simple} has one real root if the parameters take values from the southwest region where $S_1$ lies, and has no real roots if the parameters take values from the northeast region where $S_2$ lies. Furthermore, the inequalities of some factors of the border polynomial may be used to explicitly describe a given region. It is evident that $27e^2f^3-8<0$ describes the region where $S_1$ lies. Therefore, Model 1 has one unique stable equilibrium provided that
$$e^2f^3=\left(\frac{a-c}{4b}\right)^2(4bK)^3=4b(a-c)^2K^3<\frac{8}{27},$$
which is consistent with Proposition \ref{prop:m1-stab}.
According to the classical bifurcation theory, for a one-dimensional iteration map $x(t+1)=F(x(t))$, we know that bifurcations may occur if
$$\left|\frac{{\rm d}x(t+1)}{{\rm d}x(t)}\bigg|_{x(t)=x}\right|=\left|\frac{{\rm d}F}{{\rm d}x}\right|=1.$$
More specifically, if ${\rm d}F/{\rm d}x=-1$, then the system may undergo a period-doubling bifurcation (also called flip bifurcation), where the dynamics switch to a new behavior with twice the period of the original system. On the other hand, if ${\rm d}F/{\rm d}x=1$, then the system may undergo a saddle-node (fold), transcritical, or pitchfork bifurcation. One might determine the type of bifurcation from the change in the number of the (stable) equilibria. In the case of saddle-node bifurcation, one stable equilibrium (a node) annihilates with another unstable one (a saddle). Before and after a transcritical bifurcation, there is one unstable and one stable equilibrium, and the unstable equilibrium becomes stable and vice versa. In the case of pitchfork bifurcation, the number of equilibria changes from one to three or from three to one, while the number of stable equilibria changes from one to two or from one to zero. Accordingly, it is concluded that Model 1 may undergo a period-doubling bifurcation if
$$e^2f^3=4b(a-c)^2K^3=\frac{8}{27},$$
and there are no other bifurcations.
\subsection{Model 2}
According to \eqref{eq:m2-iter}, by setting $x(t+1)=x(t)=x$, we know that Model 2 has at most three equilibria. The analytical expressions of the equilibria exist, but are complex, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:closed-e3}
\begin{split}
x_1=\, & {\frac {\sqrt [3]{M}}{12d}} -{\frac {8bd-3{c}^{2}}{4d\sqrt[3]{M}}}+{\frac {c}{4d}},\\
x_{2,3}=\, & -{\frac {\sqrt [3]{M}}{24d}}+{\frac {8bd-3{c}^{2}}{8d\sqrt [3]{M}}}+{\frac {c}{4d}}\pm \frac{\ii\sqrt{3}}{2} \left( {\frac {\sqrt [3]{M}}{12d}}+{\frac {8bd-3{c}^{2}}{4d\sqrt [3]{M}}} \right),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align*}
M=12d \sqrt{3} \sqrt{108{a}^{2}{d}^{2}-108abcd+27\,a{c}^{3}+32{b}^{3}d-9{b}^{2}{c}^{2}}+216a{d}^{2}-108bcd+27{c}^{3}.
\end{align*}
Furthermore, an equilibrium $x$ is locally stable provided that
$$\left|\frac{{\rm d}x(t+1)}{{\rm d}x(t)}\bigg|_{x(t)=x}\right|=
\left|1+K(-2b+6cx-12dx^2)\right|<1.$$
Hence, a stable equilibrium of map \eqref{eq:m2-iter} is a real solution of
\begin{equation}\label{eq:semi-mod2}
\left\{\begin{split}
& x=x + K(a-2bx+3cx^2-4dx^3),\\
& K(-2b+6cx-12dx^2)<0,\\
& 2+K(-2b+6cx-12dx^2)>0,\\
& x>0, ~a>0,~ b>0,~ c>0,~ d>0.
\end{split}\right.
\end{equation}
Obviously, analyzing the stable equilibrium by substituting the closed-form solutions \eqref{eq:closed-e3} into \eqref{eq:semi-mod2} is complicated and impractical. In comparison, the approach applied in the analysis of Model 1 does not require explicitly solving any closed-form equilibrium. If the analytical solution has a complicated expression or even if there are no closed-form solutions, our approach still works in theory.
Concerning the border polynomial of system \eqref{eq:semi-mod2}, we compute
\begin{align*}
&\discr(K(a-2bx+3cx^2-4dx^3))=-16 K^{5} d R_1,\\
&\res(K(a-2bx+3cx^2-4dx^3),K(-2b+6cx-12dx^2))= -16 K^5 d R_1,\\
&\res(K(a-2bx+3cx^2-4dx^3),2+K(-2b+6cx-12dx^2))= -16 K^2 d R_2 ,\\
&\res(K(a-2bx+3cx^2-4dx^3),x)= -K a,
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
R_1=\,&108a^2d^2-108abcd+27ac^3+32b^3d-9b^2c^2,\\
R_2=\,&108K^3a^2d^2-108K^3abcd+27K^3ac^3+32K^3b^3d-9K^3b^2c^2-24Kbd+9Kc^2-8d.
\end{align*}
Therefore, the border polynomial is $-16384\, d^{4} K^{14} a R_1^2 R_2$,
the zeros of which divide the parameter set $\{(a,b,c,d,K)\,|\,a,b,c,d,K>0\}$ into separated regions. The PCAD method \cite{Collins1991P} permits us to select at least one sample point from each region. In Table \ref{tab:sample-mod2}, we list the 30 selected sample points and the corresponding numbers of distinct real solutions of system \eqref{eq:semi-mod2}.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{Selected Sample Points in $\{(a,b,c,d,K)\,|\,a,b,c,d,K>0\}$}
\label{tab:sample-mod2}
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c||l|c|c|c|}
\hline
$(a,b,c,d,K)$ & num & $R_1$ & $R_2$ & $(a,b,c,d,K)$ & num & $R_1$ & $R_2$ \\ \hline
$(1, 1, 1/4, 1/64, 1/2)$& 2 & $-$ & $-$ & $(1, 1, 1/4, 1/64, 1)$& 1 & $-$ & $+$ \\ \hline
$(1, 1, 1/4, 1/64, 2)$& 0 & $-$ & $-$ & $(1, 1, 1/4, 19/1024, 1)$& 2 & $-$ & $-$ \\ \hline
$(1, 1, 1/4, 19/1024, 2)$& 1 & $-$ & $+$ & $(1, 1, 1/4, 19/1024, 3)$& 0 & $-$ & $-$ \\ \hline
$(1, 1, 1/4, 1/16, 1)$& 1 & $+$ & $-$ & $(1, 1, 1/4, 1/16, 2)$& 0 & $+$ & $+$ \\ \hline
$(1, 1, 1/4, 1, 1/2)$& 1 & $+$ & $-$ & $(1, 1, 1/4, 1, 1)$& 0 & $+$ & $+$ \\ \hline
$(1, 1, 3/8, 1/64, 1/8)$& 1 & $+$ & $-$ & $(1, 1, 3/8, 1/64, 1)$& 0 & $+$ & $+$ \\ \hline
$(1, 1, 3/8, 1/32, 1/4)$& 2 & $-$ & $-$ & $(1, 1, 3/8, 1/32, 1)$& 1 & $-$ & $+$ \\ \hline
$(1, 1, 3/8, 1/32, 17)$& 0 & $-$ & $-$ & $(1, 1, 3/8, 49/1024, 1)$& 2 & $-$ & $-$ \\ \hline
$(1, 1, 3/8, 49/1024, 4)$& 1 & $-$ & $+$ & $(1, 1, 3/8, 49/1024, 8)$& 0 & $-$ & $-$ \\ \hline
$(1, 1, 3/8, 1/16, 1)$& 1 & $-$ & $+$ & $(1, 1, 3/8, 1/16, 3)$& 0 & $-$ & $-$ \\ \hline
$(1, 1, 3/8, 1, 1/2)$& 1 & $+$ & $-$ & $(1, 1, 3/8, 1, 1)$& 0 & $+$ & $+$ \\ \hline
$(1, 1, 15/32, 1/16, 1/2)$& 1 & $+$ & $-$ & $(1, 1, 15/32, 1/16, 1)$& 0 & $+$ & $+$ \\ \hline
$(1, 1, 15/32, 3/32, 1)$& 1 & $+$ & $-$ & $(1, 1, 15/32, 3/32, 8)$& 0 & $+$ & $+$ \\ \hline
$(1, 1, 15/32, 1, 1/2)$& 1 & $+$ & $-$ & $(1, 1, 15/32, 1, 1)$& 0 & $+$ & $+$ \\ \hline
$(1, 1, 1, 1, 1/2)$& 1 & $+$ & $-$ & $(1, 1, 1, 1, 1)$& 0 & $+$ & $+$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
According to Table \ref{tab:sample-mod2}, one can see that system \eqref{eq:semi-mod2} has one real solution if and only if $R_1<0, R_2>0$ or $R_1>0, R_2<0$. Moreover, a necessary condition that system \eqref{eq:semi-mod2} has two real solutions is that $R_1<0$ and $R_2<0$, which is not a sufficient condition, however. For example, at $(a,b,c,d,K)=(1, 1, 1/4, 1/64, 2)$, system \eqref{eq:semi-mod2} has no real solutions but $R_1<0$ and $R_2<0$ are fulfilled. To acquire the necessary and sufficient condition, additional polynomials ($R_3$ and $R_4$) are needed, which can be found in the so-called generalized discriminant list and can be picked out by repeated trials. Regarding the generalized discriminant list, readers may refer to \cite{Yang2001A} for more details. Due to space limitations, we directly report below the necessary and sufficient condition that system \eqref{eq:semi-mod2} has two real solutions without giving the calculation details:
$$R_1 < 0, R_2 < 0, R_3 > 0, R_4 < 0,$$
where
\begin{align*}
R_3=\,&8Kbd-3Kc^2+8d,\\
R_4 =\,&432K^2a^2d^3-432K^2abcd^2+108K^2ac^3d
+128K^2b^3d^t2-36K^2b^2c^2d+192Kb^2d^2\\
&-144Kbc^2d+27Kc^4+64bd^2-24c^2d.
\end{align*}
We continue to analyze the bifurcations of this model. An equilibrium $x$ of map \eqref{eq:m2-iter} may undergo a period-doubling bifurcation if
$$\frac{{\rm d}x(t+1)}{{\rm d}x(t)}\bigg|_{x(t)=x}=
1+K(-2b+6cx-12dx^2)=-1.$$
Hence, a period-doubling bifurcation may occur if the following system has at least one real solution.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:semi-mod2bf}
\left\{\begin{split}
& x=x + K(a-2bx+3cx^2-4dx^3),\\
& K(-2b+6cx-12dx^2)+2=0,\\
& x>0, ~a>0,~ b>0,~ c>0,~ d>0.
\end{split}\right.
\end{equation}
By using the method of triangular decomposition\footnote{The method of triangular decomposition can be viewed as an extension of the method of Gaussian elimination. The main idea of both methods is to transform a system into a triangular form. However, the triangular decomposition method is available for polynomial systems, while the Gaussian elimination method is just for linear systems. Refer to \cite{Wu1986B, Li2010D, Jin2013A, Wang2001E} for more details.}, we transform the solutions of the first two equations of system \eqref{eq:semi-mod2bf} into zeros of the triangular set
\[\pset{T}=[(8Kbd-3Kc^2+4d)x-6adK+bcK-c, R_2].\]
Obviously, the system $\{\pset{T}=0,~ x>0, ~a>0,~ b>0,~ c>0,~ d>0\}$ has at least one real positive solution if $R_2=0$ and $x=(6adK-bcK+c)/(8Kbd-3Kc^2+4d)>0$, i.e.,
\[R_2=0, ~R_5>0,\]
where
\begin{align*}
R_5&=\,(6adK-bcK+c)(8Kbd-3Kc^2+4d)\\
&=\,48K^2abd^2-18K^2ac^2d-8K^2b^2cd+3K^2bc^3+24Kad^2+4Kbcd-3Kc^3+4cd.
\end{align*}
Similarly, concerning the occurrence of a pitchfork bifurcation, we consider
\begin{equation}\label{eq:semi-mod2bf2}
\left\{\begin{split}
& x=x + K(a-2bx+3cx^2-4dx^3),\\
& K(-2b+6cx-12dx^2)=0,\\
& x>0, ~a>0,~ b>0,~ c>0,~ d>0,
\end{split}\right.
\end{equation}
and count the number of stable equilibria. More details are not reported here due to space limitations. We summarize all the obtained results in the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:mod2-stab}
Model 2 has at most two stable equilibria. Specifically, there exists just one stable equilibrium if
$$R_1<0, R_2>0~\text{or}~R_1>0, R_2<0,$$ and there exist two stable equilibria if
$$R_1 < 0, R_2 < 0, R_3 > 0, R_4 < 0.$$
Moreover, there is a period-doubling bifurcation if
\[R_2=0, ~R_5>0,\]
and there is a pitchfork bifurcation if
\[R_1=0,~ R_2>0,~R_6>0~\text{or}~R_1=0,~ R_2>0,~ R_4<0,~R_6>0,\]
where
\begin{align*}
R_6=\,&48abd^2-18ac^2d-8b^2cd+3bc^3.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
\remark{To the best of our knowledge, the stability results regarding the parameters $a,b,c,d,K$ reported in Theorem \ref{thm:mod2-stab} are new although the special case of $a=3.6$, $b=2.4$, $c=0.6$, $d=0.05$ has been discussed in \cite{Matsumoto2022N}. The two parameters $K,a$ play more ambitious roles than others in practice for $K$ controls the speed of adjusting the monopolist's output and $a$ is the difference between the initial product price of the market without any supply and the initial marginal cost of the firm without any production. By fixing $b=2.4$, $c=0.6$ and $d=0.05$, we depict the $(a,K)$ parameter plane in Figure \ref{fig:par-plane-mod2}, where the region for the existence of one stable equilibrium is colored in yellow, while the region for the existence of two stable equilibria is colored in blue-gray. Model 2 behaves differently from typical oligopolies with gradient mechanisms. As shown by Figure \ref{fig:par-plane-mod2}, for instance, even if the adjustment speed $K$ is quite large, there always exist some values of $a$ such that Model 2 is stable. Moreover, for a fixed value of $K$ greater than around $1.7$, Model 2 undergoes from instability to stability and then back to instability twice as the parameter $a$ changes from low to high.}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{Figures/figure2_final.eps}
\caption{The two-dimensional $(a,K)$ parameter plane of Model 2 with the other parameters fixed: $b=2.4$, $c=0.6$, and $d=0.05$. The region for the existence of one stable equilibrium is colored in yellow, while that of two stable equilibria is colored in blue-gray.}
\label{fig:par-plane-mod2}
\end{figure}
\section{Periodic Solutions}
From an economic point of view, it is realistic to assume that a boundedly rational firm can not learn the pattern behind output and profits if periodic dynamics take place. In this regard, we investigate the existence and stability of periodic solutions with relatively lower orders in this section.
Let $I$ be an interval of real numbers, and let $F: I\rightarrow \field{R}$ be a function. If $x\in I$, suppose that $F^0(x)$ represents $x$ and $F^{n+1}(x)$ denotes $F(F^n(x))$ for $n\in\{0,1,\ldots\}$. A point $p\in I$ is said to be a \emph{periodic point} with period $n$ or order $n$ if $p=F^n(p)$, and $p\neq F^k(p)$ for any $1\leq k<n$. If $p$ is a point with period $n$, we call $p\mapsto F^1(p)\mapsto\cdots\mapsto F^n(p)= p$ a \emph{$n$-cycle orbit}. Furthermore, a point $y\in I$ with period $k$ is said to be \emph{asymptotically stable} if there exists $\delta$ such that $|F^k(x)-y|<|x-y|$ for all $x\in (y-\delta, y+\delta)$.
The following lemma can be found in \cite{Li1975P}, which provides an algebraic criterion to verify the stability of a periodic point.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:stable}
Assume that $y\in I$ is a periodic point of $F$ with period $k$. If $F$ is differentiable at the points $y, F(y),\ldots, F^{k-1}(y)$, then $y$ is asymptotically stable if
$$\left|\prod_{i=0}^{k-1}\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}x}F(y_i)\right|<1, ~~~\text{where}~y_i=F^i(y).$$
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Model 1}
We start by considering the existence of periodic orbits with order two. Assume that there is a 2-cycle orbit $x\mapsto y\mapsto x$, where $\mapsto$ stands for the iteration map \eqref{eq:m1-ef}. Thus, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:epart-2cycle}
y=x + f(e-x^3),~~~ x=y + f(e-y^3).
\end{equation}
Obviously, $x\neq y$ should be guaranteed. Otherwise, $x\mapsto y\mapsto x$ will degenerate into an equilibrium. Then, the problem of determining the existence of 2-cycles is transformed into determining the existence of real solutions of
\begin{equation}\label{eq:p2m1}
\left\{\begin{split}
& y=x + f(e-x^3),\\
& x=y + f(e-y^3),\\
& x\neq y,\\
& x>0, ~y>0, ~e>0, ~f>0.
\end{split}\right.
\end{equation}
Since the above system involves two variables $x$ and $y$, the approach used in Section 3 (feasible only for univariate systems) might not be directly employed herein.
\begin{remark}\label{rm:linearization}
However, we can transform system \eqref{eq:p2m1} equivalently into univariate systems based on its triangular decomposition. Specifically, the triangular decomposition method permits us to decompose the equation part \eqref{eq:epart-2cycle} into the following two triangular sets.
\begin{align*}
&\pset{T}_{11}=[y-x, x^3-e],\\
&\pset{T}_{12}=[y+fx^3-x-ef, f^3x^6-3f^2x^4-2ef^3x^3+3fx^2+3ef^2x+e^2f^3-2].
\end{align*}
Since the first polynomial in $\pset{T}_{11}$ is $y-x$, which implies that $x=y$. Thus, the zeros of $\pset{T}_{11}$ are not of our concern. We only focus on $\pset{T}_{12}$, where the first polynomial $y+fx^3-x-ef$ has degree one with respect to $y$. Therefore, one can directly solve $y=-fx^3+x+ef$ and substitute it into relative inequalities of system \eqref{eq:p2m1}. In short, system \eqref{eq:p2m1} can be equivalently transformed into the following univariate system.
\begin{equation*}
\left\{\begin{split}
& f^3x^6-3f^2x^4-2ef^3x^3+3fx^2+3ef^2x+e^2f^3-2=0,\\
& -fx^3+x+ef>0,\\
& x>0, ~e>0, ~f>0.
\end{split}\right.
\end{equation*}
After that, the approach in Section 3 can be applied. The results show that the above system has two real solutions if and only if $8/27<e^2f^3<2$. It is evident that these two real solutions belong to the same 2-cycle orbit because $x,y$ are symmetric and can be replaced with each other. Therefore, there exists at most one 2-cycle orbit in Model 1.
\end{remark}
According to Lemma \ref{lem:stable}, to determine whether the discovered 2-cycle is stable, we consider \eqref{eq:p2m1} together with the condition
$$\left|\frac{{\rm d}(x + f(e-x^3))}{{\rm d}x}\times\frac{{\rm d}(y + f(e-y^3))}{{\rm d}y}\right|<1,$$
i.e.,
$$\left|(1-3fx^2)(1-3fy^2)\right|<1.$$
The technique introduced in Remark \ref{rm:linearization} is needed to transform the system into a univariate one. According to our calculations, the unique 2-cycle orbit is stable if and only if $729e^4f^6-3294e^2f^3+1664>0$ or equivalently $8/27<e^2f^3<{(61-11\sqrt{17})}/{27}$. We collect the aforementioned results in the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
Model 1 has at most one 2-cycle orbit, which exists if
$$8/27<e^2f^3<2.$$
Furthermore, this unique 2-cycle is stable if
$$8/27<e^2f^3<\frac{61-11\sqrt{17}}{27},$$
or approximately
$$0.2962962963<e^2f^3<0.5794754859.$$
\end{theorem}
The measurement of the magnitude of periodic orbits is economically interesting for it characterizes the size of fluctuations in dynamic economies. For a $n$-cycle orbit $p_1\mapsto p_2\mapsto \cdots p_n\mapsto p_1$, a direct definition of the magnitude measure is
$$d=|p_1-p_2|+|p_2-p_3|+\cdots+|p_{n-1}-p_n|+|p_n-p_1|.$$
However, to obtain better mathematical properties, we square each item and define the magnitude measure to be
$$d=(p_1-p_2)^2+(p_2-p_3)^2+\cdots+(p_{n-1}-p_n)^2+(p_n-p_1)^2.$$
For a 2-cycle orbit $x\mapsto y\mapsto x$ in Model 1, the magnitude measure becomes $d=(x-y)^2+(y-x)^2$. Thus, we have
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{split}
& d-(x-y)^2-(y-x)^2=0,\\
& -y+x+f(e-x^3)=0,\\
& -x+y+f(e-y^3)=0.
\end{split}
\right.
\end{equation*}
Using the method of triangular decomposition, we decompose the solutions of the above system into zeros of the following two triangular sets.
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\pset{T}_{21}=[\,&y-x, x^3-e, d\,],\\
\pset{T}_{22}=[\,&y+x^3f-ef-x,\\
&(d^2f^3+4df^2+4f)x^2+(-6def^3-12ef^2)x+36e^2f^3-2f^2d^2-8fd-8,\\
&f^3d^3-12f^2d^2-60fd+216e^2f^3-64\,].
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
The first polynomial $y-x$ in $\pset{T}_{21}$ implies that $x=y$. Thus, $\pset{T}_{21}$ is not of concern since it corresponds to equilibria rather than 2-cycle orbits. We focus on the last polynomial $f^3d^3-12f^2d^2-60fd+216e^2f^3-64$ in $\pset{T}_{22}$. By solving $d$ from this polynomial, we obtain three solutions:
$$d_1=\frac{2}{f}\left(\frac{3H}{2}+\frac{6}{H}+2\right),~~d_2, d_3=\frac{2}{f}\left(-\frac{3H}{4}-\frac{3}{H}+2\pm \frac{\ii\sqrt{3}}{2}\Big(\frac{3H}{2}-\frac{6}{H}\Big)\right),$$
where
$$H=\sqrt[3]{8-4e^2f^3+4(e^4f^6-4e^2f^3)^{1/2}}.$$
Here, only the real solution $d_1$ is meaningful. Therefore, the magnitude measure of the unique 2-cycle orbit in Model 1 can be expressed as
$$d=\frac{2}{f}\left(\frac{3\sqrt[3]{8-4e^2f^3+4(e^4f^6-4e^2f^3)^{1/2}}}{2}+\frac{6}{\sqrt[3]{8-4e^2f^3+4(e^4f^6-4e^2f^3)^{1/2}}}+2\right).$$
In the rest of this section, similar calculations as above are repeated. We omit these computation details due to space limitations. Concerning 3-cycle orbits in Model 1, we need to count real solutions of
\begin{equation*}
\left\{\begin{split}
& y=x + f(e-x^3),\\
& z=y + f(e-y^3),\\
& x=z + f(e-z^3),\\
& {x\neq y,~x\neq z,}\\
& x>0, ~y>0, ~z>0, ~e>0, ~f>0.
\end{split}\right.
\end{equation*}
Based on a series of computations, we derive the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
Model 1 has no 3-cycle orbits for all possible parameter values such that $e,f>0$.
\end{theorem}
For a 4-cycle orbit $x\mapsto y\mapsto z \mapsto w\mapsto x$, we have the system
\begin{equation*}
\left\{\begin{split}
& y=x + f(e-x^3),\\
& z=y + f(e-y^3),\\
& w=z + f(e-z^3),\\
& x=w + f(e-w^3),\\
& {x\neq y,~x\neq z,~x\neq w,}\\
& x>0, ~y>0, ~z>0, ~e>0, ~f>0.
\end{split}\right.
\end{equation*}
Furthermore, the following condition is required to guarantee that the considered 4-cycle is stable.
$$\left|\frac{{\rm d} (x + f(e-x^3))}{{\rm d} x}\times\frac{{\rm d}(y + f(e-y^3))}{{\rm d}y}\times\frac{{\rm d}(z + f(e-z^3))}{{\rm d}z}\times\frac{{\rm d}(w + f(e-w^3))}{{\rm d} w}\right|<1,$$
i.e.,
$$\left|(1-3fx^2)(1-3fy^2)(1-3fz^2)(1-3fw^2)\right|<1.$$
As the polynomials involved in the conditions of the existence and stability of 4-cycle orbits are extremely complicated, we report below the obtained results in an approximate style.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:mod1-4cycle}
Model 1 has at most one 4-cycle orbit, which exists if
$$0.5794754859< e^2f^3< 1.237575627.$$
Furthermore, this unique 4-cycle is stable if
$$0.5794754859<e^2f^3<0.6673871142.$$
\end{theorem}
Figure \ref{fig:4-cycle-model1} (a) depicts the phase diagram of the unique 4-cycle in Model 1 with $e=0.6$ and $f=1.2$. Since $e^2f^3=0.62208\in (0.5794754859, 0.6673871142)$, this unique 4-cycle in Model 1 is asymptotically stable according to Theorem \ref{thm:mod1-4cycle}. Actually, the horizontal coordinates of $A,B,C,D$, i.e., $x,y,z,w$, are the four points in the 4-cycle orbit. For the sake of simplicity, we connect $A,B,C,D$ with lines and use the simplified phase diagram as Figure \ref{fig:4-cycle-model1} (b) to demonstrate periodic solutions in the rest of this paper.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\subfigure[phase diagram.]{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{Figures/figure5-a.eps}}
\subfigure[simplified phase diagram.]{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{Figures/figure5-b.eps}} \\
\caption{The unique stable 4-cycle in Model 1 with $e=0.6$ and $f=1.2$.}
\label{fig:4-cycle-model1}
\end{figure}
Furthermore, by using the same approach as we computed the magnitude of the 2-cycle orbit, we conclude that if a 4-cycle $x\mapsto y\mapsto z\mapsto w\mapsto x$ exists in Model 1, its magnitude measure equals to
$$d=\frac{4}{f}\left(\frac{3\sqrt[3]{8-4e^2f^3+4(e^4f^6-4e^2f^3)^{1/2}}}{2}+\frac{6}{\sqrt[3]{8-4e^2f^3+4(e^4f^6-4e^2f^3)^{1/2}}}+2\right),$$
which is twice as large as that of the 2-cycle orbit.
The parameter plane of Model 1 is shown in Figure \ref{fig:par-space-24cycle-model1}. One can see that the parameter region for the stability of the unique equilibrium (2-cycle or 4-cycle orbit) constitutes a connected set. Moreover, the three regions for the stability of the equilibrium, 2-cycle, and 4-cycle adjoin without any gap. In the next subsection, one will find that the topological structure of the parameter space of Model 2 is much more complex than that of Model 1.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Figures/figure4_final.eps}
\caption{The parameter plane of Model 1. The light blue, yellow, and light orange regions are the parameter regions for the stability of the 4-cycle orbit, the 2-cycle orbit, and the equilibrium, respectively.}
\label{fig:par-space-24cycle-model1}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:bif-2d-mod1} depicts the two-dimensional bifurcation diagram of Model 1 for $(e,f)\in[0.6,1.6]\times[0.6,1.6]$. For additional information regarding two-dimensional bifurcation diagrams, readers can refer to \cite{Li2022C}. In the numerical simulations of Figure \ref{fig:bif-2d-mod1}, we set the initial state to be $x(0)=1.0$. Parameter points corresponding to periodic orbits with different orders are marked in different colors. For example, parameter points are colored in dark red if the order is just one (equilibria) and are marked in black if the order is greater than or equal to $24$ (complex trajectories). In the case that the order is greater than $24$, the black points may be viewed as the parameter values where complex dynamics such as chaos take place. Moreover, we also use black to mark those parameter points where the trajectories diverge to $\infty$. One can see that Figure \ref{fig:bif-2d-mod1} confirms the theoretical results presented in Figure \ref{fig:par-space-24cycle-model1}.
In Figure \ref{fig:bif-2d-mod1}, the transitions between different types of periodic orbits can also be observed. One can see that the equilibrium loses its stability through a series of period-doubling bifurcations as the value of $e$ or $f$ increases. For example, along the line of $e=1.0$, the unique stable equilibrium bifurcates into a stable 2-cycle orbit at $f =0.6665$, which further bifurcates into a 4-cycle orbit at $f =0.8339$. There is a stable 8-cycle orbit when $f \in (0.8744, 0.8826)$. Finally, chaotic dynamics take place if the value of $f$ is large enough. Additional details can be found in the one-dimensional bifurcation diagram presented in Figure \ref{fig:bifur_mod1}, where we fix $e=1.0$ and choose $x(0)=1.1$ to be the initial state of iterations.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=16cm]{Figures/bif-2d-mod1.png}
\caption{The two-dimensional bifurcation diagram of Model 1 for $(e,f)\in[0.6,1.6]\times[0.6,1.6]$. We choose $x(0)=1.0$ to be the initial state of the iterations.}
\label{fig:bif-2d-mod1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=14cm]{Figures/bif-mod1-f}
\caption{The one-dimensional bifurcation diagram of Model 1 with respect to $f$ by fixing $e=1.0$. We choose $x(0)=1.1$ to be the initial state of the iterations.}
\label{fig:bifur_mod1}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Model 2}
The formulation \eqref{eq:m2-iter} of Model 2 involves five parameters, which might be particularly complex for symbolic computations of searching periodic solutions. In what follows, we keep $K$ as the only parameter and assume that $a = 3.6$, $b = 2.4$, $c = 0.6$, and $d = 0.05$. This setting is meaningful and has been discussed by several economists, e.g., Puu \cite{Puu1995T}, Al-Hdaibat and others \cite{AlHdaibat2015O}, Matsumoto and Szidarovszky \cite{Matsumoto2022N}.
Let $x\mapsto y\mapsto x$ be a 2-cycle orbit. Hence, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:2-cycle-mod2}
\left\{\begin{split}
& y= x + K(3.6 - 4.8x + 1.8x^2 - 0.2x^3),\\
& x= y + K(3.6 - 4.8y + 1.8y^2 - 0.2y^3),\\
& x\neq y,\\
& x>0, ~y>0, ~K>0.
\end{split}\right.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, the following condition is required if the stability of the 2-cycle is considered.
$$| S(x)\cdot S(y)| <1,$$
where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Sx}
S(x)=\frac{{\rm d}(x + K(3.6 - 4.8x + 1.8x^2 - 0.2x^3)}{{\rm d}x} =1-K(4.8-3.6x+0.6x^2).
\end{equation}
According to our computations, the following theorem is obtained.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:mod2-2cycle}
In Model 2, the possible number of 2-cycle orbits is zero (no real solutions in system \eqref{eq:2-cycle-mod2}) or three (six real solutions in system \eqref{eq:2-cycle-mod2}). There exist three 2-cycle orbits if $K>5/3$. Moreover, two of them are stable if
$$5/3<K<(5\sqrt{5}-5)/{3},$$
or approximately
$$1.666666667<K<2.060113296.$$
\end{theorem}
To measure the magnitude of a 2-cycle orbit $x\mapsto y\mapsto x$, we also use $d=(x-y)^2+(y-x)^2$. The method of triangular decomposition permits us to decompose the solutions of
\begin{equation*}
\left\{\begin{split}
&d=(x-y)^2+(y-x)^2,\\
&y = x + K(3.6 - 4.8x + 1.8x^2 - 0.2x^3),\\
&x = y + K(3.6 - 4.8y + 1.8y^2 - 0.2y^3)
\end{split}\right.
\end{equation*}
into zeros of the following triangular systems.
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\pset{T}_{31}=[\,&y-3, x-3, d\,],\\
\pset{T}_{32}=[\,&y-x, x^2-6x+6, d\,],\\
\pset{T}_{33}=[\,&y+x-6, Kx^2-6Kx+6K-10, Kd-24K-80\,],\\
\pset{T}_{34}=[\,&5y+x^3K-9Kx^2+(24K-5)x-18K,\\ &K^2x^4-12K^2x^3+(51K^2-5K)x^2+(-90K^2+30K)x+54K^2-45K+25, \\
&Kd-6K+10\,],\\
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where the last two polynomials $Kd-24K-80$ and $Kd-6K+10$ in {$\pset{T}_{33}$ and $\pset{T}_{34}$} are of our concern. We conclude that $d={(24K+80)}/{K}$ or $d={(6K-10)}/{K}$. One can see that two of the three 2-cycle orbits possess the same magnitude.
For a 3-cycle orbit $x\mapsto y\mapsto z \mapsto x$, we consider the system
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sys-3-cycle}
\left\{\begin{split}
& y= x + K(3.6 - 4.8x + 1.8x^2 - 0.2x^3),\\
& z= y + K(3.6 - 4.8y + 1.8y^2 - 0.2y^3),\\
& x= z + K(3.6 - 4.8z + 1.8z^2 - 0.2z^3),\\
& {x\neq y,~x\neq z,}\\
& x>0, ~y>0, ~z>0, ~K>0,
\end{split}\right.
\end{equation}
as well as the stability condition
\begin{equation}\label{eq:stab-cond3}
| S(x)\cdot S(y) \cdot S(z)| <1,
\end{equation}
where
$S(x)$ is given in \eqref{eq:Sx}. Based on a series of calculations, we have the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:mod2-3cycle}
In Model 2, all possible cases for the number of (stable) 3-cycle orbits are listed in Table \ref{tab:3-cycles-model2}, where
\[m_1\approx 2.417401607,~ m_2\approx 2.434714456,~ m_3\approx 3.302953127,~m_4\approx 3.303122765.\]
Readers can refer to Remark \ref{rm:sp} to understand how these $m_i$ are obtained.
\begin{table}[H]
\caption{Numbers of (stable) 3-cycle orbits in Model 2}\label{tab:3-cycles-model2}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline $K\in$ & $(0,m_1)$ & $(m_1,m_2)$& $(m_2,m_3)$ & $(m_3,m_4)$& $(m_4,+\infty)$\\
\hline 3-cycles & 0 & 4 & 4 & 8 & 8\\
\hline Stable 3-cycles & 0 & 2 & 0 & 2 & 0\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}\label{rm:sp}
As aforementioned, the border polynomial plays an important role. However, one can derive that the properties of the border polynomial reported in Lemma \ref{lem:main} will retain if we use the squarefree part of the border polynomial. The squarefree part $SP$ of the border polynomial of \eqref{eq:sys-3-cycle}+\eqref{eq:stab-cond3} is simpler, which is given in Appendix. In Theorem \ref{thm:mod2-3cycle}, $m_1,\ldots,m_4$ are the real roots of $SP$. A rigorous style of writing Theorem \ref{thm:mod2-3cycle} is to express the conditions using factors in $SP$. However, this would be quite tedious. Since only one parameter, i.e., $K$, is involved in $SP$, the regions divided by zeros of $SP$ are indeed intervals and can be approximately described as in Theorem \ref{thm:mod2-3cycle}. However, it should be noticed that the values of $m_1,\ldots,m_4$ can be made arbitrarily accurate if we want because the exact expression of $SP$ has already been obtained.
\end{remark}
Figure \ref{fig:3-cycle-mod2} depicts all the 3-cycle orbits in Model 2 with $K=3.303\in (m_3,m_4)$, where the $6$ unstable cycles are marked in red and the $2$ stable cycles are marked in blue. It is worth noting that two of the unstable 3-cycle orbits in red almost coincide with the stable ones in blue, but they are different. We should underline that this dynamic phenomenon, derived by symbolic computations, may be too subtle to observe through numerical simulations.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{Figures/figure5_final.eps}
\caption{The 3-cycle orbits in Model 2 with $K=3.303$. The 6 unstable cycles are marked in red, while the 2 stable ones are marked in blue.}
\label{fig:3-cycle-mod2}
\end{figure}
Moreover, if measuring the magnitude of the 3-cycle orbit $x\mapsto y\mapsto z \mapsto x$ with $d=(x-y)^2+(y-z)^2+(z-x)^2$, then we have
\begin{align*}
&K^{4} d^{4}
+(
-54K^{4}
-90K^{3}) d^{3}
+(972K^{4}
+2700K^{3}
+1800K^{2}) d^{2}\\
&~~+(
-6696K^{4}
-19440K^{3}
-5400K^{2}
+27000K) d\\
&~~+15552K^{4}
+38880K^{3}
-32400K^{2}
-162000K
+270000=0.
\end{align*}
The above condition on $K$ and $d$ is plotted in Figure \ref{fig:Kd-3-cycle}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{Figures/figure6_final.eps}
\caption{The magnitude $d$ of the possible 3-cycle orbits in Model 2 as the variation of $K$.}
\label{fig:Kd-3-cycle}
\end{figure}
Similarly, we analyze the 4-cycle and 5-cycle orbits in Model 2, and report the obtained results in the sequel.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:mod2-4cycle}
In Model 2, all possible cases for the number of (stable) 4-cycle orbits are given in Table \ref{tab:4-cycles-mod2}, where
\begin{align*}
&m_1\approx 2.060113296,~m_2\approx 2.146719591,~ m_3\approx 2.579725065,~ m_4\approx 2.581385365,~ m_5\approx 3.062775154,\\
&m_6\approx 3.070194019,~m_7\approx 3.279225134,~ m_8\approx 3.279260335,~ m_9\approx 3.319881360,~ m_{10}\approx 3.319889702.
\end{align*}
Readers can refer to Remark \ref{rm:sp} to understand how these $m_i$ are obtained.
\begin{table}[H]
\caption{Numbers of (stable) 4-cycle orbits in Model 2}\label{tab:4-cycles-mod2}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline $K\in$ & $(0,m_1)$ & $(m_1,m_2)$& $(m_2,m_3)$ & $(m_3,m_4)$& $(m_4,m_5)$ & $(m_5,m_6)$ \\
\hline 4-cycles & 0 & 2 & 2 & 6 & 6&10\\
\hline Stable 4-cycles & 0 & 2 & 0 & 2 & 0&2\\
\hline
\hline $K\in$& $(m_6,m_7)$ & $(m_7,m_8)$&$(m_8,m_9)$ & $(m_9,m_{10})$& $(m_{10},+\infty)$ &\\
\hline 4-cycles & 10 & 14 & 14 & 18 & 18&\\
\hline Stable 4-cycles & 0 & 2 & 0 & 2 & 0&\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{theorem}
In Figure \ref{fig:4-cycle-mod2}, we show all the 4-cycle orbits in Model 2 with $K=3.319885\in(m_9,m_{10})$, where the $16$ unstable cycles are marked in red and the $2$ stable ones are marked in blue. If we measure the magnitude of the 4-cycle orbit $x\mapsto y\mapsto z \mapsto w \mapsto x$ with $d=(x-y)^2+(y-z)^2+(z-w)^2+(w-x)^2$, then $d$ must satisfy one of the following equations.
\begin{align*}
& Kd-12K+20=0,\\
& Kd-48K-160=0,\\
& K^2d^2+(-36K^2-60K)d+288K^2+960K+1600=0,\\
& C_4(K,d)=0,
\end{align*}
where $C_4(K,d)$ is a complex polynomial given in Appendix.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{Figures/figure7_final.eps}
\caption{The 4-cycle orbits in Model 2 with $K=3.319885$. The 16 unstable cycles are marked in red, while the 2 stable ones are marked in blue.}
\label{fig:4-cycle-mod2}
\end{figure}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:mod2-5cycle}
In Model 2, all possible cases for the number of (stable) 5-cycle orbits are listed in Table \ref{tab:5-cycles-mod2}, where
\begin{align*}
&m_1\approx 2.323208379,~ m_2\approx 2.326320457,~ m_3\approx 2.509741151,~ m_4\approx 2.510528490,~ \\
&m_5\approx 2.632885028,~m_6\approx 2.633089005,~m_7\approx 2.997641294,~ m_8\approx 2.997736262,~ \\
&m_9\approx 3.113029799,~ m_{10}\approx 3.113069634,~m_{11}\approx 3.197332995,~m_{12}\approx 3.197354147,~\\
&m_{13}\approx 3.219425160,~ m_{14}\approx 3.219440784,~ m_{15}\approx 3.269613400,~m_{16}\approx 3.269618202,~\\
&m_{17}\approx 3.288059620,~ m_{18}\approx 3.288062995,~m_{19}\approx 3.314977518,~ m_{20}\approx 3.314978815,~\\
&m_{21}\approx 3.324008184,~m_{22}\approx 3.324008826,~ m_{23}\approx 3.332961824,~ m_{24}\approx 3.332961850.
\end{align*}
Readers can refer to Remark \ref{rm:sp} to understand how these $m_i$ are obtained.
\begin{table}[H]
\caption{Numbers of (stable) 5-cycle orbits in Model 2}\label{tab:5-cycles-mod2}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c| c| c|}
\hline $K\in$ & $(0,m_1)$ & $(m_1,m_2)$& $(m_2,m_3)$ & $(m_3,m_4)$& $(m_4,m_5)$ \\
\hline 5-cycles & 0 & 4 & 4 & 8 & 8 \\
\hline Stable 5-cycles & 0 & 2 & 0 & 2 & 0\\
\hline
\hline $K\in$ & $(m_5,m_6)$ & $(m_6,m_7)$ & $(m_7,m_8)$&$(m_8,m_9)$ & $(m_9,m_{10})$\\
\hline 5-cycles & 12 & 12 & 16 & 16 & 20\\
\hline Stable 5-cycles &2 & 0 & 2 & 0 & 2\\
\hline
\hline $K\in$ & $(m_{10},m_{11})$ & $(m_{11},m_{12})$ & $(m_{12},m_{13})$ & $(m_{13},m_{14})$ & $(m_{14},m_{15})$\\
\hline 5-cycles &20 &24 & 24 & 28 & 28 \\
\hline Stable 5-cycles &0 &2 & 0 & 2 & 0 \\
\hline
\hline $K\in$ &$(m_{15},m_{16})$ &$(m_{16},m_{17})$ & $(m_{17},m_{18})$ & $(m_{18},m_{19})$ & $(m_{19},m_{20})$\\
\hline 5-cycles &32 &32 &36 & 36 & 40 \\
\hline Stable 5-cycles &2 &0 &2 & 0 & 2\\
\hline
\hline $K\in$ & $(m_{20},m_{21})$ & $(m_{21},m_{22})$ & $(m_{22},m_{23})$ & $(m_{23},m_{24})$& $(m_{24},+\infty)$ \\
\hline 5-cycles & 40 & 44 & 44&48 & 48 \\
\hline Stable 5-cycles & 0 & 2 & 0&2 & 0 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{theorem}
In Figure \ref{fig:5-cycle-mod2}, we plot all possible 5-cycle orbits in Model 2 with $K=3.33296183\in (m_{23},m_{24})$, where the $46$ unstable cycles are marked in red and the $2$ stable ones are marked in blue.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{Figures/figure9_final.eps}
\caption{The 5-cycle orbits in Model 2 with $K=3.33296183$. The 46 unstable cycles are marked in red, while the 2 stable ones are marked in blue.}
\label{fig:5-cycle-mod2}
\end{figure}
By Theorems \ref{thm:mod2-3cycle}, \ref{thm:mod2-4cycle} and \ref{thm:mod2-5cycle}, one can see the parameter space of Model 2 is quite different from that of Model 1 in the sense that the stability regions for the 3-cycle, 4-cycle and 5-cycle orbits are disconnected sets formed by many disjoint portions. Therefore, the topological structures of the regions for stable periodic orbits in Model 2 are much more complex than those in Model 1. This may be because the inverse demand function of Model 2 has an inflection point. However, the following observations of Model 2 are similar to Model 1. Theorem \ref{thm:mod2-2cycle} shows that the stability region for the 2-cycles is a connected interval. In Model 2, the right boundary of the stability region for the 2-cycles is the same as the left boundary of the stability region for the 4-cycles. When $a = 3.6$, $b = 2.4$, $c = 0.6$, and $d = 0.05$, by Theorem \ref{thm:mod2-stab} we know that Model 2 has stable equilibria if $K\in (0,5/3)$, which adjoins the stability region for the 2-cycles. Moreover, in Model 2, the stability regions for cycles with distinct periods may not intersect with each other, which means that multistability might only arise among periodic orbits with the same period.
Figure \ref{fig:bif-2d-mod2} depicts the two-dimensional bifurcation diagram of Model 2 for $(a,K)\in[2.5,5.0]\times [0.0,3.0]$. We fix the parameters $b=2.4$, $c=0.6$, $d=0.05$, and set the initial state to be $x(0)=1.0$. Similarly, we use different colors to mark parameter points corresponding to trajectories with different periods. Parameter points are marked in black if the corresponding orbits have orders greater than 24. Furthermore, we also use black to mark the parameter points where the trajectories diverge. One can see that Figure \ref{fig:bif-2d-mod2} confirms the theoretical results reported in Theorem \ref{thm:mod2-stab}. However, Figure \ref{fig:bif-2d-mod2} generated by numerical simulations is not accurate compared to Figure \ref{fig:par-plane-mod2} based on symbolic computations.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=16cm]{Figures/bif-2d-mod2.png}
\caption{The two-dimensional bifurcation diagram of Model 2 for $(a,K)\in[2.5,5.0]\times[0.0,3.0]$. We fix the parameters $b=2.4$, $c=0.6$, $d=0.05$, and choose $x(0)=1.0$ to be the initial state of the iterations.}
\label{fig:bif-2d-mod2}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:1d-bif-K} depicts the one-dimensional bifurcation diagrams of Model 2 with respect to $K$ by fixing $a=3.3$, $b=2.4$, $c=0.6$, and $d=0.05$. The bifurcation diagrams are different if the selected initial states of the iterations are distinct. For example, in Figure \ref{fig:1d-bif-K} (a) and (b), the initial states are selected to be $x(0)=1.0$ and $x(0)=4.0$, respectively. The difference may be because two stable equilibria exist when $K$ is relatively small and distinct initial states approach distinct equilibria. As shown by Figure \ref{fig:1d-bif-K} (a), the trajectory converges to $1.058$ when $K<1.1996$ and converges to $4.384$ when $K>1.9874$. In Figure \ref{fig:1d-bif-K}, the occurrence of period-doubling bifurcations can also be observed.
Figure \ref{fig:1d-bif-a} depicts the one-dimensional bifurcation diagrams of Model 2 with respect to $a$ by fixing $K=2.2$, $b=2.4$, $c=0.6$, and $d=0.05$. In Figure \ref{fig:1d-bif-a} (a) and (b), the initial states of the iterations are selected to be $x(0)=1.0$ and $x(0)=4.0$, respectively. Similarly, the two bifurcation diagrams are different because of the selection of distinct initial states. Furthermore, pitchfork bifurcations can be observed in Figure \ref{fig:1d-bif-a}, where the number of stable equilibria changes from one to zero.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\subfigure[$x(0)=1.0$.]{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{Figures/bif-mod2-K-X1.png}}
\subfigure[$x(0)=4.0$.]{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{Figures/bif-mod2-K-X4.png}} \\
\caption{The one-dimensional bifurcation diagrams of Model 2 with respect to $K$ by fixing $a=3.3$, $b=2.4$, $c=0.6$, and $d=0.05$.}
\label{fig:1d-bif-K}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\subfigure[$x(0)=1.0$.]{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{Figures/bif-mod2-a-X1.png}}
\subfigure[$x(0)=4.0$.]{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{Figures/bif-mod2-a-X4.png}} \\
\caption{The one-dimensional bifurcation diagrams of Model 2 with respect to $a$ by fixing $K=2.2$, $b=2.4$, $c=0.6$, and $d=0.05$.}
\label{fig:1d-bif-a}
\end{figure}
In Model 2, two stable equilibria may coexist (see the blue-gray region in Figure \ref{fig:par-plane-mod2}). The equilibrium selection problem is interesting. The final outcome of the iterations depends not only on the values of the parameters but also on the starting conditions of the game. According to our numerical simulations of Model 2, the basins of attraction of coexisting equilibria have complicated structures. For example, by fixing $K=0.5$, $a=3.5$, $b=2.4$, $c=0.6$, $d=0.05$, we have two stable equilibria $E_1=1.19$ and $E_2=4.64$. The basin of $E_1$ is
$$\pset{B}(E_1)=(0,3.168)\cup (6.518,7.577)\cup (7.745,7.781)\cup (7.786,7.789),$$
while that of $E_2$ is
$$\pset{B}(E_2)=(3.168,6.518)\cup (7.577,7.745)\cup (7.781,7.786).$$
Furthermore, when the initial state $x(0)>7.786$, the trajectory will not converge to any of the two stable equilibria but diverge to $+\infty$. Take $K=1$ and $a=4$ as the other example. If the other parameters keep unchanged, i.e., $b=2.4$, $c=0.6$, and $d=0.05$, there are two stable equilibria $E_1=4.99$ and $E_2=1.99$. Our simulations show that the basins of these two equilibria are
$$\pset{B}(E_1)=(0,0.807)\cup (2.0,6.192)\cup (6.431,6.647)\cup (6.653,6.659),$$
and
$$\pset{B}(E_2)=(0.807,2.0)\cup (6.192,6.431)\cup (6.647,6.653),$$
respectively. The escape set is $(6.659,+\infty)$, where the trajectory diverges.
In short, in Model 2, the basins of the two stable equilibria are disconnected sets and have complex topological structures.
\section{Chaotic Dynamics}
In the bifurcation diagrams (Figures \ref{fig:bifur_mod1} and \ref{fig:1d-bif-K}), one can observe that the dynamics of the two considered models transition to chaos through period-doubling bifurcations as the adjustment speed increases. From an economic point of view, if chaos appears, the pattern behind output and profits is nearly impossible to learn even for completely rational players. Therefore, it is extremely hard for a firm to handle a chaotic economy, where no market rules could be discovered and followed.
In this section, we rigorously prove the existence of chaos for the two models. The following famous lemma was first derived by Li and Yorke \cite{Li1975P}, which is mathematically deep and facilitates the exploration of complicated dynamics arising in one-dimensional discrete dynamical systems.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:p3chaos}
Let $I$ be an interval of real numbers, and let $F: I\rightarrow \field{R}$ be a continuous function. Assume that there exists a point $x\in I$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:p3}
F^3(x)\leq x <F(x)<F^2(x)~~~\text{or}~~~~F^3(x)\geq x >F(x)>F^2(x),
\end{equation}
then the following two statements are true.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For each $k\in \{1,2,\ldots\}$, there is a point $p_k\in I$ with period $k$, i.e., $F^k(p_k)=p_k$, and $F^i(p_k)\neq p_k$ for $1\leq i <k$.
\item There is an uncountable set $S\subset I$ (containing no periodic points), which satisfies the following conditions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item for any $p,q\in S$ with $p\neq q$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:away2p}
\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty}|F^n(p)-F^n(q)|>0,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:near2p}
\liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty}|F^n(p)-F^n(q)|=0;
\end{equation}
$$$$
\item for every point $p\in S$ and every periodic point $q\in I$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:awaycircle}
\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty}|F^n(p)-F^n(q)|>0.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{remark}
Eq.\ \eqref{eq:near2p} means that every trajectory in $S$ can wander arbitrarily close to every other.
However, by \eqref{eq:away2p} we know that no matter how close two distinct trajectories in $S$ may come to each other, they must eventually wander away.
Furthermore, by \eqref{eq:awaycircle} it is clear that every trajectory in $S$ goes away from any periodic orbit in $I$. If the two statements in the above lemma are both satisfied, we say that there exist chaotic dynamics or chaos in the sense of Li-Yorke.
\end{remark}
Therefore, we can conclude that ``period three implies chaos'' for one-dimensional discrete dynamical systems. In Section 4, we have rigorously derived the existence of 3-cycle orbits in Model 2 if $K>2.417401607$, which proves that chaos would arise for an uncountable set of initial states in the sense of Li-Yorke.
But in Model 1, we have proved that there are no solutions with period three. However, it can not be concluded that there exist no chaotic trajectories since the existence of period three is not a necessary but only a sufficient condition of chaos. In \cite{Marotto1978S}, Marotto indicated that the existence of snapback repellers also implies chaos for general $n$-dimensional systems. However, Li and Chen \cite{Li2003O} pointed out that Marotto's original definition of snapback repeller may result in an insufficiency, and proposed the Marotto-Li-Chen Theorem. Thus, we give the following lemma for one-dimensional systems by simplifying the Marotto-Li-Chen Theorem. Readers can refer to \cite{Huang2019A} for additional details.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:marotto}
Let $I$ be an interval of real numbers, and let $F: I\rightarrow \field{R}$ be a differentiable function. Assume that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $x\in I$ is an equilibrium, i.e., $F(x)=x$;
\item there exists a close interval $S\subset I$ such that $x$ is an inner point of $S$, and the derivative of $F$ has the absolute value greater than $1$ at every point $p\in S$, i.e., $|F'(p)|>1$;
\item for some integer $m>1$, there exists a point $y\in S$ such that $y\neq x$, $F^m(y)=x$, and $F'(F^k(y))\neq 0$ for all $1\leq k\leq m$.
\end{enumerate}
Then the system $x(t+1)=F(x(t))$ is chaotic in the sense of Li-Yorke.
\end{lemma}
For Model 1, we have $F(x)=x+f(e-x^3)$ and $F'(x)=1-3fx^2$. Then $|F'(x)|>1$ and $x>0$ imply that $x>\sqrt{\frac{2}{3f}}$. Thus, if we can find $x,y$ with $x\neq y$ such that both $|F'(x)|>1$ and $|F'(y)|>1$ are satisfied, then there must exist one closed interval $S$ containing $x,y$ as inner points. In such a case, it is obvious that $|F'(p)|>1$ for every point $p\in S$. Naturally, we start from $m=2$ to verify the conditions of Lemma \ref{lem:marotto} by counting real solutions of the following system.
\begin{equation*}
\left\{\begin{split}
& x=x + f(e-x^3),\\
& x=F^2(y)=y+f(e-y^3)+f(e-(y+f(e-y^3))^3),\\
& |1-3fx^2|>1,\\
& |1-3fy^2|>1,\\
& |1-3f(y+f(e-y^3))^2|\neq 0,\\
& x\neq y,\\
& x>0, ~y>0, ~e>0, ~f>0.
\end{split}\right.
\end{equation*}
The technique introduced in Remark \ref{rm:linearization} should be conducted first to transform the above system into a univariate one. According to our calculations, the above system has at least one real solution if and only if $8/27<e^2f^3<64/27$. Therefore, we conclude that Model 1 is chaotic in the sense of Li-Yorke provided that $8/27<e^2f^3<64/27$.
\section{Concluding Remarks}
It is known that a monopoly may exhibit complex dynamics such as periodic orbits and chaos although it is the simplest oligopoly. In this study, we investigated two monopoly models with gradient mechanisms, where the monopolists are knowledgeable firms. The two models are distinct mainly in their inverse demand functions. Model 1 uses the inverse demand function of Naimzada and Ricchiuti \cite{Naimzada2008C}, while Model 2 employs that of Puu \cite{Puu1995T}. Different from widely applied numerical methods such as numerical simulations and bifurcation continuation approaches, symbolic methods were applied in this paper to analyze the local stability, periodic solutions, and even chaotic dynamics. Numerical methods have some shortcomings, e.g., the computations may encounter the problem of instability, which makes the results completely useless. In comparison, symbolic computations are exact, thus the obtained results can be used to rigorously prove economic theorems in some sense.
By reproving the already-known results (Proposition \ref{prop:m1-stab}) of the local stability and bifurcations of Model 1, we explained in detail how our symbolic approach works. Afterward, the analysis of the stability and bifurcations of Model 2 was conducted based on this approach. We acquired the complete conditions of the local stability and bifurcations of Model 2 for the first time (see Theorem \ref{thm:mod2-stab}). In Figure \ref{fig:par-plane-mod2}, it was observed that Model 2 behaves quite differently from typical oligopoly models with gradient mechanisms. For example, even if the adjustment speed $K$ is quite large, there always exist some values of $a$ (the difference between the initial commodity price and the initial marginal cost) such that Model 2 has a stable equilibrium. Moreover, Model 2 may go from instability to stability and then back to instability twice as the value of $a$ increases.
From an economic point of view, the study of periodic solutions is of practical importance. Under the assumption of bounded rationality, firms can not learn the pattern behind output and profits if periodic dynamics take place. For the two models, we explored the periodic solutions with lower orders as well as their local stability. Differences between the two models were found, e.g., 3-cycle orbits exist in Model 2 but not in Model 1. In Model 1, the parameter region for the stability of the periodic solution with a fixed order constitutes a connected set. In Model 2, however, the stability regions for the 3-cycle, 4-cycle, and 5-cycle orbits are disconnected sets formed by many disjoint portions. In other words, the topological structures of the regions for stable periodic orbits in Model 2 are much more complex than those in Model 1. The above differences may be because the inverse demand function of Model 2 has an inflection point. According to the numerical simulations of Model 2, we found that the basins of the two stable equilibria are disconnected sets and also have complex topological structures. For a $n$-cycle orbit $p_1\mapsto p_2\mapsto \cdots p_n\mapsto p_1$, we defined the magnitude measure to be
$$d=(p_1-p_2)^2+(p_2-p_3)^2+\cdots+(p_{n-1}-p_n)^2+(p_n-p_1)^2.$$
For the two considered models, we analytically investigated the formulae for the magnitude of periodic orbits with lower orders.
Furthermore, it is extremely hard for a firm to handle an economy when chaos appears. In such a case, no market rules can be discovered and followed, and the pattern behind output and profits is nearly impossible to learn even for completely rational players. In the bifurcation diagrams of the two models, it seems that chaos occurs when the adjustment speed is large enough. We clarified this observation analytically. By virtue of the fact ``period three implies chaos'', we derived that Model 2 is chaotic in the sense of Li-Yorke by proving the existence of 3-cycle orbits. However, there are no 3-cycles in Model 1, but the Marotto-Li-Chen Theorem permitted us to prove the existence of chaos by finding snapback repellers.
In this paper, we take the assumption of knowledgeable players, which means the enterprise has full information regarding the inverse demand function and can compute its marginal profit at any time. In the real world, however, it is more reasonable to assume players to be limited rather than knowledgeable. In this case, the enterprise does not know the form of the inverse demand function, but possesses the values of output and price only in the past periods and estimates its marginal profit with a simple difference formula. The investigation of the dynamics of limited firms might be an important direction for our future study.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The authors wish to thank Dr.\ Bo Huang for the beneficial discussions and are grateful to the anonymous referees for their helpful comments.
This work has been supported by Philosophy and Social Science Foundation of Guangdong under Grant No.\ GD21CLJ01, Major Research and Cultivation Project of Dongguan City University under Grant Nos.\ 2021YZDYB04Z and 2022YZD05R, National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No.\ 11601023, and Beijing Natural Science Foundation under Grant No.\ 1212005.
\section*{Declaration of competing interest}
{The authors declare no conflict of interest.}
\section*{Appendix}
\begin{align*}
\begin{autobreak}
SP=
(972K^8
+19440K^7
+127575K^6
+162000K^5
-1552500K^4
-6412500K^3
-5062500K^2
+23437500K
+67187500
)(
8503056K^{12}
+191318760K^{11}
+1523464200K^{10}
+3754532250K^9
-14134854375K^8
-101982543750K^7
-146939062500K^6
+399469218750K^5
+1522072265625K^4
+261457031250K^3
-4576816406250K^2
-1938867187500K
+13981445312500),
\end{autobreak}\\
\begin{autobreak}
C_4(K,d)=
K^{8} d^{8}
+(
-126K^{8}
-210K^{7}) d^{7}
+(6660K^{8}
+21300K^{7}
+17800K^{6}) d^{6}
+(
-192024K^{8}
-874800K^{7}
-1382400K^{6}
-731000K^{5}) d^{5}
+(3285360K^{8}
+18688320K^{7}
+41115600K^{6}
+39438000K^{5}
+13350000K^{4}) d^{4}
+(
-33957792K^{8}
-221940000K^{7}
-588016800K^{6}
-728172000K^{5}
-379740000K^{4}
-45500000K^{3}) d^{3}
+(206172864K^{8}
+1453101120K^{7}
+4191652800K^{6}
+5433912000K^{5}
+2183760000K^{4}
-1105200000K^{3}
-478000000K^{2}) d^{2}
+(
-672686208K^{8}
-4870886400K^{7}
-14246409600K^{6}
-16185744000K^{5}
+2054160000K^{4}
+13262400000K^{3}
-7632000000K^{2}
-11520000000K) d
+906992640K^{8}
+6500113920K^{7}
+18223833600K^{6}
+13351392000K^{5}
-25284960000K^{4}
-27302400000K^{3}
+65376000000K^{2}
+30720000000K
-102400000000.
\end{autobreak}
\end{align*}
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction}
When a single photon is in a particular mode, according to the particle nature of light, photons will be sequentially found in that mode. The probability of finding a photon is proportional to the absolute square of the wave function related to the electromagnetic wave.
Vacuum fluctuations are related to the spatial characteristics of the electromagnetic wave. The spontaneous decay caused by the vacuum can be suppressed in cavities \cite{Jhe1987}. Theoretical and experimental studies have beem conducted on methods to change the vacuum fluctuations near mirrors\cite{sun1995,sun1994,wadood}.
In this study, in contrast to previous studies on the vacuum noise characteristics of light using a homodyne detector, we calculate the intensity fluctuations when photons are directly measured using photon counter. The obtained results are similar to those obtained in previous studies, but herein we predict the results considering mode matching in the experiment.
In section II, the fluctuation of light that can be measured using a detector is calculated with a mirror placed on one side of the beam splitter. In section III, an experimental device is proposed for perfect mode matching, and in the last section, the practical limits of the vacuum fluctuation near the mirror are discussed.
\section{Vacuum fluctuation near a mirror.}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{modecal2.pdf}
\caption{Vacuum mode relations in the beam splitter with a mirror. BS: Beam splitter, M: mirror}
\label{DoubleP}
\end{figure}
An electric field can be written as
%
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{E}_{L} = \hat{E}_{cl} + \hat{E}_{Q} ,
\label{eLo}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{ E} _{cl} &=& i \sqrt{\frac{\hbar \omega }{2 \epsilon_0 V }} ( \alpha e^{i(\omega t - k_0 z )} - \alpha^{*} e^{i(\omega t - k_0 z )} ) \vec{x}, \nonumber \\
\hat{ E} _{Q} &=& i \sum_{k} \sqrt{\frac{\hbar \omega_k }{2 \epsilon_0 V }} ( \hat{b}_{k} e^{- i (\omega_k t - k z) }
-\hat{b}_{k}^{\dagger} e^{ i (\omega_k t - k z) } )\vec{x} .
\label{efcleq}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $k_0$ and $\omega$ are the wave number and angular frequency of the laser, respectively, $\hbar$ and $\epsilon_0$ have usual meanings, and $V$ is
the normalization volume\cite{yariv}.
Considering the laser mode in Fig. \ref{DoubleP}, the modes $a_1 ^{out} $ and $ a_2 ^{out} $ can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
a_1 ^{out} &=& \sqrt{T} b + \sqrt{R} c , \nonumber \\
a_2 ^{out} &=& -\sqrt{R} b + \sqrt{T} c ,
\label{a1a2out}
\end{eqnarray}
where the modes $c$ and $c^{out} $ can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
c &=& \sqrt{T_m} d - \sqrt{R_m} c^{out} , \nonumber \\
c^{out} &=& \sqrt{ R }a_1 + \sqrt{T} a_2 .\nonumber
\label{cmode}
\end{eqnarray}
Then the electric field in fluctuating vacuum modes at $a_1$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{ E} _{vac,1} ^{(+)} &=& \sum_{k} i \sqrt{\frac{\hbar \omega_k }{4 \epsilon_0 V }} \{ \sqrt{T} \hat{b}_{k}^{\dagger} e^{i(\omega_k t - k Z_1)} + \mu \hat{a}_{1,k}^{\dagger} e^{i(\omega_k t + k z_1 )} \nonumber \\
& &- R \sqrt{R_m} \hat{a}_{1,k}^{\dagger} e^{i(\omega_k t - k z_1 )} - \sqrt{RT } \sqrt{R_m} \hat{a}_{2,k}^{\dagger} e^{i(\omega_k t - k z_1) } + \sqrt{ R T_m} \hat{d}_{k} ^{\dagger} e^{i(\omega_k t - k Z_M )} \}
\label{efield1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $R_m$($T_m$) is the reflectance(transmittance) of the mirror and $R$($T$) is the reflectance (transmittance) of the beam splitter, $z_1$($Z_1$) is the distance from the mirror (laser) to the detector. $Z_M$ is related to the vacuum source behind the mirror and it can be any number.
We add the factor $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$ for the normalization of the vacuum fluctuation. The vacuum mode ($\hat a_1 ^{\dagger} e^{i ( \omega t - k z_1 )}$) at the detector is the reflected vacuum mode ($\hat a_1 ^{\dagger} e^{i ( \omega t + k z_1 )}$) at the mirror. If two modes are perfectly matched the $\mu$ in Eq. \ref{efield1} is 1 and the two counterpropagating modes yield the standing wave mode\cite{sun1994,sun1995}.
If $\mu = 0 $, the fluctuation value from Eq. \ref{fluc} becomes $\frac{|\alpha|^2 T}{2}$, it is the square of the constant dc current $ \frac{T |\alpha |^2}{2} $.
In other words, if we directly measure the fluctuation of the laser intensity, the fluctuation is dependent on the distance ($z_1$) between the mirror and the detector.
Even in photo counting experiments, the photon number fluctuation is related to the vacuum fluctuation, therefor, the photon number fluctuation is also
depend on the distance $z_1$.
If we used the photodetetion theory \cite{detection} with instantaneous response of the photodetector \cite{response},
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{I}_1 = \{ \sqrt{T} \hat{E}_{cl}^{(+)} + \hat{E}_{vac,1}^{(+)} \} \times \{ \sqrt{T} \hat{E}_{cl}^{(-)} + \hat{E}_{vac,1}^{(-)}\},
\label{current}
\end{eqnarray}
where we normalize the photocurrent. If the electric field of the local oscillator is considerably greater than the vacuum field, the terms containig $\alpha$ have physical significance. When the constant dc current $ \frac{T |\alpha |^2}{2} $ is neglected, Eq. \ref{current} yields
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \hat {I}_{1}^{o} (z_1, Z_1) = \frac{|\alpha|}{\sqrt{2}} [\sqrt{T} e^{i \phi} \{ (\mu e^{- i k (Z_1 + z_1 )} - e^{- i k (Z_1 - z_1 )} R \sqrt{R_m} ) \hat{a}_1 - e^{- i k (Z_1 - z_1 )} \hat{a}_2 \} \nonumber \\
&+& \sqrt{T} e^{- i \phi } \{ (\mu e^{ i k (Z_1 + z_1 )} - e^ { i k ( Z_1 - z_1 )} R \sqrt{R_m} ) \hat{a}_1 ^{\dagger} - e^{- k (Z_1 - z_1 )} \hat{a}_2 ^{\dagger} \} \nonumber \\
&+& e^{ i \phi} T \hat{b} +e^{- i \phi} T \hat{b}^{\dagger} + e^{i \phi} e^{i k (Z_M - Z_1 )} \sqrt{T R T_m } \hat{d} +
e^{-i \phi} e^{- i k (Z_M - z_1 )} \sqrt{T R T_m } \hat{d}^{\dagger} ],
\label{photocurrentA}
\end{eqnarray}
We then evaluate the square of the photocurrent to determine the fluctuation. After squaring Eq. \ref{photocurrentA}, we find the photocurrent fluctuation as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle (\hat {I}_1 ^{o})^2 \rangle =\frac{|\alpha|^2 T}{2} \{ 1+\mu^2 - 2 \mu R \sqrt{R_m} \cos( 2 k z_1 )\}
\label{fluc}
\end{eqnarray}
If $\mu = 0 $, the fluctuation value from Eq. \ref{fluc} becomes $\frac{|\alpha|^2 T}{2}$, which is the square of the constant dc current $ \frac{\sqrt{T} |\alpha |}{\sqrt{2}} $.
In other words, if we directly measure the laser intensity fluctuation, the fluctuation is dependent on the distance ($z_1$) between the mirror and detector.
Even in the photo counting experiment, the photon number fluctuation is related to the vacuum fluctuation; therefore, the photon number fluctuation is also
dependent on the distance $z_1$.
If we consider practical limits such as finite linewidth and finite absorption length, Eq. \ref{fluc} will change as follows\cite{ref7, sun1995}.
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle (\hat {I}_1 ^{o})^2 \rangle_{P} &=&\frac{|\alpha|^2 T}{2} \{ 1+\mu^2 - 2 \mu R \sqrt{R_m} e^{- z_1 ^2 \Delta k^2} \nonumber \\
&\times& \frac{\kappa [ \cos(2 k_0 z_1 + \phi_0 ) - e^{-\kappa D } \cos(2 k_0 (z_1 + D) + \phi_0 )]}{\sqrt{4 k_0 ^2 + \kappa ^2}} \}
\label{flucPr},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Delta k$ is the line width of the local oscillator beam with Gaussian line width distribution functions. $\kappa$ is the absorption coefficient, $D$ is the detector active length, and $\phi_0 = \arctan \frac{2k}{\kappa} $. We assumed that the probability that a photon is converted into an electron hole pair at distance $\eta$ from the surface of the detector's active region is $\kappa e^{- \kappa \eta} $\cite{ref8}.
The two coefficients $\sqrt{R_m}$ and $\mu$ depend on the mode matching condition. Even when we used the total mirror, if the mode from the mirror is not perfectly matched with the mode from the laser, the effective reflectance $ \sqrt{R_m} $ can not be $1$. Furthermore, the mode $a_1$ to the mirror is reflected by the mirror and then meets at the detector. At the detector, if two counter-propagating modes are not exactly matched, the coefficient $\mu$ cannot be $1$. To evaluate this mode matching condition,
we assume that the amplitude envelope of the electromagnetic wave in the transverse plane is given by a Gaussian function.
Considering the Gaussian modes \cite{saleh}
\begin{eqnarray}
E(\rho, z ) = E_0 \frac{w_0}{w(z)} \exp [- \frac{\rho^2}{w(z)^2} ] \exp [ - i k z - i k \frac{\rho^2}{2 R(z)} + i \zeta(z)]
\label{gfield}
\end{eqnarray}
, where $w_0$ is the radius of the beam waist and
\begin{eqnarray}
w(z) &=& w_0 \sqrt{1+ (\frac{z}{z_0})^2} \nonumber \\
R(z) &=& z (1+ (\frac{z_0}{z})^2 ) \nonumber \\
\zeta(z) &=& \tan^{-1} \frac{z}{z_0}
\label{gfieldsub}
\end{eqnarray}
and $z_0$ is defined as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
z_0 &=& \frac{\pi}{\lambda } w_0 ^2.
\label{z0}
\end{eqnarray}
First, we assume that the laser and vacuu modes have the same beam waist $w_0$ at the detector. Then the laser and vacuum modes are perfectly matched; thus, $\sqrt{R_m} = 1$. On the other hand, the vacuum $E_v (0) $ starting from the detector propagates to the mirror and reflects at the mirror. The returned vacuum $E_v (2 z_1 )$ is not the same
$E_v(0)$. The coefficient $\mu$ can be calculated as follow:
\begin{eqnarray}
\mu &=&\frac{|<E_v (0) E_v (2 z_1 )^{*} >| }{\sqrt{<E_v (0)^2 > <E_v (2 z_1 )^2>}}
\nonumber \\
&=& \frac{(1+ \frac{4 z_1 ^2 }{z_0 ^2 })^{\frac{1}{4}} }{(1+ 5 \frac{z_1 ^2 }{z_0 ^2 }+ 4 \frac{z_1 ^4 }{z_0 ^4 })^{\frac{1}{4}} }
\label{muF}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{muval.pdf}
\caption{ Mode matching value $\mu$ as a function of $w_0$ and $z_1$. }
\label{modeMu}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{modeMu}, $\mu$ is plotted as a function of $z_1$ and $w_0$, where $z_1$ is the distance between the mirror and detector
We assume that the detector and mirror are large enough that all the waves are detected and reflected. If the distance between the mirror and detector and the size of the beam waist are small enough, the coefficient $\mu$ remains near $1$.
If we consider the case where the vacuum field has waist at the mirror, the coefficient $\mu$ automatically becomes $1$ due to the symmetry,
but the vacuum field $E_v (z_1)$ at the detector does not matche the laser field $E_L (0)$. We assumed that the laser field has beam waist $w_0$ at the detector, and the vacuum field has a beam waist $w_m$ at the mirror.
Then the effective reflectance $\sqrt{R_m} $ becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
\sqrt{R_m} &=& \frac{|<E_v (z_1) E_L (0 )^{*} >| }{\sqrt{<E_v (z_1)^2 > <E_L (0 )^2>}}
\nonumber \\
&=& \frac{\sqrt{2} \sqrt{\frac{w_m }{w_0}} (1+ \frac{ z_1 ^2 }{z_m ^2 })^{\frac{1}{4}} }
{(\{(1+ \frac{w_m ^2}{w_0 ^2})^2 + \frac{z_1 ^2 }{z_0 ^2 }\}\{1 + \frac{z_1 ^2 }{z_m ^2 }\})^{\frac{1}{4}} },
\label{mirR}
\end{eqnarray}
where $z_m = \frac{\pi}{\lambda } w_m ^2$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{rval.pdf}
\caption{Mode matching value $\sqrt{R_m} $ as a function of $w_0$ and $z_1$, with $w_0$ equal to $100 \lambda$ }
\label{modeR}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{modeR}, $\sqrt{R_m}$ is plotted as a function of $z_1$ and $w_m$,
where $z_1$ is the distance between the mirror and detector. We set $w_0$ to $100 \lambda$. Additionally, we also assume that the detector and mirror
are large enough that all the waves are detected and reflected. The coefficient $\sqrt{R_m}$ can be 1 only when the distance between the mirror and detector is small and the size of the beam waist is sufficiently small.
The mode matching condition is crucial for detecting the modulation effect of the vacuum fluctuation near the mirror, as denoted by Eq. \ref{flucPr}. With the usual setup,
we can not satisfy the conditions $\mu=1$ and $\sqrt{R_m} = 1$. In the next section, we suggest a noble experimental setup that satisfies two mode-matching conditions.
\section{Set up for mode matching}
For a laser that has a Gaussian transverse mode, we have to establish a vacuum mode that also has a Gaussian transverse mode. Fig. \ref{mode} displays the setup for perfect mode matching between the laser light mode and a vacuum mode.
The laser used in the experiment passes through lens $L_1$ and is divided into two by the beam splitter ($BS_1$).
The laser is a Gaussian beam and it proceeds according to the Gaussian approximation. The light passing through $BS_1$ and traveling to mirror $M_2$ reaches the partial mirror $B$ and yields a beam waist on the $L_3$ side surface of $B$. Similarly, the light reflecting from the mirror $M_1$ passes through the partial reflector $A$ and yields a beam waist on the $L_2$ side surface of $A$.
The light passing through $A$ and $B$ passes through the $L_2$ and $L_3$ of the same focal length, respectively, and yields another beam waist on the detector surface.
The transmittance of light passing through $A$ from $M_1$ is almost 0, and the reflectance of light stemming from the $L_2$ side is almost 1.
In this way, if the mode is perfectly matched using the light passing through $B$ and $A$, an experimental setup can be established wherein one side of the beam splitter $BS_2$ is a mirror ($A$).
Using this method, the degree of mode matching can be increased compared to that when the experiment is performed by simply placing a plane mirror on one side of the beam splitter. Additionally the experimental constraints caused by the mode matching can be overcome.
The experimental setup in Fig. \ref{mode} enables the measurement of how the vacuum fluctuations of the light passing through the beam splitter change when a mirror is placed on one side of the beam splitter.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{mirrorsetup3.pdf}
\caption{Mode matching setup }
\label{mode}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion and Discussion.}
The quantum nature of photons is highly dependent on their vacuum fluctuations. Vacuum fluctuations can be directly measured via homodyne detection. The fluctuation of one quadrature of the vacuum can be less than that of the usual vacuum, e.g., squeezed vacuum. Light intensity fluctuations are also dependent on vacuum fluctuations. Sub-Poisson light can be generated by controlling the vacuum fluctuations based on the nonlinear interaction of light and matter.
In this study, we proposed the modulation of vacuum fluctuations by inserting a mirror on the unused part of the beam splitter in a homodyne measuring system.
Furthermore, we calculated the effect of the line width of the laser and the thickness of the detector layer.
The line width can be practically reduced to modulate vacuum fluctuations, but the decrease of the thickness of the detector to modulate vacuum fluctuations is challenging.
We calculated the effect of mode matching between the vacuum and light fields and showed that the degree of mode matching obtained by adding a simple mirror
in the unused beam splitter may not be sufficient to modulate the vacuum fluctuations.
We present the perfect mode matching method for the vacuum and light fields. Then, the light intensity fluctuations can be reduced by inserting a beam splitter and a mirror.
We still require a detector with an active layer thinner than the wavelength to obtain a sub-Poisson light as a function of the distance between the mirror and detector.
We expect that our simple method of reducing vacuum fluctuations will play a great role in quantum information science.
|
\section{Introduction}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{img/banner_besser2}
\caption{\textit{Our conceptual pipeline:
First, we capture several RGBD images with a helmet camera mount. These images are processed and serve as the input data for our GAN. After training, the GAN produces textured point clouds in real time. In this work we improve the data set processing, training and inference stage compared to our previous systems\,\cite{Ladwig2020AufDemWeg, Ladwig2020Unmasking}. Building an face-tracking HMD is not part of the present work.}}
\label{fig:banner}
\end{figure*}
\label{intro}
Natural face-to-face communication is three-dimensional. A conversation includes not only the verbal communication channel but also the nonverbal channel. In particular, eye contact, facial expressions as well as gestures performed with arms and hands (kinesics), and even the physical distance between each other (proxemics) are essential information carriers during a conversation\,\cite{Ladwig2018ALR}. Currently, common mainstream technologies for computer-mediated communication are video conferencing applications such as Skype or FaceTime. While these allow reading the facial expressions of the counterpart, no 'real' eye contact is possible, wide gestures may be cut off in the camera image, deictic gestures are difficult to interpret spatially, and perceptual physical body distance between the participants does not exist.
Current head-mounted displays (HMDs) for VR are capable of delivering believable and immersive 3D experiences including telepresence. However, this does not fully apply to real-time social interactions in VR. When the face of a person is covered by an HMD, it is impossible to read its non-verbal facial communication cues, which is, in fact, a crucial communication channel between individuals. This is not only relevant for face-to-face meetings in VR (for example in VRChat\,\cite{vrchat}, Altspace\,\cite{altvr} or Meta's Horizon Worlds\,\cite{metahorizonworlds}) but also in VR application scenarios in which only one VR user wears an HMD and tries to engage with their audience. For example, such a VR user could be an architect who presents ideas for a new building in VR to their clients, a Virtual YouTuber (VTuber), a Twitch streamer in front of a green screen who broadcasts themselves from inside a VR environment, or friends playing a VR game together in a living room.
The classic way for creating and rendering photo-realistic humans in real time is costly and requires a lot of manual effort such as scanning, modeling, and manual texturing from a skilled 3D artist. Furthermore, today's HMDs usually lack adequate sensors for face tracking. Only a few research groups have so far addressed this problem and presented methods that can generate authentic face avatars for VR without extensive manual modeling\,\cite{Thies18FaceVR, Lombardi18DAM, Wei2019VRFacial, Raj_2021_CVPR, Thies_2021_NeuralHeadAvatars}. These approaches are not available to the public, and some of them require expensive hardware\,\cite{Lombardi18DAM, Wei2019VRFacial}.
Human avatars and their perception have been studied in multiple domains. A key issue in this context is the occurrence of the Uncanny Valley effect. Humans are markedly sensitive to minimal and unnatural discrepancies in faces. As soon as a virtual human does not perfectly resemble a real human, it is often subconsciously classified as unlikeable, unpleasant, or even creepy. One technique that has successfully bridged the Uncanny Valley in recent years is Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs). Today, GANs serve as the core technology behind \textit{Deepfakes}. They enable such authentic results that their methods and algorithms are the subject of current research to distinguish fake images from real ones, as the human eye is no longer able to reliably do so\,\cite{roessler2019FaceForensic}. Therefore, we use algorithms in the context of this work that are also employed to create Deepfakes. We extend this approach with an additional dimension\,(textured 2.5D point cloud instead of only an RGB image) to generate realistic representations of 2.5D face avatars. We do not create a full 3D head because we only capture the face of a person from a static frontal position with an RGBD sensor. This implies that we do not generate realistic textures from side views. However, we maintain a stereoscopic perception of the reconstructed face during face-to-face conversations in a virtual environment.
We present an end-to-end learning system that has low hardware cost compared to others, requires moderate computational resources, and generates results with frame rates suitable for VR applications. Our research contributes to GANs playing a key role in authentic 3D telepresence applications in the near future. In addition to sharing our insights in this paper, we make the code of our prototype publicly available under: \url{https://github.com/Mirevi/face-synthesizer-JVRB}.
This work is an extension and improvement of our previous neural rendering pipeline\,\cite{Ladwig2020AufDemWeg} and complements our recent work on how to build an HMD with face tracking capabilities \cite{Ladwig2020Unmasking}. The contributions of this work are the creation of a face capture pipeline as well as the introduction of a pair of Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN)\,\cite{goodfellow2014generative} that are tailored for the authentic reconstruction of faces in three-dimensional telepresence and live broadcasting applications. The motivation is to use a commodity graphics card to capture and reconstruct the individual characteristics of a person's face with a high level of (personal) details and VR-enabled frame rates in order to create an authentic avatar that goes beyond the capabilities of today's avatar creation tools such as VRChat\,\cite{vrchat}, Altspace\,\cite{altvr} or Meta's Horizon Worlds\,\cite{metahorizonworlds}.
\section{Related Work}
Face reconstruction for telepresence and (live) broadcasting with an HMD occluding a person's face is a young research field. Olszewski et al.\,\cite{Olszewski16HighFid} presented a system that uses an RGB camera to transfer facial expressions from the lower face area to an avatar. Li et al.\,\cite{Li15FacialHMD} extended this approach with pressure sensors placed in the foam of an HMD capturing a person's facial expressions. The idea of using sensors within the HMD is similar to our concept, but we use personalized avatars that are trained in advance and synthesized in a final step.
Casa et al.\,\cite{Casas16Rapid}, Früh et al.\,\cite{Frueh2017}, and Thies et al.\,\cite{Thies18FaceVR} used stationary RGBD cameras to create personalized avatars of users. In the first step, the user was captured by the camera without an HMD in order to create a virtual avatar. When the user wore the HMD, the stationary RGBD camera recognized facial expressions. Due to the fixed position of the camera, the range of head motion was limited. Eye movements were registered by eye-tracking cameras and transferred to the user's face avatar. The approaches of Casa et al.\,\cite{Casas16Rapid} and Früh et al.\,\cite{Frueh2017} evoked the Uncanny Valley effect to varying degrees. To mitigate this, Früh et al.\,\cite{Frueh2017} did not completely remove the HMD, but rendered it as a semi-transparent object. These systems are similar to our approach in the way that they create a personalized avatar using an RGBD camera and produce almost photo-realistic avatars. The approach of Thies et al.\,\cite{Thies18FaceVR} demonstrated better results by using a 3D morphable model (3DMM) as underlying head mesh template and by optimizing the visual quality by an \textit{analysis-by-synthesis} approach\,\cite{3dmm}. While the visual quality is convincing, this approach only provides stereoscopic renderings without the ability to freely choose the perspective around the reconstructed face because the final results are based on a given 2D video. Furthermore, it explicitly does not allow for manipulation of the head's rotation, scale, and position in the final result.
The systems of Lombardi et al.\,\cite{Lombardi18DAM}, Wei et al.\,\cite{Wei2019VRFacial}, and Raj et al.\,\cite{Raj_2021_CVPR} create photo-realistic avatars with authentic facial expressions. While previous works completed the generation of personalized avatars within a few minutes, the system of Lombardi et al. requires a computational time of more than a day. The three-dimensional avatar is generated with the aid of a large number of high-resolution images from different angles and facial expressions with an expensive hardware setup that generates a large amount of data for further processing. The created face avatar can be controlled by three RGB cameras attached to an HMD. A key component of this system is the use of \textit{Variational Autoencoders} (VAEs). Both VAEs and GANs have been proven several times to be suitable for authentic face reconstruction. However, since literature shows that VAEs and only a L1 loss tend to produce blurry results more often, we use GANs\,\cite{HandsOnGANs}. The latter concept was first presented by Goodfellow et al.\,\cite{goodfellow2014generative}, and Radford et al.\,\cite{radford2015unsupervised} improved it in a sustainable way. Furthermore, Karras et al.\,\cite{karras2017progressive} achieved photo-realistic portrait images that are indistinguishable from real photographs by using the principle of \textit{Progressive Growing GAN}. However, according to Karras et al., the GAN has little to no external control over the appearance of the generated object or face because the input to the network is a latent vector without any direct relation to a face property such as hair color, facial expression, or gender. In further works Karras et al.\,\cite{karras2018stylebased} enhanced the architecture of the GAN and were able to automatically separate higher-level attributes (e.g. pose, identity) from stochastic variations (e.g. freckles, hair). Nevertheless, this approach does not allow to explicitly control the facial expression.
Conditional GANs (cGANs) have been shown to be able to learn and reproduce concrete relationships between inputs and outputs. For example, Mirza and Osindero\,\cite{mirza2014conditional} have extended the input to the generator and discriminator with a label ${y}$, which makes it possible to generate images from a particular category ${y}$. This method for conditioning GANs was developed further by Radfort et al.\,\cite{radford2015unsupervised} with the DCGAN and by Isola et al.\,\cite{pix2pix2016} with the Pix2Pix GAN. They replaced the noise input vector $z$ with a user-defined input vector. Without a noise vector, there is no latent space $Z$ (since ${z \in Z}$). If the stochastic aspect contained in the noise vector is not compensated, the GAN will only memorize the training examples. Any inputs that deviate from the training data would lead to inadequate results, as described by Isola et al.\,\cite{pix2pix2016}. By using a U-net architecture\,\cite{u-net} with dropouts in the Pix2Pix GAN, the stochastic aspect as well as the missing latent space can be otherwise integrated into the generator. The discriminator of the Pix2Pix GAN receives the same input image $x$ as the generator as well as its output image $y_{fake}=G(x)$ or the image $y_{real}$ matching $x$ from the dataset. This is basically equivalent to the idea of cGANs\,\cite{mirza2014conditional} where not only the output of the generator is evaluated but also its difference from the input. Unlike the cGAN, the output of the discriminator of the Pix2Pix GAN is not a scalar that decides between 'real' or 'false' but a matrix. By using convolutional layers (cf. Radford et al.\,\cite{radford2015unsupervised}), each entry in the output matrix represents an $n*m$-sized region (so-called patch) of the input image. This allows abstract representations to be admitted as matrices (e.g. images) for conditioning the network to have a controlled influence on the output of the generator. This approach was further developed by \cite{wang2017highresolution} with the Pix2PixHD GAN to generate images with a higher resolution and more details. In this paper, we adapt the idea of cGANs, especially of the Pix2Pix and Pix2PixHD frameworks, and tailor them to our application domain.
\section{System}
In the following, we briefly explain the process and structure of the proposed system, as shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig:banner}, and then discuss the steps in more detail in the subsequent sections.
Our process starts with the acquisition of a personal RGBD dataset. The acquired data is preprocessed by an automated procedure. A Facial Landmark Map (FLM) per RGB image is extracted and saved beside the corresponding RGB image. It decodes the facial expression of the respective RGB image in a binary image as so-called landmarks as shown in the second image from left in Fig.\ref{fig:banner}. Our proposed GAN is trained with the captured RGBD images as well as with the corresponding FLM. After the training, the system can be used for real-time telepresence or live broadcasting. In the application scenario, the user would wear a face-tracking head-mounted display (HMD) that could create an FLM in real time, which we then feed into the trained generator module of our GAN, as described in our previous work\,\cite{Ladwig2020Unmasking}. The GAN could create an RGB and a D image of the 'learned' person based on the FLM, and finally, we fuse the generated RGB and D images into a textured point cloud. Instead of our face-tracking HMD\,\cite{Ladwig2020Unmasking}, we use raw face-tracking data from our evaluation dataset captured in the first step with the camera helmet mount. We thus ensure that no tracking errors of the HMD are incorrectly evaluated as reconstruction errors of the GAN.
\subsection{Training data}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{img/helm1-1}
\caption{\textit{Helmet camera mount for RGBD data acquisition. This mount ensures that head rotations are not included in the training dataset and, therefore, reduces the entropy in the dataset. Moreover, this method significantly reduces the training time and increases the visual quality of the output images. The material price of the helmet mount without RGBD camera is about 60\,USD.}}
\label{fig:helmet}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
An RGBD dataset of the respective person forms the basis for the training process. For the acquisition process, an RGBD camera is mounted in a fixed position to a self-made helmet mount, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:banner} left and Figure \ref{fig:helmet}. This mount ensures that the entropy in the dataset is as minimal as possible. Varying distances, positions and head rotations do not contribute to 'learning' the user's face. By using the helmet mount, we ensure that the training time of the networks is short and the reconstruction quality of the final results is high, as we learned from previous experiments conducted without the helmet mount.
The RGBD sensor in the mount captures facial expressions and stores the color information as a 3-channel image file (8-bit for each channel) with 2048 to 1536\,pixels, while it stores the depth information as a 1-channel image file (16-bit grayscale) with 640 to 576\,pixels. During the capture process, the user is encouraged to perform a variety of different facial expressions. A dataset of a person should contain about 1500 to 2000 RGBD images, and the acquisition process takes about 10\,minutes. The data is then preprocessed for further steps. First, the foreground and background pixels are clipped in front of and behind the face and the depth resolution is reduced from 16 to 8 bit, which reduces the depth range from 65,535 to 255\,mm. This speeds up the training process of the GAN and significantly reduces depth noise. With the help of the helmet mount, we ensure that a depth range of 255\,mm is sufficient for spatially reproducing the frontal part of the head since the distance between the sensor and the face in the helmet mount is always fixed. Furthermore, the data is normalized and the image data is converted into values between -1 and 1 for the training process. Contrasts are sharpened by normalizing the histogram.
\subsection{Determination of Facial Landmarks}
To control the output of the generator and thus the facial expressions of a person's face, the dataset must be labeled before the training process. We use 70 facial landmarks (68 of the Multi-PIE scheme\,\cite{multiPIE2010} and two for the location of the irises) as binary images for each tuple of RGB and corresponding depth image in the dataset. As mentioned before, we call these binary images Facial Landmark Maps (FLM). The position of the landmarks identifies the expressions of the person in each image of the dataset. To determine the landmarks, we use the \emph{Face Alignment Network} (FAN) of Bulat and Tzimiropoulos\,\cite{Bulat_2017}. The FAN is not able to determine the position of the person's pupils within an image. Therefore, two additional landmarks were implemented based on an eye-tracking procedure by Timm and Barth \cite{Timm2011AccurateEC, pupilDetector}. We experimented with an Tobii Eye Tracker 4C, but users reported that additional weight on the helmet mount felt uncomfortable during the capture procedure. Both the tracking results of the Tobii Eye Tracker and Timm and Barth were similar and sufficient for our application.
When the landmarks in each image had been located, a rectangle of the maximal and minimal locations of the landmarks was created and the RGB and D images were cropped to this area and resized to $512 \times 512$\,pixels.
\subsection{Neural Network Architecture}
Previous work with neural networks, such as Wu et al.\,\cite{3dgan}, has shown that a voxel-based approach is associated with high training and execution times of the model. Therefore, an RGBD-based solution was targeted. The advantage of this approach lies in the compact representation of the data as a point cloud and the possibility to adapt previous RGB-based methods. Our underlying network architecture is derived from the Pix2Pix GAN by Isola et al.\,\cite{pix2pix2016}. In earlier experiments, we discovered that this architecture was able to produce acceptable results\,\cite{Ladwig2020AufDemWeg, Ladwig2020Unmasking}, but the images have a low resolution of $256 \times 256$\,pixels, often lack details in high frequency areas such as facial hair and tend to produce time-inconsistent reconstructions with noise. Therefore, we experimented with the Pix2PixHD framework\,\cite{wang2017highresolution}, which is an extension of the Pix2Pix GAN\,\cite{pix2pix2016}. Although it produces images with a higher resolution and better quality, the inference time is not capable of retaining real-time frame rates on commodity hardware. Therefore, we kept the Pix2Pix framework as a base and gradually added elements from the Pix2PixHD framework and further improvements from other works until we obtained an acceptable image quality with a reasonable processing speed for interactive frame rates. In summary, we propose the following changes to the Pix2Pix framework:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We added a multi-scale discriminators that receives three different resolutions of the input image and an additional \emph{Feature Matching Loss} as described in Pix2PixHD\,\cite{wang2017highresolution}.
\item We changed the \emph{Sigmoid Cross Entropy Loss} of Pix2Pix's discriminator with the \emph{Least-Squares Loss} of the LSGAN\,\cite{Mao2017LSGAN} suggested by Wang et al.\,\cite{wang2017highresolution}.
\item We exchanged the \emph{Perceptual-VGG Loss}\,\cite{PercLossJohnson2016} originally suggested by Wang et al.\,\cite{wang2017highresolution} with the better performing \emph{Learned Perceptual Image Patch Similarity} (LPIPS) by Zhang et al.\,\cite{zhang2018perceptualLPIPS}.
\end{enumerate}
For the discriminator we obtain the following objective:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lsgan_objective1}
\min_{D_1, D_2, D_3} V_{GAN}(D) = \sum_{k=1, 2, 3}\mathcal{L}_{cLSGAN\_D}(D_k, G)
\end{equation}
while $D_1$, $D_2$ and $D_3$ describe the three different resolution of the input image. For the generator we end up with the following objective function:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lsgan_objective2}
\begin{split}
& \min_G V_{GAN}(G) = \\
& \sum_{k=1, 2, 3}\Bigl[\mathcal{L}_{cLSGAN\_G}(D_k, G) + \lambda_{FM}\mathcal{L}_{FM}(D_k, G)\Bigr] \\
& + \lambda_{L1}\mathcal{L}_{L1}(G) + \lambda_{LPIPS}\mathcal{L}_{LPIPS}(y, G(x))
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where we choose the following hyper parameters:
$\lambda_{FM} = 10$, $\lambda_{L1} = 100$, $\lambda_{LPIPS} = 10$. The functions $\mathcal{L}_{cLSGAN\_D}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{cLSGAN\_G}$ can be found in Mao et al.\,\cite{Mao2017LSGAN}, whereas the function $\mathcal{L}_{FM}$ is based on the feature matching loss of Wang et al.\,\cite{wang2017highresolution}. In order to maintain faster inference time than the Pix2PixHD we did not implement the coarse to fine approach for the generator. We sacrifice very high resolution of the output images for computational speed. We provide further details to the architecture on GitHub.
Using these improvements helps to prevent high-frequency details such as facial hair and significantly increases the reconstruction quality, as explained further in the results section (sec.\,\ref{sec:results}). Because we mainly enhanced the loss function and the discriminator side, we did not need to change the generator. Therefore, we are able to maintain high frame rates during inference since only the generator module is used in the telepresence and live broadcasting scenario. As a side effect, the training process requires more memory, but the overall training time decreases by more than a half compared to our Pix2Pix-only approach (from about 19\,hours to 8\,hours) because the new loss term is more purposeful for our application and, therefore, helps to obtain better results in less time.
The generator of our GAN receives a $512 \times 512$\,pixel FLM of the facial landmarks as input. Compared to the Pix2Pix GAN, the output has been extended by a fourth feature map to be able to generate depth images. In addition, the discriminator receives five feature maps as input instead of only four. While the first four correspond to the four channels of the RGBD image, the remaining feature map contains the corresponding FLM, as visualized in Figure \ref{fig:InputDis}. One of our early hypotheses in \cite{Ladwig2020AufDemWeg} was that a higher number of FLMs (e.g. four times) would result in better reconstruction results to start the training process with a balanced ratio between RGBD images and FLMs (cf. Fig. \ref{fig:InputDis}). This hypothesis has been disproved. Changing the number of FLMs does not change the quality of the results but only increases the training time.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{img/InputDis}
\caption{\textit{Example convolution for the discriminator input. Each RGBD channel and the FLM are weighted individually.}}
\label{fig:InputDis}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Training Process}\label{sec:trainingProcess}
Before the training process, all weights of the GAN are initialized with a random value. The random values follow a Gaussian distribution with an expected value of $0$ and a standard deviation of $0.02$. The batch size of the input data into the GAN is $1$, and the epoch count is $100$. Both generator and discriminator are trained with an initial learning rate of $0.0002$, which decreases linearly towards zero over the last 70 epochs. The discriminator $Loss_D = (Loss_{Dreal}+Loss_{Dfake})*0.5$ reduces the learning rate, making it slower to learn relative to the generator. This is necessary because at the beginning of the training phase the discriminator can effortlessly accomplish its task. If the discriminator learns too quickly, the generator has no chance to learn how to create the desired face.
\section{Results}\label{sec:results}
GANs are difficult to train because of their adversarial training procedure to find the balance between the learning rate and losses of the generator and discriminator networks. As we use many different losses, a long line of hyper parameter tuning was necessary to find the optimal settings. Fig.\,\ref{fig:results} shows the reconstruction results for four different persons with the best training parameters described in section \ref{sec:trainingProcess}. We did not use the face-tracking HMD for the evaluation, similar to \cite{Ladwig2020Unmasking}, because it can cause slight tracking errors and could decrease the quality of the results for comparison. Our intention is to directly compare the improvements of our pipeline to our previous system described in \cite{Ladwig2020AufDemWeg}. For a comparison in motion, we refer the reader to the corresponding video that can be found via the GitHub link.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{img/ReneLSGAN-Loss4.jpg}
\caption{\textit{Our new pipeline, network architecture and losses significantly improved the quality. Image a) shows a sample from the previous system of Ladwig et al.\cite{Ladwig2020AufDemWeg, Ladwig2020Unmasking}. Image b) illustrates the enhanced resolution (from $256 \times 256$ to $512 \times 512$\,pixels) and the improved preservation of high-frequency details.}}
\label{fig:sharperResults}
\end{figure}
As a quantitative metric for the assessment of the reconstruction quality, we use \emph{Structural Similarity} (SSIM)\,\cite{ssim} and \emph{Learned Perceptual Image Patch Similarity} (LPIPS)\,\cite{zhang2018perceptualLPIPS}. Our previous system\,\cite{Ladwig2020AufDemWeg} performed on average with an SSIM of 0.851 and a value of 0.114 on LPIPS. Our proposed system reaches on average 0.910 for SSIM (higher is better) and 0.082 for LPIPS (lower is better). The numerical results of the SSIM metric are comparable to a JPEG compression of about half the original file size of the images in column 3. In contrast, the previous system\,\cite{Ladwig2020AufDemWeg} only achieved a reconstruction quality of less than a quarter of the original file size by means of a comparison with the JPEG compression.
The main issue of our previous approach was the sharpness of the generated images\,\cite{Ladwig2020AufDemWeg, Ladwig2020Unmasking}, as visualized in Fig.\,\ref{fig:sharperResults}. Due to the new architecture and loss functions, the system produces images with more details. Even skin pores are reconstructed well, e.g. on the user's forehead, as can be seen in Fig.\,\ref{fig:results}, rows E to H. Furthermore, we noticed a better reconstruction quality in areas with high-frequency details such as facial hair, as shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig:sharperResults}. Also, the temporal consistency is improved. Please see the linked video for details.
The error between the generated and ground truth depth values is mostly below 4\,mm, as depicted in column 6. Exceptions are the reconstruction results with the worst SSIM and LPIPS metrics per dataset of a person, such as shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig:results}, row D and H, as well as in Fig.\,\ref{fig:results2}, row E and J. Furthermore, outliers can be seen in column 8. Note that we use the raw depth image of the Kinect and the raw output of our GAN. We do not filter or smooth the images, therefore, we assume that the network has also learned the depth noise of the sensor, which causes additional depth errors.
To compare the faces between the images of columns 2 and 3 without measuring background changes, we determined the facial area based on depth values and rejected all other pixels. At the border area between the faces and the background, large differences in the SSIM and the depth difference visualization can be seen. These differences are caused by the fact that the cropped areas of the real and generated images do not always align perfectly due to minimal differences in the generated faces. In addition, we also apply erosion and clipping to the face to reject parts of the background, which can cause the minimal differences.
Although our quantitative metrics indicate better results, our system still shows limitations in the reconstruction quality of the eyes, lips and oral cavity. Especially teeth and the tongue are often reconstructed with noisy artifacts, as can be seen in Fig.\,\ref{fig:results}, row D, column 2. The error increases with a graceful degradation when the expression moves towards exaggerated expressions that are far from the neutral face expression. The eyes are reconstructed with less artifacts than the oral cavity, but we observed that even a little amount of image artifacts can evoke the Uncanny Valley Effect, as can be seen especially in Fig.\,\ref{fig:results}, row B, column 2. Please zoom in for details.
In our experiments we used PyTorch 1.8 and Python 3.7 on Windows 10. We trained the same data set with approximately 1600 elements (an element is a set comprised of an RGBD image and an FLM) on two different machines. This took 8\,hours on a system equipped with an Nvidia RTX2080Ti, an AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX and 128GB RAM. With a newer system, comprised of an Nvidia RTX3090, an Intel i7-9900K and 32GB RAM, training took only 4\,hours and 13\,minutes. Our previous system took 17-20\,hours on the machine with the RTX2080Ti for only 600 elements.
The time required for a forward pass of the generator module with an image size of $512 \times 512$\,pixels is between 3 and 4\,ms (333 - 250\,fps) on an Nvidia RTX3090 and between 6 and 7\,ms (167 - 143\,fps) on an Nvidia RTX 2080. Our previous system was faster (between 1 and 3\,ms) but generates only images with a size of $256 \times 256$\,pixels. The timings of the present system are still suitable for VR-based application, where 75 to 120\,fps are common frame rates. However, note that many face tracking systems only work with 60 or even 30\,fps, which can limit the frame rate of the pipeline.
\section{Limitations and Future Work}
As mentioned before, one of the major issues is the low reconstruction quality of exaggerated expressions of the eyes, lips and oral cavity. The artifacts can induce the Uncanny Valley Effect and must be avoided for telepresence or broadcasting applications. As a further step, we plan to use a 3DMM\,\cite{3dmm} such as the FLAME model\,\cite{Li:FLAME:SiggraphAsia2017} as a better inductive bias to regularize depth and color information more efficiently. Furthermore, we observed that landmark tracking is not sufficient for faithful lip movement during speech. Therefore, an additional input signal besides the landmarks is necessary. A conditioning of speech as audio signals could provide a solution. Another issue to improve is the uncomfortable helmet mount. A solution with a stationary RGBD camera placed on a tripod or table is a favorable approach for future research.
\section{Conclusion}
We presented an improved end-to-end pipeline compared to previous approaches\,\cite{Ladwig2020AufDemWeg, Ladwig2020Unmasking} and a new GAN architecture that can learn facial identity and individual expressions of a user and reproduce them as a textured point cloud with frame rates that are suitable for Virtual Reality, telepresence and broadcasting environments. We have incorporated and extended the architecture, losses, and processing pipelines of several approaches from the field of neural rendering. Compared to previous works, our proposed system generates higher quality image results with slightly longer run time at inference. We achieved this goal by mainly changing the architecture of the discriminator while keeping the architecture of the generator lean. The reconstruction results partially lie in the Uncanny Valley, but they still convince with an authentic visualization of the respective person's identity and individual facial expressions. We believe that neural rendering will be a crucial part of photo-realistic rendering of humans in real-time applications in the future. Our work is a further step into this direction and hopefully helps to understand, improve and apply this technology.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{img/results_page_1_v1.jpg}
\caption{\textit{Results 1/2: This overview shows FLMs in column 1 from our evaluation datasets, hence the results are based on unseen data for the neural network. The FLMs were created from the images in column 3 -- a real image from the evaluation data set. Column 2 shows the results generated by our GAN. The GAN received the FLM from column 1 and generated the images in column 2. Column 4 depicts the SSIM difference. Darker values indicate larger differences between the images in columns 2 and 3. Column 6 visualizes the error between the generated depth and the ground truth depth. The combination of the generated depth and color data can be seen in columns 7 and 8 from an angle of 30 and 90\,degrees.}}
\label{fig:results}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{img/results_page_2_v1}
\caption{\textit{Results 2/2: Two further subjects are shown. The two last samples of each person summarizes the best and the worst images (measured by SSIM and LPIPS) and reflects the range of the reconstruction quality.}}
\label{fig:results2}
\end{figure*}
\section{Acknowledgments}
\label{ackno}
We thank the MIREVI group at the University of Applied Sciences Düsseldorf and the 'Promotionszentrum Angewandte Informatik' (PZAI) in Hessen, Germany. This work is sponsored by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) under the project numbers 16SV8182 (HIVE-Lab), 13FH022IX6 (iKPT\,4.0) and 16SV8756 (AniBot).
\bibliographystyle{amsalpha-ext}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{section1}
Let $K$ be a number field of degree $n\geq 3$. Denote its ring integers by $\mathcal{O}_K$.
Recall that an order $\mathcal{O}$ of $K$ (i.e., a subring of $K$
that is a free $\mathbb{Z}$-module of rank $[K:\mathbb{Q} ]$),
is called \emph{monogenic} if there is $\alpha\in\mathcal{O}$ with $\mathcal{O} =\mathbb{Z} [\alpha ]$.
The set of $\alpha$ with $\mathbb{Z} [\alpha ]=\mathcal{O}$ can be divided into so-called $\mathbb{Z}$-equivalence classes,
where $\alpha_1,\alpha_2$ are called $\mathbb{Z}$-equivalent if $\alpha_1-\alpha_2\in\mathbb{Z}$ or $\alpha_1+\alpha_2\in\mathbb{Z}$. Any $\mathbb{Z}$-equivalence class of $\alpha$ with $\mathbb{Z} [\alpha ]=\mathcal{O}$ is called a
\emph{monogenization} of $\mathcal{O}$.
It follows from work of Gy\H{o}ry \cite{G73}, \cite{G76}, that if $K$ is any number field,
then every order $\mathcal{O}$ of $K$ has only finitely many monogenizations.
If we consider only monogenic orders in a fixed number field $K$,
then most of them have only few monogenizations.
B\'{e}rczes, Gy\H{o}ry and the author
\cite{BEG13} obtained the following result.
\begin{thmalpha}\label{thmA}
Let $K$ be a number field of degree $\geq 3$. Then $K$ has only finitely many orders
with more than two monogenizations.
\end{thmalpha}
This result is optimal. For instance, if $\varepsilon$ is a unit of $\mathcal{O}_K$ with $\mathbb{Q} (\varepsilon )=K$, then $\mathbb{Z} [\varepsilon ]=\mathbb{Z} [\varepsilon^{-1}]$, while $\varepsilon$ and $\varepsilon^{-1}$
are not $\mathbb{Z}$-equivalent. More generally, let $\alpha \in \mathcal{O}_K$ be such that $\mathbb{Q} (\alpha )=K$,
suppose there are integers $c,d$ such that $c\alpha +d$ is a unit of $\mathcal{O}_K$, let $a,b$ be integers such that $\big(\begin{smallmatrix}a&b\\c&d\end{smallmatrix}\big)\in{\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$, and put
$\beta := \medfrac{a\alpha +b}{c\alpha +d}$. Then $\mathbb{Z} [\alpha ]=\mathbb{Z} [\beta ]$,
while $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are not $\mathbb{Z}$-equivalent.
Instead of counting $\mathbb{Z}$-equivalence classes of $\alpha$ with $\mathbb{Z} [\alpha ]=\mathcal{O}$, one may
consider ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-equivalence classes of such $\alpha$.
Here, $\alpha,\beta\in K$ are called ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-equivalent if there is
$\big(\begin{smallmatrix}a&b\\c&d\end{smallmatrix}\big)\in{\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$ such that $\beta =\medfrac{a\alpha +b}{c\alpha +d}$.
We say that a group $G$ acts $t$ times transitively on a finite set $\SS$
if for any pairwise distinct $i_1,\ldots , i_t\in\SS$ and pairwise distinct $j_1,\ldots , j_t\in\SS$, there is $\sigma\in G$
such that $\sigma (i_1)=j_1,\ldots , \sigma (i_t)=j_t$.
If $K =\mathbb{Q} (\alpha )$ and $L$ is the normal closure of $K$, we say that ${\rm Gal}(L/\mathbb{Q} )$
is $t$ times transitive if it acts $t$ times transitively on the set of conjugates
$\{ \alpha^{(1)},\ldots , \alpha^{(n)}\}$ of $\alpha$.
Then in the same paper \cite{BEG13}, the authors obtained the following result.
\begin{thmalpha}\label{thmB}
Let $K$ be a number field of degree $\geq 5$ such that the Galois group of its normal closure is four times transitive. Then for all orders $\mathcal{O}$ of $K$ with at most finitely many exceptions, the set of $\alpha$ with $\mathbb{Z} [\alpha ]=\mathcal{O}$ is contained in at most one ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-equivalence class.
\end{thmalpha}
It is not known whether the condition on the normal closure of $K$ is necessary. It can be proved in an elementary way that if $K$ is a cubic number field and $\mathcal{O}$ an order of $K$, then the set of $\alpha\in\mathcal{O}$ with $\mathbb{Z} [\alpha ]=\mathcal{O}$ is contained in at most one ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-equivalence class. For quartic number fields $K$, the above theorem is false. In fact, \cite{BEG13} gives the following
construction:
\begin{thmalpha}\label{thmC}
Let $r,s$ be integers such that $f(X)=(X^2-r)^2-X-s$ is irreducible, and let $K=\mathbb{Q} (\alpha )$,
where $\alpha$ is a root of $f$. Then $K$ has infinitely many orders $\mathcal{O}_m$ ($m=1,2,\ldots$)
with the following property: $\mathcal{O}_m=\mathbb{Z} [\alpha_m]=\mathbb{Z} [\beta_m]$, where $\beta_m=\alpha_m^2-r_m$,
$\alpha_m =\beta_m^2-s_m$ for some integers $r_m,s_m$.
\end{thmalpha}
\noindent
It is clear that $\alpha_m,\beta_m$ in the above theorem are not ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-equivalent.
We would like to generalize Theorem \ref{thmB} to orders attached to non-integral algebraic numbers.
There are various equivalent ways of defining such an order. Let $\alpha$ be an
algebraic number of degree $n$ and define the $\mathbb{Z}$-module
\begin{equation}\label{eq1.1}
\mathcal{M}_{\alpha}:=\big\{ x_0+x_1\alpha +\cdots +x_{n-1}\alpha^{n-1}:\, x_0,\ldots , x_{n-1}\in\mathbb{Z}\}.
\end{equation}
Then the order attached to $\alpha$ is the ring of scalars of $\mathcal{M}_{\alpha}$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{eq1.2}
\mathbb{Z}_{\alpha}:=\{ \xi \in\mathbb{Q} (\alpha ):\, \xi\mathcal{M}_{\alpha}\subseteq\mathcal{M}_{\alpha}\}.
\end{equation}
If $\alpha$ is an algebraic integer, then $\alpha^i\in\mathcal{M}_{\alpha}$ for $i\geq n$,
and thus, $\mathbb{Z}_{\alpha}=\mathcal{M}_{\alpha}=\mathbb{Z} [\alpha]$.
Further, if $\alpha ,\beta$ are ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-equivalent, i.e.,
$\beta =\medfrac{a\alpha +b}{c\alpha +d}$ for some
$\big(\begin{smallmatrix}a&b\\c&d\end{smallmatrix}\big)\in{\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$,
then one easily verifies that
$\mathcal{M}_{\beta }=\\(c\alpha +d)^{1-n}\mathcal{M}_{\alpha}$,
which implies $\mathbb{Z}_{\beta}=\mathbb{Z}_{\alpha}$.
We call an order $\mathcal{O}$ of a number field $K$
\emph{rationally monogenic} if $\mathcal{O} =\mathbb{Z}_{\alpha}$ for some $\alpha$ with $K=\mathbb{Q} (\alpha )$.
A ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-equivalence class of $\alpha$ with $\mathbb{Z}_{\alpha}=\mathcal{O}$
is called a \emph{rational monogenization} of $\mathcal{O}$.
Let again $\alpha$ be an algebraic number of degree $n$, and denote by $f_{\alpha}$
its primitive minimal polynomial, i.e., $f_{\alpha}=a_0X^n+\cdots +a_n\in\mathbb{Z} [X]$ with $a_0>0$
and $\gcd (a_0,\ldots , a_n)=1$. The ring $\mathbb{Z}_{\alpha}$ is a free $\mathbb{Z}$-module with basis
\begin{equation}\label{eq1.3}
1,\omega_1,\ldots , \omega_{n-1},\ \ \omega_i=a_0\alpha^i+a_1\alpha^{i-1}+\cdots a_{i-1}\alpha\ \
(i=1,\ldots , n-1)
\end{equation}
(see \cite[p. 365, Thm. 16.2.9, formula (16.2.7)]{EG17} or Lemma \ref{lem2.0} in the present paper). This shows that the discriminant
of the order $\mathbb{Z}_{\alpha}$ is equal to the discriminant of $f_{\alpha}$, i.e.,
\begin{align}\label{eq1.4}
D(\mathbb{Z}_{\alpha}) &=D_{\mathbb{Q} (\alpha )/\mathbb{Q}}(1,\omega_1,\ldots ,\omega_{n-1})
\\
\notag
&=
a_0^{2n-2}D_{\mathbb{Q} (\alpha)/\mathbb{Q}}(1,\alpha,\ldots , \alpha^{n-1})
\\
\notag
&=
a_0^{2n-2}\prod_{1\leq i<j\leq n}(\alpha^{(i)}-\alpha^{(j)})^2
=D(f_{\alpha}),
\end{align}
where $\alpha^{(1)},\ldots ,\alpha^{(n)}$ are the conjugates of $\alpha$.
Lastly, Del Corso, Dvornicich and Simon \cite[Prop. 2]{DDS05} (see also Lemma \ref{lem2.0}
in the present paper) proved the much simpler expression
\begin{equation}\label{eq1.5}
\mathbb{Z}_{\alpha}=\mathbb{Z} [\alpha ]\cap \mathbb{Z} [\alpha^{-1}].
\end{equation}
More generally, one can attach an order to any binary form with integer coefficients,
its so-called invariant order.
The rationally monogenic orders introduced above are invariant orders of primitive binary forms
that are irreducible over $\mathbb{Q}$. At the end of this section we comment on this.
We call two polynomials $f,g\in \mathbb{Z} [X]$ of degree $n$ ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-equivalent,
if $g(X)=\pm (cX+d)^nf(\frac{aX+b}{cX+d})$ for some $\big(\begin{smallmatrix}a&b\\c&d\end{smallmatrix}\big)\in{\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$. Two ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-equivalent polynomials have the same discriminant.
Birch and Merriman \cite{BM72} proved that for every $n\geq 2$, $D\not= 0$,
there are only finitely many ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-equivalence classes of polynomials in $\mathbb{Z} [X]$ of degree $n$ and
discriminant $D$. If $\alpha$, $\beta$ are two algebraic numbers,
then their primitive minimal polynomials $f_{\alpha},f_{\beta}$ are ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-equivalent
if and only if $\alpha$ is ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-equivalent to a conjugate of $\beta$.
If $\alpha$, $\beta$ satisfy $\mathbb{Z}_{\alpha}=\mathbb{Z}_{\beta}$ then by \eqref{eq1.4},
$f_{\alpha}$ and $f_{\beta}$ have the same discriminant. These observations imply
that if $\mathcal{O}$ is an order of a number field, then $\mathcal{O}$ has at most finitely many
rational monogenizations.
It can be shown that a rationally monogenic order $\mathcal{O}$ is primitive, i.e., there are no
order $\mathcal{O}'$ and integer $a>1$ such that $\mathcal{O} =\mathbb{Z} +a\mathcal{O}'$. It follows from
classical work of Delone and Faddeev \cite{DF40} that every primitive order of a cubic
number field has precisely one rational monogenization. Further, it follows from
work of B\'{e}rczes, Gy\H{o}ry and the author \cite{BEG04}
that an order of a number field of degree $n\geq 4$ cannot have more than $n\cdot 2^{24n^3}$
rational monogenizations. Gy\H{o}ry and the author \cite[Chap. 17]{EG17} improved this to $2^{5n^2}$.
From recent work of Bhargava \cite{B22} it follows that for quartic orders this bound can be improved
to $40$.
We are now ready to state the main result of this paper,
which gives a generalization of Theorem \ref{thmB}
to not necessarily integral algebraic numbers $\alpha$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm1.1}
(i) Let $K$ be a quartic number field.
Then $K$ has only finitely many orders
with more than two rational monogenizations.
\\[0.15cm]
(ii) Let $K$ be a number field of degree $n\geq 5$
and suppose that the Galois group of its normal closure is five times transitive.
Then $K$ has only finitely many orders with more than one rational monogenization.
\end{theorem}
We do not know whether the condition on the normal closure of $K$ is necessary
if $[K:\mathbb{Q} ]\geq 5$. Probably, trying to remove or relax this condition
would considerably complicate the proof.
Theorem \ref{thmC} implies that there are quartic number fields, having infinitely many
orders with two rational monogenizations.
The proof of Theorem \ref{thm1.1} uses among other things finiteness results for unit equations in more than two unknowns. The present proofs of these depend on ineffective methods
from Diophantine approximation, e.g., Schmidt's Subspace Theorem or the Faltings-R\'{e}mond method.
As a consequence, our proof of
Theorem \ref{thm1.1} is ineffective in that it does not allow to determine
the exceptional orders. Further, although for unit equations we have good upper bounds for the
number of solutions, it is because of the `other things,' that we cannot give an upper bound for the
number of exceptional orders.
We state a consequence, which partly confirms Conjecture 4.2 in \cite{BEGRS22}.
We adopt the terminology of \cite{BEGRS22}.
Given a number field $K$, denote by $\mathcal{P}\mathcal{I} (K)$ the set of primitive, irreducible polynomials
$f\in\mathbb{Z} [X]$, such that there is $\alpha$ with $f(\alpha )=0$ and
$\mathbb{Q} (\alpha )=K$. We call two polynomials $f,g\in\mathcal{P}\mathcal{I} (K)$
\emph{Hermite equivalent} if there are $\alpha ,\beta\in K$ such that $f(\alpha)=0$, $g(\beta)=0$ and
$\mathcal{M}_{\beta}=\lambda\mathcal{M}_{\alpha}$ for some $\lambda\in K^*$ (see \eqref{eq1.1} above).
It was shown in \cite{BEGRS22} that two ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-equivalent polynomials are Hermite equivalent.
As we will show, Theorem \ref{thm1.1} implies the following,
which except for the assumption on the normal closure of $K$ is Conjecture 4.2 of \cite{BEGRS22}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm1.2}
(i) Let $K$ be a quartic number field.
Then there are only finitely many Hermite equivalence classes in $\mathcal{P}\mathcal{I} (K)$ that
fall apart into more than two ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-equivalence classes.
\\[0.15cm]
(ii) Let $K$ be a number field of degree $\geq 5$,
such that the Galois group of its normal closure is five times transitive.
Then there are only finitely many Hermite equivalence classes in $\mathcal{P}\mathcal{I} (K)$
that fall apart into more than one ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-equivalence class.
\end{theorem}
Another consequence of our investigations, which probably could be proved by other
means as well, is the following.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm1.3}
Let $K$ be a number field of degree $\geq 3$.
Then $K$ has infinitely many orders that are rationally monogenic but not monogenic.
\end{theorem}
Finally, we would like to comment on the connection between the orders $\mathbb{Z}_{\alpha}$
defined above, and invariant orders of binary forms.
Birch and Merriman \cite{BM72} introduced for an irreducible binary form
\[
F(X,Y) =a_0X^n+a_1X^{n-1}Y+\cdots +a_nY^n\in\mathbb{Z} [X,Y]
\]
the $\mathbb{Z}$-module $\mathbb{Z}_F$ with $\mathbb{Z}$-basis $1,\omega_1,\ldots ,\omega_{n-1}$ given by \eqref{eq1.3},
where $F(\alpha ,1)=0$.
This module $\mathbb{Z}_F$ is called the invariant order of $F$.
Here, we do not require that $\gcd (a_0,\ldots , a_n)=1$. So for an algebraic number $\alpha$,
our order $\mathbb{Z}_{\alpha}$ is just the invariant order of a primitive irreducible binary form, i.e., whose coefficients
have greatest common divisor $1$.
Nakagawa \cite{N89} proved that indeed, $\mathbb{Z}_F$ is an order of the number field
$\mathbb{Q} (\alpha )$, in fact,
\begin{equation}\label{eq1.6}
\omega_i\omega_j=-\sum_{\max (i+j-n,1)\leq k\leq i} a_{i+j-k}\omega_k+
\sum_{j<k\leq \min (i+j,n)} a_{i+j-k}\omega_k
\end{equation}
for $i,j=1,\ldots , n-1$, where $\omega_n:=-a_n$.
This order was further studied by Simon \cite{S01,S03} and
Del Corso, Dvornicich and Simon \cite{DDS05}.
Given any commutative ring $R$ and a binary form $F=\sum_{i=0}^n a_iX^{n-i}Y^i\\ \in R[X,Y]$,
one can formally define the invariant ring $R_F$ of $F$ by taking the free $R$-module
with basis $1,\omega_1,\ldots , \omega_{n-1}$ with prescribed multiplication table \eqref{eq1.6}.
Here, it is no longer required
that $F$ is irreducible, nor even that $a_0\not=0$, and even $a_0=\cdots =a_n=0$ is allowed.
Wood \cite{W11} studied invariant rings of binary forms in a
much broader context.
The remainder of our paper is organized as follows.
In Section \ref{section2} we have collected some basic properties
of rationally monogenic orders. Although these are all known, we have provided
proofs for convenience of the reader.
Sections \ref{section3} and \ref{section4} contain preparations,
where in Section \ref{section3} we apply finiteness results for unit equations.
In Section \ref{section5} we finish the proofs of Theorems \ref{thm1.1}--\ref{thm1.3}.
Finally, in Section \ref{section6}
we generalize the orders $\mathbb{Z}_{\alpha}$ to domains $\mathcal{O}_{S,{\alpha}}$,
where $\mathcal{O}_S$ is the ring of $S$-integers of a number field $\Bbbk$
and $\alpha$ is algebraic over $\Bbbk$,
and state and prove
a generalization of Theorem \ref{thm1.1} but with a notion of equivalence that is slightly weaker
than ${\rm GL}_2(\mathcal{O}_S)$-equivalence.
\section{Lemmas over principal ideal domains}\label{section2}
In this section, we have collected some generalities on rationally monogenic orders. We state and prove
everything over an arbitrary principal ideal domain $A$ of characteristic $0$.
Most of the results in this section have been proved elsewhere in a more general context,
see for instance \cite[Chaps. 16, 17]{EG17}, \cite{BEG04}, \cite{DDS05}.
For convenience of the reader we have repeated the short proofs, specialized to the
situation of this paper.
In the proofs of Theorems \ref{thm1.1}--\ref{thm1.3} we apply the results of the present section with $A=\mathbb{Z}$. In Section \ref{section6}
we use a local-to-global argument, and apply the results of the present section
to localizations of $\mathcal{O}_S$.
In what follows, if $F$ is any field, $\xi\in \mathbb{P}^1(F):=F\cup \{ \infty\}$ and
$C=\big(\begin{smallmatrix}a&b\\c&d\end{smallmatrix}\big)\in{\rm GL}_2(F)$, we write $C\xi :=\frac{a\xi +b}{c\xi +d}$, with the conventions that this
is $\infty$ if $\xi =\infty$ and $c=0$; $a/c$ if $\xi =\infty$ and $c\not= 0$;
$\infty$ if $c\not= 0$ and $\xi = -d/c$.
Let $A$ be a principal ideal domain of characteristic $0$, and $\Bbbk$ its field of fractions.
Further, let $K$ be a finite extension of $\Bbbk$ of degree $n\geq 3$ and $L$ its normal
closure over $\Bbbk$. Let $x\mapsto x^{(i)}$ ($i=1,\ldots , n$) denote the $\Bbbk$-isomorphic embeddings
of $K$ in $L$. Further, denote by $A_K$, $A_L$ the integral closures of $A$ in $K$ and $L$,
respectively. Recall that both $A_K$, $A_L$ are Dedekind domains; in the case that $A=\mathbb{Z}$,
$A_K$ and $A_L$ are just the rings of integers of $K$ and $L$.
Given any domain $B\supseteq A$, we call $\alpha ,\beta\in K$ ${\rm GL}_2(B)$-equivalent
if there is $C\in{\rm GL}_2(B)$
such that $\beta=C\alpha$.
Let $\alpha\in K$ with $K=\Bbbk (\alpha )$. Define the free $A$-module
\begin{equation}\label{eq2.1}
\mathcal{M}_{\alpha}:=\big\{ x_0+x_1\alpha +\cdots +x_{n-1}\alpha^{n-1}:\, x_0,\ldots , x_{n-1}\in A\}
\end{equation}
and its ring of scalars
\begin{equation}\label{eq2.2}
A_{\alpha}:=\{ \xi\in K:\, \xi\mathcal{M}_{\alpha}\subseteq\mathcal{M}_{\alpha}\}.
\end{equation}
As one easily verifies, if $\alpha ,\beta$ are two ${\rm GL}_2(A)$-equivalent elements of $A$,
then $\mathcal{M}_{\alpha}=\lambda\mathcal{M}_{\beta}$ for some $\lambda\in K^*$, and thus, $A_{\alpha}=A_{\beta}$.
We give some other descriptions of $A_{\alpha}$.
Let $f_{\alpha}=a_0X^n+\cdots +a_n\in A[X]$
be a primitive minimal polynomial of $\alpha$, i.e., $\gcd (a_0,\ldots , a_n)=1$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem2.0}
We have
\begin{equation}\label{eq2.3}
A_{\alpha}=\big\{ x_0+x_1\omega_1+\cdots +x_{n-1}\omega_{n-1}:\, x_0,\ldots , x_{n-1}\in A\big\}
\end{equation}
where
\[
\omega_i:=a_0\alpha^i+a_1\alpha^{i-1}+\cdots +a_{i-1}\alpha\ \ (i=1,\ldots , n-1),
\]
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq2.5}
A_{\alpha}=A[\alpha ]\cap A[\alpha^{-1}].
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
Identity \eqref{eq2.3} follows from
\cite[p. 365, Thm. 16.2.9, formula (16.2.7)]{EG17}), while \eqref{eq2.5}
is a consequence of \cite[Prop. 2]{DDS05}. For convenience of the reader, we repeat the proofs.
\begin{proof}
Let $\mathcal{N}_{\alpha}$ denote the $A$-module on the right-hand side of \eqref{eq2.3}. We prove the inclusions
$\mathcal{N}_{\alpha}\subseteq A_{\alpha}\subseteq A[\alpha ]\cap A[\alpha^{-1}]\subseteq\mathcal{N}_{\alpha}$.
First observe that if $1\leq i\leq n-1$, $0\leq j\leq n-1$, then
\begin{align*}
\omega_i\alpha^j &=
\sum_{k=0}^{i-1} a_k\alpha^{i+j-k}\in\mathcal{M}_{\alpha}\ \ \text{if } i+j\leq n-1,
\\
\omega_i\alpha^j &= (\omega_i -f_{\alpha}(\alpha))\alpha^j=
-\sum_{k=i}^{n} a_k\alpha^{i+j-k}\in\mathcal{M}_{\alpha}\ \ \text{if } i+j\geq n,
\end{align*}
implying $\mathcal{N}_{\alpha}\subseteq A_{\alpha}$.
Second, $A_{\alpha}\subseteq \mathcal{M}_{\alpha}\cap\alpha^{1-n}\mathcal{M}_{\alpha}\subseteq A[\alpha ]\cap A[\alpha^{-1}]$.
Third, let $\xi =P(\alpha )=Q(\alpha^{-1})\in A[\alpha ]\cap A[\alpha^{-1}]$, where $P,Q\in A[X]$.
We prove by induction on $\deg P$, that $\xi\in\mathcal{N}_{\alpha}$. For $\deg P=0$ this is clear.
Let $\deg P=r\geq 1$. Consider the polynomial $H(X):=X^{\deg Q}P(X)-X^{\deg Q}Q(X^{-1})\in A[X]$.
The polynomial $H$ is non-zero, since otherwise $P(X)=Q(X^{-1})$, which is impossible.
Let $b$ be the leading coefficient of $P$. Then $b$ is also the leading coefficient of $H$.
Since $H(\alpha )=0$, $f_{\alpha}$ must divide $H$ in $\Bbbk [X]$.
But by assumption, the coefficients of $f_{\alpha}$ have gcd $1$, so by Gauss' Lemma
$f_{\alpha}$ divides $H$ in $A[X]$, in particular, the leading coefficient $a_0$ of $f_{\alpha}$
divides $b$. Now if $r\geq n$, we have $P(\alpha )=P^*(\alpha )$
where $P^*(X)=P(X)-(b/a_0)X^{r-n}f_{\alpha}(X)$ is a polynomial in $A[X]$
of degree $<r$ and we can apply the induction hypothesis.
If $r<n$, then $P(\alpha )=(b/a_0)\omega_r+P^*(\alpha )$, where $P^*\in A[X]$ has degree $<r$. We know already that $\omega_r\in A[\alpha ]\cap A[\alpha^{-1}]$,
so $P^*(\alpha )\in A[\alpha ]\cap A[\alpha^{-1}]$. We can again apply the induction hypothesis.
\end{proof}
Let $\mathcal{M}$ be an $A$-submodule of $A_K$ with basis $\gamma_1,\ldots , \gamma_n$, say,
where $n=[K:\Bbbk ]$.
The discriminant ideal $\mathfrak{d}_{\mathcal{M} /A}$ of $\mathcal{M}$ over $A$ is defined as the ideal of $A$ generated
by $D_{K/\Bbbk}(\gamma_1,\ldots ,\gamma_n):=\Big(\det (\gamma_i^{(j)})_{i,j=1,\ldots , n}\Big)^2$.
This does not depend on the choice of basis.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem2.-1}
Let $\alpha\in K$ with $\Bbbk (\alpha )=K$ and let $f_{\alpha}=a_0X^n+\cdots +a_n\in A[X]$
be a primitive minimal polynomial of $\alpha$. Then $\mathfrak{d}_{A_{\alpha }/A}=D(f_{\alpha})A$,
where
$D(f_{\alpha})=a_0^{2n-2}\prod_{1\leq i<j\leq n}(\alpha^{(i)}-\alpha^{(j)})^2$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Same reasoning as \eqref{eq1.4}.
\end{proof}
For $\alpha_1,\ldots , \alpha_r\in L$, denote by $[\alpha_1,\ldots , \alpha_r]$ the fractional ideal
of $A_L$, i.e., $A_L$-module, generated by $\alpha_1,\ldots , \alpha_r$. Further,
for a finitely generated $A$-submodule $\mathcal{M}$ of $K$ and for distinct $i,j\in\{ 1,\ldots , n\}$,
let $\mathfrak{d}_{ij}(\mathcal{M} )$ be the fractional ideal of $A_L$ generated by
$\xi^{(i)}-\xi^{(j)}$
for all $\xi\in\mathcal{M}$. Thus, if $\mathcal{M}$ is generated as an $A$-module by $\xi_1,\ldots ,\xi_r$,
we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq2.6}
\mathfrak{d}_{ij}(\mathcal{M} )=[\xi_1^{(i)}-\xi_1^{(j)},\ldots , \xi_r^{(i)}-\xi_r^{(j)}].
\end{equation}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem2.1}
Let $\alpha$ be such that $K=\Bbbk (\alpha )$ and $i,j\in\{ 1,\ldots , n\}$ with $i\not= j$.
Then
\[
[\alpha^{(i)}-\alpha^{(j)}]= [1,\alpha^{(i)}]\cdot [1,\alpha^{(j)}]\cdot
\mathfrak{d}_{ij}(A_{\alpha}).
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\omega_1,\ldots ,\omega_{n-1}$ be as in \eqref{eq2.3}. Then
\[
\alpha f_{\alpha}(X)=(X-\alpha )(\omega_1 X^{n-1}+\omega_2X^{n-2}+\cdots +\omega_n),
\]
where $\omega_n:=-a_n$.
This implies
\begin{align*}
&(\alpha^{(i)}-\alpha^{(j)})Xf_{\alpha}(X)
\\
&\quad =(X-\alpha^{(j)})\alpha^{(i)}f_{\alpha}(X)-(X-\alpha^{(i)})\alpha^{(j)}f_{\alpha}(X)
\\
&\quad =(X-\alpha^{(i)})(X-\alpha^{(j)})\cdot \big( (\omega_1^{(i)}-\omega_1^{(j)})X^{n-1}+\cdots +
(\omega_{n-1}^{(i)}-\omega_{n-1}^{(j)})\big).
\end{align*}
We apply Gauss' lemma for Dedekind domains, which in our case asserts that if $g_1,g_2\in L[X]$
then $[g_1g_2]=[g_1]\cdot [g_2]$, where $[g]$ is the fractional ideal of $A_L$
generated by the coefficients of $g\in L[X]$.
Using that the coefficients of $f_{\alpha}$ have gcd $1$, together with
\eqref{eq2.6}, \eqref{eq2.3} we arrive at
\begin{align*}
[\alpha^{(i)}-\alpha^{(j)}] &=[1,\alpha^{(i)}]\cdot [1,\alpha^{(j)}]
\cdot [\omega_1^{(i)}-\omega_1^{(j)},\ldots , \omega_{n-1}^{(i)}-\omega_{n-1}^{(j)}]
\\
&=[1,\alpha^{(i)}]\cdot [1,\alpha^{(j)}]\cdot \mathfrak{d}_{ij}(A_{\alpha}).
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
If $[K:\Bbbk ]=n\geq 4$ then for
$\alpha$ with $K=\Bbbk (\alpha )$ and pairwise distinct $i,j,k,l\in\{ 1,\ldots , n\}$, we define the \emph{cross ratio}
\begin{equation}\label{eq4.crossratio}
{\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\alpha ):=
\frac{(\alpha^{(i)}-\alpha^{(j)})(\alpha^{(k)}-\alpha^{(l)})}
{(\alpha^{(i)}-\alpha^{(k)})(\alpha^{(j)}-\alpha^{(l)})}.
\end{equation}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem2.2}
Suppose $[K:\Bbbk ]=n\geq 4$.
Let $\alpha ,\beta$ be such that $\Bbbk (\alpha )=\Bbbk (\beta )=K$ and $A_{\alpha}=A_{\beta}$.
Then for all pairwise distinct $i,j,k,l\in\{ 1,\ldots , n\}$ we have
\[
\frac{{\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\alpha )}{{\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\beta )}\in A_L^*.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Lemma \ref{lem2.1} implies $[{\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\alpha )]=[{\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\beta )]$ for all $i,j,k,l$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem2.3}
Let $K$ be a finite extension of $\Bbbk$, and
let $\alpha,\beta$ be such that $\Bbbk (\alpha )=\Bbbk (\beta )=K$.
\\[0.1cm]
(i) Suppose that $[K:\Bbbk ]=3$. Then $\alpha ,\beta$ are ${\rm GL}_2(\Bbbk )$-equivalent.
\\[0.1cm]
(ii) Suppose $[K:\Bbbk ]=n\geq 4$.
Then $\alpha ,\beta$ are ${\rm GL}_2(\Bbbk )$-equivalent
if and only if
${\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\alpha )={\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\beta )$ for all pairwise distinct $i,j,k,l\in\{ 1,\ldots , n\}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(ii) From elementary projective geometry, we know that
${\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\alpha )\\={\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\beta )$ for all pairwise distinct $i,j,k,l\in\{ 1,\ldots , n\}$
if and only if there is $C\in{\rm GL}_2(L)$ such that $\beta^{(i)}=C\alpha^{(i)}$ for $i=1,\ldots , n$.
Suppose the latter to be the case. Then since $n\geq 4$, the matrix $C$ is determined uniquely up to a scalar.
Clearly, we have $\beta^{(i)}=\sigma (C)\alpha^{(i)}$ for $i=1,\ldots , n$ and every $\sigma\in{\rm Gal}(L/\Bbbk )$.
If we assume that one of the entries of $C$ is $1$, then $\sigma (C)=C$ for every $\sigma\in{\rm Gal}(L/\Bbbk )$,
i.e., $C\in{\rm GL}_2(\Bbbk )$.
(i) By elementary projective geometry, there is an up to a scalar factor unique
$C\in{\rm GL}_2(L)$ such that $\beta^{(i)}=C\alpha^{(i)}$ for $i=1,2,3$. If we take
$C$ such that one of its entries is $1$ then similarly as above
it follows that $C\in{\rm GL}_2(\Bbbk )$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem2.4}
Assume that $[K:\Bbbk ]\geq 3$.
Let $\alpha ,\beta$ be such that $\Bbbk (\alpha )=\Bbbk (\beta )=K$ and $A_{\alpha}=A_{\beta}$.
Suppose that $\alpha$, $\beta$ are ${\rm GL}_2(\Bbbk )$-equivalent.
Then $\alpha ,\beta$ are ${\rm GL}_2(A)$-equivalent.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $A$ is a principal ideal domain, we may assume that $\beta =C\alpha$, where the entries of $C$ belong to $A$ and have gcd $1$. Further, $C$ can be put into Smith Normal Form,
i.e., there are matrices $U,V\in{\rm GL}_2(A)$ such that
$UCV=\big(\begin{smallmatrix}a&0\\ 0&1\end{smallmatrix}\big)$.
Let $\beta_1:=U\beta$, $\alpha_1:=V^{-1}\alpha$. Then since $\alpha ,\beta\not\in\Bbbk$
we have $\alpha_1,\beta_1\not=\infty$ and moreover, $A_{\alpha_1}=A_{\beta_1}$
and $\beta_1=a\alpha_1$. We have to show that $a\in A^*$.
Let $f_{\alpha_1}(X)=a_0X^n+\cdots +a_n\in A[X]$ be a primitive minimal polynomial of $\alpha_1$, i.e., with
$\gcd (a_0,\ldots , a_n)=1$. Then $\beta_1$ has primitive minimal polynomial
\[
f_{\beta_1}(X)=\lambda f_{\alpha_1}(X/a)=\lambda (a^{-n}a_0X^n+a^{1-n}a_1X^{n-1}+\cdots +a_n),
\]
where $\lambda\in\Bbbk$ is such that the coefficients of $f_{\beta_1}$ are in $A$
and have gcd $1$. By \eqref{eq2.3}, $A_{\alpha_1}$ is a free $A$-module with basis
$1$, $\omega_1,\ldots , \omega_{n-1}$ with $\omega_i=\sum_{k=0}^{i-1} a_k\alpha_1^{i-k}$
for $i=1,\ldots , n-1$.
By replacing $\alpha_1$ with $\beta_1=a\alpha_1$, and $a_i$ by $\lambda a^{i-n}a_i$, we see that $A_{\beta_1}$ has basis $1,\lambda a^{1-n}\omega_1,\lambda a^{2-n}\omega_2,\ldots , \lambda a^{-1}\omega_{n-1}$. Since $A_{\alpha_1}=A_{\beta_1}$, this must imply
\[
\lambda a^{i-n}\in A^*\ \ \text{for } i=1,\ldots , n-1,
\]
hence $a\in A^*,\lambda\in A^*$.
\end{proof}
\section{Application of unit equations}\label{section3}
Let $K$ be a number field of degree $n\geq 4$ and $L$ its normal closure.
In the case $n=4$ we don't impose any constraints on $L$,
while for $n\geq 5$ we assume that ${\rm Gal}(L/\mathbb{Q} )$ is five times transitive.
We call $\alpha_1\in K$ $k$-\emph{special} if $K=\mathbb{Q} (\alpha_1 )$ and there are $\alpha_2,\ldots , \alpha_k$ such that $\mathbb{Z}_{\alpha_1}=\cdots =\mathbb{Z}_{\alpha_k}$ and $\alpha_1,\ldots , \alpha_k$ are pairwise ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-inequivalent.
We call $\alpha_1$ \emph{special} if it is $2$-special.
Theorem \ref{thm1.1} follows,
once we have shown that in the case $n=4$, the $3$-special numbers of $K$ lie in only finitely
many ${\rm GL}_2 (\mathbb{Z} )$-equivalence classes, and in the case $n\geq 5$ that the special numbers of $K$
lie in only finitely many ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-equivalence classes. Indeed,
the orders of $K$ with $k$ rational monogenizations are all of the shape $\mathbb{Z}_{\alpha}$ where
$\alpha$ is $k$-special, and if such $\alpha$ lie in only finitely ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-equivalence classes,
there are only finitely many orders $\mathbb{Z}_{\alpha}$.
In the present section we prove the following proposition.
Here, we apply some results from the theory of unit equations.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop3.1}
(i) Let $K$ be a quartic number field. Then the set of $3$-special numbers of $K$
is contained in finitely many ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Q} )$-equivalence classes.
\\[0.1cm]
(ii) Let $K$ be a number field of degree $n\geq 5$ such that the Galois group of its normal closure $L$ is five times transitive.
Then the set of special numbers of $K$
is contained in finitely many ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Q} )$-equivalence classes.
\end{proposition}
We will show later (see Lemma \ref{lem5.1} below) that
a ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Q} )$-equivalence class of special numbers is the union of finitely many
${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-equivalence classes.
We start with some initial observations. Let $\alpha ,\beta\in K$ with $\mathbb{Q} (\alpha )=\mathbb{Q} (\beta )=K$,
$\mathbb{Z}_{\alpha}=\mathbb{Z}_{\beta }$ and $\alpha ,\beta$ ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-inequivalent.
Then
\begin{equation}\label{eq3.1}
\begin{array}{c}
{\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\alpha )\not={\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\beta )
\\[0.1cm]
\text{for all pairwise distinct $i,j,k,l\in\{ 1,\ldots , n\}$.}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Indeed,
suppose that for some tuple $(i,j,k,l)$ we have equality, say $(1,2,3,4)$.
In the case $n=4$ this implies equality for each permutation $(i,j,k,l)$ of $(1,2,3,4)$
since ${\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\cdot )$ is a fractional linear transformation
of ${\rm cr}_{1234}(\cdot )$.
In the case $n\geq 5$, we obtain equality for all $i,j,k,l$
since by our assumption on the normal closure $L$, there is an automorphism of $L$
that maps ${\rm cr}_{1234}(\cdot )$ to ${\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\cdot )$.
Lemma \ref{lem2.3} now implies that $\alpha ,\beta$ are ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Q} )$-equivalent, and subsequently Lemma \ref{lem2.4} that $\alpha ,\beta$ are ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-equivalent,
contrary to our assumption.
Another important observation is the identity for cross ratios
\begin{equation}\label{eq3.2}
{\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\alpha )+{\rm cr}_{ilkj}(\alpha )=1
\end{equation}
for all $\alpha\in K$ and all pairwise distinct $i,j,k,l\in\{ 1,\ldots , n\}$.
Now let $\alpha, \beta$ be such that $\mathbb{Q} (\alpha )=\mathbb{Q} (\beta )=K$
and $\mathbb{Z}_{\alpha}=\mathbb{Z}_{\beta}$. Put
\[
\varepsilon_{ijkl}:=\frac{{\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\beta )}{{\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\alpha )};
\]
then from \eqref{eq3.2} and Lemma \ref{lem2.2}
we deduce
\begin{equation}\label{eq3.3}
{\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\alpha)\cdot \varepsilon_{ijkl}+{\rm cr}_{ilkj}(\alpha )\cdot \varepsilon_{ilkj}=1,\ \
\varepsilon_{ijkl}\in\mathcal{O}_L^*,\ \varepsilon_{ilkj}\in\mathcal{O}_L^*,
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{O}_L$ is the ring of integers of $L$. This allows us to apply the theory of unit equations.
We first prove part (i), and then part (ii).
\begin{proof}[Proof of part (i) of Proposition \ref{prop3.1}]
Let $K$ be a quartic number field, and let $\alpha\in K$ be $3$-special. Choose $\beta ,\gamma\in K$ such that
$\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma$ are pairwise ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-inequivalent,
and $\mathbb{Z}_{\alpha}=\mathbb{Z}_{\beta}=\mathbb{Z}_{\gamma}$. Put
\[
\varepsilon_{ijkl}:=\frac{{\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\beta )}{{\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\alpha )},\ \
\eta_{ijkl}:=\frac{{\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\gamma )}{{\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\alpha )}
\]
for each permutation $(i,j,k,l)$ of $(1,2,3,4)$.
By \eqref{eq3.1}--\eqref{eq3.3}, the pairs $(1,1)$, $(\varepsilon_{1234},\varepsilon_{1432})$,
$(\eta_{1234},\eta_{1432})$ are three distinct solutions to the equation
\[
{\rm cr}_{1234}(\alpha )x+{\rm cr}_{1432}(\alpha )y=1\ \ \text{in } x,y\in\mathcal{O}_L^*.
\]
We now apply the following result.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem3.2}
Let $F$ be a field of characteristic $0$ and $\Gamma$ a subgroup of $F^*$ of finite rank.
Then there are only finitely many pairs $(a,b)\in F^*\times F^*$ with $a+b=1$
such that the equation
\[
ax+by=1\ \ \text{in } x,y\in\Gamma
\]
has three solutions, the pair $(1,1)$ included.
\footnote{Equations with unknowns from a multiplicative $\Gamma$ of finite rank are often called
`unit equations' since in most applications, $\Gamma$ is the unit group of a domain.}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This is essentially a result of Gy\H{o}ry, Stewart, Tijdeman, and the author \cite[Thm. 1]{EGST88}. See also \cite[Thm. 6.1.6]{EG15}. Their proof uses a finiteness result
for linear unit equations in several unknowns, which in turn follows from Schmidt's Subspace Theorem.
\end{proof}
Since $\mathcal{O}_L^*$ is finitely generated, Lemma \ref{lem3.2} implies that if $\alpha$ runs through the $3$-special numbers of $K$,
then ${\rm cr}_{1234}(\alpha )$ runs through a finite set.
If $(i,j,k,l)$ is a permutation of $(1,2,3,4)$, then ${\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\cdot )$
is a fractional linear transformation of ${\rm cr}_{1234}(\cdot )$,
hence ${\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\alpha )$ runs through a finite set as well.
Now Lemma \ref{lem2.3}(ii) implies that the $3$-special numbers
$\alpha\in K$ lie in only finitely many ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Q} )$-equivalence classes.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of part (ii) of Proposition \ref{prop3.1}]
Let $K$ be a number field of degree $n\geq 5$
such that the Galois group of its normal closure $L$
is five times transitive.
Take a special $\alpha\in K$.
Choose $\beta$ such that $\mathbb{Z}_{\beta}=\mathbb{Z}_{\alpha}$. Recall that by
Lemma \ref{lem2.2}
\[
\varepsilon_{ijkl}:=\frac{{\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\beta )}{{\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\alpha )}\in \mathcal{O}_L^*
\]
for all pairwise distinct $i,j,k,l\in\{1,\ldots , n\}$.
Viewing \eqref{eq3.2} and \eqref{eq3.3} as linear equations in ${\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\alpha )$
and ${\rm cr}_{lijk}(\alpha )$ we derive from Cramer's rule,
\begin{equation}\label{eq3.4}
{\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\alpha )=\frac{\varepsilon_{ilkj}-1}{\varepsilon_{ilkj}-\varepsilon_{ijkl}}.
\end{equation}
Our strategy is as follows. Using algebraic relations between the $\varepsilon_{ijkl}$
and finiteness results for unit equations,
we show that if $\alpha$ runs through the
special numbers of $K$, then one of the $\varepsilon_{ijkl}$, say $\varepsilon_{1234}$, runs through a finite set. By the assumption
that ${\rm Gal}(L/K)$ is five times transitive, the numbers $\varepsilon_{ijkl}$ are all
conjugate to one another, thus it follows that $\varepsilon_{ijkl}$ runs through a finite set
for all $i,j,k,l$. But then, \eqref{eq3.4} implies that ${\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\alpha )$ runs through
a finite set for all $i,j,k,l$. Finally,
Lemma \ref{lem2.3}(ii) implies that the special numbers
$\alpha\in K$ lie in only finitely many ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Q} )$-equivalence classes.
We first collect some algebraic relations between the $\varepsilon_{ijkl}$.
It is straightforward to verify
\begin{equation}\label{eq3.5}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\varepsilon_{ijkl}=\varepsilon_{jilk}=\varepsilon_{klij}=\varepsilon_{lkji},
\\[0.1cm]
\varepsilon_{ijkl}^{-1}=\varepsilon_{ikjl},
\\[0.1cm]
\frac{\varepsilon_{ijkl}}{\varepsilon_{ijlk}}=\varepsilon_{ilkj}
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
for all pairwise distinct $i,j,k,l\in\{ 1,\ldots , n\}$ and moreover,
\begin{equation}\label{eq3.6}
\frac{\varepsilon_{ijkl}}{\varepsilon_{ijkm}}=\varepsilon_{jmlk}
\end{equation}
for all pairwise distinct $i,j,k,l,m\in\{ 1,\ldots , n\}$.
We derive a few more relations.
From \eqref{eq3.4} and \eqref{eq3.5} it follows that ${\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\alpha )=\varepsilon_{ijkl}^{-1}\cdot\frac{\varepsilon_{ilkj}-1}{\varepsilon_{iljk}-1}$.
Picking a fifth index $m$, we get
\begin{align*}
1 &=\frac{{\rm cr}_{jmlk}(\alpha ){\rm cr}_{ijkm}(\alpha )}{{\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\alpha)}
\\
&=\varepsilon_{jmlk}^{-1}\varepsilon_{ijkm}^{-1}\varepsilon_{ijkl}\cdot\frac{\varepsilon_{jklm}-1}{\varepsilon_{jkml}-1}\cdot
\frac{\varepsilon_{imkj}-1}{\varepsilon_{imjk}-1}\cdot\frac{\varepsilon_{iljk}-1}{\varepsilon_{ilkj}-1}
\\
&=\frac{(\varepsilon_{jklm}-1)(\varepsilon_{imkj}-1)(\varepsilon_{iljk}-1)}{(\varepsilon_{jkml}-1)(\varepsilon_{imjk}-1)(\varepsilon_{ilkj}-1)}.
\end{align*}
We apply this with $(i,j,k,l,m)=(5,1,2,3,4)$. Thus, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq3.8}
(\varepsilon_{1234}-1)(\varepsilon_{1245}-1)(\varepsilon_{1253}-1)=(\varepsilon_{1243}-1)(\varepsilon_{1254}-1)(\varepsilon_{1235}-1),
\end{equation}
where, as mentioned before, all entries belong to $\mathcal{O}_L^*$.
We apply the following result.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem3.3}
Let $F$ be a field of characteristic $0$ and $\Gamma$ a subgroup of $F^*$
of finite rank. Consider the equation
\begin{align}\label{eq3.9}
(x_1-1)(x_2-1)(x_3-1)=\,&(y_1-1)(y_2-1)(y_3-1)
\\
\notag
&\text{ in } x_1,x_2,x_3,y_1,y_2,y_3\in\Gamma.
\end{align}
There is a finite subset $\SS$ of $\Gamma$ such that every solution of \eqref{eq3.9}
satisfies one of the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] at least one of $x_1,\ldots , y_3$ belongs to $\SS$;
\item[(b)]
there are $s_1,s_2,s_3\in\{ \pm 1\}$ such that $(x_1,x_3,x_3)$ is a permutation of $(y_1^{s_1},y_2^{s_2},y_3^{s_3})$;
\item[(c)] at least one of the numbers in $\{ x_ix_j, x_i/x_j ,y_iy_j, y_i/y_j: 1\leq i<j\leq 3\}$
is either $-1$ or a primitive cube root of unity.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This is a result of B\'{e}rczes, Gy\H{o}ry, and the author \cite[Prop. 8.1]{BEG13}.
They deduced
the above lemma from a finiteness result
for linear unit equations in several unknowns, and so again Schmidt's Subspace Theorem
is at the background.
\end{proof}
We apply Lemma \ref{lem3.3} to \eqref{eq3.8}. We show that each of the three cases (a), (b), (c) gives rise to only finitely many possible values for $\varepsilon_{1234}$.
We frequently use that due to the fact that ${\rm Gal}(L/\mathbb{Q} )$
is five times transitive, all $\varepsilon_{ijkl}$ are conjugate to one another
and moreover, in all identities between the $\varepsilon_{ijkl}$,
we may always replace any quintuple $(i,j,k,l,m)$ of distinct indices
by any other such quintuple of our choice.
As a consequence, if we have shown that
one of the $\varepsilon_{ijkl}$ runs through a finite set, then so does
$\varepsilon_{1234}$. This settles case (a). As for (b) and (c),
using again the above observations, we are left with the following subcases.
Let $\mathcal{T}$ denote the group of $6$-th roots of unity in $L$.
\\[0.2cm]
{\bf Case b1.} $\varepsilon_{1234}=\varepsilon_{1243}$.
\\
Then by \eqref{eq3.5}, $\varepsilon_{1432}=\frac{\varepsilon_{1234}}{\varepsilon_{1243}}=1$,
which by conjugacy implies $\varepsilon_{1234}=1$.
\\[0.2cm]
{\bf Case b2.} $\varepsilon_{1234}=\varepsilon_{1243}^{-1}$.
\\
By \eqref{eq3.5}, $\varepsilon_{1243}^{-1}=\varepsilon_{1234}^{-1}\varepsilon_{1432}$, so $\varepsilon_{1234}^2=\varepsilon_{1432}$.
By conjugacy, we may interchange the indices $2,3$, while keeping $1$ and $4$ fixed,
so we have also $\varepsilon_{1324}=\varepsilon_{1342}^{-1}$. Applying again \eqref{eq3.5},
this gives $\varepsilon_{1234}=\varepsilon_{1432}^{-1}$. Hence $\varepsilon_{1234}^3=1$.
\\[0.2cm]
{\bf Case b3.} $\varepsilon_{1234}=\varepsilon_{1254}$.
\\
By \eqref{eq3.5}, \eqref{eq3.6}, $1=\frac{\varepsilon_{1234}}{\varepsilon_{1254}}=\frac{\varepsilon_{2143}}{\varepsilon_{2145}}=\varepsilon_{1534}$. By conjugacy, $\varepsilon_{1234}=1$.
\\[0.2cm]
{\bf Case b4.} $\varepsilon_{1234}=\varepsilon_{1254}^{-1}$.
\\
By conjugacy, we may interchange $2$ and $3$, keeping $1,4,5$ fixed, so we have $\varepsilon_{1324}=\varepsilon_{1354}^{-1}$,
which together with \eqref{eq3.5} implies $\varepsilon_{1234}=\varepsilon_{1354}$.
From \eqref{eq3.5} and \eqref{eq3.6} we deduce $\frac{\varepsilon_{1254}}{\varepsilon_{1354}}=\varepsilon_{1234}$.
Multiplying these relations together, we obtain $\varepsilon_{1234}^3=1$.
\\[0.2cm]
{\bf Case c1.} $\varepsilon_{1234}\cdot \varepsilon_{1245}\in\mathcal{T}$.
\\
By interchanging $3$ and $5$, keeping $1,2,4$ fixed, we see that $\varepsilon_{1254}\cdot \varepsilon_{1243}\in\mathcal{T}$.
Using \eqref{eq3.5}, \eqref{eq3.6}, we get
\[
\frac{\varepsilon_{1234}\cdot \varepsilon_{1245}}{\varepsilon_{1254}\cdot\varepsilon_{1243}}=\frac{\varepsilon_{1534}}{\varepsilon_{2534}}=\varepsilon_{1532}\in \mathcal{T}
\]
and by conjugacy, $\varepsilon_{1234}\in\mathcal{T}$.
\\[0.2cm]
{\bf Case c2.} $\frac{\varepsilon_{1234}}{\varepsilon_{1245}}\in\mathcal{T}$.
\\
Interchanging $2$ and $3$, keeping $1,4,5$ fixed, we obtain
$\frac{\varepsilon_{1324}}{\varepsilon_{1345}}\in\mathcal{T}$, and then, using $\varepsilon_{1324}=\varepsilon_{1234}^{-1}$,
$\varepsilon_{1245}\cdot\varepsilon_{1345}\in\mathcal{T}$.
By taking conjugates, we get $\varepsilon_{1234}\cdot\varepsilon_{1235}\in\mathcal{T}$,
and also $\varepsilon_{1234}\cdot\varepsilon_{5234}\in\mathcal{T}$. Applying \eqref{eq3.6},
the latter yields $\varepsilon_{1234}\cdot \frac{\varepsilon_{1234}}{\varepsilon_{1235}}\in\mathcal{T}$.
Hence $\varepsilon_{1234}^3\in\mathcal{T}$.
\\[0.2cm]
As mentioned above, this completes the proof of Proposition \ref{prop3.1}.
\end{proof}
\section{Investigation of ${\rm GL}_2(\Bbbk )$-classes}\label{section4}
Let $K$ be a number field of degree $\geq 4$. In the next section we show (Lemma \ref{lem5.1})
that each ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Q} )$-equivalence class of special numbers in $K$ is the union
of finitely many ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-equivalence classes. Together with Proposition \ref{prop3.1}
this will imply Theorem \ref{thm1.1}. In the present section, we develop some
machinery needed for the proof of Lemma \ref{lem5.1}.
We have worked out this machinery for arbitrary principal ideal domains
of characteristic $0$ so that we can use it also in Section \ref{section6}
where we will prove a generalization of Theorem \ref{thm1.1} over
rings of $S$-integers of number fields.
Let $A$ be a principal ideal domain of characteristic $0$, $\Bbbk$ its field of fractions,
$K$ an extension of $\Bbbk$ of degree $n\geq 4$, and $L$ the normal closure of $K$.
We consider so-called \emph{special pairs} in $K$, i.e., pairs
$(\alpha ,\beta )$ such that $\Bbbk (\alpha )=\Bbbk (\beta )=K$, $A_{\alpha}=A_{\beta}$
and $\alpha ,\beta$
are ${\rm GL}_2(A)$-inequivalent.
Two special pairs $(\alpha ,\beta )$ and $(\alpha^*,\beta^*)$
are called ${\rm GL}_2(\Bbbk )$-equivalent if $\alpha^*$ is ${\rm GL}_2(\Bbbk )$-equivalent to $\alpha$
and $\beta^*$ is ${\rm GL}_2(\Bbbk )$-equivalent to $\beta$.
Let $(\alpha ,\beta )$, $(\alpha^*,\beta^*)$ be two ${\rm GL}_2(\Bbbk )$-equivalent
special pairs. Then since we are working over a principal ideal domain $A$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq4.1}
\alpha^*=C\alpha,\ \ \beta^*=C'\beta ,
\end{equation}
where $C=\begin{pmatrix}a&b\\c&d\end{pmatrix}$, $C'=\begin{pmatrix}a'&b'\\c'&d'\end{pmatrix}$,
with
\begin{align*}
&a,b,c,d\in A,\ \ \gcd(a,b,c,d)=1,\ \ \Delta :=ad-bc\not= 0,
\\
&a',b',c',d'\in A,\ \ \gcd (a',b',c',d')=1,\ \ \ \Delta':=a'd'-b'c'\not= 0.
\end{align*}
Recall that by Lemma \ref{lem2.2}
we have $\frac{{\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\beta )}{{\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\alpha )}\in A_L^*$
for all pairwise distinct $i,j,k,l\in\{ 1,\ldots , n\}$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop4.1}
Let $\mathfrak{d}$ be the discriminant ideal of $A_{\alpha}$,
and let $\mathfrak{a} (\alpha ,\beta )$ denote the ideal of $A_L$ generated by all numbers
$\frac{{\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\beta )}{{\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\alpha )}-1$ for all pairwise distinct $i,j,k,l\in\{ 1,\ldots , n\}$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{eq4.0}
\Delta A_L\supseteq
\mathfrak{d}^{5}\cdot\mathfrak{a} (\alpha ,\beta )^{2}.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\noindent
Recall that by Lemmas \ref{lem2.3} and \ref{lem2.4}, the ideal $\mathfrak{a} (\alpha ,\beta )$
is not zero.
We start with some preparations and then prove two lemmas, which together imply
Proposition \ref{prop4.1}.
Let $C,C'$ be the matrices from \eqref{eq4.1}.
Since $A$ is a principal ideal domain,
there are matrices $U,V,U',V'\in{\rm GL}_2(A)$ such that
\[
UCV=\begin{pmatrix}\Delta&0\\ 0&1\end{pmatrix},\ \ U'C'V'=\begin{pmatrix}\Delta'&0\\ 0&1\end{pmatrix}.
\]
Put $\alpha_1:= V^{-1}\alpha $, $\alpha_1^*:=U\alpha^*$, $\beta_1:=V'^{-1}\beta$,
$\beta_1^*:=U'\beta$. Then $\alpha_1^*=\Delta\alpha_1$, $\beta_1^*=\Delta'\beta_1$,
$A_{\alpha_1}=A_{\beta_1}$, $A_{\alpha_1^*}=A_{\beta_1^*}$,
$(\alpha_1 ,\beta_1)$, $(\alpha_1^*,\beta_1^*)$ are ${\rm GL}_2(\Bbbk )$-equivalent
special pairs, and $\mathfrak{a} (\alpha_1,\beta_1)=\mathfrak{a} (\alpha ,\beta )$.
So in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop4.1} we may
replace $\alpha$, $\alpha^*$, $\beta$, $\beta^*$ by $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_1^*$,
$\beta_1$, $\beta_1^*$, in other words, without loss of generality we may assume
\begin{equation}\label{eq4.2}
\alpha^*=\Delta\alpha,\ \ \beta^*=\Delta'\beta .
\end{equation}
So assume \eqref{eq4.2}. Let
\[
f_{\alpha}=a_0X^n+\cdots +a_n,\ \ f_{\beta}=b_0X^n+\cdots +b_n
\]
be primitive minimal polynomials of $\alpha ,\beta$.
By Lemma \ref{lem2.0}, the ring $A_{\alpha} = A_{\beta}$ has $A$-module bases
\[
\{1,\omega_1,\ldots , \omega_{n-1}\},\ \ \{ 1,\rho_1,\ldots , \rho_{n-1}\}
\]
respectively, where
\begin{equation}\label{eq4.4}
\omega_i=\sum_{j=0}^{i-1} a_j\alpha^{i-j},\ \ \rho_i=\sum_{j=0}^{i-1} b_j\beta^{i-j}
\ \ (i=1,\ldots , n-1).
\end{equation}
Hence there are a matrix $M=(m_{ij})_{i,j=1,\ldots , n-1}\in{\rm GL}_{n-1}(A)$
and $m_{i,0}\in A$ ($i=1,\ldots , n-1$) such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq4.5}
\rho_i=m_{i,0}+\sum_{j=1}^{n-1} m_{ij}\omega_j\ \ \text{for } i=1,\ldots , n-1.
\end{equation}
Let us write $[\ldots ]$ for the fractional ideal of $A$ generated by the
elements between the brackets.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem4.2}
The following holds:
\begin{align}
\label{eq4.-1}
&[\Delta ]=[\Delta'],
\\
\label{eq4.9}
&\mod{m_{ij}}{0}{\Delta^{j-i}}\ \ \text{for } i=1,\ldots , n-1,\, j>i,
\\
\label{eq4.10}
&\gcd (m_{ii},\Delta )=1\ \ \text{for } i=1,\ldots , n-1,
\\
\label{eq4.11}
&[a_0,\Delta ]=[b_0,\Delta ].
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By \eqref{eq4.2}, there are non-zero $\lambda ,\mu\in\Bbbk$,
such that $\alpha^*$, $\beta^*$ have primitive minimal polynomials
\begin{equation}\label{eq4.3}
\begin{split}
f_{\alpha^*} &=\lambda (a_0\Delta^{-n}X^n +a_1\Delta^{1-n}X^{n-1}+\cdots +a_n),
\\
f_{\beta^*} &=\mu (b_0\Delta'^{-n}X^n+b_1\Delta'^{1-n}X^{n-1}+\cdots +b_n).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
From \eqref{eq4.2}, \eqref{eq4.3} it follows that $A_{\alpha^*}=A_{\beta^*}$ has $A$-module bases
\begin{equation}\label{eq4.6}
\{ 1, \lambda\Delta^{1-n}\omega_1,\ldots , \lambda\Delta^{-1}\omega_{n-1}\},\ \
\{ 1, \mu\Delta'^{1-n}\rho_1,\ldots , \mu\Delta'^{-1}\rho_{n-1}\}.
\end{equation}
Hence there are $M^*=(m_{ij}^*)_{i,j=1,\ldots , n-1}\in{\rm GL}_{n-1}(A)$ and $m_{i,0}^*\in A$
($i=1,\ldots , n-1$) such that
\[
\mu\Delta'^{i-n}\rho_i=m_{i,0}^*+\sum_{j=1}^{n-1} m_{ij}^*\lambda\Delta^{j-n}\omega_j\ \ \text{for } i=1,\ldots , n-1.
\]
A comparison with \eqref{eq4.5} gives
\[
\mu\Delta'^{i-n}\rho_i=t_{i,0}+\sum_{j=1}^{n-1} t_{ij}\omega_j\ \ (i=1,\ldots , n),
\]
where
\begin{equation}\label{eq4.8}
t_{ij}=\mu\Delta'^{i-n}m_{ij}=\lambda\Delta^{j-n}m_{ij}^*\ \ (i,j=1,\ldots , n-1).
\end{equation}
Since $M=(m_{ij})\in{\rm GL}_{n-1}(A)$, the entries of each row of $M$ have gcd $1$.
It follows that the fractional ideal generated by the entries
of the $i$-th row of $T=(t_{ij})_{i,j=1,\ldots , n-1}$ is
$[\mu\Delta'^{i-n}]$.
Hence the fractional ideal generated by all entries of $T$ is
$[\mu\Delta'^{1-n}]$. Similarly, since also $M^*\in{\rm GL}_{n-1}(A)$,
the fractional ideal generated by the entries of the $j$-th column of $T$ is $[\lambda \Delta^{j-n}]$.
Hence the fractional ideal generated by all entries of $T$ is $[\lambda\Delta^{1-n}]$.
So $[\lambda\Delta^{1-n}]=[\mu\Delta'^{1-n}]$. On the other hand,
using $\det M\in A^*$, $\det M^*\in A^*$, we find
$[\det T]=[\lambda^{n-1}\Delta^{-n(n-1)/2}]=[\mu^{n-1}\Delta'^{-n(n-1)/2}]$.
By combining these two identities, using that $n\geq 4$, we obtain
\[
[\lambda ]=[\mu ],\ \ [\Delta ]=[\Delta '].
\]
This proves \eqref{eq4.-1}.
Further, by \eqref{eq4.8},
\[
[m_{ij}]=[\Delta^{j-i}m_{ij}^*],
\]
and since $m_{ij}^*\in A$ this implies \eqref{eq4.9}.
Combining \eqref{eq4.9} with $\det M\in A^*$ we obtain \eqref{eq4.10}.
It remains to prove \eqref{eq4.11}.
Note that by \eqref{eq4.4} we have
\[
\omega_1^2=a_1\omega_1-a_0\omega_2,\ \ \rho_1^2=b_1\rho_1-b_0\rho_2.
\]
Substituting \eqref{eq4.5} and using the congruences \eqref{eq4.9}, we obtain
the following congruences modulo $\Delta A_{\alpha}$:
\begin{align*}
&b_1(m_{1,0}+m_{1,1}\omega_1)-b_0(m_{2,0}+m_{2,1}\omega_1+m_{2,2}\omega_2)
\\
&\equiv (m_{1,0}+m_{1,1}\omega_1 )^2\equiv m_{1,0}^2+2m_{1,0}m_{1,1}\omega_1+m_{1,1}^2\omega_1^2
\\
&\equiv m_{1,0}^2+2m_{1,0}m_{1,1}\omega_1+m_{1,1}^2(a_1\omega_1-a_0\omega_2)
\\
&\equiv m_{1,0}^2+(2m_{1,0}m_{1,1}+m_{1,1}^2a_1)\omega_1-m_{1,1}^2a_0\omega_2\ (\text{mod}\,\Delta A_{\alpha}).
\end{align*}
Comparing the coefficients of $\omega_2$, we see that $\mod{b_0m_{2,2}}{a_0m_{1,1}^2}{\Delta}$.
Combined with \eqref{eq4.10}, this gives \eqref{eq4.11}.
\end{proof}
For the remainder of the proof of \eqref{eq4.0} it will be convenient to work
locally. Let $\mathcal{V}_L$ be the set of discrete valuations on $L$ corresponding
to the non-zero prime ideals of $A_L$, i.e., $v\in\mathcal{V}_L$ corresponds to the
prime ideal $\mathfrak{p}$ if $v(x)$ is the exponent of $\mathfrak{p}$
in the unique prime ideal decomposition of $[x]$.
Further, put $\delta_v:=v(\mathfrak{d} )=\min\{ v(x):\, x\in\mathfrak{d}\}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem4.3}
Let $v\in\mathcal{V}_L$.
Then for all pairwise distinct $i,j,k,l\in\{ 1,\ldots , n\}$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq4.12}
v(\Delta )\leq 5\delta_v + 2\cdot v\Big(\frac{{\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\beta )}{{\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\alpha )}-1\Big).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\noindent
By applying Lemma \ref{lem4.3} for all $v\in\mathcal{V}_L$, \eqref{eq4.0} clearly follows.
\begin{proof}
We assume without loss of generality
\begin{equation}\label{eq4.15}
v(\Delta )>5\cdot \delta_v.
\end{equation}
We frequently use the following facts.
Let as before $x\mapsto x^{(i)}$ ($i=1,\ldots , n$) be the $\Bbbk$-isomorphic embeddings of $K$ in $L$ so that
\[
f_{\alpha}=a_0(X-\alpha^{(1)})\cdots (X-\alpha^{(n)}),\ \
f_{\beta}=a_0(X-\beta^{(1)})\cdots (X-\beta^{(n)}).
\]
Since $f_{\alpha},f_{\beta}$ are primitive,
we have by Gauss' Lemma,
\begin{equation}\label{eq4.13}
v(a_0)+\sum_{i=1}^n\min (0,v(\alpha^{(i)}))=0,\ \ v(b_0)+\sum_{i=1}^n\min (0,v(\beta^{(i)}))=0.
\end{equation}
By Lemma \ref{lem2.-1} we have $\mathfrak{d} =[D(f_{\alpha})]=[D({f_{\beta}})]$.
Using $D(f_{\alpha})=\\ a_0^{2n-2}\prod_{1\leq i<j\leq n} (\alpha^{(i)}-\alpha^{(j)})^2$
and likewise for $f_{\beta}$, and inserting \eqref{eq4.13}, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq4.14}
\begin{split}
\mbox{$\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}$}\delta_v &=\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq n}\!\! \Big(v(\alpha^{(i)}-\alpha^{(j)})-\min (0,v(\alpha^{(i)}))-\min (0,v(\alpha^{(j)}))\Big)
\\
&=\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq n}\!\! \Big(v(\beta^{(i)}-\beta^{(j)})-\min (0,v(\beta^{(i)}))-\min (0,v(\beta^{(j)}))\Big).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
For $a,b,c\in L$ we write $\mod{a}{b}{c}$
if $v(a-b)\geq v(c)$.
By \eqref{eq4.5} and \eqref{eq4.9} we have
\[
\mod{b_0\beta^{(i)}}{m_{1,0}+m_{1,1}a_0\alpha^{(i)}}{\Delta}\ \ \text{for } i=1,\ldots , n;
\]
here we used that $\omega_j,\, \rho_j$ $(j=1,\ldots , n-1)$ and their
conjugates all lie in $A_L$. This implies
\begin{equation}\label{eq4.14a}
\mod{b_0(\beta^{(i)}-\beta^{(j)})}{m_{1,1}a_0(\alpha^{(i)}-\alpha^{(j)})}{\Delta}\ \
\text{for } i,j=1,\ldots , n.
\end{equation}
In the remainder of the proof we distinguish two cases.
First assume that
\[
v(a_0)\leq \mbox{$\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}$} v(\Delta ).
\]
Let $i,j$ be any two distinct indices from $\{ 1,\ldots , n\}$.
Then by \eqref{eq4.10}, \eqref{eq4.14},
\begin{align*}
&v(m_{1,1}a_0(\alpha^{(i}-\alpha^{(j)}))
\\
&\qquad\leq v(a_0)+v(\alpha^{(i)}-\alpha^{(j)})-
\min (0,v(\alpha^{(i)}))-\min (0,v(\alpha^{(j)}))
\\
&\qquad\leq \mbox{$\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}$} v(\Delta )+\mbox{$\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}$}\delta_v,
\end{align*}
and together with \eqref{eq4.14a} this gives
\[
v\Big(\frac{b_0(\beta^{(i)}-\beta^{(j)})}{m_{1,1}a_0(\alpha^{(i)}-\alpha^{(j)})}-1\Big)
\geq \mbox{$\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}$} v(\Delta )-\mbox{$\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}$} \delta_v,
\]
which is $>0$ by \eqref{eq4.15}.
Using the trivial observation for discrete valuations
\begin{equation}\label{eq4.observation}
v(x_i-1)\geq c>0\ \text{for } i=1,2,3,4 \Longrightarrow v\Big(\frac{x_1x_2}{x_3x_4}-1\Big)\geq c
\end{equation}
we deduce
\[
v\Big(\frac{{\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\beta )}{{\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\alpha )}-1\Big)\geq \mbox{$\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}$} v(\Delta )-\mbox{$\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}$}\delta_v
\]
for all pairwise distinct $i,j,k,l\in\{ 1,\ldots , n\}$, which implies \eqref{eq4.12}.
\\[0.2cm]
Next, assume that
\begin{equation}\label{eq4.a0}
v(a_0)>\mbox{$\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}$} v(\Delta ).
\end{equation}
Then \eqref{eq4.11} implies that also
\begin{equation}\label{eq4.b0}
v(b_0)>\mbox{$\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}$} v(\Delta ).
\end{equation}
We first observe
\begin{equation}\label{eq4.22}
v(a_1)\leq \delta_v,\ \ v(b_1)\leq\delta_v.
\end{equation}
Indeed, recall that the discriminant $D(F)$ of a binary form
$F=\\ \sum_{i=0}^nx_iX^{n-i}Y^i$ is a polynomial in $\mathbb{Z} [x_0,\ldots , x_n]$.
Consequently, if $F$ as above and
$G=\sum_{i=0}^ny_iX^{n-i}Y^i$ are binary forms in $A[X,Y]$, we have $v(D(F)-D(G))\geq\min_{0\leq i\leq n} v(x_i-y_i)$.
Applying this with $F(X,Y)=Y^nf_{\alpha}(X/Y)$ and $G(X,Y)=F(X,Y)-a_0X^n-a_1X^{n-1}Y$,
and noting that $D(G)=0$ since $G$ is divisible by $Y^2$,
we have
\[
\delta_v=v(D(F))=v(D(F)-D(G))\geq\min (v(a_0),v(a_1)).
\]
By \eqref{eq4.a0}, \eqref{eq4.15} we have $v(a_0)>\mbox{$\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}$} v(\Delta )>\delta_v$.
Hence $v(a_1)\leq\delta_v$. The proof of $v(b_1)\leq\delta_v$ is the same, using \eqref{eq4.b0}
instead of \eqref{eq4.a0}.
Assume without loss of generality that
\[
v(\alpha^{(1)})=\min (v(\alpha^{(1)}),\ldots , v(\alpha^{(n)})).
\]
Then
\begin{equation}\label{eq4.18a}
v(\alpha^{(i)})\geq -\mbox{$\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}$} \delta_v\ \ \text{for } i=2,\ldots , n.
\end{equation}
Indeed, suppose that $v(\alpha^{(i)})<-\mbox{$\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}$}\delta_v$ for some $i\geq 2$. Then
by \eqref{eq4.14},
\[
\mbox{$\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}$}\delta_v\geq v\big({\alpha^{(1)}}^{-1}-{\alpha^{(i)}}^{-1}\big)>\mbox{$\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}$}\delta_v,
\]
which is impossible. Thus,
\begin{equation}\label{eq4.18}
\begin{split}
v(a_0\alpha^{(i)}) &>\mbox{$\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}$} v(\Delta )-\mbox{$\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}$} \delta_v
\ \ \text{for } i\geq 2,
\\
v(a_0\alpha^{(1)})&=v(a_1+a_0(\alpha^{(2)}+\cdots +\alpha^{(n)}))\leq \delta_v,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where in the derivation of the first inequality we used \eqref{eq4.a0}
and in that of the last inequality \eqref{eq4.22}, \eqref{eq4.15}.
Let $k$ be an index such that
\[
v(\beta^{(k)})=\min (v(\beta^{(1)}),\ldots , v(\beta^{(n)})).
\]
Then completely similarly to
\eqref{eq4.18a}, \eqref{eq4.18} we derive
\begin{equation}\label{eq4.19}
\begin{split}
&v(\beta^{(i)})\geq -\mbox{$\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}$}\delta_v\ \ \text{for } i\not= k,
\\
&v(b_0\beta^{(k)}) \leq\delta_v,\
v(b_0\beta^{(i)}) >\mbox{$\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}$} v(\Delta )-\mbox{$\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}$}\delta_v\ \ \text{for }i\not= k,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where we used \eqref{eq4.b0} instead of \eqref{eq4.a0}.
We show that the index $k$ must be equal to $1$.
Recall that by \eqref{eq4.14a},
\[
\mod{b_0(\beta^{(i)}-\beta^{(1)})}{m_{1,1}a_0(\alpha^{(i)}-\alpha^{(1)})}{\Delta}\ \
\text{for } i\geq 2.
\]
Assuming $k\not= 1$, for $i\not= 1,k$ this congruence contradicts the two inequalities
\begin{align*}
&v(b_0(\beta^{(i)}-\beta^{(1)}))>\mbox{$\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}$} v(\Delta )-\mbox{$\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}$}\delta_v\ \
\text{implied by \eqref{eq4.19},}
\\
&v(m_{1,1}a_0(\alpha^{(i)}-\alpha^{(1)}))\leq \delta_v<\mbox{$\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}$} v(\Delta )-\mbox{$\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}$}\delta_v
\end{align*}
implied by \eqref{eq4.10}, \eqref{eq4.18}, \eqref{eq4.15}.
So indeed $k=1$, and thus, \eqref{eq4.19} becomes
\begin{equation}\label{eq4.21}
\begin{split}
&v(\beta^{(i)})\geq -\mbox{$\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}$}\delta_v\ \ \text{for } i\geq 2,
\\
&v(b_0\beta^{(1)}) \leq \delta_v,\
v(b_0\beta^{(i)}) >\mbox{$\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}$} v(\Delta )-\mbox{$\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}$}\delta_v\ \ \text{for }i\geq 2.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Let $i\in\{ 2,\ldots , n\}$. By \eqref{eq4.5} and \eqref{eq4.9} we have
\[
\mod{b_0{\beta^{(i)}}^2+b_1\beta^{(i)}}{m_{2,0}+m_{2,1}a_0\alpha^{(i)}+m_{2,2}(a_0{\alpha^{(i)}}^2+a_1\alpha^{(i)})}{\Delta},
\]
while
\begin{align*}
&v(a_0{\alpha^{(i)}}^2)> \mbox{$\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}$} v(\Delta )-\delta_v\ \
\text{by \eqref{eq4.a0}, \eqref{eq4.18a},}
\\
&v(b_0{\beta^{(i)}}^2)>\mbox{$\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}$} v(\Delta )-\delta_v\ \
\text{by \eqref{eq4.b0}, \eqref{eq4.21},}
\\
&v(a_0\alpha^{(i)})>\mbox{$\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}$} v(\Delta )-\mbox{$\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}$} \delta_v\ \ \text{by \eqref{eq4.a0}, \eqref{eq4.18a}.}
\end{align*}
These relations together imply
\[
v(b_1\beta^{(i)}-m_{2,0}-m_{2,2}a_1\alpha^{(i)})>\mbox{$\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}$} v(\Delta )-\delta_v\ \
\text{for } i\geq 2.
\]
Now let $i,j$ be any two distinct indices with $2\leq i,j\leq n$. Then by the inequality just derived,
\begin{equation}\label{eq4.24}
v\big(b_1(\beta^{(i)}-\beta^{(j)})-m_{2,2}a_1(\alpha^{(i)}-\alpha^{(j)})\big)>
\mbox{$\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}$} v(\Delta ) -\delta_v .
\end{equation}
Further, by \eqref{eq4.10}, \eqref{eq4.22},
\eqref{eq4.14},
\[
\begin{split}
&v(m_{2,2}a_1(\alpha^{(i)}-\alpha^{(j)}))
\\
&\qquad \leq v(a_1)+v(\alpha^{(i)}-\alpha^{(j)})-\min (0,v(\alpha^{(i)}))-\min (0,v(\alpha^{(j)}))
\\
&\qquad \leq\smallfrac{3}{2}\delta_v,
\end{split}
\]
which together with \eqref{eq4.24} implies
\begin{equation}\label{eq4.25}
v\Big(\frac{b_1(\beta^{(i)}-\beta^{(j)})}{m_{2,2}a_1(\alpha^{(i)}-\alpha^{(j)})}-1\Big)>
\mbox{$\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}$} v(\Delta )-\smallfrac{5}{2}\delta_v.
\end{equation}
Inequality \eqref{eq4.25} holds for any pair of indices $i,j\geq 2$.
We still have to look at the case where one of the indices is $1$.
Let $j\geq 2$. Then by \eqref{eq4.18}, \eqref{eq4.15},
\[
v(a_0(\alpha^{(1)}-\alpha^{(j)}))\leq \delta_v,
\]
which together with \eqref{eq4.14a} implies
\begin{equation}\label{eq4.28}
v\Big(\frac{b_0(\beta^{(1)}-\beta^{(j)})}{m_{1,1}a_0(\alpha^{(1)}-\alpha^{(j)})}-1\Big)
>v(\Delta )-\delta_v.
\end{equation}
Finally, from \eqref{eq4.25}, \eqref{eq4.28}, \eqref{eq4.15} and observation \eqref{eq4.observation}
we deduce
\[
v\Big(\frac{{\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\beta )}{{\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\alpha )}-1\Big)>
\mbox{$\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}$} v(\Delta )-\smallfrac{5}{2}\delta_v
\]
for all pairwise distinct $i,j,k,l\in\{ 1,\ldots , n\}$.
This implies \eqref{eq4.12} and thus completes the proof of Proposition \ref{prop4.1}.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Theorems \ref{thm1.1}--\ref{thm1.3}}\label{section5}
Let $K$ be a number field.
Recall that $\alpha_1\in K$ is called $k$-special if $K=\mathbb{Q} (\alpha_1 )$
and there are $\alpha_2,\ldots , \alpha_k$
such that $\alpha_1,\ldots ,\alpha_k$ are pairwise ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-inequivalent and
$\mathbb{Z}_{\alpha_1}=\cdots =\mathbb{Z}_{\alpha_k}$. A $2$-special number in $K$ is called special.
We first prove the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem5.1}
Let $K$ a number field of degree $n\geq 3$.
Then every ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Q} )$-equivalence class of special
$\alpha\in K$ is the union of at most finitely many ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-equivalence classes.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First let $n=3$. By Lemma \ref{lem2.3} (i) and Lemma \ref{lem2.4},
any two numbers $\alpha$, $\beta$ with $\mathbb{Z}_{\alpha}=\mathbb{Z}_{\beta}$
are ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-equivalent. Hence there are no special numbers in $K$.
Next let $n\geq 4$. Denote by $L$ the normal closure of $K$.
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Q} )$-equivalence class of special $\alpha\in K$.
We first split up $\mathcal{C}$ into a finite collection of subclasses.
Since cross ratios of ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Q} )$-equivalent numbers are the same, we may define
${\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\mathcal{C} ):={\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\alpha )$ for any $\alpha\in\mathcal{C}$
and any four distinct indices $i,j,k,l\in\{ 1,\ldots , n\}$.
For every $\alpha\in\mathcal{C}$ there is $\beta\in K$
such that $\mathbb{Z}_{\alpha}=\mathbb{Z}_{\beta}$
and $\beta$ is not ${\rm GL}_2 (\mathbb{Z} )$-equivalent to $\alpha$.
From Lemma \ref{lem2.2} and \eqref{eq3.3} it follows that
$\varepsilon_{ijkl}:={\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\beta )/{\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\alpha )\in\mathcal{O}_L^*$ for all distinct $i,j,k,l\in\{ 1,\ldots , n\}$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eq5.0}
{\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\mathcal{C} )\varepsilon_{ijkl}+{\rm cr}_{ilkj}(\mathcal{C} )\varepsilon_{ilkj}=1
\end{equation}
for all distinct $i,j,k,l\in\{ 1,\ldots , n\}$.
We apply the following result, due to Lang \cite{L60}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem5.2}
Let $F$ be a field of characteristic $0$, let $a,b\in F^*$,
and let $\Gamma$ be a subgroup of $F^*$ of finite rank. Then the equation
\[
ax+by=1\ \ \text{in } x,y\in\Gamma
\]
has only finitely many solutions.
\end{lemma}
By applying this to \eqref{eq5.0}, we infer that there is a finite set depending only on $\mathcal{C}$ such that for all $i,j,k,l$,
$\varepsilon_{ijkl}$ belongs to this set, and so, for all $i,j,k,l$,
${\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\beta )$
belongs to a finite set depending only on $\mathcal{C}$.
Now Lemma \ref{lem2.3} (ii)
implies that the ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Q} )$-equivalence class of $\beta$ belongs to a finite collection
depending only on $\mathcal{C}$. Further, by Lemma \ref{lem2.4}, the classes in this
collection are disjoint from $\mathcal{C}$. This implies that $\mathcal{C}$ can be partitioned
into a finite collection of subclasses
\[
\mathcal{C} (\mathcal{D} ):=\{ \alpha\in\mathcal{C}:\ \text{there is $\beta\in\mathcal{D}$ with } \mathbb{Z}_{\alpha}=\mathbb{Z}_{\beta}\},
\]
where $\mathcal{D}$ is a ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Q} )$-equivalence class of special numbers distinct from $\mathcal{C}$.
Take a ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Q} )$-equivalence class $\mathcal{D}\not=\mathcal{C}$ for which $\mathcal{C} (\mathcal{D} )\not=\emptyset$.
We have to show that $\mathcal{C} (\mathcal{D} )$ is the union of finitely many
${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-equivalence classes.
We use that for every positive integer $\Delta$ there is a finite set of integer
$2\times 2$-matrices $\mathcal{F} (\Delta )$, such that if $C$ is any $2\times 2$-matrix with
$|\det C|=\Delta$,
then there is $U\in{\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$ with $UC\in \mathcal{F} (\Delta )$.
Fix $\alpha\in\mathcal{C} (\mathcal{D} )$ and then $\beta\in\mathcal{D}$ with $\mathbb{Z}_{\alpha}=\mathbb{Z}_{\beta}$.
Then choose $\alpha^*\in\mathcal{C} (\mathcal{D} )$; we let $\alpha^*$ vary. Further choose
$\beta^*\in\mathcal{D}$ with $\mathbb{Z}_{\alpha^*}=\mathbb{Z}_{\beta^*}$.
Thus, $(\alpha ,\beta )$ and $(\alpha^*, \beta^*)$ are
two ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Q} )$-equivalent special pairs as in Proposition \ref{prop4.1}, with $A=\mathbb{Z}$.
Let $C$ be the matrix from \eqref{eq4.1}, so with $\alpha^*=C\alpha$,
and put $\Delta :=|\det C |$.
Then there is $U\in{\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$ such that
\[
UC=:C_1\in \mathcal{F} (\Delta ).
\]
Let $\alpha^{**}:=U\alpha^*=C_1\alpha$.
By Proposition \ref{prop4.1}, $\Delta$ belongs to a finite set depending on $\alpha ,\beta$,
hence so does $C_1$, and thus $\alpha^{**}$.
This implies that the ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-equivalence class of $\alpha^*$ belongs to a finite
collection depending on $\alpha ,\beta$.
This shows that indeed, $\mathcal{C} (\mathcal{D} )$ is the union of finitely many
${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-equivalence classes.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm1.1}]
Proposition \ref{prop3.1} and Lemma \ref{lem5.1} imply that if $K$
is quartic then the $3$-special numbers $\alpha\in K$ lie in finitely many
${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-equivalence classes. Further, if $K$ has degree $\geq 5$
and the Galois group of its normal closure is five times transitive,
then the special numbers in $K$ lie in finitely many ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-equivalence classes.
As we observed in Section \ref{section3}, this implies Theorem \ref{thm1.1}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm1.2}]
Let $K$ be either a quartic field, or a number field of degree $\geq 5$ such that the Galois group of the normal closure
of $K$ is five times transitive. Consider a Hermite equivalence class $\mathcal{H}$
of polynomials in $\mathcal{P}\mathcal{I} (K)$ that falls apart into at least three ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-equivalence classes if $[K:\mathbb{Q} ]=4$, and at least two ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-equivalence classes
if $[K:\mathbb{Q} ]\geq 5$.
Recall that two polynomials $f,g\in\mathcal{P}\mathcal{I} (K)$ are Hermite equivalent
if $f$ has a root $\alpha$ and $g$ a root $\beta$ such that $\mathcal{M}_{\beta }=\lambda\mathcal{M}_{\alpha}$
for some non-zero $\lambda$. This implies $\mathbb{Z}_{\alpha}=\mathbb{Z}_{\beta}$.
Now if $f,g\in\mathcal{H}$ are ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-inequivalent, then so are $\alpha ,\beta$.
So the order $\mathcal{O}=\mathbb{Z}_{\alpha}$ has at least three rational monogenizations
if $[K:\mathbb{Q} ]=4$, and at least two rational monogenizations if $[K:\mathbb{Q} ]\geq 5$.
Since $\mathcal{O}$ is an order
of a conjugate of $K$ and there are only finitely many conjugates,
Theorem \ref{thm1.1} implies that there are only finitely many
possibilities for $\mathcal{O}$.
Given $\mathcal{O}$, the set of $\alpha$ with $\mathbb{Z}_{\alpha}=\mathcal{O}$
is the union of finitely many ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-equivalence classes.
Hence the set of $f\in\mathcal{P}\mathcal{I} (K)$ having a root $\alpha$ with $\mathbb{Z}_{\alpha}=\mathcal{O}$
is the union of finitely many ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-equivalence classes.
The class $\mathcal{H}$ is the union of some of these classes.
So we have only finitely many possibilities for $\mathcal{H}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm1.3}]
Take an algebraic number $\alpha$ of degree $n\geq 3$.
Let $f_{\alpha}(X)=a_0X^n+\cdots +a_n\in\mathbb{Z} [X]$ be the primitive minimal polynomial
of $\alpha$ and $F_{\alpha}(X,Y):=X^nf_{\alpha} (X/Y)$ its homogenization.
By Thue's Theorem \cite{T1909}, there is a number $C$ such that if $x,y$ are integers
with $F_{\alpha}(x,y)=\pm 1$, then $|x|,|y|\leq C$.
Let $p,q$ be distinct prime numbers such that $p,q>C^*:=\max (C, |a_0|,|a_n|)$.
The number $(q/p)\alpha$ has primitive minimal polynomial $f_{q\alpha /p}(X)=q^nf_{\alpha}(pX/q)$
(one verifies easily that the coefficients of this polynomial have $\gcd$ $1$,
since $p,q >|a_0|,|a_n|)$. The polynomial $f_{q\alpha /p}$, hence the order
$\mathbb{Z}_{q\alpha /p}$, has discriminant $(pq)^{n(n-1)}D(f_{\alpha})$,
so the orders $\mathbb{Z}_{q\alpha /p}$, with $p,q$ running through the primes exceeding $C^*$,
are all different.
We claim that among these orders, at most finitely many are monogenic.
Indeed, suppose that $\mathbb{Z}_{q\alpha /p}$ is monogenic.
Then $\mathbb{Z}_{q\alpha/p}=\mathbb{Z}_{\beta}=\mathbb{Z} [\beta ]$ for some algebraic integer $\beta$.
Assume that $\beta$ is ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-equivalent to $q\alpha /p$. That is,
$\beta =\frac{a(q\alpha /p)+b}{c(q\alpha /p)+d}$ for some $\big(\begin{smallmatrix}a&b\\ c&d\end{smallmatrix}\big)\in{\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$. Then the necessarily monic primitive minimal polynomial
of $\beta$ is
\[
f_{\beta}(X)=\pm q^n(-cX+a)^nf_{\alpha}\Big(\frac{p(dX-b)}{q(-cX+a)}\Big).
\]
Its homogenization is
\[
F_{\beta}(X,Y)=Y^nf_{\beta}(X/Y)=\pm F_{\alpha}(p(dX-bY),q(-cX+aY)).
\]
Since $\beta$ is integral, the leading coefficient of $f_{\beta}$ is $1$,
which implies $1 =F_{\beta}(1,0)=\pm F_{\alpha}(pd, -qc)$. But this is impossible,
since at least one of $|pd|,|qc|$ exceeds the bound $C$ defined above. We conclude that
$\beta$ cannot be ${\rm GL}_2(\mathbb{Z} )$-equivalent to $q\alpha /p$. So any order $\mathbb{Z}_{q\alpha /p}$
that is monogenic must have two rational monogenizations. By Lemma \ref{lem5.1}
there are at most finitely many pairs of distinct primes $p,q>C^*$ for which this is possible.
This leaves us with infinitely many rationally monogenic orders $\mathbb{Z}_{q\alpha /p}$
that are not monogenic.
\end{proof}
\section{A generalization over the $S$-integers}\label{section6}
In this section, we will state and prove a generalization of Theorem \ref{thm1.1}
to the ring $\mathcal{O}_S$ of $S$-integers of a number field.
The ring of $S$-integers is a Dedekind domain, but in general not a principal ideal domain,
therefore, the arguments from the previous sections cannot be carried over.
Thus, in our generalization of Theorem \ref{thm1.1} we will not work
with ${\rm GL}_2(\mathcal{O}_S)$-equivalence of algebraic numbers,
but rather with numbers that are ${\rm GL}_2(\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{p}})$-equivalent for all
non-zero prime ideals $\mathfrak{p}$ of $\mathcal{O}_S$, where $\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{p}}$
is the localization of $\mathcal{O}_S$ at $\mathfrak{p}$.
Before stating and proving our result, we have collected some generalizations
of the material from Section \ref{section2} to Dedekind domains of characteristic $0$.
Most of these are equivalent, but for our purposes more convenient
formulations of material from \cite[Chap. 17]{EG17}.
Let $A$ be a Dedekind domain of characteristic $0$ and $\Bbbk$ its quotient field.
Denote by $\mathcal{P} (A)$ the collection of non-zero prime ideals of $A$ and by $Cl (A)$
the class group of $A$ (fractional ideals modulo principal fractional ideals).
Further, let $Cl (A)[m]$ be the subgroup of elements of $Cl (A)$ whose $m$-th power
is the principal ideal class.
The localization of $A$ at a prime ideal $\mathfrak{p}\in\mathcal{P} (A)$
is given by
\[
A_{\mathfrak{p}}:=\{ x/y:\, x\in A, y\in A\setminus\mathfrak{p}\}.
\]
We define the group of matrices
\[
G(A):= \bigcap_{\mathfrak{p}\in\mathcal{P} (A)} \Bbbk^*{\rm GL}_2(A_{\mathfrak{p}}),
\]
that is the group of matrices $C$ such that for every $\mathfrak{p}\in\mathcal{P} (A)$ there is
$\lambda_{\mathfrak{p}}\in\Bbbk^*$ with $\lambda_{\mathfrak{p}}^{-1}C\in{\rm GL}_2(A_{\mathfrak{p}})$.
Let $\alpha ,\beta\in\overline{\Bbbk}$ be of degree $\geq 3$ over $\Bbbk$.
We say that $\alpha ,\beta$ are $G(A)$-\emph{equivalent} if there is $C\in G(A)$
with $\beta =C\alpha$. Then
\begin{align}\label{eq6.2}
&\alpha ,\beta\ \,\text{are $G(A)$-equivalent}
\\[-0.1cm]
\notag
&\qquad\Longleftrightarrow \alpha ,\beta\ \,
\text{are ${\rm GL}_2(A_{\mathfrak{p}})$-equivalent for every $\mathfrak{p}\in\mathcal{P}(A)$}.
\end{align}
Indeed, $\Rightarrow$ is clear. As for $\Leftarrow$, suppose that
$\alpha ,\beta$ are ${\rm GL}_2(A_{\mathfrak{p}})$-equivalent for every $\mathfrak{p}\in\mathcal{P} (A)$.
Then there is $C\in{\rm GL}_2(\Bbbk )$ such that $\beta =C\alpha$. But $C$ is determined
uniquely up to a scalar in $\Bbbk^*$, hence $C\in\Bbbk^*{\rm GL}_2(A_{\mathfrak{p}})$
for every $\mathfrak{p}\in \mathcal{P} (A)$, i.e., $C\in G(A)$.
We compare $G(A)$-equivalence with ${\rm GL}_2(A)$-equivalence.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem6.1}
$G(A)/\Bbbk^*{\rm GL}_2(A) \cong Cl(A)[2]$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $[a_1,\ldots , a_r]$ denote the fractional ideal of $A$ generated by $a_1,\ldots , a_r$
and for a matrix $C$ with entries in $\Bbbk$,
let $[C]$ denote the fractional ideal generated by the entries of $C$. We claim that
\begin{equation}\label{eq6.3}
G(A)=\{ C\in{\rm GL}_2(\Bbbk ):\, [\det C]=[C]^2\}.
\end{equation}
Indeed, let $C\in G(A)$.
Then for all $\mathfrak{p}\in\mathcal{P} (A)$ there is $\lambda_{\mathfrak{p}}\in \Bbbk^*$
such that $\lambda_{\mathfrak{p}}^{-1}C\in {\rm GL}_2(A_{\mathfrak{p}})$, hence
$[C]^2\cdot A_{\mathfrak{p}}=\lambda_{\mathfrak{p}}^2A_{\mathfrak{p}}=(\det C)\cdot A_{\mathfrak{p}}$ for all $\mathfrak{p}$,
implying $[C]^2=[\det C]$.
Conversely, if $[\det C]=[C]^2$, then $(\det C)\cdot A_{\mathfrak{p}}=[C]^2A_{\mathfrak{p}}$
for all $\mathfrak{p}$. Since $A_{\mathfrak{p}}$ is a principal ideal domain there is $\lambda_{\mathfrak{p}}\in\Bbbk^*$
with $[C]A_{\mathfrak{p}}=\lambda_{\mathfrak{p}}A_{\mathfrak{p}}$ for all $\mathfrak{p}$.
Hence $\lambda_{\mathfrak{p}}^{-1}C\in {\rm GL}_2(A_{\mathfrak{p}})$ for all $\mathfrak{p}$, i.e., $C\in G(A)$.
Now define the group homomorphism
\[
G(A) \to Cl(A)[2]:\ \ C\mapsto\ \text{ideal class of $[C]$}.
\]
By \eqref{eq6.3} this is well-defined. The kernel of this homomorphism
is the group of matrices $C\in G(A)$ such that $[C]$ is principal,
this is precisely $\Bbbk^*{\rm GL}_2(A)$. To show that the homomorphism is surjective,
pick any ideal class of $A$ whose square is principal,
and take an ideal from this class.
By a well-known property of Dedekind domains, this ideal is generated by two elements, say it is $[a,b]$.
Then $[a^2,b^2]=[a,b]^2=[\lambda ]$ for some $\lambda\in A$, hence there are $u,v\in A$ such that $ua^2-vb^2=\lambda$.
Take $C=\big(\begin{smallmatrix}a&b\\ vb&ua\end{smallmatrix}\big)$.
Then $[C]^2=[a,b]^2=[\lambda ]=[\det C]$, so $C\in G(A)$, and $C$
maps to the ideal class of $[a,b]$.
\end{proof}
Lemma \ref{lem6.1} implies that a $G(A)$-equivalence class
is the union of precisely $\#(Cl(A)[2])$ ${\rm GL}_2(A)$-equivalence classes.
This quantity is finite for instance if $A$ is the ring of $S$-integers
of a number field.
Let $K$ be a finite extension of $\Bbbk$ of degree $n\geq 3$.
Given $\alpha$ with $\Bbbk (\alpha )=K$, we define the $A$-module
\[
\mathcal{M}_{\alpha}:=\{ x_0+x_1\alpha +\cdots +x_{n-1}\alpha^{n-1}:\, x_0,\ldots , x_{n-1}\in A\}
\]
and its ring of scalars
\[
A_{\alpha}:=\{ \xi\in K:\, \xi\mathcal{M}_{\alpha}=\mathcal{M}_{\alpha}\}.
\]
For $\mathfrak{p}\in \mathcal{P} (A)$, let $\mathcal{M}_{\mathfrak{p} ,\alpha}$ be the $A_{\mathfrak{p}}$-module generated
by $1,\alpha,\ldots , \alpha^{n-1}$ and
$A_{\mathfrak{p} ,\alpha}:=\{\xi\in K:\ \xi\mathcal{M}_{\mathfrak{p} ,\alpha}\subseteq\mathcal{M}_{\mathfrak{p} ,\alpha}\}$.
Then
\begin{align}\label{eq6.4}
&A_{\mathfrak{p} ,\alpha}=A_{\mathfrak{p}}A_{\alpha}\ \ \text{for all } \mathfrak{p}\in \mathcal{P} (A),
\\
\label{eq6.5}
&\displaystyle{A_{\alpha}=\bigcap_{\mathfrak{p}\in\mathcal{P} (A)} A_{\mathfrak{p} ,\alpha}.}
\end{align}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem6.2}
Let $\alpha ,\beta\in K$ such that $\Bbbk (\alpha )=\Bbbk (\beta )=K$ and $\alpha ,\beta$ are
$G(A)$-equivalent. Then $A_{\alpha}=A_{\beta}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
From \eqref{eq6.2} it follows that $\alpha ,\beta$ are ${\rm GL}_2(A_{\mathfrak{p}})$-equivalent
for all $\mathfrak{p}$, so, since the rings $A_{\mathfrak{p}}$ are all principal ideal domains,
$A_{\mathfrak{p} ,\alpha}=A_{\mathfrak{p} ,\beta}$ for all $\mathfrak{p}$. Now apply \eqref{eq6.5}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem6.4}
Let $\alpha ,\beta\in K$ such that $\Bbbk (\alpha )=\Bbbk (\beta )=K$ and $A_{\alpha}=A_{\beta}$.
Suppose that $\alpha ,\beta$ are ${\rm GL}_2(\Bbbk )$-equivalent.
Then they are $G(A)$-equivalent.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
From \eqref{eq6.4} it follows that $A_{\mathfrak{p} ,\alpha}=A_{\mathfrak{p} ,\beta}$ and then from Lemma \ref{lem2.4} that $\alpha ,\beta$ are ${\rm GL}_2(A_{\mathfrak{p}})$-equivalent
for all $\mathfrak{p}\in\mathcal{P} (A)$. Now \eqref{eq6.2} implies that they are $G(A)$-equivalent.
\end{proof}
Suppose that $[K:\Bbbk ]=n\geq 4$.
Let $L$ be the normal closure of $K/\Bbbk$ and $x\mapsto x^{(i)}$ ($i=1,\ldots , n$)
the $\Bbbk$-isomorphic embeddings $K\hookrightarrow L$.
Denote by $A_L$ the integral closure of $A$ in $L$.
Define the cross ratios ${\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\alpha )$ ($K=\Bbbk (\alpha )$) by \eqref{eq4.crossratio}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem6.5}
Let $\alpha$, $\beta$ be such that $\Bbbk (\alpha )=\Bbbk (\beta )=K$ and $A_{\alpha}=A_{\beta}$.
Then for all pairwise distinct $i,j,k,l\in\{ 1,\ldots , n\}$ we have
\[
\frac{{\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\alpha )}{{\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\beta )}\in A_L^*.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For $\mathfrak{p}\in \mathcal{P} (A)$, let $A_{\mathfrak{p} ,L}$ be the integral closure of $A_{\mathfrak{p}}$ in $L$.
Then $\cap_{\mathfrak{p}\in \mathcal{P} (A)} A_{\mathfrak{p} ,L}=A_L$.
By \eqref{eq6.4} we have $A_{\mathfrak{p} ,\alpha}=A_{\mathfrak{p} ,\beta}$, and so by Lemma \ref{lem2.2},
$\frac{{\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\alpha )}{{\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\beta )}\in A_{\mathfrak{p} ,L}^*$ for all $\mathfrak{p}\in\mathcal{P} (A)$.
Since $\cap_{\mathfrak{p} \in\mathcal{P} (A)} A_{\mathfrak{p} ,L}^*=A_L^*$ this implies our lemma.
\end{proof}
We now specialize to rings of $S$-integers of number fields.
Let $\Bbbk$ be a number field and $\mathcal{O}_{\Bbbk}$ its ring of integers.
Let $S$ be a finite set of non-zero prime ideals of $\mathcal{O}_{\Bbbk}$,
and
\[
\mathcal{O}_S :=\{ x/y:\, x,y\in\mathcal{O}_{\Bbbk},\ y\ \text{composed of prime ideals from } S\}
\]
the ring of $S$-integers. Similarly as before, we denote by $\mathcal{P} (\mathcal{O}_S)$
the set of non-zero prime ideals of $\mathcal{O}_S$. Further, for $\mathfrak{p}\in\mathcal{P} (\mathcal{O}_S)$,
we denote by $\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{p}}$ the localization of $\mathcal{O}_S$ at $\mathfrak{p}$, so that
\[
G(\mathcal{O}_S)=\bigcap_{\mathfrak{p}\in\mathcal{P} (\mathcal{O}_S)} \Bbbk^*{\rm GL}_2(\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{p}}).
\]
Let $K$ be a finite extension of $\Bbbk$ of degree $n\geq 4$, and $L$ the
normal closure of $K/\Bbbk$.
Denote by $\mathcal{O}_{S,K}$ the integral closure of $\mathcal{O}_S$ in $K$.
By an $\mathcal{O}_S$-\emph{order} of $K$ we mean a ring $\mathcal{O}$ such that
$\mathcal{O}_S\subseteq\mathcal{O}\subseteq\mathcal{O}_{S,K}$ and $\Bbbk\mathcal{O} =K$.
Recall that $\alpha ,\beta\in K$ are called $G(\mathcal{O}_S)$-equivalent if
$\beta =C\alpha$ for some $C\in G(\mathcal{O}_S)$.
A \emph{rational monogenization} of an $\mathcal{O}_S$-order $\mathcal{O}$
is a $G(\mathcal{O}_S)$-equivalence class of $\alpha$
such that $\mathcal{O}_{S,\alpha}=\mathcal{O}$.
Taking $\alpha$ with $K=\Bbbk (\alpha )$, we say that the Galois group ${\rm Gal}(L/\Bbbk )$
is $t$ times transitive if the action of ${\rm Gal}(L/\Bbbk )$ on the set of conjugates of $\alpha$ is $t$ times transitive.
We are now ready to state our generalization.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm6.6}
Let $\Bbbk$ be an algebraic number field and $S$ a finite set of prime ideals from $\mathcal{O}_{\Bbbk}$.
Further, let $K$ be a finite extension of $\Bbbk$, and $L$ the normal closure of $K/\Bbbk$.
\\[0.1cm]
(i) Assume that $[K:\Bbbk ]=4$. Then $K$ has only finitely many $\mathcal{O}_S$-orders with more than two rational monogenizations.
\\[0.1cm]
(ii) Assume that $[K:\Bbbk ]\geq 5$ and that ${\rm Gal}(L/\Bbbk )$ is five times transitive.
Then $K$ has only finitely many $\mathcal{O}_S$-orders with more than one rational monogenization.
\end{theorem}
The proof is very similar to that of Theorem \ref{thm1.1}. We will mainly focus
on the differences.
We keep the notation and assumptions from the above theorem.
We call $\alpha_1\in K$ $k$-special
if $\Bbbk (\alpha_1)=K$ and if there are $\alpha_2,\ldots , \alpha_k\in K$
such that $\alpha_1,\ldots , \alpha_k$ are pairwise $G(\mathcal{O}_S)$-inequivalent
and $\mathcal{O}_{S,\alpha_1}=\cdots =\mathcal{O}_{S,\alpha_k}$. We call $\alpha_1$ special if it is
$2$-special.
\begin{proof}
In order to prove Theorem \ref{thm6.6},
it suffices to show that if \\$[K:\Bbbk ]=4$ then the $3$-special numbers in $K$
lie in at most finitely many $G (\mathcal{O}_S)$-equivalence classes, while if $[K:\Bbbk ]\geq 5$
and ${\rm Gal}(L/\Bbbk )$ is five times transitive then the special numbers in $K$
lie in at most finitely many $G(\mathcal{O}_S)$-equivalence classes.
\\[0.2cm]
{\bf Step 1.} The $3$-special numbers in $K$ if $[K:\Bbbk ]=4$,
respectively the special numbers in $K$ if $[K:\Bbbk ]\geq 5$ lie in at most finitely many
${\rm GL}_2(\Bbbk )$-equivalence classes.
\\[0.1cm]
The proof is exactly the same as that in Section \ref{section3},
replacing everywhere $\mathbb{Z}$, $\mathbb{Q}$, $\mathcal{O}_L^*$ by $\mathcal{O}_S$, $\Bbbk$, $\mathcal{O}_{S,L}^*$,
where $\mathcal{O}_{S,L}$ is the integral closure of $\mathcal{O}_S$ in $L$.
Lemmas \ref{lem3.2} and \ref{lem3.3} can be applied with $\Gamma =\mathcal{O}_{S,L}^*$,
since the latter group is finitely generated by the Dirichlet-Chevalley-Weil theorem.
\\[0.2cm]
{\bf Step 2.} Let $K$ be any extension of $\Bbbk$ with $[K:\Bbbk ]\geq 4$.
Then each ${\rm GL}_2(\Bbbk )$-equivalence class of special numbers in $K$
is the union of finitely many $G(\mathcal{O}_S)$-equivalence classes.
\\[0.1cm]
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a ${\rm GL}_2(\Bbbk )$-equivalence class of special numbers in $K$.
Completely similarly as in the proof of Lemma \ref{lem5.1},
applying Lemma \ref{lem6.5}, Lemma \ref{lem5.2} with $\Gamma =\mathcal{O}_{S,L}^*$,
and Lemma \ref{lem6.4},
one shows that $\mathcal{C}$ is the union of finitely many subclasses
\[
\mathcal{C} (\mathcal{D} ):=\{ \alpha \in\mathcal{C}:\
\text{there is $\beta\in\mathcal{D}$ with }\mathcal{O}_{S,\alpha}=\mathcal{O}_{S,\beta}\},
\]
where $\mathcal{D}\not=\mathcal{C}$ is a ${\rm GL}_2(\Bbbk )$-equivalence class of special numbers.
Let $\mathcal{D}\not=\mathcal{C}$ be a ${\rm GL}_2(\Bbbk )$-equivalence class such that $\mathcal{C} (\mathcal{D} )\not=\emptyset$.
We show by means of a local-to-global argument that $\mathcal{C} (\mathcal{D} )$ is the union of
finitely many $G(\mathcal{O}_S)$-equivalence classes.
Fix $\alpha\in\mathcal{C} (\mathcal{D} )$, and then $\beta\in\mathcal{D}$ with $\mathcal{O}_{S,\alpha}=\mathcal{O}_{S,\beta }$.
Let $T$ be the set of prime ideals $\mathfrak{p}$ of $\mathcal{O}_S$ such that $\mathfrak{p}$ divides
the discriminant ideal $\mathfrak{d}$ of $\mathcal{O}_{S,\alpha}$,
or such that some prime ideal $\mathfrak{P}$ of $\mathcal{O}_{S,L}$ above $\mathfrak{p}$
divides the ideal $\mathfrak{a} (\alpha ,\beta )$ of $\mathcal{O}_{S,L}$
generated by the numbers
$\frac{{\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\beta )}{{\rm cr}_{ijkl}(\alpha )}-1$
for all pairwise distinct $i,j,k,l\in\{ 1,\ldots , n\}$. Clearly, $T$ is finite.
Next, choose $\alpha^*\in\mathcal{C} (\mathcal{D} )$ that we let vary, and then $\beta^*\in\mathcal{D}$
with $\mathcal{O}_{S,\alpha^*}=\mathcal{O}_{S,\beta^*}$.
Let $\mathfrak{p}$ be a prime ideal of $\mathcal{O}_S$.
We apply the theory of Section \ref{section4} with $A=\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{p}}$.
By \eqref{eq6.4} we have
$\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{p} ,\alpha}=\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{p} ,\beta}$, $\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{p} ,\alpha^*}=\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{p} ,\beta^*}$.
Hence $(\alpha ,\beta )$ and $(\alpha^*,\beta^*)$ are two ${\rm GL}_2(\Bbbk )$-equivalent special
pairs as in Proposition \ref{prop4.1}.
Let $C$ be the matrix from \eqref{eq4.1} and put $\Delta :=\det C$.
We use that there is a finite set $\mathcal{F} ([\Delta ])$ of $2\times 2$-matrices with entries
in $\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{p}}$,
depending only on $\mathfrak{p}$ and on the ideal $[\Delta ]:=\Delta \mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{p}}$, such
that there is $U\in{\rm GL}_2(\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{p}})$ with
\[
UC=:C_1\in \mathcal{F} ([\Delta ]).
\]
Let $\alpha^{**}:=U\alpha^*=C_1\alpha$.
Proposition \ref{prop4.1} implies that $[\Delta ]$ belongs to a finite set
depending on $\alpha ,\beta$ and $\mathfrak{p}$,
hence so does $C_1$, and thus $\alpha^{**}$.
This implies that the ${\rm GL}_2(\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{p}})$-equivalence class of $\alpha^*$ belongs to a finite
collection depending on $\alpha ,\beta ,\mathfrak{p}$.
But for $\mathfrak{p}\not\in T$, i.e., for all but finitely many $\mathfrak{p}$, Proposition \ref{prop4.1} implies that $[\Delta ]=[1]$,
hence $\alpha^*$ is ${\rm GL}_2(\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{p}})$-equivalent to $\alpha$.
Now from \eqref{eq6.2} it follows
that there is a finite collection of $G(\mathcal{O}_S)$-equivalence classes
depending only on $\alpha ,\beta$ to which $\alpha^*$ must belong.
This completes step 2 of our proof of Theorem \ref{thm6.6}.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
Fast radio bursts (FRBs) are bright, millisecond duration pulses with dispersion measures (DM) mostly well in excess of Galactic values, since first discovered in 2007\cite{Lorimer07Sci}, more than 800 FRBs \textcolor{black}{have} been detected so far and 27 of them can emit repeating bursts\cite{Luo2020Natur,Niu2022Natur} {(\url{https://www.herta-experiment.org/frbstats/catalogue})}. Currently, 19 FRBs have been localized to host galaxies {(\url{https://frbhosts.org/})}. Although the physical mechanism of FRBs still \textcolor{black}{remains} unknown, FRB~200428\cite{CHIME_atel,CHIME2020,STARE2_CHIMEburst_atel,Bochenek2020} produced by Galactic magnetar SGR~J1935+2154 suggests that some of the FRBs can be emitted by magnetars\cite{2020Natur.587...63L,Zhang20Nature}. Among all the FRBs, FRB~20201124A, which \textcolor{black}{was} discovered by CHIME\cite{CHIME2021ATel}, \textcolor{black}{has} been frequently studied recently. Its radio bursts show rich pulse structures\cite{xuheng2021,2022MNRAS.509.2209M}. Through dynamic spectra, researchers investigated the scintillation time-scale of FRB~20201124A\cite{2022MNRAS.509.3172M}. Efforts had also been made to localize its host galaxy\cite{2021ATel14515....1D,2021ATel14516....1K,2021ATel14518....1X,2021ATel14538....1W}. \par
Dynamic spectra record the FRB intensity as a function of time and frequency. Dynamic spectra contain information of FRB intrinsic emission properties as well as density fluctuation of interstellar and inter-galactic medium. We noted that there is lack of a systematic collection of dynamic \textcolor{black}{spectra} for FRBs. In this paper, we present the dynamic spectra data of FRB~20201124A which covers 1863 pulses detected by our team.
\section{Observation, data acquisition, and analysis}
We used \textcolor{black}{the} Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical radio Telescope (FAST)\cite{jiang2019} to monitor FRB~20201124A from April to June in 2021. The FAST 19-beam Pulsar back-end covers 1.0-1.5 GHz in frequency band and has $a$ system temperature about 20 to 25~K \cite{jiang2020}. The data were recorded using the digital back-end based on the Re-configurable Open Architecture Computing Hardware-2 (\textsc{Roach2}) board \cite{HA16} with temporal resolution of 49.152 $\mu$s or 196.608 $\mu$s and frequency resolutions of 122.07 kHz. \par
Our data processing contains two major steps, searching for single pulses and post processing to form the dynamic spectra. Firstly, we searched for the FRB candidates offline with software package \textsc{TransientX}. Frequency channels affected by radio frequency interference (RFI) were removed. The data were de-dispersed in the dispersion measure (DM) range of 380-440\,$\mathrm{cm}^{-3}\, \mathrm{pc}$ with a step of 0.1\,$\mathrm{cm}^{-3}\, \mathrm{pc}$ since FRB~20201124A is a known repeater. The pulse width is searched from 0.1 ms to 100 ms in the box-car-shaped matched filter. 3364 candidates with a S/N threshold larger than 7 were plotted and visually inspected. \par
In the post processing phase, we used the software package \textsc{DMPhase} to further refine the DM. The \textsc{DMPhase} use the Fourier-domain method, where DM is found by maximising the time derivative of normalized "intensity". To measure the intensity, the polarisation calibration is then performed with software package \textsc{PSRCHIVE}\cite{HvSM04}. We adopted the single axis model in polarisation calibration, where the differential gain and phase between the two polarisation channels are calibrated with the injected noise signal. To reduce the dynamic spectra to a manageable size, we integrate over time and frequency to reduce the resolution. The frequency and time resolutions of the final dynamic spectra are $\approx$ 1.0~MHz and $\approx$ 0.2 ms, respectively. We store the data in the \textsc{PSRFITs}\cite{HvSM04} format, which is widely used in the community of pulsar astronomy.
\section{Data format and contents of the library}
The \textsc{psrfits} format is based on the Flexible Image Transport System (FITS){(\url{https://fits.gsfc.nasa.gov/})}\cite{fits2001}. According to FITS standards, a \textsc{psrfits} file consists of a primary header-data unit (HDU) followed by a series of extension HDUs\cite{HvSM04}. As for our data, the primary HDU contains basic information such as telescope name and its location, source location, observation time and etc. Four extension HDUs, which are in a binary table format, contain specific information related to the observation: processing history, pulsar ephemeris, tempo2 predictor and the pulsar data. Notice that there are several \textsc{psrfits} files contain more than one burst because the interval between their TOAs (time of arrivals) is quiet small. \par
We associate each pulse with a mask file. The mask file, formatted in plain ascii file, contains two rows of data. The first row consists two integer numbers corresponding to the boundary of pulse on-phase in the profile. The second row of mask file shows where the baseline lies in. \FIG{fig:dyn} shows the dynamic spectrum of pulse No.12 as \textcolor{black}{an example}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics{dynamic.png}
\caption{Example of pulse profile (upper panel) and dynamic spectra (lower panel). Purple box and blue area in the pulse profile show the baseline and pulse on-phase definition. White strips in the dynamical spectra indicate the removed channels due to the RFI.
\label{fig:dyn}}
\end{figure}
\section{Statistics of data properties}
Our detection threshold was a signal-to-noise ratio $S/N>7$, and 1103 bright bursts reached $S/N>30$ among a total of 1863 detected bursts. The left panel of \FIG{fig:distri} shows the $S/N$ distribution of all detected bursts. The right panel of \FIG{fig:distri} shows the distribution of removed channel in frequency band. Usually, a few percent frequency channels had been removed due to the RFI. \par
The sample completeness was determined with the following method. We simulated 10,000 mock bursts with Gaussian profile and bandpass matching the detected distributions. We then randomly injected the mock bursts into the original FAST data when no FRB was detected. The mock burst injected data are then fed to our burst-searching pipeline to compute the detection rate. The procedure shows that the fluence threshold achieving the 95\% detection probability with $S/N \ge 7$ is 53\,mJy\,ms\cite{xuheng2021}. \par
\textcolor{black}{Parameters of each burst (including burst MJD, $S/N$, DM, etc) are available in the section \textbf{Data availability} of Ref\cite{xuheng2021}.}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{distribution.png}
\caption{Left: The $S/N$ distribution of 1863 pulses. Right: The distribution of RFI zapping for all data.
\label{fig:distri}}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
In this work, we present \textcolor{black}{a collection of dynamic spectra for 1863 FAST-detected radio bursts of FRB~20201124A} during April to June in 2021. This is the largest burst sample detected in any FRB so far. \par
The signal of FRB 20201124A is highly polarised\cite{xuheng2021}. Our dynamic spectra is polarisation calibrated. Previous study shows that 0.5\% polarisation fidelity can be achieved with the current calibration method\cite{Luo2020Natur}. \par
The current data set is of high S/N, where 5\%, 30\% and 67\% data had S/N$\ge$ 560.63, 116.02, and 23.85, respectively. Simulation is used to determine the completeness of burst detection, where 95\% completeness fluence threshold is 53 mJy\,ms. \par
For each burst, we provide one \textsc{PSRFITs} file and one mask file. We provide the total intensity data in \textsc{PSRFITs} format, and \textcolor{black}{mask} file in ascii format which labels the burst.
\section{Data availability and related softwares}
The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in Science Data Bank at \url{https://www.doi.org/10.57760/sciencedb.j00113.00076}. The related software can be found the corresponding repositories. \par
\textsc{TransientX}: {\url{https://github.com/ypmen/TransientX}} \par
\textsc{DMPhase}: \url{https://www.github.com/DanieleMichilli/DM_phase} \par
\textsc{psrchive}: \url{http://psrchive.sourceforge.net}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work made use of data from the FAST. FAST is a Chinese
national megascience facility, built and operated by the National
Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences. We acknowledge the use of public data from the Fermi Science Support Center (FSSC). This work is supported by National SKA Program of China (2020SKA0120100, 2020SKA0120200), Natural Science Foundation of China (12041304, 11873067, 11988101, 12041303, 11725313, 11725314, 11833003, 12003028, 12041306, 12103089, U2031209, U2038105, U1831207), National Program on Key Research and Development Project (2019YFA0405100, 2017YFA0402602, 2018YFA0404204, 2016YFA0400801), Key Research Program of the CAS (QYZDJ-SSW-SLH021), Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (BK20211000), Cultivation Project for FAST Scientific Payoff and Research Achievement of CAMS-CAS, the Strategic Priority Research Program on Space Science, the Western Light Youth Project of Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (grants XDA15360000, XDA15052700, XDB23040400), funding from the Max-Planck Partner Group, the science research grants from the China Manned Space Project (CMS-CSST-2021-B11,NO. CMS-CSST-2021-A11), and PKU development grant 7101502590. KJL acknowledge support from the XPLORER PRIZE. BBZ is supported by Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (14380046), and the Program for Innovative Talents, Entrepreneur in Jiangsu.
\newpage
\bibliographystyle{naturemag}
\input{ref.tex}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
The microgrids (MGs) are small local grids that can disconnect from the bulk grid to operate independently. The MGs facilitate the integration of sustainable distributed energy resources (DERs) like wind, solar as well as energy storage. Nonetheless,
the DERs are interfaced with microgrids by power converters, making MGs low-inertia or even inertia-less \cite{Schneider2019,TFMG2020}. In addition, MGs are characterized by frequency-voltage dependence due to low X/R ratios as opposed to conventional power systems \cite{TFMG2020,Zhang2016}. Therefore, the frequency and voltage of MGs tend to experience coupled large deviations subject to volatile operation conditions of generation and load, transition\color{black}s \color{black} between islanded and grid-connected modes, etc.
The hierarchical control is commonly adopted to maintain the MG's voltage and frequency stability.
The hierarchical control includes primary control at the individual DER level, and secondary/tertiary control at the systemwide level.
Even though the droop-based primary control
at individual DERs can
coordinate the power of DERs in a decentralized manner and improve the local stability, the frequency and voltage deviation at the system level may not be eliminated by merely using primary control \cite{Simpson2015}. The system stability may even be compromised when the droop gains are improperly designed to high values \cite{Majumder2010}. Hence, the secondary control is essential to achieve stable voltage and frequency restoration. \color{black}
The scope of the paper lies in the secondary control, aiming to restore frequency and voltage for islanded MGs under larger disturbances or
MGs
in mode transition\color{black}s\color{black} (e.g., from grid-connected to islanded).
The secondary control of MGs can be classified as model-based and model-free.
There have been many research papers on model-based control. For example, the small-signal models have been used in \cite{Zhang2016, HONARVARNAZARI2012823} to
regulate droop gains and improve the systemwide small-signal stability. To handle large disturbance, multi-agent distributed cooperative control with feedback linearization was proposed in \cite{Bidram2014,Bidram2013} to deal with the nonlinearity.
Despite advancement, all the aforementioned methods rely heavily on accurate physical models that may not always be available to MG operators due to \color{black}time-varying topologies and operating conditions, as well as \color{black} high uncertainty introduced by volatile renewables.
To relax the pre-knowledge of accurate models, researchers have designed various model-free control methods.
A common model-free method is Proportional and Integral (PI) control \cite{Simpson2015,Ma2021,Ahumada2016}, which nevertheless may
lack online adaptiveness to compensate for uncertainty. Besides,
the MG may suffer from high starting overshoot, high sensitivity to controller gains, and sluggish response to disturbances if the PI control is not properly tuned \cite{Ma2021}. Another category of MG secondary control method is the averaging/consensus-based secondary droop control \cite{Nutkani2015,Lu2015, LuLY2018} that targets on accurate power sharing in quasi steady-state rather than voltage and frequency stability under large disturbances. To improve systemwide voltage and frequency stability under both small and big disturbances, machine learning based methods were proposed \cite{Ma2021,Jafari2018,Shen2019,Amoateng2017,Lin2021,Shayeghi2019} for secondary voltage and frequency control. \color{black}However, the universal learning machines such as artificial neural network \color{black}(ANN) \color{black} and reinforcement learning (RL) may lack physical interpretability and thus reliability of representing the system’s dynamics in diverse topologies and operating conditions. Obtaining \color{black}adequate \color{black} offline training data that can sufficiently represent the system dynamics is challenging too.
Moreover, individual DERs can be either controllable (e.g., energy storage systems (ESSs), renewable energy with ESSs), or non-controllable (e.g., renewable generation operating under maximum power point tracking (MPPT)) at the secondary level. They possess diverse modes of primary control (e.g., conventional isochronous grid-forming, power-based grid-forming and grid-following).
The resulting model complexity may affect the performance of the secondary control.
Yet all the aforementioned works (both model-based and model-free) on secondary voltage and frequency control assume that all DERs in islanded MGs work under the grid-forming or voltage control mode \cite{Majumder2010,Bidram2014,Bidram2013,Ma2021,Ahumada2016,Shen2019,Amoateng2017,Lin2021,R.Zhang2019}.
However, in existing MGs, the mix of grid-forming and grid-following control with diverse control structures and parameters introduces uncertainty that challenges MG secondary control. Particularly, when large disturbances occur, the interaction among diverse grid-forming and grid-following converters and the dynamics of the affiliated phasor-locked loops (PLLs) may \color{black} deteriorate the system stability and control performance.
\color{black}
\color{black}
In this paper, we propose a new data-driven secondary voltage and frequency control method for MGs with both grid-forming and grid-following DERs. The method is able to handle MG nonlinearity and uncertainty (e.g., MG mode transition\color{black}s \color{black} from grid-connected to islanded, generation and load variations) in an adaptive data-driven fashion. The proposed method requires no offline training and uses only a small window of phasor angle and voltage data from synchrophasors (e.g., micoPMUs) at the DER output ends. In the proposed method, Koopman operator theory \cite{Proctor2018} is leveraged to convert the nonlinear dynamical system into a linear one under
\color{black} Koopman embedding mapping. As such,
the system can be identified and controlled with mature and powerful linear system techniques.
Particularly, we tailor \color{black} the OKID (Observer Kalman-filter IDentification)-based algorithm
so that the Koopman-based linear dynamical system
can be identified optimally. Then, the discrete-time linear quadratic regulator (LQR) is applied to the identified Koopman-based linear dynamical system
with well-characterized stability properties.
It is noteworthy that M. Korda et al \cite{KORDA2018297} utilized Koopman operator control for power system transient stability and control, while the method required offline training data. Besides, the identification based on
the brute-force
least-squares estimation,
could lead to unsatisfactory identification results. \color{black} Gong et al \cite{Gong2022} presented a combined application of the Koopman operator and identification method for MG secondary control. However, the method assumes that the droop parameters of DERs are known by the secondary controller, whereby the control matrix in the Koopman state space can be directly obtained. In this paper, we lift the assumption that the local control mechanism and parameters are fully unknown. \color{black}
\color{black}
In short, the advantages of the proposed method are summarized as below:
\noindent (i) The proposed Koopman-inspired enhanced OKID method can \color{black} help \color{black} identify the system dynamics accurately and adaptively \color{black} due to the capacity of dealing with nonlinearity and uncertainty under large disturbances.\color{black}
\noindent(ii) The proposed Koopman-inspired identification and control method
is purely data-driven using only a small window of synchrophasor data. \color{black} It requires \color{black} no knowledge of network information and primary controllers\color{black}, and no offline training.
\noindent(iii) The MG system with the proposed Koopman-inspired identification and control is guaranteed to be bounded-input-bounded-output (BIBO) stable. On top of the BIBO stability, the sufficient condition under which the MG system is asymptotically stable is also developed.
\noindent(iv) The proposed control method is robust to measurement noises and time delays as tested in numerical studies.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section II describes the MG hierarchical control and the interfaces between secondary and primary control. Section III details the proposed Koopman-inspired identification and control method. Section IV presents case studies for validation. Section V concludes the paper.
\begin{figure}[!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{Fig1_new.PNG}
\caption{\color{black} Microgrid control architecture}
\label{MGarch}
\end{figure}
\section{Microgrid System Description}
A MG can be controlled hierarchically with the secondary and primary control as shown in Fig. \ref{MGarch}. The primary controllers enable fast response of the individual DERs to guarantee local stability, while the secondary controller globally dictates the primary controllers of controllable DERs according to the data collected from microPMUs, whereby the systemwide interaction dynamics of MGs can be \color{black}handled \color{black} and the voltage and frequency can be restored.
The local primary control modes can be different, such as grid-forming or grid-following \cite{NREL2020}. In an islanded MG or future power system without synchronous generators, at least one DER is required to work under \color{black} the \color{black} grid-forming mode to actively form the grid voltage and frequency; then the rest of DERs can remain operating under \color{black} the \color{black} grid-following modes \cite{NREL2020}.
As discussed in \cite{6200347,Kroposki2016}, grid-forming DERs \textit{define} the voltage magnitude and frequency. In contrast, grid-following DERs \textit{follow} the measured frequency and voltage magnitude in the grid via PLL, which represents the prevalent type of control strategy for grid-connected PV and wind converters in existing power grids. \color{black}
As droop is commonly used in MGs, we consider the droop-based grid-forming \cite{GFM_PLL2019,Wei2020} and inverse-droop-based grid-following control \cite{Ryan2021}.
Specifically, consider a DER at the bus $i$. As shown in Fig. \ref{fig: primarycontrol}(a), the droop for grid-forming converter control is defined as:
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
Droop:\left[ \begin{array}{l}{\omega_{i}-\omega^*_{i}}\\
{V_{i}-V^*_{i}}
\end{array} \right]&=
\left[ \begin{array}{l}
{-\sigma_\omega(P_{i}-P^*_{i})}\\
-\sigma_V(Q_{i}-Q^*_{i})
\end{array} \right]
\label{eq:DROOPS}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{small}\noindent
where $\omega_{i}$ and $V_{i}$ denote the frequency and voltage magnitude for the grid-forming control.
$\omega^{*}_{i}$ and $ V^{*}_{i}$ are the rated frequency and voltage. The parameters $\sigma_{\omega}$ and $\sigma_{V}$ are frequency and voltage droop gains, respectively. $ P^{*}_{i}$ and $ Q^{*}_{i}$ are the reference power in the droop, which
can be the steady-state power without the secondary control or an augmented reference power after the secondary control.
$P_{i}$ and $Q_{i}$ are the active and reactive power, \color{black} which are measured with a low-pass filter embedded in the power measurement block in Fig. \ref{fig: primarycontrol}. The filter is in the form of \cite{Pogaku2007,Hassan2013}:
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
P_{i}=\frac{1}{T_fs + 1} P^{(IN)}_{i}, \quad Q_{i}=\frac{1}{T_fs + 1} Q^{(IN)}_{i}
\label{eq:gfsc}
\end{equation}
\end{small}\noindent
where $T_f$ is the time constant of the first-order low-pass filter; $P^{(IN)}_{i}$ and $Q^{(IN)}_{i}$ represent the active and reactive power before filtering. Generally, the filter is required to attenuate high-frequency dynamics (e.g., harmonics) and preserve low-frequency dynamics (e.g., sub-synchronous components which can be further managed by secondary control). \color{black}With the secondary control, the reference power $P^*_{i}$ and $Q^*_{i}$ of the droop in Fig. \ref{fig: primarycontrol} was updated in discrete time as:
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
P^{*(+)}_{i}=P^{*}_{i} + \Delta P^{*}_{i}, \quad Q^{*(+)}_{i}= Q^{*}_{i} + \Delta Q^{*}_{i}
\label{eq:gfsc}
\end{equation}
\end{small}\noindent
To distinguish $P^*_{i}$ and $Q^*_{i}$ before and after secondary control, the superscription $(+)$ is added in Eq.(\ref{eq:gfsc}) to denote the values of $P^*_{i}$ and $Q^*_{i}$ after considering the secondary control.
Similarly, if the DER at the bus $i$ is grid-following as shown in Fig. \ref{fig: primarycontrol}(b), the inverse droop control is defined as:
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
Inverse \quad Droop:
\left[ \begin{array}{l}{\bar{P}_{i_{}}}\\
\bar{Q}^{}_{i_{}}\end{array} \right]
=\left[ \begin{array}{l}
{-\frac{1}{\sigma_\omega}({\omega_{i_{}}}- \omega^*_{i_{}})}\\
-\frac{1}{\sigma_V}(V_{i_{}}- V^*_{i_{}})
\end{array} \right]
\label{eq:invdroop}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{small}\noindent
where $\bar{P}_{i_{}}$ and $\bar{Q}_{i_{}}$ are the
power generated by the inverse droop. The eventual real power $P_{i_{}}$ and reactive power $Q_{i_{}}$ sent to the grid-following control as references are:
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
P_{i_{}}=\bar{P}_{i_{}} + P^*_{i_{}},\quad Q_{i_{}}=\bar{Q}_{i_{}}+ Q^*_{i_{}}
\label{eq:gfl}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{small}\noindent
where $P^*_{i_{}}$ and $Q^*_{i_{}}$ are reference power guided by the secondary control. In a similar form to Eq. (\ref{eq:gfsc}), $P^*_{i_{}}$ and $Q^*_{i_{}}$ was updated in discrete time as: $P^{*(+)}_{i_{}}=P^{*}_{i_{}} + \Delta P^{*}_{i_{}}$ and $Q^{*(+)}_{i_{}}=Q^{*}_{i_{}} + \Delta Q^{*}_{i_{}}$.
Consequently, the droop for grid-forming control and the inverse droop for the grid-following control can be represented as:
\begin{small}
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mbox{Droop:}
&\left[ \begin{matrix}{\omega_{i}-\omega^*_i}\\
{V_{i}-V^*_i}
\end{matrix} \right]
=\left[ \begin{matrix}
{-\sigma_\omega(P_i-P^{*(+)}_i)}\\
-\sigma_V(Q_i-Q^{*(+)}_i)
\end{matrix}\right]\\
& =\left[
\begin{matrix}
{-\sigma_\omega(P_i-P^*_i)}\\
{-\sigma_V(Q_i-Q^*_i)}
\end{matrix}
\right] + \left[\begin{matrix} \sigma_\omega & {} \\
{} & \sigma_V \end{matrix} \right]\bm{u}_i, \mbox{with }\bm{u}_i=\left[ \begin{matrix}
{\Delta P^*_i}\\
\Delta Q^*_i
\end{matrix}\right]
\label{eq:droopw}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mbox{Inverse Droop:}&
\left[\begin{matrix}{P_i-P^{*(+)}_i}\\
{Q_i-Q^{*(+)}_i}
\end{matrix} \right]
=\left[ \begin{matrix}
{-\frac{1}{\sigma_\omega}({\omega_i}_{} - \omega^*_i)}\\
-\frac{1}{\sigma_V}(V_{i} - V^*_i)
\end{matrix} \right]\\
&\Rightarrow
\left[ \begin{matrix}{\omega_{i}-\omega^*_i}\\
{V_{i}-V^*_i}
\end{matrix} \right]=
\left[ \begin{matrix}
{-\sigma_\omega(P_i-P^*_i)}\\
-\sigma_V(Q_i-Q^*_i)
\end{matrix}\right]+\left[\begin{matrix} \sigma_\omega & \\
& \sigma_V \end{matrix} \right]\bm{u}_i
\label{eq:droopw2}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
\normalsize
\color{black} According to (\ref{eq:droopw})-(\ref{eq:droopw2})\color{black}, both the droop and the inverse droop take the same form:
\small
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\left[ \begin{matrix}{\dot{\theta}_i}\\
{\dot{V}_i}
\end{matrix} \right]=
\left[ \begin{matrix}{-\sigma_\omega(P_i-P^*_i)}\\
-\frac{\sigma_V}{\tau_V}(Q_i-Q^*_i)
\end{matrix}\right]
+
\left[\begin{matrix}
\sigma_\omega & \\
& \frac{\sigma_V}{\tau_V} \end{matrix}\right] \bm{u}_i \label{eq:droopandinversedroop}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{small}\noindent
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot\theta_i &=& \omega_i-\omega^*_i\\
\label{eq:thetaw
P_i&=&\sum_{j=1}^{n}V_{i}V_{j}(G_{ij}\cos(\theta_i-\theta_j)+B_{ij}\sin(\theta_i-\theta_j))\\\label{eq:pf1
Q_i&=&\sum_{j=1}^{n}V_{i}V_{j}(G_{ij}\cos(\theta_i-\theta_j)-B_{ij}\sin(\theta_i-\theta_j))\label{eq:pf2
\end{eqnarray}
\end{small}\noindent
$\tau_V$ is the equivalent time constant of voltage magnitude dynamics due to the grid-forming or the grid-following control loops, which can be treated as a first-order inertia system when properly tuned; $\bm{u}$ denotes the external control inputs due to secondary control; $\theta$ is the voltage phasor angle;
$j$ denotes the bus number; $G_{ij}$ and $B_{ij}$ represent the equivalent conductance and susceptance between bus $i$ and $j$.
\iffalse
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&\left[ \begin{array}{l}{\Delta\dot\theta}\\
{\Delta\dot V} \\
\end{array} \right]
\approx\left[ \begin{array}{l}
-\sigma_\omega \Delta P\\
-\frac{\sigma_V}{T_S}\Delta Q\\
\end{array} \right]
+\left[ \begin{array}{l}
{\sigma_\omega \Delta P^*}\\
{\frac{\sigma_V}{T_S}\Delta Q^*}\end{array} \right]\\
& =\left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
-\sigma_\omega & \\
& -\frac{\sigma_V}{T_S} \\
\end{array}\right]\bm{J}
\left[ \begin{array}{l}
{\Delta\theta}\\
{\Delta V}\\
\end{array} \right] +\left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
\sigma_\omega & \\
& \frac{\sigma_V}{T_S}\end{array}\right]\left[ \begin{array}{l}
{\Delta P^*}\\
{\Delta Q^*}\end{array} \right]
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:smallSignalDroops}\end{equation}\end{small}\noindent
where $\Delta P$ and $\Delta Q$ are the active and reactive power perturbations, respectively; $T_{s}$ is the time step of secondary control.
$\bm{J}$ is the power flow Jacobian matrix:
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\bm{J} = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
\frac{\partial P}{\partial\theta} & \frac{\partial P}{\partial V}\\
\frac{\partial Q}{\partial\theta} & \frac{\partial Q}{\partial V} \end{array}
\right] \end{aligned} \label{eq:Jacobian}
\end{equation}\end{small}\noindent
\fi
\begin{figure}[!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.501\linewidth]{GFormingSchm6.PNG}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\linewidth]{GFollowingSchm6.PNG}\\
(a) \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad (b)
\caption{Different primary control modes: (a) droop-based grid-forming control; (b) inverse-droop-based grid-following control.}
\label{fig: primarycontrol}\end{figure}
\iffalse
\begin{small}
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
Droop-Based \quad Grid&-Forming:\\
\left[ \begin{array}{l}{\omega_{}-\omega^*}\\
{V_{}-V^*}
\end{array} \right]&=
\left[ \begin{array}{l}
{-\sigma_\omega(P-P^*)}\\
-\sigma_V(Q-Q^*)
\end{array} \right]
+ \left[ \begin{array}{l}
\xi_{\omega} \\
\xi_{V}
\end{array}\right]
\label{eq:droopw}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& Inverse \quad Droop-Based \quad Grid-Following:\\
&\left[ \begin{array}{l}{P-\Delta P^*}\\
{Q-\Delta Q^{*}}
\end{array} \right]
= \left[ \begin{array}{l}{P_{ref}-\Delta P^*}\\
{Q_{ref}-\Delta Q^*}
\end{array} \right] + \left[ \begin{array}{l}
\xi_{P} \\
\xi_{Q}
\end{array}\right]\\
&=\left[ \begin{array}{l}{P^{*}}\\
Q^{*}\end{array} \right]
+ \left[ \begin{array}{l}
\xi_{P} \\
\xi_{Q}
\end{array}\right] =\left[ \begin{array}{l}
{-\frac{1}{\sigma_\omega}(\hat{\omega}_{} - \omega^*)}\\
-\frac{1}{\sigma_V}(V_{} - V^*)
\end{array} \right] + \left[ \begin{array}{l}
\xi_{P} \\
\xi_{Q}
\end{array}\right]
\Rightarrow\\
&\left[ \begin{array}{l}{\omega_{}-\omega^*}\\
{V_{}-V^*}
\end{array} \right]=
-\left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
\sigma_\omega & \\
& \sigma_V\end{array}\right]\left[ \begin{array}{l}
{ P}\\
Q
\end{array} \right]
+ \left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
\sigma_\omega & \\
& \sigma_V
\end{array}\right]\left[ \begin{array}{l}
\Delta P^* \\
\Delta Q^*
\end{array}\right]\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad- \left[ \begin{array}{l}
\sigma_\omega \xi_P + H_\omega\\
\sigma_V \xi_
\end{array}\right]\label{eq:droopw2}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\dot\theta = \omega-\omega^*
\label{eq:thetaw}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
P_i=\sum_{j=1}^{n}V_{i}V_{j}(G_{ij}\cos(\theta_i-\theta_j)+B_{ij}\sin(\theta_i-\theta_j))\label{eq:pf1}\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
Q_i=\sum_{j=1}^{n}V_{i}V_{j}(G_{ij}\cos(\theta_i-\theta_j)-B_{ij}\sin(\theta_i-\theta_j))\label{eq:pf2}\end{equation}
\label{eq:lsignalmodel}\end{subequations}
\end{small}\noindent
\fi
\iffalse
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&\left[ \begin{array}{l}{\Delta\dot\theta}\\
{\Delta\dot V} \\
\end{array} \right]
\approx\left[ \begin{array}{l}
-\sigma_\omega \Delta P\\
-\frac{\sigma_V}{T_S}\Delta Q\\
\end{array} \right]
+\left[ \begin{array}{l}
{\Delta P^*}\\
{\Delta Q^*}\end{array} \right]\\
& =\left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
-\sigma_\omega & \\
& -\frac{\sigma_V}{T_S} \\
\end{array}\right]\bm{J}
\left[ \begin{array}{l}
{\Delta\theta}\\
{\Delta V}\\
\end{array} \right] +\left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
\sigma_\omega & \\
& \frac{\sigma_V}{T_S}\end{array}\right]\left[ \begin{array}{l}
{\Delta P^*}\\
{\Delta Q^*}\end{array} \right]
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:smallSignalDroop}\end{equation}\end{small}\noindent
\fi
\color{black}As shown in Fig. \ref{fig: primarycontrol}, the droop generates the voltage reference for the grid-forming control system, and the inverse droop generates the power references for the grid-following control system. \color{black}
Note that the grid-forming control based on a PLL is adopted in this paper to mitigate negative \color{black} impacts on \color{black} systemwide stability \cite{GFM_PLL2019}.
The dynamics of the grid-forming and grid-following loops are not presented in \color{black}detail \color{black} but will be considered in all simulations presented in Section \ref{sec:case studies}. Interested readers are referred to \cite{6200347,Wei2020} \color{black} for the detailed modeling.
\emph{Uncertainty from Grid-Forming Control:}
As the local converter control
is much faster than the secondary control, the voltage reference fed to grid-forming control in Fig. \ref{fig: primarycontrol}(a) is approximately equal to $\omega$ and $V$ assuming that the grid-forming control loop is well tuned.
Nonetheless, when large disturbances (e.g., \color{black}MG transitions from the grid-connected mode to the islanded mode\color{black}, volatile generation and load) occur that \color{black}cause \color{black} large power perturbations,
the nonlinearity driven by the system power flows
(8)-(\ref{eq:pf2}) and \color{black} by \color{black} the control interaction between the droop module and the grid-forming control loops can emerge, \color{black}thus \color{black} leading to modeling uncertainty in Eq. (\ref{eq:droopandinversedroop}).
\emph{Uncertainty from Grid-Following Control:} Likewise, the control interaction between the inverse-droop module and the grid-following control loops may emerge when there are system disturbances causing big perturbations to the angle and voltage. In addition, when there are large disturbances or measurement noises that make the grid voltage measurement distorted, the uncertainty due to the PLL can also directly introduce the modeling error to Eq. (\ref{eq:droopandinversedroop})
\cite{SRF-PLL}.
To describe the uncertainty from either the grid-forming or the grid-following control, Eq. (\ref{eq:droopandinversedroop}) can be modified a
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\left[ \begin{matrix}{\dot{\theta}_i}\\
{\dot{V}_i}
\end{matrix} \right]=
\left[ \begin{matrix}{-\sigma_\omega(P_i-P^*_i)}\\
-\frac{\sigma_V}{\tau_V}(Q_i-Q^*)
\end{matrix}\right]
+
\left[\begin{matrix}
\sigma_\omega & \\
& \frac{\sigma_V}{\tau_V} \end{matrix}\right] \bm{u}_i +
\left[ \begin{matrix} f_\omega(P,Q,\theta, V)\\
f_V(P,Q,\theta,V)
\end{matrix} \right] \label{nldroopgf}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{small}\noindent
where $f_\omega(.)$ and $f_V(.)$ are unknown nonlinear functions to describe the residual dynamics for the voltage phasor angle and magnitude.
The aforementioned nonlinearity and uncertainty pose challenges to the conventional secondary control of MGs
(e.g., model-based ones and PI) especially under large disturbances. To address these challenges, we propose a Koopman-inspired
method that can help
identify the system accurately and adaptively using data despite nonlinearity and uncertainty such that effective control can be designed.
\section{Koopman-Inspired Identification and Control}
\subsection{Koopman Operator Theory}
Koopman operator theory \cite{Proctor2018} shows that a nonlinear dynamical system can be transformed into an infinite-dimensional linear system under a Koopman embedding mapping. The Koopman-enabled linear model is valid for global nonlinearity with the infinite-dimensional representation as opposed to traditional locally linearized small-signal models. However, in practice, one can consider finite-dimensional Koopman invariant subspaces where dominant dynamics can be described. Particularly, given a nonlinear dynamical system with external control $\bm{x}_{k+1}=F(\bm{x}_{k},\bm{u}_{k})$, where $\bm{x} \in \mathcal{M}$ and $\bm{u} \in \mathcal{U}$ with $\mathcal{M}$ and $\mathcal{U}$ being the manifolds of state and control input, we consider the Koopman embedding mapping $\bm{\Phi}$ from the two manifolds to a new Hilbert space $\bm\Phi: \mathcal{M} \times \mathcal{U} \to \mathcal{H}$, which lies within the span of the eigenfunctions $\varphi_{j}$. That is, $\bm{\Phi(x,u)}= \sum_{j=1}^{N_{\varphi}}\varphi_{j}(\bm{\bm{x},\bm{u}})\bm{v}_{j}$, where $\bm{\Phi}(\bm{x},\bm{u})=[\Phi_{1} (\bm{x,u}),\Phi_2(\bm{x,u}),…,\Phi_i(\bm{x,u}),…,\Phi_p(\bm{x,u})]^T$ is a set of Koopman observables, $\bm{v}_{j}$ are the vector-valued coefficients called Koopman modes.
The Koopman operator $\mathcal{K}$, acting on the span of $\varphi_{j}$, advances the embeddings $\bm{\Phi(x,u)}$ linearly in the Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ as \cite{Proctor2018}:
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\bm{\Phi}(\bm{x}_{k+1},\bm{u}_{k+1}) & =\mathcal{K}\Phi(\bm{x}_k,\bm{u}_k)\\
& = \mathcal{K}\sum_{j=1}^{N_\varphi}\varphi_j({\bm{x},\bm{u}})\bm{v}_j
= \sum_{j=1}^{N_\varphi}(\rho_{j}\varphi_j(\bm{x}_k,\bm{u}_k)\bm{v}_j)
\end{aligned} \label{eq:edmd}
\end{equation}\end{small}\noindent
where $\rho_{j}$ are the eigenvalues satisfying $\mathcal{K} \varphi_j(\bm{x,u})=\rho_j \varphi_j(\bm{x,u})$. To be consistent with the linear form of control inputs in Eq. (\ref{nldroopgf}), we assume that $\Phi_i(\bm{x,u})=g_{i}(\bm{x})+l_i(\bm{u})$ where $g_{i}(\bm{x})$ is a nonlinear observable \color{black} function and $l_i(\bm{u})$ is linear with $l_i(\bm{0})=0$
\cite{KORDALinear2018}. In addition, we assume $\Phi_{i}(\bm{x}_{k+1},\bm{0}) = \mathcal{K} \Phi_{i}(\bm{x}_k,\bm{u}_k)$ for all $k$. Then, $g_{i}(\bm{x}_{k+1})+l_i(\bm{0})=\mathcal{K} g_{i}(\bm{x}_k)+\mathcal{K} l_{i}(\bm{u}_k) \Rightarrow g_{i}(\bm{x}_{k+1})=\mathcal{K} g_{i}(\bm{x}_k)+\mathcal{K} l_i(\bm{u}_k)$. This assumption means that the Koopman operator is only attempting to propagate the observable functions at the current state $\bm{x}_k$ and inputs $\bm{u}_k$ to the future observable functions on the state $\bm{x}_{k+1}$ but not on future inputs $\bm{u}_{k+1}$ (i.e., $[\bm{\Delta P}^*,\bm{\Delta Q}^{*} ]^T$ are not state-dependent) \cite{Proctor2018}. Let us define $\bm{z}:=\bm{g}(\bm{x})=[g_1(\bm{x}),g_2(\bm{x}),…,g_i(\bm{x}),…g_p(\bm{x})]^T$. Then we have an approximation of Eq. (\ref{nldroopgf}) in a form of extended dynamic mode decomposition with control (EDMDc) \cite{KORDALinear2018} as below
\begin{small}
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
(Process \quad model) \quad \bm{z}_{k+1} = \bm{A}\bm{z}_k+\bm{B}\bm{u}_k+\bm{\delta}_k
\label{eq:process}\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
(Observation \quad model) \qquad \bm{y}_k = \bm{C}\bm{z}_k+\bm{e}_k
\label{eq:observation}
\end{equation}\end{subequations}\end{small}\noindent
where $\bm{y}_k$ are the outputs of the Koopman state space model.
We define $\bm{y}_k =[d\theta_k,dV_k]^T= [\theta_k-\theta_{L}^*,V_k-V_L^*]^T $ in Eq. (\ref{eq:observation}) as the PMU-measured phasor angle and voltage magnitude deviations from the local operation points $[\theta_{L}^*,V_L^*]^T$ that are
the first data sample from a window of collected PMU data.
$\bm{A}$ and $\bm{B}$ are the state transition matrix and control matrix, satisfying that $\bm{Az}_k=\mathcal{K} \bm{g}(\bm{x}_k)$ and $\bm{Bu}_k=\mathcal{K} \bm{l}(\bm{u}_k)$. $\bm{\delta}_{k}$ is the Koopman modeling error associated with the EDMDc approximation. $\bm{e}_k$ is the observation model error. Given proper Koopman observables $\bm{z}$, the Koopman state space model (\ref{eq:process})-(\ref{eq:observation}) can describe large signal-driven nonlinear dynamics. That being said, under the Koopman embedding $\bm{z}=\bm{g}(\bm{x})$, the nonlinear dynamical system (\ref{nldroopgf}) can be represented by the linear dynamical system (\ref{eq:process})-(\ref{eq:observation}) that is valid under both small and large perturbations. There are three consecutive tasks to use this model for control: determination of Koopman observables, online identification of the Koopman state space model, and implementation of linear control (illustrated in Sections 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4, respectively).
\subsection{Koopman Observables for MG Secondary Control}
\color{black} The selection of Koopman observables is important for realizing accurate modeling. The observables can be selected either empirically \cite{KORDA2018297, Netto2021, Gong2022} or with the help of machine learning techniques \cite{Yeung2019Koopman,Shi2022,Han2020}, while it remains an open question to obtain the best possible observables. In this paper, we selected the Koopman observables based on our experience and domain knowledge of power systems and microgrids. \color{black}According to Eq. (\ref{eq:droopandinversedroop})-Eq. (\ref{eq:pf2}), sinusoidal-driven interaction dynamics may emerge when subject to large perturbations and low inertia (i.e., the general solution for the droop-control differential equations contains trigonometric patterns). Inspired by this, we include the functions $\sin\theta$ and $\cos\theta$ into the Koopman embedding to describe such underlying dynamics, which were shown effective to describe interaction transients of power grids \cite{KORDA2018297}. Thus, let us define the MG original states $\bm{x}_k=[\theta_k, V_k]^T$ and the Koopman real-valued observables $\bm{z}_k=\bm{g}(\bm{x}_k)$ as:
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\bm{z}_k
=\bm{g}(\bm{x}_k)
=[\Delta \bm{V}_k, \sin\bm{\theta}_k-\sin(\bm{\theta}_{L,k}^*), \cos\bm{\theta}_k-\cos(\bm{\theta}_{L,k}^*), \Delta\bm{\omega}_k]^T
\end{aligned} \label{eq:bases}
\end{equation}
\end{small}\noindent
where $\bm{\Delta V}$ and $\bm{\Delta\omega}$ are voltage and angular frequency deviations from the nominal values. $\bm{\theta}_{L,k}^*$ represents the approximate underlying operation point of voltage phasor angle at time step $k$.
The Koopman observables $\bm{z}$ constitute the Koopman state space in the form of Eq. (\ref{eq:process})-Eq. (\ref{eq:observation}), where the parameter matrices $\bm{A}$, $\bm{B}$ and $\bm{C}$ are to be determined by an advanced system identification method online as described in the next section.
\subsection{Online Identification: A Koopman-Inspired Enhanced OKID Algorithm}
Considering the Koopman-based linear dynamical system model (\ref{eq:process})-(\ref{eq:observation}), we propose
an observer Kalman filter identification (OKID)–based optimization algorithm to optimally identify the MG Koopman state space model (i.e., the matrix parameters $\bm{A}$,$\bm{B}$ and $\bm{C}$).
\textit{\textbf
The OKID Algorithm}}. \color{black} Belonging to the category of closed-loop subspace methods, the conventional OKID algorithm is commonly used to identify linear systems \cite{QIN20061502}. \color{black}It is free of the bias problem that most typical closed-loop subspace methods have \cite{QIN20061502}, and has been applied in many areas such as aircraft control and autonomous underwater vehicles \cite{alenany_modified_2019}.
In OKID, \color{black}the \color{black} impulse response of the system is estimated in a least-squares fashion with data. Then, a state space model of the system is obtained with the eigensystem realization algorithm (ERA). Specifically, let $\bm{Y}$
and $\bm{U}$ represent the matrix stacking the time series data of the outputs $\bm{y}$
and the control inputs $\bm{u}$ in a matrix form. Let $\bm{Y}_i$ and $\bm{U}_i$ represent the observation outputs and the control inputs at the $i^{th}$ time step in the data matrix, and consider the length of the sliding window is $N$. \color{black} By observing Eq. (\ref{eq:process})-Eq. (\ref{eq:observation}) and assuming zero initial conditions,
$\bm{y}_k$ can be expressed with iterations in a form of
$\bm{y}_k=\bm{C}\bm{z}_k=\bm{C}(\bm{A}\bm{z}_{k-1}+\bm{B}\bm{u}_{k-1})=\bm{C}(\bm{A}(\bm{A}\bm{z}_{k-2}+\bm{B}\bm{u}_{k-2})+\bm{B}\bm{u}_{k-1})= \bm{CA^{k-1}Bu}_{0} + \bm{CA^{k-2}Bu}_{1}+... \bm{CBu}_{k-1}=\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\bm{C}\bm{A}^{k-i-1}\bm{B}\bm{u}_{i}$, whereby we obtain
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\bm{Y}
=\begin{bmatrix}
\bm{CB} & \cdots & \bm{CA^{N-1}B}
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\bm{U}_0 & \bm{U}_1 & ...& \bm{U}_{N-1}\\
\bm{0} & \bm{U}_0 & ...&\bm{U}_{N-2}\\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\dots & \dots & \dots &\bm{U}_{0}
\end{bmatrix}\label{eq:diagnoalMatrix}
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
\end{small}\noindent
Let $\bm{h}$ denote the
impulse response of the Koopman state space model (\ref{eq:process})-(\ref{eq:observation}) in the sliding window of size $N$ (from $k=1$ to $k=N$)
with zero initial conditions ($\bm{x}_0=0$) and impulse inputs ($\bm{u}_0=1$ and $\bm{u}_k=0$ when $k>0$), we have
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\bm{h}&=\begin{bmatrix}
\bm{h}_1 & \bm{h}_2 & ...& \bm{h}_N
\end{bmatrix}
&=\begin{bmatrix}
\bm{CB} & \bm{CAB} & ...& \bm{CA^{N-1}B}
\end{bmatrix}\\
\end{aligned} \label{eq:impulse}
\end{equation}
\end{small}\noindent
Then according to Eq. (\ref{eq:diagnoalMatrix})- (\ref{eq:impulse}) and with the knowledge of the observation matrix $\bm{Y}$ and the control input matrix $\bm{U}$, one can estimate the impulse response in a least-squares fashion
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\begin{bmatrix}
\bm{h}_1 & \bm{h}_2 & ...& \bm{h}_N
\end{bmatrix}=\bm{Y}\begin{bmatrix}
\bm{U}_0 & \bm{U}_1 & ...& \bm{U}_{N-1}\\
\bm{0} & \bm{U}_0 & ...&\bm{U}_{N-2}\\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\bm{0} & \bm{0} & \dots &\bm{U}_{0}
\end{bmatrix}^{\dagger}
\end{aligned} \label{eq:OKID}
\end{equation}
\end{small}\noindent
where the operator $\dagger$ represents the Moore-Penrose pseudo-inverse. \color{black} Note that the noise is not optimally filtered by the least-squares inverse as presented in Eq. (\ref{eq:OKID}). To address the issue, the conventional OKID can be designed based on an optimal observer system whereby optimal system parameters can be identified. For simplicity, we refer readers to \cite{brunton2022data} (Pages 340-343) for detailed explanation and implementation.
Next, with the obtained impulse response, the Hankel matrix $\bm{H}$ and the next-step Hankel matrix $\bm{H^{'}}$ can be written as follows: \color{black}
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\bm{H}=\begin{bmatrix}
\bm{h}_1 & \bm{h}_2 & ...& \bm{h}_{N}\\
\bm{0} & \bm{h}_1 & ...&\bm{h}_{N-1}\\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\bm{0} & \bm{0} & \dots &\bm{h}_{1}
\end{bmatrix},
\bm{H^{'}}=\begin{bmatrix}
\bm{h}_2 & \bm{h}_3 & ...& \bm{h}_{N+1}\\
\bm{0} & \bm{h}_2 & ...&\bm{h}_{N}\\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\bm{0} & \bm{0} & \dots &\bm{h}_{2}
\end{bmatrix}
\end{aligned} \label{eq:Hankels}
\end{equation}
\end{small}\noindent
The Hankel matrix $\bm{H}$ could be truncated with Singular Value Decomposition (SVD):
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\bm{H}= \bm{\mathcal U} \bm{\Sigma} \bm{\mathcal V}^T=[\bm{\widetilde{\mathcal U}}, \bm{\mathcal{U}_{tr}}]\begin{bmatrix}
\bm{\widetilde\Sigma} & \bm{0} \\
\bm{0} & \bm{\Sigma_{tr}} \end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\bm{\widetilde{\mathcal V}}^T \\
\bm{\mathcal{V}_{tr}}^T \end{bmatrix}
\approx \bm{\mathcal {\widetilde {U}}} \bm{\widetilde\Sigma} \bm{\mathcal{\widetilde V}}^T
\end{aligned} \label{eq:SVD}
\end{equation}
\end{small}\noindent
Let
\begin{equation}
\color{black} \bm{\mathcal{O}} =[\bm{C},\bm{CA},\bm{CA}^2,...,\bm{CA}^{N-1}]^T\label{eq:O}
\end{equation}
be the observability matrix, and
\begin{equation}
\color{black} \bm{\mathcal{C}} =[\bm{B},\bm{AB},\bm{A}^2\bm{B},...,\bm{A}^{N-1}\bm{B}]\label{eq:C}
\end{equation}
be the controllability matrix. Then, by observing Eq. (\ref{eq:impulse}) and Eq. (\ref{eq:Hankels}), we have
\begin{equation}
\bm{H}=\bm{\mathcal{O}\mathcal{C}},\quad \bm{H^{'}}=\bm{\mathcal{O}\bm{A}\mathcal{C}} \label{eq:H}
\end{equation}
Furthermore, considering Eq. (\ref{eq:SVD}),
we can assume that $\bm{\mathcal{O}}=\bm{\widetilde{\mathcal U}}\bm{\widetilde \Sigma}^{\gamma}$ and $\bm{\mathcal{C}}=\bm{\widetilde \Sigma}^{1-\gamma}\bm{\widetilde{\mathcal V}}^T$, where $\gamma$ is an arbitrary real value.
\emph{Conventional OKID algorithm}. For the conventional OKID algorithm, ERA is thereafter used to identify the matrix $\bm{A}$ and $\bm{B}$, with $\gamma$ set to a constant $\frac{1}{2}$ for a special balanced realization.
That is, one can assume $\bm{\mathcal{O}}=\bm{\widetilde{\mathcal U}}\bm{\widetilde \Sigma}^{\frac{1}{2}}$ and $\bm{\mathcal{C}}=\bm{\widetilde \Sigma}^{\frac{1}{2}}\bm{\widetilde{\mathcal V}}^T$, whereby a state space model with balanced Grammians is realized (i.e., the same degree of controllability and observability) that agrees with the control input and the observation data. \color{black} As such, with $\gamma=\frac{1}{2}$ and by Eq. (\ref{eq:O}) - Eq. (\ref{eq:H}), the matrices $\bm{A}$ and $\bm{B}$ can be identified by the \textbf{conventional OKID} as follows \cite{brunton2022data}:
\color{black}
\begin{small}
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\bm{\widetilde{A}}=\bm{\widetilde \Sigma}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\bm{\widetilde{\mathcal U}}^{T}\bm{H}^{'}\bm{\widetilde{\mathcal V}}\bm{\widetilde \Sigma}^{-\frac{1}{2}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\bm{\widetilde{B}}=\mathfrak{\bm{C}}_{N_S \times N_U}=\left[\bm{\widetilde \Sigma}^{\frac{1}{2}}\bm{\widetilde{\mathcal V}}^T\right]_{N_S \times N_U}
\end{equation}\label{eqs:cOKID_AB}\end{subequations}
\end{small}\noindent
where the operator $\begin{bmatrix}.\end{bmatrix}_{N_S \times N_U}$ represents the first $N_S$ rows and the first $N_U$ columns of the matrix in the bracket; $N_S$ is the dimension of Koopman embedding space and $N_U$ is the dimension of control inputs.
In this paper, to better identify the Koopman-based process dynamics, we propose a Koopman-inspired algorithm to find an optimal $\gamma$ rather than assuming $\gamma = \frac{1}{2}$ as in the conventional OKID. \color{black} Consider a general form with $\gamma$ unfixed
\begin{small}
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\bm{\widetilde{\mathcal U}}\bm{\widetilde \Sigma}^{\gamma}
& =\bm{\mathcal{O}}=\bm{[C,CA,CA^2,...,CA^{N-1}]}^T\\
& =
\color{black}\bm{I}_{N\times N}\otimes\bm{C}\cdot
\bm{[I,A,A^2,...,A^{N-1}]^T}
\end{aligned}\label{eq:2EstimateC}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\bm{\widetilde \Sigma}^{1-\gamma} \bm{\widetilde{\mathcal V}}^T
& =\bm{\mathcal{C}}
=\bm{[B,AB,A^2B,...,A^{N-1}B]}\\
& = \bm{[I,A,A^2,...,A^{N-1}]}
\color{black}(\bm{I}_{N\times N}\otimes \bm{B})
\end{aligned}\label{eq:2EstimateB}
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
\end{small}\noindent
where $\bm{I}_{N \times N}$ is the identity matrix with the dimension $N \times N$, and $\otimes$ denotes the Kronecker product which is
\begin{equation}
\color{black}\bm{I}_{N\times N}\otimes \bm{C}=
\begin{bmatrix}
\bm{C} & & \\
& \ddots & \\
& & \bm{C} \end{bmatrix}, \quad
\color{black}\bm{I}_{N\times N}\otimes \bm{B}=
\begin{bmatrix}
\bm{B} & & \\
& \ddots & \\
& & \bm{B} \end{bmatrix}
\end{equation}
Then
\begin{small}
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
(\color{black}\bm{I}_{N\times N}\otimes\bm{C})^{\dagger}
\bm{\widetilde{\mathcal U}}\bm{\widetilde \Sigma}^{\gamma}
=\bm{[I,A,A^2,...,A^{N-1}]^T}
\end{aligned} \label{eq:ASeries1}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\bm{\widetilde \Sigma}^{1-\gamma} \bm{\widetilde{\mathcal V}}^T
\color{black}(\bm{I}_{N\times N}\otimes \bm{B})^{\dagger}
= \bm{[I,A,A^2,...,A^{N-1}]}
\end{aligned} \label{eq:ASeries2}
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
\end{small}\noindent
By observing Eq. (\ref{eq:ASeries1}) and Eq. (\ref{eq:ASeries2}), we have
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&\bm{\widetilde \Sigma}^{\gamma}\bm{\widetilde{\mathcal U}}^T
\color{black}((\bm{I}_{N\times N}\otimes\bm{C})^{\dagger}
)^{T}
=\bm{\widetilde \Sigma}^{1-\gamma} \bm{\widetilde{\mathcal V}}^{T}
\color{black}(\bm{I}_{N\times N}\otimes\bm{B})^{\dagger}\\
&\Rightarrow\bm{\widetilde \Sigma}^{2\gamma-1}\bm{\widetilde{\mathcal U}}^T
\begin{pmatrix}
\color{black}(\bm{I}_{N\times N}\otimes \bm{C})^{\dagger} \end{pmatrix}^{T}
=\bm{\widetilde{\mathcal V}}^{T}
\color{black}(\bm{I}_{N\times N}\otimes \bm{B})^{\dagger}
\end{aligned} \label{eq:OKID-ERA}
\end{equation}
\end{small}\noindent
Treating Eq. (\ref{eq:OKID-ERA})
as a soft constraint for the parameter $\gamma$, one can formulate a quadratic optimization problem to solve the optimal parameter $\gamma_{opt}$:
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\gamma_{opt}=arg
\min_{\gamma}
\|
\bm{\widetilde \Sigma}^{2\gamma-1}\bm{\widetilde{\mathcal U}}^T
\begin{pmatrix}
\color{black}(\bm{I}_{N \times N} \otimes \bm{C})^{\dagger}\end{pmatrix}^{T} -\bm{\widetilde{\mathcal V}}^{T}
\color{black}(\bm{I}_{N\times N} \otimes \bm{B}) \|_{F}
\end{aligned
\nonumber
\end{equation}\label{eq:OKID-ERA-Implement1}
\begin{equation} \mbox{subject to:} \qquad 0\leq \gamma \leq 1
\label{eq:OKID-ERA-Implement2}\end{equation}
\end{small}\noindent
where $\|.\|_F$ represents the Frobenius norm of a matrix.
The inequality $0\leq \gamma \leq 1$
is added to constrain problem complexity. The novel OKID-based algorithm for parameter estimation is summarized below. The flowchart of the algorithm is also presented in Fig. \ref{FlowchartOKID}.
\noindent\textit{\textbf{
The Proposed Online Koompan-Inspired Enhanced OKID Algorithm}}
\noindent
\textbf{Algorithm Initialization.}
Initialize $\gamma_{opt}=\gamma_{opt,0}$, the smoothing factor $\eta$, and the time step $T_{OPT}$ between two updates of $\gamma_{opt}$.
The selection of these parameters will be discussed in \textit{Remarks} after the presentation of the algorithm.
At each time step of identification and the secondary control, i.e., for $k=1, 2,...$, conduct \textbf{Step 1} -\textbf{Step 5}
\noindent
\textbf{Step 1: Data preparation.} Collect the last $N$ data samples from microPMUs to obtain the data matrices of phasor angle $\bm{\Theta}$, voltage deviation $\bm{\Delta V}$ and angular frequency deviation $\bm{\Delta \Omega}$ from the nominal values.
Collect control input data $\bm{U}$ from the secondary controller. For example, the phasor angle $\bm{\Theta}$ is stacked in a form of
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\bm{\Theta} &=\begin{bmatrix}
| & | & |\\
\bm{\Theta}_1 & ... & \bm{\Theta}_{N}\\
| & | & | \end{bmatrix}
\end{aligned}\label{eq:data}
\end{equation}
\end{small}\noindent
$\bm{\Delta V}$, $\bm{\Delta \Omega}$ and $\bm{U}$ are formed in the same way. \color{black} The approximated operation points of voltage phasor angles and magnitudes $\bm{\Theta_L^*}$ and $\bm{V_L^*}$ are defined as the first data sample from a window of collected PMU data, prepared in a matrix form as follows:
\color{black}
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\bm{\Theta_L^{*}} &=\begin{bmatrix}
| & | & |\\
\bm{\Theta}^{}_1 & ... & \bm{\Theta}_{1}^{}\\
| & | & | \end{bmatrix},\quad
\bm{V_L^{*}}=\begin{bmatrix}
| & | & |\\
\bm{V}^{}_1 & ... & \bm{V}_{1}^{}\\
| & | & | \end{bmatrix}
\end{aligned}\label{eq:ldata}
\end{equation}
\end{small}\noindent
\color{black}
Prepare the data matrices for $\bm{y}$ and $\bm{z}$ as follows: $\bm{Y=[\Theta-\Theta^*_L,V-V^*_L]^T}$, and
$\bm{Z=[\Delta V,\sin(\Theta)-\sin(\Theta^*_L),\cos(\Theta)-\cos(\Theta^*_L), \Delta\Omega]^T}$.
\noindent \textbf{Step 2: Hankel matrix preparation and SVD}.
Estimate the impulse response and prepare the Hankel matrices according to Eq. (\ref{eq:OKID})-Eq. (\ref{eq:Hankels}). \color{black} Conduct the SVD on the obtained Hankel matrix $\bm{H}\approx \bm{\mathcal {\widetilde {U}}} \bm{\widetilde\Sigma} \bm{\mathcal{\widetilde V}}^T$.
\noindent \textbf{Step 3: Estimation of $\bm{C}$.}
\color{black}Ignoring the error term in Eq. (\ref{eq:observation}), we have $\bm{Y} = \bm{C}\bm{Z}$. Thus, one can estimate the observation matrix $\bm{C}$ at each time step $k$ in a least-squares fashion by multiplying the pseudo-inverse on both sides of the equation, which is
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\bm{\widetilde{C}}_k &= \bm{Y}\bm{Z}^{\dagger}
\end{aligned}\label{eq:Cest}
\end{equation}
\end{small}\noindent
\color{black}
\noindent \textbf{Step 4: Optimization for $\gamma_{opt}$.}
Check if the run time of optimization between the last update of $\gamma_{opt}$ is larger than $T_{OPT}$. If no, $\gamma_{opt,k}=\gamma_{opt,k-1}$, go to \textbf{Step 5}; otherwise, solve the optimization problem in Eq. (\ref{eq:OKID-ERA-Implement2}) for $\gamma_{opt}^-$.
To do so, by Eq. (\ref{eqs:cOKID_AB}b),
replace $\bm{B}$ with $\begin{bmatrix} \bm{\widetilde \Sigma}^{1-\gamma} \bm{\widetilde{\mathcal V}}^T \end{bmatrix}_{N_S \times N_U}$ and replace $\bm{C}$ with $\bm{\widetilde{C}}_k$ from \textbf{Step 3}
in
Eq. (\ref{eq:OKID-ERA-Implement2}).
Then, adaptively update $\gamma_{opt}$ by
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\gamma_{opt,k} =
&\eta\gamma_{opt}^{-} + (1-\eta)\gamma_{opt,k-1}, & {\mbox{for} \quad k = T_{OPT},2T_{OPT},3T_{OPT},...}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}\end{small}\noindent
\color{black} where $\gamma_{opt}^{-}$ is the optimal value of the realization parameter $\gamma$ according to Eq. (\ref{eq:OKID-ERA-Implement2}). That is, once $\gamma_{opt}^{-}$ is updated, we update $\gamma_{opt}$ with the weighted sum of the old $\gamma_{opt}$ at last time step and the updated value $\gamma_{opt}^{-}$. $\eta$ is the weight to smooth online learning. The role of $\eta$ is to smooth the online learning of $\gamma$. As the small piece of online data used for identification is characterized by stochasticity, the smoothing factor $\eta$ can mitigate aggressive change to make the learning process more reliable. This is so because the estimation is equivalent to the Robbins–Monro form \cite{haykin2009neural}, which is $\gamma_{opt,k}=\eta\gamma_{opt}^{-} + (1-\eta)\gamma_{opt,k-1} = \gamma_{opt,k-1} +\eta(\gamma_{opt}^{-} -\gamma_{opt,k-1})$.
The larger the value of $\gamma$ is, the smoother the learning process tends to be, whereas the adaptiveness of learning is compromised.
\color{black}
\noindent \textbf{Step 5: Estimation of $\bm{A}$ and $\bm{B}$}.
By Eq. (\ref{eqs:cOKID_AB}a)-(\ref{eqs:cOKID_AB}b)
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\bm{\widetilde{A}}_k = &\left\{
\begin{array}{rc}
\eta\bm{\widetilde \Sigma}^{-\gamma_{opt,k}}\bm{\widetilde{\mathcal U}}^{T}\bm{H}^{'}\bm{\widetilde{\mathcal V}}\bm{\widetilde \Sigma}^{\gamma_{opt,k}-1}+ (1-\eta)\bm{\widetilde{A}}_{k-1} & {\mbox{if } k \geq 1} \\
\bm{\widetilde \Sigma}^{-\gamma_{opt,k}}\bm{\widetilde{\mathcal U}}^{T}\bm{H}^{'}\bm{\widetilde{\mathcal V}}\bm{\widetilde \Sigma}^{\gamma_{opt,k}-1}\qquad\qquad & \mbox{if }{k=0} \\
\end{array}\right.
\end{aligned}\label{OKID_A}\end{equation}\end{small}
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\bm{\widetilde{B}}_k = &\left\{
\begin{array}{rc}
\eta\left[\bm{\widetilde \Sigma}^{1-\gamma_{opt,k}}\bm{\widetilde{\mathcal V}}^T\right]_{N_S \times N_U}+(1-\eta)\bm{\widetilde{B}}_{k-1} & {\mbox{if } k \geq 1} \\
\left[\bm{\widetilde \Sigma}^{1-\gamma_{opt,k}}\bm{\widetilde{\mathcal V}}^T\right]_{N_S \times N_U} \qquad\qquad\qquad & \mbox{if }{k=0} \\
\end{array}\right.\\
\end{aligned}\label{OKID_B}\end{equation}\end{small}\noindent
\color{black}After implementing the identification algorithm, the identified Koopman state space model at the time step $k$ is obtained as:
\begin{small}
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\bm{z}_{k+1} = \bm{\widetilde A}_k\bm{z}_k+\bm{\widetilde B}_k\bm{u}_k
\end{aligned}\label{eq:idKoopman1}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\bm{y}_k = \bm{\widetilde C}_k\bm{z}_k
\end{aligned} \label{eq:idKoopman2}
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
\end{small}
\color{black} Compared to the traditional EDMDc used in power systems \cite{KORDA2018297}, the proposed Koopman-inspired OKID can use the observation data $\bm{y}$ as in Eq. (\ref{eq:observation}) to help learn the Koopman state space model in Eq. (\ref{eq:process}), while the traditional EDMDc only estimates the Koopman state space in Eq. (\ref{eq:process}) in a least-squares fashion without the incorporation of observation data. The fusion of the information from the observation data provides extra opportunities to enhance the modeling efficacy.\color{black}\\
\noindent{\emph{Remarks}}
\begin{itemize}
\item $\gamma_{opt}$:
in this paper, $\gamma_{opt,0}=\frac{1}{2}$. Thus the enhanced OKID is initially equivalent to the conventional one while it gradually learns the optimized value for $\gamma_{opt}$ with the online OKID and the periodically enabled optimization in Eq. (\ref{eq:OKID-ERA-Implement2}).
\item The smoothing factor $\eta$: it is used to \color{black}weigh \color{black} the past estimations and the latest one, and set to $\frac{1}{N}$ in this paper with the assumption that all estimations have the same weight independent on the time of occurrence. A larger $\eta$ means the estimation put more \color{black} weight \color{black} on the newest data, and vice versa. \color{black}
\item The time step $T_{OPT}$ for updating $\gamma_{opt}$: it is set to 0.6s, which is longer than the run time of the proposed Koopman-inspired enhanced OKID and the time step of secondary control (30ms) as detailed in Section \ref{sec:case studies}. A small $T_{OPT}$ is favorable as a fast update of $\gamma$ to
compensate for \color{black} the \color{black} uncertainty of the Koopman process model (\ref{eq:process}), while it should be longer than the run time of the optimization (\ref{eq:OKID-ERA-Implement2}) to ensure the feasibility of online implementation.
\end{itemize}
\color{black}
\begin{figure}[!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Flowchart_OKID_simple1_ho.PNG}
\caption{Algorithm flowchart of the proposed Koopman-inspired enhanced OKID}
\label{FlowchartOKID}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The Linear Control Based on the Koopman-Inspired Enhanced OKID}
After obtaining the identified model (\ref{eq:idKoopman1}) - (\ref{eq:idKoopman2}), a discrete-time linear quadratic regulator (LQR) is applied at each time step of secondary control, aiming to reduce the voltage and frequency deviations by minimizing the cost
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& \bm{J}(\bm{u})= \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\bm{z}_{k}^{T}\bm{\mathcal{Q}}\bm{z}_k+\bm{u}_k^T\bm{\mathcal{R}}\bm{u}_k,\\
& \mbox{subject to} \quad \bm{z}_{k+1} = \bm{\widetilde A}\bm{z}_k+\bm{\widetilde B}\bm{u}_k
\end{aligned} \label{eq:LQRcost}
\end{equation}
\end{small}\noindent
where $\bm{\mathcal{Q}}$ and $\bm{\mathcal{R}}$ are cost matrices defined as:
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\bm{\mathcal{Q}}=\begin{bmatrix}
\bm{ q}_V & & & \\
& \bm{ q}_{\sin \theta} & &\\
& & \bm{ q}_{\cos \theta} & \\
& & & \bm{ q}_{\omega} \end{bmatrix},\quad
\bm{\mathcal{R}}=\begin{bmatrix}
\bm{{r}}_P & \\
& \bm{{r}}_Q \end{bmatrix}
\label{eq:LQRcost}
\end{equation}
\end{small}\noindent
where $\bm{q_{V}}$, $\bm{q_{\sin\theta}}$, $\bm{q_{\cos\theta}}$ and $\bm{q}_{\omega}$ are cost submatrices for the Koopman observables presented in (\ref{eq:bases}). $\bm{r_P}$ and $\bm{r_Q}$ are cost submatrices for the control signals $\Delta P^*$ and $\Delta Q^*$. \color{black}They are basically selected empirically in this paper based on which factor is treated to be more important. \color{black}The optimal control input can be obtained by:
\begin{equation}
\begin{small}
\begin{aligned}
\bm{u}_k = &\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
\bm{U_{LB}} & {} & {\bm{u}_k < \bm{U_{LB}} }\\
-\bm{K}\bm{z}_{k} & & { \bm{U_{LB}} \leqslant \bm{u}_k \leqslant \bm{U_{UB}} }\\
\bm{U_{UB}} & & {\bm{u}_k > \bm{U_{UB}}} \\
\end{array}\right.\\
& \mbox{with }\quad \bm{K} = (\bm{\widetilde{B}}^T\bm{S}\bm{\widetilde{B}}+\bm{\mathcal{R}})^{-1}\bm{\widetilde{B}}^T\bm{S}\bm{\widetilde{A}}
\end{aligned}
\end{small}
\end{equation}\label{LQR}\noindent
where $\bm{K}$ is the control gain matrix. $\bm{S}$ is the solution of Riccati equation \cite{LQRformula2008}. $\bm{U_{UB}}$ and $\bm{U_{LB}}$ are the upper and lower saturation limits that can bound the uncertainty introduced by control inputs. \color{black} The bounds are user-defined values, which are determined empirically in the paper. Usually, large bounds can lead to faster response whereas the uncertainty introduced through control input channels could be increased to an unmanageable level that degrades the dynamic control performance or even stability. On the other hand, the bounds cannot be set to too small values, otherwise, the response could be slow and the capability of the controller cannot be fully taken use of. \color{black}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{FlowChart_ProposedOKID_m_new.PNG}
\caption{\color{black} Online structure of the proposed Koopman-inspired enhanced OKID and control}
\label{Flowchart}
\end{figure}
\color{black} The Koopman-inspired enhanced OKID illustrated in Section 3.3 and the LQR illustrated in Section 3.4 can be respectively applied to the identification block and the control algorithm block of secondary control in Fig. \ref{MGarch}. Specifically, Fig. \ref{Flowchart} presents the proposed online identification and control structure.
\color{black} The stability of such Koopman-inspired identification and control is guaranteed, which is proved in what follows.
\subsection{ Stability Analysis}
\color{black} MG dynamics can be expressed in a Koopman-based structure and can be approximated with the online Koopman-inspired identification in Section 3.3. The approximation error is bounded but often not quantifiable as it depends on the appropriateness of Koopman observables and the online parameter identification algorithm. In what follows, we aim to prove stability properties in a general sense. \color{black}
\subsubsection{Proof of BIBO Stability} \label{Aderivation}
We prove that the proposed Koopman-inspired OKID-based control is BIBO (bounded-input-bounded-output) stable.
Denoted by $\hat{\bm{x}}_{k+1}$ the one-step-ahead prediction of the state vector $\bm{x}$ at the time step $k$ with the OKID-based estimation. Denoted by $\hat{\mathcal{K}}_k$ the estimated Koopman operator at time step $k$. According to Eq. (\ref{eq:edmd}), we have
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\bm{g}(\bm{\hat{x}}_{k+1})= \bm{\Phi}(\bm{\hat{x}}_{k+1},\bm{0})= \hat{\mathcal{K}}_k \bm{\Phi}(\bm{x}_k,\bm{u}_k)
&=\hat{\mathcal{K}}_k \sum_{j=1}^{N_\varphi}\varphi_j({\bm{x}_k,\bm{u}_k})\bm{v}_j
=\sum_{j=1}^{N_\varphi}(\rho_{j,k}\varphi_j(\bm{x}_k,\bm{u}_k)\bm{v}_j)
\end{aligned} \label{eq:edmd2}
\end{equation}\end{small}\noindent
where $\rho_{j,k}$ is the eigenvalue corresponding to the $j$th eigenfunction $\varphi_j$ for the estimated Koopman operator $\hat{\mathcal{K}}_k$.
Recall that $\bm{\Phi}(\bm{x},\bm{u})=\bm{g}(\bm{x})+\bm{l}(\bm{u})$ discussed in Section III.A, where $\bm{l}(\bm{u})=[{l}_1(\bm{u}),{l}_2(\bm{u}),…{l}_p(\bm{u})]^T$ and $\bm{l}(\bm{0})=\bm{0}$. \color{black} Then
\footnotesize
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\bm{g}(\bm{x}_{k+1})&=\bm{g}(\bm{\hat{x}}_{k+1}) + \bm{\delta}_{k} = \hat{\mathcal{K}}_k \bm{\Phi}(\bm{x}_k,\bm{u}_k) + \bm{\delta}_{k}\\
&=\hat{\mathcal{K}}_k (\bm{g}(\bm{x}_k)+\bm{l}(\bm{u}_k)) + \bm{\delta}_{k}\\
&=\hat{\mathcal{K}}_k (\hat{\mathcal{K}}_{k-1} \bm{\Phi}(\bm{x}_{k-1},\bm{u}_{k-1}) +\bm{\delta}_{k-1} +\bm{l}(\bm{u}_k)) + \bm{\delta}_{k}\\
&=\hat{\mathcal{K}}_k (\hat{\mathcal{K}}_{k-1}(\bm{g}(\bm{x}_{k-1}) + \bm{l}(\bm{u}_{k-1}))+ \bm{\delta}_{k-1}+\bm{l}(\bm{u}_{k})) + \bm{\delta}_{k}\\
&= \hat{\mathcal{K}}_k (\hat{\mathcal{K}}_{k-1}(\hat{\mathcal{K}}_{k-2} \bm{\Phi}(\bm{x}_{k-2},\bm{u}_{k-2}) + \bm{\delta}_{k-2} +\bm{l}(\bm{u}_{k-2})) + \bm{l}(\bm{u}_{k-1})) + \bm{\delta}_{k-1} + \bm{l}(\bm{u}_{k})) + \bm{\delta}_{k}\\
&=\dots= \prod_{h=0}^k \hat{\mathcal{K}}_{k-h}\bm{\Phi}(x_0,u_0) + \sum_{h=1}^{k}\prod_{i=h}^k\hat{\mathcal{K}}_{k-i+h}(\delta_{h-1} + \bm{l}(\bm{u}_h))+\bm{\delta_{k}} \\
&=\sum_{j=1}^{N_\varphi}(\prod_{h=0}^{k}\rho_{j,h})\varphi_j(\bm{x}_0,\bm{u}_0)\bm{v}_j +\sum_{h=1}^{k} \prod_{i=h}^k\hat{\mathcal{K}}_{k-i+h} (\bm{\delta}_{h-1}+ \bm{l}(\bm{u}_h))+\bm{\delta}_{k}\nonumber
\label{ieq: Koopman1}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}\noindent\normalsize
\color{black}where $\bm{\delta} _{k}$ is the Koopman modeling error which has been defined in Eq. (\ref{eq:process}), and $\bm{v}_j$ is
the $j$th Koopman mode associated with the Koopman eigenfunction $\varphi_j$. Apparently,
\vspace{-0.1in}
\footnotesize
\begin{equation}
0 \leqslant
\|\sum_{j=0}^{N_\varphi}(\prod_{j=0}^{k}\rho_{j,h})\varphi_j(\bm{x}_0,\bm{u}_0)\bm{v}_j\|_2 \leqslant \lim_{k\to\infty}(\mbox{max}_{j,h}|\rho_{j,h}|)^{k+1} \sum_{j=1}^{N_\varphi}\|\varphi_j(\bm{x}_0,\bm{u}_0)\bm{v}_j\|_2
\label{ieq:Koopmanineq}
\end{equation}\noindent
\normalsize
With LQR in the Koopman invariant subspace, assume the MG secondary controller can optimally make the magnitudes of all system eigenvalues smaller than 1 (if the system is stabilizable). That is $\hat{\mathcal{K}}_{k}{\varphi}_j = \rho_{j,k} \varphi_{j} $ with $|\rho_{j,k}|<1$. Due to the online \color{black}rolling-based \color{black} estimation in the proposed method, we can assume the global error $\|\sum_{h=1}^k\Pi_{i=h}^k\hat{\mathcal{K}}_{k}(\delta_{h-1}+l(u_h))\|_2$ is bounded by $\zeta_g$, and the modeling error is $\|\delta_{k}\|_2$ bounded by $\epsilon_m $. \color{black} According to (\ref{ieq:Koopmanineq}), we have
\footnotesize
\begin{equation}
\hspace{-0.1in}\lim_{{k\to\infty}}\|\bm{g}(\bm{x}_{k+1})\|_2
\leqslant \lim_{{k\to\infty}}(\mbox{max}_{j,h}|\rho_{j,h}|)^{k+1} \sum_{j=1}^{N_\varphi}\|\varphi_j(\bm{x}_0,\bm{u}_0)\bm{v}_j\|_2 + \zeta_g + \lim_{{k\to\infty}}\|\delta_{k}\|_2
\leqslant \zeta_g + \epsilon_m
\label{eq:errbounds}
\end{equation}\noindent
\normalsize
Based on (\ref{eq:errbounds}), $\bm{g}(\bm{x})$ converges till reaching the area $\Xi = \big\{ \bm{g}(\bm{x}) | \|\bm{g}(\bm{x})\|_2 \leqslant \zeta_g + \epsilon_m \big\} $.
Thus, the system is BIBO stable. Besides, the Koopman-based LQR can guarantee asymptotic stability subject to the disturbance in control input channels under mild conditions. See Section 3.5.2.
\subsubsection{Stability Margins of Koopman-Enabled LQR} \label{Aderivation1}
The discrete-time LQR used in this paper has analytical disc stability margins \cite{dLQRmargin}, within which asymptotic stability subject to the disturbance in control input channels is guaranteed. Specifically, consider the identified Koopman state space model described as below:
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\bm{g}(\bm{x}_{k+1})&=\bm{A}\bm{g}(\bm{x}_k) + \bm{B}\bm{u}_k+\bm{B}\bm{M}\bm{u}_k= \bm{A}\bm{g}(\bm{x}_k)+\bm{B}\bm{Kg}(\bm{x}_k)+\bm{B} \bm{M}\bm{Kg}(\bm{x}_k)\\
& = \bm{A}\bm{g}(\bm{x}_k)+\bm{B}(\bm{I}+\bm{M})\bm{Kg}(\bm{x}_k)
\end{aligned} \label{eq:ssmodelcomplex}
\end{equation}\end{small}\noindent
where $\bm{M}=diag([m_1, m_2, …m_{2N_{DER}}])$ is an introduced diagonal matrix to represent model uncertainty in control input channels. In other words, the introduced matrix parameter $\bm{M}$ can be used to quantify the uncertainty from control input channels, whereby one can provide the stability analysis based on the disc margin for each channel (which will be provided below). $\bm{K}$ is the control gain matrix such that $\bm{u}_k=\bm{Kg}(\bm{x}_k)$ in line with the LQR.
Consider $\bm{M}$ and $\bm{g}(\bm{x}_k)$ to be complex-valued to reflect both gain and phase disturbances. \color{black} Define a Lyapunov function $ V(x)= \bm{g(x)}^{*}\bm{S}\bm{g(x)}$ (where $\bm{S}$ is the solution of Riccati equation). Based on the Lyapunov function and following the steps in \cite{dLQRmargin}, we provide the disk stability margin for the $i$th control input channel in (\ref{eq:disk}) without further explanation (also see Fig. \ref{fig: diskmargin}). Interested readers can refer to \cite{dLQRmargin} for the derivation of the disc margin.\color{black}
\begin{figure
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.55\linewidth]{Diskmargin_new.PNG}
\caption{Disk stability margin for the discrete-time LQR}
\label{fig: diskmargin}\end{figure}
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
1+m_i &= \bigg\{ \alpha_i + j\beta_i: \Big(\alpha_i-(1+\frac{r_i}{\mu})\Big)^2 + \beta_i^2 \\
&< (1+\frac{r_i}{\mu})^2 + \frac{\rho-r_i}{\mu}-1 \bigg\}, \quad \mbox{where} \quad i =1,2,...,2N_{DER}
\end{aligned} \label{eq:disk}
\end{equation}\end{small}\noindent
where $\rho=\sigma_{min}[\bm{Q}]/(\sigma_{max}[\bm{K}])^2$ and $\mu=\sigma_{max}[\bm{B}^T\bm{S}\bm{B}]$. $\sigma_{max}[.]$ and $\sigma_{min}[.]$ represent the matrix operation to obtain the maximum and minimum singular values, respectively. $r_i$ is the $i$th diagonal element of the cost matrix $\bm{R}$.
Fig. \ref{fig: diskmargin} shows the disc margin, \color{black} within which the system is asymptotically stable.
Specifically,
according to Eq. (\ref{eq:disk}) and
Fig. \ref{fig: diskmargin}
, the sufficient conditions of asymptotic convergence against the model uncertainty is\color{black}: $1+G_{L,i} <\alpha_i<1+G_{U,i}$ for the gain margin and $PM_{L,i} <\arctan\frac{\beta_i}{\alpha_i}<PM_{U,i}$ for the phase margin, with
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
G_{L,i} = \frac{r_i}{\mu}-\sqrt{(1+\frac{r_i}{\mu})^2+\frac{\rho-r_i}{\mu}-1},\quad
G_{U,i} = \frac{r_i}{\mu}+\sqrt{(1+\frac{r_i}{\mu})^2+\frac{\rho-r_i}{\mu}-1} \\
\end{aligned} \label{eq:mbounds}
\end{equation}\end{small}\noindent
and
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
PM_{L,i} &= -\arccos(1/(1+\frac{r_i}{\mu})) = -\arccos \frac{\mu}{\mu+r_i}\\
PM_{U,i}&= \arccos(1/(1+\frac{r_i}{\mu})) =\arccos \frac{\mu}{\mu+r_i}, &\mbox{for} \quad i = 1,2,...,2N_{DER}.
\end{aligned} \label{eq:mbounds}
\end{equation}\end{small}\noindent
\color{black}
\section{Case Studies}\label{sec:case studies}
This section presents case studies based on two MG test systems, namely a four-bus MG as shown in Fig. \ref{fig: MG4bus} and a thirteen-bus MG as shown in Fig. \ref{fig: MG13bus}, to verify the effectiveness of the proposed Koopman-inspired identification and control. The two test systems were established in MATLAB Simulink 2021b. The DERs in the test systems are primary-controlled in different control modes (grid-forming converters, grid-following converters, and an isochronous-controlled diesel generator as given in Fig. \ref{fig: MG4bus} and Fig. \ref{fig: MG13bus}) with the inner control loops modeled in detail. \color{black} Therefore, the interaction of primary and secondary control is preserved \color{black} in simulation to test the effectiveness of secondary control in realistic setups. The implementation of the converter voltage and current control inner-loops can be found
\cite{Ma2021,6200347}.
\begin{figure}[!b]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.78\linewidth]{MG4bus.png}\\
\caption{The MG 4-bus test system}
\label{fig: MG4bus}\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!b]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{MG13bus_new.PNG}\\
\caption{The MG 13-bus test system}
\label{fig: MG13bus}\end{figure}
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\caption{Parameters of the 4-Bus MG Test System}
\label{tab:MG1}
\begin{tabular}{c c}
\hline
Parameters&Value\\
\hline
Power base $S_{base}$ & 30kVA\\
Voltage Base $V_{base}$ & 480V\\
Primary control time step $T_{sp}$ & 0.1ms\\
Secondary control time step $T_{s}$ & 30ms\\
Sliding window length for estimation $N$ & 9 (270ms) \\
Local Voltage proportional gain $K_{P}$ & 0.5 \\
Local Voltage integral gain $K_{S}$ & 523 \\
Local current proportional gain $K_{P}$ & 0.3 \\
Local current integral gain $K_{S}$ & 635 \\
Frequency droop parameters for DERs 1,2: $\sigma_{\omega}$ & $2.14\times 10^{-3} rad/(W \cdot s)$ \\
Voltage droop parameters for DERs 1: $\sigma_{V}$ & $1.0\times 10^{-3} V/Var$ \\
Voltage droop parameters for DERs 2: $\sigma_{V}$ & $6.3\times 10^{-3} V/Var$ \\
Frequency droop parameters for DERs 3,4: $\sigma_{\omega}$ & $2.83\times 10^{-3} rad/(W \cdot s)$\\%4.5\times 10^{-4} Hz/W \\
Voltage droop parameters for DERs 3: $\sigma_{V}$ & $1.5\times 10^{-3} V/Var$ \\
Voltage droop parameters for DERs 4: $\sigma_{V}$ & $9.4\times 10^{-3} V/Var$ \\
PMU measurement noise & $\mathcal{N}(0,0.0056^2)$\\
Control Time delay & $\mathcal{N}(0.05,0.002^2) s$ \\%0.6s\\
Ambient perturbation level added to the reference \\of DER output voltage and angle: & $\mathcal{N}(0,0.01^2)$\\
Filter resistance $R_{f1,2,3,4}(\Omega)$ & 0.1\\
Filter inductance $L_{f1,2,3,4},L_{c1,2}(mH)$ & 1.35\\
Filter capacitance $C_{f1,2,3,4}(\mu F)$ & 50\\
Filter capacitor resistance $R_{fc1,2,3,4}(\Omega)$ & 1\\
Line resistance $R_{c1,2}(\Omega)$ & 0.08\\
Line resistance $R_{c3,4}(\Omega)$ & 0.09\\
Line inductance $L_{c1,2}(mH)$ & 0.35\\
Line inductance $L_{c3,4}(mH)$ & 0.45\\
Line Resistance $R_{l1,2,3,4}(\Omega)$ & 0.15, 0.35, 0.23, 0.17\\
Line inductance $L_{l1,2,3,4}(mH)$ & 0.42, 0.33, 0.55, 2.40\\
Load $P_{L1,2,3}$ (active power in kW) & 20, 16, 12\\
Load $Q_{L1,2,3}$ (reactive powe in kVar) & 9, 9, 6\\
LQR control parameter $q_{V}$ & $1\times 10^3\bm{I}$\\
LQR control parameter $q_{\sin}$ , $q_{\cos}$ & $\bm{0}$\\
LQR control parameter $q_{\omega}$ & $1\times 10^{-6}\bm{I}$\\
LQR control parameter ${r_P}$, ${r_Q}$ & $1\times 10^{-6}\bm{I}$\\
Control input lower bounds $U_{LB}$ & -1.0 kVA\\
Control input upper bounds $U_{UB}$ & 1.0 kVA\\
Time period for the optimization (\ref{eq:OKID-ERA-Implement2}) $\quad T_{OPT}$ & 0.6 s\\
\color{black} Time constant of the power low-pass filter & \color{black}0.02857s\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\small \item * $\mathcal{N}(a,b)$ is the normal distribution with mean of $a$ and variance of $b$.
Control parameters are designed based on Per Unit.
\end{tablenotes}\end{table}
Besides, randomized measurement noises, control time delays, and ambient perturbations were incorporated into the test systems to mimic practical operation. The simulation parameters of the two test systems are summarized in Table \ref{tab:MG1} and Table \ref{tab:MG2}, respectively. \color{black} The readers can find more information about the test systems at https://github.com/nash13123/MG-Test-System.git\color{black}.
\begin{table}[!t]
\centering
\caption{Parameters of the 13-Bus MG Test System}
\label{tab:MG2}
\begin{tabular}{c c}
\hline
Parameters&Value\\
\hline
Power base $S_{base}$ & 150kVA\\
Voltage Base $V_{base}$ & 4.16kV\\
Sliding window length for estimation $N$ & 14(420ms) \\
Droop parameters for all DERs: $\sigma_{\omega}$ & $3.14\times 10^{-4} rad/(W \cdot s)$ \\%$5.0\times 10^{-5} Hz/W$ \\
Droop parameters for all DERs: $\sigma_{V}$ & $1.5\times 10^{-3} V/Var$ \\
Ambient perturbation level
& $\mathcal{N}(0,0.02^2)$\\
LQR control parameter $q_{V}$ & $1\times 10^3\bm{I}$\\
LQR control parameter $q_{sin}$ , $q_{cos}$ & $\bm{0}$\\
LQR control parameter $q_{\omega}$ & $0.01\bm{I}$\\
LQR control parameter ${r_P}$, ${r_Q}$ & $1\times 10^{-6}\bm{I}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\small \item *
Other control parameters are the same to the values in Table \ref{tab:MG1}.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{table}
\subsection{Identification and Control in the 4-Bus MG Test System}
The small 4-bus MG test system was used to test the proposed Koopman-inspired enhanced OKID with control under load variations and the MG transition from the grid-connected mode to islanded mode. The DERs at Bus 1 and 3 are droop-based grid-forming, and the DERs at Bus 2 and 4 are inverse-droop-based grid-following. At 0.7s, the MG was disconnected from the main grid by turning off the switch SW, \color{black} which causes \color{black} sudden voltage drops and consequent dynamics. After detecting the sudden change, the secondary control was enabled and kept online from 0.8s, i.e., approximately 0.1s lag to mimic a time delay of islanding event detection in practical applications.
\textbf{\emph{Modeling accuracy of the Koopman-inspired OKID.}}
First, we evaluate the modeling accuracy with the one-step-ahead prediction error of the voltage magnitude, which is defined as
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\bm{e}_{k+1}^{(pred)}
= \frac{1}{dim{(\bm{\Delta V})}}\|\bm{\Delta V_{k+1}}-\bm{\Delta \hat{V}_{k+1}}\|
\end{aligned} \label{eq:LQRcost}
\end{equation}
\end{small}\noindent
where $dim[.]$ represents the dimension of the vector in the bracket, and $\Delta\hat{\bm{V}}_{k+1}$ represents the predicted voltage magnitude at time step $k+1$ by the identified model
of interest.
\color{black}
In Fig. \ref{fig: prederr}, we compared the prediction error of two different ways of modeling:
(i) the proposed Koopman-inspired enhanced OKID with the basis $\bm{z}=[\Delta \bm{V}, \sin\bm{\theta}-\sin(\bm{\theta}_L^*), \cos\bm{\theta}-\cos(\bm{\theta}_L^*), \Delta\bm{\omega}]^T$;
(ii) the conventional OKID (i.e., linearize the system model in Eq. (\ref{nldroopgf}) and apply OKID with $\gamma_{opt}$ fixed at $\frac{1}{2}$).
It was found that the proposed Koopman-inspired enhanced OKID leads to smaller prediction error than the conventional OKID. These results show that the salient features of the proposed Koopman-inspired OKID, i.e., the Koopman nonlinear basis
and the adaptive $\gamma_{opt}$,
can ensure a good modeling accuracy regardless of nonlinearity and uncertainty during large disturbances.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{PredErr_full_and_linearbasis_mOKID3_new.png}
\caption{Comparison of the prediction error}
\label{fig: prederr}\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.42\linewidth]{V_mOKID_4bus3_zoom.png} \qquad
\includegraphics[width=0.42\linewidth]{f_mOKID_4bus3_zoom.png}\\
(a) The proposed Koopman-inspired enhanced OKID with LQR control\\%using the basis $\bm{z}$
\includegraphics[width=0.42\linewidth]{V_cPI_4bus3_zoom.png}\qquad
\includegraphics[width=0.42\linewidth]{f_cPI_4bus3_zoom.png}\\
(b) The secondary PI control\\
\includegraphics[width=0.42\linewidth]{V_cOKID_4bus3_zoom.png}\qquad
\includegraphics[width=0.42\linewidth]{f_cOKID_4bus3_zoom.png}\\
(c) The conventional OKID with LQR control \color{black} ($\gamma = 0.5$)\\
\includegraphics[width=0.43\linewidth]{V_LeastSquare_FullBase_4bus2_.png} \quad
\includegraphics[width=0.43\linewidth]{f_LeastSquare_FullBase_4bus2_new_.png}\\%with the basis $\bm{z}$
(d) The classical EDMDc (least-squares-based Koopman operator control with the Koopman observables $\bm{z}$)
\caption{\color{black}Voltage and frequency trajectories of the 4-bus MG test system with different secondary control methods}
\label{fig: MG4Results}\end{figure}
\textbf{\emph{Control results comparison.}} Fig. \ref{fig: MG4Results} compares the voltage and frequency trajectories with different secondary control methods.
As Fig. \ref{fig: MG4Results}(a)-(c) show, the bus voltage suddenly drops with incurred transients after the disturbance at 0.7s, which triggers the secondary control to restore the voltage and frequency to their nominal values (1p.u and 60Hz).
Fig. \ref{fig: MG4Results}(a) shows the control results with the proposed Koopman-inspired enhanced OKID with LQR control;
both voltage and frequency are corrected approximately to the nominal values.
For comparison, Fig. \ref{fig: MG4Results}(b) presents the voltage and frequency trajectories using secondary PI control that is tuned with the best effort.
The PI control with respect to the voltage magnitude and the frequency shows a slower response for voltage restoration compared to the proposed control, and has non-zero steady-state errors. It also suffers from a larger frequency deviation as it cannot handle
the voltage-frequency dependence properly.
Fig. \ref{fig: MG4Results}(c) shows the results of conventional OKID with LQR control. In contrast to the proposed method,
the conventional OKID with LQR cannot realize the same fast voltage restoration.
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{gamma_mOKID_4bus3_zoom.png}\quad
\caption{\color{black} Estimated $\gamma_{opt}$ of the proposed Koopman-inspired enhanced OKID}
\label{fig: gammapot}\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!bt]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{runtime_mOKID_4bus3_zoom.png}\\
\caption{\color{black} Run time of the proposed Koopman-inspired enhanced OKID}
\label{fig: runtime}\end{figure}
Fig. \ref{fig: MG4Results}(d) shows the voltage and frequency trajectories of the classical EDMDc (i.e., LQR with pseudo-inverse least-squares identification based on the Koopman observables $\bm{z}$). By comparing Fig. \ref{fig: MG4Results}(d) with Fig. \ref{fig: MG4Results}(a), we found that the LQR with the least-squares-based identification cannot perform as well as the LQR with the proposed Koopman-inspired Koopman-inspired identification. \color{black}
These results indicate the effectiveness of the proposed Koopman-inspired enhanced OKID that possibly results from the two ingredients: (i) the nonlinear basis functions of the Koopman observables proposed in Eq. (\ref{eq:bases}); (ii) the OKID with adaptive $\gamma_{opt}$. Both ingredients help better describe the MG systemwide dynamics under big disturbances, realizing more effective control for both voltage and frequency.
Fig. \ref{fig: gammapot} presents the optimized parameters $\gamma_{opt}$ during control, and Fig. \ref{fig: runtime} shows \color{black}the \color{black} run time of the proposed Koopman-inspired enhanced OKID at each time step of secondary control. The run time of the proposed method is about 20ms \color{black} in case that $\gamma_{opt}$ is not updated\color{black}, less than the time step of secondary control (30ms). The run time of the proposed method is around 250-500ms
\color{black} in case that $\gamma_{opt}$ is updated\color{black}, which is still less than the time period $T_{OPT}=0.6s$ between two updates of $\gamma_{opt}$. These indicate the feasibility to implement the proposed Koopman-inspired identification and control online.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.43\linewidth]{MG13bus_OKIDcontrol_V_new2_zoom.PNG} \qquad
\includegraphics[width=0.43\linewidth]{MG13bus_OKIDcontrol_f_new2_zoom.PNG} \\%\label{fig: Vandf_13bus_proposedOKID}\\
(a) The proposed Koopman-inspired enhanced OKID with LQR control\\
\includegraphics[width=0.43\linewidth]{MG13bus_PIcontrol_V_new2_zoom.PNG} \qquad
\includegraphics[width=0.43\linewidth]{MG13bus_PIcontrol_f_new2_zoom.PNG}\\
(b) The secondary PI control\\
\includegraphics[width=0.43\linewidth]{MG13bus_cOKIDcontrol_V_new2_zoom.png} \qquad
\includegraphics[width=0.43\linewidth]{MG13bus_cOKIDcontrol_f_new2_zoom.png}\\
(c) The conventional OKID with LQR control \color{black}($\gamma = 0.5$)\\
\includegraphics[width=0.47\linewidth]{MG13bus_LSKoopmancontrol_V_new2_.PNG}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{MG13bus_LSKoopmancontrol_f_new2_.PNG}\\
(d) The classical EDMDc (least-squares-based Koopman operator control with the Koopman observables $\bm{z}$)
\caption{Voltage and frequency trajectories of the 13-bus MG test system with different secondary control methods}\label{fig: MG13busResults}\end{figure}
\color{black}
\color{black}
\subsection{Identification and Control in the 13-Bus MG Test System}
To show the performance of the Koopman-inspired enhanced OKID with LQR control in larger systems for generality,
we consider the 13-bus MG test system presented in Fig. \ref{fig: MG13bus}, \color{black} which is adapted from the IEEE 13-node test feeder \cite{testfeeders
. \color{black} The DERs at Bus 6 and 9 are droop-based grid-forming. The
BESSs at Bus 1 and 11 are inverse-droop-based grid-following. The solar farms at Bus 3 and 5 are grid-following under MPPT, which are not controllable for secondary control. \color{black}The MG system is under transition from the grid-connected to the islanded modes, and under generation/load variations. \color{black} At 0.4s, the MG is disconnected from the main grid by turning off the switch SW1, causing the sudden drop of voltage with incurred transient.
After detecting the islanding transient, the secondary control is triggered and kept online from 0.5s, i.e., 0.1s lag to mimic a time delay of islanding detection in practical application. Next, an active power perturbation of the two solar farms (around 80kW for each) occurs at 1.0s due to a drop of the solar irradiation from 1000 to 200 $W/m^2$.
\color{black} Then, a load perturbation happens at the Bus 4 at 1.05s: the consumed active power increases by 150kW and the consumed reactive power increased by 50kVar by turning on the switch SW2.
Fig. \ref{fig: MG13busResults} compares the voltage and frequency trajectories with different secondary control methods.
Fig. \ref{fig: MG13busResults}(a) shows that the proposed Koopman-inspired OKID with LQR control can correct the voltage and frequency approximately to the nominal values.
For comparison, the voltage and frequency trajectories with the secondary PI control are shown in Fig. \ref{fig: MG13busResults}(b),
which illustrates that the PI control with the best effort of tuning still fails to realize the stable and accurate voltage and frequency restoration.
Fig. \ref{fig: MG13busResults}(c) shows the results of
the conventional OKID with LQR control, which
suffers from larger voltage and frequency oscillations after 1.0s.
\color{black} Fig. \ref{fig: MG13busResults}(d) shows the voltage and frequency trajectories of classical EDMDc (i.e., LQR with pseudo-inverse least-squares identification based on the Koopman observables $\bm{z}$). By comparing Fig. \ref{fig: MG13busResults}(d) with Fig. \ref{fig: MG13busResults}(a), we found that the classical EDMDc cannot perform as well as the LQR with the proposed Koopman-inspired Koopman-inspired identification. \color{black}
These results further demonstrate the advantages of the proposed Koopman-inspired OKID with LQR control. Because of the nonlinear Koopman embeddings and the adaptive $\gamma_{opt}$, the proposed method can effectively restore the voltage and frequency to their nominal values despite nonlinearity and uncertainty due to large disturbances.
\section{Conclusions}
This paper proposed a data-driven Koopman-inspired identification and control method for MG secondary voltage and frequency control. \color{black} The proposed method requires \color{black} no knowledge of network information and primary controllers. It requires no warm-up training yet with guaranteed BIBO stability and even \color{black} asymptotic \color{black} stability under some mild conditions. In this method, a Koopman operator-inspired enhanced OKID (observer Kalman filter identification) algorithm is proposed, whereby the Koopman state space model is estimated online and used for control to handle microgrid nonlinearity and uncertainty adaptively. Case studies in the 4-bus and 13-bus MG test systems (with different converter control modes) demonstrate the effectiveness and robustness of the proposed Koopman-inspired identification and control method subject to mode transitions, varying operating conditions, measurement noises and time delays.
\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-num}
|
\section{Introduction}
Synthetic aperture radar (SAR) can acquire remote-sensing data in all-weather conditions to observe target on the earth ground. SAR has been widely used in real-world applications, such {as} agriculture \cite{landuyt2018flood, zhan2021automated}, civilization \cite{li2021characterizing, zhang2020hyperli}, etc. SAR automatic target recognition (ATR) is the key technique to classify the target in a SAR image. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) \cite{zhang2020convolutional, morgan2015deep, hu2018squeeze, pei2017sar, ying2020tai} have been extensively studied for ATR SAR since CNNs can extract discriminative features from an image. However, the CNN-based approaches \cite{zhang2020convolutional, morgan2015deep, hu2018squeeze, pei2017sar, ying2020tai} suffer from two issues: (1) \emph{high computation cost}: to achieve high accuracy, the authors \cite{zhang2020convolutional, morgan2015deep, hu2018squeeze, pei2017sar, ying2020tai} develop large CNN models with high computation complexity, (2) \emph{large memory requirement}: these large CNN models have large number of parameters, which require large memory footprint. Therefore, it is unsuitable to deploy large CNNs on resource-limited platforms, such as small/micro satellites \cite{bardi2014integration, septanto2019simulation, yokota2013newly, akbar2016parallel, tanaka2018development}.
The causes of the above issues are (1) heavy convolutional operations in CNNs, and (2) CNNs are hard to exploit data sparsity in SAR images because CNNs need to use the whole image as the input. In a SAR image (Figure \ref{fig:sar-image}), only {a} small set of pixels {belongs} to the target (defined as pixels of interest, POI), which can be easily extracted through applying a constant threshold \cite{zhu2020target}. However, the extracted POI has irregular structure that {is} hard to be processed by CNNs, where Graph Neural Network (GNN) provides an opportunity. Intuitively, we can use the POI to construct a graph and use GNN to perform classification for the graph.
Fortunately, GNNs have been proven to be powerful models \cite{xu2018powerful} to classify graphs based on graph structural information and vertex features. Therefore GNNs
\cite{kipf2016semi, hamilton2017inductive, velivckovic2017graph} have been applied to many graph classification tasks \cite{gligorijevic2021structure, zhu2020convsppis, zhao2021identifying, qi2017pointnet, qi2017pointnet++}. Recently, GNNs have been successfully applied to many image classification tasks \cite{ding2021semi, ding2021graph, nguyen2021modular}.
Motivated by that, we design a novel GNN model for SAR ATR (Section \ref{subsect:GNN-model-design}). We propose a graph representation $\mathcal{G}(\mathcal{V}, \mathcal{E})$ for a SAR image. The proposed GNN model can extract the structural information of the target from the constructed graph. To improve classification accuracy, we leverage the attention mechanism including spatial attention and channel attention to identify the important vertices and features.
To further reduce the computation complexity, we perform \emph{weight pruning} by training the GNN model through lasso regression and pruning the GNN model weights that have small absolute values. Taking advantage of the GNN model, we perform \emph{input pruning} (POI extraction). By eliminating the vertices that have small value, the computation complexity {is} reduced by $92.8\%$ with small accuracy loss ($<0.17\%$).
The proposed GNN has the following advantages: (1) even without weight/input pruning, the proposed GNN has near $1/100$ computation cost as the state-of-the-art CNNs with similar accuracy, (2) while weight pruning can potentially be exploited by CNNs, input pruning is hard to be exploited by CNNs because CNNs need to use the whole image as the input. GNN is flexible to use a small set of input pixels as the input. Therefore, despite that we can accelerate the CNNs \cite{zhang2020convolutional, morgan2015deep, hu2018squeeze, pei2017sar, ying2020tai} on advanced CNN accelerators \cite{Xilinxdpu}, their latency is still significant (Section \ref{subsec:cmp-Latency}).
While the proposed GNN is lightweight that can be deployed on the resource limited platforms, accelerating GNNs is challenging. GNNs have irregular computation pattern and heterogeneous computation kernels \cite{yan2020hygcn}, making them inefficient to be deployed on the general purpose processors. The pruned GNN model introduces additional irregularity through weight pruning. Moreover, the proposed model has various heterogeneous computation kernels (feature aggregation, feature transformation, graph pooling) that need to be mapped on an accelerator. While there are many GNN accelerators \cite{yan2020hygcn, zhang2021boostgcn, lin2022hp, zeng2020graphact, zhang2020hardware, zhang2021efficient, zhou2022model} proposed, none of them exploits the sparsity of the weight matrices or deals with graph pooling, which are still inefficient for the proposed model. While the proposed GNN achieves high accuracy with small computation complexity, we believe that low-latency execution of SAR ATR must be achieved through careful model-architecture co-design.
Therefore, we develop a novel unified hardware architecture for the proposed GNN model. We demonstrate the methods of mapping various computation kernels onto the proposed accelerator. In the accelerator design, we {adopt} Scatter-Gather paradigm to efficient deal with the irregular computation patterns of various kernels. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first GNN-based model-architecture co-design for SAR ATR.
Our main contributions are:
\begin{itemize}
\item We propose a lightweight GNN for SAR ATR that achieves comparable accuracy as state-of-the-art GNNs with significant less computation complexity.
\item We perform weight pruning and input pruning to dramatically reduce the computation complexity and the number of model weights.
\item We design a unified hardware architecture that can execute various computation kernels in the proposed model. We {adopt} Scatter-Gather paradigm to deal with the irregular computation patterns.
\item Taking advantage of the proposed hardware mapping strategy, we further optimize the load balance of various computation kernels (Section \ref{subsect:load-balance}).
\item We deploy our co-design on Xilinx ZCU104. We evaluate our co-design using MSTAR dataset. Compared with the state-of-the-art CNNs, the proposed GNN achieves comparable accuracy with $1/3258$ computation cost and $1/83$ model size. Compared with the state-of-the-art CPU/GPU, our FPGA accelerator achieves $14.8\times$/$2.5\times$ speedup (latency) and is $62\times$/$39\times$ more energy efficient.
\end{itemize}
\section{Background and Related Work}
\subsection{Related Work}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{pic/sarimage.png}
\caption{The SAR images of various targets (vehicles)}
\label{fig:sar-image}
\end{figure}
SAR ATR is to automatically classify the target in a given SAR images (Figure \ref{fig:sar-image}).
To achieve high accuracy, deep learning based methods have been extensively studied. David \cite{morgan2015deep} demonstrates that CNNs outperform traditional methods, such as Support Vector Machine, etc.
TAI-SARNET \cite{ying2020tai} is a CNN model that incorporates atrous convolution and inception module to achieve high accuracy for SAR ATR. The authors \cite{pei2017sar} combine multi-view features to classify the target in SAR images. The authors \cite{zhang2020convolutional} propose the Convolutional Block Attention Module by exploiting the spatial attention and channel attention. However, the state-of-the-art CNNs \cite{ying2020tai, pei2017sar, zhang2020convolutional} suffer from high computation cost, making them unsuitable to be deployed on resource-limited platforms. Recently, the authors \cite{zhu2020target} {exploit} GNN for SAR ATR. They construct graphs from SAR images by connecting the {pixels} by the declined order of pixel grayscale value. However, the {constructed} graphs lose the structural information of targets, making it extremely sensitive to the variations of input pixel values.
\subsection{Graph Neural Network}
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\caption{Notations}
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\begin{adjustbox}{max width=0.48\textwidth}
\begin{tabular}{cc|cc}
\toprule
\textbf{{Notation}} & \textbf{{Description}} & \textbf{{Notation}} & \textbf{{Description}} \\
\midrule
\midrule
{$ \mathcal{G}(\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E},\bm{X^{0}})$ }& {input graph} & $ v_{i}$ & {$i^{th}$ vertex} \\ \midrule
$ \mathcal{V}$ & {set of vertices} & $ e_{ij}$ & {edge from $ v_{i}$ to $ v_{j}$} \\ \midrule
$ \mathcal{E}$& {set of edges} & $ L$&{number of GNN layers} \\ \midrule
$ \bm{h}_{i}^{l}$& feature vector of $ v_{i}$
at layer $l$ & $ \mathcal{N}(i)$& {neighbors of $ v_{i}$} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{adjustbox}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\label{tab:notations}
\end{table}
The notations are defined in Table \ref{tab:notations}. Graph Neural Networks (GNN) \cite{kipf2016semi, hamilton2017inductive, velivckovic2017graph} are proposed for representation learning on graph $ \mathcal{G}(\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E},\bm{X}^{0})$. GNNs can learn from the structural information and vertex/edge features of the graph, and embed these information into low-dimension vector representation/graph embedding (For example, $\bm{h}^{L}_{i}$ is the embedding of vertex $v_{i}$). The vector representation can be used for many downstream tasks, such as node classification \cite{hamilton2017inductive,kipf2016semi}, link prediction \cite{zhang2018link}, graph classification \cite{ying2018hierarchical}, etc. GNNs follow the message-passing paradigm that vertices recursively aggregate information from the neighbors, for example:
\noindent \textbf{GraphSAGE}: GraphSAGE is proposed in \cite{hamilton2017inductive} for inductive representation learning on graphs. The GraphSAGE layer follows the aggregate-update paradigm:
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
& \text{aggregate:} \bm{z}_{i}^{l} = \text{Mean} \left( \bm{h}_{j}^{l-1}:j\in\mathcal{N}(i) \cup \{i\} \right) \\
& \text{update:} \bm{h}_{i}^{l} = \text{ReLU} \left(\bm{z}_{i}^{l}\bm{W}_{\text{neighbor}}^{l} + \bm{b}_{\text{neighbor}}^{l} || \bm{h}_{i}^{l-1}\bm{W}_{\text{self}}^{l} + \bm{b}_{\text{self}}^{l} \right)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{small}
\section{Model-Architecture Co-Design}
To achieve accurate and efficient SAR ATR on FPGA platform, we perform comprehensive model-architecture co-design. The proposed co-design consists of a novel GNN model for SAR ATR (Section \ref{subsect:GNN-model-design}), a pruning strategy to reduce the computation complexity (Section \ref{subsect:network-pruning}), a novel hardware design to efficiently execute the proposed GNN (Section \ref{subsec:architecture-design}), and the strategy to keep load balance within various computation kernels (Section \ref{subsect:load-balance}). The key novelty of our hardware design is that it can execute various computation kernels in the proposed model, and it can efficiently handle the irregular computation patterns caused by the sparsity of weight matrices.
We use the widely used MSTAR dataset \cite{master} for performance evaluation. We target various performance metrics: (1) \emph{Accuracy}: the accuracy on MSTAR dataset, (2) \emph{Computation complexity}: the total computation complexity for inferring a SAR image, (3) \emph{Number of parameters}: the total number of parameters in the model, (4) \emph{Latency}: the latency for inferring a SAR image, (5) \emph{Energy Consumption}: the energy consumption for inferring a SAR image.
\subsection{GNN Model Design}
\label{subsect:GNN-model-design}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{pic/GNNstructure.pdf}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\caption{ The proposed GNN model}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\label{fig:gnn-structure}
\end{figure}
\noindent \textbf{Graph representation}: We represent a SAR image as a graph $\mathcal{G}(\mathcal{V}, \mathcal{E})$, with each pixel viewed as a vertex. Each pixel/vertex is connected to its four neighbors (up, down, left, right) with edges. The feature of a vertex is the grayscale value of the pixel. Such graph representation maintains structural information of the target that can be learned by GNN for classification. It also provides the opportunity for input pruning (Section \ref{subsect:network-pruning}).
\vspace{0.1cm}
\noindent \textbf{GNN model}: As shown in Figure \ref{fig:gnn-structure}, the proposed GNN model has a sequence of layers, including GNN layer (GNNL), graph pooling layer (Pooling), Attention module (Attention). For GNN layer, we use the GraphSAGE layer operators \cite{hamilton2017inductive}, which {have been} proven to achieve superior accuracy in various application domains. For graph pooling layer, since the input graph has 2-D grid structure, we adopt the similar pooling strategy as the CNN for 2-D image. Within each local $s\times s$ range having $s^{2}$ vertices, the pooling operator (e.g., Max(), Min()) is performed on the $s^{2}$ vertices to obtain an output vertex. Figure \ref{fig:gnn-structure} demonstrates the pooling operation of size $2\times 2$ with stride $2$. Motivated by the attention mechanism in CNN \cite{woo2018cbam}, the proposed Attention module consists of a Channel Attention module and a Spatial Attention module. Suppose the input to Attention Module is $\{\bm{h}_{i}:v_{i}\in \mathcal{G}\}$, where $\bm{h}_{i}\in \mathbb{R}^{c}$ is the feature vector of $v_{i}$ and $c$ is the length of the feature vector. The Channel Attention calculates the attention score $\bm{F}_{ch}$ of each feature through a Multi-layer perceptron.
Then, each vertex is multiplied by $\bm{F}_{ch}$ to obtain $\{(\bm{h}_{i})':(\bm{h}_{i})' = \bm{h}_{i} \otimes \bm{F}_{ch}, v_{i}\in \mathcal{G}\}$ where $\otimes$ is the element-wise multiplication. The Spatial Attention module calculates the attention score of each vertex using a GNN layer (GraphSAGE layer operators):
$$
\{\alpha_{i}:v_{i}\in \mathcal{G}\}= \text{sigmoid}(\text{GNNL}(\{\bm{h}_{i}:v_{i}\in \mathcal{G}\})),
$$
Then, each vertex feature vector is multiplied by its attention score: $\{(\bm{h}_{i})'':(\bm{h}_{i})'' = \alpha_{i}\bm{h}_{i}, v_{i}\in \mathcal{G}\}$. The output of the Attention module is calculated by:
\begin{equation}
\{\bm{h}_{i}^{\text{output}}:\bm{h}_{i}^{\text{output}} = \bm{h}_{i} + (\bm{h}_{i})' + (\bm{h}_{i})'', v_{i}\in \mathcal{G}\}
\end{equation}
After GNNL-$L$, all the feature vectors are flattened to a vector which becomes the input to the last MLP (Multi-layer Perceptron) for classification.
\subsection{Network Pruning}
\label{subsect:network-pruning}
\noindent \textbf{Weight pruning}: To reduce the total computation complexity, we perform weight pruning by training the model using lasso regression \cite{tibshirani1996regression}. We add a L1 penalty term to the loss function:
$$
\text{loss} = \sum_{i=1}^{N}(y_{i} - \text{Model}(\mathcal{G}_{i}))^{2} + \lambda \sum_{w}^{W}|w|
$$
The penalty term results in weight shrinkage. Some model weights become zeros and are eliminated from the model.
After training, we set a threshold $I_{\text{weight}}$ and the weights with absolute {values} smaller than $I_{\text{weight}}$ are pruned.
\vspace{0.1cm}
\noindent \textbf{Input pruning}: In a SAR {image}, most pixels outside of the target have negligible grayscale values. Therefore, in the graph representation $\mathcal{G}(\mathcal{V}, \mathcal{E})$ of a SAR image, we set a threshold $I_{\text{vertex}}$ and prune the vertices that {have} grayscale values smaller than $I_{\text{vertex}}$. The edges connected to the pruned vertices are also pruned. After input pruning, the eliminated vertices maintain the same positions in the graph pooling layer and do not participate in the pooling operation. For example, in a local $2\times 2$ range, if a vertex is pruned, the pooling operator will operate on the {remaining} three vertices. For the input to last MLP, the feature vectors of the pruned vertices are padded using zeros.
\subsection{Architecture design}
\label{subsec:architecture-design}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=18cm]{pic/system-arch.pdf}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\caption{ The diagram of the system architecture}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\label{fig:hardware-architecture}
\end{figure*}
The objective of the architecture design is to (1) support various computation kernels in the proposed model, (2) handle the irregular computation patterns caused by the feature aggregation in the GNN layer and the sparsity of the weight matrices.
Figure \ref{fig:hardware-architecture} shows the proposed architecture design on the embedded FPGA platform. The system consists of an Application Processing Unit (APU) and an FPGA accelerator in Programmable Logic Region. The FPGA accelerator executes the inference process of the GNN model. In the FPGA accelerator, there is a Weight/Edge Buffer (WEB) to store the model weights and edges of input graph, an Input Buffer (IB) to store the input vertex feature vectors, a Results Buffer (RB) to store the output vertex feature vectors. The Matrix Transformation Unit (MTU) performs matrix transformation to prepare the require data layout for the next layer.
Thanks to the proposed {lightweight} model, the trained model is fully stored in the Weight Buffer, eliminating the memory traffic of loading the model weights at runtime.
\noindent \textbf{Run Time}: At runtime, the APU receives an input SAR image and transform it into the graph presentation. During the transformation, the pixels that have grayscale value smaller than $I_{\text{vertex}}$ are pruned. Then, the APU sends the input graph to the Input Buffer of the accelerator. The accelerator executes each layer using Scatter-Gather paradigm (SGP). The accelerator exploits the computation parallelism within each layer. After finishing the execution of all layers, the accelerator sends the classification result back to the APU.
\section{Hardware Mapping}
\subsection{Computation kernels}
We categorize the computation kernels into two classes:
\noindent \textbf{Vertex aggregation kernel (VAK)}: VAKs include (1) feature aggregation (in GNN layer, and in Spatial Attention module) (2) graph pooling. In VAKs, each vertex propagates its feature vector to the neighbors or within a local range (graph pooling).
\noindent \textbf{Vertex updating kernel (VUK)}: VUKs include (1) feature update (in GNN layer, and in Spatial Attention module) (2) Channel attention of Attention module, (3) the last MLP. In the VUKs, the feature vector of each vertex is multiplied by a weight matrix to obtain the updated feature vector. Due to our weight pruning, the weight matrices have high data sparsity (1\%-33\% data density).
\subsection{Kernel Mapping using Scatter-Gather Paradigm}
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Scatter-Gather paradigm}\label{alg:scatter-gather}
\begin{small}
\begin{algorithmic}
\WHILE{not done}
\STATE \emph{Scatter Unit}:
\FOR{each edge $e\langle src,dst,weight \rangle$ }
\STATE Produce update $u \gets ${Scatter($src.vector, e.weight$)}
\ENDFOR
\STATE \emph{Gather Unit}:
\FOR{each update $u\langle dst,vector \rangle$ }
\STATE Update vertex $v_{dst} \gets$ {Gather($u.vector$)}
\ENDFOR
\ENDWHILE
\end{algorithmic}
\end{small}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{pic/two-kernels.pdf}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\caption{ The diagram of mapping the two types of kernels using Scatter-Gather paradigm}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\label{fig:diagram-of-two-kernels}
\end{figure}
The accelerator design is based on the Scatter-Gather paradigm (Algorithm \ref{alg:scatter-gather}). There are $p$ parallel pipelines. Each pipeline consists of a Scatter Unit and a Gather Unit. The Routing Network routes the intermediate results to the destination based on index $dst$.
To map the VAKs and VUKs to the accelerator, we propose the following mapping strategy (An example is shown in Figure \ref{fig:diagram-of-two-kernels}):
\noindent \textbf{Mapping VAK}: VAK can be directly mapped to the accelerator. For each edge
$e\langle src,dst,weight \rangle$, the Scatter Unit loads the feature vector of $v_{src}$ from input buffer and produces an update $u\langle dst,vector \rangle$. The update $u\langle dst,vector \rangle$ is routed to the corresponding Gather Unit and the Gather Unit applies the update to the destination vertex $v_{dst}$.
\noindent \textbf{Mapping VUK}: For VUK, we group a batch of vertices $batch$ and the feature vector of each vertex $\{\bm{h}_{i}^{\text{input}}:v_{i}\in batch\}$ is multiplied {by} the weight matrix $\bm{W}$ simultaneously. The output feature vectors are $\{\bm{h}_{i}^{\text{output}}:\bm{h}_{i}^{\text{input}}\bm{W}, v_{i}\in batch\}$. To apply the Scatter-Gather paradigm, we perform feature concatenation. For example, we concatenate the first feature of each vertex $\{\bm{h}_{i}(1):v_{i}\in batch\}$ as a vector $\bm{r}_{1}^{input}$. The vector $\bm{r}_{1}^{input}$ has $src$ index $1$ since its contains the $1^{st}$ feature of each input feature vector. For the weight matrix $\bm{W}$, we represent each non-zero element in the weight matrix as an edge $e\langle src,dst,weight \rangle$. During execution, for each non-zero weight $e\langle src,dst,weight \rangle$, the Scatter Unit loads the $\bm{r}_{src}^{input}$ from the input buffer and produces an update $u\langle dst,vector = e.weight \times \bm{r}_{src}^{input}\rangle$. Then, the Gather Unit applies the update $u\langle dst,vector\rangle$ to the destination $\bm{r}_{dst}^{output}$. $\bm{r}_{dst}^{output}$ contains the $dst^{th}$ features of each output feature vector in the $batch$.
Note that VAK and VUK have different data {layouts}. In VAK, the input/output feature vectors are stored in vertex-major order. In VUK, the {input}/output feature {vectors} are stored in feature-major order. To switch between the two {data}
layouts, we implement a Matrix Transformation Unit (MTU) to perform data layout transformation.
\subsection{hardware modules}
\noindent \textbf{Scatter/Gather Unit}: A Scatter Unit has an array of $q$ processing elements. Each processing element has a multiplier to perform the multiplication between an edge/weight and a vertex feature. Similar to the Scatter Unit, a Gather Unit has an array of $q$ processing elements. Each processing element has an Accumulator (ACC), a Max Unit, a ReLU Unit, a sigmoid Unit. The multiplexer (MUX) and demultiplexer (DEMUX) select the datapath for the current layer.
\noindent \textbf{Routing Network}: The routing network is implemented using a hardware-efficient butterfly network \cite{choi2021hbm}.
\noindent \textbf{Sigmoid Unit}: We exploit the piecewise linear approximation (PLA) \cite{zhang2017implementation} for Sigmoid Function.
\section{Load Balance and Performance Model}
\subsection{Load Balance}
\label{subsect:load-balance}
\noindent \textbf{Load balance in VAK}: The workload balance of VAK depends on how to partition the vertices into $p$ memory banks of the Result Buffer. Load imbalance is a significant issue in GNN \cite{geng2020awb} if the graph has highly imbalanced degree distribution. Thanks to our graph {representation}, the vertices in the graph have degrees ranging from $0$ to $4$. We use a greedy approach to keep the load balance of the $p$ parallel {pipelines}.
For VAK, the destination vertices that have same degree $i~(0\leqslant i \leqslant 4)$ are evenly partitioned into $p$ banks of the Result Buffer. Through the proposed partitioning strategy, each pipeline has the same amount of workload. The graph partitioning has a small overhead $\mathcal{O}(|\mathcal{V}|L_{p})$ and is performed by the APU, where $L_{p}$ is the number of graph pooling layers in the model. The proposed partitioning algorithm can be easily parallelized using multiple threads on APU.
\noindent \textbf{Load balance in VUK}: {To} execute VUK, we need to partition the weight matrix along the $dst$ dimension (Figure \ref{fig:diagram-of-two-kernels}). Each Gather Unit is responsible for accumulating the partial results of a partition. To achieve perfect load balance, each partition should have the same number of non-zero elements. Since the partitioning of weight matrix is an offline process, we are able to adopt complexity algorithm to find the near optimal data partitioning. In this work, we exploit Longest-processing-time (LPT) first algorithm that is proved to achieve $4/3$ approximation factor \cite{eck1993minimization} to the optimal partition solution.
\subsection{Performance Model}
\noindent \textbf{Modeling VAK}: For a VAK kernel, the length of input feature vector $c_{\text{in}}$ is same {as} the length of output feature vector $c_{\text{out}}$: $c_{\text{in}} = c_{\text{out}}$. A Scatter Unit or a Gather Unit can process $q$ features in each clock cycle. The $p$ parallel pipelines can process $p$ edges simultaneously. Therefore, the execution time of a VAK kernel is:
\begin{equation}
t_{\text{VAK}} = \left\lceil \frac{|\mathcal{E}|}{p} \right\rceil \cdot \left\lceil \frac{c_{\text{in}}}{q} \right\rceil
\end{equation}
\noindent \textbf{Modeling VUK}:
To execute a VUK, the accelerator groups a batch of $q$ vertices at a time to fully {utilize} the Scatter Unit/Gather Unit. The $p$ parallel {pipelines} can process $p$ non-zero elements in the weight matrix. Therefore, the execution time of a VUK kernel is:
\begin{equation}
t_{\text{VUK}} = \left\lceil \frac{|\mathcal{V}|}{q} \right\rceil \cdot \left\lceil \frac{\text{nnz}(\bm{W})}{p} \right\rceil
\end{equation}
where $\text{nnz}(\bm{W})$ is the number of non-zero elements in the weight matrix $\bm{W}$.
Since our accelerator exploits the computation parallelism within each kernel, the total execution time is the sum of the execution time of all kernels and preprocessing overhead.
\section{Implementation and Experimental Results}
\subsection{Implementation Details and Resource Utilizations}
We implement our accelerator on an embedded FPGA platform -- Xilinx ZCU104. We implement 8 pipelines (8 Scatter Units and 8 Gather Units). Each Scatter/Gather Unit has 16 processing elements (PEs). In a Scatter Unit, a PE consumes 3 DSPs and in a Gather Unit, a PE consumes 7 DSPs. The routing network has 8 input ports and 8 output ports. Each port is 512-bit that can { receive/send 16 32-bit data}. The APU is a quad-core ARM-A53 processor running at 1.3 GHz. The accelerator is developed using High-Level Synthesis. The accelerator consumes 1280 DSPs, 96 URAMs, 221 BRAMs, 178K LUTs. The accelerator runs at 125 MHz. The resource utilization and frequency are reported after Place\&Route.
\subsection{Benchmark and Baseline Platform}
\noindent \textbf{Benchmark}:
We conduct experiments using the widely used MSTAR dataset. The setting of MSTAR dataset follows the state-of-the-art {work} \cite{zhang2020convolutional, pei2017sar, ying2020tai, morgan2015deep}. The dataset contains the SAR images of 10 classes of ground vehicles. The training set has 2747 images and the testing set has 2427 images. Each SAR image has size $128\times128$ and each pixel has {a} grayscale value indicating the magnitude of the SAR signal.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\caption{Specifications of various platforms }
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{adjustbox}{max width=0.47\textwidth}
\begin{tabular}{c|ccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Platforms} & \begin{tabular}[|c|]{@{}c@{}} CPU \\ AMD Ryzen 3990x \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[|c|]{@{}c@{}} GPU \\ Nvidia RTX3090 \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}[|c|]{@{}c@{}} FPGA \\ ZCU 104 \end{tabular} \\
\midrule \midrule
{Release Year} & 2020 & 2020 & 2018 \\
{Technology} & TSMC 7 nm & TSMC 7 nm & TSMC 16 nm \\
{Frequency} & 2.9 GHz & 1.7 GHz & 125 MHz
\\
{On-chip Memory}& 256 MB L3 cache & 6 MB L2 cache & 4.8 MB \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{adjustbox}
\end{threeparttable}
\label{tab:platform-specifications}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\end{table}
\noindent \textbf{Baseline Platform}: We compare our performance with the state-of-the-art CPU and GPU platforms as shown in Table \ref{tab:platform-specifications}. On the CPU platform and GPU platform, we run the proposed model using Pytorch Geometry (PyG) \cite{Fey/Lenssen/2019} of 1.8.0 version. For CPU platform, PyG uses the Intel MKL as the backend and for the GPU platform, PyG uses the CUDA 11.1 as the backend. To exploit the sparsity of the weight matrices on the CPU and GPU platforms, we modify the GraphSAGE layer\footnote{https://pytorch-geometric.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ \\
\_modules/torch\_geometric/nn/conv/sage\_conv.html\#SAGEConv} of PyG
by using the $\verb|torch.sspaddmm()|$ for efficient multiplication of feature vectors and sparse weight matrices.
\subsection{Accuracy, Computation Complexity, Model Size}
\noindent \textbf{Weight/Input pruning}: The magnitude of the SAR signal ranges from $0$ to $8$. we set the $I_{\text{vertex}}$ as $0.1$ {because} it can filter out most irrelevant pixels.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{adjustbox}{max width=0.47\textwidth}
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\toprule
& Type & Accuracy & \# of FLOPs & \# of Para. & Model Size \\ \midrule \midrule
\cite{zhang2020convolutional}&CNN&92.3\%&$\frac{1}{12}\times$&$0.5 \times 10^{6}$& 16 Mb \\ \midrule
\cite{pei2017sar} &CNN&97.97\%&$\frac{1}{10}\times$&$0.65 \times 10^{6}$ & 20.8 Mb \\ \midrule
\cite{ying2020tai}&CNN&98.52\%&$\frac{1}{3}\times$&$2.1 \times 10^{6}$ & 67.2 Mb \\ \midrule
\cite{morgan2015deep}&CNN&99.3\%&$1\times$ (6.94 GFLOPs)&$2.5 \times 10^{6}$ & 80 Mb \\ \midrule
This work&GNN&99.09\%&$\frac{1}{3258}\times$&$0.03\times 10^{6}$ & 0.96 Mb\\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{adjustbox}
\end{table}
We compare \emph{Accuracy}, \emph{computation complexity}, \emph{number of parameters} with state-of-the-art work \cite{zhang2020convolutional, pei2017sar, ying2020tai, morgan2015deep}. Compared with the state-of-the-art CNN \cite{morgan2015deep}, the proposed model achieves comparable accuracy with only $\frac{1}{3258}$ computation complexity and $\frac{1}{83}$ number of parameters on average.
\subsection{Evaluation of Latency}
\label{subsec:cmp-Latency}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{pic/cmp-latency.png}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\caption{ X-axis is the index of the SAR image (training set + testing set). Y-axis is the inference latency of a SAR image.}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\label{fig:latency-comparison}
\end{figure}
To compare the latency of various platforms, we set the batch size as 1. The measured latency on FPGA accelerator is end-to-end from the time when APU receives the SAR image to the time {when} APU gets the classification results from the accelerator, which means the preprocessing overhead is included in the measured latency. We measure the inference latency on all images in training and testing sets. The comparison results are shown in Figure \ref{fig:latency-comparison}. On average, our FPGA accelerator is $14.8\times$, $2.5\times$ faster than the CPU and GPU platforms in terms of latency. Since we use the input pruning, the graph representations of the images after input pruning have various number of vertices. Therefore, the inference latency fluctuates with images.
Compared with CPU/GPU, our accelerator has lower latency. Because CPU/GPU has complex cache hierarchy and large cache latency (e.g., CPU has high cache latency: L3 cache 32ns, L2 cache 12ns). Therefore, loading feature vectors and weight matrices leads to large latency. In contrast, our FPGA accelerator can access data in one-clock cycle due to our customized on-chip memory organization. Moreover, our FPGA accelerator adopts the Scatter-Gather paradigm to efficiently deal with irregular computation in various computation kernels.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\caption{Latency comparison on ZCU 104 and GPU }
\begin{adjustbox}{max width=0.47\textwidth}
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc|c}
\toprule
\textbf{Model} & \cite{zhang2020convolutional} & \cite{pei2017sar} & \cite{ying2020tai} & \cite{morgan2015deep}& Proposed model\\ \midrule \midrule
& \multicolumn{4}{c|}{{[Xilinx DPU]}} & {{[Proposed design]}} \\
ZCU104 & 0.88 ms & 1.23 ms & 3.09 ms & 12.1 ms & 0.105 ms \\ \midrule \midrule
GPU (RTX3090)& 1.53 ms & 2.5 ms & 9.5 ms & 31.2 ms & 0.269 ms \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{adjustbox}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\label{tab:cmp-latency-soda}
\end{table}
\noindent \textbf{Impact of model design}: To compare the inference latency with the state-of-the-art CNNs, we deploy AMD Xilinx DPU \cite{Xilinxdpu} (2 * B4096 @ 300 MHz configuration) on the same FPGA platform (ZCU 104) to execute the CNN models in \cite{zhang2020convolutional, pei2017sar, ying2020tai, morgan2015deep}. AMD Xilinx DPU is the state-of-the-art FPGA overlay accelerator for CNNs. The average inference latency is shown in Table \ref{tab:cmp-latency-soda}. {The proposed GNN on the proposed design (The column 6 of Table \ref{tab:cmp-latency-soda}) is $115\times$ faster than \cite{morgan2015deep} on DPU}. Note that DPU uses 8-bit data quantization for the weights and activations. Our work uses 32-bit floating point data format. DPU has more computation parallelism by operating on 8-bit data.
\noindent \textbf{Preprocessing Overhead}: {We} measure the preprocessing overhead on APU. For a SAR image, APU transforms it into graph representation (Section \ref{subsect:GNN-model-design}) with input pruning (Section \ref{subsect:network-pruning}), and graph partitioning (\ref{subsect:load-balance}). The average preprocessing time is 11.8 us for a SAR image, which is negligible compared with the total latency.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\caption{Comparison of Energy Consumption}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{adjustbox}{max width=0.4\textwidth}
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Platform} & \textbf{Inference Speed} & \textbf{Power} & \textbf{Energy (mJ/image)} \\ \midrule
Ryzen 3990X & $644$ (image/s) & $26.5 W$ & 41.1 (mJ/image) \\ \midrule
Nvidia RTX3090 & $3717$ (image/s) & $97W$ & 26.0 (mJ/image) \\ \midrule
ZCU104 & $9500$ (image/s) & $6.3 W$ & 0.66 (mJ/image) \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{adjustbox}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\label{tab:energy-comparison}
\end{table}
\subsection{Evaluation of Energy Consumption}
Table \ref{tab:energy-comparison} shows the comparison of energy consumption on various platforms. On the CPU platform, we measure the power consumption of the inference program using $\verb|PowerTOP|$ \cite{powertop}. On the GPU platform, we measure power consumption using $\verb|nvidia-smi|$ \cite{nvidia-smi} command tool. For the FPGA board (ZCU 104), we use an external power meter to measure {its} power consumption. The reported numbers in Table \ref{tab:energy-comparison} are the average power consumption during inference. The results show that our FPGA accelerator is $62\times$, $39\times$ more energy efficient than CPU and GPU platform, respectively.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we propose a novel model-architecture co-design for SAR ATR on FPGA. The proposed lightweight GNN model achieves similar accuracy with state-of-the-art {models} with only $1/3258$ computation complexity and $1/83$ model size. The proposed accelerator on an embedded FPGA platform has lower latency than the state-of-the-art CPU/GPU with significant less energy consumption.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
This work is supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under grants OAC-1911229, CNS-2009057, and in part by DEVCOM Army Research Lab (ARL) under ARL-USC collaborative grant DIRA-ECI:DEC21-CI-037. The author Bingyi Zhang is supported by the Summer Research Program from the Army Research Lab West (ARL West).
|
\section{Introduction and background}
Restoration recovers information from observations with amplitude distortion, level displacement or random disturbance.
A discrete additive-convolutive degradation model is:
\vspace{-.25cm}
\begin{equation}
\bm{y}
= \overline{\ensuremath{\bm{s}}}\ast \overline{\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}} + \overline{\ensuremath{\bm{t}}} + \ensuremath{\bm{n}} \,.
\label{eq:observation_signal}
\vspace{-.13cm}
\end{equation}
Among $N$ sample values, series of \emph{spikes} (or impulses, events, ``diracs", spectral lines) prototype the {\bf{first component}} sought sparse signal $ \overline{\ensuremath{\bm{s}}}\in \mathbb{R}^N$.
Its convolution with an unknown short-support \emph{kernel} $\overline{\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}}\in \mathbb{R}^L$ --- typically peak-shaped --- yields the \emph{peak-signal} $\overline{\bm{x}}=\overline{\ensuremath{\bm{s}}} \ast\overline{\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}} \in \mathbb{R}^N$.
{\bf{Second component}} $\overline{\ensuremath{\bm{t}}} \in \mathbb{R}^N$ displaces the reference level, harming quantitative estimations. It can be called baseline, background, continuum, drift, wander. We opt here for \emph{trend}, a reference above which peaks are detected, evaluated, measured. This ``trend" notion goes from mere offsets to slowly-varying amplitude shifts (seasonality, calibration distortion, sensor decline), making its automated removal challenging.
{\bf{Third component}} $\overline{\ensuremath{\bm{n}}} \in \mathbb{R}^N$ ({\emph{noise}}) gathers stochastic residuals. Given~\eqref{eq:observation_signal}, one goal is to perform jointly denoising, detrending and deconvolution. Namely, given $\bm{y}$, to retrieve an estimation of the spiky signal and the trend. Figure~\ref{Fig_Dataset} is reminiscent of standard spectral subtraction \cite{Boll_S_1979_j-ieee-tassp_sup_ansss}, and motivated here by peak-signal retrieval in separative analytical chemistry (AC): chromatography, spectrometry, spectroscopy \cite{Lynch_J_2003_book_physico-chemical_aicpgc}, where peak localization, amplitude, width or area provide useful chemical quantitative information.
Whether acquired in its natural domain \cite{Marmin_A_2021_j-sp_sparse_srnmpro} or after sparsification \cite{Gauthier_J_2009_j-ieee-tsp_optimization_socfb}, noise/trend/spike models \eqref{eq:observation_signal} cover many multidimensional issues: signal (1D), image (2D), video, volume (3D+).
We focus here on 1D data common to distinct domains: Fourier spectral analysis, econometrics, stocks, biomedical measurements (ECG, EEG, EMG), environment, astronomy\ldots
On the one hand, joint denoising and detrending is a long-standing preprocessing question from time series analysis to imaging. Background issues are commonly solved using a host of filling, fitting and filtering methods. We refer to overviews in \cite{Duval_L_2013_p-icassp_overview_spics,Zhao_Z_2021_j-sp_robust_etfun}, and for AC to background corrections backcor \cite{Mazet_V_2005_j-chemometr-intell-lab-syst_background_rsdmnqcf} and BEADS \cite{Ning_X_2014_j-chemometr-intell-lab-syst_chromatogram_bedusbeads}.
On the other hand, joint denoising and deconvolution matters from channel estimation in communications \cite{Amari_S_1997_p-ieee-spawc_multichannel_bdeung}
to image deblurring \cite{Krishnan_D_2011_p-cvpr_blind_dnsm}. We refer to \cite{Chaudhuri_S_2014_incoll_blind_dmr,Sun_Q_2021_PREPRINT_convex_sbd}, and especially emphasize on sparsity-promoting methods like
SOOT \cite{Repetti_A_2015_j-ieee-spl_euclid_tsbdsl1l2r} and SPOQ \cite{Cherni_A_2020_j-ieee-tsp_spoq_lpolqrssrams}, using smoothed "scale-invariant" norm ratios.
PENDANTSS\xspace
contributions are a fully coupled and solvable non-convex formulation for \eqref{eq:observation_signal} (Section \ref{Sec_Problem}) and an efficient joint disentangling algorithm (forward-backward-based \cite{Bolte_J_2014_j-math-programm_proximal_almnnp, Chouzenoux_E_2016_j-global-optim_block_cvmfba}) with proved convergence (Section \ref{Sec_Algorithm}), validated by its comparative performance (Section \ref{Sec_Results}).
\vspace{-.2cm}
\section{Proposed problem formulation\label{Sec_Problem}}
\subsection{BEADS peak/trend/noise separation paradigm}
We seek estimates $(\widehat{\ensuremath{\bm{s}}},\widehat{\ensuremath{\bm{t}}}, \widehat{\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}})$ of $(\overline{\ensuremath{\bm{s}}},\overline{\ensuremath{\bm{t}}},\overline{ \ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}})$ to penalized problem
\vspace{-.1cm}
\begin{equation}
\text{minimize}_{\ensuremath{\bm{s}},\ensuremath{\bm{t}}\in \mathbb{R}^N \atop
\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}} \in \mathbb{R}^L}\ \frac{1}{2}\|\ensuremath{\bm{y}} - \ensuremath{\bm{\pi}} * \ensuremath{\bm{s}} -\ensuremath{\bm{t}}\|^2 + R(\ensuremath{\bm{s}},\ensuremath{\bm{t}},\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}).
\label{pb:original}
\vspace{-.1cm}
\end{equation}
The squared loss is supplemented with regularization $R$, incorporating prior knowledge. Disentangling trend and signal is tedious \cite{Selesnick_I_2014_j-ieee-tsp_simultaneous_lpftvd}.
As in BEADS \cite{Ning_X_2014_j-chemometr-intell-lab-syst_chromatogram_bedusbeads}, we assume that the trend can be recovered from a peakless observation through a low-pass filter~$\bm{L}$:
\vspace{-.15cm}
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\ensuremath{\bm{t}}} = \bm{L}(\ensuremath{\bm{y}} - \widehat{\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}}*\widehat{\ensuremath{\bm{s}}}),
\label{eq:t_hat_orig}
\vspace{-.15cm}
\end{equation}
This motivates the rewriting of the data fidelity term as:
\vspace{-.2cm}
\begin{align}
(\forall \ensuremath{\bm{s}} \in \mathbb{R}^N) (\forall \ensuremath{\bm{\pi}} \in \mathbb{R}^L) \;
\rho(\ensuremath{\bm{s}},\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}) &
= \frac{1}{2}\|\ensuremath{\bm{y}} - \bm{Ly} - \bm{H} (\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}} * \ensuremath{\bm{s}})\|^2 \nonumber \\
& = \frac{1}{2}\|\bm{H}(\ensuremath{\bm{y}}-\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}} * \ensuremath{\bm{s}})\|^2,
\label{eq:rho}
\end{align}
where~$\bm{H}=\mathrm{\mathbf{Id}}_N-\bm{L}$ is a high-pass filter, and $\mathrm{\mathbf{Id}}_N$ the identity operator of $\mathbb{R}^N$. We introduce a regularization term~$\Psi$, promoting signal sparsity. We add two extra terms to constrain estimates $\widehat{\ensuremath{\bm{s}}}$ and $\widehat{\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}}$.
{The indicator function $\iota_A$ of the non-empty convex set~$A$: zero when the value evaluated belongs to~$A$, $+\infty$ otherwise. Sets $C_1 \subset \mathbb{R}^N$ and $C_2 \subset \mathbb{R}^L$ limiting the search space for the signal and the kernel are assumed closed, non-empty and convex}. {O}ptimization problem~\eqref{pb:original} becomes:
\begin{equation}
\underset{\ensuremath{\bm{s}}\in\mathbb{R}^N,\,\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}\in\mathbb{R}^L}{\text{minimize}}\ \frac{1}{2}||\bm{H}(\ensuremath{\bm{y}} - \ensuremath{\bm{\pi}} * \ensuremath{\bm{s}})||^2 +\iota_{C_1}(\ensuremath{\bm{s}}) + \iota_{C_2}(\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}})+ \lambda \Psi(\ensuremath{\bm{s}}).
\label{pb: pb2solve}
\end{equation}
The estimated {trend} can be obtained {from \eqref{eq:t_hat_orig} with $\widehat{\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}}$ and $\widehat{\ensuremath{\bm{s}}}$ obtained by \eqref{pb: pb2solve}}.
\vspace{-.1cm}
\subsection{{SPOQ/SOOT (quasi-)norm ratio penalties}}
Being scale-invariant, ratios of norms are promising proxies for sparsity characterization \cite{Hurley_N_2009_j-ieee-tit_comparing_ms}.
We promote sparse solutions $\ensuremath{\bm{s}}$ by the
Smoothed~$p$-Over-$q$ (SPOQ) family of penalties, introduced in \cite{Cherni_A_2020_j-ieee-tsp_spoq_lpolqrssrams}, a generalization to the Smoothed~One-Over-Two norm (SOOT) ratio \cite{Repetti_A_2015_j-ieee-spl_euclid_tsbdsl1l2r}, for sparse spectroscopic signals. Let~$p\in ]0,2[$ and~$q\in [2,+\infty[$. We first define two smoothed approximations to the $\ell_p$ quasi-norm and~$\ell_q$ norm, parameterized by constants~$(\alpha, \eta)\in]0,+\infty[^2$ {. F}or $\bm{s} = (s_n)_{1\leq n\leq N}\in \mathbb{R}^N$:
\vspace{-.1cm}
\begin{equation}
\ell_{p,\alpha}(\bm{s}) = \left( \sum_{n=1}^{N} \left((s_n^2 + \alpha^2)^{p/2}-\alpha^p\right) \right)^{1/p},
\vspace{-.1cm}
\end{equation}
and
\vspace{-.1cm}
\begin{equation}
\ell_{q,\eta}(\bm{s}) = \left( \eta^q + \sum_{n=1}^{N} |s_n|^q\right)^{1/q}.
\vspace{-.1cm}
\end{equation}
{The non-convex} SPOQ penalty is {given}, for $\beta\in]0,+\infty[$, as:
\begin{equation}
(\forall \ensuremath{\bm{s}} \in \mathbb{R}^N) \quad
\Psi(\bm{s}) = \log\left(\frac{(\ell_{p,\alpha}^p(\bm{s}) + \beta^p)^{1/p}}{\ell_{q,\eta}(\bm{s})} \right).
\vspace{-.1cm}
\end{equation}
$\Psi$ is Lipschitz differentiable on $\mathbb{R}^N$ \cite[Prop.~2]{Cherni_A_2020_j-ieee-tsp_spoq_lpolqrssrams} { and admits $\bm{0}_N$ as a local minimizer} {when} \cite[Prop.~1]{Cherni_A_2020_j-ieee-tsp_spoq_lpolqrssrams}:
\begin{equation}
\label{cond:SPOQ}
q>2, \quad \text{or} \quad q = 2 \quad \text{and} \quad \eta^2\alpha^{p-2} > \beta^p.
\end{equation}
Condition \eqref{cond:SPOQ} is assumed throughout this paper.
\section{Proposed optimization algorithm\label{Sec_Algorithm}}
\subsection{Problem structure}
The objective function in~\eqref{pb: pb2solve} is the sum of a differentiable function (least squares + SPOQ) and {terms acting separably on} $\ensuremath{\bm{s}}$ or $\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}$ (i.e., indicator terms). {In the differentiable part}
\begin{equation}
(\forall \ensuremath{\bm{s}} \in \mathbb{R}^N) (\forall \ensuremath{\bm{\pi}} \in \mathbb{R}^L) \quad
f(\ensuremath{\bm{s}},\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}} ) = \rho(\ensuremath{\bm{s}},\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}) + \lambda \Psi(\ensuremath{\bm{s}}) {,}{.}
\label{eq: bd_f_simp}
\end{equation}
{function $\rho$ from \eqref{eq:rho} is quadratic in $\ensuremath{\bm{s}}$ and $\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}$}. In particular, for every $\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}} \in \mathbb{R}^L$ (resp.~$\forall \ensuremath{\bm{s}} \in \mathbb{R}^N$), the gradient~$\nabla \rho_1(\cdot,\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}})$ (resp.~$\nabla \rho_2(\ensuremath{\bm{s}},\cdot)$) of $\rho$ with respect to its first (resp. second) variable is Lipschitz continuous with constant~$\Lambda_1(\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}})$ (resp.~$\Lambda_2(\ensuremath{\bm{s}})$). As aforementioned, $\nabla \Psi$ is Lipschitz continuous too. The second part of the objective function reads as:
\begin{equation}
(\forall \ensuremath{\bm{s}} \in \mathbb{R}^N) (\forall \ensuremath{\bm{\pi}} \in \mathbb{R}^L) \quad
g(\ensuremath{\bm{s}},\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}})= \iota_{C_1}(\ensuremath{\bm{s}}) +\iota_{C_2}(\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}).
\label{eq:g}
\end{equation}
In a nutshell, Problem \eqref{pb: pb2solve} amounts to minimizing:
\begin{equation}
(\forall \ensuremath{\bm{s}} \in \mathbb{R}^N) (\forall \ensuremath{\bm{\pi}} \in \mathbb{R}^L) \quad
\Omega(\ensuremath{\bm{s}},\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}})= f(\ensuremath{\bm{s}},\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}) + g(\ensuremath{\bm{s}},\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}). \label{eq:obj}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Proposed {Trust-Region} {PENDANTSS\xspace} algorithm}
The {structure of \eqref{eq:obj} suggests using a block alternating approach where signal $\ensuremath{\bm{s}}$ and kernel $\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}$ are updated sequentially. We hereby generalize the BC-VMFB algorithm \cite{Chouzenoux_E_2016_j-global-optim_block_cvmfba}, also used in \cite{Repetti_A_2015_j-ieee-spl_euclid_tsbdsl1l2r} for blind deconvolution}.
\begin{algorithm}
\SetAlgoLined
\textbf{Settings:} $K_{\max}>0$, $\varepsilon>0$, $\mathcal{I} > 0$,~$\theta\in]0,1[$, $(\gamma_{s,k})_{k \in \mathbb{N}} \in [\underline{\gamma}, 2-\overline{\gamma}]$ and $(\gamma_{\pi,k})_{k \in \mathbb{N}} \in [\underline{\gamma}, 2- \overline{\gamma}]$ for some $(\underline{\gamma}, \overline{\gamma}) \in ]0,+\infty[^2$, $(p,q) \in ]0,2[\times [2,+\infty[$ satisfying \eqref{cond:SPOQ}, convex sets $(C_1,C_2) \subset \mathbb{R}^N \times \mathbb{R}^L$.\\
\textbf{Initialize:}~$\bm{s}_0\in C_1$,~$\bm{\pi}_0\in C_2$\\
\For{$k = 0, 1,\ldots$}{
\underline{\emph{Update of the signal}}\\
\For{$i = 1,\ldots, \mathcal{I}$}{
Set TR radius $\rho_{k,i}$ using~\eqref{eq:TRradius} with parameter $\theta$\;
Construct MM metric using~\eqref{eq:A_qrho}: $\bm{A}_{1,\rho_{k,i}}(\bm{s}_{k},\bm{\pi}_{k}) = \Lambda_1(\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_k) \mathrm{\mathbf{Id}} + \lambda \bm{A}_{q, \rho_{k,i}}(\bm{s}_k)$
Find $\bm{s}_{k,i} \in C_1$ such that
\eqref{eq: calc_s} holds.\\
\If{$\bm{s}_{k,i}\in \bar{\mathcal{B}}_{q,\rho_{k,i}}$}{Stop loop}
}
$\bm{s}_{k+1} = \bm{s}_{k,i}$\;
\underline{\emph{Update of the kernel}}\\
Find $\bm{\pi}_{k+1} \in C_2$ such that \eqref{eq: calc_pi} holds.\\
\underline{\emph{Stopping criterion}}\\
\If{$\|\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_k -\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_{k+1}|| \leq \varepsilon$ or $k \geq K_{\max}$}{Stop loop}
}
$(\widehat{\ensuremath{\bm{s}}},\widehat{\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}}) = (\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_{k+1},\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_{k+1})$\,\text{and}\,
$ \bm{\widehat{t}}$ given by \eqref{eq:t_hat_orig}\;
\KwResult{$\widehat{\ensuremath{\bm{s}}},\widehat{\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}}, \bm{\widehat{t}}$}
\caption{TR-BC-VMFB for solving \eqref{pb: pb2solve}}
\label{algo:TR-BC-VMFB}
\end{algorithm}
\subsubsection{ {Signal update}}
Let $k \in \mathbb{N}$ and $(\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_k,\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_k) \in C_1 \times C_2$. The computation of $\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_{k+1}$ follows one {Majoration-Minimization (MM) iteration \cite{Sun_Y_2017_j-ieee-tsp_majorization-minimization_aspcml}}. First, we build a majorization for $\Omega(\cdot,\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_k)$ around $\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_k$. Second, $\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_{k+1}$ is defined as a minimizer {to} the majorant. In practice, both steps can be approximated {for speedup and robustness to numerical errors}. {A}s emphasized in~\cite{Chouzenoux_E_2022_j-math-imaging-vis_local_mmsmscvpir,Cherni_A_2020_j-ieee-tsp_spoq_lpolqrssrams}, we need the majorization to be valid only within a neighborhood of the current iterate. For $\rho\in[0,+\infty[$, the~$\ell_q$-ball complement set is:
\begin{equation}
\bar{\mathcal{B}}_{q,\rho} =\{\bm{s}=(s_n)_{1\leq n\leq N} \in\mathbb{R}^N | \sum_{n=1}^{N} |s_n|^q \geq \rho^q \}.
\label{eq:TR_ballex}
\end{equation}
From~\cite[Prop. 2]{Cherni_A_2020_j-ieee-tsp_spoq_lpolqrssrams}, we can show that
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:maj1}
(\forall \ensuremath{\bm{s}} \in \bar{\mathcal{B}}_{q,\rho} \cap C_1) \quad
\Omega(\ensuremath{\bm{s}},\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_k) \leq f(\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_k,\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_k) \\+ {(\ensuremath{\bm{s}} - \ensuremath{\bm{s}}_k)}^\top \nabla_1 f(\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_k,\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_k) + \frac{1}{2} \| \ensuremath{\bm{s}} - \ensuremath{\bm{s}}_k\|^2_{\bm{A}_{1,\rho}(\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_k,\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_k)},
\end{multline}
where we define the so-called MM metric as:
\begin{multline}
\bm{A}_{1,\rho}(\bm{s}_k,\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_k) = (\Lambda_1(\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_k) + \lambda \chi_{q,\rho}) \mathrm{\mathbf{Id}}_N + \\ \frac{\lambda}{\ell_{p,\alpha}^p(\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_k) + \beta^p}\text{Diag}((s_{n,k}^2+\alpha^2)^{p/2-1})_{1\leq n\leq N} ,
\label{eq:A_qrho}
\end{multline}
with the constant
\begin{equation}
\chi_{q,\rho} = \frac{q-1}{(\eta^q+\rho^q)^{2/q}}.
\end{equation}
In \eqref{eq:maj1}, $\|.\|_{\bm{A}}$ denotes the weighted Euclidean norm related to a symmetric definite positive (SDP) matrix~$\bm{A}\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times N}$, i.e., $\forall \bm{z}\in \mathbb{R}^N,\ \|\bm{z}\|_{\bm{A}} = (\bm{z}^\top \bm{A}\bm{z})^{1/2}$. Since inequality \eqref{eq:maj1} only holds on a limited region, we introduce a Trust-Region-based (TR) loop \cite{Conn_A_2000_book_trust-region_m} to make sure that the minimizer of the majorant is indeed in the validity domain of \eqref{eq:maj1}. Namely, we set~$\mathcal{I} >0$, a maximum number of trials of TR approach. For $i \in \{1,\ldots,\mathcal{I}\}$, we define the TR radius as:
\begin{equation}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\rho_{k,i} = \begin{cases}
\sum_{n=1}^{N}|s_{n,k}|^q & \text{if } i = 1\,,\\
\theta \rho_{k,i-1} & \text{if } 2\leq i\leq \mathcal{I}-1\,,\\
0 & \text{if } i = \mathcal{I}\,.
\end{cases}
\label{eq:TRradius}
\end{equation}
We compute the associated MM metric $\bm{A}_{1,\rho_{k,i}}(\bm{s}_k,\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_k)$ and define $\bm{s}_{k,i}$ as a minimizer of the right term in \eqref{eq:maj1}. The loop stops whenever $\bm{s}_{k,i}$ belongs to~$ \bar{\mathcal{B}}_{q,\rho_{k,i}}$, which is ensured to arise in a finite number of steps according to \cite{Cherni_A_2020_j-ieee-tsp_spoq_lpolqrssrams}. There remains to explain how we practically compute $\bm{s}_{k,i}$. Depending on the choice for $C_1$, the right term in \eqref{eq:maj1} might not have a closed-form minimizer. Actually, as we will show, it appears sufficient for convergence purpose to search for $\bm{s}_{k,i} \in C_1$ satisfying the first order optimality conditions:
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
(\bm{s}_{k,i}\! -\! \bm{s}_k)^\top\!\nabla_1 f(\bm{s}_k, \bm{\pi}_k)\! +\! \gamma_{s,k}^{-1}||\bm{s}_{k,i}\! -\! \bm{s}_k||^2_{\bm{A}_{1,\rho_{k,i}}(\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_k,\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_k)}\!\leq\! 0,
\label{eq: calc_s}
\\
||\nabla_1 f(\bm{s}_k, \bm{\pi}_k)\!+\!\bm{r}_{k,i}^{(1)} || \leq \kappa_1 || \bm{s}_{k,i}\! -\! \bm{s}_k||_{\bm{A}_{1,\rho_{k,i}}(\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_k,\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_k)}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
for some~$\bm{r}_{k,i}^{(1)}~\in N_{C_1}(\bm{s}_{k,i})$ (i.e., the normal cone of $C_1$ at $\bm{s}_{k,i}$ \cite{Bauschke_H_2011_book_convex_amoths}), and some $\kappa_1>0$. The existence of such an $\bm{s}_{k,i}$ can be shown from \cite[Rem. 3.3]{Chouzenoux_E_2014_j-optim-theory-appl_variable_mfbamsdfcf}. In particular, a minimizer over $C_1$ of the right term in \eqref{eq:maj1} satisfies~\eqref{eq: calc_s}.
\subsubsection{ {Kernel update}} {It} follows a similar approach. The main difference is that we do not use the TR loop in that case, as the function to minimize here is simpler. Let $k \in \mathbb{N}$, and $(\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_{k+1},\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_k) \in C_1 \times C_2$. Using the descent lemma, it is straightforward to show that:
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:maj2}
(\forall \ensuremath{\bm{\pi}} \in C_2) \quad
\Omega(\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_{k+1},\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}) \leq f(\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_{k+1},\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_k) \\+ ( \ensuremath{\bm{\pi}} - \ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_k)^\top \nabla_2 f(\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_{k+1},\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_k) + \frac{\Lambda_2(\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_{k+1}) }{2} \| \ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}- \ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_k\|^2 .
\end{multline}
The new iterate $\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_{k+1}$ is then defined as a minimizer of the right term of \eqref{eq:maj2}. Hereagain, we can solve this problem in an inexact manner, that is to search for some $\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_{k+1} \in C_2$ satisfying
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
(\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_{k+1} - \ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_{k})^\top\nabla_2 f(\bm{s}_{k+1}, \ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_{k})\\
\qquad \quad +\gamma_{\pi,k}^{-1} \Lambda_2(\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_{k+1})\|\bm{\pi}_{k +1} - \bm{\pi}_{k }\|^2 \leq 0, \numberthis \label{eq: calc_pi}
\\
\|\nabla_2 f(\bm{s}_{k+1}, \bm{\pi}_{k})+\bm{r}_{k}^{(2)} \| \leq \kappa_2 \sqrt{\Lambda_2(\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_{k+1})} \| \bm{\pi}_{k+1} - \bm{\pi}_{k}\|, \nonumber
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
for some~$\bm{r}_{k}^{(2)}\in N_{C_2}(\bm{\pi}_{k+1})$ and $\kappa_2 > 0$. The existence of $\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_{k+1}$ can be shown from \cite[Rem. 3.3]{Chouzenoux_E_2014_j-optim-theory-appl_variable_mfbamsdfcf}. In particular, a minimizer over $C_2$ of the right term in \eqref{eq:maj2} satisfies~\eqref{eq: calc_pi}.
\subsection{Convergence Result}
We establish the following convergence theorem for~ Algorithm~\ref{algo:TR-BC-VMFB}. Its proof is provided in the supplementary material.
\begin{theorem}
\label{prop:conv_BD}
Let~$(\bm{s}_k)_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ and~$(\bm{\pi}_k)_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ be sequences generated by Algorithm~\ref{algo:TR-BC-VMFB}. If $C_1$ and $C_2$ are semi-algebraic sets then the sequence~$(\bm{s}_{k}, \bm{\pi}_k)_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ converges to a critical point~$(\widehat{\bm{s}}, \widehat{\bm{\pi}})$ of Problem~\eqref{pb: pb2solve}.
\end{theorem}
The above result extends \cite[Theo.1]{Cherni_A_2020_j-ieee-tsp_spoq_lpolqrssrams} to the block alternating case using proof ingredients reminiscent from~\cite{Chouzenoux_E_2016_j-global-optim_block_cvmfba,Hien_L_2020_p-icml_intertial_bpmncnso}.
\section{Numerical results\label{Sec_Results}}
\subsection{Datasets}
Two datasets A and B were considered. The original sparse signal~$\overline{\ensuremath{\bm{s}}}$ and the observed signal~$\ensuremath{\bm{y}}$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig_Dataset}, both of size $N = 200$.
The observed signal~$\ensuremath{\bm{y}}$ is obtained from~\eqref{eq:observation_signal} where $\overline{\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}}$ is a normalized Gaussian kernel with standard deviation 0.15 and size~$L = 21$. The noise $\bm{n}$ is zero-mean white Gaussian with variance $\sigma^2$ either equals~$\SI{0.5}{\percent}$ or~$\SI{1}{\percent}$ of $x_{\max}$ defined as the maximum amplitude of~$\overline{\bm{x}} = \overline{\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}} \ast \overline{\ensuremath{\bm{s}}}$. Signal and kernel convolution is implemented with zero padding.
\subsection{Algorithmic settings}
We choose $C_1 = [0,+\infty[^N$ and~$C_2$ the simplex unit set, i.e.~$C_2 \!=\! \mathcal{S}\! = \!\{\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}} \!=\! (\pi_{\ell})_{1 \leq \ell \leq L} \in [0,+\infty[^L \quad \text{s.t.} \quad \sum_{\ell=1}^L \pi_{\ell} = 1 \}$. For such choices, and giving the fact that the metric \eqref{eq:A_qrho} is diagonal, the resolution of~\eqref{eq: calc_s} and
~\eqref{eq: calc_pi} is straightforward, by \cite[Prop. 24.11]{Bauschke_H_2011_book_convex_amoths} and \cite[Cor. 9]{Becker_S_2012_p-nips_quasi-newton_psm}. Namely, for every $k \in \mathbb{N}$, and $i \in \{1,\ldots,\mathcal{I}\}$,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{cases}
\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_{k,i} \!=\! \text{Proj}_{ C_1}\!\!\left( \ensuremath{\bm{s}}_k \!-\! \gamma_{s,k}\bm{A}_{1,\rho_{k,i}}(\bm{s}_{k},\bm{\pi}_{k})^{-1}\nabla_1 f(\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_k,\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_k) \right),\\
\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_{k+1} = \text{Proj}_{C_2}\left(
\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_k - \gamma_{\pi,k}\Lambda_{2}(\bm{s}_{k+1})^{-1}\nabla_2 f(\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_{k+1},\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_k)
\right).
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Hereabove,
$\text{Proj}_{ C_1}$
is the projection over the positive orthant, that has a simple closed form expression, while $\text{Proj}_{C_2}$ is the projection over the simplex unit set, that can be computed using the fast procedure from \cite{Condat_L_2016_j-math-programm_fast_psl1b}.
For simplicity, we set constant stepsizes $ \gamma_{s,k} \equiv 1.9$ and $\gamma_{\pi,k} \equiv 1.9$, thus satisfying the required range assumption. Moreover, we take $\theta = 0.5$ in the TR update, and a maximum of $\mathcal{I} = 50$ of TR trials. We use the same initialization strategy for all methods as in~\cite{Repetti_A_2015_j-ieee-spl_euclid_tsbdsl1l2r}, namely~$\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_0 \in C_1$ is a constant positive valued signal and~$\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_0 \in C_2$ is a centered Gaussian filter with standard deviation of 1. The stopping criterion parameters are set as~$\varepsilon = \sqrt{N}\times10^{-6}$ and $K_{\max} = 2000$.
\subsection{Numerical results}
PENDANTSS\xspace jointly performs blind deconvolution and trend removal, using SPOQ penalty. Let us recall that SOOT penalty from~\cite{Repetti_A_2015_j-ieee-spl_euclid_tsbdsl1l2r} is retrieved by setting~$(p,q) = (1,2)$ in SPOQ. Another setting will be analyzed, namely $(p,q) = (0.75,2)$, which was shown to be competitive in the problem considered in \cite{Cherni_A_2020_j-ieee-tsp_spoq_lpolqrssrams}. In the spirit of an ablation study, we compare: (i) applying the state-of-the-art background estimation method backcor~\cite{Mazet_V_2005_j-chemometr-intell-lab-syst_background_rsdmnqcf} to estimate and remove the {trend} and then the blind deconvolution method~\cite{Repetti_A_2015_j-ieee-spl_euclid_tsbdsl1l2r} to estimate the signal~$\widehat{\ensuremath{\bm{s}}}$ and the kernel~$\widehat{\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}}$, (ii) applying our pipeline when using either SPOQ $(p,q) = (0.75,2)$, SPOQ $(p,q) = (1,2)$ (i.e., SOOT).
We use signal-to-noise ratios to evaluate our estimations, respectively for the for signal (SNR$_{\ensuremath{\bm{s}}}$), kernel (SNR$_{\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}}$) and trend (SNR$_{\ensuremath{\bm{t}}}$). For instance,~SNR$_{\ensuremath{\bm{s}}} = 20\log_{10}(\|\overline{\ensuremath{\bm{s}}}\|_2 / \|\overline{\ensuremath{\bm{s}}} - \widehat{\ensuremath{\bm{s}}}\|_2)$.
Moreover, $\text{TSNR}$ evaluates the~SNR only on the support of the original sparse signal. While their support are not known in general, it reveals how peak-derived quantities (height, width, area), important for downstream quantitative chemical analysis, would be impacted by detrending and deconvolution.
Hyperparameters, e.g. regularization parameters of backcor~\cite{Mazet_V_2005_j-chemometr-intell-lab-syst_background_rsdmnqcf} and SPOQ/SOOT parameters~$(\lambda, \alpha,\beta,\eta)$, are adjusted to maximize a weighted sum of SNRs for one completely known reference realization, i.e.~$2\text{SNR}_{\ensuremath{\bm{s}}} + \text{SNR}_{\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}} + \text{SNR}_{\ensuremath{\bm{t}}}$. The cutoff frequency of the low-pass filter in~\eqref{eq:t_hat_orig} is chosen as the best performing point over the first ten peak points of the modulus of the signal frequency spectrum.
To assure the kernel is centered, a spatial shift on the estimated kernel and the sparse signal is applied as a post-processing step because spatially shifted kernels and sparse signals result in the same observed signal.
A grid search determines the number of inner loops to maximize the~$\text{SNR}_{\ensuremath{\bm{s}}}$ of the sparse signal.
Table~\ref{tab: results} summarizes the results{ of mean SNR values, and standard deviations after the ``$\pm$" sign}, {calculated} over two hundred noise realizations. {The highest among the four compared methods are followed by two asterisks~(**); the second best are denoted by only one (*). We notice that the best values and the second best values are almost always achieved by the proposed PENDANTSS\xspace approach with $(p,q) = (0.75,2)$ or $(1,2)$. The difference with the baseline methods is also significant for all cases in terms of TSNR$_{\ensuremath{\bm{s}}}$ and SNR$_{\ensuremath{\bm{t}}}$. One exception lies on SNR$_{\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}}$ with dataset~B with the noise level of~\SI{1}{\percent} of~$x_{\max}$, where the second best is achieved by the combination backcor+SPOQ.
}
We stress out that in such problems, correct estimations of sparse signal and baseline are usually more important than kernel estimation.
The performance of PENDANTSS\xspace for the two penalty parameters $(p,q) = (0.75,2), (1,2)$ is dependent on the datasets and the noise level.
{
In terms of sparse signal recovery SNR$_{\ensuremath{\bm{s}}}$ and TSNR$_{\ensuremath{\bm{s}}}$, PENDANTSS\xspace with $(p,q) = (0.75,2)$ achieves slightly higher performance than PENDANTSS\xspace with $(p,q) = (1,2)$ for dataset A. However, its outcomes are notably lower for dataset B, a less sparse signal, while remaining the second best method. For dataset A, both PENDANTSS\xspace methods have similar baseline estimation accuracy, while for dataset B, PENDANTSS\xspace $(p,q) = (0.75,2)$ performs better with lower noise level and PENDANTSS\xspace $(p,q) = (1,2)$ better with greater noise level, with a difference of SNR of about~$2$ dB. As for the estimation of SNR$_{\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}}$, PENDANTSS\xspace with $(p,q) = (1,2)$ performs the best for all four cases with little difference for dataset A but a larger difference for more challenging cases with dataset B and higher noise levels.
Considering various SPOQ parameters is indeed beneficial. According to the presented simulation results, PENDANTSS\xspace with $(p,q) = (0.75,2)$ is better for datasets with sparser, well-separable peaks whereas PENDANTSS\xspace with $(p,q) = (1,2)$ for more challenging datasets. Graphical details on the quality of estimated peaks are provided as supplementary material.
}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfloat[Dataset A.\label{fig:dataA}]{
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Figures/orig_dataA_4.pdf}}
\vspace{-.2cm}
\hfill
\subfloat[Sparse spike signal for dataset A.\label{fig:dataA}]{
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Figures/orig_dataA_4_s.pdf}}
\vspace{-.2cm}
\hfill
\subfloat[Dataset B.\label{fig:dataB}]{
\includegraphics[width = 0.8\linewidth]{Figures/orig_dataB_4.pdf}}
\vspace{-.2cm}
\hfill
\subfloat[Sparse spike signal for dataset B.\label{fig:dataB}]{
\includegraphics[width = 0.8\linewidth]{Figures/orig_dataB_4_s.pdf}}
\vspace{-.1cm}
\caption{Unknown sparse signal~$\overline{\ensuremath{\bm{s}}}$ (b) and (d); in (a) and (c) observation~$\bm{y}$ (blue) and baseline $\overline{\ensuremath{\bm{t}}}$ (black) (bottom) for datasets A and B. Signal A has 10 spikes (\SI{5}{\percent} of sparsity) while signal B has 20 spikes (\SI{10}{\percent} of sparsity).}
\label{Fig_Dataset}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion and perspectives}
We propose to solve a complicated joint sparse signal blind deconvolution and additive trend problem. Our method handles smooth trend removal by exploiting their low-pass property and simplifies the problem into a blind deconvolution problem. The blind deconvolution problem uses the recent~SPOQ sparse penalty. Simulation results confirm that PENDANTSS\xspace outperforms comparable methods on typical sparse analytical signals.
Further works include its validation on a variety of other sparse spike signals. The appropriate parameters for the sparsity-promoting norm ratio penalty ought to be investigated, for instance with respect to the alleged signal sparsity or peak separability. PENDANTSS\xspace Matlab code is available at \url{https://github.com/paulzhengfr/PENDANTSS}.
\input{table_results/table_shrinked}
\newpage
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
\section{Proof of Theorem 1 for Algorithm 1}
We first provide a useful majorant metric matrix property.
\begin{lemma}
There exists $(\underline{\lambda}, \overline{\lambda}) \in ]0,+\infty[^2$ such that for every $k\in \mathbb{N}$, and for every $i\in\{1,\ldots, \mathcal{I} \}$,
\begin{AEquation}
\begin{cases}
\underline{\lambda}\mathrm{\mathbf{Id}}_N \preceq \bm{A}_{1,\rho_{k,i}}(\bm{s}_{k},\bm{\pi}_{k}) \preceq \overline{\lambda}\mathrm{\mathbf{Id}}_N,\\
\underline{\lambda} \leq \Lambda_2(\bm{s}_{k}) \leq \overline{\lambda}.
\end{cases}
\end{AEquation}
\label{lem:1}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Direct consequence of [14,~Prop.~2] and [13,~Prop.~1].
\end{proof}
We then show that Algorithm~1 satisfies two essential descent properties, that are key for the convergence analysis.
\begin{lemma}
\label{prop:descent}
There exists $(\mu_1,\mu_2) \in ]0,+\infty[$ such that, for every $k\in \mathbb{N}$, the following descent properties hold:
\begin{AEquation}
\Omega(\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_{k+1}, \ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_{k}) \leq\Omega(\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_{k}, \ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_k) - \frac{\mu_1}{2}||\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_{k+1}- \ensuremath{\bm{s}}_{k}||^2,
\label{eq:descent_s}
\end{AEquation}
\begin{AEquation}
\Omega(\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_{k\!+\!1}, \ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_{k\!+\!1})\! \leq\! \Omega(\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_{k+1}, \ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_{k}) - \frac{\mu_2}{2}|| \ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_{k\!+\!1} - \ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_{k}||^2.
\label{eq:descent_pi}
\end{AEquation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $k \in \mathbb{N}$. We remind that the objective function $\Omega$ is defined in~(12), with $g$ specified in~(11). By construction, $\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_{k+1}\in \bar{\mathcal{B}}_{q,\rho} \cap C_1$ for some $i\in\{1,\ldots, \mathcal{I} \}$. Summing the majoration~(14) and the first inequality in~(18) yields:
\begin{equation*}
\Omega(\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_{k+1},\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_k)\leq f(\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_k, \ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_k) - (\gamma_{s,k}^{-1} - \tfrac{1}{2})\| \ensuremath{\bm{s}}_k - \ensuremath{\bm{s}}_{k+1} \|^2_{\bm{A}_{1,\rho}(\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_k,\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_k)}.
\end{equation*}
We notice that~$f(\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_k, \ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_k)= \Omega(\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_k, \ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_k)$ since $\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_k\in C_1$ and~$\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_k\in C_2$. Using Lemma~1 and the range assumption on $\gamma_{s,k}$ allows to show~(A2) for~$\mu_1 = {\underline{\lambda}\overline{\gamma}}/({2-\overline{\gamma}})$.
Again by construction, $\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_{k+1}\in C_2$. Summing inequalities~(19) and~(20) leads to:
\begin{multline*}
\Omega(\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_{k+1}, \ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_{k+1}) \leq f(\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_{k+1},\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_k) -\\ (\gamma_{\pi,k}^{-1} - \tfrac{1}{2}) \Lambda_2(\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_{k+1}) \|\bm{\pi}_{k +1} - \bm{\pi}_{k }\|^2.
\end{multline*}
Here again, we use~$f(\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_{k+1}, \ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_k)= \Omega(\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_{k+1}, \ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_k)$ as $\ensuremath{\bm{s}}_{k+1}\in C_1$ and~$\ensuremath{\bm{\pi}}_k\in C_2$. The descent property \eqref{eq:descent_pi} is obtained by using Lemma~\ref{lem:1}, the range constraint on $\gamma_{\pi,k}$, and setting~$\mu_2 = {\underline{\lambda}\bar{\gamma}}{(2-\bar{\gamma})}$.
\end{proof}
The rest of the proof of Theorem 1 is obtained by following the same lines than the one of~[16,~Theorem 3.1].
\section{Additional results}
Figures 2 and 3 provide additional insights into PENDANTSS restoration. Dataset A in Figure~2-(a) presents sparse and well-isolated peaks. Accurate peak restoration is secured. Peak shapes are well recovered (left-hand zoom), and the estimated trend matches well the actual baseline. As a consequence, peak features that are computed with respect to the trend (height, area) are likely to be well-estimated with PENDANTSS.
The less sparse Dataset B in Figure~2-(b) shows that the separation and the height of close peaks are accurately matched. Some overshoot in trend estimation can be noticed. It is however not likely to drastically affect relative peak height or area computations.
Retrieved spikes are exposed in Figure~3. For Dataset A, well-separated spikes are accurately recovered using PENDANTSS. Estimated amplitudes and locations are almost indistinguishable from the original ones. This is exemplified for the less sparse Dataset B in Figure~3-(b). Isolated peaks are well-estimated. However, some spikes (for instance around index $175$) for Dataset B in Figure~3-(b) remain unelucidated. Three contiguous spikes are estimated, instead of two. Such an ambiguous solution is typical to source separation problems.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\subfloat[Dataset A reconstruction and trend.\label{fig:dataA_trend}]{
\includegraphics[width=0.67\linewidth, trim= 0 0 0 20]{Figures/final_v4_test_A1_p_1_q_2_n_1_t.pdf}}
\vspace{-.2cm}
\hfill
\subfloat[Dataset B reconstruction and trend.\label{fig:dataB_trend}]{
\includegraphics[width=0.67\linewidth]{Figures/final_v4_test_B1_p_1_q_2_n_1_t.pdf}}
\vspace{-.2cm}
\hfill
\caption{Ground truth (thick black line) and proposed estimation results (thin blue line), and the baseline~$t$ (dashed dot) and the signal~$s\ast p$ (continuous).}
\label{fig:estimation}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\subfloat[Dataset A sparse spike signal.\label{fig:dataA_sparse}]{
\includegraphics[width=0.67\linewidth, trim= 0 0 0 30 ]{Figures/final_v4_test_A1_p_1_q_2_n_1_s.pdf}}
\vspace{-.2cm}
\hfill
\subfloat[Dataset B sparse spike signal.\label{fig:dataB_sparse}]{
\includegraphics[width=0.67\linewidth]{Figures/final_v4_test_B1_p_1_q_2_n_1_s.pdf}}
\vspace{-.2cm}
\hfill
\caption{Ground truth (black line with circle marker) and proposed estimation results (blue line with cross marker).}
\label{fig:estimation2}
\vspace{-.5cm}
\end{figure}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:Introduction}
Today, the demand for large-scale deep learning has significantly increased.
The sizes of training models and datasets for the training are expanding to meet the demand.
For example, training models for image classification, such as EfficientNet~\cite{Tan2019_EfficientNet} with large datasets, such as OpenImages dataset~\cite{Kuznetsova2020_OpenImages} are used.
Some computational science applications also use deep learning methods such as CosmoFlow~\cite{Mathuriya2018_CosmoFlow} and DeepCam~\cite{kurth2018_DeepCam}.
A single machine does not have enough computational and memory capacity for these large workloads.
Therefore, distributed deep neural network (DDNN) training technique, which allows training models on multiple machines connected by a network, is necessary.
HPC, optimized for huge and distributed workloads, are promising environments for large training workloads.
I/O is becoming a bottleneck in the training workloads for the following reasons~\cite{Mohan2021,Pumma2019}.
The first reason is dataset growth.
The size of datasets is increasing for training higher quality models~\cite{Mahajan2018,Beal2022}.
Large datasets that do not fit in memory cause training applications to issue many I/O requests.
The second reason is expanding performance gap between computation and I/O.
Although computation time is becoming shorter by distributed execution techniques, I/O performance is not improved.
This expands the performance gap.
Therefore the I/O performance of future HPC clusters is crucial.
For designing a storage system for future HPC, it is crucial but difficult to find out what improvement of storage systems would achieve a performance goal of a target I/O intensive DDNN workload.
The first reason why it is difficult is that most storage systems in flagship-class HPC clusters are hierarchical, which combines fast but small storage, and a slow but large storage system~\cite{Sato2020_Fugaku,Vazhkudai2018_Summit}.
Therefore, it is unclear which we should pay our cost for the throughput of the global or local filesystems or the volume for the local file system.
The second reason is that tuning a DNN application for distributed execution requires several weeks or months for a new cluster or processor architecture.
Therefore, we need a much cost and time to find out the I/O bottleneck in a DDNN training workload.
This paper shows a case study on the performance analysis of a hierarchical storage system for DDNN workload and the estimation of necessary improvement of the storage systems to meet a performance goal.
To reveal the effect of faster storage, we first measure the I/O operations time of a synthetic I/O intensive training workload with various proportions of fast and slow storage sizes.
Then we estimate the impact of storage system improvement on the training performance based on a result of the I/O performance analysis.
The method can estimate the contribution of various improvement of a hierarchical storage system, to overall the training performance.
The contributions of this work are: (1) A methodology to study the I/O bottleneck of DDNN training workloads in the hierarchical storage system; (2) A methodology to explore options for improvement of a storage system to achieve a performance goal of DDNN training workloads.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows.
Section~\ref{sec:Background} explains the background.
Section~\ref{sec:RelatedWork} reviews the related work.
Section~\ref{sec:Methodology} explains our method.
Section~\ref{sec:Evaluation} demonstrates our methods on a flagship-class supercomputer.
Section~\ref{sec:Discussion} discusses the potential of the method.
Conclusions are presented in Section~\ref{sec:Conclusion}.
\section{Background}
\label{sec:Background}
\subsection{File access in distributed neural network workloads}
The file access pattern by DNN training applications is different from that in scientific computational applications.
In training, stochastic gradient descent (SGD) is a common technique to improve training speed and accuracy\cite{Akiba2017_ResNet50_15min,Mikami2018_ResNet50_122sec,Yamazaki2019_ResNet50_74.7sec}.
In SGD, a program splits a training dataset into mini-batch and inputs a mini-batch to the neural network.
To avoid the degradation of training accuracy due to a fixed input order, it shuffles the order of the files of the dataset every time when inputting all samples to the neural network.
Therefore the program accesses each file once an epoch in a random order.
It is hard to apply general cache policies because of less time and spatial locality.
If the dataset is larger than the memory volume for page caches, the cache miss on reading file often occurs.
It is a reason why I/O is easy to be the bottleneck.
In distributed training, multiple compute nodes read the dataset simultaneously.
In data-parallel, which is one of common parallelizing techniques, each compute node has a part of the dataset and calculates it.
There are two data shuffling manners called local shuffling and global shuffling.
Local shuffle means that each process only shuffles and reads a part of the dataset.
On the other hand, global shuffle means that the application shuffles the whole dataset and splits it for each computer every epoch.
Local shuffling is easy to use local storage for each computer because the computer needs to access only the initial allocated part of the dataset.
However, it reduces the training accuracy because it reduces the randomness of the input dataset.
In some cases, the local shuffle approach is not suitable due to the accuracy degradation.
On the other hand, the global shuffling does not affect the training accuracy, but replacing the part of the dataset for each epoch is a heavy I/O workload, especially, training with a large dataset and a large number of computers.
Therefore, we focus on the global shuffling in this paper.
\subsection{Storage system in HPC}
Recent flagship class HPC clusters provide a hierarchical storage system.
Hierarchical storage systems typically consist of a small but fast storage system and a large but slow storage system.
HPC clusters often provide the former as a local file system (LFS) and the latter as a global file system (GFS).
Summit \cite{Vazhkudai2018_Summit} provides node-local burst buffers (node-local NVMe SSD) and a parallel file system (IBM’s SpectrumScale GPFS\texttrademark).
Fugaku\cite{Sato2020_Fugaku} also provides a hierarchical storage system that consists of the 1st level storage (an SSD for every 16 nodes) and the 2nd level storage (a Global storage system).
We assume that DDNN applications in a global shuffle manner use the local storage in the hierarchical storage as the cache of global storage.
An important question to answer to design future storage systems in HPC for machine learning workload is the best balance of fast and slow storage from the viewpoint of size and performance.
\section{Related work}
\label{sec:RelatedWork}
There are several works to analyze and model the DNN performance.
Wang et al. proposed a modeling method for the DNN training workload based on the Roofline model~\cite{Wang2020_RooflineForDL}.
They focus on the performance of the computation and memory accesses however the I/O performance is not considered.
There are several works for analyzing and optimizing I/O performance for DDNN workloads.
Several works~\cite{Pumma2019,Mohan2021} have analyzed the I/O performance for the DDNN and proposed optimization methods.
Devarajan et al. proposed a benchmark to measure the I/O performance for DDNN and find the opportunity for tuning I/O parameters~\cite{Devarajan2021_DLIO,DevarajanGithub_DLIO}.
These works assume a non-hierarchical storage system.
We focus on I/O performance of hierarchical storage systems.
Several works~\cite{Zhu2018_DeepIO,Serizawa2019,Zhu2019_DLFS,Dryden2021_ClairvoyantPrefetching} assume hierarchical storage systems in their I/O optimization method for DDNN workloads.
They focus on application-level optimization to solve the I/O bottleneck.
On the other hand, our work is toward performance improvement of storage systems.
Paul et al. analyzed the I/O log generated by all the jobs on Supercomputer Summit during a year~\cite{Paul2021}.
They revealed the tendency of ML jobs and the usage of the storage system by them, especially, the usage of the burst buffer.
In this work, the 23,389 ML jobs of 845,036 jobs in 2020 on Summit were analyzed.
The analysis results suggested a rapid increment in the use of ML technologies in HPC, and some of the ML jobs used the burst buffer in addition to the GPFS.
This work analyzes the comprehensive analysis of the real ML workload from the viewpoint of usage of the hierarchical storage system in the HPC environment.
Our work analyzes the I/O performance of hierarchical storage systems in detail.
\section{Methodology}
\label{sec:Methodology}
\subsection{Overview}
\label{sec:Methodology_Overview}
Our analysis method is composed of three steps, (1) measuring I/O performance, (2) analyzing measurement results, and (3) estimating the impact of the speed-up of global and local storage on training performance.
In the measurement, we execute a DDNN benchmark with profiling the I/O on a hierarchical storage system.
The benchmark reads a dataset from the hierarchical storage system and uses LFS as the cache of GFS.
To reveal how LFS contributes to overall the I/O performance, we measure the I/O performance with various proportions of the size of the cached data on LFS.
We expect that the performance characteristics depend on a performance balance of GFS and LFS as well as the sizes of files in a dataset.
Therefore, we measure the I/O performance with multiple performance balances and the file sizes combination.
In the analyzing step, we analyze the profiling data separately by file system and by type of I/O operations.
To do this, we break down the I/O time into the following four I/O classes based on the I/O profiling data obtained in the benchmark execution.
\textit{GFS-READ} is a class for read operations on a GFS,
\textit{GFS-META} is a class for metadata operations (\verb|open()|, \verb|close()|) on a GFS,
\textit{LFS-READ} is a class for read operations on an LFS,
and \textit{LFS-META} is a class for metadata operations on an LFS.
Note that file operations on the dataset in a DNN training are only \verb|open()|, \verb|close()|, and \verb|read()| because applications do not make any modifications and new samples.
We target the I/O time of the slowest process among all parallel processes, because it is the most dominant for the overall training time.
In the estimating step, we extrapolate from the above results, expected training time enabled by the speed-up of global and local storage.
We first calculate the expected overall I/O operation time on the assumption that the speed of an I/O class is improved by a given ratio.
We also calculate the expected impact on training time by the performance improvement of multiple I/O classes and which combination of the improvement will satisfy the performance goal.
\subsection{Measuring I/O performance by benchmark}
\label{sec:Methodology_Measurement}
To measure the I/O performance, we use DLIO~\cite{Devarajan2021_DLIO} benchmark, a benchmark for I/O performance on distributed deep neural network workloads.
DLIO benchmark supports distributed execution and generating the synthetic dataset for the benchmark.
However, it does not support hierarchical storage.
Therefore, we add the three functions to DLIO for our measurement of hierarchical storage systems.
The functions are (1) Reading the dataset from both GFS and LFS with a specified proportion,
(2) Global shuffling, and
(3) Generating the synthetic files on the local filesystem by each compute node.
In the benchmark execution, the cached files are not evicted, in other words, the cache policy is pinning.
As described in Section~\ref{sec:Background}, the training application accesses all samples the same number of times.
Therefore, the cache hit rate with the pinning policy is the same as the percentage of the cached file~\cite{Mohan2021}.
We prepare two datasets, a small file dataset and a large file emulating ImageNet dataset and CosmoFlow dataset respectively.
The small file dataset consists of 128 KiB files and the large file dataset consists of 12 MiB files.
The numbers of files in the small and large datasets are 589824 and 6144 respectively.
The total size of both datasets is 72 GiB so that whole of the dataset can be on the LFS and all of the processes read the same number of files.
Because the entire dataset cannot be put on the memory of each compute node (32 GiB), the benchmark application reads the files from the filesystem.
The file format in both datasets is tfrecord, and the number of samples in each file is one.
To measure the I/O performance with multiple performance balances of the GFS and LFS, we measure the I/O performance with different numbers of the object storage targets (OSTs) of the lustre-based GFS.
We can limit the number of OSTs to 1 by \verb|lfs| command.
Therefore, we measure the I/O performance with all provided OSTs (faster GFS) and 1 OST (slower GFS).
To measure the I/O performance in the benchmark execution, we use Darshan~\cite{Darshan}, which is a profiling tool for I/O.
Darshan can capture and record each file operations such as \verb|open()|, \verb|close()|, and \verb|read()|.
\subsection{Analyzing the I/O performance}
To reveal the bottleneck in detail, we break down the I/O time of the slowest process into the following four I/O classes and recognize which I/O class is a bottleneck.
We calculate the I/O time for each process and find the slowest one, which dominates the training performance.
We analyze the I/O performance from the log generated by darshan using \verb|darshan-parser| command \cite{Darshan-util}.
We calculate for each I/O time based on \verb|POSIX_F_READ_TIME| and \verb|POSIX_F_META_TIME|.
\subsection{Estimate performance by storage improvement}
\label{sec:Methodology_Estimation}
To estimate impact of $N$\% throughput improvement of a I/O class, we calculate $\times \frac{100}{100+N}$ of the measured time of the I/O class.
The improvement may not directly affect the total I/O time because the improvement may change the bottleneck to another I/O class.
Therefore, we calculate total I/O time for each process with the improvement of a class, then pick the slowest process.
\section{Experiment results}
\label{sec:Evaluation}
\subsection{Setup for experiment}
We perform the experiments on Supercomputer Fugaku\cite{Sato2020_Fugaku}.
Compute nodes of Fugaku has 48 computing cores of A64FX and 32 GiB HBM2 memory.
Fugaku has a hierarchical filesystem comprising the 1st- and 2nd-level filesystems named LLIO and FEFS, respectively.
In our measurement, we regard the LLIO as a local filesystem (LFS) and the FEFS as a global filesystem (GFS).
FEFS is a lustre-based parallel filesystem and it has 60 OSTs in Fugaku.
One per 192 compute nodes connected to the FEFS by InfiniBand EDR.
The other compute nodes connected by TofuD access to FEFS via the network and the compute node.
For LLIO, one per 16 compute nodes has an NVMe SSD and the other compute nodes connected access to the SSD via the network and the compute node.
LLIO provides three areas, node temporary area, shared temporary area, and 2nd-layer cache area\cite{Akimoto2020_FugakuTechReview}.
In our measurement, we only use node temporary areas, which is a dedicated area for a compute node, because the transparent cache does not allow us to control caching files of the dataset on LLIO.
In our measurement, we run the DLIO benchmark on the 768 compute nodes of Supercomputer Fugaku as batch jobs.
The four processes execute on every compute nodes, so that total number of processes is 3072.
The node layout is $8 \times 6 \times 16$ in the TofuD torus network.
We also pass an option to the job scheduler to strict the position of the node connected to the GFS.
Before executing the benchmark job, we generate the datasets on the GFS.
Because the system removes data on LFS after finishing the job, every benchmark job generates the same dataset on LFS as GFS.
Note that the job generates the dataset instead of copying the dataset from GFS to reduce the setup time.
We execute the benchmark with every 5\% from 0\% to 100\% cache rate.
We set the calculation time in the DLIO to zero.
Therefore, the DLIO reports only the I/O and data processing time.
The number of epochs is three to avoid making the darshan log files huge.
The prefetch of the dataloader is enabled so that it is not synchronized for each iteration even if the computation threads are synchronized for all-reduce communication.
The batch size is 12 for the small file dataset and 2 for the large file dataset.
\subsection{Measuring execution time for epochs}
In our experiments, we first measure the execution time of the DLIO benchmark and I/O time in the benchmark execution with various settings as mentioned in \ref{sec:Methodology_Measurement}.
We reveal the difference in the performance depending on file sizes in the datasets and speeds of GFS.
Additionally, by comparing the execution time reported by the benchmark and the total I/O time reported by the I/O profiler, we verify that the benchmark is I/O intensive.
Figure \ref{fig:epochtime_vs_iotime} shows the execution time and I/O time for each epoch in a job.
The x-axes of the graphs show the percentage of the files on the LFS.
The y-axes show the execution time of an epoch.
The graph shows the results of 3 epochs in a benchmark execution.
The lines with round markers are the execution time reported by the DLIO benchmark, and those with triangular markers are the I/O time reported by Darshan.
Because the I/O time of the slowest I/O process is dominant, we calculate and plot them as I/O time on the graph.
The results show that the impact of the LFS on the training performance depends on the file sizes and the performance balance of GFS and LFS.
The effect of the LFS with the 1 OST of GFS is larger than that with the 60 OSTs.
The reason is the performance difference between LFS and GFS on the 1 OST is larger than that on 60 OSTs.
In 12 MiB files workload with 60 OST of GFS, the LFS does not contribute to the performance improvement, and using only the GFS with the 60 OST is the best.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/epochtime-iotime-for-pdcat2022.pdf}
\caption{Execution time of DLIO benchmark and I/O time reported by Darshan}
\label{fig:epochtime_vs_iotime}
\end{figure}
About the I/O time, the graph indicates that the execution time is constantly longer about 2 sec, but it is strongly related to the I/O time.
This result indicate that the I/O time of the slowest process during the synchronizations among the processes strongly interrelates to the training performance.
\subsection{Analyzing I/O performance}
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/iotime-per-op-e2-for-pdcat2022.pdf}
\caption{Break down the I/O time of the slowest process for each epoch (Note: Range of y-axis are different)}
\label{fig:iotime-per-op}
\end{figure}
Next, we classify the Darshan records into the four I/O classes and calculate the I/O time for each class.
Figure~\ref{fig:iotime-per-op} shows the result of the breakdown of the \#2 epoch in the previous graphs.
Each line shows the total I/O time same as Figure~\ref{fig:epochtime_vs_iotime}.
According to the result, the bottleneck is different depending on the setup.
In 128 KiB files workload with the faster GFS, the bottleneck is GFS-META when less than 60\% of data is on the LFS.
On the other hand, the bottleneck is changed to LFS-READ with more than 60\% cached data on LFS.
We think when more than 60\% of data is put on LFS, LFS throughput is saturated.
Therefore, the read time from LFS is linearly increased with the percentage of the cached data.
So putting more than 60\% of data on the cache in the workload does not contribute to the training performance.
For example, in training with ImageNet dataset whose size is almost 150 GB, almost the 90 GiB LFS for each compute node is enough to achieve the best I/O performance by the hierarchical storage system.
With the 60\% cached data, both GFS-META and LFS-READ are included in the I/O time of the slowest process.
As compared with the faster GFS, the I/O bottleneck in the workload with the slower GFS is much different.
The graph in the middle of Figure \ref{fig:iotime-per-op} shows that the bottleneck is GFS-READ instead of GFS-META with small percentages of the LFS (less than 80\%).
We think that the reason why GFS-META time becomes shorter is reducing the load on the metadata server of FEFS due to the lower throughput of the GFS.
As compared with the small files workload, the I/O bottleneck in the large files workload with the faster GFS is also much different.
The right side graph in Figure \ref{fig:iotime-per-op} shows that the bottleneck is the LFS-READ in most of the cases.
Because the number of metadata operations is much smaller than that in the small file workload, the GFS fully provides its bandwidth without the bottleneck by the metadata operation.
As a result, the total bandwidth of the GFS is higher than LFS.
It means that the number of compute nodes is not enough to take advantage of the scalability of the LFS.
Note that the 768 nodes are not so large scale as a workload in Fugaku, however from viewpoint of the machine learning workload, the number of nodes is large enough to lead to a large batch problem.
From viewpoint of exploration of storage design for a performance goal, the result on small file dataset and faster GFS (the left side graph in Figure \ref{fig:iotime-per-op}) is challenging situation because multiple I/O class is included in the I/O time in the fastest result (cache rate = 65\%).
This means that improving only one I/O class processing will not be enough to improve entire I/O performance.
Therefore, we pick up the result to demonstrate our estimation method of the I/O improvement effect.
\subsection{Estimating the impact of the storage improvement}
As mentioned in \ref{sec:Methodology_Estimation}, we estimate the performance improvement by simple calculation based on the analysis result.
Figure~\ref{fig:expected-iotime-per-op-128KiB-60OST-50P-faster} shows the result of the estimation of the impact of a 50\% improvement of GFS-META (Figure~\ref{fig:expected-iotime-per-op-128KiB-60OST-50P-faster-left}) and LFS-READ (Figure~\ref{fig:expected-iotime-per-op-128KiB-60OST-50P-faster-right}).
The axes in the graph are the same as in Figure~\ref{fig:iotime-per-op}.
Figure \ref{fig:expected-iotime-per-op-128KiB-60OST-50P-faster-left} shows the estimation result of improving the GFS-META by 50\%.
The best combination of the GFS and LFS is changed from 65\% to 60\% LFS, and the slowest I/O time is reduced by almost 12.8\% in the best case.
Figure \ref{fig:expected-iotime-per-op-128KiB-60OST-50P-faster-left} shows the estimation result of improving the LFS-READ by 50\%.
The best cache rate is not changed, and the slowest I/O time in the best case is reduced by 24\%.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\hsize}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/expected-iotime-per-op-128KiB-60OST-GFSmeta-50P-faster.pdf}
\caption{Improving GFS-META}
\label{fig:expected-iotime-per-op-128KiB-60OST-50P-faster-left}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\hsize}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/expected-iotime-per-op-128KiB-60OST-LFSread-50P-faster.pdf}
\caption{Improving LFS-READ}
\label{fig:expected-iotime-per-op-128KiB-60OST-50P-faster-right}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Expectation the I/O time with 50\% improvement with small file dataset and 60 OSTs of the GFS}
\label{fig:expected-iotime-per-op-128KiB-60OST-50P-faster}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figures/two-improvement-for-iotime-goal-4sec-128KiB-60OST.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The estimation of performance improvement of GFS-META and LFS-META for meeting performance goal of 4 sec / epoch (128 KiB, 60 OST GFS)}
\label{fig:two-improvement-for-iotime-goal-4sec-128KiB-60OST}
\end{figure}
Next, we show the estimation of the impact of improvement of two operations classes simultaneously.
There are many parameters and values such as improvement rate for each operation, cache rate, and the I/O time.
All of them are too many to put on a single graph.
Again, the architect of the system needs knowledge of the given performance goal.
Therefore, we show the estimation by indicating which improvement combination would meet the performance goal.
Figure \ref{fig:two-improvement-for-iotime-goal-4sec-128KiB-60OST} shows the sufficient combinations of the performance improvement on two classes, GFS-META and LFS-READ, on the small files dataset and the faster GFS workload.
The result in the graph is based on the measurement of I/O time in the \#2 epoch.
The x and y axes show each improvement rate.
On the graph, the dot is plotted if the improvement combination will meet the given performance goal.
The graph indicates a result for the performance goal of 4 seconds I/O time in an epoch.
Additionally, the colors of the dots indicate the minimum cache rate to meet the goal.
For example, to achieve 4 seconds I/O time in an epoch with a 65\% cache rate, at least 120\% improvement of LFS-READ is required.
In that case, a 140\% improvement of the GFS-META is required.
The architect can explore the option of the improvement choice by the plot.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:Discussion}
In our evaluation, we assume the global shuffling manner to exploit GFS.
However, training applications with the local shuffle also can combine the LFS and GFS to put larger chunks of the dataset than that with only the LFS.
In this case, the size of the LFS and the randomness of the shuffling are a trade-off.
To consider how large chunks are preferred, the application user also can use our method to find the contributions to the performance of the LFS.
In our evaluation, we assume a pinning cache policy on the LFS.
However, our analysis can apply to the other cache policy if the cache hit rate can be calculated.
You can replace the "cache rate" with "cache hit rate" in the analysis result because both are the same in DNN workloads with the pinning policy. Then you can find the required size of the LFS from the relation between the cache hit rate and the size of the cache in your better cache policy.
In our evaluation, we estimate the improvement by a simple calculation.
However, the performance characteristic may not be simple.
For example, the estimation from the measurement results with 1 OST of the GFS with the simple calculation does not fit that with the 60 OSTs of GFS.
For more accurate estimation, improving the calculation method is necessary by modeling the characteristic.
The considerable approach is based on machine learning or queueing theory.
Even if the calculation method will be improved, our plot method shown in Figure \ref{fig:two-improvement-for-iotime-goal-4sec-128KiB-60OST} is useful for the storage system architect.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:Conclusion}
This paper presented a case study on the performance analysis of a hierarchical storage system for a DDNN workload in a flagship-class HPC cluster, discussing potential performance improvement enabled by the speed-up of the storage system.
We also estimated the improvement of training performance by various improvement of the hierarchical filesystem.
The analysis result showed that the I/O bottleneck in the training workload depends on performance balance between global and local storage as well as file sizes in a dataset.
Our estimation showed that the performance improvement of a global filesystem will contribute to reducing the necessary volume size of a local filesystem, and the performance improvement of the local file system will contribute to reducing fastest I/O time.
Our estimation method can help architects of HPC filesystems to find the necessary performance and the volume size of the local and global filesystems to meet a given performance goal.
Because our proposed method needs the measurement of I/O performance at least once, one of our future works is exploring a simpler or no measurement-required method.
The other future work is to build the performance modeling of the storage system for more accurate estimation.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:Introduction}
\paragraph{Dynamical systems.}
Dynamical systems are widely used to model the state dynamics of complex systems~\cite{Kulakowski2007dynamic}.
For example, an \gls{UAV} can be modeled as a dynamical system, in which the (possibly continuous) \emph{state} reflects its current position and velocity, and the (possibly continuous) \emph{control inputs} reflect choices that may change the state over time~\cite{Kulakowski2007dynamic}.
The dynamical system is \emph{linear} if the state transition is linear in the current state and control input.
\paragraph{Controller synthesis.}
Verifying that a controlled dynamical system satisfies a desired property is of paramount importance, especially in safety-critical applications.
Traditional methods from control theory are powerful tools for addressing properties about stability and (asymptotic) convergence, but these methods by and large do not provide formal guarantees about richer, temporal properties~\cite{DBLP:books/daglib/BaierKatoen2008,DBLP:journals/tac/FanQMNMV22}, namely requirements on state trajectories of the system in time.
A common example is the \emph{reach-avoid property}, where the task is to reach a desirable region within a given time horizon, while always remaining in a (possibly non-convex) safe region.
The general \emph{controller synthesis problem} is to compute (in an automated fashion) a \emph{feedback controller} for the dynamical system, such that any state trajectory that the system generates satisfies the given reach-avoid property~\cite{DBLP:conf/atva/KwiatkowskaP13}.
\paragraph{Modeling process noise.}
However, for a system such as a \gls{UAV}, factors including turbulence and wind gusts cause \emph{uncertainty} affecting the state dynamics of the system~\cite{DBLP:journals/trob/BlackmoreOBW10}.
We model such uncertainty as \emph{process noise}, which is an additive random variable (with possibly infinitely many outcomes) entering the dynamical system and thus affecting state transitions.
Due to this additional noise term, it is generally impossible to guarantee that \emph{every} state trajectory satisfies a reach-avoid property.
Instead, we reason over the \emph{probability} that a reach-avoid property is satisfied, and the synthesis problem is then to compute a controller that maximizes this probability.
\paragraph{Distribution of the noise.}
A common assumption to achieve computational tractability for the controller synthesis problem is that the process noise follows a Gaussian distribution~\cite{DBLP:journals/spm/ParkSQ13}, e.g., as is classically assumed in linear-quadratic-Gaussian control~\cite{anderson2007optimal}.
However, in realistic problems, such as a \gls{UAV} operating under turbulence, this assumption yields a poor approximation of the uncertainty~\cite{DBLP:journals/trob/BlackmoreOBW10}.
Distributions may even be \textit{unknown}, meaning that one cannot derive a set-bounded or a precise probabilistic representation of the noise.
In this case, it is generally hard or even impossible to derive \emph{hard guarantees} on the probability that a given controller ensures the satisfaction of the considered reach-avoid property.
\paragraph{Problem statement.}
In this paper, we consider the controller synthesis problem for dynamical systems with additive process noise of an unknown distribution.
For the synthesized controller, we provide a \emph{\gls{PAC}} guarantee on the probability of satisfying a given reach-avoid problem.
As such, we solve the following problem:
\begin{mdframed}[backgroundcolor=gray!20, nobreak=true, innerleftmargin=8pt, innerrightmargin=8pt]
Given a linear dynamical system perturbed by additive noise of unknown distribution, compute a controller under which, with a user-specified confidence level, the probability to satisfy a reach-avoid problem is above a given threshold value.
\end{mdframed}
\paragraph{Finite-state abstraction.}
We solve this problem by computing a finite-state abstraction of the original dynamical system \cite{DBLP:journals/siamads/SoudjaniA13}, which we obtain from a \emph{partition} of its continuous state space into a set of disjoint convex \emph{regions}.
Actions in this abstraction correspond to continuous control inputs that yield transitions between these regions.
Due to the process noise, the outcome of an action is stochastic, rendering transitions probabilistic.
We capture these probabilities in a \gls{MDP}~\cite{DBLP:books/wi/Puterman94}.
A defining characteristic of our approach is that we leverage \emph{backward reachability computations} on the dynamical system to determine which actions are enabled at each discrete region.
By contrast, most other abstraction methods \cite<see the related work in \cref{sec:Related} and the survey article>{LSAZ21} rely on \emph{forward} reachability computations, which are associated with errors that grow with the time horizon of the considered property.
Our backward scheme avoids such abstraction errors, at the cost of requiring slightly more restrictive assumptions on the system dynamics.
\paragraph{Probability intervals.}
Since the distribution of the noise is unknown, it is not possible to compute the transition probabilities of the abstract \gls{MDP} exactly, e.g., as in~\citeA{DBLP:journals/siamads/SoudjaniA13}.
Instead, we estimate the probabilities based on a finite number of \emph{samples} of the noise, which may be obtained from a high fidelity (black box) simulator, from historical data, or from (physical or numerical) experiments.
To be \emph{robust} against estimation errors in these probabilities, we
formulate the error estimation process as a so-called scenario optimization problem and leverage state-of-the-art tools~\cite{romao2022tac} from the \emph{scenario approach}, which is a methodology to deal with stochastic optimization in a data-driven fashion~\cite{DBLP:journals/siamjo/CampiG08,DBLP:journals/arc/CampiCG21}.
We compute \emph{upper and lower bounds} on the transition probabilities with a desired \emph{confidence level}, which we choose up front.
These bounds are \emph{PAC}, as they contain the true probabilities with at least this confidence level.
\paragraph{Interval MDPs.}
We formalize our abstractions with the \gls{PAC} probability intervals using so-called \glspl{iMDP}, which are an extension of \glspl{MDP} with intervals of probabilities~\cite{DBLP:journals/ai/GivanLD00}.
More generally, \glspl{iMDP} are a particular case of uncertain or non-deterministic \glspl{MDP}; see the references in \cref{sec:Related} for more details.
\glspl{iMDP} have recently been proposed as an alternative to standard \glspl{MDP} for abstracting stochastic dynamical systems~\cite{DBLP:conf/hybrid/CauchiLLAKC19,LSAZ21}.
We show explicitly how to lift the \gls{PAC} guarantees on individual transition probabilities to a correctness guarantee on the whole \gls{iMDP}.
Policies for \glspl{iMDP} have to robustly account for all possible probabilities within the intervals, and one usually provides upper and lower bounds on maximal or minimal reachability probabilities or expected rewards~\cite{DBLP:conf/qest/HahnHHLT17,DBLP:conf/cav/PuggelliLSS13,DBLP:conf/cdc/WolffTM12}.
Note that given the \gls{PAC}-correct \gls{iMDP}, these bounds on the reachability probabilities are exact and thus do not introduce another error bound.
For \glspl{MDP}, mature tool support exists, e.g., via \textrm{PRISM}\xspace~\cite{DBLP:conf/cav/KwiatkowskaNP11}, and this support was previously extended to \glspl{iMDP} in \citeA{Badings2022AAAI}.
\paragraph{Infinite-horizon properties.}
One notable feature of our abstraction scheme is that we can handle reach-avoid properties over \emph{infinite-time horizons}, also known as unbounded properties~\cite{TA14}.
Most existing abstraction-based controller synthesis methods cause abstraction errors that grow with the time horizon and are thus limited to finite-horizon properties~\cite{AKLP10,DBLP:journals/siamads/SoudjaniA13,LSAZ21,Zikelic2022}.
By contrast, we provide a \gls{PAC} guarantee on each transition probability interval of the \gls{iMDP} being correct, without errors that grow with the horizon of the considered properties.
\paragraph{Iterative abstraction improvement.}
The tightness of the probability intervals in the iMDP depends on the number of noise samples.
Hence, we propose an \emph{iterative abstraction scheme} to improve these intervals by sequentially increasing the number of noise samples used to compute probability intervals.
Our scheme can be summarized as follows.
We first compute a robust policy that maximizes the probability of safely reaching the goal states.
Then, we check whether this optimal reach-avoid probability is satisfactory or not with respect to the pre-defined threshold value on the given property.
In case it is not, we collect additional samples to reduce the uncertainty in the probability intervals; otherwise, we extract and use the optimal policy to compute ``on the fly'' a feedback controller for the original dynamical system.
The specified confidence level reflects the likelihood that the optimal reach-avoid probability on the \gls{iMDP} is a \emph{lower bound} for the probability that the dynamical system satisfies the reach-avoid problem under this derived controller.
\paragraph{Improved policy synthesis scheme.}
The generated \gls{iMDP} abstractions can potentially have hundreds of millions of transitions, especially if the state dimension is high.
To reduce the computational complexity related to the policy synthesis algorithm on the iMDP, we propose an algorithmic optimization.
Instead of employing the large iMDP abstraction, we soundly merge states that show similar reach-avoid probabilities.
In particular, we associate a merged state with the minimum reach-avoid probability of the set of states it is comprised of, resulting in a conservative but sound approximation of the original \gls{iMDP}.
This strategy reduces the overall size of the \gls{iMDP} significantly and additionally enables us to solve more complex reach-avoid problems, as shown in our experiments.
\paragraph{Contributions.}
Our contributions are threefold:
(1)~We propose a novel method to compute controllers with \gls{PAC} guarantees for dynamical systems with unknown noise distributions.
Specifically, the probability of satisfying an (in)finite-horizon reach-avoid problem is guaranteed, with a user-specified confidence probability, to exceed a pre-defined threshold.
(2)~We propose a sound and scalable policy synthesis algorithm that allows us to verify abstract models with hundreds of millions of transitions.
(3)~We apply our method to multiple realistic control problems and benchmark against two other tools: \textrm{StocHy}\xspace and \textrm{SReachTools}\xspace.
We demonstrate that the guarantees obtained for the \gls{iMDP} abstraction carry over to the dynamical system of interest.
Moreover, we show that using probability intervals instead of point estimates of probabilities yields significantly more robust results.
This paper extends~\citeA{Badings2022AAAI} in several ways.
First, we expand on the intuition and presentation of our abstraction method, comparing the scenario optimization with other methods for computing probability intervals.
Second, we provide deeper theoretical results on the correctness of our method by formalizing the relationship between the dynamical system and the \gls{iMDP}.
Moreover, we lift the \gls{PAC} guarantees on individual transitions, as done in~\citeA{Badings2022AAAI}, to a correctness guarantee on \emph{the whole} \gls{iMDP} abstraction.
Finally, we present a new algorithmic extension and an additional experiment on an autonomous satellite rendezvous problem from~\citeA{DBLP:conf/cdc/JewisonE16}.
\section{Foundations and Outline}
\label{sec:Preliminaries}
A \emph{discrete probability distribution} over a finite set $X$ with cardinality $|X|$ is a function $\mathit{prob} \colon X \to [0,1]$ with $\sum_{x \in X} \mathit{prob}(x) = 1$.
The set of all distributions over $X$ is $\distr{X}$.
A \emph{probability density function} over a random variable $x$ conditioned on $y$ is written as $p(x \vert y)$.
All vectors $\ensuremath{\bm{x}} \in \amsmathbb{R}^n$, $n \in \amsmathbb{N}$, are column vectors and are denoted by bold letters.
We use the term \emph{controller} when referring to a map selecting inputs for dynamical systems, while we use the term \emph{policy} for (i)\glspl{MDP}.
\subsection{Linear Dynamical Systems}
\label{subsec:LinDynSystems}
We consider discrete-time, continuous-state systems, where the progression of the state $\ensuremath{\bm{x}} \in \amsmathbb{R}^n$ depends \emph{linearly} on the current state, on a control input, and on a process noise term.
Given a state $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k$ at discrete time $k \in \amsmathbb{N}$, the successor state at time $k+1$ is given as
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1} = A \ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k} + B \ensuremath{\bm{u}}_{k} + \ensuremath{\bm{q}}_k + \ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k,
%
\label{eq:continuousSystem}
\end{equation}
where $\ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{U}} \subset \amsmathbb{R}^p$ is the (continuous) control input at time $k$, $A \in \amsmathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ and $B \in \amsmathbb{R}^{n \times p}$ are appropriate matrices, and $\ensuremath{\bm{q}}_k \in \amsmathbb{R}^n$ is a deterministic disturbance.
The term $\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k \in \Delta \subset \amsmathbb{R}^n$ is an arbitrary additive process noise term, which is a random variable defined on a probability space $(\Delta, \mathcal{D}, \amsmathbb{P})$, with $\sigma$-algebra $\mathcal{D}$ and probability measure $\amsmathbb{P}$ defined over $\mathcal{D}$.
In our formulation, the sample space $\Delta$ is an abstract set of possible noise values at any time $k$, and the probability measure $\amsmathbb{P}$ is unknown but time-invariant.
To deal with this lack of knowledge, we employ a sampling-based approach, for which it suffices to obtain a finite number of samples of the process noise, whose distribution is independent of time.
This underlying source of uncertainty induces a probabilistic model over the successor state $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1}$. We denote the probability density function over successor states for a given state $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k$ and control input $\ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k$ as $p_{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k}(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1} \ | \ \ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, \ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k)$.
The linear dynamical system defined by \cref{eq:continuousSystem} is controlled by a \emph{time-varying linear feedback controller} of the following form:
\begin{definition}
\label{def:controller}
A piece-wise linear feedback controller is a function $\ensuremath{\phi} \colon \amsmathbb{R}^n \times \amsmathbb{N} \to \ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}$, which maps a state $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k \in \amsmathbb{R}^n$ and a time step $k \in \amsmathbb{N}$ to a control input $\ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}$.
\end{definition}
\noindent
We use time-varying controllers because, for finite-horizon control objectives, the optimal control generally depends on the time index.
For infinite-horizon properties instead, the optimal control is independent of the time index \cite{DBLP:books/daglib/BaierKatoen2008}.
\begin{example}
The longitudinal dynamics of a \gls{UAV} are modeled as
%
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1} = \begin{bmatrix}
p_{k+1} \\ v_{k+1}
\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
1 & 1 \\ 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix} \ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k
+
\begin{bmatrix}
0.5 \\ 1
\end{bmatrix} \ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k
+ \ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k,\label{example:UAV}
\end{equation}
%
where $p_k$ and $v_k$ are the position and velocity at time $k$, and the control is bounded by $\bm{u}_k \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{U}} = [-4, 4]$.
The distribution of the noise $\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k$ is unknown, thus possibly not Gaussian.
\end{example}
\begin{remark}[Restriction to linear systems]
\label{remark:LinearSystems}
Our methods are theoretically amenable to work with nonlinear drift dynamics rather than the linear drift terms we see in \cref{eq:continuousSystem,example:UAV}. However, this requires more advanced $1$-step reachability computations, which are not core to our main contributions.
Hence, we restrict ourselves to the linear drift of the model in \cref{eq:continuousSystem} and discuss extensions to nonlinear models in \cref{sec:Conclusion}.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Problem Statement}
\label{sec:prelim:problem}
We consider control objectives expressed as \emph{reach-avoid properties} over an infinite or a finite horizon.
A reach-avoid property $\ensuremath{\varphi_{\bm{x}_0}^\horizon}$ is satisfied if, starting from an initial state $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_0 \in \amsmathbb{R}^n$ at time $k=0$, the system reaches a desired \emph{goal region} $\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}_G} \subset \amsmathbb{R}^n$ within a horizon of $\ensuremath{K} \in \amsmathbb{N} \cup \infty$ steps, while avoiding a \emph{critical region} $\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}_C} \subset \amsmathbb{R}^n$.
We write the probability of satisfying a reach-avoid property $\ensuremath{\varphi_{\bm{x}_0}^\horizon}$ under a controller $\ensuremath{\phi}$ as $\ensuremath{\mathit{Pr}^{\controller}( \property )}$.
We formally state the problem that we solve in this paper as follows.
\begin{mdframed}[backgroundcolor=gray!20, nobreak=true, innerleftmargin=8pt, innerrightmargin=8pt]
Compute a controller $\ensuremath{\phi}$ for the dynamical system in \cref{eq:continuousSystem} that, with a confidence probability of at least $\alpha \in [0,1]$, guarantees that $\ensuremath{\mathit{Pr}^{\controller}( \property )} \geq \eta$, where $\eta \in [0,1]$ is a pre-defined probability threshold.
\end{mdframed}
\subsection{Markov Decision Processes}
We solve the problem above via a finite-state abstraction of the dynamical system, which we formalize as a variant of \glspl{MDP}~\cite{DBLP:books/wi/Puterman94}:
\begin{definition}[MDP]
\label{def:MDP}
A \emph{\glsfirst{MDP}} is a tuple $\ensuremath{\mathcal{M}}=\ensuremath{(\States,\Actions,\initState,\transfunc)}$ where $S$ is a (finite) set of states, $Act$ is a (finite) set of actions, $\ensuremath{s_I}$ is the initial state, and $P \colon S \times Act \rightharpoonup \distr{S}$ is the (partial)\footnote{The transition function is partial in general, meaning that not all state-action pairs $(s,a) \in S \times Act$ are in the domain of $P$. We need to define this partial transition function because not all actions may be enabled in each state.} probabilistic transition function.
\end{definition}
\noindent
The set of actions enabled in state $s \in S$ is $Act(s) \subseteq Act$.
We call $(s,a,s')$ with probability $P(s,a)(s')>0$ a \emph{transition}.
A time-varying deterministic policy for an \gls{MDP} $\ensuremath{\mathcal{M}}$ is a function $\ensuremath{\pi} \colon S \times \amsmathbb{N} \to Act$ mapping states and time indices to actions~\cite{DBLP:books/wi/Puterman94}.
The set of all possible policies for $\ensuremath{\mathcal{M}}$ is denoted by $\ensuremath{\Pi}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{M}}$.
A \emph{probabilistic reach-avoid property} $\ensuremath{\mathit{Pr}^\policy(\propertyMDP)}$ for an \gls{MDP} describes the probability of reaching a set of goal states $\ensuremath{\States_{G}} \subset S$ within $\ensuremath{K} \in \amsmathbb{N} \cup \infty$ steps under policy $\ensuremath{\pi} \in \ensuremath{\Pi}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{M}}$, while avoiding a set of critical states $\ensuremath{\States_{C}} \subset S$, where $\ensuremath{\States_{G}} \cap \ensuremath{\States_{C}} = \emptyset$.
An optimal policy $\ensuremath{\pi}^\star \in \ensuremath{\Pi}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{M}}$ for \gls{MDP} $\ensuremath{\mathcal{M}}$ maximizes the \emph{reach-avoid probability}:
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{\pi}^\star = \argmax_{\ensuremath{\pi} \in \ensuremath{\Pi}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{M}}} \ensuremath{\mathit{Pr}^\policy(\propertyMDP)}.
\label{eq:optimalPolicy}
\end{equation}
\begin{remark}[Dynamical systems as continuous MDPs]
\label{remark:infinite_MDP}
The dynamical system in \cref{eq:continuousSystem} can equivalently be seen as an \gls{MDP} with an uncountably infinite number of states $S$ (representing all $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k \in \amsmathbb{R}^n$), and an infinite number of actions $Act$ (representing all $\ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}$). Note that every action is enabled at any state, i.e. $Act(s) = Act, \, \forall s \in S$.
Moreover, each state-control pair $(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, \ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k)$, i.e., applying control input $\ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k$ in state $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k$ induces a probability distribution (or in fact, a density function) over successor states $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1} \in \amsmathbb{R}^n$.%
\end{remark}%
\noindent
We now relax the assumption that the transition probabilities of \glspl{MDP} are precisely given.
\begin{definition}[iMDP]
\label{def:iMDP}
An \emph{\glsfirst{iMDP}} is a tuple $\ensuremath{\mathcal{M}_\Interval}=\ensuremath{(\States,\Actions,\initState,\transfuncImdp)}$ where $S$, $Act$, and $\ensuremath{s_I}$ are defined by \cref{def:MDP}, and where the uncertain (partial) probabilistic transition function $\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}} \colon S \times Act \times S \rightharpoonup \ensuremath{\amsmathbb{I}} \cup \{ [0,0] \}$ is defined over intervals $\ensuremath{\amsmathbb{I}} = \{ [a,b] \ | \ a,b \in (0,1] \text{ and } a \leq b \}$.
\end{definition}
\noindent
Note that an interval cannot have a lower bound of $0$ except for the $[0,0]$ interval.
Since the transition function $\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}$ is partial, we do not require each action to be enabled at any state.
An \gls{iMDP} defines a (possibly empty) set of \glspl{MDP} that vary only in their transition function.
In particular, for an \gls{MDP} with transition function $P$, we write $P \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}$ if for all $s,s' \in S$ and $a \in Act$ we have $P(s,a)(s') \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}} (s,a,s')$ and $P(s, a)\in\distr{S}$.
\begin{remark}[Geometry of uncertainty sets]
\label{remark:shape_uncertainty_sets}
For each state-action pair $(s,a)$, the set $\{ P(s,a) \mid P \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}} \}$ of feasible probability distributions is a probability simplex with interval (box) constraints defined by the intervals in $\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}$.
The resulting uncertainty set $\{ P(s,a) \mid P \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}} \}$ is a convex polytope by construction.
Moreover, the transition probabilities $P(s,a)$ for different state-action pairs $(s,a)$ are independent and thus respect the so-called \emph{rectangularity assumption}, which is common in the literature on robust MDPs~\cite{DBLP:journals/ior/WiesemannKS14} and robust optimization~\cite{DBLP:journals/siamrev/BertsimasBC11}, and is necessary to guarantee computational tractability.
\end{remark}
For \glspl{iMDP}, a policy needs to be \emph{robust} against all possible transition functions $P \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}$.
We employ a robust variant of value iteration from~\citeA{DBLP:conf/cdc/WolffTM12} to compute a policy $\munderbar{\ensuremath{\pi}}^\star \in \ensuremath{\Pi}_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{M}_\Interval}}$ for \gls{iMDP} $\ensuremath{\mathcal{M}_\Interval}$ that maximizes the lower bound $\ensuremath{\mathit{\underline{Pr}}^\policy(\propertyMDP)}$ of on the reach-avoid probability within horizon $\ensuremath{K}$:
\begin{equation}
\munderbar{\ensuremath{\pi}}^\star
= \argmax_{\ensuremath{\pi} \in \ensuremath{\Pi}_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{M}_\Interval}}} \ensuremath{\mathit{\underline{Pr}}^\policy(\propertyMDP)}
= \argmax_{\ensuremath{\pi} \in \ensuremath{\Pi}_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{M}_\Interval}}} \, \min_{P \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}} \ensuremath{\mathit{Pr}^\policy(\propertyMDP)}.
\label{eq:optimalPolicy_lb}
\end{equation}
Similarly, we can also maximize an upper bound $\ensuremath{\mathit{\overline{Pr}}^\policy(\propertyMDP)}$ on the reach-avoid probability:
\begin{equation}
\bar{\ensuremath{\pi}}^\star = \argmax_{\ensuremath{\pi} \in \ensuremath{\Pi}_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{M}_\Interval}}} \ensuremath{\mathit{\overline{Pr}}^\policy(\propertyMDP)}
= \argmax_{\ensuremath{\pi} \in \ensuremath{\Pi}_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{M}_\Interval}}} \, \max_{P \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}} \ensuremath{\mathit{Pr}^\policy(\propertyMDP)}.
\label{eq:optimalPolicy_ub}
\end{equation}
We will use the lower bound in \cref{eq:optimalPolicy_lb} to compute robust optimal policies, while we use \cref{eq:optimalPolicy_ub} to determine if the threshold $\eta$ specified in the formal problem statement is satisfiable at all.
Note that deterministic policies suffice to obtain optimal values for (i)\glspl{MDP}~\cite{DBLP:books/wi/Puterman94,DBLP:conf/cav/PuggelliLSS13}, and particularly also for reach-avoid properties \cite{Abate2008probabilisticSystems}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\include{Figures/Tikz/approach}
\caption{
Our iterative approach between abstraction and verification, where $N$ is the number of samples used for the abstraction, and $\eta$ is the threshold reach-avoid probability.
}
\label{fig:Approach}
\end{figure}
\subsection{An Iterative Abstraction Scheme}
\label{sec:IterativeScheme}
Our approach is summarized in \cref{fig:Approach} and consists of an \emph{offline planning phase} in which we generate the abstraction and obtain guarantees on the abstract model, and an \emph{online control phase} in which we derive a controller for the dynamical system on the fly.
We describe in \cref{sec:Abstraction} how, for a given linear dynamical system, we generate a finite-state abstraction as an \gls{MDP} by partitioning the continuous state space.
We then describe in \cref{sec:ScenarioApproach} how we obtain \gls{PAC} bounds on the \gls{MDP}'s transition probabilities based on a finite set of $N$ samples of the noise.
The resulting abstraction is an \gls{iMDP}, for which we use \cref{eq:optimalPolicy_lb,eq:optimalPolicy_ub} to compute optimal policies $\munderbar{\ensuremath{\pi}}^\star$ and $\bar{\ensuremath{\pi}}^\star$ that maximize the lower/upper bounds on the probability of satisfying the given property.
We then proceed in one of the following three ways:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\ensuremath{\mathit{\underline{Pr}}^{\munderbar{\policy}^\star}(\propertyMDP)} \geq \eta$, the formal problem is satisfied.
Thus, we extract the optimal policy $\munderbar{\ensuremath{\pi}}^\star$, which we use to determine a controller $\ensuremath{\phi}$ for the dynamical system on the fly.
\item If $\ensuremath{\mathit{\overline{Pr}}^{\bar{\policy}^\star}(\propertyMDP)} < \eta$, the reach-avoid problem is (with high confidence) unsatisfiable.
In this case, increasing the number of samples does not help, so we terminate the scheme.
\item If $\ensuremath{\mathit{\underline{Pr}}^{\munderbar{\policy}^\star}(\propertyMDP)} < \eta$ but $\ensuremath{\mathit{\overline{Pr}}^{\bar{\policy}^\star}(\propertyMDP)} \geq \eta$, we obtain additional samples by increasing $N$ by a fixed factor $\gamma > 1$.
The updated \gls{iMDP} has tighter probability intervals but may also have more transitions.
However, since the states and actions of the abstraction are independent of $N$ and defined at the first iteration, the \gls{MDP} abstraction is only performed once.
\end{enumerate}
In \cref{sec:Algorithm} we describe each step of our approach in more detail, as well as a complete algorithm for solving the formal problem.
We perform numerical experiments on benchmarks from multiple application domains in \cref{sec:Studies}.
We discuss the related work in \cref{sec:Related}.
\section{Finite-State MDP Abstraction}
\label{sec:Abstraction}
In this section, we describe how we generate an \gls{MDP} abstraction of the linear dynamical system in \cref{eq:continuousSystem}.
First, we partition the state space into a set of discrete convex regions.
We then use this partition to build a finite-state \gls{MDP} abstraction of the dynamical system.
\subsection{State Space Discretization}
We choose a \emph{partition} $\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}} = \{ \ensuremath{R}_1, \ldots, \ensuremath{R}_v \}$ of a bounded portion $\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}} \subset \amsmathbb{R}^n$ of the continuous state space $\amsmathbb{R}^n$ into a set of $v$ disjoint \emph{regions}, such that $\bigcup_{i=1}^v \ensuremath{R}_i = \ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}$.
In addition, we define a single \emph{absorbing region} $\ensuremath{R}_\ast$, representing $\amsmathbb{R}^n \backslash \ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}$.
The absorbing region $\ensuremath{R}_\ast$ captures the event that the continuous state leaves the bounded portion of the state space over which we plan.
We consider the regions in $\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}$ to be $n$-dimensional bounded, convex polytopes.
Thus, each region $\ensuremath{R}_i \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}$ is the solution set of $m$ linear inequalities parameterized by $M_i \in \amsmathbb{R}^{m \times n}$ and $\bm{b}_i \in \amsmathbb{R}^m$, yielding $\ensuremath{R}_i = \big\{ \ensuremath{\bm{x}} \in \amsmathbb{R}^n \, \vert \, M_i \ensuremath{\bm{x}} \leq \bm{b}_i \big\}.$
In addition, the following assumption allows us to translate properties for the dynamical system to properties on the \gls{iMDP} abstraction:
\begin{assumption}
\label{assumption:RegionAlignment}
%
The continuous goal region $\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}_G}$ and critical region $\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}_C}$ are aligned with the union of a subset of regions in $\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}$, i.e., $\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}_G} = \cup_{i \in I} R_i$ and $\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}_C} = \cup_{j \in J} R_j$ for index sets $I,J \subset \{1,2,\ldots,\card{\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}\}$.
\end{assumption}
\subsection{MDP Abstractions}
We formalize the dynamical system discretized under $\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}$ as an \gls{MDP} $\ensuremath{\mathcal{M}} = \ensuremath{(\States,\Actions,\initState,\transfunc)}$, by defining its states, actions, and transition probabilities.
We assume that the initial state $\ensuremath{s_I} \in S$ is known, and we capture time constraints by the reach-avoid property.
\paragraph{States.}
We define an \gls{MDP} state for every region of partition $\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}$, as well as for the absorbing region $\ensuremath{R}_\ast$.
Thus, we obtain the set of \gls{MDP} states $S = \{ s_i \ \vert \ i = 1,\ldots,\vert\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}\vert \} \cup \{ s_\ast \}$, which consists of $\vert S \vert = \vert \ensuremath{\mathcal{R}} \vert + 1$ states: one for every region in $\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}$, plus one state $s_\ast$ corresponding to the absorbing region $\ensuremath{R}_\ast$ where the only outgoing transition leads back to $s_\ast$.
We denote by $\ensuremath{R}_s \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}$ the region of the partition associated with \gls{MDP} state $s \in S$.
Formally, we define a function $T \colon \amsmathbb{R}^n \to S$ that maps continuous states $\ensuremath{\bm{x}} \in \amsmathbb{R}^n$ to \gls{MDP} states $s \in S$:\footnote{
Alternatively, we may define $T \subseteq \amsmathbb{R}^n \times S$ as a binary relation between each continuous state $\ensuremath{\bm{x}} \in \amsmathbb{R}^n$ and \gls{MDP} state $s \in S$.
In this paper, we use the function notation since we apply $T$ as a function only.
}
\begin{definition}
\label{def:relation}
A continuous state $\ensuremath{\bm{x}} \in \amsmathbb{R}^n$ and \gls{MDP} state $s \in S$ are related, i.e., $T(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}) = s$, if $\ensuremath{\bm{x}} \in \ensuremath{R}_s$.
The inverse mapping $T^\ensuremath{{-1}}(s) = \{ \ensuremath{\bm{x}} \in \amsmathbb{R}^n \ \vert \ (\ensuremath{\bm{x}},s) \in T \}$ is equivalent to region $\ensuremath{R}_s$.
\end{definition}
\noindent
The function $T$ expresses a relation from any state $\ensuremath{\bm{x}} \in \amsmathbb{R}^n$ to a (unique) discrete state $s \in S$, and is, therefore, also called an \emph{abstraction function}.
Moreover, its inverse $T^{-1}(s) = R_s$ maps any state $s \in S$ to a set of continuous states and is equal to the region $R_s$ of $s$ itself.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\include{Figures/Tikz/partitioning}
\caption{
A fragment of a rectangular partitioning of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}} \subset \amsmathbb{R}^2$, showing the backward reachable set $\mathcal{G}(\bm{d}_a)$ of one particular action $a \in Act$ with target point $\bm{d}_a$. Action $a$ is enabled in states $s$ and $s'$, since $R_s \subseteq \mathcal{G}(d_a)$ and $R_{s'} \subseteq \mathcal{G}(d_a)$, respectively.}
\label{fig:partition}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Actions.}
Discrete actions correspond to the execution of a control input $\ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}$ in the dynamical system in \cref{eq:continuousSystem}.
We define $q \in \amsmathbb{N}$ \gls{MDP} actions, so $Act = \{ a_1, \ldots, a_q \}$.
Let the noiseless successor state of $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k$ be defined as $\hat{\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}_{k+1} = A\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k + B\ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k + \ensuremath{\bm{q}}_k$ (i.e., $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1}$ under the assumption that $\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k = 0$).
Every action $a$ is associated with a fixed continuous \emph{target point} $\bm{d}_a \in \amsmathbb{R}^n$, and is defined such that its noiseless successor state $\hat{\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}_{k+1} = \bm{d}_a$.
While not a restriction of our approach, we define one action for every \gls{MDP} state $s \in S$ (except for the absorbing state $s_\ast$), and choose the target point to be the center of its region $\ensuremath{R}_s$.\footnote{If, on the one hand, this choice for defining actions results in an \gls{MDP} that is too large, we may reduce the number of actions; if on the other the results are unsatisfactory, we may define additional actions.}
The \gls{MDP} must form a \emph{sound abstraction} of the dynamical system.
Thus, action $a \in Act$ only exists in an \gls{MDP} state $s \in S$ if, for every continuous state $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k \in \ensuremath{R}_s$, there exists a control $\ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}$, such that $\hat{\ensuremath{\bm{x}}}_{k+1} = \bm{d}_a$.
To impose this constraint, we define the \emph{one-step backward reachable set} $\mathcal{G}(\bm{d}_a)$ of action $a \in Act$:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{G}(\bm{d}_a)
= \{ \ensuremath{\bm{x}} \in \amsmathbb{R}^n \,\, |
\,\, \bm{d}_a = A \ensuremath{\bm{x}} + B \ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k + \ensuremath{\bm{q}}_k,
\,\, \ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{U}} \}.
\label{eq:BackwardReach}
\end{equation}
Then, action $a \in Act$ exists in state $s \in S$ if and only if $\ensuremath{R}_s \subseteq \mathcal{G}(\bm{d}_a)$.
As an example, \cref{fig:partition} shows the backward reachable set of a particular action $a \in Act$, which contains regions $R_s$ and $R_{s'}$, and hence this action is enabled in states $s$ and $s'$.
We write the set of actions that exist in state $s \in S$ as $Act(s) = \{ a \in Act \ \vert \ \ensuremath{R}_s \subseteq \mathcal{G}(\bm{d}_a) \}$.
Note that the existence of an action in an \gls{MDP} state merely implies that \emph{for every continuous state} in the associated region, \emph{there exists} a feasible control input that induces this transition.
Intuitively, this means that any possible transition in the \gls{MDP} must also be possible (with the same probability) in the dynamical system.
We make the following assumption on the controllability of the dynamical system~\cite{ogata2010modern}.
\begin{assumption}
\label{assump:BackwardReachRank}
The dynamical system in \cref{eq:continuousSystem} is controllable, meaning that the matrix $\mathcal{C} = \begin{bmatrix}B & A B & A^2 B & \cdots & A^{n-1} B\end{bmatrix}$ has full row rank.
\end{assumption}
\noindent
Intuitively, the dynamics of a controllable system can be `excited' (that is, we can make state transitions) to a subset of the $n$-dimensional state space that has a nonempty interior over a finite number of time steps.
As a result, under \cref{assump:BackwardReachRank} we can, by construction, derive a dynamical system for which the backward reachable set $\mathcal{G}(\bm{d}_a)$ has a non-empty interior.
For instance, in \cref{example:UAV}, the dimension of the control space ($p=1$) is lower than the dimension of the state space ($n=2$).
In this case, the backward reachable set $\mathcal{G}(\bm{d}_a)$ is a line segment in $\amsmathbb{R}^2$ and thus has an empty interior.
Hence, no region $\ensuremath{R}_s \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}$ of the partition can be contained in $\mathcal{G}(\bm{d}_a)$, so no action can ever exist in the \gls{MDP}.
However, since the system is assumed to be controllable (note that \cref{assump:BackwardReachRank} is indeed satisfied for \cref{example:UAV}), we can group together two discrete time steps, such that the dimension of the control space becomes equal to that of the state space, i.e., $p=n=2$.
Concretely, we redefine the dynamical system in \cref{example:UAV} as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+2}
&= A^2 \ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k + \begin{bmatrix} AB & B \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k \\ \ensuremath{\bm{u}}_{k+1} \end{bmatrix} + A \ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k + \ensuremath{\bm{w}}_{k+1}
\\
&= \bar{A} \ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k + \bar{B} \ensuremath{\bm{u}}_{k,k+1} + \ensuremath{\bm{w}}_{k,k+1},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k$ and $\ensuremath{\bm{u}}_{k,k+1}$ now have equal dimension, making $\mathcal{G}(\bm{d}_a)$ have a non-empty~interior.
\paragraph{Transition probabilities.}
To compute the control input $\ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k$ associated with action $a$ in a continuous state $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k$ at time $k$, we replace the successor state $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1}$ by target point $\bm{d}_a$ in \cref{eq:continuousSystem} and solve for $\ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k$, yielding a control parameterized by state $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k$ and action $a$:
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, a) = B^+ (\bm{d}_a - \ensuremath{\bm{q}}_k - A\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k),
\label{eq:controlLaw}
\end{equation}
where $B^+$ is the pseudoinverse of $B$.\footnote{Even though we assume $B$ to be full row rank, it may have more columns than rows, so we use the pseudoinverse in \cref{eq:controlLaw}.}
It is easily verified that for every state $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k \in \ensuremath{R}_s$ where action $a \in Act(s)$ exists, there exists a $\ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k$ such that \cref{eq:controlLaw} holds (depending on $B$, it may not be unique).
Due to the process noise $\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k$, the continuous successor state $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1}$ upon choosing an action $a \in Act(s)$ in state $s \in S$ is a random variable, which is written as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1}
&= A\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k + B\ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, a) + \ensuremath{\bm{q}}_k + \ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k
\\
&= \bm{d}_a + \ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k.
\label{eq:continuous_successor}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{remark}[Independence of density functions]
\label{remark:equivalence_probabilities}
Recall that the probability density function of $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1}$ under action $a$ is denoted by $p_{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k}\left(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1} \ | \ \ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, \ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, a)\right)$.
Importantly, we observe that by construction of \cref{eq:continuous_successor}, the continuous successor state $\bm{x}_{k+1}$ (and thus also the probability density function) upon choosing any action $a \in Act(s)$, with $s = T(\bm{x}_k$), is \emph{independent of the current state} $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k$ (as long as $a$ is enabled in $s$).
We shall see how this simplifies the complexity of the abstract MDP.
\end{remark}
\noindent
To define the transition probability function $P$ of the \gls{MDP}, we want to determine, for every pair of states $s, s' \in S$ and action $a \in Act(s)$, the probability that the state-action pair $(s, a)$ leads to a continuous successor state $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1} \in \ensuremath{R}_{s'}$.
This transition probability is equal to the \emph{cumulative density function} $P_{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k}\left(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1} \in \ensuremath{R}_{s'} \,\vert\, \ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, \ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, a)\right)$ that the successor state $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1}$ takes on a value in region $\ensuremath{R}_{s'}$ upon choosing action $a$.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:transition_probabilities}
The transition probability $P(s,a)(s')$ for $s,s' \in S$, $a \in Act(s)$ is defined as
%
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
P(s,a)(s') &= P_{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k}\left(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1} \in \ensuremath{R}_{s'} \,\vert\, \ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, \ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, a)\right)
\\
&= \int_{\ensuremath{R}_{s'}} p_{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k}\left(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1} \ | \ \ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, \ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, a)\right)d\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1}.
\label{eq:multivariateIntegral_mainProblem}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
%
where $\ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, a)$ is defined as per \cref{eq:controlLaw}.
\end{definition}
\noindent
Due to its importance in the arguments of this paper, note that the \emph{cumulative} density function, denoted by capital $P_{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k}(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1} \in R_{s'}) \in [0,1]$ and being a probability, is the integral of the \emph{probability} density function over region $R_{s'}$, denoted by small $p_{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k}(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1})$ and being a function that assigns a probability to every possible value of $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1}$.
\begin{remark}[Number of transition probabilities of the MDP]
\label{remark:number_probabilities}
For a given action $a \in Act$ and successor state $s' \in S$, the transition probability $P(s, a)(s')$ is equal for any \gls{MDP} state $s$ for which $a \in Act(s)$.
In other words, for any two states $s, \tilde{s} \in S$ and an action $a$ for which $a \in Act(s)$ and $a \in Act(\tilde{s})$, we have that $P(s,a)(s') = P(\tilde{s},a)(s')$ for any $s' \in S$.
Thus, the \gls{MDP} has at most $\vertAct\vert \cdot \vertS\vert$ unique transition probabilities (rather than at most $\vertS\vert \cdot \vertAct\vert \cdot \vertS\vert$ probabilities), which reduces the complexity of generating abstractions.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Soundness of the \gls{MDP} Abstractions}
The generated abstract \gls{MDP} $\ensuremath{\mathcal{M}}$ is an \emph{underapproximation} of the dynamical system, in the sense that every transition $(s,a,s')$ of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{M}}$ is contained in the dynamical system (note that the opposite is not true: the dynamical system contains transitions that are not in the \gls{MDP}).
We formalize this observation using the concept of probabilistic (bi)simulation, originally proposed for probabilistic transition systems by~\citeA{DBLP:journals/iandc/LarsenS91}.
\paragraph{Bisimilar states.}
We claim that any two continuous states $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, \ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k' \in T^\ensuremath{{-1}}(s) = R_s$ are \emph{probabilistically bisimilar} under the set of discrete actions $Act(s)$.
Intuitively, a sufficient condition for states $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, \ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k'$ to be probabilistically bisimilar, is that the probability of transitioning to any $\bm{x}_{k+1} \in \ensuremath{R}_{s'}$, $s' \in S$ is the same for all actions $a \in Act(s)$~\cite{DBLP:journals/iandc/DesharnaisEP02}.
Mathematically, this is written as follows.
\begin{corollary}
\label{lemma:bisimilar_states}
Any two states $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, \ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k' \in T^\ensuremath{{-1}}(s) = R_s$ are probabilistically bisimilar, because for all actions $a \in Act(s)$ and for all successor states $s' \in S$, it holds that
%
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:bisimilar_states}
P_{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k}\left(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1} \in \ensuremath{R}_{s'} \mid \ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, \ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, a)\right)
=
P_{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k}\left(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1} \in \ensuremath{R}_{s'} \,\vert\, \ensuremath{\bm{x}}'_k, \ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}'_k, a)\right).
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
\noindent
The proof of \cref{lemma:bisimilar_states} follows directly from \cref{remark:equivalence_probabilities}, which states that the density function $p_{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k}\left(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1} \ | \ \ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, \ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, a)\right)d\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1}$, and thus also its integral over any discrete region of partition $\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}$, is independent of the current state.
\cref{lemma:bisimilar_states} carries an important message: we can abstract any continuous state $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k \in \ensuremath{R}_s$ into a single \gls{MDP} state $s \in S$ \emph{without losing any information about the probabilistic behavior of the model}.
\paragraph{Probabilistic simulations.}
Second, we claim that our abstraction procedure creates a \emph{probabilistic feedback refinement relation} \cite<and thus a \emph{probabilistic simulation relation}; see>{hermanns2011probabilistic} from the generated \gls{MDP} to the dynamical system~\cite{DBLP:journals/tac/ReissigWR17,HSA17}.\footnote{The latter article employs alternating approximate relations, rather than simulation relations. The resulting refinement step is, however, very similar.}
Intuitively, a sufficient condition for such a relation to exist is that for any pair $(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}, s)$ of related states, i.e., for which $T(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}) = s$, and for all actions $a \in Act(s)$, there exists a control input $\ensuremath{\bm{u}} \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}$ such that the probability of transitioning to any state $s'$ in the \gls{MDP} equals the probability of transitioning to any $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}' \in T^\ensuremath{{-1}}(s') = R_{s'}$ in the dynamical system.
Based on the definition from~\citeA{DBLP:journals/tac/ReissigWR17},\footnote{The definition in \citeA{DBLP:journals/tac/ReissigWR17} also contains a condition for matching observations between the two models, which we drop because we consider fully observable systems. Similarly, \citeA{HSA17} has an error metric on observations that does not apply to our setting. We also expand the original definition from non-probabilistic to probabilistic systems. Note that \cref{lemma:simulation_relation} defines sufficient conditions for a feedback refinement relation, which are stricter than those in~\citeA{DBLP:journals/tac/ReissigWR17}.} we mathematically write this condition as follows.
\begin{corollary}
\label{lemma:simulation_relation}
The abstraction function $T \colon \amsmathbb{R}^n \to S$ induces a probabilistic feedback refinement relation from the \gls{MDP} to the dynamical system, because $T(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_0) = \ensuremath{s_I}$ (i.e., the initial states match), and for any pair $(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, s)$ of states related as $T(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k) = s$, it holds that
%
\begin{equation}
\forall a \in Act(s), \forall s'\inS \, \,\colon\,
P(s,a)(s') = \int_{\ensuremath{R}_{s'}} p_{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k}\left(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1} \ | \ \ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, \ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, a)\right)d\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1}.
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
\noindent
\cref{lemma:simulation_relation} follows directly from \cref{def:transition_probabilities}.
Crucially, this probabilistic feedback refinement relation implies that \emph{any reach-avoid problem satisfiable for the \gls{MDP} is also satisfiable for the dynamical system with the same probability bound}~\cite{hermanns2011probabilistic}.
\section{Sampling-Based Probability Intervals}
\label{sec:ScenarioApproach}
Recall that the probability density function $p_{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k}\left(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1} \ | \ \ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, \ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, a)\right)$ is unknown, making a direct evaluation of \cref{eq:multivariateIntegral_mainProblem} impossible.
In this paper, we use a sampling-based method to estimate the transition probabilities described in \cref{eq:multivariateIntegral_mainProblem}, which requires a finite set of $N$ observations of the process noise, $\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k^{(i)} \in \Delta, \ i = 1, \ldots, N$.
Each sample has a unique index $i = 1, \ldots, N$ and is associated with a possible successor state $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1}^{(i)} = \bm{d}_a + \ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k^{(i)}$ under a particular action $a$.
We assume that these samples are available from experimental data or simulations.
As such, we can generate these samples by inferring the process noise from obtained state trajectories of the dynamical system in \cref{eq:continuousSystem}, or we may sample from the noise distribution directly (e.g., if a simulator is available).
Thus, in our setting, samples of the noise can be obtained at a relatively low cost.
Recall that the process noise affecting \cref{eq:continuousSystem} is considered to be \gls{iid}.
Due to the importance of this practically reasonable assumption to the arguments we develop in this section, we formally enshrine it in the following.
\begin{assumption}
\label{assump:iid}
The process noise $\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k$ is \gls{iid}, and we assume to have a collection of N samples from it, which we denote by the discrete set $\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k^{(i)} \in \Delta, \ i = 1, \ldots, N$.
\end{assumption}
\noindent
Due to \cref{assump:iid}, the set $\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k^{(1)}, \ldots, \ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k^{(N)}$ of $N$ samples is a random element from the probability space $\Delta^N$ equipped with the product probability $\amsmathbb{P}^N$ and the product $\sigma$-algebra.
\paragraph{A frequentist approach to estimation.}
As an example, we want to estimate the probability $P(s, a)(s')$ that some enabled state-action pair $(s, a)$ induces a transition to state $s' \in S$.
A common approach to approximate the transition probability is to count the number of samples $N_{s'}^\text{in} \leq N$ leading to a transition to state $s'$ and divide it by the total of $N$ samples.
This approach is known as a \emph{frequentist approach}, and is statistically justified by the strong law of large numbers.
Concretely, the value of $N_{s'}^\text{in}$ is obtained as follows.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:Nj_in}
The cardinality $N_{s'}^\text{in} \in \{0,\ldots,N\}$
of the index set of the samples leading to a successor state $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1} \in \ensuremath{R}_{s'}$ associated with \gls{MDP} state $s' \in S$ is defined as
%
\begin{equation}
N_{s'}^\text{in} = \Big\vert \{ i \in \{1,\ldots,N\} \, \vert \, (\bm{d}_a + \ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k^{(i)}) \in \ensuremath{R}_{s'} \} \Big\vert.
\label{eq:Nj_in}
\end{equation}
%
Similarly, we define $N_{s'}^\text{out} = N - N_{s'}^\text{in}$ as the number of samples for which $\bm{d}_a + \ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k^{(i)} \notin \ensuremath{R}_{s'}$.
\end{definition}
\noindent
Note that $N_{s'}^\text{in}$ and $N_{s'}^\text{out}$ depend on both the set of noise samples $\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k^{(1)}, \ldots, \ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k^{(N)}$ and on the action taken.
The frequentist approach is simple, but may lead to estimates that deviate critically from their true values if the number of samples is limited (we illustrate this issue in the \gls{UAV} experiment in \cref{subsec:UAV}).
In what follows, we discuss how to render our method robust against such estimation errors.
\subsection{Sampling Techniques From the Scenario Approach}
As a key contribution, we present a method based on the scenario approach~\cite{campi2018introduction} to compute \emph{intervals of probabilities} instead of precise estimates.
Specifically, for every transition $(s,a,s')$, we compute an upper and lower bound, i.e., an interval, that contains the quantity $P(s, a)(s')$ with a user-specified (high) confidence probability.
We formalize the resulting abstraction as an \gls{iMDP}, where these intervals enter the uncertain transition function $\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}} \colon S \times Act \times S \rightharpoonup \ensuremath{\amsmathbb{I}}$.
As the intervals are \gls{PAC}, this \gls{iMDP} is a robust abstraction of the dynamical system.
\paragraph{Outline: PAC intervals for transition probabilities.}
Intuitively, we recast the estimation of transition probabilities into a convex optimization problem that includes a constraint for each element of a subset of noise samples.
To obtain \gls{PAC} intervals on transition probabilities, we leverage recent results from~\citeA{romao2022tac} on the probability of \emph{constraint violation} for such optimization problems.
Crucially, we show that the problem can be solved based on its geometry by an analytical \emph{counting argument}.
This counting argument makes our approach applicable to abstractions with hundreds of millions of transitions, as we do not have to solve any optimization problem explicitly.
Toward our main result for computing probability intervals (which is presented in \cref{theorem:Bounds}), we introduce a number of core concepts of the scenario approach.
Interestingly, due to the counting argument, \cref{theorem:Bounds} does not directly involve these concepts (only its derivation does, which we provide in \cref{appendix:Proofs}), so the reader may decide to skip directly to \cref{subsec:scenario:bounds}.
\paragraph{Risk of violation.}
First, we introduce the concept of \emph{risk} (or \emph{violation probability}), which is a measure of the probability that a successor state $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1}$ \emph{is not} in a certain subset $\tilde{\ensuremath{R}} \subset \amsmathbb{R}^n$ upon choosing an action $a \in Act(s)$ in state $s \in S$~\cite{DBLP:journals/siamjo/CampiG08}.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:risk}
The risk $P_{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k}\left(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1} \notin \tilde{\ensuremath{R}} \,\vert\, \ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, \ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, a)\right)$ that $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1}$ is not in region $\tilde{\ensuremath{R}}$ is
%
\begin{equation}
P_{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k}\left(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1} \notin \tilde{\ensuremath{R}} \,\vert\, \ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, \ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, a)\right) = \amsmathbb{P} \{ \ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k \in \Delta \ \colon \ \bm{d}_a + \ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k \notin \tilde{\ensuremath{R}} \}.
\label{eq:ViolationProbability}
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\noindent
Crucially, observe from \cref{eq:multivariateIntegral_mainProblem} that the transition probability $P(s,a)(s')$ that we aim to estimate is the complement of the violation probability over the fixed region $\ensuremath{R}_{s'}$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
P(s,a)(s') = P_{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k}\left(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1} \in \ensuremath{R}_{s'} \,\vert\, \ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, \ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, a)\right) = 1 - P_{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k}\left(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1} \notin \ensuremath{R}_{s'} \,\vert\, \ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, \ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, a)\right).
\label{eq:probability_complement}
\end{equation}
\paragraph{Scenario optimization problem.}
The scenario approach enables us to bound the risk over the feasible set of the optimal point of a so-called \emph{scenario optimization problem}.
Specifically, we consider scenario problems with \emph{discarded constraints}; see \citeA{DBLP:journals/jota/CampiG11} for details.
Roughly speaking, solving this problem amounts to finding, over a scalar decision variable $\lambda \in \amsmathbb{R}_+$, a convex set $\ensuremath{R}_s(\lambda)$ of minimal size that contains a particular number of successor state samples (shortly, we shall define the geometry of $\ensuremath{R}_s(\lambda)$ in relation to state $s \in S$ and $\lambda$).
Concretely, the optimization problem is given as
\begin{align}
\mathfrak{L}_{Q} \, \colon \, \minimize_{\lambda \in \amsmathbb{R}_+} \,\, & \lambda
\label{eq:SCP}
\\
\nonumber
\text{subject to} \enskip & \bm{d}_a + \ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k^{(i)} \in \ensuremath{R}_s (\lambda) \ \ \forall i \in \{ 1,\ldots,N \} \backslash Q,
\end{align}
where we explicitly write the dependency on the set $Q \subset \{1, \ldots, N\}$, which is a subset of samples whose constraints have been discarded.
The optimal solution $\lambda_{\vert Q \vert}^\star$ to problem $\mathfrak{L}_{Q}$ parameterizes a feasible set $\ensuremath{R}_s(\lambda_{\vert Q \vert}^\star)$ over which we can bound the risk using the scenario approach theory.
However, to compute a transition probability $P(s,a)(s')$, we must shape the feasible set such that $\ensuremath{R}_s(\lambda_{\vert Q \vert}^\star)$ is closely related to the fixed region $\ensuremath{R}_{s'}$.
As explained below, we achieve this by 1) defining $\ensuremath{R}_s(\lambda)$ as a scaled version of $R_s$, and 2) appropriately choosing the subset of discarded samples $Q$.
\paragraph{Scaled polytopes.}
We define $R_s( \lambda )$ as a version of polytope $R_s \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}$ (recall from \cref{sec:Abstraction} that $R_s$ is defined by matrix $M_s$ and vector $\bm{b}_s$) which is \emph{scaled} by a factor $\lambda \geq 0$ relative to a so-called Chebyshev center $\tilde{\bm{h}}_s \in \amsmathbb{R}^n$~\cite{DBLP:books/cu/BV2014}.
As such, we obtain
\begin{equation}
R_s( \lambda ) = \{ \ensuremath{\bm{x}} \in \amsmathbb{R}^n \ \vert \ M_s\ensuremath{\bm{x}} \leq \lambda (\bm{b}_s + \tilde{\bm{h}}_s ) - \tilde{\bm{h}}_s \}.
\label{eq:PolytopeShifted}
\end{equation}
Note that $R_s(1) = R_s$, and that shifting by $\tilde{\bm{h}}_s$ ensures that we are scaling around a point that is by construction contained in $R_s$, such that $R_s(\lambda_1) \subset R_s(\lambda_2)$ for every $0 \leq \lambda_1 < \lambda_2$.
A visualization of the scaling for an arbitrary region $R_{s'} \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}$ associated with a discrete successor state $s' \in S$ is shown in \cref{fig:polytopeScaling}.
Note that, in this example, the Chebyshev center is not unique since the circle can be shifted while remaining within $\ensuremath{R}_{s'}$.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[b]{.44\textwidth}
\centering
\include{Figures/Tikz/chebyshev}
%
\captionof{figure}{
Polytope $\ensuremath{R}_{s'}$ of state $s' \in S$ has a Chebyshev center $\tilde{\bm{h}}_{s'}$ (note that it is not unique, as the circle can be shifted while remaining within $\ensuremath{R}_{s'}$).
Polytope $R_{s'}(1.2)$ is scaled by a factor $\lambda = 1.2$ and is computed using \cref{eq:PolytopeShifted}.
}
\label{fig:polytopeScaling}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\begin{minipage}[b]{.52\textwidth}
\centering
\include{Figures/Tikz/scenario1D_detailed}
%
\captionof{figure}{
Bounding region $\ensuremath{R}_{s'} = [-1, 1]$ using $N=10$ successor state samples ($N_{s'}^\text{out} = 5$).
Discarding $N_{s'}^\text{out} = 5$ samples defines the red region $\ensuremath{R}_{s'}(\lambda^\star_{N_{s'}^\text{out}}) \subseteq \ensuremath{R}_{s'}$; discarding one less sample defines the blue region $\ensuremath{R}_{s'}(\lambda^\star_{N_{s'}^\text{out}-1}) \supset \ensuremath{R}_{s'}$.
}
\label{fig:Scenario1D}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Set of discarded samples.}
Let us now determine the subset $Q$ of samples whose constraints have been discarded from problem $\mathfrak{L}_Q$.
We obtain this set by iteratively removing individual samples based on the following rule:
\begin{proposition}
The sample removal set $Q \subset \{ 1, \ldots, N \}$ is obtained by iteratively removing the active constraints from \cref{eq:SCP}.
Thus, given $N$ samples and any two removal sets with cardinalities $\vert Q_1 \vert < \vert Q_2 \vert$, it holds that $Q_1 \subset Q_2$.
Moreover, any discarded sample $i \in Q$ violates the solution $\lambda_Q^\star$ to \cref{eq:SCP}, i.e., $\bm{d}_a + \ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k^{(i)} \notin \ensuremath{R}_{s'}(\lambda^\star_{\vert Q \vert})$, with probability one.
\label{lemma:Q}
\end{proposition}
\noindent
Intuitively, the successor state of a sample associated with an active constraint is on the boundary of the optimal solution $\ensuremath{R}_{s'}(\lambda^\star_{\vert Q \vert})$ of \cref{eq:SCP}.
Under the following \emph{non-accumulation} assumption, an active constraint exists and is unique, as long as $\vert Q \vert < N$ (i.e., not all samples have been discarded).
\begin{assumption}
\label{assumption:nonAccumulation}
%
Given a noise sample $\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k \in \Delta$, the probability that the successor state $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1}$ is on the boundary of any polytope $\ensuremath{R}_{s'}(\lambda)$ is zero, for any $s' \in S$ and $\lambda \in \amsmathbb{R}_+$.
\end{assumption}
\noindent
Note that \cref{assumption:nonAccumulation} holds for most of the smooth probability distributions commonly encountered in practice, e.g., Gaussian distributions, and is thus easily satisfied.
\cref{assumption:nonAccumulation} implies that the solution to \cref{eq:SCP} is unique with probability one and that the number of active constraints is equal to one (given $N>0$ and $\vert Q \vert < N$), as samples accumulate on the boundary of the polytope with probability zero.
\paragraph{Under/over-approximating regions.}
Recall from \cref{def:Nj_in} that $N_{s'}^\text{out}$ is the number of samples leading to a successor state outside of region $\ensuremath{R}_{s'}$ for discrete state $s' \in S$.
The following lemma uses $N_{s'}^\text{out}$ to define an under- or over-approximation of region $\ensuremath{R}_{s'}$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:Q_cardinality}
%
When discarding $\vert Q \vert = N^\text{out}_{s'}$ noise samples as per \cref{lemma:Q}, it holds that $\ensuremath{R}_{s'}(\lambda^\star_{N_{s'}^\text{out}}) \subseteq \ensuremath{R}_{s'}$.
When discarding $\vert Q \vert = N^\text{out}_{s'} - 1$ samples, it holds that $\ensuremath{R}_{s'}(\lambda^\star_{N_{s'}^\text{out}-1}) \supset \ensuremath{R}_{s'}$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\cref{lemma:Q} states that at every step, we may only discard the sample of the active constraint.
By construction, after discarding $\vert Q \vert = N_{s'}^\text{out}$ samples, all remaining successor state samples lie within $\ensuremath{R}_{s'}$, so $\lambda^\star_{N_{s'}^\text{out}} \leq 1$, so $\ensuremath{R}_{s'}(\lambda^\star_{N_{s'}^\text{out}}) \subseteq \ensuremath{R}_{s'}$.
When we discard one less sample, i.e., $\vert Q \vert = N_{s'}^\text{out} - 1$, we must have one sample outside of $\ensuremath{R}_{s'}$, so $\lambda^\star_{N_{s'}^\text{out}-1} > 1$, meaning that $\ensuremath{R}_{s'}(\lambda^\star_{N_{s'}^\text{out}-1}) \supset \ensuremath{R}_{s'}$.
This concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
\noindent
Intuitively, $\ensuremath{R}_{s'}(\lambda^\star_{N_{s'}^\text{out}})$ contains \emph{exactly} those samples in $\ensuremath{R}_{s'}$, while $\ensuremath{R}_{s'}(\lambda^\star_{N_{s'}^\text{out}-1})$ additionally contains \emph{the sample closest outside of} $\ensuremath{R}_{s'}$, as visualized in \cref{fig:Scenario1D} for a 1-dimensional example.
By using the scenario approach theory to bound the risk over these regions, we can thus also obtain bounds on the transition probability $P(s,a)(s')$, as per \cref{eq:probability_complement}.
\subsection{Bounds for the Transition Probabilities}
\label{subsec:scenario:bounds}
Based on the techniques from the scenario approach introduced above, we state the main contribution of this section, as a non-trivial variant of~\citeA[Theorem~5]{romao2022tac}, adapted to our new context.
Specifically, for a given transition $(s,a,s')$ and the resulting number of samples $N_{s'}^\text{out}$ outside of region $\ensuremath{R}_{s'}$ (as per \cref{def:Nj_in}), \cref{theorem:Bounds} returns an interval $[\munderbar{p},\bar{p}]$ that contains $P(s, a)(s')$ with at least a pre-defined confidence probability $(1-\beta)$.
\begin{theorem}[\gls{PAC} probability intervals]
\label{theorem:Bounds}
%
For $N \in \amsmathbb{N}$ samples of the noise, fix a confidence parameter $\beta \in (0,1)$.
Given $N_{s'}^\text{out}$, the transition probability $P(s, a)(s')$ is bounded by
%
\begin{equation}
\amsmathbb{P}^N \Big\{ \munderbar{p} \leq P(s, a)(s') \leq \bar{p} \Big\} \geq 1 - \beta,
\label{eq:TheoremBounds}
\end{equation}
%
where $\munderbar{p} = 0$ if $N_{s'}^\text{out} = N$, and otherwise $\munderbar{p}$ is the solution of
%
\begin{equation}
\frac{\beta}{2 N} = \sum_{i=0}^{N_{s'}^\text{out}} \binom Ni (1-\munderbar{p})^i \munderbar{p}^{N-i},
\label{eq:TheoremLowerBound}
\end{equation}
%
and $\bar{p} = 1$ if $N_{s'}^\text{out} = 0$, and otherwise $\bar{p}$ is the solution of
%
\begin{equation}
\frac{\beta}{2 N} = 1 - \sum_{i=0}^{N_{s'}^\text{out} - 1} \binom Ni (1-\bar{p})^i \bar{p}^{N-i}.
\label{eq:TheoremUpperBound}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\noindent
We present the proof in \cref{appendix:Proofs}.
\cref{theorem:Bounds} states that, with a probability of at least $1-\beta$, the probability $P(s, a)(s')$ is bounded by the obtained interval $[\munderbar{p},\bar{p}]$.
Importantly, this claim holds for \emph{any} $\Delta$ and $\amsmathbb{P}$ (given the previous assumptions), so we can bound the probability in \cref{eq:multivariateIntegral_mainProblem}, even when the probability distribution of the noise is unknown.
\begin{remark}[Beta distribution]
\label{remark:beta_distribution}
Note that \cref{eq:TheoremLowerBound,eq:TheoremUpperBound} are cumulative distribution functions of a beta distribution with parameters $N_{s'}^\text{out} + 1$ (or $N_{s'}^\text{out}$) and $N - N_{s'}^\text{out}$ (or $N - N_{s'}^\text{out} - 1$), respectively \cite{campi2018introduction}, which can directly be solved numerically for $\munderbar{p}$ or $\bar{p}$ up to arbitrary precision.
To speed up the computations at run-time, we apply a tabular approach to compute the intervals for all relevant values of $N$, $\beta$, and $N_{s'}^\text{out}$ upfront.
\end{remark}
\paragraph{Counting argument.}
As explained in \cref{appendix:Proofs}, the proof of \cref{theorem:Bounds} is based on the solutions to a set of $N$ optimization problems.
Interestingly, as also shown in the proof, we can solve these optimization problems analytically based on their geometry.
As a result, \cref{theorem:Bounds} only requires the sample count $N_{s'}^\text{out}$, the total number of samples $N$, and the confidence parameter $\beta$, which are all quantities that are \emph{independent of the solutions to these optimization problems}.
Remarkably, this implies that we can compute \gls{PAC} probability intervals without solving any optimization program explicitly using a solver.
Since we only need the values of $N_{s'}^\text{out}$, $N$, and $\beta$, our method is in practice almost as simple as the frequentist approach but has the notable advantage that we obtain robust intervals of probabilities.
As shown in our experiments in \cref{sec:Studies}, this means we can use our abstraction procedure to generate \glspl{iMDP} with hundreds of millions of transitions.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[b]{.48\textwidth}
\centering
\include{Figures/Tikz/intervals_samples}
\captionof{figure}{Probability intervals (with standard deviation) obtained from \cref{theorem:Bounds} versus Hoeffding's inequality, with $\beta=10^{-3}$ or $10^{-9}$ on a transition with a true probability of $0.25$ (note the log scale).}
\label{fig:intervals_samples}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\begin{minipage}[b]{.48\textwidth}
\centering
\include{Figures/Tikz/intervals_fraction}
\captionof{figure}{Probability intervals
obtained from \cref{theorem:Bounds}, with $\beta=10^{-9}$ and different values for $N_{s'}^\text{out} \in [0, N]$, versus probability intervals obtained from Hoeffding's inequality for the same value of $\beta$.}
\label{fig:intervals_fraction}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Tightness of Probability Intervals}
Let us now explore the tightness of the obtained probability intervals.
We can interpret a transition probability $P(s,a)(s')$ as the probability of a Bernoulli random variable.
In this context, we may use Hoeffding's inequality, a well-known concentration inequality, to infer \gls{PAC} bounds on this probability~\cite{DBLP:books/daglib/0035704}.
In particular, given $N$ successor state samples of which $N_{s'}^\text{in}$ are contained in region $R_{s'}$, Hoeffding's inequality states that, for a pre-defined $\beta \in (0,1)$, it holds that
\begin{equation}
\amsmathbb{P}^N \left\{ \frac{N_{s'}^\text{in}}{N} - \varepsilon \leq P(s,a)(s') \leq \frac{N_{s'}^\text{in}}{N} + \varepsilon \right\} \geq 1 - \beta,
\label{eq:Hoeffding}
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon = \sqrt{\frac{1}{2N} \log(\frac{2}{\beta})}$.
In what follows, we evaluate the tightness of our intervals obtained from \cref{theorem:Bounds}, versus those obtained from Hoeffding's inequality.
\paragraph{Number of noise samples $N$.}
To illustrate how the choice for the number of samples $N$ affects the tightness of the intervals, consider a system with a 1-dimensional state $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k \in \amsmathbb{R}$, where the probability density function $p_{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k}(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1} \ | \ \ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, \ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, a))$ for a specific action $a \in Act$ with target point $\bm{d}_a$ is given by a uniform distribution over the domain $[-4, 4]$.
For a given region $R_{s'} = [-1,1]$ (also shown in \cref{fig:Scenario1D}), we want to evaluate the probability that $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1} \in R_{s'}$, which is $0.25$.
To this end, we apply \cref{theorem:Bounds} for different numbers of samples $N \in [25, 12\,800]$ and a confidence level of $\beta=10^{-3}$ or $10^{-9}$.
The obtained probability bounds are random variables through their dependence on the samples, so we repeat each experiment $100\,000$ times, resulting in the probability intervals shown in \cref{fig:intervals_samples}.
We observe that the uncertainty in the transition probability is reduced by increasing the number of samples.
Moreover, the lower bounds obtained from \cref{theorem:Bounds} are better than those obtained from Hoeffding's inequality, while the converse holds for the upper bounds.
\paragraph{Sample count $N_{s'}^\text{out}$.}
To explain why \cref{theorem:Bounds} yields tighter lower bounds, while Hoeffding's inequality yields tighter upper bounds, we plot in \cref{fig:intervals_fraction} the resulting probability intervals for $N=800$ samples and different values of $N_{s'}^\text{out} \in [0,N]$ (recall that $N = N_{s'}^\text{out} + N_{s'}^\text{in}$).
We observe our scenario-based approach results in \emph{significantly tighter} intervals for values of $N_{s'}^\text{out}$ close to $0$ and $N$.
On the other hand, Hoeffding's inequality leads to \emph{slightly better} intervals for moderate values of $N_{s'}^\text{out}$ around $\frac{N}{2}$.
As observed from \cref{eq:Hoeffding}, Hoeffding's inequality yields bounds given by the \emph{sample mean} $N_{s'}^\text{in}$, plus or minus a \emph{fixed} value of $\varepsilon$ which is \emph{independent of the sample mean}.
This property explains why Hoeffding's inequality leads to poor probability intervals if the probability $P(s,a)(s')$ is close to zero or one.
\subsection{iMDP Abstractions With PAC Guarantees}
We describe how we apply \cref{theorem:Bounds} to solve the overall problem statement.
Since the process noise is independent of the state and time, we require \emph{only $N$ samples in total}.\footnote{If the noise distribution is time-varying, the transition probabilities are time-dependent.
In this case, we have at most $\vertAct\vert \cdot \vert S \vert \cdot \ensuremath{K}$ unique probabilities and must use $N$ noise samples for each step $k = 0,\ldots,\ensuremath{K}-1$. For finite-horizon properties, adapting our abstraction method for this case is straightforward.}
We can use the same samples to compute multiple intervals by shifting these samples by the appropriate target point $\bm{d}_a$ of each action $a \in Act$.
Recall from \cref{remark:number_probabilities} that the abstract \gls{MDP} has at most $\vertAct\vert \cdot \vert S \vert$ unique transition probabilities.
For every unique probability, we determine the successor state samples $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1}^{(1)}, \ldots, \ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1}^{(N)}$ under the $N$ samples of the noise.
For every possible successor state $s' \in S$, we then determine $N_{s'}^\text{out}$ and invoke \cref{theorem:Bounds} to compute the \gls{PAC} bounds on $P(s,a)(s')$ that hold for every $s \in S$.
\cref{fig:Scenario1D_b} shows this process, where every tick is a successor state $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1}$ under a noise sample.
This figure also shows point estimates of the probabilities derived using the frequentist approach.
If no samples are observed in a region, we assume that $P(s, a)(s') = 0$.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\include{Figures/Tikz/scenario1D_b}
\caption{
Bounds $[\underline{p},\bar{p}]$ on the probabilities $P(s,a)(s')$ for 3 regions using $N=100$ samples (black ticks) and $\beta=0.01$.
The probability density function over successor states is $p_{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k}\left(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1} \ | \ \ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, \ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, a)\right)$.
Point estimate probabilities are computed as $N_{s'}^\text{in}/N$.
}
\label{fig:Scenario1D_b}
\end{figure}
\begin{theorem}
\label{theorem:correctness}
Given a dynamical system in \cref{eq:continuousSystem}, generate an \gls{iMDP} abstraction $\ensuremath{\mathcal{M}_\Interval}$, and compute the robust reach-avoid probability $\ensuremath{\mathit{\underline{Pr}}^{\munderbar{\policy}^\star}(\propertyMDP)}$ under the optimal policy $\munderbar{\ensuremath{\pi}}^\star$.
Under the controller $\phi$ that applies control inputs according to \cref{eq:controlLaw} for each $k < \ensuremath{K}$, it~holds~that
%
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:correctness}
\ensuremath{\mathit{\underline{Pr}}^{\munderbar{\policy}^\star}(\propertyMDP)} \geq \eta
\implies
\amsmathbb{P}^N \left\{ \ensuremath{\mathit{Pr}^{\controller}( \property )} \geq \eta \right\} \geq 1 - \alpha,
\end{equation}
%
where $\alpha = \beta \cdot \vertAct\vert \cdot \vertS\vert$ upper bounds the number of unique probability intervals.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Denote by $\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}} \colon S \times Act \times S \rightharpoonup \ensuremath{\amsmathbb{I}} \cup \{ [0,0] \}$ the uncertain transition function of the generated \gls{iMDP}, and denote by $P \colon S \times Act \rightharpoonup \distr{S}$ the unknown transition function, defined by \cref{eq:multivariateIntegral_mainProblem}, of the underlying \gls{MDP}.
For each $a \in Act$ and $s' \in S$, it holds that
%
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:correctness_proof1}
\amsmathbb{P}^N \left\{ P(s,a)(s') \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}(s,a,s'), \,\, \forall s \in S \right\} \geq 1-\beta.
\end{equation}
%
Recall from \cref{remark:number_probabilities} that the \gls{iMDP} has at most $|Act| \cdot |S|$ unique probability intervals.
Using Boole's inequality,\footnote{Boole's inequality (or the union bound) says that the probability that at least one of a finite set of events happens, is upper bounded by the sum of the probabilities of these events~\cite{casella2021statistical}.} we thus obtain the following correctness guarantee for the \gls{iMDP}:
%
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:correctness_proof2}
\amsmathbb{P}^N \left\{ P(s,a)(s') \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}(s,a,s), \,\, \forall s,s' \in S, a \in Act \right\}
=
\amsmathbb{P}^N \left\{ P \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}} \right\}
\geq
1-\alpha,
\end{equation}
%
where $\alpha = \beta \cdot |Act| \cdot |S|$.
Next, observe that for any \gls{MDP} instantiation $P \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}$, it holds by construction of \cref{eq:optimalPolicy_lb} that $\ensuremath{\mathit{\underline{Pr}}^{\munderbar{\policy}^\star}(\propertyMDP)} \leq \ensuremath{\mathit{Pr}^{\policy^\star}(\propertyMDP)}$.
Moreover, \cref{lemma:simulation_relation} asserts that $\ensuremath{\mathit{Pr}^{\policy^\star}(\propertyMDP)} = \ensuremath{\mathit{Pr}^{\controller}( \property )}$ (the reach-avoid probability on the abstract \gls{MDP} equals the reach-avoid probability on the dynamical system), so we obtain
%
\begin{equation}
\amsmathbb{P}^N \left\{ \ensuremath{\mathit{\underline{Pr}}^{\munderbar{\policy}^\star}(\propertyMDP)} \leq \ensuremath{\mathit{Pr}^{\controller}( \property )} \right\} \geq 1-\alpha.
\end{equation}
%
Letting $\ensuremath{\mathit{\underline{Pr}}^{\munderbar{\policy}^\star}(\propertyMDP)} \geq \eta$, we arrive at the implication in \cref{eq:correctness}, so we conclude the proof.
\end{proof}
We remark that the tightness of \cref{eq:correctness} in \cref{theorem:correctness} depends on the value of $\alpha$, which in turn depends on the size of the generated \gls{iMDP} (through $\vertS\vert$ and $\vertAct\vert$), and the confidence level $\beta$.
For large \glspl{iMDP}, one must choose a stronger confidence level (i.e., $\beta$ closer to zero), to obtain an informative bound $1-\alpha$, which is close to one.
The following corollary provides a tighter bound if the \gls{iMDP} is generated in a very specific manner.
\begin{corollary}
\label{corollary:tighter_confidence}
If the \gls{iMDP} in \cref{theorem:correctness} is generated under a uniform rectangular partition $\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}$ (i.e., a grid) into $r_i$ regions in each dimension $i=1,\ldots,n$ of the state space $\amsmathbb{R}^n$, and with one action $a \in Act$ per region $\ensuremath{R} \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}$ whose target point $\bm{d}_a$ is the center of $\ensuremath{R}$, then the confidence parameter becomes $\alpha = \beta \big( \prod_{i=1}^n (2 r_i - 1) + \vertAct\vert \big)$.
\end{corollary}
The proof of \cref{corollary:tighter_confidence} is provided in \cref{proof:cor:tight} and is analogous to the proof of \cref{theorem:correctness}, with the only difference that the number of unique probability intervals is reduced.
The key observation is that transition probabilities $P(s,a)(s')$ of the abstraction are defined by the relative position $\ensuremath{R}_{s'} - \bm{d}_a$ between region $\ensuremath{R}_{s'}$ and target point $\bm{d}_a$.
In particular, the corollary exploits the symmetry between the partition and the target points, which reduces the number of unique transition probabilities significantly and leads to stronger confidence levels compared to \cref{theorem:correctness}.
\section{Overall Robust Control Algorithm}
\label{sec:Algorithm}
In \cref{sec:Abstraction,sec:ScenarioApproach}, we have introduced tools for generating an \gls{iMDP} abstraction of the dynamical system in \cref{eq:continuousSystem}, which is correct with a user-specified confidence probability.
We now discuss in more detail how we use these tools to solve the overall problem statement posed in \cref{sec:prelim:problem}.
Recall that our approach, shown in \cref{fig:Approach}, consists of an offline and an online phase.
In what follows, we present an algorithm for both phases.
\subsection{Offline Planning Phase}
The offline planning phase is presented in \cref{alg:algorithm_planning}.
We first generate an \gls{MDP} abstraction by defining its states $S$, actions $Act$, and initial state $\ensuremath{s_I} \in S$ (line 1).
For each state $s \in S$, we compute the set $Act(s)$ of enabled actions (line 2) and define the initial values for the sample size $N$ and for the reachability probabilities (line 3).
Recall that computing the transition probabilities of this \gls{MDP} is not possible, so we instead compute intervals of probabilities and formalize the abstract model as an \gls{iMDP} instead.
\input{Figures/offline_pseudocode}
We then enter the iterative part of our approach.
We first obtain $N$ samples of the noise (line 5).
Recall from \cref{sec:ScenarioApproach} that we can obtain these samples by inferring the process noise from previously generated state trajectories of the dynamical system or by sampling the noise distribution directly using a simulator.
For every action $a \in Act$ and successor state $s' \in S$, we compute a \gls{PAC} transition probability interval $[\munderbar{p}, \bar{p}]$ using \cref{theorem:Bounds} (line 8).
These intervals are used to define the transition function $\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}$ of the abstract \gls{iMDP} (line 9).
Recall from \cref{sec:IterativeScheme} that for the resulting \gls{iMDP} (stored in line 12), we leverage PRISM to obtain the optimal policies that maximize lower and upper bounds on the reach-avoid probability using \cref{eq:optimalPolicy_lb,eq:optimalPolicy_ub} (line 13).
If the maximum lower bound reach-avoid probability $\ensuremath{\mathit{\underline{Pr}}^{\munderbar{\policy}^\star}(\propertyMDP)}$ under this policy is above the required threshold $\eta$, then the algorithm returns the optimal policy $\munderbar{\ensuremath{\pi}}^\star$ and proceeds to the online control phase.
Otherwise, if $\ensuremath{\mathit{\underline{Pr}}^{\munderbar{\policy}^\star}(\propertyMDP)} < \eta$ but the problem is still satisfiable (i.e., $\ensuremath{\mathit{\overline{Pr}}^{\bar{\policy}^\star}(\propertyMDP)} \geq \eta$) we obtain additional samples by increasing $N$ by a fixed factor $\gamma > 1$ (line 14) and repeat the while loop.
If instead, it holds that $\ensuremath{\mathit{\overline{Pr}}^{\bar{\policy}^\star}(\propertyMDP)} < \eta$, the reach-avoid problem is not satisfiable for any \gls{MDP} instantiated by $P \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}$.
In this case, the algorithm terminates without returning a policy.
The main computational complexity of \cref{alg:algorithm_planning} lies within the double for loop.
In particular, generating one \gls{iMDP} abstraction\footnote{Verifying \glspl{iMDP} can be done in polynomial time, and we refer to~\citeA{DBLP:conf/cav/PuggelliLSS13} for details.} (lines 5-12 of \cref{alg:algorithm_planning}) has the following complexity with respect to the numbers of states $|S|$ and actions $|Act|$ (which are directly controlled through the partitioning of the state space), and the number of noise samples~$N$.
\begin{theorem}[Complexity of generating abstractions]
\label{thm:complexity}
The worst-case complexity of generating one \gls{iMDP} abstraction using \cref{alg:algorithm_planning} is
$\mathcal{O}\big( N \cdot |Act| + |S|^2 \cdot |Act| \big)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
For every action $a \in Act$, we must check for each state $s \in S$ if $a$ is enabled in $s$, leading to $\mathcal{O}\big( |S| \cdot |Act| \big)$ operations.
Next, for each action $a \in Act$, we must determine for each of the $N$ samples to which state it belongs, leading to $\mathcal{O}\big( N \cdot |Act| \big)$, and subsequently, we compute for each action $a \in Act$ and successor state $s' \in S$ the probability interval $[\munderbar{p}, \bar{p}]$, leading to $\mathcal{O}\big( |Act| \cdot |S| \big)$.
Finally, we store each transition of the \gls{iMDP}, which has at most $|S|^2 \cdot |Act|$ transitions.
By summing these contributions and only keeping the highest order terms, we obtain the order of complexity in \cref{thm:complexity} and conclude the proof.
\end{proof}
We remark that the number of states $|S|$ and $|Act|$ depend on the partition and target points used to generate the abstraction; see \cref{sec:Abstraction} for details.
For example, under the rectangular partitioning described by \cref{corollary:tighter_confidence}, the number of states is $|S| = \prod_{i=1}^n + 1$ and the number of actions is $|Act| = \prod_{i=1}^n$.
This result shows that our abstraction procedure (like any other discretization-based technique) suffers from the well-known \emph{curse of dimensionality}~\cite{LSAZ21}, i.e., the complexity is exponential in the dimension $n$ of the continuous state space $\amsmathbb{R}^n$.
\input{Figures/online_pseudocode}
\subsection{Online Control Phase}
In the online control phase, we synthesize a controller for the dynamical system on the fly, based on the policy $\munderbar{\ensuremath{\pi}}^\star$ returned by \cref{alg:algorithm_planning}.
Recall that this policy is a time-varying map from \gls{iMDP} states to actions.
Intuitively, we translate the policy to a time-varying feedback controller that is piece-wise linear (namely, linear in the state $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k$ within each region of the partition).
Concretely, at each time step, we use \cref{def:relation} to determine the current \gls{iMDP} state $s = T(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k)$ to which the continuous state $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k$ belongs, and then retrieve the optimal action $a^\star = \munderbar{\ensuremath{\pi}}^\star(s,k)$ from the policy (line 8).
We compute the associated control input using \cref{eq:controlLaw}, which is valid by construction, followed by sampling the successor state $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1}$ (lines 9-10).
The algorithm returns $\mathsf{SAT} = \mathsf{True}$ if the goal region is reached within $\ensuremath{K}$ steps (i.e., the reach-avoid problem is satisfied), while it returns $\mathsf{SAT} = \mathsf{False}$ if either the critical region is reached or the system fails to reach the goal region within $\ensuremath{K}$ steps.
\begin{remark}[Backup controller]
The controller obtained via \cref{alg:algorithm_planning} only yields control inputs for states in the bounded portion of the state space $\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}} = \amsmathbb{R}^n \setminus \ensuremath{R}_\ast$, which is covered by the partition $\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}$.
To alleviate this conservatism, one may additionally design a \emph{backup controller}, which is activated upon leaving $\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}$ and aims to return the state $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k$ to the bounded portion $\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}$ for which the controller generated control inputs.
In the abstract \gls{iMDP}, visiting the absorbing state $s_\ast$ (which corresponds to the absorbing region $\ensuremath{R}_\ast = \amsmathbb{R}^n$) means that the reach-avoid property is violated by definition.
As such, deploying the backup controller can only increase the probability $\ensuremath{\mathit{Pr}^{\controller}( \property )}$ of satisfying the reach-avoid property, and thus, \cref{theorem:correctness} still holds regardless of the designed backup controller.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Reducing the Complexity of the iMDP Policy Synthesis}
\label{subsec:algorithmic_optimization}
The \gls{iMDP} abstractions generated using our approach can potentially have hundreds of millions of transitions, especially if the state dimension is high (see \cref{tab:spacecraft,tab:DetailedResults}).
The main bottleneck that leads to such large models, is that the number of transitions in the \gls{iMDP} is (worst-case) quadratic in the number of states, and linear in the number of actions.
Indeed, note that \cref{alg:algorithm_planning} consists of a double for-loop, enumerating over both the set of actions and the set of states, which can thus be expensive.
To alleviate this limitation, we develop an improved policy synthesis scheme that reduces the complexity of the Bellman iterations required to compute the optimal policy over the iMDP.\footnote{While the proposed scheme reduces the complexity of computing optimal policies on the \gls{iMDP}, it does not alleviate the complexity stated in \cref{thm:complexity} for generating abstractions.}
This scheme is \emph{sound}, in the sense that the maximum lower bound reach-avoid probability $\ensuremath{\mathit{\underline{Pr}}^{\munderbar{\policy}^\star}(\propertyMDP)}$ that we obtain under the proposed scheme can be more conservative, but the correctness guarantee in \cref{theorem:correctness} still holds.
In practice, instead of working with one large abstraction across the whole horizon of the reach-avoid property, we work with a smaller \gls{iMDP} at each time step, by merging states that are associated to similar reach-avoid probabilities computed via the Bellman iterations.
In what follows, we first explain how we generate and verify this reduced model for a single time step, by merging (aggregating) states with similar reach-avoid probabilities.
Thereafter, we describe how we iterate backward over the whole time horizon, as needed to synthesize the policy.
\begin{remark}[Restriction to finite horizons]
\label{remark:improved_scheme_restriction}
As the improved policy synthesis scheme unfolds the \gls{iMDP} over each time step, the scheme is only applicable to finite-horizon properties.
\end{remark}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\include{Figures/Tikz/optimization_imdp}
\caption{
The improved policy synthesis scheme (for clarity, we have omitted actions), in which we merge states based on their lower bound reach-avoid probabilities, computed by \cref{eq:optimalPolicy_lb} (shown for $\rho=10$ here).
These probabilities are shown within the nodes of each state, while merged states are shown as dotted regions with their lower bound reach-avoid probability written above.
If a state has multiple outgoing transitions to the same merged state, e.g., $s_4$ at time $k = \ensuremath{K}-1$, we replace these transitions with a single transition whose probability interval is computed as the sum over the original lower/upper bounds.
}
\label{fig:optimization_imdp}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{State aggregation for a single time step.}
As an illustrative example, consider the \gls{iMDP} in \cref{fig:optimization_imdp}, which consists of four states: $s_1$ is a goal state, $s_4$ is a critical state, and $s_2$ and $s_3$ are neither.
Recall that $\ensuremath{K}$ denotes the time horizon of the reach-avoid property.
If we are at time step $k = \ensuremath{K} - 1$ (i.e., only one action to go), the only way to satisfy the reach-avoid problem is to reach state $s_1$.
In other words, the reward (being the probability of satisfying the reach-avoid property) of reaching state $s_1$ is one, while the reward of the other states is zero.
Based on this intuition, we can merge states $\{s_2, s_3, s_4\}$ as a single successor state in the \gls{iMDP} (at the final time step, it does not matter if we end up in a critical state or in any other non-goal state: the property is not satisfied in either case).
More generally, we \emph{partition} the \gls{iMDP} states into $\rho \in \amsmathbb{N}$ discrete \emph{bins}, based on their lower bound reach-avoid probability.
For example, if we choose $\rho = 100$ (bins of size $1\%$), then we have at most $100$ successor states, which is often significantly less than the term $| S |$ in the original scheme.
The reach-avoid probability of a merged state is the minimum of the lower bound reach-avoid probabilities of the original states it is comprised of.
The probability interval $[\munderbar{p}, \bar{p}]$ of transitioning under state-action pair $(s,a)$ to merged state comprised of a subset of states $M \subset S$ is the union of the intervals over all states in $M$:
\begin{equation}
\munderbar{p} = \sum_{s' \in M} \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}(s,a,s')_{\text{low}}, \ \
\bar{p} = \sum_{s' \in M} \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}(s,a,s')_{\text{up}},
\end{equation}
where $\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}(s,a,s')_{\text{low}}$ and $\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}(s,a,s')_{\text{up}}$ denote the lower and upper bounds of these intervals.
\paragraph{Iterating backward over multiple time steps.}
Given the state aggregation described above for a certain time step, e.g., $k=\ensuremath{K}$, we can compute the maximum lower bound reach-avoid probabilities $\ensuremath{\mathit{\underline{Pr}}^{\munderbar{\policy}^\star}(\propertyMDP)}$ and the corresponding optimal policy $\munderbar{\ensuremath{\pi}}^\star$ at time $\ensuremath{K}-1$.
For each state $s \in S$, we store the optimal action of the policy as $\munderbar{\ensuremath{\pi}}^\star(s, \ensuremath{K}-1)$.
We then go one step backward in time (according to Bellman iterations) and create another state aggregation over the time steps $k = \ensuremath{K}-2$ to $\ensuremath{K}-1$.
We again partition the range of reach-avoid probabilities (this time those at time $k = \ensuremath{K}-1$) into $\rho$ discrete bins and merge the successor states accordingly.
As shown in \cref{fig:optimization_imdp}, we thus \emph{iterate backward in time} to compute the optimal policy and lower bound reachability probabilities, until we have reached the initial time step of $k=0$, and thus have computed the whole policy $\munderbar{\ensuremath{\pi}}^\star$.
\paragraph{Soundness of the improved scheme.}
Due to the optimal policy being a Markovian mapping from the state and time step, we can decompose the policy synthesis into individual time steps by iterating backward in time.
\cref{theorem:correctness} is preserved under the improved policy synthesis scheme due to two reasons: 1) the partitioning of states based on their lower bound reach-avoid probabilities leads to an \emph{under-approximation} of the actual reach-avoid probabilities, and 2) summing up the probability intervals over merged states \emph{preserves the original \gls{PAC} guarantees} on the original abstract model.
However, under the proposed scheme, the number of unique intervals increases linearly with the time horizon $\ensuremath{K}$.
In particular, the \glspl{iMDP} for all $\ensuremath{K}$ steps combined have at most $|Act| \rho \ensuremath{K}$ unique probability intervals (rather than $|Act| \cdot |S|$, cf. \cref{remark:number_probabilities}).
Hence, under the proposed scheme, we change the confidence parameter in \cref{theorem:correctness} to $\alpha = \beta \rho \ensuremath{K} \cdot |Act|$.
Under this modification of the confidence parameter, the proposed scheme is sound.
\paragraph{Using $\rho$ as a tuning parameter.}
Under the proposed scheme, $\rho$ is a tuning parameter that provides a trade-off between the size of the state space obtained from the \glspl{iMDP}, versus the level of conservatism in the obtained reach-avoid guarantees introduced by aggregating states.
A typical choice for the tuning parameter $\rho$ is $\rho = 100$ (i.e., partitioning states based on their lower bound reach-avoid probabilities with a precision of $1\%$ in reach-avoid probability).
If $|S| > \rho \ensuremath{K}$, then the worst-case number of transitions under the proposed improved policy synthesis scheme is lower than the worst-case number of transitions under the original scheme.
However, even if this condition is not satisfied, the improved scheme may be beneficial, because the memory requirements for solving the original \gls{iMDP} can be excessively large, as demonstrated in the satellite rendezvous benchmark in \cref{subsec:spacecraft}.
\section{Numerical Examples}
\label{sec:Studies}
We implement our iterative abstraction method in Python, and tailor the model checker \textrm{PRISM}\xspace~\cite{DBLP:conf/cav/KwiatkowskaNP11} for \glspl{iMDP} to compute robust optimal policies.
At every iteration, the obtained \gls{iMDP} is fed to \textrm{PRISM}\xspace, which computes the optimal policy associated with the maximum reach-avoid probability, as per \cref{eq:optimalPolicy_lb}.
Our code is available via \color{Sepia}\url{https://github.com/LAVA-LAB/DynAbs}\color{black}, and all experiments are run on a computer with 32 3.7GHz cores and 64 GB of RAM.
We report the performance of our method on: (1) a \gls{UAV} motion control, (2) a building temperature regulation, and (3) a new satellite rendezvous benchmark, which was not in the earlier paper by \citeA{Badings2022AAAI}.
In addition, we benchmark our method against \textrm{SReachTools}\xspace and \textrm{StocHy}\xspace, which are two other tools for controller synthesis based on formal abstractions.
Finally, we demonstrate the applicability of our techniques to infinite-horizon properties.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[b]{.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]
{Figures/Results/Spacecraft/orbit2.jpg}
\captionof{figure}{State trajectory for the satellite benchmark ($N=3\,200$ with improved policy synthesis scheme). The chaser satellite (white) must navigate to the target (green) while not colliding with the one in red.}
\label{fig:spacecraft_orbit}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\begin{minipage}[b]{.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]
{Figures/Results/UAV/UAV_v3.png}
\captionof{figure}{UAV reach-avoid problem (goal in green; obstacles in red), plus trajectories under the optimal \gls{iMDP}-based controller from initial state $\bm{x}_0 = [-14,0,6,0,-6,0]^\top$, under high and low turbulence.}
\label{fig:UAV_layout}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Satellite Rendezvous Problem}
\label{subsec:spacecraft}
We consider the satellite benchmark problem from~\citeA{DBLP:conf/cdc/JewisonE16}.
More specifically, we consider phase 1 of their satellite rendezvous problem, in which a \emph{chaser} satellite needs to dock with a \emph{target} satellite while being in orbit.
The relative motion of the chaser satellite with respect to the target is modeled by the so-called Clohessy-Wiltshire-Hill (CWH) equations~\cite{clohessy1960terminal}.
We present the full 6-dimensional linear dynamical system in \cref{subappendix:spacecraft_model}.
Notably, we partition the 6-dimensional state space into $11 \times 23 \times 5 \times 5 \times 5 \times 5 = 158\,125$ discrete regions and define the same number of actions.
We define a time horizon of $\ensuremath{K}=16$ steps, which becomes $8$ steps after grouping every two discrete time steps as described in \cref{sec:Abstraction}; see \cref{subappendix:spacecraft_model} for details.
The original problem from~\citeA{DBLP:conf/cdc/JewisonE16} is a reachability problem, which we extend to a reach-avoid problem by adding a third satellite that must be avoided (as shown in \cref{fig:spacecraft_orbit}).
We assume that this third satellite is located between the chaser and target satellite and has a fixed position in the CWH frame, yielding a stationary critical region.\footnote{Note that, in principle, we can also model moving obstacles (or goal regions) by modeling time explicitly in the iMDP abstraction and changing the set of critical (goal) regions at each time step.}
\input{Figures/Results/Table_spacecraft}
\paragraph{Correct-by-construction control with PAC guarantees.}
First, let us show how to use \cref{theorem:correctness} in practice to determine the confidence parameter $\beta$ needed on individual transition probabilities to solve the overall problem statement with a desired confidence probability.
We choose an overall confidence probability of $1-\alpha = 0.95$.
Since we use a uniform rectangular partition of the state space, we can use \cref{corollary:tighter_confidence} to compute the corresponding confidence parameter $\beta$ on individual transitions.
For this particular experiment, we find that a confidence parameter of $\beta = \frac{\alpha}{(22-1)(46-1)(10-1)^4 + 158,125} = \num{7.86e-9}$ is sufficient to obtain an overall confidence of $1-\alpha=0.95$.
\paragraph{Improved policy synthesis scheme solves larger problems.}
We apply our method with $N=3\,200$ and $20\,000$ samples, either with or without the improved policy synthesis scheme proposed in \cref{subsec:algorithmic_optimization}.
One simulated state trajectory of the dynamical system ($N=3\,200$ and with the improved synthesis scheme enabled) is shown in \cref{fig:spacecraft_orbit}.
The figure shows that the chaser satellite (in white) is indeed able to navigate to the target (in green) without colliding with the third satellite shown in red.
For this particular case, the reach-avoid guarantee on the \gls{iMDP} is $\ensuremath{\mathit{\underline{Pr}}^{\munderbar{\policy}^\star}(\propertyMDP)} = 0.56$, while the empirical satisfaction of the reach-avoid property (obtained via Monte Carlo simulations) is $0.74$.\footnote{Note that we have deliberately chosen a high process noise strength in this benchmark, leading to relatively lower reach-avoid probabilities.}
The number of transitions $(s,a,s')$ of the \glspl{iMDP} and the run times for all cases are presented in \cref{tab:spacecraft}.
The time to compute the states and (enabled) actions is around $\SI{30}{\minute}$ and is equal for all cases.
Under the default synthesis scheme, we generate a single \gls{iMDP} over the whole horizon of the reach-avoid property, resulting in very large \glspl{iMDP} of about $338$ and $560$ million transitions for $N=3\,200$ and $20\,000$, respectively.
In the latter instance, the default policy synthesis scheme failed due to a memory overflow (note that we used $64$ GB of RAM).
By contrast, the improved policy synthesis scheme, which generates a significantly smaller \gls{iMDP} for each time step $k=0,\ldots,\ensuremath{K}$ of the horizon, is able to solve both cases, even though the total run time (over all iterations $k=0,\ldots,\ensuremath{K}$) for $N=3\,200$ is around $20\%$ higher than with the default scheme.
As shown in \cref{tab:spacecraft}, the size of the \glspl{iMDP} under the improved synthesis scheme increase per iteration, since there is more variety among the reach-avoid probabilities, and thus we can aggregate fewer states.
Nevertheless, the results show that with the improved policy synthesis scheme, we can solve reach-avoid problems leading to \glspl{iMDP} that would otherwise be infeasibly large.
\subsection{UAV Motion Planning}
\label{subsec:UAV}
We consider the reach-avoid problem for a \gls{UAV} operating under turbulence, which was introduced in \cref{sec:Introduction}.
The goal is to compute a controller that guarantees (with high confidence) that the probability to reach a goal area while also avoiding unsafe regions, is above a performance threshold of $\eta = 0.75$.
We consider a horizon of $64$ time steps, and the problem layout is displayed in \cref{fig:UAV_layout}, with the goal and unsafe regions shown in green and red, respectively.
We model the \gls{UAV} as a system of 3 double integrators
(see \cref{appendix:UAV} for details).
The state $\bm{x}_k \in \amsmathbb{R}^6$ encodes the position and velocity components, and control inputs $\bm{u}_k \in \amsmathbb{R}^3$ model actuators that change the velocity.
The effect of turbulence on the state causes (non-Gaussian) process noise, which we model using a Dryden gust model~\cite{bohn2019deep,dryden1943review}.
We compare two cases: 1) a low turbulence case, and 2) a high turbulence case.
We partition the state space into $25\,515$ regions, using \cref{theorem:Bounds} with $\beta=0.01$, and apply the iterative scheme with $\gamma = 2$, starting at $N = 25$, with an upper bound of $12\,800$ samples.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\include{Figures/Results/UAV/MDP_vs_iMDP}
\caption{Reach-avoid guarantees on the \glspl{iMDP} (blue) and \glspl{MDP} (orange) for their respective policies, versus the resulting empirical (simulated) performance (dashed lines) on the dynamical system.
Shaded areas show the standard deviation across 10 iterations.
The empirical performance obtained from the \glspl{MDP} violates the guarantees, whereas that from the \glspl{iMDP} does not.}
\label{fig:MDP_vs_iMDP}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Scalability.}
We report the model sizes and run times in \cref{subappendix:UAV_results}.
The number of \gls{iMDP} states equals the size of the partition.
Depending on the number of samples $N$, the \gls{iMDP} has $9-24$ million transitions.
The mean time to compute the set of \gls{iMDP} actions (which is only done in the first iteration) is around one minute.\footnote{We exploit the block-diagonal structure of matrices $A$ and $B$ of the dynamical system to speed up the computation of the enabled state-action pairs. In particular, we can do all necessary reachability computations separately in the spatial $(x,y,z)$ dimensions and compose the full \gls{iMDP} afterward.}
Computing the probabilities plus the verification in \textrm{PRISM}\xspace takes $1-\SI{8}{\minute}$, depending on the number of samples $N$.
\paragraph{Accounting for noise matters for probabilistic safety.}
In \cref{fig:UAV_layout}, we show state trajectories under the optimal controller derived from the optimal \gls{iMDP} policy, under high and low turbulence (noise).
Under low noise, the controller prefers the short but narrow path; however, with the high noise level, the longer but safer path is preferred since the risk of colliding with an obstacle is too high.
Thus, accounting for process noise is important to obtain controllers that are safe.
\paragraph{iMDPs yield safer guarantees than MDPs.}
To show the importance of using robust abstractions, we compare, under high turbulence, our robust \gls{iMDP} approach against a na\"ive \gls{MDP} abstraction.
This \gls{MDP} has the same states and actions as the \gls{iMDP}, but uses precise probabilities, which are computed using the frequentist approach introduced in \cref{sec:ScenarioApproach}.
The maximum reach-avoid probabilities (guarantees) for both methods are shown in \cref{fig:MDP_vs_iMDP}.
For every value of $N$, we apply the resulting controllers to the dynamical system in Monte Carlo simulations with $10\,000$ iterations, to determine the empirical reach-avoid probability as the fraction of trajectories that satisfies the reach-avoid property.
\cref{fig:MDP_vs_iMDP} shows that the non-robust \glspl{MDP} yield \emph{poor and unsafe performance guarantees}: the actual reach-avoid probability of the controller on the dynamical system is much lower than the reach-avoid guarantees obtained from \textrm{PRISM}\xspace.
By contrast, our robust \gls{iMDP}-based approach consistently yields safe lower bound guarantees on the actual performance of controllers.
The performance threshold of $\ensuremath{\mathit{\underline{Pr}}^{\munderbar{\policy}^\star}(\propertyMDP)} \geq 0.75$ is guaranteed for $N = 3\,200$ and higher.
\subsection{Building Temperature Regulation}
\label{subsec:building_temperature}
Inspired by~\citeA{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1803-06315}, we consider a temperature control problem for a building with two rooms, both having their own radiator and air supply.
The reach-avoid goal is to maximize the probability to reach a temperature within $19.8-20.2$\SI{}{\celsius} in both zones within 32 steps of 15 minutes each, while avoiding temperatures below $17.8$ or above $\SI{22.2}{\celsius}$.
The state $\bm{x}_k \in \amsmathbb{R}^4$ of the system (see \cref{appendix:BAS} for details) reflects the temperatures of both zones and radiators, and control inputs $\bm{u}_k \in \amsmathbb{R}^4$ change the air supply and boiler temperatures in both zones.
The deterministic heat gain through zone walls is modeled by the disturbance $\bm{q}_k \in \amsmathbb{R}^4$.
The noise $\bm{w}_k \in \amsmathbb{R}^4$ has a Gaussian distribution (but this assumption is not required for our approach).
We partition the state space into $35\,721$ regions ($21$ values for zone temperatures and $9$ for radiator temperatures), and we use the same values for $\beta$ and $N$ as in the \gls{UAV} benchmark in \cref{subsec:UAV}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/Results/BAS/BAS_tripleFig_scaled_v2.pdf}
\caption{Cross section (for radiator temp. of \SI{38}{\celsius}) of the maximum lower bound probabilities to reach the goal of \SI{20}{\celsius} from any initial state, for either $50$, $200$ or $800$ samples.}
\label{fig:BAS_results}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{More samples means less uncertainty.}
In \cref{fig:BAS_results}, we show (for fixed radiator temperatures) the maximum lower bound probabilities obtained from \textrm{PRISM}\xspace, to reach the goal from any initial state within the safe set.
The results clearly show that better reach-avoid guarantees are obtained when more samples are used to compute the \gls{iMDP} probability intervals.
The higher the value of $N$, the lower the uncertainty in the intervals, leading to better reach-avoid guarantees.
Notably, as reported in \cref{subappendix:BAS_results}, the largest \gls{iMDP} has around $200$ million transitions, showing that our approach can effectively generate and verify large abstract models.
\subsection{Benchmarks Against Other Control Synthesis Tools}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.65\linewidth]{Figures/Results/BAS/ScAb_vs_StocHy_12800.pdf}
\caption{Maximum lower bound probabilities to reach the goal zone temperature of $\SI{21}{\celsius}$ from any initial state within $64$ steps, for our approach ($N=12\,800$) and \textrm{StocHy}\xspace.}
\label{fig:BAS_stochy}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{StocHy.}
We benchmark our method on a building temperature regulation problem against \textrm{StocHy}\xspace~\cite{DBLP:conf/tacas/CauchiA19}, a verification and synthesis tool based on formal abstractions (see \cref{appendix:StocHy} for details on the setup and results).
Similar to our approach, \textrm{StocHy}\xspace also derives robust \gls{iMDP} abstractions.
However, \textrm{StocHy}\xspace requires precise knowledge of the noise distribution, and it discretizes the control input space of the dynamical system, to obtain a finite action space.
The maximum probabilities to reach the goal zone temperature from any initial state obtained for both methods are presented in \cref{fig:BAS_stochy}.
The obtained results are qualitatively similar and, close to the goal zone temperature, our lower bound reach-avoid guarantees are \emph{slightly higher} than those obtained from \textrm{StocHy}\xspace.
However, when starting at temperatures close to the boundary (e.g., at both low radiator and zone temperature), the guarantees obtained from our approach are \emph{slightly more conservative}.
This is due to the fact that our approach relies on \gls{PAC} guarantees on the transition probabilities, while \textrm{StocHy}\xspace gives straight probabilistic outcomes, thanks to the assumed precise knowledge of the noise distribution.
While both methods yield results that are qualitatively similar, our approach is an order of magnitude faster ($\SI{45}{\minute}$ for \textrm{StocHy}\xspace, vs. $3-\SI{9}{\second}$ for our approach; see \cref{appendix:StocHy,tab:DetailedResults} for details).
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.7\linewidth]{Figures/Results/SReachTools/SReachTools_doubleFig_v3.pdf}
\caption{Simulated state trajectories for the spacecraft docking problem, under low and high noise covariance.
Our feedback controllers are more robust, as shown by the smaller error in the state trajectories over time (the Voronoi method under high covariance failed to generate a solution).}
\label{fig:SReachTools_results}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{\textrm{SReachTools}\xspace.}
We apply our method to the spacecraft docking benchmark\footnote{Note that the dynamical system used in this spacecraft docking benchmark differs significantly from the system used in the satellite rendezvous problem in \cref{subsec:spacecraft}; see \cref{appendix:spacecraft,appendix:SReachTools} for details.} (see \cref{fig:SReachTools_results}) of \textrm{SReachTools}\xspace~\cite{DBLP:conf/hybrid/VinodGO19}, an optimization-based toolbox for probabilistic reach-avoid problems (see \cref{appendix:SReachTools} for details).
While we use samples to generate a model abstraction, \textrm{SReachTools}\xspace employs sample-based methods over the properties directly.
Distinctively, \textrm{SReachTools}\xspace does not create abstractions (as in our case) and is thus generally faster than our method.
However, its complexity is exponential in the number of samples (versus the linear complexity for our method).
Importantly, we derive \emph{feedback} controllers, while the sampling-based methods of \textrm{SReachTools}\xspace compute \emph{open-loop} controllers.
Feedback controllers respond to state observations over time and are, therefore, more robust against strong disturbances from noise, as also shown in \cref{fig:SReachTools_results}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/Results/BAS/temp_increasing_horizon.pdf}
\caption{Obtained lower bound reach-avoid guarantees for the 1-room temperature control problem with time horizons between $\ensuremath{K}=4$ steps (left) and infinity (right).}
\label{fig:BAS_increasing_horizon}.
\end{figure}
\subsection{Infinite-horizon properties}
To demonstrate that our techniques are also applicable to infinite-horizon properties, we consider again the 1-room version of the temperature control problem (on which we benchmarked against \textrm{StocHy}\xspace).
We consider reach-avoid properties with increasing time bounds of $\ensuremath{K} \in \{ 4, 8, 16, \infty \}$ and show the corresponding maximum lower bounds on the reach-avoid probability in \cref{fig:BAS_increasing_horizon}.
As expected, these figures show that the reach-avoid probability increases with the time horizon (even though the difference between $\ensuremath{K}=16$ and $\ensuremath{K}=\infty$ is marginal).
The time to verify the \gls{iMDP} (which has $383$ states and $64\,029$ transitions) in \textrm{PRISM}\xspace is about $\SI{1.7}{\second}$ for the property with a horizon of $K=4$ steps, versus $\SI{3.4}{\second}$ for the infinite-horizon property.
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:Related}
We summarize the literature most related to this paper.
We start with a discussion of robust \glspl{MDP}, (probabilistic) bisimulation, and controller synthesis with formal guarantees.
Then, we introduce the scenario approach, as well as other sampling techniques and distributionally robust optimization.
Finally, we discuss the concept of \gls{PAC} and briefly touch upon safe and robust learning methods.
\paragraph{Robust MDPs.}
In robust (also called uncertain) \glspl{MDP}, the transition function (in particular, each distribution $P(s,a)$ over successor states, cf. \cref{def:MDP}) is only known to be an element of an uncertainty set~\cite{DBLP:journals/ior/WiesemannKS14,DBLP:conf/nips/XuM10}.
This set is often assumed to be convex for computational reasons, but generalizations to nonconvex sets exist as well~\cite{DBLP:journals/ior/NilimG05}.
An \gls{iMDP} is a special case of robust \gls{MDP}, where the uncertainty set is described by interval constraints on each transition probability.
Specifically, \glspl{iMDP} have uncertainty sets as \emph{probability simplexes with interval constraints}, which are convex polytopes by construction~\cite{DBLP:books/degruyter/Ben-TalGN09}.
\paragraph{Probabilistic bisimulation.}
Bisimulation is a key concept used to establish equivalence in the behavior between different systems with respect to a particular logic property~\cite{DBLP:books/daglib/BaierKatoen2008}.
Probabilistic (or stochastic) notions of bisimulation have been studied for \glspl{MDP}~\cite{DBLP:conf/birthday/FernsPK14,DBLP:journals/ai/GivanDG03} and other Markov models~\cite{DBLP:journals/iandc/LarsenS91,DBLP:journals/iandc/DesharnaisEP02}.
Since exact probabilistic bisimulation requires transition probabilities to agree \emph{exactly}, various metrics and notions of approximate bisimulation have been developed as well~\cite{DBLP:conf/aaai/FernsPP04,DBLP:journals/entcs/Abate13}.
More recently, probabilistic bisimulation has been studied for interval \glspl{MDP}~\cite{DBLP:conf/lata/HashemiH0STW16,DBLP:conf/qest/HahnHHT16}, and notions of approximate probabilistic bisimulation have been leveraged for robust model checking of probabilistic computation tree logic (PCTL) for interval Markov models~\cite{DBLP:conf/hybrid/DInnocenzoAK12,DBLP:journals/corr/HashemiHK14,DBLP:conf/adhs/LunWDA18}.
In \cref{lemma:simulation_relation}, we establish a probabilistic feedback refinement relation from the abstract \gls{MDP} to the dynamical system.
This relation is exact and yields a \emph{simulation} rather than a \emph{bisimulation} relation: due to the abstraction, not every move by the dynamical system can be matched by the abstract \gls{MDP}.
Estimating the abstract \gls{MDP} by an \gls{iMDP} is, on the other hand, approximate since (as we have shown in \cref{theorem:correctness}) there is a probability of at most $\beta$ that any of the probability intervals is incorrect.
As such, our approach creates a probabilistic closeness guarantee on the satisfaction of a reach-avoid property between the dynamical system and the \gls{iMDP}, similar to the relations presented in~\cite{LSAZ21}
\paragraph{Formal controller synthesis.}
Formal verification and controller synthesis for reachability and reach-avoid problems in stochastic continuous-state systems is an active field of research in safety-critical engineering~\cite{Abate2008probabilisticSystems,LSAZ21}.
Most approaches are either based on formal abstractions of these continuous systems~\cite{Alur2000,DBLP:journals/tac/LahijanianAB15,DBLP:journals/siamads/SoudjaniA13} or work in the continuous domain directly, e.g., using Hamilton-Jacobi reachability analysis~\cite{DBLP:conf/cdc/BansalCHT17,DBLP:conf/cdc/HerbertCHBFT17} or optimization~\cite{Rosolia2020unified}.
Several controller synthesis tools have been developed in this research area, such as \textrm{StocHy}\xspace~\cite{DBLP:conf/tacas/CauchiA19}, \textrm{ProbReach}\xspace~\cite{DBLP:conf/hybrid/ShmarovZ15} and \textrm{SReachTools}\xspace~\cite{DBLP:conf/hybrid/VinodGO19}.
Despite intense activity, however, the majority of these papers and tools rely on \emph{full knowledge} of the probabilistic models.
\paragraph{The scenario approach.}
Building upon this motivation, we break away from this literature by developing a method that can be used to generate formal abstractions \emph{without requiring any knowledge of the noise distribution}.
The main theoretical tool that we leverage in this paper is the scenario approach~\cite{DBLP:journals/mp/CalafioreC05,campi2018introduction}.
The scenario approach has been used for the verification of \glspl{MDP}~\cite{Badings2022STTT} and continuous-time Markov chains~\cite{DBLP:conf/cav/BadingsJJSV22} with uncertain parameters, albeit only for finite-state systems.
However, the non-trivial connection that we make in this paper between the scenario approach theory and techniques for formal abstractions had not been established.
\paragraph{Other sampling techniques.}
The aforementioned tool \textrm{SReachTools}\xspace also exhibits a sampling-based method but relies on Hoeffding's inequality to obtain confidence guarantees~\cite{DBLP:conf/amcc/SartipizadehVAO19}, so the noise is assumed to be sub-Gaussian~\cite{DBLP:books/daglib/0035704}.
By contrast, the scenario approach is \emph{completely distribution-free}~\cite{campi2018introduction}.
Moreover, as we have shown in \cref{fig:intervals_samples,fig:intervals_fraction}, the scenario approach may lead to abstract models with significantly better probability intervals compared to Hoeffding's inequality.
In addition, \textrm{SReachTools}\xspace is limited to problems with convex safe sets (a restrictive assumption in many problems) and its sampling-based methods can only synthesize open-loop controllers, which may undermine the robustness of the overall approach.
Another body of relevant literature entails sampling-based feedback motion planning algorithms, e.g., LQR-Trees~\cite{DBLP:journals/ijrr/TedrakeMTR10}.
However, sampling in LQR-Trees relates to random exploration of the state space and not to stochastic noise affecting the dynamics as in our setting~\cite{DBLP:journals/ijrr/ReistPT16}.
Monte Carlo methods (e.g., particle methods) have also been used to solve stochastic reach-avoid problems~\cite{DBLP:journals/trob/BlackmoreOBW10,DBLP:conf/cdc/LesserOE13}.
These methods simulate the system via many samples of the uncertain variable~\cite{Smith2013sequentialMonteCarlo}.
Monte Carlo methods \emph{approximate} stochastic problems but do not provide rigorous \emph{bounds} with a desired \emph{confidence level} on the obtained results as our approach does.
\paragraph{Distributionally robust optimization.}
In \gls{DRO}, decisions are robust with respect to \emph{ambiguity sets} of distributions~\cite{DBLP:journals/mp/EsfahaniK18,goh2010distributionally,DBLP:journals/ior/WiesemannKS14}.
While the scenario approach uses samples of the uncertain variable, \gls{DRO} works on the domain of uncertainty directly, thus involving potentially complex ambiguity sets~\cite{garatti2019risk}.
Designing robust policies for \glspl{iMDP} with known uncertainty sets was studied by~\citeA{DBLP:conf/cav/PuggelliLSS13}, and~\citeA{DBLP:conf/cdc/WolffTM12}.
Finally, hybrid methods between the scenario approach and robust optimization also exist~\cite{Margellos2014OnProblems}.
\paragraph{PAC literature.}
The term \gls{PAC} refers to obtaining, with high probability, a hypothesis that is a good approximation of some unknown phenomenon~\cite{DBLP:conf/aaai/Haussler90}.
\gls{PAC} learning methods for discrete-state \glspl{MDP} are developed in \citeA{DBLP:journals/jmlr/BrafmanT02},~\citeA{DBLP:conf/rss/FuT14}, and~\citeA{DBLP:journals/ml/KearnsS02}, and \gls{PAC} statistical model checking for \glspl{MDP} in~\citeA{DBLP:conf/cav/AshokKW19}.
\paragraph{Safe and robust learning methods.}
We briefly discuss the emerging field of safe learning~\cite{Brunke2021safelearning,DBLP:journals/jmlr/GarciaF15}.
Recent works use Gaussian processes for learning-based model predictive control~\cite{DBLP:journals/tcst/HewingKZ20,DBLP:conf/cdc/KollerBT018} or reinforcement learning with safe exploration~\cite{DBLP:conf/nips/BerkenkampTS017}, and control barrier functions to reduce model uncertainty~\cite{DBLP:conf/l4dc/TaylorSYA20}.
Safe learning control concerns learning unknown, \emph{deterministic} system dynamics, while imposing strong assumptions on stochasticity~\cite{DBLP:journals/tac/FisacAZKGT19}.
By contrast, our problem setting is fundamentally different: we reason about \emph{stochastic} noise of a completely unknown distribution.
Finally, various methods have been proposed to render reinforcement learning more robust against differences in the dynamics between the training and testing environments~\cite{DBLP:journals/neco/MorimotoD05,DBLP:journals/make/MoosHASCP22}.
For example,~\citeA{DBLP:conf/icra/PengAZA18} train neural network controllers for robotic control tasks on simulation models with randomized dynamics.
The authors show empirically that this randomization leads to controllers that are significantly more robust against discrepancies in the dynamics of the real robot on which they are deployed.
Similarly,~\citeA{DBLP:conf/icml/PintoDSG17} and~\citeA{Vinitsky2020} propose adversarial methods to improve the robustness of reinforcement learning by introducing an adversary which applies maximally destabilizing disturbances to the system.
While these methods have been shown empirically to improve the robustness of reinforcement learning, we remark that providing formal guarantees about safety or robustness (as we do in this paper) is rarely possible.
\section{Concluding Remarks and Future Work}
\label{sec:Conclusion}
We have presented a novel approach for robust control of continuous-state dynamical systems with (stochastic) process noise of unknown distribution.
Our approach is based on a finite abstraction of the continuous-state system in the form of an \gls{iMDP}.
As a key contribution, we have developed a rigorous method to use the scenario approach theory for computing \gls{PAC} probability intervals for such an abstract \gls{iMDP}.
The \gls{PAC}-correctness of these intervals, and thus of the whole abstract \gls{iMDP}, is valid irrespective of the noise distribution.
We have shown how to use the \gls{iMDP} to compute feedback controllers with \gls{PAC} guarantees on the performance on the continuous system.
Our experiments have confirmed this claim, showing that our method effectively solves realistic problems and provides safe lower-bound guarantees on the performance of controllers.
\paragraph{State space discretization.}
The discretization of the state space influences the quality of the reach-avoid guarantees.
Partitions into regions that are smaller are more easily contained in the backward reachable sets of actions, thus enabling more actions in the abstraction.
Moreover, defining more target points leads to an abstract model that captures more actions in general.
Hence, a more fine-grained partition with more target points yields an abstraction that is a more accurate representation of the dynamical system but also increases the computational complexity.
Whilst the time-dependent improved policy synthesis scheme based on state aggregation, as discussed in \cref{subsec:algorithmic_optimization}, balances this trade-off to some extent, we plan to employ more general and sophisticated adaptive discretization schemes in the future, such as those proposed in~\citeA{DBLP:journals/siamads/SoudjaniA13}.
\paragraph{Extensions to general PCTL properties.}
As described in \cref{sec:prelim:problem}, we have considered control objectives in the form of (in)finite-horizon reach-avoid properties.
Formally, these reach-avoid properties contain formulae expressed in probabilistic computation tree logic, or PCTL~\cite{DBLP:conf/voss/CiesinskiG04,DBLP:journals/fac/HanssonJ94}.
Our abstraction approach is valid for properties over both finite and infinite horizons, except for the improved policy synthesis scheme proposed in \cref{subsec:algorithmic_optimization}, which only applies to finite horizons (as this scheme relies on modeling each time step separately).
By contrast, techniques that result in abstraction errors accumulating with time are generally not applicable to infinite-horizon properties~\cite{LSAZ21}.
Moreover, while we have left out rewards for brevity, our approach is also amenable to expected reward properties~\cite{DBLP:books/daglib/BaierKatoen2008} with state-based\footnote{We cannot consider action-based reward functions because there is no direct correspondence between control inputs $\ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}$ for the dynamical system and actions $a \in Act$ of the abstract \gls{iMDP}.} reward functions (mapping states to rewards) as long as the reward function is aligned with the partition, similar to \cref{assumption:RegionAlignment}.
More precisely, all states $\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k \in \ensuremath{R}_s$ belonging to the region of abstract state $s \in S$ must be assigned the same reward.
Under this assumption, our approaches are equally applicable to general PCTL properties, although we leave a formal derivation of these results as an avenue for future work.
\paragraph{Non-stationary noise distributions.}
For our controller synthesis approach to be correct, the samples used for computing the probability intervals of the \gls{iMDP} must be \gls{iid} and drawn from the same distribution as the noise $\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k$ affecting the linear dynamical system in \cref{eq:continuousSystem}.
Thus, our approach requires that the probability distribution of the noise is fixed, which may be a questionable assumption in practice~\cite{Brunke2021safelearning}.
As such, one open research question is to what extent the correctness of our approach can be guaranteed if the noise distribution is not stationary but instead perturbed by some (bounded) distance.
\paragraph{Extensions to systems with uncertain dynamics.}
In this paper, we have considered linear dynamical systems whose dynamics (apart from the distribution of the noise) are precisely known.
Therefore, for physics-based systems, such as a \gls{UAV}, system parameters, including its mass or friction coefficient, must be known exactly.
Our ongoing research, recently presented in~\citeA{Badings2023AAAI}, lifts this restrictive assumption by considering systems with both stochastic noise and uncertain dynamics, e.g., due to imprecisely known parameters.
In particular, such uncertainty in the dynamics causes \emph{epistemic uncertainty}, which is fundamentally different from the probability distributions over outcomes due to process noise, leading to \emph{aleatoric uncertainty}~\cite{sullivan2015introduction}.
In a setting with both epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty, we must simultaneously learn about the unknown deterministic dynamics and the stochastic noise.
Learning deterministic dynamics is common in safe learning control~\cite{Brunke2021safelearning}, but enabling safe exploration requires strong assumptions on stochastic uncertainty.
As such, we see this direction as a challenging avenue for future work.
Extensions to dynamical systems with both aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty also open the door to capturing other types of uncertainty beyond process noise.
Besides the uncertainty in system parameters described above, we may, for example, deal with state/control-dependent process noise or systems with nonlinear dynamics (see below).
Moreover, such an extension may also enable us to lift \cref{assump:BackwardReachRank}, which is needed because our current method requires the system to be fully actuated.
\paragraph{Nonlinear systems.}
While we have focused on linear systems, we wish to develop extensions to nonlinear systems, as discussed in \cref{remark:LinearSystems}.
Such extensions are non-trivial and may require more involved reachability computations~\cite{DBLP:conf/cdc/BansalCHT17,DBLP:conf/cav/ChenAS13}.
Specifically, the challenge is to compute the enabled \gls{iMDP} actions via the backward reachable set defined in \cref{eq:BackwardReach}, which may become non-convex under nonlinear dynamics.
Note that computing the \gls{PAC} probability intervals remains unchanged, as the scenario approach relies on the convexity of the target set only, and not on that of the backward reachable set.
Alternatively, we may apply our method on a linearized version of the nonlinear system, in which case we must account for any linearization error to preserve guarantees.
Similar to the extension with uncertain parameters, this linearization error may potentially be captured by epistemic uncertainty in the system dynamics.
\section{Proof of \cref{theorem:Bounds}}
\label{appendix:Proofs}
The proof of \cref{theorem:Bounds} is adapted from~\citeA[Theorem~5]{romao2022tac}, which is based on three key assumptions: (1) the considered scenario problem belongs to the class of so-called \emph{fully-supported problems} (see~\citeA{DBLP:journals/siamjo/CampiG08} for a definition), (2) its solution is unique, and (3) discarded samples violate all interim optimal solutions with probability one.
In our case, requirement (2) is implied by \cref{assumption:nonAccumulation}, (3) is satisfied by \cref{lemma:Q}, and the problem is fully-supported because the number of decision variables is one.
Under these requirements,~\citeA[Theorem~5]{romao2022tac} states that the risk associated with an optimal solution $\lambda^\star_{\vert Q \vert}$ to \cref{eq:SCP} for $\vert Q \vert$ discarded samples satisfies the following expression:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\amsmathbb{P}^N \Big\{ \ensuremath{P \big( \bm{x} \notin R_j} (\lambda^\star_{\vert Q \vert}) \big) \leq \epsilon \Big\}
= 1 - \sum_{i=0}^{\vert Q \vert} \binom Ni \epsilon^i (1-\epsilon)^{N-i},
%
\end{split}
\label{eq:Proof1}
\end{equation}
where we omit the subscripts in $P_{\bm{w}_k}(\cdot)$ and $\bm{x}_{k+1}$ for brevity.
\cref{eq:Proof1} is the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of a beta distribution with parameters $\vert Q \vert + 1$ and $N-\vert Q \vert$.
We denote this CDF by $F_{\vert Q \vert}(\epsilon)$, where we explicitly write the dependency on $\vert Q \vert$.
Hence, we obtain
\begin{equation}
F_{\vert Q \vert}(\epsilon) = \amsmathbb{P}^N \Big\{ \ensuremath{P \big( \bm{x} \notin R_j} (\lambda^\star_{\vert Q \vert}) \big) \leq \epsilon \Big\} = \tilde{\beta}.
\label{eq:Proof1b}
\end{equation}
Thus, if we discard $\vert Q \vert$ samples, \cref{eq:Proof1b} returns the confidence probability $\tilde{\beta} \in (0,1)$ by which the probability of $\bm{x}_{k+1} \notin R_j(\lambda^\star_{\vert Q \vert})$ is upper bounded by $\epsilon$.
Conversely, we can compute the value of $\epsilon$ needed to obtain a confidence probability of $\tilde{\beta}$, using the percent point function (PPF) $G_{\vert Q \vert}(\tilde{\beta})$:
\begin{equation}
\amsmathbb{P}^N \Big\{ \ensuremath{P \big( \bm{x} \notin R_j} (\lambda^\star_{\vert Q \vert}) \big) \leq G_{\vert Q \vert}(\tilde{\beta}) \Big\} = \tilde{\beta}.
\label{eq:Proof2}
\end{equation}
The PPF is the inverse of the CDF, so by definition, we have
\begin{equation}
\epsilon = G_{\vert Q \vert}(\tilde{\beta}) = G_{\vert Q \vert}\big( F_{\vert Q \vert} (\epsilon) \big).
\label{eq:Proof2b}
\end{equation}
Note that $P(\bm{x} \in R) + P(\bm{x} \notin R) = 1$, so \cref{eq:Proof1b} equals
\begin{equation}
F_{\vert Q \vert}(\epsilon) = \amsmathbb{P}^N \Big\{ \ensuremath{P \big( \bm{x} \in R_j} (\lambda^\star_{\vert Q \vert}) \big) \geq 1-\epsilon \Big\} = \tilde{\beta}.
\label{eq:Proof3}
\end{equation}
By defining $p = 1 - \epsilon$, \cref{eq:Proof3,eq:Proof2b} are combined as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\amsmathbb{P}^N \Big\{ 1 - G_{\vert Q \vert}(\tilde{\beta}) \leq \ensuremath{P \big( \bm{x} \in R_j} (\lambda^\star_{\vert Q \vert}) \big) \Big\}
= 1 - \sum_{i=0}^{\vert Q \vert} \binom Ni (1-p)^i p^{N-i} = \tilde{\beta}.
\label{eq:Proof4}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In what follows, we separately use \cref{eq:Proof3} to prove the lower and upper bound of the probability interval in \cref{theorem:Bounds}.
\paragraph{Lower bound.}
There are $N$ possible values for $\vert Q \vert$, ranging from $0$ to $N-1$.
The case $\vert Q \vert = N$ (i.e. all samples are discarded) is treated as a special case in \cref{theorem:Bounds}.
We fix $\tilde{\beta} = 1 - \frac{\beta}{2 N}$ in \cref{eq:Proof4}, yielding the series of equations
\begin{alignat}{3}
& \amsmathbb{P}^N \Big\{ 1 - G_{0} \big( 1 - \frac{\beta}{2 N} \big) \leq \ensuremath{P \big( \bm{x} \in R_j} (\lambda^\star_{0}) \big) \Big\} && = && 1 - \frac{\beta}{2 N}
\nonumber
\\
& \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad \vdots && && \vdots
\label{eq:Proof_sysEquations_low}
\\
& \amsmathbb{P}^N \Big\{ 1 - G_{N-1} \big( 1 - \frac{\beta}{2 N} \big) \leq \ensuremath{P \big( \bm{x} \in R_j} (\lambda^\star_{N-1}) \big) \Big\} && = && 1 - \frac{\beta}{2 N}.
\nonumber
\end{alignat}
Denote the event that $1 - G_{n} \big( 1 - \frac{\beta}{2 N} \big) \leq \ensuremath{P \big( \bm{x} \in R_j} (\lambda^\star_{n}) \big)$ for $n = 0,\ldots,N-1$ by $\mathcal{A}_n$.
Regardless of $n$, this event has a probability of $\amsmathbb{P}^N \{ \mathcal{A}_n \} = 1 - \frac{\beta}{2N}$, and its complement $\mathcal{A}_n'$ of $\amsmathbb{P}^N \{ \mathcal{A}_n' \} = \frac{\beta}{2N}$.
Via Boole's inequality, we know that
\begin{equation}
\amsmathbb{P}^N \Big\{ \bigcup_{i = 0}^{N-1} \mathcal{A}_n' \Big\} \leq
\sum_{i=0}^{N-1} \amsmathbb{P}^N \big\{ \mathcal{A}_n' \big\}
=
\frac{\beta}{2N} N
=
\frac{\beta}{2}.
\label{eq:UnionBound}
\end{equation}
Thus, for the intersection of all events in \cref{eq:Proof_sysEquations_low} we have
\begin{equation}
\amsmathbb{P}^N \Big\{ \bigcap_{i = 0}^{N-1} \mathcal{A}_n \Big\}
=
1 - \amsmathbb{P}^N \Big\{ \bigcup_{i = 0}^{N-1} \mathcal{A}_n' \Big\}
\geq 1 - \frac{\beta}{2}.
\label{eq:UnionBound2}
\end{equation}
After observing the samples at hand, we replace $\vert Q \vert$ by the actual value of $N_j^\text{out}$ (as per \cref{def:Nj_in}), giving one of the expressions in \cref{eq:Proof_sysEquations_low}.
The probability that this expression holds cannot be smaller than that of the intersection of all events in \cref{eq:UnionBound2}.
Thus, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\amsmathbb{P}^N \Big\{
\munderbar{p}
\leq
\ensuremath{P \big( \bm{x} \in R_j} (\lambda^\star_{N_j^\text{out}}) \big)
\Big\} \geq 1 - \frac{\beta}{2},
\label{eq:Proof6_lowerBound}
\end{equation}
where $\munderbar{p} = 0$ if $N_j^\text{out} = N$ (which trivially holds with probability one), and otherwise $\munderbar{p} = 1 - G_{N_j^\text{out}} (1 - \frac{\beta}{2 N})$ is the solution for $p$ to \cref{eq:Proof4}, with $\vert Q \vert = N_j^\text{out}$ and $\tilde{\beta} = 1-\frac{\beta}{2 N}$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
1 - \frac{\beta}{2 N} &= 1 - \sum_{i=0}^{N_j^\text{out}} \binom Ni (1-p)^i p^{N-i},
\label{eq:Proof7}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
which is equivalent to \cref{eq:TheoremLowerBound}.
\paragraph{Upper bound.}
\cref{eq:Proof4} is rewritten as an upper bound as
\begin{equation}
\amsmathbb{P}^N \Big\{ \ensuremath{P \big( \bm{x} \in R_j} (\lambda^\star_{\vert Q \vert}) \big) < 1 - G_{\vert Q \vert}(\tilde{\beta}) \Big\} = 1 - \tilde{\beta},
\label{eq:Proof8}
\end{equation}
where again, $\vert Q \vert$ can range from $0$ to $N-1$.
However, to obtain high-confidence guarantees on the upper bound, we now fix $\tilde{\beta} = \frac{\beta}{2N}$, which yields the series of equations
\begin{alignat}{3}
& \amsmathbb{P}^N \Big\{ \ensuremath{P \big( \bm{x} \in R_j} (\lambda^\star_{0}) \big) < 1 - G_{0} \big( \frac{\beta}{2 N} \big) \Big\} & = & 1 - \frac{\beta}{2 N}
\nonumber
\\
& \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad \vdots & & \vdots
\label{eq:Proof_sysEquations_upp}
\\
& \amsmathbb{P}^N \Big\{ \ensuremath{P \big( \bm{x} \in R_j} (\lambda^\star_{N-1}) \big) < 1 - G_{N-1} \big( \frac{\beta}{2 N} \big) \Big\} & = & 1 - \frac{\beta}{2 N}.
\nonumber
\end{alignat}
Analogous to the lower bound case, Boole's inequality implies that the intersection of all expressions in \cref{eq:Proof_sysEquations_upp} has a probability of at least $1 - \frac{\beta}{2}$.
After observing the samples at hand, we replace $\vert Q \vert$ by $N_j^\text{out} - 1$, yielding one of the expressions in \cref{eq:Proof_sysEquations_upp}.
For this expression, it holds that
\begin{equation}
\amsmathbb{P}^N \Big\{
\ensuremath{P \big( \bm{x} \in R_j} (\lambda^\star_{N_j^\text{out} - 1}) \big) \leq \bar{p}
\Big\} \geq 1 - \frac{\beta}{2},
\label{eq:Proof10_upperBound}
\end{equation}
where $\bar{p} = 1$ if $N_j^\text{out} = 0$ (which trivially holds with probability one), and otherwise $\bar{p} = 1 - G_{N_j^\text{out} - 1}(\frac{\beta}{2 N})$ is the solution for $p$ to \cref{eq:Proof4}, with $\vert Q \vert = N_j^\text{out} - 1$ and $\tilde{\beta} = \frac{\beta}{2 N}$:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\beta}{2 N} = 1 - \sum_{i=0}^{N_j^\text{out} -1 } \binom Ni (1-p)^i p^{N-i},
\label{eq:Proof11}
\end{equation}
which is equivalent to \cref{eq:TheoremUpperBound}.
\paragraph{Probability interval.}
We invoke \cref{lemma:Q_cardinality}, which states that $R_j(\lambda^\star_{N_j^\text{out}}) \subseteq R_j \subset R_j(\lambda^\star_{N_j^\text{out} - 1})$, so we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\ensuremath{P \big( \bm{x} \in R_j} (\lambda^\star_{N_j^\text{out}}) \big)
& \leq
P (\bm{x} \in R_j)
=
P(s_i, a_l)(s_j)
\label{eq:Proof12}
\\
& < \ensuremath{P \big( \bm{x} \in R_j} (\lambda^\star_{N_j^\text{out} - 1}) \big).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We use \cref{eq:Proof12} to write \cref{eq:Proof6_lowerBound,eq:Proof10_upperBound} in terms of the transition probability $P(s_i, a_l)(s_j)$.
Finally, by applying Boole's inequality, we combine \cref{eq:Proof6_lowerBound,eq:Proof10_upperBound} as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\amsmathbb{P}^N \Big\{
\munderbar{p} \leq P(s_i, a_l)(s_j) \, \bigcap \, P(s_i, a_l)(s_j) \leq \bar{p}
\Big\}
& = \amsmathbb{P}^N \Big\{
\munderbar{p} \leq P(s_i, a_l)(s_j) \leq \bar{p}
\Big\}
\\
& \geq 1 - \beta,
\label{eq:Proof13_interval}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
which is equal to \cref{eq:TheoremBounds}, so we conclude the proof.
\section{Proof of \cref{corollary:tighter_confidence}}
\label{proof:cor:tight}
\begin{proof}
The derivation of \cref{corollary:tighter_confidence} is analogous to the proof of \cref{theorem:correctness}, with the only difference that the number of unique probability intervals is reduced.
The key observation is that the successor state $\bm{x}_{k+1}$ in \cref{eq:continuous_successor} is linear in the target point $\bm{d}_a$ and the noise $\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k$.
Thus, by denoting $p(\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k)$ as the (unknown) probability density function of the noise, we rewrite \cref{eq:multivariateIntegral_mainProblem} as
%
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:cor:tight1}
P(s,a)(s')
&= \int_{\ensuremath{R}_{s'}} p_{\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k}\left(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1} \ | \ \ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, \ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k(\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k, a)\right)d\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1}
\\
&= \int_{\ensuremath{R}_{s'} - \bm{d}_a} p\left(\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k\right)d\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
%
that is, for a fixed density function of $\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k$ the transition probability $P(s,a)(s')$ is defined by the relative position $\ensuremath{R}_{s'} - \bm{d}_{a}$ between the region and the target point.
Thus, for any two regions $\ensuremath{R}_{s'}$, $\ensuremath{R}_{s''}$ and two target points $\bm{d}_a$, $\bm{d}_{a'}$ whose relative positions are the same, i.e. $\ensuremath{R}_{s'} - \bm{d}_a = \ensuremath{R}_{s''} - \bm{d}_{a'}$, it holds that
%
\begin{equation}
P(s,a)(s')
= \int_{\ensuremath{R}_{s'} - \bm{d}_a} p\left(\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k\right)d\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k
= \int_{\ensuremath{R}_{s''} - \bm{d}_{a'}} p\left(\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k\right)d\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k
= P(s,a')(s'').
\end{equation}
%
Now, observe that under the proposed partitioning and target points, the number of pairs $(R_{s'}, \bm{d}_a)$ with equal relative position is maximized.
Formally, let $\mu_{s'}$ be the center of $\ensuremath{R}_{s'}$ for each $s' \in S \setminus \{s_\star\}$, and let $w_i$ be the width of the rectangular partitioning in each dimension $i=1,\ldots,n$.
Then, the difference $\mu_{s'} - \bm{d}_a$ for any $s' \in S$, $a \in Act$ can be written as
%
\begin{equation}
\mu_{s'} - \bm{d}_a = \begin{bmatrix}
\xi_1 w_1
\\
\vdots
\\
\xi_n w_n
\end{bmatrix}, \,\,
\xi_i \in \{-r_i+1, \ldots, r_i-1 \} \, \forall i = 1,\ldots,n,
\end{equation}
%
except when $s'$ is the absorbing state.
Since each integer variable $\xi_i$ can take one of $2 r_i - 1$ different values, we observe that $\mu_{s'} - \bm{d}_a$ can take one of $\prod_{i=1}^n (2r_i - 1)$ different values.
Thus, the \gls{iMDP} has exactly $\prod_{i=1}^n (2r_i - 1)$ unique transition probabilities (and hence the same number of unique probability intervals), plus one unique probability $P(s,a)(s_\star)$ of transitioning to the absorbing state $s_\star$ for each $a \in Act$.
Plugging in this total number of $\prod_{i=1}^n (2r_i - 1) + |Act|$ unique probability intervals, we obtain the desired expression in \cref{eq:cor:tight1} and thus conclude the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Details on Satellite Rendezvous Benchmark}
\label{appendix:spacecraft}
\subsection{Explicit Model Formulation}
\label{subappendix:spacecraft_model}
The dynamical system of this benchmark problem is defined on the so-called Hill's frame, which represents the relative coordinate frame describing the difference in position and velocity between a chaser and target satellite~\cite{DBLP:conf/cdc/JewisonE16}.
The dynamics of this 6-dimensional system are defined as follows:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1} =& \scalemath{0.9}{\begin{bmatrix}
4-3\cos(n \tau) & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{n} \sin(n \tau) & \frac{2}{n} (1-\cos(n \tau)) & 0 \\
6(\sin(n \tau) - n\tau) & 1 & 0 & \frac{-2}{n} (1-\cos(n \tau)) & \frac{4}{n} \sin(n \tau) - 3n\tau & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \cos(n \tau) & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{n} \sin(n \tau) \\
3n \sin(n \tau) & 0 & 0 & \cos(n \tau) & 2 \sin(n \tau) & 0 \\
-6n(1-\cos(n \tau)) & 0 & 0 & -2 \sin(n \tau) & 4 \cos(n \tau) - 3 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -n \sin(n \tau) & 0 & 0 & \cos(n \tau)
\end{bmatrix}}
\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k} \\
&+ \scalemath{0.9}{\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{1}{n}\sin(n \tau) & \frac{2}{n}(1 - \cos(n\tau)) & 0 \\
\frac{-2}{n}(1-\cos(n \tau)) & \frac{1}{n}(4 \sin(n \tau) - 3n\tau) & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \frac{1}{n}\sin(n \tau) \\
\cos(n \tau) & 2\sin(n \tau) & 0 \\
-2\sin(n \tau) & 4\cos(n \tau) - 3 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \cos(n \tau)
\end{bmatrix}} \ensuremath{\bm{u}}_{k} + \mathcal{N} \Big( \scalemath{0.9}{\begin{bmatrix}0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{bmatrix}}, \text{diag} \big( \scalemath{0.9}{\begin{bmatrix}
0.1 \\ 0.1 \\ 0.01 \\ 0.01 \\ 0.01 \\ 0.01
\end{bmatrix}} \big) \Big),
\label{eq:spacecraft_explicitSystem}
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where $\tau$ is the discretization time, and $n$ is a constant; see \citeA{DBLP:conf/cdc/JewisonE16} for details.
Every element of the 3-dimensional control input vector $\ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k$ is constrained to the interval $[-2, 2]$.
Since the model in \cref{eq:spacecraft_explicitSystem} is not fully actuated (it has only $3$ controls, versus a state of dimension $6$), we group every two discrete time steps together (as described in \cref{sec:Abstraction}) and rewrite the model as follows:
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+2} = \bar{A} \ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k + \bar{B} \ensuremath{\bm{u}}_{k,k+1} + \ensuremath{\bm{w}}_{k,k+1},
\label{eq:UAV_fullyActuated}
\end{equation}
where $\bar{A} \in \amsmathbb{R}^{6 \times 6}$ and $\bar{B} \in \amsmathbb{R}^{6 \times 6}$ are properly redefined matrices, and $\ensuremath{\bm{u}}_{k,k+1} \in \amsmathbb{R}^6$ and $\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_{k,k+1} \in \amsmathbb{R}^6$ reflect the control inputs and process noise at both time steps $k$ and $k+1$, combined in one vector.
\section{Details on UAV Benchmark}
\label{appendix:UAV}
\subsection{Explicit Model Formulation}
\label{subappendix:UAV_model}
The 6-dimensional state vector of the \gls{UAV} model is $\ensuremath{\bm{x}} = [p_x, v_x, p_y, v_y, p_z, v_z]^\top \in \amsmathbb{R}^6$, where $p_i$ and $v_i$ are the position and velocity in the direction $i$.
Every element of the vector of control inputs $\ensuremath{\bm{u}} = [f_x, f_y, f_z]^\top \in \amsmathbb{R}^3$ is constrained to the interval $[-4, 4]$.
The discrete-time dynamics are an extension of the lower-dimensional case in~\citeA{Badings2021FilterUncertainty}, and are written in the form of \cref{eq:continuousSystem} as follows:
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1} = \begin{bmatrix}
1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}
\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k} + \begin{bmatrix}
0.5 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0.5 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0.5 \\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix} \ensuremath{\bm{u}}_{k} + \ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k,
\label{eq:UAV_explicitSystem}
\end{equation}
where $\ensuremath{\bm{w}}_k$ is the effect of turbulence on the continuous state, which we model using a Dryden gust model; we use a Python implementation by~\citeA{bohn2019deep}.
Note that the drift term $\ensuremath{\bm{q}}_k = 0$, and is thus omitted from \cref{eq:UAV_explicitSystem}.
Similar to the dynamical system of the satellite benchmark in \cref{eq:spacecraft_explicitSystem}, we group every two discrete time steps together to render the system in \cref{eq:UAV_explicitSystem} fully actuated.
The objective is to reach the goal region, which is also depicted in \cref{fig:UAV_layout}, within $64$ steps (i.e. $32$ steps with the model in \cref{eq:UAV_fullyActuated}).
This goal region is written as the following set of continuous states (for brevity, we omit an explicit definition of the critical regions):
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}_G} = \{ \ensuremath{\bm{x}} \in \amsmathbb{R}^6 \ \vert \ 11 \leq p_x \leq 15, \ \ 1 \leq p_y \leq 5, \ \ -7 \leq p_z \leq -3 \}.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Run Times and Size of Model Abstraction}
\label{subappendix:UAV_results}
The average run times and \gls{iMDP} model sizes (over 10 runs) for all iterations of the \gls{UAV} benchmark are presented in \cref{tab:DetailedResults}.
Computing the states and actions of the underlying \gls{MDP} took one minute but since this step is only performed in the first iteration, we omit the value from the table.
The run times per iteration are the times for those steps within the while-loop in \cref{alg:algorithm_planning}.
The number of states (which equals the number of regions in the partition) and choices (the total number of state-action pairs) of the \gls{iMDP} are independent of the value of $N$.
By contrast, the number of transitions increases with $N$, because the additional noise samples may reveal more possible outcomes of a state-action pair.
\input{Figures/Results/Table}
\section{Details on Building Temperature Regulation Benchmark}
\label{appendix:BAS}
\subsection{Explicit Model Formulation}
\label{subappendix:BAS_model}
This model is a variant of the two-zone building automation system benchmark with stochastic dynamics in~\citeA{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1803-06315}.
The state vector of the model is $\ensuremath{\bm{x}} = [T^z_1, T^z_2, T^r_1, T^r_2]^\top \in \amsmathbb{R}^4$, reflecting both room (zone) temperatures ($T^z$) and both radiator temperatures ($T^r$).
The control inputs $\ensuremath{\bm{u}} = [T^\text{ac}_1, T^\text{ac}_2, T^\text{boil}_1, T^\text{boil}_2]^\top \in \amsmathbb{R}^4$ are the air conditioning (ac) and boiler temperatures, respectively, which are constrained within $14 \leq T^\text{ac} \leq 26$ and $65 \leq T^\text{boil} \leq 85$.
The changes in the temperature of both zones are governed by the following thermodynamics:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\dot{T}^z_1 =& \frac{1}{C_1} \Big[ \frac{T^z_2 - T^z_1}{R_{1,2}} + \frac{T_\text{wall} - T^z_1}{R_{1,\text{wall}}}
+ m C_{pa} (T^\text{ac}_1 - T^z_1) + P_\text{out} (T_1^r - T_1^z) \Big]
\nonumber
\\
\dot{T}^z_2 =& \frac{1}{C_2} \Big[ \frac{T^z_1 - T^z_2}{R_{1,2}} + \frac{T_\text{wall} - T^z_2}{R_{2,\text{wall}}}
+ m C_{pa} (T^\text{ac}_2 - T^z_2) + P_\text{out} (T_2^r - T_2^z) \Big],
\nonumber
\end{align}
\label{eq:BAS_zoneTemps}
\end{subequations}
where $C_i$ is the thermal capacitance of zone $i$, and $R_{i,j}$ is the resistance between zones $i$ and $j$, $m$ is the air mass flow, $C_{pa}$ is the specific heat capacity of air, and $P_\text{out}$ is the rated output of the radiator.
Similarly, the dynamics of the radiator in room $i$ are governed by the following equation:
\begin{equation}
\dot{T}_i^r = k_1 (T_i^z - T_i^r) + k_0 w (T_i^\text{boil} - T_i^r),
\label{eq:BAS_radiatorTemp}
\end{equation}
where $k_0$ and $k_1$ are constant parameters, and $w$ is the water mass flow from the boiler.
For the precise parameter values used, we refer to our codes, which are provided in the supplementary material.
By discretizing \cref{eq:BAS_zoneTemps,eq:BAS_radiatorTemp} by a forward Euler method at a time resolution of $\SI{15}{\minute}$, we obtain the following model in explicit form:
\begin{align}
\ensuremath{\bm{x}}_{k+1} = & \begin{bmatrix}
0.8425 & 0.0537 & -0.0084 & 0.0000 \\
0.0515 & 0.8435 & 0.0000 & -0.0064 \\
0.0668 & 0.0000 & 0.8971 & 0.0000 \\
0.0000 & 0.0668 & 0.0000 & 0.8971
\end{bmatrix} \ensuremath{\bm{x}}_k
\nonumber
+ \begin{bmatrix}
0.0584 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 \\
0.0000 & 0.0599 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 \\
0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0362 & 0.0000 \\
0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0362
\end{bmatrix} \ensuremath{\bm{u}}_k
\\ &
+ \begin{bmatrix}
1.2291 \\ 1.0749 \\ 0.0000 \\ 0.0000
\end{bmatrix} + \Gauss[\begin{bmatrix}0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{bmatrix}]{\begin{bmatrix}
0.01 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0.01 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0.01 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0.01
\end{bmatrix}},
\nonumber
\end{align}
where $\Gauss[\bm\ensuremath{\mu}]{\ensuremath{\Sigma}} \in \amsmathbb{R}^n$ is a multivariate Gaussian random variable with mean $\bm\ensuremath{\mu} \in \amsmathbb{R}^n$ and covariance matrix $\ensuremath{\Sigma}$.
The goal in this problem is to reach a temperature of $19.9 - \SI{20.1}{\celsius}$ in both zones within $32$ discrete time steps of $\SI{15}{\minute}$.
As such, the goal region $\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}_G}$ and critical region $\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}_C}$ are:
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}_G} = \{ \ensuremath{\bm{x}} \in \amsmathbb{R}^2 \ \vert \ 19.9 \leq T^z_1 \leq 20.1, \ 19.9 \leq T^z_2 \leq 20.1 \},
\quad
\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}_C} = \varnothing.
\nonumber
\end{equation}
\subsection{Run Times and Size of Model Abstraction}
\label{subappendix:BAS_results}
The run times and \gls{iMDP} model sizes for all iterations of the 2-zone building temperature regulation benchmark are presented in \cref{tab:DetailedResults}.
Computing the states and actions took $\SI{5.5}{\minute}$, but we omit this value from the table as this step is only performed in the first iteration.
The discussion of model sizes is analogous to \cref{subappendix:UAV_results} on the \gls{UAV} benchmark.
\section{Benchmarks Against Other Tools}
\label{appendix:Benchmarks}
\subsection{Benchmark Against \textrm{StocHy}\xspace}
\label{appendix:StocHy}
We provide a comparison between our approach and \textrm{StocHy}\xspace~\cite{DBLP:conf/tacas/CauchiA19} on a reduced version of the temperature regulation problem in \cref{subappendix:BAS_model} with only one zone.
Thus, the state vector becomes $\bm{x} = [T^z, T^r]^\top$, and the control inputs are $\bm{u} = [T^{\text{ac}}, T^{\text{boil}}]^\top$, which are constrained to $14 \leq T^\text{ac} \leq 28$ and $-10 \leq T^\text{boil} \leq 10$ (note that $T^\text{boil}$ is now relative to the nominal boiler temperature of $\SI{75}{\celsius}$).
Using the same dynamics as in \cref{eq:BAS_zoneTemps,eq:BAS_radiatorTemp}, we obtain the following model in explicit form:
\begin{equation*}
\bm{x}_{k+1} = \begin{bmatrix}
0.8820 & 0.0058 \\
0.0134 & 0.9625
\end{bmatrix} \bm{x}_k + \begin{bmatrix}
0.0584 & 0.0000 \\
0.0000 & 0.0241
\end{bmatrix} \bm{u}_k
+ \begin{bmatrix}
0.9604 \\
1.3269
\end{bmatrix} + \Gauss[\begin{bmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \end{bmatrix}]{\begin{bmatrix}
0.02 & 0 \\
0 & 0.1
\end{bmatrix}}.
\end{equation*}
The objective in this problem is to reach a zone temperature of $20.9 - \SI{21.1}{\celsius}$ within $64$ discrete time steps of $\SI{15}{\minute}$.
As such, the goal region $\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}_G}$ and critical region $\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}_C}$ are:
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}_G} = \{ \bm{x} \in \amsmathbb{R}^2 \ \vert \ 20.9 \leq T^z \leq 21.1 \}, \quad \ensuremath{\mathcal{X}_C} = \varnothing.
\end{equation}
We partition the continuous state space in a rectangular grid of $19 \times 20$ regions of width $\SI{0.2}{\celsius}$, which is centered at $T^z = \SI{21}{\celsius}$ and $T^r = \SI{38}{\celsius}$.
As such, the partition covers zone temperatures between $19.1 - \SI{22.9}{\celsius}$, and radiator temperatures between $36 - \SI{40}{\celsius}$.
\paragraph{Abstraction method.}
Similar to our approach, \textrm{StocHy}\xspace generates robust \gls{iMDP} abstractions of the model above.
However, while our approach also works when the distribution of the noise is unknown, \textrm{StocHy}\xspace requires precise knowledge of the noise distribution.
Another difference is that \textrm{StocHy}\xspace discretizes the control inputs of the dynamical system, to obtain a finite action space.
An \gls{iMDP} action is then associated with the execution of a specific value of the control input $\bm{u}_k$.
In our approach, an \gls{iMDP} action instead reflects an attempted transition to a given target point, and the actual control input $\bm{u}_k$ (calculated using the control law \cref{eq:controlLaw}) depends on the precise continuous state $\bm{x}_k$.
\input{Figures/Results/Table2}
\paragraph{Our approach is faster.}
The run times and model sizes of our approach are reported in \cref{tab:DetailedResults} under BAS (1-zone).
For our approach, the time to compute the states and actions (needed only in the first iteration) is $\SI{0.1}{\second}$, and run times per iteration (excluding verification times) vary from $1.7-\SI{7.2}{\second}$, depending on the value of $N$.
Notably, the \textrm{StocHy}\xspace run times are \emph{orders of magnitude higher}: the abstraction procedure of \textrm{StocHy}\xspace (excluding verification time) took $\SI{45}{\minute}$, compared to $\SI{7.2}{\second}$ for our approach with the maximum of $N=12\,800$ samples (as reported in \cref{tab:DetailedResults}).
We omit a comparison of the verification times, since \textrm{StocHy}\xspace does not leverage \textrm{PRISM}\xspace like our method does.
These results provide a clear message: our approach is more general and significantly faster, and (as shown earlier in \cref{fig:BAS_stochy}) generates results that are qualitatively similar to those obtained from \textrm{StocHy}\xspace.
\subsection{Benchmark Against \textrm{SReachTools}\xspace}
\label{appendix:SReachTools}
We benchmark our approach against the spacecraft docking problem supplied with the \textrm{MATLAB}\xspace toolbox \textrm{SReachTools}\xspace~\cite{DBLP:conf/hybrid/VinodGO19}.
In this problem, one spacecraft must dock with another within $8$ time steps, while remaining in a target tube.
The goal is to compute a controller that maximizes the probability of achieving this objective.
The 4-dimensional state $\bm{x} = [p_x, p_x, v_x, v_y]^\top \in \amsmathbb{R}^4$ describes the position and velocity in both directions.
We adopt the same discrete-time dynamics as used in~\citeA{DBLP:conf/hybrid/VinodGO19} and assume the same Gaussian noise (see the reference for details).
This problem is a finite-horizon reach-avoid problem with a rectangular goal region (target set), while the safe set is a convex tube, as also shown in \cref{fig:SReachTools_results}.
For our approach, we partition the state space into $3\,200$ rectangular regions.
It is fair to note that the safe set in SReachTools is smooth, while ours is not (due to our partition-based approach).
While our current implementation is limited to regions as hyper-rectangles and parallelepipeds, our method can in theory be used with all convex polytopic regions.
\paragraph{Reach-avoid guarantees.}
We compare our method (with $N=25,\ldots,1\,600$ samples of the noise) to the results obtained via the different methods in \textrm{SReachTools}\xspace.
We only consider the particle and Voronoi methods of \textrm{SReachTools}\xspace, because only these methods are sampling-based like our approach (although only the Voronoi method can give confidence guarantees on the results).
The reach-avoid guarantees and run times are presented in \cref{tab:SReachTools}, and simulated trajectories in \cref{fig:SReachTools_results}.
As expected, our reach-avoid guarantees, as well as for the Voronoi method, are a lower bound on the average simulated performance (and are thus safe), while this is not the case for the particle method of \textrm{SReachTools}\xspace.
\paragraph{Complexity and run time.}
As shown in \cref{tab:SReachTools}, the grid-free methods of \textrm{SReachTools}\xspace are generally faster than our abstraction-based approach.
However, we note that our method was designed for non-convex problems, which cannot be solved by \textrm{SReachTools}\xspace.
Interestingly, the complexity of the particle~\cite{DBLP:conf/cdc/LesserOE13} and Voronoi partition method~\cite{DBLP:conf/amcc/SartipizadehVAO19} increases \emph{exponentially} with the number of samples, because their optimization problems have a binary variable for every particle.
By contrast, the complexity of our method increases only \emph{linearly} with the number of samples, because it suffices to count the number of samples in every region, as discussed in \cref{subsec:scenario:bounds}.
\paragraph{Controller type.}
The particle and Voronoi methods of \textrm{SReachTools}\xspace synthesize \emph{open-loop} controllers, which means that they cannot act in response to observed disturbances of the state.
Open-loop controllers do not consider any feedback, making such controllers unsafe in settings with significant noise levels~\cite{aastrom2010feedback}.
By contrast, we derive \emph{piecewise linear feedback} controllers.
This structure is obtained because our controllers are based on a state-based control policy that maps every continuous state within the same region to the same abstract action.
\paragraph{Robustness against disturbances.}
To demonstrate the importance of feedback control, we test both methods under stronger disturbances, by increasing the covariance of the noise by a factor of 10.
As shown in \cref{tab:SReachTools}, the particle method yields a low reach-avoid probability (with the simulated performance being even lower), and the Voronoi method was not able to generate a solution at all.
By contrast, our method still provides safe lower bound guarantees, which become tighter for increasing sample sizes.
Our state-based controller is robust against the stronger noise, because it is able to act in response to observed disturbances, unlike the open-loop methods of \textrm{SReachTools}\xspace that results in a larger error in the simulated state trajectories, as also shown in \cref{fig:SReachTools_results}.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work was partially funded by
the NWO grant NWA.1160.18.238 (\emph{PrimaVera}),
the 2022 JPMorgan Chase Faculty Research Award ``Learning and Reasoning in Repeated Games with Partial Information'',
the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 101008233,
the ERC Consolidator Grant 864075 (\emph{CAESAR}),
the EPSRC IAA Award EP/X525777/1,
and the ERC Advanced Grant 834115 (\emph{FUN2MODEL}).
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
In recent decades, causal inference has gained increasing attention across many areas, such as economic~\cite{imbens2015causal}, health~\cite{connors1996outcomes}, statistic~\cite{ghosh2020sufficient} and computer science~\cite{pearl2009causality}. Causal effect estimation plays an important role in revealing the causal strength between two factors in causal inference. A randomised control experiment is regarded as the standard gold for identifying such causal strength. However, the randomised control experiment is impractical due to the cost, time, or ethic~\cite{imbens2015causal,pearl2009causality}. Therefore, estimating causal effects from observational data is an important alternative in causal inference~\cite{nabi2017semiparametric,li2018mapreduce,ghosh2020sufficient,cheng2020causal,cheng2022toward}.
Confounding bias is the main challenge in the causal effect estimations from observational data~\cite{cattaneo2010efficient,ghosh2020sufficient}. The commonly used approach is confounding adjustment to remove the confounding bias when estimating the causal effects from observational data~\cite{imbens2015causal}. One of the most popular confounding adjustments is the matching method~\cite{stuart2010matching}. The core idea of the matching method is to balance the distribution of covariates between the treatment group and the control group. In detail, the first step of matching is to seek units from the control group with similar covariates to those in the treatment group for constructing a matching pair, and then the causal effect can be calculated based on the matched data. Matching can be performed by selecting different functions of the covariates and selecting different matching algorithms such as Mahalanobis distance matching, full matching, nearest neighbour matching, and genetic matching~\cite{stuart2010matching}.
The most widely used function is propensity scores which are regarded as the probability of a unit receiving a treatment~\cite{rubin1979using,rosenbaum1983central}. In general, the matching method involves transforming multi-dimensional covariates into scalars by using propensity scores so as to overcome the difficulties in matching based on original covariates~\cite{rubin1973matching,rubin2007design}. In fact, the true propensity score is unknown in real applications, and thus the estimation of the propensity score from data is required. However, the errors of the model or model misspecified inevitably occur in the calculation of the propensity score from data \cite{hahn1998role,ghosh2020sufficient,greenewald2021high}. Hence, the propensity score is not a good solution for the matching method~\cite{luo2017estimating}.
Recently, sufficient dimension reduction has been successfully utilised for estimating causal effects from observational data~\cite{ghosh2020sufficient,cheng2022sufficient,nabi2017semiparametric}. For instance, Luo et al. proposed a sufficient dimension reduction matching for causal effect estimation~\cite{luo2019matching}. The proposed matching method utilises a sufficient dimension reduction method to reduce the original covariates into reduced-dimensional covariates that retain the advantages of both the original covariates and the propensity score under mild assumptions. The advantage of the reduced-dimensional covariates is the asymptotic stability and is superior to that of the estimates obtained by using propensity scores. However, this method is to obtain two sets of reduced reduced-dimensional covariates by using sufficient dimension reduction on sub-datasets, i.e. the treated samples and the control samples, but not discovering an adjustment set over the whole data.
In a data, if the number of samples is not big enough, the performance of the proposed method will be decreased significantly. Nabi et al.~\cite{nabi2017semiparametric} proposed a semi-parametric causal sufficient dimension reduction method to deal with multiple treatments. Cheng et al.~\cite{cheng2022sufficient} proposed a CESD matching method for the average causal effect estimation by using a kernel dimension reduction method~\cite{fukumizu2004dimensionality} to reduce the covariates relative to the treatment variable, but not for heterogeneity causal effect estimation.
In this work, we propose a novel \underline{M}atching method based on \underline{I}nverse \underline{R}egression \underline{E}stimator (referred to as MIRE method) for average and heterogeneity causal effect estimation from observational data. In detail, our MIRE method utilises a sufficient dimension reduction method, i.e. the inverse regression estimator, to learn reduced-dimensional covariates relative to the outcome variable over the whole data. Then, the MIRE method utilises the reduced-dimensional covariates to conduct a matching process for imputing the unobserved outcomes (a.k.a counterfactual outcomes)~\cite{imbens2015causal,ghosh2020sufficient,cheng2022sufficient}. Our experimental analysis shows that the reduced-dimensional covariates are well-balanced which is why MIRE addresses the confounding bias very well.
To summarise, our work makes the following contributions.
\begin{itemize}
\item We tackle the problem of estimating heterogeneity causal effect estimation from observational data with sufficient dimension reduction.
\item We propose a novel matching method based on the inverse regression estimator, MIRE, for causal effect estimation from observational data.
\item Extensive experiments demonstrate that our proposed matching method is more effective in terms of the causal effect estimation from observational data.
\end{itemize}
\section{background}
\subsection{Potential Outcome Model}
Let $T$ to be a binary treatment that includes $T_{i} = 0$ (a controlled unit) and $T_{i} = 1$ (a treated unit), where $i$ represents an unit. The set of units which are not assigned to a certain treatment is the control group, and the set of units which are assigned to a certain treatment is the treatment group. The set $X$ is a set of pretreatment covariates, i.e. the covariates are unchanged before and after that the treatment and outcome variables are observed~\cite{imbens2015causal,cheng2022sufficient}. The potential outcomes $Y_{i}$ is defined as the outcome of unit $i$, i.e. $Y_{i}(0)$ and $Y_{i}(1)$ are the potential outcomes of unit $i$ unassigned and assigned to a treatment. Note that both potential outcomes for a unit $i$ can not be observed at the same time. It belongs to a fundamental challenging problem in causal inference~\cite{rubin1974estimating,imbens2015causal}. Under the potential outcome model, the individual causal effect and average causal effects can be defined as follows.
\begin{equation}
ITE=Y_{i}(1)-Y_{i}(0),
\label{(1)}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
ATE=E[Y(1)-Y(0)].
\label{(2)}
\end{equation}
The following assumptions are usually required when we utilise the potential outcome model to estimate the causal effects from observational data.
\begin{assumption}[Stable Unit Treatment Value Assumption (SUTVA)~\cite{imbens2015causal}]
The potential outcome of a unit is not affected by whether or not other units are treated. That means, for each unit, its potential outcomes only rely on the treatment $T$, and there is no different form or version of each treatment level.
\end{assumption}
\begin{assumption}[Unconfoundedness~\cite{imbens2015causal}]
Conditioning on the set of covariate $X$, the treatment $T$ was independent of the potential outcomes $Y$, formally $Y(1), Y(0) \Vbar T|X$.
\end{assumption}
This assumption shows that all units with the set of covariates $X$ are randomly assigned to treatment.
\begin{assumption}[Overlap~\cite{imbens2015causal}]
For each unit, it has a non-zero probability to being treated or control when given the set of covariate $X$, i.e.
$0<P(T=t|X)<1, t=0, 1$.
\end{assumption}
This assumption shows that there is a probability that each unit is assigned to a treatment $t$. Note that the assumptions of Unconfoundedness and Overlap are usually called ``the ignorability assumption''. The ignorability assumption is not testable directly from data since the counterfactual outcomes are unmeasured~\cite{imbens2015causal}. Consequently, the set of covariates $X$ consists of all relevant and irrelevant covariates in terms of estimating the causal effect of $T$ on $Y$. Hence, it is necessary to discover an adjustment set $Z$ from $X$ to accurately estimate the causal effect of $T$ on $Y$. The propensity score always plays a role in causal effect estimation from observational data and is defined below.
\begin{definition}[Propensity score~\cite{imbens2015causal}]
The propensity score is defined as the conditional probability of a unit being assigned to a treatment conditioning on the set of covariates $X$.
\begin{equation}
e(x)=P(T=1|X)
\label{(3)}
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
The balance score denoted as $b(x)$ is proposed by Rosenbaum and Rubin~\cite{rosenbaum1983central} that allows a class of functions to model the covariate $X$. In practice, the balance score should be satisfied the unconfoundedness assumption as well (Lemma 12.2 in~\cite{imbens2015causal}).
\begin{equation}
Y(1), Y(0)\Vbar T|b(x)
\label{(4)}
\end{equation}
The balance scores contain the propensity scores and the original covariates, and others. Ignorability assumption also suggests that units with the same or approximately equal balance scores have the same distribution of covariates.
\subsection{Matching Method}
The matching method is to identify the units in the control group with a similar distribution of covariates to the units in the treatment group, so that the potential outcomes of the units in the control group are used to impute the missing potential outcomes of units in the treatment group. The essential idea of the matching method is to simulate the process of randomised control experiments. Thus the matched units can be regarded as the counterfactual outcome of units~\cite{rubin1973matching,rubin1974estimating,rubin2007design}. In a matching method, the potential outcome of the $i$-th unit can be obtained according to the formulas \ref{(5)} and \ref{(6)}.
\begin{equation}
\label{(5)}
\hat{Y}_{i}(1)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
Y_{i}, & \text { if } t=1 \\
\frac{1}{|\ell(i)|} \sum_{{j} \in \ell(i)} Y_{j}, & \text { if } t=0\\
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{(6)}
\hat{Y}_{i}(0)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{1}{|\ell(i)|} \sum_{{j} \in \ell(i)} Y_{j}, & \text { if } t=1\\
Y_{i}, & \text { if } t=0 \\
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\ell$ denotes that the sample set matches the $i$-th unit from the control or treatment group.
In general, the distribution of covariates in the matched data is more similar between two groups than before matching. Therefore, the matched results can be used to calculate the average causal effect so as to reduce the influence of confounding factors.
\section{The Proposed MIRE Method}
In this section, we first prove that $\psi(X) = X^{T} \beta$ by sufficient dimension reduction (SDR) is a balance score for addressing the confounding bias when estimating the causal effects from observational data. Then we introduce our proposed MIRE method (Matching based on the inverse regression estimator) for causal effect estimation.
\subsection{A Central DRS is a Sufficient Balance Score}
Sufficient dimension reduction (SDR) is a dimension reduction method which is widely used for data processing~\cite{cook1996graphics,cook2009regression,fukumizu2004dimensionality}. For a response variable $Y$ and a set of covariates $X$, SDR is to learn a function $\psi(X)$ such that the original covariates $X$ can be reduced into a subspace $X^{T}\beta \in \mathbb{R}^{p\times k}$ with $k\ll p$. In this work, we assume that the function $\psi(X) = X^{T}\beta$ is existed and can be expressed as follows.
\begin{equation}
\label{(7)}
Y\Vbar X|X^{T} \beta
\end{equation}
\noindent where the column subspace of $\beta$ is called the dimension reduction space (DRS). Hence, it is important to learn the subspace $\beta$ in the SDR method. It is worth noting that $X^{T} \beta$ obtained by using an SDR method to reduce the dimension of the covariate $X$ and can be viewed as a function of $\psi(X)$. When a subspace $S_{Y|Z}$ is the intersection of all other dimension reduction subspaces, the subspace $S_{Y|Z}$ is well-known as the central DRS~\cite{cook1996graphics,fukumizu2004dimensionality}. The central DRS has the smallest dimension and unique dimension-reduction subspace~\cite{connors1996effectiveness}. Thus, in our work, we would like to learn the central DRS $S_{Y|Z}$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{theo:001}
Given an observational data $O$ that contains the treatment $T$, the outcome $Y$, and the set of the pretreatment variables $X$. Suppose that the central subspace $S_{Y|Z}$ is existing and with $r$-dimensional, where $r\ll p$. Then there is an arbitrary basis matrix $\beta \in \mathbb{R}^{p\times k}$ such that $X^{T} \beta$ satisfies $Y(1), Y(0)\Vbar T|X^{T} \beta$ and is a balancing score.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Under the pretreatment variable assumption, $X$ has not had a descendant node of either $W$ or $Y$. Under the ignorability assumption, the causal effect of $T$ on $Y$ can be calculated unbiasedly based on confounding adjustment or adjusting for a balance score. The existence of a central subspace $S_{Y|Z}$ ensures that there is an arbitrary basis matrix $\beta \in \mathbb{R}^{p\times k}$ such that $Y\Vbar X| X^{T} \beta$ holds according to the invariant property of central subspace~\cite{cook1996graphics,ghosh2020sufficient}. Mathematically, $X^{T} \beta\cong X$ holds. Moreover, the unconfoundedness assumption, i.e. $Y(1), Y(0)\Vbar T|X$ holds. So replacing $X$ in $Y(1),Y(0)\Vbar T|X$ with $X^{T} \beta$, we have $Y(1), Y(0)\Vbar T|X^{T} \beta$. Therefore, $X^{T} \beta$ is a balance score according to the invariant property of central subspace and $Y(1), Y(0)\Vbar T|X^{T} \beta$.
\end{proof}
Based on Theorem~\ref{theo:001}, $X^{T} \beta$ is a balance score for unbiased causal effect estimation from observational data. That means, it is sufficient to use $X^{T} \beta$ as balance scores in the matching method for unbiased causal effect estimations. It is worth noting that another advantage of SDR is able to reduce the dimension of original covariates while retaining the important information.
In this work, we adopt the inverse regression estimator (IRE) method for learning the central DRS since IRE belonging to the inverse regression (IR) method family is an optimal method with the highest asymptotic efficiency~\cite{cook2005sufficient}.
When $Y$ is the continuous value, $Y$ is discretised with its range divided into $h$ slices based on the previous notation~\cite{cook2005sufficient}. The central subspace $\beta$ can be obtained by calculating the following formula.
\begin{equation}
\beta_{\xi_{y}} = {\textstyle \sum_{y=1}^{h}}Span(\xi _{y})
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\xi_{y}=\Sigma ^{-1}(E(X|Y=y)-E(X))$.
Furthermore, we assume that the linearity condition for estimating central subspace., i.e. $E(Z|P_{S_{Y|Z}}Z)=P_{S_{Y|Z} }Z$ is induced, based on which the central subspace is linked to the inverse regression of $Z$ on $Y$.
\subsection{implementation of MIRE}
In this study, we use the inverse regression estimator (IRE)~\cite{cook2005sufficient} to estimate the central DRS for our MIRE method. The IRE method is to estimate the DRS by minimising the objective function~\ref{(8)}. First, the following equation is used to calculate the quadratic discrepancy for the IRE method.
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\label{(8)}
F_{k}^{IRE} (S, C)=&(vec(\hat{\zeta})-vec(SC)) ^{T}\hat{\Gamma} _{\hat{\zeta}} ^{-1} \\
&(vec(\hat{\zeta})-vec(SC))
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\hat{\Gamma}_{\hat{\zeta}} ^{-1} $ is a nonsingular covariance matrix. The columns of $S\in \mathbb{R}^{p\times k}$ represent a basis for Span($\xi$), and $C\in \mathbb{R}^{k\times (h-1)}$ represents the coordinates of $\xi$ relative to $S$. $\hat{\zeta }$ satisfies $\hat{\zeta }\equiv \beta \gamma D_{f}A $, where $\beta\in \mathbb{R}^{p\times k}$ is a basis of DRS. $A$ is a nonstochastic matrix satisfies $A^{T}A=I_{h-1} $ and $A^{T}1_{h}=0 $. $\gamma$ is a vector such that $\xi=\beta \gamma$. $D_{f}$ is a diagonal matrix with the elements of the vector $f$ on the diagonal, where $\hat{\mathrm{f}}=(\hat{f}_{1}, ..., \hat{f}_{h})$. $vec(\cdot)$ denotes the operator that constructs a vector from a matrix by stacking its columns and can be formalised as follows.
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
vec(C)=&[(I_{h-1}\otimes S^{T}) V_{n}(I_{h-1}\otimes S) ]^{-1}\times \\
&(I_{h-1}\otimes S^{T}) V_{n}vec(\hat{\xi } )
\label{(9)}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\otimes$ is the Kronecker product, which is an operation on two matrices of arbitrary size resulting in a block matrix. $V_{n}$ is a positive-definite matrix and is equal to a consistent estimate $\hat{\Gamma} _{\hat{\xi } } ^{-1}$ of $\Gamma _{\hat{\zeta}} ^{-1}$.
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\hat{S} _{d} = Q_{S_{(-d)} } [Q_{S_{(-d)} }(c_{d}^{T}\otimes I_{p} )Q_{S_{(-d)} }]^{-} \times \\Q_{S_{(-d)} }(c_{d}^{T}\otimes I_{p})V_{n}\alpha _{d}
\label{(10)}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\alpha _{d} = vec(\hat{\zeta} -S_{(-d)} C_{(-d)})$, $C_{d}$ is the $d$-th row of $C$, $C_{(-d)}$ consists of all but the $d$th row of $C$, and $Q_{S_{(-d)} }$ projects onto the orthogonal complement of Span($S_{(-d)}$) in the usual inner product.
The matching process is performed according to the above-mentioned matching steps, and the distance is measured by using the following Mahalanobis distance.
\begin{equation}
D_{ij}=(\psi(X)_{i}-\psi(X)_{j}) {}' \Sigma ^{-1} (\psi(X)_{i}-\psi(X)_{j})
\label{eq:000332}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\Sigma$ is the covariance matrix of all the units. In practice, the observed data are used to calculate the covariance matrix.
The MIRE method is as shown in Algorithm~\ref{alg:algorithm1}.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{MIRE}
\label{alg:algorithm1}
\KwIn{Observational data $O$ includes the set of covariates $X$, treatment $T$ and outcome $Y$.}
\KwOut{paired datasets}
\BlankLine
Initialise $S\gets (s_{1},...,s_{d})$ randomly
Calculate the least squares coefficient for $B$ using equation (\ref{(9)}) with fixed $S$
Assign $e \gets F_{d}(S, C)$ and $iter\gets 0$
\For{$d\leftarrow 1$ \KwTo $k$}{
$S = (s_{1},...,s_{k})$
Find a new $s_{d} $ by equation \ref{(10)}
$\hat{s}_{d}\gets\frac{\hat{s}_{d}}{\left \| \hat{s}_{d} \right \|} $
Update
$S\gets (s_{1},...,\hat{s}_{d},...,s_{_{k} })$
$C\gets \arg_{c^{\ast } } \min F_{k}(S, C^{\ast } ) $
$e \gets F_{k}(S, C); iter\gets iter+1 $
\If {$e$ no longer decreases}{
$\tilde{S} \gets S$
}
$\tilde{S} \gets S$
}
Calculate an ordered basis for Span($\widetilde{B}$) (i.e. $\hat{b}_{1}$, $\hat{b}_{2}$)
$X^{\ast} = X(\hat{b }_{1}, \hat{b }_{2} )$
\For{$i\leftarrow 1$ \KwTo $n{_{1}}$}{
\For{$j\leftarrow 1$ \KwTo $n{_{2}}$}{
$D_{ij}=(X^{\ast}_{i} -X^{\ast}_{j})' \Sigma ^{-1} (X^{\ast}_{i} - X^{\ast}_{j})$}
Find $j$ with the smallest $D_{ij}$
Pair the units $i, j$.
}
\end{algorithm}
After matching, the standardised difference in the mean of the covariate balance. Based on the matched data, the causal effect can be obtained. The average causal effects can be estimated by using the formula~\ref{(8)}. The individual causal effects of the $i$-th unit can be estimated according to the equation $\hat{Y_{i}}(1)-\hat{Y_{i}}(0)$.
\iffalse
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\hat{ATE}=\frac{1}{N}[\sum _{T_{_{i} } =1}(\hat{Y_{i}}(1)-\hat{Y_{i} }(0) )+ \\ \sum _{T_{_{i} } =0}(\hat{Y_{i}}(1)-\hat{Y_{i} }(0) ) ],
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\fi
\section{Experiment}
\label{sec:exp}
It is very difficult to evaluate the proposed causal effect estimation methods by using the real-world datasets because we cannot know the counterfactual outcomes in the real-world datasets~\cite{rubin1979using,imbens2015causal}. To evaluate the performance of the proposed MIRE method, we select two semi-synthetic datasets, IHDP~\cite{hill2011bayesian} and TWINS~\cite{almond2005costs}. Both semi-synthetic datasets are widely used for evaluating causal effect estimation methods. Moreover, one real-world dataset, Jobs~\cite{lalonde1986evaluating} is also used in our experiments since the dataset have the empirical causal effects in the literature.
To evaluate the performance of the proposed MIRE method, seven commonly used causal effect estimation methods were selected for comparison, including: NNM (Nearest neighbor matching~\cite{rubin1973matching}), PSM (propensity score matching~\cite{rosenbaum1983central}), BART (Bayesian Additive Regression Trees~\cite{hill2011bayesian}), CF (Causal Forest~\cite{athey2019generalized}), SDRM (Sufficient dimension reduction matching~\cite{luo2019matching}), BCF (Bayesian Causal Forest~\cite{hahn2020bayesian}), R-LASSO (R-learner using LASSO Regression~\cite{nie2021quasi}). These methods have been regarded as one of the most efficient causal effect estimation methods as their ability of eliminating confounding bias, i.e. the state-of-the-art method in causal effect estimation method.
For the experiments on the IHDP, we use Precision in Estimating Heterogeneous Treatment Effects (PEHE) $\mathrm{PEHE}=\frac{1}{N} {\textstyle \sum_{i=1}^{N}} ((y_{i1}-y_{i0})-(\hat{y}_{i1}-\hat{y}_{i0}))^{2}$ as an evaluation criterion for assessing the heterogeneous causal effects. For experiments on the real dataset Jobs, we estimate the average causal effect on the treated samples (ATT) since the empirical ATT is known~\cite{imai2014covariate}. For experiments on TWINS, we estimated the average causal effect (ATE). In addition, we use root-mean-square error (RMSE) $\mathrm{RMSE}\!=\sqrt{\frac{1}{{~N}} \sum_{{i}=1}^{{N}}\left({y}_{{i}}\!-\hat{{y}}_{{i}}\right)^{2}}$ and standard deviation (SD) as evaluation metrics for assessing the performance of all methods.
\subsection{Estimation of heterogeneous effects based on IHDP}
The benchmark dataset IHDP in causal inference is from a simulation study conducted in the work~\cite{hill2011bayesian}. The data is from the Infant Health and Development Program (IHDP), a program that began in 1985 to provide high-quality home visiting services to low birth weight preterm infants. The results of the program showed that after treatment (i.e., after receiving the service), there was a significant increase in cognitive test scores in the treatment group compared to the control group at the age of $3$.
A variety of covariates was collected in this study such as child birth weight, head circumference, weeks of prematurity, birth order, and neonatal health indicators, as well as maternal behaviour during pregnancy and some indicators during delivery. To simulate the imbalance between the treatment and control groups, we discard the non-random portion of the treatment group from the experimental data as suggested by Hill~\cite{hill2011bayesian}, specifically all children of non-white mothers, while leaving the control group intact. The potential outcomes for each unit were then simulated by creating response surfaces so that true individual causal effects could be concluded. And because the response surface is known, the covariates that generate the response surface can be adjusted to satisfy the Ignorability assumption.
We follow the response surface B used by Hill~\cite{hill2011bayesian}:
$$Y(0) \sim N(exp((X+W)\beta _{B} ), 1)$$
$$Y(1) \sim N(X\beta _{B} -\omega _{B} ,1)$$
\noindent where $W$ is an offset matrix with the same dimension as X with every value equal to 0.5, $\beta _{B}$ is a vector of regression coefficients (0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4) randomly sampled with probabilities (0.5, 0.125, 0.125, 0.125, 0.125) for the 6 continuous covariates and (0.6, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1) for the 18 binary covariates, $\omega_{B}$ is an offset chosen to guarantee that ATT = 4. Therefore, the true individual causal effect can be calculated at this point.
Figure \ref{fig1} shows the results of 1,000 simulations of this data using different methods. For each method, we calculate the average of the 1,000 results as the PEHE value. From this figure, it can be seen clearly that MIRE has the best performance among all the compared methods, which also shows the effectiveness of the method. The second good performance of methods is R-LASSO and SDRM. Meanwhile, the widely used method, CF (Causal Forest) also has a good performance but is worse than MIRE, R-LASSO and SDRM. The rest methods, NNM (Nearest neighbour matching), PSM (propensity score matching), BART (Bayesian Additive Regression Trees) and BCF (Bayesian Causal Forest) have worse performance than MIRE, R-LASSO, SDRM and CF.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centerline{\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{IHDP_PEHE.pdf}}
\caption{PEHE values estimated using different methods in the IHDP simulation experiment.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Estimation of causal effects}
\subsubsection{Jobs}
The Jobs dataset is a classic dataset established by LaLonde in 1986 for causal inference~\cite{lalonde1986evaluating}. The dataset was derived from a temporary employment program aimed to provide work skills to people who are faced with economic hardship or lack job skills. The treatment is whether an individual participates in the program, and the potential outcome is the individual income in the year 1978. Covariates mainly included education, age, race, marital status, income in 1974, and income in 1975. The average causal effect on the treated samples in the Lalonde dataset was estimated as \$886 with a standard error of \$448, and we used this estimate (\$886) as a criterion to evaluate our method \cite{lalonde1986evaluating,diamond2013genetic,imai2014covariate,cheng2022sufficient}.
Table \ref{table3} shows the results of estimating the average causal effect on the treated samples on the Jobs dataset using different methods. From table \ref{table3}, it can be seen that MIRE has a good performance for ATT estimation, and the estimated ATT (\$519.09) is close to the criterion (\$886) with a small SD (\$734.93) that is also close to the empirical SD (\$448). The two methods BART and BCF also show a good performance on this dataset. While the CF estimated ATT has a larger difference from the standard value.
Figure \ref{fig4} shows the scatter plot after dimension reduction of our MIRE on the jobs dataset, which shows the relationship between the reduced variables and the response variable $Y$. From Figure \ref{fig4}, it can be seen that both covariates after dimension reduction are significantly correlated with the response variable $Y$. The result also shows the rationality of using dimension reduction covariates for matching.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\caption{Estimated average causal effect on the treated samples on Jobs dataset.}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{Methods} & \textbf{Estimated ATT} & \textbf{RMSE} & \textbf{SD} \\
\hline
NNM & 198.16 & 683.34 & 1,280.70 \\ \hline
PSM & 1,933.40 & 1,090.60 & 702.20 \\ \hline
BART & 931.30 & 2182.02 & 1,032.00 \\ \hline
CF & 182.24 & 497.65 & 890.61 \\ \hline
SDRM & 1,740.98 & 1,025.65 & 710.55 \\ \hline
R-LASSO & 1,271.63 & 385.63 & 825.23 \\ \hline
BCF & 697.88 & 544.90 & 511.82 \\ \hline
MIRE & 519.09 & 734.92 & 734.93 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table3}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centerline{\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{myplot2.pdf}}
\caption{The relationships between reduced covariates and response variable $Y$ by our MIRE on Jobs dataset.}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{TWINS}
The TWINS benchmark dataset was created based on the data of twins born in the United States between 1983 and 2000, the treatment refers to the heavier weight of the twins at birth~\cite{almond2005costs}. The potential outcome is the mortality in the first year of twin birth. In Louizos et al.’s study~\cite{louizos2017causal}, one of the two twins was selectively hidden, which was equivalent to randomly assigning the treatment, thus making it similar to the data of randomdised experiment. Then those twins with weight less than 2kg were selected to establish a dataset. The dataset included 40 covariates such as parents' education, marital status, race, and mother's condition at the time of delivery. We simulated the presence of confounding factors according to the following formula~\cite{louizos2017causal}:
$W_{i} |X_{i}\sim Bern(Sigmiod(w{}'X_{i})+n)$, where $W\sim U(-0.1,0.1)^{40\times 1}, n\sim N(0,0.1)$.
The average causal effect of our established dataset is $-0.025$. Table \ref{table4} shows the results of estimating the average causal effect on the TWINS dataset using different methods. It can be seen from the results shown in table \ref{table4}: MIRE, CF, BCF, PSM both have really well performance. This also shows that in the existence of confounders, MIRE is able to remove the confounding bias as the stat-of-the-art causal effect estimators.
Figure \ref{fig5} shows the scatter plot after dimension reduction of the covariates on the TWINS dataset, which shows the relationship between the reduced variables and the response variable $Y$. From figure \ref{fig5}, we have that the covariates after dimension reduction are significantly correlated with the response variables. It also confirms that MIRE is effective for estimating causal effects from observational data.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\caption{Estimated average causal effect on TWINS dataset.}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{Methods} & \textbf{Estimated ATE} & \textbf{RMSE} & \textbf{SD} \\
\hline
NNM & -0.0218 & 0.0029 & 0.0468 \\ \hline
PSM & -0.0252 & 0.0043 & 0.0502 \\ \hline
BART & -0.1794 & 0.2793 & 0.3188 \\ \hline
CF & -0.0252 & 0.0034 & 0.0408 \\ \hline
SDRM & -0.0230 & 0.0032 & 0.0480 \\ \hline
R-LASSO & -0.0623 & 0.0221 & 0.0901 \\ \hline
BCF & -0.0249 & 0.0398 & 0.0639 \\ \hline
MIRE & -0.0252 & 0.0037 & 0.0002 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table4}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centerline{\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{TWINS.pdf}}
\caption{The relationships between reduced covariates and response variable $Y$ after our MIRE on TWINS dataset.}
\label{fig5}
\end{figure}
\section{Related Work}
The potential outcome model is widely used in causal inference~\cite{rubin1973matching,rubin1974estimating,rubin2007design,imbens2015causal}. Our proposed MIRE method builds on the potential outcome model with mild assumptions, such as the assumptions of the pretreatment variables and the ignorability assumption. The matching method is one of the most commonly used methods in causal inference~\cite{rubin1973matching,luo2019matching,cheng2022sufficient}. Stuart summarises the principles and steps of the matching method as well as its application in many practical problems~\cite{stuart2010matching}. In the following, we review some works that are closely related to our proposed MIRE method.
It is difficult to find individuals with multiple dimensions of the covariates between two groups (control and treatment) during the matching process. To solve this problem, Rubin and Rosenbaum~\cite{rubin1973matching} introduced a propensity score, defined as the conditional probability that a unit is assigned to a certain treatment under the covariate condition. In addition, the propensity score has been proven to be a balance score~\cite{imbens2015causal}. The most commonly used propensity score matching method is to use the propensity score in place of the original covariate in matching progress. In addition, propensity score matching and Mahalanobis distance matching are combined to generate GenMatch, and GenMatch uses a genetic search algorithm to obtain weights so as to complete matching \cite{stuart2010matching}. Luo and Zhu used a sufficient dimension reduction (SDR) method to reduce the dimension of the covariates in the treatment group and control group, and then matched them based on Mahalanobis distance \cite{luo2017estimating}.
The most related work to MIRE is the SDR matching proposed by the works~\cite{luo2019matching,cheng2022sufficient}. Luo and Zhu's work~\cite{luo2019matching} consider reducing the sub-datasets over the treated units and the control units to obtain two of the reduced-dimensional covariates as the balance score for matching. The proposed method maybe suffers from bias since dividing the whole samples into two sub-datasets results in data insufficiency. Cheng et al.~\cite{cheng2022sufficient} aim to estimate the average causal effect from observational data, but not for heterogeneity causal effect estimation. In contrast, our theoretical findings support a data-driven method for heterogeneity causal effect estimation.
In recent, a large number of deep learning-based methods have been proposed for estimating the causal
effects from observational data~\cite{shalit2017estimating,yao2018representation,yoon2018ganite,shortreed2017outcome,kallus2019interval}.
The main advantage of deep learning-based methods is that the complex nonlinear relationships between variables can be learned by neural networks and the high-dimensional datasets can be addressed very well. Nevertheless, a number of parameters turning are very inefficient, and they do have not good interpretability.
Another line work on causal effect estimation from data with latent confounders~\cite{kallus2019interval,cheng2020causal,cheng2022toward}. When an instrumental variable (IV) is given, the causal effect of $T$ on $Y$ can be calculated unbiasedly from data with
latent variable too~\cite{athey2019generalized,cheng2022ancestral,cheng2022discovering,hernan2006instruments,martens2006instrumental}. Because IV-based estimators do not rely on the ignorability assumption, they are not directly related to our MIRE method.
\section{Conclusion}
In this work, we prove that the central DRS by a sufficient dimensional reduction method is a balance score and is sufficient to control for confounding bias in causal effect estimation from observational data. Our findings provide theoretical support for using the dimension-reduced covariates for matching. Under the proposed theorem, we propose a data-driven method, i.e. MIRE, to estimate the causal effects from observational data under mild assumptions. Firstly, MIRE utilises the inverse regression estimator to reduce the dimensions of the original covariates, and then uses the reduced-dimensional covariates for matching. The advantages of our proposed MIRE have been verified through the experiments. First, the results of average causal effect estimation based on the Jobs dataset showed that the estimation results of our method were closer to the criterion value (\$886) recommended in the previous study than those of other matching methods. Second, the results of individual causal effect estimation showed that matching based on dimension-reduced covariates made it easier for individuals to be paired with another group in the matching process. Our method displayed great advantages in estimating individual causal effects over other matching methods. The estimation results based on the IHDP dataset indicated that our method could match more individuals during the matching process. Compared with other causal inference methods, our method also exhibited certain advantages in heterogeneous effect estimation accuracy (expressed as PEHE) and confounding factor control.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
This research project was supported in part by the Major Project of Hubei Hongshan Laboratory under Grant 2022HSZD031, and in part by the Innovation fund of Chinese Marine Defense Technology Innovation Center under Grant JJ-2021-722-04, and in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 62076041 and 61806027, and in part by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Chinese Central Universities under Grant 2662020XXQD01, 2662022JC004, and in part by the open funds of State Key Laboratory of Hybrid Rice, Wuhan University, and in part by the open funds of the National Key Laboratory of Crop Genetic Improvement under Grant ZK202203, Huzhong Agricultural University.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
Recent advances in the control of single atoms and their coherent manipulation
\cite{Schlosser2001,Saffman_2010,Nogrette2014,Barredo_2016,Barredo2018} are
the technological foundation for applications such as quantum simulation
\cite{Weimer2010,Georgescu2014,Gross2017,Altman2021}, high-precision
metrology \cite{Degen2017,Pezze2018} and, hopefully, future quantum computers
\cite{Ladd2010,Henriet2020,Graham2022,Bluvstein2022}.
For any of these applications, suitable platforms must offer a fine-grained
control over of their degrees of freedom, dynamically tunable interactions,
and the possibility to decouple the environment.
Promising in this regard are arrays of individually trapped, neutral atoms
that can be manipulated by optical tweezers \cite{Schlosser2001,Nogrette2014}
and excited into Rydberg states \cite{Gallagher2006,Sibalic2018}. These
exhibit strong interactions which lead to the Rydberg blockade mechanism
where excited atoms prevent their neighbors within a tunable radius from
being excited \cite{Jaksch2000,Tong2004,Singer2004,Gaetan2009,Urban2009}.
In this paper, we study on very general grounds the theoretical capabilities
of the Rydberg platform in the blockade regime and demonstrate its versatility
by constructing the gauge-invariant Hilbert spaces of two models with abelian
and non-abelian topological order.
Encouraged by the fast development of the Rydberg platform, there has been
increased interest in identifying promising near-term applications for the
NISQ era~\footnote{%
NISQ = Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum technology, i.e., near-term
quantum technology without full-fledged quantum error correction, see
Ref.~\cite{Preskill2018}.}.
Among the many applications of two-dimensional arrays of Rydberg atoms,
the field of \emph{geometric programming} and the design of \emph{synthetic
quantum matter} have been identified as promising candidates to leverage
the capabilities of available and upcoming NISQ platforms.
The rationale of geometric programming is the solution of algorithmic problems
by encoding them into the geometry of the atomic array.
This direction of research is founded on the insight that due to the
Rydberg blockade, the ground states of these systems naturally map
to \emph{maximum independent sets (MIS)} on so called \emph{unit disk
graphs} \cite{Pichler2018b}; finding MIS is a long-known optimization
problem in graph theory that has been shown to be \textsf{NP}-hard
\cite{Clark1990}. This makes the computation of ground state energies of
Rydberg arrangements \textsf{NP}-hard as well \cite{Pichler2018a}, but
also opens the possibility to tackle a variety of other hard optimization
problems \cite{Serret_2020,Wurtz2022} by polynomial-time reductions to
the MIS problem~\footnote{Of course one should not expect an exponential
speedup by these mappings as it is widely believed \cite{Bennett1997} that
$\text{\textsf{NP}}\nsubseteq\text{\textsf{BQP}}$.}.
First solutions of MIS instances on various graphs in two and
three dimensions have been demonstrated in experiments recently
\cite{Byun2022,Kim2022,Ebadi2022}, and a quantitative comparison of
experimental solutions with classical algorithms suggest a superlinear
quantum speedup for some classes of graphs \cite{Ebadi2022}.
A very different application of the Rydberg blockade mechanism is the
engineering of synthetic quantum matter on the single-atom level.
The potential of this approach has been demonstrated recently by
Verresen~\textit{et.al.}~\cite{Verresen_2021} (related results were
reported by Samajdar~\textit{et.al.}~\cite{Samajdar_2021}), who proposed
the realization of topological spin liquids on delicately designed lattice
structures of atoms. In this scenario, the Rydberg blockade enforces
a dimer constraint (the local gauge constraint of an odd $\mathbb{Z}_2$
lattice gauge theory \cite{Moessner2001}) which, in combination with quantum
fluctuations, can give rise to long-range entangled many-body states with
abelian topological order. First experimental results were reported shortly
after \cite{Semeghini2021}, accompanied by a theoretical study of the used
quasiadiabatic preparation scheme \cite{Giudici2022}.
This paper is written from and motivated by the synthetic quantum matter
perspective, but its results apply to geometric programming as well. Our
starting point is the question whether other local constraints (besides the
dimer constraint) can be realized on the Rydberg platform.
To find an answer, we first formalize the problem and then use this formulation
to derive our main result, namely that \emph{every} local constraint that
can be encoded by a Boolean function can be implemented in the ground state
manifold of a planar arrangement of atoms in the blockade regime. Crucial for
this result is the existence of a structure that implements the truth table
of a \texttt{NOR}-gate (``Not OR'') in its ground state manifold. While our
proof is constructive, it does typically not yield optimal (= small) solutions.
We therefore expand on our main result and compile a comprehensive list
of provably minimal structures that realize all important primitives of
Boolean logic. Together with a structure that facilitates the crossing of
two ``wires'' within the plane, these primitives provide a toolbox to build
structures that satisfy more complicated constraints.
As an example, we construct a system with a ground state manifold that
is locally isomorphic to the gauge-invariant Hilbert space of an even
$\mathbb{Z}_2$ lattice gauge theory, i.e., the charge-free sector of the toric
code \cite{Kitaev2003}. With a similar construction, we tailor a pattern
of atoms with a ground state manifold isomorphic to the string-net Hilbert
space of the ``golden string-net model \cite{Levin2005}''; a system that,
with added quantum fluctuations, could support non-abelian Fibonacci anyons.
Having constructed all these structures, we briefly discuss possibilities
to numerically optimize their geometries to make them more robust against
geometric imperfections and the effects of long-range van der Waals
interactions.
\emph{Note added.} When finalizing this manuscript we became aware of related
results reported by Nguyen~\textit{et.\,al} in Ref.~\cite{Nguyen2022}. The
authors focus on optimization problems on non-planar graphs and find the same
structures for some of the primitives discussed in this paper (especially
the implementation of the ring-shaped \texttt{NOR}-gate and the crossing).
The authors follow the rationale of \emph{geometric programming}, so that
their motivation, approach and framework differ from ours.
\section{Rationale and Outline}
\label{sec:overview}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{introduction.pdf}
%
\caption{%
\emph{Rationale.}
%
(a) Structure of two atoms (i) with local detunings $\Delta$ (blue
vertices) that are in Rydberg blockade (gray circles); the blockade is
indicated by a black edge connecting the atoms. The ground state manifold
(ii) is given by patterns of excited atoms (orange) that minimize the
energy; here it is two-fold degenerate. The two ground state configurations
realize the truth table (iii) of a \texttt{NOT}-gate $Q=\overline{A}$.
%
(b) Structure of five atoms (i) with local detunings $\Delta$ (blue)
and $2\Delta$ (green) in a ring-like Rydberg blockade. The ground state
manifold (ii) is four-fold degenerate. If one selects the three labeled
atoms and identifies them with the columns of the table in (iii), the four
ground state configurations realize the truth table of a \texttt{NOR}-gate
$Q=A\downarrow B=\overline{A\vee B}$.
%
(c) Joining the output atom of the \texttt{NOR}-gate with the input
atom of the \texttt{NOT}-gate (and adding their detunings) yields a
new structure that realizes the truth table of an \texttt{OR}-gate:
$Q=\overline{A\downarrow B}=A\vee B$. This construction is called
\emph{amalgamation}.
}
\label{fig:nutshell}
\end{figure}
Here we illustrate the rationale of the paper and provide a brief outline
of its main results without technical overhead. Readers interested in the
details can skip forward to \cref{sec:setting}. Readers only interested
in specific applications can read this section first and then skip to
\cref{sec:primitives} or \cref{sec:examples}.
In this paper, we consider two-dimensional arrangements of trapped atoms that
can either be in their electronic ground state or excited into a Rydberg state
(\emph{Rydberg structures}). We focus on systems without quantum fluctuations,
where the ground states are determined by local detunings and Rydberg blockade
interactions (\cref{sec:setting}). The detunings lower the energy for atoms
in the Rydberg state by an atom-specific amount, and the Rydberg blockade
interaction forbids atoms closer than a specific distance to be excited
simultaneously. The interplay of these two contributions singles out ground
states that are characterized by excitations patterns where no additional atom
can be excited without violating the Rydberg blockade, and where the sum of
the detunings of the excited atoms is maximal (so called \emph{maximum-weight
independent sets}). There can be different configurations that minimize the
energy, hence the ground state manifold is typically degenerate. In this
paper, we ask which ground state manifolds such structures can realize and,
conversely, how to tailor structures that realize a prescribed ground state
manifold (\cref{sec:definition}).
A simple example is given in \cref{fig:nutshell}a where the position of the
atoms is shown in (i); the two atoms are constrained by the Rydberg blockade
(gray circles) and cannot be excited simultaneously (indicated by the black
edge connecting them). The color of the atoms encodes their detuning; here
both atoms lower the energy of the system by $\Delta$ when excited into the
Rydberg state (blue nodes). In (ii) we show the two excitation patterns that
minimize the energy (orange nodes denote excited atoms). Note that the atoms
cannot be excited simultaneously due to the Rydberg blockade. If one lists
the ground state configurations in a table, where each column corresponds to
an atom and each row to a ground state configuration, we find the ``truth
table'' of a Boolean \texttt{NOT}-gate $Q=\overline{A}$. Here we interpret
one of the atoms as ``input'' (A) and the other as ``output'' (Q).
This concept generalizes to more complicated Boolean gates
(\cref{fig:nutshell}b): Consider the five atoms in a ring-like blockade
(i). Three of the atoms (blue) lower the energy by $\Delta$, two (green)
by $2\Delta$ when excited. By inspection one finds the four degenerate
ground state configurations in (ii). This is promising as truth tables of
Boolean gates that operate on two bits have four rows. However, they only
have three columns (two for the inputs of the gate and one for its output).
We therefore select three of the five atoms by assigning labels to them:
A and B play the role of the inputs and Q is the output. We call atomic
structures with designated input/output atoms \emph{Rydberg complexes}
(\cref{subsec:complexes}). If we list the four ground state configurations
of these three atoms, we find the truth table of a \texttt{NOR}-gate
$Q=A\downarrow B=\overline{A\vee B}$ in (iii). Note that the remaining two
atoms (we call them \emph{ancillas})---while not contributing independent
degrees of freedom--- are still necessary to realize this specific ground state
manifold. At this point things get interesting because it is a well-known fact
of Boolean algebra that the \texttt{NOR}-gate is \emph{functionally complete}
(just like the \texttt{NAND}-gate): Every Boolean function can be decomposed
into a circuit build from \texttt{NOR}-gates only.
To leverage this decomposition, we need a method to combine ``gate
complexes'' to form larger ``circuit complexes''; we call this procedure
\emph{amalgamation} (\cref{subsec:amalgamation}). A simple example is
shown in \cref{fig:nutshell}c where we attach the \texttt{NOT}-gate
from \cref{fig:nutshell}a to the output of the \texttt{NOR}-gate in
\cref{fig:nutshell}b (note that the detunings of the atoms that are
joined add up). Using the detunings and blockades in (i) yields the four
degenerate ground state configurations in (ii). When we label the inputs
of the \texttt{NOR}-gate again by A and B, and now focus on the output Q
of the attached \texttt{NOT}-gate, we find indeed the truth table of an
\texttt{OR}-gate $Q=\overline{A\downarrow B}=A\vee B$ in (iii). Thus we can
parallel the logical composition of gates by a geometrical combination of
atomic structures such that the relation between ground state configurations
and truth tables remains intact. In combination with the insight that every
Boolean circuit can be drawn in the plane without crossing lines (after
suitable augmentations), this allows us to show that the truth table of any
Boolean function can be realized as the ground state manifold of a suitably
designed atomic structure. This \emph{functional completeness} is our first
main result and motivates the title of the paper (\cref{sec:completeness}).
For instance, the \emph{existence} of a structure that realizes the truth table
of an \texttt{OR}-gate is a corollary of functional completeness. However,
the \emph{specific} construction as the combination of a \texttt{NOR}-gate
and a \texttt{NOT}-gate in \cref{fig:nutshell}c raises the questions
whether this particular realization with six atoms is \emph{unique} and
whether it is \emph{minimal} (in the sense that the same truth table could
not be realized with fewer atoms). The answer to the first question is
negative: There are geometrically different structures that realize the
same truth table in their ground state manifold. The answer to the second
question is positive, though: We show that it is impossible to implement
this truth table with less than six atoms. Note that the functional
completeness implies the existences of structures for \emph{all} common
gates of Boolean logic (such as \texttt{AND}, \texttt{XOR}, etc.). We
take this as motivation to construct provably minimal structures for all
these primitives (\cref{sec:primitives,sec:crossing}). Together with the
procedure of amalgamation, these equip our versatile toolbox to engineer
more complicated structures.
Our second important contribution is an application of the
functional completeness as a tool to engineer synthetic quantum matter
(\cref{sec:examples}). Many interesting quantum phases in two dimension
are characterized by hidden patterns of long-range entanglement, known
as topological order. These patterns can give rise to anyonic excitations
which make such systems potential substrates for quantum memories and even
quantum computers. A large class of entanglement patterns can be understood
as condensates of extended objects (like strings). A crucial first step
for the realization of these phases is therefore the preparation of Hilbert
spaces spanned by states of such extended objects. However, in experiments,
we typically start from Hilbert spaces with a local tensor product structure
(for example, an array of two-level atoms). Our only hope is to make the
extended objects emerge due to interactions in the low-energy sector of a
suitably designed physical system. This often boils down to enforce local
\emph{gauge symmetries} which single out states that can be interpreted in
terms of extended objects. Such local constraints can be reformulated as
Boolean functions that must be satisfied by the states of the local degrees
of freedom of the underlying system. For any constraint of this form,
our functional completeness result ensures the existence of a structure of
atoms, interacting via the Rydberg blockade mechanism, that realizes this
constraint in its ground state space. It is then just a matter of copying
and joining these structures in a translational invariant way to tessellate
the plane. The ground state manifolds of such tessellations can therefore
implement a large class of non-trivial Hilbert spaces on which condensation
(driven by quantum fluctuations) might lead to topologically ordered many-body
quantum phases. Using our toolbox developed in the first part of the paper,
we demonstrate this construction explicitly for the abelian toric code phase
(\cref{subsec:toric}) and the non-abelian, computationally universal Fibonacci
anyon model (\cref{subsec:fibonacci}).
The truth tables realized by the ground states of all atomic structures
presented in this paper depend on the positions of the atoms. (Because these
positions define which pairs are in blockade and which atoms can be excited
simultaneously.) However, the \emph{exact} placement is often ambiguous.
For example, consider the structure in \cref{fig:nutshell}a (i) which realizes
the \texttt{NOT}-gate. It is clear that the blockade constraint (black edge)
does not change if the atoms are slightly shifted, as long as the blockade
radii (gray circles) encompass both atoms. We refer to the set of atom
positions as the \emph{geometry} of a structure and argue that ``robust''
geometries should avoid distances between atoms that are close to the critical
blockade distance. For the complexes in \cref{fig:nutshell}, this translates
into the geometric objective to maximize the distances between nodes and gray
circles. We formalize this notion by assigning a number to geometries that
quantifies their ``robustness'' (\cref{subsec:optimization_preliminaries})
and numerically construct optimized geometries that maximize this number
(\cref{subsec:optimization_results}).
We conclude the paper with an outline of open questions, directions for further
research (\cref{sec:outlook}), and a brief summary (\cref{sec:summary}).
\section{Physical setting}
\label{sec:setting}
We consider planar arrangements of trapped atoms with repulsive
van der Waals interactions when excited into the Rydberg state
\cite{Lukin_2001,Saffman_2010}. Every atom is assigned an index $i\in
V=\{1\dots N\}$, placed at position $\vec r_i\in\mathbb{R}^2$, and described
by a two-level system $\ket{n}_i$ where $n=0$ corresponds to the electronic
ground state and $n=1$ the excited Rydberg state.
The quantum dynamics of such systems is achieved by coupling the electronic
ground state to the Rydberg state by external laser fields with Rabi frequency
$\Omega_i$ and detuning $\Delta_{i}$ for each atom
\cite{Schauss2015,Labuhn2016,Bernien_2017}. Here we are mainly interested
in the regime $\Omega_i\rightarrow 0$ where the Hamiltonian reduces to
\begin{align}
H[\mathcal{C}]=-\sum_i\,\Delta_i n_i
+\sum_{i<j}\,U(|\vec r_i-\vec r_j|)\,n_in_j\,.
\label{eq:H}
\end{align}
Note that we assume the detunings $\Delta_i$ to be site dependent
\cite{Labuhn_2014,Omran2019}.
This Hamiltonian acts on the full Hilbert space $\H=(\mathbb{C}^2)^{\otimes
N}$ with the representation $n_i=\ket{1}\bra{1}_i$. The configuration of
the system is completely specified by $\mathcal{C}\equiv(\vec r_i,\Delta_i)_{i\in
V}$ to which we refer as \emph{(Rydberg) structure}; the position data
$G_\mathcal{C}\equiv(\vec r_i)_{i\in V}$ alone is the \emph{geometry} of the structure
$\mathcal{C}$ (\cref{fig:rationale}).
For atoms in the Rydberg state, the interaction potential in \cref{eq:H}
is $U_\sub{vdW}(r)=C_6\,r^{-6}$ with $C_6>0$ the coupling strength of the
van der Waals interaction; we refer to $H[\mathcal{C}]$ with $U=U_\sub{vdW}$ as the
\emph{van der Waals (vdW) model}. However, in many situations a simplified
model $U=U_\infty$ with $U_\infty(r\geq {r_\sub{B}})=0$ and $U_\infty(r<{r_\sub{B}})=\infty$
with \emph{blockade radius} ${r_\sub{B}}$ is a reasonable approximation for the
low-energy physics of \cref{eq:H}; we refer to $H[\mathcal{C}]$ with $U=U_\infty$
as the \emph{PXP model} \cite{Lesanovsky2011,Verresen_2021}. In this paper,
we use the PXP model unless stated otherwise. We discuss valid choices for
the blockade radius ${r_\sub{B}}$ in \cref{subsec:optimization_preliminaries} where
we optimize the geometry of structures to limit the effects of residual van
der Waals interactions.
In the PXP model, the effect of the van der Waals interactions is approximated
by a kinematic constraint that is completely encoded by a \emph{blockade
graph} $B=(V,E)$, where an edge $e=(i,j)\in E$ between atoms $i,j\in V$
indicates that they are in blockade, i.e., their distance is smaller than
the blockade radius ${r_\sub{B}}$. An abstract graph that can be realized in this
way is called a \emph{unit disk graph} (not every graph has this property);
conversely, a geometry $G_\mathcal{C}$ that realizes a prescribed graph as its blockade
graph is a \emph{unit disk embedding} of this graph (the ``unit'' here is
the blockade radius ${r_\sub{B}}$). Throughout the paper, the blockade graph of a
structure will be drawn by black edges connecting atoms that are in blockade.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{rationale.pdf}
%
\caption{%
\emph{Setting \& Objective.}
%
A two-dimensional structure $\mathcal{C}=(\vec
r_i,\Delta_i)_{i\in V}$ of atoms $i\in V$ with position $\vec r_i$
and detuning $\Delta_i$ is governed by the Hamiltonian $H[\mathcal{C}]$
that describes the Rydberg blockade interaction with blockade
radius ${r_\sub{B}}$. The Hamiltonian gives rise to a low-energy eigenspace
$\H_0[\mathcal{C}]<\H$ of width $\delta E$, separated from the excited states
by a gap $\Delta E$. The objective of this paper is the construction
of a structure $\mathcal{C}$ from a given target Hilbert space $\H_\sub{T}$ such
that $\H_0[\mathcal{C}]\simeq\H_\sub{T}$.
}
\label{fig:rationale}
\end{figure}
\section{Definition of the Problem}
\label{sec:definition}
The primary goal of this paper is to find structures $\mathcal{C}$ such that there
is a well-separated low-energy eigenspace $\H_0[\mathcal{C}]$ of $H[\mathcal{C}]$ where
$\H_0[\mathcal{C}]$ satisfies certain prescribed properties that we describe in
detail below. We quantify the separation of $\H_0[\mathcal{C}]$ by its spectral
width $\delta E$ and its gap $\Delta E$ to the rest of the spectrum
(\cref{fig:rationale}). Note that the experimental prerequisites for
the construction of arbitrary structures $\mathcal{C}$ are already in place~
\cite{Labuhn_2014,Barredo_2016,Omran2019,Browaeys_2020}.
If one would switch on a weak drive $\delta E<\Omega_i\ll\Delta E$, this
would induce quantum fluctuations between the states of the Hilbert space
$\H_0[\mathcal{C}]$, potentially giving rise to many-body states with interesting
properties. In this paper, we do not study such quantum effects but focus
on the implementation of the subspace $\H_0[\mathcal{C}]$.
We specify the eigenspace to construct in terms of a \emph{target Hilbert
space} $\H_\sub{T}$:
\begin{align}
\H_0[\mathcal{C}]\stackrel{!}{\simeq}\H_\sub{T}\,.
\end{align}
Informally speaking, our goals is to ``solve'' this equation for structures
$\mathcal{C}$ for given $\H_\sub{T}$. To make this possible, the target Hilbert space
$\H_\sub{T}$ must be specifiable in a form that we define in the remainder
of this section.
\subparagraph{Formal languages.}
Throughout the paper we make use of the notion of (formal) languages
\cite{Davis1994} on the binary alphabet $\mathbb{F}_2=\{0,1\}$. A \emph{word}
$\vec x\equiv (x_1x_2\dots x_n)\equiv x_1x_2\dots x_n \in \mathbb{F}_2^*$ is a
finite string of \emph{letters} $x_i\in\mathbb{F}_2$ (the set of all such finite
strings is denoted $\mathbb{F}_2^*$). A \emph{(formal) language} $L$ is then
simply a collection of words: $L\subseteq \mathbb{F}_2^*$. Here we only consider
\emph{uniform} languages with words that have all the same length. For
example, $L_\texttt{CPY}:=\{000,111\}\subset\mathbb{F}_2^*$ is a uniform language of
words with length $n=3$, $\vec x=(111)$ is a word in $L_\texttt{CPY}$ and
$x_1=1$ is the first letter of $\vec x$. The words $\vec y=(011)\in\mathbb{F}_2^*$
and $\vec z=(0000)\in\mathbb{F}_2^*$ are not in this language: $\vec y,\vec z\notin
L_\texttt{CPY}$. The subscript ``\texttt{CPY}'' stands for ``copy'' and
hints at the role this language will play later.
Other examples are the class of languages generated by the truth tables of
Boolean functions. Let $w:\mathbb{F}_2^{n-1}\to\mathbb{F}_2$ be an arbitrary Boolean function
of $n-1$ variables; then
\begin{align}
L[w]:=\left\{x_1\dots x_{n-1}y\,|\,y=w(x_1,\dots,x_{n-1})\right\}\subset\mathbb{F}_2^*
\label{eq:Lw}
\end{align}
is the language generated from the rows of the truth table of $w$, where
the first $n-1$ letters of each word correspond to the input $\vec x$ and
the last letter encodes the output $w(\vec x)$. A language of this class
always has $2^{n-1}$ words of uniform length $n$. Note that the ``copy''
language $L_\texttt{CPY}$ is \emph{not} of the form \cref{eq:Lw}.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{bits.pdf}
\caption{%
\emph{Tessellated language \& target Hilbert space.} A tessellated
target Hilbert space $\H_\sub{T}$ is a subspace of the full Hilbert
space of $K$ qubits placed on each edge of a square lattice $\L$; it
is spanned by product states $\ket{\vec x}$ of bit patterns $\vec x \in
L_\L[{f_\sub{T}}]$. The tessellated language $L_\L[{f_\sub{T}}]$ comprises
all bit patterns $\vec x\in \mathbb{F}_2^*$ that locally satisfy the Boolean check
function ${f_\sub{T}}\,:\,\mathbb{F}_2^g\to\mathbb{F}_2$. The $g=4K$ arguments of the check
function on each site $s$ are singled out by the bit-projector $\u_s$.
}
\label{fig:bits}
\end{figure}
Another special class is given by \emph{tessellated languages} on lattices. In
the following, we introduce the concept exemplarily for a finite square
lattice $\L$ with periodic boundaries; the generalization to other lattices
and boundary conditions is straightforward.
Start by associating $K$ classical bits to every edge $e\in E(\L)$ of the
lattice (\cref{fig:bits}). A bit configuration of the system $\vec x\in
\mathbb{X}_\L=\mathbb{F}_2^{K |E(\L)|}\subset\mathbb{F}_2^*$ assigns every bit a Boolean
value $x_e^i$ ($i=1\dots K$). We focus on the family of uniform languages
$L\subseteq\mathbb X_\L$ that can be characterized by a Boolean function that
is local in the following sense: For a site $s\in V(\L)$ of the square lattice,
let the \emph{bit-projector} $\u_s(\vec x)=(x_{e_1}^1,\dots,x_{e_4}^K)$
single out the (ordered) set of $g=4K$ bits on the four edges $e_i$ emanating
from $s$. Let $f\,:\,\mathbb{F}_2^g\to\mathbb{F}_2$ be an arbitrary Boolean function of $g$
arguments, henceforth referred to as \emph{check function}. The tessellated
language of bit patterns on $\L$ generated by $f$ is then defined as
\begin{align}
L_\L[f]:=\left\{\vec x\in\mathbb{X}_\L\,|\,\forall s\in V(\L)\,:\,f(\u_s(\vec x))=1\right\}\,.
\end{align}
In words: $L_\L[f]$ is the set of bit patterns on the lattice $\L$ that
locally satisfy the constraints imposed by $f$.
\subparagraph{Target Hilbert spaces.}
To any uniform language $L\subseteq\mathbb{F}_2^n$ we can naturally associate the
linear subspace of states on $n$ qubits (or spin-$\nicefrac{1}{2}$)
\begin{align}
\H(L):=\spn{\ket{\vec x}\,|\,\vec x\in L}\subseteq (\mathbb{C}^2)^{\otimes n}\,.
\label{eq:HL}
\end{align}
For example, $\H(L_\texttt{CPY})=\spn{\ket{000},\ket{111}}$ is the
two-dimensional subspace on three qubits spanned by product states with
configurations in $L_\texttt{CPY}=\{000,111\}$. By contrast, the Hilbert space
$\H'=\spn{(\ket{000}+\ket{111})/\sqrt{2}}$ is not of the form \eref{eq:HL}.
We require the target Hilbert space $\H_\sub{T}$, that we aim to realize as
ground state manifold $\H_0[\mathcal{C}]$, to be specified by a language $L_\sub{T}$
according to \cref{eq:HL}:
\begin{align}
\H_\sub{T}=\H(L_\sub{T})\,.
\end{align}
We are particularly interested in the special class of \emph{tessellated}
target Hilbert spaces given in terms of tessellated languages that are
generated by a check function (\cref{fig:bits}):
\begin{align}
\H_\sub{T}=\H_\L[{f_\sub{T}}]:=\H(L_\L[{f_\sub{T}}])\,.
\end{align}
Recall that these languages come equipped with a spatial structure (in the
sense that the \emph{bits} are located on the edges of a lattice $\L$). This
spatial structure is inherited by the Hilbert space $\H_\L[{f_\sub{T}}]$ viewed as
state space of a system where $K$ \emph{qubits} are placed on every edge
of $\L$.
For example, the Hilbert space $\H_{\mathbb{Z}_2}$ of the even
$\mathbb{Z}_2$ lattice gauge theory is a particular subspace of a
Hilbert space that describes a system of qubits on the edges of a
square lattice (i.e.,~$K=1$ and $g=4$). $\H_{\mathbb{Z}_2}$ is spanned
by the product states of patterns of qubits in the state $\ket{1}$
that form closed loops \cite{Kogut1979}. $\H_{\mathbb{Z}_2}$ is an
admissible tessellated target Hilbert space because we can realize
$\H_{\mathbb{Z}_2}=\H_\L[f_{\mathbb{Z}_2}]$ with the check function
\begin{align}
f_{\mathbb{Z}_2}(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)=1\oplus x_1\oplus x_2\oplus x_3\oplus
x_4 \label{eq:f1}
\end{align}
where $\oplus$ denotes modulo-2 addition (Exclusive-OR or \texttt{XOR});
the bit-projector $\mathfrak{u}_s(\vec x)$ simply singles out the four bits
on edges emanating from site $s$:
\begin{align}
\mathfrak{u}_s\left(
\includegraphics[width=1.7cm,valign=c]{u_square}
\right)
=(x_{e_1}^1,x_{e_2}^1,x_{e_3}^1,x_{e_4}^1)\,.
\end{align}
Physically, \cref{eq:f1} enforces Gauss's law on a charge-free background
by forbidding strings of qubits in state $\ket{1}$ to end on a site.
Further examples for tessellated target Hilbert spaces are the more general
``string-net'' Hilbert spaces that can describe a large variety of topological
orders and deconfined gauge theories \cite{Levin2005}.
\section{Rydberg complexes}
\label{sec:complexes}
Before we can tackle our main goal, namely the construction of tessellated
Rydberg structures $\mathcal{C}$ with $\H_0[\mathcal{C}]\simeq\H_\sub{T}=\H_\L[{f_\sub{T}}]$ for a given
check function ${f_\sub{T}}$, we first need to specify the notion of a finite Rydberg
\emph{complex} as a preliminary step. Specific examples for Rydberg complexes
can be found throughout the remainder of the paper.
\subsection{From structures to complexes}
\label{subsec:complexes}
Consider the language $L_\texttt{CPY}=\{000,111\}$ and let
$\H_\texttt{CPY}=\H(L_\texttt{CPY})=\spn{\ket{000},\ket{111}}$ be our target
Hilbert space. Our goal is to realize $\H_\texttt{CPY}$ as the ground state
manifold $\H_0[\mathcal{C}_\texttt{CPY}]$ of a structure $\mathcal{C}_\texttt{CPY}$ of $n=3$
atoms. This, however, is impossible: Since $\ket{111}\in \H_\texttt{CPY}$,
none of the three atoms can be in blockade with each other. Consequently,
$\H_0[\mathcal{C}_\texttt{CPY}]$ cannot contain only the states $\ket{000}$ and
$\ket{111}$ (\cref{app:cpy}). This problem is not specific to the language
$L_\texttt{CPY}$ but shared by many (though not all) languages. The solution
is to consider \emph{larger} structures of $N\geq n$ atoms and to identify
the letters of words with a \emph{subset} of $n$ distinguished atoms (we
call them \emph{ports}); the remaining $N-n$ atoms play then the role of
\emph{ancillas}. A structure together with a distinguished set of ports will
be referred to as a \emph{(Rydberg) complex}.
Let us formalize this notion. Consider a structure $\mathcal{C}$ of $N$ atoms and
a language $L\subseteq\mathbb{F}_2^n$ of words of uniform length $n\leq N$. Let
$\mathfrak{L}=\{\text{A},\text{B},\dots\}$ denote a set of $n$ labels where
each label is associated with a fixed letter position of words in $L$. (If one
prints all words of $L$ as rows of a table, the labels correspond to the column
headers.) Let $\ell:\mathfrak{L}\rightarrow V$ be an injective label function
that assigns a label to a subset of $n$ atoms (the \emph{ports}); the $N-n$
atoms without labels are the \emph{ancillas}. We refer to the structure $\mathcal{C}$
together with the labeling $\ell$ as a \emph{(Rydberg) $L$-complex} $\mathcal{C}_L$
if the states that span $\H_0[\mathcal{C}]$ can be identified by the configurations
of the ports alone:
\begin{align}
\H_0[\mathcal{C}_L]\equiv\H_0[\mathcal{C}]
=\spn{\ket{\vec x,a(\vec x)}\in\H\,|\,\vec x\in L}\,.
\label{eq:lcomplex}
\end{align}
In $\ket{\vec x,a(\vec x)}$, the state of ports is given by the first $n$
bits $\vec x$ (in some fixed order) and the state of ancillas by a $N-n$
bit-valued function $a:L\to\mathbb{F}_2^{N-n}$. The ground state space $\H_0[\mathcal{C}_L]$
will be referred to as an \emph{$L$-manifold}. An important aspect of
this definition is that the ancillas do \emph{not} introduce additional
low-energy degrees of freedom; they are only needed to unleash the full
potential of the blockade interactions. In this sense, we say that a complex
$\mathcal{C}_\sub{T}\equiv \mathcal{C}_{L_\sub{T}}$ \emph{realizes} a target Hilbert space
$\H_\sub{T}=\H(L_\sub{T})$ and write
\begin{align}
(\mathbb{C}^2)^{\otimes N}\supseteq
\H_0[\mathcal{C}_\sub{T}]\simeq \H_\sub{T}=\H(L_\sub{T})
\subseteq(\mathbb{C}^2)^{\otimes n}
\label{eq:iso}
\end{align}
with the isomorphism $\simeq$ given by $\ket{\vec x,a(\vec
x)}\leftrightarrow\ket{\vec x}$. If we say that a complex realizes a
\emph{language} $L$, we mean that it realizes the target Hilbert space
$\H_\sub{T}=\H(L)$ defined by this language.
As an example, consider the again the ``copy'' language
$L_\text{\texttt{CPY}}=\{000,111\}$ with $n=3$; the ground state manifold
of a $L_\texttt{CPY}$-complex $\mathcal{C}_\texttt{CPY}\equiv\mathcal{C}_{L_\texttt{CPY}}$
must be two-dimensional (since $|L_\texttt{CPY}|=2$) and characterized by the
property that three distinguished atoms (the ones assigned labels by $\ell$)
are always forced to be in the same state:
\begin{align}
\H_0[\mathcal{C}_\texttt{CPY}]=\spn{\ket{000,a(000)},\ket{111,a(111)}}\,.
\end{align}
Such a complex will be one of our primitives to implement check functions
for tessellated target Hilbert spaces. We will discuss a specific realization
$\mathcal{C}_\texttt{CPY}$ that requires a single ancilla in \cref{sec:completeness};
that is, with $N=n=3$ atoms the target Hilbert space $\H_\texttt{CPY}$
cannot be realized, whereas with $N=4$ it can.
As another example, consider the logical \texttt{XOR}-gate
$w_\texttt{XOR}(x_1,x_2)=x_1\oplus x_2$ which may be needed as
a primitive for a check function like \cref{eq:f1}. We can ask
for a complex $\mathcal{C}_\texttt{XOR}$ that realizes the target Hilbert
space $\H_\texttt{XOR}=\H(L_\texttt{XOR})$ given by the language
$L_\texttt{XOR}\equiv L[w_\texttt{XOR}]=\{000,011,101,110\}$ that is generated
by this Boolean gate. The ground state manifold of such a complex must be
spanned by four states,
\begin{align}
\H_0[\mathcal{C}_\texttt{XOR}]=\spn{
\begin{matrix}
\ket{000,a(000)},
&\ket{011,a(011)},\\
\ket{101,a(101)},
&\ket{110,a(110)}\phantom{,}
\end{matrix}
}
\end{align}
where the configurations of potential ancillas are determined by the
configurations of the three ports. We will introduce a specific realization
$\mathcal{C}_\texttt{XOR}$ in \cref{sec:primitives}; it requires $N=7$ atoms of which
four are ancillas, and we show that this is indeed the smallest complex that
can realize the language of a \texttt{XOR}-gate.
Since $L_\texttt{XOR}=L[w_\texttt{XOR}]$ is generated from a Boolean gate,
we refer to complexes that realize a language of this form as \emph{gates},
too. Furthermore, we denote the atoms that map to the input bits of the gate
as \emph{input ports}, and the atom that corresponds to the output bit as the
\emph{output port}. We also extend this nomenclature to Boolean functions $w$
on more than two inputs. Let us stress that these terms are only inspired
from the usual role played by such functions as parts of Boolean circuits. In
the present context, there is \emph{no} time evolution or dynamics involved
(there is no information ``flowing into'' the input ports, although it might
be sometimes helpful to use this picture).
The construction of an $L$-complex for a given language $L$ with word length
$n$ can be split into two steps: First, one has to find a \emph{structure}
$\mathcal{C}$ on at least $n$ atoms with an $|L|$-fold degenerate ground state
manifold. Then, one has to identify a labeling $\ell$ of $n$ atoms such that
their states in the ground state manifold map one-to-one to words in $L$. The
structure $\mathcal{C}$ together with the labeling then yields an \emph{$L$-complex}.
Note that the same structure can be interpreted as different complexes for
different languages by choosing different label functions. Furthermore,
not every structure with $|L|$-fold degenerate ground state manifold allows
for a valid labeling that realizes $L$. Hence the construction is a quite
non-trivial task in general. This makes a reductionist approach seem most
promising, where one starts with a finite set of small ``primitive'' complexes
and constructs larger complexes by ``gluing'' them together.
\subsection{Amalgamation}
\label{subsec:amalgamation}
The process of combining two complexes by joining (some of) their ports is
referred to \emph{amalgamation}. To define the process formally, we first
need a new concept to combine two languages.
Consider two uniform languages $L_1$ and $L_2$ of words of length $n_1$
and $n_2$, respectively.
Let $\gamma\subseteq \{(p_1,p_2)\,|\,p_i\in\{1,\dots,n_i\}\}$ be a set of disjoint~\footnote{%
Here, \emph{disjoint} means that $(x,y)\neq(x',y')$ implies $x\neq x'$
\emph{and} $y\neq y'$; thus $\gamma$ can be interpreted as a \emph{partial
bijection} between character positions of the two languages $L_1$ and $L_2$.
}
pairs of letter positions and set $\gamma_i:=\{p_i\,|\,p\in\gamma\}$.
For a word $\vec x\in L_i$, let $\vec x^{\gamma_i}$ denote the
word with all letters at positions in $\gamma_i$ deleted. Then, the
\emph{$\gamma$-intersection of $L_1$ and $L_2$} is defined as
\begin{align}
L_1\underline{\stackrel{\gamma}{\cap}} L_2:=
\left\{
\vec x\,\vec y^{\gamma_2}\,|\,
\vec x\in L_1,\vec y\in L_2,
\forall_{(a,b)\in\gamma}\,x_a=y_b
\right\}
\nonumber
\end{align}
which is a language of words of length
$n_1+n_2-|\gamma|$. $L_1\underline{\stackrel{\gamma}{\cap}}L_2$ is the set
of concatenations of words from $L_1$ and $L_2$ where the letters at the
positions indicated by pairs in $\gamma$ coincide, and where the second copy
of these letters has been deleted. Analogously, we define the \emph{reduced
$\gamma$-intersection} as
\begin{align}
L_1\stackrel{\gamma}{\cap} L_2:=
\left\{
\vec x^{\gamma_1}\,\vec y^{\gamma_2}\,|\,
\vec x\in L_1,\vec y\in L_2,
\forall_{(a,b)\in\gamma}\,x_a=y_b
\right\},
\nonumber
\end{align}
only that now \emph{both} copies of identified letters are deleted; hence
this is a language of words with length $n_1+n_2-2|\gamma|$.
As an example, consider again the \texttt{XOR}-language
$L_\texttt{XOR}=\{000,011,101,110\}$ and the \texttt{CPY}-language
$L_\texttt{CPY}=\{000,111\}$. We would like to copy the output of the
\texttt{XOR}-gate. To do this, we intersect the output bit (letter 3)
of the \texttt{XOR}-language with one of the bits (say letter 1) of the
\texttt{CPY}-language: $\gamma=\{(3,1)\}$. The $\gamma$-intersection is the
new language
\begin{align}
L_\texttt{XOR}\underline{\stackrel{\gamma}{\cap}} L_\texttt{CPY}
&=
\left\{
00\underline{0}00,01\underline{1}11,10\underline{1}11,11\underline{0}00
\right\}
\label{eq:L1}
\end{align}
with words of length $3+3-1=5$. The underscores indicate the letters that
derive from words of both languages. If one drops these letters as well
(by using the reduced $\gamma$-intersection), the language describes a
\texttt{XOR}-gate with \emph{fan-out} of two:
\begin{align}
L_\texttt{XOR}\stackrel{\gamma}{\cap} L_\texttt{CPY}
&=
\left\{
0000,0111,1011,1100
\right\}\,.
\label{eq:L1b}
\end{align}
The above definitions on the level of languages are useful because they
are paralleled by a combination of complexes called \emph{amalgamation}:
Consider two complexes $\mathcal{C}_{L_1}$ and $\mathcal{C}_{L_2}$ that realize the languages
$L_1$ and $L_2$ with $N_1$ and $N_2$ atoms, respectively. Fix a set of pairs
of ports $\gamma$ such that $L'=L_1\underline{\stackrel{\gamma}{\cap}}
L_2\neq\emptyset$, and then combine the two complexes by identifying the
atoms in $\gamma$:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{C}_{L'}=\mathcal{C}_{L_1}\stackrel{\gamma}{\otimes}\mathcal{C}_{L_2}
&:=
\includegraphics[width=4cm,valign=c]{amalgamation_inline}
\nonumber\\
&=
\includegraphics[width=3.1cm,valign=c]{amalgamation_inline_2}\,.
\end{align}
The new complex $\mathcal{C}_{L'}$ has $N_1+N_2-|\gamma|$ atoms. For this construction,
we assume that the ports that belong to pairs in $\gamma$ are located on the
boundary of their complex (we will show in \cref{sec:completeness} why this
is possible).
The Hamiltonian of the new complex is
\begin{align}
H[\mathcal{C}_{L'}]=\left(H[\mathcal{C}_{L_1}]+H[\mathcal{C}_{L_2}]+\delta H\right)/\gamma
\label{eq:amalgamation}
\end{align}
where the formal quotient $\bullet/\gamma$ indicates that pairs of atoms in
$\gamma$ are identified; $\delta H$ denotes additional interactions between the
two subcomplexes $\mathcal{C}_{L_i}$ that vanish in the PXP model (in the vdW model they
are finite but strongly suppressed due to the quick decay of $U_\sub{vdW}$).
In a nutshell: $H[\mathcal{C}_{L'}]$ is the sum of the Hamiltonians of the original
two complexes were the detunings of the ports that are identified by
$\gamma$ add up. For example, let $n^{(1)}$ and $n^{(2)}$ describe ports of
$\mathcal{C}_{L_1}$ and $\mathcal{C}_{L_2}$, respectively, and let $\gamma$ identify these
two ports. Then $H[\mathcal{C}_{L_1}]$ contains a term $-\Delta^{(1)} n^{(1)}$
and $H[\mathcal{C}_{L_2}]$ contains a term $-\Delta^{(2)} n^{(2)}$. The Hamiltonian
\eref{eq:amalgamation} of the amalgamation contains the term $(-\Delta^{(1)}
n^{(1)}-\Delta^{(2)} n^{(2)})/\gamma=-(\Delta^{(1)}+\Delta^{(2)})n'$ where
$n'=n^{(1)}/\gamma=n^{(2)}/\gamma$ describes the atom that corresponds to
the identification of the two ports.
With $\delta H=0$, it is straightforward to verify that the amalgamation
$\mathcal{C}_{L'}$ realizes the language $L'=L_1\underline{\stackrel{\gamma}{\cap}}
L_2$. This is so because the ground state energy of $H[\mathcal{C}_{L'}]$ is
lower-bounded by the sum of the ground state energies of the summands
$H[\mathcal{C}_{L_i}]$; but this lower bound is realized by configurations in
$L'\neq\emptyset$.
The ports identified by $\gamma$ can be interpreted as ancillas
of the new complex if $|L_1\underline{\stackrel{\gamma}{\cap}}L_2| =
|L_1\stackrel{\gamma}{\cap}L_2|$, i.e., if the states of these atoms provide
redundant information about the ground state manifold; in this case, one
would define $L'=L_1\stackrel{\gamma}{\cap}L_2$ instead.
An important special case of the above construction is the amalgamation
of \emph{gates} where the input ports of one gate are identified with the
output ports of others. For example, let $w(x_1,x_2)$ and $w'(x_1',x_2')$
be two Boolean gates that are concatenated into the circuit on three inputs
$\tilde w(x_1',x_1,x_2):=w'(x_1',w(x_1,x_2))$. It is easy to see that
$L[\tilde w]=L[w]\stackrel{\gamma}{\cap} L[w']$ with $\gamma=\{(3,2)\}$
where 3 labels the third letter of words in $L[w]$, which encodes the
output $y=w(x_1,x_2)$, and 2 labels the second letter of words in $L[w']$,
which encodes the input $x_2'$. Note that for Boolean circuits without
redundancies it is always $|L[w]\underline{\stackrel{\gamma}{\cap}}L[w']|
= |L[w]\stackrel{\gamma}{\cap}L[w']|$ because all words are identified by
the input bits.
This example demonstrates that the amalgamation of gates is a crucial
ingredient for the decomposition of complex Boolean circuits into a small
set of simple gates.
\section{Functional completeness}
\label{sec:completeness}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{decomposition.pdf}
\caption{%
\emph{Decomposition of Boolean functions.}
(a) Any Boolean function ${f_\sub{T}}$ can be represented by a graph $G_{f_\sub{T}}$ (a
``Boolean circuit'') with dedicated input vertices (blue squares), one
output vertex (red square), and trivalent vertices (circles) of two types
(b):
%
\texttt{NOR}-gates with two incoming and one outgoing edge (orange
circles) and \texttt{CPY}-vertices with one incoming and two outgoing
edges (black circles); the edges themselves can be interpreted as
trivial single-bit gates, here referred to as \texttt{LNK}-gates
(black edges).
%
If the inputs (A,B) and outputs (Q,R) of all three primitives are assigned
Boolean values that satisfy the truth tables in (b), the value at the
output vertex is $y={f_\sub{T}}(x_1,\dots)$ by construction.
%
(c) The embedding $\Gamma(G_{f_\sub{T}})$ (``drawing'') of the abstract graph $G_{f_\sub{T}}$
in the plane $\mathbb{R}^2$ typically involves crossings (whenever $G_{f_\sub{T}}$
is \emph{non-planar}); furthermore, input and output vertices may lie in
the interior of the graph. Since a crossing of wires can be implemented
with the available vertices (d), the graph can always be enhanced such
that it becomes planar \emph{and} input/output vertices lie on the
perimeter of the embedding. (e) Locally, the embedding $\Gamma(G_{f_\sub{T}})$
decomposes into three primitives, namely the structures referred to as
\texttt{NOR}, \texttt{CPY}, and \texttt{LNK} that are functionally defined
by the truth tables in (b) and geometrically by the sketches in (e).
}
\label{fig:decomposition}
\end{figure*}
We have now all concepts and tools in place to formulate the main result of
this paper:
\begin{theorem}[Functional completeness]
\label{thm:1}
%
For every tessellated target Hilbert space $\H_\sub{T}=\H_\L[{f_\sub{T}}]$ on
some lattice $\L$ that is generated by a check function ${f_\sub{T}}$,
there exists a structure $\mathcal{C}_\sub{T}$ in the PXP model such that
%
\begin{align}
\H_\sub{T}\stackrel{\text{loc}}{\simeq} \H_0[\mathcal{C}_\sub{T}]\,,
\label{eq:equiv}
\end{align}
%
with finite gap $\Delta E>0$ and perfect degeneracy $\delta E=0$.
\end{theorem}
In \cref{eq:equiv}, $\stackrel{\text{loc}}{\simeq}$ denotes an isomorphism
of Hilbert spaces like \cref{eq:iso} that, in addition, preservers the
locality structure: it maps local unitaries on $\H_\sub{T}$ to local unitaries
on $\H_0[\mathcal{C}_\sub{T}]$ and vice versa. Here the locality structure of
$\H_0[\mathcal{C}_\sub{T}]$ is induced by the locality structure of $\mathcal{H}$
which reflects the physical realization of the system. The locality
structure of $\H_\sub{T}=\H_\L[{f_\sub{T}}]$ derives from the lattice $\mathcal{L}$ and
the bit-projector $\mathfrak{u}_s$ that was used to define the tessellated
language $L_\L[{f_\sub{T}}]$; it is therefore part of the defining properties of
the Hilbert space $\H_\sub{T}$. This local isomorphism will be explicit for the
examples in \cref{sec:examples}.
\begin{proof}
The proof of \cref{thm:1} is constructive in principle and best split into
several steps: Steps 1 to 4 deal with the construction of a Rydberg complex
$\mathcal{C}_{{f_\sub{T}}=1}$ that implements the constraint of the check function on a single
site of the lattice. In the final Step 5, the structure $\mathcal{C}_\sub{T}$ is then
constructed as the amalgamation of copies of $\mathcal{C}_{{f_\sub{T}}=1}$ on the full lattice.
\paragraph*{Step 1: Decomposition of ${f_\sub{T}}$.}
The first goal is to convert the check function ${f_\sub{T}}\,:\,\mathbb{F}_2^g\to\mathbb{F}_2$ on $g$
binary inputs into a finite set of Boolean gates as ``building blocks.'' There
are many universal gate sets to choose from \cite{Wernick1942} but the one
that is most natural to the Rydberg platform is the singleton $\{\mathtt{NOR}\}$
that contains only the $\mathtt{NOR}$-gate~\cite{Sheffer1913}
\begin{align}
A\downarrow B:=\overline{A\vee B}\,.
\label{eq:nor}
\end{align}
The idea behind this choice is simple: placing three atoms $A,C,B$ in a
row such that the pairs $(A,C)$ and $(C,B)$ are in blockade but the pair
$(A,B)$ is not naturally gives rise to a constraint akin to $C=A\downarrow B$
(we discuss the details below).
The functional completeness of $\{\mathtt{NOR}\}$ allows us to write
\begin{align}
{f_\sub{T}}(x_1,\dots,x_g)=(\dots (x_i\downarrow x_j) \dots (x_k\downarrow x_l)\dots)
\label{eq:f}
\end{align}
where the expression on the right can be any (recursive) combination of
expressions built from the input variables paired by $\mathtt{NOR}$-gates. On an
abstract level, this is a neat result; however, in reality one has to be more
careful because variables can be used multiple times at different locations
in the $\mathtt{NOR}$-expansion of ${f_\sub{T}}$.
To identify the true physical building blocks needed to cast \cref{eq:f}
into a structure of atoms, it is advisable to translate the $\mathtt{NOR}$-expansion
into a graph $G_{f_\sub{T}}$ that represents the underlying Boolean circuit and
uses the inputs $x_i$ only \emph{once} at dedicated ``input vertices'' and
outputs the result ${f_\sub{T}}(x_1,\dots,x_g)$ at a dedicated ``output vertex''
(\cref{fig:decomposition}a). Otherwise, $G_{f_\sub{T}}$ is a trivalent graph
with two types of vertices, corresponding to $\texttt{CPY}$-operations
that copy a bit and $\texttt{NOR}$-gates that combine two bits according
to \cref{eq:nor}. If we assign arrows to the edges to highlight the
information flow, the two vertices are distinguished by the number of
in- and outgoing edges (\texttt{CPY}: 1 in and 2 out, \texttt{NOR}: 2 in
and 1 out). Furthermore, we can interpret the edges themselves as trivial
single-bit gates (``\texttt{LNK}-gates''). If we assign Boolean values to the
inputs and outputs of these three primitives according to the truth tables
in \cref{fig:decomposition}b, the value of the output vertex is given by
$y={f_\sub{T}}(x_1,\dots,x_g)$. Without loss of generality, we consider only circuits
without redundancy, i.e., for a given input $\{x_1,\dots,x_g\}$ the state
of the inputs and outputs of all its primitives is uniquely determined. This
implies that there are exactly $2^g$ such assignments that are parametrized
by the $g$ inputs $\{x_1,\dots,x_g\}$ (this can be seen as a \emph{boundary}
condition; in a dynamical circuit, one would call it an \emph{initial}
condition).
\begin{figure*}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{pxp_primitives}
\caption{%
\emph{Complete set of logic primitives.}
(a)~The (elementary) \texttt{LNK}-complex $\mathcal{C}_\texttt{LNK}$ can
be realized by a chain of three atoms where adjacent atoms are in
blockade (black edges). The detuning of the ports $\Delta$ (blue
squares, labeled by $\ell$) is half that of the ancilla $2\Delta$
(green circle) in the bulk. The width $\delta E$ and gap $\Delta E$ are
shown together with a schematic spectrum that highlights the logical
manifold $\H_0[\mathcal{C}_\texttt{LNK}]$ and one of the states orthogonal to
$\H_0[\mathcal{C}_\texttt{LNK}]$ that define the gap. The state of ancillas is
shown in parentheses.
%
(b)~The \texttt{CPY}-complex $\mathcal{C}_\texttt{CPY}$ can be realized with
a central ancilla (red circle) that is in blockade with the three
surrounding atoms (blue squares). To make the two logical states
degenerate, the ancilla has a detuning of $3\Delta$ if the other atoms
are detuned by~$\Delta$.
%
(c)~The \texttt{NOR}-complex $\mathcal{C}_\texttt{NOR}$ can be realized with two
ancillas (blue and green circles) that form a ring-like blockade with
the three ports (blue and green squares). To make the four logical states
unique and degenerate, the detunings cannot be chosen uniformly but must
break the reflection symmetry about the axis through the output port~$Q$.
%
}
\label{fig:pxp_primitives}
\end{figure*}
\paragraph*{Step 2: Embedding of $G_{f_\sub{T}}$.}
The graph $G_{f_\sub{T}}$ represents the Boolean circuit of ${f_\sub{T}}$ on an abstract
level (only the connectivity of $G_{f_\sub{T}}$ is relevant). Our final goal is to
translate this graph into a functionally equivalent structure of atoms \emph{in
the plane}. Thus we have to find an embedding $\Gamma(G_{f_\sub{T}})$ of $G_{f_\sub{T}}$
in $\mathbb{R}^2$; this embedding should be planar, i.e., without crossing
edges to avoid unwanted interactions. Here we skip a formal definition of
$\Gamma(G_{f_\sub{T}})$ and appeal to the intuition of the reader: $\Gamma(G_{f_\sub{T}})$
describes a drawing of $G_{f_\sub{T}}$ in the plane without crossing edges and with
well-separated vertices (\cref{fig:decomposition}c).
Of course not every graph $G_{f_\sub{T}}$ is planar, i.e., can be drawn without
crossing edges in the plane. However, it has been shown long ago that
every Boolean circuit can be made planar by augmenting it with ``crossover
sub-circuits'' whenever two lines cross \cite{Dewdney_1979}. This crossover can
be constructed with various gate sets, including the \texttt{NOR}-singleton
(\cref{fig:decomposition}d). The embedding of the crossover then uses only
the three available primitives in \cref{fig:decomposition}b so that we can,
without loss of generality, assume $\Gamma(G_{f_\sub{T}})$ to be planar.
Note that the existence of a crossover also implies that we can assume the
input and output vertices to be located on the perimeter of the embedding
(as realized in \cref{fig:decomposition}c). Translated into complexes, this
will prove our claim in \cref{sec:complexes} that we can assume the ports
to sit on the perimeter of a complex.
While $\Gamma(G_{f_\sub{T}})$ may look very convoluted on a larger scale,
locally it decomposes into the three simple primitives depicted in
\cref{fig:decomposition}e, namely \texttt{CPY}, \texttt{NOR}, and
\texttt{LNK}. The next step is then to implement these three primitives
as complexes both geometrically (i.e., following the geometry in
\cref{fig:decomposition}e) and functionally (i.e., following the truth
tables in \cref{fig:decomposition}b). An ${f_\sub{T}}$-complex can then be obtained
by amalgamation of these primitives according to the geometric blueprint
provided by $\Gamma(G_{f_\sub{T}})$.
\paragraph*{Step 3a: Implementing the \texttt{LNK}-complex.}
The \texttt{LNK}-complex is the physical counterpart of the ``wires'' in
the drawing of the circuit $\Gamma(G_{f_\sub{T}})$. Logically, it corresponds to the
trivial gate $w(x)=x$ with language $L_\text{\texttt{LNK}} =\{00,11\}$. On
the level of pure Boolean logic, wires are not entities of their own but
on the physical level, sending a bit from one location to another requires
dedicated machinery.
Before we discuss its construction, it is useful to introduce a more
fundamental complex that can be used to construct two of the three primitives:
the \texttt{NOT}-gate with defining language $L_\neg = \{01,10\}$; it realizes
the single-bit gate $w(x)=\overline{x}$ and formalizes the core concept of
the Rydberg blockade. In the PXP model, it can be realized naturally without
ancillas by the Hamiltonian
\begin{align}
H_\neg=-\Delta (n_A+n_Q)
\end{align}
with a complex $\mathcal{C}_\neg$ where $|\vec r_A-\vec r_Q|<{r_\sub{B}}$. The subscripts
denote the labels of the ports assigned by $\ell$ (we reserve A, B, \dots~for
input ports and Q, R, \dots~for output ports).
The ground state manifold is $\H_0[\mathcal{C}_\neg]=\spn{\ket{01},\ket{10}}$ with
degeneracy $\delta E_\neg=0$ and gap $\Delta E_\neg=\Delta>0$.
The elementary \texttt{LNK}-complex that translates a bit in space
can then be constructed as the amalgamation of two \texttt{NOT}-gates
(\cref{fig:pxp_primitives}a) with Hamiltonian
\begin{align}
H_\text{\texttt{LNK}} =-\Delta n_A-2\Delta \tilde n_1-\Delta n_Q\,,
\end{align}
where adjacent atoms are in blockade but next-nearest neighbors are not. Above
and in the following we label ancillas with a tilde and assign them numerical
indices. As for the \texttt{NOT}-gate, it is $\delta E_\text{\texttt{LNK}}
=0$ and $\Delta E_\text{\texttt{LNK}}=\Delta$ with the \texttt{LNK}-manifold
\begin{align}
\H_0[\mathcal{C}_\text{\texttt{LNK}}]=\spn{\ket{0(1)0},\ket{1(0)1}}\,.
\end{align}
Here and in the following we mark the states of ancillas by parentheses.
Repeated amalgamation of elementary \texttt{LNK}-complexes results in
\texttt{LNK}-complexes of arbitrary length (always composed of an odd number
of atoms and with halved detuning at the endpoints). The two states in
$\H_0[\mathcal{C}_\text{\texttt{LNK}}]$ of such chains correspond to the two ground
states of an antiferromagnetic Ising chain.
\paragraph*{Step 3b: Implementing the \texttt{CPY}-complex.}
The purpose of the \texttt{CPY}-complex is to copy classical bits; it is
defined by the ``copy'' language $L_\text{\texttt{CPY}}=\{000,111\}$. The
\texttt{CPY}-complex is necessary because expansions in universal gates
can reuse inputs multiple times. Furthermore, circuits can be simplified
dramatically if intermediate results can be reused. In conventional drawings
of Boolean circuits, the possibility to copy bits is silently assumed whenever
one splits up wires. Again, in a physical implementation one has to provide
the means to do so.
The implementation of the \texttt{CPY}-complex is detailed in
\cref{fig:pxp_primitives}b. It is easy to see (\cref{app:cpy}) that there
cannot be a \texttt{CPY}-complex without ancillas because the configuration
$111$ excludes a Rydberg blockade between any of the three ports (which would
automatically render them completely uncorrelated). Adding a single ancilla
does the trick because the amalgamation of three \texttt{NOT}-complexes on
a single atom yields the desired complex by construction. The four atoms
are described by the Hamiltonian
\begin{align}
H_\text{\texttt{CPY}}=-\Delta(n_A+n_Q+n_R)-3\Delta\,\tilde n_1\,,
\label{eq:Hcpy}
\end{align}
and the geometry of the complex $\mathcal{C}_\texttt{CPY}$ is chosen so that
the ancilla is in blockade with the three ports, but these are not within
blockade of each other. In combination with \cref{eq:Hcpy}, this implements
the \texttt{CPY}-manifold
\begin{align}
\H_0[\mathcal{C}_\text{\texttt{CPY}}]=\spn{\ket{000(1)},\ket{111(0)}}
\end{align}
with $\delta E_\text{\texttt{CPY}}=0$ and $\Delta
E_\text{\texttt{CPY}}=\Delta>0$.
\paragraph*{Step 3c: Implementing the \texttt{NOR}-complex.}
The \texttt{NOR}-complex is crucial as it realizes a
functionally complete two-bit gate; it is specified by the language
$L_\texttt{NOR}=\{001,010,100,110\}$. In contrast to the \texttt{LNK}- and
\texttt{CPY}-complexes, the \texttt{NOR}-complex cannot be bootstrapped from
the \texttt{NOT}-complex but must be constructed from scratch.
In \cref{app:nor} we show that a \texttt{NOR}-complex cannot be realized
with less than two ancillas in the PXP model. One implementation of a
\texttt{NOR}-complex is detailed in \cref{fig:pxp_primitives}c. The five
atoms are governed by the Hamiltonian
\begin{align}
H_\text{\texttt{NOR}}=
-\Delta(n_A+n_Q+\tilde n_1)-2\Delta (n_B+\tilde n_2)
\end{align}
which gives rise to the \texttt{NOR}-manifold
\begin{align}
\H_0[\mathcal{C}_\text{\texttt{NOR}}]=\spn{%
\begin{aligned}
&\ket{001(01)},\ket{010(10)},\\
&\ket{100(01)},\ket{110(00)}
\end{aligned}
}
\end{align}
with $\delta E_\text{\texttt{NOR}} =0$ and $\Delta
E_\text{\texttt{NOR}}=\Delta$; this requires that the atoms are arranged in
a ring-like blockade, as depicted in \cref{fig:pxp_primitives}c. Note that
the two ancillas are only necessary to enforce the degeneracy of the logical
states $010$ and $100$ with $110$. All remaining constraints come for free
with the Rydberg blockade. As we will show in \cref{sec:primitives}, the
\texttt{NOR}-complex in \cref{fig:pxp_primitives}c is not unique. We will
also see that the only fundamental Boolean gate that can be realized with
as few as five atoms is the \texttt{NOR}-gate, confirming our intuition in
Step~1 that the \texttt{NOR}-gate is the most natural on the Rydberg platform.
\paragraph*{Step 4: Constructing the ${f_\sub{T}}$-complex.}
To construct a complex $\mathcal{C}_{f_\sub{T}}$ that implements the check function ${f_\sub{T}}$
(more precisely: the language $L[{f_\sub{T}}]$), one combines the three primitives
above according to an embedding $\Gamma(G_{f_\sub{T}})$. Since all vertices are
(at most) trivalent, it is easy to check that an amalgamation in the PXP
model is possible without geometrical obstructions, and that this procedure
yields an ${f_\sub{T}}$-complex with $\delta E_{f_\sub{T}}=0$ and $\Delta E_{f_\sub{T}}\geq\Delta>0$.
At this point, we have a complex with $g=4K$ input ports on its boundary
that outputs $y={f_\sub{T}}(x_{e_1}^1,\dots)$ on a dedicated output port (also on
its boundary, but this is not important in the following):
\begin{align}
\includegraphics[width=2.5cm,valign=c]{Cf}
\end{align}
To enforce the constraint ${f_\sub{T}}(x_{e_1}^1,\dots)\stackrel{!}{=}1$, we only
have to add a local detuning on the output port to lower the energy of
valid configurations and gap out invalid ones. This boils down to a simple
modification of the check function complex,
\begin{align}
\includegraphics[width=2.5cm,valign=c]{Cf}
\quad\rightarrow\quad
\includegraphics[width=2.5cm,valign=c]{Cf2}
\label{eq:detuning}
\end{align}
where the output port is detuned and downgraded to an ancilla. The ground
state manifold of the modified complex $\mathcal{C}_{{f_\sub{T}}=1}$ consists of all input
configurations for which ${f_\sub{T}}(x_{e_1}^1,\dots)=1$.
\paragraph*{Step 5: Constructing $\mathcal{C}_\sub{T}$.}
The complex $\mathcal{C}_{{f_\sub{T}}=1}$ enforces the local constraint of the check function
on a single site of the lattice on which the tessellated target Hilbert space
$\H_\sub{T}=\H_\L[{f_\sub{T}}]$ is defined. To construct $\mathcal{C}_\sub{T}$ for the full
system, place a copy $\mathcal{C}_{{f_\sub{T}}=1}\mapsto \mathcal{C}_{{f_\sub{T}}=1}^{s}$ on every site $s\in
V(\L)$ of the lattice, and amalgamate adjacent complexes at the corresponding
ports (possibly using \texttt{LNK}-complexes to avoid unwanted interactions):
\begin{align}
\mathcal{C}_\sub{T}:=\quad\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth,valign=c]{HT2}
\end{align}
By construction, the ground states of this complex are in one-to-one
correspondence with words $\vec x\in L_\L[{f_\sub{T}}]$ (using the ports on the
edges denoted by blue squares). Note that here we show the construction for
a square lattice $\L$; the generalization to other lattices is straightforward.
This concludes the construction of $\mathcal{C}_\sub{T}$ such that
$\H_\sub{T}\stackrel{\text{loc}}{\simeq} \H_0[\mathcal{C}_\sub{T}]$ in the PXP
approximation. Note that the ancillas do not introduce additional degrees of
freedom in this subspace and local unitaries on $\H_\sub{T}$ map to local unitaries
on $\H_0[\mathcal{C}_\sub{T}]$ (the latter involve the ancillas of the $\mathcal{C}_{{f_\sub{T}}=1}$
complexes and can therefore be very complicated---but they remain local
on $\H$).
\end{proof}
We conclude this section with a few remarks.
First, while the proof above \emph{is} constructive, one should not expect
the resulting structures to be useful in real-world applications, except for
simple special cases. In particular, we established no claims about optimality
(in any sense) of the constructed ${f_\sub{T}}$-complexes; on this we focus in the
next \cref{sec:primitives}.
Second, the modification in \cref{eq:detuning} to construct $\mathcal{C}_{{f_\sub{T}}=1}$ from
$\mathcal{C}_{f_\sub{T}}$ is often straightforward to implement and can simplify the complex
considerably: When there are no blockades between the output port and some
of the input ports, one simply \emph{deletes} the output port along with all
ancillas that are in blockade with it. This removes all configurations of
input ports from the ground state manifold where the output was not excited
(see \cref{app:subcomplex}).
And finally, the removal of the output port may not be necessary at all if
the constraint ${f_\sub{T}}(x_{e_1}^1,\dots)\stackrel{!}{=}1$ can be rewritten as
an equality of the form
\begin{align}
f_1(x_{e_1}^1,\dots,x_{e_2}^1,\dots)\stackrel{!}{=}f_2(x_{e_3}^1,\dots,x_{e_4}^1,\dots)\,,
\end{align}
with Boolean functions $f_{1,2}$ that take only $2K$ inputs each. Then
$\mathcal{C}_{{f_\sub{T}}=1}=\mathcal{C}_{f_1}\stackrel{\gamma}{\otimes}\mathcal{C}_{f_2}$ where the two
complexes are amalgamated at their output ports:
\begin{align}
\includegraphics[width=2.5cm,valign=c]{Cf2}
\quad=\quad
\includegraphics[width=3.0cm,valign=c]{Cf3}
\end{align}
An example for this construction can be found in \cref{subsec:toric}.
\section{Logic Primitives}
\label{sec:primitives}
A crucial step of the proof in the previous section is to show that every
Boolean function $f$ can be realized by a Rydberg complex $\mathcal{C}_f$
in the sense that the language $L[f]$ of its truth table can be realized as
ground state manifold.
As mentioned above, the complexes that arise from the decomposition of $f$ into
\texttt{LNK}-, \texttt{CPY}- and \texttt{NOR}-primitives are typically large
and convoluted. For example, the decomposition of a simple \texttt{AND}-gate
($\wedge$) into \texttt{NOR}-gates reads
\begin{align}
A\wedge B = (A \downarrow A) \downarrow (B \downarrow B)\,,
\end{align}
which would require two \texttt{CPY}- and three \texttt{NOR}-complexes, wired
together by a bunch of \texttt{LNK}-complexes so that the resulting complex
requires more than 20 atoms. As this is way too much overhead for a simple
gate, the question arises whether important primitives of Boolean logic can
be realized by complexes that are much smaller than the ones described by
the \texttt{NOR}-decomposition in \cref{sec:completeness}.
The answer is positive: In the following, we discuss provably minimal
complexes for the most important gates of Boolean logic, all of which improve
significantly over the na\"ive \texttt{NOR}-decomposition. Besides the usual
gates of Boolean algebra, \texttt{NOT} ($\neg$ or $\overline{\bullet}$),
\texttt{AND} ($\wedge$), and \texttt{OR} ($\vee$), we search for minimal
complexes that realize the following common logic gates (given in disjunctive
normal form):
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\texttt{NOR:}\quad A\downarrow B &\phantom{:}=\overline A\wedge \overline B\\
\texttt{NAND:}\quad A\uparrow B &:=\overline A\vee \overline B\\
\texttt{XOR:}\quad A\oplus B &:=(A\wedge\overline B)\vee(\overline A\wedge B)\label{eq:XOR}\\
\texttt{XNOR:}\quad A\odot B &:= (A\wedge B) \vee (\overline A \wedge \overline B)\,.
\label{eq:XNOR}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Of these gates, only \texttt{NOR} and \texttt{NAND} are universal on their
own. The following identities show that some of these gates are simply
inverted versions of others (we will use this below):
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:relations}
\begin{align}
A\wedge B&=\overline{A\uparrow B}\\
A\vee B&=\overline{A\downarrow B}\label{eq:or}\\
A\oplus B&=\overline{A\odot B}\,.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Of the gates $\{\neg,\vee,\wedge,\uparrow,\downarrow,\oplus,\odot\}$, we
already know minimal complexes for \texttt{NOT} (2 atoms) and \texttt{NOR}
(5 atoms), recall \cref{sec:completeness}.
\clearpage
\makeatletter\onecolumngrid@push\makeatother
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\scalebox{0.96}{%
\begin{tikzpicture}
%
\node[figure,anchor=north west] at (-2,19.7) {\includegraphics[width=1.5cm]{legend3.pdf}};
%
\node[figure] at (11.3,18.3) {\includegraphics[width=3.5cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/CPY_manual-v1.pdf}};
\node[figure] at (14.0,19.3) {\includegraphics[width=3.2cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/CPY_manual-v1_manifold.pdf}};
\node[figure] at (14,17.8) {\includegraphics[width=1.2cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/CPY_manual-v1_table.pdf}};
\node[figure] at (12.2,20) {\includegraphics[width=1.5cm]{logic/CPY_ANSI_Labelled.svg.pdf}};
\node[figtext,anchor=center] at (10.9,20.0) {\texttt{CPY}};
%
\node[figure] at (6.5,18.7) {\includegraphics[width=3.5cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/LNK_manual-v1.pdf}};
\node[figure] at (6.5,17.6) {\includegraphics[width=3.5cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/LNK_manual-v1_manifold.pdf}};
\node[figure] at (8.7,18.7) {\includegraphics[width=0.9cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/LNK_manual-v1_table.pdf}};
\node[figure] at (7.4,20) {\includegraphics[width=1.5cm]{logic/LNK_ANSI_Labelled.svg.pdf}};
\node[figtext,anchor=center] at (6.1,20.0) {\texttt{LNK}};
%
\node[figure] at (1.5,18.7) {\includegraphics[width=3cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/NOT_manual-v1.pdf}};
\node[figure] at (1.5,17.6) {\includegraphics[width=2.5cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/NOT_manual-v1_manifold.pdf}};
\node[figure] at (3.5,18.7) {\includegraphics[width=0.9cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/NOT_manual-v1_table.pdf}};
\node[figure] at (2.4,20) {\includegraphics[width=1.5cm]{logic/NOT_ANSI_Labelled.svg.pdf}};
\node[figtext,anchor=center] at (0.9,20.0) {\texttt{NOT ($\neg$)}};
%
\node[figure] at (3,15.6) {\includegraphics[width=4cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/AND_manual-v1.pdf}};
\node[figure] at (9,15.6) {\includegraphics[width=7cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/AND_manual-v1_manifold.pdf}};
\node[figure] at (14,15.6) {\includegraphics[width=1.2cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/AND_manual-v1_table.pdf}};
\node[figure] at (0,15.3) {\includegraphics[width=1.5cm]{logic/AND_ANSI_Labelled.svg.pdf}};
\node[figtext,anchor=center] at (0,15.9) {\texttt{AND ($\wedge$)}};
%
\node[figure] at (3,12.8) {\includegraphics[width=3.7cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/OR_manual-v1.pdf}};
\node[figure] at (9,12.8) {\includegraphics[width=7cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/OR_manual-v1_manifold.pdf}};
\node[figure] at (14,12.8) {\includegraphics[width=1.2cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/OR_manual-v1_table.pdf}};
\node[figure] at (0,12.5) {\includegraphics[width=1.5cm]{logic/OR_ANSI_Labelled.svg.pdf}};
\node[figtext,anchor=center] at (0,13.1) {\texttt{OR ($\vee$)}};
%
\node[figure] at (3,10.1) {\includegraphics[width=3.8cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/NOR_manual-v2.pdf}};
\node[figure] at (9,10.1) {\includegraphics[width=7cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/NOR_manual-v2_manifold.pdf}};
\node[figure] at (14,10.1) {\includegraphics[width=1.2cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/NOR_manual-v2_table.pdf}};
\node[figure] at (0,9.8) {\includegraphics[width=1.5cm]{logic/NOR_ANSI_Labelled.svg.pdf}};
\node[figtext,anchor=center] at (0,10.4) {\texttt{NOR ($\downarrow$)}};
%
\node[figure] at (3,7.2) {\includegraphics[width=3.8cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/XOR_manual-v1.pdf}};
\node[figure] at (9,7.2) {\includegraphics[width=7cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/XOR_manual-v1_manifold.pdf}};
\node[figure] at (14,7.2) {\includegraphics[width=1.2cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/XOR_manual-v1_table.pdf}};
\node[figure] at (0,6.9) {\includegraphics[width=1.5cm]{logic/XOR_ANSI_Labelled.svg.pdf}};
\node[figtext,anchor=center] at (0,7.5) {\texttt{XOR ($\oplus$)}};
%
\node[figure] at (3,3.9) {\includegraphics[width=4cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/NAND_manual-v1.pdf}};
\node[figure] at (9,3.9) {\includegraphics[width=7cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/NAND_manual-v1_manifold.pdf}};
\node[figure] at (14,3.9) {\includegraphics[width=1.2cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/NAND_manual-v1_table.pdf}};
\node[figure] at (0,3.6) {\includegraphics[width=1.5cm]{logic/NAND_ANSI_Labelled.svg.pdf}};
\node[figtext,anchor=center] at (0,4.2) {\texttt{NAND ($\uparrow$)}};
%
\node[figure] at (3,1) {\includegraphics[width=3.8cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/XNOR_manual-v1.pdf}};
\node[figure] at (9,1) {\includegraphics[width=7cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/XNOR_manual-v1_manifold.pdf}};
\node[figure] at (14,1) {\includegraphics[width=1.2cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/XNOR_manual-v1_table.pdf}};
\node[figure] at (0,0.7) {\includegraphics[width=1.5cm]{logic/XNOR_ANSI_Labelled.svg.pdf}};
\node[figtext,anchor=center] at (0,1.3) {\texttt{XNOR ($\odot$)}};
%
\end{tikzpicture}%
}
\caption{%
\emph{Common logic primitives.}
Rydberg complexes for the most common primitives of Boolean
circuits. All complexes are provably minimal, see \cref{app:pxp}. Note
that \emph{minimal} complexes are not necessarily \emph{unique};
e.g.\ the shown \texttt{NOR}-gate is an alternative to the one in
\cref{fig:pxp_primitives}c, both of which are minimal. For each complex
we show (1) the geometry with blockade radii (gray dashed circles),
(2) the complete ground state manifold (orange: $\ket{1}_i$, black:
$\ket{0}_i$), and (3) the truth table of the ports (labeled atoms) in
the ground state manifold. The rows of the truth tables correspond to
the numbered ground state configurations. Colors of ancillas and ports
in the geometry encode the detuning (see key). Atoms in blockade are
connected by black solid lines.
%
}
\label{fig:logic_primitives}
\end{figure*}
\clearpage
\makeatletter\onecolumngrid@pop\makeatother
Using \cref{eq:or}, we can immediately construct an \texttt{OR}-complex with
six atoms by amalgamation of a \texttt{NOT}-complex to the output port of a
\texttt{NOR}-complex (remember \cref{fig:nutshell}). However, it is unclear
whether this complex is \emph{minimal}, i.e., cannot be realized with fewer
atoms. Therefore we systematically devised proofs that a given truth table
\emph{cannot} be realized with a given number $N$ of atoms, starting at $N=3$
for each gate, and increasing the number incrementally until the proof fails,
i.e., realizations can no longer be excluded.
These arguments are quite technical and can be found in \cref{app:pxp}.
However, this approach has two benefits: First, it provides rigorous lower
bounds on how many atoms are needed to realize a given gate, and second, it
often provides a blueprint for the construction of a minimal complex that
saturates this bound by carefully observing \emph{why} one cannot exclude
realizations with a given number of atoms.
To complement this rigorous approach, we conducted a brute force search on a
computer that exhaustively scans for (small) complexes that realize a given
truth table. In accordance with our proofs, we found solutions with the minimal
atom number for a given truth table (in addition, we also found non-minimal
complexes). Interestingly, there were alternative minimal solutions that we
missed in our manual approach; so minimal complexes are not necessarily unique.
A selection of provably minimal complexes for all important Boolean
primitives is shown in \cref{fig:logic_primitives} (for the sake
of completeness, we include the \texttt{NOT}-, \texttt{LNK}- and
\texttt{CPY}-complexes discussed in \cref{sec:completeness}). There
are a few comments in order. First, an example of non-unique minimal
complexes is the depicted \texttt{NOR}-complex built from five atoms
arranged in a triangular structure (cf.\ the ring-shaped structure in
\cref{fig:pxp_primitives}c). Second, the six-atom \texttt{OR}-complex
we proposed above indeed is minimal, though not unique either. Third,
the selection of minimal complexes in \cref{fig:logic_primitives} for
$\{\vee,\wedge,\uparrow,\downarrow,\oplus,\odot\}$ all build around the
triangle-based core of the \texttt{NOR}-complex, once again emphasizing
its central role in the context of Rydberg complexes. Finally, it turns
out that the relations \eref{eq:relations} are all reflected in the
minimal complexes, e.g., the amalgamation of a \texttt{NOT}-complex and
a \texttt{XNOR}-complex yields a minimal \texttt{XOR}-complex; similar
constructions hold for \texttt{NAND} and \texttt{AND} as well as \texttt{NOR}
and \texttt{OR}. If we recall the relation between \texttt{NOT} and the minimal
\texttt{LNK}-complex, the general picture emerges that inverting complexes
are simpler (by one atom) than non-inverting ones. This is understandable
in so far as inversion is the most basic operation the Rydberg blockade is
capable of, thus leading to the simplest complexes. This is in contrast to
the notation for Boolean circuits known from electrical engineering where
inverting gates are represented by more complicated symbols than their
non-inverting counterparts (\cref{fig:logic_primitives}).
\section{Crossing}
\label{sec:crossing}
\begin{figure*}[tb]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
%
\node[label] at (0,4.2) {\lbl{a}};
\node[figure] at (2.0,2.2) {\includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/CRS_manual-v2.pdf}};
%
\node[label] at (4.8,4.2) {\lbl{b}};
\node[figtext,anchor=center] at (7.7,4) {\texttt{CRS}};
\node[figure] at (9.0,4) {\includegraphics[width=1.5cm]{logic/CRS_ANSI_Labelled.svg.pdf}};
\node[figure] at (6.3,2.6) {\includegraphics[width=4cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/CRS_manual-v1.pdf}};
\node[figure] at (7.1,0.2) {\includegraphics[width=5.2cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/CRS_manual-v1_manifold.pdf}};
\node[figure] at (9,2.3) {\includegraphics[width=1.2cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/CRS_manual-v1_table.pdf}};
%
\node[label] at (10.8,4.2) {\lbl{c}};
\node[figtext,anchor=center] at (13.7,4) {\texttt{ICRS}};
\node[figure] at (15.0,4) {\includegraphics[width=1.5cm]{logic/ICRS_ANSI_Labelled.svg.pdf}};
\node[figure] at (12.3,2.4) {\includegraphics[width=3.8cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/ICRS_manual-v1.pdf}};
\node[figure] at (13.3,0.2) {\includegraphics[width=5cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/ICRS_manual-v1_manifold.pdf}};
\node[figure] at (15,2.3) {\includegraphics[width=1.2cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/ICRS_manual-v1_table.pdf}};
\node[figure] at (2.0,0.0) {\includegraphics[width=1.5cm]{legend3.pdf}};
%
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{%
\emph{Crossing.}
%
(a) The crossing constructed from the Boolean circuit crossing
based on \texttt{XNOR}-gates (see Ref.~\cite{Dewdney_1979} and
\cref{fig:logic_primitives}); it is an amalgamation of \texttt{LNK}-,
\texttt{CPY}-, and \texttt{XNOR}-complexes. The ground state manifold
(not shown) is 4-fold degenerate and ensures $A=Q$ and $B=R$. The complex
requires $\sim 27$ atoms and is therefore of no practical relevance.
%
(b) By contrast, the minimal crossing $\mathcal{C}_\texttt{CRS}$ requires only
10 atoms; it was constructed by systematically excluding functionally
equivalent complexes with fewer atoms. The shown data is explained in
the caption of \cref{fig:logic_primitives}.
%
(c) The minimal \emph{inverted} crossing $\mathcal{C}_\texttt{ICRS}$ is smaller
than the non-inverted crossing and requires only eight atoms. To construct
$\mathcal{C}_\texttt{CRS}$ from $\mathcal{C}_\texttt{ICRS}$, two \texttt{NOT}-complexes
must be amalgamated to adjacent ports. This is a recurring scheme due
to the inverting nature of the Rydberg blockade.
%
}
\label{fig:crossing}
\end{figure*}
The crossing complex realizes the somewhat surprising feature of
intersecting information channels in a strictly two-dimensional
setup of strongly interacting information carriers (recall Step~2
in \cref{sec:completeness}). The possibility to realize such a planar
crossing in a circuit with the three primitives \texttt{LNK}, \texttt{CPY}
and \texttt{NOR} was crucial for the proof of \cref{thm:1}. Note that
the \emph{existence} of such a complex followed immediately from the
existence of the three aforementioned complexes and the well-known fact
that Boolean circuits can be made planar \cite{Dewdney_1979}. However, just
as for the Boolean gates in \cref{sec:primitives}, the \texttt{NOR}-based
implementation of the circuit crossing in Ref.~\cite{Dewdney_1979} is of low
practical value as it requires seven \texttt{NOR}-gates (if we implement
\texttt{NOT}-gates directly, \cref{fig:decomposition}d); even a simpler
crossing based on only three minimal \texttt{XNOR}-gates requires $\sim 27$
atoms, see \cref{fig:crossing}a. Thus we are again tasked with finding a
minimal complex that realizes the same function.
By systematically excluding the existence of crossing complexes for
$N=4,\dots,9$ atoms, we finally find the minimal complex $\mathcal{C}_\texttt{CRS}$
depicted in \cref{fig:crossing}b comprising 10 atoms. The proof for
its minimality is very technical and more complicated than for the logic
primitives because geometric constraints must be taken into account for the
crossing \cite{Stastny2023}.
The structure with two dangling ports (Q and R) immediately suggests the
\textit{inverted} crossing $\mathcal{C}_\texttt{ICRS}$ in \cref{fig:crossing}c with
eight atoms, i.e., a complex that allows two signals to pass each other
while inverting both at the same time.
The minimality of the inverted crossing complex $\mathcal{C}_\texttt{ICRS}$ with eight
atoms follows as a corollary from the minimality of the non-inverted crossing
$\mathcal{C}_\texttt{CRS}$ with 10 atoms as the latter can be obtained from the former
by amalgamation of two \texttt{NOT}-complexes (thereby adding two atoms). In
line with our comment at the end of the previous \cref{sec:primitives},
the inverted variant of the crossing is smaller than its non-inverted
counterpart. We note that the inverted crossing $\mathcal{C}_\texttt{ICRS}$ has also
been described in Ref.~\cite{Nguyen2022} were it plays an important role in
mapping non-planar optimization problems to planar Rydberg structures.
\section{Examples: Spin Liquid Primitives}
\label{sec:examples}
In this part, we focus on our motivation outlined in the introduction,
namely the implementation of tessellated target Hilbert spaces of systems
that are characterized by local gauge constraints. We discuss two models
exemplarily: the surface code with abelian $\mathbb{Z}_2$ topological order
and the non-abelian Fibonacci model. For the surface code, we will be able
to utilize the Boolean primitives discussed in \cref{sec:primitives}; by
contrast, for the Fibonacci model such a reduction will not be useful.
\subsection{Surface code}
\label{subsec:toric}
The \emph{toric code} \cite{Kitaev2003} is the prime example for a spin
liquid in two dimensions with long-range entangled ground states that do
not break any symmetries but instead feature \emph{topological order}. The
toric code is referred to as \emph{surface code} if realized on surfaces
with boundaries \cite{Bravyi1998}; we will stick to this name in the
following. The surface code describes a gapped phase with $\mathbb{Z}_2$
topological order that is described by the mechanism of string-net condensation
\cite{Levin2005}. It allows for localized excitations that are abelian anyons
\cite{Kitaev2006} which, in turn, leads to ground state degeneracies on
topologically non-trivial surfaces (including flat surfaces with non-trivial
boundaries). As a consequence, surface codes are promising candidates for
quantum memories that encode logical qubits reliably into delocalized degrees
of freedom \cite{Dennis2002}. This makes the implementation of systems with
this kind of topological order interesting both from an academic and an
applied perspective \cite{Barends2014,Kelly2015,Semeghini2021}.
Here we consider the surface code on a finite square lattice with ``rough''
boundaries (like the gray background lattice in \cref{fig:toric}d); ``rough''
boundaries are terminated by dangling edges that attach to four-valent
vertices. The Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
H=-J_A\sum_{\text{Sites}\,s}A_s-J_B\sum_{\text{Faces}\,p}B_p
\label{eq:toric_H}
\end{equation}
operates on qubits that live on the edges $e$ of the square lattice. The
operators
\begin{equation}
A_s=\prod_{e\in s}\sigma^z_e
\quad\text{and}\quad
B_p=\prod_{e\in p}\sigma^x_e
\label{eq:toric_AB}
\end{equation}
are referred to as \emph{star} and \emph{plaquette} operators, respectively.
Here, $e\in s$ denotes edges that emanate from site $s$ and $e\in p$
denotes sites that bound face $p$; $\sigma_e^\alpha$ are Pauli matrices for
$\alpha=x,y,z$ acting on the qubit on edge $e$. Since $\com{A_s}{B_p}=0$,
the Hamiltonian \eref{eq:toric_H} is frustration-free and its ground state
$\ket{G}$ is characterized by $A_s\ket{G}=B_p\ket{G}=\ket{G}$ for all sites
$s$ and faces $p$ (assuming $J_A,J_B>0$). Due to the uniform ``rough''
boundaries there is no ground state degeneracy and $\ket{G}$ is unique.
The construction of $\ket{G}$ is straightforward: To satisfy the
constraint $A_s\ket{G}=\ket{G}$ on sites $s$, one can choose the product
state $\ket{\vec{0}}$ with $\sigma_e^z\ket{\vec{0}}=\ket{\vec{0}}$ for all
edges. This state does \emph{not} satisfy the constraint $B_p\ket{G}=\ket{G}$
on faces, though. To fix this, one defines the multiplicative group
$\mathcal{B}=\langle\{B_p\,|\,\text{Faces}\,p\}\rangle$ generated by all
plaquette operators (note that $B_p^2=\mathds{1}$), and constructs the superposition
\begin{align}
\ket{G}\propto\sum_{C\in\mathcal{B}}C\ket{\vec{0}}\,.
\label{eq:toric_gs}
\end{align}
The state $\ket{G}$ is invariant under any $B_p$ by construction since
$\mathcal{B}$ is left-invariant under any $B_p$ by definition. Furthermore,
since $\com{A_s}{B_p}=0$, the site-constraint $A_s\ket{G}=\ket{G}$ is still
satisfied. Thus \cref{eq:toric_gs} describes, up to normalization, the unique
ground state of \cref{eq:toric_H}.
The states $\ket{\vec{C}}\equiv C\ket{\vec{0}}$ have a peculiar structure:
each $C$ can be described as a collection of closed loops on the lattice where
the $\sigma_e^x$ of products of $B_p$ operators act (loops that terminate on
dangling edges at the boundary are considered closed); this loop structure
is then imprinted on $\ket{\vec{0}}$ so that $\ket{\vec{C}}$ is a product
state with a loop pattern $\vec{C}$ of flipped qubits $\ket{1}$. The ground
state \cref{eq:toric_gs} is therefore given by the equal-weight superposition
of all closed loop configurations on the square lattice---which makes it an
example of a \emph{string-net condensate} \cite{Levin2005} with a non-trivial
pattern of long-range entanglement \cite{Kitaev2006a,Levin2006}.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
%
\node[label] at (0,5.5) {\lbl{a}};
\node[figure,anchor=north west] at (-0.4,5.8) {%
\includegraphics[width=5.5cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/TOR_SQ_UC_manual-v1.pdf}};
\node[figtext,anchor=center] at (0.8,4.5) {$\mathcal{C}_\texttt{SCU}$};
%
\node[label] at (0,0) {\lbl{c}};
\node[figure,anchor=north west] at (0,0) {%
\includegraphics[width=15cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/TOR_SQ_UC_manual-v1_manifold.pdf}};
%
\node[label] at (6.0,5.5) {\lbl{b}};
\node[figure,anchor=north west] at (6.0,5.2) {%
\includegraphics[width=1.6cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/TOR_SQ_UC_manual-v1_table.pdf}};
%
\node[label] at (8.5,5.5) {\lbl{d}};
\node[figure,anchor=north west] at (8.5,6) {%
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/TC_SQ_2x2.pdf}};
\node[figtext,anchor=center] at (14.0,3.9) {$\mathcal{C}_\sub{\normalfont Loop}$};
\node[figure,anchor=center] at (4.8,0.8) {\includegraphics[width=1.5cm]{legend2.pdf}};
%
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{%
\emph{Surface code.}
(a) Unit cell/vertex complex $\mathcal{C}_\texttt{SCU}$ for the surface code
($\mathbb{Z}_2$ topological order). The complex is the amalgamation and
deformation of two \texttt{XNOR}-complexes [see \cref{fig:logic_primitives}
and \cref{eq:toric_constraint}] and implements the check function
constraint $f_\sub{Loop}=1$ defined in \cref{eq:toric_f}. The
deformations are necessary to prevent an unwanted blockade of ancillas
in the amalgamation. Black edges denote blockades between atoms, gray
edges illustrate the underlying square lattice.
%
(b,c) Truth table and ground state manifold of the complex. The manifold
contains all configurations with an even number of labeled atoms excited,
thereby realizing Gauss's law on the site (colored edges). This
provides the local isomorphism between $\H_\sub{T}=\H_\sub{Loop}$
and $\H_0[\mathcal{C}_\sub{Loop}]$.
%
(d) Periodic tessellation $\mathcal{C}_\sub{Loop}$ of the vertex complex
$\mathcal{C}_\texttt{SCU}$. The copies overlap on the edges and are amalgamated
at these ports (which makes the detunings uniform in the bulk).
%
}
\label{fig:toric}
\end{figure*}
To prepare this state in a real system, one could try to implement the
Hamiltonian \eref{eq:toric_H} and cool the system into its ground state. This
is a challenging task due to the four-body interactions \eref{eq:toric_AB}
which are notoriously hard to realize.
On the Rydberg platform, an alternative and more promising approach goes as
follows: In a first step, one prepares only the subspace
\begin{align}
\mathcal{H}_\sub{Loop}
&:=\{\,\ket{\Psi}\,|\,\forall\,{\text{Sites}\;s}:A_s\ket{\Psi}=\ket{\Psi}\,\}
\nonumber\\
&\phantom{:}=\spn{\ket{\vec{C}}\,|\,C\in\mathcal{B}}
\end{align}
as the low-energy manifold of a suitably designed structure of
atoms. ($\mathcal{H}_\sub{Loop}$ is the Hilbert space of a $\mathbb{Z}_2$
lattice gauge theory with charge-free background \cite{Kogut1979}. The local
constraint $A_s\ket{\Psi}=\ket{\Psi}$ corresponds to the gauge symmetry
of this theory and is known as \emph{Gauss's law}.) The $B_p$-terms in
\cref{eq:toric_H} induce quantum fluctuations on this subspace which give
rise to the string-net condensed ground state in \cref{eq:toric_gs}. On the
Rydberg platform, quantum fluctuations can be induced \emph{perturbatively}
by ramping up the Rabi frequency $\Omega_i$. Such fluctuations can give
rise to interesting quantum phases, as shown in Ref.~\cite{Verresen_2021}
for a different model.
This motivates the construction of a Rydberg complex $\mathcal{C}_\sub{Loop}$ with
\begin{align}
\H_0[\mathcal{C}_\sub{Loop}]\stackrel{\text{loc}}{\simeq} \H_\sub{T}=\H_\sub{Loop}
=\spn{\ket{\vec{C}}\,|\,C\in\mathcal{B}}\,,
\label{eq:toric_mapping}
\end{align}
i.e., a Rydberg complex the degenerate ground states of which can
be locally mapped one-to-one to loop configurations on the square
lattice. $\H_0[\mathcal{C}_\sub{Loop}]$ is then a subspace with dimension
$\dim\H_0[\mathcal{C}_\sub{Loop}]\sim 2^M$ where $M$ denotes the number of unit cells
of the square lattice. Note that $\H_0[\mathcal{C}_\sub{Loop}]$ cannot be decomposed
into factors of local Hilbert spaces (like, e.g., the full Hilbert space
$\H=(\mathbb{C}^2)^{\otimes 2M}$ can).
To this end, we assign bits $x_e^1$ to the edges of the square lattice
$\mathcal{L}$ ($K=1$). Our goal is to specify the tessellated ``loop language''
$L_\mathcal{L}[f_\sub{Loop}]$---which contains all bit patterns that trace
out closed loop configurations on the lattice (closed in the sense defined
above)---in terms of a local check function $f_\sub{Loop}$ and a local
bit-projector $\mathfrak{u}_s$ on each site $s$ of the square lattice.
The bit-projector simply selects the four bits on edges adjacent to $s$,
\begin{align}
\mathfrak{u}_s\left(
\includegraphics[width=1.7cm,valign=c]{u_square}
\right)
=(x_{e_1}^1,x_{e_2}^1,x_{e_3}^1,x_{e_4}^1)
\end{align}
and the check function reads
\begin{align}
f_\sub{Loop}(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)&=(x_1\odot x_2)\odot (x_3\odot x_4)
\label{eq:toric_f}
\end{align}
with the \texttt{XNOR}-gate $\odot$ defined in \cref{eq:XNOR}, that is, $A\odot
B=1$ iff $A=B$. It is easy to verify by inspection that $f_\sub{Loop}=1$ if
and only if the number of active bits is \emph{even}, thereby enforcing Gauss's
law on every site of the lattice (because loops cannot terminate there).
We could now construct a complex as discussed in \cref{sec:complexes}, using
the minimal \texttt{XNOR}-complex depicted in \cref{fig:logic_primitives}.
For this construction, we would amalgamate three of these complexes according
to \cref{eq:toric_f} and detune the final output to enforce $f_\sub{Loop}=1$;
this would require at least 16 atoms per site. We can do much better, though,
by rewriting the constraint as an equality:
\begin{equation}
f_\sub{Loop}=1\quad\Leftrightarrow\quad
x_1\odot x_2 = x_3\odot x_4\,.
\label{eq:toric_constraint}
\end{equation}
Indeed, \cref{eq:toric_constraint} evaluates to true iff $x_1+x_2+x_3+x_4$
is even.
In general, an implementation of an equality constraint $f_1=f_2$ of two
functions on separate inputs is achieved by amalgamation of their complexes
$\mathcal{C}_{f_1}$ and $\mathcal{C}_{f_2}$ at their output ports, as noted at the end of
\cref{sec:completeness}.
Therefore, the vertex complex $\mathcal{C}_\texttt{SCU}\equiv\mathcal{C}_{f_\sub{Loop}=1}$
(``Surface Code Unit cell'') that realizes the constraint
\cref{eq:toric_constraint} is that of only \emph{two} \texttt{XNOR}-gates
amalgamated at their outputs (\cref{fig:toric}a) which requires only 11
atoms. Surprisingly, it turns out that this realization is also minimal,
see \cref{app:toric} for a proof. (Note that typically the construction
of larger complexes from minimal primitives does \emph{not} yield minimal
complexes.) The two \texttt{XNOR}-complexes that make up the vertex complex
are geometrically deformed variants of the \texttt{XNOR}-complex shown in
\cref{fig:logic_primitives}. This is necessary to prevent unwanted blockades
between ancillas in the amalgamation.
In \cref{fig:toric}b we show the configurations of the four labeled ports (A,
B, C, and D) of the complex in the 8-fold degenerate ground state manifold. In
\cref{fig:toric}c we illustrate the excitation patterns of these eight ground
states (atoms excited to the Rydberg state are colored orange). Highlighting
the edges of the square lattice whenever the labeled ports associated to
them are excited yields the local mapping \eref{eq:toric_mapping} to the
loop structure of states in $\H_\sub{Loop}$. Note that the ancillas do not
add additional degrees of freedom in the ground state manifold.
For the tessellation (\cref{fig:toric}d) the vertex complex is copied and
shifted periodically along the basis vectors of the square lattice. The
labeled ports are then amalgamated to the corresponding ports of complexes
on adjacent sites. Quite remarkably, due to the amalgamation, the detunings
in the bulk become uniform, which makes this tessellation interesting under
the constraints of current platforms \cite{Semeghini2021,Ebadi2022}. (Note
that imposing periodic boundary conditions on the lattice, i.e., going back
to the \emph{toric} code, would render the detunings completely uniform.)
Finally, we briefly comment on the modifications of the surface code patch
in \cref{fig:toric}d that would be necessary to use it as a quantum code.
It is well-known \cite{Bravyi1998} that a surface code patch encodes a single
logical qubit if its four sides alternate in boundary types: top and bottom
remain ``rough'' but left and right are modified to ``smooth'' boundaries
by cutting of the dangling edges of the square lattice. On these boundaries,
the sites become trivalent ``T''-shaped with the same Gauss's law (i.e., the
number of active edges must be even). On these sites, the 4-valent complex in
\cref{fig:toric}a must be replaced by a trivalent one. Conveniently enough,
this is just the \texttt{XOR}-complex in \cref{fig:logic_primitives} as the
truth table of \texttt{XOR} contains exactly the four assignments of three
Boolean variables such that $x_1+x_2+x_3$ is even. As a bonus, closing of
the left and right sides of the patch with \texttt{XOR}-complexes leads to
completely uniform detunings along these boundaries. The simplicity of the
vertex complex on trivalent sites suggests a definition of the surface code on
the Honeycomb lattice (which is perfectly possible \cite{Levin2005}). However,
because of the two sites per unit cell, this does not reduce the number of
required atoms per unit cell to implement the check function. Indeed, the
realizations with minimal Rydberg complexes on both lattices are essentially
equivalent, as can be seen in \cref{fig:toric}d by rotating the tessellation
by 45\textdegree.
\subsection{Fibonacci model}
\label{subsec:fibonacci}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
%
\node[figtext] at (0,6) {\lbl{a}};
\node[figure,anchor=north west] at (0,6) {%
\includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/FIB_HX_UC_manual-v2.pdf}};
\node[figtext,anchor=center] at (0.5,3.0) {$\mathcal{C}_\texttt{FMU}$};
\node[figtext,anchor=center] at (2.4,5.2) {$\mathcal{C}_{f_\sub{Fib}=1}$};
\draw[draw=black,line width=0.8pt,dash pattern=on 2pt off 1.5pt] (1.1,4.9) rectangle (3.6,2.8);
%
\node[figtext] at (0,0.2) {\lbl{c}};
\node[figure,anchor=north west] at (0,0) {%
\includegraphics[width=15cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/FIB_HX_UC_manual-v2_manifold.pdf}};
%
\node[figtext] at (5.0,6) {\lbl{b}};
\node[figure,anchor=north west] at (5.5,6) {%
\includegraphics[width=1.9cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/FIB_HX_UC_manual-v2_table.pdf}};
%
\node[figtext] at (8.0,6) {\lbl{d}};
\node[figure,anchor=north west] at (8.1,5.7) {%
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/FIB_HX_2x2.pdf}};
\node[figtext,anchor=center] at (14.0,1.0) {$\mathcal{C}_\sub{Fib}$};
%
\node[figure,anchor=center] at (8.9,4.7) {\includegraphics[width=1.5cm]{legend4.pdf}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{%
\emph{Fibonacci model.}
(a) Unit cell complex $\mathcal{C}_\texttt{FMU}$ for the Fibonacci model that
implements two copies of the single-site check function constraint
$f_\sub{Fib}=1$ defined in \cref{eq:fib_f}. The complex is the
amalgamation of two equivalent 8-atom complexes $\mathcal{C}_{f_\sub{Fib}=1}$ on
the two trivalent sites that make up the basis of the honeycomb unit
cell. Black edges denote blockades between atoms, gray edges illustrate
the underlying Honeycomb lattice.
%
(b,c) Truth table and ground state manifold of the unit cell complex. The
manifold contains all configurations with closed strings and, in
addition, configurations with three strings fusing on a site. This
provides the local isomorphism between the string-net Hilbert space
$\H_\sub{T}$ and $\H_0[\mathcal{C}_\sub{Fib}]$.
%
(d) Periodic tessellation $\mathcal{C}_\sub{Fib}$ of the complex
$\mathcal{C}_\texttt{FMU}$. The copies overlap on the edges and are amalgamated
at the corresponding ports.
}
\label{fig:fibonacci}
\end{figure*}
The surface code only supports abelian anyons, which are not sufficient for
universal \emph{topological quantum computation}, where gates are implemented
fault tolerantly by braiding of localized excitations and measurements
correspond to their fusion \cite{Freedman2002,Nayak2008,Wang2010}.
The simplest anyon model that supports universal computation by braiding is
known as \emph{Fibonacci model} due to the role the Fibonacci numbers play in
the fusion rules \cite{Freedman2002a,Preskill2004,Bonesteel2005}; it may be
realized in some fractional quantum Hall states \cite{Read1999,Xia2004}. As
quasiparticles, the properties of Fibonacci anyons are a consequence of
and encoded in the entanglement pattern of the ground state on which they
live. The latter turns out to have a representation as a string-net condensate
with weights and ``string-net'' patterns that differ from the surface code
[cf.~\cref{eq:toric_gs}]. If we consider a Honeycomb lattice with qubits
on its edges, the fixed-point ground state of the Fibonacci model has the
form \cite{Levin2005}
\begin{align}
\ket{G}=\sum_{\vec S}\Phi(\vec S)\,\ket{\vec S}\,,
\label{eq:fibonacci_gs}
\end{align}
where the sum goes over all patterns (``string-nets'') $\vec S$ of flipped
qubits $\ket{1}$ on the edges of the Honeycomb lattice where \emph{no single
string} ends on a vertex. That is, in contrast to the loop patterns $\vec{C}$
of the surface code, vertices with \emph{three} fusing strings are allowed. The
coefficients $\Phi(\vec S)$ of the superposition are non-trivial functions
of the pattern $\vec S$, so that the condensate is no longer an equal-weight
superposition \cite{Levin2005,Fidkowski2009,Fendley2008}. It is possible to
write down a solvable, local Hamiltonian like \cref{eq:toric_H} with the exact
ground state \eref{eq:fibonacci_gs} which is, however, so complicated that it
is essentially useless for implementations \cite{Levin2005}. This complication,
together with the potential usefulness of the model for quantum computation,
motivates again the construction of a Rydberg complex $\mathcal{C}_\sub{Fib}$ that
implements the tessellated target Hilbert space
\begin{align}
\H_0[\mathcal{C}_\sub{Fib}]\stackrel{\text{loc}}{\simeq}\H_\sub{T}
=\spn{\ket{\vec S}\,|\,\text{String-net}\,\vec S}
\label{eq:fibonacci_mapping}
\end{align}
which has the dimension $\dim\H_0[\mathcal{C}_\sub{Fib}]\sim
(1+\varphi^2)^{M}+(1+\varphi^{-2})^{M}$ where $M$ is the number of unit cells
of the Honeycomb lattice and $\varphi=(1+\sqrt{5})/2$ is the golden ratio
\cite{Simon2013,Schulz2013}. As for the surface code, $\H_0[\mathcal{C}_\sub{Fib}]$ is
a Hilbert space that cannot be decomposed into factors of local Hilbert spaces.
Since the Honeycomb sites are trivalent, the bit-projector takes now the form
\begin{align}
\mathfrak{u}_s\left(
\includegraphics[width=1.5cm,valign=c]{u_triangular}
\right)
=(x_{e_1}^1,x_{e_2}^1,x_{e_3}^1)
\end{align}
and the check function that specifies the allowed string-nets can be written
in the compact form
\begin{align}
f_\sub{Fib}(x_1,x_2,x_3)=
(x_1\oplus x_2\equiv x_3)
\vee
(x_1\wedge x_2 \wedge x_3)
\label{eq:fib_f}
\end{align}
where the first clause $(x_1\oplus x_2\equiv x_3)$ realizes the loop constraint
($\equiv$ denotes the \emph{logical equivalence} which is equivalent to
the \texttt{XNOR}-gate as a connective) and the second clause $(x_1\wedge
x_2 \wedge x_3)$ allows for the fusion of three strings. Note that without
the second clause we fall back to the loop constraint of the surface code
(now on the honeycomb lattice).
Since there are \emph{five} assignments with $f_\sub{Fib}=1$, this check
function cannot be realized by a single logic gate (despite having three
ports) but must be decomposed into a circuit. Furthermore, since the
amalgamation of two logic gates always results in a complex with an even
number of ports, at least three gates would be necessary to realize the
Fibonacci constraint. This already leads into the territory of $\gtrsim 15$
atoms which we deem too much overhead for a single site. Therefore we follow
the same approach as for the logic primitives in \cref{sec:primitives}:
We systematically exclude the existence of complexes $\mathcal{C}_{f_\sub{Fib}=1}$
for $N=3,4,\dots,7$ atoms (\cref{app:fibonacci}). The approach fails for
$N=8$ and we find the minimal complex in \cref{fig:fibonacci}a (dashed
box). The amalgamation of two of the complexes, one mirrored horizontally,
yields the complex $\mathcal{C}_\texttt{FMU}$ (``Fibonacci Model Unit cell'')
for the two-site unit cell of the Honeycomb lattice, which can then be
tessellated as shown in \cref{fig:fibonacci}d. In contrast to the surface
code, the detunings are not uniform in this case. The full ground state
manifold of the unit cell is shown in \cref{fig:fibonacci}b. The colored
edges in \cref{fig:fibonacci}c for each ground state configuration establish
the local mapping in \cref{eq:fibonacci_mapping}. Note how all string-net
configurations are allowed except for single strings terminating at a site.
Finally, let us mention that the complex for the hexagonal unit cell with
15 atoms in \cref{fig:fibonacci}a can be interpreted as the complex on a
tilted \emph{square} lattice (by virtually contracting the vertical edges
of the honeycomb lattice). This complex, however, is not minimal as we know
of a 12 atom complex that realizes the Fibonacci check function constraint
on 4-valent sites.
\section{Geometric Optimization}
\label{sec:optimization}
So far we optimized complexes only in terms of their \emph{size} (number of
atoms) for a given language. As a result, we ended up with minimal complexes
that are defined by their blockade graph $B$, local detunings $\{\Delta_i\}$,
and an assignment of ports $\ell$, i.e., atoms that realize the desired
language in the ground state manifold.
Remember that in a blockade graph $B=(V,E)$ an edge $e=(i,j)\in E$ between
atoms $i,j\in V$ indicates that they are in blockade, i.e., cannot be excited
simultaneously. An abstract graph that can be realized in this way by placing
atoms in the plane which are in blockade if and only if their distance is
smaller than some blockade radius ${r_\sub{B}}$ is called a \emph{unit disk graph},
and a geometry $G_\mathcal{C}$ that realizes a prescribed graph as its blockade graph
is a \emph{unit disk embedding} of this graph.
So far, the actual geometry $G_\mathcal{C}$ of our minimal complexes was only taken
into account insofar as a unit disk embedding of the required blockade graph
$B$ must \emph{exist}. (Note that there are graphs that cannot be realized as
blockade graphs of planar geometries, so that this ``geometric realizability''
is a non-trivial condition; deciding whether a given graph can be realized
in this way is unfortunately \textsf{NP}-hard \cite{Breu1998}.)
Whenever there exists a planar geometry $G_\mathcal{C}=(\vec r_i)_{i\in
V}\in\mathbb{R}^{2N}\equiv\mathfrak{C}_N$ that realizes a prescribed blockade
graph, there typically exist many such geometries: In most cases, there is a
bit of ``wiggle room'' around a given geometry without changing the blockade
graph. In addition, there can be geometrically distinct realizations of the
same blockage graph that cannot be continuously deformed into each other
without violating the blockade constraints. For example:
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{blockade_example.pdf}
\end{center}
This can lead to disconnected regions in the configuration space
$\mathfrak{C}_N$ that realize a given blockade graph.
To optimize the geometry of a complex in $\mathfrak{C}_N$, we have to quantify
what we mean by a ``good'' complex. To this end, we define an \emph{objective
function} $\Gamma\,:\,\mathfrak{C}_N\rightarrow\mathbb R$ that quantifies
the quality of the complex and that we seek to minimize. One example is
\begin{align}
\tilde\Gamma(G_\mathcal{C})=\frac{\delta E}{\Delta E}
\label{eq:gamma1}
\end{align}
where $\delta E$ and $\Delta E$ are the width of the ground state manifold
and the gap (recall \cref{fig:rationale}). The problem with \cref{eq:gamma1}
is that its evaluation scales exponentially with the number of atoms $N$
because the computation of $\delta E$ and $\Delta E$ in principle requires
access to the complete spectrum of \cref{eq:H} (which is in general an
\texttt{NP}-hard problem~\cite{Pichler2018a}). While this is feasible for
small complexes, it becomes quickly a bottleneck as $\tilde\Gamma$ must be
evaluated repeatedly when iteratively optimizing a geometry. Furthermore,
in the PXP approximation, interaction energies are either infinite or zero so
that $\tilde\Gamma$ vanishes whenever the blockade constraints are satisfied.
Thus we need a simpler, heuristic quantity that can be directly computed
from the geometry of the complex.
\subsection{Geometric robustness}
\label{subsec:optimization_preliminaries}
To motivate the quantity we propose as objective function below, we first
have to review the role of the blockade radius ${r_\sub{B}}$ in the PXP model.
In the limit of vanishing driving, the blockade radius ${r_\sub{B}}$ is the distance
from an atom where the van der Waals interaction matches its detuning:
$C_6\,{r_\sub{B}}_i^{-6}\stackrel{!}{=}\Delta _i$. As the detunings can vary from
atom to atom in a generic structure $\mathcal{C}$, so does the blockade radius
${r_\sub{B}}_i$ (this dependence is quite weak, though). However, as outlined in
\cref{sec:setting}, we would like to work in the approximate framework of the
PXP model with a \emph{unique} blockade radius ${r_\sub{B}}$, because then the effects
of interactions between atoms simplify to kinematic constraints encoded in
a blockade graph. In the following, we interpret a given blockade graph $B$
as the encoding of the constraints we would like to realize with a structure
$\mathcal{C}$ of yet unknown geometry $G_\mathcal{C}$.
We can now introduce two dimensionless quantities. First, the \emph{robustness}
of a structure w.r.t.\ a given blockade graph $B=(V,E)$ is defined as
\begin{align}
\xi_B(\mathcal{C}):=\frac{\min\limits_{(i,j)\notin E}d(\vec r_i,\vec r_j)-\max\limits_{(i,j)\in E}d(\vec r_i,\vec r_j)}%
{\min\limits_{(i,j)\notin E}d(\vec r_i,\vec r_j)+\max\limits_{(i,j)\in E}d(\vec r_i,\vec r_j)}\,,
\label{eq:robustness}
\end{align}
where $d(\vec r_i,\vec r_j)$ denotes the Euclidean distance. The robustness
is a scale-invariant, finite number $\xi_B(\mathcal{C})\in [-1,1]$ where $\xi_B(\mathcal{C})>0$
indicates a valid unit disk embedding $G_\mathcal{C}$ that realizes the prescribed
blockade graph $B$ for blockade radii in some finite interval. Larger positive
values of $\xi_B(\mathcal{C})$ indicate more \emph{robust} embeddings with more
``wiggle room'' around the positions without changing the blockade graph, or,
equivalently, a wider range of blockade radii that yield the same blockade
graph. If $\xi_B(\mathcal{C})<0$, the unit disk graph induced by $G_\mathcal{C}$ does not
match the prescribed blockade graph $B$.
Similarly, the \emph{spread} of a structure $\mathcal{C}$ is defined as
\begin{align}
s(\mathcal{C})&:=
\frac{\max_i {r_\sub{B}}_i-\min_i {r_\sub{B}}_i}%
{\max_i {r_\sub{B}}_i+\min_i {r_\sub{B}}_i}
\nonumber\\
&=\frac{(\max_i \Delta_i)^{1/6}-(\min_i \Delta_i)^{1/6}}%
{(\max_i \Delta_i)^{1/6}+(\min_i \Delta_i)^{1/6}}\,.
\label{eq:spread}
\end{align}
The spread $s\in [0,1]$ quantifies the relative variations in blockade
radii of a structure (a system with uniform detuning $\Delta_i\equiv\Delta$
has vanishing spread). Just as \cref{eq:robustness} does not depend on the
length scale, \cref{eq:spread} is independent of the $C_6$ coefficient,
i.e., the strength of the interaction.
We can now take into account the variability of the blockade radius without
abandoning the PXP model as follows. We call a structure $\mathcal{C}$ a \emph{valid
implementation} of a blockade graph $B$ if
\begin{align}
s(\mathcal{C}) < \xi_B(\mathcal{C})\,.
\label{eq:valid}
\end{align}
This condition ensures that the geometry $G_\mathcal{C}$ can be scaled such that all
distances of atoms that should (not) be in blockade according to $B$, are
smaller (larger) than the smallest (largest) blockade radius of the structure
$\mathcal{C}$. As this condition is scale-invariant, we do not have to specify ${r_\sub{B}}$
in the following. Note that all structures presented in this paper are valid
in the sense of \cref{eq:valid}.
\subsection{Numerical optimization}
\label{subsec:optimization_results}
These considerations suggest the robustness $\xi_B$ as a measure for the
quality of geometries. We therefore set $\Gamma=-\xi_B$ to maximize this
quantity by minimizing $\Gamma$. The blockade graph $B$ and the detunings
$\{\Delta_i\}$ are fixed and define the functional properties of the complex;
in particular, the spread $s(\mathcal{C})$ is constant. Thus we optimize for geometries
that satisfy the validity constraint \eref{eq:valid} with a maximal margin
between robustness and spread.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
%
\node[figtext] at (-1.25,4.8) {\lbl{a}};
%
\node[figtext,anchor=south east] at (1.2,0.7) {%
\color{optimized}$\xi(\mathcal{C}_\texttt{NOR$\triangle$}^\mathrm{opt})=0.268$};
\node[figtext,anchor=south east] at (1.2,2.9) {%
\color{unoptimized}$\xi(\mathcal{C}_\texttt{NOR$\triangle$})=0.088$};
\node[figtext,anchor=south east] at (1.2,-0.3) {%
$s(\mathcal{C}_\texttt{NOR$\triangle$}^\mathrm{(opt)})=0.058$};
\node[figure,anchor=center] at (0,4.2) {%
\includegraphics[width=1.6cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/NOR_manual-v2do_simple.pdf}};
\node[figure,anchor=center] at (0,2.0) {%
\includegraphics[width=1.6cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/NOR_manual-v2_optimized_simple}};
%
\node[figtext,anchor=south east] at (3.8,0.7) {%
\color{optimized}$\xi(\mathcal{C}_\texttt{NOR$\circ$}^\mathrm{opt})=0.236$};
\node[figtext,anchor=south east] at (3.8,2.9) {%
\color{unoptimized}$\xi(\mathcal{C}_\texttt{NOR$\circ$})=0.111$};
\node[figtext,anchor=south east] at (3.85,-0.3) {%
$s(\mathcal{C}_\texttt{NOR$\circ$}^\mathrm{(opt)})=0.058$};
\node[figure,anchor=center] at (2.6,4.2) {%
\includegraphics[width=1.6cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/NOR_manual-v1do_simple.pdf}};
\node[figure,anchor=center] at (2.6,2.0) {%
\includegraphics[width=1.6cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/NOR_manual-v1_optimized_simple}};
\node[figtext] at (3.8,4.8) {\lbl{b}};
%
\node[figtext,anchor=south east] at (6.6,0.7) {%
\color{optimized}$\xi(\mathcal{C}_\texttt{SCU}^\mathrm{opt})=0.133$};
\node[figtext,anchor=south east] at (6.6,2.9) {%
\color{unoptimized}$\xi(\mathcal{C}_\texttt{SCU})=0.117$};
\node[figtext,anchor=south east] at (6.7,-0.3) {%
$s(\mathcal{C}_\texttt{SCU}^\mathrm{(opt)})=0.058$};
\node[figure,anchor=center] at (5.4,4.2) {%
\includegraphics[width=2.0cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/TOR_SQ_UC_manual-v1_simple.pdf}};
\node[figure,anchor=center] at (5.4,2.0) {%
\includegraphics[width=2.0cm]{RydbergComplexes/data/TOR_SQ_UC_manual-v1_optimized_simple.pdf}};
%
\draw[draw=black,line width=0.5pt,dash pattern=on 1pt off 1.5pt] (-1.2,0.4) -- (6.7,0.4);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{%
\emph{Optimization (Examples).}
%
(a) Comparison of perturbed (black) and optimized (red) geometries
for the two minimal \texttt{NOR}-complexes. Maximum distance
blockades are highlighted yellow, minimum distances of unblocked
atoms are indicated by dashed blue edges. The optimal geometries
are highly symmetric and match the manually constructed ones in
\cref{fig:logic_primitives} and \cref{fig:pxp_primitives}c. The
robustness for each complex is printed below the geometries and
the spread on the bottom of each column (we omit blockade graph
indices). Note that $\xi(\mathcal{C}_\texttt{NOR$\triangle$}^\mathrm{opt})
>\xi(\mathcal{C}_\texttt{NOR$\circ$}^\mathrm{opt})$ which makes the triangular
version \texttt{NOR$\triangle$} potentially more robust than the
ring-shaped \texttt{NOR$\circ$}. For all geometries the validity constraint
$s(\mathcal{C})<\xi(\mathcal{C})$ is satisfied.
%
(b) Comparison of the optimized geometry for the vertex complex
$\mathcal{C}_\texttt{SCU}$ of the surface code (red) and the manually constructed
geometry (black) from \cref{fig:toric}a; the robustness increases by
$\Delta\xi=0.016$. Due to unconstrained atoms, the optimization can
break the symmetry and produce slightly skewed geometries.
}
\label{fig:optimization}
\end{figure}
We call a complex $\mathcal{C}$ \emph{globally (locally) optimal} if $\xi_B(\mathcal{C})>0$ and
its geometry is a global (local) minimum of $\Gamma$ in $\mathfrak{C}_N$. To
minimize $\Gamma$ on the high-dimensional space $\mathfrak{C}_N$, we employ
the \texttt{SciPy} implementation \cite{Virtanen2020} of generalized simulated
annealing \cite{Tsallis1996,Andricioaei1996} in combination with a local
optimization based on the Nelder-Mead algorithm \cite{Nelder1965,Gao2010},
see \cref{app:optimization} for details.
Remember that the robustness is a scale-invariant quantity, so that the
scale of the optimized geometry is arbitrary. For normalization, we rescale
the geometries by setting the blockade radius
\begin{align}
{r_\sub{B}}:=\frac{1}{2}\left[\max_{(i,j)\in E}d(\vec r_i,\vec r_j)
+\min_{(i,j)\notin E}d(\vec r_i,\vec r_j)\right]
\stackrel{!}{=}1\,.
\label{eq:normalization}
\end{align}
First, we initialized the algorithm with the hand-crafted geometries
of all primitives in \cref{sec:primitives,sec:crossing} and the vertex
complexes in \cref{sec:examples} to optimize their robustness (we believe
the results to be globally optimal but we did not prove this). With these
initial configurations, the optimizer already started with a valid unit disk
embedding of $B$ ($\xi_B>0$) and tried to maximize the robustness further.
The results were typically only slightly deformed versions of the manually
constructed complexes, confirming our intuition. Some of the primitives (in
particular the ring-shaped \texttt{NOR}-complex in \cref{fig:pxp_primitives}c)
were already optimal due of their high symmetry.
In \cref{fig:optimization}a we demonstrate this by comparing slightly perturbed
geometries (black) to the subsequently optimized versions (red) for both
minimal realizations of the \texttt{NOR}-complex. In particular, we find
\begin{align}
\xi_{B_{\texttt{NOR$\triangle$}}}(\mathcal{C}_\texttt{NOR$\triangle$}^\mathrm{opt})=0.268
>
0.236=\xi_{B_{\texttt{NOR$\circ$}}}(\mathcal{C}_\texttt{NOR$\circ$}^\mathrm{opt})
\end{align}
and conclude that the triangular version \texttt{NOR$\triangle$}
(\cref{fig:logic_primitives}) is potentially more robust than the ring-shaped
\texttt{NOR$\circ$} (\cref{fig:pxp_primitives}c). For both, the validity
constraint \eref{eq:valid} is safely satisfied ($x\in\{\circ,\triangle\}$):
\begin{align}
s(\mathcal{C}_\texttt{NOR$x$}^\mathrm{(opt)})
=0.058<
\xi_{B_{\texttt{NOR$x$}}}(\mathcal{C}_\texttt{NOR$x$}^\mathrm{opt})\,.
\end{align}
Since the robustness depends only on the maximum (minimum) distance of
atoms that are (not) in blockade, there can be atoms with positions that are
unconstrained in small regions of the plane. These positions can be chosen
by the optimization algorithm at will, leading to slightly skewed geometries
that break the natural symmetry of the complex; an example is given by the
optimized surface code unit cell complex in \cref{fig:optimization}b. This
is an artifact of our particular objective function that can be eliminated
by more sophisticated choices for $\Gamma$ (e.g.\ motivated by specific
experimental requirements).
All optimized complexes are accessible online \cite{data}, normalized
according to \cref{eq:normalization}.
In a second run, we went one step further and initialized the optimization with
geometries that \emph{violated} the prescribed blockade graphs (by placing
the atoms randomly). In this case, the algorithm started with $\xi_B<0$
and first had to identify valid unit disk embeddings by stochastic jumps in
the configuration space. These runs typically rediscovered the geometries
we already knew. In some cases, alternative geometries were found (which
turned out to be local maxima of robustness, though). We conclude that it
is not only possible to optimize given geometries but also to \emph{find}
them (if they exist), at least for small complexes.
As a final remark, we stress that geometric optimization is in general
not \emph{reducible}, i.e., optimizing the primitives of a larger circuit
does not necessarily optimize the whole circuit as constraints between
primitives are not taken into account by this approach. This is particularly
important for tessellated complexes of quantum phases like the spin liquids
in \cref{sec:examples}, where one should optimize the complete tessellation
to minimize unwanted residual interactions that are not present in the
optimization of a single-site or unit cell complex.
\section{Outlook}
\label{sec:outlook}
We conclude with a few comments on open questions and directions for future
research.
\subparagraph{Minimality.}
To find and prove the minimality of complexes we systematically excluded
realizations with fewer atoms. While this approach is more efficient than a
brute force search (by exploiting constraints from the language, the detunings,
and the planar geometry), it is still far from trivial and cannot be easily
automated. It would be both interesting and useful to develop an algorithm
that, given a uniform language, constructs a \emph{minimal} graph with
weighted nodes, and a labeled node for each letter position of the language,
such that each \emph{maximum-weight independent set} \cite{gross2013handbook}
is in one-to-one correspondence with a word of the language. We are neither
aware of such an algorithm nor of statements on the complexity to find minimal
solutions. (Note that a solution of this problem might not even be a unit disk
graph, i.e., realizable by the blockade graph of a planar Rydberg complex.)
\subparagraph{Optimization.}
It is clear that our treatment of optimization in \cref{sec:optimization}
only scratches the surface. First, our choice of the objective function
$\Gamma$ is heuristic and other functions may be more appropriate for
specific experimental settings. This would change the ``optimal'' geometries
of complexes, of course. Second, there is a plethora of alternative numerical
algorithms available that could be used to minimize the objective function
more efficiently. In particular the existence of distinct geometries that
are separated by complexes that violate the blockade graph may require more
sophisticated algorithms to escape locally optimal configurations and find
the global optimum. The algorithms also should scale well with the size
of the complex because, as mentioned previously, tessellations should be
optimized as a whole to take into account constraints between its primitives.
If we go one step further and ask for an algorithm that \emph{constructs}
geometries from a given blockade graph, we quickly enter complexity hell:
Deciding whether a given blockade graph can be realized as a unit disk graph is
known to be \textsf{NP}-hard \cite{Breu1998}. Even if we are \emph{promised}
to be given a unit disk graph as blockade graph, there is \emph{no} efficient
algorithm that outputs the geometry of a complex that realizes it. This
is so because there are unit disk graphs that require exponentially many
bits to specify the positions of the nodes \cite{McDiarmid2013}. To add
insult to injury, even finding certain \emph{approximations} of unit disk
graph embeddings are known to be \texttt{NP}-hard \cite{Kuhn2004}. None
of these statements prevent us from looking for heuristic algorithms to
solve these problems for specific cases, of course (as we demonstrated in
\cref{sec:optimization}).
\subparagraph{Uniformity.}
Most of the complexes discussed in this paper make use of atom-specific
detunings (e.g.\ \cref{fig:logic_primitives} and \cref{fig:fibonacci}d). Only
the surface code tessellation in \cref{fig:toric}d is uniform in detunings,
at least in the bulk. While it is possible to realize atom-specific detunings
\cite{Labuhn_2014,Omran2019}, single-site addressability adds significant
experimental overhead. Thus it is reasonable to ask whether complexes with
non-uniform detunings can be replaced by (potentially larger) complexes
with uniform detunings (without adding additional degrees of freedom). For
instance, there is a third minimal \texttt{NOR}-complex with uniform detuning
$\Delta_i\equiv \Delta$. However, in amalgamated circuits this uniformity is
often destroyed---on the contrary, it is the \emph{non}-uniformity of the
\texttt{XNOR}-complex (\cref{fig:logic_primitives}) that made the bulk of
the surface code uniform (\cref{fig:toric}d). The quest for uniformity is
therefore best formulated on the level of complete circuits or tessellations.
\subparagraph{Beyond planarity.}
We focused completely on \emph{planar} Rydberg complexes to comply with
the restrictions of current experimental platforms: For the addressability
of single atoms it is simply convenient to have a dimension of unimpeded
access. However, technologically, three-dimensional structures of
Rydberg atoms are possible and have been experimentally demonstrated
\cite{Barredo2018,Kim2022}. Releasing the planarity constraint drastically
changes the rules for the construction of Rydberg complexes. For instance,
ports that are located \emph{inside} a 2D complex (and would require expensive
crossings to be routed to the perimeter) can be directly accessed from the
third dimension, possibly simplifying certain functional primitives. Note,
however, that at least the logic primitives in \cref{fig:logic_primitives}
do \emph{not} profit from a third dimension. (This follows from the proofs
in \cref{app:pxp}.)
\subparagraph{Beyond the PXP approximation.}
Our construction of Rydberg complexes was based on the assumption that atoms
within the blockade radius can never be simultaneously excited, while atoms
separated by more than the blockade radius do not interact at all; this
``PXP approximation'' implements the dynamical effect of the interactions
as a kinematic constraint. In reality, however, the atoms interact via
the van der Waals interaction $U_\sub{vdW}=C_6\,r^{-6}$ which contributes
also beyond the blockade radius, can lift the degeneracy $\delta E$ of
the ground state manifold, and reduce the gap $\Delta E$ that separates
it from excited states. One therefore expects that complexes with $\delta
E\approx 0$ in the vdW model are geometrically more constrained than in the
PXP model. This has an effect on the geometrical optimization of complexes
(see above) and the appropriate choice of the objective function: To take
into account residual interactions properly, heuristic functions like the
robustness should be replaced by realistic functions like \cref{eq:gamma1},
at least for small complexes where they can be computed exactly.
We checked that the three primitives in \cref{fig:pxp_primitives} can
be realized with perfect degeneracy $\delta E=0$ and gap $\Delta E>0$
in the vdW model by small adjustments of the detunings to balance residual
interactions. In principle, a \texttt{NOR}-complex can even be realized with
only three atoms, arranged in a triangle with precisely defined shape. This
is possible, because the two ancillas in \cref{fig:pxp_primitives}c were
only necessary to balance the energies of states with one and two input
ports active; in the vdW model, the same can be achieved by exploiting
the residual interaction between the two input ports. Which version of the
\texttt{NOR}-complex is more useful for implementations is an open question.
\subparagraph{Quantum phase diagrams.}
In this paper, we only studied the ground state manifold of the Hamiltonian
\eref{eq:H} without quantum fluctuations ($\Omega_i=0$). As has been
demonstrated in Refs.~\cite{Verresen_2021,Samajdar_2021}, the interplay of
quantum fluctuations ($\Omega_i>0$) and the strong blockade interactions
can give rise to interesting many-body quantum phases at zero temperature.
Thus it seems natural to explore the quantum phase diagrams of the proposed
spin-liquid tessellations in \cref{sec:examples}, for example numerically
using density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) techniques. Analytically,
one could derive the effective Hamiltonians on the constructed low-energy
manifolds for finite but small Rabi frequencies $\Omega_i\ll\Delta E$ in
perturbation theory \cite{Bravyi_2011}. Note that in general one expects
the relative strengths of the effective terms to depend on the specific
complex used to implement the local constraints. This raises the subsequent
question whether these couplings can be \emph{tuned} by modifications of
the used complexes.
\subparagraph{Dynamical preparation.}
In recent experiments \cite{Semeghini2021}, dynamical preparation schemes have
been used to prepare long-range entangled many-body states out-of-equilibrium
\cite{Giudici2022}. The idea is to use ``quasiadiabatic'' protocols
$\Omega_i(t)$ and $\Delta_i(t)$ where the detuning increases continuously
to its target value while a finite Rabi frequency ensures the coupling of
different excitations patterns.
This allows for the preparation of non-trivial superpositions of states
in the low-energy subspace of the classical Hamiltonian \eref{eq:H}. It
would be interesting to explore the states of the proposed tessellations
that can be prepared by such dynamical protocols numerically, and
study the effects of defects in the intended logic of the complexes
due to local excitations. Similar questions arise for the primitives
in \cref{sec:primitives,sec:crossing} and circuits built from these by
amalgamation.
\section{Summary}
\label{sec:summary}
In this paper, we developed a framework to design planar structures of
atoms which can be excited into Rydberg states under the constraint of the
Rydberg blockade mechanism (``Rydberg complexes''). Our framework targets
the preparation of degenerate ground state manifolds that are characterized
locally by arbitrary Boolean constraints. We proved that the truth table of
an arbitrary Boolean function can be realized as ground state manifold by
decomposing its circuit representation into three primitives that leverage
the Rydberg blockade. Motivated by this existence claim, we then presented
provably minimal complexes that realize the most important primitives of
Boolean circuits, including a crossing complex that is needed to embed
non-planar circuits into the plane. As an application of our framework, we
constructed periodic Rydberg complexes with degenerate ground state manifolds
that map locally on the non-factorizable string-net Hilbert spaces of the
surface code (with abelian topological order) and the Fibonacci model (with
non-abelian topological order). In combination with quantum fluctuations,
these structures may be the starting point to prepare topologically ordered
states in upcoming quantum simulators. We concluded the paper with a discussion
of the geometric optimization of Rydberg complexes using numerical algorithms
to increase their robustness against geometric imperfections and the effects
of long-range van der Waals interactions.
Our results highlight the versatility of planar structures of atoms
that interact via the Rydberg blockade mechanism. We provide a conceptual
foundation for the rationales of \emph{geometric programming}, the encoding
and solution of problems by tailoring the geometry of atomic systems, and
\emph{synthetic quantum matter}, the goal-driven design of quantum materials
on the atomic level. Due to the noisiness of near-term experimental platforms,
the latter seems particularly promising because quantum phases come with an
inherent robustness against a finite density of excitations. This robustness
is less clear in the geometric programming paradigm were the search for
(near-)optimal solutions can be severely impeded by defects in the prepared
states, especially at scale.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We thank Sebastian Weber for comments on the manuscript.
%
This project has received funding from the French-German collaboration
for joint projects in Natural, Life and Engineering (NLE) Sciences funded
by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and the Agence National de
la Recherche (ANR, project RYBOTIN).
%
\end{acknowledgments}
\bibliographystyle{bib/bibstyle.bst}
|
\section{Investigating transport inside re-healed flux surfaces}\label{sec:Istvan}
This section explores further the ten-order-of-magnitude difference in the predicted RE\xspace current when transport is/not accounted for within NIMROD\xspace's islands and re-healed flux surfaces. Radial profiles of the diffusion coefficient ($D$) are shown in \cref{fig:ASCOT}, also as a function of normalized electron momentum, at the last NIMROD\xspace simulation time; the values shown are taken at a representative electron pitch $p_\parallel/p=0.8$. There are a few important notes here: (i)~the diffusion coefficients span five orders of magnitude from the plasma core to edge; (ii)~though not shown, the advection coefficients are of similar magnitude ($A[{\rm m/s}] \sim D[{\rm m^2/s}]$); and (iii)~both transport coefficients are relatively insensitive to the electron pitch in the relevant range $p_\parallel/p\in [0.8,\,1]$ (see Figure~3 in \cite{Tinguely2021}).
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig3a.pdf
\caption{ASCOT5\xspace results.}
\label{fig:ASCOT}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig3b.pdf
\caption{DREAM\xspace results.}
\label{fig:IrLog}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{(a)~Diffusion coefficients, $\log_{10}(D\SI{}{[m^2/s]})$, from ASCOT5\xspace vs normalized minor radius ($r/a$) and electron momentum normalized to the rest mass ($p/m_e c$) at the time indicated by the vertical dashed lines in \cref{fig:DREAM}(upper) and subplot~(b). (b)~Time-traces of the RE\xspace current from DREAM\xspace when diffusion coefficients \emph{less} than the noted value are set to \emph{zero}, i.e. $D=0$ \emph{within} the similarly styled contours in (a). Note the various linear/logarithmic scales. The legend for curves in subplot~(b) applies to contours in subplot~(a).}
\end{figure}
In \cref{fig:ASCOT}, general trends are seen of rapidly decreasing transport with decreasing radius and relative insensitivity to electron energy. However, there is a clear feature of ``very low'' transport ($D < \SI{30}{m^2/s}$) for electrons localized in the core ($r/a \sim 0.05\mydash0.2$) and with energies ${<}\SI{50}{MeV}$ ($p/m_e c < 100$).
\Cref{fig:IrLog} shows the time-evolution of RE\xspace current when the transport coefficients are zeroed in different regions of the phase space in \cref{fig:ASCOT}.%
\footnote{Note that the diffusivity is used for discrimination of the phase space regions, while the advection coefficients (not shown here) are also filtered in the same regions.}
The ``base case'' is $D=0$ wherever $D < \SI{1000}{m^2/s}$, which effectively includes the entire core, $r/a < 0.3$, and leads to the previously seen ${\sim}\SI{1}{MA}$ RE\xspace beam. Yet reducing this threshold to $D < \SI{10}{m^2/s}$ leads to negligible RE\xspace current. Thus, it is primarily the electron population within $D \sim \SI{10\mydash18}{m^2/s}$, i.e. localized in $r/a \sim 0.05\mydash0.2$ and with kinetic energies ${\sim}\SI{0.2\mydash15}{MeV}$ ($p/m_e c \sim 1\mydash30$), which contributes most to RE\xspace plateau formation.
This problem can be looked at from another angle: What is the minimum transport needed to fully suppress RE\xspace plateau formation? More specifically, within the region of phase space where $D < \SI{1000}{m^2/s}$ in \cref{fig:ASCOT} (that mostly coincides with the re-healed flux surface region), which constant value of $D$ is sufficient to yield negligible RE\xspace current? As seen in \cref{fig:IrLogInverse}, full RE\xspace beam prevention is only achieved somewhere in the range $D = \SI{10\mydash18}{m^2/s}$. Therefore, compared to the highly diffusive edge region ($D \approx \SI{10^3\mydash10^5}{m^2/s}$), a relatively small amount of core transport is needed. Importantly, note that the advection coefficient $A[{\rm m/s}]$ is set to the same value as $D[{\rm m^2/s}]$ in these phase space regions, but almost identical results are found when setting $A=0$, as diffusion dominates in the narrow radial region of re-healed flux surfaces (as long as $A[{\rm m/s}]\sim D[{\rm m^2/s}]$).
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{fig4.pdf
\caption{Time-traces of the RE\xspace current from DREAM\xspace when the diffusion coefficient is set to the listed value in regions of phase space with $D<\SI{1000}{m^2/s}$ in \cref{fig:ASCOT}. The time indicated by the vertical dashed line is the same as in \cref{fig:DREAM,fig:IrLog}.}
\label{fig:IrLogInverse}
\end{figure}
\section{REMC\xspace efficacy during the thermal and current quenches}\label{sec:Val}
The same workflow presented in \cite{Tinguely2021} and summarized in \cref{sec:intro} was used in \cite{Izzo2022} to assess the SPARC\xspace REMC\xspace's efficacy for a full PRD\xspace mitigated disruption, i.e. including both the TQ\xspace and CQ\xspace. Here, the TQ\xspace \ppcfadd{(${\sim}\SI{1}{ms}$ in duration)} was induced by neon radiation, as in a scenario where massive gas injection was employed. The main results are captured in \cref{fig:Val,fig:DREAM}. The pre-disruption safety factor ($q$) profile is shown at $\t=0$ in \cref{fig:NIMROD} with $\q(0) \sim 1$ and $q=2$ around a normalized poloidal flux value of $\psi_\mathrm{N} \approx 0.75$. During the \ensub{the} TQ\xspace, i.e. the first ${\sim}\SI{1}{ms}$ of the simulation, the plasma current $I_\mathrm{p}$ decreases slightly, with the $I_\mathrm{p}$-spike denoting the start of the CQ\xspace. \ppcfadd{Around that time, the magnetic perturbation amplitudes $\delta B / B$ first peak (see \cref{fig:dB}), and strong nonlinear coupling among odd and even toroidal harmonics is observed.} Poincar\'{e}\xspace plots of magnetic field lines\ppcfadd{, in \cref{fig:NIMROD}, also} show high stochasticity during this period.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig1a.png
\caption{
\label{fig:NIMROD}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig1b.png
\caption{
\label{fig:dB}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{
(a, upper)~Poincar\'{e} plots of (mostly) stochastic magnetic field lines from NIMROD\xspace within the simulation boundary (dashed) and SPARC\xspace first wall (solid). (a, lower)~The safety factor $q$-profile evolution vs normalized poloidal flux ($\psi_\mathrm{N}$) and time, with the plasma current ($I_\mathrm{p}$) time-evolution overlaid.
\ppcfadd{(b)~Amplitudes of $n=1{-}10$ modes in units of $\delta B / B = \sqrt{W_\mathrm{mag}(n)/W_\mathrm{mag}(n=0)}$ with $W_\mathrm{mag}$ the magnetic energy Fourier component.}
Subplot (a) is reproduced from Figure~5 in \cite{Izzo2022}.
}
\label{fig:Val}
\end{figure}
However, from $\t \approx \SI{1\mydash1.5}{ms}$, $\q(0)$ increases from 1 to 2, and beyond $\t > \SI{1.5}{ms}$, the REMC\xspace is no longer resonant with the plasma core (refer to Figure~1 in \cite{Tinguely2021} for more details). \ppcfadd{Although the predominantly odd externally applied fields continue to grow as a the coil current continues to increase, these are now largely non-resonant fields that do not perturb the flux surfaces, and the nonlinearly excited resonant field components, both odd and even, decay away.} Thus, small islands start to reform, re-healing as closed flux surfaces by $\t \approx \SI{1.8}{ms}$. Note that the contribution from REs\xspace to the MHD\xspace are \emph{not} included in these NIMROD\xspace simulations, \ensub{although} \enadd{but} the back-reaction is expected to be small for low RE\xspace currents early on. This will be discussed further in \cref{sec:discussion}.
\Cref{fig:DREAM} shows the self-consistent evolution of Ohmic\xspace and RE\xspace currents from DREAM\xspace, including the advective and diffusive transport calculated by ASCOT5\xspace in DREAM\xspace's fluid transport model \cite{svensson_2021}. Note that the time bases of the DREAM\xspace and NIMROD\xspace simulations are not exactly the same; instead, the DREAM\xspace simulation is initialized with profiles close to the time of NIMROD\xspace's $I_\mathrm{p}$-spike.
\ppcfadd{
Importantly, the TQ\xspace in DREAM\xspace is only modeled for the final ${\sim}\SI{0.1}{ms}$ of NIMROD\xspace's ${\sim}\SI{1}{ms}$ TQ\xspace because DREAM\xspace requires a monotonic variation of the plasma current from which to map transport coefficients. These
}%
transport coefficients evolve with the plasma current until the final $I_\mathrm{p}$-value of the NIMROD\xspace simulation; then, they are held constant in time (see the vertical dashed line in the upper part of \cref{fig:DREAM}).%
\footnote{
\ppcfadd{To enforce transport ambipolarity in DREAM\xspace, any change of the electron density on a given flux surface due to transport is compensated by a change in the bulk electron density of similar size but opposite sign.}
}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{fig2.pdf
\caption{Time-traces of Ohmic\xspace (solid), RE\xspace (dot-dashed), and total (dashed) currents from DREAM\xspace; thick/thin RE\xspace currents indicate no/transport within re-healed flux surfaces. Times denoted above correspond to the NIMROD\xspace simulation (see \cref{fig:Val}). Transport coefficients are fixed in time after the vertical dashed line (upper), and surface re-healing begins at the vertical dotted line (lower). Reproduced from Figure~6 in \cite{Izzo2022}.}
\label{fig:DREAM}
\end{figure}
Two scenarios for the RE\xspace current are depicted in \cref{fig:DREAM}: In the first, the transport coefficients are applied as calculated throughout the entire plasma domain, i.e. even inside the re-healed flux surfaces, and the RE\xspace current remains negligibly low (${\sim}\SI{1}{\mu A}$). However, in the second case, transport inside islands \enadd{and re-healed flux surfaces} is set to zero, which is perhaps overly conservative. (Explicitly, $A = D = 0$ wherever $D<\SI{1000}{m^2/s}$.) The result is a RE\xspace plateau with current ${\sim}\SI{1}{MA}$. While this value is an improvement upon the ${\sim}\SI{5\mydash6}{MA}$ of RE\xspace current expected with \emph{no} REMC\xspace \cite{Sweeney2020,Tinguely2021}, it is likely the pessimistic upper bound on the true value.
\ppcfadd{
Here, it is important to note that the initial hot-tail seed can be sensitive to the TQ\xspace cooling time prescribed in DREAM\xspace. In the CQ\xspace-only modeling effort of \cite{Tinguely2021}, a ${\sim}\SI{0.5}{ms}$ TQ\xspace from $\SI{20}{keV}$ to $\SI{4}{eV}$ led to a ${\sim}\SI{50}{kA}$ seed which was then dissipated by the REMC\xspace, with similar $\delta B / B \sim 10^{-2}$ as that in \cref{fig:dB}. Further reducing the TQ\xspace time to $\SI{0.1}{ms}$ resulted in a much higher transient RE\xspace beam current of ${\sim}\SI{1}{MA}$, which was still suppressed by the REMC\xspace. These results are consistent with all test-particle REs\xspace losing confinement during the TQ\xspace in NIMROD\xspace for the scenario modeled in this paper \cite{Izzo2022}. The inclusion of TQ\xspace transport in DREAM\xspace, as a function of non-monotonic $I_\mathrm{p}$ variation, is left for future work.
}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
Supported by Commonwealth Fusion Systems, Swedish Research Council (Dnr. 2018-03911), US DOE Award Numbers DE-FC02-04ER54698 and DE-FG02-95ER54309. This work has been carried out within the framework of the EUROfusion Consortium, funded by the European Union via the Euratom Research and Training Programme (Grant Agreement No 101052200 -- EUROfusion). Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Commission. Neither the European Union nor the European Commission can be held responsible for them.
\section{Discussion and summary}\label{sec:discussion}
From the previous sections, it is clear that zeroing the transport in the core ($r/a < 0.3$) in DREAM\xspace is too conservative and pessimistic, resulting in a ${\sim}\SI{1}{MA}$ RE\xspace beam. Even so, it is important to note that this current is 5-6 times less than that expected for an unmitigated RE\xspace beam, i.e. no REMC\xspace, so even this conservative base case could be considered successful. ASCOT5\xspace simulations evaluate diffusion coefficients spanning $D \approx \SI{1\mydash1000}{m^2/s}$ in the core, but encouragingly only $D \sim \SI{18}{m^2/s}$ is needed in that region to completely suppress a RE\xspace beam. \ppcfadd{Perhaps this is one reason why many tokamaks struggle to generate RE\xspace plateaus via ``natural'' disruptions (as in Alcator C-Mod \cite{Granetz2010,Izzo2011}, for example), and instead resort to special ``recipes,'' although lower plasma current and thus lower avalanching certainly also play a role.}
However, it is not yet known whether this level of transport is achievable \ppcfadd{in SPARC\xspace}. In \cite{Izzo2022}, it was noted that the degree of field line stochastization predicted by NIMROD\xspace could be affected by several approximations, most notably the presence of a close, ideal wall which tends to \emph{limit} MHD\xspace mode growth. This approximation will be explored further in future resistive-wall studies, and perhaps this minimum $D$-value will even decrease.
\ppcfadd{
We can also approach this from another direction: In what ways can the REMC\xspace design be modified to achieve $D > \SI{18}{m^2/s}$ throughout the plasma? Perhaps most straightforward, the coil could be moved closer to the plasma and farther from the VV\xspace. This would (i)~improve the plasma-coil mutual coupling and reduce the coil's self-inductance, thereby increasing the induced coil current, (ii)~decrease image currents in the conducting wall, and (iii)~enhance the magnetic perturbation amplitude $\delta B / B$ in the core. Perhaps a design metric could be the expected diffusion coefficient computed from vacuum fields \`{a} la\xspace \cite{Rechester-Rosenbluth_PRL1978}, $D \propto (\delta B / B)^2$. The coil resistance could also be lowered by changing the coil cross-section, length, and material (resistivity). That said, many other factors constrain the design, like available space, forces and stresses, heating, and more.
}
As discussed in \cite{Tinguely2021}, both advection and diffusion tend to increase with RE\xspace energy, but there is a roll-over when the energetic electron drift orbits effectively average over large regions of stochasticity (see Figure~3 in \cite{Tinguely2021} or \cite{Carbajal2020,Sarkimaki2022} and others for further details). However, for REs\xspace within healed flux surfaces, perhaps large orbits could lead to ``excursions'' into stochastic fields, thus enhancing transport. For example, KORC simulations in \cite{Carbajal2020} found that REs\xspace with Larmor radii similar to island widths could escape them.
In addition, the same electric field accelerating REs\xspace causes them to drift radially \cite{Guan2010}, and this was not accounted for in these ASCOT5\xspace simulations, but will be pursued in the future.%
\footnote{See \cite{Sarkimaki2022} for simulations of passing and trapped REs\xspace during an ITER CQ\xspace, including the effects of collisions and the electric field.}
Perhaps most importantly, the effect of the RE\xspace population itself on the magnetic field and MHD\xspace has not yet been fully assessed. \Cref{fig:q_and_li} shows the time-evolution of the $q$-profile, its minimum value, and the internal inductance ($\ell_\mathrm{i}$) in DREAM\xspace for the base case. Although slightly later in time than in \cref{fig:NIMROD}, the central safety factor $\q(0)$ also surpasses $q=2$; however, unlike the NIMROD\xspace results, the increasing RE\xspace current then reduces $\q(0)<2$ at $\t \approx \SI{5}{ms}$ and $\q(0)<1$ at $\t \approx \SI{5.5}{ms}$. Thus, in theory, the REMC\xspace should regain resonance in the core beyond $\t > \SI{5}{ms}$, thereby enhancing transport and reducing the RE\xspace current, but this was not captured in the current workflow. A destructive kink instability might also be expected, as seen in experiment \cite{Cai_2015, PazSoldan2019}, for such low $\q(0)$ and high $\ell_\mathrm{i}$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig5a.pdf
\caption{}
\label{fig:q}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig5b.pdf
\caption{}
\label{fig:li_minq}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{DREAM\xspace results for the base case in \cref{fig:IrLog} with $D=0$ below $D<\SI{1000}{m^2/s}$: (a)~evolution of the safety factor $q$-profile vs minor radius for five times, and (b)~time evolution of the minimum $q$-value (dot-dashed) and internal inductance $\ell_\mathrm{i}$ (solid).}
\label{fig:q_and_li}
\end{figure}
Even then it is not clear what overall effect this self-regulation would have on the RE\xspace beam which already has a current ${\sim}\SI{1}{MA}$ by $\t \approx \SI{5}{ms}$ (for the base case with no island transport). Luckily, the Ohmic\xspace current has almost completely decayed by then, and the relatively long L/R time (${>}\SI{10}{ms}$) of the REMC\xspace will maintain the coil current and its perturbative effect. Furthermore, any additional transport within the re-healed flux surfaces will help lower this quasi-stationary RE\xspace current. A fluid RE model that could capture this effect has been incorporated into the JOREK \cite{bandaru2019simulating,bandaru2021magnetohydrodynamic} and M3D-C1 \cite{zhao2020simulation} MHD\xspace codes; a similar model is being implemented in NIMROD\xspace \cite{sainterme2020development} and benchmarked against the existing codes. Its application to the SPARC\xspace REMC\xspace will be pursued in future work.
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
In \cite{Boozer2011,Smith2013}, a novel method was proposed for \emph{passive} mitigation of relativistic ``runaway electrons'' (REs\xspace) generated during tokamak plasma disruptions: First, an in-vessel, non-axisymmetric coil would be passively energized through mutual coupling to the plasma current during the disruption's current quench (CQ\xspace); then, the resulting magnetic field perturbation would enhance stochasticity and transport such that the RE\xspace loss rate would dominate the growth rate, thus preventing RE\xspace beam formation.
In \cite{Sweeney2020}, such a ``Runaway Electron Mitigation Coil'' (REMC\xspace) was proposed for the SPARC\xspace tokamak \cite{Creely2020}, a high-field ($B_0 = \SI{12.2}{T}$), compact ($R_0 = \SI{1.85}{m}$, $a = \SI{0.57}{m}$) device currently under construction in Devens, Massachusetts, USA. The present REMC\xspace design has a predominantly $n=1$ structure and is located on the outboard wall; a similar coil is planned for the DIII-D\xspace tokamak, but on the inboard wall \cite{Weisberg2021}. Several aspects of the SPARC\xspace ``Primary Reference Discharge'' (PRD\xspace) make the RE\xspace problem challenging: a large plasma current ($I_\mathrm{p} = \SI{8.7}{MA}$) can lead to dangerous exponential RE\xspace growth; high core temperatures $T_{e0} \approx \SI{20}{keV}$ can cause enhanced primary and hot-tail generation; DT fuel provides a seed of non-thermal electrons through tritium beta decay; and high energy gammas from activated materials could accelerate electrons via Compton scattering.
However, in \cite{Tinguely2021}, modeling of the PRD\xspace's worst-case-scenario CQ\xspace (${\sim}\SI{3}{ms}$) showed complete prevention of RE\xspace beam formation with the REMC\xspace~-- and ${\sim}\SI{5\mydash6}{MA}$ of RE\xspace current without it. The modeling workflow included four steps: First, the mutual couplings of all toroidally conducting structures were simulated in COMSOL\xspace \cite{comsol} to evaluate the REMC\xspace's vacuum electromagnetic fields during the worst-case CQ\xspace. Second, these magnetic fields were applied at the boundary of a nonlinear, 3D NIMROD\xspace \cite{sovinec:2004} simulation to assess the plasma response and total fields. Third, the stochastic magnetic fields were input into the orbit-following code ASCOT5\xspace to calculate the advective and diffusive transport \cite{hirvijoki2014ascot} of energetic electrons. Finally, these transport coefficients -- $A,D$ as functions of energy, pitch, and radius -- were supplied to the hybrid fluid-kinetic code DREAM\xspace \cite{Hoppe_DREAM-2021} for self-consistent evolution of the RE\xspace population. Importantly, in both NIMROD\xspace and DREAM\xspace, the REMC\xspace vacuum fields and transport coefficients, respectively, were evolved as functions of $I_\mathrm{p}$ and not time explicitly.
More recently, in \cite{Izzo2022}, both the thermal quench (TQ\xspace) and CQ\xspace were modeled for the SPARC\xspace PRD\xspace and REMC\xspace; the results of this study -- which bound the maximum expected RE\xspace current -- are summarized in \cref{sec:Val}. \Cref{sec:Istvan} further explores these bounds in RE\xspace phase space, as well as the minimum transport needed to fully prevent RE\xspace beam formation. Finally, results and opportunities for future modeling are discussed in \cref{sec:discussion}
\section*{References}
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
|
\section{Introduction}
Language exposure at an early stage of development is critical for the facilitation of brain networks associated with language \cite{kuhl1,Cardillo1,moon1}. Storytelling is one form of language exposure, which was found to be associated with a greater engagement not only in language processing but also in visualization and cognitive abilities in children \cite{hutton1}. Interestingly, it was suggested that it is not the storytelling itself that is related to these improvements, but it is the interaction during the stories that amplify these abilities in children \cite{twait1}. A recent study demonstrated how a group of 4--6-year-old children attending storytelling sessions interactively vs. a group attending non-interactively (storytelling sessions on the screen), shared greater cognitive and language abilities \cite{twait1}. Hence, a question was raised regarding this positive effect during interactive (dialogic) storytelling -- is the positive effect due to the human interaction? or due to the interactive nature of the storytelling? in other words, will an interactive robot during storytelling result in similar results as the human-based interactive condition?
To study this question, we designed Robofriend (shown in Figure \ref{f:robofriend_photo}) -- a robotic teddy bear that reads young children stories.
Robofriend is constructed by taking a regular teddy bear and inserting a tablet in its belly, as well as a rudimentary skeleton, motors and sensors that allow it to move its head and arms.
Robofriend can read a story to a small group of children, with the robot's main objective being to engage the children, keeping their attention on the story. Thus, although our main motivation for designing Robofriend is the scientific study described above, Robofriend can also serve as a tool that a teacher in a daycare class can use. Robofriend can read a story to one group of children while the teacher engages with the other children in the class.
Each story that Robofriend can tell is divided into prerecorded video segments. Typically, each segment will correspond to showing a still image of one page in the printed book, with a human reading the text on the page. Note that Robofriend does not perform any text to speech, the segments are all prerecorded. At the end of each segment, Robofriend chooses which action to perform out of several actions it has available.
Possible actions include asking a simple question about the story (there is a set of prerecorded questions for each segment of the story, Robofriend chooses one of these randomly), giving positive feedback (e.g., ``very good children, I see you are paying attention''), or negative feedback (e.g., ``children, are you listening to the story?'').
As previously stated, the objective of Robofriend is to keep the childrens' attention. The first step to optimizing something is to measure it, or at least some proxy of it. Robofriend uses a camera to measure some things, which can serve as a proxy for engagement. First, Robofriend uses computer vision to detect the faces of the children, and the direction of their gazes.
We remark that these faces are anonymous -- Robofriend does not try to associate faces to identities in any way. From these face detection, we extract several measurements: how many faces are looking at the robot, how focused are they on the story (using their relative gaze) as well as how ``jumpy'' the faces are (an "excitement" metric). Aside from the visual attributes, we also monitor the noise level as and its momentary change (its derivative) to serve as supportive metrics capturing the children's state.
These are aggregated into a
reward signal for each camera video frame, and aggregated throughout each story segment to produce a state and reward for each segment.
Having defined the
rewards, we can now try to optimize our objective -- the total sum of rewards. Of course, we do not know in advance what is the right action to take after each story segment, nor do we have a model for how each action will affect the children's engagement. Therefore, we chose to use reinforcement learning to control Robofriend's actions. However, because young children are involved, we do not want to allow the robot to explore sequences of actions we know are not beneficial for the children (for example, always using the negative feedback action). Therefore, we adopt the approach of using LTL ``restraining bolts'' \cite{DBLP:conf/aaai/GiacomoIFP20}, and manually encode what are the allowed trajectories for Robofriend.
In the remainder of this paper, we describe the design of Robofriend in more detail. We also describe our preliminary evaluation of the robot at a local daycare center. Finally, we conclude with some lessons learned and a discussion of the ethical considerations that arose in this project.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{images/image001.jpg}
\caption{Robofriend in Home Testing}
\label{f:robofriend_photo}
\end{figure}
\section{Robofriend Design}
We now describe the design of Robofriend in more detail, starting with the mechanical build.
\subsection{Robofriend Mechanical Build}
\begin{table}
\small
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l|r}
\hline
Item & Use & Quantity & Price\\
\hline
Bear doll & - & 1 & US\$30.00\\
Display & Play video & 1 & US\$200.00\\
Camera & Monitor kids & 1 & US\$79.00\\
Arduino + wiring kit & Control Servos & 1 & US\$37.00\\
Servo & Move head & 4 & US\$24.00\\
Speakers & Playing Sound & 1 & US\$20.00\\
\hline
Total: & & & US\$462.00\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Robofriend Bill of Materials}
\label{t:bom}
\end{table}
As previously stated Robofriend is constructed by taking a large, 1m tall, teddy bear, and instrumenting it to be able to move its head and arms, play videos and sound, and look at the children it is reading the story to. First, we inserted an aluminum skeleton into the robot to support the other devices. To do so, we removed the majority of the stuffing and decoupled the head momentarily to mount the camera in the bear's nose and create a fixture for the servo motors to connect to. We then mounted a 12.3 inch display, which the robot displays the story segments on, as well as 4 servo motors which are used to move the head and arms (one for each arm and 2 for the the head pan and tilt). As mentioned above, a camera was placed into the teddy bear's nose, to monitor the children and measure the reward signal, finally, speakers were connected to play sound, see figure \ref{f:hardware} for a schematic diagram.
This hardware was controlled from a PC, which was connected directly to the camera, display, and speakers. The servo motors are controlled by an Arduino Uno (see Figure \ref{f:arduino}), which was connected to the PC as well. The controller for the servo motors runs in a separate process on the Arduino, following instructions from the PC.
The Bill of Materials (BOM) for Robofriend is shown in Table \ref{t:bom}, while a detailed BOM with links to each item is available online at: \url{shorturl.at/efBZ2}.
Overall, the total cost to construct Robofriend was less than US\$500, making it fairly accessible.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{images/hardware_diagram.jpg}
\caption{Hardware schematic block diagram}
\label{f:hardware}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{images/arduino.png}
\caption{Arduino sub-system}
\label{f:arduino}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Robofriend Code Architecture}
To operate and coordinate the different algorithms, hardware and user interactions, a proprietary python software stack was developed and will be briefly described below. The code is available at \url{https://github.com/IdoMatan/RoboFriend}.
The code architecture is based on RabbitMQ, which is a ROS-like publisher-subscriber framework that implements asynchronous parallel process control. RabbitMQ allows us to simultaneously control the robot's servos, camera, screen and any other needed peripherals, as well as to run the algorithms we will describe later.
Figure \ref{f:software1} shows the schematic structure of our software, showing the processes and the messages that are passed between them.
The main process is the StoryTeller, which coordinates the flow among the other processes and displays the video.
This process runs a loop which plays the next story segment, then calls the algorithm service to get the next action. This loop repeats until the story ends. Throughout this loop, the robot moves its head, aiming to center its viewing angle so to center all faces in the frame.
This flow is illustrated in
Figure \ref{f:ops_schema}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{images/OperationalScheme.png}
\caption{Software Operational Flow}
\label{f:ops_schema}
\end{figure}
The other services are either timer-based (e.g. send a frame every $N$ milliseconds) or event-driven, e.g., a page-ended message would trigger a next action calculation in the algorithm-service.
All metrics, actions and useful metadata (not video footage) were logged in real-time in a local Postgres database, allowing both post-analysis of the trial as well as live monitoring using a Grafana dashboard.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{images/software1.png}
\caption{Software Architecture Diagram}
\label{f:software1}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{f:gui} shows the simple GUI implemented where a user can run the app, choose one of the supported stories, an operation mode (which will be discussed later) and start and stop the story.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{images/GUI.png}
\caption{A simple python-based graphical user interface to interact with the robot}
\label{f:gui}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Robofriend Algorithm}
Having described the mechanical construction of Robofriend and the code architecture, we can now discuss the algorithm which is used to control it.
As previously mentioned, our high-level control algorithm involved using reinforcement learning with ``restraining bolts''
\cite{DBLP:conf/aaai/GiacomoIFP20}, to avoid the robot following trajectories which we know will not be good.
We begin by describing our sensing and reward function, then we describe the actions which are available to the robot, and finally, we describe the constraints which were used as the ``restraining bolts'' in our preliminary evaluation.
\subsubsection{Robofriend Sensing and Reward Function}
As previously mentioned, the reward is based on using computer vision to detect the children's faces and gaze direction, and on measuring the noise level.
Specifically, we used an MTCNN neural-network-based face detector to detect the faces of the children within the frame \cite{zhang2016joint}, followed by a gaze estimation step for each using GazeNet \cite{zemblys2018gazeNet} to generate a gaze vector relative to the camera lens.
This results in the
following metrics:
\begin{description}
\item[Number of Faces] The number of detected faces by the MTCNN face detection algorithm. A change in the number of faces would likely indicate a child walking away or not looking at the camera.
\item[Average relative gaze (attention)] For each detected face (denoted by index $i$), a gaze vector $\theta_i$, $\phi_i$ is predicted by the GazeNet algorithm, where $\theta_i$ is the lateral (left/right) angle and $\phi_i$ is the vertical (up/down angle) -- both angles are relative to the center of the frame (the camera lens center).
Based on these measurements, we define the {\em gaze} component of the reward as:
$$
r_{gaze} := \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n cos(\theta_i)
$$
Roughly speaking, our attention metric, ranging from 0-1, corresponds to how focused the children are on the robot as opposed to looking around the room.
\item[Excitement] Using consecutive frames we are able to calculate a per-face {\em jumpiness} metric corresponding to how still the children are. This is another proxy to their attention and engagement.
Formally, let us denote the positions of (centers of) faces detected in the first image by $x_i, y_i$ (for $i=1 \ldots n$), and the positions of the faces detected in the next image by $x'_j, y'_j$ (for $j=1 \ldots m$). As the faces do not have identities associated with them, we must first align the faces in the first image to the faces in the next image. We do so greedily by finding, for each face position $x_i, y_i$ in the first image, the closest face position $x'_j, y'_j$ (using Euclidean distance) in the next image (which is also under a feasible max possible distance). We then define the jumpiness for face $i$ by this Euclidean distance, and the total jumpiness is the sum of jumpiness for each face, that is:
$$
r_{jump} := \sum_{i=1}^n \min_j \sqrt{(x_i - x'_j)^2 + (y_i - y'_j)^2 }
$$
\item[Noise Level] The average noise level over a 1 second period as measured by the microphone inside the teddy bear. This is a proxy for how much the children are talking to each other instead of listening to the story. We denote this by $r_{noise}$.
\item[Deviation of Noise Level] The derivative of the noise level, again averaged every second, denoted by $r_{nd}$. The motivation behind this metric is to capture changes in the sound level within a page, indicating the children are getting noisier or quieter potentially due to the effect of the previous action.
\end{description}
To aggregate the reward signal throughout the duration of a story segment, we average each of these metrics for each video frame that belongs to this segment. Note that we use average instead of sum, as different story segments have different durations. This gives us a state vector $\langle r_{gaze}, r_{jump}, r_{noise}, r_{nd} \rangle$.
Finally, to aggregate these different metrics into a single reward function we use a weighed sum, and thus our reward denoted by $r$ is defined as:
$$
r := \alpha_1*r_{gaze} - \alpha_2*r_{jump} - \alpha_3*r_{noise} + \alpha_4*r_{nd} + ltl\_reward
$$
Where the $ltl\_reward$ will be described in details below, but conceptually corresponds to a set of pre-defined restraining rules the robot should learn to obey.
We conclude the discussion of the reward by noting that these measurements serve as a proxy for the real reward (the children's attention), which we can not measure directly.
\subsubsection{Robofriend States and Actions}
As we described above, Robofriend reads a story, which is divided into segments, and chooses which action to perform after every segment.
Note that the order between the story segments is linear, and so there is no choice with regard to which story segment to read next. The only choice is which action to perform after every story segment.
Robofriend's actions correspond to different types of feedback it can give the children and are divided into:
\begin{description}
\item[Positive Feedback] This action randomly chooses from a set of positive feedback sentences, such as ``great job'' or ``you are listening nicely''.
\item[Negative Feedback] This action chooses randomly from a set of (mildly) negative feedback sentences, such as ``please pay attention'' or ``please be quiet''.
\item[Question] This action chooses a random question relating to the story segment Robofriend just finished reading. Robofriend does not attempt to extract an answer but merely pauses for an appropriate amount of time.
\item[Continue] Continue immediately to the next story segment.
\item[Move head and arms] Execute a series of random head and arm movements for a few seconds.
\end{description}
Note that all of these actions are applicable regardless of where Robofriend is in the story (the question action changes as a function of it, but is always applicable). Furthermore, the only information Robofriend extracts from its sensors is the reward signal. Thus, there is no notion of state for where we are in the story, and the only state information is the state vector $\langle r_{gaze}, r_{jump}, r_{noise}, r_{nd} \rangle$ described above.
However, the LTL constraints used for the ``restraining bolts'' do carry their own notion of state, as we discuss next.
\subsubsection{Robofriend Restraining Bolt}
The final part of Robofriend's control architecture is the ``restraining bolt'' -- the LTL constraint which the robot needs to obey \cite{DBLP:conf/aaai/GiacomoIFP20}. That is, we specify LTL trajectory constraints over allowed and forbidden {\em trajectories} for the robot, where in this case a trajectory is a sequence of actions.
For example, we can specify the constraint to not ask two questions in a row as
$$G(ask\_question \rightarrow X \neg ask\_question) $$
(that is, if the current action is ask question, then the next action is not ask question). This ensures the robot will not ask questions constantly.
For the preliminary evaluation of the robot, we tested the following restraining bolts which felt sensible to include, where the overall constraint is a conjunction of the following:
\begin{description}
\item[Do not ask two questions in a row] $$G(ask\_question \rightarrow X \neg ask\_question)$$
\item[Do not wave hands twice in a row] $$G(wave\_hands \rightarrow X \neg wave\_hands)$$
\item[Eventually ask a question] $$F(ask\_question)$$
\item[Eventually wave hands] $$F(wave\_hands)$$
\end{description}
\subsubsection{Robofriend Learning Algorithm}
Robofriend can use reinforcement learning to find a policy which optimizes expected sum of rewards, while still having a high chance of conforming to the LTL constraints. Specifically, we use an Actor-Critic reinforcement learning algorithm \cite{konda1999actor} which is fed at each step the state of the children and predicts the next action towards maximizing the expected sum of rewards throughout the episode, accounting also for the LTL constraints modifying the rewards \cite{DBLP:conf/aaai/GiacomoIFP20}.
Bearing in mind these type of algorithms often need a massive amount of diverse enough training data to converge, and with the specific problem setting complexity and training availability, we added an option to conduct imitation learning of the policy network based on an external "wizard of oz" feedback given in real-time by a supervision/teacher. Essentially, during the first trials of the robot, a teacher could manually select an appropriate action, and the algorithm would use that as a labeled training set to conduct initial training of its policy network. This allows to both give a better baseline to start the learning process as well as avoid unwanted situations in the very beginning of the training process.
\section{Ethical Considerations}
During the construction of Robofriend, many ethical considerations came up. We now discuss these in detail.
The first consideration is privacy, which is a potential problem, especially when children are involved. Therefore, we designed Robofriend in a way that maximizes the privacy of the children. First, Robofriend does not keep any recorded images. All images are processed online to detect faces (without any attempt to associate faces with names -- which the robot does not have anyway). The only data Robofriend records involve a count of how many faces it detected in any given frame, as well as the direction of their gaze.
Another potential concern is that Robofriend will replace human contact with a teacher. As previously mentioned, Robofriend is meant to be a tool to be used by a daycare teacher, so that part of the class can listen to a story, while the teacher engages more personally with the remaining children. This can help the teacher devote more individual time to children who experience challenges attending to stories with background distractions, or to supplement activities for those who experience challenges with social interaction. Thus, Robofriend serves as a supplement for the teaching staff, and not as a replacement for the teacher.
\section{Conclusion}
We have described the construction and software architecture for Robofriend, a robotic story-telling teddy bear. In future work we intend to examine how children react to Robofriend, as well as its ability to learn to engage children in the story.
\bibliographystyle{unsrtnat}
|
\section{Introduction}
It is difficult to isolate a quantum system perfectly, which is affected by the inevitable influence of a surrounding environment.
Such a quantum system is called an open quantum system.
Since we encounter open quantum systems in a wide range of fields such as quantum information science \cite{Breuer2016, Breuer2002}, condensed matter physics \cite{Feynman1963, Caldeira1983} and high energy physics \cite{Calzetta2008}, it is important to understand their dynamics.
In general, the dynamics of an open quantum system, the so-called reduced dynamics, is very complicated.
This is because the environment may have infinitely many degrees of freedom and they are uncontrollable.
One needs the effective theory with relevant degrees of freedom to describe the reduced dynamics of an open quantum system \cite{Breuer2002}.
As is well-known, symmetry gives a powerful tool for capturing relevant degrees of freedom in the dynamics of interest.
For example, let us focus on the symmetry in the Minkowski spacetime, which is called the Poincar\'{e} symmetry.
Imposing the Poincar\'{e} symmetry on a quantum theory, one finds that quantum dynamics in the theory is described by the fundamental degrees of freedom such as a massive particle and a massless particle \cite{Weinberg1995}.
The approach based on symmetries provides a way to get the effective theory of open quantum systems.
In this paper, we discuss the consequences of the Poincar\'{e} symmetry on the reduced dynamics of an open quantum system.
This may give the understanding of the relativistic theories of open quantum systems (for example, \cite{Bedingham2014,Bedingham2019, Jones2021a, Jones2021b, Pearle2015, Kurkov2011, Ahn2003, Wang2022}).
The present paper is also motivated by the theory of quantum gravity.
Since the unification of quantum mechanics and gravity has not been completed yet, we do not exactly know how gravity is incorporated in quantum mechanics.
This situation has prompted to propose many models on the gravity of quantum systems.
In the previous work \cite{Kafri2014}, the model with a classical gravitational interaction between quantum systems was proposed, which is called the Kafri-Taylor-Milburn model.
In addition, the Diosi-Penrose model \cite{Diosi1987,Diosi1989, Penrose1996} and the Tilloy-Diosi model \cite{Tilloy2016} were advocated, for which the gravity of a quantum system intrinsically induces decoherence.
They are formulated by the theory of open quantum systems in a non-relativistic regime.
One may concern how the models are consistent with a relativistic theory.
Our analysis on reduced dynamics with the Poincar\'{e} symmetry would help to obtain a relativistic extension of the above proposed models.
For our analysis, we assume that the reduced dynamics of an open quantum system is described by a dynamical map.
The dynamical map is obtained by tracing out the environment from the total unitary evolution with an initial product state.
It is known that the dynamical map is represented by using the Kraus operators \cite{Breuer2002,Davies1976,Holevo2001,Keyl2002}.
The notion of covariant map is adopted for incorporating a symmetry into a dynamical map.
We derive the condition of a dynamical map with the Poincar\'{e} symmetry in terms of the Kraus operators.
With the help of the representation theory of the Poincar\'{e} group, we obtain a systematic way to deduce those Kraus operators.
Applying the way, we exemplify the dynamical map with the Poincar\'{e} symmetry.
To get the concrete Kraus operators, we focus on the dynamics of a single particle, which is possible to decay into the vacuum state.
Assuming that the particle is a massive particle with a finite spin or a massless particle with a finite spin and a nonzero momentum,
we get a model of the dynamical map with the Poincar\'{e} symmetry.
In the model, we find the following consequences: (i) if the particle is stable or the energy of particle is conserved, the obtained map turns out to be the unitary map given by the Hamiltonian of particle.
(ii) If the superposition state of a particle decoheres into a mixed state, the dynamical map for the particle does not have the Poincar\'{e} symmetry.
These consequences imply that the Poincar\'{e} symmetry can strongly constraint the reduced dynamics of an open quantum system.
The structure of this paper is as follows.
In Sec.\ref{sec:2}, we discuss a dynamical map describing the reduced dynamics of an open quantum system and consider how symmetries are introduced in the dynamical map.
In Sec.\ref{sec:3}, we derive the condition that the dynamical map is symmetric under the Poincar\'{e} group.
In Sec.\ref{sec:4}, focusing on the dynamics of a single particle, we present a model of the dynamical map with the Poincar\'{e} symmetry.
We then investigate the properties of the dynamical map in details.
Sec.\ref{sec:5} is devoted as the conclusion.
We use the unit
$\hbar=c=1$ in this paper.
\section{Quantum dynamical map and its symmetry}
\label{sec:2}
In this section, we consider the reduced dynamics of an open quantum system and discuss the symmetry of the dynamics.
The reduced dynamics is given as the time evolution of the density operator of the system.
The time evolution from a time
$\tau=s$ to
$\tau=t$ is
assumed to be given by
\begin{equation}
\rho(t)=\Phi_{t, s}[\rho(s)]=\text{Tr}_\text{E}[\hat{U}(t,s) \rho(s) \otimes \rho_\text{E} \, \hat{U}^\dagger (t,s)],
\label{eq:Phi}
\end{equation}
where
$\rho(\tau)$ is the system density operator,
$\rho_\text{E}$ is the density operator of an environment and
$\hat{U}(t,s)$
is the unitary evolution operator of the total system.
In this paper, the map
$\Phi_{t, s}$ is called a dynamical map, which has the property called completely positive and trace-preserving (CPTP) \cite{Breuer2002, Davies1976, Holevo2001, Keyl2002}.
The dynamical map
$\Phi_{t,s}$ is rewritten in the operator-sum representation,
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{t,s}[\rho(s)]=\sum_{\lambda} \hat{F}^{t,s}_{\lambda} \, \rho(s) \, \hat{F}^{t,s \,\dagger }_{\lambda}
\label{eq:opsum},
\end{equation}
where
$\hat{F}_{\lambda}^{t,s}$ called the Kraus operators satisfy the completeness condition,
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\lambda} \hat{F}^{t,s \, \dagger}_{\lambda} \hat{F}_{\lambda}^{t,s}=\hat{\mathbb{I}}
\label{eq:FdgF}.
\end{equation}
In this notation,
$\lambda$ takes discrete values.
When the label
$\lambda$ is continuous, we should replace the summation
$\sum_\lambda$ with the integration
$\int d \mu(\lambda) $ with an appropriate measure
$\mu(\lambda)$.
It is known that two dynamical maps
$\Phi$ and
$\Phi'$ with
\begin{equation}
\Phi[\rho]=\sum_{\lambda} \hat{F}_{\lambda} \, \rho \, \hat{F}^{\dagger }_{\lambda} , \quad
\Phi'[\rho]=\sum_{\lambda} \hat{F}'_{\lambda} \, \rho \, \hat{F}^{'\dagger }_{\lambda}
\label{eq:PhiPhi},
\end{equation}
are equivalent to each other
(i.e. $\Phi[\rho]=\Phi'[\rho]$ for any density operator
$\rho$) if and only if there is a unitary matrix $\mathcal{U}_{\lambda \lambda'}$
satisfying $\sum_\lambda \mathcal{U}_{\lambda_1 \lambda} \mathcal{U}^*_{\lambda_2 \lambda}=\delta_{\lambda_1 \lambda_2}=\sum_\lambda \mathcal{U}_{\lambda \lambda_1} \mathcal{U}^*_{\lambda \lambda_2}$ and
\begin{equation}
\hat{F}^{'}_\lambda=\sum_{\lambda'} \mathcal{U}_{\lambda \lambda'} \hat{F}_{\lambda'}.
\label{eq:inv}
\end{equation}
This is the uniqueness of a dynamical map \cite{Breuer2002, Davies1976, Holevo2001, Keyl2002}.
We introduce the notion of covariant map \cite{Keyl2002, Cirstoiu2020, Marvian2020} to impose symmetry on dynamical maps.
A dynamical map $\Phi_{t,s}$ is covariant under a group
$G$
if
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{t,s}[\hat{U}_{s} (g) \, \rho(s) \, \hat{U}^{\dagger}_{s} (g) ]=\hat{U}_{t} (g) \Phi_{t,s}[\rho(s)] \hat{U}^{\dagger}_{t}(g),
\label{eq:covmap}
\end{equation}
where
$\hat{U}_{s}(g)$ and
$\hat{U}_{t} (g)$ with $g \in G$ are the unitary representations of
$G$.
In this paper, the dynamical map
$\Phi_{t,s}$ satisfying \eqref{eq:covmap} is called symmetric under the group
$G$.
In the next section, we will discuss the dynamical map which is symmetric under the Poincar\'{e} group.
\section{Dynamical map with Poincar\'{e} symmetry}
\label{sec:3}
In this section, we consider a quantum theory with the Poincar\'{e} symmetry and discuss the general conditions on a dynamical map with the Poincare symmetry.
The generators of the unitary representation of the Poincar\'{e} group in the Schr\"{o}dinger picture \cite{Weinberg1995} are given by
\begin{equation}
\hat{P}_\mu =\int d^3 x \hat{T}^0_\mu, \quad \hat{J}_{\mu \nu}=\int d^3x \hat{M}_{\mu \nu}{}^0,
\label{eq:PJ}
\end{equation}
where
$\hat{T}_{\mu \nu}$ is the energy-momentum tensor satisfying
\begin{equation}
\partial_{\mu} \hat{T}^\mu_{\nu}=0, \quad \hat{T}_{\mu \nu}=\hat{T}_{\nu \mu}
\label{eq:T}
\end{equation}
and
$\hat{M}_{\mu \nu}{}^\rho$ with
\begin{equation}
\hat{M}_{\mu \nu}{}^\rho=x_\mu \hat{T}^\rho_{\nu}-x_\nu \hat{T}^\rho_\mu
\label{eq:M}
\end{equation}
is the Noether current associated with the Lorentz transformations.
From Eq.\eqref{eq:T}, we can show that
$\partial_\rho \hat{M}_{\mu \nu}{}^\rho=0$.
Focusing on each component of the generators, we have
\begin{align}
&\hat{H}=\hat{P}^0=\int d^3 x \hat{T}^{00}, \quad
\hat{P}^i=\int d^3 x \hat{T}^{0i},
\label{eq:HP}
\\
&\hat{J}^k=\frac{1}{2} \epsilon^{ijk} \hat{J}_{ij} = \int d^3 x \, \epsilon^{ijk}x_i \hat{T}^{0}_j, \quad
\hat{K}^k=\int d^3 (x^k \hat{T}^{00}-t\hat{T}^{0k}),
\label{eq:KJ}
\end{align}
where note that the boost generator
$\hat{K}^k$ explicitly depends on a time
$t$.
These operators satisfy the commutation relations,
\begin{align}
[\hat{P}_i, \hat{P}_j] &=0,
\label{eq:PP}
\\
[\hat{P}_i, \hat{H}] &=0,
\label{eq:PH}
\\
[\hat{J}_i, \hat{H}] &=0,
\label{eq:JH}
\\
[\hat{J}_i, \hat{J}_j]&=i\epsilon_{ijk} \hat{J}^k,
\label{eq:JJ}
\\
[\hat{J}_i, \hat{P}_j]&=i\epsilon_{ijk} \hat{P}^k,
\label{eq:JP}
\\
[\hat{J}_i, \hat{K}_j]&=i\epsilon_{ijk} \hat{K}^k,
\label{eq:JK}
\\
[\hat{K}_i, \hat{P}_j]&=i \delta_{ij} \hat{H},
\label{eq:KP}
\\
[\hat{K}_i, \hat{H}]&=i \hat{P}_i,
\label{eq:KH}
\\
[\hat{K}_i, \hat{K}_j]&=-i \epsilon_{ijk}\hat{J}^k,
\label{eq:KK}
\end{align}
which correspond to the Poincar\'{e} algebra.
We consider a dynamical map $\Phi_{t, s}$ from $\rho(s)$ to $\rho(t)=\Phi_{t, s}[\rho(s)]$.
The Poincar\'{e} symmetry of the dynamical map requires that
\begin{equation}
\hat{U}_{t} (\Lambda, a) \Phi_{t,s}[\rho(s)] \hat{U}^\dagger_{t} (\Lambda, a)=\Phi_{t,s}[\hat{U}_{s} (\Lambda, a)\rho(s)\hat{U}^\dagger_{s} (\Lambda, a)],
\label{eq:P-Cov}
\end{equation}
where the unitary operator
$\hat{U}_{t} (\Lambda, a)$ depends on the proper
($\text{det} \Lambda =1$) orthochronous
($\Lambda^0{}_0 \geq 1$) Lorentz transformation matrix
$\Lambda^\mu {}_\nu$ and
the real parameters
$a^\mu$ for the spacetime translations.
The unitary operator
$\hat{U}_{t} (\Lambda, a)$
generated by
$\hat{H}, \hat{P}_i, \hat{J}_i$ and
$\hat{K}_i$ has the group multiplication rule
\begin{equation}
\hat{U}_{t} (\Lambda', a') \hat{U}_{t} (\Lambda,a)= \hat{U}_{t} (\Lambda'\Lambda, a'+\Lambda' a),
\label{eq:rule}
\end{equation}
where we used the fact that we can always adopt the non-projective unitary representation of the Poincar\'{e} group \cite{Weinberg1995}.
The explicit time dependence of
$\hat{U}_t$ comes from the boost generator
$\hat{K}_i$.
Using the operator-sum representation, we have
\begin{equation}
\hat{U}_{t} (\Lambda, a) \sum_{\lambda} \hat{F}^{t,s}_{\lambda} \, \rho(s) \, \hat{F}^{t,s \dagger}_{\lambda} \, \hat{U}^\dagger_{t} (\Lambda, a)=\sum_{\lambda} \hat{F}^{t,s}_{\lambda} \, \hat{U}_{s} (\Lambda, a)\rho(s)\hat{U}^\dagger_{s} (\Lambda, a) \, \hat{F}^{t,s \dagger }_{\lambda}.
\nonumber
\end{equation}
From the uniqueness of the Kraus operators $\hat{F}^{t,s}_\lambda$ (see Eq.\eqref{eq:inv}), we obtain
\begin{equation}
\hat{U}^\dagger_{t} (\Lambda, a) \hat{F}^{t,s}_{\lambda} \hat{U}_{s} (\Lambda, a)= \sum_{\lambda'} \mathcal{U}_{\lambda \lambda'} (\Lambda,a) \hat{F}^{t,s}_{\lambda'}.
\label{eq:P-cov2}
\end{equation}
We can always choose
$\hat{F}^{t,s}_\lambda$ so that
$\{\hat{F}^{t,s}_\lambda \}_\lambda$ is the set of linearly independent operators.
This linear independence and the group multiplication rule of
$\hat{U}_t (\Lambda,a)$ given in \eqref{eq:rule} lead to the fact that the unitary matrix
$\mathcal{U}_{\lambda \lambda'} (\Lambda,a)$ satisfies the group multiplication rule
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\lambda'}
\mathcal{U}_{\lambda \lambda'} (\Lambda',a')
\mathcal{U}_{\lambda' \lambda''} (\Lambda,a)
=\mathcal{U}_{\lambda \lambda''} (\Lambda'\Lambda,\Lambda a +a').
\label{eq:rule2}
\end{equation}
Hence, the unitary matrix
$\mathcal{U}_{\lambda \lambda'}(\Lambda,a)$ is a representation of the Poincar\'{e} group.
Before discussing the condition of symmetry, Eq.\eqref{eq:P-cov2}, we present the useful relation
\begin{equation}
\hat{K}^i =e^{-i\hat{H}t} \, \hat{K}^i_{0} \, e^{i\hat{H}t},
\label{eq:KK_0}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\hat{K}^i_{0}=\int d^3 x \, x^i \hat{T}^{00}.
\label{eq:K_0}
\end{equation}
According to the Poincar\'{e} algebra, we have
\begin{equation}
\hat{U}_{t}(\Lambda,a)=e^{-i\hat{H}t} \hat{U}_0 (\Lambda, a) e^{i\hat{H}t},
\label{eq:U_t=0}
\end{equation}
where
$\hat{U}_0 (\Lambda,a)$ is the unitary representation of the Poincar\'{e} group with the genrators
$\hat{H}, \hat{P}^i, \hat{K}^i_0$ and
$\hat{J}^i$.
In the scattering theory, Eq.
\eqref{eq:U_t=0} is consistent with the Poincar\'{e} invariance of the S-operator
$\hat{S}(\infty,-\infty) $, where
$\hat{S}(t_\text{f},t_\text{i})=e^{i\hat{H}_0 t_\text{f}} e^{-i\hat{H}(t_\text{f}-t_\text{i})} e^{-i\hat{H}_0 t_\text{i}}$ and
$\hat{H}=\hat{H}_0 +\hat{V}$.
This is because
\begin{align}
\hat{U}^{\text{I} \dagger}_{t_\text{f}}(\Lambda,a) \hat{S}(t_\text{f},t_\text{i}) \hat{U}^\text{I}_{t_\text{i}}(\Lambda,a)
&=e^{i\hat{H}_0 t_\text{f}}
\hat{U}^{\dagger}_{t_\text{f}}(\Lambda,a) e^{-i\hat{H}(t_\text{f}-t_\text{i})} \hat{U}_{t_\text{i}}(\Lambda,a)e^{-i\hat{H}_0 t_\text{i}}
\nonumber
\\
&=e^{i\hat{H}_0 t_\text{f}}e^{-i\hat{H} t_\text{f}}
\hat{U}^{\dagger}_{0}(\Lambda,a) \hat{U}_{0}(\Lambda,a)
e^{i\hat{H} t_\text{i}}
e^{-i\hat{H}_0 t_\text{i}}
\nonumber
\\
&=\hat{S}(t_\text{f},t_\text{i}),
\label{eq:S-inv}
\end{align}
where
$\hat{U}^{\text{I}}_{t}(\Lambda,a)=e^{i\hat{H}_0 t}\hat{U}_{t}(\Lambda,a)e^{-i\hat{H}_0 t}$.
Eq.\eqref{eq:U_t=0} also implies that the unitary evolution generated by
$\hat{H}$ is symmetric under the Poincar\'{e} group.
Indeed, we can show that the unitary map
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{U}_{t,s}[\rho(s)]= e^{-i\hat{H}(t-s)} \, \rho(s) \, e^{i\hat{H}(t-s) }
\label{eq:uts}
\end{equation}
satisfies the condition of symmetry \eqref{eq:P-Cov} as
\begin{align}
\mathcal{U}_{t,s}[\hat{U}_{s} (\Lambda,a) \rho(s) \hat{U}^\dagger_{s} (\Lambda,a) ]
&= e^{-i\hat{H}(t-s)} \hat{U}_{s} (\Lambda,a)\, \rho(s) \, \hat{U}^\dagger_{s} (\Lambda,a)e^{i\hat{H}(t-s) }
\nonumber
\\
&= e^{-i\hat{H}(t-s)} \hat{U}_s (\Lambda,a)e^{i\hat{H}(t-s)} \, \mathcal{U}_{t,s}[\rho(s)] \, e^{-i\hat{H}(t-s)}\hat{U}^\dagger_s (\Lambda,a)e^{i\hat{H}(t-s) }
\nonumber
\\
&= \hat{U}_t (\Lambda,a) \, \mathcal{U}_{t,s}[\rho(s)] \, \hat{U}^\dagger_t (\Lambda,a).
\nonumber
\end{align}
Eq. \eqref{eq:U_t=0} helps us to simplify the condition of symmetry, Eq.\eqref{eq:P-cov2}, on the Kraus operators.
Defining the Kraus operators $\hat{E}^{t,s}_{\lambda}$ as
\begin{equation}
\hat{E}^{t,s}_{\lambda}=e^{i\hat{H}t} \hat{F}^{t,s}_{\lambda} e^{-i\hat{H}s}
\label{eq:E}
\end{equation}
which have the completeness condition,
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\lambda} \hat{E}^{t,s \dagger}_{\lambda} \hat{E}^{t,s}_{\lambda}=\hat{\mathbb{I}}
\label{eq:EdgE},
\end{equation}
we can rewrite Eq.\eqref{eq:P-cov2} as
\begin{equation}
\hat{U}^\dagger_0 (\Lambda, a) \hat{\bm{E}}\hat{U}_0 (\Lambda, a)= \mathcal{U} (\Lambda,a) \hat{\bm{E}}.
\label{eq:P-cov3}
\end{equation}
Here, we introduced the vector
$\hat{\bm{E}}$ with the
$\lambda$ component given by
$\hat{E}^{t,s}_\lambda$ and
the matrix
$\mathcal{U}(\Lambda,a)$ with
the $(\lambda, \lambda')$ component given by
$\mathcal{U}_{\lambda \lambda'}(\Lambda,a)$.
We define the dynamical map
$\mathcal{E}_{t,s}$ as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{E}_{t,s} [\rho]=\sum_\lambda \hat{E}^{t,s}_\lambda \rho \hat{E}^{t,s \dagger}_\lambda
\label{eq:Ets}.
\end{equation}
The condition
\eqref{eq:P-cov3} gives the fact that the map
$\mathcal{E}_{t,s}$ is symmetric under the Poincar\`{e} group in the sense that
\begin{equation}
\hat{U}_0 (\Lambda,a) \mathcal{E}_{t,s}[ \rho] \hat{U}^\dagger_0 (\Lambda,a)=\mathcal{E}_{t,s}[\hat{U}_0 (\Lambda,a) \, \rho \, \hat{U}^\dagger_0 (\Lambda,a)].
\label{eq:covE}
\end{equation}
The dynamical map
$\Phi_{t,s}$ is written by the unitary map
$\mathcal{U}_{t,s}$ and the dynamical map
$\mathcal{E}_{t,s}$ as
\begin{align}
\Phi_{t,s}[\rho]
&
=\sum_{\lambda} \hat{F}^{t,s}_\lambda \rho \hat{F}^{t,s \dagger}_\lambda
\nonumber
\\
&
=e^{-i\hat{H}t} \sum_{\lambda} \hat{E}^{t,s}_\lambda e^{i\hat{H}s} \rho e^{-i\hat{H}s}\hat{E}^{t,s \dagger}_\lambda e^{i\hat{H}t}
\nonumber
\\
&
=e^{-i\hat{H}t}
\mathcal{E}_{t,s}[ e^{i\hat{H}s} \rho e^{-i\hat{H}s}] e^{i\hat{H}t}
\nonumber
\\
&
=e^{-i\hat{H}(t-s)}
\mathcal{E}_{t,s}[ \rho ] e^{i\hat{H}(t-s)}
\nonumber
\\
&
=\mathcal{U}_{t,s} \circ
\mathcal{E}_{t,s}[ \rho ],
\label{eq:Phi=
UE}
\end{align}
where in the fourth equality we used the symmetric condition \eqref{eq:covE} noticing that $e^{i\hat{H}s}$ is the unitary transformation of the time translation.
Our task is to determine
$\hat{\bm{E}}$ satisfying Eq.\eqref{eq:P-cov3} (or $\mathcal{E}_{t,s}$ satisfying Eq.\eqref{eq:covE}).
Since Eq. \eqref{eq:P-cov3} is decomposed into equations for each irreducible representation subspace, the irreducible unitary representations of the Poincar\'{e} group is useful for our analysis.
Let us present how to classify the unitary representations of the Poincar\'{e} group \cite{Weinberg1995}.
We consider the standard momentum
$\ell^\mu$ and the Lorentz transformation matrix
$(S_q)^\mu{}_\nu $
with
\begin{equation}
q^\mu=(S_q)^\mu{}_\nu \ell^\nu.
\label{eq:k}
\end{equation}
The unitary matrix
$\mathcal{U}(\Lambda,a)$ is written as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{U}(\Lambda,a)=\mathcal{U}(I,a) \mathcal{U}(\Lambda,0)=\mathcal{T}(a)\mathcal{V}(\Lambda),
\label{eq:TV}
\end{equation}
where
$I$ is the identity matrix,
$\mathcal{U}(I,a)=\mathcal{T}(a)=e^{-iP_\mu a^\mu}$ and
$\mathcal{U}(\Lambda,0)=\mathcal{V}(\Lambda)$.
We define the vector
$\bm{v}_{q,\xi}$ as
\begin{equation}
\bm{v}_{q,\xi}=N_q \mathcal{V}(S_q)\bm{v}_{\ell,\xi},
\label{eq:v}
\end{equation}
where
$P_\mu \bm{v}_{\ell,\xi}=\ell_\mu \bm{v}_{\ell,\xi}$,
$N_q$ is the normalization and
the label
$\xi$ describes the degrees of freedom other than
them determined by $\ell^\mu$.
We obtain the following transformation rules for the vector
$\bm{v}_{q,\xi}$:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{T}(a)\bm{v}_{q,\xi}
&=N_q e^{-iP^\mu a_\mu}
\mathcal{V}(S_q)\bm{v}_{\ell,\xi}
\nonumber
\\
&=N_q \mathcal{V}(S_q)e^{-i(S_q)^\mu{}_\nu P^\nu a_\mu} \bm{v}_{\ell,\xi}
\nonumber
\\
&=N_q \mathcal{V}(S_q)e^{-i(S_q)^\mu{}_\nu \ell^\nu a_\mu} \bm{v}_{\ell,\xi}
\nonumber
\\
&=N_q \mathcal{V}(S_q)e^{-iq^\mu a_\mu} \bm{v}_{\ell,\xi}
\nonumber
\\
&=e^{-iq^\mu a_\mu}\bm{v}_{q,\xi}
\label{eq:Tv}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
\mathcal{V}(\Lambda)\bm{v}_{q,\xi}
&=N_q \mathcal{V}(\Lambda)
\mathcal{V}(S_q)\bm{v}_{\ell,\xi}
\nonumber
\\
&=N_q \mathcal{V}(\Lambda S_q) \bm{v}_{\ell,\xi}
\nonumber
\\
&=N_q \mathcal{V}(S_{\Lambda q}) \mathcal{V}(S^{-1}_{\Lambda q} \Lambda S_q)\bm{v}_{\ell,\xi}
\nonumber
\\
&=N_q \mathcal{V}(S_{\Lambda q}) \sum_{\xi'} \mathcal{D}_{\xi'\xi} (Q(\Lambda,q)) \bm{v}_{\ell,s'}
\nonumber
\\
&=\frac{N_q}{N_{\Lambda q}} \sum_{\xi'} \mathcal{D}_{\xi'\xi} (Q(\Lambda,q)) \bm{v}_{\Lambda q,s'},
\label{eq:Vv}
\end{align}
where
$Q(\Lambda,q)=S^{-1}_{\Lambda q} \Lambda S_q$ is an element of the little group, which satisfies
$Q^\mu{}_\nu \ell^\nu=\ell^\mu$, and
$\mathcal{D}_{\xi'\xi} (Q)$ is the unitary representation of the little group.
The irreducible unitary representations of the Poincar\'{e} group are classified by the standard momentum
$\ell^\mu$ and the irreducible unitary representations of the little group which does not change
$\ell^\mu$.
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
& \quad standard momentum $\ell^\mu$ \quad & \quad little group composed of $Q^\mu{}_\nu$ with $Q^\mu{}_\nu \ell^\nu=\ell^\mu$\quad \\
\hline
\, (a) \, & $\ell^\mu=[M,0,0,0], \, M>0$ \, & SO(3) \\
\, (b) \, & $\ell^\mu=[-M,0,0,0], \, M>0$ \, & SO(3) \\
\, (c) \, & $\ell^\mu=[\kappa,0,0,\kappa], \, \kappa>0$ & ISO(2) \\
\, (d) \, & $\ell^\mu=[-\kappa,0,0,\kappa], \, \kappa>0$ & ISO(2) \\
\, (e) \, & $\ell^\mu=[0,0,0,N],\, N^2>0 $ & SO(2,1) \\
\, (f) \, & $\ell^\mu=[0,0,0,0] $ & SO(3,1) \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Classification of the standard momentum $\ell^\mu$ and the little group associated with $\ell^\mu$.}
\label{table:class}
\end{table}
For simplicity,
$\xi$ is regarded as the label of basis vectors of the irreducible representation subspaces of the little group.
Other degeneracies not represented by
$q$ and
$\xi$ will be reintroduced in the form of the dynamical map
$\Phi_{t,s}$, which we will see in the next section.
We investigate Eq.\eqref{eq:P-cov3} restricted on each irreducible representation.
For convenience, we separately focus on the Lorentz transformation and the spacetime translation in Eq.\eqref{eq:P-cov3}.
The unitary operator
$\hat{U}_0 (\Lambda,a)$ is written as
\begin{equation}
\hat{U}_0 (\Lambda,a)=\hat{U}_0 (I,a) \hat{U}_0 (\Lambda,0)=\hat{T}(a)\hat{V}(\Lambda),
\label{eq:hatTV}
\end{equation}
where
$\hat{U}_0 (I,a)=\hat{T}(a)=e^{-i\hat{P}_\mu a^\mu}$ with
$\hat{P}^\mu=[\hat{H}, \hat{P}^1, \hat{P}^2, \hat{P}^3]$ and
$\hat{U}_0 (\Lambda,0)=\hat{V}(\Lambda)$ with the generators
$\hat{J}^i$ and
$\hat{K}^i_0$.
From Eq.\eqref{eq:P-cov3} for
$\Lambda=I$, we have
\begin{equation}
\hat{T}^\dagger (a) \, \hat{\bm{E}} \, \hat{T} (a) =\mathcal{T}(a) \hat{\bm{E}}.
\label{eq:TMT}
\end{equation}
Eq.\eqref{eq:P-cov3} for
$a^\mu=0$ gives
\begin{equation}
\hat{V}^\dagger (\Lambda) \, \hat{\bm{E}} \, \hat{V} (\Lambda) =\mathcal{V}(\Lambda) \hat{\bm{E}}.
\label{eq:VMV}
\end{equation}
Introducing
$\hat{E}_{q,\xi}=\bm{v}^\dagger_{q,\xi} \hat{\bm{E}}$, we obtain the following equations from Eqs.\eqref{eq:TMT} and \eqref{eq:VMV}:
\begin{equation}
\hat{T}^\dagger (a) \hat{E}_{q,\xi} \hat{T} (a) =e^{-iq_\mu a^\mu} \hat{E}_{q,\xi}
\label{eq:TMT2}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\hat{V}^\dagger (\Lambda) \hat{E}_{q,\xi} \hat{V} (\Lambda) =\frac{N^*_q}{N^*_{\Lambda^{-1} q} } \sum_{\xi'} \mathcal{D}^*_{\xi'\xi}(Q(\Lambda^{-1},q)) \hat{E}_{\Lambda^{-1}q,\xi'},
\label{eq:VMV2}
\end{equation}
where we used Eqs.\eqref{eq:Tv} and \eqref{eq:Vv}, and
$Q(\Lambda, q)=S^{-1}_{\Lambda q} \Lambda S_q$.
The label
$\xi$ can take discrete or continuous values.
For the continous case, the summation
$\sum_\xi$ is replaced with
the integration
$\int d\mu(\xi)$ with a measure
$\mu(\xi)$.
Focusing on Eq.\eqref{eq:VMV2} for
$\Lambda=S_q$, we get
\begin{equation}
\hat{V}^\dagger (S_q) \hat{E}_{q,\xi} \hat{V} (S_q) =N^*_q \, \hat{E}_{\ell,\xi},
\label{eq:SMS}
\end{equation}
where note that
$N_\ell=1$ and
$Q(S^{-1}_q,q)=S^{-1}_{S^{-1}_q q} S^{-1}_q S_q=S^{-1}_{\ell}=I$ hold by the definition of
$\bm{v}_{q,\xi}$.
Eq.\eqref{eq:SMS} tells us that the Kraus operators
$\hat{E}_{q,\xi}$ is determined from the Kraus operators $\hat{E}_{\ell,\xi}$ with the standard momentum
$\ell^\mu$.
All we have to do is to give the form of the Kraus operators
$\hat{E}_{\ell,\xi}$.
To this end, we present the following equations given by Eq.\eqref{eq:TMT2} for
$q^\mu=\ell^\mu$ and by Eq.\eqref{eq:VMV2} for
$q^\mu=\ell^\mu$ and
$\Lambda=W$ with
$W^\mu{}_\nu \ell^\nu=\ell^\mu$, respectively:
\begin{align}
\hat{T}^\dagger (a) \hat{E}_{\ell,\xi} \hat{T} (a) &=e^{-i\ell_\mu a^\mu} \hat{E}_{\ell,\xi}
\label{eq:TMT3},
\\
\hat{V}^\dagger (W) \hat{E}_{\ell,\xi} \hat{V} (W) &= \sum_{\xi'} \mathcal{D}^*_{\xi'\xi}(W^{-1}) \hat{E}_{\ell,\xi'},
\label{eq:WMW}
\end{align}
where
$Q(\Lambda^{-1},q)=Q(W^{-1},\ell)=S^{-1}_{W^{-1} \ell} W^{-1} S_\ell =W^{-1}$.
In the next section, we construct a model of the dynamical map with the Poincar\'{e} symmetry to describe the reduced dynamics of a single particle.
\section{A model of the dynamical map for a single particle }
\label{sec:4}
In this section, based on Eqs.\eqref{eq:TMT3} and \eqref{eq:WMW}, we give a model of the dynamical map with the Poincar\'{e} symmetry.
To simplify the analysis, we consider the Hilbert space
$\mathcal{H}_0 \otimes \mathcal{H}_1$, where
$\mathcal{H}_0$ is the one-dimensional Hilbert space with a vacuum state
$|0\rangle$ and
$\mathcal{H}_1$ is the irreducible subspace with one-particle states.
Any state vector
$|\Psi \rangle$ in
$\mathcal{H}_1$
($\, |\Psi \rangle \in \mathcal{H}_1 \,$) is given by
\begin{equation}
|\Psi \rangle = \int d^3q \sum_{\sigma} \Psi(\bm{p},\sigma) \, \hat{a}^\dagger (\bm{p},\sigma)|0 \rangle,
\label{eq:Psi}
\end{equation}
where
$|0\rangle$ is the vacuum state satisfying
$\hat{a}(\bm{p},\sigma)|0\rangle=0$,
$\Psi(\bm{p},\sigma)$ with the momentum
$\bm{p}$ and
the spin
$\sigma$ is the wave function,
$\hat{a}(\bm{p},\sigma)$ and
$\hat{a}^\dagger (\bm{p},\sigma) $ are the annihilation and creation operators satisfying
\begin{equation}
[\hat{a}(\bm{p},\sigma), \hat{a}(\bm{p}',\sigma')]_{\pm}=0=[\hat{a}^\dagger(\bm{p},\sigma), \hat{a}^\dagger(\bm{p}',\sigma')]_{\pm},
\quad
[\hat{a}(\bm{p},\sigma), \hat{a}^\dagger(\bm{p}',\sigma')]_{\pm}=\delta^3(\bm{p}-\bm{p}') \delta_{\sigma \sigma'}.
\label{eq:aadg}
\end{equation}
In the above notation,
$[\hat{A},\hat{B}]_{\pm}$ is defined as
$[\hat{A},\hat{B}]_{\pm}=\hat{A}\hat{B} \pm \hat{B} \hat{A}$, in which the signs
$-$ and
$+$ apply bosons and fermions, respectively.
In Ref.\cite{Weinberg1995, Peres2004}, the transformation rules of
$\hat{a}^\dagger (\bm{p},\sigma)$ are given by
\begin{align}
\hat{T}(a) \hat{a}^\dagger (\bm{p},\sigma) \hat{T}^\dagger (a)
&=e^{-ip^\mu a_\mu} \hat{a}^\dagger (\bm{p},\sigma),
\label{eq:TaT}
\\
\hat{V}(\Lambda) \hat{a}^\dagger (\bm{p},\sigma) \hat{V}^\dagger (\Lambda)
&=
\sqrt{\frac{E_{\bm{p}_\Lambda}}{E_{\bm{p}}}}
\sum_{\sigma'} D_{\sigma'\sigma} (Q(\Lambda,p)) \hat{a}^\dagger (\bm{p}_\Lambda,\sigma'),
\label{eq:VaV}
\end{align}
where
$E_{\bm{p}} =p^0$,
$E_{\bm{p}_\Lambda}=(\Lambda p)^0$ and
$\bm{p}_\Lambda$ is the vector with the component
$(\bm{p}_\Lambda)^i=(\Lambda p)^i$.
The matrix
$Q(\Lambda,p)=S^{-1}_{\Lambda p}\Lambda S_p$
is the element of the little group which satisfies
$Q(\Lambda,p)^\mu{}_\nu k^\nu=k^\mu$, where
$k^\mu$ is the standard momentum for a massive particle
($k^\mu=[m,0,0,0], m>0$) or a massless particle ($k^\mu=[k,0,0,k], k>0$).
The momentum
$p^\mu$ and the standard momentum
$k^\mu$ are connected with
$(S_p)^\mu{}_\nu k^\nu=p^\mu$, and
$D_{\sigma'\sigma}(Q(\Lambda,p))$ is the irreducible unitary representation of the little group.
We consider the Kraus operators
$\hat{E}_{\ell,\xi}$ acting on the Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_0 \bigoplus \mathcal{H}_1$, that is, $\hat{E}_{\ell,\xi}: \mathcal{H}_0 \bigoplus \mathcal{H}_1 \rightarrow \mathcal{H}_0 \bigoplus \mathcal{H}_1 $, which have the following form
\begin{equation}
\hat{E}_{\ell,\xi}=A_{\ell,\xi}\hat{\mathbb{I}}+\int d^3 p \sum_{\sigma} B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma) \hat{a}(\bm{p},\sigma)+\int d^3 p' d^3p \sum_{\sigma',\sigma} C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma) \hat{a}^\dagger (\bm{p}',\sigma') \hat{a}(\bm{p},\sigma).
\label{eq:ABC}
\end{equation}
The dynamical map given by these operators describes the reduced dynamics of a single particle, which can possibly decay into the vacuum state.
Substituting the above operators into Eq.\eqref{eq:TMT3} and
Eq.\eqref{eq:WMW}, we obtain the equations
\begin{align}
&A_{\ell,\xi}=e^{-i\ell^\mu a_\mu} A_{\ell,\xi},
\label{eq:TAT}
\\
&B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma) e^{-ip^\mu a_\mu} =B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma) e^{-i\ell^\mu a_\mu},
\label{eq:TBT}
\\
&C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma) e^{i({p'}^\mu-p^\mu) a_\mu}=C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma) e^{-i\ell^\mu a_\mu}
\label{eq:TCT},
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
&A_{\ell,\xi}=\sum_{\xi'} \mathcal{D}^*_{\xi'\xi}(W^{-1}) A_{\ell,\xi'},
\label{eq:WAW}
\\
&\sqrt{\frac{E_{\bm{p}_W}}{E_{\bm{p}}}}\sum_{\sigma} B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}_W,\sigma) D^*_{\sigma'\sigma} (Q) =\sum_{\xi'}\mathcal{D}^*_{\xi'\xi}(W^{-1}) B_{\ell,\xi'} (\bm{p},\sigma'),
\label{eq:WBW}
\\
&\sqrt{\frac{E_{\bm{p}'_W}E_{\bm{p}_W}}{E_{\bm{p}'}E_{\bm{p}}}}
\sum_{\sigma',\sigma} C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}'_W,\sigma', \bm{p}_W,\sigma)
D_{\bar{\sigma}'\sigma'} (Q')
D^*_{\bar{\sigma}\sigma} (Q)
=
\sum_{\xi'}\mathcal{D}^*_{\xi'\xi}(W^{-1})
C_{\ell,\xi'} (\bm{p}',\bar{\sigma}', \bm{p},\bar{\sigma})
\label{eq:WCW},
\end{align}
where
$Q=Q(W^{-1},Wp)$ and
$Q'=Q(W^{-1},Wp')$.
The derivation of these equations is devoted in Appendix \ref{App:ABC}.
We can analyze the explicit form of
$A_{\ell,\xi}$,
$B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma)$
and
$C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma)$
for a massive particle and a massless particle, respectively.
For the analysis, we assume that the massive particle has a finite spin and the massless particle has a finite spin and a nonzero momentum.
Through the long computations presented in Appendices \ref{App:massive} and \ref{App:massless}, we get the following dynamical map with the Poincar\'{e} symmetry,
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{t,s}[\rho(s)]=\mathcal{U}_{t,s} \circ \mathcal{E}_{t,s}[\rho(s)], \quad
\mathcal{E}_{t,s} [\rho]=\sum_{j} \Big[\beta^{(j)}_{t,s} \int d^3p \sum_\sigma \hat{a}(\bm{p},\sigma) \rho \hat{a}^\dagger (\bm{p},\sigma) + \alpha^{(j)}_{t,s} \big(\hat{\mathbb{I}}+\gamma^{(j)}_{t,s} \hat{N}\big) \rho \big(\hat{\mathbb{I}}+\gamma^{(j)*}_{t,s} \hat{N} \big)\Big],
\label{eq:map}
\end{equation}
where
$\alpha^{(j)}_{t,s}$,
$\beta^{(j)}_{t,s}$ and
$\gamma^{(j)}_{t,s}$ are the parameters depending on time,
$\hat{N}$ is the number operator defined as
\begin{equation}
\hat{N}=\int d^3p \sum_\sigma \hat{a}^\dagger(\bm{p},\sigma) \hat{a}(\bm{p},\sigma),
\label{eq:N}
\end{equation}
and
$\mathcal{U}_{t,s}$ is the unitary map given in \eqref{eq:uts}.
In the form of the dynamical map
$\Phi_{t,s}$, we recovered the labels $j$ which represent the degeneracies other than the labels
$q$ and
$\xi$ appearing in the Kraus operators $\hat{E}_{q,\xi}$ defined around \eqref{eq:TMT2}.
The parameters
$\alpha^{(j)}_{t,s}$,
$\beta^{(j)}_{t,s}$ and
$\gamma^{(j)}_{t,s}$ in Eq.\eqref{eq:map}
satisfy
\begin{align}
&0 \leq \alpha^{(j)}_{t,s} \leq 1, \quad
\sum_{j}
\alpha^{(j)}_{t,s} =1,
\quad
0 \leq \beta^{(j)}_{t,s}, \quad
0 \leq \sum_{j}
\beta^{(j)}_{t,s} \leq 1
\nonumber
\\
&\sum_{j}
\Big[
\beta^{(j)}_{t,s}+\alpha^{(j)}_{t,s} \big(\gamma^{(j)}_{t,s}+\gamma^{(j)*}_{t,s}+|\gamma^{(j)}_{t,s}|^2
\big)
\Big]=0.
\label{eq:abc}
\end{align}
These conditions come from the completeness condition of the Kraus operators \eqref{eq:FdgF}.
For the computation of the completeness condition, note that the number operator
$\hat{N}$ satisfies
$\hat{N}^2=\hat{N}$ on the Hilbert space
$\mathcal{H}_0 \otimes \mathcal{H}_1$, since we assume that the dynamical map describes the reduced dynamics of a single particle.
From the transformation rules of the creation and the annihilation operators, Eqs.\eqref{eq:TaT} and
\eqref{eq:VaV}, it is easy to check that the map
$\mathcal{E}_{t,s}$ satisfies the condition of symmetry given in \eqref{eq:covE}.
Since the unitary map
$\mathcal{U}_{t,s}$ is symmetric under the Poincar\'{e} group, which is checked around Eq.\eqref{eq:uts},
we can confirm that
$\Phi_{t,s}$ is also symmetric.
Let us consider the case where there is no decay under the dynamical map
$\Phi_{t,s}$ and focus on the dynamics of one-particle states.
In this case, the parameter
$\sum_{j} \beta^{(j)}_{t,s}$ vanishes.
Since the density operator $\rho$ given by one-particle states satisfies
$\hat{N}\rho=\rho=\rho \hat{N}$, we have
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{t,s}[\rho(s)]=\mathcal{U}_{t,s} \circ \mathcal{E}_{t,s}[\rho(s)]=
\sum_{j} \alpha^{(j)}_{t,s} |1+\gamma^{(j)}_{t,s}|^2 \mathcal{U}_{t,s}[\rho(s)]=\mathcal{U}_{t,s}[\rho(s)],
\label{eq:mapa=0}
\end{equation}
where we used the condition
\eqref{eq:abc} with
$\sum_{j} \beta^{(j)}_{t,s}=0$ in the third equality.
This means that the dynamical map with the Poincar\'{e} symmetry for a non-decaying particle is the unitary map.
The result corresponds to a non-perturbative extension of the analysis in \cite{Marko2017}, which gives an implication on the particle dynamics.
For example, if the superposition state of a particle decoheres under a non-unitary evolution, the Poincar\'{e} symmetry breaks in the particle dynamics described by a dynamical map.
We discuss the energy conservation.
The expectation value of
$\hat{H}^n$ at a time
$t$, where
$n$ is a natural number,
is computed as
\begin{align}
\text{Tr}[\hat{H}^n \rho(t)]
&=
\sum_{j} \Big[\beta^{(j)}_{t,s} \text{Tr}[ \hat{H}^n \int d^3p \sum_{\sigma}\hat{a}(\bm{p},\sigma) \rho(s)\hat{a}^\dagger(\bm{p},\sigma)]
+\alpha^{(j)}_{t,s} \text{Tr}[\hat{H}^n (\hat{\mathbb{I}}+\gamma^{(j)}_{t,s} \hat{N})\rho(s)(\hat{\mathbb{I}}+\gamma^{(j)*}_{t,s} \hat{N})]
\Big]
\nonumber
\\
&=(1-\sum_{j} \beta^{(j)}_{t,s})\text{Tr}[\hat{H}^n \rho(s)].
\label{eq:Hn}
\end{align}
In the reduced dynamics by the dynamical map
$\Phi_{t,s}$, the energy of a single particle is not conserved unless
$\sum_{j} \beta^{(j)}_{t,s}$ is a constant, even when the map is symmetric under the Poincar\'{e} group.
Such a deviation between symmetry and conservation law was discussed in, for example, Refs \cite{Cirstoiu2020} and \cite{Marvian2020}.
If the parameter
$\sum_{j} \beta^{(j)}_{t,s}$ is a constant, then
$\sum_{j} \beta^{(j)}_{t,s}=\sum_{j} \beta^{(j)}_{s,s}=0$ and
the dynamical map
$\Phi_{t,s}$ is reduced to the unitary map
$\mathcal{U}_{t,s}$ as discussed above.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:5}
We discussed what a dynamical map describing the reduced dynamics of an open quantum system is realized under the Poincar\'{e} symmetry.
The unitary representation theory of the Poincar\'{e} group refines the condition for the dynamical map with the Poincar\'{e} symmetry.
For a massive particle and a massless particle, we derived a concrete model of the dynamical map.
In the model, the particle can decay into the vacuum state.
If there is no decay process, the dynamical map describes the unitary evolution generated by the Hamiltonian of the particle.
This means that the non-decaying single particle does not decohere as long as the dynamical map for the particle has the Poincar\'{e} symmetry.
In this way, it was exemplified that the Poincar\'{e} symmetry strongly constrains the possible dynamics of an open quantum system.
In this paper, we assumed an open system with a single particle.
Our analysis is possible to be extended to the case with many particles.
Considering interactions among many particles, we can understand more general effective theories in terms of the Poincar\'{e} symmetry.
For the particles interacting via gravity, the models which induce intrinsic gravitational decoherence have been proposed \cite{Kafri2014,Diosi1987,Diosi1989,Penrose1996,Tilloy2016}.
These models are written in the theory of open quantum systems.
In the weak field regime of gravity, the Poincar\'{e} symmetry may provide a guidance for establishing the theory of an open quantum system with gravitating particles.
This paper has a potential to develop the theory of open quantum systems.
To describe the reduced dynamics of an open quantum system, a quantum master equation is often adopted.
It has been discussed how the quantum Markov dynamics given by the equation is consistent with a relativistic theory \cite{Alicki1986, Diosi2022}.
Applying the present approach, it will be possible to discuss the quantum Markov dynamics with the Poincar\'{e} symmetry.
It is hoped that this paper paves the way to understand a relativistic theory of open quantum systems and to study the interplay between quantum theory and gravity.
\begin{acknowledgements}
We thank Y. Kuramochi for useful discussions and comments related to this paper.
A.M. was supported by 2022 Research Start Program 202203.
\end{acknowledgements}
\begin{appendix}
\section{Derivation of Eqs.\eqref{eq:TAT},\eqref{eq:TBT},\eqref{eq:TCT},\eqref{eq:WAW},\eqref{eq:WBW} and \eqref{eq:WCW}}
\label{App:ABC}
We present the transformation rules of
$A_{\ell,\xi}$, $B_{\ell,\xi}$ and
$C_{\ell,\xi}$ given in Eqs.\eqref{eq:TAT},\eqref{eq:TBT},\eqref{eq:TCT},\eqref{eq:WAW},\eqref{eq:WBW} and \eqref{eq:WCW}.
Using the assumed form of the Kraus operators
$\hat{E}_{\ell,\xi}$ defined by
\eqref{eq:ABC}, we can compute the right hand side of Eq.\eqref{eq:TMT3} as
\begin{align}
\hat{T}^\dagger (a) \hat{E}_{\ell,\xi} \hat{T} (a)
&
= A_{\ell,\xi}\hat{\mathbb{I}}+\int d^3 p \sum_{\sigma} B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma) e^{-ip^\mu a_\mu} \hat{a}(\bm{p},\sigma)
\nonumber
\\
&
\quad
+\int d^3 p' d^3p \sum_{\sigma',\sigma} C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma) e^{i({p'}^\mu-p^\mu) a_\mu}\hat{a}^\dagger (\bm{p}',\sigma') \hat{a}(\bm{p},\sigma).
\nonumber
\end{align}
From Eq.\eqref{eq:TMT3}, we have
\begin{align}
&A_{\ell,\xi}=e^{-i\ell^\mu a_\mu} A_{\ell,\xi},
\label{eq:TATA}
\\
&B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma) e^{-ip^\mu a_\mu} =B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma) e^{-i\ell^\mu a_\mu}
\label{eq:TBTA}
\\
&C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma) e^{i({p'}^\mu-p^\mu) a_\mu}=C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma) e^{-i\ell^\mu a_\mu}
\label{eq:TCTA}.
\end{align}
The right hand side of Eq.\eqref{eq:WMW} is evaluated as
\begin{align}
&\hat{V}^\dagger (W) \hat{E}_{\ell,\xi} \hat{V} (W)
\nonumber
\\
&
\quad
= A_{\ell,\xi}\hat{\mathbb{I}}+\int d^3 p \sum_{\sigma} B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma) \sqrt{\frac{E_{\bm{p}_{W^{-1}}}}{E_{\bm{p}}}}\sum_{\sigma'} D^*_{\sigma'\sigma} (Q(W^{-1},p))\hat{a}(\bm{p}_{W^{-1}},\sigma')
\nonumber
\\
&
\quad
+\int d^3 p' d^3p \sum_{\sigma',\sigma} C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma)
\nonumber
\\
&
\quad
\times
\sqrt{\frac{E_{\bm{p}'_{W^{-1}}}}{E_{\bm{p}'}}}
\sqrt{\frac{E_{\bm{p}_{W^{-1}}}}{E_{\bm{p}}}}
\sum_{\bar{\sigma},\bar{\sigma}'}
D_{\bar{\sigma}'\sigma'} (Q(W^{-1},p'))
D^*_{\bar{\sigma}\sigma} (Q(W^{-1},p))\hat{a}^\dagger (\bm{p}'_{W^{-1}},\bar{\sigma}') \hat{a}(\bm{p}_{W^{-1}},\bar{\sigma})
\nonumber
\\
&
\quad
= A_{\ell,\xi}\hat{\mathbb{I}}+\int d^3 p \sum_{\sigma} B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}_W,\sigma) \sqrt{\frac{E_{\bm{p}_W}}{E_{\bm{p}}}}\sum_{\sigma'} D^*_{\sigma'\sigma} (Q(W^{-1},Wp))\hat{a}(\bm{p},\sigma')
\nonumber
\\
&
\quad
+\int d^3 p' d^3p \sum_{\sigma',\sigma} C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}'_W,\sigma', \bm{p}_W,\sigma)
\nonumber
\\
&
\quad
\times
\sqrt{\frac{E_{\bm{p}'_W}}{E_{\bm{p}'}}}
\sqrt{\frac{E_{\bm{p}_W}}{E_{\bm{p}}}}
\sum_{\bar{\sigma},\bar{\sigma}'}
D_{\bar{\sigma}'\sigma'} (Q(W^{-1},Wp'))
D^*_{\bar{\sigma}\sigma} (Q(W^{-1},Wp))\hat{a}^\dagger (\bm{p}',\bar{\sigma}') \hat{a}(\bm{p},\bar{\sigma}),
\nonumber
\end{align}
where note that the Lorentz invariant measure is
$d^3p/E_{\bm{p}}$ and hence
$f(\bm{p})d^3p = E_{\bm{p}} f(\bm{p})d^3 p /E_{\bm{p}} = E_{\bm{p}_\Lambda} f(\bm{p}_\Lambda)d^3 p /E_{\bm{p}}$.
From Eq.\eqref{eq:WMW}, we have
\begin{align}
&A_{\ell,\xi}=\sum_{\xi'} \mathcal{D}^*_{\xi'\xi}(W^{-1}) A_{\ell,\xi'},
\label{eq:WAWA}
\\
&\sqrt{\frac{E_{\bm{p}_W}}{E_{\bm{p}}}}\sum_{\sigma} B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}_W,\sigma) D^*_{\sigma'\sigma} (Q) =\sum_{\xi'}\mathcal{D}^*_{\xi'\xi}(W^{-1}) B_{\ell,\xi'} (\bm{p},\sigma')
\label{eq:WBWA}
\\
&\sqrt{\frac{E_{\bm{p}'_W}E_{\bm{p}_W}}{E_{\bm{p}'}E_{\bm{p}}}}
\sum_{\sigma',\sigma} C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}'_W,\sigma', \bm{p}_W,\sigma)
D_{\bar{\sigma}'\sigma'} (Q')
D^*_{\bar{\sigma}\sigma} (Q)
=
\sum_{\xi'}\mathcal{D}^*_{\xi'\xi}(W^{-1})
C_{\ell,\xi'} (\bm{p}',\bar{\sigma}', \bm{p},\bar{\sigma})
\label{eq:WCWA},
\end{align}
where
$Q=Q(W^{-1},Wp)$ and
$Q'=Q(W^{-1},Wp')$.
\section{Analysis of a massive particle}
\label{App:massive}
We assume that the spectrum of $\hat{P}^\mu$ on
any state
$|\Psi \rangle$ in the Hilbert space of one-particle states, $\mathcal{H}_1$, satisfies
\begin{equation}
\hat{P}^\mu \hat{P}_\mu |\Psi \rangle =-m^2 |\Psi \rangle, \quad \langle \Psi|\hat{P}^0 |\Psi \rangle >0.
\label{eq:Pmu}
\end{equation}
The above equations are equivalent to the fact that the Hamiltonian
$\hat{H}=\hat{P}^0$ has the form
$\hat{H}=\sqrt{\hat{P}_k \hat{P}^k+m^2}$, which implies that
$|\Psi \rangle$ is the state of a massive particle.
In this appendix, we derive the form of the dynamical map
$\mathcal{E}_{t,s}$ for a massive particle.
\textbf{Case (a)
$\ell^\mu=[M,0,0,0], \, M>0$ or (b)
$\ell^\mu=[-M,0,0,0], \, M>0$ :}
We focus on the spectrum
$\ell^\mu=[\pm M,0,0,0], \, M>0$.
From Eq.\eqref{eq:TATA} for all
$a^\mu=[a,0,0,0]$, we have
\begin{equation}
A_{\ell,\xi}=e^{\pm iMa} A_{\ell,\xi} \quad \therefore \quad A_{\ell,\xi}=0.
\nonumber
\end{equation}
Eq.\eqref{eq:TBTA} for all
$a^\mu=[0,\bm{a}]$ leads to
\begin{equation}
B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma) e^{-i\bm{p}\cdot \bm{a}} =B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma) \quad \therefore \quad B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma)=B_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma) \delta^3(\bm{p}).
\nonumber
\end{equation}
From Eq.\eqref{eq:TBTA} for all
$a^\mu=[a,0,0,0]$, we get
\begin{equation}
B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma) e^{iE_{\bm{p}} a} =B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma) e^{\pm iMa},
\nonumber
\end{equation}
and combined with
$B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma)=B_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma) \delta^3(\bm{p})$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
B_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma) e^{ima} =B_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma) e^{\pm iMa}.
\nonumber
\end{equation}
Since the mass
$m$ is positive, to get a nontrivial result, we should choose
$+M$ with
$M=m$.
Using Eq.\eqref{eq:WBWA} for
$Q=R \in \text{SO}(3)$ and
adopting the result
$B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma)=B_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma) \delta^3(\bm{p})$, we find
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\sigma} B_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma) D^*_{\sigma'\sigma} (R^{-1}) =\sum_{\xi'}\mathcal{D}^*_{\xi'\xi}(R^{-1}) B_{\ell,\xi'} (\sigma'),
\nonumber
\end{equation}
where note that
$Q=Q(W^{-1},Wp)=Q(R^{-1},R\ell)=S^{-1}_{\ell} R^{-1}S_{R\ell}=R^{-1}$ for
$\ell^\mu=[m,0,0,0]$.
Since the representations
$D_{\sigma'\sigma}$ and
$\mathcal{D}_{\xi'\xi}$ are irreducible and unitary, by Schur's lemma we have
\begin{equation}
B_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma) = B_\ell \, u_{\xi \sigma},
\nonumber
\end{equation}
where
$u_{\xi \sigma}$ is a unitary matrix.
From Eq.\eqref{eq:TCTA} for all
$a^\mu=[0,\bm{a}]$, we deduce
\begin{equation}
C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma) e^{i(\bm{p}'-\bm{p}) \cdot \bm{a}}=C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma) \quad \therefore \quad C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma)=C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma',\sigma) \delta^3(\bm{p}'-\bm{p}).
\nonumber
\end{equation}
Eq.\eqref{eq:TCTA} for all
$a^\mu=[a,0,0,0]$ leads to
\begin{equation}
C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma) e^{-i( E_{\bm{p}'}-E_{\bm{p}} )a}=C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma) e^{\pm iM a},
\nonumber
\end{equation}
and substituting
$C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma)=C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma',\sigma) \delta^3(\bm{p}'-\bm{p})$ into the above equation, we have
\begin{equation}
C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma', \sigma)=C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma', \sigma) e^{\pm iM a} \quad \therefore \quad C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma', \sigma)=0.
\nonumber
\end{equation}
The above results imply that the Kraus operator
$\hat{E}_{\ell,\xi}$ with
$\ell^\mu=[m,0,0,0]$ has the following form,
\begin{equation}
\hat{E}_{\ell,\xi}= B_\ell \sum_{\sigma} u_{\xi \sigma} \hat{a}(\bm{0},\sigma) .
\nonumber
\end{equation}
Eq.\eqref{eq:SMS} tells us that
\begin{equation}
\hat{E}_{q,\xi}= N^*_q \hat{V}(S_q) \hat{E}_{\ell,\xi} \hat{V}^\dagger(S_q) =N^*_q B_\ell \sqrt{\frac{E_{\bm{q}}}{m}}\sum_{\sigma} u_{\xi \sigma} \hat{a}(\bm{q},\sigma),
\nonumber
\end{equation}
where
$E_q=(S_q \, \ell)^0$ and
$q^i=(S_q \, \ell)^i$.
To determine the normalization $N_q$, the inner product
$\bm{v}^\dagger_{q,\xi} \bm{v}_{q,\xi}$ is assumed to be
\begin{equation}
\bm{v}^\dagger_{q',s'} \bm{v}_{q,\xi}=\delta^3(\bm{q}'-\bm{q}) \delta_{\xi'\xi},
\nonumber
\end{equation}
which leads to
$N_q=\sqrt{m/E_{\bm{q}}}$ up to a phase factor.
For this normalization, the following completeness condition is given as
\begin{equation}
\int d^3 q \sum_{s} \bm{v}_{q,\xi} \bm{v}^\dagger_{q,\xi}=\bm{I}.
\nonumber
\end{equation}
Under the completeness condition, we derive a part of the dynamical map $\mathcal{E}_{t,s}$ as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{E}_{t,s}[\rho(s)]
\supset |B_\ell|^2 \, \int d^3 q \sum_{\sigma}\hat{a}(\bm{q},\sigma) \rho(s) \hat{a}^\dagger (\bm{q},\sigma),
\label{eq:E(a)(b)}
\end{equation}
where we used the fact that $u_{\xi \sigma}$ is the unitary matrix.
\textbf{Case (c)
$\ell^\mu=[\kappa,0,0,\kappa], \, \kappa>0$ or (d)
$\ell^\mu=[-\kappa,0,0,\kappa], \, \kappa>0$ :}
We consider the spectrum
$\ell^\mu=[\pm \kappa,0,0,\kappa], \, \kappa>0$.
From Eq.\eqref{eq:TATA} for all
$a^\mu=[a,0,0,0]$, we have
\begin{equation}
A_{\ell,\xi}=e^{\pm i\kappa a} A_{\ell,\xi} \quad \therefore \quad A_{\ell,\xi}=0.
\nonumber
\end{equation}
From Eq.\eqref{eq:TBTA} for all
$a^\mu=[0,\bm{a}]$, we get
\begin{equation}
B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma) e^{-i\bm{p} \cdot \bm{a}} =B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma)e^{-i\bm{\ell} \cdot \bm{a}}
\quad \therefore \quad
B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma)=B_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma) \delta^3(\bm{p}-\bm{\ell}),
\nonumber
\end{equation}
where
$\bm{\ell} =[0,0,\kappa]^\text{T}$.
Eq.\eqref{eq:TBTA} for all
$a^\mu=[a,0,0,0]$ leads to
\begin{equation}
B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma) e^{iE_{\bm{p}} a} =B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma) e^{\pm i\kappa a},
\nonumber
\end{equation}
and from the equation
$B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma)=B_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma) \delta^3(\bm{p}-\bm{\ell})$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
B_{\ell,\xi}(\sigma) e^{i\sqrt{\kappa^2 +m^2}a}=B_{\ell,\xi}(\sigma) e^{\pm i\kappa a} \quad \therefore \quad
B_{\ell,\xi}(\sigma)=0,
\nonumber
\end{equation}
where
$E_{\bm{\ell}}=\sqrt{\bm{\ell}^2+m^2}=\sqrt{\kappa^2+m^2}$.
Eq.\eqref{eq:TCTA} for all
$a^\mu=[0,\bm{a}]$ gives
\begin{equation}
C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma) e^{i(\bm{p}'-\bm{p}) \cdot \bm{a}}=C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma)e^{-i\bm{\ell}\cdot \bm{a}} \quad \therefore \quad C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma)=C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma', \sigma) \delta^3(\bm{p}'-\bm{p}+\bm{\ell}).
\nonumber
\end{equation}
Using Eq.\eqref{eq:TCTA} for all
$a^\mu=[a,0,0,0]$, we get
\begin{equation}
C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma) e^{-i( E_{\bm{p}'}-E_{\bm{p}} )a}=C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma) e^{\pm i\kappa a},
\nonumber
\end{equation}
and substituting
$C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma)=C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma',\sigma) \delta^3(\bm{p}'-\bm{p}+\bm{\ell})$ into the above equation, we have
\begin{equation}
C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma', \sigma)e^{-i( E_{\bm{p}-\bm{\ell}}-E_{\bm{p}} )a}=C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma', \sigma) e^{\pm i\kappa a}.
\nonumber
\end{equation}
Noticing the fact that
$E_{\bm{p}-\bm{\ell}}-E_{\bm{p}} \pm \kappa \neq 0$, we get the result
$C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma', \sigma)=0$.
Combined with the above analysis, the Kraus operator
$\hat{E}_{\ell,\xi}$ vanishes:
\begin{equation}
\hat{E}_{\ell,\xi}=0
\quad \therefore \quad
\hat{E}_{q,\xi}=N_q \hat{V}(S_q) \hat{E}_{\ell,\xi} \hat{V}^\dagger (S_q)=0.
\label{eq:E(c)(d)}
\end{equation}
\textbf{Case (e)
$\ell^\mu=[0,0,0,N], \, N^2>0$ :}
We focus on the spectrum
$\ell^\mu=[0,0,0,N], \, N^2>0$.
From Eq.\eqref{eq:TATA} for all
$a^\mu=[0,\bm{a}]$, we have
\begin{equation}
A_{\ell,\xi}=e^{-i\bm{\ell} \cdot \bm{a} } A_{\ell,\xi} \quad \therefore \quad A_{\ell,\xi}=0.
\nonumber
\end{equation}
Eq.\eqref{eq:TBTA} for all
$a^\mu=[a,0,0,0]$ leads to
\begin{equation}
B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma) e^{iE_{\bm{p}} a} =B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma)
\quad \therefore \quad
B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma)=0,
\nonumber
\end{equation}
where note that
$E_{\bm{q}}=\sqrt{\bm{q}^2+m^2} \neq 0$.
From Eq.\eqref{eq:TCTA} for all
$a^\mu=[0,\bm{a}]$, we deduce
\begin{equation}
C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma) e^{i(\bm{p}'-\bm{p}) \cdot \bm{a}}=C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma)e^{-i\bm{\ell}\cdot \bm{a}} \quad \therefore \quad C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma)=C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma', \sigma) \delta^3(\bm{p}'-\bm{p}+\bm{\ell}),
\nonumber
\end{equation}
where
$\bm{\ell}=[0,0,N]^\text{T}$.
From Eq.\eqref{eq:TCTA} for all
$a^\mu=[a,0,0,0]$, we get
\begin{equation}
C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma) e^{-i( E_{\bm{p}'}-E_{\bm{p}} )a}=C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma),
\nonumber
\end{equation}
and substituting
$C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma)=C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma',\sigma) \delta^3(\bm{p}'-\bm{p}+\bm{\ell})$ into the above equation, we have
\begin{equation}
C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma', \sigma)e^{-i( E_{\bm{p}-\bm{\ell}}-E_{\bm{p}} )a}=C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma', \sigma)
\quad \therefore \quad
C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma', \sigma)=C_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma', \sigma) \delta^3(\bm{p}-\bm{\ell}/2).
\nonumber
\end{equation}
Combined with the above analysis, the function
$C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma)$ is
\begin{equation}
C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma)=C_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma', \sigma) \delta^3(\bm{p}'+\bm{\ell}/2) \delta^3(\bm{p}-\bm{\ell}/2),
\nonumber
\end{equation}
and the Kraus operator
$\hat{E}_{\ell,\xi}$ is written as
\begin{equation}
\hat{E}_{\ell,\xi}= \sum_{\sigma',\sigma} C_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma',\sigma) \hat{a}^\dagger (-\bm{\ell}/2,\sigma') \hat{a}(\bm{\ell}/2,\sigma).
\nonumber
\end{equation}
By the completeness condition of the Kraus operators, Eq.\eqref{eq:EdgE}, the above Kraus operator
$\hat{E}_{\ell,\xi}$ should satisfy
$\hat{E}^\dagger_{\ell,\xi} \hat{E}_{\ell,\xi} \leq \hat{\mathbb{I}}$.
Concretely,
$\hat{E}^\dagger_{\ell,\xi} \hat{E}_{\ell,\xi} $ is evaluated as
\begin{align}
\hat{E}_{\ell,\xi}^\dagger \hat{E}_{\ell,\xi}
&=\sum_{\bar{\sigma}',\bar{\sigma}} C^*_{\ell,\xi} (\bar{\sigma}',\bar{\sigma}) \hat{a}^\dagger (\bm{\ell}/2,\bar{\sigma})\hat{a} (-\bm{\ell}/2,\bar{\sigma}') \sum_{\sigma',\sigma} C_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma',\sigma) \hat{a}^\dagger (-\bm{\ell}/2,\sigma') \hat{a}(\bm{\ell}/2,\sigma)
\nonumber
\\
&=\delta^3(\bm{0}) \sum_{\sigma'}\Big(\sum_{\bar{\sigma}} C_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma',\bar{\sigma}) \hat{a} (\bm{\ell}/2,\bar{\sigma}) \Big)^\dagger \sum_{\sigma} C_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma',\sigma) \hat{a}(\bm{\ell}/2,\sigma),
\nonumber
\end{align}
where the term given by the linear combination of
$\hat{a}^\dagger \hat{a}^\dagger \hat{a} \hat{a}$ vanishes on
$\mathcal{H}_0 \bigoplus \mathcal{H}_1$.
To satisfy
$\hat{E}^\dagger_{\ell,\xi} \hat{E}_{\ell,\xi} \leq \hat{\mathbb{I}}$, we find that
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\sigma'}\Big(\sum_{\bar{\sigma}} C_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma',\bar{\sigma}) \hat{a} (\bm{\ell}/2,\bar{\sigma}) \Big)^\dagger \sum_{\sigma} C_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma',\sigma) \hat{a}(\bm{\ell}/2,\sigma)=0
\quad \therefore \quad
C_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma',\sigma)=0
\nonumber
\end{equation}
The consequence of
$C_{\ell,\xi}(\sigma',\sigma)=0$ is that the Kraus operator
$\hat{E}_{\ell,\xi}$ vanishes as
$\langle \Phi|\hat{E}_{\ell,\xi}|\Psi \rangle=0$ for all
$|\Psi \rangle, |\Phi \rangle \in \mathcal{H}_0 \bigoplus \mathcal{H}_1$, and hence
\begin{equation}
\hat{E}_{q,\xi}
=N^*_q \hat{V}(S_q) \hat{E}_{\ell,\xi} \hat{V}^\dagger (S_q)=0,
\label{eq:E(e)}
\end{equation}
on the Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_0 \bigoplus \mathcal{H}_1$.
\textbf{Case (f)
$\ell^\mu=[0,0,0,0]$ :}
We consider the case where $\ell^\mu=[0,0,0,0]$.
In the following, we drop the label
$\ell$.
Eq.\eqref{eq:TATA} is identical for all
$a^\mu$.
Since the little group associated with
$\ell^\mu$ is
$\text{SO}(3,1)$,
Eq.\eqref{eq:WAWA} for
$W=\Lambda \in \text{SO}(3,1)$ is given as
\begin{equation}
A_{\xi} =\sum_{\xi'}\mathcal{D}^*_{\xi'\xi}(\Lambda^{-1})A_{\xi'}.
\label{eq:Axi(f)}
\end{equation}
Eq.\eqref{eq:TBTA} for all
$a^\mu=[a,0,0,0]$ gives the condition
\begin{equation}
B_{\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma) e^{iE_{\bm{p}} a} =B_{\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma)
\quad \therefore \quad
B_{\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma)=0,
\nonumber
\end{equation}
where note that
$E_{\bm{q}}=\sqrt{\bm{q}^2+m^2} \neq 0$.
From Eq.\eqref{eq:TCTA} for all
$a^\mu$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
C_{\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma) e^{i({p'}^\mu-p^\mu) a_\mu }=C_{\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma) \quad \therefore \quad
C_{\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma)=C_{\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma', \sigma) \delta^3(\bm{p}'-\bm{p}).
\nonumber
\end{equation}
Eq. \eqref{eq:WCWA} for
$W=\Lambda \in \text{SO}(3,1)$ is written as
\begin{equation}
\sqrt{\frac{E_{\bm{p}'_\Lambda}E_{\bm{p}_\Lambda}}{E_{\bm{p}' }E_{\bm{p}}}}
\sum_{\sigma',\sigma} C_{\xi} (\bm{p}'_\Lambda,\sigma', \bm{p}_\Lambda,\sigma)
D_{\bar{\sigma}'\sigma'} (Q')
D^*_{\bar{\sigma}\sigma} (Q)
=
\sum_{\xi'}\mathcal{D}^*_{\xi'\xi}(\Lambda^{-1})
C_{\xi'} (\bm{p}',\bar{\sigma}', \bm{p},\bar{\sigma}),
\nonumber
\end{equation}
where
$Q=Q(\Lambda^{-1},\Lambda p)$ and
$Q'=Q(\Lambda^{-1},\Lambda p')$.
From the equation
$C_{\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma)=C_{\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma', \sigma) \delta^3(\bm{p}'-\bm{p})$ and noticing the fact that the invariant delta function is
$E_{\bm{p}} \delta^3(\bm{p}-\bm{p}')$, we get the condition
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\sigma',\sigma} C_{\xi} (\bm{p}_\Lambda,\sigma',\sigma)
D_{\bar{\sigma}'\sigma'} (Q)
D^*_{\bar{\sigma}\sigma} (Q)
=
\sum_{\xi'}\mathcal{D}^*_{\xi'\xi}(\Lambda^{-1})
C_{\xi'} (\bm{p},\bar{\sigma}',\bar{\sigma}),
\label{eq:Cxi(f)}
\end{equation}
where
$Q'=Q(\Lambda^{-1},\Lambda p')$ turns out to be
$Q=Q(\Lambda^{-1},\Lambda p)$ by the presence of the delta function $\delta^3(\bm{p}-\bm{p}')$.
It is known that the dimension of irreducible unitary representations
$\mathcal{D}_{\xi'\xi}$ of
$\text{SO(3,1)}$ is one or infinite \cite{Bargmann1947}.
For the one-dimensional representation, dropping the label
$\xi$, we find that Eq.\eqref{eq:Axi(f)} trivially holds and that Eq.\eqref{eq:Cxi(f)} is reduced to
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\sigma',\sigma} C (\bm{p}_\Lambda,\sigma',\sigma)
D_{\bar{\sigma}'\sigma'} (Q)
D^*_{\bar{\sigma}\sigma} (Q)
=
C(\bm{p},\bar{\sigma}',\bar{\sigma}).\nonumber
\end{equation}
For
$\bm{p}=\bm{0}$ and
$\Lambda=R \in \text{SO}(3)$, we get
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\sigma',\sigma} C(\bm{0},\sigma',\sigma)
D_{\bar{\sigma}'\sigma'} (R^{-1})
D^*_{\bar{\sigma}\sigma} (R^{-1})
=
C(\bm{0},\bar{\sigma}',\bar{\sigma}) \quad \therefore \quad
C(\bm{0},\sigma',\sigma)=C \delta_{\sigma'\sigma},
\nonumber
\end{equation}
where this holds by the Schur's lemma.
Choosing
$\bm{p}=\bm{0}$ and
$\Lambda=S_p$ with
$(S_p)^\mu{}_\nu k^\nu=p^\mu$ for
$k^\mu=[m,0,0,0]$, we have
\begin{equation}
C(\bm{p},\sigma',\sigma)
=
C(\bm{0},\sigma',\sigma),\nonumber
\end{equation}
where we used
$Q=Q(S^{-1}_p, p)=S^{-1}_{k} S^{-1}_p S_p=I$
and
$D_{\sigma'\sigma}(I)=\delta_{\sigma'\sigma}$.
Hence
$C(\bm{p},\sigma',\sigma)=C \delta_{\sigma'\sigma}$.
For the infinite dimensional representation, Eq.\eqref{eq:Axi(f)} leads to
$A_{\ell,\xi}=0$, and
Eq.\eqref{eq:Cxi(f)} for $\bm{p}=\bm{0}$ and
$\Lambda=R \in \text{SO}(3)$ gives
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\sigma',\sigma} C_{\xi} (\bm{0},\sigma',\sigma)
D_{\bar{\sigma}'\sigma'} (R^{-1})
D^*_{\bar{\sigma}\sigma} (R^{-1})
=
\sum_{\xi'} \mathcal{D}^*_{\xi'\xi}(R^{-1})
C_{\xi'} (\bm{0},\bar{\sigma}',\bar{\sigma}).
\nonumber
\end{equation}
Assuming that the massive particle has a finite spin and using the Schur's lemma, we get
$C_{\xi'} (\bm{0},\bar{\sigma}',\bar{\sigma})=0$.
Eq.\eqref{eq:Cxi(f)} for $\bm{p}=\bm{0}$ and
$\Lambda=S_p$ with
$(S_p)^\mu{}_\nu k^\nu=p^\mu$ for
$k^\mu=[m,0,0,0]$ provides
\begin{equation}
C_{\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma',\sigma)
=
\sum_{\xi'} \mathcal{D}^*_{\xi'\xi}(S^{-1}_p)
C_{\xi'} (\bm{0},\sigma',\sigma)=0.
\nonumber
\end{equation}
The above analysis on
$\ell^\mu=[0,0,0,0]$ tells us the following Kraus operator
\begin{equation}
\hat{E} = A \hat{\mathbb{I}}+C \hat{N},
\nonumber
\end{equation}
where $\hat{N}$ is the number operator defined in \eqref{eq:N}.
A part of the dynamical map $\mathcal{E}_{t,s}$ is given as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{E}_{t,s}[\rho(s)]
\supset \, \Big(
A \hat{\mathbb{I}}+C \hat{N}
\Big)
\rho(s) \Big(
A \hat{\mathbb{I}}+C \hat{N}
\Big)^\dagger.
\label{eq:E(f)}
\end{equation}
The above results given in Eqs.\eqref{eq:E(a)(b)}, \eqref{eq:E(c)(d)}, \eqref{eq:E(e)} and \eqref{eq:E(f)} provide the following form of
$\mathcal{E}_{t,s}$:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{E}_{t,s}[\rho(s)]
= |B_\ell|^2 \, \int d^3 q \sum_{\sigma}\hat{a}(\bm{q},\sigma) \rho(s) \hat{a}^\dagger (\bm{q},\sigma)+ \Big(
A \hat{\mathbb{I}}+C \hat{N}
\Big)
\rho(s) \Big(
A \hat{\mathbb{I}}+C \hat{N}
\Big)^\dagger.
\label{eq:Emassive}
\end{equation}
Recovering other degeneracies labeled by
$j$ differently from
$q$ and
$\xi$,
introducing
$\sum_{j}$ and
redefining the parameters as
$|A|^2=\alpha^{(j)}_{t,s}$,
$C/A=\gamma^{(j)}_{t,s}$ and
$|B_\ell|^2=\beta^{(j)}_{t,s}$,
we get the form of the dynamical map
$\mathcal{E}_{t,s}$ given in \eqref{eq:map}.
\section{Analysis on a massless particle}
\label{App:massless}
We assume that the spectrum of $\hat{P}^\mu$ on
any state
$|\Psi \rangle$ in the Hilbert space of one-particle states, $\mathcal{H}_1$, satisfies
\begin{equation}
\hat{P}^\mu \hat{P}_\mu |\Psi \rangle =0, \quad \langle \Psi|\hat{P}^0 |\Psi \rangle >0.
\label{eq:Pmu2}
\end{equation}
The above equations leads to the fact that the Hamiltonian
$\hat{H}=\hat{P}^0$ has the form
$\hat{H}=\sqrt{\hat{P}_k \hat{P}^k}$, which means that
$|\Psi \rangle$ is the state of a massless particle.
In this appendix, we derive the form of the dynamical map
$\mathcal{E}_{t,s}$ for a massless particle with nonzero momentum.
\textbf{Case (a) $\ell^\mu=[M,0,0,0], \, M>0$ or (b) $\ell^\mu=[-M,0,0,0], \, M>0$ :}
We focus on the spectrum
$\ell^\mu=[\pm M,0,0,0], \, M>0$.
Eq.\eqref{eq:TATA} for all
$a^\mu=[a,0,0,0]$ gives
\begin{equation}
A_{\ell,\xi}=e^{\pm iMa} A_{\ell,\xi} \quad \therefore \quad A_{\ell,\xi}=0.
\nonumber
\end{equation}
Eq.\eqref{eq:TBTA} for all
$a^\mu=[0,\bm{a}]$ leads to
\begin{equation}
B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma) e^{-i\bm{p}\cdot \bm{a}} =B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma) \quad \therefore \quad B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma)=B_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma) \delta^3(\bm{p}).
\nonumber
\end{equation}
From Eq.\eqref{eq:TBTA} for all
$a^\mu=[a,0,0,0]$, we get
\begin{equation}
B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma) e^{iE_{\bm{p}} a} =B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma) e^{\pm iMa},
\nonumber
\end{equation}
and combined with
$B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma)=B_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma) \delta^3(\bm{p})$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
B_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma) =B_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma) e^{\pm iMa}
\quad \therefore \quad
B_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma)=0.
\nonumber
\end{equation}
Using Eq.\eqref{eq:TCTA} for all
$a^\mu=[0,\bm{a}]$, we deduce
\begin{equation}
C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma) e^{i(\bm{p}'-\bm{p}) \cdot \bm{a}}=C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma) \quad \therefore \quad C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma)=C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma',\sigma) \delta^3(\bm{p}'-\bm{p}).
\nonumber
\end{equation}
Eq.\eqref{eq:TCTA} for all
$a^\mu=[a,0,0,0]$ leads to
\begin{equation}
C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma) e^{-i( E_{\bm{p}'}-E_{\bm{p}} )a}=C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma) e^{\pm iM a},
\nonumber
\end{equation}
and substituting
$C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma)=C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma',\sigma) \delta^3(\bm{p}'-\bm{p})$ into the above equation, we have
\begin{equation}
C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma', \sigma)=C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma', \sigma) e^{\pm iM a} \quad \therefore \quad C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma', \sigma)=0.
\nonumber
\end{equation}
The above results imply that the Kraus operator
$\hat{E}_{\ell,\xi}$ vanishes and has the following form,
\begin{equation}
\hat{E}_{q,\xi}= N^*_q \hat{V}(S_q) \hat{E}_{\ell,\xi} \hat{V}^\dagger (S_q) =0.
\label{eq:E(a)(b)2}
\end{equation}
\textbf{Case (c)
$\ell^\mu=[\kappa,0,0,\kappa], \, \kappa>0$ or (d)
$\ell^\mu=[-\kappa,0,0,\kappa], \, \kappa>0$ :}
We consider the spectrum
$\ell^\mu=[\pm \kappa,0,0,\kappa], \, \kappa>0$.
From Eq.\eqref{eq:TATA} for all
$a^\mu=[a,0,0,0]$, we have
\begin{equation}
A_{\ell,\xi}=e^{\pm i\kappa a} A_{\ell,\xi} \quad \therefore \quad A_{\ell,\xi}=0.
\nonumber
\end{equation}
Eq.\eqref{eq:TBTA} for all
$a^\mu=[0,\bm{a}]$ gives
\begin{equation}
B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma) e^{-i\bm{p} \cdot \bm{a}} =B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma)e^{-i\bm{\ell} \cdot \bm{a}}
\quad \therefore \quad
B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma)=B_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma) \delta^3(\bm{p}-\bm{\ell}),
\nonumber
\end{equation}
where
$\bm{\ell} =[0,0,\kappa]^\text{T}$.
Eq.\eqref{eq:TBTA} for all
$a^\mu=[a,0,0,0]$ leads to
\begin{equation}
B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma) e^{iE_{\bm{p}} a} =B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma) e^{\pm i\kappa a},
\nonumber
\end{equation}
and from the equation
$B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma)=B_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma) \delta^3(\bm{p}-\bm{\ell})$, we have
\begin{equation}
B_{\ell,\xi}(\sigma) e^{i\kappa a}=B_{\ell,\xi}(\sigma) e^{\pm i\kappa a},
\nonumber
\end{equation}
where
$E_{\bm{\ell}}=\sqrt{\bm{\ell}^2}=\kappa$.
To get a nontrivial result, we should choose
$+\kappa$.
Using Eq.\eqref{eq:WBWA} for
$Q=L \in \text{ISO}(2)$ and
adopting the result
$B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma)=B_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma) \delta^3(\bm{p}-\bm{\ell})$, we find
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\sigma} B_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma) D^*_{\sigma'\sigma} (L^{-1}) =\sum_{\xi'}\mathcal{D}^*_{\xi'\xi}(L^{-1}) B_{\ell,\xi'} (\sigma'),
\nonumber
\end{equation}
where note that
$Q=Q(W^{-1},Wp)=Q(L^{-1},L\ell )=S^{-1}_{\ell} L^{-1}S_{L\ell}=L^{-1}$ for
$\ell^\mu=[\kappa,0,0,\kappa]$.
Since the representations
$D_{\sigma'\sigma}$ and
$\mathcal{D}_{\xi'\xi}$ are irreducible and unitary, by Schur's lemma we get
\begin{equation}
B_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma) = B_\ell \, u_{\xi \sigma},
\nonumber
\end{equation}
where
$u_{\xi \sigma}$ is a unitary matrix.
Using Eq.\eqref{eq:TCTA} for all
$a^\mu=[0,\bm{a}]$, we deduce
\begin{equation}
C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma) e^{i(\bm{p}'-\bm{p}) \cdot \bm{a}}=C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma)e^{-i\bm{\ell}\cdot \bm{a}} \quad \therefore \quad C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma)=C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma', \sigma) \delta^3(\bm{p}'-\bm{p}+\bm{\ell}).
\nonumber
\end{equation}
Eq.\eqref{eq:TCTA} for all
$a^\mu=[a,0,0,0]$ leads to
\begin{equation}
C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma) e^{-i( E_{\bm{p}'}-E_{\bm{p}} )a}=C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma) e^{\pm i\kappa a},
\nonumber
\end{equation}
and substituting
$C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma)=C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma',\sigma) \delta^3(\bm{p}'-\bm{p}+\bm{\ell})$ into the above equation, we have
\begin{equation}
C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma', \sigma)e^{-i( E_{\bm{p}-\bm{\ell}}-E_{\bm{p}} )a}=C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma', \sigma) e^{\pm i\kappa a}.
\nonumber
\end{equation}
The condition of
$E_{\bm{p}-\bm{\ell}}-E_{\bm{p}} + \kappa =0$ is written by
$\bm{p}_\perp=[p_1,p_2]=0$ and
$p_3 \geq \kappa$, and the condition of
$E_{\bm{p}-\bm{\ell}}-E_{\bm{p}} - \kappa =0$ is given by
$\bm{p}_\perp=0$ and
$p_3 \leq 0$.
Hence, the form of
$C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma', \sigma)$ is
\begin{equation}
C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma', \sigma)
=\Big[C^+_{\ell,\xi}(p_3,\sigma', \sigma) \theta(p_3-\kappa)
+ C^-_{\ell,\xi}(p_3,\sigma', \sigma) \theta(-p_3) \Big] \delta^2(\bm{p}_\perp)
\nonumber
\end{equation}
Combined with the above analysis, the Kraus operator
$\hat{E}^+_{\ell,\xi}$ for
$+\kappa$ is
\begin{equation}
\hat{E}^+_{\ell,\xi}= B_\ell \sum_{\sigma} u_{\xi \sigma} \hat{a}(\bm{\ell},\sigma)
+ \int dp_3 \sum_{\sigma,\sigma'} C^+_{\ell,\xi} (p_3,\sigma',\sigma) \theta(p_3-\kappa) \hat{a}^\dagger (\bm{0},p_3-\kappa,\sigma')\hat{a} (\bm{0}, p_3,\sigma),
\nonumber
\end{equation}
and
the Kraus operator
$\hat{E}^-_{\ell,\xi}$ for
$-\kappa$ is
\begin{equation}
\hat{E}^-_{\ell,\xi}= \int dp_3 \sum_{\sigma,\sigma'} C^-_{\ell,\xi} (p_3,\sigma',\sigma) \theta(-p_3) \hat{a}^\dagger (\bm{0},p_3-\kappa,\sigma')\hat{a} (\bm{0}, p_3,\sigma).
\nonumber
\end{equation}
By the completeness condition of the Kraus operators, Eq.\eqref{eq:EdgE}, the above Kraus operator
$\hat{E}^{\pm}_{\ell,\xi}$ should satisfy
$\hat{E}^{\pm \dagger}_{\ell,\xi} \hat{E}^\pm_{\ell,\xi} \leq \hat{\mathbb{I}}$.
Concretely,
$\hat{E}^{+ \dagger}_{\ell,\xi} \hat{E}^+_{\ell,\xi} $ is evaluated as
\begin{align}
\hat{E}_{\ell,\xi}^{+\dagger} \hat{E}^+_{\ell,\xi}
&=
\Big(B_\ell \sum_{\sigma} u_{\xi \sigma} \hat{a}(\bm{\ell},\sigma)
+ \int dp_3 \sum_{\sigma,\sigma'} C^+_{\ell,\xi} (p_3,\sigma',\sigma) \theta(p_3-\kappa) \hat{a}^\dagger (\bm{0},p_3-\kappa,\sigma')\hat{a} (\bm{0}, p_3,\sigma) \Big)^\dagger
\nonumber
\\
\quad
&\times
\Big(B_\ell \sum_{\sigma} u_{\xi \sigma} \hat{a}(\bm{\ell},\sigma)
+ \int dp_3 \sum_{\sigma,\sigma'} C^+_{\ell,\xi} (p_3,\sigma',\sigma) \theta(p_3-\kappa) \hat{a}^\dagger (\bm{0},p_3-\kappa,\sigma')\hat{a} (\bm{0}, p_3,\sigma) \Big)
\nonumber
\\
&=
|B_\ell|^2
\sum_{\sigma} u^*_{s \sigma} \hat{a}^\dagger(\bm{\ell},\sigma)
\sum_{\sigma'} u_{s \sigma'} \hat{a}(\bm{\ell},\sigma')
\nonumber
\\
&
+
\delta^2(\bm{0}) \int dp_3 \sum_{\sigma'} \sum_{\sigma, \bar{\sigma}}
C^{+*}_{\ell,\xi} (p_3,\sigma',\sigma) C^{+}_{\ell,\xi} (p_3,\sigma',\bar{\sigma}) \theta(p_3-\kappa)
\hat{a}^\dagger (\bm{0}, p_3,\sigma)
\hat{a} (\bm{0}, p_3,\bar{\sigma}),
\nonumber
\end{align}
where the term given by the linear combination of
$\hat{a}^\dagger \hat{a} \hat{a}$,
$\hat{a}^\dagger \hat{a}^\dagger \hat{a}$, and
$\hat{a}^\dagger \hat{a}^\dagger \hat{a} \hat{a}$ vanishes on
$\mathcal{H}_0 \bigoplus \mathcal{H}_1$.
To satisfy
$\hat{E}^{+\dagger}_{\ell,\xi} \hat{E}^+_{\ell,\xi} \leq \hat{\mathbb{I}}$, we find
\begin{equation}
\int dp_3 \sum_{\sigma'} \sum_{\sigma, \bar{\sigma}}
C^{+*}_{\ell,\xi} (p_3,\sigma',\sigma) C^{+}_{\ell,\xi} (p_3,\sigma',\bar{\sigma}) \theta(p_3-\kappa)
\hat{a}^\dagger (\bm{0}, p_3,\sigma)
\hat{a} (\bm{0}, p_3,\bar{\sigma})=0
\quad \therefore \quad
C^{+}_{\ell,\xi} (p_3,\sigma',\bar{\sigma})=0
\nonumber
\end{equation}
In the same manner, we have
\begin{align}
\hat{E}_{\ell,\xi}^{-\dagger} \hat{E}^-_{\ell,\xi}
&=
\delta^2(\bm{0}) \int dp_3 \sum_{\sigma'} \sum_{\sigma, \bar{\sigma}}
C^{-*}_{\ell,\xi} (p_3,\sigma',\sigma) C^{-}_{\ell,\xi} (p_3,\sigma',\bar{\sigma}) \theta(-p_3)
\hat{a}^\dagger (\bm{0}, p_3,\sigma)
\hat{a} (\bm{0}, p_3,\bar{\sigma}),
\nonumber
\end{align}
and to satisfy
$\hat{E}^{-\dagger}_{\ell,\xi} \hat{E}^-_{\ell,\xi} \leq \hat{\mathbb{I}}$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\int dp_3 \sum_{\sigma'} \sum_{\sigma, \bar{\sigma}}
C^{-*}_{\ell,\xi} (p_3,\sigma',\sigma) C^{-}_{\ell,\xi} (p_3,\sigma',\bar{\sigma}) \theta(-p_3)
\hat{a}^\dagger (\bm{0}, p_3,\sigma)
\hat{a} (\bm{0}, p_3,\bar{\sigma})=0
\quad \therefore \quad
C^{-}_{\ell,\xi} (p_3,\sigma',\bar{\sigma})=0.
\nonumber
\end{equation}
These analyses give the following form of the Kraus operators,
\begin{equation}
\hat{E}^+_{\ell,\xi}= B_\ell \sum_{\sigma} u_{\xi \sigma} \hat{a}(\bm{\ell},\sigma), \quad
\hat{E}^-_{\ell,\xi}=0,
\nonumber
\end{equation}
on the Hilbert space
$\mathcal{H}_0 \bigoplus \mathcal{H}_1$.
By Eq. \eqref{eq:SMS}, we get
\begin{equation}
\hat{E}^+_{q,\xi}= N^*_q \hat{V}(S_q) \hat{E}^+_{\ell,\xi} \hat{V}^\dagger (S_q) =N^*_q B_\ell \sqrt{\frac{E_{\bm{q}}}{\kappa}} \sum_{\sigma} u_{\xi \sigma} \hat{a}(\bm{q},\sigma),
\quad
\hat{E}^-_{q,\xi}= N^*_q \hat{V}(S_q) \hat{E}^-_{\ell,\xi} \hat{V}^\dagger (S_q)=0.
\nonumber
\end{equation}
Setting that the inner product
$\bm{v}^\dagger_{q,\xi} \bm{v}_{q,\xi}$ is
\begin{equation}
\bm{v}^\dagger_{q',s'} \bm{v}_{q,\xi}=\delta^3(\bm{q}'-\bm{q}) \delta_{\xi'\xi},
\nonumber
\end{equation}
the normalization
$N_q$ is given as
$N_q=\sqrt{\kappa/E_{\bm{q}}}$ up to a phase factor.
For this normalization, we get the following completeness condition as
\begin{equation}
\int d^3 q \sum_{s} \bm{v}_{q,\xi} \bm{v}^\dagger_{q,\xi}=\bm{I}.
\nonumber
\end{equation}
Taking account for the completeness,
we can derive a part of the dynamical map
$\mathcal{E}_{t,s}$as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{E}_{t,s}[\rho(s)]
\supset |B_\ell|^2 \, \int d^3 q \sum_{\sigma}\hat{a}(\bm{q},\sigma) \rho(s) \hat{a}^\dagger (\bm{q},\sigma) ,
\label{eq:E(c)(d)2}
\end{equation}
where we used the fact that $u_{\xi \sigma}$ is the unitary matrix.
\textbf{Case (e) $\ell^\mu=[0,0,0,N], \, N^2>0$ :}
We focus on the spectrum
$\ell^\mu=[0,0,0,N], \, N^2>0$.
From Eq.\eqref{eq:TATA} for all
$a^\mu=[0,\bm{a}]$, we have
\begin{equation}
A_{\ell,\xi}=e^{-i\bm{\ell} \cdot \bm{a} } A_{\ell,\xi} \quad \therefore \quad A_{\ell,\xi}=0.
\nonumber
\end{equation}
Eq.\eqref{eq:TBTA} for all
$a^\mu=[0,\bm{a}]$ leads to
\begin{equation}
B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma) e^{-i\bm{p}\cdot \bm{a}} =B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma) e^{-i\bm{\ell}\cdot \bm{a}}
\quad \therefore \quad
B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma)=B_{\ell,\xi}(\sigma) \delta^3(\bm{p}-\bm{\ell})
\nonumber.
\end{equation}
Eq.\eqref{eq:TBT} for all
$a^\mu=[a,0,0,0]$ gives
\begin{equation}
B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma) e^{iE_{\bm{p}} a} =B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma),
\nonumber
\end{equation}
and then combined with
$B_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma)=B_{\ell,\xi}(\sigma) \delta^3(\bm{p}-\bm{\ell})$, we get
\begin{equation}
B_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma) e^{i\kappa a} =B_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma)
\quad \therefore \quad
B_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma)=0
\nonumber
\end{equation}
where we used
$E_{\bm{\ell}}=\sqrt{\bm{\ell}^2} =\kappa > 0$.
Adopting Eq.\eqref{eq:TCTA} for all
$a^\mu=[0,\bm{a}]$, we deduce
\begin{equation}
C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma) e^{i(\bm{p}'-\bm{p}) \cdot \bm{a}}=C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma)e^{-i\bm{\ell}\cdot \bm{a}} \quad \therefore \quad C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma)=C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma', \sigma) \delta^3(\bm{p}'-\bm{p}+\bm{\ell}),
\nonumber
\end{equation}
where
$\bm{\ell}=[0,0,N]^\text{T}$.
From Eq.\eqref{eq:TCTA} for all
$a^\mu=[a,0,0,0]$, we get
\begin{equation}
C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma) e^{-i( E_{\bm{p}'}-E_{\bm{p}} )a}=C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma),
\nonumber
\end{equation}
and substituting
$C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma)=C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma',\sigma) \delta^3(\bm{p}'-\bm{p}+\bm{\ell})$ into the above equation, we have
\begin{equation}
C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma', \sigma)e^{-i( E_{\bm{p}-\bm{\ell}}-E_{\bm{p}} )a}=C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma', \sigma)
\quad \therefore \quad
C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma', \sigma)=C_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma', \sigma) \delta^3(\bm{p}-\bm{\ell}/2).
\nonumber
\end{equation}
Combined with the above analysis, the function
$C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma)$ is
\begin{equation}
C_{\ell,\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma)=C_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma', \sigma) \delta^3(\bm{p}'+\bm{\ell}/2) \delta^3(\bm{p}-\bm{\ell}/2),
\nonumber
\end{equation}
and the Kraus operator
$\hat{E}_{\ell,\xi}$ is written as
\begin{equation}
\hat{E}_{\ell,\xi}= \sum_{\sigma',\sigma} C_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma',\sigma) \hat{a}^\dagger (-\bm{\ell}/2,\sigma') \hat{a}(\bm{\ell}/2,\sigma).
\nonumber
\end{equation}
By the completeness condition of the Kraus operators, Eq.\eqref{eq:EdgE}, the above Kraus operator
$\hat{E}_{\ell,\xi}$ should satisfy
$\hat{E}^\dagger_{\ell,\xi} \hat{E}_{\ell,\xi} \leq \hat{\mathbb{I}}$.
Explicitly,
$\hat{E}^\dagger_{\ell,\xi} \hat{E}_{\ell,\xi} $ is evaluated as
\begin{align}
\hat{E}_{\ell,\xi}^\dagger \hat{E}_{\ell,\xi}
&=\sum_{\bar{\sigma}',\bar{\sigma}} C^*_{\ell,\xi} (\bar{\sigma}',\bar{\sigma}) \hat{a}^\dagger (\bm{\ell}/2,\bar{\sigma})\hat{a} (-\bm{\ell}/2,\bar{\sigma}') \sum_{\sigma',\sigma} C_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma',\sigma) \hat{a}^\dagger (-\bm{\ell}/2,\sigma') \hat{a}(\bm{\ell}/2,\sigma)
\nonumber
\\
&=\delta^3(0) \sum_{\sigma'}\Big(\sum_{\bar{\sigma}} C_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma',\bar{\sigma}) \hat{a} (\bm{\ell}/2,\bar{\sigma}) \Big)^\dagger \sum_{\sigma} C_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma',\sigma) \hat{a}(\bm{\ell}/2,\sigma),
\nonumber
\end{align}
where the term associated with the linear combination of
$\hat{a}^\dagger \hat{a}^\dagger \hat{a} \hat{a}$ vanishes on
$\mathcal{H}_0 \bigoplus \mathcal{H}_1$.
To satisfy
$\hat{E}^\dagger_{\ell,\xi} \hat{E}_{\ell,\xi} \leq \hat{\mathbb{I}}$, we find that
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\sigma'}\Big(\sum_{\bar{\sigma}} C_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma',\bar{\sigma}) \hat{a} (\bm{\ell}/2,\bar{\sigma}) \Big)^\dagger \sum_{\sigma} C_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma',\sigma) \hat{a}(\bm{\ell}/2,\sigma)=0
\quad \therefore \quad
C_{\ell,\xi} (\sigma',\sigma)=0
\nonumber
\end{equation}
Hence, the Kraus operator
$\hat{E}_{\ell,\xi}$ vanishes, and we have that
\begin{equation}
\hat{E}_{q,\xi}
=N^*_q \hat{V}(S_q) \hat{E}_{\ell,\xi} \hat{V}^\dagger (S_q)=0,
\label{eq:E(e)2}
\end{equation}
on the Hilbert space
$\mathcal{H}_0 \bigoplus \mathcal{H}_1$.
\textbf{Case (f) $\ell^\mu=[0,0,0,0]$ :}
We focus on the spectrum
$\ell^\mu=[0,0,0,0]$.
In the following, we do not write the label
$\ell$.
Eq.\eqref{eq:TATA} is identical for all
$a^\mu$.
Since the little group associated with
$\ell^\mu$ is
$\text{SO}(3,1)$,
Eq.\eqref{eq:WAWA} for
$W=\Lambda \in \text{SO}(3,1)$ is given as
\begin{equation}
A_{\xi} =\sum_{\xi'}\mathcal{D}^*_{\xi'\xi}(\Lambda^{-1})A_{\xi'}.
\label{eq:Axi(f)2}
\end{equation}
Eq.\eqref{eq:TBTA} for all
$a^\mu=[0,\bm{a}]$ gives the condition
\begin{equation}
B_{\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma) e^{-i\bm{p} \cdot{a}} =B_{\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma)
\quad \therefore \quad
B_{\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma)=B_{\xi} (\sigma)\delta^3(\bm{p}).
\nonumber
\end{equation}
This equation makes
Eq.\eqref{eq:TBTA} for all
$a^\mu=[a,0,0,0]$ and
Eq. \eqref{eq:WBWA} for
$W=\Lambda \in \text{SO}(3,1)$ trivial.
This form
$B_{\xi}(\bm{p},\sigma)=B_{\xi} (\sigma)\delta^3(\bm{p})$
leads to
$\hat{E}_{\ell,\xi} \supset \sum_{\sigma} B_\xi(\sigma)\hat{a}(\bm{0},\sigma)$.
However, this operator vanishes on the Hilbert space of massless particles since we assumed that there are no states with zero momentum.
Eq.\eqref{eq:TCTA} for all
$a^\mu$ gives us the condition
\begin{equation}
C_{\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma) e^{i({p'}^\mu-p^\mu) a_\mu }=C_{\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma) \quad \therefore \quad
C_{\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma)=C_{\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma', \sigma) \delta^3(\bm{p}'-\bm{p}).
\nonumber
\end{equation}
Eq. \eqref{eq:WCWA} for
$W=\Lambda \in \text{SO}(3,1)$ is written as
\begin{equation}
\sqrt{\frac{E_{\bm{p}'_\Lambda}E_{\bm{p}_\Lambda}}{E_{\bm{p}' }E_{\bm{p}}}}
\sum_{\sigma',\sigma} C_{\xi} (\bm{p}'_\Lambda,\sigma', \bm{p}_\Lambda,\sigma)
D_{\bar{\sigma}'\sigma'} (Q')
D^*_{\bar{\sigma}\sigma} (Q)
=
\sum_{\xi'}\mathcal{D}^*_{\xi'\xi}(\Lambda^{-1})
C_{\xi'} (\bm{p}',\bar{\sigma}', \bm{p},\bar{\sigma}),
\nonumber
\end{equation}
where
$Q=Q(\Lambda^{-1},\Lambda p)$ and
$Q'=Q(\Lambda^{-1},\Lambda p')$.
From the equation
$C_{\xi} (\bm{p}',\sigma', \bm{p},\sigma)=C_{\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma', \sigma) \delta^3(\bm{p}'-\bm{p})$ and noticing the fact that the invariant delta function is
$E_{\bm{p}} \delta^3(\bm{p}-\bm{p}')$, we get the condition
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\sigma',\sigma} C_{\xi} (\bm{p}_\Lambda,\sigma',\sigma)
D_{\bar{\sigma}'\sigma'} (Q)
D^*_{\bar{\sigma}\sigma} (Q)
=
\sum_{\xi'}\mathcal{D}^*_{\xi'\xi}(\Lambda^{-1})
C_{\xi'} (\bm{p},\bar{\sigma}',\bar{\sigma}),
\label{eq:Cxi(f)2}
\end{equation}
where note that the delta function
$\delta^3(\bm{p}-\bm{p}')$ leads to
$Q'=Q(\Lambda^{-1}, \Lambda p')=Q(\Lambda^{-1}, \Lambda p)=Q$.
The (proper orthochronous) Lorentz group
$\text{SO}(3,1)$ has one and infinite dimensional unitary irreducible representations \cite{Bargmann1947}.
Choosing the one-dimensional representation of
$\mathcal{D}_{\xi',\xi}$ and dropping the label $\xi$, we find that Eq.\eqref{eq:Axi(f)2} trivially holds and that Eq.\eqref{eq:Cxi(f)2} is reduced to
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\sigma',\sigma} C (\bm{p}_\Lambda,\sigma',\sigma)
D_{\bar{\sigma}'\sigma'} (Q)
D^*_{\bar{\sigma}\sigma} (Q)
=
C(\bm{p},\bar{\sigma}',\bar{\sigma}).\nonumber
\end{equation}
For
$\bm{p}=\bm{\ell}=[0,0,\kappa]$ and
$\Lambda=L \in \text{ISO}(2)$, we get
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\sigma',\sigma} C(\bm{\ell},\sigma',\sigma)
D_{\bar{\sigma}'\sigma'} (L^{-1})
D^*_{\bar{\sigma}\sigma} (L^{-1})
=
C(\bm{\ell},\bar{\sigma}',\bar{\sigma}) \quad \therefore \quad
C(\bm{\ell},\sigma',\sigma)=C \delta_{\sigma'\sigma},
\nonumber
\end{equation}
where we used the Schur's lemma.
Choosing
$\bm{p}=\bm{\ell}$ and
$\Lambda=S_p$ with
$(S_p)^\mu{}_\nu \ell^\nu=p^\mu$ for
$\ell^\mu=[\kappa,0,0,\kappa]$, we have
\begin{equation}
C(\bm{p},\sigma',\sigma)
=
C(\bm{\ell},\sigma',\sigma),\nonumber
\end{equation}
where we used
$Q=Q(S^{-1}_p, p)=S^{-1}_{k} S^{-1}_p S_p=I$
and
$D_{\sigma'\sigma}(I)=\delta_{\sigma'\sigma}$.
Hence
$C(\bm{p},\sigma',\sigma)=C\delta_{\sigma'\sigma}$.
If we adopt the infinite dimensional representation of
$\mathcal{D}_{\xi' \xi}$, Eq.\eqref{eq:Axi(f)2} leads to
$A_{\ell,\xi}=0$ and
Eq.\eqref{eq:Cxi(f)2} for $\bm{p}=\bm{\ell}$ and
$\Lambda=L \in \text{ISO}(2)$ gives
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\sigma',\sigma} C_{\xi} (\bm{\ell},\sigma',\sigma)
D_{\bar{\sigma}'\sigma'} (L^{-1})
D^*_{\bar{\sigma}\sigma} (L^{-1})
=
\sum_{\xi'} \mathcal{D}^*_{\xi'\xi}(L^{-1})
C_{\xi'} (\bm{\ell},\bar{\sigma}',\bar{\sigma}).
\nonumber
\end{equation}
Assuming that the massless particle has a finite spin and using the Schur's lemma, we get
$C_{\xi'} (\bm{\ell},\bar{\sigma}',\bar{\sigma})=0$.
Eq.\eqref{eq:Cxi(f)2} for $\bm{p}=\bm{\ell}$ and
$\Lambda=S_p$ with
$(S_p)^\mu{}_\nu \ell^\nu=p^\mu$ for
$\ell^\mu=[\kappa,0,0,\kappa]$ provides
\begin{equation}
C_{\xi} (\bm{p},\sigma',\sigma)
=
\sum_{\xi'} \mathcal{D}^*_{\xi'\xi}(S^{-1}_p)
C_{\xi'} (\bm{\ell},\sigma',\sigma)=0.
\nonumber
\end{equation}
The above analysis tells us that the Kraus operator has the following form
\begin{equation}
\hat{E} = A \hat{\mathbb{I}}+C\hat{N},
\nonumber
\end{equation}
where
$\hat{N}$ is the number operator defined in \eqref{eq:N}.
A part of the dynamical map $\mathcal{E}_{t,s}$ with the Poincar\'{e} symmetry is given as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{E}_{t,s}[\rho(s)]
\supset \, \Big(
A \hat{\mathbb{I}}+C \hat{N}
\Big)
\rho(s) \Big(
A \hat{\mathbb{I}}+C \hat{N} \Big)^\dagger.
\label{eq:E(f)2}
\end{equation}
Gathering the above results \eqref{eq:E(a)(b)2}, \eqref{eq:E(c)(d)2}, \eqref{eq:E(e)2} and
\eqref{eq:E(f)2}, we have the following form of
$\mathcal{E}_{t,s}$:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{E}_{t,s}[\rho(s)]
= |B_\ell|^2 \, \int d^3 q \sum_{\sigma}\hat{a}(\bm{q},\sigma) \rho(s) \hat{a}^\dagger (\bm{q},\sigma)+ \Big(
A \hat{\mathbb{I}}+C \hat{N}
\Big)
\rho(s) \Big(
A \hat{\mathbb{I}}+C \hat{N}
\Big)^\dagger.
\label{eq:Emassless}
\end{equation}
In the same manner performed around \eqref{eq:Emassive}, we obtain the form of the dynamical map
$\mathcal{E}_{t,s}$ given in \eqref{eq:map}.
\end{appendix}
|
\section{Introduction}
One challenge that arises in the computation of materials with a pronounced micro-structure is the necessity of modelling the complex geometry of the domain as a whole, in order to correctly capture its intricate kinematics.
In other words, unit-cell geometries in metamaterials or various hole-shapes in porous media have to be accounted for in order to assert the viability of the model.
Naturally, this correlates with the resolution of the discretization in finite element simulations, resulting in longer computation times.
The relaxed micromorphic model \cite{Neff2014} offers an alternative approach by introducing a continuum model with enriched kinematics, accounting for the independent distortion arising from the micro-structure.
As such, for each material point, the model introduces the microdistortion field $\bm{P}$ in addition to the standard displacement field $\vb{u}$.
Consequently, each material point is endowed with twelve degrees of freedom, effectively turning into an affine-deformable micro-body with its own orientation.
In contrast to the classical micromorphic model \cite{Forest_full} by Eringen \cite{Eringen1999} and Mindlin \cite{Mindlin1964}, the relaxed micromorphic model does not employ the full gradient of the microdistortion $\mathrm{D} \bm{P}$ in its energy functional but rather its skew-symmetric part $\Curl \bm{P}$, designated as the micro-dislocation. Therefore, the micro-dislocation $\Curl \bm{P}$ remains a second-order tensor, whereas $\mathrm{D} \bm{P}$ is a third-order tensor.
Further, the model allows the transition between materials with a pronounced micro-structure and homogeneous materials using the characteristic length scale parameter $L_\mathrm{c}$, which governs the influence of the micro-structure.
In highly homogeneous materials the characteristic length scale parameter approaches zero $L_\mathrm{c} \to 0$, and for materials with a pronounced micro-structure its value is related to the size of the underlying unit-cell geometry.
Recent works demonstrate the effectiveness of the model in the simulation of band-gap metamaterials \cite{Madeo2016,Madeo2018,Agostino2020Band,BARBAGALLO2019148,DEMORE2022104995} and shielding against elastic waves \cite{Rizzi_shield,Leo, Rizzi2021Wave,ALBERDI2021104540}.
Furthermore, analytical solutions are already available for bending \cite{Rizzi_bending}, torsion \cite{Rizzi_torsion}, shear \cite{Rizzi_shear}, and extension \cite{Rizzi_extension} kinematics.
We note that the usage of the curl operator in the free energy functional directly influences the appropriate Hilbert spaces for existence and uniqueness of the related variational problem.
Namely, the relaxed micromorphic model is well-posed in $\{\vb{u}, \bm{P} \} \in \mathit{X} = [\mathit{H}^1]^3 \times [\Hc{}]^3$ \cite{GNMPR15,Neff2015}, although the regularity of the microdistortion can be improved to $\bm{P} \in [\mathit{H}^1]^{3\times 3}$ for certain smoothness of the data \cite{Knees,Reg}.
As shown in \cite{SKY2022115298}, the $\mathit{X}$-space asserts well-posedness according to the Lax-Milgram theorem, such that $\mathit{H}^1$-conforming subspaces and N\'ed\'elec elements \cite{Ned2,Nedelec1980,BERGOT20101937} inherit the well-posedness property as well.
In this work we apply the polytopal template methodology introduced in \cite{skypoly} in order to construct higher order N\'ed\'elec elements based on Bernstein polynomials \cite{Ming} and apply the formulation to the relaxed micromorphic model.
Bernstein polynomials are chosen due to their optimal complexity property in the assembly procedure \cite{AinsworthOpt}.
We further enhance this feature by employing dual numbers \cite{Fike} in order to compute the values of the base functions and their derivatives simultaneously.
The polytopal template methodology allows to extend this property to the assembly of the N\'ed\'elec base functions, resulting in fast computations.
Alternatively, the formulation of higher order elements on the basis of Legendre polynomials can be found in \cite{Zaglmayr2006,Joachim2005,Solin}.
The construction of low order N\'ed\'elec elements can be found in \cite{Anjam2015,SkyOn} and specifically in the context of the
the relaxed micromorphic model in \cite{Sky2021,Schroder2022,SKY2022115298,Sarhil2}.
This paper is structured as follows.
First, we introduce the relaxed micromorphic model and its limit cases with respect to the characteristic length scale parameter $L_\mathrm{c}$, after which we reduce it to a model of antiplane shear \cite{Voss2020}.
Next, we shortly discuss Bernstein polynomials and dual numbers for automatic differentiation.
The B\'ezier polynomial basis for triangles and tetrahedra is introduced, along with its factorization, highlighting its compatibility with dual numbers.
We consider a numerical example in antiplane shear for two-dimensional elements, a three-dimensional example for convergence of cylindrical bending, and a benchmark for the behaviour of the model with respect to the characteristic length scale parameter $L_\mathrm{c}$.
Lastly, we present our conclusions and outlook.
\hfill \break
The following definitions are employed throughout this work:
\begin{itemize}
\item vectors are indicated by bold letters. Non-bold letters represent scalars;
\item in general, formulas are defined using the Cartesian basis, where the base vectors are denoted by $\vb{e}_1$, $\vb{e}_2$ and $\vb{e}_3$;
\item three-dimensional domains in the physical space are denoted with $V \subset \mathbb{R}^3$. The corresponding reference domain is given by $\Omega$;
\item analogously, in two dimensions we employ $A \subset \mathbb{R}^2$ for the physical domain and $\Gamma$ for the reference domain;
\item curves on the physical domain are denoted by $s$, whereas curves in the reference domain by $\mu$;
\item the tangent and normal vectors in the physical domain are given by $\vb{t}$ and $\vb{n}$, respectively.
Their counterparts in the reference domain are $\bm{\tau}$ for tangent vectors and $\bm{\nu}$ for normal vectors.
\end{itemize}
\section{The relaxed micromorphic model}
The relaxed micromorphic model \cite{Neff2014} is governed by a free energy functional, incorporating the gradient of the displacement field $\mathrm{D} \vb{u}$, the microdistortion $\bm{P}$ and the Curl of the microdistortion
\begin{align}
I(\vb{u}, \bm{P}) = \dfrac{1}{2} \int_V &\langle \sym(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P}) , \, \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{e}} \sym(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P}) \rangle + \langle \sym\bm{P} , \, \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{micro}} \sym \bm{P} \rangle \notag \\
& + \langle \skw(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P}) , \, \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{c}} \skw(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P}) \rangle + \mu_{\mathrm{macro}}L_\mathrm{c}^2 \langle \Curl \bm{P} , \, \mathbb{L} \Curl \bm{P} \rangle \, \mathrm{d} V \notag \\
& \qquad - \int_V \langle \vb{u} , \, \vb{f} \rangle + \langle \bm{P} , \, \bm{M} \rangle \, \mathrm{d} V \to \min \quad \text{w.r.t.} \quad \{\vb{u}, \bm{P}\}
\, ,
\end{align}
where the Curl operator for second order tensors is defined row-wise as
\begin{align}
\Curl \bm{P} &= \begin{bmatrix}
\curl(\begin{bmatrix}
P_{11} & P_{12} & P_{13}
\end{bmatrix}) \\
\curl(\begin{bmatrix}
P_{21} & P_{22} & P_{23}
\end{bmatrix}) \\
\curl(\begin{bmatrix}
P_{31} & P_{32} & P_{33}
\end{bmatrix})
\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
P_{13,y} - P_{12,z} & P_{11,z} - P_{13,x} & P_{12,x} - P_{11,y} \\
P_{23,y} - P_{22,z} & P_{21,z} - P_{23,x} & P_{22,x} - P_{21,y} \\
P_{33,y} - P_{32,z} & P_{31,z} - P_{33,x} & P_{32,x} - P_{31,y}
\end{bmatrix} \, , \notag \\ \curl \vb{p} &= \nabla \times \vb{p} \, , \qquad \vb{p}: \overline{V} \subset \mathbb{R}^3 \to \mathbb{R}^3 \, ,
\end{align}
and $\curl(\cdot)$ is the vectorial curl operator.
The displacement field and the microdistortion field are functions of the reference domain
\begin{align}
&\vb{u} : \overline{V} \subset \mathbb{R}^3 \to \mathbb{R}^3 \, , && \bm{P} : \overline{V} \subset \mathbb{R}^3 \to \mathbb{R}^{3 \times 3} \, .
\end{align}
The tensors $\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{e}}, \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{micro}},\mathbb{L} \in \mathbb{R}^{3\times 3 \times 3 \times 3}$ are standard positive definite fourth order elasticity tensors. For isotropic materials they take the form
\begin{align}
&\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{e}} = \lambda_{\mathrm{e}} \bm{\mathbbm{1}} \otimes \bm{\mathbbm{1}} + 2 \mu_{\mathrm{e}} \, \mathbb{J} \, , &&
\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{micro}} = \lambda_{\mathrm{micro}} \bm{\mathbbm{1}} \otimes \bm{\mathbbm{1}} + 2 \mu_{\mathrm{micro}} \, \mathbb{J} \, .
\end{align}
where $\bm{\mathbbm{1}}$ is the second order identity tensor and $\mathbb{J}$ is the fourth order identity tensor.
The fourth order tensor $\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{c}} \in \mathbb{R}^{3 \times 3 \times 3 \times 3}$ is a positive semi-definite material tensor related to Cosserat micro-polar continua and accounts for infinitesimal rotations $\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{c}}: \mathfrak{so}(3) \to \mathfrak{so}(3)$, where $\mathfrak{so}(3)$ is the space of skew-symmetric matrices.
For isotropic materials there holds $\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{c}} = 2\mu_{\mathrm{c}} \, \mathbb{J}$, where $\mu_{\mathrm{c}} \geq 0$ is called the Cosserat couple modulus. Further, for simplicity, we assume $\mathbb{L}=\mathbb{J}$ in the following.
The macroscopic shear modulus is denoted by $\mu_{\mathrm{macro}}$ and $L_\mathrm{c}$ represents the characteristic length scale motivated by the geometry of the microstructure.
The forces and micro-moments are given by $\vb{f}$ and $\bm{M}$, respectively.
Equilibrium is found at minima of the energy functional, which is strictly convex (also for $\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{c}} \equiv 0$). As such, we consider variations with respect to its parameters, namely the displacement and the microdistortion.
Taking variations of the energy functional with respect to the displacement field $\vb{u}$ yields
\begin{align}
\delta_u I = \int_V \langle \sym \mathrm{D} \delta \vb{u} , \, \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{e}} \sym(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P}) \rangle + \langle \skw \mathrm{D} \delta \vb{u} , \, \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{c}} \skw(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P}) \rangle - \langle \delta \vb{u} , \, \vb{f} \rangle \, \mathrm{d} V = 0 \, .
\label{eq:weak_disp}
\end{align}
The variation with respect to the microdistortion $\bm{P}$ results in
\begin{align}
\delta_P I = \int_V & \langle \sym \delta \bm{P} , \, \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{e}} \sym(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P}) \rangle + \langle \skw \delta \bm{P} , \, \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{c}} \skw(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P}) \rangle \notag \\ &- \langle \sym \delta \bm{P} , \, \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{micro}} \sym \bm{P} \rangle - \mu_{\mathrm{macro}} L_\mathrm{c}^2 \langle \Curl \delta \bm{P} , \, \Curl \bm{P} \rangle + \langle \delta \bm{P} , \, \bm{M} \rangle \, \mathrm{d} V = 0 \, .
\label{eq:weak_p}
\end{align}
From the total variation we extract the bilinear form
\begin{align}
a(\{\delta \vb{u} , \delta \bm{P}\},\{\vb{u}, \bm{P}\}) = \int_V & \langle \sym(\mathrm{D} \delta \vb{u} - \delta \bm{P}) , \, \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{e}} \sym(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P}) \rangle + \langle \sym \delta \bm{P}, \, \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{micro}} \sym \bm{P} \rangle \notag \\
& + \langle \skw(\mathrm{D} \delta \vb{u} - \delta \bm{P}) , \, \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{c}} \skw(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P}) \rangle + \mu_{\mathrm{macro}} L_\mathrm{c}^2 \langle \Curl \delta \bm{P} , \, \Curl \bm{P} \rangle \, \mathrm{d} V \, ,
\label{eq:bi_full}
\end{align}
and linear form of the loads
\begin{align}
l(\{\delta \vb{u} , \delta \bm{P}\}) = \int_V \langle \delta \vb{u} , \, \vb{f} \rangle + \langle \delta \bm{P} , \, \bm{M} \rangle \, \mathrm{d} V \, .
\label{eq:li_full}
\end{align}
Applying integration by parts to \cref{eq:weak_disp} yields
\begin{align}
\int_{\partial V} &\langle \delta \vb{u} \, , [\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{e}} \sym (\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P}) + \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{c}} \skw(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P})] \,\vb{n} \rangle \, \mathrm{d} A \notag \\ &- \int_V \langle \delta \vb{u} \, , \Di[\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{e}} \sym (\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P}) + \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{c}} \skw(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P})] - \vb{f} \rangle \, \mathrm{d} V = 0 \, .
\label{eq:du}
\end{align}
Likewise, integration by parts of \cref{eq:weak_p}
results in
\begin{align}
\int_V \langle &\delta \bm{P} , \, \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{e}} \sym(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P}) + \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{c}} \skw(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P}) - \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{micro}} \sym \bm{P} - \mu_{\mathrm{macro}} L_\mathrm{c}^2 \Curl \Curl \bm{P} + \bm{M} \rangle \, \mathrm{d} V \notag \\
& - \mu_{\mathrm{macro}} L_\mathrm{c}^2 \int_{\partial V} \langle \delta \bm{P} , \, \Curl \bm{P} \times \vb{n} \rangle \, \mathrm{d} A = 0 \, .
\label{eq:dp}
\end{align}
The strong form is extracted from \cref{eq:du} and \cref{eq:dp} by splitting the boundary
\begin{align}
&A = A_D \cup A_N \, , && A_D \cap A_N = \emptyset \, ,
\end{align}
into a Dirichlet boundary with embedded boundary conditions and a Neumann boundary with natural boundary conditions, such that no tractions are imposed on the Neumann boundary
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
-\Di[\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{e}} \sym (\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P}) + \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{c}} \skw (\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P})] &= \vb{f} && \text{in} \quad V \, , \label{eq:strong_u} \\
-\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{e}} \sym (\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P}) - \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{c}} \skw(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P}) + \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{micro}} \sym \bm{P} + \mu_{\mathrm{macro}} \, L_\mathrm{c} ^ 2 \Curl\Curl\bm{P} &= \bm{M} && \text{in} \quad V \, , \label{eq:strong_p} \\
\vb{u} &= \widetilde{\vb{u}} && \text{on} \quad A_D^u \, , \\
\bm{P} \times \, \vb{n} &= \widetilde{\bm{P}} \times \, \vb{n} && \text{on} \quad A_D^P \, , \label{eq:pdir} \\
[\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{e}} \sym (\mathrm{D} \vb{u}- \bm{P}) + \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{c}} \skw (\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P})] \, \vb{n} &= 0 && \text{on} \quad A_N^u \, ,\\
\Curl \bm{P} \times \, \vb{n} &= 0 && \text{on} \quad A_N^P \, .
\end{align}
\label[Problem]{eq:full_relaxed}
\end{subequations}
The force stress tensor $\widetilde{\bm{\sigma}}\coloneqq\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{e}} \sym (\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P}) + \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{c}} \skw (\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P})$ is symmetric if and only if $\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{c}} \equiv 0$, a case which is permitted.
\cref{eq:full_relaxed} represents a tensorial Maxwell-problem coupled to linear elasticity.
We observe that the Dirichlet boundary condition for the microdistortion controls only its tangential components.
It is unclear, how to control the micro-movements of a material point without also affecting the displacement. Therefore, the relaxed micromorphic model introduces the so called consistent coupling condition \cite{dagostino2021consistent}
\begin{align}
\bm{P} \times \vb{n} = \mathrm{D} \widetilde{\vb{u}} \times \vb{n} \quad \text{on} \quad A_D^P \, , \label{eq:consistent_coupling}
\end{align}
where the prescribed displacement on the Dirichlet boundary $\widetilde{\vb{u}}$ automatically dictates the tangential component of the microdistortion on that same boundary.
Consequently, the consistent coupling condition enforces the definitions $A_D = A_D^u = A_D^P$ and $A_N = A_N^u = A_N^P$ (see \cref{fig:domain}).
Further, the consistent coupling condition substitutes \cref{eq:pdir}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\input{graphs/dom}
\caption{The domain in the relaxed micromorphic model with Dirichlet and Neumann boundaries under internal forces and micro-moments. The Dirichlet boundary of the microdistortion is given by the consistent coupling condition. The model can capture the complex kinematics of an underlying micro-structure.}
\label{fig:domain}
\end{figure}
The set of equations in \cref{eq:full_relaxed} remains well-posed for $\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{c}} \equiv 0$ due to the generalized Korn inequality for incompatible tensor fields \cite{Lewintan2021K,LewintanInc,LewintanInc2,Neff2012}. The inequality relies on a non-vanishing Dirichlet boundary for the microdistortion field $A_D^P \neq \emptyset$, which the consistent coupling condition guarantees.
\subsection{Limits of the characteristic length scale parameter - a true two scale model} \label{sub:limits}
In the relaxed micromorphic model the characteristic length $L_\mathrm{c}$ takes the role of a scaling parameter between the well-defined macro and the micro scales.
This property, unique to the relaxed micromorphic model, allows the theory to interpolate between materials with a pronounced micro-structure and homogeneous materials, thus relating the characteristic length scale parameter $L_\mathrm{c}$ to the size of the micro-structure in metamaterials.
In the lower limit $L_\mathrm{c} \to 0$ the continuum is treated as homogeneous and the solution of the classical Cauchy continuum theory is retrieved \cite{Neff2019,Aivaliotis2020}.
This can be observed by reconsidering \cref{eq:strong_p} for $L_\mathrm{c}=0$,
\begin{align}
-\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{e}} \sym (\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P}) - \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{c}} \skw(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P}) + \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{micro}} \sym \bm{P} = \bm{M} \, ,
\end{align}
which can now be used to express the microdistortion $\bm{P}$ algebraically
\begin{align}
\sym\bm{P} &= (\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{e}} + \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{micro}})^{-1}(\sym \bm{M} + \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{e}} \sym \mathrm{D} \vb{u}) \, , &&
\skw\bm{P} = \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{c}}^{-1}\skw \bm{M} + \skw \mathrm{D} \vb{u} \, .
\end{align}
Setting $\bm{M} = 0$ corresponds to Cauchy continua, where micro-moments are not accounted for. Thus, one finds
\begin{align}
&\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{c}} \skw(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P}) = 0 \, , && \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{e}} \sym (\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P}) = \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{micro}} \sym \bm{P} \, , && \sym \bm{P} = (\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{e}} + \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{micro}})^{-1}\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{e}} \sym \mathrm{D} \vb{u} \, .
\label{eq:lc_to_zero}
\end{align}
Applying the former results to \cref{eq:strong_u} yields
\begin{align}
-\Di[\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{e}} \sym (\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P})] = -\Di[\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{micro}} (\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{e}} + \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{micro}})^{-1}\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{e}} \sym \mathrm{D} \vb{u} ] = -\Di[\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{macro}} \sym \mathrm{D} \vb{u} ] = \vb{f} \, ,
\label{eq:cmacro}
\end{align}
where the definition
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{macro}} = \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{micro}} (\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{e}} + \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{micro}})^{-1}\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{e}}
\end{equation}
relates the meso- and micro-elasticity tensors to the classical macro-elasticity tensor of the Cauchy continuum. In fact, $\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{macro}}$ contains the material constants that arise from standard homogenization for large periodic structures \cite{Neff2019,Aivaliotis2020}.
For isotropic materials one can directly express the macro parameters \cite{Neff2007forest}
\begin{align}
&\mu_{\mathrm{macro}} = \dfrac{\mu_{\mathrm{e}} \, \mu_{\mathrm{micro}}}{\mu_{\mathrm{e}} + \mu_{\mathrm{micro}}} \, ,
&& 2 \mu_{\mathrm{macro}} + 3 \lambda_{\mathrm{macro}} = \dfrac{(2\mu_{\mathrm{e}} + 3 \lambda_{\mathrm{e}})(2 \mu_{\mathrm{micro}} + 3 \lambda_{\mathrm{micro}})}{(2\mu_{\mathrm{e}} + 3 \lambda_{\mathrm{e}}) + (2 \mu_{\mathrm{micro}} + 3 \lambda_{\mathrm{micro}})}
\label{eq:muma}
\end{align}
in terms of the parameters of the relaxed micromorphic model.
In the upper limit $L_\mathrm{c} \to +\infty$, the stiffness of the micro-body becomes dominant. As the characteristic length $L_\mathrm{c}$ can be viewed as a zoom-factor into the microstructure, the state $L_\mathrm{c} \to + \infty$ can be interpreted as the entire domain being the micro-body itself. However, this is only theoretically possible as in practice, the limit is given by the size of one unit cell.
Since the energy functional being minimized contains $\mu_{\mathrm{macro}}L_\mathrm{c}^2\| \Curl \bm{P} \|^2$, on contractible domains and bounded energy this implies the reduction of the microdistortion to a gradient field $\bm{P} \to \mathrm{D} \vb{v}$ due to the classical identity
\begin{align}
\Curl \mathrm{D} \vb{v} = 0 \quad \forall \, \vb{v} \in [\mathit{C}^\infty(V)]^3 \, ,
\end{align}
thus asserting finite energies of the relaxed micromorphic model for arbitrarily large characteristic length values $L_\mathrm{c}$.
The corresponding energy functional in terms of the reduced kinematics $\{ \vb{u}, \vb{v} \} : V\to \mathbb{R}^{3}$ now reads
\begin{align}
I(\vb{u}, \vb{v}) = \dfrac{1}{2} \int_V &\langle \sym(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \mathrm{D} \vb{v}) , \, \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{e}} \sym(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \mathrm{D} \vb{v}) \rangle + \langle \sym\mathrm{D} \vb{v} , \, \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{micro}} \sym \mathrm{D} \vb{v} \rangle \notag \\
& + \langle \skw(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \mathrm{D} \vb{v}) , \, \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{c}} \skw(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \mathrm{D} \vb{v}) \rangle \, \mathrm{d} V - \int_V \langle \vb{u} , \, \vb{f} \rangle + \langle \mathrm{D} \vb{v} , \, \bm{M} \rangle \, \mathrm{d} V \, ,
\end{align}
such that variation with respect to the two vector fields $\vb{u}$ and $\vb{v}$ leads to
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\delta_u I &= \int_V \langle \sym \mathrm{D} \delta \vb{u} , \, \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{e}} \sym(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \mathrm{D} \vb{v}) \rangle + \langle \skw \mathrm{D} \delta \vb{u} , \, \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{c}} \skw(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \mathrm{D} \vb{v}) \rangle - \langle \delta \vb{u} , \, \vb{f} \rangle \, \mathrm{d} V = 0 \, , \label{eq:dv1} \\
\delta_v I &= \int_V \langle \sym \mathrm{D} \delta\vb{v} , \, \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{e}} \sym(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \mathrm{D} \vb{v}) \rangle + \langle \skw \mathrm{D} \delta \vb{v} , \, \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{c}} \skw(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \mathrm{D} \vb{v}) \rangle \notag \\ & \quad \quad - \langle \sym \mathrm{D} \delta \vb{v} , \, \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{micro}} \sym \mathrm{D} \vb{v} \rangle + \langle \mathrm{D} \delta \vb{v} , \, \bm{M} \rangle \, \mathrm{d} V = 0 \, . \label{eq:dv2}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The resulting bilinear form is given by
\begin{align}
a(\{\delta \vb{u} , \delta \vb{v}\},\{\vb{u}, \vb{v}\}) = \int_V & \langle \sym(\mathrm{D} \delta \vb{u} - \mathrm{D} \delta \vb{v}) , \, \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{e}} \sym(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \mathrm{D} \vb{v}) \rangle + \langle \sym \mathrm{D} \delta \vb{v}, \, \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{micro}} \sym \mathrm{D} \vb{v} \rangle \notag \\
& + \langle \skw(\mathrm{D} \delta \vb{u} - \mathrm{D} \delta \vb{v}) , \, \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{c}} \skw(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \mathrm{D} \vb{v}) \rangle \, \mathrm{d} V \, .
\label{eq:new_bi}
\end{align}
By partial integration of \cref{eq:dv1} and \cref{eq:dv2} one finds the equilibrium equations
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
-\Di[\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{e}} \sym (\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \mathrm{D} \vb{v}) + \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{c}} \skw (\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \mathrm{D} \vb{v})] &= \vb{f} && \text{in} \quad V \, ,
\label{eq:lc_strong_u}
\\
-\Di[\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{e}} \sym (\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \mathrm{D} \vb{v}) + \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{c}} \skw(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \mathrm{D} \vb{v})] + \Di[\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{micro}} \sym \mathrm{D} \vb{v}] &= \Di \bm{M} && \text{in} \quad V \, .
\label{eq:lc_strong_p}
\end{align}
\label{eq:lc_eq}
\end{subequations}
We can now substitute the right-hand side of \cref{eq:lc_strong_u} into \cref{eq:lc_strong_p} to find
\begin{align}
-\Di (\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{micro}} \sym \mathrm{D} \vb{v}) = \vb{f} - \Di \bm{M} \, .
\label{eq:upper}
\end{align}
Clearly, setting $\vb{v} = \vb{u}$ satisfies both local equilibrium equations \cref{eq:lc_strong_u} and \cref{eq:lc_strong_p} for $\vb{f} = 0$. Further, the consistent coupling condition \cref{eq:consistent_coupling} is also automatically satisfied, asserting the equivalence of the tangential projections of both fields on the boundary of the domain. Since, as shown in \cite{SKY2022115298,Neff2019} using the extended Brezzi theorem, the case $L_\mathrm{c} \to +\infty$ is well-posed (including $\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{c}} \equiv 0$), the solution $\vb{v} = \vb{u}$ is the unique solution to the bilinear form \cref{eq:new_bi} with the right-hand side
\begin{align}
l(\{\delta \vb{u} , \delta \vb{v}\}) = \langle \mathrm{D} \delta \vb{v} , \, \bm{M} \rangle \, \mathrm{d} V \, .
\end{align}
Effectively, equation~\cref{eq:upper} implies that the limit $L_\mathrm{c} \to +\infty$ defines a classical Cauchy continuum with a finite stiffness governed by $\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{micro}}$, representing the upper limit of the stiffness for the relaxed micromorphic continuum \cite{Neff2019}, where the corresponding forces read $\vb{m} = \Di \bm{M}$.
We emphasize that this interpretation of $\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{micro}}$ is impossible in the classical micromorphic model since there the limit $L_\mathrm{c} \to +\infty$ results in a constant microdistortion field $\bm{P}:V \to \mathbb{R}^{3 \times 3}$ as its full gradient $\mathrm{D} \bm{P}$ is incorporated via $\mu_{\mathrm{macro}}L_\mathrm{c}^2 \| \mathrm{D} \bm{P} \|^2$ into the energy functional \cite{Barbagallo2017}.
\subsection{Antiplane shear}
We introduce the relaxed micromorphic model of antiplane shear\footnote{Note that the antiplane shear model encompasses $1+2 = 3$ degrees of freedom and is the simplest non-trivial active version for the relaxed micromorphic model, as the one-dimensional elongation ansatz features only $1+1=2$ degrees of freedom and eliminates the curl operator
$$I(u,p) = \dfrac{1}{2} \int_s (\lambda_{\mathrm{e}} + 2 \mu_{\mathrm{e}}) |u' - p|^2 + (\lambda_{\mathrm{micro}} + 2\mu_{\mathrm{micro}})|p|^2 \, \mathrm{d} s - \int_s u \, f + p \, m \, \mathrm{d} s \to \min \quad \text{w.r.t.} \quad \{u, p\} \, ,$$
since $\mathrm{D} \vb{u} = u' \, \vb{e}_1 \otimes \vb{e}_1$ and $\bm{P} = p \, \vb{e}_1 \otimes \vb{e}_1$, such that $\skw (\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P}) = 0$ and $\Curl \bm{P} = 0$.
This is not to be confused with uniaxial extension, which entails $1+3 = 4$ degrees of freedom \cite{Rizzi_extension}.
} \cite{Voss2020} by reducing the displacement field to
\begin{align}
\vb{u} = \begin{bmatrix}
0, & 0, & u
\end{bmatrix}^T \, ,
\end{align}
such that $\vb{u} = \vb{u}(x,y)$ is a function of the $x-y$-plane.
Consequently, its gradient reads
\begin{align}
\mathrm{D} \vb{u} = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
u_{,x} & u_{,y} & 0
\end{bmatrix} \, .
\end{align}
The structure of the microdistortion tensor is chosen accordingly
\begin{align}
\bm{P} = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
p_{1} & p_{2} & 0
\end{bmatrix} \, ,
&&
\Curl \bm{P} = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & p_{2,x}-p_{1,y}
\end{bmatrix}
= \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \rot{\vb{p}}
\end{bmatrix}\, .
\end{align}
Analogously to the displacement field $\vb{u}$, the microdistortion $\bm{P}$ is also set to be a function of the $\{x,y\}$-variables $\bm{P} = \bm{P}(x,y)$.
We observe the following sym-skew decompositions of the gradient and microdistortion tensors
\begin{align}
\sym \bm{P} &= \dfrac{1}{2} \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & p_{1} \\
0 & 0 & p_{2} \\
p_{1} & p_{2} & 0
\end{bmatrix} \, , \qquad
\sym(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P}) = \dfrac{1}{2} \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & u_{,x}-p_1 \\
0 & 0 & u_{,y}-p_2 \\
u_{,x}-p_1 & u_{,y}-p_2 & 0
\end{bmatrix} \, , \notag \\
\skw(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P}) &= \dfrac{1}{2} \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & p_1-u_{,x} \\
0 & 0 & p_2-u_{,y} \\
u_{,x}-p_1 & u_{,y}-p_2 & 0
\end{bmatrix} \, .
\end{align}
Clearly, there holds
\begin{align}
\tr [\sym \bm{P}] = \tr [\sym(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P})] = \tr [\skw(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P})] = 0 \, ,
\end{align}
such that the contraction with the material tensors reduces to
\begin{align}
\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{e}} \sym(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P}) &= 2 \mu_{\mathrm{e}} \sym(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P}) \, , &
\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{micro}} \sym(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P}) = 2 \mu_{\mathrm{micro}} \sym\bm{P} \, , \notag \\ \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{c}} \skw(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P}) &= 2 \mu_{\mathrm{c}} \skw(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P}) \, .
\end{align}
As such, the quadratic forms of the energy functional are given by
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\langle \sym(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P}) , \, \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{e}} \sym(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P}) \rangle &= \mu_{\mathrm{e}} \| \nabla u - \vb{p} \|^2 \, , \\
\langle \skw(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P}) , \, \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{c}} \skw(\mathrm{D} \vb{u} - \bm{P}) \rangle &= \mu_{\mathrm{c}} \| \nabla u - \vb{p} \|^2 \, , \\
\langle \sym\bm{P} , \, \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{micro}} \sym \bm{P} \rangle &= \mu_{\mathrm{micro}} \| \vb{p} \|^2 \, ,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
with the definitions
\begin{align}
&\nabla u = \begin{bmatrix}
u_{,x} \\
u_{,y}
\end{bmatrix} \, , &&
\vb{p} = \begin{bmatrix}
p_1 \\
p_2
\end{bmatrix} \, .
\end{align}
The resulting energy functional for antiplane shear reads therefore
\begin{align}
I(u, \vb{p}) = \dfrac{1}{2} \int_A (\mu_{\mathrm{e}} + \mu_{\mathrm{c}}) \| \nabla u - \vb{p} \|^2 + \mu_{\mathrm{micro}} \| \vb{p} \|^2 + \mu_{\mathrm{macro}} L_\mathrm{c}^2 \| \rot{\vb{p}} \|^2 \, \mathrm{d} A - \int_A u \, f + \langle \vb{p} , \, \vb{m} \rangle \, \mathrm{d} A \, .
\end{align}
In order to maintain consistency with the three-dimensional model we must choose $\mu_{\mathrm{c}} = 0$. The reasoning for this choice is explained upon in \cref{re:muc} (see also \cref{fig:antiplane_flow}). Consequently, the energy functional is given by
\begin{align}
I(u, \vb{p}) = \dfrac{1}{2} \int_A& \mu_{\mathrm{e}} \| \nabla u - \vb{p} \|^2 + \mu_{\mathrm{micro}} \| \vb{p} \|^2 + \mu_{\mathrm{macro}} L_\mathrm{c}^2 \| \rot{\vb{p}} \|^2 \, \mathrm{d} A \notag \\ & - \int_A u\, f \, + \langle \vb{p} , \, \vb{m} \rangle \, \mathrm{d} A \to \min \quad \text{w.r.t.} \quad \{ u, \vb{p} \} \, .
\end{align}
Note that on two-dimensional domains the differential operators are reduced to
\begin{align}
&\nabla u = \begin{bmatrix} u_{,x} \\ u_{,y} \end{bmatrix} \, ,
&& \bm{R} \nabla u = \begin{bmatrix} u_{,y} \\ -u_{,x} \end{bmatrix} \, ,
&& \bm{R} = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 1 \\
-1 & 0
\end{bmatrix} \, , && \rot{\vb{p}} = \di (\bm{R} \vb{p}) = p_{2,x} - p_{1,y} \, ,
\end{align}
where we note that $\curl_{\text{2D}}$ is just a rotated divergence.
Taking variations of the energy functional with respect to the displacement field results in
\begin{align}
\delta_u I = \int_A \mu_{\mathrm{e}} \langle \nabla \delta u , \, \nabla u - \vb{p} \rangle - \delta u \, f \, \mathrm{d} A = 0 \, ,
\label{eq:var_antiplane_disp}
\end{align}
and variation with respect to the microdistortion yields
\begin{align}
\delta_p I = \int_A \mu_{\mathrm{e}} \langle \delta \vb{p} , \, \nabla u - \vb{p} \rangle - \mu_{\mathrm{micro}} \langle \delta \vb{p} , \, \vb{p} \rangle - \mu_{\mathrm{macro}} L_\mathrm{c}^2 (\rot{\delta \vb{p}}) \rot{\vb{p}} + \langle \delta \vb{p} , \, \vb{m} \rangle \, \mathrm{d} A = 0 \, .
\label{eq:var_p_anti}
\end{align}
Consequently, one finds the bilinear and linear forms
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
a(\{\delta u, \delta \vb{p}\},\{u,\vb{p}\}) &= \int_A \mu_{\mathrm{e}} \langle \nabla \delta u - \delta \vb{p} , \, \nabla u - \vb{p} \rangle + \mu_{\mathrm{micro}} \langle \delta \vb{p} , \, \vb{p} \rangle + \mu_{\mathrm{macro}} L_\mathrm{c}^2 (\rot{\delta \vb{p}}) \rot{\vb{p}} \, \mathrm{d} A \, , \\
l(\{\delta u, \delta \vb{p}\}) &= \int_A \delta u \, f + \langle \delta \vb{p} , \, \vb{m} \rangle \, \mathrm{d} A \, .
\end{align}
\label{eq:bili_anti}
\end{subequations}
Partial integration of \cref{eq:var_antiplane_disp} results in
\begin{align}
\int_{\partial A} \delta u \, \langle \mu_{\mathrm{e}}( \nabla u - \vb{p} ) , \, \vb{n} \rangle \, \mathrm{d} s - \int_A \delta u \, [ \mu_{\mathrm{e}} \di(\nabla u - \vb{p}) + f ] \, \mathrm{d} A = 0 \, ,
\end{align}
and analogously for \cref{eq:var_p_anti}, yielding
\begin{align}
\int_A \langle \delta \vb{p} , \, \mu_{\mathrm{e}}(\nabla u - \vb{p}) - \mu_{\mathrm{micro}} \, \vb{p} - \mu_{\mathrm{macro}} L_\mathrm{c}^2 \bm{R} \nabla \rot{\vb{p}} + \vb{m} \rangle \, \mathrm{d} A
- \int_{\partial A} \langle \delta \vb{p} , \, \mu_{\mathrm{macro}} L_\mathrm{c}^2 (\rot{\vb{p}}) \, \vb{t} \rangle \, \mathrm{d} s = 0 \, .
\end{align}
Consequently, the strong form reads
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
-\mu_{\mathrm{e}} \di(\nabla u - \vb{p}) &= f && \text{in} \quad A \, , \label{eq:strong_anti_p} \\
-\mu_{\mathrm{e}}(\nabla u - \vb{p}) + \mu_{\mathrm{micro}} \, \vb{p} + \mu_{\mathrm{macro}} L_\mathrm{c}^2 \bm{R} \nabla \rot{\vb{p}} &= \vb{m} && \text{in} \quad A \, , \label{eq:strong_anti_u} \\
u &= \widetilde{u} && \text{on} \quad s_D^u \, , \\
\langle \vb{p} , \, \vb{t} \rangle &= \langle \widetilde{\vb{p}} , \, \vb{t} \rangle && \text{on} \quad s_D^P \, , \\
\langle \nabla u , \, \vb{n} \rangle &= \langle \vb{p} , \, \vb{n} \rangle && \text{on} \quad s_N^u \, ,\\
\rot{\vb{p}} &= 0 && \text{on} \quad s_N^P \, .
\end{align}
\label[Problem]{eq:ap_strong}
\end{subequations}
The consistent coupling condition accordingly reduces to
\begin{align}
\langle \vb{p} , \, \vb{t} \rangle = \langle \nabla \widetilde{u} , \, \vb{t} \rangle \qquad &\qquad \text{on} \quad s_D = s_D^P = s_D^u \, .
\end{align}
\begin{remark} \label{re:muc}
Note that without setting $\mu_{\mathrm{c}} = 0$ in the antiplane shear model, the analogous result to \cref{eq:cmacro} in the limit $L_\mathrm{c} \to 0$ would read
\begin{align}
- \underbrace{\left ( \dfrac{\mu_{\mathrm{micro}} \, [\mu_{\mathrm{e}} + \mu_{\mathrm{c}}]}{\mu_{\mathrm{e}} + \mu_{\mathrm{c}} + \mu_{\mathrm{micro}}} \right )}_{\neq \mu_{\mathrm{macro}}} \Delta u = f \, ,
\end{align}
where the relation to the macro parameter $\mu_{\mathrm{macro}}$ in \cref{eq:muma} is lost. Further, the limit defined in \cref{eq:lc_to_zero} with $\bm{M} = 0$ yields the contradiction
\begin{align}
\sym\bm{P} = (\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{e}} + \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{micro}})^{-1} \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{e}} \sym \mathrm{D} \vb{u} \, , &&
\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{c}}\skw\bm{P} = \mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{c}}\skw \mathrm{D} \vb{u} \, ,
\end{align}
since the equations degenerate to
\begin{align}
&\vb{p} = \dfrac{\mu_{\mathrm{e}}}{\mu_{\mathrm{e}} + \mu_{\mathrm{micro}}} \nabla u \, , && \mu_{\mathrm{c}}\vb{p} = \mu_{\mathrm{c}}\nabla u \, ,
\label{eq:anti_cond}
\end{align}
due to the equivalent three-dimensional forms for antiplane shear.
Choosing $\mu_{\mathrm{micro}} = 0$ leads to a loss of structure in the strong form \cref{eq:ap_strong}, while satisfying \cref{eq:anti_cond}.
As such, we must set the Cosserat couple modulus $\mu_{\mathrm{c}} = 0$ to preserve the structure of the equations and satisfy both \cref{eq:muma} and \cref{eq:anti_cond}.
Although the relaxed micromorphic model includes the Cosserat model as a singular limit for $\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{micro}} \to +\infty$ ($\mu_{\mathrm{micro}} \to +\infty$), it is impossible to deduce the Cosserat model of antiplane shear as a limit of the antiplane relaxed micromorphic model, since one needs to satisfy \cref{eq:anti_cond} for $\mu_{\mathrm{c}} > 0$ and $\mu_{\mathrm{micro}} \to +\infty$, which is impossible.
\end{remark}
The kinematic reduction of the relaxed micromorphic model to antiplane shear and its behaviour in the limit cases of its material parameters is depicted in \cref{fig:antiplane_flow}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\input{graphs/relaxed}
\caption{Kinematic reduction of the relaxed micromorphic model to antiplane shear and consistency at limit cases according to \cref{re:muc} and \cref{sub:limits}. The two-scale nature of the relaxed micromorphic model can be clearly observed.}
\label{fig:antiplane_flow}
\end{figure}
\section{Polynomial basis}
In this section we briefly introduce Bernstein polynomials and dual numbers. Bernstein polynomials are used to construct both the $\mathit{H}^1$-conforming subspace and, in conjunction with the polytopal template methodology, the N\'ed\'elec elements. The computation of derivatives of the Bernstein base functions is achieved by employing dual numbers, thus enabling the calculation of the value and the derivative of a base function simultaneously.
\subsection{Bernstein polynomials}
Bernstein polynomials of order $p$ are given by the binomial expansion of the barycentric representation of the unit line
\begin{align}
1 = (\lambda_1 + \lambda_2)^p = ((1-\xi) + \xi)^p = \sum_{i=0}^p \begin{pmatrix} p \\ i \end{pmatrix} \xi^i (1 - \xi)^{p-i} = \sum_{i=0}^p \dfrac{p!}{i!(p-i)!} \xi^i (1 - \xi)^{p-i} \, ,
\end{align}
where $\xi \in [0, 1]$. The Bernstein polynomial reads
\begin{align}
b_i^p(\xi) = \begin{pmatrix} p \\ i \end{pmatrix} \xi^i (1 - \xi)^{p-i} \, .
\end{align}
A direct result of the binomial expansion is that Bernstein polynomials form a partition of unity, see also \cref{fig:bernstein}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\input{graphs/bern}
\caption{Bernstein base functions of degree $p=4$ on the unit domain. Their sum forms a partition of unity. The base functions are symmetric for $\xi=0.5$ with respect to their indices and always positive.}
\label{fig:bernstein}
\end{figure}
\begin{align}
\sum_{i = 0}^p b_i^p(\xi) = 1 \, .
\label{eq:unity}
\end{align}
Another consequence is that Bernstein polynomials are non-negative and less than or equal to 1
\begin{align}
&0\leq b_i^p(\xi) \leq 1 \, , && \xi \in [0,1] \, .
\end{align}
A necessary condition for the use of Bernstein polynomials in finite element approximations is for them to span the entire polynomial space.
\begin{theorem} [Span of Bernstein polynomials]
The span of Bernstein polynomials forms a basis of the one-dimensional polynomial space
\begin{align}
&\mathit{P}^p(\xi) = \spa \{ b_i^p \} \, , && \xi \subseteq \mathbb{R} \, .
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
First we observe
\begin{align}
\dim (\spa \{ b_i^p \}) = \dim \mathit{P}^p(\xi) = p + 1 \, .
\end{align}
The proof of linear independence is achieved by contradiction. Let the set $\spa \{ b_i^{p} \}$ with $0<i\leq p$ be linearly dependent, then there exists some combination with at least one non-zero constant $c_i \neq 0$ such that
\begin{align}
&\sum_{i=1}^{p} c_i b_i^p(\xi) = 0 \, , && \dfrac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} \xi} \sum_{i=1}^{p} c_i b_i^p(\xi) = 0 \, .
\end{align}
However, by the partition of unity property \cref{eq:unity}, only the full combination ($0 \leq i \leq p$) generates a constant and by the exact sequence property the kernel of the differentiation operator is exactly the space of constants $\ker(\partial) = \mathbb{R}$. The linear independence of the full span also follows from the partition of unity property, since constants cannot be constructed otherwise.
\end{proof}
Bernstein polynomials can be evaluated efficiently using the recursive formula
\begin{align}
& b_0^p(\xi) = (1-\xi)^p \, , &&b_{i+1}^p(\xi) = \dfrac{(p-i)\xi}{(p+1)(1-\xi)} b_i^p(\xi) \, , && i \in \{0,1,...,p-1\} \, ,
\label{eq:rec}
\end{align}
which allows for fast evaluation of the base functions.
\begin{remark}
Note that the formula \cref{eq:rec} implies $\lim_{\xi \to 1} b_{i+1}^p(\xi) = \infty$. As such, evaluations using the formula are required to use $\xi < 1$ preferably with additional tolerance. The limit case $\xi = 1$ is zero for all Bernstein base functions aside from the last function belonging to the vertex, which simply returns one
\begin{align}
b_i^p(1) = 0 \quad \forall \, i \neq p \, , && b_p^p(1) = 1 \, .
\end{align}
\end{remark}
\subsection{Dual numbers}
Dual numbers \cite{Fike} can be used to define define an augmented algebra, where the derivative of a function can be computed simultaneously with the evaluation of the function.
This enhancement is also commonly used in forward automatic differentiation \cite{Neidinger,baydin2018automatic}, not to be confused with numerical differentiation, since unlike in numerical differentiation, automatic differentiation is no approximation and yields the exact derivative.
The latter represents an alternative method to finding the derivatives of base functions, as opposed to explicit formulas or approximations.
Dual numbers augment the classical numbers by adding a non-zero number $\varepsilon$ with a zero square $\varepsilon^2 = 0$.
\begin{definition} [Dual number]
The dual number is defined by
\begin{align}
&x + x' \varepsilon \, , && \varepsilon \ll 1 \, ,
\end{align}
where $x'$ is the derivative (only in automatic differentiation), $\varepsilon$ is an abstract number (infinitesimal) and formally $\varepsilon^2 = 0$.
\end{definition}
The augmented algebra results automatically from the definition of the dual number.
\begin{definition} [Augmented dual algebra]
The standard algebraic operations take the following form for dual numbers
\begin{enumerate}
\item Addition and subtraction
\begin{align}
(x + x'\varepsilon) \pm (y + y'\varepsilon) = x \pm y + (x' \pm y')\varepsilon \, .
\end{align}
\item Multiplication
\begin{align}
(x + x'\varepsilon) (y + y'\varepsilon) = xy + (xy' + x'y)\varepsilon \, ,
\end{align}
since formally $\varepsilon^2 = 0$.
\item Division is achieved by first defining the inverse element
\begin{align}
(x+ x' \varepsilon)(y + y'\varepsilon) = 1 \quad \iff \qquad y = \dfrac{1}{x}, \quad y' = -\dfrac{x'}{x^2} \, ,
\end{align}
such that
\begin{align}
(x + x'\varepsilon) / (y + y'\varepsilon) = x/y + (x'/y - xy'/y^2 )\varepsilon \, .
\end{align}
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
Application of the above definitions to polynomials
\begin{align}
p(x + \varepsilon) = \sum_{i = 0}^\infty c_i (x + \varepsilon)^i = \sum_{i=0}^\infty \sum_{j = 0}^1 c_i \begin{pmatrix}
i \\ j
\end{pmatrix} x^{i-j} \varepsilon^j = \sum_{i=0}^\infty c_i x^{i} + \varepsilon \sum_{i = 1}^\infty i \, c_i x^{i-1} = p(x) + p'(x) \varepsilon \, ,
\end{align}
allows the extension to various types of analytical functions with a power-series representation (such as trigonometric or hyperbolic).
\begin{definition} [General dual numbers function]
A function of a dual number is defined in general by
\begin{align}
f(x+\varepsilon) = f(x) + f'(x) \varepsilon \, ,
\end{align}
being a fundamental formula for forward automatic differentiation.
\end{definition}
The definition of dual numbers makes them directly applicable to the general rules of differentiation, such as the chain rule or product rule, in which case the derivative is simply the composition of previous computations with $\varepsilon$.
The logic of dual numbers can be understood intuitively by the directional derivative
\begin{align}
\dfrac{\mathrm{d} }{ \mathrm{d} x } f(x) = \partial_{x'}f(x) = \dfrac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} \varepsilon} f(x + x'\varepsilon) \at_{\varepsilon = 0} = \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \dfrac{f(x + x'\varepsilon) - f(x)}{\varepsilon} \, ,
\end{align}
where dividing by $\varepsilon$ and setting $\varepsilon = 0$ are deferred to the last step of the computation, being the extraction of the derivative and equivalent to the operation $f(x + \varepsilon) - f(x)$ with the augmented algebra of dual numbers.
In this work we apply dual numbers for the computation of Bernstein polynomials using the recursive formula \cref{eq:rec}, thus allowing to iteratively compute each base function simultaneously with its derivative.
\section{Triangular elements}
The triangle elements are mapped from the reference element $\Gamma$ to the physical domain $A_e$ via barycentric coordinates
\begin{align}
& \vb{x}(\xi, \eta) = (1 - \xi - \eta) \vb{x}_1 + \eta \, \vb{x}_2 + \xi \, \vb{x}_3 \, , && \vb{x}:\Gamma \to A_e \, , && \Gamma = \{ (\xi, \eta) \in [0,1]^2 \; | \; \xi + \eta \leq 1 \} \, ,
\end{align}
where $\vb{x}_i$ represent the coordinates of the vertices of one triangle in the physical domain, see \cref{fig:trimap}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\input{graphs/trimap}
\caption{Barycentric mapping of the reference triangle to an element in the physical domain.}
\label{fig:trimap}
\end{figure}
The corresponding Jacobi matrix reads
\begin{align}
\bm{J} = \mathrm{D} \vb{x} = \begin{bmatrix}
\vb{x}_3 - \vb{x}_1, & \vb{x}_2 - \vb{x}_1
\end{bmatrix} \in \mathbb{R}^{2 \times 2} \, .
\end{align}
\subsection{The Bernstein-B\'ezier basis for triangles}
The base functions on the triangle reference element are defined using the binomial expansion of the barycentric coordinates on the domain $\Gamma$
\begin{align}
1 = (\lambda_1 + \lambda_2 + \lambda_3)^p = ([1- \xi - \eta] + \eta + \xi)^p \, .
\end{align}
As such, the B\'ezier base functions read
\begin{align}
b_{ij}^p(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3) = \begin{pmatrix} p \\ i \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} p-i \\ j \end{pmatrix} \lambda_1^{p-i-j} \lambda_2^j \lambda_3^i \, ,
\end{align}
with the equivalent bivariate form
\begin{align}
b^p_{ij}(\xi,\eta) = \begin{pmatrix} p \\ i \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} p-i \\ j \end{pmatrix}
(1- \xi - \eta)^{p-i-j} \eta^j \xi^i \, ,
\end{align}
of which some examples are depicted in \cref{fig:bezier}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{figs/bez0_3}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{figs/bez01_3}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{figs/bez012_3}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Cubic vertex (a), edge (b) and cell (c) B\'ezier base functions on the reference triangle.}
\label{fig:bezier}
\end{figure}
The Duffy transformation
\begin{align}
&\bm{\xi}:[0,1]^2 \to \Gamma \, , && \{\alpha, \beta\} \mapsto \{\xi, \eta\} \, ,
\end{align}
given by the relations
\begin{align}
\xi = \alpha \, , &&
\alpha = \xi \, , && \eta = (1- \alpha) \beta \, , &&\beta = \dfrac{\eta}{1-\xi} \, ,
\end{align}
allows to view the triangle as a collapsed quadrilateral, see \cref{fig:duffy2d}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\input{graphs/duffy}
\caption{Duffy transformation from a quadrilateral to a triangle by collapse of the coordinate system.}
\label{fig:duffy2d}
\end{figure}
Inserting the Duffy map into the definition of the B\'ezier base function yields the split
\begin{align}
b^p_{ij}(\xi,\eta) &= \begin{pmatrix} p \\ i \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} p-i \\ j \end{pmatrix}
(1- \xi - \eta)^{p-i-j} \eta^j \xi^i \notag \\
&= \begin{pmatrix} p \\ i \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} p-i \\ j \end{pmatrix} (1-\alpha - [1-\alpha]\beta)^{p-i-j}(1-\alpha)^j \beta^j \alpha^i \notag\\
&= \begin{pmatrix} p \\ i \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} p-i \\ j \end{pmatrix} (1-\alpha)^{p-i-j}(1-\beta)^{p-i-j}(1-\alpha)^j\beta^j\alpha^i \\
&= \begin{pmatrix} p \\ i \end{pmatrix} (1-\alpha)^{p-i} \alpha^i
\begin{pmatrix} p-i \\ j \end{pmatrix} (1-\beta)^{p-i-j} \beta^j \notag \\
&= b_i^p(\alpha) \, b_j^{p-i}(\beta) \, .
\notag
\end{align}
In other words, the Duffy transformation results in a natural factorization of the B\'ezier triangle into Bernstein base functions \cite{AinsworthOpt}. The latter allows for fast evaluation using sum factorization. Further, it is now clear that B\'ezier triangles are given by the interpolation of B\'ezier curves, where the degree of the polynomial decreases between each curve, see \cref{fig:inter}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\input{graphs/product}
\caption{B\'ezier triangle built by interpolating B\'ezier curves with an ever decreasing polynomial degree.}
\label{fig:inter}
\end{figure}
In order to compute gradients on the reference domain one applies the chain rule
\begin{align}
&\nabla_\xi b_{ij}^p = (\mathrm{D}_\alpha \bm{\xi})^{-T} \nabla_\alpha b_{ij}^p \, , && \mathrm{D}_\alpha \bm{\xi} = \begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
-\beta & 1 - \alpha
\end{bmatrix} \, , && (\mathrm{D}_\alpha \bm{\xi})^{-T} = \dfrac{1}{1-\alpha} \begin{bmatrix}
1- \alpha & \beta \\
0 & 1
\end{bmatrix} \, .
\end{align}
The factorization is naturally suited for the use of dual numbers since the $\bm{\alpha}$-gradient of a base function reads
\begin{align}
\nabla_\alpha b_{ij}^p(\alpha, \beta) = \begin{bmatrix}
b_j^{p-i} \dfrac{\mathrm{d} }{\mathrm{d} \alpha} b_i^p \\[2ex]
b_i^p \dfrac{\mathrm{d} }{\mathrm{d} \beta} b_j^{p-i}
\end{bmatrix} \, ,
\end{align}
such that only the derivatives of the Bernstein base functions with respect to their parameter are required.
The Duffy transformation induces an intrinsic optimal order of traversal of the base functions, compare \cref{fig:traversaltri}, namely
\begin{align}
(i,j)=(0,0) \to (0,1) \to...\to (2,2)\to...\to(i,p-i)\to...\to(p,0) \, ,
\end{align}
which respects a clockwise orientation of the element, compare \cite{SKY2022115298}. Thus, the order of the sequence of discrete values on common edges is determined by the global orientation.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\input{graphs/order}
\caption{Traversal order of base functions. The purple lines represent the order in which the base functions are constructed by the factorized evaluation. Note that the traversal order on each edge is intrinsically from the lower to the higher vertex index.}
\label{fig:traversaltri}
\end{figure}
In order to relate a base function to a polytopal piece of the element, one observes the following result.
\begin{observation} [Triangle base functions]
The polytope of each base function $b_{ij}^p(\xi,\eta)$ can be determined as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item The indices $(0,0)$, $(0,p)$ and $(p,0)$ represent the first, second and last vertex base functions, respectively.
\item The indices $(0, j)$ with $0< j < p$ and $(i, 0)$ with $0<i<p$ represent the first and second edge base functions, respectively. Base functions of the slanted edge are given by $( i, p-i )$ with $0<i<p$.
\item The remaining index combinations are cell base functions.
\end{itemize}
\end{observation}
With the latter observation, the construction of vertex-, edge- and cell base functions follows the intrinsic traversal order induced by the Duffy transformation and relates to a specific polytope via index-pairs.
\subsection{N\'ed\'elec elements of the second type}
We construct the base functions for the N\'ed\'elec element of the second type using the polytopal template methodology introduced in \cite{skypoly}.
The template sets read
\begin{align}
\mathcal{T}_1 &= \{\vb{e}_2,\vb{e}_1\} \, , & \mathcal{T}_2 &= \{\vb{e}_1 + \vb{e}_2,\vb{e}_1\} \, , & \mathcal{T}_3 &= \{\vb{e}_1 + \vb{e}_2,-\vb{e}_2\} \, , \notag \\
\mathcal{T}_{12} &= \{\vb{e}_2,-\vb{e}_1\} \, , & \mathcal{T}_{13} &= \{\vb{e}_1,\vb{e}_2\} \, , & \mathcal{T}_{23} &= \{ (1/2) (\vb{e}_1 - \vb{e}_2),\vb{e}_1 + \vb{e}_2\} \, , \notag \\
\mathcal{T}_{123} &= \{\vb{e}_1,\vb{e}_2\} \, .
\end{align}
The space of B\'ezier polynomials is split across the polytopes of the reference triangle into
\begin{align}
\mathcal{B}^p(\Gamma) = \left \{ \bigoplus_{i=1}^3 \mathcal{V}^p_i (\Gamma) \right \} \oplus \left \{ \bigoplus_{j \in \mathcal{J}} \mathcal{E}^p_{j} (\Gamma) \right \} \oplus \mathcal{C}^p_{123}(\Gamma) \, , && \mathcal{J} = \{(1,2),(1,3),(2,3)\} \, ,
\end{align}
where $\mathcal{V}^p_i$ are the sets of the vertex base functions, $\mathcal{E}^p_{j}$ are the sets of edge base functions, $\mathcal{C}^p_{123}$ is the set of cell base functions, and the $\oplus$ indicates summation over non-overlapping spaces.
Consequently, the N\'ed\'elec basis is given by
\begin{align}
&\mathcal{N}_{II}^p = \left \{ \bigoplus_{i=1}^3 \mathcal{V}^p_i \otimes \mathcal{T}_i \right \} \oplus \left \{ \bigoplus_{j \in \mathcal{J}} \mathcal{E}^p_{j} \otimes \mathcal{T}_{j} \right \} \oplus \{\mathcal{C}^p_{123} \otimes \mathcal{T}_{123}\} \, , && \mathcal{J} = \{(1,2),(1,3),(2,3)\} \, .
\label{eq:ber-decomp}
\end{align}
Using the B\'ezier basis one finds the following base functions, which inherit the optimal complexity of the underlying basis.
\begin{definition} [B\'ezier-N\'ed\'elec II triangle basis]
The following base functions are defined on the reference triangle.
\begin{itemize}
\item On the edges the base function reads
\begin{align}
&e_{12}: & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi, \eta) &= b_{00}^p \vb{e}_2 \, , & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi, \eta) &= b_{0p}^p (\vb{e}_1 + \vb{e}_2) \,, \notag \\
&& \bm{\vartheta}(\xi, \eta) &= b_{0j}^p\vb{e}_2 \, , \quad 0<j<p \, , \notag \\
&e_{13}: & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi, \eta) &= b_{00}^p \vb{e}_1 \, , & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi, \eta) &= b_{p0}^p (\vb{e}_1 + \vb{e}_2) \,, \notag \\
&& \bm{\vartheta}(\xi, \eta) &= b_{i0}^p\vb{e}_1 \, , \quad 0<i<p \, , \notag \\
&e_{23}: & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi, \eta) &= b_{0p}^p \vb{e}_1 \, , & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi, \eta) &= -b_{p0}^p \vb{e}_2 \,, \notag \\ && \bm{\vartheta}(\xi, \eta) &= (1/2)\, b_{i,p-i}^p(\vb{e}_1 - \vb{e}_2) \, , \quad 0<i<p \, ,
\end{align}
where the first two base functions for each edge are the vertex-edge base functions and the third equation generates pure edge base functions.
\item The cell base functions read
\begin{align}
&c_{123}: & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta) &= -b_{0j}^p\vb{e}_1 \, , && 0<j<p \, , \notag \\
&& \bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta) &= b_{i0}^p \vb{e}_2 \, , && 0<i<p \, , \notag \\
&& \bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta) &= b_{i,p-i}^p (\vb{e}_1 + \vb{e}_2) \, , && 0<i<p \, , \notag \\ &&\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta) &= b_{ij}^p \vb{e}_2 \, , && 0<i<p \, , \quad 0<j<p-i \, , \notag \\
&&\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta) &= b_{ij}^p \vb{e}_1 \, , && 0<i<p \, , \quad 0<j<p-i \, ,
\end{align}
where the first three are the respective edge-cell base functions. The remaining two are pure cell base functions.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\subsection{N\'ed\'elec elements of the first type}
In order to construct the N\'ed\'elec element of the first type we rely on the construction of the kernel introduced in \cite{Zaglmayr2006} via the exact de Rham sequence and the polytopal template for the non-kernel base functions following \cite{skypoly}.
The complete N\'ed\'elec space reads
\begin{align}
\mathcal{N}_{I}^p &= \mathcal{N}_{I}^0 \oplus \left \{ \bigoplus_{j \in \mathcal{J} } \nabla \mathcal{E}^{p+1}_j \right \} \oplus \nabla \mathcal{C}^{p+1}_{123} \oplus \left \{ \bigoplus_{i = 1}^2 \mathcal{V}^{p}_i \otimes \mathcal{T}_i \right \} \oplus \left \{ \bigoplus_{j \in \mathcal{J}} \mathcal{E}^{p}_j \otimes \mathcal{T}_j \right \} \oplus \{ \mathcal{C}^{p}_{123} \otimes \mathcal{T}_{123} \} \, , \notag \\ \mathcal{J} &= \{(1,2),(1,3),(2,3)\} \, ,
\end{align}
where we relied on the decomposition \cref{eq:ber-decomp}.
Applying the construction to the B\'ezier basis yields the following base functions.
\begin{definition} [B\'ezier-N\'ed\'elec I triangle basis]
We define the base functions on the reference triangle.
\begin{itemize}
\item On the edges we employ the lowest order N\'ed\'elec base functions and the edge gradients
\begin{align}
&e_{12}: & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi, \eta) &= \bm{\vartheta}_1^I \, ,
\notag \\
&& \bm{\vartheta}(\xi, \eta) &= \nabla_\xi b_{0j}^{p+1} \, , & & 0< j < p+1 \, , \notag \\
&e_{13}: &\bm{\vartheta}(\xi, \eta) &= \bm{\vartheta}_2^I \, ,
\notag \\
&& \bm{\vartheta}(\xi, \eta) &= \nabla_\xi b_{i0}^{p+1} \, , & & 0< i < p+1 \, , \notag \\
&e_{23}: & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi, \eta) &= \bm{\vartheta}_3^I \, ,
\notag \\
&& \bm{\vartheta}(\xi, \eta) &= \nabla_\xi b_{i,p+1-i}^{p+1} \, , & & 0< i < p+1 \, .
\end{align}
\item The cell functions read
\begin{align}
&c_{123}: & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi, \eta) &= b_{00}^{p} \bm{\vartheta}_3^I \, , \notag \\
& & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi, \eta) &= b_{0p}^{p} \bm{\vartheta}_2^I \, , \notag \\
& & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi, \eta) &= b_{0j}^{p}(\bm{\vartheta}_3^I - \bm{\vartheta}_2^I) \, , & & 0 < j < p \, , \notag \\
& & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi, \eta) &= b_{i0}^{p}(\bm{\vartheta}_1^I + \bm{\vartheta}_3^I) \, , & & 0 < i < p \, , \notag \\
& & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi, \eta) &= b_{i,p-i}^{p}(\bm{\vartheta}_1^I - \bm{\vartheta}_2^I) \, , & & 0 < i < p \, , \notag \\
& & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi, \eta) &= b_{ij}^{p}(\bm{\vartheta}_1^I - \bm{\vartheta}_2^I + \bm{\vartheta}_3^I) \, , & & 0 < i < p \, , \quad 0<j<p-i \, , \notag \\
& & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi, \eta) &= \nabla_\xi b_{ij}^{p+1} \, , & & 0 < i < p+1 \, , \quad 0<j<p+1-i \, ,
\end{align}
where the last formula gives the cell gradients and the remaining base functions are non-gradients.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
The definition relies on the base functions of the lowest order N\'ed\'elec element of the first type \cite{skypoly,Anjam2015}
\begin{align}
&\bm{\vartheta}^I_1(\xi,\eta) = \begin{bmatrix}
\eta \\ 1 - \xi
\end{bmatrix} \, , &&
\bm{\vartheta}^I_2(\xi,\eta) = \begin{bmatrix}
1 - \eta \\ \xi
\end{bmatrix} \, , &&
\bm{\vartheta}^I_3(\xi,\eta) = \begin{bmatrix}
\eta \\ - \xi
\end{bmatrix} \, .
\label{eq:nedtri}
\end{align}
\section{Tetrahedral elements}
The tetrahedral elements are mapped from the reference tetrahedron $\Omega$ by the three-dimensional barycentric coordinates onto the physical domain $V_e$, see \cref{fig:tetmap}
\begin{align}
\vb{x}(\xi, \eta, \zeta) &= (1 - \xi - \eta - \zeta) \vb{x}_1 + \zeta \, \vb{x}_2 + \eta \, \vb{x}_3 + \xi \, \vb{x}_4 \, ,
&&\vb{x}:\Omega \to V_e \, , \notag \\
\Omega &= \{(\xi,\eta,\zeta) \in [0,1]^3 \; | \; \xi + \eta + \zeta \leq 1\} \, .
\end{align}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\input{graphs/tetmap}
\caption{Barycentric mapping of the reference tetrahedron to an element in the physical domain.}
\label{fig:tetmap}
\end{figure}
The corresponding Jacobi matrix reads
\begin{align}
\bm{J} = \mathrm{D} \vb{x} = \begin{bmatrix}
\vb{x}_4 - \vb{x}_1, & \vb{x}_3 - \vb{x}_1, & \vb{x}_2 - \vb{x}_1
\end{bmatrix} \in \mathbb{R}^{3 \times 3} \, .
\end{align}
\subsection{The Bernstein-B\'ezier basis for tetrahedra}
Analogously to triangle elements, the B\'ezier tetrahedra on the unit tetrahedron $\Omega$ are defined using the barycentric coordinates by expanding the coefficients of
\begin{align}
(\lambda_1 + \lambda_2 + \lambda_3 + \lambda_4)^p = ([1- \xi - \eta - \zeta] + \zeta + \eta + \xi)^p = 1 \, ,
\end{align}
thus finding
\begin{align}
b_{ijk}^p(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3,\lambda_4) = \begin{pmatrix} p \\ i \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} p-i \\ j \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} p-i-j \\ k \end{pmatrix}
\lambda_1^{p-i-j-k} \lambda_2^k \lambda_3^j \lambda_4^k \, ,
\end{align}
with the equivalent trivariate form
\begin{align}
b^p_{ijk}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) = \begin{pmatrix} p \\ i \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} p-i \\ j \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} p-i-j \\ k \end{pmatrix}
(1- \xi - \eta-\zeta)^{p-i-j-k} \zeta^k \eta^j \xi^i \, .
\end{align}
We construct the Duffy transformation by mapping the unit tetrahedron as a collapsed hexahedron
\begin{align}
&\bm{\xi}: [0,1]^3 \to \Omega \, , && \{\alpha, \beta,\gamma\}\mapsto \{\xi,\eta,\zeta\} \, ,
\end{align}
using the relations
\begin{align}
\xi &= \alpha \, , & \eta &= (1 - \alpha) \beta \, , & \zeta &= (1- \alpha)(1-\beta)\gamma \, , \notag \\
\alpha &= \xi \, , & \beta &= \dfrac{\eta}{1-\xi} \, , & \gamma &= \dfrac{\zeta}{1- \xi - \eta} \, ,
\end{align}
as depicted in \cref{fig:tetduffy}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\input{graphs/duffytet}
\caption{Duffy mapping of the unit hexahedron to the unit tetrahedron.}
\label{fig:tetduffy}
\end{figure}
Applying the Duffy transformation to B\'ezier tetrahedra
\begin{align}
b^p_{ijk}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= \begin{pmatrix} p \\ i \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} p-i \\ j \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} p-i-j \\ k \end{pmatrix}
(1- \xi - \eta-\zeta)^{p-i-j-k} \zeta^k \eta^j \xi^i \notag \\
&= \begin{pmatrix} p \\ i \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} p-i \\ j \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} p-i-j \\ k \end{pmatrix}
(1- \alpha - (1-\alpha)\beta-(1-\alpha)(1-\beta)\gamma)^{p-i-j-k} \notag \\
& \qquad \cdot (1-\alpha)^k(1-\beta)^k\gamma^k (1-\alpha)^j\beta^j \alpha^i \notag \\
&= \begin{pmatrix} p \\ i \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} p-i \\ j \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} p-i-j \\ k \end{pmatrix}
(1-\alpha)^{p-i-j-k}(1-\beta)^{p-i-j-k}(1-\gamma)^{p-i-j-k} \\
& \qquad \cdot (1-\alpha)^k(1-\beta)^k\gamma^k (1-\alpha)^j\beta^j \alpha^i \notag \\
&= \begin{pmatrix} p \\ i \end{pmatrix}
(1-\alpha)^{p-i}\alpha^i
\begin{pmatrix} p-i \\ j \end{pmatrix}
(1-\beta)^{p-i-j} \beta^j
\begin{pmatrix} p-i-j \\ k \end{pmatrix}
(1-\gamma)^{p-i-j-k}\gamma^k \notag \\
&= b_i^p(\alpha) b_j^{p-i}(\beta)b_k^{p-i-j}(\gamma) \, , \notag
\end{align}
leads to an intrinsic factorization via univariate Bernstein base functions, which allow for fast evaluations using sum factorization \cite{AinsworthOpt}. Further, since the pair $b_j^{p-i}(\beta)b_k^{p-i-j}(\gamma)$ spans a B\'ezier triangle, it is clear that the multiplication with $b_i^p(\alpha)$ interpolates between that triangle and a point in space, effectively spanning a tetrahedron. In order to compute gradients the chain rule is employed with respect to the Duffy transformation
\begin{align}
\nabla_\xi b_{ijk}^p &= (\mathrm{D}_\alpha \bm{\xi})^{-T} \nabla_\alpha b_{ijk}^p \, , \qquad \qquad \mathrm{D}_\alpha \bm{\xi} = \begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
-\beta & 1-\alpha & 0 \\
(\beta - 1)\gamma & (\alpha - 1)\gamma & (1-\alpha)(1-\beta)
\end{bmatrix} \, , \notag \\
(\mathrm{D}_\alpha \bm{\xi})^{-T} &= \dfrac{1}{(1-\alpha)(1-\beta)} \begin{bmatrix}
(1-\alpha)(1-\beta) & (1-\beta)\beta & \gamma\\
0 & 1-\beta & \gamma\\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix} \, .
\end{align}
We use dual numbers to compute the derivative of each Bernstein base function and construct the $\bm{\alpha}$-gradient
\begin{align}
\nabla_\alpha b_{ijk}^p(\alpha, \beta, \gamma) = \begin{bmatrix}
b_j^{p-i} b_k^{p-i-j} \dfrac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} \alpha} b_i^p \\[2ex]
b_i^p b_k^{p-i-j} \dfrac{\mathrm{d} }{\mathrm{d} \beta} b_j^{p-i} \\[2ex]
b_i^p b_j^{p-i} \dfrac{\mathrm{d} }{\mathrm{d} \gamma} b_k^{p-i-j}
\end{bmatrix} \, .
\end{align}
The Duffy transformation results in the optimal order of traversal of the base functions depicted in \cref{fig:tettrav}. Note that the traversal order agrees with the oriental definitions introduced in \cite{SKY2022115298} and each oriented face has the same order of traversal as the triangle \cref{fig:traversaltri}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\input{graphs/travtet}
\caption{Order of traversal of tetrahedral B\'ezier base functions on the unit tetrahedron. The traversal order on each face agrees with an orientation of the vertices $f_{ijk} =\{v_i,v_j,v_k\}$ such that $i<j<k$. The traversal order on each edge is from the lower index vertex to the higher index vertex.}
\label{fig:tettrav}
\end{figure}
We relate the base functions to their respective polytopes using the index triplets.
\begin{observation} [Tetrahedron base functions]
The polytope of each base function $b_{ijk}^p(\xi,\eta,\zeta)$ is determined as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item the indices $(0,0,0),(0,0,p),(0,p,0)$ and $(p,0,0)$ represent the respective vertex base functions;
\item the first edge is associated with the triplet $(0,0,k)$ where $0<k<p$, the second with $(0,j,0)$ where $0<j<p$ and the third with $(i,0,0)$ where $0<i<p$. The slated edges are given by $(0,j,p-j)$ with $0<j<p$, $(i,0,p-i)$ with $0<i<p$ and $(i,p-i,0)$ with $0<i<p$, respectively;
\item the base functions of the first face are given by
$(0,j,k)$ with $0<j<p$ and $0<k<p-j$. The second face is associated with the base functions given by the triplets
$(i,0,k)$ with $0<i<p$ and $0<k<p-i$. The base functions of the third face are related to the indices $(i,j,0)$ with $0<i<p$ and $0<j<p-i$. Lastly, the base functions of the slated face are given by $(i,j,p-i-j)$ with $0<i<p$ and $0<j<p-i$;
\item the remaining indices correspond to the cell base functions.
\end{itemize}
\end{observation}
Examples of B\'ezier base functions on their respective polytopes are depicted in \cref{fig:beziertet}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.24\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{figs/b_tet_v}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.24\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{figs/b_tet_e}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.24\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{figs/b_tet_f}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.24\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{figs/b_tet_c}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Quartic B\'ezier vertex (a), edge (b), face (c), and cell (c) base functions on the reference tetrahedron.}
\label{fig:beziertet}
\end{figure}
\subsection{N\'ed\'elec elements of the second type}
The B\'ezier polynomial space is split according to the polytopes of the reference tetrahedron
\begin{align}
&\mathcal{B}^p(\Omega) = \left\{ \bigoplus_{i=1}^4 \mathcal{V}_i^p(\Omega) \right\} \oplus \left\{ \bigoplus_{j \in \mathcal{J} } \mathcal{E}^p_j(\Omega) \right\} \oplus \left\{ \bigoplus_{k \in \mathcal{K}} \mathcal{F}^p_k(\Omega) \right\} \oplus \mathcal{C}^p_{1234}(\Omega) \, , \notag \\
&\mathcal{J} = \{ (1,2),(1,3),(1,4),(2,3),(2,4),(3,4) \} \, , \qquad \mathcal{K} = \{ (1,2,3),(1,2,4),(1,3,4),(2,3,4) \} \, ,
\end{align}
where $\mathcal{V}_i^p$ are the sets of vertex base functions, $\mathcal{E}^p_j$ are the sets of edge base functions, $\mathcal{F}^p_k$ are the sets of face base functions and $\mathcal{C}^p_{1234}$ is the set of cell base functions.
We apply the template sets from \cite{skypoly}
\begin{align}
\mathcal{T}_1 &= \{ \vb{e}_3,\vb{e}_2,\vb{e}_1 \} \, , & \mathcal{T}_2 &= \{ \vb{e}_1 + \vb{e}_2 + \vb{e}_3 , \vb{e}_2 , \vb{e}_1 \} \, , & \mathcal{T}_3 &= \{ \vb{e}_1 + \vb{e}_2 + \vb{e}_3, -\vb{e}_3 ,\vb{e}_1 \} \, , \notag \\
\mathcal{T}_4 &= \{ \vb{e}_1 + \vb{e}_2 + \vb{e}_3, -\vb{e}_3, -\vb{e}_2\} \, , & \mathcal{T}_{12} &= \{ \vb{e}_3, -\vb{e}_2, -\vb{e}_1 \} \, , & \mathcal{T}_{13} &= \{ \vb{e}_2, \vb{e}_3, -\vb{e}_1 \} \, , \notag \\
\mathcal{T}_{14} &= \{ \vb{e}_1, \vb{e}_3, \vb{e}_2 \} \, , & \mathcal{T}_{23} &= \{ \vb{e}_2, \vb{e}_1 + \vb{e}_2 + \vb{e}_3, -\vb{e}_1 \} \, , & \mathcal{T}_{24} &= \{ \vb{e}_1, \vb{e}_1 + \vb{e}_2 + \vb{e}_3, \vb{e}_2 \} \, , \notag \\
\mathcal{T}_{34} &= \{ \vb{e}_1, \vb{e}_1 + \vb{e}_2 + \vb{e}_3, -\vb{e}_3 \} \, , & \mathcal{T}_{123} &= \{ \vb{e}_3, \vb{e}_2, -\vb{e}_1 \} \, , & \mathcal{T}_{124} &= \{ \vb{e}_3, \vb{e}_1, \vb{e}_2 \} \, , \notag \\
\mathcal{T}_{134} &= \{\vb{e}_2, \vb{e}_1, -\vb{e}_3\} \, , & \mathcal{T}_{234} &= \{ \vb{e}_2, \vb{e}_1,\vb{e}_1 + \vb{e}_2 + \vb{e}_3\} \, , & \mathcal{T}_{1234} &= \{ \vb{e}_3, \vb{e}_2, \vb{e}_1 \} \, ,
\end{align}
to span the N\'ed\'elec element of the second type
\begin{align}
\mathcal{N}_{II}^p &= \left\{ \bigoplus_{i=1}^4 \mathcal{V}_i^p \otimes \mathcal{T}_i \right\} \oplus \left\{ \bigoplus_{j \in \mathcal{J} } \mathcal{E}^p_j \otimes \mathcal{T}_j \right\} \oplus \left\{ \bigoplus_{k \in \mathcal{K}} \mathcal{F}^p_k \otimes \mathcal{T}_k \right\} \oplus \{ \mathcal{C}^p_{1234} \otimes \mathcal{T}_{1234} \} \, , \notag \\
\mathcal{J} &= \{ (1,2),(1,3),(1,4),(2,3),(2,4),(3,4) \} \, , \qquad \mathcal{K} = \{ (1,2,3),(1,2,4),(1,3,4),(2,3,4) \} \, .
\end{align}
We can now define the B\'ezier-N\'ed\'elec element of the second type for arbitrary powers while inheriting optimal complexity.
\begin{definition} [B\'ezier-N\'ed\'elec II tetrahedral basis]
We define the base functions on the reference tetrahedron:
\begin{itemize}
\item on the edges the base functions read
\begin{align}
&e_{12}: & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{000}^p \vb{e}_3 \, , & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{00p}^p (\vb{e}_1+\vb{e}_2+\vb{e}_3) \, , \notag \\
& & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{00k}^p \vb{e}_3 \, , \quad 0< k <p \, , \notag \\
&e_{13}: & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{000}^p \vb{e}_2 \, , & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{0p0}^p (\vb{e}_1+\vb{e}_2+\vb{e}_3) \, , \notag \\
& & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{0j0}^p \vb{e}_2 \, , \quad 0< j <p \, , \notag \\
&e_{14}: & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{000}^p \vb{e}_1 \, , & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{p00}^p (\vb{e}_1+\vb{e}_2+\vb{e}_3) \, , \notag \\
& & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{i00}^p \vb{e}_1 \, , \quad 0< i <p \, , \notag \\
&e_{23}: & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{00p}^p \vb{e}_2 \, , & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= -b_{0p0}^p \vb{e}_3 \, , \notag \\
& & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{0j,p-j}^p \vb{e}_2 \, , \quad 0< j <p \, , \notag \\
&e_{24}: & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{00p}^p \vb{e}_1 \, , & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= -b_{p00}^p \vb{e}_3 \, , \notag \\
& & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{i0,p-i}^p \vb{e}_1 \, , \quad 0< i <p \, , \notag \\
&e_{34}: & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{0p0}^p \vb{e}_1 \, , & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= -b_{p00}^p \vb{e}_2 \, , \notag \\
& & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{i,p-i,0}^p \vb{e}_1 \, , \quad 0< i <p \, ,
\end{align}
where the first two base functions on each edge are the vertex-edge base functions;
\item the face base functions are given by
\begin{align}
&f_{123}: & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= -b_{00k}^p\vb{e}_2 \, , && 0<k<p \, , \notag \\
&&\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{0j0}^p \vb{e}_3 \, , && 0<j<p \, , \notag \\
&&\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{0j,p-j}^p (\vb{e}_1+\vb{e}_2+\vb{e}_3) \, , && 0<j<p \, , \notag \\
&&\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{0jk}^p \vb{e}_3 \, , && 0<j<p \, , \quad 0<k<p-j \, , \notag \\
&&\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{0jk}^p \vb{e}_2 \, , && 0<j<p \, , \quad 0<k<p-j \, , \notag \\
&f_{124}: & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= -b_{00k}^p \vb{e}_1 \, , && 0<k<p \, , \notag \\
&&\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{i00}^p \vb{e}_3 \, , && 0<i<p \, , \notag \\
&&\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{i0,p-i}^p (\vb{e}_1+\vb{e}_2+\vb{e}_3) \, , && 0<i<p \, , \notag \\
&&\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{i0k}^p \vb{e}_3 \, , && 0<i<p \, , \quad 0<k<p-i \, , \notag \\
&&\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{i0k}^p \vb{e}_1 \, , && 0<i<p \, , \quad 0<k<p-i \, , \notag \\
&f_{134}: & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= -b_{0j0}^p \vb{e}_1 \, , && 0<j<p \, , \notag \\
&&\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{i00}^p \vb{e}_2 \, , && 0<i<p \, , \notag \\
&&\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{i,p-i,0}^p (\vb{e}_1+\vb{e}_2+\vb{e}_3) \, , && 0<i<p \, , \notag \\
&&\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{ij0}^p \vb{e}_2 \, , && 0<i<p \, , \quad 0<j<p-i \, , \notag \\
&&\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{ij0}^p \vb{e}_1 \, , && 0<i<p \, , \quad 0<j<p-i \, , \notag \\
&f_{234}: & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= -b_{0j,p-j}^p \vb{e}_1 \, , && 0<j<p \, , \notag \\
&&\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{i0,p-i}^p \vb{e}_2 \, , && 0<i<p \, , \notag \\
&&\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= -b_{i,p-i,0}^p \vb{e}_3 \, , && 0<i<p \, , \notag \\
&&\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{ij,p-i-j}^p \vb{e}_2 \, , && 0<i<p \, , \quad 0<j<p-i \, , \notag \\
&&\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{ij,p-i-j}^p \vb{e}_1 \, , && 0<i<p \, , \quad 0<j<p-i \, ,
\end{align}
where the first three formulas for each face are the edge-face base functions;
\item finally, the cell base functions read
\begin{align}
&c_{1234}: & \bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= -b_{0jk}^p \vb{e}_1 \, , && 0<j<p \, , \quad 0<k<p-j \, , \notag \\
&& \bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{i0k}^p \vb{e}_2 \, , && 0<i<p \, , \quad 0<k<p-i \, , \notag \\
&& \bm{\vartheta} (\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= -b_{ij0}^p \vb{e}_3 \, , && 0<i<p \, , \quad 0<j<p-i \, , \notag \\
&& \bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{ij,p-i-j}^p (\vb{e}_1 + \vb{e}_2 + \vb{e}_3) \, , && 0<i<p \, , \quad 0<j<p-i \, , \notag \\
&& \bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{ijk}^p \vb{e}_3 \, , && 0<i<p \, , \quad 0<j<p-i \, , \quad 0<k<p-i-j \, , \notag \\
&& \bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{ijk}^p\vb{e}_2 \, , && 0<i<p \, , \quad 0<j<p-i \, , \quad 0<k<p-i-j \, , \notag \\
&& \bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{ijk}^p\vb{e}_1 \, , && 0<i<p \, , \quad 0<j<p-i \, , \quad 0<k<p-i-j \, ,
\end{align}
where the first four formulas are the face-cell base functions.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\subsection{N\'ed\'elec elements of the first type}
In order to construct the N\'ed\'elec element of first type on tetrahedra we introduce the template sets
\begin{align}
\mathcal{T}_{1} &= \{ \bm{\vartheta}^I_{4},\bm{\vartheta}^I_{5},\bm{\vartheta}^I_{6} \} \, , &
\mathcal{T}_{2} &= \{ -\bm{\vartheta}^I_{2},-\bm{\vartheta}^I_{3},\bm{\vartheta}^I_{6} \} \, , &
\mathcal{T}_{3} &= \{ -\bm{\vartheta}^I_{3},-\bm{\vartheta}^I_{5} \} \, ,
\notag \\
\mathcal{T}_{12} &= \{ \bm{\vartheta}^I_{4}-\bm{\vartheta}^I_{2}, \bm{\vartheta}^I_{5}-\bm{\vartheta}^I_{3} \} \, , &
\mathcal{T}_{13} &= \{ \bm{\vartheta}^I_{1}+\bm{\vartheta}^I_{4}, \bm{\vartheta}^I_{6}-\bm{\vartheta}^I_{3} \} \, , &
\mathcal{T}_{14} &= \{ \bm{\vartheta}^I_{1}+\bm{\vartheta}^I_{5}, \bm{\vartheta}^I_{2}+\bm{\vartheta}^I_{6} \} \, ,
\notag \\
\mathcal{T}_{23} &= \{ \bm{\vartheta}^I_{1}-\bm{\vartheta}^I_{2}, \bm{\vartheta}^I_{6}-\bm{\vartheta}^I_{5} \} \, , &
\mathcal{T}_{24} &= \{ \bm{\vartheta}^I_{1}-\bm{\vartheta}^I_{3}, \bm{\vartheta}^I_{4}+\bm{\vartheta}^I_{6} \} \, , &
\mathcal{T}_{34} &= \{ \bm{\vartheta}^I_{2}-\bm{\vartheta}^I_{3}, \bm{\vartheta}^I_{4}-\bm{\vartheta}^I_{5} \} \, , \notag \\
\mathcal{T}_{123} &= \{ \bm{\vartheta}^I_{1}-\bm{\vartheta}^I_{2}+\bm{\vartheta}^I_{4}\} \, , &
\mathcal{T}_{124} &= \{ \bm{\vartheta}^I_{1}-\bm{\vartheta}^I_{3}+\bm{\vartheta}^I_{5}\} \, , &
\mathcal{T}_{134} &= \{ \bm{\vartheta}^I_{2}-\bm{\vartheta}^I_{3}+\bm{\vartheta}^I_{6}\} \, ,
\notag \\
\mathcal{T}_{234} &= \{ \bm{\vartheta}^I_{4}-\bm{\vartheta}^I_{5}+\bm{\vartheta}^I_{6}\} \, ,
\end{align}
which are based on the lowest order N\'ed\'elec base functions on the unit tetrahedron
\begin{align}
\bm{\vartheta}_1(\xi, \eta ,\zeta) &= \begin{bmatrix}
\zeta \\ \zeta \\ 1 - \xi - \eta
\end{bmatrix} \, , &
\bm{\vartheta}_2(\xi, \eta ,\zeta) &= \begin{bmatrix}
\eta \\ 1 - \xi - \zeta \\ \eta
\end{bmatrix} \, , &
\bm{\vartheta}_3(\xi, \eta ,\zeta) &= \begin{bmatrix}
1 - \eta - \zeta \\ \xi \\ \xi
\end{bmatrix} \, , \notag \\
\bm{\vartheta}_4(\xi, \eta ,\zeta) &= \begin{bmatrix}
0 \\ \zeta \\ - \eta
\end{bmatrix} \, , &
\bm{\vartheta}_5(\xi, \eta ,\zeta) &= \begin{bmatrix}
\zeta \\ 0 \\ - \xi
\end{bmatrix} \, , &
\bm{\vartheta}_6(\xi, \eta ,\zeta) &= \begin{bmatrix}
\eta \\ -\xi \\ 0
\end{bmatrix} \, .
\label{eq:nedtet}
\end{align}
For the non-gradient cell functions we use the construction introduced in \cite{AINSWORTH2018178}
\begin{align}
&\mathcal{R}^p = \left \{ (p+1) b_{i-{e_j}}^p \nabla \lambda_j - \dfrac{i_j}{p+1} \nabla_\xi b_i^{p+1} \; | \; i \in \mathcal{I}_o \right \} \, ,
\end{align}
where $\mathcal{I}_o$ is the set of multi-indices of cell functions, $e_j$ is the unit multi-index with the value one at position $j$ and $i_j$ is the value of the $i$-multi-index at position $j$.
Note that only the first term in the cell functions is required to span the next space in the sequence due to
\begin{align}
\curl \left ([p+1] b_{i-{e_j}}^p \nabla_\xi \lambda_j - \dfrac{i_j}{p+1} \nabla_\xi b_i^{p+1} \right ) = \curl([p+1] b_{i-{e_j}}^p \nabla_\xi \lambda_j) \, .
\end{align}
However, without the added gradient the function would not belong to $[\mathit{P}^p]^3 \oplus \bm{\xi}\times [\widetilde{\mathit{P}}]^3$ and consequently, would not be part of the N\'ed\'elec space.
By limiting $\mathcal{R}^p$ to $\mathcal{R}^p_*$ such that $\mathcal{R}_*^p$ contains only the surface permutations with $\nabla \lambda_j = \vb{e}_j$ and the cell permutations with $j \in \{1,2\}$, one retrieves the necessary base functions.
The sum of the lowest order N\'ed\'elec base functions, the template base functions, gradient base functions, and the non-gradient cell base functions yields exactly $(p+4)(p+3)(p+1)/2$, thus satisfying the required dimensionality of the N\'ed\'elec space.
The complete space reads
\begin{align}
\mathcal{N}_{I}^p = \, \mathcal{N}_{I}^0 &\oplus \left\{ \bigoplus_{i \in \mathcal{I}} \nabla \mathcal{E}^{p+1}_{i} \right\} \oplus \left\{ \bigoplus_{j \in \mathcal{J}} \nabla \mathcal{F}^{p+1}_j \right\} \oplus \nabla \mathcal{C}^{p+1}_{1234} \oplus \left\{ \bigoplus_{k = 1}^3 \mathcal{V}^p_k \otimes \mathcal{T}_k \right\} \oplus \left\{ \bigoplus_{i \in \mathcal{I}} \mathcal{E}_i^{p} \otimes \mathcal{T}_i \right\}
\notag \\
& \oplus \left \{ \bigoplus_{j \in \mathcal{J}} \mathcal{F}^{p}_j \otimes \mathcal{T}_j \right \} \oplus \mathcal{R}_*^{p+1} \, , \qquad \begin{aligned}
\mathcal{I} &= \{ (1,2),(1,3),(1,4),(2,3),(2,4),(3,4) \} \, , \\
\mathcal{J} &= \{ (1,2,3),(1,2,4),(1,3,4),(2,3,4) \}
\end{aligned} \, .
\end{align}
Here, the B\'ezier basis is used to construct the higher order N\'ed\'elec base functions of the first type.
\begin{definition} [B\'ezier-N\'ed\'elec I tetrahedral basis]
The base functions are defined on the reference tetrahedron:
\begin{itemize}
\item for the edges we use the lowest order base functions from \cref{eq:nedtet}. The remaining edge base functions are given by the gradients
\begin{align}
&e_{12}: &
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= \bm{\vartheta}_1^I \, , \notag \\
&&
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= \nabla_\xi b_{00k}^{p+1} \, , & & 0 < k < p + 1 \, , \notag \\
&e_{13}: &
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= \bm{\vartheta}_2^I \, , \notag \\ &&
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= \nabla_\xi b_{0j0}^{p+1} \, , & & 0 < j < p + 1 \, , \notag \\
&e_{14}: &
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= \bm{\vartheta}_3^I \, , \notag \\ &&
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= \nabla_\xi b_{i00}^{p+1} \, , & & 0 < i < p + 1 \, , \notag \\
&e_{23}: &
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= \bm{\vartheta}_4^I \, , \notag \\ &&
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= \nabla_\xi b_{0j,p+1-j}^{p+1} \, , & & 0 < j < p + 1 \, , \notag \\
&e_{24}: &
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= \bm{\vartheta}_5^I \, , \notag \\ &&
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= \nabla_\xi b_{i0,p+1-i}^{p+1} \, , & & 0 < i < p + 1 \, , \notag \\
&e_{34}: &
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= \bm{\vartheta}_6^I \, , \notag \\ &&
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= \nabla_\xi b_{00k}^{p+1} \, , & & 0 < i < p + 1 \, ;
\end{align}
\item on faces we employ both template base functions and gradients
\begin{align}
&f_{123}: &
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{000}^{p} \bm{\vartheta}_4^I \, , \notag \\ &&
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= -b_{00p}^{p} \bm{\vartheta}_2^I \, , \notag \\ &&
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{00k}^{p} (\bm{\vartheta}_4^I - \bm{\vartheta}_2^I) \, , & & 0 < k < p \, , \notag \\ &&
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{0j0}^{p} (\bm{\vartheta}_1^I + \bm{\vartheta}_4^I) \, , & & 0 < j < p \, , \notag \\ &&
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{0j,p-j}^{p} (\bm{\vartheta}_1^I - \bm{\vartheta}_2^I) \, , & & 0 < j < p \, , \notag \\ &&
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{0jk}^{p} (\bm{\vartheta}_1^I - \bm{\vartheta}_2^I + \bm{\vartheta}_4^I) \, , & & 0 < j < p \, , \quad 0 < k < p - j \, , \notag \\ &&
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= \nabla_\xi b_{0jk}^{p+1} \, , & & 0 < j < p + 1 \, , \quad 0 < k < p + 1 - j \, , \notag \\
&f_{124}: &
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{000}^{p} \bm{\vartheta}_5^I \, , \notag \\ &&
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= -b_{00p}^{p} \bm{\vartheta}_3^I \, , \notag \\ &&
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{00k}^{p} (\bm{\vartheta}_5^I - \bm{\vartheta}_3^I) \, , & & 0 < k < p \, , \notag \\ &&
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{i00}^{p} (\bm{\vartheta}_1^I + \bm{\vartheta}_5^I) \, , & & 0 < i < p \, , \notag \\ &&
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{i0,p-i}^{p} (\bm{\vartheta}_1^I - \bm{\vartheta}_3^I) \, , & & 0 < i < p \, , \notag \\ &&
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{i0k}^{p} (\bm{\vartheta}_1^I - \bm{\vartheta}_3^I + \bm{\vartheta}_5^I) \, , & & 0 < i < p \, , \quad 0 < k < p - i \, , \notag \\ &&
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= \nabla_\xi b_{i0k}^{p+1} \, , & & 0 < i < p + 1 \, , \quad 0 < k < p + 1 - i \, , \notag \\
&f_{134}: &
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{000}^{p} \bm{\vartheta}_6^I \, , \notag \\ &&
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= -b_{0p0}^{p} \bm{\vartheta}_3^I \, , \notag \\ &&
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{0j0}^{p} (\bm{\vartheta}_6^I - \bm{\vartheta}_3^I) \, , & & 0 < j < p \, , \notag \\ &&
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{i00}^{p} (\bm{\vartheta}_2^I + \bm{\vartheta}_6^I) \, , & & 0 < i < p \, , \notag \\ &&
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{i,p-i,0}^{p} (\bm{\vartheta}_2^I - \bm{\vartheta}_3^I) \, , & & 0 < i < p \, , \notag \\ &&
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{ij0}^{p} (\bm{\vartheta}_2^I - \bm{\vartheta}_3^I + \bm{\vartheta}_6^I) \, , & & 0 < i < p \, , \quad 0 < j < p - i \, , \notag \\ &&
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= \nabla_\xi b_{ij0}^{p+1} \, , & & 0 < i < p + 1 \, , \quad 0 < j < p + 1 - i \, , \notag \\
&f_{234}: &
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{00p}^{p} \bm{\vartheta}_6^I \, , \notag \\ &&
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= -b_{0p0}^{p} \bm{\vartheta}_5^I \, , \notag \\ &&
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{0j,p-j}^{p} (\bm{\vartheta}_6^I - \bm{\vartheta}_5^I) \, , & & 0 < j < p \, , \notag \\ &&
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{i0,p-i}^{p} (\bm{\vartheta}_4^I + \bm{\vartheta}_6^I) \, , & & 0 < i < p \, , \notag \\ &&
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{i,p-i,0}^{p} (\bm{\vartheta}_4^I - \bm{\vartheta}_5^I)\, , & & 0 < i < p \, , \notag \\ &&
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= b_{ij,p-i-j}^{p} (\bm{\vartheta}_4^I - \bm{\vartheta}_5^I + \bm{\vartheta}_6^I) \, , & & 0 < i < p \, , \quad 0 < j < p - i \, , \notag \\ &&
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= \nabla_\xi b_{ij,p-i.j}^{p+1} \, , & & 0 < i < p + 1 \, , \quad 0 < j < p + 1 - i \, ;
\end{align}
\item the cell base functions read
\begin{align}
&c_{1234}: &
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= (p+2)b_{i-1,jk}^{p+1} \vb{e}_1 - \dfrac{i}{p+2} \nabla_\xi b_{ijk}^{p+2} \, , & & \begin{aligned}
&0<i<p + 2 \, , \\[-1ex] &0<j<p + 2-i \, , \\[-1ex] &0<k<p+2-i-j
\end{aligned} \, , \notag \\ &&
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= (p+2)b_{i,j-1,k}^{p+1} \vb{e}_2 - \dfrac{j}{p+2} \nabla_\xi b_{ijk}^{p+2} \, , & & \begin{aligned}
&0<i<p + 2 \, , \\[-1ex] &0<j<p + 2-i \, , \\[-1ex] &0<k<p+2-i-j
\end{aligned} \, , \notag \\ &&
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= (p+2)b_{ij0}^{p+1} \vb{e}_3 - \dfrac{1}{p+2} \nabla_\xi b_{ij1}^{p+2} \, , & & \begin{aligned}
&0<i<p + 2 \, , \\[-1ex] &0<j<p + 2-i
\end{aligned} \, , \notag \\ &&
\bm{\vartheta}(\xi,\eta,\zeta) &= \nabla_\xi b_{ijk}^{p+1}\, , & & \begin{aligned}
&0<i<p + 1 \, , \\[-1ex] &0<j<p + 1-i \, , \\[-1ex] &0<k<p+1-i-j
\end{aligned} \, .
\end{align}
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\section{Numerical quadrature}
Although the base functions are expressed using $(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)$ the domain is either the reference triangle or the reference tetrahedron, which require fewer quadrature points than their counterparts given by the Duffy transformation (quad or hexahedron). As such, we employ a mixture of the efficient quadrature points introduced in \cite{Dunavant,XIAO2010663,WITHERDEN20151232,Papanicolopulos2016EfficientCO,Jas} for triangles and tetrahedra, where we avoid quadrature schemes with points on the edges or faces of the reference domain due to the recursion formula of the Bernstein polynomials \cref{eq:rec}.
The quadrature points are mapped to their equivalent expression in $(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)$.
Consequently, the integration over the reference triangle or tetrahedron reads
\begin{align}
\int_{A_e} f(x,y) \, \mathrm{d} A &= \int_{\Gamma} (f \circ (\xi, \eta))(\alpha,\beta) \, |\det \bm{J}| \, \mathrm{d} \Gamma \, , \notag \\
\int_{V_e} f(x,y,z) \, \mathrm{d} V &= \int_{\Omega} (f \circ (\xi, \eta, \zeta))(\alpha,\beta,\gamma) \, |\det \bm{J}| \, \mathrm{d} \Omega \, .
\end{align}
For the lower order elements we use the Lagrangian-N\'ed\'elec construction from \cite{Sky2021,SKY2022115298}.
\section{Boundary conditions}
The degrees of freedom in \cite{Demkowicz2000} commute between the continuous and discrete spaces. As such, they allow to exactly satisfy the consistent coupling condition \cite{dagostino2021consistent}. We note that the functionals can be viewed as a hierarchical system of Dirichlet boundary problems.
In the case of hierarchical base functions \cite{Zaglmayr2006}, they can be solved independently. However, here the boundary value of each polytope is required in advance due to the non-hierarchical nature of Bernstein polynomials.
In other words, one must first solve the problem for vertices, then for edges, afterwards for faces, and finally for the cell. In our case the degrees of freedom for the cell are irrelevant since a cell is never part of the boundary.
\subsection{Boundary vertices}
The finite element mesh identifies each vertex with a tuple of coordinates. It suffices to evaluate the displacement field at the vertex
\begin{align}
u_i^d = \widetilde{u} \at_{\vb{x}_i} \, .
\end{align}
If the field is vectorial, each component is evaluated at the designated vertex.
The boundary conditions of the microdistortion field are associated with tangential projections and as such do not have vertex-type degrees of freedom. This is the case since a vertex does not define a unique tangential plane.
\subsection{Boundary edges}
The edge functionals from \cite{Demkowicz2000} for the $\mathit{H}^1$-conforming subspace
\begin{align}
&l_{ij}(u) = \int_{s_i} \dfrac{\partial q_j}{\partial s} \dfrac{\partial u}{\partial s} \, \mathrm{d} s \, , \quad q \in \mathit{P}^p(s) \, ,
\end{align}
can be reformulated for a reference edge on a unit domain $\alpha \in [0,1]$.
We parametrize the edge via
\begin{align}
\vb{x}(\alpha) = (1- \alpha) \vb{x}_1 + \alpha \vb{x}_2 \, .
\end{align}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\input{graphs/line}
\caption{Barycentric mapping of edges from the unit domain to the reference triangle and onto the physical domain.}
\label{fig:edgemap}
\end{figure}
As such, the following relation exists between the unit parameter and the arc-length parameter
\begin{align}
&\vb{t} = \dfrac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} \alpha} \vb{x} = \vb{x}_2 - \vb{x}_1 \, , && \mathrm{d} s = \| \mathrm{d} \vb{x} \| = \| \vb{x}_2 - \vb{x}_1 \| \mathrm{d} \alpha = \|\vb{t} \| \mathrm{d} \alpha \, .
\end{align}
By the chain rule we find
\begin{align}
\dfrac{\mathrm{d} u}{\mathrm{d} s} = \dfrac{\mathrm{d} u}{\mathrm{d} \alpha} \dfrac{\mathrm{d} \alpha}{\mathrm{d} s} = \| \vb{t} \|^{-1} \dfrac{\mathrm{d} u}{\mathrm{d} \alpha} \, ,
\end{align}
for some function $u$. On edges, the test and trial functions are Bernstein polynomials parametrized by the unit domain. The function representing the boundary condition $\widetilde{u}(\vb{x})$ however, is parametrized by the Cartesian coordinates of the physical space. We find its derivative with respect to the arc-length parameter by observing
\begin{align}
\dfrac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} s} \widetilde{u} = \langle \dfrac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} s} \vb{x} , \, \nabla_x \widetilde{u} \rangle \, .
\end{align}
The derivative of the coordinates with respect to the arc-length is simply the normed tangent vector
\begin{align}
\dfrac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} s} \vb{x} = \dfrac{\mathrm{d} \vb{x}}{\mathrm{d} \alpha} \dfrac{\mathrm{d} \alpha}{\mathrm{d} s} = \| \vb{t} \|^{-1} \vb{t} \, .
\end{align}
Consequently, the edge boundary condition is given by
\begin{align}
\int_{s_i} \dfrac{\partial q_j}{\partial s} \dfrac{\partial u}{\partial s} \, \mathrm{d} s &= \int_0^1 \left( \|\vb{t}\|^{-1} \dfrac{\mathrm{d} q_j}{\mathrm{d} \alpha} \right) \left( \|\vb{t}\|^{-1} \dfrac{\mathrm{d} u}{\mathrm{d} \alpha} \right) \|\vb{t} \| \, \mathrm{d} \alpha \notag \\ &= \int_0^1 \left( \| \vb{t} \|^{-1} \dfrac{\mathrm{d} q_j}{\mathrm{d} \alpha} \right) \langle \| \vb{t} \|^{-1} \vb{t} , \, \nabla_x \widetilde{u} \rangle \| \vb{t} \| \, \mathrm{d} \alpha
= \int_{s_i} \dfrac{\partial q_j}{\partial s} \dfrac{\partial \widetilde{u}}{\partial s} \, \mathrm{d} s \qquad \forall \, q_j \in \mathit{P}^p(\alpha) \, ,
\end{align}
and can be solved by assembling the stiffness matrix of the edge and the load vector induced by the prescribed displacement field $\widetilde{u}$, representing volume forces
\begin{align}
&k_{ij} = \int_0^1 \left( \|\vb{t}\|^{-1} \dfrac{\mathrm{d} n_i}{\mathrm{d} \alpha} \right) \left( \|\vb{t}\|^{-1} \dfrac{\mathrm{d} n_j}{\mathrm{d} \alpha} \right) \|\vb{t} \| \, \mathrm{d} \alpha \, , && f_i = \int_0^1 \langle \| \vb{t} \|^{-1} \vb{t} , \, \nabla_x \widetilde{u} \rangle \left( \| \vb{t} \|^{-1} \dfrac{\mathrm{d} n_i}{\mathrm{d} \alpha} \right) \| \vb{t} \| \, \mathrm{d} \alpha \, .
\end{align}
Next we consider the Dirichlet boundary conditions for the microdistortion with the N\'ed\'elec space of the second type $\mathcal{N}_{II}$. The problem reads
\begin{align}
\int_{s_i} q_j \langle \vb{t} , \, \vb{p} \rangle \, \mathrm{d} s = \int_{s_i} q_j \langle \vb{t} , \, \nabla_x \widetilde{u} \rangle \, \mathrm{d} s \qquad \forall \, q_j \in \mathit{P}^p(s_i) \, .
\end{align}
Observe that on the edge the test functions $q_j$ are chosen to be the Bernstein polynomials. Further, by the polytopal template construction of the $\mathcal{N}_{II}$-space there holds $\langle \vb{t} , \, \bm{\theta}_i \rangle |_s = n_i(\alpha)$.
Therefore, the components of the corresponding stiffness matrix and load vectors read
\begin{align}
&k_{ij} = \int_0^1 n_i \, n_j \|\vb{t} \| \, \mathrm{d} \alpha \, , && f_i = \int_0^1 n_i \langle \vb{t} , \, \nabla_x \widetilde{u} \rangle \| \vb{t} \| \, \mathrm{d} \alpha \, .
\end{align}
Note that in order to maintain the exactness property, the degree of the N\'ed\'elec spaces $\mathcal{N}_{I}^p , \mathcal{N}_{II}^p$ is always one less than the degree of the subspace $\mathcal{B}^{p+1}$.
Lastly, we consider the N\'ed\'elec element of the first type. The problem is given by
\begin{align}
\int_{s_i} q_j \langle \vb{t} , \, \vb{p} \rangle \, \mathrm{d} s = \int_{s_i} q_j \langle \vb{t} , \, \nabla_x \widetilde{u} \rangle \, \mathrm{d} s \qquad \forall \, q_j \in \mathit{P}^{p}(s_i) \, .
\end{align}
We define
\begin{align}
q_i = \dfrac{\mathrm{d} }{\mathrm{d} \alpha} n_i^{p+1} \, ,
\end{align}
and observe that on the edges the N\'ed\'elec base functions yield
\begin{align}
\langle \vb{t} , \, \bm{\theta}_j \rangle = \langle \vb{t} , \, \nabla_x n_j^{p+1} \rangle = \dfrac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} \alpha} n_j^{p+1} \, .
\end{align}
Therefore, the components of the stiffness matrix and the load vector result in
\begin{align}
&k_{ij} = \int_0^1 \dfrac{\mathrm{d} n^{p+1}_i}{\mathrm{d} \alpha} \, \dfrac{\mathrm{d} n^{p+1}_j}{\mathrm{d} \alpha} \|\vb{t} \| \, \mathrm{d} \alpha \, , && f_i = \int_0^1 \dfrac{\mathrm{d} n^{p+1}_i}{\mathrm{d} \alpha} \langle \vb{t} , \, \nabla_x \widetilde{u} \rangle \| \vb{t} \| \, \mathrm{d} \alpha \, .
\end{align}
\subsection{Boundary faces}
We start with the face boundary condition for the $\mathit{H}^1$-conforming subspace. The problem reads
\begin{align}
\int_{A_i} \langle \nabla_f q_j , \, \nabla_f u \rangle \, \mathrm{d} A = \int_{A_i} \langle \nabla_f q_j , \, \nabla_f \widetilde{u} \rangle \, \mathrm{d} A \qquad \forall \, q_j \in \mathit{P}^p(A_i) \, .
\end{align}
The surface is parameterized by the barycentric mapping from the unit triangle $\Gamma = \{ (\xi, \eta) \in [0,1]^2 \; | \; \xi + \eta \leq 1 \}$. The surface gradient is given by
\begin{align}
\nabla_f \widetilde{u} = \nabla_x \widetilde{u} - \dfrac{1}{ \| \vb{n} \|^2} \langle \nabla_x \widetilde{u} , \, \vb{n} \rangle \vb{n} \, ,
\end{align}
where $\vb{n}$ is the surface normal. The surface gradient can also be expressed via
\begin{align}
&\nabla_f u = \vb{e}^i \partial_i^x u = \vb{g}^\beta \partial_\beta^\xi u \, , && \beta \in \{1,2\} \, ,
\end{align}
where $\partial_\beta^x$ are partial derivates with respect to the physical coordinates, $\partial_\beta^\xi$ are partial derivatives with respect to the reference domain and $\vb{g}^\beta$ are the contravariant base vectors. The Einstein summation convention over corresponding indices is implied.
The covariant base vectors are given by
\begin{align}
\vb{g}_\beta = \dfrac{\partial \vb{x}}{\partial \xi^\beta} \, .
\end{align}
One can find the contravariant vector orthogonal to the surface by
\begin{align}
\vb{g}^3 = \vb{n} = \vb{g}_1 \times \vb{g}_2 \, .
\end{align}
We define the mixed transformation matrix
\begin{align}
\bm{T} = \left[
\vb{g}_1 \, , \, \vb{g}_2 \, , \, \vb{g}^3
\right] \, .
\end{align}
Due to the orthogonality relation $\langle \vb{g}_i , \, \vb{g}^j \rangle = \delta_i^{\,j}$ the transposed inverse of $\bm{T}$ is clearly
\begin{align}
\bm{T}^{-T} = \left[
\vb{g}^1 \, , \, \vb{g}^2 \, , \, \vb{g}_3
\right] \, .
\end{align}
Thus, we can compute the surface gradient of functions parametrized by the reference triangle via
\begin{align}
&\nabla_f u = \left[
\vb{g}^1 \, , \, \vb{g}^2
\right] \nabla_\xi u = \bm{T}^{-T}_* \nabla_\xi u \, , && \bm{T}^{-T}_* = \left[
\vb{g}^1 \, , \, \vb{g}^2
\right] \, .
\end{align}
Further, there holds the following relation between the physical surface and the reference surface
\begin{align}
\mathrm{d} A = \| \vb{n} \| \mathrm{d} \Gamma = \| \vb{g}^3 \| \mathrm{d} \Gamma = \sqrt{ \langle \vb{g}_1 \times \vb{g}_2 , \, \vb{g}^3 \rangle } \, \mathrm{d} \Gamma = \sqrt{\det \bm{T}} \, \mathrm{d} \Gamma \, .
\end{align}
Consequently, we can write the components of the stiffness matrix and load vector as
\begin{align}
k_{ij} &= \int_\Gamma \langle \bm{T}_*^{-T} \nabla_\xi n_i , \, \bm{T}_*^{-T} \nabla_\xi n_j \rangle \sqrt{\det \bm{T}} \, \mathrm{d} \Gamma \, , \notag \\ f_i &= \int_\Gamma \langle \bm{T}_*^{-T} \nabla_\xi n_i , \, \nabla_x \widetilde{u} - (\det \bm{T})^{-1} \langle \nabla_x \widetilde{u} , \, \vb{n} \rangle \vb{n} \rangle \sqrt{\det \bm{T}} \, \mathrm{d} \Gamma = \int_\Gamma \langle \bm{T}_*^{-T} \nabla_\xi n_i , \, \nabla_x \widetilde{u} \rangle \sqrt{\det \bm{T}} \, \mathrm{d} \Gamma \, ,
\end{align}
with the orthogonality $\langle \vb{g}^\beta , \, \vb{n} \rangle = 0$ for $\beta \in \{1,2\}$.
In order to embed the consistent coupling boundary condition to the microdistortion we deviate from the degrees of freedom defined in \cite{Demkowicz2000} and apply the simpler $\Hr{}$-projection
\begin{align}
\langle \vb{q}_i , \, \vb{p} , \rangle_{\Hr{}} = \langle \vb{q}_i , \, \nabla_f \widetilde{u} \rangle_{\Hr{}} \qquad \forall \, \vb{q}_i \in \mathcal{N}_{I}^p(A) \quad \text{or} \quad \forall \, \vb{q}_i \in \mathcal{N}_{II}^p(A) \, .
\end{align}
Due to $\ker(\curl) = \nabla \mathit{H}^1$ the problem reduces to
\begin{align}
\int_{A_i} \langle \vb{q}_j , \, \vb{p} \rangle + \langle \rot {\vb{q}_j} , \, \rot {\vb{p}} \rangle \, \mathrm{d} A = \int_{A_i} \langle \vb{q}_j , \, \nabla_f \widetilde{u} \rangle \, \mathrm{d} A \qquad \forall \, \vb{q}_j \in \mathcal{N}_{I}^p(A) \quad \text{or} \quad \forall \, \vb{q}_j \in \mathcal{N}_{II}^p(A) \, .
\end{align}
We express the co- and contravariant Piola transformation from the two-dimensional reference domain to the three-dimensional physical domain using
\begin{align}
&\bm{\theta}_i = \bm{T}_*^{-T} \bm{\vartheta}_i \, , &&
\di_x \bm{R} \, \bm{\theta}_i = \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{\det \bm{T}}} \di_\xi \bm{R} \, \bm{\vartheta}_i \, .
\end{align}
Thus, the stiffness matrix components and load vector components read
\begin{align}
k_{ij} &= \int_\Gamma \langle \bm{T}_*^{-T} \bm{\vartheta}_i , \, \bm{T}_*^{-T} \bm{\vartheta}_j \rangle + \langle (\det \bm{T})^{-1/2} \di_\xi \bm{R} \, \bm{\vartheta}_i , \, (\det \bm{T})^{-1/2} \di_\xi \bm{R} \, \bm{\vartheta}_j \rangle \sqrt{\det \bm{T}} \, \mathrm{d} \Gamma \, , \notag \\
f_i &= \int_\Gamma \langle \bm{T}_*^{-T} \bm{\vartheta}_i , \, \nabla_x \widetilde{u} - (\det \bm{T})^{-1} \langle \nabla_x \widetilde{u} , \, \vb{n} \rangle \vb{n} \rangle \sqrt{\det \bm{T}} \, \mathrm{d} \Gamma = \int_\Gamma \langle \bm{T}_*^{-T} \bm{\vartheta}_i , \, \nabla_x \widetilde{u} \rangle \sqrt{\det \bm{T}} \, \mathrm{d} \Gamma \, ,
\end{align}
where we again make use of the orthogonality between the surface tangent vectors and its normal vector.
\section{Numerical examples}
In the following we test the finite element formulations with an artificial analytical solution in the antiplane shear model and with an analytical solution for an infinite plane under cylindrical bending in the three dimensional model. Finally, we benchmark the ability of the finite element formulations to correctly interpolate between micro $\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{micro}}$ and macro $\mathbb{C}_{\mathrm{macro}}$ stiffnesses as described by the characteristic length scale parameter $L_\mathrm{c}$.
The majority of convergence results are presented by measuring the error in the Lebesgue norm over the domain
\begin{align}
&\| \widetilde{\vb{u}} - \vb{u}^h \|_{\mathit{L}^2} = \sqrt{\int_V \| \widetilde{\vb{u}} - \vb{u}^h \|^2 \, \mathrm{d} V} \, , && \| \widetilde{\bm{P}} - \bm{P}^h \|_{\mathit{L}^2} = \sqrt{\int_{V} \| \widetilde{\bm{P}} - \bm{P}^h \|^2 \, \mathrm{d} V} \, ,
\end{align}
in which context $\{\widetilde{\vb{u}},\widetilde{\bm{P}}\}$ and $\{\vb{u}^h,\bm{P}^h\}$ are the analytical and approximate subspace solutions, respectively.
\subsection{Compatible microdistortion} \label{ex:1}
In \cite{Sky2021} we explored the conditions for which the microdistortion $\vb{p}$ reduces to a gradient field, i.e. $\vb{p}$ is compatible. By defining the micro-moment with a scalar potential
\begin{align}
\vb{m} = \nabla \dfrac{100 - x^2 - y^2}{10} = -\dfrac{1}{5}\begin{bmatrix}
x \\ y
\end{bmatrix} \, ,
\end{align}
and constructing an analytical solution for the displacement field
\begin{align}
\widetilde{u} = \sin{\left(\dfrac{x^2 + y^2}{5} \right)} \, ,
\end{align}
we can recover the analytical solution of the microdistortion
\begin{align}
\vb{p} = \dfrac{1}{\mu_{\mathrm{e}} + \mu_{\mathrm{micro}}} (\vb{m} + \mu_{\mathrm{e}} \nabla \widetilde{u}) &= \dfrac{1}{2}\left( -\dfrac{1}{5} \begin{bmatrix}
x \\ y
\end{bmatrix} + \dfrac{2}{5} \begin{bmatrix} x \cos ([x^{2} + y^{2} ] / 5)\\ y \cos ([x^{2} + y^{2} ] / 5) \end{bmatrix} \right) = \dfrac{1}{5} \begin{bmatrix} x \cos ([x^{2} + y^{2} ] / 5)\\ y \cos ([x^{2} + y^{2} ] / 5) \end{bmatrix} -\dfrac{1}{10} \begin{bmatrix}
x \\ y
\end{bmatrix} \, ,
\end{align}
where for simplicity we set all material constants to one. Since $\vb{m}$ is a gradient field, the microdistortion $\vb{p}$ is also reduced to a gradient field and $\rot{\vb{p}} = 0$, see \cite{Sky2021}. Note that this result is specific to antiplane shear and does not generalize to the full three-dimensional model, compare \cite{SKY2022115298}.
We note that the microdistortion is not equal to the gradient of the displacement field
and as such, their tangential projections on an arbitrary boundary are not automatically the same. However, for both the gradient of the displacement field and the micro-moment is the tangential projection on the boundary of the circular domain
$\overline{A} = \{\vb{x} \in \mathbb{R}^2 \; | \; \| \vb{x} \| \leq 10\}$ equal to zero
\begin{align}
\langle \nabla \vb{t} , \, \widetilde{u} \rangle \at_{\partial A} = \langle \vb{t} , \, \vb{m} \rangle \at_{\partial A} = 0 \, ,
\end{align}
and as such the microdistortion belongs to $\vb{p} \in \Hcz{,A}$. Consequently, we can set $s_D = \partial A$ and the consistent coupling condition remains compatible.
With the displacement and the microdistortion fields at hand we derive the corresponding forces
\begin{align}
f = \dfrac{1}{25} \left [2 x^{2} \sin{\left(\dfrac{x^2 + y^2}{5} \right)} + 2 y^{2} \sin{\left(\dfrac{x^2 + y^2}{5} \right)} - 10 \cos{\left(\dfrac{x^2 + y^2}{5} \right)} - 5 \right ] \, .
\end{align}
The approximation of the displacement and microdistortion fields using linear and higher order elements is shown in \cref{fig:anti_p}. We note that even with almost 3000 finite elements and 6000 degrees of freedom the linear formulation is incapable of finding an adequate approximation. On the other side of the spectrum, the higher order approximation (degree 7) with 57 elements and 4097 degrees of freedom yields very accurate results in the interior of the domain. However, the exterior of the domain is captured rather poorly. This is the case since the geometry of the circular domain is being approximated by linear triangles. Thus, in this setting, a finer mesh captures the geometry in a more precise manner.
The effects of the geometry on the approximation of the solution are also clearly visible in the convergence graphs in \cref{fig:gradient_case}; only after a certain accuracy in the domain description is achieved do the finite elements retrieve their predicted convergence rates, compare \cite{SKY2022115298,Sky2021}. This is clearly observable when comparing the convergence curves of the linear and seventh order elements.
The linear element generates quadratic convergence $p+1 = 1+1 =2$, whereas the seventh-order element yields the convergence slope $7$ (where $8$ is expected). Although the seventh-order formulation encompasses more degrees of freedom, it employs a coarser mesh and as such, generates higher errors at the boundary. The errors themselves can be traced back to the consistent coupling condition since, for a non-perfect circle the gradient of the displacement field induces tangential projections on the imperfect boundary. The influence of the latter effect is even more apparent in the convergence of the microdistortion, where the higher order formulations are unable to perform optimally on coarse meshes.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figs/ex3/u_p1_h1}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figs/ex3/u_p1_h05}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figs/ex3/u_p1_h025}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figs/ex3/p_p1_h1}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figs/ex3/p_p1_h05}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figs/ex3/p_p1_h025}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figs/ex3/u_p3_h25}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figs/ex3/u_p5_h25}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figs/ex3/u_p7_h25}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figs/ex3/p_p3_h25}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figs/ex3/p_p5_h25}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figs/ex3/p_p7_h25}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Depiction of the displacement field (a)-(c) and the microdistortion field (d)-(f) for the antiplane shear problem, for the linear element under h-refinement with $225$, $763$ and $2966$ elements, corresponding to $485$, $1591$ and $6060$ degrees of freedom. The p-refinement of the displacement field on the coarsest mesh of $57$ elements is visualized in (g)-(l) with $p \in \{3,5,7\}$, corresponding to $731$, $2072$ and $4097$ degrees of freedom.}
\label{fig:anti_p}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.48\linewidth}
\centering
\input{graphs/ex3/ex3_1}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.48\linewidth}
\centering
\input{graphs/ex3/ex3_2}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Convergence of displacement (a) and the microdistortion (b) under h-refinement for multiple polynomial degrees for the antiplane shear problem.}
\label{fig:gradient_case}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Cylindrical bending} \label{ex:2}
In order to test the capability of the finite element formulations to capture the intrinsic behaviour of the relaxed micromorphic model, we compare with analytical solutions of boundary-value problems.
The first example considers the displacement and microdistortion fields under cylindrical bending \cite{Rizzi_bending} for infinitely extended plates.
Let the plates be defined as $V = (-\infty,\infty)^2 \times [-1/2, 1/2]$, than the analytical solution for cylindrical bending reads
\begin{align}
&\vb{u} = \kappa\begin{bmatrix}
- x z \\
0 \\
x^2 / 2
\end{bmatrix} \, , &&
\bm{P} = -\kappa\begin{bmatrix}
[41 z + 20 \sqrt{82}\, \mathrm{sech}(\sqrt{41/2})\sinh(\sqrt{82}z)]/1681 & 0 & x \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
-x & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix} \, ,
\end{align}
where $\mathrm{sech}(x)=1/\cosh(x)$, and for the following values of material constants
\begin{align}
&\lambda_{\mathrm{e}}=\lambda_{\mathrm{micro}} = 0 \, , &&\mu_{\mathrm{e}}=\mu_{\mathrm{macro}} = 1/2 \, , && \mu_{\mathrm{c}} = 0 \, , && L_\mathrm{c} = 1 \, , &&\mu_{\mathrm{micro}} = 20 \, .
\end{align}
The intensity of the curvature parameter $\kappa$ of the plate is chosen to be $\kappa = 14 / 200$.
\begin{remark}
The particular case of the cylindrical bending for which $\lambda_{\mathrm{e}}=\lambda_{\mathrm{micro}}=0$ (equivalent to a zero micro-Poisson's ratio) has been solved, along with its more general case ($\lambda_{\mathrm{e}}\neq\lambda_{\mathrm{micro}}\neq0$), in \cite{Rizzi_bending}.
The advantage of considering this particular case is that a cut out finite plate of the infinite domain automatically exhibits the consistent coupling boundary conditions on its side surfaces.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Note that the general analytical solution for cylindrical bending does not depend on $\mu_{\mathrm{c}}$, so we can set $\mu_{\mathrm{c}}=0$ without loss of generality, compare \cite{Rizzi_bending}.
\end{remark}
We define the finite domain $\overline{V} = [-10, 10]^2 \times [-1/2, 1/2]$ and the boundaries
\begin{align}
\overline{A}_{D_1} &= \{-10\} \times [-10,10] \times [-1/2, 1/2] \, ,
&& \overline{A}_{D_2} = \{10\} \times [-10,10] \times [-1/2, 1/2] \, , \notag \\ A_{N} &= \partial V \setminus \{ \overline{A}_{D_1} \oplus \overline{A}_{D_2} \} \, .
\end{align}
Additionally, on the Dirichlet boundary we impose the translated analytical solution
$\widetilde{\vb{u}} = \vb{u} - \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 & 3.5 \end{bmatrix}^T$.
The displacement field and the last row of the microdistortion are depicted in \cref{fig:bending}. The displacement field is dominated by its quadratic term and captured correctly. The last row of the microdistortion is a linear function and easily approximated even with linear elements.
On the contrary, the $P_{11}$ component of the microdistortion is a hyperbolic function of the $z$-axis. The results of its approximation at $x = y = 0$ (the centre of the plane) are given in \cref{fig:bending2}.
We observe that even increasing the number of linear finite elements to the extreme only results in better oscillations around the analytical solution. In comparison, higher order formulations converge towards the expected hyperbolic behaviour. The approximation of the quadratic N\'ed\'elec element of the first type is nearly perfect, whereas its second type counterpart clearly deviates from the analytical solution at $z \approx -0.25$. Taking the cubic second type element yields the desired result. This phenomenon is an evident indicator of the prominent role of the Curl of the microdistortion in this type of problems. Firstly, the microdistortion is a non-gradient field. Secondly, the Curl of the analytical solution induces an hyperbolic sine term. Such functions are often approximated using at least cubic terms in power series, thus explaining the necessity of such high order elements for correct computations.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.45\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{figs/ex4/u}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.45\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{figs/ex4/p}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Displacement (a) and last row of the microdistortion (b) for the quadratic formulation using the N\'ed\'elec element of the first type.}
\label{fig:bending}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.48\linewidth}
\centering
\input{graphs/bending}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.48\linewidth}
\centering
\input{graphs/bending2}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Convergence of the lowest order formulation under h-refinement with $732$, $5640$ and $44592$ elements (a) and of the higher order formulations under p-refinement using $732$ elements(b) towards the analytical solution (dashed curve) of the $P_{11}(z)$ component at $x = y = 0$.}
\label{fig:bending2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Bounded stiffness property} \label{ex:3}
The characteristic length scale parameter $L_\mathrm{c}$ allows the relaxed micromorphic model to capture the transition from highly homogeneous materials to materials with a pronounced micro-structure by governing the influence of the micro-structure on the overall behaviour of the model.
We demonstrate this property of the model with an example, where we vary $L_\mathrm{c}$ and measure the resulting energy.
Let the domain be given by the axis-symmetric cube $\overline{V} = [-1,1]^3$ with a total Dirichlet boundary
\begin{align}
&\overline{A}_{D_1} = \{ (x,y,z) \in [-1,1]^3 \; | \; x = \pm 1 \} \, , && \overline{A}_{D_2} = \{ (x,y,z) \in [-1,1]^3 \; | \; y = \pm 1 \} \, ,
\notag \\ & \overline{A}_{D_3} = \{ (x,y,z) \in [-1,1]^3 \; | \; z = \pm 1 \} \, ,
\end{align}
we embed the periodic boundary conditions
\begin{align}
&\widetilde{u}\at_{A_{D_1}} = \begin{bmatrix}
(1-y^2) \sin(\pi[1-z^2]) / 10 \\ 0 \\ 0
\end{bmatrix} \, , && \widetilde{u}\at_{A_{D_2}} = \begin{bmatrix}
0 \\ (1-x^2) \sin(\pi[1-z^2]) / 10 \\ 0
\end{bmatrix} \, ,
\notag \\ & \widetilde{u}\at_{A_{D_3}} = \begin{bmatrix}
0 \\ 0 \\ (1-y^2) \sin(\pi[1-x^2]) / 10
\end{bmatrix} \, .
\end{align}
The material parameters are chosen as
\begin{align}
&\lambda_{\mathrm{macro}} = 2 \, , && \mu_{\mathrm{macro}} = 1 \, , && \lambda_{\mathrm{micro}} = 10 \, , && \mu_{\mathrm{micro}} = 5 \, , && \mu_{\mathrm{c}} = 1 \, ,
\end{align}
thus giving rise to the following meso-parameters via \cref{eq:muma}
\begin{align}
&\lambda_{\mathrm{e}} = 2.5 \, , && \mu_{\mathrm{e}} = 1.25 \, .
\end{align}
The displacement field as well as some examples of the employed meshes are shown in \cref{fig:bounded2}. In order to compute the upper and lower bound on the energy we utilize the equivalent Cauchy model formulation with the micro- and macro elasticity parameters. In order to assert the high accuracy of the solution of the bounds we employ tenth order finite elements.
The progression of the energy in dependence of the characteristic length parameter $L_\mathrm{c}$ is given in \cref{fig:bounded1}. We observe the high mesh dependency of the lower order formulations, where the energy is clearly overestimated. The higher order formulations all capture the upper bound correctly but diverge with respect to the result of the lower bound. Notably, the approximation using the N\'ed\'elec element of the first type is more accurate than the equivalent formulation with the N\'ed\'elec element of the second type, thus indicating the non-negligible involvement of the micro-dislocation in the energy. Using standard mesh coarseness the cubic element formulation with N\'ed\'elec elements of the first type yields satisfactory results. In order to achieve the same on highly coarse meshes, one needs to employ seventh order elements.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figs/ex10/u}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figs/ex10/m384}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.3\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figs/ex10/m3072}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Displacement field of the Cauchy model on the coarsest mesh of 48 finite elements of the tenth order (a) and depictions of the meshes with 384 (b) and 3072 (c) elements, respectively.}
\label{fig:bounded2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.48\linewidth}
\centering
\input{graphs/bounded1}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.48\linewidth}
\centering
\input{graphs/bounded2}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.48\linewidth}
\centering
\input{graphs/bounded3}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.48\linewidth}
\centering
\input{graphs/bounded4}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Energy progression of the relaxed micromorphic model with respect to $L_\mathrm{c}$ using the linear (a), quadratic (b) and cubic (c) finite element formulations. The energy computed with the coarsest mesh of $48$ elements is depicted in (d) for various polynomial powers.}
\label{fig:bounded1}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions and outlook}
The intrinsic behaviour of the relaxed micromorphic model is revealed by the analytical solutions to boundary value problems. Clearly, the continuum exhibits hyperbolic and trigonometric solutions, which are not easily approximated by low order finite elements. The example provided in \cref{ex:2} demonstrates that cubic and higher order finite elements yield excellent results in approximate solutions of the model.
The polytopal template methodology introduced in \cite{skypoly} allows to easily and flexibly construct $\Hc{}$-conforming vectorial finite elements that inherit many of the characteristics of an underlying $\mathit{H}^1$-conforming basis, which can be chosen independently.
In this work, we made use of Bernstein-B\'ezier polynomials. The latter boast optimal complexity properties manifesting in the form of sum factorization. The natural decomposition of their multi-variate versions into multiplications of univariate Bernstein base functions via the Duffy transformation allows to construct optimal iterators for their evaluation using recursion formulas. Further, this characteristic makes the use of dual numbers in the computation of their derivatives ideal.
Finally, the intrinsic order of traversal induced by the factorization is exploited optimally by the choice of clock-wise orientation of the reference element.
The consequence of these combined features is a high-performance hp-finite element program.
The ability of the relaxed micromorphic model to interpolate between the energies of homogeneous materials and materials with an underlying micro-structure using the characteristic length scale parameter $L_\mathrm{c}$ is demonstrated in \cref{ex:3}. It is also shown that in order to correctly capture the span of energies for the values of $L_\mathrm{c}$ either fine-discretizations or higher order elements are required.
The excellent performance of the proposed higher order finite elements in the linear static case is a precursor for their application in the dynamic setting, which is important since the relaxed micromorphic model is often employed in the computation of elastic waves (e.g., for acoustic metamaterials), where solutions for high frequency ranges are commonly needed.
The proposed computational scheme is lacking in its description of curved geometries. Due to the consistent coupling condition, this can easily lead to errors emanating from the boundary. Consequently, a topic for future works would be the investigation of curved finite elements \cite{Johnen2014,JOHNEN2013359} and their behaviour with respect to the model.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
Angela Madeo and Gianluca Rizzi acknowledge support from the European Commission through the funding of the ERC Consolidator Grant META-LEGO, N$^\circ$ 101001759.00
Patrizio Neff acknowledges support in the framework of the DFG-Priority Programme
2256 “Variational Methods for Predicting Complex Phenomena in Engineering Structures and Materials”, Neff 902/10-1, Project-No. 440935806.
\bibliographystyle{spmpsci}
\footnotesize{
|
\section{Dimensionless equations}
We introduce effective drag coefficient $\xi _{eff} = \xi + \alpha k_{on}/k_{0}$ and choose $l_0 = \sqrt{\eta / \xi _{eff}}$ as the unit length,
$t_0 =\eta / (\xi _{eff} D)$ as the unit time, $\sigma_0 = \xi _{eff} D$ as the unit stress,
$n_0 = \xi /\alpha$ (notice that, here $\xi$, not $\xi _{eff}$ is used) as the unit density for adhesion complexes,
and $c_0 = M/ \sqrt{\eta / \xi _{eff}}$ as the unit myosin concentration, where $M$ is the total number of myosin motors in the cell.
In the dimensionless form, the momentum equation is
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial^2 v}{\partial x^2} - \tilde{\xi} ( 1+n_b) v = - \Tilde{\chi} \frac{\partial c}{\partial x},
\label{eq:force_balance_dimensionless}
\end{equation}
myosin density evolution obeys
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial c}{\partial t} = \frac{\partial^2 c}{\partial x^2} - \frac{\partial (c v)}{\partial x},
\label{eq:myosin_dimensionless}
\end{equation}
evolution of the density of the adhesion complexes is
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial n_b}{\partial t}
=- \Bar{k}_0 e^{- \Bar{k}_1 \partial _x v} n_b + \Bar{k}_{on}
\label{eq:bonds_dimensionless}
\end{equation}
and the positions of the cell ends obey
\begin{equation}
\frac{d l_{\pm}}{d t} = [v]_{l_{\pm}} \pm v_p^{\pm}.
\label{eq:lpm_dimensionless}
\end{equation}
The boundary condition for myosin current is
\begin{equation}
\left[c (v - \frac{dl}{dt}) - \frac{\partial c}{\partial x} \right]_{l_{\pm}} = 0,
\label{eq:myosin_bc_dimensionless}
\end{equation}
and the stress continuity at the cell ends leads to
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{\pm} = - K \left(L - L_0 \right) = \left[\frac{\partial v}{\partial x}\right]_{l_{\pm}} + \Tilde{\chi} c_{l_{\pm}}.
\label{eq:stress_bc_dimensionless}
\end{equation}
Here all variables and $x$, $t$ are dimensionless.
The definitions of the parameters and important physical quantities are listed in Table~S1. The dimensionless parameters in our model are listed in Table~S2.
\begin{table}[htb]
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.5}
\centering
\begin{tabular}[t]{llr}
\hline
\hline
&Physical meaning & Symbol\\
\hline
&effective drag coefficient & $\xi _{eff} =
\xi + \alpha k_{on}/k_0$ \\
&unit length & $l_0=\sqrt{\eta / \xi _{eff}}$\\
&unit time & $t_0=\eta / \xi _{eff} D$\\
&unit stress & $\sigma_0 = \xi _{eff} D$\\
&unit myosin motors concentration & $c_0=\frac{M}{\sqrt{\eta / \xi _{eff}}}$\\
&unit density of cell-substrate bonds & $n_0 = \xi /\alpha$\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Definitions of physical parameters and characteristic quantities in our model.}
\label{Table1}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[htb]
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.5}
\centering
\begin{tabular}[t]{llr}
\hline
\hline
&Physical meaning & Symbol\\
\hline
& unbinding rate & $\bar{k}_0 = t_0 k_0$ \\
& coefficient for strain-rate-dependent unbinding & $\bar{k}_1 = k_1/t_0$ \\
& binding rate & $\bar{k}_{\rm on} = k_{\rm on}t_0 / n_0$ \\
& base actin polymerization speed & $\bar{v}_p^{(0)} = v_p^{(0)} l_0 /t_0$ \\
& coefficient for stress-dependent actin polymerization & $\bar{v}_p^{(1)} = v_p^{(1)} l_0$\\
& coefficient for cell polarization effect on actin polymerization &$\bar{v}_p^{(2)} = v_p^{(2)} t_0/l_0$\\
& contractility & $\Tilde{\chi}=c_0 \chi / \sigma_0$\\
& cell elastic constant & $K=\gamma l_0/ \sigma_0$\\
& drag coefficient & $\tilde{\xi} = \xi /(\xi + \alpha k_{\rm on}/k_0)$ \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Definitions of dimensionless parameters in our model.}
\label{Table2}
\end{table}%
\section{Numerical method and choice of parameters}
In our numerical scheme, each iteration updates all dynamical variables by integrating the evolution equations over a small time interval $\Delta t$ with a finite difference method.
First, $[v]_{l_{\pm}}$ and $v_p^{\pm}$ from the previous iteration were substituted into Eq.~(\ref{eq:lpm_dimensionless}) to obtain the new positions of the cell ends.
The densities of the adhesion complexes and myosin motors are updated from the flow field of the previous iteration by integrating the evolution Eq.~\eqref{eq:bonds_dimensionless} of $n_b$ and the myosin advection-diffusion Eq.~\eqref{eq:myosin_dimensionless}.
The force balance Eq.~\eqref{eq:force_balance_dimensionless} with the updated bond density and myosin concentration is then solved to obtain the new flow field.
The numerics were carried out by dividing the cell into $N_x = 100$ segments and approximating the spatial derivatives by the finite difference method with the size of a time step $\Delta t={10}^{-6}$.
The typical material parameters are $D$ $\sim$ 0.025 $\mu {\rm m}^2 / s$ \cite{ref:Luo_BPJ_2012},
$l_0 \sim 10$ $\mu {\rm m}$ and unit time $t_0 \sim 10^3$~s~\cite{ref:Barnhart_PLoSBiol_2011}. $k_0$ is the rate of dissociation of mature focal adhesion and its typical value $\sim$ $1/{\rm min}$ \cite{ref:Wang_JCB_1984}, and we chose $\bar{k}_0=3$. $\bar{k}_{\rm on}$ is chosen to be 6 for most simulations and the dimensionless density of bonds in the absence of mechanosensitivity is of order unity.
The dimensionless natural length of the cell $L_0 = 1$ for a typical cell.
This means that in the absence of adhesion complexes, drag and viscous forces are of the same order of magnitude.
The dimensionless total number of myosin motors in the cell $c_0 L_0 = 1$.
\vskip 3 in
\newpage
\section{Simulation results}
The motility phase diagrams in the plane spanned by $\tilde{\chi}$ and $k_1$ are presented in the main text.
Here Fig.~S1 shows the phase diagram in the plane spanned by $v_p^{(0)}$ and $k_1$. From this figure we can see how the actin polymerization rate affects the motility behavior of the cell.
It is clear that the moving state of a cell with small $k_1$ is that with a constant velocity, while the moving state of a cell with large $k_1$ is periodic back-and-forth. This is in agreement with the phase diagrams in the main text.
Furthermore, there are several complex motility patterns between these two states, including stick-slip motion
and behaviors that can be seen as combinations of back-and-forth and stick-slip movement.
The trajectories for stick-slip movement and periodic back-and-forth movement with stick-slip are
shown in Fig.~1(c)(d) of the main text.
The trajectories for zig-zag movement with stick-slip
and double-period back-and-forth motion are shown in Fig.~4(a)(b) of the main text.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75 \linewidth]{figS1_phasediagram_highcomplexitybehaviors.eps}
\label{fig:phase_diagrams}
\caption[S1]{Phase diagram
for the motility behavior predicted by the reduced model. $K = 100$, $\tilde{\xi} = 1/3$, $k_{\rm on}= 6$, $k_0=3$,
$\tilde{\chi}=14$, $v_p^{(1)}=0.5$, $v_p^{(2)}=0.2$.
The cells show the following motility behaviors:
constant velocity motion (green diamonds),
periodic back-and-forth movement (blue circles),
stick-slip movement (orange triangles),
periodic back-and-forth movement with stick-slip (empty gray circles),
zig-zag movement with stick-slip (empty purple diamonds),
and double-period back-and-forth motion (brown squares).
}
\end{figure}
\vskip 1 in
Figure S2 shows the distribution of adhesion complexes and myosin motors for a cell that undergoes stick-slip movement and periodic back-and-forth movement.
Similar to the distributions shown in Fig.~2 of the main text,
for a moving cell, myosin motors are always located relatively close to the trailing end, and the density of adhesion complexes is always higher in a region close to the leading end.
\newpage
\begin{figure}[!h]
\mbox{
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{figS2a_myosink1=0.12vp0=0.2chi=18vp1=0.5vp2=2stick-slip.eps}}
}
\mbox{
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{figS2b_bondk1=0.12vp0=0.2chi=18vp1=0.2vp2=2stick-slip}}
}
\mbox{
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=.4\linewidth]{figS2c_myosink1=0.25vp0=0.2chi=17vp1=0.5vp2=2back-and-forth}}
}
\mbox{
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=.4\linewidth]{figS2d_bondk1=0.25vp0=0.2chi=17vp1=0.5vp2=2back-and-forth}}
}
\label{fig:distributions}
\caption{Distribution of adhesion complexes and myosin motors for $K = 100$, $\tilde{\xi} = 1/3$, $k_{\rm on}= 6$, $k_0=3$, $v_p^{(0)}=0.2$, $v_p^{(1)}=0.5$,
$v_p^{(2)}=2$, and (a)(b) $k_1=0.12$, $\tilde{\chi} = 18$, (c)(d) $k_1 = 0.25$, $\tilde{\chi} = 17$.
}
\end{figure}
\newpage
\section{The simplified model}
\label{App:simplified_model}
Since the adhesion complexes are concentrated close to the cell ends, to simplify the analysis, we assume
\begin{eqnarray}
n_b(x,t) = N_{f} \delta (x-x_f) + N_{b} \delta (x-x_b),
\end{eqnarray}
where $x_{f} = l_+ - \epsilon$, $x_{b} = l_- + \epsilon$, and $\epsilon$ is a very small length.
\subsection{Stress field and flow field}
Because there are no adhesion complexes in $x_{b} < x < x_{f}$, the dimensionless momentum equation in this region is
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial _x \sigma = \tilde{\xi} v, \ \ \sigma = \partial _x v + \tilde{\chi} c, \ \ x_{b} < x < x_{f}.
\label{eq:stress_simplified}
\end{eqnarray}
Integrating the full momentum equation from $l_{+(-)}$ to $x_{f (b)}$, we find
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma _{f} &=& -K(l-l_0) - \tilde{\xi} N_{f} v_{f}, \nonumber \\
\sigma _{b} &=& -K(l-l_0) + \tilde{\xi} N_{b} v_{b}.
\end{eqnarray}
Here $v_f = v(x_f,t) \approx dl_+/dt - v_p^+$, and $v_b = v(x_b,t) \approx dl_-/dt + v_p^-$.
The solution of stress from these equations is~\cite{ref:Recho_2016}
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma (x,t) = \sigma _{f} \frac{\sinh \left[\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}( x-x_b) \right]}{\sinh \left[\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}( x_f-x_b) \right]} + \sigma _{b} \frac{\sinh \left[\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}( x_f-x) \right]}{\sinh \left[\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}( x_f-x_b) \right]}
+ \tilde{\chi} \tilde{\xi}^{1/2} \int _{x_b}^{x_f} G(x,x')c(x',t)dx', \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
G (x,x') = \frac{\sinh \left[\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}( x_f-x) \right]\sinh \left[\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}( x'-x_b) \right]}{\sinh \left[\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}( x_f-x_b) \right]} - \Theta (x'-x)\sinh \left[\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}( x'-x) \right],
\end{eqnarray}
$\Theta (x) $ is the Heaviside step function.
This leads to the following expression for the flow field,
\begin{eqnarray}
v(x,t) = \frac{1}{\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}}\left\{
\sigma _{f} \frac{\cosh \left[\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}( x-x_b) \right]}{\sinh \left[\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}( x_f-x_b) \right]} - \sigma _{b} \frac{\cosh \left[\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}( x_f-x) \right]}{\sinh \left[\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}( x_f-x_b) \right]}
+ \tilde{\chi} \int _{x_b}^{x_f} \partial _xG(x,x')c(x',t)dx'
\right\}.
\nonumber \\
\label{eq:velocity_simplified}
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Myosin concentration}
Substituting Eq.~(\ref{eq:velocity_simplified}) into the advection-diffusion for myosin concentration, one obtains the following equation which does not have an explicit dependence on the velocity field.
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial _t c(x,t)
= D \partial _x^2 c
- \frac{1}{\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}} &\partial _x& \left\{
\left[
\sigma _{f} \frac{\cosh \left[\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}( x-x_b) \right]}{\sinh \left[\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}( x_f-x_b) \right]} - \sigma _{b} \frac{\cosh \left[\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}( x_f-x) \right]}{\sinh \left[\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}( x_f-x_b) \right]} \right] c(x,t) \right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. + \tilde{\chi} \int _{x_b}^{x_f} \ c(x,t) \partial _xG(x,x')c(x',t)dx'
\right\}.
\nonumber \\
\label{eq:c_simplified}
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Velocity and length of the cell}
The velocity of the cell $V_{\rm cell} = \frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{dl_+}{dt} + \frac{dl_-}{dt}\right) $ is
\begin{eqnarray}
V_{\rm cell}
&=& \frac{1}{2 \tilde{\xi}^{1/2}} \frac{\cosh \left(\tilde{\xi}^{1/2} L\right) + 1}{\sinh \left(\tilde{\xi}^{1/2} L\right)} (\sigma _f - \sigma _b)
+ \frac{\tilde{\chi}}{2} \int _{x_b}^{x_f} \frac{\sinh \left[\tilde{\xi}^{1/2} (x_f-x')\right] - \sinh \left[\tilde{\xi}^{1/2} (x'-x_b)\right]}{\sinh \left(\tilde{\xi}^{1/2} L\right)} c(x',t)dx' \nonumber \\
&& + \frac{v_p^+ - v_p^-}{2}.
\label{eq:V_cell_simplified}
\end{eqnarray}
The evolution of the length of the cell $\frac{dL}{dt}= \frac{dl_+}{dt} - \frac{dl_-}{dt}$ obeys
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{dL}{dt
&=& \frac{1}{\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}} \frac{\cosh \left(\tilde{\xi}^{1/2} L\right)-1}{\sinh \left(\tilde{\xi}^{1/2} L\right)} (\sigma _f + \sigma _b)
- \tilde{\chi} \int _{x_b}^{x_f} \frac{\sinh \left[\tilde{\xi}^{1/2} (x_f-x')\right] + \sinh \left[\tilde{\xi}^{1/2} (x'-x_b)\right]}{ \sinh \left(\tilde{\xi}^{1/2} L\right)} c(x',t)dx' \nonumber \\
&& + (v_p^+ + v_p^-). \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Symmetries of the system}
It is helpful to introduce the following variables
\begin{eqnarray}
N &=& N_f + N_b, \ \ \Delta N = N_f - N_b, \nonumber \\
v_p &=& \frac{v_p^+ + v_p^-}{2}, \ \ \Delta v_p = v_p^+ - v_p^-, \nonumber \\
\sigma _S &=& \frac{\sigma _f + \sigma _b}{2} = - K(L-L_0) - \frac{\tilde{\xi}}{2} \left[ N \left( \frac{dL/dt}{2}-v_p\right) + \Delta N \left( V_{\rm cell} - \frac{\Delta v_p}{2} \right)\right] , \nonumber \\
\sigma _A &=& \frac{\sigma _f - \sigma _b}{2} = - \frac{\tilde{\xi}}{2} \left[ N \left( V_{\rm cell} - \frac{\Delta v_p}{2} \right) + \Delta N \left( \frac{dL/dt}{2}-v_p\right) \right],
\label{eq:symmetry}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
y &=& x - \frac{l_+ + l_-}{2}.
\end{eqnarray}
Notice that
$dL/dt$, $N$, $v_p$, and $\sigma _S$ are symmetric under spatial inversion ($y \rightarrow -y$),
while $V_{\rm cell}$, $\Delta N$, $\Delta v_p$, and $\sigma _A$ are antisymmetric under spatial inversion.
The velocity of the cell $V_{\rm cell}$ can be expressed in terms of these parameters and variables that have clear parity signatures.
First, notice that
only the part of $c(y)$ that is anti-symmetric under $y \rightarrow -y$ contribute to the $\tilde{\chi}$-dependent term of Eq.~(\ref{eq:V_cell_simplified}),
and for a slow-crawling cell this part should be significant only in the small $|y|$ region.
Thus by expanding the $\tilde{\chi}$-dependent term of $V_{\rm cell}$ to the leading order in $y$, one finds that
\begin{eqnarray}
V_{\rm cell}=
\frac{1}{2} \left[
\Delta v_p + \frac{2}{\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}}\frac{\cosh \left(\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}L\right) + 1}{\sinh \left(\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}L \right)} \sigma _A
- \tilde{\chi}\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}\ \frac{\cosh \left(2 \tilde{\xi}^{1/2}L\right)}{\sinh \left(\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}L\right)} y_c + ...
\right], \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
y_c \equiv \int _{-L/2}^{L/2} y\ c(y,t) \ dy,
\end{eqnarray}
and ``...'' represents terms of higher order in this expansion.
The expression for $V_{\rm cell}$ can be further simplified by taking $\Delta v_p \approx \beta V_{\rm cell}$ ($\beta$ is independent of $V_{\rm cell}$) for a slow crawling cell and substituting Eq.~(\ref{eq:symmetry}) for $\sigma _A$.
Finally, one obtains
\begin{eqnarray}
V_{\rm cell} &=& - \frac{\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}}{1 - \beta/2} \left[ 1 + \frac{ \tilde{\xi}^{1/2}}{2}\frac{\cosh \left( \tilde{\xi}^{1/2}L\right) +1}{\sinh \left( \tilde{\xi}^{1/2}L \right) }\ N\right]^{-1} \nonumber \\
& & \times \left[ \frac{1}{2} \frac{\cosh \left( \tilde{\xi}^{1/2}L\right) +1}{\sinh \left( \tilde{\xi}^{1/2}L\right) } \left( \frac{1}{2}\frac{dL}{dt} - v_p \right) \Delta N
+ \tilde{\chi} \frac{\cosh \left( \tilde{\xi}^{1/2}L/2\right) }{\sinh \left( \tilde{\xi}^{1/2}L\right) } y_c + ...
\right].
\end{eqnarray}
This expression tells us that $V_{cell}$ is nonzero only when $\Delta N$ (asymmetry in the distribution of adhesion complexes) or $y_c$ (asymmetry in the distribution of myosin motors) is nonzero.
Similar calculation leads to the following expression for the evolution of the length of the cell,
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{dL}{dt} = 2 v_p &+& \left[1+\frac{\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}}{2}\frac{\cosh (\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}L ) -1}{\sinh (\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}L)} \ N\right]^{-1} \nonumber \\
&\times &
\left\{ \tilde{\xi}^{-1/2}\frac{\cosh (\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}L ) -1}{\sinh (\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}L)} \left[
-2 K (L-L_0) + \Delta N \left(1-\frac{\beta}{2}\right) V_{\rm cell} \right]
- 2 \tilde{\chi}\ \frac{\sinh \left( \tilde{\xi}^{1/2}L/2\right) }{\sinh \left( \tilde{\xi}^{1/2}L\right) } C_{\rm tot}\right\}, \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
C_{\rm tot} \equiv \int _{-L/2}^{L/2} \ c(y,t) dy \equiv 1
\end{eqnarray}
is the total amount of myosin motors in the cell, which is unity in our dimensionless expression.
Note that all terms on the right-hand side of $dL/dt$ are even under $y \rightarrow - y$.
\subsection{The simplified model and bifurcations}
From the previous analysis, it is clear that
symmetry under $y \rightarrow -y$ plays an important role in $V_{\rm cell}$ and $dL/dt$.
Based on these observations, a simplified model is proposed for slow-crawling cells.
First, the evolution equations of $N_f$ and $N_b$ are
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d N_f}{dt} = k_{\rm on} - (k_{\rm off}^{(0)} + k_{\rm off}^{(1)} \ y_c ) N_f , \nonumber \\
\frac{d N_b}{dt} = k_{\rm on} - (k_{\rm off}^{(0)} - k_{\rm off}^{(1)} \ y_c ) N_b . \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
This leads to
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{dN}{dt} &=& 2 k_{\rm on} - k_{\rm off} ^{(0)} \ N - k_{\rm off}^{(1)} \ y_c \ \Delta N , \nonumber \\
\frac{d\Delta N}{dt} &=& - k_{\rm off}^{(0)} \Delta N - k_{\rm off}^{(1)} \ N y_c.
\label{eq:dNdtdDeltaNdt}
\end{eqnarray}
We expect $k_{\rm off}^{(1)} >0$ because a cell moving at constant velocity in the $+x$ direction should have $y_c <0$ and $\Delta N >0$.
Next, the following evolution equation for $y_c$ is proposed
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{dy_c}{dt} = - \Gamma \left[ - (\tilde{\chi} - \tilde{\chi}_c ) y_c - a_{\Delta N} \Delta N + a_3 y_c^3 \right].
\label{eq:dycdt}
\end{eqnarray}
The above equation describes a cell that becomes polarized ($y_c \neq 0$) when $\tilde{\chi}$ is sufficiently large. Furthermore, $a_{\Delta N}$ tells us how nonzero $\Delta N$ affects the evolution of $y_c$.
In general, $\tilde{\chi}_c$, $a_{\Delta N} $, and $a_3$ all depend on $L$ and $N$. $a_3 >0$ such that $y_c$ remains finite.
To focus on the physics that are most relevant to the transitions between different motility behaviors, we
neglect the $N$-dependencies in $\tilde{\chi}_c$ and $a_{\Delta N}$
as they do not change the symmetry properties of the evolution equation of $y_c$.
This approximation is expected to be suitable for slow-moving cells.
Furthermore, the $L$-dependencies of all coefficients in our simplified model can be neglected by considering the large-$K$ regime such that
$L \rightarrow L_0$.
In this regime,
\begin{eqnarray}
V_{\rm cell} &=& \frac{\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}}{(1-\frac{\beta}{2})\left[ 1 + \frac{\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}}{2}\frac{\cosh (\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}L_0) + 1}{\sinh (\tilde{\xi}^{1/2} L_0)}N\right] }
\left\{ \left[ \frac{1}{2}\frac{\cosh (\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}L_0) + 1}{\sinh (\tilde{\xi }^{1/2} L_0)} v_p \right] \Delta N - \left[\tilde{\chi}\frac{\cosh (\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}L_0/2)}{\sinh (\tilde{\xi}^{1/2}L_0)}\right]y_c \right\} \nonumber \\
&\equiv& \frac{1}{1-\beta/2}(\lambda _{\nu_1 v_p}\Delta N - \tilde{\chi} \lambda_{\nu_2}y_c).
\end{eqnarray}
Here $\lambda _{\nu_1 v_p}$ and $ \lambda_{\nu_2}$ are $N$-dependent parameters.
Many interesting features of the system described by Eqs.~(\ref{eq:dNdtdDeltaNdt})(\ref{eq:dycdt}) can be studied analytically.
First, the steady-state solutions include the rest-state solution
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta N = y_c = 0, \ N = \frac{2k_{\rm on}}{k_{\rm off}^{(0)}} \equiv N_0, \ \ \
\end{eqnarray}
and solutions for a cell moving in the $\pm$ x-direction with a constant velocity
\begin{eqnarray}
y_c &=& \mp \sqrt{\frac{p_4 + p_1^2 p_2 - \sqrt{(p_4 + p_1^2 p_2)^2 - 4 p_1^2p_4 (p_2-p_1p_3N_0)}}{2p_1^2p_4}}, \nonumber \\
\Delta N &=& - \frac{p_1N_0}{1 +\left( p_1 y_c\right)^2}y_c, \nonumber \\
N &=& \frac{N_0}{1- \left( p_1y_c\right)^2},
\end{eqnarray}
where $p_1 = k_{\rm off}^{(1)}/k_{\rm off}^{(0)}$, $p_2 = \Gamma (\tilde{\chi} - \tilde{\chi}_c)/{k_{\rm off}^{(0)}}$, $p_3 = \Gamma a_{\Delta N}/{k_{\rm off}^{(0)}}$, and $p_4 = \Gamma a_3/{k_{\rm off}^{(0)}}$.
Further checking the linear stability of the rest state shows that the transition from the rest state to the state with constant velocity is a pitchfork bifurcation. On the other hand,
the transition from the rest state to the periodic back-and-forth movement is a Hopf bifurcation:
Pitchfork bifurcation (rest/constant-velocity transition) happens when
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\chi} = \tilde{\chi}_c + 2 a_{\Delta N}\frac{k_{\rm on} k_{\rm off}^{(1)}}{(k_{\rm off}^{(0)})^2}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma (\tilde{\chi} - \tilde{\chi}_c)-k_{\rm off}^{(0)} <0.
\end{eqnarray}
Hopf bifurcation (rest/back-and-forth-motion transition) occurs when
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\chi} = \tilde{\chi}_c + k_{\rm off}^{(0)}/\Gamma
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\chi}-\left[\tilde{\chi}_c + 2 a_{\Delta N}\frac{k_{\rm on} k_{\rm off}^{(1)}}{(k_{\rm off}^{(0)})^2}\right] <0.
\end{eqnarray}
The phase diagram for the motility behavior predicted by this phenomenological model is shown in Fig.~S3. It is qualitatively similar to the phase diagrams of the active gel model.
The differences are likely due to the approximations we made when constructing the simplified model.
For example, assuming a constant cell length and assuming that the dynamics of $y_c$ are independent of $N$ and $L$ are likely to have some effects on the detailed shape of the phase boundaries.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{figs3_phase_diagram_of_simplified_model.eps}\label{fig:phase_diagram_simplified_model}
\caption{Phase diagram for the motility behavior predicted by the simplified model.
The following motility patterns are found:
a cell at rest (red squares),
a cell moving at constant velocity (green diamonds),
a cell performs stick-slip movement (orange triangles),
a cell performs back-and-forth movement with stick-slip (at $k^{(1)}_{\rm off}/k^{(0)}_{\rm off}$ slightly greater than
those orange triangles so that we cannot show),
and a cell performs periodic back-and-forth movement (blue circles).
The boundary between the rest and constant velocity movement is $\tilde{\chi} = \tilde{\chi}_c + 2 a_{\Delta N}\frac{k_{\rm on} k_{\rm off}^{(1)}}{\left(k_{\rm off}^{(0)}\right)^2}$.
The boundary between the rest and periodic back-and-forth movement states is
$\tilde{\chi} = \tilde{\chi}_c + k_{\rm off}^{(0)}/\Gamma$. }
\end{figure}
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
Grains play a major role during star formation. First, they are the seeds of planet formation. While their characteristic size is sub-micron in the interstellar medium (ISM) \citep{mathis}, they grow by coagulation during the collapse and can reach sizes larger than 10 $\mu$m in the early stages of protostellar collapse \citep{2020A&A...643A..17G,2020A&A...641A..39S,2021ApJ...920L..35T,2022A&A...658A.191V,2022MNRAS.514.2145B}. Observations also suggest they reach these sizes (and possibly larger ones) in the envelopes of Class 0-I objects \citep{2009ApJ...696..841K, 2014A&A...567A..32M, 2019ApJ...885..106L,2019A&A...632A...5G}. Their growth then continues in protoplanetary disks until they eventually become planetesimals.
Variations in their size also significantly impact non-ideal magnetohydrodynamical (MHD) effects through their ionization and their chemical interactions with the gas, with direct feedback to the dynamics of the gas \citep{2016A&A...592A..18M,2016MNRAS.460.2050Z,2018MNRAS.473.4868Z,2020ApJ...900..180M,2020A&A...643A..17G}. Non-ideal MHD effects have been shown to be critical for the regulation of magnetic field and angular momentum during the protostellar collapse and the protoplanetary disk evolution \citep{mousse79,Machida_etal06,DuffinPudritz,MellonLi2009,LiKrasnopolskyShang,2015ApJ...801..117T,2016MNRAS.457.1037W,DA1,2018A&A...615A...5V,2020ApJ...900..180M,2021ApJ...917L..10L}. Grains are also the main source of opacity in protostellar environments, affecting the cooling of the gas and the observations made of those systems. Their high optical depth at densities of $\rho > 10^{-13}$ g cm$^{-3}$ leads to the formation of the first hydrostatic core \citep{Larson1969}.
However, numerical simulations usually do not account for grain coagulation self-consistently due to the great cost of computing a coagulation algorithm on the fly \citep[although new methods are being developed; see the recent work by][]{2021MNRAS.501.4298L}. The dust evolution used to be pre-processed or post-processed with no self-consistent feedback on the dynamics \citep{1991A&A...251..587R,2005A&A...434..971D,2016MNRAS.460.2050Z,2020ApJ...900..180M}. Recently, more and more studies include the growth of grains in their hydrodynamics simulations \citep{2021ApJ...920L..35T,2021MNRAS.507.2318V,2022A&A...658A.191V,2022MNRAS.514.2145B}. In \citet[][hereafter Paper I]{2021A&A...649A..50M}, we presented a simple and fast method to track coagulation in a self-consistent way that is particularly suited for modeling star formation. Here, we apply this method to non-ideal MHD protostellar collapse simulations. It is coupled with the second method presented in Paper I: a fast calculation of the ionization and grain charge to obtain non-ideal MHD resistivities. These 3D simulations are the first to include a self-consistent grain growth with direct feedback to the dynamics through the self-consistent calculation of MHD resistivities.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{sec:methods}, we describe the methods used in our study. Section \ref{sec:results} presents the results of our calculations, both analytical in Section \ref{Sec:analytical} and numerical in Section \ref{sec:numerical}. We compare our results to other works and discuss the caveats in Section \ref{sec:discussion}. We present our conclusions in Section \ref{sec:conclusions}.
\section{Methods}\label{sec:methods}
We performed non-ideal MHD simulations with the RAMSES code \citep{teyssier}. RAMSES is an Eulerian gas dynamics code with adaptive mesh refinement (AMR) and self-gravity. It includes a monofluid treatment of non-ideal MHD effects \citep{masson_nimhd,2018A&A...619A..37M}. We have implemented the methods presented in Paper I to calculate the coagulation and ionization of grains on-the-fly in a self-consistent manner.
\subsection{Grain coagulation and ionization}\label{SecMethodgrains}
\subsubsection{Coagulation}
In Paper I, we demonstrate that the coagulation process as described by the \citet{1916ZPhy...17..557S} equation is a one-dimensional (1D) process with certain types of coagulation kernels. Consequently, the size distribution of the coagulated grains depends only on the initial size distribution and a variable $\chi$ that encompasses the whole history of the physical conditions seen by the grains. At a given $\chi$ that is integrated along the path of the grains, the coagulated distribution is always the same, independently of the actual path taken. This method works for every coagulation kernel for which the dependence on the gas variables, such as density and temperature, can be separated from the grain properties such as size and mass. In Paper I and in the present paper, we use the turbulent kernel derived by \citet{2007A&A...466..413O} in the intermediate coupling regime, which is suited for star formation conditions. We show that in this case $\chi$ can be derived from integrating:
\begin{equation}\label{EqLagrangianchi}
\mathrm{d}\chi = n_\mathrm{H} ^{\frac{3}{4}} T ^{-\frac{1}{4}} \mathrm{d}t,
\end{equation}
where $n_\mathrm{H}$ is the number density of the gas, $T$ its temperature, and $t$ the time.
In three-dimensional (3D) hydrodynamical simulations, only the knowledge of $\chi$ is needed to track the coagulation of grains.
Equation (\ref{EqLagrangianchi}) is a Lagrangian derivative of $\chi$ with respect to time along the path of the grain. We can transform it into a partial (Eulerian) derivative:
\begin{equation}\label{EqEulerianchi}
\frac{\partial \chi}{\partial t} + \mathbf{u} \cdot \nabla \chi = n_\mathrm{H} ^{\frac{3}{4}} T ^{-\frac{1}{4}},
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{u}$ is the velocity of the gas. We can combine Equation \ref{EqEulerianchi} with the mass conservation equation:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} + \nabla \cdot [\rho \mathbf{u}]= 0,
\end{equation}
where $\rho$ is the gas mass density. This yields:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \rho \chi}{\partial t} + \nabla \cdot (\rho \chi \mathbf{u}) = \rho n_\mathrm{H} ^{\frac{3}{4}} T ^{-\frac{1}{4}},
\end{equation}
which means that the quantity $\rho \chi$ can be treated in an Eulerian framework as a passive scalar with a source term. We exploit this property and implement it as such in RAMSES. The value of $\chi$ is therefore calculated self-consistently in all cells at each time-step, as a mass-weighted average, ignoring any diffusion of dust through the gas.
We used the Ishinisan code \citep{2021A&A...649A..50M} to pre-calculate a table containing the grain size distribution for a large number of $\chi$ values in a large relevant interval (between $\chi = 10^{13}$ and $\chi = 10^{19}$ in cgs units). When the size distribution is needed during the hydrodynamical simulation, it is interpolated from the table based on the value of $\chi$.
Our initial distribution in this paper is a \citet[][]{mathis} distribution (i.e., MRN). The minimum and maximum radii are $a_\mathrm{min} = 5$~nm and $a_\mathrm{max} = 250$~nm, and the slope of the distribution is $-3.5$, so that the number density of grains, $n,$ follows the following variation:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mathrm{d}n}{\mathrm{da}} \propto a^{-3.5}.
\end{equation}
The total quantity of grains is determined by the dust-to-gas mass ratio that we assume to be 0.01. In this work, we sample the distribution with 60 bins of size logarithmically spaced between $5$ nm and $5000$ $\mu$m.
In Figure \ref{FigDistribwithchi}, we present the coagulated MRN size distribution at various $\chi$. Below $\chi=10^{17}$ cgs, the shift in the size distribution is negligible. For higher values, the maximum size and the peak of the distribution are located at larger and larger radii, while the slope of the distribution remains similar. In all cases, the small grains are more abundant while the large grains hold more mass. The mode of the size distribution $a_\mathrm{max}$ is located near the largest relevant grain size.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim=3cm 2cm 2cm 2cm, width=0.45\textwidth]{./variouschi.pdf}
\caption{State of the grain size distribution for values of $\chi$, between $10^{15}$ cgs and $10^{19}$ cgs. The points represent the fractional abundance of the size-bin as function of the effective radius of the bin.}
\label{FigDistribwithchi}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
As grains grow, they may experience fragmentation when the kinetic energy of the collision is high. Contrarily to what we derived in paper I, we find that fragmentation does not occur in early stages of the disk, but it is present, rather, only at very high densities $\rho > 10^{12}$ cm$^{-3}$ \citep{2023MNRAS.518.3326L} for very large grains with $a > 0.08$ cm. We demonstrate this result in Appendix \ref{AppFragmentation}. We therefore neglect fragmentation in this work.
We also do not account for the grain drift with respect to the gas in this work. We discuss the possible consequences in Section \ref{sec:largegrainsenvelope}. Drift is, however, compatible with our coagulation model, and we detail the method in Appendix \ref{AppDusttogas}. Other limitations are discussed in Section \ref{sec:kernels}.
\subsubsection{Ionization and resistivities}
\label{subsub:ion}
In Paper I, we also presented a fast method to calculate the ionization of the gas-grain mixture. For an arbitrary size distribution, we can calculate the average electric charge of each grain size, the number of ions, and the number of electrons, provided the cosmic-ray (CR) ionization rate, the density and temperature of the gas, the average atomic mass of ions, $\mu_\mathrm{i}$, and the sticking probability of electrons on grains, $s_\mathrm{e}$. Here, we assume $\mu_\mathrm{i} = 28$, which corresponds to the ion HCO$^+$, and $s_\mathrm{e} = 0.6$ as in \citet{2016A&A...592A..18M}. We also assume $\zeta = 5 \times 10^{-17}$ s$^{-1}$. The density and the temperature, are taken from the hydrodynamic simulation. The calculation is performed by the Newton-Raphson scheme described in Appendix A of Paper I.
The resistivities are computed using a similar method to \citet{2016A&A...592A..18M}, with one difference. For each grain size, they sum over the contributions of the whole charge distribution (between -1 to +1 in their case). Instead, we average the contributions using the mean electric charge.
We explain the method in greater detail in Appendix \ref{AppIonization}.
\subsection{Star formation simulations}
\subsubsection{Model}
We performed four numerical simulations using the RAMSES code. We solved the following MHD equations:
\begin{align}
&\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} + \nabla \cdot \left[\rho \mathbf{u}\right] = 0, \label{eqmass}\\
&\frac{\partial \rho \mathbf{u}}{\partial t} + \nabla \cdot \left[\rho \mathbf{u}\mathbf{u} + \left(P+\frac{B^2}{2}\right) \mathbb{I} - \mathbf{BB} \right] = -\rho \nabla \Phi, \label{eqmom} \\
&\frac{\partial \mathbf{B}}{\partial t} - \nabla \times \left[\mathbf{u} \times \mathbf{B} - \eta_\Omega \mathbf{J} - \eta_\mathrm{H} \frac{\mathbf{J}\times \mathbf{B}}{B}+ \eta_\mathrm{AD}\frac {\left(\mathbf{J} \times \mathbf{B}\right) \times \mathbf{B}}{B^2} \right] = 0, \label{eqinduc} \\
&\nabla \cdot \mathbf{B}=0,\label{nablab}
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{u}$ is the velocity of the gas, $P$ its pressure, $\mathbf{B}$ the magnetic field, $\mathbf{J} = \nabla \times \mathbf{B}$ the current, $\mathbb{I}$ the identity matrix, $\Phi$ the gravitational potential, and $\eta_\Omega$, $\eta_\mathrm{H}$, and $\eta_\mathrm{AD}$ are the ohmic, Hall, and ambipolar resistivities, respectively.
The temperature evolution is prescribed by the barotropic equation:
\begin{equation}
T=T_0\left(1+\left[ \frac{\rho}{10^{-13}~\mathrm{g}~\mathrm{cm}^{-3}}\right]^{\gamma-1}\right),
\end{equation}
with $T_0=10$ K and $\gamma=5/3$ as the adiabatic index. The initial condition is a sphere of gas of 1 M$_\odot$. The radius of the sphere is controlled by the thermal over gravitational energy ratio $\alpha$. We chose $\alpha=0.3$, which sets a radius of $R=2946$ au. The density distribution has an $m=2$ azimuthal perturbation of
\begin{equation}
\rho(\varphi) = \rho_0 (1+\delta_\rho \sin\varphi),
\end{equation}
where $\rho_0$ is the density of a uniform sphere of same mass and radius, and $\varphi$ the azimuthal angle. We choose $\delta_\rho=0.05$. The computational domain outside of the sphere is filled with gas of density $\rho_0/100$. The sphere undergoes a solid rotation, with a ratio of rotational to gravitational energy of $\beta=0.02$. The magnetic field is initially uniform and parallel to the rotation axis. It is defined using the mass-to-flux ratio over the critical value \citep{MouschoviasSpitzer1976}:
\begin{equation}
\mu_\mathrm{B} = \frac{M/\Phi_\mathrm{B}}{\left(M/\Phi_\mathrm{B}\right)_\mathrm{crit}},
\end{equation}
\noindent with
\begin{equation}
\left(\frac{M}{\Phi_\mathrm{B}}\right)_\mathrm{crit}=\frac{0.53}{3\pi}\sqrt{\frac{5}{G}}.
\end{equation}
Observations show that dense cores are slightly super-critical \citep{1999ApJ...520..706C}, although recent numerical simulations indicate that observations may overestimate the actual strength of the magnetic field due to projection effects \citep{2020ApJ...893...73K}. We chose $\mu_\mathrm{B}=5$ as a fiducial value.
Those parameters are used in our reference case C-3. We changed the value of $\alpha$ to 0.4, and the initial mass, $M,$ to $5$ M$_\odot$ for two other cases referred to as C-4 and C-3-M5, respectively, to investigate the influence of the collapse time on the grain coagulation. The final run, named NC-3, is similar to C-3 without coagulation.
The grain distribution and ionization evolve as described in Sections \ref{SecMethodgrains} and \ref{subsub:ion}, and in Paper I. The four cases are summarized in Table \ref{TableSetups}.
\begin{table*}
\caption{Parameters of the protostellar collapse simulations: name of the simulation, thermal over gravitational energy ratio $\alpha$, radius R, mass M, initial density, $\rho_0$, and initial magnetic field B of the initial cloud, formation time of the first hydrostatic core, $t_\mathrm{fc}$, and use of coagulation.}
\label{TableSetups}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{llllllll}
\hline\hline
Name & $\alpha$ & R (au) & M (M$_\odot$) & $\rho_0$ (g cm$^{-3}$) &B ($\mu$G) & $t_\mathrm{fc}$ (kyr) & Coagulation\\
\hline
C-3 & $0.3$ & $2946$ & $1$ & $5.49 \times 10^{-18}$ & 133 & $\sim 30$ & Yes\\
C-3-M5 & $0.3$ & $14738$ & $5$ & $2.19 \times 10^{-19}$ & 27 & $\sim 150$ & Yes\\
C-4 & $0.4$ & $3930$ & $1$ & $2.31 \times 10^{-18}$ & 75 & $\sim 47$& Yes\\
NC-3 & $0.3$ & $2946$ & $1$ & $5.49 \times 10^{-18}$ & 133 & $\sim 30$ & No\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\subsubsection{Grid and algorithm}
The simulation box is a cube that is four times as large as the radius of the sphere, with periodic boundary conditions. The initial grid is composed of $32^3$ cells (level 5 of AMR) and is refined to ensure at least ten points per Jeans length, strongly satisfying the \citet{1997ApJ...489L.179T} criterion. The maximum AMR refinement level is 13 for C-3 and NC-3 (resolution of 1.4 au), 14 for C-4 (resolution of 0.96 au), and 16 for C-3-M5 (resolution of 0.90 au).
Simulations were performed with a 3D unsplit slope limiter to avoid overshooting of the magnetic field at shock boundaries, while keeping the second order convergence for the Hall effect. We used the HLLD Riemann solver \citep{2005JCoPh.208..315M} for non-magnetic variables and the 2D HLL Riemann solver for the magnetic field and the Hall effect \citep{2012JCoPh.231.7476B,2018A&A...619A..37M}.
The Poisson equation is solved using the multigrid method of \citet{2011JCoPh.230.4756G} in our periodic domain.
\section{Application to star formation} \label{sec:results}
In this section, we present the results of our calculations. We first applied our coagulation method to an analytical one-zone model in Section \ref{Sec:analytical}, then in 3D MHD simulations in Section \ref{sec:numerical}.
\subsection{Analytical collapse} \label{Sec:analytical}
During spherical protostellar collapse, the time evolution of the contraction ratio of a gas cloud compared to its original radius $x=R(t)/R_0$ can be described as \citep{2005A&A...436..933F}:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mathrm{d}x}{\mathrm{d}t} = - \frac{\pi}{2\tau_\mathrm{ff}}\sqrt{\frac{1}{x}-1},
\end{equation}
where $\tau_\mathrm{ff}$ is the free-fall time, given by:
\begin{equation}
\tau_\mathrm{ff} = \sqrt{\frac{3\pi}{32G\rho_0}},
\end{equation}
where $\rho_0$ is the initial density. \citet{2020A&A...643A..17G} showed that assuming a uniform compression of the gas nicely reproduces the isothermal phase of the collapse, particularly when comparing the dust size distribution at the same gas density. In this case, the density of mass scales as $\rho(t)=\rho_0(R_0/R[t])^3$. The gas density then evolves as:
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{n_\mathrm{H}}\frac{\mathrm{d}n_\mathrm{H}}{\mathrm{d}t} = \frac{1}{\rho}\frac{\mathrm{d}\rho}{\mathrm{d}t} = -\frac{3}{x}\frac{\mathrm{d}x}{\mathrm{d}t}.
\end{equation}
We used a second-order Runge-Kutta scheme to numerically integrate this equation from the beginning of the collapse at $\rho = \rho_0$ until the formation of the first Larson core at $\rho = 10^{-13}~\mathrm{g}~\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$. The evolution of $\chi$ with $\rho$ is plotted in Figure~\ref{FigChivsnh}, assuming $T=10$ K. The solid and dashed lines represent different initial densities, $\rho_0 = 3.8\times10^{-20}~\mathrm{g}~\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$ and $\rho_0 = 3.8\times10^{-18}~\mathrm{g}~\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$, respectively. At densities $n_\mathrm{H} > 10^{-16}~\mathrm{g}~\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$, the value of $\chi$ is independent from $\rho_0$ and increases as $\chi \propto \rho^{1/4}$. This evolution is expected as $\chi \sim \rho^{3/4} t$ and $t \sim \tau_\mathrm{ff} \sim \rho^{-1/2}$. At $\rho = 10^{-13}~\mathrm{g}~\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$, the coagulation variable reaches $\chi \approx 5.6 \times 10^{17}$ cgs, which corresponds to a peak of the size distribution of $\sim 10$ $\mu$m, indicating a significant grain growth. That is consistent with the results of \citet{2020A&A...643A..17G}, who use the same collapse model, but solve coagulation on the fly.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim=1cm 1cm 2cm 0cm, width=0.45\textwidth]{./chivsnh_2.pdf}
\caption{Evolution of the coagulation variable, $\chi,$ with increasing density, $n_\mathrm{H}$, during the isothermal collapse. The solid line represents an initial density of $\rho_0 = 3.8 \times 10^{-20}~\mathrm{g}~\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$ is and the dashed line represents $\rho_0 = 3.8 \times 10^{-18}~\mathrm{g}~\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$. }
\label{FigChivsnh}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Numerical collapse} \label{sec:numerical}
The numerical simulations were run as described in Section \ref{sec:methods} until 1000 years after the density reaches $10^{-13}$ g cm$^{-3}$, the formation of the first hydrostatic core at $\sim 30$~kyr (Tab.~\ref{TableSetups}). In reference simulation C-3, a small circumstellar disk with a radius of $\approx$ 20 au forms and a disk wind is launched by magneto-centrifugal acceleration \citep{1982MNRAS.199..883B}. Figure \ref{FigMapscoag} shows face-on and edge-on slices of density at the final time-step of the simulation, with arrows indicating the gas velocity.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim=6cm 2cm 5cm 2.5cm, width=0.5\textwidth]{./rhov_face_coag.pdf}
\includegraphics[trim=6cm 2cm 5cm 3.5cm, width=0.5\textwidth]{./rhov_edge_coag.pdf}
\caption{Density slices of the C-3 simulation, with grain coagulation. Top panel is a face-on slice of the plane z=0, and the bottom panel an edge-on slice of the plane y=0. White arrows represent the direction of the gas velocity. The snapshot is taken at the final time-step, 1000 years after the formation of the first Larson core.}
\label{FigMapscoag}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Grain growth}
We show in Figure \ref{FigChivsnhSimu} the value of $\chi$ as a function of the density in simulation cells at the final time-step, for runs C-3, C-4, and C-3-M5. The increase is quasi unidimensional in the isothermally collapsing envelope for $\rho < 10^{15}$ g cm$^{-3}$. Beyond this density, there is a large spread of $\chi$ values of over an order of magnitude. This spread most likely occurs in gas falling in the pseudo-disk, then the disk and the first Larson core, or the outflow, over different timescales, spending unequal times in a given density range. The overall trend agrees well with the analytical calculation.
There is no significant difference in the $\chi$ values, and thus dust size distributions, between the three runs, despite run C-4 needing 50$\%$ more time to collapse to the first Larson core stage, and C-3-M5 needing $400\%$ more time. Coagulation happening in the isothermally collapsing envelope is therefore hardly impacted by the initial conditions, as growth accelerates with increasing density.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim=2cm 1cm 2cm 0.5cm, width=0.45\textwidth]{./chivsnh-simu_2.pdf}
\caption{Evolution of the coagulation variable $\chi$ with increasing density $n_\mathrm{H}$ in the numerical collapse models C-3 (purple), C-3-M5 (light blue), and C-4 (green). Each point corresponds to a simulation cell at the final time-step. The red line is the analytical collapse solution for $\rho_0=3.8 \times 10^{-20}$ g cm$^{-3}$.}
\label{FigChivsnhSimu}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{FigAmaxvsnh} shows the mode of the size distribution as a function of density, corresponding to the distribution of $\chi$ shown in Figure \ref{FigChivsnhSimu}. Three regions are clearly demarcated, the first being the envelope, in which grain coagulation is not efficient enough to form large grains ($\rho < 10^{-16}$ g cm$^{-3}$). The second comprises the pseudo-disk and the early protoplanetary disk, where grains grow by a factor 100 from sub-micron sizes to several tens of $\mu$m. The third region is the first Larson core, which has even larger grains that reach 400 $\mu$m within a mere $10^3$~yr years after its formation. That value is in line with similar recent studies \citep{2022MNRAS.515.2072K,2023MNRAS.518.3326L}. There is little difference between runs C-3, C-4, and C-3-M5, confirming that coagulation in the envelope does not impact large grains, as found by previous studies \citep[for example][]{2022ApJ...940..188S}. We discuss observations of large grains in the envelope in Section~\ref{sec:largegrainsenvelope}.
The spatial distribution of those grain sizes for run C-3 is displayed in Figure \ref{FigMapamax}. Size distributions shifting significantly from the initial MRN distribution are indeed confined to the mid-plane in the disk and pseudo-disk. The bottom panel also shows moderately larger grains in the outflow, as they only traveled through the upper layers of the pseudo-disk before being ejected \citep{2020ApJ...900..180M}. If they had been in the mid-plane of the disk, they would have grown much more, as coagulation is irreversible in our model. The upper panel shows that grains reach a radius larger than 1 $\mu$m in the outskirts of the disk, within 100 au of the center. Growth then occurs rapidly as density increases in the inner 15 au, which is shown by the almost overlapping contours delimiting $a_\mathrm{max}=5$ $\mu$m and $a_\mathrm{max}=10$ $\mu$m.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim=2cm 1cm 2cm 1cm, width=0.45\textwidth]{./amaxvsnh-simu_2.pdf}
\caption{Mode of the coagulated grain size distribution as a function of density in simulations (purple), C-3-M5 (light blue), and C-4 (green). The discrete values of the sizes are due to the binning of the size distribution.}
\label{FigAmaxvsnh}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim=6cm 2cm 5cm 2.5cm, width=0.5\textwidth]{./amax_face.pdf}
\includegraphics[trim=6cm 2cm 5cm 3.5cm, width=0.5\textwidth]{./amax_edge.pdf}
\caption{Slices of the C-3 simulation with coagulation showing the mode of the grain size distribution $a_\mathrm{max}$, 1000 years after the first core formation. The color scale is different for each panel to yield a better contrast. Top panel: Black contours indicate $a_\mathrm{max}=1$, 5 and 10 $\mu$m. Bottom panel: $a_\mathrm{max}=0.5$ and 1 $\mu$m.}
\label{FigMapamax}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim=3cm 2cm 3cm 1.5cm, width=0.45\textwidth]{./aveneni.pdf}
\includegraphics[trim=3cm 1cm 3cm 0cm, width=0.45\textwidth]{./averesist.pdf}
\includegraphics[trim=3cm 1cm 3cm 1cm, width=0.45\textwidth]{./elsasser.pdf}
\caption{
Non-ideal MHD effects in the C-3 and NC-3 simulations. Top panel: Abundances of ions (purple) and electrons (green) as a function of density in models with coagulation (C-3; solid lines) or without it (NC-3; dashed lines). Middle panel: Volume-averaged Ohmic (purple), ambipolar (green), and Hall (blue) resistivities for the same models. Bottom panel: Average ambipolar Elsasser number $\mathrm{Am}$ in the mid-plane as a function of radius. The thin grey line represents $\mathrm{Am}=1$.}
\label{FigAveresist}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Resistivities and gas dynamics}
We describe here the impact of grain coagulation on non-ideal MHD resistivities and their macroscopic effects on gas dynamics. Previous studies emulated the coagulation of grains by removing the very small grains ($a<0.1$ $\mu$m) and redistributing their mass to the larger end of the distribution \citep{2016MNRAS.460.2050Z,2018MNRAS.473.4868Z,2020ApJ...900..180M}. This method leads to an increase in resistivities, in particular the ambipolar resistivity, resulting in weaker coupling between the magnetic field and the gas, hence weaker magnetic braking and larger, more unstable disks. However, what we observe here is the exact opposite behavior.
The middle panel of figure \ref{FigAveresist} presents the volume-weighted average resistivities as a function of density, at the final time-step, for simulations C-3 and NC-3. A non-evolving size distribution produces resistivities relatively similar in the envelope, but two to four orders of magnitude larger at disk densities, particularly the Ohmic and ambipolar resistivities.
Consequently, the magnetic braking is weakened, and the gas retains more angular momentum without the grain coagulation, forming a larger disk, as shown in Figure~\ref{FigMapsnocoag}.
This difference in regime can be quantified by the ambipolar Elsasser number $\mathrm{Am}= B^2/(\rho \eta_\mathrm{AD} \Omega)$. In regions where $\mathrm{Am}<1$, the ambipolar diffusion has a significant impact on the dynamics of the gas. The bottom panel of Figure \ref{FigAveresist} shows the radial profile of the ambipolar Elsasser number in runs C-3 and NC-3, azimuthally averaged in the mid-plane. The higher resistivity in run NC-3 results in $\mathrm{Am}<1$ in the inner $\sim 12$ au, indicating active ambipolar diffusion and magnetic field dissipation, while $\mathrm{Am} \gtrsim 10^4$ for C-3 over the same radial range, indicating weak ambipolar diffusion. Figure \ref{FigDisksize} compares the disk size and angular momentum in both simulations, further confirming the lower magnetic braking in run NC-3.
A second effect of the weaker magnetic forces from the stronger ambipolar diffusion in run NC-3 is the absence of outflow at this stage of evolution, as shown in the lower panel of Figure \ref{FigMapsnocoag}.
The discrepancy of resistivity values between actual coagulation and methods simply redistributing the mass to the large-mass-end of the distribution originates from the lack of very large grains ($>10$ $\mu$m) in the latter. In both cases, removing the small grains decreases the electron absorption by dust, and therefore decreases the Ohmic resistivity. However, the ambipolar resistivity is controlled by the relative abundance of ions and charged grains in the gas. Although the small grain removal method barely changes the abundance of ions, the dominant positive charge carriers, it reduces significantly the charged grain population, leading to an increase in resistivity at low density. At high density, both with a standard MRN and a truncated-MRN distribution, the grains become the dominant charge carriers and the abundance of ions decreases (see the dashed lines in the top panel of Figure \ref{FigAveresist}). That does not happen with coagulation because the number of grains decreases significantly, hence, leading to a higher number of ions and a lower resistivity than without proper coagulation. This kind of method without larger grain creation is therefore inappropriate for emulating coagulation alone at a low cost for non-ideal MHD calculations. At later times, at densities $\rho > 10^{-12}$ g cm$^{-3}$, \citet{2023MNRAS.518.3326L} showed that the replenishment of small grains by fragmentation would lead to an increase in both Ohmic and ambipolar resistivities.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim=6cm 2cm 5.5cm 2.5cm, width=0.5\textwidth]{./rhov_face_nocoag.pdf}
\includegraphics[trim=6cm 2cm 5.5cm 3.5cm, width=0.5\textwidth]{./rhov_edge_nocoag.pdf}
\caption{Density slices of the NC-3 simulation, without grain coagulation. Top panel is a face-on slice of the plane z=0, and the bottom panel an edge-on slice of the plane y=0. White arrows represent the direction of the gas velocity. The snapshot is taken at the final time-step, 1000 years after the formation of the first Larson core.}
\label{FigMapsnocoag}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim=3cm 1cm 3cm 0cm, width=0.45\textwidth]{./disksize.pdf}
\caption{Disk size (purple, left axis) and angular momentum (green, right axis) as a function of time after the formation of the first Larson core. Solid lines represent simulation C-3 with coagulation, and dashed lines are simulation NC-3 without coagulation.}
\label{FigDisksize}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion and caveats} \label{sec:discussion}
\subsection{Grain growth}
As explained in previous sections and displayed in Figures \ref{FigChivsnhSimu} and \ref{FigAmaxvsnh}, initial gas conditions have little to no influence on grain coagulation for later stages and coagulation is ineffective in the envelope for growing large grains. This reinforces the idea that the system forgets the initial conditions at the formation of the first hydrostatic core and the disk \citep{2017A&A...598A.116V}. Consequently, calculations such as the ones presented in this work may provide standard initial dust grain size distributions for studies of protoplanetary disk evolution. Although other coagulation kernels affect the size distribution in different ways (see Section \ref{sec:kernels}), it is certain that even young protoplanetary disks contain grains that are significantly larger than those in the classical MRN distribution.
This has important implications for the dynamics of grains in the disk. Larger grains couple differently to the gas and may trigger the streaming instability \citep{2005ApJ...620..459Y,2007ApJ...662..627J,2017A&A...606A..80Y}, which is an early step toward planet formation. Although this regime is not reached in our simulations, the fast growth of the grains in circumstellar disks could predict an early onset for this process.
\subsection{Large grains in envelopes and dust diffusion}\label{sec:largegrainsenvelope}
Although grain coagulation is negligible in the envelope of our simulations, large grain signatures in envelopes have been observed. \citet{2019A&A...632A...5G}, for example, report "low and varying dust emissivity indices" at the envelope scale for some Class 0 and Class I protostars. This could be due to the presence of mm-size grains in low numbers. The time-scale to form such large grains in the envelope and cold ISM cores is large ($> 100$ Myr), so we exclude the possibility of early coagulation. Similarly, \citet{2019MNRAS.488.4897V} reported that their synthetic polarization observations of young protostellar envelopes in RAMSES calculations require grains larger than $10$ $\mu$m in order to be consistent with observations, which is also inconsistent with our findings and those of recent studies \citep[][for the latest ones]{2022ApJ...940..188S,2023MNRAS.518.3326L}.
The aerodynamic properties of the grains may cause differential velocities between grain populations and the gas, leading to varying dust-to-gas ratio throughout the cloud \citep{2020A&A...641A.112L}. We note, however, that (as these authors have found) dust diffusion will start to play a significant role only for very large grains of a few hundred microns. Generally, large grains tend to accumulate in higher density regions. \citet{2021ApJ...920L..35T} found that this dust diffusion can lead to what they call an ash fall phenomenon, in which large coagulated grains (up to millimeter-size) from the disk are ejected by an outflow, then decouple from the gas and fall back in the envelope. This process may explain the observations of low spectral index in Class 0 envelopes, as the outflow fuels the envelope with large grains formed in the central region.
Eventually, those ejected grains circle back to the outer edge of the disk, enriching the large-end of the size distribution. In our case, the disk wind is fueled by the upper layers of the pseudo-disk, in which dust grows only moderately. However, dust-to-gas ratio enhancement in this region due to the grain differential velocities may lead to an accelerated growth.
Further studies are needed to investigate this discrepancy about the size of grains in envelopes between observations and theory.
\subsection{Coagulation in the pseudo-disk}
Grains in our simulations seem to grow faster than in \citet{2022MNRAS.514.2145B} despite their use of the same turbulent kernel as in our work. The peaks of the distributions in that work reach a few microns at a maximum density of $n_\mathrm{H}=10^{13}$ cm$^{-3}$ (see their Figure 7), while in our simulations, the peak exceeds $100$ $\mu$m at a lower maximum density of
$n_\mathrm{H} \approx 3 \times 10^{12}$ cm$^{-3}$ (or $\rho \approx 10^{-11}$ g cm$^{-3}$; see our Figure \ref{FigAmaxvsnh}). That discrepancy is mainly due to a different modeling of the Reynolds number to calculate the turbulent coagulation kernel. They assumed a constant value of $\mathrm{Re}=10^8$, while we used \citep{2009A&A...502..845O,2020A&A...643A..17G}
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Re} = 6.7\times 10^{7} \left( \frac{n_\mathrm{H}}{10^5~\mathrm{cm}^{-3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.
\end{equation}
Hence, in the central regions, our Reynolds number can be larger by three orders of magnitude. Their grains are then stuck in the tightly-coupled regime where relative grain velocities are lower than in the intermediate coupling-regime, which is more adapted to this situation (as demonstrated in Section 4.1 of paper I). The lower relative velocities result in lower coagulation rates and, therefore, a slower growth rate. The poor constraints on the value of the Reynolds number in protostellar environments therefore represents a source of uncertainty for grain growth by coagulation.
An additional explanation may involve an excess of growth in the pseudo-disk that forms in our simulations. The pseudo-disk is an over-density, typically denser than $\rho \approx 10^{-15}$ g cm$^{-3}$, created by the convergence of gas flowing along magnetic field lines \citep{GalliShu1993} that takes the shape of a disk perpendicular to the magnetic field, but is not supported against gravity. It is shown in the bottom panels of Figures \ref{FigMapscoag} and \ref{FigMapsnocoag}.
Gas in the rotationally supported disk generally comes directly from the pseudo-disk and the overall efficiency of coagulation is mainly affected by the time spent in high-density regions such as the pseudo-disk. This is what appears in the bottom panel of Figure \ref{FigMapamax}, where there is a $\sim 30$ au-thick layer of large grains in the mid-plane. A passage of grains through the pseudo-disk would therefore provide an acceleration of coagulation in the early stage of star formation, even before arrival in the disk. That does not happen in \citet{2022MNRAS.514.2145B} since they do not consider magnetic fields, resulting in less-coagulated size distributions as grains enter the disk.
\subsection{Coagulation kernel}\label{sec:kernels}
Our coagulation methods works for every coagulation kernel where the environment variables and grain variables can be separated. One example of this is the well-known turbulent kernel derived by \citet{2007A&A...466..413O} that we use in this work.
This kernel is appropriate to calculate the growth of large grains, but it has several limitations. We assume a steady-state Kolmogorov turbulence spectrum and that the injection-scale of the turbulence is equal to the Jeans length corresponding to the local density (see Section 2.2 of paper I), which may lead to an overestimation of the grain collision rate.
Other kernels may have different effects on the size distribution of grains. \citet{2020A&A...643A..17G} showed that this turbulent kernel would increase the maximum size of the distribution, while a kernel derived from ambipolar diffusion, which creates a drift between charged and neutral grains, is efficient at removing small grains. This also happens in \citet{2022MNRAS.514.2145B} and \citet{2023MNRAS.518.3326L}, where combine several processes are combined, including Brownian motion and pressure gradients that generate drift velocities between grains and rapidly remove the smaller grains. These processes are not, however, efficient at producing larger grains without the help of the turbulent kernel. Contrary to fragmentation, the addition of those kernels would steepen the distribution at its lower end.
\section{Conclusions} \label{sec:conclusions}
We present here the results of numerical simulations of protostellar collapse with dust coagulation and self-consistent calculation of non-ideal MHD resistivities, using the methods detailed in \citet{2021A&A...649A..50M}. We performed four simulations, including three with coagulation and different collapse times and one without coagulation for reference. Here, are our main results.
\begin{itemize}
\item[-] Coagulated size distributions retain some characteristics of the initial MRN distribution, in particular, the dominance of small grains in number and large grains in mass.
\item[-] Dust coagulation is inefficient at growing larger grains in the envelope, even with long free-fall times. What matters is the time spent in high-density regions ($\rho > 10^{-15}$ g cm$^{-3}$) such as the pseudo-disk. Fragmentation can also be ignored in the cloud-collapse phase.
\item[-] Grain growth is extremely rapid in the disk. The peak of the size distribution in mass, which is also the largest relevant grain size of the distribution, reaches 1~$\mu$m in the pseudo-disk and more than 100~$\mu$m in the inner disk only $10^3$~yr after its formation.
\item[-] Grain sizes have a significant impact on non-ideal MHD resistivities. Coagulated grains result in resistivities up to four orders of magnitude lower than non-coagulated grains, with a significant impact on the dynamics of the disk. Simple redistribution approximations fail to capture this effect, as it occurs because of the growth of the largest grains.
\end{itemize}
Accounting for grain coagulation is therefore necessary in star formation and protoplanetary disk simulations, as grains grow rapidly to $\geq 100 \,\mu$m in radius in disks. The effects of grain growth on chemistry and radiative transfer will be explored in future papers.
\begin{acknowledgements}
P.M. acknowledges the financial support of the Kathryn W. Davis Postdoctoral Fellowship of the American Museum of Natural History and of the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (ERC Starting Grant “Chemtrip”, grant agreement No 949278). M.-M.M.L. was partly supported by US NSF grant AST18-15461.
U.L. acknowledges the financial support of the European Research Council (ERC) via the ERC Synergy Grant ECOGAL (grant 855130).
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{Introduction}
The conventional classifications on the phases of matter are rooted in the Landau paradigm of symmetry breaking theory \cite{McGreevy:2022oyu}. Over the past thirty years, new states of matter have been found which are beyond the concept of Landau paradigm. One example is the topological states of matter, including the quantum Hall states, topological insulators, topological semimetals and so on \cite{wen}.
Different from the conventional Landau paradigm, there is no symmetry breaking during the topological phase transition and it attracts lots of research attention.
In recent years, the strongly interacting topological Weyl semimetals (WSM) \cite{Landsteiner:2015lsa, Landsteiner:2015pdh} and nodal line semimetals (NLSM) \cite{Liu:2018bye, Liu:2020ymx} have been explicitly constructed from the holographic duality. Both holographic WSM and NLSM are shown to possess nontrivial topological invariants \cite{Liu:2018djq}. Remarkably, holographic WSM exhibits interesting effects inherited from the boundary states \cite{Ammon:2016mwa}. These features suggest that the physical properties associated to topology from the weakly coupled field theories
persist in the strongly coupled topological systems from the holography. Moreover, the systems could go through a topological phase transition to a topologically trivial semimetal phase, see \cite{Landsteiner:2019kxb} for a review on the developments.\footnote{Other interesting developments can be found in e.g. \cite{Landsteiner:2016stv, Copetti:2016ewq, Grignani:2016wyz, Ammon:2018wzb, Baggioli:2018afg, Liu:2018spp, Ji:2019pxx, Song:2019asj, Juricic:2020sgg, Baggioli:2020cld, Kiczek:2020qsw, BitaghsirFadafan:2020lkh, Zhao:2021pih, Grandi:2021bsp, Rodgers:2021azg, Ji:2021aan, Zhao:2021qfo, Grandi:2021jkj}. } In the holographic WSM, during the topological phase transition the anomalous Hall conductivity could be served as an order parameter, while in the holographic NLSM it is not clear about the order parameters. Whether possible universal ``order parameter" exist for the topological phase transitions? What is the topological nature in the topological phase from holography? These are elusive problems we aim to explore from the holographic duality.
In holography, the thermal states are dual to black hole geometries in the bulk. The black hole interior is expected to encode important information of the dual field theory \cite{Fidkowski:2003nf, Festuccia:2005pi, Grinberg:2020fdj}. In the case that the thermal states are described by the black holes with simple Kasner singularities, it has been shown recently in \cite{Liu:2021hap} that the order of
the thermal phase transition in the dual field theory is connected to the behavior of the Kasner exponents of the black hole singularity.\footnote{Other studies on the geometric aspects of black hole singularities can be found in e.g. \cite{Frenkel:2020ysx, Hartnoll:2020rwq, Hartnoll:2020fhc, Liu:2022rsy,
Cai:2020wrp, Wang:2020nkd, An:2021plu, Grandi:2021ajl, Mansoori:2021wxf, Dias:2021afz, Sword:2021pfm, Cai:2021obq, Henneaux:2022ijt, Caceres:2022smh, Bhattacharya:2021nqj, An:2022lvo,
Auzzi:2022bfd, Mirjalali:2022wrg, Hartnoll:2022snh, Caceres:2022hei, Hartnoll:2022rdv, Sword:2022oyg}. } For the topological phase transitions in holographic topological semimetals at finite temperature, the systems experience a smooth crossover from a topological phase, a critical phase to a trivial phase. Although the phase crossover is different from thermal phase transitions, it is still interesting to
explore
the interior geometries in holographic topological semimetals, in order to uncover possible universal behavior during the topological phase transitions.
It turns out that there exist both universal and special behaviors of the singularities in holographic topological semimetals. The universal behavior is similar to the topological nature of topological phase and might give hints to the problems we raised for the topological semimetals, while the special features can be understood from the fact that the holographic WSM and the holographic NLSM share similarities and also differences in the constructions as emphasized in \cite{Liu:2018bye, Liu:2018djq}. More precisely, in both cases, two matters fields are added which play same role from the point of view of the boundary field theory, while they play different roles in the bulk geometry. In the boundary field theory, one of the two matter fields is to deform the Dirac point into two Weyl nodes or a nodal line, while the other matter field is to gap the system. In the bulk, in the topological phase of holographic WSM the IR geometry of Schwarzschild black hole is not deformed by the matter fields, while the backreaction of the matter fields on the gravitational geometry is quite strong in IR in the topological phase of holographic NLSM. We will see that these two different situations lead to different properties of the black hole singularities in the topological phases.
It is known that the information of the interior geometry can be probed from the geodesics which correspond to certain correlators in the dual field theory. For example, the proper time from the horizon to the singularity can be extracted from the thermal one point function of certain heavy operator \cite{Grinberg:2020fdj}. We will compute this quantity in the bulk and study its behavior in the topological phases and trivial phases.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \ref{sec2}, we will first review the holographic WSM and then study its interior geometry as well as the proper time of the timelike geodesics. In Sec. \ref{sec3}, we will review the holographic NLSM and then also study its interior geometry and the proper time of the timelike geodesics. Sec. \ref{sec4} is devoted to the conclusions and open questions. The details of calculations are in the appendices.
\section{Inside holographic Weyl semimetal}
\label{sec2}
In this section we first briefly review the holographic WSM which describes a topological phase transition from topological WSM phase to a trivial semimetal phase. Then we study the interior geometry of the black hole solutions and discuss the possible universal behavior of the black hole singularities as well as the interior geometry. We also comment on the possible observable as the role of ``order parameter" during the topological phase transition.
The action of the holographic WSM \cite{Landsteiner:2015lsa, Landsteiner:2015pdh} is
\begin{align}
\label{eq:actionwsm}
\begin{split}
S=& \int d^5x \sqrt{-g}\, \bigg[ \frac{1}{2\kappa^2}\big(R+\frac{12}{L^2}\big) -\frac{1}{4}\mathcal{F}^2 -\frac{1}{4}F^2 +\frac{\alpha}{3} \epsilon^{abcde} A_{a} \big( F_{bc}F_{de} +3 \mathcal{F}_{bc} \mathcal{F}_{de} \big) \\
&~~~~~- (D_{a}\Phi)^*(D^{a}\Phi)-V(\Phi) \bigg]\,,
\end{split}
\end{align}
where two gauge fields are dual to vector and axial currents respectively. A special Chern-Simons structure is introduced to match the Wald identity for these currents. An axially charged scalar field $\Phi$ is also introduced in the model with the source interpreted as the mass term. Note that $D_a\Phi=\partial_a\Phi - iq A_a\Phi$ where $A_a$ is the axial $U(1)$ gauge potential, and $V(\Phi)=m^2|\Phi|^2+\frac{\lambda}{2}|\Phi|^4$. We set $2\kappa^2=L=1$.
We focus on the finite temperature and use the following ansatz
\begin{align}
\label{eq:ansatz}
\begin{split}
ds^2 &= -udt^2+\frac{dr^2}{u}+ f(dx^2+dy^2)+hdz^2\,,\\
A &= A_z dz\,, \quad \Phi=\phi\,.
\end{split}
\end{align}
The equations of motion for the fields can be found in the appendix \ref{app:hwsm}.
In the following we consider $m^2=-3, q=1, \lambda=1/10.$ Generalization to the other values of the parameters is straightforward.
We use the following boundary conditions for the matter fields
\begin{equation}
\lim_{r\to\infty} A_z=b\,,~~~\lim_{r\to\infty} r\phi=M\,,
\end{equation}
where $b$ is the time reversal symmetry breaking parameter which play the role of splitting a Dirac point into two Weyl points, and $M$ is the mass parameter which gaps the Dirac point. The competing between these two effects leads to interesting topological phase transitions. The system is completely determined by the dimensionless parameters $T/b, M/b$.
In the weakly coupled WSM, the quantum topological phase transition could be manifest from both the band structure and equivalently the behavior of the anomalous Hall conductivity. In the strongly coupled model from holography, the anomalous Hall conductivity behaves similarly to the weakly coupled case, indicating that there is a topological phase transition, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:ahe}. The lines in red, blue and purple are for $T/b=0.05, 0.02, 0.01$ respectively. The transition becomes sharp at zero temperature and the dashed gray line is the critical value of the transition at zero temperature.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.57\textwidth]{fig-ahe.pdf}
~~
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\caption{\small
Plot of anomalous Hall conductivity as a function of $M/b$
at the temperatures $T/b=0.05$ (red), $0.02$ (blue), $0.01$ (purple). The gray dashed line is the critical value of $M/b$ of the quantum phase transition at zero temperature.}
\label{fig:ahe}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Inner structures}
The phase transitions could be parameterized by the anomalous Hall conductivity which is completely determined by the horizon value of the axial gauge field $A_z$. Given the possible connection between the physics inside and outside the horizon, it is interesting to study the black hole inner structures during the topological phase transitions.
From the black hole solutions we have obtained, we could integrate the system further to the singularity since the geometry is smooth at the horizon. We find that at low temperature, the matter field $\phi$ oscillates inside the horizon only in the topological phase (i.e. $M/b<0.744$). The typical behavior
is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:phiosc}, where the oscillation regime of the scalar field $\phi$ (which has been rescaled according to $\phi/\phi_h$) as a function of $r/r_h$ at fixed $T/b$ (left) or $M/b$ (right) are plotted respectively. We find that when we fix the temperature $T/b$, the times of oscilation become less when we increase $M/b$ from $0$ to $(M/b)_c$. Furthermore, when we fix $M/b< (M/b)_c$, the lower temperature, the more times that $\phi$ oscillates. Note that the other fields do not show any oscillation from the horizon to the singularity.
Different from the holographic superconductor cases, the oscillation here is not related to the collapse of Einstein-Rosen bridge \cite{Hartnoll:2020fhc}, since there is no inner horizon any more for holographic WSM. Similar oscillation behavior has been found previously in neutral helical black holes \cite{Liu:2022rsy}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{fig-phi-in-002.pdf}
~~
\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{fig-phi-in-fixM.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\caption{\small The plots of $\phi/\phi_h$ along radial direction in the oscillation region at fixed $T/b=0.02$ (left) while $M/b = 0.1$ (purple), $0.4$ (blue), $0.6$ (orange), $0.74$ (red), as well as at fixed $M/b=0.1$ (right) while $T/b=0.05$ (red), $0.02$ (blue), $0.01$ (purple). Here $\phi_h$ is the horizon value of $\phi$.
}
\label{fig:phiosc}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Behaviors of Kasner exponents}
\label{subsec:wsmkas}
The interior solution can be further integrated to the singularity. Near the singularity $r_s$, we assume that at the leading order the fields behave as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:asns}
u\sim -u_0 (r-r_s)^{n_u}\,,~~~ f\sim f_0 (r-r_s)^{n_f}\,,~~~ h\sim h_0 (r-r_s)^{n_h}\,,~~~ \phi\sim n_{\phi} \ln (r-r_s)\,,
\end{align}
where $u_0, f_0, h_0$ and $n_u, n_f, n_h, n_\phi$ are all constants. Here $u_0, f_0, h_0$ depend on the scaling symmetry in \eqref{eq:scasym1},\eqref{eq:scasym2},\eqref{eq:scasym3} while $n_u, n_f, n_h, n_\phi$ are not. Also note that here $r_s$ is not necessarily to be zero since there is a shift symmetry of the system $r\to r+\alpha$ along the radial direction which was used to set the boundary behavior \eqref{eq:nbwsm}. Moreover, as we shall see later, the axial gauge field $A_z$ is determined by the ansatz \eqref{eq:asns}.
Near the singularity the equations of motion (\ref{eq:eom}) can be simplified under the assumption that the ignored terms are subleading which will be numerically checked afterward,
\begin{align}\label{eq:eomns}
\begin{split}
u''+\frac{h'}{2h}u'-\left( f''+ \frac{f'h'}{2h} \right)\frac{u}{f}&=0\,,\\
\frac{f''}{f}+\frac{u''}{2u}-\frac{f'^2}{4f^2} + \frac{f'u'}{fu}+\frac{1}{2} \phi'^2 &=0\,,\\
\frac{1}{2}\phi'^2 - \frac{u'}{2u}\left( \frac{f'}{f} + \frac{h'}{2h} \right) - \frac{f'h'}{2fh} - \frac{f'^2}{4f^2}&=0\,,\\
A_z''+\left( \frac{f'}{f} - \frac{h'}{2h}+ \frac{u'}{u} \right)A_z'&=0\,,\\
\phi'' + \left( \frac{f'}{f}+\frac{h'}{2h}+ \frac{u'}{u} \right)\phi'&=0\,.
\end{split}
\end{align}
Substituting \eqref{eq:asns} into \eqref{eq:eomns}, we obtain
\begin{align}
\label{eq:relations}
n_h=2\,(1-n_u-n_f)\,, ~~~~~
n_{\phi}=\pm \sqrt{(2n_f+n_u)(1-n_u)- \frac{3n_f^2}{2}} \,.
\end{align}
We can also solve the fourth equation in \eqref{eq:eomns} to obtain at leading order $A_z$
\begin{align}
\label{eq:nhazwsm}
A_z \simeq A_{zs0} + A_{zs1} (r-r_s)^{n_h} \,.
\end{align
Note that the leading term $A_{zs0}$ can be rescaled to be $1$, while $A_{zs1}$ could be determined from the radial conserved quantities as will be discussed later.
Thus there are only two independent parameters in \eqref{eq:asns} and \eqref{eq:nhazwsm}.
Note that in the above equations \eqref{eq:eomns}, we have assumed that the terms ignored are
subleading. More explicitly, we have assumed
\begin{align}
\label{eq:paregime}
n_u<2\,,~~~n_f+n_u<1\,, ~~~
2 n_f + n_u>0\,
\end{align}
Numerically we have checked that all the above relations are satisfied for the parameters we have considered, which indicates that the singularities are stable and of form \eqref{eq:asns} and \eqref{eq:nhazwsm}.
There are two radical conserved charge associated to the scaling symmetries of the system,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:cc1}
Q_1&=&\sqrt{h}(u'f-uf')\,,\\
\label{eq:cc2}
Q_2&=& u'\sqrt{h}f- \frac{h'}{\sqrt{h}}uf -A_z A_z' \frac{uf}{\sqrt{h}}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
We have used them to check the accuracy of the numerics. Moreover,
evaluate them at the horizon and at the singularity we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:cc1s}
4\pi T f_1 \sqrt{h_1} =Ts &=& u_0 f_0 \sqrt{h_0} (n_f-n_u)\\
&=& \frac{u_0f_0}{\sqrt{h_0}} \left( n_h A_{zs0}A_{zs1} - h_0 (2n_f+3n_u-2) \,\right)
\end{eqnarray}
where $s$ is the density of entropy.
From \eqref{eq:cc1s}, we have $n_f>n_u$ in addition to the constraints \eqref{eq:paregime}.
Moreover, the above two conserved quantities give the relations $n_h A_{zs0}A_{zs1}=h_0(3n_f+2n_u-2)$ which turns out to be zero in the topological phase at low temperature where $A_{zs1}=3n_f+2n_u-2=0$.
Starting from (\ref{eq:ansatz}, \ref{eq:asns}) and performing the coordinate transformation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:coortr}
\tau=-\frac{2}{\sqrt{n_0}(n_u-2)}(r-r_s)^{(2-n_u)/2}\,,\end{equation}
we obtain the Kasner form for the fields
\begin{align}
\label{eq:kasnerform}
\begin{split}
ds^2 &= -d\tau^2 + c_t \tau^{2p_t} dt^2 + c_x \tau^{2p_x} (dx^2+dy^2) + c_z \tau^{2p_z} dz^2\,,\\
\phi &= p_{\phi}\log\tau + c_{\phi}\,,
\end{split}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
p_t &= \frac{n_u}{2-n_u}\,,~~~~ p_x = \frac{n_f}{2-n_u}\,,~~~~
p_z = \frac{n_h}{2-n_u}\,, ~~~~p_{\phi} =\frac{2 n_{\phi}}{2-n_u} \,.
\end{split}
\end{align}
Note that $A_z$ is a constant at the leading order.
Using the relations \eqref{eq:relations}, the above Kasner exponents can be expressed in terms of $n_u$ and $n_f$,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:ptnurel}
\begin{split}
&p_t = \frac{n_u}{2-n_u}\,,~~p_x = \frac{n_f}{2-n_u}\,,~~
p_z =\frac{2(1-n_u-n_f)}{2-n_u}\,, ~~
p_{\phi} = \pm \frac{\sqrt{4(2n_f+n_u)(1-n_u)-6n_f^2}}{2-n_u}\,.
\end{split}
\end{align}
Note that the sign of $p_\phi$ in \eqref{eq:ptnurel} can only be determined from numerics.
They satisfy the following Kasner relations
\begin{align}
\label{eq:kasrel}
p_t+2p_x+p_z=1\,,~~~~~
p_t^2 + 2p_x^2+ p_z^2 +p_{\phi}^2=1\,.
\end{align}
It indicates that only two of the four Kasner exponents are independent.
In Fig. \ref{fig:wsmkas}, we show the Kasner exponents as a function of $M/b$ at different temperatures $T/b=0.05$ (red), $0.02$ (blue), $0.01$ (purple). We find that at low temperature, the Kasner exponents in the Weyl semimetal phase take the same value of the Schwarzschild black hole (e.g. within the difference of order less than $10^{-9}$ between $M/b=0.5$ and $M/b=0$ at $T/b=0.01$). This reminds us the topological feature in terms of the black hole singularity. It is related to the fact that the matter fields do not backreact relevantly to the Schwarzschild solution in the topological phase, i.e. the probe limit of system in terms of matter fields in the Schwarzschild black hole background works well. We have also checked that inside the black holes, in the topological phase the matter fields obtained from the backreacted case match well with the solutions obtained from the probe limit.
In the quantum critical regime, the Kasner exponents oscillate. While in the trivial phase, the Kasner exponent does not have any oscillate behavior.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.444\textwidth]{fig-pt.pdf}~~
\includegraphics[width=0.444\textwidth]{fig-pp.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.444\textwidth]{fig-px.pdf}~~
\includegraphics[width=0.444\textwidth]{fig-pz.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\caption{\small Plots of Kasner exponents as a function of $M/b$. For all cases we have $T/b=0.05$ (red), $0.02$ (blue), $0.01$ (purple). The dashed gray vertical lines are the Kasner exponents of five dimension Schwarzschild black hole.}
\label{fig:wsmkas}
\end{figure}
Note that in \cite{Liu:2018bye}, a paradigm for constructing the topological phase was proposed and the holographic Weyl semimetal belongs to the first type, where the matter fields are irrelevant in the IR of the Schwarzschild black hole. It seems likely that in any topological phase of this kind, the singularities are of Kasner form taking values of Schwarzschild black hole.
\subsection{Proper time of timelike geodesics}
One of interesting connection between the interior geometry and the boundary observable is given in \cite{Grinberg:2020fdj} that the proper time of radial timelike geodesic can be encoded in the thermal one point functions of heavy operators. It is thus interesting to study the proper time of radial timelike geodesics to see if it has specific behavior during the topological phase transitions.
We consider radial timelike geodesic for which $g_{tt} {\dot t}^2+ g_{rr} {\dot r}^2 = -1$, where the dot denotes the derivative with respect to the proper time $\tau$.
Along the geodesic there is a conserved charge $E = - g_{tt} \dot t$ which can be interpreted as energy.
Then the equation of motion of the geodesic becomes
\begin{align}
\frac{E^2}{g_{tt}}+ g_{rr} {\dot r}^2 = -1\,,
\end{align}
from which we obtain
\begin{align}
\frac{d\tau}{dr} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{E^2-u}}\,.
\end{align}
The proper time from the horizon to the singularity of a particle with $E=0$ (i.e. the longest time) is
\begin{align}
\tau_s= \int_{r_s}^{r_h} \frac{dr}{\sqrt{-u}} \,.
\end{align}
The plots of $\tau_s$ as a function of $M/b$ for different $T/b$ are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:taus}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{fig-taus.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\caption{\small Plots of the proper time $\tau_s$ from the horizon to the singularity as a function of $M/b$ at different temperatures $T/b=0.05$ (red), $0.02$ (blue), $0.01$ (purple).}
\label{fig:taus}
\end{figure}
The proper time from the horizon to the singularity in the topological phase is equal to the case of Schwarzschild black hole $\tau_s= \pi/4$ (e.g. within the difference of order less than $10^{-4}$ between $M/b=0.5$ and $M/b=0$ at $T/b=0.01$). This is expected from the fact that in the topological phase at low temperature the interior of the black holes match well with the Schwarzschild black hole. In the topologically trivial phase $\tau_s$ is monotonically decreasing. Moreover, $\tau_s$ shows a jump behavior and takes a maximum value in the critical regime.
Note that $\tau_s$ is encoded in the thermal one point function of heavy operators in the form of $\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle\propto e^{-im\tau_s} $ where the complexified mass $m$ has $\text{Im}(m)<0$ \cite{Grinberg:2020fdj}. One might use this thermal one point function as the ``order" parameter for the topological phase transition.
The behavior of the proper time also reminds us the behavior of the dimensionless information screening length in \cite{Baggioli:2018afg}. One obvious difference is that the information screening length is determined by the quantities at the horizon, while $\tau_s$ is determined by the geometry from the horizon to the singularity.
\section{Inside holographic nodal line semimetal}
\label{sec3}
In the previous section, we have seen that the interior of the black hole geometries for the holographic WSM exhibit interesting behavior. In the topological WSM phase, the Kasner exponents of the dual geometries take the same value of the Schwarzschild black hole at low temperature, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:wsmkas}. Moreover, the dual operator which encodes the proper time from the horizon to the singularity could be served as an ``order parameter" during the topological phase transition, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:taus}. To check if these behaviors are universal for any topological phase transitions, in this section we study the other topological phase transition model from holography, i.e. the holographic NLSM model which describes a phase transition from the topological NLSM phase to a trivial semimetal phase \cite{Liu:2018bye, Liu:2020ymx}.
The action for the holographic NLSM \cite{Liu:2020ymx} is
\begin{align}
\label{eq:actionnlsm}
\begin{split}
S&= \int d^5x \,\sqrt{-g}\, \bigg[ \frac{1}{2\kappa^2}\big(R+\frac{12}{L^2}\big) -\frac{1}{4}\mathcal{F}^2 -\frac{1}{4}F^2 +\frac{\alpha}{3} \epsilon^{abcde} A_{a} \big( F_{bc}F_{de} +3 \mathcal{F}_{bc} \mathcal{F}_{de} \big) \\
&- (D_{a}\Phi)^*(D^{a}\Phi)-V_1(\Phi) - \frac{1}{6\eta} \epsilon^{abcde} \big( i B_{ab} H^*_{cde} - i B^*_{ab} H_{cde} \big) -V_2(B_{ab}) - \lambda |\Phi|^2 B^*_{ab}B^{ab} \bigg]\,,
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $\mathcal{F}_{ab} = \partial_a V_b- \partial_b V_a$ is the vector gauge field strength. $F_{ab} = \partial_a A_b - \partial_b A_a$ is the axial gauge field strength.
$D_a = \nabla_a - i q_1 A_a$ is the covariant derivative and $q_1$ is the axial charge of scalar field. $\alpha$ is the Chern-Simons coupling. $B_{ab}$ is an antisymmetric complex two form field with the field strength
\begin{align}
H_{abc} = \partial_a B_{bc} + \partial_b B_{ca} + \partial_c B_{ab} - i q_2 A_a B_{bc} - i q_2 A_b B_{ca} - i q_2 A_c B_{ab}\,,
\end{align}
where $q_2$ is the axial charge of the two form field. $\eta$ is the Chern-Simons coupling strength of the two form field. The introduction of the Chern-Simons terms while not canonical kinetic term for the two form field follows from the self-duality condition of the two form operator in the weakly coupled theory \cite{Liu:2020ymx}.
The potential terms are chosen as
\begin{align}
V_1 = m_1^2 |\Phi|^2 + \frac{\lambda_1}{2} |\Phi|^4\,,\qquad V_2 = m_2^2 B_{ab}^* B^{ab}\,,
\end{align}
where $m^2_1$ and $m_2^2$ are the mass parameters of the scalar field and the two form field. The $\lambda$ term in the action \eqref{eq:actionnlsm} denotes the interaction between the scalar field and the two form field. We set $2\kappa^2=L=1$.
Similar to the holographic WSM, we focus on the finite temperature solution and take the ansatz
\begin{align}
\label{eq:nlansatz}
\begin{split}
ds^2 &= -udt^2+\frac{dr^2}{u}+ f(dx^2+dy^2)+hdz^2\,,\\
\Phi&=\phi\,,\\
B_{xy}&=-B_{yx}=\mathcal{B}_{xy}\,,\\
B_{tz}&=-B_{zt}=i \mathcal{B}_{tz}\,.
\end{split}
\end{align}
Plugging the above ansatz into the equations of motion, we could obtain the dynamical equations of the fields, which can be found in the appendix \ref{app:nlsm}. In the following we choose $m_1^2=-3, m_2^2=1, \eta=2$ and $q_1=q_2=1, \lambda=1, \lambda_1=0.1$ for simplicity.
With the following boundary conditions,
\begin{equation}
\lim_{r\to\infty}r\phi=M\,,~~~
\lim_{r\to\infty}
\frac{\mathcal{B}_{xy}}{r}=\lim_{r\to\infty}
\frac{\mathcal{B}_{tz}}{r}=b\,,
\end{equation}
we can integrate the system from the boundary to the horizon. Different from the holographic WSM, in holographic NLSM there is no sharp ``order parameter" like anomalous Hall conductivity. Nevertheless, it was found in \cite{Liu:2020ymx} that at zero temperature, the dual fermionic spectral function shows multiple Fermi surfaces with the topology of nodal lines when $M/b<(M/b)_c$ while it is gapped when $M/b>(M/b)_c$. This indicates that the system undergoes a topological phase transitions from topological NLSM to topologically trivial semimetal phase.
With the regularity condition near the horizon, the system can be further integrated to the singularity. In the following we will discuss the interior geometries and singularities of the system.
\subsection{Kasner exponents}
Close to the singularity $r\to r_s$, similar to the holographic WSM case we again take the ansatz
\begin{align}
\label{eq:asns2}
u\sim -u_0 (r-r_s)^{n_u}\,,~~~ f\sim f_0 (r-r_s)^{n_f}\,,~~~ h\sim h_0 (r-r_s)^{n_h}\,,~~~ \phi\sim n_{\phi} \ln (r-r_s)\,,
\end{align}
where $u_0, f_0, h_0$ and $n_u, n_f, n_h, n_\phi$ are all constants. The other two matter fields $\mathcal{B}_{tz}$ and $\mathcal{B}_{xy}$ will be determined by the above ansatz.
The equations of motion can be simplified close to the singularity under the assumption that the ignored terms are subleading
\begin{align}
\label{eq:nhnlsm}
\begin{split}
\frac{u''}{u} - \frac{f''}{f} + \frac{h'}{2h} \left( \frac{u'}{u} - \frac{f'}{f} \right)&=0\,,\\
\frac{u''}{2u}+\frac{f''}{f}-\frac{f'^2}{4f^2} + \frac{f'u'}{fu}+\frac{1}{2} \phi'^2 &=0\,,\\
\frac{f'^2}{4f^2} +\frac{f'h'}{2fh} + \frac{u'}{2u}\left( \frac{f'}{f} + \frac{h'}{2h} \right)-\frac{1}{2}\phi'^2 &=0\,,\\
\phi'' + \big( \frac{f'}{f}+\frac{h'}{2h}+ \frac{u'}{u} \big)\phi'&=0\,,\\
\mathcal{B}_{tz}'- \frac{\eta \sqrt{h}}{2f}( \lambda \phi^2) \mathcal{B}_{xy} &=0\,,\\
\mathcal{B}_{xy}'- \frac{\eta f}{2\sqrt{h} u}( \lambda \phi^2) \mathcal{B}_{tz} &=0\,.
\end{split}
\end{align}
The first four equations in \eqref{eq:nhnlsm} are the same as the ones in holographic WSM. Similarly, we obtain
\begin{align}
n_h=2\,(1-n_u-n_f)\,, ~~~~~
n_{\phi}=\pm \sqrt{(2n_f+n_u)(1-n_u)- \frac{3n_f^2}{2}} \,.
\end{align}
From the last two equations in \eqref{eq:nhnlsm} we have the following leading order solutions for the two form fields near the singularity
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:2formnh}
\mathcal{B}_{xy}\sim \mathcal{B}_{xy0}+\dots\,,~~~~
\mathcal{B}_{tz}\sim \mathcal{B}_{tz0}+\dots\,,~~~~
\end{equation}
where the dots are subleading terms of form $(r-r_s)^{2-n_u-2 n_f}(\log (r-r_s))^2$ and $(r-r_s)^{2n_f} (\log (r-r_s))^2$ respectively. Here we have assumed $2-n_u-2n_f>0$ and $n_f>0$, otherwise the leading solution of the two form field might be divergent. Similar to the holographic WSM, these constants of the two form field depend on the scaling symmetry of the system.
Note that in \eqref{eq:nhnlsm} we have assumed that the ignored terms are subleading. More explicitly, we have assumed
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:hnls-paregime}
n_u<2\,,~~~2n_u+n_h<2\,, ~~~
n_u+2n_f<2\,.
\end{equation}
Note that the last two inequalities of above are consistent with the assumptions used in obtaining \eqref{eq:2formnh}.
We have checked numerically that the inequalities \eqref{eq:hnls-paregime} are satisfied for the parameters we have considered.
Similar to the discussion in section \ref{subsec:wsmkas}, we can make
a coordinate transformation \eqref{eq:coortr} to write the metric \eqref{eq:asns2} into the Kasner form as \eqref{eq:kasnerform} with the parameters \eqref{eq:ptnurel} and the Kasner relations \eqref{eq:kasrel}. Here the leading order of the two form fields are constant close to the singularity.
The two conserved charges of the scaling symmetries are
\begin{eqnarray}
Q_1&=& \frac{8}{\eta} \mathcal{B}_{tz} \mathcal{B}_{xy} + \frac{u}{\sqrt{h}} (f'h-fh')\,,\\
Q_2&=& \frac{f}{\sqrt{h}} (u'h-uh')\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Evaluate them at the horizon and at the singularity we obtain
\begin{equation}
\frac{8}{\eta}\mathcal{B}_{xy0}\mathcal{B}_{tz0}=u_0f_0\sqrt{h_0}(n_f-n_h)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{align}
4\pi T f_1 \sqrt{h_1} =Ts= u_0 f_0 \sqrt{h_0} (2-2 n_f-3 n_u)
\end{align}
where $s$ is the density of entropy. We have checked the above relations numerically.
In Fig. \ref{fig:nlsmkas}, we show the Kasner exponents for the holographic NLSM as functions of $M/b$ at different temperature $T/b=0.05$ (red), $0.02$ (blue), $0.01$ (purple). We find that at low temperature, the Kasner exponents $p_t, p_x, p_z$ of the metric fields in the NLSM semimetal phase are almost constant in the topological phase (e.g. within the difference of order less than $1\%$
between $M/b=0.5$ and $M/b=0$ at $T/b=0.01$), which is quite similar to the holographic WSM, while $p_\phi$ changes a lot in the topological phase. Note that this is consistent with the Kasner relations \eqref{eq:kasrel} since $p_\phi$ is small. It is expected that at extremely low temperature, the properties of the Kasner exponents in the holographic NLSM might be the same as those in the holographic WSM, i.e. all the Kasner exponents are constant. Due to numerical difficulty we have not explored such a low temperature regime.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.444\textwidth]{hnls-pt.pdf}~~
\includegraphics[width=0.444\textwidth]{hnls-pp.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.444\textwidth]{hnls-px.pdf}~~
\includegraphics[width=0.444\textwidth]{hnls-pz.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\caption{\small Plots of Kasner exponents for holographic NLSM as a function of $M/b$. For all cases we have $T/b=0.05$ (red), $0.02$ (blue), $0.01$ (purple). The horizontal dashed gray lines represent the Kasner exponents for $M/b=0$ at $T/b=0.01$. The vertical dashed gray lines represent the quantum critical point at zero temperature.}
\label{fig:nlsmkas}
\end{figure}
Different from the holographic WSM where the geometry is the same as Schwarzschild black hole with a constant nonzero $A_z$ when $M/b=0$. Here when $M/b=0$, in the holographic NLSM, due to the fact that the matter fields backreact to the IR geometry and the Kasner exponents are no longer the constant exponents of Schwarzschild black hole and instead they depend on $T/b$, as shown in the first three pictures in Fig. \ref{fig:topNLSMkas}. Nevertheless, at low enough temperature we see that the Kasner exponents are nearly constant.
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.244\textwidth]{fig-hnlsm-pt-0.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.244\textwidth]{fig-hnlsm-px-0.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.244\textwidth]{fig-hnlsm-pz-0.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.244\textwidth]{fig-hnlsm-tau-0.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.4cm}
\caption{\small Plots of Kasner exponents and $\tau_s$ for holographic NLSM as a function of $T/b$ when $M/b=0$. }
\label{fig:topNLSMkas}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Proper time of timelike geodesics}
Similar to the holographic WSM, we can also discuss the proper time from the horizon to the singularity in holographic NLSM. In Fig. \ref{fig:nlsmtaus}, we show the proper time $\tau_s$ as a function of $M/b$ at different temperatures. Again we see that at low temperature, the proper time is almost a constant in the topological phase (e.g. within the difference of order less than $5\text{\textperthousand}$
between $M/b=0.5$ and $M/b=0$ at $T/b=0.01$), which shows a topological behavior under the changes of the systems. Similar to the holographic WSM, we could take the operator which encodes the information of $\tau_s$ as the order parameter for the topological phase transition in holographic NLSM. In the trivial phase, the proper time $\tau_s$ is monotonically decreasing when we increase $M/b$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{hnls-taus.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.4cm}
\caption{\small Plots of the proper time $\tau_s$ from the horizon to the singularity as a function of $M/b$ at different temperatures $T/b=0.05$ (red), $0.02$ (blue), $0.01$ (purple).}
\label{fig:nlsmtaus}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion and discussion}
\label{sec4}
We have studied the interior geometries of black holes in two different holographic topological semimetals. We find that the singularities of the geometries are of simple Kasner form, together with a constant one form gauge potential or constant two form fields. In the topological WSM phase, all the Kasner exponents are constant taking values of Schwarzschild black hole at low temperature. In the topological NLSM phase, the Kasner exponents of the metric fields are also almost constant (the difference is of order less than $1\%$ at $T/b=0.01$), while the Kasner exponent of the scalar field is small and changes a bit in the topological phase. Moreover, we find the proper times from the horizon to the singularity are nearly constant in both holographic WSM and holographic NLSM. These features seem to be of topological in the sense that they stay as constant during the changes of physical parameters of the systems. The proper time in the trivial phases of the two holographic semimetal decreases when we increase $M/b$.
In addition to the above universal behavior, specific behaviors inside the horizon are also found. In the topological phase of holographic WSM, we find the oscillations of the matter field $\phi$ inside the horizon at low temperature. In other phases we have not found any oscillations of fields. The Kasner exponents oscillate in the critical regime of holographic WSM. There is no oscillation of background fields in holographic NLSM. In the trivial phases of the two holographic semimetals, the Kasner exponents behave differently, where the details can be found in Fig. \ref{fig:wsmkas} and Fig. \ref{fig:nlsmkas}.
It would be interesting to connect the topological features of Kasner exponents and the proper times in the topological phases of the two holographic semimetals to the topological invariants. It is known that they can be extracted from the correlators of heavy operators. It is very interesting to determine the precise observables associated to these quantities to understand the role played by topology. This would shed light on the universal theories describing the topological semimetals. Meanwhile, it is also interesting to check the behavior of these physical quantities in the topological phases of other holographic topological semimetals, e.g. \cite{Juricic:2020sgg, Ji:2021aan}, to check if they are universal feature of topological semimetals.
\vspace{.8cm}
\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
We are grateful to Matteo Baggioli, Karl Landsteiner, Ya-Wen Sun, Xin-Meng Wu, Jun-Kun Zhao for useful discussions. This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China grant No.11875083.
\vspace{.6 cm}
\section{Introduction}
The conventional classifications on the phases of matter are rooted in the Landau paradigm of symmetry breaking theory \cite{McGreevy:2022oyu}. Over the past thirty years, new states of matter have been found which are beyond the concept of Landau paradigm. One example is the topological states of matter, including the quantum Hall states, topological insulators, topological semimetals and so on \cite{wen}.
Different from the conventional Landau paradigm, there is no symmetry breaking during the topological phase transition and it attracts lots of research attention.
In recent years, the strongly interacting topological Weyl semimetals (WSM) \cite{Landsteiner:2015lsa, Landsteiner:2015pdh} and nodal line semimetals (NLSM) \cite{Liu:2018bye, Liu:2020ymx} have been explicitly constructed from the holographic duality. Both holographic WSM and NLSM are shown to possess nontrivial topological invariants \cite{Liu:2018djq}. Remarkably, holographic WSM exhibits interesting effects inherited from the boundary states \cite{Ammon:2016mwa}. These features suggest that the physical properties associated to topology from the weakly coupled field theories
persist in the strongly coupled topological systems from the holography. Moreover, the systems could go through a topological phase transition to a topologically trivial semimetal phase, see \cite{Landsteiner:2019kxb} for a review on the developments.\footnote{Other interesting developments can be found in e.g. \cite{Landsteiner:2016stv, Copetti:2016ewq, Grignani:2016wyz, Ammon:2018wzb, Baggioli:2018afg, Liu:2018spp, Ji:2019pxx, Song:2019asj, Juricic:2020sgg, Baggioli:2020cld, Kiczek:2020qsw, BitaghsirFadafan:2020lkh, Zhao:2021pih, Grandi:2021bsp, Rodgers:2021azg, Ji:2021aan, Zhao:2021qfo, Grandi:2021jkj}. } In the holographic WSM, during the topological phase transition the anomalous Hall conductivity could be served as an order parameter, while in the holographic NLSM it is not clear about the order parameters. Whether possible universal ``order parameter" exist for the topological phase transitions? What is the topological nature in the topological phase from holography? These are elusive problems we aim to explore from the holographic duality.
In holography, the thermal states are dual to black hole geometries in the bulk. The black hole interior is expected to encode important information of the dual field theory \cite{Fidkowski:2003nf, Festuccia:2005pi, Grinberg:2020fdj}. In the case that the thermal states are described by the black holes with simple Kasner singularities, it has been shown recently in \cite{Liu:2021hap} that the order of
the thermal phase transition in the dual field theory is connected to the behavior of the Kasner exponents of the black hole singularity.\footnote{Other studies on the geometric aspects of black hole singularities can be found in e.g. \cite{Frenkel:2020ysx, Hartnoll:2020rwq, Hartnoll:2020fhc, Liu:2022rsy,
Cai:2020wrp, Wang:2020nkd, An:2021plu, Grandi:2021ajl, Mansoori:2021wxf, Dias:2021afz, Sword:2021pfm, Cai:2021obq, Henneaux:2022ijt, Caceres:2022smh, Bhattacharya:2021nqj, An:2022lvo,
Auzzi:2022bfd, Mirjalali:2022wrg, Hartnoll:2022snh, Caceres:2022hei, Hartnoll:2022rdv, Sword:2022oyg}. } For the topological phase transitions in holographic topological semimetals at finite temperature, the systems experience a smooth crossover from a topological phase, a critical phase to a trivial phase. Although the phase crossover is different from thermal phase transitions, it is still interesting to
explore
the interior geometries in holographic topological semimetals, in order to uncover possible universal behavior during the topological phase transitions.
It turns out that there exist both universal and special behaviors of the singularities in holographic topological semimetals. The universal behavior is similar to the topological nature of topological phase and might give hints to the problems we raised for the topological semimetals, while the special features can be understood from the fact that the holographic WSM and the holographic NLSM share similarities and also differences in the constructions as emphasized in \cite{Liu:2018bye, Liu:2018djq}. More precisely, in both cases, two matters fields are added which play same role from the point of view of the boundary field theory, while they play different roles in the bulk geometry. In the boundary field theory, one of the two matter fields is to deform the Dirac point into two Weyl nodes or a nodal line, while the other matter field is to gap the system. In the bulk, in the topological phase of holographic WSM the IR geometry of Schwarzschild black hole is not deformed by the matter fields, while the backreaction of the matter fields on the gravitational geometry is quite strong in IR in the topological phase of holographic NLSM. We will see that these two different situations lead to different properties of the black hole singularities in the topological phases.
It is known that the information of the interior geometry can be probed from the geodesics which correspond to certain correlators in the dual field theory. For example, the proper time from the horizon to the singularity can be extracted from the thermal one point function of certain heavy operator \cite{Grinberg:2020fdj}. We will compute this quantity in the bulk and study its behavior in the topological phases and trivial phases.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \ref{sec2}, we will first review the holographic WSM and then study its interior geometry as well as the proper time of the timelike geodesics. In Sec. \ref{sec3}, we will review the holographic NLSM and then also study its interior geometry and the proper time of the timelike geodesics. Sec. \ref{sec4} is devoted to the conclusions and open questions. The details of calculations are in the appendices.
\section{Inside holographic Weyl semimetal}
\label{sec2}
In this section we first briefly review the holographic WSM which describes a topological phase transition from topological WSM phase to a trivial semimetal phase. Then we study the interior geometry of the black hole solutions and discuss the possible universal behavior of the black hole singularities as well as the interior geometry. We also comment on the possible observable as the role of ``order parameter" during the topological phase transition.
The action of the holographic WSM \cite{Landsteiner:2015lsa, Landsteiner:2015pdh} is
\begin{align}
\label{eq:actionwsm}
\begin{split}
S=& \int d^5x \sqrt{-g}\, \bigg[ \frac{1}{2\kappa^2}\big(R+\frac{12}{L^2}\big) -\frac{1}{4}\mathcal{F}^2 -\frac{1}{4}F^2 +\frac{\alpha}{3} \epsilon^{abcde} A_{a} \big( F_{bc}F_{de} +3 \mathcal{F}_{bc} \mathcal{F}_{de} \big) \\
&~~~~~- (D_{a}\Phi)^*(D^{a}\Phi)-V(\Phi) \bigg]\,,
\end{split}
\end{align}
where two gauge fields are dual to vector and axial currents respectively. A special Chern-Simons structure is introduced to match the Wald identity for these currents. An axially charged scalar field $\Phi$ is also introduced in the model with the source interpreted as the mass term. Note that $D_a\Phi=\partial_a\Phi - iq A_a\Phi$ where $A_a$ is the axial $U(1)$ gauge potential, and $V(\Phi)=m^2|\Phi|^2+\frac{\lambda}{2}|\Phi|^4$. We set $2\kappa^2=L=1$.
We focus on the finite temperature and use the following ansatz
\begin{align}
\label{eq:ansatz}
\begin{split}
ds^2 &= -udt^2+\frac{dr^2}{u}+ f(dx^2+dy^2)+hdz^2\,,\\
A &= A_z dz\,, \quad \Phi=\phi\,.
\end{split}
\end{align}
The equations of motion for the fields can be found in the appendix \ref{app:hwsm}.
In the following we consider $m^2=-3, q=1, \lambda=1/10.$ Generalization to the other values of the parameters is straightforward.
We use the following boundary conditions for the matter fields
\begin{equation}
\lim_{r\to\infty} A_z=b\,,~~~\lim_{r\to\infty} r\phi=M\,,
\end{equation}
where $b$ is the time reversal symmetry breaking parameter which play the role of splitting a Dirac point into two Weyl points, and $M$ is the mass parameter which gaps the Dirac point. The competing between these two effects leads to interesting topological phase transitions. The system is completely determined by the dimensionless parameters $T/b, M/b$.
In the weakly coupled WSM, the quantum topological phase transition could be manifest from both the band structure and equivalently the behavior of the anomalous Hall conductivity. In the strongly coupled model from holography, the anomalous Hall conductivity behaves similarly to the weakly coupled case, indicating that there is a topological phase transition, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:ahe}. The lines in red, blue and purple are for $T/b=0.05, 0.02, 0.01$ respectively. The transition becomes sharp at zero temperature and the dashed gray line is the critical value of the transition at zero temperature.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.57\textwidth]{fig-ahe.pdf}
~~
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\caption{\small
Plot of anomalous Hall conductivity as a function of $M/b$
at the temperatures $T/b=0.05$ (red), $0.02$ (blue), $0.01$ (purple). The gray dashed line is the critical value of $M/b$ of the quantum phase transition at zero temperature.}
\label{fig:ahe}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Inner structures}
The phase transitions could be parameterized by the anomalous Hall conductivity which is completely determined by the horizon value of the axial gauge field $A_z$. Given the possible connection between the physics inside and outside the horizon, it is interesting to study the black hole inner structures during the topological phase transitions.
From the black hole solutions we have obtained, we could integrate the system further to the singularity since the geometry is smooth at the horizon. We find that at low temperature, the matter field $\phi$ oscillates inside the horizon only in the topological phase (i.e. $M/b<0.744$). The typical behavior
is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:phiosc}, where the oscillation regime of the scalar field $\phi$ (which has been rescaled according to $\phi/\phi_h$) as a function of $r/r_h$ at fixed $T/b$ (left) or $M/b$ (right) are plotted respectively. We find that when we fix the temperature $T/b$, the times of oscilation become less when we increase $M/b$ from $0$ to $(M/b)_c$. Furthermore, when we fix $M/b< (M/b)_c$, the lower temperature, the more times that $\phi$ oscillates. Note that the other fields do not show any oscillation from the horizon to the singularity.
Different from the holographic superconductor cases, the oscillation here is not related to the collapse of Einstein-Rosen bridge \cite{Hartnoll:2020fhc}, since there is no inner horizon any more for holographic WSM. Similar oscillation behavior has been found previously in neutral helical black holes \cite{Liu:2022rsy}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{fig-phi-in-002.pdf}
~~
\includegraphics[width=0.46\textwidth]{fig-phi-in-fixM.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\caption{\small The plots of $\phi/\phi_h$ along radial direction in the oscillation region at fixed $T/b=0.02$ (left) while $M/b = 0.1$ (purple), $0.4$ (blue), $0.6$ (orange), $0.74$ (red), as well as at fixed $M/b=0.1$ (right) while $T/b=0.05$ (red), $0.02$ (blue), $0.01$ (purple). Here $\phi_h$ is the horizon value of $\phi$.
}
\label{fig:phiosc}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Behaviors of Kasner exponents}
\label{subsec:wsmkas}
The interior solution can be further integrated to the singularity. Near the singularity $r_s$, we assume that at the leading order the fields behave as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:asns}
u\sim -u_0 (r-r_s)^{n_u}\,,~~~ f\sim f_0 (r-r_s)^{n_f}\,,~~~ h\sim h_0 (r-r_s)^{n_h}\,,~~~ \phi\sim n_{\phi} \ln (r-r_s)\,,
\end{align}
where $u_0, f_0, h_0$ and $n_u, n_f, n_h, n_\phi$ are all constants. Here $u_0, f_0, h_0$ depend on the scaling symmetry in \eqref{eq:scasym1},\eqref{eq:scasym2},\eqref{eq:scasym3} while $n_u, n_f, n_h, n_\phi$ are not. Also note that here $r_s$ is not necessarily to be zero since there is a shift symmetry of the system $r\to r+\alpha$ along the radial direction which was used to set the boundary behavior \eqref{eq:nbwsm}. Moreover, as we shall see later, the axial gauge field $A_z$ is determined by the ansatz \eqref{eq:asns}.
Near the singularity the equations of motion (\ref{eq:eom}) can be simplified under the assumption that the ignored terms are subleading which will be numerically checked afterward,
\begin{align}\label{eq:eomns}
\begin{split}
u''+\frac{h'}{2h}u'-\left( f''+ \frac{f'h'}{2h} \right)\frac{u}{f}&=0\,,\\
\frac{f''}{f}+\frac{u''}{2u}-\frac{f'^2}{4f^2} + \frac{f'u'}{fu}+\frac{1}{2} \phi'^2 &=0\,,\\
\frac{1}{2}\phi'^2 - \frac{u'}{2u}\left( \frac{f'}{f} + \frac{h'}{2h} \right) - \frac{f'h'}{2fh} - \frac{f'^2}{4f^2}&=0\,,\\
A_z''+\left( \frac{f'}{f} - \frac{h'}{2h}+ \frac{u'}{u} \right)A_z'&=0\,,\\
\phi'' + \left( \frac{f'}{f}+\frac{h'}{2h}+ \frac{u'}{u} \right)\phi'&=0\,.
\end{split}
\end{align}
Substituting \eqref{eq:asns} into \eqref{eq:eomns}, we obtain
\begin{align}
\label{eq:relations}
n_h=2\,(1-n_u-n_f)\,, ~~~~~
n_{\phi}=\pm \sqrt{(2n_f+n_u)(1-n_u)- \frac{3n_f^2}{2}} \,.
\end{align}
We can also solve the fourth equation in \eqref{eq:eomns} to obtain at leading order $A_z$
\begin{align}
\label{eq:nhazwsm}
A_z \simeq A_{zs0} + A_{zs1} (r-r_s)^{n_h} \,.
\end{align
Note that the leading term $A_{zs0}$ can be rescaled to be $1$, while $A_{zs1}$ could be determined from the radial conserved quantities as will be discussed later.
Thus there are only two independent parameters in \eqref{eq:asns} and \eqref{eq:nhazwsm}.
Note that in the above equations \eqref{eq:eomns}, we have assumed that the terms ignored are
subleading. More explicitly, we have assumed
\begin{align}
\label{eq:paregime}
n_u<2\,,~~~n_f+n_u<1\,, ~~~
2 n_f + n_u>0\,
\end{align}
Numerically we have checked that all the above relations are satisfied for the parameters we have considered, which indicates that the singularities are stable and of form \eqref{eq:asns} and \eqref{eq:nhazwsm}.
There are two radical conserved charge associated to the scaling symmetries of the system,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:cc1}
Q_1&=&\sqrt{h}(u'f-uf')\,,\\
\label{eq:cc2}
Q_2&=& u'\sqrt{h}f- \frac{h'}{\sqrt{h}}uf -A_z A_z' \frac{uf}{\sqrt{h}}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
We have used them to check the accuracy of the numerics. Moreover,
evaluate them at the horizon and at the singularity we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:cc1s}
4\pi T f_1 \sqrt{h_1} =Ts &=& u_0 f_0 \sqrt{h_0} (n_f-n_u)\\
&=& \frac{u_0f_0}{\sqrt{h_0}} \left( n_h A_{zs0}A_{zs1} - h_0 (2n_f+3n_u-2) \,\right)
\end{eqnarray}
where $s$ is the density of entropy.
From \eqref{eq:cc1s}, we have $n_f>n_u$ in addition to the constraints \eqref{eq:paregime}.
Moreover, the above two conserved quantities give the relations $n_h A_{zs0}A_{zs1}=h_0(3n_f+2n_u-2)$ which turns out to be zero in the topological phase at low temperature where $A_{zs1}=3n_f+2n_u-2=0$.
Starting from (\ref{eq:ansatz}, \ref{eq:asns}) and performing the coordinate transformation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:coortr}
\tau=-\frac{2}{\sqrt{n_0}(n_u-2)}(r-r_s)^{(2-n_u)/2}\,,\end{equation}
we obtain the Kasner form for the fields
\begin{align}
\label{eq:kasnerform}
\begin{split}
ds^2 &= -d\tau^2 + c_t \tau^{2p_t} dt^2 + c_x \tau^{2p_x} (dx^2+dy^2) + c_z \tau^{2p_z} dz^2\,,\\
\phi &= p_{\phi}\log\tau + c_{\phi}\,,
\end{split}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
p_t &= \frac{n_u}{2-n_u}\,,~~~~ p_x = \frac{n_f}{2-n_u}\,,~~~~
p_z = \frac{n_h}{2-n_u}\,, ~~~~p_{\phi} =\frac{2 n_{\phi}}{2-n_u} \,.
\end{split}
\end{align}
Note that $A_z$ is a constant at the leading order.
Using the relations \eqref{eq:relations}, the above Kasner exponents can be expressed in terms of $n_u$ and $n_f$,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:ptnurel}
\begin{split}
&p_t = \frac{n_u}{2-n_u}\,,~~p_x = \frac{n_f}{2-n_u}\,,~~
p_z =\frac{2(1-n_u-n_f)}{2-n_u}\,, ~~
p_{\phi} = \pm \frac{\sqrt{4(2n_f+n_u)(1-n_u)-6n_f^2}}{2-n_u}\,.
\end{split}
\end{align}
Note that the sign of $p_\phi$ in \eqref{eq:ptnurel} can only be determined from numerics.
They satisfy the following Kasner relations
\begin{align}
\label{eq:kasrel}
p_t+2p_x+p_z=1\,,~~~~~
p_t^2 + 2p_x^2+ p_z^2 +p_{\phi}^2=1\,.
\end{align}
It indicates that only two of the four Kasner exponents are independent.
In Fig. \ref{fig:wsmkas}, we show the Kasner exponents as a function of $M/b$ at different temperatures $T/b=0.05$ (red), $0.02$ (blue), $0.01$ (purple). We find that at low temperature, the Kasner exponents in the Weyl semimetal phase take the same value of the Schwarzschild black hole (e.g. within the difference of order less than $10^{-9}$ between $M/b=0.5$ and $M/b=0$ at $T/b=0.01$). This reminds us the topological feature in terms of the black hole singularity. It is related to the fact that the matter fields do not backreact relevantly to the Schwarzschild solution in the topological phase, i.e. the probe limit of system in terms of matter fields in the Schwarzschild black hole background works well. We have also checked that inside the black holes, in the topological phase the matter fields obtained from the backreacted case match well with the solutions obtained from the probe limit.
In the quantum critical regime, the Kasner exponents oscillate. While in the trivial phase, the Kasner exponent does not have any oscillate behavior.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.444\textwidth]{fig-pt.pdf}~~
\includegraphics[width=0.444\textwidth]{fig-pp.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.444\textwidth]{fig-px.pdf}~~
\includegraphics[width=0.444\textwidth]{fig-pz.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\caption{\small Plots of Kasner exponents as a function of $M/b$. For all cases we have $T/b=0.05$ (red), $0.02$ (blue), $0.01$ (purple). The dashed gray vertical lines are the Kasner exponents of five dimension Schwarzschild black hole.}
\label{fig:wsmkas}
\end{figure}
Note that in \cite{Liu:2018bye}, a paradigm for constructing the topological phase was proposed and the holographic Weyl semimetal belongs to the first type, where the matter fields are irrelevant in the IR of the Schwarzschild black hole. It seems likely that in any topological phase of this kind, the singularities are of Kasner form taking values of Schwarzschild black hole.
\subsection{Proper time of timelike geodesics}
One of interesting connection between the interior geometry and the boundary observable is given in \cite{Grinberg:2020fdj} that the proper time of radial timelike geodesic can be encoded in the thermal one point functions of heavy operators. It is thus interesting to study the proper time of radial timelike geodesics to see if it has specific behavior during the topological phase transitions.
We consider radial timelike geodesic for which $g_{tt} {\dot t}^2+ g_{rr} {\dot r}^2 = -1$, where the dot denotes the derivative with respect to the proper time $\tau$.
Along the geodesic there is a conserved charge $E = - g_{tt} \dot t$ which can be interpreted as energy.
Then the equation of motion of the geodesic becomes
\begin{align}
\frac{E^2}{g_{tt}}+ g_{rr} {\dot r}^2 = -1\,,
\end{align}
from which we obtain
\begin{align}
\frac{d\tau}{dr} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{E^2-u}}\,.
\end{align}
The proper time from the horizon to the singularity of a particle with $E=0$ (i.e. the longest time) is
\begin{align}
\tau_s= \int_{r_s}^{r_h} \frac{dr}{\sqrt{-u}} \,.
\end{align}
The plots of $\tau_s$ as a function of $M/b$ for different $T/b$ are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:taus}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{fig-taus.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\caption{\small Plots of the proper time $\tau_s$ from the horizon to the singularity as a function of $M/b$ at different temperatures $T/b=0.05$ (red), $0.02$ (blue), $0.01$ (purple).}
\label{fig:taus}
\end{figure}
The proper time from the horizon to the singularity in the topological phase is equal to the case of Schwarzschild black hole $\tau_s= \pi/4$ (e.g. within the difference of order less than $10^{-4}$ between $M/b=0.5$ and $M/b=0$ at $T/b=0.01$). This is expected from the fact that in the topological phase at low temperature the interior of the black holes match well with the Schwarzschild black hole. In the topologically trivial phase $\tau_s$ is monotonically decreasing. Moreover, $\tau_s$ shows a jump behavior and takes a maximum value in the critical regime.
Note that $\tau_s$ is encoded in the thermal one point function of heavy operators in the form of $\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle\propto e^{-im\tau_s} $ where the complexified mass $m$ has $\text{Im}(m)<0$ \cite{Grinberg:2020fdj}. One might use this thermal one point function as the ``order" parameter for the topological phase transition.
The behavior of the proper time also reminds us the behavior of the dimensionless information screening length in \cite{Baggioli:2018afg}. One obvious difference is that the information screening length is determined by the quantities at the horizon, while $\tau_s$ is determined by the geometry from the horizon to the singularity.
\section{Inside holographic nodal line semimetal}
\label{sec3}
In the previous section, we have seen that the interior of the black hole geometries for the holographic WSM exhibit interesting behavior. In the topological WSM phase, the Kasner exponents of the dual geometries take the same value of the Schwarzschild black hole at low temperature, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:wsmkas}. Moreover, the dual operator which encodes the proper time from the horizon to the singularity could be served as an ``order parameter" during the topological phase transition, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:taus}. To check if these behaviors are universal for any topological phase transitions, in this section we study the other topological phase transition model from holography, i.e. the holographic NLSM model which describes a phase transition from the topological NLSM phase to a trivial semimetal phase \cite{Liu:2018bye, Liu:2020ymx}.
The action for the holographic NLSM \cite{Liu:2020ymx} is
\begin{align}
\label{eq:actionnlsm}
\begin{split}
S&= \int d^5x \,\sqrt{-g}\, \bigg[ \frac{1}{2\kappa^2}\big(R+\frac{12}{L^2}\big) -\frac{1}{4}\mathcal{F}^2 -\frac{1}{4}F^2 +\frac{\alpha}{3} \epsilon^{abcde} A_{a} \big( F_{bc}F_{de} +3 \mathcal{F}_{bc} \mathcal{F}_{de} \big) \\
&- (D_{a}\Phi)^*(D^{a}\Phi)-V_1(\Phi) - \frac{1}{6\eta} \epsilon^{abcde} \big( i B_{ab} H^*_{cde} - i B^*_{ab} H_{cde} \big) -V_2(B_{ab}) - \lambda |\Phi|^2 B^*_{ab}B^{ab} \bigg]\,,
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $\mathcal{F}_{ab} = \partial_a V_b- \partial_b V_a$ is the vector gauge field strength. $F_{ab} = \partial_a A_b - \partial_b A_a$ is the axial gauge field strength.
$D_a = \nabla_a - i q_1 A_a$ is the covariant derivative and $q_1$ is the axial charge of scalar field. $\alpha$ is the Chern-Simons coupling. $B_{ab}$ is an antisymmetric complex two form field with the field strength
\begin{align}
H_{abc} = \partial_a B_{bc} + \partial_b B_{ca} + \partial_c B_{ab} - i q_2 A_a B_{bc} - i q_2 A_b B_{ca} - i q_2 A_c B_{ab}\,,
\end{align}
where $q_2$ is the axial charge of the two form field. $\eta$ is the Chern-Simons coupling strength of the two form field. The introduction of the Chern-Simons terms while not canonical kinetic term for the two form field follows from the self-duality condition of the two form operator in the weakly coupled theory \cite{Liu:2020ymx}.
The potential terms are chosen as
\begin{align}
V_1 = m_1^2 |\Phi|^2 + \frac{\lambda_1}{2} |\Phi|^4\,,\qquad V_2 = m_2^2 B_{ab}^* B^{ab}\,,
\end{align}
where $m^2_1$ and $m_2^2$ are the mass parameters of the scalar field and the two form field. The $\lambda$ term in the action \eqref{eq:actionnlsm} denotes the interaction between the scalar field and the two form field. We set $2\kappa^2=L=1$.
Similar to the holographic WSM, we focus on the finite temperature solution and take the ansatz
\begin{align}
\label{eq:nlansatz}
\begin{split}
ds^2 &= -udt^2+\frac{dr^2}{u}+ f(dx^2+dy^2)+hdz^2\,,\\
\Phi&=\phi\,,\\
B_{xy}&=-B_{yx}=\mathcal{B}_{xy}\,,\\
B_{tz}&=-B_{zt}=i \mathcal{B}_{tz}\,.
\end{split}
\end{align}
Plugging the above ansatz into the equations of motion, we could obtain the dynamical equations of the fields, which can be found in the appendix \ref{app:nlsm}. In the following we choose $m_1^2=-3, m_2^2=1, \eta=2$ and $q_1=q_2=1, \lambda=1, \lambda_1=0.1$ for simplicity.
With the following boundary conditions,
\begin{equation}
\lim_{r\to\infty}r\phi=M\,,~~~
\lim_{r\to\infty}
\frac{\mathcal{B}_{xy}}{r}=\lim_{r\to\infty}
\frac{\mathcal{B}_{tz}}{r}=b\,,
\end{equation}
we can integrate the system from the boundary to the horizon. Different from the holographic WSM, in holographic NLSM there is no sharp ``order parameter" like anomalous Hall conductivity. Nevertheless, it was found in \cite{Liu:2020ymx} that at zero temperature, the dual fermionic spectral function shows multiple Fermi surfaces with the topology of nodal lines when $M/b<(M/b)_c$ while it is gapped when $M/b>(M/b)_c$. This indicates that the system undergoes a topological phase transitions from topological NLSM to topologically trivial semimetal phase.
With the regularity condition near the horizon, the system can be further integrated to the singularity. In the following we will discuss the interior geometries and singularities of the system.
\subsection{Kasner exponents}
Close to the singularity $r\to r_s$, similar to the holographic WSM case we again take the ansatz
\begin{align}
\label{eq:asns2}
u\sim -u_0 (r-r_s)^{n_u}\,,~~~ f\sim f_0 (r-r_s)^{n_f}\,,~~~ h\sim h_0 (r-r_s)^{n_h}\,,~~~ \phi\sim n_{\phi} \ln (r-r_s)\,,
\end{align}
where $u_0, f_0, h_0$ and $n_u, n_f, n_h, n_\phi$ are all constants. The other two matter fields $\mathcal{B}_{tz}$ and $\mathcal{B}_{xy}$ will be determined by the above ansatz.
The equations of motion can be simplified close to the singularity under the assumption that the ignored terms are subleading
\begin{align}
\label{eq:nhnlsm}
\begin{split}
\frac{u''}{u} - \frac{f''}{f} + \frac{h'}{2h} \left( \frac{u'}{u} - \frac{f'}{f} \right)&=0\,,\\
\frac{u''}{2u}+\frac{f''}{f}-\frac{f'^2}{4f^2} + \frac{f'u'}{fu}+\frac{1}{2} \phi'^2 &=0\,,\\
\frac{f'^2}{4f^2} +\frac{f'h'}{2fh} + \frac{u'}{2u}\left( \frac{f'}{f} + \frac{h'}{2h} \right)-\frac{1}{2}\phi'^2 &=0\,,\\
\phi'' + \big( \frac{f'}{f}+\frac{h'}{2h}+ \frac{u'}{u} \big)\phi'&=0\,,\\
\mathcal{B}_{tz}'- \frac{\eta \sqrt{h}}{2f}( \lambda \phi^2) \mathcal{B}_{xy} &=0\,,\\
\mathcal{B}_{xy}'- \frac{\eta f}{2\sqrt{h} u}( \lambda \phi^2) \mathcal{B}_{tz} &=0\,.
\end{split}
\end{align}
The first four equations in \eqref{eq:nhnlsm} are the same as the ones in holographic WSM. Similarly, we obtain
\begin{align}
n_h=2\,(1-n_u-n_f)\,, ~~~~~
n_{\phi}=\pm \sqrt{(2n_f+n_u)(1-n_u)- \frac{3n_f^2}{2}} \,.
\end{align}
From the last two equations in \eqref{eq:nhnlsm} we have the following leading order solutions for the two form fields near the singularity
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:2formnh}
\mathcal{B}_{xy}\sim \mathcal{B}_{xy0}+\dots\,,~~~~
\mathcal{B}_{tz}\sim \mathcal{B}_{tz0}+\dots\,,~~~~
\end{equation}
where the dots are subleading terms of form $(r-r_s)^{2-n_u-2 n_f}(\log (r-r_s))^2$ and $(r-r_s)^{2n_f} (\log (r-r_s))^2$ respectively. Here we have assumed $2-n_u-2n_f>0$ and $n_f>0$, otherwise the leading solution of the two form field might be divergent. Similar to the holographic WSM, these constants of the two form field depend on the scaling symmetry of the system.
Note that in \eqref{eq:nhnlsm} we have assumed that the ignored terms are subleading. More explicitly, we have assumed
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:hnls-paregime}
n_u<2\,,~~~2n_u+n_h<2\,, ~~~
n_u+2n_f<2\,.
\end{equation}
Note that the last two inequalities of above are consistent with the assumptions used in obtaining \eqref{eq:2formnh}.
We have checked numerically that the inequalities \eqref{eq:hnls-paregime} are satisfied for the parameters we have considered.
Similar to the discussion in section \ref{subsec:wsmkas}, we can make
a coordinate transformation \eqref{eq:coortr} to write the metric \eqref{eq:asns2} into the Kasner form as \eqref{eq:kasnerform} with the parameters \eqref{eq:ptnurel} and the Kasner relations \eqref{eq:kasrel}. Here the leading order of the two form fields are constant close to the singularity.
The two conserved charges of the scaling symmetries are
\begin{eqnarray}
Q_1&=& \frac{8}{\eta} \mathcal{B}_{tz} \mathcal{B}_{xy} + \frac{u}{\sqrt{h}} (f'h-fh')\,,\\
Q_2&=& \frac{f}{\sqrt{h}} (u'h-uh')\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Evaluate them at the horizon and at the singularity we obtain
\begin{equation}
\frac{8}{\eta}\mathcal{B}_{xy0}\mathcal{B}_{tz0}=u_0f_0\sqrt{h_0}(n_f-n_h)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{align}
4\pi T f_1 \sqrt{h_1} =Ts= u_0 f_0 \sqrt{h_0} (2-2 n_f-3 n_u)
\end{align}
where $s$ is the density of entropy. We have checked the above relations numerically.
In Fig. \ref{fig:nlsmkas}, we show the Kasner exponents for the holographic NLSM as functions of $M/b$ at different temperature $T/b=0.05$ (red), $0.02$ (blue), $0.01$ (purple). We find that at low temperature, the Kasner exponents $p_t, p_x, p_z$ of the metric fields in the NLSM semimetal phase are almost constant in the topological phase (e.g. within the difference of order less than $1\%$
between $M/b=0.5$ and $M/b=0$ at $T/b=0.01$), which is quite similar to the holographic WSM, while $p_\phi$ changes a lot in the topological phase. Note that this is consistent with the Kasner relations \eqref{eq:kasrel} since $p_\phi$ is small. It is expected that at extremely low temperature, the properties of the Kasner exponents in the holographic NLSM might be the same as those in the holographic WSM, i.e. all the Kasner exponents are constant. Due to numerical difficulty we have not explored such a low temperature regime.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.444\textwidth]{hnls-pt.pdf}~~
\includegraphics[width=0.444\textwidth]{hnls-pp.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.444\textwidth]{hnls-px.pdf}~~
\includegraphics[width=0.444\textwidth]{hnls-pz.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\caption{\small Plots of Kasner exponents for holographic NLSM as a function of $M/b$. For all cases we have $T/b=0.05$ (red), $0.02$ (blue), $0.01$ (purple). The horizontal dashed gray lines represent the Kasner exponents for $M/b=0$ at $T/b=0.01$. The vertical dashed gray lines represent the quantum critical point at zero temperature.}
\label{fig:nlsmkas}
\end{figure}
Different from the holographic WSM where the geometry is the same as Schwarzschild black hole with a constant nonzero $A_z$ when $M/b=0$. Here when $M/b=0$, in the holographic NLSM, due to the fact that the matter fields backreact to the IR geometry and the Kasner exponents are no longer the constant exponents of Schwarzschild black hole and instead they depend on $T/b$, as shown in the first three pictures in Fig. \ref{fig:topNLSMkas}. Nevertheless, at low enough temperature we see that the Kasner exponents are nearly constant.
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.244\textwidth]{fig-hnlsm-pt-0.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.244\textwidth]{fig-hnlsm-px-0.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.244\textwidth]{fig-hnlsm-pz-0.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.244\textwidth]{fig-hnlsm-tau-0.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.4cm}
\caption{\small Plots of Kasner exponents and $\tau_s$ for holographic NLSM as a function of $T/b$ when $M/b=0$. }
\label{fig:topNLSMkas}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Proper time of timelike geodesics}
Similar to the holographic WSM, we can also discuss the proper time from the horizon to the singularity in holographic NLSM. In Fig. \ref{fig:nlsmtaus}, we show the proper time $\tau_s$ as a function of $M/b$ at different temperatures. Again we see that at low temperature, the proper time is almost a constant in the topological phase (e.g. within the difference of order less than $5\text{\textperthousand}$
between $M/b=0.5$ and $M/b=0$ at $T/b=0.01$), which shows a topological behavior under the changes of the systems. Similar to the holographic WSM, we could take the operator which encodes the information of $\tau_s$ as the order parameter for the topological phase transition in holographic NLSM. In the trivial phase, the proper time $\tau_s$ is monotonically decreasing when we increase $M/b$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{hnls-taus.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.4cm}
\caption{\small Plots of the proper time $\tau_s$ from the horizon to the singularity as a function of $M/b$ at different temperatures $T/b=0.05$ (red), $0.02$ (blue), $0.01$ (purple).}
\label{fig:nlsmtaus}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion and discussion}
\label{sec4}
We have studied the interior geometries of black holes in two different holographic topological semimetals. We find that the singularities of the geometries are of simple Kasner form, together with a constant one form gauge potential or constant two form fields. In the topological WSM phase, all the Kasner exponents are constant taking values of Schwarzschild black hole at low temperature. In the topological NLSM phase, the Kasner exponents of the metric fields are also almost constant (the difference is of order less than $1\%$ at $T/b=0.01$), while the Kasner exponent of the scalar field is small and changes a bit in the topological phase. Moreover, we find the proper times from the horizon to the singularity are nearly constant in both holographic WSM and holographic NLSM. These features seem to be of topological in the sense that they stay as constant during the changes of physical parameters of the systems. The proper time in the trivial phases of the two holographic semimetal decreases when we increase $M/b$.
In addition to the above universal behavior, specific behaviors inside the horizon are also found. In the topological phase of holographic WSM, we find the oscillations of the matter field $\phi$ inside the horizon at low temperature. In other phases we have not found any oscillations of fields. The Kasner exponents oscillate in the critical regime of holographic WSM. There is no oscillation of background fields in holographic NLSM. In the trivial phases of the two holographic semimetals, the Kasner exponents behave differently, where the details can be found in Fig. \ref{fig:wsmkas} and Fig. \ref{fig:nlsmkas}.
It would be interesting to connect the topological features of Kasner exponents and the proper times in the topological phases of the two holographic semimetals to the topological invariants. It is known that they can be extracted from the correlators of heavy operators. It is very interesting to determine the precise observables associated to these quantities to understand the role played by topology. This would shed light on the universal theories describing the topological semimetals. Meanwhile, it is also interesting to check the behavior of these physical quantities in the topological phases of other holographic topological semimetals, e.g. \cite{Juricic:2020sgg, Ji:2021aan}, to check if they are universal feature of topological semimetals.
\vspace{.8cm}
\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
We are grateful to Matteo Baggioli, Karl Landsteiner, Ya-Wen Sun, Xin-Meng Wu, Jun-Kun Zhao for useful discussions. This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China grant No.11875083.
\vspace{.6 cm}
|
\section{Introduction}
This paper is a continuation of our previous work \cite{kontsevich2021precalabiyau}. There, we described a type of algebraic structure that we called a \emph{pre-Calabi-Yau} structure on an $A_\infty$-algebra/category $A$; this is a generalization of both proper and smooth Calabi-Yau structures. In that paper we described how, using the formalism of ribbon quivers (that is, ribbon graphs with acyclic orientation), one can use the pre-CY structure maps to describe the action of certain PROP on the morphism spaces of $A$, and on its Hochschild chains $C_*(A)$. The relevant dg PROP has spaces given by of chains on moduli spaces of open-closed surfaces with framed boundaries, with at least one input and one output.
We can paraphrase this result in the language of the cobordism description: a pre-CY structure on $A$ gives a partially defined fully extended 2d oriented TQFT with values in (an $\infty$-categorical version) of $2$-category of algebras and bimodules, assigning $A$ to the point and $HH_*(A)$ to the framed circle. This theory is partially defined in the sense that it does not assign a value to every cobordism, but rather only to those cobordisms that can be generated by handles of index one only; such a cobordism has at least one input and one output.
If instead one admits cobordisms generated by handles of indices one and two, one can cap the outputs of the cobordism, and obtain all cobordisms with at least one input. That type of TQFT is known to be described by proper Calabi-Yau structures; see Lurie's description \cite{lurie2009classification} of Costello's results in \cite{costello2007topological,costello2005gromovwitten}. In other words, requiring the finiteness condition of $A$ being proper (that is, $H^*(A)$ being finite-rank) allows one to evaluate caps in the TQFT, which get sent to the trace $HH_*(A) \to \kk$ defined by the proper CY structure.
There is another finiteness condition that is dual to properness, which is homological smoothness: $A$ is homologically smooth if the diagonal bimodule $A_\Delta$ is a perfect object in the category of $(A,A)$-bimodules. In the work cited above, Lurie mentions in passing that, from abstract reasons, there should be a dual story to Costello's description of this TQFT: smooth Calabi-Yau structures on $A$ should give a dual type of partially-defined TQFT, which now has a \emph{cup}; this gets sent to a cotrace $\kk \to HH_*(A)$. These TQFTs are also, in practice, described by algebra structures over certain PROPs, given by chains on spaces of surfaces with non-empty incoming/outgoing boundary. The homotopy theory of these objects has been studied in detail elsewhere; see \cite{desmukh2022homotopical} for a recent description of these PROPs and their relation to Deligne-Mumford compactifications.
As a corollary to these statements about cobordisms and TQFTs, it should be the case that a smooth Calabi-Yau structure defines a pre-CY structure. The main purpose of this work is to make this result as explicit as possible: we demonstrate that there is an algorithmic procedure, using the formalism of ribbon quivers we defined previously, which starts from a smooth Calabi-Yau structure on an $A_\infty$-category $A$ and produces the structure maps of a pre-CY structure on the same $A$. The point of having such an explicit description is that many categories/algebras of interest in topology and geometry have such smooth CY structures \cite{ganatra2019cyclic,bozec2021calabiyau1,bozec2021calabiyau2,kaplan2019multiplicative,shende2016calabiyau}. Using the description in this paper allows one to apply the results of \cite{kontsevich2021precalabiyau} to these categories, and compute the TQFT operations that the resulting pre-CY structure gives.
Let us recall the definitions of these objects. A smooth CY structure of dimension $d$ on $A$ is a negative cyclic chain $\omega \in CC^-_*(A)$ which satisfies a nondegeneracy condition: its image in $HH_*(A)$ induces a quasi-isomorphism $A^![d] \to A$ between the inverse dualizing bimodule $A^!$ and a shift of the diagonal bimodule $A_\Delta$. A variant of this definition first appeared in the work of Ginzburg \cite{ginzburg2006calabiyau}, without requiring the lift to negative cyclic homology; often these are referred to as `Ginzburg CY structures' or `weak smooth CY structures' in the literature. Requiring the negative cyclic lift was first proposed, by the first and third named authors of this article, back in 2013, motivated exactly by this TQFT perspective: in order to `close up inputs' with a cup, the cotrace $k \to HH_*(A)$ associated to that cup should factor through the (homotopy) fixed points of the $S^1$-action.
For more recent precise definitions of smooth CY structures in the dg and $A_\infty$-case, see \cite{brav2019relative,brav2018relative,ganatra2013symplectic}. We will need an even more explicit description; we explain a chain-level version of the smooth CY nondegeneracy condition in \cref{sec:smoothCY}. On the other side, the definition of pre-CY structure is already given `at cochain-level': a pre-CY structure of dimension $d$ on an $A_\infty$-category $(A,\mu)$ is the choice of an element
\[ m = \mu + m_{(2)} + m_{(3)} + \dots \in C^*_{[d]}(A) \]
extending the $A_\infty$-structure maps, and satisfying a Maurer-Cartan equation $[m,m] = 0$. We refer the reader to \cite[Sec.3]{kontsevich2021precalabiyau} for the definition of the space $C^*_{[d]}(A)$; let us just mention its noncommutative geometry interpretation: if the space of Hochschild chains $C^*(A)$ is seen as the space of vector fields on some noncommutative space associated to $A$, then the space $C^*_{[d]}(A)$ is the space of polyvector fields (up to some shifts depending on $d$), carrying an analogue of the Schouten-Nijenhuis bracket; a pre-CY structure can be seen as a non-strict version of a Poisson structure; the `bivector field' $m_{(2)}$ does not satisfy the involutivity condition $[m_{(2)},m_{(2)}] = 0$ on the nose, but up to a correction given by $m_{(3)}$, which itself is satisfies an involutivity condition up to a higher correction, and so on.
In \cref{sec:ncLegendre} we describe maps
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:main}
(CC^-_d(A))_\mathrm{nondeg} \leftrightarrows (\cM_{d\mathrm{-pre-CY}})_\mathrm{nondeg}
\end{equation}
going between smooth CY structures of dimension $d$ and pre-CY structures of the same dimension, whose `bivector field' $m_{(2)}$ is nondegenerate. It turns out that these maps are noncommmutative analogues of the Legendre transform and the inverse Legendre transform (between e.g. functions on the total space of a real vector bundle and of its dual). In order to make this analogy more understandable we start with the (mildly noncommutative) case of an odd vector bundle.
The fully noncommutative case is described in terms of certain combinations of ribbon quivers; we evaluate these by inserting the correct structure maps into the vertices, and following the prescriptions in \cite[Sec.6]{kontsevich2021precalabiyau}. By solving an iterative lifting problem, it is possible to construct linear combinations of ribbon quivers $\Gamma_{(2)},\Gamma_{(3)},\dots$, which evaluated on some smooth CY structure $\lambda$ give the pre-CY structure maps.
In general, this procedure is very complicated to implement in practice. However for some simple cases it is possible to use it and calculate pre-CY structures, even by hand. We do this for the case of a particularly simple dg category, the path category $A$ of the triangle. This is equivalent to the dg algebra $k[x^{\pm 1}]$ of chains on the based loop space of the circle. We discuss these path dg categories for general simplicial sets in \cref{sec:pathDg}; an orientation on the geometric realization of such a simplicial set gives a smooth CY structure on $A$. We then specialize to the circle, showing how to understand the chain-level nondegeneracy condition in the case of $A$. Later, in \cref{sec:exampleContinued}, we carry our the computation and calculate the full corresponding pre-CY structure in that case.
Finally, we discuss in what sense the maps \cref{eqn:main} are inverses. The usual Legendre transform defines a one-to-one correspondence between fiberwise convex functions on $E$ and on $E^\vee$; this is also true for the maps in the noncommutative case, but in a more subtle sense. The most natural statement to be made is that these maps lift to weak homotopy equivalences of simplicial sets; on the left-hand side of \cref{eqn:main} we have then a simplicial set corresponding (under the Dold-Kan equivalence) to the nondegenerate locus of a truncated negative cyclic complex, and on the right-hand side, the simplicial set of solutions to the Maurer-Cartan equation as described by \cite{hinich1996descent,getzler2009lie}.\\
\noindent \textit{Acknowledgments:} We would like to thank Damien Calaque, Sheel Ganatra, Ludmil Katzarkov, Bernhard Keller, Joost Nuiten, Manuel Rivera, Vivek Shende, Bertrand To\"en, Bruno Vallette and Zhengfang Wang for helpful conversations. AT and YV would like to thank IHES for the wonderful working conditions provided. This work was supported by the Simons Collaboration on Homological Mirror Symmetry.
\subsection*{Notation and conventions}
Throughout this paper, we fix a field $\kk$ of characteristic zero, and will denote simply by $\otimes,\Hom$ the tensor product/hom (of vector spaces, complexes, modules etc) over $\kk$.
In this paper we will assume everything is $\ZZ$-graded, but all of the results also follow for $\ZZ/2\ZZ$-grading. Given an $A_\infty$ category $A$, and an element $a \in A$ of homogeneous degree, we denote by $\deg(a)$ its degree in $A$ and by $\bar a$ its degree in $A[1]$. As for the degrees in other complexes, we will often switch between homological degree and cohomological degree; we made an effort to explicitly specify which degree we mean when there is room for confusion, and as is conventional, denote by upper indices cohomological degree and lower indices homological degree, which are related by $(-)^i = (-)_{-i}$.
We will always assume our $A_\infty$-algebras/categories are strictly unital. For ease of notation, by $C^*(A,M)$ and $C_*(A,M)$, we will always denote the \emph{reduced} Hochschild cochain/chain complexes. That is, if $A$ is an $A_\infty$-algebra, we have
\[ C^*(A,M) = \prod_{n \ge 0} \Hom(\overline{A}[1]^{\otimes n}, M), \quad C_*(A,M) = \prod_{n \ge 0} M \otimes \overline{A}[1]^{\otimes n} \]
where $\overline{A} = A/\kk.1_A$. These complexes can be obtained by taking the quotient of the usual complexes by the elements that have $1_A \in A[1]$ somewhere. Analogously, for a category we take the quotient by the strict units, see \cite{sheridan2020formulae}. We will denote by $b$ the chain differential and by $d$ the cochain differential.
Finally, we denote by $A_\Delta$ and $A^!$ the diagonal bimodule of $A$ and the inverse dualizing bimodule, respectively; for the definition of the bimodule structure maps for these objects, together with all the signs, see \cite{ganatra2013symplectic}. Our conventions agree with the signs there, with the single difference that we write the arguments in the structure maps $\mu(\dots)$ in the opposite order.
\section{Smooth Calabi-Yau structures}\label{sec:smoothCY}
An $A_\infty$-category is \emph{(homologically) smooth} if its diagonal bimodule $A_\Delta$ is a compact object; equivalently, if that object is quasi-isomorphic to a retract of a finite complex of `Yoneda bimodules' (see \cite{ganatra2013symplectic}). For example, if $A$ is a dg algebra such that $A_\Delta$ has a finite resolution by direct sums of the free bimodule $A\otimes A$, then $A$ is smooth.
When $A$ is smooth, there is a quasi-isomorphism of complexes
\[ C_*(A) \simeq \Hom_{A-A}(A^!,A_\Delta) \]
between Hochschild chains and morphisms of $A$-bimodules from the inverse dualizing bimodule to the diagonal bimodule. Recall also that $C_*(A)$ carries the action of the homology of a circle, and the homotopy fixed points of this action are calculated by the negative cyclic complex $CC^-_*(A) = (C_*(A)[[u]],b+uB)$, where $B$ is the Connes differential, of homological degree $+1$.
The following definition is a refinement of the notion of a Ginzburg CY algebra \cite{ginzburg2006calabiyau}.
\begin{definition}
A smooth Calabi-Yau structure of dimension $d$ on $A$ is a negative cyclic chain $\lambda = \lambda_0 + \lambda_1 u + \lambda_2 u^2 + \dots \in CC^*_d(A)$ whose image $\lambda_0 \in C_d(A) \cong \Hom_{A-A}(A^!,A_\Delta[-d])$ is a quasi-isomorphism.
\end{definition}
Requiring this lift to negative cyclic homology was suggested by two of us some years ago. This notion has since appeared in many places; for a dg discussion see \cite{brav2019relative,brav2018relative} and for an $A_\infty$ discussion see \cite{ganatra2013symplectic,ganatra2019cyclic}.
\subsection{Chain-level nondegeneracy}
We now use the graphical calculus described in \cite{kontsevich2021precalabiyau} in order to formulate the nondegeneracy condition of smooth Calabi-Yau structures. Given $\lambda = \lambda_0 + \lambda_1 u + \lambda_2 u^2 + \dots \in CC^*_d(A)$ a negative cyclic $d$-chain, let us phrase the nondegeneracy condition on $\lambda_0$ at the chain level: under the quasi-isomorphism $C_*(A) \simeq \Hom_{A-A}(A^!,A_\Delta)$, it must map to a quasi-isomorphism of $A$-bimodules, that is, it must have a quasi-inverse
\[ \alpha = ``(\lambda_0)^{-1}" \in \Hom_{A-A}(A_\Delta,A^!) \simeq C^*_{(2)}(A )\]
where $C^*_{(2)}(A)$ is the complex of higher Hochschild cochains (with two outputs) with the quasi-isomorphism we explained in \cite[Sec.4.2]{kontsevich2021precalabiyau}.
In terms of morphisms of bimodules, there is evidently a composition map
\[ \Hom_{A-A}(A_\Delta,A^!) \otimes \Hom_{A-A}(A^!,A_\Delta) \to \Hom_{A-A}(A_\Delta,A_\Delta) \]
which, using these quasi-isomorphisms, can be represented by a map of complexes
\[ C_*(A) \otimes C^*_{(2)}(A) \to C^*(A), \]
for which we give the following explicit representative.
\begin{lemma}
The composition map can be represented by the map of complexes $(\alpha,\lambda_0) \mapsto \lambda_0 \circ \alpha \in C^*(A)$ given by the ribbon quiver
\[\begin{tikzpicture}[auto,baseline={([yshift=-.5ex]current bounding box.center)}]
\node [vertex] (v3) at (0,0.8) {$\alpha$};
\node [vertex] (v2) at (0,0) {$\lambda_0$};
\node [bullet] (v4) at (0.8,0) {};
\node [bullet] (v5) at (0,-0.8) {};
\node (v6) at (0,-1.6) {};
\draw [->-] (v2) to (v4);
\draw [->-,shorten <=6pt] (0,0.8) arc (90:0:0.8);
\draw [-w-,shorten <=6pt] (0,0.8) arc (90:270:0.8);
\draw [->-] (0.8,0) arc (0:-90:0.8);
\draw [->-] (v5) to (v6);
\end{tikzpicture}\]
\end{lemma}
That is, we produce a map $C_*(A) \otimes C^*_{(2)}(A) \to C^*(A)$ given by plugging in $\alpha$ into the 2-valent vertex at the top, $\lambda_0$ into the source at the center and evaluate this diagram using the prescription in \cite[Sec.6.1.4]{kontsevich2021precalabiyau}. The fact that this represents the desired map follows from using the explicit descriptions of the quasi-isomorphisms, together with the calculations in \cite[Sec.2]{ganatra2013symplectic}.
Since we assume $A$ was strictly unital, there is a distinguished element $1 \in C^0(A)$, the \emph{unit cochain}, which only has a nonzero component of length zero, giving the unit element.\footnote{In the category case, that is, when $A$ has multiple objects, recall that the regions around our diagrams get labeled with objects, so the cochain $1$ just returns the identity morphism $1_X \in \End_A(X)$ when the region around the vertex is labeled by any object $X$.} Moreover, under the quasi-isomorphism $C^*(A) \simeq \Hom_{A-A}(A_\Delta,A_\Delta)$ the unit cochain maps to the identity.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:chainLevelSmoothCY}
Let $A$ be smooth. The elements $\lambda_0 \in C_d(A)$ and $\alpha \in C^d_{(2)}(A)$ represent inverse classes if and only if they are closed under the relevant differentials, and there is an element $\beta \in C^{-1}(A)$ such that
\[ [\mu,\beta] = \quad \tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (v3) at (0,0.8) {$\alpha$};
\node [vertex] (v2) at (0,0) {$\lambda_0$};
\node [bullet] (v4) at (0.8,0) {};
\node [bullet] (v5) at (0,-0.8) {};
\node (v6) at (0,-1.6) {};
\draw [->-] (v2) to (v4);
\draw [->-,shorten <=6pt] (0,0.8) arc (90:0:0.8);
\draw [-w-,shorten <=6pt] (0,0.8) arc (90:270:0.8);
\draw [->-] (0.8,0) arc (0:-90:0.8);
\draw [->-] (v5) to (v6);
} \quad - \quad
\tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (v) at (0,0) {$1$};
\draw [->-] (v) to (0,-1.5);}\]
In other words, $\lambda = \lambda_0 + \lambda_1 u^1 + \dots$ represents a smooth Calabi-Yau structure if and only if there are $\alpha$ and $\beta$ such that the first term $\lambda_0$ satisfies the equation above.
\end{proposition}
One of those directions obviously follows from the Lemma above; this is exactly the condition $[\lambda_0 \circ \alpha] = [\id]$ in $\Hom_{A\mh A}(A,A)$, so the equation says that $\alpha$ represents a right-inverse to $\lambda_0$.
We will now argue that it is also a left-inverse, once we assume that $A$ is smooth. Before that, let us present an analogy using a finite-dimensional vector space $V$ and its linear dual $V^\vee$: let $f:V\to V^\vee$ and $g: V^\vee \to V$ be linear maps such that $g \circ f = \id_V$. Then obviously both $f$ and $g$ have full rank, are bijective and so $f\circ g = \id_{V^\vee}$.
At the risk of boring the reader, let us give another proof for this easy fact: since $V$ is finite-dimensional, the canonical map $V \to (V^\vee)^\vee$ is an isomorphism, so dualize the composition $g\circ f$ and use this identification
\[ (V \overset{f}{\rightarrow} V^\vee \overset{g}{\rightarrow} V) \mapsto (V^\vee \overset{f^\vee}{\leftarrow} V \overset{g^\vee}{\leftarrow} V^\vee) \]
to conclude that the composition $f^\vee \circ g^\vee$ is the identity on $V^\vee$. Note now that if we pick any symmetric bilinear form on $V$, we can identify the maps $f,g$ with matrices; the maps $f^\vee,g^\vee$ are then the transposes of those matrices. Now, in finite dimensions, every matrix is conjugate to its transpose. So $g$ also has a left-inverse which is constrained to be $f$ by the equation $f\circ g\circ f = f$.
We now explain the analog of this reasoning for our smooth category $A$, first by identifying the role of the transposed map.
\begin{lemma}
Let $A$ be a smooth category, and $\alpha \in C^*_{(2)}(A) \cong \Hom_{A\mh A}(A^!,A)$. Let $\alpha^! \in \Hom_{A\mh A}(A^!,(A^!)^!)$ be the morphism obtained by taking bimodule duality. Upon identifying $(A^!)^! \cong A$, the class of $\alpha^!$ is represented by the $\ZZ/2$ rotation of the vertex of $\alpha$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This follows from some diagrammatic calculus as we developed in \cite{kontsevich2021precalabiyau}. Recall that for any
$A_\infty$-category $A$ we have a quasi-isomorphism $A_\Delta \otimes_{A\mh A} A_\Delta \overset{\sim}{\rightarrow} A_\Delta$; we regard an element of the former as a set of $A[1]$-arrows, traveling down a strip with an $A_\Delta$ arrow on each side:
\[\tikzfig{
\draw [->-] (0,1.5) to (0,0);
\draw [->-] (1,1.5) to (1,0);
\draw [->-] (0.25,1.3) to (0.25,0.2);
\draw [->-] (0.5,1.3) to (0.5,0.2);
\draw [->-] (0.75,1.3) to (0.75,0.2);
\node at (0,1.8) {$A_\Delta$};
\node at (1,1.8) {$A_\Delta$};
\draw [decorate,decoration={brace,mirror,amplitude = 2mm}] (0.1,0.1) -- (0.9,0.1) node [midway,yshift=-0.8cm] {$T(A[1])$};
}\]
More precisely, an element of $A_\Delta \otimes_{A\mh A} A_\Delta \overset{\sim}{\rightarrow} A_\Delta$ is something we can input into the top of this diagram.
Analogously, we represent an element of $A^!$ as a strip where the inner arrows travel \emph{up the strip}:
\[\tikzfig{
\draw [->-] (0,1.5) to (0,0);
\draw [->-] (1,1.5) to (1,0);
\draw [->-] (0.25,0.2) to (0.25,1.3);
\draw [->-] (0.5,0.2) to (0.5,1.3);
\draw [->-] (0.75,0.2) to (0.75,1.3);
\node at (0,1.8) {$A_\Delta$};
\node at (1,1.8) {$A_\Delta$};
\draw [decorate,decoration={brace,mirror,amplitude = 2mm}] (0.1,0.1) -- (0.9,0.1) node [midway,yshift=-0.8cm] {$T(A[1])$};
}\]
Again, more precisely an element of $A^!$ is something we can input into the top of this diagram. This can be seen from the explicit representative for the left dual $A^!$ given in \cite[Def.2.40]{ganatra2013symplectic}. More generally, for any perfect $(A,A)$-bimodule $M$, its left dual is represented by the strip
\[\tikzfig{
\draw [->-] (0,1.5) to (0,0);
\draw [->-] (1,0) to (1,1.5);
\draw [->-] (0.25,0.2) to (0.25,1.3);
\draw [->-] (0.5,0.2) to (0.5,1.3);
\draw [->-] (0.75,0.2) to (0.75,1.3);
\draw [->-] (2,1.5) to (2,0);
\draw [->-] (1.25,0.2) to (1.25,1.3);
\draw [->-] (1.5,0.2) to (1.5,1.3);
\draw [->-] (1.75,0.2) to (1.75,1.3);
\node at (0,1.8) {$A_\Delta$};
\node at (1,1.8) {$M$};
\node at (2,1.8) {$A_\Delta$};
\draw [decorate,decoration={brace,mirror,amplitude = 2mm}] (0.1,0.1) -- (0.9,0.1) node [midway,yshift=-0.8cm,xshift=-0.2cm] {$T(A[1])$};
\draw [decorate,decoration={brace,mirror,amplitude = 2mm}] (1.1,0.1) -- (1.9,0.1) node [midway,yshift=-0.8cm,xshift=0.2cm] {$T(A[1])$};
}\]
with an $M$ arrow going up in the middle.
Under these identifications, given an element $\alpha \in C^*_{(2)}(A)$, the map $A^!\to A_\Delta$ it gives by dualizing is represented by the diagram
\[\tikzfig{
\node at (0,1.8) {$A_\Delta$};
\node at (1.4,1.8) {$A_\Delta$};
\node [vertex] (center) at (0.7,0.75) {$\alpha$};
\draw [->-] (0,1.5) to (0,0.5);
\draw [->-] (1.4,1.5) to (1.4,0.5);
\draw [->-] (0,0.5) to (0,0);
\draw [->-] (1.4,0.5) to (1.4,0);
\draw [-w-] (center) to (1.4,0.75);
\draw [->-] (center) to (0,0.75);
}\]
where as usual the white arrow marks the first output of $\alpha$.
The map induced on the left duals $\alpha^!:(A^!)^! \to A^!$ is then given by reversing this diagram and inserting it in the place of the $M$ arrow. But since $A$ is smooth, $A^!$ is perfect and the map $A \to (A^!)^!$ is a quasi-isomorphism. So we can simplify the diagram obtained and conclude that the diagram
\[\tikzfig{
\node at (0,1.8) {$A_\Delta$};
\node at (1.4,1.8) {$A_\Delta$};
\node [vertex] (center) at (0.7,0.75) {$\alpha$};
\draw [->-] (0,1.5) to (0,0.5);
\draw [->-] (1.4,1.5) to (1.4,0.5);
\draw [->-] (0,0.5) to (0,0);
\draw [->-] (1.4,0.5) to (1.4,0);
\draw [->-] (center) to (1.4,0.75);
\draw [-w-] (center) to (0,0.75);
}\]
is also a representative for $\alpha^!$; comparing it to the previous diagram we have the desired statement.
\end{proof}
We are now ready to prove \cref{prop:chainLevelSmoothCY}.
\begin{proof}
It remains to prove that if $\alpha$ and $\lambda_0$ satisfy the given equation, then $[\alpha]\circ[\lambda_0] = [\id_{A^!}]$. We use the analogy with the discussion about finite-dimensional vector spaces above: we already know that the composition
\[ A_\Delta \overset{\alpha}{\rightarrow} A^! \overset{\lambda_0}{\rightarrow} A_\Delta \]
is quasi-isomorphic to the identity on $A_\Delta$, so taking left duals we know that the composition
\[ A^! \overset{\alpha^!}{\leftarrow} (A^!)^! \overset{(\lambda_0)^!}{\leftarrow} A^! \]
is quasi-isomorphic to the identity on $A^!$. Thus $[\alpha^!]$ has a right-inverse.
Consider now the element of $C^*_{(2)}(A)$ given by the diagram
\[\tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (x) at (0,0) {$\lambda_0$};
\node at (2,0.3) {};
\node at (-2,0.3) {};
\node [vertex] (n) at (0,1) {$\alpha$};
\node [vertex] (s) at (0,-1) {$\alpha$};
\node [bullet] (ne) at (0.7,0.7) {};
\node [bullet] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\draw [->-] (x) to (ne);
\draw [->-=1] (w) to (-2,0);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to (2,0);
\draw [-w-,shorten <=6pt] (0,1) arc (90:45:1);
\draw [->-] (0.7,0.7) arc (45:0:1);
\draw [->-,shorten <=6pt] (0,1) arc (90:180:1);
\draw [-w-,shorten <=6pt] (0,-1) arc (-90:-180:1);
\draw [->-,shorten <=6pt] (0,-1) arc (-90:0:1);
}\]
Using the diagrammatic calculus for ribbon quivers, when $\alpha$ and $\lambda_0$ are closed this element is cohomologous to the element given by
\[ \tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (v3) at (0,0.8) {$\alpha$};
\node [vertex] (v2) at (0,0) {$\lambda_0$};
\node [bullet] (v4) at (0.8,0) {};
\node [bullet] (v5) at (0,-0.8) {};
\node [bullet] (v6) at (0,-1.5) {};
\node [vertex] (v1) at (-1,-1.5) {$\alpha$};
\draw [->-] (v2) to (v4);
\draw [-w-,shorten <=6pt] (0,0.8) arc (90:0:0.8);
\draw [->-,shorten <=6pt] (0,0.8) arc (90:270:0.8);
\draw [->-] (0.8,0) arc (0:-90:0.8);
\draw [->-] (v5) to (v6);
\draw [-w-] (v1) to (-2.2,-1.5);
\draw [->-] (v1) to (v6);
\draw [->-] (v6) to (+1.1,-1.5);
}\]
and therefore by the assumption that $\alpha$ and $\lambda_0$ satisfy the equation in the statement of the proposition, this element is also cohomologous to $\tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (v1) at (0,0) {$\alpha$};
\draw [-w-] (v1) to (-1,0);
\draw [->-] (v1) to (1,0);
}$, which we showed above represents the left dual map $\alpha^!$. A similar calculation shows that it is also cohomologous to $\alpha$, that is, $\tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (v1) at (0,0) {$\alpha$};
\draw [->-] (v1) to (-1,0);
\draw [-w-] (v1) to (1,0);
}$. Therefore $[\alpha]$ also has a right-inverse, which is then constrained to be the same class as $[\lambda_0]$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Examples}
So far, we have explained that given a smooth CY structure $\lambda$ on an $A_\infty$-category $A$, one can in principle find a chain-level representative, that is, a solution $\alpha$ to the equation in \cref{prop:chainLevelSmoothCY}, which we will later use to construct the desired pre-CY structure on $A$.
In general, finding an explicit solution for $\alpha$ may be difficult, since it involves solving an inverse function problem for a morphism between bimodules. However, in some specific cases of interest, it is possible to solve this problem explicitly.
\subsubsection{Chains on the based loop space of orientable manifolds}
Consider a pointed path-connected topological space $(X,x)$; concatenation of loops gives a morphism
\[ \Omega_x X \times \Omega_x X \to \Omega_x X\]
inducing a product on the complex of chains $C_*(\Omega_{x}X,\kk)$, making it into a dg algebra.
It has been long understood that structures on this algebra are intimately related to operations of string topology. In the 80s, work of Goodwillie \cite{goodwillie1985cyclic} and Burghelea and Fiedorowicz \cite{burghelea1986cyclic} gave an equivalence
\[ H_*(LX,\kk) \cong HH_*(C_*(\Omega_x X),\kk) \]
between the homology of the free loop space and the Hochschild homology of the dg algebra $A = C_*(\Omega_x X,\kk)$. This equivalence relate certain BV algebra structures on each side, constructed algebraically on the Hochschild complex and topologically on loop space homology.
Much has been written about this relation between Hochschild theory of $A$ and loop space operations, but here we would like to focus on the effect of Poincaré duality. Let $X$ be a $n$-dimensional ($\kk$-)Poincaré duality space with a choice of fundamental chain, that is, endowed with a $n$-chain $c_X \in H_n(X,\kk)$ such that the cap product $c_X \cap: H^*(X,\kk) \to H_{n-*}(X,\kk)$ is an isomorphism.
By now, it is a well-known fact that in that case $A = C_*(\Omega_x X,\kk)$ is a smooth CY algebra of dimension $n$. At the level of weak CY structures (that is, without the lift to negative cyclic homology), this is explicitly proven in \cite{abbaspour2013algebraic} following an argument of \cite{felix1995differential}, and the lift to negative cyclic complex is discussed in a draft \cite{cohencalabi} of Cohen-Ganatra. We summarize these results:
\begin{proposition}
There is a map $\iota: C_*(X,\kk) \to CC^-_*(A)$ such that if $c_X \in C_d(X,\kk)$ such that $[c_X] \in H_d(X,\kk)$ is the fundamental class of $X$ then the image $\iota(c_X)$ is a smooth CY structure of dimension $d$ on $A = C_*(\Omega_x X,\kk)$.
\end{proposition}
The map $\iota$ (or rather, its composition with the canonical map $CC^-_*(A)\to C_*(A)$ to Hochschild chains) should be seen as an algebraic incarnation of the map $X \hookrightarrow LX$ given by inclusion of $X$ as constant loops.
We would like to have a chain-level inverse for the image of $c_X$, that is, a appropriate value for the $\alpha$ vertex in the statement of \cref{prop:chainLevelSmoothCY}; by the result above it is always possible to find one, but doing so algorithmically for a general Poincar\'e duality space turns out to be quite involved. We will leave the full description for future work \cite{takedacombinatorial}, but at least we can present the general lines and a simple example.
\subsubsection{Path dg category}\label{sec:pathDg}
We start by replacing the algebra $A$ by an equivalent dg category, with a more local, combinatorial description. Let $\Lambda$ be a simplicial set, that is, a simplicial complex endowed with the total ordering on its set $\Lambda_0$ of vertices. We will denote an $n$-simplex $\sigma$ in $\Lambda$ with vertices $v_0,\dots,v_n$ (in order) by the notation $(v_0\dots v_n)_\sigma$, or more simply $(v_0\dots v_n)$ when there is no ambiguity.
\begin{definition}
The path dg category $P_\Lambda$ of the simplicial set $\Lambda$ has as object set $\Lambda_0$ and as morphism space between vertices $s$ and $t$, the graded $\kk$-vector space spanned by symbols of the form
\[ (v^1_0 v^1_1 \dots v^1_{n_1})_{\sigma_1} * (v^2_0 \dots v^2_{n_2})_{\sigma_2} * \dots * (v^j_1 v^j_0)_{\sigma_i}^{-1} \dots (v^N_0 \dots v^N_{n_N})_{\sigma_N}, \]
where $v^k_{n_j} = v^{k+1}_0$, $v^1_0 = s$ and $v^N_{n_N} = t$, modulo the relation generated by
\[ x * (u_0 u_1)_\sigma * (u_0 u_1)_\sigma^{-1} * y = x * y \]
where $x$ and $y$ are any sequences as above. A generator of the form above is placed in degree $\sum_k (1-n_k)$. If $u=v$ we also add the identity morphism $e_u$.
That is, generators are composable sequences whose elements are either simplices of $\Lambda$ (of any nonzero dimension), or formal inverses of 1-simplices. We place $n$-simplices in degree $n-1$, and endow this vector space with the differential given by
\[ d(v_0 \dots v_n) = \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} (-1)^i \left( (v_0\dots \hat{v_i} \dots v_n) - (v_0\dots v_i)*(v_i \dots v_n) \right) \]
and by the Leibniz rule with respect to $*$.
\end{definition}
These compositions of simplices are sometimes referred to as `necklaces' in the literature (not to be confused with the `necklace bracket' we defined in \cite{kontsevich2021precalabiyau}), as one can imagine the simplices as beads in an unfastened necklace. It was suggested by one of us in \cite{kontsevich2009symplectic} that these categories of necklaces (after formally inverting 1-simplices as we did above) give models for based loop spaces. This relation was studied in \cite{dugger2011mapping,dugger2011rigidification,rivera2018cubical,rivera2019adams,hess2010loop}; in particular, \cite{rivera2019combinatorial} describes in detail the localization at 1-simplices to give a functor $\hat{\mathfrak{C}}$ from simplicial sets into some category of `necklical sets', making this assignment functorial.
Our dg category $P_\Lambda$ is just the image on objects of this functor, composed with taking $C_*(-,\kk)$. We will not need the full simplicial description developed in the references above, so we summarize:
\begin{proposition}
if $X,x$ is a pointed topological space $X$ which is homotopy equivalent to the geometric realization of $\Lambda$, the dg category $P_\Lambda$ is quasi-isomorphic to the dg algebra $C_*(\Omega_x X)$, with product given by concatenation.
\end{proposition}
Concretely, each morphism $x\to y$ of degree $-n$ describes an $n$-dimensional \emph{cube} in the space of paths between $x$ and $y$; for example, the morphism given by $(v_0 v_1) * (v_1 v_2 v_3)$, which has boundary $-(v_0 v_1) * (v_1 v_3) + (v_0 v_1)*(v_1 v_2)*(v_2 v_3)$, describes the family of paths over the 1-cube (that is, the interval) which sweeps from the path $v_0 \to v_1 \to v_3$ to the path $v_0 \to v_1 \to v_2 \to v_3$, deforming it across the 2-simplex $(v_1 v_2 v_3)$. The comparison result with the algebra $C_*(\Omega_x X)$ above relies on the fact that this cubical complex computes the homology of the based loop space.
\subsubsection{Inclusion of constant loops}
One can use this model to describe the map $\iota$, which corresponds to the inclusion of constant loops into the free loop space. An explicit representative for a map
\[ C_*(X) \to CC^-_*(C_*(\Omega_x X)) \]
from simplicial chains on $X$ is described in \cite[App.B]{abouzaid2011cotangent}, following constructions in the classical work of Adams \cite{adams1956cobar}. We can rephrase this in terms of the dg category $P_\Lambda$:
\begin{proposition}
There is a chain map $\iota: C_*(\Lambda) \to CC^-_*(P_\Lambda)$, whose composition with the canonical map $CC^-_*(P_\Lambda) \to C_*(P_\Lambda)$ agrees with the the map induced by the inclusion of constant loops, under the identification $HH_*(P_\Lambda) \cong H_*(L(|\Lambda|)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
One can construct this map locally on each simplex, and inductively in dimension. We start by sending each 0-simplex $(v) \mapsto e_v$ (that is, the length 1 zero-chain in $CC^-_*(P_\Lambda)$ consisting solely of the identity morphism $e_v \in P_\Lambda(v,v)$).
Suppose now that we have the map for all simplices of dimension up to $n-1$, and moreover, that for each such simplex $\tau$, the image lies in the subcomplex $CC^-_*(P_{\overline{\tau}}) \subseteq CC^-_*(P_\Lambda)$ on its closure $\overline{\tau}$. Let $\sigma$ be some $n$-simplex; in order to extend the map to $\sigma$ it is sufficient to find some degree $n$ element $x$ of $CC^-_*(P_{\overline{\sigma}})$ such that
\[ (b+uB)x = \iota(\del \sigma) \]
But by assumption $(b+uB)\iota(\del \sigma) = 0$ so $[\iota(\del \sigma)]$ is a class in $HC^-_{n-1}(P_{\overline{\sigma}})$ which is zero for $n \ge 1$ since $\overline\sigma$ is contractible.
\end{proof}
The argument above, however, does not give us a way to explicit construct a representative for $\iota(\sigma)$, which may involve quite complicated expressions for higher dimensions. For a 1-simplex $(v_0 v_1)$, we can choose its corresponding Hochschild chain to be $(v_0 v_1)[(v_0 v_1)^{-1}]$, which for simplicity of notation we denote $01[10]$. This lifts to the negative cyclic chain
\[ 01[10] - 01[10|01|10] u + 01[10|01|10|01|10] u^2 \dots \]
To a 2-simplex $(v_0 v_1 v_2)$, we need to then assign a Hochschild 2-chain whose boundary is $01[10] + 12[21] - 02[20]$; one possible choice is
\[ 01*12[21|10] - 01*12[20|02*21*10]+01*12*20[012*21*10]-012*20*012*21*10. \]
As for the chain we associated to the 1-simplex, the Hochschild chain above has some lift to a negative cyclic chain, whose expression is not particularly enlightening, and so on.
Now, given a simplicial triangulation $\Lambda$ of a Poincar\'e duality space $X$, we can look at the image $\lambda = \iota(c_X)$ of its fundamental chain and find the inverse $\alpha$ of its $u=0$ component $\lambda_0$, that is, the element $\alpha$ in $C^*_{(2)}(P_\Lambda)$ which satisfies the equation in the statement of \cref{prop:chainLevelSmoothCY}.
\subsubsection{The circle}\label{sec:theCircle}
Let us illustrate how to do this for the simplest non-trivial case, that is, for the circle. We pick a triangulation that exhibits it as the boundary of the 2-simplex $(v_0 v_1 v_2)$. The fundamental chain $(v_0 v_1) + (v_1 v_2) - (v_0 v_2)$ maps to the Hochschild chain
\[ \lambda_0 = 01[10] + 12[20] - 02[20], \]
again using our shorthand notation.
We are looking for an inverse $\alpha$ to $\lambda_0$. Recall that this is a vertex that receives any number of $A[1]$ arrows above and below, and outputs two arrows in $A$; if $A$ were an $A_\infty$-algebra this would be the space $\Hom(T(A[1]\otimes T(A[1]),A\otimes A)$; as our chosen $A$ has multiple objects one replaces the $A$ factors by morphism spaces and sum over objects.
We proceed inductively on the length of the inputs. Since $A$ is concentrated in non-negative degrees and we want $\alpha$ of (cohomological) degree +1, its component $\alpha^{0,0}$ with zero entries on both sides is necessarily zero.
The first non-trivial degree to be specified is the component $\alpha^{0,1}$, that is, with zero inputs on top and one input on the bottom. Note that since $A$ is a category, and not an algebra, the regions in a diagram are labeled by objects, which we will denote by writing $\underline{0},\underline{1}$ and $\underline{2}$ for each of the objects of $A$ (vertices of the triangle).
Recall that our convention is to use the \emph{reduced} Hochschild complex, therefore the element $\alpha$ evaluates to zero whenever one of the inputs is an identity morphism. Now, every non-identity morphism in $A$ is either `counter-clockwise' (for example, the morphisms $(01),(01*12),(20)$ etc.) or `clockwise' (for example, $(10),(12*20*01)$ etc.)
Let $P: i\to j$ be one of these morphisms, that is, a path from some vertex $i$ to a vertex $j$. We define
\[\tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (v1) at (0,0) {$\alpha$};
\draw [-w-] (v1) to (-1,0);
\draw [->-] (v1) to (1,0);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) to (v1);
\node at (0,0.5) {$\underline{k}$};
\node at (0,-1.2) {$P$};
\node at (0.6,-0.5) {$\underline{i}$};
\node at (-0.6,-0.5) {$\underline{j}$};
} = \begin{cases} \frac{1}{2}\left(\delta_{jk} e_k \otimes P - \delta_{ik}P \otimes e_k \right), \text{\ if\ } P \text{\ counter-clockwise} \\
-\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta_{jk} e_k \otimes P - \delta_{ik}P \otimes e_k \right), \text{\ if\ } P \text{\ clockwise} \end{cases}
\]
where $\delta_{\dots}$ is the usual delta function on the set of pairs of vertices.
\begin{proposition}
The prescription above extends uniquely to a closed element $\alpha \in C^1_{(2)}(A)$, symmetric under the $\ZZ/2$ action, which moreover satisfies the equation
\[\tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (v3) at (0,0.8) {$\alpha$};
\node [vertex] (v2) at (0,0) {$\lambda_0$};
\node [bullet] (v4) at (0.8,0) {};
\node [bullet] (v5) at (0,-0.8) {};
\node (v6) at (0,-1.6) {};
\draw [->-] (v2) to (v4);
\draw [->-,shorten <=6pt] (0,0.8) arc (90:0:0.8);
\draw [-w-,shorten <=6pt] (0,0.8) arc (90:270:0.8);
\draw [->-] (0.8,0) arc (0:-90:0.8);
\draw [->-] (v5) to (v6);
} \quad = \quad
\tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (v) at (0,0) {$1$};
\draw [->-] (v) to (0,-1.5);}
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
For the element $\alpha$ to be closed, it needs to satisfy compatibility equations such as
\[ d \left( \tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (v1) at (0,0) {$\alpha$};
\draw [-w-] (v1) to (-1,0);
\draw [->-] (v1) to (1,0);
\draw [->-] (0.5,-1) to (v1);
\draw [->-] (-0.5,-1) to (v1);
\node at (0,0.5) {$\underline{\ell}$};
\node at (0.6,-1.2) {$P_1$};
\node at (-0.6,-1.2) {$P_2$};
\node at (0.6,-0.5) {$\underline{i}$};
\node at (0,-0.7) {$\underline{j}$};
\node at (-0.6,-0.5) {$\underline{k}$};
} \right)\quad = \quad \tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (v1) at (0,0) {$\alpha$};
\draw [-w-] (v1) to (-1,0);
\draw [->-] (v1) to (1,0);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) to (v1);
\node at (0,0.5) {$\underline{\ell}$};
\node at (0,-1.2) {$P_1 * P_2$};
\node at (0.6,-0.5) {$\underline{i}$};
\node at (-0.6,-0.5) {$\underline{k}$};
} \quad - \quad \tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (v1) at (0,0) {$\alpha$};
\node [bullet] (v2) at (-0.8,0) {};
\draw [-w-] (v1) to (v2);
\draw [->-] (v2) to (-1.4,0);
\draw [->-] (-0.8,-1) to (v2);
\draw [->-] (v1) to (1,0);
\draw [->-] (0.5,-1) to (v1);
\node at (0,0.5) {$\underline{\ell}$};
\node at (0.6,-1.2) {$P_1$};
\node at (-0.8,-1.2) {$P_2$};
\node at (0.7,-0.5) {$\underline{i}$};
\node at (-0.3,-0.6) {$\underline{j}$};
\node at (-1.2,-0.5) {$\underline{k}$};
} \quad - \quad \tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (v1) at (0,0) {$\alpha$};
\node [bullet] (v2) at (0.8,0) {};
\draw [-w-] (v1) to (-1,0);
\draw [->-] (0.8,-1) to (v2);
\draw [->-] (v1) to (v2);
\draw [->-] (v2) to (1.4,0);
\draw [->-] (-0.5,-1) to (v1);
\node at (0,0.5) {$\underline{\ell}$};
\node at (0.8,-1.2) {$P_1$};
\node at (-0.6,-1.2) {$P_2$};
\node at (1.2,-0.5) {$\underline{i}$};
\node at (0.3,-0.6) {$\underline{j}$};
\node at (-0.7,-0.5) {$\underline{k}$};
}
\]
together with a similar equation with one input on the top and one input on the bottom.
Since $A$ is concentrated in degree zero, any element of $\alpha$ with two or more inputs vanishes, so the left-hand side of these equations is always zero; we must check that the right-hand side is zero, which we can explicitly calculate.
Now, it remains to check that this element is an inverse to the Hochschild chain $\lambda_0 = 01[10] + 12[20] - 02[20]$. Let us calculate the Hochschild cochain given by the diagram
\[\tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (v3) at (0,0.8) {$\alpha$};
\node [vertex] (v2) at (0,0) {$\lambda_0$};
\node [bullet] (v4) at (0.8,0) {};
\node [bullet] (v5) at (0,-0.8) {};
\node (v6) at (0,-1.6) {};
\draw [->-] (v2) to (v4);
\draw [->-,shorten <=6pt] (0,0.8) arc (90:0:0.8);
\draw [-w-,shorten <=6pt] (0,0.8) arc (90:270:0.8);
\draw [->-] (0.8,0) arc (0:-90:0.8);
\draw [->-] (v5) to (v6);
}\]
Since $A$ is a dg category, all the higher structure maps $\mu^{\ge 3}_A$ are zero, so the only nontrivial terms occur when the $A[1]$-arrow coming from $\lambda_0$ lands in $\alpha$. We calculate the values of this cochain on zero inputs; for example, when we label the region around the diagram with the object $0$, we have
\[\tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (v3) at (0,0.8) {$\alpha$};
\node [bullet] (v4) at (0.8,0) {};
\node [bullet] (v5) at (0,-0.8) {};
\node (v6) at (0,-1.6) {};
\draw [->-] (0.2,-0.2) to (v4);
\draw [->-] (0,0.5) to (v3);
\node at (0,0.1) {$(10)$};
\node at (0,-0.4) {$(01)$};
\node at (0,1.3) {$\underline{0}$};
\draw [->-,shorten <=6pt] (0,0.8) arc (90:0:0.8);
\draw [-w-,shorten <=6pt] (0,0.8) arc (90:270:0.8);
\draw [->-] (0.8,0) arc (0:-90:0.8);
\draw [->-] (v5) to (v6);
} \quad + \quad \tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (v3) at (0,0.8) {$\alpha$};
\node [bullet] (v4) at (0.8,0) {};
\node [bullet] (v5) at (0,-0.8) {};
\node (v6) at (0,-1.6) {};
\draw [->-] (0.2,-0.2) to (v4);
\draw [->-] (0,0.5) to (v3);
\node at (0,0.1) {$(21)$};
\node at (0,-0.4) {$(12)$};
\node at (0,1.3) {$\underline{0}$};
\draw [->-,shorten <=6pt] (0,0.8) arc (90:0:0.8);
\draw [-w-,shorten <=6pt] (0,0.8) arc (90:270:0.8);
\draw [->-] (0.8,0) arc (0:-90:0.8);
\draw [->-] (v5) to (v6);
} \quad - \quad \tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (v3) at (0,0.8) {$\alpha$};
\node [bullet] (v4) at (0.8,0) {};
\node [bullet] (v5) at (0,-0.8) {};
\node (v6) at (0,-1.6) {};
\draw [->-] (0.2,-0.2) to (v4);
\draw [->-] (0,0.5) to (v3);
\node at (0,0.1) {$(20)$};
\node at (0,-0.4) {$(02)$};
\node at (0,1.3) {$\underline{0}$};
\draw [->-,shorten <=6pt] (0,0.8) arc (90:0:0.8);
\draw [-w-,shorten <=6pt] (0,0.8) arc (90:270:0.8);
\draw [->-] (0.8,0) arc (0:-90:0.8);
\draw [->-] (v5) to (v6);
} = \frac{1}{2} e_0*(10)*(01) + 0 + \frac{1}{2} (02)*(20)*e_0 = e_0 \]
and similarly for the diagrams with the outside region labeled with $\underline{1}$ or $\underline{2}$. Moreover, this diagram evaluates to zero on any input of length $\ge 1$; it is exactly the unit cochain in $C^0(A)$.
\end{proof}
We note that the guess for the element $\alpha$ above can be derived from a smaller set of data by using the closedness condition: we can just specify that $\alpha$ gives some sort of `local' pairing, by setting
\[\tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (v1) at (0,0) {$\alpha$};
\draw [-w-] (v1) to (-1,0);
\draw [->-] (v1) to (1,0);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) to (v1);
\node at (0,0.5) {$\underline{0}$};
\node at (0,-1.2) {$(10)$};
\node at (0.6,-0.5) {$\underline{1}$};
\node at (-0.6,-0.5) {$\underline{0}$};
} = \frac{1}{2}e_0\otimes (10), \quad \tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (v1) at (0,0) {$\alpha$};
\draw [-w-] (v1) to (-1,0);
\draw [->-] (v1) to (1,0);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) to (v1);
\node at (0,0.5) {$\underline{0}$};
\node at (0,-1.2) {$(02)$};
\node at (0.6,-0.5) {$\underline{0}$};
\node at (-0.6,-0.5) {$\underline{2}$};
} = -\frac{1}{2}(02)\otimes e_0, \quad \tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (v1) at (0,0) {$\alpha$};
\draw [-w-] (v1) to (-1,0);
\draw [->-] (v1) to (1,0);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) to (v1);
\node at (0,0.5) {$\underline{0}$};
\node at (0,-1.2) {$(21)$};
\node at (0.6,-0.5) {$\underline{2}$};
\node at (-0.6,-0.5) {$\underline{1}$};
}=0
\]
and analogously for $\underline{1},\underline{2}$ above; that is, assigning zero when the simplex above and the simplex below do not intersect, and some appropriately signed local pair of paths when they do. In this sense, our expression for the element $\alpha$ is `localized' to a neighborhood of the diagonal in the product space $S^1 \times S^1$.
This smooth Calabi-Yau structure on chains on $\Omega S^1$ is well-known in the literature; for a recent explicit description of this structure from another angle, see the recent works \cite{bozec2021calabiyau1,bozec2021calabiyau2}. Under the equivalence between our dg category $A$ and the dg algebra $k[x^{\pm 1}]$, the element above $\lambda_0$ maps to the Hochschild chain cohomologous to $x^{-1}[x]$, corresponding to the noncommutative form $x^{-1} d_{dR}x$ in the description of \cite[Sec.3]{bozec2021calabiyau1}.
\section{Noncommutative Legendre transform}\label{sec:ncLegendre}
We recall from \cite{kontsevich2006notes,kontsevich2021precalabiyau} that in the language of noncommutative geometry, an $A_\infty$-algebra $(A,\mu)$ can be thought of as a noncommutative pointed dg manifold $X_A$ with an integrable vector field $Q_\mu$; the space $C^*_{[d]}(A)$ where pre-CY structures of dimension $d$ live is then the space of shifted polyvector fields on $X_A$, with the necklace bracket playing the role of Schouten-Nijenhuis bracket.
A pre-CY structure $m$ then satisfies the (quadratic) Maurer-Cartan equation $[m,m] = 0$. We denote by $\cM_\mathrm{pre-CY}$ the space of such solutions; at a given point $m$ this space has tangent complex given by
\[ T_m \cM_\mathrm{pre-CY} = (C^*_{[d]}(A), [m,-]_\nec), \]
that is, polyvector fields with differential given by necklace bracket with $m$.
As mentioned in the introduction, we will eventually construct a map that takes a smooth CY structure, represented by some negative cyclic chain $\lambda \in CC^-_*(A)$, and produces a point of $\cM_\mathrm{pre-CY}$; in the process we will construct another map in the inverse direction, and in \cref{sec:simplicial} we argue that this map is `one-to-one', in a certain homotopical sense.
In this section we will explain why such a relation should be seen as a noncommutative analog of the Legendre transform, and then we will build this transform using the formalism of ribbon quivers developed in \cite{kontsevich2021precalabiyau}. But first let us take a digression through the theory of usual Legendre transforms.
\subsection{Commutative and odd Legendre transform}
\subsubsection{Legendre transform on vector bundles}
Recall that the classical Legendre transform can also be defined (fiberwise) on a vector bundle. Let $M$ be a manifold and $E \to M$ an $N$-dimensional vector bundle, with a real-valued smooth function $L: E \to \RR$, fiberwise convex. For simplicity we assume $L$ is bounded below by some positive-definite quadratic function. We describe the Legendre transform in two steps: we first take the \emph{fiberwise derivative}
\[ FL : E \to E^\vee, \]
defined in dual coordinates by
\[ FL(x_1,\dots,x_N,v_1,\dots,v_N) = (x_1,\dots,x_N,\del L/\del v_1,\dots,\del L/ \del v_N)\]
which gives a diffeomorphism, given our assumptions on $L$.
We then construct the \emph{energy function} associated to $L$ given by
\[ e_L = \sum_i v_i \frac{\del L}{\del v_i} - L \]
and then we can define the Legendre transform $H:E^\vee \to \RR$ by
\[ H = \cL(L) := e_L \circ (FL)^{-1} \]
which, using the pairing between $E$ and $E^\vee$, can also be expressed on each fiber by the classical Legendre transform
\[ H_x(p) = \mathrm{crit.value}_{v} (vp - L_x(v)). \]
This function has the property that $FH$ is the inverse diffeomorphism to $FL$, and $\cL(H) = L$. Moreover, we have the following fact.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:tangentLegendre}
The pullback under the fiberwise derivative corresponding to $H$ is minus the variational derivative of the Legendre transform at $L$, that is:
\[ (FH)^* = - \frac{\delta \cL(f)}{\delta f}|_{f=L}. \]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Note that $(FH^*)$ is a ring isomorphism on functions $\cO(E) \to \cO(E^\vee)$. We vary $L \to L + \delta L$ and calculate the variation $H \to H + \delta H$ by expanding the relation $\cE_{H+\delta H} = (L + \delta L) \circ F(H + \delta H)$ to first order.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Odd Legendre transform}\label{sec:oddLegendre}
We now discuss an analogue of the classical Legendre transform, but that now goes between odd tangent and cotangent bundles. A description of this odd Legendre transform appears in the early work \cite{alexandrov1997geometry}, and its idea appears as a motivation for the discussion in \cite{pantev2013shifted}, relating shifted symplectic structures to nondegenerate shifted Poisson structures.
Let us denote by $\Pi T M$ the odd cotangent bundle of $M$, and its dual $\Pi T^* M$ its odd tangent bundle. In precise terms, we will consider maps between the spaces of (formal) functions on those bundles, namely the space of polyvector fields
\[ \cO(\Pi T^* M) = \wedge^* T M = \cO(M)[\alpha_i] \]
where the anticommuting variables $\alpha_i$ represent the vector fields $\del/\del x^i$, and the space of differential forms
\[ \cO(\Pi T M) = \wedge^* \Omega^1 \cO(M)[\beta_i] \]
where the anticommuting variables $\beta^i$ represent the one-forms $dx^i$. We make the convention that the degree of $\alpha_i$ is $+1$ and of $\beta_i$ is $-1$.
We will write a $p$-vector field in coordinates as
\[ P = \frac{1}{p^!}P^{i_1,\dots,i_p} \alpha_{i_1} \dots \alpha_{i_p} \]
using the summation convention for repeated indices. We can also regard this as an element of the tensor algebra of $TM$ by using the antisymmetric embedding:
\[ P = \frac{1}{p^!} P^{j_1,\dots,j_p} \delta^{i_1,\dots,i_p}_{j_1,\dots,j_p} \alpha_{i_1} \dots \alpha_{i_p} \]
using the Kronecker symbol giving the sign of the permutation. This allows us to calculate derivatives: we have that the derivative $\del/\del\alpha_i$ acts as
\[ \frac{\del}{\del \alpha_{i_n}} \alpha_{i_1} \dots \alpha_{i_p} = p (-1)^n \alpha_{i_1} \dots \hat\alpha_{i_n} \alpha_{i_p} \]
where the hat denotes omission.
Let $\gamma \in \cO(\Pi T^* M)$ be a polyvector field \emph{without degree one term}, which we write in coordinates as
\[ \gamma(x) = \frac{\gamma^{ij}_2(x)}{2!}\alpha_i\alpha_j + \frac{\gamma^{ijk}_3(x)}{3!}\alpha_i\alpha_j\alpha_k + \dots \]
where $\gamma_p(x)$ is some $p$-tensor depending on $x$. Let us assume that the degree two term $\gamma_2$ is given by a positive definite matrix.
In terms of functions on the odd space $\Pi T^*M$, $\gamma$ should be seen as a convex function with a fiberwise critical point at the `locus $\alpha = 0$'. The odd fiberwise derivative should then send a neighborhood of this locus to the neighborhood of the `locus $\beta = 0$', and the odd Legendre transform should produce a formal series in the variables $\beta_i$, that is, a differential form.
Let us calculate the odd Legendre transform $F\gamma$: first we write
\[ \beta^i = \frac{\del \gamma}{\del \alpha_i} = \gamma_2^{ij} \alpha_j + \frac{\gamma_3^{ijk}}{2!} \alpha_j\alpha_k + \dots \]
and then invert this equation, expressing each $\alpha_i$ in terms of the $\beta$ variables, as a function $f_i(\gamma,\beta)$, depending on the matrices $\gamma_p$ for all $p$. This is possible if and only if the matrix $\gamma_2$ is invertible: denoting $\{M_{ij}\}$ for its inverse we can calculate $f_i$ by an iterative procedure. To second order this gives
\[ \alpha_i = f_i(\gamma,\beta) = M_{ij} \beta^j + M_{ij}M_{ka}M_{lb}\frac{\gamma_3^{jkl}}{2!}\beta^a\beta^b + \dots \]
In other words, the functions $f_i$ are the data of the inverse induced map on functions $((F\gamma^*)^{-1})$.
We calculate now that the energy function associated to $\gamma$ is given by
\[ e_\gamma = \alpha_i\frac{\del \gamma}{\del\alpha_i} - \gamma= \frac{\gamma_2^{ij}}{2!}\alpha_i\alpha_j + 2\times \frac{\gamma_3^{ijk}}{3!} \alpha_i\alpha_j\alpha_k + \dots + (p-1)\times \frac{\gamma_p^{ij\dots}}{p!}\alpha_i \alpha_j \dots + \dots \]
that is, we just multiply each degree $p$ term by $p-1$. The odd Legendre transform $\lambda = \cL(\gamma)$ is then calculated by substituting, in the expression above, $\alpha_i \mapsto f_i(\gamma,\beta)$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:oddLegendre}
The polyvector field $\gamma$ satisfies $[\gamma,\gamma] = 0$, where $[,]$ is the Schouten-Nijenhuis bracket, if and only if $d\lambda = 0$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We calculate
\begin{align*}
d\lambda &= \beta^i \frac{\del \lambda}{\del x^i} = \beta^i \frac{\del}{\del x^i} \left( f_j(\gamma,\beta) \beta_i - \gamma(\alpha_j \mapsto f^j(\gamma,\beta)) \right) \\
&= \beta^i \frac{\del f_j}{\del x^i} \beta^j - \beta^i \frac{\del\gamma}{\del x^i} - \beta^i \frac{\del \gamma}{\del \alpha_i}\frac{\del f_i}{\del x} = - \beta^i \frac{\del\gamma}{\del x^i}
\end{align*}
along the locus $\alpha = f(\gamma,\beta)$ this is equal to
\[ - \frac{\del \gamma}{\del \alpha}\frac{\del \gamma}{\del x_i} = -[\gamma,\gamma] \]
proving the proposition.
\end{proof}
Performing the opposite operations, we see that odd Legendre transform gives a bijection between closed forms and polyvector fields satisfying the Maurer-Cartan-type equation $[\gamma,\gamma] = 0$.
Let us now consider a slightly more general situation, where $\gamma$ may have a \emph{small} nonvanishing first order term, that is:
\[ \gamma = \gamma^i_1 \alpha_i + \frac{\gamma^{ij}_2(x)}{2!}\alpha_i\alpha_j + \frac{\gamma^{ijk}_3(x)}{3!}\alpha_i\alpha_j\alpha_k + \dots\]
In this case, the locus $\alpha = 0$ is not critical, so we should not expect it to be sent to a neighborhood of $\beta = 0$ by the odd Legendre transform. Instead it will be sent to a neighborhood of the `point' of $\Pi T X$ with fiber coordinates given by $\del\gamma/\del\alpha_i|_{\alpha_i =0} = \gamma_1^i$.
More precisely: given a form $\lambda$ in terms of the $\beta_i$, we shift the coordinates to $\tilde\beta^i = \beta^i - \gamma_1^i$; the shifted form will then satisfy \cref{prop:oddLegendre} with respect to the differential $\tilde d$ in the variables $\tilde\beta^i$. We calculate this in terms of the original variables, expanding to linear order in $\gamma_1$
\begin{align*}
\tilde d \tilde \lambda &= \tilde \beta^i \frac{\del\tilde\lambda_0}{\del x^i} + \tilde \beta^i \frac{\del\tilde\lambda^1_j}{\del x^i}\tilde\beta^j + \dots \\
&= \beta^i \frac{\del}{\del x^i} \left(\lambda^0 + \lambda^1_j\beta^j + \dots\right) - \gamma_i^i \frac{\del}{\del x^i} \left(\lambda^0 + \lambda^1_j\beta^j + \dots\right) - \beta^i \frac{\del}{\del x^i} \left(\lambda^1_j \gamma_i^j + \dots\right) + O((\gamma_1)^2) \\
&= (d-Lie_{\gamma_1}) \lambda + O((\gamma_1)^2)
\end{align*}
Therefore we have the following result:
\begin{corollary}
If the polyvector field $\gamma$ satisfies the equation $[\gamma,\gamma] = 0$, then its odd Legendre transform $\lambda$ satisfies $(d-Lie_{\gamma_1})\lambda = 0$ up to higher corrections in $\gamma_1$.
\end{corollary}
Note that comparing the result above with the noncommutative analogies in \cite{kontsevich2006notes} motivates the statement of the correspondence we mentioned in the introduction (\cref{eqn:main}).
\subsubsection{Inverting the Legendre transform}\label{sec:inverting}
Before we move on to the noncommutative world, let us discuss one last thing about the odd Legendre transform. For simplicity we return to the case where $\gamma_1 = 0$. Given only the degree two matrix $\gamma^{ij}_2$ of $\gamma$, and the expression for the Legendre transform $\lambda = \cL(\gamma)$ (of all of $\gamma$), how can one compute $\gamma_3,\gamma_4,\dots$ \emph{without} explicitly writing down the inverse Legendre transform?
This question may seem silly since in this case we could just directly write down the inverse Legendre transform. But in the noncommutative case we will not have an explicit inverse; instead we will use a version of the implicit function theorem. That is, we know by definition that the pair $(\gamma,\lambda)$ solves the equation
\[ e_\gamma = (F\gamma)(\lambda) \]
By calculating the expressions for the `energy function' of $\gamma$ and the fiberwise derivative we have:
\begin{align*} \frac{\gamma_2^{ij}}{2!}\alpha_i\alpha_j + 2 \frac{\gamma_3^{ijk}}{3!} \alpha_i\alpha_j\alpha_k + \dots &=
\lambda^2_{i_1i_2}\left(\gamma_2^{i_1j_1} \alpha_{j_1} + \frac{\gamma_3^{i_1j_1k_1}}{2!} \alpha_{j_1}\alpha_{k_1} + \dots\right) \left(\gamma_2^{i_2j_2} \alpha_{j_2} + \frac{\gamma_3^{i_2j_2k_2}}{2!} \alpha_{j_2}\alpha_{k_2} + \dots\right) \\
&+ \lambda^3_{i_1i_2i_3}\left( \dots \right) \dots
\end{align*}
When the matrix $\gamma_2$ is nondegenerate, the quadratic term in $\alpha$ gives exactly the matrix equation $\lambda_2 = (\gamma_2)^{-1}$, as expected. In third order the equation is:\footnote{Note that to get the right numerical factors, it is easier to first embed the exterior algebra into the tensor algebra, antisymmetrically.}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:inverseLegendreTransform}
\frac{\lambda^2_{ab}}{2!} (\gamma_2^{ai}\gamma_3^{bjk} + \gamma_3^{aij}\gamma_2^{bk}) + \lambda^3_{abc}\gamma_2^{ai}\gamma_2^{bj}\gamma_2^{ck}= 2\gamma_3^{ijk}
\end{equation}
which, using the solution for $\lambda_2$ and the skew-symmetry of $\gamma_3$, gives our desired solution $\gamma_3^{ijk} = \lambda^3_{abc}\gamma_2^{ai}\gamma_2^{bj}\gamma_2^{ck}$.
\subsubsection{Roadmap to the noncommutative version}
Above we explained that the odd Legendre transform relates polyvector fields
\[ \gamma = \gamma_1 + \gamma_2 + \dots \]
that are solutions of the Maurer-Cartan equation $[\gamma,\gamma] = 0$ to differential forms that are closed under $d-Lie_{\gamma_1}$.
On one of the sides related by this noncommutative Legendre transform, we have an $A_\infty$-algebra $(A,\mu)$; in other words, a noncommutative pointed dg manifold $X_A$ with an integrable vector field $Q_\mu$; the space $C^*_{[d]}(A)$ where pre-CY structures of dimension $d$ is then the space of shifted polyvector fields on $X_A$, with the necklace bracket playing the role of Schouten-Nijenhuis bracket.
On the other side, we have the space of noncommutative forms on $X_A$; this is the negative cyclic homology complex $CC^-_*(A)$ with differential $b_\mu + uB$. For a discussion of this relation in our context, see e.g. \cite[Sec.3.3]{kontsevich2021precalabiyau}.
The noncommutative Legendre transform then relates these two sides. Let us sketch a roadmap for what follows. We start with a pre-CY structure $m$, a solution of the Maurer-Cartan equation $[m,m] = 0$. From this, we will proceed in a completely parallel fashion to what we described for the odd Legendre transform. We first define the noncommutative fiberwise derivative, which is a map of complexes
\[ Fm: (CC^-_*(A), b_\mu+ uB) \to (C^*_{[d]}(A), [m,-]_\nec) \]
In analogy with the (super)commutative case, we prove that if $m_{(2)}$ is nondegenerate, the map above is a quasi-isomorphism; we then write the `energy function' $e_m$ corresponding to $m$ and define the Legendre transform of $m$ to be $(Fm)^{-1}(e_m)$, which defines a nondegenerate element in the negative cyclic complex.
In order to compute the inverse Legendre transform, going from a nondegenerate cyclic homology class to a pre-CY structure, we use the same `implicit function theorem' strategy of \cref{sec:inverting} to produce a map
\[ \Phi: (CC^-_d(A))_\mathrm{nondeg} \to C^*_{[d]}(A) \]
which lands inside of the space $\cM_\mathrm{pre-CY}$ of solutions to that equation, that is, pre-CY structures.
Just like the ordinary Legendre transform, the map $\Phi$ is also `one-to-one', but in a more sophisticated sense; note that one of the sides has a natural `linear' notion of equivalence ($b_\mu+uB$-cohomology) but the other one does not. We will later explain in \cref{sec:simplicial} what is the correct notion of equivalence.
\subsection{Tube quivers}
Our constructions of the maps $Pm$ and $\Phi$ are described using a specific type of ribbon quivers, which we now explain. We refer to \cite{kontsevich2021precalabiyau} for the general definition of ribbon quivers and for the formalism that calculates their action on Hochschild chains.
\begin{definition}
For any integer $\ell \ge 1$, the space $\scrT_{(\ell)}$ of \emph{tube quivers with $\ell$ outgoing edges} is the vector space spanned by ribbon quivers corresponding to genus zero surfaces with two boundary components: one boundary component with a closed input (source in $V_\times$) and another boundary component with $\ell$ open outputs (sinks in $V_\mathrm{open-out}$).
\end{definition}
For each integer $d$, a $d$-orientation on a ribbon graph can be specified by a total ordering of all its edges and vertices, with permutations assigning a $\pm$ weight depending on the parity of $d$. We will fix this ordering to be of the following form: if the $\times$-source is denoted by $s$ (with incident edge $e$) and the open outputs are labeled $o_1,\dots,o_\ell$, going \emph{clockwise starting from the right}, we will always put this orientation in the form
\[ \pm (o_1\ o_2\ \dots\ o_\ell\ \dots\ e\ s) \]
Recall also that each ribbon quiver $\vec\Gamma$ has a homological degree which depends on $d$, given by the formula
\[ \hspace{-1cm} \deg_d(\Gamma) = \sum_{v \neq s, o_1,\dots,o_n} ((2-d) out(v) + d + in(v) -4) \]
\begin{example}
Here are some examples of ribbon quivers appearing in $\scrT_{(2)}$ and $\scrT_{(3)}$, respectively:
\[ \Gamma = \tikzfig{
\node [inner sep=0pt] (x) at (0,0) {$\times$};
\node [bullet] (n) at (0,1) {};
\node [bullet] (s) at (0,-1) {};
\node [bullet] (ne) at (0.7,0.7) {};
\node [bullet] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\draw [->-,shorten <=-3.5pt] (x) to (ne);
\draw [->-=1] (w) to (-2,0);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to (2,0);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:45:1);
\draw [->-] (0.7,0.7) arc (45:0:1);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:-180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:0:1);
}\qquad \Gamma' =
\tikzfig{
\node [inner sep=0pt] (x) at (0,0) {$\times$};
\node [bullet,label={$v$}] (nw) at (-0.5,0.87) {};
\node [bullet] (se) at (0.5,-0.87) {};
\node [bullet] (sw) at (-0.5,-0.87) {};
\node [bullet,label={[xshift=6pt]$w$}] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\draw [->-,shorten <=-3.5pt] (x) to (e);
\draw [->-=1] (nw) to (-1,1.74);
\draw [->-=1] (sw) to (-1,-1.74);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to (2,0);
\draw [->-] (-0.5,0.87) arc (120:0:1);
\draw [->-] (-1,0) arc (180:120:1);
\draw [->-] (-1,0) arc (180:240:1);
\draw [->-] (0.5,-0.87) arc (-60:-120:1);
\draw [->-] (0.5,-0.87) arc (-60:0:1);
}\]
When $d=0$, the quivers of degree zero only have the input $\times$, the outputs, and vertices either with two inputs and one output, or with zero inputs and one output. Also, the degree of some quiver is equal to how many edges were contracted to obtain it from any degree zero quiver; for example, for the examples above $\deg_0(\Gamma) = 0$ and $\deg_0(\Gamma') = 2$, since two vertices have degree one (marked $v$ and $w$). For any $d$, these degrees get shifted to $\deg_d(\Gamma) = -2d$ and $\deg_d(\Gamma') = -3d+2$.
\end{example}
Thus picking an integer $d$, we can define the space $\scrT^d_{(\ell)}$ of $d$-oriented tube quivers, which as a vector space is equal to $\scrT_{(\ell)}$ but has a grading depending on $d$.
We consider then inserting a Hochschild chain into the $\times$-vertex and also any numbers of incoming $A[1]$ arrows, in between the $\ell$ outgoing legs. Now, given \emph{any} element $m = m_{(1)} + m_{(2)} + \dots \in C^*_{[d]}(A)$, evaluating this oriented ribbon quiver we then get $\ell$ outgoing $A$ factors. This evaluation gives a linear morphism of graded vector spaces
\[ E: \scrT^d_{(\ell)} \otimes CC^-_*(A) \longrightarrow C^*_{(\ell)}(A) \]
For general $m$, $E$ has no reason to commute with any differentials whatsoever. We now analyze some natural differentials on the space $\scrT^d_{(\ell)}$.
\subsection{Differentials on tube quivers}
\subsubsection{The chain boundary differential}
We first have the differential $\del$ defined by summing over vertex separations. This is the boundary operator on chains, and has homological degree of $-1$, as usual. The evaluation of a ribbon quiver is compatible with this differential, that is,
\[ E: (\scrT^d_{(\ell)},\del) \otimes (C_*(A),b) \longrightarrow (C^*_{(\ell)}(A), [\mu,-]_\nec) \]
is a map of cochain complexes (where we regard everything with \emph{cohomological} grading), and so descends to a map in cohomology.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:circle}
When $d=0$, the complex $(\scrT^d_{(\ell)},\del)$ calculates the homology of the circle:
\[ H_*(\scrT^{d=0}_{(\ell)},\del) = H_*(S^1) \]
that is, $\kk$ in homological degrees zero and one. The same holds for other values of $d$, but with a shift:
\[ H_{* + \ell d}(\scrT^d_{(\ell)},\del) = H_*(S^1) \]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The first statement is a special case of \cite[Thm.60]{kontsevich2021precalabiyau}. The ribbon quivers which appear in $\scrT_{(\ell)}$ give a cell decomposition of the space
\[ ``\cM_{0,2}" \times S^1 \times (\RR_{>0})^{2\ell-1} = S^1 \times (\RR_{>0})^{2\ell-1} \]
here $``\cM_{0,2}"$ denotes just the point, since the genus zero curve with two punctures has no moduli. As explained in the proof of that theorem, $(\scrT^{d=0},\del)$ is the complex of chains on a cell complex that is dual to the cell decomposition above.
The ribbon quivers with $d$-degree zero correspond to top-dimensional cells. To see that the identification above is correct, we note that for such a quiver we can independently choose $\ell$ positive number to be the lengths of the outgoing legs, and $\ell-1$ positive numbers to be the lengths of distances between the vertices that are not $s,o_1,\dots,o_\ell$; the last length is fixed by the others. To that we add a circle worth of directions where the edge coming out of the $\times$-vertex $s$ can land.
The latter statement is a variation on the $d=0$ case; conceptually, for different $d$, the result is twisted by powers of a line bundle $\cL$ on this moduli space which is trivial up to a shift of $\ell$.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{The rotation differential}\label{sec:rotationDiff}
We now introduce another differential, corresponding to rotation around the $S^1$-factor. For that, let us first consider the following decomposition of vector spaces
\[ \scrT_{(\ell)} = (\scrT_{(\ell)})^\mathrm{edge} \oplus (\scrT_{(\ell)})^\mathrm{vertex} \]
where we decompose by what is at the end of the edge $e$ (the edge incident to the $\times$-vertex). The subspace $(\scrT_{(\ell)})^\mathrm{edge}$ is spanned by ribbon quivers where $e$ ends on a trivalent vertex with two incoming and one outgoing edge and the subspace $(\scrT_{(\ell)})^\mathrm{vertex}$ is spanned by the other ribbon quivers.
The names come from thinking of each tube ribbon graph without the source vertex; each is a circle with trees attached to the outside. To the interior of the circle we add the source $\tikzfig{\node [inner sep=0pt] (a) at (0,0) {$\times$};
\draw [->-, shorten <=-3.5pt] (a) to (1,0);}$; this arrow can either land on some edge, giving a tube quiver in $(\scrT_{(\ell)})^\mathrm{edge}$, or on an already-existing vertex, giving a tube quiver in $(\scrT_{(\ell)})^\mathrm{vertex}$.
We now define a map $R:(\scrT^d_{(\ell)})^\mathrm{edge} \to (\scrT^d_{(\ell)})^\mathrm{vertex}$ of homological degree $+1$ by the following prescription. Let $\vec\Gamma$ be some tube quiver in $(\scrT_{(\ell)})^\mathrm{edge}$; its edge $e$ lands at a vertex $v$ of either of the two forms:
\[
\text{Type } (1) \quad \tikzfig{
\node [bullet,label={[xshift=6pt]$v$}] (v) at (0,0) {};
\node [inner sep=0,label=below:{$s$}] (x) at (-0.7,-0.7) {$\times$};
\draw [->-,shorten <=-3.5pt] (x) to node [auto,swap] {$e$} (v);
\draw [->-] (-0.7,0.3) arc (90:45:1) node [midway] {$a$};
\draw [->-] (0,0) arc (45:0:1) node [midway] {$b$};
} \qquad \qquad \text{Type } (2) \quad \tikzfig{
\node [bullet,label={[xshift=6pt]$v$}] (a) at (0,0) {};
\node [inner sep=0,label=below:{$s$}] (x) at (-0.7,-0.7) {$\times$};
\draw [->-,shorten <=-3.5pt] (x) to node [auto,swap] {$e$} (v);
\draw [->-] (0,0) arc (45:90:1) node [midway,swap] {$b$};
\draw [->-] (0.3,-0.7) arc (0:45:1) node [midway,swap] {$a$};
}\]
Let us pick a $d$-orientation on $\vec\Gamma$ by some ordering of the form
\[ (b\ v\ \dots\ o_1\ o_2\ \dots\ o_\ell\ \dots\ a\ \dots\ e\ s) \]
that is, putting the letters $bv$ in the beginning.
We now consider all the ribbon quivers $\vec\Gamma_{v'}$ we get by sending the edge $e$ to land in all the other vertices of the circle $v'$ that are not $v$. The result doesn't have the vertex $v$ anymore, and the edge where it previously was is now denoted $a$.
\begin{definition}
The \emph{rotation differential} $R$ is defined on the subspace $(\scrT^d_{(\ell)})^\mathrm{edge}$ by
\[ \hspace{-1cm} R \left( \vec\Gamma,(b\ v\ \dots\ o_1\ o_2\ \dots\ o_\ell\ \dots\ a\ \dots\ e\ s) \right) = \sum_{v \neq v' \text{ in circle}} \left( \vec\Gamma_{v'}, (-1)^{\ell + \#} (o_1\ o_2\ \dots\ o_\ell\ \dots\ a\ \dots\ e\ s) \right) \]
where in the exponent of the sign, $\# = 0$ if the vertex $v$ is of type (1) above, or $\#=1$ if it is of type (2) above. We extend by zero from the subspace $(\scrT^d_{(\ell)})^\mathrm{edge}$ to a map $R: \scrT^d_{(\ell)} \to \scrT^d_{(\ell)}$, of homological degree +1.
\end{definition}
In other words, under the direct sum decomposition, $R$ is given by a strictly triangular matrix $\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ R & 0 \end{pmatrix}$; it is evident that $R^2=0$. We check that the assignment of the orientation above is coherent with respect to the change of ordering, and does define a map from oriented ribbon quivers.
\begin{example}
Let us compute the differential for the tube quiver with orientation
\[ \hspace{-0.6cm} (\Gamma, \cO) = \left( \tikzfig{
\node [inner sep=0pt,label={$s$}] (x) at (0,0) {$\times$};
\node at (2,0.3) {$o_1$};
\node at (-2,0.3) {$o_2$};
\node [bullet,label=above:{$v_4$}] (n) at (0,1) {};
\node [bullet,label=below:{$v_2$}] (s) at (0,-1) {};
\node [bullet,label={[xshift=6pt,yshift=-2pt]$v_5$}] (ne) at (0.7,0.7) {};
\node [bullet,label=left:{$v_1$}] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet,label=right:{$v_3$}] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\draw [->-,shorten <=-3.5pt] (x) to node [auto] {$e$} (ne);
\draw [->-=1] (w) to node [auto] {$e_4$}(-2,0);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to node [auto,swap] {$e_1$} (2,0);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:45:1) node [midway,xshift=-4pt] {$e_6$};
\draw [->-] (0.7,0.7) arc (45:0:1) node [midway] {$e_7$};
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:180:1) node [midway,swap] {$e_5$};
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:-180:1) node [midway] {$e_3$};
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:0:1) node [midway,swap] {$e_2$};
},\ (o_1\ o_2\ v_1\ v_2\ v_3\ v_4\ v_5\ e_1\ e_2\ e_3\ e_4\ e_5\ e_6\ e_7\ e\ s) \right)\]
To calculate the signs in $R(\Gamma,\cO)$, we first bring the pair $e_7\ v_5$ to the beginning of the string, getting a sign $(-1)^{6\times(d-1) + 6\times d} = +1$ from the permutation (recall that swapping two edges gives $(-1)^{d-1}$ and two vertices, $(-1)^d$). For the orientation of the terms in $R(\Gamma, \cO)$ we just take this sign into consideration and delete the pair $e_7\ v_5$, getting:
\begin{align*}
R(\Gamma, \cO) &= \tikzfig{
\node [inner sep=0pt,label={$s$}] (x) at (0,0) {$\times$};
\node at (2,0.3) {$o_1$};
\node at (-2,0.3) {$o_2$};
\node [bullet,label=above:{$v_4$}] (n) at (0,1) {};
\node [bullet,label=below:{$v_2$}] (s) at (0,-1) {};
\node [bullet,label={[xshift=+5pt]$v_1$}] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet,label=right:{$v_3$}] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\draw [->-,shorten <=-3.5pt] (x) to node [auto,swap] {$e$} (e);
\draw [->-=1] (w) to node [auto] {$e_4$}(-2,0);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to node [auto,swap] {$e_1$} (2,0);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:0:1) node [midway,xshift=-4pt] {$e_6$};
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:180:1) node [midway,swap] {$e_5$};
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:-180:1) node [midway] {$e_3$};
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:0:1) node [midway,swap] {$e_2$};
} \quad + \quad \tikzfig{
\node [inner sep=0pt,label=below:{$s$}] (x) at (0,0) {$\times$};
\node at (2,0.3) {$o_1$};
\node at (-2,0.3) {$o_2$};
\node [bullet,label=above:{$v_4$}] (n) at (0,1) {};
\node [bullet,label=below:{$v_2$}] (s) at (0,-1) {};
\node [bullet,label=left:{$v_1$}] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet,label=right:{$v_3$}] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\draw [->-,shorten <=-3.5pt] (x) to node [auto] {$e$} (n);
\draw [->-=1] (w) to node [auto] {$e_4$}(-2,0);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to node [auto,swap] {$e_1$} (2,0);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:0:1) node [midway,xshift=-4pt] {$e_6$};
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:180:1) node [midway,swap] {$e_5$};
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:-180:1) node [midway] {$e_3$};
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:0:1) node [midway,swap] {$e_2$};
} \\
&+ \quad \tikzfig{
\node [inner sep=0pt,label=below:{$s$}] (x) at (0,0) {$\times$};
\node at (2,0.3) {$o_1$};
\node at (-2,0.3) {$o_2$};
\node [bullet,label=above:{$v_4$}] (n) at (0,1) {};
\node [bullet,label=below:{$v_2$}] (s) at (0,-1) {};
\node [bullet,label=left:{$v_1$}] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet,label={[xshift=-5pt]$v_3$}] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\draw [->-,shorten <=-3.5pt] (x) to node [auto,swap] {$e$} (w);
\draw [->-=1] (w) to node [auto] {$e_4$}(-2,0);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to node [auto,swap] {$e_1$} (2,0);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:0:1) node [midway,xshift=-4pt] {$e_6$};
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:180:1) node [midway,swap] {$e_5$};
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:-180:1) node [midway] {$e_3$};
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:0:1) node [midway,swap] {$e_2$};
} \quad + \quad
\tikzfig{
\node [inner sep=0pt,label=above:{$s$}] (x) at (0,0) {$\times$};
\node at (2,0.3) {$o_1$};
\node at (-2,0.3) {$o_2$};
\node [bullet,label=above:{$v_4$}] (n) at (0,1) {};
\node [bullet,label=below:{$v_2$}] (s) at (0,-1) {};
\node [bullet,label=left:{$v_1$}] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet,label=right:{$v_3$}] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\draw [->-,shorten <=-3.5pt] (x) to node [auto,swap] {$e$} (s);
\draw [->-=1] (w) to node [auto] {$e_4$}(-2,0);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to node [auto,swap] {$e_1$} (2,0);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:0:1) node [midway,xshift=-4pt] {$e_6$};
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:180:1) node [midway,swap] {$e_5$};
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:-180:1) node [midway] {$e_3$};
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:0:1) node [midway,swap] {$e_2$};
}\quad ,
\end{align*}
all with orientation $+(o_1\ o_2\ v_1\ v_2\ v_3\ v_4\ e_1\ e_2\ e_3\ e_4\ e_5\ e_6\ e_7\ e\ s)$.
\end{example}
\vspace{1cm}
A direct calculation using the sign conventions for $\del$ and $R$ shows that they graded-commute with each other, that is,
\[ \del R + R \del = 0 \]
Therefore $(\scrT^d_{(\ell)}, \del, R)$ has the structure of a \emph{mixed complex}, or equivalently, a complex with a chain-level action of the circle.
\subsection{Cyclicity and negative cyclic homology}
Let us describe how the tube quivers with differentials $\del$ and $R$ interact with the Hochschild and Connes differential on Hochschild chains. We write just $\Gamma$ for some oriented tube quiver $(\Gamma,\cO)$, and will only specify the orientation when actually necessary.
\subsubsection{Cyclic complex of tube quivers}
Let $u$ be a variable of homological degree $-2$.
\begin{definition}
For a fixed $\ell, d$, the \emph{cyclic complex of tube quivers} is the $\kk[u]$-module
\[ \mathscr{CT}^d_{(\ell)} := \scrT^d_{(\ell)} \otimes_\kk \kk[u,u^{-1}]/k[u] \]
together with the differential $\del - uR$.
\end{definition}
That is, an element of homological degree $n$ in $\mathscr{CT}^d_{(\ell)}$ is given by an expression
\[ \vec\Gamma = \vec\Gamma^0 + \vec\Gamma^1 u^{-1} + \vec\Gamma^2 u^{-1} \]
where $\vec\Gamma^i$ is an element of $\scrT^d_{(\ell)}$ of homological degree $n-2i$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:homologyPoint}
Up to a shift, the complex $\mathscr{CT}^d_{(\ell)}$ calculates the homology of the point. That is,
\[ H_{\ell d}(\mathscr{CT}^d_{(\ell)},\del-uR) = \kk \]
and $H_i(\mathscr{CT}^d_{(\ell)},\del) = 0$ for $i \neq \ell d$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let us show the case $d=0$; as in \cref{prop:circle}, the general case follows from that one by twisting with a line bundle that is trivial up to an overall shift. When $d=0$, $\mathscr{CT}^d_{(\ell)}$ is a non-negatively graded mixed complex. So the Connes long exact sequence in low degrees splits as
\[ 0 \to H_2(\mathscr{CT}^d_{(\ell)},\del-uR) \to H_0(\mathscr{CT}^d_{(\ell)},\del-uR) \to H_1(\scrT^{d=0}_{(\ell)},\del) \to H_1(\mathscr{CT}^d_{(\ell)},\del-uR) \to 0 \]
and
\[ 0 \to H_0(\scrT^{d=0}_{(\ell)},\del) \to H_0(\mathscr{CT}^d_{(\ell)},\del-uR) \to 0 \]
Thus $H_0(\mathscr{CT}^d_{(\ell)},\del-uR) = \kk$, and since $H_1(\scrT^d_{(\ell)},\del) = \kk$ it is enough to calculate that
\[ H_1(\mathscr{CT}^d_{(\ell)},\del-uR) = 0 \]
This follows from the fact that the nontrivial class in $H_1(\scrT^d_{(\ell)},\del)$ can be represented by a chain in the image of $R$.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Action on negative cyclic homology}
Recall that the negative cyclic homology of $(A,\mu)$ can be computed by the complex
\[ CC^-_*(A) = (C_*(A)[[u]], b + uB) \]
where $b$ is the Hochschild differential of homological degree $-1$ (depends on $\mu$) and $B$ is the Connes differential of homological degree $+1$ (does not depend on $\mu$).
Suppose now that we are given a pre-CY structure $m$. We extend the evaluation map $E$ to a map of $\kk[u]$-modules
\[ E|_{u^{-1}=0}: \mathscr{CT}^d_{(\ell)} \otimes CC^-_*(A) \to C^*_{(\ell)}(A) \]
by taking the part of degree zero in $u$, that is, by adding all the evaluations $\vec\Gamma^i(\lambda_i)$. For ease of notation let us also denote this map by $E$.
\begin{proposition}
The map $E|_{u^{-1}=0}$ is compatible with the differentials, and descends to a map in co/homology
\[ H_*(\mathscr{CT}^d_{(\ell)}, \del-uR) \otimes HC^-_*(A) \to H^*_{(\ell)}(A). \]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
It is enough to prove that for any $\vec\Gamma \in \scrT^d_{(\ell)}$ and $\lambda \in C_*(A)$, we have
\[ [\mu,E(\vec\Gamma,\lambda)]_\nec = E((\del-uR)\vec\Gamma,\lambda) + (-1)^{\deg(\vec\Gamma)} E(\vec\Gamma,(b+uB)\lambda). \]
But we already know that
\[ [\mu,E(\vec\Gamma,\lambda)]_\nec = E(\del\vec\Gamma,\lambda) + (-1)^{\deg(\vec\Gamma)} E(\vec\Gamma,b\lambda), \]
so it remains to prove that $E(R\vec\Gamma,\lambda) = (-1)^{\deg(\vec\Gamma)}E(\vec\Gamma, B\lambda)$. This follows from the fact that the unit of $A$ satisfies
\[ \mu^2(1_A,a) = (-1)^{\bar a+1}\mu^2(a,1_A) = a \]
for all $a$, so inputting the result of $B$ into a ribbon quiver in $(\scrT^d_{(\ell)})^\mathrm{edge}$ has the same result as redistributing that arrow around the other vertices of the cycle. We check that the signs in the differentials give the correct relation.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Rotation invariant tube quivers}
For any $d$, we have the dimension $d$-action of $\ZZ_\ell$ on the higher Hochschild cochains $C^*_{(\ell)}(A)$, as defined in \cite[Sec.3.1]{kontsevich2021precalabiyau}: in this definition, the rotation of an angle $2\pi/\ell$ of the vertex comes with the Koszul sign together with an extra sign $(d-1)(\ell-1)$. The invariants under this action, when properly shifted, define what we called the dimension $d$ higher cyclic cochains:
\[ C_{(\ell, d)}^*(A) := (C_{(\ell)}^*(A))^{(\ZZ_\ell,d)}[(d-2)(\ell-1)] \]
We now define this action analogously on the other side:
\begin{definition}
The dimension $d$-action of $\ZZ/\ell$ on the complex $\scrT^d_{(\ell)}$ is given by rotating the quiver by an angle of $+2\pi/\ell$, together with cyclically permuting the output vertices in the orientation, sending
\[ (o_1\ o_2\ \dots\ o_\ell\ \dots\ e\ s) \mapsto (o_\ell\ o_1\ o_2\ \dots\ o_{\ell-1}\ \dots\ e\ s). \]
\end{definition}
This action extends $k[u]$-linearly to $\cC\cT^d_{(\ell)}$, and we denote
\[ \mathscr{CT}_{(\ell,d)} := (\mathscr{CT}^d_{(\ell)})^{(\ZZ/\ell,d)}[(d-2)(\ell-1)]\]
for its shifted invariants. We also put all of these complexes for $\ell \ge 2$ together, into a complex
\[ \mathscr{CT}_{[d]} := \prod_{\ell \ge 2} \mathscr{CT}_{(\ell,d)} \]
Note that since vertices enter in the orientation with weight $(d-1)$, the sign of this permutation in the orientations is $(-1)^{(d-1)(\ell-1)}$, already accounting for the extra sign of the dimension $d$ action. We also calculate that this action commutes with the differentials $\del$ and $R$, so the map $E|_{u^{-1}=0}$ restricts to $\cC\cT_{(\ell,d)}$, and gives a map of graded vector spaces
\[ \mathscr{CT}_{[d]} \otimes CC^-_*(A) \to C^*_{[d]}(A). \]
Recall that given a pre-CY structure $m$ on $A$, the necklace bracket $[m,-]_\nec$ defines a differential on $C^*_{[d]}(A)$; by definition this differential is a sum
\[ [m,-]_\nec = d_\mu + [m_{(2)},-]_\nec + [m_{(3)},-]_\nec + \dots \]
where $d_\mu$ is just the differential on (usual) Hochschild cochains. Each term $[m_{(k)},-]_\nec$ maps $C^*_{(\ell,d)}(A) \to C^*_{(\ell + k-1,d)}(A)[1]$.
We mimic this differential on the tube quiver side, by defining differentials
\[ \del_k: \mathscr{CT}_{(\ell,d)} \to \mathscr{CT}_{(\ell+k-1,d)} \]
by taking the necklace bracket of the tube quiver with a vertex of $k$ outgoing legs. After checking all the signs and degrees, we conclude that:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:Ecompatible}
The map $E|_{u^{-1}=0}$ is compatible with the differential $(\del-uR + \del_2 + \del_3 + \dots)$ on $\mathscr{CT}_{[d]}$, and gives a map in co/homology
\[ H_*(\mathscr{CT}_{[d]}, \del - uR + \del_2 + \del_3 + \dots) \otimes HC^-_*(A) \to C^*_{[d]}(A). \]
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Defining the Legendre transform}
\subsubsection{The fiberwise derivative}\label{sec:fiberwise}
From the proposition above, given any closed class in $\mathscr{CT}_{[d]}$, any negative cyclic homology class, and a pre-CY structure $m$, we produce another element $n$ of $C^*_{[d]}(A)$ satisfying the equation $[m,n]_\nec = 0$.
This will play the role of the \emph{fiberwise derivative} in the usual Legendre transform. Recall from \cref{prop:tangentLegendre} that the fiberwise derivative can be understood as the variational derivative of the Legendre transform; thus in the noncommutative case it is natural that it would land in the tangent complex $(C^*_{[d]}(A), [m,-]_\nec)$, which calculates the tangent space of $\cM_\mathrm{pre-CY}$ at the point $m$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:extend}
Any $\del$-closed element of cohomological degree $2d$ in $\mathscr{CT}^d_{(2)}$, invariant under the $(\ZZ_2,d)$ action, extends to a $(\del-uR+\del_2+\del_3+\dots)$-closed element of cohomological degree $d+2$ in $\mathscr{CT}_{[d]}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We prove this by induction in the number $\ell$ of outgoing legs. Let us say that we have an extension
\[ \Gamma_{(2)} + \Gamma_{(3)} + \dots + \Gamma_{(\ell)} \]
where $\Gamma_{(\ell)} \in \mathscr{CT}_{(\ell,d)}$. Unraveling the definitions and degree shifts, it means we have
\begin{align*}
\Gamma_{(2)} &= \Gamma_{(2)}^0 \\
\Gamma_{(3)} &= \Gamma_{(3)}^0 + \Gamma_{(3)}^1 u^{-1} \\
\dots \\
\Gamma_{(\ell)} &= \Gamma_{(\ell)}^0 + \Gamma_{(\ell)}^1 u^{-1} +\dots + \Gamma_{(\ell)}^{\ell-2} u^{-\ell+2}
\end{align*}
where $\Gamma_{(k)}^i$ is of homological degree $-dk+2k-4+2i$ in $\scrT^d_{(k)}$; the terms above are the only ones that can be nonzero for degree reasons.
Suppose that we have
\[ (\del-uR+\del_2+\dots)(\Gamma_{(2)} + \Gamma_{(3)} + \dots + \Gamma_{(\ell)}) = 0 \]
up to terms with $\ell$ outgoing legs. The next equation to be solved, with exactly $\ell+1$ outgoing legs, is to find
\[\Gamma_{(\ell+1)} = \Gamma_{(\ell+1)}^0 + \Gamma_{(\ell+1)}^1 u^{-1} +\dots + \Gamma_{(\ell+1)}^{\ell-1} u^{-\ell+1}\]
solving
\[ (\del - uR)\Gamma_{(\ell+1)} = \del_2\Gamma_{(\ell)} + \dots + \del_{\ell}\Gamma_{(2)} \]
From the fact that $(\del-uR)^2$, and using the induction hypothesis, we find that $(\del-uR)$ applied to the right-hand side gives zero. But since this equation is in homological degree $-d(\ell+1)+2\ell-2 > -d(\ell + 1)$, due to \cref{prop:homologyPoint} it must have a solution for $\Gamma_{(\ell+1)}$; using symmetrization under the $(\ZZ_{\ell+1},d)$ action we get the desired $\Gamma_{(\ell+1)}$.
\end{proof}
Therefore, all we need to do is to specify a $\del$-closed element $\Gamma_{(2)}^0$ of $\scrT^d_{(2)}$ which is $\ZZ/2$-invariant if $d$ is odd and anti-invariant if $d$ is even.
\begin{definition}
We define the following element of homological degree $-2d$ in $\scrT^d_{(2)}$.
\[ \Gamma_{(2)} = \frac{1}{2} \left( \tikzfig{
\node [inner sep=0pt,label=below:{$s$}] (x) at (0,0) {$\times$};
\node at (2,0.3) {$o_1$};
\node at (-2,0.3) {$o_2$};
\node [bullet,label=above:{$v_4$}] (n) at (0,1) {};
\node [bullet,label=below:{$v_2$}] (s) at (0,-1) {};
\node [bullet,label={[xshift=6pt,yshift=-2pt]$v$}] (ne) at (0.7,0.7) {};
\node [bullet,label=left:{$v_1$}] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet,label=right:{$v_3$}] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\draw [->-,shorten <=-3.5pt] (x) to node [auto] {$e$} (ne);
\draw [->-=1] (w) to node [auto] {$e_4$}(-2,0);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to node [auto,swap] {$e_1$} (2,0);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:45:1) node [midway,xshift=-4pt] {$e_6$};
\draw [->-] (0.7,0.7) arc (45:0:1) node [midway] {$b$};
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:180:1) node [midway,swap] {$e_5$};
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:-180:1) node [midway] {$e_3$};
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:0:1) node [midway,swap] {$e_2$};
} \quad + \quad \tikzfig{
\node [inner sep=0pt,label={$s$}] (x) at (0,0) {$\times$};
\node at (2,0.3) {$o_1$};
\node at (-2,0.3) {$o_2$};
\node [bullet,label=above:{$v_4$}] (n) at (0,1) {};
\node [bullet,label=below:{$v_2$}] (s) at (0,-1) {};
\node [bullet,label={[xshift=-5pt,yshift=-15pt]$v$}] (sw) at (-0.7,-0.7) {};
\node [bullet,label=left:{$v_1$}] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet,label=right:{$v_3$}] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\draw [->-,shorten <=-3.5pt] (x) to node [auto] {$e$} (sw);
\draw [->-=1] (w) to node [auto] {$e_4$}(-2,0);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to node [auto,swap] {$e_1$} (2,0);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:0:1) node [midway] {$e_6$};
\draw [->-] (-0.7,-0.7) arc (-135:-180:1) node [midway,yshift=3pt] {$b$};
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:180:1) node [midway,swap] {$e_5$};
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:-135:1) node [midway,xshift=4pt] {$e_3$};
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:0:1) node [midway,swap] {$e_2$};
}\right) \]
both quivers with orientation $\ (o_1\ o_2\ v_1\ v_2\ v_3\ v_4\ v\ e_1\ e_2\ e_3\ e_4\ e_5\ e_6\ b\ e\ s)$.
\end{definition}
Note that $\Gamma_{(2)}$ is of top cohomological degree $+2d$, so $\del\Gamma_{(2)} = 0$. To know that it defines an element of $\mathscr{CT}_{[d]}$ (of cohomological degree $+2d-(d-2)(2-1) = d+2$), we must check that the generator of $\ZZ/2$ acts on it with a sign $(-1)^{(d-1)(2-1)} = (-1)^{d-1}$; to see that we calculate the sign of the permutation of the sequence $(v_1\ v_2\ v_3\ v_4\ v\ e_1\ e_2\ e_3\ e_4\ e_5\ e_6\ b\ e\ s)$ induced by the 180-degree rotation; note that the labels $o_1$ and $o_2$ because we still want to read the outputs of these quivers starting from the right.
\begin{definition}\label{def:gammaQuiver}
We define $\Gamma = \Gamma_{(2)} + \Gamma_{(3)} + \dots$ to be the element of cohomological degree $d+2$ of $\mathscr{CT}_{[d]}$ given by some fixed extension of $\Gamma_{(2)}$.
\end{definition}
Note that $\Gamma$ is only defined up to some $(\del -uR + \del_2 + \del_3 + \dots)$-exact term.
\begin{lemma}
For any $\ell > 2$, the class of $\Gamma^{\ell-2}_{(\ell)}$ in $H_{-\ell d}(\scrT^d_{\ell}, \del)$ is nonzero.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that for degree reasons, the term $\Gamma^{\ell-2}_{(\ell)}$ is the lowest homological degree term that appears in $\Gamma_{(\ell)}$. For $\ell = 2$ it is the only one; and the claim follows from the fact that we can use the $\del$-differential to move the edge $e$ around the circle, giving
\[ \hspace{-1cm} \Gamma_{(2)} = \left( \tikzfig{
\node [inner sep=0pt,label=below:{$s$}] (x) at (0,0) {$\times$};
\node at (2,0.3) {$o_1$};
\node at (-2,0.3) {$o_2$};
\node [bullet,label=above:{$v_4$}] (n) at (0,1) {};
\node [bullet,label=below:{$v_2$}] (s) at (0,-1) {};
\node [bullet,label={[xshift=6pt,yshift=-2pt]$v$}] (ne) at (0.7,0.7) {};
\node [bullet,label=left:{$v_1$}] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet,label=right:{$v_3$}] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\draw [->-,shorten <=-3.5pt] (x) to node [auto] {$e$} (ne);
\draw [->-=1] (w) to node [auto] {$e_4$}(-2,0);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to node [auto,swap] {$e_1$} (2,0);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:45:1) node [midway,xshift=-4pt] {$e_6$};
\draw [->-] (0.7,0.7) arc (45:0:1) node [midway] {$b$};
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:180:1) node [midway,swap] {$e_5$};
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:-180:1) node [midway] {$e_3$};
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:0:1) node [midway,swap] {$e_2$};
}, (o_1\ o_2\ v_1\ v_2\ v_3\ v_4\ v\ e_1\ e_2\ e_3\ e_4\ e_5\ e_6\ b\ e\ s) \right) + (\del\text{-exact term}) \]
so $\Gamma_{(2)}$ is the class of $\pm$ one point in the moduli space.
For any $\ell \ge 3$, from expanding out the equation $(\del-uR +\del_2+\dots)\Gamma$, we see that $\Gamma^{\ell-2}_{(\ell)}$ is defined by solving the equation
\[ \del \Gamma^{\ell-3}_{(\ell)} - R \Gamma^{\ell-2}_{(\ell)} = - \del_2 \Gamma^{\ell-3}_{(\ell-1)} \]
so to prove the statement it is sufficient to show the class
\[ [\del_2 \Gamma^{\ell-3}_{(\ell-1)}] \in H_{-\ell d+1}(\scrT^d_{(\ell)},\del) \]
is nonzero. The easiest way to show this is to explicitly write down a $\ZZ/2$-valued cocycle on $\scrT^d_{(\ell)}$ that evaluates to 1 when paired with $\del_2 \Gamma^{\ell-3}_{(\ell-1)}$.
The correct (cohomological) degree for this cocycle $\alpha$ is $-\ell d+1$; and we need to specify how it acts on any tube quiver of the same (homological) degree; these are exactly the quivers of degree one higher than the minimum, that is, with exactly one contracted edge.
For any tube quiver $X$, take the closest vertex in the circle to the first output $o_1$. If this vertex is directly connected to the source vertex $s$, we set $\alpha(X)=1$, otherwise, $\alpha(X) = 0$. By thinking of all the possible kinds of edge that can be contracted from a minimum homological degree quiver, we calculate that $\alpha$ is a cocycle. Evaluating $\alpha$ on $\del_2 \Gamma^{\ell-3}_{(\ell-1)}$ gives one (there is exactly one tube quiver there where the source and the first output `are aligned'). \footnote{In fact, if we wanted to we could have worked with a $\ZZ$-valued cocycle instead, and by being careful with the orientations, prove that not only $[\Gamma^{\ell-2}_{(\ell)}] \neq 0$, but also that it is a generator of $H_{-\ell d}(\scrT^d_{(\ell)},\del) = \ZZ$.}
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}
The \emph{fiberwise derivative} at the pre-CY structure $m$ is the map
\[ Fm = E(\Gamma,-)|_{u^{-1}=0}: CC^-_*(A) \to C^*_{[d]}(A)[d+2] \]
\end{definition}
By the closedness of $\Gamma$ under the differential $\del-uR + \sum_i\del_i$ we get that the fiberwise derivative is a map of complexes. For simplicity from now on we denote $\Gamma(\lambda)$ for the evaluation $E(\Gamma,\lambda)|_{u^{-1}=0}$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:quasiIso}
If $m_{(2)}$ is nondegenerate, that is, maps to a quasi-isomorphism of bimodules under $C^*_{(2)}(A) \cong \Hom_{A-A}(A_\Delta,A^!)$, then $Fm$ is a quasi-isomorphism.
\end{proposition}
This proposition should be seen a noncommutative version of the implicit function theorem; the element $m_{(2)}$ is the analog of the Jacobian matrix.
\begin{proof}
As in the proof of the theorem above, for degree reasons, the term of $\Gamma$ with $\ell$ outgoing legs is of the form
\[ \Gamma_{(\ell)} = \Gamma_{(\ell)}^0 + \Gamma_{(\ell)}^1 u^{-1} +\dots + \Gamma_{(\ell)}^{\ell-2} u^{-\ell+2} \]
so for some negative cyclic class $\lambda= \lambda_0 + \lambda_1 u + \lambda_2 u^2 + \dots$ we have
\[\Gamma_{(\ell)}(\lambda) = \sum_{i=0}^{i=\ell-2} \Gamma_{(\ell)}^i(\lambda_i) \]
that is, as we increase $\ell$, each new term of $Fm(\lambda)$ depends only on one new term $\lambda_{\ell-2}$.
It suffices then to show that the map
\[ \Gamma_{(\ell)}^{\ell-2}(-): (C_*(A),b_\mu) \to (C^*_{(\ell)}(A),[\mu,-]_\nec) \]
is a quasi-isomorphism. But recall that when $A$ is smooth and $m_{(2)}$ is nondegenerate (that is, gives a quasi-isomorphism $A^! \simeq A_\Delta$), we have the following quasi-isomorphisms
\begin{align*}
(C_*(A),b_\mu) &\simeq \Hom_{A-A}(A^!, A_\Delta) \simeq \Hom_{A-A}(A_\Delta, A_\Delta)\\
(C^*_{(\ell)}(A),[\mu,-]_\nec) & \simeq \Hom_{A-A}((A^!)^{\otimes_A (k-1)}, A_\Delta) \simeq \Hom_{A-A}(A_\Delta, A_\Delta)
\end{align*}
That is, up to quasi-isomorphisms all these invariants are just Hochschild cohomology. We see that all tube quivers of degree $-\ell d$ give cohomologous maps $(C_*(A),b_\mu) \to (C^*_{(\ell)}(A),[\mu,-]_\nec)$: they all involve applying the quasi-isomorphism coming from $m_{(2)}$ $\ell$ times in a sequence, which is the same operation given by the composition of the quasi-isomorphisms above. So the map $\Gamma_{(\ell)}^{\ell-2}(-)$ is cohomologous to (a scalar multiple) of this composition.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{The energy function and the Legendre transform}
In our discussion of the odd Legendre transform between polyvector fields and forms, we calculated that the correct analog of sending a Lagrangian function $L$ to its energy function $e_L = v_i \del L/\del v_i - L$ was given by sending a polyvector field $\gamma = \gamma_2 + \gamma_3 + \dots$ to the polyvector field
\[ e_\gamma = \gamma_2 + 2 \gamma_3 + 3 \gamma_4 + \dots \]
We make the same definition in the noncommutative case:
\begin{definition}
The energy function associated to an element $m = \mu + \sum_{\ell \ge 2} m_{(\ell)} \in C^*_{[d]}(A)$ is the element
\[ e_m = \sum_{\ell \ge 2} (\ell-1) m_{(\ell)} \in C^*_{[d]}(A). \]
\end{definition}
We calculate that $[m,e_m]_\nec = 0$, that is, this element $e_m$ gives a closed element under the differential on $C^*_{[d]}(A)$.
We then define the Legendre transform:
\begin{definition}\label{def:ncLegendre}
The noncommutative Legendre transform is the map
\begin{align*}
\cL: \left(\cM_{d-\mathrm{preCY}}(A)\right)_\mathrm{nondeg} &\to HC^-_d(A)\\
m &\mapsto [(Fm)^{-1}(e_m)]
\end{align*}
where $\left(\cM_{d-\mathrm{preCY}}(A)\right)_\mathrm{nondeg} \subset C^d_{[d]}(A)$ is the set of $d$-dimensional pre-CY structures $m = \mu + m_{(2)} + m_{(3)}+ \dots \in C^2_{[d]}(A)$ such that $m_{(2)}$ is nondegenerate.
\end{definition}
Note that the map $\cL$ is \emph{not} linear, and strictly speaking, as a map of sets, depends on our choice of quasi-inverse $(Fm)^{-1}$. Nevertheless, in some sense, also like the ordinary Legendre transform on convex functions, it is `one-to-one'; in the next section we explain what this means.
\section{The nondegenerate locus}
We now focus on the case where $A$ is smooth, and continue the study of the nondegenerate locus $\left(\cM_{d-\mathrm{preCY}}(A)\right)_\mathrm{nondeg}$ of the space of pre-CY structures on $A$.
The main result of this section is that the noncommutative Legendre transform $\cL$ we defined above is invertible, and gives an equivalence between nondegenerate pre-CY structures and smooth CY structures. However, this equivalence does not hold in a strict sense; its correct form is as a weak homotopy equivalence of simplicial sets, see later in \cref{sec:simplicial}. Under the assumption that the Hochschild cohomology of $A$ is concentrated in non-negative degree, this equivalence can be more simply phrased in terms of a groupoid of solutions to the Maurer-Cartan equation, which we describe in \cref{sec:groupoid}.
\subsection{Inverting the noncommutative Legendre transform}
We now characterize the image of the noncommutative Legendre transform $\cL$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:preToSmooth}
Every element of $CC^-_d(A)$ in the image of $\cL$ is a smooth CY structure on $A$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $\lambda = \lambda_0 + \lambda_1 u^1+\dots = \cL(m)$ be the image under the Legendre transform of a nondegenerate pre-CY structure $m$. The relation between $\lambda_0 \in C_d(A)$ and $m_{(2)} \in C^d_{(2)}(A)$ is given by
\[ m_{(2)} = \frac{1}{2} \left( \tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (x) at (0,0) {$\lambda_0$};
\node at (2,0.3) {};
\node at (-2,0.3) {};
\node [bullet] (n) at (0,1) {};
\node [bullet] (s) at (0,-1) {};
\node [bullet] (ne) at (0.7,0.7) {};
\node [bullet] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\draw [->-] (x) to (ne);
\draw [->-=1] (w) to (-2,0);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to (2,0);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:45:1);
\draw [->-] (0.7,0.7) arc (45:0:1);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:-180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:0:1);
} +\tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (x) at (0,0) {$\lambda_0$};
\node at (2,0.3) {};
\node at (-2,0.3) {};
\node [bullet] (n) at (0,1) {};
\node [bullet] (s) at (0,-1) {};
\node [bullet] (sw) at (-0.7,-0.7) {};
\node [bullet] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\draw [->-] (x) to (sw);
\draw [->-=1] (w) to (-2,0);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to (2,0);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:0:1);
\draw [->-] (-0.7,-0.7) arc (-135:-180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:-135:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:0:1);
}\right) + ([\mu,-]_\nec\text{-exact term}) \]
where as usual we evaluate by inserting $m_{(1)} = \mu$ and $m_{(2)}$ into the $\bullet$ vertices, accordingly, with some sign that we omit. By using the $\del$-differentials we find that
\[ m_{(2)} = \tikzfig{
\node [bullet] (v3) at (0,0.8) {};
\node [vertex] (v2) at (0,0) {$\lambda_0$};
\node [bullet] (v4) at (0.8,0) {};
\node [bullet] (v5) at (0,-0.8) {};
\node [bullet] (v6) at (0,-1.5) {};
\node [bullet] (v1) at (-1,-1.5) {};
\draw [->-] (v2) to (v4);
\draw [->-] (0,0.8) arc (90:0:0.8);
\draw [->-] (0,0.8) arc (90:270:0.8);
\draw [->-] (0.8,0) arc (0:-90:0.8);
\draw [->-] (v5) to (v6);
\draw [->-] (v1) to (-2.2,-1.5);
\draw [->-] (v1) to (v6);
\draw [->-] (v6) to (+1.1,-1.5);
} + ([\mu,-]_\nec\text{-exact term}) \]
We now use the canonical coevaluation map $\coev: \kk \to A_\Delta \otimes_{A\mh A} A^1$ on both sides, getting an equality in $C^*(A,A^!)$. Because $m_{(2)}$ is nondegenerate, this implies the equality in $C^*(A)$:
\[ \tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (v) at (0,0) {$1$};
\draw [->-] (v) to (0,-1.5);} \quad = \quad
\tikzfig{
\node [bullet] (v3) at (0,0.8) {};
\node [vertex] (v2) at (0,0) {$\lambda_0$};
\node [bullet] (v4) at (0.8,0) {};
\node [bullet] (v5) at (0,-0.8) {};
\node (v6) at (0,-1.6) {};
\draw [->-] (v2) to (v4);
\draw [->-] (0,0.8) arc (90:0:0.8);
\draw [->-] (0,0.8) arc (90:270:0.8);
\draw [->-] (0.8,0) arc (0:-90:0.8);
\draw [->-] (v5) to (v6);
} + ([\mu,-]\text{-exact term}) \]
which is exactly the chain-level description of the nondegeneracy condition on $\lambda_0$.
\end{proof}
So in other words, a nondegenerate pre-CY structure on a smooth $A_\infty$-category gives a smooth CY structure on it. We would like to invert this map. Recall that in \cref{sec:oddLegendre} we described the (odd) commutative version of this inverse, and showed how to calculate the inverse odd Legendre transform by describing it implicitly by the equation it solves.
We now describe the noncommutative analog of this procedure, using the same tube quivers
\[ \Gamma_{(\ell)} = \Gamma^0_{(\ell)} + \Gamma^1_{(\ell)} + \dots + \Gamma^{\ell-2}_{(\ell)} \]
we defined in \cref{def:gammaQuiver}. Suppose that we have a smooth CY structure of dimension $d$ given by an element
\[ \lambda = \lambda_0 + \lambda_1 u + \lambda_2 u^2 + \dots \in CC^-_*(A) \]
As in the proof of \cref{prop:preToSmooth} above, from our chain-level description of nondegeneracy, we know that we can find $\alpha \in C^d_{(2)}(A), \beta_{(2)} \in C^{d-1}_{(2)}(A)$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:alpha}
\alpha = \frac{1}{2} \left( \tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (x) at (0,0) {$\lambda_0$};
\node at (2,0.3) {};
\node at (-2,0.3) {};
\node [bullet] (n) at (0,1) {};
\node [bullet] (s) at (0,-1) {};
\node [bullet] (ne) at (0.7,0.7) {};
\node [bullet] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\draw [->-] (x) to (ne);
\draw [->-=1] (w) to (-2,0);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to (2,0);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:45:1);
\draw [->-] (0.7,0.7) arc (45:0:1);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:-180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:0:1);
} +\tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (x) at (0,0) {$\lambda_0$};
\node at (2,0.3) {};
\node at (-2,0.3) {};
\node [bullet] (n) at (0,1) {};
\node [bullet] (s) at (0,-1) {};
\node [bullet] (sw) at (-0.7,-0.7) {};
\node [bullet] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\draw [->-] (x) to (sw);
\draw [->-=1] (w) to (-2,0);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to (2,0);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:0:1);
\draw [->-] (-0.7,-0.7) arc (-135:-180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:-135:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:0:1);
}\right) + [\mu,\beta_{(2)}]_\nec
\end{equation}
where the vertices $\tikzfig{\node [bullet] (n) at (0,0) {}; \draw [->-] (n) to (0.5,0); \draw [->-] (n) to (-0.5,0);}$ get assigned $\alpha$.
From this, we will construct a pre-CY structure $m$ with $m_{(1)} = \mu$ and $m_{(2)} = \alpha$; each higher term $m_{(\ell)}$ for $\ell > 3$ can be calculated iteratively in the previous terms. To illustrate this, let us first discuss the case of $m_{(3)}$. By definition this element must solve
\[ [\mu,m_{(3)}]_\nec = m_{(2)} \circ m_{(2)} \]
which is an equation in $C^{2d-1}(A)$. We multiply by two to express everything in terms of brackets
\[ 2[\mu,m_{(3)}]_\nec = [m_{(2)},m_{(2)}]_\nec \]
and then substitute the second $m_{(2)}=\alpha$ factor using \cref{eq:alpha}, to get
\[
2[\mu,m_{(3)}]_\nec = \pm\frac{1}{2}\ \tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (x) at (0,0) {$\lambda_0$};
\node at (2,0.3) {};
\node at (-2,0.3) {};
\node [bullet] (n) at (0,1) {};
\node [bullet] (s) at (0,-1) {};
\node [bullet] (ne) at (0.7,0.7) {};
\node [bullet] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\node [bullet] (ww) at (-1.6,0) {};
\draw [->-] (x) to (ne);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to (2,0);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:45:1);
\draw [->-] (0.7,0.7) arc (45:0:1);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:-180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:0:1);
\draw [->-] (w) to (ww);
\draw [->-] (ww) to (-2.5,1.5);
\draw [->-] (ww) to (-2.5,-1.5);
} \quad \pm \dots \pm \frac{1}{2}\ \tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (x) at (0,0) {$\lambda_0$};
\node at (2,0.3) {};
\node at (-2,0.3) {};
\node [bullet] (n) at (0,1) {};
\node [bullet] (s) at (0,-1) {};
\node [bullet] (ne) at (0.7,0.7) {};
\node [bullet] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\node [bullet] (ww) at (-1.6,-0.6) {};
\draw [->-] (x) to (ne);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to (2,0);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:45:1);
\draw [->-] (0.7,0.7) arc (45:0:1);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:-180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:0:1);
\draw [->-] (w) to (-2.5,1.5);
\draw [->-] (ww) to (w);
\draw [->-] (ww) to (-2.5,-1.5);
} \pm \dots \]
In other words, $m_{(3)}$ satisfies the equation
\[ [\mu,m_{3}]_\nec = \frac{1}{2}\left( [m_{(2)},[\mu,\beta]_\nec]_\nec + (\del_2 \Gamma_{(2)})(\lambda) \right) \]
where, as in \cref{prop:Ecompatible}, $\del_2$ is the differential on that increases the number of outgoing legs by one, given by taking the necklace bracket of a tube quiver with the valence 2 vertex.
Using the graded Jacobi relation, the equation satisfied by $m_{(2)}$ and the equation defining $\Gamma_{(3)}$ we then have that $m_{(3)}$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{eq:m3}
[\mu,m_{(3)}]_\nec = \frac{1}{2}\left( [\mu,[m_{(2)},\beta]_\nec]_\nec + [\mu, \Gamma^0_{(3)}(\lambda_0) + \Gamma^1_{(3)}(\lambda_1)]_\nec \right)
\end{equation}
This equation is slightly misleading; it looks like it we could write
\[ m_{(3)} = \frac{1}{2}\left( [m_{(2)},\beta]_\nec + \Gamma^0_{(3)}(\lambda_0) + \Gamma^1_{(3)}(\lambda_1) \right) \]
and compute $m_{(3)}$ directly from $m_{(1)} = \mu, m_{(2)} = \alpha$ and $\lambda$, but this is not true. By counting degrees, we see that the homological degree of $\Gamma^0_{(3)}$ in $C^*_{(\ell)}(A)$ is $-\ell d +2$; so among the tube quivers of that degree, there could be some that have a single vertex with 3 outgoing arrows, such as, for example, the vertex $p$ of the following quiver:
\[\tikzfig{
\node [inner sep=0pt] (x) at (0,0) {$\times$};
\node [bullet] (nw) at (-0.5,0.87) {};
\node [bullet] (se) at (0.5,-0.87) {};
\node [bullet] (sw) at (-0.5,-0.87) {};
\node [bullet,label=left:{$p$}] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\draw [->-,shorten <=-3.5pt] (x) to (se);
\draw [->-=1] (nw) to (-1,1.74);
\draw [->-=1] (sw) to (-1,-1.74);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to (2,0);
\draw [->-] (1,0) arc (0:120:1);
\draw [->-] (-1,0) arc (180:120:1);
\draw [->-] (-1,0) arc (180:240:1);
\draw [->-] (0.5,-0.87) arc (-60:-120:1);
\draw [->-] (1,0) arc (0:-60:1);
}\]
So in order to evaluate the right-hand side we would need to already know the value of $m_{(3)}$. Nevertheless, we prove that one can solve \cref{eq:m3} up to cohomology; this is also true for each higher term $m_{(\ell)}$. More precisely, we have:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:inverting}
For each $\ell \ge 2$, the component of the Maurer-Cartan equation
\[ 2[\mu,m_{(\ell)}]_\nec = \sum_{i=2}^{\ell-1} [m_{(i)},m_{(\ell-i+1)}]_\nec \]
has a solution given by
\[ \hspace{-0.9cm} m_{(\ell)} = \frac{1}{\ell-1}\left( [\mu, \beta_{(\ell)}]_\nec + [m_{(2)},\beta_{(\ell-1)}]_\nec + \dots + [m_{(\ell-1)},\beta_{(2)}]_\nec + \Gamma^0_{(\ell)}(\lambda_0) + \dots + \Gamma^{\ell-2}_{(\ell)}(\lambda_1) \right) \]
for some element
\[ \beta_{(2)} + \beta_{(3)} + \dots + \beta_{(\ell-1)} \in C^1_{[d]}(A) \]
where $\beta_{(i)} \in C^1_{(i,d)}(A)$ depends on all previous $\beta_{(j)}$ and $m_{(j)}$ with $j <i$.
\end{proposition}
This proposition ultimately follows from a combinatorial fact about tube quivers of a specific degree,which we now explain. Note that $\Gamma^0_{(\ell)}$ is the only `problematic' term; all the other $\Gamma^i_{(\ell)}$ only have vertices with $\ell-1$ or less outgoing legs so by induction we know how to evaluate them.
Recall that the space $\mathscr{CT}_{(\ell,d)}$ where $\Gamma^0_{(\ell)}$ lives is defined as the cyclically graded-symmetric elements of $\scrT^d_{(\ell)}$ in homological degree $-d\ell+2\ell-4$. We define $\scrT^{d,<\ell}_{(\ell)}$ to be the subcomplex of $\scrT^d_{(\ell)}$ spanned by the tube quivers that \emph{do not} have any vertex with $\ell$ outgoing legs. We now look at the quotient complex $\scrT^d_{(\ell)}/\scrT^{d,<\ell}_{(\ell)}$.
In homological degree $-d\ell+2\ell-4$, every element of degree $\scrT^d_{(\ell)}/\scrT^{d,<\ell}_{(\ell)}$ can be represented by a linear combination of tube quivers with a single vertex with $\ell$ outgoing legs; all other non-output vertices are `generic', that is, either have two inputs and one output, or are sources with two outputs.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:homologous}
Any two elements in $\scrT^d_{(\ell)}/\scrT^{d,<\ell}_{(\ell)}$ are homologous, up to a sign. In other words, given any two tube quivers $\Gamma,\Gamma'$ as above, there is some linear combination of tube quivers $\Gamma''$ such that
\[ \del\Gamma'' = \Gamma \pm \Gamma' + (\text{term in } \scrT^{d,<\ell}_{(\ell)}). \]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $Q$ be any such tube quiver as above, that is, with exactly one vertex $p$ with $\ell$ outgoing legs and all other vertices `generic', for instance the tube quiver
\[\tikzfig{
\node [inner sep=0pt] (x) at (0,0) {$\times$};
\node [bullet] (nw) at (-0.5,0.87) {};
\node [bullet] (se) at (0.5,-0.87) {};
\node [bullet] (sw) at (-0.5,-0.87) {};
\node [bullet,label=left:{$p$}] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\draw [->-,shorten <=-3.5pt] (x) to (se);
\draw [->-=1] (nw) to (-1,1.74);
\draw [->-=1] (sw) to (-1,-1.74);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to (2,0);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to (1.5,1.74);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to (1.5,-1.74);
\draw [->-] (1,0) arc (0:120:1);
\draw [->-] (-1,0) arc (180:120:1);
\draw [->-] (-1,0) arc (180:240:1);
\draw [->-] (0.5,-0.87) arc (-60:-120:1);
\draw [->-] (1,0) arc (0:-60:1);
}\]
for $\ell=5$, where $v$ is the only non-generic vertex, of homological degree $d\times 5-d-2\times5+4 = 4d-6$.
We pick any edge $e:v_1\to v_2$ (not connecting to the outputs) of $Q$ and contract it to a vertex $w$, giving some other tube quiver $P$. Calculating the differential gives
\[ \del P = \pm Q \pm Q' \pm (\text{term in } \scrT^{d,<\ell}_{(\ell)}) \]
where $Q'$ is obtained from $P$ by expanding $w$ in another direction. We deduce this from checking separately the three possibilities: $v_1 =p, v_2 = p$ or $e$ not incident to $p$. For example
But we can go from any of these tube quivers $Q$ in $\scrT^d_{(\ell)}/\scrT^{d,<\ell}_{(\ell)}$ to any other one by a sequence of edge contractions and expansions. So we can find a sequence of $P$s going from $\Gamma$ to $\Gamma'$ whose sum $\Gamma''$ solves the desired equation.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}(of \cref{prop:inverting})
We prove this by induction. The case $\ell = 2$ is just the chain-level description of nondegeneracy; so it follows by the assumption that $\lambda_0$ is nondegenerate. For any fixed $\ell$ we write the component of the Maurer-Cartan equation
\[ 2[\mu,m_{(\ell)}]_\nec = \sum_{i=2}^{\ell-1} [m_{(i)},m_{(\ell-i+1)}]_\nec \]
and using the result for $m_{(j)}$ with $j < \ell$ we get that $m_{(\ell)}$ satisfies the equation
\[ \hspace{-0.8cm} (\ell -1)[\mu,m_{(\ell)}]_\nec = [\mu,\left([m_{(2)},\beta_{(\ell-1)}]_\nec + \dots + [m_{(\ell-1)},\beta_{(2)}]_\nec + \Gamma^0_{(\ell)}(\lambda_0) + \dots + \Gamma^{\ell-2}_{(\ell)}(\lambda_1)\right)]_\nec \]
But by \cref{lem:homologous}, we can choose find a solution to
\[ \Gamma^0_{(\ell)} = \Theta + \del \Gamma' + (\text{term in } \scrT^{d,<\ell}_{(\ell)}) \]
where $\Theta$ is the specific `problematic quiver' of the form
\[ \Theta = \tikzfig{
\node [bullet] (v3) at (0,0.8) {};
\node [vertex] (v2) at (0,0) {$\lambda_0$};
\node [bullet] (v4) at (0.8,0) {};
\node [bullet] (v5) at (0,-0.8) {};
\node [bullet] (v6) at (0,-1.5) {};
\node [bullet,label={[xshift=2pt]$p$}] (v1) at (-1,-1.5) {};
\draw [->-] (v2) to (v4);
\draw [->-] (0,0.8) arc (90:0:0.8);
\draw [->-] (0,0.8) arc (90:270:0.8);
\draw [->-] (0.8,0) arc (0:-90:0.8);
\draw [->-] (v5) to (v6);
\draw [->-] (v1) to (-2.2,-1.5);
\draw [->-] (v1) to (-2,-0.8);
\draw [->-] (v1) to (-1.8,-0.1);
\draw [->-] (v1) to (-1.6,-1.9);
\draw [->-] (v1) to (-0.4,-1.9);
\draw [->-] (v1) to (v6);
\draw [->-] (v6) to (+1.1,-1.5);
}\]
with one vertex $p$ with $\ell$ outgoing arrows (for example, in the drawing above, $\ell=6$). We now rearrange the equation as
\[ \hspace{-1.3cm} [\mu,(\ell-1)m_{(\ell)} - \Theta(\lambda_0)]_\nec = [\mu,\left([m_{(2)},\beta_{(\ell-1)}]_\nec + \dots + [m_{(\ell-1)},\beta_{(2)}]_\nec + \Gamma^0_{(\ell)}(\lambda_0) + \dots + \Gamma^{\ell-2}_{(\ell)}(\lambda_1)\right)]_\nec \]
where now the right-hand side does have any vertices with $\ell$ or more outgoing legs, so we can evaluate it using the $m_{(j)}$ that we already know.
As for the left-hand side, by the nondegeneracy condition we know that the `bubble' to the right of $\Theta$ evaluates to a cochain that is cohomologous to the unit cochain $1 \in C^0*(A)$. Thus, if we replace $\Theta(\lambda_0)$ by $m_{(3)}$ in the equation above and solve for $ m_{(\ell)}$, we will find an element that solves
\[ \hspace{-1cm} (\ell-1)m_{(\ell)} = [m_{(2)},\beta_{(\ell-1)}]_\nec + \dots + [m_{(\ell-1)},\beta_{(2)}]_\nec + \Gamma^0_{(\ell)}(\lambda_0) + \dots + \Gamma^{\ell-2}_{(\ell)}(\lambda_1) + ([\mu,-]_\nec\text{-exact terms}) \]
so we pick $\beta_{(\ell)}$ to be a primitive of the $[\mu,-]_\nec$-exact terms.
\end{proof}
Repackaging the statement of \cref{prop:inverting}, by picking an appropriate element $\beta = \sum_{i \ge 2} \beta_{(i)} \in C^1_{[d]}(A)$, we get a map to pre-CY structures
\begin{definition}\label{def:phi}
The map $\Phi: (CC^-_d(A))_\mathrm{nondeg} \to (\cM_{d-\mathrm{preCY}}(A))_\mathrm{nondeg} \subset C^2_{[d]}(A)$ is defined by sending $\lambda \mapsto m = \mu + m_{(2)} + \dots$, where the $m_{(i)}$ are defined using the tube quivers $\Gamma_{(i)}$ and an appropriately chosen element $\beta$.
\end{definition}
By definition, the image $m$ satisfies the equations $m \circ m=0$ and $e_m = \Gamma(m,\lambda) + [m,\beta]_\nec$, with the `energy function' $e_m = \sum_{\ell \ge 2}(\ell-1)m_{(\ell)}$. In other words, $\Phi$ maps smooth CY structures of dimension $d$ to pre-CY structures of dimension $d$ with nondegenerate $m_{(2)}$.
\subsubsection{Example: the circle, continued}\label{sec:exampleContinued}
In order to illustrate the statement of \cref{prop:inverting} in action, we return to the simple example discussed in \cref{sec:theCircle}, that is, the dg category $A$ corresponding to the circle (more precisely, to its realization as the boundary of the 2-simplex).
Recall that the negative cyclic chain representing the smooth CY structure is given by
\[ \lambda = 01[10] + 12[21] - 02[20] + (-01[10|01|10] - 12[21|12|21] + 02[20|02|20])u + \dots \in C_*(A)[[u]] \]
and the element $\alpha \in C^*_{(2)}(A)$ inverse to the $u^0$ component $\lambda_0$ is given by the formula
\[\tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (v1) at (0,0) {$\alpha$};
\draw [-w-] (v1) to (-1,0);
\draw [->-] (v1) to (1,0);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) to (v1);
\node at (0,0.5) {$\underline{k}$};
\node at (0,-1.2) {$P$};
\node at (0.6,-0.5) {$\underline{i}$};
\node at (-0.6,-0.5) {$\underline{j}$};
} = \begin{cases} \frac{1}{2}\left(\delta_{jk} e_k \otimes P - \delta_{ik}P \otimes e_k \right), \text{\ if\ } P \text{\ counter-clockwise} \\
-\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta_{jk} e_k \otimes P - \delta_{ik}P \otimes e_k \right), \text{\ if\ } P \text{\ clockwise} \end{cases}
\]
Together with its $\ZZ/2$-rotation, this specifies all the nontrivial values of $\alpha$.
By the previous results of this section, the element $\alpha$ is the first component $m_{(2)}$ of a pre-CY structure. Each higher component $m_{(k)}$ has cohomological degree $dk-d-2k+4 = 3-k$ since $d=1$. Since $A$ is concentrated in degree zero, we have $C^{3-k}_{(k)}(A) = 0$ for $k \ge 4$, so the terms $m_{(\ge 4)}$ are all zero. Moreover, the only component of $m_{(3)}$ that could be nontrivial is the term $m^{0,0,0}_{(3)}$ with zero inputs.
By \cref{prop:inverting}, we can find linear combinations of tube quivers $\Gamma^0_{(3)}, \Gamma^1_{(3)}$, both with three outputs, such that a solution for the equation $[\mu,m_{(3)}] = [m_{(2)},m_{(2)}]$ is given by
\[ m_{(3)} = \frac{1}{2}(\Gamma^0_{(3)}(\lambda_0) + \Gamma^1_{(3)}(\lambda_1)) \]
Let us start from the second term. We know that the terms in $\Gamma^1_{(3)}$ are of maximum (cohomological) degree among the tube quivers with three outgoing legs; all of those are cohomologous and we can pick any of those representatives; so $\Gamma^1_{(3)}(\lambda_1)$ is given by the diagram
\[\tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (x) at (0,0) {$\lambda_1$};
\node [bullet] (se) at (0.5,-0.87) {};
\node [bullet] (ne) at (0.5,0.87) {};
\node [bullet] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\node [bullet] (t) at (-0.87,0.5) {};
\draw [->-] (x) to (t);
\draw [->-=1] (ne) to (1,1.74);
\draw [->-=1] (se) to (1,-1.74);
\draw [-w-=1] (w) to (-2,0);
\draw [->-] (1,0) arc (0:60:1);
\draw [->-] (1,0) arc (0:-60:1);
\draw [->-] (-0.5,0.87) arc (120:60:1);
\draw [->-=0.8] (-0.5,0.87) arc (120:150:1);
\draw [->-=0.8] (-0.87,0.5) arc (150:180:1);
\draw [->-] (-0.5,-0.87) arc (-120:-60:1);
\draw [->-] (-0.5,-0.87) arc (-120:-180:1);
\node [vertex,fill=white] (e) at (1,0) {$\alpha$};
\node [vertex,fill=white] (nw) at (-0.5,0.87) {$\alpha$};
\node [vertex,fill=white] (sw) at (-0.5,-0.87) {$\alpha$};
}\]
where we input $\lambda_1 = 01[10|01|10] + 12[21|12|21] - 02[20|02|20]$. Since $\alpha$ is only nonzero when there is exactly one arrow as input, the only nonzero terms we get upon evaluating the diagram are when sending one arrow to each $\alpha$.
We evaluate this diagram separately for each choice of labeling of the three regions around the circle with the objects $0,1,2$; we see that if the three labels are the same, we get cancelling contributions, and that the only nonzero terms happen when exactly two labels are the same: we have
\[\tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (x) at (0,0) {$\Gamma^{1}_{(3)}(\lambda_1)$};
\draw [-w-] (x) to (-2,0);
\draw [->-] (x) to (1,1.74);
\draw [->-] (x) to (1,-1.74);
\node at (-0.8,1.34) {$\underline{i}$};
\node at (-0.8,-1.34) {$\underline{j}$};
\node at (1.2,0) {$\underline{i}$};
} = \begin{cases} -\frac{1}{8}(ij)\otimes e_i \otimes {ji}, \text{\ if\ } (ij) \text{\ counter-clockwise} \\ \frac{1}{8}(ij)\otimes e_i \otimes {ji}, \text{\ if\ } (ij) \text{\ clockwise}
\end{cases}
\]
The first term $\Gamma^0_{(3)}(\lambda_0)$ is more difficult to compute, since the combination of tube quivers $\Gamma^0_{(3)}$ has a complicated expression. However, in this case we can calculate it without expressing this entire combination. Recall from \cref{sec:rotationDiff} that we have a decomposition
\[ \scrT_{(\ell)} = (\scrT_{(\ell)})^\mathrm{edge} \oplus (\scrT_{(\ell)})^\mathrm{vertex} \]
between tubes whose central arrow lands onto an edge or a vertex of the circle. For any choice of dimension $d$ (which puts a grading on this space, and defines the signs of the differentials), the differential $\del$ preserves $(\scrT_{(\ell)})^\mathrm{edge}$ and decomposes as $\del = \del^\mathrm{edge} + \del^\mathrm{vertex}$ on $(\scrT_{(\ell)})^\mathrm{vertex}$, where $\del^v$ preserves this space.
In our case, $d = 1$ and the homological degrees of $(\scrT^1_{(3)})$ lie in $-3,-2,-1,0,1,2$ and this decomposition becomes:
\begin{align*}
(\scrT^1_{(3)})_{-3} &= (\scrT^1_{(3)})^\mathrm{edge}_{-3} \\
(\scrT^1_{(3)})_{-2} &= (\scrT^1_{(3)})^\mathrm{edge}_{-2} \otimes (\scrT^1_{(3)})^\mathrm{vertex}_{-2} \\
\dots \\
(\scrT^1_{(3)})_{2} &= (\scrT^1_{(3)})^\mathrm{vertex}_{2}
\end{align*}
The element $\Gamma^0_{(2)} \in (\scrT^1_{(3)})_{-1}$ decomposes under the direct sum above as $(\Gamma^0_{(2)})^\mathrm{edge} + (\Gamma^0_{(2)})^\mathrm{vertex}$. We observe that inputting the choice of $\alpha$ above into the 2-valent vertices of any diagram in $(\scrT^1_{(3)})^\mathrm{edge}_{-1}$ gives zero. Thus the value we want is determined by $(\Gamma^0_{(2)})^\mathrm{vertex}$.
The equation satisfied by $\Gamma_{(2)}$ says that $\del\Gamma^0_{(2)} = -R(\Gamma^1_{(2)})$; together with the long exact sequence in cohomology associated to the short exact sequence $(\scrT^1_{(3)})^\mathrm{edge} \to (\scrT^1_{(3)}) \to (\scrT^1_{(3)})^\mathrm{vertex}$, these facts imply that we can pick any solution $X$ to the equation
\[ \del^\mathrm{vertex}( X ) = R(\Gamma^1_{(2)}) \]
and the term $\Gamma^0_{(3)}(\lambda_0)$ will be equal to $X(\lambda_0)$.
We now provide such a solution, given by $X = R(Y)$, where $Y$ is the following linear combination: \footnote{We omit the orientations in the expression for $Y$, but they must be chosen coherently}
\[
\frac{1}{6} \left(\tikzfig{
\node [inner sep=0pt] (x) at (0,0) {$\times$};
\node [bullet] (se) at (0.5,-0.87) {};
\node [bullet] (ne) at (0.5,0.87) {};
\node [bullet] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\node [bullet] (t) at (-0.87,0.5) {};
\draw [->-,shorten <=-3.5pt] (x) to (t);
\draw [->-=1] (ne) to (1,1.74);
\draw [->-=1] (se) to (1,-1.74);
\draw [-w-=1] (w) to (-2,0);
\draw [->-] (1,0) arc (0:60:1);
\draw [->-] (1,0) arc (0:-60:1);
\draw [->-] (-0.5,0.87) arc (120:60:1);
\draw [->-=0.8] (-0.5,0.87) arc (120:150:1);
\draw [->-=0.8] (-0.87,0.5) arc (150:180:1);
\draw [->-] (-1,0) arc (-180:-60:1);
\node [bullet] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet] (nw) at (-0.5,0.87) {};
} \quad + \quad \tikzfig{
\node [inner sep=0pt] (x) at (0,0) {$\times$};
\node [bullet] (se) at (0.5,-0.87) {};
\node [bullet] (ne) at (0.5,0.87) {};
\node [bullet] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\node [bullet] (t) at (-0.87,0.5) {};
\draw [->-,shorten <=-3.5pt] (x) to (t);
\draw [->-=1] (ne) to (1,1.74);
\draw [->-=1] (se) to (1,-1.74);
\draw [-w-=1] (w) to (-2,0);
\draw [->-] (1,0) arc (0:60:1);
\draw [->-] (1,0) arc (0:-60:1);
\draw [->-=0.8] (-1,0) arc (180:150:1);
\draw [->-=0.8] (-0.87,0.5) arc (150:60:1);
\draw [->-] (-0.5,-0.87) arc (-120:-60:1);
\draw [->-] (-0.5,-0.87) arc (-120:-180:1);
\node [bullet] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet] (sw) at (-0.5,-0.87) {};
} \quad + \quad \tikzfig{
\node [inner sep=0pt] (x) at (0,0) {$\times$};
\node [bullet] (se) at (0.5,-0.87) {};
\node [bullet] (ne) at (0.5,0.87) {};
\node [bullet] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\node [bullet] (ww) at (-1.5,0) {};
\node [bullet] (t) at (-0.87,0.5) {};
\draw [->-,shorten <=-3.5pt] (x) to (t);
\draw [->-=1] (ne) to (1,1.74);
\draw [->-=1] (se) to (1,-1.74);
\draw [->-] (ww) to (w);
\draw [-w-=1] (ww) to (-2,0);
\draw [->-] (1,0) arc (0:60:1);
\draw [->-] (1,0) arc (0:-60:1);
\draw [->-=0.8] (-1,0) arc (180:150:1);
\draw [->-=0.8] (-0.87,0.5) arc (150:60:1);
\draw [->-] (-1,0) arc (-180:-60:1);
\node [bullet] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet] (ww) at (-1.5,0) {};
} \quad + \text{\ cyclic\ } \right)
\]
Evaluating $X(\lambda_0)$ with the given value of $\alpha$, and labels $i,i,j\neq i$ on the three regions gives us $18$ non-zero terms, all equal; taking in account the $1/6$ factor gives
\[ \begin{cases} -\frac{3}{8}(ij)\otimes e_i \otimes {ji}, \text{\ if\ } (ij) \text{\ counter-clockwise} \\ \frac{3}{8}(ij)\otimes e_i \otimes {ji}, \text{\ if\ } (ij) \text{\ clockwise} \end{cases} \]
with all other cases zero.
Thus we get that the element $m_{(3)} = \frac{1}{2}(\Gamma^0_{(3)}(\lambda_0) + \Gamma^1_{(3)}(\lambda_1))$ we wanted to calculate is given by
\[\tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (x) at (0,0) {$m_{(3)}$};
\draw [-w-] (x) to (-2,0);
\draw [->-] (x) to (1,1.74);
\draw [->-] (x) to (1,-1.74);
\node at (-0.8,1.34) {$\underline{i}$};
\node at (-0.8,-1.34) {$\underline{j}$};
\node at (1.2,0) {$\underline{i}$};
} = \begin{cases} -\frac{1}{4}(ij)\otimes e_i \otimes {ji}, \text{\ if\ } (ij) \text{\ counter-clockwise} \\ \frac{1}{4}(ij)\otimes e_i \otimes {ji}, \text{\ if\ } (ij) \text{\ clockwise}
\end{cases}
\]
One can check that this element satisfies $[\mu, m_{(3)}] + \alpha \circ \alpha = 0$ and $[\alpha,m_{(3)}] = 0$. In other words, we have a fully explicit description of the pre-CY structure on this dg category:
\begin{corollary}
Taking $m_{2} = \alpha$ and $m_{(3)}$ as above, and $m_{(\ge 4)} = 0$, defines a pre-CY structure of dimension 1 on $A$.
\end{corollary}
\subsection{The simplicial lift}\label{sec:simplicial}
It is clear that the map $\Phi$ we constructed above should be some sort of inverse to the noncommutative Legendre transform $\cL$ of \cref{def:ncLegendre}. But this is not true strictly; for one, the definitions of both $\cL$ and $\Phi$ involve making choices. Also, the two sides related by these maps look different: the locus of nondegenerate elements in negative cyclic homology is a conical locus inside of a linear space, while the set of Maurer-Cartan solutions is the solution set of a quadratic equation.
However, looking at the iterative way in which we constructed these maps, we see that in each step we had to solve an equation relating \emph{linearly} one new component $\lambda_{(k-2)}$ of the negative cyclic chain $\lambda$ to one new component $m_{(k)}$ of the pre-CY structure $m$. Moreover, this relation came from a quasi-isomorphism between these linear spaces of choices; the space $\left(\cM_{d-\mathrm{preCY}}(A)\right)_\mathrm{nondeg}$ should have the structure of an iterated fibration of linear spaces, with the fiber at each step related by a quasi-isomorphism to a graded piece of $CC^*_-(A)$
It turns out that this can be made precise by using the theory of simplicial sets of solutions to Maurer-Cartan equations, as developed in \cite{hinich1996descent,getzler2009lie}, among others. We will show that the map $\Phi$ we constructed in the previous section admits a simplicial lift to a weak equivalence of simplicial sets.
\subsubsection{The simplicial Maurer-Cartan set}
Let $(\mathfrak{g}^*, \delta)$ be a nilpotent dg Lie algebra over $\kk$. One can look at its naive set of solutions to the Maurer-Cartan equation
\[ MC(\mathfrak{g}^*) = \{ y \in \mathfrak{g}^1\ |\ \delta y + [y,y]/2 = 0\} \]
which in principle has only the structure of a set. Following the exposition in \cite{getzler2009lie}, we recall how to upgrade this to a simplicial set. For any $n \ge 0$, denote by
\[ \Omega^*(\Delta^n) = \kk[t_0,\dots,t_n]/\langle t_0 + \dots + t_n - 1, dt_0 + \dots dt_n \rangle \]
the graded commutative dg algebra of polynomial differential forms on the $n$-simplex. Here, the $t_i$ are in degree zero and the $dt_i$ are in degree one; the differential is $d(t_i) dt_i$ and $d(dt_i) = 0$.
The following proposition/definition is due to Hinich \cite{hinich1996descent}.
\begin{proposition}
There is a simplicial set $MC_*(\mathfrak{g}^*)$ whose $n$-simplices are given by
\[ MC_n(\mathfrak{g}^*) = MC(\mathfrak{g}^* \otimes \Omega^*(\Delta^n)), \]
that is, by the solution set of the Maurer-Cartan equation $(\delta+d)y + [y,y]/2 = 0$ on the dg Lie algebra of $\mathfrak{g}$-forms on the simplex.
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}
In the literature of this topic, the name `Maurer-Cartan' is applied to two different formulations of the equation; in order to avoid confusion let us be clear about their relation. On any \emph{dg Lie algebra} $(\mathfrak{g}^*,d)$, one can look at the equation $dx + [x,x]/2 = 0$, and on any \emph{graded Lie algebra} $\mathfrak{h}^*$ one can look at the equation $[y,y]=0$, as we did earlier in this paper.
Both are often called the Maurer-Cartan equation; the relation is that if $\mathfrak{g}^* \subset \mathfrak{h}^*$ as graded Lie algebras and there is an element $\mu \in \mathfrak{h}^1$ such that $[\mu,\mu]= 0$ and $dx = [\mu,x]$ for all $x \in \mathfrak{g}^*$, then the two equations are equivalent if we look for a solution of the form $y = \mu + x$. In our case, we have
\[ \mathfrak{g}^* = \prod_{\ell \ge 2} C^*_{(\ell,d)}(A), \qquad \mathfrak{h}^* = C^*_{[d]}(A) = \prod_{\ell \ge 1} C^*_{(\ell,d)}(A) \]
with $\mu$ given by our fixed $A_\infty$-structure; the solution $x$ is then the sum of all the $m_{(\ell)}$ with $\ell \ge 2$ and $y$ is the full pre-CY structure $m$, also including $m_{(1)} = \mu$.
\end{remark}
The set of zero-simplices is exactly our naive set $MC(\mathfrak{g}^*)$. We would like to apply this to the dg Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}^* = \prod_{\ell \ge 2} C^*_{(\ell,d)}(A)$. This does not make sense exactly since this algebra is not nilpotent. Nevertheless, note that we can truncate it at any finite $\ell$ and obtain a nilpotent algebra, and that the Maurer-Cartan solutions we want are a limit over solutions on these truncated algebras.
Let us be more precise. Suppose that we have a graded Lie algebra $\mathfrak{a}^*$, endowed with a descending filtration
\[ \mathfrak{a}^* = F^0 \mathfrak{a}^* \supset F^1 \mathfrak{a}^* \supset F^2 \mathfrak{a}^* \supset \dots \]
with the property that for $x \in F^i \mathfrak{a}^*, y \in F^j \mathfrak{a}^*$, we have $[x,y] \in F^{i+j} \mathfrak{a}^*$. We then consider the completions under the filtration $F$
\[ \mathfrak{g}^* = \lim_{\stackrel{\longleftarrow}{i \ge 1}} F^1 \mathfrak{a}^*/F^i \mathfrak{a}^*, \qquad \mathfrak{h}^* := \widehat{\mathfrak{a}^*} = \lim_{\stackrel{\longleftarrow}{i \ge 0}} \mathfrak{a}^*/F^i \mathfrak{a}^* \]
Note that each truncated piece $F^1 \mathfrak{a}^*/F^i \mathfrak{a}^*$ is a nilpotent graded Lie algebra, and we have a natural injection $\mathfrak{g}^* \subset \mathfrak{h}^*$.
If we have an element $\mu \in \mathfrak{h}^1$ such that $[\mu,\mu] = 0$ and $[\mu,-]$ preserves the filtration, this defines a differential on each $F^1 \mathfrak{a}^*/F^i \mathfrak{a}^*$, and each map $F^1 \mathfrak{a}^*/F^{i+1} \mathfrak{a}^* \to F^1 \mathfrak{a}^*/F^i \mathfrak{a}^*$ is a surjection of nilpotent dg algebras. By \cite{hinich1996descent}, this induces a Kan fibration
\[ MC_*(F^1 \mathfrak{a}^*/F^{i+1} \mathfrak{a}^*) \to MC_*(F^1 \mathfrak{a}^*/F^i \mathfrak{a}^*) \]
between the Maurer-Cartan simplicial sets.
\begin{definition}
The Maurer-Cartan simplicial set of the dg Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}^*$ is the limit of simplicial sets
\[ MC_*(\mathfrak{g}^*) := \lim_{\stackrel{\longleftarrow}{i \ge 0}} MC_*(F^1 \mathfrak{a}^*/F^{i+1} \mathfrak{a}^*). \]
\end{definition}
The case we are interested is when
\[ \mathfrak{a}^* = \bigoplus_{\ell \ge 1} C^*_{(\ell,d)}(A)[1] \]
endowed with the descending filtration
\[ F^i \mathfrak{a}^* = \bigoplus_{\ell \ge i+1} C^*_{(\ell,d)}(A)[1]. \]
Then we have that the graded Lie algebra $\mathfrak{h}^*$ is exactly $C^*_{[d]}(A)[1]$, which is the dg Lie algebra where pre-CY structures of dimension $d$ live. The condition on the element $\mu$ is exactly the condition for an $A_\infty$-structure on $A$; taking $\mathfrak{g}^*$ to be the dg Lie algebra where the rest of the pre-CY structure lives, with differential $[\mu,-]$, we get an identification between the set of zero-simplices $MC_0(\mathfrak{g}^*)$ and the naive set of $d$-pre-CY structures $\cM_{d-\mathrm{preCY}}(A)$ of the previous section.
\subsubsection{The Deligne groupoid}
We now recall another type of structure on the solutions to the Maurer-Cartan equation, the `Deligne groupoid'. Let us describe it in the graded Lie algebra picture. If $\mathfrak{n}^*$ is a nilpotent graded Lie algebra, there is an exponential action of its degree zero part
\[ e^{\ad(-)}: \mathfrak{n}^0 \times \mathfrak{n}^* \to \mathfrak{n}^* \]
given by
\[ e^{\ad(x)}(y) = y + [x,y] + \frac{1}{2!}[x,[x,y]] + \frac{1}{3!}[x,[x,[x,y]]] + \dots \]
This exponential action extends to an action of the group-like elements of the (completed) universal enveloping algebra $\widehat U(\mathfrak{n}^0)$.
Note now that $e^{\ad(x)}$ preserves the solution set of the (graded) Maurer-Cartan equation
\[ MC(\mathfrak{n}^*) = \{ y \in \mathfrak{n}^1\ |\ [y,y] = 0\} \]
since the adjoint action preserves the equation; therefore we can regard $MC(\mathfrak{n}^*)//\mathfrak{n}^0$ as a groupoid.
Again we must be a little careful because we want to apply this formalism to the graded Lie algebra $C^*_{[d]}(A)[1]$, which is not nilpotent. Considering again the case of the dg algebra
\[ \mathfrak{g}^* = \lim_{\stackrel{\longleftarrow}{i \ge 1}} F^1 \mathfrak{a}^*/F^i \mathfrak{a}^* \]
with differential $[\mu,-]$ sitting inside of the graded algebra
\[ \mathfrak{h}^* = \lim_{\stackrel{\longleftarrow}{i \ge 1}} \mathfrak{a}^*/F^i \mathfrak{a}^* \]
the we see that the exponential action of $\mathfrak{g}^0$ is well-defined on each truncated piece $F \mathfrak{a}^*/F^i \mathfrak{a}^*$ and therefore can be lifted to an action on the graded Lie algebra $\mathfrak{h}^*$, preserving the Maurer-Cartan equation. Therefore we also have a groupoid $MC(\mathfrak{h}^*)//\mathfrak{g}^0$.
We choose this notation (with both $\mathfrak{h}^*$ and $\mathfrak{g}^*$) to remind us that the action of $\mathfrak{g}^*$ also involves the element $\mu \in \mathfrak{h^*}$, producing higher order terms $[x,\mu], \frac{1}{2}[x,[x,\mu]]$, etc., but does not change $\mu$ itself. So we can look for solutions of the Maurer-Cartan equation on $\mathfrak{h}^*$ of the form $\mu + x$ where $x \in F^2 \mathfrak{h}^*$; this is a subgroupoid $MC(\mathfrak{h}^*, \mu)//\mathfrak{g}^0$.
From comparing this groupoid to the simplicial set we defined before, in the case where the algebra in question is supported in non-negative degrees, we have the following fact \cite{getzler2009lie}:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:equiv}
If $\mathfrak{g^*}$ vanishes in negative degrees, there is a natural bijection of sets
\[ \pi_0(MC_*(\mathfrak{g}^*)) \cong \pi_0(MC(\mathfrak{h}^*, \mu)//\mathfrak{g}^0) \]
between the connected components of the Maurer-Cartan simplicial set and the set of orbits of the Deligne groupoid.
\end{proposition}
\subsubsection{The simplicial equivalence}
Let us return to the Maurer-Cartan simplicial set and focus on the case of interest $\mathfrak{g}^* = \prod_{\ell \ge 2} C^*_{(\ell,d)}(A)$ for smooth $A$. We now prove the main result of this Section, lifting the map $\Phi: CC^-_d(A) \to \left(\cM_{d-\mathrm{preCY}}(A)\right)_\mathrm{nondeg}$ to a weak simplicial equivalence.
The target for this lift is evidently the nondegenerate locus in the Maurer-Cartan simplicial set corresponding to the dg Lie algebra above:
\[ \cM^\Delta_{d-\mathrm{preCY}}(A) := MC_*(\prod_{\ell \ge 2} C^*_{(\ell,d)}(A)) \]
The source is given by replacing the negative cyclic chain complex by its corresponding simplicial set under the Dold-Kan correspondence. Recall the Kan functor
\[ K_*: \mathrm{Ch}_{\ge 0}(\mathrm{Ab}) \to \mathrm{sAb} \]
which gives an equivalence between chain complexes of abelian groups supported in non-negative degree and simplicial abelian groups. We can further forget the abelian group structure and get a simplicial set.
The functor $K_*$ assigns to the chain complex $(V,\delta)$ the $n$-simplices
\[ K_n(V) = Z^0(C^*(\Delta^n) \otimes V, d + \delta) \]
where $(C^*(\Delta^n),d)$ is the normalized simplicial cochain complex on the $n$-simplex. One possible representation for this complex is in terms of \emph{linear differential forms}
\[ \omega_{i_0,\dots,i_k} = k! \sum_{0 \le j \le k} (-1)^j t_{i_j} dt_{i_0}\dots \widehat{dt_{i_j}} \dots dt_{i_k} \]
for any $1 \le k \le n$.
We now consider the chain complex $\tau_{\ge 0} (CC^-_{*+d}(A))$, i.e. the object of $\mathrm{Ch}_{\ge 0}(\mathrm{Ab})$ given by shifting the negative cyclic complex down by $d$ and truncating it to lie in non-negative degrees.
A degree zero cycle in this complex is represented by a negative cyclic chain of degree $d$
\[ \lambda = \lambda_0 + \lambda_1 u + \lambda_2 u^2 + \dots \]
closed under $b+uB$, where $\lambda_i \in C_{d+2i}(A)$. Let us fix a choice of a nondegenerate `first component' $\lambda_0 = \nu$ and its inverse $\alpha \in C^d_{(2)}(A)$, representing inverse morphisms of bimodules in $\Hom_{A-A}(A^!,A[d])$ and $\Hom_{A-A}(A[d],A^!)$, respectively.
We now consider simplicial subsets on each side by requiring the `first components' to be constant simplices at $\lambda_0 = nu$ and $m_{(2)} = \alpha$. Let us describe this more precisely. On the source side $K_*(\tau_{\ge 0} (CC^-_{*+d}(A)))$, we decompose each $n$-simplex $\sigma$ as a sum over powers of $u$ and over the basis of forms $\{\omega_{i_0,\dots,i_k}\}$
\[ \sigma(\underline{t}) = \sum_{p=0}^{\infty} \lambda_{p,k,\{i_0,\dots,i_k\}} u^p \otimes \omega_{i_0,\dots,i_k} \]
Given any such $n$-simplex, we can require that its $p=0$ component (that is, its `value' at $u=0$) be constant along the simplicial coordinates $t_i$, and equal to $\nu$. That is, we require $\lambda_{0,k,\{i_0,\dots,i_k\}} = 0$ for all $k >0$ and $\lambda_{0,0,\{\}} = \nu$. This condition defines a simplicial subset of $K_*(\tau_{\ge 0} (CC^-_{*+d}(A)))$, which we denote by $K_*(\tau_{\ge 0} (CC^-_{*+d}(A)))_{\lambda_0 = \nu}$.
On the other side, we can do the same thing and fix the `first component' $m_{(2)}$ to be constant and equal to our chosen quasi-inverse $\alpha$. Each $n$-simplex of $\cM^\Delta_{d-\mathrm{preCY}}(A)$ is a solution to the Maurer-Cartan equation on the dg Lie algebra $\prod_{\ell \ge 2} C^*_{(\ell,d)}(A))\otimes \Omega^*(\Delta^n)$. Here $\Omega^*(\Delta^n)$ is spanned by polynomial differential forms on the simplicial coordinates $t_0,\dots,t_n$; we take the $\ell=2$ part of the solution and demand that it be degree zero and constant as a form, equal to $\alpha$. This again defines a simplicial subset which we denote $\cM^\Delta_{d-\mathrm{preCY}}(A)_{m_{(2)} = \alpha}$.
We are now ready to phrase the main result of this section. Recall the map of sets $\Phi$ that we defined in \cref{def:phi} takes a nondegenerate negative cyclic chain $\lambda = \lambda_0 + \dots$ whose first term $\lambda_0 = \nu$ has a quasi-inverse $\alpha$ and gives a pre-CY structure $m = \mu + m_{(2)} + \dots$ with $m_{(2)} = \alpha$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:simplicial}
The map $\Phi$ lifts to a weak equivalence of simplicial sets
\[ \Phi^\Delta: K_*(\tau_{\ge 0} (CC^-_{*+d}(A)))_{\lambda_0 = \nu} \xrightarrow{\simeq} \cM^\Delta_{d-\mathrm{preCY}}(A)_{m_{(2)} = \alpha} \]
Taking connected components and putting the resulting bijections together for pair of inverse classes $[\lambda]$ and $[\alpha]$, we get a bijection of sets
\[ HC^-_d(A)_\mathrm{nondeg} \simeq \pi_0(\cM^\Delta_{d-\mathrm{preCY}}(A)_\mathrm{nondeg}) \]
between (classes of) smooth CY structures and connected components of the space of nondegenerate pre-CY structures, both of dimension $d$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Note that on the left hand side we have the normalized cochains on the simplex, while on the right-hand side we have differential forms; using the representatives above $\omega_{i_0,\dots,i_k}$, we embed the former into the latter.
Given that embedding, to construct the simplicial lift $\Phi^\Delta$, we simply extend the evaluation map of ribbon quivers linearly over $\Omega^*(\Delta^n)$, and use the same formulas we did for defining $\Phi$. For example, given $m_{(2)}$, in the proof of \cref{prop:inverting} we showed that we can find a solution for $m_{(3)}$ of the form
\[ m_{(3)} = \tilde\Gamma^0_{(3)}(\lambda_0) + \Gamma^1_{(3)}(\lambda_1) + [\mu, \beta_{(3)}] + [m_{(2)}, \beta_{(2)}] \]
where the ribbon quivers in $\tilde\Gamma^0$ and $\Gamma^1_{(3)}$ only have vertices with 1 and 2 outgoing arrows.
Given an $n$-simplex on the left hand side given by a linear form $\lambda(\underline{t})$, we can input this instead of $\lambda$ and get a form $m_{(3)}(\underline{t})$; by the same argument as we used to prove \cref{prop:inverting}, but now extended linearly over differential forms, this form will satisfy the equation
\[ [\mu + d, m_{(3)}(\underline{t})] = [m_{(2)}, m_{(2)}] \]
which is the new component of the Maurer-Cartan equation on the truncated piece
$ \left( C^*_{[d]}(A)[1] / \prod_{i > \ell} C^*_{(\ell,d)}(A) \right) \otimes \Omega^*(\Delta^n)$. We continue this iteratively for $\ell = 3,4,\dots$; and in each step we get some polynomial differential forms $m_{(\ell)}(\underline{t})$ solving a new component of that equation, with $m_{(2)}$ fixed to be constant with value $\alpha$.
It follows from the compatibility of evaluation with all the differentials involved that at each new step this defines a map of simplicial sets. Recall that from the definition of $\Phi$, at the step $\ell$ this map depends only on $\lambda$ up to the term with $u$-exponent $\ell-2$.
These maps intertwine the maps induced by truncation, so we get a map between towers of simplicial sets
\[\hspace{-1.6cm}\xymatrix{
\dots \ar[r] & K_*(\tau_{\ge 0} (CC^-_{*+d}(A)_{u^2=0}))_{\lambda_0 = \nu} \ar[r] \ar[d] & K_*(\tau_{\ge 0} (CC^-_{*+d}(A)_{u=0}))|_{\lambda_0 = \nu} \ar[d] \\
\dots \ar[r] & MC_*(\prod_{\ell \ge 2} C^*_{(\ell,d)}(A)[1]/\prod_{\ell \ge 4} C^*_{(\ell,d)}(A)[1])_{m_{(2)} = \alpha} \ar[r] & MC_*(\prod_{\ell \ge 2} C^*_{(\ell,d)}(A)[1]/\prod_{\ell \ge 3} C^*_{(\ell,d)}(A)[1])_{m_{(2)} = \alpha}
}\]
and the desired map $\Phi^\Delta$ is the map induced between the limits of these towers.
We now prove that the map $\Phi^\Delta$ so defined is a weak equivalence of simplicial sets. Each horizontal map is a Kan fibration, so it is enough to prove that each vertical map is a weak equivalence. We do this by induction; the last column is actually just the identity map of the point (seen as a the totally degenerate $n$-simplices); this is because we fixed by hand the $\lambda_0$ and $m_{(2)}$ components to be exactly $\nu$ and $\alpha$.
For the induction step we focus on a single square
\[\hspace{-1.6cm}\xymatrix{
K_*(\tau_{\ge 0} (CC^-_{*+d}(A)_{u^{i}=0}))_{\lambda_0 = \nu} \ar[r] \ar[d] & K_*(\tau_{\ge 0} (CC^-_{*+d}(A)_{u^{i-1}=0}))|_{\lambda_0 = \nu} \ar[d] \\
MC_*\left(\prod_{\ell \ge 2} C^*_{(\ell,d)}(A)[1] \middle/ \prod_{\ell \ge i+2} C^*_{(\ell,d)}(A)[1]\right)_{m_{(2)} = \alpha} \ar[r] & MC_*\left(\prod_{\ell \ge 2} C^*_{(\ell,d)}(A)[1]\middle/\prod_{\ell \ge i+1} C^*_{(\ell,d)}(A)[1]\right)_{m_{(2)} = \alpha}
}\]
If the right column is a weak equivalence, by \cite{lurie2009higher} it is enough to show that the left vertical map induces weak equivalences for each pair of fibers of the horizontal maps over \emph{points} (i.e. 0-simplices).
In down-to-earth terms, we have an `actual' solution of the Maurer-Cartan equation on $C^*_{[d]}(A)[1]$ up to the term $m_{(i)}$, corresponding to a truncated negative cyclic chain $\lambda = \lambda_0 + \lambda_1 u + \dots + \lambda_{i-2} u^{i-2}$. We then look at the map $\Phi^\Delta$ applied to a differential form
\[ \lambda = \lambda_0 + \lambda_1 u + \dots + \lambda_{i-2} u^{i-2} + \lambda_{i-1}(\underline{t}) u^{i-1} \]
where $\lambda_{i-1}(\underline{t})$ is linear on the $t_i$ coordinates on the $n$-simplex. The only dependence on this form is in the evaluation of the last ribbon quiver in $\Gamma_{(i+1)}$, that is, the term
\[ \Gamma^{i-1}_{(i+1)}(\lambda_{i-1}(\underline{t})) \]
so we are reduced to proving that the operation $\Gamma^{i-1}_{(i+1)}(-)$, seen as a map
\[ C_*(A) \otimes C^*(\Delta^n) \to C^*_{(i+1)}(A) \otimes \Omega^*(\Delta^n) \]
defines a weak equivalence between closed forms and forms satisfying the $i+1$ component of the Maurer-Cartan equation. This follows from the proof of \cref{prop:quasiIso} together with the fact that the inclusion of normalized simplicial cochains into differential forms is a homotopy retract (a simplicial version of the de Rham theorem).
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Special case: the groupoid}\label{sec:groupoid}
\cref{thm:simplicial} holds for any smooth $A_\infty$ algebra/category $A$, without any assumptions on degrees. Now recall that if a dg Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ vanishes in negative degrees, its set of Maurer-Cartan solutions admits an equivalent, simpler, description than the full simplicial set, given by the Deligne groupoid $MC(\mathfrak{g})/\mathfrak{g}^0$.
The following result can be seen as a slight refinement of \cref{thm:simplicial} in the case where $A$ has vanishing Hochschild cohomology in negative degrees.
\begin{theorem}
Assume that $HH^i(A) = 0$ for all $i < 0$. Then there is a bijection
\[ HC^-_*(A)_\mathrm{nondeg} \simeq \pi_0(MC(\mathfrak{g})_\mathrm{nondeg}/\mathfrak{g}^0) \]
where $\mathfrak{g} = \prod_{\ell \ge 2} C^*_{(\ell,d)}(A)$, between nondegenerate negative cyclic homology classes and orbits in the groupoid of nondegenerate pre-CY structures.
\end{theorem}
This is \emph{almost} a direct corollary of \cref{thm:simplicial} and \cref{prop:equiv}; the only reason why it does not follow directly is because we are not assuming that $\mathfrak{g}$ vanishes at chain level in negative degrees. Nevertheless, we can prove this fact explicitly, by an iterative calculation that we now sketch.
\begin{proof}
We first note that even though the dg Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ is not nilpotent, the action of $\mathfrak{g}$ is still well-defined; each element $x \in \mathfrak{g}$ is a sum of vertices with at least two outgoing arrows, so $[x,-]$ increases the number of outgoing arrows. So the sum defining $\exp(x)y$ is finite at each truncated level $\prod_{i > 2} C^*_{i,d}(A)[1] / \prod_{i > \ell} C^*_{i,d}(A)$, and the action lifts to the limit.
Recall that we have maps
\[ \Phi: CC^-_d(A)_\mathrm{nondeg} \longleftrightarrow \left(\cM_{d-\mathrm{preCY}}(A)\right)_\mathrm{nondeg}: \cL \]
One of the directions is easier: let us pick $\lambda \in CC^-_d(A)_\mathrm{nondeg}$ and take $m = \Phi(\lambda)$; by definition this satisfies
\[ e_m = \Gamma(m, \lambda) + [m,p] \]
where $e_m$ is the `energy function' associated to $m$, $\Gamma$ is the sum of tube quivers we defined previously and $p \in \prod_{i > 2} C^1_{i,d}(A)$. Defining now $\lambda' = \cL(m)$, by definition we have
\[ e_m = \Gamma(m,\lambda') + [m,q] \]
for some other element $q \in \prod_{i > 2} C^1_{i,d}(A)$. Therefore $\Gamma(m,\lambda'-\lambda) = [m, q-p]$, and since $\Gamma(m,-)$ is a quasi-isomorphism in cohomology we have $[\lambda'] = [\lambda]$
The remaining direction is harder and has to be done iteratively in $\ell$. We now start with a pre-CY structure $m$, take $\lambda = \cL(m)$ and $n = \Phi(\lambda)$; reusing the symbols $p,q$ these satisfy equations
\[ e_m = \Gamma(m, \lambda) + [m,p], \quad e_n = \Gamma(n,\lambda) + [n,q] \]
We have to prove that there is
\[ x = x_{(2)} + x_{(3)} + \dots \in \prod_{\ell > 2} C^1_{\ell,d}(A) \]
such that $n = m + [x,m] + \frac{1}{2}[x,[x,m]] + \dots$. At level $\ell = 2$, this is simply $n_{(2)} = m_{(2)} + [x_{(2)},\mu]$.
Let us then write $s_{(2)} = m_{(2)} - n_{(2)}$. Subtracting the equations satisfied by $n_{(2)}, m_{(2)}$ we get
\begin{align*}
-s_{(2)} &= \Gamma(n,\lambda) - \Gamma(m,\lambda) + [\mu,q_{(2)}-p_{(2)}] \\
&=-\frac{1}{2} \left( \tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (x) at (0,0) {$\lambda_0$};
\node at (2,0.3) {};
\node at (-2,0.3) {};
\node [bullet] (ne) at (0.7,0.7) {};
\node [bullet] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\draw [->-] (x) to (ne);
\draw [->-=1] (w) to (-2,0);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to (2,0);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:45:1);
\draw [->-] (0.7,0.7) arc (45:0:1);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:-180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:0:1);
\node [vertex,fill=white] (n) at (0,1) {$s_{(2)}$};
\node [vertex,fill=white] (s) at (0,-1) {$n_{(2)}$};
} +\tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (x) at (0,0) {$\lambda_0$};
\node at (2,0.3) {};
\node at (-2,0.3) {};
\node [bullet] (sw) at (-0.7,-0.7) {};
\node [bullet] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\draw [->-] (x) to (sw);
\draw [->-=1] (w) to (-2,0);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to (2,0);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:0:1);
\draw [->-] (-0.7,-0.7) arc (-135:-180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:-135:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:0:1);
\node [vertex,fill=white] (n) at (0,1) {$s_{(2)}$};
\node [vertex,fill=white] (s) at (0,-1) {$n_{(2)}$};
}\right) \\
&-\frac{1}{2} \left( \tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (x) at (0,0) {$\lambda_0$};
\node at (2,0.3) {};
\node at (-2,0.3) {};
\node [bullet] (ne) at (0.7,0.7) {};
\node [bullet] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\draw [->-] (x) to (ne);
\draw [->-=1] (w) to (-2,0);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to (2,0);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:45:1);
\draw [->-] (0.7,0.7) arc (45:0:1);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:-180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:0:1);
\node [vertex,fill=white] (n) at (0,1) {$m_{(2)}$};
\node [vertex,fill=white] (s) at (0,-1) {$s_{(2)}$};
} +\tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (x) at (0,0) {$\lambda_0$};
\node at (2,0.3) {};
\node at (-2,0.3) {};
\node [bullet] (sw) at (-0.7,-0.7) {};
\node [bullet] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\draw [->-] (x) to (sw);
\draw [->-=1] (w) to (-2,0);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to (2,0);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:0:1);
\draw [->-] (-0.7,-0.7) arc (-135:-180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:-135:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:0:1);
\node [vertex,fill=white] (n) at (0,1) {$m_{(2)}$};
\node [vertex,fill=white] (s) at (0,-1) {$s_{(2)}$};
}\right) + [\mu,q_{(2)}-p_{(2)}]
\end{align*}
But since $\Gamma_{(2)}, \lambda_0$ are closed under the relevant differentials, and both $m_{(2)}$ and $n_{(2)}$ are representatives of the inverse of $\lambda_0$, each of the terms in the parentheses above evaluates to something cohomologous to $s_{(2)}$. In other words, there is $r_{(2)} \in C^{d-1}_{(2)}(A)$ such that
\begin{align*} [\mu,r_{(2)}] &= 2 s_{(2)} - \frac{1}{2} \left( \tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (x) at (0,0) {$\lambda_0$};
\node at (2,0.3) {};
\node at (-2,0.3) {};
\node [bullet] (ne) at (0.7,0.7) {};
\node [bullet] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\draw [->-] (x) to (ne);
\draw [->-=1] (w) to (-2,0);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to (2,0);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:45:1);
\draw [->-] (0.7,0.7) arc (45:0:1);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:-180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:0:1);
\node [vertex,fill=white] (n) at (0,1) {$s_{(2)}$};
\node [vertex,fill=white] (s) at (0,-1) {$n_{(2)}$};
} +\tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (x) at (0,0) {$\lambda_0$};
\node at (2,0.3) {};
\node at (-2,0.3) {};
\node [bullet] (sw) at (-0.7,-0.7) {};
\node [bullet] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\draw [->-] (x) to (sw);
\draw [->-=1] (w) to (-2,0);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to (2,0);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:0:1);
\draw [->-] (-0.7,-0.7) arc (-135:-180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:-135:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:0:1);
\node [vertex,fill=white] (n) at (0,1) {$s_{(2)}$};
\node [vertex,fill=white] (s) at (0,-1) {$n_{(2)}$};
}\right) \\
&+\frac{1}{2} \left( \tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (x) at (0,0) {$\lambda_0$};
\node at (2,0.3) {};
\node at (-2,0.3) {};
\node [bullet] (ne) at (0.7,0.7) {};
\node [bullet] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\draw [->-] (x) to (ne);
\draw [->-=1] (w) to (-2,0);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to (2,0);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:45:1);
\draw [->-] (0.7,0.7) arc (45:0:1);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:-180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:0:1);
\node [vertex,fill=white] (n) at (0,1) {$m_{(2)}$};
\node [vertex,fill=white] (s) at (0,-1) {$s_{(2)}$};
} +\tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (x) at (0,0) {$\lambda_0$};
\node at (2,0.3) {};
\node at (-2,0.3) {};
\node [bullet] (sw) at (-0.7,-0.7) {};
\node [bullet] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\draw [->-] (x) to (sw);
\draw [->-=1] (w) to (-2,0);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to (2,0);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:0:1);
\draw [->-] (-0.7,-0.7) arc (-135:-180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:-135:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:0:1);
\node [vertex,fill=white] (n) at (0,1) {$m_{(2)}$};
\node [vertex,fill=white] (s) at (0,-1) {$s_{(2)}$};
}\right)
\end{align*}
Using this fact we find that $s_{(2)} = [\mu, r_{(2)}+q_{(2)}+p_{(2)}]$, so there is a solution $s_{(2)} = [x_{(2)},\mu]$.
In order to solve the equation in the next order $\ell=3$, we also have to show that this solution for $x_{(2)}$ can be of a particular form. Substituting for $s_{(2)}$ in the equation, and again using the closedness of $\Gamma_{(2)},\lambda_0$ we have
\begin{align*}
[\mu,x_{(2)}] &= \frac{1}{2} \left[ \mu, \tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (x) at (0,0) {$\lambda_0$};
\node at (2,0.3) {};
\node at (-2,0.3) {};
\node [bullet] (ne) at (0.7,0.7) {};
\node [bullet] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\draw [->-] (x) to (ne);
\draw [->-=1] (w) to (-2,0);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to (2,0);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:45:1);
\draw [->-] (0.7,0.7) arc (45:0:1);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:-180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:0:1);
\node [vertex,fill=white] (n) at (0,1) {$m_{(2)}$};
\node [vertex,fill=white] (s) at (0,-1) {$x_{(2)}$};
} +\tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (x) at (0,0) {$\lambda_0$};
\node at (2,0.3) {};
\node at (-2,0.3) {};
\node [bullet] (sw) at (-0.7,-0.7) {};
\node [bullet] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\draw [->-] (x) to (sw);
\draw [->-=1] (w) to (-2,0);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to (2,0);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:0:1);
\draw [->-] (-0.7,-0.7) arc (-135:-180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:-135:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:0:1);
\node [vertex,fill=white] (n) at (0,1) {$m_{(2)}$};
\node [vertex,fill=white] (s) at (0,-1) {$x_{(2)}$};
} \right. \\
&+ \left. \tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (x) at (0,0) {$\lambda_0$};
\node at (2,0.3) {};
\node at (-2,0.3) {};
\node [bullet] (ne) at (0.7,0.7) {};
\node [bullet] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\draw [->-] (x) to (ne);
\draw [->-=1] (w) to (-2,0);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to (2,0);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:45:1);
\draw [->-] (0.7,0.7) arc (45:0:1);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:-180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:0:1);
\node [vertex,fill=white] (n) at (0,1) {$x_{(2)}$};
\node [vertex,fill=white] (s) at (0,-1) {$n_{(2)}$};
} +\tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (x) at (0,0) {$\lambda_0$};
\node at (2,0.3) {};
\node at (-2,0.3) {};
\node [bullet] (sw) at (-0.7,-0.7) {};
\node [bullet] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\draw [->-] (x) to (sw);
\draw [->-=1] (w) to (-2,0);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to (2,0);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:0:1);
\draw [->-] (-0.7,-0.7) arc (-135:-180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:-135:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:0:1);
\node [vertex,fill=white] (n) at (0,1) {$x_{(2)}$};
\node [vertex,fill=white] (s) at (0,-1) {$n_{(2)}$};
} \right] + [\mu,q_{(2)}-p_{(2)}]
\end{align*}
Note that $[\mu,x_{(2)}]$ is a closed element of degree $d-1$ in $C^*_{(2)}(A)$. Now, since the element $m_{(2)}$ was nondegenerate, we have a quasi-isomorphism of bimodules $A \cong A^![d]$ so we have a quasi-isomorphism of complexes
\[ C^*_{(2)}(A) \simeq \Hom_{A\mh A}(A,A^!) \simeq \Hom_{A\mh A}(A,A[-d]) \simeq C^{*-d}(A) \]
so since we assumed $HH^{-1}(A) = 0$ we can find $x_{(2)}$ solving the equation
\begin{align*}
x_{(2)} &= \frac{1}{2} \left(\tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (x) at (0,0) {$\lambda_0$};
\node at (2,0.3) {};
\node at (-2,0.3) {};
\node [bullet] (ne) at (0.7,0.7) {};
\node [bullet] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\draw [->-] (x) to (ne);
\draw [->-=1] (w) to (-2,0);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to (2,0);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:45:1);
\draw [->-] (0.7,0.7) arc (45:0:1);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:-180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:0:1);
\node [vertex,fill=white] (n) at (0,1) {$m_{(2)}$};
\node [vertex,fill=white] (s) at (0,-1) {$x_{(2)}$};
} +\tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (x) at (0,0) {$\lambda_0$};
\node at (2,0.3) {};
\node at (-2,0.3) {};
\node [bullet] (sw) at (-0.7,-0.7) {};
\node [bullet] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\draw [->-] (x) to (sw);
\draw [->-=1] (w) to (-2,0);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to (2,0);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:0:1);
\draw [->-] (-0.7,-0.7) arc (-135:-180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:-135:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:0:1);
\node [vertex,fill=white] (n) at (0,1) {$m_{(2)}$};
\node [vertex,fill=white] (s) at (0,-1) {$x_{(2)}$};
} \right. \\
&+ \left. \tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (x) at (0,0) {$\lambda_0$};
\node at (2,0.3) {};
\node at (-2,0.3) {};
\node [bullet] (ne) at (0.7,0.7) {};
\node [bullet] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\draw [->-] (x) to (ne);
\draw [->-=1] (w) to (-2,0);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to (2,0);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:45:1);
\draw [->-] (0.7,0.7) arc (45:0:1);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:-180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:0:1);
\node [vertex,fill=white] (n) at (0,1) {$x_{(2)}$};
\node [vertex,fill=white] (s) at (0,-1) {$n_{(2)}$};
} +\tikzfig{
\node [vertex] (x) at (0,0) {$\lambda_0$};
\node at (2,0.3) {};
\node at (-2,0.3) {};
\node [bullet] (sw) at (-0.7,-0.7) {};
\node [bullet] (e) at (1,0) {};
\node [bullet] (w) at (-1,0) {};
\draw [->-] (x) to (sw);
\draw [->-=1] (w) to (-2,0);
\draw [->-=1] (e) to (2,0);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:0:1);
\draw [->-] (-0.7,-0.7) arc (-135:-180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,1) arc (90:180:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:-135:1);
\draw [->-] (0,-1) arc (-90:0:1);
\node [vertex,fill=white] (n) at (0,1) {$x_{(2)}$};
\node [vertex,fill=white] (s) at (0,-1) {$n_{(2)}$};
} \right) + q_{(2)}-p_{(2)} + (\mu\mathrm{-exact})
\end{align*}
For the next step $\ell=3$ we write $n_{(3)} = m_{(3)} + [x_{(2)},m_{(2)}]+ \frac{1}{2}[x_{(2)},[x_{(2)},\mu]] - s_{(3)}$ and write the analogous equation, substituting in the above solution for $x_{(2)}$, solving for $x_{(3)}$ in $s_{(3)} = [\mu,x_{(3)}]$. Proceeding like that for each $\ell$ gives a solution $x = x_{(2)} + x_{(3)}+ \dots$ for the `gauge transformation' taking $m$ to $n$.
\end{proof}
\printbibliography
\end{document}
|
\section{Method}
In this paper, we propose a deep-learning based regression model that accurately predicts building coverage in low-resolution satellite imagery from Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2. Unlike detection- or segmentation-based methods, our model does not require high-resolution training data or hand-crafted threshold and generalizes well to unseen regions. The proposed method accurately predicts the building coverage in the raw input low-resolution satellite image with the help of a quantile regression.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figures/pipeline.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{(a) Given an input image $X$, we want to predict the number of building pixels $y$ within it. We assume that $y$ approximate the actual building coverage. (b) Architecture of the multi-node quantile regression model. The input to the model includes five channels, which are Sentinel-1 band 1 (Overall Mean), Sentinel-2 band 4, 3, 2, 8 (R, G, B, NIR). The model has $K$ output nodes representing different quantiles.
}
\label{fig:model}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Problem Definition}
Given a geographical region, we want to estimate the building coverage within it. Due to the lack of direct statistics of building coverage in square meter or kilometer, we instead predict the number of building pixels $y \in \mathbb{R}$, in the satellite image $X$ representing the target region, assuming that the number of building pixels is proportional to the actual building coverage (Figure \ref{fig:model}(a)).
We want to build a model that predicts $y$ from the raw image input $X$.
\subsection{Multi-node Quantile Regression Model}
We observe that the distribution of building pixel counts across Africa and South America are heavy-tailed, with more than 75\% of the samples having less than 20\% of all pixels being buildings. Regular linear regression trained on root-mean-square error objective estimates the conditional mean and assumes normality of the data distribution, failing to model non-normal asymmetric distribution accurately. Moreover, linear regression is not robust to outlier values, which characterize the building pixel count distribution for our task.
To address the aforementioned problems, we adopt quantile regression \cite{koenker1978regression}, which estimates the conditional quantile (e.g., median) of the response variable. Quantile regression allows us to incorporate uncertainty in prediction and captures the relationship between the input and different quantiles of the data. As we will see in Section \ref{results}, multi-node quantile regression indeed empirically performed better than regular linear regression for our task.
Specifically, we modify the ResNet18 \cite{he2016deep} architecture to have $K$ output channels (i.e. nodes), each corresponding to a different quantile (see Figure \ref{fig:model}).
As it is observed that the median of a distribution gives the minimum absolute error from the ground truth \cite{hanley2001visualizing}, at inference time, we collect the model predictions from only the 0.5 quantile node, which is expected to predict the conditional median of the response variable.
\subsection{Multi-node Quantile Loss}
For each node that represents a quantile $q \in (0, 1)$, we compute an asymmetric quantile loss, or pinball loss. Depending on the quantile $q$, over- and under-estimation are penalized unevenly.
Specifically, the node-wise pinball loss for a given prediction $\hat{y}$ and ground truth label $y$ is computed as follows:
\[ \mathcal{L}_\text{pinball}(q, y, \hat{y}) =
\begin{cases}
q \cdot |\hat{y} - y| & \text{if } \hat{y} \ge y \\
(1 - q) \cdot |\hat{y} - y| & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\]
When $q=0.5$, the pinball loss is the same as the absolute error.
To compute the final loss, we take the mean of the pinball losses among the $K$ output nodes as follows:
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{L}_\text{quantile}(y, \hat{y}) = \frac{1}{K}\sum_{n=1}^{K} \mathcal{L}_\text{pinball}(q_n, y, \hat{y})
\end{equation*}
where the subscript $n$ indicates the index of the quantile in the list of quantiles predicted by the model. Notice that when $K=1$ and $q=0.5$, the quantile loss formula boils down to the regular $L_1$ loss.
\section{Results}\label{results}
\begin{table*}[h]
\small
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc|cccccc}
\Xhline{3\arrayrulewidth}
\multicolumn{1}{l}{} & \multicolumn{6}{c|}{\textbf{Africa}} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{\textbf{South America}} \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{l}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Uganda} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Zambia} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Ghana} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Brazil} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Peru} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Mexico} \\ \hline
Method & $R^2\uparrow$ & Tile $\downarrow$ & $R^2\uparrow$ & Tile $\downarrow$ & $R^2 \uparrow$ & Tile $\downarrow$ & $R^2\uparrow$ & Tile $\downarrow$ & $R^2\uparrow$ & Tile $\downarrow$ & $R^2\uparrow$ & Tile $\downarrow$ \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{GUF (2012)} & 0.092 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{7.23} & -0.715 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{0.96}} & 0.466 & 1.59 & -- & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{--} & -- & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{--} & -- & -- \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{WSF (2015)} & 0.286 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{0.21}} & -5.444 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{38.68} & -0.290 & 3.28 & 0.579 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{9.21} & 0.562 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{6.06} & -0.099 & 18.52 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{GHSL (2018)} & 0.057 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{6.83} & 0.023 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{2.46} & 0.771 & 0.75 & 0.863 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{0.97} & 0.516 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{10.06} & 0.187 & 8.12 \\\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{w/o multi-node QR} & -15.51 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{33.15} & -10.41 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{54.27} & -15.64 & 31.68 & -0.069 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{18.30} & -2.807 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{38.28} & -2.480 & 36.24 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{w/o S1 band 1} & 0.809 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{1.95} & 0.779 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{3.74} & 0.252 & 3.37 & 0.864 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{3.91} & \textbf{0.906} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{2.34}} & 0.422 & 10.96 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{w/o S2 band 8} & 0.772 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{2.33} & 0.580 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{7.14} & 0.804 & \textbf{0.54} & 0.751 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{6.19} & 0.836 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{3.13} & 0.337 & 13.36 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{Ours} & \textbf{0.868} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{1.18} & \textbf{0.866} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{3.21} & \textbf{0.835} & 2.31 & \textbf{0.968} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{0.83}} & 0.798 & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{6.63} & \textbf{0.707} & \textbf{0.36} \\ \Xhline{3\arrayrulewidth}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Results on SpaceNet7. The bottom four rows are the proposed methods with the corresponding components removed and the complete version. In the table, $\mathbf{r^2}$ is the patch-level Pearson's $r^2$ and \textbf{Tile} is the tile-level absolute error between SpaceNet7 and the corresponding method. The model was trained with 15,000 samples in Africa for 1200 epochs and tested on the corresponding SpaceNet7 tiles.
}
\label{tab:spacenet_results}
\end{table*}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|cc}
\Xhline{3\arrayrulewidth}
\textbf{Expt. setting} & \textbf{Train} & \textbf{Test} & \textbf{MAE} $\downarrow$ & $\mathbf{R^2}\uparrow$ \\ \hline
Holistic & Africa & Africa & 75.43 & 0.888 \\
Intra-country & Rwanda & Rwanda & 27.60 & 0.938 \\
Exclusive & Africa* & Rwanda & 42.04 & 0.844 \\
Exclusive & Africa* & Uganda & 207.74 & 0.568 \\
Excluisve & Africa* & Kenya & 110.67 & 0.915 \\ \Xhline{3\arrayrulewidth}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Patch-level results for different experiment settings on Open Buildings. All models in the table are trained with 15,000 samples from the corresponding train regions for 1200 epochs and tested on 1,000 samples from the corresponding test regions. *Under the Exclusive setting, the corresponding test region is removed from the training set so that the model is tested on unseen regions.}
\label{tab:open_buildings_results}
\end{table}
In this section, we evaluate the performance of the proposed method. We first show that our model accurately predicts building coverage in Africa and generalizes to South American regions unseen during training. We also conduct ablation studies demonstrating that the major design choices -- non-RGB bands and multi-node quantile regression -- are necessary for boosting model performance and generalization.
\subsection{Accurate Prediction in Africa}
To demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, we evaluate it on both SpaceNet7 (see Table \ref{tab:spacenet_results}) and Open Buildings (see Table \ref{tab:open_buildings_results}) in Africa. We define a \textit{tile} as multiple \textit{patches} and compute the tile-level results by taking summation of the patches within it (see Section 4.1).
As shown in Table \ref{tab:spacenet_results}, our model achieves an $R^2$ as high as $0.968$ at patch-level, outperforming the baselines on most of the African regions. Some examples of the proposed model's patch-level prediction are provided in Figure \ref{fig:success_examples}. Furthermore, the proposed method yields fairly accurate building coverage estimates at tile-level, achieving a low error rate of 0.54\% on Ghana. Additionally, we observe that baselines like WSF and GUF give good estimates at only tile-level but not the other, indicating that the errors at patch-level are cancelled out. In contrast, the proposed method yields consistently accurate estimations at both tile- and patch-level.
We emphasize that having good performance on both scales is ideal, since it gets us closer to finer-grained pixel-level predictions (semantic segmentation).
\subsection{Generalization to Unseen Regions}
Prior methods for generating building coverage statistics generalize poorly under domain shift. To evaluate the generalizability of the proposed method, we train and test the multi-node quantile regression model under three experiment settings (defined in Section 4.3) -- Holistic, Intra-country, and Exclusive. We provide the patch-level results on the Open Buildings dataset in Table \ref{tab:open_buildings_results}.
We see that among the three experiment settings, Intra-country gives the highest Pearson's $r^2$ of 0.971 because the model is tested on in-domain data and the region is small. We also observe that the proposed multi-node quantile regression model generalizes well to regions not seen during training. Speicifcally, under the Exclusive setting, the proposed method achives an $r^2$ as high as 0.962 even with the test regions removed from the training set (see Table \ref{tab:spacenet_results}).
Furthermore, the proposed model generalizes to regions outside of the African continent. We evaluate our method on SpaceNet7 tiles from South America and provide the results in Table \ref{tab:spacenet_results}. We observe that the proposed model achieves comparable or superior performance when evaluated on Brazil, Peru, and Mexico compared with the baselines. This generalization to a different continent indicates that our model could potentially be applied to the globe for collecting building coverage statistics, while using only publicly available low-resolution satellite imagery.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figures/scatter.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Scatter plots of patch-level predicted number of building pixels against the ground truth from the ablation studies. All models are trained on Africa and tested in the Brazil tile. Removing the multi-node quantile regression or any of the non-RGB bands makes the model be prone to overestimation or underestimation.
}
\label{fig:pred_vs_gt}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Ablation Studies}
In this part, we carry out ablation studies on 1) the incorporation of S1 band 1 and S2 band 8 as input and 2) the multi-node quantile regression, and provide the results in Table \ref{tab:spacenet_results}.
\subsubsection{Multi-node Quantile Regression}
To see the effect of having multiple output nodes for different quantiles, we compare the performance of the multi-node quantile regression model with the single-node model trained on the L1 objective.
We provide the ablation study results on SpaceNet7 in Table \ref{tab:spacenet_results} (see row ``w/o multi-node QR'').
We observe that the proposed multi-node model outperforms the single-node model by a large margin on all test regions.
In addition, as shown in the scatter plots for ground truth VS. predicted building pixel counts (Figure \ref{fig:pred_vs_gt}), the model tends to overestimate the building coverage without the multi-node quantile regression. We speculate that having multiple output nodes improve performance because the pinball losses from the 0.1 and 0.9 quantile nodes help bound the predictions.
\subsubsection{Multi-Spectral Bands}
We conduct ablation studies on the two non-RGB multi-spectral bands --- i.e. S1 band 1 and S2 band 8 --- and provide the ablation study results evaluated on SpaceNet7 in Table \ref{tab:spacenet_results} . We observe that at both patch- and tile-level, incorporating S1 band 1 and S2 band 8 boosts the performance.
From the scatter plots in Figure \ref{fig:pred_vs_gt}, we see that removing either S1 band 1 or S2 band 8 makes the model underestimates at patch-level. This suggests that the non-RGB bands provide additional information that helps correct the model's tendency to under- or over-estimate.
\section{Discussion and Social Impact}
United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) present an urgent call for action in all countries and collaboration between different sectors of policy-making for a more sustainable development \cite{unsdg}. However, relevant data for informing the decision makers and organizations are often lacking or infrequently collected, especially in fast developing countries. Building coverage is an important socioeconomic indicator and also helps predict other indicators.
In this paper, we develop a framework for estimating building coverage using only free low-resolution satellite imagery from Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2. The proposed multi-node quantile regression model yields fairly accurate estimates and generalizes well to unseen countries and continents.
This paper offers a cost-efficient and generalizable way to collect global building coverage statistics, accelerating the progress towards multiple SDGs. For example, building coverage helps predict the level of economic development, which informs policymakers' decisions for alleviating poverty (SDG 1 No Poverty), allocating infrastructure resources (SDG 9 Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure), and building more sustainable cities (SDG 11 Sustainable Cities and Communities). In addition, building coverage provides important information about the interaction between human and environment, including the monitoring of agriculture to reduce hunger (SDG 2 Zero Hunger) and climate measurement (SDG 13 Climate Action).
Furthermore, the proposed method could potentially be applied to track changes of building coverage for different regions in the world, assisting existing efforts for this. For example, United Nations' World Urbanization Prospects report provides estimates and projections of urban and rural data, including population and area, throughout the time \cite{urbanization}. The proposed method could be applied to derive building coverage statistics as soon as satellite images are updated (the low-resolution satellite imagery are updated on a weekly basis). As building coverage is highly correlated with or can be used to derive other values like building density, urban area, and population, our method could potentially aid the efforts to track urban development.
This paper demonstrates the viability of using low-resolution free satellite imagery for estimating building coverage statistics over a large geography. Future research could explore how the model can be applied to classify urban and rural areas, and estimate population and poverty levels.
\section{Introduction}
The quantity and location of buildings provide important insight into the human activities and urban development of a region. Not only are building statistics themselves key socioeconomic indicators, they also help predict other key sustainable development indices, including poverty
\cite{Ayush2021EfficientPM,uzkent2020efficient,Yeh2020UsingPA},
population density \cite{huang2021100}, and climate outcomes \cite{chini2018towards}. Moreover, building coverage statistics help policymakers and NGOs make informed decisions regarding the provision of public services, the targeting of humanitarian aid, and priorities for large-scale infrastructure investments.
The development of deep learning detection \cite{redmon2018yolov3} and segmentation models \cite{ronneberger2015u,sun2019deep} has allowed for more efficient global mapping of buildings. As a result, there has been an increasing number of global settlement map datasets in the past decade \cite{esch2017breaking,marconcini2020outlining,sirko2021continental}, allowing researchers to develop insights into the socioeconomic development of different regions.
Nevertheless, detection- or segmentation-based methods typically rely on a large amount of high-resolution satellite imagery and the corresponding pixel- or instance-level labels for training, which are often prohibitively expensive and unaffordable for researchers and policymakers \cite{meng2022count}. Moreover, high-resolution imagery are updated less frequently than low-resolution ones. In addition, running detection or segmentation models over high-resolution images covering a large area requires a large amount of compute. Due to these reasons, building data gathered in this way is often not updated timely. For example, the Microsoft Global Building Footprints dataset\footnote{\url{https://github.com/microsoft/GlobalMLBuildingFootprints}} is collected from satellite images between 2014 and 2021. However, during the 7-year period, population continues to grow and new buildings are constructed, especially in fast developing regions. For instance, from 2015 to 2020, the population increased by 44.1\% for Malappuram and 34.2\% for Abuja.\footnote{\url{https://worldpopulationreview.com/}} Moreover, fine-grained detection and segmentation models usually generalize poorly to unseen geographies, timestamps, and image sources because the appearance of buildings vary widely in satellite images \cite{yuan2014learning}.
Compared with its high-resolution counterpart, low-resolution satellite imagery (e.g. Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2) are publicly available and updated every month, making them desirable for studying the economic and urban development of a region. However, prior works have not fully utilized low-resolution imagery.
In this paper, we propose a cheaper and more generalizable way to update building statistics using only low-resolution satellite imagery from Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2.
Instead of detecting or segmenting each building in satellite images, the proposed model directly predicts the building coverage from the raw input pixels, using input imagery from a public source that is updated nearly weekly.
Specifically, we found that incorporating a multi-node quantile regression loss helps improve the generalization of the model.
The proposed method achieves a coefficient of determination ($R^2$) as high as $0.968$ in regions from different continents and of different levels of development. We also conduct ablation studies and show that the incorporation of additional multi-spectral bands available from the low-resolution satellite imagery and the multi-node quantile regression design help improve the model performance.
\section{Experiment Setup}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figures/visualization.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{A \textbf{tile} can be cropped into multiple $50\times50$ pixels \textbf{patches}. The \textbf{tile-level} results are computed by taking summation of all the \textbf{patch-level} predictions.
}
\label{fig:visualization}
\end{figure}
Before introducing the experiment setups, we define \textit{tile} and \textit{patch} in the context of this paper. We define a \textit{patch} to be the small rasters of $50\times 50$ pixels that we crop larger rasters into.
A \textit{tile} is a larger satellite imagery that could be cropped into multiple smaller \textit{patches} (see Figure \ref{fig:visualization}). We train and evaluate the multi-node quantile regression model on patches of $50\times50$ pixels and add post-processing steps to collect tile-level results.
\subsection{Training Data}
As the majority of the African continent is covered by forest or desert and does not contain any buildings, we sample locations based on the population density
so that the training data contains sufficient tiles with buildings for the model to learn from. Our training set contains 15,000 input-label pairs.
Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 images are used as as the input data and the Open Buildings dataset is used to derive the building coverage label, as we detail next.
\paragraph{Sentinel-1 (S1)} satellites collect radar imagery for land and ocean monitoring.
We download the S1 satellite imagery collected in 2020 from Google Earth Engine.
The images have 10m GSD and are composites that take the median value over the target period of time.
We include band 1, the VV overall mean, as one of the input channels. The S1 tiles are cropped into $50 \times 50$-pixel patches. As areas with high built-up density are shown to result in stronger signals in S1 band 1 \cite{koppel2017sensitivity}, we expect that adding this channel to the input will improve the model's performance.
\paragraph{Sentinel-2 (S2)} satellites are equipped with the mission of land monitoring.
We download the 2020 composites of S2 imagery from Google Earth Engine.
We include the RGB channels (i.e. bands 4, 3, 2) and the near-infrared (NIR) channel (i.e. band 8) from S2 as input. Compared with other channels, NIR is useful for distinguishing the vegetation from the buildings~\cite{luo2019fusing, pessoa2019photogrammetric, schlosser2020building}. All of the four bands are available in 10m GSD. The S2 tiles are cropped into 50 $\times$ 50-pixel patches.
\paragraph{Open Buildings} \cite{sirko2021continental} contains 516M building footprints across 43 African countries that cover 64\% of the continent. The building footprints were detected using state-of-the-art segmentation model collected from \emph{high-resolution imagery} at different timestamps. We downsample the original high-resolution mask (0.5m GSD) to 10m GSD to match the resolution of the input data. Then, we convert the continous-valued rasters into binary masks by thresholding at 0.
The building pixel count labels are derived for the $50 \times 50$-pixel patches.
\subsection{Experiment Settings}
To evaluate the generalization performance of the model, we consider three experiment settings that captures likely cases of real-world application.
\paragraph{Holistic.} In the holistic setting, we train and test on data points sampled across the African continent based on population density.
\paragraph{Intra-country.} In the intra-country setting, we train and test the model on samples from the same country.
\paragraph{Exclusive.} In the exclusive setting, we train the model on all African countries except for the one country on which we test our model.
\subsection{Baselines}
To evaluate the performance of the proposed method, we use existing settlement map products from different years as baselines to compare against. These off-the-shelf products provide researchers and policymakers with general information about urban shapes and boundaries, but could be less useful in providing up-to-date building coverage statistics, which change more frequently than the shape of urban area.
We believe that these existing settlement map products serve as good baselines to compare our method against and provide information of them in this section.
\paragraph{Gloal Urban Footprint (GUF)}
GUF was collected from 2011 to 2012. It contains mappings of human settlements in the form of binary masks.
\paragraph{Global Human Settlement Layer (GHSL)}
GHSL was collected from Sentinel-1 images in 2018. The building map is available as binary masks.
\paragraph{World Settlement Footprint (WSF)}
WSF \cite{marconcini2020outlining} was collected in 2015. It contains binary masks of global human settlements.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figures/success_examples.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Examples of model predictions in Brazil, which was unseen during training. The first row is the RGB input image; the second row is the binary masks (where the bright yellow pixels are building pixels) from which we derive the label. The model prediction is in black; the ground truth labels are highlighted in green in the parentheses. Our method accurately estimated the results.
}
\label{fig:success_examples}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Evaluation Settings}
We evaluate the model performance at both patch-level and tile-level and describe the evaluation metrics in this section.
\subsubsection{Patch-level Evaluation}
As the model is trained on patches, we want to evaluate the model's performance at the same scale. We use two evaluation metrics for patch-level evaluation: mean absolute error (MAE) and Pearson's $r^2$ between the predicted and the ground truth labels.
\subsubsection{Tile-level Evaluation}
In real-world applications, building coverage statistics are needed over a large geography. To reflect this use case, we also evaluate the model performance at tile-level using absolute error in building coverage. To compare the statistics of building coverage across baselines with different GSDs, we compute the percentage of building pixels within a tile as a proxy for building coverage. For a tile $R$ cropped into $N$ patches at inference time, let $y_i$ be the number of building pixels in patch $i$, the building coverage percentage is computed as:
\begin{equation*}
C_{building}(R) = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{N} y_i}{H_{tile} \times W_{tile}} \times 100
\end{equation*}
where $H_{tile}$ and $W_{tile}$ denote the height and width (in pixel) of the tile. The absolute error between a method and the ground truth is computed as the absolute difference between the two building coverage percentages.
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\Xhline{3\arrayrulewidth}
\textbf{Expt./Eval. settings}* & \textbf{Open Buildings} & \textbf{SpaceNet7} \\ \hline
Holistic & \checkmark & \\
Intra-country & \checkmark & \\
Exclusive & \checkmark & \\ \hline
Patch-level & \checkmark & \checkmark \\
Tile-level & & \checkmark\\ \Xhline{3\arrayrulewidth}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Checkmarks indicate that the corresponding dataset is used as validation data under the experiment (Expt.) or evaluation (Eval.) settings. *Different experiment settings require retraining the model, while different evaluation settings do not.
}
\label{tab:evaluation_data}
\end{table}
\subsection{Evaluation Data}
We evaluate our model on Open Buildings and SpaceNet 7 Challenge datasets and provide the information in Table \ref{tab:evaluation_data}.
\subsubsection{Open Buildings}
The Open Buildings \cite{sirko2021continental} dataset provides the training labels. We evaluate the model performance on a hold-out test subset of the Open Buildings dataset at \textit{patch-level} only. We do not use Open Buildings for tile-level evaluation because it contains data from different timestamps.
\subsubsection{SpaceNet 7 Challenge dataset (SpaceNet7)}
SpaceNet7\footnote{SpaceNet on Amazon Web Services (AWS). “Datasets.” The SpaceNet Catalog. Last modified October 1st, 2018. Accessed on November 20th, 2021. \url{https://spacenet.ai/datasets/}} was published in 2020 as the data for the SpaceNet 7 Multi-Temporal Urban Development Challenge. The dataset provides $4 \text{km} \times 4$km tiles and the building polygons in each tile.
We downsample the raster to 10m GSD to match the resolution of the input data. We evaluate the model performance on SpaceNet7 at both \textit{patch-level} and \textit{tile-level}.
We use the SpaceNet7 tiles for validation because the labels were collected the same year as the Sentinel-1/-2 input data. Furthermore, SpaceNet7 includes tiles from regions outside of Africa, allowing us to evaluate the model's performance on unseen countries. Specifically, we evaluate our model on six SpaceNet7 tiles from different regions: Uganda, Zambia, Ghana, Peru, Brazil, and Mexico. Note that we do not use SpaceNet7 as the training labels because the data is limited in quantity. These labels are human-generated and likely of higher quality compared to those from Open Buildings, which are generated by a model.
\section{Appendix A: Datasets}
\paragraph{Sentinel-1} provides free global Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) imagery available with 9 bands at ground sampling distance (GSD) of 10m. The revisit time of the Sentinel-1 satellite is 12 days, meaning that the images are updated frequently.
We include band 1, the VV overall mean, as one of the input channels.
Each Sentinel-1 tile that we download is 2km-by-2km and has the shape $200 \times 200$ pixels. Each tile is then cropped into 16 smaller patches of shape $50 \times 50$ pixels when fed into our model.
\paragraph{Sentinel-2} provides multi-spectral images in from the visible to the shortwave infrared spectral range (SWIR) with the revisit time of 10 days.
The Sentinel-2 satellite imagery contains 13 multi-spectral bands with GSDs ranging from 10 to 60m.
Besides the RGB channels, we also included the near-infrared (NIR) channel (i.e. band 8) as input.
Like Sentinel-1, all the Sentinel-2 imagery are downloaded as 2km-by-2km tiles and cropped into 16 patches of size $50 \times 50$-pixel.
\paragraph{Open Buildings}
contains 516M building footprints across 43 African countries that cover 64\% of the continent. The building footprints were detected using state-of-the-art segmentation models. The Open Buildings data is originally in the format of polygons labeled with three confidence intervals of buildings presence - 0.6 to 0.65, 0.65 to 0.7, and greater than 0.7. For our purpose, we download the Open Buildings data as high-resolution rasters with 0.5m GSD and two bands.
Band 1 demonstrates the model confidence that a building is located in the region with the confidence interval preserved from the original polygon data. A band 1 value of zero indicates no building presence. Band 2 is a reclassification of the confidence scores into four buckets.
We use band 1 to derive the binary label of \textit{building} and \textit{non-building}. Specifically, we first downsample the rasters to 10m GSD to match the resolution of the Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 input images. Then, we convert the continous-valued band 1 into a binary mask by treating all pixels with a non-zero value as a building pixel -- i.e. a pixel that contains buildings. Like Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2, the downsampled binary mask is cropped into $50 \times 50$-pixel patches. For each smaller patch, we use the number of building pixels as the labels for training and testing.
\subsection{Appendix B: Baselines}
Figure \ref{fig:benchmark_vis} shows the visualization of different benchmarks described below and datasets we used in experiments.
\paragraph{Gloal Urban Footprint (GUF)} is a worldwide mapping of human settlement patterns in the form of binary masks available in 12m GSD. The building footprints are derived from satellite images of TerraSAR-X and TanDEM-X from 2011 to 2012.
\paragraph{Global Human Settlement Layer (GHSL)} was collected from backscattered information of Sentinel-1 images. The building map is available as binary masks at 20m GSD.
\paragraph{World Settlement Footprint (WSF)}
is a binary mask of global human settlements available in 10m GSD. The map was derived from Sentinel-1 and Landsat-8 satellite imagery in year 2015.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figures/benchmark_visualization.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Binary settlement maps in Zambia (1 = red building pixel; 0 = white non-building pixel) from different sources. The years of collection for the settlement maps are provided in the parentheses.}
\label{fig:benchmark_vis}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figures/train_locations.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{(a) The geo-locations of our training samples, all of which are from Africa. (b) High-resolution satellite imagery are expensive, while many lower-resolution ones are publicly available.}
\label{fig:train}
\end{figure}
\section{Appendix C: Experiments}
\subsection{Model Implementation}
We modify the ResNet18 architecture to incorporate multi-node quantile regression. Specifically, we replace the final fully-connected (FC) layer in ResNet18 with two FC layers, each followed by a ReLU activation. We set the number of output channels (i.e. nodes) to be $K$, which is the number of quantiles the model predicts. For all models in this paper, we use $K=3$ and predict the quantiles $\{0.1, 0.5, 0.9\}$. Each channel corresponds to a quantile and the corresponding pinball loss is computed using the output of that particular channel. To prevent the model from overfitting, we add dropout layers after each ResNet block, which we found empirically that it helps the model generalize to unseen regions.
\subsection{Training Details}
The training samples' geo-locations are shown in Figure \ref{fig:train} (a).
For all models in the experiment section, we train them on 15000 samples for 1200 epochs with a learning rate of 0.002. The models have fully converged at the point where we end training.
\subsection{Temporal Experiments}
\subsubsection{Evaluation}
To evaluate our model's ability to track temporal changes in building coverage, we run the model on satellite images from 2016 and 2021.\footnote{Sentinel-2 mission started in 2014.} Specifically, we chose four cities with various levels of development from four different continents -- Dhaka, Kampala, Athens, and Boston -- and downloaded all images covering the cities. Then, we compute the building coverage growth rate over the 5-year interval for the chosen cities using the model trained on 15,000 African images for 1200 epochs.
One challenge of temporal evaluation is the lack of building coverage ground truth data. To get a sense of how well the proposed method tracks temporal changes in building coverage, we use population change as a proxy for building coverage change.
Specifically, we assume that population and building coverage grows together, as more people requires more buildings. However, we only use population growth rate as a rough reference for the relative level of developments of different cities.
\subsubsection{Results}
Tracking changes in building coverage across time allows us to understand the urban development of a region, especially in cities or urban areas. We show that the proposed model can be used to track building coverage changes in regions of different levels of development and provide the temporal experiment results in Figure \ref{tab:temporal_results}.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c}
\Xhline{3\arrayrulewidth}
\textbf{Region} & \textbf{Population (\%)} & \textbf{Building (\%)}\\ \hline
Dhaka & 19.23 & 29.68 \\
Kampala & 28.18 & 7.28 \\
Athens & -0.19 & 1.55 \\
Boston & 4.45 & -9.42 \\ \Xhline{3\arrayrulewidth}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Temporal change experiment results on four cities of different levels of development. The second and third are percentage change from 2016 to 2021. All results are collected from the model trained with 15,000 samples in Africa for 1200 epochs.}
\label{tab:temporal_results}
\end{table}
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
\label{sec:intro}
ERIS is a Cassegrain instrument at the VLT-UT4 of the Paranal Observatory in Chile that will operate at 1-5~$\mu$m \cite{2018SPIE10702E..09D}. It will take over the fundamental adaptive optics (AO) capabilities at the VLT previously provided by NACO and SINFONI and, thus, ensure that the VLT remains at the forefront of AO imaging and spectroscopy into the next decade. The main scientific drivers of ERIS include resolved studies of high-redshift galaxies, astrometry in the Galactic Centre, and characterisation of exoplanets. The ERIS project is being led by a Consortium of Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics (MPE, leading institute), Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF Arcetri, Abruzzo and Padova), UK Astronomy Technology Centre (UK-ATC), Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics (ETH-Zurich), Netherlands Research School for Astronomy (NOVA Leiden), and European Southern Observatory (ESO). Fig.~\ref{fig:ERIS_overview} displays the overview of ERIS and its main subsystems.
ERIS has two science cameras called SPIFFIER and NIX. SPIFFIER \cite{2016SPIE.9908E..0GG} is an integral field unit (IFU) spectrograph covering the JHK bands, and is an upgraded version of SPIFFI (SPectrometer for Infrared Faint Field Imaging), which was part of SINFONI \cite{2003SPIE.4841.1548E,2004Msngr.117...17B}. SPIFFIER provides simultaneous spectroscopy of 32x64 spatial pixels with a spectral resolution of either $\sim$5000 or $\sim$10000 at three image scales: 25, 100, and 250 mas/px, leading to fields of view (FoV) on the sky of 0.8"x0.8", 3.2"x3.2" and 8"x8". NIX \cite{2016SPIE.9908E..3FP} is an imager operating in the JHK and LM bands and providing a wide range of modes: standard diffraction-limited imaging in JHK (13 and 27 mas/px image scales leading to 26"x26" and 55"x55" FoV, respectively) and LM (13 mas/px image scale leading to 26"x26" FoV) bands, long slit spectroscopy from 3 to 4 $\mu$m and high contrast imaging (HCI) modes from focal/pupil plane coronagraphy to sparse aperture masking interferometry. During science operations, users will select either ERIS/NIX or ERIS/SPIFFIER for their observations.
\begin{figure
\begin{center}
$\vcenter{\hbox{\includegraphics[height=7cm]{QmxS8EgqfVkYHrH5.png}}}$
$\vcenter{\hbox{\includegraphics[height=6.3cm]{DSC08146.JPG}}}$
\end{center}
\caption{\textit{Left panel:} The overview of ERIS and its main subsystems: the SPIFFIER spectrograph, the NIX imager, the calibration unit, and the central structure with the LGS and NGS WFS. \textit{Right panel:} ERIS mounted to the Cassegrain focus of VLT-UT4.}
\label{fig:ERIS_overview}
\end{figure}
The AO module of ERIS provides corrected wavefronts in the J-M bands
to NIX and SPIFFIER and has the following adaptive modes:
\begin{itemize}
\item Natural Guide Star (NGS) with an on- or off-axis reference star;
\item Laser Guide Star (LGS) with an on-axis LGS and off-axis NGS for tip tilt sensing and truth sensing;
\item Seeing enhancer mode where only the on-axis LGS wavefront sensor (WFS) is used for the high-order correction (in cases when no tip-tilt star is available).
\end{itemize}
\
Since ERIS is mounted on UT4 it makes use of the Adaptive Optics Facility (AOF \cite{2018SPIE10703E..1GO}): one of the four lasers of 4LGSF \cite{hackenberg2016eso} is used to generate an artificial sodium LGS, and the wavefront correction is done by the deformable secondary mirror (DSM) using the Real Time Computer (RTC) platform called SPARTA \cite{2006SPIE.6272E..10F}.
The calibration data for the SPIFFIER and NIX science observations are provided by the Calibration Unit (CU \cite{2018SPIE10702E..3GD}), which consists of various internal sources for JHK bands: a Quartz-Tungsten Halogen (QTH) lamp for flatfielding, four pencil-ray lamps (Ne, Xe, Kr, Ar) for SPIFFIER wavelength calibration and a Laser Driven Light Source (LDLS) for focusing purposes, position adjustments on the detector and distortion correction (only SPIFFIER). Long-wavelength (LM band) calibrations with NIX are performed exclusively on-sky.
The AIV phase of ERIS at the Paranal Observatory was carried out between December~2021 and February~2022 followed by its first light and subsequent commissioning, which is still ongoing. The following sections describe technical overview and preliminary performance results of ERIS/SPIFFIER (Sect.~\ref{Sect:SPIFFIER}) and ERIS/NIX (Sect.~\ref{Sect:NIX}) at selected observing modes. The description of the AO sub-system design and preliminary commissioning results are reported in \citenum{AO}.
\section{SPIFFIER}
\label{Sect:SPIFFIER}
\subsection{Instrument overview}
SPIFFIER is the integral field spectrometer and is an upgraded/refurbished version of SPIFFI featuring a new HAWAII 2RG (2x2k) detector and four new gratings (J, H, K, high-resolution(J,H,K)) providing better spectral resolution thanks to more symmetric and narrower line spread functions. Addition of the high-resolution grating leads to twice higher spectral resolution compared to the nominal gratings. SPIFFIER provides simultaneous spectra of 32x64 spatial pixels (spaxels) at three image scales: 250, 100, and 25 mas/px, leading to field of views on the sky of 8"x8", 3"x3", and 0.8"x0.8", respectively. Figure~\ref{fig:spi_ins} shows an image of the open SPIFFIER cryostat with indications for the locations of the various elements. All components are cooled in a bath cryostat to the temperature of liquid nitrogen ($\sim$77 K). The liquid nitrogen reservoir sits below the instrument base plate.
\begin{figure
\centering
\includegraphics[height=9cm]{SPIFFIER_figure.pdf}
\caption{An inside view of the SPIFFIER cryostat with indications for the locations of various opto-mechanical elements. Some housing covers and parts of the stiffening structure are not shown for better illustration.}
\label{fig:spi_ins}
\end{figure}
The light enters from the top. Below the entrance focal plane baffle, a triplet lens unit collimates the light onto a cold stop for the suppression of the thermal background. Just in front of the cold stop is the motorized filter wheel housing the band-pass filters. After the cold stop, the motorized optics wheel provides the interchangeable lens systems for the three different image scales: 25, 100 and 250 mas/px. The light of the pre-optics is focused on the image slicer: a stack of 32 small plane mirrors – the so-called small slicer – slices the image and redirects the light towards the 32 mirrors of the big slicer, which rearranges the slitlets to a long pseudo-slit, which appears as a brick-wall pattern on the detector. All parts are of Zerodur and are optically contacted (without using any glue). Each one of the 32 slitlets is imaged onto 64 pixels of the detector. Figure~\ref{fig:spi_slicer} shows the image slicer and the positions of the slitlets on a raw SPIFFIER frame. The slitlets run horizontally across the imaging field-of-view and are numbered from top to bottom on the small slicer.
\begin{figure
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{image_slicer.JPG}
\includegraphics{SPIFFIER_Slits}
\caption{\textit{Top panels:} SPIFFIER image slicer (adapted from \citenum{2004SPIE.5492.1123I}). The small image slicer B (shown on the top right panel) cuts the image into stripes and reflects them onto the big image slicer A to create a pseudo long slit to be fed into spectrometer. Both image slicer components are mounted to a baseplate C. \textit{Bottom panel:} The layout of the slitlets on a raw detector frame.}
\label{fig:spi_slicer}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{spiffier_badp}
\caption{SPIFFIER K-band flat at 25 mas pixel scale. A clump of cold pixels is marked with circle.}
\label{fig:spi_badp}
\end{figure}
After the image has been sliced and re-arranged into a pseudo-slit, three diamond turned mirrors (M1, M2 and M3 in Fig.~\ref{fig:spi_ins}) collimate the light onto the gratings. The first mirror is spherical, and the other two have an oblate elliptical shape. All mirrors are made from aluminum and are gold-coated for higher reflectivity. In total, four gratings are implemented on the grating drive. They are based on Zerodur blanks ruled into a gold layer on the reflecting surface. Three of the gratings cover the J (1.1-1.4 $\mu$m), H (1.45-1.85 $\mu$m), and K (1.95-2.45 $\mu$m) spectral bands at a resolution of $\sim5000$ superior to the SINFONI gratings by a factor of $\sim$1.3 in K to $\sim$2.5 in J. The fourth grating is the high-resolution grating and replaces the previous R$\sim$1500 H+K grating of SINFONI. This grating doubles the spectral resolution in a given band but reduces the wavelength range by a factor of two. For each band, users can select either the short, middle or long wavelength regime. A five-lens camera system then focuses the spectra on the detector. All lenses have a multi-layer anti-reflection coating optimized for the wavelength range from 1.05-2.45~$\mu$m.
A detailed description of the SPIFFI instrument design can be found in \citenum{2003SPIE.4841.1548E}, with part of the upgrades to SPIFFIER described in \citenum{2017JATIS...3c5002G}.
\subsection{Detector}
The old Hawaii 2RG detector of SPIFFI was replaced by a new Hawaii 2RG detector because of better persistence and cosmetics. The new detector was delivered from Teledyne Imaging Sensors. The SPIFFIER detector operates using the up-the-ramp readout scheme with a frame time of 1.6 seconds. The conversion gain is near 2~e-/ADU and the read noise is 12~e- rms at the shortest exposures. The minimum noise of $\sim$7~e- rms is reached around 80~s exposures. The dark current amounts to 0.19~e-/s.
The SPIFFIER detector has randomly distributed bad pixels. These can be interpolated over during data reduction. The only defect worth noting is a clump of cold pixels (not sensitive to light) about 10 pixels in diameter, marked with a dark blue circle in Fig.~\ref{fig:spi_badp}. This spot falls into slitlet 16 in all configurations, i.e. in the middle of the reconstructed image.
\begin{figure
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=7cm]{spectral_resolution_4.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Spectral resolution as a function of wavelength for the low- (dashed lines) and high-resolution (solid lines) JHK gratings of SPIFFIER. Colors correspond to the three pixel scales (25, 100, and 250 mas). Errorbars represent standard deviations from the averages over 32 slitlets.}
\label{fig:resolution}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Performance}
\subsubsection{Spectral resolution}
For a given SPIFFIER grating, the spectral resolution can be calculated using wavelength calibration data provided by the Ne, Xe, Kr and Ar penray lamps of ERIS CU. The procedure is to fit a Gaussian to individual spectral lines in a single lamp exposure and divide the wavelength of a spectral line by the FWHM of its Gaussian fit. Using pipeline-processed wavelength calibration maps, the wavelengths and widths of various spectral lines were extracted for all gratings and pixel scales. The calculated spectral resolution values are illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:resolution}. SPIFFIER provides spectral resolution of about 5000 and 10000 for the low- and high-resolution JHK grating configurations, respectively. The resolution increases for smaller pixel scales and longer wavelengths.
\begin{figure
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=6cm]{Picture2.jpg}
\end{center}
\caption{Improvement of instrumental line profile shapes from asymmetric seen in SPIFFI (left, center) to symmetric with the new gratings of SPIFFIER (right) for the same spectral resolution configuration.}
\label{fig:line_profiles}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Instrumental line profiles}
The instrumental line profiles of SPIFFI were characterized by asymmetric shapes deviating from a Gaussian shape (left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:line_profiles}). The SPIFFI gratings were made of NiP coated aluminum with lightweighting. It was found that the interplay of the lightweighting structure with the stress induced by the NiP coating at cryogenic temperatures caused deformations of the grating surface and led to degraded instrumental line profiles \cite{2017JATIS...3c5002G}.
The new gratings of SPIFFIER are based on Zerodur blanks without any lightweighting and, therefore, substantially improve the shapes of the spectral lines. Since line profiles are undersampled on the detector (the widths are less than two pixels), an approach similar to \citenum{2012SPIE.8448E..09T} was used to obtain hypersampled spectral line profiles for the detailed line-shape analysis. A series of penray lamp calibration exposures with CU was taken for each band and pixel scale. For a series of exposures of a particular band and pixel scale, the grating wheel was turned by a few encoder positions between each exposure, which corresponds to a shift of the central wavelength on the detector by approximately 0.1 pixels. These slightly shifted exposures are referred to as "babysteps". In total, 21 babysteps exposures per band and pixel scale were obtained. The combination of the babysteps exposures allows to create hypersampled line profiles for a given instrument configuration. Fig.~\ref{fig:line_profiles} illustrates an example of the resulting oversampled SPIFFIER line profile compared to those from SPIFFI. The instrumental line profiles of SPIFFIER are symmetric in all bands thanks to the improved design of its diffraction gratings.
\section{NIX}
\label{Sect:NIX}
\subsection{Instrument overview}
The NIX imager provides diffraction-limited imaging capabilities in J-M bands (from 1 to 5~$\mu$m); focal plane coronagraphy with Annular Groove Phase Mask (AGPM) in L-M bands\cite{Mavet2013}; pupil plane coronagraphy with grating vector Apodizing Phase Plate (gvAPP) in K-M bands\cite{2021ApOpt..60D..52D}; sparse aperture masking (SAM) in J-M bands; and long-slit spectroscopy (LSS) in L-band (from 3 to 4~$\mu$m). The primary elements of NIX are indicated in Figs.~\ref{fig:nix_layout} and \ref{fig:nix_layout_3d}. Light enters NIX via the NIX selector mirror. This selector mirror is part of the ERIS system and, when deployed, directs the light from UT4 into the NIX imager instead of the SPIFFIER spectrograph. Inside NIX, the light passes through the aperture window (Calcium Fluoride) into the NIX cryostat, indicated by the blue region in Fig.~\ref{fig:nix_layout} (and also marked in Fig.~\ref{fig:nix_layout_3d}). Nearly all components and mechanisms inside the cryostat are cooled to 75K to limit thermal background radiation; the detector is the only item cooled further to $\sim$35K by a closed cycle cooler.
After the cryostat window the light passes through the aperture wheel located at the telescope focal plane. It houses various field masks (including a blank position) that are used depending on the observing mode; these are interchangeable by means of a deployment mechanism driven by a stepper motor providing high positional repeatability. The design and performance of the other wheels is very similar. The next mechanism is the camera wheel, which contains three different camera barrels. The camera designs are optimized to use the minimum number of elements to maximize the throughput, while being as axially compact as possible. The camera lenses are fabricated from Barium Fluoride, IRG2 and Zinc Selenide. Two cameras are optimised for the shorter wavelengths (J, H and K), providing spatial scales of 13 mas/px or 27 mas/px. The third camera barrel is for the longer wavelengths (L and M) delivering 13 mas/px.
\begin{figure
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=6cm]{Capture2.JPG}
\end{center}
\caption{A sketch of the light path through the NIX cryostat.}
\label{fig:nix_layout}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=9cm]{Picture3.png}
\end{center}
\caption{A three-dimensional view of NIX instrument.}
\label{fig:nix_layout_3d}
\end{figure}
From the camera wheel the light passes through the filter and pupil wheels, which are identical mechanisms housed within a single unit. Both wheels can house up to 18 elements that can be combined in various ways for the different operating modes of NIX. The filter wheel houses all the optical filters. The pupil wheel contains a variety of elements that include pupil masks, a grism and additional filters. A set of fold mirrors (the image selector) then brings the light to a focus on the detector. The image selector has four positions: one for each of the three cameras and one to allow pupil imaging. The light is then detected by a Teledyne Hawaii-2RG 5~$\mu$m cutoff detector which is read out using the standard ESO NGC controller. The detector focus stage is used to adjust internal focus of the NIX detector.
\subsubsection{Detector}
The NIX detector allows two readout configurations for the user; a slow up-the-ramp configuration with a frame time of 1.6 seconds and a fast uncorrelated configuration with fastest full frame readout speed of 30 Hz. The former is configured with an effective gain of 5.2 e-/ADU. The read noise is 19 e- rms at the shortest exposures, dipping around 9 -e rms near 100 second exposures and the dark current dominates from here onwards with 0.1 e-/s. The latter is configured with an effective gain of 2.6 e-/ADU and the read noise per read is about 50 e-/s.
The detector configuration comes with several caveats such as odd-even channel effect, for which a fix using the reference pixels is included with the pipeline. The clumps of bad pixels have the most notable impact in the design of observations. The users can determine a specific position angle on-sky to perform their observations to position poorly affected regions to the uninteresting regions and/or a design a dither pattern minimizing the overlap of bad pixels. Note that aside from these regions, the cosmetics are more typical, $<1\%$. For example, high contrast imaging modes are demonstrated to operate well on the upper half of the detector.
Such an example is given in Figure \ref{fig:BP} with a choice of five point dither pattern on a 14" box using the 13mas-JHK camera. This certainly reduces the effective exposure time in the regions where there is overlap with the clump of bad pixels. However, the NIX pipeline delivers stacked variance and confidence maps for users to properly assess the performance of each pixel in the final product.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
$\vcenter{\hbox{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{BP_map.jpeg}}}$
$\vcenter{\hbox{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{NIX_conf.jpeg}}}$
\end{center}
\caption{Left: Bad pixel map derived with the pipeline. Right: Confidence map in the stacked final product for a dither pattern with five offset positions.}
\label{fig:BP}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Performance}
\subsubsection{Astrometric Calibrations - Omega Centauri}
After a preliminary coordinate calibration with the telescope offsets observing an isolated star, we opted for Omega Centauri crowded field observations for astrometric calibrations of the instrument from there onward. Such an observation provides many benefits in a single attempt taking advantage of GAIA sources sampled in the field. We can accurately determine the position angle, pixel scale of each camera and the precise pointing of each frame. Hence, this analysis also serves as input for the coordinate calibration of stages of the ERIS AO system, similarly a feedback for SPIFFIER as its FOV is small in comparison to perform such accurate analysis.
We observed the same field of Omega Centauri as depicted in Figure \ref{fig:OmegaCen} in two separate occasions. Our first visit in April 2022 was with sub-optimal AO performance as we were in the earlier stages of the commissioning. However, the data were useful for the development and testing of our astrometric calibration routines and ERIS observing blocks. In return, this provided an early feedback for the NIX pipeline and ERIS AO system, and served as a reference for our second visit in July 2022. In the July observations, we derived a position angle of -0.4$\pm$0.05 degrees and pixel scale of 13.09$\pm$0.008 mas/px for the 13mas-JHK camera out of 25 frames, and +1.5$\pm$0.02 degrees and 27.92$\pm$0.009 mas/px for the 27mas-JHK camera out of nine frames. The values inside the parentheses indicate the 1-$\sigma$ deviation among the frames.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
$\vcenter{\hbox{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{SF_Ks_mod.jpeg}}}$
$\vcenter{\hbox{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{WF_Ks_mod.jpeg}}}$
\end{center}
\caption{Combined image around our original pointing near the center of Omega Centauri (27"x27" mas FOV); the left image with the 13mas/px and the right image with the 27mas/px camera. Red dot marks the tip-tilt star (2MASS J13264631-4728402, I=$\sim$11 mag) and available GAIA sources are overlaid with cyan.
\label{fig:OmegaCen}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{GC_Lp_SiO.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Stacked auto-jitter images of NIX Galactic Center observations in L$'$ band. The markers denote the SiO masers, the trajectory of which are traced to current date and used for astrometric calibration.}
\label{fig:GC_Lp}
\end{figure}
The fields are also selected on purpose in order to match the pointing of recent HST observations. Hence, this will also serve as accurate distortion characterization for both cameras, for which the analysis is still in progress.
\subsubsection{Astrometric Calibration - Galactic Center}
For the astrometric calibration of the 13mas-LM camera, we observed the Galactic Center relying on the accurately known trajectories of SiO masers\cite{2007ApJ...659..378R}. Ten diffraction-limited images with sufficient quality were used for this purpose. The stacked image is given in Figure \ref{fig:GC_Lp} with the eight SiO masers used in astrometric calibration depicted with circles. Our analysis resulted in position angle of -0.4 degrees and pixel scale of 13.03 mas/px. Poor weather conditions hampered further observations of the Galactic Center and of Omega~Cen as additional reference field.
\subsubsection{High-contrast imaging with gvAPP}
High contrast imaging is used to image faint circumstellar material or planetary companions, where the diffraction halo of the central star is the dominant noise source in the regions of interest. NIX provides focal and pupil plane coronagraphy as well as sparse aperture masking modes. This section is focused solely on the pupil plane coronagraphy for which the first preliminary on-sky data were obtained.
The pupil plane coronagraph is a grating vector Apodizing Phase Plate (gvAPP \cite{2021ApOpt..60D..52D}). The gvAPP is a single optic that goes in the pupil plane of the telescope. It adds a phase pattern across the wavefront of the whole telescope pupil and therefore modifies the PSF of any point source in the field of view as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:gvAPP}.
The central PSF (referred to as the "leakage" PSF) is the PSF of the telescope pupil.
It contains about 2\% of the transmitted flux and acts as a photometric and astrometric reference. Two additional PSFs appear on either side of the leakage PSF, with the remaining large fraction of the stellar flux split evenly between the two. Each of these two PSFs has a dark D-shaped region of suppression on one side of the star. The two D-shaped regions of both images are on opposite sides of the star, and so provide nearly 360 degrees of suppression with an approximate inner working angle of three $\lambda/D$ when combined.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
$\vcenter{\hbox{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{eris-vapp-bra-model-log.pdf}}}$
$\vcenter{\hbox{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{eris-vapp-bra-fullfield-log-annotated.pdf}}}$
\end{center}
\caption{\textit{Left panel:} Theoretical PSF obtained with the gvAPP mask in Br-$\alpha$ filter of NIX, showing the central faint reference PSF and the two main PSFs with opposite D-shaped high contrast region. \textit{Right panel:} First on-sky PSFs of the standard star $\iota$~Cap with the gvAPP in the Br-$\alpha$ filter.}
\label{fig:gvAPP}
\end{figure}
We observed the bright (2.2~mag in L) standard IR star $\iota$~Cap in July~2022 using gvAPP in the Br-$\alpha$ filter. In data pre-processing, the significant near-infrared background noise is calibrated by subtracting pairs of nodding positions of the target on the detector. The right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:gvAPP} illustrates the observed PSF, which is almost identical to the theoretical PSF calculated for the same instrument configuration (left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:gvAPP}): both show the central faint reference PSF and the two main PSFs with opposite D-shaped high contrast region.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Capture3.JPG}
\end{center}
\caption{The ADI-processed image of $\iota$~Cap in the Br-$\alpha$ filter. White circle marks the location of the detected point source.
}
\label{fig:companion}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{Contrast_curves_Br-a.pdf}
\caption{Contrast curve corresponding to a 5$\sigma$ detection for a 735~s exposure with the gvAPP in the Br-$\alpha$ filter of NIX. The blue-dotted curve indicates the deepest achievable contrast under choice of the optimal number of principal components. Observing conditions were good with an average seeing of 0.6~arcsec and average precipitable water vapor (PWV) of 1.2~mm.}
\label{fig:nix_app_cnt_bra}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{Contrast_curves_Br-g.pdf}
\caption{Contrast curve corresponding to a 5$\sigma$ detection for a 2700~s exposure with the gvAPP in the Br-$\gamma$ filter of NIX. The blue-dotted curve indicates the deepest achievable contrast under choice of the optimal number of principal components. Observing conditions were fair with an average seeing of 0.9~arcsec and average PWV of 6.9~mm.}
\label{fig:nix_app_cnt_brg}
\end{figure}
As next step, the data were post-processed by applying classical angular differential imaging (ADI), which takes advantage of the rotation of the sky field during the observation (since the telescope tracks the pupil rather than the field) to remove the PSF of the star (which is static on the detector), while a companion astrophysical source (e.g. exoplanet) moves on the detector from one exposure to the next. Fig.~\ref{fig:companion} illustrates the resulting PSF-subtracted image of $\iota$~Cap with the first detection of a point source with separation of 1.6" and a contrast of roughly 8.3 mag relative to $\iota$~Cap in the Br-$\alpha$ filter. With the age of $\iota$~Cap (about 0.5 Gyr) the detected point source is either a low mass M-dwarf companion or a background star.
Fig.~\ref{fig:nix_app_cnt_bra} illustrates an L-band contrast curve of the gvAPP in the Br-$\alpha$ filter using the $\iota$~Cap dataset. The results are based on fake planet injections at different positions and brightnesses around the host star. We use the unsaturated regions of the APP PSF as the fake planet signal. The data were reduced using ADI-based Principle Component Analysis (PCA) \cite{10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21918.x} and detection limits are determined by using the package described in \citenum{2022BAAS...54e.392B} (assuming Gaussian noise). The resulting curve identifies which planets can confidently be rejected after 735~s of integration time. By conducting a longer observation (1 hour), one can expect the contrast limits to deepen by about one magnitude.
To demonstrate the contrast performance at shorter wavelengths, we observed the K=3.45~mag star $\gamma$~Gru with the gvAPP in the Br-$\gamma$ filter in July 2022 for a total integration time of 45~min. The data were processed in the same manner as described for the Br-$\alpha$ filter, and the resulting contrast curve is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:nix_app_cnt_brg}. The contrast curves for other NIX filters will be measured during forthcoming commissioning runs.
\section{Science outlook}
\subsection{Galactic Center}
SINFONI/SPIFFI was built specifically for observations and studies of the Galactic Center. This allowed major scientific breakthroughs in the field, for example, the discovery of young B stars (the so-called "S-stars") in close orbits around the SgrA$^*$ black hole \cite{2005ApJ...628..246E}. By monitoring the orbits of these stars it was possible to derive the mass and the distance to the central black hole \cite{2009ApJ...692.1075G}. SPIFFI also led to the discovery of infrared flares of SgrA$^*$ and characterization of their spectra \cite{2005ApJ...628..246E}. The Galactic center with its supermassive black hole is an excellent target to test general relativity in the strong-field limit, which was done by the peri-center passage of the star S2 \cite{2009ApJ...707L.114G}. Finally, long-term monitoring of the Galacic center with SPIFFI led to the discovery of the gas cloud G2 falling towards the black hole \cite{2013ApJ...763...78G}.
ERIS is an important next step in the Galactic center research. First of all, it will allow to continue simultaneous monitoring of a large number of stars orbiting around the SgrA$^*$ black hole (Fig.~\ref{fig:GC_spiffier}) and, therefore, continue to improve our knowledge of the distance and the mass of the black hole. In addition, higher Strehl ratios provided by the AOF as well as the increased throughput and instrumental line profiles of SPIFFIER, will lead to discovery of new fainter stars, which were not seen by SPIFFI. Finally, exotic events like gas clouds and flares will continue being observed by SPIFFIER to improve our understanding of the evolution of the Galactic Center and accretion processes onto its black hole.
\begin{figure
\begin{center}
$\vcenter{\hbox{\includegraphics[height=7cm]{Picture8.png}}}$
$\vcenter{\hbox{\includegraphics[height=7cm]{Picture7.png}}}$
\end{center}
\caption{\textit{Left panel:} Stacked SPIFFIER reconstructed image of the central arcsecond of the Galactic center in the Br-$\gamma$ line (K~band). The spatial scale is 25mas/px. The location of the star S2 is marked. The integration time was 40~min on source. \textit{Right panel:} Radial velocity (RV) variations of the star S2 during last 20 years observed with different instruments. The RV of S2 measured with SPIFFIER in April and July 2022 is added and marked with arrow.}
\label{fig:GC_spiffier}
\end{figure}
\subsection{High-redshift galaxies}
One of the main science drivers of ERIS is to map the distribution of star formation, physical conditions of the interstellar medium (ISM), and the motions within galaxies at redshift z~$\sim$~1--3. At this epoch, galaxies were forming stars most rapidly so it is a key epoch to study the early assembly of the bulk of their stellar mass.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.55\textwidth]{Picture4.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.55\textwidth]{Picture5.png}
\end{center}
\caption{\textit{Top panel:} H-$\alpha$ and [NII] line intensity maps from SINFONI \cite{2018ApJS..238...21F}. The integration time was 10 hours on source. \textit{Bottom panel:} SPIFFIER reconstructed images in the H-$\alpha$ line; the spatial scale is 100mas/px. The integration time was 1~hour on source.}
\label{fig:highz}
\end{figure}
The key capabilities of ERIS + AOF are the sensitivity, spectral resolution, and spatial resolution. The performance of AOF is far superior to that of the previous AO at UT4 with much higher Strehl ratios achievable. Along with improvements from the various SPIFFIER elements in terms of throughput, this leads to a sensitivity about 4-5 times higher than SINFONI + AO for compact structures on scales of $\sim$~0.1", or $\sim$~1~kpc at z~$\sim$~1--3. The better AO performance also allows to push the AO star to fainter magnitude substantially increasing the sky coverage. In addition, the improved spectral resolution of SPIFFIER (especially the R$\sim$10000 capability) is crucial to better constrain the kinematics, disentangle non-circular motions that are present within otherwise globally regular disk rotation kinematics, and measure disk velocity dispersion roughly twice lower than before. These are key enabling capabilities to study the inner workings of distant galaxies on the physically relevant Toomre scale (the characteristic fragmentation scale of globally unstable gas-rich disks as observed at high redshift), which is about 1 kpc at z~$\sim$~1--3. Science goals at the forefront of galaxy evolution research can now be addressed with ERIS systematically and for large samples, including gas transport within galaxies, the nature and fate of giant star-forming complexes, the origin of the elevated gas turbulence, the mass and energetics of feedback from star formation and active galactic nuclei (AGN), and the spatial distribution of gas-phase metallicity across galaxies.
The target observed during commissioning, zC406690, has been observed with SINFONI + AO with 10 hours on-source \cite{2018ApJS..238...21F}. It is a typical z = 2.2 star-forming galaxy of $4 \times 10^{10} M_{\odot}$ and the star formation rate (SFR) of about 250 $M_{\odot}$/yr. A large fraction of this star formation takes place in kpc-scale "clumps" along a ring-like distribution (top panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:highz}). These clumps drive powerful gas outflows, and this galaxy is one of the most striking example of star formation feedback. Ultimately, with longer integration, the higher spectral and spatial resolution will provide tighter constraints on the individual clump outflows and their impact on the surrouding ISM as well as on the clumps longevity. The purpose of the observations was to assess the performance of ERIS + AOF in realistic cases as will apply to faint distant galaxies, via a direct comparison with existing SINFONI+AO data. The bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:highz} illustrates reconstructed SPIFFIER images in the H-$\alpha$ line at the 100 mas/px spatial scale: the morphology of the galaxy clumps and the diffuse emission along the ring are already recognized after about one hour of integration on source. This data set fully matches the expected angular resolution gain, and the sensitivity improvements for compact sources and extended emission of ERIS+AOF compared to SINFONI+AO.
\acknowledgments
We would like to thank all the ESO staff in Garching and Paranal who have supported the installation and commissioning of ERIS, and to all consortium members who helped to design and build the instrument.
|
\section{Introduction}
The wavelet transform (WT) is one of the most useful tools in signal processing \cite{daubechies1992ten,mallat1999wavelet}.
It performs a scale decomposition of an input signal $X$ by convolving
it with a family of functions $\{\psi_{j}\}_{j\in \mathbb{Z}}$, which are generated by dilating a mother wavelet $\psi$
in the way $\psi_{j}(t)= 2^{-j}\psi(2^{-j}t)$, where $t\in \mathbb{R}$.
The WT of $X$, denoted by $\{W[j]X(t)\}_{t\in \mathbb{R},j\in \mathbb{Z}}$, where $W[j]X(t):= X\star \psi_j(t)$, provides both the magnitude and phase information of $X$ in the time-scale domain when the mother wavelet $\psi$ is complex-valued.
This information has been applied to analyze the heart rate variability \cite{pichot1999wavelet},
detect the seizure through the Electroencephalography (EEG) signals \cite{faust2015wavelet},
and prove the existence of intermittency in the local field potentials recorded from patients with Parkinson's disease \cite{sen2007evidence}.
The WT also serves as a feature extractor in the field of machine learning
\cite{burhan2016feature,liu2020hospitals,liu2020diffuse,subasi2021eeg,taran2020automatic}, particularly when the invariance to small temporal shifts is desired.
In light of the fact that a small temporal shift of $X$ produces a phase shift on $\{W[j]X(t)\}_{t\in \mathbb{R},j\in \mathbb{Z}}$,
usually the modulus of the wavelet coefficients (i.e., $\{U^{A}[j]X\}_{j\in\mathbb{Z}}:=\{A(|W[j]X(t)|)\}_{t\in \mathbb{R},j\in \mathbb{Z}}$ with
$A(r)=r$) and its variants (e.g., $A(r)=r^{2}$ \cite{balestriero2017linear} and $A(r)=\ln(r)$ \cite{beltran2010estimation,lardies2004modal})
are used \cite[Theorem 1]{guth2022phase}.
In order to make the features stable to actions of small shifts and deformations to $X$,
practitioners consider $S_{J}^{A}[j]$, which comes from
convolving the output of $U^{A}[j]$ with a low-pass filter $\phi_{J}$ \cite{mallat2012group}:
\begin{equation}\label{def:SAJ_in_introduction}
S^{A}_{J}[j]X(t) := \left(U^{A}[j]X\right)\star \phi_{J}(t),
\end{equation}
where $J$ is an integer used to control the width of the low-pass filter $\phi_{J}$ through
$\phi_{J}(t) = 2^{-J}\phi\left(2^{-J}t\right)$
and $\phi$ is a real-valued function, usually chosen to be the father wavelet associated with
$\psi$.
In the work \cite{mallat2012group}, $\{S^{A}_{J}[j]\}_{j\in \mathbb{Z}}$
is called the first-order scattering transform and its higher-order counterparts
$\left(U^{A}[j_{n}]\cdots U^{A}[j_{2}]U^{A}[j_{1}]X\right)\star \phi_{J}$, where $n\in \mathbb{N}$ and $j_{1},\ldots,j_{n}\in \mathbb{Z}$,
are introduced to improve the mathematical understanding of convolutional neural networks.
In the presence of noise and interferences, the input signal $X$ is usually viewed as a random process.
In \cite{averkamp1998some,averkamp2000note,cambanis1995continuous,masry1993wavelet}, some properties
of random processes, such as stationarity and self-similarity, are
characterized by corresponding properties of their wavelet transform.
Especially, for stationary random process $X$, which may be deformed by a stationarity-breaking operator,
how to use the instantaneous wavelet spectrum (i.e., $\mathbb{E}\left[U^{A}[j]X(t)\right]$ with $A(r)=r^{2}$)
to determine the second-order statistical properties of $X$
was discussed in \cite{li2002wavelet,meynard2018spectral}.
In \cite{roueff2009central}, the authors considered a discrete-time analog of the transformation $W[j]X$
\begin{align}\label{def:ZiJk}
\mathbf{Z}_{j,t}= \left\{\underset{k\in \mathbb{Z}}{\sum}v_{i,j}(\gamma_{j} t-k)X(k)\right\}_{i=1,2,\ldots,d},
\end{align}
where $d$ is a fixed positive integer corresponding to the number of WT coefficients we are interested in, $\{\gamma_{j}\}_{j\in \mathbb{N}}$ is a divergent sequence of positive integers corresponding to the scale, e.g., $\gamma_{j}=2^{j}$,
$t\in\mathbb{Z}$ corresponding to the time,
$v_{i,j}:\mathbb{Z}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ corresponding to the discretized wavelet satisfies $\underset{k\in \mathbb{Z}}{\sum}v_{i,j}^{2}(k)<\infty$,
and $\{X(k)\}_{k\in \mathbb{Z}}$ is a sequence of independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) real-valued
random variables.
When $j\rightarrow\infty$, they proved that
the sequence of $d$-dimensional vectors
\begin{align}\label{empirical_mean}
n_{j}^{-1/2}\overset{n_{j}-1}{\underset{t=0}{\sum}}\left(\mathbf{Z}_{j,t}^{2}-\mathbb{E}\left[\mathbf{Z}_{j,t}^{2}\right]\right),
\end{align}
converges to a $d$-dimensional normal random vector in distribution sense under some conditions on $v_{i,j}$ and width of the averaging $n_{j}$.
The i.i.d. random sequence $\{X(k)\}_{k\in \mathbb{Z}}$ in (\ref{def:ZiJk}) was extended to long-range dependent Gaussian sequences in \cite{moulines2007spectral} as well as
subordinated Gaussian sequences with long-term or short-term memory in \cite{clausel2012large,serroukh2000statistical}.
Due to the difference in the strength of dependence of the sequence $X$,
the limiting theorem for the wavelet coefficients in \cite{clausel2012large} was proved by the so-called large scale reduction principle,
while the central limit theorem for (\ref{empirical_mean}) in \cite[Theorem 1]{serroukh2000statistical}
was proved by showing that the sequence $\{\mathbf{Z}_{j,t}^{2}-\mathbb{E}\left[\mathbf{Z}_{j,t}^{2}\right]\}_{t}$
is strong mixing.
Especially, when the sequence $X$ is generated from a Hermite polynomial of a stationary Gaussian sequence with long memory,
the authors of \cite{clausel2014wavelet} showed that after suitable renormalization,
(\ref{empirical_mean}) converges either to a Gaussian process or to a Rosenblatt process when $j\rightarrow\infty$
depending on the order of Hermite polynomials.
For the discrete wavelet packet decomposition, which performs the discrete WT iteratively without taking account of
any nonlinear activation functions, of stationary random processes, \cite{atto2009central}
proves that the outputs of decomposition converge in distribution to white Gaussian processes when the resolution level of decomposition increases
by showing that the third and higher-order cumulants
of the outputs converge to zero.
In \cite{bruna2015intermittent},
the authors considered a transformation similar to (\ref{def:SAJ_in_introduction}) as follows
\begin{align}\label{def:U:secondorder}
2^{j/2}|X\star\psi|\star \psi_{j}(t),\ t\in \mathbb{R}.
\end{align}
When $X$ is a fractional Brownian motion, the authors of \cite{bruna2015intermittent} applied a central limit theorem for sums of locally dependent random variables \cite{berk1973central} to show that
the marginal distribution of the random process defined in (\ref{def:U:secondorder})
converges to a complex normal distribution when $j\rightarrow\infty$ \cite[Lemma 3.3]{bruna2015intermittent}.
The limit of (\ref{def:U:secondorder}) was also studied in
our previous work \cite{liu2020central} in the case
when $X$ is a stationary Gaussian process with long-range or short-range dependence and
$\psi$ is a real-valued wavelet.
In this work, we analyze the smooth Wasserstein distance and the Kolmogorov distance between the finite-dimensional distributions
of the centralized $S_{J}^{A}[j]X$
and its Gaussian counterpart, which is a normal random vector with the same covariance structure as $S_{J}^{A}[j]X$,
in the case when $X$ is a stationary Gaussian process and
$\psi$ is an analytic wavelet.
According to our literature survey,
there is no previous work on establishing the spectral representation of the modulus, or more general transform, of WT of Gaussian processes.
It is indispensable for calculating the convolution $U^{A}[j]X\star\phi_{J}$.
The first contribution of this work is to provide spectral representations for $U^{A}[j]X$ and $S_{J}^{A}[j]X$
for homogeneous or logarithmic functions $A$.
The representation is expressed as a linear combination of finite or infinite orthogonal Wiener chaos, depending on function $A$.
The second contribution of this work is to provide a quantitative central limit theorem
for $S_{J}^{A}[j]X$.
We note that the quantitative central limit theorem for random processes expressed as a linear combination of
finite Wiener chaos has been well analyzed \cite{nourdin2009stein,nourdin2012normal,nualart2006malliavin},
but it is unclear how to deal with the case when there are infinite Wiener chaos.
To achieve these goals, we apply the Malliavin calculus and combinatorial techniques to analyze
the complex modulus of the wavelet coefficients $W[j]X$.
This part has never been considered in existing works, including our previous work \cite{liu2022asymptotic}
in which the wavelet $\psi$ is real-valued and $A(r)=r^{2}$.
It is worth mentioning that the orthogonal expansion of $S_{J}^{A}[j]X$ is an infinite sum of
Wiener chaos, particularly for the practical cases $A(r)= r$ and $A(r)=\ln(r)$.
In order to apply the general upper bound for the Gaussian approximation error in
\cite[Proposition 3.7]{nourdin2009stein} and \cite[Theorem 6.1.2 and (6.3.2)]{nourdin2012normal}
to the case of infinite sum of Wiener chaos, we simplify the complexity of the expression of the upper bound and provide a more concise expression.
From the more concise expression for the upper bound (Proposition \ref{prop:multidim_stein_RHS}),
we obtain upper bounds for the smooth Wasserstein distance and the Kolmogorov distance between the laws of the centralized $S_{J}^{A}[j]X$
and its Gaussian counterpart. The upper bounds depend on the window length of the moving average and the function $A$
(Theorem \ref{theorem:convergence_rate:rational} and Corollary \ref{corollary:kol}).
The rest of the paper is organized as follows.
In Section \ref{sec:preliminary}, we {summarize necessary material for WT when the wavelet is analytic and} present some preliminaries about the Wiener-It$\hat{\textup{o}}$ integrals
and the Malliavin calculus. In Section \ref{sec:mainresult}, we state our main
results, including Theorems \ref{thm:U1_chaosexpansion} and \ref{theorem:convergence_rate:rational}.
The proofs of our main results and some technical lemmas are given
in the appendix.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{sec:preliminary}
\subsection{Wavelet transform with an analytic wavelet}
Let $\psi$ be a complex-valued function in $L^{1}(\mathbb{R})\cap L^{2}(\mathbb{R})$ defined through two real-valued mother wavelets $\psi_{R}$ and $\psi_{I}$ as follows
\begin{equation*}
\psi(t)=\psi_{R}(t)+i\psi_{I}(t),\ t\in \mathbb{R}.
\end{equation*}
The function $\psi$ is called an analytic wavelet if $\psi_{R}$ and $\psi_{I}$
meet the Hilbert pair requirement
\begin{equation}\label{def:Hilbert_transform}
\psi_{I}(t) = \frac{1}{\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\psi_{R}(\tau)}{t-\tau}d\tau.
\end{equation}
Given a signal $X: \mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, the family of analytic wavelets
\begin{equation*}
\psi_{j}(t) = \frac{1}{2^{j}}\psi\left(\frac{t}{2^{j}}\right), \ j\in \mathbb{Z},
\end{equation*}
defines the WT of $X$ \cite{lilly2010analytic} through the convolution of $\psi_{j}$
with the input $X$:
\begin{equation*}
W[j]X(t) = X\star\psi_{j}(t) = \int_{\mathbb{R}}X(s)\psi_{j}(t-s)ds,\ j\in \mathbb{Z}.
\end{equation*}
The magnitude information returned by the analytic wavelet transform
\begin{align}\label{def:U1}
U^{A}\left[j\right]X :=& A(\left|W[j]X(t)\right|),\ j\in \mathbb{Z},
\end{align}
describes the envelope of wavelet coefficients of $X$, where $A(r) = r$ for $r\in [0,\infty)$.
When $A(r)= r^{2}$ (resp. $\ln(r)$), the time-scale representation $\{U^{A}\left[j\right]X(t)\}_{t\in \mathbb{R}, j\in \mathbb{Z}}$
is the so-called scalogram (resp. logarithmic scalogram) of $X$ in the field of signal processing \cite[Figure 8]{anden2014deep}.
In the following, we consider two types of functions for $A$: $A(r)=r^{\nu}$ for some $\nu\in(0,\infty)$ or $A(r)= \ln(r)$.
In practice, in order to make the features stable to actions of small diffeomorphisms, such as deformations, to $X$,
the transformation $U^{A}[j]$ is followed by a convolution with a low-pass filter $\phi_{J}$ \cite{anden2014deep,mallat2012group}:
\begin{equation*
S^{A}_{J}[j]X(t) := \left(U^{A}[j]X\right)\star \phi_{J}(t) = \int_{\mathbb{R}}U^{A}[j]X(s)\phi_{J}(t-s)ds,\ J\in \mathbb{Z},
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation*}
\phi_{J}(t) = \frac{1}{2^{J}}\phi\left(\frac{t}{2^{J}}\right)
\end{equation*}
and $\phi$ is a real-valued function, usually chosen to be the father wavelet associated with
$\psi$ \cite{mallat1999wavelet}.
We denote the Fourier transform of $\psi_{R}$ by $\widehat{\psi_{R}}$ , i.e.,
\begin{align*}
\widehat{\psi_{R}}(\lambda) = \int_{\mathbb{R}}e^{-it\lambda}\psi_{R}(t)dt.
\end{align*}
Similarly, the Fourier transform of $\psi_{I}$ is denoted as $\widehat{\psi_{I}}$.
Because $\psi_{R}$ and $\psi_{I}$ are a Hilbert pair (\ref{def:Hilbert_transform}),
\begin{align}\label{def:Hilbert_pair}
\widehat{\psi_{I}}(\lambda) = -i\ \textup{sgn}(\lambda) \widehat{\psi_{R}}(\lambda),
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
\textup{sgn}(\lambda)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}-1 &\ \textup{if}\ \lambda<0,\\
0 &\ \textup{if}\ \lambda = 0,\\
+1 &\ \textup{if}\ \lambda>0.\end{array}
\right.
\end{align*}
For each $j\in \mathbb{Z}$, the Fourier transform of the scaled wavelets
\begin{equation*}
\psi_{R,j}(t) := \frac{1}{2^{j}}\psi_{R}\left(\frac{t}{2^{j}}\right)\ \textup{and}\
\psi_{I,j}(t) := \frac{1}{2^{j}}\psi_{I}\left(\frac{t}{2^{j}}\right)
\end{equation*}
are $\widehat{\psi_{R}}(2^{j}\cdot)$ and $\widehat{\psi_{I}}(2^{j}\cdot)$, respectively.
In terms of notation, $\widehat{\psi_{R,j}}(\cdot)=\widehat{\psi_{R}}(2^{j}\cdot)$ and $\widehat{\psi_{I,j}}(\cdot)=\widehat{\psi_{I}}(2^{j}\cdot)$.
All assumptions needed in this paper about the analytic wavelet $\psi$ and the low-pass filter $\phi_{J}$
are summarized as follows.
\begin{Assumption}\label{Assumption:wavelet}
For the real part $\psi_{R}$ of the analytic wavelet $\psi$,
we assume that $\widehat{\psi_{R}}\in L^{1}(\mathbb{R})\cap L^{2}(\mathbb{R})$
and
there exists a bounded and continuous function $C_{\psi_{R}}:\mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$
with $C_{\psi_{R}}(0)\neq0$ such that
\begin{equation*
\widehat{\psi_{R}}(\lambda) = C_{\psi_{R}}(\lambda)|\lambda|^{\alpha},\ \lambda\in \mathbb{R},
\end{equation*}
for a certain $\alpha>0$.
For the averaging function $\phi$, we assume that it is real-valued and $\widehat{\phi}\in L^{1}(\mathbb{R})\cap L^{2}(\mathbb{R})$.
\end{Assumption}
\subsection{Stationary Gaussian processes}
Given the relative breadth of analytical tools for Gaussian processes \cite{major1981lecture,nourdin2012normal,nualart2006malliavin}
and their ubiquity in applications \cite{makowiec2006long}, we consider stationary Gaussian processes as a model for the
input $X$ of the analytic wavelet transform.
Let $W$ be a complex-valued Gaussian random measure on $\mathbb{R}$
satisfying
\begin{align*
W(\Delta_{1})=\overline{W(-\Delta_{1})},\ \
\mathbb{E}[W(\Delta_{1})]=0,\
\end{align*}
and
$$\mathbb{E}\left[W(\Delta_{1})
\overline{W(\Delta_{2})}\right]=\textup{Leb}(\Delta_{1}\cap\Delta_{2})$$
for any
$\Delta_{1},\Delta_{2}\in
\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})$, where Leb is the Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb{R}$ {and $\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})$ is the
Borel {$\sigma$-}algebra on $\mathbb{R}$}.
Let $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}_{W}, \mathbb{P})$ be a
probability space, where the $\sigma$-algebra $\mathcal{F}_{W}$ is generated by $W$.
If $X$ is a mean-square continuous and
stationary real Gaussian random process with constant mean $\mu_{X}$ and
covariance function $R_{X}$,
by the Bochner-Khinchin theorem \cite[Chapter 4]{krylov2002introduction},
there exists a unique nonnegative measure $F_{X}:\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})\rightarrow [0,\infty)$ such that $F_{X}(\Delta) = F_{X}(-\Delta)$ for any $\Delta\in\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})$
and
\begin{equation*
R_{X}(t) = \int_{\mathbb{R}}e^{i\lambda t}F_{X}(d\lambda),\ t\in \mathbb{R}.
\end{equation*}
The measure $F_{X}$ is called the spectral measure of the covariance function $R_{X}$.
\begin{Assumption}\label{Assumption:spectral}
The spectral measure $F_{X}$ is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure with a density function
$f_{X}\in L^{1}(\mathbb{R})$. It has one of the forms:
(a)
$f_{X}(\lambda) = C_{X}(\lambda)$ or
(b)
\begin{equation*
f_{X}(\lambda) = \frac{C_{X}(\lambda)}{|\lambda|^{1-\beta}},
\end{equation*}
where $\beta\in(0,1)$ is the {\em Hurst index} of long-range dependence and $C_{X}:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow[0,\infty)$ is bounded and continuous.
\end{Assumption}
For convenience of presentation, we set $0^{0}=1$, by which
Assumption \ref{Assumption:spectral}(a) can be viewed as a limiting case of Assumption \ref{Assumption:spectral}(b).
Under Assumption \ref{Assumption:spectral}, $X$ can be expressed as a Wiener integral as follows
\begin{align*
X(t) = \mu_{X}+ \int_{\mathbb{R}}e^{it\lambda}\sqrt{f_{X}(\lambda)}W(d\lambda),\ t\in \mathbb{R}.
\end{align*}
Because $\int_{\mathbb{R}}\psi_{j}(s) ds = 0$, by the stochastic Fubini theorem \cite[Theorem 2.1]{pipiras2010regularization},
\begin{align}\label{spectral_Xstarpsia}
X\star \psi_{j}(t) = \int_{\mathbb{R}}e^{it\lambda} \widehat{\psi_{R}}(2^{j}\lambda)\sqrt{f_{X}(\lambda)} W(d\lambda)
+i\int_{\mathbb{R}}e^{it\lambda} \widehat{\psi_{I}}(2^{j}\lambda)\sqrt{f_{X}(\lambda)} W(d\lambda).
\end{align}
Both the real and imaginary parts of $X\star \psi_{j}(t)$ are normal random variables with mean zero and variance
\begin{align}\notag
\sigma_{j}^{2}
=\int_{\mathbb{R}}|\widehat{\psi_{R}}(2^{j}\lambda)|^{2}f_{X}(\lambda)d\lambda=\int_{\mathbb{R}}|\widehat{\psi_{I}}(2^{j}\lambda)|^{2}f_{X}(\lambda)d\lambda.
\end{align}
For $k\in \mathbb{N}\cup \{0\}$, denote $L_{k}\left(u\right)$ to be the Laguerre polynomial of degree $k$ with the formula
\begin{align*}
L_{k}\left(u\right) = \frac{e^{u}}{k!}\frac{d^{k}}{du^{k}}\left(e^{-u}u^{k}\right),\ k\in \mathbb{N}\cup\{0\}.
\end{align*}
We have the following first lemma.
\begin{Lemma}\label{lemma:Cmn}
For $x_{1},x_{2}\in \mathbb{R}$ and function $A: (0,\infty)\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ satisfying
$$
\int_{0}^{\infty}\left(A(\sqrt{2r})\right)^{2}e^{-r}dr<\infty,
$$
we have the expansion
\begin{align}\label{hermite_expansion}
A\left(\left|x_{1}+ix_{2}\right|\right)
=\underset{\begin{subarray}{c}m,n\in \mathbb{N}\cup \{0\}\end{subarray}}{\sum}\ C_{m,n}\frac{H_{m}(x_{1})}{\sqrt{m!}}
\frac{H_{n}(x_{2})}{\sqrt{n!}},
\end{align}
where
\[
H_{m}(x)=(-1)^{m}e^{\frac{x^{2}}{2}}\frac{d^{m}}{dx^{m}}e^{-\frac{x^{2}}{2}},\ m=0,1,2,\ldots,
\]
are the (probabilistic) Hermite polynomials,
\begin{align}\label{special_Cmn}
C_{m,n} =
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}h_{m}h_{n}c_{A,(m+n)/2}&\ \textup{for}\ m,n\in 2\mathbb{N}\cup\{0\},\\
0 & \ \textup{otherwise,}
\end{array}\right.
\end{align}
\begin{align}\label{def:hmhn}
h_{m}=
(-1)^{\frac{m}{2}}\frac{\sqrt{m!}}{2^{\frac{m}{2}}\left(\frac{m}{2}\right)!}\ \textup{for}\ m\in 2\mathbb{N}\cup\{0\},
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}\label{def:can}
c_{A,(m+n)/2} =
\int_{0}^{\infty} A(\sqrt{2u})L_{\frac{m+n}{2}}\left(u\right)e^{-u}du.
\end{align}
\end{Lemma}
The proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:Cmn} is provided in \ref{appendix_sec:Hermite_expansion_modulus}.
The constants $\{c_{A,(m+n)/2}\}_{m,n\in 2\mathbb{N}\cup\{0\}}$ in Lemma \ref{lemma:Cmn} for practical cases are shown as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item $A(r) = r^{\nu}$,\ $\nu\in(0,\infty)$:
\begin{align}\label{def:can:r_nu}
c_{A,\frac{\ell}{2}} =
2^{\frac{\nu}{2}}\Gamma(\frac{\nu}{2}+1)
\binom{\frac{\ell}{2}-\frac{\nu}{2}-1}{\frac{\ell}{2}},\ \ell\in 2\mathbb{N}.
\end{align}
For the binomial coefficient above, we note that
\begin{align*}
\binom{\frac{\ell}{2}-\frac{\nu}{2}-1}{\frac{\ell}{2}}
=\left(\frac{\ell}{2}-\frac{\nu}{2}-1\right) \left(\frac{\ell}{2}-\frac{\nu}{2}-2\right)\cdots\left(1-\frac{\nu}{2}\right) \left(-\frac{\nu}{2}\right)\left(\frac{\ell}{2}!\right)^{-1}.
\end{align*}
Especially, when $\nu=2$,
\begin{align*
c_{A,0} = 2,\ c_{A,1} = -2,
\end{align*}
and $c_{A,\frac{\ell}{2}}=0$ for $\ell\in\{4,6,8,\ldots\}$.
\item $A(r) = \ln(r)$: $c_{A,0} = \frac{1}{2}\ln2-\frac{1}{2}\gamma$, where $\gamma$ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant, and
\begin{align*
c_{A,\frac{\ell}{2}} = -\frac{1}{\ell}
\end{align*}
for $\ell\in 2\mathbb{N}$.
\end{itemize}
By (\ref{spectral_Xstarpsia}) and Lemma \ref{lemma:Cmn}, for the case $A(r)=r^{\nu}$ with $\nu>0$,
\begin{align}\notag
U^{A}[j]X(t) = &\sigma_{j}^{\nu}\underset{\begin{subarray}{c}m,n\in \mathbb{N}\cup \{0\}\end{subarray}}{\sum}\ \frac{C_{m,n}}{\sqrt{m!n!}}H_{m}\left(\frac{1}{\sigma_{j}}\int_{\mathbb{R}}e^{it\lambda} \widehat{\psi_{R}}(2^{j}\lambda)\sqrt{f_{X}(\lambda)} W(d\lambda)\right)
\\\label{Hermite_expansion_U}&\times H_{n}\left(\frac{1}{\sigma_{j}}\int_{\mathbb{R}}e^{it\lambda} \widehat{\psi_{I}}(2^{j}\lambda)\sqrt{f_{X}(\lambda)} W(d\lambda)\right).
\end{align}
For the case $A(r)=\ln(r)$,
\begin{align}\notag
U^{A}[j]X(t) = &\ln(\sigma_{j})+\underset{\begin{subarray}{c}m,n\in \mathbb{N}\cup \{0\}\end{subarray}}{\sum}\ \frac{C_{m,n}}{\sqrt{m!n!}}H_{m}\left(\frac{1}{\sigma_{j}}\int_{\mathbb{R}}e^{it\lambda} \widehat{\psi_{R}}(2^{j}\lambda)\sqrt{f_{X}(\lambda)} W(d\lambda)\right)
\\\label{Hermite_expansion_U:ln}&\times H_{n}\left(\frac{1}{\sigma_{j}}\int_{\mathbb{R}}e^{it\lambda} \widehat{\psi_{I}}(2^{j}\lambda)\sqrt{f_{X}(\lambda)} W(d\lambda)\right).
\end{align}
Let $\overline{H}=\{f\in L^{2}(\mathbb{R})\mid f(-\lambda)=\overline{f(\lambda)}\ \textup{for all}\ \lambda\in \mathbb{R}\}$ be a complex Hilbert space
with {the} inner product
$
\langle f,g\rangle = \int_{\mathbb{R}}f(\lambda)\overline{g(\lambda)}d\lambda.
$
Given an integer $m\geq1$, we denote the $m$-th tensor product of the Hilbert space $\overline{H}$ by $\overline{H}^{\otimes m}$.
The $m$-th symmetric tensor product of $\overline{H}$
is denoted by $\overline{H}^{\odot m}$, which contains those functions $f\in \overline{H}^{\otimes m}$
satisfying
$f(\lambda_{p(1)},\ldots,\lambda_{p(m)}) = f(\lambda_{1},\ldots,\lambda_{m})$
for any permutation $(p(1),p(2),\ldots,p(m))$ of the set $\{1,2,\ldots,m\}$.
For any $f\in \overline{H}^{\otimes m}$,
the {\em $m$-fold Wiener-It$\hat{o}$ integrals} of $f$ with respect to the random measure $W$ is defined by
\begin{align*
I_{m}(f) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^{m}}^{'}f(\lambda_{1},\ldots,\lambda_{m})W(d\lambda_{1})\cdots W(d\lambda_{m}),
\end{align*}
where
$\int^{'}$ means that the integral excludes the diagonal hyperplanes
$\lambda_{k}=\mp \lambda_{k^{'}}$ for $k, k^{'}\in\{1,\ldots,m\}$ and $k\neq k^{'}$ \cite{major1981lecture}.
Lemma \ref{lemma:itoformula} below, which comes from \cite[Theorem 4.3 and Proposition 5.1]{major1981lecture} and
\cite[Theorem 2.7.7 and Theorem 2.7.10]{nourdin2012normal},
provides a significant link between nonlinear functions of normal random variables and Wiener-It$\hat{\textup{o}}$ integrals.
\begin{Lemma}[It$\hat{\textup{o}}$'s formula and Product Formula \cite{major1981lecture,nourdin2012normal}]\label{lemma:itoformula}
Let $f\in \overline{H}$ be such that $\|f\|_{\overline{H}}=1$. Then, for any integer $m\geq 1$, we have
\begin{align*}
H_{m}\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}}f(\lambda)W(d\lambda)\right)
=I_{m}\left(f^{\otimes m}\right).
\end{align*}
For any $m,n\geq 1$. If $f\in \overline{H}^{\odot m}$ and $g\in \overline{H}^{\odot n}$, then
\begin{align*}
I_{m}(f)I_{n}(g) = \overset{m\wedge n}{\underset{r=0}{\sum}}r!\binom{m}{r}\binom{n}{r}I_{m+n-2r}\left(f\otimes_{r} g\right),
\end{align*}
where $f\otimes_{r} g$ is
the $r$th contraction of $f$ and $g$ defined as
\begin{align*
f\otimes_{r} g(\lambda_{1:m+n-2r})
= \int_{\mathbb{R}^{r}} f(\tau_{1:r},\lambda_{1:m-r})
g(-\tau_{1:r},\lambda_{m-r+1:m+n-2r})d\tau_{1}\cdots d\tau_{r}
\end{align*}
for $r=1,2,\ldots,m\wedge n$.
{When $r=0$, set} $f\otimes_{0} g = f\otimes g$.
\end{Lemma}
Here, for any integers $p_1<p_2$, we denote $(\lambda_{p_1},\,\lambda_{p_1+1},\ldots,\lambda_{p_2})$ by $\lambda_{p_1:p_2}$ to simplify the lengthy expressions.
By Lemma \ref{lemma:itoformula}, $U^{A}[j]X$ in
(\ref{Hermite_expansion_U}) and (\ref{Hermite_expansion_U:ln}) can be further expressed as triple summations of Wiener-It$\hat{\textup{o}}$ integrals.
However, the obtained decomposition of $U^{A}[j]X$ is not orthogonal due to the double sum over
$m$ and $n$ in (\ref{Hermite_expansion_U}) and (\ref{Hermite_expansion_U:ln}).
On the other hand, because of the Hilbert pair relation (\ref{def:Hilbert_pair}) between the real and imaginary parts of the analytic wavelet,
the weighted sum of products of sign functions in (\ref{def:B_inLemma}) will naturally pop out.
For obtaining an orthogonal Wiener chaos decomposition of $U^{A}[j]X$ (Theorem \ref{thm:U1_chaosexpansion} below),
the following lemma plays a key role in merging non-orthogonal terms in the triple summations obtained from (\ref{Hermite_expansion_U}), (\ref{Hermite_expansion_U:ln}),
and Lemma \ref{lemma:itoformula}.
The proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:B_identity} is provided in \ref{appendix_sec:B}.
\begin{Lemma}\label{lemma:B_identity}
For $\ell\in 2\mathbb{N}$, let $P[\ell]$ represent the set of permutations of $\{1,2,\ldots,\ell\}$.
For $\{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2},\ldots,\lambda_{\ell}\}\subset \mathbb{R}\setminus \{0\}$,
define
\begin{align}\label{def:B_inLemma}
B(\ell,\lambda_{1:\ell}) = \frac{1}{\ell!} \underset{p\in P[\ell]}{\sum}\ \underset{\begin{subarray}{c}m,n\in 2\mathbb{N}\cup \{0\}\\ m+n=\ell\end{subarray}}{\sum}\
\left[\left(\frac{m}{2}\right)!\left(\frac{n}{2}\right)!\right]^{-1}
(-1)^{\frac{n}{2}}\overset{\ell}{\underset{k=\ell-n+1}{\prod}} \textup{sgn}(\lambda_{p(k)}).
\end{align}
The equality
\begin{align}\label{exact:B}
B(\ell,\lambda_{1:\ell})
=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
2^\ell\ \frac{\ell}{2}!\ (\ell!)^{-1}& \ \textup{if}\ N(\lambda_{1:\ell})= \ell/2,\\
0 &\ \textup{if}\ N(\lambda_{1:\ell})\neq \ell/2,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align}
holds, where $N(\lambda_{1:\ell})$ is the number of negative elements in $\{\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2},\ldots,\lambda_{\ell}\}$.
\end{Lemma}
\section{Main results}\label{sec:mainresult}
\begin{Theorem}\label{thm:U1_chaosexpansion}
Under Assumptions \ref{Assumption:wavelet} and \ref{Assumption:spectral},
the process $U^{A}[j]X$ defined in (\ref{def:U1})
can be expressed as a series of Wiener-It$\hat{o}$ integrals as follows.
\\
(a) For $A(r)=r^{\nu}$, where $\nu\in(0,\infty)$,
\begin{align}\label{thm:representationU}
U^{A}[j]X(t)=
\mathbb{E}\left[U^{A}[j]X(t)\right]+\sigma_{j}^{\nu}
\underset{\ell\in 2\mathbb{N}}{\sum}\
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{\ell}}^{'}Q^{(\ell)}_{t,j}(\lambda_{1},\ldots,\lambda_{\ell})W(d\lambda_{1})\cdots W(d\lambda_{\ell}),
\end{align}
where
$\mathbb{E}\left[U^{A}[j]X(t)\right] = \sigma_{j}^{\nu}c_{A,0}$,
$\sigma_{j}=(\int_{\mathbb{R}}|\widehat{\psi_{R}}(2^{j}\lambda)|^{2}f_{X}(\lambda)d\lambda)^{1/2}$,
\begin{align*
Q^{(\ell)}_{t,j}(\lambda_{1},\ldots,\lambda_{\ell})
=&\,c_{\ell}
\left[\sigma_{j}^{-\ell}\overset{\ell}{\underset{k=1}{\prod}}e^{it\lambda_{k}}\widehat{\psi_{R}}(2^{j}\lambda_{k})\sqrt{f_{X}(\lambda_{k})}\right]
1_{\{N(\lambda_{1:\ell})= \ell/2\}},
\end{align*}
\begin{align}\label{def:c_ell}
c_{\ell} = (-2)^{\frac{\ell}{2}}\ (\frac{\ell}{2}!)(\ell!)^{-1}\ c_{A,\frac{\ell}{2}},
\end{align}
$N(\lambda_{1:\ell})$ is the number of negative elements in $\{\lambda_{k}\}_{k=1}^{\ell}$,
and $c_{A,\frac{\ell}{2}}$ is defined in (\ref{def:can}).
\\
(b) The representation (\ref{thm:representationU}) can also be applied to the case $A(r)=\ln(r)$
with slight notation modification: $\nu=0$ and $\mathbb{E}\left[U^{A}[j]X(t)\right] = c_{A,0}+\ln(\sigma_{j})$.
\end{Theorem}
The proof of Theorem is provided in \ref{sec:proof:thm:U1_chaosexpansion}.
Corollary \ref{prop:application} below is an easy implication of Theorem \ref{thm:U1_chaosexpansion}, whose proof is provided in \ref{sec:proof:prop:application}.
\begin{Definition}
The Wasserstein metric is defined by
\begin{align*}
d_{\textup{W}}(Z_{1},Z_{2}) = {\sup}\left\{\left|\mathbb{E}\left[h(Z_{1})\right]- \mathbb{E}\left[h(Z_{2})\right]\right|
\mid h: \mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}\ \textup{is Lipschitz and}\ \|h\|_{\textup{Lip}}\leq 1\ \right\}
\end{align*}
for any random variables $Z_{1}$ and $Z_{2}$.
\end{Definition}
\begin{Corollary}\label{prop:application}
Given two stationary Gaussian processes $X_{1}$ and $X_{2}$ with spectral densities
$f_{X_{1}}$ and $f_{X_{2}}$, denote
\begin{align*
\sigma_{p,j}^{2}= \mathbb{E}\left[|W[j]X_{p}|^{2}\right],\ p=1,2.
\end{align*}
Suppose that the wavelet $\psi$ satisfies Assumption \ref{Assumption:wavelet}.
For $j\in \mathbb{Z}$, we have
\begin{align*}
d_{\textup{W}}(U^{A}[j]X_{1},U^{A}[j]X_{2})\geq
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
2^{\frac{\nu}{2}}\Gamma(\frac{\nu}{2}+1) \left|\sigma_{1,j}^{\nu}-\sigma_{2,j}^{\nu}\right| &\ \textup{if}\ A(r) = r^{\nu}\ \textup{with}\ \nu>0;
\\\left|\ln \sigma_{1,j}-\ln \sigma_{2,j}\right| &\ \textup{if}\ A(r) = \ln(r).
\end{array}\right.
\end{align*}
Especially, if $A(r)=\ln(r)$ and
\begin{equation}\label{condition_f:v2}
f_{X_{p}}(\lambda) = \frac{C_{X_{p}}(\lambda)}{|\lambda|^{1-\beta_{p}}},\ \lambda\in \mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\},\ p=1,2,
\end{equation}
for some Hurst parameters $\beta_{1},\beta_{2}\in(0,1)$ and $C_{X_{1}},C_{X_{2}}\in C_{b}(\mathbb{R},[0,\infty))$, then
\begin{align*
2(\ln2)^{-1}\underset{j\rightarrow\infty}{\underline{\lim}} j^{-1}d_{\textup{W}}(U^{A}[j]X_{1},U^{A}[j]X_{2})\geq \left|\beta_{1}-\beta_{2}\right|.
\end{align*}
\end{Corollary}
In view of that the Hurst parameters $\beta_{1}$ and $\beta_{2}$ in (\ref{condition_f:v2}) give the strength of long-range dependence
of $X_{1}$ and $X_{2}$,
Corollary \ref{prop:application} shows that if two stationary Gaussian processes have remarkable difference
on the strength of long-range dependence, this discrepancy will also be reflected in the distribution distance between their logarithmic scalograms, especially at large-scales.
By Theorem \ref{thm:U1_chaosexpansion} and the stochastic Fubini theorem \cite{pipiras2010regularization},
for the case $A(r)=r^{\nu}$, where $\nu\in(0,\infty)$, we have
\begin{align}\label{thm:S1_chaosexpansion}
S^{A}_{J}[j]X(t)=
\mathbb{E}\left[S^{A}_{J}[j]X(t)\right]+\underset{\ell\in 2\mathbb{N}}{\sum}\
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{\ell}}^{'}s^{(\ell)}_{t,j}(\lambda_{1},\ldots,\lambda_{\ell})W(d\lambda_{1})\cdots W(d\lambda_{\ell}),
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}\label{integrand_s}
s^{(\ell)}_{t,j}(\lambda_{1},\ldots,\lambda_{\ell})
=&\ \sigma_{j}^{\nu}\ Q^{(\ell)}_{t,j}(\lambda_{1},\ldots,\lambda_{\ell})\ \widehat{\phi_{J}}(\lambda_{1}+\cdots+\lambda_{\ell})
\end{align}
and
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\left[S^{A}_{J}[j]X(t)\right] =\int_{\mathbb{R}} \mathbb{E}\left[U^{A}[j]X(s)\right]\phi_{J}(t-s)ds = \sigma_{j}^{\nu}c_{A,0}\ \widehat{\phi}(0)
\end{align*}
for all $j,J\in \mathbb{Z}$ and $t\in \mathbb{R}$.
The representation (\ref{thm:S1_chaosexpansion}) can also be applied to the case $A(r)=\ln(r)$ with slight notation modification: $\nu=0$
and $\mathbb{E}\left[S^{A}_{J}[j]X(t)\right]=\left(c_{A,0}+\ln(\sigma_{j})\right)\widehat{\phi}(0).$
For any $d\in \mathbb{N}$, $j_{1},j_{2},\ldots,j_{d}\in \mathbb{Z}$, and $t_{1},t_{2},\ldots,t_{d}\in \mathbb{R}$,
let $\mathbf{F}=(F_{1},\ldots,F_{d})$ with
\begin{equation*
F_{m} = 2^{\frac{J}{2}}\left\{S^{A}_{J}[j_{m}]X(2^{J}t_{m})-\mathbb{E}\left[S^{A}_{J}[j_{m}]X(2^{J}t_{m})\right]\right\},\ m=1,2,\ldots,d.
\end{equation*}
From (\ref{thm:S1_chaosexpansion}) and (\ref{integrand_s}), for each $K\in 2\mathbb{N}$, rewrite
$\mathbf{F} = \mathbf{F}_{\leq K} + \mathbf{F}_{> K}$ with $\mathbf{F}_{\leq K} = (F_{1,\leq K},\ldots,F_{d,\leq K})$
and
$\mathbf{F}_{> K} = (F_{1,> K},\ldots,F_{d,> K})$,
where
\begin{equation}\label{thm:S1_chaosexpansion_part1}
F_{m,\leq K} := 2^{\frac{J}{2}}\underset{\ell\in\{2,4,\ldots,K\}}{\sum}\ I_{\ell}\left(s^{(\ell)}_{2^{J}t_{m},j_{m}}\right)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{thm:S1_chaosexpansion_part2}
F_{m,>K} := 2^{\frac{J}{2}}\underset{\ell\in\{K+2,K+4,\ldots\}}{\sum}\ I_{\ell}\left(s^{(\ell)}_{2^{J}t_{m},j_{m}}\right)
\end{equation}
for $m=1,2,\ldots,d.$
Let $\mathbf{N}$ (resp. $\mathbf{N}_{\leq K}$) be a $d$-dimensional normal random vector
with the same covariance matrix as that of $\mathbf{F}$ (resp. $\mathbf{F}_{\leq K}$).
Below, we first explore the smooth Wasserstein distance \cite{azmoodeh2022optimal,dobler2018gamma} between $\mathbf{F}$ and $\mathbf{N}$, and
conclude this section with a corollary concerning the Kolmogorov distance \cite[Definition C.2.1]{nourdin2012normal} between $\mathbf{F}$ and $\mathbf{N}$.
\begin{Definition}\label{def:sWasserstein}
The smooth Wasserstein distance between the distribution of
$\mathbb{R}^{d}$-valued random variables $\mathbf{F}$ and $\mathbf{N}$ is denoted and defined by
\begin{align}\notag
d_{\mathcal{H}_{2}}(\mathbf{F},\mathbf{N})
= \underset{h\in \mathcal{H}_{2}}{\textup{sup}}\big|\mathbb{E}\left[h\left(\mathbf{F}\right)\right]-\mathbb{E}\left[h\left(\mathbf{N}\right)\right]\big|.
\end{align}
Here, the class $\mathcal{H}_{2}$ of the test functions is defined as
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{H}_{2}= \left\{h\in C^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{d})\mid \|h\|_{\infty}\leq 1, \|h^{'}\|_{\infty}\leq 1, h^{'}\ \textup{is Lipschitz, and}\ \|h^{'}\|_{\textup{Lip}}\leq1\right\},
\end{align*}
where $C^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ is the space of continuously differentiable functions on $\mathbb{R}^{d}$.
\end{Definition}
To explore the smooth Wasserstein distance between $\mathbf{F}$ and $\mathbf{N}$, we bound $d_{\mathcal{H}_{2}}(\mathbf{F},\mathbf{N})$
by the triangle inequality
\begin{align}\label{triangle_inequality}
&\left|\mathbb{E}\left[h\left(\mathbf{F}\right)\right]-\mathbb{E}\left[h\left(\mathbf{N}\right)\right]\right|
\\\notag\leq& \left|\mathbb{E}\left[h\left(\mathbf{F}\right)\right]-\mathbb{E}\left[h\left(\mathbf{F}_{\leq K}\right)\right]\right|
+\left|\mathbb{E}\left[h\left(\mathbf{F}_{\leq K}\right)\right]-\mathbb{E}\left[h\left(\mathbf{N}_{\leq K}\right)\right]\right|
+\left|\mathbb{E}\left[h\left(\mathbf{N}_{\leq K}\right)\right]-\mathbb{E}\left[h\left(\mathbf{N}\right)\right]\right|
\end{align}
and control the right hand side term by term.
\begin{Lemma}\label{lemma:gp_bound}
For the case $A(r)=r^{\nu}$ with $\nu\in(0,\infty)\setminus 2\mathbb{N}$,
under Assumptions \ref{Assumption:wavelet} and \ref{Assumption:spectral} with $2\alpha+\beta\geq1$, for any $h\in \mathcal{H}_{2}$,
there exists a constant $C\geq 0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{norm_F>K}
\left|\mathbb{E}\left[h\left(\mathbf{F}\right)\right]-\mathbb{E}\left[h\left(\mathbf{F}_{\leq K}\right)\right]\right| \leq
dC K^{-\frac{\nu}{2}-\frac{1}{4}+\varepsilon}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{norm_N-N}
\left|\mathbb{E}\left[h\left(\mathbf{N}_{\leq K}\right)\right]-\mathbb{E}\left[h\left(\mathbf{N}\right)\right] \right|
\leq dC K^{-\frac{\nu}{2}-\frac{1}{4}+\varepsilon}
\end{equation}
for a small $\varepsilon>0$ and all $J\in \mathbb{Z}$ and $K\in 2\mathbb{N}$.
The inequalities (\ref{norm_F>K}) and (\ref{norm_N-N})
can also be applied to the case $A(r)=\ln(r)$ with slight notation modification: $\nu=0$ and $\varepsilon=0$.
\end{Lemma}
The proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:gp_bound} is provided in \ref{sec:proof:lemma:gp_bound}.
Lemma \ref{lemma:gp_bound} says that even if the expansion of $\mathbf{F}$ is comprised of infinite Wiener chaos, particularly when $\nu\in(0,\infty)\setminus 2\mathbb{N}$,
the first and third terms in (\ref{triangle_inequality}) still
converge to zero when $K\rightarrow\infty$ uniformly with respect to $J$.
The constant $C$ in Lemma \ref{lemma:gp_bound} only depends on $j_{1},\ldots,j_{d}$, $f_{X}$, $\psi$, $\phi$, and $A$.
Clearly, the smaller $\nu$ is, the slower the convergence is.
More details can be found in (\ref{norm:F>K:estimate:end}).
In the following, we plan to apply Stein's method to analyze the second term in (\ref{triangle_inequality}).
Lemma \ref{cited_thm:multiGA} below is a slight modification of \cite[Theorem 6.1.2]{nourdin2012normal},
in which the test function $h$ is twice differentiable.
How to relax the twice differentiability assumption on the test function $h$ is described in \ref{sec:proof:lemma:cited_thm:multiGA}.
\begin{Lemma}[\cite{nourdin2012normal}]\label{cited_thm:multiGA}
For any integer $d\geq2$, let $\mathbf{S}=(S_{1},\ldots,S_{d})$ be a $\mathcal{F}_{W}$-measurable random vector such that $\mathbb{E}[|S_{m}|^{4}]+\mathbb{E}[\|DS_{m}\|_{\overline{H}}^{4}]<\infty$
and $\mathbb{E}[S_{m}]=0$ for $m=1,\ldots,d$. Let $[\mathbf{C}(m,n)]_{1\leq m,n\leq d}$ be a non-negative definite matrix in $\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$,
and let $\mathbf{N}_{\mathbf{C}}$ be a $d$-dimensional normal random vector with mean zero and covariance matrix $\mathbf{C}$.
Then, for any function $h\in\mathcal{H}_{2}$,
{we have}
\begin{align}\label{multidim_stein}
|\mathbb{E}[h(\mathbf{S})]-\mathbb{E}[h(\mathbf{N}_{\mathbf{C}})]|\leq
&\ \frac{1}{2}
\|h^{'}\|_{\textup{Lip}}\rho,
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*
\|h^{'}\|_{\textup{Lip}}=\underset{1\leq m\leq d}{\max}\ \underset{\begin{subarray}{c}\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}\in \mathbb{R}^{d}\\ \mathbf{x}\neq\mathbf{y}\end{subarray}}{\sup}\ \frac{\Big|\frac{\partial h}{\partial x_{m}}(\mathbf{x})-\frac{\partial h}{\partial x_{m}}(\mathbf{y})\Big|}{\|\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y}\|},
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
\rho = \sqrt{\overset{d}{\underset{m,n=1}{\sum}}
\mathbb{E}\left[\left(\mathbf{C}(m,n)-\Big\langle DS_{n},-DL^{-1}S_{m}\Big\rangle\right)^{2}\right]},
\end{align*}
$L^{-1}$ is the pseudo-inverse of the infinitesimal generator of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck semigroup,
and $D$ is the Malliavin derivative defined in \ref{appendix_sec:Stein}.
\end{Lemma}
If $S_{m} = F_{m,\leq K}$, by the Meyer's inequality (see (\ref{norm_estimate1}) and (\ref{norm_estimate2}) in the appendix), the condition $\mathbb{E}[|S_{m}|^{4}]+\mathbb{E}[\|DS_{m}\|_{\overline{H}}^{4}]<\infty$ holds.
On the other hand, because $F_{m,\leq K}$ is a linear combination of Wiener chaos of order greater than or equal to 2,
$\mathbb{E}[F_{m,\leq K}]=0$.
Denote the covariance matrix of $(F_{1,\leq K},\ldots,F_{d,\leq K})$ by $\mathbf{C}_{J,K}\in \mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$; that is,
\begin{equation*
\mathbf{C}_{J,K}(m,n) := \mathbb{E}[F_{m,\leq K}F_{n,\leq K}],
\end{equation*}
where $1\leq m,n\leq d$, which satisfies the requirement of non-negative definite for the matrix $\mathbf{C}$ in Lemma \ref{cited_thm:multiGA}.
Because all conditions in Lemma \ref{cited_thm:multiGA} are satisfied,
the inequality (\ref{multidim_stein}) holds with $\mathbf{S} = \mathbf{F}_{\leq K}$ and $\mathbf{C}=\mathbf{C}_{J,K}$.
By making use of the explicit structure of the Wiener chaos decomposition of $\mathbf{F}_{\leq K}$ derived from Theorem \ref{thm:U1_chaosexpansion} (see also (\ref{thm:S1_chaosexpansion}) and (\ref{thm:S1_chaosexpansion_part1})),
we get the following results.
\begin{Proposition}\label{prop:multidim_stein_RHS}
Under Assumptions \ref{Assumption:wavelet} and \ref{Assumption:spectral} with $2\alpha+\beta\geq1$, for any $t_{1},...,t_{d}\in \mathbb{R}$, $j_{1},...,j_{d}\in \mathbb{Z}$,
and $h\in \mathcal{H}_{2}$,
there exists a constant $C$ such that
\begin{align}\label{Prop:statement:stein:nu}
|\mathbb{E}[h(\mathbf{F}_{\leq K})]-\mathbb{E}[h(\mathbf{N}_{\mathbf{C}_{J,K}})]|\leq C 2^{-\frac{J}{2}}\left(\underset{\ell\in\{2,4,...,K\}}{\sum}|c_\ell| \sqrt{\ell!}3^{\frac{\ell}{2}}\right)^{2}
\end{align}
for all $J\in \mathbb{Z}$ and $K\in 2\mathbb{N}$, where $c_{\ell}$ is defined in (\ref{def:c_ell}).
\end{Proposition}
The proof of Proposition \ref{prop:multidim_stein_RHS} is provided in \ref{sec:proof:prop:multidim_stein_RHS}.
The constant $C$ in (\ref{Prop:statement:stein:nu}) only depends on $A$, $j_{1},\ldots,j_{d}$, $f_{X}$, $\psi$, and $\phi$.
More details can be found in (\ref{proof:part(b):C}).
\begin{Theorem}\label{theorem:convergence_rate:rational}
If Assumptions \ref{Assumption:wavelet} and \ref{Assumption:spectral} hold and $2\alpha+\beta\geq1$,
then for any $d\in\mathbb{N}$, $t_{1},\ldots,t_{d}\in \mathbb{R}$, and $j_{1},\ldots,j_{d}\in \mathbb{Z}$,
the sequence of $J$-dependent random vectors
\begin{equation}\notag
\mathbf{F}=2^{J/2}\left[S^{A}_{J}[j_{1}]X(2^{J}t_{1})-\mathbb{E}\left[S^{A}_{J}[j_{1}]X(2^{J}t_{1})\right],\ldots,
S^{A}_{J}[j_{d}]X(2^{J}t_{d})-\mathbb{E}\left[S^{A}_{J}[j_{d}]X(2^{J}t_{d})\right]\right],\ J\in \mathbb{Z},
\end{equation}
satisfies
\begin{align}\label{sWdistance:F_N_O}
d_{\mathcal{H}_{2}}\left(\mathbf{F},\mathbf{N}\right) \leq
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\mathcal{O}(2^{-\frac{J}{2}}) &\ \textup{for}\ A(r)=r^{\nu}\ \textup{with}\ \nu\in2\mathbb{N},\\
\mathcal{O}(J^{-\frac{\nu}{2}-\frac{1}{4}+\varepsilon})&\ \textup{for}\ A(r)=r^{\nu}\ \textup{with}\ \nu\in(0,\infty)\setminus2\mathbb{N},\\
\mathcal{O}(J^{-\frac{1}{4}})&\ \textup{for}\ A(r)=\ln(r)
\end{array}\right.
\end{align}
for any $\varepsilon>0$ when $J\rightarrow\infty$, where
$\mathbf{N}$ is a zero-mean $d$-dimensional normal random vector with the same covariance matrix as $\mathbf{F}$.
Furthermore,
\begin{equation}\label{limit_cov}
\underset{J\rightarrow\infty}{\lim}\mathbb{E}\left[\mathbf{F}^{\textup{T}}\mathbf{F}\right] =
\left[\kappa_{m,n} \int_{\mathbb{R}}
e^{i\lambda (t_{m}-t_{n})}
|\widehat{\phi}(\lambda)|^{2}d\lambda\right]_{1\leq m,n\leq d},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align*
\kappa_{m,n}= \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\textup{Cov}\big(U^{A}[j_{m}]X(\tau),U^{A}[j_{n}]X(0)\big)d\tau.
\end{align*}
\end{Theorem}
The proof of Theorem \ref{theorem:convergence_rate:rational}
is provided in \ref{sec:proof:theorem:convergence_rate:rational}.
Recall that the Kolmogorov distance between the distribution of
$\mathbb{R}^{d}$-valued random variables $\mathbf{F}$ and $\mathbf{N}$ is denoted and defined by
\begin{align}\notag
d_{\textup{Kol}}(\mathbf{F},\mathbf{N})
= \underset{z_{1},\ldots,z_{d}\in \mathbb{R}}{\textup{sup}}\big|&\mathbb{P}\left(\mathbf{F}\in(-\infty,z_{1}]\times\ldots\times(-\infty,z_{d}]\right)
\\\notag&-\mathbb{P}\left(\mathbf{N}\in(-\infty,z_{1}]\times\ldots\times(-\infty,z_{d}]\right)\big|.
\end{align}
Proposition 2.6 in \cite{gaunt2022bounding}
allows us to extract Kolmogorov distance bounds between $\mathbf{F}$ and its normal counterpart $\mathbf{N}$ from the smooth Wasserstein distance
bounds in Theorem \ref{theorem:convergence_rate:rational}.
To keep the paper self-contained, the proof of Corollary \ref{corollary:kol} is provided in \ref{sec:proof:kol}.
\begin{Corollary}\label{corollary:kol}
Let the assumptions and notation of Theorem \ref{theorem:convergence_rate:rational} prevail.
The $J$-dependent random vectors $\mathbf{F}$
satisfies
\begin{align*
d_{\textup{Kol}}\left(\mathbf{F},\mathbf{N}\right) \leq
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\mathcal{O}(2^{-\frac{J}{6}}) &\ \textup{for}\ A(r)=r^{\nu}\ \textup{with}\ \nu\in2\mathbb{N},\\
\mathcal{O}(J^{-\frac{\nu}{6}-\frac{1}{12}+\varepsilon})&\ \textup{for}\ A(r)=r^{\nu}\ \textup{with}\ \nu\in(0,\infty)\setminus2\mathbb{N},\\
\mathcal{O}(J^{-\frac{1}{12}})&\ \textup{for}\ A(r)=\ln(r)
\end{array}\right.
\end{align*}
for any $\varepsilon>0$ when $J\rightarrow\infty$, where
$\mathbf{N}$ is a zero-mean $d$-dimensional normal random vector with the same covariance matrix as the corresponding $\mathbf{F}$.
\end{Corollary}
\section{Discussion and conclusions}
We derived the Wiener chaos decomposition of the modulus of the analytic wavelet transform and its variants of stationary Gaussian processes
and proved a quantitative central limit theorem for its moving average.
Because the complex modulus performs a square root on the scalogram,
we observed that Wiener chaos decompositions of the modulus wavelet transform and the scalogram
have a significant difference. The former consists of infinite Wiener chaos, while the latter consists of only finite Wiener chaos.
Such differences affect the convergence speed of the Gaussian approximation error of their respective moving averages.
The modulus wavelet transform, which may be further transformed by a nonlinear function $A$, is a core component of the scattering transform \cite{mallat2012group},
in which the composition of the modulus wavelet transform coupled with the moving average
\begin{align}\label{def:secondST}
S^{A}_{J}[j,j+\delta]X(t) = \int_{\mathbb{R}}U^{A}[j+\delta]U^{A}[j]X(s)\phi_{J}(t-s)ds,\ j\in \mathbb{Z}, \delta\in \mathbb{N}_{+},
\end{align}
was proposed to extract more detailed features from $X$.
In order to make sure that $S^{A}_{J}[j,j+\delta]$ is a non-expansive map \cite[Proposition 2.5]{mallat2012group},
the complex modulus, which corresponds to the case $A(r)=r$, is used as the {\em activation function}.
As we have observed in this work, $U^{A}[j]X$ in (\ref{def:secondST})
is a non-Gaussian process, which consists of infinite Wiener chaos for the non-expansive case $A(r)=r$.
Therefore, to further analyze the second-layer modulus wavelet transform of $U^{A}[j]X$, developing new techniques to handle the nonlinear interaction across different layers and analytic wavelet is necessary, and we will report the results in our future work.
To sum up, our current work is not only interesting from the wavelet transform perspective but also paves a way toward a theoretical understanding of the scattering transform.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
This work benefited from support of the National Center for Theoretical Science (NCTS, Taiwan).
G. R. Liu's work was supported by the National Science and Technology Council
under Grant 110-2628-M-006-003-MY3.
Y. C. Sheu's work was supported by the National Science and Technology Council
under Grant 110-2115-M-A49 -007.
\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
|
\section{Introduction}
The spectrum scarcity necessities the use of spectrally efficient modulations.
The Nyquist signaling is a well established and robust technique for
constructing linear digital modulations which are employed in a vast majority
of today's communication systems. These modulation schemes are often combined
with channel encoding to improve the transmission reliability and even approach
the channel capacity. An alternative strategy is to assume modulations having a
controlled level of intersymbol interference (ISI), which can increase the rate
of information transmission as well as act as a form of information encoding
for improving the transmission reliability \cite{zhou2012}, albeit at the cost
of increased detection complexity at the receiver. Such so-called
faster-than-Nyquist (FTN) schemes are linear modulations that can be used over
band-limited channels \cite{anderson2013}.
The renewed interest in FTN signaling schemes goes back to the early 2000's
\cite{liveris2003}. However, a closely related idea of partial response linear
modulations with controlled ISI appeared much earlier \cite{proakis2008}. The
achievable spectral efficiency of coded and uncoded FTN schemes is evaluated in
\cite{anderson2013}, \cite{landau2017}, and \cite{modenini2012}. The
observation that up to $25\%$ increase in the transmission rate is possible
without deteriorating the error performance is known as the Mazo limit
\cite{liveris2003, anderson2013, fan2017, modenini2012}. The energy and
complexity costs of FTN signaling are reviewed in \cite{anderson2013}.
The FTN schemes can be implemented both in time and in frequency domains
\cite{anderson2013, yamada2015}. An orthogonal FTN scheme based on OFDM was
designed in \cite{bogale2017}. Alternatively, Nyquist signaling with dual root
raised-cosine (RRC) pulses akin to duobinary modulation has been investigated
in \cite{zhang2020}. This scheme was further refined for the RRC pulses with
zero roll-off in \cite{li2022}. The link between duobinary modulation and FTN
signaling has been pointed out in \cite{zhou2012}.
An important issue is how to efficiently perform the detection of transmitted
symbols at the receiver. Unlike the ISI due to multipath propagation, the ISI
created by FTN signaling also correlates samples of additive noise. The optimum
detection necessitates the use of whitening matched filter (WMF) prior to
symbol decisions. The ISI at the detector input can be equivalently represented
as an auxiliary channel \cite{landau2017, modenini2012}. The output signal of
such channel has a trellis-like structure, which can be optimally equalized by
the Viterbi, BCJR and other such algorithms with varying complexity
\cite{anderson2013, fan2017, modenini2012}. These decoding methods can approach
the performance of zero-ISI (Nyquist) modulations over additive white Gaussian
noise (AWGN) channels \cite{anderson2013}. The symbol-by-symbol detector for
FTN signals was devised in \cite{modenini2012} and \cite{bedeer2017}. The
detection of FTN signals with oversampling and one-bit quantization was
developed in \cite{landau2017}. A low complexity linear equalization for FTN
signaling was designed in \cite{bas2020}. The joint channel estimation and
decoding of FTN signals was studied in \cite{shi2018} and in \cite{wu2017}.
Nearly all investigations of FTN signaling schemes in the literature assume the
RRC modulation pulse. The RRC pulse is parameterized by a time period, $\Tp$,
and a roll-off factor, $\alpha$. Linear modulations combine the RRC pulses
weighted by data symbols, which are then transmitted once every symbol period,
$\Ts$. The packing factor defines the relationship between $\Tp$ and $\Ts$,
i.e., $\tau=1-\Ts/Tp$. The design and analysis of FTN signaling in the
literature usually assumes arbitrary values of $0\leq\alpha\leq 1$ and
$0\leq\tau< 1$. The search for good values of $\alpha$ and $\tau$ over an
entire $\alpha-\tau$ plane to allow symbol-by-symbol decisions was carried out
in \cite{bedeer2017}. However and importantly, the case of $100\%$ bandwidth
roll-off is rarely explicitly considered in the literature \cite{modenini2012}.
The authors in \cite{landau2017} noticed that, for $\alpha=1$ and an arbitrary
value of $\tau$, the ISI is approximately limited to the two previous and the
two subsequent symbol samples.
In this paper, we show that the RRC pulse with $100\%$ roll-off and $50\%$
packing has a well-defined ISI, which is exactly and symmetrically constrained
to one previous and one subsequent symbol. Such a unique property of the RRC
pulse appears to remain unnoticed in the literature. Interestingly, reference
\cite{zhou2012} states that ISI with only two components can be obtained with
$100\%$ roll-off and $50\%$ packing assuming prolate spheroidal wave pulses,
but not RRC pulses. Although such a modulation scheme can be assumed to be a
special case of FTN signaling, it is argued that RRC pulses having $100\%$
roll-off and $50\%$ packing offers symmetric multiplexing of the two
transmitted data streams. For this reason, such a partial response signaling is
referred to in this paper as a pulse-shape binary multiplexing (PSBM)
modulation. The main task then is how to separate the two multiplexed data
streams at the receiver with acceptable reliability and complexity. As with
other partial response signalings, the modulation constellation and the
dependency between transmitted symbols must be carefully selected in order to
trade-off the performance and the decoding complexity. We design several
transmission sequences interleaving pilot and data symbols, discuss
superposition modulation with symbol-by-symbol sequential interference
cancellation (SIC), and also consider orthogonal spreading sequences to aid
separation of the data streams at the receiver. In addition, the performance of
multiplexed differentially encoded phase-shift keying (PSK) modulation symbols
is evaluated numerically. The numerical results identify several cases when the
proposed PSBM modulation outperforms the Nyquist signaling in terms of either
transmission reliability or the time required to transmit a given number of
data symbols.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Linear modulation schemes that
are related to the proposed pulse-shape multiplexing signaling are outlined in
Section II. System model and the received signal structure are described in
Section III. The proposed pulse-shape multiplexing modulation is defined in
Section IV including the design of transmitted symbol sequences. Numerical
results are presented in Section V. Section VI concludes the paper.
We adopt the following notations: $\E{\cdot}$ is expectation, $\conv$ is
convolution, $|\cdot|$ is absolute value, $(\cdot)^\ast$ is complex conjugate,
$\real{\cdot}$ and $\imag{\cdot}$, respectively, denote the real and imaginary
part of a complex number, $\Card\{\cdot\}$ is cardinality of a set, $(\cdot)^T$
is matrix transpose, $(\cdot)^{-1}$ is matrix inverse, and $\norm{\cdot}$ is
the Euclidean norm of a matrix or vector.
\section{Related Linear Modulation Schemes}
A linearly modulation signal is constructed as,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:5}
x(t) = \sum_k s_k \, p(t-k \Ts)
\end{equation}
where $s_k$ are $M$-ary modulation symbols transmitted every symbol period,
$\Ts$, and $p(t)$ denotes a deterministic pulse-shape, which is also known at
the receiver. The stationary sequence of transmitted symbols, $s_k$, has
zero-mean, and the variance, $\E{|s_k|^2}=\Es$. The symbols are usually
obtained as output of a finite-state modulator, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:6}
s_k = s(q_k,c_k)
\end{equation}
where the states, $q_k$, represent modulation memory, and the data symbols,
$c_k$, each carry, $\log_2 M$, bits of input information. In this paper, $p(t)$
is assumed to be the unit-energy RRC pulse, \cite{proakis2008}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:7}
p(t) = \frac{\rrc_\alpha(t/\Ts)}{\sqrt{\Ts}}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:7a}
\rrc_\alpha(t) = \frac{1}{1-16\alpha^2 t^2}
\left( \frac{\sin\left((1-\alpha)\pi t\right)}{\pi t}
+ \frac{4\alpha\cos\left((1+\alpha)\pi t \right)}{\pi}\right).
\end{equation}
The roll-off factor, $0\leq \alpha \leq 1$, however, it is possible to also
consider pulse shapes having a roll-off greater than $100\%$.
Since the sequence of symbols, $s_k$, is stationary, the auto-correlation,
$R_s(i-j) = \E{s_i s_j^\ast}$. The corresponding power-spectrum density (PSD)
of signal \eref{eq:5} is computed as, \cite{proakis2008}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:26}
S_x(f) = \frac{1}{\Ts} |P(f)|^2 \ \sum_k R_s(k) \eee^{\jj 2\pi f k \Ts}
\end{equation}
where $P(f)$ denotes the Fourier transform of $p(t)$.
Correlative coding assumes the discrete modulator \eref{eq:6} to be a finite
impulse response (FIR) filter, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:60}
s_k = \sum_{i=0}^{K-1} v_i c_{k-i}.
\end{equation}
The filter weights, $v_i$, are normalized, so that, $\sum_i |v_i|^2=1$. More
importantly, with a change in indices, modulated signal \eref{eq:5} with
symbols \eref{eq:60} can be rewritten as,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
x(t) =& \sum_k \sum_{i=0}^{K-1} v_i\, c_{k-i} p(t - k\Ts) \\ =&
\sum_k c_k \sum_{i=0}^{K-1} v_i\, p(t-(k+i)\Ts) = \sum_k c_k\, \tp(t-k\Ts)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where the compound pulse, $\tp(t)= \sum_{i=0}^{K-1} v_i \, p(t-i\Ts)$.
Duobinary modulation is a special case of correlative coding, such that the FIR
filter has only two non-zero weights, $v_o=v_1=1/\sqrt{2}$, the modulation
symbols are binary, i.e., $c_k \in \{-\sqrt{\Es},+\sqrt{\Es}\}$, and the RRC
pulse has the smallest possible roll-off, $\alpha=0$. Modified duobinary
modulation assumes instead the weights, $v_0=1/\sqrt{2}$, $v_1=0$, and
$v_2=-1/\sqrt{2}$.
The following modulations assume the RRC pulse-shape with an arbitrary roll-off
value. Differential PSK constructs the transmitted symbols as,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:13}
s_k = c_k\,s_{k-1}
\end{equation}
where the data symbols, $c_k\in\{ \sqrt{\Es} \eee^{\jj 2\pi(i-1)/M} \}$,
$i=1,2,\ldots,M$. Generalized shift-keying extends the modulation alphabet of
amplitude or phase shift-keying modulations with a zero symbol
\cite{loskot2012}. Offset-quadrature ($M=4$) PSK delays the imaginary part of
the modulated signal by half a symbol period, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:39}
x(t) = \sum_k \real{c_k} p(t-k\Ts) + \jj\, \imag{c_k} p(t-k\Ts-\Ts/2).
\end{equation}
Finally, FTN signaling is a linear modulation described by eq. \eref{eq:5}.
More importantly, the RRC pulse-shape in \eref{eq:7} can now be scaled by,
$\Tp= \Ts/(1-\tau)$, instead of $\Ts$, where $0\leq \tau < 1$ is so-called the
packing factor, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:29}
x(t)= \sum_{k} s_k p(t-k(1-\tau)\Tp)=\sum_{k} s_k p(t-k \Ts)
\end{equation}
so that $\Tp$ is a design parameter of the pulse, $p(t)$, whereas,
$\Ts=(1-\tau)\Tp$, denotes the symbol period. Thus, $\tau=0$ packing
corresponds to a conventional Nyquist signaling, whereas $\tau=1$ packing would
completely overlap the transmitted symbols. More importantly, the PSD of
\eref{eq:29} is still given by eq. \eref{eq:26}, and it is otherwise completely
independent of the packing factor, $\tau$.
\section{Received Signal}
The standard wireless channel model with $L$ propagation paths is an FIR filter
with the impulse response,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:12}
\tth(t) = \sum_{l=1}^L h_l(t) \delta(t - \tau_l).
\end{equation}
The signal delays, $\tau_l$, are assumed to be constant. The path attenuations,
$h_l(t)$, are zero-mean circularly symmetric Gaussian processes. These
processes are stationary, and generally mutually correlated. They have a
defined auto-correlation, $R_h(\Delta t)$, which determines the coherence
bandwidth.
For narrow-band signals, the number of paths, $L$, is small. For $L=1$, the
channel model \eref{eq:12} becomes frequency non-selective. In low-mobility
scenarios, the channel attenuations, $h_l(t)$, are often assumed to be constant
over blocks of transmitted symbols, and independent between the successive
blocks, which is often referred to as a block fading model.
The received signal corresponding to multi-path propagation model \eref{eq:12}
is written as,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
y(t) &= \tth(t) \conv x(t) + w(t) \\
&= \sum_{l=1}^L h_l(t) x(t-\tau_l) + w(t)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $w(t)$ is a zero-mean stationary circularly symmetric AWGN with the
variance, $\sgw^2=\E{|w(t)|^2}$.
The received signal is filtered through a filter matched to the transmitted
pulse, $p(t)$, and synchronously sampled at a rate, $1/\Ts$. In particular,
assuming RRC pulses, the matched filter, $p^\ast(-t)=p(t)$, and provided that
the channel attenuations are constant over blocks of transmitted symbols, the
received samples are modeled as,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:17}
\begin{split}
r_n=& y(t)\conv p^\ast(-t)\Big|_{t=n\Ts+\tau_0} \\ =& \sum_{l=1}^L h_l\,
x(t-\tau_l)\conv p(t)\Big|_{t=n\Ts+\tau_0} +
w(t)\conv p(t)\Big|_{t=n\Ts+\tau_0}\\
=& \sum_{l=1}^L h_l \sum_k s_k \int_{-\infty}^\infty
p(\zeta+(n-k)\Ts-\tau_l) p(\zeta-\tau_0) \df \zeta \\ &+
\int_{-\infty}^\infty w(\zeta+n\Ts) p(\zeta-\tau_0) \df \zeta \\
=& \sum_k s_k \sum_{l=1}^L h_l \, p_{n-k,l} + w_n = \sum_k s_k
\tp_{n-k} + w_n \\ =& s_k\tp_0 + \underbrace{\sum_{k \atop n\neq k} s_k
\tp_{n-k}}_{\xISI} + w_n.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The timing offset, $\tau_0$, at the receiver can be optimized to minimize the
ISI term (in some sense) in \eref{eq:17} defined as,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:18}
\tp_{n-k} = \sum_{l=1}^L h_l \int_{-\infty}^\infty
p(\zeta+(n-k)\Ts-\tau_l) p(\zeta-\tau_0) \df \zeta,\ n\neq k.
\end{equation}
Thus, the ISI arises when the orthogonality between the transmitter and the
receiver pulses is violated, for example, due to multi-path propagation,
time-synchronization errors between transmitter and receiver, and also due to
symbol-period compression in FTN signaling schemes \cite{proakis2008}.
An interesting question is how much ISI is produced for different combinations
of parameters $\alpha$ and $\tau$ in FTN signaling schemes using RRC pulses.
Hence, define the function,
\begin{equation}
\ISI{\mu} = \Card \{ |\tp_k|>\mu,\ k\neq 0\}
\end{equation}
to be the number of ISI components that are greater than a given threshold,
$\mu$. Note that, $\ISI{\mu}\in\{0,2,4,\ldots\}$, due to even symmetry of the
RRC pulses. Assuming different thresholds, $\mu$, the roll-off,
$0\leq \alpha\leq 2$, and the RRC pulses truncated to $(-4\Ts,+4\Ts)$, the
values $\ISI{\mu}=0$ (red points) and $\ISI{\mu}=2$ (blue points) in the
$\alpha-\tau$ plane are shown in \fref{pict01}. The empty (white) spaces in
\fref{pict01} indicate the values, $\ISI{\mu}>2$. It can be observed that by
decreasing the threshold, $\mu$, several cases of interest for designing FTN
signaling schemes start to emerge. In particular, exactly two ISI components
can be obtained for these parameters: $\alpha=1.0$ and $\tau=0.5$,
$\alpha=1.07$ and $\tau\in(0.70,0.71)$, and $\alpha\in(1.65,1.85)$ and
$\tau\in(0.47,0.50)$.
\insfig{0}{scale=1.0}{pict01}{The $\ISI{\mu}=0$ components (red points) and
$\ISI{\mu}=2$ components (blue points) for four different thresholds, $\mu$.}
\section{Pulse-Shape Binary Multiplex Modulation}
As indicated in \fref{pict01}, the RRC pulse with $100\%$ roll-off and $50\%$
packing has well-defined and finite ISI components. In particular, the RRC
pulse \eref{eq:7a} for $\alpha=1$ becomes,
\begin{equation}
\rrc_1(t) = \frac{4 \cos(2\pi t)}{\pi(1-16 t^2)}.
\end{equation}
This pulse has the following ISI components in an AWGN channel without
multi-path. Such a fundamental property appears to remain unnoticed in the
literature.
\begin{lemma}\label{lm:1}
Let $n$ be a non-negative integer. The ISI integral involving the RRC pulse,
$\rrc_1(t)$, with $100\%$ roll-off has the exact solution,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:33}
\begin{split}
\int_{-\infty}^\infty & \rrc_1(t) \times \rrc_1(t-n/4)\df t \\ =& \left\{
\begin{array}{cc} 8/(3\pi) & n=1 \\
\frac{8}{\pi(n-2)n(n+2)} & n-\mathrm{odd},\ n>1 \\
1 & n=0 \\ 1/2 & n=2 \\ 0 & n-\mathrm{even},\ n>2 .
\end{array} \right.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\lmref{lm:1} can be proved by solving the integral for the first few values of
$n$ (for example, using \textsf{Mathematica} software), and then using
induction.
However, the result \eref{eq:33} is exact only when the integration is
performed over an infinite interval. In practice, the pulse shapes must be
truncated to a finite interval. The numerically computed values of integral
\eref{eq:33} when the interval of integration is truncated to $(-d,+d)$ are
shown in \fref{pict02}. It can be observed that the RRC pulse shape,
$\rrc_1(t)$, should not be truncated to the intervals shorter than, $(-4,+4)$,
in order to achieve the RRC property given in \lmref{lm:1} with at least
$99.9\%$ accuracy.
\insfig{0}{scale=0.9}{pict02}{Numerically computed integral \eref{eq:33}
truncated to interval, $(-d,+d)$, as a function of $d$ (solid lines). The
exact values for an infinite interval are shifted to be all equal to unity in
order to enable comparison. The dashed lines are mirrored solid lines about
the unit value.}
\begin{definition}\label{df:1}
The modulated signal of pulse-shape binary multiplex modulation is written
as,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:21}
x(t) = \sum_k s_k \frac{\rrc_1\left(\frac{t-k\Ts}{2\Ts}\right)
}{\sqrt{2\Ts}}.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
The synchronously sampled matched filter output of modulated signal
\eref{eq:21} received in AWGN, $w(t)$, is,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:23}
\begin{split}
r_n =& (x(t)+w(t)) \conv \frac{\rrc_1\left(\frac{t}{2\Ts}\right)}
{\sqrt{2\Ts}}\Big|_{t=n\Ts} \\ =& \sum_k s_k \int_{-\infty}^\infty
\rrc_1(\zeta + (n-k)/2) \ \rrc_1(\zeta) \df\zeta + w_n \\
=& \left( \frac{1}{2} s_{n-1} + s_n + \frac{1}{2} s_{n+1} \right)
+ w_n.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The noise samples, $w_n$, in \eref{eq:23} are zero-mean, have the variance,
$\E{|w_n|^2}= \E{|w(t)|^2}=\sigma_w^2$, and their stationary auto-correlation
is,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:37}
R_w(n-m) = \E{w_nw_m^\ast} = \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} \sigma_w^2 & n=m \\
\sigma_w^2/2 & |n-m|= 1 \\ 0 & |n-m|>1. \end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
Such noise samples can be equivalently modeled by a simple FIR filter,
\begin{equation}
w_n = \frac{u_n+u_{n-1}}{\sqrt{2}}
\end{equation}
where $u_n$ are the samples of a zero-mean, circularly symmetric Gaussian
process having the variance, $\E{|u_n|^2}=\sigma_w^2$. In addition, it is
straightforward to show that the variance of the sum of $N$ noise samples
having the correlations \eref{eq:37} is,
\begin{equation}
\var{\sum_{n=1}^N w_n} = (2N-1)\sigma_w^2
\end{equation}
which is greater than the variance, $N\sigma_w^2$, of the sum of $N$
uncorrelated samples.
The modulated signal \eref{eq:21} in \dfref{df:1} can be visualized as shown in
\fref{pict03}. In particular, the transmitted data symbols can be viewed as
consisting of two multiplexed streams of data symbols, $a_k$, and, $b_k$, which
are each transmitted with a period $2\Ts$, but mutually shifted by $\Ts$. The
corresponding received symbol samples after the matched filtering are,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:34}
r_n = \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} a_n + \frac{b_{n-1}+b_n}{2} + w_n &
n-\mbox{odd} \\ b_n + \frac{a_n + a_{n+1}}{2} + w_n &
n-\mbox{even}. \end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
\insdfig{0}{scale=1.1}{pict03}{A visualization of pulse-shape multiplex
modulated signal.}
Using \eref{eq:26}, the PSD of modulated signal \eref{eq:21} is computed as,
\begin{equation}
S_x(f) = 2 |\RRC_1(2\Ts f)|^2 \, \sum_k \E{s_0s_k^\ast}
\eee^{\jj 2\pi f k \Ts}
\end{equation}
where the Fourier transform of the pulse, $\rrc_1(t)$, is,
\begin{equation}
\RRC_1(f) = \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} \cos(\pi f/2) &
|f| \leq 1 \\ 0 & \mbox{otherwise}. \end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Transmitted Sequence Design}
The optimum detection of transmitted symbols in the presence of ISI must
consider complete sequences of received samples. However, in the absence of
multi-path, the received samples have structure \eref{eq:23}, and the
transmitted sequences can be designed, so that the complexity of detection at
the receiver can be reduced.
The key strategy for reducing the detection complexity is to exploit
orthogonality among sub-sequences of transmitted symbols. Offset-quadrature PSK
modulation \eref{eq:39} alternates one-dimensional modulation symbols along the
in-phase and quadrature components, which allows the optimum symbol-by-symbol
decisions.
Multiplexing two data streams as described by \eref{eq:34} can exploit the
design principles of superposition modulation and multiuser detection. In such
a case, symbol-by-symbol decisions can be performed by SIC. Specifically,
provided that symbols, $b_n$, can be reliably detected, even if the symbols,
$(a_n+a_{n+1})/2$, are not yet known, then the symbol, $a_n$, can be reliably
detected after canceling the ISI term, $(b_{n-1}+b_n)/2$.
In the sequel, three other sequence design strategies are discussed in more
detail. The first strategy combines pilot and data symbols to aid the data
detection and channel estimation. The second strategy employs orthogonal
spreading codes in order to separate the two multiplexed data sequences. The
third strategy adopts the differential encoding of transmitted symbols.
\subsection{Sequences with Interleaved Pilot Symbols}
In general, pilot symbols for channel estimation can be interleaved with data
symbols or superimposed onto data symbols \cite{jagannatham2006}. Here, the
more common former approach is adopted. Thus, consider a transmitted sequence
consisting of alternating groups of $\Ld$ data symbols and $\Lp\ll \Ld$ pilot
symbols, which are separated by a single zero-symbol as shown in \fref{pict04}.
For instance, the following sub-sequences with reduced or no ISI can be
considered with pilot symbol, $\pp$, and arbitrary data symbols, $\dd_1$, and,
$\dd_2$: $(0,\pp,0)$, $(\dd_1,\pp,-\dd_1)$, $(\dd_1,\pp,-\dd_1,-\pp,\dd_1)$,
and $(\dd_1,\pp,-\dd_1,-\pp,\dd_2,\pp,-\dd_2)$. These sub-sequences enable
ISI-free data detection and channel estimation, as can be deduced from eq.
\eref{eq:34} and \fref{pict03}. Recall also that the noise samples, $w_n$, and,
$w_{n\pm 2}$, are uncorrelated, i.e., independent.
\insfig{0}{scale=1.0}{pict04}{The transmitted sequence with interleaved
sub-sequences of data and pilot symbols and a single zero-symbol separator.}
In order to illustrate the ISI-free channel estimation, consider the sequence,
$(\dd_1,\pp,\pp,-\dd_1)$. The received samples corresponding to the two pilot
symbols in the middle are,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
r_n =& h \frac{3}{2}\pp+h \frac{1}{2} \dd_1+w_n \\
r_{n+1} =& h \frac{3}{2}\pp - h \frac{1}{2} \dd_1+w_{n+1}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $h$ denotes the complex-valued channel attenuation (i.e., frequency
non-selective slow fading). The samples, $r_n$, and, $r_{n+1}$, can be simply
combined as,
\begin{equation}
r_n+r_{n+1}= 3 h \pp +w_n+w_{n+1}
\end{equation}
where the total variance of the additive noise samples is equal to
$3\sigma_w^2$ due to correlations \eref{eq:37}.
More generally, the transmitted sequence,
\begin{equation}
(-\pp,\dd_1,\pp,\dd_2,-\pp,\dd_3,\pp,\dd_4,-\pp,\dd_5,\ldots,\dd_N,\pm \pp)
\end{equation}
where the last pilot symbol is $\pp$, if $N$ is odd, and $-\pp$, if $N$ is
even, allows the ISI-free symbol-by-symbol decisions of all data symbols.
Moreover, assuming again a slow fading channel, the received samples
corresponding to the pilot symbols can be summed up to obtain,
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{n=1}^N (-1)^n \, r_{2n-1}= N\,h\,\pp+\sqrt{N} w
\end{equation*}
where the noise sample, $w$, has the variance, $\sigma_w^2$, so the
signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for estimating the channel coefficient, $h$, has
been improved $N$-times. Note also that once the channel has been estimated,
the pilot symbols can be subtracted from the received samples in order to aid
decisions of the remaining data symbols.
Finally, consider the case of a symbol repetition diversity. The transmitted
sequence, $(\dd,0,\dd,0,\ldots,0,\dd)$, of a data symbol, $\dd$, repeated
$(N\geq 2)$-times corresponds to the canonical Nyquist signaling. The
pulse-shape multiplex modulation instead transmits the sequence,
$(\dd,\dd,\ldots,\dd)$, of $N_1$-times repeated data symbol, $\dd$. For the
same sequence length, $N_1=2N-1$. Assuming slowly fading channel, the detector
combines the received samples for the two modulation schemes, respectively, as,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
r =& N\, h\, d + \sqrt{N} w \\
r =& (2\cdot3/2+2(N_1-2))\,h\, d/\sqrt{2}+\sqrt{2N_1-1} w
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where the scaling by $\sqrt{2}$ was introduced for the second modulation in
order to account for the larger number of symbols in its transmitted sequence.
The resulting SNR of these two schemes is proportional to, $\gamma\propto N$,
and, $\gamma\propto 2N-3/2$, respectively. Consequently, for symbol repetition
diversity, the SNR gain of the pulse-shape binary multiplexing is
asymptotically $3$ dB larger than for the Nyquist signaling.
\subsection{Sequences with Orthogonal Spreading}
Another strategy for transmitting interleaved, but orthogonal symbols in
modulated signal \eref{eq:21} is to use orthogonal spreading codes. In
particular, assume transmitted symbols,
\begin{equation}
a_n = \dd_1 c_n^{(1)},\qquad b_n = \dd_2 c_n^{(2)}
\end{equation}
where $\dd_1$ and $\dd_2$ are two data symbols, and, $c_n^{(1)}$ and
$c_n^{(2)}$, $n=1,2,\ldots,N$, are generally complex-valued, orthogonal
spreading sequences, so that,
\begin{equation}
\sum_{n=1}^N c_n^{(i)} c_n^{\ast(j)} = \left\{ \begin{array}{cc} N, & i=j \\
0, & i\neq j. \end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
Then, the sequences of received samples \eref{eq:34} are linearly combined as,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\sum_{n=1}^N r_{2n-1} c_n^{\ast(1)} =& \dd_1 + \dd_2 \sum_{n=1}^N
\frac{c_n^{(2)}+c_{n+1}^{(2)}}{2}\, c_n^{\ast(1)} + \sum_{n=1}^N w_{2n-1}
c_n^{\ast(1)} \\ =& \dd_1 + \tw_1 \\
\sum_{n=1}^N r_{2n} c_n^{\ast(2)} =& \dd_2 + \dd_1 \sum_{n=1}^N
\frac{c_n^{(1)}+c_{n+1}^{(1)}}{2}\, c_n^{\ast(2)} + \sum_{n=1}^N w_{2n}
c_n^{\ast(2)} \\ =& \dd_2 + \tw_2
\end{split}
\end{equation}
provided that the spreading sequences, $c_n^{(1)}$, and, $c_n^{(2)}$, are
exactly orthogonal. In such a case, the SNR improvement for transmitting two
data symbols with orthogonal spreading sequences using the pulse-shape binary
multiplex modulation \eref{eq:21} is proportional to,
\begin{equation}
\gamma \propto \frac{N^2}{2N-1}.
\end{equation}
For instance, if the spreading symbols, $c_n$, are generated independently at
random and with an equal probability from the set, $\{-1,+1\}$, the probability
that two such sequences are orthogonal is,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:43a}
\begin{split}
\Prob{\sum_{n=1}^N c_n^{(1)} c_n^{\ast(2)}=0} =& \binom{N}{N/2}
\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{N/2} \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{N-N/2} \\ =&
\binom{N}{N/2} 2^{-N}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Since the probability \eref{eq:43a} of exact orthogonality asymptotically goes
to zero with large $N$, consider instead the probability,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:43b}
\begin{split}
\Prob{-\lceil \kappa\,N/2 \rfloor \leq \sum_{n=1}^N c_n^{(1)} c_n^{\ast(2)}
\leq \lceil \kappa\,N/2 \rfloor} \\= \sum_{n=-\lceil \kappa\,N/2
\rfloor}^{\lceil \kappa\,N/2 \rfloor} \binom{N}{n} \left( \frac{1}{2}
\right)^N
\end{split}
\end{equation}
for some small $\kappa\geq 0$. The probabilities \eref{eq:43b} as a function of
$N$ for two different values of factor, $\kappa$, are shown in \fref{pict05}.
These probabilities are indicative of how many random spreading sequences need
to be generated in order to select the required number of such sequences having
an acceptable level of mutual orthogonality.
\insfig{0}{scale=1.2}{pict05}{The probability \eref{eq:43b} vs. the spreading
sequence length, $N$, assuming $\kappa=5\%$ and $\kappa=10\%$, respectively.}
\subsection{Sequences with Differential Encoding}
Differential PSK is a popular modulation scheme for fast fading channels, since
it alleviates the need for recovering the absolute phase reference.
\fref{pict06} shows differentially encoded $M$-ary PSK symbols \eref{eq:13}
transmitted via pulse-shape binary multiplex modulation. In particular, the
$n$-th transmitted symbol is,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
s_n =& \left(\prod_{k=0}^{n-2} c_k\right) \frac{1+c_{n-1}c_n+2c_{n-1}}{2}
\\ =& \frac{1}{2} \left(\prod_{k=0}^{n-2} c_k\right) +
\frac{1}{2} \left(\prod_{k=0}^{n-1} c_k\right) c_n +
\left(\prod_{k=0}^{n-1} c_k\right).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Consequently, the differential decoding can be performed as,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
c_n =& \left( 2 s_n - \left(\prod_{k=0}^{n-2}
c_k\right) - 2 \left(\prod_{k=0}^{n-1} c_k\right) \right)
\left(\prod_{k=0}^{n-1} c_k\right)^\ast \\
=& 2 s_n \left(\prod_{k=0}^{n-1} c_k^\ast \right) - c_{n-1}^\ast -2.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The performance of this modulation scheme is evaluated in the next section.
\insdfig{0}{scale=0.95}{pict06}{Differentially encoded $M$-ary PSK symbols
transmitted via pulse-shape binary multiplex modulation.}
\section{Numerical Examples}
It is convenient to use a vector notation to generate samples of pulse-shape
binary multiplex modulation \eref{eq:21} received over a frequency
non-selective fading channel. The vector, $\vr$, of $N$ received samples
corresponding to the vector, $\vs$, of $N$ transmitted symbols can be obtained
as,
\begin{equation*}
\vr= \vs\,\vA\,\diag{\vh}+\vw\,\vA_0^T
\end{equation*}
where $\vh$ is a vector of fading channel coefficients, $\vw$ are samples of
AWGN, and the $(N\times N)$ ISI matrix,
\begin{equation*}
\vA = \left[ \begin{matrix} 1 & 1/2 & & \\ 1/2 & 1 & 1/2 & \\
& \ddots & \ddots & \\ & & 1/2 & 1 \end{matrix} \right] = \vA_0\,\vA_0^T.
\end{equation*}
The optimum detection requires that the additive noise is first whitened as,
\cite{proakis2008}
\begin{equation*}
\vr\,\vA_0^{-T}= \vs\,\vA\,\diag{\vh}\,\vA_0^{-T}+\vw.
\end{equation*}
Then the maximum likelihood (ML) detection of sequence $\vs$ is,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:50}
\hat{\vs}= \arg\min\limits_{\vs}
\norm{\vr\,\vA_0^{-T}-\vs\,\vA\,\diag{\hat{\vh}}\,\vA_0^{-T}}^2
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\vh}$ is the estimate of $\vh$ representing channel state
information (CSI).
An uncoded binary phase shift keying (BPSK) modulation and Rayleigh-distributed
fading amplitudes, $\vh$, are assumed for simplicity. The transmitted sequence
interleaves pilot symbols and data symbols as shown in \fref{pict04}. The pilot
symbols are used to estimate the channel coefficients, $\vh$, by linear minimum
mean-square error (LMMSE) algorithm. The spectral efficiency of pulse-shape
binary multiplexing is, $2$, which is always larger than the spectral
efficiency of the Nyquist signaling being equal to, $2/(1+\alpha)$.
The BER curves, $\Pe$, for short data sequences of $\Ld=4$ and $\Ld=8$ binary
symbols, respectively, separated by a single zero-symbol are shown in
\fref{pict07} and \fref{pict08}. The SNR is defined as,
$\gamma_b= 1/(2\sgw^2)$. Both cases of perfect and estimated CSI are
considered. The Nyquist signaling (no ISI) with symbol-by-symbol decisions is
assumed as a reference. The ML data detector \eref{eq:50} is used for
pulse-shape multiplexing signaling.
It can be observed that the performance penalty due to channel estimation is
much larger for pulse-shape multiplexing than for the Nyquist signaling, which
is to be expected. The WMF improves the performance by several dB's for both
signaling schemes. More importantly, the performance of pulse-shape
multiplexing improves with the data block length by exploiting the time
diversity over a fading channel, so it can significantly outperform the Nyquist
signaling at medium to large SNR values. It is likely that by employing more
sophisticated channel estimation and equalization techniques, the performance
of pulse-shape multiplexing can be further improved. In order to demonstrate
the effect of time diversity, \fref{pict09} shows that, over an AWGN channel,
the performance of pulse-shape multiplexing is worse than that of Nyquist
signaling, even though some performance loss can be recovered by WMF.
\insfig{0}{scale=1.0}{pict07}{The BER of BPSK vs. SNR over Rayleigh fading
channel for sequences of $4$ binary symbols.}
\insfig{0}{scale=1.0}{pict08}{The BER of BPSK vs. SNR over Rayleigh fading
channel for sequences of $8$ binary symbols.}
\insfig{0}{scale=0.90}{pict09}{The BER of BPSK vs. SNR over AWGN channel for
sequences of $2$ and $4$ binary symbols, respectively.}
Lastly, the BER performance of Nyquist modulation and pulse-shape multiplex
modulation transmitting differentially encoded quadrature PSK (QPSK) symbols
over an AWGN channel is compared in \fref{pict10}. It can be observed that
even though the pulse-shape multiplexing suffers asymptotically a 3 dB penalty
in SNR, it reduces the time required for transmitting the whole symbol sequence
to one half.
\insfig{0}{scale=0.9}{pict10}{The BER comparison of differentially encoded
QPSK with Nyquist and pulse-shape binary multiplexing (PSBM) modulation
transmitted over an AWGN channel.}
\section{Conclusion}
The paper introduced a pulse-shape binary multiplex modulation. Such a
modulation scheme is akin to partial-response signaling, correlative coding,
offset-QPSK modulation and FTN signaling. It combines two data streams under
controlled ISI created by the RRC pulses having $100\%$ roll-off, and
transmitted at twice the Nyquist rate. The ISI analysis showed that this is
unique property among all the roll-off factors being at most $100\%$ and the
packing factors greater than $5\%$. However, the successive samples of additive
noises at the output of matched filter at the receiver become correlated, which
incurs a SNR performance penalty. This penalty could be reduced or even removed
by using more complex sequence-based detection schemes as shown elsewhere in
the literature. The BER performance as well as decoding complexity of the
proposed pulse-shape binary multiplexing modulation scheme is critically
affected by the choice of transmitted sequences. One can consider superposition
modulation with SIC decoding, interleave data symbols with pilot and
zero-symbols to aid channel estimation and data decoding, and also employ
orthogonal spreading sequences to separate the multiplexed data streams. The
numerical results indicate that pulse-shape binary multiplexing can exploit
time-diversity in fading channels to outperform the Nyquist signaling. In
addition, it has been shown numerically that a sequence of differentially
encoded PSK symbols can be transmitted twice as fast by the proposed modulation
scheme compared to canonical Nyquist signaling, although with a 3 dB SNR
penalty over AWGN channels.
\clearpage
\bibliographystyle{ieee}
|
\section{Introduction}
The notion of tilting complexes is central to control equivalences of derived categories.
The class of silting complexes \cite{KV} gives a completion of the class of tilting complexes with respect to mutation, which is an operation to replace a direct summand of a given silting complex to construct a new silting complex \cite{AI}.
The subclass of 2-term silting complexes enjoys remarkable properties \cite{AIR,DF}. They give rise to a fan in the real Grothendieck group of a finite dimensional algebra $A$, see e.g. \cite{H1,H2,Pl,B,DIJ,BST,As}.
In our previous article \cite{AHIKM}, we introduced a \emph{$g$-fan} $\Sigma(A)$ of $A$ and established a basic theory of $g$-fans and the associated $g$-polytopes. A $g$-fan of each finite dimensional algebra $A$ belongs to the following special class of nonsingular fans \cite[Proposition 4.12]{AHIKM}.
\begin{definition}\label{define sign-coherent}
A \emph{sign-coherent fan} is a pair $(\Sigma,\sigma_+)$ satisfying the following conditions.
\begin{enumerate}[\rm(a)]
\item $\Sigma$ is a nonsingular fan in $\mathbb{R}^d$.
\item $\sigma_+,-\sigma_+\in\Sigma_d$.
\item Take a $\mathbb{Z}$-basis $e_1,\dots,e_d$ of $\mathbb{Z}^d$
such that $\sigma_+=\operatorname{cone}\nolimits\{e_i\mid 1\le i\le d\}$, and denote the orthant corresponding to $\epsilon\in\{\pm1\}^d$ by
\[\mathbb{R}^d_\epsilon:=\operatorname{cone}\nolimits\{\epsilon(1)e_1,\dots,\epsilon(d)e_d\}=\{x_1e_1+\cdots+x_d e_d\mid\epsilon(i)x_i\ge0\ \mbox{for each }1\le i\le d\}.\]
Then for each $\sigma\in\Sigma$, there exists $\epsilon\in\{\pm1\}^d$ such that $\sigma\subseteq\mathbb{R}^d_\epsilon$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
We denote by $\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}(d)$ the set of complete sign-coherent fans in $\mathbb{R}^d$, and by $k\mbox{-}\mathsf{Fan}(d)$ the set of complete $g$-fans of finite dimensional $k$-algebras of rank $d$. Note that a $g$-fan $\Sigma(A)$ is complete if and only if $A$ is $g$-finite (Proposition \ref{g-fnite equivalent}).
Then we have
\[\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}(d)\supsetk\mbox{-}\mathsf{Fan}(d).\]
It is very natural to study the following problem.
\begin{problem}
Characterize complete sign-coherent fans in $\mathbb{R}^d$ which can be realized as a $g$-fan of some finite dimensional algebra.
\end{problem}
This paper is devoted to give a complete answer to this problem for the case $d=2$. The result was very simple and came as a surprise to us.
\begin{theorem}[Theorem \ref{main theorem}]\label{theorem:sc fan = g fan intro}
For each field $k$, we have
\[\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}(2)=k\mbox{-}\mathsf{Fan}(2).\]
Thus any complete sign-coherent fan in $\mathbb{R}^2$ can be realized as a $g$-fan of some finite dimensional $k$-algebra.
\end{theorem}
We explain our method to prove Theorem \ref{theorem:sc fan = g fan intro}.
Each sign-coherent fan of rank 2 is obtained by gluing two fans of the following form.
\[{\Sigma=\begin{xy}
0;<3pt,0pt>:<0pt,3pt>::
(0,-5)="0",
(-5,0)="1",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="2",
(5,0)="3",
(0,5)="4",
(0,-4)="a",
(4,0)="b",
(1.5,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
\ar@{-}"0";"1",
\ar@{-}"1";"4",
\ar@{-}"4";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"0",
\ar@{-}"2";"1",
\ar@{-}"2";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"4",
\ar@/^-2mm/@{.} "a";"b",
\end{xy}}\ \ \ \ \
{\Sigma'=\begin{xy}
0;<3pt,0pt>:<0pt,3pt>::
(0,-5)="0",
(-5,0)="1",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="2",
(5,0)="3",
(0,5)="4",
(0,4)="c",
(-4,0)="d",
(1.5,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
\ar@{-}"0";"1",
\ar@{-}"0";"3",
\ar@{-}"4";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"0",
\ar@{-}"2";"1",
\ar@{-}"2";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"4",
\ar@/^-2mm/@{.} "c";"d",
\end{xy}}\]
Recall that a finite dimensional $k$-algbera $\Lambda$ is \emph{elementary} if the $k$-algebra $\Lambda/J_\Lambda$ is isomorphic to a product of $k$. This is automatic if $\Lambda$ is basic and $k$ is algebraically closed.
We prove Gluing Theorem \ref{theorem:gluing1}, which asserts that if both $\Sigma$ and $\Sigma'$ are $g$-fans of finite dimensional elementary $k$-algebras, then so is their gluing.
Therefore by symmetry, it suffices to consider sign-coherent fans $\Sigma$ of the form above. Now such $\Sigma$ can be obtained from the fan
\[\begin{xy}
0;<3pt,0pt>:<0pt,3pt>::
(0,-5)="0",
(-5,0)="1",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="2",
(5,0)="3",
(0,5)="4",
(1.5,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
\ar@{-}"0";"1",
\ar@{-}"1";"4",
\ar@{-}"4";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"0",
\ar@{-}"2";"1",
\ar@{-}"2";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"4",
\ar@{-}"3";"0",
\end{xy}
\]
by applying subdivision in the fourth quadrant repeatedly.
We prove Rotation Theorem \ref{theorem:rotation} and Subdivision Theorem \ref{theorem:subdivision}, which imply that if $\Sigma$ is a $g$-fan of a finite dimensional $k$-algebra, then so are the subdivisions of $\Sigma$ in the fourth quadrant.
Figure \ref{fig:tree diagram} gives fans in $\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}^{+-}(2)$ with at most 8 facet, where each edge shows a subdivision. Figure \ref{fig:tree diagram 2} gives examples of algebras whose $g$-fans are given in Figure \ref{fig:tree diagram}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\coordinate(0) at(0:0);
\coordinate(x) at(0:0.5);
\coordinate(y) at(90:0.5);
\coordinate(shift00) at($-3*(x)+0*(y)$);
\node(00) at(shift00) {};
\coordinate(shift111) at($0*(x)+0*(y)$);
\node(111) at(shift111) {};
\coordinate(shift2121) at($4*(x)+0*(y)$);
\node(2121) at(shift2121) {};
\coordinate(shift1212) at($0*(x)+-4*(y)$);
\node(1212) at(shift1212) {};
\coordinate(shift31221) at($9*(x)+0*(y)$);
\node(31221) at(shift31221) {};
\coordinate(shift22131) at($9*(x)+-4*(y)$);
\node(22131) at(shift22131) {};
\coordinate(shift12213) at($0*(x)+-9*(y)$);
\node(12213) at(shift12213) {};
\coordinate(shift21312) at($4*(x)+-4*(y)$);
\node(21312) at(shift21312) {};
\coordinate(shift13122) at($4*(x)+-9*(y)$);
\node(13122) at(shift13122) {};
\coordinate(shift412221) at($20*(x)+0*(y)$);
\node(412221) at(shift412221) {};
\coordinate(shift321321) at($26*(x)+-4*(y)$);
\node(321321) at(shift321321) {};
\coordinate(shift313131) at($20*(x)+-4*(y)$);
\node(313131) at(shift313131) {};
\coordinate(shift312312) at($20*(x)+-9*(y)$);
\node(312312) at(shift312312) {};
\coordinate(shift231231) at($26*(x)+-9*(y)$);
\node(231231) at(shift231231) {};
\coordinate(shift222141) at($26*(x)+-15*(y)$);
\node(222141) at(shift222141) {};
\coordinate(shift221412) at($20*(x)+-15*(y)$);
\node(221412) at(shift221412) {};
\coordinate(shift122214) at($0*(x)+-18*(y)$);
\node(122214) at(shift122214) {};
\coordinate(shift123123) at($4*(x)+-24*(y)$);
\node(123123) at(shift123123) {};
\coordinate(shift214122) at($15*(x)+-18*(y)$);
\node(214122) at(shift214122) {};
\coordinate(shift131313) at($4*(x)+-18*(y)$);
\node(131313) at(shift131313) {};
\coordinate(shift213213) at($9*(x)+-18*(y)$);
\node(213213) at(shift213213) {};
\coordinate(shift132132) at($9*(x)+-24*(y)$);
\node(132132) at(shift132132) {};
\coordinate(shift141222) at($15*(x)+-24*(y)$);
\node(141222) at(shift141222) {};
\begin{scope}[]
\draw ($(00)!0.4!(111)$)--($(00)!0.6!(111)$);
\draw ($(111)!0.4!(2121)$)--($(111)!0.6!(2121)$);
\draw ($(111)!0.4!(1212)$)--($(111)!0.55!(1212)$);
\draw ($(2121)!0.4!(21312)$)--($(2121)!0.55!(21312)$);
\draw ($(2121)!0.5!(31221)$)--($(2121)!0.7!(31221)$);
\draw ($(2121)!0.4!(22131)$)--($(2121)!0.7!(22131)$);
\draw ($(1212)!0.4!(12213)$)--($(1212)!0.6!(12213)$);
\draw ($(1212)!0.4!(21312)$)--($(1212)!0.7!(21312)$);
\draw ($(1212)!0.43!(13122)$)--($(1212)!0.7!(13122)$);
\draw ($(31221)!0.3!(412221)$)--($(31221)!0.85!(412221)$);
\draw ($(31221)!0.21!(321321)$) to [out=0,in=150] ($(31221)!0.9!(321321)$);
\draw ($(31221)!0.31!(313131)$)--($(31221)!0.85!(313131)$);
\draw ($(31221)!0.18!(312312)$)--($(31221)!0.9!(312312)$);
\draw ($(22131)!0.15!(313131)$)--($(22131)!0.85!(313131)$);
\draw ($(22131)!0.15!(231231)$) to [out=0,in=150] ($(22131)!0.9!(231231)$);
\draw ($(22131)!0.21!(222141)$)--($(22131)!0.94!(222141)$);
\draw ($(22131)!0.19!(221412)$)--($(22131)!0.92!(221412)$);
\draw ($(21312)!0.16!(312312)$)--($(21312)!0.93!(312312)$);
\draw ($(21312)!0.16!(221412)$)--($(21312)!0.93!(221412)$);
\draw ($(21312)!0.16!(214122)$)--($(21312)!0.9!(214122)$);
\draw ($(21312)!0.16!(213213)$)--($(21312)!0.85!(213213)$);
\draw ($(12213)!0.33!(122214)$)--($(12213)!0.8!(122214)$);
\draw ($(12213)!0.21!(123123)$)--($(12213)!0.85!(123123)$);
\draw ($(12213)!0.33!(131313)$)--($(12213)!0.8!(131313)$);
\draw ($(12213)!0.14!(213213)$)--($(12213)!0.88!(213213)$);
\draw ($(13122)!0.2!(131313)$)--($(13122)!0.8!(131313)$);
\draw ($(13122)!0.2!(132132)$)--($(13122)!0.85!(132132)$);
\draw ($(13122)!0.2!(141222)$) to [out=320,in=120] ($(13122)!0.87!(141222)$);
\draw ($(13122)!0.2!(214122)$)--($(13122)!0.9!(214122)$);
\end{scope}
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift00)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift00)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift00)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v1)--(v2);
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift00)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{00}$};
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift00)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift00)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (v1)--(w4);
\draw (v2)--(w3);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift111)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift111)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift111)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift111)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3);
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift111)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{111}$};
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift111)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift111)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift111)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift111)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($2*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4);
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{2121}$};
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($1*(x)+-2*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4);
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{1212}$};
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift31221)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift31221)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($3*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift31221)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($2*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift31221)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift31221)$);
\coordinate(v5) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift31221)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v0)--(v5);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4)--(v5);
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift31221)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{31221}$};
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift31221)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift31221)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift31221)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift31221)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift22131)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift22131)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($2*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift22131)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($3*(x)+-2*(y)+(shift22131)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift22131)$);
\coordinate(v5) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift22131)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v0)--(v5);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4)--(v5);
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift22131)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{22131}$};
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift22131)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift22131)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift22131)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift22131)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift12213)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift12213)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift12213)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($1*(x)+-2*(y)+(shift12213)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($1*(x)+-3*(y)+(shift12213)$);
\coordinate(v5) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift12213)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v0)--(v5);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4)--(v5);
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift12213)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{12213}$};
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift12213)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift12213)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift12213)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift12213)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($2*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($1*(x)+-2*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\coordinate(v5) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v0)--(v5);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4)--(v5);
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{21312}$};
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($2*(x)+-3*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($1*(x)+-2*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v5) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v0)--(v5);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4)--(v5);
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{13122}$};
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift412221)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift412221)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($4*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift412221)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($3*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift412221)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($2*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift412221)$);
\coordinate(v5) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift412221)$);
\coordinate(v6) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift412221)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v0)--(v5);
\draw (v0)--(v6);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4)--(v5)--(v6);
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift412221)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{412221}$};
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift412221)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift412221)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift412221)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift412221)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift321321)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift321321)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($3*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift321321)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($5*(x)+-2*(y)+(shift321321)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($2*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift321321)$);
\coordinate(v5) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift321321)$);
\coordinate(v6) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift321321)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v0)--(v5);
\draw (v0)--(v6);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4)--(v5)--(v6);
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift321321)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{321321}$};
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift321321)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift321321)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift321321)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift321321)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift313131)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift313131)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($3*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift313131)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($2*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift313131)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($3*(x)+-2*(y)+(shift313131)$);
\coordinate(v5) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift313131)$);
\coordinate(v6) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift313131)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v0)--(v5);
\draw (v0)--(v6);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4)--(v5)--(v6);
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift313131)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{313131}$};
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift313131)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift313131)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift313131)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift313131)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift312312)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift312312)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($3*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift312312)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($2*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift312312)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift312312)$);
\coordinate(v5) at($1*(x)+-2*(y)+(shift312312)$);
\coordinate(v6) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift312312)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v0)--(v5);
\draw (v0)--(v6);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4)--(v5)--(v6);
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift312312)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{312312}$};
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift312312)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift312312)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift312312)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift312312)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift231231)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift231231)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($2*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift231231)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($5*(x)+-3*(y)+(shift231231)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($3*(x)+-2*(y)+(shift231231)$);
\coordinate(v5) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift231231)$);
\coordinate(v6) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift231231)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v0)--(v5);
\draw (v0)--(v6);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4)--(v5)--(v6);
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift231231)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{231231}$};
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift231231)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift231231)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift231231)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift231231)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift222141)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift222141)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($2*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift222141)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($3*(x)+-2*(y)+(shift222141)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($4*(x)+-3*(y)+(shift222141)$);
\coordinate(v5) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift222141)$);
\coordinate(v6) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift222141)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v0)--(v5);
\draw (v0)--(v6);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4)--(v5)--(v6);
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift222141)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{222141}$};
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift222141)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift222141)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift222141)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift222141)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift221412)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift221412)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($2*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift221412)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($3*(x)+-2*(y)+(shift221412)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift221412)$);
\coordinate(v5) at($1*(x)+-2*(y)+(shift221412)$);
\coordinate(v6) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift221412)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v0)--(v5);
\draw (v0)--(v6);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4)--(v5)--(v6);
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift221412)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{221412}$};
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift221412)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift221412)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift221412)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift221412)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift122214)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift122214)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift122214)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($1*(x)+-2*(y)+(shift122214)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($1*(x)+-3*(y)+(shift122214)$);
\coordinate(v5) at($1*(x)+-4*(y)+(shift122214)$);
\coordinate(v6) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift122214)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v0)--(v5);
\draw (v0)--(v6);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4)--(v5)--(v6);
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift122214)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{122214}$};
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift122214)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift122214)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift122214)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift122214)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift123123)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift123123)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift123123)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($1*(x)+-2*(y)+(shift123123)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($2*(x)+-5*(y)+(shift123123)$);
\coordinate(v5) at($1*(x)+-3*(y)+(shift123123)$);
\coordinate(v6) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift123123)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v0)--(v5);
\draw (v0)--(v6);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4)--(v5)--(v6);
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift123123)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{123123}$};
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift123123)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift123123)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift123123)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift123123)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift214122)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift214122)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($2*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift214122)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift214122)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($2*(x)+-3*(y)+(shift214122)$);
\coordinate(v5) at($1*(x)+-2*(y)+(shift214122)$);
\coordinate(v6) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift214122)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v0)--(v5);
\draw (v0)--(v6);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4)--(v5)--(v6);
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift214122)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{214122}$};
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift214122)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift214122)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift214122)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift214122)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift131313)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift131313)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift131313)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($2*(x)+-3*(y)+(shift131313)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($1*(x)+-2*(y)+(shift131313)$);
\coordinate(v5) at($1*(x)+-3*(y)+(shift131313)$);
\coordinate(v6) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift131313)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v0)--(v5);
\draw (v0)--(v6);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4)--(v5)--(v6);
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift131313)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{131313}$};
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift131313)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift131313)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift131313)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift131313)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift213213)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift213213)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($2*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift213213)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift213213)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($1*(x)+-2*(y)+(shift213213)$);
\coordinate(v5) at($1*(x)+-3*(y)+(shift213213)$);
\coordinate(v6) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift213213)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v0)--(v5);
\draw (v0)--(v6);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4)--(v5)--(v6);
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift213213)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{213213}$};
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift213213)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift213213)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift213213)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift213213)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift132132)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift132132)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift132132)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($2*(x)+-3*(y)+(shift132132)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($3*(x)+-5*(y)+(shift132132)$);
\coordinate(v5) at($1*(x)+-2*(y)+(shift132132)$);
\coordinate(v6) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift132132)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v0)--(v5);
\draw (v0)--(v6);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4)--(v5)--(v6);
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift132132)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{132132}$};
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift132132)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift132132)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift132132)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift132132)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift141222)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift141222)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift141222)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($3*(x)+-4*(y)+(shift141222)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($2*(x)+-3*(y)+(shift141222)$);
\coordinate(v5) at($1*(x)+-2*(y)+(shift141222)$);
\coordinate(v6) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift141222)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v0)--(v5);
\draw (v0)--(v6);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4)--(v5)--(v6);
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift141222)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{141222}$};
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift141222)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift141222)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift141222)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift141222)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Fans in $\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}^{+-}(2)$ with at most 8 facets}
\label{fig:tree diagram}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\hspace{-15mm}
\coordinate(0) at(0:0);
\coordinate(x) at(0:0.5);
\coordinate(y) at(90:0.5);
\coordinate(shift00) at($-4.5*(x)+0*(y)$);
\node(00) at(shift00) {};
\coordinate(shift111) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)$);
\node(111) at(shift111) {};
\coordinate(shift2121) at($4*(x)+0*(y)$);
\node(2121) at(shift2121) {};
\coordinate(shift1212) at($-2.5*(x)+-7*(y)$);
\node(1212) at(shift1212) {};
\coordinate(shift31221) at($12*(x)+0*(y)$);
\node(31221) at(shift31221) {};
\coordinate(shift22131) at($12*(x)+-7*(y)$);
\node(22131) at(shift22131) {};
\coordinate(shift12213) at($-2.5*(x)+-15*(y)$);
\node(12213) at(shift12213) {};
\coordinate(shift21312) at($4*(x)+-7*(y)$);
\node(21312) at(shift21312) {};
\coordinate(shift13122) at($4*(x)+-15*(y)$);
\node(13122) at(shift13122) {};
\coordinate(shift412221) at($20*(x)+0*(y)$);
\node(412221) at(shift412221) {};
\coordinate(shift321321) at($28*(x)+-7*(y)$);
\node(321321) at(shift321321) {};
\coordinate(shift313131) at($20*(x)+-7*(y)$);
\node(313131) at(shift313131) {};
\coordinate(shift312312) at($20*(x)+-15*(y)$);
\node(312312) at(shift312312) {};
\coordinate(shift231231) at($28*(x)+-15*(y)$);
\node(231231) at(shift231231) {};
\coordinate(shift222141) at($28*(x)+-23*(y)$);
\node(222141) at(shift222141) {};
\coordinate(shift221412) at($20*(x)+-23*(y)$);
\node(221412) at(shift221412) {};
\coordinate(shift122214) at($-2.5*(x)+-31*(y)$);
\node(122214) at(shift122214) {};
\coordinate(shift123123) at($0*(x)+-39*(y)$);
\node(123123) at(shift123123) {};
\coordinate(shift214122) at($19*(x)+-31*(y)$);
\node(214122) at(shift214122) {};
\coordinate(shift131313) at($4.5*(x)+-31*(y)$);
\node(131313) at(shift131313) {};
\coordinate(shift213213) at($12*(x)+-31*(y)$);
\node(213213) at(shift213213) {};
\coordinate(shift132132) at($9*(x)+-39*(y)$);
\node(132132) at(shift132132) {};
\coordinate(shift141222) at($18*(x)+-39*(y)$);
\node(141222) at(shift141222) {};
\begin{scope}[]
\draw ($(00)!0.4!(111)$)--($(00)!0.5!(111)$);
\draw ($(111)!0.35!(2121)$)--($(111)!0.45!(2121)$);
\draw ($(111)!0.15!(1212)$)--($(111)!0.7!(1212)$);
\draw ($(2121)!0.3!(21312)$)--($(2121)!0.7!(21312)$);
\draw ($(2121)!0.4!(31221)$)--($(2121)!0.7!(31221)$);
\draw ($(2121)!0.3!(22131)$)--($(2121)!0.8!(22131)$);
\draw ($(1212)!0.25!(12213)$)--($(1212)!0.7!(12213)$);
\draw ($(1212)!0.4!(21312)$)--($(1212)!0.5!(21312)$);
\draw ($(1212)!0.25!(13122)$)--($(1212)!0.75!(13122)$);
\draw ($(31221)!0.3!(412221)$)--($(31221)!0.6!(412221)$);
\draw ($($(31221)+-2*(y)$)!0.17!(321321)$) to [out=320,in=170] ($(31221)!0.9!($(321321)+0.8*(y)$)$);
\draw ($($(31221)+-1.8*(y)$)!0.31!(313131)$)--($(31221)!0.8!($(313131)+-1*(x)$)$);
\draw ($(31221)!0.27!(312312)$)to [out=320,in=150]($(31221)!0.9!($(312312)+-1*(x)$)$);
\draw ($(22131)!0.4!(313131)$)--($(22131)!0.6!(313131)$);
\draw ($($(22131)+-2.5*(y)$)!0.2!(231231)$)to [out=320,in=160]($(22131)!0.88!($(231231)+0.8*(y)$)$);
\draw ($($(22131)+-1*(x)+-3*(y)$)!0.11!(222141)$) to [out=270,in=180] ($(22131)!0.9!(222141)$);
\draw ($($(22131)+-3*(x)$)!0.28!(221412)$)to [out=270,in=150]($(22131)!0.86!(221412)$);
\draw ($(21312)!0.16!(312312)$)to [out=300,in=170]($(21312)!0.85!($(312312)+-1*(x)$)$);
\draw ($(21312)!0.13!(221412)$)to [out=300,in=140]($(21312)!0.9!($(221412)+-1*(x)$)$);
\draw ($(21312)!0.1!(214122)$)--($(21312)!0.9!(214122)$);
\draw ($(21312)!0.1!(213213)$)to [out=300,in=90]($(21312)!0.9!(213213)$);
\draw ($(12213)!0.3!(122214)$)--($(12213)!0.85!(122214)$);
\draw ($(12213)!0.21!(123123)$)to [out=285,in=90]($(12213)!0.92!($(123123)+1*(x)$)$);
\draw ($(12213)!0.27!(131313)$)--($(12213)!0.85!(131313)$);
\draw ($(12213)!0.2!(213213)$)--($(12213)!0.89!(213213)$);
\draw ($(13122)!0.3!(131313)$)--($(13122)!0.85!(131313)$);
\draw ($(13122)!0.18!(132132)$) to [out=290,in=90] ($(13122)!0.92!(132132)$);
\draw ($(13122)!0.18!(141222)$) to [out=330,in=90] ($(13122)!0.92!($(141222)+-1*(x)+0*(y)$)$);
\draw ($(13122)!0.2!(214122)$)to [out=330,in=130]($(13122)!0.88!(214122)$);
\end{scope}
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift00)$);
\node at(L) {\footnotesize$\Sigma_{00}$};
\coordinate(w) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift00)$);
\node at(w) {\footnotesize$
k\left[\begin{xy}( 0,0)*+{\bullet}="1",
(5,0) *+{\bullet}="2"\end{xy}\right]$};
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift111)$);
\node at(L) {\footnotesize$\Sigma_{111}$};
\coordinate(w) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift111)$);
\node at(w) {\footnotesize$
k\left[\begin{xy}(0,0)*+{\bullet}="1",
(7,0)*+{\bullet}="2",
\ar "1";"2"^{a}
\end{xy}\right]$};
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{2121}$};
\coordinate(w) at($0*(x)+-0.5*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\node at(w) {\footnotesize$\dfrac{
k\left[\begin{xy}(0,0)*+{\bullet}="1",
(7,0)*+{\bullet}="2",
\ar "1";"2"^{a}
\ar @(rd,ru)"2";"2"_{c}
\end{xy}\right]}
{\langle c^2\rangle}$};
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{1212}$};
\coordinate(w) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\node at(w) {\footnotesize$\dfrac{
k\left[\begin{xy}(0,0)*+{\bullet}="1",
(7,0)*+{\bullet}="2",
\ar "1";"2"^{a}
\ar @(lu,ld)"1";"1"_(0.5){c}
\end{xy}\right]}
{\langle c^2\rangle}$};
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift31221)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{31221}$};
\coordinate(w) at($0*(x)+-1.4*(y)+(shift31221)$);
\node at(w) {\footnotesize$\dfrac{
k\left[\begin{xy}(0,0)*+{\bullet}="1",
(7,0)*+{\bullet}="2",
\ar "1";"2"^{a}
\ar @(ru,lu)"2";"2"_(0.2){c_1}
\ar @(ld,rd)"2";"2"_(0.8){c_2}
\end{xy}\right]}
{\langle c_1^2,c_2^2,c_2c_1,ac_2\rangle}$};
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift22131)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{22131}$};
\coordinate(w) at($0*(x)+-1.5*(y)+(shift22131)$);
\node at(w) {\footnotesize$\dfrac{
k\left[\begin{xy}(0,0)*+{\bullet}="1",
(7,0)*+{\bullet}="2",
\ar "1";"2"^{a}
\ar @(lu,ld)"1";"1"_(0.5){b}
\ar @(ru,lu)"2";"2"_(0.2){c_0}
\ar @(ld,rd)"2";"2"_(0.8){c_1}
\end{xy}\right]}
{\left \langle\begin{matrix} b^2,c_0^2,c_1^2, c_1c_0,\\ ba-ac_0\end{matrix}\right\rangle}$};
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift12213)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{12213}$};
\coordinate(w) at($0*(x)+-1.4*(y)+(shift12213)$);
\node at(w) {\footnotesize$\dfrac{
k\left[\begin{xy}(0,0)*+{\bullet}="1",
(7,0)*+{\bullet}="2",
\ar "1";"2"^{a}
\ar @(ru,lu)"1";"1"_(0.8){c_1}
\ar @(dl,dr)"1";"1"_(0.2){c_2}
\end{xy}\right]}
{\left \langle
c_1^2,c_2^2,c_1c_2,c_2a\right\rangle}$};
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{21312}$};
\coordinate(w) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\node at(w) {\footnotesize$\dfrac{
k\left[\begin{xy}(0,0)*+{\bullet}="1",
(7,0)*+{\bullet}="2",
\ar "1";"2"^{a}
\ar @(lu,ld)"1";"1"_(0.5){b}
\ar @(rd,ru)"2";"2"_(0.5){c}
\end{xy}\right]}
{\langle b^2,c^2,bac\rangle}$};
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{13122}$};
\coordinate(w) at($0*(x)+-1.4*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\node at(w) {\footnotesize$\dfrac{
k\left[\begin{xy}(0,0)*+{\bullet}="1",
(7,0)*+{\bullet}="2",
\ar "1";"2"^{a}
\ar @(ru,lu)"1";"1"_(0.8){c_0}
\ar @(dl,dr)"1";"1"_(0.2){c_1}
\ar @(rd,ru)"2";"2"_(0.5){b}
\end{xy}\right]}
{\left \langle\begin{matrix} b^2,c_0^2,c_1^2, c_0c_1,\\ ab-c_0a\end{matrix}\right\rangle}$};
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift412221)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{412221}$};
\coordinate(w) at($0*(x)+-1.8*(y)+(shift412221)$);
\node at(w) {\footnotesize$\dfrac{
k\left[\begin{xy}(0,0)*+{\bullet}="1",
(7,0)*+{\bullet}="2",
\ar "1";"2"^{a}
\ar @(ru,lu)"2";"2"_(0.2){c_1}
\ar @(rd,ru)"2";"2"_(0.5){c_2}
\ar @(ld,rd)"2";"2"_(0.8){c_3}
\end{xy}\right]}
{\left \langle \begin{matrix}
c_1^2,c_2^2,c_3^2,c_3c_2,c_3c_1,\\
c_2c_1,c_1c_3,ac_2,ac_3
\end{matrix} \right \rangle}$};
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift321321)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{321321}$};
\coordinate(w) at($0*(x)+-1.8*(y)+(shift321321)$);
\node at(w) {\footnotesize$\dfrac{
k\left[\begin{xy}(0,0)*+{\bullet}="1",
(7,0)*+{\bullet}="2",
\ar "1";"2"^{a}
\ar @(lu,ld)"1";"1"_(0.5){b}
\ar @(ru,lu)"2";"2"_(0.2){c_0}
\ar @(rd,ru)"2";"2"_(0.5){c_1}
\ar @(ld,rd)"2";"2"_(0.8){c_2}
\end{xy}\right]}
{\left \langle \begin{matrix}b^2,c_0^2,c_1^2,c_2^2,
ac_0,\\ ac_2,c_2c_1, c_2c_0, c_0c_2,\\c_0c_1c_0,ba-ac_1c_0\end{matrix}\right\rangle}$};
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift313131)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{313131}$};
\coordinate(w) at($0*(x)+-1.8*(y)+(shift313131)$);
\node at(w) {\footnotesize$\dfrac{
k\left[\begin{xy}(0,0)*+{\bullet}="1",
(7,0)*+{\bullet}="2",
\ar "1";"2"^{a}
\ar @(lu,ld)"1";"1"_(0.5){b}
\ar @(ru,lu)"2";"2"_(0.2){c_0}
\ar @(rd,ru)"2";"2"_(0.5){c_1}
\ar @(ld,rd)"2";"2"_(0.8){c_2}
\end{xy}\right]}
{\left \langle \begin{matrix}b^2,c_0^2,c_1^2,c_2^2,
ac_2, \\ c_2c_1, c_2c_0, c_1c_0,c_0c_2,\\ c_0c_1c_2,ba-ac_0\end{matrix}\right\rangle}$};
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift312312)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{312312}$};
\coordinate(w) at($0*(x)+-1.5*(y)+(shift312312)$);
\node at(w) {\footnotesize$\dfrac{
k\left[\begin{xy}(0,0)*+{\bullet}="1",
(7,0)*+{\bullet}="2",
\ar "1";"2"^{a}
\ar @(lu,ld)"1";"1"_(0.5){b}
\ar @(ru,lu)"2";"2"_(0.2){c_1}
\ar @(ld,rd)"2";"2"_(0.8){c_2}
\end{xy}\right]}
{\left \langle \begin{matrix}
b^2,c_1^2,c_2^2,
ac_2, \\ bac_1,c_2c_1\end{matrix}\right\rangle}$};
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift231231)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{231231}$};
\coordinate(w) at($0*(x)+-1.8*(y)+(shift231231)$);
\node at(w) {\footnotesize$\dfrac{
k\left[\begin{xy}(0,0)*+{\bullet}="1",
(7,0)*+{\bullet}="2",
\ar "1";"2"^{a}
\ar @(ru,lu)"1";"1"_(0.8){b_0}
\ar @(dl,dr)"1";"1"_(0.2){b_1}
\ar @(ru,lu)"2";"2"_(0.2){c_0}
\ar @(rd,ru)"2";"2"_(0.5){c_1}
\ar @(ld,rd)"2";"2"_(0.8){c_2}
\end{xy}\right]}
{\left \langle \begin{matrix}
b_0^2,b_1^2,c_0^2,c_1^2,c_2^2,
ac_2,b_1b_0,\\ c_2c_1c_2, c_2c_0, c_1c_0,c_0c_2,\\ b_0a-ac_0,b_1a-ac_1c_2\end{matrix}\right\rangle}$};
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift222141)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{222141}$};
\coordinate(w) at($0*(x)+-1.8*(y)+(shift222141)$);
\node at(w) {\footnotesize$\dfrac{
k\left[\begin{xy}(0,0)*+{\bullet}="1",
(7,0)*+{\bullet}="2",
\ar "1";"2"^{a}
\ar @(ru,lu)"1";"1"_(0.8){b_0}
\ar @(dl,dr)"1";"1"_(0.2){b_1}
\ar @(ru,lu)"2";"2"_(0.2){c_0}
\ar @(rd,ru)"2";"2"_(0.5){c_1}
\ar @(ld,rd)"2";"2"_(0.8){c_2}
\end{xy}\right]}
{\left \langle \begin{matrix}
b_0^2,b_1^2,c_0^2,c_1^2,c_2^2,
b_1b_0,\\
c_2c_1, c_2c_0, c_1c_0,c_0c_2\\ b_0a-ac_0,b_1a-ac_1\end{matrix}\right\rangle}$};
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift221412)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{221412}$};
\coordinate(w) at($0*(x)+-1.8*(y)+(shift221412)$);
\node at(w) {\footnotesize$\dfrac{
k\left[\begin{xy}(0,0)*+{\bullet}="1",
(7,0)*+{\bullet}="2",
\ar "1";"2"^{a}
\ar @(ru,lu)"1";"1"_(0.8){b_0}
\ar @(dl,dr)"1";"1"_(0.2){b_1}
\ar @(ru,lu)"2";"2"_(0.2){c_0}
\ar @(ld,rd)"2";"2"_(0.8){c_1}
\end{xy}\right]}
{\left \langle \begin{matrix}
b_0^2,b_1^2,c_0^2,c_1^2,
b_1b_0, \\
b_0b_1, c_1c_0, b_1ac_0, \\ b_1ac_1,
b_0a-ac_0
\end{matrix}\right\rangle}$};
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift122214)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{122214}$};
\coordinate(w) at($0*(x)+-1.8*(y)+(shift122214)$);
\node at(w) {\footnotesize$\dfrac{
k\left[\begin{xy}(0,0)*+{\bullet}="1",
(7,0)*+{\bullet}="2",
\ar "1";"2"^{a}
\ar @(ru,lu)"1";"1"_(0.8){c_1}
\ar @(lu,ld)"1";"1"_(0.5){c_2}
\ar @(dl,dr)"1";"1"_(0.2){c_3}
\end{xy}\right]}
{\left \langle \begin{matrix}
c_1^2,c_2^2,c_3^2,c_2c_3,c_1c_3 \\
c_1c_2,c_3c_1,c_2a,c_3a
\end{matrix} \right \rangle}$};
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift123123)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{123123}$};
\coordinate(w) at($0*(x)+-1.8*(y)+(shift123123)$);
\node at(w) {\footnotesize$\dfrac{
k\left[\begin{xy}(0,0)*+{\bullet}="1",
(7,0)*+{\bullet}="2",
\ar "1";"2"^{a}
\ar @(ru,lu)"1";"1"_(0.8){c_0}
\ar @(lu,ld)"1";"1"_(0.5){c_1}
\ar @(dl,dr)"1";"1"_(0.2){c_2}
\ar @(rd,ru)"2";"2"_(0.5){b}
\end{xy}\right]}
{\left \langle \begin{matrix}b^2,c_0^2,c_1^2,c_2^2,
c_0a,\\ c_2a, c_1c_2, c_0c_2, c_2c_0,\\c_0c_1c_0, ab-c_0c_1a\end{matrix}\right\rangle}$};
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift214122)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{214122}$};
\coordinate(w) at($0*(x)+-1.8*(y)+(shift214122)$);
\node at(w) {\footnotesize$\dfrac{
k\left[\begin{xy}(0,0)*+{\bullet}="1",
(7,0)*+{\bullet}="2",
\ar "1";"2"^{a}
\ar @(ru,lu)"1";"1"_(0.8){c_0}
\ar @(dl,dr)"1";"1"_(0.2){c_1}
\ar @(ru,lu)"2";"2"_(0.2){b_0}
\ar @(ld,rd)"2";"2"_(0.8){b_1}
\end{xy}\right]}
{\left \langle \begin{matrix}
b_0^2,b_1^2,c_0^2,c_1^2,
b_0b_1, \\
b_1b_0, c_0c_1, c_0ab_1, \\ c_1ab_1,
ab_0-c_0a
\end{matrix}\right\rangle}$};
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift131313)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{131313}$};
\coordinate(w) at($0*(x)+-1.8*(y)+(shift131313)$);
\node at(w) {\footnotesize$\dfrac{
k\left[\begin{xy}(0,0)*+{\bullet}="1",
(7,0)*+{\bullet}="2",
\ar "1";"2"^{a}
\ar @(ru,lu)"1";"1"_(0.8){c_0}
\ar @(lu,ld)"1";"1"_(0.5){c_1}
\ar @(dl,dr)"1";"1"_(0.2){c_2}
\ar @(rd,ru)"2";"2"_(0.5){b}
\end{xy}\right]}
{\left \langle \begin{matrix}b^2,c_0^2,c_1^2,c_2^2,
c_2a, \\ c_1c_2, c_0c_2, c_0c_1,c_2c_0,\\ c_2c_1c_0,ab-c_0a\end{matrix}\right\rangle}$};
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift213213)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{213213}$};
\coordinate(w) at($0*(x)+-1.5*(y)+(shift213213)$);
\node at(w) {\footnotesize$\dfrac{
k\left[\begin{xy}(0,0)*+{\bullet}="1",
(7,0)*+{\bullet}="2",
\ar "1";"2"^{a}
\ar @(ru,lu)"1";"1"_(0.8){c_1}
\ar @(dl,dr)"1";"1"_(0.2){c_2}
\ar @(rd,ru)"2";"2"_(0.5){b}
\end{xy}\right]}
{\left \langle \begin{matrix}
b^2,c_1^2,c_2^2,
c_2a, \\ c_1ab,c_1c_2\end{matrix}\right\rangle}$};
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift132132)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{132132}$};
\coordinate(w) at($0*(x)+-1.8*(y)+(shift132132)$);
\node at(w) {\footnotesize$\dfrac{
k\left[\begin{xy}(0,0)*+{\bullet}="1",
(7,0)*+{\bullet}="2",
\ar "1";"2"^{a}
\ar @(ru,lu)"1";"1"_(0.8){c_0}
\ar @(lu,ld)"1";"1"_(0.5){c_1}
\ar @(dl,dr)"1";"1"_(0.2){c_2}
\ar @(ru,lu)"2";"2"_(0.2){b_0}
\ar @(ld,rd)"2";"2"_(0.8){b_1}
\end{xy}\right]}
{\left \langle \begin{matrix}
b_0^2,b_1^2,c_0^2,c_1^2,c_2^2,
c_2a,b_0b_1,\\
c_2c_1c_2, c_0c_2, c_0c_1,c_2c_0,\\
ab_0-c_0a, ab_1-c_2c_1a
\end{matrix}\right\rangle}$};
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift141222)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{141222}$};
\coordinate(w) at($0*(x)+-1.8*(y)+(shift141222)$);
\node at(w) {\footnotesize$\dfrac{
k\left[\begin{xy}(0,0)*+{\bullet}="1",
(7,0)*+{\bullet}="2",
\ar "1";"2"^{a}
\ar @(ru,lu)"1";"1"_(0.8){c_0}
\ar @(lu,ld)"1";"1"_(0.5){c_1}
\ar @(dl,dr)"1";"1"_(0.2){c_2}
\ar @(ru,lu)"2";"2"_(0.2){b_0}
\ar @(ld,rd)"2";"2"_(0.8){b_1}
\end{xy}\right]}
{\left \langle \begin{matrix}
b_0^2,b_1^2,c_0^2,c_1^2,c_2^2,
b_0b_1,\\ c_2c_0, c_1c_2, c_0c_2,
c_0c_1,\\ ab_0-c_0a, ab_1-c_1a
\end{matrix}\right\rangle}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Algebras whose $g$-fans are given in Figure \ref{fig:tree diagram}}
\label{fig:tree diagram 2}
\end{figure}
\medskip
For each finite dimensional algebra $A$, we define a \emph{$g$-polytope} $\P(A)$ by gluing each simplex associated with the cones in $\Sigma(A)$. If $\P(A)$ is convex, we call $\Sigma(A)$ \emph{convex} and $A$ \emph{$g$-convex}. For example, Brauer tree algebras $A$ are $g$-convex, and this fact plays an important role in the classification of 2-term tilting complexes of $A$ \cite{AMN}.
From tilting theoretic point of view, $g$-convex algebras are the most fundamental. Therefore it is important to study the following problem.
\begin{problem}\label{classify convex}
Classify convex $g$-fans in $\mathbb{R}^d$.
\end{problem}
An answer to the case $d=2$ was given in \cite[Theorem 6.3]{AHIKM}. There are precisely 7 convex $g$-fans up to isomorphism of $g$-fans.
\[{\begin{xy}
0;<3pt,0pt>:<0pt,3pt>::
(0,-5)="0",
(-5,0)="1",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="2",
(5,0)="3",
(0,5)="4",
(1.5,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
\ar@{-}"0";"1",
\ar@{-}"1";"4",
\ar@{-}"4";"3",
\ar@{-}"3";"0",
\ar@{-}"2";"0",
\ar@{-}"2";"1",
\ar@{-}"2";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"4",
\end{xy}}\ \ \
{\begin{xy}
0;<3pt,0pt>:<0pt,3pt>::
(0,-5)="0",
(-5,0)="1",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="2",
(5,0)="3",
(-5,5)="4",
(0,5)="5",
(1.5,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
\ar@{-}"0";"1",
\ar@{-}"1";"4",
\ar@{-}"4";"5",
\ar@{-}"5";"3",
\ar@{-}"3";"0",
\ar@{-}"2";"0",
\ar@{-}"2";"1",
\ar@{-}"2";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"4",
\ar@{-}"2";"5",
\end{xy}}\ \ \
{\begin{xy}
0;<3pt,0pt>:<0pt,3pt>::
(0,-5)="0",
(5,-5)="1",
(-5,0)="2",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="3",
(5,0)="4",
(-5,5)="5",
(0,5)="6",
(1.5,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
\ar@{-}"0";"2",
\ar@{-}"2";"5",
\ar@{-}"5";"6",
\ar@{-}"6";"4",
\ar@{-}"4";"1",
\ar@{-}"1";"0",
\ar@{-}"3";"0",
\ar@{-}"3";"1",
\ar@{-}"3";"2",
\ar@{-}"3";"4",
\ar@{-}"3";"5",
\ar@{-}"3";"6",
\end{xy}}\ \ \
{\begin{xy}
0;<3pt,0pt>:<0pt,3pt>::
(0,-5)="0",
(-5,0)="1",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="2",
(5,0)="3",
(-10,5)="4",
(-5,5)="5",
(0,5)="6",
(1.5,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
\ar@{-}"0";"3",
\ar@{-}"3";"6",
\ar@{-}"6";"4",
\ar@{-}"4";"0",
\ar@{-}"2";"0",
\ar@{-}"2";"1",
\ar@{-}"2";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"4",
\ar@{-}"2";"5",
\ar@{-}"2";"6",
\end{xy}}\ \ \
{\begin{xy}
0;<3pt,0pt>:<0pt,3pt>::
(0,-5)="0",
(5,-5)="1",
(-5,0)="2",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="3",
(5,0)="4",
(-10,5)="5",
(-5,5)="6",
(0,5)="7",
(1.5,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
\ar@{-}"0";"1",
\ar@{-}"1";"4",
\ar@{-}"4";"7",
\ar@{-}"7";"5",
\ar@{-}"5";"0",
\ar@{-}"3";"0",
\ar@{-}"3";"1",
\ar@{-}"3";"2",
\ar@{-}"3";"4",
\ar@{-}"3";"5",
\ar@{-}"3";"6",
\ar@{-}"3";"7",
\end{xy}}\ \ \
{\begin{xy}
0;<3pt,0pt>:<0pt,3pt>::
(0,-5)="0",
(5,-5)="1",
(10,-5)="2",
(-5,0)="3",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="4",
(5,0)="5",
(-10,5)="6",
(-5,5)="7",
(0,5)="8",
(1.5,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
\ar@{-}"0";"2",
\ar@{-}"2";"8",
\ar@{-}"8";"6",
\ar@{-}"6";"0",
\ar@{-}"4";"0",
\ar@{-}"4";"1",
\ar@{-}"4";"2",
\ar@{-}"4";"3",
\ar@{-}"4";"5",
\ar@{-}"4";"6",
\ar@{-}"4";"7",
\ar@{-}"4";"8",
\end{xy}}
{\begin{xy}
0;<3pt,0pt>:<0pt,3pt>::
(0,-2.5)="0",
(5,-7.5)="1",
(5,-2.5)="2",
(-5,2.5)="3",
(0,2.5)*{\bullet},
(0,2.5)="4",
(5,2.5)="5",
(-10,7.5)="6",
(0,7.5)="7",
(-5,7.5)="8",
(1.5,4)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,1)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
\ar@{-}"6";"1",
\ar@{-}"1";"5",
\ar@{-}"5";"7",
\ar@{-}"7";"6",
\ar@{-}"4";"0",
\ar@{-}"4";"1",
\ar@{-}"4";"2",
\ar@{-}"4";"3",
\ar@{-}"4";"5",
\ar@{-}"4";"6",
\ar@{-}"4";"7",
\ar@{-}"4";"8",
\end{xy}}
\]
More precisely, in the last Section 5, we show that there are 16 convex $g$-fans in $\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}(2)$
\[\Sigma_{a;b}\ \mbox{ with }\ a,b\in \{(0,0),(1,1,1),(1,2,1,2),(2,1,2,1)\}.\]
We also give a characterization of algebras whose $g$-fans are one of them. Let $t({}_{\Lambda} M)$ (respectively, $t(M_{\Lambda})$) be the minimal number of generators of a left (respectively, right) $\Lambda$-module $M$.
\begin{theorem}[Theorem \ref{theorem:charactarization_g-convex_ranktwo}]
Let $A$ be a basic finite dimensional algebra, $\{e_1, e_2\}$ a complete set of primitive orthogonal idempotents in $A$, and $P_i=e_i A$ $(i=1,2)$.
\begin{enumerate}[\rm(a)]
\item $A$ is $g$-convex if and only if
$\Sigma(A)=\Sigma_{a;b}$ for some $a,b\in \{(0,0),(1,1,1),(1,2,1,2),(2,1,2,1)\}$.
\item Let $(l,r):=\left(t({}_{e_1Ae_1} e_1Ae_2),t(e_1Ae_2{}_{e_2Ae_2})\right)$. Then we have the following statements.
\begin{enumerate}[$\bullet$]
\item $\Sigma(A)=\Sigma_{00;b}$ for some $b$ if and only if $(l,r)=(0,0)$.
\item $\Sigma(A)=\Sigma_{111;b}$ for some $b$ if and only if $(l,r)=(1,1)$.
\item $\Sigma(A)=\Sigma_{1212;b}$ for some $b$ if and only if $(l,r)=(1,2)$ and $t({}_{R_x}e_1Ae_1)=2$ hold for some left generator $x$ of $e_1 A e_2$ and $R_x:=\{a\in e_1 A e_1\mid ax\in x A e_2\}$.
\item $\Sigma(A)=\Sigma_{2121;b}$ for some $b$ if and only if $(l,r)=(2,1)$ and $t(e_2Ae_2{}_{L_x})= 2$ hold for some right generator $x$ of $e_1 A e_2$ and $L_x:=\{b\in e_2 A e_2\mid xb\in e_1 A x\}$.
\end{enumerate}
\[
{\begin{xy}
0;<4pt,0pt>:<0pt,4pt>::
( 0,9) *+{\Sigma_{00;b}},
( 0,0) *{\bullet}="(0,0)",
( 0,5) ="(0,10)",
( 0,6) *+{{\scriptstyle P_2}},
( 5,0) ="(10,0)",
( 6,0) *+{{\scriptstyle P_1}},
( 0,-5) ="(0,-10)",
( -5,0) ="(-10,0)",
(0,3)*{}="(0,5)",
(-3,0)*{}="(-5,0)",
\ar@{-} "(10,0)";"(-10,0)"
\ar@{-} "(0,10)";"(0,-10)"
\ar@{-} "(10,0)";"(0,10)"
\ar@{-} "(-10,0)";"(0,-10)"
\ar@{-} "(10,0)";"(0,-10)"
\ar@/^-2mm/@{.} "(0,5)";"(-5,0)"
\end{xy}}
\ \ \ {\begin{xy}
0;<2pt,0pt>:<0pt,2pt>::
( 0,18) *+{\Sigma_{111;b}},
( 0,0) *{\bullet},
( 0,0) ="(0,0)",
( 0,10) ="(0,10)",
( 0,12) *+{{\scriptstyle P_2}},
( 10,0) ="(10,0)",
( 12.5,0) *+{{\scriptstyle P_1}},
( 0,-10)="(0,-10)",
( -10,0)="(-10,0)",
(10,-10)="(10,-10)",
(0,6)*{}="(0,5)",
(-6,0)*{}="(-5,0)",
\ar@{-} "(10,0)";"(-10,0)"
\ar@{-} "(0,10)";"(0,-10)"
\ar@{-} "(0,0)";"(10,-10)"
\ar@{-} "(10,0)";"(0,10)"
\ar@{-} "(-10,0)";"(0,-10)"
\ar@{-} "(10,0)";"(10,-10)"
\ar@{-} "(10,-10)";"(0,-10)"
\ar@/^-2mm/@{.} "(0,5)";"(-5,0)"
\end{xy}}
\ \ \ {\begin{xy}
0;<2pt,0pt>:<0pt,2pt>::
( 0,18) *+{\Sigma_{1212;b}},
( 0,0) *{\bullet},
( 0,0) ="(0,0)",
( 0,10) ="(0,10)",
( 0,12) *+{{\scriptstyle P_2}},
( 10,0) ="(10,0)",
( 12.5,0) *+{{\scriptstyle P_1}},
( 0,-10)="(0,-10)",
( -10,0)="(-10,0)",
(10,-10)="(10,-10)",
(10,-20)="(10,-20)",
(0,6)*{}="(0,5)",
(-6,0)*{}="(-5,0)",
\ar@{-} "(10,0)";"(-10,0)"
\ar@{-} "(0,10)";"(0,-10)"
\ar@{-} "(0,0)";"(10,-10)"
\ar@{-} "(0,0)";"(10,-20)"
\ar@{-} "(10,0)";"(0,10)"
\ar@{-} "(-10,0)";"(0,-10)"
\ar@{-} "(10,0)";"(10,-10)"
\ar@{-} "(10,-10)";"(10,-20)"
\ar@{-} "(10,-20)";"(0,-10)"
\ar@/^-2mm/@{.} "(0,5)";"(-5,0)"
\end{xy}
}\ \ \ {\begin{xy}
0;<2pt,0pt>:<0pt,2pt>::
( 0,18) *+{\Sigma_{2121;b}},
( 0,0) *{\bullet},
( 0,0) ="(0,0)",
( 0,10) ="(0,10)",
( 0,12) *+{{\scriptstyle P_2}},
( 10,0) ="(10,0)",
( 13,0) *+{{\scriptstyle P_1}},
( 0,-10)="(0,-10)",
( -10,0)="(-10,0)",
(20,-10)="(20,-10)",
(10,-10)="(10,-10)",
(0,5)*{}="(0,5)",
(-5,0)*{}="(-5,0)",
\ar@{-} "(10,0)";"(-10,0)"
\ar@{-} "(0,10)";"(0,-10)"
\ar@{-} "(0,0)";"(20,-10)"
\ar@{-} "(0,0)";"(10,-10)"
\ar@{-} "(10,0)";"(0,10)"
\ar@{-} "(-10,0)";"(0,-10)"
\ar@{-} "(0,-10)";"(20,-10)"
\ar@{-} "(20,-10)";"(10,0)"
\ar@/^-2mm/@{.} "(0,5)";"(-5,0)"
\end{xy}}
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
Further, in a forthcoming paper \cite{AHIKM2}, we will give a complete answer to Problem \ref{classify convex} for $d=3$.
\section{Preliminaries}
\subsection{Preliminaries on fans}
We recall some fundamental materials on fans.
We refer the reader to e.g.\ \cite{F,BR,BP} for these materials.
\medskip
A \textit{convex polyhedral cone} $\sigma$ is a set of the form $\sigma=\{ \sum_{i=1}^s r_i v_i \mid r_i \geq 0\}$,
where $v_1,\ldots,v_s \in \mathbb{R}^d$. We denote it by $\sigma=\operatorname{cone}\nolimits\{v_1,\ldots,v_s\}$.
Note that $\{0\}$ is regarded as a convex polyhedral cone.
We collect some notions concerning convex polyhedral cones. Let $\sigma$ be a convex polyhedral cone.
\begin{enumerate}[$\bullet$]
\item The dimension of $\sigma$ is the dimension of the linear space generated by $\sigma$.
\item We say that $\sigma$ is \textit{strongly convex} if $\sigma \cap (-\sigma)=\{0\}$ holds,
i.e., $\sigma$ does not contain a linear subspace of positive dimension.
\item We call $\sigma$ \textit{rational} if each $v_i$ can be taken from $\mathbb{Q}^d$.
\item We denote by $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$ the usual inner product. A \emph{supporting hyperplane} of $\sigma$ is a hyperplane $\{v \in \sigma \mid \langle u,v \rangle=0\}$ in $\mathbb{R}^d$ given by some $u \in \mathbb{R}^d$ satisfying $\sigma\subset\{v \in \mathbb{R}^d \mid \langle u,v \rangle\ge0\}$.
\item A \textit{face} $\tau$ of $\sigma$ is the intersection of $\sigma$ with a supporting hyperplane of $\sigma$.
\end{enumerate}
\emph{In what follows, a cone means a strongly convex rational polyhedral cone for short.}
\begin{definition}
A \textit{fan} $\Sigma$ in $\mathbb{R}^d$ is a collection of cones in $\mathbb{R}^d$ such that
\begin{enumerate}[\rm(a)]
\item each face of a cone in $\Sigma$ is also contained in $\Sigma$, and
\item the intersection of two cones in $\Sigma$ is a face of each of those two cones.
\end{enumerate}
For each $i\ge0$, we denote by $\Sigma_i$ the subset of cones of dimension $i$. For example, $\Sigma_0$ consists of the trivial cone $\{0\}$. We call each element in $\Sigma_1$ a \emph{ray} of $\Sigma$.
\end{definition}
We collect some notions concerning fans used in this paper. Let $\Sigma$ be a fan in $\mathbb{R}^d$.
\begin{enumerate}[$\bullet$]
\item We call $\Sigma$ \textit{finite} if it consists of a finite number of cones.
\item We call $\Sigma$ \textit{complete} if $\bigcup_{\sigma \in \Sigma}\sigma=\mathbb{R}^d$.
\item We call $\Sigma$ \textit{nonsingular} (or \textit{smooth}) if each maximal cone in $\Sigma$ is generated by a $\mathbb{Z}$-basis for $\mathbb{Z}^d$.
\end{enumerate}
We prepare some notions which will be used in this paper.
\begin{definition}
Let $\Sigma$ be a nonsingular fan in $\mathbb{R}^d$. We call $\Sigma$ \emph{pairwise positive} if the following condition is satisfied.
\begin{enumerate}[$\bullet$]
\item For each two adjacent maximal cones $\sigma,\tau\in\Sigma_d$, take $\mathbb{Z}$-basis $\{v_1,\ldots,v_{d-1},v_d\}$ and $\{v_1,\ldots,v_{d-1},v'_d\}$ of $\mathbb{Z}^d$ such that $\sigma=\operatorname{cone}\nolimits\{v_1,\ldots,v_{d-1},v_d\}$ and $\tau=\operatorname{cone}\nolimits\{v_1,\ldots,v_{d-1},v'_d\}$.
Then $v_d+v'_d$ belongs to $\operatorname{cone}\nolimits\{v_1,\ldots,v_{d-1}\}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}\label{define isomorphism of g-fans}
Let $\Sigma$ and $\Sigma'$ be fans in $\mathbb{R}^d$ and $\mathbb{R}^{d'}$ respectively.
\begin{enumerate}
\item An \emph{isomorphism $\Sigma\simeq\Sigma'$ of fans} is an isomorphism $\mathbb{Z}^d\simeq\mathbb{Z}^{d'}$ of abelian groups such that the induced linear isomorphism $\mathbb{R}^d\to\mathbb{R}^{d'}$ gives a bijection $\Sigma\simeq\Sigma'$ between cones.
\item Let $(\Sigma,\sigma_+)$ and $(\Sigma',\sigma'_+)$ be sign-coherent fans in $\mathbb{R}^d$ and $\mathbb{R}^{d'}$ respectively. An \emph{isomorphism of sign-coherent fans} is an isomorphism $f:\Sigma\simeq\Sigma'$ of fans such that $\{f(\sigma_+),f(-\sigma_+)\}=\{\sigma'_+,-\sigma'_+\}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\subsection{Sign-coherent fans of rank $2$}
In this subsection, we introduce some terminologies of sign-coherent fans of rank $2$, and discuss some fundamental properties.
Let $\Sigma$ be a complete nonsingular fan of rank 2.
We denote the rays of $\Sigma$ by
\begin{equation}\label{ray}
v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_{n-1},v_{n}=v_0
\end{equation}
which are indexed in a clockwise orientation.
For each $1\le i\le n$, since $\Sigma$ is nonsingular, there exists an integer $a_i$ satisfying
\[a_i v_{i}=v_{i-1} +v_{i+1}\ \mbox{ for each }\ 1\le i\le n.\]
We call the sequence of integers
\begin{equation}\label{define s}
\mathrm{s}(\Sigma)=(a_1,\ldots,a_{n})
\end{equation}
the \emph{defining sequence} of $\Sigma$. In fact, $\Sigma$ is uniquely determined by its defining sequence.
A fan with defining sequence $(a_1,\ldots,a_{n})$ is denoted by
\[\Sigma(a_1,\ldots,a_n).\]
\begin{remark}
\cite[Section 2.5]{F} An integer sequence $(a_1,\ldots,a_n)$ is a defining sequence of nonsingular complete fan of rank 2 if and only if it satisfies
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{i=1}^na_i=3n-12\ \mbox{ and }\ \begin{bmatrix}0&-1\\ 1&a_1\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}0&-1\\ 1&a_2\end{bmatrix}\cdots\begin{bmatrix}0&-1\\ 1&a_n\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}1&0\\ 0&1\end{bmatrix}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{remark}
\begin{definition}
We denote by $\overline{\mathsf{Fan}}_{\rm sc}(2)$ the set of all (possibly infinite) fans $\Sigma$ satisfying that
\begin{enumerate}[$\bullet$]
\item $\Sigma$ is a sign-coherent fans (Definition \ref{define sign-coherent}) of rank 2 with positive and negative cones
\[\sigma_+:=\operatorname{cone}\nolimits\{(1,0),(0,1)\}\ \mbox{ and }\ \sigma_-:=\operatorname{cone}\nolimits\{(-1,0),(0,-1)\}\ \mbox{ respectively,}\]
\item each ray is a face of precisely two facets.
\end{enumerate}
We denote the subset of complete fans by
\[\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}(2)\subset\overline{\mathsf{Fan}}_{\rm sc}(2).\]
\end{definition}
For $\Sigma\in\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}(2)$, we denote the rays of $\Sigma$ in a clockwise orientation by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Sigma_1=\{v_1:=(1,0),v_2,\ldots,v_{n-1},v_{n}=v_0:=(0,1)\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then there exists $2\le i\le n-2$ such that $v_i=(0,-1)$ and $v_{i+1}=(-1,0)$.
\[\begin{xy}
0;<4pt,0pt>:<0pt,4pt>::
(0,-5)="0",
(-5,0)="1",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="2",
(5,0)="3",
(0,5)="4",
(0,-4)="a",
(4,0)="b",
(0,4)="c",
(-4,0)="d",
(0,6.5)*{{\scriptstyle v_n=v_0=(0,1)}},
(9.5,0)*{{\scriptstyle v_1=(1,0)}},
(0,-6.5)*{{\scriptstyle v_i=(0,-1)}},
(-11,0)*{{\scriptstyle v_{i+1}=(-1,0)}},
(1.5,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
\ar@{-}"0";"1",
\ar@{-}"4";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"0",
\ar@{-}"2";"1",
\ar@{-}"2";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"4",
\ar@/^-2mm/@{.} "a";"b",
\ar@/^-2mm/@{.} "c";"d",
\end{xy}\]
In this case, it is more convenient to rewrite \eqref{define s} as
\[\mathrm{s}(\Sigma)=(a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_i;a_n,a_{n-1},\ldots,a_{i+1}).\]
Thus we mainly use the notation
\[\Sigma(a_1,\ldots,a_i;a_n,\ldots,a_{i+1})=\Sigma_{a_1,\ldots, a_i;a_n,\ldots,a_{i+1}}\]
instead of $\Sigma(a_1,\ldots,a_n)$.
We consider subsets
\[\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{\mathsf{Fan}}_{\rm sc}^{+-}(2)&\subset&\overline{\mathsf{Fan}}_{\rm sc}(2)\\
\cup&&\cup\\
\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}^{+-}(2)&\subset&\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}(2)
\end{array}\]
which consist of fans $\Sigma$ containing $\sigma_{-+}:=\operatorname{cone}\nolimits\{(-1,0),(0,1)\}$, i.e.\ $\Sigma$ has the following form.
\[
\begin{xy}
0;<4pt,0pt>:<0pt,4pt>::
(0,-5)="0",
(-5,0)="1",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="2",
(5,0)="3",
(0,5)="4",
(-4.5,4)*{{\scriptstyle \sigma_{-+}}},
(1.5,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
( 0,-4) ="a",( 4,0) ="b",
\ar@{-}"0";"1",
\ar@{-}"1";"4",
\ar@{-}"4";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"0",
\ar@{-}"2";"1",
\ar@{-}"2";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"4",
\ar@/^-2mm/@{.} "a";"b",
\end{xy}
\]
Thus the rays and the facets of $\Sigma\in\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}^{+-}(2)$ are written as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ray 2}
\Sigma_1&=&\{v_1=(1,0),v_2,\ldots,v_{n-2}=(0,-1),v_{n-1}=(-1,0),v_n=v_0=(0,1)\},\\ \label{facet 2}
\Sigma_2&=&\{\sigma_1,\ldots,\sigma_{n-3},\sigma_{n-2}=\sigma_-,\sigma_{n-1}=\sigma_{-+},\sigma_n=\sigma_+\}.
\end{eqnarray}
Similarly, we define $\overline{\mathsf{Fan}}_{\rm sc}^{-+}(2)$ and $\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}^{-+}(2)$ as the subsets of $\overline{\mathsf{Fan}}_{\rm sc}(2)$ and $\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}(2)$ respectively which consist of fans containing $\sigma_{+-}:=\operatorname{cone}\nolimits\{(1,0),(0,-1)\}$.
The following observations are clear.
\begin{lemma}\label{minus fan}
The following assertions hold.
\begin{enumerate}[\rm(1)]
\item The correspondence $\Sigma\mapsto \{-\sigma\mid \sigma\in \Sigma\}$ gives bijections $\overline{\mathsf{Fan}}_{\rm sc}^{+-}(2) \to \overline{\mathsf{Fan}}_{\rm sc}^{-+}(2)$ and $\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}^{+-}(2) \to \mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}^{-+}(2)$.
\item Let $\Sigma\in\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}(2)$.
Then $\Sigma\in\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}^{+-}(2)$ (respectively, $\Sigma\in\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}^{-+}(2)$) holds if and only if $\mathrm{s}(\Sigma)$ has the form
\[(b_1,\ldots,b_m;0,0)\ \mbox{ (respectively, $(0,0;b_1,\ldots,b_m)$)}.\]
In this case, $b_i\ge0$ holds for any $1\le i\le m$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{definition}
For $\Sigma \in \overline{\mathsf{Fan}}_{\rm sc}^{+-}(2)$ and $\Sigma' \in \overline{\mathsf{Fan}}_{\rm sc}^{-+}(2)$, we define $\Sigma\ast\Sigma'\in\overline{\mathsf{Fan}}_{\rm sc}(2)$ by
\begin{eqnarray*}
(\Sigma\cup \Sigma')_1&:=&\Sigma_1\cup \Sigma'_1\\
(\Sigma\cup \Sigma')_2&:=&\left(\Sigma_2 \setminus\{\sigma_{-+}\} \right)\cup\left(\Sigma'_2 \setminus \{\sigma_{+-}\} \right).
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{equation*}
{\Sigma=\begin{xy}
0;<4pt,0pt>:<0pt,4pt>::
(0,-5)="0",
(-5,0)="1",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="2",
(5,0)="3",
(0,5)="4",
(0,-4)="a",
(4,0)="b",
(1.5,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
(4,-4)*{{\scriptstyle ?}},
(-4.5,4)*{{\scriptstyle \sigma_{-+}}},
\ar@{-}"0";"1",
\ar@{-}"1";"4",
\ar@{-}"4";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"0",
\ar@{-}"2";"1",
\ar@{-}"2";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"4",
\ar@/^-2mm/@{.} "a";"b",
\end{xy}}\ \ \ \ \
{\Sigma'=\begin{xy}
0;<4pt,0pt>:<0pt,4pt>::
(0,-5)="0",
(-5,0)="1",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="2",
(5,0)="3",
(0,5)="4",
(0,4)="c",
(-4,0)="d",
(1.5,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
(-4,4)*{{\scriptstyle !}},
(4.5,-4)*{{\scriptstyle \sigma_{+-}}},
\ar@{-}"0";"1",
\ar@{-}"0";"3",
\ar@{-}"4";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"0",
\ar@{-}"2";"1",
\ar@{-}"2";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"4",
\ar@/^-2mm/@{.} "c";"d",
\end{xy}}\ \ \ \ \
{\Sigma\ast\Sigma'=\begin{xy}
0;<4pt,0pt>:<0pt,4pt>::
(0,-5)="0",
(-5,0)="1",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="2",
(5,0)="3",
(0,5)="4",
(0,-4)="a",
(4,0)="b",
(0,4)="c",
(-4,0)="d",
(1.5,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
(4,-4)*{{\scriptstyle ?}},
(-4,4)*{{\scriptstyle !}},
\ar@{-}"0";"1",
\ar@{-}"4";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"0",
\ar@{-}"2";"1",
\ar@{-}"2";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"4",
\ar@/^-2mm/@{.} "a";"b",
\ar@/^-2mm/@{.} "c";"d",
\end{xy}}
\end{equation*}
Then, we clearly have
\begin{eqnarray} \notag
\overline{\mathsf{Fan}}_{\rm sc}(2) &=& \overline{\mathsf{Fan}}_{\rm sc}^{+-}(2)\ast \overline{\mathsf{Fan}}_{\rm sc}^{-+}(2):=\{\Sigma\ast\Sigma'\mid \Sigma\in \overline{\mathsf{Fan}}_{\rm sc}^{+-}(2),\Sigma'\in \overline{\mathsf{Fan}}_{\rm sc}^{-+}(2)\},\\ \label{eq:gluing fans}
\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}(2) &=& \mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}^{+-}(2)\ast \mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}^{-+}(2):=\{\Sigma\ast\Sigma'\mid \Sigma\in \mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}^{+-}(2),\Sigma'\in \mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}^{-+}(2)\}.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
\label{definition:defining sequence}
Let $\Sigma$ be a (possibly infinite) nonsingular fan of rank 2. For a cone $\sigma:=\operatorname{cone}\nolimits\{u,v\}$ of $\Sigma$, we define a new nonsingular fan $D_\sigma(\Sigma)$ by
\begin{eqnarray*}
D_\sigma(\Sigma)_1&=&\Sigma_1\cup\{\operatorname{cone}\nolimits\{u+v\}\},\\
D_\sigma(\Sigma)_2&=&(\Sigma_2\setminus\{\sigma\})\sqcup\{\operatorname{cone}\nolimits\{u,u+v\},\operatorname{cone}\nolimits\{v,u+v\}\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
We call $D_\sigma(\Sigma)$ the \emph{subdivision} of $\Sigma$ at $\sigma$.
\[{\Sigma=\begin{xy}
0;<4pt,0pt>:<0pt,4pt>::
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="2",
(5,2)="3",
(5,-2)="4",
(8,1.5)="u",
(8,-1.5)="v",
"3";"4"**\crv{~*{.}(0,10)&(-10,0)&(0,-10)},
(9,0)*{{\scriptstyle\sigma}},
\ar@{-}"u";"v",
\ar@{-}"2";"v",
\ar@{-}"2";"u",
\end{xy}}\ \ \
{D_\sigma(\Sigma)=\begin{xy}
0;<4pt,0pt>:<0pt,4pt>::
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="2",
(5,2)="3",
(5,-2)="4",
(8,1.5)="u",
(8,-1.5)="v",
(16,0)="w",
"3";"4"**\crv{~*{.}(0,10)&(-10,0)&(0,-10)},
\ar@{-}"2";"w",
\ar@{-}"2";"v",
\ar@{-}"2";"u",
\ar@{-}"w";"v",
\ar@{-}"w";"u",
\end{xy}}
\]
\end{definition}
For a sequence $a=(a_1\ldots,a_n)$ and $1\le i\le n$, we define a new sequence by
\begin{equation}\label{define D_j for a}
D_i(a) = (a_1,\ldots,a_{i-1},a_{i}+1,1,a_{i+1}+1,a_{i+2},\ldots,a_n).
\end{equation}
For a complete nonsingular fan $\Sigma$ with rays \eqref{ray} and $\sigma_i:=\operatorname{cone}\nolimits\{v_i,v_{i+1}\}$ for $1\leq i \leq n$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{s D_j=D_j s}
\mathrm{s}\circ D_{\sigma_i}(\Sigma) = D_i\circ\mathrm{s}(\Sigma).
\end{equation}
\begin{example}
Figure \ref{fig:tree diagram} gives fans in $\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}^{+-}(2)$ with at most 8 facets, where
\[\Sigma_{a_1,\ldots,a_n}:=\Sigma(a_1,\ldots,a_n;0,0)\]
and each edge shows a subdivision. Figure \ref{fig:tree diagram 2} gives examples of algebras whose $g$-fans are given in Figure \ref{fig:tree diagram}.
For example, $\Sigma_{111}$ is the $g$-vector fan of a cluster algebra of type $A_2$ \cite{FZ2,FZ4}. Similarly, $\Sigma_{1212}$ and $\Sigma_{2121}$ are the $g$-vector fans of cluster algebras of type $B_2$, and $\Sigma_{131313}$ and $\Sigma_{313131}$ are the $g$-vector fans of cluster algebras of type $G_2$.
\end{example}
Later we need the following observation (cf.\ \cite[Section 4.3]{F}).
\begin{proposition}\label{proposition:F=F'}
Each fan in $\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}^{+-}(2)$ can be obtained from $\Sigma(0,0;0,0)$ by a sequence of subdivisions.
\[
\Sigma(0,0;0,0)=\begin{xy}
0;<3pt,0pt>:<0pt,3pt>::
(0,-5)="0",
(-5,0)="1",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="2",
(5,0)="3",
(0,5)="4",
(1.5,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
\ar@{-}"0";"1",
\ar@{-}"1";"4",
\ar@{-}"4";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"0",
\ar@{-}"2";"1",
\ar@{-}"2";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"4",
\ar@{-}"3";"0",
\end{xy}
\]
\end{proposition}
To prove this, we need the following preparation.
\begin{lemma}[{cf.\ \cite[p.43]{F}}]
\label{lemma:defining sequence contains 1}
Let $\Sigma\in \mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}^{+-}(2)$ and $\mathrm{s}(\Sigma)=(a_1,\ldots,a_{n-2};0,0)$. If $n\ge 5$, then there exists $2\le i\le n-3$ satisfying $a_i=1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $v_i=(x_i,y_i) \in \mathbb{Z}^2$ for $1\leq i\leq n$.
Assume that $n\ge 5$ and $a_i\ge 2$ for any $2\le i\le n-3$.
We claim that $x_{i+1}\ge x_i$ holds for each $1\le i\le n-3$.
In fact, $n\ge 5$ implies $x_2\ge 1=x_1$. Then we have
\[
x_{i+1}=a_{i}x_i-x_{i-1}\ge 2x_i-x_{i-1}\ge x_i
\]
for each $2\le i\le n-3$, and the claim follows inductively. Consequently $1=x_1\le x_2 \le \cdots \le x_{n-2}=0$ holds, a contradiction.
\end{proof}
We are ready to prove Proposition \ref{proposition:F=F'}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{proposition:F=F'}]
Let $F\subset\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}^{+-}(2)$ be the set of fans obtained from $\Sigma(0,0;0,0)$ by a sequence of subdivisions. It suffices to show $\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}^{+-}(2)=F$.
We will show that each $\Sigma\in \mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}^{+-}(2)$ belongs to $F$ by using induction on $n=\#\Sigma_2$.
Clearly $n\ge 4$ holds. If $n=4$, then $\Sigma=\Sigma(0,0;0,0)\in F$.
Suppose that $\Sigma$ with $\#\Sigma_2=n\ge 5$ belongs to $\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}^{+-}(2)$. In terms of \eqref{ray 2} and \eqref{facet 2}, there exists $2\le i\le n-3$ satisfying $v_i=v_{i-1}+v_{i+1}$ by Lemma \ref{lemma:defining sequence contains 1}.
Since $v_{i-1},v_{i+1}$ forms a $\mathbb{Z}$-basis of $\mathbb{Z}^2$, we obtain a new fan $\Sigma'\in\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}^{+-}(2)$ by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Sigma'_1&:=&\Sigma_1\setminus\{v_i\},\\
\Sigma'_2&:=&(\Sigma_2\setminus\{\sigma_{i-1},\sigma_i\})\cup \{\sigma\}\ \mbox{ for }\ \sigma:=\operatorname{cone}\nolimits\{v_{i-1},v_{i+1}\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $\#\Sigma'_2=n-1$, the induction hypothesis implies $\Sigma'\in F$. Thus $\Sigma=D_\sigma(\Sigma')\in F$ holds.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
For each $n\ge 1$, we have a bijection
\[\{\Sigma\in\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}^{+-}(2)\ |\ \#\Sigma_2=n+3\}\simeq\{\mbox{the ways to parenthesize $n$ factors completely}\},\]
where parentheses show how cones in the fourth quadrant are obtained by iterated subdivisions.
For example, $\Sigma_{141222}$ in Figure \ref{fig:tree diagram} has 5 cones $\sigma_1,\ldots,\sigma_5$ in the fourth quadrant in terms of \eqref{facet 2}, and they are parenthesized as $\sigma_1(((\sigma_2\sigma_3)\sigma_4)\sigma_5)$. In particular, we have
$$\#\{\Sigma\in\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}^{+-}(2)\ |\ \#\Sigma_2=n+3\}=\frac{1}{n}\dbinom{2n-2}{n-1}.$$
We also have a bijection
\[\{\Sigma\in\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}^{+-}(2)\ |\ \#\Sigma_2=n+3\}\simeq\{\mbox{Triangulations of a regular $(n+1)$-gon}\},\]
where $\Sigma_{a_1,\ldots,a_{n+1}}$ corresponds to a triangulation satisfying the following condition:
Let $1,2,\ldots,n+1$ be the vertices of the regular $(n+1)$-gon in a clockwise direction, and $a_i$ ($1\leq i\leq n+1$) the number of triangles containing the vertex $i$ in the triangulation.
For example, $\Sigma_{141222}$ corresponds to the following triangulation, where $1$ is the top vertex.
$$\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0.5) -- (0.35,0.2);
\draw (-0.35,0.2) -- (0,0.5);
\draw (-0.35,-0.2) -- (0,-0.5);
\draw (0.35,-0.2) -- (0,-0.5);
\draw (-0.35,-0.2) -- (-0.35,0.2);
\draw (0.35,0.2) -- (0.35,-0.2);
\draw (0.35,0.2) -- (-0.35,0.2);
\draw (0.35,0.2) -- (-0.35,-0.2);
\draw (0.35,0.2) -- (0,-0.5);
\end{tikzpicture}$$
\end{remark}
We introduce piecewise linear transformation of sign coherent fan of rank 2. This is a generalization of mutation of $g$-vectors of cluster algebras of rank 2 \cite{FZ4,NZ}, and also a special case of so called \emph{combinatorial mutation} \cite{ACGK,FH}.
\begin{definition}\label{define rotation}
For $\Sigma\in\overline{\mathsf{Fan}}_{\rm sc}^{+-}(2)$ with $\sigma_+=\operatorname{cone}\nolimits\{(0,1),(1,0)\}$, take $\sigma=\operatorname{cone}\nolimits\{(1,0),(\ell,-1)\}\in\Sigma_2$.
Define a new sign-coherent fan $\Sigma'$ by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Sigma'_1&:=&\left(\Sigma_1\setminus\{(0,1)\}\right)\cup\{(-\ell,1)\}\\
\Sigma'_2&:=&\left(\Sigma_2
\setminus \{\sigma_+,\sigma_{-+}\}\right)\cup\{-\sigma,\operatorname{cone}\nolimits\{(-\ell,1),(1,0)\}\},
\end{eqnarray*}
where the positive and negative cones of $\Sigma'$ are $\sigma$ and $-\sigma$ respectively.
\[
{\Sigma =\begin{xy}
0;<4pt,0pt>:<0pt,4pt>::
(0,-5)="0",
(-5,0)="1",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="2",
(5,0)="3",
(0,5)="4",
(15,-5)="5",
(0,-4)="a",
(4,-1.33)="b",
(0,6.5)*{{\scriptstyle (0,1)}},
(8,0.5)*{{\scriptstyle (1,0)}},
(15.5,-6.5)*{{\scriptstyle (\ell,-1)}},
(0,-6.5)*{{\scriptstyle (0,-1)}},
(-8.5,0)*{{\scriptstyle (-1,0)}},
(1.5,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
(11.5,-2)*{{\scriptstyle\sigma}},
(-4,4)*{{\scriptstyle \sigma_{-+}}},
(7,1)*{},
(0,6.7)*{},
\ar@{-}"0";"1",
\ar@{-}"1";"4",
\ar@{-}"3";"5",
\ar@{-}"3";"4",
\ar@{-}"2";"0",
\ar@{-}"2";"1",
\ar@{-}"2";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"4",
\ar@{-}"2";"5",
\ar@/^-2mm/@{.} "a";"b",
\end{xy}}\ \ \ \ \
{\rho(\Sigma)\simeq\Sigma' =\begin{xy}
0;<4pt,0pt>:<0pt,4pt>::
(0,-5)="0",
(-5,0)="1",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="2",
(5,0)="3",
(0,5)="4",
(15,-5)="5",
(-15,5)="6",
(0,-4)="a",
(4,-1.33)="b",
(-15,6.5)*{{\scriptstyle (-\ell,1)}},
(8,0.5)*{{\scriptstyle (1,0)}},
(15.5,-6.5)*{{\scriptstyle (\ell,-1)}},
(0,-6.5)*{{\scriptstyle (0,-1)}},
(-8.5,-0.5)*{{\scriptstyle (-1,0)}},
(5,-0.85)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-5,0.85)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
(11.5,-2)*{{\scriptstyle\sigma}},
(-11.5,2)*{{\scriptstyle-\sigma}},
(7,1)*{},
(0,6.7)*{},
\ar@{-}"0";"1",
\ar@{-}"3";"5",
\ar@{-}"2";"0",
\ar@{-}"2";"1",
\ar@{-}"2";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"5",
\ar@{-}"6";"1",
\ar@{-}"6";"2",
\ar@{-}"6";"3",
\ar@/^-2mm/@{.} "a";"b",
\end{xy}}
\]
We define the \emph{rotation} $\rho(\Sigma)\in\overline{\mathsf{Fan}}_{\rm sc}^{+-}(2)$ of $\Sigma$ as the image of $\Sigma'$ by a linear transformation of $\mathbb{R}^2$ mapping $(1,0)\mapsto (0,1)$ and $(\ell,-1)\mapsto (1,0)$.
\end{definition}
We give basic properties of rotation, where the name ``rotation'' is explained by (a) below.
\begin{proposition}\label{sr sequence}
Let $\Sigma\in\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}^{+-}(2)$ with facets \eqref{facet 2} and $\mathrm{s}(\Sigma)=(a_1,\ldots,a_{n-2};0,0)$.
\begin{enumerate}[\rm(a)]
\item We have
\begin{equation*}
\mathrm{s}(\rho(\Sigma))=(a_2,\ldots,a_{n-2},a_1;0,0).
\end{equation*}
In particular, $\rho^{n-2}(\Sigma)=\Sigma$ holds, and therefore $\rho$ is an invertible operation.
\item For each $1\le i\le n-3$, we have
\[D_{\sigma_i}(\Sigma) = \rho^{n-3-i} \circ D_{\sigma_{n-3}}\circ \rho^{i+1}(\Sigma).\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
(a) Recall $\Sigma_1=\{v_1,\ldots,v_n\}$ and $a_iv_i=v_{i-1}+v_{i+1}$ for $1\le i\le n$. Moreover
\[\rho(\Sigma)_1=\{w_1,\ldots,w_n\}\ \mbox{ where }\ w_i:=v_{i+1}\ (i\neq n-1),\ w_{n-1}:=-v_{2}.\]
Hence we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
w_{i-1}+w_{i+1}&=&v_i+v_{i+2}=a_{i+1}v_{i+1}=a_{i+1}w_i\ \mbox{ for }\ i\neq n-2,n,\\
w_{n-1}+w_1&=&-v_2+v_2=0\cdot w_n,\\
w_{n-3}+w_{n-1}&=&v_{n-2}-v_2=-(v_n+v_2)=-a_1v_1=a_1v_{n-1}=a_1w_{n-2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus $\mathrm{s}(\rho(\Sigma))=(a_2,\ldots,a_{n-2},a_1;0,0)$ as desired.
(b) By (a), we have $\mathrm{s}\circ\rho^{i+1}(\Sigma)=(a_{i+2},\ldots,a_{n-2},a_1,\ldots,a_{i+1};0,0)$. Thus
\[\mathrm{s}\circ D_{\sigma_{n-3}}\circ\rho^{i+1}(\Sigma)\stackrel{\eqref{s D_j=D_j s}}{=}D_{n-3}\circ\mathrm{s}\circ\rho^{i+1}(\Sigma)=(a_{i+2},\ldots,a_{n-2},a_1,\ldots,a_{i-1},a_{i}+1,1,a_{i+1}+1;0,0).\]
By (a) again, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathrm{s}\circ\rho^{n-3-i}\circ D_{\sigma_{n-3}}\circ\rho^{i+1}(\Sigma)&=&(a_1,\ldots,a_{i-1}, a_{i}+1,1,a_{i+1}+1,a_{i+2},\ldots,a_{n-2};0,0)\\
&=&D_i\circ\mathrm{s}(\Sigma)\stackrel{\eqref{s D_j=D_j s}}{=}\mathrm{s}\circ D_{\sigma_i}(\Sigma).
\end{eqnarray*}
Since a fan is uniquely determined by its defining sequence, the assertion follows.
\end{proof}
\section{Basic results in silting theory}
\subsection{Preliminaries}
Let $A$ be a finite dimensional algebra over a field $k$. Let $K_0(\proj A)$ be the Grothendieck group of the additive category $\proj A$, which is identified with the Grothendieck group of the triangulated category $\mathsf{K}^{\rm b}(\proj A)$.
We recall basic results on silting theory from \cite{AI,AIR,AHIKM}. First we recall the definition of 2-term silting complexes.
\begin{definition}\label{define silting}
Let $T=(T^i,d^i)\in\mathsf{K}^{\rm b}(\proj A)$.
\begin{enumerate}[\rm(a)]
\item $T$ is called \emph{presilting} if $\operatorname{Hom}\nolimits_{\mathsf{K}^{\rm b}(\proj A)}(T,T[\ell])=0$ for all positive integers $\ell$.\item $T$ is called \emph{silting} if it is presilting and $\mathsf{K}^{\rm b}(\proj A)=\thick T$.
\item $T$ is called \emph{2-term} if $T^i = 0$ for all $i\not= 0,-1$. In this case, the class $[T]=[T^0]-[T^{-1}]\in K_0(\proj A)$ of $T$ is called the \emph{$g$-vector} of $T$.
\item An element of $K_0(\proj A)$ is \emph{rigid} if it is a $g$-vector of some 2-term presilting complex.
\end{enumerate}
We denote by $\mathsf{silt} A$ (respectively, $\mathsf{psilt} A$, $\mathsf{2\mbox{-}silt} A$, $\mathsf{2\mbox{-}psilt} A$) the set of isomorphism classes of basic silting (respectively, presilting, 2-term silting, 2-term presilting) complexes of $\mathsf{K}^{\rm b}(\proj A)$.
Note that a 2-term presilting complex $T$ is silting if and only if $|T|=|A|$ holds.
For $T,U\in\mathsf{silt} A$, we write $T\ge U$ if $\operatorname{Hom}\nolimits_{\mathsf{K}^{\rm b}(\proj A)}(T,U[\ell])=0$ holds for all positive integers $\ell$. Then $(\mathsf{silt} A,\ge)$ is a partially ordered set \cite{AI}.
\end{definition}
In this paper, the subposet $(\mathsf{2\mbox{-}silt} A,\ge)$ of $(\mathsf{silt} A,\ge)$ plays a central role. It is known that $\operatorname{Hasse}\nolimits(\mathsf{2\mbox{-}silt} A)$ is $n$-regular for $n:=|A|$. More precisely, let $T=T_1\oplus\cdots\oplus T_n\in\mathsf{2\mbox{-}silt} A$ with indecomposable $T_i$. For each $1\le i\le n$, there exists precisely one $T'\in\mathsf{2\mbox{-}silt} A$ such that $T'=T'_i\oplus(\bigoplus_{j\neq i}T_j)$ for some $T'_i\neq T_i$. In this case, we call $T'$ \emph{mutation} of $T$ at $T_i$ and write
\[T'=\mu_{T_i}(T)=\mu_i(T).\]
In this case, either $T>T'$ or $T'<T$ holds.
We denote $T'$ by $\mu^-_i(T)$ (respectively, $\mu^+_i(T)$) if $T>T'$ and call it \emph{left mutation} (respectively, \emph{right mutation}).
The following result is fundamental in silting theory.
\begin{proposition}\label{mutation=exchange}
Let $T,T'\in\mathsf{2\mbox{-}silt} A$. Take a decomposition $T=T_1\oplus\cdots\oplus T_n$ with indecomposable $T_i$. Then the following conditions are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}[\rm(a)]
\item $T>T'$, and $T$ and $T'$ are mutation of each other.
\item There is an arrow $T\to T'$ in $\operatorname{Hasse}\nolimits(\mathsf{2\mbox{-}silt} A)$.
\item $T'=T'_i\oplus(\bigoplus_{j\neq i}T_j)$ and there is a triangle
\[T_i\xrightarrow{f} U_i\to T'_i\to T_i[1]\]
such that $f$ is a minimal left $(\add \bigoplus_{j\neq i}T_j)$-approximation.
\item $T'=T'_i\oplus(\bigoplus_{j\neq i}T_j)$ and there is a triangle
\[T_i\to U_i\xrightarrow{g} T'_i\to T_i[1]\]
such that $g$ is a minimal right $(\add \bigoplus_{j\neq i}T_j)$-approximation.
\end{enumerate}
The triangles in (c) and (d) are isomorphic, and called an \emph{exchange triangle}.
\end{proposition}
To introduce the $g$-fan of a finite dimensional $k$-algebra $A$,
we consider the real Grothendieck group of $A$:
\[K_0(\proj A)_\mathbb{R}:=K_0(\proj A)\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\mathbb{R}\simeq \mathbb{R}^{|A|}.\]
\begin{definition}
For $T=T_1\oplus\cdots\oplus T_\ell\in\mathsf{2\mbox{-}psilt} A$ with indecomposable $T_i$, let
\begin{eqnarray*}
C(T) &:=& \{\sum_{i=1}^\ell a_i[T_i]\mid a_1,\ldots,a_\ell\ge 0\}\subset K_0(\proj A)_\mathbb{R},\\
C_{\le1}(T) &:=& \{\sum_{i=1}^\ell a_i[T_i]\mid a_1,\ldots,a_\ell\ge 0, \ \sum_{i=1}^\ell a_i\le1\}\subset K_0(\proj A)_\mathbb{R}.
\end{eqnarray*}
We call the set
\[\Sigma(A):=\{C(T)\mid T\in\mathsf{2\mbox{-}psilt} A\}\]
of cones the \emph{$g$-fan} of $A$.
We also define the \emph{$g$-polytope} $\P(A)$ of $A$ by
\[\P(A):=\bigcup_{T\in\mathsf{2\mbox{-}silt} A}C_{\le1}(T).\]
We say that $A$ is \emph{$g$-convex} if the $g$-polytope $\P(A)$ is convex.
\end{definition}
Notice that $\Sigma(A)$ can be an infinite set. We give the following basic properties of $g$-fans.
\begin{proposition}\label{characterize g-finite}
Let $A$ be a finite dimensional algebra over a field $k$ and $n:=|A|$.
\begin{enumerate}[\rm(a)]
\item $\Sigma$ is a pairwise positive sign-coherent fan whose positive (respectively, negative) cone is given by $\sigma_+:=C(A)$ (respectively, $\sigma_-:=C(A[1])$).
\item Any cone in $\Sigma(A)$ is a face of a cone of dimension $n$.
\item Any cone in $\Sigma(A)$ of dimension $n-1$ is a face of precisely two cones of dimension $n$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
The following basic observation will be used frequently.
\begin{proposition}\label{+- condition}
Let $\Lambda$ be a finite dimensional algebra with orthogonal primitive idempotents $1=e_1+e_2$. Under the identification $P_1=(1,0)$ and $P_2=(0,1)$, the following assertions hold.
\begin{enumerate}[\rm(a)]
\item $\operatorname{cone}\nolimits\{(-1,0),(0,1)\}\in\Sigma(\Lambda)$ if and only if $e_2\Lambda e_1=0$.
\item $\operatorname{cone}\nolimits\{(1,0),(0,-1)\}\in\Sigma(\Lambda)$ if and only if $e_1\Lambda e_2=0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
Proposition \ref{+- condition} is explained by the following picture.
\[{e_2\Lambda e_1=0\Leftrightarrow\begin{xy}
0;<4pt,0pt>:<0pt,4pt>::
(0,-5)="0",
(-5,0)="1",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="2",
(5,0)="3",
(0,5)="4",
(0,-4)="a",
(4,0)="b",
(1.5,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
(7,0)*{{\scriptstyle P_1}},
(0,6.7)*{{\scriptstyle P_2}},
\ar@{-}"0";"1",
\ar@{-}"1";"4",
\ar@{-}"4";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"0",
\ar@{-}"2";"1",
\ar@{-}"2";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"4",
\ar@/^-2mm/@{.} "a";"b",
\end{xy}}\ \ \ \ \
{e_2\Lambda e_1=0\Leftrightarrow\begin{xy}
0;<4pt,0pt>:<0pt,4pt>::
(0,-5)="0",
(-5,0)="1",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="2",
(5,0)="3",
(0,5)="4",
(0,4)="a",
(-4,0)="b",
(1.5,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
(7,0)*{{\scriptstyle P_1}},
(0,6.7)*{{\scriptstyle P_2}},
\ar@{-}"0";"1",
\ar@{-}"0";"3",
\ar@{-}"4";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"0",
\ar@{-}"2";"1",
\ar@{-}"2";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"4",
\ar@/^-2mm/@{.} "a";"b",
\end{xy}}\]
\begin{proof}
We only prove (a): $\Sigma(A)\in\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}^{+-}(2)$ if and only if $P_1[1]\oplus P_2\in\mathsf{2\mbox{-}silt} A$ if and only if $\operatorname{Hom}\nolimits_{\mathsf{K}^{\rm b}(\proj A)}(P_1,P_2)=0$ if and only if $e_2\Lambda e_1=0$.
\end{proof}
We end this subsection with recalling the sign decomposition technique studied in \cite{Ao,AHIKM}.
We have to introduce the following notations.
\begin{definition}
Let $A$ be a basic finite dimensional algebra over a field $k$ with $|A|=n$, and $1=e_1+\cdots+e_n$ the orthogonal primitive idempotents. For $\epsilon\in\{\pm1\}^n$,
we define
\[K_0(\proj A)_{\epsilon,\mathbb{R}}:=\operatorname{cone}\nolimits(\epsilon_i[e_iA]\mid i\in\{1,\ldots,n\})\]
and a subfan of $\Sigma(A)$ by
\[\Sigma_\epsilon(A):=\{\sigma\in\Sigma(A)\mid \sigma\subset K_0(\proj A)_{\epsilon,\mathbb{R}}\}.\]
Define idempotents of $A$ by
\[e^+_\epsilon:=\sum_{\epsilon_i=1}e_i\ \mbox{ and }\ e^-_\epsilon:=\sum_{\epsilon_i=-1}e_i.\]
We denote by $A_{\epsilon}$ the subalgebra of $A$ given by
\[A_\epsilon:=\left[\begin{array}{cc}e^+_\epsilon Ae^+_\epsilon&e^+_\epsilon Ae^-_\epsilon\\
0&e^-_\epsilon Ae^-_\epsilon\end{array}\right].\]
Define an ideal $I_\epsilon$ of $A_\epsilon$ by
\[I_\epsilon:=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\operatorname{rad}\nolimits (e^+_\epsilon Ae^+_\epsilon)\cap\operatorname{Ann}\nolimits_{e^+_\epsilon Ae^+_\epsilon}(e^+_\epsilon Ae^-_\epsilon)&0\\
0&\operatorname{rad}\nolimits(e^-_\epsilon Ae^-_\epsilon)\cap\operatorname{Ann}\nolimits(e^+_\epsilon Ae^-_\epsilon)_{e^-_\epsilon Ae^-_\epsilon}\end{array}\right].\]
\end{definition}
The following result is often very useful to calculate $\Sigma_\epsilon(A)$.
\begin{proposition}\label{sign decomposition}\cite[Example 4.26]{AHIKM}
For each ideal $I$ of $A_\epsilon$ contained in $I_\epsilon$, the isomorphisms $-\otimes_{A_\epsilon}A:K_0(\proj A_\epsilon)_\mathbb{R}\simeq K_0(\proj A)_\mathbb{R}$ and $-\otimes_{A_\epsilon}(A_\epsilon/I):K_0(\proj A_\epsilon)_\mathbb{R}\simeq K_0(\proj A_\epsilon/I)_\mathbb{R}$ gives an isomorphism of fans
\[\Sigma_\epsilon(A)\simeq\Sigma_\epsilon(A_\epsilon/I).\]
\end{proposition}
The following finiteness condition plays a central role in this paper.
\begin{definition}
Let $A$ be a finite dimensional algebra over a field $k$.
We say that $A$ is \emph{$g$-finite} if $\#\mathsf{2\mbox{-}silt} A<\infty$. (This is called \emph{$\tau$-tilting finite} in \cite{DIJ}.)
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}\label{g-fnite equivalent}
$A$ is $g$-finite (or equivalently, $\Sigma(A)$ is finite) if and only if $\Sigma(A)$ is complete.
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Silting complexes in terms of matrices}\label{section: Matrices and Presilting complexes}
In this subsection, we give basic properties of 2-term presilting complexes. Throughout this subsection, we assume the following.
\begin{assumption}\label{Lambda=AXB}
For rings $A$ and $B$ and an $A^{\rm op}\otimes_k B$-module $X$ which is finitely generated on both sides, let
\[\Lambda:=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
A&X\\ 0&B
\end{array}\right].\]
Equivalently, $\Lambda$ is a ring with orthogonal idempotents $1=e_1+e_2$ satisfying $e_2\Lambda e_1=0$. In fact, we can recover $\Lambda$ from $A:=e_1\Lambda e_1$, $B:=e_2\Lambda e_2$ and $X:=e_1\Lambda e_2$ by the equality above.
\end{assumption}
Consider projective $\Lambda$-modules
\[P_1:=[A\ X],\ P_2:=[0\ B]\in\proj\Lambda.\]
For $s,t\ge0$, we denote by $M_{s,t}(X)$ the set of $s\times t$ matrices with entries in $X$. Then we have an isomorphism
\[M_{s,t}(X)\simeq\operatorname{Hom}\nolimits_\Lambda(P_2^{\oplus t},P_1^{\oplus s})\]
sending $x\in M_{s,t}(X)$ to the left multiplication $x(\cdot):P_2^{\oplus t}\to P_1^{\oplus s}$.
Thus we have a 2-term complex
\[P_x:=(P_2^{\oplus t}\xrightarrow{x(\cdot)} P_1^{\oplus s})\in\per\Lambda.\]
The following observation is basic.
\begin{proposition}\label{Ext 1}
Let $s,t,u,v\ge0$, $x\in M_{s,t}(X)$ and $y\in M_{u,v}(X)$.
\begin{enumerate}[\rm(a)]
\item Then we have an exact sequence
\[M_{u,s}(A)\oplus M_{v,t}(B)\xrightarrow{[(\cdot)x\ y(\cdot)]}M_{u,t}(X)\to\operatorname{Hom}\nolimits_{\per\Lambda}(P_x,P_y[1])\to0.\]
\item In particular, $P_x$ is presilting if and only if $M_{s,t}(X)=M_s(A)x+xM_t(B)$ holds.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The assertion (a) follows from an exact sequence
\[\operatorname{Hom}\nolimits_\Lambda(P_1^{\oplus s},P_1^{\oplus u})\oplus\operatorname{Hom}\nolimits_\Lambda(P_2^{\oplus t},P_2^{\oplus v})\xrightarrow{[(\cdot)x\ y(\cdot)]}\operatorname{Hom}\nolimits_\Lambda(P_2^{\oplus t},P_1^{\oplus u})\to\operatorname{Hom}\nolimits_{\per\Lambda}(P_x,P_y[1])\to0.\]
The assertion (b) is immediate from (a).
\end{proof}
The following construction of silting complexes of $\Lambda$ will be used frequently, where $t(X_B)$ (respectively, $t({}_A X)$) is the minimal number of generators of $X$ as a right $B$-module (respectively, left $A$-module).
\begin{proposition}\label{first mutation}
In Assumption \ref{Lambda=AXB}, assume that $A$ and $B$ are local $k$-algebras.
\begin{enumerate}[\rm(a)]
\item $\Sigma(\Lambda)$ contains $\operatorname{cone}\nolimits\{(0,-1),(1,-r)\}$ for $r:=t(X_B)=\dim(X/XJ_B)_{B/J_B}$.
\item $\Sigma(\Lambda)$ contains $\operatorname{cone}\nolimits\{(1,0),(\ell,-1)\}$ for $\ell:=t({}_A X)=\dim_{A/J_A}(X/J_AX)$.
\item Let $g_1,\ldots,g_r$ be a minimal set of generators of the $B$-module $X$. Then $\mu_1^+(\Lambda[1])=P_g\oplus P_2[1]\in\mathsf{2\mbox{-}silt} \Lambda$ holds for $g:=[g_1\ \cdots\ g_r]\in M_{1,r}(X)$.
\item Let $h_1,\ldots,h_\ell$ a minimal set of generators of the $A^{\operatorname{op}\nolimits}$-module $X$. Then $\mu_2^-(\Lambda)=P_1\oplus P_h\in\mathsf{2\mbox{-}silt} \Lambda$ holds for $h:=\left[\begin{smallmatrix}h_1\\ \raisebox{3pt}{\scalebox{.75}{\vdots}}\\ h_\ell\end{smallmatrix}\right]\in M_{\ell,1}(X)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
By Propositions \ref{+- condition} and \ref{first mutation}, a part of $\Sigma(\Lambda)$ has the following form.
\[\Sigma(\Lambda) =\begin{xy}
0;<4pt,0pt>:<0pt,4pt>::
(0,-5)="0",
(-5,0)="1",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="2",
(5,0)="3",
(0,5)="4",
(15,-5)="5",
(5,-15)="6",
(2,-6)="a",
(6,-2)="b",
(0,6.5)*{{\scriptstyle P_2}},
(7,0.5)*{{\scriptstyle P_1}},
(20,-6)*{{\scriptstyle P_h=\ell P_1-P_2}},
(10.5,-16)*{{\scriptstyle P_g=P_1-rP_2}},
(-2.5,-6)*{{\scriptstyle P_2[1]}},
(-7.3,0)*{{\scriptstyle P_1[1]}},
(1.5,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
(12.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle\mu_2^-(\Lambda)}},
(-1,-12)*{{\scriptstyle\mu_1^+(\Lambda[1])}},
(7,1)*{},
(0,6.7)*{},
\ar@{-}"0";"1",
\ar@{-}"1";"4",
\ar@{-}"3";"5",
\ar@{-}"3";"4",
\ar@{-}"2";"0",
\ar@{-}"2";"1",
\ar@{-}"2";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"4",
\ar@{-}"2";"5",
\ar@{-}"2";"6",
\ar@{-}"0";"6",
\ar@/^-2mm/@{.} "a";"b",
\end{xy}\]
\begin{proof}
We only prove (a)(c) since (b)(d) are the duals.
A minimal right $(\add P_2[1])$-approximation of $P_1[1]$ is given by
\[g(\cdot):P_2[1]^{\oplus r}\to P_1[1].\]
Thus the mutation of $\Lambda[1]$ at $P_1[1]$ is $P_g\oplus P_2$.
\end{proof}
Now we assume that $B$ is a local algebra. We fix a minimal set of generators $g_1,\ldots,g_r$ of the right $B$-module $X$ and set
\[g:=[g_1\ \cdots\ g_r]\in M_{1,r}(X)\ \mbox{ and }\
\overline{g}:=[\overline{g_1}\ \cdots\ \overline{g_r}]\in M_{1,r}(X/XJ_B),
\]
where $\overline{(\cdot)}$ is a canonical surjection $X \twoheadrightarrow X/X J_B$.
Then we have an isomorphism
\[
\overline{g}(\cdot):M_{r,1}(B/J_B)\simeq X/XJ_B,
\]
and we define a map $\pi:X\rightarrow M_{r,1}(B/J_B)$ by
\[
\pi:=(X\xrightarrow{\overline{(\cdot)}} X/XJ_B \xrightarrow{(\overline{g}(\cdot))^{-1}}M_{r,1}(B/J_B)).
\]
For each $s,t\ge0$, an entry-wise application of $\pi$ gives a map
\[\pi:M_{s,t}(X)\to M_{s,t}(M_{r,1}(B/J_B))=M_{rs,t}(B/J_B).
\]
In other words, for the identity matrix $I_s \in M_s(k)$ and $\overline{g}I_s:=\left[\begin{smallmatrix}
\overline{g} & &O \\
& \ddots & \\
O& & \overline{g}\\
\end{smallmatrix}\right]
\in M_s(M_{1,r}(k))=M_{s,rs}(k)$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{define pi ab}
\overline{x}=(\overline{g}I_s)\pi(x)\ \mbox{ for each }\ x\in M_{s,t}(X).
\end{equation}
Define a morphism of $k$-algebras
\[\phi:M_s(A)\to M_{rs}(B/J_B)\ \mbox{ by }\ a(\overline{g}I_s)=(\overline{g}I_s)\phi(a).\]
Later we will use the following observation.
\begin{proposition}\label{proposition:full rank}
In Assumption \ref{Lambda=AXB}, assume that $B$ is a local algebra. Let $s,t\ge0$.
\begin{enumerate}[\rm(a)]
\item
$\pi:M_{s,t}(X)\to M_{rs,t}(B/J_B)$ is a morphism of $M_s(A)^{\operatorname{op}\nolimits}\otimes_kM_t(B)$-modules, where we regard $M_{rs,t}(B/J_B)$ as an $M_s(A)^{\operatorname{op}\nolimits}$-module via $\phi$.
\item Let $x\in M_{s,t}(X)$. If $P_x$ is presilting, then $\pi(x)\in M_{rs,t}(B/J_B)$ has full rank.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
(a) For any $a\in M_s(A)$, $x\in M_{s,t}(X)$ and $b\in M_t(B)$, we need to show $\pi(axb)=\phi(a)\pi(x)b$.
In fact,
\[(\overline{g}I_s)\phi(a)\pi(x)b=a(\overline{g}I_s)\pi(x)b\stackrel{\eqref{define pi ab}}{=}a\overline{x}b=\overline{axb}\stackrel{\eqref{define pi ab}}{=}(\overline{g}I_s)\pi(axb)\]
gives the desired equality since $\overline{g}I_s(\cdot)$ is injective.
(b) By Proposition \ref{Ext 1}(b), we have $M_{s,t}(X)=M_s(A)x+xM_t(B)$. Applying $\pi$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}M_{rs,t}(B/J_B)=\pi(M_s(A)x+xM_t(B))&\stackrel{{\rm(a)}}{=}&\phi(M_s(A))\pi(x)+\pi(x)M_t(B)\\
&\subset& M_{rs}(B/J_B)\pi(x)+\pi(x)M_t(B/J_B).
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus the right-hand side is $M_{rs,t}(B/J_B)$. This clearly implies that $\pi(x)$ has full rank.
\end{proof}
For completeness, we also give the dual statement of Proposition \ref{proposition:full rank}.
Now we assume that $A$ is a local algebra. We fix a minimal set of generators $h_1,\ldots,h_\ell$ of the left $A$-module $X$ and set
\[
h:=\left[\begin{smallmatrix}h_1\\ \raisebox{3pt}{\scalebox{.75}{\vdots}}\\ h_\ell\end{smallmatrix}\right]\in M_{\ell,1}(X)\ \mbox{ and }\ \overline{h}:=\left[\begin{smallmatrix}\overline{h_1}\\ \raisebox{3pt}{\scalebox{.75}{\vdots}}\\ \overline{h_\ell}\end{smallmatrix}\right]\in M_{\ell,1}(X/J_AX),
\]
where by abuse of notations, $\overline{(\cdot)}$ is a canonical surjection $X \twoheadrightarrow X/J_A X$.
Then we have an isomorphism $(\cdot)\overline{h}:M_{1,\ell}(A/J_A)\simeq X/J_AX$. By abuse of notations, let
\[\pi:=(X\xrightarrow{(\cdot)} X/J_AX\xrightarrow{((\cdot )\overline{h})^{-1}}M_{1,\ell}(A/J_A)).\]
For each $s,t\ge0$, an entry-wise application of $\pi$ gives a map\[\pi:M_{s,t}(X)\to M_{s,t}(M_{1,\ell}(A/J_A))=M_{s,\ell t}(A/J_A).\]
Define a morphism of $k$-algebras
\[\phi:M_t(B)\to M_{\ell t}(A/J_A)\ \mbox{ by }\ (\overline{h}I_t)b=\phi(b)(\overline{h}I_s).\]
We have the following dual of Proposition \ref{proposition:full rank}.
\begin{proposition}\label{proposition:full rank 2}
In Assumption \ref{Lambda=AXB}, assume that $A$ is a local algebra. Let $s,t\ge0$.
\begin{enumerate}[\rm(a)]
\item $\pi:M_{s,t}(X)\to M_{s,\ell t}(A/J_A)$ is a morphism of $M_s(A)^{\operatorname{op}\nolimits}\otimes_kM_t(B)$-modules, where we regard $M_{s,\ell t}(A/J_A)$ as an $M_t(B)$-module via $\phi$.
\item Let $x\in M_{s,t}(X)$. If $P_x$ is presilting, then $\pi(x)\in M_{s,\ell t}(A/J_A)$ has full rank.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Uniserial property of $g$-finite algebras}
As an application of results in the previous subsection, we prove the following result, which is not used in the rest of this paper.
\begin{theorem}\label{uniserial 0}
Let $\Lambda$ be a finite dimensional elementary $k$-algebra, and $1=e_1+\cdots+e_n$ the orthogonal primitive idempotents.
If $\Lambda$ is $g$-finite, then for each $1\le i\neq j\le n$, $e_i\Lambda e_j/e_i\Lambda e_jJ_\Lambda e_j$ is a uniserial $(e_i\Lambda e_i)^{\operatorname{op}\nolimits}$-module and $e_i\Lambda e_j/e_iJ_\Lambda e_iJ_\Lambda e_j$ is a uniserial $e_j\Lambda e_j$-module.
\end{theorem}
Thanks to sign decomposition, we can deduce Theorem \ref{uniserial 0} from the following result.
\begin{theorem}\label{uniserial}
Let $A$ and $B$ be local $k$-algebras with $k\simeq A/J_A\simeq B/J_B$. If $X$ is a $A^{\operatorname{op}\nolimits}\otimes_kB$-module such that $\left[\begin{array}{cc}
A&X\\ 0&B
\end{array}\right]$ is $g$-finite, then $X/XJ_B$ is a uniserial $A^{\operatorname{op}\nolimits}$-module and $X/J_AX$ is a uniserial $B$-module.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{uniserial}$\Rightarrow$Theorem \ref{uniserial 0}]
Since $\Lambda$ is $g$-finite, so is $\Gamma:=(e_i+e_j)\Lambda(e_i+e_j)$. By Proposition \ref{sign decomposition}, $\Gamma_{+-}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
e_i\Lambda e_i&e_i\Lambda e_j\\ 0&e_j\Lambda e_j
\end{array}\right]$ is also $g$-finite. Thus the assertion follows from Theorem \ref{uniserial}.
\end{proof}
In the rest of this subsection, we prove Theorem \ref{uniserial}.
The following observation plays a key role in the proof, where we identify $K_0(\proj \Lambda)$ with $\mathbb{Z}^2$ via $[A\ X]\mapsto(1,0)$, $[0\ B]\mapsto(0,1)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{(-1,b)}
Let $\Lambda:=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
A&X\\ 0&k
\end{array}\right]$. Assume that $(1,-1)\in K_0(\proj\Lambda)$ is rigid.
\begin{enumerate}[\rm(a)]
\item There exists $h\in X$ such that $X=Ah$.
\item Let $\Lambda':=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
A&J_AX\\ 0&k
\end{array}\right]$ and $t\ge1$. If $(1,-t)\in K_0(\proj\Lambda)$ is rigid, then $(1,1-t)\in K_0(\proj\Lambda')$ is rigid.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(a) By Proposition \ref{Ext 1}(b), there exists $h\in X$ satisfying $X=Ah+hk=Ah$.
(b) By Proposition \ref{Ext 1}(b), there exists $[x_1\ x_2\ \cdots\ x_t]\in M_{1,t}(X)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{1,b equality}
M_{1,t}(X)=A[x_1\ \cdots\ x_t]+[x_1\ \cdots\ x_t]M_t(k).
\end{equation}
As in Section \ref{section: Matrices and Presilting complexes}, the element $h$ gives surjections
\[
\pi:=(X\xrightarrow{\overline{(\cdot)}} X/J_AX\xrightarrow{((\cdot)\overline{h})^{-1}}A/J_A=k)\ \mbox{ and }\ \pi:M_{1,t}(X)\to M_{1,t}(k).
\]
By Proposition \ref{proposition:full rank 2}, $\pi(x)\in M_{1,t}(k)$ has full rank. By changing indices if necessary, we can assume $x_1\in A^\times h$. Multiplying an element in $A^\times$ from left, we can assume $x_1=h$.
Multiplying an element in $\operatorname{GL}\nolimits_t(k)$ from right, we can assume $x_i\in J_Ah$ for each $2\le i\le t$. We claim
\[M_{1,t-1}(J_AX)=A[x_2\ \cdots\ x_t]+[x_2\ \cdots\ x_t]M_{t-1}(k).\]
In fact, fix any $[y_2\ \cdots y_t]\in M_{1,t-1}(J_AX)$. By \eqref{1,b equality} there exist $a\in A$ and $b=[b_{ij}]_{1\le i,j\le t}\in M_t(k)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{y=ax+xb}
[0\ y_2\ \cdots y_t]=a[h\ x_2\ \cdots x_t]+[h\ x_2\ \cdots x_t]b.
\end{equation}
Applying $\pi$, we obtain
\[[0\ 0\ \cdots 0]=\overline{a}[1\ 0\ \cdots 0]+[1\ 0\ \cdots 0]b\ \mbox{ in }\ M_{1,t}(k).\]
Thus we obtain $b_{12}=\cdots=b_{1t}=0$. Looking at the $i$-th entries for $2\le i\le t$ of \eqref{y=ax+xb}, we have
\[[y_2\ \cdots y_t]=a[x_2\ \cdots x_t]+[x_2\ \cdots x_t][b_{ij}]_{2\le i,j\le n}.\]
Thus the claim follows.
\end{proof}
We are ready to prove Theorem \ref{uniserial}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{uniserial}]
We prove that $X/XJ_B$ is a uniserial $A^{\operatorname{op}\nolimits}$-module under a weaker assumption that $(1,-t)\in K_0(\proj\Lambda)$ is rigid for each $t\ge1$.
Since $\overline{\Lambda}:=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
A&X/XJ_B\\ 0&k
\end{array}\right]$ is a factor algebra of $\Lambda$, the element $(1,-t)\in K_0(\proj\overline{\Lambda})$ is rigid for each $t\ge1$. Replacing $\Lambda$ by $\overline{\Lambda}$, we can assume that
\[B=k\ \mbox{ and }\ \Lambda=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
A&X\\ 0&k
\end{array}\right].\]
We use induction on $\dim_kX$. By Lemma \ref{(-1,b)}(a), the $A^{\operatorname{op}\nolimits}$-module $X$ has a unique maximal submodule $J_AX$. Let $\Lambda'=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
A&J_AX\\ 0&k
\end{array}\right]$. By Lemma \ref{(-1,b)}(b), $(1,-t)\in K_0(\proj\Lambda')$ is rigid for each $t\ge1$. By induction hypothesis, $J_AX$ is a uniserial $A^{\operatorname{op}\nolimits}$-module. Therefore $X$ is also a uniserial $A^{\operatorname{op}\nolimits}$-module.
\end{proof}
\section{Gluing, Rotation and Subdivision of $g$-fans}
\subsection{Gluing fans}
Let $\Lambda$ and $\Lambda'$ be elementary $k$-algebras of rank 2 with orthogonal primitive idempotents $1=e_1+e_2\in\Lambda$ and $1=e'_1+e'_2\in\Lambda'$.
In this subsection, we prove the following Gluing Theorem, where we identify $K_0(\proj\Lambda)$ and $K_0(\proj\Lambda')$ with $\mathbb{Z}^2$ by $e_1\Lambda=(1,0)=e_1'\Lambda'$ and $e_2\Lambda=(0,1)=e_2'\Lambda'$.
\begin{theorem}[{Gluing Theorem}]\label{theorem:gluing1}
Let $\Lambda$ and $\Lambda'$ be elementary $k$-algebras of rank 2 with orthogonal primitive idempotents $1=e_1+e_2\in\Lambda$ and $1=e'_1+e'_2\in\Lambda'$. Assume $e_1\Lambda e_2=0$ and $e'_2\Lambda' e'_1=0$, or equivalently, $\Sigma(\Lambda)\in\overline{\mathsf{Fan}}_{\rm sc}^{+-}(2)$ and $\Sigma(\Lambda')\in\overline{\mathsf{Fan}}_{\rm sc}^{-+}(2)$ (Proposition \ref{+- condition}).
Then, there exists an elementary $k$-algebra $\Gamma$ such that
\begin{equation}
\Sigma(\Gamma)= \Sigma(\Lambda)\ast\Sigma(\Lambda').
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
Theorem \ref{theorem:gluing1} is explained by the following picture.
\[{\Sigma(\Lambda)=\begin{xy}
0;<4pt,0pt>:<0pt,4pt>::
(0,-5)="0",
(-5,0)="1",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="2",
(5,0)="3",
(0,5)="4",
(0,-4)="a",
(4,0)="b",
(1.5,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
(4,-4)*{{\scriptstyle ?}},
\ar@{-}"0";"1",
\ar@{-}"1";"4",
\ar@{-}"4";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"0",
\ar@{-}"2";"1",
\ar@{-}"2";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"4",
\ar@/^-2mm/@{.} "a";"b",
\end{xy}}\ \ \ \ \
{\Sigma(\Lambda')=\begin{xy}
0;<4pt,0pt>:<0pt,4pt>::
(0,-5)="0",
(-5,0)="1",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="2",
(5,0)="3",
(0,5)="4",
(0,4)="c",
(-4,0)="d",
(1.5,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
(-4,4)*{{\scriptstyle !}},
\ar@{-}"0";"1",
\ar@{-}"0";"3",
\ar@{-}"4";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"0",
\ar@{-}"2";"1",
\ar@{-}"2";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"4",
\ar@/^-2mm/@{.} "c";"d",
\end{xy}}\ \ \ \ \
{\Sigma(\Gamma)=\begin{xy}
0;<4pt,0pt>:<0pt,4pt>::
(0,-5)="0",
(-5,0)="1",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="2",
(5,0)="3",
(0,5)="4",
(0,-4)="a",
(4,0)="b",
(0,4)="c",
(-4,0)="d",
(1.5,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
(4,-4)*{{\scriptstyle ?}},
(-4,4)*{{\scriptstyle !}},
\ar@{-}"0";"1",
\ar@{-}"4";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"0",
\ar@{-}"2";"1",
\ar@{-}"2";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"4",
\ar@/^-2mm/@{.} "a";"b",
\ar@/^-2mm/@{.} "c";"d",
\end{xy}}\]
The construction of $\Gamma$ is as follows:
We can write
\[
\Lambda=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
A&X\\ 0&B
\end{array}\right]\
\mbox{ and }\ \Lambda'=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
C&0\\ Y&D
\end{array}\right],
\]
where $A,B,C,D$ are local $k$-algebras, $X$ is an $A^{\rm op}\otimes_k B$-module, and $Y$ is an $D^{\rm op}\otimes_k C$-module.
Since $\Lambda$ and $\Lambda'$ are elementary, we have $k\simeq A/J_A\simeq B/J_B \simeq C/J_C\simeq D/J_D$.
Let $A\times_kC$ be a fiber product of canonical surjections $\overline{(\cdot)}:A\to k$ and $\overline{(\cdot)}:C\to k$, that is,
\[A\times_kC:=\{(a,c)\in A\times C\mid \overline{a}=\overline{c}\}.\]
Let $B\times_kD$ be a fibre product of $\overline{(\cdot)}:B\to k$ and $\overline{(\cdot)}:D\to k$. Using the projections $A\times_kC\to A$ and $B\times_kD\to B$, we regard $X$ as an $(A\times_kC)^{\operatorname{op}\nolimits}\otimes_k(B\times_kD)$-module, and using the projections $A\times_kC\to C$ and $B\times_kD\to D$, we regard $Y$ as an $(B\times_kD)^{\operatorname{op}\nolimits}\otimes_k(A\times_kC)$-module.
We prove that the algebra
\[\Gamma:=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
A\times_kC&X\\ Y&B\times_kD
\end{array}\right]\]
satisfies $\Sigma(\Gamma)= \Sigma(\Lambda)\ast\Sigma(\Lambda')$, where the multiplication of the elements of $X$ and those of $Y$ are defined to be zero.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{theorem:gluing1}]
It suffices to prove
\[\Sigma_{+-}(\Gamma)= \Sigma_{+-}(\Lambda)\ \mbox{ and }\ \Sigma_{-+}(\Gamma)= \Sigma_{-+}(\Lambda').\]
For $\epsilon=(+,-)$, we have $\Gamma_\epsilon=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
A\times_kC&X\\ 0&B\times_kD
\end{array}\right]$. The ideal $I:=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\operatorname{rad}\nolimits C&0\\ 0&\operatorname{rad}\nolimits D
\end{array}\right]$ of $\Gamma_\epsilon$ is contained in $I_\epsilon$, and we have an isomorphism $\Gamma_\epsilon/I\simeq \Lambda$ of $k$-algebras. Applying Proposition \ref{sign decomposition} to $\Gamma$, we get $\Sigma_{+-}(\Gamma)= \Sigma_{+-}(\Lambda)$.
By the same argument, $\Sigma_{-+}(\Gamma)= \Sigma_{-+}(\Lambda')$ holds, as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}
\label{example:gluing}
Let $\Lambda$ and $\Lambda'$ be the following algebras.
\[
\Lambda:=\dfrac{
k\left[\begin{xy}( 0,0) *+{1}="1",
( 8,0) *+{2}="2",\ar "1";"2"^{a_3} \ar @(ru,rd)"2";"2"^{a_4} \ar @(ul,ur)"1";"1"^(0.2){a_2} \ar @ (dl,dr)"1";"1"_(.2){a_1}
\end{xy}\right]}{\langle a_1^2, a_2^2, a_4^2, a_2a_1,a_2a_3-a_3a_4\rangle},\hspace{10pt}
\Lambda':=\dfrac{
k\left[\begin{xy}( 0,0) *+{1}="1",
( 8,0) *+{2}="2",\ar "2";"1"_{b_1} \ar @(ru,rd)"2";"2"^{b_2}
\end{xy}\right]}{\langle b_2^2\rangle}
\]
By Examples \ref{example:13122} and \ref{example:1212} below, we have
\[
\Sigma(\Lambda)=\Sigma_{13122;00}=\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=0mm]
\coordinate(0) at(0:0);
\coordinate(x) at(0:0.5);
\coordinate(y) at(90:0.5);
\coordinate(shift13122) at (0);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($2*(x)+-3*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($1*(x)+-2*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v5) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v0)--(v5);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4)--(v5);
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\end{tikzpicture}
\
\Sigma(\Lambda')=\Sigma_{00;1212}=\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=0mm]
\coordinate(0) at(0:0);
\coordinate(x) at(0:0.5);
\coordinate(y) at(90:0.5);
\coordinate(shift1212) at (0);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($-1*(x)+1*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($-2*(x)+1*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4);
\coordinate(w1) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\end{tikzpicture}
\]
Let $A=e_1 \Lambda e_1$, $X=e_1 \Lambda e_2$, $B=e_2 \Lambda e_2$, $C=e_1 \Lambda' e_1$, $Y=e_2 \Lambda' e_1$, $D=e_2 \Lambda'e_2$ and $\Gamma=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
A\times_kC&X\\ Y&B\times_kD
\end{array}\right]$.
Then
\[
\Gamma= \dfrac{
k\left[\begin{xy}( 0,0) *+{1}="1",
( 10,0) *+{2}="2",\ar@<1.5pt> "1";"2"^{a_3} \ar @(dr,dl)"2";"2"^(.2){a_4} \ar @(ul,ur)"1";"1"^(.2){a_2} \ar @ (dl,dr)"1";"1"_(.2){a_1} \ar@<1.5pt> "2";"1"^{b_1} \ar @(ur,ul)"2";"2"_(.2){b_2}
\end{xy}\right]}{\langle a_1^2, a_2^2, a_4^2, a_2a_1,a_2a_3-a_3a_4, b_2^2\rangle+\langle a_ib_j,b_ja_i\mid i\in \{1,2,3,4\},j\in\{1,2\}\rangle}
\]
By Gluing Theorem \ref{theorem:gluing1}, we have
\[
\Sigma(\Gamma)=\Sigma(\Lambda)*\Sigma(\Lambda')=\Sigma_{13122;1212}=\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=0mm]
\coordinate(0) at(0:0);
\coordinate(x) at(0:0.5);
\coordinate(y) at(90:0.5);
\coordinate(shift13122) at (0);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($2*(x)+-3*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($1*(x)+-2*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v5) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v0)--(v5);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4)--(v5);
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($-2*(x)+1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w5) at($-1*(x)+1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w6) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w6);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (v0)--(w5);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w4)--(w5);
\draw (w5)--(w6);
\draw (w6)--(v1);
\end{tikzpicture}
\]
\end{example}
\subsection{Rotation and Mutation}
In this subsection, we explain a connection between the rotation of a fan given in Definition \ref{define rotation} and mutation of a 2-term silting complex.
The following main result in this section shows that mutation of an algebra induce the rotation of the $g$-fan, where we identify $K_0(\proj\Lambda)$ with $\mathbb{Z}^2$ by $e_1\Lambda=(1,0)$ and $e_2\Lambda=(0,1)$.
\begin{theorem}[{Rotation Theorem}]\label{theorem:rotation}
Let $\Lambda$ be a finite dimensional $k$-algebra of rank 2
with orthogonal primitive idempotents $1=e_1+e_2$. Assume $e_1\Lambda e_2=0$, or equivalently, $\Sigma(\Lambda)\in\overline{\mathsf{Fan}}_{\rm sc}^{+-}(2)$ (Proposition \ref{+- condition}).
Then, there exists a finite dimensional $k$-algebra $\Gamma$ such that
\[\Sigma(\Gamma)=\rho(\Sigma(\Lambda)).\]
Furthermore, if $\Lambda$ is elementary, then $\Gamma$ can be taken to be elementary.
\end{theorem}
Theorem \ref{theorem:rotation} is explained by the following picture.
\[
{\Sigma(\Lambda) =\begin{xy}
0;<4pt,0pt>:<0pt,4pt>::
(0,-5)="0",
(-5,0)="1",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="2",
(5,0)="3",
(0,5)="4",
(15,-5)="5",
(0,-4)="a",
(4,-1.33)="b",
(1.5,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
(7,1)*{},
(0,6.7)*{},
\ar@{-}"0";"1",
\ar@{-}"1";"4",
\ar@{-}"3";"5",
\ar@{-}"3";"4",
\ar@{-}"2";"0",
\ar@{-}"2";"1",
\ar@{-}"2";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"4",
\ar@{-}"2";"5",
\ar@/^-2mm/@{.} "a";"b",
\end{xy}}\ \ \ \ \
{\Sigma(\Gamma)\simeq\begin{xy}
0;<4pt,0pt>:<0pt,4pt>::
(0,-5)="0",
(-5,0)="1",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="2",
(5,0)="3",
(0,5)="4",
(15,-5)="5",
(-15,5)="6",
(0,-4)="a",
(4,-1.33)="b",
(5,-0.85)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-5,0.85)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
(7,1)*{},
(0,6.7)*{},
\ar@{-}"0";"1",
\ar@{-}"3";"5",
\ar@{-}"2";"0",
\ar@{-}"2";"1",
\ar@{-}"2";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"5",
\ar@{-}"6";"1",
\ar@{-}"6";"2",
\ar@{-}"6";"3",
\ar@/^-2mm/@{.} "a";"b",
\end{xy}}
\]
To prove Theorem \ref{theorem:rotation}, we need the following preparation.
Let $A$ be a basic finite dimensional algebra over a field $k$ with $|A|=n$, and $1=e_1+\cdots+e_n$ the orthogonal primitive idempotents.
For $1\le i\le n$ and $\delta\in\{\pm1\}$, consider a half space
\[\mathbb{R}^n_{i,\delta}:=\{x_1e_1+\cdots+x_de_n\in\mathbb{R}^n\mid \delta x_i\ge0\}\]
and define a subfan of $\Sigma$ by
\[\Sigma_{i,\delta}:=\{\sigma\in\Sigma\mid\sigma\subset\mathbb{R}^n_{i,\delta}\}.\]
On the other hand, for elements $T\ge T'$ in $\mathsf{silt} A$, we consider the interval
\[[T',T]:=\{U\in\mathsf{silt} A\mid T\ge U\ge T'\}.\]
The following result provides a correspondence of a part of two $g$-fans.
\begin{proposition}\label{lower upper bij}
For $1\le i\le n$, let $B:=\operatorname{End}\nolimits_A(\mu_i^-(A))$, where $\mu^-_i(A)=T_i\oplus(\bigoplus_{j\neq i}P_j^A)$.
\begin{enumerate}[\rm(a)]
\item\cite[Threom 4.26]{AHIKM} There exists a triangle functor $F:\mathsf{K}^{\rm b}(\proj A)\to\mathsf{K}^{\rm b}(\proj B)$ which satisfies $F(T_i)\simeq P_i^B$ and $F(P_j^A)\simeq P_j^B$ for each $j\neq i$ and gives an isomorphism $K_0(\proj A)\simeq K_0(\proj B)$
and an isomorphism of fans
\[\Sigma_{i,-}(A)\simeq\Sigma_{i,+}(B).\]
\item There are isomorphisms $(1-e_i)A(1-e_i)\simeq(1-e_i)B(1-e_i)$ and $A/(1-e_i)\simeq B/(1-e_i)$ of $k$-algebras.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
(b) Although this is known to experts, we give a proof for convenience of the reader. The first isomorphism is clear. To prove the second one, notice that $A/(1-e_i)=\operatorname{End}\nolimits_{\mathsf{K}^{\rm b}(\proj A)}(P_i^A)/[A/P_i^A]$ and $B/(1-e_i)=\operatorname{End}\nolimits_{\mathsf{K}^{\rm b}(\proj A)}(T_i)/[T/T_i]$ hold, where $[X]$ denotes the ideal consisting of morphisms factoring through $\add X$.
Let $P_i \xrightarrow{f} Q \xrightarrow{g} T_i\xrightarrow{h} P_i[1]$ be an exchange triangle. Let $a\in e_iAe_i=\operatorname{End}\nolimits_{\mathsf{K}^{\rm b}(\proj A)}(P_i)$.
Since $f$ is a minimal left $(\add A/P_i)$-approximation of $P_i$,
we obtain the following commutative diagram.
\[
\xymatrix@R=1.5em{
P_i \ar[r]^f \ar[d]^a & Q \ar[r]^g \ar[d] & T_i \ar[r]^h\ar[d]^b&P_i[1]\ar[d]^{a[1]}\\
P_i \ar[r]^f & Q \ar[r]^g & T_i\ar[r]^h & P_i[1]}
\]
It is routine to check that the desired isomorphism $A/(1-e_i)A=\operatorname{End}\nolimits_{\mathsf{K}^{\rm b}(\proj A)}(P_i^A)/[A/P_i^A]\simeq B/(1-e_i)=\operatorname{End}\nolimits_{\mathsf{K}^{\rm b}(\proj A)}(T_i)/[T/T_i]$ is given by $a\mapsto b$.
\end{proof}
We are ready to prove Theorem \ref{theorem:rotation}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{theorem:rotation}]
Let $T=P_1^\Lambda\oplus T_2:=\mu_2^-(\Lambda)$ and $E:=\operatorname{End}\nolimits_{\mathsf{K}^{\rm b}(\proj \Lambda)}(T)$.
By Proposition \ref{lower upper bij}(a), we have a triangle functor $F:\mathsf{K}^{\rm b}(\proj \Lambda)\to \mathsf{K}^{\rm b}(\proj E)$ which satisfies
\begin{equation*}
F(P_1^\Lambda)=P_1^E\ \mbox{ and }\ F(T_2)=P_2^E
\end{equation*}
and induces an isomorphism $F:K_0(\proj \Lambda)\simeq K_0(\proj E)$ and an isomorphism of fans
\begin{eqnarray*}
&F\colon
\Sigma_{2,-}(\Lambda)
\simeq \Sigma_{2,+}(E).&\\
&\begin{array}{ccc}
{\begin{xy}
0;<4pt,0pt>:<0pt,4pt>::
(0,-5)="0",
(-5,0)="1",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="2",
(5,0)="3",
(0,5)="4",
(15,-5)="5",
(0,-4)="a",
(4,-1.33)="b",
(0,-7)*{\Sigma(\Lambda)},
(0,6.5)*{{\scriptstyle P_2^\Lambda}},
(7,0.8)*{{\scriptstyle P_1^\Lambda}},
(15.5,-6)*{{\scriptstyle T_2}},
(12,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle T}},
(1.5,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
(7,1)*{},
(0,6.7)*{},
\ar@{-}"0";"1",
\ar@{-}"1";"4",
\ar@{-}"3";"5",
\ar@{-}"3";"4",
\ar@{-}"2";"0",
\ar@{-}"2";"1",
\ar@{-}"2";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"4",
\ar@{-}"2";"5",
\ar@/^-2mm/@{.} "a";"b",
\end{xy}}
&{\begin{xy}
0;<4pt,0pt>:<0pt,4pt>::
(0,-5)="0",
(-5,0)="1",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="2",
(5,0)="3",
(0,5)="4",
(15,-5)="5",
(-15,5)="6",
(0,-4)="a",
(4,-1.33)="b",
(4,0)="c",
(-4,1.33)="d",
(0,-7)*{\Sigma(E)},
(-15,6.5)*{{\scriptstyle P_2^E[1]}},
(7,0.8)*{{\scriptstyle P_1^E}},
(15.5,-6)*{{\scriptstyle P_2^E}},
(-8,-1)*{{\scriptstyle P_1^E[1]}},
(5,-0.85)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-5,0.85)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
(12,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle E}},
(-12,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle E[1]}},
(7,1)*{},
(0,6.7)*{},
\ar@{-}"0";"1",
\ar@{-}"3";"5",
\ar@{-}"2";"0",
\ar@{-}"2";"1",
\ar@{-}"2";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"5",
\ar@{-}"6";"1",
\ar@{-}"6";"2",
\ar@/^-2mm/@{.} "a";"b",
\ar@/^-4mm/@{.} "c";"d",
\end{xy}}
&{\begin{xy}
0;<4pt,0pt>:<0pt,4pt>::
(0,-5)="0",
(-5,0)="1",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="2",
(5,0)="3",
(0,5)="4",
(15,-5)="5",
(-15,5)="6",
(0,-4)="a",
(4,-1.33)="b",
(0,-7)*{\Sigma(\Gamma)},
(-15,6.5)*{{\scriptstyle P_2^{\Gamma}[1]}},
(7,0.8)*{{\scriptstyle P_1^{\Gamma}}},
(15.5,-6)*{{\scriptstyle P_2^{\Gamma}}},
(-8,-1)*{{\scriptstyle P_1^{\Gamma}[1]}},
(5,-0.85)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-5,0.85)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
(12,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle \Gamma}},
(-12,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle \Gamma[1]}},
(7,1)*{},
(0,6.7)*{},
\ar@{-}"0";"1",
\ar@{-}"3";"5",
\ar@{-}"2";"0",
\ar@{-}"2";"1",
\ar@{-}"2";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"5",
\ar@{-}"6";"1",
\ar@{-}"6";"2",
\ar@{-}"6";"3",
\ar@/^-2mm/@{.} "a";"b",
\end{xy}}
\end{array}
\end{eqnarray*}
Applying Theorem \ref{sign decomposition} to $E$, we obtain a $k$-algebra $\Gamma:=E_{-+}$ such that
$$e_1\Gamma e_2=0\ \mbox{ and }\ \Sigma_{-+}(\Gamma)=\Sigma_{-+}(E).$$
Therefore under the isomorphism $K_0(\proj\Gamma)\simeq\mathbb{Z}^2$ given by $P_1^\Gamma\mapsto(0,1)$ and $P_2^\Gamma\mapsto(1,0)$, we have $\Sigma(\Gamma)=\rho(\Sigma(\Lambda))$, as desired.
It remains to prove the last assertion. By Proposition \ref{lower upper bij}(a), we have isomorphisms $e_1Ee_1\simeq e_1\Lambda e_1$ and $\Lambda/(e_1)\simeq E/(e_1)$ of $k$-algebras. Thus, if $\Lambda$ is elementary, then so are $E$ and $\Gamma$.
\end{proof}
We give two examples of Theorem \ref{theorem:rotation}. The first one satisfies $E=\Gamma$.
\begin{example}
\label{example:2121}
Let $\Lambda$ be the following algebra. Then $\Sigma(\Lambda)$ is the following fan by Example \ref{example:1212} below.
\[\Lambda= \dfrac{k\left[\begin{xy}( 0,0) *+{1}="1",
( 8,0) *+{2}="2",\ar "1";"2"^a \ar @(lu,ld)"1";"1"_{b}
\end{xy}\right]}{\langle b^2\rangle}\ \ \ \ \ \Sigma(\Lambda)=\Sigma_{1212}=\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-6mm]
\coordinate(0) at(0:0);
\coordinate(x) at(0:0.5);
\coordinate(y) at(90:0.5);
\coordinate(shift1212) at (0);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($1*(x)+-2*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4);
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\end{tikzpicture}\]
We set $\mu_2(\Lambda)=T=T_1\oplus T_2:=[e_2 \Lambda\xrightarrow{a\cdot} e_1 \Lambda]\oplus e_1 \Lambda$
and $E:=\operatorname{End}\nolimits_{\mathsf{K}^{\rm b}(\proj \Lambda)}(T)$. Then we have
\[
\Gamma=E= \dfrac{k\left[\begin{xy}( 0,0) *+{1}="1",
( 8,0) *+{2}="2",\ar "1";"2"^a \ar @(ru,rd)"2";"2"^{b}
\end{xy}\right]}{\langle b^2\rangle}
\ \text{and }\ \Sigma(\Gamma)=\rho(\Sigma(\Lambda))=\Sigma_{2121}=\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-4mm]
\coordinate(0) at(0:0);
\coordinate(x) at(0:0.5);
\coordinate(y) at(90:0.5);
\coordinate(shift2121) at (0);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($2*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4);
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\end{tikzpicture}
\]
\end{example}
The second example satisfies $E\neq \Gamma$.
\begin{example}\label{example:13122}
Let $\Lambda$ be the following algebra. Then $\Sigma(\Lambda)$ is the following fan by Example \ref{example:21312} below.
\[\Lambda=\dfrac{
k\left[\begin{xy}( 0,0) *+{1}="1",
( 8,0) *+{2}="2",\ar "1";"2"^a \ar @(lu,ld)"1";"1"_{b} \ar @(ru,rd)"2";"2"^{c}
\end{xy}\right]}{\langle b^2, c^2, b ac\rangle}\ \ \ \ \
\Sigma(\Lambda)=\Sigma_{21312}=\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-6mm]
\coordinate(0) at(0:0);
\coordinate(x) at(0:0.5);
\coordinate(y) at(90:0.5);
\coordinate(shift21312) at (0:0);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($2*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($1*(x)+-2*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\coordinate(v5) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v0)--(v5);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4)--(v5);
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\end{tikzpicture}
\]
We set $\mu_2(\Lambda)=T=T_1\oplus T_2:=[e_2 \Lambda\xrightarrow{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} a\cdot \\ ac\cdot \end{smallmatrix}\right)} e_1 \Lambda^{\oplus 2}]\oplus e_1 \Lambda$ and $E:=\operatorname{End}\nolimits_{\mathsf{K}^{\rm b}(\proj \Lambda)}(T)$, where we switch the indices $1$ and $2$ unlike the proof of Theorem \ref{theorem:rotation}. Then
\[
E=\dfrac{k\left[\begin{xy}( 0,0) *+{1}="1",
( 8,0) *+{2}="2",\ar@<2pt> "1";"2"^a \ar@<2pt> "2";"1"^{a'} \ar @(lu,ld)"1";"1"_{b}
\end{xy}\right]}{\langle b^2, a'b, a'aa'\rangle}\ \mbox{ and }\
\Sigma(E)=\Sigma_{13122;111}=\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-7mm]
\coordinate(0) at(0:0);
\coordinate(x) at(0:0.5);
\coordinate(y) at(90:0.5);
\coordinate(shift13122) at (0);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($2*(x)+-3*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($1*(x)+-2*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v5) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v0)--(v5);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4)--(v5);
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($-1*(x)+1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w5) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (v0)--(w5);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w4)--(w5);
\draw (w1)--(w5);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\end{tikzpicture}
\]
where new arrows $a$, $a'$ and $b$ are morphisms in $\mathsf{K}^{\rm b}(\proj \Lambda)$ given by commutative diagrams
\[
\begin{xy}
(0,0)*+{0}="1", (20,0)*+{e_1 \Lambda}="2",
(0,-10)*+{e_2 \Lambda}="3", (20,-10)*+{e_1 \Lambda^{\oplus 2}}="4",
\ar "1";"2"
\ar "1";"3"
\ar "3";"4"^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} a\cdot \\ ac\cdot \end{smallmatrix}\right)}
\ar "2";"4"^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0 \\ 1 \end{smallmatrix}\right)}
\end{xy}\hspace{10pt}
\begin{xy}
(0,0)*+{e_2 \Lambda}="1", (20,0)*+{e_1 \Lambda^{\oplus 2}}="2",
(0,-10)*+{0}="3", (20,-10)*+{e_1 \Lambda}="4",
\ar "1";"2"^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}a\cdot\\ ac\cdot \end{smallmatrix}\right)}
\ar "1";"3"
\ar "3";"4"
\ar "2";"4"^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0 & b\cdot \end{smallmatrix}\right)}
\end{xy}
\hspace{10pt}
\begin{xy}
(0,0)*+{e_2 \Lambda}="1", (20,0)*+{e_1 \Lambda^{\oplus 2}}="2",
(0,-10)*+{e_2 \Lambda}="3", (20,-10)*+{e_1 \Lambda^{\oplus 2}}="4",
\ar "1";"2"^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} a\cdot \\ ac\cdot \end{smallmatrix}\right)}
\ar "1";"3"_{c\cdot}
\ar "3";"4"^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix} a\cdot \\ ac\cdot \end{smallmatrix}\right)}
\ar "2";"4"^{\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 \end{smallmatrix}\right)}
\end{xy}
\]
respectively. Let $\Gamma:=E_{+-}=\left[\begin{array}{cc} e_1 E e_1 & e_1 E e_2 \\ 0 & e_2 E e_2 \end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc} \langle e_1,b,aa',baa'\rangle_k & \langle a,ba,aa'a,baa'a\rangle_k \\ 0 & \langle e_2,a'a\rangle_k \end{array}\right]$.
Then
\[
\Gamma=\dfrac{k\left[\begin{xy}( 0,0) *+{1}="1",
( 8,0) *+{2}="2",\ar "1";"2"^a \ar @(ru,rd)"2";"2"^{c} \ar @(dl,dr)"1";"1"_(.2){b} \ar @ (ul,ur)"1";"1"^(.2){b'}
\end{xy}\right]}{\langle b^2, b'^2, c^2, b'b,b'a-ac\rangle}\ \mbox{ and }\ \Sigma(\Gamma)=\rho(\Sigma(\Lambda))=\Sigma_{13122}=\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-13mm]
\coordinate(0) at(0:0);
\coordinate(x) at(0:0.5);
\coordinate(y) at(90:0.5);
\coordinate(shift13122) at (0);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($2*(x)+-3*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($1*(x)+-2*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v5) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v0)--(v5);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4)--(v5);
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\end{tikzpicture}
\]
where $b':=aa'$ and $c:=a'a$.
\end{example}
\subsection{Subdivision and Extension}
\label{subsect:subdivisions of g-fans}
In this section, we realize subdivisions of $g$-fans of rank 2 by extensions of algebras.
The following theorem is a main result of this section, where we identify $K_0(\proj\Lambda)$ with $\mathbb{Z}^2$ by $e_1\Lambda=(1,0)$ and $e_2\Lambda=(0,1)$.
\begin{theorem}[Subdivision Theorem]\label{theorem:subdivision}
Let $\Lambda$ be a finite dimensional elementary $k$-algebra
with orthogonal primitive idempotents $1=e_1+e_2$. Assume $e_1\Lambda e_2=0$, or equivalently, $\Sigma(\Lambda)\in\overline{\mathsf{Fan}}_{\rm sc}^{+-}(2)$ (Proposition \ref{+- condition}).
Then, for cones $\sigma=C(\mu_1^{+}(\Lambda[1]))$ and $\sigma':=C(\mu_2^{-}(\Lambda))$ of $\Sigma(\Lambda)$, there exist finite dimensional elementary $k$-algebras $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma'$ such that
\[\Sigma(\Gamma) = D_{\sigma}(\Sigma(\Lambda))\ \mbox{ and }\ \Sigma(\Gamma') = D_{\sigma'}(\Sigma(\Lambda)).\]
\end{theorem}
Theorem \ref{theorem:subdivision} is explained by the following picture.
\[{\Sigma(\Lambda)=\begin{xy}
0;<4pt,0pt>:<0pt,4pt>::
(0,-5)="0",
(-5,0)="1",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="2",
(5,0)="3",
(0,5)="4",
(15,-5)="5",
(5,-15)="6",
(2,-6)="a",
(6,-2)="b",
(0,6.5)*{{\scriptstyle P_2}},
(7,0.5)*{{\scriptstyle P_1}},
(-2.5,-6)*{{\scriptstyle P_2[1]}},
(-7.3,0)*{{\scriptstyle P_1[1]}},
(1.5,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
(12.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle\mu_2^-(\Lambda)}},
(-1,-12)*{{\scriptstyle\mu_1^+(\Lambda[1])}},
(7,1)*{},
(0,6.7)*{},
\ar@{-}"0";"1",
\ar@{-}"1";"4",
\ar@{-}"3";"5",
\ar@{-}"3";"4",
\ar@{-}"2";"0",
\ar@{-}"2";"1",
\ar@{-}"2";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"4",
\ar@{-}"2";"5",
\ar@{-}"2";"6",
\ar@{-}"0";"6",
\ar@/^-2mm/@{.} "a";"b",
\end{xy}}\ \ \ \ \
{\Sigma(\Gamma)=\begin{xy}
0;<4pt,0pt>:<0pt,4pt>::
(0,-5)="0",
(-5,0)="1",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="2",
(5,0)="3",
(0,5)="4",
(15,-5)="5",
(5,-15)="6",
(5,-20)="7",
(2,-6)="a",
(6,-2)="b",
(1.5,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
(7,1)*{},
(0,6.7)*{},
\ar@{-}"0";"1",
\ar@{-}"1";"4",
\ar@{-}"3";"5",
\ar@{-}"3";"4",
\ar@{-}"2";"0",
\ar@{-}"2";"1",
\ar@{-}"2";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"4",
\ar@{-}"2";"5",
\ar@{-}"2";"6",
\ar@{-}"2";"7",
\ar@{-}"0";"7",
\ar@{-}"6";"7",
\ar@/^-2mm/@{.} "a";"b",
\end{xy}}\ \ \ \ \
{\Sigma(\Gamma')=\begin{xy}
0;<4pt,0pt>:<0pt,4pt>::
(0,-5)="0",
(-5,0)="1",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="2",
(5,0)="3",
(0,5)="4",
(15,-5)="5",
(5,-15)="6",
(20,-5)="7",
(2,-6)="a",
(6,-2)="b",
(1.5,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
(7,1)*{},
(0,6.7)*{},
\ar@{-}"0";"1",
\ar@{-}"1";"4",
\ar@{-}"7";"5",
\ar@{-}"3";"4",
\ar@{-}"2";"0",
\ar@{-}"2";"1",
\ar@{-}"2";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"4",
\ar@{-}"2";"5",
\ar@{-}"2";"6",
\ar@{-}"2";"7",
\ar@{-}"3";"7",
\ar@{-}"6";"0",
\ar@/^-2mm/@{.} "a";"b",
\end{xy}}
\]
In the rest, we only prove the existence of $\Gamma$ since the existence of $\Gamma'$ is the dual.
The construction of $\Gamma$ is as follows:
\begin{construction}
By Proposition \ref{+- condition}, we can write
\[
\Lambda=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
A&X\\ 0&B
\end{array}\right].
\]
where $A,B$ are local $k$-algebras and $X$ is an $A^{\rm op}\otimes_k B$-module. Since $\Lambda$ is elementary, we have $k\simeq A/J_A\simeq B/J_B$.
Let
\[\overline{X}:=X/XJ_B.\]
Then the $k$-dual $D\overline{X}$ is an $A$-module, and we regard it as an $A^{\operatorname{op}\nolimits}$-module by using the action of $k$ through the natural surjection $A\to k$. Let
\[C:=A\oplus D\overline{X}\]
be a trivial extension algebra of $A$ by $D\overline{X}$. Let
\[\overline{(\cdot)}:A\to k,\ \overline{(\cdot)}:B\to k\ \mbox{ and }\ \overline{(\cdot)}:X\to\overline{X}\]
be canonical surjections. We regard
\[Y:=\left[\begin{array}{c}k\\ X\end{array}\right]\]
as a $C^{\operatorname{op}\nolimits}\otimes_kB$-module by
\[(a,f)\cdot\left[\begin{smallmatrix}\alpha\\ x\end{smallmatrix}\right]\cdot b:=\left[\begin{smallmatrix}\overline{a}\alpha\overline{b}+f(\overline{x})\overline{b}\\ axb\end{smallmatrix}\right]\ \mbox{ for $(a,f)\in C=A\oplus D\overline{X}$, $\left[\begin{smallmatrix}\alpha\\ x\end{smallmatrix}\right]\in Y=\left[\begin{array}{c}k\\ X\end{array}\right]$ and $b\in B$.}\]
Then we set
\[
\Gamma:=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
C&Y\\ 0&B
\end{array}\right].
\]
\end{construction}
In the rest of this subsection, we prove Theorem \ref{theorem:subdivision}.
We set
\[\ Q_1:=[C\ Y],\ Q_2:=[0\ B]\in\proj\Gamma.\]
For $y\in M_{s,t}(Y)\simeq\operatorname{Hom}\nolimits_\Gamma(Q_2^{\oplus t},Q_1^{\oplus s})$, we define
\[Q_y:=[Q_2^{\oplus t}\xrightarrow{y(\cdot)} Q_1^{\oplus s}]\in \mathsf{K}^{\rm b}(\proj \Gamma).\]
We fix a minimal set of generators $g_1,\ldots,g_r$ of the $B$-module $X$. Then $(\overline{g_1},\dots, \overline{g_r})$ forms a $k$-basis of $\overline{X}=X/XJ_B$. Set
\[
g:=[g_1\ \cdots\ g_r]\in M_{1,r}(X)\ \mbox{ and }\
\overline{g}:=[\overline{g_1}\ \cdots\ \overline{g_r}]\in M_{1,r}(X/XJ_B). \]
We need the following easy observation.
\begin{lemma}\label{2 cones}
$\Sigma(\Gamma)$ contains $\operatorname{cone}\nolimits\{(0,1),(1,-r-1)\}$ and $\operatorname{cone}\nolimits\{(1,-r-1),(1,-r)\}$. More explicitly, let
\[\left[\begin{smallmatrix}0\\ g\end{smallmatrix}\right]\in M_{1,r}(Y)\ \mbox{ and }\ \left[\begin{smallmatrix}0&1\\ g&0\end{smallmatrix}\right]\in M_{1,r+1}(Y).\]
Then $Q_{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}0&1\\ g&0\end{smallmatrix}\right]}\oplus Q_2[1]$ and $Q_{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}0\\ g\end{smallmatrix}\right]}\oplus Q_{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}0&1\\ g&0\end{smallmatrix}\right]}$ belong to $\mathsf{2\mbox{-}silt}\Gamma$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
A minimal set of generators of the $B$-module $Y$ is given by the $r+1$ columns of $\left[\begin{smallmatrix}0&1\\ g&0\end{smallmatrix}\right]$. Thus
$Q_{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}0&1\\ g&0\end{smallmatrix}\right]}\oplus Q_2[1]\in\mathsf{2\mbox{-}silt}\Gamma$ holds by Proposition \ref{first mutation}.
In the rest, we prove that $T:=Q_{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}0\\ g\end{smallmatrix}\right]}\oplus Q_{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}0&1\\ g&0\end{smallmatrix}\right]}$ is basic silting. By the first statement, $Q_{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}0&1\\ g&0\end{smallmatrix}\right]}$ is indecomposable. If $Q_{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}0\\ g\end{smallmatrix}\right]}$ is not indecomposable, then $|T|$ is bigger than two, a contradiction. Thus $T$ is basic.
We will show that $T$ is presilting by using Proposition \ref{Ext 1}(b). By our choice of $g$, we have
\[gM_{r,1}(B)=X\ \mbox{ and }\ (D\overline{X})g=M_{1,r}(k).\]
Thus we have $\left[\begin{smallmatrix}0\\ g\end{smallmatrix}\right]M_r(B)=M_{1,r}(\left[\begin{smallmatrix}0\\ X\end{smallmatrix}\right])$ and $(D\overline{X})\left[\begin{smallmatrix}0\\ g\end{smallmatrix}\right]=M_{1,r}(\left[\begin{smallmatrix}k\\ 0\end{smallmatrix}\right])$, and hence
\[C\left[\begin{smallmatrix}0\\ g\end{smallmatrix}\right]+\left[\begin{smallmatrix}0\\ g\end{smallmatrix}\right]M_r(B)\supset (D\overline{X})\left[\begin{smallmatrix}0\\ g\end{smallmatrix}\right]+\left[\begin{smallmatrix}0\\ g\end{smallmatrix}\right]M_r(B)=M_{1,r}(\left[\begin{smallmatrix}0\\ X\end{smallmatrix}\right])+M_{1,r}(\left[\begin{smallmatrix}k\\ 0\end{smallmatrix}\right])=M_{1,r}(Y).\]
This clearly implies
\[C\left[\begin{smallmatrix}0\\ g\end{smallmatrix}\right]+\left[\begin{smallmatrix}0&1\\ g&0\end{smallmatrix}\right]M_{r+1,r}(B)=M_{1,r}(Y),\]
and a similar argument implies
\[C\left[\begin{smallmatrix}0&1\\ g&0\end{smallmatrix}\right]+\left[\begin{smallmatrix}0\\ g\end{smallmatrix}\right]M_{r,r+1}(B)=M_{1,r+1}(Y).\]
Thus Proposition \ref{Ext 1}(b) implies that $T$ is presilting, as desired.
\end{proof}
As in Section \ref{section: Matrices and Presilting complexes}, the element $\overline{g}$ gives a surjection
\[
\pi:=(X\xrightarrow{\overline{(\cdot)}} \overline{X}\xrightarrow{(\overline{g}(\cdot))^{-1}}M_{r,1}(\overline{B})=M_{r,1}(k)),
\]
which extends to the map $\pi:M_{s,t}(X)\to M_{rs,t}(k)$ for each $s,t\ge 0$.
The following observation is crucial.
\begin{proposition}\label{indecomposable rigid g-vector}
Let $s,t\ge0$. For $x\in M_{s,t}(X)$, consider $\left[\begin{smallmatrix}0\\ x\end{smallmatrix}\right]\in M_{s,t}(Y)$.
\begin{enumerate}[\rm(a)]
\item $P_x$ is indecomposable in $\mathsf{K}^{\rm b}(\proj\Lambda)$ if and only if $Q_{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}0\\ x\end{smallmatrix}\right]}$ is indecomposable in $\mathsf{K}^{\rm b}(\proj\Gamma)$.
\item If $Q_{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}0\\ x\end{smallmatrix}\right]}$ is a presilting complex of $\Gamma$, then $P_x$ is a presilting complex of $\Lambda$.
\item The converse of {\rm(b)} holds if $t\le rs$.
\item The restriction of $\Sigma(\Gamma)$ to $\{(x,y)\in\mathbb{R}^2\mid 0\le -y\le rx\}$ coincides with that of $\Sigma(\Lambda)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Notice that $\Gamma$ is the trivial extension $\Lambda\oplus I$ of $\Lambda$ by the following ideal $I$ of $\Gamma$:
\[I:=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
D\overline{X}&k\\ 0&0
\end{array}\right].\]
(a) Since $P_x\simeq Q_{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}0\\ x\end{smallmatrix}\right]}\otimes_\Gamma\Lambda$ and $Q_{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}0\\ x\end{smallmatrix}\right]}\simeq P_x\otimes_\Lambda\Gamma$, the assertion follows immediately.
(b) Since $\Lambda=\Gamma/I$ and $Q_{\left[\begin{smallmatrix}0\\ x\end{smallmatrix}\right]}\otimes_\Gamma\Lambda\simeq P_x$, the assertion follows.
(c) Assume that $P_x$ is a presilting complex of $\Lambda$. Then by Proposition \ref{Ext 1}(b), we have
\begin{equation}\label{x presilting}
M_{s,t}(X)=M_s(A)x+xM_t(B).
\end{equation}
Again by Proposition \ref{Ext 1}(b), it suffices to show the equality
\[V:=M_s(C)\left[\begin{smallmatrix}0\\ x\end{smallmatrix}\right]+\left[\begin{smallmatrix}0\\ x\end{smallmatrix}\right]M_t(B)=M_{s,t}(\left[\begin{smallmatrix}k\\ X\end{smallmatrix}\right]).\]
Since
$V\supset M_s(A)\left[\begin{smallmatrix}0\\ x\end{smallmatrix}\right]+\left[\begin{smallmatrix}0\\ x\end{smallmatrix}\right]M_t(B)\stackrel{\eqref{x presilting}}{=}M_{s,t}(\left[\begin{smallmatrix}0\\ X\end{smallmatrix}\right])$ holds, it suffices to show
\begin{equation}\label{V contains M_ab}
V\supset M_{s,t}(\left[\begin{smallmatrix}k\\ 0\end{smallmatrix}\right]).
\end{equation}
By our assumption $t\le rs$ and Proposition \ref{proposition:full rank}(b), $\pi(x)$ has rank $t$ and the map
\begin{equation}\label{pi_g(x) map}
(\cdot)\pi(x):M_{s,rs}(k)\to M_{s,t}(k)
\end{equation}
is surjective. We denote by $g_1^*,\ldots,g_r^*$ the basis of $D\overline{X}$ which is dual to $g_1,\ldots,g_r$. Then the map $(\cdot)\left[\begin{smallmatrix}g_1^*\\ \raisebox{3pt}{\scalebox{.75}{\vdots}}\\ g_r^*\end{smallmatrix}\right]:M_{1,r}(k)\simeq D\overline{X}$ is a bijection, and we denote its inverse by
\[\pi':D\overline{X}\simeq M_{1,r}(k).\]
It gives a bijection $\pi':M_{s}(D\overline{X})\simeq M_{s,rs}(k)$. We have a commutative diagram
\[\xymatrix{
M_{s}(D\overline{X})\times M_{s,t}(X)\ar[rr]^{\pi'\times\pi}\ar[drr]_{\rm eval.}&&M_{s,rs}(k)\times M_{rs,t}(k)\ar[d]^{\rm mult.}\\
&&M_{s,t}(k)}\]
where ${\rm eval.}$ is given by the evaluation map $D\overline{X}\times X\to D\overline{X}\times\overline{X}\to k$. Thus the commutativity of the diagram above and the surjectivity of \eqref{pi_g(x) map} shows that the map
\[(\cdot)x:M_{s}(D\overline{X})\to M_{s,t}(k)\]
is also surjective. Therefore the desired claim \eqref{V contains M_ab} follows from
\[V\supset M_s(C)\left[\begin{smallmatrix}0\\ x\end{smallmatrix}\right]\supset M_s(D\overline{X})\left[\begin{smallmatrix}0\\ x\end{smallmatrix}\right]=M_{s,t}(\left[\begin{smallmatrix}k\\ 0\end{smallmatrix}\right]).\qedhere\]
(d) Immediate from (c).
\end{proof}
We are ready to prove Theorem \ref{theorem:subdivision}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{theorem:subdivision}]
The assertion follows from Lemma \ref{2 cones} and Proposition \ref{indecomposable rigid g-vector}(d).
\end{proof}
We give two examples of Subdivision Theorem \ref{theorem:subdivision}.
\begin{example}
\label{example:1212}
Let $\Lambda$ be the following algebra. Then $\Sigma(\Lambda)$ is the following fan.
\[\Lambda=k[1\to 2]\ \ \ \Sigma(\Lambda)=\Sigma_{111}=\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=0mm]
\coordinate(0) at(0:0);
\coordinate(x) at(0:0.5);
\coordinate(y) at(90:0.5);
\coordinate(shift111) at (0);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift111)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift111)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift111)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift111)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3);
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift111)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift111)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift111)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift111)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\end{tikzpicture}\]
Applying Theorem\;\ref{theorem:subdivision} to $\Lambda$, we get
\[
\Gamma:=\begin{bmatrix}
k\oplus Dk & \left[\begin{smallmatrix}k\\k\end{smallmatrix}\right]\\
0 & k
\end{bmatrix}=\dfrac{
k\left[\begin{xy}( 0,0) *+{1}="1",
( 8,0) *+{2}="2",\ar "1";"2" \ar @(lu,ld)"1";"1"_{b}
\end{xy}\right]}{\langle b^2\rangle}\ \mbox{ and }\ \Sigma(\Gamma)=D_3(\Sigma(\Lambda))=\Sigma_{1212}=\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-6mm]
\coordinate(0) at(0:0);
\coordinate(x) at(0:0.5);
\coordinate(y) at(90:0.5);
\coordinate(shift1212) at (0);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($1*(x)+-2*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4);
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\end{tikzpicture}\]
\end{example}
\begin{example}\label{example:21312}
Let $\Lambda$ be the following algebra. Then $\Sigma(\Lambda)$ is the following fan by Example \ref{example:2121}.
\[\Lambda=\dfrac{k\left[\begin{xy}( 0,0) *+{1}="1",
( 8,0) *+{2}="2",\ar "1";"2"^a \ar @(ru,rd)"2";"2"^{b}
\end{xy}\right]}{\langle b^2\rangle}\ \ \ \Sigma(\Lambda)=\Sigma_{2121}=\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=0mm]
\coordinate(0) at(0:0);
\coordinate(x) at(0:0.5);
\coordinate(y) at(90:0.5);
\coordinate(shift2121) at (0);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($2*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4);
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\end{tikzpicture}\]
Applying Theorem\;\ref{theorem:subdivision} to $\Lambda$, we get
\[\Gamma:=\begin{bmatrix}k\oplus D(ka) & \left[\begin{smallmatrix}k\\ \langle a,ab\rangle_k\end{smallmatrix}\right]\\
0 & \langle e_2,b\rangle_k
\end{bmatrix} =\dfrac{
k\left[\begin{xy}( 0,0) *+{1}="1",
( 8,0) *+{2}="2",\ar "1";"2"^a \ar @(lu,ld)"1";"1"_{c} \ar @(ru,rd)"2";"2"^{b}
\end{xy}\right]}{\langle b^2, c^2, cab\rangle}\ \mbox{ and }\ \Sigma(\Gamma)=D_4(\Sigma(\Lambda))=\Sigma_{21312}=
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-4mm]
\coordinate(0) at(0:0);
\coordinate(x) at(0:0.5);
\coordinate(y) at(90:0.5);
\coordinate(shift21312) at (0);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($2*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($1*(x)+-2*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\coordinate(v5) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v0)--(v5);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4)--(v5);
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\end{tikzpicture}\]
\end{example}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{theorem:sc fan = g fan intro}}
Let $k$ be a field. For a finite dimensional $k$-algebras $\Lambda$ of rank $2$, we regard the $g$-fan $\Sigma(\Lambda)$ as a fan in $\mathbb{R}^2$ by isomorphism $K_0(\proj\Lambda)\simeq\mathbb{R}^2$ given by $P_1\mapsto (1,0)$ and $P_2\mapsto (0,1)$. We denote by
\[k\mbox{-}\mathsf{Fan}(2)\]
the subset of $\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}(2)$ consisting of $g$-fans of finite dimensional $k$-algebras of rank $2$. Let $k\mbox{-}\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm el}(2)$ be the subset of $k\mbox{-}\mathsf{Fan}(2)$ consisting of $g$-fans of finite dimensional elementary $k$-algebras of rank $2$.
The following is a main result of this paper.
\begin{theorem}\label{main theorem}
For any field $k$, we have
\begin{equation}
k\mbox{-}\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm el}(2) = k\mbox{-}\mathsf{Fan}(2) = \mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}(2).
\end{equation}
That is, any sign-coherent fan in $\mathbb{R}^2$ can be realized as a $g$-fan $\Sigma(\Lambda)$ of some finite dimensional elementary $k$-algebra $\Lambda$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
It suffices to show
$\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}(2)=k\mbox{-}\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm el}(2)$.
Let
\begin{equation*}
k\mbox{-}\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm el}^{+-}(2):= k\mbox{-}\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm el}(2)\cap \mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}^{+-}(2)\ \mbox{ and }\ k\mbox{-}\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm el}^{-+}(2):= k\mbox{-}\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm el}(2)\cap \mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}^{-+}(2).
\end{equation*}
By Gluing Theorem \ref{theorem:gluing1}, we have
\begin{equation*}
k\mbox{-}\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm el}(2)=k\mbox{-}\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm el}^{+-}(2) \ast k\mbox{-}\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm el}^{-+}(2).
\end{equation*}
By Rotation Theorem \ref{theorem:rotation}, $k\mbox{-}\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm el}^{+-}(2)$ is closed under rotations.
By Theorem \ref{theorem:subdivision} and Proposition \ref{sr sequence}(b), $k\mbox{-}\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm el}^{+-}(2)$ is closed under subdivisions.
Since $\Sigma(0,0;0,0)=\Sigma(k\times k)\in k\mbox{-}\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm el}^{+-}(2)$, Proposition \ref{proposition:F=F'} implies
\begin{equation*}
k\mbox{-}\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm el}^{+-}(2) = \mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}^{+-}(2).
\end{equation*}
Similarly, we have
$k\mbox{-}\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm el}^{-+}(2) =\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}^{-+}(2)$.
Consequently, we have
\[\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}(2) \stackrel{\eqref{eq:gluing fans}}{=} \mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}^{+-}(2)\ast \mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}^{-+}(2)
= k\mbox{-}\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm el}^{+-}(2) \ast k\mbox{-}\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm el}^{-+}(2) = k\mbox{-}\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm el}(2).\qedhere\]
\end{proof}
For given $\Sigma\in\mathsf{Fan}_{\rm sc}(2)$, our proof of Theorem \ref{main theorem} gives a concrete algorithm to construct a finite dimensional $k$-algebra $\Lambda$ satisfying $\Sigma(\Lambda)=\Sigma$. We demonstrate it in the following example.
\begin{example}
\label{example:rotation-subdivision-gluing}
We construct a finite dimensional $k$-algebra $\Gamma$ satisfying $\Sigma(\Gamma)=\Sigma_{13122;1212}$ by the following three steps.
\begin{enumerate}[\rm(I)]
\item We obtain a finite dimensional $k$-algebra
\[\Lambda=\dfrac{
k\left[\begin{xy}( 0,0) *+{1}="1",
( 8,0) *+{2}="2",\ar "1";"2"^{a_3} \ar @(ru,rd)"2";"2"^{a_4} \ar @(ul,ur)"1";"1"^(.2){a_2} \ar @ (dl,dr)"1";"1"_(.2){a_1}
\end{xy}\right]}{\langle a_1^2, a_2^2, a_4^2, a_2a_1, a_2a_3-a_3a_4\rangle}\]
satisfying $\Sigma(\Lambda)=\Sigma_{13122;00}$ by using Rotation Theorem \ref{theorem:rotation} and Subdivision Theorem \ref{theorem:subdivision} as follows.
\[ \xymatrix@C3em{\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=0mm]
\coordinate(0) at(0:0);
\coordinate(x) at(0:0.5);
\coordinate(y) at(90:0.5);
\coordinate(shift00) at(0);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift00)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift00)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift00)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v1)--(v2);
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift00)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{00}$};
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift00)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift00)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (v1)--(w4);
\draw (v2)--(w3);
\end{tikzpicture}
\ar[r]^-{D_2}_-{} &
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=0mm]
\coordinate(0) at(0:0);
\coordinate(x) at(0:0.5);
\coordinate(y) at(90:0.5);
\coordinate(shift111) at (0);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift111)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift111)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift111)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift111)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3);
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift111)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{111}$};
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift111)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift111)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift111)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift111)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\end{tikzpicture}\ar[r]^-{D_3}_-{{\rm Ex.}\,\ref{example:1212}}&\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=0mm]
\coordinate(0) at(0:0);
\coordinate(x) at(0:0.5);
\coordinate(y) at(90:0.5);
\coordinate(shift1212) at (0);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($1*(x)+-2*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4);
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{1212}$};
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\end{tikzpicture}
\ar[r]^-{\rho}_-{{\rm Ex.}\,\ref{example:2121}}&
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=0mm]
\coordinate(0) at(0:0);
\coordinate(x) at(0:0.5);
\coordinate(y) at(90:0.5);
\coordinate(shift2121) at (0);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($2*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4);
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{2121}$};
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\end{tikzpicture}
\ar[r]^-{D_4}_-{{\rm Ex.}\,\ref{example:21312}}&
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=0mm]
\coordinate(0) at(0:0);
\coordinate(x) at(0:0.5);
\coordinate(y) at(90:0.5);
\coordinate(shift21312) at (0);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($2*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($1*(x)+-2*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\coordinate(v5) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v0)--(v5);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4)--(v5);
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{21312}$};
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift21312)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\end{tikzpicture}
\ar[r]^-{\rho}_-{{\rm Ex.}\,\ref{example:13122}}&
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=0mm]
\coordinate(0) at(0:0);
\coordinate(x) at(0:0.5);
\coordinate(y) at(90:0.5);
\coordinate(shift13122) at (0);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($2*(x)+-3*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($1*(x)+-2*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v5) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v0)--(v5);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4)--(v5);
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\node at(L) {\small$\Sigma_{13122}$};
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\]
\item Similarly, we obtain a finite dimensional $k$-algebra
\[\Lambda':=\dfrac{
k\left[\begin{xy}( 0,0) *+{1}="1",
( 8,0) *+{2}="2",\ar "2";"1"_{b_1} \ar @(ru,rd)"2";"2"^{b_2}
\end{xy}\right]}{\langle b_2^2\rangle}\]
satisfying $\Sigma(\Lambda')=\Sigma(0,0;1,2,1,2)$.
\item We obtain a finite dimensional $k$-algebra
\[\Gamma=\dfrac{
k\left[\begin{xy}( 0,0) *+{1}="1",
( 10,0) *+{2}="2",\ar@<1.5pt> "1";"2"^{a_3} \ar @(dr,dl)"2";"2"^(.2){a_4} \ar @(ul,ur)"1";"1"^(.2){a_2} \ar @ (dl,dr)"1";"1"_(.2){a_1} \ar@<1.5pt> "2";"1"^{b_1} \ar @(ur,ul)"2";"2"_(.2){b_2}
\end{xy}\right]}{\langle a_1^2, a_2^2, a_4^2, a_2a_1,a_2a_3-a_3a_4, b_2^2\rangle+\langle a_ib_j,b_ja_i\mid i\in \{1,2,3,4\},j\in\{1,2\}\rangle}\]
satisfying $\Sigma(\Gamma)=\Sigma(1,3,1,2,2;1,2,1,2)$ by applying Gluing Theorem \ref{theorem:gluing1} to $\Lambda$ and $\Lambda'$, see Example \ref{example:gluing}.
\[
\Sigma(\Lambda)=\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=0mm]
\coordinate(0) at(0:0);
\coordinate(x) at(0:0.5);
\coordinate(y) at(90:0.5);
\coordinate(shift13122) at (0);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($2*(x)+-3*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($1*(x)+-2*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v5) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v0)--(v5);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4)--(v5);
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\end{tikzpicture}
\Sigma(\Lambda')=\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=0mm]
\coordinate(0) at(0:0);
\coordinate(x) at(0:0.5);
\coordinate(y) at(90:0.5);
\coordinate(shift1212) at (0);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($-1*(x)+1*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($-2*(x)+1*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4);
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(w1) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift1212)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\end{tikzpicture}
\ \ \ \Sigma(\Gamma)=\Sigma(\Lambda)\ast \Sigma(\Lambda')=\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=0mm]
\coordinate(0) at(0:0);
\coordinate(x) at(0:0.5);
\coordinate(y) at(90:0.5);
\coordinate(shift13122) at (0);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($2*(x)+-3*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($1*(x)+-2*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v5) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v0)--(v5);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4)--(v5);
\coordinate(L) at($0*(x)+1.5*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($-2*(x)+1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w5) at($-1*(x)+1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w6) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w6);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (v0)--(w5);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w4)--(w5);
\draw (w5)--(w6);
\draw (w6)--(v1);
\end{tikzpicture}
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{example}
\subsection{Gluing fans II}
In this subsection, we study another type of gluing $g$-fans.
Results in this subsection will not be used in the rest of this paper.
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem:gluing2}
Let $\Lambda$ and $\Lambda'$ be elementary $k$-algebras of rank 2
with orthogonal primitive idempotents $1=e_1+e_2\in\Lambda$ and $1=e'_1+e'_2\in\Lambda'$ satisfying $e_1\Lambda e_2=0$, $e'_1\Lambda' e'_2=0$,
\begin{equation}\label{sigma sigma'}
\sigma=\operatorname{cone}\nolimits\{(0,-1),(1,-1)\}\in\Sigma(\Lambda)\ \ \mbox{ and }\ \sigma'=\operatorname{cone}\nolimits\{(1,-1),(1,0)\}\in\Sigma(\Lambda').
\end{equation}
Then, there exists an elementary $k$-algebra $\Gamma$ such that
\[\Sigma_2(\Gamma)=(\Sigma_2(\Lambda)\setminus\{\sigma\})\cup(\Sigma_2(\Lambda')\setminus\{\sigma'\}).\]
\end{theorem}
Theorem \ref{theorem:gluing2} is explained by the following picture.
\[{\Sigma(\Lambda)=\begin{xy}
0;<4pt,0pt>:<0pt,4pt>::
(0,-5)="0",
(-5,0)="1",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="2",
(5,0)="3",
(0,5)="4",
(5,-5)="5",
(2.9,-2.9)="a",
(4,0)="b",
(1.5,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
(5,-2)*{{\scriptstyle ?}},
(7,0)*{{\scriptstyle P_1}},
(0,6.7)*{{\scriptstyle P_2}},
(1.5,-3.5)*{{\scriptstyle \sigma}},
\ar@{-}"0";"1",
\ar@{-}"1";"4",
\ar@{-}"4";"3",
\ar@{-}"0";"5",
\ar@{-}"2";"0",
\ar@{-}"2";"1",
\ar@{-}"2";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"4",
\ar@{-}"2";"5",
\ar@/^-0.8mm/@{.} "a";"b",
\end{xy}}\ \ \ \ \ {\Sigma(\Lambda')=\begin{xy}
0;<4pt,0pt>:<0pt,4pt>::
(0,-5)="0",
(-5,0)="1",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="2",
(5,0)="3",
(0,5)="4",
(5,-5)="5",
(2.9,-2.9)="d",
(0,-4)="c",
(1.5,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
(2,-5)*{{\scriptstyle !}},
(7,0)*{{\scriptstyle P'_1}},
(0,6.7)*{{\scriptstyle P'_2}},
(3.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle \sigma'}},
\ar@{-}"0";"1",
\ar@{-}"1";"4",
\ar@{-}"4";"3",
\ar@{-}"3";"5",
\ar@{-}"2";"0",
\ar@{-}"2";"1",
\ar@{-}"2";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"4",
\ar@{-}"2";"5",
\ar@/^-0.8mm/@{.} "c";"d",
\end{xy}}\ \ \ \ \ {\Sigma(\Gamma)=\begin{xy}
0;<4pt,0pt>:<0pt,4pt>::
(0,-5)="0",
(-5,0)="1",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="2",
(5,0)="3",
(0,5)="4",
(5,-5)="5",
(2.9,-2.9)="a",
(4,0)="b",
(2.9,-2.9)="d",
(0,-4)="c",
(1.5,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
(2,-5)*{{\scriptstyle !}},
(5,-2)*{{\scriptstyle ?}},
(7,0)*{{\scriptstyle Q_1}},
(0,6.7)*{{\scriptstyle Q_2}},
\ar@{-}"0";"1",
\ar@{-}"1";"4",
\ar@{-}"4";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"0",
\ar@{-}"2";"1",
\ar@{-}"2";"3",
\ar@{-}"2";"4",
\ar@{-}"2";"5",
\ar@/^-0.8mm/@{.} "a";"b",
\ar@/^-0.8mm/@{.} "c";"d",
\end{xy}}\]
The assumption \eqref{sigma sigma'} is equivalent to that the defining sequences can be written as
\[\Sigma(\Lambda)=\Sigma(a_1,\ldots,a_{n-1},1;0,0)\ \mbox{ and }\ \Sigma(\Lambda')=\Sigma(1,b_2,\ldots, b_m;0,0).\]
In this case, the defining sequence of $\Sigma(\Gamma)$ is given by
\begin{equation*}
\Sigma(\Gamma)=\Sigma(a_1,\ldots,a_{n-2}, a_{n-1}+b_{2}-1, b_3,\ldots,b_{m};0,0).
\end{equation*}
The rest of this section is devoted to proving Theorem \ref{theorem:gluing2}. By our assumption, we can write
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Lambda=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
A&X\\ 0&B
\end{array}\right]\ \mbox{ and }\ P_1:=[A\ X],\ P_2:=[0\ B]\in\proj\Lambda,\\
\Lambda'=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
C&Y\\ 0&D
\end{array}\right]\ \mbox{ and }\ P'_1:=[C\ Y],\ P'_2:=[0\ D]\in\proj\Lambda',
\end{eqnarray*}
where
\begin{enumerate}[$\bullet$]
\item $A$, $B$, $C$, $D$ are local $k$-algebras such that $k\simeq A/J_A\simeq B/J_B\simeq C/J_C\simeq D/J_D$.
\item $X$ is an $A^{\operatorname{op}\nolimits}\otimes_kB$-module and $Y$ is an $C^{\operatorname{op}\nolimits}\otimes_kD$-module.
\item There exist $g\in X$ and $h\in Y$ such that $X=gB\neq0$ and $Y=Ch\neq0$ by Proposition \ref{first mutation}. \end{enumerate}
The construction of $\Gamma$ is as follows: Let $A\times_kC$ (respectively, $B\times_kD$) be a fibre product of canonical surjections $A\to k$ and $C\to k$ (respectively, $B\to k$ and $D\to k$).
As in Section \ref{section: Matrices and Presilting complexes}, we consider maps
\begin{eqnarray}\label{define pi}
\pi:X\to X/XJ_B\xrightarrow{(g(\cdot))^{-1}}B/J_B=k\ \mbox{ and }\ \pi':Y\to Y/J_CY\xrightarrow{((\cdot)h)^{-1}}C/J_C=k.
\end{eqnarray}
Let $X\times_kY$ be a fibre product of $\pi:X\to k$ and $\pi':Y\to k$. Then $X\times_kY$ is a $(A\times_kC)^{\operatorname{op}\nolimits}\otimes_k(B\times_kD)$-module, and let
\[\Gamma:=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
A\times_kC&X\times_kY\\ 0&B\times_kD
\end{array}\right]\ \mbox{ and }\ Q_1:=[A\times_kC\ X\times_kY],\ Q_2:=[0\ B\times_kD]\in\proj\Gamma.\]
Consider ideals of $\Gamma$ by
\[I=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
J_C&J_CY\\ 0&J_D
\end{array}\right]\ \mbox{ and }\ I'=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
J_A&XJ_B\\ 0&J_B
\end{array}\right].\]
Then there exist isomorphisms of $k$-algebras
\begin{equation}\label{factors of Gamma}
\Gamma/I\simeq\Lambda\ \mbox{ and }\ \Gamma/I'\simeq\Lambda'.
\end{equation}
As in Section \ref{section: Matrices and Presilting complexes}, for $s,t\ge0$, $x\in M_{s,t}(X)$, $y\in M_{s,t}(Y)$ and $(x',y')\in M_{s,t}(X\times_kY)$, we define
\begin{eqnarray*}
P_x&:=&(P_2^{\oplus t}\xrightarrow{x(\cdot)} P_1^{\oplus s})\in\per\Lambda,\\
P'_y&:=&({P'_2}^{\oplus t}\xrightarrow{y(\cdot)} {P'_1}^{\oplus s})\in\per\Lambda'\\
Q_{(x,y)}&:=&(Q_2^{\oplus t}\xrightarrow{(x',y')(\cdot)} Q_1^{\oplus s})\in\per\Gamma.
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{proposition}\label{proposition:from Q to P}
Let $s,t\ge0$ and $(x,y)\in M_{s,t}(X\times_kY)$. If $Q_{(x,y)}$ is a presilting complex of $\Gamma$, then $P_x$ is a presilting complex of $\Lambda$ and $P'_y$ is a presilting complex of $\Lambda'$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By \eqref{factors of Gamma} and $Q_{(x,y)}\otimes_\Gamma\Lambda=P_x$, the complex $P_x$ is presilting. The complex $P'_y$ is presilting similarly.
\end{proof}
Define maps $\overline{(\cdot)}:A\to C$ and $\overline{(\cdot)}:B\to D$ as the compositions of canonical maps
\[\overline{(\cdot)}:A\xrightarrow{\overline{(\cdot)}} k\subset C\ \mbox{ and }\ \overline{(\cdot)}:B\xrightarrow{\overline{(\cdot)}} k\subset D.\]
Using $\pi$ and $\pi'$ in \eqref{define pi}, define maps $\overline{(\cdot)}:X\to Y$ and $\overline{(\cdot)}:Y\to X$ by
\begin{equation}\label{define bar}
\overline{(\cdot)}:X\xrightarrow{\pi}k\xrightarrow{(\cdot)h}kh\subset Y\ \mbox{ and }\ \overline{(\cdot)}:Y\xrightarrow{\pi'}k\xrightarrow{(\cdot)g}kg\subset X.
\end{equation}
Then the first projection $X\times_kY\to X$, $(x,y)\mapsto x$ has a section given by
\[X\to X\times_kY,\ x\mapsto (x,\overline{x}),\]
and the second projection $X\times_kY\to Y$, $(x,y)\mapsto y$ has a section given by
\[Y\to X\times_kY,\ y\mapsto (\overline{y},y).\]
The following is a crucial result.
\begin{proposition}\label{proposition:from P to Q}
The following assertions hold.
\begin{enumerate}[\rm(a)]
\item Let $s\ge t$. For $x\in M_{s,t}(X)$, consider $(x,\overline{x})\in M_{s,t}(X\otimes_kY)$.
Then $P_x$ is a presilting complex of $\Lambda$ if and only if $Q_{(x,\overline{x})}$ is a presilting complex of $\Gamma$.
\item Let $s\le t$. For $y\in M_{s,t}(Y)$, consider $(\overline{y},y)\in M_{c,d}(X\otimes_kY)$.
Then $P'_y$ is a presilting complex of $\Lambda'$ if and only if $Q_{(\overline{y},y)}$ is a presilting complex of $\Gamma$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
It suffices to prove (a) since (b) is dual to (a).
The ``if'' part is clear from Proposition \ref{proposition:from Q to P}.
We prove the ``only if'' part. By Proposition \ref{Ext 1}, it suffices to show
\[M_{s,t}(X\times_kY)=M_s(A\times_kC)(x,\overline{x})+(x,\overline{x})M_t(B\times_kD).\]
Since
\[X\times_kY=\{(0,y)\mid y\in J_CY\}+\{(z,\overline{z})\mid z\in X\},\]
it suffices to show the following assertions.
\begin{enumerate}[\rm(i)]
\item For each $y\in M_{s,t}(J_CY)$, we have $(0,y)\in M_s(A\times_kC)(x,\overline{x})$.
\item For each $z\in M_{s,t}(X)$, we have $(z,\overline{z})\in M_s(A\times_kC)(x,\overline{x})+(x,\overline{x})M_t(B\times_kD)$.
\end{enumerate}
We prove (i). Since $P_x$ is presilting, $\pi(x)\in M_{s,t}(k)$ has full rank by Proposition \ref{proposition:full rank}.
Since $s\ge t$, the map $(\cdot)\pi(x):M_s(k)\to M_{s,t}(k)$ is surjective. Applying $J_C\otimes_k-$, the map $(\cdot)\pi(x):M_s(J_C)\to M_{s,t}(J_C)$ is also surjective, and so is the composition
\[(\cdot)\overline{x}\stackrel{\eqref{define bar}}{=}(\cdot)\pi(x)h:M_s(J_C)\xrightarrow{(\cdot)\pi(x)} M_{s,t}(J_C)\xrightarrow{(\cdot)h} M_{s,t}(J_CY).\]
Therefore there exists $c\in M_s(J_C)$ such that $y=c\overline{x}$. Then $(0,c)\in M_s(A\times_kC)$ satisfies
\[(0,c)(x,\overline{x})=(0,y).\]
We prove (ii). Since $P_x$ is presilting, we have $M_{s,t}(X)=M_s(A)x+xM_t(B)$ by Proposition \ref{Ext 1}.
Thus there exist $a\in M_s(A)$ and $b\in M_t(B)$ such that $z=ax+xb$. Then
\[(a,\overline{a})(x,\overline{x})+(x,\overline{x})(b,\overline{b})=(ax+xb,\overline{ax+xb})=(z,\overline{z}).\]
Thus the assertion follows.
\end{proof}
Now we are ready to prove Theorem \ref{theorem:gluing2}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{theorem:gluing2}]
By Proposition \ref{+- condition}, each of $\Sigma(\Lambda)$, $\Sigma(\Lambda')$ and $\Sigma(\Gamma)$ contains $\operatorname{cone}\nolimits\{(-1,0),\ (0,1)\}$. By Propositions \ref{proposition:from Q to P} and \ref{proposition:from P to Q}, the following assertions hold.
\begin{enumerate}[\rm(i)]
\item Let $s\ge t$. Then there exists $x\in M_{s,t}(X)$ such that $P_x$ is presilting if and only if there exists $(x,y)\in M_{s,t}(X\times_kY)$ such that $Q_{(s,t)}$ is presilting.
\item Let $s\le t$. Then there exists $y\in M_{s,t}(Y)$ such that $P'_y$ is presilting if and only if there exists $(x,y)\in M_{s,t}(X\times_kY)$ such that $Q_{(s,t)}$ is presilting.
\end{enumerate}
Therefore the claim follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}
Let $\Lambda$ and $\Lambda'$ be the following algebras.
\[
\Lambda:=\dfrac{
k\left[\begin{xy}( 0,0) *+{1}="1",
( 8,0) *+{2}="2",\ar "1";"2"^a \ar @(ru,rd)"2";"2"^{b}
\end{xy}\right]}{\langle b^2\rangle}\ \hspace{10pt}
\Lambda':=\dfrac{
k\left[\begin{xy}( 0,0) *+{1}="1",
( 8,0) *+{2}="2",\ar "1";"2"^a \ar @(ru,rd)"2";"2"^{d} \ar @(ul,ur)"1";"1"^(.2){c_1} \ar @ (dl,dr)"1";"1"_(.2){c_2}
\end{xy}\right]}{\langle c_1^2, c_2^2, d^2, c_1c_2,c_1a-ad\rangle}
\]
By Examples \ref{example:2121} and \ref{example:13122}, we have
\[
\Sigma(\Lambda)=\Sigma_{2121}=\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=0mm]
\coordinate(0) at(0:0);
\coordinate(x) at(0:0.5);
\coordinate(y) at(90:0.5);
\coordinate(shift2121) at (0);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($2*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4);
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift2121)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\end{tikzpicture}
\ \ \
\Sigma(\Lambda')=\Sigma_{13122}=\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=0mm]
\coordinate(0) at(0:0);
\coordinate(x) at(0:0.5);
\coordinate(y) at(90:0.5);
\coordinate(shift13122) at (0);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($2*(x)+-3*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($1*(x)+-2*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v5) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v0)--(v5);
\draw (v1)--(v2)--(v3)--(v4)--(v5);
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\end{tikzpicture}
\]
Let $\Gamma:=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
e_1 \Lambda e_1 \times_k e_1 \Lambda'e_1& e_1\Lambda e_2\times_k e_1 \Lambda'e_2\\ 0&e_2\Lambda e_2\times_ke_2 \Lambda'e_2
\end{array}\right]$. Then we have
\[
\Gamma=\dfrac{
k\left[\begin{xy}( 0,0) *+{1}="1",
( 8,0) *+{2}="2",\ar "1";"2"^a \ar @(ur,ul)"2";"2"_(.2){b} \ar @(dr,dl)"2";"2"^(.2){d} \ar @(ul,ur)"1";"1"^(.2){c_1} \ar @ (dl,dr)"1";"1"_(.2){c_2}
\end{xy}\right]}{\langle b^2, c_1^2, c_2^2, d^2, c_1c_2,c_1a-ad, c_2ab, bd,db\rangle}
\ \mbox{ and }\ \Sigma(\Gamma)=\Sigma_{214122}=\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-12mm]
\coordinate(0) at(0:0);
\coordinate(x) at(0:0.5);
\coordinate(y) at(90:0.5);
\coordinate(shift13122) at (0);
\coordinate(v0) at($0*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v1') at($2*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v2) at($1*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v3) at($2*(x)+-3*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v4) at($1*(x)+-2*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(v5) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\draw[fill=black] (v0) circle [radius = 0.55mm];
\draw (v0)--(v1);
\draw (v0)--(v1');
\draw (v0)--(v2);
\draw (v0)--(v3);
\draw (v0)--(v4);
\draw (v0)--(v5);
\draw (v1)--(v1')--(v2)--(v3)--(v4)--(v5);
\coordinate(w1) at($1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w2) at($0*(x)+-1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w3) at($-1*(x)+0*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\coordinate(w4) at($0*(x)+1*(y)+(shift13122)$);
\draw (v0)--(w3);
\draw (v0)--(w4);
\draw (w3)--(w4);
\draw (w1)--(w4);
\draw (w2)--(w3);
\end{tikzpicture}
\]
\end{example}
\section{$g$-Convex algebras of rank 2}
In this section, we will characterize algebras of rank 2 which have convex $g$-polygons.
\subsection{Characterizations of $g$-convex algebras of rank 2}
Let $e,e'$ be pairwise orthogonal primitive idempotents in $A$ and $x\in e A e'$. Then we use the following notations.
\begin{enumerate}[$\bullet$]
\item $x\in eAe'$ is a \emph{left generator} (respectively, \emph{right generator}) of $eAe'$ if $eAx=eAe'$ (respectively, $xAe'=eAe'$).
\item Define subalgebras $L_x\subset e'Ae'$ and $R_x\subset eAe$ as follows (see Lemma \ref{lemma:l and r are subalgebras}).
\[
R_x:=\{a\in e A e\mid ax\in x A e'\}\ \mbox{ and }\ L_x:=\{a\in e' A e'\mid xa\in e A x\}.
\]
\end{enumerate}
Recall that, for an algebra $\Lambda$ and a right (respectively, left) $\Lambda$-module $M$, we denote by $t(M_\Lambda)$ (respectively, $t({}_\Lambda M)$) the minimal number of generators of $M$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{theorem:charactarization_g-convex_ranktwo}
Let $A$ be a basic finite dimensional algebra, $\{e_1, e_2\}$ a complete set of primitive orthogonal idempotents in $A$ and $P_i=e_i A$ $(i=1,2)$.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item $A$ is $g$-convex if and only if $\Sigma(A)=\Sigma_{a;b}$ for some $a,b\in \{(0,0),(1,1,1),(1,2,1,2),(2,1,2,1)\}$.
\item Let $(l,r):=\left(t({}_{e_1Ae_1} e_1Ae_2),t(e_1Ae_2{}_{e_2Ae_2})\right)$. Then we have the following statements.
\begin{enumerate}[\rm$\bullet$]
\item $\Sigma(A)=\Sigma_{00;b}$ for some $b$ if and only if $(l,r)=(0,0)$.
\item $\Sigma(A)=\Sigma_{111;b}$ for some $b$ if and only if $(l,r)=(1,1)$.
\item $\Sigma(A)=\Sigma_{1212;b}$ for some $b$ if and only if $(l,r)=(1,2)$ and $t({}_{R_x}e_1Ae_1)=2$ hold for some left generator $x$ of $e_1 A e_2$.
\item $\Sigma(A)=\Sigma_{2121;b}$ for some $b$ if and only if $(l,r)=(2,1)$ and $t(e_2Ae_2{}_{L_x})= 2$ hold for some right generator $x$ of $e_1 A e_2$.
\end{enumerate}
\[
{\begin{xy}
0;<4pt,0pt>:<0pt,4pt>::
( 0,9) *+{\Sigma_{00;b}},
( 0,0) *{\bullet}="(0,0)",
( 0,5) ="(0,10)",
( 0,6) *+{{\scriptstyle P_2}},
( 5,0) ="(10,0)",
( 6,0) *+{{\scriptstyle P_1}},
( 0,-5) ="(0,-10)",
( -5,0) ="(-10,0)",
(0,3)*{}="(0,5)",
(-3,0)*{}="(-5,0)",
\ar@{-} "(10,0)";"(-10,0)"
\ar@{-} "(0,10)";"(0,-10)"
\ar@{-} "(10,0)";"(0,10)"
\ar@{-} "(-10,0)";"(0,-10)"
\ar@{-} "(10,0)";"(0,-10)"
\ar@/^-2mm/@{.} "(0,5)";"(-5,0)"
\end{xy}}
\ \ \ {\begin{xy}
0;<2pt,0pt>:<0pt,2pt>::
( 0,18) *+{\Sigma_{111;b}},
( 0,0) *{\bullet},
( 0,0) ="(0,0)",
( 0,10) ="(0,10)",
( 0,12) *+{{\scriptstyle P_2}},
( 10,0) ="(10,0)",
( 12.5,0) *+{{\scriptstyle P_1}},
( 0,-10)="(0,-10)",
( -10,0)="(-10,0)",
(10,-10)="(10,-10)",
(0,6)*{}="(0,5)",
(-6,0)*{}="(-5,0)",
\ar@{-} "(10,0)";"(-10,0)"
\ar@{-} "(0,10)";"(0,-10)"
\ar@{-} "(0,0)";"(10,-10)"
\ar@{-} "(10,0)";"(0,10)"
\ar@{-} "(-10,0)";"(0,-10)"
\ar@{-} "(10,0)";"(10,-10)"
\ar@{-} "(10,-10)";"(0,-10)"
\ar@/^-2mm/@{.} "(0,5)";"(-5,0)"
\end{xy}}
\ \ \ {\begin{xy}
0;<2pt,0pt>:<0pt,2pt>::
( 0,18) *+{\Sigma_{1212;b}},
( 0,0) *{\bullet},
( 0,0) ="(0,0)",
( 0,10) ="(0,10)",
( 0,12) *+{{\scriptstyle P_2}},
( 10,0) ="(10,0)",
( 12.5,0) *+{{\scriptstyle P_1}},
( 0,-10)="(0,-10)",
( -10,0)="(-10,0)",
(10,-10)="(10,-10)",
(10,-20)="(10,-20)",
(0,6)*{}="(0,5)",
(-6,0)*{}="(-5,0)",
\ar@{-} "(10,0)";"(-10,0)"
\ar@{-} "(0,10)";"(0,-10)"
\ar@{-} "(0,0)";"(10,-10)"
\ar@{-} "(0,0)";"(10,-20)"
\ar@{-} "(10,0)";"(0,10)"
\ar@{-} "(-10,0)";"(0,-10)"
\ar@{-} "(10,0)";"(10,-10)"
\ar@{-} "(10,-10)";"(10,-20)"
\ar@{-} "(10,-20)";"(0,-10)"
\ar@/^-2mm/@{.} "(0,5)";"(-5,0)"
\end{xy}
}\ \ \ {\begin{xy}
0;<2pt,0pt>:<0pt,2pt>::
( 0,18) *+{\Sigma_{2121;b}},
( 0,0) *{\bullet},
( 0,0) ="(0,0)",
( 0,10) ="(0,10)",
( 0,12) *+{{\scriptstyle P_2}},
( 10,0) ="(10,0)",
( 13,0) *+{{\scriptstyle P_1}},
( 0,-10)="(0,-10)",
( -10,0)="(-10,0)",
(20,-10)="(20,-10)",
(10,-10)="(10,-10)",
(0,5)*{}="(0,5)",
(-5,0)*{}="(-5,0)",
\ar@{-} "(10,0)";"(-10,0)"
\ar@{-} "(0,10)";"(0,-10)"
\ar@{-} "(0,0)";"(20,-10)"
\ar@{-} "(0,0)";"(10,-10)"
\ar@{-} "(10,0)";"(0,10)"
\ar@{-} "(-10,0)";"(0,-10)"
\ar@{-} "(0,-10)";"(20,-10)"
\ar@{-} "(20,-10)";"(10,0)"
\ar@/^-2mm/@{.} "(0,5)";"(-5,0)"
\end{xy}}
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
For a left (respectively, right) generator $x$ of $e_1Ae_2$, $R_x$ (respectively, $L_x$) is unique up to conjugacy.
In particular, $t({}_{R_x}e_1Ae_1)$ (respectively, $t(e_2Ae_2{}_{L_x})$) does not depend on the choice of a left (respectively, right) generator $x$.
\end{remark}
\begin{example}
\begin{enumerate}[\rm (a)]
\item
Here, we give algebras which realize $7$ convex $g$-fans up to isomorphism of $g$-fans.
We define $A_i=kQ/I$ ($i\in\{1,2,3,4,5,6,7\}$) as follows.
\[
\xymatrix{
A_1=\dfrac{
k\left[\begin{xy} ( 0,0) *+{1}="1",
( 8,0) *+{2}="2",\ar@<1.5pt> "1";"2"^{a} \ar@<1.5pt> "2";"1"^b \ar @(lu,ld)"1";"1"_{c} \ar @(ru,rd)"2";"2"^{d}
\end{xy}\right]}{\langle ab,ad,ba,bc,c^2,d^2\rangle}
&
A_2=\dfrac{
k\left[\begin{xy}( 0,0) *+{1}="1",
( 8,0) *+{2}="2",\ar@<1.5pt> "1";"2"^a \ar@<1.5pt> "2";"1"^b \ar @(ru,rd)"2";"2"^{d}
\end{xy}\right]}{\langle ab,ba,d^2\rangle}
&
A_3=\dfrac{
\left[\begin{xy}( 0,0) *+{1}="1",
( 8,0) *+{2}="2",\ar@<1.5pt> "1";"2"^a \ar@<1.5pt> "2";"1"^b \ar @(ru,rd)"2";"2"^{d}
\end{xy}\right]}{\langle ab,ba,ad,d^2\rangle}
}
\]
\[
\xymatrix{
A_4=\dfrac{k\left[\begin{xy} ( 0,0) *+{1}="1",
( 8,0) *+{2}="2", \ar "2";"1"_{b} \ar @(ru,rd)"2";"2"^{d} \end{xy}\right]}{\langle d^2\rangle}
&
A_5=\dfrac{k\left[\begin{xy} ( 0,0) *+{1}="1",( 8,0) *+{2}="2",\ar@<1.5pt> "1";"2"^a \ar@<1.5pt> "2";"1"^b \end{xy}\right]}{\langle ab,ba\rangle}
&
A_6=k\left[\begin{xy} ( 0,0) *+{1}="1",( 8,0) *+{2}="2", \ar "2";"1"_{b} \end{xy}\right]
&
A_7=k\left[\begin{xy} ( 0,0) *+{1}="1",( 4,0) *+{2}="2" \end{xy}\right]
}
\]
Then the $g$-fans $\Sigma(A_i)$ ($i\in \{1,2,3,4,5,6,7\}$) are given by the following table.
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$i$& $1$ & $2$ & $3$ & $4$ & $5$ & $6$ & $7$ \\
\hline
$\Sigma(A_i)$&
$
\begin{xy}
0;<3pt,0pt>:<0pt,3pt>::
(0,9)*{\ },
(0,-9)*{\ },
(-5,2.5)="-4",
(-10,7.5)="-3",
(-5,7.5)="-2",
(0,7.5)="-1",
(0,2.5)*{\bullet},
(0,2.5)="o",
(5,2.5)="1",
(5,-2.5)="2",
(5,-7.5)="3",
(0,-2.5)="4",
(1.5,4)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,1)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
\ar@{-}"1";"-1",
\ar@{-}"1";"2",
\ar@{-}"2";"3",
\ar@{-}"3";"4",
\ar@{-}"-1";"-2",
\ar@{-}"-2";"-3",
\ar@{-}"-3";"-4",
\ar@{-}"4";"-4",
\ar@{-}"o";"1",
\ar@{-}"o";"2",
\ar@{-}"o";"3",
\ar@{-}"o";"4",
\ar@{-}"o";"-1",
\ar@{-}"o";"-2",
\ar@{-}"o";"-3",
\ar@{-}"o";"-4",
\end{xy}
$
&
$
\begin{xy}
0;<3pt,0pt>:<0pt,3pt>::
(-5,0)="-4",
(-10,5)="-3",
(-5,5)="-2",
(0,5)="-1",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="o",
(5,0)="1",
(10,-5)="2",
(5,-5)="3",
(0,-5)="4",
(1.5,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
\ar@{-}"1";"-1",
\ar@{-}"1";"2",
\ar@{-}"2";"3",
\ar@{-}"3";"4",
\ar@{-}"-1";"-2",
\ar@{-}"-2";"-3",
\ar@{-}"-3";"-4",
\ar@{-}"4";"-4",
\ar@{-}"o";"1",
\ar@{-}"o";"2",
\ar@{-}"o";"3",
\ar@{-}"o";"4",
\ar@{-}"o";"-1",
\ar@{-}"o";"-2",
\ar@{-}"o";"-3",
\ar@{-}"o";"-4",
\end{xy}
$
&
$
\begin{xy}
0;<3pt,0pt>:<0pt,3pt>::
(-5,0)="-4",
(-10,5)="-3",
(-5,5)="-2",
(0,5)="-1",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="o",
(5,0)="1",
(5,-5)="2",
(0,-5)="3",
(1.5,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
\ar@{-}"1";"-1",
\ar@{-}"1";"2",
\ar@{-}"2";"3",
\ar@{-}"-1";"-2",
\ar@{-}"-2";"-3",
\ar@{-}"-3";"-4",
\ar@{-}"3";"-4",
\ar@{-}"o";"1",
\ar@{-}"o";"2",
\ar@{-}"o";"3",
\ar@{-}"o";"-1",
\ar@{-}"o";"-2",
\ar@{-}"o";"-3",
\ar@{-}"o";"-4",
\end{xy}
$
&
$
\begin{xy}
0;<3pt,0pt>:<0pt,3pt>::
(-5,0)="-4",
(-10,5)="-3",
(-5,5)="-2",
(0,5)="-1",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="o",
(5,0)="1",
(0,-5)="2",
(1.5,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
\ar@{-}"1";"-1",
\ar@{-}"1";"2",
\ar@{-}"-1";"-2",
\ar@{-}"-2";"-3",
\ar@{-}"-3";"-4",
\ar@{-}"2";"-4",
\ar@{-}"o";"1",
\ar@{-}"o";"2",
\ar@{-}"o";"-1",
\ar@{-}"o";"-2",
\ar@{-}"o";"-3",
\ar@{-}"o";"-4",
\end{xy}
$
&
$
\begin{xy}
0;<3pt,0pt>:<0pt,3pt>::
(-5,0)="-3",
(-5,5)="-2",
(0,5)="-1",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="o",
(5,0)="1",
(5,-5)="2",
(0,-5)="3",
(1.5,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
\ar@{-}"1";"-1",
\ar@{-}"1";"2",
\ar@{-}"2";"3",
\ar@{-}"-1";"-2",
\ar@{-}"-2";"-3",
\ar@{-}"3";"-3",
\ar@{-}"o";"1",
\ar@{-}"o";"2",
\ar@{-}"o";"3",
\ar@{-}"o";"-1",
\ar@{-}"o";"-2",
\ar@{-}"o";"-3",
\end{xy}
$
&
$
\begin{xy}
0;<3pt,0pt>:<0pt,3pt>::
(-5,0)="-3",
(-5,5)="-2",
(0,5)="-1",
(0,0)="o",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(5,0)="1",
(0,-5)="2",
(1.5,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
\ar@{-}"1";"-1",
\ar@{-}"1";"2",
\ar@{-}"-1";"-2",
\ar@{-}"-2";"-3",
\ar@{-}"2";"-3",
\ar@{-}"o";"1",
\ar@{-}"o";"2",
\ar@{-}"o";"-1",
\ar@{-}"o";"-2",
\ar@{-}"o";"-3",
\end{xy}
$
&
$
\begin{xy}
0;<3pt,0pt>:<0pt,3pt>::
(-5,0)="-2",
(0,5)="-1",
(0,0)*{\bullet},
(0,0)="o",
(5,0)="1",
(0,-5)="2",
(1.5,1.5)*{{\scriptstyle +}},
(-1.5,-1.5)*{{\scriptstyle -}},
\ar@{-}"1";"-1",
\ar@{-}"1";"2",
\ar@{-}"-1";"-2",
\ar@{-}"2";"-2",
\ar@{-}"o";"1",
\ar@{-}"o";"2",
\ar@{-}"o";"-1",
\ar@{-}"o";"-2",
\end{xy}
$
\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\item
Let $K/k$ be a field extension with degree two, and $A$ be a $k$-algebra $\left[\begin{matrix}k & K \\ 0 & K \end{matrix}\right]$ with $e_1=\left[\begin{matrix}1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{matrix}\right]$, $e_2=\left[\begin{matrix}0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{matrix}\right]$.
We write $K=k(t)$ and set $x:=\left[\begin{matrix}0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 \end{matrix}\right]\in e_1 A e_2$, $u=\left[\begin{matrix}0 & 0 \\ 0 & t \end{matrix}\right]\in e_2 A e_2$.
Then we have $L_x=\left[\begin{matrix}0 & 0 \\ 0 & k \end{matrix}\right]$, $u\not \in L_x$, and the following equations hold.
\begin{itemize}
\item $e_1 A e_2=\left[\begin{matrix}0 & K \\ 0 & 0 \end{matrix}\right]=x A e_2=e_1 A x+e_1 A xu$
\item $e_2 A e_2=\left[\begin{matrix}0 & 0 \\ 0 & K \end{matrix}\right]=L_x+u L_x$
\end{itemize}
Further, we have $e_2 A e_1=0$. Therefore, Theorem\;\ref{theorem:charactarization_g-convex_ranktwo} implies that
$\Sigma(A)$ has the following form.
\[
\begin{xy}
0;<2pt,0pt>:<0pt,2pt>::
( 0,0) ="(0,0)",
( 0,0) *{\bullet},
( 0,10) ="(0,10)",
( 0,12) *+{{\scriptstyle P_2}},
( 10,0) ="(10,0)",
( 13,0) *+{{\scriptstyle P_1}},
( 0,-10)="(0,-10)",
( -10,0)="(-10,0)",
(20,-10)="(20,-10)",
(10,-10)="(10,-10)",
(0,5)*{}="(0,5)",
(-5,0)*{}="(-5,0)",
\ar@{-} "(10,0)";"(-10,0)"
\ar@{-} "(0,10)";"(0,-10)"
\ar@{-} "(0,0)";"(20,-10)"
\ar@{-} "(0,0)";"(10,-10)"
\ar@{-} "(10,0)";"(0,10)"
\ar@{-} "(-10,0)";"(0,-10)"
\ar@{-} "(0,-10)";"(20,-10)"
\ar@{-} "(20,-10)";"(10,0)"
\ar@{-} "(0,10)";"(-10,0)"
\end{xy}
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{example}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{theorem:charactarization_g-convex_ranktwo}}
In this subsection, we prove Theorem \ref{theorem:charactarization_g-convex_ranktwo}.
The following observation shows Theorem \ref{theorem:charactarization_g-convex_ranktwo}(a) and gives another proof of \cite[Theorem 6.3]{AHIKM}.
\begin{proposition}\label{proposition:sharp of convex g-fan}
Let $A$ be as in Theorem \ref{theorem:charactarization_g-convex_ranktwo}. Then
$A$ is $g$-convex if and only if $\Sigma(A)=\Sigma_{a;b}$ for some $a,b\in \{(0,0),(1,1,1),(1,2,1,2),(2,1,2,1)\}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The ``if'' part is clear. Conversely, assume that $A$ is $g$-convex and $\Sigma(A)=\Sigma_{a;b}$ with $a=(a_1,\dots, a_n)$ and $b=(b_1,\dots,b_m)$. Then
$a_i\le 2$ and $b_j\le 2$ hold for each $i,j$. Using Proposition \ref{proposition:F=F'}, it is easy to check that $a,b\in \{(0,0),(1,1,1),(1,2,1,2),(2,1,2,1)\}$ holds (see Figure \ref{fig:tree diagram}).
\end{proof}
Next we show the following.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:l and r are subalgebras}
Let $x\in e_1 A e_2$. Then $L_x$ is a subalgebra of $e_2 A e_2$, and $R_x$ is a subalgebra of $e_1 A e_1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This is a special case of the following easy fact: Let $A,B$ be rings, $M$ an $(A,B)$-module, and $x\in M$. Then $\{b\in B\mid xb\in Ax\}$ is a subring of $B$.
\end{proof}
Now we give a key observation.
As in Section \ref{section: Matrices and Presilting complexes}, for $s,t\ge0$, $x\in M_{s,t}(e_1Ae_2)$, we define
\[
P_x:=(e_2A^{\oplus t}\xrightarrow{x(\cdot)} e_1A^{\oplus s})\in\mathsf{K}^{\rm b}(\proj A).
\]
\begin{proposition}
\label{proposition:(1,0)+(1,-1),(1,-1)+(1,-2)}
Assume $t({}_{e_1Ae_1}e_1Ae_2)=1$. For a left generator $x\in e_1Ae_2$,
the following conditions are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}[\rm(1)]
\item $\Sigma(A)$ contains $\operatorname{cone}\nolimits\{(1,-1),(1,-2)\}$.
\item $t({}_{R_x} e_1 A e_2)=2$.
\item $e_1 A y+xM_{1,2}(e_2Ae_2)=M_{1,2}(e_1 A e_2)$ holds for some $u\in e_1Ae_1\setminus R_x$ and $y:=[x\ ux]$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Notice that $P_x$ is indecomposable presilting by Proposition \ref{first mutation}.
(1)$\Rightarrow$(2) If $t({}_{R_x} e_1 A e_1)= 1$, then $e_1 A e_1= R_x$ holds. Thus $e_1Ae_2=e_1Ax\subset xAe_2$ holds, and thus $x$ is a right generator. By Proposition \ref{first mutation}, $P_x\oplus P_2[1]\in \mathsf{2\mbox{-}silt} A$ holds, a contradiction to $\operatorname{cone}\nolimits\{(1,-1),(1,-2)\}\in\Sigma(A)$.
Thus it suffices to prove $t({}_{R_x} e_1 A e_1)\le2$.
Since $\operatorname{cone}\nolimits\{(1,-1),(1,-2)\}\in\Sigma(A)$, there exists $y=[x_1\ x_2]\in M_{1,2}(e_1Ae_2)$ such that $P_x\oplus P_y$ is silting. By Proposition \ref{Ext 1}, we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{yy}
M_{1,2}(e_1 A e_2)=e_1Ay+yM_{2,2}(e_2Ae_2),\\ \label{yx}
M_{1,2}(e_1 A e_2)=e_1Ay+xM_{1,2}(e_2Ae_2).
\end{eqnarray}
Looking at the first entry of \eqref{yy}, at least one of $x_1$ and $x_2$ does not belong to $\operatorname{rad}\nolimits_{e_1Ae_1}e_1Ae_2$. Without loss of generality, assume $x_1\notin \operatorname{rad}\nolimits_{e_1Ae_1}e_1Ae_2$. Then there exists $a\in(e_1Ae_1)^\times$ such that $x=ax_1$. Since $P_y\simeq P_{ay}$, we can assume $x_1=x$ by replacing $y$ by $ay$. Since $x$ is a left generator, there exists $u\in e_1Ae_1$ such that $x_2=ux$. Consequently, we can assume
\[y=[x\ ux].\]
For each $a\in e_1Ae_1$, \eqref{yx} implies that there exist $a'\in e_1 A e_1$ and $b,b'\in e_2 A e_2$ such that
\[
[0\ ax]= a'[x\ ux]+x[b\ b'].
\]
Then $a'$ and $a-a'u$ are in $R_x$, and hence $a=a'u+(a-a'u)\in R_xu+R_x$. Thus $e_1 A e_1 = R_x+R_x u$ and $t({}_{R_x} e_1 A e_1)\le2$ hold, as desired.
(2)$\Rightarrow$(3) Since $t({}_{R_x} e_1 A e_2)=2$ and $R_x\not\subset\operatorname{rad}\nolimits_{R_x}e_1Ae_1$, there exists $u\in e_1Ae_1\setminus R_x$ such that
\[R_xu+R_x=e_1Ae_1.\]
Multiplying $x$ from the right, we have $R_xux+R_xx=e_1Ax=e_1Ae_2$. Since $R_xx\subset xAe_2$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{uxx}
R_xux+xAe_2=e_1Ae_2.
\end{equation}
To prove (3), take any $[z\ w]\in M_{1,2}(e_1Ae_2)$. Since $x$ is a left generator, there exists $a\in e_1Ae_1$ such that $z=ax$. By \eqref{uxx}, there exist $r\in R_x$ and $b\in e_2Ae_2$ such that $w-aux=rux+xb$. By definition of $R_x$, there exists $c\in e_2Ae_2$ such that $rx=xc$.
Then we have
\[
[z\ w]=(a+r)[x\ ux]+x[-c\ b]\in e_1 A y+xM_{1,2}(e_2Ae_2).
\]
(3)$\Rightarrow$(1) By Proposition \ref{Ext 1}, the following assertions hold.
\begin{itemize}
\item $P_x$ is presilting if and only if (i) $e_1Ax+xAe_2=e_1Ae_2$.
\item $P_y$ is presilting if and only if (ii) $e_1Ay+yM_{2,2}(e_2Ae_2)=M_{1,2}(e_1 A e_2)$.
\item $\operatorname{Hom}\nolimits_{\mathsf{K}^{\rm b}(\proj A)}(P_x, P_y[1])=0$ if and only if (iii) $e_1 A x+yM_{2,1}(e_2Ae_2)=e_1 A e_2$.
\item $\operatorname{Hom}\nolimits_{\mathsf{K}^{\rm b}(\proj A)}(P_y, P_x[1])=0$ if and only if (iv) $e_1 A y+xM_{1,2}(e_2Ae_2)=M_{1,2}(e_1 A e_2)$.
\end{itemize}
It is clear that (iv) implies (ii), and (i) implies (iii). By looking at the first entry of the row vector, (iv) implies (i).
Our assumption (3) implies that (iv) holds, and hence (i)-(iii) also hold. Thus $P_x\oplus P_y$ is presilting.
It remains to show that $P_y$ is indecomposable.
Suppose that $P_y$ is decomposable. By considering $g$-vector, we have that $P_y\simeq e_2A[1]\oplus P_z$ for some $z\in e_1Ae_2$. Since $[P_z]=[P_x]$, we have $P_z\simeq P_x$ by \cite[Theorem 6.5(a)]{DIJ}. This shows that $e_2A[1]\oplus P_x$ is silting.
By Proposition \ref{first mutation}, we have $xAe_2=e_1Ae_2$ and $R_x=eAe$. This contradicts $u\not\in R_x$.
\end{proof}
We are ready to prove Theorem \ref{theorem:charactarization_g-convex_ranktwo}(b).
\begin{proof}[Proof of \rm{Theorem \ref{theorem:charactarization_g-convex_ranktwo}(b)}]
The first and second statements follow from Proposition \ref{+- condition} and Proposition \ref{first mutation}.
We prove the third statement. By Proposition \ref{first mutation}, $\operatorname{cone}\nolimits\{(1,0),(1,-1)\}\in \Sigma(A)$ if and only if $t({}_{e_1Ae_1}e_1Ae_2)=1$, and
$\operatorname{cone}\nolimits\{(0,-1),(1,-2)\}\in \Sigma(A)$ if and only if $t(e_1Ae_2{}_{e_2Ae_2})=2$.
Thus the assertion follows from Proposition \ref{proposition:(1,0)+(1,-1),(1,-1)+(1,-2)}.
The fourth statement is the dual of the third statement.
\end{proof}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
T.A is supported by JSPS Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research JP19J11408. A.H is supported by JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientists Research (C) 20K03513. O.I is supported by JSPS Grant- in-Aid for Scientific Research (B) 16H03923, (C) 18K3209 and (S) 15H05738. R.K is supported by JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) 17K14169. Y.M is supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) 20K03539.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.